The possessions about projection poses a challenge toward recognized semantics dynamic text theories, due this apparent nothing-compositional character. Projected elements are consequently characteristically analyzed because individual different from and independent of asserted content. Now above persons utilize dynamic text during actual life for communication with multiple chatting reasons. Dynamic texts be too uses within social posts, news titles, proceedings, investigate queries, tweets, conversation, key statements, and dynamic text sympathetic be a puzzling procedure within thoughts deals among top secret messages. Because dynamic text has additional than multiple sense, they be demanding toward appreciate because they be deafening with ambiguous. The expression be able to be some solitary or dynamic-statement. Semantics study be needed toward appreciate the dynamic text correctly. Goal for instance distribute talking classification, concept labeling along with segmentation be used for semantics analysis. Behavior dynamic text uses during actual life data. The prototype organization be constructed along with used to identify the dynamic text. These systems distribute the semantics information as of information base along with set of written statements to be automatically harvest. Now, we suggest such united, compositional semantics psychiatry about asserted as well as projected contented. Our analysis capture the similarity with difference among presupposition, anaphora, conventional implicatures with assertion lying on the origin of data structure, We celebrate our psychiatry during an addition about dynamic semantic framework about Discourse Representation Theory (DRT)—called Projective DRT (PDRT)—so as to employ projection attributes toward imprison the data structural in addition to compositional properties about PDRT facet about semantics contented; dissimilar constellation about such attributes imprison the difference among the dissimilar type about projected in addition to asserted satisfied inside a uni- dimension about connotation`s well as this semantics interpretation. We quarrel that this paves method intended for a additional listening carefully study about data-structural co-occurrence network along with phrase withdrawal presentation to superior recognize for dynamic text aspects about significance.

Dynamic Text, dynamic Semantics, Text segmentation, PDRT

[1]. Abrusán, M. & K. Szendroi (2013), ‘experimenting with thekinof France: Topics, verifiability and definite descriptions’. Semantics and Pragmatics 6: 1–43.
[2]. Amaral, P., Roberts, C. & E. A. Smith (2007), ‘Review of “The Logic of Conventional Implicatures” by Chris Potts’. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 707–49.
[3]. AnderBois, S., Brasoveanu, A. & R. Henderson (2010), ‘Crossing the appositive/at-issue
[4]. Arnold, J. E., Kaiser, E., Kahn, J. M. & L. K. Kim (2013), ‘Information structure: linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches’. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4: 403–13.
[5]. Asher, N. (2008), ‘Troubles on the right frontier’.In A. Benz and P. Kühnlein (eds.) Con-straints in Discourse, Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, vol. 172.Benjamins.Amsterdam.29–52.
[6]. Asher, N. & A. Lascarides (1998), ‘The semantics and pragmatics of presupposition’. Journal of Semantics 15: 239–99.
[7]. Asher, N. & A. Lascarides (2003), Logics of Conversation.Cambridge University Press.
[8]. Basile, V. & J. Bos (2013), ‘Aligning formal meaning representations with surface strings for wide-coverage text generation’.In Proceedings of the 14th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Sofia, Bulgaria.Association for Computational Linguistics.1–9.
[9]. Basile, V., Bos, J., Evang, K. & N. J. Venhuizen (2012), ‘Developing a large semantically annotated corpus’. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. U. Doáan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijkand and S. Piperidis (eds).Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), Istanbul, Turkey.European Language Resources Association (ELRA).3196–200.
[10]. Beaver, D. I. (2002), Presupposition projection in DRT: A critical assessment. In D. I. Beaver, L. D. C. Martínez, B. Z. Clark, and S. Kaufmann (eds.) The Construction of Meaning.CSLI Publications.Stanford.California23–43.
[11]. Beaver, D.I. & B. Geurts (2011), ‘Presupposition’. In E. N. Zalta, (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, summer 2011 edition.
[12]. Blackburn, P., Bos, J., Kohlhase, M. & H. De Nivelle (2001),‘Inference and computational semantics’. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 11–28.
[13]. Bos, J. (2003), ‘Implementing the binding and accommodation theory for anaphora resolution and presupposition projection’. Computational Linguistics 29: 179–210.
[14]. Bos, J., Basile, V., Evang, K., Venhuizen, N. J. & J. Bjerva (2017),‘The Groningen Meaning Bank’. In N. Ide and J. Pustejovsky(eds.) Handbook of Linguistic Annotation.Springer.Netherlands, Dordrecht.463–96.
[15]. Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T. & R. H. Baayen (2007), ‘Predicting the dative alternation’. In G. Bouma, I. Krämer and J. Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.69–94.
[16]. Chemla, E. & L. Bott (2013), ‘processing presuppositions: Dynamic semantics vs. pragmatic enrichment’. Language and Cognitive Processes 28: 241–60.
[17]. Del Gobbo, F. (2003), Appositives at the Interface.Ph.D.thesis, University of California, Irvine, CA.
[18]. Geurts, B. (1999), Presuppositions and Pronouns.Elsevier.
[19]. Geurts, B. (2010), ‘Specific indefinites, presupposition and scope’. In R. Bäuerle, U. Reyle and T. E. Zimmermann (eds.), Presuppositions and Discourse: Essays Offered to Hans Kamp.Emerald. Bingley.
[20]. Geurts, B. & E. Maier (2003), Layered DRT. Ms. University of Nijmegen.
[21]. Geurts, B. & E. Maier (2013), ‘Layered Discourse Representation Theory’. In A. Capone, F. L. Piparo & M. Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics. Springer International Publishing. 311–27.
[22]. Heringa, H. (2012), Appositional Constructions.Ph.D.thesis, University of Groningen, Gronin-gen, Netherlands.
[23]. Horn, L. R. (2007), ‘Toward a fregean pragmatics: Voraussetzung, Nebengedanke, Andeutung’. In I. Kecskes and L. R. Horn (eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin. 39–69
[24]. Hunter, J. (2010), Presuppositional Indexicals. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
[25]. Hunter, J. (2013), ‘Presuppositional indexicals’. Journal of Semantics 30: 381–421.
[26]. Hunter, J. & M. Abrusán (2017), Rhetorical Structure and QUDs. Springer International Publishing, Cham. 41–57.
[27]. Hunter, J. & N. Asher (2005), ‘A presuppositional account of indexicals’. In P. Dekker and M.Franke (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, vol. 201. 119–24.
[28]. Kamp, H., van Genabith, J. & U. Reyle(2011), ‘Discourse Representation Theory’. In D.M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 15. Springer.Netherlands. 125–394.
[29]. Koev, T. (2014), ‘Two puzzles about appositives: Projection and perspective shift’. In U. Etxeberria, A. Fal˘au¸s,˘ A. Irurtzun and B. Leferman (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, Bayonne and Vitoria-Gasteiz. 217–234.
[30]. Krahmer, E. (1998), Presupposition and Anaphora. CSLI Publications. Stanford, CA.
[31]. Kripke, S. A. (2009), ‘Presupposition and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of the projection problem’. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 367–86.
[32]. Krahmer, E. (1998), Presupposition and Anaphora.CSLI Publications. Stanford, CA.
[33]. Kripke, S. A. (2009), ‘Presupposition and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of the projection problem’. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 367–86.
[34]. Nouwen, R. (2007), ‘On appositives and dynamic binding’. Research on Language & Computa-tion 5: 87–102.
[35]. Potts, C. (2003), The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Ph.D. thesis, University of California.
[36]. Potts, C. (2005), The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford University Press, USA.
[37]. Potts, C. (2015), ‘Presupposition and implicature’. In S. Lappin and C. Fox (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons. Oxford. 168–202.
[38]. Reyle, U. & A. Riester (2016), ‘Joint information structure and discourse structure analysis in an underspecified drt framework’. In J. Hunter, M. Simons and M. Stone (eds.), JerSem: The 20th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. New Brunswick, NJ. 15–24.
[39]. Riester, A. (2016), ‘Constructing QUD trees’. In K. von Heusinger, E. Onea and M. Zimmermann (eds.) Questions in Discourse, CRiSPI Series. Brill. Leiden. Forthcoming.
[40]. Rosenbach, A. (2014), ‘English genitive variation–the state of the art’. English Language and Linguistics, 18: 215–62.
[41]. Schlenker, P. (2011), ‘DRT with local contexts’. Natural Language Semantics 19: 373–92.
[42]. Schlenker, P. (2013), Supplements without bidimensionalism. Unpublished manuscript, Institut Jean-Nicod and New York University.
[43]. Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D. & C. Roberts (2010), ‘What projects and why’.In N. Li and D. Lutz (eds.) Proceedings of SALT, vol. 20. CLC Publications.309–27.
[44]. Syrett, K. & T. Koev (2014), ‘Experimental evidence for the truth conditional contribution and shifting information status of appositives’. Journal of Semantics 32: 525–77.
[45]. Tonhauser, J.,Beaver, D., Roberts, C. & M. Simons (2013), ‘Toward a taxonomy of projective content’. Language 89: 66–109.
[46]. Van Leusen, N. (2004), ‘Incompatibility in context: A diagnosis of correction’. Journal ofSemantics 21: 415–41.
[47]. Van Leusen, N. (2007), Description Grammar for Discourse.Ph.D.thesis, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.
[48]. Van Leusen, N. & R. Muskens (2003), ‘Construction by description in discourse representation’.In J. Peregrin (eds.), Meaning, the Dynamic Turn. Elsevier. 34–67.
[49]. Venhuizen, N. & H. Brouwer (2014), ‘PDRT-SANDBOX: An implementation of Projective Discourse Representation Theory’. In V. Rieser and P. Muller (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (DialWatt - SemDial 2014), Edinburgh. 249–51.
[50]. Venhuizen, N. J. (2015), Projection in Discourse: A Data-driven Formal Semantic Analysis. Ph.D.thesis, University of Groningen.
[51]. Venhuizen, N. J., Bos, J. & H. Brouwer (2013), ‘Parsimonious semantic representations with projection pointers’. In K. Erk and A. Koller (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2013) – Long Papers, Potsdam. Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. 252–63.
[52]. Venhuizen, N. J., Bos, J., Hendriks, P. & H. Brouwer (2014), ‘How and why conventional implicatures project’. In T. Snider, S. D’Antonio and M. Wiegand (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT). volume 24. New York, USA. LSA and CLC Publications. 63–83.
[53]. P. Li, H. Wang, K. Q. Zhu, Z. Wang, and X. Wu, “Computing term similarity by large probabilistic ISA Knowledge,” in Proc. 22nd ACM Int. Conf. Inform. #38; Manage., 2013, pp. 1401–1410
[54]. W. Hua, Z. Wang, H. Wang, K. Zheng, and X. Zhou, “Short text understanding through lexical-semantic analysis,” in ICDE, pp. 495–506, 2015.
[55]. Zheng Yu, Haixun Wang, Xuemin Lin, Senior Member, IEEE, and Min Wang, “Understanding Short Texts through Semantic Enrichment and Hashing”. VOL. 28, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2016
[56]. Wen Hua, Zhongyuan Wang, Haixun Wang, Member, IEEE, Kai Zheng, Member, IEEE, and Xiao Fang Zhou, Senior Member, IEEE,“Understand Short Texts by Harvesting and Analyzing Semantic Knowledge”,VOL.29,NO.3,MARCH2017 (57)S.Jarkad,J.E.Nalavade,“ApproachfoBgDataMininginHadoopFramework:A Overview,”IJIRSET,Jan 2017.
[57]. Y. Xun, J. Zhang, and X. Qin, “FiDoop: Parallel Mining of Frequent Itemsets Using Mapreduce,” IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol.46, no.3, Mar. 2016.
[58]. C. V. Suneel, K. Prasanna, M. R. Kumar, “Frequent Data Partitioning using Parallel Mining Itemset and Mapreduce”,IJSRCSEIT, Vol.2,Issue 4,2017, pg.641-644.