Une formalisation plus prcise pour une annotation moins confuse: La relation d'laboration d'entit

Journal of French Language Studies

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 207-228

  Prévot, Laurent ^a,b   Vieu, Laure ^a,c   Asher, Nicholas ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE   (France)

^b CNRS   (France)

^c CNR   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITÉ PAUL SABATIER   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 76449103466     PISSN: 09592695     EISSN: 14740079     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0959269509003755     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. ANNODIS, Annotation Discursive, un corpus de ŕef́erence annot́e discursivement, Projet ANR [2008-2010].
2. Asher, N. (2000). Truth conditional discourse semantics for parentheticals. Journal of Semantics, 17: 31-50.
3. Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (1998). The semantics and pragmatics of presupposition. Journal of Semantics, 15: 239-300.
4. Asher, N. et Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Asher, N., Pŕevot, L. et Vieu, L. (2007). Setting the background in discourse. Discours 1: on-line journal, http://discours.revues.org/index301. html
6. Asher, N. et Vieu, L. (2005). Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua, 115(4): 591-610.
7. Beaver, D. (2006). The new mythology of Conventional Implicature. Pŕesentation invit́ee ̀a l'occasion du soixantìeme anniversaire de Robert van der Sandt. Accessible sur le site de cette manifestation : http://ncs.ruhosting.nl/robshop/
8. Bonami, O. et Godard, D. (2007). Quelle syntaxe, incidemment, pour les adverbes incidents? Dans: Bulletin de la Socíet́e de Linguistique de Paris, 102.1: 255-284.
9. Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English. Th̀ese de doctorat. Publíe en 1980 par Garland Press, New York.
10. Carlson, L., Marcu, D. et Okurowski, M. E. (2003). Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory. Dans: J. van Kuppevelt and R. Smith (dir.), Current and New Directions in Discourse and Dialogue. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 85-112.
11. Combettes, B. (1998). Les construction d́etach́ees en français. Gap: Ophrys.
12. Deulofeu, H.-J. (2003). L'approche macrosyntaxique en syntaxe: un nouveau mod̀ele de rasoir d'Occam contre les notions inutiles? Scolia, 16: 77-95.
13. Fabricius-Hansen, C. et Behrens, B. (2001). Elaboration and related discourse relations viewed from an interlingual perspective. Dans: C. Smith (dir.), Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Text Structure, University of Austin, Texas, October 2000. SPRIKReport No. 13, University of Oslo, 2001.
14. Fernald, T. B. (2000). Predicates and Temporal Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Geurts, B. (1995). Presupposing. Th̀ese de doctorat, Universit́e de Stuttgart.
16. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, second edition. London: Edward Arnold.
17. Higginbotham, J. (2000). On events in linguistic semantics. Dans: J. Higginbotham, F. Pianesi et A. C. Varzi (dir). Speaking of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford University Press, pp. 49-79.
18. Hovy, E. H. et Maier, E. (1991). Parsimonious or profligate: how many and which discourse structure relations?Manuscrit non publíemais accessible ̀a l'adresse suivante: www.isi.edu/natural-language/people/hovy/papers/ 93discproc.pdf
19. Knott, A., Oberlander, J., O'Donnell, M. et Mellish, C. (2001). Beyond elaboration: the interaction of relations and focus in coherent text. Dans: T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord and W. Spooren (dir.), Text representation: linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 181-196.
20. Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage-level and individual-level predicates. Dans: G. Carlson and F. Pelletier (dir.), The Generic Book. University of Chicago Press, pp. 125-175.
21. Kratzer, A. (2003). The Event Argument and the Semantics of Verbs. (Manuscrit non publíe).
22. Maienborn, C. (2004). A Pragmatic Explanation of the Stage Level/Individual Level Contrast in Combination with Locatives. Dans: B. Agbayani, V. Samiian et B. Tucker (dir.), Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 2003), volume 15, Fresno: CSU, pp. 158-170.
23. Mann, W. C. et Thompson, S. A. (1987). Rhetorical Structure Theory: a theory of text organisation. Technical report ISI/RS-87-190, Information Sciences Institute.
24. Marandin, J.-M. (1998). Grammaire de l'incidence. (Manuscrit non publíe).
25. Milner, J.-C. (1978). De la Syntaxe ̀a l'interpŕetation. Paris: Le Seuil.
26. Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
27. Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28. Prasad, R., Miltsakaki, E., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Joshi, A., Robaldo, L. et Webber, B. (2007). The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. Annotation Manual. IRCS Technical Report, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania.
29. Reese, B., Denis, P., Asher, N., Baldridge, J. et Hunter, J. (2007). Reference Manual for the Analysis and Annotation of Rhetorical Structure. Technical report under the auspices of National Science Foundation Grant IIS-0535154, University of Texas at Austin.
30. van der Sandt, R. (1992), Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9.4: 333-377.
31. Vieu, L., Bras, M., Asher, N. et Aurnague, M. (2005). Locating adverbials in discourse. Journal of French Language Studies 15: 173-193.
32. Vieu, L. et Pŕevot, L. (2004). Background in Segmented Discourse Representation. Dans: L. Danlos et N. Asher (dir.), Actes de l'atelier de travail Segmented Discourse Representation Theory. 11̀eme conf́erence Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN), 485-494, F̀es, Maroc, Juin.
33. Wolf, F. et Gibson, E. (2005). Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based study. Computational Linguistics 31(2): 249-287.