Analyzing the explanation structure of procedural texts: Dealing with advice and warnings

Semantics in Text Processing, STEP 2008 - Conference Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 115-127

  Fontan, Lionel ^a   Saint Dizier, Patrick ^a  

^a IRIT   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPLEXES STRUCTURE; SUBGOALS;

EID: 84859031510     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Adam, J.M., Types de Textes ou genres de Discours? Comment Classer les Textes qui Disent De et Comment Faire, Langages, 141, pp. 10-27, 2001.
2. Amgoud, L., Bonnefon, J.F., Prade, H., An Argumentation-based Approach to Multiple Criteria Decision, in 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, ECSQARU'2005, Barcelona, 2005.
3. Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Arguments, Dialogue, and Negotiation, in: 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Berlin, 2001.
4. Anscombre, J.-Cl. Ducrot, O., Interrogation et Argumentation, in Langue francaise, no 52, L'interrogation, 5-22, 1981.
5. Aouladomar, F., Saint-Dizier, P., An Exploration of the Diversity of Natural Argumentation in Instructional Texts, 5th InternationalWorkshop on ComputationalModels of Natural Argument, IJCAI, Edinburgh, 2005.
6. Bouffier, A., Poibeau, T., Re-engineering free texts to obtain XML documents: a discourse based approach, RANLP 2007.
7. Delin, J., Hartley, A., Paris, C., Scott, D., Vander Linden, K., Expressing Procedural Relationships in Multilingual Instructions, Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, pp. 61-70, Maine, USA, 1994.
8. Davidson, D., Actions, Reasons, and Causes, Journal of Philosophy, 60, 1963
9. Delpech, E., Murguia, E., Saint-Dizier, P., A Two-Level Strategy for Parsing Procedural Texts, VSST07, Marrakech, October 2007.
10. Delpech, E., Saint-Dizier, P., Anonymous, Investigating the Structure of Procedural Texts for Answering How-to Questions, LREC 2008, Marrakech.
11. Gardent, C., Discourse tree adjoining grammars, report nb. 89, Univ. Saarlandes, Saarbrucken, 1997.
12. Kosseim, L., Lapalme, G., Choosing Rhetorical Structures to Plan Instructional Texts, Computational Intelligence, Blackwell, Boston, 2000.
13. Moeschler, J., Argumentation et Conversation, Eléments pour une Analyse Pragmatique du Discours, Hatier - Crédif, 1985.
14. Pustejovsky, J., The Generative Lexicon, Computational Linguistics, 17(4), 1991.
15. Takechi, M., Tokunaga, T., Matsumoto, Y., Tanaka, H., Feature Selection in Categorizing Procedural Expressions, The Sixth International Workshop on Information Retrieval with Asian Languages (IRAL2003), pp. 49-56, 2003.
16. Talmy, L., Towards a Cognitive Semantics, vol. 1 and 2, MIT Press, 2001.
17. Vander Linden, K., Speaking of Actions Choosing Rhetorical Status and Grammatical Form in Instructional Text Generation Thesis, University of Colorado, 1993.
18. Webber, B., D-LTAG: extending lexicalized TAGs to Discourse, Cognitive Science 28, pp. 751-779, Elsevier, 2004.