Article published In:
Lingvisticæ Investigationes
Vol. 42:2 (2019) ► pp.262297
References (56)
Références
Abeillé, A. 2002. Une Grammaire électronique du français. Paris: CNRS éditions.Google Scholar
2005. Les syntagmes conjoints et leurs fonctions syntaxiques. Langages, 39(160), 42–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apothéloz, D. 2003. La rection dite « faible » : grammaticalisation ou différentiel de grammaticalité? Verbum, XXV(3), 241–262.Google Scholar
Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. 1989. Constructions verbales « en incise » et rection faible des verbes. Recherches sur le français parlé, 91, 32–74.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., Bilger, M., Rouget, C., Van den Eynde, K. & Mertens, P. 1990. Le français parlé : Études grammaticales. Paris: Edition du CNRS.Google Scholar
Bonami, O. & Godard, D. 2007. Adverbes initiaux et types de phrase en français. In A. Cuniţă, C. Lupu & L. Tasmowski (Eds.), Studii de Lingvistică şi Filologie Romanică, 50–57. Bucharest, Romania: Editura Universitāţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Buch-Kromann, M. & Korzen, I. 2010. The Unified Annotation of Syntax and Discourse in the Copenhagen Dependency Treebanks. In Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop, 127–131, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Charolles, M. 2005. Framing Adverbials and their Role in Discourse Cohesion : From Connection to Foward Labelling. In M. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. le Draoulec & L. Vieu (Eds.), SEM-05 Proceedings, 13–30, Biarritz.Google Scholar
Charolles, M. & Lamiroy, B. 2002. Syntaxe phrastique et transphrastique : du but au résultat. In H.L. Andersen & H. Nølke (Eds.), Macrosyntaxe et macrosémantique, Actes du colloque international dAarhus, 383–419, Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. & McConnell-Ginet, S. 1990. Meaning and Grammar : An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Danlos, L. 2009. D-STAG : un formalisme d analyse automatique de discours basé sur les TAG synchrones. Revue TAL, 50(1), 111–143.Google Scholar
2013. Connecteurs de discours adverbiaux : Problèmes à l’interface syntaxe-sémantique. Linguisticea Investigationes, 36(2), 261–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danlos, L. & Rambow, O. 2011. Discourse Relations and Propositional Attitudes. In CID 2011 – Fourth International workshop on Constraints in Discourse.Google Scholar
Danlos, L., Rysova, K., Rysova, M. & Stede, M. 2018. Primary and secondary discourse connectives : definitions and lexicons. Dialogue & Discourse, 9(1), 50–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M. 2007. La distinction entre dépendance grammaticale et dépendance macrosyntaxique comme moyen de résoudre les paradoxes de la subordination. Faits de langues, 119–132.Google Scholar
Deloor, S. 2012. Bref aperçu historique des travaux sur la présupposition. Langages, (186), 3–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Desmets, M. 1998. Identification de deux constructions en comme : causalité et comparaison. Linx, 39, 89–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Joshi, A. & Webber, B. 2005. Attribution and the (Non-)Alignment of Syntactic and Discourse Arguments of Connectives. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotations II : Pie in the Sky, 29–36, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endo, Y. & Haegeman, L. 2019. Adverbial clauses and adverbial concord. Glossa : A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1)(48). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feltracco, A., Jezek, E., Magnini, B. & Stede, M. 2016. Lico : A lexicon of Italian connectives. In Proceedings of the Third Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics (CLiC-IT 2016), Napoli, Italy. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forbes-Riley, K., Webber, B. & Joshi, A. 2006. Computing Discourse Semantics : The Predicate-Argument Semantics of Discourse Connectives in D-LTAG. Journal of Semantics, 23(1), 55–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. 1892. Über sinn und bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100(1), 25–50.Google Scholar
Fuchs, C. & le Goffic, P. 2005. La polysémie de ‘comme’. In O. Soutet (Ed.), La polysémie, 267–292. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Godard, D. 2005. Problèmes syntaxiques de la coordination et propositions récentes dans les grammaires syntagmatiques. Langages, 39(160), 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grevisse, M. & Goosse, A. 2016. Le Bon usage. De Boeck Supérieur, 16e édition.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & L. M. Jerry (Eds.), Speech acts, volume 3 of Syntax and semantics, 41–58. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2004. The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalisation. In M. Coene, G. De Cuyper & Y. D’hulst, Eds., Current Studies in Comparative Romance Linguistics, number 107 in APiL, p. 61–90. Antwerp University.Google Scholar
2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua, 1161, 1651–1669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua, 1201, 628–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hardt, D. 2013. A Uniform Syntax and Discourse Structure : the Copenhagen Dependency Treebanks. Dialogue & Discourse, 4(2), 53–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J. 2016. Reports in Discourse. Dialogue & Discourse, 7(4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J. & Asher, N. 2016. Composing Discourse Parenthetical Reports. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21 (SuB21), Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. & Danlos, L. 2014. Because We Say So. In Proceedings of the EACL 2014 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Causality in Language, 1–9, Gothenburg, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. & Peters, S. 1979. Conventional Implicature. In C.-K. Oh & D. A. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 111, Presupposition, 1–56. Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, and London.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1971. If’s, and s and but’s about conjunction. In C. Fillmore & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, 115–150. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Groupe λ-l 1975. Car, parce que, puisque. Revue Romane, 10(2), 248-280.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory : Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mendes, A., del Rio Gayo, I., Stede, M. & Dombek, F. 2018. A lexicon of discourse markers for Portuguese. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan.Google Scholar
Piot, M. 1988. Coordination-subordination : Une définition générale. Langue française, 771, 5–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, C. 2005. The logic ofconventional implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015. Presupposition and Implicature. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 168–202. Wiley-Blackwell, second edition. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prasad, R., Miltsakaki, E., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Joshi, A., Robaldo, L. & Webber, B. 2007. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 Annotation Manual. Rapport interne IRCS 203, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Roussarie, L. 2017. Sémantique formelle, volume 1 : Introduction à la grammaire de Montague. Berlin, Germany: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Roze, C. 2009. Base lexicale des connecteurs discursifs du français. Master’s thesis, Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Roze, C., Danlos, L. & Muller, P. 2012. LEXCONN : a French lexicon of discourse connectives. Discours – Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rysová, M. & Rysová, K. 2015. Secondary connectives in the Prague Dependency Treebank. In E. Hajičová & J. Nivre (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2015), 291–299, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
2018. Primary and secondary discourse connectives : Constraints and preferences. Journal of Pragmatics, 1301, 16–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, T. & Stede, M. 2016. Adding semantic relations to a large-coverage connective lexicon of German. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), Portorož, Slovenia.Google Scholar
Simons, M. 2007. Observations on Embedding Verbs, Evidentiality, and Presupposition. Lingua, 117(6), 1034–1056. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stede, M., Scheffler, T. & Mendes, A. 2019. Connective-lex : A web-based multilingual lexical resource for connectives. Discours, 241.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M., Papadopoulou, D. & Mylonaki, A. 2010. Temporal modification in Greek adverbial clauses : The role of aspect and negation. Lingua, 1201, 649–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Urmson, J. O. 1952. Parenthetical Verbs. Mind, 61(244), 480–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Text and Context : Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.
Webber, B., Stone, M., Joshi, A. & Knott, A. 2003. Anaphora and Discourse Structure. Computational Linguistics, 29(4), 545–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeyrek, D. & Webber, B. 2008. A discourse resource for Turkish : Annotating discourse connectives in the METU corpus. In IJCNLP, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar