Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- program [2011/08/03 12:57]
danlos
+++ program [2011/09/22 16:15] (current)
clerger
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 | 11h | R. Fernández | L. Danlos & O. Rambow| N. Asher et al. |
 | 11h45 |K. Jasinskaja & E. Karagjosova |M. Vergez-Couret et al. |N. Van der Vliet & G. Redeker |
-| 12h30 | **Lunch** |** Lunch** | **Closure & Lunch**   |
+| 12h15 | **Lunch** |** Lunch** | **Closure & Lunch**   |
 | 14h | A. Tantos  |M. Egg  |  |
 | 14h45 | L. Vieu | **Poster Session**: \\ K. Alahverdzhieva & A. Lascarides, \\ A. Gazdik & G. Winterstein, \\ L. Mayol & E. Castroviejo \\  C. Roze \\ M. Gylling & I. Korzen | |
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ----
 ===== Invited speakers =====
-Barbara di Eugenio // Semantic Constraints and Discourse Parsing //
+**Barbara di Eugenio** // Semantic Constraints and Discourse Parsing //
  Abstract: "Discourse Parsing, the computational segmentation and  inference of structure and relations in text, remains a highly challenging task. Efforts have relied mostly on syntactic and lexical information. The use of semantics has been restricted to shallow semantic features such as lexical chains and similarity measures based on word co-occurrences.
@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 ----
-Andrew Kehler //A Probabilistic Reconciliation of Coherence-Driven and
+**Andrew Kehler** //A Probabilistic Reconciliation of Coherence-Driven and
 Centering-Driven Theories of Pronoun Interpretation//
@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 ----
-Jonathan Ginzburg // Disfluencies as Intra-Utterance Dialogue Moves//
+**Jonathan Ginzburg** // Disfluencies as Intra-Utterance Dialogue Moves//
 Abstract: There are a number of approaches to analyzing dislfluencies, exemplified in (1):
@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 The design of or-- the point of putting two sensors on each side
-\ex. From Fay (1980), cited by Levelt (1989):
+ From Fay (1980), cited by Levelt (1989):
 Why it is -- why is it that nobody makes a decent toilet seat?
-\ex. From Levelt (1989):
+From Levelt (1989):
 Tell me, uh what-- d'you need a hot sauce?
-In the conversational analysis tradition (following Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977) disfluencies are viewed as a subtype of repair. There are many insights in this type of approach, but it has typically not integrated into a formal model of grammar/dialogue. An alternative approach, common in the computational literature, has been to view disfluencies as filtered away by low-level processes, so that there is no interpretation of disfluencies, that the interpreter (the level of computation of dialogue meaning) doesn't see disfluencies (e.g. Heeman and Allen 1999). Recently, evidence from psycholinguistics has begun emerging that self-corrected material has a long-term processing effect (e.g. Brennan and Schober 20001, Arnold et al 2007), hence is not being ``edited away''. It can also bring about linguistic effects in whose interpretation it plays a significant role, for instance anaphora, as in (2a) from (Heeman and Allen 1999). In fact, disfluencies yield information: (2a) entails (2b) and defeasibly (2c), which in certain settings (e.g.\ legal), given sufficient data, can be useful.
+In the conversational analysis tradition (following Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977) disfluencies are viewed as a subtype of repair. There are many insights in this type of approach, but it has typically not integrated into a formal model of grammar/dialogue. An alternative approach, common in the computational literature, has been to view disfluencies as filtered away by low-level processes, so that there is no interpretation of disfluencies, that the interpreter (the level of computation of dialogue meaning) doesn't see disfluencies (e.g. Heeman and Allen 1999). Recently, evidence from psycholinguistics has begun emerging that self-corrected material has a long-term processing effect (e.g. Brennan and Schober 20001, Arnold et al 2007), hence is not being 'edited away'. It can also bring about linguistic effects in whose interpretation it plays a significant role, for instance anaphora, as in (2a) from (Heeman and Allen 1999). In fact, disfluencies yield information: (2a) entails (2b) and defeasibly (2c), which in certain settings (e.g.\ legal), given sufficient data, can be useful.
 (2a) Andy:  Peter was, well he was fired.
@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 (2c) Andy was unsure about how to describe what happened to Peter.
-}
 In this talk I present a detailed formal account of disfluencies within the framework of KoS (Ginzburg 1994, Larsson 2002, Purver 2006, Ginzburg and Fernandez 2010, Ginzburg 2012) which:
@@ Line 162: / Line 162: @@
 BIO : Jonathan Ginzburg has held appointments at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and King's College, London. He is currently Professor of Linguistics at Universite Paris-Diderot (Paris 7). He is the author of Interrogative Investigations: the form, meaning, and use of English Interrogatives (jointly with Ivan A. Sag) and has published more than 70 papers. He is one of the founders and currently editor-in-chief of Dialogue and Discourse, one of the Linguistic Society of America's ejournals.
 ===== Oral presentations =====
 ----
-**[[http://www.let.rug.nl/~vandervliet/|Nynke Van Der Vliet]] and [[http://www.let.rug.nl/~redeker|Gisela Redeker]]**	//Complex sentences as leaky units in discourse parsing//
+**[[http://www.let.rug.nl/~vandervliet/|Nynke Van Der Vliet]] and [[http://www.let.rug.nl/~redeker|Gisela Redeker]]**	//{{:cid2011_submission_2.pdf|Complex sentences as leaky units in discourse parsing}}//
 Abstract: \\
@@ Line 170: / Line 171: @@
 ----
-**[[http://www.angl.hu-berlin.de/faculty/egg|Markus Egg]].** //Discourse particles between cohesion and coherence//
+**[[http://www.angl.hu-berlin.de/faculty/egg|Markus Egg]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_4.pdf|Discourse particles between cohesion and coherence}}//
@@ Line 179: / Line 180: @@
-**  [[http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~jasinsk/|Katja Jasinskaja]] and Elena Karagjosova.** //Elaboration and Explanation//
+**  [[http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~jasinsk/|Katja Jasinskaja]] and Elena Karagjosova.** //{{:cid2011_submission_8.pdf|Elaboration and Explanation}}//
 Abstract:\\
@@ Line 185: / Line 186: @@
 ----
-**  [[http://www.irit.fr/~Nicholas.Asher|Nicholas Asher]], Antoine Venant, [[http://www.irit.fr/~Philippe.Muller/|Philippe Muller]] and [[http://www.irit.fr/-Annuaire-?code=6334|Stergos Afantenos]].** //Complex discourse units and their semantics//
+**  [[http://www.irit.fr/~Nicholas.Asher|Nicholas Asher]], Antoine Venant, [[http://www.irit.fr/~Philippe.Muller/|Philippe Muller]] and [[http://www.irit.fr/-Annuaire-?code=6334|Stergos Afantenos]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_9.pdf|Complex discourse units and their semantics}}//
 Abstract:\\
@@ Line 191: / Line 192: @@
 ----
-**  Julie Hunter.** //`Now': A Discourse-Based Theory//
+**  Julie Hunter.** //{{:cid2011_submission_10.pdf|`Now': A Discourse-Based Theory}}//
 Abstract:\\
@@ Line 198: / Line 199: @@
 ----
-**  [[http://staff.science.uva.nl/~raquel|Raquel Fernández]].** //Incremental Resolution of Relative Adjectives: A DRT-based Approach//
+**  [[http://staff.science.uva.nl/~raquel|Raquel Fernández]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_13.pdf|Incremental Resolution of Relative Adjectives: A DRT-based Approach}}//
 Abstract:\\
@@ Line 204: / Line 205: @@
 ----
-**  [[http://www.labri.fr/perso/moot|Richard Moot]], Laurent Prévot and [[http://www.labri.fr/perso/retore|Christian Retore]].** //Discursive analysis of itineraries in an historical and regional corpus of  travels: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in a uniﬁed type theoretical  framework//
+**  [[http://www.labri.fr/perso/moot|Richard Moot]], Laurent Prévot and [[http://www.labri.fr/perso/retore|Christian Retore]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_16.pdf|Discursive analysis of itineraries in an historical and regional corpus of  travels: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in a uniﬁed type theoretical  framework}}//
 Abstract:\\
@@ Line 211: / Line 212: @@
 ----
-**  [[http://www.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~danlos/|Laurence Danlos]] and Owen Rambow.** //Discourse Relations and Propositional Attitudes//
+**  [[http://www.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~danlos/|Laurence Danlos]] and Owen Rambow.** //{{:cid2011_submission_21.pdf|Discourse Relations and Propositional Attitudes}}//
 Abstract:\\
@@ Line 218: / Line 219: @@
 ----
-**  [[http://www.irit.fr/~Laure.Vieu|Laure Vieu]].** //On the Semantics of Discourse Relations//
+**  [[http://www.irit.fr/~Laure.Vieu|Laure Vieu]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_23.pdf|On the Semantics of Discourse Relations}}//
 Abstract:\\
- I reconsider in this paper the semantics schemata given for veridical discourse relations in SDRT. I claim that for different reasons, structural and semantics, one cannot reduce discourse relations to their semantic effects. I propose a revised schema involving public commitment operators to characterize the rhetorical import of discourse relations.
+In this paper, I examine the division of labour between discourse semantics and information packaging and reconsider the schemata for the semantics of veridical discourse relations given in SDRT. On
+the basis of studies of the phenomena of discourse relation blocking, I claim that one cannot reduce the semantics of discourse relations to their content-level semantic eﬀects. I propose revised semantic schemata involving public commitment operators to characterize the rhetorical import of discourse relations within their semantics.
 ----
-**  Alexandros Tantos.** //Discourse Constraints of Clitic Left Dislocation in Modern Greek//
+**  Alexandros Tantos.** //{{:cid2011_submission_24.pdf|Discourse Constraints of Clitic Left Dislocation in Modern Greek}}//
 Abstract:\\
@@ Line 230: / Line 232: @@
 ----
-**  Marianne Vergez-Couret, Myriam Bras and Laurent Prévot.** //Discourse contribution of Enumerative Structures involving pour deux raisons//
+** Marianne Vergez-Couret, Myriam Bras, Laurent Prévot, Laure Vieu and Caroline Attalah** //{{:cid2011_submission_25.pdf|Discourse contribution of Enumerative Structures involving pour deux raisons}}//
 Abstract:\\
- Description of discourse structure is a major topic of ongoing research (Moore &amp; Wiemer-Hastings, 2003; Péry-Woodley &amp; Scott, 2006). The importance of the discourse level (Asher &amp; Lascarides, 2003; Grosz &amp; Sidner, 1986; Hobbs, 1990; Mann &amp; Thompson, 1987) is commonly accepted but the exact nature of its contribution and the rules that govern the interpretation are still debated. We would like to pay particular attention to enumerative structures as a textual pattern that constrain, in some way, their interpretation and their treatment in the SDRT model (Asher &amp; Lascarides, 2003). Following Bras et al’s (2008) proposition to introduce a new textual discourse relation, Enumeration, we would like to go into this solution in depth in order to question its relevance. In brief, is the Enumeration relation necessary to construe the right representation of texts containing enumerative structures? To suggest possible answers to this question, we will consider discourse segments including the prepositional phrase  pour deux raisons (for two reasons) in order to examine its relations with subsequent segments.
+We propose to study the discourse contribution of enumerative
+structures involving the prepositional phrase pour deux raisons. We would like
+to highlight the contribution of the textual information conveyed by
+enumerative structures and the prepositional phrase both to the discourse
+structure and the discourse content within the SDRT model. We will show that
+prepositional phrase like pour deux raisons must introduce a discourse
+constituent in the structure attached by the Commentary relation to the left
+context and the Enumeration relation to the right context. Finally we propose to
+treat pour deux raisons as a new kind of discourse marker: We will show that
+its discursive role within enumerative structures is to signal the content-level
+relation Explanation.
 ----
@@ Line 241: / Line 253: @@
 ----
-**  [[http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/s0896251/|Katya Alahverdzhieva]] and [[http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/alex|Alex Lascarides]].** //Semantic Composition of Multimodal Communicative Actions in Constraint-based Grammars//
+**  [[http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/s0896251/|Katya Alahverdzhieva]] and [[http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/alex|Alex Lascarides]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_6.pdf|Semantic Composition of Multimodal Communicative Actions in Constraint-based Grammars}}//
 Abstract:\\
@@ Line 247: / Line 259: @@
 ----
-**  Laia Mayol and [[http://elena-castroviejo-miro.cat/|Elena Castroviejo]].** //The connective "doncs" in dialogue and the QUD//
+**  Laia Mayol and [[http://elena-castroviejo-miro.cat/|Elena Castroviejo]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_12.pdf|The connective "doncs" in dialogue and the QUD}}//
 Abstract:\\
@@ Line 253: / Line 265: @@
 ----
-**  [[http://www.llf.cnrs.fr/Gens/Gazdik/index-fr.php|Anna Gazdik]] and [[http://www.linguist.jussieu.fr/~gwinterstein/|Grégoire Winterstein]].** //A Discursive Approach to Discourse Functions in Hungarian//
+**  [[http://www.llf.cnrs.fr/Gens/Gazdik/index-fr.php|Anna Gazdik]] and [[http://www.linguist.jussieu.fr/~gwinterstein/|Grégoire Winterstein]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_17.pdf|A Discursive Approach to Discourse Functions in Hungarian}}//
 Abstract:\\
@@ Line 260: / Line 272: @@
 ----
-**  [[http://www.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~croze/|Charlotte Roze]].** //Towards a Discourse Relation Algebra for Comparing Discourse Structures//
+**  [[http://www.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~croze/|Charlotte Roze]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_20.pdf|Towards a Discourse Relation Algebra for Comparing Discourse Structures}}//
 Abstract:\\
@@ Line 266: / Line 278: @@
 ----
-**  [[http://uk.cbs.dk/staff/mgj|Morten Gylling]] and [[http://uk.cbs.dk/staff/iorn.korzen|Iørn Korzen]].** //Discourse Constraints in a Cross-linguistic Typological Perspective//
+**  [[http://uk.cbs.dk/staff/mgj|Morten Gylling]] and [[http://uk.cbs.dk/staff/iorn.korzen|Iørn Korzen]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_7.pdf|Discourse Constraints in a Cross-linguistic Typological Perspective}}//
 Abstract:\\

Constraints In Discourse 2011

Categories

Table of Contents

Differences