| { | |
| "paper_id": "C98-1007", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T12:30:25.425061Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "Tense and Connective Constraints on the Expression of Causality", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Pascal", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Alnsili", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": {}, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Corinne", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Rossari", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": {}, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Corinne", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Rossari~lettres", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": {}, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mlige", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": {}, | |
| "email": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "Starting from descriptions of French connectives (in particular \"done\"-therefore), on the one hand, and aspectual properties of French tenses passd simple and imparfait on the other hand, we study in this paper how the two interact with respect to the expression of causality. It turns out that their interaction is not flee. Some combinations are not acceptable, and we propose an explanation for them. These results apply straightforwardly to natural language generation: given as input two events related by a cause relation, we can choose among various ways of presentation (the parameters being (i) the order, (ii)the connective, (iii)the tense) so that we are sure to express a cause relation, without generating either an incorrect discourse or an ambiguous one.", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "C98-1007", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "Starting from descriptions of French connectives (in particular \"done\"-therefore), on the one hand, and aspectual properties of French tenses passd simple and imparfait on the other hand, we study in this paper how the two interact with respect to the expression of causality. It turns out that their interaction is not flee. Some combinations are not acceptable, and we propose an explanation for them. These results apply straightforwardly to natural language generation: given as input two events related by a cause relation, we can choose among various ways of presentation (the parameters being (i) the order, (ii)the connective, (iii)the tense) so that we are sure to express a cause relation, without generating either an incorrect discourse or an ambiguous one.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "The work reported in this paper aims at determining which constraints hold on the interaction between the expression of causality (with or without connective) and aspectual properties of the eventualities and of the tenses used to express them. As a matter of fact, it turns out that, at least in French, the choice of one of the two tenses passd simple (ps) or imparfait (IMP) is not neutral with respect to the expression of causality, in particular realised by means of the connective \"done\" (therefore).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 354, | |
| "end": 358, | |
| "text": "(ps)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 372, | |
| "end": 377, | |
| "text": "(IMP)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It has been observed that even when concerned only with temporal localisation, it is not enough to characterize tenses if one do not take into account the effects of discourse relations between eventualitiesl: (la-b) (Molendijk, 1996) ; it has also been observed that the use of the 1 We use the term eventuality to refer to either events, states or processes, as is traditional since (Bach, 1981) .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 217, | |
| "end": 234, | |
| "text": "(Molendijk, 1996)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 385, | |
| "end": 397, | |
| "text": "(Bach, 1981)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "connective \"donc\" is itself subject to various acceptability constraints (1c-d) (Jayez, 1998) .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 80, | |
| "end": 93, | |
| "text": "(Jayez, 1998)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(1) a. Paul attrapa une contravention. @ I1 roulait avec plaisir Our objective in this paper is twofold: we want to study systematically the interaction between the various parameters we have mentionned, in order to provide a general explanation for the acceptabilities that have been observed, and we also want these explanations be formulated in terms of \"conditions of use\", so that our results are exploitable for text generation. As a matter of fact, the choice of an appropriate form to express a cause relation between events has proved a non trivial problem (Danlos, 1987; Danlos, 1998) . Two parameters have been identified as playing an important role: first, the order of presentation (cause before consequence, or the contrary), and second, 2The contrast between PS and IMP is only roughly parallel to that between simple past and past progressive: e.g., the translation into French of a simple past can be either ps or IMP. We translate systematically iMP into past progressive, even when the glose does not have the same aspectuo-temporal t)roperties as the French original. Similarly, \"therefore\" is only roughly equivalent to \"done\". the presence (or absence) of a connective 3. The examples we deal with in this paper suggest that tenses, at least in French and in particular the choice between ps and IMP must also be taken into account. q_'he assumptions we make for this work are the following.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 566, | |
| "end": 580, | |
| "text": "(Danlos, 1987;", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 581, | |
| "end": 594, | |
| "text": "Danlos, 1998)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We assume the view on discourse adopted within the SRDT framework (Asher, 1993) : in a coherent discourse, sentences are linked by discourse relations, which help finding anaphor antecedents, computing temporal localisations, etc. Itere, we are concerned only with two discourse relations, both involving causality. We call the first one result, as in (Lascarides and Asher, 1993) , it holds between two sentences when the main eventuality of the first one is the cause of the main eventuality of the second one. We assume here a very open notion of causality that we don't wa.nt to refine. 4 We call the other one explana.t:ion, it holds between two sentences when the cause is presented after its consequence, thus playing an explaluttioll role for the first sentence. This configuration in interaction with \"doric\" has been studied in (Rossari and Jayez, 1997) where it is called \"causal abduction\". We adopt as a basis for the description of IMP the proposal made in the DRT framework (l<.aml~ and Rohrer, 198\"t; I,~amp and Reyle, 1993) , amended with proposals made in French literature, in particular concerning the anaphoric properties of this tense (Tasmowski-De Ryck, 1985; Vet and Molendijk, 1985; Molendijk, 1994) .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 66, | |
| "end": 79, | |
| "text": "(Asher, 1993)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 352, | |
| "end": 380, | |
| "text": "(Lascarides and Asher, 1993)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 838, | |
| "end": 863, | |
| "text": "(Rossari and Jayez, 1997)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 989, | |
| "end": 1016, | |
| "text": "(l<.aml~ and Rohrer, 198\"t;", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1017, | |
| "end": 1040, | |
| "text": "I,~amp and Reyle, 1993)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1157, | |
| "end": 1182, | |
| "text": "(Tasmowski-De Ryck, 1985;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1183, | |
| "end": 1207, | |
| "text": "Vet and Molendijk, 1985;", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1208, | |
| "end": 1224, | |
| "text": "Molendijk, 1994)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "At last, we adopt the description of the connective \"donc\" which is elabo,'a.ted, in terms of conditions of use and semantic effects, in (Jayez and Rossari, 1998) .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 137, | |
| "end": 162, | |
| "text": "(Jayez and Rossari, 1998)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We start by considering discourses where a cause is presented after its consequence (i.e., an explanation discourse relation should hold). We observe thai, a PS-IMP sequence is sufticient to achieve the explanation effect, but that this sequence is constrained by the type of causality a (Danlos, 1988) shows the influence of many others parameters, like the voice active vs. passive, the presence of a relative clause, etc.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 288, | |
| "end": 302, | |
| "text": "(Danlos, 1988)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "4For instance, we assume that causality holds between a branch breaking and John's falling (direct), but also between Jean's repairing his cat\" and his driving it (indirect). at stake. We also notice that connectives do not seem to interfere with tenses in this case ( \u00a7 2).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We. then examine discourses where the cause is presented before the consequence. In the absence of connective, we observe that none of the acceptable forms automatically convey causality ( \u00a7 3.1.). With the connective \"done\", causality is imposed by the connective, but in its turn it brings new constraints ( \u00a7 3.2). For each set of examples, we provide a general explanation and draw conclusions for text generation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Even if a causality (tim second sentence introducing the cause of the first one) is pragmatically possible in all these examples, we observe that a sequence ps-ps imposes in French a temporal sequence interpretation: in all the exampies (3), the main eventuality of the second sentence is interpreted as temporally located after the one of the first sentence, and this is strictly incoml)atible with a. causality, where cause must precede its etfect. Notice that here PS in French behaves differently from simple past in English. 5", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Consequence-Cause Configuration 2.1 Data", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(3) a. Jean tomba. La branche cassa Jean dirtied himself, tie repaired his car Now, if one chooses, with the same order of presentation, the tense combination PS-IMP, the causality effect is easily achieved. This is the case for the examples (4).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Consequence-Cause Configuration 2.1 Data", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(4) a. Jean attrN)a une contravention.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Consequence-Cause Configuration 2.1 Data", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "I1 roulait trop vite Jean got a fine. tie was driving too t'e~s't b. Marie cria. Jean lui c~sait la figure Marie cried. Jean was hitting her 5The translation of the ambiguous example (2a) (Lascarides and Asher, 1993) is not ambiguous in French where no causal interpretation is available (2b).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Consequence-Cause Configuration 2.1 Data", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2) a. John fell. Max pushed him. b. Jean tomba. Max le poussa.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Consequence-Cause Configuration 2.1 Data", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "However, this choice is not always applicable, since it can give rise to unacceptable forms: (5) are either incorrect, or do not convey causality.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Consequence-Cause Configuration 2.1 Data", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(5) a. # Jean tomba. La branche cassait Jean fell. The branch was breaking b. # Jean prit sa voiture. I1 la [email protected]", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Consequence-Cause Configuration 2.1 Data", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The connective \"donc\" can be used in such configurations, without changing acceptability. The denoted relation in this case concerns both the epistemic level (attitudinM) and the descriptive level (propositional) (aayez and Rossari, 1998) . We consider in this paper only uses of \"donc\" where the epistemic level does not change fondamentaly the relation. 6", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 224, | |
| "end": 238, | |
| "text": "Rossari, 1998)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Jean took the car. He was repairing it", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We think that these acceptabilities can be explained if one takes into account two principles: one concerns causality itself in connection with aspectuality, the other concerns the French IMP~S ability to act as an aspectual operator.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Discussion", | |
| "sec_num": "2.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "To account for the contrast between (4) and 5, we have to be more specific about the way causality can hold between eventualities. Let us assume el is the cause of e2. We can distinguish two cases:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Causality", | |
| "sec_num": "2.2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "1. el has to be completed to be the cause of e2. For instance, the breaking of the branch has to be completed before Jean can fall; Jean's ear has to be repaired before he can drive it. 2. it is not necessary for el to be completed to be the cause of e2. For instance, starting to repair the car is enough to be the cause of one's getting dirty; driving too fast is enough to get a fine, independantly of the completion of el.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Causality", | |
| "sec_num": "2.2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We call the first case accomplished causality. Notice that this distinction is independant of the aspectual class of the verb describing the eventuality. It is only a matter of world knowledge. 6In this configuration, \"car\" (for) is the non marked connective. Its introduction does not change notably the acceptability jugements, we leave the examination of its specific constraints for another study.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Causality", | |
| "sec_num": "2.2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "IMP as an aspectual operator One of the most important properties of IMP is that it imposes an imperfective (durative, non accomplished) view on the eventuality (Vet, 1980) . The way this effect operates can be described the following way, assuming the usual partition of predicates into the four Vendler's (1967) As for accomplishments, we can assume that they can be decomposed into several stages, according to (Moens and Steedman, 1988) : first ~ preparatory phase, second a cuhnination (or achievement) (we are not concerned here with the result state). We can then say that IMP refers only to the preparatory phase, so that the term of the eventuality loses all relevance. This explains the so-called imperfective paradox: it is possible to use IMP even though the eventnality never reaches its term:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 161, | |
| "end": 172, | |
| "text": "(Vet, 1980)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF18" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 297, | |
| "end": 313, | |
| "text": "Vendler's (1967)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 414, | |
| "end": 440, | |
| "text": "(Moens and Steedman, 1988)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2.2.2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(6) a. I1 traversait la rue quand la voiture l'a &ra.s6", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2.2.2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "He was crossing the street when the car hit him b. * I1 traversa la rue quand la voiture l'a 6cras6", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2.2.2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Ile crossed the street when the car hit him", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2.2.2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As for achievements, we can assume that they are reduced to a culmination. Then IMP Call only be interpreted by stretching this culmination, transforming a flmdamentaly punctual event into a process or activity. Then there is no more natural term for such a stretctled event.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2.2.2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Causality and aspect So, when we have a non accomplished causality, i.e., when it is possible to state the cause rela-tion as soon ms the eventuality has started, then IMP does not impose further constraint, and the sequence PS-IMP is always correct, and conveys the appropriate causality effect. This is the case tbr the ex,~mples (4, 7), where an explanation discourse relation is infered.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2.2.3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(7) Jean se salit. I1 rfiparait sa voiture Jean got dirty, lie was repairing his car Oil the contrary, if we have an accomplished causality, i.e. if the cause event has to be completed to be a cause for the other event, then IMP is never possible, for even with terminative eventualities (the branch breaking, fixing the c~r), it ha.s the effect of blocldng the terminativity, and a causal interpretation is no longer possible (5).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2.2.3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The contrast (8) can thus be easily explained: in (8a), we have a lexically punctual event, made durative by the IMP. Hut going through a. red light has to 1)e completed to risk a fine; in (8b), we have an activity, and it is sufficient to have started it to risk a fine. ", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2.2.3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The consequences of the observations and the hypotheses made earlier, when it comes to text generation, are the following: If one wants to present two eventualities related by a cause relation, so that the consequence is l)resented before the cause, leading t.o an explanation interpretation of the discourse, one should obey the following principles: 1. A PS-PS combination is not appropriate.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Application", | |
| "sec_num": "2.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "provided that we have a non accomplished causality. Otherwise, the PS-IMI' combina.tion is not valid.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A PS-IMP combination conveys causMity,", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We should note again that these constraints are not lexica.l, in the sense that they do not rely on aspectual classes, but rather on world knowledge.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A PS-IMP combination conveys causMity,", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Let us now turn to the other mode of presentation, namely the one where cause is presented before its consequence. We first consider cases without connectives, and see that good acceptabilities go along with higher ambiguity: correct example do not always convey causality ( \u00a7 3.1). Then we consider the use of tile connective \"donc\", and observe that it changes the acceptabilities ( \u00a7 3.2).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Cause-Consequence Configuration", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The first observation is that it is possible to use a, I'S-I'S sequence. In the absence of other discourse clues, such a sequence is interl)reted in l,'rench as ~ temporal sequence relation. Such a teml)oral interpretation is compatible with, but of co~rse does not necessary imply, a cause relation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Data", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(9) a. For instance, (10b-c) can also be interpreted as background discourses, where the IMP of the second sentence is seen as introducing a background situation holding before and after the event introduced in the first sentence. This interpretation, often given as the default one for rMe-ps sequences (Kmnp and Rohrer, 1983) , is nevertheless only available when world knowledge does not exclude it (103). In any case, such an interpretation is incompatible with a causal interpretation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 304, | |
| "end": 327, | |
| "text": "(Kmnp and Rohrer, 1983)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Data", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Discussion So it turns out that PS-IMP sequences can have in general two interpretations: one where the two events follow each other, and this interpretation is thus compatible with a causality interpretation, and another one where the eventuality described by the Imp sentence overlaps with the event given before.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.1.2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This can be explained if one assumes the operation of 1MP as described in (Molendijk, 1994) , in a DRT framework, itself inspired by (Reichenbach, 1947) .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 74, | |
| "end": 91, | |
| "text": "(Molendijk, 1994)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 133, | |
| "end": 152, | |
| "text": "(Reichenbach, 1947)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.1.2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "One of the features of IMP i8 to state the simultaneousness of the eventuality described with some reference point (henceforth Rpt), located in the past of the speech time. This operation can be called anaphoric, since IMP needs some other point given by the context. This is clearly what happens with the background effect. But it has also been shown, in particular by Tasmowski-De Ryck (1985) , that there are some uses of IMP (called imparfait de rupture--\"breaking IMP\") which are not strictly a naphoric, in the sense that the Rpt cannot be identified with any previously introduced event. Rather, it seems that such uses of IMP strongly entail the existence of an implicit Rpt, distinct from the events already introduced. It is also observed that this ability of IMP to bring with it a Rpt is constrained. In particular, there must be a way to connect this Rpt to the other eventualities of the discourse. Molendijk (1996) shows that this connection can be a causal relation. It has also been observed that an implicit Rpt is always temporally located after the last event introduced. So this is compatible with a causality interpretation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 370, | |
| "end": 394, | |
| "text": "Tasmowski-De Ryck (1985)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 913, | |
| "end": 929, | |
| "text": "Molendijk (1996)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.1.2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Application From a text generation point of view, the observations we have just made cannot be easily ex-ploited: obviously, in a Cause-Consequence configuration, all the tense combinations we have seen are not informative enough, and cannot be used, if one wants to guarantee that the concept of causality is conveyed by the discourse.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.1.3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It is thus necessary to be more explicit, for instance by adding a connective. This is what we are concerned with in the next section.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.1.3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "So, if we leave apart the PS-ps sequence, what we have seen so far in \u00a7 2 is that the tense combination is sufficient to convey a causality relation in Consequence-Cause configurations, and then the connectives do not impose further constraints and do not change what is conveyed. The situation in this section ( \u00a7 3) is in a way symetrical: in a Cause-Consequence configuration, the tense configuration is not sufficient, so that adding a connective is necessary. But, as we see in the next section, there are further constraints on the connectives.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.1.3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "3.2.1 Data One can observe that \"donc\" is perfectly compatible with ps-ps sequences like the ones in (9). What is more surprising is that adding \"donc\" to the PS-IMP sequence examples we have seen 10 Tile clearer contrast concerns cases where the second sentence contains an activity verb. In such cases, the introdnction of \"donc'' leads systematically to bad sentences. 011 the contrary, it seems that \"donc\" is always compatible with state and a.cc()mplishment verbs.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "With the connective \"done\"", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As for aclfievements, it seems that the introduction of\"donc\" also yields bad sentences, but it is worth noting that the simple sequence PS-IMP without connective is already slightly problematic, as we have seen in (10d). We come back to this point later.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "With the connective \"done\"", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We are not yet able to provide a completely elaborated explanation for these observations. What we propose here is a list of possible answers, suggested by more fine-grained considerations on data. Note however that from the previous observation we can draw tile principle that we call generate sentences in a Cause-Consequence configuration, with a PS-IMP sequence, and the connective \"doric\" but the aspectuat class of the verb has to be taken into account. It leads to acceptable sentences only with accomplishments and states.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Discussion", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It is clear that aspectual classes play a role, which is not surprising, and this is tile reason wily all our example lists comprise each time one verb from each a spectual class.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Discussion", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The most problematic contrast concerns the difference between activities and accomplishments. The connective \"doric\" seems to work very well with accomplishments and very bad with activities, even though accomplishments can be seen as composed of an activity followed by a. cuhnination. One possible explanation could rely on the observation that tile result relation brought I) 3, \"done\" holds not at the propositionnal level, not even at the aspectual (i.e., point of view on events), but rather at an attitudinal level (Rossa.ri a.nd Jayez, 1997) . Besides, one can observe that what distinguishes activities and accomplishments is not the nature itself of the eventuality, but rather the fact that one expects/considers the cuhnination of it in one case and not in the other. So this can be seen as a difference of (propositional) attitude over the eventualities. We are presently working on the elaboration of ~t proposal based on this viewpoint. It is also worth observing that the temporal interval that lies between a canse and its consequence might play a role, as suggested by (aayez, 1998) , especially for this contrast between activities and accomplishments.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 537, | |
| "end": 549, | |
| "text": "Jayez, 1997)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1087, | |
| "end": 1100, | |
| "text": "(aayez, 1998)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Discussion", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As for achievements, we have already noted that their compatibility with IMP is not entirely established, for reasons coming from the punctual nature of achievements. It is also worth noting that there is an affinity between achievements and \"imparfait de rupture\" (Tasmowskil)e Ryck, 1985) . Of course, as suggested by its name, such use of IMP introduces a sort of break in the discourse, which is of course compatible with causality, but might not be compatible with the way \"done\" operates, requMng a strong connection between two utterances.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 279, | |
| "end": 290, | |
| "text": "Ryck, 1985)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Discussion", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We summarize our observa.tions in the table 1. We consider in this table all the possible configurations one has when the three following pm'ameters vary.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion Sulmnary", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "1. Order of presentation: el before e2 or tile other way ;~ro,md (assuming el is the cause of e2).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion Sulmnary", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "2. Presence of a connective \"doric\" or \"car\". r ~1. Use of l'S or IMP. Amollg tile ('oml)inations, some are always possible (which does not mean they always convey causality), some are never possible, that is, either uninterpretable or incompatible with causality. Some are sometimes possible, depending on various constraints as shown in this paper. Notice that we mention in this table some configurations we have not considered so far, namely configurations with an IMP-PS sequence.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion Sulmnary", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We mention them here only for the sake of completeness, since they can never be used to express causality.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion Sulmnary", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The second cohunn of the table gives the discourse relation associated with each configuration. In some cases, it is a cause relation, either in one direction (result-res) or in the other (explanation-exp). The other cases are compatible with a cause relation, without conveying it, which is noted in the table as \"suc\" (for temporal succession) or \"ntr\" (neutral-for ambiguous cases between background or temporal succession).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion Sulmnary", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Conclusion This paper shows that the interaction of constraints coming from tenses and connectives is rather delicate to characterize, even in the limited domain of the expression of causality. It also shows, however, that it is possible to draw from the linguistic characterisation of these enough principles to be able to generate discourses conveying causality with good guaranties on the achieved effect, and control over the influence of tenses often ,aeglected in this respect.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion Sulmnary", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We are presently studying the treatment of other connectives, and the extension to other tenses.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion Sulmnary", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As we have already said, we are only concerned in this paper with \"doric\" and ment, ion \"cat\"' only fox\" the sake of completeness.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "We wish to thank Laurent Roussarie, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their lmlpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Acknowledgment s", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Nicholas", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Asher", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1993, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Nicholas Asher. 1993. Reference to Abstract Ob- jects in Discourse. Kluwer Academic Pub- lisher.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "On time, tense and aspect: An essay on english nmtaphysics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Emmon", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bach", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1981, | |
| "venue": "Radical Pragmatics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "62--81", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Emmon Bach. 1981. On time, tense and aspect: An essay on english nmtaphysics. In Peter Cole, editor, Radical Pragmatics, pages 62- 81. Academic Press, New York.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "The Linguistic Basis of Text Generation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Laurence", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "Nlos" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Da", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1987, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Laurence Da.nlos. 1987. The Linguistic Basis of Text Generation. Cambridge University Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "Connecteurs et relations causales. Langue FranTaise", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Laurence", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Danlos", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1988, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "77", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "92--127", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Laurence Danlos. 1988. Connecteurs et rela- tions causales. Langue FranTaise, 77:92-127.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Causal relations in discourse: Event structure and event coreference", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Laurence", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Danlos", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1998, | |
| "venue": "Studies within the Generative Lexicon Framework", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Laurence Danlos. 1998. Causal relations in discourse: Event structure and event coref- erence. In Plerrette Bouillon and Frederica Buss, editors, Studies within the Generative Lexicon Framework. CUP Press. to appear.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "La port6e s&mantique d'un connecteur pragmatique. Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jacques", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Jayez", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Corinne", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Rossari", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1998, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jacques Jayez and Corinne Rossari. 1998. La port6e s&mantique d'un connecteur pragma- tique. Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain. to appear.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "Les approches formelles de l'enchainement des temps. L'exemple de la SDRT", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jacques", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Jayez", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1998, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jacques Jayez. 1998. Les approches formelles de l'enchainement des temps. L'exemple de la SDRT. Manuscript.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "From discourse to logic", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Hans", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kamp", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Uwe", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Reyle", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1993, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From dis- course to logic. Kluwer Academic Publisher.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "Tense in texts", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Hans", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kamp", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Christian", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Rohrer", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1983, | |
| "venue": "Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "250--269", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hans Kamp and Christian Rohrer. 1983. Tense in texts. In R. Bguerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pages 250-269.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF10": { | |
| "ref_id": "b10", | |
| "title": "Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Alex", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Lascarides", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Nicholas", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Asher", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1993, | |
| "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", | |
| "volume": "16", | |
| "issue": "5", | |
| "pages": "437--493", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Alex Lascarides and Nicholas Asher. 1993. Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(5):437-493.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF11": { | |
| "ref_id": "b11", | |
| "title": "Temporal ontology and temporal reference", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Marc", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Moens", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Marc", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Steedman", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1988, | |
| "venue": "Computational Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "14", | |
| "issue": "2", | |
| "pages": "15--28", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Marc Moens and Marc Steedman. 1988. Tem- poral ontology and temporal reference. Com- putational Linguistics, 14(2):15-28.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF12": { | |
| "ref_id": "b12", | |
| "title": "Tense use and temporal orientation: the 'pass~ simple' and 'imparfait' of french", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Arie", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Molendijk", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1994, | |
| "venue": "Tense and Aspect in Sentence and Discourse", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "21--47", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Arie Molendijk. 1994. Tense use and temporal orientation: the 'pass~ simple' and 'imparfait' of french. In C. Vet and C. Vetters, editors, Tense and Aspect in Sentence and Discourse, pages 21-47. De Gruyter.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF13": { | |
| "ref_id": "b13", | |
| "title": "Anaphore et imparfait : la rSf&ence globale \u00a3 des situations pr~-suppos&s ou impliquSes", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Arie", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Molendijk", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1996, | |
| "venue": "Cahiers Chronos", | |
| "volume": "1", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "109--123", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Arie Molendijk. 1996. Anaphore et imparfait : la rSf&ence globale \u00a3 des situations pr~- suppos&s ou impliquSes. Cahiers Chronos, 1:109-123.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF14": { | |
| "ref_id": "b14", | |
| "title": "Elements of symbolic logic", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Hans", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Reichenbach", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1947, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hans Reichenbach. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. McMillan, New York.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF15": { | |
| "ref_id": "b15", | |
| "title": "Connecteurs de consequence et port~e s~man-tique. Cahiers de Linguistique Frangaise", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Corinne", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Rossari", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jacques", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Jayez", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1997, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "19", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "233--265", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Corinne Rossari and Jacques Jayez. 1997. Con- necteurs de consequence et port~e s~man- tique. Cahiers de Linguistique Frangaise , 19:233-265.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF16": { | |
| "ref_id": "b16", | |
| "title": "L'imparfait avec et sans rupture", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Liliane", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Tasmowski-De Ryck", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "Languc Frangaise", | |
| "volume": "67", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "59--77", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Liliane Tasmowski-De Ryck. 1985. L'imparfait avec et sans rupture. Languc Frangaise , 67:59-77.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF17": { | |
| "ref_id": "b17", | |
| "title": "The discourse functions of past tenses of french", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Zeno", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Vendler", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1967, | |
| "venue": "Temporal Structure in Sentence and Discourse", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "133--159", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Zeno Vendler. 1967. Linguistics and Philoso- phy. Cornel University Press, Ithaca., N.Y. Co Vet and Arie Molendijk. 1985. The dis- course functions of past tenses of french. In V. Lo Cascio and C. Vet, editors, Temporal Structure in Sentence and Discourse, pages 133 159. Foris.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF18": { | |
| "ref_id": "b18", | |
| "title": "Temps, aspect et adverbes de temps en frangais contemporain", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Co", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Vet", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1980, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Co Vet. 1980. Temps, aspect et adverbes de temps en frangais contemporain. Droz, Gen~ve.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "text": "Jean fell. \"Fhe branch broke b. Jean attra pa une contravention. 1l roula trop vite Jean got lined. IIe drove too fast c. Marie cria. Jean lui cassa la figure Marie cried. ,lean hit her d. Jean prit sa voiture. I1 la r6para dean took Iris car. He repaired it e. Jean se salit. I1 r6para sa voitnre", | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure" | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF0": { | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>Paul got fined, lie was driving with</td></tr><tr><td>pleasure 2</td></tr><tr><td>b. Paul attrapa une contravention.</td></tr><tr><td>I1 roulait trop vite</td></tr></table>", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "text": "Paul got fined, lie was driving too fast c. La branche cassa. # Paul tombait donc dans le vide The branch broke. Paul was therefore falling down d. Sa premi6re demande rut refus6e. I1 en r6digeait donc une autre His first application was refused. tie was therefore writing another one" | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF1": { | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>States, activities These eventualities, either</td></tr><tr><td>homogenious (states) or not (activities), are</td></tr><tr><td>non terminative, in the sense that they do</td></tr><tr><td>not have a natural term (end) (e.g., to know</td></tr><tr><td>the truth--state, to run--activity). Then</td></tr><tr><td>IMP iS entirely compatible, thus have no</td></tr><tr><td>particular effect.</td></tr><tr><td>Achievements, accomplishments These are</td></tr><tr><td>characterised by the existence of a natu-</td></tr><tr><td>ral term. The imperfective point of view</td></tr><tr><td>brought by IMP imposes a change of point</td></tr><tr><td>of view on the term of the eventuality.</td></tr></table>", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "text": "aspectual classes." | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF5": { | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"3\">1: Ways of expressing \"CAUSE(et, e2)\"</td></tr><tr><td>When</td><td colspan=\"2\">D.R. [low</td></tr><tr><td>Always</td><td>res</td><td>e~ ~. Donc e~ ~</td></tr><tr><td/><td>exp</td><td>e'.?. Car 7 e~ ~</td></tr></table>", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "text": "" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |