File size: 66,204 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 | {
"paper_id": "P98-1007",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:18:19.981897Z"
},
"title": "Tense and Connective Constraints on the Expression of Causality",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Pascal",
"middle": [
"Amsili"
],
"last": "Talana",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Corinne",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rossari",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Corinne",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rossar",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Starting from descriptions of French connectives (in particular \"donc\"-therefore), on the one hand, and aspectual properties of French tenses pass4 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 free. 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": "P98-1007",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Starting from descriptions of French connectives (in particular \"donc\"-therefore), on the one hand, and aspectual properties of French tenses pass4 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 free. 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 pass4 simple (PS) or impar/ait (IMP) is not neutral with respect to the expression of causality, in particular realised by means of the connective \"don c\" (theref0re).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"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 eventualities 1: (1a-b) (Molendijk, 1996) ; it has also been observed that the use of the 1We use the term eventuality to refer to either events, states or processes, as is traditional since (Bach, 1981) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 218,
"end": 235,
"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 (lc-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.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Paul got fined. He was driving with pleasure 2 b. Paul attrapa une contravention.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I1 roulait avec plaisir",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "I1 roulait trop vite Paul got fined. He was driving too fast c. La branche cassa.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I1 roulait avec plaisir",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Paul tombait donc dans le vide The branch broke. Paul was therefore falling down d. Sa premiere demande fut refus6e.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I1 roulait avec plaisir",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "I1 en r6digeait donc une autre His first application was refused. He was therefore writing another one",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I1 roulait avec plaisir",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "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 properties 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.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 501,
"end": 515,
"text": "(Danlos, 1987;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 516,
"end": 529,
"text": "Danlos, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I1 roulait avec plaisir",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The assumptions we make for this work are the following.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I1 roulait avec plaisir",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"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. Here, 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 want to refine. 4 We call the other one explanation, it holds between two sentences when the cause is presented after its consequence, thus playing an explanation role for the first sentence. This configuration in interaction with \"donc\" has been studied in (Rossari and Jayez, 1997) where it is called \"causal abduction\".",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 79,
"text": "(Asher, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 351,
"end": 379,
"text": "(Lascarides and Asher, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 831,
"end": 856,
"text": "(Rossari and Jayez, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I1 roulait avec plaisir",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We adopt as a basis for the description of IMP the proposal made in the DRT framework (Kamp and Rohrer, 1983; Kamp 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": 86,
"end": 109,
"text": "(Kamp and Rohrer, 1983;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 131,
"text": "Kamp and Reyle, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 273,
"text": "(Tasmowski-De Ryck, 1985;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 298,
"text": "Vet and Molendijk, 1985;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 315,
"text": "Molendijk, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I1 roulait avec plaisir",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "At last, we adopt the description of the connective \"donc\" which is elaborated, in terms of conditions of use and semantic effects, in (Jayez and Rossari, 1998) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 160,
"text": "(Jayez and Rossari, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I1 roulait avec plaisir",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We start by considering discourses where a cause is presented after its consequence (i.e., an explanation discourse relation should hold). We observe that a PS-IMP sequence is sufficient to achieve the explanation effect, but that this sequence is constrained by the type of causality 3 (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": 287,
"end": 301,
"text": "(Danlos, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I1 roulait avec plaisir",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "4For instance, we assume that causality holds between a branch breaking and John's falling (direct), but also between Jean's repairing his car 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": "I1 roulait avec plaisir",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"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 \"donc\", 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": "I1 roulait avec plaisir",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "2 Consequence-Cause Configuration",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I1 roulait avec plaisir",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Even if a causality (the 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 examples (3), the main eventuality of the second sentence is interpreted as temporally located after the one of the first sentence, and this is strictly incompatible with a causality, where cause must precede its effect. Notice that here Ps in French behaves differently from simple past in English. 5",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "(3 Asher, 1993) is not ambiguous in French where no causal interpretation is available (2b).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 15,
"text": "Asher, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "(2) a. John fell. Max pushed him. b. Jean tomba. Max le poussa.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"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": "Data",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "(5) a. @ Jean tomba. La branche cassait Jean fell. The branch was breaking b. @ Jean prit sa voiture. Il la r6parait",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Jean took the car. He was repairing it",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "The connective \"donc\" can be used in such configurations, without changing acceptability. The denoted relation in this case concerns both the epistemic level (attitudinal) and the descriptive level (propositional) (Jayez 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": 214,
"end": 239,
"text": "(Jayez and Rossari, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"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": "Causality 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": "2.2.1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "1. el has to be completed to be the cause of e2.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2.2.1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For instance, the breaking of the branch has to be completed before Jean can fall; Jean's car 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": "2.2.1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"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": "2.2.1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "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) aspectual classes.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 143,
"text": "(Vet, 1980)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 284,
"text": "Vendler's (1967)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "IMP as an aspectual operator",
"sec_num": "2.2.2"
},
{
"text": "States, activities These eventualities, either homogenious (states) or not (activities), are non terminative, in the sense that they do not have a natural term (end) (e.g., to know the truth--state, to run--activity). Then IMP is entirely compatible, thus have no particular effect. Achievements, accomplishments These are characterised by the existence of a natural term. The imperfective point of view brought by IMP imposes a change of point of view on the term of the eventuality.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "IMP as an aspectual operator",
"sec_num": "2.2.2"
},
{
"text": "As for accomplishments, we can assume that they can be decomposed into several stages, according to (Moens and Steedman, 1988) : first a preparatory phase, second a culmination (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 eventuality never reaches its term: As for achievements, we can assume that they are reduced to a culmination. Then IMP can only be interpreted by stretching this culmination, transforming a fundamentaly punctual event into a process or activity. Then there is no more natural term for such a stretched event.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 126,
"text": "(Moens and Steedman, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "IMP as an aspectual operator",
"sec_num": "2.2.2"
},
{
"text": "So, when we have a non accomplished causality, i.e., when it is possible to state the cause rela-tion as soon as 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 for the examples (4, 7), where an explanation discourse relation is infered. On 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 car), it has the effect of blocking the terminativity, and a causal interpretation is no longer possible (5).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Causality and aspect",
"sec_num": "2.2.3"
},
{
"text": "The contrast (8) can thus be easily explained: in (8a), we have a lexically punctual event, made durative by the IMP. But going through a red light has to be completed to risk a fine; in (8b), we have an activity, and it is sufficient to have started it to risk a fine. 8 ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Causality and aspect",
"sec_num": "2.2.3"
},
{
"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 presented before the cause, leading to 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-IMP combination is not valid.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A PS-IMP combination conveys causality,",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "We should note again that these constraints are not lexical, 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 causality,",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "Cause-Consequence Configuration 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 the connective \"donc\", and observe that it changes the acceptabilities ( \u00a7 3.2).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "3.1.1 Data The first observation is that it is possible to use a PS-PS sequence. In the absence of other discourse clues, such a sequence is interpreted in French as a temporal sequence relation. Such a temporal interpretation is compatible with, but of course does not necessary imply, a cause relation. 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 IMP-PS sequences (Kamp and Rohrer, 1983) , is nevertheless only available when world knowledge does not exclude it (10a). In any case, such an interpretation is incompatible with a causal interpretation.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 602,
"end": 625,
"text": "(Kamp and Rohrer, 1983)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Without connective",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"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 IMP 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 is 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 anaphoric, 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": 912,
"end": 928,
"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) clearly changes the acceptabilities: The clearer contrast concerns cases where the second sentence contains an activity verb. In such cases, the introduction of\"donc\" leads systematically to bad sentences. On the contrary, it seems that \"donc\" is always compatible with state and accomplishment verbs.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "With the connective \"doric\"",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "As for achievements, 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 \"doric\"",
"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.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "3.2.2"
},
{
"text": "Note however that from the previous observation we can draw the principle that we can generate sentences in a Cause-Consequence configuration, with a PS-IMP sequence, and the connective \"doric\" but the aspectual 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 the reason why all our example lists comprise each time one verb from each aspectual 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 \"donc\" 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 culmination. One possible explanation could rely on the observation that the result relation brought by \"donc\" holds not at the propositionnal level, not even at the aspectual (i.e., point of view on events), but rather at an attitudinal level (Rossari and 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 culmination 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 a proposal based on this viewpoint. It is also worth observing that the temporal interval that lies between a cause and its consequence might play a role, as suggested by (Jayez, 1998) , especially for this contrast between activities and accomplishments.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 516,
"end": 541,
"text": "(Rossari and Jayez, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 1078,
"end": 1091,
"text": "(Jayez, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"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\" (Tasmowski-De 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 \"donc\" operates, requiring a strong connection between two utterances.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 265,
"end": 290,
"text": "(Tasmowski-De Ryck, 1985)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "3.2.2"
},
{
"text": "We summarize our observations in the table 1. We consider in this table all the possible configurations one has when the three following parameters vary.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Summary",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "1. Order of presentation: el before e2 or the other way around (assuming el is the cause of ee).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Summary",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "2. Presence of a connective \"donc\" or \"car\". 7",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Summary",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "3. Use of PS or IMP. Among the combinations, 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": "Summary",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "r As we have already said, we are only concerned in this paper with \"donc\" and mention \"car\" only for the sake of completeness.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Summary",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"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": "Summary",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The second column 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": "Summary",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Conclusion This paper shows that the interaction of constraints coming from tenses and connecti.ves 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 neglected in this respect.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Summary",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We are presently studying the treatment of other connectives, and the extension to other tenses.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Summary",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "We wish to thank Laurent Roussarie, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"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 metaphysics",
"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 metaphysics. 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": [],
"last": "Danlos",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Laurence Danlos. 1987. The Linguistic Basis of Text Generation. Cambridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Connecteurs et relations causales. Langue Franfaise",
"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 Franfaise, 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 Pierrette Bouillon and Frederica Busa, editors, Studies within the Generative Lexicon Framework. CUP Press. to appear.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "La port@e 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 port@e 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'enchatnement 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'enchatnement 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. B~uerle, 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 r@f@rence globale \u00a3 des situations pr@-suppos@es ou impliqu@es",
"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 r@f@rence globale \u00a3 des situations pr@- suppos@es ou impliqu@es. 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 cons@quence et port@e s@mantique. Cahiers de Linguistique Franfaise",
"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 cons@quence et port@e s@man- tique. Cahiers de Linguistique Franfaise, 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": "Langue Franfaise",
"volume": "67",
"issue": "",
"pages": "59--77",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Liliane Tasmowski-De Ryck. 1985. L'imparfait avec et sans rupture. Langue Franfaise, 67:59-77.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Linguistics and Philosophy",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Zeno",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vendler",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1967,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Zeno Vendler. 1967. Linguistics and Philoso- phy. Cornel University Press, Ithaca, N.Y.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "The discourse functions of past tenses of french",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Co",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vet",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Arie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Molendijk",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "Temporal Structure in Sentence and Discourse",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "133--159",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "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
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Temps, aspect et adverbes de temps en franfais contemporain. Droz, Gen@ve",
"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 franfais contemporain. Droz, Gen@ve.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"TABREF0": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>(4) a. Jean attrapa une contravention.</td></tr><tr><td>I1 roulait trop vite</td></tr><tr><td>Jean got a fine. He was driving too fast</td></tr><tr><td>b. Marie cria. Jean lui cassait la figure</td></tr><tr><td>Marie cried. Jean was hitting her</td></tr><tr><td>5The translation of the ambiguous example (2a) (Las-</td></tr><tr><td>carides and</td></tr></table>",
"text": "He repaired it e. Jean se salit. Il r@para sa voiture Jean dirtied himsel\u00a3 He 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)."
},
"TABREF2": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Jean got dirty. He was repairing his car</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Jean se salit. I1 rfiparait sa voiture"
},
"TABREF3": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Jean got a fine. He was going through</td></tr><tr><td>a red light</td></tr><tr><td>b. Jean attrapa une contravention.</td></tr><tr><td>I1 brfilait les feux rouges</td></tr><tr><td>Jean got a fine. He was going through</td></tr><tr><td>the red lights</td></tr></table>",
"text": "a. , Jean attrapa une contravention. I1 brfllait un feu rouge"
},
"TABREF4": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>The branch broke. He fell down</td></tr><tr><td>Paul vit sa demande rejet~e.</td></tr><tr><td>IIen r~digea une autre</td></tr><tr><td>Paul's application was rejected.</td></tr><tr><td>He wrote an other one</td></tr><tr><td>I1 rut nomm~ PDG.</td></tr><tr><td>I1 contr61a tout le personnel</td></tr><tr><td>He was appointed chairman.</td></tr><tr><td>(10) a. La branche cassa.</td></tr><tr><td>I1 tombait duns le vide</td></tr><tr><td>The branch broke. He was falling down</td></tr><tr><td>b. Paul vit sa demande rejet~e.</td></tr><tr><td>I1 en r~digeait une autre</td></tr><tr><td>Paul's application was rejected.</td></tr><tr><td>He was writing an other one</td></tr><tr><td>c. I1 fut nomm~ PDG.</td></tr><tr><td>I1 contr61ait tout le personnel</td></tr><tr><td>He was appointed chairman.</td></tr><tr><td>He was having control over the whole staff</td></tr><tr><td>d. ? I1 appuya sur la d~tente.</td></tr><tr><td>Le coup partait.</td></tr><tr><td>He pressed the trigger.</td></tr><tr><td>The gun was going off</td></tr></table>",
"text": "He had control over the whole staff I1 appuya sur la d~tente. Le coup partit. He pressed the trigger. The gun went off Changing the PS-PS sequence into a PS-IMP changes only marginally the acceptabilities, and the same observation as before holds: these discourses do not necessarily imply causality."
},
"TABREF6": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"3\">: Ways of expressing \"CAUSE(el, e2)\"</td></tr><tr><td>When</td><td colspan=\"2\">D.R. How</td></tr><tr><td>Always</td><td>res</td><td>e~ S. Donc e~ s</td></tr><tr><td/><td>exp</td><td>e~ ~. Car 7 e~ S</td></tr><tr><td/><td>SHC</td><td>Ps e~S e 1 .</td></tr><tr><td/><td>ntr</td><td>e~ s. e~P</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes C1</td><td>res</td><td>e~'. Donc e~ P</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>exp</td><td>e~ ~. ( CarT/\u00a2 ) e~ MP</td></tr><tr><td>Never</td><td/><td>e~ M\". (Donc / I~ ) e~ ~</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>Ps e~S e.~.</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>e~ p. (Car 7/0)e~ ~</td></tr><tr><td>Constraints</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">CI: e2 : state or accomplishment</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">C2: non accomplished causality</td></tr></table>",
"text": ""
}
}
}
} |