User menu

Accès à distance ? S'identifier sur le proxy UCLouvain

Surface cues of content and tenor in texts - Introduction

Primary tabs

download
  • Open access
  • PDF
  • 48.94 K
Lagerwerf, Luuk [Twente] Spooren, Wilbert [VU Amsterdam] Degand, Liesbeth [UCL]
Document type Article de périodique (Journal article) – Numéro entier
Access type Accès libre
Publication date 2006
Language Anglais
Journal information "Discourse processes" - Vol. 41, no. 2, p. 111-116 (2006)
Peer reviewed yes
issn 0163-853X
Publication status Publié
Affiliations Twente - Nederlands
VU Amsterdam - Afdeling Taal en Communicatie
UCL - FLTR/GERM - Département d'études germaniques
Keywords Discourse analysis ; Tenor ; Surface cues
Links
  1. Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Beaver, D. I. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  3. Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Bod, L. W. M. & Scha, J. H. (1996). Data oriented language processing: An overview. Amsterdam: ILLC.
  5. Brill E., Computational Linguistics, 21, 543 (1995)
  6. Cameron, L. & Low, G. (Eds.). (1999). Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Conrad, S. & Biber, D. (Eds.). (2001). Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies. London: Longman.
  8. Degand, L. (2001). Form and function of causation. A theoretical and empirical investigation of causal constructions in Dutch. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters.
  9. Foltz, P. W. (2005). Automated content processing of spoken and written discourse: Text coherence, essays, and team analyses. Information Design Journal + Document Design, 13(1), 5-13.
  10. Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W. & Landauer, T. K. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse processes, 25(2-3), 285-307.
  11. Gardent Claire, Webber Bonnie, 10.1023/a:1017916706972
  12. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M. & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193-202.
  13. Graesser Arthur C., Millis Keith K., Zwaan Rolf A., DISCOURSE COMPREHENSION, 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163
  14. Granger, S., Lerot, J. & Petch-Tyson, S. (Eds.). (2003). Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  15. Grosz B. J., Computational Linguistics, 12, 175 (1986)
  16. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
  17. Hovy, E., Lavid, J., Maier, E., Mittal, V. & Paris, C. (1992, April). Employing resources in a new text planner architecture. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation. Workshop conducted in Castel Ivano, Trento, Italy.
  18. Kamp, H. & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  19. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Lagerwerf, L. (1998). Causal connectives have presuppositions. Effects on discourse structure and coherence. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.
  21. Landauer Thomas K., Dumais Susan T., A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge., 10.1037//0033-295x.104.2.211
  22. Landauer T. K, Discourse Processes, 25, 259 (1998)
  23. Langacker, R. W. (1985). Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in Syntax (pp. 109-150). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  24. Mann W. C., Text, 8, 243 (1988)
  25. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. & Bateman, J. A. (1991). Text Generation and systemic-functional linguistics; experiences from English and Japanese. London: Pinter.
  26. Pander Maat, H. & Degand, L. (2001). Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive linguistics, 12(3), 211-246.
  27. Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E. & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count dictionary: LIWC 2001. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  28. Pennebaker James W., King Laura A., Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference., 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1296
  29. Polanyi Livia, A formal model of the structure of discourse, 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90050-1
  30. Prüst Hub, Scha Remko, van den Berg Martin, Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora, 10.1007/bf00985038
  31. Sanders T. J. M., Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 93 (1993)
  32. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Tomassello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  34. van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Orlando, FL: Academic.
  35. Halteren Hans van, Zavrel Jakub, Daelemans Walter, Improving Accuracy in Word Class Tagging through the Combination of Machine Learning Systems, 10.1162/089120101750300508
Bibliographic reference Lagerwerf, Luuk ; Spooren, Wilbert ; Degand, Liesbeth. Surface cues of content and tenor in texts - Introduction. In: Discourse processes, Vol. 41, no. 2, p. 111-116 (2006)
Permanent URL http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/72716