expose sur les ellipses

[Anne Abeillé]

Dans le cadre du projet
Approches typologiques des constructions elliptiques (Fédération TUL  
du CNRS)
http://ellipse.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/
>
>
> nous avons le plaisir d'accueillir le vendredi 27 octobre
de 10h a 12h
175 rue du chevaleret, 75013 Paris
4e etage, aquarium
l'exposé suivant:

> ELLEIPO: Generating Clausal Coordinative Ellipsis in
> Dutch, Estonian, German, and Hungarian
>
> Karin Harbusch
> Computer Science Dept., University of Koblenz-Landau, GERMANY
> harbusch at uni-koblenz.de
>
> Abstract
> In our talk, we present target-language independent syntactic rules to
> generate Clausal Coordinate Ellipsis (CCE), i.e. Gapping (including
> Long-Distance Gapping, Subgapping and Stripping), Forward and Backward
> Conjunction Reduction (FCR and BCR) and Subject Gap with Finite/ 
> Fronted
> Verb (SGF). The CCE rules, which are inspired by the psycholinguistic
> theory by Kempen (2009), have been implemented in Java (cf. system
> ELLEIPO) so that tests for a new target language require the set up of
> syntactic trees to be read in by the system. All CCE paraphrases  
> for any
> input sentence—provided as output by the ELLEIPO system—have to be
> inspected by native speaker with respect to overgeneration, i.e.  
> does the
> list contain any ungrammatical sentence, and undergeneration, i.e.  
> does
> the list lack any CCE paraphrase that is licensed in the currently
> investigated target language. We show the implementation for Dutch and
> German, two Indo-European languages, and for Estonian and  
> Hungarian, two
> Finno-Ugric languages.
>
> With respect to incremental production of ellipsis, we present results
> from four different corpus studies. After an account of our data
> extraction method, we will present a detailed overview of the  
> incidence of
> four types of clausal coordinate ellipsis in the spoken and written
> treebanks in Dutch (ALPINO and CGN 2.0) and German (TIGER and  
> VERBMOBIL).
> Based on the deviating numbers for the individual CCE types, we  
> propose a
> theoretical explanation of the data pattern based on the assumption  
> that
> during spontaneous speaking the scope (“window”) of online grammatical
> planning is basically restricted to one (finite) clause. In producing
> clausal coordinations, checking the possibility of “forward” ellipsis
> (Gapping, Forward Conjunction Reduction) requires comparison of  
> form and
> meaning of two adjacent clauses. As this overtaxes the online planning
> scope of the sentence production system, speakers prefer to plan  
> the form
> of second or later conjoined clauses in isolation, that is, without  
> taking
> the shape of preceding clauses into account and thereby eliminating
> elliptical options. RNR, the “backward” versions of coordinate  
> ellipsis,
> is more severely affected in spoken language because it requires the
> simultaneous presence within the planning window of (nearly) two  
> complete
> clauses. Indeed, whilst RNR is readily observable in written texts, in
> spoken language it is a rare phenomenon manifesting itself only in  
> very
> short clauses.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/parislinguists/attachments/20121023/c8f2f3c8/attachment.htm>