https://doi.org/10.31261/NEO.2023.35.06
When it comes to language, it’s not just the grammatical structure and the literal meaning of words that matter. The way a predicate imposes inferences on its propositional arguments is crucial to understanding the true meaning of a message. However, these inferences are influenced by many factors, such as prosody, world knowledge, speakers’ expectations regarding language use, situational stereotypes, and other implicit or contextual elements.
In this paper, we examine the inferential status of the verbs referred to by Karttunen as “implicative verbs”. On the one hand, two-way implicative verbs, and on the other, one-way implicative verbs. The latter have been little studied from this perspective. This will lead us to highlight the fundamental role, too often forgotten, of prosody and focus/theme in this type of analysis and in determining the inferential status of predicates.
Our analyses show that, once prosody has been considered, the classification of theoretically possible verb inferences accepted until now needs to be modified.
We do not have 4 groups of one-way implicative verbs, as has been argued, but 2, namely the groups: [+/+/– // –/–] [affirmed > true or false // denied > false] of the type être capable, pouvoir and [+/+/– // –/+] [affirmed > true or false // denied > true] of the type hésiter à.
The remaining two groups, considered as distinct and autonomous one-way implicative verbs with the suggested characteristics: [+ + // – +/–] [affirmed > true // denied > true or false] of the type forcer to and [+ – // – +/–] [affirmed > false // denied > true or false] of the type refuser de, belong to the canonical groups of two-way implicative verbs, respectively: forcer à to the group of verbs of the type réussir à: [+/+ // –/–] [affirmed > true // denied > false] and refuser de to the group of verbs of the type oublier de: [+/– // –/+] affirmed > false // denied > true].
Naturally, this classification differentiation, important as it is, only reflects the different behaviour of certain types of predicate, and this is the most important element of these analyses with a view to automating the recognition of predicate inferences.
Références
Abeillé, A. & Bonami, O. (2020). Constraint-based Syntax and Semantics: Papers in Honor of Danièle Godard. The University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Abrusán, M. (2016). Presupposition cancellation: explaining the “soft–hard” trigger distinction. Natural Language Semantics 24(2), 165–202.
Google Scholar
Abrusán, M. (2022). Presuppositions. Dans D. Altshuler (éd.), Linguistics meets Philosophy (470–501). Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Abusch, D. (2009). Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27, 37–80.
Google Scholar
Ajdukiewicz, K. (1956). Okres warunkowy a implikacja materialna. Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic 4, 117–153.
Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I. (1917). The Issues Concerning Material Implication. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 14(13), 350–356.
Google Scholar
Altshuler, D. (éd.) (2022). Linguistics meets Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Anscombre, J.-Cl. & Ducrot, O. (1983). L’argumentation dans la langue. Pierre Mardaga.
Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E. et al. (2013). Information structure: linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science 4(4), 403–413.
Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (2005). Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Avanzi, M., Simon, A. C., & Post, B. (2016). La prosodie du français : accentuation et phrasé. Langue française 3(191), 5–10.
Google Scholar
Baglini, R. B. & Francez, I. (2016). The Implications of Managing. Journal of Semantics 5(33), 541–560.
Google Scholar
Banyś, W. (1989). Théorie sémantique et si… alors. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Google Scholar
Banyś, W. (2000). Système de « si » en français moderne. Esquisse d’une approche cognitive. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Google Scholar
Banyś, W. (2020). Pragmatèmes au pays de la prosodie. Neophilologica 32, 89–117.
Google Scholar
Banyś, W. & Karolak, S. (éds) (1988). Structure thème-rhème dans les langues romanes et slaves. Ossolineum.
Google Scholar
Battistella, E. (1990). Markedness. The evaluative superstructure of language. State University of New York Press.
Google Scholar
Bauerle, U. Reyle, U. & Zimmermann, T. E. (éds) (2010). Presuppositions and discourse: essays offered to Hans Kamp. Elsevier.
Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (2010). Have you noticed that your belly button lint colour is related to the colour of your clothing?. Dans U. Bauerle, U. Reyle & T. E. Zimmermann (éds), Presuppositions and discourse: essays offered to Hans Kamp (65–99). Elsevier.
Google Scholar
Beaver, D. & Clark, B. (2008). Sense and sensitivity: how focus determines meaning. Wiley-Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Beaver, D. et al. (2017). Questions under discussion: Where information structure meets projective content. Annual Review of Linguistics 3, 265–284.
Google Scholar
Beaver, D. I., Geurts, B. & Denlinger, K. (2021). Presupposition. Dans E. N. Zalta (éd.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Google Scholar
Benz, A. & Jasinskaja, K. (2017). Questions Under Discussion: From Sentence to Discourse. Discourse Processes 54(3), 177–186.
Google Scholar
Bertrand, R. et al. (2022). La prosodie au Laboratoire Parole et Langage : histoire, recherches actuelles et perspectives. TIPA. Travaux interdisciplinaires sur la parole et le langage 38, 1–40.
Google Scholar
Beyssade, C. et al. (2015). Prosodic Realizations of Information Focus in French. Dans L. Frazier & E. Gibson (éds), Explicit and Implicit Prosody in Sentence Processing. Studies in Honor of Janet Dean Fodor (39–61). Springer International Publishing.
Google Scholar
Bianchi, C. (éd.) (2004). The semantics/pragmatics distinction. CSLI Publications.
Google Scholar
Biglari, A. & Bonhomme, M. (éds). (2018). La Présupposition entre théorisation et mise en discours. Garnier.
Google Scholar
Bocci, G., Bianchi, V. & Cruschina, S. (2020). Focus in wh-questions. Natural Language & Linguistic theory 39(2), 405–455.
Google Scholar
Bogusławski, A. (1977). Problems of the Thematic- Rhematic Structure of Utterances. PWN.
Google Scholar
Bogusławski, A. (1986). Analiza zdań warunkowych a problem funkcji semiotycznych. Studia semiotyczne 14–15, 215–224.
Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and Its Parts: Melody in Spoken English. Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1989). Intonation and Its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. Edward Arnold.
Google Scholar
Büring, D. (2016). Intonation and meaning. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. Dans C. N. Li (éd.), Subject and Topic (25–55). Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Chen, I.-H., Huang, C.-R. & Politzer-Ahles, S. (2018). Determining the Types of Contrasts: The Influences of Prosody on Pragmatic Inferences. Frontiers in Psychology 9, 1–9.
Google Scholar
Chungmin Lee, Ch., Gordon, M. & Büring, D. (éds). (2007). Topic and Focus. Cross-
Google Scholar
linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation. Springer.
Google Scholar
Cole, P. (1978). Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Coleman, L. (1975). The case of the vanishing presupposition. Proceedings of the first Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1, 78–89.
Google Scholar
Cruschina, S. (2022). Focus and Focus Structures in the Romance Languages. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics (1–48). Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M., Lowe, J. J. & Mycock, L. (2019). Prosodic structure. Dans M. Dalrymple, J.J. Lowe & L. Mycock, The Oxford Reference Guide to Lexical Functional Grammar (395–435). Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Dargnat, M., Bartkova, K. & Jouvet, D. (2015). Discourse particles in French: Prosodic parameters extraction and analysis. Dans A. H. Dediu, C. Martín-Vide, R. Mitkov & B. Truthe, B. (éds), Statistical Language and Speech Processing (40–49). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Google Scholar
Dargnat, M. & Jayez, J. (2020). Presupposition Projection and Main Content. Dans A. Abeille & O. Bonami (éds), Constraint-based Syntax and Semantics : Papers in Honor of Danièle Godard (101–126). Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Google Scholar
Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (éds) (1975). The Logic of Grammar. Dickenson.
Google Scholar
Dediu, A.-H., Martín-Vide, C. & Vicsi, K. (éds) (2015). Statistical Language and Speech Processing III. Springer.
Google Scholar
Degen, J. & Tonhauser, J. (2022). Are there factive predicates? An empirical investigation. Language 98, 552–591.
Google Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, E. et al. (2015). Intonational phonology of French: Developing a ToBI system for French. Dans S. Frota & P. Prieto (éds), Intonation in Romance (63–100). Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Dendale, P., Vanderheyden, A. & Schuring, M. (2022). Visiblement, adverbe de phrase évidentiel ou visiblement, adverbe de constituant exprimant la manière. La prosodie comme nouveau critère. Langages 227, 57–78.
Google Scholar
Di Cristo, A. (1998). Intonation in French. Dans D. Hirst & A. Di Cristo (éds), Intonation Systems. A Survey of Twenty Languages (195–218). Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Di Cristo, A. (2000). Vers une modélisation de l’accentuation du français (seconde partie). Journal of French language studies 10(1), 27–44.
Google Scholar
Di Cristo, A. (2013). La Prosodie de la parole. De Boeck-Solal.
Google Scholar
Djärv, K. & Bacovcin, H. A. (2017). Prosodic effects on factive presupposition projection. Journal of Pragmatics 169, 61–85.
Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1972). Dire et ne pas Dire. Hermann.
Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le Dire et le Dit. Éditions de Minuit.
Google Scholar
Erdmann, P. (1974). Factive, implicative verbs and the order of operators. Studia Linguistica 28(1), 51–63.
Google Scholar
Eschenberg, A. (2007). Polish Narrow Focus Constructions. Dans C. Lee, M. Gordon & D. Büring (éds), Topic and Focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation (23–40). Springer Netherlands.
Google Scholar
Fasciolo, M. (2012). Présuppositions immédiates vs Présuppositions médiates. Langages 186(2/2012), 37–51.
Google Scholar
Féry, C. (2017). Intonation and Prosodic Structure. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Dans C. J. Fillmore et al. (éds), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (123–131). University of California.
Google Scholar
Fintel, K. V. (1999). NPI Licensing, Strawson Entailment, and Context Dependency. Journal of Semantics 16, 97–148.
Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Gibson, E. (éds) (2016). Explicit and Implicit Prosody in Sentence Processing. Studies in Honor of Janet Dean Fodor. Springer International Publishing.
Google Scholar
Gardes Tamine, J. (2018). Chapitre 2. La prosodie. Dans J. Gardes Tamine (éd.), La grammaire : Tome 1 – Phonologie, morphologie, lexicologie (37–47). Armand Colin.
Google Scholar
Fox, D. & Katzir, R. (2009). On the characterization of alternatives for implicature and for focus. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 60, 101–111.
Google Scholar
Frota, S. & Prieto, P. (éds) (2015). Intonation in Romance. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Gorka, E., Lee, C., Gordon, M. & Büring, D. (éds) (2007). Topic and Focus: Cross-
Google Scholar
Linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation. Springer.
Google Scholar
Gotzner, N. (2017). The Mechanisms of Activation and Competitive Inhibition. Dans C. Palgrave Macmillan (éd.), Alternative Sets in Language Processing (71–101). Springer.
Google Scholar
Gotzner, N. (2019). The role of focus intonation in implicature computation: a comparison with only and also. Natural Language Semantics 27, 189–226.
Google Scholar
Grindrod, J. & Borg, E. (2019). Questions Under Discussion and the Semantics/Pragmatics Divide. The Philosophical Quarterly 69, 1–9.
Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Dans D. Davidson & G. Harman (éds), Speech acts (41–58), Brill.
Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. Dans P. Cole (éd.), Pragmatics. Vol. 9 of Syntax and Semantics (113–127). Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Gussenhhoven, C. & Chen, A. (éds), (2021). The Oxford Handbook of Language Prosody. Oxford Handbooks.
Google Scholar
Hajičova, E., Partee, B. & Sgall, P. (1998). Topic-Foucs Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantic Content. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Google Scholar
Harris, R. J. (1974). Memory for presuppositions and implications: a case study of 12 verbs of motion and inception-termination. Journal of Experimental Psychology 103, 594–597.
Google Scholar
Hasler, E. et al. (2017). A comparison of neural models for word ordering. Dans J. M. Alonso, A. Bugarín & E. Reiter (éds), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Natural Language Generation (208–212). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Google Scholar
Hazlett, A. (2010). The Myth of Factive Verbs. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 80, 497–522.
Google Scholar
Hedberg N. & Sosa J. M. (2008). The Prosody of Topic and Focus in Spontaneous English Dialogue. Dans E. Gorka, C. Lee, M. Gordon & D. Büring (éds) (éds), Topic and Focus: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation. Springer.
Google Scholar
Hesse, Ch. et al. (2022). Testing Focus and Non-at-issue Frameworks with a Question-under-Discussion-Annotated Corpus. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2022), 5212–5219.
Google Scholar
von Heusinger, K. & Turner, K. (éds) (2006). Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics. Elsevier Ltd.
Google Scholar
Hirose, K. & Tao, J. (2015). Speech Prosody in Speech Synthesis: Modeling and Generation of Prosody for High Quality and Flexible Speech Synthesis. Springer.
Google Scholar
Hirschberg, J. (2006). Pragmatics and Intonation. Dans L. R. Horn & G. Ward (éds). The Handbook of Pragmatics (515–537). Blackwell Publishing Malden.
Google Scholar
Hirst, D. & Di Cristo, A. (éds) (1998). Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2006). The Border Wars: A Neo-Gricean Perspective. Dans K. von Heusinger & K. Turner (éds), Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics (21–49). Elsevier Ltd.
Google Scholar
Horn, L. (2000). From if to iff: Conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 289–326.
Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (éds) (2006). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell Publishing Malden.
Google Scholar
Jeong, S. (2021). Prosodically-conditioned factive inferences in Korean: An experimental study. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 30, 1–21.
Google Scholar
Jeong, S. (2020). The Effect of Prosody on Veridicality Inferences in Korean. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 12331, 133–147.
Google Scholar
Kaiser, E. & Trueswell, J.C. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition 94, 113–147.
Google Scholar
Karolak S. (1984). Składnia wyrażeń predykatywnych. Dans M. Grochowski, S. Karolak & Z. Topolińska (éds), Gramatyka wspótczesnego jezyka polskiego. Składnia (11–210). PWN.
Google Scholar
Karolak S. (2007). Składnia francuska o podstawach semantycznych. T. 1. Collegium Columbinum.
Google Scholar
Karolak S. & Bogacki K. (1991). Fondements d’une grammaire à base Sémantique. Lingua e Stile 26(3), 11–48.
Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1971a). Implicative verbs. Language 47, 340–358.
Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1971b). Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistic 4, 55–69.
Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1973). La logique, des constructions anglaises à complément prédicatif. Langages 8(30), 56–80.
Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. & Peters, P. (1979). Conventional implicature. Dans C. K. Oh & D. A. Dinneen (éd.), Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition (1–56). Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. et al. (2012). Simple-implicatives. Stanford University.
Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (2012). Simple and Phrasal Implicatives. SEM 2012: The First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics – Volume 1: Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and Volume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2012), 124–131.
Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (2015). From Natural Logic to Natural Reasoning. Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, 295–309.
Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (2016). Presupposition: What went wrong. Dans M. Moroney, C.-R. Little, J. Collard & D. Burgdorf (éds), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (705–731). CLC Publications.
Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. & Cases, I. (2019). Teaching a Neural Network to Reason with Implicatives. Presentation, CLASP, University of Gothenburg.
Google Scholar
Kastner, I. (2015). Factivity mirrors interpretation: The selectional requirements of presuppositional verbs. Lingua 164, 156–188.
Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Selkirk, E. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from prosodic prominence in English. Language 87(4), 771–816.
Google Scholar
Keller, F. & Alexopoulou, T. (2001). Phonology competes with syntax: experimental evidence for the interaction of word order and accent placement in the realization of Information Structure. Cognition 79, 301–372.
Google Scholar
Kim, Ch., (2019). Focus. Dans C. Cummins & N. Katsos (éds), The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford Academic.
Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. Dans M. Bierwisch & K. E. Heidolph (éds), Progress in linguistics (143–173). Mouton.
Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. (2012). Sur la présupposition. Langages 186(2/2012), 21–36.
Google Scholar
Koev, T. (2018). Notions of at-issueness. Lang. Linguistics Compass 12, 1–17.
Google Scholar
Köhler, W. (1920). Gestalt psychology. Liveright.
Google Scholar
Kumar, Y., Koul, A. & Singh, C. (2023). A deep learning approaches in text-to-speech system: a systematic review and recent research perspective. Multimedia Tools and Applications 82, 15171–15197.
Google Scholar
Kurumada, C. & Clark, E. V. (2016). Pragmatic inferences in context: learning to interpret contrastive prosody. Journal of Child Language 44(4), 850–880.
Google Scholar
Kügler, F. & Calhoun, S. (2023). Prosodic Encoding of Information Structure: A typological perspective. Dans C. Gussenhhoven & A. Chen (éds), The Oxford Handbook of Language Prosody (454–467). Oxford Academic.
Google Scholar
Lacheret-Dujour, A. & Morel, M. (2011). Modéliser la prosodie pour la synthèse à partir du texte : perspectives sémantico-pragmatiques. Dans F. Neveu, P. Blumenthal & N. Lequerler (éds), Au commencement était le verbe : syntaxe, semantique et cognition : mélanges en l’honneur du Professeur Jacques François (299–325). Peter Lang.
Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1980). The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English. Indiana University Press.
Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Lacheret-Dujour, A. & Beaugendre, F. (1999). La prosodie du français. Éditions du CNRS.
Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar
Lappin, Sh. (éd.) (2015). The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Lee, C., Gordon, M. & Büring, D. (éds) (2008). Topic and Focus. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Springer.
Google Scholar
Lee, Ch., Kiefer, F. & Krifka, M. (éds) (2017). Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures. Springer.
Google Scholar
Léon, P. R., Martin, P. & Baligand, R. A. (1969). Prolégomènes à l’étude des structures intonatives. Didier.
Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1995). Three levels of meaning, Grammar and Meaning. Dans F. R. Palmer (éd.), Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons (90–115). Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I. (1917). The Issues Concerning Material Implication. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 14(13), 350–356.
Google Scholar
Li, C. N. (éd.) (1976). Subject and Topic. Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Li, N. et al. (2018). Close to Human Quality TTS with Transformer. ArXiv, abs/1809.08895.
Google Scholar
Lin, P. (2018a). The Prosody of Formulaic Sequences. A Corpus and Discourse Approach. Bloomsbury Academic.
Google Scholar
Lin, P. (2018b). Formulaic language and speech prosody. Dans A. Siyanova-Chanturia & A. Pellicer-Sánchez (éds), Understanding Formulaic Language: A Second Language Acquisition Perspective (78–94). Routledge.
Google Scholar
MacCartney, B. & Manning, C. D. (2007). Natural Logic for Textual Inference. Proceedings of the Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing, 193–200.
Google Scholar
Mahler, T. (2019). Does at-issueness predict projection? It’s complicated!. Proceedings of the 49th Meeting of the Nort East Linguistics Society 2, 245–255.
Google Scholar
Martin, Ph. (2009). Intonation du français. Armand Colin.
Google Scholar
Martin Ph. (2015). The Structure of Spoken Language. Intonation in Romance. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Martin, Ph. (2018). Intonation, structure prosodique et ondes cérébrales. ISTE.
Google Scholar
Martin, Ph. (2019). Génération automatique de la structure prosodique en français. Journal of Speech Sciences 7(2), 79–91.
Google Scholar
Mertens, P. (2004). Le prosogramme : une transcription semi-automatique de la prosodie. Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 30(1–3), 7–25.
Google Scholar
Mertens, P. (2008). Syntaxe, prosodie et structure informationnelle : une approche prédictive pour l’analyse de l’intonation dans le discours. Travaux de Linguistique 56(1), 87–124.
Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2018). Présupposition et implicature. Où passe la frontière ?. Dans A. Biglari & M. Bonhomme (éds), La présupposition entre théorisation et mise en discours (7–82). Classiques Garnier.
Google Scholar
Munitz, M. K. & Unger, P. K. (éds) (1974). Semantics and philosophy. New York University Press.
Google Scholar
Nadathur, P. (2016). Causal necessity and sufficiency in implicativity. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 26, 1002–1021.
Google Scholar
Nelson, J. O. (1966). Is Material Implication Inferentially Harmless?. Mind 75(300), 542–551.
Google Scholar
Nairn, R., Condoravdi, C. & Karttunen, L. (2006). Computing relative polarity for textual inference. Proceedings of Inference in Computational Semantics, 67–76.
Google Scholar
Neveu, F., Blumenthal, P. & Lequerler, N. (éds) (2012). Au commencement était le verbe : syntaxe, sémantique et cognition : mélanges en l’honneur du Professeur Jacques François. Peter Lang.
Google Scholar
Ning, Y. et al. (2019). A Review of Deep Learning Based Speech Synthesis. Applied Sciences 9(19), 40–50.
Google Scholar
Nuthakki, P. et al. (2023). Deep Learning based Multilingual Speech Synthesis using Multi Feature Fusion Methods. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing, 1–17.
Google Scholar
Oh, Ch-K. & Dinneen, D. A. (éds) (1979). Syntax and Semantics 11. Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (éd.) (1995). Essays in Honour of Sir John, Lyons. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Pamisetty, G. & Sri Rama Murty, K. (2023). Prosody-TTS: An End-to-End Speech Synthesis System with Prosody Control. Circuits Syst Signal Process 42, 361–384.
Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (2009). Formal Semantics, APPENDIX to Lecture 7: Implicatures, Presuppositions, etc. MGU April 17, 2009, 1–2.
Google Scholar
Pavlick, E. & Callison-Burch, C. (2016). Tense Manages to Predict Implicative Behavior in Verbs. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2225–2229.
Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English Intonation. Thèse de doctorat, M.I.T.
Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. & Hirschberg, J. (1992). ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. Proceedings International Conference of Spoken Language Processing 2, 867–870.
Google Scholar
Portes, C. & Reyle, U. (2022). Combining syntax and prosody to signal information structure: the case of French. Proceedings of the Conference on Speech Prosody 2022, 87–91.
Google Scholar
Post, B. (2000). Tonal and phrasal structures in French intonation, Academic graphics.
Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2004). ‘What is said’ and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. WOC 2002: Semantics and Pragmatics, Oct 2002, Genoa, 45–64.
Google Scholar
Ren, Y. et al. (2020). FastSpeech 2: Fast and High-Quality End-to-End Text to Speech. ArXiv, abs/2006.04558.
Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Dans J.-H. Toon & A. Kathol (éds), Papers in Semantics 49 (91–136). The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics.
Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2012). Information Structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5, 1–69.
Google Scholar
Rossi, M. (199). L’Intonation. Le système du français : description et modélisation. Ophrys.
Google Scholar
Persson, R. (2017). La prosodie comme ressource pour l’organisation de l’interaction : état des lieux et illustrations. Revue française de linguistique appliquée 22(2), 33–52.
Google Scholar
Ronai, E. & Xiang, M. (2021). Pragmatic inferences are QUD-sensitive: An experimental study. Journal of Linguistics 57(4), 841–870.
Google Scholar
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.
Google Scholar
Rooth, M. (1996). Focus. Dans Sh. Lappin (éd.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (271–97). Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Sadock, J. (1978). On testing for conversational implicature. Dans P. Cole (éd.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics (281–297). Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Sander, T. (2022). Taxonomizing Non-at-Issue Contents. Grazer Philosophische Studien 99(1), 1–34.
Google Scholar
Saul, J. (2002). Speaker meaning, what is said, and what is implicated. Noûs 36, 228–248.
Google Scholar
Schwarz, F. (2019). Presuppositions, Projection, and Accommodation. Dans C. Cummins & N. Katsos (éds), The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford Academic.
Google Scholar
Simon, A. C. (2004). La structuration prosodique du discours en français : une approche multidimensionnelle et expérientielle. P. Lang.
Google Scholar
Simons, M. et al. (2010). What projects and why. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20, 309–327.
Google Scholar
Simons, M. et al. (2017). The Best Question: Explaining the Projection Behavior of Factives. Discourse Processes 54, 187–206.
Google Scholar
Sini, A. et al. (2022). Techniques de synthèse vocale neuronale à l’épreuve des données d’apprentissage non dédiées : les livres audio amateurs en francais. Traitement Automatique des Langues 63(2), 41–65.
Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A. & Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (éds) (2018). Understanding Formulaic Language: A Second Language Acquisition Perspective. Routledge.
Google Scholar
Sloan, R., Adigwe, A., Mohandoss, S. & Hirschberg, J. (2022). Incorporating Prosodic Events in Text-to-Speech Synthesis. Proceedings of the Conference on Speech Prosody 2022, 287–291.
Google Scholar
Spalek, K., & Oganian, Y. (2019). The neurocognitive signature of focus alternatives. Brain and language 194, 98–108.
Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. Dans M. K. Munitz & P. K. Unger (éds), Semantics and philosophy (197–213). New York University Press.
Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1966). The Bounds of Sense. Methuen.
Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1971). Logico-Linguistic Papers. Methuen.
Google Scholar
Tan, X. (2023). Neural Text-to-Speech Synthesis. Springer.
Google Scholar
Teh, T. H. et al. (2023). Ensemble Prosody Prediction for Expressive Speech Synthesis. ICASSP 2023–2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 1–5.
Google Scholar
Toon, J.-H. & Kathol, A. (éds) (1996). Papers in Semantics 49. The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics.
Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2019). Prosody and Meaning. Dans Ch. Cummins & N. Katsos (éds), The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics (494–511). Oxford Academic.
Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2016). Prosodic cues to presupposition projection. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 26, 934–960.
Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. et al. (2013). Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89, 66–109.
Google Scholar
Wagner, M. & Watson, D. G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and cognitive processes 25(7–9), 905–945.
Google Scholar
Davis, W. (2019). Implicature. Dans E. N. Zalta (éd.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M. et al. (éds) (1945). Productive thinking. Harper and Brothers.
Google Scholar
White, A. S. & Rawlins, K. (2018). The role of veridicality and factivity in clause selection. Proceedings of The 48th Annual Meeting of The North East Linguistic Society, 221–234.
Google Scholar
Witek, M. & Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (éds) (2019). Varieties and Dynamics of Speech Actions. Brill Rodopi.
Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Brace & Company, Inc./Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd.
Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophische Untersuchungen/Philosophical Investigations. Basil Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Włodarczyk, M. (2019). Are Implicative Verbs Presupposition Triggers? Evidence from Polish. Dans M. Witek, I. Witczak-Plisiecka (éds), Varieties and Dynamics of Speech Actions (206–230). Brill Rodopi.
Google Scholar
Włodarczyk, M. (2021). Processing presuppositions. Are implicative verbs soft triggers?. Research in Language 19(1), 47–75.
Google Scholar
Xin, D. et al. (2023). Improving Speech Prosody of Audiobook Text-To-Speech Synthesis with Acoustic and Textual Contexts, ICASSP 2023–2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Rhodes Island, Greece, 2023, 1–5.
Google Scholar
Zalta E. N. (éd.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Google Scholar
Ziembicki, D., Seweryn, K. & Wróblewska, A. (2022). Polish natural language inference and factivity: An expert-based dataset and benchmarks. Natural Language Engineering, 1–32.
Google Scholar
Ziembicki, D. (2022). Lingwistyczna analiza zjawiska faktywności (na materiale współczesnej polszczyzny). Université de Varsovie.
Google Scholar
Zuber, R. (1972). Structure présuppositionnelle du langage. Dunod.
Google Scholar
Zwanenburg, W. (1965). Recherches sur la prosodie de la phrase française. Universitaire Pers Leiden.
Google Scholar
Vol. 35 (2023)
Publié: 2024-05-14
10.31261/NEO
Français (France)
English
