Nutrition et lexicographie : le champ lexical ‘nourriture’ (huit vocables dans le Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français contemporain)

Ce travail, qui s'inscrit dans le cadre du Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français contemporain, propose les articles de dictionnaire de huit vocables faisant partie du champ lexical ‘nourriture’ : NOURRIR, SE NOURRIR, NOURRISSANT, et cætera. À l'encontre de ce que laissent entendre les dictionnaires courants, on démontre que le champ ‘nourriture’ est sémantiquement sous-jacent au champ ‘aliment’. À partir des définitions dans les dictionnaires courants, on retrace les sens les plus fondamentaux à l'intérieur du champ ‘nourriture’, on établit des ponts sémantiques entre les lexèmes d'un même vocable et on propose un ordre selon lequel les lexèmes des vocables en question devraient être définis. On examine ensuite les conséquences de notre desription sémantique de SE NOURRIR sur les définitions des verbes pronominaux dans le DEC, et on justifie certaines composantes sémantiques de nos définitions.This paper proposes the dictionary entries for eight French vocables that belong to the lexical field of 'nourriture' [='food']: NOURRIR 'feed [trans]', SE NOURRIR 'feed [intrans]', NOURRISSANT 'nourishing', et cetera. The description is carried out within the framework of the Explicative Combinatorial Dictionary of Modern French (ECDMF). Contrary to the position of the extant dictionaries, we claim that the field of 'nourriture' semantically underlies the field of 'aliment' [ = 'foodstuff', 'type of food']. Proceeding from the definitions found in extant dictionaries, we establish fundamental lexical meanings within the 'nourriture' field, point out semantic bridges between lexemes of the same vocable and suggest the order in which the lexemes of the above field should be defined. The impact of our semantic description of SE NOURRIR on the definitions of pronominal verbs in the ECDMF is discussed; certain semantic components used in the proposed definitions are justified

Le champ lexical « étendues d’eau » et quelques vocables apparentés dans le Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français contemporain (12 vocables)

Cet article, qui s’inscrit dans l’optique du Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français contemporain, traite d’un champ lexical comportant des noms concrets et présentant un système de définitions structuré de façon rigide et précise. On énoncera trois principes lexicographiques, qui nous permettront de distinguer clairement les diverses composantes sémantiques qui constitueront ces définitions. Les composantes exprimant la dimension occupent une place importante dans notre article, vu leur caractère relatif. On expliquera les notions de ‘moyenne’ et ‘extrême’ ainsi que d’‘échelle dimensionnelle’.This article, written within the framework of the Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary of Modern French, deals with a lexical field composed of concrete nouns, which presents a system of definitions structured in a rigid and precise way. The three lexicographic principles to be stated, will allow us to clearly distinguish the different semantic components that will constitute these definitions. The components conveying the dimensional meaning occupy a special place because of their relative character. The concepts of 'average size' and 'extreme size' are introduced together with 'dimensional scale'

Lexical Functions in Lexicographic Description

Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1982

Plagiarism meets paraphrasing: insights for the next generation in automatic plagiarism detection

[EN] Although paraphrasing is the linguistic mechanism underlying many plagiarism cases, little attention has been paid to its analysis in the framework of automatic plagiarism detection. Therefore, state-of-the-art plagiarism detectors find it difficult to detect cases of paraphrase plagiarism. In this article, we analyze the relationship between paraphrasing and plagiarism, paying special attention to which paraphrase phenomena underlie acts of plagiarism and which of them are detected by plagiarism detection systems. With this aim in mind, we created the P4P corpus, a new resource that uses a paraphrase typology to annotate a subset of the PAN-PC-10 corpus for automatic plagiarism detection. The results of the Second International Competition on Plagiarism Detection were analyzed in the light of this annotation.The presented experiments show that (i) more complex paraphrase phenomena and a high density of paraphrase mechanisms make plagiarism detection more difficult, (ii) lexical substitutions are the paraphrase mechanisms used the most when plagiarizing, and (iii) paraphrase mechanisms tend to shorten the plagiarized text. For the first time, the paraphrase mechanisms behind plagiarism have been analyzed, providing critical insights for the improvement of automatic plagiarism detection systems.We would like to thank the people who participated in the annotation of the P4P corpus, Horacio Rodriguez for his helpful advice as experienced researcher, and the reviewers of this contribution for their valuable comments to improve this article. This research work was partially carried out during the tenure of an ERCIM "Alain Bensoussan" Fellowship Programme. The research leading to these results received funding from the EU FP7 Programme 2007-2013 (grant no. 246016), the MICINN projects TEXT-ENTERPRISE 2.0 and TEXT-KNOWLEDGE 2.0 (TIN2009-13391), the EC WIQ-EI IRSES project (grant no. 269180), and the FP7 Marie Curie People Programme. The research work of A. Barron-Cedeno and M. Vila was financed by the CONACyT-Mexico 192021 grant and the MECD-Spain FPU AP2008-02185 grant, respectively. The research work of A. Barron-Cedeno was partially done in the framework of his Ph.D. at the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia.Barrón Cedeño, LA.; Vila, M.; Martí, MA.; Rosso, P. (2013). Plagiarism meets paraphrasing: insights for the next generation in automatic plagiarism detection. Computational Linguistics. 39(4):917-947. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00153S917947394Barzilay, Regina. 2003. Information Fusion for Multidocument Summarization: Paraphrasing and Generation. Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, New York.Barzilay, R., & Lee, L. (2003). Learning to paraphrase. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology - NAACL ’03. doi:10.3115/1073445.1073448Barzilay, Regina and Kathleen R. McKeown. 2001. Extracting paraphrases from a parallel corpus. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2001), pages 50–57, Toulouse.Barzilay, R., McKeown, K. R., & Elhadad, M. (1999). Information fusion in the context of multi-document summarization. Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Computational Linguistics -. doi:10.3115/1034678.1034760Bhagat, Rahul. 2009. Learning Paraphrases from Text. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Cheung, Mei Ling Lisa. 2009. Merging Corpus Linguistics and Collaborative Knowledge Construction. Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.Cohn, T., Callison-Burch, C., & Lapata, M. (2008). Constructing Corpora for the Development and Evaluation of Paraphrase Systems. Computational Linguistics, 34(4), 597-614. doi:10.1162/coli.08-003-r1-07-044Dras, Mark. 1999. Tree Adjoining Grammar and the Reluctant Paraphrasing of Text. Ph.D. thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney.Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing Revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400. doi:10.2307/356602Fujita, Atsushi. 2005. Automatic Generation of Syntactically Well-formed and Semantically Appropriate Paraphrases. Ph.D. thesis, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Nara.Grozea, C., & Popescu, M. (2010). Who’s the Thief? Automatic Detection of the Direction of Plagiarism. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 700-710. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12116-6_59GÜLICH, E. (2003). Conversational Techniques Used in Transferring Knowledge between Medical Experts and Non-experts. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 235-263. doi:10.1177/1461445603005002005Harris, Z. S. (1957). Co-Occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure. Language, 33(3), 283. doi:10.2307/411155KETCHEN Jr., D. J., & SHOOK, C. L. (1996). THE APPLICATION OF CLUSTER ANALYSIS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: AN ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE. Strategic Management Journal, 17(6), 441-458. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199606)17:63.0.co;2-gMcCarthy, D., & Navigli, R. (2009). The English lexical substitution task. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(2), 139-159. doi:10.1007/s10579-009-9084-1Recasens, M., & Vila, M. (2010). On Paraphrase and Coreference. Computational Linguistics, 36(4), 639-647. doi:10.1162/coli_a_00014Shimohata, Mitsuo. 2004. Acquiring Paraphrases from Corpora and Its Application to Machine Translation. Ph.D. thesis, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Nara.Stein, B., Potthast, M., Rosso, P., Barrón-Cedeño, A., Stamatatos, E., & Koppel, M. (2011). Fourth international workshop on uncovering plagiarism, authorship, and social software misuse. ACM SIGIR Forum, 45(1), 45. doi:10.1145/1988852.198886