References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2023
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Annotation-Based Semantics for Space and Time in Language , pp. 438 - 453Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Abzianidze, Lasha, Bjerva, Johannes, Evang, Kilian, Haagsma, Hessel, Noord, Rik van, Ludmann, Pierre, Nguyen, Duc-Duy, and Bos, Johan 2017. The Parallel Meaning Bank: Towards a multilingual corpus of translation annotated with compositional meaning representations. Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 242–247. Valencia, Spain: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Allen, James F. 1984. Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence 23, 123–154. Reprinted in Mani et al. (eds.) (2005), pp. 251–276.Google Scholar
Allen, James F. and Ferguson, George 1994. Actions and events in interval temporal logic. Technical Report 521 (July 1994), The University of Rochester Computer Science Department, Rochester, New York;Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Allen, James F. and Kautz, Henry A. 1985. A model of naive temporal reasoning. In Hobbs, Jerry R. and Moore, Robert C. (eds.), Formal Theories of Common Sense World, 251–268. New York: Ablex Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 5–16. Reprinted in Mani et al. (eds.) (2005), pp. 61–69.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon, Jelinet, Eloise, Kratzer, Angelika, and Partee, Barbara H. (eds.) 1995. Quantification in Natural Languages. Dodrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Banarescu, Laura, Bonial, Claire, Cai, Shu, Georgescu, Madalina, Griffitt, Kira, Hermjakob, Ulf, Knight, Kevin, Koehn, Phillip, Palmer, Martha, and Schneider, Nathan 2013. Abstract meaning representation or Sembanking. Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse, pp. 178–186, August 8–9, 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
Baker, Collin F., Fillmore, Charles J., and Lowe, John B. 1998. The Berkeley FrameNet project. In ACL ’98/COLING ’98: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, August 1998, pp. 86–90. www.aclweb.org/anthology/P98-113.pdfGoogle Scholar
Baker, Collin F., Fillmore, Charles J., and Cronin, Beau 2003. The structure of the FrameNet database. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3), 281–296.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon, and Cooper, Robin 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, John A., Hois, Joana, Ross, Robert, and Tenbrink, Thora 2010. A linguistic ontology of space for natural language processing. Artificial Intelligence 174 (2010), 1027–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beesley, Kenneth, and Karttunen, Lauri 2003. Finite State Morphology, CSLI Studies in Computational Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bennett, David C. 1975. Spatial and Temporal Uses of English Prepositions: An Essay in Stratificational Semantics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bennett, Michael, and Partee, Barbara H. 1978. Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Indianapolis: The Indiana University Linguistics Club. Reprinted in Partee (2004), pp. 59–109.Google Scholar
Bos, Johan 2020. Separating argument structure from logical structure in AMR. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Designing Meaning Representations, pp. 13–20. Barcelona, Spain (Online), December 13, 2020.Google Scholar
Bos, Johan, Basile, Valerio, Evang, Kilian, Venhuizen, Noortje J., and Bjerva, Johannes 2017. The Groningen Meaning Bank. In Ide, Nancy and Pustejovsky, James (eds.), Handbook of Linguistic Annotation, pp. 463–496. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Buchholz, Sabine, and Marsi, Erwin 2006. CoNLL-X shared task on multilingual dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-X), pp. 149–164, June 2006, New York City. © Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry 1985. Mass Terms and Model-theoretic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry 2007. The semantics of semantic annotations. Proceedings of the 21st Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, pp. 13–28. Seoul: The Korean Society for Language and Information.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry 2010. A methodology for designing semantic annotation languages exploiting syntactic-semantic iso-morphisms. In Fang, Alex, Ide, Nancy, and Webster, Jonathan (eds.), Proceedings of ICGL 2010, the Second International Conference on Global Interoperability for Language Resources, pp. 29–45, City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry 2011. Abstract syntax and semantics in semantic annotation, applied to time and events. Revised version of “Introducing abstract syntax + semantics in semantic annotation, and its consequences for the annotation of time and events.” In Lee, Eunryoung and Yoon, Aesun (eds.), Recent Trends in Language and Knowledge Processing, pp. 157–204, Seoul: Hankukmunhwasa.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry 2015. On the principles of interoperable semantic annotation. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL–ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-11), pp. 1–13, April 14, 2015, Queen Mary University of London, UK.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry 2017. Towards interoperable annotation of quantification. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Joint ACL–ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-13), pp. 1–13. Workshop at the 12th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2017), September 19, 2017, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry 2018. Semantic annotation of quantification in natural language. TiCC TR 2018-15, Tilburg Center for Creative Computing, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry 2019. A semantic annotation scheme for quantification. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Semantics, pp. 31–42, May 23–27, 2019, IWCS 2019 (International Workshop on Computational Linguistics), Gothenburg, Sweden. www.aclweb.org/anthology/W19-0403.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry 2020a. Semantic annotation of quantification in natural language. Tiburg: TiCC/Department of Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry 2020b. Annotation of quantification: the current state of ISO 24617–12. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the 16th Joint ISO–ACL/SIGSEM Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, pp. 1–13. Marseille, France: A satellite workshop at LREC 2020, May 11–15, 2020.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry, and Overbeeke, Chwhynny 2008. An extensible compositional semantics for temporal annotation. In Ide, Nancy et al. (eds.), Proceedings of LAW II, the Second Annotation Workshop, a satellite workshop at LREC2008, Marakech, Morocco. Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry, and Schiffrin, Amanda 2005. Methodological aspects of semantic annotation and representation. LIRICS Report: Deliverable, D4.1, unpublished report.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry and Pustejovsky, James 2010. Annotating temporal and event quantification. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth Joint ISO–ACL/SIGSEM Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, pp. 15–17, January 15–22, 2010. Hong Kong: Department of Chinese, Translation and Linguistics, City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry, Petukhova, Volah, Malchanau, Andrei, Fang, Alex, and Wijnhoven, Kars 2016. The DialogBank corpus. Proceedings of the 10th Edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2016). Portorož, Slovenia. https://aclanthology.org/L16-1503.pdf.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry, Pustejovsky, James, and Lee, Kiyong 2018. Towards an ISO standard for the annotation of quantification. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2018), Phoenix Seagaia Resort, Miyazaki, Japan, May 7–12, 2018. https://aclanthology.org/L18-1282.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry, Amblard, Maxime, Bos, Johan, Fort, Karën, de Groote, Philippe, Guillaume, Bruno, Le, Chuyuan, Ludmann, Pierre, Musiol, Michel, Pavlova, Siyana, Perrier, Guy, and Pogadalla, Sylvain 2022. Quantification annotation in ISO 24617-12, second draft. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2022), pp. 3407–3416, June 20–25, 2022. Marseille, France. ELRA. Licensed under CC-BY-NC-4.0.Google Scholar
Cann, Ronnie, Kempson, Ruth, and Gregoromichelaki, Eleni 2009. Semantics: An Introduction to Meaning in Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf 1947. Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, (2nd ed. 1956).Google Scholar
Caselli, Tommaso, and Sprugnoli, Rachele 2017. IT-TimeML and the ITA-TimeBank: Language specific adaptations for temporal annotation. In Ide, Nancy and Pustejovsky, James (eds.), Handbook of Linguistic Annotation vol. II, pp. 969–988. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Caselli, Tommaso, Dell’Orletta, Felice, and Proclanof, Irina 2009. Temporal relations with signals: the case of Italian temporal prespositions. In 16th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning, pp. 125–132. IEEE Xplore Digital Library, doi: 10.1109/TIME.2009.23.Google Scholar
Chang, Suk-Jin 1996. Korean. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, Robin 1987. Preliminaries to the analysis of generalized quantifiers in situation semantics. In Gärdenfors, P. (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers: Linguistic and Logical Approaches. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann, Flickinger, Dan, Sag, Ivan, and Pollard, Carl 2005. Minimal recursion semantics: an introduction. Research on Language and Computation 3(2–3), 281–332.Google Scholar
Croft, William 2012. Verbs: Aspects and Clausal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dan, Soham, Kordjamshidi, Parisa, Bonn, Julia, Bhatia, Archna, Cai, Zheng, Palmer, Martha, and Roth, Dan 2020. From spatial relations to spatial configurations. In Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC2020), pp. 5855–5864, May 2020, Marseille, France. ELRA. https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.717.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In Rescher, N. (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action, pp. 81–120. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald 2001. Essays on Actions and Events, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobnik, Simon, and Cooper, Robin 2017. Interfacing language, spatial perception and cognition in type theory with records. Journal of Language Modelling 5(2), 273–301.Google Scholar
Dobnik, Simon, Cooper, Robin, and Larsson, Staffan 2012. Modelling language, action, and perception in type theory with records. In Duchier, D. and Parmentier, F. (eds.), Constraint Solving and Language Processing – 7th International Workshop on Constraint Solving and Language Processing, CSLP 2012, Orleans, France, September 13–14, 2012. Revised selected papers, no. 8114 in Publications on Logic, Language and Information (FoLLI), Berlin: Springer, 2013.Google Scholar
Doddington, George, Mitchell, Alexis, Przybocki, Mark, Ramshaw, Lance, Strassel, Stephanie, and Weischedel, Ralph 2004. The automatic content extraction (ACE) program – tasks, data, and evaluation. In Proceedings of of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation 2004, pp. 837–840. Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times and Generative Semantics and Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R., Wall, Robert, and Peters, Stanley 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Ferro, Lisa, Gerber, Laurie, Mani, Inderjeet, Sundheim, Neth, and Wilson, George 2005. TIDES: 2005 Standard for the Annotation of Temporal Expressions. Approved for release, MITRE.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech 280, 20–32.Google Scholar
Finlayson, Mark A., and Erjavec, Tomaž 2017. Overview of annotation creation: process and tools. In Ide, Nancy and Pustejovsky, James (eds.), Handbook of Linguistic Annotation, pp. 167–192. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Flanigan, Jeffrey 2018. Parsing and Generation for the Abstract Meaning Representation. Ph.D. dissertation in Language and Information Technologies. Language Technologies Institute, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Gabbay, Dov, and Moravcsik, Julius 1980. Verbs, events, and the flow of time. In Rohhrer, Christian (ed.), Time, Tense, and Quantifiers: Proceedings of the Stuttgart Conference on the Logic of Tense and Quantification, pp. 59–83. Tübingen: Max Niemyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Gagnon, Michel, and Lapalme, Guy 1996. From conceptual time to linguistic time. Computational Linguistics 22(1), 91–127.Google Scholar
Gellner, Ernest 1959. Words and Things with an Introduction by Bertrand Russell. Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Hao, Tiyanong, Wei, Yunyan, Qiang, Jiaqi, Wang, Haitao, and Lee, Kiyong 2017. The representation and extraction of quantitative information. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Joint ACL–ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-13), pp. 74–83. Workshop of IWCS 2017, September 19, 2017, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
Hao, Tiyanong, Wang, Haotai, Cao, Xinyu, and Lee, Kiyong 2018. Annotating measurable quantitative information for an ISO standard. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th Joint ACL–ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-14), pp. 69–75. Workshop of COLING 2018, August 25, 2018, Santa Fe, NM, USA.Google Scholar
Hausser, Roland 2006. A Computational Model of Natural Language Communication: Interpretation, Inference, and Production in Database Semantics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Hausser, Roland 2015. From Montague grammar to database semantics. Language and Information 19(2), 1–16. Available at lagrammar.netGoogle Scholar
He, Luhengn 2018. Annotating and Modeling Shallow Semantics Directly from Text. Ph.D. dissertation in Computer Science and Engineering. University of Washington.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R. 1985. Ontological promiscuity. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 61–69. July 8–12, 1985, University of Chicago. https://aclanthology.org/P85-1008.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R., and Pan, Feng 2004. An ontology of time for the semantic Web. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing (TAKIP), 3.1, 66–85.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry, and Pustejovsky, James 2003. Annotating and reasoning about time and events. In Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Logical Formalization of Common Sense Reasoning. Stanford, CA: Reprinted in Mani et al. (eds.), 2005, pp. 301–315.Google Scholar
Hois, Joana, Tenebrin, Thora, Ross, Robert J., and Bateman, John A. 2009. GUM-Space. The Generalized Upper Model spatial extension: a linguistically motivated ontology for the semantics of spatial language. Bremen: Technical Report, University of Bremen, SFB/TR8 Spatial Cognition.Google Scholar
Huang, Chu-Ren, Chang, Ru-Yng, and Lee, Shiang-Bin 2004. Sinica BOW (Bilingual Ontological Wordnet): Integration of Bilingual Wordnet and SUMO. In Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2004). Lisbon. Portugal, May 26–28, 2004.Google Scholar
Huang, Chu-Ren, Calzolari, Nicoletta, Gangemi, Aldo, Lenci, Alessandro, Oltramari, Alessandro, and Prévot, Laurent (eds.) Ontology and the Lexicon: A Natural Language Processing Perspective. Cambridge University Press and Peking University, Press reprint 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ide, Nancy, and Pustejovsky, James (eds.) 2017. Handbook of Linguistic Annotation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Ide, Nancy, and Romary, Laurent 2004. International standard for a linguistic annotation framework. Natural Language Engineering 10(3–4), 211–225.Google Scholar
Ide, Nancy, and Suderman, Keith 2007. GrAF: a graph-based format for linguistic annotations. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW), pp. 1–8, Prague.Google Scholar
Ide, Nancy, and Suderman, Keith 2014. The linguistic annotation framework: a standard for annotation interchange and merging. Language Resources and Evaluation 48(3), 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ide, Nancy, Chiarcos, Christian, Stede, Manfred, and Cassidy, Steve 2012. Designing annotation schemes: From model to representation. In Ide, Nancy and Pustejovsky, James (eds.), Handbook of Linguistic Annotation, pp. 73–111. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Ide, Nancy, Calzolari, Nicoletta, Eckle-Kohler, Judith, Gibbon, Dafydd, Hellmann, Sebastian, Lee, Kiyong, Nivre, Joakim, and Romary, Laurent 2017. Community standards for linguistically-annotated resources. In Ide, Nancy and Pustejovsky, James (eds.), Handbook of Linguistic Annotation, pp. 113–165. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
ISO 2002. ISO 19108 Geographic information – Temporal schema. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 2006. ISO 24610-1 Language resource management – Feature structures – Part 1: Feature structure representation (FSR). A joint work with the TEI Consortium. See TEI Guidelines P5. Project leader: Kiyong Lee, Convenor: Nancy Ide. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 2010. ISO 24614-1 Language resource management – Word segmentation of written texts – Part 1: Basic concepts and general principles. The International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. Project leader: Maosong Sun, Convenor: Kiyong Lee. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 2011. ISO 24614-2 Language resource management – Word segmentation of written texts – Part 2: Word segmentation for Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Project leaders: Maosong Sun, Key-Sun Choi, and Hitoshi Isahara, Convenor: Kiyong Lee. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 2012a. ISO 24612 Language resource management – Linguistic annotation framework (LAF). Project leaders: Nancy Ide and Laurent Romary, Convenor: Nancy Ide. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 2012b. ISO 24617-1 Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework – Part 1: Time and events (SemAF-time, ISO-TimeML). Project leaders: James Pustejvosky and Kiyong Lee, Convenor: Kiyong Lee. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 2014a. ISO 24617-4:2014(E) Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework – Part 4: Semantic roles (SemAF-SR). Project leaders: Martha Palmer and Harry Bunt, Convenor: Kiyong Lee. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 2014b. ISO 24617-7:2014(E) Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework – Part 7: Spatial information (ISO-Space), 1st ed. Project leaders: James Pustejovsky and Kiyong Lee, Convenor: Kiyong Lee, Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 2016. ISO 24617-6 Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework – Part 6: Principles of semantic annotation (SemAM Principles). Project leader: Harry Bunt, Convenor: Kiyong Lee. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 2019a. ISO 8601-1:2019(E) Date and time – Representations for information interchange – Part 1: Basic rules). Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 2019b. ISO 8601-2:2019(E) Data and time – Representations for information interchange – Part 2: Extensions). Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 2020a. ISO 3166-1:2020 Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions – Part 2: Country subdivision code. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization. Note: The first edition, 2013.Google Scholar
ISO 2020b. ISO 3166-2:2020 Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions –Part 1: Country codes. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization. Note: the first edition, 2013.Google Scholar
ISO 2020c. ISO 19136-1:2020 Geography Markup Language (GML) – Part 1: Fundamentals. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization. Note: ISO 19136:2007 withdrawn.Google Scholar
ISO 2020d. ISO 24617-7 Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework – Part 7: Spatial information (ISO-Space), 2nd ed. Project leaders: James Pustejovsky and Kiyong Lee, Convenor: Kiyong Lee. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 2022a. ISO/CD 24617-12 Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework – Part 12: Quantification. Project leader: Harry Bunt, Convenor: Kiyong Lee. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 2022b. ISO/DIS 24617-14 Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework – Part 14: Spatial semantics. Project leaders: James Pustejovsky and Kiyong Lee, Convenor: Kiyong Lee. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO/IEC 1996. ISO/IEC 14977:1996 Information technology – Syntactic metalanguage – Extended BNF. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission.Google Scholar
ISO/IEC 2007. ISO/IEC 24707:2007 Information technology – Common Logic (CL): a framework for a family of logic-based languages. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto 1931. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part IV. London: George Allen & Unwin. (Reprinted 1961 and 1965.)Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans, and Reyle, Uwe 1993. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Model-theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Katz, Graham 2007. Towards a denotational semantics for TimeML. In Frank Schilder, Graham Katz, and Pustejovsky, James (eds.), Annotating, Extracting and Reasoning about Time and Events, pp. 88–106. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kim, Hansaem 2006. Korean National Corpus in the 21st century Sejong project. Proceedings of the 13th NIJL International Symposium, pp. 49–54, National Institute for Japanese Language, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Kipper, Karin, Korhonen, Anna, Ryant, Neville, and Palmer, Martha 2006. Extending VerbNet with novel verb classes. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006), Genoa, Italy.Google Scholar
Kipper Schuler, Karin 2005. VerbNet: A broad-coverage, comprehensive verb lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang 1991. Raumausdrücke. Linguistische Berichte 132 (1991), 77–114. Westdeatscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Kolomiyets, Oleksandr, Kordjamshidi, Parisa, Moens, Marie-Francine, and Bethard, Steven 2013. SemEval-2013 task 3: Spatial role labeling. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2013), vol. 2, pp. 255–262. Collocated with the Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, June 2013, Atlanta, GA, USA.Google Scholar
Kordjamshidi, Parisa, Moens, Marie-Francine, and van Otterlo, Martijn 2010. Spatial role labeling: task annotation and annotation scheme. In Calzolari, Nicoletta, Khalid, Choukri, and Bente, Maegaard (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Edition of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2010), pp. 413–420, May 17–23, 2010, Malta.Google Scholar
Kordjamshidi, Parisa, Bethard, Steven, and Moens, Marie-Francine 2012a. SemEval-2012 Task 3: Spatial Role Labeling. Proceedings of the First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval), vol. 2, pp. 365–373. SIGLEX/ACL, the Association of Computational Lingistics.Google Scholar
Kordjamshidi, Parisa, Frasconi, Paolo, van Otterlo, Martijn, Moens, Marie-Francine, and De Raedt, Luc 2012b. Relational learning for spatial relation extraction from natural language. In The Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming (Windsor Great Park, UK, July 31–August 3, 2011) (ILP 2011). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7207, pp. 204–220. Berlin: Springer Nature.Google Scholar
Kordjamshidi, Parisa, Hois, Joana, van Otterlo, Martijn, and Moens, Marie-Francine 2013. Learning to interpret spatial natural language in terms of qualitative spatial relations, In Tenbrink, Thora, Wiener, Jan M., and Claramunt, Christophe (eds.), Representing Space in Cognition: Interrelations of Behavior, Language, and Formal Models, Series Explorations in Language and Space, pp. 115–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kordjamshidi, Parisa, and Moens, Marie-Franchine 2015. Global machine learning for spatial ontology population. Journal of Web Semantics 30C, 3–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2014.06.001. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.Google Scholar
Kordjamshidi, Parisa, van Otterlo, Martijn, and Moens, Marie-Francine 2017a. Spatial role labeling: towards extraction of spatial relations from natural language. ACM – Transactions on Speech and Language Processing 3(4), 1–36.Google Scholar
Kordjamshidi, Parisa, van Otterlo, Martijn, and Moens, Marie-Franchine 2017b. Spatial role labeling annotation. In Ide, Nancy and Pustejovsky, James (eds.), Handbook of Linguistic Annotation, pp. 1025–1052. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Kracht, Marcus 2002. On the semantics of locatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 25, 157–232. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1992. Transitivity, case, and grammatical relations (handouts). In Proceedings of SICOL ’92: 1992 Seoul International Conference on Linguistics, pp. 149–154. Oragnized by the Linguistic Society of Korea, Seoul.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lappin, Shalom (ed.) 1996. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong 1974. The Treatment of Some English Constructions in Montague Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation in Linguistics, University of Texas, Austin. Published as main part of On Montague Grammar, Seoul: Han Shin Publishing Company, 1985.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong 1994. Hangul, the Korean writing system, and its computational treatment. LDV-Forum: Forum der Gesellschaft für Linguistische Datenverarbeitung (GLDV), 11 (2), pp. 26–43.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong 1983. Equation solving. In Lee, Chungmin and Kang, Beom-mo (eds.), Language, Information and Computation, pp. 14–26. Seoul: Taehaksa.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong 2008. Formal semantics for interpreting temporal annotation. In van Sterkenburg, Piet, (ed.), Unity and Diversity of Languages, pp. 97–108. Invited talk at the 18th Congress of Linguists, held in Seoul on July 21–26, 2008. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong 2011. A compositional interval semantics for temporal annotation. In Lee, Eunryoung and Yoon, Aesun (eds.), Recent Trends in Language an Knowledge Processing, pp. 122–156. Seoul: Hankookmunhwasa.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong 2012. Towards interoperable spatial and temporal annotation schemes. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of The Joint ISA-7, SRSL-3 and I2MRT Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, pp. 61–68. Workshop of The Eighth Edition of Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2012), Istanbul.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong 2013. Multi-layered annotation of non-textual data for spatial information. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the 9th Joint ACL-SIGSEM–ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-9), pp. 15–24. Workshop of the 10th International Conference of Computational Semantics (IWCS 2014), March 2013, Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong 2015. The semantic annotation of measure expressions in ISO standards. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Joint ALC–ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-11), pp. 55–66. Workshop of the 11th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2015) April 14, 2015, Queen Mary University of London.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong 2016. An abstract syntax for ISOspace with its <moveLink> reformulated. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th Joint ACL–ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-12), pp. 28–37. Workshop at LREC2016, May 28, 2016, Portoroz̆, Slovenia.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong 2017. Four types of temporal signals. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Joint ACL–ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-13), pp. 107–118. Workshop at the 12th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2017), September 19, 2017, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong 2018. Revising ISO-Space for the semantic annotation of dynamic spatial information in language. Language and Information 22(1), 221–245. Seoul: The Korean Society for Language and Information.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong 2020. Annotation-based Semantics. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the 16th Joint ISO–ACL SIGSEM Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-16), pages 37–49. An LREC2020 workshop, May 22, 2020, Marseille, France.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong, Pustejovsky, James, and Boguraev, Branimir 2005. Towards an international standard for annotating temporal information. In Wang, Yuli, Wang, Yu, and Tian, Ye (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Terminology, Standardization and Technology Transfer, pp. 25–35. Beijing: Encylopedia of China Publishing House.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong, and Bunt, Harry 2012. Counting time and events. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth Joint ISO–ACL SIGSEM Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-8), pp. 34–41, January 3–5, 2012, University of Pisa, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures and Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale Antonio Zampolli.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong, Webster, Jonathan and Fang, Alex Chengyu 2010. eSpaceML: an event-driven spatial annotation framework, Proceedings of the 24th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC 24), pp. 223–232. November 4–7, 2010, Tohoku University, Sendai.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong, Fang, Alex and Pustejvosky, James 2011. Multilingual verification of the annotation scheme ISO-Space. Proceedings of The First Workshop on Semantic Annotation for Computational Linguistic Resources (SACL-1), the 5th IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiyong, Pustejovsky, James and Bunt, Harry 2018. Revising ISO-Space and the role of the movement link. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th Joint ACL– ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-14), pp. 35–44, August 25, 2018, at COLING 2018, Santa Fe, NM, USA.Google Scholar
Lee, Ik-Seop and Chae, Wan 1999. Lecture on Korean Grammar [written in Korean]. Seoul: Hakyeon-sa.Google Scholar
Lee, Ik-Seop and Ramsey, S. Robert 2000. The Korean Language. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey 1995. A Brief User’s Guide to the Grammatical Tagging of the British National Corpus. Oxford: Oxford University. www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/docs/gramtag.html.Google Scholar
Leidner, Jochen L. 2006. Toponym resolution: a first large-scale comparative evaluation. Institute for Communicating and Collaborative Systems. School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linguistic Data Consortium 2005. ACE (Automatic Content Extraction) English Annotation Guidelines for Events Version 5.4.3 2005.07.01. http://ldc.upenn.edu/Projects/ACE/Google Scholar
Linguistic Data Consortium 2008a. ACE (Automatic Content Extraction) English Guidelines for Relations Version 6.2 2008.04.28. http://ldc.upenn.edu/Projects/ACE/Google Scholar
Linguistic Data Consortium, 2008b. ACE (Automatic Content Extraction) English Guidelines for Entities Version 6.6 2008.06.13. http://projects.ldc.upenn.edu/ace/Google Scholar
Link, Godehard 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretical approach. In Rainer Bauerle, Christoph Schwarze, and von Stechow, Arnim (eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, pp. 302–323. Berlin: De Gruyter. Reprinted as chapter 1 in Link (1998).Google Scholar
Link, Godehard 1998. Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mannell, Robert, and Cox, Felicity 2015. Speech resource pages. Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney. http://clas.mq.edu.au/speech/resources.htmlGoogle Scholar
Mani, Inderjeet 2014. Temporal processing. The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics, ed. by Mitkov, Ruslan, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mani, Inderjeet, Pustejovsky, James, and Gaizauskas, Robert (eds.) 2005. The Language of Time: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mani, Inderjeet and Pustejovsky, James 2012. Interpreting Motion: Grounded Representations for Spatial Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mani, Inderjeet, Doran, Christy, Harris, Dave, Hitzeman, Janet, Quimby, Rob, Richer, Justin, Wellner, Ben, Mardis, Scott, and Clancy, Seamus 2010. SpatialML: Annotation scheme, resources and evaluation. Language Resources and Evaluation 44, 263–280.Google Scholar
Mardis, Scott and Burger, John 2005. Design for an Integrated Gazetteer Database technical description and user guide for a gazetteer to support natural language processing applicaitons. MITRE Technical Report, MTR 05B0000085, November 2005.Google Scholar
Meteer, Marie 2015. Developing Language Annotation for Machine Learning Algorithms. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar
Mirzaee, Roshanak, Rajaby Faghihi, Hossein, Ning, Qiang, and Kordjamshidi, Parisa 2021. SPARTQA: A textual question answering benchmark for spatial reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp. 4582–4598, June 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/2021.naacl-main.364. doi: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.364.Google Scholar
MITRE 2010. SpatialML: Annotation Scheme for Marking Spatial Expressions in Natural Language, June 28, 2010. Version 3.0.1. Bedford, MA: The MITRE Corporation.Google Scholar
Moens, Marc, and Steedman, Mark 1998. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14(2), 15–28. (Association of Computational Linguistics). Reprinted in Inderjeet Mani, James Pustejovsky, and Rob Gaizausakas (eds.) (2005), pp. 93–114.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard 1974. Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, ed. Thomason, Richmond H.. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1978. Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 2, 415–434.Google Scholar
Muller, Philippe 1998. A qualitative theory of motion based on spatio-temporal primitives In Cohn, A. G. Schubert, L. K., and Shapiro, S. C. (eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference (KR’98), pp. 131–141. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Nam, Seungho 1995. The Semantics of Locative Prepositional Phrases in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Open Geospatial Consortium 2015. Open Geospatial Consortium KML, version 2.3, edited by Burggraf, David. Copyright ©2015 Open Geospatial Consortium. To obtain additional rights of use, visit www.opengeospatial.org/legal/.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, John 1996. The spatial prepositions in English, vector grammar, and the cognitive map theory. In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel, and Garrett, Merril G. (eds.), Language and Space, pp. 277–316. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
OMG 2016. The Distributed Ontology, Modeling, and Specification Language (DOL), Version 1.0. Object Management Group.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy LXXX(18), 601–609. Reprinted in Partee (2004), pp. 50–58.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1995. Quantification structures and compositionality. In Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Kratzer, Angelika, and Partee, Barbara H. (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, pp. 541–601. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pease, Adam, Niles, Ian, and Li, John 2002. The Suggested Upper Merged Ontology: A large ontology for the semantic Web and its applications. In Working Notes of the AAAI-2002 Workshop on Ontologies and the Semantic Web, July 28–August 1, 2002, Edmonton, Canada.Google Scholar
Pease, Adam 2011. Ontology: A Practical Guide. San Jose, CA: Articulate Software Press.Google Scholar
Pierce, Richard S. 1968. Introduction to the Theory of Abstract Algebras. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Pfenning, Frank, and Elliott, Conal 1988. Higher-order abstract syntax. Proceedings of the ACM–SIGPLAN Notices, ‘88 Symposium on Programming Language Design and Implementation, vol. 23, pp.199–208. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/960116.54010Google Scholar
Pratt-Hartmann, Ian 2005. From TimeML to TPL. http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/votexte/2005/318 (date of citation: 2006-12-01).Google Scholar
Pratt-Hartmann, Ian 2007. From TimeML to interval temporal logic. Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computational Semantics, pp. 166–180. Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James 1991. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41, 47–81. Reprinted in Mani et al. (eds.) (2005), pp. 33–60.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James 2001. Type construction and the logic of concepts. In Bouillon, Pierrette and Busa, Federica (eds.), The Language of Word Meaning, pp. 91–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James 2006. Unifying linguistic annotations: A TimeML case study. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Text, Speech, and Dialogue (TSD 2006), Text, Speech, and Dialogue Conference, September 11–15, 2006, Brno, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James 2017a. ISO-TimeML and the annotation of temporal information. In Ide, Nancy and Pustejovsky, James (eds.), pp. 941–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James 2017b. ISO-Space: Annotating static and dynamic spatial information. In Ide, Nancy and Pustejovsky, James (eds.), Handbook of Linguistic Annotation, pp. 941–968. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James 2020. Tutorial: representation, learning, and reasoning on spatial language for downstream NLP tasks (Part 2). The 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, November 20, 2020. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James, and Batiukova, Olga 2019. The Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James and Lee, Kiyong 2017. Enriching the notion of path in ISO-Space. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Joint ACL–ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-13), pp. 134–139. Collocated at IWCS2017, September 19, 2017, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James and Moszkowicz, Jessica L. 2008. Integrating motion predicate classes with spatial and temporal annotations. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 95–98, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James and Moszkowicz, Jessica 2012. ISO-Space Specifications: Version 4.1. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James, and Stubbs, Amber 2012. Natural Language Annotation for Machine Learning. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James and Yocum, Zachary 2013. Capturing motion in ISO-Space Bank. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the 9th Joint ACL–ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-9), pp. 25–34. Collocated at IWCS2013, Potsdam, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James, Ingria, Robert, Saurí, Roser, Castaño, José, Littman, Jessica, Gaizauskas, Rob, Setzer, Andreas, Katz, Graham and Mani, Inderjeet 2005. The specification language TimeML. In Inderjett Mani, James Pustejovsky, and Gaizauskas, Rob (eds.), The Language of Time: A Reader, pp. 545–557. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James, Lee, Kiyong and Bunt, Harry 2010a. ISO-TimeML: An international standard for semantic annotation. In Proceedings of LREC 2010, the Seventh Edition of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp. 394–397, Valletta, Malta.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James, Moszkowicz, Jessica L., and Verhagen, Marc 2010b. ISO-Space Specification: Version 1.3 (October 5, 2010) with discussion notes from the Workshop on Spatial Language Annotation, the Airlie Retreat Center, VA, September 26–29, 2010.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James, Kordjamshidi, Parisa, Moens, Marie-Francine, Levine, Aaron, Dworman, Seth, and Yocum, Zachary 2015. SemEval-2015 task 8: Spaceeval. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2015) pp. 884–894, June 4–5, 2015, Denver, CO. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/500427.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James, Bunt, Harry, and Zaenen, Annie 2017. Designing annotation schemes: from theory to model. In Ide, Nancy and Pustejovsky, James (eds.), pp. 21–72.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James, Lee, Kiyong, and Bunt, Harry 2019a. The semantics of ISO-Space. In Bunt, Harry (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Joint ACL–ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-15), pp. 46–53, May 23, 2019, at IWCS 2019, Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James, Xue, Nianwen, and Lai, Kenneth 2019b. Modeling quantification and scope in Abstract Meaning Representation. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Designing Meaning Representations, pp. 28–33, August 1, 2019, Florence, Italy. ©2019 Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Randell, David A. Cui, Zhan, and Cohn, Anthony G. 1992. A spatial logic based on regions and connection. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 165–176. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic, New York: The Free Press, Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Ellsworth, Michael, Schwarzer-Petruck, Miriam R. L., Johnson, Christopher R., Baker, Collin F., and Scheffczyk, Jan 2016. FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice, revised November 1, 2016. Available on the website as an eBook.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand 1903. Principles of Mathematics, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, Hans C. and Sag, Ivan A. (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, pp. 61–188. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Schilder, Frank, Versley, Yannick, and Habel, Christopher 2004. Extracting spatial information: Grounding, classifying, and linking spatial expressions. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Geographic Information Retrieval, workshop of the 27th ACM SIGGIR Conference, Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
Schilder, Frank, Katz, Graham, and Pustejovsky, James (eds.) 2007. Annotating, Extracting and Reasoning about Time and Events, International Seminar Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, April 2005, revised papers. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Setzer, Andrea 2001. Temporal Information in Newswire Articles: an Annotation Scheme and Corpus Study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Shahid, Ahmad R., and Kazakov, Dimitar 2013. Using parallel corpora for word sense disambiguation. Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, pp. 336–341. September 7–13, 2013, Hissar, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
Sharvey, Richard 1980. A more general theory of definite description, The Philosophical Review 89, 607–623.Google Scholar
Shin, Hyopil, and You, Hyun-Jo 2015. Events and Temporal Expressions in Korean. Seoul: Seoul National University Press. (Note: written in Korean).Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard 1975. Figure and ground in complex sentences. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 419–430. Organized by UC Berkley Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard 1983. How language structures space. In Pick, Herbert and Acredolo, Linda (eds.), Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application. Plenum Press. Reprinted in Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol.1, chapter 3. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Vol. 3, Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, pp. 36–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard 1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Berkley Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 480–519.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
TEI Consortium 2019. TEI P5: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange. Text Encoding Initiative Consortium.Google Scholar
Trim, Craig 2013. The art of tokenization (language processing), IBM Community Blogs: Language Processing, January 24, 2013. www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/nlp/entry/tokenizationGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno 1967. Verbs and times. Linguistics in Philosophy, chapter 4. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Reprinted in Mani et al. (eds.) (2005), pp. 21–32.Google Scholar
Webster, Jonathan J., and Kit, Chunyu 1992. Tokenization as the initial phase in NLP. In Proceedings of COLING-92, pp. 1106–1110. August 23–28, 1992, Nantes, France.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter 1991. How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional syntax and semantics. Linguistics, 29, 591–621.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan 2003. Holistic spatial semantics of Thai. In Cognitive Linguistics and Non-Indo-European Languages, pp. 305–336. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Joost 1997. Vectors as relative positions: a compositional semantics of modified PPs. Journal of Semantics, 14:57–86.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Joost, and Winter, Yoad 2000. Vector space semantics: a model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 9(2):171–213.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Joost 2005. Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy 28, 739–779.Google Scholar