An analysis of the Concession relation based on the discourse marker aunque in a Spanish-Chinese parallel corpus

Referencias bibliográficas

• Abelen, E., G. Redeker, and S. A. Thompson. 1993. The rhetorical structure of US-American and Dutch fund-raising letters. Text 13(3): 323-350.
• Carlson, L., D. Marcu, and M. E. Okurowski. 2001. Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory. In Proceedings of the Second SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, pp, 1-10. Aalborg (Denmark), 1-2 September.
• Cui, S. R. 1985. Comparing Structures of Essays in Chinese and English. Master thesis. Los Angeles: University of California.
• Chien, Y. S. 2012. Análisis contrastivo de los marcadores condicionales del español y del chino. PhD thesis. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.
• da Cunha, I., and M. Iruskieta. 2010. Comparing rhetorical structures of different languages: The influence of translation strategies. Discourse Studies 12(5): 563-598.
• Delin, J., A. Hartley, and D. R. Scott. 1996. Towards a contrastive pragmatics: Syntatic choice in English and French instructions. Language Sciences 18(3-4): 897-931.
• Fomicheva, M., I. da Cunha, and G. Sierra. 2012. La estructura discursiva como criterio de evaluación de traducciones automáticas: una primera aproximación. Empiricism and analytical tools for 21 century applied linguistics: selected papers from the XXIX International Conference of the Spanish Association of Applied Linguistics (AESLA): 973-986.
• Guy, R. 2000. Linearity in Rhetorical Organisation: A Comparative Cross-cultural Analysis of Newstext from the People’s Republic of China and Australia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(2): 241-58.
• Guy, R. 2001. What Are They Getting At? Placement of Important Ideas in Chinese Newstext: A Contrastive Analysis with Australian Newstext. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 24(2): 17-34.
• Guzmán, F., S. Joty, Ll. Màrquez, and P. Nakov. 2014. Using Discourse Structure Improves Machine Translation Evaluation. In
• Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp, 687-698. Baltimore (USA), 22-27 June.
• Iruskieta, M., I. da Cunha, and M. Taboada. 2015. A Qualitative Comparison Method for Rhetorical Structures: Identifying different discourse structures in multilingual corpora. Language resources and evaluation 49(2): 263-309.
• Kong, K. C. C. 1998. Are simple business request letters really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business request letters. Text 18(1): 103-141.
• Kumpf, L. 1975. Structuring Narratives in a Second Language: A description of Rhetoric and Grammar. PhD thesis. Los Angeles: University of California.
• Mann, W. C., and S. A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3): 243-281.
• Marcu, D. 2000. The rhetorical parsing of unrestricted texts: A surface-based approach. Computational Linguistics 26(3): 395-448.
• Marcu, D., L. Carlson, and M. Watanabe. 2000. The automatic translation of discourse structures. In 1st North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics conferences, pp, 9-17. Seattle (USA), 29-4 April to May.
• Mayor, A., I. Alegria, A. Díaz de Ilarraza, G. Labaka, M. Lersundi, and K. Sarasola. 2009. Evaluación de un sistema de traducción automática basado en reglas o porqué BLEU sólo sirve para lo que sirve. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 43: 197-205.
• Mohamed, A. H., and M. R. Omer. 1999. Syntax as a marker of rhetorical organization in written texts: Arabic and English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL) 37(4): 291-305.
• O’Donnell, M. 1997. RST-tool: An RST analysis tool. In Proceedings of the 6th European Work-shop on Natural Language Generation, pp, 92-96. Duisberg (Germany), 24-26 March.
• Rafalovitch, A., and R. Dale. 2009. United Nations general assembly resolutions: A six-languages parallel corpus. In Proceedings of MT Summit XII, pp, 292-299. Ottawa (Canada), 26-30 August.
• Salkie, R., and S. L. Oates. 1999. Contrast and concession in French and English. Languages in Contrast 2(1): 27-56.
• Sarjala, M. 1994. Signalling of reason and cause relations in academic discourse. Anglicana Turkuensia 13: 89-98.
• Scott, R., J. Delin, and A. F. Hartley. 1998. Identifying congruent pragmatic relations in procedural texts. Languages in contrast 1(1): 45-82.
• Tu, M., Y. Zhou, and C. Q. Zong. 2013. A Novel Translation Framework Based on Rhetorical Structure Theory. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp, 370-374. Sofia (Bulgaria), 4-9 August.
• Wilks, Y. 2009. Machine Translation: Its scope and limits. 3ª ed. New York: Springer.
• Wang, Y. C. 2013. Los marcadores conversacionales en el subtitulado del español al chino: análisis de La mala educación y Volver de Pedro Almodóvar. PhD thesis. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
• Yao, J. M. 2008. Estudio comparativo de los marcadores del discurso en español y en chino a través de diálogos cinematográficos. PhD thesis. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.
• Yue, M. 2006. Hanyu caijingpinglun de xiucijiegou biaozhu ji pianzhang yanjiu (汉 语财经评论的修辞结构标注及篇章研 究 ,[Annotation and Analysis of Chinese Financial News Commentaries in terms of Rhetorical Structure]). PhD thesis. Beijing: Communication University of China..
• Zhou, L. J., B. Y. Li, Z. Y. Wei, and K. F. Wong. 2014. The CUHK Discourse TreeBank for Chinese: Annotating Explicit Discourse Connectives for the Chinese TreeBank. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp, 942-949. Reykjavik (Iceland), 26-31 May.