Motasem Alrahabi
email: alrahabi@gmail.com

Jean-Pierre Desclés
email: jean-pierre.descles@paris-sorbonne.fr

Jungyeon Suh

Direct Reported Speech in Multilingual Texts: Automatic Annotation and Semantic Categorization

We propose an application for the automatic identification and categorization of quotations. The categorization is based on a semantic map of enunciative modalities. The texts are treated in three languages: Arabic, Korean and French.

General presentation and related works

, (Krestel, Bergler, and Witte 2008), InQuote 1 , (Pouliquen, Steinberger, and Best 2008) 2 , (Audebert, Gaubert, and Jaccarini 2009) 3 and (De la Clergerie et al. 2009).

We propose in this study an application for the automatic identification and categorization of quotations. This work can be distinguished from the previous ones in many aspects. First of all, our concerns are not to detect the source (holder) of the quotation, neither its anaphoric analysis, but we aim to identify all forms of quotation in texts by taking into consideration of its potential constructions. In addition, by using the theory of enunciation, we aim to automatically categorize the quotations in terms of various semantic criteria (commitment, opinion, judgment…), in a multilingual context (Arabic, French and Korean). Finally, the tool we use for automatic annotation, EXCOM 4 , is a rule-based system that does not deal with any morpho-syntactic analysis or named entities recognition (Alrahabi and Desclés 2009b). EXCOM, implementing the method of Contextual Exploration (Desclés 2006), automatically performs the annotations using the surface forms of certain linguistic markers.

In the following sections, we begin by presenting the linguistic analysis of quotations, and then we explain how

the linguistic markers can be organized in a semantic map. We finish the article by showing the result of the evaluation, and the perspectives.

Quotation analysis

First, let"s introduce this important distinction between "utterer" (énonciateur) and "speaker" (locuteur). The utterer is the entity that reports the speech, whereas the speaker is the source (holder) of the speech.

We consider, on the formal level, that a quotation is any kind of speech delimited by meta-characters (the typographical signs of quotation) and introduced by, at least, one linguistic marker referring to an act of speaking, whether the speaker is explicitly defined or not. We take into consideration any form of direct reported speech, as long as these rules are observed, i.e. the canonical forms and hybrids or mixed forms (such as the direct style introduced by "that", see [START_REF] Tuomarla | La citation mode d'emploi. Sur le fonctionnement discursif du discours rapporté direct[END_REF]) 5 .

In general, we consider that an utterer can report a speaker's discourse in, at least, three ways6 :

• By attributing to a speaker an implicit act of locution (Pour X [As for X] / انخثش ْزا انٍكى [Here is this news…] /누군가 에 따르면 [According to X]). This reflects the distance that the utterer takes in relation to the reported content.

• By attributing to a speaker a speech as an act of "hearing" Sometimes, we can have one or more intermediates between utterer and speaker, we call this entity "transmitter" (e.g. I heard from T that X said…/ According to T, X said…).

(
This dialogical organization (reporting a locution or an inter-locution, transmission, reception) enables us first to know who deals with the reported utterance (utterer, speaker or transmitter) and to draw the first categorization below: He has addressed me and said... The introducers and modalizers of quotations are of two types: indicators and clues. Indicators are the quotes, while clues help to disambiguate the indicators and to refine the categorization. Using all these markers, collected by corpora analysis, we will now refine the categorization seen above7 .

Organization of linguistic markers in a Semantic Map

In order to operate our categorization, we call upon the principles of the enunciative theory ((Bally 1932), [START_REF] Benveniste | Problèmes de linguistique générale[END_REF], (Culioli 1973), [START_REF] Desclés | Quelques opérations énonciatives élémentaires. Logique et niveaux d'analyse linguistique[END_REF])), in particular, the logical distinction within an utterance, between modus and dictum as in this example: "I think it's raining", where the modus corresponds to "I think" and the dictum to "it's raining". We notice that this distinction is not always easy to make at the surface level (see for instance the verb to claim (prétendre / صػى /잡아떼다), but it can be made on an abstract level where modus and dictum are represented by operations. This distinction is not concerned with separating the subjective from the objective in an utterance, because we consider that both dictum and modus are subjective representations of reality, as it is perceived by the utterer. Finally, in a reported speech, we can distinguish two modus and two dictums, depending on whether we are on the main plan (that of the utterer) or on the reported dialogic plan (that of the speaker) (ex. I assure you that she has confirmed…). Here is is the standard meta-linguistic formula of a direct reported speech (we ignore the aspecto-temporal parameters in this analysis), expressed by operators acting onto operands8 : I-SAY (modus I (X-SAYS (modus X (λ)))) where "I-SAY" is a meta-linguistic operator which indicates that the utterer takes responsibility for the locution. The latter, in a reported speech, is represented by the operator "X-SAYS" which indicates the speaker"s commitment to the reported utterance "λ". Enunciative modalities can then be analyzed as operators that participate in the construction of the modus of the utterer (modus I ) and/or the modus of the speaker (modus X ). These operators concern enunciative relations developed between the utterer or the speaker and their utterance (commitment, disengagement, distancing, opinion…), they concern also the relations between actors in a reported speech (control, assessment, judgments, attitudes ...). These different relationships are embedded in spatiotemporal and thematic referential (see (Alrahabi and Desclés 2008), (Alrahabi and Desclés 2009a)).

Using this analysis, Figure 1 will now be refined by other semantic relations, such as the speaker"s commitment in relation to the content:

( 1 ) أيا انغٍذ ٌاعٍك عاسٌٕذض - فٕنغكً، انزي ٌفأض تشٔكغم تاعى تٕنٍَٕا فٍؤكذ يٍ جٓرّ أٌ " تماءَا ػهى ال ْايش فً يحٍط االذحاد ْٕ أيش ال ٌثٍش اْرًايُا ..

. " [As for Mr. Jacek Saryutz -Wolski, who is negotiating Brussels in the name of Poland, affirms that " Staying at the margin in the periphery of the Union does not interest us... "]

In this example, the introducer of quotation ٌؤكذ( / affirms) participates in the construction of (modus X ), and can be represented by the operator of commitment "is-true":

I-SAY (X-SAYS (is-true(λ))) Another example is the opinion of speaker about the reported utterance "λ" (applaudir

[to applaud] / ّد َذ [to condemn] /규탄하다 [to denounce]).
The relation between the speaker and the co-speaker (the branch b in the figure 1) can relate to a "will relationship"

I-SAY(X-SAYS(λ) to Y & EVAlUATION-RELATIONSHIP(X-Y))

There are cases in which we are concerned with modus I rather than modus X , such as in evaluative modalities where the utterer assesses the speaker"s attitude (markers that indicate the quality of voice: vociférer [to shoot], ذهؼثى We can finally mention other types of modalities, such as evidentiality [START_REF] Desclés | Enonciateur, locuteur, médiateur. Les Rituels du dialogue[END_REF]. In this mode of communication, the access to the presented information is done by a median way, and the utterer presents the locution as "plausible" (so no relation with true or false values):

( (5) 이를 본 사람들은 "역시 골프는 멘탈게임이야" 라며 이구동성으로 말했을 것이다.

["The golf is surely a mental game", could tell unanimously the people who saw this.]

The analysis of texts in a multilingual environment allowed us to better organize markers and identify around sixty semantic categories about reported speech. All these categories and their markers (introducers and modalizers) are organized into a semantic map. Each node of the map corresponds to an enunciative modality and is represented by a single metalinguistic formula. Figure 2 shows a subpart of the semantic map.

Computer Implementation

We used the platform EXCOM [START_REF] Djioua | EXCOM : an automatic annotation engine for semantic information[END_REF]) (Alrahabi and Desclés 2009b) which is based on the Contextual Exploration (CE) rules. We created rules for the identification and the categorization of quotations in Arabic, French and Korean, and we tested and validated them on new corpus in these different languages.

To make annotations, EXCOM needs only one pretreatment phase of segmentation according to a specific model using also CE rules. It helps in determining the search fields for linguistic markers, and the textual segments which are to be annotated. This consists in defining the boundaries of sections, titles, paragraphs and sentences.

The presence of indicators in the text triggers the CE rules, and then, additional clues are found in a context defined by the rules, which leads to the annotation of the segment considered. Different types of rules exist, depending on the research space or the nature of linguistic markers. EXCOM allows to use the already annotated segments as markers, to order the rules and to use negative clues that cancel certain rules. A rule (R) is formally defined by a set of arguments: R = {indicator, clues, context of clues, order of clues, research space, annotating space, priority of rule, annotation} Annotated segments are collected in separate files corresponding to the nodes of the semantic map. They are then exploited by final users, with dedicated interfaces. We have for some 800 French markers, 900 for Arabic and 600 for Korean. The core of the semantic map uses approximately forty CE rules by language.

Scenario for the application's use

The typical use of our application by a final user consists in submitting a new corpus of his choice to the system, in one of the offered languages (Arabic, French or Korean) 9 . The semantic map is then visualized and the user is offered the possibility of choosing the categories to be used for annotating his corpus.

The process pipeline starts with segmentation and the annotation process is then called, the results are directly displayed in a base of annotated segments, according to their classification in the semantic map. The user can then navigate between the base and the original sources, or carry out a search by keywords on various spaces defined by the segmentation or by the places of the markers in segments, i.e. the content of quotation, the place of speaker, the theme of quotation…In figure 3, the base of annotations contains quotations annotated in Arabic, the user filters only those having the annotation of "opinion" of speaker, on which he carries out a request with the keyword "سعٕو" / drawings).

Evaluation

We set up an evaluation for testing the capacity of EXCOM to identify and categorize the quotations according to the semantic map. To this end, we chose three rather representative categories from the map, in the sense that, on the one hand, they have complex dialogical relations (between utterer and speaker), and on the other hand, they concern important modalities which are commitment and evaluation. Here is a short description of the three selected categories:

• Category 1: the commitment of the speaker in relation to the reported speech (assertion).

I-SAY(X-SAYS(is-true(λ))) Examples:

9 User can target corpus through an EXCOM module that enables to crawl texts from the Web. [The pastor said sincerely about the preaching: "Me too, that is so difficult that I have experienced a couple of failure for 40 years."] • Category 3: the judgment of the utterer as to the "correctness value" (correct or not) of the reported speech (the speaker is presented as being right or wrong).

I-SAY(X-SAYS(λ) & is-correct(λ))

Examples:

( 12 ) فانشئٍظ عاسكٕصي كاٌ ً يحما إر لال : « إٌ انشْاٌ فً أفغاَغراٌ ٌرُأل لًٍُا انذًٌمشاطٍح « [
The president Sarkozy had it right when he said : " what is at stake in Afghanistan is the fate of our democratic values"] (13) …le poète se trompait en disant : "Il y a plus de choses entre le ciel et la terre que notre philosophie n'en peut concevoir." […the poet was mistaken in saying : "There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in our philosophy."] (14) 맥 퓨쳐님은 최근 기획 문서를 보자는 걸 "문건 좀 보자" 고 잘못 말했었다고 한다.

[Mac future had said wrongly "let's look at the document" instead of seeing the document of the plan.] Starting from a large set of new texts in the three languages, we began to manually annotate quotations according to the selected categories. We stopped when we got 45 quotations for each language (15 quotations by category). Our choices of these quotations were motivated by the concern for covering the maximum of difficult and ambiguous cases, so as to test to the best, the capacity of the system to annotate. Thus, were taken into account the following criteria:

• the use of all quotation constructions (the introducer is before, inside or after the quotes); • the use of all the lexical categories of introducer or modalizer markers (verbs, nouns, gerunds, adverbs, adjectives and adverbials); We also added 6 more quotations that contain: First, we annotated by EXCOM the texts that contain theses quotations, according to the three categories cited above. It allowed us to estimate the capacity of EXCOM to identifying quotations. We then obtained the following results:

Noise Silence Arabic 7% 10% French 5% 11% Korean 3% 6%
The next step of the evaluation is to compare the results (excluding the results of noise) with human judgments, both in terms of identification and categorization of quotations. Then we asked the evaluators 10 , first, to distinguish, within a limited time span 11 , between quotations and non-quotations (see §2), and then to categorize the retained quotations according to one of the 10 The evaluators, all native language, were 11 for Arabic, 23 for French and 18 for Korean (Their level is between the third and the fifth year of the university) 11 Two hours. three previously cited categories. Finally, the manual results were compared with those obtained automatically, and computed according to recall and precision measures. We considered then, that the "correct" annotation is the most frequently chosen by the evaluators. The annotation protocol as well as the corpus of the segments submitted to the evaluators will be soon online. The results are the following:

Comments

The value of silence in the first test is due to the fact that some markers are not yet added to our resource base. The noise in French and Arabic is usually caused by the presence of fake quotation marks in the context of quotation introducers, as in the following example: (19) Et on conclut que le prix de la viande "consommée" n'a pas augmenté… [And we conclude that the price of meat "consumption" has not increased ...]

In this example, the emphatic quotation marks are preceded by an introducer (on conclut que). We can cite another problem with quotation marks, even if we have not faced it in this evaluation, which is the nested english quotation marks, where a quotation can contains another one, generally used as an emphatic quote: X says: " …… " … "…… " Dit 1 . a … b… 2 The error can occur in this case by considering the quotes 1 and a as the real quotation marks surrounding the reported speech. Finally, in this example: (20) Ainsi, de 1900 à 1996, on constate une dérive d'environ 0,003" par an, approximativement le long du 80e méridien Ouest […] par rapport au point central restent inférieures à 0,3" sur une année. the quotation marks indicating seconds units (0,003" / 0,3") were selected as real quotation marks, in the presence of the introducer constate (to notice).

The disagreement between annotators in the results of the second test (ex. 36% for the category 3, in all three languages) shows that the semantic categorization that we have made is quite difficult for some evaluators. This categorization could be revised to collect several subcategories in categories less fine.

These tests have allowed us to draw comparisons between French, Arabic and Korean on several levels. Firstly, we have noticed that in Arabic the surface forms are generally more polysemous than in French and Korean, especially the forms that have a three-letter root. This difficulty, already well known [START_REF] Roth | Arabic Morphological Tagging, Diacritization, and Lemmatization Using Lexeme Models and Feature Ranking[END_REF], [START_REF] Dichy | On lemmatization in Arabic[END_REF], is due to the morphological ambiguity in Arabic, caused, above all, by the absence of vocalisation, the agglutination and the relatively free word order in a sentence. To resolve this problem, we have used clues for the disambiguation of certain markers, in order to validate or not their correspondence to the researched forms. Secondly, we remark that the occurrences of direct speech in French texts and the use of enunciative modalities are richer than in texts in Arabic as well as in Korean.

In Korean, it seems easier to recognize the quotations than in French and in Arabic because of the specific markers of quotations in Korean (ko, -lako…), etc. Introducers always occur after the quotation marks in Korean; in the beginning and the end in Arabic; and in the beginning, the middle and the end in French.

Finally, we mention that our analysis of reported speech was performed first on Arabic and French languages. We expanded it in this study to Korean. The transition to Korean was easy and fast: linguistic resources have been transposed into Korean by adapting French markers and by working on Korean corpus; the CE rules have been adapted or re-written using, always, the same tool, EXCOM. On the other hand, the semantic categorization was confirmed by the analysis of Korean. Indeed, there are categories where we can not have specific markers. There are also markers that have necessitated the creation of new categories in the map. But we have not encountered any conflicts or cases of misinterpretation between the three languages.

Perspectives

The results allow us to say that our application using EXCOM is robust and the adaptation of our analysis to the multilingualism is quick and operational. The ongoing task consists in testing resources (markers and rules) of appreciative modalities (opinion, position, attitude...) in the three languages in question, and to expand it to English.

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: First organization for the semantic categories The quotation introducers in our approach are "enunciative" markers indicating an act of speaking. They can be verbs (informer [to inform] / عًغ [to hear] / 주장하다 [to assert]), nominal groups (déclaration [declaration] / اشاػح [rumor] / 진술 [confess]), adverbial phrases (d'après / تح عة , ً ٔفما نـ / 에 따르면 [According to]) or present participles (en affirmant [by affirming] / ً يضٍفا [by adding] /주장하면서 [by claming]). These introducers are often combined with other modality clues (modalizers), as: • Polysemic declarative markers (se moquer de [to make fun of], / ّك ذًه [to laughs] / 비꼬다 [to give a sarcastic twist to one's word]) She laughs at me by saying... • Non declarative markers that denote the speaker"s attitude (interpeller [to hail] / تادس [to address] /말을 막았다 [stop someone's talking]).He has addressed me and said... • Other grammatical categories are also to be observed as modalities clues, such as adverbs (enfin [finally] / نألعف

(

  ordonner [to order] / ٔػذ [to promise] / 격려하다 [to encourage]) or to an appreciative relation expressed by the speaker towards the co-speaker (louer [to praise] / يٍ اػرزس [to apogolize] / 비난하다 [to criticise]).

[

  to stammer] / 소리치다 [to cry]), shows his own, evaluates the act of locution as a whole, or the content of the reported speech in relation to the truth value (and therefore the sincerity of the speaker) charges she has leveled at her former husband is that "he used to stop paying alimony"]

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: A sub-part of the semantic map of quotations

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: screenshot of the results of the annotation

(

[

  Because Niken confessed: "I went out too", Obayashi and Takashi are embarrassed.] • Category 2: the judgment of the utterer on the truth value (true or false) of the speaker"s reported speech (the speaker is presented by the utterer as sincere or liar). was right when he said: "My life will be longer than the life of my hangman..."] (10) Ms Jin [...] a prononcé ces mots sincères : "Divine Performing Arts est l'espoir de l'humanité..." [Mme Jin [...] uttered these sincere words : "Divine Performing Arts is the hope of humanity…"] (11) […] 이영훈 목사는 목회자 영성에 관해 "나 역시 40 년간 실패의 연속을 경험한 어려운 주제"라고 솔직히 말했다.

  It came to my Knowledge that "Edward Said has blood cancer" and that he is "resisting valiantly. Even when disease strikes him down, he raises proudly to write his noble words, unchanged, and without boastfulness."] (4) Mme Royal aurait donc dit face à Sarkozy : "J'ai proposé à François Bayrou d'être mon Premier Ministre et il a accepté le poste". [Ms Royal would then have said to Sarkozy : "I suggested to François Bayrou to be my Prime Minister and he accepted the position"]

	ٌمأو	"	ٔأَّ	"	انذو	تغشطاٌ	يصاب	عؼٍذ	ادٔاسد	"	أٌ	ػهًً	انى	ًَا	)	3
	تذٌٔ	انششٌفح	كهًرّ	كاذثا	تكثشٌاء،	لايرّ	سافؼا	فٍمٕو	انًشض	ٌمؼذِ	تثغانح،
																	"	ي	ذثذ	ٔال	ذغٍش
	[

http://labs.google.com/inquotes/

http://press.jrc.it/NewsExplorer/home/fr/latest.html

http://www.ifao.egnet.net/kawakib

http://www.excom.fr/

In Korean[START_REF] Pak | Automatic identification of quotations in Korean newspapers[END_REF]), a set of linguistic markers following quotation marks often indicate a real quotation, such as (라고 / lako, 라고도 / lakoto / 고 / ko, 고도 / koto, 이라고 / ilako, etc.).

Examples in this paper are not identical from one language to another, but they belong to the same semantic categories.

Given the lack of space, we will describe only some sub-parts of the map.

This expression can be defined inside the λ-calculus in framework of appalicative grammar[START_REF] Desclés | Quelques opérations énonciatives élémentaires. Logique et niveaux d'analyse linguistique[END_REF],[START_REF] Desclés | Enonciateur, locuteur, médiateur. Les Rituels du dialogue[END_REF].

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback, and everyone who participated in the evaluation tests.


Motasem Alrahabi
email: motasem.alrahabi@paris4.sorbonne.fr

Jean-Pierre Desclés
email: jean-pierre.descles@paris4.sorbonne.fr

Automatic annotation of direct reported speech in Arabic and French, according to a Semantic Map of enunciative modalities

Keywords: Automatic annotation, multilingual approach, commitment, semantic map, Contextual Exploration

We present an analysis of the linguistic markers of the enunciative modalities in direct reported speech, in a multilingual framework concerning Arabic and French. Furthermore, we present a platform for automatic annotation of semantic relations, based on the Contextual Exploration method. This platform allows the automatic annotation and categorisation of quotational segments in both languages, exploiting a semantic map based on the notion of speaker commitment in enunciation.

Introduction

Reported speech, both in the form of direct quotation and indirect paraphrases, is the most frequent expression found in newspapers, where it can occur in up to 90% of the sentences of the latter [START_REF] Bergler | Conveying Attitude with Reported Speech[END_REF]. Nevertheless, the existing Natural Language Processing systems do not usually target on reported speech itself, since they mainly focus on an automated retrieval of quoted segments, without going further into neither the linguistic analysis of the introduction markers of the reported speech, nor the enunciative modality. The latter concerns, for instance, the position of the enunciator towards what he reports, or the manner in which he describes the reported enunciation or the attitude of the others speakers, etc. Some research on the Opinion Mining uses automatic procedures, generally based on statistical methods, in order to assign a subjective or objective character to a word, a sentence or a text, and to determine the attitude of the speaker (orientation: positive, negative or neutral) or the degree (strength) of this attitude [START_REF] Riloff | Learning subjective nouns using extraction pattern bootstrapping[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Wiebe | Learning Subjective Language[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Yu | Towards answering opinion questions: Separating facts from opinions and identifying the polarity of opinion sentences[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Turney | Thumbs up or thumbs down? Semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews[END_REF]. This lexical approach seems to be limited because the terms in a certain context may have an emotional value which is exactly opposed to their values if considered individually, for example:

"This film should be brilliant. It sounds like a great plot, the actors are first grade, and the supporting cast is good as well, and Stallone is attempting to deliver a good performance. However, it can't hold up", cited in [START_REF] Pang | Thumbs up? Sentiment classification using machine learning techniques[END_REF].

Many researchers in this field have observed the same phenomenon and speak in favour of combining lexical information with more complex linguistic analysis: Polanyi and Zaenen [START_REF] Polanyi | Shifting attitudes[END_REF] (cited in [START_REF] Bestgen | Un baromètre affectif effectif[END_REF]), state the necessity of taking into consideration the negations, some connectors (Although Boris is brilliant in math, he is a horrific teacher) and the modal operators (If Mary were a terrible person, she would be mean to her dogs).

We can also mention other existing works [START_REF] Sauri | Annotating and recognizing event modality in text[END_REF] that develop a linguistic analysis of the modalities concerning events (in the aspectual sense). The term modality for the author refers to certain degrees of possibility, beliefs, opinions, evidentiality, etc., however the polysemy of modal auxiliaries (must, may…) is not taken into consideration.

In our work, we propose a linguistic analysis of enunicative modalities in direct reported speech (D-RS) in Arabic and French. This analysis takes into account the marks of the enunciator in the discourse (his attitude towards what is reported), and allows the organisation of modality values in a semantic map. This map is exploited by an automatic system of grammatical and discursive annotations, based on the Contextual Exploration. This method, unlike the above-stated approach [START_REF] Sauri | Annotating and recognizing event modality in text[END_REF], requires only the analysis of surface linguistic forms.

Our presentation is organized around two main lines: a linguistic one, which exposes the theoretical principles of the analysis and categorization of linguistic data; and an other, computational, which explains the architecture of the implemented system on the different processing levels.

Contextual Exploration Methodology

In the linguistic study of enunciation, the construction of an utterance (or a text) has to take into account some language operations such as predication, discourse operations and operations of commitment, the expression of which leaves a certain amount of surface linguistic traces. By analysing these linguistic indicators, the linguist is able to reconstruct, according to the process of abduction [START_REF] Peirce | The Collected Papers vol. V: Pragmatism and Pragmaticism[END_REF], the underlying operations of language production. Our methodology, the Contextual Exploration (CE) [START_REF] Desclés | Exploration Contextuelle et sémantique: un système expert qui trouve les valeurs sémantiques des temps de l'indicatif dans un texte[END_REF], is based on the analysis of these surface linguistic indicators, caracterising the textual representations used by the enunciator and which correspond to a given point of view1 frame, such as citations, definitions or causal relations, etc. And because in natural languages the relationship between operations and linguistic indicators is rarely an one-to-one function, we need to explore the context in order to identify complementary clues that confirm or falsify the pertinence of the hypothesis first motivated by the indicators. The following example is analyzed by the CE' strategy:

The writer fascinated us by giving to us this mocking sentence: "all suns rise from the dormer window of Hajja Adiba, the sun of the West Bank, the sun of 48th and the sun of Bush"! In this example2 , the indicator of quotation is the quotation marks, and the complementary clues are combination of the verb « تطرح » / « by giving » and the declarative noun « العبارة » / « sentence ». As far as the modal clues are concerned, they are: « الساخرة » / « mocking » which marks the attitude of the speaker ; « تنا َ َر أس » / « fascinated us » and « ! », that denote the attitude of the enunciator.

The linguistic analysis performed by the CE method does not rely on any preliminary morpho-syntactic analysis or statistical method, and is composed mainly of two parts of procedure made by the linguist: one that consists in studying various types of texts in different languages and distinguishes between two types of linguistic markers: indicators and clues ; and another that concerns CE's rules and exploits these markers (by using a CE engine), in order to find the surface level markers of the textual representations corresponding to the given point of view.

This method has been used in different computer applications, such as automatic summarization [START_REF] Berri | Contribution à la méthode d'Exploration Contextuelle: Applications au résumé automatique et aux représentations temporelles[END_REF] [13] [START_REF] Blais | Le résumé automatique dans la plate-forme EXCOM[END_REF], extraction of causal relationships [START_REF] Jackiewicz | La notion de cause pour le filtrage de phrases importantes d'un texte[END_REF] and relationships between concepts [START_REF] Priol | A data processing sequence to extract terms and semantics relations between terms[END_REF].

The linguistic markers of enunciative modalities in D-RS

The notion of modality has been studied from many different perspectives: Logic, Philosophy and Linguistics [START_REF] Bybee | The Evolution of Grammar: tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Palmer | Mood and Modality[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Nuyts | Modality: overview and linguistic issues[END_REF]. In the field of Linguistics, modality can be considered from a syntactic, semantic or enunciative perspective.

We shall consider modality in an enunciative approach, according to Ch. Bally [START_REF] Bally | Linguistique générale et linguistique française[END_REF], E. Benveniste [START_REF] Benveniste | Problèmes de linguistique générale 1[END_REF] and A. Culioli [START_REF] Culioli | sur quelques contradictions en linguistiques[END_REF], so we distinguish between the enunciator and the speaker [START_REF] Desclés | Logique et niveaux d'analyse linguistique[END_REF]: in reported speech, the enunciator makes a commitment to the utterance in its totality (the author), and the speaker is the third person quoted by the author, the "last enunciator who directly makes commitment to the predicative relation" [START_REF] Desclés | Enonciateur, locuteur, médiateur. Les Rituels du dialogue[END_REF].

In the theory of Enunciation, the commitment of an enunciator of an utterance introduces aspect and tense variations or enunciative modalities, marked in the utterance by traces that the enunciator leaves in his speech. In our case, these traces can manifest themselves in the introductory portion of the direct speech in different forms: they may indicate the enunciator's position towards what is reported, describe the speaker's attitude towards what is being said (in general) or towards what the speaker himself is saying; or refer to the relationship between the speaker and the enunciator, etc. In each of the processed languages, the enunciative modality markers in D-RS are either those that introduce the citation, or other markers that are otherwise appointed.

Citational linguistic markers

The term reported speech covers a number of forms [17]: direct and indirect speech, free indirect speech, direct speech introduced by "that" [18], etc. We are particularly interested in direct reported speech (quotations). This linguistic act permits the enunciator to make a commitment for what is said or written by the speaker, without modifying it.

As we have already mentioned above, we can distinguish two types of linguistic markers: indicators and clues. For us, the indicators of D-RS are typographical signs (in French, Arabic and also in a number of many other languages) that define the scope of the D-RS. These signs are the quotation marks surrounding the clause 3 , sometimes preceded by a colon (therefore the clause constitutes a syntactically independent sentence) or by the conjunction 'that'.

As to the contextual clues for D-RS, they are the declarative linguistic markers that introduce or succeed the citation:

- French examples: en soulignant, en affirmant, en ajoutant… -adverbials (According to X: "…"): Arabic ex.:

لـ... ً وفقا ذمة, على عن, ً نقال بحسب,
French examples: d'après, selon… We note that in French, unlike Arabic, verbs can be positioned in the middle of the citation ("…, affirme-t-il, …").

Linguistic modality markers

In a D-RS, the enunciator can take into account the oral or written speech of the speaker, or describe the speaker's attitude towards his own speech or that of his interlocutor. On the other hand, the enunciator can show his position towards what he reports. We shall see in more detail some of these enunciative relationships:

-the enunciator reports the speaker's declaration (he says, he declares, he adds, he repeats, etc.). The latter makes a commitment to the predicative relation without getting involved. -the enunciator reports the speaker's commitment (he confirms, he asserts, he certifies, etc.). The latter takes the responsibility for the matter of the clause. This language act is a commitment concerning the validity of a predicative relation. -The enunciator describes the relationship between the speaker and the interlocutor: this relationship can be related to the volutive modalities (to encourage, to forbid, to command) or to evaluative modalities (to make fun, to denounce, to apologize). In a question, for example, the speaker demands the commitment of the interlocutor in regard to the content suggested by the speaker (he asked his son: "…"). -the enunciator relates the act of locution (I say that X said: « … ») -the enunciator makes a commitment to the truth of the locution act: I affirme / it's sur that X said: « … » ; -the enunciator indicates a judgement on the spatio-temporal realisation of the predicative relation: X said in Goteborg yesterday that: « … ».

-the enunciator makes commitment on the evaluative modalities that pertain to the veracity of the speaker's utterance (an untrue declaration, a credible explanation…) or on positive or negative values (good / bad explanation…).

-the enunciator makes commitment on the evaluative modalities pertaining on his own attitude (happily he confessed…) or to the attitude of other speakers who are implied in the reported enunciation (sincerity: to pretend ; agreement/disagreement: wrongly ; pronunciation: to babble). These modalities can be marked by the choice of the declarative expression introducing the citation seen above (to say, to whisper…). But they can also be tagged by polysemic declarative markers (to make fun of, to humiliate…) or by non declarative markers that denote the speaker's attitude for example (to interrupt, to blush…). Other grammatical categories are also to be observed, such as adverbs (alas, finally) and adjectives (untrue, credible).

Among the markers of modality, some expressions introducing citations, especially the verbs, have been subject to diverse syntactic, semantic and pragmatic analysis [START_REF] Gross | Méthodes en syntaxe[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Charolles | Exercices sur les verbes de communication[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Lamiroy | Les verbes de parole et la question de l[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Mourad | Analyse informatique des signes typographiques pour la segmentation de textes et l'extraction automatique de citations: Réalisation des Applications informatiques[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Austin | How To Do Things With Words[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Searle | les actes du langage: essai philosophique du langage[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Vanderveken | Les actes de discours[END_REF]; [START_REF] Ross | On declarative sentences[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Banfield | Le style narratif et la grammaire des discours direct et indirect[END_REF]. The analysis that we have adopted here differs on several points: the linguistic markers of the reported speech and modality concern all lexical categories (verbs, nouns, adverbs…) ; these markers have been studied cross-linguistically (Arabic and French); the framework is that of the Enunciative Linguistics where the mark of the enunciator is analysed in the discourse ; finally, this work is carried out in the perspective of automatic language processing and our final goal is to provide automatic applications that respond to concrete needs.

Categorisation of the enunciative modalities: Semantic Map

We have analysed, in a contrastive manner, the markers of enuncicative modalities in Arabic and French and we then organized them according to a semantic map, based on the principle of commitment [START_REF] Desclés | Enonciateur, locuteur, médiateur. Les Rituels du dialogue[END_REF], [START_REF] Desclés | Prise en charge, engagement et désengagement[END_REF].

This semantic map (SM) is a "linguistic ontology" of grammatical or discursive categories, interlinked by the elements of specification, opposition, application, value attribution, etc. It corresponds to one or more points of view. The values of the SM (the nodes of the graph) are represented in texts by different indicators and clues (node instances) in one language or another 4 , and by the CE rules that are associated to these instances. Thus, we have organised the enunciative relations [START_REF] Alrahabi | Vers une carte sémantique du discours rapporté[END_REF] in the following figure: The fundamental dialogical dipole is between the enunciator (I) and the coenunciator (YOU). The (I) reports to (YOU) the utterance of a speaker (X), absent from the dialogue. In the same way, the D-RS is centered on the dialogical relation speaker-interlocutor. All the enunciative relations in this SM are under the commitment of the enunciator. Some of them concern the simple I-YOU speech relation (M0), and others concern the D-RS (M1 to M7).

The categories M1 to M4 denote the relation between the speaker and his utterance ; the categories M5 to M7 indicate the relation between the speaker and the interlocutor. We have also added other categories to the SM, in order to describe the attitudes of the different speakers implicated in the D-RS: Attitude-I, Attitude-YOU, Attitude-X (speaker), Attitude-Y (interlocutor) and Attitude-Z (speaker absent).

The categories of the SM can be related by application, incompatibility, specification, etc. In this way, the spatio-temporal category that depends on the enunciator can be applied to all the sub-categories from M0 to M7. Similarly, all the categories contain other sub-classes, such as assertion of the speaker, that can take several values (individual assertion, universal or collective assertion, etc. [START_REF] Desclés | Enonciateur, locuteur, médiateur. Les Rituels du dialogue[END_REF]).

Program implementation of the automatic annotation

The applicative part of our work [START_REF] Alrahabi | Semantic Annotation of Reported Information in Arabic[END_REF] consists in the implementation of an automatic annotation tool for grammatical or discursive categories. This tool, EXCOM 5 , is composed by a CE engine and the supplementary modules 6 connected to it. automatic annotation requires pre-processing of the linguistic resources, which means: corpora segmentation, markers organization and CE rules construction.

Automatic segmentation

In our work, the segmentation of a text into smaller parts helps in determining the search fields for linguistic markers, and the textual segments which are to be annotated. This consists in defining the boundaries of sections, titles, paragraphs and sentences.

The sections are determined by the presence of titles in the text, the titles are defined by several heuristics 7 , and the paragraphs are delimited by the sign of carriage return. In order to split the paragraphs into sentences, we used a set of rules, which can be modified by the user, and based on disambiguation of typographical signs 8 and linguistic terms 9 . This method [39] takes into account the difficulties encountered in Arabic (lack of capitalization and of vocalization) and in French (many abbreviations).

The input files for the segmentation module are raw text files in UTF-8 encoding, in different languages, and the output files are in the XML DocBook format for articles. The results of segmentation are satisfactory, however they must be evaluated in a large scale, and improved, for example, by the identification of item lists and the hierarchy between titles and sub-titles.

Automatic annotation

The core of the EXCOM architecture (Fig. 2) consists of a CE engine that manipulates the CE rules and linguistic markers associated with the annotations. The annotation process consists in the research of the indicators in the search fields defined by the segmentation process. The presence of indicators calls the application of CE rules and then the conditions of these rules are examined (research of contextual clues). If all the conditions are satisfied, the CE engine either attributes the corresponding annotation to the segment, or calls (recursively) another CE rule.

Fig.2. Simplified architecture of the EXCOM

As to the CE rules, they are automatically generated (with XML format) by using a graphical user interface that offers the possibility of defining and modifing all of the functional parameters of the CE engine, in order to separate maximally the data from the implementation. The efficiency of the CE rules corresponds to the functionalities of localization and disambiguation of markers, offered by the CE engine, such as for example:

-The hierarchy between the indicators that carry the semantic meaning of the category in question the contextual clues. From a theoretical perspective, this principle is fundamental for us and concerns one of the differences between the CE method and other context analysis methods.

-The contextual clues can be of two types: positive (their presence is obligatory) and negative (their presence cancels the action of annotation).

-The markers (indicators or clues) can be either linguistic units (words or regular expressions), or already annotated segments (in an already annonated text).

-The targeting of a part of a text can be specified and used as search field by using the XML structure of the file and the identified titles in the segmented document (for ex.: find indicators in all the titles, or find indicators in the last sentence of the second paragraph of the first section).

-The research of the contextual clues is carried out in the context of the indicators: before, after or inside the indicator (for ex.: a morphem in a word).

-Different types of clues can be combined by logical operators: between the positive clues, before and after the indicator, between the negative clues, before and after the indicator. These operators can be: AND, OR, XOR. (for ex. looking at clues before OR exclusively (XOR) after indicators).

-An order can be defined between the positive and the negative clues in the context before or after each indicator (for ex.: in the context before the indicator, a negative clue cannot occur before a positive clue).

-Meta-rules can be set by the user in order to define priority between rules or the navigation mode in the semantic map (this second section is under construction).

The annotation of the segments contains the following meta-data: the semantic category of the annotation, the class of the indicator that has triggered the annotation, the identifier of the CE rule that has carried out the annotation, etc. This information This rule can annotate some sentences found in the first paragraph of the last section of an which carry a conclusive value in addition to their enunciative modality. For example:

"Nevertheless, he concludes, this rapprochement between the European business companies is one of the challenges of tomorrow".

Once the texts are annotated, the user can then proceed to the post-processing treatment by using a module which compiles all annotated segments of the corpus in a database, with an interface allowing the navigation between these segments and their original contexts.

Evaluation

We set up a first evaluation test consisting in the judgment of the capacity of the system to categorize 10 the marked segments of quotations, according to the SM. The corpus on which we worked was composed of 250 texts of journalistic articles per language handling various subjects 11 . We made preliminary tests on 80 % of the corpus aiming the EC rules adjustment. Then we performed the evaluation test on the other part of the texts (20 %).

Based on the results on each corpus, we extracted randomly 39 segments annotated according to the following three semantic categories 12 :

1) the declaration of the speaker without commitment to the content (category M1), for instance, X says: "…" ;

2) the commitment of the speaker in regard to the content (category M2): for instance, X affirms: "…" ;

3) the enunciator's comments about the speech of the speaker, concerning the degree of the sincerity of the speaker or the truth of his speech (category M3): for instance, X claims: "…". 10 As for quotations localization by means of typographical indicators, no evaluation has been made due to the relative simplicity of the task. 11 The French corpus was taken from the following newspapers: Le Monde Diplomatique, le Figaro, l'Humanité and Libération ; and the Arabic one from: Al-Nahar, AL-Ahram, Tishreen, Al-Jazeera, Al-Sabah, Al-Alam and Al-Quds. 12 The only restriction was that the segment numbers by category had to be the same for both languages.

The test consisted then in asking subjects (15 French-speaking persons 13 , and 9 Arabic-speaking persons 14 ) to annotate manually the 39 extracted segments, according to the same semantic categories. For each segment the subjects had to choose one of the proposed categories and assign it to the sentence. For the calculation of the evaluation measures, we have used the evaluation interface EVA-2 15 .

In order to calculate the precision and recall measures, the "correct" annotations were determined on the basis of the set of human annotations. These correct annotations are defined as the most frequent annotations attributed by the subjects. The results for the Arabic and French corpus are the following:

Perspectives

Our first evaluation results are quite encouraging. We are currently drawing up a deeper protocol for the evaluation of all categories in the SM, in order to validate this part of the work. These tests have allowed us to draw comparisons between French and Arabic on several levels. First, we have noticed that in Arabic the surface forms are generally more polysemous than in French, especially the forms that have a three-letter root. This difficulty, already well known [START_REF] Alrahabi | Filtrage sémantique de textes en arabe[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Alrahabi | Désambiguiser par le contexte, le cas de la graphie alef-noun en arabe[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Diab | Automatic Tagging of Arabic Text: From raw text to Base Phrase Chunks[END_REF] ; [START_REF] Dichy | On lemmatization in Arabic[END_REF], is due to the morphological ambiguity in Arabic caused, above all, by the absence of vocalisation, the agglutination and the relatively free word order in a sentence. To resolve this problem, we have used clues for the disambiguation of certain markers, in order to validate or not their correspondence to the researched forms. Secondly, we remark that the occurrences of direct speech in French texts and the use of enunciative modalities are much more frequent than in texts in Arabic. Finally, we should elaborate more our reflexion on our categorization of the assertion class and its subcategories. Some of these categories were manually annotated as a declaration. the annotation procedure is independent of a given point of view (the D-RS in our case) and of the processed languages (Arabic and French), it is absolutely possible to annotate other types of texts with different linguistic resources, in different languages and according to other points of view. The annotation platform has also been then tested in the following works: identification of the hypotheses in biological articles in English 16 , annotation of D-RS in Korean 17 and of events in articles in French and Polish 18 . These works are in progress and will be published shortly. It becomes also conceivable, in futur work, to intersect the annotations according to different semantic maps, such as, for example, that of D-RS and the SM of bibliosemantics or contact between people (meetings).

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig.1. Semantic Map of enunciative modalities D-RS

  improve the rules, as well as the relevance of the linguistic markers.This is an example of a simple EC rule for the citation, in a declarative form:CE rule # 5: Given P the following research space: all sentences of the first paragraph of the last section If (indicator from the class "2-quotes" exists in P) If (in the before-indicator-context does not exists a negative clue from the class "references") If (in the middle-indicator context exists a positive clue from "declaration-verb-reversed") Then: Give the semantic annotation "quotation-middle-conclusive" to P

Fig. 3 .

 3 Fig.3. The results of evaluation on the Arabic (left) and French (right) corpora

The notion of "point of view" in our approach corresponds to the analysis of a concrete task defined by the user.

http://www.arabicstory.net

We do not take into consideration the 'textual islands' (She criticised the president's "machiavelism").

Some values of the SM can be attested in one language and not in another.

For "EXploration COntextuelle Multilingue". Our system in its second edition is freely available online for the use of researchers on the following address: https://www.excom.fr

For the implementation we have used Java, XML, JDOM, XLINK, JNLP, etc.

For example, if the line is not longer than n words and if it is terminated by colon

For example: period, semicolon, question mark, etc.

Connectors like but, however, nevertheless, so that, etc.

PhD and Master students of Human Sciences Department of Paris-Sorbonne University and Paris 7 -Denis Diderot University.

Arabic-speaker students of Sorbonne Univ., Paris-Jussieu Univ., Lyon and Damascus Univ.

Evaluation d'Annotation Automatique, developped by I. Atanassova and M. Bertin (LaLIC).

Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank all readers of this paper, and everyone who participated in the evaluation tests.