File size: 66,408 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 | {
"paper_id": "P83-1007",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:19:20.287326Z"
},
"title": "A UNIFIED ACCOUNT OF DEFINITE NOUN PHRASES IN DISCOURSE",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Barbara",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "SRI International",
"location": {
"settlement": "Menlo Park",
"region": "CA"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Aravind",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Pennsylvania",
"location": {
"settlement": "Philadelphia",
"region": "PA"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Scott",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wcinstein",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P83-1007",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Linguistic theories typically assign various linguistic phenomena to one of the categories, syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic, as if the phenomena in each category were relatively independent of those in the others. However, various phenomena in discourse do not seem to yield comfortably to any account that is strictly a syntactic or semantic or pragmatic one.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Overview",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "This paper focuses on particular phenomena of this sort-the use of various referring expressions such as definite noun phrases and pronouns-and examines their interaction with mechanisms used to maintain discourse coherence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Overview",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "Even a casual survey of the literature on definite descriptions and referring expressions reveals not only defects in the individual accounts provided by theorists (from several different disciplines), but also deep confusions about the roles that syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors play in accounting for these phenomena. The research we have undertaken is an attempt to sort out some of these confusions and to create the basis for a theoretical framework that can account for a variety of discourse phenomena in which all three factors of language use interact. The major premise on which our research depends is that the concepts necessary for an adequate understanding of the phenomena in question are not exclusively either syntactic or semantic or pragmatic.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Overview",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "The next section of this paper defines two levels of discourse coherence and describes their roles in accounting for the use of singular definite noun phrases. To illustrate the integration of factors in explaining the uses of referring expressions, their use on one of these levels, i.e., the local one, is discussed in Sections 3 and 4. This account requires introducing the notion of the centers of a sentence in a discourse, a notion that cannot be defined in terms of factors that are exclusively syntactic or semantic or pragmatic. In Section 5, the interactions of the two levels with these factors and their effects on the uses of referring expressions in discourse are discussed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Overview",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "A discourse comprises utterances that combine into subconstituents of the discourse, namely, units of discourse that are typically larger than a single sentence, but smaller than the complete discourse. However, the constituent structure is not determined solely by the linear sequence of utterances.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coherence",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "It is common for two contiguous utterances to be members of different subconstituents of the discourse (as with breaks between phrases in the syntactic analysis of a sentence); likewise, it is common for two utterances that are not contiguous to be members of the same subconstituent.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coherence",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "An individual subcoastituent of a discourse exhibits both internal coherence and coherence with the other subconstituents. That is, discourses have been shown to have two levels of coherence. Global coherence refers to the ways in which the larger segments of discourse relate to one another. It depends on such things as the function of a discourse, its subject matter, and rhetorical schema [Grosz, 1977 [Grosz, , 1981 Reichman, 1981 I. Local coherence refers to the ways in which individual sentences bind together to form larger discourse segments. It depends on such things as the syntactic structure of an utterance, ellipsis, and the use of pronominal referring expressions [Sidner, 1981 I. The two levels of discourse coherence correspond to two levels of focusing--global focusing and centering.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 393,
"end": 405,
"text": "[Grosz, 1977",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 420,
"text": "[Grosz, , 1981",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 421,
"end": 438,
"text": "Reichman, 1981 I.",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 681,
"end": 697,
"text": "[Sidner, 1981 I.",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coherence",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Participants are said to be globally focused on a set of entitie.~ relevant to the overall discourse. These entities may either have been explicitly introduced into the discourse or be sufficiently closely related to such entities to be considered implicitly in focus [Grosz, 19811 . In contrast, centering refers to a more local focusing process, one relates to identifying the single entity that an individual utterance most centrally concerns [Sidner, 1979; Joshi and Weinstein, 1981] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 268,
"end": 283,
"text": "[Grosz, 19811 .",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 446,
"end": 460,
"text": "[Sidner, 1979;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 461,
"end": 487,
"text": "Joshi and Weinstein, 1981]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coherence",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "IThis research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant MCS-8115105 to SRI International, and Grant MCS81-07290 to the University of Pennsylvania.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coherence",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The two levels of focusing/coherence have different effects on the processing of pronominal and nonpronominal definite noun phrases. Global coherence and focusing are major factors in the generation and interpretation of nonpronominal def'lnite referring expressions. 2 Local coherence and centering have greater effect on the processing of pronominal expressions. In Section 5 we shall describe the rules governing the use of these kinds of expressions and shall explain why additional processing by the hearer (needed for drawing additional inferences} is involved when pronominal expressions are used to refer to globally focused entities or nonpronominal expressions are used to refer to centered entities.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coherence",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Many approaches to language interpretation have ignored these differences, depending instead on powerful inference mechanisms to identify the referents of referring expressions. Although such approaches may suffice, especially for well-formed texts, they are insufficient in general. In particular, such approaches will not work for generation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coherence",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Here the relationships among focusing, coherence, and referring expressions are essential and must be explicitly provided for. Theories-and systems based on them--will generate unacceptable uses of referring expressions if they do not take these relationships into account. 3",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coherence",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In our theory, the centers of a sentence in a discourse serve to integrate that sentence into the discourse. Each sentence, S, has a single backward-looking center, Cb(S), and a set of forward-looking centers, Cf(S). Cb(S) serves to link S to the preceding discourse, while Cf(S) provides a set of entities to which the succeeding discourse may be linked. To avoid confusion, the phrase =the center\" will be used to refer only to Cb(S).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Centering and Anaphora",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "To clarify the notion of center, we will consider a number of discourses illustrating the various factors that are combined in its definition (abstractly) and in its identification in a discourse. In Section 5 we define center more precisely, show how it relates to Sidner's [1981] immediate focus and potential loci, and discuss how the linkages established by the centers of a sentence help to determine the degree of intelligibility of a discourse. We begin by showing that the center cannot be defined in syntactic terms alone. The interaction of semantics and centering is more complex and is discussed in Section 4.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 266,
"end": 281,
"text": "Sidner's [1981]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Centering and Anaphora",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "The following examples, drawn from Reinhart [1982] , illustrate the point that the notion of center is not syntactically definable, 4 i.e., the syntax of a sentence S does not determine which of its NPs realizes Cb(S). (The 2They differ in other respects also. Reichman [19811 a~d Grosz [19811 discuss some of these.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 50,
"text": "Reinhart [1982]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 286,
"text": "Reichman [19811 a~d Grosz",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Centering and Anaphora",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "3Initial attempts to incorporate focusing mechanisms in generation systems are described in [Appelt, 1981 and MeKeown, 1982] . 41ntonation can obviously affect the interpretation; for the purposes of this paper, it may be regarded a~ part of a syntax. reasons for the use of this terminology axe discussed in Section 4.) Although (lb) and (2b) are identical, Cb(lb) is Max and Cb(2b) is Rosa. This can be seen in part by noticing that =He saw Rosa\" seems more natural than (lb) and =Max saw her\" than (2b) (a fact consistent with the centering rule introduced in Section 5.) The subject NP is the center in one context, the object NP in the other.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 109,
"text": "[Appelt, 1981 and",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 124,
"text": "MeKeown, 1982]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Centering and Anaphora",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "Even when the NP used to realize Cb(S) can be syntactically determined, the Cb(S) itself is not yet fully determined, for Cb(S) is typically not a linguistic entity (i.e., it is not a particular linguistic expression). Rosa, not \u00b0Rosa \u00b0 is the Cb(2b). Consider. the discourse:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Centering and Anaphora",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "(3z)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Centering and Anaphora",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "How is Rosa?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Centering and Anaphora",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "(3b) Did anyone see her yesterday?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Centering and Anaphora",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "Max saw her.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Centering and Anaphora",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "Here, Cb(3c) is Rosa, but clearly would not be in other contexts where the expression \"her\" still realized the backward-looking center of \"Max saw her.\" This is seen most simply by considering the discourse that would result if \"How is Joan?\" replaced (3a). In the discourse that resulted, Joan, not Rosa, would be the center of (3c).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Centering and Anaphora",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "The interactions of semantic and pragmatic factors with centering and their effects on referring expressions are more complex than the preceding discussion suggests. In the examples given above, the NPs that realize Cb(S) also denote it., but this is not always the case: we used the term \"realize\" in the above discussion advisedly. In this section, we consider two kinds of examples in which the center of a sentence is not simply the denotation of some noun phrase occurring in the sentence. First, we will examine several examples in which the choice of and interaction among different kinds of interpretations of definite noun phrases are affected by the local discourse context (i.e., centering}. Second, the role of pragmatic factors in some problematic cases of referential uses of definite descriptions [Donnellan 1966 ] is discussed.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 812,
"end": 827,
"text": "[Donnellan 1966",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Centering and Realization",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "The distinction between realization and semantic denotation is necessary to treat the interaction between value-free and value-loaded interpretations [Barwise and Perry, 1982] of definite descriptions, as they occur in extended discourse. Consider, for example, the following sequence:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 175,
"text": "[Barwise and Perry, 1982]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "(4a) The vice president of the United States is also president of the Senate. (4b) Historically, he is the president's key man in negotiations with Congress. (4b') As Ambassador to China, he handled many tricky negotiations, so he is well prepared for this Job.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "Cb(4b) and Cb(4b') are each realized by the anaphoric element \"he. = But (4b) expresses the same thing as \"Historically, the vice president of the United States is the president's key man in negotiations with Congress\" (in which it is clear that no single individual vice president is being referred to) whereas (4b') expresses the same thing as, \"As ambassador to China, the [person who is now] vice president of the United States handled many tricky negotiations,...\"",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "This can be accounted for by observing that \"the vice president of the United States\" contributes both its value-free interpretation and its value-loading at the world type to Cf(4a). Cb(4b) is then the value-free interpretation and Cb(4b') is the valueloading, i.e., George Bush.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "In this example, both value-free and value-loaded interpretations are showu to stem from the same full definite noun phrase. It is also possible for the movement of the center from a value-free interpretation (for Cb(S)) to a value-loaded interpretation (for Cb of the next sentence)-or vice versa-to be accomplished solely with pronouns. That is, although (4b)-(4b') is (at least for some readers) not a natural dialogue, similar sequences are possible.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "There appear to be strong constraints on the kinds of transitions that are allowed. In particular, if a given sentence forces either the value-free or value-loaded interpretation, then only that interpretation becomes possible in a subsequent sentence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "However, if some sentence in a given context merely prefers one interpretation while allowing the other, then either one is possible in a subsequent sentence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "For example, the sequence. in which \"he\" may be interpreted a~ either value-free (iT') or value-loaded (VL}, may be followed by either of the following two sentences:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "(5c) As ambassador to China. he handled many tricky negotiations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "(VL) (5c') He is required to he at least 35 years old.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "(V'F')",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "tlowever, if we change (Sb) to force the value-loaded interpretation, as in (5b'), then only (5c) is possible. Similarly, if {5b) is changed to force the value-free interpretation, as in {4b), then only (5c') is possible.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "If an intermediate sentence allows both interpretations but prefers one in a given context, then either is possible in the third sentence. A use with preference for a valueloaded interpretation followed by a use indicating the value-free interpretation is illustrated in the sequence:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "John thinks that the telephone \u00a3s a toy. He plays with it every day.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "(V~ preferred; V~ok) He doesn't realize that \u00a3t is tn \u00a3nventlon that changed the world.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Value-Free and Value-Loaded Interpretations",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "The preference for a value-free interpretation that is followed bv a value-loaded one is easiest to see in a dialogue situation: ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(V~",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "From these examples, it might appear that the concepts of value-free and value-loaded interpretation are identical to Donnellan's I19661 attributive and referential uses of noun phrases. However, there is an important difference between these two distinctions. The importance to our theory is that the referential use of definite noun phrases introduces the need to take pragmatic factors (in particular speaker intention) into account, not just seman| ic factors.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Realization and Referential Use",
"sec_num": "4.2."
},
{
"text": "[1966[ describes the referential and attributive uses of definite descriptions in the following way:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "DonnelIan",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\"A speaker who uses a definite description attributively in an assertion states something about whoever or whatever is the so-and-so. A speaker who uses a definite description referentially in an a~sertion, on the other hand , uses the description to enable his audience to pick out whom or what he is talking about and states something about that person or thing. In the first case the definite description might be said to occur essentially, for the speaker wishes to assert something about whatever or whoever fits that description; but in the referential use the definite description is merely one tool for doing a certain job--calling attention to a person or thing--and in gefieral any other device for doing the same job, another description or a name. would do as well. In the attributive use, the attribute of being the so-and-so is all imp~,rtant, while it is not in the referential use.*",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "DonnelIan",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The distinction Donnellan suggests can be formulated in terms of the different propositions a sentence S containing a definite description D may be used to express on differcn! occasions of use. When D is used referentially, it contributes its denotation to the proposition expressed by S; when it is used attributively, it contributes to the proposition expressed by S a semantic interpretation related to the descriptive content of D. The identity of this semantic interpretation is not something about which Donnellan is explicit. Distinct formal treatments of the semantics of definite descriptions in natural language would construe the appropriate interpretation differently. In semantic treatments based on possible worlds, the appropriate interpretation would be a (partial} function from possible worlds to objects; in the situation semantics expounded by Barwise and Perry, the appropriate interpretation is a (partial} function from resource situations 5 to objects.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "DonnelIan",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ".As just described, the referential-attributive distinction appears to be exactly the distinction that Barwise and Perry formulate in terms of the value-loaded and valuefree interpretations of definite noun phrases. But this gloss omits an essential aspect of the referentialattributive distinction as elaborated by Donnellan. In Donnellan's view, a speaker may use a description referentially to refer to an object distinct from the semantic denotation of the description, and, moreover, to refer to an object even when the description has no semantic denotation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "DonnelIan",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In one sense, this phenomenon arises within the framework of Barwise and Perry's treatment of descriptions. If we understand the semantic denotation of a description to be the unique object that satisfies the content of the description, if there is one, then Barwise and Perry would allow that there are referential uses of a description D that contribute objects other than the semantic denotation of D to the propositions expressed by uses of sentences in which D occurs. But this is only because Barwise and Perry allow that a description may be evaluated at ~ resource situation other than the complete situation in order to arrive at its denotation on a given occasion of use. Still, the denotation of the description relative to a given resource situation is the unique object in the situation that satisfies the description relative to that situation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "DonnelIan",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The referential uses of descriptions that Donnellan gives examples of do not seem to arise by evaluation of descriptions at alternative resource situations, but rather through the \"referential intentions\" of the speaker in his use of the description. This aspect of referential use is a pragmatic rather than a semantic phenomenon and is best analyzed in terms of the distinction between semantic reference and speaker's reference elaborated in Kripke With (6a) and (7a), Kripke has in mind a case like the one discussed in Donnellan [1066] , in which a speaker uses a description to refer to something other than the semantic referent of that description, i.e., the unique thing that satisfies the description (if there is one). Kripke analyzes this case as an instance of the general phenomenon of a clash of intentions in language use. In the case at hand, the speaker has a general intention to use the description to refer to its semantic referent; his specific intention, distinct from his general semantic intention, is to use it to refer to a particular individual. He incorrectly believes that these two intentions coincide and this gives rise to a use of the referring expression \"her husband\" in which the speaker's reference and the semantic reference are distinct. \"8 (The speaker's referent is presumably the woman's ]over).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 524,
"end": 540,
"text": "Donnellan [1066]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "DonnelIan",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "From our point of view, the importance of the case resides in its showing that Cf(S) may include more than one entity, that is realized by a single NP in S. In this case, \"her husband\" contributes both the husband and the lover to Cf{6a} and Cf(Ta). This can be seen by observing that both discourses seem equally appropriate and that the backward-looking centers of (6b) and /7b) are the husband and the lover, respectively, realized by their anaphoric elements. Hence, the forward-looking centers of a sentence may be related not semantically but pragmatically to the NPs that realize them. Hence, the importance of the referential/attributive distinction from our point of view is that it leads to cases in which the centers of a sentence may be pragmatically rather than semantically related to the noun phrases that realize them.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "DonnelIan",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In the foregoing sections we have discussed a number of examples to illustrate two essential points. First, the noun phrase that realizes the backward-looking center of an utterance in a discourse cannot be determined from the syntax of the utterance alone. Second, the relation N realizes c between noun phrases N and centers c is neither solely a semantic nor solely a pragmatic relation. This discussion has proceeded at a rather intuitive level, without explicit elaboration of the framework we regard as appropriate for dealing with centering and its role in explaining disco,trse phenomena. Before going on to describe constraints on the realization relation that 5Roughly, *any situation on which the speaker can focus attention \u00b0 is a potential candidate for a resource situation with respect to which the speaker may value load his uses of definite descriptions. Such resource situations must contain a unique object which satisfies the description.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "6There are, of course, several alternative explanations; e.g., the speaker may believe that the description is more likely than an accurate one to be interpreted correctly by the hearer. Ferreting out exactly what the case is in a given situation requires accounts of mutual belief and the like. A discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this paper. explain certain phenomena in discourse, we should be somewhat more explicit about the notions of center and realization.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We have said that each utterance S in a discourse has associated with it a backward-looking center, Cb(S), and a set of forward-looking centers, Cf(S). What manner of objects are these centers? They are the sort of objects that can serve as the semantic interpretations of singular noun phrases. 7 That is, either they are objects in the world (e.g., planets, people, numbers} or they are functions from possible worlds (situations, etc.} to objects in the world that can be used to interpret definite descriptions. That is, whatever serves to interpret a definite noun phrase can be a center.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For the sake of concreteness in many of the examples in the preceding discussion, we have relied on the situation semantics of Barwise and Perry. The theory we are developing does not depend on this particular semantical treatment of definite noun phrases, but it does require several of the distinctions that treatment provides. In particular, our theory requires a semantical treatment that accommodates the distinction between interpretations of definite noun phrases that contribute their content to the propositions expressed by sentences in which they occur and interpretations that contribute only their denotation-in other words, the distinction between value-free and value-loaded interpretations. As noted, a distinction of this sort can be effected within the framework of \"possible-worlds\" approaches to the semantics of natural language. In addition, we see the need for interpretations of definite noun phrases to be dependent on their discourse context. Once again, this is a feature of interpretations that is accommodated in the relational approach to semantics advocated by Barwise and Perry, but it might be accommodated within other approaches as well. 8",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Given that Cb(S), the center of sentence S in a discourse, is the interpretation of a definite noun phrase, how does it become related to S? In a typical example, S will contain a full definite noun phrase or pronoun that realizes the center. The realization relation is neither semantic nor pragmatic. For example, N realizes c may hold in cages where N is a definite description and c is its denotation, its value-free interpretation, or an object related to it by a \"speaker's reference.\" More importantly, when N is a pronoun, the principles that govern which c are such that N realizes c derive from neither semantics nor pragmatics exclusively. They are principles that must be elicited from the study of discourse itself. A tentative formulation of some such principles is given below.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Though it is typical that, when c is a center of S, S contains an N such that N realizes c, it is by no means necessary. In particular, for sentences containing noun 7In a fuller treatment of our theory we will consider centers that are realized by constituents in other syntactic categories.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "81srael [1983] discusses some of these issues and compares several properties of situation semantics with Montague semantics.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 14,
"text": "[1983]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "phrases that express functional relations (e.g., \"the door,\" \u2022 the owner'} whose arguments are not exhibited explicitly (e.g., a house is the current center, but so far neither its door nor its owner has been mentioned), 9 it is sometimes the case that such an argument can be the backward-looking center of the sentence. We are currently studying such cases and expect to integrate that study into our theory of discourse phenomena.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The basic rule that constrains the realization of the backward-looking center of an utterance is a constraint on the speaker, namely:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[f the Cb of the current utterance is the same as the Cb of the previous utterance, a pronoun should be used.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "There are two things to note about this rule. First, it does not preclude using pronouns for other entities as long as one is used for the center. Second, it is not a hard rule, but rather a principle, like a Gricean maxim, that can be violated. However, such violations lead at best to conditions in which the hearer is forced to draw additional inferences.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As a simple example, consider the following sequence, assuming at the outset that John is the center of the discourse: (8b) is unacceptable, unless it is possible to consider the introduction of a second person named \"John.\" However, intervening sentences that provide for a shift in center from John to Mike (e.g., \"He was studying for his driver's test') suffice to make (8b) completely acceptable.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Sidner's discourse focus corresponds roughly to Cb(S), while her potential foci correspond approximately to Cf(S). However, she also introduces an actor focus to handle multiple pronouns in a single utterance. The basic centering rule not only aLlows us to handle the same examples more simply, but also appears to avoid one of the complications in Sidner's account. Example D4 from Sidner [1081} illustrates this problem:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(9-1)I haven't seen Jeff for several days, (9-2)Carl thinks he's studying for his exams. (9-3)But I think he Tent bo the Cape with Llnda.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "On Sidner's account, Carl is the actor focus after (0-2) and Jeff is the discourse focus (Cb(9-2)). Because the actor focus is preferred as the referrent of pronominal expressions, Carl is the leading candidate for the entity referred to by he in {9-3}. It is difficult to rule this case out without invoking fairly special rules. On our account, Jeff is Cb(0-2) and there is no problem. The addition of actor focus was made to handle multiple pronouns--for example, if (9-3) were replaced by He thinks he studies too much.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The center rule allows such uses, without introducing a 9Grosz [1977] refers to this a~ \"implicit focusing'; other examples are presented in Joshi and Weinstein [1981] second kind of focus (or center), by permitting entities other than Cb(S) to be pronominalized as long as Cb(S) is.l\u00b0 Two aspects of centering affect the kinds of inferences a hearer must draw in interpreting a definite description. First, the shifting of center from one entity to another requires recognition of this change.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 69,
"text": "[1977]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 167,
"text": "Joshi and Weinstein [1981]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Most often such changes are affected by the use of full definite noun phrases, but in some instances a pronoun may be used. For example, Grosz [1977] presents several examples of pronouns being used to refer to objects mentioned many utterances back.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 149,
"text": "Grosz [1977]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Second, the hearer must process (interpret) the particular linguistic expression that realizes the center.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Most previous attempts to account for the interaction of different kinds of referring expressions with centering and focusing (or \"topic') have conflated these two. For example, Joshi and Weinstein [1981] present a preliminary report on their research regarding the connection between the computational complexity of the inferences required to process a discourse and the coherence of that discourse as assessed by measures that invoke the centering phenomenon. However, several of the examples combine changes of expression and shifts in centering.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 178,
"end": 204,
"text": "Joshi and Weinstein [1981]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Violations of the basic centering rule require the hearer to draw two different kinds of inferences. The kind required depends on whether a full definite noun phrase is used to express the center or whether a pronoun is used for a noncentered entity. We will consider each case separately.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Several different functions may be served by the use of a full definite noun phrase to realize the currently centered entity. For instance, the full noun phrase may include some new and unshared information about the entity. In such cases, additional inferences arise from the need to determine that the center has not shifted and that the properties expressed hold for the centered entity. For example, in the following sequences (I0) I toole i 7 clog to the vet the other day.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The mangy old beast... the full definite noun phrases that are in boldface do more than merely refer.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "When the current center is not pronominalized (it may not be present in the sentence), the use of a pronoun to express an entity other than the current center, is strongly constrained. The particular cases that have been identified involve instances in which attention is being shifted back to a previously centered entity (e.g., Grosz, 1977; Reichman, 1978) or to one element of a set that is currently centered. In such cases, additional inferences 10Obviously, if Cb(S) is not expressed'in the next sentence then this issue does not arise. are required to determine that the pronoun does not refer to the current center, as well as to identify the context back to which attention is shifting. These shifts, though indicated by linguistic expressions typically used for centering (pronouns), correspond to a shift in global focus.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 330,
"end": 342,
"text": "Grosz, 1977;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 358,
"text": "Reichman, 1978)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constraints",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The main purpose of the paper was to sort out the confusion about the roles of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors in the interpretation and generation of definite noun phrases in discourse. Specific mechanisms that account for the interactions among these factors were presented. Discourses were shown to be coherent at two different levels, i.e., with referring expressions used to identify entities that are centered locally and those focused upon more globally. The differences between references at the global and local levels were discussed, and the interaction of the syntactic role of a given noun phrase and its semantic interpretation with centering was described.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Summary",
"sec_num": "8."
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Planning Natural-Language Utterances",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Appelt",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "\u00b0 Proc. of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Appelt, D.E., \"Planning Natural-Language Utterances, \u00b0 Proc. of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (August 1982).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Reference and Definite Description",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Donnellan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1966,
"venue": "Philosophical Review",
"volume": "60",
"issue": "",
"pages": "281--304",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Donnellan, K., \"Reference and Definite Description,\" Philosophical Review, Vol. 60, pp. 281-304 (1966).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "The Representation and Use of Focus in Dialogue Understanding",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1977,
"venue": "Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International",
"volume": "",
"issue": "151",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Grosz, B.J., \"The Representation and Use of Focus in Dialogue Understanding,\" Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley. Also, Technical Note No. 151, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International. (1977).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Focusing and Description Language Dialogues",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Grosz, B.J., \"Focusing and Description Language Dialogues,\" Elements of",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "A Prolegomenon to Situation Semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Israel",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Israel, D.J., \"A Prolegomenon to Situation Semantics,\"",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Proc. of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics",
"authors": [],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Proc. of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, Mass. (June 15-17, 1983).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Control of Inference: Role of Some Aspects of Discourse Structure-Centering",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weinstein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proc. bzternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "385--387",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joshi, A. and S. Weinstein, \"Control of Inference: Role of Some Aspects of Discourse Structure-Centering,\" Proc. bzternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver, B.C. pp. 385-387 {August 24-28, I08t).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Contemporary Pespectives in the Philosophy of Language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kripke",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1977,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "6--27",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kripke, S., \"Speaker's Reference and Semantic Reference,\" Contemporary Pespectives in the Philosophy of Language, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp. 6-27, (1977).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "The TEXT System for Natural Language Generation: An Overview",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Mckeown",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "Proc. of the 20th .4nnual Aieeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "16--18",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "McKeown, K.R., \"The TEXT System for Natural Language Generation: An Overview,\" Proc. of the 20th .4nnual Aieeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, 16-18 June 1982, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (June 1982}.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Conversational Coherency",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reichman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1978,
"venue": "Cognitive Science",
"volume": "2",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "283--327",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Reichman, R. \"Conversational Coherency,\" Cognitive Science Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 283-327, (1978}.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Plain Speaking: A Theory and Grammar of Spontaneous Discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reichman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Reichman, R. \"Plain Speaking: A Theory and Grammar of Spontaneous Discourse,\" Technical Report No. 4681, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Mass. (June 1981).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Prag'maties and Linguistics, An Analysis of Sentence Topics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reinhart",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1978,
"venue": "Indiana University Linguistics Club",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Reinhart, T., \"Prag'maties and Linguistics, An Analysis of Sentence Topics,\" Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana (1978).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Toward a Computational Theory of Definite Anaphora Comprehension in English",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Sidner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1979,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sidner, C.L., Toward a Computational Theory of Definite Anaphora Comprehension in English, MIT Technical Report AI-TR-537, (1979).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Focusing for Interpretation of Pronouns",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sidner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sidner, C., \"Focusing for Interpretation of Pronouns,\"",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF1": {
"num": null,
"text": "Sa) The vice president of the United States is also president of the Senate. (Sb) He's the president's key a~ in ne~otiatione with Congress.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"num": null,
"text": "$b') Right non he is the president's key man \u00a3n negotiations sith Congress.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF4": {
"num": null,
"text": "is kind to her but be isn't her husband.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF5": {
"num": null,
"text": "Sa) He called up Mike yesterday. (he=John) (Sb) He ,as annoyed by John's call.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF6": {
"num": null,
"text": "11) I'm reading The French Lieutenant's Woman. The book, which In Fowles best ....",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
}
}
}
} |