File size: 111,501 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 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 2224 2225 2226 2227 2228 2229 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 | {
"paper_id": "P93-1011",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:52:16.111070Z"
},
"title": "ASSIGNING A SEMANTIC SCOPE TO OPERATORS",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Massimo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Poesio",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Rochester",
"location": {
"postCode": "14627-0226",
"region": "NY",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": "poesio@cs@edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "I propose that the characteristics of the scope disamhiguation process observed in the literature can be explained in terms of the way in which the model of the situation described by a sentence is built. The model construction procedure I present builds an event structure by identifying the situations associated with the operators in the sentence and their mutual dependency relations, as well as the relations between these situations and other situations in the context. The procedure takes into account lexical semantics and the result of various discourse interpretation procedures such as definite description interpretation, and does not require a complete disambiguation to take place.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P93-1011",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "I propose that the characteristics of the scope disamhiguation process observed in the literature can be explained in terms of the way in which the model of the situation described by a sentence is built. The model construction procedure I present builds an event structure by identifying the situations associated with the operators in the sentence and their mutual dependency relations, as well as the relations between these situations and other situations in the context. The procedure takes into account lexical semantics and the result of various discourse interpretation procedures such as definite description interpretation, and does not require a complete disambiguation to take place.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Because new ways of obtaining semantically distinct interpretations for sentences are continuously discovered, coming to grips with ambiguity is becoming more and more of a necessity for developers of natural language processing systems, linguists and psychologists alike [9, 31, 7, 2] . In this paper, I am concerned with the scopal ambiguity of operators I [31, 33] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 272,
"end": 275,
"text": "[9,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 279,
"text": "31,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 282,
"text": "7,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 285,
"text": "2]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 363,
"text": "[31,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 364,
"end": 367,
"text": "33]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "THE PROBLEM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The attention of both psycholinguists and computational linguists interested in ambiguity has concentrated on the problem of combinatorial explosion. If the number of readings of an utterance were to actually grow with the factorial of the number of operators, even a simple sentence like (1), with 4 operators (the modal 'should', tense, an indefinite and a definite), would have 4I = 24 scopally different readings. Two distinct questions thus must be answered: how can listeners (and how should machines) deal with the combinatorial explosion of readings? Do we really use the brute-force strategy of considering all of the available readings, and then choose among them? And, if we do choose among several readings, how is that done? (1) We should hook up an engine to the boxcar.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 738,
"end": 741,
"text": "(1)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "THE PROBLEM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To my knowledge, three positions on the problem of combinatorial explosion have been taken in the literature. Some have argued that there is no problem: our brains contain 1I use here the term operator as it is used by Heim [13] , i.e., to mean either quantifier or modal/tense operator. more than enough machinery to process in parallel 4I interpretations. It's unclear, however, whether this strategy is feasible when larger numbers of readings are concerned. A classical demonstration of the number of readings one may have to consider is (2) , which has 1 l I interpretations if the standard treatment of quantification and modality is assumed. (2) You can fool most people on most of the issues most of the time, but you can't fool everybody on every single issue all of the time. [15] Another position is that sentences like (1) are not semantically ambiguous, but vague. Consider for example (3):",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 224,
"end": 228,
"text": "[13]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 542,
"end": 545,
"text": "(2)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 649,
"end": 652,
"text": "(2)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 786,
"end": 790,
"text": "[15]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 831,
"end": 834,
"text": "(1)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "THE PROBLEM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(3)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "THE PROBLEM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Every kid climbed a tree.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "THE PROBLEM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Here, one of the readings (the one in which the indefinite takes narrow scope) is entailed by the other (in which the indefinite takes wide scope). The claim is that (3) is interpreted in the vaguest possible way, and the strongest reading, if at all, is derived by pragmatic 'strengthening' [25] . A difficulty with this approach is that a vaguest reading doesn't always exist. The two readings of (4), for example, are distinct.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 292,
"end": 296,
"text": "[25]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "THE PROBLEM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Few people speak many languages. [27] Finally, it has been proposed that the reason why listeners do not seem to have problems in processing utterances like (1) is because they do not disambiguate. They build a nondisambiguated representation of the sentence and leave the interpretation open. This strategy might be advantageous for some kinds of applications 2 and it has been argued that a complete disambiguation never takes place [7] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 37,
"text": "[27]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 438,
"text": "[7]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "THE PROBLEM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "No matter what processing strategy is chosen, the question of how listeners choose one particular interpretation cannot be ignored. All experimental work done on the subject of scopal ambiguity [20, 35, 26] indicates that subjects do have preferred interpretations when confronted with tasks which require understanding. In addition, sentences like (1),",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 194,
"end": 198,
"text": "[20,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 202,
"text": "35,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 206,
"text": "26]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "THE PROBLEM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "and (6) clearly have preferred interpretations. However, the only answers to to this question that I have seen are based on heuristics) 2E.g., machine translation [2] . 3See [17] for an example of state-of-the-art techniques",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 7,
"text": "(6)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 166,
"text": "[2]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 178,
"text": "[17]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "THE PROBLEM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A girl took every chemistry course.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "THE PROBLEM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[20] (6) Each daughter of an admiral married a captain.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 8,
"text": "(6)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "THE PROBLEM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "I present in this paper an hypothesis about interpretation that accounts for facts about scope disambiguation that were previously explained in the literature by stipulating a number of unmotivated principles. The proposal developed here is being applied to develop the module of the TRAINS-93 system [1] that handles scope disambiguation and reference interpretation. The goal of the TRAINS project is to develop a conversationally proficient planning assistant. More details about the project and the work presented here can be found in [29] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 301,
"end": 304,
"text": "[1]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 539,
"end": 543,
"text": "[29]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "THE PROBLEM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Most proposals on scope disambiguation were developed to account for the general preference of the leftmost quantified phrase from taking wide scope in simple active sentences like (7):",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "SCOPE DISAMBIGUATION FACTORS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Every kid climbed a tree.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "SCOPE DISAMBIGUATION FACTORS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Lakoff [27] proposed that this preference is due to the fact that sentences are parsed from left to right; \"every kid\" takes scope over \"a tree\" because it is processed first. (Kurtzman and MacDonald called this the Left to Right principle.)",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 11,
"text": "[27]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 189,
"text": "(Kurtzman and",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "SCOPE DISAMBIGUATION FACTORS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Ioup [20] argued instead that \"...in natural language, order has little to do with the determination of quantifier scope.\" ( [20] , p.37). The preferred reading of (8), for example, is the one in which the NP \"each child\" takes wide scope. (8) I saw a picture of each child. [20] According to Ioup, the relative scope of quantifiers is determined by the interaction of two factors. First of all, quantifiers such as \"each\" or \"the\" have the inherent property of taking wide scope over indefinites, which, in turn are lexically marked to take scope over plural quantifiers like \"all.\" This hypothesis is motivated by contrasts such as those in (9) , and accounts for cases such as (8) . 4 (9) a. I saw a picture of each child. b. I saw a picture of all the children.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 9,
"text": "[20]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 129,
"text": "[20]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 243,
"text": "(8)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 279,
"text": "[20]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 643,
"end": 646,
"text": "(9)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 680,
"end": 683,
"text": "(8)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "SCOPE DISAMBIGUATION FACTORS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Secondly, Ioup proposed that a hierarchy exists among grammatical functions, such that listeners tend to attribute to NPs in subject position wide scope over NPs in indirect object position, which in turn tend to take wide scope over NPs in object position. The hierarchy between grammatical functions accounts for the preferred reading of (7). Ioup also observed that NPs in topic position tend to take wide scope, This is especially obvious in languages that have a specific grammatical category for topic, like Japanese or Korean. The Japanese sentence (10b) is ambiguous, but the reading in which the NP in subject position, \"most students\" takes scope over the NP in object position, \"every language,\" is preferred. This preference is maintained if the ')Van Lehn [35] and Hendrix [14] also studied the effect of lexical preferences, or 'strengths' as they are also called. NP in object position is scrambled in sentence-initial position, as in (10c) (another counterexample to Lakoff's leftto-right principle). If, however, the NP is marked with the topic-marking suffix \"wa,\" as in (10d), suddenly the preferred reading of the sentence becomes the one in which \"every language\" takes wide scope. Several proposals attribute an important role to structural factors in assigning a scope to operators. Jackendoff [21] and Reinhart ([32] , ch. 3 and 9) propose to account for the preferred reading of (7) by means ofa C-commandprinciple according to which a quantified expression is allowed to take scope over another quantified expression only if the latter is c-commanded by the former at surface structure.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 769,
"end": 773,
"text": "[35]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
},
{
"start": 786,
"end": 790,
"text": "[14]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 1317,
"end": 1321,
"text": "[21]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 1326,
"end": 1340,
"text": "Reinhart ([32]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "SCOPE DISAMBIGUATION FACTORS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Structural explanations (in the form of constraints on syntactic movement) have also been proposed to explain the constraint that prevents a quantifier to take scope outside the clause in which it appears, first observed by May [28] and called Scope Constraint by Heim [13] . This constraint is exemplified by the contrast in (11) : whereas (lla) has a reading in which \"every department\" is allowed to take wide scope over \"a student,\" this reading is not available for (llb). (11) a. A student from every department was at the party. b. A student who was from every department was at the party.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 228,
"end": 232,
"text": "[28]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 273,
"text": "[13]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 326,
"end": 330,
"text": "(11)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "SCOPE DISAMBIGUATION FACTORS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Lexical semantics and commonsense knowledge also play an important role in detemaining the scope of operators. The contrast between the preferred readings of (12a) and (12b) can only be explained in terms of lexical semantics: (12) a. A workstation serves many users. b. A workstation can be found in many offices.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "SCOPE DISAMBIGUATION FACTORS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Kurtzman and MacDonald [26] set out to verify the empirical validity of several of these principles. The most crucial result is that none of the principles they set to verify can account for all the observed effects, and actually counterexamples to all of thenv--including the quantifier hierarchy-can be found. No evidence for a Left-to-Right processing principle was found. Kurtzman 5Arguably, the closest thing to an explicit topic marker in English are certain uses of definite descriptions and the topicalization construction; in both cases, the topically marked NP tends to take wide scope.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 27,
"text": "[26]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 376,
"end": 384,
"text": "Kurtzman",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "SCOPE DISAMBIGUATION FACTORS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "6Their experiments are discussed in more detail in [29] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 55,
"text": "[29]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "SCOPE DISAMBIGUATION FACTORS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "It is commonly assumed in the psycholinguistic literature on sentence interpretation that hearers interpret sentences by constructing a model of the situation described by the sentence [10, 22] . I propose that the scope assigned to the operators contained in a sentence is determined by the characteristics of the model construction procedure. The model being constructed, which I call event structure, consists of a set of situation descriptions, one for each operator, together with dependency relations between them. The task of the model construction procedure is to identify these situations and to establish dependency relations. The scope assigned by a hearer to an operator depends on the position of the situation associated with that operator in the event structure. For example, I propose that the scope assigned to quantitiers depends on how their resource situation [3, 8] is identiffed. It is well-known that a sentence like (13): (13) Everybody is asleep.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 185,
"end": 189,
"text": "[10,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 193,
"text": "22]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 880,
"end": 883,
"text": "[3,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 884,
"end": 886,
"text": "8]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 946,
"end": 950,
"text": "(13)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scope Disambiguation as Construction of an Event Structure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "is not interpreted as meaning that every single human being is asleep, but only that a certain contextually relevant subset is. The process of identifying the set of individuals over which an operator quantifies is usually called domain restriction. In the case of, say, 7whether \"every kid\" or\"a tree\" takes wide scope depends on how the listener builds a model of the sentence. If she starts by first identifying a situation containing the group of kids that\"every\" is quantifying over, and then proceeds to 'build' for each of these kids a situation which contains a tree the kid is climbing, then \"every kid\" will take wide scope. In other words, I propose that a listener has a preferred reading for a sentence if she's able to identify the resource situation of one or more of the operators in that sentence ('to picture some objects in her mind'), and to hypothesize dependency relations between these situations. If this process cannot take place, the sentence is perceived as 'ambiguous' or 'hard to understand.' The less context is available, the more the establishment of dependency relations between situations depends on the order in which the model is built, i.e., on the order in which the situations associated with the different operators and events are identified. This order depends in part on which NPs are perceived to be 'in topic,' and in part on general principles for building the conceptual representation of events (see below). In addition, some operators (e.g., definite descriptions) impose constraints on their resource situation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scope Disambiguation as Construction of an Event Structure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A Model Construction Procedure: The DRT Algorithm In order to make the intuition more concrete we need the details of the model construction procedure. Ideally, one would want to adopt an existing procedure and show that the desired results fall out automatically. Unfortunately, the model construction procedures presented in the psycholinguistic literature are not very detailed; often it's not even clear what these researchers intend as a model. There is, 80 however, a discourse interpretation procedure that is specified in detail and has some oftbe characteristics of the model construction procedure I have in mind; I'm thinking of the DRS construction algorithm [23, 24] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 671,
"end": 675,
"text": "[23,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 676,
"end": 679,
"text": "24]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scope Disambiguation as Construction of an Event Structure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The DRS construction algorithm consists of a set of rules that map discourses belonging to the language into certain \"interpretive structures\". The output structures are called \"Discourse Representation Structures\" or \"DRSs.\" A DRS is a pair consisting of a set of discourse referents and a set of conditions (= predicates on the discourse referents). The construction algorithm works by first adding the syntactic structure of the sentence to the 'root' DRS representing the discourse up to that point, then applying the rules to the syntactic structure, thus adding discourse referents and conditions to the DRS. Consider how the algorithm is applied to obtain an interpretation for (7): (14) Every kid climbed the tree.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 690,
"end": 694,
"text": "(14)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scope Disambiguation as Construction of an Event Structure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The initial interpretation of (14) is the tree shown in (15) . Both the rule for definites and the rule for universal quantification are triggered by (15) . Two hypotheses are obtained; that obtained by applying first the rule for definite descriptions is shown in (16) . Both of these hypothesis contain operators whose DRS construction roles haven't been applied yet: this algorittun comes with a built-in notion of partial hypothesis--a paltial hypothesis is a DRS some of whose operators still have to 'interpreted' in the sense just mentioned. (16) x",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 60,
"text": "(15)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 154,
"text": "(15)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 269,
"text": "(16)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 549,
"end": 553,
"text": "(16)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scope Disambiguation as Construction of an Event Structure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "TREE(X) S NP VP Det N' V x",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scope Disambiguation as Construction of an Event Structure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Every kid climbed",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scope Disambiguation as Construction of an Event Structure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The two partial hypotheses are made into complete hypotheses by applying the remaining rules; the complete hypothesis with the definite taking wide scope is shown in (17) . 17x TREE(X)",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 170,
"text": "(17)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scope Disambiguation as Construction of an Event Structure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "YID(y) [ ever~y> CLIMBED(y, X)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scope Disambiguation as Construction of an Event Structure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Modifying the DRS Construction Algorithm",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scope Disambiguation as Construction of an Event Structure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Because the DRS construction rules depend on syntactic patterns, the role of structural factors in disambiguatiou can be taken into account--and a lot of data about disambiguation preferences can be explained without any further machinery. The Scope Constraint, for example, is embedded in the very semantics of DRT; and one can 'build in' the construction rules principles such as the c-command principle. (Kamp and Reyle do just that in [24] .) The limitations of this approach are shown by examples in which the choice of an interpretation does not depend on the structure, like (12) . Also, the rule for definites as just formulated is too restrictive: in cases like (18) , for example, predicts the correct reading for the definite NP''the meeting,\" but the wrong one for \"the principal,\" that, intuitively, takes narrow scope with respect to \"every school:\"",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 439,
"end": 443,
"text": "[24]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 582,
"end": 586,
"text": "(12)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 671,
"end": 675,
"text": "(18)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scope Disambiguation as Construction of an Event Structure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Every school sent the principal to the meeting.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scope Disambiguation as Construction of an Event Structure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "I propose that the role of lexical semantics, as well as the data accounted for in the literature by introducing principles such as the grammatical function hierarchy, the topic principle, and the quantifier hierarchy, can be accounted for by making the activation of the DRS construction rules depend on factors other than the syntactic structure of the sentence. The factors I propose to incorporate are (i) the semantics of lexical items, (ii) the results of the interpretation of opera-tors in context, and (iii) the way the representation of events is built in memory. In order to achieve this goal, I propose two main modifications to the standard DRS construction algorithm. First of all, I propose that the input to the algorithm is a logicalform--a structure isomorphic to the s-structure, that carties however information about the semantic interpretation of lexical items. In this way, the role of semantic factors in interpretation can be taken into account; in addition, a semantic value can be assigned to a representation containing unresolved conditions or partial hypotheses. Secondly, I propose to make the application of the DRS construction rules depend on the identification of certain contextually dependent elements of the interpretation. The ingredients of the account thus include: a proposal about the input to the model construction procedure; a notion of what an event structure is; and an account of discourse interpretation. I discuss these issues in turn in the next sections.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scope Disambiguation as Construction of an Event Structure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As said above, the first difference between the interpretation procedure proposed here and the DRS construction algorithm illustrated above is that the rules I propose rely on semantical and contextual factors. I propose to do this by adding to standard DRT a new class of conditions, that I call 'logical forms.' Logical forms include semantic information about the lexical items occurring in the sentence. The logical form representation is the interface between the parser and the model construction algorithm, and can be compositionally obtained by a GPSG parser [11, 18] that couples a contextfree grammar with rules of semantic interpretation. I first describe the language used to characterize the semantics of lexical items, SEL (for Simple Episodic Logic), then the syntax and interpretation of logical forms.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 567,
"end": 571,
"text": "[11,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 572,
"end": 575,
"text": "18]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "THE LOGICAL FORM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "I introduce SEL by presenting the truth conditions I propose to assign to (18) , repeated here for convenience: (18) Every school sent the principal to the meeting.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 78,
"text": "(18)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 116,
"text": "(18)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Semantics in Simple Episodic Logic",
"sec_num": "81"
},
{
"text": "The truth conditions usually assigned to (18) in a language with restricted quantification, and ignoring tense, are shown in (19) ; I propose instead to assign to (18) the interpretation specified by (20) . The intent of the expression used for the quantifier restrictions in (20) is to make it explicit that the situations from which the quantified dements are 'picked up' need not be the complete set of objects and relations at which the truth of (20) is evaluated. This is accomplished by introducing into the language an explicit relation ~ ('supports') to represent 'truth at a situation' [8] . A statement of the form",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 129,
"text": "(19)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 204,
"text": "(20)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 280,
"text": "(20)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 595,
"end": 598,
"text": "[8]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Semantics in Simple Episodic Logic",
"sec_num": "81"
},
{
"text": "evaluates to true in a situation s if the object--say, m-assigned to the variable x is a meeting in the situation s 1. A situation is a set of objects and facts about these objects [8, 18] . I assume a language which allows us to make statements about situations, and an ontology in which situations are objects in the universe. Episodic Logic provides such a language and such an ontology [19, 18] ; where not otherwise noted, the reader should assume that an expression of SEL has the semantics of the identical expression in Episodic Logic.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 184,
"text": "[8,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 188,
"text": "18]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 390,
"end": 394,
"text": "[19,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 398,
"text": "18]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is1 MEWrING(X)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The restriction of the existential quantifier in (20) contains a parameter ~. Parameters are used in SEL to translate anaphoric expressions of English. A parameter behaves semantically as an open variable, a value for which has to be provided by context. 7",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is1 MEWrING(X)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "I have assumed the following translations for the lexical items \"every,\" \"meeting,\" and \"sent\" (I have again ignored tense):",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is1 MEWrING(X)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\"every\" -,-+ )~ P 3. Q (V x [s'i ~ P(x)] Q(x)) \"meeting\" -,-+ MEETING \"sent\" --~ SENT",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is1 MEWrING(X)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The semantics assigned to definite descriptions needs a bit of an explanation. According to the location theory [12, 4] the major uses of definite NP's, as well as the contrast between definites, indefinites, and demonstratives, can be accounted for by stipulating that a speaker, when using a definite article, 1. instructs the hearer to locate the referent in some shared set of objects, and 2. refers to the totality of the objects/mass within this set that satisfy the restriction. I formalize this idea in [301 by associating to definite descriptions the translation below. A situation is 'shared' between x and y if every fact \u2022 supported by that situation is mutually believed by x and y (see [301 for details). The translations seen above, together with the obvious context-free roles, result in the following LF for (18) (I have 7See [29] for details. The idea is to add to the parameters of evaluation an anchoring function a that provides the values for parameters, thus plays the role of 'context' in Helm's proposal. The reader should be aware that while the notation and terminology I have adopted is borrowed from Situation Theory, parameters have a different semantic interpretation there [8] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 116,
"text": "[12,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 119,
"text": "4]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 843,
"end": 847,
"text": "[29]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 1205,
"end": 1208,
"text": "[8]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is1 MEWrING(X)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "used here, and elsewhere in the paper, a linear notation to save space): (21) 'a, where a is an expression of SEL (and has therefore a 'standard' model theoretic denotation). I use the phrase structure system largely adopted in the Government and Binding literature, according to which the sentence is the maximal projection of an Infl node and is therefore labeled IP [34] . I also assume the existence of a maximal projection of complementizer CP above IP. Because I don't discuss relatives here, I use the following simplified notation for NPs with determiners, such as \"every school\":",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 77,
"text": "(21)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 373,
"text": "[34]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 81,
"text": "'a,",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is1 MEWrING(X)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[NP '~-Q (V x [Sl ~ SCHOOL(x)] Q(x))]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is1 MEWrING(X)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "LFs like (21) are usually treated in the natural language processing literature as uninterpreted data structures from which to 'extract' the readings [16, 17] . However, it has been recently proposed [31, 2, 33] that it is possible (and indeed desirable) to assign a denotation to expressions like (21) . The reason is that in this way one can define a notion of sound inference --that is, one can specify what can and cannot properly be inferred from an expression like (21) prior to disambiguation; and therefore, a notion of 'monotone disambiguation.' I do not assume disambiguation to work monotonically, but I want to be able to treat expressions like (21) as full-fledged conditions so that a DRS containing a condition of this kind can be interpreted, and I need to be able to characterize a disambiguation step as compatible in the sense that it does not introduce any new readings.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 13,
"text": "(21)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 154,
"text": "[16,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 158,
"text": "17]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 204,
"text": "[31,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 207,
"text": "2,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 211,
"text": "33]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 302,
"text": "(21)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 471,
"end": 475,
"text": "(21)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is1 MEWrING(X)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To do this I need LFs to have an interpretation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is1 MEWrING(X)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Were it not for the problem that more than one interpretation can be associated to a single LF, one could easily define a recursive mapping EXT from logical forms to truththeoretical denotations ( Once this is done, one can reformulate the semantics of DRS in terms of situations and situations extensions instead of embeddings and embedding extensions, and interpret all conditions as functions from situations to truth values. (See [29] for details.) Matters get more complicated when expressions with more than one reading like (21) are considered. Different ways for assigning a denotation to expressions with more than one interpretation have been proposed [2, 31] ; my proposal derives from [31] . I use a Cooper storage mechanism [5] to define EXT in such a way as to allow for an LF to have more than one 'indirect interpretation.' Briefly, Cooper's idea is to have a syntactic tree denote a set of sequences, each sequence representing a distinct 'order of application' in computing the interpretation of the sentence. For example, because in interpreting (22) one can either apply the translation of tense immediately or walt, EXT maps (22) in a set of two sequences, shown in (23) . Having done this, we can say that a DRS condition like (21) is verifies the current situation s if one of the functions denoted by (21) maps s into 1.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 195,
"end": 196,
"text": "(",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 434,
"end": 438,
"text": "[29]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 662,
"end": 665,
"text": "[2,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 666,
"end": 669,
"text": "31]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 697,
"end": 701,
"text": "[31]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 1065,
"end": 1069,
"text": "(22)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 1187,
"end": 1191,
"text": "(23)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 1249,
"end": 1253,
"text": "(21)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is1 MEWrING(X)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Not all assertions in a narrative or conversation are going to be about the same situation. In the conversations with the TRAINS system, for example, the participants can discuss both the state of the world and the state of the plan being developed. Maintaining this separation is crucial for the proper interpretation of definite descriptions, for example. The separation between the situations that are the topic of different sentences is achieved by translating sentences as situation descriptions. A situation description is a condition of the form:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "BUILDING EVENT STRUCTURES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[-\"\"--'3 s :l~ [ (25) i --I 83",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "BUILDING EVENT STRUCTURES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "whose intuitive interpretation is that \u2022 provides a partial characterization of the situation s. The semantics of situation descriptions is defined as follows, using a semantics of DRSs in terms of situation extensions, as discussed in the previous section, and interpreting discourse markers as constituents of situations:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "BUILDING EVENT STRUCTURES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The condition s:K is satisfied wrt the situation s' iffK is satisfied wrt the value assigned to s in s '. I also propose the following constraint on the model construction rules:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "BUILDING EVENT STRUCTURES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Constraint on Interpretation : with the exception of the discourse markers interpreted over situations and of the situation descriptions, every discourse marker and condition has to be part of a situation descriptions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "BUILDING EVENT STRUCTURES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Situation descriptions are added to the model by rules triggered by an LF whose root is a CP node. The rules (now shown for lack of space) delete the complementizer and its whole projection, and introduce a situation structure. The result is shown in (26) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 251,
"end": 255,
"text": "(26)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "BUILDING EVENT STRUCTURES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "S (26) s: /~",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 6,
"text": "(26)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "BUILDING EVENT STRUCTURES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The conslraint on discourse interpretation proposed above is implemented by forcing the rules that build situation structures to be triggered before any other rule; this is done by having every other rule being triggered by LFs whose root node is an IP. The result of this constraint is that a discourse model consists of a set of situation descriptions: (27) s:~-~",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 355,
"end": 359,
"text": "(27)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "BUILDING EVENT STRUCTURES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The DRSs produced by the standard DRT algorithm are semantically equivalent to the special case of a set of situation descriptions all describing the same situation s. Models like the one in (27) enable the formalization of processes of resource situation identification like that described in [30] . I illustrate how my rules for interpreting operators differ from those of standard DRT, and how the interaction between model construction rules and discourse interpretation works, by means of the model construction rule for definites. The rule MCR-DD is triggered by the configuration in (28) , and results in the configuration in (29) . The notation used for the pattern indicates that this mle applies to a definite NP in any position within a syntactic tree whose maximal projection is an IP node, without any intervening IP node. ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 191,
"end": 195,
"text": "(27)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 298,
"text": "[30]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 590,
"end": 594,
"text": "(28)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 633,
"end": 637,
"text": "(29)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "BUILDING EVENT STRUCTURES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The key observation is that the application of this rule, as well as of any other NP rule, depends on the hearer's previous identification of a resource situation for the definite description. The statement ANCHOR('~, s') constraining the interpretation of & is added to the situation structure by the processes that identify the referent of the definite description; I describe these processes in detail in [30] . 8",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 408,
"end": 412,
"text": "[30]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "ANCHOR(% S')",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Finally, I propose that, when context is missing, a default model construction procedure operates. It has been suggested [6] that the conceptualization of events follows an order reflected in the thematic hierarchy AGENT < LOCA-TION, SOURCE, GOAL < THEME proposed to account for phenomena like passivization [21] . Briefly, the idea is that 'the normal procedure for building an event description' is to follow the order in the hierarchy: first identify the agent, then the location, then the theme. This proposal can be formalized in the current framework by having rules that operate in case no other rule has, and that modify the model by introducing a resource situation for an operator and establishing anchoring connections. These rules depend both on the semantics of the verb and on the syntactic configuration. The rule that identifies the AGENT, for example, is triggered by the configuration in (30) , and results in the configuration in (31) , that allows for the rule for the NP to operate in that the resource situation of the operator has been anchored:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 121,
"end": 124,
"text": "[6]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 312,
"text": "[21]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 906,
"end": 910,
"text": "(30)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 949,
"end": 953,
"text": "(31)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "ANCHOR(% S')",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "8A more conventional situation-theoretic framework is used there, but the analysis carries over to the framework in this paper. These roles can of course originate conflicts with the resuits of other discourse interpretation processes. I assume the following conflict resolution rule: when two rules produce conflicting hypothesis, assume the result of the more specific rule. In general, the discourse interpretation rules are more specific than the default rules for constructing events representations, so they will be preferred.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "ANCHOR(% S')",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "IP",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(30)",
"sec_num": "84"
},
{
"text": "Although lack of space prevents me from giving exampies, rules relating the construction of the model to lexical semantics, such as those accounting for data like (12) , can also be formulated.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 163,
"end": 167,
"text": "(12)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(30)",
"sec_num": "84"
},
{
"text": "We can now discuss in more detail the process of disambiguation of (18) . I have presented the logical form for (18) above, as (21) . (18) Every school sent the principal to the meeting.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 71,
"text": "(18)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 116,
"text": "(18)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 131,
"text": "(21)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 138,
"text": "(18)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "AN EXAMPLE",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "After identifying the situation descriptions, various interpretation processes take place, like those performing definite description interpretation described in [30] . These processes generate hypotheses about the anchoring of resource situations. Without entering into details, I assume that the context for (18) is provided by (32) , that introduces into the model the situation description in (33) , containing a group of schools and a meeting. Given this context, the discourse interpretation processes identify s as the resource situation for the NPs \"every school\" and \"the meeting.\" However, no unique principal can be identified in s. The activation of the model construction rules for universal quantification and definite descriptions results in the partial model in (34) , in which ~1 and s'2 have been identified: Th, model construction role applied to the universal \"every school\" introduces a complex condition K1 ---> I(2 as usual, but both the restriction and the nuclear scope include situation descriptions. The situation description in the restriction, s2, is a subsituation of the situation at which the restriction is evaluated (denoted by the indexical constant THIS_SITUATION). The situation description in the nuclear scope, s3, is an extension of s2.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 162,
"end": 166,
"text": "[30]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 334,
"text": "(32)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
},
{
"start": 397,
"end": 401,
"text": "(33)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
},
{
"start": 778,
"end": 782,
"text": "(34)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "AN EXAMPLE",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Now that a situation description for the resource situation of the universal and a discourse marker for the school have been introduced (s2 and z, respectively), the roles for resolving the parametric component Jc of the interpretation of\"the principal\" can apply. The result is that z is chosen as antecedent of \u00b1, and s2 is chosen as the resource situation for \"the principal.\" The model construction role updates s3 accordingly; the resulting event structure is equivalent to the interpretation of (21) specified by (20) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 519,
"end": 523,
"text": "(20)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "AN EXAMPLE",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "FOR THE DISAMBIGUATION DATA I briefly retum here the disambiguation principles, to show how the proposal just presented accounts for them. First of all, I'll note that, under simple assumptions about the mapping between grammatical functions and theta-roles, there is a striking resemblance between the grammatical function hierarchy proposed by Ioup and the thematic hierarchy proposed by Jackendoff to account for facts about passives and reflexives. The facts accounted for by the grammatical function hierarchy principle can also be explained if we assurm that the description of an event is constructed by identifying the filler of each thematic role in the order specified by Jackendoff's thematic hierarchy.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "ACCOUNTING",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Consider now the case of the other disambiguation factor proposed by Ioup, the lexically encoded preference for certain operators to take wide scope. Definite descriptions are the paradigmatic case of an operator that tends to take wide scope. This preference can be explained in terms of the model construction hypothesis as follows. The choice of a resource situation for definite descriptions is restricted by the constraint that this resource situation be either shared among the conversational participants, or related to shared knowledge by shared relations [12, 4] . In our dialogues, for example, definite descriptions are usually interpreted with respect to the 'situation' corresponding to the current visual scene, which is independent from other situations. It follows that a definite description will be assigned narrow scope relative to another operator only if (i) the resource situation of the definite is perceived to depend on this other resource situation, and (ii) this dependency relation is known to be shared.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 564,
"end": 568,
"text": "[12,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 569,
"end": 571,
"text": "4]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "ACCOUNTING",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As for the tendency for NPs in topic to take wide scope, an element of a sentence is said to be in topic if it is considered to be part of the background information on which the new information in the sentence depends. As the interpretation of the 'new' infonnation in the sentence depends on the background information, it is plausible to assume that, in constructing a model for the sentence, the listener begins by applying the model construction roles for the operators perceived to be in topic (or explicitly marked as being in topic, in the case of Japanese). The interpretation of the operators not in topic, when determined at all, will depend on the interpretation of the operators in topic, resulting in the dependency relations between the related situations that I have assumed to be the way scope is represented.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "ACCOUNTING",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Finally, I'll note that, in the absence of contextual clues, whether a completely disambiguated event structure is actu-ally constructed depends on how strong the model construction roles are supposed to be; it's perfectly possible that the activation of these rules is controlled by additional factors, such as the specific needs of a task to be performed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "ACCOUNTING",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "I wish to thank my advisor Len Schubert and James Allen, Howard Kurtzman, Peter Lasersohn, and Uwe Reyle for several suggestions, technical help, and constructive criticism. This work was supported by the US Air Force -Rome Laboratory Research Contract no. F30602-91-C-0010.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "ACKNOWLEDGMENTS",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "The TRAINS project. TRAINS Technical Note 91-1",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"F"
],
"last": "Allen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": ".",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Schubert",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J.F. Allen andL.K. Schubert. The TRAINS project. TRAINS Technical Note 91-1, University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science, 1991.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Monotonic semantic interpretation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Alshawi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Crouch",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proc. 30th. ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "32--39",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "H. Alshawi and R. Crouch. Monotonic semantic interpre- tation. In Proc. 30th. ACL, pages 32-39, University of Delaware, 1992.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Situations and Attitudes",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Barwise",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Perry",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Barwise and J. Perry. Situations and Attitudes. The M1T Press, 1983.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Definite reference and mutual knowledge",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [
"H"
],
"last": "Clark",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Marshall",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "Elements of Discourse Understanding",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "H. H. Clark and C. R. Marshall. Definite reference and mu- tual knowledge. In Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge University Press, 1981.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The cognitive organization of information",
"authors": [
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Croft",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "W. Croft. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The cognitive organization of information. University of Chicago Press, 1991.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "On the Composition of Meaning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kees Van Deemter",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kees van Deemter. On the Composition of Meaning. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1991.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Logic and Information",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Devlin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Devlin. Logic and Information. Cambridge University Press, 1991.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Situations, Language andLogic. D.Reidel",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Fenstad",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Halvorsen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Langholm",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van Benthem",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J.E. Fenstad, P.K. Halvorsen, T. Langholm, and J. van Ben- them. Situations, Language andLogic. D.Reidel, 1987.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "On-line construction of representations of the content of texts",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Garnham",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A. Garnham. On-line construction of representations of the content of texts. Reproduced by Indiana University Linguis- tics Club, 1982.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gazdar",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pullum",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "I",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sag",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "G. Gazdar, E. Klein, G. Pullum, and I. Sag. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Blackwell, 1985.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Definiteness and lndefiniteness",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Hawkins",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1978,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J.A. Hawkins. Definiteness and lndefiniteness. Croom Helm, 1978.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases",
"authors": [
{
"first": "I",
"middle": [],
"last": "Heim",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "I. Heim. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1982.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Semantic aspects of translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Hendrix",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1978,
"venue": "Understanding Spoken Language",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "193--226",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "G.G. Hendrix. Semantic aspects of translation. In D. Walker, editor, Understanding Spoken Language, pages 193-226. El- sevier, 1978.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "An improper treatment of quantification in ordinary English",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hobbs",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "Proc. ACL-83",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "57--63",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Hobbs. An improper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Proc. ACL-83, pages 57-63, Cambridge, MA, June 1983.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "An algorithm for generating quantifier scopings",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Hobbs",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Shieber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "ComputationaILinguistics",
"volume": "13",
"issue": "1-2",
"pages": "47--63",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. R. Hobbs and S. M. Shieber. An algorithm for generating quantifier scopings. ComputationaILinguistics, 13(1-2):47- 63, January-June 1987.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Handling scope ambiguities using domainindependent heuristics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Sven",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hurum",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sven Hurum. Handling scope ambiguities using domain- independent heuristics. Technical Report TR 88-12, Univer- sity of Alberta, June 1988.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "A Logical Approach to Narrative Understanding",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"H"
],
"last": "Hwang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. H. Hwang. A Logical Approach to Narrative Understand- ing. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, 1992.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Episodic logic: A situational logic for natural language processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"H"
],
"last": "Hwang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Schubert",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Situation Theory and its Applications",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. H. Hwang and L. K. Schubert. Episodic logic: A situ- ational logic for natural language processing. In P. Aezel, D. Israel, Y. Katagiri, and S. Peters, editors, Situation Theory and its Applications, v.3. CSLI, 1993. To appear.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Some universals for quantifier scope",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Georgette",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ioup",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1975,
"venue": "SyntaxandSemantics4",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "37--58",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Georgette Ioup. Some universals for quantifier scope. In J. Kimball, editor, SyntaxandSemantics4, pages 37-58. Aca- demic Press, New York, 1975.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jaekendoff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1972,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Jaekendoff. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Gram- mar. MIT Press, 1972.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Mental Models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson-Laird",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "E Johnson-Laird. Mental Models. Harvard University Press, 1983.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "A theory of truth and semantic representation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kamp",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematical Centre",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "H. Kamp. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, editors, For- mal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam, 1981.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "From discourse to logic",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kamp",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "U",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reyle",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From discourse to logic. To appear., 1993.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Ambiguity and quantification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kempson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cormack",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy",
"volume": "4",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "259--310",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Kempson and A. Cormack. Ambiguity and quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(2):259-310, 1981.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Kurtzman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Macdonald",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "H. S. Kurtzman and M. C. MacDonald. Resolution of quan- tifier scope ambiguities. To appear., April 1992.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Semantic interpretation in generative grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lakoff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1971,
"venue": "Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, anthropology, and psychology",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "G. Lakoff. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. In D. A. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits, editors, Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, anthropol- ogy, and psychology. Cambridge University Press, 1971.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "The Grammar of Quantification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "May",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1977,
"venue": "",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. May. The Grammar of Quantification. PhD thesis, M1T, 1977.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Assigning a Scope to Operators in Dialogues",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Poesio",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Poesio. Assigning a Scope to Operators in Dialogues. PhD thesis, University of Rochester, Department of Com- puter Science, 1993.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "A situation-theoretic formalization of definite description interpretation in plan elaboration dialogues",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Poesio",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Situations Theory and its Applications, voL3, chapter 12",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "343--378",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Poesio. A situation-theoretic formalization of definite description interpretation in plan elaboration dialogues. In E Aezel, D. Israel, Y. Katagiri, and S. Peters, editors, Situ- ations Theory and its Applications, voL3, chapter 12, pages 343-378. CSLI, 1993. To appear.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "Relational semantics and scope ambiguity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Massimo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Poesio",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Situation Semantics and its Applications, voL2, chapter 20",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "469--497",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Massimo Poesio. Relational semantics and scope ambigu- ity. In J. Barwise, J. M. Gawron, G. Plotkin, and S. Tutiya, editors, Situation Semantics and its Applications, voL2, chap- ter 20, pages 469-497. CSLI, 1991.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "Anaphora and semantic interpretation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reinhart",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. Reinhart. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Croom Helm, 1983.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF31": {
"ref_id": "b31",
"title": "Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, representation and deduction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "U",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reyle",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Journal of Semantics",
"volume": "3",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "U. Reyle. Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, representation and deduction. Journal of Se- mantics, 3, 1993.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF32": {
"ref_id": "b32",
"title": "Origins of Phrase Structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stowell",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. Stowell. Origins of Phrase Structure. PhD thesis, M1T, 1981.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF33": {
"ref_id": "b33",
"title": "Determining the scope of English quantifiers",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kurt",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Vanlehn",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1978,
"venue": "Artificial Intelligence Laboratory",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kurt A. VanLehn. Determining the scope of English quan- tifiers. Technical Report AI-TR-483, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1978.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "(the m MEETING(m) (V S SCHOOL(S) (the p PRINCIPAL(p,s)] sE~rr(s,pan)))) (20) (the m [s'l ~= MEL~NG(m)] ^ sHARl~(spkr,hearerW0 (V S [S'2 ~ SCHOOL(s)] (too p IS3 ~ pP.n~cw~(p,s)] ^ SHARED(spkr,hearer ,.\u00a23) SENT(s,p,m)))) (20) reads: there exists a unique m that is a meeting in a contextually specified resource situation s'l, and for all s's that are schools in a contextually specified resource situation ~2 the unique p such that p is the principal of s participates to m.",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "the meeting\" -,~ )~ P (the x: ([S ~ MEETING(X)] A SHARED (spkr,hearer,S)) P(x)) Syntax and Interpretation of the Logical Form",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "functions from situations to lluth values) in temxs of the usual [[ [[ function, as follows: EXT([ N, a]) = EXT(a) EXT(tNP a 131) = EXT(a)(EXT(~)) EXT(tIP a ]~l) = EXT(a)(EXT(~)) if TYPE(EXT(a)) = (t~,t~) and TYPE(EXT(fl)) = tl; EXT(/~)(EXT(a)) otherwise.",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF3": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "(22) [V\" 'P [NP '~. Q (det x R(x)) Q(x)] ] EXT((22)) = {(~ x (det x R(x))P(x) ), (23) (P,)~ Q (det x R(x)) Q(x) )} I omit here the definition of the EXT function implementing Cooper storage, that is rather complex. For the current purposes, it is enough to understand that EXT associates to (21) a set of functions from situations to truth values, as in (24). (24) EXT((21)) = {the function denoted by II (the m [s'~ p ~L~tNG(m)] ^ SnARED(spkr,hearer,g0 (V S [~\"2 [= SCHOOL(s)] (the p [g3 ~ PRINCIPAL(p,s)] ^ SHARED(spkr,hearer ,g3) s~,rr(s,p,x)))) II, the function denoted by II (v s [~2 h scnooL~s)] (the m [~\u00a2x ~ MEElqNG(m)] ^ SI/ARED(spkr,hearer,~l) (the p [~3 P PRn~Cn'AL(p,s)] ^ SrlARED(spkr,hearer ,g3) s~cr(s,p,x)))) II, et~ }",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF6": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "There was a meeting of the schools in the district.",
"uris": null
}
}
}
} |