File size: 79,933 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 | {
"paper_id": "P99-1006",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:31:38.944996Z"
},
"title": "Discourse Relations: A Structural and Presuppositional Account Using Lexicalised TAG*",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Univ of Edinburgh",
"location": {}
},
"email": "bonnie@dai.ed.ac.uk"
},
{
"first": "Alistair",
"middle": [],
"last": "Knott",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Univ of Otago",
"location": {}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Matthew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stone",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Rutgers Univ",
"location": {}
},
"email": "mdstone@cs.rutgers.edu"
},
{
"first": "Aravind",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Univ of Pennsylvania",
"location": {}
},
"email": "joshi@cis.upenn.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We show that discourse structure need not bear the full burden of conveying discourse relations by showing that many of them can be explained nonstructurally in terms of the grounding of anaphoric presuppositions (Van der Sandt, 1992). This simplifies discourse structure, while still allowing the realisation of a full range of discourse relations. This is achieved using the same semantic machinery used in deriving clause-level semantics.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P99-1006",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We show that discourse structure need not bear the full burden of conveying discourse relations by showing that many of them can be explained nonstructurally in terms of the grounding of anaphoric presuppositions (Van der Sandt, 1992). This simplifies discourse structure, while still allowing the realisation of a full range of discourse relations. This is achieved using the same semantic machinery used in deriving clause-level semantics.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Research on discourse structure has, by and large, attempted to associate all meaningful relations between propositions with structural connections between discourse clauses (syntactic clauses or structures composed of them). Recognising that this could mean multiple structural connections between clauses, Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson, 1988) simply stipulates that only a single relation may hold. Moore and Pollack (1992) argue that both informational (semantic) and intentional relations can hold between clauses simultaneously and independently. This suggests that factoring the two kinds of relations might lead to a pair of structures, each still with no more than a single structural connection between any two clauses.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 336,
"end": 361,
"text": "(Mann and Thompson, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 442,
"text": "Moore and Pollack (1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "But examples of multiple semantic relations are easy to find (Webber et al., 1999) . Having structure account for all of them leads to the complexities shown in Figure 1 , including the crossing dependencies shown in Fig. l c. These structures are no longer trees, making it difficult to define a compositional semantics.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 82,
"text": "(Webber et al., 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 161,
"end": 169,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 223,
"text": "Fig. l",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "This problem would not arise if one recognised additional, non-structural means of conveying semantic relations between propositions and modal * Our thanks to Mark Steedman, Katja Markert, Gann Bierner and three ACL'99 reviewers for all their useful comments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "operators on propositions. This is what we do here:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Structurally, we assume a \"bare bones\" discourse structure built up from more complex elements (LTAG trees) than those used in many other approaches. These structures and the operations used in assembling them are the basis for compositional semantics.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Stimulated by structural operations, inference based on world knowledge, usage conventions, etc., can then make defeasible contributions to discourse interpretation that elaborate the nondefeasible propositions contributed by compositional semantics.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Non-structurally, we take additional semantic relations and modal operators to be conveyed through anaphoric presuppositions (Van der Sandt, 1992) licensed by information that speaker and hearer are taken to share. A main source of shared knowledge is the interpretation of the on-going discourse. Because the entity that licences (or \"discharges\") a given presupposition usually has a source within the discourse, the presupposition seems to link the clause containing the presupposition-bearing (p-bearing) element to that source. However, as with pronominal and definite NP anaphora, while attentional constraints on their interpretation may be influenced by structure, the links themselves are not structural.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 146,
"text": "(Van der Sandt, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The idea of combining compositional semantics with defeasible inference is not new. Neither is the idea of taking certain lexical items as anaphorically presupposing an eventuality or a set of eventualities:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "It is implicit in all work on the anaphoric nature of tense (cf. Partee (1984) , Webber (1988) , inter alia) and modality (Stone, 1999) . What is new is the way we enable anaphoric presupposition to contribute to semantic relations and modal operators, in a way that does not lead to the violations of tree structure mentioned earlier.t",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 78,
"text": "Partee (1984)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 94,
"text": "Webber (1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 135,
"text": "(Stone, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "(a) R1 R 2 C I Ci C k Ci C i C k C m (b) (c)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ci",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We discuss these differences in more detail in Section 2, after describing the lexicalised framework that facilitates the derivation of discourse semantics from structure, inference and anaphoric presuppositions. Sections 3 and 4 then present more detailed semantic analyses of the connectives for example and otherwise. Finally, in Section 5, we summarize our arguments for the approach and suggest a program of future work.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ci",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In previous papers (Cristea and Webber, 1997; Webber and Joshi, 1998; Webber et al., 1999) , we have argued for using the more complex structures (elementary trees) of a Lexicalized Tree-Adjoining Grammar (LTAG) and its operations (adjoining and substitution) to associate structure and semantics with a sequence of discourse clauses. 2 Here we briefly review how it works.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 45,
"text": "(Cristea and Webber, 1997;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 69,
"text": "Webber and Joshi, 1998;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 90,
"text": "Webber et al., 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In a lexicalized TAG, each elementary tree has at least one anchor. In the case of discourse, the anchor for an elementary tree may be a lexical item, punctuation or a feature structure that is lexically null. The semantic contribution of a lexical anchor includes both what it presupposes and what it asserts (Stone and Doran, 1997; Stone, 1998; Stone and Webber, 1998) . A feature structure anchor will either unify with a lexical item with compatible features (Knott and Mellish, 1996) , yielding the previous case, or have an empty realisation, though one 1One may still need to admit structures having both a link back and a link forward to different clauses (Gardent, 1997) . But a similar situation can occur within the clause, with relative clause dependencies -from the verb back to the relative pronoun and forward to a trace -so the possibility is not unmotivated from the perspective of syntax.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 310,
"end": 333,
"text": "(Stone and Doran, 1997;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 346,
"text": "Stone, 1998;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 370,
"text": "Stone and Webber, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 463,
"end": 488,
"text": "(Knott and Mellish, 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 664,
"end": 679,
"text": "(Gardent, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "2We take this to be only the most basic level of discourse structure, producing what are essentially extended descriptions of situations/events. Discourse may be further structured with respect to speaker intentions, genre-specific presentations, etc. that maintains its semantic features.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The initial elementary trees used here correspond, by and large, to second-order predicateargument structures -i.e., usually binary predicates on propositions or eventualities -while the auxiliary elementary trees provide further information (constraints) added through adjoining.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Importantly, we bar crossing structural connections. Thus one diagnostic for taking a predicate argument to be anaphoric rather than structural is whether it can derive from across a structural link. The relation in a subordinate clause is clearly structural: Given two relations, one realisable as \"Although o\u00a2 [3, the other realisable as \"Because y ~5\", they cannot together be realised as \"Although ~ because y [3 &\" with the same meaning as \"Although o\u00a2 [3. Because y 8\". The same is true of certain relations whose realisation spans multiple sentences, such as ones realisable as \"On the one hand oz. On the other hand 13.\" and \"Not only T-But also &\" Together, they cannot be realised as \"On the one hand o\u00a2. Not only T. On the other hand 13. But also &\" with the same meaning as in strict sequence. Thus we take such constructions to be structural as well (Webber and Joshi, 1998; Webber et al., 1999 ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 863,
"end": 887,
"text": "(Webber and Joshi, 1998;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 888,
"end": 907,
"text": "Webber et al., 1999",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, the p-bearing adverb \"then\", which asserts that one eventuality starts after the culmination of another, has only one of its arguments coming structurally. The other argument is presupposed and thus able to come from across a structural boundary, as in (1) a. On the one hand, John loves Barolo.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "b. So he ordered three cases of the '97. c. On the other hand, because he's broke, d. he then had to cancel the order.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Here, \"then\" asserts that the \"cancelling\" event in (d) follows the ordering event in (b). Because the link to (b) crosses the structural link in the parallel construction, we take this argument to come non-structurally through anaphoric presupposition. 3 Now we illustrate briefly how short discourses built from LTAG constituents get their semantics. For more detail, see (Webber and Joshi, 1998; Webber et al., 1999) . For more information on compositional semantic operations on LTAG derivation trees, see (Joshi and Vijay-Shanker, 1999) . 2 Here A will stand for the LTAG parse tree for \"you shouldn't trust John\" and a, its derivation tree, and B will stand for the LTAG parse tree for \"he never returns what he borrows\" and 13, its derivation tree. The explanation of Example 2a is primarily structural. It involves an initial tree (y) anchored by \"because\" (Figure 2 ). Its derived tree comes from A substituting at the left-hand substitution site of y (index 1) and B at the right-hand substitution site (index 3). Semantically, the anchor of y (\"because\") asserts that the situation associated with the argument indexed 3 (B) is the cause of that associated with the argument indexed 1 (A).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 374,
"end": 398,
"text": "(Webber and Joshi, 1998;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 399,
"end": 419,
"text": "Webber et al., 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 510,
"end": 541,
"text": "(Joshi and Vijay-Shanker, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 865,
"end": 874,
"text": "(Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The explanation of Example 2b is primarily structural as well. It employs an auxiliary tree (y) anchored by \".\" (Figure 3 ). Its derived tree comes from B substituting at the right-hand substitution site (index 3) of ),, and \"f adjoining at the root of A (index 0). Semantically, adjoining B to A via y simply implies that B continues the description of the situation associated with A. The general inference that this stimulates leads to a defeasible contribution of causality between them, which can be denied without a contradiction -e.g.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 121,
"text": "(Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "(3) You shouldn't trust John. He never returns what he borrows. But that's not why you shouldn't trust him.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Presupposition comes into play in Example 2c. This example adds to the elements used in Ex-3The fact that the events deriving from (b) and (d) appear to have the same temporal relation in the absence of \"then\" just shows that tense is indeed anaphoric and has no trouble crossing structural boundaries either. ample 2a, an auxiliary tree anchored by \"for example\" (8), which adjoins at the root of B (Figure 4) . \"For example\" contributes both a presupposition and an assertion, as described in more detail in Section 3. Informally, \"for example\" presupposes a shared set of eventualities, and asserts that the eventuality associated with the clause it adjoins to, is a member of that set. In Example 2c, the set is licensed by \"because\" as the set of causes/reasons for the situation associated with its first argument. Thus, associated with the derivation of (2c) are the assertions that the situation associated with B is a cause for that associated with A and that the situation associated with B is one of a set of such causes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 400,
"end": 410,
"text": "(Figure 4)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Finally, Example 2d adds to the elements used in Example 2b, the same auxiliary tree anchored by \"for example\" (~5). As in Example 2b, the causality relation between the interpretations of B and A comes defeasibly from general inference. Of interest then is how the presupposition of \"for example\" is licenced -that is, what provides the shared set or generalisation that the interpretation of B is asserted to exemplify. It appears to be licenced by the causal relation that has been inferred to hold between the eventualities denoted by B and A, yielding a set of causes/reasons for A.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Thus, while we do not yet have a complete characterisation of how compositional semantics, defeasible inference and anaphoric presupposition interact, Examples 2c and 2d illustrate one significant feature: Both the interpretive contribution of a structural connective like \"because\" and the defeasible inference stimulated by adjoining can license the anaphoric presupposition of a p-bearing element like \"for example\".",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Recently, Asher and Lascarides (1999) have described a version of Structured Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT) that also incorporates the semantic contributions of both presuppositions and assertions. In this enriched version of SDRT, a proposition can be linked to the previous discourse via multiple rhetorical relations such as background and defeasible consequence. While there are similarities between their approach and the one presented here, the two differ in significant ways:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 37,
"text": "Asher and Lascarides (1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Unlike in the current approach, Asher and Lascarides (1999) We illustrate these differences through Example 1 (repeated below), with the p-bearing element \"then\", and Example 5, with the p-bearing element \"too\". Both examples call into question the claim that material licensing presuppositions is constrained to the right frontier of the evolving discourse structure. In Example 1, the presupposition of \"then\" in (d) is licensed by the eventuality evoked by (b), which would not be on the right frontier of any structural analysis. If \"too\" is taken to presuppose shared knowledge of a similar eventuality, then the \"too\" in Example 5(g) finds that eventuality in (b), which is also unlikely to be on the right frontier of any structural analysis. 4",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 61,
"text": "Asher and Lascarides (1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "4The proposal in (Asher and Lascarides, 1999) to alter an With respect to the interpretation of \"too\", Asher",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 45,
"text": "(Asher and Lascarides, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "and Lascarides take it to presuppose a parallel rhetorical relation between the current clause and something on the right frontier. From this instantiated rhetorical relation, one then infers that the related eventualities are similar. But if the right frontier constraint is incorrect and the purpose of positing a rhetorical relation like parallel is to produce an assertion of similarity, then one might as well take \"too\" as directly presupposing shared knowledge of a similar eventuality, as we have done here. Thus, we suggest that the insights presented in (Asher and Lascarides, 1999 ) have a simpler explanation. Now, before embarking on more detailed analyses of two quite different p-bearing adverbs, we should clarify the scope of the current approach in terms of the range of p-bearing elements that can create non-structural discourse links. We believe that systematic study, perhaps starting with the 350 \"cue phrases\" given in (Knott, 1996 , Appendix A), will show which of them use presupposition in realising discourse relations. It is likely that these might include:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 564,
"end": 591,
"text": "(Asher and Lascarides, 1999",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 943,
"end": 955,
"text": "(Knott, 1996",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 temporal conjunctions and adverbial connectives presupposing an eventuality that stands in a particular temporal relation to the one currently in hand, such as \"then\", \"later\", \"meanwhile\", \"afterwards\", \"beforehand\"';",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 adverbial connectives presupposing shared knowledge of a generalisation or set, such existing SDRT analysis in response to a p-bearing element, would seem superfluous if its only role is to re-structure the right frontier to support the claimed RF constraint. as \"for example\", \"first...second...\", \"for instance\"; \u2022 adverbial connectives presupposing shared knowledge of an abstraction, such as \"more specifically\", \"in particular\"; \u2022 adverbial connectives presupposing a complementary modal context, such as \"otherwise\"; \u2022 adverbial connectives presupposing an alternative to the current eventuality, such as \"instead\" and \"rather\". 5",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "For this study, one might be able to use the structure-crossing test given in Section 2 to distinguish a relation whose arguments are both given structurally from a relation which has one of its arguments presupposed. (Since such a test won't distinguish p-bearing connectives such as \"meanwhile\" from non-relational adverbials such as \"at dawn\" and \"tonight\", the latter will have to be excluded by other means, such as the (pre-theoretical) test for relational phrases given in (Knott, 1996) .)",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 480,
"end": 493,
"text": "(Knott, 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We take \"For example, P\" to presuppose a quantified proposition G, and to assert that this proposition is a generalisation of the proposition rc expressed by the sentence P. (We will write generalisation(rt, G.) A precise definition of generalisation is not necessary for the purposes of this paper, and we will assume the following simple definition: Example 6a is straightforward, in that the presupposed generalisation \"John likes many kinds of wine\" is presented explicitly in the text. 6 In the remaining cases, the generalisation must be inferred. In Example 6b, \"because\" licenses the generalisation that many propositions support the proposi-6Our definition of generalisation works as follows for this example: the proposition n introduced by \"for example\" is likes(john, chianti), the presupposed proposition G is many (x, wine(x),likes(john,x) , and the weakened proposition G I is some (x, wine(x),likes(john,x) . ~ allows G I to be inferred, and G also allows G ~ to be inferred, hence generalisation(rc, G) is true. tion that John must be feeling sick, while in Example 6c, it licences the generalisation that many propositions follow from his feeling sick. We can represent both generalisations using the meta-level predicate, evidence(rt, C), which holds iff a premise rc is evidence for a conclusion C.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 828,
"end": 853,
"text": "(x, wine(x),likes(john,x)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 897,
"end": 922,
"text": "(x, wine(x),likes(john,x)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u2022 3 For example",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In Example 6d, the relevant generalisation involves possible worlds associated jointly with the modality of the first clause and \"then\" (Webber et al., 1999) . For consistency, the semantic interpretation of the clause introduced by \"for example\" must make reference to the same modal base identified by the generalisation. There is more on modal bases in the next section.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 157,
"text": "(Webber et al., 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u2022 3 For example",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Our analysis of \"otherwise\" assumes a modal semantics broadly following Kratzer (1991 ) and Stone (1999) , where a sentence is asserted with respect to a set of possible worlds. The semantics of \"otherwise ct\" appeals to two sets of possible worlds. One is W0, the set of possible worlds consistent with our knowledge of the real world. The other, Wp, is that set of possible worlds consistent with the condition C that is presupposed, t~ is then asserted with respect to the complement set Wo -Wp. Of interest then is C -what it is that can serve as the source licensing this presupposition. 7",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 87,
"text": "Kratzer (1991 )",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 104,
"text": "Stone (1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Otherwise",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "There are many sources for such a presupposition, including if-then constructions (Example 7a-7b), modal expressions (Examples 7c-7d) and infinitival clauses (Example 7e) 7There is another sense of \"otherwise\" corresponding to \"in other respects\", which appears either as an adjective phrase modifier (e.g. \"He's an otherwise happy boy.\") or a clausal modifier (e.g., \"The physical layer is different, but otherwise it's identical to metropolitan networks.\"). What is presupposed here are one or more actual properties of the situation under discussion. each of which introduces new possibilities that are consistent with our knowledge of the real world (W0), that may then be further described through modal subordination (Roberts, 1989; Stone and Hardt, 1999) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 723,
"end": 738,
"text": "(Roberts, 1989;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 739,
"end": 761,
"text": "Stone and Hardt, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Otherwise",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "That such possibilities must be consistent with Wo (i.e., why the semantics of \"otherwise\" is not simply defined in terms of W r) can be seen by considering the counterfactual variants of 7a-7d, with \"had been\", \"could have been\" or \"should have taken\". (Epistemic \"must\" can never be counterfactual.) Because counterfactuals provide an alternative to reality, W e is not a subset of W0 -and we correctly predict a presupposition failure for \"otherwise\". For example, corresponding to 7a we have:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Otherwise",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "(8) If the light had been red, John would have stopped. #Otherwise, he went straight on.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Otherwise",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The appropriate connective here -allowing for what actually happened -is \"as it is\" or \"as it was\". 8 As with \"for example\", \"otherwise\" is compatible with a range of additional relations linking discourse together as a product of discourse structure and defeasible inference. Here, the clauses in 7a and 7c provide a more complete description of what to do in different circumstances, while those in 7b, 7d and 7e involve an unmarked \"because\", as did Example 2d. Specifically, in 7d, the \"otherwise\" clause asserts that the hearer is cold across all currently possible worlds where a coat is not taken. With the proposition understood that the hearer must not get cold (i.e., that only worlds where the hearer is not cold are compatible with what is required), this allows the inference (modus tollens) that only the worlds where the hearer takes a coat are compatible with what is required. As this is the proposition presented explicitly in the first clause, the text is compatible with an inferential connective like \"because\". (Similar examples occur with \"epistemic\" because.)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Otherwise",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Our theory correctly predicts that such discourse relations need not be left implicit, but can instead be explicitly signalled by additional connectives, as in 8There is a reading of the conditional which is not counterfactual, but rather a piece of free indirect speech reporting on John's train of thought prior to encountering the light. This reading allows the use of \"otherwise\" with John's thought providing the base set of worlds W0, and \"otherwise\" then introducing a complementary condition in that same context: If the light had been red, John would have stopped. Otherwise, he would have carded straight on. But as it turned out, he never got to the light. and earlier examples. (Note that \"Otherwise P\" may yield an implicature, as well as having a presupposition, as in (10) John must be in his room. Otherwise, his light would be off.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Otherwise",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Here, compositional semantics says that the second clause continues the description of the situation partially described by the first clause. General inference enriches this with the stronger, but defeasible conclusion that the second clause provides evidence for the first. Based on the presupposition of \"otherwise\", the \"otherwise\" clause asserts that John's light would be off across all possible worlds where he was not in his room. In addition, however, implicature related to the evidence relation between the clauses, contributes the conclusion that the light in John's room is on. The point here is only that presupposition and implicature are distinct mechanisms, and it is only presupposition that we are focussing on in this work.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Otherwise",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we have shown that discourse structure need not bear the full burden of discourse semantics: Part of it can be borne by other means. This keeps discourse structure simple and able to support a straight-forward compositional semantics.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Specifically, we have argued that the notion of anaphoric presupposition that was introduced by van der Sandt (1992) to explain the interpretation of various definite noun phrases could also be seen as underlying the semantics of various discourse connectives. Since these presuppositions are licensed by eventualities taken to be shared knowledge, a good source of which is the interpretation of the discourse so far, anaphoric presupposition can be seen as carrying some of the burden of discourse connectivity and discourse semantics in a way that avoids crossing dependencies.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "There is, potentially, another benefit to factoring the sources of discourse semantics in this way: while cross-linguistically, inference and anaphoric presupposition are likely to behave similarly, structure (as in syntax) is likely to be more language specific. Thus a factored approach has a better chance of providing a cross-linguistic account of discourse than one that relies on a single premise.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Clearly, more remains to be done. First, the approach demands a precise semantics for connectives, as in the work of Grote (1998) , Grote et al. (1997) , Jayez and Rossari (1998) and Lagerwerf (1998) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 129,
"text": "Grote (1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 151,
"text": "Grote et al. (1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 178,
"text": "Jayez and Rossari (1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 199,
"text": "Lagerwerf (1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Secondly, the approach demands an understanding of the attentional characteristics of presuppositions. In particular, preliminary study seems to suggest that p-bearing elements differ in what source can license them, where this source can be located, and what can act as distractors for this source. In fact, these differences seem to resemble the range of differences in the information status (Prince, 1981; Prince, 1992) or familiarity (Gundel et al., 1993) of referential NPs. Consider, for example:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 395,
"end": 409,
"text": "(Prince, 1981;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 410,
"end": 423,
"text": "Prince, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 439,
"end": 460,
"text": "(Gundel et al., 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "(11 ) I got in my old Volvo and set off to drive crosscountry and see as many different mountain ranges as possible. When I got to Arkansas, for example, I stopped in the Ozarks, although I had to borrow another car to see them because",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Volvos handle badly on steep grades.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Here, the definite NP-like presupposition of the \"when\" clause (that getting to Arkansas is shared knowledge) is licensed by driving cross-country; the presupposition of \"for example\" (that stopping in the Ozarks exemplifies some shared generalisation) is licensed by seeing many mountain ranges, and the presupposition of \"another\" (that an alternative car to this one is shared knowledge) is licensed by my",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Volvo. This suggests a corpus annotation effort for anaphoric presuppositions, similar to ones already in progress on co-reference. Finally, we should show that the approach has practical benefit for NL understanding and/or generation. But the work to date surely shows the benefit of an approach that narrows the gap between discourse syntax and semantics and that of the clause.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "5"
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "You should take a coat with you because otherwise you'll get cold",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "You should take a coat with you because oth- erwise you'll get cold.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "The semantics and pragmatics of presupposition",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nicholas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Asher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alex",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lascarides",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Journal of Semantics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides. 1999. The semantics and pragmatics of presupposition. Journal of Semantics, to appear.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Expectations in incremental discourse processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cristea",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Proc. 35 th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "88--95",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dan Cristea and Bonnie Webber. 1997. Expect- ations in incremental discourse processing. In Proc. 35 th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 88-95, Mad- rid, Spain. Morgan Kaufmann.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Discourse tree adjoining grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Claire",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gardent",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Claire Gardent. 1997. Discourse tree adjoining grammars. Claus report nr.89, University of the Saarland, Saarbriicken.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Ma(r)king concessions in English and German",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Brigitte",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grote",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nils",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lenke",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Manfred",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stede",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Discourse Processes",
"volume": "24",
"issue": "",
"pages": "87--118",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Brigitte Grote, Nils Lenke, and Manfred Stede. 1997. Ma(r)king concessions in English and Ger- man. Discourse Processes, 24(1 ):87-118.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Representing temporal discourse markers for generation purposes",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Brigitte",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grote",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Coling/ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "22--28",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Brigitte Grote. 1998. Representing temporal dis- course markers for generation purposes. In Coling/ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, pages 22-28, Montreal, Canada.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jeanette",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gundel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Hedberg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zacharski",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Language",
"volume": "69",
"issue": "",
"pages": "274--307",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jeanette Gundel, N.A. Hedberg, and R. Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69:274- 307.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Pragmatic connectives as predicates",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jacques",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jayez",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Corinne",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rossari",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Predicative Structures in Natural Language and Lexical Knowledge Bases",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "306--340",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jacques Jayez and Corinne Rossari. 1998. Prag- matic connectives as predicates. In Patrick Saint- Dizier, editor, Predicative Structures in Natural Language and Lexical Knowledge Bases, pages 306-340. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Compositional semantics with lexicalized treeadjoining grammar (LTAG)?",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Aravind",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Proc. 3 rd Int'l Workshop on Compuational Semantics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aravind Joshi and K. Vijay-Shanker. 1999. Compositional semantics with lexicalized tree- adjoining grammar (LTAG)? In Proc. 3 rd Int'l Workshop on Compuational Semantics, Tilburg, Netherlands, January.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "A featurebased account of the relations signalled by sentence and clause connectives",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alistair",
"middle": [],
"last": "Knott",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Chris",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mellish",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Language and Speech",
"volume": "39",
"issue": "2-3",
"pages": "143--183",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alistair Knott and Chris Mellish. 1996. A feature- based account of the relations signalled by sen- tence and clause connectives. Language and Speech, 39(2-3): 143-183.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "A Data-driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alistair",
"middle": [],
"last": "Knott",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alistair Knott. 1996. A Data-driven Methodo- logy for Motivating a Set of Coherence Rela- tions. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Artificial In- telligence, University of Edinburgh.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Angelika",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kratzer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "639--650",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Angelika Kratzer. 1991. Modality. In A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, editors, Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Re- search, pages 639-650. de Gruyter.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Causal Connectives have Presuppositions. Holland Academic Graphics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Luuk",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lagerwerf",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Luuk Lagerwerf. 1998. Causal Connectives have Presuppositions. Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague, The Netherlands. PhD Thesis, Cath- olic University of Brabant.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Rhetorical structure theory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "William",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sandra",
"middle": [],
"last": "Thompson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Text",
"volume": "8",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "243--281",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "William Mann and Sandra Thompson. 1988. Rhet- orical structure theory. Text, 8(3):243-281.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discouse analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Johanna",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moore",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pollack",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "18",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "537--544",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Johanna Moore and Martha Pollack. 1992. A prob- lem for RST: The need for multi-level discouse analysis. Computational Linguistics, 18(4):537- 544.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Nominal and temporal anaphora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Barbara",
"middle": [],
"last": "Partee",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1984,
"venue": "Linguistics & Philosophy",
"volume": "7",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "287--324",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Barbara Partee. 1984. Nominal and temporal ana- phora. Linguistics & Philosophy, 7(3):287-324.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Toward a taxonomy of givennew information",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ellen",
"middle": [
"Prince"
],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "Radical Pragmatics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "223--255",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ellen Prince. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given- new information. In Peter Cole, editor, Radical Pragmatics, pages 223-255. Academic Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "The zpg letter: Subjects, definiteness and information-status",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ellen",
"middle": [
"Prince"
],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fundraising Text",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "295--325",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ellen Prince. 1992. The zpg letter: Subjects, definiteness and information-status. In Susan Thompson and William Mann, editors, Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fundraising Text, pages 295-325. John Benjamins.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Craige",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roberts",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy",
"volume": "12",
"issue": "6",
"pages": "683--721",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Craige Roberts. 1989. Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(6):683-721.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Sentence planning as description using tree adjoining grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Matthew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stone",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christine",
"middle": [],
"last": "Doran",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Proc. 35 th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "198--205",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Matthew Stone and Christine Doran. 1997. Sen- tence planning as description using tree adjoin- ing grammar. In Proc. 35 th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 198-205, Madrid, Spain. Morgan Kaufmann.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Dynamic discourse referents for tense and modals",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Matthew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stone",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hardt",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Computational Semantics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "287--299",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Matthew Stone and Daniel Hardt. 1999. Dynamic discourse referents for tense and modals. In Harry Bunt, editor, Computational Semantics, pages 287-299. Kluwer.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Textual economy through closely coupled syntax and semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Matthew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stone",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Natural Language Generation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "178--187",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Matthew Stone and Bonnie Webber. 1998. Tex- tual economy through closely coupled syntax and semantics. In Proceedings of the Ninth Inter- national Workshop on Natural Language Gen- eration, pages 178-187, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Canada.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Modality in Dialogue: Planning, Pragmatics and Computation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Matthew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stone",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Matthew Stone. 1998. Modality in Dialogue: Plan- ning, Pragmatics and Computation. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer & Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Reference to possible worlds",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Matthew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stone",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "RuCCS report",
"volume": "49",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Matthew Stone. 1999. Reference to possible worlds. RuCCS report 49, Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Rob",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van Der",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sandt",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Journal of Semantics",
"volume": "9",
"issue": "",
"pages": "333--377",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rob Van der Sandt. 1992. Presupposition pro- jection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Se- mantics, 9:333-377.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Anchoring a lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar for discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Aravind",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Coling/ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "86--92",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bonnie Webber and Aravind Joshi. 1998. Anchor- ing a lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar for dis- course. In Coling/ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, pages 86-92, Montreal, Canada.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Multiple discourse connectives in a lexicalized grammar for discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alistair",
"middle": [],
"last": "Knott",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Aravind",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "3 ~d Int'l Workshop on Computational Semantics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "309--325",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bonnie Webber, Alistair Knott, and Aravind Joshi. 1999. Multiple discourse connectives in a lexic- alized grammar for discourse. In 3 ~d Int'l Work- shop on Computational Semantics, pages 309- 325, Tilburg, The Netherlands.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Tense as discourse anaphor",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "14",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "61--73",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bonnie Webber. 1988. Tense as discourse anaphor. Computational Linguistics, 14(2):61-73.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Multiple semantic links (R j) between discourse clauses (Ci): (a) back to the same discourse clause; (b) back to different discourse clauses; (c) back to different discourse clauses, with crossing dependencies.",
"uris": null,
"num": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "take all connections (of both asserted and presupposed material) to be structural attachments through rhetorical relations. The relevant rhetorical relation may be inher-Derivation of Example 2a. The derivation tree is shown below the arrow, and the derived tree, to its rightDerivation of Example 2b ent in the p-bearing element (as with \"too\") or it may have to be inferred.\u2022 Again unlike the current approach, all such attachments (of either asserted or presupposed material) are limited to the right frontier of the evolving SDRT structure.",
"uris": null,
"num": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "(4) a. On the one hand, John loves Barolo. b. So he ordered three cases of the '97. c. On the other hand, because he's broke, d. he then had to cancel the order. (5) (a) I have two brothers. (b) John is a history major. (c) He likes water polo, (d) and he plays the drums. (e) Bill is in high school. (f) His main interest is drama. (g) He too studies history, (h) but he doesn't like it much.",
"uris": null,
"num": null
},
"FIGREF3": {
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Derivation of Example 2d",
"uris": null,
"num": null
},
"FIGREF4": {
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "5Gann Bierner, personal communication \u2022 generalisation(rc, G) iff (i) G is a quantified proposition of the form Q I (x, a(x), b(x)); (ii) it allows the inference of a proposition G r of the form Q2 (x, a(x), b(x) ); and (iii) G' is inferrable from G (through having a weaker quantifier).The presupposed proposition G can be licensed in different ways, as the following examples show: (6) a. John likes many kinds of wine. For example, he likes Chianti.",
"uris": null,
"num": null
},
"TABREF0": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"text": "a. You shouldn't trust John because he never returns what he borrows.",
"content": "<table/>"
}
}
}
} |