File size: 82,841 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 | {
"paper_id": "P99-1007",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:31:27.258874Z"
},
"title": "Unifying Parallels",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Claire",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gardent",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Computational Linguistics University of the Saarland Saarbriicken",
"location": {
"addrLine": "Germany claire0coli, uni-sb"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "I show that the equational treatment of ellipsis proposed in (Dalrymple et al., 1991) can further be viewed as modeling the effect of parallelism on semantic interpretation. I illustrate this claim by showing that the account straightforwardly extends to a general treatment of sloppy identity on the one hand, and to deaccented foci on the other. I also briefly discuss the results obtained in a prototype implementation.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P99-1007",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "I show that the equational treatment of ellipsis proposed in (Dalrymple et al., 1991) can further be viewed as modeling the effect of parallelism on semantic interpretation. I illustrate this claim by showing that the account straightforwardly extends to a general treatment of sloppy identity on the one hand, and to deaccented foci on the other. I also briefly discuss the results obtained in a prototype implementation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "1 Introduction (Dalrymple et al., 1991; Shieber et al., 1996) (henceforth DSP) present a treatment of VPellipsis which can be sketched as follows. An elliptical construction involves two phrases (usually clauses) which are in some sense structurally parallel. Whereas the first clause (we refer to it as the source) is semantically complete, the second (or target) clause is missing semantic material which can be recovered from the source.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 39,
"text": "(Dalrymple et al., 1991;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 61,
"text": "Shieber et al., 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Formally the analysis consists of two components: the representation of the overall discourse (i.e. source and target clauses) and an equation which permits recovering the missing semantics.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "R(S1,..., Sn) = S I S is the semantic representation of the source, $1,..., Sn and T1,... ,Tn are the semantic representations of the parallel elements in the source and target respectively and R represents the relation to be recovered. The equation is solved using Higher-Order Unification (HOU): Given any solvable equation M = N, HOU yields a substitution of terms for free variables that makes M and N equal in the theory of a/~v-identity.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I Representation Equation I S A R(T1, \u2022 \u2022 \u2022, Tn)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The following example illustrates the workings of this analysis:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I Representation Equation I S A R(T1, \u2022 \u2022 \u2022, Tn)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(1)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I Representation Equation I S A R(T1, \u2022 \u2022 \u2022, Tn)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Jon likes Sarah and Peter does too.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I Representation Equation I S A R(T1, \u2022 \u2022 \u2022, Tn)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In this case the semantic representation and the equation associated with the overall discourse ar e: Equation R(j) = like (j,s) For this equation, HOU yields the substitution1:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 128,
"text": "(j,s)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I Representation Equation I S A R(T1, \u2022 \u2022 \u2022, Tn)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "and as a result, the resolved semantics of the target is:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "{R x.like(x,s)}",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Ax.like(x, s)(p) -like (p, s) The DSP approach has become very influential in computational linguistics for two main reasons. First, it accounts for a wide range of observations concerning the interaction of VPellipsis, quantification and anaphora. Second, it bases semantic construction on a tool, HOU, which is both theoretically and computationally attractive. Theoretically, HOU is well-defined and well-understood -this permits a clear understanding of both the limitations and the predictions of the approach. Computationally, it has both a declarative and a procedural interpretation -this supports both transparency and implementation.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 29,
"text": "(p, s)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "{R x.like(x,s)}",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "1As (Dalrymple et al., 1991) themselves observe, HOU also yields other, linguistically invalid, solutions. For a proposal on how to solve this over-generation problem, see (Gardent and Kohlhase, 1996b; .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 28,
"text": "(Dalrymple et al., 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 201,
"text": "(Gardent and Kohlhase, 1996b;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "{R x.like(x,s)}",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In this paper, I start (section 2) by clarifying the relationship between DSP's proposal and the semantic representation of discourse anaphors. In section 3 and 4, I then show that the HOU-treatment of ellipsis naturally extends to provide:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "{R x.like(x,s)}",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 A treatment of the interaction between parallelism and focus and * A general account of sloppy identity Section 6 concludes and compares the approach with related work.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "{R x.like(x,s)}",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The main tenet of the DSP approach is that interpreting an elliptical clause involves recovering a relation from the source clause and applying it to the target elements. This leaves open the question of how this procedure relates to sentence level semantic construction and in particular to the semantic representation of VPellipsis. Consider for instance the following example:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "(2) Jon runs but Peter doesn't.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Under the DSP analysis, the unresolved semantics of (2) is (3)a and equation 3b is set up. HOU yields the solution given in (3)c and as a result, the semantics of the target clause Peter doesn't is (3)d.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "(3)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "a. pos(run(jon)) A R(neg)(peter) b. R(pos)(jon) = pos(run(jon)) c. d. O x.O(run(x))(neg)(peter) neg(run(peter))",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "It is unclear how the semantic representation (3)a comes about. Under a Montague-type approach where syntactic categories map onto semantic types, the semantic type of a VP-Ellipsis is (et), the type of properties of individuals i.e. unary relations, not binary ones. And under a standard treatment of subject NPs and auxiliaries, one would expect the representation of the target clause to be neg(P(peter)) not P(neg)(peter). There is thus a discrepancy between the representation DSP posit for the target, and the semantics generated by a standard, Montague-style semantic construction module.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Furthermore, although DSP only apply their analysis to VP-ellipsis, they have in mind a much broader range of applications:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "[...] many other elliptical phenomena and related phenomena subject to multiple readings akin to the strict and sloppy readings discussed here may be analysed using the same techniques (Dalrymple et al., 1991, page 450) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 185,
"end": 219,
"text": "(Dalrymple et al., 1991, page 450)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In particular, one would expect the HOUanalysis to support a general theory of sloppy identity. For instance, one would expect it to account for the sloppy interpretation (I'll kiss you if you don't want me to kiss you) of (4). But for such cases, the discrepancy between the semantic representation generated by semantic construction and the DSP representation of the target is even more obvious. Assuming help and kiss are the parallel elements, the equation generated by the DSP proposal is:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "R(h) = wt(you, h(i, you)) --+ h(i, you)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "and accordingly, the semantic representation of the target is -~R(k) which is in stark contrast with what one could reasonably expect from a standard semantic construction process namely:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "-~P(you) -+ k(i, you).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "What is missing is a constraint which states that the representation of the target must unify with the semantic representation generated by the semantic construction component. If we integrate this constraint into the DSP account, we get the following representations and constraints:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "(5) Representation S A R(T1,...,Tn) Equations R(S1,..., Sn) = S R(T1,...,Tn) = T",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "where T is the semantic representation generated for the target by the semantic construction module. The second equation requires that this representation T unifies with the representation of the target postulated by DSP.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "With this clarification in mind, example (2) is handled as follows. The semantic representation of (2) is (6)a where the semantic representation of the target clause is the representation one would expect from a standard Montague-style semantic construction process. The equations are as given in (6)b-c where C represents the semantics shared by the parallel structures and P the VP-Ellipsis. HOU then yields the solution in (6)d: the value of C is that relation shared by the two structures i.e. a binary relation as in DSP. However the value of P (the semantic representation of the VPE) is a property -as befits a verbal phrase.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "(6) a. pos(run(jon)) A neg(P(peter)) b. C(pos)(jon) = pos(run(jon)) c. C(neg)(peter) = neg(P(peter)) d. {C -+ AOAx.O(run(x)),P )~x.run(x) } e. AO)~xO(run(x))(neg)(peter) neg(run(peter)) -.+ B",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In sum, provided one equation is added to the DSP system, the relation between the HOU-approach to VP-ellipsis and standard Montague-style semantic construction becomes transparent. Furthermore it also becomes immediately obvious that the DSP approach does indeed generalise to a much wider range of data than just VP-Ellipsis. The key point is that there is now not just one, but several, free variables coming into play; and that although the free variable C always represents the semantics shared by two parallel structures, the free variable(s) occuring in the semantic representation of the target may represent any kind of unresolved discourse anaphors -not just ellipsis. Consider the following example for instance: 7Jon 1 took his1 wife to the station. No, BILL took his wife to the station.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "There is no ellipsis in the target, yet the discourse is ambiguous between a strict and a sloppy interpretation 2 and one would expect the HOU-analysis to extend to such cases. Which indeed is the case. The analysis goes as follows.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "~I assume that in the target took his wife to the station is deaccented. In such cases, it is clear that the ambiguity of his is restricted by parallelism i.e. is a sloppy/strict ambiguity rather than just an ambiguity in the choice of antecedent.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "As for ellipsis, anaphors in the source are resolved, whereas discourse anaphors in the target are represented using free variables (alternatively, we could resolve them first and let HOU filter unsuitable resolutions out).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Specifically, the target pronoun his is represented by the free variable X and therefore we have the following representation and equations:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Representation tk(j, wife_of(j), s) Ark(b, wife_of(X), s) Equations C(j) = tk(j, wife_of(j), s) C(b) = tk(b, wife_of(X), s)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "HOU yields inter alia two solutions for these equations, the first yielding a strict and the second, a sloppy reading:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "{C <--Az.tk(z, wife_of(j), s), X +-j} {C +--Az.tk(z, wife_of(z), s), X +-b}",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Thus the HOU-approach captures cases of sloppy identity which do not involve ellipsis. More generally, the HOU-approach can be viewed as modeling the effect of parallelism on interpretation. In what follows, I substantiate this claim by considering two such cases: first, the interaction of parallelism and sloppy identity and second, the interaction of parallelism and focus.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Representing discourse anaphors",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Since (Jackendoff, 1972) , it is widely agreed that focus can affect the truth-conditions of a sentence 3. The following examples illustrate this, where upper-letters indicate prosodic prominence and thereby focus. a focus value 4 is used which in essence, is the 3The term focus has been put to many different uses. Here I follow (Jackendoff, 1972) and use it to refer to the semantics of that part of the sentence which is (or contains an element that is) prosodically prominent.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 24,
"text": "(Jackendoff, 1972)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 349,
"text": "(Jackendoff, 1972)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parallelism and Focus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "aThis focus value is defined and termed differently by different authors: Jackendoff (Jackendoff, 1972) calls it the presuppositional set, Rooth (Rooth, 1992b) the Alternative Set and Krifka (Krifka, 1992) the Ground. set of semantic objects obtained by making an appropriate substitution in the focus position. For instance, in (Gaxdent and Kohlhase, 1996a), the focus value of (8a) is defined with the help of the equation:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 103,
"text": "(Jackendoff, 1972)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 159,
"text": "(Rooth, 1992b)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 205,
"text": "(Krifka, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parallelism and Focus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "I Focus Value Equation I Sere = X(F) I",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parallelism and Focus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "where Sern is the semantic of the sentence without the focus operator (e.g. intro(j,m,s) for (8)), F represents the focus and X helps determine the value of the focus variable (written X) as follows:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parallelism and Focus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Definition 3.1 (Focus value) Let X = Ax.\u00a2 be the value defined by the focus value equation and T be the type of x, then the Focus value derivable from X, written X, is {\u00a2 J x wife}.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parallelism and Focus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Given (8a), the focus value equation is thus (9a) with solution (9b); the focus value derived from it is (9c) and the semantics of (8a) is (9d) which given (9c) is equivalent to (9e). In English: the only proposition of the form John introduced x to Sue that is true is the proposition John introduced Mary to Sue.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parallelism and Focus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Now consider the following example: In a deaccenting context, the focus might be part of the deaccented material and therefore not prosodically prominent. Thus in (10)b, the semantic focus Mary is deaccented because of the partial repetition of the previous utterance. Because they all use focus to determine the focus value and thereby the semantics of sentences such as (8a), focus deaccenting is a challenge for most theories of focus. So for instance, in the HOU-analysis of both (Pulman, 1997) and (Gaxdent and Kohlhase, 1996a) , the right-hand side of the focus equation for (10b) becomes FV(F) where neither FV (the focus value) nor F (the focus) are known. As a result, the equation is untyped and cannot be solved by Huet's algorithm (Huet, 1976) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 484,
"end": 498,
"text": "(Pulman, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 503,
"end": 532,
"text": "(Gaxdent and Kohlhase, 1996a)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 743,
"end": 755,
"text": "(Huet, 1976)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parallelism and Focus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "The solution is simple: if there is no focus, there is no focus equation. After all, it is the presence of a focus which triggers the formation of a focus value.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parallelism and Focus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "But how do we determine the interpretation of (10b)? Without focus equation, the focus value remains unspecified and the representation of (10b) is:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parallelism and Focus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "which is underspecified with respect to FV. (Rooth, 1992a ) convincingly argues that deaccenting and VP-ellipsis are constrained by the same semantic redundancy constraint (and that VP-ellipsis is additionally subject to a syntactic constraint on the reconstructed VP). Moreover, (Gaxdent, 1999) shows that the equational constraints defined in (5) adequately chaxacterise the redundancy constraint which holds for both VPE and deaccenting. Now example (10b) clearly is a case of deaccenting: because it repeats the VP of (10a), the VP only likes mary in (10b) is deaccented. Hence the redundancy constraint holding for both VPE and deaccenting and encoded in (5) applies5:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 57,
"text": "(Rooth, 1992a",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 295,
"text": "(Gaxdent, 1999)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "VP[P E FV A P -+ P = like(p,m)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "These equations axe solved by the following substitution:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "C(j) = VP[P G {likeO, x)} A P --+ P = like(j,m)] C(p) = VP[P E FV A P -+ P = like(p,m)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "{C +-- FV +-",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "C(j) = VP[P G {likeO, x)} A P --+ P = like(j,m)] C(p) = VP[P E FV A P -+ P = like(p,m)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "so that the interpretation of (10b) is correctly fixed to:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Az.VP[P E {like(z,x)} A P --+ P = like(z,m)], { like (p,x)} }",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Thus, the HOU approach to deaccenting makes appropriate predictions about the interpretation of \"second occurrence expressions\" 5For lack of space, I shorten {like(j,x) I x G wife} to { like(j,x)} (SOE) 6 such as (10b). It predicts that for these cases, the focus value of the source is inherited by the target through unification. Intuitively, a sort of \"parallelism constraint\" is at work which equates the interpretation of the repeated material in an SOE with that of its source counterpart.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "VP[P E {like(p,x)} A P --+ P = like(p,m)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Such an approach is in line with (Krifka, 1992) which argues that the repeated material in an SOE is an anaphor resolving to its source counterpart. It is also partially in line with Rooth's account in that it similarly posits an initially underspecified semantics for the target; It is more specific than Rooth's however, as it lifts this underspecification by unification. The difference is best illustrated by an example: Provided only likes Mary is deaccented, this discourse is ill-formed (unless the second speaker knows Sarah and Mary to denote the same individual). Under the HOU-analysis this falls out of the fact that the redundancy constraint cannot be satisfied as there is no unifying substitution for the following equations:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 47,
"text": "(Krifka, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "VP[P E {like(p,x)} A P --+ P = like(p,m)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In constrast, Rooth's approach does not capture the ill-formedness of (11) as it places no constraint on the interpretation of PETER only likes Mary other than that given by the compositional semantics of the sentence namely:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "C(j) = VP[P E {like(j,x)} A P --+ P = like(j,s)] C(p) = VP[P \u2022 FV A P --+ P = like(p,m)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "where FV represents the quantification domain of only and is pragmatically determined. Without going into the details of Rooth's treatment of focus, let it suffice to say, that the first clause does actually provide the appropriate antecedent for this pragmatic anaphor so that despite its ill-formedness, (11) is assigned a fullfledged interpretation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "VP[P E FV A P --+ P = like(p,m)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Nonetheless there are cases where pragmatic liberalism is necessary. Thus consider Rooth's notorious example:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "VP[P E FV A P --+ P = like(p,m)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(12)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "VP[P E FV A P --+ P = like(p,m)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "People who GROW rice usually only EAT rice",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "VP[P E FV A P --+ P = like(p,m)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This is understood to mean that people who grow rice usually eat nothing else than rice. But as the focus (RICE) and focus value (Ax.eat(pwgr, x) ) that need to be inherited by the target VP only EAT rice are simply not available from the previous context, the redundancy constraint on deaccenting fails to predict this and hence, fails to further specify the underspecified meaning of (12). A related case in point is:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 145,
"text": "(Ax.eat(pwgr, x)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "VP[P E FV A P --+ P = like(p,m)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(13) We are supposed to TAKE maths and semantics, but I only LIKE semantics.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "VP[P E FV A P --+ P = like(p,m)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Again the focus on LIKE is a contrastive focus which does not contribute information on the quantification domain of only. In other words, although the intended meaning of the but-clause is o/ all the subjects that I like, the only subject I like is semantics, the given prosodic focus on LIKE fails to establish the appropriate set of alternatives namely: all the subjects that I like. Such cases clearly involve inference, possibly a reasoning along the following lines: the but conjunction indicates an expectation denial. The expectation is that if x takes maths and semantics then x likes maths and semantics. This expectation is thus made salient by the discourse context and provides in fact the set of alternatives necessary to interpret only namely the set {like(i, sem), like(i, maths)}. To be more specific, consider the representation of I only like semantics:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "VP[P E FV A P --+ P = like(p,m)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "By resolving FV to the set of propositions {like(i, sem),like(i, maths)}, we get the appropriate meaning namely:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "VP[P E FV A P --+ P = like(i, sem)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "VP [P E {like(i, sem) , like(i, maths)} A P --+ P = like(i, sem)]",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 21,
"text": "[P E {like(i, sem)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "VP[P E FV A P --+ P = like(i, sem)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Following (Rooth, 1992b) , I assume that in such cases, the quantification domain of both usually and only are pragmatically determined.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 24,
"text": "(Rooth, 1992b)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "VP[P E FV A P --+ P = like(i, sem)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The redundancy constraint on deaccenting still holds but it plays no role in determining these particular quantification domains.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "VP[P E FV A P --+ P = like(i, sem)]",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As we saw in section 2, an important property of DSP's analysis is that it predicts sloppy/strict ambiguity for VP-Ellipsis whereby the multiple solutions generated by HOU capture the multiple readings allowed by natural language. As (Hobbs and Kehler, 1997; Hardt, 1996) have shown however, sloppy identity is not necessarily linked to VP-ellipsis. Essentially, it can occur whenever, in a parallel configuration, the antecedent of an anaphor/ellipsis itself contains an anaphor/ellipsis whose antecedent is a parallel element. Here are some examples. Because the HOU-analysis reconstructs the semantics common to source and target rather than (solely) the semantics of VP-ellipses, it can capture the full range of sloppy/strict ambiguity illustrated above (and as (Gardent, 1997) shows some of the additional examples listed in (Hobbs and Kehler, 1997) ). Consider for instance example (16). The ellipsis in the target has an antecedent want me to which itself contains a VPE whose antecedent (help you) has a parallel counterpart in the target. As a result, the target ellipsis has a sloppy interpretation as well as a strict one: it can either denote the same property as its antecedent VP want me to help you, or its sloppy copy namely want me to kiss you.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 234,
"end": 258,
"text": "(Hobbs and Kehler, 1997;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 271,
"text": "Hardt, 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 767,
"end": 782,
"text": "(Gardent, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 831,
"end": 855,
"text": "(Hobbs and Kehler, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sloppy identity",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The point to note is that in this case, sloppy interpretation results from a parallelism between VPs not as is more usual, from a parallelism between NPs. This poses no particular problem for the HOU-analysis. As usual, the parallel elements (help and kiss) determine the equational constraints so that we have the fol-lowing equalitiesZ: C(h) = wt (you, h(i, you) ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 349,
"end": 364,
"text": "(you, h(i, you)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sloppy identity",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Resolution of the first equation yields AR.wt(you, R(i, you) ) --+ R(i, you) as a possible value for C and consequently, the value for C(k) is: wt(you, k(i, you) ) -+ k(i, ou) Therefore a possible substitution for P is: --x.wt(x,k(i,x) )} and the VPE occurring in the target can indeed be assigned the sloppy interpretation x want me to kiss x.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 60,
"text": "AR.wt(you, R(i, you)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 235,
"text": "--x.wt(x,k(i,x)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 144,
"end": 161,
"text": "wt(you, k(i, you)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ") -+ h(i, you) C(k) = P(you) --+ k(i, you)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "C(k) =",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ") -+ h(i, you) C(k) = P(you) --+ k(i, you)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "{P +",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ") -+ h(i, you) C(k) = P(you) --+ k(i, you)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Now consider example (15). The pronoun it occurring in the second clause has a sloppy interpretation in that it can be interpreted as meaning Peter's paycheck, rather than Jon's paycheck. In the literature such pronouns are known as paycheck pronouns and are treated as introducing a definite whose restriction is pragmatically given (cf. e.g. (Cooper, 1979) ). We can capture this intuition by assigning paycheck pronouns the following representation:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 344,
"end": 358,
"text": "(Cooper, 1979)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ") -+ h(i, you) C(k) = P(you) --+ k(i, you)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Pro ~-~ )~Q.3x [P(x) A Vy[P(y) ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 30,
"text": "[P(x) A Vy[P(y)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ") -+ h(i, you) C(k) = P(you) --+ k(i, you)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "y = x] A Q(x)]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ") -+ h(i, you) C(k) = P(you) --+ k(i, you)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "with P E Wj~(e_+t ) \u2022 That is, paycheck pronouns are treated as definites whose restriction (P) is a variable of type (e --+ t). Under this assumption, (15) is assigned the following equationsS:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ") -+ h(i, you) C(k) = P(you) --+ k(i, you)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "C(j, sp) = 31x~)c_of(x, j) A sp(j, x)] C(p, sa) = 31x[P(x) A sa(p, x)]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ") -+ h(i, you) C(k) = P(you) --+ k(i, you)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Resolving the first equation yields",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ") -+ h(i, you) C(k) = P(you) --+ k(i, you)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ";~y.)~O.3xx~)c_of(x, y) A O(y, x)]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ") -+ h(i, you) C(k) = P(you) --+ k(i, you)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "as a value for C, and therefore we have that:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ") -+ h(i, you) C(k) = P(you) --+ k(i, you)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "C(p, sa) = 31xbc_of(x,p ) A sa(p, x)] {P +--)~y.pc_of(y, p)}",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ") -+ h(i, you) C(k) = P(you) --+ k(i, you)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "That is, the target clause is correctly assigned the sloppy interpretation: Peter saved Peter's paycheck. Thus the HOU-treatment of parallelism can account for both paycheck pronouns and examples such as (16). Though lack of space prevents showing how the other cases of sloppy identity are handled, the general point should be clear: because the HOU-approach associates sloppy identity with parallelism rather than with VPellipsis, it can capture a fairly wide range of data providing some reasonable assumptions are made about the representations of ellipses and anaphors.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ") -+ h(i, you) C(k) = P(you) --+ k(i, you)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "It is known that for the typed lambda-calculus, HOU is only semi-decidable so that the unification algorithm need not terminate for unsolvable problems. Fortunately, the class of equations that is needed for semantic construction is a very restricted class for which much better results hold. In particular, the fact that free variables only occur on the left hand side of our equations reduces the problem of finding solutions to higher-order matching, a problem which is decidable for the subclass of thirdorder formulae (Dowek, 1992) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 523,
"end": 536,
"text": "(Dowek, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Implementation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "These theoretical considerations have been put into practice in the research prototype CHoLI, a system which permits testing the HOU-approach to semantic construction. Briefly, the system can: parse a sequence of sentences and return its semantic representation, interactively build the relevant equations (parallel elements are entered by the user and the corresponding equations are computed by the system) and solve them by means of HOU.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Implementation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "The test-suite includes approximately one hundred examples and covers the following phenomena:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Implementation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 VP-ellipsis and its interaction with anaphora, proper nouns (e.g., Mary, Paul) and control verbs (i.e., verbs such as try whose subject \"control\" i.e., is co-referential with some other element in the verb complement).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Implementation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Deaccenting and its interaction with anaphora, VP-ellipsis, context and sloppy/strict ambiguity.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Implementation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Focus with varying and ambiguous foci. It is currently being extended to sentences with multiple foci and the interaction with deaccenting.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Implementation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "As mentioned in section 2 the HOU-approach sometimes over-generates and yields solutions which are linguistically invalid. However as shows, this shortcoming can be remedied using Higher-Order Colored Unification (HOCU) rather than straight HOU. In CHOLI both an HOU and an HOCU algorithm can be used and all examples have been tested with and without colors. In all cases, colors cuts down the number of generated readings to exactly these readings which are linguistically acceptable.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Implementation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "It should by now be clear that the DSPtreatment of ellipsis is better seen as a treatment of the effect of semantic parallelism: the equations constrain the interpretation of parallel structures and as a side effect, a number of linguistic phenomena are predicted e.g. VPEresolution, sloppy/strict ambiguity and focus value inheritance in the case of SOEs.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "There are a number of proposals (Hobbs and Kehler, 1997; Priist et al., 1994; Asher, 1993; Asher et al., 1997) adopting a similar approach to parallelism and semantics of which the most worked out is undoubtly (Hobbs and Kehler, 1997) . (Hobbs and Kehler, 1997 ) presents a general theory of parallelism and shows that it provides both a fine-grained analysis of the interaction between VP-ellipsis and pronominal anaphora and a general account of sloppy identity. The approach is couched in the \"interpretation as abduction framework\" and consists in proving by abduction that two properties (i.e. sentence or clause meaning) are similar. Because it interleaves a co-recursion on semantic structures with full inferencing (to prove similarity between semantic entities), Hobbs and Kehler's approach is more powerful than the HOU-approach which is based on a strictly syntactic operation (no semantic reasoning occurs). Furthermore, because it can represent coreferences explicitely, it achieves a better account of the interaction between VP-ellipsis and anaphora (in particular, it accounts for the infamous \"missing reading puzzles\" of ellipsis (Fiengo and May, 1994) ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 56,
"text": "(Hobbs and Kehler, 1997;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 77,
"text": "Priist et al., 1994;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 90,
"text": "Asher, 1993;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 110,
"text": "Asher et al., 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 234,
"text": "(Hobbs and Kehler, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 260,
"text": "(Hobbs and Kehler, 1997",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 1148,
"end": 1170,
"text": "(Fiengo and May, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, the equational approach provided by the HOU-treatment of parallelism naturally supports the interaction of distinct phenomena. We have seen that it correctly captures the interaction of parallelism and focus. Further afield, (Niehren et al., 1997) shows that context unification supports a purely equational treatment of the interaction between ellipsis and quantification whereas (Shieber et al., 1996) presents a very extensive HOU-based treatment of the interaction between scope and ellipsis.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 244,
"end": 266,
"text": "(Niehren et al., 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 400,
"end": 422,
"text": "(Shieber et al., 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "~The terminology is borrowed from(Krifka, 1995) and refers to expressions which partially or totally repeat a previous expression.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "I wish to thank the ACL anonymous refertees for some valuable comments; and Stephan Thater, Ralf Debusman and Karsten Konrad for their implementation of CHoLI. The research presented in this paper was funded by the DFG in SFB-378, Project C2 (LISA).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Reference to abstract objects in discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nicholas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Asher",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nicholas Asher. 1993. Reference to abstract ob- jects in discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Discourse parallelism, scope and ellipsis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nicholas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Asher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hardt",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Joan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Busquets",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Proceedings of SALT'97",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nicholas Asher, Daniel Hardt, and Joan Bus- quets. 1997. Discourse parallelism, scope and ellipsis. In Proceedings of SALT'97, Palo Alto.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "The interpretation of pronouns",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Robin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cooper",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1979,
"venue": "Syntax and Semantics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "61--93",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Robin Cooper. 1979. The interpretation of pro- nouns. In F. Heny and H.S. Schnelle, editors, Syntax and Semantics, number 10, pages 61- 93.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Ellipsis and higher-order unification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mary",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dalrymple",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stuart",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shieber",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fernando",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pereira",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Linguistics ~ Philosophy",
"volume": "14",
"issue": "",
"pages": "399--452",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mary Dalrymple, Stuart Shieber, and Fernando Pereira. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unifi- cation. Linguistics ~ Philosophy, 14:399-452.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Third order matching is decidable",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Gilles",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dowek",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 7th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS-7)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "2--10",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Gilles Dowek. 1992. Third order matching is decidable. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Sci- ence (LICS-7), pages 2-10. IEEE Computer Society Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Indices and Identity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fiengo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Robert Fiengo and Robert May. 1994. Indices and Identity. MIT Press, Cambridge.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Focus and higher-order unification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Claire",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gardent",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kohlhase",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Proceedings of COLING'96",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Claire Gardent and Michael Kohlhase. 1996a. Focus and higher-order unification. In Pro- ceedings of COLING'96, Copenhagen.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Higher-order coloured unification and natural language semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Claire",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gardent",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kohlhase",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Proceedings of A CL '96",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Claire Gardent and Michael Kohlhase. 1996b. Higher-order coloured unification and nat- ural language semantics. In Proceedings of A CL '96, Santa Cruz.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Higher-order coloured unification: a linguistic application",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Claire",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gardent",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kohlhase",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Karsten",
"middle": [],
"last": "Konrad",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "",
"volume": "18",
"issue": "",
"pages": "181--209",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Claire Gardent, Michael Kohlhase, and Karsten Konrad. 1999. Higher-order coloured unifi- cation: a linguistic application. Technique et Science Informatiques, 18(2):181-209.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Sloppy identity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Claire",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gardent",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "188--207",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Claire Gardent. 1997. Sloppy identity. In Christian Retort, editor, Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, pages 188-207. Springer.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Deaccenting and higherorder unification. University of the Saarland",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Claire",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gardent",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Claire Gardent. 1999. Deaccenting and higher- order unification. University of the Saarland. Submitted for publication.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Dynamic interpretation of vp ellipsis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hardt",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Daniel Hardt. 1996. Dynamic interpretation of vp ellipsis. To appear in Linguistics and Phi- losophy.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "A theory of parallelism and the case of VP ellipsis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hobbs",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kehler",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Proceedings of A CL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Hobbs and A. Kehler. 1997. A theory of par- allelism and the case of VP ellipsis. In Pro- ceedings of A CL, Madrid.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Rdsolution d'Equati\u00b0ns dans des Langages d'ordre 1,2,...,w. Th~se d'Etat",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gdrard",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Huet",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1976,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Gdrard P. Huet. 1976. Rdsolution d'Equati\u00b0ns dans des Langages d'ordre 1,2,...,w. Th~se d'Etat, Universit~ de Paris VII.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ray",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Jackendoff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1972,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ray S. Jackendoff. 1972. Semantic Interpre- tation in Generative Grammar. The MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Manfred",
"middle": [],
"last": "Krifka",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Informationsstruktur and Grammatik. Heidelberg. Sonderheft",
"volume": "4",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Manfred Krifka. 1992. A compositional se- mantics for multiple focus constructions. In Joachim Jacobs, editor, Informationsstruktur and Grammatik. Heidelberg. Sonderheft 4.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Focus and/or context: A second look at second occurence expressions. Unpublished Ms",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Manfred",
"middle": [],
"last": "Krifka",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Manfred Krifka. 1995. Focus and/or context: A second look at second occurence expressions. Unpublished Ms. University of Texas, Austin, February.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "A uniform approach to underspecification and parallelism",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joachim",
"middle": [],
"last": "Niehren",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Manfred",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pinkal",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Peter",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ruhrberg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Proceedings of A CL'97",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "410--417",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joachim Niehren, Manfred Pinkal, and Peter Ruhrberg. 1997. A uniform approach to underspecification and parallelism. In Pro- ceedings of A CL'97, pages 410-417, Madrid, Spain.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Priist",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Scha",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van Den",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Berg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Linguistics ~ Philosophy",
"volume": "17",
"issue": "",
"pages": "261--327",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "H. Priist, R. Scha, and M. van den Berg. 1994. Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora. Linguistics ~ Philosophy, 17:261- 327.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Higher order unification and the interpretation of focus",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Steve",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pulman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Linguistics Philosophy",
"volume": "20",
"issue": "",
"pages": "73--115",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Steve Pulman. 1997. Higher order unification and the interpretation of focus. Linguistics Philosophy, 20:73-115.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mats",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rooth",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mats Rooth. 1992a. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Steve Berman and Arild Hestvik, editors, Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, University of Stuttgart.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Mats Rooth. 1992b. A theory of focus interpretation",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "Natural Language Semantics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "75--116",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mats Rooth. 1992b. A theory of focus interpre- tation. Natural Language Semantics, pages 75-116.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Interaction of scope and ellipsis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stuart",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shieber",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fernando",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pereira",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mary",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dalrymple",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Linguistics $J Philosophy",
"volume": "19",
"issue": "",
"pages": "527--552",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stuart Shieber, Fernando Pereira, and Mary Dalrymple. 1996. Interaction of scope and el- lipsis. Linguistics $J Philosophy, 19:527-552.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"uris": null,
"text": "(j,m,s) = X(m) b. {X +--Ax.intro(j,x,s)} c. --X = {intro(j, x, s) I x E wife} d. VP[P E -X A P -+ P = intro(j,m,s)] e. VP[P E {intro(j, x, s) I x E wife} A P ~ P = intro(j,m,s)]",
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF1": {
"uris": null,
"text": "11) ?? Jon only likes SARAH. No, PETER only likes Mary.",
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF2": {
"uris": null,
"text": "7For simplicity, I've ommitted polarity information. sI abbreviate )~Q.3x[P(x)AVy[P(y) -+ y = x] A Q(x)] to)~Q.Blx[P(x) A Q(x)].",
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"TABREF1": {
"content": "<table><tr><td>Whereas</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"html": null,
"text": "a. Jon only introduced MARY to Sue. b. Jon only introduced Mary to SUE. (8a) says that the only person introduced by Jon to Sue is Mary, (8b) states that the only person Jon introduced Mary to, is Sue.To capture this effect of focus on semantics,"
}
}
}
} |