| { |
| "paper_id": "P91-1008", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:03:25.607811Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "DISCOURSE RELATIONS AND DEFEASIBLE KNOWLEDGE*", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Alex", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lascarides", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": {}, |
| "email": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Nicholas", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Asher", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": {}, |
| "email": "asher@sygmund@cgs.utexas" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "This paper presents a formal account of the temporal interpretation of text. The distinct natural interpretations of texts with similar syntax are explained in terms of defeasible rules characterising causal laws and Gricean-style pragmatic maxims. Intuitively compelling patterns of defea,sible entailment that are supported by the logic in which the theory is expressed are shown to underly temporal interpretation. The Problem The temporal interpretation of text involves an account of how the events described are related to each other. These relations follow from the discourse relations that are central to temporal import. 1 Some of these are listed below, where the clause a appears in the text before fl: Narration(a,fl): The event described in fl is a consequence of (but not necessarily caused by) tile event described in a: (1) Max stood up. John greeted him. Elaboration(a,~): The event described in /? contributes to the occurrence of the culmination *This paper is greatly influenced by work reported in (Lascarides & Oberlander, 1991). We would llke to thank Hans Kamp, Michael Morreau and .Ion Oberlander for their significant contributions to the content of this paper. All mistakes are solely our responsibility. t The support of the Science and Engineering Research Council through project number GR/G22077 is gratefully acknowledged. HCRC is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council. 1 Extensive classifications of discourse relations are offered in (Polanyi, 1985), (Scha & Polanyi, 1988) and (Thompson & Mann, 1987). of the event described in a, i.e. fl's event is part of the preparatory phase of a's: 2 (2) The council built the bridge. The architect drew up the plans. Explanation(a, fl): For example the event described in clause fl caused the event described in clause a: (3) Max fell. John pushed him. Background(a, fl): For example the state described in fl is the 'backdrop' or circumstances under which the event in a occurred (so the event and state temporally overlap): (4) Max opened the door. The room was pitch dark.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "P91-1008", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "This paper presents a formal account of the temporal interpretation of text. The distinct natural interpretations of texts with similar syntax are explained in terms of defeasible rules characterising causal laws and Gricean-style pragmatic maxims. Intuitively compelling patterns of defea,sible entailment that are supported by the logic in which the theory is expressed are shown to underly temporal interpretation. The Problem The temporal interpretation of text involves an account of how the events described are related to each other. These relations follow from the discourse relations that are central to temporal import. 1 Some of these are listed below, where the clause a appears in the text before fl: Narration(a,fl): The event described in fl is a consequence of (but not necessarily caused by) tile event described in a: (1) Max stood up. John greeted him. Elaboration(a,~): The event described in /? contributes to the occurrence of the culmination *This paper is greatly influenced by work reported in (Lascarides & Oberlander, 1991). We would llke to thank Hans Kamp, Michael Morreau and .Ion Oberlander for their significant contributions to the content of this paper. All mistakes are solely our responsibility. t The support of the Science and Engineering Research Council through project number GR/G22077 is gratefully acknowledged. HCRC is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council. 1 Extensive classifications of discourse relations are offered in (Polanyi, 1985), (Scha & Polanyi, 1988) and (Thompson & Mann, 1987). of the event described in a, i.e. fl's event is part of the preparatory phase of a's: 2 (2) The council built the bridge. The architect drew up the plans. Explanation(a, fl): For example the event described in clause fl caused the event described in clause a: (3) Max fell. John pushed him. Background(a, fl): For example the state described in fl is the 'backdrop' or circumstances under which the event in a occurred (so the event and state temporally overlap): (4) Max opened the door. The room was pitch dark.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "We assume that more than one discourse relation can hold between two sentences; the sickness in (6) describes the circumstances when Max took the aspirin (hence the sentences are related by Background) and also explains why he took the aspirin (hence the sentences are related by Explanation as well).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(6) Max took an aspirin. He was sick.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The sentences in texts (1) and (3) and in (4) and (5) have similar syntax, and therefore similar logical forms. They indicate, therefore, that the constraints on the use of the above discourse relations cannot rely solely on the logical forms of the sentences concerned.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "No theory at present is able to explain the distinct temporal structures of all the above texts. Webber (1988) observes that Kamp & Rohrer (1983) , Partee (1984) , Hinrichs (1986) and Dowty (1986) don't account for the backwards movement of time in (2) and (3). Webber (1988) can account for the backwards movement of time in (2), but her theory is unable to predict that mismatching the descriptive order of events and their temporal order is allowed in some cases (e.g. (2) and (3)) but not in others (e.g. (1), which would be misleading if the situation being described were one where the greeting happened before Max stood up).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 97, |
| "end": 110, |
| "text": "Webber (1988)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF22" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 125, |
| "end": 145, |
| "text": "Kamp & Rohrer (1983)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 148, |
| "end": 161, |
| "text": "Partee (1984)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 164, |
| "end": 179, |
| "text": "Hinrichs (1986)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 184, |
| "end": 196, |
| "text": "Dowty (1986)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 262, |
| "end": 275, |
| "text": "Webber (1988)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF22" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Our aim is to characterise the circumstances under which each of the above discourse relations hold, and to explain why texts can invoke different temporal relations in spite of their similar syntax. Dahlgren (1988) represents the difference between (1) and (3) in terms of probabilistic laws describing world knowledge (WK) and linguistic knowledge (LK). Our approach to the problem is generally sympathetic to hers. But Dahlgren's account lacks an underlying theory of inference. Furthermore, it's not clear how a logical consequence relation could be defined upon Dahlgren's representation scheme because the probabilistic laws that need to interact in certain specific ways are not logically related. Unlike Dahlgren (1988) , we will supply an inference regime that drives the interpretation of text.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 200, |
| "end": 215, |
| "text": "Dahlgren (1988)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 712, |
| "end": 727, |
| "text": "Dahlgren (1988)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The properties required of an inference mechanism for inferring the causal structure underlying text is discussed in (Lascarides & Oberlander, 1991) . The work presented here builds on this in two ways; first by supplying the required notion of inference, and second by accounting for discourse structure as well as temporal structure.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 117, |
| "end": 148, |
| "text": "(Lascarides & Oberlander, 1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Let us consider texts (1) and (3) on an intuitive level. There is a difference in the relation that typically holds between the events being described. Intuitively, world knowledge (WK) in-eludes a causal 'law' gained from perception and experience that relates falling and pushing: 3", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Temporal Relations and Defeasible Reasoning", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Connected events el where x falls and e2 where y pushes z are normally such that e2 causes el.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\u2022 Causal Law 3", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "There is no similar law for standing up and greeting. The above law is a de feasible law. Our claim is that it forms the basis for the distinction between (1) and 3, and that defeasible reasoning underlies the temporal interpretation of text.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\u2022 Causal Law 3", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "First consider text (1). Intuitively, if there is no temporM information at all gained from WK or syntactic markers (apart from the simple past tense which is the only temporal 'expression' we consider here), then the descriptive order of events provides the only vital clue as to their temporal order, and one assumes that descriptive order matches temporal order. This principle is a re-statement of Grice's (1975) maxim of Manner, where it is suggested that text should be orderly, and it is also motivated by the fact that the author typically describes events in the order in which the protagonist perceives them (cf. Dowty (1986) ). This maxim of interpretation can be captured by the following two laws:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 402, |
| "end": 416, |
| "text": "Grice's (1975)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 623, |
| "end": 635, |
| "text": "Dowty (1986)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\u2022 Causal Law 3", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Narration Unless there's information to the contrary, clauses a and j3 that are discourse-related are such that Narration(a, ~) holds.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\u2022 Causal Law 3", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If Narration(a, fl) holds, and a and fi describe the events el and e2 respectively, then el occurs before e2.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\u2022 Axiom for Narration", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Narration is defensible and the Axiom for Narration is indefeasible. The idea that Gricean-style pragmatic maxims should be represented as defeasible rules is suggested in (Joshi, Webber & Weischedel (1984) ).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 172, |
| "end": 206, |
| "text": "(Joshi, Webber & Weischedel (1984)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\u2022 Axiom for Narration", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The above rules can be defined in MASH--a logic for defensible reasoning described in (Asher & Morrean, 1991) . We will demonstrate shortly that an intuitively compelling pattern of defensible inference can then underly the interpretation of (1).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 86, |
| "end": 109, |
| "text": "(Asher & Morrean, 1991)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\u2022 Axiom for Narration", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "MASH supplies a modal semantics for a language with a default or generic quantifier, and a 3The causal law's index corresponds to the index of the text for which it is relevant. dynamic partial semantics of belief states is built on top of this modal semantics to c~pture intuitively compelling patterns of non-monotonic teasoning. We use a propositional version of MASH here. Defaults are represented as \u00a2 > \u00a2 (read as \"\u00a2 then \u00a2, unless there is information to the contrary\"). The monotonic component of the theory defines a notion of validity ~ that supports axioms such as ~ [:3 We assume a dynamic theory of discourse structure construction in which a discourse structure is built up through the processing of successive clauses in a text. To simplify our exposition, we will assume that the basic constructs of these structures are clauses. 4 Let (4,13) mean that the clause ~ is to be attached to the clause a with a discourse relation, where a is part of the already built up discourse structure. Let me(a) be a term that refers to the main eventuality described by a (e.g. me(Max stood up) is the event of Max standing up). 5 Then Narration and the axiom on Narration are represented in MASH as follows (cl -~ e.~ means \"el wholly occurs before e2\"):", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 578, |
| "end": 581, |
| "text": "[:3", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\u2022 Axiom for Narration", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(\u00a2 --* \u00a2) ~ ((X > \u00a2) --~ (X > \u00a2)).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\u2022 Axiom for Narration", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "4The theory should extend naturally to an account where the basic constructs are segments of text; the approach adopted here is explored extensively in Asher (forthcoming).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\u2022 Axiom for Narration", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "5me(c~) is formally defined in Lascarides & Asher (1991) in a way that agrees with intuitions.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 31, |
| "end": 56, |
| "text": "Lascarides & Asher (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\u2022 Axiom for Narration", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Axiom on Narration", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "(or, ~) > Narration(c~,~3)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We assume that in interpreting text the reader believes all LK and WK (and therefore believes Narration and its axiom), the laws of logic, and the sentences in the text. The sentences in 1 In words, (7) invokes two discourse referents el and ~1 (which behave like deictic expressions), where el is an event of Max standing up, tl is a point of time earlier than now and et occurs at it. (8) is similar save that the event e2 describes John greeting Max. 7and 8place no conditions on the relative temporal order between et and e2. These are derived at a higher level of analysis than sentential semantics by using defensible reasoning.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "r~ (Na,','atio,~(~, ~) --, me(~) ~ me(Z))", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Suppose that the reader also believes that the clauses in text (1) are related by some discourse relation, as they must be for the text to be coherent. Then the reader's beliefs also include (7, 8). The natural interpretation of (1) is derived by calculating the common sense entailments from the reader's belief state. Given the assumptions on this state that we have just described, the antecedent to Narration is verified, and so by Defensible Modus Ponens, Narration(7, 8) is inferred.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "r~ (Na,','atio,~(~, ~) --, me(~) ~ me(Z))", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Since the belief states in MASH support modal closure, this result and the Axiom on Narration entail that the reader believes the main eventuality of (7), namely el, precedes the main eventuality of (8), namely e2. So the intuitive discourse structure and temporal interpretation of (1) is derived by exploiting defeasible knowledge that expresses a Gricean-style pragmatic maxim.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "r~ (Na,','atio,~(~, ~) --, me(~) ~ me(Z))", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "But the analysis of (1) is satisfactory only if the same technique of exploiting defeasible rules can be used to obtain the appropriate natural interpretation of (3), which is different from (1) in spite of their similar syntax.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "r~ (Na,','atio,~(~, ~) --, me(~) ~ me(Z))", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "eFor the sake of simplicity we ignore the problem of resolving the NP anaphora in (8). The truth definitions of (7) and (8) are llke those given in DRT save that they are evaluated with respect to a possible world index since MASH is modal.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "r~ (Na,','atio,~(~, ~) --, me(~) ~ me(Z))", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(3) a.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "r~ (Na,','atio,~(~, ~) --, me(~) ~ me(Z))", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Max fell.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "r~ (Na,','atio,~(~, ~) --, me(~) ~ me(Z))", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "John pushed him.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As we mentioned before, Causal Law 3 will provide the basis for the distinct interpretations of (1) and (3). The clauses in (3) must be related by a discourse relation for the text to be coherent, and therefore given the meanings of the discourse relations, the events described must be connected somehow. Therefore when considering the domain of interpreting text, one can re-state the above causal law as follows: 7", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Causal Law 3 Clauses a and/3 that are discourse-related where a describes an event el of x falling and/3 describes an event e~ of y pushing x are normally such that e2 causes el.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The representation of this in MASH is:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Causal Law 3 (a,/3)^f.n(x, me(a))^push(y, x, me(/3)) > ca~se(m~(~), me(a))", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This represents a mixture of WK and linguistic knowledge (LK), for it asserts that given the sentences are discourse-related somehow, and given the kinds of events that are described by these sentences, the second event described caused the first, if things are normal.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The logical forms for (3a) and (3b) are the same as (7) and (8), save that standup and greet are replaced respectively with fall and push.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Upon interpreting (3), the reader believes all defeasible wK and LK together with (3a), (3b) and (3a, 3b). Hence the antecedents to two defeasible laws are satisfied: Narration and Causal Law 3. Moreover, the antecedent of Law 3 entails that of Narration, and the laws conflict because of the axiom on Narration and the axiom that causes precede effects:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Causes Precede Effects [] (Vele2)(cause(el, e2) ~ ~e2 -~ el)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The result is a 'Complex' Penguin Principle: it is complex because the consequents of the two defeasible laws are not ~ and -~ff, but instead the laws conflict in virtue of the above axioms. MASH supports the more complex Penguin Principle:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ";'This law may seem very 'specific'. It could potentially be generalised, perhaps by re-stating el as x moving and e2 as y applying a force to x. For the sake of brevity we ignore this generalisation.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Complex Penguin Principle o(\u00a2 \u00a2),\u00a2 > x,\u00a2 > \u00a2, o(x 0), [] (\u00a2 \u00a2 but not: [] (\u00a2 --* \u00a2), \u00a2 > X, \u00a2 > (, o (x 0), n (\u00a2 -. \u00a2 x", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Therefore there is a defeasible inference that the pushing caused the falling from the premises, as required.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The use of the discourse relation Explanation is characterised by the following rule:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Explanation (a, A >", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Explanation (a, jr) In words, if a and f~ are discourse-related and the event described in/3 caused the event described in a, then Explanation(a, ~) normally holds. Furthermore, Explanation imposes a certain temporal structure on the events described so that if is a causal explanation of a then fPs event doesn't precede a's:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 12, |
| "end": 19, |
| "text": "(a, jr)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Axiom on Explanation", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The antecedent to Narration is verified by the reader's beliefs, and given the results of the Complex Penguin Principle above, the antecedent to Explanation is also verified. Moreover, the antecedent to Explanation entails that of Narration, and these laws conflict because of the above axioms. So there is another complex Penguin Principle, from which Explanation(3a, 3b) is inferred.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "[] (Explanation(a,/3) -~ -~me(a ) -~ rne(/3 ) )", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The second application of the Penguin Principle in the above used the results of the first, but in nonmonotonic reasoning one must be wary of dividing theories into 'subtheories' in this way because adding premises to nonmonotonic deductions does not always preserve conclusions, making it necessary to look at the theory as a whole. (Lascarides & Asher, 1991) shows that the predicates involved in the above deduction are sufficiently independent that in MASH one can indeed divide the above into two applications of the Penguin Principle to yield inferences from the theory as a whole. Thus our intuitions about the kind of reasoning used in analysing (3) are supported in the logic. We call this double application of the Penguin Principle where the second application uses the results of the first the Cascaded Penguin Principle. s 8On a general level, MASH is designed so that the con-", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 334, |
| "end": 360, |
| "text": "(Lascarides & Asher, 1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "[] (Explanation(a,/3) -~ -~me(a ) -~ rne(/3 ) )", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Certain constraints are imposed on discourse structure: Let R be Explanation or Elaboration;", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Structures", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "then the current sentence can be discourse related only to the previous sentence a, to a sentence fl such that R(fl, a), or to a sentence 7 such that R(7, fl) and R(~, a). This is a simpler version of the definition for possible attachment sites in Asher (forthcoming). Pictorially, the possible sites for discourse attachment in the example structure below are those marked open:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Structures", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Open Explana~ l anati\u00b0n Closed Open Narration Explanation/// ~xplanation Closed ~ Open", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Structures", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "There are structural similarities between our notion of openness and Polanyi's (1985) . The above constraints on attachment explain the awkwardness of text (9a-f) because (9c) is not available to (gf) for discourse attachment. f. ?He boned the salmon with great expertise.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 69, |
| "end": 85, |
| "text": "Polanyi's (1985)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF18" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Narrati on", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "According to the constraint on attachment, the only available sentence for attachment if one were to add a sentence to (1) is John greeted him, whereas in (3), both sentences are available. Thus although the sentences in (1) and (3) were assigned similar structural semantics, they have very different discourse structures. The events they flict between defeasible laws whose antecedents axe such that one of them entails the other is resolvable. Thus unwanted irresolvable conflicts can be avoided. describe also have different causal structures. These distinctions have been characterised in terms of defeasible rules representing causal laws and pragmatic maxims. We now use this strategy to analyse the other texts we mentioned above.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Narrati on", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Consider text (2).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Elaboration", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(2) a.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Elaboration", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The council built the bridge.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Elaboration", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The architect drew up the plans.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We conclude Elaboration(2a, 2b) in a very similar way to example (3), save that we replace cause(me(~), me(a)) in the appropriate defensible rules with prep(me(~), me(a)), which means that rne(~) is part of the preparatory phase of me(a). In Law 2 below, Info(a,~) is a gloss for \"the event described in a is the council building the bridge, and the event described in fl is the architect drawing up the plans\", and the law represents the knowledge that drawing plans and building the bridge, if connected, are normally such that the former is in the preparatory phase of the latter: ^ prep( e( ), me(a) Info(a, > prep(me(Z) , )", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 584, |
| "end": 603, |
| "text": "^ prep( e( ), me(a)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 604, |
| "end": 624, |
| "text": "Info(a, > prep(me(Z)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Elaboration (a,", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The inference pattern is a Cascaded Penguin Principle again. The two resolvable conflicts are Law 2 and Narration and Elaboration and Narration.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Intuitively, the clauses in (4) are related by Background.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Background", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(4) Max opened the door. The room was pitch dark.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Background", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The appropriate reader's belief state verifies the antecedent of Narration. In addition, we claim that the following laws hold:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Background", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 States Overlap Background(a, overlap(me(a) , me(~) ) )", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 17, |
| "end": 45, |
| "text": "Background(a, overlap(me(a)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Background", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "States Overlap ensures that when attached clauses describe an event and state and we have no knowledge about how the event and state are connected, gained from WK or syntactic markers like because and therefore, we assume that they temporally overlap. This law can be seen as a manifestation of Grice's Maxim of Relevance as suggested in (Lascarides, 1990) : if the start of the state is not indicated by stating what caused it or by introducing an appropriate syntactic marker, then by Grice's Maxim of Relevance the starting point, and is irrelevant to the situation being described.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 338, |
| "end": 356, |
| "text": "(Lascarides, 1990)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Background", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "So the start of the state must have occurred before the situation that the text is concerned with occurs. As before, we assume that unless there is information to the contrary, the descriptive order of eventualities marks the order of their discovery. This together with the above assumption about where the state starts entail that unless there's information to the contrary, the state temporally overlaps events or states that were described previously, as asserted in States Overlap.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Background", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We assume that the logical form of the second clause in 4 ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Background", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(5) has similar syntax to (4), and yet unlike (4) the event causes the state and the discourse relation is Result.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Result", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(5) a. Max switched off the light.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Result", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The room was pitch dark.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Let Info(a,fl) be a gloss for \"me(a) is Max switching off the light and me(fl) is the room being dark\". So by the stative classification of dark, Info(a, fl) entails state(me(~)). Then Law 5 reflects the knowledge that the room being dark and switching off the light, if connected, are normally such that the event causes the state: 9", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Causal Law 5 (a,/7) A Info(a,~) > cause(me(a), me(/7))", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The use of the discourse relation of Result is characterised by the following: The reader's beliefs in analysing 5 Result(ha, 5b) and Narration(ha, hb) are inferred. Note that thanks to the axioms on Background and Result and the inconsistency of overlap (el, e~) and el -~ e2, these discourse relations are inconsistent. This captures the intuition that if a causes b, then b could not have been the case when a happened. In particular, if Max switching off the light caused the darkness, then the room could not have been dark when Max switched off the light.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 115, |
| "end": 125, |
| "text": "Result(ha,", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 126, |
| "end": 129, |
| "text": "5b)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 134, |
| "end": 151, |
| "text": "Narration(ha, hb)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 255, |
| "end": 263, |
| "text": "(el, e~)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Consider text (9a-e): (9) a.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Discourse Popping", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Guy experienced a lovely evening last night.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Discourse Popping", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "He had a fantastic meal.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "9For the sake of simplicity, we ignore the problem of inferring that the light is in the room. ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "b.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We study the attachment of (9e) to the preceding text in detail. Given the concept of openness introduced above, the open clauses are (9d), (95) and (9a). So by the assumptions on text processing, the reader believes (9d, 9e), (9b, 9e) and (9a, 9e). (9d, 9e) verifies the antecedent to Narration, but intuitively, (9d) is not related to (9e) at all. The reason for this can be explained in words as follows:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Narration lots Of cheese", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 (9d) and (9e) don't form a narrative because:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Narration lots Of cheese", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "-Winning a dance competition is normally not part Of a meal; -So (9e) doesn't normally elaborate (9b); -But since (9d) elaborates (95), (9e) can normally form a narrative with (9d) only if (9e) also elaborates (9b). 9e) . We assume that believing (9d, 9e) and failing to support any discourse relation between (9d) and (9e) is incoherent. So (9d,9e) cannot be believed. Thus the Nixon Diamond provides the key to discourse 'popping', for (9e) must be related to one of the remaining open clauses; i.e. (95) or (9a). In fact by making use of the knowledge that winning a dance competition is normally part of experiencing a lovely evening if these things are connected, Elaboration(9a, 9e) and Narration(9b, 9e) follow as before, in agreement with intuitions.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 216, |
| "end": 219, |
| "text": "9e)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Narration lots Of cheese", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We have proposed that distinct natural interpretations of texts with similar syntax can be explained in terms of defeasible rules that represent causal laws and Gricean-style pragmatic maxims. The distinct discourse relations and event relations arose from intuitively compelling patterns of defeasible entailment. The Penguin Principle captures the intuition that a reader never ignores information salient in text that is relevant to calculating temporal and discourse structure. The Nixon Diamond provided the key to 'popping' from subordinate discourse structure.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusion", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We have investigated the analysis of texts involving only the simple past tense, with no other temporal markers present. Lascarides & Asher (1991) show that the strategy pursued here can be applied to the pluperfect as well. Future work will involve extending the theory to handle texts that feature temporal connectives and adverbials.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 121, |
| "end": 146, |
| "text": "Lascarides & Asher (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusion", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "2We assumeMoens and Steedman's (1988) tripartite structure of events, where an event consists of a preparatory phase, a culmination and a consequent phase.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Abstract Objects, Semantics and Anaphora", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Nicholas", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Asher", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Asher, Nicholas [forthcoming] Abstract Objects, Semantics and Anaphora.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "The Generic Book, Proceedings to JELIA90", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Common Sense Entailment: A Modal Theory of Nonmonotonic Reasoning, in Carlson, Greg & Pelletier, Jeff (eds.) The Generic Book, Proceed- ings to JELIA90, University of Chicago Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Naive Semantics for Natural Language Understanding", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Kathleen", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Dahlgren", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1988, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Dahlgren, Kathleen [1988] Naive Semantics for Natural Language Understanding, Kluwer Aca- demic Publishers;", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "The Effects of Aspeetual Class on the Temporal Structure of Discourse: Semantics or Pragmatics? Linguistics and Philosophy", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "David", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Dowty", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1986, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "9", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "37--61", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Dowty, David [1986] The Effects of Aspeetual Class on the Temporal Structure of Discourse: Se- mantics or Pragmatics? Linguistics and Philoso- phy, 9, 37-61.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Speech Acts", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "3", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "41--58", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Syntaz and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts, pp41-58. New York: Academic Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "Temporal Anaphora in Discourses of English. Linguistics and Philosophy", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Erhard", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Itinrichs", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1986, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "9", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "63--82", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Itinrichs, Erhard [1986] Temporal Anaphora in Discourses of English. Linguistics and Philoso- phy, 9, 63-82.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "Default Reasoning in Interaction", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ralph", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Weischedel", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1984, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the Non-Monotonic Reasoning Workshop, AAAI", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "144--150", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Weischedel, Ralph [1984] Default Reasoning in Interaction. In Proceedings of the Non-Monotonic Reasoning Workshop, AAAI, New York, October, 1984, 144-150.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Hans", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kamp", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1981, |
| "venue": "Formal Methods in the Study of Language", |
| "volume": "136", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "277--322", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kamp, Hans [1981] A Theory of Truth and Se- mantic Representation. In Groenendijk, J. A. G., Janssen, T. M. V. and Stokhof, M. B. J. (eds.) Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Vol- ume 136, pp277-322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "Tense in Texts", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Hans", |
| "middle": [ |
| "&" |
| ], |
| "last": "Kamp", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Christian", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Rohrer", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1983, |
| "venue": "Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "250--269", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kamp, Hans & Rohrer, Christian [1983] Tense in Texts. In Bauerle, R., Schwarze, C. and yon Stechow, A. (eds.) Meaning, Use and Interpreta- tion of Language, pp250-269. Berlin: de Gruyter.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF13": { |
| "ref_id": "b13", |
| "title": "Research Report No. HCRC/RP-8, Human Communication Research Centre", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Alex", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lascarides", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1990, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lascarides, Alex [1990] Knowledge, Causality and Temporal Representation. Research Report No. HCRC/RP-8, Human Communication Re- search Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edin- burgh, June, 1990.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF14": { |
| "ref_id": "b14", |
| "title": "Discourse Relations and Common Sense Entailment, DYANA deliverable 2.5b, available from Centre for Cognitive Science", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Alex", |
| "middle": [ |
| "&" |
| ], |
| "last": "Lascarides", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Nicholas", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Asher", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1991, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lascarides, Alex & Asher, Nicholas [1991] Dis- course Relations and Common Sense Entailment, DYANA deliverable 2.5b, available from Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF15": { |
| "ref_id": "b15", |
| "title": "Temporal Coherence and Defeasible Knowledge", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Alex", |
| "middle": [ |
| "&" |
| ], |
| "last": "Lascarides", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Jon", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Oberlander", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1991, |
| "venue": "Proceedings to the Workshop on Discourse Coherence", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lascarides, Alex & Oberlander, Jon [1991] Tem- poral Coherence and Defeasible Knowledge. In Proceedings to the Workshop on Discourse Co- herence, Edinburgh, April 1991.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF18": { |
| "ref_id": "b18", |
| "title": "Papers from the General Session at the Twenty-First Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Livia", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Polanyi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Polanyi, Livia [1985] A Theory of Discourse Structure and Discourse Coherence. In Eilfort, W. H., Kroeber, P. D. and Peterson, K. L. (eds.) Papers from the General Session at the Twenty- First Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, April 25-27, 1985.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF19": { |
| "ref_id": "b19", |
| "title": "An Augmented Context Free Grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Remko", |
| "middle": [ |
| "&" |
| ], |
| "last": "Scha", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Livia", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Polanyi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1988, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the 121h International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computalional Linguistics", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "573--577", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Scha, Remko & Polanyi, Livia [1988] An Aug- mented Context Free Grammar. In Proceedings of the 121h International Conference on Compu- tational Linguistics and the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computalional Linguistics, Budapest, Hungary, 22-27 August, 1988, 573-577.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF21": { |
| "ref_id": "b21", |
| "title": "Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Framework for the Analysis of Texts", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "International Pragmaties Association Papers in Pragmatics", |
| "volume": "1", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "79--105", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Frame- work for the Analysis of Texts. International Pragmaties Association Papers in Pragmatics, 1, 79-105.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF22": { |
| "ref_id": "b22", |
| "title": "Tense as Discourse Anaphor. Computational Linguistics", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Bonnie", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Webber", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1988, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "14", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "61--73", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Webber, Bonnie [1988] Tense as Discourse Anaphor. Computational Linguistics, 14, 61-73.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "text": "are represented in a DnT-type framework as follows: 6 (7) [e1,~1][~1 <now, hold(el,Q),s~andup(rn, el)] (8) [~, t~][t2< now, hold(~2, t2),gr~t(j, m, ~2)]", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF3": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "text": "(a,~) --. me(a) ~ me(fl))", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF5": { |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "text": "Thcse intuitions can be formalised, where Info(a, fl) is a. gloss for \"me(a) is having a meal and me(fl)", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"3\">\u2022 Defeaslbly Necessary Test for</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Elaboration</td><td/></tr><tr><td>(a,</td><td>^</td><td>></td></tr><tr><td/><td>-~ Elaboration( a, fl)</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">\u2022 Constraint on Narration</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Elaboration((~, fll )A-~Eiaboration( a, f12 ) ></td></tr><tr><td/><td>-~ N arration(~t , ~2 )</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">The result is a 'Nixon Polygon'. There is irre-</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">solvable conflict between Narration and the Con-</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">straint on Narration because their antecedents are</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">not logically related:</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Narration(9d, 9e)</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">-~Elaboration(9b, 9e)</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Elaboration(9b, 9e)</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>l</td><td>(9d,De)</td></tr><tr><td/><td>(9d, 9e)</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">-~prep(me(9b, 9e)) Elaboration(~</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>(9d, 9e)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>Info(9b, 9e)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>Elaboration(9b, 9d)</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">The above in MASH yields ]i~Narration(9d, 9e)</td></tr><tr><td>and</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>is winning a dance competition\":</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>* Law 9</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>(a, ^ I fo( , Z) > prep(me( ), me(.))</td><td/><td/></tr></table>" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
