| { |
| "paper_id": "W99-0113", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T05:09:28.772710Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "Logical Structure and", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Livia", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Polanyi", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "FX Palo Alto Laboratory", |
| "location": { |
| "addrLine": "3400 Hillview Ave Bldg 4", |
| "postCode": "94304", |
| "settlement": "Palo Alto", |
| "region": "CA" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Martin", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Van Den Berg", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "FX Palo Alto Laboratory", |
| "institution": "", |
| "location": { |
| "addrLine": "3400 Hillview Ave Bldg 4", |
| "postCode": "94304", |
| "settlement": "Palo Alto", |
| "region": "CA" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "Working within the Dynamic \"Quantifier Logic (DQL) framework (van den Berg 1992, 1996a,b), we claim in this paper that in every language the translation into a logical language will be such that the preference ordering of possible discourse referents for an anaphor in a sentence can be explained in terms of the scopal order of the exp _re~Lslons in the antecedent that introduce the discourse referents. Since the scope of terms is derived from arguments independent of any discourse theory, our account explal~ discour~ anaphora resolution in terms of general principles of utterance semantics, from whichthe predictions of centering theory follow. When comb'med with the powerful discourse structural frame", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "W99-0113", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Working within the Dynamic \"Quantifier Logic (DQL) framework (van den Berg 1992, 1996a,b), we claim in this paper that in every language the translation into a logical language will be such that the preference ordering of possible discourse referents for an anaphor in a sentence can be explained in terms of the scopal order of the exp _re~Lslons in the antecedent that introduce the discourse referents. Since the scope of terms is derived from arguments independent of any discourse theory, our account explal~ discour~ anaphora resolution in terms of general principles of utterance semantics, from whichthe predictions of centering theory follow. When comb'med with the powerful discourse structural frame", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "1 Introduction In thl. paper, we use a semantic theory based on Dynamic Quantifier Logic (van den Berg 1992 to present an approach to discom~ anaphora resolution under the Linguistic DL~ourse Model (Polanyi (1985 (Polanyi ( , 1986 (Polanyi ( , 1988 (Polanyi ( , 1996 Pohmyi and Scha (1984) , Scha and Pclawfi (1988) , Prfmt, H., It Scha and M. H. van den Berg, 1994; Po~q~ L. and M. IL van den Berg 1996; van den Berg, M. H. 1996b) . Our treatment integrates the imights of the Center-~g framework (Jmbi audK,,h-1979 (Jmbi audK,,h- , 1981 Grosz et~l. 1983 Grosz et~l. , 1986 Grosz et~l. , 1995 Gundel 1998; Walker et.al. 1998b ) into a -n~Sed theory of discourse level structufa/and semantic relations. In our account, discourse level aaaphora resolution effects fall out of a general theory of discourse quantification. Scope orderinge in the logical representation of the antecedent utterance result in d|fferences in accessibility for potential referents in a target utterance. No additional c~ntering mechanisms are required, the centering predictions follow from this theory.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 64, |
| "end": 107, |
| "text": "Dynamic Quantifier Logic (van den Berg 1992", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 198, |
| "end": 212, |
| "text": "(Polanyi (1985", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 213, |
| "end": 230, |
| "text": "(Polanyi ( , 1986", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 231, |
| "end": 248, |
| "text": "(Polanyi ( , 1988", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF21" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 249, |
| "end": 266, |
| "text": "(Polanyi ( , 1996", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF22" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 267, |
| "end": 289, |
| "text": "Pohmyi and Scha (1984)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 292, |
| "end": 315, |
| "text": "Scha and Pclawfi (1988)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 355, |
| "end": 366, |
| "text": "Berg, 1994;", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 367, |
| "end": 404, |
| "text": "Po~q~ L. and M. IL van den Berg 1996;", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 405, |
| "end": 431, |
| "text": "van den Berg, M. H. 1996b)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 498, |
| "end": 516, |
| "text": "(Jmbi audK,,h-1979", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 517, |
| "end": 538, |
| "text": "(Jmbi audK,,h- , 1981", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 539, |
| "end": 555, |
| "text": "Grosz et~l. 1983", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 556, |
| "end": 574, |
| "text": "Grosz et~l. , 1986", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 575, |
| "end": 593, |
| "text": "Grosz et~l. , 1995", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 594, |
| "end": 606, |
| "text": "Gundel 1998;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 607, |
| "end": 626, |
| "text": "Walker et.al. 1998b", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF34" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Our treatment is universal: explanations of relative coherence do not depend on conventions that might differ in different languages. Furthermore, we provide a treatment for the resolution of multiple anaphors, resulting from a range of possible antecedents including plurals and multiple antecedents.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The approach to discourse anaph\u00b0ra resolution we take in this paper integrates a rigorous formal semantic machinery within a theory Of discourse strtlcture. Before giving a detailed account of our treatmeat of di~murse reference resolution, we would llke to address explicitly some of the positions towards rdereace resolution and discour~ ~mcture which inform our work.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Considerations To begin with, we should state explicitly that our enterprise is a semantic one~ we are interested in devetoping and implemen \"ring a formalization capable of ._,~'amln~ a con-ect interpretation to each utterance in a discourse. In this, we are fully committed to the Dynamic Semantics enterprise (Kamp 1981 , H~m 1982 , Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1990 , 1991 , Cider-~i. 1992 , van den Berg 1991 , Kamp and Reyle 1993 , Asher 1993 , van den Berg 1998 . Except in so far as it is provably necessary, we are not concerned with psychological L~sues of how human language users pro~ discourse nor with what human beings intend when they use language to commuIlicate with one another.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 312, |
| "end": 322, |
| "text": "(Kamp 1981", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 323, |
| "end": 333, |
| "text": ", H~m 1982", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 334, |
| "end": 365, |
| "text": ", Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1990", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 366, |
| "end": 372, |
| "text": ", 1991", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF24" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 373, |
| "end": 389, |
| "text": ", Cider-~i. 1992", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 390, |
| "end": 409, |
| "text": ", van den Berg 1991", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 410, |
| "end": 431, |
| "text": ", Kamp and Reyle 1993", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 432, |
| "end": 444, |
| "text": ", Asher 1993", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 445, |
| "end": 464, |
| "text": ", van den Berg 1998", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Theoretical and Methodological", |
| "sec_num": "1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Our aim is to build machinery applicable to all genres and all modes of comm~nLication. Thus we can not assume that a discourse is n ec~xlly uco. hereat\" and that our goal is to provide an account of why that is so, nor can we assume that all discourse iswritten or spoken or.occurs in a task context where the demands or reasonable expectations of a~ external activity are available to guide parsing and interpretation.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Theoretical and Methodological", |
| "sec_num": "1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "110 0 0 O 0 @ 0 @ 0 0 0 0 0 @ 0 0 0 @ @ O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O @ O O \u00ae O O O O O O O O O @ O O O O O O O O", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Theoretical and Methodological", |
| "sec_num": "1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Our theory is a formal one, therefore we can rely on well-known, rule-driven, parsing methods developed for sentences which allows us ~parse discourse incrementally as it unfolds. In order to do so, our framework formalizes the relationship among constituent units in the discourse by specifying how ant tecedent units provide context for the interpretation of later units. In all cases, our method involves computing the resulting meaning of the combination of the meanings of the combined units, rather than identifying appropriate labels under which to characterize the relationship obtaining between the units. Our units of analysis are welldefined semantic units. These units are usually encoded as single simple sentences or clauses but may also be realized by words, phrases or gestures which communicate exactly one elementary predication.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Theoretical and Methodological", |
| "sec_num": "1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In our view, a formal theory of discourse structure should give well defined structures on which inferencing operates and on which world know, ledge applies. We strive to limit the role of world knowledge in so far as possible to a specific moment in d~;ourse processing--namely at the precise moment when a choice must be made about how a newly incoming unit must be integrated into the unfolding discourse. Just as in sentence grammar where world knowledge is used to decide between syntacticaUy equivalent alternatives in the case of pp attachment, for example, in discourse grammar the relationshilm between elements are purely grammatical, and world knowledge is only used to decide between syntactically equally reasonable alternatives.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Theoretical and Methodological", |
| "sec_num": "1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Similarly, in calculating the structure of discourse, we do not rely on the use of cue words suchas so, angtway or thcfefor~ because these terms are never obligatory. The relationsl~p of one unit to another is always calculated on the relationshlp between the meanings of the constituent utterances which may then be ~in\u00a2orced by the presence of terms which specify the nature of the intended relationship.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Theoretical and Methodological", |
| "sec_num": "1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In the framework developed below, thea-e is a dose relationship I~en discourse rderents and discourse structure. We deal both with how anaphors are resolved to partienb, r antecedents using the structure of the discourse, and how an antecedent gives me,,nlng to an anaphor. The problem of identifying the antecedent to which an anaphor refe~ is dealt with in Centering Theory, discussed in Section 2 below. After reviewing Centering, we will discuss Dynamic Quantifier Logic (Section 3) and then show how the insights of Centering can be integrated into a benera] theory of discourse syntactic and semantic structure (Section 5.1), We shall point out how our approach accounts for multiple anaphors to different antecedents as well as ac~tmting for anaphoric reference to multiple antecedents, a problem which re-main unsolved within that framework (5.2).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Theoretical and Methodological", |
| "sec_num": "1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "2 Centering Theory CenteringTheory first described in detail in Gro~z, Joshi and Weinstein (1983 , 1986 [1995 ) is designed to provide an assignment of a preference order among discourse entities in a sentence for the purpose of anaphora resolution. Centering Theory, which built upon earlier work by Joshi and Kuhn (1979) and Weinstein (1981, 1998) , proposed that (1) is perceived to be more coherent than (2) because in (1) (I) (a) JeH helped Dick wash the mr. (b) He. the referent for//~in (c) is D/ck while he, in (b) refers to Je~.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 71, |
| "end": 96, |
| "text": "Joshi and Weinstein (1983", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 97, |
| "end": 103, |
| "text": ", 1986", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 104, |
| "end": 109, |
| "text": "[1995", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 301, |
| "end": 322, |
| "text": "Joshi and Kuhn (1979)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 327, |
| "end": 349, |
| "text": "Weinstein (1981, 1998)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Theoretical and Methodological", |
| "sec_num": "1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We quote here from the concise description of Centering given in (Walker et.al., 1998b ):", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 65, |
| "end": 86, |
| "text": "(Walker et.al., 1998b", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF34" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Theoretical and Methodological", |
| "sec_num": "1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The centering model is very simple. Discourses consist of constituent segments and each segment is represented as part of a discourse model. Centers are semantic entiUes \u2022 that ~re part of the discourse model for each utterance in a discourse segment. The set of vO~wxao-LOOKma \u00a2~r~, Cj(vi~v) represeats discourse entities evoked by an utterance Ui in a discourse segment D (Webber 1978; Prince 1981) . The [unique] BACKWARD-WOKmO c~-rza, C,(Ui.D) is a sp~l member of the C:, which represents the discourse entity that the utt~ance U most omtrally concermL ... The Ct entity links the current utterance to the previous discour~ ...(or not more thaa one) ... The set of I~01~WARDwoxmo cm~m~.s, C:, is ranked according to discom~ s~enm. This ranki~ is a part~ order. The hi~es~ ranking member of the set of forward-looking centers.., represents a prediction about the CGd the following utlterance. W~ker, Joshi, Prince (1998b) Walker, Joshi and Prince 1998; Strube 1998) , Centering theor/sts have explained the choice of C6 in a sentence in terms of a'large .number of potential factors. In particular: the grammatical hierarchy with subjects ranking higher than objects (Grosz, Joshi, Weinstein 1983) , topic or empathy marking (Kameyama 198, 5) , surface order position (Rainbow, 1993) or grammatical function (Brennan, Friedman and Pollard 1987) of the encoding of discourse entities in the immediately preceding segment. Roberts (1998) argues that C0 is an unordered setof backward-looking centers in terms of classical Discourse Representation Theory notions of familiarity, compatibility and logical accessibility (Kamp 1981 , Helm 1982 , Kamp and Reyle 1993 , Asher 1993 , with an additional constraint that the set of discourse referents are attentionally accessible, a notion taken from Grosz and Sidner (1986) . Under Roberts' treatment, the set of preferred centers, takes the place of the original C6. Walker (1998) also replaces a unique Ct with a set of possible backward looking centers computed from a set of possible forward looking centers using agreement features, selection constraints of the verb and contra-indexing conditions.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 374, |
| "end": 387, |
| "text": "(Webber 1978;", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 388, |
| "end": 400, |
| "text": "Prince 1981)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 903, |
| "end": 924, |
| "text": "Joshi, Prince (1998b)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF34" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 925, |
| "end": 955, |
| "text": "Walker, Joshi and Prince 1998;", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 956, |
| "end": 968, |
| "text": "Strube 1998)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF27" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1170, |
| "end": 1200, |
| "text": "(Grosz, Joshi, Weinstein 1983)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1228, |
| "end": 1242, |
| "text": "(Kameyama 198,", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1243, |
| "end": 1245, |
| "text": "5)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1271, |
| "end": 1286, |
| "text": "(Rainbow, 1993)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF23" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1311, |
| "end": 1347, |
| "text": "(Brennan, Friedman and Pollard 1987)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1424, |
| "end": 1438, |
| "text": "Roberts (1998)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF25" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1619, |
| "end": 1629, |
| "text": "(Kamp 1981", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1630, |
| "end": 1641, |
| "text": ", Helm 1982", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1642, |
| "end": 1663, |
| "text": ", Kamp and Reyle 1993", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1664, |
| "end": 1676, |
| "text": ", Asher 1993", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1795, |
| "end": 1818, |
| "text": "Grosz and Sidner (1986)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Theoretical and Methodological", |
| "sec_num": "1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "in Walker, Jochi, \" Prince 1998a henceforth WJP) p. 3.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Theoretical and Methodological", |
| "sec_num": "1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The choice of segment also remains contested ground in Centering, with mint linguists choosing for the sentence or clause while Walker (1998) 1990, 1994) and, more recently, by Strube and Hahn (1996) , Strube (1998) , and Walker (1998) which reflect these various perspectives.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 128, |
| "end": 141, |
| "text": "Walker (1998)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF35" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 142, |
| "end": 147, |
| "text": "1990,", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 148, |
| "end": 153, |
| "text": "1994)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 177, |
| "end": 199, |
| "text": "Strube and Hahn (1996)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF28" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 202, |
| "end": 215, |
| "text": "Strube (1998)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF27" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 222, |
| "end": 235, |
| "text": "Walker (1998)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF35" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "From a linguistic perspective (cL papers and references in", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Although the several variants of Centering can be argued to be better suited to one or another task or to account for phenomena in one or another language, they all fail to account for the interpretation of common examples SUch as (3) s.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "From a linguistic perspective (cL papers and references in", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(3) (a) Joan s went to ~ork at e~hZ. (b) B//g art/veal at n/he. (c) Th~+a met in the \u00a2on/erence rOOl~ In (3), no entity in a single target clause or sentence resolves the plural pronoun in (3c). Thqa+a refers to a complex semantic entity created by combining entities in (3a) and (3b).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "From a linguistic perspective (cL papers and references in", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In the reformulation of Centering in terms of Dynamic Quantifier Logic presented in Section 3, below, we show how multiple anaphoric elements can be handled and each assigned its preferred resolu-. tion. DQL allows us to calculate a preference ordering on the discourse referents that can be used to account for multiple anaphors refering to different antecedents. When paired withthe LDM, we also provide a means for one anaphor to refer back to multiple antecedents. DQL combines Generalized ~uantifier Theory (GQT) ( Barwise and Cooper 1991) and Plural Quantifier Logic (Scha 1981; van der Does 1992) with Dynamic Semantics. DQL was designed to handle phenomena such as plurals and complex relations between discourse referents often left unaddressed by other formal semantic frameworks (see van de Berg 1992 de Berg ,1996a .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 520, |
| "end": 544, |
| "text": "Barwise and Cooper 1991)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 799, |
| "end": 811, |
| "text": "de Berg 1992", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 812, |
| "end": 826, |
| "text": "de Berg ,1996a", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "From a linguistic perspective (cL papers and references in", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Dynamic Quantifier Logic is based on the observation that NPs are generally anaphoric, quantiflcationa] and can be the antecedent of further anaphora, as illustrated by 4 In 4b, thr~ boys is anaphoric: its domain of quantification is given by The chi/dre~ ,Within this domain, it is quantificatiunal:, there are exactly three boys that disappeared in the gi~ shop. Finally, it is an antecedent: it introduces a referent picked up by Theyl in (4c) to refer back to the three/w~. DQL, designed to explaia examples like (4), was d~ned to preserve as far as possible the prediction of its precursors while inheriting most of the/r results. Under DQL well known, solid results and established procedures remain tmehanL, ed. As. an illustration of a DQL representation of a sentence, take the simplified representation of (5b) below Formula (50o) states that/or ever g eat/ry that is a g/d, taken from the doma/n Siren by the d/scourse ngereat z', it is the case that there is a hat such tha~ she wmws iL This expremion is vew similar to clamcal umslatious into logic of Co). The only dif-fe~mco in the form of the expression is the explicit mention d the context set that sets the domain of . qumstiflcation. These context sets are given by dis-Course referents. The universal quantification Eve~ girl takes its range from the discourse referent =, and introduces a subset y, the indefinite a ha\u00a3 takes its domain from an as yet unspecified domain (-).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "From a linguistic perspective (cL papers and references in", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Resolution In DQL, all di~ourse anaphoric effects take place through discourse referents functioning as context sets to quantifiers. Variables that 112", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Quantification and Reference", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 @ 0 O 0 0 0 @ 0 0 @ @ @ 0 0 @ @ O 0 O 0 O @ @ 0 0 0 0 0 0 @ 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O @ O O O O O O O O 0 @ O O O O @", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Quantification and Reference", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "are quantified over 2 are introduced as discourse referents to function as :context sets in subsequent sentences.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Quantification and Reference", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Although (Sb) introduces both referents y for the girls and z for the hats, the referents do not have equivalent status. This is caused by the quantifica-tionaI structure. The set of girls is given as a simple subset of the set of children, and as such is readily available. The set of hats, on the other hand, is only introduced relative to the set of girls. The hats are not introduced independently, but rather are introduced indirectly as belonging to the girls. Referring back to the set of hats is much more computationally expensive than referring back to the set of girls; to refer to the hats we must implicitly refer to the girls relative to which the set of hats is defined.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Quantification and Reference", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A consequence of the fact that the hats are introduced relative to the g/r/s, is that there is an implied ordering of the discourse referents that we use in reletting back to these sets. The discourse referent corresponding to the ~ is much easier to pick up from the conti~ than the discourse referent referring back to the hats s. Everything else being equal, the discourse referent referring to 'the g/r/a will be preferred over the discourse referent referring to the hats because accessing it requires less computation.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Quantification and Reference", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 This preference order corresponds closely to the forward-lcoking centers C 1. However, there is nothing in the construction of the preference ordering based on complexity of retrieval sketched above that would lead us to believe that there is at most one backward-looking center. In fact, our treatment gives the same predictions as Centering for the first pronoun resolved, but results in different predictions for embedded auaphors. The foliowing diagram representing the scopes of (b) and ( I I w II", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Quantification and Reference", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "It follows from the argument we have laid out above,", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Anaphera Resolution Preference Order", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 that the referent I/in (e), is preferred for anapherie However, once the girk are available as a set :in(c) via u, the hats are ako available, via discourse referent z, to ser~ as an antecedent. The set of girls, being already available no longer adds to the computational burden of calculating the set of hats. Within the scope of they, the referent z is much more accessible than outside that scope.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Anaphera Resolution Preference Order", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We can push this line of reasoning further. Consider example (Ta). In this example, the subject, 2Like y and z in (5'b). SThk is related to the discussion in Jmhi and Weinstein 1998, whi\u00a2.h motivates Centering from the perspective of complexity of inference in discourse.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Anaphera Resolution Preference Order", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Every amman, has scope over the object, a car. As (7-8) shows, the preferred center of the C! corresponding to this is the set of women because the cars are introduced as a function of the women. To refer correctly to the set of cars, we must also refer indirectly to the set of women since we are interested in retrieving only the cars owned by the women, not cars owned by men. On the other hand, to refer to the women, we need no information about their cars. This does not mean that we cannot refer to the cara in a subsequent sentence, as (gb) shows... Where the set of women is referred to with Theg, the cars can be.referred to directly. There is then no longer a hidden cost of retrieving the set of women in addition to the cars, since cars are already given in the sentence.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Anaphera Resolution Preference Order", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "But now consider (8) and (9):", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Anaphera Resolution Preference Order", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(8) (a) Every woman in this town has a car.. (b) They use it to drive to work.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Anaphera Resolution Preference Order", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(9) (a) Every t~oman in this town has a car. ~o) They are l~u'ked in their garages.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Anaphera Resolution Preference Order", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Note that (7-9) are decreasin\" g in acceptability. (8) is more problematic than (7), because in (7) only the set of cars need be retaieved, while in (8) also the actual dependence of the carsonthe women that own them is invoked by the use of the singular ~. (9) is much less acceptable than either (7) or (8), because in (9) They refers to the cars without the help of an explicitly given set of women.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Anaphera Resolution Preference Order", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The fact that once we have used a discourse referent, we can use other discourse referents that depend on it has important consequences as soon as we consider anaphora more complex than pronouns. Consider exmnple (I0).. own computers off every night. If the discourse referent introduced by their own computers would simply refer to the set of computers owned by people in the company, and not be dependent on the people, them2 would refer to this set, rather than only to the set of computers owned by the three people. The meaning of (10b) would then be that these three people switch off all computers in the company, not just their own. This, of course, in not the correct reading.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Anaphera Resolution Preference Order", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Quantifier Scope and Anaphora R~-solution Under our analysis, the preferred antecedent for a pronoun is based on computational complexity arising from universal facts of scope ordering in the logical representation of the antecedent utterance. Different approaches to centering will be better or worse at predicting ordering relations depending on the match between the ordering scheme decided upon and the underlying scopal ordering.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We argue as follows.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If the discourse referent A is introduced by a term that has scope over a term introducing discourse refe~.nt B, and discourse zefe~ent B is introduced by a term that has scope over discourse referent C, A will be preferred over B and B will be preferred. over C. Since this explanation is not dependent on conventions that might be different in different languages our treatment is universal. This is not the case for explanations based on linear ordexing of syntactic constituents or arguments based on gemnmatical function, for example. Because in .Engli~ the subject has scope over the objects, and the objects have scope over more deeply embedded terms, the ordering of discourse rderents familiar to us from the literature will result in the well known C! predictions.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Rejecting a preferred ordering for a less preferred ordering is a computationally complex operation. First the preferred order is computed, then this analis rejected ---perha~ on pragmatic grounds. The calculations must then be re-done and the resulting less preferred ordering checked to see if it fits \u2022 the pragmatic facts of the situation described in the target utterance. Differences ha computational complexity arising from rejecting more prderred interpretations for less preferred thus result in the judgments of relative coherence which have been noted in the literature. Our account thns explains how Centering effects originate and why some anaphoric choices may involve more attention to the referent retrieval process than others s.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "SThe DQL formalism has been explicitly designed to look as similar as peasible to weIl-lmown, standard logiel. \"1\"o argue about issum of acceesibility of the referents, a logical system that is le88 natural, but externalizes the dependencies between", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To return then to examples (1) and 2 Since the d iscom-se referent Jell is introduced bY a term that has scope over a term introducing discourse referent D/ck, Je~ will be preferred over D/ok The difference in perceived coherence between (1/11) and (2/12) falls out of the more general fact that wide scope quantifiers are preferred over narrow scope quaatifiers.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Acceptability Predictions", |
| "sec_num": "4.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We will now turn to discussing how discourse structure and Anaphora Resolution interact to produce different acceptability predictions for different structures of discourse.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Acceptability Predictions", |
| "sec_num": "4.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Resolution Although Centering Theory is associated with the Discourse Structurm Theory of Gr~z and Sidner (1986) which considers speaker intention and hearer attention as the critical dimensions to be modeled in discourse understanding, there are alternative models for understanding the relations among utterances in a discourse which are based on other principles. In particular, Dynamic Quantifier Logic, the anaphora resolution mechanism based on quantifier scope we are working with here, has been designed to provide the semantic machinery for the Linguistic Discourse Model (LDM). The LDM provides an account for discourse interpretation in terms of structural and semantic relations among the linguistic constituents making up a discourse e.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Discourse Structure and Anaphora", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The LDM is designed as a discourse ~ designed to construct a meaning representation of the input discourse icrementally. The LDM treats a discourse as a sequence of basic discourse units (evue) ranges of values for ~ might be more suitable, such as liar to DO~ we thank eae mmaymous revumer mr pomung out the work of Ranta (1991) , who's use of Marthz-16Ps type theory, m~ atso be suttsble ts a~ anal3~t8 tool ela Prfmt, Scha and van den Berg 1991, \u2022 resolution mech-anJmn for unification based discourse grammar for verb phrase anaphom is defined, in terms of the Linguistic Discourse Model (LDM; PolanyJ and Scha 1984; . Polanyi 1987 . Polanyi , i988. 1996 , which takes semantic representations as input. This treatment was later extended to a unification based discourse grammar actinf~ on dynamic quantifier logic in Polanyi 1996, van den Berg and Polanyl 1996 . The current paper extends that work. each of which encodes formal semantic, syntactic and phonological properties of either an elementary predication or a discourse function. Using rules of discourse wellformedness whiCh specify how to compute the relationship between a BDO and the previous discourse, the LDM constructs a parse tree by successively attaching the SVUs to a node at the fight of edge of the emerging tree. The nodes of the tree are called Discourse Constituent Umts (VCUS) 7. DCUs encode formal semantic, syntactic and phonological properties that are calculated by following construction rules corresponding to the relationship computed as a result of the attachment process.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 317, |
| "end": 329, |
| "text": "Ranta (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF24" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 592, |
| "end": 597, |
| "text": "(LDM;", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 598, |
| "end": 620, |
| "text": "PolanyJ and Scha 1984;", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 621, |
| "end": 635, |
| "text": ". Polanyi 1987", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF20" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 636, |
| "end": 658, |
| "text": ". Polanyi , i988. 1996", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 822, |
| "end": 852, |
| "text": "Polanyi 1996, van den Berg and", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF18" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 853, |
| "end": 865, |
| "text": "Polanyl 1996", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Linguistic Discourse Model", |
| "sec_num": "5.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The discourse parse tree represents the structural relations obtaining ~Lmong the DCUs. There are three basic types of relations among DCUs: Coordination, Subordination and Binary Re!A_tion. Corresponding to these relations, a DCU can be attached at a node on the right edge of a tree in one of three waysS:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Linguistic Discourse Model", |
| "sec_num": "5.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "1. The input DCU will be Coordinated with a node present o n the fight-edge of the tree if it contin-\u2022 ues a discourse activity (such as topic Chaining or narrating) underway at that node.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Linguistic Discourse Model", |
| "sec_num": "5.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "2. The input DCU win be Subordl,a~ted to a node on the right-edge of the tree if it elaborates on material expressed at that node or if it interrupts the flow of the discourse completely.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Linguistic Discourse Model", |
| "sec_num": "5.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "3. The input DCU will be Binary-attached to a node if it is related to that node in a logical, rhetorical or interactional pattern specified explicitly by the grammar.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Linguistic Discourse Model", |
| "sec_num": "5.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The LDM is a compesitional framework. Simnltaneoas with the incremental construction of the struco tural representation ofthe discourse by attaching incoming DCUS, a semantic representation of the meanink of the discourse is constructed by incorporating the interpretation of an incomi-~ ~ in the ~mantie representation on the discourse. The LDM a~m~ts for both structural and semantic aspects of discounse parsing using logical and structural notions analogous to units and p~ constituting lower levels of the linguistic hierarchy.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Linguistic Discourse Model", |
| "sec_num": "5.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "It is an ideal framework for tmdenmmding the relatioas between sentential syntax and semantics, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the texts and ~teractious that are constructed using sentential linguistic structures.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Linguistic Discourse Model", |
| "sec_num": "5.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "?BDU8 once attached to the tree are DCU8. -8Baside8 these three basic composition relations between ncus, a complex ncu can also he constructed by an operator having a ncu as an argdment and within mmtences, a ncu can occur embedded in another DcU. These two cases wiU not be d~umed here.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Linguistic Discourse Model", |
| "sec_num": "5.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Discourse Model Let us now look at several short example of the interaction of anaphora resolution with discourse structure using the Dynamic Quantifier Logic framework above. In (13) the relationship between vco (13a) and Dco (13b) is a Subordination relation because (13b) supplies more detailed information about why Susan came home late. As is shown in (13a), the S node inherits all information about the dominating VCO. In this case (a). A representation of Susan is therefore available at this constructed node. (13e) gives more explanation about what went on when Doris held Susan up at work and is therefore Subordinated to (b). Susan and Doris available for reference at that node. In (14) the situation is different. Although the relationship between DCU (14a) and DCU (14b) is a Subordination relation, as shown in (14a), as the di~ourse continues with (14c), the state of the discourse POPS from the embedded explanation to continue describing the state of affairs of Sasan's evening. (14c) is therefor~ in a Coordination relation with (14a) as shown. Only Susan is now available as a potential referent in the current context.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Reference Resolution in the Linguistic", |
| "sec_num": "5.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In fact, the antecedent of an anaphora need not be one specific earlier utterance, but may be a constructed higher node in the parse tree as in (15): (15) (a) J~m went to um'k at dght (b) ,8///art/red a\u00a2 n/,w~ (e) They met in the ~/e,m~eroom.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Reference Resolution in the Linguistic", |
| "sec_num": "5.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Qt+I(ARRIVE(AT-TIME)) and Theys+=(meet-in-C) Qs+=(ARRIVE(AT-~~~heyx (meet-in-Ci JoanX(got-to-w~rk(at eight)) Bmt (arrive(at eight))", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Reference Resolution in the Linguistic", |
| "sec_num": "5.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this case, the antecedent of (15c) is not (15a) or (15b), but the discourse node that constitutes the list (15a+b). In this higher node, there is a constructed schematicrepresentation of what (lSa) and (15b) share, and They is resolved to this. Very schematically, it amounts to resolving the anaphor X to the outer quantifier of its antecedent, Ql+2.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Reference Resolution in the Linguistic", |
| "sec_num": "5.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "6 Conclusions \u2022 Within our unified framework we are able to provide a detailed account of how anaphora resolution works across stretches of discourse, Because the LDM requires specific calculation of the information available at intermediary nodes. Computationally, during parsing, a rich data structure is created representing the meaning of the discourse. This, we would argue, is a distinct advantage of Dynamic Semantic approaches such as the LDM/DQL system over current computational alternatives such as Discourse Structures Theory (Gro.~ and Sidner 1989) and Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson 1987) which rely upon inferring the at--tentional and intentional states of language users, in one case, and on labe!ing the coherence relations among clauses, in the other. Looking towards formal discourse syst~m-__q, we believe that while it would be possible to integrate the insights of DQL into a DRT approach such as that t~ by Asher (1993) , the appr.~ taken here is computationally more tractable than more standard implementation of DRT for discourse parsing. The increased tractability results from the separation of discourse syntax and semantics which our approach imposes, taken together with the restriction of appeals to inference and world knowledge to specific moments in interpretation. In the case of the LDM, appeals to external knowledge are made only at the moment of DCU attachment. to the parse.tree. ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 538, |
| "end": 561, |
| "text": "(Gro.~ and Sidner 1989)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 947, |
| "end": 959, |
| "text": "Asher (1993)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Reference Resolution in the Linguistic", |
| "sec_num": "5.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\" The authors dedkate this paper to the memory of MegumiKameyama (1953Kameyama ( -1999, a dedicated researcher and a very dear friend.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Refe~eace 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. Refe~eace to Abstract Ob- jects in Discourse. Dordrecht, Kluwer.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "A Centering Approach to Pronouns", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Susan", |
| "middle": [ |
| "E" |
| ], |
| "last": "Brennan", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Madlyn", |
| "middle": [ |
| "E" |
| ], |
| "last": "F1iedman", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Carl", |
| "middle": [ |
| "J" |
| ], |
| "last": "Pollard", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1987, |
| "venue": "~s o~f the 25st Annual Meeting o! the Auoda~ /or Oomm,t~io,~ l~in~is~", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "155--62", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Susan E. Brennan, Madlyn E. F1iedman sad Carl J. Pollard. 1987. A Centering Approach to Pro- nouns. In: ~s o~f the 25st Annual Meeting o! the Auoda~ /or Oomm,t~io,~ l~in~is~, Stanford CA 155-62.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Anaphora and Dynamic BincHng", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "C", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Gennar0", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1992, |
| "venue": "Ling~dstics and Philosophy", |
| "volume": "15", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "111--183", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Gennar0 C]fierrh~. 1992. Anaphora and Dynamic BincHng. Ling~dstics and Philosophy 15:111-183.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Januen and Martin Stokhof (ed)1981. Formal Methods in the Study of Language_ Amsterdam", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Jeroen", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Groenendijk", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Theo", |
| "middle": [ |
| "M" |
| ], |
| "last": "", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "Mathematical Centrum", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo M. V. Januen and Mar- tin Stokhof (ed)1981. Formal Methods in the Study of Language_ Amsterdam, Mathematical Centrum.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "Providing a Unified Account of Definite Noun Phrases in Discourse", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Barbara", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Grosz", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Aravind", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Joshi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Scott", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Weinstein", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1983, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "44--50", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Barbara Grosz, Aravind Joshi and Scott Weinstein. 1983. Providing a Unified Account of Definite Noun Phrases in Discourse. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, Cambridge, MA 44-50.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "Towards a Computational Theory of Discourse Interpretation", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Barbara", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Grosz", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Aravind", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Joshi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Scott", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Weinstein", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1995, |
| "venue": "Computational Linguistics", |
| "volume": "21", |
| "issue": "2", |
| "pages": "203--228", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Barbara Grosz, Aravind Joshi and Scott Weinstein. 1995. Towards a Computational Theory of Dis- course Interpretation. Computational Linguistics, 21/2:203-25.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Attention, intention, and the Structure of Discourse", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Barbara", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Grosz", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Candace", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Sidner", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1986, |
| "venue": "Computational Linguistics", |
| "volume": "12", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "175--204", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Barbara Grosz and Candace Sidner. 1986. Atten- tion, intention, and the Structure of Discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12/3:175-204.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "Centering Theory and the Giverness Hierarchy", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "K", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Jeanette", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Gundel", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1998, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "183--198", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Jeanette K. Gundel. 1998. Centering Theory and the Giverness Hierarchy. In (Walker et.aL, 1998a) 183-198. \"", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Irene", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "He|re", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1982, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Irene He|re. 1982~ The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.d. Thesis. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "Centered Logic: The Role of Entity Centered Sentence Representations in Natural Language Inferencing", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Aravind", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Joshi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Steve", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kuhn", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1979, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Aravind Joshi and Steve Kuhn. 1979. Centered Logic: The Role of Entity Centered Sentence Rep- resentations in Natural Language Inferencing. In", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "Proceedin#$ of the 6th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Tokyo", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "435--444", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Proceedin#$ of the 6th International Joint Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence. Tokyo, 435-9.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "Control of Inference: Role of Some Aspects of Discourse Structure--Centering", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Aravind", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Joshi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Scott", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Weinstein", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1981, |
| "venue": "Proc-__~_ings o] the 7th International Joint Conlerence on Artificial Intel. iigence. Vancouver", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "385--392", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Aravind Joshi and Scott Weinstein. 1981. Control of Inference: Role of Some Aspects of Discourse Structure--Centering. In Proc-__~_ings o] the 7th International Joint Conlerence on Artificial Intel. iigence. Vancouver 385-7.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF13": { |
| "ref_id": "b13", |
| "title": "Complexity and Control of Inference", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Aravind", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Jcehi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Scott", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Weinstein", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": ";", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Walker", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1998, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "31--40", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Aravind Jcehi and Scott Weinstein. 1998. Complex- ity and Control of Inference. In (Walker et.al., 1998a), 31-9.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF14": { |
| "ref_id": "b14", |
| "title": "Zero Anaphora: The Case of Japanese", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Mi", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Meg~", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kameymna", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Meg~,mi Kameymna. 1985. Zero Anaphora: The Case of Japanese. Ph.D. Thesis. Stanford Univer- sity.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF15": { |
| "ref_id": "b15", |
| "title": "A Theory of'llmth and Semantic Representation", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Hans", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kamp", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Groenendijk", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1981, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Hans Kamp. 1981. A Theory of'llmth and Semantic Representation. In (Groenendijk et.al., 1981)", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF16": { |
| "ref_id": "b16", |
| "title": "Rhetorical Structure Theory", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "C", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "William", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Sandra", |
| "middle": [ |
| "A" |
| ], |
| "last": "Mann", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Thompson", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1987, |
| "venue": "Natural Language Generation. The Hague, Mouton", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson. 1987. Rhetorical Structure Theory. In G. Kempen (ed.) Natural Language Generation. The Hague, Mou- ton.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF17": { |
| "ref_id": "b17", |
| "title": "Per Martin-L6\u00a3 1984", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "Intuitionistic type Theory Bibliopolis", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Per Martin-L6\u00a3 1984. Intuitionistic type Theory Bibliopolis, Naples.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF18": { |
| "ref_id": "b18", |
| "title": "Discourse Structure and Discourse Interpretation", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Livia", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Polanyi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Martin", |
| "middle": [ |
| "H" |
| ], |
| "last": "Van Den", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Berg", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1996, |
| "venue": "Prvce~__~_ings o~ the Tenth Amsterdam (70110-qu/=nL ILLC", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Livia Polanyi and Martin H. van den Berg. 1996. Discourse Structure and Discourse Interpretation. In Prvce~__~_ings o~ the Tenth Amsterdam (70110- qu/=nL ILLC, Amsterdam.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF19": { |
| "ref_id": "b19", |
| "title": "A Syntactic Approach to Discourse Semantics", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Livia", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Polanyi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Remlm", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Schl", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1984, |
| "venue": "P_roce_~____ings o! t~z ~tb lntmmCionat Cony~we on Comz~t", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Livia Polanyi and Remlm SchL 1984. A Syntactic Approach to Discourse Semantics. In P_roce_~____ings o! t~z ~tb lntmmCionat Cony~we on Comz~t,.a- t/ona/\u00a3ing~/st/~. Stanford CA.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF20": { |
| "ref_id": "b20", |
| "title": "Keeping it all Straight: Interpreting Narrative Time in Real Discourse", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Livia", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Polanyi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1987, |
| "venue": "WC-CTL", |
| "volume": "6", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "229--245", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Livia Polanyi. 1987. Keeping it all Straight: Inter- preting Narrative Time in Real Discourse. WC- CTL 6: 229-245.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF21": { |
| "ref_id": "b21", |
| "title": "A Formal Model of Discourse Structure", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Livia", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Polanyi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1988, |
| "venue": "In Journal o/Pragmm~cs", |
| "volume": "12", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "1--638", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Livia Polanyi. 1988. A Formal Model of Discourse Structure. In Journal o/Pragmm~cs 12.~01-638.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF22": { |
| "ref_id": "b22", |
| "title": "Hub Prfist, Remko Scha and Martin H. van' den Berg. 1994. Discourse Grammar and Verb Phrase Anaphora", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Livia", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Polanyi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1996, |
| "venue": "The. Linguistic Structure of Discourse", |
| "volume": "17", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "261--327", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Livia Polanyi. 1996. The. Linguistic Structure of Discourse. Stanford CA: CSLI Technical Report. Hub Prfist, Remko Scha and Martin H. van' den Berg. 1994. Discourse Grammar and Verb Phrase Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17;261- 327.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF23": { |
| "ref_id": "b23", |
| "title": "Pragmatic Aspects of Scrambling and Topicalization in German. Paper presented at the Workshop in Centering Theory, Istitute for Research in Cognitive Science", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Owen", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Rainbow", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1993, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Owen Rainbow. 1993. Pragmatic Aspects of Scram- bling and Topicalization in German. Paper pre- sented at the Workshop in Centering Theory, Isti- tute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. PA.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF24": { |
| "ref_id": "b24", |
| "title": "Intuitionistic categorial Gram-. mar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Aarne", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Ranta", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1991, |
| "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", |
| "volume": "14", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "203--239", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Aarne Ranta. 1991. Intuitionistic categorial Gram- . mar. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14:203-239.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF25": { |
| "ref_id": "b25", |
| "title": "The Place of Centering in a General Theory of Anaph0ra Resolution", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Craige", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Roberts", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Walker", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1998, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "359--400", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Craige Roberts. 1998. The Place of Centering in a General Theory of Anaph0ra Resolution. In (Walker et.al., 1998a), 359-400.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF26": { |
| "ref_id": "b26", |
| "title": "Distributive, Collective and Cumulative Quantification", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Groenendijk", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1981, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Remko Scha. 1981. Distributive, Collective and Cu- mulative Quantification. In (Groenendijk et.al., 1981).", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF27": { |
| "ref_id": "b27", |
| "title": "Never Look Back: An Alternative to Centering", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Michael", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Strube", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1998, |
| "venue": "Collng-ACL '98: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 36th, Annual Meeting of the Assodstion for Computational Linguistics", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "1251--1257", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Michael Strube. 1998. Never Look Back: An Al- ternative to Centering. In: Collng-ACL '98: Pro- ceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 36th, Annual Meeting of the Assodstion for Computational Linguistics. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Aug 10- 14, pp.1251-1257.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF28": { |
| "ref_id": "b28", |
| "title": "Functional Centering. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "'", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Mi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Udo", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Strube", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Hahn", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1996, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "270--277", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Mi'chael Strube and Udo Hahn. 1996). Functional Centering. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics, Santa ~uz, CA 270-7.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF29": { |
| "ref_id": "b29", |
| "title": "quantifiers, logic and Language", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Martin", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Van Den", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Berg", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1992, |
| "venue": "CSLI Lecture Notes", |
| "volume": "54", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Martin H. van den Berg. 1992. Dynamic General- ized Quantifiers. In Does J. M. v. d. and Eijck J. v.: quantifiers, logic and Language. CSLI Lecture Notes 54, Stanford CA.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF30": { |
| "ref_id": "b30", |
| "title": "l~J6a. The Internal Structure of Discourse-Ph.D. Dissertation. ILLC, University Of ~,m.~.rdam", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Martin", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Van Den", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Berg", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Martin H. van den Berg. l~J6a. The Internal Struc- ture of Discourse-Ph.D. Dissertation. ILLC, Uni- versity Of ~,m.~.rdam.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF31": { |
| "ref_id": "b31", |
| "title": "Discourse Gram-m~ and Dynamic Logic", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Martin", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Van Den", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Berg", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1996, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, Amsterdam. Jaap van der Does. 1991. Applied Quantifier Logics collectives and Naked Infinitives", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Martin H. van den Berg. 1996b. Discourse Gram- m~ and Dynamic Logic. Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, Amsterdam. Jaap van der Does. 1991. Applied Quantifier Log- ics collectives and Naked Infinitives. Ph.D. thes/s. University of ~.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF32": { |
| "ref_id": "b32", |
| "title": "Jaap vSa der Do~ 1993. Formalizing E-type Anaphor& Proceedings of the Ninth Colloquium", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Jaap vSa der Do~ 1993. Formalizing E-type Anaphor& Proceedings of the Ninth Colloquium, ILLC, Amsterdam.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF33": { |
| "ref_id": "b33", |
| "title": "199Sa. ~ Theory in Viscour~ Oxford", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Msrilyn", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Walker", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Amvind", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Joshi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Ellen", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Prince", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Msrilyn Walker, Amvind Joshi and Ellen Prince (ed). 199Sa. ~ Theory in Viscour~ Ox- ford. Clarendon Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF34": { |
| "ref_id": "b34", |
| "title": "Centeri~ in Naturally Occurring Discourse: An Overview", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Marilyn", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Walker", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Amvind", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Joshi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Ellen", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Prince", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": ";", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Walker", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1998, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "1--29", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Marilyn Walker, Amvind Joshi and Ellen Prince. 1998b. Centeri~ in Naturally Occurring Dis- course: An Overview. In (Walker et.al., 199Sa) 1-29.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF35": { |
| "ref_id": "b35", |
| "title": "Centering, Anaphora Resolution, and Discourse Structure", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Marilyn", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Walker", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1998, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "9--400", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Marilyn Walker. 1998. Centering, Anaphora Reso- lution, and Discourse Structure. In (Walker et.al., l~Sa), ~9-400.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "text": "washed the windows as Dick washed the car (c) Heb soaped a pane.. He~ and h~ are both co-referential with .leO', while in .(2) . (2) (a) Je~ ha~ed Dick wasA the car. (b) //e.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "text": "washed the windows as Dick wazed the car (c) Heb b..~ed the hood.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF3": { |
| "text": ", argues for integrating Centering with a more global model of discourse focus. Within computational linguistics, several Centering Algorithms have been proposed, most notably by Brennan, S, M. ~iedman and C. Pollard (1987), Walker, Iida and Cote", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF4": { |
| "text": "", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF5": { |
| "text": "Notational Convention: Introduced Indices are written as supe~pts; indices that are old (refer back) amwritten as subscript& \u2022 3 -Dynamic Quantifier Logic.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF6": { |
| "text": ": (4) (a) The children I arrived at the natural history museum early in the morning. (b) Threes boys 2 disappeared in the girl shop. (c) The~ had a great time touching almost evert~ing.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF7": { |
| "text": "(5) (a) Some childrerf were playing in the back-yar~ (b) Every= g/rP ~ wear/ng a hat,. (c) ~ had put ~ on belore ~ le# the house.. (5'b) Vg C z (girl(y), ~ C_ \u2022 (hat(z), wear(y, z)))", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF8": { |
| "text": "c) illustrates th!~:", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF9": { |
| "text": "(a) Every waman in this town has a car. (b) They park them in their garages.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF10": { |
| "text": "10) (a) Seventeen people 1 in our lab have their own cmnputer~. (b) Three o~f themt are silly and them~ oD ~ n~L h (10a), a discourse referent d~ to aset of seventeen people is introduced, and as well as a discourse referent d~ to a the set of computers they own, which depends on ds. In (10b), Three o! them quantifies over the domain given by all, and states that within dh there are exactly three people who switch their 4For some people (8) is totally impmsible, becamm they demand a plural here as in (7), seemingly preferring semantic number agreement over syntactic number agreement. However, syntactic agreement does occur, as the following example illustrates: ~ sotd/er/, neqmu/bte lot ~ own gun. He haJ to dean it and will be reln'imandd i] anll dirt is found on it.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF11": { |
| "text": ", reproduced here as (11) and (12) (11) (a) Jeff helped Dick wash the car. (b) Hea washed the windows as Dick washed the car (c) He6 soaped a pane. (12) (a) 3e~ helped Dick wash the car. (b) Hee washed the windows as Dick waxed the car (c) Heb bused the hood", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF13": { |
| "text": "(13) (a) Susan came home late yesterday. (b) Doris hod held her up at work. (c) She needed help with the copier.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF14": { |
| "text": "(14) (a) Susan came home late yesterda3l. (b) Doris had held her up at worl~ (e) She didn't ~oen have time ]or dinner.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
