| { | |
| "paper_id": "C00-1045", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:31:17.367494Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "Pronominalization revisited *", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Renate", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Henschel", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Edinburgh", | |
| "location": { | |
| "country": "UK" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "[email protected]" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Hua", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Cheng", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Edinburgh", | |
| "location": { | |
| "country": "UK" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "[email protected]" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Massimo", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Poesio", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Edinburgh", | |
| "location": { | |
| "country": "UK" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "[email protected]" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "Pronominalization has been related to the idea of a local focus-a set of discourse entities in the speaker's centre of attention, for example in Gundel et al. (1993)'s givenness hierarchy or in centering theory. Both accounts say that the determination of the focus depends on syntactic as well as pragmatic factors, but have not been able to pin those factors down. In this paper, we uncover the major factors which determine the focus set in descriptive texts. This new focus definition has been evaluated with respect to two corpora: museum exhibit labels, and newspaper articles. It provides an operationalizable basis for pronoun production, and has been implemented as the reusable module gnome-np. The algorithm behind gnome-np is compared with the most recent pronoun generation algorithm of McCoy and Strube (1999).", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "C00-1045", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "Pronominalization has been related to the idea of a local focus-a set of discourse entities in the speaker's centre of attention, for example in Gundel et al. (1993)'s givenness hierarchy or in centering theory. Both accounts say that the determination of the focus depends on syntactic as well as pragmatic factors, but have not been able to pin those factors down. In this paper, we uncover the major factors which determine the focus set in descriptive texts. This new focus definition has been evaluated with respect to two corpora: museum exhibit labels, and newspaper articles. It provides an operationalizable basis for pronoun production, and has been implemented as the reusable module gnome-np. The algorithm behind gnome-np is compared with the most recent pronoun generation algorithm of McCoy and Strube (1999).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "Besides the well established problem of pronoun resolution, pronoun generation is now attracting renewed attention. In the past, generation systems generated pronouns without attaching much importance to the problem, one notable exception being the classical algorithm of Dale (1990) , loosely based on centering theory. With the emergence of corpus based studies in computational linguistics, the question arises whether it is possible to refine known standard algorithms, or whether an improvement is only to be achieved with the help of world knowledge reasoning -a matter too complex to be dealt with reliably at this time. The former direction is represented by the pioneering work of McCoy and Strube (1999) . They propose a refined algorithm for the choice between definite description on the one hand and pronoun on the other for animate referents 1 , which is based on distance, time structure and ambiguity constraints.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 272, | |
| "end": 283, | |
| "text": "Dale (1990)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 690, | |
| "end": 713, | |
| "text": "McCoy and Strube (1999)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Here we introduce a more general algorithm for the pronominalization decision that is valid not only for animate but for inanimate referents as well. In conformity with McCoy and Strube, we group noun phrases with definite determiner and proper names together under the term \"definite description\". The algorithm proposes a new pronominalization strategy, which beyond McCoy and 's criteria makes use of the discourse status of the antecedent and parallelism effects.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The algorithm has been implemented as the reusable module gnome-np. It has been re-used in the web hypertext generation system ILEX (see Oberlander et al. (1998) ). It shows an accuracy over 87% with respect to two corpora (each 5000 words) of different genres.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 137, | |
| "end": 161, | |
| "text": "Oberlander et al. (1998)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In previous accounts pronominalization has been related to the idea of a local focus of attention: a set of discourse referents who/which is in the center of attention of the speaker (e.g. Sidner (1979) , givenness hierarchy (Gundel et al., 1993) , centering theory (Grosz et al., 1995) , RAFT/RAPR (Suri, 1993) ). Whereas (Gundel et al., 1993) do not attempt to make their focus notion operationalizable, this has been attempted by further developments of centering. However these have mostly been applied to the pronoun resolution problem. In the following we discuss three versions of centering and show that their application to the pronoun generation problem is nevertheless limited. Centering. Centering was developed to explain local discourse coherence; the extent to which it benefits pronoun generation is however not immediately clear.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 189, | |
| "end": 202, | |
| "text": "Sidner (1979)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 225, | |
| "end": 246, | |
| "text": "(Gundel et al., 1993)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 266, | |
| "end": 286, | |
| "text": "(Grosz et al., 1995)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 299, | |
| "end": 311, | |
| "text": "(Suri, 1993)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 323, | |
| "end": 344, | |
| "text": "(Gundel et al., 1993)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Accounts of pronominalization", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In centering, the discourse entities evoked in a certain utterance u i are called forward-looking centers (Cfs). It is assumed that they are partially ordered. As a major determinant of the ordering, the grammatical function hierarchy (roughly: subj>obj>others) has been proposed. Because other factors affecting the order have not been elaborated in detail, this ranking (as the only operationalizable handle) has become the standard ranking in several computational applications of centering. The backward-looking center (henceforth Cb) is a distinguished member of the Cfs, which is defined as the most highly ranked member of the Cfs of the previous utterance u i\u22121 which is realized in u i . The Cb is considered as the local focus of attention. Centering states two rules. Only the first rule makes a claim about pronominalization: If any element of the utterance u i\u22121 is realized in u i as pronoun, then the Cb must be pronominalized in u i as well. As noted by McCoy and Strube (1999) , this rule applies only in the case that two subsequent utterances share more than one referent, and that the non-Cb referent is pronominalized in the second utterance. But why this non-Cb referent is realized as a pronoun is not given by the theory. However, following more the spirit of centering than the actual definition, one can understand the Cb as the referent which is preferably pronominalized. General pronominalization of the backward-looking center was in fact a claim of early centering, but had to be abandoned because of counter-evidence from real discourse. But the idea that pronominalization of the Cb could be a means of establishing local discourse coherence is still prevalent. It has accordingly been used by some generation systems to control pronominalization -e.g. in the ilex system (Oberlander et al., 1998) , the Cb is always realized as a pronoun.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 970, | |
| "end": 993, | |
| "text": "McCoy and Strube (1999)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1805, | |
| "end": 1830, | |
| "text": "(Oberlander et al., 1998)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Accounts of pronominalization", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Centering is also found in Dale (1990) as the method of pronominalization control. However, Dale's center definition differs from standard centering theory in that it is defined semantically and not on the basis of a syntactic ranking. 2 This approach has some appeal, especially for generation, because it supports the natural modularity between strate-gic generation -which would determine the semantic center for each utterance -and tactical generation -which decides about grammatical functions.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 27, | |
| "end": 38, | |
| "text": "Dale (1990)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Semantic centering.", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Functional centering. Finally, the centering version suggested by Strube and Hahn (1999) appears to reveal an underlying discourse mechanism responsible for centering: the information structure of an utterance (roughly the givennew pattern) is the deeper reason for the ranking of the forward-looking centers. This permits a generalization of standard centering into a language-independent theory covering both free and fixed word-order languages. It is however then surprising that this result is not made maximal use of in the subsequent generationoriented work of McCoy and Strube (1999) . P1 Why are in real texts a large number of discourse entities with an antecedent in the previous utterance not pronominalized? P2 Why can more than one entity be pronominalized in one utterance?", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 66, | |
| "end": 88, | |
| "text": "Strube and Hahn (1999)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 567, | |
| "end": 590, | |
| "text": "McCoy and Strube (1999)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Semantic centering.", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "From a corpus-driven view, question P1 is the larger problem.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Semantic centering.", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "McCoy and were the first to suggest an algorithm for generation which solves these problems. It was motivated by the observation that a large percentage of NPs which would have been realized by pronouns using known algorithms, are in fact not realized as pronouns in real text. They suggest that such NPs serve to mark 'time changes' in the discourse. Their algorithm accordingly makes use of distance, context ambiguity and temporal discourse structure to decide about pronominalization. In our work, we have considered a corpus of a different genre in which temporal change does not play a determining role: descriptive texts. We propose a new algorithm that significantly simplifies the problem of pronoun choice. It is based on a new definition of the local focus, which views the discourse status of the antecedent as the major motivation behind focusing. The algorithm performs equally well when applied to McCoy and Strube's corpus of newspaper articles.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Semantic centering.", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The algorithm we will present below has been developed in close relation to the muse corpusa corpus of museum exhibit labels 3 . The corpus is a collection of web pages of the Paul Getty Museum, pages from an exhibition catalogue, and pages from a jewellery book. Typical characteristics are the central role of inanimate referents in these texts, and the lack of temporal change -thus providing an interesting counterpart to the newspaper genre investigated by Mc-Coy and Strube.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Corpus analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "With an overall set of around 5000 words, the corpus contains 1450 NPs. Each NP has been annotated with respect to, among others, grammatical function, discourse status, gender, number, countability, and antecedent relationships. 23% of the NPs form reference chains (i.e. at least two mentions of one and the same referent in one text), the other 77% are only mentioned once. We have 101 different reference chains; the chain-forming NPs fall into 101 discoursenew and 213 anaphoric NPs. In the following, we will only discuss the anaphoric NPs. 50% of the anaphoric NPs are realized as definite descriptions, 50% as pronouns. We distinguish between locally bound pronouns, which are determined syntactically (Binding Theory, (Chomsky, 1981)), and which we expect the tactical generator to handle correctly, and pronouns which are not locally bound -so-called discourse pronouns. We investigated possible correlations between the discourse pronouns and semantic/pragmatic features of their context.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Corpus analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The basic notions that we found were distance, discourse status of the antecedent, and grammatical function of the antecedent. All three notions need a precise definition.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Corpus analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Distance. To be able to determine the distance between a discourse entity and its antecedent, a precise determination of what counts 3 URL: http://www.hcrc.ed.ac.uk/\u02dcgnome/corpora as utterance unit is necessary.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Corpus analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Following Kameyama (1998) , we take as utterance unit the finite clause. Relative clauses and complement clauses are not counted as utterances on their own. This means that we count clauses containing complement clauses or relative clauses as single utterances. 4, 5 The previous utterance is the preceding utterance at the same level of embedding.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 10, | |
| "end": 25, | |
| "text": "Kameyama (1998)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 262, | |
| "end": 264, | |
| "text": "4,", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 265, | |
| "end": 266, | |
| "text": "5", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Corpus analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Note that we allow the treatment of clauses with VP coordination (subject ellipsis) as complex coordinated clauses as done in Kameyama (1998) , thus handling subject ellipsis as a discourse pronoun; our algorithm does not insist on this view however.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 126, | |
| "end": 141, | |
| "text": "Kameyama (1998)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Corpus analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The following correlation between pronoun use and distance was found in our corpus: 97% of the pronouns have an antecedent in the same or the previous utterance.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Corpus analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Discourse status. The information status of a discourse entity in an utterance is either given or new. We use these terms with an identical meaning as ground and focus in Vallduvi (1993) . Discourse status, as introduced by Prince (1992), is a similar but different notion: A discourse entity is discourse-old, if it has been mentioned before in the same discourse; it is discourse-new otherwise. All cases of givenness by indirect means like part-whole, set-member relationships, other bridging relations, inferences (Prince's inferrables, anchored and situationally evoked entities) are judged as discourse-new, thus taking into account only the identity antecedent relationship. We share Prince's opinion that pronominalization has to do with discourse status, whereas definiteness has to do with information status.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 171, | |
| "end": 186, | |
| "text": "Vallduvi (1993)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Corpus analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "66% of all short-distance discourse pronouns in the muse corpus refer to an antecedent which is in itself discourse-old.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Corpus analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The third strong correlation is the relation between pronoun use and the grammatical function of the antecedent. 63% of discourse pronouns have a subject as antecedent. The following table shows the overall distribution of antecedent properties for short-distance discourse pronouns and (shown in brackets) for short-distance definite descriptions.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Subjecthood.", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "old new subject 38% (22%) 25% (12%) not subj 28% (18%) 9% (48%)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Subjecthood.", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Based on these corpus study results, we define a new notion of the local focus -the set of referents which are available for pronominalization. The local focus is updated at each utterance boundary, and is defined as the set of referents of the previous utterance which are: (a) discourse-old, or (b) realized as subject. This set can theoretically contain more than one referent, but in most cases, (a) and (b) are one and the same singleton set, which could be seen as the well-known Cb. Thus standard centering appears as a special case of our approach. This account means that newly introduced referents are not immediately pronominalized in the following utterance, unless they have been introduced as subject -an observation made by Brennan (1998) and now confirmed with respect to our data also.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 739, | |
| "end": 753, | |
| "text": "Brennan (1998)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Algorithm", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The proposed definition of the local focus generalizes the focusing mechanisms assumed in centering and introduces the discourse status of the antecedent as one main criterion behind the pronominalization decision. It is interesting to note that McCoy and Strube (1999) also make use of the discourse status of the antecedent without mentioning it explicitly. For a certain subset of intrasentential anaphoric relations in ambiguous contexts they propose pronominalization in case the antecedent would be the preferred one in Strube (1998)'s pronoun resolution algorithm. Because the set of antecedents is ranked there with respect to information status, this is identical with our proposal. Why they do not use the discourse status as a general criterion is not clear. We believe that the discourse status of the antecedent as pronominalization trigger is a general rule in discourse semantics.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 246, | |
| "end": 269, | |
| "text": "McCoy and Strube (1999)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Algorithm", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The central role of discourse status and subjecthood are in our opinion not accidental. The two notions reflect two typical strategies to introduce a new referent into the discourse. We will assume here the unmarked information structure of an utterance: given -new. The subject usually is part of (or identical to) the given. Let X be a certain referent which is newly introduced in utterance (u1), and referred to again in the following utterance (u2). In the first strategy, X is introduced in the new nonsubject part of (u1). And in this pattern the second mention of X in (u2) is not pronominalized. In example (1) given in Figure 1 the local focus for utterance (u2) has one element: {he}; \"the main rooms\" is new in (u1) and not pronominalized in (u2). The other typical strategy is where the referent is first mentioned in a subject position. This is typical for a segment onset, or the beginning of a text. Often this referent is given by other means -for example, by reference to a picture, or to a related object. In example (2) of Figure 1 , the second mention is pronominalized. Thus the subject position seems to function as creating a givenness allocation for the denoted referent. These two strategies roughly correspond with two types of thematic development identified in Dane\u0161 (1974) .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 1290, | |
| "end": 1302, | |
| "text": "Dane\u0161 (1974)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 629, | |
| "end": 637, | |
| "text": "Figure 1", | |
| "ref_id": "FIGREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1043, | |
| "end": 1051, | |
| "text": "Figure 1", | |
| "ref_id": "FIGREF1" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Algorithm", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Parallelism. Our definition of the local focus licenses 91% (62 of 68 pronouns) of all short-distance discourse pronouns in our corpus. Looking at the pronouns violating the proposed account, we made an interesting observation: most of them occur in contexts of strong parallelism. We call an anphoric NP np 2 parallel if it has an antecedent np 1 in the previous utterance, and np 1 and np 2 have the same grammatical function. For work with real text, it is useful to include cases where np 2 is a possessive or genitive NP inside a certain np 3 , and np 1 and np 3 have the same grammatical function. Depending on the concrete function, we distinguish subject and object parallelism. Strong parallelism is a simultaneous subject and object parallelism in two consecutive clauses. Strong parallelism always overrides the local focus criterion, and allows for pronominalization of referents with discourse-new antecedents in nonsubject position.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Algorithm", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The local focus definition refined by the parallelism effect is an explanation for question P2 and a small portion of P1 , but most cases of problem P1 remain open. Two reasons for not pronominalizing a referent which is a member of the local focus need to be considered: ", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Algorithm", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "EQUATION", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 0, | |
| "end": 8, | |
| "text": "EQUATION", | |
| "ref_id": "EQREF", | |
| "raw_str": "P1.1 ambiguous context,", | |
| "eq_num": "(" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "section": "Algorithm", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "we argue that ambiguity with respect to gender/number influences the pronominalization decision: members of the local focus which have a competing referent (referent with similar gender/number) in some span to the left of the referent to be generated should not be realized as pronouns so as to minimize the inference load for the reader. However, not to allow pronominalization in all ambiguous context situations does not appear to be consistent with real texts (McCoy and Strube, 1999) . In the muse corpus one third of all focal NPs occur in ambiguous contexts, one half of them is pronominalized, the other half is not. Two questions require a precise answer to use the ambiguity constraint in a generation algorithm:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 464, | |
| "end": 488, | |
| "text": "(McCoy and Strube, 1999)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ambiguity. Along with McCoy and Strube", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 Which set of previously mentioned referents or text span is taken into account for referents to be in competition? \u2022 Which referents are pronominalized despite an ambiguous context?", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ambiguity. Along with McCoy and Strube", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The answer is surprisingly simple: Referents of the previous utterance which are not in the local focus do not disturb pronominalization, even if they have the same gender/number. Only if the actual referent has a competitor in the local focus, is pronominalization blocked. This is illustrated in Figure 1 with examples (3) and (4), respectively. In (3) the microscope is discourseold and the only member in the local focus for (u2); the competing referents ocular micrometer and technology are new and hence not focal for utterance (u2). In (4), the local focus for (u2) is {the table, the marquetry, the house}.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 298, | |
| "end": 306, | |
| "text": "Figure 1", | |
| "ref_id": "FIGREF1" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ambiguity. Along with McCoy and Strube", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A slight improvement of the performance of the algorithm can be achieved by regarding the role of \"heavy\" nonrestrictive modification. Including the referents of discourse-new NPs which are amplified by appositions or nonrestrictive relative clauses into the set of possible competitors improves accuracy slightly.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ambiguity. Along with McCoy and Strube", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Discourse structure signalling. It is now known that definite descriptions (or more general overspecified NPs) signal the start of a new discourse segment (Passonneau, 1996; Vonk et al., 1992) . For most generation systems generate from an RST-like text plan, discourse segments are naturally given. The only question from the generation perspective is the degree of detail provided by the segmentation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 155, | |
| "end": 173, | |
| "text": "(Passonneau, 1996;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 174, | |
| "end": 192, | |
| "text": "Vonk et al., 1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ambiguity. Along with McCoy and Strube", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Our algorithm gnome-np assumes that the discourse segmentation has already been specified. At each segment boundary, the local focus is set to nil, thereby disallowing pronominalization for all discourse entities of the first utterance in the segment onset.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ambiguity. Along with McCoy and Strube", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It is also well known that planned discourse with repeated phrases at the beginning of a clause are seen as 'bad style'. Identical repeated pronouns at the clause onset are rarely found in expository and descriptive texts (2.6% of all discourse pronouns in our corpus). Human writers usually avoid possibly dull lack of variation by employing various aggregation techniques.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ambiguity. Along with McCoy and Strube", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Let X be a referent to be generated in utterance (u2), and f ocus be the set of referents of the previous utterance (u1) which are (a) discourse-old, or (b) realized as subject.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ambiguity. Along with McCoy and Strube", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(1) X has an antecedent beyond a segment boundary def description (2) X has an antecedent two or more utterances distant def description (3) X has an antecedent in (u1), and (3a) X occurs in strong parallel context pronoun (3b) X / \u2208 f ocus def description (3c) X \u2208 f ocus and", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ambiguity. Along with McCoy and Strube", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 X has a competing referent Y \u2208 f ocus def description \u2022 X has a competing referent Y in (u1) amplified with apposition or nonrestrictive relative clause def description", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ambiguity. Along with McCoy and Strube", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 else pronoun The repetition blocking rule overrides the pronominalization suggested in (3c) to a definite description. Figure 2 : The algorithm Thus pronoun repetition blocking seems to be an aggregation trigger rather than a motivation for definite description generation. We hypothesize that the apparent frequency of definite descriptions in planned discourse has much to do with repetition blocking, but is used with respect to a very fine-grained, probably genrespecific discourse structure. One candidate for this is the temporal structure in newspaper articles proposed by McCoy and Strube.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 121, | |
| "end": 129, | |
| "text": "Figure 2", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ambiguity. Along with McCoy and Strube", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "When evaluating our algorithm, we only used the paragraph segmentation given in the corpus. But for generation systems, which usually are not equipped with developed aggregation modules, we have also made available a pronoun repetition blocking rule: If a discourse entity in the local focus has a nonpossessive pronominal antecedent, pronominalization will be blocked at this time. Figure 2 summarizes the algorithm.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 383, | |
| "end": 391, | |
| "text": "Figure 2", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ambiguity. Along with McCoy and Strube", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The presented pronominalization algorithm has been implemented in the reusable module gnome-np. gnome-np consists of a component for discourse model management and one for NP form determination. It is designed to be plugged in after text planning, conceptualization, and sentence planning, but before tactical generation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ambiguity. Along with McCoy and Strube", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A comparison of the performance of our algorithm with the annotated muse corpus and Mc-Coy and Strube's newspaper corpus is given in Table 1 . The evaluation has been carried out for the algorithm gnome-np without employing the repetition blocking rule and without a finegrained discourse segmentation. Layout segments were used for the muse corpus. Because the number of annotated segment onsets for the newspaper corpus is not easy to re-establish, we give here two figures for this corpus: first without any segment onset signalling (lower bound), and second with the assumption that 15 shortdistance definite descriptions mark segment onsets. The figures include locally-bound pronouns to yield better comparability with McCoy and Strube. The figures in the columns 'gnomenp' represent those NPs whose form is predicted correctly by the new algorithm when evaluated against the annotated corpora.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 133, | |
| "end": 140, | |
| "text": "Table 1", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Evaluation", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The figures in Table 1 show that our algorithm performs very well in both domains, even without using a finer discourse segmentation such as temporal structure. Moreover, it performs better on McCoy and Strube's corpus than their own algorithm, which successfully predicted the choice between realization by pronoun and realization by definite description in 84.7% of all cases. The disagreements occur first for long distance pronouns (in our terminology: pronouns more than one clause distant) and, second, in longer referent chains with well established focus. For the latter, whereas gnome-np would always suggest a pronoun, the real discourse swaps between pronoun and definite description. Thus a finer segmentation or a repetition blocking rule could still improve the result further. ", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 15, | |
| "end": 22, | |
| "text": "Table 1", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Evaluation", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This paper has presented a new algorithm for the pronominalization of third person discourse entities. The algorithm, first, is implemented as a reusable module for generation systems and, second, provides a theoretical account of pronominalization in general.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusions", | |
| "sec_num": "6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The proposed algorithm provides a solution for question P2 above by widening the definition of local focus to be a set with possibly more than one referent. The algorithm also offers a new solution for problem P1.1 above, ambiguous pronoun generation. Discourse structuring ( P1.2 ) is assumed as given. A sufficiently finegrained discourse structuring has been explored, for example, by McCoy and Strube for their domain of newspaper articles, but remains an issue for future research for other domains. We have shown that next to proximity, the discourse status of the antecedent is a main criterion for triggering pronominalization.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusions", | |
| "sec_num": "6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The suggested algorithm generalizes known focusing accounts. Gundel et al. (1993) 's cognitive status of being \"in focus\" is now approximated by the set of all discourse-old entities and the subject of the previous utterance. The new focus determination is also a generalization of centering's Cb. The focus so defined serves two functions simultaneously: to trigger pronominalization, and to provide the set of competitors for pronoun generation in ambiguous contexts. Although our training corpus is too small to justify general claims, the evaluation with respect to the newspaper genre provides evidence that this finding is valid for planned discourse in general, independent of the concrete genre.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 61, | |
| "end": 81, | |
| "text": "Gundel et al. (1993)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusions", | |
| "sec_num": "6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We use the terms \"discourse entity\" and \"referent\" synonymously in this paper.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In particular, Dale adopts the result of the action denoted by the previous clause of a recipe as the center.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This deviates from Kameyama, who analyzes reported speech as separate utterance.5 Complement and relative clauses consisting of more than one finite clause create their own internal level of focusing.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "Centering as a psychological resource for achieving joint reference in spontaneous discourse", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Susan", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Brennan", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1998, | |
| "venue": "Noam Chomsky. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Foris", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "227--250", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Susan Brennan. 1998. Centering as a psychological re- source for achieving joint reference in spontaneous discourse. In Marilyn A. Walker, Aravind K. Joshi, and Ellen F. Prince, editors, Centering Theory in Dis- course, pages 227 -250. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Noam Chomsky. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Foris, Dordrecht.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "Generating referring expressions", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Robert", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Dale", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Robert Dale. 1990. Generating referring expressions. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "Functional sentence perspective and the organisation of the text", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Franti\u0161ek", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Dane\u0161", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1974, | |
| "venue": "Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "106--128", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Franti\u0161ek Dane\u0161. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organisation of the text. In Franti\u0161ek Dane\u0161, editor, Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, pages 106-128. Academia, Prague.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Barbara", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "J" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Grosz", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Aravind", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "K" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Joshi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Scott", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Weinstein", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1995, | |
| "venue": "Computational Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "21", | |
| "issue": "2", | |
| "pages": "203--164", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Barbara J. Grosz, Aravind K. Joshi, and Scott Wein- stein. 1995. Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Lin- guistics, 21(2):203 -164.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jeanette", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "K" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Gundel", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Nancy", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hedberg", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ron", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Zacharski", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1993, | |
| "venue": "Language", | |
| "volume": "69", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "274--307", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jeanette K. Gundel, Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring ex- pressions in discourse. Language, 69:274 -307.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "Intrasentential centering: A case study", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Megumi", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kameyama", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1998, | |
| "venue": "Centering Theory in Discourse", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "89--114", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Megumi Kameyama. 1998. Intrasentential centering: A case study. In Marilyn A. Walker, Aravind K. Joshi, and Ellen F. Prince, editors, Centering Theory in Dis- course, pages 89 -114. Clarendon Press, Oxford.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "Generating anaphoric expressions: Pronoun or definite description?", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Kathleen", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mccoy", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Michael", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Strube", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1999, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of ACL '99 Workshop: Reference and discourse structure", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "63--71", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kathleen McCoy and Michael Strube. 1999. Generating anaphoric expressions: Pronoun or definite descrip- tion? In Proceedings of ACL '99 Workshop: Refer- ence and discourse structure, pages 63 -71.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "Conversation in the museum: experiments in dynamic hypermedia with the intelligent labelling explorer", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "J", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Oberlander", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "O'donnell", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "A", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Knott", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "C", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mellish", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1998, | |
| "venue": "New Review of Multimedia and Hypermedia", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "11--32", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "J. Oberlander, M. O'Donnell, A. Knott, and C. Mellish. 1998. Conversation in the museum: experiments in dynamic hypermedia with the intelligent labelling ex- plorer. New Review of Multimedia and Hypermedia, pages 11 -32.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "Using centering to relax gricean constraints on discourse anaphoric noun phrases", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Rebecca", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Passonneau", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1996, | |
| "venue": "Language and Speech", | |
| "volume": "39", | |
| "issue": "2", | |
| "pages": "229--264", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Rebecca Passonneau. 1996. Using centering to re- lax gricean constraints on discourse anaphoric noun phrases. Language and Speech, 39(2):229 -264.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness and information status", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "F", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ellen", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Prince", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "Discourse desciption: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. John Benjamins", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Ellen F. Prince. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, defi- niteness and information status. In W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson, editors, Discourse desciption: Di- verse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF10": { | |
| "ref_id": "b10", | |
| "title": "Towards a computationally theory of definite anaphora comprehension in English disourse", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Candace", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "L" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Sidner", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1979, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Candace L. Sidner. 1979. Towards a computationally theory of definite anaphora comprehension in English disourse. PhD thesis.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF11": { | |
| "ref_id": "b11", | |
| "title": "Functional centering -grounding referential coherence in information structure", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Michael", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Strube", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Udo", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hahn", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1999, | |
| "venue": "Computational Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "25", | |
| "issue": "3", | |
| "pages": "309--344", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Michael Strube and Udo Hahn. 1999. Functional cen- tering -grounding referential coherence in informa- tion structure. Computational Linguistics, 25(3):309 -344.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF12": { | |
| "ref_id": "b12", | |
| "title": "Never look back: An alternative to centering", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Michael", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Strube", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1998, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of Coling-ACL '98", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "1251--1257", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Michael Strube. 1998. Never look back: An alternative to centering. In Proceedings of Coling-ACL '98, pages 1251 -1257.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF13": { | |
| "ref_id": "b13", | |
| "title": "Extending focussing frameworks to process complex sentences and to correct the written English of proficient signers of American Sign Language", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Linda", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "Z" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Suri", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1993, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Linda Z. Suri. 1993. Extending focussing frameworks to process complex sentences and to correct the written English of proficient signers of American Sign Lan- guage. PhD thesis.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF14": { | |
| "ref_id": "b14", | |
| "title": "Information packaging -a survey", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Enrico", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Vallduvi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1993, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Enrico Vallduvi. 1993. Information packaging -a survey. Technical report, HCRC research paper RP-44.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF15": { | |
| "ref_id": "b15", | |
| "title": "The use of referential expressions in structuring discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "W", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Vonk", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "G", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hustinx", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "W", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Simons", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "7", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "301--333", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "W. Vonk, G. Hustinx, and W. Simons. 1992. The use of referential expressions in structuring discourse. Lan- guage and Cognitive Processes, 7(3/4):301 -333.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "Beyond centering. The questions which remain open with all three approaches -standard centering, semantic centering and functional centering -are: P1 Why are in real texts a large number of Cb's not pronominalized? P2 Why are non-Cb referents pronominalized? or expressed independently of centering:", | |
| "uris": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF1": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "Corpus examples P1.2 discourse structure signalling.", | |
| "uris": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF0": { | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>(u1) This table's marquetry of ivory and horn, painted blue underneath , would have followed the</td></tr><tr><td>house's blue-and-white color scheme, imitating blue-and-white Chinese porcelain, a fashionable and</td></tr><tr><td>highly prized material.</td></tr><tr><td>(u2) Blue-and-white ceramic tiles decorated the house, ...</td></tr></table>", | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "text": "1) (u1) Shortly after inheriting the building in 1752, he commissioned the architect Pierre Contant d'Ivry to renovate the main rooms. (u2) The engravings for these rooms , showing the wall lights in place, were reproduced in Diderot's Encyclopaedie, one of the principal works of the Age of Enlightenment. (2) (u1) Scottish born, Canadian based jeweller, Alison Bailey-Smith , constructs elaborate and ceremonial jewellery from industrial wire. (u2) Her materials are often gathered from sources such as abandoned television sets ... (3) (u1) With attachments such as an ocular micrometer, the microscope incorporates the latest scientific technology of the mid-1700s. (u2) The design of its curving gilt bronze stand was the height of the Rococo style ... (4) (u0) the table probably came from the Trianon de Porcelaine , a small house built for the King's mistress, Madame de Montespan, on the grounds of the Palace of Versailles.", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF1": { | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>agreement</td></tr><tr><td>pronouns</td><td>112</td><td>101</td><td>90.2%</td><td>302</td><td>267</td><td>88.4%</td></tr><tr><td>def descriptions</td><td>101</td><td>86</td><td>85.1%</td><td>225</td><td colspan=\"2\">187 202 83.1% 89.7%</td></tr><tr><td>total</td><td>213</td><td>187</td><td>87.8%</td><td>527</td><td colspan=\"2\">454 469 86.1% 89.0%</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Table 1: Performance comparison</td><td/></tr></table>", | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "text": "muse gnome-np agreement newspaper gnome-np", | |
| "num": null | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |