| { | |
| "paper_id": "C82-1016", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:12:54.297277Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Christopher", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "U" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Habel", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": {}, | |
| "email": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "C82-1016", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "ODe of the essential problems in natural language production and understanding is the problem of processing referential relations.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this paper I describe a model for representing and processing referential relations: referential nets with attributes.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Both processes (analyzing and generating referential expressions) are controlled by attributes.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "There are two types of attributes, on one hand, the ones to the internal substitutes of the objects spoken about, on the other hand, the ones to the descriptions of these objects.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It is a well-known fact that (computational) models of human language production and understanding have to take the knowledge of the speaker and the listener into consideration. Thus, one of the main problems is to describe and represent this knowledge and to distinguish relevant subtypes. A suitable classification which I described in detail in Habel [7] distinguishes three subtypes: -knowledge of facts or assertions, e.g. of states of the world, events, etc., the \"factual knowledge', -knowledge of rules, e.g. of rule-like relations between objects or states of the world (or classes of such entities), the \"inferential knowledge', -knowledge of objects, e.g. of persons in the world, the \"referential knowledge'. (In this paper I give emphasis to the third type: referential knowledge represented by \"Referential Nets'). The common core for representing all these types of knowledge is the \"semantic representation language\" SRL. From the formal point of view SRL is a (propositional) symbolic language as described by Kalish/Montague [8] . Well-formed SRL-expressions are generated by normal (recursive) formation rules. I distinguish -as usual -two kinds of meaningful expressions in SRL, terms and formulas.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 354, | |
| "end": 357, | |
| "text": "[7]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1043, | |
| "end": 1046, | |
| "text": "[8]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "I. BASIC NOTIONS: KNOWLEDGE AND SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Thus we define: TER -the set of well-formed terms FOR -the set of well-formed formulas SRL = <FOR, TER> For the purpose of knowledge representation SRL contains some specific operators, e.g.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "I. BASIC NOTIONS: KNOWLEDGE AND SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "on In understanding and representing the sentence (i) I will meet Barbara in the university tomorrow. the act of referring to \"I\", \"Barbara\", and \"the university\" is to be processed, i.e. the (obJect-)orientation to them is the interesting problem from the referential point of view.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "I. BASIC NOTIONS: KNOWLEDGE AND SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The SRL representation of (i) is (2) time (meeting (l,Barbara, ETA(x) :university(x) ),tomorrow) The arguments of \"time\" and \"meeting\" present the most relevant types of referential operators:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "I. BASIC NOTIONS: KNOWLEDGE AND SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\"I\" and \"tomorrow\" are deictic substitutes (personal or temporal), Barbara is a proper name and the expression \"ETA(x): university(x)\" is built up from the nominal concept \"'university\" (representing a class of institutions for education and science) and the variable-binding description operator \"ETa'. \"ETA(x): p(x)\" has the meaning \"'an element from the class {x/p(x)>\".", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "I. BASIC NOTIONS: KNOWLEDGE AND SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "ETA is an indefinite analogy to the IOTA-operator of formal logics (Similar operators are introduced by Hilbert as EPSILON-or ETA-operator.). The semantics of the description operators is given by a set of inference and evaluation rules. E.g. there is an inference rule which relates the ETAexpressions to expressions with existential quantification:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "I. BASIC NOTIONS: KNOWLEDGE AND SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "I. BASIC NOTIONS: KNOWLEDGE AND SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "3) p(ETA(x) : q(x) ) ~ EX x : p(x) & q(x)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "I. BASIC NOTIONS: KNOWLEDGE AND SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "1\" Some evaluation rules will be described in the following chapters, e.g. \"creation of a referential object'. (Both types of rules are described in detail in Habel [5] , [6] .)", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 165, | |
| "end": 168, | |
| "text": "[5]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 171, | |
| "end": 174, | |
| "text": "[6]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "I. BASIC NOTIONS: KNOWLEDGE AND SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Thus, ETA is the formal representative of one of the meanings of indefinite articles. Further descriptions of the objects mentioned in (i) or in the SRL expression (2) can be generated by (focussing) transformations similar to the solution of algebraic equations:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "I. BASIC NOTIONS: KNOWLEDGE AND SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The university mentioned above is also the one described by (4) ETA(x) :time ( meeting(l,Barbara, university(x)),tomorrow ) 2~ or the natural language equivalent \"a (the) university where Barbara and I will meet tomorrow\". (The uniqueness of the ETA-description depends on the sltuatlonal/textual context.) Before we pass on to a detailed description of \"referential nets', I will make a short remark on discourse and communication. As mentioned above human language production and understanding is based on the speaker-listener's knowledge of the language, the world and particularly the participants in the communication. way of memory discrimination), that a system is able to choose \"'a best description\" of the objects which are the theme of the discourse (see below). The referential net (5) is simplified in two crucial points, first, that the descriptions of r.l operate on MSRL ~pressions and not on RefOs, too. But this can be treated similarly to the focussing process of (4), which can be formallzed now: d.41-\"tomorrow\" Secondly, ReP has tO explicate the referential links of deictlc substitutes, e.g. \"r\" refers to the speaker, etc.. \" \" stands for the specific ReP which evaluates deictlc expressions, i.e. which ins~antiates deictic ~xpressions with RefOs, e.g. \"I'\" -SPEAKER(l) (cp. fn 6.). By the same methods new RefOs for \"we\" can be created, e.g. in the processing of \"There we will discuss some papers.\" (We = Barbara + I)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "I. BASIC NOTIONS: KNOWLEDGE AND SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "I will now extend the basic two-place relation between RefOs and descriptions to the more adequate concept of a many-place referential relation. The additional places will be called \"attributes'.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ATTRIBUTES IN REFERENTIAL NETS", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the first step of extention I give emphasis to \"attributes of descriptions'. They represent properties of the description relation, i.e. of pairs <d, r> E RefN. Thus, the extention to an attributed RefN (ARefN) uses a set ATT of attributes and changes (6) to (9) ARefN c ATT x D-TER x REFO . For <att, d, r > C ARefN I also say \"'att is an attribute of d with regard to r\". Some possible attributes are (Note the fact that this list is not complete and not fully adequate): -syntactic and semantic features of the description, e.g. gender, number, sexus, etc.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 255, | |
| "end": 258, | |
| "text": "(6)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ATTRIBUTES IN REFERENTIAL NETS", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "-numerical values, e.g. \"grades of relevance of a description\", \"degrees of \"being the TOPIC / being in the FOCUS\" \", \"recency\". 5* A simple strategy for de-/coding is:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ATTRIBUTES IN REFERENTIAL NETS", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "'~se/try the description or RefO with highest degrees !'\" -names of persons, e.g. participants of earlier discourses. By this attribute it is possible to find a description relevant to speaker and listener (Cp. Clark / Marshall's [I] co-presence triples). -situations in which the description / RefO Is relevant or was introduced (cp. Webber's [12] \"evoke\u00b0-predicate).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ATTRIBUTES IN REFERENTIAL NETS", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "-links to the factual knowledge; thus we can answer such questions as \"What will Barbara do tomorrow?\"", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ATTRIBUTES IN REFERENTIAL NETS", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Before I explain the concept of \"attributes to descriptions\" by some examples, I will new sketch some aspects of function and statue of the attributes. Firstly, in both processes, analysis as well as generation of referential expressions, it is necessary to take into consideration a set of alternatives. All of them are possible candidates to be the referent (in analyzing) or to be a good description (in producing) respectively. The goal of the ReP is to choose exactly one from the alternatives, namely \"the best'. It is obvious that trying to choose the best can fail. Then the decision has to be revised afterwards.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ATTRIBUTES IN REFERENTIAL NETS", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(But this is a total different problem.) In other words, the function of the attributes is to point to the most appropriate (or being more careful: to that which seems to be the most appropriate) of the alternatives. Secondly, I think that, on one hand, knowing and processing attributes is part of human natural language processing, and therefore, these attributes have to be part of the discourse processing model. On the other hand, knowledge of attributes is different (cp. the list of possible attributes, above)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ATTRIBUTES IN REFERENTIAL NETS", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "from the factual or referential knowledge. Thus, I propose a strict separation between descriptions and their attributes. This strict distinction contrasts to Webber's [12] solution: her use of the \"evoke'-predieate mixes the concepts of descriptions and their attributes in a cognitive inadequate manner. Now I shall continue with examples of the use of attributes \u2022 Let us suppose a situation in which a questioner Q asks:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ATTRIBUTES IN REFERENTIAL NETS", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(I0) Where can I study Computational Linguistics? and the answerer A knows that the university which is (internally) represented by r.l is a good university to study CL. The selection of the best description of r.l depends on Q and A (and the situational context). I assume the following attributes to the descriptions of r.l (from (5), (8)):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ATTRIBUTES IN REFERENTIAL NETS", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(ii) descr, general relevant to: time of relevance: -d.ll \"unspecified\" -d.12 SPEAKER(I), LISTENER(1), Barbara NEIGHBOR(r.4) 6* -d.13 SPEAKER(1), LISTENER(I), KNOW(Barbara) always (II) describes a situation, in which the name / location of the university in question is not represented, e.g. since the information about the possibility to study CLwas given by an earlier utterance of Barbara \"We have some courses in CL\" but A (whose RefN is represented by (ii)) does not know where Barbara teaches. The best description can be chosen by comparing the attributes of Q with those of the descriptions of r.l. If Q knows Barbara, .i.e. <KNOW(Barbara)> ATT (Q) 7*, then the best description will be:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ATTRIBUTES IN REFERENTIAL NETS", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(12) d.13 -\"The university where Barbara teaches (as a professor).\" Ranking d.13 higher / better than d.12 depends on the dimension \"time of relevance'.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ATTRIBUTES IN REFERENTIAL NETS", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Furthermore, if Q knows more about r.l it is possible that Q will react with, (13) \"Well, at Amherst.'\" and now A is able to extend hls/her RefN with a further description of r.l (14) r.l -d.14 -Amherst --\"general high relevance\" \"always\" (This attribute depends on the fact that proper names have high relevance in general.) Anagously we can use attributes in the decoding process. Look at the following pair of sentences (similar to (I)).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ATTRIBUTES IN REFERENTIAL NETS", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(15) a. I will meet the head of the linguistic department tomorrow. b. She is a specialist for Montague grammar. To solve this referential problem ( and not to be puzzled by the pronoun \"she\" ) we need further background knowledge, e.g. \"Barbara is the head of the linguistic department.\". With this prior knowledge and the additional (theoretical) concept of \"attributes to RefOs\" 8* as described in (16) \"female\" \"local TOPIC'-r.3--d.31-Barbara d.32-IOTA(x) : head-of(x ,linguist. dept.) the referential problem of (15) is easy to solve. A system (human listener or machine) has to match the pattern corresponding to the pronoun \"she\" ~Ich is induced by the context (15.5) against the descriptions, their attributes and the attributes of the RefO's. The crucial attribute is here \"female\" for both \"she\" and \"r.3\". This type of congruence between gender of the pronoun and sexus of the RefO, i.e.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ATTRIBUTES IN REFERENTIAL NETS", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "between attributes of descriptions and those of the RefOs, is very important in German. In spite of the syntaetlc ineongruence (neutr. vs. fem.) it is possible (in colloquial German) to say: (17) Ich traf gestern ein Maedchen. Sle hatte rote Haare. I met yesterday a glrl . She had red hair .neutr. ~ fem.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 191, | |
| "end": 195, | |
| "text": "(17)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "annex", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "By means of an extended referential net (w~th attributes both of descriptions and RefOs) it is possible to describe how to store and process referential entities (and expressions) in a cognitive adequate and powerful way. Following the principles and concepts described above a system for anaphora resolution has been implemented (Guenther [3] ), which will be a component of the next version of the BACON-system (cp. fn 3).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 340, | |
| "end": 343, | |
| "text": "[3]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "CONCLUDING REMARKS", | |
| "sec_num": "4." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "* Parts of the first draft of this paper were prepared during my work with the project \"Automatic Construction of Semantic Nets\" at the Technical University of Berlin. My current research on \"referential nets\" has been supported by the DFG (German Research Foundation).Author's address: Blelbtreustr. 36 a, D-1000 Berlin 15; Fed. Rep. Germany. I* From a formal point of view \"inference rules\" are transformation rules on SRL.Their cognitive and philosphlcal status, which is analogous to Miller's [I0] \"conceptual entailment', is described in }{abe], [7] . Here, i,e. in (3) , and in the focussing rule (7) \"p\" stands for all types of concepts which are represented by open formulas.2* The focussing transformation mentioned above is based on the concept of referential nets and therefore its description will be postponed to the following chapter.In (4) a special \"bar-convention\" is used, which I do not want to explain in detail here.In case a term is necessary as argument, e.g. of \"meeting\", the \"bar\" will change the open formula \"p(x)'\" to an \"open term\" 3* Cp. }{abel [7] and Gust / Hahel / Rollinger [4] . This model is the theoretical basis of the natural language QAS BACON (Berlin Automatic COnstruction of semantic Nets), developed at the Technical University of Berlin, which was supported by a grant from the Federal Government since 1978.It should not be confused with the BACON-system of Carnegie-Mellon University (we chose the same name at the same time).4* The concept of referential nets is similar to discourse referents (Karttunen [9] ), reference diaries (Clark/Marshall [1]) and discourse models (Webber [12]). The most relevant difference between referential nets and the other approaches and the main advantage of referential nets consist in the further attributes described below. Note the fact that the acrony=s ReP, RefN, etc. can stand for the respective concept, e.g. \"referential net', as well as for a specific instantlation, e.g. the RefN (5) or (8) . Furthermore ReP concerns the system of referential procedures as well as the individual procedures. In all these cases the meaning of the acronym is obvious through context.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 551, | |
| "end": 554, | |
| "text": "[7]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 571, | |
| "end": 574, | |
| "text": "(3)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1076, | |
| "end": 1079, | |
| "text": "[7]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1109, | |
| "end": 1112, | |
| "text": "[4]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1554, | |
| "end": 1557, | |
| "text": "[9]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1974, | |
| "end": 1977, | |
| "text": "(5)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1981, | |
| "end": 1984, | |
| "text": "(8)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "FOOTNOTES:", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "/ FOCUS are used in an informal and intuitive way. (For a detailed investigation of these concepts cp, Grosz.[2]) Note that the attribute \"time of relevance\" i:~ (ii) is part of TOPIC / FOCUS. 6* SPEAKER(l) stands for \"the speaker of utterance (I)', i.e. this attribute gives more information than Webber's [12] \"evoke(l)'.\"KNOW(_)\" represents \"people knowing _'. \"NEIGHBOR(--)\" stands for \"points / periods of time near to the point of time being the argument'.I do not want to explain the underlying \"logic of time\" here. 7* I will not explain the concept of \"attributes of a person / participant\" here.I use it in a straightforward and intuitive manner. Cambridge Univ. Press : Cambridge.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "5* In this paper TOPIC", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "Understanding Spoken Language \u2022", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "B", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Grosz", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1978, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Grosz, B. (1978) : \"Discourse knowledge\" in: D. Walker (ed.): Understanding Spoken Language \u2022 North-Holland: New York.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "Verfahren der Referenzanalyse fuer das natuerlichsprachliche System BACON . Diplomarbeit (Thesis) TU", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "S", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Guenther", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1981, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Guenther, S. (1981) : Verfahren der Referenzanalyse fuer das natuerlich- sprachliche System BACON . Diplomarbeit (Thesis) TU Berlin , FB-Informatik.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "Language-World Systems : A communication model", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "H", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Gust", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ch", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Habel", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "C.-R", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Rollinger", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1981, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the workshop", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Gust, H. / Habel, Ch. / Rollinger, C.-R. (1982) : \"Language-World Systems : A communication model\" in : Proceedings of the workshop \"Models of dialogue : theory and application\" Informatlcs Laboratory of Linkoeping University. Jan.1981. ed. by U. Hein / S. Haegglund. to appear at Hanser/MoMillan : Munich / London.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "Inferenzen in natuerlich-sprachlichen Systemen \u2022 Einhorn", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ch", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mabel", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1980, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Mabel, Ch. (1980) : \"Referenzen Inferenzen\". in : Rollinger, C.-R./Schnelder, H.-J. (Hrsg.) : Inferenzen in natuerlich-sprachlichen Systemen \u2022 Einhorn: Berlin.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Zur Geschichte yon ReferenzobJekten -Tell I: Diskursmodelle\" . ms. , Berlln", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ch", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Habel", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1981, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Habel, Ch. (1981) : \"Zur Geschichte yon ReferenzobJekten -Tell I: Diskursmodelle\" . ms. , Berlln.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "Inferences -the base ot ~emantics?", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ch", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Habel", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "De Gruyter", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1981, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the K~nstanz Conference on \"Maaning~ Use, and Interpretation of Language", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Habel, Ch. (1982) : \"Inferences -the base ot ~emantics?\" to appear in the Proceedings of the K~nstanz Conference on \"Maaning~ Use, and Interpretation of Language\" (Sept. 1981), de Gruyter: Berlin.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "Logic -Techniques of formal reasoning. Harcourtt Brace &World", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "D", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kallsh", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "R", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Montague", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1964, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kallsh, D. / Montague, R. (1964) : Logic -Techniques of formal reasoning. Harcourtt Brace &World : New York \u2022", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "Discourse referents\" in", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "L", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Karttunen", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1976, | |
| "venue": "Notes from the linguistic underground. Syntax and Semantics 7", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Karttunen, L. (1976) : \"'Discourse referents\" in. J.D. McCawley (ed.) : Notes from the linguistic underground. Syntax and Semantics 7.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "Linguistic theory and psychological reality", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "G", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Miller", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1978, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Miller, G. (1978) : \"Semantic relatlons among words\" , in : Halle, M. / Bresnan~ J. / Miller, G. (eds.) : Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, Mass..", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "Reminding and Memory Organization: An Introduction to MOPs \u2022 Yale Univ", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "R", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Schank~", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1979, | |
| "venue": "Dept.Comp.Science. Research Report", | |
| "volume": "170", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Schank~ R.: (1979) : Reminding and Memory Organization: An Introduction to MOPs \u2022 Yale Univ. Dept.Comp.Science. Research Report 170.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF10": { | |
| "ref_id": "b10", | |
| "title": "A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "B", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Webber~", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1979, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Webber~ B.(1979): A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora. New York.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "text": "by RefOs or open terms. Thus we can derive (8) from (5): (8) r.l~-----d. II-ETA(x) : university(x) d.12-ETA(x): time (meeting(r.2, r.3, unlverslty(x)", | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF1": { | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"8\">For the description of the referential net I use SRL and in addition a \"finite but</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">extendable\" set, REFO, of \"referential objects'.</td><td>The referential</td><td>objects are</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">seen as a kind of basic</td><td colspan=\"3\">term of SRL.</td><td>The set REFO</td><td>is analogous to the set of</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">variables. It is necessary to distinguish</td><td>two types of terms,</td><td>one type</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">which consists of the mental representatives, i.e.</td><td>the RefOs, and the other which</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">contains those terms which function as descriptions.</td><td>Naming this set by D-TER we</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">have TER -REFO U D-TER.</td><td colspan=\"3\">Thus, referential nets, RefNs, can he defined as</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">(6) RefN c D-TER x REFO \u2022</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">For <d-ter, r.i> 6 RefN I also use \"d-ter deser r.i'\" , \"d-ter is a description</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">of r.i\". In this way a description-relation is defined on the basis of the RefN.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">By means of referential nets it is possible,</td><td>e.g. to arrive at one object (i.e.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">RefO) via different aspects, i.e. different</td><td>descriptions, of this object.</td><td>It is</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">only by such aspects</td><td colspan=\"4\">(cp. Schank's [II]</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Thus,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">I assume</td><td colspan=\"4\">a discourse</td><td colspan=\"2\">model 3* which is based Dn tripartite knowledge</td><td>(namely</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">factual, inferential,</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">and referential),</td><td>each of these types</td><td>is represented</td><td>by</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">structured sets of SRL-expressions.</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>\\</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">2. THE REFERENTIAL NET</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Processing, e.g.</td><td colspan=\"4\">storing or retrieving, referential relations</td><td>is executed</td><td>by a</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">particular</td><td colspan=\"3\">component</td><td colspan=\"2\">of the discourse</td><td>processing</td><td>system,</td><td>the</td><td>\"referential</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">procedures\" (After detecting a new indefinite</td><td>description</td><td>(as ETA(x)</td><td>: unlversity(x))</td><td>ReP</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">creates</td><td colspan=\"5\">a new \"referential</td><td>object'\" (RefO).</td><td>During</td><td>the discours6 (after</td><td>the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">identification process)</td><td colspan=\"2\">further descriptions of the same RefO will be linked to</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">this RefO.</td><td colspan=\"5\">(The relation among the descriptions of the same RefO is the wellknown</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">relation</td><td colspan=\"5\">of eoreference,)</td><td>~us</td><td>we have, for example,</td><td>the following set of</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">descriptions of the RefO mentioned above :</td></tr><tr><td>(5)</td><td colspan=\"2\">r.l~.~</td><td/><td colspan=\"4\">d. II--ETA(x) : university(x)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"4\">d.12--ETA(x): time (meeting(l'Barbara'university(x))'t\u00b0m\u00b0rr\u00b0w)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"4\">d. I3--IOTA(x) : professor-at(Barbara,university(x))</td></tr></table>", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "ReP). The RePs work on a memory structure which is adequate for the representation of knowledge about objects, the \"referential net\" (RefN) 4*. A RefN consists of entities of three different types:-referential objects (RefOs), which are the internal substitutes for the objects spoken about, -descriptions, i.e. terms of SRL which describe the RefOs, -attributes, i.e. properties of the description-relation between a RefO and one of its descriptions or properties of the RefO (see chap. 3). The phrase \"finite but extendable\" is used to emphasize the dynamic aspect of the set REFO and the RefN. REFO consists of exactly those RefOs that are actually needed.", | |
| "html": null | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |