| { | |
| "paper_id": "C96-1048", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T12:50:20.937766Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "Dealing with Cross-Sentential Anaphora Resolution in ALEP", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Thierry", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Declerck", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Stuttgart", | |
| "location": { | |
| "addrLine": "Azenbergstr. 12", | |
| "postCode": "D-70174", | |
| "settlement": "Stuttgart" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "[email protected]" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "The experiments described here have been done in connection with the LS-GRAM project, which is concerned with the development of large scale grammars and thus foreseen the coverage of \"real life texts\". But in order to deal with such texts, it is also necessary to process linguistic units which are larger than sentences. The resolution of crosssentential anaphora is one of the problems we have to deal with, when we switch towards the analysis of such larger linguistic units. In order to propose an analysis of the crosssentential anaphora, one has to be able to refer back to an antecedent, which is to be found in a preceding sentence. This will be done on the basis of an information-passing framework. Using also the simple unification technique a resolution of the pronoun can then be tried out: parts of the content information of the pronoun are going to be compared (unified) with specific parts of the content information of the (possible) antecedent.", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "C96-1048", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "The experiments described here have been done in connection with the LS-GRAM project, which is concerned with the development of large scale grammars and thus foreseen the coverage of \"real life texts\". But in order to deal with such texts, it is also necessary to process linguistic units which are larger than sentences. The resolution of crosssentential anaphora is one of the problems we have to deal with, when we switch towards the analysis of such larger linguistic units. In order to propose an analysis of the crosssentential anaphora, one has to be able to refer back to an antecedent, which is to be found in a preceding sentence. This will be done on the basis of an information-passing framework. Using also the simple unification technique a resolution of the pronoun can then be tried out: parts of the content information of the pronoun are going to be compared (unified) with specific parts of the content information of the (possible) antecedent.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "The experiments described below have been done in connection with the LS-GRAM project 1, which is concerned with the development of large scale grammars. The specifications of the project foreseen the coverage of \"real life texts\", which have also been processed by a corpus analysis. The resuits of the corpus analysis allowed us to determine a priority list of the linguistic phenonema to be described. And in order to deal with \"real fife texts\", it is also necessary to consider the processing of linguistic units, which are larger than sentences. And as it is well known, the interpretation of sentences embedded in larger units is often distinct from the one of sentences, which are standing on their own.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "1The LS-GRAM (Large-Scale GRAMmars for EC languages) project is funded by the CEC under the number LRE 61029. The examples and the grammar descriptions I am using are taken from the German grammar, see (Rieder & al. IAI) .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 202, | |
| "end": 220, | |
| "text": "(Rieder & al. IAI)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The resolution of cross-sentential anaphora is one of the problems we have to deal with, when we switch towards the analysis (or synthesis) of such larger linguistic units. In order to give a correct interpretation of the cross-sentential anaphora, one has to be able to refer back to an antecedent, which is to be found in a preceding sentence, and I am using the term information-passing exactly in this sense: some information about a possible antecedent must be stored in order to be passed on to following sentences and to allow the anaphoric link, if some of the subsequent sentences are containing an anaphoric pronoun. Using the simple unification technique, as for the processing of other linguistic phenomena within ALEP, a resolution of the pronoun can then be tried out: parts of the content information of the pronoun are going to be compared (unified) with specific parts of the content information of the (possible) antecedent.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 856, | |
| "end": 865, | |
| "text": "(unified)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the next section I will first show how larger linguistic units can be processed within the ALEP system. In a second section I will very briefly present a semantic framework, which introduces the idea of \"information-passing\" in order to cope with crosssentential anaphora: the Dynamic Predicate Logic (DPL). In the last section I will show how a very preliminary and tentative implementation of this framework can be modelled within the ALEP forrealism. Even if this first implementation is somehow primitive, this will permit us to formulate some remarks about the allowed degree of modularity of grammar descriptions within ALEP and also about the way in which such descriptions can be extended.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "These are two important aspects if one considers the task of developing large scale grammars.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The Text Handling System and the ~Paragraph unit ~ Everyone who writes a grammar within the ALEP platform has some 'contact' with its Text Handhng (TIt) system, which converts each input into a SGML tagged expression. The TH component is the first processing step provided for by the ALEP system. In this tool, the sentence is defined as tile default linguistic unit. If larger units are to be processed, this has to be explicitely defined by the user. lit our case, the linguistic unit is defined to be 'P' (for 'Paragraph') 2. The output of the TH being for example:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "<p> <s> <W>aohn</W> <W>sleops</W> <PT>\u2022 </PT> </s> </P>", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "one can refer to the tag 'P' in order to define this structure being the linguistic unit to be processed.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As usual (and also obligatory) for tile development of grammars within ALEP, a so-called ts_ls_rule (a mapping between text structures and linguistic structures) has to be defined:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "ts_is rule( id: { syn => syn:{ constype => phrasal:{ max => yes, constr => paragraph} } } }, ,p,, [] ).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "where a linguistic description ('ld') defining the 'constr(uction)' type of a 'paragraph' is associ~ ated with the tag 'P', symbolizing the text type 'paragraph'. The distinguishing value here is 'paragraph', which has been added to the type .system as a possible value for the feature 'constr': the ALEP formalism being type based, every feature, with its range of possible values, has to be declared in the declaration component.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The next step involves in the description of gran> mar rules whict, parse tile structure of a paragraph. The phrase-structure rule responsible for the building of the paragraph-structure is simple. The mother node simply allows a binary branching of two sentential daughters. A recnrsion is defined on the right daughter, the value of 'constr' being a disjunction of 'punct_att' (describing a sentence terminated by a fall stop) and 'paragraph' (describing thus the recursion). 'l'he left daughter is considered to be the head (structure-sharing of 'head' features), as one can see in the following (simplified) presentation of the rule: where '<' symbolizes the immediate dominance relation between the mother and the list of daughters.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In principle , these are the steps which are necessary in order to extend the coverage of the grammar to larger linguistic units\u2022 There is naturally some more technical work to be done, but this will be described in the third chapter, where i will go into more details of the architecture of the grammar development. At this stage, we are able to parse a paragraph and to get a syntactical analyse of this structure. Sonic aspects which are specific to text linguistic should be considered. The one I am concentrating on is the cross-sententiM anaphoric relation. This has been postponed to the semantic which is treated within the re.finemenl component of the grammar. But before explaining the motiwLtion of the grammar design on this point and the reasons for postponing the semantic untill tile process of refinement, the semantic framework which has been choosen for the modelling of the cross-seutential anaphora should be presented\u2022", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The Dynamic Predicate Logic (DPL) results from an investigation of a dynamic semantic interpretation of the language of first order predicate logic and is \"intended as a first step toward a compositional, non-representational theory of discourse semantics ''3. This approach is concerned among other things with the cross-sentential anaphora. The dynamic aspect resides in the fact that, for this approach, the meaning of a sentence doesn't lie in its truth conditions, but \"rather in the way it changes the ... information of the interpreter ''a. DPL considers only the information change which concerns %heir potential to 'pass-on' possible antecedents for subsequent anaphors\"5. The Dynamic aI ant refering here to (Groenendijk91). 'J Ibid. p. 43 \"~Ibid. p. 44", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Predicate Logic is based on the syntax of the standard predicate logic, but proposes a new (dynamic) interpretation of the quantifiers and connectives which allows the binding of variables within and outside their scope, depending on the interpretation of the corresponding expressions of the natural language.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Two (strong) assumptions, which are controversial in the discussion on this topic, are underlying the DPL approach: Indefinite NPs are considered to be quantifiea~ional expressions and pronouns to act like variables. Not everyone agrees on those assumptions, as this can be seen in the Discourse Representation Theory or in the work by Irene Helm 6. But those assumptions are here important if one wants to provide an uniform translation of indefinite NPs into existential quantifier (see below). And the desired compositional treatments requires that the information concerning the pronouns is to be found in the sentences uttered so far, i.e. as included within the scope of a logical quantifier or connective.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The particular expressions of the natural language DPL is dealing with are the following:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(1) A man walks in the park. He whistles. -crosssentential anaphora (2) If a farmer owns a donkey, he beats it. ", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "-~x[man(x)Awalk_in_the_park(x)Awhistle(x)] (1) VxVy[[farmer(x) A donkey(y) A own(x, y)] --~ beat(x, y)] (2) & (3) (B) In a compositional way: -~x[man(x)Awalk_in_the_pavk(x)]Awhistle(x)(1) --~x[farmer(x) A 3y[donkey(y) A own(z,y)]] -~ be t( , y) (2) A y[donk y(y) A y)]] e t(x, y)] (3) (C) In the Discourse Representation Theory: -Ix][man(x), walk~n_the_park(x), whistle(x)] (1) [_] [Ix, y] [farmer(x), donkey(y), own(x, y)] --~ y)]] (2) (3)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "What is missing in (A) is the compositional representation of the subparts of the utterances. Another disturbing point is the distinct translation of the 6See (Kamp 1981) and (Heim 1982, p. 122) indefinite NPs into the representational language, once as an existential quantifier (A,1) and once as an universal quantifier (A,2 & A,3). The fact that (2) and (3) translate into the same semantic representation is also reflecting the non-compositionality of the classical predicate logic in this case.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 159, | |
| "end": 170, | |
| "text": "(Kamp 1981)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 175, | |
| "end": 194, | |
| "text": "(Heim 1982, p. 122)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The problems with the compositional representation (B) are concerning the binding of the variables (the pronouns in the natural language). In (B,1) the third occurence of the variable x is free and thus doesn't allow the anaphoric reading. The same remarks are valid for x and y in (B,2) and for y in (B,3) . But the way (S) is representating the utterances allows the uniform translation of indefinite NPs into an existential quantifier.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 301, | |
| "end": 306, | |
| "text": "(B,3)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The problems with the DRT representation are more of methodological nature, since on the treatment of those cases, DPL and DRT are empirically equivalent. In short: Groenendijk and Stokhof are missing the compositional building of the semantic representation and also would prefer to use a more classical representational language, like the one of first order logic. For this, they are 'merging' together the representation (A) and (B), and considering now only the first case (1), the dynamic semantic interpretation is going to be like (B,1):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "~z[man(x) A walk_in_the_park(x)] A whistle(x),", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "but with the existential quantifier having scope over the conjunction of the two sentences, this representation is going to be equivalent to:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "-~x[man(x) A walk_in_the_park(x) A whistle(x)].", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This is possible because the interpretation of a sentence doesn't lie in a set of assignments, but rather in a set of ordered pairs of assignments, where those pairs represent the input-output states of a sentence.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In our example, the first sentence has an output which is as the same time the input of the second one. Since the existential quantifier is interpreted as being able to quantify outside its scope (also in combination with the conjunction and the sequencing of sentences), the information concerning the (possible) antecedent is going to be passed-on to following sentences, which could be subsequently uttered. The fact that the existential quantifier in DPL is interpreted as a quantifier which can bind outside of its syntactic scope allows to say that we provide a compositional treatment of the utterance, the second sentence being interpreted as it comes, without referring to some metalinguistical representation or process. The existential quantifier is qualified as an externally dynamic quantifier.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Not every quantifier (or connective) has the dynamic property of binding outside of its scope; the universal quantifier, for example, can bind within its scope, but not outside of it:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(4) *Every man walks in the park. He whistles is ruled out. The dynamic semantic interpretation of this quantifier blocks the passing of the information: the ouptut of the first sentence is empty (with respect to the information concerning anaphoric binding). The input of the following sentence will therefore contain no information allowing a resolution of the pronoun.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The way DPL is interpretating the distinct quantitiers and connectives is the following one:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 This is too simple and for sonre English examples it seems to be wrong. The authors arc considering and discussing the cases which contradict the assumptions and give some hints in order to integrate those cases. I will not discuss this point here, but just mention, that for the German grammar we should have a look at a detailled analysis of the meaning of such expressions 7. Once this has been done, we can encode this information in the lexicon (as will be seen in the next section). But here we can say that the DPL approach allows us, to a certain degree, to account for the resolution of anaphora without having to leave the field of linguistic descriptions. With the only means of the grammar and the formalism we have, we are able to provide a tirst and simple description of those phenomena. It is still to be investigated how sophisticated such a treatment can be.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DPL as Representation Language for Information-Passing", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As we have seen, the 'paragraph' has been defined as the linguistic unit to be processed by the systeni. To provide a (simple) syntax was so far not a problem. But, as stated in the second section, if ~As for example in (Bethkc 1990) or in (Vater 1979 ).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 220, | |
| "end": 233, | |
| "text": "(Bethkc 1990)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 240, | |
| "end": 251, | |
| "text": "(Vater 1979", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A first Implementation of the Dynamic Interpretation", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "a free pronoun occurs in a sentence, it is possible that this pronoun requires an anaphoric interpretation. To achieve this interpretation, some information about the antecedent is necessary and this information is to be found in a precedent sentence. DPL theory provides us with an elegant framework, describing the semantic of utterances as the way in which information is passed-on between sentences and so controlling the possible binding of pronouns.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A first Implementation of the Dynamic Interpretation", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "I have tried to model the DPL framework within the ALEP platform. This experiment is documented in the following section. In doing this, I followed the overall strategy of the grammar development within ALEP. The syntactic 'paragraph' rule has been described within the analysis component of the grammar. The process of analysis is a process concerned with the building of structure trees induced by the ps-rules. In our grammars, this process is associated with a subpart of the lexicon, which is containing only the information relevant for that kind of process, i.e. the building of a parse tree, which is only dealing with morpho-syntactical information.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Organisation of the Lingware", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "One of the motivation of this organisation of the lexicon (and also of the rules associated with it) lies in tile consideration of efficiency. At least for one of the parser of the system (the bottom-up headout parser), the presence of nmltiple entries for one item and the description of more than one rule for a phenomenon has very negative consequences on the run-time behaviour of the system, backtracking being very expensive. But even if another parser (the record parser, which is not so sensitive to this kind of problems) is used, the use of shallow linguistic descriptions in the analysis component allows one to formulate some generalizations. Lexical and semantic ambiguities are than resolved or introduced at the following level, the refinement component, which corresponds to a process of decorating already existing trees: feature structures are just added to the trees. The refinement process is a special feature of the ALEP formalism. This process consumes very little cpu-time. For this process, specific linguistic subcomponents are described.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Organisation of the Lingware", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "There is a relation between the sublexicons, this relation being one of subsumption. Linguisitic descriptions contained in the distinct sublexicons have all the same structure but the degree of specification is different from one lexicon to another. Thus we don't have a stratificational model and the descriptions stay declarative and monotonic. We are just describing what subparts of information of an entry is going to be accessed by a process. Since this organisation of the lexicon (and the associated rules) is done along the line of the processes provided by ALEP, we call it the vertical organisation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Organisation of the Lingware", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The description of this vertical organisation is done with the help of the 'specifier features' provided by the ALEP system, wich are configurable by the user. It is in such a way possible to determine what subparts of the grammar are going to be accessed by a particular process.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Organisation of the Lingware", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The rule building the paragraph structure introduced before produces just one tree. The possible distinct readings of it are described within the refinement conlponent. Thus the cross-sentential anaphora relation (being essentially a semantic process) is fully described on this level (the morphosyntactical aspects being described in the analysis coniponent of the grannnar).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Lexicon Entries and the Rules for the Resolution of Anaphora", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We will no see how the relevant items are described in the ~'e]inc lexicon. I just consider here the entries of substantives, pronouns and quantificational expressions (determiners). My goal is to provide the informations that are necessary for the modelling of the dynamic treatment of the cross-sentential anaphora. Here the way they arc coded in the Gerlnan gralnlnar:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Lexicon Entries and the Rules for the Resolution of Anaphora", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 I encoded the infornlation about semantic gender and number of the referential expressions and the pronouns (contained in the 'restr(iction)' attribute.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Lexicon Entries and the Rules for the Resolution of Anaphora", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The 'rehname' attribute represents the referential property of the item: this a variable ('PRO') in the case of the pronouns, nlodelting in this way the DPL assumption that pronouns are acting as variables. The entries of quantifiers and determiners are presented here as macros. The relevant information for us is the one concerning the quantificational force of this entries (I don't consider here binary conjunctives) which is lexically determined. In case of 'das' (the), the relevant information has been left unspecified, since where are not considering definite descriptions for the time being. The quantificational force of 'ein' (a, an) has been specified as 'extern_dynamic', the one of 'kein' (no, no one) as 'static' and the one of 'jedes' (every) as 'intern_dynamic', nlodelling the classificiation proposed in the DPL framework.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Lexicon Entries and the Rules for the Resolution of Anaphora", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "During the processing of the paragraph, if a free pronoun occurs in a sentence and if it can refer to an antecedent, the value of the 'quantificationahforce' of the antecedent should be 'extern_dynamic' and the values of the attribute 'restr' of the antecedent and the pronoun must be unifiable. In this case, the value of the 'rehname' of the pronoun is unified with the value of the one of the antecedent, as one can see below, where in this case the values of the 'restr' features are variable-shared. Here a (simplified) rule accounting for resolution in the context of one-argument predicates (the other cases are described by rules disjunction): With this simple technique, we are able to accept \"Ein Mann kommt. Er singt\" and to reject \"Jeder Mann kommt. Er singt .... the value of 'quantifieational._force' of the entry 'jeder' (every) is 'intern_dynamic' and so disallows the unification of the 'restr' wdnes. The same with \"Kein man kommt. Er singt\". The negation is a static semantic phenomenon and the value of its attribute 'quantifieational_forcc' is 'static'. a If there is no pronoun in the second sentence, no unitication is tried out: the values of the corresponding q'cstr' attributes arc not structure-shared. The building of the paragraph structure just goes on. The values of the. attributes 'quantificational_foree' and 'restr' are then put together in a list.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Lexicon Entries and the Rules for the Resolution of Anaphora", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The short experinrent described in this paper is really too primitive and doesn't allow any statement about the possibility of providing a conrplete treatement of the cross-sentential anaphora on the basis of the DPL framework. But one goal of the experiment was also to gain some knowledge about the possible extension of the coverage of the grammar. And heresome conclusions can be drawn.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Modularity and Exteudability", | |
| "sec_num": "4.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "8Linguisitically speaking, this is too simple. In Ger-m~m at least, negated NPs can often bind pronouns. And we should also allow generic readings. Stone experiments have been done with respect to this. But ac-tuMly, I just would like to show how information-passing can be modelled in ALEP.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Modularity and Exteudability", | |
| "sec_num": "4.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "First of all, the modular organisation of the grammar development within ALEP proved itself to be very practical. The 'tools' provided by ALEP (the 'specifier features'), if they are reasonably configurated during grammar development, allow a high degree of modularity and pernlit, without difficulties, to define new grammar components.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Modularity and Exteudability", | |
| "sec_num": "4.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "With the help of the text handling component, it was also no problenr to extend the coverage of the grammar to larger linguisitc units. The description of grammar colnponents for such units is well supported. It still remains the task of providing some preference descriptions for anaphora resolution. This will 1)e done Mong a more detailled linguistic analysis and considering corpus analysis. ALEP provides also for constraint solvers which allow to define such preferences in an elegant (propositional) way.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Modularity and Exteudability", | |
| "sec_num": "4.3" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "LS-GRAM Rule Coding Manual, Deliverable D -WP7 Version 1", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "'['", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Badia", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "A", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bredenkamp", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "T", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Declerck", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "R", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Itentze", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Marimon", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "P", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Schmidt", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "A", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Theofilidis", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1995, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Badia, '['.; Bredenkamp, A.; Declerck, T.; Itentze, R.; Marimon, M.; Schmidt, P.; Theofilidis, A. (1995), LS-GRAM Rule Coding Manual, Deliver- able D -WP7 Version 1, CEC, 1995, Luxcmbourg.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "dc'r die das als Pronomen", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "I", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bethke", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Bethke, I. dc'r die das als Pronomen, 1990.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Dynamic Predicate Logic, in Linguistics and Philo.sophy 14", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "J", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Groenendijk", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "& M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Stokhof", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1991, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "39--100", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "J. Groenendijk & M. Stokhof, Dynamic Predicate Logic, in Linguistics and Philo.sophy 14, p. 39-100, 1991", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "l~th:s of Definite. and ]'adefinite Nou'a Ph.r'ases, dissertation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Irene", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ileim", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "The", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sema", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1982, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Ileim, Irene, The. Sema.'l~th:s of Definite. and ]'a- definite Nou'a Ph.r'ases, dissertation, Uifiversity of Massachussetts, Anrherst, 1982.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Itans", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kamp", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1981, | |
| "venue": "Truth, I',ter'prctation and furor ranlion", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "1--41", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kamp, itans. A Theory of Truth and Semantic Rep- resentation. In 3. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Lan- guage,, Mathematical Center Amsterdam: 277-322, 1981 [reprinted in .1. Groenendijk, T. 3anssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Truth, I',,ter'prctation and furor ranlion, Foris, Dordrecht, 1-41, 1984.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "Das System de'r Artikelforme'o. im g('.gcnwae.r~igen De'~Ltsc", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Hein~", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Vater", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1979, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Vater, Hein~. Das System de'r Artikelforme'o. im g('.gcnwae.r~igen De'~Ltsc.h.. 2. edition, ~lhlebingen, 1979.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "text": "-donkey sentence (3) Every farmer who owns a donkey, beats it.donkey sentence And the problem consists in providing an adequate semantic representation of the anaphoric links. There are several ways of representing the semantic interpretation of each of the utterances and three of them (1 -3) are discussed by Groenendijk & Stokhof: (A) In classical predicate logic:", | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF3": { | |
| "html": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td>argl => lq_cont:.[</td></tr><tr><td/><td>quants => [quantifier:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>q force => ~2 }],</td></tr><tr><td/><td>rd cent => r_npro:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>restr => RESTR2 } } } ]</td></tr><tr><td><[</td><td>7}}}</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">sere => sore:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>content => lq cent:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>argl => lq_cont:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>quants => [quantifier:-[</td></tr><tr><td/><td>q force => ~i } ],</td></tr><tr><td/><td>rd_con% => r npro:-[</td></tr><tr><td/><td>rostr => RESTRI } } } } } ] },</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">id:{ ....</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">som => som:{</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">content => lq cent:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>argl => ( lq cent:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>quants => [quantifier:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>q_force => ~1 => extern dynamic} ],</td></tr><tr><td/><td>rd_cont => r ppro:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>restr => RESTRI } }</td></tr><tr><td/><td>/ quants => [quantifier:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>q_force => Q2} ],</td></tr><tr><td/><td>rd_cont => r_npro:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>restr => RESTR2 } } } } } } } ].</td></tr><tr><td/><td>ld:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>sem => sem:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>content => lq_cont:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>argl => lq_cont :{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>quants => [quantifier :{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>q_force => QI } ],</td></tr><tr><td/><td>rd_cont => r indx:{</td></tr><tr><td/><td>restr => RESTR1 } } },</td></tr></table>", | |
| "text": ":{ ....", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "table" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |