| { | |
| "paper_id": "E85-1014", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T11:30:21.707870Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "", | |
| "authors": [], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "We single out a class of prototypes i.e., a class of constructions forcing the obligatory coreference or obligatory noncoreference. An essential feature of prototypes is their undistinctiveness. In this sense they are the most natural and efficient mearis of communication in discourse. The non-application of prototype should be well motivated. This leads to the rule of restricted choice stating that whenever it is possible the application of a prototype should be preferred. The rule of the restricted choice suggests the general outline of interpreting ambiguous sentences, strictly speaking, the method of ordering admissible interpretations: those which can be equivalently expressed by means of a prototype are less probable. In other words, the rule of the restricted choice can be regarded as some kind of mechanism ordering the hypotheses for computer/on.", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "E85-1014", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "We single out a class of prototypes i.e., a class of constructions forcing the obligatory coreference or obligatory noncoreference. An essential feature of prototypes is their undistinctiveness. In this sense they are the most natural and efficient mearis of communication in discourse. The non-application of prototype should be well motivated. This leads to the rule of restricted choice stating that whenever it is possible the application of a prototype should be preferred. The rule of the restricted choice suggests the general outline of interpreting ambiguous sentences, strictly speaking, the method of ordering admissible interpretations: those which can be equivalently expressed by means of a prototype are less probable. In other words, the rule of the restricted choice can be regarded as some kind of mechanism ordering the hypotheses for computer/on.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "The crucial problem in discourse analysis is the appropriate transposition of all expressions occurring in it, into reality (see, for instance, the framework provided by Kemp in (Kamp, 1981) ). Even preliminary analysis shows that one real object can be identified by various surface constructions. This forces the necessity of dividing surface expressions into classes denoting identical individuals.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 178, | |
| "end": 190, | |
| "text": "(Kamp, 1981)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The above problem can formally be stated as follows. To each discourse D we assign some reality which can be understood as a set ID of individuals (semantic discourse domain) together with a set of relations defined on ID. The semantic discourse domain can be interpreted twofold:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "1.o as a set of real objects i.e., objects existing in actual world;", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "2 \u00b0 as a set of mental objects i.e., objects existing in language user's mind.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Although the first interpretation is more natural, it leads to some ontological problems, concerning the distinction of fictitious and non-fictitious entities. Since there is no such distinction from linguistic perspective the second interpretation seems better motivated.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\"/he next step is to define syntactic discourse domain, denoted by S_, i.e., a set", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "L)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "of discourse expressions referring to individuals (set of individuals). The mapping assigning individuals to syntactic expressions will be ca/led the reference function and denoted by R. F'orma/ly, R : S D 2 ID.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(DI) John and Peter admire winter. They are often skiing together.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Example", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "SDI\" -{\"John\", \"Peter\", \"winter\", \"they '''~ ID 1 -~John, Peter, winter~ (\"John\") -{John} R (\"Peter\") -{Peterl R (\"they\") ,, {John, Peter]\"", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Example", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We say that discourse expressions x and y a.re coreferencial, what we denote by xCy, if and only if they refer to the same set of individuals.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "R (\"winter\") -{winter}", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Formally,", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "R (\"winter\") -{winter}", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "for each x,y ~ S u xCy iff R(x)= R(y)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "R (\"winter\") -{winter}", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It is readily verified that C is an equivalence relation. Obviously each equivalence class of C contains coreferentia/ expressions. The set of equivalence classes of C will be ca/led the reference sta~te of discourse and denoted by RSD.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "R (\"winter\") -{winter}", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "John took a knife.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Example (D2)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "( RSD 2 ) \" \"~ knife '~-. John 5~ ~\"a (D3)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Example (D2)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "John took a knife. He hurt himself.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Example (D2)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(RSD3) ~\"JOhn:', \"he\", \"himself'.~ knife\"}.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Example (D2)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We can observe here that adding new utterance to the discour.~;e changes its reference state. In this sense RSD is a dynamic notion Let us note also that the problem of anaphora solution can be regarded as defining the relation C for the whole discourse.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Example (D2)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Both the speaker, while constructin~ a discourse, and the hearer, while eunalysing it, try to achieve the identity of RSD at each step of the discourse. We argue in this paper that to accomplish this effect, the speaker has at his disposal (at each moment) a more restricted set of linguistic constructions than it seems intuitively. Let us notice that expressions belonging to one equivalence class have various syntactic shapes at different steps of discourse. It ca/'* be shown that the syntactic form of expressions at particular moments is not accidential, i.e., elements of indicated equivalence class are not interchangeable. We very seldom deal with such a situation in practice. Almost a/ways we can assign to an utterance a syntactic level information stating obligatory-coreference or obliqatory noncoreference of some expressions.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Example (D2)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The surface constructions carrying this kind of information with respect to pronouns and zero pronouns (in the case of elided subject) will be called prototypes. (1.) Piotr obudzit si~1 ~)3.. podszec\u00a3~ do okna, ~2 ot~vorzy~ je i ~)3 wyskoczy{.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Example (D2)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Peter woke up, ~I came to the window, \u20222 opened it and ~)3 jumped out.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Example (D2)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Peter, #I, ~2, ~)3 are coreferentiaL Another interpretation is unadm,ssible, in (I) we deal with obligatory coreference of expressions (denoted by a ---b).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Expressions:", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2) ~I~2 podszeci% do okna,", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Expressions:", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "~skoczy~ ~)1. Woke up, q)2 came to the window, q)3 opened it and #4 jumped out.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4~4", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "in (2), similarly as in (a) (co-ordinate clauses) and in (3), (4) (subordinate clauses) the only acceptable interpretation is explicitely showed.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4~4", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(3) Z~im Ca,~s~ea~2 zgasi~ ~wiat~o.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4~4", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Before 911 left, 912 turned the light off. The above examples pose the question of how the class of prototypes should be singled out. This problem can be solved by specifying a collection of rules concerning the obligatory coreference and obligatory noncoreference.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4~4", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The exact format of these rules is beyond the scope of this paper. For inflexional languages they depend on the type of considered sentence, the sentence--level functions of considered phrases and their syntactic shape. As a simple example of such a rule let us consider the basic criterion of excluding coreference:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4~4", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "If the object is expressed by means of a reflexive pronoum, then it is coreferential with the subject; in other cases the referential identily of the subject and object is excluded. This criterion can be applied both for deterrninig coreferents of objects -blocking the subject, and in tesf/n~ the possible antecedents of the subject -blocking the objects. This is exactly the case we have in (5).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4~4", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A conclusive criterion of being a prototype results from analysing a given sentence it% isolation. If it is possible to assert or to exclude the referential identity of some expressions of the sentence, indepedently of its context then the sentence can be regarded as an instance of prototype. An essential feature of prototypes is that they are completely indistinctive and in this sense they are the most proper tool for expressing a certain relationship in the utterance. This strong relationship makes it possible to eliminate some interpretations, which in other cases should be regarded as probable too.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "RULE OF' RESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "If we agree that achieving unambiguity of discourse is the major goal both for the speaker and the hearer, then the non--application of prototype, as the most natural and efficient mea/qs of communication should be well motivated. When such a special reason is lacking, the speaker should apply a a prototype. Under this assumption the set of linguistic tools available to the speaker is restricted.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "RULE OF' RESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The notion of prototype can be natural/y applied on the syntactic level of discourse anadysis to limit the number of hypotheses for further consideration. 13ut it can also be useful on the hi~her levels to interpret ambiguous discourses. Strictly speakin~ the properties of prototype suggest the general outline of interpreting ambiguous sentences, more precisely a method of orderin~ possible interpretations with respect to their plausibility.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "RULE OF' RESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "From the set of possible interpretations of a sentence, those that can be equivalently expressed by means of prototype, should be regarded as less plausible. The justification of this choice is clear: if the speaker wanted to point out such an interpretation, he would naturally achieve it by applying a prototype.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "RULE OF' RESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In view of the obove we can formulate the rule of restricted choice. It states that whenever it is possible the application of a prototype should be preferred.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "RULE OF' RESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It is irrportant to notice that the rule of restricted choice can be viewed from the perspective both of the speaker contructing the discourse and the hearer modelling it. The speaker should apply prototypes whenever it is possible. The hearer should take this fact into consideration.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "RULE OF' RESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Let us try to interpret the concrete sentences with the help of the rule of restricted choice. Before ~ll left, John turned the light off.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "RULE OF' RESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(~ denotes the reference to the context).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "RULE OF' RESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "But the first interpretation can be expressed by means of prototypes.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "RULE OF' RESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(Pl) Zanim ~I ~Aryszed{, @2 zgasit ~wiat~o.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "RULE OF' RESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Before ~1 left, ~2 turned the Light off. (P2) Jan zanim wyszedt, ~1 zgasit gwiatto.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "RULE OF' RESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "John before left, ~1 turned the light off.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "RULE OF' RESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "According to the rule of restricted choice the first interpretation should be regarded as less probable (note that it can be expressed by prototype). Hence the second interpretation should be chosen.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "RULE OF' RESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Another example is more complicated.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "9S", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Zanim o__.nn wyszed~, ~I zapy~ak ~eo, czy #2 p6jdzie do kina.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(11)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Before he leftmasc , @I, had asked him, whether ~2 would have gone to the cinema.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(11)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the embedded clause 03. zapy%a~ gO there acts the rule of obligatory noncoreference excluding the referentia/ identily of subject and object in this sentence:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(11)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Zanim on wyszed~, @~zapytakj~o, czy ~2 p6jdzie do kina.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(11)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "According to our definition the above sentence is an instance of a prototype.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(11)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Excluding the coreference of pointed expressions decreases the numer of possible interpretations, but does not clear up all referential relationships in this ambiguous sentence. Although there are no further syntactic premises to resolve this ambiguity we can specify the less probable interpretation by appying the rule of restricted choice. If the speaker wanted to express the following sense:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(11)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(12) Zanim X wyszeck%, X zapy%a.% go, czy @1. p6jdzie do kineu .", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(11)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "he should have used the following (structural) prototype:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(11)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(13) Z~im \u00a2~1 ~apyt~ go, czy ~2 p6jdzie do kina.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(11)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(In such a sequence of clauses in the sentence the rule of obligatory coreference demandes that \u00a2 and @1. shou/d be identified).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(11)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It follows therefore that the interpretation:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(11)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(3.4) Zanim on wyszedku.~l zap vta~ go, czy ~2 p6jdzie do kina.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(11)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "is the less probable and should be computed as the last one.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(11)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Consider the following example: according to the rule of restricted choice the first interpretaf/on should be preferred.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "NONMONOTONICITY OF THE RULE 05' lqESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The rule of resfx'icted choice is based on the assumpt/on that whenever it is possible people use unambiguous constructions. Although usually va/id this assumption cannot be regarded as genera@ truth. This meeuns that the rule of restricted choice enables one to jump to plausible but not ironclad conclusions. \"l~pically, such conclusions can be invalidated when new information is available. In our example the preferred intezq0retation might he overturned when we extend our discourse as follows:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "NONMONOTONICITY OF THE RULE 05' lqESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(1.9) I<iedy ~I podszed~ do Piotra, by~ on zdener-vvowany. That was the result of an earlier quarrel with Peter.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "NONMONOTONICITY OF THE RULE 05' lqESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The neoessity of changing the preferred interpretation follcws from the fact that new information is available. The property of drawing plausible but defeasible inferences characterizes non-monotonic reasoning. Various forms of this kind of reasoning are now being developed (see (~AI-84)).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "NONMONOTONICITY OF THE RULE 05' lqESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It is now widely recognized that discourse understanding regulres nonmonotonic mechanisms in many aspects. The rule of restricted choice is an example of such a nonmonotonic tool C ONCLUSIONS", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "NONMONOTONICITY OF THE RULE 05' lqESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(1.) While constructing discourse the speaker wants the hearer to understand him correctly. Even if he uses ambiguous constructions he intends to cemrr, unicate the unique interpretations, and not to create in heater's mind a set of a/l possible hypotheses. It follows that constructhag NLU systems, which ~enerate all admissible interpretations, contradicts common sense reasonln~. So the essential problem is to determine methods o/ choosing the most appropriate interpretation. If this plausible interpretation fails, it should be revised.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "NONMONOTONICITY OF THE RULE 05' lqESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2) Employing the rule of restricted choice assumes the existence of some mechanism which determines whether a given construction can be regarded as a prototype. 'l~bis can be achieved by specifyins a set of rules quali~j'ing the obUgatory coreference and noncoreference of referrins expressions. A partied set of such rules for the l::ollsh language has been presented in (Dunin-K~plicz, 1983 ).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 373, | |
| "end": 393, | |
| "text": "(Dunin-K~plicz, 1983", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "NONMONOTONICITY OF THE RULE 05' lqESTRICTED CHOICE", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "GEMEN'P I would llke to thank Dr Witold Lukaszewicz for helping me to clarify ideas presented in this paper.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ACKNOWLED", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": " Kamp H. (1981) A theory of truth and semantic representation, in: 5\"ormal methods in the study of language, IV[athematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, 277-322.AAAI (1.984) Non-monotonic reasoning workshop, New York 0", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 1, | |
| "end": 15, | |
| "text": "Kamp H. (1981)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "annex", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "Towards better understanding of anaphora", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "B", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Dunin-K@plicz", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1983, | |
| "venue": "Prec. of the ist ACL Conference, Piss", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "139--144", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Dunin-K@plicz B. (1983) Towards better understanding of anaphora, in: Prec. of the ist ACL Conference, Piss, 139-144.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "text": "Zanim ~)I wyszed~, .Tan zgasi~ ~wiat{o. Before ~I leftmasc, .Tohn tumedmasc the light off.There are two interpretations here: Zanim ~I w3zszed2, Jan zgasi{ ~wiat~o.", | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure" | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF0": { | |
| "text": "An essential feature of this partial characteristic is defining the coreference relation quite apart from Peal individuals, i.e. without specyfing the reference function. \"Po fix some ideas let us consider an utterance containing the noun phrases NPl, ..., NP . If there is no information NP and the mcLximal one, i.e. adm,Ring in one nclass all number-gender agreeable phrases.", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "html": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">P R O'I'O'I'YP E S</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">Recent discourse theories provide several</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">levels of larlguage analysis: morphological,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">syntactic, semantic and sometimes pragmatic.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Each of these levels determines a</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">characteristic set of notions and mechanisms.</td></tr><tr><td>It is assumed</td><td colspan=\"4\">here that the analysis of 82\",</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">utterance on each levels of language should</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">yield complete information obtainable by tools</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">available on this level</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">Classical anaphor resolvers act on</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">semantic level on discourse analysis. ~Are take</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">the position that for inflexion al languages the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">coreference relation can be partially described</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">on the syntactic level regarding n coreference, all we can do is to assert that</td></tr><tr><td>the coreference</td><td>relation</td><td colspan=\"2\">is included</td><td>between</td></tr><tr><td>the \"minimal\"</td><td>relation,</td><td>i.e., relation</td><td/><td>identified</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">by the unit equivalence</td><td>classes</td><td colspan=\"2\">NP~</td><td>, ...,</td></tr></table>" | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF2": { | |
| "text": "~].~_Z_gasi~ ~wiat~o, zanim....w~2 wyszedL 911 Turned the L~ght off, before ~2 left. Usiad~ do stc~u, a .Tan naleuI: mu wina. Sat at the table, und John poured him out some wine.", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "html": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>(7) \u00a2</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">The next examples concern the obligatory</td></tr><tr><td>noncoreference a+-b)</td><td>of expressions</td><td>(denoted by</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">(5) Ona lubi ja~</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">She likes her.</td><td/></tr><tr><td>\u00a2 Asked</td><td colspan=\"2\">Peter, whether John would</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">go to the theatre.</td><td/></tr></table>" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |