| { | |
| "paper_id": "E93-1025", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T10:54:29.299428Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "A Discourse Copying Algorithm for Ellipsis and Anaphora Resolution", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Andrew", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kehler", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "Harvard University Aiken Computation Laboratory", | |
| "location": { | |
| "addrLine": "33 Oxford Street Cambridge", | |
| "postCode": "02138", | |
| "region": "MA" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "[email protected]" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "We give an analysis of ellipsis resolution in terms of a straightforward discourse copying algorithm that correctly predicts a wide range of phenomena. The treatment does not suffer from problems inherent in identity-of-relations analyses. Furthermore, in contrast to the approach of Dalrymple et al. [1991], the treatment directly encodes the intuitive distinction between full NPs and the referential elements that corefer with them through what we term role linking. The correct predictions for several problematic examples of ellipsis naturally result. Finally, the analysis extends directly to other discourse copying phenomena.", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "E93-1025", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "We give an analysis of ellipsis resolution in terms of a straightforward discourse copying algorithm that correctly predicts a wide range of phenomena. The treatment does not suffer from problems inherent in identity-of-relations analyses. Furthermore, in contrast to the approach of Dalrymple et al. [1991], the treatment directly encodes the intuitive distinction between full NPs and the referential elements that corefer with them through what we term role linking. The correct predictions for several problematic examples of ellipsis naturally result. Finally, the analysis extends directly to other discourse copying phenomena.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "A simple example of verb phrase (VP) ellipsis is given in sentence (1):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(1) John likes his mother, and Bill does too. The stranded auxiliary in the second clause indicates the deletion of a verb phrase, the meaning of which is to be determined from another clause, in this case, the first clause. Following Dalrymple, et al. [1991] , we term the clause that the VP is copied from the source clause, and the clause which contains the elided VP the target clause. As is well established in the literature, referential elements 1 in the source clause VP may give rise to strict/sloppy ambiguities 1 For present purposes, we will use the term referential elements as synonymous with pronouns. In Section 5 we discuss how this class may be extended to include implicit arguments as well. in the target clause; for example in sentence (1) the target clause may receive one of two readings, namely one in which Bill likes John's mother (the strict reading), and one in which Bill likes his own mother (the sloppy reading).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 235, | |
| "end": 259, | |
| "text": "Dalrymple, et al. [1991]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this paper we address the distribution of strict and sloppy readings in VP-ellipsis and other anaphoric phenomena. In Section 2 we discuss problems with past approaches, as well as support our decision to treat ellipsis resolution as a primarily semantic process. In Section 3 we give a representation for events that exhibits what we term role linking between referential elements and their referents, and describe an algorithm for ellipsis resolution that uses this representation. Section 4 demonstrates how use of this representation and algorithm results in the correct analysis of several problematic cases of ellipsis without appeal to additional constraints. In Section 5 we argue that the strict/sloppy distinction is not a property of ellipsis alone, but is instead inherent in what we term the discourse copying process. Several discourse copying phenomena at the event and NP level are shown to be accounted for by our algorithm. We conclude in Section 6.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Much attention has been paid to the ellipsis problem in linguistics (e.g., [Dahl, 1972; Dahl, 1974; Fiengo and May, 1990; Gawron and Peters, 1990; Ha'lk, 1987; Hellan, 1988; Klein, 1987; Lappin, 1992; Sag, 1976; Williams, 1977] ), as well as in natural language processing (e.g., [Dalrymple et al., 1991; Hardt, 1992; Lappin and McCord, 1990; Priist et al., 1991] ). We begin by briefly pointing out several problems with some of these approaches.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 75, | |
| "end": 87, | |
| "text": "[Dahl, 1972;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 88, | |
| "end": 99, | |
| "text": "Dahl, 1974;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 100, | |
| "end": 121, | |
| "text": "Fiengo and May, 1990;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 122, | |
| "end": 146, | |
| "text": "Gawron and Peters, 1990;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 147, | |
| "end": 159, | |
| "text": "Ha'lk, 1987;", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 160, | |
| "end": 173, | |
| "text": "Hellan, 1988;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 174, | |
| "end": 186, | |
| "text": "Klein, 1987;", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 187, | |
| "end": 200, | |
| "text": "Lappin, 1992;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 201, | |
| "end": 211, | |
| "text": "Sag, 1976;", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 212, | |
| "end": 227, | |
| "text": "Williams, 1977]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 280, | |
| "end": 304, | |
| "text": "[Dalrymple et al., 1991;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 305, | |
| "end": 317, | |
| "text": "Hardt, 1992;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 318, | |
| "end": 342, | |
| "text": "Lappin and McCord, 1990;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 343, | |
| "end": 363, | |
| "text": "Priist et al., 1991]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": ".Syntactic accounts of ellipsis (e.g., [Fiengo and May, 1990; Ha'/k, 1987; Hellan, 1988; Lappin, 1992; Lappin and McCord, 1990] ) posit the copying of syntactic structure from the source clause representation to the target clause representation. 2 Such accounts fail to explain certain empirical facts. First, an active voice target clause can obtain its representation from a passive voice source clause (and vice versa), but in these cases there is no surface syntactic VP constituent to copy:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 39, | |
| "end": 61, | |
| "text": "[Fiengo and May, 1990;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 62, | |
| "end": 74, | |
| "text": "Ha'/k, 1987;", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 75, | |
| "end": 88, | |
| "text": "Hellan, 1988;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 89, | |
| "end": 102, | |
| "text": "Lappin, 1992;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 103, | |
| "end": 127, | |
| "text": "Lappin and McCord, 1990]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2) A lot of this material can be presented in a fairly informal fashion, and often I do. (from text of [Chomsky, 1982]) (3) This problem was to have been looked into, but obviously nobody did. (Vincent Della Pietra, in conversation) Second, an elliptical clause can obtain its referent from an event representation evoked into the discourse world by a nominalization:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 104, | |
| "end": 120, | |
| "text": "[Chomsky, 1982])", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(4) Meanwhile, they sense a drop in visitors to the city. Those who do, they say, axe not taking cabs. (Chicago Tribune, courtesy Gregory Ward) Third, an elliptical clause may have multiple antecedents:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(5) Mary wants to go to Spain and Fred wants to go to Peru, but because of limited resources, only one of them can. ( [Webber, 1978] ) Several semantic accounts of ellipsis utilizing logical forms have been proposed. Following Dalrymple et at. [1991] , we distinguish between identity-ofrelations analyses (e.g., [Gawron and Peters, 1990; Klein, 1987; Sag, 1976; Williams, 1977] ) and nonidentity analyses [Dalrymple et al., 1991] . Identityof-relations analyses treat source clauses as having ambiguous derivations, with target clauses receiving one such derivation. For example, the source clause in example (1) would have derivations that (at some level) lead to the following two interpretations:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 118, | |
| "end": 132, | |
| "text": "[Webber, 1978]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 244, | |
| "end": 250, | |
| "text": "[1991]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 313, | |
| "end": 338, | |
| "text": "[Gawron and Peters, 1990;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 339, | |
| "end": 351, | |
| "text": "Klein, 1987;", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 352, | |
| "end": 362, | |
| "text": "Sag, 1976;", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 363, | |
| "end": 378, | |
| "text": "Williams, 1977]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 406, | |
| "end": 430, | |
| "text": "[Dalrymple et al., 1991]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "John has the property P where:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(6) P = likes John's mother (7) P = likes his own mother These two properties lead to the same reading for the source clause. However, under an identity-ofrelations analysis, if the target receives a strict interpretation, then necessarily (6) is the correct interpretation for the source, whereas if the target receives a sloppy reading, then (7) is necessarily the correct interpretation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The following example, from Dalai [1972] , is termed as n case of cascaded ellipsis in Dalrymple, et al. [1991] , and is problematic for identity-of-relations analyses:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 28, | |
| "end": 40, | |
| "text": "Dalai [1972]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 87, | |
| "end": 111, | |
| "text": "Dalrymple, et al. [1991]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "2Fiengo and May [Fiengo and May, 1990 ] actually posit copying of LF representations, but their analysis shares the problems of the syntactic accounts.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 16, | |
| "end": 37, | |
| "text": "[Fiengo and May, 1990", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(8) John realizes that he is a fool, but Billi does not, even though hisi wife does. An acceptable, and perhaps preferred, reading for (8) is:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(9) John realizes that John is a fool, but", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Bill does not realize that Bill is a fool, even though Bill's wife realizes Bill is a fool.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Example (8) contains two cases of ellipsis; the reading in (9) results from the second clause receiving a sloppy interpretation from the first and the third clause receiving a strict interpretation from the second. An identity-of-relations analysis, however, specifically predicts that the reading given in (9) does not exist. Because the second clause will have the sloppy derivation received from the first, the strict derivation that the third clause requires from the second will not be present. Dalrymple, et at. [1991] (henceforth DSP) give an account of ellipsis resolution based on an equational analysis utilizing higher-order unification. Unlike identity-of-relations accounts, no unmotivated ambiguity is predicated to exist for VPs with pronouns, instead the ambiguity exists in the resolution process.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 500, | |
| "end": 524, | |
| "text": "Dalrymple, et at. [1991]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As a result, reading (9) for sentence (8) is correctly predicted to exist.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We step through DSP's analysis of example (1) to acquaint the reader with their system. The representation of the source clause in this example is:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(10) likes(John, mother_of(John))", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The ellipsis is resolved by deriving a property P such that xepresentation (10) results from applying it to John:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(11) P( John) = likes (John, mother_of(John)) This derivation yields two solutions: 3 (12) P = Az.likes(z, mother_of(John)) (13) P = Az.likes (z, mother_of(x)) To generate a reading for the target clause, either one of these representations may he applied to the element in the target clause that is parallel to John, in this case Bill. 4. Applying relation (12) to Bill yields the strict reading in (14); applying relation (13) yields the sloppy reading given in (15):", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 22, | |
| "end": 45, | |
| "text": "(John, mother_of(John))", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 142, | |
| "end": 159, | |
| "text": "(z, mother_of(x))", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(14) P( Bill) = likes(Bill, mother_of(John)) (15) P( Bili) = likes(Bill, mother_of(Bill))", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "While the DSP account is comprehensive, some flaws remain. First, they claim that their analysis covers cases of stripping as well as ellipsis. Consider the case of stripping in example (16): 3Strictly speaking, there are four solutions to equation (11) . DSP employ a notion of primary occurrence to constrain property derivation to only these two solutions. This point is tangential to our purposes; the interested reader should consult Daltymple et at. [1991] .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 249, | |
| "end": 253, | |
| "text": "(11)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 456, | |
| "end": 462, | |
| "text": "[1991]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "4The DSP analysis separates the processes of parallel element determination and ellipsis resolution. Their algorithm models the latter process.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(16) John likes his mother, and Mary's too. This sentence has only the following reading:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(17) John likes John's mother, and John likes Mary's mother.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The representation for the source clause in DSP's system is given by:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(lS) likes(John, mother_of(John))", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "After deriving two possible properties P, either of the two readings given in (19) and 20 However, only reading (19) actually exists for sentence (16), so DSP's system overgenerates in this case. We return to this example in Section 4.3.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 78, | |
| "end": 82, | |
| "text": "(19)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Second, to account for missing reading examples and the 5-reading sentence, DSP postulate an unspecified \"suitable definition of generalized antecedent linking\", and need to impose an additional constraint on property derivation requiring that when an element is abstracted over, so must its generalized antecedent. These examples are discussed in Sections 4.4 and 4.5. Third, their account does not extend cleanly to similar phenomena at the noun phrase level, a topic we return to in Section 5.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Past Approaches", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We seek an analysis of ellipsis that preserves the advantages of the DSP analysis but remedies the problems we have noted. The following sections describe the event representation and the resolution algorithm that embody our analysis.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "An Event Representation and Algorithm", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "To highlight the general mechanism of our approach we will utilize a simple, Davidsonian-style data structure where events are reified as variables [Davidson, 1967] . For example, sentence (21) will be represented by the feature-based event structure in (23); this corresponds to the more standard logical form given in (22)5: The representation of his is a function bearing the role of the entity it refers to in the sentence. In contrast to the DSP approach, the representation for a full NP will appear in an event structure only when it is explicitly mentioned in the discourse, e.g., John", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 148, | |
| "end": 164, | |
| "text": "[Davidson, 1967]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Event Representation", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(21) John", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Event Representation", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "would have appeared twice in (25) only if sentence 24were John likes John's mother.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Event Representation", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "When there are several referential elements in a clause that are coreferential, each has several potential antecedents with which role linking may be established. The following rule governs role linking in this case:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Event Representation", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(26) A referential element is linked to the most immediate coreferential element that c-commands it in the syntax.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Event Representation", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Because we encode the distinction between full NPs and the referential elements that refer to them, we naturally account for the stripping example, as discussed in Section 5.3. The fact that we link referential elements through the role that their referents have in their events, in conjunction with rule (26), allows us to account for the missing readings examples discussed in Section 5.4 and the 5.reading example discussed in Section 5.5 without appeal to any additional constraints on the algorithm. We describe this algorithm in the next section.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Event Representation", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The discourse copying algorithm utilized by ellipsis resolution is summarized as follows:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Resolution Algorithm", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "1. Identify the source clause representation and formulate a parallel structure with unfilled roles and modifiers for the target.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Resolution Algorithm", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "2. Fill roles with entities given in the target clause.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Resolution Algorithm", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "3. Copy remaining empty role fillers from the source:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Resolution Algorithm", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(a) Identify parallel elements, i.e., the objects in the source representation corresponding to the empty roles in the target, s (b) All role fillers may be (i) referred to, where the appropriate function is used to link the role filler to the corresponding object in the source representation. In the case that the role filler is a function with a link to the source event, it may also be (ii) copied, where a new instantiation of the function is created and the source event variable is replaced with its corresponding parallel target event variable.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Resolution Algorithm", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As with the DSP analysis, this discourse copying method does not assume any ambiguity in the source clause. Ambiguities are generated by the choice given in Step 3b; referring will result in a strict reading and copying will result in a sloppy reading.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Resolution Algorithm", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We show how our algorithm accounts for a variety of ellipsis phenomena. Section 4:1 illustrates that a basic case of strict and sloppy ambiguity is correctly analyzed. Section 4.2 shows that the algorithm accounts for the cascaded ellipsis case, thereby retaining the advantages of the DSP approach over identity-of-relations anMyses. The remaining subsections show how our algorithm accounts for the cases cited as problematic for DSP in Section 2. Section 5 will then move beyond VP-ellipsis to discuss how related non-elliptical phenomena are accounted for.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Treatment of Phenomena", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We consider example (1) again, renumbered as (27): The parallel event for the target is constructed (Step 1), and Bill is added as the agent (Step 2):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(29) e2: [ predicate: agent: Bill theme:]", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Step 3b can only refer to the value of the predicate role. 7 Since the theme of the source event contains a referential link to the source event itself, Step eWe follow the DSP analysis in distinguishing the process of determining paxallel elements from the process of performing resolution. For all of the examples considered in this paper, one can assume that parallel elements share the same thematic role in their respective events. The reader is advised to consult Dalrymple et al. [1991] for arguments on why this constraint should be broadened.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 470, | |
| "end": 493, | |
| "text": "Dalrymple et al. [1991]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "7Step 3a of the algorithm as stated requires that a function be used when referring, i.e., technically we should fill the predicate role of e2 with the function predicate(el). To improve readability, when the object 3b allows the theme to either be referred to with a function or copied by creating a new instantiation of the function occupying thetheme and replacing the event variable el with its parallel event variable e2. Referring to the theme role of el yields the strict reading in 30 Note that if the his in sentence (27) refers to the mother of someone in external discourse, say agent(co), then Step 3b must leave this intact since the link is not to the source event. This correctly yields the only available reading for the target clause in this case.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We show how our analysis accounts for the cascaded ellipsis case discussed in Section 2, repeated below:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Cascaded Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(32) John realizes that he is a fool, but Billi does not, even though hisi wife does.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Cascaded Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In particular, we work though the derivation of example (32) that leads to reading (33), the reading that is problematic for identity-of-relations analyses: The clause represented by (34) is the source for the elided second clause. To obtain the desired reading,", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Cascaded Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Step 3b chooses the copy option to yield the sloppy reading. A new function is instantiated from the function in the agent role of e2, and the event variable el is replaced with its parallel event variable ca: being referred to contains no links to any event, we will opt to reproduce the value in the role of the target representation rather than use a function. ", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Cascaded Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We now show how our analysis accounts for the stripping example discussed in Section 2, repeated below:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Stripping", | |
| "sec_num": "4.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(37) John likes his mother, and Mary's too.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Stripping", | |
| "sec_num": "4.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the DSP analysis it is possible to derive the following non-existent reading:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Stripping", | |
| "sec_num": "4.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(38) John likes John's mother, and Mary likes Mary's mother.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Stripping", | |
| "sec_num": "4.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Our algorithm generates only the correct reading for sentence (37). The representation for the source clause in example (37) is: To derive a representation for the target clause, we create a parallel event structure (Step 1) and fill in the parallel element representation for Mary ( Step 2). The remaining empty role fillers are that for the predicate and agent roles. Since neither contains a link to the source event, Step 3b only has the option of referring to it: This yields the correct interpretation for the target clause. Because Mary is parallel to the only element in the source clause that contains a role link in example (37), Step 3b(ii) of the algorithm is never entered. As a result, no ambiguity exists and therefore (40) is the only derivable reading.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 282, | |
| "end": 283, | |
| "text": "(", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Stripping", | |
| "sec_num": "4.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "One might expect that for source VPs which contain N referring elements, 2 N readings would be possible. However, Dahl [1974] noticed that the following example has only three readings, not four: We show that the reading in (42d) is correctly predicted not to exist by applying the algorithm to derive all possible readings for the target clause.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 114, | |
| "end": 125, | |
| "text": "Dahl [1974]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Missing Readings", | |
| "sec_num": "4.4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Step 3b will have two options for each of the role links occupying the agent role of e~ and the poss role of the theme role of e2, resulting in a total of four possibilities. In the first case both objects are referred to, yielding the all-strict reading given in (42a): Reading: Harry believed that Bill loved Bill's wife In this case the function agent(e4) returns the value of agent(e2), namely Bill, which again yields the allstrict reading in (42a). Thus, the non-existent reading given in (42d) is not derivable by the algorithm.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Missing Readings", | |
| "sec_num": "4.4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This behavior is a result of our choosing to link referential elements to their referents via their roles in the event structures. During the derivation of the representation given in (47), we chose the sloppy option for the second referential element. Instead of replacing the element itself with its parallel element in the event structure as other accounts do, we replaced it with a link to its parallel role in its parallel event. This process was \"sloppy\" in th~ the resulting link is to the agent of e4 instead of to the agent of ez; however, the resulting effect is \"strict\" because the agent of e4 is the same as e2 in this case.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Missing Readings", | |
| "sec_num": "4.4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The use of c-command as the linking criterion explains why m~ny speakers get all four expected readings in (48) and (49), which ~re otherwise very similar to (41):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Missing Readings", | |
| "sec_num": "4.4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(48) Bill believed that his wife loved him, and Harry did too.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Missing Readings", | |
| "sec_num": "4.4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(49) Bill believed that his wife loved his brother, and Harry did too. Since neither pronoun c-commands the other in these cases, the event structure for the source clause would have both directly linked to Bill, and the algorithm would derive all four readings for the target clause. Sag [1976] however notes that example (50) only has three readings: (50) Edith said that finding her husband nude had upset her, and Martha did too.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 285, | |
| "end": 295, | |
| "text": "Sag [1976]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Missing Readings", | |
| "sec_num": "4.4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Out of the four possibilities for the target, reading (51) is missing:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Missing Readings", | |
| "sec_num": "4.4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(51) # Martha said that finding Martha's husband nude had upset Edith.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Missing Readings", | |
| "sec_num": "4.4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The algorithm derives only the three correct readings if the first instance of her in sentence (50) is linked to the second. Since neither pronoun ccommands the other, this violates the linking rule. However, as noted by Reinhart [1983] (pp. 179-180) , \"experiencing\" verbs such as upset often pose problems for linguistic analyses utilizing c-command. What is required for the linking rule is a notion of a reflexive context that applies to pronouns of all cases (for which c-command is an imperfect approximation). For instance, the NP her husband in sentence (50) is in a reflexive context, i.e., replacing 'her husband' with an accusative pronoun referring to Edith requires the reflexive form:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 221, | |
| "end": 250, | |
| "text": "Reinhart [1983] (pp. 179-180)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Missing Readings", | |
| "sec_num": "4.4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(52) ... finding herselfi/*heri nude had upset her/.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Missing Readings", | |
| "sec_num": "4.4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Because the her in her husband in sentence (50) is in the reflexive context of the second her, the corresponding role link is required in the event structure. Thus, the algorithm works correctly for example (50); the flaw arises from using c-command in the linking rule to model reflexive contexts. In the future we expect to revise the linking rule by adopting rules superseding c-command for predicting reflexivization. The question of whether our analysis can be considered purely semantic rests on the question of whether reflexivization is syntactically or semantically controlled.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Missing Readings", | |
| "sec_num": "4.4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "5-Reading Example DSP discuss the following example (from Gawron and Peters [1990] ) as a point of departure among previous analyses:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 58, | |
| "end": 82, | |
| "text": "Gawron and Peters [1990]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4.5", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(53) John revised his paper before the teacher did, and Bill did too.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4.5", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "DSP claim that this sentence has five readings; we agree. The DSP analysis as presented derives six readings. To obtain only the correct five readings, they appeal to the constraint on abstracting over generalized antecedents mentioned in Section 2; however, a precise method for linking elements to generalized antecedents is not given. Our algorithm generates only the correct five readings without appeal to any additional constraints or processes. The notably absent reading for the third clause in this case is given in (54):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4.5", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(54) Bill revised John's paper before the teacher revised Bill's paper.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4.5", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We step through the derivation of some of the readings to show that no representation for reading (54) is derived. 9 We first derive the possible readings for the first ellipsis. The representation for the source clause is: We add the temporal modifier, parallel event structure, and role fillers for the representation of the first elided clause: The filler of the theme role in the representation for the source event contains a link to that, so there are two options. First, the theme may be referred to, yielding the strict reading: Reading: The teacher revised the teacher's paper", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4.5", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We now consider the readings for the second ellipsis. Unlike the case of cascaded ellipsis, in this example the second ellipsis has the entire conjoined clause as its source. We first consider the readings derived from the strict reading represented in (5?).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4.5", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "9We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out a flaw with a slightly different manifestation of this account in predicting the correct readings for this example.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4.5", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In each of the following derivations event ea is parallel to event el, and event e4 is parallel to e2. After the event and non-referential role information is copied, there are four options. Referring to both of the roles containing links to a source event results in the all-strict reading: Note that the reading (62) is the same as the strict/strict reading in (59). Thus, the algorithm so far has generated three readings and has not generated the non-existent reading (54). We leave it to the reader to determine that when using representation (58) as the source for the final ellipsis, the following two readings are generated:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4.5", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4.5", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(63) Bill revised John's paper before the teacher revised the teacher's paper (64) Bill revised Bill's paper before the teacher revised the teacher's paper The algorithm therefore derives all and only the correct five readings for example (53) . Recall that the algorithm's ability to avoid the non-existent reading in the missing reading cases in Section 4.4 was due to our choosing to link referential elements to their referents through their roles in the event structures. In that case, the critical point that implicitly eliminated the missing reading occurred during a derivation where the sloppy option was chosen. The ability of the algorithm to avoid generating the missing reading given in sentence (54) is also due to our role linking scheme, but in this case the crucial step was in choosing the strict option in the derivation of the first ellipsis (which resulted in representation (57)). Because the algorithm referred to the theme of el through its role instead of replicating it, the representation for the non-existent reading could not be derived during the resolution of the second ellipsis. In either case, accounts that rely on parallel elements cannot avoid these readings without appeal to additional constraints. Our analysis requires no such constraints; the correct readings naturally result from the mechanism itself.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 239, | |
| "end": 243, | |
| "text": "(53)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "4.5", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The hallmark of the discourse copying process is the need not only to refer to a previously mentioned entity or event, but to create a new instantiation of it. VP-ellipsis is one such process; the meaning of the source clause serves as both the referent and the object from which a new, more general instantiation is created. Here we claim that the strict/sloppy distinction is an inherent property of the discourse copying process, and therefore not of VP-ellipsis resolution alone. Our algorithm is directly applicable to a wide variety of discourse copying phenomena at both the VP and NP levels.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "All of the following reference phenomena require discourse copying, and therefore exhibit strict/sloppy ambiguities:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 Definite NPs and pronouns referring to NPs may also require discourse copying in certain restricted contexts. In these cases, strict/sloppy ambiguities are present:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 Definite NPs:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "John actually remembered his wife's birthday. Most men forget this important date.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 'Lazy' Pronouns: The man who gives his paycheck to his wife is wiser than the man who spends it. ([Karttunen, 1969]) We make a distinction between the processes of determining when discourse copying applies and performing the resolution. We show how the representations of some of these examples are resolved by our algorithm.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 99, | |
| "end": 118, | |
| "text": "([Karttunen, 1969])", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The pronouns it and that can be used to refer to events. Usage such as that in example (65) requires discourse copying since a new instantiation of an existing event needs to be applied to the target representation:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(65) John got shot by his father.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "That happened to Bill too.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "That is, both (66) and 67 Reading: Bill was shot by Bill's father Dalai [1972] gives similar examples involving a form of definite event reference:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 66, | |
| "end": 78, | |
| "text": "Dalai [1972]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(71) John thinks he is smart, and Bill suffers from the same delusion.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(72) John kissed his wife. Bill followed his example. Once the VP in the targets are recognized as event referential, the algorithm readily applies to these cases (with parallel elements being John and BilO, as it does not require any degree of syntactic or logical form parallelism between the referring expression and the referent.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "'One' anaphora also requires a form of discourse copying, although for discourse entities instead of events:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(73) John bought a picture of his son, while Bill snapped one himself. Most speakers find sentence (73) to be ambiguous between strict and sloppy readings, i.e., one could refer to a picture of John's son or of Bill's son. 1\u00b0 By applying our analysis to the discourse copying of objects, these readings naturally result. The source representation for sentence (73) is given in (74): We construct a representation for the information given in the target sentence without the 'one'anaphoric NP:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(75) e2: [predicate: snap agent: Bill theme:]", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Step 3b of the algorithm operates in the same way as it does for ellipsis; the two choices yield the strict reading in (76) and the sloppy reading in (77): As our analysis predicts, no sloppy reading exists if his refers to an intersentential discourse object (e.g., Fred).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The cases involving definite NPs and lazy pronouns can be handled in an analogous fashion to 'one'-anaphora. However, whereas 'one'-anaphora by its nature involves discourse copying, the contexts in which definite NPs and pronouns can copy as well 1\u00b0Obtaining the sloppy reading may be aided by considering a relevant context, such as one where John's and Bill's families are on vacation together. as refer are more limited. Therefore, the challenge in handling these latter cases is in determining when discourse copying is licensed.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As a final note, we point out that the class of what we have termed referential elements can be extended to include implicit arguments as well as pronouns. For instance, consider examples (78) and (79), adapted from Partee [1989] :", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 216, | |
| "end": 229, | |
| "text": "Partee [1989]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(78) John went to a local bar to watch the Superbowl, and Bob did too.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(79) George drove to the nearest hospital, and Fred did too. In sentence (78), local has an implicit argument that is linked to John, likewise for nearest and George in sentence (79). In each case there are strict and sloppy readings for the target clause; e.g., the target in example (78) can mean that Bob went to the bar local to John, or a bar local to himself. As is the case with pronouns, if the implicit argument is instead linked to external discourse (e.g., \"local\" interpreted as being to the speaker instead of to John in sentence (78)), then there is only one reading for the target; no sloppy reading exists.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Nominalizations can also contain implicit arguments that give rise to strict and sloppy readings, as in example (80):(80) The CS500 final exam is tomorrow. John fears failure and his brother does too. Assuming that John fears his own failure, then John's brother may either fear John's failure or his own failure. Our algorithm readily handles these cases with the appropriate role linking of implicit arguments.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Not included in the class of referential elements are empty pronouns within infinitival clauses; these do not give rise to strict readings. For example, in (81) (81) John wants to leave, and Bill does too. there is only a sloppy reading for the target; it cannot be taken to mean that Bill wants John to leave. In our algorithm, the representation for empty pronouns will always have to be copied.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Beyond Ellipsis", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We have given an analysis of ellipsis resolution in terms of a straightforward discourse copying algorithm that correctly predicts a wide range of phenomena. The treatment does not suffer from problems inherent in identity-of-relations analyses. Furthermore, in contrast to the approach of Dalrymple et al. [1991] , the treatment directly encodes the intuitive distinction between full NPs and the referential elements that eorefer with them, thus allowing the correct analysis of the stripping example. Furthermore, we establish this distinction via the role linking scheme we have defined, which also allows the correct predictions in the missing readings and 5-readings cases to come as a natural result. Finally, the analysis extends directly to other discourse copying phenomena. Future work includes extending the analysis to interact with quantificational phenomena.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 290, | |
| "end": 313, | |
| "text": "Dalrymple et al. [1991]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Summary", | |
| "sec_num": "6" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant IRI-9009018, National Science Foundation Grant IRI-9157996, and a matching grant for the latter from the Xerox Corporation. I would like to thank Mary Dalrymple, Barbara Grosz, Gal Kaplan, Shalom Lappin, Karen Lochbanm, Christine Nakatani, Stuart Shieber, and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on earlier drafts.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Acknowledgments", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "Osten Dalai. How to open a sentence: Abstraction in natural language", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Dalai ; Osten", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Dahl", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1972, | |
| "venue": "identity. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "11", | |
| "issue": "12", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Dalai, 1972] Osten Dahl. On so-called \"sloppy\" identity. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Lin- guistics, 11, 1972. University of GSteborg. [Dahl, 1974] Osten Dalai. How to open a sen- tence: Abstraction in natural language. In Log- ical Grammar Reports, No. 12, 1974. University of G/Steborg.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "Ellipsis and higher-order unification", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "[", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Dalrymple", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1991, | |
| "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", | |
| "volume": "14", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "399--452", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "[Dalrymple et al., 1991] Mary Dalrymple, Stuart M. Shieber, and Fernando Pereira. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philos- ophy, 14:399-452, 1991.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "The logical form of action sentences", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Davidson ; Donald", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Davidson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1967, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Davidson, 1967] Donald Davidson. The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher, editor, The Logic of Decision and Action. University of Pitts- burgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1967.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Anaphora and ellipsis, ms", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Robert", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Fiengo", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Robert", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "May", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "[Fiengo and May, 1990] Robert Fiengo and Robert May. Anaphora and ellipsis, ms., City University of New York and University of California at Irvine, 1990.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "Mark Gawron and Stanley Peters. Anaphora and Quantification in Sitnation Semantics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Peters", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Gawron", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "CSLI Lecture Notes", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "[Gawron and Peters, 1990] Mark Gawron and Stan- ley Peters. Anaphora and Quantification in Sit- nation Semantics. CSLI/University of Chicago Press, Stanford University, 1990. CSLI Lecture Notes, Number 19.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "Isabelle Hai~. Bound variables that need to be", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ha'l~", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1987, | |
| "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", | |
| "volume": "11", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "503--530", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Ha'l~, 1987] Isabelle Hai~. Bound variables that need to be. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11:503- 530, 1987.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "Daniel Hardt. VP ellipsis and contextual interpretation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hardt", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "COLING 9~", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hardt, 1992] Daniel Hardt. VP ellipsis and contex- tual interpretation. In COLING 9~, 1992.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "Karttunen, 1969] Lauri Karttunen. Pronouns and variables", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Michael", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ihellan ; Lars Hellan ; Shalom Lappin", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mccord", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1969, | |
| "venue": "Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers. Foris", | |
| "volume": "16", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "197--212", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "IHellan, 1988] Lars Hellan. Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Studies in Genera- tive Grammar 32. Foris, Dordrecht, 1988. [Karttunen, 1969] Lauri Karttunen. Pronouns and variables. In Papers from the Fifth Regional Meet- ing of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 1969. [Klein, 1987] Ewan Klein. VP-Ellipsis in DR the- ory. In Groenindijk and Stokhof, editors, Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the The- ory of Generalized Quantifiers. Foris, 1987. [Lappin and McCord, 1990] Shalom Lappin and Michael McCord. Anaphora resolu- tion in slot grammar. Computational Linguistics, 16:197-212, 1990.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "Shalom Lappin. The syntactic basis of ellipsis resolution", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Lappin", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Lappin, 1992] Shalom Lappin. The syntactic basis of ellipsis resolution, ms., IBM T.J. Watson Re- search Center, 1992.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF10": { | |
| "ref_id": "b10", | |
| "title": "Deictic and anaphoric pieces of meaning", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Partee ; Barbara", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Partee", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1989, | |
| "venue": "LSA Conference on Logic and Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Partee, 1989] Barbara Partee. Deictic and ana- phoric pieces of meaning. LSA Conference on Logic and Linguistics, Santa Cruz, 1989. July 19- 21.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF11": { | |
| "ref_id": "b11", | |
| "title": "Hub Priist, Remko Scha, and Martin van den Berg. A formal discourse grammar tackling verb phrase anaphora. Ms", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "[", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Priist", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1983, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "[Priist et al., 1991] Hub Priist, Remko Scha, and Martin van den Berg. A formal discourse gram- mar tackling verb phrase anaphora. Ms., 1991. [Reinhart, 1983] Tanya Reinhart. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1983.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF12": { | |
| "ref_id": "b12", | |
| "title": "Ivan Sag. Deletion and Logical Form", | |
| "authors": [], | |
| "year": 1976, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": ", 1976] Ivan Sag. Deletion and Logical Form. PhD thesis, MIT, 1976.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF13": { | |
| "ref_id": "b13", | |
| "title": "A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "; Bonnie Lynn", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Webber", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Webber", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1978, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Webber, 1978] Bonnie Lynn Webber. A Formal Ap- proach to Discourse Anaphora. PhD thesis, Har- vard University, 1978.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF14": { | |
| "ref_id": "b14", | |
| "title": "Discourse and logical form", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Williams", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1977, | |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", | |
| "volume": "8", | |
| "issue": "1", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Williams, 1977] Edwin Williams. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 1977.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "text": "27) John likes his mother and Bill does too. The representation for the source clause in (27) is: (28) el: [ predicate: like agent: John theme: [obj: mother poss: agent(el) ]]", | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF1": { | |
| "text": "39) el: [predicate: like agent: John theme: [obj: mother poss: agent(el)]]", | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF2": { | |
| "text": "John likes Mary's motherSWe omit the feature for polarity when it is positive, as in representation (36).", | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF5": { | |
| "text": "The teacher revised John's paper Alternatively, the theme may be copied, yielding the sloppy reading: (58) el: [predicate: revise agent: John theme: [obj: paper poss: agent(el) ] time: [relation: before obj: e2: [ predicate: revise agent: teacher theme: [ obj: paper poss: agent(e2)]]]", | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF6": { | |
| "text": "Bill was shot by John's father. (67) Bill was shot by Bill's father. These readings are generated by the algorithm in analogous fashion to the ellipsis cases. The representation for the source clause is: (68) el: [ predicate: shot agent: [ obj: father poss: theme(el) ] theme: John ]Assuming that Bill is the theme of the target event, referring to the agent role yields the representation for the strict reading in (69), and copying it yields the representation for the sloppy reading in (70", | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF1": { | |
| "html": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>(23) el: [ predicate: see</td></tr><tr><td>agent: John</td></tr><tr><td>theme: Mary ]</td></tr><tr><td>Consider sentence</td></tr><tr><td>(24) and its event structure (25):</td></tr><tr><td>(24) Johni likes hisi mother</td></tr><tr><td>(25) e2: [predicate: likes</td></tr><tr><td>agent: John</td></tr><tr><td>theme: [obj: mother</td></tr><tr><td>po : agent(e ) ] ]</td></tr><tr><td>sees Mary</td></tr><tr><td>(22) el: see(et), agent(el, John),</td></tr><tr><td>theme(el, Mary)</td></tr><tr><td>somewhat loosely.</td></tr></table>", | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "text": "An additional requirement that we impose on the representation is what we term role linking. In order to link referential elements to their referents, functions are used to retrieve the value of roles in event structures.For example, the function agent(el) would be used to link a referential element to John in the representation of el in (23), likewise theme(et) would be used to link to Mary.", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF3": { | |
| "html": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>The representation for the first clause in (32) is</td></tr><tr><td>given in (34):</td></tr><tr><td>(34) el: [ predicate: realize</td></tr><tr><td>agent: John</td></tr><tr><td>theme: e2: [ predicate: be</td></tr><tr><td>agent: agent(el)</td></tr><tr><td>be_pred: fool ] ]</td></tr></table>", | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "text": "33) John realizes that John is a fool, but Bill does not realize that Bill is a fool, even though Bill's wife realizes Bill is a fool.", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF6": { | |
| "html": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>Reading: Harry believed that Harry loved</td></tr><tr><td>Harry's wife</td></tr><tr><td>(46) ca: [predicate: believe</td></tr><tr><td>agent: Harry</td></tr><tr><td>theme: e4: [predicate: love</td></tr><tr><td>agent: agent(ca)</td></tr><tr><td>theme: theme(e~) ]</td></tr><tr><td>Reading: Harry believed that Harry loved</td></tr><tr><td>Bill's wife</td></tr><tr><td>These three readings are the acceptable ones for the</td></tr><tr><td>target clause in (41). The algorithm also allows for</td></tr><tr><td>a fourth possibility in which the function occupying</td></tr><tr><td>the agent role of eg. is referred to, and the function</td></tr><tr><td>occupying the theme role of e2 is copied:</td></tr><tr><td>(47) ca: [predicate: believe</td></tr><tr><td>agent: Harry</td></tr><tr><td>theme: e4: [ predicate: love</td></tr><tr><td>agent: agent(e2)</td></tr><tr><td>theme: [obj: wife</td></tr><tr><td>el: [predicate: believe</td></tr><tr><td>agent: Harry</td></tr><tr><td>theme: el: [predicate: love</td></tr><tr><td>agent: agent(e2)</td></tr><tr><td>theme: theme(e~) ] ]</td></tr><tr><td>Reading: Harry believed that Bill loved Bill's wife</td></tr><tr><td>In the second case both functions are copied, yielding</td></tr><tr><td>the all-sloppy reading given in (42b):</td></tr><tr><td>(45) e3: [ predicate: believe</td></tr><tr><td>agent: Harry</td></tr><tr><td>theme: e4: [predicate: love</td></tr><tr><td>agent: agent(e3)</td></tr><tr><td>theme: [obj: wife</td></tr><tr><td>po : agent(e4)]]]</td></tr></table>", | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "text": "In the third case the function occupying the agent role of e2 is copied and the structure occupying the theme role of eg. is referred to, yielding reading (42c):", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF7": { | |
| "html": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>59) ca: [ predicate: revise</td></tr><tr><td>agent: Bill</td></tr><tr><td>theme: theme(et)</td></tr><tr><td>time: [relation: before</td></tr><tr><td>obj: e4: [predicate: revise</td></tr><tr><td>agent: teacher</td></tr><tr><td>theme: theme(e~)]]]</td></tr><tr><td>Reading: Bill revised John's paper before the</td></tr><tr><td>teacher revised John's paper</td></tr><tr><td>In the second possibility, both roles can be copied,</td></tr><tr><td>resulting in the all-sloppy reading:</td></tr><tr><td>(60) ca: [ predicate: revise</td></tr><tr><td>agent: Bill</td></tr><tr><td>theme: [ obj: paper</td></tr><tr><td>poss: agent(ca) ]</td></tr><tr><td>time: [ relation: before</td></tr><tr><td>obj: e4: [ predicate: revise</td></tr><tr><td>agent: teacher</td></tr><tr><td>theme: theme(ca) ]]]</td></tr><tr><td>Reading: Bill revised Bill's paper before the</td></tr><tr><td>teacher revised Bill's paper</td></tr><tr><td>(61) ca: [ predicate: revise</td></tr><tr><td>agent: Bill</td></tr><tr><td>theme: [obj: paper</td></tr><tr><td>poss: agent(ez) ]</td></tr><tr><td>time: [ relation: before</td></tr><tr><td>obj: e4: [ predicate: revise</td></tr><tr><td>agent: teacher</td></tr><tr><td>theme: theme(e2) ]]]</td></tr><tr><td>Reading: Bill revised Bill's paper before the</td></tr><tr><td>teacher revised John's paper</td></tr><tr><td>(62) ca: [ predicate: revise</td></tr><tr><td>agent: Bill</td></tr><tr><td>theme: theme(el)</td></tr><tr><td>time: [ relation: before</td></tr><tr><td>obj: e4: [predicate: revise</td></tr><tr><td>agent: teacher</td></tr><tr><td>theme: theme(ea) ]]]</td></tr><tr><td>Reading: Bill revised John's paper before the</td></tr><tr><td>teacher revised John's paper</td></tr></table>", | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "text": "Third, the poss role of the theme role of el may be copied and the theme role of e2 may be referred to:Finally, the poss role of the theme role of el may be referred to and the theme role of e2 may be copied:", | |
| "num": null | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |