| { | |
| "paper_id": "T78-1006", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T07:51:45.168162Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "Description Formation and Discourse Model Synthesis", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Bonnie", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "Lynn" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Webber", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc", | |
| "location": { | |
| "addrLine": "50 Moulton Street", | |
| "postCode": "02138 <*i>", | |
| "settlement": "Cambridge", | |
| "region": "MA" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "T78-1006", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": ", Levin & Goldman [1978] , Lyons [1978] .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 2, | |
| "end": 24, | |
| "text": "Levin & Goldman [1978]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 27, | |
| "end": 39, | |
| "text": "Lyons [1978]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Stenning [1975] . [1962] , Partee [1972] , Norman & Rumelhart [1975] and Webber [1978a] . <*3>.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 9, | |
| "end": 15, | |
| "text": "[1975]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 18, | |
| "end": 24, | |
| "text": "[1962]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 27, | |
| "end": 40, | |
| "text": "Partee [1972]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 43, | |
| "end": 68, | |
| "text": "Norman & Rumelhart [1975]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 80, | |
| "end": 87, | |
| "text": "[1978a]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A similar assumption is made by Karttunen [1976] , Levin & Goldman [1978] , Lyons [1978] and Stenning [1975] . will be in the listener's model (DML) as well and (b) that the lis\u00a3ener will be able to access that entity via the given definite description or definite pronoun. (e.g. \"if\", \"suppose\") or one of several other special contexts (cf. Webber [1978a] ), the entity it evokes will be appropriately described via a conjunction of (i) the description inherent in the noun phrase (e.g. \"yellow T-shirt that Bruce had admired\");", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 32, | |
| "end": 48, | |
| "text": "Karttunen [1976]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 51, | |
| "end": 73, | |
| "text": "Levin & Goldman [1978]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 76, | |
| "end": 88, | |
| "text": "Lyons [1978]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 93, | |
| "end": 108, | |
| "text": "Stenning [1975]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 143, | |
| "end": 148, | |
| "text": "(DML)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 338, | |
| "end": 357, | |
| "text": "(cf. Webber [1978a]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2) a predicate that embodies the remainder of the sentence (e.g. \"which Wendy bought\"); and 3 To see this, consider the following example.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "10a. I saw the guys from \"Kiss\" on TV today. b. I saw the three guys from \"Kiss\" on TV today. c. I saw all three guys from \"Kiss\" on TV today. d. I saw some guys from \"Kiss\" on TV today. e. I saw three guys from \"Kiss\" on TV today.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "ii. They were being interviewed by Dick Cavett. In sentence 12a, the referent of \"they\" is the discourse entity appropriately described as \"(the entire set of) linguists\".", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "That is, \"few <x>s\" can evoke the same discourse entity as the definite noun phrase \"the <x>s\". However as However, it should not be ignored, as it may be needed later in resolving a definite anaphor like \"the three guys\". <'10>.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This latter point is a subtle one, and usage may vary from person to person. That is, some people intend an indefinite plural noun phrase contained in a sentence S -\"Some <x>s P\" -to refer to the maximal set -i.e., \"the set of <x>s which P\". Other people intend it to refer to some subset of that set -\"the set of <x>s which P which I (the speaker) intended to mention in sentence S\". when I discuss other determiners like \"many\" and \"several\".) sentence 12b.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "shows, \"few <x>s\" can also pattern after the indefinite plural: the referent of \"they\" is the entity appropriately described as \"the just-mentioned set of linguists who were at the party\".", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(We learn from \"few\" that this set is small or smaller than the speaker expects.) \"Many\", on the other hand, seems to pattern only after the indefinite plural. In sentence 13a., the referent of \"they\" is appropriately described as \"the just-mentioned set of linguists who smoke\".", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(We learn from \"many\" that this set of linguists is large or larger than the speaker expects.) Sentence 13b. shows that the reverse polarity \"not many\" acts like \"few\" vis-a-vis evoking discourse entities: the referent of \"they\" is the entire set of linguists.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "However as sentence 13c. shows, a NEG which occurs in the sentence auxiliary does not effect this same change in behavior: \"they\" refers to the just-mentioned set of linguists who don't smoke. that is a possible referent for \"it\" in the matrix sentence -i.e., (\u00a5x:~(u:Man) [(Ey:Donkey) . Own u,y]) Beat x, iy: Donkey y & Own x,y & evoke S6.l,y \"Every man who owns a donkey beats the just-mentioned donkey he owns\"", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 260, | |
| "end": 272, | |
| "text": "(\u00a5x:~(u:Man)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 273, | |
| "end": 285, | |
| "text": "[(Ey:Donkey)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "I noted above that a sentence like \"Every man who owns a donkey beats it\" could sensibly be followed by a sentence like \"However, the donkeys are planning to get back at them\" (cf. example 18). Given that I have shown how to account for the referent of \"it\" in the first sentence in terms of discourse entities and their formally derivable descriptions, can the referent of \"the donkeys\" be account for in the same way? <'14> I shall not take the time here to discuss the path from the phrase \"every man who owns a donkey\" to the discourse entity informally describable as \"the set of men, each of whom owns a donkey\", since it is rather straightforward, cf. Webber [1978a] . This entity is a possible referent for \"them\" in sentence 18b. This is a definite noun phrase, but because of its binding to the distributively quantified noun phrase \"each girl\", it will evoke a discourse entity with the properties of a set rather than an individual (cf. example 8). In this case, it will be \"the set of flowers, each of which was the flower that some girl in the class picked\". Simplifying for brevity here, this rule can be written (Vx:K) . P x,iy:C x,y ==> (Ez) . z = {ul (Ex:K) . u = iy:C x,y} where K represents an arbitrary unary predicate which x satisfies and both P and C represent arbitrary binary predicates. The right-hand side of this rule implies that in case the left-hand side matches some sentence, there will be a discourse entity roughly describable as \"the set of u's, each of which is the thing that stands in relation C to some member of K\".", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 666, | |
| "end": 673, | |
| "text": "[1978a]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 739, | |
| "end": 864, | |
| "text": "This is a definite noun phrase, but because of its binding to the distributively quantified noun phrase \"each", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "TWo Interesting Reference Problems", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Notice now that after the \"it\" is resolved in \"Every man who owns a donkey beats it\" (see above), the sentence matches the left-hand side of the above rule -i.e., \"Every man who owns a donkey beats the just-mentioned donkey he owns.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "TWo Interesting Reference Problems", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Thus it follows that there is a discourse entity describable as \"the set of donkeys, each of which is the just-mentioned donkey that some man who owns a donkey owns\"i.e., This is a possible referent for \"them\" in sentence 18b.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "TWo Interesting Reference Problems", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The other class of problematic examples that I want to discuss here in terms of discourse entities and their descriptions is one I first encountered in Karttunen [1977] . Karttunen presents examples like the following.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 152, | |
| "end": 168, | |
| "text": "Karttunen [1977]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Disjunction", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "22. If Wendy has a car or Bruce has a bike, it will be in the garage.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Disjunction", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "23. Bruce can have either a bike or a car, but he must keep it in the garage.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Disjunction", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "24. Either Bruce has ~a new car or he has borrowed his brother's.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Disjunction", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In any case, it is blocking my driveway.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Disjunction", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "brother buys a bike, he will have to keep it in the garage.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Whether Bruce buys a car or his", | |
| "sec_num": "25." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The problem is again to determine just what it is that \"it\" refers to.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Whether Bruce buys a car or his", | |
| "sec_num": "25." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "I see two ways of approaching this problem in terms of discourse entities and their IDs. One way holds that in each sentence, each term of the disjunction evokes a different discourse entity into DML, each with a different ID:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Whether Bruce buys a car or his", | |
| "sec_num": "25." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(22) \"the car that Wendy has (if she has a car)\" \"the bike that Bruce has (if he has a bike)\"", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Whether Bruce buys a car or his", | |
| "sec_num": "25." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(23) \"the bike that Bruce will have (if he chooses a bike)\" \"the car that Bruce will have (if he chooses a car)\"", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Whether Bruce buys a car or his", | |
| "sec_num": "25." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(24) \"the new car that Bruce has (if Bruce has a new car)\" \"Bruce's brother's car\" (25) \"the car Bruce will have bought (if he buys a car)\" \"the bike Bruce's brother will have bought (if Bruce's brother buys a bike)\"", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Whether Bruce buys a car or his", | |
| "sec_num": "25." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The truth of the disjunction (which seems in each case to be interpreted as exclusive \"or\") then guarantees there being one and only one entity in the model to which \"it\" refers. Notice that if the terms were conjoined rather than disjoined, the truth of the conjunction would imply the simultaneous existence of two entities within the model. In that case, either the referent of \"it\" would be ambiguous or the sentence would just be bizarre. Now there should be two. The first is the existentially-evoked discourse entity (say, e43 ) -\"the little red bag mentioned in sentence <x> that Babar put his crown in\". However if \"this\" on page 10 is not that entity, then it must be some other one (say, e~8) ~ How should it be described?", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Whether Bruce buys a car or his", | |
| "sec_num": "25." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Since \"thlS presumably points to the little red bag Celeste is opening, e48 can appropriately be described as \"the just-mentioned little red bag which Celeste is opening, which contains a flute and not Babar's crown, and which is not equivalent to e43\". <'15> descriptions to later be found to be one and the same.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Whether Bruce buys a car or his", | |
| "sec_num": "25." | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "Pronouns of Laziness in Game-theoretical Semantics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "J", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hintikka", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "L", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Carlson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1977, | |
| "venue": "Theoretical Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "4", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hintikka, J. & Carlson, L. Pronouns of Laziness in Game-theoretical Semantics. Theoretical Linguistics, 1977, 4(i/2), i-3~.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "An Introduction to Modal Logic", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hughes & Cresswell", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1968, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hughes & Cresswell, M. An Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Methuen Publishing Co., 1968.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "Syntax and Semantics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "L", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "Discourse" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Karttunen", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Referents", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1976, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "7", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Karttunen, L. Discourse Referents. In J. McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics (Volume 7). New York: Academic Press, 1976. Karttunen, L. Whichever Antecedent. Squib Anthology, Chicago Linguistics Society, 1977.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Some Properties of Non-Referential Noun Phrases", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "S", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kuno", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1970, | |
| "venue": "Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kuno, S. Some Properties of Non-Referential Noun Phrases. In R. Jakobson and S. Kawamoto (Eds.), Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics. Tokyo, Japan: TEC Company Ltd., 1970.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "Process Models of Reference. Unpublished ms", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "J", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Levin", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "N", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Goldman", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1978, | |
| "venue": "Information Sciences Institute", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Levin, J. & Goldman, N. Process Models of Reference. Unpublished ms. Marina del Rey CA: Information Sciences Institute, 1978.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "Explorations in Cognition", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "D", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Norman", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "D", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Rumelhart", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Norman, D. & Rumelhart, D. Explorations in Cognition. San Francisco CA: W.H.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "Coreference and Pronouns", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "B", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "H" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Partee", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Opacity", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1972, | |
| "venue": "Semantics of Natural Language. The Netherlands: D. Reidel", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Partee, B.H. Opacity, Coreference and Pronouns. In G. Harman and D. Davidson (Eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. The Netherlands: D. Reidel, 1972.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF10": { | |
| "ref_id": "b10", | |
| "title": "On the Function of Existential Presupposition in Discourse", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "E", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Prince", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1978, | |
| "venue": "Text vs. Sentence", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Prince, E. On the Function of Existential Presupposition in Discourse. In J. Petofi (ed.), Text vs. Sentence. Hamburg: Buske Verlag, 1978.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "text": "21a. Each girl in the class gave Ivan the flower she picked. b. He arranged them artfully in an empty Glenfiddach bottle.", | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure" | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF1": { | |
| "text": "{wl (Ex:~(u:Man) [(Ey:Donkey) Own u,y]) w = iz: Donkey z & Own x,z & evoke Sl8,Z}", | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure" | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF2": { | |
| "text": "", | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"11\">3. constraining the possible be truthfully uttered even</td><td>referents if Wendy</td><td>had</td><td>just definite and indefinite noun</td><td>phrases</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">of a given anaphoric expression down bought several such T-shirts. What is an</td><td>that</td><td>can evoke entities in the listener's</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">to appropriate description for one possible choice the</td><td>-</td><td>the referent</td><td>discourse</td><td>model,</td><td>I will</td><td>illustrate</td><td>in</td></tr><tr><td>of</td><td colspan=\"11\">\"anaphor resolution\" problem; \"it\" is something like</td><td>\"the yellow</td><td>Section 4 an example of deictically-evoked</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">T-shirt that</td><td colspan=\"2\">Bruce</td><td colspan=\"2\">had</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">liked</td><td>and</td><td>that</td><td>entities</td><td>and</td><td>comment</td><td>on</td><td>the problem of</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"9\">4. determining what other Wendy bought and that</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">functions was mentioned in a</td><td>describing them appropriately.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">definite sentence la.\" description is intended to</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"8\">fill besides enabling</td><td colspan=\"2\">the</td><td>listener</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"11\">to construct or get to its referent. What I am claiming is that in</td><td>the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">case of a singular existential that is not</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">While within the</td><td colspan=\"3\">I cannot scope</td><td>of</td><td colspan=\"4\">hope either negation, a in this short</td><td>Except</td><td>after</td><td>a copula,</td><td>indefinite</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">paper to cover universal quantifier, a hypothetical even one of these</td><td>four</td><td>noun</td><td>phrases</td><td><*5></td><td>may</td><td>evoke</td><td>a</td><td>new</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">sub-tasks,</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">what</td><td colspan=\"3\">I shall</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">try</td><td>to</td><td>do is</td><td>discourse</td><td>entity</td><td>into</td><td>a</td><td>listener's</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">illustrate how the explicit data</td><td>-</td><td>i.e.,</td><td>discourse model. <*6></td><td>What</td><td>I want</td><td>to</td></tr><tr><td>the</td><td/><td>actual</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">sentences</td><td>of</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">the discourse,</td><td>focus on here is appropriate IDs for them.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">produced by</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"4\">a particular</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">person</td><td>(or</td><td>a</td><td>Consider the following sentences.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">particular</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">computer</td><td colspan=\"4\">program)</td><td>in</td><td>a</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">particular situation</td><td colspan=\"5\">-provide</td><td>material</td><td>la. Wendy bought a yellow T-shirt that</td></tr><tr><td>for</td><td/><td>the</td><td colspan=\"3\">model</td><td colspan=\"4\">synthesis</td><td/><td>process.</td><td>In</td><td>Bruce had liked.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">particular,</td><td/><td/><td>I</td><td colspan=\"2\">shall</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">show</td><td>(i) how</td><td>b. It cost twenty dollars.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">indefinite</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">noun</td><td colspan=\"3\">phrases</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">are</td><td>associated</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">with</td><td>the</td><td colspan=\"4\">evocation</td><td colspan=\"2\">of</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">new</td><td>discourse</td><td>2a. Each third-grade girl brought a</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">entities, higher-level those new</td><td/><td colspan=\"5\">independently expectations, discourse</td><td colspan=\"2\">of entities and</td><td>any (2) how will</td><td>4. The referent of a definite pelican to Wendy's house. is b. She is roosting them on her front anaphor thus an entity in DMs, which the speaker presumes to have a lawn.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">initially be described. such an initial description I will claim that (ID) is critical to both model synthesis and</td><td>counterpart entities may have the properties in DM L. Discourse 3a. If Bruce manages to catch a fish, of individuals, sets, events, actions, b. he will eat it for dinner.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">anaphor resolution listener to reason appropriately about the since it allows the discourse entity in order to assign it to</td><td>states, facts, beliefs, 4a. John didn't marry a Swedish woman. hypotheses, properties, generic classes, typical set members, stuff, specific b. She was Norwegian.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">an appropriate role vis-a-vis his higher-level expectations.</td><td>or</td><td>her <*4></td><td>quantities of stuff, etc. 5a. Whether Bruce buys a mini-computer</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">Moreover, discourse entity's current role assignment since it is possible for a to be found incorrect, it is the entity's ID that allows it to be re-assigned to another role with respect to the listener's revised expectations.</td><td>or an Advent TV, 5. In deciding which discourse entity a definite anaphor refers to, b. he will have to do the repairs on it a listener's judgments stem himself. in part from how the entities in DMT are described. 6. Every man who owns a donkey beats (When a discourse ~ntity E is the referent of a definite it.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">In indefinite discourse those entities Section 2 noun entities are phrases I they described. will vis-a-vis consider the evoke and how I will contrast them briefly with non-anaphoric</td><td>anaphor that description A, one I claimed earlier might of the listener by the description (ID) of a that the initial distinguish E conveyed to newly-evoked immediately preceding text discourse entity is critical for both and consider it A's model synthesis and anaphor resolution, antecedent.) since the ID mediates all reasoning about</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">definite all determined noun phrases, including odd noun phrases and then show that ones like \"few orc eggs\", \"many lemon gum balls\", etc. pattern after either definites or indefinites vis-a-vis the discourse entities they evoke and how those entities can be described. In</td><td>The the entity until its point of making explicit is to stress assignment these that role within the model. An entity's ID to some assumptions insofar as reasoning about discourse entities should imply neither more nor less about is mediated it than is appropriate. Now consider what by their descriptions, discourse entity descriptions are critical an appropriate description would be for to the discourse entity that \"it\" refers to anaphor resolution. in sentence lb. It is not \"the yellow</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">Section 3 I will show how this approach to definite anaphora in terms of discourse entities and their descriptions can accommodate certain problematic cases of anaphoric reference that have been discussed in the linguistics and philosophic literatures -the famous</td><td>Now T-shirt assumptions that sentence la. one Bruce consequence had liked\", of about discourse models since these can be uttered truthfully and reference is that the task even if Bruce had liked several yellow of understanding definite anaphora can T-shirts (and both speaker and listener be decomposed into several were aware of that fact). Nor is it \"the complementary yellow T-shirt that Bruce had liked and parts: that Wendy bought\", since sentence la. can</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">\"donkey\" Edmundson [1977]) disjunctive sentence [1976], and the contexts (cf. Hintikka Bartsch & problem of reference in [1976], Carlson (cf. Karttunen [1977]). Finally, to show that it is not <*4>. From different points Of view,</td><td>i. deciding whether a definite or definite description anaphoric (i.e., is intended pronoun is truly <#5>. i will often .... refer to these to refer to some entity \"existentials\" because of their logical as presumed to already be in DML) or whether interpretation as existential quantifiers. the term fills some <*6>. An indefinite noun phrase following other role in the a copula functions together with the discourse; copula as a predicate, e.g.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"12\">discussions the explicit of organizing structures the text Collins, Brown & Larkin [1977] and relationship between and higher-level can be ~ found in Webber [1978b].</td><td>Beverly is a bargain hunter. 2. synthesizing a discourse model which is similar to that of the Bruce became a librarian. speaker and inhabited As such, it is purely descriptive and does by similar discourse not refer to any particular librarian or entities; bargain hunter, cf. Kuno [1970].</td></tr></table>", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "html": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF3": { | |
| "text": "It cost twenty dollars. 8a. Each third grade girl has seen the pelican on Wendy's lawn. b. They prefer it to the plastic flamingo she had there before. 9a. John didn't marry the Swedish woman. b. He threw her over for a Welsh ecdysiast.", | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"11\">7a. Wendy bought the yellow T-shirt that Bruce had liked.</td><td>(Ex:Y)</td><td>. Bought Wendy, x</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">b. In each case, an</td><td colspan=\"4\">appropriate</td><td colspan=\"2\">description</td><td>Since the above rule, it follows that this matches the left-hand side of (Ez) . z = ix: Y x & Bought Wendy,x & evoke Sla,X That is, there is an individual describable as \"the yellow T-shirt that Bruce had liked, that Wendy bought and that was evoked by sentence la.\" The discourse entity so described is the referent of \"it\" in sentence lb.</td></tr><tr><td>for</td><td>the</td><td colspan=\"4\">discourse</td><td colspan=\"2\">entity</td><td colspan=\"3\">evoked by the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"11\">singular definite noun phrase is just that</td><td>Examples</td><td>2-6</td><td>illustrate</td><td>singular</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">singular definite</td><td colspan=\"2\">noun</td><td colspan=\"2\">phrase</td><td colspan=\"2\">itself</td><td>-</td><td>indefinite noun phrases</td><td>in</td><td>some</td><td>of</td><td>the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"11\">\"the yellow T-shirt that Bruce had liked\",</td><td>special</td><td>contexts</td><td>noted</td><td>above.</td><td>While I</td></tr><tr><td>\"the</td><td colspan=\"3\">pelican</td><td/><td>on</td><td colspan=\"2\">Wendy's</td><td colspan=\"3\">lawn\",</td><td>\"the</td><td>will only be discussing examples 5 and</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">Swedish woman\".</td><td colspan=\"2\">While</td><td>it</td><td>is</td><td colspan=\"2\">certainly</td><td>in</td><td>this</td><td>paper,</td><td>notice</td><td>that in all five</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"11\">a predicate the definiteness of these noun that that entity to the may that relates true phrases be contingent on context utterance evoking it (e.g. \"which was mentioned (i.e., identifiability within the in (or evoked by) sentence 6a.\"). speaker's model of the underlying This is the description that I am calling situation), nevertheless unlike entities the entity's \"initial description\" or evoked by indefinite noun phrases, those ID. evoked by definites do not depend for Given how I specified its components then, it should not be surprising that their appropriate IDs on the particular I will claim that the ID of sentences the definite noun phrases an existentially-evoked discourse entity can appeared in.</td><td>cases, the entity evoked by the indefinite noun phrase is appropriately described by taking into account at least the three factors mentioned above. That is, in example 2 the referent of \"them\" can be described uniquely as \"the set of pelicans, each of which, mentioned in sentence 2a., some third grade girl brought to Wendy's house.\" <*8> In example 3, the referent of \"it\" can be</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"11\">be structured derived The same characteristic from an sentence-level representation. Such a representation is appropriately behavior of logical independently motivated by its use definites and indefinites discussed for singular noun phrases holds for plural in noun phrases as well. That is, while both regular inference procedures. indefinite and definite plural noun</td><td>described as \"the fish mentioned in clause 3a. that Bruce has managed to catch, if Bruce has managed to catch a fish\". In example 4, the negation appears intended to scope only \"Swedish\". Thus the discourse entity referent of \"she\" can be</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Using phrases evoke a</td><td colspan=\"7\">somewhat simplified version discourse entities, the</td><td>described</td><td>as</td><td>\"the</td><td>woman</td><td>mentioned</td><td>in</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">of unique the</td><td colspan=\"7\">formalism initial descriptions described</td><td colspan=\"2\">in that can be Webber</td><td>sentence</td><td>4a.</td><td>that</td><td>John</td><td>married\".</td><td>(We</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"11\">[1978a], assigned to those entities will differ a simple rule can be stated for in</td><td>later</td><td>learn</td><td>in</td><td>sentence 4b. that she is</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"11\">forming the ID of an existentially the two cases.</td><td>evoked</td><td>Norwegian rather than Swedish.)</td><td>IDs</td><td>for</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">discourse entity -i.e.,</td><td/><td/><td/><td>the</td><td>two</td><td>other</td><td>existentially-evoked</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>discourse entities in</td><td>examples</td><td>5 and</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">(Ex:C)</td><td colspan=\"3\">F x ==></td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>will be discussed in Section 3.</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">(Ezi</td><td/><td colspan=\"7\">z = ix: Cx & F x & evoke S,x</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Notice that a definite noun phrase in</td></tr><tr><td>Here</td><td colspan=\"3\">(Ex:C)</td><td>is</td><td colspan=\"6\">an example of restricted</td><td>the</td><td>same</td><td>context</td><td>as</td><td>an indefinite noun</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">quantification,</td><td colspan=\"6\">in which C represents</td><td>an</td><td>phrase will also evoke a discourse entity,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"11\">arbitrary predicate which x satisfies.</td><td>Fx</td><td>but one whose ID</td><td>is</td><td>somewhat</td><td>different.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">represents</td><td colspan=\"2\">an</td><td colspan=\"6\">arbitrary open sentence in</td><td>To</td><td>see</td><td>this,</td><td>consider</td><td>the</td><td>following</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">which x is free; i stands</td><td colspan=\"2\">for</td><td>Russell's</td><td>sentences.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">definite</td><td colspan=\"3\">operator,</td><td colspan=\"2\">iota;</td><td colspan=\"2\">and</td><td>S</td><td>is the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"10\">label assigned to the proposition</td><td>on</td><td>the</td><td><'8></td><td>A rule simii&r {o [RWLi]</td><td>is g~ven</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">left-hand</td><td colspan=\"6\">side of the arrow.</td><td colspan=\"2\">Informally,</td><td>in</td><td>Webber [1978a] for existentials scoped</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"11\">this rule, which I shall call [RW-I], says</td><td>by universals.</td><td>In all, six such rules are</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"11\">that if a proposition S states that</td><td>there</td><td>given, covering</td></tr><tr><td>is</td><td colspan=\"3\">a member</td><td colspan=\"7\">x of class C which makes F.</td><td>i. independent existentials</td><td>(sg/pl)</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">true,</td><td colspan=\"2\">then</td><td colspan=\"2\">there</td><td colspan=\"2\">exists</td><td>an</td><td/><td>individua~</td><td>\"I saw {a cat, three cats} on the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">describable</td><td colspan=\"7\">as \"the C which F's which was</td><td>stoop.\"</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">evoked by proposition S\".</td><td colspan=\"3\">This individual</td><td>2. definite descriptions</td><td>(sg/pl)</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"11\">is taken to be the discourse entity evoked</td><td>\"I saw the {cat, cats] which hate(s)</td></tr><tr><td>by</td><td>the</td><td colspan=\"4\">existential</td><td colspan=\"2\">noun</td><td colspan=\"3\">phrase.</td><td>For</td><td>Sam.\"</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">example,</td><td>let</td><td colspan=\"3\">Y stand</td><td colspan=\"4\">for the predicate</td><td>3. distributives</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">corresponding</td><td colspan=\"2\">to</td><td colspan=\"2\">\"yellow</td><td colspan=\"3\">T-shirt</td><td>that</td><td>\"Each cat on the stoop hates Sam.\"</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">Bruce had liked\". <*7></td><td colspan=\"4\">Then sentence la.</td><td>\"The three cats each scratched Sam.\"</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"9\">can be represented simply as</td><td/><td>4. universally quantified existentials</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"11\"><*7>. the containing noun phrases. I will soon be more representation of descriptive part of the noun phrase can be precise about relative clause Here, where the treated as an unanalyzed unit, the predicate name Y is an adequate representation.</td><td>\"Each boy gave each girl {a peach, three peaches}.\" 5. class dependent definites \"Each boy gave a woman he knew the {peach, two peaches} she wanted.\" 6. class dependent distributives \"Each boy I know loves every woman he meets.\"</td></tr></table>", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "html": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF6": { | |
| "text": "The man who owns a donkey beats it. 16. Which man who owns a donkey beats it? 17. No man who owns a donkey beats it.", | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"7\">it = the donkey he owns b.*Are the donkeys planning to get back --\"None\"</td><td>First notice that this problem arises independently of how the matrix (\u00a5x:~(u:Man) [ (Ey:Donkey) . Own u,yJ) . noun phrase is determined. Beat x,IT</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"9\">at {him, them, ???}? the donkeys = ??? c.*Is the donkey planning to get back at {him, them, ???}? the donkey = ??? To show that this approach definite anaphora in terms of discourse to entities and their descriptions can explicate \"donkey\" sentences as well, I will have to introduce a bit more of the formalism described in Webber [1978]. That bit involves an extension of restricted quantification, cf. [RW-I] above. In restricted quantification, a quantification operator (e.g. \u00a5,E), the variable of quantification and the class it ranges over (noted implicitly as a predicate) constitute a structural unit of the representation. For example, \"Every boy is happy\" can be represented as</td><td>By applying rule [RW-I] 14. A man I know who owns a donkey beats to the embedded clause [(Ey:Donkey) . Own u], the entity it. evoked by the existential can be identified as iy: Donkey y & Own u,y & evoke S6.l,U \"the just-mentioned donkey that u owns\" 15. In all these examples, \"it\" <'13> seems intuitively related to \"a donkey\". Informally, one might describe As I mentioned above, the semantics of its referent as \"the just-mentioned donkey restricted quantification is such that the he owns\", where \"he\" is variable of quantification, here x, bound to whatever value that \"(each, a, the, which, no) satisfies the predicate in the man who owns a donkey\" may take. restriction. Thus if x satisfies But this is just a discourse entity of a ~(u:Man) [(Ey:Donkey) . Own u,y], there rather special type must be an entity identifiable as -one with a parameterized ID, rather than a rigid one. I call such entities \"parameterized iy: Donkey y & Own x,y & evoke S 6 l,y individuals\", borrowing the term from Woods \"the just-mentioned donkey x owns ~ & Brachman [1978]. <*ii> This is a parameterized individual -</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">(\u00a5x:Boy)</td><td colspan=\"2\">Happy x</td><td/><td/><td>parameterized by the variable in Notice that parameterized individuals (\u00a5x:...) behave somewhat differently from the -</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"8\">This is truth functionally equivalent to</td><td>\"actual\" evoke.</td><td>discourse entities the sentences <'12> That is, parameterized</td></tr><tr><td>is</td><td colspan=\"8\">Recall that the purpose of this paper to point out the importance of (\u00a5x) . Boy x ==> Happy x</td><td>individuals independent</td><td>all of</td><td>how</td><td>have the</td><td>the noun</td><td>same phrase ID,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"9\">description model synthesis and formation reference to both discourse resolution and to show that this process can, to an Similarly \"Some boy is happy\" can be represented as</td><td>containing determined. discourse</td><td>the On the other hand, the actual relative clause is entities evoked by these</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"9\">important degree, be formalized. taken as given the notion that a listener I have (Ex:Boy) Happy x</td><td>sentences do not.</td><td>For example,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"9\">is using both the discourse and his or her knowledge of the world to synthesize a which is truth functionally equivalent to</td><td>18a. Each man who owns a donkey beats it. it = the donkey he owns</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">model the</td><td>of discourse. what (Ex)</td><td colspan=\"6\">s/he believes to underlie Definite anaphora are Boy x & Happy x</td><td>b. However, the donkeys are planning to get back at them.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"9\">viewed refers presumed listener's model. as means to entities by to have What I want to show which the speaker in DM s that are counterparts in the in this section is that this approach to The extension I will introduce will permit the representation of noun phrases with relative clauses as well as simple noun phrases. Semantically, a relative clause can be viewed as a predicate. One definite anaphora can accommodate not only straight-forward cases as discussed above, but certain problematic cases as well. 3.1 Parameterized Individuals The problem of formally way to provide for arbitrary predicates is through the use of the abstraction operator, represented as \" \" by Hughes & Cresswell [1968], following Church [1941]. For example, the noun phrase \"a peanut\" can be represented as</td><td>the donkeys = the set of donkeys, each of which some man who owns a donkey owns them = the set of men, each of whom owns a donkey 19a. The man I know who owns a donkey beats it. it = the donkey he owns b. But the donkey is planning to get back at him. the donkey = the just-mentioned</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">characterizing examples like (Ex:Peanut)</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">the 6 below referent has</td><td colspan=\"3\">of often \"it\" in been</td><td>donkey that the man I know who owns a donkey</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"9\">discussed philosophy [1976], while the noun phrase \"a peanut that Wendy in the linguistics and literatures, cf. Bartsch Edmundson [1976], Hintikka & gave to a gorilla\" can be represented as</td><td>owns him = the man I know who owns a donkey</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"9\">Carlson [1977]. 6. Every man who owns a donkey beats it. (Ex: ~(u:Peanut) [(Ey:Gorilla) Gave Wendy,u,y])</td><td>20a. Which man who owns a donkey beats it?</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">The problem has In this case</td><td/><td>been</td><td>taken</td><td>to</td><td>be</td><td>that</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"9\">while the embedded noun phrase \"a donkey\", there \"it\" intuitively seems related to is no way to represent this logically in ~(u:Peanut) [(Ey:Gorilla) Gave Wendy,u,y]</td><td><*ii>. individual\" is being used somewhat loosely The phrase \"parameter~zed to include \"parameterized\" sets, stuff,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"9\">terms I shall show is that an approach in of simple quantifier scoping. of discourse entities and their IDs makes What terms this intuitive relationship simple both to names a unary predicate which is true if its argument is a peanut that Wendy gave to some gorilla.</td><td>etc. (i) No man who owns two donkeys beats For example, them. them = the two donkeys he owns</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"9\">explain and to represent. Using this notation, sentence 6 can be represented as</td><td><'12>. mean anaphorically in subsequent sentences. By \"actual\" discourse entities, ones that can be referred</td><td>I to</td></tr></table>", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "html": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF9": { | |
| "text": "do or do not follow from e48's not being Babar's bag.", | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td colspan=\"7\">The problem here is</td><td>to</td><td>be</td><td>able</td><td>to</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">articulate</td><td colspan=\"3\">clearly</td><td colspan=\"2\">what</td><td>each</td><td>of</td><td>these</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">properties derives from since they do</td><td>not</td></tr><tr><td>come</td><td colspan=\"2\">from</td><td>a</td><td colspan=\"3\">single</td><td>sentence.</td><td>In this</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">case,</td><td>one</td><td colspan=\"2\">must</td><td colspan=\"3\">determine</td><td>what</td><td>things</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">relevant</td><td colspan=\"4\">to the story * * * *</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"7\">In this paper, I have</td><td>tried</td><td>in</td><td>as</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">brief</td><td colspan=\"2\">a way</td><td>as</td><td colspan=\"3\">possible</td><td>to</td><td>reveal an</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">aspect of understanding definite</td><td>anaphora</td></tr><tr><td>that</td><td/><td colspan=\"3\">precedes</td><td colspan=\"2\">the</td><td>more</td><td>frequently</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">discussed problem of \"anaphor resolution\".</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">This aspect involves accounting</td><td>for</td><td>what</td></tr><tr><td>it</td><td colspan=\"7\">is that definite anaphors refer to and</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">how such things become available.</td><td>I moved</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">from the notion of reference into a model</td></tr><tr><td>to</td><td colspan=\"3\">problems</td><td colspan=\"2\">of</td><td colspan=\"2\">how</td><td>that</td><td>model</td><td>is</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">synthesized, and in particular,</td><td>how</td><td>the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">entities</td><td colspan=\"2\">in</td><td>it</td><td/><td>are</td><td>appropriately</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">described.</td><td colspan=\"5\">In this endeavor, I focused on</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">the initial descriptions</td><td>(IDs) ascribed to</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">existentially-evoked</td><td/><td>entities,</td><td>briefly</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">touching</td><td colspan=\"5\">upon deictically-evoked</td><td>entities</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">as well.</td><td colspan=\"5\">This paper has just skimmed</td><td>the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">surface</td><td colspan=\"2\">of</td><td colspan=\"2\">a very</td><td colspan=\"2\">large</td><td>problem.</td><td>In</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">particular, one must</td><td colspan=\"2\">still</td><td>account</td><td>for,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">inter</td><td colspan=\"6\">alia, reference to actions, events,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">processes,</td><td colspan=\"3\">stuff,</td><td colspan=\"2\">quantities</td><td>of</td><td>stuff,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">etc.;</td><td colspan=\"5\">relativization</td><td>of descriptions to</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">the speaker's beliefs (cf.</td><td>Cohen</td><td>[1978],</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Prince</td><td colspan=\"3\">[1978]);</td><td colspan=\"3\">additional ~ descriptions</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">derived</td><td colspan=\"2\">from</td><td colspan=\"2\">the</td><td colspan=\"2\">various</td><td>roles</td><td>in</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">higher-level</td><td colspan=\"4\">situations that an entity is</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">assigned to; effects of</td><td>tense,</td><td>modality,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">negation,</td><td colspan=\"2\">etc.</td><td colspan=\"3\">on description formation;</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">and how</td><td colspan=\"5\">descriptions</td><td>change</td><td>over</td><td>time.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">Some of these problems (as well as others)</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">are discussed further in Webber [1978a&b],</td></tr><tr><td>and</td><td colspan=\"2\">much</td><td colspan=\"4\">interesting</td><td>work remains to be</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">done.</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Bibliography</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Bartsch, R.</td><td colspan=\"2\">Syntax</td><td colspan=\"2\">and</td><td>Semantics</td><td>of</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Relative</td><td colspan=\"3\">Clauses.</td><td>In</td><td>R. Bartsch,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">J. Groenendijk</td><td colspan=\"3\">& M. Stokhof</td><td>(Eds.),</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Amsterdam</td><td colspan=\"2\">Papers</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">The</td><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Netherlands:</td><td>University</td><td>of</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">Amsterdam, 1976.</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\"><'15>.</td><td colspan=\"4\">Throughout</td><td colspan=\"2\">this</td><td>approach,</td><td>I am</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">making</td><td/><td>no</td><td colspan=\"4\">assumptions</td><td>about</td><td>the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">separateness of discourse entities.</td><td>That</td></tr><tr><td>is,</td><td colspan=\"7\">I am not assuming that two discourse</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">entities are necessarily and for all times</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">distinct,</td><td colspan=\"3\">unless</td><td>it</td><td>is</td><td>specified</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">explicitly</td><td/><td>as</td><td colspan=\"2\">was</td><td>done</td><td>here.</td><td>Two</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">discourse entities may</td><td>have</td><td>incompatible</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">descriptions</td><td colspan=\"2\">and</td><td>as</td><td>a consequence</td><td>be</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">assumed to be distinct.</td><td>But I do not view</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">it as impossible for two separately evoked</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">discourse</td><td colspan=\"3\">entities</td><td colspan=\"2\">with</td><td>different</td><td>but</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">compatible</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "html": null | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |