<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-1021">
  <Title>Anaphora for Everyone: Pronominal Anaphora Resolution without a Parser</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="115" end_page="116" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
3 Example output
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The larger context from which the sample analysis in the beginning of Section 2 was taken is as follows: &amp;quot;...while Apple and its PowerPC partners claimed some prime real estate on the show floor, Apple's most interesting offerings debuted behind the scenes. Gone was the narrow corner booth that Apple shoehorned its products into last year. For 1995 the company set up its headquarters in Hall 11, the newest and most prestigious of CeNT's 23 halls.&amp;quot; The anaphora resolution algorithm generates the following analysis for the first italicized pronoun. For each candidate, ~ the annotation in square brackets indicates its offset value, and the number to the right indicates its salience weight at the point of interpretatkm of the pronoun.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1">  The candidate set illustrates several important points. First, the equality in salience weights of the candidates at offsets 101, 103, and 115 is a consequence of 2Note that our syntactic filters are quite capable of discarding a number of configurationally inappropriate antecedents, which appear to satisfy the precedence relation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2">  the fact that these discourse referents are members of the same COP, Et ~' class. Their unification into a single class indicates both successful anaphora resolution (of the pronoun at offset 103), as well as the operation of higherqevel discourse processing designed to identify all references to a particular COREF class, not just the anaphoric ones (cf. (Kennedy and Boguraev, :1996)).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The higher salience of the optimal candidate--which ix also a member of this COREF class--shows the effect of the locality heuristic described in section 2.2.3. Both the pronoun and the candidate appear in the same subordinate context (within a relative clause); as a result the salience of the candidate (but not of the class to which it bekmgs) is temporarily boosted to negate the effect of subordinatkm.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> An abbreviated candidate set for the second italicized pronoun is given below: ANA: its {61of f /145\] CND: company \[(,)ot I / 142 \] :H,0 Appl e ((,!of 17/ 13 / \] 192 it:~:; {(aof I / I 3 ~ \] 192 This set is interesting because it illustrates the prominent role of SENT-S in controlling salience: company ix correctly identified as the antecedent of the pronotm, despite the frequency of mention of members of the COREF class containing Apple and its, because it occurs in the same sentence as the anaphor. Of course, this example also indicates the need fl~r additional heuristics designed to connect company with Apple, since these discourse referents clearly make reference to the same object. We are currentlyworking towards this goal; see (Kennedy and Boguraev, \] 996) for discussion.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> 'l'he following text segment illust rates the resolution of in tersen ten tia l a napho ra.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> &amp;quot;Sun's prototype lntemet access device uses a 1-10-Mhz MicroSPARCprocesso~; and is diskless. Its dimensions are 5.5 inches x 9 inches x 2inches.&amp;quot; ANA: \]its \[\[aol f/347\] CNI): IAlte~:ileL access devic() \[(,!o~\[/33\[i\] 180</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> The first sentence in this fl'agment introduces three discourse referents bearing different grammatical functions, none of which appear in subordinate contexts.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> Since the sentence in which the anaphor occurs does not contain any candidates (the discourse referent introduced by dimensions ix eliminated from consideration by both the morphok)gical anct disjoint reference filters), only those from the previous sentence are considered (each is compatible with the morphological requirements of the anaphor). These are ranked according to salience weight, where the crucial factor is grammatical function value. The result of the ranking is that Internet access device--the candidate which satisfies the highest-weighted salience facto1, SUBl-S--is the optimal candidate, and so correctly identified as the an tecedent</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>