<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W99-0113">
  <Title>Discourse Anaphora Resolution*</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="110" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In thl. paper, we use a semantic theory based on Dynamic Quantifier Logic (van den Berg 1992,1998a,b) to present an approach to discom~ anaphora resolution under the Linguistic DL~ourse Model (Polanyi (1985, 1986, 1988, 1996) Pohmyi and Scha (1984), Scha and Pclawfi (1988), Prfmt, H., It Scha and M. H. van den Berg, 1994; Po~q~ L. and M. IL van den Berg 1996; van den Berg, M. H. 1996b).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Our treatment integrates the imights of the Center~g framework (Jmbi audK,,h- 1979, 1981; Grosz et~l. 1983, 1986, 1995; Gundel 1998; Walker et.al.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 1998b) into a -n~Sed theory of discourse level structufa/and semantic relations. In our account, discourse level aaaphora resolution effects fall out of a general theory of discourse quantification. Scope orderinge in the logical representation of the antecedent utterance result in d|fferences in &amp;quot; The authors dedkate this paper to the memory of Megumi Kameyama (1953-1999), a dedicated researcher and a very dear friend.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> accessibility for potential referents in a target utterance. No additional c~ntering mechanisms are required, the centering predictions follow from this theory.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Our treatment is universal: explanations of relative coherence do not depend on conventions that might differ in different languages. Furthermore, we provide a treatment for the resolution of multiple anaphors, resulting from a range of possible antecedents including plurals and multiple antecedents. null The approach to discourse anaphdegra resolution we take in this paper integrates a rigorous formal semantic machinery within a theory Of discourse strtlcture. Before giving a detailed account of our treatmeat of di~murse reference resolution, we would llke to address explicitly some of the positions towards rdereace resolution and discour~ ~mcture which inform our work.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
1.1 Theoretical and Methodological
Considerations
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> To begin with, we should state explicitly that our enterprise is a semantic one~ we are interested in devetoping and implemen &amp;quot;ring a formalization capable of ._,~'amln~ a con-ect interpretation to each utterance in a discourse. In this, we are fully committed to the</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="110" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
Dynamic Semantics enterprise (Kamp 1981, H~m
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> 1982, Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1990, 1991, Cider~i. 1992, van den Berg 1991, Kamp and Reyle 1993, Asher 1993, van den Berg 1998). Except in so far as it is provably necessary, we are not concerned with psychological L~sues of how human language users pro~ discourse nor with what human beings intend when they use language to commuIlicate with one another.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> Our aim is to build machinery applicable to all genres and all modes of comm~nLication. Thus we can not assume that a discourse is n ec~xlly uco.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> hereat&amp;quot; and that our goal is to provide an account of why that is so, nor can we assume that all discourse iswritten or spoken or.occurs in a task context where the demands or reasonable expectations of a~ external activity are available to guide parsing and interpretation.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Our theory is a formal one, therefore we can rely on well-known, rule-driven, parsing methods developed for sentences which allows us ~parse discourse incrementally as it unfolds. In order to do so, our framework formalizes the relationship among constituent units in the discourse by specifying how ant tecedent units provide context for the interpretation of later units. In all cases, our method involves computing the resulting meaning of the combination of the meanings of the combined units, rather than identifying appropriate labels under which to characterize the relationship obtaining between the units. Our units of analysis are welldefined semantic units. These units are usually encoded as single simple sentences or clauses but may also be realized by words, phrases or gestures which communicate exactly one elementary predication.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> In our view, a formal theory of discourse structure should give well defined structures on which inferencing operates and on which world know, ledge applies. We strive to limit the role of world knowledge in so far as possible to a specific moment in d~;ourse processing--namely at the precise moment when a choice must be made about how a newly incoming unit must be integrated into the unfolding discourse.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> Just as in sentence grammar where world knowledge is used to decide between syntacticaUy equivalent alternatives in the case of pp attachment, for example, in discourse grammar the relationshilm between elements are purely grammatical, and world knowledge is only used to decide between syntactically equally reasonable alternatives.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> Similarly, in calculating the structure of discourse, we do not rely on the use of cue words suchas so, angtway or thcfefor~ because these terms are never obligatory. The relationsl~p of one unit to another is always calculated on the relationshlp between the meanings of the constituent utterances which may then be ~inC/orced by the presence of terms which specify the nature of the intended relationship.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> In the framework developed below, thea-e is a dose relationship I~en discourse rderents and discourse structure. We deal both with how anaphors are resolved to partienb, r antecedents using the structure of the discourse, and how an antecedent gives me,,nlng to an anaphor. The problem of identifying the antecedent to which an anaphor refe~ is dealt with in Centering Theory, discussed in Section 2 below.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> After reviewing Centering, we will discuss Dynamic Quantifier Logic (Section 3) and then show how the insights of Centering can be integrated into a benera\] theory of discourse syntactic and semantic structure (Section 5.1), We shall point out how our approach accounts for multiple anaphors to different antecedents as well as ac~tmting for anaphoric reference to multiple antecedents, a problem which remain unsolved within that framework (5.2).</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>