File Information
File: 05-lr/acl_arc_1_sum/cleansed_text/xml_by_section/metho/89/e89-1022_metho.xml
Size: 19,964 bytes
Last Modified: 2025-10-06 14:12:19
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <Paper uid="E89-1022"> <Title>REMARKS ON PLURAL ANAPHORA*</Title> <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 2. A SKETCH ON PLURALITY </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> We assume -as is common in most recent approaches to anaphora in AI and linguistic semantics (e.g. Webber 1979, Kamp 1984)- a representation level of discourse referents, which are internal proxies of objects of the real (or a possible or fictional) world. These discourse entities, called reference objects (RefOs), are stored and processed in a net-like structure, called a referential net (RefN), which links RefOs and designations. (For a detailed description see Habel 1982, 1986a, 1986b and Eschenbach 1988.) The term &quot;RefO&quot; is, when strictly used, a technical notion which is employed in the framework of our formalism only. For reasons of simplicity of exposition, we do not want to restrict the use of &quot;RefO&quot; to this formalism in the present paper, but rather apply the term to referents also, i.e. the objects to which names, descriptions and pronouns refer.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> RefOs for complex objects are constructed by means of a sum operation (Link 1983), so that with respect to (1.b), we have the following entries (among others) in the</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> The sum operation (symbolized by ~) is the semantic counterpart of the NP-connective and. It defines a semi-lattice (Link 1983, Eschenbach 1988). By means of this structure, both complex and atomic RefOs can be seen as objects of the same logical type and are accessible by the same set of referential processes. No operations on RefOs other than the sum operation will be considered in the present context.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="5" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3. CONSTRAINTS ON SUM FOR- MATION </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Sentences like (1.a) and (1.b) demonstrate that complex discourse referents can be created by plural NPs. But there are other linguistic indicators for the creation of complex RefOs.1 The anaphoric pronoun they of (1.c) and (1.d) as well as (1.b) refers to a corresponding complex RefO. It is obvious that besides conjunctions (e.g. and), some prepositions and verbs trigger processes of sum formation (with-PPs and meet are outstanding examples of these types of constructions.) In (1.c), Michael ... with Maria triggers the formation of Michael ~ Mafia.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> But consider the following texts: (2) a. Michael and Mafia were at the park with Peter.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> In the evening they were at a garden party.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> b. Michael and Mafia were at the park with their frisbee.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> In the evening they were at a garden party.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> In (2.a) it is possible that they refers to Michael ~ Maria ~ Peter. But in (2.b) they is preferably linked to Michael ~ Maria; even if Michael and Mafia happened to take their frisbee to the garden party, we would not want to claim that the plural anaphor they in (2.b) refers to a complex discourse entity consisting of Michael, Mafia and the frisbee. In the preferred reading 6f (2.b), the frisbee is excluded from the antecedent of the anaphor.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> We have to explain why with-PPs only cause sum formation in certain cases. The proposed solution to this problem is the concept of a Common Association Basis (CAB), which is introduced in Herweg (1988). The CAB is an extension of the Common Integrator (CI), which Lang (1984) developed in his general theory of coordinate conjunction structures.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> 1 The assumption of indicators and constraints contrasts to the less restrictive assumption of Frey & Kamp's (1986) DRToriented analysis of plural anaphora, in which they claim that &quot;any collection of available reference markers, whether singular or plural, can be 'joined together' to yield the antecedent with which the pronoun can be connected&quot; (p. 18).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> - 162 Grouping by with depends on the condition that &quot;x with y&quot; leads to &quot;x ~ y&quot; only in those cases in which a CAB-relation is fulfilled. The most relevant constraint given by CAB is the condition that x and y are instances of the same ontological type at the most fine-grained level. This means two humans are good candidates to form a complex RefO, whereas a frisbee, which does not fall under the ontological type of humans or animate objects, and the human players are not.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> CAB constraints apply not only to cases like (1.c) and (2.b), but to sum formation in general. Consider this example: (3) Michael and his frisbee were at the park.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> Here the conjunction explicitly forces the sum formation of objects of different ontological types. This is at least unusual and has a strange effect. However, explicit conjunction by ~nd presupposes the existence of a suitable CAB for the conjoined entities. The addressee must assume that the conjunction in (3) involves an instruction to derive such a CAB (or simply concede that one exists). Thus, to make conjunctions like the one in (3) acceptable and natural, one normally has to assume a CAB which is not explicitly specified or immedeatly derivable from the information conveyed in the sentence itself but which is given by the preceding or extra-linguistic context. In (3), the required CAB might simply be something like 'the entities desperately being looked for by Michael's children'. In isolation however, forced sum formations like the one in (3) must be considered marginally acceptable.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> We now have the following situation: Grouping depends on properties of the RefOs in question, namely whether a CAB exists which constitutes a conceptual relation among the RefOs with respect to situational parameters given, for example, by predicative concepts. Furthermore, it is obvious that world knowledge and the theme of the discourse give evidence for which (complex) RefO is most appropriate as the antecedent of an anaphoric pronoun. We will propose that these factors can be handled by CABs as well.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> This leads us to Herweg's (1988) Principle of Connectedness: All sub-RefOs of a complex RefO must be related by a CAB.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> Now consider example (1.d). It shows that some lexical concepts possess what we call grouping force, i.e. they trigger sum formation with respect to atomic RefOs. The grouping force of a lexical concept can be seen as a special case of a CAB. Without going into details of the representation formalism we can formulate the relevant sum formation processes by this rule: If &quot;x meets y&quot;, then construct the complex RefO x ~ y.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> The status of this sum formation rule is similar to that of classical inference rules, which are used for bridging processes in the sense of Clark (1975). Not all verbs possess a grouping force as strong as meet; e.g. the grouping force of watch is considerably lower. Consider: (4) a. Michael met Peter and Maria in the pub. They had a great time.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> b. Michael watched Peter and Maria in the pub. They had a great time.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="16"> In (4.b), the sum of Maria and Peter is significantly preferred to the sum including Michael as the antecedent of they. In (4.a), there presumably is a preference to the opposite, i.e. to link they to the sum consisting of all three persons. In contrast to highly associative verbal concepts like meet, watch must be classified as a dissociative element which does not constitute a CAB for its arguments but induces a conceptual separation. Part of the explanation for this prop-erty of watch is to be seen in the (normally understood) local separation of subject and object in the situation described. Again in contrast to meet, this local separation usually prevents an interaction or some other kind of contact which allows one to assume a suitable link (i.e. a CAB) for the persons introduced based on properties of the situation which the sentence describes.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="6" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 4. ANAPHORA RESOLUTION AS A SEARCH PROCESS? </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Many classical approaches to anaphora resolution are based on search processes.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> - 163 Given an anaphor, a set of explicitly introduced referents is searched for the best choice. 2 The crucial point is: &quot;How to determine the set of possible antecedents?&quot; The most simple solution is the history list &quot;of all referents mentioned in the last several sentences&quot; (Allen 1987, p. 343). Note that most DRT-based anaphora resolution processes (Kamp 1984, Frey & Kamp 1986) by and large follow this line, with a few modifications concerning structural conditions in terms of an accessibility relation. null But there is also a different perspective whose key notion is the well-established concept of focus (see e.g. in Computational Linguistics Grosz & Sidner 1986) 3. As is shown by psychological experiments (an detailed overview is given by Guindon 1985), a very limited number of discourse referents are focussed. Referents in the focus, which can be described in psychological terms as short term memory (see Guindon), are quickly accessed; especially pronouns are normally used to refer to items in the focus and therefore extensive search is mostly unnecessary. The most relevant question with respect to focus is &quot;Which items are currently in the focus? ''4. Answers 2 Note that the unspecifity of pronouns seldom allows the triggering of bridging inferences (see Clark 1975) to select referents which are only implicitly introduced.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> 3 Cf. Bosch (1987) and Allen (1987; chap. 14). Both give convincing arguments against the simplistic view of identifying anaphora resolution with searching. Since we address matters of pronominal anaphora only, we here assume a rather simple concept of focus. Further differentiations (e.g. Garrod & Sanford's (1982) division of focus into an explicit and implicit component) which might become necessary if non-pronominal anaphora are investigated as well are out of the scope of the present paper.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="7" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 4 A question closely related to this, </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> namely at which point of time and in what to this question determine which referents can be antecedents of pronouns.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="8" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 5. PLURALS IN FOCUS </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Following the line of argumentation in section 4, the possibility of a reference to a complex RefO with a plural pronoun as in (1) means that such a complex RefO is in the focus after processing the first sentence.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Thus it is worth taking a closer look at the question as to when a complex RefO is formed. There are essentially two opportunities to construct a complex RefO from atomic RefOs: it can be constructed and put into the focus when the atomic RefOs are mentioned, or the construction might be suspended until an anaphor triggers the sum formation. 5 The second solution has some undesirable consequences; the worst is that the methods of resolving plural anaphora and singular anaphora must be completely different. Since the complex RefOs would not be in the focus, a direct access to the focussed entities could not solve the problem. In such cases, the construction process would be triggered during anaphora resolution. Thus the processing of they with respect to Michael (...) with Maria in (1.c) and Michael met Maria in (1.d) should be more complicated than the cases of the children or Michael and Maria, an assumption for which no evidence exists as yet. Therefore, we take the former choice of constructing the complex RefO while processing the atomic RefOs. Again, this suggests two possibilities, namely to construct the complex RefO and put only this into the focus, or to introduce both the complex and the atomic RefOs into the focus. As a working hypothesis, we propose the latter procedure, since the sentences like (5), way the focus is updated, is not relevant as long as we confine ourselves to texts containing only two sentences. However, it becomes important when the analysis is expanded to multiple sentence texts.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> 5 This distinction corresponds to Charniak's (1976; p. 11) well-known dichotomy of read-time and question-time inferences.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> - 164which contain singular anaphora (cf. (1)), are fully coherent: (5) a. Michael and Mafia were at the cinema. He/She had a great time.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> b. Maria was at the cinema with Michael.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> He/She had a great time.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> c. Michael met Mafia at the cinema.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> He/She had a great time.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> That these findings do not depend on linguistic introspection only is established by processing-time experiments, which are reported in Mtisseler & Rickheit (1989). 6 The initial results of the experiments suggest that the complexities of processing singular or plural anaphora (of sentences like (1) vs. (5) are not significantly different 7. The anaphoric accessibility of the complex RefOs which are introduced by the sentences listed above is by no means worse than the accessibilty of the atomic RefOs.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> Let us summarize the discussion so far: There are linguistic concepts -such as conjunctions, prepositions and lexical concepts- which trigger the construction of complex RefOs. The atomic RefOs as well as the complex RefO (which is formed by</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="9" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 6 Mtisseler's and Rickheit's research at </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> the University of Bielefeld is also carded out in a project in the DFG-Program &quot;Kognitive Linguistik&quot;. This project collaborates with ours on reference phenomena from computational and psycholinguistic points of view.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> 7 This holds at least for cases where the antecedent of the singular anaphor is in subject/topic position. Questions concerning the accessibility of singular antecedents in non-subject/non-topic positions are not definitely settled as yet (see Mtisseler & Rickheit 1989). Since Mtisseler's and Rickheit's experiments are confined to German, which has a single form ~ie for 3rd pl. pronoun (they) and 3rd sg. fern. pronoun (she), not all of their results on the processing-time of singular anaphora with antecedents in different structural positions can be applied to English.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> the sum operation) are introduced into the focus. Thus, resolution of anaphora can be performed by processes on the focus not involving extensive search.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="10" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 6. FURTHER PRINCIPLES OF ANAPHORA RESOLUTION </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Further interesting problems can be observed in the interaction of concepts which possess grouping capacity. Consider: (6) a. Michael and Maria picked up Peter and Anne from the station.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> They were happy to see each other again.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> b. Michael and Mafia picked up Peter and Anne from the station.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> They were late.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> Here the following atomic and complex</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> In the preferred interpretation, they in (6.a) refers to r7, in (6.b) either to r5 or r6. It follows from this analysis that more than one complex RefO can be in focus. Which one is the most appropriate to link to the pronoun depends on two principles (see Herweg 1988): Principle of Permanence: It is prohibited (unless the text explicitly requires it) to link the plural pronoun to a proper sub-RefO of a complex RefO in focus. Reference to a sub-RefO is only possible if it was introduced explicitly into the discourse model by a previous inference.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> Principle of Maximality: The plural anaphoric pronoun should be linked to the maximal sum of appropriate RefOs with respect to a suitable CAB, unless the text contains explicit evidence to the contrary.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> The interaction of the principles of Connectedness, Permanence and Maximality can lead to correct and natural anaphora resolution in (6). For (6.a), maximality and per- 165 manence require a maximal sum, which is rT; in (6.b), knowledge about the situations of picking someone up and being late excludes r7 (i.e. no CAB can be established which is simultaneously satisfied by all atomic parts of r7; therefore, the condition of connectedness is not fulfilled) and thus gives evidence for a sub-RefO, namely either r5 or r6. The principle of Permanence excludes other combinations of atomic RefOs, such as rl * r3, r2 * r3, etc. Whether r5 or r6 is chosen at last can not be decided on the basis of the above mentioned principles alone.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> These examples show that a conflict resolution strategy is needed, as is not unusual for such principles.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="11" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 7. IMPLEMENTATION </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The RefN-processes and sum formation are currently being implemented in Quintus-PROLOG on a MicroVax workstation. The present implementation allows one to represent and create RefOs and (1) their descriptions by way of designators (internal proxies for names and definite NPs), (2) their descriptions by way of attributes, which specify properties (sorts) of the represented objects themselves (not their designations) and relations between them. E.g. sums are represented by the use of attributes to RefOs.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> The set of RefOs with their descriptions can be structured, so that different RefNs, whether or not they are independent from each other or related by shared RefOs, may be represented in parallel.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> The representation of a sample text within the formalism is being worked. The transfer of segments of the text into simple nets is not being done automatically but by hand.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> For each anaphor, a corresponding RefO is created but specially marked as an anaphoric RefO. This is intended to trigger the automatic resolution of anaphora.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> In the near future, it is planned to - determine the potential antecedent-referents for an anaphor out of the set of all RefOs which are available; - define the requirements concerning the representation of focus; it is planned to test different formats of representation; - structure the nets in order to represent CABs.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> The function of the last two steps mentioned is to put further restrictions on the set of potential antecedent-referents for a given anaphor.</Paragraph> </Section> class="xml-element"></Paper>