File Information
File: 05-lr/acl_arc_1_sum/cleansed_text/xml_by_section/metho/98/p98-2163_metho.xml
Size: 19,172 bytes
Last Modified: 2025-10-06 14:15:00
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <Paper uid="P98-2163"> <Title>Recognition of the Coherence Relation between Te-linked Clauses</Title> <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="990" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 2 Categorization of Te-linkage </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Traditionally, te-constructions have been divided into three categories according to the function of te: (i) as a non-productive derivational suffix; (ii) as a linker joining a main verb with a so-called auxiliary to form a complex predicate; and (iii) as a linker connecting two phrases or clauses. Since the derivatives and the auxiliaries are relatively fixed compared with the third category, we concentrate on the third category in this paper.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Japanese re, like English and, is used to express a diverse range of coherence relations as shown below 1.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (1) Circumstance itami-wo koraete hasiri-tuzuketa.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> pain-ACC endure-te run-continue-PAST &quot;Enduring pain, (I) kept running.&quot; (2) Additive zyoon-wa akarukute kinben-da.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> Joan-TOP be-cheerful-te diligent COPULAPRES null &quot;Joan is cheerful and diligent.&quot; (3) Temporal Sequence gogo-wa tegami-wo kalte, ronbun-wo yonda.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> afternoon-TOP letter-ACC write-te thesis-ACC read-PAST &quot;In the afternoon, (I) wrote letters and read the thesis.&quot; (4) Cause-Effect talhuu-ga kite, ie-ga hakai-sareta.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> &quot;A typhoon came, and houses were destroyed.&quot; kare-wa okane-ga atte kasanai.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> he-TOP money-NOM there-be-re lend-NEG-</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="5" start_page="990" end_page="990" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> PILES </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> &quot;Although he has money, (he) won't lend (it to anyone).&quot; When such a relation is understood to be intended by the speaker, it is always inferable solely from the conjuncts themselves.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Although re-linkage exhibits an extreme degree of semantic nonspecificity, it is nonetheless very common in actual usage2and does not cause problem in communication. We will see how such diversity of relations arise in the next section.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="6" start_page="990" end_page="991" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3 Organization of the Coherence Relations </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Although the semantic relations between the relinked constituents are diverse, not all relations implicated by parataxis can be expressed by re-linkage (Hasegawa, 1996). For example, if the clauses equivalent to I sat down and The door opened are presented paratactically in Japanese, the interpreter naturally reads in a Temporal Sequence relation, just as in English. But this relation is not an available interpretation when the clauses are linked by re. That is, among the relations potentially implicated by two copresent clauses, some are filtered out by re-linkage.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> We presume that the inherent meaning of te is &quot;togetherness.&quot; The only relations that fit with this meaning are possible to arise within re-linkage. The notion of &quot;togetherness&quot; can be divided into two categories according to the temporal properties of relations. One in parallel and the other in series. In the former, two events occur simultaneously or two 2 On the basis of a corpus of 3,330 multi-predicate sentences sampled from various types of text, Saeki (Saeki, 1975) reports a total of 26 connectives (1,047 tokens altogether), of which te holds the foremost rank: it occurs 512 times, while the second most frequent connective, 9a, occurs only 141 times. According to Inoue (Inoue, 1983), te appears most frequently in spontaneous speech (34.5% of all connectives) and in informal writing (27%).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> In formal writing such as newspaper editorials, te ranks second (17.2%) after ren'yoo linkage (36.9%). The actual occurrence of te is much more frequent than these numbers suggest, because these data do not include cases in which the second predicate is a so-called auxiliary.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> states hold at the same time, while in the latter, two events occur successively.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> These two categories are further divided into smaller categories according to the event structures of conjuncts. The category of sequential relations contains both Cause-Effect and Temporal Sequence.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> When two events which are linked solely by temporal sequentiality are expressed via te-linkage, the conjuncts must share an agentive subject. Thus, causation and one person's volitional acts are sufficient to be recognized as togetherness.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> On the other hand, in order for the category of parallel occurrence of events to be compatible with re-linkage, they must be homogeneous in some sense.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> One such example is the case where a thing has two different properties (Additive) and another is the cases where two different things have similar properties or are engaged in similar events (Contrast).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> As for the Additive relation, the subject of the second conjunct is often omitted since it is the same as that of the first. In addition, both predicates of the conjuncts are stative -- adjectives or stative verbs -- because they have no temporal boundaries as opposed to events and can easily hold at the same time within one person. As for the Contrast relation, the subjects of the conjuncts must be different from each other and hence both of them are explicitly mentioned (often marked with the contrastive wa). In general, the similarities of the predicates appear as the syntactic parallelism as the example (6) shows.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> The other sub-category of the parallel occurrence of events is &quot;accompaniment,&quot; where the second clause is foregrounded and the first backgrounded.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> The prototypical instance of this category is the case where the first clause denotes a state and the second an event, since we have a tendency to focus on a changing event rather than stable state. Thus, the Circumstance relation composes this category. The cases where the first clause denotes some manner of event are also contained in this category, since a manner accompanies an event.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> The notion of the manner is continuous to the means since the means and manner of an event are often coextensive in that the means of an event often determines the manner of the event. This is exemplified by English with as well as Japanese de, which are used both as an instrumental or means marker and as a marker of manner (How is similarly polysemous) (Goldberg, 1996).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> The Means-End relation is also continuous to causation, since the means can be interpreted as a kind of causation. This is exemplified by Japanese doosite (why/ ow) as follows: &quot;since (I) want to meet (you)&quot; (18b) expresses the reason why the speaker came to the hearer -- &quot;the wish to meet the hearer caused him/her to come.&quot; Thus, this relation associates the two extremes i.e., parallelism and sequentiality.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> Finally, the Concession is closely related to both Cause and Contrast. In the Concession relation, the first clause implies something and the second clause denys it. The implied states or events are often those to be caused by the events or states denoted by the first clause, and then denied and contrast with the second clause.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> The whole organization is shown in Figure 1. Note togethernese parallel sequential ./7&quot;-.. /&quot;-..</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> (Vw, e,g,p)go(e, y,p) ^ locational(e) A goal(g) D pp(&quot;w - ni&quot;,g) A place(g) (Y=w, e, g, p)go(e, y, p) A posessional(e) ^ goal(g) D pp(&quot;w -- ni&quot;, g) A thing(g) (Vw, 8, y, p)be(s, y, l) A locational(e) A at(l, p) D pp(&quot;w -- ni&quot;,p) A place(p) (Vw, e, x, y)act(e, x, y) D pp(&quot;w-ga&quot;, x)Aanimate(x) (Vw, e, y, s )become( e, y, 8) ~ pp( &quot;w -- ga&quot;, y) (Y=w,s,y,l)beCs, y,l) D pp(&quot;w - ga&quot;,y) (Vw, e, x, y)act(e, x, y) ~ W(&quot;v' -- o&quot;, y) (Vw, e, ~, y, 8)aS(e, ~, y) ^ become(e, y, 8) mo(&quot;w - o&quot;, y) J that this organization of the relations are viewed from the perspective of re-linkage. The different organizations may emerge via the other linkages.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="7" start_page="991" end_page="994" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 4 Recognizing the Coherence </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"/> <Section position="1" start_page="991" end_page="992" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> Relations 4.1 Overview </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Theoretically, it is more likely that when we have heard/read the first clause and te, we narrow down the possible relations by inferring the content of the second clause. For example, if the first clause denotes an action, we will infer what is caused by the action or another action which may follow the action -- that is, Cause or Temporal Sequence will be expected. On the other hand, if the first clause denotes a state, Circumstance or Additive will be expected.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> In practice, however, we have both clauses at hand.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Therefore, we adopt the following algorithm: rules backward. The linking rules are regular ways of (vs, y, z, l)be(s, y, l) ^ at(l, z) ~ State(s) (re, z, y)act(e, x, y) D TransAct(e) (re, z)act(e, z) D IntransAct(e) (re, y,p)go(e, y,p) A path(p) D Move(e) (re, y, s, l, z)become(e, y, s) h be(s, y, l) h at(l, z) D Achievement(e) (re, e~, e~, ,~, y)act(el, x, y) ^ cause(e, e,, e~) ^becomeCe~, y, s) ^ be(s, y,l) ^ at(l, z) mapping open arguments -- i.e., variables of semantic structures whose referents can be expressed syntactically by a phrase within the same clause as the predicate -- onto grammatical functions or underlying syntactic configurations by virtue of thematic roles (thematic roles are positions in a structured semantic representation). In the case of Japanese, they are triggered by case particles. In STEP2, the verb's semantic structures are invoked and unified with the outputs of STEP1. The examples of the linking rules and verbs' semantic structures are shown in Figure 2 and 3 respectively.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> However, since the real texts contain far more complexity and ambiguity than the examples given in this paper, we have to correct the outputs of the processes manually (the gapped arguments are filled by hand). We now focus on the processes that calculate the coherence relations.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="992" end_page="992" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 4.2 The Properties Relevant to the Coherence Relations </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> What is essential for recognizing the coherence relation between clauses is that the constituents of one clause bear certain kind of structural relationship to those of the other. Although there are an infinite number of situations, there seems to be only a small number of properties relevant to the coherence relations that can hold between them. They are: 1) the identity and agentivity of the subjects in the two clauses 2) the thematic and aspectual properties of the event denoted by each clause 3) canonical events associated with the noun that is relevant to both clauses Before going through the use of these properties, let's consider the other information which affects our construal of the relations.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> There are some adverbials or fixed expressions which coerce the interpretation into the specific relation. In addition, there are narrow-range verb classes which specialize the implicated relation by virtue of their inherent meaning. For example, verbs that take a temporal NP as the subject and means &quot;the passage of time&quot; such as sugiru(pass away), tatu(go by), keikasuru(elapse), etc., imply the Temporal Sequence relation when followed by te. Verbs that express &quot;using&quot; such as tukau(use}, siyousuru(make use of), katuyousuru(apply), etc., imply the Means-End relation. They are summarized in Table 1. In Table 1, \[TE\] means temporal expressions such as days, months, years, centuries, etc. The verbs and fixed expressions appear in the first clause, while the adverbials in the second. These fixed expressions should be listed as a unit in the lexicon.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> When these expressions appear in the test sentences, we can identify the relation regardless of the procedure described below. Otherwise, we have recourse to the aforementioned properties.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="3" start_page="992" end_page="994" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 4.3 The Prototypes and the Extensions </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> In the previous study, We have classified verbs into 30 semantic categories, and for each category we have given a lexical conceptual structure (LCS) representation (Oishi and Matsumoto, 1997). Since the LCS representation involves lexical decomposition (Jackendoff, 1990), we can utilize the verb internal semantic structure so as to calculate coherence relations in a farely principled way.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> As mentioned in the introduction, we consider each relation as a category. Categories cannot be defined in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, but rather each instance is categorized according to its similarity to the prototypes of the categories (Rosch, 1973; Lakoff, 1987; Taylor, 1989).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> We define a prototypical structure for each relation by means of the predicates used in the LCSs as follows: sugiru(pass away), keikasuru(elapse) ... owa u(end), oeru( ni h)... tuzuku(continue), hikituzuku(follow) ...</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> sonogo(after that}, imadeha(nowadays} ...</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> \[Tg\]ni-natte(set in), \[Tglhodo-site(afler)...</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> tukau(use), siyousuru(make use of) ...</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> ni-yotte(by means of) dake-atte(on account of), wo-ukete(given) ...</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> sou(be parallel to), motozuku(be based) ...</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> Here, WITH, AND, THEN, etc., are mnemonic names for the relations and each can be considered as a function that takes two events or states as its arguments and returns a coherent event or state. We use the infix notation for each function rather than prefix. The square brackets identify the semantic structure of a clause and their subscripts denotes the surface ordering of the clauses linked by re. ACT, BE, GO, and BECOME are also functions and they correspond to actions, states, movement, and inchoatives respectively. They express broad-range classes of the events which are constructed by the previous steps (see Figure 3). The whole structures incorporate the identity between the subjects of two clauses by the variables x and y. Agentivity of each subject is implied by the types of the events: ACT > GO > BECOME > BE.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> Often, these prototypical structures are lexicalized and expressed by a single clause. For example, the Cause-Effect relation is lexicalized into accomplishment verbs (Talmy, 1985) and the Means-End relation can be expressed by an adjunct event noun followed by the case particle de. They must be extended so that they can cover wider range of instances of re-linkage. The result of the extension is shown in Table 2 (for cases each of which shares a subject) and Table 3 (for cases each of which has distinct subjects), where each column corresponds to the type of the event in the first clause and each row to the second. The prototypes are boldfaced and they are extended to the other boxes with some directions and constraints.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> For example, the Temporal Sequence relation has a prototype structure, which is roughly read as &quot;someone goes to somewhere, and then he/she goes (from there) to elsewhere.&quot; This expresses our common sense that one person cannot move along two different paths at the same time, which implys that the two movements by a person must be sequential.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> This prototype is extended so as to cover such situations as &quot;someone goes to somewhere, and then he/she does something/becomes something/stays there&quot; or &quot;someone does something/become something/stays somewhere, and then he/she goes to elsewhere.&quot; They are expressed by vertical and horizontal extensions of the prototype in Table 2. The movements involved in these situations are locational and the other events must be done volitionally by the same person. Another extension covers situations where &quot;someone does something, and then he/she does something else.&quot; This is based on the fact that one person cannot generally engage in two actions at the same time. Of course, any type of events may occur sequentially. However, there exists the constraint on the fitness with te-linkage as mentioned in the previous section.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> The explanation for the other relations is detailed in (Oishi, 1998).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> As a result of the extensions, many boxes have two or more relations. Notice that the nearer relations in the organization tend to be in the same boxes. To discriminate among them, we specify for each combination of event types such algorithm as follows (below, I(i,j) means that two clauses share an subject and D(i,j) means that two clauses have distinct subjects, where i is the event type of the first clause and j the second): * I(ACT,ACT), I(ACT,GO) If either clause contains the expressions which fix the temporal boundary, then Temporal Sequence; null else if the verb of the first clause involves a manner component, then Circumstance; otherwise, Means-End.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> On the other hand, there remain some boxes blank. They should be resolved by using the third property -- the canonical events associated with the noun that is relevant to both clauses. The generative lexicon will serve the purpose (Pustejovsky, 1995). At present, however, we have not yet fully implemented the lexicon for nouns. Therefore, we give the Circumstance relation as a default.</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> class="xml-element"></Paper>