Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 261–327 | Cite as

Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora

  • Hub Prüst
  • Remko Scha
  • Martin van den Berg
Article

Abstract

We argue that an adequate treatment of verb phrase anaphora (VPA) must depart in two major respects from the standard approaches. First of all, VP anaphors cannot be resolved by simply identifying the anaphoric VP with an antecedent VP. The resolution process must establish a syntactic/semantic parallelism between larger units (clauses or discourse constituent units) that the VPs occur in. Secondly, discourse structure has a significant influence on the reference possibilities of VPA. This influence must be accounted for.

We propose a treatment which meets these requirements. It builds on a discourse grammar which characterizes discourse cohesion by means of a syntactic/semantic matching procedure which recognizes parallel structures in discourse. It turns out that this independently motivated procedure yields the resolution of VPA as a side effect.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Significant Influence Standard Approach Parallel Structure Computational Linguistic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asher, Nicholas: 1993,Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse, Studies in Linguistics (50), Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  2. van den Berg, Martin and Hub Prüst: 1990, ‘Common Denominator and Default Unification’,Proceedings of the First Meeting of Computer Linguists in the Netherlands (CLIN), Utrecht, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
  3. Bouma, Gosse: 1990, ‘Defaults in Unification Grammar’,Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the ACL, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, pp. 165–172.Google Scholar
  4. Cresswell, Max J.: 1985,Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes, Bradford Books, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  5. Dalrymple, Mary, Stuart M., Shieber, and Fernando C. N. Pereira: 1991, ‘Ellipsis and Higher-Order Unification’,Linguistics and Philosophy 14(4), 399–452.Google Scholar
  6. Dowty, David, Robert Wall, and Stanley Peters: 1981,Introduction to Montague Semantics, Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. van Eijck, Jan: 1985,Aspects of Quantification in Natural Language, unpublished dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  8. Gardent, Claire: 1991, Gapping and VP Ellipsis in a Unification-Based Grammar, unpublished dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  9. Grober, E., W. Beardsley, and A. Caramazza: 1978, ‘Parallel Function Strategy in Pronoun Assignment’,Cognition 6, 117–133.Google Scholar
  10. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1984,Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers', unpublished dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1991, ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’,Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100.Google Scholar
  12. Grosz, Barbara, Aravind Joshi, and Scott Weinstein: 1983,Providing a Unified Account of Definite Noun Phrases in Discourse, SRI Technical Note 292.Google Scholar
  13. Hendriks, Herman: 1993,Studied Flexibility-Categories and Types in Syntax and Semantics, ILLC Dissertation Series 3, Institute for Language, Logic and Computation, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. Hobbs, Jerry R.: 1979, ‘Coherence and Coreference’,Cognitive Science 3, 67–90.Google Scholar
  15. Janssen, Theo: 1983,Foundations and Applications of Montague Grammar, CWI, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. Kameyama, Megumi: 1986, ‘A Property Sharing Constraint in Centering’,Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 200–207.Google Scholar
  17. Kamp, Hans: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen and M. Stokhof (eds),Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  18. Kaplan, Jeff: 1984, ‘ObligatoryTOO in English’,Language 60(3), 510–518.Google Scholar
  19. Klein, Ewan: 1987, ‘VP Ellipsis in DR Theory’, in J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh and M. Stokhof (eds),Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Groningen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics (GRASS), Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  20. Kuno, Susumu: 1976, ‘Gapping: A Functional Analysis’,Linguistic Inquiry 7, 300–318.Google Scholar
  21. Lang, Ewald: 1977,Semantik der Koordinativen Verknüpfung, Studia Grammatica XIV, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  22. Lightfoot, D. W.: 1982,The Language Lottery: Toward a Biology of Grammar, The MIT Press, London.Google Scholar
  23. Mann, William C. and Sandra A. Thompson: 1988, ‘Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization’,Text 8, 243–281.Google Scholar
  24. Nash-Webber, Bonnie and Ivan Sag: 1978, ‘Under whose Control?’,Linguistic Inquiry 9, 138–141.Google Scholar
  25. Partee, Barbara and Emmon Bach: 1981, ‘Quantification, Pronouns and VP Anaphora’, in J. Groenendijk, M. Stokhof and T. Janssen (eds),Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  26. Polanyi, Livia and Remko Scha: 1984, ‘A Syntactic Approach to Discourse Semantics’,Proceedings of COLING, Stanford, California, pp. 413–419.Google Scholar
  27. Polanyi, Livia: 1985, ‘A Theory of Discourse Structure and Discourse Coherence’,Papers from the General Session of the Chicago Linguistic Society,CLS 21, 306–322.Google Scholar
  28. Polanyi, Livia: 1986,The Linguistic Discourse Model: Towards a Formal Theory of Discourse Structure, BBN Report No. 6409, BBN Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  29. Prüst, Hub: 1992,On Discourse Structuring, VP Anaphora and Gapping, unpublished dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  30. Reinhart, Tanya: 1983, ‘Coreference and Bound Anaphora’,Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 47–88.Google Scholar
  31. Robinson, J. A.: 1965, ‘A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle’,Journal of the ACM 12(1).Google Scholar
  32. Rooth, Mats: 1985,Association with Focus, unpublished dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  33. Sag, Ivan: 1977,Deletion and Logical Form, unpublished dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  34. Sag, Ivan, Gerald Gazdar, Thomas Wasow, and Steven Weisler: 1985, ‘Coordination and How to Distinguish Categories’,Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 117–172.Google Scholar
  35. Scha, Remko: 1981, ‘Distributive, Collective and Cumulative Quantification’, in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen and M. Stokhof (eds),Formal Methods in the Study of Language (Part 2), Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  36. Scha, Remko and Livia Polanyi: 1988, ‘An Augmented Contextfree Grammar for Discourse’,Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pp. 22–27.Google Scholar
  37. Siekmann, Jörg: 1989, ‘Unification Theory’,Journal of Symbolic Computation 7, 207–274.Google Scholar
  38. Talmy, Leonard: 1978, ‘Relations between Subordination and Coordination’, in J. Greenberg, C. Ferguson and E. Moravcsik (eds),Universals of Human Language, Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Vonk, Wietske: 1991, ‘Specificity of Referring and the Comprehension of Text Structure’,Proceedings of the Workshop on Discourse Coherence, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  40. Williams, Edwin: 1977, ‘Discourse and Logical Form’,Linguistic Inquiry 8(1), 101–139.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hub Prüst
    • 1
  • Remko Scha
    • 1
  • Martin van den Berg
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Logic, Language and Computation Faculty of ArtsUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations