A computational approach to implicit entities and events in text and discourse

  • Rodolfo Delmonte


In this paper we will focus on the notion of “implicit” or lexically unexpressed linguistic elements that are nonetheless necessary for a complete semantic interpretation of a text. We refer to “entities” and “events” because the recovery of the implicit material may affect all the modules of a system for semantic processing, from the grammatically guided components to the inferential and reasoning ones. Reference to the system GETARUNS offers one possible implementation of the algorithms and procedures needed to cope with the problem and enables us to deal with all the spectrum of phenomena. The paper will address at first the following three types of “implicit” entities and events:
  • the grammatical ones, as suggested by a linguistic theories like LFG or similar generative theories;

  • the semantic ones suggested in the FrameNet project, i.e. CNI, DNI, INI;

  • the pragmatic ones: here we will present a theory and an implementation for the recovery of implicit entities and events of (non-) standard implicatures.

In particular we will show how the use of commonsense knowledge may fruitfully contribute to find relevant implied meanings. Last Implicit Entity only touched on, though for lack of space, is the Subject of Point of View, which is computed by Semantic Informational Structure and contributes the intended entity from whose point of view a given subjective statement is expressed.
Deep linguistic processing Semantic interpretation Inferencing Implications and implicatures Common sense reasoning 


  1. Anderson, A., Garrod, S. C., & Sanford, A. J. (1983). The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative text. Google Scholar
  2. Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. B. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet project. In Proceedings of COLING-ACL-98, Montreal, Canada. Google Scholar
  3. Bresnan, J. (2000). Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  4. Delmonte, R. (2007–2009). Computational linguistic text processing. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Google Scholar
  5. Fellbaum, C. (Ed.) (1998). WordNet: an electronic lexical database. Cambridge: MIT Press. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics : Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  7. Grosz, B. (1981). Focusing and description in natural language dialogues. In A. Joshi, B. Webber, & I. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Google Scholar
  8. Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175–204. Google Scholar
  9. Lenat, D. B. (1995). CYC: a large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communications of the ACM, 38(11). Google Scholar
  10. Liu, H., & Singh, P. (2004). ConceptNet: a practical commonsense reasoning toolkit. At
  11. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Google Scholar
  12. Mueller, E. T. (2007). Modelling space and time in narratives about restaurants. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 22(1), 67–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A (1983). 35(3), 427–440. Google Scholar
  14. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language: exploration in comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester: Wiley. Google Scholar
  15. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1988). Thematic subjecthood and cognitive constraints on discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(5–6), 519–534. Google Scholar
  16. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. (1998). The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 26, 159–190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hilsdale: Erlbaum. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Sidner, C. (1983). Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. In M. Brady & R. Berwick (Eds.), Computational models of discourse (pp. 267–330). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università “Ca Foscari”VeneziaItaly

Personalised recommendations