Bridging Inferences in a Dynamic Frame Theory

  • Ralf NaumannEmail author
  • Wiebke Petersen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11456)


In this article we develop a theory of bridging inferences in a dynamic frame theory that is an extension of Incremental Dynamics. In contrast to previous approaches bridging is seen as based on predictions/expectations that are triggered by discourse referents in a particular context where predictions are (more specific) instances of Questions under Discussion. In our frame theory each discourse referent is associated with a frame f that contains the information known about it in the current context. Predictions/QuDs are modelled as sets F of extensions of this frame relative to a (possibly complex) attribute about whose value no information is given so far. A continuation of the current context answers a question if it introduces a frame \(f'\) that contains information about the value of the attribute corresponding to the question. The set F is constrained by a probability distribution on the domain of frames. Only those extensions are considered whose conditional probability in the current context is high. The relation between f and \(f'\) can be restricted in several ways. Bridging inferences correspond to those restrictions in which (i) the frames belong to the semantic representations of two clauses and (ii) the relation is established by a separate update operation (The research was supported by the German Science Foundation (DFG) funding the Collaborative Research Center 991. We would like to thank the two reviewers as well as the editors for helpful comments and suggestions).


  1. [AL98]
    Asher, N., Lascarides, A.: Bridging. J. Semant. 15, 83–113 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Bur06]
    Burkhardt, P.: Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain Lang. 98(2), 159–168 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [CH77]
    Clark, H.H., Haviland, S.E.: Comprehension and the given-new contract. In: Freedle, R.O. (ed.) Discourse Production and Comprehension, pp. 1–40. Ablex Publishing, Hillsdale (1977)Google Scholar
  4. [Cha83]
    Charniak, E.: Passing markers: a theory of contextual influence in language comprehension. Cogn. Sci. 7, 171–190 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [Chi95]
    Chierchia, G.: Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition and the Theory of Grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Cla77]
    Clark, H.: Bridging. In: Johnson-Laird, P., Wason, P. (eds.) Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science, pp. 411–420. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1977)Google Scholar
  7. [Geu11]
    Geurts, B.: Accessibility and anaphora. In: von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., Portner, P. (eds.) Semantics. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, vol. 2, pp. 1988–2011. DeGruyter (2011). Chapter 75Google Scholar
  8. [HSAM93]
    Hobbs, J.R., Stickel, M.E., Appelt, D.E., Martin, P.A.: Interpretation as abduction. Artif. Intell. 63(1–2), 69–142 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [KR17]
    Kehler, A., Rohde, H.: Evaluating an expectation-driven question-under-discussion model of discourse interpretation. Discourse Process. 54(3), 219–238 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [Nou03]
    Nouwen, R.: Plural pronominal anaphora in context. Ph.D. thesis, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics Dissertations, LOT, Utrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  11. [NP17]
    Naumann, R., Petersen, W., Thomas, G.: Underspecified changes: a dynamic, probabilistic frame theory for verbs. In: Sauerland, U., Solt, S. (eds.) Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22, vol. 2 (2018)Google Scholar
  12. [Pn97]
    Piñón, C.: Achievements in an event semantics. In: Lawson, A. (ed.) Proceedings SALT VII, pp. 276–293. Cornell University, Ithaca (1997)Google Scholar
  13. [RR16]
    Reyle, U., Riester, A.: Joint information structure and discourse structure analysis in an underspecified DRT framework. In: Hunter, J., Simons, M., Stone, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (JerSem), New Brunswick, pp. 15–24. Rutgers University (2016)Google Scholar
  14. [vE07]
    van Eijck, J.: Context and the composition of meaning. In: Bunt, H., Muskens, R. (eds.) Computing Meaning, vol. 83, pp. 173–193. Springer, Dordrecht (2007). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Sprache und InformationUniversität DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations