Information structure and the accessibility of clausally introduced referents

Hegarty, Michael; Gundel, Jeanette K.; Borthen, Kaja

doi:10.21248/zaspil.23.2001.116

Cited by 2 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Preferences imposed by the anaphor or the antecedent. According to Hegarty, Gundel, and Borthen (2001), the degree of world immanence of an entity and the degree of its individuation contribute in deciding whether it can be referred to by demonstratives or the pronoun it. As Asher (1993) points out, eventualities have causal, spatial, and temporal properties, and thus they have high world immanence.…”

Section: Lexical and Semanticmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Preferences imposed by the antecedent context. Hegarty, Gundel, and Borthen (2001) describe how the complements of bridge verbs, such as think, believe, and say, are typically accessible to reference with demonstratives, but not with the personal pronoun it, as shown in Example (25), from their paper.…”

Section: Lexical and Semanticmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, entities introduced with complements of factive verbs, such as verify or know, are equally accessible to demonstratives and the pronoun it, as shown in Example (26), from their paper. According to Hegarty, Gundel, and Borthen (2001), factive verbs mark the entity expressed by the complement clause as already familiar, so that successive reference by it is possible.…”

Section: Lexical and Semanticmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been demonstrated by different researchers in different domains that the pronoun it requires its referent to be in an addressee's focus of attention, whereas demonstratives only require them to be activated, namely, present in working memory (the global focus) but not necessarily in focus (i.e., in the local focus). Hegarty, Gundel, and Borthen (2001) start from the hypothesis that the Givenness Hierarchy can explain the findings of Schiffman (1985) and Webber (1991) that nominal anaphora are preferably realized with it and non-NA anaphora with demonstratives (see Section 3.1.1). These findings can be explained if entities introduced by nominals are more easily brought into focus than their non-nominal counterparts.…”

Section: Discourse-level Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We start with the expressions that signal non-NA anaphora in English, such as demonstrative pronouns, the personal pronoun it, and noun phrases such as this issue and this fact, also known as shell noun phrases (Schmid 2000). We then discuss the linguistic properties of non-NA anaphora as presented in the literature: lexical and semantic properties (e.g., Asher 1993;Hegarty, Gundel, and Borthen 2001), syntactic properties (Passonneau 1989;Asher 1993), discourse-level properties (e.g., Gundel, Hegarty, and Borthen 2003;Poesio and Modjeska 2005;Hedberg, Gundel, and Zacharski 2007), and constraints on the distance between anaphor and antecedent, either in terms of tokens or sentences (e.g., Schmid 2000), the number of edges between nodes in some discourse representation structure (e.g., Webber 1991;Asher 1993Asher , 2008, or spatio-temporal proximity (e.g., Halliday and Hasan 1976).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Anaphora With Non-nominal Antecedents in Computational Linguistics: a Survey

Kolhatkar

Roussel

Dipper

et al. 2018

Computational Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides an extensive overview of the literature related to the phenomenon of non-nominal-antecedent anaphora (also known as abstract anaphora or discourse deixis), a type of anaphora in which an anaphor like “that” refers to an antecedent (marked in boldface) that is syntactically non-nominal, such as the first sentence in “It’s way too hot here. That’s why I’m moving to Alaska.” Annotating and automatically resolving these cases of anaphora is interesting in its own right because of the complexities involved in identifying non-nominal antecedents, which typically represent abstract objects such as events, facts, and propositions. There is also practical value in the resolution of non-nominal-antecedent anaphora, as this would help computational systems in machine translation, summarization, and question answering, as well as, conceivably, any other task dependent on some measure of text understanding. Most of the existing approaches to anaphora annotation and resolution focus on nominal-antecedent anaphora, classifying many of the cases where the antecedents are syntactically non-nominal as non-anaphoric. There has been some work done on this topic, but it remains scattered and difficult to collect and assess. With this article, we hope to bring together and synthesize work done in disparate contexts up to now in order to identify fundamental problems and draw conclusions from an overarching perspective. Having a good picture of the current state of the art in this field can help researchers direct their efforts to where they are most necessary. Because of the great variety of theoretical approaches that have been brought to bear on the problem, there is an equally diverse array of terminologies that are used to describe it, so we will provide an overview and discussion of these terminologies. We also describe the linguistic properties of non-nominal-antecedent anaphora, examine previous annotation efforts that have addressed this topic, and present the computational approaches that aim at resolving non-nominal-antecedent anaphora automatically. We close with a review of the remaining open questions in this area and some of our recommendations for future research.

show abstract

Section: Lexical and Semanticmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lexical and Semanticmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lexical and Semanticmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discourse-level Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Anaphora With Non-nominal Antecedents in Computational Linguistics: a Survey

Kolhatkar

Roussel

Dipper

et al. 2018

Computational Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Information structure and referential givenness/newness: How much belongs in the grammar?

Gundel

2003

hpsg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is concerned with such concepts as topic, focus and cognitive status of discourse referents, which have been included under the label information structure (alternatively information status), as they are related in some sense to the distribution of given and new information. It addresses the question of which information structural properties are best accounted for by grammatical constraints and which can be attributed to non-linguistic constraints on the way information is processed and communicated. Two logically independent senses of given-new information are distinguished, one referential and the other relational. I discuss some examples of linguistic phenomena that pertain to each of these different senses and show that both are linguistically relevant and must be represented in the grammar. I also argue that phenomena related to both senses have pragmatic effects that do not have to be represented in the grammar since they result from interaction of the language system with general pragmatic principles that constrain inferential processes involved in language production and understanding.

show abstract

Information structure and the accessibility of clausally introduced referents

Cited by 2 publications

References 5 publications

Anaphora With Non-nominal Antecedents in Computational Linguistics: a Survey

Anaphora With Non-nominal Antecedents in Computational Linguistics: a Survey

Information structure and referential givenness/newness: How much belongs in the grammar?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About