Irmer Bridging Inferences

Constraining and Resolving Underspecification in Discourse Interpretation
1. Auflage 2011
ISBN: 978-3-11-026201-8
Verlag: De Gruyter
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, Band 11, 423 Seiten

Reihe: Language, Context and CognitionISSN

This book presents work on bridging inferences in discourse interpretation. It develops a formalization that permits integrating indirect anaphora in the construction of a structured discourse representation. From a broader perspective, it provides a suitable dynamic-logic framework which can account for underspecifications in cohesion and coherence of discourses by either inferentially resolving or contextually constraining them. Special attention is given to the resolution of bridging anaphora by means of integrating encyclopedic knowledge encoded in FrameNet into a formal theory of discourse structure as provided by Segmented Discourse Representation Theory. A second focus lies on the discourse effects of Clitic Left Dislocation in Spanish. In addition, the book provides a synopsis of the problems, methods, approaches, and desiderata of research on text, context, and discourse interpretation from formal, computational, cognitive, and psychological points of view. Central topics include pragmatic inferences and defeasible reasoning, the Common Ground, cohesion and anaphora resolution, coherence and discourse structure, and discourse interpretation. The volume may thus also serve as a reference book on text meaning and context.

Zielgruppe

Sprachwissenschaftler, Germanisten, Bibliotheken, Institute

Autoren/Hrsg.

Irmer, Matthias

Fachgebiete

• Geisteswissenschaften Sprachwissenschaft Semantik & Pragmatik
• Geisteswissenschaften Sprachwissenschaft Textlinguistik, Diskursanalyse, Stilistik
• Geisteswissenschaften Sprachwissenschaft Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Preface;6
2;Acknowledgements;8
3;Contents;10
4;Introduction;18
5;1 Pragmatic Inferences;24
5.1;1.1 Semantic Underspecification and Pragmatic Enrichment;24
5.1.1;1.1.1 Underspecified Semantics;25
5.1.2;1.1.2 Accounts of Pragmatic Inference;29
5.1.2.1;1.1.2.1 Conversational Implicatures;30
5.1.2.2;1.1.2.2 Generalized Conversational Implicatures;33
5.1.2.3;1.1.2.3 Explicatures;35
5.1.2.4;1.1.2.4 Primary and Secondary Pragmatic Processes;36
5.1.2.5;1.1.2.5 Abductive Inferences;37
5.1.2.6;1.1.2.6 Conclusion;38
5.1.3;1.1.3 Properties of Pragmatic Inferences;39
5.2;1.2 Formal Approaches to Defeasible Reasoning;42
5.2.1;1.2.1 Default Logic;44
5.2.2;1.2.2 Circumscription;49
5.2.3;1.2.3 Commonsense Entailment;52
5.2.4;1.2.4 Abductive Reasoning;54
5.2.5;1.2.5 Conclusion;58
5.3;1.3 Pragmatic Inferences Beyond the Sentence Level;60
5.3.1;1.3.1 Text and Discourse;60
5.3.2;1.3.2 Cohesion;62
5.3.3;1.3.3 Coherence;65
5.3.3.1;1.3.3.1 An Intentional View on Discourse Coherence;67
5.3.3.2;1.3.3.2 An Informational View on Discourse Coherence;68
5.3.4;1.3.4 Looking Ahead;69
6;2 The Common Ground and Intentions in Conversations;74
6.1;2.1 The Common Ground;74
6.1.1;2.1.1 Definitions of Shared Knowledge;74
6.1.2;2.1.2 The Use of the Common Ground in Conversation;79
6.1.2.1;2.1.2.1 Evidence from Language Production;79
6.1.2.2;2.1.2.2 Evidence from Language Comprehension;80
6.1.2.3;2.1.2.3 Discussion and Conclusion;81
6.1.3;2.1.3 Establishing the Common Ground;82
6.1.3.1;2.1.3.1 Accumulation;83
6.1.3.2;2.1.3.2 Grounding;83
6.1.3.3;2.1.3.3 Structuring the Common Ground;86
6.1.4;2.1.4 Conclusion;87
6.2;2.2 Modelling Intentions in Discourses;89
6.2.1;2.2.1 Optimality Theory for Discourse Pragmatics;90
6.2.2;2.2.2 Linguistic Communication as a Game;93
6.2.3;2.2.3 Conclusion;95
7;3 The Discourse Model and Discourse Anaphora;96
7.1;3.1 Discourse Anaphora;97
7.1.1;3.1.1 Types and Distribution of Anaphoric Expressions;97
7.1.2;3.1.2 Syntactic and Semantic Notions of Anaphora;101
7.2;3.2 The Discourse Model;105
7.2.1;3.2.1 Conceptions of Discourse Models;105
7.2.2;3.2.2 Requirements on Discourse Models;109
7.3;3.3 Discourse Referents;111
7.3.1;3.3.1 Introducing Discourse Referents in the Discourse Model;111
7.3.2;3.3.2 Accessing Discourse Referents as Antecedents for Anaphora;113
7.3.2.1;3.3.2.1 Familiarity;113
7.3.2.2;3.3.2.2 Givenness;114
7.3.2.3;3.3.2.3 Accessibility;115
7.3.2.4;3.3.2.4 Salience;117
7.3.2.5;3.3.2.5 Activation;118
7.3.3;3.3.3 Conclusion;120
7.4;3.4 Theories of Anaphora Resolution;120
7.4.1;3.4.1 A Pragmatic Account;121
7.4.2;3.4.2 Computational Accounts;125
7.4.2.1;3.4.2.1 Focus Theory;125
7.4.2.2;3.4.2.2 Centering Theory;126
7.4.3;3.4.3 Dynamic Semantics and Discourse Representation Theory;131
7.4.3.1;3.4.3.1 Context as Index;132
7.4.3.2;3.4.3.2 Dynamic Semantics;133
7.4.3.3;3.4.3.3 Discourse Representation Theory;134
7.4.3.4;3.4.3.4 Anaphora in DRT;139
7.4.3.5;3.4.3.5 Discussion;141
7.4.4;3.4.4 Conclusion;142
8;4 Discourse Structure;144
8.1;4.1 Characteristics of Discourse Structure;145
8.1.1;4.1.1 Discourse Segments: Basic Structural Units;145
8.1.2;4.1.2 Connecting Discourse Segments;146
8.1.2.1;4.1.2.1 Discourse Markers;146
8.1.2.2;4.1.2.2 Discourse Relations;147
8.1.3;4.1.3 The Form of Discourse Structure;148
8.1.3.1;4.1.3.1 Sequences;148
8.1.3.2;4.1.3.2 Stacks;149
8.1.3.3;4.1.3.3 Trees;150
8.1.3.4;4.1.3.4 Graphs;154
8.1.3.5;4.1.4 Conclusion;157
8.2;4.2 Discourse Relations;158
8.2.1;4.2.1 Hobbs’ Coherence Relations;159
8.2.2;4.2.2 Kehler’s Three Types of Coherence;160
8.2.2.1;4.2.2.1 Coherence Relations: Cause-Effect;160
8.2.2.2;4.2.2.2 Coherence Relations: Resemblance;161
8.2.2.3;4.2.2.3 Coherence Relations: Contiguity;163
8.2.2.4;4.2.2.4 Linguistic Phenomena Explained by Kehler’s Taxonomy;164
8.2.2.5;4.2.2.5 Problems with Kehler’s Theory;168
8.2.3;4.2.3 Rhetorical Structure Theory;170
8.2.4;4.2.4 Rhetorical Relations in SDRT;176
8.2.5;4.2.5 Conclusion;182
8.3;4.3 Discourse Topic;182
8.3.1;4.3.1 Discourse Topic as Entity;184
8.3.2;4.3.2 Discourse Topic as Proposition;184
8.3.3;4.3.3 Discourse Topic as Question;188
8.3.3.1;4.3.3.1 Contrastive Sentence Topics;188
8.3.3.2;4.3.3.2 Topic-Comment Structures for Discourses;190
8.3.3.3;4.3.3.3 Quaestio Theory;192
8.3.3.4;4.3.3.4 Questions Under Discussion;194
8.3.4;4.3.4 Conclusion;195
9;5 Discourse Interpretation;198
9.1;5.1 Discourse Interpretation as Abduction;198
9.1.1;5.1.1 Flat Logical Forms;199
9.1.2;5.1.2 Weighted Abduction;200
9.1.3;5.1.3 Local Pragmatic Interpretation;203
9.1.4;5.1.4 Abduction in Structured Discourses;204
9.1.5;5.1.5 Conclusion;208
9.2;5.2 Minimal Model Generation;210
9.2.1;5.2.1 Herbrand Models for First-Order Languages;210
9.2.2;5.2.2 Generation of Discourse Models;212
9.2.3;5.2.3 Minimality of Models;215
9.2.4;5.2.4 Minimal Models and Discourse Anaphora;217
9.2.4.1;5.2.4.1 Resolving Pronouns by Model Generation;217
9.2.4.2;5.2.4.2 Equality by Default;220
9.2.5;5.2.5 Conclusion;223
9.3;5.3 Segmented Discourse Representation Theory;224
9.3.1;5.3.1 Representing Discourse Structures;225
9.3.2;5.3.2 Constructing Discourse Structures;228
9.3.2.1;5.3.2.1 The Logic of Underspecified Information Content;228
9.3.2.2;5.3.2.2 The Glue Logic;229
9.3.2.3;5.3.2.3 Discourse Update;233
9.3.2.4;5.3.2.4 Constraining Attachment;234
9.3.2.5;5.3.2.5 Maximize Discourse Coherence;236
9.3.3;5.3.3 Conclusion;237
10;6 Bridging Inferences;240
10.1;6.1 Bridging Anaphora;240
10.1.1;6.1.1 A Preliminary Classification;241
10.1.2;6.1.2 Corpus Studies on Anaphoric Expressions;242
10.1.3;6.1.3 Psycholinguistic Investigations;246
10.1.4;6.1.4 A Refined Classification;250
10.2;6.2 Bridging Relations;254
10.2.1;6.2.1 Mereological Relations;256
10.2.2;6.2.2 Relations Involving Events and Frames;257
10.3;6.3 Anaphora Resolution by Bridging Inferences;259
10.3.1;6.3.1 Pragmatic Accounts;259
10.3.2;6.3.2 Computational Accounts;261
10.3.2.1;6.3.2.1 Minimal Models for Bridging Anaphora;261
10.3.2.2;6.3.2.2 Automated Anaphora Resolution (Freitas, 2005);263
10.3.3;6.3.3 Bridging in SDRT;267
10.3.3.1;6.3.3.1 Representing Bridging Anaphora;268
10.3.3.2;6.3.3.2 Resolving Bridging Anaphora;271
10.3.3.3;6.3.3.3 Extending SDRT by Equality by Default;275
10.4;6.4 Conclusion;279
11;7 Bridges Between Events;280
11.1;7.1 Frame Semantics and FrameNet;280
11.1.1;7.1.1 Frame Semantics;280
11.1.2;7.1.2 FrameNet;281
11.1.2.1;7.1.2.1 Lexical Units;282
11.1.2.2;7.1.2.2 Frame Elements;283
11.1.2.3;7.1.2.3 Relations between Frames;286
11.1.2.4;7.1.2.4 Relations between Frame Elements;290
11.2;7.2 Building Bridges using FrameNet and SDRT;292
11.2.1;7.2.1 Integrating FrameNet and SDRT;292
11.2.2;7.2.2 Representing Frame Elements in SDRT;293
11.2.3;7.2.3 Establishing Discourse Relations by FrameNet Data;299
11.3;7.3 Constraints on Bridging Inferences;302
11.3.1;7.3.1 Bridging Constraints;303
11.3.1.1;7.3.1.1 The Preference for Coreference;303
11.3.1.2;7.3.1.2 Plausibility and Consistency;304
11.3.1.3;7.3.1.3 The Right Frontier Constraint;306
11.3.1.4;7.3.1.4 Maximize Discourse Coherence;308
11.3.2;7.3.2 Weak Discourse Referents as Bridging Anchors;310
11.4;7.4 Related Approaches;312
11.4.1;7.4.1 Implicit Arguments as A-definites (Koenig & Mauner, 1999);312
11.4.2;7.4.2 Bridging as Coercive Accommodation (Bos et al., 1995);314
11.4.3;7.4.3 FrameNet and DRT (Bos & Nissim, 2008);318
11.5;7.5 Conclusion;319
12;8 Bridging by Clitic Left Dislocation;322
12.1;8.1 Dislocation Constructions Across Languages;322
12.1.1;8.1.1 Left Dislocation vs. Topicalization;322
12.1.2;8.1.2 Left Dislocation vs. Focus Fronting;324
12.1.3;8.1.3 Hanging Topic Left Dislocation vs. Clitic Left Dislocation;324
12.1.4;8.1.4 Clitic Left Dislocation in Spanish;327
12.2;8.2 Discourse Functions of Left Dislocation;329
12.2.1;8.2.1 CLLD and Familiarity;331
12.2.1.1;8.2.1.1 Given Entities;331
12.2.1.2;8.2.1.2 Inferrable Entities;332
12.2.1.3;8.2.1.3 New Entities;335
12.2.2;8.2.2 CLLD and Discourse Topic;335
12.2.2.1;8.2.2.1 Topic Change;336
12.2.2.2;8.2.2.2 Topic Continuity;339
12.2.2.3;8.2.2.3 Conclusion;341
12.2.3;8.2.3 CLLD, Contrast, and Constraints on Discourse Structure;342
12.2.3.1;8.2.3.1 CLLD and Contrast;342
12.2.3.2;8.2.3.2 Constraints on Discourse Structure;344
12.2.3.3;8.2.3.3 Discussion;348
12.3;8.3 Semantics and Discourse Integration of Left Dislocations;349
12.3.1;8.3.1 From Syntax to Semantics;349
12.3.2;8.3.2 Towards a Discourse Semantic Representation of CLLD;352
12.3.3;8.3.3 Resolving Mereological Bridging Anaphora;354
12.3.3.1;8.3.3.1 Building Bridges via CLLD;354
12.3.3.2;8.3.3.2 Using Frame Information for Building Bridges;360
12.3.4;8.3.4 Resolving Frame-related Bridging Anaphora;366
12.4;8.4 Conclusion;371
13;Summary;374
14;List of Figures and Tables;382
15;List of Abbreviations;386
16;A Note on Used Corpora;388
17;Bibliography;390
18;Citation Index;414
19;Subject Index;420

Über Autor(innen)

Irmer, Matthias
Matthias Irmer, University of Leipzig

Matthias Irmer, University of Leipzig