Nicholas Asher. 1993. Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....phrase approach of (Marcu 97) similar to us. However, he does not consider how several coreference relations interact with the resulting discourse structure. Also, it remains unclear how the correct target node to attach to is identified in his approach. Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (Asher 93) provides a framework for dealing with discourse structure which incorporates referential accessibility constraints, too. Asher, however, does not rely on coreferences for establishing target units. Rather the derivation of a coherence relation (and thereby of the target unit to connect a new ....

Nicholas Asher. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993.

....and its prosodic realization in terms of pitch range. In the next section we introduce a phonological model of register. The register is assumed to be a phonological entity, which is phonetically interpreted as pitch range. It reflects semantic relations among discourse segments as described in [3] and [4] The formal interface between register and dynamic semantics was developed in [5] In the subsequent sections we describe the data analyzed in this work and the method used for automatically extracting the pitch range from the data. We then present how specific registers are realized in ....

....compression) In the autosegmental model, these modifications are represented as secondary register features. Other than primary features, which depend on the internal phrasing of discourse segments, secondary register features reflect semantic relations among discourse segments. According to [3] an important aspect of some discourse relations (e.g. elaboration, background) is discourse dominance, leading to a hierarchical representation of the topic structure of discourse. In the model in [5] this semantic hierarchy is prosodically expressed by means of secondary registers. The first ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

N. Asher, Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

....(DRS) are built dynamically, taking into account the anaphoric nature of tense and aspect. 7] gives a detailed description of DRS construction rules, which are given in a top down manner that is not easy to implement. Nowadays, compositional approaches are preferred (see for example [1] [2], 1 WOLLIC, pp. 1 11 2001 c Oxford University Press 2 A Compositional Approach for the Interpretation of Temporal Adjuncts [3] and [9] Discourse Representation Structures (DRS) are built dynamically: each sentence of a discourse is used to update the current representation. The DRS that ....

Nicholas Asher. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer Academics, Dordrecht, 1993.

....in cases where there is a non subject parallelism. We use the level of discourse representation for VP ellipsis resolution, in an extension of Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp, 1981) For the reconstruction of elided material we adopt a version of Asher s Concept Abstraction mechanism (Asher, 1993). We furthermore integrate Van der Sandt s presupposition projection algorithm (1992) Van der Sandt argues that presuppositions are kind of anaphoric expressions which interpretation is strongly influenced by discourse structure. The main difference to pronouns is that presuppositions have more ....

....DRSs, and neither do propositional conditions. They are, in contrast to the sub DRSs formulated under clause (3) accessible for anaphoric relations and inherit the subordination relations of the DRS in which they are situated. Ellipsis resolution is done by a process called C Abstraction (cf. Asher 1993, p. 249) It is stated in a simplified form as: Definition 2: C Abstraction for VP ellipsis (Asher) 1. If ffl:P (t) is a condition in DRS K and is derived from auxiliary do, then P may be identified with y.K , where K is an alphabetic variant of a part of K. 3 2. K is underspecified for ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Nicholas Asher. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

....an underspeci ed relation between an underspeci ed antecedent and the referent for the expression. A task that s co dependent on resolving this underspeci cation is computing how the utterance contributes to a coherent dialogue. Following Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (sdrt, cf. e.g. (Asher 1993, Lascarides Asher 1993) we assume that a dialogue is coherent just in case every proposition (and question and request) is rhetorically connected to another proposition (or question or request) in the dialogue, and all anaphoric expressions can be resolved. The rhetorical relations can be ....

....between an underspeci ed antecedent and the referent for the expression. A task that s co dependent on resolving this underspeci cation is computing how the utterance contributes to a coherent dialogue. Following Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (sdrt, cf. e.g. Asher 1993, Lascarides Asher 1993)) we assume that a dialogue is coherent just in case every proposition (and question and request) is rhetorically connected to another proposition (or question or request) in the dialogue, and all anaphoric expressions can be resolved. The rhetorical relations can be viewed as speech act types ....

Asher, N. (1993), Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht.

....the order described and the second action is performed in Fred s oce. 1.1a) implicates that the red le folder is in Fred s oce whereas (1.1b) doesn t implicate this. Similar spatio temporal implicatures hold of the indicatives versions (1. 1cd) Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (sdrt, Asher 1993, Lascarides and Asher 1993) accounts for the implicatures in (1.1cd) by stipulating within a dynamic semantic setting how one computes the rhetorical relation which connects the propositions (namely, Narration for (1.1cd) and stipulating how such relations constrain the content of its arguments ....

....second action is performed in Fred s oce. 1.1a) implicates that the red le folder is in Fred s oce whereas (1.1b) doesn t implicate this. Similar spatio temporal implicatures hold of the indicatives versions (1. 1cd) Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (sdrt, Asher 1993, Lascarides and Asher 1993) accounts for the implicatures in (1.1cd) by stipulating within a dynamic semantic setting how one computes the rhetorical relation which connects the propositions (namely, Narration for (1.1cd) and stipulating how such relations constrain the content of its arguments (e.g. the spatio temporal ....

Asher, N. [1993] Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

....(Webber 1991; Dahl Hellman 1995) a view which is incompatible with null topic reference to such entities. As there are many different types of abstract objects, this chapter will be concerned with defining them and describing the rules governing discourse deictic reference. Asher s framework (Asher 1993), presented in this chapter, draws attention to the importance of the predicating context of the anaphor for determining the exact type of abstract object it refers to. Also introduced are Webber s (1991) evolving tree structures which are used to represent the structuring of discourse regions and ....

....is taken for granted, and the demonstrative refers to a fact. The dialogue in 4.7 contains what Lyons (1977) has called pure textual deixis. In this case the anaphor points to the linguistic object the utterance itself and not anything it refers to or expresses. Dahl Hellman (1995) and Asher (1993) note that abstract entity anaphors are not always placeholders for bits of syntactic structure. Whilst it is possible to rephrase CHAPTER 4. ABSTRACT OBJECTS 103 the anaphor using, for example, a clause or a VP, often the constituents required to do this are discontinuous in the antecedent ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Series Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 50 . Dordrecht London:Kluwer Academic.

....major source of our understanding of mathematical reasoning. The reasonable course would be to distill from this great reservoir whatever is mechanizable [28] This is a promising approach to make proof machines more usable. Our work also relates to extensions of DRT, in particular Asher s SDRT [2]. SDRT discourse update mechanism allows to e ectively interface semantics with pragmatics. The discourse update procedure consists of relating a sentence to its prior discourse (not just adding it) To compute such rhetorical relations (e.g. background, narration, elaboration) Asher and ....

N. Asher. Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

....42 Jan van Eijck and Hans Kamp Ch. 1 straightforward definition of the interpretation of a typed expression can now be given in terms of an interpretation function I, a (typed logic) variable assignment g, and a marker assignment f . This theme is played (sometimes with minor variations) in Asher [4], Bos et al. 9] Kuschert [31] and Muskens [35] From the point of view of the dynamic logic reference markers are variables, to be sure, but, as we have seen, substitution for dynamic variables is handled quite differently from variable substitution in static logics. Another way of expressing ....

....of if and every use : p ffl :q) rather than p ) q to allow for the possibility of renaming during the merge of the components. The composition of representation structures for these example sentences is a matter of routine. See Gamut [17] for a didactic account of the general procedure, Asher [4] and Muskens [35] for applications in dynamic semantics, and Bouchez, Van Eijck and Istace [10] for a description of an implementation of dynamic semantics using the technique. As an example, let us go through the procedure of building a representation for (55) We assume the following indexing ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

N. Asher. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Dordrecht, 1993.

....by making use of domain knowledge and by taking rhetorical relations how does a sentence rhetorically relate to prior discourse into account. Asher and Lascarides aim to properly handle presuppositions within their SDRT framework (a considerable extension of DRT o ering more structure) [Ash93]. They argue that their SDRT discourse update mechanism allows to e ectively interface semantics with pragmatics. The discourse update procedure consists of relating a sentence to its prior discourse (not just adding it) To compute such rhetorical relations (e.g. background, narration, ....

N. Asher. Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993. 14

....approximations of the meanings of the examples in ordinary propositional modal logic are as follows: 1) 3p (p 2q) 1 Arguably it is even assumed that it has not eaten you. But this seems to be a subtlety of the meaning of instead, that we do not claim to represent here. See for example (Asher, 1996) on the implications of such indicators of contrast. p q 3r) 2) 3p (p 3q) p 3r) Crucial facts about these approximations are: i) some form of conditionalisation is required; ii) the antecedents of the conditionals do not contain modalities. i) is a good reason for ....

N. Asher. 1996. Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

....generalizations on the prosody semantics interface. In the next section we introduce a phonological model of register. Register is assumed to be a phonological entity, which is phonetically interpreted as pitch range, and which reflects semantic relations among discourse segments as described in [3]. The formal interface between register and dynamic semantics was developed in [4] and will not be discussed in detail here. In the subsequent sections we describe a method for fundamental frequency (F 0 ) parametrization and for testing the predictions of the register model. We present first ....

Asher, N. (1993). Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

No context found.

Asher, N. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse.

No context found.

Asher, N. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse.

No context found.

Nicholas Asher. 1993. Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

No context found.

Nicholas Asher. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer Academic Press.

No context found.

N. Asher. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.

No context found.

N. Asher. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.

No context found.

N. Asher. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.

No context found.

N. Asher. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.

No context found.

N. Asher. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.

No context found.

Asher, N., 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 50, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

No context found.

Asher, N. (1993), Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

No context found.

Asher, N. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

No context found.

Asher, N. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC