DOCSLIB.ORG

Discourse and Inference

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Discourse and Inference Discourse and Inference Jerry R. Hobbs Artificial Intelligence Center SRI International Menlo Park, California January 8, 2004 2 Contents 4Syntax 5 4.1RoleofSyntax.......................... 5 4.1.1 SyntaxastheInterpretationofProximity....... 5 4.1.2 TheFociofThisChapter................ 7 4.1.3 Influences and Allegiances ................ 8 4.2 The Structure of Syn ...................... 9 4.2.1 Concatenation...................... 9 4.2.2 ArgumentsofPredicates................. 11 4.2.3 Agreement........................ 15 4.2.4 Gaps............................ 21 4.2.5 Summary......................... 23 4.3LexicalAxioms.......................... 24 4.4TheBasicClause-LevelCompositionRules.......... 26 4.5Clause-LevelPhenomena..................... 30 4.5.1 Moods........................... 30 4.5.2 OnWhatisSaidandPresuppositions......... 33 4.5.3 LexicalSentences..................... 37 4.6VerbPhraseRules........................ 38 4.6.1 VerbMorphology..................... 38 4.6.2 Intransitives,Transitives,andDitransitives...... 43 4.6.3 PrepositionalArguments................ 47 4.6.4 SeparableParticles.................... 52 4.6.5 SententialComplements................. 53 4.6.6 SubjectandObjectControlVerbs........... 55 4.6.7 Auxilliaries . ....................... 58 4.7PredicateComplements..................... 64 4.7.1 TheCopula........................ 64 4.7.2 Adjectival Complements . ................ 68 4.7.3 ToughMovement..................... 75 3 4 CONTENTS 4.7.4 Passives.......................... 78 4.7.5 Prepositions and Subordinate Conjunctions . 80 4.7.6 Progressives........................ 82 4.8SmallClauses........................... 83 4.9Adjuncts.............................. 87 4.9.1 AdjunctPlacement.................... 87 4.9.2 PredicateComplementsasAdjuncts.......... 90 4.9.3 Adverbs.......................... 92 4.9.4 Purpose Infinitives . .................. 96 4.9.5 TimeandMeasureNPs................. 96 4.9.6 Separators......................... 97 4.10NounPhraseRules........................ 99 4.10.1TheStructureoftheNounPhrase........... 99 4.10.2NounMorphology....................108 4.10.3LexicalAxiomsforNouns................109 4.10.4 Proper Noun Phrases and Personal Pronouns . 117 4.10.5HeadlessNounPhrases.................118 4.10.6 The Adjective Position ..................119 4.10.7 Inflectional and Derivational Adjective Morphology . 126 4.10.8 Determiner Phrases . ..................128 4.10.9IndefinitePronouns...................139 4.10.10Numbers.........................141 4.10.11Case,Gender,Person,andNumber...........144 4.10.12 A Word on X Theory..................150 4.11ReflexivePronouns........................151 4.12IntensiveReflexives........................152 4.13Long-DistanceDependencies...................152 4.13.1Overview.........................152 4.13.2IntroducingGaps.....................153 4.13.3TheStructureofRelativizers..............156 4.13.4 Composing Relativizers and Matrix Clauses . 163 4.13.5“That”..........................169 4.13.6 Some Other Long-Distance Dependency Constructions 172 4.14Conjunction............................173 4.14.1ConjunctionofLikeConstituents............173 4.14.2 Ellipsis . .........................176 4.14.3Gapping..........................177 4.14.4OtherConjunctionPhenomena.............178 4.15Comparatives...........................180 4.15.1Overview.........................180 CONTENTS 5 4.15.2“More”..........................183 4.15.3“Than”..........................184 4.15.4PlayingtheSameRole..................187 4.15.5SomeExamplesAnalyzed................195 4.15.6ComparativesandSuperlatives.............208 4.16SummaryofGrammar......................208 4.16.1Overview.........................208 4.16.2CompositionRules....................210 4.16.3AlternationAxioms...................215 4.16.4LexicalAxioms......................217 4.16.5AgreementFeatures...................220 4.17 Some Problems Analyzed as Metonymy . ......224 4.17.1 The Basic Axioms of Metonymy . ......224 4.17.2ExtraposedModifiers..................229 4.17.3Ataxis...........................232 4.17.4 Distributive and Collective Readings . ......233 4.17.5 Asserting Grammatically Subordinated Information . 236 4.17.6MonotoneDecreasingQuantifiers............238 4.18 Performing with Competence . ................239 4.18.1TheDataandtheAnalysis...............239 4.18.2ElementaryOperations.................255 4.19TheEdgesofSyntax.......................255 4.19.1LanguageandProtolanguage..............255 4.19.2Fragments:ATelegraphicMessage...........258 4.19.3Scrambling:ASonnet..................263 4.19.4 Disfluencies: A Transcript of a Meeting . ......266 4.19.5Co-Construction.....................272 4.19.6 The FASTIAN Bargain: Skimming, or Language as Protolanguage......................273 4.20TheEvolutionofSyntax.....................273 4.21Modularity............................279 6 CONTENTS Chapter 4 The Syntax of English in an Abductive Framework 4.1 The Role of Syntax in a Theory of Interpreta- tion 4.1.1 Syntax as the Interpretation of Proximity To understand our environment we seek the best explanation for the ob- servable features we find there. Among the observable features that we seek to explain are proximities among objects. This generally escapes our notice except when it is out of the ordinary, as when we see a chair on top of a table or a dog in the aisle of a theatre. When things are in their place, the explanation is that that is their place. A similar problem faces us in discourse. A text is a string of words, and one of the features of the text that requires explanation is the adjacency of pairs of words or larger segments of text. The simplest example of this is provided by compound nominals. When we see the phrase “turpentine jar” in a text, the interpretation problem we face is finding the most reasonable relationship in the context between turpentine and jars, using what we know about turpentine and jars. In many compound nominals, the relationship is one conveyed by one of the nouns itself. In “virus replication”, the relation between the virus and the replication is precisely the “replication” relation—it is the virus that is replicating. Syntax and compositional semantics can be seen as arising out of this need to explain adjacency. When we see the pair of words “men work”, 7 8 CHAPTER 4. SYNTAX we need to find some relation between them. The second word itself pro- vides the relation. It is the men who are working. Whereas in the case of “virus replication”, “replication” provides a possible relation, in the case of “men work”, “work” provides an obligatory relation. (This is not quite true; metonymy is possible, so that the second word need only provide a relation between the eventuality it denotes and something functionally related to the the first word, as in “The office called.”) The hypothesis that sentences have syntactic structure amounts to the acceptance of a set of constraints on the relations that can obtain be- tween two words or larger stretches of text, restricting these relations to be predicate-argument relations (plus metonymy). The tree structure of sentences arises from the fact that the adjacency relation can be between larger segments of text than simply single words, where the segments have their own internal tree structure resulting from adjacencies. For example, in John believes men work. we don’t seek to explain the adjacency between “believes” and “men”. Rather we first explain the adjacency between “men” and “work”, and only then the adjacency between “believes” and “men work” (or the adjacency among “John”, “believes”, and “men work”, depending on your view of the structure of the clause.) This kind of grouping occurs even in the absence of syntactic constraints. Consider the two compound nominals, “Stanford Research Institute” and “Cancer Research Institute”. In the latter, we must first find the relationship between cancer and research, and then find the re- lationship between cancer research and the institute, whereas in the former, we group “Research” with “Institute” and then “Stanford” with “Research Institute”. When a predicate-argument relation is found between adjacent segments, the two together constitute a single segment. Different types of composi- tions yield different types of segments. “Men work” and “tall men” both encode predicate-argument relations, but one is a sentence (S) and the other a noun phrase (NP). The intermediate structures in the syntactic analysis of a sentence—verb phrases (VP), prepositional phrases (PP), and so on— represent different ways in which the recognition of a predicate-argument relation results in the composition of two segments into a single larger seg- ment. In order to recognize predicate-argument relations between segments of text larger than one word, we need to know what predicates or arguments are conveyed by the segments. For example, “research institute” refers to 4.1. ROLE OF SYNTAX 9 an institute rather than research. If this segment provides the argument in larger composed segment, the institute and not the research will be the argument. Similarly, “men work” describes a working event rather than a condition of being men. If we compose it with “today”, it is the working that is today. As we compose larger and larger segments of text, we must be able to specify the primary information conveyed by the composite segments. The rules of syntax and compositional semantics specify how segments of text can be grouped together, what types of segments result from the grouping, and what the primary information
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Analysis of the New Oxford Dictionary of English
    52 KOKAWA, TSUYA, MATSUKA, OSADA, YAMADA Appendix B: Illustrations of MoEJ, SEJ, and Standard An Analysis of The New Oxford Dictionary of English KAORU AKASU KYOHEI NAKAMOTO HIROKO SAITO YUKIYOSHI ASADA KAZUYUKI URATA KOICHI OMIYA [Abbess (— [Acronolis /).1 Fig. 1: MoEJ Fig. 2: Maki 1 Introduction (53) 2 Lemmata (54) 3 Pronunciation (62) 4 Sense description (71) 5 Examples (81) 6 Grammar (87) 7 Etymology (95) 8 Conclusion (109) Lamazons J [Gig (—).3 Fig. 3: MnEJ Fig. 4: MoEJ 1. Introduction It is widely held that 1995 was a very special year for both anyone interested in (EFL or ESL) dictionaries and for such specialists as lexicog- raphers and applied linguists as we11.1) So, too, was the year 1998, when there debuted three major English dictionaries, namely, the New Oxford [Gila monster.] an English gig of 1754 Dictionary of English (NODE, hereafter), the fourth edition of Collins En- Fig. 6: SEJ Fig. 5: MoEJ glish Dictionary (CED), and the new edition of the Chambers Dictionary (CD). These are general-purpose dictionaries for native speakers of En- glish, whereas the four major dictionaries that caught attention in 1995 were learners' dictionaries for non-native speakers of English. On the face of it, these two types of dictionaries are unrelated, with different objectives The Gila Monster (Selo- derma auspectum). 1/15 and distinct target audiences. Whether or not that is the case, as far as An English Gig of 1754. NODE is concerned, will be part of the research questions to be asked Fig. 7: Standard Fig. 8: Standard An Analysis of The New Oxford Dictionary of English 55 54 AKASU, NAKAMOTO, SAITO, ASADA, URATA, OMIYA later in this analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar
    The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar SECOND EDITION BAS AARTS SYLVIA CHALKER EDMUND WEINER Bas Aarts is Professor of English Linguistics at University College London. He has published many books and articles on English grammar, most recently the Oxford Modern English Grammar. The late Sylvia Chalker was the author of several grammar books, including Current English Grammar and the Little Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. She was also a contributor to the Oxford Companion to the English Language. Edmund Weiner is Deputy Chief Editor of the Oxford English Dictionary and co-author (with Andrew Delahunty) of the Oxford Guide to English Usage. A This is a web-linked dictionary. There is a list of recommended web links in the Appendix, on page 454. To access the websites, go to the dictionary’s web page at www.oup.com/uk/reference/ resources/englishgrammar, click on Web links in the Resources section, and click straight through to the relevant websites. 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Original material: # Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner 1994 New and revised material: # Oxford University Press 2014 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First edition published 1994 First issued as an Oxford University Press paperback 1994 Reissued, with corrections, in new covers 1998 Second edition published 2014 Impression: 1 All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Adverb Or Adverbial Phrases – Structure, Meaning, Function
    Д. Спасић, Ј. Бабић Антић, М. Спасић Стојковић Зборник радова Учитељског факултета, 9, 2015, стр. 177-191 UDK: 811.111'367.3 811.111'367.624 COBISS.SR-ID 218378252 Проф. др Драгана Спасић 44 Филозофски факултет у Приштини – Косовска Митровица Јелена Бабић Антић 45 Милица Спасић Стојковић Висока пословна школа струковних студија Блаце ADVERB OR ADVERBIAL PHRASES – STRUCTURE, MEANING, FUNCTION Abstract: The following paper deals with phrases and clauses, particularly Adverbial phrases in English language. The aim of this paper was to briefly introduce and explain the importance of phrases in English language by presenting their structure, meaning, types and functions that are usually appointed to them. Showing the results and conclusions of a research and dedicated work by a group of students and their teachers, we presented the way in which adverbial phrases may appear in various kinds of discourses. For the purposes of our research, we chose literary discourse and the excerpt of a novel by Sherwood Anderson (1921) called The Door of the Trap. Key words: adverb, adverbial, phrase, head word, structure, premodifiers, postmodifiers. INTRODUCTION One of the important structures that helps in better understanding of the English language is the structure called phrases and especially Adverb or Adverbial Phrase (Adv P). No matter whether it is EFL or ESL or ESP, English learnt and taught for different goals and reasons is always faced with the terms Adverbs, Adverbials, Adjuncts that are interesting forms morphologically, syntactically and semantically. The process of teaching them is important to understand English. That is why the investigation presented in this paper would try to explain the problem theoretically and practically, because there are certain dilemmas, controversies and different opinions connected with the problem of Adverb or Adverbial Phrases.
    [Show full text]