Lecture Notes in Computer Science
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-71412-5_3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pronoun Resolution and the Influence of Syntactic and Semantic Information on Discourse Prominence

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The interpretation of pronominal anaphors is a process which is instantiated at the syntax–discourse interface. Syntactic and semantic properties of antecedents have been shown to constrain the interpretation of a pronoun, for instance grammatical role (Crawley, Stevenson, & Kleinman, 1990), word order (Gernsbacher & Hargreaves, 1988), or thematic roles (Prat-Sala & Branigan, 1999; Rose, 2007). Extra-linguistic factors like the presence of referents in the physical environment, world knowledge and reasoning, or pragmatic conversational principles also play a significant role for the establishment of a coherent discourse.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The interpretation of pronominal anaphors is a process which is instantiated at the syntax–discourse interface. Syntactic and semantic properties of antecedents have been shown to constrain the interpretation of a pronoun, for instance grammatical role (Crawley, Stevenson, & Kleinman, 1990), word order (Gernsbacher & Hargreaves, 1988), or thematic roles (Prat-Sala & Branigan, 1999; Rose, 2007). Extra-linguistic factors like the presence of referents in the physical environment, world knowledge and reasoning, or pragmatic conversational principles also play a significant role for the establishment of a coherent discourse.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gordon et al (1993) claim that the repeated-name penalty is applicable to all defi nite descriptions, not just names. It should be noted that much experimental work in this area has focused on names (e.g., Gordon et al, 1993;Gordon & Scearce, 1995;Rose, 2007;Fukumara & Van Gompel, 2010;Gelormini-Lezama & Almor, 2011). This leaves open the question of whether the repeated-name penalty would be seen if defi nite descriptions were repeated.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%