Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 6 Here the first annotator resolved C:[the death scene] to the play itself, e.g. A:[Anthony and Cleopatra], interpreting it as a part-of relationship, while the second annotator resolved it to when she’s dying, or more accurately to the event it refers to, actually the main event of the death scene, the event which also gives the scene its name. Are these differences in anchor identification mistakes on the part of one of the coders, or can one bridging NP have several anchors? In the above examples, and others in the corpus, it seems incorrect to treat this as some type of error. One of Poesio & Vieira’s (1998) results was that annotators often disagreed about the anchors of bridging anaphors. They comment however that the disagreements didn’t seem to reflect actual mistakes. These results should actually not be so surprising. Usually in coherent discourse, entities introduced should have strong relationships to the other elements in the discourse context. However, the fact that multiple anchors are so common is generally not taken into consideration in most work on bridging, perhaps because it only becomes a noticeable problem when the context is rich enough to supply multiple anchors. First, we can ask if there isn’t some sort of reason to prefer one of the anchors to the other? Can we perhaps define some sort of heuristic based on the type of link, with some links being better than others? We can start by examining what the link seems to be between each relationship. The link between D:[the course] and F:[the recommended texts…] in (13) is probably what Clark would call either a probable part or an inducible part, (though note how difficult it is to determine which kind of part something is without knowing more idiosyncratic information concerning the courses at that particular department) but the relationship between F:[the recommended texts…] and C:[the honours syllabus] seems to be the same. However, the C:[honours syllabus] is also clearly a part of D:[the course], and this could be seen to be a necessary part, though here again this is difficult to determine. But knowing exactly what relationships hold, which seems to be difficult to determine anyway, doesn’t help much in determining the best anchor. A necessary part would seem to be more easily resolved in Piwek & Krahmer’s method than an inducible part. We could also say that the most recent potential anchor is the best anchor to choose. But in this investigation annotators were already instructed to take the most recent and closest related anchor - so there seems to be a difference in what is “best” that sometimes makes a more distant potential antecedent seem more appropriate to some interpreters. Would looking for some type of coherence relationship actually help us choose one anchor over another? I suppose the anchor that best supports a rhetorical relation would be preferred but there is no clear rhetorical relation that can be said to hold in e.g. for example, (15), and the same is true of other examples. Given all the potential problems with these solutions we can wonder how fruitful it is to attempt to choose “the best” anchor anyway? The answer that should now be obvious is that the idea of defining heuristics to determine “the best anchor” is very misguided in that a correct understanding of the bridging anaphors 170
Between Binding and Accommodation and the discourse would seem to require making several, if not all, of the connections identified. Consider the following example: (16) (3-1a 117) Speaker A: I'm I was torn between . at the age of seventeen I was torn between modern languages and - and English - and I think really I was much more suited . to doing English I mean I know lots of linguists now and I realize A:[I never . cope with that] and I really prefer, I mean I'd far . much prefer to do B:[English*]. *~| Interviewer B *and do* you know . anything about C:[the content {of an English honours course here}] . Speaker A Well I suppose it’s [@m] - Interviewer B Because you mentioned [@] that you know linguists *and you* - felt that you couldn’t . Speaker A *( - coughs)*~| Interviewer B Do what they were doing . ****~| Speaker A Well **I’m just** not interested enough . really *. to do that*#| Interviewer B *and you know that* there’s a D:[linguistic content] . **in what we do here* Speaker A **{yes} there certainly** is I know . I *know* I was sure that would be one of E:[the most difficult things] Interviewer B **I see. In the above example, the definite NP, E:[the most difficult things], is tagged as related by both annotators. The author identified C:[the content of an English honors course here] as the anchor, while the second annotator identified A:[I could never cope with that], specifying that as referring to linguistics. Neither of these anchors can be considered wrong. The speaker clearly includes linguistics among difficult things, linguistics is part of the content of the course, and difficult things are things she cannot cope with. Additionally, the D:[linguistic content] is what Speaker A intends as part of the subset of E:[the most difficult things], and all the difficult things are things relating to doing B:[English]. Thus, in multiple ways E:[the most difficult things] is related to many different individuals and ideas in the previous context, and additionally, failure to understand any of these relationships means one has not truly understood the meaning of the text. The above example is not atypical, and often there is more than one linguistic expression from which an anchor can be derived and that can be considered to license the use of the bridging NP. Hopefully it illustrates why annotation tasks for identifying a unique anchor for a bridging NP will probably never achieve a high level of agreement. The example should show that current proposals for dealing with bridging have perhaps too often limited themselves to the simpler examples. 6.3.2 Not all theoretically possible links are perceived The last section pointed out some discrepancies between what is perceived by annotators and researchers and what current proposals predict would be found. 171
Page 1 and 2:
Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse
Page 3 and 4:
Abstract Naturally produced example
Page 5 and 6:
5.3.2 Lack of expression alternativ
Page 7:
irrational. Very warm thanks to Jul
Page 10 and 11:
Chapter 1 work about presupposition
Page 12 and 13:
Chapter 1 There are three core char
Page 14 and 15:
Chapter 2 2.5 briefly outlines seve
Page 16 and 17:
Chapter 2 (1999, p. 6). In the foll
Page 18 and 19:
Chapter 2 Because true presuppositi
Page 20 and 21:
Chapter 2 presupposed information i
Page 22 and 23:
Chapter 2 KofF(x)) will be expanded
Page 24 and 25:
Chapter 2 (28) There is a king of F
Page 26 and 27:
Chapter 2 because constraints on th
Page 28 and 29:
Chapter 2 (32) In the representatio
Page 30 and 31:
Chapter 2 information that there is
Page 32 and 33:
Chapter 2 reached. The meaning of t
Page 34 and 35:
Chapter 2 representation in some ca
Page 36 and 37:
Chapter 2 part of the presuppositio
Page 38 and 39:
Chapter 2 (49) a. Julia doesn’t h
Page 40 and 41:
Chapter 2 (53) If John has grandchi
Page 42 and 43:
Chapter 2 2.4 THE SATISFACTION THEO
Page 44 and 45:
Chapter 2 updated context is subtra
Page 46 and 47:
Chapter 2 Julia doesn’t have a br
Page 48 and 49:
Chapter 2 saliency on antecedent av
Page 50 and 51:
Chapter 2 describing defeasible inf
Page 52 and 53:
Chapter 2 effects of alternative ca
Page 54 and 55:
Chapter 2 account for one of the pr
Page 57 and 58:
Data and Method 3 Data and Method E
Page 59 and 60:
Data and Method the communicative r
Page 61 and 62:
Data and Method Speaker B. Speaker
Page 63 and 64:
3.3 THE EXCERPTED EXAMPLES AND ANAL
Page 65 and 66:
Data and Method Additional excerpti
Page 67:
Accommdation Binding Total number o
Page 70 and 71:
Chapter 4 perceiving the coherence
Page 72 and 73:
Chapter 4 (1) The doctor and the pa
Page 74 and 75:
Chapter 4 (3) Gudrun spent the enti
Page 76 and 77:
Chapter 4 None of the triggered pre
Page 78 and 79:
Chapter 4 Speaker A: Oh no, it‘s
Page 80 and 81:
Chapter 4 Speaker A How‘s things
Page 82 and 83:
Chapter 4 collaborative evidenced w
Page 84 and 85:
Chapter 4 This makes determining re
Page 86 and 87:
Chapter 4 Speaker C: *Presumably* (
Page 88 and 89:
Chapter 4 directions, it is necessa
Page 90 and 91:
Chapter 4 Other corpus work has als
Page 92 and 93:
Chapter 4 Consider the following ex
Page 94 and 95:
Chapter 4 Speaker B Really awful, I
Page 96 and 97:
Chapter 4 and its elements. The use
Page 98 and 99:
Chapter 4 Here I will first give so
Page 100 and 101:
Chapter 4 same as the last referenc
Page 102 and 103:
Chapter 4 anaphors, suggesting that
Page 104 and 105:
Chapter 4 For many of the examples,
Page 107 and 108:
Accommodation and Presupposition 5
Page 109 and 110:
Accommodation and Presupposition pr
Page 111 and 112:
Accommodation and Presupposition (1
Page 113 and 114:
Accommodation and Presupposition 5.
Page 115 and 116:
Accommodation and Presupposition fo
Page 117 and 118:
Accommodation and Presupposition Gl
Page 119 and 120:
Accommodation and Presupposition se
Page 121 and 122:
Accommodation and Presupposition po
Page 123 and 124:
Accommodation and Presupposition Th
Page 125 and 126:
Accommodation and Presupposition di
Page 127 and 128: Accommodation and Presupposition mo
Page 129 and 130: Accommodation and Presupposition De
Page 131 and 132: Accommodation and Presupposition pr
Page 133 and 134: Accommodation and Presupposition Th
Page 135 and 136: Accommodation and Presupposition It
Page 137 and 138: Accommodation and Presupposition ob
Page 139 and 140: Accommodation and Presupposition th
Page 141 and 142: Accommodation and Presupposition 5.
Page 143 and 144: Accommodation and Presupposition In
Page 145 and 146: Accommodation and Presupposition in
Page 147 and 148: Accommodation and Presupposition He
Page 149 and 150: Accommodation and Presupposition mi
Page 151 and 152: Accommodation and Presupposition ad
Page 153 and 154: Accommodation and Presupposition Th
Page 155 and 156: Accommodation and Presupposition di
Page 157 and 158: Accommodation and Presupposition In
Page 159 and 160: Between Binding and Accommodation 6
Page 161 and 162: Between Binding and Accommodation T
Page 163 and 164: Between Binding and Accommodation i
Page 165 and 166: Between Binding and Accommodation b
Page 167 and 168: Between Binding and Accommodation W
Page 169 and 170: Between Binding and Accommodation a
Page 171 and 172: Between Binding and Accommodation t
Page 173 and 174: Between Binding and Accommodation C
Page 175 and 176: Between Binding and Accommodation C
Page 177: Between Binding and Accommodation b
Page 185 and 186: Between Binding and Accommodation B
Page 187 and 188: Between Binding and Accommodation t
Page 189: Between Binding and Accommodation b
Page 192 and 193: Chapter 7 behave quite similarly to
Page 194 and 195: Chapter 7 7.1 FUTURE WORK I strongl
Page 196 and 197: References Archangeli, D. & D. T. L
Page 198 and 199: Karttunen, L. (1971), ‘Some obser
Page 200: Wilson, D. & T. Matsui (1998), ‘R
show all

Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?