Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 6 different from example (21) where the brakes in some way are predictable from the car. (22) I walked into the room. The chandeliers sparkled brightly. I am not sure if examples like (22) should be subsumed under the notion of bridging at all. However, the relationship room-chandelier does fulfill the three requirements for the subgroup of bridging NPs I identified. This is unfortunate, because it shows that these criteria are not precise enough to make a distinction between examples that seem to be more new than bridged. Inducible parts are less related to the context than e.g. necessary parts and bear a strong resemblance to the examples found in the group that annotators generally identify as new(N). However, the characterization of bridging as licensed by the context in which it appears, and not by a unique discourse individual does help distinguish this example from other more prototypical examples of bridging. I would argue that we cannot consider the chandelier to be licensed by the context because this context is too poor. A richer context would probably add information about the room making it more likely and more clear that it is the type of room that is likely to have a chandelier. Perhaps the number of anchors that can be identified for a particular bridging NP distinguishes those that are bridging from those that are actually accommodated. Those bridging NPs that are only loosely related to their context may be those perceived as new rather than related. This is a question that future work should address. 6.5 CONCLUSIONS Summarizing, naturally produced examples of bridging NPs are often related to several anchors in the discourse context rather than to one unique anchor as is usually assumed. These definite NPs should more appropriately be considered to be licensed by the context in which they are used rather than by one unique individual. The understanding of bridging as being related to only one individual in the context is an effect caused by the practice of using examples with a poor or non-existent context to illustrate bridging. This new analysis accounts for the difficulty found in getting a high degree of agreement in definite NP annotation tasks. Additionally there are good reasons to reflect on what types of relationships should be considered bridging. The original taxonomy seems to encompass an extremely heterogeneous group, many of which are currently treated by different methods. There seem to be three characteristics are associated with prototypical bridging examples: They are 1) related semantically to the context in which they are used, 2) require an inference for their resolution and 3) are marked as presuppositional. On the basis of these characteristics some subgroups considered 180
Between Binding and Accommodation by many to be bridging NPs in the original definition can be excluded, such as e.g. co-reference relationships, NPs that are via their modifiers explicitly linked to the context, abstract anaphoric reference and indefinite NPs. The remaining groups share key characteristics and can therefore more easily be treated by the same, or at least similar methods. Finally, in the binding theory bridging examples need to be treated with a separate resolution strategy. However some types of bridging still seem to be more appropriately considered to be resolved by accommodation. This distinction seems to be most apparent between those bridging NPs which are very loosely or vaguely related to their anchor and those that are related to several anchors. In a poor context the latter examples may be considered new rather than related. Where the distinction should be drawn between what is perceived as new and what is perceived as related is an area where more work is needed. 181
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 and 178: Between Binding and Accommodation b
Page 185 and 186: Between Binding and Accommodation B
Page 187: Between Binding and Accommodation t
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?