A Survey of Studies of Bridging Anaphora

Wei Zhao

Abstract


This paper aims to review previous major studies of bridging anaphora resolution and generation in terms of their major views, advantages and inadequacies of each theory from the psychological, coherence-based, corpus-based, relevance-theoretic, cognitive, formal and computational perspectives. Then a critique of previous approaches to BA resolution and generation are made for future studies.


Keywords


Bridging anaphora; Approaches to BA resolution and generation; Critique

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing NP antecedents. London: Routledge.

Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (1998). A computational account of syntactic, semantic, and discourse principles for anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 6, 309-344.

Beaver, D. (2004).The optimization of discourse anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(1), 3-56.

Burkhardt, P. (2006). Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 98(2), 159-168.

Clark, H. H. (1977). Bridging. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp.411-420). London/New York: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse.

Erku, F., & Gundel, J. (1987). Indirect anaphors. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective (pp.533-546). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Fais, L. (2004). Inferable centers, centering transitions, and the notion of coherence. Computational Linguistics, 30(2), 119-150.

Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1999). Metonymy and conceptual integration. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.77-90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2003). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities.New York: Basic Books.

Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fraurud, K. (1990). Definiteness and the processing of noun phrases in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics, 7, 395-433.

Gardent, C., Manuélian, H., & Kow, E. (2003). Which bridges for bridging definite descriptions?. Proceedings of LINC’03 (pp.69-76). Budapest, Hungary.

Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. J. (1982). The mental representation of discourse in a focussed memory system: Implications for the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases. Journal of Semantics, 1(1), 21-41.

Garrod, S., & Terras, M. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 526-544.

Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.44-50). Cambridge: MA.

Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203-225.

Haviland, S. E., & Clark, H. (1974). What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 512-521.

Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.

Hobbs, J. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67-90.

Huang, Y. (2000). Discourse anaphora: Four theoretical models. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 151-176.

Irmer, M. (2011). Bridging inferences: Constraining and resolving underspecification in discourse interpretation. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH and KG.

Joshi, A. K., & Kuhn, S. (1979). Centered logic: The role of entity centered sentence representation in natural language inferencing. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp.435-439). Tokyo, Japan.

Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1981). Control of inference: Role of some aspects of discourse structure centering. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp.385-387). Vancouver, B.C.

Kasahara, K., Matsuzawa, K., Ishikawa, T., & Kawaoka, T. (1996). Viewpoint-based measurement of semantic similarity beween words. In H. F. Douglas & L. Hans (Eds.), Learning from data: AI and statistics V (pp. 433-442). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Langacker, R. W. (1996). Conceptual grouping and pronominal anaphora. In B. A. Fox (Eds.), Studies in Anaphora [Typological Studies in Language 33], (pp.333-378) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Markert, K., Strube, M., & Hahn, U. (1996). Inferential realization constraints on functional anaphora in the centering model. Proc. of the 18th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society; La Jolla, Cal., 12-15, 609-614.

Matsui, T. (2000). Bridging and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Miltsakaki, E. (1999). Locating topics in text processing. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands: Selected Papers from the Tenth CLIN Meeting (pp.127-138). Utrecht.

Miltsakaki, E. (2002). Toward an aposynthesis of topic continuity and intrasentential anaphora. Computational Linguistics, 28(3), 319-355.

Miltsakaki, E. (2007). A rethink of the relationship between salience and anaphora resolution. Proceedings of the 6th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphora Resolution Colloquium (pp.91-96). Lagos, Portugal.

Mineur, A. M. (2006). The resolution of bridging anaphora in OT. Retrieved from http://www.let.rug.nl/~ mineur/docs/Bridging-in-OT

Poesio M., Bruneseaux, F., & Romary, L. (1999). The MATE meta-scheme for coreference in dialogues in multiple languages. In M.A.Walker (Ed.), Proceedings of the acl workshop on standards and tools for discourse tagging (pp.65-74). Maryland.

Poesio, M. (2003). Associative descriptions and salience. Proceedings of the EACL Workshop on Computational Treatments of Anaphora. Budapest.

Poesio, M., & Vieira, R. (1998). A corpus-based investigation of definite description use. Computational Linguistics, 24(2), 183-216.

Prince, E. F. (1981). Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp.223-256). New York: Academic Press.

Sanders, T., Spooren, W. P., & Noordman, L. G. (1992). Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1-35.

Sanders, T., Spooren, W. P., & Noordman, L. G. (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 93-133.

Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2007). Indirect anaphora in text: A cognitive account. In M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten & M. Knees (Eds), Anaphors in text: Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference (pp.3-20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sidner, C. L. (1979). Toward a computational theory of definite anaphora comprehension in English. Technical Report AI-TR-537. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT.

Sidner, C. L. (1981). Focusing for interpretation of pronouns. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 7, 217-231.

Singer, M. (1979). Processes of inference during sentence encoding. Memory and Cognition, 7(3), 192-200.

Strube, M., & Hahn, U. (1999). Functional centering: Grounding referential coherence in information structure. Computational Linguistics, 25(3), 309-344.

van Hoek, K. (1992). Paths through conceptual structure: Constraints on pronominal anaphora (Doctoral dissertation). San Diego: University of California.

van Hoek, K. (1995). Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language, 71, 310-340.

Vieira, R., & Poesio, M. (2000). An empirically-based system for processing definite descriptions. Computational Linguistics, 26(4), 539-593.

Wilson, D., & Matsui, T. (1998). Recent approaches to bridging: Truth, coherence, relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 1-28.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/%25x

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c)



Reminder

  • How to do online submission to another Journal?
  • If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:

Submission Guidelines for Canadian Social Science

We are currently accepting submissions via email only. The registration and online submission functions have been disabled.

Please send your manuscripts to [email protected]，or [email protected] for consideration. We look forward to receiving your work.

 Articles published in Canadian Social Science are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).

 

Canadian Social Science Editorial Office

Address: 1020 Bouvier Street, Suite 400, Quebec City, Quebec, G2K 0K9, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138 
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net; Http://www.cscanada.org 
E-mail:[email protected]; [email protected]

Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture