David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Psycholinguistic experiments show that pronouns tend to be resolved differently depending on whether they occur in main or subordinate clauses. If a pronoun in a subordinate clause has more than one potential antecedent in the main clause, then the pronoun tends to refer to the antecedent which has a certain thematic role (depending on the verb and on the subordinating conjunction). In contrast, pronouns in main clauses tend to refer back to the subject of the previous main clause, and this tendency is not affected by any verbs or conjunctions. In natural language processing, these findings have recently led to a proposal that pronoun resolution systems should have a split architecture, i.e. that they should use different mechanisms for pronoun resolution in the two cases. With the help of two parsed and coreference-annotated corpora, this paper estimates the impact of the split-architecture proposal. The findings of this work are as follows: (1) Subject pronouns in authentic texts behave the same way in main and subordinate clauses. (2) The number of sentences in which a split architecture would behave differently than a system that treats both cases the same way is close to zero. Therefore, a separate treatment of resolution within and across units is unlikely to improve the performance of any system. This result casts a doubt on the split-architecture proposal, and more generally on approaches that directly incorporate psycholinguistic results into performance-oriented algorithms for anaphora resolution without assessing the relative importance of the phenomena that underlie them
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Barbara Hall Partee (1970). Opacity, Coreference, and Pronouns. Synthese 21 (3-4):359 - 385.
H. Wind Cowles, Matthew Walenski & Robert Kluender (2007). Linguistic and Cognitive Prominence in Anaphor Resolution: Topic, Contrastive Focus and Pronouns. Topoi 26 (1):3-18.
Philippe Schlenker (2011). Donkey Anaphora: The View From Sign Language (ASL and LSF). [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (4):341-395.
Hub Prüst, Remko Scha & Martin Berg (1994). Discourse Grammar and Verb Phrase Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 17 (3):261-327.
Added to index2010-06-22
Total downloads23 ( #164,316 of 1,796,306 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #136,537 of 1,796,306 )
How can I increase my downloads?