Focus and discourse representation theory
The thesis puts forward a psychologically plausible and computationally explicit theory of pronoun resolution, concentrating on semantic and focusing effects and their interaction. Hans Kamp's (1981) Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) was the first of a series of recent formal semantic theories able to describe semantic accessibility conditions on anaphora occurring outside the logical scope of a quantifier. Kamp's original aim was to capture the truth conditions and anaphoric constraints in so-called 'donkey sentences'. DRT also opened up the possibilities of inter-sentential anaphoric connections. Kamp claimed psychological plausibility for DRT. However, in allowing intersentential anaphora DRT permits <i>too many</i> possible anaphoric connections - for instance a discourse containing no triggers for semantic embedding results in a model where every noun phrase is accessible to every anaphor: (1) I picked up some meringues with the tongs. They were mildly singed but I put them on a plate and gave them to Lisa. <i>They</i> were still very hot. (<SUP>*</SUP>tongs) In text (1), DRT allows the final <i>they</i> to access <i>the tongs</i>, which I claim is psychologically implausible for two reasons: firstly
Cormack, Sophia Harriet
Focus and discourse representation theory. The thesis puts forward a psychologically plausible and computationally explicit theory of pronoun resolution, concentrating on semantic and focusing effects and their interaction. Hans Kamp's (1981) Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) was the first of a series of recent formal semantic theories able to describe semantic accessibility conditions on anaphora occurring outside the logical scope of a quantifier. Kamp's original aim was to capture the truth conditions and anaphoric constraints in so-called 'donkey sentences'. DRT also opened up the possibilities of inter-sentential anaphoric connections. Kamp claimed psychological plausibility for DRT. However, in allowing intersentential anaphora DRT permits <i>too many</i> possible anaphoric connections - for instance a discourse containing no triggers for semantic embedding results in a model where every noun phrase is accessible to every anaphor: (1) I picked up some meringues with the tongs. They were mildly singed but I put them on a plate and gave them to Lisa. <i>They</i> were still very hot. (<SUP>*</SUP>tongs) In text (1), DRT allows the final <i>they</i> to access <i>the tongs</i>, which I claim is psychologically implausible for two reasons: firstly
focus discourse_representation theory put_forward psychologically plausible computationally explicit theory pronoun resolution concentrate semantic focusing effect interaction hans discourse_representation theory first series recent formal_semantic theory able describe semantic accessibility condition anaphora occur outside logical scope quantifier original aim_capture truth_condition anaphoric constraint so_called sentence also open_possibility inter sentential anaphoric connection claim psychological plausibility however allow anaphora permit many possible anaphoric connection instance discourse contain trigger semantic embed model every noun_phrase accessible every anaphor pick sing put plate give still hot text allow final access claim psychologically implausible reason firstly