1 / 25

Where to next? Pronoun interpretation as a side effect of discourse direction

Where to next? Pronoun interpretation as a side effect of discourse direction. Hannah Rohde, Andy Kehler, & Jeff Elman UC San Diego. CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, March 29-31 2007. Bill. He. John. He. Transfer Verb. Goal (to-phrase). Ambiguous Pronoun Prompt.

lionel
Download Presentation

Where to next? Pronoun interpretation as a side effect of discourse direction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Where to next? Pronoun interpretation as a side effect of discourse direction Hannah Rohde, Andy Kehler, & Jeff Elman UC San Diego CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, March 29-31 2007

  2. Bill He John He Transfer Verb Goal (to-phrase) Ambiguous Pronoun Prompt Source (subject) Transfer of possession (Stevenson et al. 1994) handed a book to . ______________. John Bill He recommended it thanked John • 50/50: Goal continuations / Source continuations • No subject preference or grammatical parallelism • Two explanations considered: • Thematic Role Preference • Event Structure Bias

  3. Outline • Background: Rohde et al. 2006 • Test Thematic-Role and Event-Structure biases • Alternative account: Discourse Coherence • Experiments 1 & 2: test predictions of a coherence- based model using story continuations • Preliminary results: discourse effects in relative clause attachment

  4. handed a book to . ______ . JohnSOURCE BillGOAL He was handing a book to . ___ . JohnSOURCE BillGOAL He Explaining salience of Goal (Rohde et al. 2006) • Thematic role preference or event structure bias? Equivalent thematic roles but different event structure Effect of aspect F(1,48)=50.622 p<0.0001 • Goal bias ~ side effect of Event Structure

  5. Matt He Matt passed a sandwich to David. He said thanks. Matt passed a sandwich to David. He didn’t wantDavid to starve. [Explanation: Q  P] David He [Result: P  Q] Effects of coherence (Rohdeet al. 2006) • Establishing coherence: infer a relationship between the meanings expressed by two sentences (P&Q below) (Hobbs 1979, Kehler 2002) • Causal relations (Explanation, Result, Violated Expectation)

  6. Matt passed a sandwich to David. He ate it up. Matt He Matt passed a sandwich to David.Hedidsocarefully. [Elaboration: infer P from both S1 and S2] He David [Occasion: infer initial state of event described in S2 to be final state of event described in S1] Coherence cont. • Similarity relations (Parallel, Elaboration) • Contiguity relations (Occasion)

  7. Discourse coherence effects(Rohde et al.) • Goal bias following perfective context sentences limited to Occasion & Result (see Arnold 2001) • Interpretation as side effect of coherence distribution

  8. Shift coherence  shift interpretation • Test predictions of a coherence-driven model • More Occasion/Result  more Goal resolutions • More Explanation/Elaboration/Violated-Exp  more Source

  9. Experiment 1: objects-of-transfer • Proposal: elicit different continuations with different objects • Stimuli: normal and bizarre objects John handed a book to Bill. He ___________ . John handed a bloody meat cleaver to Bill. He __ . • Predictions: • If… Abnormal objects  more Explanations and Explanations  Source bias • More Source continuations for (9) than (8)

  10. Methodology • Subjects: 69 monolingual English speakers • Task: write 50 continuations, just like Rohde et al. • Stimuli: 21 transfer-of-possession like Rohde et al. (+ bizarre objects) • Evaluation: judges assess coherence/interpretation • Analysis: • Effect of within-subject factor of Object Type on • Coherence (Elab/Expl/Occ/Par/Res/Viol-Exp) • Pronoun interpretation (Source/Goal) • Mixed-effects logistic regression • Controls for random effects of Subject and Item

  11. Consistent prob(Source|coh) Coherence Rohde et al. Exp 1 Source Source Explanation 0.75 0.82 Elaboration 0.99 0.99 Violated-expectation 0.87 0.81 Occasion 0.20 0.17 } } Result 0.16 0.05 Goal Goal Parallel 0.45 0.71 Results Coherence varies by object p<0.0001

  12. Results • No effect of object type on pronoun interpretation Subjects: F(1,68)= 0.052 p<0.820 Items: F(1,20)=0.111 p<0.743

  13. John handed a book to Bill. He ___________ . Experiment 2: ‘What next?’ or ‘Why?’ • Stimuli & Design: identical to Rohde et al. 2006 • Instructions: write continuations answering either “What happened next?” or “Why?” • Predictions: • “What next?”  more Occasions  Goal bias • “Why?”  more Explanations  Source bias

  14. Methodology • Subjects: 42 monolingual English speakers • Task: identical to Rohde et al. 2006 (w/instructions) • Stimuli: identical to Rohde et al. 2006 • Evaluation: judges assess coherence/interpretation • Analysis: • Effect of between-subject factor of Instruction Typeon coherence distribution & pronoun interpretation

  15. Consistent prob(Source|coh) Coherence Rohde et al. Exp 2 Explanation 0.75 0.81 Elaboration 0.99 1.00 Violated-expectation 0.87 0.81 Occasion 0.20 0.28 Result 0.16 0.11 Goal Parallel 0.45 0.46 Source Results Coherence varies w/instruction (p<0.0001)

  16. Results • Effect of Instruction type on pronoun interpretation F(1,20)=52.672 p<0.0001

  17. Predicting pronoun interpretation • Predict % Source Resolutions in Exp 2 using: • Exp2 coherence breakdown • Exp1 conditional probabilities Coherence p(Source) Explanation 0.82 Elaboration 0.99 V-E 0.81 Occasion 0.17 Result 0.05 Parallel 0.45

  18. Capturing subject variation “What next” “Why” linear regression R2=0.604 F(1,40)=61.097, p<0.0001

  19. Consistency of biases across conditions R2 value/ANOVA Conditional Probability Estimator Exp1: perf, normal objects R2=0.606, F(1,40)=61.612* Exp1: imp, normal objects R2=0.627, F(1,40)=67.371* Exp1: perf, abnormal objects R2=0.561, F(1,40)=51.165* Exp1: imp, abnormal objects R2=0.586, F(1,40)=51.165* Exp1: average across verbal aspects & object types R2=0.604, F(1,40)=61.097* * Indicates p<0.0001

  20. Summary • Shift coherence  Shift pronoun interpretation No model relying only on surface-level cues can account for observed variation, since stimuli were near-identical (Exp 1) or identical (Exp 2) • Need richer models incorporating discourse-level factors (see Wolf et al. 2004; Kertz et al. 2006)

  21. high low the musician plays the children are at the club downtown. musical prodigies themselves. • Function of a relative clause John despises the employee who is always late. Implicit Causality (NP2 IC) verbs attribute cause to direct object What else can discourse do for you? • Relative clause attachment ambiguity Beth babysits the children of the musician who ____ • Proposal: try to shift RC attachment using verbs that require Explanations and that attribute cause to the referent occupying higher NP

  22. the musician plays  low at the club downtown. the children scream and yell during rehearsals.  high F(1,51)=31.082 p<0.0001 p<0.0001 Predictions & results nonIC: Beth babysits the children of the musician who _____ IC: Beth despises the children of the musician who ______ Further evidence that discourse influences interpretation

  23. References Arnold, J. E. (2001) The effects of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference. Discourse Processes, 31(2): 137-162. Chambers, G. C. & Smyth, R. (1998) Structural parallelism and discourse coherence: A test of Centering Theory. Journal of Memory and Language, 39: 593-608. Crawley, R., Stevenson, R., & Kleinman, D. (1990) The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4: 245–264. Kameyama, M. (1996) Indefeasible semantics and defeasible pragmatics. In M. Kanazawa, C. Pinon, and H. de Swart, editors, Quantifiers, Deduction, and Context. CSLI Stanford, pp. 111-138. Hobbs, J. R. (1979) Coherence and coreference, Cognitive Science, 3:67-90. Hobbs, J. R. (1990) Literature and Cognition. CSLI Lecture Notes 21. Stanford, CA. Kehler, A. (2002) Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Kertz, L., Kehler, A., & Elman, J. (2006) Grammatical and Coherence-Based Factors in Pronoun Interpretation. 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver, July 2006. Moens, M. & Steedman, M. (1988) Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14(2):15-28. Smyth, R. H. (1994) Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23: 197-229. Stevenson, R., Crawley R., & Kleinman D. (1994) Thematic roles, focusing and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9:519–548. Wolf, F., Gibson, E. & Desmet, T. (2004) Coherence and pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(6): 665-675

  24. Interpretation (instr x aspect interaction p<0.0001) Coherence (instr x aspect interaction p<0.0001) …“What happened next?” John gave a book to Bill. He ___________ . John was giving a book to Bill. He ___________ . Variation by instruction and aspect

  25. Discourse coherence effects

More Related