Centering Theory is the best known framework for theorizing about local coherence and salience; however, its claims are articulated in terms of notions which are only partially specified, such as ‘utterance’, ‘realization’, or ‘ranking’. A great deal of research has attempted to arrive at more detailed specifications of these PARAMETERS of the theory; as a result, the claims of Centering can be INSTANTIATED in many different ways. We investigated in a systematic fashion the effect of these different ways of setting the parameters on the theory’s claims. Doing this required, first of all, to clarify what the theory’s claims are (one of our conclusions being that what has become known as ’Constraint 1 ’ is actually a central claim of the theory). Secondly, we had to clearly identify these parametric aspects: e.g., we argue that the notion of ‘pronoun ’ used in Rule 1 should be considered a parameter. Thirdly, we had to find appropriate methods for evaluating these claims. We found that while the theory’s main claim about salience and pronominalization, Rule 1–a preference for pronominalizing the CB–is verified with most instantiations, Constraint 1–a claim about (entity) coherence and CB uniqueness–is much more instantiation-dependent: it is not verified if the parameters are instantiated according to very mainstream views (‘Vanilla instantiation’), it only holds if indirect realization is allowed, and is violated by between 20

Centering: a parametric theory and its instantiations

Poesio, Massimo;
2004-01-01

Abstract

Centering Theory is the best known framework for theorizing about local coherence and salience; however, its claims are articulated in terms of notions which are only partially specified, such as ‘utterance’, ‘realization’, or ‘ranking’. A great deal of research has attempted to arrive at more detailed specifications of these PARAMETERS of the theory; as a result, the claims of Centering can be INSTANTIATED in many different ways. We investigated in a systematic fashion the effect of these different ways of setting the parameters on the theory’s claims. Doing this required, first of all, to clarify what the theory’s claims are (one of our conclusions being that what has become known as ’Constraint 1 ’ is actually a central claim of the theory). Secondly, we had to clearly identify these parametric aspects: e.g., we argue that the notion of ‘pronoun ’ used in Rule 1 should be considered a parameter. Thirdly, we had to find appropriate methods for evaluating these claims. We found that while the theory’s main claim about salience and pronominalization, Rule 1–a preference for pronominalizing the CB–is verified with most instantiations, Constraint 1–a claim about (entity) coherence and CB uniqueness–is much more instantiation-dependent: it is not verified if the parameters are instantiated according to very mainstream views (‘Vanilla instantiation’), it only holds if indirect realization is allowed, and is violated by between 20
2004
3
Poesio, Massimo; R., Stevenson; B., Di Eugenio; J., Hitzeman
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11572/70231
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact