Nominal Associative Anaphors – A Text-Based Analysis at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface

  • Nicolas Kimm
  • Christian Horn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7099)


This pilot study investigates the proportion of nominal associative anaphors (NAAs) in German texts. The research is motivated by a study that shows a high proportion of nonpossessive uses among two-place predicates (cf.[16]). Such cases could be explained by NAAs, in that their anchor may provide the required possessor argument. The question is for how many of the nonpossessive uses NAAs account for. Methodologically, we present a preliminary manual for the annotation of NAAs and apply it to a text collection of two text sorts. The results show that a large proportion of nonpossessive uses are NAAs. On closer examination not only do we find that the NAA occurrences reflect the distinction between one- and two-place predicates, but also that the distribution of NAAs exhibits differences with respect to their concept types (functional, relational, sortal, individual) proposed in the theory of concept types and determination (cf. [21]).


Associative anaphors concept types CTD text analysis corpus linguistics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ariel, M.: Accessing NP Antecedents. Routledge, London (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Behagel, O.: Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Bd. I: Die Wort-klassen und Wortformen. A. Nomen. Pronomen. Carl Winter’s Universitaetsbuchhandlung, Heidelberg (1923)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bos, J., Buitelaar, P., Mineur, A.: Bridging as Coercive Accommodation. In: Klein, E., Manandhar, S., Nutt, W., Siekman, J. (eds.) Working Notes of CLNLP 1995, pp. 1–16. South Queensferry, Scotland (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chafe, W.: Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View. In: Li, C.N. (ed.) Subject and Topic, pp. 25–55. Academic Press, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark, H.H.: Bridging. In: Schank, R.C., Nash-Webber, B.L. (eds.) Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, pp. 169–174. ACM Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark, H.H., Marshall, C.R.: Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In: Joshi, A.K., Webber, B., Sag, I. (eds.) Elements of Discourse Understanding, pp. 10–63. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1981)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erkü, F., Gundel, J.K.: The pragmatics of indirect anaphors. In: Verschueren, J., Bertuccelli-Papi, M. (eds.) The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference, pp. 533–545. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fraurud, K.: Definiteness and the processing of NP’s in natural discourse. J. Semantics 7, 395–433 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gardent, C., Manuelian, H., Kow, E.: Which bridges for bridging definite descriptions? In: 4th International Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora, Budapest, Hungary (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerland, D., Horn, C.: Referential properties of nouns across languages. In: Kang, Y.-S., Yoon, J.-Y., Hong, J., Wu, J.-S., Rhee, S., Kim, K.-A., Choi, D.-H., Kim, K.-H., Kang, H.-K. (eds.) Universal Grammar and Individual Languages, SICoL 2010. University of Korea, Seoul (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greber, E.: Zur Neubestimmung von Kontiguitätsanaphern. Sprachwissenschaft 18, 361–405 (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grice, P.: Logic and Conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, pp. 41–58 (1975)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hawkins, J.: Definiteness and Indefiniteness. Croom Helm, London (1978)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heim, I.: The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Dissertation. Schriftenreihe des Sonderforschungsbereichs 99, Linguistik, Nr. 73. Universität Konstanz, Konstanz (1982)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horn, C., Kimm, N.: Conceptual noun types in a German fictional text. In: Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Osswald, R., Petersen, W. (eds.) Concept Types and Frames, Applications in Language, Cognition, and Philosophy. Springer, Heidelberg (to appear)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horn, C., Kimm, N., Gerland, D.: Empirical Evidence for Concept Types in German Texts. J. Semantics (submitted)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jensen, P.A., Vikner, C.: The English prenominal genitive and lexical semantics. In: Kim, J.-Y., Lander, Y.A., Partee, B.H. (eds.) Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, pp. 3–27. GLSA Publications, Amherst (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kleiber, G.: Associative Anaphora and Part-Whole Relationship: The Condition of Alienation and the Principle of Ontological Congruence. J. Pragmatics 31(3), 339–362 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Löbner, S.: Definites. J. Semantics 4, 279–326 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Löbner, S.: Definite Associative Anaphora. In: Botley, S. (ed.) Approaches to Discourse Anaphora, DAARC 1996, Lancaster (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Löbner, S.: Conceptual Types and Determination. J. Semantics 28(3), 279–333 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mitkov, R., Evans, R., Orasan, C., Barbu, C., Jones, L., Sotirova, V.: Coreference and anaphora: developing annotating tools, annotated resources and annotation strategies. In: DAARC 2000, Lancaster, UK, pp. 49–58 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Müller, C., Strube, M.: Multi-Level Annotation of Linguistic Data with MMAX2. In: Braun, S., Kohn, K., Mukherjee, J. (eds.) Corpus Technology and Language Pedagogy. New Resources, New Tools, New Methods. English Corpus Linguistics, vol. 3, pp. 197–214. Peter Lang, Frankfurt (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nissim, M.: Lexical Information and Choice of Determiners. In: Kim, J.-Y., Lander, Y.A., Partee, B.H. (eds.) Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, pp. 133–152. GLSA Publications, Amherst (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ortmann, A., Handschuh, C.: Semantic factors of valence-changing processes with nouns: possession in the Mayan languages. In: DGfS-Meeting. Handout, Mainz (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Partee, B.: Uniformity vs. versatility: the genitive, a case study. Appendix to Theo Janssen (1997): Compositionality. In: van Benthem, J., ter Meulen, A. (eds.) The Handbook of Logic and Language. Elsevier (1983/1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Poesio, M.: Associative descriptions and salience: a preliminary investigation. In: ACL Workshop on Anaphora, pp. 31-38. Budapest (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prince, E.: Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In: Cole, P. (ed.) Radical Pragmatics, pp. 223–256. Academic Press, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pustejovsky, J.: The Generative Lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4) (1991)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schwarz, M.: Indirekte Anaphern in Texten. Studien zur domänengebundenen Referenz und Kohärenz im Deutschen. Niemeyer, Tübingen (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vikner, S., Jensen, P.A.: A semantic analysis of the English genitive. Interaction of Lexical and Formal Semantics. Studia Linguistica 56, 191–226 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Kimm
    • 1
  • Christian Horn
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computational LinguisticsHeinrich-Heine University DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Department of General Linguistics, Institute for Language and InformationHeinrich-Heine University DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations