@ 
O @ 
@ 
O 
O 
O 
O 
O 
O @ 
O 
O 
O 
O 
0 @ 
@ 
O @ 
@ 
O 
O @ 
O 0 
0 
O @ 
O 
O 
O 
0 
O 
O @ 
O 
O @ 
O 
0 
O 
O @ 
Positing and resolving bridging anaphora in deverbal NPs 
Elena Not, Lucia M. Tovena, Massimo Zancanaro 
IRST, Istituto per la Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica, 
1-380.50 Povo TN, ITALY. 
Fax: +39 (461) 302040 
{ not \[ tovena \[ zancana}~i~'st.itc.it 
Abstract 
This paper explores the idqa that the operations 
of positing and resolving bridging anaphora in NPs 
with deverbal heads can be successfully guided by 
considering as possible implicit relations those sug- 
gested by the argument structures of the correspond- 
ing verbs. We exploit the event/result reading dis- 
tinction, combined with other aspeetual informa- 
tion. From there, we work out the idea that there is 
one particular argument, termed the faeourite, that 
plays a key role in correctly situating the NP referent 
within the discourse. 
I Introduction 
This paper explores the idea that the operations 
of positing and resolving bridging anaphom in NPs 
with deverbal heads can be successfully guided by 
considering as possible implicit relations those sug- 
gested by the argument structures of the correspond- 
ink verbs. 
Bridging is a referential phenomenon occurring 
when the referent of ~t linguistic expression can be 
determined only by recovering a meaningful implicit 
relation with an already mentioned entity or event. 
For example, in the following Italian sentences, the 
correct interpretation for richieste requires the iden- 
tification of the implidt relation between the set of 
requests for underwriting and the bond to be under- 
written. 
ex. Un nuovo prestito obbli~izionor~o al tasso del 
7% e della durata di ire anni verrk emesso 
domani dal Banco Ambroveneto, .... Le 
r/chiate verranno accettste dal 2 al 14 ottobre. 
\[A new bond Ioan...will be ~ued tomorrow 
by Banco Ambroveneto ..... The requests will 
he accepted from the 2nd to the 14th of 
October.\] 
The literature describes two basic approaches to 
deal with bridging in CL: the first consists in work- 
ing mostly at the semantic level interpreting bridg- 
ing as a kind of implicature the reader draws to 
support the coherence of discourse (Asher and Las- 
carides, 1998, pp.l-2). The s~cond, exemplified by 
(BOS, Buitelaar, and Mineur, 1995), relies primarily 
on augmenting the lexicon annotating for each noun 
its possible meaningful relations. We believe that, at 
least for the particular kind of bridging we are con- 
cerned with, the second approach is most promising 
given that, in some cases, a limited amount of lex- 
icon annotation can greatly enhance resolution ef- 
ficiency and efficacy: by using algorithms and rules 
relying on linguistic information we can significantly 
constrain inference on cognitive processing. Our 
contribution goes along the lines proposed in (Grc~ 
and Sidner, 1998). 
We are interested in deverbal nouns (e.g. ~build- 
inK" derived from %o build", and "request" derived 
from "to request ") and we endorse the claim that 
bridging occurring in NPs with a deverbal noun head 
should be resolved by considering as possible implicit 
relations those suggested by the argument structure 
of the corresponding verb, cf. inter alia (Badia and 
Saurl, 1998) and (Rozwadowslm, 1988) for investiga- 
tions on thematic restrictions on derived nominals. 
We think that the way the verb argument structure 
maps onto the noun argument positions depends on 
whether the deverbal nouns denote an event,.or a 
resulting state or part/c/pant in the corresponding 
eventuality. The ides of exploiting the event/result 
reading distinction, combined with other aspectual 
information, was primed by the linguistic data col- 
lected during corpos analysis and proved to be quite 
promising. We then take it one step forward and 
work out which is the noun argument whose (covert 
or overt) presence is needed for a proper understand- 
ing of the text. This idea is captured by the notion 
of/ovourite. 
Our work fits in the context of automatic infor- 
mation extraction. In connection with the FACILE 
Europeanproject (LE 2440), we developed a mod- 
ule for texture resolution I (TRM) to be integrated 
in a system of information extraction from Italian 
financial news. The TRM tracks entities as they 
IThe te.~ure of a text is "related to the listener's per- 
ceptio, of coherence" and is "manifested by certain kinds of 
semantic relations \[called cohesive ties\] between i~ individual 
message" (Hallidsy and Hssan, 1985). Examples of cohesive 
ties are: coreference, bridging and coclassification. 
39 
are introduced in the discourse and uses a set of 
declarative rules to guess Which cohesive ties hold for 
a certain referring expression. An exploratory cor- 
pus analysis (on 13 Italian financial news for a total 
of 1467 words) showed that bridging is a frequent 
anaphoric phenomenon (43,3% of the total cohesive 
links). Moreover, NPs with a deverbal noun as head 
amounted to 19.6% of the NPs in the corpus and 
21% of the bridgings came from deverbals. Building 
on observations made on our corpus, we first formu- 
lated hypotheses for bridging resolution in linguistic 
terms. Then we went back to our corpus to verify 
their consistence with respect to the data. Finally, 
we turned them into heuristics that help recoguise 
the thematic role played by modifiers in nominali- 
sations and that suggest where missing arguments 
should be recovered from the discourse context. 
2 Properties of deverbal 
nominalisations 
There is an assumed parallelism in argument struc- 
ture between deverbal nouns and the verbs to which 
they are related, but its strength is said to vary. 
(Grimshaw, 1990) distinguishes between event nom- 
inals, that express an event or a process whose 
existence is entailed, and restdt nominals, that 
name/denote the output of the event or an entity re- 
lated to it but do not entail the existence of the cor- 
responding event. Event nominals obligatorily have 
an argument structure derived from the associated 
verb and assign specific thematic roles. For instance 
in: 
ex. La costruzione della ¢asa richiese tre anni 
\[The construction of the house took three . yell 
/a casa is assigned the role of patient in the the- 
rustic grid of the corresponding verb costruir¢. 
Result nominals, by contrast, take a kind of se- 
mantic participants that are more loosely associated 
with the argument structure and the corresponding 
thematic roles. For instance, the di NP phrase in 
ex. la costruzione di Daniele & la pih bells 
\[ the construction of Daniele is the nicest\] 
can be interpreted as referring to the agent, i.e. the 
constructor, but also to the mere possessor of the 
building. Encoding in the lexicon the event/result 
reading distinction for a nominalisation is straight- 
forward when using a conceptual dictionary like 
WordNet (Fellbanm, 1998): it's enough to search 
up in the hierarchy. For example, the noun build- 
ing belongs to different synsets (i.e. it has different 
senses): one has ent/ty among its hypernyms (and 
thus it expresses a resu/t) and the other two have 
act as hypernym (and thus they express an event). 
Thus this noun has both event and restdt, readings. 
" 40 
Tile difference in the way argu~fi'ents are realised 
iu tile two readings is relevant for our purpose. In 
Lhe La.~k of Lexture resolution, we have to find out 
precisely how to interpret PP modifiers z, posses- 
sires and other potentially referential expressions 
surrounding a nominal, and when to posit a bridging 
anaphora and to which entity. 
Nominalised expressions in English and Italian do 
not share always the same syntactic forms. En- 
glish nominals have several argument positions that 
can map into the basic verb arguments (subject, di- 
rect and indirect objects), cf.(Macleod et al., 1997) 
for a computational treatment. They are (i) pos- 
sessives (e.g. "His announcements", "Daniel's ap- 
pointment*); (ii) pre-nominal noun modifier (e.g. 
"The State Department announcement"); (iii) post- 
nominal prepositional phrase (e.g. q'he announce- 
meat of the White House"). In Italian, the grammar 
of nominalisation phrases is somewhat simpler. Ar- 
guments can be expressed either by a .possessive 3 
or relative pronouns, classified as prenominal modi- 
tiers (e.g. ~il suo annuncio" \[his announcement\], ~il 
cui annuncio" \[whose announcement\]), or PPs, here 
called postnominal modifiers (e.g. "l'annuncio del 
' presidente" \[the announcement of the president\]), cf. 
(Renzi, 1991) for a description. 
Only PPs of the form di NP (lit. o\[ PP in English) 
raise interesting questions from our point of view, 
since PPs other than di NP can be interpreted di- 
rectly by looking at the argument structure of the 
related verb, broadly speaking. The major difficulty 
comes from roles assigned to verb argument posi- 
tions which are not 'identified' by specific preposi- 
tions, because these roles can be mapped into the 
same position in the corresponding nominals. In- 
deed, nominals derived from transitive verbs poten- 
tially bring in ambiguities, since the thematic roles 
of agent and patient can both be assigned to pos- 
semives and PPs of the form di NP (e.g., agent: "In 
telefunata di Maria" \[the telephone call by Maria\] 
vs. patient: 'Temissione di nuove asioni" \[the new 
share issue\]). Besides, note that a PP of the form 
di NP can discharge also other roles, for instance 
an oblique such as material (e.g. "In costruzione di 
mattoni" \[the construction made of bricks\]). FUr- 
thermore, it can be used to exp~ roles in relations 
that are not necessarily part of an argument struc- 
ture, such as possession. 
The literature offers discussions on patterns for 
coding nominalisations and their arguments (Meyers 
et al., 1998), (Badia and Sanri, 1998). It is noted 
that whether or not a position is filled may affect 
the interpretation of other positions. It is also dis- 
~Here modifiers is a cover term for complements, adjuncts 
and so on. 
aNote that morphological agreement goes with the nomi- 
nal. Semantic agreement (with the possessor) is not .allowed. 
0 
0 
0 @ 
0 @ 
0 
0 @ 
@ 
@ 
0 
0 
0 
0 @ 
0 @ 
0 @ 
0 
0 
0 
0 @ 
@ 
@ 
0 @ 
@ 
0 
0 
0 
0 @ 
0 
0 @ 
0 
0 
0 
0 @ 
O 
O 
O 
O 
O 
O 
O @ 
O 
4) 
O O 
O 
O 
O @ 
O 
O @ 
O 
O 
O 
4) 
O @ 
O 
e @ 
O @ 
O 
O 
O 
O 
O 
O 
O 
O O 
e 
O @ 
O 
O 
e 
\ 
cussed the status of 'optional' arguments to nouns. 
In some sense, these papers try to give 'maximal; 
descriptions of nominalisations. Our concern is dif- 
ferent. We want t~ identify the texture of a text. 
Therefore, we want to know when a bridging can be 
safely posited and how to resolve it. To this aim, 
'minimal' descriptions are best suited because they 
trigger the hypothesis that there is a bridging in a 
reduced number of cases, with a higher degree of 
certainty and provide precise information for its res- 
olution. We capitalise on the observation that in the 
interpretation Of a nominalisation there are prefer- 
ences in the assignment of a certain thematic role 
in a certain context, and that one of the basic com- 
plements appears to be singled out. This type of 
preference is different from the distinction between 
obligatory and optional complements. We describe 
this situation via the notion of favourite argument 
which has semantic and syntactic facets: 
• From a semantic point of view, the notion of 
favourite captures the following idea. For each 
nominal, there is a thematic role (the favourite 
argument) that must be assigned for the refer- 
ent to be correctly situated wi'thin the discourse 
context. For example, for the Italian nomi- 
nal costruzione (construction) derived from the 
verb costruire (to construct) the favourite is the 
thematic role of patient. In the sentence: 
ex. La costruzione della cas~ r/chiese tre aani. 
\[The construction of the house took three 
years.\] 
the- patient (i.e. the house) is essential for the 
interpretation of the sentence. Were it miss- 
- lag, as in ~La v0s.truzione dchiese tre anni", we 
• would be forced to search in the previous dis- 
course for a coreference or a bridging link on 
the construction. 
We hypothesize that the favourite role is unique, 
even if not nw.essadly the same for all nomi- 
nab. It can be overfly assigned, by mapping 
it into the unique argumental position reaIised, 
provided it is of a compatible form 4, or into one 
of the arguments if there are more. Otherwise, 
one must assume that there is an understood 
relation of coreference or bridging. Given our 
hypothesis that the favourite role is unique and 
provides the minimal and sufficient information 
to recover the cohesive texture of discourse, no 
bridging is posited on arguments other than the 
favoudte. 
Evidence in support of a unique favourite comes 
from the consistent preference recorded in nat- 
urally occurring instances, and from the use of 
4SelectJonaJ restriction or other semantic checks are used 
to test compatibility. An ex~npJe of non-compatible form is 
to coltsmzione d; ie~ \[the construction of yesterdsy\]. 
41 
recovering strategies in case 0fpotential mis- 
matches between the favourite's qualification 
and world knowledge. For instance, in "In 
costruzione di Daniele richiese tre anni" \[the 
construction of Daniele took three years\], the 
predicate forces a reading as event of the de- 
verbal. The favourite is the role of patient, 
whereas world knowledge would prompt the role 
of agent for di Daniele. As a matter of fact, the 
primary interpretation of this sentence is some- 
thing like 'the construction of the statue por- 
traying Daniele ...', which accommodates the 
role of patient. 
From a syntactic point of view, the notion of 
favourite expresses the fact that there must be 
an explicit or implicit modifier to which the 
favourite thematic role is assigned. Both posses- 
sires and PPs of the form di NP are compatible 
forms for the semantic favourite, but in case of 
competition, the PP is preferred. The favourite 
position is the one closest to the noun. 
Our notion of favourite argument differs from the 
notion of core thematic role in (Barker, 1995) in at 
least three respects. First, the favourite does not 
identify a role discharged by the deverbal itself, as 
it i~ the case of the core role. Instead, it expresses 
a condition applying to a (overt or covert) modifier 
ofthe deverbal. Second, it is not used to encode the 
distinction between event and result readings of the 
deverbal. Indeed, such a distinction is presupposed 
for the favourite to be computed. Third, it identifies 
a participant in the relation expressed by the clever- 
hal. Moreover, the favourite does not identify the 
relation itself via the instantiation of the event vari- 
able, for the cases of event reading, nor the role that 
is discharged by the deverbal, for theresult reading, 
as in (Barker, 1995). Note that this last point does 
not preclude the possibility of having event positions 
in the argument list of the predicate representation 
of the corresponding verb. 
2.1 Heuristics for thematic roles 
assignment 
Starting from observations made on our corpus of 
Italian financial news, we define heuristics for the 
identification of the semantic favourite using aspec- 
tual information. Beside the event/result dichotomy, 
we further distinguish results as originating from sta- 
tire (to/mow) or eventive (to construct) predicates. 
We also distinguish eventives where the existence of 
a participant is affected by the existence/happening 
of the event described by the predicate (to construct 
a home) from eventivas where it is not (to cap- 
ture a lion). Let's call the former an E(xistence) 
A(ffecting) type of predicate. Our hypothesis is that 
this distinction is more relevant than other aspectual 
subsp~.cifications because" we are concerned with ref- 
erential issues. 
We worked out the following heuristics for the in- 
terpretation of modifiers: 
• Whenever there are several PP modifiers, the 
favourite thematic role must be assigned to the 
modifier closest to the nominal which has a com- 
patible form. World knowledge tells us that col- 
legio and convento are collective entities that 
can be agent in an event'of construction or 
buildings and hence be patient. However, the 
following example allows only the interpretation 
of patient for collegio. 
ex. La coetruzione del collegio del convento 
\[The construction of the boarding school 
of the convent\] 
As for convento, it can be the agent or the pos- 
se~or. 
• In the absence of a modifier that can act as 
the favourite, there must be coreference or a 
bridging anaphora on the favourite. 
• For a nominalisation which is a restdt:. 
If it is an EA predicate, the nominal denotes 
the entity affected by the event, e.g. the pa- 
tient, and the corresponding theta role cannot 
be discharged overtly. The search space for the 
interpretation of the modifiers is pruned accord- 
ingiy. The favourite is the agent but, because a 
result is an object and not an event, other rela- 
tions such as possession cannot be ruled out: 
ex. La costruzione di Maria venne giudicata 
come la pitt solida. 
\[The construction of Maria was considered 
as the firmest.\] 
If it is not an EA predicate, then patient is the 
first role to be discharged in the case of an even- 
tive predicate. 
ex. La cattura di Made ci sorprese. 
\[the capture of Marie surprised us.\] 
In the cue of a stative predicate, a mod- 
ifier is more likely to diKharge the role of 
agent/~r. 
ex. La conoecenza di Daniele ~ sconflnsta. 
\[Daniele's knowledge is unlimited.\] 
• For a- nominalisation which is an event the 
role assigned to the direct object of the corre- 
sponding predicate must be discharged by the 
favourite s and it is discharged by a PP of form 
di NP. 
SFor the sake of brevity, let's assume that it is always the patient. 
42 
ex. La Costruzione della casa fu lunga e 
laboriosa. 
\[The construction of the house was long 
and tiresome.\] 
If there are more than one PP modifier, the PP 
discharging the patient role occurs closest to the 
nominal. 
in cases where a deverbal nominalisation may have 
in principle both result and event readings, as in 
the case of costruzione, some additional aspectual 
or semantic information can help to discriminate 
the reading occurring in the discourse context un- 
der consideration: 
• Modifiers may have discriminating power: 
If there is a modifier that can be identified as 
the patient (we can use standard selectionai re- 
strictions such as animate...), then the reading 
as result is ruled out, as in: 
ex. La costruzione della casa ... 
\[The construction of the house ... \] 
On the contrary, if there is a single modifier, 
which is a PP of form di NP, that can be identi- 
fied unambiguously as the agent, then the nom- 
inal is a result, as in: 
ex. La costruzione del bambino... 
\[The construction of the child... \] 
0 ff information on the role of the modifiers helps 
in interpreting/identifying the type of nominal 
and vice versa, we fall in a bit of a circular pro- 
cem. However, sometimes the discriminating 
power of predicates can help in disambiguating 
the word sense. If the predication is about the 
temporal dimension, then the reading as result 
can be ruled out, as in the building was slow. 
If the prech'cation is about the physical/spatial 
dimension, then the nominal is a result, as in 
the building is high. 
2.2 Corpus based verification of the 
heuristics 
The ~ exploratory corpus analysis we conducted 
on Italian financial news confirmed the validity 
of the linguistic hypothesis given above. Texts 
were annotated systematically with an SGML tag- 
ging: for each deverbal nominalisation the read- 
ing (whether event or result) and aspectual class 
(whether state, activity, accomplishment or achieve- 
ment) are marked, and for each corresponding modi- 
tier, its linguistic form and its thematic and syntactic 
role with respect to the originating verb are speci- 
fied. See figure 1 for a sample of annotated text. 
Contrary to what we expected, the corpus anal- 
ysis revealed that the aspectual class does not con° 
tribute significantly to the positing and resolving of 
0 @ 
0 
0 @ 
@ 
@ 
0 
0 
0 
0 @ 
0 @ 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 @ 
0 @ 
0 @ 
@ 
0 
0 
0 
0 
O 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 $ 
<news id = "10" > La Banca Agricola Manto- 
vana ha deliberato di dar corso ad <np id = 60 
> una <head type = "event" aspect .= "ac- 
complishment" > emissione </head> <pp prep 
-- "di" theta = "patient" syntax = "direct- 
object" > di obbligazioni non convertibili </pp> 
<pp prep ="di" theta = "measure" syntax -- 
"adjunct" > dell' importo complessivo di 100 mii- 
iardi di life </pp> </np> ...... L' <head type = 
"event" aspect -- "actlvlty" > offerta </head> 
</np> partirb dal prossimo 14 ottobre. </news> 
Figure 1: Sample of annotated text. 
bridgings, given that the event/result distinction is 
a sufficient predicting factor. Table 1, summarizes 
our corpus-based findings. 
In the table, under the column "other" we have 
grouped occurrences of deverbal nominalisations 
whose analysis falls outside the scope of this re- 
search. They are coreferential anaphora, specific refo 
erences, generic references, nominals with di PP ex- 
pressing the only obligatory thematic role, nominals 
with bridging on the only obligatory thematic role. 
3 Computational use of the 
heuristics for positing and 
resolving bridging 
The heuristics described above can be profitably ex- 
ploited in a system for automatic information extrac- 
tion to improve the efficacy of the texture resolution 
module. 
The Texture Resolution Module (TRM) we devel- 
oped in connection with the FACILE project tries 
to identify the reference function that each NP plays 
in a text (anaphora, generic reference, specific refer- 
ence, iota (unique) reference, predicative function) 
and tries to guess possible cohesive ties (Not and 
Zancanaro, 1998). The key idea underlying the 
TRM design is to coadder the process of texture 
resolution as a three step process: 
I. for each referring expression, determine the ref- 
erence function which may apply according to 
the linguistic form of the NP (for example, pro- 
nouns are never considered as potential iotas); 
2. for each guess of anaphoric reference function. 
look for potential antecedents (coreference is 
tried first; if this search fails or is not satis- 
factory, try other cohesive ties, like bridging or 
coclassification): 
(2.a) select the search space where to look for 
antecedents; 
(2.b) collect all the entities in the search space 
which can be taken as referent for the con- 
sidered expression. Different tests are ap- 
plied, for example checking semantic com- 
patibility and eliminating redundant solu- 
tions; 
3. for each sentence, 
(3.a) test the compatibility of the guesses made 
separately on each referring expression wrt 
intrasentential constraints (for example, C- 
command and contraindexing); 
(3.b) order the alternative guesses according to 
intersentential preferences (like centering). 
The heuristics presented in §2.1 can be used to 
refine step 2 in the algorithm: 
2. for each guess of anaphoric reference function: 
• if the NP is a deverbal nominalisation then: 
-look for potential antecedents for a 
coreference. 
- If a hypothesis of coreference Could not 
be verified (or is too weak for the TRM 
to be completely satisfied with it), then 
look for possible bridgings. As a first 
step, look in the conceptual dictionary 
and: 
A ) If the nominaiisation has only 
one possible reading (either result 
or event) then apply the appropriate 
heuristics for interpretingmodifiers: 
- if a compatible modifier is found 
that discharges the favourite, then 
no other bridging relations are looked for; 
• if there are no compatible mod- 
iRers, so that the favourite role 
cannot be discharged, a bridging 
is guessed and the potential an- 
tecedent is looked for in the previ- 
ous discourse as in steps (2.a) and 
B ) If the deverbal nominalisation can 
have both result and process read- 
ings, then: 
• verify whether semantic checks on 
the modifiers or other aspectual in- 
formatlon help to discriminate be- 
tween the two readings, using the 
heuristics. If a discrimination suc- 
ceeds, then proceed to step \[A\]. 
• otherwise, try to guess possible 
bridgings for both result and process 
readings. 
eF'or the sake o/'simpliclty, the discussion t'ocusses only on 
anaphoric links. Howe~fer, these observations can be general- 
.i~cl to cataphora too. 
43 
result, EA 
result, not P-A 
(eventive~ 
event 
ambiguous 
agentive tot~ 
agent in favourite 
position as di PP 
patient in favourite bridging 
position as di PP on agent 
4 
17 
3 20 
..~- • 
bridging other total 
on patient 
2 9 
3 4 IO 
9 13 39 
• 8 8 
5 5 
12 32 71 
T~ble I: Corpus analysis results. 
• else, proceed as usual, looking for potential 
antecedents: 
(2.a) 
(2.b) 
select the search space where to look for 
antecedents; 
collect all the entities in the search 
space which can be taken as a referent 
for the considered expression. Different 
tests are applied, for example, to check 
for the semantic compatibility and to 
eliminate redundant solutions; 
4 Conclusion and Future work 
This paper presents an extension of computattional 
approa~ee to bridging in deverbal NPs that use the 
verb argument structure. Unlike other works on 
nominalisations which aim at a full description of 
the status of each argument in the deverbal noun, 
our approach is mainly concerned with the coding 
of the 'minimai' information which is necessary for 
safely positing and resolving bridging phenomena. 
Minimal de~dptions are best suited for our com- 
putational task because they trigger the hypothesis 
that there is s bridging in a reduced number of cases, 
with a higher degree of certainty and provide precise 
information for its resolution. 
For a deeper evaluation of the effectiveness of the 
heuristics presented here, we plan to extend our tex- 
ture resolution algorithm according to the computa- 
tional rules described in section 3, in order to run 
verification tests on & larger corpus. In this __-~co__nd 
phase, additional effort will be invested for the anno- 
tation of separate training and test corpus which will 
be used for a more objective evaluation of precision 
and recall. Another issue we would like to investi- 
gate is the extension of our notion of/ueour/te to 
other cases of nominal roles, for example meronyms 
and attributes. This would not require additional 
annotation in the lexicon, given that in a concep- 
tual dictionary like WordNet meronyms are already 
present and there are plans to insert attributes (Fell- 
baum, 1998). 
44 

References 
Asher, Nicholas and Alex Lascarides. 1998. Bridg- 
ing. Technical report, HCRC. 
Badia, Toni and Roser Saurf. 1998. The representa- 
tion of syntactically unexpressed complements to 
nouns. In Proceedings of the Coling-A CL98 work. 
shop on "The Computational Treatment of Nom- 
inals', pages 1-9, Montreal. 
Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive Descriptions. CSLI 
Publications, Stanford CA. 
Bce, Johan, Paul Buitelaar, and Anne-Marie 
Mineur. 1995. Bridging as coercive accommoda- 
tion. In Mansndhar et al., editor, Proceedings of 
the workshop on "Computational Logic for Natu- 
ral Language Processing', Scotland. 
Fellbanm, Christiane. 1998. WordNat: an doctronic 
lexical database. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. MIT 
Press, Cambridge, MA. 
Gross, Ba:bara and Candace Sidner. 1998. Lost 
intuitions and forgotten intentions. In Marilyn 
Walker, Aravind Jmhi, and Ellen Price, editors, 
Centering in D/ocourse. Oxford University Press, 
pages 39-51. 
Halliday, M.A-K. and Pmqaiya Hasan. 1985. Lan- 
guage, conte=t and text: Asp~ts o~ language in 
a social.semiotic perspect/ue. Deakin Univendty 
Press. 
Macleod, C., A. Meyem, B. Grishman, L. Barrett, 
and B. Reeves. 1997. Designing a dictionary of 
derived nominals. In Proceedings o.? ._lT~e__nt Ad- 
vances in Natural Language Processing,. Tsigov 
Chark, Belgad~ September. 
Meyere, Adam, Catherine Mscleod, Roman Yangar- 
be.r, Ralph GKshman, Leslie Barrett, and Ruth 
Reeves. 1998. Using NOMLEX to produce nom- 
inalizations patterns for information extraction. 
In P _roceed___ings oI the Caling.ACL98 ~oorl~hop 
on "The Computational Treatment o\[ Nominals ", 
pages 25-32, Montr6al. 
Not, Elena and Massimo Zancanaro. 1998. The tex- 
ture resolution module: a general-purpose cus- 
tomizable anaphora resolutor. Technical report, 
II~T, Istituto per la Ricerca Scientifica e Tecno- 
logica. 
Renzi, Lorenzo, editor. 1991. Gmnde 9rammatica 
italiana di consultazione, volume I. il Mulino, 
Bologna. 
Rozwadowska, Bozena. 1988. Thematic restric- 
tions on derived nominals. Synta~r and Semantics, 
21:147-165. 
