<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P93-1009">
  <Title>THE EFFECT OF ESTABLISHING COHERENCE IN ELLIPSIS AND ANAPHORA RESOLUTION</Title>
  <Section position="7" start_page="67" end_page="67" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Conclusions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> This paper presents a model for anaphoric processing that incorporates the role of establishing coherence relationships between clauses in a discourse.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> By postulating the existence of propositional representations in addition to a discourse model, we account for ellipsis data that has gridlocked work on the topic. Furthermore, arguments for dichotomous approaches to pronoun resolution are resolvable within this framework.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> It should be noted that coherence establishment is not likely to be the only discourse factor involved in integrating propositional representations into the discourse model. Therefore, the analysis described herein only indicates tendencies, as opposed to predicting cut-and-dry judgements on the basis of type of construction alone. For instance, example (49) has been judged by some speakers to be acceptable under a strict reading: is (49) I voted for myself, and I hope you did too! Our account predicts that this case would be at least somewhat stilted due to a Condition A violation. One factor distinguishing this example from 17 Ehrhch's results with the conjunction and are mixed with respect to our theory, as in some cases her participants preferred a non-subject position referent over a subject position one. In particular, she notes that this happens when the main verb of the second clause is the stative verb be, as in Sue criticized Penny and she was gloomy. These sentences contain the resultmeaning of and as opposed to the parallel one. Unfortunately, Ehrlich's original data was not available at the time of this writing so an analysis distinguishing between uses of and could not be performed.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> lsI thank an anonymous reviewer for this example.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> others we have discussed is the use of first and second person pronouns, and a second is the fact that the pronominal referent necessary to yield the strict reading is also present in the target clause. Future work is needed to further analyze the effects of these differences.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> The theory presented here evokes many other questions for future study. One such question is how the postulated representations should be further formalized, and how reasoning with these formalizations is to be performed. A second question is how this conception of discourse processing may be integrated with theories of discourse structure (Grosz and Sidner, 1986; Scha and Polanyi, 1988; Webber, 1991). While we have looked primarily at two-clause structures, the ramifications that the claims have on multi-clause discourse structure require further investigation. Such studies will form the basis for further characterization of the role of coherence establishment in anaphoric processing.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>