Computing Perspective in Text - Computational Linguistics and Talking Robots - page 218

11.4.3 S UBJECT SENTENCE :P RONOUN IN LOWER CLAUSE

3. L' H : That she was happy surprised Mary .
4. HL': Mary was surprised that she was happy.
(iii)s numbered arcs graphs (NAG)

(i) semantic relations graph (SRG)

surprise a. surprise b. surprise

1 6 3

6

2

4 1

5

happy Mary

happy Mary happy Mary

2 4

3

5

(Mary)/ça

(Mary)/ça (Mary)/ça

(ii) signature

V

(iv) surface realization

a. 1 2

she

3 4 5 6

.

V N

That was_happy surprised Mary

b. 1

Mary

2 3 4 5 6

.

(N)

was_surprised that she was_happy

In contradistinction to 11.4.2, the (Mary)/ça node in the SRG and in the NAGs
is positioned in the lower clause. The two surface realizations are unrestricted
in that both have an indexical and a coreferential interpretation. In summary,
the variants 1, 3, and 4 in 11.4.1 are semantically equivalent in that they have
both readings, while variant 2 is unambiguous and shares only the indexical
reading with them.
The other kind of sentential argument is the object sentence. The distribution
of coreferential pronouns corresponding to 11.4.1 is as follows:

11.4.4 P RONOUN IN OBJECT SENTENCE CONSTRUCTIONS
1. LH' Coreferent noun in lower clause (L) precedes pronoun in matrix (H')
That Mary was happy was known to her .
2. H'L Pronoun in matrix (H') precedes non-coref. noun in lower clause (L)
% She knew that Mary was happy.
3. L'H Pronoun in lower clause (L') precedes coreferent noun in matrix (H)
That she was happy was known to Mary .
4. HL' Coreferent noun in matrix (H) precedes pronoun in lower clause (L')
Mary knew that she was happy.
As in 11.4.1, the alternative ordering of higher and lower clause is based on
using passive (9.1.7) instead of active (9.1.3) in the higher clause. Languages