File size: 66,504 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 | {
"paper_id": "P92-1016",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:11:45.662331Z"
},
"title": "UNDERSTANDING NATURAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONS: THE CASE OF PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Barbara",
"middle": [],
"last": "Di",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia",
"location": {
"region": "PA"
}
},
"email": "dieugeni@linc.cis.upenn.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "This paper presents an analysis of purpose clauses in the context of instruction understanding. Such analysis shows that goals affect the interpretation and / or execution of actions, lends support to the proposal of using generation and enablement to model relations between actions, and sheds light on some inference processes necessary to interpret purpose clauses.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P92-1016",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "This paper presents an analysis of purpose clauses in the context of instruction understanding. Such analysis shows that goals affect the interpretation and / or execution of actions, lends support to the proposal of using generation and enablement to model relations between actions, and sheds light on some inference processes necessary to interpret purpose clauses.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "A speake~ (S) gives instructions to a hearer CrI) in order to affect H's behavior. Researchers including (Winograd, 1972) , (Chapman, 1991) , (Vere and Bickmore, 1990) , (Cohen and Levesque, 1990) , (Alterman et al., 1991) have been and are addressing many complex facets of the problem of mapping Natural Language instructions onto an agent's behavior. However, an aspect that no one has really considered is computing the objects of the intentions H's adopts, namely, the actions to be performed. In general, researchers have equated such objects with logical forms extracted from the NL input. This is perhaps sufficient for simple positive imperatives, but more complex imperatives require that action descriptions be computed, not simply extracted, from the input instruction. To clarify my point, consider: Ex. 1 a) Place a plank between two ladders. b) Place a plank between two ladders to create a simple scaffold.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 121,
"text": "(Winograd, 1972)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 139,
"text": "(Chapman, 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 167,
"text": "(Vere and Bickmore, 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 196,
"text": "(Cohen and Levesque, 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 222,
"text": "(Alterman et al., 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In both a) and b), the action to be executed is place a plank between two ladders. However, Ex. 1.a would be correctly interpreted by placing the plank anywhere between the two ladders: this shows that in b) H must be inferring the proper position for the plank from the expressed goal to create a simple scaffold. Therefore, the goal an action is meant to achieve constrains the interpretation and / or the execution of the action itself.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The infinitival sentence in Ex. 1.b is a purpose clause, *Mailing addxess: IRCS -3401, Walnut St -Suite 40(0 -Philadelphia, PA, 19104 -USA. which, as its name says, expresses the agent's purpose in performing a certain action. The analysis of purpose clauses is relevant to the problem of understanding Natural Language instructions, because:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 139,
"text": "PA, 19104 -USA.",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "1. Purpose clauses explicitly encode goals and their interpretation shows that the goals that H adopts guide his/her computation of the action(s) to perform. 2. Purpose clauses appear to express generation or enablement, supporting the proposal, made by (Allen, 1984) , (Pollack, 1986) , (Grosz and Sidner, 1990) , (Balkansld, 1990) , that these two relations are necessary m model actions.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 254,
"end": 267,
"text": "(Allen, 1984)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 285,
"text": "(Pollack, 1986)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 312,
"text": "(Grosz and Sidner, 1990)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 332,
"text": "(Balkansld, 1990)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "After a general description of purpose clauses, I will concentrate on the relations between actions that they express, and on the inference processes that their interpretation requires. I see these inferences as instantiations of general accommodation processes necessary to interpret instructions, where the term accommodation is borrowed from (Lewis, 1979). I will conclude by describing the algorithm that implements the proposed inference processes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "I am not the first one to analyze purpose clauses: however, they have received attention almost exclusively from a syntactic point of view -see for example (Jones, 1985) , (l-Iegarty, 1990) . Notice that I am not using the term purpose clause in the technical way it has been used in syntax, where it refers to infinitival to clauses adjoined to NPs. In contrast, the infinitival clauses I have concentrated on are adjoined to a matrix clause, and are termed rational clauses in syntax; in fact all the data I will discuss in this paper belong to a particular subclass of such clauses, subject-gap rational clauses.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 156,
"end": 169,
"text": "(Jones, 1985)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 189,
"text": "(l-Iegarty, 1990)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As far as I know, very little attention has been paid to purpose clauses in the semantics literature: in (1990), Jackendoff briefly analyzes expressions of purpose, goal, or rationale, normally encoded as an infinitival, in order to-phrase, or for-phrase. He represents them by means of a subordinating function FOR, which has the adjunct clause as an argument; in turn, FOR plus its argument is a restrictive modifier of the main clause. However, Jackendoff's semantic decomposition doesn't go beyond the construction of the logical form of a sentence, and he doesn't pursue the issue of what the relation between the actions described in the matrix and adjunct really is.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The only other work that mentions purpose clauses in a computational setting is (Balkanski, 1991) . However, she doesn't present any linguistic analysis of the data; as I will show, such analysis raises many interesting issues, such as t:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 97,
"text": "(Balkanski, 1991)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 It is fairly clear that S uses purpose clauses to explain to H the goal/~ to whose achievement the execution of contributes. However, an important point that had been overlooked so far is that the goal/~ also constrains the interpretation of ~, as I observed with respect to Ex. 1.b. Another example in point is: Ex. 2 Cut the square in half to create two triangles.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The action to be performed is cutting the square in half. However, such action description is underspecified, in that there is an infinite number of ways of cutting a square in half: the goal create two triangles restricts the choice to cutting the square along one of the two diagonals.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Purpose clauses relate action descriptions at different levels of abstraction, such as a physical action and an abstract process, or two physical actions, but at different levels of granularity:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Ex. 3 Heat on stove to simmer.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 As far as what is described in purpose clauses, I have been implying that both matrix and purpose clauses describe an action, c~ and/~ respectively. There are rare cases -in fact, I found only one -in which one of the two clauses describes a state ~r:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Ex. 4 To be successfully covered, a wood wall must be flat and smooth.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "I haven't found any instances in which both matrix and purpose clauses describe a state. Intuitively, this makes sense because S uses a purpose clause to inform H of the purpose of a given action 2",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 In most cases, the goal /~ describes a change in the world. However, in some cases 1. The change is not in the world, but in H's knowledge. By executing o~, H can change the state of his knowledge with respect to a certain proposition or to the value of a certain entity.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "1I collected one hundred and one consecutive instances of purpose clauses from a how-to-do book on installing wall coverings, and from two craft magazines.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "~There are clearly other ways of describing that a state is the goal of a certain action, for example by means of so~such that, but I won't deal with such data here. Ex. 5 You may want to hang a coordinating border around the room at the top of the walls. To determine the amount of border, measure the width (in feet) of all walls to be covered and divide by three. Since borders are sold by the yard, this will give you the number of yards needed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Many of such examples involve verbs such as check, make sure etc.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "followed by a thatcomplement describing a state ~b. The use of such verbs has the pragmatic effect that not only does H check whether ~b holds, but, if ~b doesn't hold, s/he will also do something so that ff comes to hold.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Ex. 6 To attach the wires to the new switch, use the paper clip to move the spring type clip aside and slip the wire into place. Tug gently on each wire to make sure it's secure.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "PURPOSE CLAUSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "should not change, namely, that a given event should be prevented from happening:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The purpose clause may inform H that the world",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "Ex. 7 Tape raw edges of fabric to prevent threads from raveling as you work.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The purpose clause may inform H that the world",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "\u2022 From a discourse processing point of view, interpreting a purpose clause may affect the discourse model, in particular by introducing new referents. This happens when the effect of oL is to create a new object, and/~ identifies it. Verbs frequently used in this context are create, make, form etc.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The purpose clause may inform H that the world",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "Ex. 8 Join the short ends of the hat band to form a circle.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The purpose clause may inform H that the world",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "Similarly, in Ex. 2 the discourse referents for the triangles created by cutting the square in half, and in Ex. 5 the referent for amount of border are introduced.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The purpose clause may inform H that the world",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "So far, I have mentioned that oe contributes to achieving the goal/~. The notion of contribution can be made more specific by examining naturally occurring purpose clauses. In the majority of cases, they express generation, and in the rest enablement. Also (Grosz and Sidner, 1990) use contribute as a relation between actions, and they define it as a place holder for any relation ... that can hold between actions when one can be said to contribute (for example, by generating or enabling) to the performance of the other. However, they don't justify this in terms of naturally occurring data. Balkanski (1991) does mention that purpose clauses express generation or enablement, but she doesn't provide evidence to support this claim. GENERATION Generation is a relation between actions that has been extensively studied, first in philosophy (Goldman, 1970) and then in discourse analysis (Allen, 1984) , (Pollack, 1986) , (Grosz and Sidner, 1990) , (Balkanski, 1990) . According to Goldman, intuitively generation is the relation between actions conveyed by the preposition by in English -turning on the light by flipping the switch.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 844,
"end": 859,
"text": "(Goldman, 1970)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 891,
"end": 904,
"text": "(Allen, 1984)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 907,
"end": 922,
"text": "(Pollack, 1986)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 925,
"end": 949,
"text": "(Grosz and Sidner, 1990)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 952,
"end": 969,
"text": "(Balkanski, 1990)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "RELATIONS BETWEEN ACTIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "More formally, we can say that an action a conditionally generates another action/~ iff 3:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "RELATIONS BETWEEN ACTIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "1. a and/~ are simultaneous; 2. a is not part of doing/~ (as in the case of playing a C note as part of playing a C triad on a piano);",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "RELATIONS BETWEEN ACTIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "3. when a occurs, a set of conditions C hold, such that the joint occurrence of a and C imply the occurrence of/L In the case of the generation relation between flipping the switch and turning on the light, C will include that the wire, the switch and the bulb are working.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "RELATIONS BETWEEN ACTIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Although generation doesn't hold between o~ and fl if is part of a sequence of actions ,4 to do/~, generation may hold between the whole sequence ,4 and/~. Generation is a pervasive relation between action descriptions in naturally occurring data. However, it appears from my corpus that by clauses are used less frequently than purpose clauses to express generation 4: about 95% of my 101 purpose clauses express generation, while in the same corpus there are only 27 by clauses. It does look like generation in instructional text is mainly expressed by means of purpose clauses. They may express either a direct generation relation between and/~, or an indirect generation relation between and/~, where by indirect generation I mean that ~ belongs to a sequence of actions ,4 which generates 8.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "RELATIONS BETWEEN ACTIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Following first Pollack (1986) and then Balkanski (1990) , enablement holds between two actions ~ and /~ if and only if an occurrence of ot brings about a set of conditions that are necessary (but not necessarily sufficien 0 for the subsequent performance of 8. Only about 5% of my examples express enablement:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 30,
"text": "Pollack (1986)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 56,
"text": "Balkanski (1990)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "ENABLEMENT",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Ex. 9 Unscrew the protective plate to expose the box.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "ENABLEMENT",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Unscrew the protective plate enables taking the plate off which generates exposing the box.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "ENABLEMENT",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "That purpose clauses do express generation and enablement is a welcome finding: these two relations have been proposed as necessary to model actions (Allen, 1984) , (Pollack, 1986) , (Grosz and Sidner, 1990) , (Balkanski, 1990) , but this proposal has not been justiffed by offering an extensive analysis of whether and how these relations are expressed in NL.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 149,
"end": 162,
"text": "(Allen, 1984)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 180,
"text": "(Pollack, 1986)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 207,
"text": "(Grosz and Sidner, 1990)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 227,
"text": "(Balkanski, 1990)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "GENERATION AND ENABLEMENT IN MODELING ACTIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "3Goldman distinguishes among four kinds of generation relations: subsequent work has been mainly influenced by conditional generation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "GENERATION AND ENABLEMENT IN MODELING ACTIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "4Generation can also be expressed with a simple free adjunct; however, this use of free adjuncts is not very common -see 0hrebber and Di Eugenio, 1990) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 151,
"text": "Eugenio, 1990)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "GENERATION AND ENABLEMENT IN MODELING ACTIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A further motivation for using generation and enablement in modeling actions is that they allow us to draw conclusions about action execution as well -a particularly useful consequence given that my work is taking place in the framework of the Animation from Natural Language -AnimNL project (Badler eta/., 1990; in which the input instructions do have to be executed, namely, animated.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 292,
"end": 312,
"text": "(Badler eta/., 1990;",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "GENERATION AND ENABLEMENT IN MODELING ACTIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As has already been observed by other researchers, ff generates /~, two actions are described, but only a, the generator, needs to be performed. In Ex. 2, there is no creating action per se that has to be executed: the physical action to be performed is cutting, constrained by the goal as explained above.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "GENERATION AND ENABLEMENT IN MODELING ACTIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In contrast to generation, if a enables/~, after executing or, fl still needs to be executed: a has to temporally precede/~, in the sense that a has to begin, but not necessarily end, before/3. In Ex. 10, ho/d has to continue for the whole duration offal/:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "GENERATION AND ENABLEMENT IN MODELING ACTIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Ex. 10 Hold the cup under the spigot to fill it with coffee.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "GENERATION AND ENABLEMENT IN MODELING ACTIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Notice that, in the same way that the generatee affects the execution of the generator, so the enabled action affects the execution of the enabling action. Consider the difference in the interpretation of to in go to the mirror, depending upon whether the action to be enabled is seeing oneself or carrying the mirror somewhere else.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "GENERATION AND ENABLEMENT IN MODELING ACTIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "So far, I have been talking about the purpose clause constraining the interpretation of the matrix clause. I will now provide some details on how such constraints are computed. The inferences that I have identified so far as necessary to interpret purpose clauses can be described as 1. Computing a more specific action description. 2. Computing assumptions that have to hold for a certain relation between actions to hold.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INFERENCE PROCESSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Computing more specific action descriptions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INFERENCE PROCESSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In Ex. 2 -Cut the square in half to create two triangles -it is necessary to find a more specific action al which will achieve the goal specified by the purpose clause, as shown in Fig. 1 . For Ex. 2 we have fl = create two triangles, o~ = cut the square in half, ~1 = cut the square in half along the diagonal. The reader will notice that the inputs to accommodation are linguistic expressions, while its outputs are predicate -argument structures: I have used the latter in Fig. 1 to indicate that accommodation infers relations between action types. However, as I will show later, the representation I adopt is not based on predicate -argument structures. Also notice that I am using Greek symbols for both linguistic expressions and action types: the context should be sufficient to disambiguate which one is meant. Presumably, H doesn't have a particular plan that deals with getting an urn of coffee. S/he will have a generic plan about get x, which s/he will adapt to the instructions S gives him 5. In particular, H has to find the connection between go into the other room and get the urn of coffee. This connection requires reasoning about the effects of go with respect to the plan get x; notice that the (most direc0 connection between these two actions requires the assumption that the referent of the urn of coffee is in the other room. Schematically, one could represent this kind of inference as in Fig. 2 -/~ is the goal, ~ the instruction to accommodate, Ak the actions belonging to the plan to achieve t, C the necessary assumptions. It could happen that these two kinds of inference need to be combined: however, no example I have found so far requires it.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 187,
"text": "Fig. 1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 476,
"end": 482,
"text": "Fig. 1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1415,
"end": 1421,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INFERENCE PROCESSES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In this section, I will describe the algorithm that im-5Actually H may have more than one single plan for get x,. in which case go into the other room may in fact help to select the plan the instructor has in mind. plements the two kinds of accommodation described in the previous section. Before doing that, I will make some remarks on the action representation I adopt and on the structure of the intentions -the plan graph -that my algorithm contributes to building. Action representation. To represent action types, I use an hybrid system (Brachman et al., 1983) , whose primitives are taken from Jackendoff's Conceptual Structures (1990) ; relations between action types are represented in another module of the system, the action library.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 543,
"end": 566,
"text": "(Brachman et al., 1983)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 625,
"end": 642,
"text": "Structures (1990)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTERPRETING Do a to do I~",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "I'd like to spend a few words justifying the choice of an hybrid system: this choice is neither casual, nor determined by the characteristics of the AnimNL project.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTERPRETING Do a to do I~",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Generally, in systems that deal with NL instructions, action types are represented as predicate -argument structures; the crucial assumption is then made that the logical form of an input instruction will exactly match one of these definitions. However, there is an infinite number of NL descriptions that correspond to a basic predicate -argument structure: just think of all the possible modifiers that can be added to a basic sentence containing only a verb and its arguments. Therefore it is necessary to have a flexible knowledge representation system that can help us understand the relation between the input description and the stored one. I claim that hybrid KR systems provide such flexibility, given their virtual lattice structure and the classification algorithm operating on the lattice: in the last section of this paper I will provide an example supporting my claim.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTERPRETING Do a to do I~",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Space doesn't allow me to deal with the reason why Conceptual Structures are relevant, namely, that they are useful to compute assumptions. For further details, the interested reader is referred to (Di Di Eugenic) and White, 1992) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 202,
"end": 213,
"text": "Di Eugenic)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 230,
"text": "White, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTERPRETING Do a to do I~",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Just a reminder to the reader that hybrid systems have two components: the terminological box, or T-Box, where concepts are defined, and on which the classification algorithm works by computing subsumption relations between different concepts. The algorithm is crucial for adding new concepts to the KB: it computes the subsumption relations between the new concept and all the other concepts in the lattice, so that it can \"Position\" the new concept in the right place in the lattice. The other component of an hybrid system is the assertional box, or A-box, where assertions are stored, and which is equipped with a theorem-prover.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTERPRETING Do a to do I~",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In my case, the T-Box contains knowledge about action types, while assertions about individual actionsinstances of the types -are contained in the A-Box: such individuals correspond to the action descriptions contained in the input instructions 6",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTERPRETING Do a to do I~",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The action library contains simple plans relating actions; simple plans are either generation or enablement relations between pairs: the first member of the pair is either a single action or a sequence of action, and the second member is an action. In case the first member of the pair is an individual action, I will talk about direct generation or enablement. For the moment, generation and enablement are represented in a way very similar to (Balkanski, 1990) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 445,
"end": 462,
"text": "(Balkanski, 1990)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTERPRETING Do a to do I~",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The plan graph represents the structure of the intentions derived from the input instructions. It is composed of nodes that contain descriptions of actions, and arcs that denote relations between them. A node contains the Conceptual Structures representation of an action, augmented with the consequent state achieved after the execution of that action. The arcs represent, among others: temporal relations; generation; enablement.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTERPRETING Do a to do I~",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The plan graph is built by an interpretation algorithm that works by keeping track of active nodes, which for the moment include the goal currently in focus and the nodes just added to the graph; it is manipulated by various inference processes, such as plan expansion, and plan recognition.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTERPRETING Do a to do I~",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "My algorithm is described in Fig. 3 7. Clearly the inferences I describe are possible only because I rely ~Notice that these individuals are simply instances of generic concepts, and not necessarily action tokens, namely, nothing is asserted with regard to their happening in the world.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 35,
"text": "Fig. 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTERPRETING Do a to do I~",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "rAs I mentioned earlier in the paper, the Greek symbols on the other AnimNL modules for 1) parsing the input and providing a logical form expressed in terms of Conceptual Structures primitives; 2) managing the discourse model, solving anaphora, performing temporal inferences etc (Webber eta/., 1991) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 280,
"end": 300,
"text": "(Webber eta/., 1991)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTERPRETING Do a to do I~",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "I will conclude by showing how step 4a in Fig. 3 takes advantage of the classification algorithm with which hybrid systems are equipped. Consider the T-Box, or better said, the portion of T-Box shown in Fig. 4 s. Given Ex. 2 -Cut the square in half to create two triangles -as input, the individual action description cut (the) square in half will be asserted in the A-Box and recognized as an instance of ~ -the shaded concept cut (a) square in half -which is a descendant of cut and an abstraction of o: -cut (a) square in half along the diagonal, as shown in Fig. 5 9. Notice that this does not imply that the concept cut (a) square in half is known beforehand: the classification process is able to recognize it as a virtual concept and to find the right place for it in the lattice 10. Given that a is ancestor of o J, and that oJ generates/~ -create two triangles, the fact that the action to be performed is actually o~ and not oL can be inferred. This implements step 4(a)ii.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 48,
"text": "Fig. 3",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 212,
"text": "Fig. 4 s.",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 562,
"end": 568,
"text": "Fig. 5",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "AN EXAMPLE OF THE ALGORITHM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The classification process can also help to deal with cases in which ~ is in conflict with to -step 4(a)iv. If were cut (a) square along a perpendicular axis, a conflict with o~ -cut (a) square in half along the diagonal -would be recognized. Given the T-Box in fig. 4 , the classification process would result in o~ being a sister to w: my algorithm would try to unify them, but this would not be possible, because the role fillers of location on and w cannot be unified, being along(perpendicularaxis) and along(diagonal) respectively. I haven't addressed the issue yet of which strategies to adopt in case such a conflict is detected.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 262,
"end": 268,
"text": "fig. 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "AN EXAMPLE OF THE ALGORITHM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Another point left for future work is what to do when step 2 yields more than one simple plan. The knowledge representation system I am using is BACK (Peltason et al., 1989) ; the algorithm is being implemented in QUINTUS PROLOG. refer both to input descriptions and to action types.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 173,
"text": "(Peltason et al., 1989)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "AN EXAMPLE OF THE ALGORITHM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "SThe reader may find that the representation in Fig. 4 is not very perspicuous, as it mixes linguistic expressions, such as along(diagonal), with conceptual knowledge about entities. Actually, roles and concepts are expressed in terms of Conceptual Structures primitives, which provide a uniform way of representing knowledge apparently belonging to different types. However, a T-Box expressed in terms of Conceptual Structures becomes very complex, so in Fig. 4 I adopted a more readable representation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 54,
"text": "Fig. 4",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 456,
"end": 462,
"text": "Fig. 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "AN EXAMPLE OF THE ALGORITHM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "9The agent role does not appear on cut square in half in the A-Box for the sake of readability.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "AN EXAMPLE OF THE ALGORITHM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "1\u00b0In fact, such concept is not really added to the lattice. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "AN EXAMPLE OF THE ALGORITHM",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "I have shown that the analysis of purpose clauses lends support to the proposal of using generation and enablement to model actions, and that the interpretation of purpose clauses originates specific inferences: I have illustrated two of them, that can be seen as examples of accommodation processes (Lewis, 1979) , and that show how the bearer's inference processes are directed by the goal(s) s/he is adopting.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 300,
"end": 313,
"text": "(Lewis, 1979)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUSIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Future work includes fully developing the action representation formalism, and the algorithm, especially the part regarding computing assumptions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUSIONS",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "For financial support I acknowledge DARPA grant no. N0014-90-J-1863 and ARt grant no. DAALO3-89-C0031PR1. Thanks to Bonnie Webber for support, insights and countless discussions, and to all the members of the AnimNL group, in particular to Mike White. Finally, thanks to the Dipartimento di Informatica -Universita' di Torino -Italy for making their computing environment available to me, and in particular thanks to Felice Cardone, Luca Console, Leonardo Lesmo, and Vincenzo Lombardo, who helped me through a last minute computer crash.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Input: the Conceptual Structures logical forms for ~ and t, the current plan graph, and the list of active nodes.1. Add to A-Box individuals corresponding to the two logical forms. Set flag ACCOM if they don't exactly match known concepts.2. Retrieve from the action library the simple plan(s) associated with /5 -generation relations in which /5 is the generate., enablement relations in which/5 is the enablee.3. If ACCOM is not set (a) If there is a direct generation or enablement relation between ~ and/5, augment plan graph with the structure derived from it, after calling compute-assumptions. (b) If there is no such direct relation, recursively look for possible connections between e and the components 7i of sequences that either generate or enable/5. Augment plan graph, after calling c omput e-a s s umpt i on s.4. If ACCOM is set, (a) If there is ~a such that oJ directly generates or enables/5, check whether i. w is an ancestor of c~: take c~ as the intended action.ii. ~o is a descendant of c~: take o~ as the intended action. iii. If w and e are not ancestors of each other, but they can be unified -all the information they provide is compatible, as in the case of cut square in half along diagonal and cut square carefully -then their unification w U c~ is the action to be executed. iv. If o: and ~ are not ancestors of each other, and provide conflicting information -such as cut square along diagonal and cut square along perpendicular axis -then signal failure. (b) If there is no such w, look for possible connections between ~ and the components 7i of sequences that either generate or enable/5, as in step 3b. Given that ~ is not known to the system, apply the inferences described in 4a to c~ and 7/. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "annex",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Towards a general theory of action and time",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Allen ; James",
"middle": [],
"last": "Allen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1984,
"venue": "Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "23",
"issue": "",
"pages": "123--154",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Allen, 1984) James Allen. Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence, 23:123- 154, 1984.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Interaction, Comprehension, and Instruction Usage",
"authors": [
{
"first": "/",
"middle": [],
"last": "Alterman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roland",
"middle": [],
"last": "Richard Alterman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tamitha",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zito-Wolf",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carpenter",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alterman eta/., 1991) Richard Alterman, Roland Zito- Wolf, and Tamitha Carpenter. Interaction, Com- prehension, and Instruction Usage. Technical Re- port CS-91-161, Dept. of Computer Science, Cen- ter for Complex Systems, Brandeis University, 1991.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Balkanski, 1991) Cecile Balkanski. Logical form of complex sentences in task-oriented dialogues",
"authors": [
{
"first": "(",
"middle": [],
"last": "Badler",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Student Session",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "(Badler et al., 1990) Norman Badler, Bonnie Webber, Jeff Esakov, and Jugal Kalita. Animation from in- slzuctions. In Badler, Barsky, and Zeltzer, editors, Making them Move, MIT Press, 1990. (Balkanski, 1990) Cecile Balkanski. Modelling act-type relations in collaborative activity. Technical Re- port TR-23-90, Center for Research in Computing Technology, Harvard University, 1990. (Balkanski, 1991) Cecile Balkanski. Logical form of complex sentences in task-oriented dialogues. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Student Session, 1991. (Brachman et al., 1983) R. Brachman, R.Fikes, and H. Levesque. KRYPTON: A Functional Approach to Knowledge Representation. Technical Re- port FLAIR 16, Fairchild Laboratories for Artificial Intelligence, Palo Alto, California, 1983.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Rational Interaction as the Basis for Communication",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chapman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Philip",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chapman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hector",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cohen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Levesque",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Chapman, 1991) David Chapman. Vision, Instruction andAction. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991. (Cohen and Levesque, 1990) Philip Cohen and Hector Levesque. Rational Interaction as the Basis for Communication. In J. Morgan, P. Cohen, and M. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, 1990.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Goals andActions in Natural Language Instructions",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Di",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eugenio",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "; Barbara",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dieugenio",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Di Eugenio, 1992) Barbara DiEugenio. Goals andAc- tions in Natural Language Instructions. Technical Report MS-CIS-92-07, University of Pennsylvania, 1992.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "On the Interpretation of Natural Language Instructions",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Di",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eugenio",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "; Barbara Di",
"middle": [],
"last": "White",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eugenio",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "White",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Di Eugenio and White, 1992) Barbara Di Eugenio and Michael White. On the Interpretation of Natural Language Instructions. 1992. COLING 92.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Hegarty, 1990)Michael Hegarty. Secondary Predication and Null Operators in English. 1990. Manuscript. (Jackendoff, 1990) Ray Jackendoff. Semantic Structures",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alvin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Goldman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1970,
"venue": "Intentions in Communication",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "(Goldman, 1970) Alvin Goldman. A Theory of Hwnan Action. Princeton University Press, 1970. (Grosz and Sidner, 1990) Barbara Grosz and Candace Sidner. Plans for Discourse. In J. Morgan, P. Co- hen, and M. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Commu- nication, MIT Press, 1990. (Hegarty, 1990)Michael Hegarty. Secondary Predi- cation and Null Operators in English. 1990. Manuscript. (Jackendoff, 1990) Ray Jackendoff. Semantic Struc- tures. Current Studies in Linguistics Series, The MIT Press, 1990.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "1986) Martha Pollack. Inferring domain plans in question-answering",
"authors": [
{
"first": "; Charles",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jones",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": ";",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Jones",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Peltason",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schmiedel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kindermann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Quantz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1979,
"venue": "Chicago Linguistic Society",
"volume": "21",
"issue": "",
"pages": "339--359",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jones, 1985) Charles Jones. Agent, patient, and con- trol into purpose clauses. In Chicago Linguistic Society, 21, 1985. (Lewis, 1979) David Lewis. Scorekeeping in a lan- guage game. Journal of Philosophical Language, 8:339-359, 1979. (Peltason et al., 1989) C. Peltason, A. Schmiedel, C. Kindermann, and J. Quantz. The BACK System Revisited. Technical Report KIT 75, Technische Universitaet Berlin, 1989. (Pollack, 1986) Martha Pollack. Inferring domain plans in question-answering. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1986.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Webber and Di Eugenio, 1990) Bonnie Webber and Barbara Di Eugenio. Free Adjuncts in Natural Language Instructions",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bickmore ; Steven",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vere",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Timothy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bickmore",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": ";",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1972,
"venue": "Proceedings Thirteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 90",
"volume": "6",
"issue": "",
"pages": "395--400",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "and Bickmore, 1990) Steven Vere and Timothy Bickmore. A basic agent. Computational Intel- ligence, 6:41--60, 1990. (Webber and Di Eugenio, 1990) Bonnie Webber and Barbara Di Eugenio. Free Adjuncts in Natural Lan- guage Instructions. In Proceedings Thirteenth In- ternational Conference on Computational Linguis- tics, COLING 90, pages 395--400, 1990. (Webber et al., 1991) Bonnie Webber, Norman Badler, Barbara Di Eugenio, Libby Levison, and Michael white. Instructing Animated Agents. In Proc. US- Japan Workshop on Integrated Systems in Multi- Media Environments. Las Cruces, NM, 1991. (Winograd, 1972) Terry Winograd. Understanding Nat- ural Language. Academic Press, 1972.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Computing assumptions. Let's consider: Schematic depiction of the second kind of accommodation Ex. 11 Go into the other room to get the urn of coffee.",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Dealing with less specific action descriptions",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
}
}
}
} |