File size: 74,904 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
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
{
    "paper_id": "P97-1012",
    "header": {
        "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
        "date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:15:39.863634Z"
    },
    "title": "Expectations in Incremental Discourse Processing",
    "authors": [
        {
            "first": "Dan",
            "middle": [],
            "last": "Cristea",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {
                "laboratory": "",
                "institution": "University \"A.I. Cuza\" 16",
                "location": {
                    "addrLine": "Berthelot Street",
                    "postCode": "6600",
                    "settlement": "Iasi",
                    "country": "Romania"
                }
            },
            "email": ""
        },
        {
            "first": "Bonnie",
            "middle": [],
            "last": "Webber",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {
                "laboratory": "",
                "institution": "University of Pennsylvania",
                "location": {
                    "addrLine": "200 South 33rd Street Philadelphia PA",
                    "postCode": "19104-6389",
                    "country": "USA"
                }
            },
            "email": ""
        }
    ],
    "year": "",
    "venue": null,
    "identifiers": {},
    "abstract": "The way in which discourse features express connections back to the previous discourse has been described in the literature in terms of adjoining at the right frontier of discourse structure. But this does not allow for discourse features that express ezpectations about what is to come in the subsequent discourse. After characterizing these expectations and their distribution in text, we show how an approach that makes use of substitution as well as adjoining on a suitably defined right frontier, can be used to both process expectations and constrain discouse processing in general.",
    "pdf_parse": {
        "paper_id": "P97-1012",
        "_pdf_hash": "",
        "abstract": [
            {
                "text": "The way in which discourse features express connections back to the previous discourse has been described in the literature in terms of adjoining at the right frontier of discourse structure. But this does not allow for discourse features that express ezpectations about what is to come in the subsequent discourse. After characterizing these expectations and their distribution in text, we show how an approach that makes use of substitution as well as adjoining on a suitably defined right frontier, can be used to both process expectations and constrain discouse processing in general.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Abstract",
                "sec_num": null
            }
        ],
        "body_text": [
            {
                "text": "Discourse processing subsumes several distinguishable but interlinked processes. These include reference and ellipsis resolution, inference (e.g., inferential processes associated with focus particles such as, in English, \"even\" and \"only\"), and identification of those structures underlying a discourse that are associated with coherence relations between its units. In the course of developing an incremental approach to the latter, we noticed a variety of constructions in discourse that raise expectations about its future structural features. We found that we could represent such expectations by adopting a lexical variant of TAG -LTAG (Schabes, 1990) -and using its substitution operation as a complement to adjoining. Perhaps more interesting was that these expectations appeared to constrain the subsequent discourse until they were resolved. This we found we could model in terms of constraints on adjoining and substitution with respect to a suitably defined Right Frontier. This short paper focuesses on the phenomenon of these expectations in discourse and their expression in a discourse-level LTAG. We conelude the paper with some thoughts on incremental discourse processing in light of these expectations.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 642,
                        "end": 657,
                        "text": "(Schabes, 1990)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF12"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The following examples illustrate the creation of expectations through discourse markers:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "a. On the one hand, John is very generous. b. On the other, he is extremely difficult to find.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 1",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "a. On the one hand, John is very generous. b. On the other, suppose you needed some money. c. You'd see that he's very difficult to find.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 2",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Example 3 a. On the one hand, John is very generous. b. For example, suppose you needed some money. c. You would just have to ask him for it. b. On the other hand, he is very difficult to find.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 2",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Example 1 illustrates the expectation that, following a clause marked \"on the one hand\", the discourse will express a constrasting situation (here marked by \"on the other\"). Examples 2 and 3 illustrate that such an expectation need not be satisfied immediately by the next clause: In Example 2, clause (b) partially resolves the expectation set up in (a), but introduces an expectation that the subsequent discourse will indicate what happens in such cases. That expectation is then resolved in clause (c). In Example 3, the next two clauses do nothing to satisfy the expectation raised in clause (a): rather, they give evidence for the claim made in (a). The expectation raised in (a) is not resolved until clause (d).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 2",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "These examples show expectations raised by sentential adverbs and the imperative use of the verb \"suppose\".",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 2",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Subordinate conjunctions (e.g., \"just as\", \"although\", \"when\", etc.) can lead to similar expectations when they appear in a preposed subordinate clause -eg.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 2",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Example 4 a. Although John is very generous, b. if you should need some money, c. you'd see that he's difficult to find.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 2",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "As in Example 2, clause 4(a) raises the expectation of learning what is nevertheless the case. Clause 4(b) partially satisfies that expectation by raising a hy-pothetical situation, along with the expectation of learning what is true in such a situation. This latter expectation is then satisfied in clause 4(c).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 2",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "In summary, these expectations can be characterized as follows: (1) once raised, an expectation must be resolved, but its resolvant can be a clause that raises its own expectations; (2) a clause raising an expectation can itelf be elaborated before that expectation is resolved, including elaboration by clauses that raise their own expectations; and (3) the most deeply \"embedded\" expectations must always be resolved first. Now these are very likely not the only kinds of expectations to be found in discourse: Whenever events or behavior follow fairly regular patterns over time, observers develop expectations about what will come next or at least eventually. For example, a dialogue model may embody the expectation that a suggestion made by one dialogue participant would eventually be followed by an explicit or implicit rejection, acceptance or tabling by the other. Other dialogue actions such as clarifications or justifications may intervene, but there is a sense of an expectation being resolved when the suggestion is responded to.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 2",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Here we are focussed on discourse at the level of individual monologue or turn within a larger discourse: what we show is that discourse manifests certain forward-looking patterns that have similar constraints to those of sentence-level syntax and can be handled by similar means. One possible reason that these particualr kinds of expressions may not have been noticed before is that in non-incremental approaches to discourse processing (Mann and Thompson, 1988; Marcu, 1996) , they don't stand out as obviously different.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 439,
                        "end": 464,
                        "text": "(Mann and Thompson, 1988;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF5"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 465,
                        "end": 477,
                        "text": "Marcu, 1996)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF6"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 2",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The labels for discourse coherence relations used here are similar to those of RST (Mann and Thompson, 1988 ), but for simplicity, are treated as binary. Since any multi-branching tree can be converted to a binary tree, no representational power is lost. In doing this, we follow several recent converging computational approaches to discourse analysis, which are also couched in binary terms (Gardent, 1997; Marcu, 1996; Polanyi and van den Berg, 1996; Schilder, 1997; van den Berg, 1996) .",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 83,
                        "end": 107,
                        "text": "(Mann and Thompson, 1988",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF5"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 393,
                        "end": 408,
                        "text": "(Gardent, 1997;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF1"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 409,
                        "end": 421,
                        "text": "Marcu, 1996;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF6"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 422,
                        "end": 453,
                        "text": "Polanyi and van den Berg, 1996;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF10"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 454,
                        "end": 469,
                        "text": "Schilder, 1997;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF13"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 470,
                        "end": 489,
                        "text": "van den Berg, 1996)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF10"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 2",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Implicit in our discussion is the view that in processing a discourse incrementally, its semantics and pragmatics are computed compositionally from the structure reflected in the coherence relations between its units. In the figures presented here, non-terminal nodes in a discourse structure are labelled with coherence relations merely to indicate the functions that project appropriate content, beliefs and other side effects into the recipient's discourse model. This view is, we believe, consistent with the more detailed formal interfaces to discourse semantics/pragmatics presented in (Gardent, 1997; Schilder, 1997; van den Berg, 1996) , and also allows for multiple discourse relations (intentional and in-formational) to hold between discourse units (Moore and Pollack, 1992; Moser and Moore, 1995; Moser and Moore, 1996) and contribute to the semantic/pragmatics effects on the recipient's discourse model.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 592,
                        "end": 607,
                        "text": "(Gardent, 1997;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF1"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 608,
                        "end": 623,
                        "text": "Schilder, 1997;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF13"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 624,
                        "end": 643,
                        "text": "van den Berg, 1996)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF10"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 760,
                        "end": 785,
                        "text": "(Moore and Pollack, 1992;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF7"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 786,
                        "end": 808,
                        "text": "Moser and Moore, 1995;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF8"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 809,
                        "end": 831,
                        "text": "Moser and Moore, 1996)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF9"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 2",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The examples given in the Introduction were all \"minimal pairs\" created to illustrate the relevant phenomenon as succinctly as possible. Empirical questions thus include: (1) the range of lexicosyntactic constructions that raise expectations with the specific properties mentioned above;",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Expectations in Corpora",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "(2) the frequency of expectation-raising constructions in text;",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Expectations in Corpora",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "(3) the frequency with which expectations are satisfied immediately, as opposed to being delayed by material that elaborates the unit raising the expectation; (4) the frequency of embedded expectations; and (5) features that provide evidence for an expectation being satisfied. While we do not have answers to all these questions, a very preliminary analysis of the Brown Corpus, a corpus of approximately 1600 email messages, and a short Romanian text by T. Vianu (approx. 5000 words) has yielded some interesting results.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Expectations in Corpora",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "First, reviewing the 270 constructions that Knott has identified as potential cue phrases in the Brown Corpus 1, one finds 15 adverbial phrases (such as \"initially\", \"at first\", \"to start with\", etc.) whose presence in a clause would lead to an expectation being raised. All left-extraposed clauses in English raise expectations (as in Example 4) so all the subordinate conjunctions in Knott's list would be included as well. Outside of cue phrases, we have identified imperative forms of \"suppose\" and \"consider\" as raising expectations, but currently lack a more systematic procedure for identifying expectationraising constructions in text than hand-combing text for them.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Expectations in Corpora",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "With respect to how often expectation-raising constructions appear in text, we have Brown Corpus data on two specific types -imperative \"suppose\" and adverbial \"on the one hand\" -as well as a detailed analysis of the Romanian text by Vianu mentioned earlier.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Expectations in Corpora",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "There are approximately 54K sentences in the Brown Corpus. Of these, 37 contain imperative \"suppose\" or \"let us suppose\". Twelve of these correspond to \"what if\" questions or negotiation moves which do not raise expectations:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Expectations in Corpora",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "Suppose -just suppose this guy was really what he said he was! A retired professional killer If he was just a nut, no harm was done. But if he was the real thing, he could do something about Lolly. (c123)",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Expectations in Corpora",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "1 Personal communication, but also see (Knott, 1996) Alec leaned on the desk, holding the clerk's eyes with his. \"Suppose you tell me the real reason\", he drawled. \"There might be a story in it\". c121The remaining 25 sentences constitute only about 0.05% of the Brown Corpus. Of these, 22 have their expectations satisfied immediately (88%) -for example, Suppose John Jones, who, for 1960, filed on the basis of a calendar year, died June 20, 1961. His return for the period January 1 to June 20, 1961, is due April 16, 1962.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 39,
                        "end": 52,
                        "text": "(Knott, 1996)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF4"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Expectations in Corpora",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "One is followed by a single sentence elaborating the original supposition (also flagged by \"suppose\") -\"Suppose it was not us that killed these aliens. Suppose it is something right on the planet, native to it. I just hope it doesn't work on Earthmen too. These critters went real sudden\". (cmO~)",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Expectations in Corpora",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "while the remaining two contain multi-sentence elaborations of the original supposition. None of the examples in the Brown Corpus contains an embedded expectation.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Expectations in Corpora",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "The adverbial \"on the one hand\" is used to pose a contrast either phrasally -Both plans also prohibited common directors, officers, or employees between Du Pont, Christiana, and Delaware, on the one hand, and General Motors on the other.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Expectations in Corpora",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "You couldn't on the one hand decry the arts and at the same time practice them, could you? (ck08) or clausally. It is only the latter that are of interest from the point of discourse expectations.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(ch16)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The Brown Corpus contains only 7 examples of adverbial \"on the one hand\". In three cases, the expectation is satisfied immediately by a clause cued by \"but\" or \"or\" -e.g.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(ch16)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "On the one hand, the Public Health Service declared as recently as October 26 that present radiation levels resulting from the Soviet shots \"do not warrant undue public concern\" or any action to limit the intake of radioactive substances by individuals or large population groups anywhere in the Aj. But the PHS conceded that the new radioactive particles \"will add to the risk of genetic effects in succeeding generations, and possibly to the risk of health damage to some people in the United States\".(cb21)",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(ch16)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "In the remaining four cases, satisfaction of the expectation (the \"target\" contrast item) is delayed by 2-3 sentences elaborating the \"source\" contrast item --e.g. Brooklyn College students have an ambivalent attitude toward their school. On the one hand, there is a sense of not having moved beyond the ambiance of their high school. This is particularly acute for those who attended Midwood High School directly across the street from Brooklyn College. They have a sense of marginality at being denied that special badge of status, the out-of-town school. At the same time, there is a good deal of self-congratulation at attending a good college . .. cf25In these cases, the target contrast item is cued by \"on the other hand\" in three cases and \"at the same time\" in the case given above. Again, none of the examples contains an embedded expectation.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(ch16)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(The much smaller email corpus contained six examples of clausal \"on the one hand\", with the target contrast cued by \"on the other hand\",\"on the other\" or \"at the other extreme\". In one case, there was no explicit target contrast and the expectation raised by \"on the one hand\" was never satisfied. We will continue to monitor for such examples.)",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(ch16)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Before concluding with a close analysis of the Romanian text, we should note that in both the Brown Corpus and the email corpus, clausal adverbial \"on the other hand\" occurs more frequently without an expectation-raising \"on the one hand\" than it does with one. (Our attention was called to this by a frequency analysis of potential cue phrase instances in the Brown Corpus compiled for us by Alistair Knott and Andrei Mikheev, HCRC, University of Edinburgh.) We found 53 instances of clausal \"on the other hand\" occuring without an explicit source contrast cued earlier. Although one can only speculate now on the reason for this phenomenon, it does make a difference to incremental analysis, as we try to show in Section 3.3.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(ch16)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The Romanian text that has been closely analysed for explicit expectation-raising constructions is T. Vianu's Aesthetics. It contains 5160 words and 382 discourse units (primarily clauses). Counting preposed gerunds as raising expectations as well as counting the constructions noted previously, 39 instances of expectation-raising discourse units were identified (10.2%). In 11 of these cases, 1-16 discourse units intervened before the raised expectation was satisfied. One example follows:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(ch16)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Dar de~i trebuie s~-l parcurgem in intregime, pentru a orienta cercetarea este nevoie s~. incerc~m inc~ de pe acum o precizare a obiectului lui.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(ch16)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(But although we must cover it entirely, in order to guide the research we need to try already an explanation of its subject matter.)",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(ch16)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The intuitive appeal of Tree-adjoining Grammar (TAG) (Joshi, 1987) for discourse processing (Gardent, 1997; Polanyi and van den Berg, 1996; Schilder, 1997; van den Berg, 1996; Webber, 1991) follows from the fact that TAG's adjoining operation allows one to directly analyse the current discourse unit as a sister to previous discourse material that it stands in a particular relation to. The new intuition presented here -that expectations convey a dependency between the current discourse unit and future discourse material, a dependency that can be \"stretched\" long-distance by intervening material -more fully exploits TAG's ability to express dependencies. By expressing in an elementary TAG tree, a dependency betwen the current discourse unit and future discourse material and using substitution (Schabes, 1990) when the expected material is found, our TAG-based approach to discourse processing allows expectations to be both raised and resolved.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 53,
                        "end": 66,
                        "text": "(Joshi, 1987)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF3"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 108,
                        "end": 139,
                        "text": "Polanyi and van den Berg, 1996;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF10"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 140,
                        "end": 155,
                        "text": "Schilder, 1997;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF13"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 156,
                        "end": 175,
                        "text": "van den Berg, 1996;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF10"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 176,
                        "end": 189,
                        "text": "Webber, 1991)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF14"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 802,
                        "end": 817,
                        "text": "(Schabes, 1990)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF12"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "A Grammar for Discourse",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "The categories of our TAG-based approach consist of nodes and binary trees. We follow (Gardent, 1997) in associating nodes with feature structures that may hold various sorts of information, including information about the semantic interpretations projected through the nodes, constraints on the specific operations a node may participate in, etc. A nonterminal node represents a discourse relation holding between its two daughter nodes. A terminal node can be either non-empty (Figure la ), corresponding to a basic discourse unit (usually a clause), or empty.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 86,
                        "end": 101,
                        "text": "(Gardent, 1997)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF1"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 479,
                        "end": 489,
                        "text": "(Figure la",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Categories and Operations",
                "sec_num": "3.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "A node is \"empty\" only in not having an associated discourse unit or relation: it can still have an associated feature structure. Empty nodes play a role in adjoining and substitution, as explained below, and hence in building the derived binary tree that represents the structure of the discourse. Adjoining adds to the discourse structure an auxiliary tree consisting of a root labelled with a discourse relation, an empty foot node (labelled *), and at least one non-empty node (Figures lc and ld) . In our approach, the foot node of an auxiliary tree must be its leftmost terminal because all adjoining operations take place on a suitably defined right frontier (i.e., the path from the root of a tree to its rightmost leaf node) -such that all newly introduced material lies to the right of the adjunction site. (This is discussed in Section 3.2 in more detail.) Adjoining corresponds to identifying a discourse relation between the new material and material in the previous discourse that is still open for elaboration. Figure 2 (a) illustrates adjoining midway down the RF of tree a, while Figure 2 (b) illustrates adjoining at the root of a's RF. Figure 2(c) shows adjoining at the \"degenerate\" case of a tree that consists only of its root. Figure 2 (d) will be explained shortly.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 481,
                        "end": 500,
                        "text": "(Figures lc and ld)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 1026,
                        "end": 1034,
                        "text": "Figure 2",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 1097,
                        "end": 1105,
                        "text": "Figure 2",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 1155,
                        "end": 1166,
                        "text": "Figure 2(c)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 1250,
                        "end": 1258,
                        "text": "Figure 2",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Categories and Operations",
                "sec_num": "3.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "Substitution unifies the root of a substitution structure with an empty node in the discourse tree that serves as a substitution site. We currently use two kinds of substitution structures: non-empty nodes (Figure la) and elementary trees with substitution sites (Figure lb) . The latter are one way by which a substitution site may be introduced into a tree. As will be argued shortly, substitution sites can only appear on the right of an elementary tree, although any number of them may appear there (Figure lb) . Figure 2 (e) illustrates substitution of a nonempty node at ~, and Figure 2(f) illustrates substitution of an elementary tree with its own substitution site at ~1",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 206,
                        "end": 217,
                        "text": "(Figure la)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 263,
                        "end": 274,
                        "text": "(Figure lb)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 503,
                        "end": 514,
                        "text": "(Figure lb)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 517,
                        "end": 525,
                        "text": "Figure 2",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 584,
                        "end": 595,
                        "text": "Figure 2(f)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Categories and Operations",
                "sec_num": "3.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "Since in a clause with two discourse markers (as in Example 3b) one may look backwards (\"for example\") while the other looks forwards (\"suppose\"), we also need a way of introducing expectations in the context of adjoining. This we do by allowing an auxiliary tree to contain substitution sites (Figure ld) which, as above, can only appear on its right. 2 Another term we use for auxiliary trees is adjoining structures.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 294,
                        "end": 305,
                        "text": "(Figure ld)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Categories and Operations",
                "sec_num": "3.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "Earlier we noted that in a discourse structure with no substitution sites, adjoining is limited to the right frontier (RF). This is true of all existing TAG-based approaches to discourse processing (Gardent, 1997; Hinrichs and Polanyi, 1986; Polanyi and van den Berg, 1996; Schilder, 1997; Webber, 1991) , whose structures correspond to trees that lack substitution sites. One reason for this RF restriction is to maintain a strict correspondence between a left-to-right reading of the terminal nodes of a discourse structure and the text it analyses -i.e., Principle of Sequentiality: A left-toright reading of the terminal frontier of the tree associated with a discourse must correspond to the span of text it analyses in that same left-to-right order.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 198,
                        "end": 213,
                        "text": "(Gardent, 1997;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF1"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 214,
                        "end": 241,
                        "text": "Hinrichs and Polanyi, 1986;",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 242,
                        "end": 273,
                        "text": "Polanyi and van den Berg, 1996;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF10"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 274,
                        "end": 289,
                        "text": "Schilder, 1997;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF13"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 290,
                        "end": 303,
                        "text": "Webber, 1991)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF14"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Constraints",
                "sec_num": "3.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "Formal proof that this principle leads to the restriction of adjoining to the right frontier is given in (Cristea and Webber, June 1997) .",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 105,
                        "end": 136,
                        "text": "(Cristea and Webber, June 1997)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF0"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Constraints",
                "sec_num": "3.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "The Principle of Sequentiality leads to additional constraints on where adjoining and substitution can occur in trees with substitution sites. Consider the tree in Figure 3(i) , which has two such sites, and an adjoining operation on the right frontier at node Rj or above. Figure 3(it) shows that this would introduce a non-empty node (uk) above and to the right of the substitution sites. This would mean that later substitution at either of them would lead to a violation of the Principle of Sequentiality, since the newly ~We currently have no linguistic evidence for the structure labelled ~ in Figure ld substituted node u~+t would then appear to the left of uk in the terminal frontier, but to the right of it in the original discourse. Adjoining at any node above Rj+2 -the left sister of the most deeply embedded substitution site -leads to the same problem (Figure 3iii ). Thus in a tree with substitution sites, adjoining must be limited to nodes on the path from the left sister of the most embedded site to that sister's rightmost descendent. But this is just a right frontier (RF) rooted at that left sister. Thus, adjoining is always limited to a RF: the presence of a substitution site just changes what node that RF is rooted at. We can call a RF rooted at the left sister of the most embedded substitution site, the inner right frontier or \"inner_RF\". (In Figure 3(i) , the in-ner_RF is indicated by a dashed arrow.) In contrast, we sometimes call the RF of a tree without substitution sites, the outer right frontier or \"outer_RF\". Another consequence of the Principle of Sequentiality is that the only node at which substitution is allowed in a tree with substitution sites is at the most embedded one. Any other substitution would violate the principle. (Formal proof of these claims are given in (Cristea and Webber, June 1997) .",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 1818,
                        "end": 1849,
                        "text": "(Cristea and Webber, June 1997)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF0"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 164,
                        "end": 175,
                        "text": "Figure 3(i)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 274,
                        "end": 286,
                        "text": "Figure 3(it)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 600,
                        "end": 609,
                        "text": "Figure ld",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 867,
                        "end": 879,
                        "text": "(Figure 3iii",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 1374,
                        "end": 1385,
                        "text": "Figure 3(i)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Constraints",
                "sec_num": "3.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "Because we have not yet implemented a parser that embodies the ideas presented so far, we give here an idealized analysis of Examples 2 and 3, to show how an ideal incremental monotonic algorithm that admitted expectations would work. Figure 4A illustrates the incremental analysis of Example 2. Figure 4A(i) shows the elementary tree corresponding to sentence 2a (\"On the one hand ...\"): the interpretation of \"John is very generous\" corresponds to the left daughter labelled \"a\". The adverbial \"On the one hand\" is taken as signalling a coherence relation of Contrast with something expected later in the discourse.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 235,
                        "end": 244,
                        "text": "Figure 4A",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 296,
                        "end": 308,
                        "text": "Figure 4A(i)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Examples",
                "sec_num": "3.3"
            },
            {
                "text": "In sentence 2b (\"On the other hand, suppose ...\"), the adverbial \"On the other hand\" signals the expected contrast item.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Examples",
                "sec_num": "3.3"
            },
            {
                "text": "Because it is already expected, the adverbial does not lead to the creation of a separate elementary tree (but see the next example). The imperative verb \"suppose\", however, signals a coherence relation of antecedent/consequent (A/C) with a consequence expected later in the discourse. The elementary tree corresponding to \"suppose ...\" is shown in Figure 4A (ii), with the interpretation of \"you need money\" corresponding to the left daughter labelled \"b\". Figure 4A (iii) shows this elementary tree substituted at ~1, satisfying that expectation. Figure 4A(iv) shows the interpretation of sentence 2c (\"You'd see he's very difficult to find\") substituted at 12, satisfying that remaining expectation.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 549,
                        "end": 562,
                        "text": "Figure 4A(iv)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 349,
                        "end": 358,
                        "text": "Figure 4A",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 458,
                        "end": 467,
                        "text": "Figure 4A",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Examples",
                "sec_num": "3.3"
            },
            {
                "text": "Before moving on to Example 3, notice that if Sentence 2a were not explicitly cued with \"On the other hand\", the analysis would proceed somewhat differently.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Examples",
                "sec_num": "3.3"
            },
            {
                "text": "a. John is very generous. b. On the other hand, suppose you needed money. c. You'd see that he's very difficult to find.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 5",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Here, the interpretation of sentence 5(a) would correspond to the degenerate case of a tree consisting of a single non-empty node shown in Figure 4B (i). The contrast introduced by \"On the other hand\" in sentence 5(b) leads to the auxiliary tree shown in Figure 4B(ii) , where T stands for the elementary tree corresponding to the interpretation of \"suppose...\". The entire structure associated with sentence 5(b) is shown in Figure 4B (iii). This is adjoined to the single node tree in Figure 4B(i) , yielding the tree shown in Figure 4B (iv). The analysis then continues exactly as in that of Example 2 above. Moving on to Example 3, Figure 4C(i) shows the same elementary tree as in Figure 4A (i) corresponding to clause 3a. Next, Figure 4C(ii) shows the auxiliary tree with substitution site ~2 corresponding to clause 3b being adjoined as a sister to the interpretation of clause 3a, as evidence for the claim made there. The right daughter of the node labelled \"Evidence\" is, as in Example 2b, an elementary tree expecting the consequence of the supposition \"you need money\". Figure 4C(iii) shows the interpretation of clause 3c substituted at ~2, satisfying that expectation. Finally, Figure 4C (iv) shows the interpretation of clause 3d substituted at 11, satisfying the remaining expectation.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 139,
                        "end": 148,
                        "text": "Figure 4B",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 255,
                        "end": 268,
                        "text": "Figure 4B(ii)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 426,
                        "end": 435,
                        "text": "Figure 4B",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 487,
                        "end": 499,
                        "text": "Figure 4B(i)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 529,
                        "end": 538,
                        "text": "Figure 4B",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 636,
                        "end": 648,
                        "text": "Figure 4C(i)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 686,
                        "end": 695,
                        "text": "Figure 4A",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 734,
                        "end": 747,
                        "text": "Figure 4C(ii)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 1082,
                        "end": 1096,
                        "text": "Figure 4C(iii)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 1192,
                        "end": 1201,
                        "text": "Figure 4C",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 5",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "A/C Contrast Contrast b ~2 b (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Contrast Contrast Contrast Contrast \u2022 a a \u2022 T C ~\" a A/C b ~l b ~! b (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Contrast (i)",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Contrast",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The idealized analysis presented above could lead to a simple deterministic incremental algorithm, if there were no uncertainty due to local or global ambiguity. But there is. We can identify three separate sources of uncertainty that would affect incremental processing according to the grammar just presented:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sources of Uncertainty",
                "sec_num": "4"
            },
            {
                "text": "\u2022 the identity of the discourse relation that is meant to hold between two discourse units;",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sources of Uncertainty",
                "sec_num": "4"
            },
            {
                "text": "\u2022 the operation (adjoining or substitution) to be used in adding one discourse unit onto another;",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sources of Uncertainty",
                "sec_num": "4"
            },
            {
                "text": "\u2022 if that operation is adjoining, the site in the target unit at which the operation should take place -that is, the other argument to the discourse relation associated with the root of the auxiliary tree.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sources of Uncertainty",
                "sec_num": "4"
            },
            {
                "text": "It may not be obvious that there could be uncertainty as to whether the current discourse unit satisfies an expectation and therefore substitutes into the discourse structure, or elaborates something in the previous discourse, and therefore adjoins into it. 3 But the evidence clarifying this local ambiguity may not be available until later in the discourse. In the following variation of Example 4, the fact that clause (b) participates in elaborating the interpretation of clause (a) rather than in satisfying the expectation it raises (which it does in Example 4) may not be unambiguously clear until the discourse marker \"for example\" in clause (c) is processed.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sources of Uncertainty",
                "sec_num": "4"
            },
            {
                "text": "a. Because John is such a generous manb. whenever he is asked for money, c. he will give whatever he has, for exampled. he deserves the \"Citizen of the Year\" award. The other point is that, even if a forward-looking cue phrase signals only a substitution structure as 3This is not the same as shift-reduce uncert~nty.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 6",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "in Figure 4A (i) and 4A(ii), if there are no pending subsitution sites such as ~1 in 4A(i) against which to unify such a structure, then the substitution structure must be coerced to an auxiliary tree as in Figure ld (with some as yet unspecified cohesion relation) in order to adjoin it somewhere in the current discourse structure.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 3,
                        "end": 12,
                        "text": "Figure 4A",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 207,
                        "end": 213,
                        "text": "Figure",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Example 6",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Speculations and Conclusions",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "5",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "In this paper, we have focussed on discourse expectations associated with forward-looking clausal connectives, sentential adverbs and the imperative verbs (\"suppose\" and \"consider\"). There is clearly more to be done, including a more complete characterization of the phenomenon and development of an incremental discourse processor based on the ideas presented above. The latter would, we believe, have to be coupled with incremental sentence-level processing. As the previous examples have shown, the same phenomenon that occurs inter-sententially in Examples 1-3 occurs intra-sententially in Examples 4 and 6, suggesting that the two processors may be based on identical principles. In addition, carrying out sentence-level processing in parallel with discourse processing and allowing each to inform the other would allow co-reference interpretation to follow from decisions about discourse relations and vice versa.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "5",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "6",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "5",
                "sec_num": null
            }
        ],
        "back_matter": [
            {
                "text": "Support for this work has come from the Department of Computer Science, Universiti Sains Malaysia (Penang, Malaysia), the Department of Computer Science, University \"A.I.Cuza\" (Iasi, Romania) and the Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) under grant N6600194C6-043 and the Army Research Organization (ARO) under grant DAAHO494GO426. Thanks go to both the anonymous reviewers and the following colleagues for their helpful comments: Michael Collins, Claire Gardent, Udo Hahn, Joseph Rosenzweig, Donia Scott, Mark Steedman, Matthew Stone, Michael Strube, and Michael Zock. Thanks also to Alistair Knott and Andrei Mikheev for giving us a rough count of cue phrases in the Brown Corpus.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Acknowledgements",
                "sec_num": null
            }
        ],
        "bib_entries": {
            "BIBREF0": {
                "ref_id": "b0",
                "title": "Expectations in incremental discourse processing",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Dan",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Cristea",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Bonnie",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Webber",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1997,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Cristea, Dan and Bonnie Webber. June 1997. Ex- pectations in incremental discourse processing. Technical report, University A.I. Cuza, Iasi, Ro- mania.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF1": {
                "ref_id": "b1",
                "title": "Discourse tree adjoining grammars",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Claire",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Gardent",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1997,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Gardent, Claire. 1997. Discourse tree adjoining grammars. Claus report nr.89, University of the Saarland, Saarbriicken.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF2": {
                "ref_id": "b2",
                "title": "Pointing the way: A unified treatment of referential gesture in interactive discourse",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Erhard",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Ttinrichs",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Livia",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Polanyi",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1986,
                "venue": "CLS 22, Part 2: Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "298--314",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "ttinrichs, Erhard.and Livia Polanyi. 1986. Pointing the way: A unified treatment of referential ges- ture in interactive discourse. In CLS 22, Part 2: Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, pages 298-314, Chicago Linguistic Society.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF3": {
                "ref_id": "b3",
                "title": "An introduction to Tree Adjoining Grammar",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Aravind",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Joshi",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1987,
                "venue": "Mathematics of Language. John Benjamins",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Joshi, Aravind. 1987. An introduction to Tree Ad- joining Grammar. In Alexis Manaster-Ramer, ed- itor, Mathematics of Language. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF4": {
                "ref_id": "b4",
                "title": "A Data-driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Alistair",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Knott",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1996,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Knott, Alistair. 1996. A Data-driven Methodol- ogy for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF5": {
                "ref_id": "b5",
                "title": "Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "William",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Mann",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Sandra",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Thompson",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1988,
                "venue": "Text",
                "volume": "8",
                "issue": "3",
                "pages": "243--281",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Mann, William and Sandra Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243-281.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF6": {
                "ref_id": "b6",
                "title": "Building up rhetorical structure trees",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Daniel",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Marcu",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1996,
                "venue": "Proceedings of AAAI-96",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "1069--1074",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Marcu, Daniel. 1996. Building up rhetorical struc- ture trees. In Proceedings of AAAI-96, pages 1069-1074, Portland OR.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF7": {
                "ref_id": "b7",
                "title": "A problem for rst: The need for multi-level discouse analysis",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Johanna",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Moore",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Martha",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Pollack",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1992,
                "venue": "Computational Linguistics",
                "volume": "18",
                "issue": "4",
                "pages": "537--544",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Moore, Johanna and Martha Pollack. 1992. A prob- lem for rst: The need for multi-level discouse anal- ysis. Computational Linguistics, 18(4):537-544.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF8": {
                "ref_id": "b8",
                "title": "Investigating cue selection and placement in tutorial discourse",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Megan",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Moser",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Johanna",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Moore",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": ";",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Mit",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "M",
                        "middle": [
                            "A"
                        ],
                        "last": "Boston",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1995,
                "venue": "Proc. 33rd Annual Meeting, Association for Computational Linguistics",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "130--135",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Moser, Megan and Johanna Moore. 1995. Inves- tigating cue selection and placement in tutorial discourse. In Proc. 33rd Annual Meeting, Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, pages 130- 135, MIT, Boston MA.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF9": {
                "ref_id": "b9",
                "title": "Toward a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Megan",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Moser",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Johanna",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Moore",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1996,
                "venue": "Computational Linguistics",
                "volume": "22",
                "issue": "2",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Moser, Megan and Johanna Moore. 1996. Toward a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 22(2):TBA.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF10": {
                "ref_id": "b10",
                "title": "Discourse structure and discourse interpretation",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Livia",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Polanyi",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Martin",
                        "middle": [
                            "H"
                        ],
                        "last": "Van Den",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Berg",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1996,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Polanyi, Livia and Martin H. van den Berg. 1996. Discourse structure and discourse interpretation.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF11": {
                "ref_id": "b11",
                "title": "Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "P",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "In",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "M",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Dekker",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Stokhof",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": null,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "113--131",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, editors, Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 113- 131, ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF12": {
                "ref_id": "b12",
                "title": "Mathematical and Computational Aspects of Lexicalized Grammars",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Yves",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Schabes",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1990,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Schabes, Yves. 1990. Mathematical and Compu- tational Aspects of Lexicalized Grammars. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania. Technical Report MS-CIS-90-48, LINC Lab 179.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF13": {
                "ref_id": "b13",
                "title": "van den Berg, Martin H. 1996. Discourse grammar and dynamic logic",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Frank",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Schilder",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1997,
                "venue": "Proceedings of the Tilburg Conference on Formal Semantics",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "93--111",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Schilder, Frank. 1997. Tree discourse grammar, or how to get attached to a discourse. In Proceedings of the Tilburg Conference on Formal Semantics, Tilburg, Netherlands, January. van den Berg, Martin H. 1996. Discourse grammar and dynamic logic. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, editors, Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Col- loquium, pages 93-111, ILLC/Department of Phi- losophy, University of Amsterdam.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF14": {
                "ref_id": "b14",
                "title": "Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Bonnie",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Webber",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1991,
                "venue": "Natural Language and Cognitive Processes",
                "volume": "6",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "107--135",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Webber, Bonnie. 1991. Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Natural Language and Cognitive Processes, 6(2):107-135.",
                "links": null
            }
        },
        "ref_entries": {
            "FIGREF0": {
                "text": ", but are open to its possibility. 9]",
                "num": null,
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure"
            },
            "FIGREF1": {
                "text": "Grammatical Categories. (* marks the foot of an auxiliary tree, and l, a substitution site.) Adjoining at Ri+2 on the RF of a (b) Adjoining at the root (R1) of .............................. Adjoining is constrained to nodes the inner_RF, indicated by the dashed arrow.",
                "num": null,
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure"
            },
            "FIGREF2": {
                "text": "Figure 2(d) illustrates adjoining on the inner_RF of a, a tree with a substitution site labelled h.",
                "num": null,
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure"
            },
            "FIGREF3": {
                "text": "Figure 4: Analyses of Examples 2, 3 and 4.",
                "num": null,
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure"
            }
        }
    }
}