Base_JSON/prefixC/json/C69/C69-0801.json

{
    "paper_id": "C69-0801",
    "header": {
        "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
        "date_generated": "2023-01-19T12:32:12.318160Z"
    },
    "title": "",
    "authors": [],
    "year": "",
    "venue": null,
    "identifiers": {},
    "abstract": "",
    "pdf_parse": {
        "paper_id": "C69-0801",
        "_pdf_hash": "",
        "abstract": [],
        "body_text": [
            {
                "text": "In this paper I describe ~ system for the on-line semantic analysis of texts of up to paragraph length. It was programmed o~d applied in Q32 LISP 1.5 to material of two sorts: newspaper editorials and passages of classic~ philosophical argument. The immediate purpose of the analysis was to resolve the word-sense mmbiguity of the texts: to tag each word of the texts to one and only one of its possible senses or meanings, and to do so in such a way that anyone could judge the output's success or failure without knowing the coding system. The system tackles texts of up to paragraph length because I take it as a working hypothesis that many word-sense ambiguities cannot be resolved within the bounds of the conventional text sentence~ there simply isn't enough context available.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The system attempts to detect semantic forms (which I call templates ) directly in coded text, and not by means of a conventional syntax analysis. This restriction sets the present approach apart from the better-kno~ ones.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "However, s~ approach like the present one still has to show how to obtain the information contained in a conventional syntax analysis, and I shall do that below\u00b0 For each paragraph of text examined the systez derives a nested structure of the semantic templates, which can be thought of as its semantic representation. As I shsX1 show, it may be necessary for the system to enlarge its own dictionary in an on-line mode in order to obtain such a representation.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "From a representation, a word-sense resolution o~ the text is read off and printed out, since the representation contains one and only one sense representation for each constituent word of the text.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The basic item, tha template, is intended to express, in coded form, the message content of an elementary clause or sentence. Thus, if we had to analyse the sentence \"The old postman is angry\", I would expect to match with it a template that could be interpreted as \"A certain kind of man is in a certain state\". Similarly, if analysing thQ clause \"The wicked wizard\", I would expect to match with it a tsmplate that could be interpreted \"a man is of a certain kind\". The main hypothesis of the system of sense analysis is that one can build up a 'proper semantic sequence' of such templates as a representation of \"semantically compatible\" fragments of text. At the end of the paper I shall discuss the possibility of ex~lig.at~n~ the difficult notion of \"meaningful lan~age\". But at the beginning I am assuming that, if a text is meaningful then its parts must cohere together in some structured way, and that \"semantic compatibility\" might express that way. This working hypothesis will also mean that the word-senses that can participate in such a proper sequence will be the appropriate ones. By \"appropriate senses\" I ~ean simply the dictionary word-senses that a translator of the text would wish to distinguish from the inappropriate ones. Fragments I & 2 are semantically compatible (beth essentially assert that a structure is of a certain sert: (I) that a system is changing, (2) that a structure is the public's.)",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "This requires that one takes \"to be of a certain sort\" in its usual wide logical sense to cover such notions as change and movement: .~ are semantically compatible (both essentially assert that something is moving in some way).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "are semantically compatible (both essentially assert that the railways are near to us in time in some way).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "7&8",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "are semantically compatible (both essentially assert that something is taking or removing something). that s~me structure is changing or about to change).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "7&8",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Notice that semantic parallelisms of this sort between fragments are sufficient to resolve at least one ambiguity in each of the pairs of fragments:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "7&8",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "for examplethe correct sense of \"habits\" for fragment 2 is \"structure of behaviour\", rather than the less-common \"articles of dress\". Thu_~s pointing out this parallelism is also selecting the appropriate sense of \"habits\".",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "7&8",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Ten paragraph length texts were chosen for analysis: five from randomly chosen Times~'editorials (data texts); and five from the works of philosophers, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume and Wittgenstein. The reason for the choice of ~his type of material will emerge in the discussion. Each paragraph was stored as a list of sentences on a LISP file, and an alphabetical concordance for the texts was obtained with the aid of standard routines.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "THE TEXTS AND SEF~NTIC DICTIONARY",
                "sec_num": "2."
            },
            {
                "text": "From this the semantic dictionary was written.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "THE TEXTS AND SEF~NTIC DICTIONARY",
                "sec_num": "2."
            },
            {
                "text": "The information stored for each dictionary entry word is a list of pairs, each member of which consists of a left-hand member which is a semantic formula such as (((THIS POINT) TO) SIGN) THING), and a right-hand member~which is a sense description of the meaning of the corresponding formula, such as (COIv~AS8 AS INSTRUMENT POINTING ~O~TH). Each such pair (called a sense-pair) corresponds to one sense of the dictionary entry word. The sense description (right-hand member of pair) serves only to explain to the operator, in ordinary language print-out, which particular sense of the word is being operated on at any give~ stage of the procedure. The sense .",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "THE TEXTS AND SEF~NTIC DICTIONARY",
                "sec_num": "2."
            },
            {
                "text": "descriptions are not used as data for computation, except for looking at their first item to get the ne~e of the word in question. with m~ker words like 'of' and 'for'. These are delimited at their other end by the character 'fo', and are placed as . as are a whole before the word they qualify/adjectives before the preceding noun and so on. 0nly after this rearrs~ugement are the fragments passed on to the matching functions.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "THE TEXTS AND SEF~NTIC DICTIONARY",
                "sec_num": "2."
            },
            {
                "text": "The reason for the re-ordering is that when a template has been matched with a fragment, the subsequent routines seek for the qualifiers of a noun or verb only to the left of it. Thus a phrase \"a book of rules\" goes to the matching routines as \"a of rules fo book\".",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "THE TEXTS AND SEF~NTIC DICTIONARY",
                "sec_num": "2."
            },
            {
                "text": "The purpose of the fragment unit is to define a unit of context between the word ~aqd thc sentence, as usually understood. I shall call \"internal\" those semantic routines which operate wholly within fragments, and \"external\" those which ",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "9.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The intuitive goal is that there should be just one string of templates in the set, and hence a unique ambiguity resolution of the text. However, the possibility of a number of independent resolutions cannot be excluded a priori.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "10.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Thus the outcome of applying these procedures to a text is either nothing, or a string of sense-explanations for the words of the text.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "10.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "In the case where the outcome is nothing, further procedures are defined whereby the system returns, as it were, to the beginning, adjusts one or more dictionary entries in a determinate way and then tries again to resolve the text. Thus the positive outcome described may be achieved after any one of a finite number of tries.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "10.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "As will be seen, there is a limit to the number of possible tries; and after it has been exhausted, the system has to conclude that the text cannot be resolved by this particular method.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "10.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The procedures of resolution can be put in the form of a set of phrase-structure rules which produce a nesting of frames of formulae from an initial paragraph symbol P. The rules are given in their generative rather than their analytic form, but I give the \"lowest-level\" rules first, because they are the ones applied at the first stage 0f an~ysis. The presentation will thus end up, rather than start, with highest level rules P\u00f7..., where P is a \"paragraph symbol\" analogous to the sentence marker, S, in conventional gram~.ar.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "10.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Following what has been said above: D.5. A frame for a fragment is a string of formulae such that each word of the fragment that has a (non-null) dictionary entry is represented by oue and only one formula, and that formula has the same linear order in the as the 11.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "I",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "corresponding word in the fragment. Thus the set of all frames consistent with this definition (and with the dictionary entries for the words of some fragment) constitutes an initial representation of a fragment in the system.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "I",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "We can now define the fundamental notion of template.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "I",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "D.6. A bare template is any concatenated triple of elements that can be produced by Rules I-6 below. (The rules 6. are only a sample). These rules produce bare templates in the form: ",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "I",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "V + N2 R2. V",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "R_~I. T + NI +",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Substantive (",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "R_~I. T + NI +",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Since ",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "14.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The six formulae so defined give content to the corresponding bare template (expressed by the heads of three of the formulae).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "16.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The rules 12-16 specify the other three formulae in such a way that each of them c~m be the qualifier of one of the formulae with a head defining part of the bare template.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "16.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The rules 12-16 (not given here for reasons of space) are, in effect, rules producin~ an ordered pair of formulae such that the first is ~m appropriate qualifier for the second. 'Thus rule 13i produces an adjective type of formula (one ending in KIND) before a noun-type of formula, and so on.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "16.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The full templates are the items with which the system really operates. They can be illustrated by contrast with bare templates by considering fragment 3 of the paragraph examined earlier. That fragment was \"It is the old permanent way\". Among the bare templates produced for it by the system are the following two: In this the 'it' and 'is' have no qualifiers, hence the LISP 'NIL's in those positions. Bare templates other than these two wore matched onto the fragment, but only these two could be expanded in this way. Hence these two were the 'survivors' and the others were rejected from !hrther consideration.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "16.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "When expanding in this way to prodrce fuXl templates from bare ones the following met~,~rule (i15) is applied example, a fragment consisted not of an assertion form, but of a noun phrase like \"the black wizard\" j where the heads of the appropriate codings for \"black\" and \"wizard\" would b , KIND and ~h~N respectively. As there is no verb, a debilitated template of the N+N form would match onto these two heads, and that would then be converted into ~'~+BE+~IND. which is the intuitively correct interpretation (WIZ2~D is BLACK).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "16.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The dummy verb is added in the way d~scribed; and in cases like this, where the first head is the predicate KIND, the order of the two heads is reversed, so as to give the I~:~+BE+ KIND form. This transposition is defined by R11i. The original Englis~ for the first two fragments of that paragraph was \"Britain's transport system and with tt the travelling public's habits are cha~i~Ig\".",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "16.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The sense constructor\" procedure.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "16.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "A procedure was built in to the system to deal with the This procedure was not called upon for the newspaper paragraphs, but it produced some interesting suggestions in the case of two of the philosophical paragraphs.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "16.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "In CONSTRUCT:~ MODE dialogues like the following are possible: ",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "27.",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "27.",
                "sec_num": null
            }
        ],
        "back_matter": [],
        "bib_entries": {
            "BIBREF3": {
                "ref_id": "b3",
                "title": "Natural Input for a Computer Problem-Solving System",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "R",
                        "middle": [
                            "D"
                        ],
                        "last": "Laing",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "J",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "~atz",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "P",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Postal",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1965,
                "venue": "N.I.T",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Laing, R.D. 7. ~atz, J., and Postal, P. Natural Input for a Computer Problem-Solving System. Ph.D. Thesis, N.I.T. (1965)",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF4": {
                "ref_id": "b4",
                "title": "London (1937) ~algorithm for Automatic Olause delimitation in English sentences. Lockheed Missiles and Space Co",
                "authors": [],
                "year": 1963,
                "venue": "Universals of Language. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge ~iass",
                "volume": "5224",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "The Logical Syntax of Language, Routledge, London (1937) ~algorithm for Automatic Olause delimitation in English sentences. Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Tech. Rept. 5.13.64. 5. (~Mrch, 1964) Universals of Language. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge ~iass. (1963) Some aspects of the thematic organization of the English Clause. R~hND Hemorandum 5224 (January, 1967).",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF5": {
                "ref_id": "b5",
                "title": "The D~vided Self",
                "authors": [],
                "year": 1960,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "The D~vided Self. Tavistock Publications, London (1960) fm integrated theory of Linguistic Descriptions.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF7": {
                "ref_id": "b7",
                "title": "~rgum~nt and Proof in Metaphysics~ from an E~pirical Point of View",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [
                            "Y"
                        ],
                        "last": "Wilks",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1968,
                "venue": "Cs~bridge",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Wilks. Y. ~rgum~nt and Proof in Metaphysics~ from an E~pirical Point of View. Ph.D. Thesis, Cs~bridge. (1968)",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF8": {
                "ref_id": "b8",
                "title": "te page 19: The negation class of elements for each element is derived inductively by a separate procedure.The notion onv\u00a2lved is like that of logical contrary~an element ~ud any member of its n~gatien class are partly s2nonymous and partly exclusive\u00b0For example, an entity can be basically a ~TU~F or basically a THING",
                "authors": [],
                "year": null,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "te page 19: The negation class of elements for each element is derived induc- tively by a separate procedure.The notion onv\u00a2lved is like that of logical contrary~an element ~ud any member of its n~gatien class are partly s2nonymous and partly exclusive\u00b0For example, an entity can be basically a ~TU~F or basically a THING;it cannot be both so each of these elements is in the negatien class of the other\u00b0",
                "links": null
            }
        },
        "ref_entries": {
            "FIGREF0": {
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": "A paragraph in fragment form and it's semantic compatibilities. Let's now look at possible semantic compatibilities between fragments of the paragraph (marked with braces in the left hand margin of the figure above).",
                "uris": null,
                "num": null
            },
            "FIGREF1": {
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": "scan text outside]particular fragment in order to resolve it,~ &.. word-senses. $. THE SYSTEM OF S~\u00a3'~TTIO ~L~LYSIS. Production of single bare templates The present system replaces each fragment of text by a number of strings of formulae (fra~es) constructed from th~ formulae for the words of the fragment. It then searches each frame and replaces it by a number of matchinj templates, or meaning structures. One can display these procedures schematically as follows: ..,~_-~-~ from the form-strings) Fragments ~__.~-\"/ (of formulae~ ~---'' / (of text) ~. Fig. 2. Attac.hment of text to templates. In the course of these procedures, therefore, each fragment of text is tagged to a number of templates, and so each such template is tagged to ~ome n~.r~cul,'ir sei~c~ion of the wordsenses for the words of a fragm,+~:~:~. The purpose of the subsequent procedures -is to re4u.: th.'..~ '~fragment ambiguity\" by specifying a set of str~!.~g~J : ~ .[-~ templates, one template correspcnd!~ to each tex-~ ~.~ ~ ......... ,~.,,~. ,. ,~\" so specifying a p~rticular s~-~ of worO,sensec .,.r '-h ~. wo~.~ of the whole text.",
                "uris": null,
                "num": null
            },
            "FIGREF2": {
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": "~ BE I{3. N2 ~ KIND, THIS, GRAIN, THING, SIGN. R4. NI ~GRAIN, THIS, THING, PART, SIGN, ~N, FOLK, STUFF, 'WHOLE, WORLD. R5i. (NI ->THIS) +...+ N2-~ PI~RT, ~AV, FOLK, STUFf, WHOLE, WORLD ii. (NI ~, THING) +...~ N2 ~, PART, STUFF, 'WHOLE, WORLD iii. (NI ~ P:/{T) +...+ N2 ~, P~LRT, STUFF, WIdOLE, WORLD iv. (NI ~ SIGN) +...+ N2-> PI~RT, STUFF v. (NI @ N:~) +...+ N2-~P~{T, FOLK, STUFF, ~t~N vi. (NI -> FOLK) +...+ N2 -> PART, ~L~N, FOLK, STUFF vii. (NI -~ STUFF)+.. .+ N2->P.~IT, STUFF, ]WHOLL, WORLD viii. (NI -> ~,WHOLE)+.. .+ N2 9 P~iRT, STUFF, WHOLE,~OP~LD ix. (NI -) WORLD)+...+ N2 ~ P:-~T, STUFF, ~K4OLE, WORLD x. (NI -> GRI~IN)+...+ N2 -> P.~T R6i. (NI -)GRAIN)+...+ V ~ P~IR, DO, C~USE, CH~NGE,Hf.VE ii. (NI -) THIS) +...+ V -~. PAIR, DO, CAUSE, OH_~GE,H~VE The form of rules 5 and 6 is simpl.~/ ~ \"onveni~ut abbreviation of a more conventional form. For ex~mp] ~ R5 iv. (NI @ SIGN) ~.. o+ ~2 9 P~'~T STUFF 12. is simply an abbreviated expression of the two contextdependent phrase-structure rules: SIGN+...+ N2 -~ SIGN+...+ Pi~T, and SIGN+...+ N2 -)SIGN+...+ STUFF.",
                "uris": null,
                "num": null
            },
            "FIGREF3": {
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": "( IT IS THE OLD P'Ei~I';~NENT WAY) ((THn~G BE SIGN) (((THIS THING) (IT .,S IN.~TII, X~TE Pi<ONOUN)) ((BE BE) (IS AS HAS THE P~0P'~RTY)) ( ( ( (l~d~ FOR) ( (~I~<E POINT) Fi<OM) ) (LINE SIGN) ) (w~Y -',s P:.T~ o~ a0UTE)))) ((THING BE SIGN) , (((THIS THING) (IT AS IN/~NI~L.TE PI\u00a30NOUN)) ((BE BE) (IS ~S H~,S THE PROPFAITY)) ( (((THIS THING) (TRUE USE) ) SIGN) (',~,~Y AS ME,~NS))) ) I The fragment here is tied to two items, each of which iS a bare template triple followed by the three formulae in the sense frame which locate it (their last elements are the same as thosaof the t~mplate triple A point of 17. interpretation should be added here for speakers of .nneries~ English: all speakers of British English interpret \"way\" in this fragment as having its \"path or route\" sense in this context. The two bare templates are now expanded to full templates as follows: ((IT IS THE OLD PER~E~TT NAY) BE) (IS LS m~S THE P~OPERTY)) ((((THIS THING) (TI<UE USE)) SIGN) (WAY AS ~m~ms)) NIL NIL ((NOTOH~,NGE KIND) (P~ENT AS UNCHi~GING))) ((THING BE SIGN) (((ONE THING) (IT AS INI,NI~TE PRONOUN)) ((BE BE) (IS 4S H~S THE mOPm~TY)) ((((WHERE IN) ((WHERE POINT) N~OI~)) (LINE SIGN)) (WAY AS PATH O~ ROUTE)) NIL NIL ((NOTCH~GE KIND) P~h~ENT AS UNCHanGING))) These two items are the expanslons (in fr~]es of sense pairs) of the two bare templates. They consist of the same items as the bare template plus three for~lulae which are the qualifiers of the first three, (the fourth of the six is the qualifier of the first of the six and so on).",
                "uris": null,
                "num": null
            },
            "FIGREF4": {
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": "Produce preferentially those full templates in which as many elements as possible are developed by the rules R12-RI4J' This means producing if possible those full templates in which each element of the bare template has a formally appropriate predecessor. By means of a further rule (R16) an attempt is made to produce not only full templates with formally appropriate internal relations, but ~lso ones with semantically close internal relations as well. That is to say, full templates such that the triple of qualifying formulae are semantically close to the formulae they respectformulae are said to be semantically close if: they share a common pair of elements~ or they have one or more of the following elements in common: ONE, COUNT, WOI~D, WHOLE, LIFE, LINZ, ~IUST, SELF, SPReaD, TRUE, ~R~P, ~EN, WH~-~E, THINK; or Their cores are such that they are identical, or either is a member of the other in the sense of a list-member, or the left or right hand member of either core is a member of the other. Rules producing more than one template I can now consider the production of concatenations of the full templates described so far. D.13. A paragraph string is any string of templates produced I by the rules 17 & 18 from the part, graph symbol P. R17. P -~ Tr+T s if Tris a full template written as a string of six formulae thus, + Fr2 + Fr2 + r3 + Fr3 J is a noun type; F I its qualifier (adjective type); rl F I its qualifier (adverb type) and so r2 I I I (T s ~ Fs I + Fsl + Fs2 + Fs2 + Fs3 + Fs3) T s ~ (~1 + Ftl + F~2 + Ft2 + F~3 + ?t3 ) +'..+ (F I + + Flu2 +&2 + Fd 31 + &3 ),where the values cf the two template forms produced are semantically close.D.14. Two full templates T r T s are semantically close if (with the above notation for full templates) at least two of the following pairs of formulae are (i) such that the head of the second is identical with, or in the negationaclass of, the first: (Frl Fsl), (Frl ~s3), (Fr2 Fs2 ), (Fr3 Fsl), Fr3 Fs3); and (ii) either they, or their qualifier formulae, are semantically close. These ten possible directions of connection between two full templates can be shown schematically as follows:",
                "uris": null,
                "num": null
            },
            "FIGREF5": {
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": "Or -to put it in terms of the two function names -if the full templates ~IT, they are then JAMmed. If the three main formulae in a full template are related to the three main formulae of another template by any three of the connectivities expressed in fig.4, above, then the two templates FIT (s~e semantically close). The function JAM builds up a representation of the two templates based on their connectivities. PIT and JAM work with message-pairs, which are to a fragment what a sense pair is to a word. D.15. A me.ssa~e-pair is a two-item list: one item is a list of the first three sense-pairs of some full template, the other item is a list containir~g the name of some fragment with which the full ~mplate ~e~tches. Pi~ISP~a~J~ constructs the PICIqUP value (full templates) for its list of fragments, and then builds uD all possible frames of message-pairs for the peoragraph. Each frame of messageopairs is now a possible meaning representation for the whole paragraph, PI~RSPI~R~'~ then scans each frame in turn to see if it can find a right-left contiguous pair of mess~e-pairs satisfying FIT. If it c?~ it deletes the first message-pair and replaces the ,~ ~cond by a message-pair consisting of (I) the JAM value of the !~ro 'parsed' full templates, and (2) a list of the names of he fitting fragments. we ~ave a paragr:.:'h lzcme 2c::%q~:~Lug the two me~s~g~-p:~irs' ~nd ( ( (W~O:~E GiL,:N) (SYS~m.: ..S ~: O::G.m:Z.,~:O~':) ) ( (CH~NGE KIND) (CPL~{GING L.3 \"~LT:{ING) ) (((T~:n:o ::'<~::~ <,:~<~::~:E cmmGm ~.::',:~) ) (T~:'Id,:f:/\"'.',~:T ,~S ;::T~.INI.NG TO MOVIN~ THI~:~: LBOUT)) NIL ::i: ) ) ((\u00a32~D ViTH I T}F?~ Ti{.J~.:LLING PUBLICS H..}3iI'S) ((mmH( (:~::~: iO~) (::~on O0) )C-::,:~,0 (HABITS AS f:EPEf.TED _.C:!VITI]~S) ( (BE BD (DUI\"::iF)) ( ( ('#HO~ FCm:) :rm?) (PU,.?,IICZ ..2 CONNECTED WITH THE :THOLE PEOI\u00b0LE)) NIL ( (( .~i:EkE C]L'/~SE)LOW) (TR;,~LI::: i.~ MOVlf,:a FP,0M PLLC~ TO P.L.~C~))))), then the two full templates in those mcss,qg~-pairs -are a 4~ + .l fitting pair,,,wo shall expect them to be repl3~od in the string by th~ form: (WITH IT THE Tm'A~LLII~'G PTJBLICS }L'~I3ITS)) ( ( ( (?;LrOI,E GILPIN) (ZYSTI~Ii .:.S ,~i~ OIIG~h'IZf~TION) ) ((B:~ BE) (~mE ,\".S m~W~ ~m] P~O~mc~Y)) ((CH:~NG~ i{IND) (CfLmGING AS .dLT~iCIi:G) ) (TR,/{SPOkT AS PII{T~INING TO MOVING THINGS f~BOUT)) NIT, ( ( (WHINE Cm~GE) ,HOW) T.~..~IN~ AS MOVING F\u00b1~0M ~I,ACI~ TO PL..CD) ) ) ) ) This fitting together, or pe~sing, of message-pairs ~xpresses the semantic compatibility between the corresponding fragments discussed earlier . PI~S~ rewrites such strings 25. of message-pairs recursively, trying to reach a two item list which (by rule 17) is P the paragraph symbol. If this point is reached the corresponding sense-resolution is read off and printed out for the paragraph in the following form: each fragment is given with the list of sense expressions for all the words in it which are resolved (or which had only a single sense entry initially, and so are trivially resolved)~ a list is also given of words not resolved (if any). (( (BITAINS TR~-SPORT SYSTE~d .~E CH,;~i'GING) ((WO~-tDS RESOLVED IN FR~IGFfl~TT) ((TF~.~NSPO~T AS PE~T~INING TO MOVING THINGS ,IBOUT) (BRITAI~TS ~S H,IVING THE 0!~'H~LCTEi~ISTIC OF A PIi{TICUI,~L PfAXT OF THE WOP~LD) (SYSTE~I ,~S ,U~T 0\u00b1~G~IZf, TION) (~IE AS H~VE THE PR09~T~TY) (CH~.~TGING i~S i~LT~IING))) ((WOILDS NOT i~ESOLVED IN Fi~.,GM~ENT) NIL)) ((WITH IT Z'IIT~ T(~VELlING PUBLICS H.LBITS) ((WORDS ILESOLVED IN FRAG~NT) ((TP~t~LLING ,~S MOVING FROM PLACE TO PLLCE) (IT ~S INI2,TI~h'.TE PRONOUN ) (H~.BITS ~S i{EPEi~TED ~CTIVITIES))) ((WOitDS NOT i~SOLVED IN FRAG}~_~TT) NIL) fig, 5. ~.irst two frs~@ments of the resolved output for e. text paragraoh.",
                "uris": null,
                "num": null
            },
            "FIGREF6": {
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": ".m~ KIND) (S:fl:~ AS IDENTICAL) ) ((',~IHOLE (MUST (KIND SIGN))) (N_~TD-i~E .~S ESSENCE 0It ESSENTI~ P~{0P~RTIES)) NIL NIL) (I{ECiILCITR~T TEMPLf..TE IS ~0ii) (THE SI~,~ f.~TIY~{E OR ATTRIBUTE) (CONTINUE YES 0f~ NO) YES (SUGGEST 4TTiIIBUTE ..S N~TUI~E (SH~LL I TRY IT YES 0A NO)) YES (((IP THZAE W~E TWO C~{ ~iOf~E DISTINCT SUBST~NCES) ((W0]~DS ~{ESOL~@U~D IN ~R.~GMh~T) ((THERE AS AT i, POINT) (OR L8 DISJUNCTION) (~lOt~ A5 I~ A~ J IITCRE/.ZED I~k~NNE~R) \" (DISTINCT i~S DIFFE~L~'~T) (SU~ST~ICES \"a SO~TS 0F THDTG) ) ) ((WORDS NOT f~ESOLV-~D IN ~RAGMI~]NT) (T~0 (((COUNT SIGN) (TWO AS L NUEBER)) ((COUNT KIND) (TWO ,~S m'XING T~ P~OPmTY 0~ TWOITY))))) fig. 6. Dialogue in CONSTRUGT...F~T{ MODE together with first part of subsequent resolution. One of the main difficulties in coding for, and evaluating, a system like this one is the necessary vagueness of some of the sense-entries (especially evident in words like 'it' and 'is').Noh~th~rcbs'I claim, that the present system could constitute a tentative criterion for meanin6fulness: a text is meaningful if and only if a system like ~h~ present one can resolve it. It is easy enough to get a necessary criterion on the ground that one needs to be able to tell in what senses the words of a text are being used in order to call it me~uingful. I have ar~ed at length elsewhere that it is possible also to justify the corresponding sufficient one (8). The establishment of such a criterion would be of some interest in the cases of the five philosophical paragraphs, since it was texts like these that Carn~ (2) and the 'Logical ~yntax' school generally, said could be shown to be meaningless on the basis of a system cf analytic rules, though they never in fact constructed such a system. The criterion suggested here would only be one of degree (in terms of the number of applications of the sense-constructer procedure a text required for resolution). That is perhaps the only acceptable form that a criterion of meaningfulness could take, as there seems something absurd about an attempt to set an absolute bound to the meaningful. Another speculative interest of the present system might be its application to the speec~ patterns of schizophrenics. Schizophrenic discourse seems (6) to be meaningft~1 within the boundaries of units of the same order of length as the clause or phrase. The trouble is that these units don't seem to fit together in a coherent ~ay in the schizophrenic's 29~ speech pattern; ~; system of the present sort, which tries to make such items cohere, might conceivably provide a measure of \"sem~tic disorder\" in such cases. ~ number of connexions can be made also between the semantic structure assigned to a text by the present system and that assigned by formal logic. These connexions have been invest~ai:e4 in the cases of the five philosophical paragraphs, which have a form sufficiently like the one required by formal logic\u00b0 These connexions are of some interest in view of the almost total neglect of the sense-~biguity of natural language words by formal logic. One can, for example, interpret the present system so as to create a notion of \"valid ~d useful\" argument. It has long been recognise~ tha~ an argument can be formally valid (and even hmve true premiss~s) ~d yet bc completely useless. This is usually due to a genuine ~o~mbiguity in the arg~ment~ For exs~ple, the followin~ is perfectly valid: \"~l kings wear crowns, all crowns are coins, th6refore all kings wear coins\". ~ndjwithln the context of each premiss, each premiss is true. (In the \"numismatic world of discourse\", for examDle, the second is true). 2Da argument could be deemed \"valid and useful\" if it is formally valid an__~d if the present system assigns to it a consistent and comDlete interpretation\u00b0 I am usi~ the terms \u2022 0 'conslstenl\" and 'complete' in a way similar to Bobrow's (I) use of them: an interpretation is complete if the system assigns an interpretation to each key term in the argument, and 'consistent-if .,it .a.ssi~ns the same inte.rpretation(wor dsense) to every occp.rre.ncG of a term. Thus the arg~unent above would not pass the 'usefulness' criterion, since a proper ambiguity-resolver would assign different ~nterpretatign ~ to the two occurrences of the key term 'crown'.",
                "uris": null,
                "num": null
            },
            "TABREF0": {
                "type_str": "table",
                "text": "By way of example, I shall consider the semantic compatibilities of the fragments of a p~ro~raph to be found in a'Tizes editorial in December 1966. As given below it has been frag~_e~e~ by functions whose operations I shall describe -,:, but I shall assume that it is comprehensible as a sequence of.twelve items:",
                "num": null,
                "html": null,
                "content": "<table><tr><td>I</td><td>((BRITAINS TP~'~SPORT SYSTE~4S ARE CI~NGING)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>(~d~D WITH IT TIYE TRAVELLING PUBLICS HJ~BITS)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>(IT IS THE OLD PEP~IANENT WAY)</td></tr><tr><td>~4</td><td>(~'/HICH ONCE MORE IS EZ~RGING)</td></tr><tr><td>t.. 5</td><td>(AS T~ PACE~a~)</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>(~I~LLINES LATELY HAVE BEEN LOSING TP~d~FIC)</td></tr><tr><td>[V</td><td>(TO MODERNIZED P~%ILWAYS)</td></tr><tr><td>-8</td><td>(RAILWAYS AT LAST ~E BEGINNING)</td></tr><tr><td>f9 ~-10</td><td>(TO TAKE SO~ CI~S (OFF THE CONGESTED SYSTE2,iS TO Tj~ THE WEIGHT)</td></tr><tr><td/><td>(IF THE NEW IDE~S ARE FORWI~D PRESSED)</td></tr><tr><td>L12</td><td/></tr></table>"
            },
            "TABREF3": {
                "type_str": "table",
                "text": "Rules 1-11 are nonrecursive, there is no problem about ordering the Iroductions in this way. Apart from t he forms given in the table, there are only vacuous cases such ....... KIND) ...KIND) ...GRAIN) , and ii ...... FOLK) ..... DO) ...GPJ~IN) .",
                "num": null,
                "html": null,
                "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>15.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">form of TRANSPORT.</td><td colspan=\"3\">Thus, by the semantic coding system</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">described above, those two ~</td><td/><td>will contain the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">as @+@+~. following heads, and in the order shown:</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">The above table is intended to make clear the relation</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">between the various standard forms (in the rightmost column) Now the above rules generate both</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">and the corresponding \"items in frames\" produced or recognized</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">(middle column). (FOLK+DO+GR~N) Thus in the generative mode, text items are and (KIND+GRAIN)</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">produced from the standard forms by transposition and deletion. as strings of text-items; the latter by deletion from</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">(NI+BE+KIND) and (KIND+N1).</td><td colspan=\"2\">It is clear that if the form</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>of a</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">conventional grammar; namely,</td><td>pack the</td><td>frame</td><td>as</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">tightly as possible, or, in other words,</td><td>produce the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">fullest possible template.</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">Further production rules limit the templates actually</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">produced, and these require the notion of full template,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">defined as follows:</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>D.IO.</td><td colspan=\"4\">A full template is two triples of formulae such that</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">the heads of the first triple constitute a bare template, snd</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">the second triple can be produced from the first by the rules</td></tr><tr><td>12-16.</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>D.11.</td><td colspan=\"4\">verb) The six formulae constituting a ~ull template are</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">called text-values.</td><td/><td/></tr></table>"
            },
            "TABREF6": {
                "type_str": "table",
                "text": "26.cases where the system returned (NO RESOLUTION ALL PATHS BLOC~D) at the teletype.",
                "num": null,
                "html": null,
                "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td>This situation could arise for a</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">number of reasons; the text fragments did not cohere together</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">sufficiently; a vital word sense had been left out of the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">dictionary; or a word in the text was being used in a new</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">and original sense.</td><td>An obvious suggestion for tackling</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">this is to allow the word dictionary to enlarge itself:</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">to supply an additional sense entry for the word that is</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">holding the procedure up, if it can be found.</td><td>Such a const-</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">ruction could thought of as adding a new rule F -a, where</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">P is a formula and a word name, and so expanding to a new</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">rule system as the system adjusts to the particular text.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">In practice PARSPARA examined the value of a free</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">variable BESTPARS each time it failed to parse a frame</td></tr><tr><td>completely.</td><td colspan=\"2\">It stored as th8 value of BESTPARS the parsing</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">tree containing the templat~ that had been rewritten least.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">It seemed a good first guess at the recalcitrant word that</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">it was in template that 'cohered' least with its neigbours.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">If all the frame blocked PARSPARA would print (CONSTRUCTER MODE)</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">and evaluate a function of no variables called C0~TSTRUCTER.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">This function controls all subsequent operations via the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">READ and PRINT functions at the teletype.</td><td>CONSTRUCTER looks</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">a~ the value of the recalcitrant template in BESTPA~S and</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">suggested that a word in the corresponding fragment have its</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">dictionary of sense pairs enlarged by identifying the recalci-</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">trant word with the most 'semantically close' word in the</td></tr><tr><td>paragraph.</td><td colspan=\"2\">If the operator accepts the system's suggestion</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">at the teletype, the system is rerun with the enlarged</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">dictionary to try and get a resolution.</td><td>In such a case (or</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">if none of the system's suggestions are acceptable to the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">operator) the system returns to the normal operating mode.</td></tr></table>"
            }
        }
    }
}