| { |
| "paper_id": "H89-1049", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T03:31:53.644362Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "ANALYZING EXPLICITLY-STRUCTURED DISCOURSE IN A LIMITED DOMAIN: TROUBLE AND FAILURE REPORTS*", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Catherine", |
| "middle": [ |
| "N" |
| ], |
| "last": "Ball", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "Unisys Corporation Paoli Research Center", |
| "location": { |
| "postBox": "P.O. Box 517", |
| "postCode": "19301", |
| "settlement": "Paoli", |
| "region": "PA" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "Recent theories of focusing and reference rely crucially on discourse structure to constrain the availability of discourse entities for reference, but deriving the structure of an arbitrary discourse has proved to be a significant problem. A useful level of problem reduction may be achieved by analyzing discourse in which the structure is explicit, rather than implicit. In this paper we consider a genre of explicitly-structured discourse: the Trouble and Failure Report (TFR), whose structure is both explicit and constant across discourses. We present the results of an analysis of a corpus of 331 TFRs, with particular attention to discourse segmentation and focusing. We then describe how the Trouble and Failure Report was automated in a prototype data collection and information retrieval application, using the PUNDIT natural-language processing system.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "H89-1049", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Recent theories of focusing and reference rely crucially on discourse structure to constrain the availability of discourse entities for reference, but deriving the structure of an arbitrary discourse has proved to be a significant problem. A useful level of problem reduction may be achieved by analyzing discourse in which the structure is explicit, rather than implicit. In this paper we consider a genre of explicitly-structured discourse: the Trouble and Failure Report (TFR), whose structure is both explicit and constant across discourses. We present the results of an analysis of a corpus of 331 TFRs, with particular attention to discourse segmentation and focusing. We then describe how the Trouble and Failure Report was automated in a prototype data collection and information retrieval application, using the PUNDIT natural-language processing system.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Recent theories of focusing and reference rely crucially on discourse structure to constrain the availability of discourse entities for reference, but deriving the structure of an arbitrary discourse has proved to be a significant problem ( [Webber 881) . While progress has been made in identifying the means by which speakers and writers mark structure ( [Grosz 86] , [Hirschberg 87] , [Schiffrin 87] , [Webber 88]) , much work remains to be done in this area.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 241, |
| "end": 253, |
| "text": "[Webber 881)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 357, |
| "end": 367, |
| "text": "[Grosz 86]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 370, |
| "end": 385, |
| "text": "[Hirschberg 87]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 388, |
| "end": 402, |
| "text": "[Schiffrin 87]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 405, |
| "end": 417, |
| "text": "[Webber 88])", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As is well known, initial progress in computational approaches to syntax and semantics was facilitated by reducing the problem space to discourses in technical sublanguages, in simplified registers, in restricted domains 1. For Computational Pragmatics, the analysis of explicitly-structured discourse can provide a \u2022 similar level of problem reduction. By removing the theoretical obstacle of deriving discourse structure, we can more readily evaluate the effect of this structure on focusing and reference.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this paper we consider a genre of explicitly-structured discourse, namely the 'form', in which each labelled box and the response within it constitute a discourse segment. From the perspective of discourse understanding, the study of forms-discourse offers considerable advantages: the structure of the form is pre-defined and constant across discourses, and it is possible to study patterns of reference in narrative responses without excessive reliance on intuition. The particular form which we consider here is the Trouble and Failure Report (TFR). We first discuss the results of an analysis of 331 TFRs, and then describe the implementation of a TFR analysis module using the PUNDIT natural-language processing system.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "TFRs are used to report problems with hardware, software, or documentation on equipment on board Trident and Poseidon submarines. These reports originate on board the submarine, and those concerning the Navigational Subsystem (which is managed by the Unisys Logistics Group) are routed to Unisys for analysis and response. *This work has been supported by DARPA contract N00014-85-C-0012, administered by the Office of Naval Research.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "THE TROUBLE AND FAILURE REPORT", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "1See for example the papers in [Grishman 86b ].", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 31, |
| "end": 44, |
| "text": "[Grishman 86b", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "THE TROUBLE AND FAILURE REPORT", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The TFR contains a formatted section and up to 99 lines of free text. The formatted section includes coded information identifying the message originator, date, equipment, and failed part. The free text is divided into 5 sections, labelled A-E, each of which documents a specific aspect of the problem being reported. A sample hardware TFI~ is given below2:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "THE TROUBLE AND FAILURE REPORT", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "<Formatted lines... > TFRs are stored in a historical database. Although the formatted data can be mapped to specific fields of database records, which can then be accessed by a query language, the free-text portions are stored as undigested blocks of text. Currently, keyword search is the only method by which the text can be accessed. Problems with keyword search as a method of information retrieval are well-known 3, and this is an area in which NLP techniques can be applied, with potential benefits of increasing the efficiency and accuracy of information retrieval.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "THE TROUBLE AND FAILURE REPORT", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As part of an internally and DARPA-funded R&D project, we applied PUNDIT ( [Grishman 86a] , [Dahl 87] , [Dahl 86]) to the analysis of TFRs. Previous applications of PUNDIT to the analysis of the Remarks field of Navy messages had required only a superficial level of discourse processing above the paragraph. But the richer discourse structure of TFRs required a more sophisticated approach, including a discourse interpretation module and a segment-based approach to focusing. But although the discourse structure of TFRs forced a number of issues, the fact that this structure is explicit and constant across discourses greatly facilitated the analysis of TFR discourse, to which we now turn.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 75, |
| "end": 89, |
| "text": "[Grishman 86a]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 92, |
| "end": 101, |
| "text": "[Dahl 87]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 104, |
| "end": 114, |
| "text": "[Dahl 86])", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A. WHILE PERFORMING SDC 955Z (GENERATION OF LASER BEAMS) TRANSPORTER UPPER TRANSLOCK", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The perspective of a sentence-based grammar might lead us to ignore the formatted lines of a TFR, to consider as discourse only the textual portions, and to interpret each element of the latter as a full or a 'fragmentary' sentence (cf. [Linebarger 88] ). On this approach, we would be prepared to analyze the following TFR extract as discourse: However, it is immediately apparent that this approach would be incorrect: the discourse is incoherent.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 237, |
| "end": 252, |
| "text": "[Linebarger 88]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "TFItS AS DISCOUItSE", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "WHEN", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "TFItS AS DISCOUItSE", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Two distinct problems may be identified. After the first two sentences, the remainder bear no apparent relation to preceding discourse. Secondly, one or more discourse entities appear to be missing: age and The source of incoherency is two-fold: we are missing the initial context established by the interpretation of the formatted lines of the TFR, and we have ignored the basic unit of TFR discourse: the KEQUEST-RESPONSE PAIR. As it turns out, each of the elements of the formatted lines (henceforth the header) has a positional interpretation, and each of the labels A-E maps to a noun phrase label. Each label can be interpreted as a request for information. Now reconsider the TFR above in this light: The discourse is now coherent. As can be seen, responses are interpreted relative to their labels, not to each other. The previously missing discourse entity for the referent of NONE is evoked by the label Remarks (i.e., No remarks) , what was replaced is the failed part (identified by the part number), it is the speaker (JONES) who replaced it, and finally, the implicit argument of AGE AND USE is that same failed part.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 922, |
| "end": 940, |
| "text": "(i.e., No remarks)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "TFItS AS DISCOUItSE", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "These results underline the need to consider the entire TFR as discourse, and to provide an account of the request-response pair as the basic unit of TFR discourse. In the following sections, we sketch such an account, and then turn to the evidence for higher-level structure.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "TFItS AS DISCOUItSE", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Between the request and the response a special type of cohesive relation ([Schiffrin 87]) exists, similar to that which binds question-answer pairs. In fact, we claim that at the level of discourse interpretation, the request and response form a discontinuous predicate-argument structure 4. This view of the requestresponse pair arises from the need to account for the interpretation of pairs such as Probable cause: BROKEN WIRE, from which we are somehow able to conclude: The respondant believes that a broken wire caused the failure.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Request-Response Pair", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Very briefly, we suggest that the mechanisms required to achieve this result are essentially those required (at the level of sentence grammar) for the interpretation of specificational copular sentencesb: lambdnabstraction, function application, and lambda-reduction. First, we take the heads of NP labels to be relational nouns with internal argument structure. For both (la) and (lb) below, we derive the representation in (2) by lambda-abstracting on the free variable. Function application and lambda-reduction yield the representation in (3), which is (non-coincidentally) also the representation of A broken wire caused the failure:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Request-Response Pair", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "la. The cause of failure was a broken wire. lb. Cause of failure: broken wire 2. [Ax[cause(x,failure)]] (wire) 3. cause(wire,failure) Discourse Segmentation, Focusing, and Reference Each label in the TFR marks the start of a request-response pair. But does this unit correspond to a discourse segment, and if so, what is the higher-level structure of the TFR? We studied patterns of reference in TFRs and found evidence for both explicit and implicit structure, as described below.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Request-Response Pair", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The Role of the Message Header. The message header identifies the author of the report, the date on which it was sent, the date on which the problem occurred, the equipment, and the failed part. The dates are crucial to the temporal analysis of the message (which we shall not discuss here). Our analysis of the TFR corpus reveals the remaining entities (speaker, equipment, failed part) to be highly salient in the 4Specifically, we take the NP label to express an OPEN PROPOSITION ([Prince 86]), which can be viewed as an informationally incomplete predication; the response provides its argument. 5See for example [Higgins 79] and [Delahunty 82] .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 617, |
| "end": 629, |
| "text": "[Higgins 79]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 634, |
| "end": 648, |
| "text": "[Delahunty 82]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Request-Response Pair", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "discourse: they are available for pronominal reference in segments A-E, without requiring reintroduction by a full NP.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Request-Response Pair", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In addition, these entities fill implicit argument positions in the agentless passive, in possible intransitive uses of certain verbs (replace, return), and in some relational nouns (e.g. age, wear). These facts lead us to assign these three entities the distinguished status of global loci: entities which are always salient in the discourse context at the beginning of each new discourse segment.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Request-Response Pair", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Sections A-E. To determine whether each of these sections (First indication of trouble, Part :failure, Probable cause, Action taken, Remarks) constitutes a discourse segment, we studied patterns of pronominal reference in the responses. The results were striking. In 804 occurrences of referential pronouns (707 of which were zero-subjects6), we found that only zero-subjects, /, we, and this refer beyond the boundary of the current request-response pair. 95% of the zero-subjects and all of the occurrences of I refer to the speaker. The remaining 5% of zero-subjects are distributed between reference to one of the global foci and segment-internal reference, with a slight bias towards the latter. It, he, they, these, those were found to refer purely locally (that did not occur). With the exception of this and the indexicals, pronominal reference is sensitive to the boundary of the request-response pair, and we conclude that each such pair is indeed a discourse segment.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Request-Response Pair", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In the demonstrative this, however, we found unexpected evidence for additional implicit structure: when occurring in segment E (Remarks), this can refer to the failure, or problem, described in segments A-D. Now, [Webber 88] argues that demonstrative reference of this type is sensitive to the right frontier of the discourse tree: that is, 'the set of nodes comprising the most recent closed segment and all currently open segments' (Webber 1988:114) . If, as we had assumed, segments A-E are sisters, then segment D (Action taken) is the most recently closed segment, and there are no segments open other than the current segment, E. But none of the occurrences of this in segment E refer to segment D. To make sense of the data, we were led to the conclusion that segments A-D form an unlabelled, implicit segment: the failure. The Remarks segment is then the sister of this implicit segment; after closing segment D, this higher segment is closed, and thus lies on the right frontier when E is opened. From these observations we posit the following structure for the TFR: ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 214, |
| "end": 225, |
| "text": "[Webber 88]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 435, |
| "end": 452, |
| "text": "(Webber 1988:114)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Request-Response Pair", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The TFR application uses the PUNDIT natural-language processing system to analyze TFRs. The results of analysis ar e passed to a database module, which maps PUNDIT'S representations to pre-defined records in a Prolog relational database. This database can then be queried using a natural-language query facility (QFE). Here, we discuss only the analysis part of the application.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "THE TFR APPLICATION", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In terms of user interaction, the TFR data-collection program superficially resembles traditional dataprocessing approaches to forms automation: the system prompts for each item on the form, and the user's response to each prompt is validated. If the response is judged invalid, an error message is issued and the user is reprompted.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "THE TFR APPLICATION", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "eAs in INSTALLED NEW ITEM, RETURNED OLD TO SUPPLY.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "THE TFR APPLICATION", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Under the covers, however, the approach is quite different: the data-collection program is in fact a discourse manager, controlling and interpreting a dialogue between itself and the user. As the dialogue proceeds, it maintains a model of the discourse, calls PUNDIT'S syntactic and semantic/pragmatic components to analyze the user's responses, and then interprets the response in the context of the prompt to derive new propositions. In addition, it manages the availability of discourse entities, moving entities in and out of focus as the discourse proceeds from one segment to the next.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "THE TFR APPLICATION", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The TFR Discourse Manager is implemented as a single top-level control module, written in Prolog, which uses PUNDIT as a resource. Its highest-level goals are to collect pre-defined information from the user and send the resulting information state to a database update module.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "IMPLEMENTATION", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "At the level of user interaction, the module's goals are to process the request-response units corresponding to the header items and the segments A-E. In the header segment, the Discourse Manager prompts for each of the header items (speaker, date, part number, etc.) , and calls PUNDIT to analyze the responses. The responses give rise to discourse entities, whose representations are added to the DISCOURSE LIST for subsequent full-NP reference. The three global foci (speaker, failed part, and equipment) are stored in a distinguished location in the discourse model.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 233, |
| "end": 267, |
| "text": "(speaker, date, part number, etc.)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "IMPLEMENTATION", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "For each of the remaining segments (A-E), the processing is described below.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "IMPLEMENTATION", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "1.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "IMPLEMENTATION", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "3.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "2.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "At the start of each segment, we empty the list of salient entities from the previous segment (the FOCUS LIST) and load in the global foci. This prevents pronominal reference from crossing segment boundaries (although full NP reference is possible).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 99, |
| "end": 110, |
| "text": "FOCUS LIST)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Initialize Discourse Context", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Prompt the User", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Initialize Discourse Context", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Before the system can interpret the user's response to a prompt, it must first 'understand' what it is about to ask. This step, while intuitive, is actually required in order to create the context for interpreting the response. We look up the meaning of the prompt (stored as a lambda expression), create a discourse entity, and place it at the head of the focus list. This makes the prompt the most salient entity in the context when the response is processed, and allows for both pronominal and implicit reference, e.g. Probable cause: UNKNOWN. Having done this, we issue the prompt and collect the user's response.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Initialize Discourse Context", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Two levels of interpretation are provided. First, PUNDIT is called to analyze the response; next, the response entity is bound to a variable in the representation of the prompt, to derive a new proposition.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Analyze the Response", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Two types of call to PUNDIT are required, in order to handle both NP responses (BROKEN WIRE) and sentential or paragraph responses (BELIEVE PROBLEM TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY FAILURE OF UPPER WIDGET). If the response can be analyzed by PUNDIT's syntactic component as an NP, then a side-door to PUNDIT semantic and pragmatic analysis is used to provide a semantic interpretation and create a discourse entity.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Analyze the Response", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If the response cannot be analyzed as an NP, then the normal entrance points for syntactic and semantic/pragmatic analysis are used. This results in the creation of one or more situation entities, which are grouped together to form a higher-level response entity.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Analyze the Response", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Finally, the response entity is bound to the variable in the representation of the prompt, and lambda reduction is applied. The resulting representation is added to the discourse list, where it becomes available for subsequent full-NP reference (e.g. The failure..., The cause...).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Analyze the Response", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The implementation described above partially captures our observations concerning the discourse structure of TFRs and how it constrains pronominal reference, as well as the discourse relation of requests to responses. It thus provides a level of discourse management and interpretation beyond that developed for previous PUNDIT applications. Our experience with this application has led us in two research directions: towards the management of open-ended dialogue, and towards the development of a domain-independent discourse interpretation facility.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "RESEARCH DIRECTIONS", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "An Evaluation of Retrieval Effectiveness for a Full-Text Document Retrieval System", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "David", |
| "middle": [ |
| "C" |
| ], |
| "last": "Blair", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [ |
| "E" |
| ], |
| "last": "Marion", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "Communications of the ACM", |
| "volume": "28", |
| "issue": "3", |
| "pages": "289--299", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Blair, David C. and Marion, M. E. An Evaluation of Retrieval Effectiveness for a Full-Text Document Retrieval System. Communications of the ACM 28(3):289-299, 1985.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "Focusing and Reference Resolution in PUNDIT", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Deborah", |
| "middle": [ |
| "A" |
| ], |
| "last": "Dam", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1986, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the 5th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "DaM, Deborah A. Focusing and Reference Resolution in PUNDIT. In Proceedings of the 5th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Philadelphia, PA, August 1986.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Integrating Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse: DARPA Natural Language Understanding Program, R and D Status Report", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Deborah", |
| "middle": [ |
| "A" |
| ], |
| "last": "Dahl", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Dowding", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "John", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Hirsehman", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lynette", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lang", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Francois", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Linebarger", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Marcia", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Palmer", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Martha", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Rebecca", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Passonneau", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Leslie", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Riley", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1987, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Dahl, Deborah A., Dowding, John, Hirsehman, Lynette, Lang, Francois, Linebarger, Mar- cia, Palmer, Martha, Passonneau, Rebecca, and Riley, Leslie. Integrating Syntax, Seman- tics, and Discourse: DARPA Natural Language Understanding Program, R and D Status Report. Technical Report, Unisys Corporation, May 1987.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of English Cleft Sentences", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Gerald", |
| "middle": [ |
| "P" |
| ], |
| "last": "Delahunty", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1982, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Delahunty, Gerald P. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of English Cleft Sentences. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, 1982.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "PROTEUS and PUNDIT: Research in Text Understanding", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ralph", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Grishman", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Lynette", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Hirschman", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1986, |
| "venue": "Computational Linguistics", |
| "volume": "12", |
| "issue": "2", |
| "pages": "141--186", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Grishman, Ralph and Hirschman, Lynette. PROTEUS and PUNDIT: Research in Text Understanding. Computational Linguistics 12(2):141-45, 1986.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "Analyzing Language in Restricted Domains: Sublanguage Description and Processing", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ralph", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Grishman", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Richard", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kitteridge", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1986, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Grishman, Ralph and Kitteridge, Richard (editors). Analyzing Language in Restricted Domains: Sublanguage Description and Processing. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, 1986.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "Attention, Intentions and the Structure of Discourse", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Barbara", |
| "middle": [ |
| "J" |
| ], |
| "last": "Grosz", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Candace", |
| "middle": [ |
| "L" |
| ], |
| "last": "Sidner", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1986, |
| "venue": "Computational Linguistics", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Grosz, Barbara J. and Sidner, Candace L. Attention, Intentions and the Structure of Discourse. Computational Linguistics, 1986.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "F", |
| "middle": [ |
| "R" |
| ], |
| "last": "Higgins", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1979, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Higgins, F. R. The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English. Garland, 1979.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "Now Let's Talk about now: Identifying Cue Phrases Intonationally", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Julia", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Hirschberg", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Diane", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Litman", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1987, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the ~5th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "163--171", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Hirschberg, Julia and Litman, Diane. Now Let's Talk about now: Identifying Cue Phrases Intonationally. In Proceedings of the ~5th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, pages 163-171. Stanford, CA, July 1987.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "Sentence Fragments Regular Structures", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Marcia", |
| "middle": [ |
| "C" |
| ], |
| "last": "Linebarger", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Deborah", |
| "middle": [ |
| "A" |
| ], |
| "last": "Dahl", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Lynette", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Hirschman", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Rebecca", |
| "middle": [ |
| "J" |
| ], |
| "last": "Passonneau", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1988, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Linebarger, Marcia C., Dahl, Deborah A., Hirschman, Lynette, and Passonneau, Re- becca J. Sentence Fragments Regular Structures. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Buffalo, NY, June 1988.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "On the Syntactic Marking of Presupposed Open Propositions", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ellen", |
| "middle": [ |
| "F" |
| ], |
| "last": "Prince", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1986, |
| "venue": "Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory at the ~nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Prince, Ellen F. On the Syntactic Marking of Presupposed Open Propositions. In Pa- pers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory at the ~nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 1986.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "Discourse Markers", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Deborah", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Schiffrin", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1987, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Schiffrin, Deborah. Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "Discourse deixis: Reference to Discourse Segments", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Bonnie", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Webber", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lynn", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1988, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "113--122", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Webber, Bonnie Lynn. Discourse deixis: Reference to Discourse Segments. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 113- 122. Buffalo, NY, June 1988.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "ATTEMPTING TO ERASE 2 METERS ON THE EVENT RECORDING STRIP, THE STRIP WOULD CONTINOUSLY RUN. INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT \"NOYB\" WAS BEING GENERATED. AGE AND USE. REPLACED WITH NEW ITEM AND RETURNED OLD TO SUPPLY. NONE.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "indication of trouble: WHEN ATTEMPTING TO ERASE 2 METERS ON THE EVENT RECORDING STRIP, THE STRIP WOULD CONTINOUSLYRUN. B. Part failure: INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT \"NOYB\" WAS BEING GENERATED. C. Probable cause: AGE AND USE. D. Action taken: REPLACED WITH NEW ITEM AND RETURNED OLD TO SUPPLY. E. Remarks: NONE.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF0": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "text": "", |
| "html": null, |
| "content": "<table/>" |
| }, |
| "TABREF2": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "text": "we are not permitted to cite data from actual TFRs, all examples in this paper are purely fictional. However, the crucial linguistic properties have been preserved. 3But a recent study has shown them to be even more serious than users of keyword systems might have realized([Blalr 85]).", |
| "html": null, |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>Date of Trouble</td><td>:I/21/89</td></tr><tr><td>Report date</td><td>:2/15/89</td></tr><tr><td>Originator</td><td/></tr><tr><td>TFR number</td><td>: 1234567</td></tr><tr><td>Equipment code</td><td>: TRANSPORTER</td></tr><tr><td>Part number</td><td>: 01223426</td></tr></table>" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
