| { |
| "paper_id": "W93-0200", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T04:42:08.572753Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Owen", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Rainbow", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": {}, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "Generating multi-sentential text rcquires the ability to compose individual claus~'s into larger units, a process called text planning. C, learly, text planning is an important component of our linguistic competence: we do not always communicate by single, isolated, clause-sized utterances. Two approaches to this question in the field of text generation have proved seminal: McKeown's 1982 th,,sis, in which she uses rhetorical schemata to represent typical domain-independent text structures, and the text planners under development at ISI since 1988 under the direction of Ed Hovy, which us,, plan operators based on Mann and Thompson's Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) in a STR,IPSlike planning architecture. What these two approaches have in common is the term \"rhetorical\" and the claim that they are domain-independent architectures. While they have spawned a la.rg,' number of approaches, architectures, systems, and theories, there has been a general undercurre~tt of dissatisfaction with things \"rhetorical\"; for example, various discourse ph\u00a2~nomena ha.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "W93-0200", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Generating multi-sentential text rcquires the ability to compose individual claus~'s into larger units, a process called text planning. C, learly, text planning is an important component of our linguistic competence: we do not always communicate by single, isolated, clause-sized utterances. Two approaches to this question in the field of text generation have proved seminal: McKeown's 1982 th,,sis, in which she uses rhetorical schemata to represent typical domain-independent text structures, and the text planners under development at ISI since 1988 under the direction of Ed Hovy, which us,, plan operators based on Mann and Thompson's Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) in a STR,IPSlike planning architecture. What these two approaches have in common is the term \"rhetorical\" and the claim that they are domain-independent architectures. While they have spawned a la.rg,' number of approaches, architectures, systems, and theories, there has been a general undercurre~tt of dissatisfaction with things \"rhetorical\"; for example, various discourse ph\u00a2~nomena ha.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Domain-Dependent and Domain-Independent Rhetorical RelationsJong-Gyun Lim .......................................................................", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": {}, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "TABREF0": { |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "Rhetorical Relations: Necessary But Not Sufficient Sandra Carberry, Jennifer Chu, Nancy Green, & Lynn Lambert ......................... I Rhetoric and Intentions in Discourse Robert Dale ............................................................................ 5 Tony Hartley ............................................... Barbara Di Eugenio ................................................................... Granville ...................................................................... 19 Planning for Intenlions with Rhetorical Relations Susan Hailer .......................................................................... Raza Ha.shim ......................................... 27 From Planning to Actions: Realizing Intentions by Rhetorical Means Helmut iloracek ....................................................................... Eduard Hovy .......................................................................... 35 Observations and Directions in Text Structure John Hughes & Kathleen McCoy ...................................................... Margaret Hundleby .................................................................... ,1:1 I/sing Cue Phrases to Determine Rhetorical Relations Alistair Knott .......................................................................... ,1~ 7bwards Stratification. of RST Tanya Korelsky & Richard Kittredge .", |
| "html": null, |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>Ifnowledge, Intention, Rhetoric: Levels of Variation in Multilingual Instructions</td></tr><tr><td>Judy Delin, Donia Scott, & Speakers h~tentions and Beliefs in Negative Imperatives</td></tr><tr><td>Robert :~ I</td></tr><tr><td>In Defense of Syntax: Informational, Intentional, and Rhetorical Structures in Discour.s(</td></tr><tr><td>~1()</td></tr><tr><td>\"Act prom.ptly, make your god happy\": Representation and Rhetorical l~elalion.s in Natural</td></tr><tr><td>Language Generation</td></tr></table>", |
| "type_str": "table" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
