<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W00-1421">
  <Title>Planning Word-order Dependent Focu s Assignments*</Title>
  <Section position="8" start_page="159" end_page="161" type="evalu">
    <SectionTitle>
6 Results
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The system just described produces brief retellings of one episode of the aforementioned trick film based on a knowledge base representing the single events and a discourse model. Depending on the content of the discourse model word order of the respective sentences and focus assignments differ. We are giving one detailed example showing the different status of the discourse model and its influence on the realization of word order and the FBS. After that some texts FOGS is able to generate are presented.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Let the content of the discourse model be as follows: null</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> .1Note that determiners as bearers of nucleus accents do not constitute a problem for our system. In this case only the identifiability condition belongs to the focus, which will I.~,. mapped ont,~ a corresponding lemma.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4">  The content planner deterlnines fallingDown(e,.m) ,-in(e,.s), s~oneP&amp;ateau(-s) ,. littleHan(m) as the proposition to be conveyed.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> The operator for topic assignment marks s as sentence topic because it is the currently best available topic according to the topic acceptance scale. Referential movement is as follows: since s has been declared in the discourse model as being referentially maintained, it will be maintained in the first utterance as well. Discourse referent m was re-established and, therefore, will become referentially maintained. Since referent S wasidentifiable by /i definite description for the listener and is the topic, it remains identifiable by definite means, resulting in a definite NP. Referent m was identifiable by definite means and becomes anaphorically identifiable.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Focus and background are determined as follows: first it is checked whether any information in the proposition is new to the listener. Since all literals from the propositional content also exist in if, nothing can be focused due to being 'new' information. However, there are two literals in the propositional content with explicitly represented alternatives. Since both literals can be linguistically realized as one constituent (as a PP), only one focus domain and one focus exponent will appear.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> The resulting utterance is in die STEINebene fa'llt er runter with the locative PP in clause-initial position and accent on the noun-noun compound. The PP has been fronted because it receives the best evaluation w.r.t, the three discourse-relational features. The compound functions as focus exponent because the whole PP constitutes the focus domain, which is managed by the focus principle.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> Taken all effects of the planning operators together, the updated discourse model is as follows:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> The next proposition to be conveyed is i itt leman (m), walk ingAround (e i, m). T he new senterlce topic will be m. Anaphoric identifiability and referential maintenance of referent ra would usually result in keeping these .conditions for the linguistic realization so that a pronoun will be generated. However, the topic shift results in a change to identifiability by a definite description for m in the following sentence. The event literal is focused because it provides new information, resulting in the VP as focus domain. According to the focus principle, the prefix receives the nucleus accent. 5 The resulling utterance is Das Ma',mchen :; \Ve adopl an approach to the goneration ,~f separable prefix verbs proposed by \[Le\[,+'t h. 1992\] that is based on adjunc- null Muff umHER (the little man walks aROUND).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> Exemplary brief retellings of the, film.epi~ode:gen- .. erated by FOGS are given below. Note that the single sentences always express the same respective propositional content. What ..differs are the word order and/or the position of the nucleus accent. These differences in word order and accent placement are due to the varying content of the discourse model, the different possibilities for focus determination, and the effects of the applicable planning operators for referential movement, topic assignment, and identi- .. . * __., . , . . fiability. &amp;quot; 1. In die Steinebene fa'llt es runter auf der Suche nach Wasser.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> Das Miinnnchen Muff umHER.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> PlStzlich schieflen STEINttirme aus der Erde auf.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="14"> Die Steinttirme erheben das MANNchen.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="15"> A rough translation is: While looking for water it is falling down to the STONE plateau. The little man is running aROUND. Suddenly stone pillars are shooting up from the GROUND. The stone pillars lift up the little MAN.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>