<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C00-2160">
  <Title>Producing More tleadable Extracts by Revising Them</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="1071" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Related Works
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Many investigators have tried to measure the readability of texts \[Klare, 1963\]. Most of them have e-valuated well-formed texts produced by people, and used two measures: percentage of familiar words in the texts (word level) and the average length of the sentences in the texts (syntactic level). These measures, however, do not necessarily reflect the actual readability of computer-produced extracts. We therefore have to take into account other factors that might reduce the readability of extracts.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> One of them could be a lack of cohesion. Italliday and ttasan \[ttalliday et al., 1976\] described five kinds of cohesion: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Minel \[Minel et al., 1997\] tried to measure the readability of extracts in two ways: by counting the number of anaphors in an extract that do not have antecedents in the extract, and by counting the number of sentences which are not included in an extract but closely connected to sentences in the extract.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> We therefore regard kinds of cohesion as important in trying to classify tile factors that make extracts less readable in the next section.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> One of the notable previous works dealing with ways to produce more cohesive extracts is that of Paiee \[Paiee, 1990\]. Mathis presented a framework in which a pair of short sentences are combined into one to yield a more readable extract \[Mathis et al., 197,3\]. We think, however, that none of the previous studies have adequately investigated the factors making extracts hard to read.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Some investigators have compared human-produced abstracts with the original texts and investigated how people revise texts to produce abstracts  \[Kawahara, 1989, Jing, 1999\]. Revision is thought to  be done for (at least) the following three purposes: (1) to shorten texts, (2) to change the style of texts, (3) to make texts more readable.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6">  Jing \[aing, 1999\] is trying to implement a human summarization model that includes two revision operations: reduction (1) and combination (3). Mani \[Mani et al., 1999\] proposed a revision system that uses three operations: elimination (1), aggregation (1), and smoothing (1, 3). Mani showed that his system can make extracts more informative without degrading their readability. The present work, however, is concerned not with improving readability but with improving the informativeness.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>