<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P96-1026">
  <Title>Two Sources of Control over the Generation of Software Instructions*</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="192" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
3 Linguistic Framework: Systemic
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
    <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="192" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
Functional Linguistics
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Our analysis was carried out within the framework of Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL) (Halliday, 1978; Halliday, 1985) which views language as a resource for the creation of meaning. SFL stratifies meaning into context and language. The strata of the linguistic resources are organised into networks of choices, each choice resulting in a different meaning realised (i.e., expressed) by appropriate structures. The emphasis is on paradigmatic choices, as opposed to syntagma~ic structures. Choices made in  each stratum constrain the choices available in the stratum beneath. Context thus constrains language.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> This framework was chosen for several reasons.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> First, the organisation of linguistic resources according to this principle is well-suited to natural language generation, where the starting point is necessarily a communicative goal, and the task is to find the most appropriate expression for the intended meaning (Matthiessen and Bateman, 1991).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> Second, a functional perspective offers an advantage for multilingual text generation, because of its ability to achieve a level of linguistic description which holds across languages more effectively than do structurally-based accounts. The approach has been shown capable of supporting the sharing of linguistic resources between languages as structurally distinct as English and Japanese (Bateman et al., 1991a; Bateman et at., 1991b). It is therefore reasonable to expect that at least the same degree of commonality of description is achievable between English and French within this framework. Finally, KPML (Bateman, 1994), the tactical generator we employ, is based on SFL, and it is thus appropriate for us to characterise the corpus in terms immediately applicable to our generator.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>