<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P87-1029">
  <Title>CONSTRAINTS ON THE GENERATION OF ADJUNCT CLAUSES</Title>
  <Section position="11" start_page="212" end_page="213" type="relat">
    <SectionTitle>
5. RELATED WORK IN GENERATION
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Derr &amp; McKeown (1984) directly address the generation of complex sentences; however, they restrict the criteria for combining propositions to focus and shared arguments. While it is fairly clear that they could extend their analysis to allow combinations based on relations between propositions that are expressible as explicit lexical connectives, it is unclear as to whether they could as easily extend it to relations expressed structurally: They assume that the propositions are independently determined before possibilities for combinations are considered. While a special device could determine whether the particular relation licensing a PC was intended, they would lose the advantage we gain from letting the initial choice of object and construction be made simultaneously. They would have to use an algorithm such as the one described in the thematic analysis above to determine the gapping pattern of the adjunct.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Davey (1974) and Kukich (1985) both simplify their approach to the problem by completely predetermining how propositions may be combined into complex sentences. Kukich uses predefined phrases and Davey a set of rules particular to the annotated move list of the tic-tac-toe game he is generating from. While these approaches provide an opportunity for choosing structures such as purpose clauses early and as one piece, they are seriously lacking in generality and flexibility. Both assume a limited domain where all of the possible propositions and their plausible combinations can be predetermined.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> In the Knowledge Delivery System (KDS) Mann &amp; Moore (1981) use a hillclimbing algorithm to determine which propositions should be combined into complex sentences. The algorithm assumes the information to be conveyed has been broken into kernel sized chunks and filtered to delete any repetitious or inferable information. This has the drawback that once the original information has been fragmented into kernels, the original relations between them have been lost. The aggregation rules must consequently use shared arguments and predefined templates to combine the kernels into sentence sized chunks. This causes the same problems as those described for Derr &amp; McKeown: determining the gapping pattern in the adjunct clause and retaining generality.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>