<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="A88-1003">
  <Title>An Architecture for Anaphora Resolution</Title>
  <Section position="10" start_page="21" end_page="21" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
CONCLUSION
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In this paper, we have described an architec- ture for pronominal anaphora resolution that allows implementations of partial theories of anaphora to be combined into a complete system, and we have illustrated an implementabon of such a system. This architecture makes no commitment on the question of what theories should be used or how conflicts among the theories should be resolved. In this respect, it differs from other proposals (such as (Hobbs, 1978)) in which a specific strategy for applying knowledge is encoded into the control structure of the system. As a result of its loose structure, this architecture supports the empirical investigation of the effectiveness of competing theories and their implementations within a complete anaphora resolution system.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> One interesting comment that can be made about this architecture is its similarity to architectures that have been used to perform other parts of the natural language understanding task. For example, TEAM (-Grosz, 1987) uses a similar architecture and a set of critics to .perform.quan- drier scope assignment. The criucs Tuncfion in much the same way CS's do. And, like CS's, there are classes of critics. For example, some are pure filters. Others impose preferences on the set of candidate interpretations.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>