<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P92-1001">
  <Title>INFERRING DISCOURSE RELATIONS IN CONTEXT*</Title>
  <Section position="5" start_page="7" end_page="7" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
Conclusion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> We examined instances of two types of contextual constraint on current clause attachment. These were Maintain Causal Trajectory, a domain constraint; and Inertia, a presentational constraint.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> We argued that domain constraints seemed insufficient, but that presentational constraints could constructively interact with them. This interaction then explains the two discourse interpretation phenomena we started out with. Context can switch round the order of events; and it can ameliorate an otherwise incoherent interpretation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Both of the constraints allow predictions about new discourse relations to be driven from previous predictions. But MCT simply adds its prediction to the data-driven set from which the logic chooses, whereas discourse pattern and Inertia are only relevant to interpretation when the logic can otherwise find no discourse relation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> This formalisation has also raised a number of questions for future investigation. For example, the discourse pattern (or Hobbsian 'genre') function is important; but how much of the preceding discourse structure should the DP function take as input? How do we establish--and improve-the linguistic coverage? What is the relation between communicative intentions and contextual constraints? How do we actually implement contextual constraints in a working system? The idea of contextual constraints is a familiar and comfortable one. In this respect, we have merely provided one way of formally pinning it down. Naturally, this requires a background logical theory of discourse structure, and we have used DICE, which has its own particular set of discourse relations and implicature patterns. However, the process of logically specifying the constraints has two important and general benefits, independent of the particular formalisation we have offered. First, it demands precision and uniformity in the statement both of the new constraints, and of the other knowledge sources used in interpretation. Secondly, it permits a programindependent assessment of the consequences of the general idea of contextual constraints.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>