<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P84-1002">
  <Title>CONVEYING IMPLICIT CONTENT IN NARRATIVE SUMMARW~S</Title>
  <Section position="6" start_page="5" end_page="5" type="evalu">
    <SectionTitle>
COMPETITION
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Underlying this levd of representation are the actual goals and events experieaced by the two charate~ In any competitim unit, we have:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> C2 : goall and gml2 cannot boch be realized.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> (Note that in C1 the positive and negative acuudizatious are actually the mine event but from the point of view of two different charaeten.) In the COMSYS story the competition is between John and Mike over who will get a particular job at IBM. The instanfiatiou of the Competition unit in this story is:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> At the time of this writing, Precis can specify any of the following texts for this instantiation of the Competition unit, prefeie~ces dilated by conceptual ellips~ aside. (Discourse fluency effects inch as verb phrase deletion or prouominalizatiou are put in by Mumble as it is realizing Pre~ deg wecification.)  (a) &amp;quot;John wanted to work for IBM and so did Mike. They hired John and did not hire Mike.&amp;quot; Co) &amp;quot;Both John and Mike wanted to work for IBM, but they hired John.&amp;quot; (c) &amp;quot;Mike wanted to work for IBM, but they hired John. n  These three choices vary according to how much of the content of the Competition unit they explicitly express. Choice A includes each of the four aHect states (MI, M2, +, .), smoothed somewhat by the recognition that MI and M2 share the same predicate. The very simplest choice.one that did not C/apreu that commonality in its textual structure, e.g. &amp;quot;John wanted to work for IBM. Mike wanted to work for IBM. They Mred John and did not hire Mike.'-is cotnpletely nnnatural; people wouldn't say it. This minimal level of implicit information that the textual m'uctum must carry is ~.+dingiy not even made Prech&amp;quot; respom/bllity, but is in o*~d carried out automatically within Mumble. The alternative realization of this commonality, ruing a coujolned subject rather than verb phrase deletion, is taken to be a da:ba'ou and is not de.berated over by Pro:is.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> If we begin to include the constraints that accompany the Competltion Unit (Cl Slid C~) eXplicitiy in the tmmmagy then we can leave out mote of the affect states as in/erable. In choice B we make use of the first comgralnt, iJ~. that the pmitive and the negative acaualizations are consequences of the same event, to enable the omit'on of ~ellg2, nog(hlgt~MlkeJ\]~M)), ~ the tegg of the lmmm~l~ by dropping the phrase &amp;quot;they did not ~re Mike&amp;quot;. In our present vernon of choice B there is.no structural indicator of the constraint. It is probably no coincidena~. then that the text for B rounds a little odd-readers nnf~ with the orj~nal story wi\[! not really understand what the but is mppouxl to be communicating until they go further and make the deduction that there must oaly have been one job available. A better venion of B would probably be: &amp;quot;Both John and Mike wanted to work for IBM, bus they f~ly hired John&amp;quot;, with the only acting as an explicit aruetural indicator of the information in the constraints. This addition can probably be licensed as a cotueque~e of the second constraint that only one of the two goals can be realized. At the time of this writing we do not yet have an adequately general mechanism for making observation and incorporating the on/y, so we have not included it among Precis&amp;quot; choices.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> It is intriguing that choice c, &amp;quot;Mike wanted to work for IBM, but they hired John&amp;quot;, is probably the best of the three choices even though it requires the audience to do the most inferencing. In c we have omitted state Ml-that John wanted to work for IBM-yet the audience is able to recover this information quite easily given the presence of the but. Given the ease with which choice c is undemoud, we are led to the suggestion that there may be a very general &amp;quot;template&amp;quot; being recognized here-that choice c is seen by an audience as an instance of the pattern: &lt;expression of agent A's goal&gt;, but &lt;.realization of agent B's goal&gt; and that this template alwa~ carries with it the inference that the two goals must be incompatible and therefore A's goal has not be satisfied.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> Note that here again the choice would be improved by including an explicit lexical indication of the constraint: &amp;quot;Mike wanted to work for IBM, but they hired John ~nstead&amp;quot;. We expect that most instances of these &amp;quot;rhetorical markers&amp;quot; in texts will turn out to be indicators of constraint-levcl information akin to our present cases, which raises the intriguing possibility that a general theory of how they are used might arise out of this kind of work in generation.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>