<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C92-1052">
  <Title>Temporal Structure of Discourse*</Title>
  <Section position="6" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="evalu">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Conclusions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Our segmentation method using abduction of temporal relations between eventualities as a ACIT~ DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 AOt)r 1992 3 3 6 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTEs, AUG. 23-28, 1992 leading criterion for segmentation &amp;quot;/ has advantages over other currently used segmentation techniques. It uses a criterion whose precision and feasibility is supported by previous work in the area of temporal anaphora resolution \[19, 22, 18, 16, 4\]. Our discourse, segmentation provides the information necessary for tense interpretation (as required in \[22\]), and for constraining further segmentation. Although Web~ her's temporal focus structure depends on the linguistic discourse structure \[7\], she doesn't explain how tense interpretation contributes to the further development of tile linguistic structure.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Other work tackling the interpretation of tense and aspect \[19, 18, 13, 4, 2, 16, 3\] does not intend to build up a discourse structure in the Grosz and Sidner's \[7\] sense. In \[13\] rbetorical relations between some eventualities are build up, not discourse segments. Work in discourse segmentation based on plan recognition \[20\] does not provide the necessary information for tense interpretation either. Our structure intends to provide the context necessary for the interpretation of different kinds of anaphora. Our approach enables us to compute both, the temporal relations explicitly expressed in the discourse and those implied by the temporal structure of the discourse. The temporal coherence can be evaluated by looking at the final discourse structure, e.g. if a discourse is represented by a segment of sort none, no temporal relations between the eventualities described can be obtained and thus the discourse is not temporally coherent. Our approach does not prevent us from using complementary criteria for thc further segmentation of discourse, namely from using other criteria such as clue words, spatial relations, and recognition of state elaboration.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>