<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P92-1050">
  <Title>THE EXPRESSION OF LOCAL RHETORICAL RELATIONS IN INSTRUCTIONAL TEXT*</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="318" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
INTRODUCTION
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Given the prevalence of the use of rhetorical relations in the generation of text (Itovy, 1989; Moore and Paris, 1988; Scott and Souza, 1990), it is surprising how little work has actually been done on the grammatical realization of these relations.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Most systems, based on Mann and Thompson's formulation of Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson, 1988), have adopted simplified solutions to their expression. If, for example, an action, X, and a purpose for that action, Y, must be expressed, a standard form such as &amp;quot;Do X in order to Y&amp;quot; will be generated. In reality, the purpose relation can be and is expressed in a myriad of different ways depending upon numerous functional considerations. Consider the following examples: (la) Follow the steps in the illustration below, for desk installation. (code 1) (lb) To install the phone on a desk, follow the steps in the illustration below.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> (le) Follow the steps in the illustration below, for installing the phone on a desk.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> (ld) For the desk, follow the steps in the illustration below.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> These examples of purpose expressions illustrate two issues of choice at the rhetorical level. First, the purpose clauses/phrases can occur either before or after the actions which they motivate. Second, there are four grammatical forms to choose from (all found in our corpus). In (la), we see a &amp;quot;for&amp;quot; prepositional phrase with a nominalization (&amp;quot;installation&amp;quot;) as the complement, in (lb), a &amp;quot;to&amp;quot; infinitive form (tnf), in (lc), a &amp;quot;for&amp;quot; preposition with a gerund phrase as a complement, and  of all examples that have come from our corpus, indicating which manual they came from. (code) and (exc) will stand for examples from the Code-a-Phone and Excursion manuals respectively (Code-a-phone, 1989; Excursion, 1989). All other examples are contrived.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5">  in (ld), a &amp;quot;for&amp;quot; preposition with a simple object as the complement. Although all these forms are grammatical and communicate the same basic information, the form in (la) was used in the corpus. I am interested in the functional reasons for this choice.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Another aspect of this analysis to notice is that, contrary to the way rhetorical structure theory has been used in the past, I have allowed phrases, as well as clauses, to enter into rhetorical relations. This enables me to address the use of phrases, such as those in (la), (lc), and (ld), which hold rhetorical relations with other spans of text.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> The proper treatment of alternations such as these is crucial in the generation of understandable text. In the following sections, I will discuss a methodology for identifying such alternations and include samples of those I have found in a corpus of instructional text. I will then discuss how to formalize and implement them.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>