File Information
File: 05-lr/acl_arc_1_sum/cleansed_text/xml_by_section/metho/79/j79-1076_metho.xml
Size: 81,396 bytes
Last Modified: 2025-10-06 14:11:16
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <Paper uid="J79-1076"> <Title>Washingf on, D . C</Title> <Section position="2" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> SHORT NOTICE OF UPCOMING CONFERENCES ............. 40 RECOGNITION MEMORY (REMI: SEMIONICS ASSOCIATES . . . . 43 SCREENSPLITTER ........................ 54 THE TARGET PRIJECT'S INTERACTIVE COMPUTERIZED MULTJ'LINGUAL </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> DICTIONARY. JohnBurge .................. .. 62 American Journal of Computational Linguistics Microfiche 76: 3 TINLAP-2: PROGRAIl AND ABSTRACTS TINLAP-2 will consist of six sequential sessions, each of which wi11 address questions of current theoretical interest and questions on long-range res-ea~ch directions. In each session researchers from artificial intelligence, linguistics, psychology, and philosophy will focus their points of view on a particular topic (see schedule below).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Proceedings will be available before the meeting. Each author will give a 10-15 minute presentation (which may include s critique of other papers, an amplification of points in the writr ten paper, etc .) followed by a 90 minute discussion period where questions and cfiments from the audience will be welcome. There will be other interesting evencs during and after the workshop, including the ACL Annual Meeting, a banquet, several opportunities for informal discussions, and events associated rlith the Linguistic Institute, to be held at the Universitv of Illinois this summer. The LSA (Linguistic Society of TINLAP-2 4 America) aeeting will be held at the University of Illinois immediately aftet T'LNLAP-2, July 25-30. Ififormation ahout the LSA meetling can be obtainled from Proressor Braj Kachru, Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> The program for TINLAP-2 is listed immediately below The frame number for the abstract is given in parentheses. ht:sentations for whhh no abstract was available arg designated with an asterisk. July 24 7:00 pm Reception and Registration at Levis</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="3" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> ABSTRACTS TESTING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY OF A REPRESENTATIOrjAL MODEL, </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Dedre Gentner Bolt Beranek and Newrnan, Inc. A research program is described in which a partlcular zepresentational format for meaning is tested as broadly 3s pogsible. In this format, developed by the LNR research group at The hiversity of California at San Diego, verbs are represented ab. interconnected sets of subpredicates. These subpredicates may be thought of as the almost inevitable inferences that a listener makes when a verb is used in a sentence. They confer a meaning structure on the sentence in which the verb is used. To be psychologically valid, these representations should capture . in meaning should over to peopl-e, lap.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> 2. Confusability: The more confusable two verb meanings are for people, the more their representations overlap.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> 3. Memory for sentences containing the verb: The sentence structures set up by the verb's meaning should in part determine the way in which sentences are remembered..</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> Seman Lic integration : The representations should allow for the integration of information from different sentences into discou~se structure .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> Acquisition patterns: The structural partitions in correspond to the structures are learning the meanings of the representations sh0uJ.d children acquire when they the verbs</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="4" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 6. Patterns of extension: </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The representations should be extendable so as to reflect the ways in which people interpret verb meanings when the verbs are used outside their norinal context.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> 7. Reaction times: The time taken to comprehend a sentence using a given verb should reflect the structural complexity of the verb meaning .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Experiments concerned with predictions 1 - 5 are described here. The results are promisi~g for a general approach of representation of meaning in terms of interrelated subpredicates, but do not clearly distiaguish between several similar representations.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> For example, to test prediction (Z), I read people sentences containing verbs with similar meanings, and asked them to recall the sentences. The degree of overlap in the semantic structures was a good predictor of the number of confusions between sentences. In ahother sentence-memory experiment (predict ion (3) ) semantically complex verbs that provided more unde~lying ~dterconnections between the nouns in a sentence led to bettdr memory fof the nouns in the sentence than simple general verbs, or than gther complex verbs that did not provide such extra interconnections. To test prediction (5), I tested children's comprehension of a set of pos session verbs. Both the order of acquisition among the verbs and the kinds of errors fitted well with an account of the acquisition of verb meaning in terms of interconnected subpredicates This research illustrates a breadth-first approach to testing a representation. In the breadth-PS irst: approach, many different psychological predictions are made. Each different area of prediction requires a set of process assumptions, and in each case the process assumptions used are those that seem most plausible given previous research in the field.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> If one rspresentational fomat can make correct predictions about a number of differenr: kinds of psychological phenomena, then that representation stands a greater chance of being generally useful than one which was tested in only one depth-first way.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> Tne flelatton bf Grammar to Cognition 9 Leonard Talmy Neurop~yc hiatric Inat ikut a, UCLA A aentence (or othe? p~~tlQt+ of diacourae) la ?men to evoke in the lL8tener 8 rns&niPlg complex, here called a &quot;00@iti,~@ r@~r@88ntation&quot; The Xexical elements of tba nentanca aaem, by snd large, to specify tHe aontent, or 8ubotance, of the cognitive reprbsentatlon, while the ramm ma tical elements apecify it'a structure. Thua, lookine systematically at the actual notions apecifiaa by &rammatlcal elaments cpn $i%e ua a handle for aacer%oining the very makeup of (linguistic-) co&ultive strl~cturtng. We accordingly examine a numbsy of ~rammaticolly specified notiono, obaarle the syatems or categorlea in which they pdtteqn, and speculate on broader cognitive connections.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> Some provisional findines have already emereed: Grammatical.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> apacifications for atru~~ure are preponderantly relativiatic or topological, and exclude tho f lxed or metrically Euclidean. The %gatems in which grammatiCa1 notion3 pattern include: plexlty (uniplexfmultiplex~ doves of axtenalonalitg stat a of boundadnean pattern of distribution atSte of dlvidcdncea axial charactariatios level of eynthesls perspectival oharaOteristics level of exemplarity ecaria~brcakup charrctaristioa drammrticcal apsc if iocltion of 8truoturin8 appears, in certain abstract charactaristlca, to be laomorphic wlth the structuring of viaual Researchers in li.nguistics, psychology and art if icii~l intcllfgence havc recently begun to abandon a *purely linguistic appruutlh to def initu ar~nphora (definitc pronouns and noun phrases. Instcad they posit the notion nf rcfcrcncc! into a modcl that a listcll~er/resdcr 1s sylzthcslzing fro* thc disronrcr: the referent of a definite anaphor is then not a linguistic object, but rather an entity in a model. Such a model has been called a ''world of discourse&quot; [levin & Goldman, 19781&quot;;a &quot;ur~ivcrs~ of discourse&quot; [Lyons 19781, al'discoutse nodel&quot; [Nash-Webber 1977; Webber 19781 and a &quot;domL~irx uf itzterprctatJ.ont1 [Stemling 19751, inter nlia, Its syntl~csis is what xnceresbs me. Discourse n~odel synthesis intuit ivel)rt seems to result fro111 interact ions between che listencr/rsadcrls expectations and various features of the text, That these interactions are is not clear, A discussiorr of haw the listener r-eader 's changing expectations can atiect iiscsurse model synthesis can be Found lm [Collins, Brown & Larkin, 19771. What I shall discuss here are some feata~res of the text that aFfect what entities appear In a disc ours^ model and how such entitles are described. In the course of presenting these features, I will argue that having an appropriate description for a discourse entity is critical to its successful reference later on. I will then argue thaL recognizing formal aspects of the text is critical to the formulatioh of appropriate descriptions. While this is not a sufficient cdhdition for successful reference, it is certainly a necessary one.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> Representation of Individuals in S~~aantic Nets</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="5" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> Abstract </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Reseatch is reported concerned with how subjects process multiple refesrkng expressions+ In one experiment, subjects learn sentences such as: The smrwrt Russian cursed the salesgirl The smart Russian rescued the kitten The tall lawyer adopted the child Thk tall lawyer Caused the accident and only later learn that the smart Russian is the same person as the tall lawyer.. How do subjects integrate the information about the smart Ruqsian atkh information abgut the tall lawyer? It is information subjects have set up two nodes in memory, one for each definite description. Upon learning of the identity of the two descriptions, they introduce into memory a proposition indicating the identity of the two individual nodes. They also start a process of copying infornation PSrum one node to the other node. In effect, they choose to abandon one of the nodes.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> It is argued that a similar process occurs when subjects recognize the referent of a definite descriptibn--but on a much shorter time scale. So, suppose a subject hears: The first president of the United States was a bad husband, The proposal is that the subject creates a new node to represent the subject of that sentence, attaches to this node network structure to encode it is the first president of the United States, uses thfS network structure to guide a search of memory for the referent, finds a node corresponding to George Washington (GW), indicates that the new node and the GW node are the same, copies fromthe new node to the GW nbde the bad husband predicate, and abandons the nev node, Data is presented consistent with this process model for dealing with the referents of definite des,criptions.</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> Reference Diaries </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Herbert Ti. Ciarb and Catherine Marshall</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> Stanford University Standford CA </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Speakers and listenets are fotced to keep diaries about what they wow about each other because, to use or interpret a definite reference, they !I have to qssess the knowledge they ahare&quot; with each other about the thing being referred to. More prec?iseJ.y, it can be shm that the speaker and listener have to assess what is technically called their mutual knowledge about &quot;the referent. 'Nnis, however, raises a striking paradax. The assessment of muthal knowledne logically requires an infinity of separate tests, and if each test takes a finite amount of time, then people would take aq infinwe length of time to make or interpret'any definite refe~ence. As a solutim to this problem, we argue, people use the heuristic of searching their diaries for an event that satisfies a condl'tion we call triple co-presence. With such an event they can satisfy the infjhity of tests required by mutual knowledge in a single step. We discuss the kinds of events that satisfy tripble co-presence, dnd we provide experimental evidence that when people cannot find such an event they are open to error in their intPs~re&ation of definite reference, Some pra5rrat I c constro i nts on the ~onstruct ion Sna in?-erpretd?ion of definite descriptions.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Andrew Or -tony 'Iln iversit). of I l 1 i nois ot Ilrbana-Chof:lpoiqt; Goth ttie proauct ion and the cmprshensian of definite dascriptions requires that inferences be na4~- In mdny casw the inferences ars tr i v i % 1 and s&quot;f i I e the~re-t i ca I. i mportarica or i n-Terost, M(lve~er, there is a class of definite descriptions that Fsve Tha charclcter isric fhat their re1 at ion to their * anfsccdents depends on prs~rnatic inferences ('contrastad \Y i th deduct ive.fy logics I inferences), In SL;C~I cases, Phe pred icate under lying b-::t: defYni-i-z descrYption cannot be taken to be true of the antecedent as a result of any enfcilrnent re~tions. Rather, the pred~cate is taken as being pra~aSilistica&quot;lly rslzted, This psper exzmrnes shis clas& OF. Ifpracpatic definite descr ipi~ons~~ nore closely, pay ins particul ar attant ion to what sonstrai'ns *the set of cand Icste descriptions that can be used to refer to the anteceden*.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Lne of the results of thrs eYsMnzkion IS the postulzt.ion of a theory abocrt the extent to which an indirect speech actV can be a 1neirec-f.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> Bound Variables and Other Anaphors Barbara H. Partee</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> <Section position="6" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> ABSTRACT </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The aim of the paper is to delimit a subset of pronominal anaphora for which the logicians notion of bound variables gives the best account.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> It can be argued that some cases of anaphora must be iewed this wav mrd some cases cannot be. The clearest cases of bound variable anaphor& involve antecedents like every man and - no man which are singuldr in form but da not refer to individuals. But even with an antecedent 1 i ke - John, an anaphoric pronoun must sometimes ukviewed as a bound variable to dccount for one of the readings (the so-called &quot;sloppy identity&quot; reading) of TI): (1 ) John was sure he would wjb, and so was Bi 11.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Bound variable anaphora wi 11 be cobtrasted with free &quot;di scourse&quot; anaphora; the differences between them suggest that the former is essentially a semantic phenomenon, the latter largely pragmatic.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> The Use of Focus as a Tool for Disainbiguat ion of Definite Noun Phrases</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> This paper will center on a djscussion of the use of focus in the interpretation of anaphoria noun phrases in discourse. The need for focus will be discussed, and a description of focus shifting will be given. Focus provides a means of representing the centra1 concept of a discourse. The ways in which a definite noun phrase, specific or generic, can be used are constrained by its relation to the focus and by the ways in which the focus can be shifted. The discussion of anaphoric defnps will present a taxonomy of cases, distinguished by the relation of the defnp to the focus, This taxonomy inclues several kinds of inference dependent cases. The paper will concentrate discussing on the process of understandins defnps, and will present rules governing the ways a defnp can be used so that the hearer/reader can understand its co-referent . This paper will also distinguish reference, co-reference and internal reference, and point out the need Eor these distinctions in natural language research.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> wnen cwo people talk they focus On only a mall portion of what each of them knows or believes. Both what gets said and how it gets interpreted depend on this narrowing of attention to a comnon highlighted portion of knowledge. One of the effects of understanding an utterance is to become focused on certain entities (relationships and object^) and on particular views of those entities. A speaker provides a hearer with clues to what to lock at and how to look at it -- what to focus on, how to focus on it, and how wide or narrow that focus sholrld be. These clues may be 1 inguistic or they luay come from knowledge about the relationships among entities in the domain (the structure of the things being talked about) or from the environment in which the dialog occurs. Linguistic cues may be either explicit, given directly by certain words, or imp1 icit, deriving from sentential structure or fror rhetorical relationships between sentences.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> This paper examines focusing in dialog, discusses an initial representation in which focusing is based on domain structure cues, and examines from this perspective what other information and models are needed to extend the formalization of focusing to more general dialogs. The importance of focllsing is illustrated by considering its role in the processes of under standing and generating definite descr iptions.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="7" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> TOPIC LEVELS </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Joseph E. Grimes cornell Univetsuit Ithaca, N.Y.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> In order to interpret either a dialogue or a monologue,' some referential dements mqst be agreed on by the speaker and the hearer as a starting point. This is the topic in me sense proposed by Searle and Gundel. Even though the topic normally shifts away from its starting pint in the course of a text, whatever is being treated as topic in a particul ar part of the text receives special treatment in determining the expression to be used..</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> IeveJs of topic, global vd local, iri ~nglish conversation have been noted by Grosz. They imply difPerent strategies for establishing the reference of pronouns. It is useful to consider than in the light of two other languages,, ~onguda of Nigeria and ~acairi of Brazil, that distinguish topic from nontopic by their pronoun systems.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> Finally, there is some evidence from both Greek and ~nglish that there may be more than two topic levels operating simu~taneously in nonconver sational texts.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="8" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> ABSTRACT </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Toward a rational model of discourse comprehension J. L: Morgan Center for the Study of Reading</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> and Department of Linguistics university of Illinois </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Models of discourse br text often treat connected discourse in a manner analogous to the treatment of sentences in traditional and generative grammar; i.e. as a formal. object to be decoded by means of c~rtain formal operaaions. I point out in this paper that even where this view is not explicitly proposed, it is often implicit.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Against this common view I argue that the only kind 05 discourse model that is likely to succeed is one that is built around two important hypotheses: first, that the key to d~scuurse comprehension is the attempt to infer the deta'ils of the plan that the speaker/ writer follows in constructing khe text; secondj that a large portion of the work of a discourse comprehension model should be derived from a theory of practical reasoning. I will sketch the outline of a model (or more accurately, a ~chema for a large class of possible models) that incorporates these suggestions, pointing out the rdle of practical reasoning processes, and arguing that notoriously confused nottons like &quot;gicves/'new1' and I1&xpected inforrna~ion~~ can wly be made sense of in such a model.</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> <Section position="9" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> SOCIAL AND ~OGICAL GBECTS OF MEWING IN ?HE WAGE OF SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> David R. Qlson ontarlo Institute for Studies in Mucatlon Toronto, Canada f t is conventional to treat the meaning of an utterace in a discourse in terns of two components! the ?ropositional component and the pragmatic or speech act component, the first indicating the meaning of the sentence, the secona r indicating its intended use. by the speaker. I shall present so111e arguments and evidence that these two systems are interdependent. Roughly, it appears that social considerations, prharily status. determine which a-cts of a proposition are lexicalized in the utterance. Thus, a child with high status relative to his interlocutor may use a conunand, &quot;Give me &quot;a block&quot;, while if he has low status relative to his interlocutor he may use a request, &quot;May I have a block?&quot; IPS he is an equal, a peer, (and perhaps only then) he will use an explicit true propsitian such as, &quot;You have two more than me.&quot; Only in this third case is the propositional meaning explicit in the sentence per ae, and only in this case is an aPSPS irmative or negative response dependent strictly upon truth conditions (rather than compliance, for example) .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> *is conception of the social aspects of meaning will be examined through an analysis of what is said vs. what is meant in Gome childch jld and teacher-child conversations, Paper prepared for ~heoret'i2al Issuesb in Natural Language Processing (TINLAP). Urbana, University of fllinois, July 25-27, 1978.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Communication among people occurs in a vast vhr iety of settings frm reading a book to partiaipatiw in a conversation, from Pistening to a tape to reading a transcript of a lecture. Most discussions of discour se , speech acts and d ialogue , however, consider a very par t icular kind of comnunicative situation: Eaae-to-f ace 3rd conversations between two participants in which there is a common spatial and temporal context. Dialogues between a computer system and a person differ from this model along at least two dimensions: the modality of the interaction (current computer-person d ialogues are wr itten) and the lack of spatial cmnonal ity , indicated by the impssibil ity of comunicatirq with gestures and facial expressions. The imp1 ications of these differehces for theories oE discourse are poorly understoodr Worse yet, they illusttate only a mall subset of the dimensions along which language experiences may vary, mat relevance do the theories we advance to account for these interchanges have for other communicative experiences such as listening to a lecture or reading a play? This paper will focus on two other aspecfts of language experience which have consequences for the dialogue models we build: audience and the degree of - 9nteraction. In both situations described abdve, tne audience is a single other person (or systen) and interaction between the participants - or even interrupti-on - is immediate.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> But in a book, for example, the audience is larae and not well defined and the boo^ s reader must adopt new strategies to cornpensate for the fact that interaction is impossible. In a personal letter, on the other hand, the audience is a single other person, similar to the conversational situation. Interaction, however, is impossible or at least attenuated; the reader can obtain clarifying information, but the time lapse will be significant. I will consider in this paper where various lahguage experiences lie along these two ddnenaions and what the impiications of these differences are for models of discourse and dialogue.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> On the Interdependence of Languagk and Perception Without a conneckion to the real world v&a perception, o language system cannot know what it is talking about. Similarly, a perceptual system must have ways of expressing its autputs via a language (spoken, written, gestural or sthef). The relationship between-perception and l~nguage is explored, with special attent lon to what implications results in language research have for our models of vision systems, and vice-versa. It is suggested that early language learning is an especially fertile area Ior this exploration. witkin this area, we argue that perceptual data is conceptualized prior to language acquisition according to largely innate strategies, tha~ this conceptualization is in terms of an internal, non-ambiguous &quot;language,&quot; that language production from its beginnings to adulthood is a projection or the inte~nal Language which selects and highlights the most important portions of internal concepts, and that schemata produced in the sensory/motor world are evolved inso schemata to describe abstract worlds. Examples are provided which stress the importance of &quot;gestalt&quot; (figure-ground) relationships * and yrojecthon (3-D to 2-1/2 or 2-1) , conceptual to linguistic, ad linguistic ta conceptual); finally mechanisms for an integrated visionlanguage syshem are proposed, and some preliminary results are described JII 1ll.i:: ~,II>PI l, wc? w ill l)osrl rlwnl CIUCS ~.~OIID tlun plcstmt s.01 utions. K:'c ci~u~t to raise sor;,e questions in the context of the representation of shapes of 8-D objects One way to get a hCindle on this prob@.m is to investigate whether labels of shapes mind the* acquiGtion reveals any striicture of attributes or cmpnents of shepes that might be used for representation purposes. hother aspect of the puzzle of rcprescntation is the question whether the information is to be stored in analog or,rprapositionol form, and at what level this transformtion from analog to pmpsitional form takes place.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> In genepal, sha-pe of a 3-D cornpact object has tsJo aspects: the surface aspect, md the volume aspect. The surface aspect incLudes pmpsrties like concovit+y, convc.sj ty , pl,mcuxi ty of surIacas , edges, and cornws. The volumz aspect di:; tingciishc:; ob jcc is wi th hol CIS fmiri those without (topo1oj;icctl properties) , and describes objects with respect to their syrrunetry plales and axes, rclatlve ~mrti-ons, ctc.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> &quot; 'Rlis vork hcls been supported ~mdw NSF Grant d::CS76-19465 and NSF Grant BNCS7F 19466.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> We b:ill discuss some questions pertinent to representation of a shape of a 3-D compact object, without holes, for example : Is the surface aspect more important than the volmc aspect?, Are there any shape p~imitivea? In what form are shape attributes stored?, e tc. We shall extensively draw from psychological and psycho-linguis tic li'twature , as we1.l as from the recent AT activities jn this area.</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> An Argument Combining Linguistic,and Visual Evidence Ray Jackendoff Brandeis University </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"/> </Section> </Section> <Section position="10" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> ABSTRACT </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The notion from gestalt psychology of a &quot;figure&quot; emerging rrom a &quot;backsround&quot; will be shorm to be crucially involved in a complete descrtption of the successful cammunication of so-called &quot;pragmatic anaphorta&quot; - uses of pronouns without Einguisti,~ .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> antecedents such as that in (1) .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (1) I bought that pointing last Saturday.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> A survey of types of pragmatic anaphora in English will then be used to show that the notion of &quot;'figure&quot; must encompass, a muck. wider range of perceptual entities than commonly assumed. Finally the implications for linguistic semantics, philosophy, percept la1 t-heory, and cognitive theory will be discussed (very tentative abstract)</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> Language and Percept ion Zenon Pylyshyn University of Western Ontario </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> A language comprehension system without a perceptual component would, in an important sense, not know what it was talking about even if it could carry on a sensible dialogue. More significantly, a theory of comprehension would be seriously deficient if it did not relate linguistic representations to ones which derive from non-linguistic sources. This bridge is necessary in order to explain how terms refer as well as to explain how language is acquired. This paper will discuss and support the position that natural language learning is only possible because of the prior existence of menialese --a language-li ke system of representation for perceptual as we1 1 as more abstract conceptual contents. How this comes into being cannot be given as an inforrnat3on processing explanation since it requires an account of the development of the underlying machine architecture--not of its</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> <Section position="11" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> ABSTRACT </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> An argumeht is presented that, on the basis of the evidence at present available, there is no reason to believe that the semantic primitives required by natural language understanding have any basis or grounding in vision. And, moreover, whatever may ultimately turn out to be the way we work, there is no reason to believe that trying to ground one sphere of A1 on the other language primitives on visual ones, would assise research in either area. A number of systems of primitives are examined briefly in order to strengthen the above argument.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> With a Spoon in my Hand this must be the Eating Erame</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> Eugene Charniak Department of Computer Science Yale University </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"/> </Section> </Section> <Section position="12" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> ABSTRACT </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> A language comprehension program using &quot;Prames, &quot; &quot;scripts ,I1 etc .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> n~ust be able to decide which frames arc appropriate to the text. 0iten there will be explicit indication (&quot;Fred was playing tennis&quot; suggests the TENNIS frame) but it is not always so easy. (&quot;The steering wheel was hot, but Jack had to be home by 3&quot; suggests DRIVING, but how?) This paper will examine how a program might go about determining the appropriate frame in such cases. The basic idea will be taken over from Minsky (1975) in that it will be assumed that or~c usually has one or more cogtext frames, so that one only needs worry 2f information comes in which doe,s not fit them. As opposed to Minsky however the suggestions for new context frames will not come from the old ones, but rather directly from the conflict5ng. inEormation. A major portion of the paper then will. be conccrncd wick how wc will index context frames (em g., DRIVING) under the clues nhich suggest them (e. g., STEERING-</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="13" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> WHEEL) . AUarz C~IL~ </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc, TItc papch ai~tLi~i~ a co)nl.utntioj~cLe tl~cohy 06 i~w~ia~i ptaubibLc ncn~o~~ij~g cons,&~~cted dhoa n11&!{6iA CJ~ pe.o)~cr ' n bl11~tYY~b to cvchyday queb tioris. L-ihc .Cog ic, ,tltc the ohy .is cx)u~c,~nrd in a ca~~tc.~~ t-b~~dc-pcncfc.r~t 6ohsinei'~ln. UJI CiCe log ic, .the tl~eo~y ~pccidi~~ !lo10 di66c~~l:t i~i~o~in~a~o~t ill IIICJIIOCI~ n6bcct.h the cc,'l+tndlz.tg 06 tkc COMC Cl~biol~n, rih,n[~~~. TIIC .thcony conn cJs t~ o 6 a dialails ior~nli 2rd npnce o 6 did ~CACIL~ i~q(e,ter~ce tgpil.$ nrtd thcdr ccj~tairztc~ col~tlitiorln, i~ictttdi~~g it vahioty 06 lilctnl&6~/i~nce $gpa idt c,t e ih c ill bftlcrzcc dcpc~zris ort tl~c p~ 5 ort ' 4 k~~o~Pedg e abo td hi., old11 brzodedg e. Tlie ptlo taco.&$ 6~om pCoj3tc' 6 ~JI~$L)I)'C/LA .to QLLCA ti0126 ~RP a~zatyzrd Indirect Responses to Loaded Questions S. Jerrold Kaplan</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="14" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> ABSTRACT : </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Casual USCFS .QS ~ntuul lalrn~a~c (NL) sys tans am -t-ypicalLy inexpert not only with regard to the i-ecl~nic;ll details of the unrlcr~lyin~ prol:l~;lmr,, but oftcn with regard to tile. structuin? NIC~/~P ~ontcll t of the dormi-n of ~~SCOUI~SC.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> bnsequer~tly, NIJ systems rnust lx. designed to irspond appmp-iately w11m they can dc4ect a misco~~ception on the part of thc user. SevcraT conventions e} isth cooperative convell. .,it-ioll that allow a speaker. to indirectly cncode their intentions and beli ~f s about: the domin i11t-o thcir 11 tte~~3nces, ( &quot;load ing&quot; t-he utterances) and allow (in fact, often rr~quire) a coopemtive mslmnder~t tci address those intentiolls and be3 iefs beyond a literc~l rgsponse. To be effective, NL computer systems must do the- same, This paper will explore several types of indircct responses to I4L questions, showbe that in the Data Base query domain ~cnqra-1 corny tat ional models exi st that cat] determine both when - an indirect response is required and d~at that response sbuld be. AII implementation of these ideas will be presented that demonstpates their hnediate practi~al valfie in I% sys tenjs . This paper will take the position that language r9lated inferences (i.e., infererices driven lkctly 5.m the phrasing of the question) are to a peat extent separable firm deeper reasoning and deductien processes, and are sufficient la proclwe a wide variety of useful and cooperative behavior.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> S.J. Kaplan</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="15" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> ABSTRACT </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> I prowse to di scuss a nu.lllxr of principlcls for stY~icturlncl k~~otlrltxlclc, principles which arc n~tivated by td~c? need for cfficicnt deductive infcl-cncc in quest ion-at7st~~i-ing sys tents. The notion of stx-uc turc -trl~at I v1i.11 define is in son= sense, ortrJnqona1 to but hot a1titl2ctical to a ntm&r of current ic7ccls in Al: reg=-Ainq UICJ organi zation of knowlec7c~e.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Intcns ional vs . Extc?nsional Rerx esentations of IWo~~lcdsc Given CI predicate P, we can rcpreser.t 141a.t we knqw about P cxtmsic)nally, or intmsionaJly, e.g. as a prcxed~re or a general axlom) or by som cornbinakion of . HOT sho~~ld xhis dccis~on be made? It turns out that if we represent appropriate predicates cxtgsXonally then (i) No lbfinitc deductive searches can arise.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (ii) Certain inca~sional knowledge becomes irrelevant for deducti-on ar~d my ke di scarded.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> The Closed World Assunption (W In domins for, brhll=h we have perfect knowklge (e .q. blocks worlds) it is appropriate to mfie the CWA. Thls mems, roughly speakmg, that to establish a ncgativs fact, it is suffic&quot;ient to fag1 to prow its psit~_ve counterpzt. The CE7A yields a Significant decrease in the camplexity of deductive reasoning. In addition, it induces a deco~sition of ale available lu~owledge into tvm cownents, one af which is used only for integrity, and the other only for deductive inference. Horn b-ta Bases --It is wel-l. known that whgever the knowledge about a domain is representable by Horn formulae (i . e . fomlae of he f om P+ P+ . . .A P,,2Pn+1 where plf--tpn+l are positive) then consequent and/or antecedent reasoning is mlete for that domin. This result is not true for non Horn darni~ls - mre :opl~isticated reasoning, such as case analysis, may he required. Al~otl~er nice feature of 1Ior.11 donuh~s is Chat the W does not lhd to any h~consistcncies. 'Not all dorruirla car ~IQ ~cpresa~tccl by ~16m fo~milac.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> For soma such domains it is possibl e to render than &quot;essential ly &quot; Horn by cxtcnsionolly repepresenting certain appmpri otcly choser prcdicatcs, in wllich case all af the Virtues nf Horn donuins my be salvaged. pmpos ing 1. If pssible, mkc the CWA.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> 2. If the hcxilcdge base is non Horn, makc it &quot;essentially&quot; ~IQ.~II by extensionllly representing appropriate pmdi6dtes.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> Elinhate infinite dd~~ction paths -by extu~sionally represent-bcj ccmin svi t&ly chosen yr-cdicates.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> 4. Und~r 1, 2 and 3, certab mkensions will no longzr ke relevant for deduction. Reri~vz these.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> of G-HIND-I, a full-scale story compr*chcr~sion pl-oj~ct ba:,(?d on a \\'a1t Disrley Pool.: of ttw I lontti Club hook ,* V&quot;c I!a~ic (;rindcrIt . Topics incluclc: ( 1) thc .sense net,\.:orl.: parsrr and it in tci-ac t ion with iraJ'erenco, (2 1 chax4acter pcrso~~~~lity trait f~odelin~: via behavioral tags, (3) two-cl~aracter relationshi;, modclinr, and (4 ) plot veprt~scntation and plot le~c~~pre~liction. Thc main areas of etrlphasis will be en the representatior~ of inf'crence, and or, t3c various types of inference conditioning that stem from the character models and plot.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="16" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> ABSTRACT </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> TWO styles of performing inference in semantic networks are presented and compared, Path-based inference allows an arc or a path or arcs between-two given nodes ko be inferieed from the existence of another specified path between the same two nodes. Path-based inference rules may be written using a binary relational calculus notation. Node-based inference allows a structure of nodes to be knferred Erom the existence gf an instance of a pattern of node structu~es. Node-based inference rules can be constructed in a semantic network using a variant of a predicate calculus notation. Path-based inference is more' efficient, while node-based inference is more genera,l. A method is described of combining the two styles in a single system in order to take advantage of the strengths of each. Applications, of ~aeh-based inference rules to the representation of the extensional equivalence of intensional cohcepts, and to the explication of inheritance in hierarchies are sketched,</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="17" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> Abstract </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The I~ypothesis that pragmatic inferences @presented in ~ext are taken for granted, superficially processed, and not stably or enduring1 y represented in nlemory was invcstlgatcd. Stories were read which in sorne contii t i~ns contained inforniation vitiating the iniplicational force of explicit1 inferences.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> The vit iat fng informat ion was presented eittrqr before of- after thc inferences.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> In Experiment I, errors ir memory for the inferences were prevalent in th~ &quot;aftert' but not the &quot;beforet1 condition. Two kinds of errors were made: saying the inference had not been presented in the story; or, if it was remembered as having been presented, alter~ng the specific content of the inference to produce the opposite f what was actually presented. The latter errons produced coherence with tii'e vitiating information, and subjects were not able to differeptiate these errors from correct responses. In Exp~riment~ 11, the results of Experiment I were replicated, ar~d a &quot;spontaneous correction&quot; interpretat ion was rejected. The results of bath experimenlts combine to suppfct the hypothesis of superficial processing and unstable representat ion of expl ici t inferences. The resul ts proviae a l ink betkeen processes ~~curr ing at comprehension and recall in the State of Schema model of accomodative reconstruct ion.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> ~f technical expertise, even the criticism.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> Potential participants should send a $'letter of intent&quot; as soon as possible, but no later ~han February 1, I979 to Jay P. Lucas The letter should include an abstract and a brief biography PAPERS presented during the .Logram will be published. Potential authors will be mailed a Festival Author's Kit with instructions and materials. Papers must be received by March 15, 1979 in the specified camera-ready format. Authors will be notified by Kay 1, 1979.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> P&?ELS, TUTORIALS' AND TALKS: Session leaders should submit a brief abstrac: describing either the scope of the proposed session or the tentative title of the presentation by February 1, 1979. The prospective organizer should submit a list of proposed participants, their affiliations, and a brief biography of each,</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="18" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> FESTIVAL CHAIRMAN </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Propose a technic%k or panel session Volunteer to be a panelist.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Send ideas for topics, Suggest special activities.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="19" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> SUGGESTED AREAS FOR PART FC I PAT ION : MANAGElflENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS SOCIAL IlPLICATIONS GUIDELINES: </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> PAPERS: Should be previous1 y unpublished. Must be in final form with quality figures and tables. 411 papers will be r~efereed. 2500 words to 5000 words. S,ix copies of the paper should be submitted along with six copies of a title page containing a title, 150 word abstaact, 4 to 6 keywords, authr's affiliation, telephone number and mailing address.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> TECHNICAL OR PANEL SESSIONSr Proposals should include a topic description, suggested session chairpersons and presenters, panelists, and indication or importance of session and anticFpated audience.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="20" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> SEND SUBMISSIONS BY NOVEMBER 1, 1978 TO THE PROGRAM CHAIRMAN. </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> CONFERENCE CHAIRMANz Merlin G. Smith PROGRAM CHAIRMAN T.J. Watson Research Richard E. Herwin P.O. Box 218 Box 32222 Yorktown Heights, Washington, DC 20007 RE C 0 G N 1.T-I OIJ I1 E I10 RY SEMIONICS ASSOGIATES: TECHNICAL NOTE R~L ognition Memory (REM) Assoc~at ive hler~~oiy C't~i;~l~iitcr 111ctnc11 ici rii,~y bc dl\ ldt>J 1tlrc3 11s o ~..I\Ic I> ~CS, 011~' of ~~111ih 11.i~ l)ttcn .tl~ll~ct U17bno\\;n lip to now. c\r'cpt .inl\>ng \pz~i,lllgs In tI1c \+Y.II-LIIL~\\*II 11 pr ~tort~il it lbt~s Jrr :it L*L\\w~ by ilic.ins 'of tllrblr is tl~c :~tlJr~*ss I>LBIII~ 3 IIL~II~\\L*~ tI1;it tti~h11 t tfirs 111~ ,IOL tli~tl~l 111 w ll1k.h the Ilcni 1b 5t r)ft*d 1'111s i\ tllc type of- null lions of tkr t31itr)~) .;21<0, qix~ce the systcn~ is pt'ifthctly fleublc as to \!{hat it docs with the rcwlt E of 1 lie r~~c.c)gnltio~~ opcrat~on, we m:ly a~k it to rc.,id out ji~st a pc~rtion of (rather th,in tlw ~lholt. of) the q-\!alif>+ing entries (e g , just the nanlc dnd the Jclepllo~lc number) or ue m,~y altt.rndtivvly sprcify that some information is tb be K rittcn into some part of- the q~~al~fying entr~es, Qy illearls of the mi)lti\vrite oiwration Or, one field of the entry 111ig11t contiiin an ;iddress to a loiation in a disk flle wllcre Inore exteiisive information about the ~t~di\~~d~iaI is-stored.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Note that fqi~ctions such as those just described can be performed by ordindry computers; hut they ~tould be required to perforni starching opcrd tions in place of recognition, and ;i seriesaf ~nd~viduak write instr~~ctions in place of ~nulti-~i~te. The time of optmition is considtrably longer, and it increases sharply as the size of the file grows By contrast, a recopntze or multi-urjte operatlon can be perfor~n~d througl~out KEM about as fast as a read or write operatlon, and the time does not ~ncrertse wrtn the size of the rneniory.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> hioreover, for elaborate specifications such as that in the above illustration, tt~e~oftware can get qu~te complex in systems uith ord~nary (KASI) rl?ernones And rnore cornillex softwdre requires not only Inore human tirlle f+r its creation, but also marc nicnlory \pace It is pE course for just such reawns that wInr have been wlllihg to bulld,,and othersto buy, ;issoziati\tA procc54ors even a'y high prices Chat hdve prciailed untim</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> Masking </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> A nla\Fc may he applied to any of the REMfunctions, even to the ordinary locationacceqwd read :ind % r~tc operations The mdsk</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> <Section position="21" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 1 Sr </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> has the functior~ of hJocking out certain bits, so that they hre 1111affv~ted by the operation Any pittern of I 5 and 0's can be usedl as a niask the bit positions for which the mask has I partic~patr in the operation while those for: which the nurk has 0 arc n~asked out. 'The the Ieftnlost to he ignored by \+thatever ~t is used wlth. N'i th the 111ulti-write operation, this mask I+ ill allow dafd (0 or I ) to be I+ rit ten in tlie leftmost bit position leaving the other positions uncliangrd Such an operation might be used to flag all records whjch have ultisf~ed a preceding recognition upelation.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Effective masking of byic-sized units is also prov~ded for, but wlthout the need for okert mrtsks Since tj~e C~nf ral Proce~sing Un~t (CPU) operdtes upon only one computer word at a time. ~t sir~lply or-~tlts cons~dtr~tion of those ~vlllch are to be et'fe~tivcly masked This slnlple pr,lctice is followed in the abo9e ~llustration. in wh~ch certain entire fields (e g Last name'.) are ignored in specifling the recosnltlon criteria. At smaller lei els, bitn to the individual byte, it is just as easy to us? such recognition criteria as, for exanipleb (1) last n,me beglnning \wth B (all other letters dlsrcgrrd rd), (2) telcplione area cede 303, (3) first d~git of the zip code greater than or equal to 7 (4) fast nanlc Anders9n here ? indlcatcs uv~ld cl~aracter--i e , byte to be ignored) Complex Functions Syctemr \+bich have t-he ~~iipdb~l~ties dr\crlhed above arc ~alled Cont~nt- 4ddrcssablc Parallel Procc.s;ors&quot; (CAPP's) by Foster Such mach~ner arc qul te po~ er ful B)' ~II(C~H caving rtbcugwit~on 'ind multi-\+ r itc ~pc'r~itions, w~th appropriate use of bit-rndqhit~g, a CAPP is ahle to ric-hicte speeds, flcr;lbi11 t y, d11d pr~r~ril~t~rning easc well beyond t hc rlinze uf CL en. 1 ery l~rgc and cxpcn\ivc conlptitcrs of the con\ent~onal k111d.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Thus a recogmion opcrat ion, as already men-It 1c tlii~r c\,isy to IIILILI~IC ~*ltll2r*or t~nd~tlotls 111 the rccog~i~l~on c~itcria In the atjo\e cla~iipie, i~ist~~,~il of :1\L11ig for tilt' rt~orl1s of ril! ~L~T~OIIS li1111g in Ir~idr~a, OIIC c~j~~ld \ptbcify .-Iri~ona, New +l?\ico, or Colr>r,ido l'lic' 3ppropri~tc REV s) 4tc.111 s~il~rout i~le c ,in tllerl rn~tlti-\\~ite a fl:ig 111 :>I1 'rc.cords \trth Ar~/uria, then try Nciv ~IC\ICO rind tli~~l.ti-\+ rift3 rl flag 11-1 tllc cnlnc position of III~SL? rc~p~~lditlg r~~~)rtls, then lihc\\\ i\c for Colorddo; after \ililch those records nith the fl,ig ire the OIIGS s~tlsf! inp the ci~~jt~nctl\ cr~tenon Other conlplew opcrLitions made povible by the ~h111kcs of REV hcl~~de (1 1 incr~~~~~cntlng the count flcld of ,ill rc~orrfS rnect~ngsapeclf~t~d equ~p~iit.tit htlhides the CPU lor ~llffcrcnt applicdt~ons 111 the typi~al qtstrirq, the CPU is also contiectvd to some R.qhl (for progrdms and otllcr itifc~~~ndti:)~~ not rt-q\lirl+~lg the somewhat norc c\pcnclvc KC!!) and tn various pvripllcrsl Jt.\'~crs, such as d h~)bo,trd for input, CRT ~.~id/or pri~iter for output, ~i~id e~tcrndl stordge on 1,ipe dnd or disk X t\.pii~l KEhl Data Sys- null of jvo~c\cins and In SI;I~~~I~~L-,I;IOII of \oft\+.'ire. In aJditlor?, the ~nulfl-\\r~fe ~~ip(lbiiit) rind the ope.:a-tkil~ it rrl;ihes :I\ L~~lL~k~le. WLII 35 pl~~allt.I ail-ilrnetlc. open up n:~ \I\~J< in coinputc'r ctp;71~c ~t~ons \+II:zII ~IC.ISI~III!II~TS and ~!~>tr.n~ dt'slgi~crs \s 111 'IIC ~\rIorin$ Tor nl'in) 1 cars to cortle</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="22" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> PROGRAMMSNC REA </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> is easy! !!?henyour REM system is operating in REV mode - that is, executing a recognize or multi-write instruction - the CPU thinks it is dolng a write operation. The RE14 board converts it to the desired REM action For a recognize, the data written on the data bus by the CPU is a cornparand - the Ctem to be recognized. Further details axe given in the RE, Programmer's Manual, a copy of which is included at no charge with each order of 1 or more REV boards It takes only minutes to learn how to add REM operations to your repertoire if you are accustomed to programming machine language, assembly language, Bbsic, or what-have-you. You can use any assembler with REM, since all the CPU is doing is executing a - Identify all records which have a specified character sequence - Identify all records with zero (or all 1's) in specified byte position.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> - Compare (=,Z , or s) specified character string to specified field of all records, with responders Flagged.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> - Locate first responder (useful if there are multiple responders to a comparison) - Erase specified byte of bit position in all records, or in all tagged records.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> - Count number of bits in given byte position which match specified byte (for all records in parallel).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> - Identify the record having maximum (or minimum) value in speci fied field. (Very useful in sorting, or for reading out responders in desired logical sequence.) - IJrite specified data (1 to 255 bytes long) in all flagged records. (Very useful in sorting, of for reading out responders in desired logical sequence.) - Increment (or decrement) specified field of all flagged records.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> - Add (or subtract) specified binary number (1 or 2 bytes) to (from) specified field of all flagged records.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> - Add two fields (or subtract) within all flagged records. - Move data from one field to another within all PSLagged records.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> - Boolean operation on flages within all records The subroutine package for the 2-80 occupies 2K bytes of memory. An 8080 version (which requires 3K bytes) is planned for release in July, and this will be followed by an Alpha Micro version if there is sufficient demand. A higher level package for general applicati ~n in inPS ormation management is also in preparation. With or without the subroutine package, yoq will find that programming for a REM system is far easier in most applications than for pre-REM computers. Table loop-up becomes trivial, sorting and pattern recognition become easy. You get more programming done in less time, and the programs qccupy less memory space and run faster.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> And you are able to do more. Information systems can be morc flexible. REM makes it feasible to bring new sophistication into such areas as data base management, language data pr~cessing, and artificial intelligence.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> Onboard softhare is provided. One kilobyte of Jispla driver software, the Window Phcka e, is provided in {he baslc system directly on ,the boar8 ~n a 1K 2708 EPROM. This 3oftn.ar.e clef ines 20 ,user-callable functions that permit the definition and control of any number of ~nput/output tlwindowsn on the display screen; * The character generator is user-reproerarnmable. Srnce SCREENSPLITTER s character generator 1s a 2708 EPROM, the user may design and lmpleinent his own character set.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> The SCREENSPLITTER hardware is mounted on a s~ngle, high quallty S-100 corn atlhle PC board. The kit comes complete with sockets far all 4g ICf3, all dl screte components-, and 8 feet of coaxlal cable with connect,or.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> SCRLYNSPLlTTER occupies one slot of the host S-109 buss, re ulring agproxi~ately 1-5 smps at +8 volts, 100. ma at +18 volts, an! 100 ma at -18 volts (all unregulated). Virtually all 7480 serles loglc is low ower Schottky, and the board presents no more e than one standard TT load to the host buss. SCREEIJSPLI'I&quot;rEH1s output daka buss llr~es are capable of drlvlng 20 standard TTL loads. Table 1 llsts all S-100 lines used by SCREE'NSPLITTER. The text dlsplay buffer 1s 4K b tes of statlc RAM (8-2114's).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> Onboard softuare resides in a 2'108 E ROM with another 2708 EPROM servlng as tne character generator; The IK byte software 2708 mav be up radea to 2716 (f-or 2K of onboard software) via jumper recan !? ~guratlon.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> TV sync 1s generated by the Industry. standard I415320 sync generator, using an onboard 10 mhz,crystal tlme base. This, In conjunction w~th the use of s ncbronous counters In the dls,play loglc,,results in a very stab ! e and crisp display.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> For extenslbilit and corn atiblllty with other TV display systems SCHEENSPLIT'I' 8 R nakes ! he 14 si~nals shown in Table 2 available to the outslde via a 16 pln D'IP socket at the top of the</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="17"/> <Paragraph position="19"> SCKEENSPI,I'T'~'P;R 1s designed to be lo~ated In t t~c \lost syst c.~' 3 addt-css space on ari even 8K hau~~da~-y, ds s~luwn in Flgure 1 Addt-ess lines A15 A14 3nd A13 h1.e joltper s~~lcctable tlo allow user sclt?ctlon of the 8K b~~tlddf'y.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="20"> The dlsplay buffer qycar-s to the )lost CPU as a 4K block of 450 ns (or faster) st.atic RAM. 01.rani~at-ion of the dle lay hilffer is ns a 40 by 88 b te m-13ay. The ?wst 86 b tes of cat! line ond LO ri.lKBc -PI>~I II ~l:~~:-,ctvri, WI e n tile 87th b te l lne ident lficat-isn-, etc.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="21"> r unuc,?b &quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;'&quot;~ e, and i he 8 th byCe :~vallabI e to the user for ~n ,crl-ial To write a ch3:-~c.ter onto the scl>trcn the host s stem stores r an ASCII code Ln the eppruprlate array cell. Hence, a though the h'lndow Paelage 1s ordlnarlly used for a11 dls *ay control, the 4K dlsplay buffer 1s dzr>ectly- accessible to the P lost ' sy t em. If dvslred, the host can actually use SCREEXSPl.i'lrPER's %K ststlc HAM dlsplciy buffer for corlputing during pe!llocis for wbich a tn~an~ngful displdy 1s not req~lired.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="22"> The Xlndow Packngc softxal-e 3pglears to the host CPU as a 1.K block of 450 ns EPRCIM, sltuated ln the first 1K of the 4~ block of oenory i~~n~diately below t,he dlsplay buffer In the host's address space. Thls 1K is fully decoded, so that the user can ma ?K bytes of hls own RAM in the unused portion of the lo~er 4R 6locic. Users ~ho prefer to situate the Wlndcw Packege elsewhere In memory can do so ,(after softhare relocation) b disabling the-onboard 2708 EPROM. In thls case, SCREENSPLITT E R occuwes only 4K of the host system's address space (st111 on an even 8~ boundary).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="23"> Eecause the entlre dlsplay buffer 1s mapped lnto the host's a5dress space, relatively b1 h s eed dls la tr~nsactlons can occur (see the Product Spec1 !! ~ca ! lons). b' ~RL~!~SPLITTER'S clrcultry 1s deslgned to permit the host CPU to run at full speed wlth no walt states, and has loglc for suppressing the whlte-on-black l1snowV often associated with such unmpeded buffer access. A jumper perrnlts optlonal introduction of one walt stste for memory accesses, making SCREENSPLITTER fully cornpatlble with 2 and 4 mhz 280-based systems. as well as 8080-based systems.</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> Physical </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> SCREENSPLITTERts Window P22kage software module 1s su plied {p a prepro-ri~~d 2708 EiROM, orlglned at any requqted 8E boundary. klnce the klndow PscAa 708 1s j~~~er-d~g,ra?able to a co-c.nenied source code llst lrlgs for the 4 byte k'lldow Xhckage, as well 3s the 'dlrrdcw F-lzkage User's 1:2~~1?1 and Appllcatlons idates, are provided with both Llts and ass~mbled 11n1t.s. , Addltlonall hex llstlngs and lctorial plots of the character generator EBROM~~ are provlded o facillt ate user develop~ent of in host add-e?s srace.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> ::le ctr~?rhrd iilnljow Packrige deflr~es 20 uxr-callable functions f~r ca:l:?-nlliqg :ind wrl t ing to the ,$lfipla buffer (see Table 3).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Tibe ttislc un:t or c~nt,l-ol 1 s the wln?~. tlrtual ly sny number of I (rectsr~gular subregions ofthe screen) can be defined and ~~~.it-;r,,?ept ly controlled. A11 status lnformntion for each hlndow :s in~llt ?lr,.d in the wlndowts wil~dow cj~-s$_r_1p-b-r Ueck -(luDB), an I1 tytp blilck of' hAM supplied by ale user dt fie Elrnexe window 1s i,jt.:,,?d (ilggr-e 2). In all tt.rar~sactions with ~indcw fl~nctions, the L,rt?r ic7dd~ the addfess of soinc kDB into the HL re ~ster, loads any a ;:::*lin'?tirs into rc$~sters B, C, D and b, then GALLs the Logical ~c.s:red hlrl\j~\w fur~et Ion. Window FacAclge fttnc tlons generally dt.sLr oy all r-2glster-s.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> Kith the exsoption of two references to the display buffertz l1:122t1on In the host address space the Wi~ljcw Package 1s I -c~nt,:ant, 2nd ~-equir*$s less tnan 64 bytes of system sLack to run (A spi.'clal, fully reentrant verelon of tk~e iiindow Packcige that cont -013 nult lple SZFIEEVSPL~'~&quot;~'ER dlsplays from a single 1K EPROM Each window deflnes a rectangular region of the ais lay scrzen from size 1 by 1 up to 40 by 86. Each vlqdcw can &e canlpuiated Independently from all other wlndohs. Overla ylng E wlndows are perrnltted, but operations on a w;ndow take p ace wlthout re~ard for posslble effects on any overlapping windows, Each wlndow has its own set of pnr.^v:let ers gaernlng: 1. whether the window's tl urdground 1s reversed (black text on whlte bsckgroun 8 2. aiizther the wlndow bas a frarrie (iislble bgrder) 3. whether the window's cursor 1s Vl-srble 4. what character is to be used 3s the kinSodVs cursor 5. hhether the cursor displaying technique 1s to prlnt the cursor character at the cursor location, or slmply to reverse the f~gur>e/grounu of the character at the curtsor loci t I on 6, whether the wlndow 1s to be held (by callin a user-specified &quot;hold processoru) at scroll finie during output bursts 7. the type and degree of scrolling (pop-up or wraparound) the wlndow wlll perform at wrndow-full tlme.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> Lpdir.idnmr Rackage Functions </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> All the following functions perfoa error checkin&; detection of an er31*oneous request occur-s before any alterat ions o window descr-lptor blocks or the vislble dlsplay &re made.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="3" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> Tpens a window of size DX rows by DY columns with top-left </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> carner at screen row X, screen colfimn Y; initializes the nindowb window descriptor block, WDB; does not clear the reg ion.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> CLEAR ( ud b) mars the window and resets the cursor to the top left, FRAME(wdb ,hc ,vc ,cc) Tzrres the Mlndow, uging HC for the top an8 bottom borders, VC for the left and right borders and CC for the-four corners; reduces tne window's interior region by two characters in each dimension, and clears the winaow.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> UNFRAME(wdb) Hernoves the window's frame (if any); if removed, increases the window's interlor b$ two characters in each dimension and cl~ars the window.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> LABEL(wdb,str,len) the window has a frame, prints the st-ping pointed to by STR, of length LEN, centered on the window's top border. LABELS(W~~, str) dehaves identically to LABEL, except that the string is terfinated bt the string terminator character (octal 3771, so tha a lengt parameter 1s not required.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> CURSORCH(wdb ,ch) ~efices CH to be the window's cursor character; autoaatically cosp1eir;ents CH ~f window's flgure/ground is reversdd. SCROLL(wbd ,n) yxs the ~lndow's scroll p3rarneter to N (0 $or wraparoclnd greatzr than zero for Ksllne pop-up).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> PRINT(wdb,str,len) -Tints the string pointed to by STR, of length LEN, to the window, -starting at the curr6nt cursor osation; LEN Kay be from 0 (no characters prlqted) to 65,53g; the cursor is forced to the beginning of a fresh line aft&quot;er ~ne print. PRIN(wdb,str,len) Fehaves identlcall to PRINT, except that the cursor is not forced to a fresh' 5 ine after the print, PhI%TS(wdb ,str) henaves ~dentlcally to PRINT, except that 'the strln is terrninztpd by the string tcrrrinator clJa:-acf er (act a? 377), sc that a l2ngth par+a:ncter 1s nat required, PRINS(wdb,str) -maves identically to PRIN, except that the string is terminated by the string terminator character (octal 377), so tk,at a length parhmcter 1s not required.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> Selcntlflc) are available, each defiq~ng 32 useful sq~bols In the otherwise, non-printbing first 32 ASCII codes.# rln APL chdracter generator 1s availzble opt,ionally.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> The standard font 1s an aksthstic upper/lower case design, wlth underhang for the lower ca$e cnaracters whlch require it. Any character can be deflned as an 1nh3rently w~nklng character by progreuinlng high bit 6 of each of the chsracterls scan 11~~s In the 2708 character generator. In faat, slrlce each scan line has ~ts om wlnk bit, it is possible to generate partially wink~n characters. (There are two in the Gra hlcs charact,rr set.) 5l&s 7 and 8 of each scan llne in the chhrac f e@r generator, not used by SCBECNSPLITTER, are made aJallable externally for user extensions (Table 2).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> The high-order blt of each byte in the 4K TV dlsplay buffer In thls application, each irr~porthnt subroutlne and function 1s s~signad ~ts own prlvate wlndow. As ~t runs, ~ach subroutlne or function ca? output trace ~nforrnation , status irldlcatlons or user prorrpts through ~ts own ulndow. The visual effect would be fiurrles of actlvit from window ta wvldow, cach lndep ndently scrolling, flashing etc. T K 1s provides a very effective Kay to see &quot;ln two dir,cnslcnsn exactiy wljatTs golrlg on lnside your pro rams. User tyyeln can be dlrected througn indlvlduzl wlndows, giving t E e illusion of rr.aklng it posslble for the user to coriv?rse wlth components of a large system lr~depc-ndently.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> 2. As a Debugging Dlsplay System In thls application relevant status information concerning the executlo~ of a program (as output by a debugglrlg packege) 1s dls layed through P nux3rous wlndows. One wlndow, for example, could dlsp ay the rc lster and e accunulator contents; another could display the top N items on t ,e s~stem call stack; another could flash up ~nterru ts as they were serviced; another could dlspla a selected portior. oP central nrmory, such as a F critlcal array; anot ~er could dlsplay a real-time/rur,-tlme clock. You could even do all these thlngs lr~dependent~ly for a nuvber of subroutines, presentin and recording, say, the re ~srers and accumulator as they uere at subrou f ine exlt time, You could a y so arrange to have the nornsl 1/0 of your program appear in one wlndow, with debugging rnformatlon popping up through another wlndow beside 1t when requested.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> 3. As a Easls for Controlling Several Keyboards In thls application, there are several keyboards, each with ~ts own-wlndow, as might be useful ~n multiple player computer games. Each player h.ould have hls own area on the screen, into which all lnput typed b hlm wo~ld be il echoed, and to whlch all output dlrected at him would be writ en. Undbp certaln circumstances, a player might be given access to another player's window or &quot;partyn wlndous mlght be established to comblne the inputs from several users into a sangle window.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> 4. As a Easls for Advanced Page-Orlented Text Edltlng In thls zppllcation, entlre pages of text are displayed on the scrcen In one relatively large wlndow As ou decide to nlove paragrzphs o,r lines around, ou issue corr,cands to plcg up a paragraph or line aqd plice lt in e sifiall~r Koldlng wlndow. As ou rurr.maSe through the rfialn Klncow looking for the >pot at hnlch to lnsert fhe llne or paragraph, the holding wlndow rcdaalns flxed. Flnall you issue a corr~~znd to Insert the contents of the hoidlng window at a srY4cted point In the main one. The ~dit or would perhaps be capable of dl-rectlng ~ts pdltln powers at the text In any window, so that you could also modlfy the fine or paragraph in the holding wlndow before reinserting it intc the maln wlndow. Plso, u~ing the M0VEWIbII)OW functlcn, you could actually lay out h screen of text (as it, is about to be pr~ nted on a-hard-copy device) by ~~ovlng 2;lragraph-slze ch~nks of text 5round. Mcanwh~le, of course thcre*cc~uld be a very :mall wlr,dow up In the korr~er containing a real time cl9ck tlcklng ahay! 5. As a Easls for Networking and Concurrent. Processing In this appllcatlon, you might wlsh to be dolng local cur11 utln , but rcrcaln connected to some external computer (over the phone lines7 or &o a ~~rtg~icr n~twork of other ersonal rcachlncs qzmllar to yours. One l*lndow would then be reserved for a !? 1 1/0 ~n your local compuiatlon, wlth add~t,~onal wind~ws through whlch cc~rrIrnunlcat,son wlth the external cocput,ers could occur. You TI ht allocate one window for each other ~ersonsl co~puter attached to the f i nc work. Thls would enable you to keep a 1 the 110 to the various cmrnunlcating co~puters separate from each other, and L,r arate from your This documerrt is a brief introdilct ion to Carnegie-Mellon University's il~teractive con~p~terized m~rltilitrg~ral dictionary. It describes the use of Rhis cfictionary both by translatots in the course of their vjork and by the irr~rinologcs~s responsible for updating and maintaining it. This discussion is placed in the context of the overall effort (known as the target Project) to provide attls to translators. A final seclion presents the solution to the problem of representation bf term equivalence adopted in Target. 1. The - - - -- - Target --- ---- Project -- - --- null Tarfict -- is an intcrdi~~ciplinary research project undertaken jointly by the Translation Center and the Department of Computer Science at Carnegie-Mellon University to invcstlgate ana develop computer aids for langua~e translation. Sincc high quality automatic trdnslat ion does not seem to be immediately realizable, our efforts at introducing computerizahon into the translation task have been directed towards providing practical aids for translators. Workin6 with the assumptioil that each t ran5lator ca'n be provided with a standard video terminal connected by a dial-up line to a remote c~ornputing facility,2 we are exploring primarily two aids. They are (1) an interactive multilineual dic tidary. and (2) an environment consisting of (1) plus text rnar\iptrlation facilities within a windowed page editing environment. The latter research will be described in a future AJCL paper; this document justifies and descrihrs only the former, how it ii accessed and how it is built up and maintained. ' It 1s nn nrnondnd vsrslon of .n informal deecrtptlon of ihs TARGET and TLRMIN protrams d~rnonstrstsd 84 the Fere~gn Rroadc~st Information Servlc~~ eemlner on Alda 10 T~RTIB~R~O~B, Wsihingfon, DC, Mayq 1970 The rfinf~furalron in dally uee by the Tranelnl~orr C~tlter ri CRrnea~s-Mellan Unrvere~ly involves r Lerr Siogler ADM-3 t~rminal connected by a 300'baud d~al up !me \a e POP-10 run under the TOPS-I0 operaling aystsm by the Computer Sclencfi Department ~nd shared e~multaneouely by user8 worklnt on many d~ffstent ptojectr The prima y hotivation for the iriterilctive dictionary is that a technical translator may sperid up to 60% of his or her time simply looking up terms. This may include unsi~crcssful searches in several tfictionaries, partly because these dictionaries are out of date by ttie time ttiey are publisli~d. An interactive computerized dictionary would provide effectively '%mmediatcw access to entries and moreover could be kept constantly updated at the central computing' facll~ty.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> Currctitly the diclionary contalris spccial~zcd terminology in English, French and German in a number of fields Spec~al~nc! terminology was chosen because this is often most helpful in practice to the professional translator and also because this is wl~ertt the benefits of st ar~dardization could be most immediately apparent The lang~ia~cr, were chosen because they are the most immediately useful in the Local en\lironnicnt, as were the fielcls (mainly finance, business and iron, steel and mining fechnoloey).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> The next section shows in some deta~l how a translalor would access the dictionary and ck~termine a correct eqirivalcnt The section after that describes the facilities used to maititain and augment ttic d~ctionary The interface to the dictionary described in the nc.xt two sections reprr~~ents the fruits of continual close cooperatioh over an extenclcd period of trme brtween researchers from the Computer Science Department and from the Department of Modrr6n Languages Such coopc&quot;ration, while it presents many problems initially, is a sine qttn nor1 of success in a venture such as Target. Wliile perfornilng initial sttrd~er, for the represcntat~on of equivalence between terms tho most central relation in a rnt~ltiline,ual dictionary -- we have departed from the common practice of using an alingcral set of concepts realized differently in different 1angt~ap.c~ Close examination qtiow~d tlint 'ltii5 could not accommodate some nuances of meariiriy, in disparate langilagcs ancf warb* not precise enough, for making inferences wlicnl a particular equivaler~ce was not already present in the dictionary. Moreover, it was found to be less efficient than another method which was investigated and ult inlatcly adopted. Some arg~rrncnts proposed for adopting this different method are set fortli In the final section of this document 2. The. --- TARGET -- - --- Program - ---TARMT ----- -- is also the name of tlie program used by translators to access the entries in the dic tionary while doing their tr arirlat ~on work This section describes how it is used. Thc ilttlstrations are exact traces of the interaction between the program (in a roman font) atld the translator (in an italic font).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> We are first asked for the term names and the languages we wish to translate From (6.e. the source languap,e) and To (i.e, the target language): Termt bond From Laaquaget en To Language! fr Now, if there is only one equivalent for that term between those languages, we shall get that equivalent directly. In this case Me have a choice to make:</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="4" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> Select Codei </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Let us say the article we are trarislalitlg is in Chemistry. Then we just rype rne appropiate code. TIIC~C are in parcnthcscs in the example and are the same codes as used in the EEC's Euradicautom sy5tem. Here we select a code: and we shall get the appropriate fiche: We lia\le been told that the -,amp cql~ivalcnt is used for both chemical, and nuclear bonding Had ttierc been furtl~br information, such as a usage sample, a definition or a note, we would have been askcd wl~etl~cr we wanted to see it with the question More? Answering yes would show th~ information to us.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> After this first use, Target arlsumcs ttfat we are translating from English to French (to enter a form) (to leabe TERttINI (to qst term and term Information) (10 revise or attgmenf entry) (to delele arr enjt y) ( to l is t lerms ~n one 1 anqi~age) (to get tat-get language equivalent) (to reco1.d s~5s ion) (to mate hardcopy of a term) (to mabe hardcopy of a whole dlctlonrry) (to correct faully dictionary) (to recober space used by deleted and updated entries) (to ex'ecuto a command f i lo) (to start using an Uption) (to stop using sn Option) Ttie TARGET program essentially just repcats the TERMIN command of the sape name I hf3 rommancis are tllc larti,rt furicttonal utiitr, in trr tns of which we interact ~ifh thr clic tionnry. Wc use them when cntrrinu new terms (C~scate Entry), editinp, existing terms (Edrt Entry), printine dictioriarirs? (Dictronary Hardcopy), etc. -- a-nd in fact for everytliing we do with thd d~ctionary. A short dc~~riptlon of the use of each command follows An example pale ie reproduced ir) an Appendix, exactly ~IJ il wan ~r~nlmd by our Xerox Grmphica@rlnter</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> <Section position="23" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3 1 Help </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> This provicfes on-line access to written comnients on various aspects of the use of the TFRMIN program by terminologists All of the twenty or so tekts which may be acccsscd in this way were writtcr~ hy the termtnologists (who also ordered the list of cornmat~ds as above and provided the brief description beside each one).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> >lie I p He lp ant altorlng ALfERING is a uay to cot'rect errors ui tl~o~t typing the whole 1 ine again. You can use It hy using the Option RLTFRING before you use th~ Command EDITr >start altsrlnq ~ed l l nLlER1NC ulll contitiu~ t~ntil you eqit from the proqram. 14 you uant to go back to the regular way of edi tlnq before than, do >stop a1 toring This le a silmmarg of RLTFR mode commandsr cSPflCF RnR, : addanre the cursor by one character control-14: bark crp ona character (same as rubout or B~J D r Oalete the nevf charactat-J t Join this llne uith the next, ie. delete the next carriage-rettrtn In the text H r Tqpe this help tevf</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> uord, startlrig ultl~ tlm nnrt one FSC> t escape from inqsrt mode (-<ALT>) Tllic, command is i~cd to crcatr tirw rntrics in the dictionary for terms which have rjol. yrfQbeen entered Let us quppor.c llrat we have prepared a fiche specifying the equival~nt in French of the Encl~qh t~rm bot~d appropriate for the field of Chemistry. Space coristra~nts prevent a dct ailccl cic~cription of the interactions lead~ng to the entry of this term into the dictionary, but the follnw~ng is a trace of the process: R~ferencs Terms: bond i nq enerqy 7 here iq otily orie Equivalctit, onr Ficlri Code and one Reference I erm for bond at this po~r~t. More conlplcx cntricc,, wit11 tnorc of ttie optional term information, will display all thaf irifor~ation ac well Rctr,rvo Entry shows all the information there is for bond; only portions may be displayed w~th the Target and Ed~t Entry commands. 3 5 Edit Entry Th~rc is a number of rcasolis why ~t may be necessary to edit an entry. Perhaps the perr,on who cntercd it mad a typo, pcrt~ap~ it is ncccsqary to extend an entry to incl\lcjr~, ..ay, a Usage Satnple (or per liaps to replace the old one with a better one) or perhap., a new ftct~o mirst be rr~lcred for an exlstlng term.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> Clcdotc _tl7~-Cltl~ocie. S~~ppor~e that further investigation of the term bond has r~vcalecf that the same Frcnch cak~~valcnt 15 also used for the &quot;bond&quot; holding the nirclcirs of atoms together as for the clectronlc bond which keeps different atoms together. Had this been known when the orig~nal fiche was created, it would have contained two field codes, cli4 and at8, We need to update the original entry. Add o. New f-~chc: The term bortd is also irsed in financial and commercial circles (among others ), but here the e'quivalents in French are not liaison So we can enter a new fiche for this term.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> LIelottrtg --- -- - o Fichg: It is occar,ionally necessary to delete a llche within a term, but not ttie whole term.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> Ed~t Entry is used to accomplish all these functions. It is the major tool used in maintainhe the dictionaries.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> with tttc exception that in TARGtT if an abort character cm is typed in answer to the Tcrnt: protnpt, the progam exits; in TERMIN, an r;~ at this point gets us back to the commanrl prompt ></Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="24" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3 9 Record Transaction </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> This command is 115cd to keep a record of the intcract~on between the program and the rlwr It is ~rsccl for t,tt~c!yirre, how ur,ers interact with the system in order that it may l~ecorne better ta~lorcd to tlirir ticcdr, (All of the examples in this document were drawn tlirectly from rccortlt, madr in cxactly ttiis manner). Each interaction between ttic syr.lem and the user may a1r.o bc t~med in the record by using the Tinung option.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> This pro\/itl~s an extra tool for st~~tlyine haw the system is used in practice. It is also usefill for some purposes to he able to annotate a record while it is being produced.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> TEHMIN will ignore afiy line beginning with a semi-colon: >I Thls shows that commonts gnt Into the record 3 10 Term Hardcopy Thir. command it, used to pr~nt a spcc~f~c term In the same format as that of the terms in the Appcnchx Tl~cl file j11st g~ncrated conta~ns formatting information AS well as the term itself. It must be conzprleci by the PUB document formatter 3 1 1 Dictionary Hardcopy Th~s 15 like Ternr Hardcopy, but thr! program w~ll select the terms for us and put thetn in alphabct~cal order. We can choose the language, the initial two letters of the first ~ntl la5t terms, atid can also rcstrtct the f~elds for the terms, by specifying a set of ficlcf codes -This allows us to make selective microglossaries, choosing perhaps just tl~ose terms relevarit to to the Petrolccrm Industry or Medicine. Here we illustrate obtaint~~p, an entire dictionary One pae,e of it is reproduced as an Appendix.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> This file must be formatted with the PUP document compiler. The title page of the hardcopy will describe any limits we may have imposed on its contents.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="25" start_page="39" end_page="39" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3 12 Regenerate </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> This command is *used to re-c:.tablish the links between the various files which coot a~n t t~e dictiot~flry. They can hccorne incorrect when the computer crashes while certain operations are being pcrformcd, or when there are problems with the system.</Paragraph> </Section> class="xml-element"></Paper>