File Information
File: 05-lr/acl_arc_1_sum/cleansed_text/xml_by_section/metho/94/c94-2192_metho.xml
Size: 24,761 bytes
Last Modified: 2025-10-06 14:13:46
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <Paper uid="C94-2192"> <Title>Breaking Down Rhetorical Relations for the purpose of Analysing Discourse Structures</Title> <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="1177" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 2 Basic Framework </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> In RST, 24 relations are divided into two groups: pres<ntational relations and subject matter rchdious. According to Mmm and Thomps(m \[Malta and Thompson, 1987\], subject matter relations are those whose intended effect is that the reader recogldses the relal;ion in question and presentational relations are those whose intended eft'cot is to increase some inclination in the reader. Moore and Pollack \[Moore and Pollack, 1992\] eotllllletll, i;hai; subject matter relations are infof mational and l)resentat,ional relations are intentional.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Table 1 shows what kind of inclination each presentational relation is inI;ended to increase. One can see that tile detinitions are highly abstract and have not,hing to do with the surface realisations of the relations.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> On the other hand, it has been observed that there are wu:ious surface cues in texts which are useful \[or ideld;ifying inl;er-senl, enl;ia\[ (or inter-clausal) units. Ilalliday and llasan \[llalli(lay and llasan, 1985\] identitled a set of linguistic devices for linking one part of a text 1,o another, such as reJcrcnce, subslihtlion and ellipsis, conjuncliou, and \[exical cohesion.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> From the view point of text processing, these linguist, it devices can be used as cues tor segment.ing a text into structural units (Satellite and Nucleus). However, these cues hardly give any clue about which clause of a unit is Satellite, which clause is Nucleus, and which relations and their iuclination type ldnd of inclination ability of R to comprehend an element potential ability to perlbrm action iu N desire to perforln action in N belieJ' of N readiness to accept writer's right in N positive regard for situation presented in N positive regard tbr situation presented in N RS relation combines the two clauses into a single unit. For determining these, we have to look for other kinds of surface cues.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> Because RS relations are delined pragmatically, their ultimate recognition requires understanding of texts which in turn requires detailed knowledge about the world. Furthermore, the condition that the presentational relations are inherently intcutioual, implies that their recognition requires knowledge about the writer's intention, l)lans, etc Because this kind of information is implicit in texts, its recognition often causes prohlelns. null Ilowew, r, though the writer's intention is implicit, certain linguistic devices give us chtes to infer it. Modality inforntation in a clause, for example, expresses the writer's attitude, toward an event/state described, attd therefore, often gives us clues to recoguise a I{S relation.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> Let us consider the following two examples: (1)' 1 am preparing documents tbr a meeting.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> (2)' 1 have to send them to the head office.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> Though these two examples describe pairs of similar events, the relation between (1) and (2) in l~3xample 1 is (temporal) Sequence (a subject matter relation) because they simply describe two events which happened in sequence. On the other hand, in l~3xample 2, (l)' describes an event occurring simultaneously with the utterance, and (2)' concerns what the writer plans to do. While the two events, preparing documents and sending them, may halH)0.n in this sequence, the rela1;ion is not regarded as Sequence but as Background. (2)' gives the reason why the writer is perfomling the action described by (l)'.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> This change of I{.S relation occurs due to the difference of ,nodality of (2) and (2)'. Our basic elai,n in that, though they cmmot determine RS relations uniquely, inlbrmation of modality and tense of clauses imposes significant constraints on possible I{S relations, and, being used together with other surface cues like clausal conjunctions, it; Call reasonably restrict a set of possible discourse structures of texts without resorting to detailed knowledge about the world mid the writer's plan.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> IIowever, the contribution of modality and tense to the constraints of RS relations is uot straightforward. Both these granunatical \[i~'atures are intertwiued with the propositional content of clauses. There\[ore, in of der to formulate the co~,straints on them properly, we have first to reveal how the intended effects of RS relations can be attained. This leads to our breaking down single RS relations into sets of subschemas, each of which is formulated in terms of the semantic relntionshil)s between propositional eontents of clauses, their modality and temporal relationshil)s.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="4" start_page="1177" end_page="1778" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3 Properties of Clauses </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Like Mann and Thompson, we use clauses as the basic constituents which are related by RS relations, except that clausal subjects and completneuts and restrictive relative clauses are considered parts of their host clause. The constraints which we formulate for each RS relation are exl)ressed in terms of propcrtic,s of clauses. In order to express these eonstra.ints tbrreally, we first introduce the l)asic terms.</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="1177" end_page="1778" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 3.1 Contents and Modality </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> A clause comprises its Contents and Modality. Modality is the part which expresses the writer's attitude toward the Contents.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> While individual languages have their own linguistic devices or grmmnatical forms of modality, what sorts of modality are exl)ressed by such linguistic devices does not vary from one language to another. For example, although the major linguistic device for nlodality are modal auxiliary verbs both in l,'mglish anil in Japanese, some kinds of modality expressed in Japanese by modal auxiliary v('.rt)s are expressed by lexical verbs in English, and vice versa. 1 Furtherntore, we find nla, ny phrasal or quasiq)hrasal expressions which consist of several words, and which collectively express the writer's attitude toward lhe event/state described. In order to treat them, we adopt a semantics-based view tbr the delinition of Modality. That is, we treat expressions which concern the writer's attitude as modal expressions, whichew;r linguistic forms they may take. We \[irst establish a classification schema of Modality based oH semantic considerations (See Section 3.3) and then treat all expressions whose functions can be classified under this schema as modal expressions.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (/<intents <)f a clause is delined as the part which relna.ills aft, el; r(:lllOV0,l of |;be \[llod\[ll ex|)uessiOll. (~olltents COll\[,aiIl exl)ressi(>ns COilcerllillg t.ellSe gild aspect;, which also cont.ril>ute l;o I,he specification of constraints on RS relations. The same discussion as the above can be applied to Tense and Asl)ec|: , so that all expressions whose timer|on is to express tenq)oral aspects of chmses are, regar(llessly of their actual forms, treated in tim same classilication schemas. Tense/Aspect are represented as properties of (k)nl;eni.s (See Section 3.2).</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="1778" end_page="1778" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 3.2 Properties of Contents </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Conl;ents is the tnaitl part of (?l;ntse of which a truth wtlue can be esl, ablished. (1onl,ent.s is characl, erised by l,hree al;l, ril)ut, es: 7!qpc, Time and Quality.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> (a) Type The truth value of Contents changes according to the time axis. We can think of two time points, 1, and tb, where the Contents C is true during the time interval between t, and t~. l)epending <m the t, eInporal nal;ure, we classify, Conl, elltS into the tbllowing four classes.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> * Slalic t, -- undef, tl, - undef, (/(t) = t;rue (1. < t < / 0 * I)wralivc 1, = de.f, tl, = def, C(I) = t,r,te (t. < +. < l,,) * Repetitive 1,, = def, tl, =- del!, (/(ti) = true (t a &quot;< it -( t 2 <~ ..t i < ,.. < I u <~ lb) * No~-rcpetitivc l,, -- def, tb :- def, CT(ti) :- true</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> In the above, l,t/b -= under in SI,al,i(: means that.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> the i;rul.h wdue of (~olltelll.S does not; change.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> (b) Time The temporal nature of C, ontenl,s is also classified in terms of the speech time, 7's, as tblh)ws.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> We llse the fi.)llowing nol;al;ion 1;o specil~y a temporal relationship hetween two Coul,enl.s (Cl and c~).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> (\]oIll;ellt;S is also class|lied according to whether l;he writer believes it; is good or bad. This classillcw tiou is represented by the attribute Quality (qty) whose vahle is either good or bad. &quot;~ 3.a Properties of Modality Concerning modality, a number of criteria have been prol>osed. Palmer \[l'ahner, 198(i\] took the same semald;ics-based view of Modality as we discusseJ\[ in Section 3,1, though he hardly extended his analysis to cover l)hrasal <)r quasi--phrasal expressions. We adopt his <:lassitication scltema and modify it. lie class|lied modality into Epistcmic modality and l)c.outic modality. Epistmnic Modality is concerned with language as intbrmation, with the expression of the degree or m~ ture of the writer's commit, ment I;o the truth of whal; s/he says. I)eontic modalii,y is concerned with language as action, mosl;ly wil.h the expression by the.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> writer of his/her attitude l,owards l>ossil)le ael,iolls hy him~herself and others, Epistemic modality is class|lied according to l.hc degree of the writer's commil.menl; 1.o I,he I.rul, h of Conl;enl.s, as \[bllows.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> l,)vidc nlial ( M-ep,:,,i ) The truth condition of ('(ml,enl;s is based on evidence like sensory evidence or linguistic evidence ConJidenlial (M-ep,:o,J The truth condition of Contents is based on tJm degree of confidence expressed by the writer.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> lnfercnlial (M-epi,~l) The truth eondil,i(m of (~Olfl,elfl, s is based Oil a I'e;l-soning rnle of the wril.er and inferred from the other \['a (:t.s.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> A ssu mp tivc (M-cp ....... ) The l;rui,h condition of Cold;cuts is I>ased on some assttml) l.ion.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> 'Fhe degree of the writer's eolmnitment to the (,ruth 1,ecomes weaker m the order of l,;vident.ial, Cotdiden tial, lnti,rential, Assumptive. In the following sections, we use &quot;~&quot; and &quot;~&quot; to indicate this ordering. means that the degre.e of the writer's commil,me:nt to the truth (>f (Jontenl.s C'~; is higher than or equal I.o the degree of the wril,er's commitmenl, to the (.rlll.h of (~ont.enl;s (/.v.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="16"> 2When the writer does not, think that hls/her judgement is obvious for readers, s/he usually exl)resscs tl m ju(!genmnl; by Mudality. Thcrefi:a.e, riffs attrilmte has a wdue only when 1he jtt(|g(:lttent c&ll be. made hased on COlllIllOH S(:\[IS(~ kllow}.edg(L Volitive is concerned with a possible action or situation which a writer is hopiug or wishing to occur. There are two kinds of attitude; possible (%') and impossible ('-').</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> <Section position="5" start_page="1778" end_page="1778" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> * Directive (M-dedir) </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Directive is concerned with an action which a writer tries to gel others to perform. Though Directive is fiu:ther classified into Permission and Obligation, their distinction is not relevant for our purpose.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="6" start_page="1778" end_page="1778" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> * Commissive (M-de ..... ) </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Commissive is concerned with an action which a writer commits him/herself to perform or to ellsure that an event takes place.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Request is concerned with an action which a writer (:an ask others to do.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> modality In l)eontic modality Ewfluative and Volitive are concerned with a writer's attitude toward Contents whic\]t has a truth value. Therefore, clauses with these modalities can also have Epistemic modality. If a clause has any of the other values of Deontie modality like Directive, etc., the Clause has no El)istemie modality as such. floweret, for the sitnplicity of formulation in Seetion 4, we assume their Epistelnic modality value to be Confidential .:3</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="7" start_page="1778" end_page="1778" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 4 Breaking Down of Rhetorical </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"/> <Section position="1" start_page="1778" end_page="1778" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> Relations </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> In this section, we will show how Background, Enablement, Motivation and Evidence of the presentational relations are broken down into subschemas, and give forlnal representations of their constraints. The coltstraints comprise (a) Semantic Relationships between Contents of the two clauses (b) Constraints on Time 3This is not inappropriate because it is considered that a writer COltltnits the action in the Clause with full confidence in his/her action.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> (c) Constraints on Modality.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (b) and (e) are expressed by using a characterisation of clauses of Section 3. We first show the framework for (a) and then give the actual breakdown of presentational relations.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="1778" end_page="1778" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 4.1 Semantic Relations </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> By semantic relationships between Contents we mean the relationships between states/actions/events described by Contents in the extra-linguistic world. 4 As we nee ill Example I and 2, even when two actions seem to stand in the same semantic relationship, they can be used to attain dilferent effects on a reader by adding different expression of a writer's attitude as Modality or putting them in C/lifferent temporal relationships.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> We classify semantic relationships into five categories, four of which also are subject matter relations in RST. That is, if two Contents are presented without any Modality, they stand in the corresponding subject matter relations. We use the following symbols in their definitions.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> A/~ causes a situation change froln b'i to Sj. If a Contents states that Ak causes a situation ,5'j, Si will be omitted.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> Clj is held true or acceptable m the environment stated in N. If Clj expresses a situation, this relation is the same as Circumstance.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> * ,5'i ~- CIj Clj is held true or acceptable, if ,5'i is true. If CIj expresses an action caused by El, this relation is the same as Cause aud Result.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> Si has the possibility to resolve the problem stated in Aj. This relation is the salne as Soluliouhood.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> * ci~cj Ci presents additiouul details about Cj or is inferentially accessible in Cj in one or more ways. This relation is the same as Elaboraliou.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> 4 One may argue that such relationships have to be called pragmatic, ttowever, we adopt a rather narrow definition of the ternt praflmatic and a broad definition of the term semantic. We llSO, tn'agr~atic ollly when it co(lcertls effects Oli. Feadel's or the intention of the writer. The rest, like relationships held in the extra-llnguistic worhl, are called *emantic issues.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="3" start_page="1778" end_page="1778" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 4.2 Subschemas of Presentational Re- </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> lations in RST We show breakdowns of follr l;ypical preseid, ai,ional relations inl, o theh: subschenias and stal,e their eonsl;raints lnore |ornially. The subscripl;s of &quot;uu&quot; and &quot;sa&quot; nleans Nucleus alid Sal,ellite, respectiw;ly. 1. Tiine and st)~ce situal,ions are stated by an action hi Sai,ellite, ~tlld Ultder l:hese sil, tlal;lons ;ill acti()rl in Nueleus becomes possit)h,.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> 00 s,,-(A~deg)~ &, .s'~ I- A ....</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (I,) A.. << A ....</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> (ll,~ u I)eeolnes (,rue while D'l is true. Then, l, lle I, ilne o\[' Asa is I)efol:e tl,,u.) (e) A,<, >-- d ..... M~. m {M-ep,:vil ..... IinYl ...... } \[If A,, u beconies possible in the environ.lileni; giwm by Asa, then the inodalit,y of A~. shouhl be more cei't, aiii I,han l,hal; of A,.,.) 2. 'l'inie and space sil, ual;ion ;ire st, alied in Sai,ellite, and ulider t, he sil,ual,ion all acl, ion in Nll(',leus I)e-C(llilOS possibh< (.) &. I--= A ....</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> (b) ,%<, << A ....</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> (c) S~,, 7- A .... M.<,, 6 {M-.cp,,,,i I ...... I/nil ...... } 3. Satellil;e lireseill,s addii, ional iilforinal;ion 1,o undersl, and (JOlll,elil;s ill Nu(:leAls.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> (..) c~<,-~ cD,,, (b) .o (c) M,,a C {M.-C/F,,~,,il ...... Ii,,fl ...... }, M .... ~ {M-el.',:,,i I ..... Ii,, s'l ....... } (Both (~iauses will be understood ;in t, ruc., so they haw~ to haw'~ l,ruth wdue.) 4 An actioli in Nueleus has l,he possibility to resoNe a, ii undesir~d)le sit,ual;ion which is caused 1)y an ae--Lion ill Satellii,e.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> 00 ,% -( .1,~ <, ) ~ ,S'I \['#:) : #'<'(4, A .... ~ ,<>', (b) A~<, << A ....</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> (c) M~,< ~ {M-cv,:,.i .... } (Asa is ;~,11 event,, which has occurred or is occurring, or a writer is eonfident about the ew~nl,. A writer inl,ends t,o do A,~u t,o resolve ~t l)robhmi ea~use(l Asa.) 5. Nucleus st;al,es all undesiralJe sil, u~fl;hm caused 1)y aliol;her ulidesirabh~' sil,ual,ion slal,ed in Satellil,e. 0') ,S'.,,\[qt:/: I><,< 4 t~ ,S',,,,\[qty : ~'<'<4 (I,) .%,, << ,s',., (e) S,<, > S, .... M,, ~ {M-ep,.~d ..... I~,,s'l ...... }, M,,,, ~ {M-ep~,, d .... b,41 ...... } An action in Nuch;us call resolve an uitdesirable situation stated in Sal, ellitc.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> 0~) ,%<,\[<#v : I,,,<4 --(A,.,)~ &\[q<,s : voott\] (I,) &,, << s ....</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> (e) M~<, < {M-cp,,,,il .... Ii,,II ...... } 7. An action in Nucleus is caused by a situation in Satellite.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> (~) ,%. I A ....</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> (I,) ,%. << el .....</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> (c) ,%. _>. A ..... M~. < {M-ep~:,,q ..... ti,~/t ...... }, M,~,, C {M-tp<,.,i I ...... \[i.fl ....... } 8. Based on *t sitm~t, iou which in caused by an actkm ill Satellite, a writer's a.t,l, il;ude sl,~ted hi Nueleus is a.ceepta,lde.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> (,~) ,%.'..,<, V: '::t .... o,: S.,, l= CZ ..... 0,) no (,:) ,%,, >_ s,,., M.. < {M-cp.,q .... t~,,Sl ..... ), A4nu C {M-tic ...... i,,ollm,. I ...... i,.<:q} 9. Based Oil a jlidgelliei/l; si~tl;ed in Sal,ellite, it wril,ei:~s aiA, il, ude sta.lied in Nucleus is aeeepl;able. (~) Cl~,< l- C/ ..... <)r (:,'l~<, t- c;I .... (i)) no (,:) :VL<, < {M-d<: ..... }, A'I,., ~ {M-de. ..... i~,<>tl,Url ...... I,'~v} 4.2.2 l'\]nal flenmnt 1. Nucleus stalx~s an aetion which will I)e perforined by a reade, r, and the action becomes possible by presenting the situation in Satellite.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> (a) ,%,, l- A ....</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="16"> (b) .%. << A...</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="17"> (When ,%a is presenl,ed, An. becomes possible. So, l, he time of ,%. is before ,4...) (e) M,. C/i {M-cp,.,,i I ....... }, M,,. G {M-dc,m.I,.~,~} (,%. already exists or will exist, so 3',,a has the possibility to ha, ve tru0~ vahle. If I%, is l, rue, A .... becomes possible~ ~qo, ,%. should be more cerl, ain titan A ...... ) 2. Nucleus sI,~i,es an action which will be performed by a reader, ~md l;he acl;ion becomes possibh~ by presenting the sit,tmtion which is caused by an action in Satellite.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="18"> (.) .%-~&<,)~ &, & F A ....</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="19"> (b) A,,, << A.., (c) M,. e {M-cv,;,, d .... }, M.,, e {M-dc,u,,I,,,:~/) 1181 4.2.3 Motivation 1. An action stated in Nucleus catlses a good situation stated in Satellite. It is considered that tile situation motivates the reader to l)erform the action. null (a) So-(&,,)~ &,,, ,%,\['~0 : good\], actor(A ..... Reader) (l/) &,, << ,%,, (~) m.,, e {~-eV~.o,,,~,,~l ..... }, 2. An action stated in Nucleus causes a bad situation stated in Satellite. It is considered that the situation motiwttes the reader not to perform the action.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="20"> (a) So-(A,.,)~ S. a, S,,,\[C/,y: b,,al, actor(d ..... Reader) (b) A .... << ,%.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="21"> (c) M~a d {M-ep~o,qinjl ...... }, M,., G {M~de~.~.looqai,. I ..... l,'~q} 3. Satellite states some attributive information related to an action in Nucleus, and the information may be desirable for Reader.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="22"> (a) &,,\[qO : qoo,q ~ A ....</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="23"> (b) no (c) Ms. ~ {M-ev,:< .... I~,,Vl ....... } 4.2.4 Eviden('e (a) c.., I- c,., (h) c., < c;,,, (~) M,,, e {M-ev.,d, M.,, e {rv~-eV~o,,>,~}</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> <Section position="8" start_page="1778" end_page="1778" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 5 Examples </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> We, will show au example of a text structure analysis.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Figure 1 shows a sample text from a leading article in a Japanese newsl)a.t)er '5~ and 'l)able 2 shows the attributes of each sentence. The discourse structure of the sample text is shown in Figure 2.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> In this example, the following relations are analysed as l/resentational relations. The mm~ber attached to a relat;ion name shows the sul)schema number of the relation.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> * Background(8) between '1-2' and '3' Sentence 3 has Evaluative modality al)out the situation '3' (economic crisis) and ii; is based on the situation of 'l--2' (drop of dollar). These satisfy the eonstraints of the 8th subschema of Background.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> * Background(6) between '4' and '5-6' Tim semantic relation is that a bad situation in sentence '4' (unsettle market) will be resolved by pertbrming an actiou in '5-6' (show a resohtl, e attitude). Sentence '5-6' has 1)irective modality. These satisfy the consl;raints of the 6th subschema of llaekground.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> * Background(g) between '7' and '8-.9' The situation '7' (dollar is a key) is held true, so Contents '8-9' (effect of bad inlhmnce) is true. These satisfy the constraints of the 7th subsche.ma of llackgrou,M.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> ,C/'Jelltctlce '7-9' states a bad situation (ell'eel of bad inlluence), aml the acl;ioI/ ill '10' (re-solidi\[}/ their coopcral, ion) has l,hc lmssibilil.y t,o clmnge Ihc situation. The writer iv requcst.ing the other countries to take this actitm. These saPSisl'y the coustraints of the 2ml sul~schema of Motiwltiou.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> * 13aclcgromM(9) I,ctwcen '1-3' and '4-10' The request in '4-t0' (re-solidify their cooperi~lion) iv based on the .}tldgcllleltl; eft'l-3' (~ wi'il;er's ewdual.ion o15 I, he ecotloluic crisis). T\[lcse satisl~z the const,rainl,s of the 91,h subschcn,a o1&quot; \[lackgr<mnd. null</Paragraph> </Section> class="xml-element"></Paper>