| { | |
| "paper_id": "T75-2005", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T07:43:25.017858Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "ON UNDERSTANDINGPOETRY*", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "D", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "L" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Waltz", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Illinois Urbana IL", | |
| "location": {} | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "T75-2005", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "Take for example the following sentences:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2) John is a physician.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(3) John is a Renaissance man.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the first sentence", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2), it seems that parsing plus simple semantic mechanisms can extract much of the meaning, if one assumes that \"x is a y\" means \"x is a member of the set of all y. (1973) , Abelson (1973) and McDermott (1974) as well as the already mentioned work of Charniak (1972) and use its knowledge of rg_c_q~ to produce a new frame for raise (cattle). Schank's system can also draw inferences from sentences, e.g, \"The corn will become ripe,,, \"John probably wants to eat the corn,\" etc. Third, while Schank has done work on piecing together sentences which form a coherent and expected discourse (a process he calls knitting), he has not to my knowledge worked on attempting to fit together apparently unrelated follow-up sentences.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 165, | |
| "end": 171, | |
| "text": "(1973)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 174, | |
| "end": 188, | |
| "text": "Abelson (1973)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 193, | |
| "end": 209, | |
| "text": "McDermott (1974)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 251, | |
| "end": 266, | |
| "text": "Charniak (1972)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Indeed, without much more detailed frames for words, I believe that there is no way to understand the more tenuous connections between ideas that we discover routinely every day.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "I would like to thank Andrew Ortony for suggesting a number of the ideas in this paper to me.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Acknowledgement", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "The Structure of Belief Systems", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "R", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "P" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Abelson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1973, | |
| "venue": "Computer Models of Thought and Language", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Abelson, R.P., \"The Structure of Belief Systems,\" in Schank and Colby (eds.), Computer Models of Thought and Language, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "Paradigms for Sentence Recognition", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Celce-Murcia", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1972, | |
| "venue": "UCLA Dept. of Lingustics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Celce-Murcia, M., \"Paradigms for Sentence Recognition,\" UCLA Dept. of Lingustics, 1972.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "Toward a Model of Story Comprehension", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "E", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Charniak", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1972, | |
| "venue": "MIT AI-TR-266", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Charniak, E., \"Toward a Model of Story Comprehension,\" MIT AI-TR-266, 1972.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "TABREF1": { | |
| "num": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"5\">complete representations. As such, the full meanings of words rarely become evident. overhaul or forcing together of existing Let us consider some examples which require</td><td>Sentence (6) supports the original assertion and we have no literal language for the behavior gives a particular instantiation of the general concept of \"Renaissance of thought; to say that \"the thought escaped man '~ appropriate for John. I believe that me\" is still to rely on a metaphor.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">structures. An accident occurrence immutable natural laws. is an due to the -Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's inevitable action of Dictionary What makes this funny is that it points out a conflict between essential facts in</td><td>sentence (3) Finally, analogies sets creating or teaching new frames. up something are useful While the like for account below is invented, I have had a number of such exchanges with my daughter. skeleton of a frame for \"Let us now reconsider sentence When one says Adult: A veterinarian is a doctor for animals. that \"John is a physician,\" the (2). does one merely set up in the hearer Child: Does he give the animals links between lollipops? Does he use a two nodes named John and physician? Consider the following sentences: stethoscope? etc.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">\" (like A up our frames which explain mechanisms properly set \"member\" system Raphael personal embodying (1968)) and actions, these could and our frames which explain physical events. One cannot simultaneously hold the view that accidents are the result of random chance and the view that \"God does not throw \"superset\" links between John and physician. I will argue later that this analysis of meaning is dice,\" yet we do. A system which is not aware of the humor in this unresolvable conflict cannot be said to understand the insufficient, but for now let us assume that it at least captures much of the passage. intended Inebriate of air am I, meaning of this sentence.</td><td>(7) John is a physician, Clearly what is happening exchange is that the child is creating a new but he in such an does not know much about medication. (8) John is a physician, but he frame for veterinarian, and is testing to does not mind taking orders. see just how much can be transferred from her doctor frame. Questions often center on I believe that these sentences illustrate the fact that things that are difficult to imagine transferring, e.g., an animal eating a in understanding \"John is a lollipop. physician\" one is not merely setting up a assigning to John a number of default link between two nodes but is in fact Relatio________nn t__go Current A_!I</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">However, such an analysis will suffice for sentence (3). Partially because membership in the not \"Renaissance men\" is not neatly delineated clearly Why not? set of as is membership in the set of physicians; And debauchee of dew, Reeling, through endless summer days, From inns of molten blue. -Emily Dickinson, from \"I taste a liquor never brewed\"</td><td>contrast, since one would expect a physician attributes of physicians, i.e., the hearer takes the word physician to refer simultaneously to an entire complex A number of pieces of research, the on conceptual dependency diagrams of of attributes, knowledge, actions and attitudes. Thus (7) provides a reasonable Schank et al (1973), Schank (1973), the work work on belief systems of Colby</td></tr><tr><td>it</td><td colspan=\"5\">would seem exceedingly strange to set up</td><td>to</td><td>know about medication.</td><td>A listener might</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">a single node \"Renaissance In order to understand this passage one in a semantic net labeled men.\" Another reason is that the sentence seems to really be a force together frames for drinking statement of the speaker's opinion, and immoderately must invoked by inebriate, as such a debauchee, r eelin~ and inns and for hearer would need to have separate nodes for \"Harriet's list of Renaissance experiencing nature, invoked by air, dew, men,\" endless summer days, and molten blue \"Lyndon's list of Renaissance men\" and so on for each speaker who (skies). (See Charniak (1972) for a has so classified a person to the hearer. Of course this discussion of the difficulty of invoking a too seems ludicrous. The underlying frame when it is not mentioned explicitly by meaning conveyed by the sentence is not purely name.) In this case note the difficulty of a matter of opinion on the part of saying something similar in a sentence: \"I the speaker, but something like \"John get drunk from experiencing nature\" does not is knowledgeable and seem to produce anything like the same accomplished in a number target structure for me, probably because I of different fields,\" a matter (potentially) testable by the hearer. am not forced to interweave the two frames That this is the true import of the sentence can be as I am in the poem.</td><td>infer from (8) that the speaker that all physicians resent taking orders. presupposed But more than presupposition of the speaker is at work here; the sentence (9) John is a physician, but he resents taking orders. seems a ludicrous contrast, almost like \"He may be fat but he runs slowly.\" One thing we know about doctors is that they ordinarily do not take orders, so it is quite plausible that they might not like to take orders. The point here is that even such unlikely inferences as (8) seem to be included physician.\" That there is a limit to such automatically in the sentence \"John is a</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">demonstrated by the fact that A great deal of communication, not only</td><td>inferences is illustrated by the fact that</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">(4) John is a Renaissance man, poetry, depends on the use of analogies but he akin to the example in above. Ortony (1975) has no knowledge about AI. has postulated three main functions which</td><td>(10) John is a physician, but he low bowling average.</td><td>has</td><td>a</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">provides metaphors (as well as similes and analogies) a reasonable contrast serve in language; first, they allow one to propositions, whereas transfer large amounts of information from</td><td>of</td><td>and (11) John is a physician, but he</td><td>has</td><td>a</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">(5) John domain spelling out all the details; is a Renaissance one to another without explicitly man, but second, they Harriet doesn't think so. allow one to communicate the otherwise</td><td>high bowling average. both seem equally to be non-sequiturs.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">inexplicable; and does not seem to be a reasonable contrast. third, they often make distinctions more vivid by adding otherwise</td><td>Understanding Poetry</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">missing interest. perceptual Sentence (4) suggests something else of or emotional content. His examples further support the general After thesis of large amounts of knowledge being</td><td>The types of language difficult for us to understand which</td><td>are may best most</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">potentially (3) John is a Renaissance man. attached to each word. instance.</td><td>For</td><td>illustrate the must be attached amounts to words and the methods of knowledge that</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>for combining this knowledge or transferring</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">we expect something like (12) The thought slipped my mind like a</td><td/><td>complexes</td><td>of</td><td>knowledge</td><td>from one domain to</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">(6) He squirrel behind a tree. plays oboe in</td><td>the</td><td colspan=\"2\">Boston</td><td>communicates another (as in metaphor). familiar relations, events and Everyday language</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">symphony, physics, one to best-selling won has express the novels, the Nobel Prize in written fact that 30 and are sometimes elusive, quick, won the 1972 U.S. Demolition deceptively easy to catch, camoflaged, enables thoughts etc. Derby and to say so in a very compact fashion. Championship. Such an idea cannot be stated directly since</td><td>attitudes, and does so in familiar ways. the terms of this paper, the target In structures of such communication already exist as frames which need only instantiations and exceptions to become</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>22</td><td>21</td></tr></table>", | |
| "text": "Renaissance man\" as its target structure, leading one to expect further explanation or expansion to fill in the empty slots of the frame.", | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "html": null | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |