A New Look at Old English Metrics

In this paper I propose a scansion of Old English alliterative poetry in terms of a binary branching template. The analysis builds on work by Halle and Keyser (1971) and Maling (1971), but has two advantages over these analyses: (a) it provides a natural explanation of many apparently irregular verses, and (b) it makes more accurate predictions of the relative frequencies of different verse types

Adjunct infinitives in English

This thesis is essentially a comparison of various optional infinitive clauses in English. The purpose clause, shown in (1), and the rationale clause, in (2), have literatures of their own; the clause in (3) has been discussed under the name objective clause by Faraci (1974), though later authors have identified it with the purpose clause. (1) Sue built the extra room (to hold her sewing supplies); (2) Mary sold her car ((in order) to pay the rent); (3) We brought Sam along (to amuse the children). I argue that there is indeed a distinction between a purpose and an objective (which I call a goal ) clause; in fact, at the VP level we may distinguish at least five different optional infinitive constructions. (4a-e) show infinitives which I refer to, respectively, as purpose, result, goal, exchange, and stimulus clauses. (4) (a) Sue built the extra room (to hold her sewing supplies); (b) John awoke (to find the fire had gone out); (c) Sam came along (to look after the children); (d) They gave Sue ten dollars (to pose with a cobra); (e) Mary blushed (to recall Tom\u27s importunities). Rationale clauses, of course, are S-level infinitives and do not belong to the paradigm shown in (4); still, there is more than one kind of infinitive possible at the S level. (5) compares a rationale clause ((a)) with an outcome clause ((b)): (5) (a) I gave Scruffy a biscuit ((in order) to keep him quiet); (b) Mary escaped (only to be recaptured). Each of these seven infinitive clauses has a different semantic relationship to the main clause; however, I claim that none of them has inherent semantics or even a unique syntactic structure. On the contrary, I suggest that all adjoined infinitives are basically the same infinitive, with its semantic force determined by its syntactic context: the attachment point of the adjunct, the structure of the main clause, and the antecedent ( controller ) chosen for the adjunct\u27s subject position

Automatic Extraction of Facts from Press Releases to Generate News Stories

While complete understanding of arbitrary input text remains in the future, it is currently possible to construct natural language processing systems that provide a partial understanding of text with limited accuracy. Moreover, such systems can provide cost-effective solutions to commercially-significant business problems. This paper describes one such system: JASPER. JASPER is a fact extraction system recently developed and deployed by Carnegie Group for Reuters Ltd. JASPER uses a template-driven approach, partial understanding techniques, and heuristic procedures to extract certain key pieces of information from a limited range of text., We believe that many significant business problems can be solved by fact extraction applications which involve locating and extracting specific, predefined types of information from a limited range of texL The information extracted by such systems can be used in a variety of ways, such as filling in values in a database, generating summaries of the input text, serving as a part of the knowledge in an expert system, or feeding into another program which bases decisions on it. We expect to develop many such applications in the future using similar techniques

Penetrance and Expressivity of MSH6 Germline Mutations in Seven Kindreds Not Ascertained by Family History

Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is caused by inherited mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes, most commonly MLH1 or MSH2. The role MSH6 plays in inherited cancer susceptibility is less well defined. The aim of this study was to investigate the penetrance and expressivity of MSH6 mutations in kindreds ascertained through endometrial cancer probands unselected for family history. Detailed pedigrees were constructed for six MSH6 mutation carriers. All reported cancers and precancers were confirmed, and tissues were obtained when available. Tumors were analyzed for microsatellite instability (MSI) and for expression of MSH2, MLH1, and MSH6. MSH6 mutation status was determined for 59 family members. Of these 59 individuals, 19 (32%) had confirmed cancers and precancers. There was an excess of mutation carriers among the 19 affected family members (11 [58%] of 19) compared with those among the 40 unaffecteds (8 [20%] of 40, P=.0065, odds ratio = 5.5, 95% CI = 1.66–18.19). In four of the seven tumors analyzed from mutation carriers other than the probands, MSI and/or MMR protein expression was consistent with the involvement of MSH6. Overall estimated penetrance of the MHS6 mutations was 57.7%. Of the tumors in mutation carriers, 78% were part of the extended HNPCC spectrum. This study demonstrates that MSH6 germline mutations are, indeed, associated with increased cancer risk and that the penetrance of mutations may be higher than appreciated elsewhere. A combination of MSI and immunohistochemistry analyses may be helpful in screening for MSH6 mutation carriers