We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Stories are typically represented as a set of events and temporal or causal relations among events. In the metro map model of storylines, participants are represented as histories and events as interactions between participant histories. The metro map model calls for a decomposition of events into what each participant does (or what happens to each participant), as well as the interactions among participants. Such a decompositional model of events has been developed in linguistic semantics. Here, we describe this decompositional model of events and how it can be combined with a metro map model of storylines.
This chapter reviews the research conducted on the representation of events, from theperspectives ofnatural language processing, artificial intelligence (AI), and linguistics. AI approaches to modeling change have traditionally focused on situations and state descriptions. Linguistic approaches start with the description of the propositional content of sentences (or natural language expressions generally). As a result, the focus in the two fields has been on different problems. I argue that these approaches have common elements that can be drawn on to view event semantics from a unifying perspective, where we can distinguish between the surface events denoted by verbal predicates and what I refer to as the latent event structure of a sentence. By clearly distinguishing between surface and latent event structures of sentences and texts, we move closer to a general computational theory of event structure, one permitting a common vocabularyfor events and the relations between them, while enabling reasoning at multiple levels of interpretation.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.