article

Anaphora and Discourse Structure

Authors:

Alistair KnottAuthors Info & Claims

Computational Linguistics, Volume 29, Issue 4

Pages 545 - 587

https://doi.org/10.1162/089120103322753347

Published: 01 December 2003 Publication History

Abstract

We argue in this article that many common adverbial phrases generally taken to signal a discourse relation between syntactically connected units within discourse structure instead work anaphorically to contribute relational meaning, with only indirect dependence on discourse structure. This allows a simpler discourse structure to provide scaffolding for compositional semantics and reveals multiple ways in which the relational meaning conveyed by adverbial connectives can interact with that associated with discourse structure. We conclude by sketching out a lexicalized grammar for discourse that facilitates discourse interpretation as a product of compositional rules, anaphor resolution, and inference.

References

[1]

Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer, Boston.

[2]

Asher, Nicholas and Alex Lascarides. 1999. The semantics and pragmatics of presupposition. Journal of Semantics, 15(3):239-300.

[3]

Asher, Nicholas and Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

[4]

Asher, Nicholas and Michael Morreau. 1991. Commonsense entailment. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI'91, pages 387-392, Sydney, Australia.

[5]

Barwise, Jon and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4:159-219.

[6]

Bateman, John. 1999. The dynamics of "surfacing": An initial exploration. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Levels of Representation in Discourse (LORID'99), pages 127-133, Edinburgh.

[7]

Bierner, Gann. 2001a. Alternative phrases and natural language information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Toulouse, France, July.

Digital Library

[8]

Bierner, Gann. 2001b. Alternative Phrases: Theoretical Analysis and Practical Application. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.

[9]

Bierner, Gann and Bonnie Webber. 2000. Inference through alternative set semantics. Journal of Language and Computation, 1(2):259-274.

[10]

Byron, Donna. 2002. Resolving pronominal reference to abstract entities. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting, Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 80-87, University of Pennsylvania.

Digital Library

[11]

Clark, Herbert. 1975. Bridging. In Proceedings of Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing (TINLAP-1), pages 169-174, Cambridge, MA.

Digital Library

[12]

Clark, Herbert and Catherine Marshall. 1981. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Aravind Joshi, Bonnie Webber, and Ivan Sag, editors, Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pages 10-63.

[13]

Cosse, Michel. 1996. Indefinite associative anaphora in French. In Proceedings of the IndiAna Workshop on Indirect Anaphora, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, England.

[14]

Creswell, Cassandre, Kate Forbes, Eleni Miltsakaki, Rashmi Prasad, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber. 2002. The discourse anaphoric properties of connectives. In Proceedings of the Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, Lisbon, Portugal.

[15]

Dale, Robert. 1992. Generating Referring Expressions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

[16]

Dale, Robert and Ehud Reiter. 1995. Computational interpretations of the Gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions. Cognitive Science, 18:233-263.

[17]

Eckert, Miriam and Michael Strube. 2000. Synchronising units and anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 17:51-89.

[18]

Forbes, Katherine, Eleni Miltsakaki, Rashmi Prasad, Anoop Sarkar, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber. 2001. D-LTAG system: Discourse parsing with a lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar. In ESSLLI'2001 Workshop on Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics, Helsinki, Finland.

[19]

Forbes, Kate and Bonnie Webber. 2002. A semantic account of adverbials as discourse connectives. In Proceedings of Third SIGDial Workshop, pages 27-36, Philadelphia, PA.

Digital Library

[20]

Frank, Anette and Hans Kamp. 1997. On context dependence in modal constructions. In SALT-97, Stanford, CA.

[21]

Gardent, Claire. 1997. Discourse tree adjoining grammars. Claus Report no. 89, University of the Saarland, Saarbrücken, Germany.

[22]

Grosz, Barbara and Candace Sidner. 1990. Plans for discourse. In Philip Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pages 417-444.

[23]

Hahn, Udo, Katja Markert, and Michael Strube. 1996. A conceptual reasoning approach to textual ellipsis. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 572-576, Budapest, Hungary.

[24]

Hardt, Dan. 1992. VP ellipsis and contextual interpretation. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Linguistics(COLING-92), pages 303-309, Nantes.

Digital Library

[25]

Hardt, Dan. 1999. Dynamic interpretation of verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22:187-221.

[26]

Hellman, Christina and Kari Fraurud. 1996. Proceedings of the IndiAna Workshop on Indirect Anaphora. University of Lancaster, Lancaster, England.

[27]

Hobbs, Jerry. 1985. Ontological promiscuity. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 61-69, Palo Alto, CA. Morgan Kaufmann.

Digital Library

[28]

Hobbs, Jerry. 1990. Literature and Cognition. Volume 21 of CSLI Lecture Notes. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA.

[29]

Hobbs, Jerry, Mark Stickel, Paul Martin, and Douglas Edwards. 1993. Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 63(1-2):69-142.

Digital Library

[30]

Hockenmaier, Julia, Gann Bierner, and Jason Baldridge. Forthcoming. Providing robustness for a CCG system. Journal of Language and Computation.

[31]

Isard, Stephen. 1975. Changing the context. In Edward Keenan, editor, Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pages 287-296.

[32]

Jayez, Jacques and Corinne Rossari. 1998a. Pragmatic connectives as predicates. In Patrick Saint-Dizier, editor, Predicative Structures in Natural Language and Lexical Knowledge Bases. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pages 306-340.

[33]

Jayez, Jacques and Corinne Rossari. 1998b. The semantics of pragmatic connectives in TAG: The French donc example. In Anne Abeillé and Owen Rambow, editors, Proceedings of the TAG+4 Conference. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.

[34]

Joshi, Aravind. 1987. An introduction to tree adjoining grammar. In Alexis Manaster-Ramer, editor, Mathematics of Language. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pages 87-114.

[35]

Joshi, Aravind and K. Vijay-Shanker. 2001. Compositional semantics with lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar (LTAG): How much underspecification is necessary? In Harry Bunt, Reinhard Muskens, and Elias Thijsse, editors, Computing Meaning, Volume 2, Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pages 147-163.

[36]

Jurafsky, Dan and James Martin. 2000. Speech and Language Processing. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Digital Library

[37]

Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

[38]

Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, Reference and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.

[39]

Kibble, Rodger. 1995. Modal insubordination. In Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, Selected Papers from the Colloque de Syntaxe et de Sémantique de Paris, pages 317-332.

[40]

Knott, Alistair. 1996. A Data-Driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh.

[41]

Knott, Alistair and Chris Mellish. 1996. A feature-based account of the relations signalled by sentence and clause connectives. Language and Speech, 39(2-3):143-183.

[42]

Knott, Alistair, Jon Oberlander, Mick O'Donnell, and Chris Mellish. 2001. Beyond elaboration: The interaction of relations and focus in coherent text. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, and W. Spooren, editors, Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pages 181-196.

[43]

Koller, Alexander and Kristina Striegnitz. 2002. Generation as dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 17-24, Philadelphia, PA.

Digital Library

[44]

Kruijff-Korbayová, Ivana and Bonnie Webber. 2001a. Concession, implicature and alternative sets. In Fourth International Workshop on Computational Semantics, Tilburg, the Netherlands.

[45]

Kruijff-Korbayová, Ivana and Bonnie Webber. 2001b. Information structure and the semantics of "otherwise." In ESSLLI'2001 Workshop on Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics, pages 61-78, Helsinki, Finland.

[46]

Lagerwerf, Luuk. 1998. Causal Connectives Have Presuppositions. Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague, the Netherlands.

[47]

Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Digital Library

[48]

Luperfoy, Susann. 1992. The representation of multimodal user interface dialogues using discourse pegs. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 22-31, University of Delaware, Newark.

Digital Library

[49]

Mann, William and Sandra Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243-281.

[50]

Marcu, Daniel. 1999. Instructions for manually annotating the discourse structure of texts. Available from http://www.isi.edu/~marcu.

[51]

Marcu, Daniel and Abdessamad Echihabi. 2002. An unsupervised approach to recognizing discourse relations. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting, Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 368-375, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Digital Library

[52]

Modjeska, Natalia Nygren. 2001. Towards a resolution of comparative anaphora: A corpus study of "other." In PAPACOL, Italy.

[53]

Modjeska, Natalia Nygren. 2002. Lexical and grammatical role constraints in resolving other-anaphora. In Proceedings of the Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, Lisbon, Portugal.

[54]

Moens, Marc and Mark Steedman. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(1):15-28.

Digital Library

[55]

Moore, Johanna and Martha Pollack. 1992. A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discouse analysis. Computational Linguistics, 18(4):537-544.

Digital Library

[56]

Moser, Megan and Johanna Moore. 1995. Investigating cue selection and placement in tutorial discourse. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting, Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 130-135, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Digital Library

[57]

Moser, Megan and Johanna Moore. 1996. Toward a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 22(3):409-419.

Digital Library

[58]

Not, Elena, Lucia Tovena, and Massimo Zancanaro. 1999. Positing and resolving bridging anaphora in deverbal NPs. In ACL'99 Workshop on the Relationship between Discourse/Dialogue Structure and Reference, College Park, MD.

[59]

Partee, Barbara. 1984. Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7(3):287-324.

[60]

Polanyi, Livia and Martin H. van den Berg. 1996. Discourse structure and discourse interpretation. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, editors, Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 113-131, University of Amsterdam.

[61]

Prince, Ellen. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness and information-status. In Susan Thompson and William Mann, editors, Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fundraising Text. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pages 295-325.

[62]

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartik. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. Longman, Harlow, England.

[63]

Scha, Remko and Livia Polanyi. 1988. An augmented context free grammar for discourse. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING'88), pages 573-577, Budapest, Hungary, August.

Digital Library

[64]

Schilder, Frank. 1997a. Towards a theory of discourse processing: Flashback sequences described by D-trees. In Proceedings of the Formal Grammar Conference (ESSLLI'97), Aix-en-Provence, France, August.

[65]

Schilder, Frank. 1997b. Tree discourse grammar, or how to get attached to a discourse. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computational Semantics, Tilburg, the Netherlands, January.

[66]

Steedman, Mark. 1996. Surface Structure and Interpretation. Volume 30 of Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 5, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

[67]

Steedman, Mark. 2000a. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 34:649-689.

[68]

Steedman, Mark. 2000b. The Syntactic Process. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Digital Library

[69]

Stokhof, Martin and Jeroen Groenendijk. 1999. Dynamic semantics. In Robert Wilson and Frank Keil, editors, MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, pages 247-249.

[70]

Stone, Matthew, Christine Doran, Bonnie Webber, Tonia Bleam, and Martha Palmer. 2001. Microplanning from communicative intentions: Sentence planning using descriptions (SPUD). Technical Report no. RUCCS TR68, Department of Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

[71]

Stone, Matthew and Daniel Hardt. 1999. Dynamic discourse referents for tense and modals. In Harry Bunt, editor, Computational Semantics. Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pages 287-299.

[72]

Strube, Michael. 1998. Never look back: An alternative to centering. In Proceedings, COLING/ACL'98, pages 1251-1257, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Digital Library

[73]

Traugott, Elizabeth. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester, England. Revised version of (1997) available at http://www.stanford. edu/traugott/ect-papersonline.html.

[74]

Traugott, Elizabeth. 1997. The discourse connective after all: A historical pragmatic account. Paper presented at ICL, Paris. Available at http://www. stanford.edu/traugott/ect-papersonline.html.

[75]

van den Berg, Martin H. 1996. Discourse grammar and dynamic logic. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, editors, Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 93-111, ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.

[76]

van Eijck, Jan and Hans Kamp. 1997. Representing discourse in context. In Jan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic and Language. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, pages 181-237.

[77]

Venditti, Jennifer J., Matthew Stone, Preetham Nanda, and Paul Tepper. 2002. Discourse constraints on the interpretation of nuclear-accented pronouns. In Proceedings of Symposium on Speech Prosody, Aix-en-Provence, France. Available at http://www.lpl. univ-aix.fr/sp2002/papers.htm.

[78]

Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

[79]

Webber, Bonnie. 1988. Tense as discourse anaphor. Computational Linguistics, 14(2):61-73.

Digital Library

[80]

Webber, Bonnie. 1991. Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6(2):107-135.

[81]

Webber, Bonnie and Breck Baldwin. 1992. Accommodating context change. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 96-103, University of Delaware, Newark.

Digital Library

[82]

Webber, Bonnie and Aravind Joshi. 1998. Anchoring a lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar for discourse. In COLING/ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, pages 86-92, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

[83]

Webber, Bonnie, Alistair Knott, and Aravind Joshi. 2001. Multiple discourse connectives in a lexicalized grammar for discourse. In Harry Bunt, Reinhard Muskens, and Elias Thijsse, editors, Computing Meaning, volume 2. Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pages 229-249.

[84]

Webber, Bonnie, Alistair Knott, Matthew Stone, and Aravind Joshi. 1999a. Discourse relations: A structural and presuppositional account using lexicalised TAG. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 41-48, College Park, MD.

Digital Library

[85]

Webber, Bonnie, Alistair Knott, Matthew Stone, and Aravind Joshi. 1999b. What are little trees made of: A structural and presuppositional account using lexicalised TAG. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Levels of Representation in Discourse (LORID'99), pages 151-156, Edinburgh.

[86]

Wiebe, Janyce. 1993. Issues in linguistic segmentation. In Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations, Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 148-151, Ohio State University.

[87]

Woods, William. 1978. Semantics and quantification in natural language question answering. In Marshall C. Yovits, editor, Advances in Computers, volume 17. Academic Press, New York, pages 1-87.

[88]

XTAG-Group. 2001. A lexicalized tree adjoining grammar for English. Technical Report no. IRCS 01-03, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Available at ftp://ftp.cis.upenn.edu/pub/ircs/technical-reports/01-03.

Cited By

Zeyrek DMendes AGrishina YKurfalı MGibbon SOgrodniczuk M(2020)TED Multilingual Discourse Bank (TED-MDB): a parallel corpus annotated in the PDTB styleLanguage Resources and Evaluation10.1007/s10579-019-09445-954:2(587-613)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10579-019-09445-9
Poláková LMírovský J(2019)Connectives with Both Arguments External: A Survey on CzechComputational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing10.1007/978-3-031-24337-0_5(62-72)Online publication date: 7-Apr-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-24337-0_5
Zikánová ŠMírovský JSynková P(2019)Explicit and Implicit Discourse Relations in the Prague Discourse TreebankText, Speech, and Dialogue10.1007/978-3-030-27947-9_20(236-248)Online publication date: 10-Sep-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-27947-9_20
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Anaphora and Discourse Structure
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Natural language processing
      1. Discourse, dialogue and pragmatics

Recommendations

Sentential structure and discourse parsing
DiscAnnotation '04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation

In this paper, we describe how the LIDAS System (Linguistic Discourse Analysis System), a discourse parser built as an implementation of the Unified Linguistic Discourse Model (U-LDM) uses information from sentential syntax and semantics along with ...
Graph representations of discourse structure

The aim of this paper is to introduce a new method to represent discourse structures. This approach is based on three discourse theories in order to highlight three discourse features: cohesion, coherence and intentionality. The graph representations of ...
Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse

In this paper we explore a new theory of discourse structure that stresses the role of purpose and processing in discourse. In this theory, discourse structure is composed of three separate but interrelated components: the structure of the sequence of ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Computational Linguistics

Computational Linguistics Volume 29, Issue 4

December 2003

158 pages

ISSN:0891-2017

EISSN:1530-9312

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

MIT Press

Cambridge, MA, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 December 2003

Published in COLI Volume 29, Issue 4

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

38
Total Citations
View Citations
648
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)1
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 22 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Zeyrek DMendes AGrishina YKurfalı MGibbon SOgrodniczuk M(2020)TED Multilingual Discourse Bank (TED-MDB): a parallel corpus annotated in the PDTB styleLanguage Resources and Evaluation10.1007/s10579-019-09445-954:2(587-613)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10579-019-09445-9
Poláková LMírovský J(2019)Connectives with Both Arguments External: A Survey on CzechComputational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing10.1007/978-3-031-24337-0_5(62-72)Online publication date: 7-Apr-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-24337-0_5
Zikánová ŠMírovský JSynková P(2019)Explicit and Implicit Discourse Relations in the Prague Discourse TreebankText, Speech, and Dialogue10.1007/978-3-030-27947-9_20(236-248)Online publication date: 10-Sep-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-27947-9_20
Zhou YXue N(2015)The Chinese Discourse TreeBankLanguage Resources and Evaluation10.1007/s10579-014-9290-349:2(397-431)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10579-014-9290-3
Sharma HDakwale PSharma DPrasad RJoshi A(2013)Assessment of different workflow strategies for annotating discourse relationsProceedings of the 14th international conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing - Volume Part I10.5555/2468221.2468269(523-532)Online publication date: 24-Mar-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2468221.2468269
Peldszus AStede M(2013)From Argument Diagrams to Argumentation Mining in TextsInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence10.4018/jcini.20130101017:1(1-31)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4018/jcini.2013010101
Chiarcos CLi HLin COsborne M(2012)Towards the unsupervised acquisition of discourse relationsProceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Short Papers - Volume 210.5555/2390665.2390718(213-217)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2390665.2390718
Demirşahin I(2012)Discourse structure in simultaneous spoken TurkishProceedings of ACL 2012 Student Research Workshop10.5555/2390331.2390341(55-60)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2390331.2390341
Baker KBloodgood MDorr BCallison-Burch CFilardo NPiatko CLevin LMiller S(2012)Modality and negation in simt use of modality and negation in semantically-informed syntactic mtComputational Linguistics10.1162/COLI_a_0009938:2(411-438)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1162/COLI_a_00099
Deborah LBaskaran RKannan A(2011)Ontology construction using computational linguistics for E-learningProceedings of the Second international conference on Visual informatics: sustaining research and innovations - Volume Part II10.5555/2074670.2074677(50-63)Online publication date: 9-Nov-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2074670.2074677
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents