Abstract
Document drafting is a central judicial problem-solving activity. Development of automated systems to assist judicial document drafting has been impeded by the absence of an explicit model of (1) the connection between the document drafter’s goals and the text intended to achieve those goals, and (2) the rhetorical constraints expressing the stylistic and discourse conventions of the document’s genre. This paper proposes a model in which the drafter’s goals and the stylistic and discourse conventions are represented in a discourse structure consisting of a tree of illocutionary and rhetorical operators with document text as leaves. A document grammar based on the discourse structures of a representative set of documents can be used to synthesize a wide range of additional documents from sets of case facts. The applicability of this model to a representative class of judicial orders — jurisdictional show-cause orders — is demonstrated by illustrating (1) the analysis of show-cause orders in terms of discourse structures, (2) the derivation of a document grammar from discourse structures of two typical show-cause orders, and (3) the synthesis of a new show-cause order from the document grammar.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, J. (1987) Natural Language Understanding. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, California.
Appelt, D.E. (1985) ‘Planning English referring expressions’, Artificial Intelligence 26, 1–33.
Austin, J. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford U. Press, New York.
Bench-Capon, T. and Staniford, G. (1995) ‘PLAID — proactive legal assistance’, In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 81–88.
Branting, L. and Lester, J.C. (1996a) ‘A framework for self-explaining legal documents’, In Pro-ceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Legal Knowledge-Based Systems (JURIX-96), Tilburg University, the Netherlands, pp. 77–90.
Branting, L. and Lester, J.C. (1996b) ‘Justification structures for document reuse’, In Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning (EWCR-96), Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 76–90.
Branting, L.K. (1993a) ‘An issue-oriented approach to judicial document assembly’, In Proceed-ings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ACM Press, pp. 228–235.
Branting, L.K. (1993b) ‘A reduction-graph model of ratio decidendi’, In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ACM Press, pp. 40–49.
Cawsey, A. (1992) Explanation and Interaction: The Computer Generation of Explanatory Dialogues. MIT Press.
Cohen, PR. and Perrault, C.R. (1979) ‘Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts’, Cognitive Science 3, 177–212.
Daskalopulu, A. and Sergot, M. (1995) ‘A constraint-driven system for contract assembly’, In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 62–70.
DiMarco, C, Hirst, G., and Wanner, L. (1995) ‘HealthDoc: Customizing patient information and health education by medical condition and personal characteristics’, In Working Notes of the Workshop on Artificial Intelligence in Patient Education.
Elhadad, M. (1991) ‘FUF: The universal unifier user manual version 5.0. Technical Report CUCS- 038–91’, Department of Computer Science, Columbia University.
Elhadad, M. (1992) Using Argumentation to Control Lexical Choice: A Functional Unification Implementation. PhD thesis, Columbia University.
Gordon, T. (1989) ‘A theory construction approach to legal document assembly’, In Pre-Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Logic, Informatics, and Law, Florence, pp. 485–498.
Grice, H. (1975) ‘Logic and conversation’, In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 2: Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, N.Y., pp. 41–58.
Grosz, B. and Sidner, C. (1986a) ‘Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse’, Computational Linguistics 12(3).
Grosz, B.J. and Sidner, C.L. (1986b) ‘Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse’, Computational Linguistics 12(3): 175–204.
Hobbs, J. (1979) ‘Coherence and co-reference’, Cognitive Science 3(1), 67–82.
Hovy, E.H. (1990) ‘Pragmatics and natural language generation’, Artificial Intelligence 43, 153–197.
Hovy, E.H. (1993) ‘Automated discourse generation using discourse structure relations’, Artificial Intelligence 63, 341–385.
Johnson, W.L. (1994) ‘Dynamic (re)generation of software documentation’, In Proceedings of the Fourth Systems Reengineering Technology Workshop, pp. 57–66.
Kay, M. (1979) ‘Functional grammar’, In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Kittredge, R., Korelsky, T., and Rambow, O. (1991) ‘On the need for domain communication knowledge’, Computational Intelligence 7(4), 305–314.
Korelsky, T., McCullough, D., and Rambow, O. (1993) ‘Knowledge requirements for the automatic generation of porject management reports’, In Proceedings of the Eigth Knowledge-Engineering Conference. IEEE Computer Society Press.
Lauritsen, M. (1992) ‘Technology report: Building legal practice systems with today’s commericial authoring tools’, Law and Artificial Intelligence 1(1).
Lauritsen, M. (1993) ‘Knowing documents’, In Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Amsterdam. ACM Press, pp. 185–191.
Lester, J.C. and Porter, B.W. (1996) ‘Scaling up explanation generation: Large-scale knowledge bases and empirical studies’, In Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 416–423.
Lester, J.C. and Porter, B.W. (1997) ‘Developing and empirically evaluating robust explanation generators: The KNIGHT experiments’, Computational Linguistics 23(1), 65–101.
Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A. (1987) ‘Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization’, Technical Report ISI/RS-87–190, USC/Information Sciences Institute, Marina del Rey, CA.
Marshall, C. (1989) ‘Representing the structure of a legal argument’, In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vancouver, B.C., pp. 121–127.
Maybury, M.T. (1992) ‘Communicative acts for explanation generation’, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 37(2), 135–172.
McKeown, K. (1982) Generating Natural Language Text in Response to Questions about Database Structure. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
McKeown, K. (1985) Text Generation: Using Discourse Strategies and Focus Constraints to Generate Natural Language Text. Cambridge University Press.
McKeown, K., Robin, J., and Kukick, K. (1995) ‘Generating concise natural language summaries’, Information Processing and Management. Special Issue on Summarization.
Mittal, V. (1993) Generating Natural Language Descriptions with Integrated Text and Examples. PhD thesis, University of Southern California.
Moore, J.D. (1995) Participating in Explanatory Dialogues. MIT Press.
Moore, J.D. and Paris, CL. (1993) ‘Planning text for advisory dialogues: Capturing intentional and rhetorical information’, Computational Linguistics 19(4), 651–694.
Moore, J.D. and Swartout, W.R. (1991) ‘A reactive approach to explanation: Taking the user’s feedback into account’, In Paris, C.L., Swartout, W.R., and Mann, W.C. (eds.), Natural Lan-guage Generation in Artificial Intelligence and Computational Linguistics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 3–48.
Paris, C. (1988) ‘Tailoring object descriptions to a user’s level of expertise’, Computational Linguistics 14(3), 64–78.
Pethe, V.P., Rippey, C.P.. and Kale, L.V. (1989) ‘A specialized expert system for judicial decision support’, In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vancouver, B.C., pp. 190–194.
Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Snellenburg, A.C. (1989) ‘New approaches to reducing court delay and congestion’, State Court Journal 13(3).
Spirgel-Sinclair, S. (1988) ‘The DHSS retirement pension forecase and advice system’, In Duffin, P. (ed.), KBS in Government 88, Blenheim On Line, Pinner, pp. 89–106.
Suthers, D.D. (1991) ‘A task-appropriate hybrid architecture for explanation’, Computational Intelligence 7(4), 315–333.
Suthers, D.D. (1993) An Analysis of Explanation and Its Implications for the Design of Explanation Planners. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.
Toulmin, S.E. (1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
Zeleznikow, J. and Stranieri, A. (1995) ‘The Split-Up system: Integrating neural networks and rule-based reasoning in the legal domain’, In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 185–194.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Branting, L.K., Lester, J.C., Callaway, C.B. (1998). Automating Judicial Document Drafting: A Discourse-Based Approach. In: Sartor, G., Branting, K. (eds) Judicial Applications of Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9010-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9010-5_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5136-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9010-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive