ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS Date: 19 June 1993 To: Fernando Pereira, Karen Sparck Jones, Martha Pollack, Bente Maegaard, James Allen, Julia Hirschberg, Aravind Joshi, Jerry Hobbs, Ralph Grishman, Kathy McKeown, Graeme Hirst, Robert Berwick, James Pustejovsky, Robert Ingria, Martha Evens, Susan Armstrong, Louis des Tombe, Annemarie Mineur, Lenhart Schubert, Terry Patten, Robert Kasper, Philip Cohen, Linda Suri, Sandra Carberry, Janyce Wiebe, Eric Iverson, Masaru Tomita, David McDonald, Kent Wittenburg, Brian Joseph, Bran Boguraev, Johanna Moore, Betty Walker, Beth Craig From: Don Walker and Judith Klavans Subject: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DINNER and MEETING Time: Wednesday, 23 June 1993, 7pm Place: Ohio Union, 1739 High Street, OSU Campus Agenda: 1. President and Special Executive Committee (Fernando Pereira) 2. Secretary-Treasurer (Don Walker, Judith Klavans) 3. Nominating Committee (Jerry Hobbs) 4. Computational Linguistics (James Allen, Julia Hirschberg) The FINITE String Book Reviews (Graeme Hirst) Squibs and Comments (James Pustejovsky, Bob Ingria) 5. Book Series (Aravind Joshi, Karen Sparck Jones) 6. European Chapter (Susan Armstrong) 7. EACL-93, 21-23 April, Utrecht, Netherlands (Louis des Tombe) 8. ACL-93 (Len Schubert, Terry Patten, Bob Kasper, Phil Cohen, Linda Suri) 9. ACL-94, 27 June - 1 July, Las Cruces, New Mexico (Jan Wiebe, Eric Iverson) 10. Future Meetings: ACL-94 program chair (Fernando Pereira) ACL-95 site selection (Karen Sparck Jones) Applied NLP Conference Program Committee guidelines (Johanna Moore) 11. 1993 Linguistic Institute (Brian Joseph) 12. COLING-94, 5-9 August, Kyoto, Japan 13. Special Interest Groups (Fernando Pereira with Bob Berwick, James Pustejovsky, Tommy Tomita, David McDonald, Kent Wittenburg) 14. Text Encoding Initiative (Don Walker) 15. Consortium for Lexical Research (Jan Wiebe) 16. Data Collection and European Corpus Initiatives (Susan Armstrong) 17. Graduate Directory (Martha Evens) 18. Course Survey 19. NLP Software Registry 20. Membership issues: supporting the unemployed; multiple-year dues payments; student issues; electronic dissemination (Don Walker) 21. New and other business (Fernando Pereira) 1. PRESIDENT'S REPORT Fernando Pereira 17 June 1993 Here are the main matters that the Executive Committee has worked on since January, and which will be the subject of the Executive Committee's special meeting on Wednesday morning. 1. Journal Editor After 10 years of outstanding service, James Allen asked to step down as CL editor, to be able to concentrate on his other activities. I am happy to announce that Julia Hirschberg was elected by the Executive Committee and has agreed to take the position of CL Editor. The transition has already started, and will be complete by the end of the year. Because of the increased submission load, it may at some point be desirable to add Associate Editors to distribute the process of getting papers through the reviewing process. We expect that geographical diversity will be an important criterion for the choice of Associate Editors. 2. Secretary-Treasurer Given the increasing workload on the Secretary-Treasurer as ACL becomes more diverse in its membership and activities, and the wish of Don Walker to considerer retirement from this demanding position, the Executive has started to put in place mechanisms for a smooth transition of the Secretary-Treasurer duties. The first step has been the proposed amendment of the bylaws to create the position of Associate Secretary-Treasurer, and the interim appointment of Judith Klavans to that position pending the vote on the amendment and her candidacy at the meeting. Judith has been working closely with Don and Betty Walker to learn the main procedures that keep ACL running efficiently. We have also started to look into additional secretarial support, and into contracting out the distribution of proceedings. 3. Program Chair for ACL-94 James Pustejovsky has been chosen for program chair for the 1994 Meeting, and has agreed to serve. 4. Book Series Due to changes in its editorial policies and priorities, MIT Press decided to terminate its agreement with ACL for the publication of the ACL-MIT Series in Natural Language Processing. This unexpected development has led to extensive discussions in the Executive of the role of the series and alternatives for its continuation. We should thank Aravind Joshi, Karen-Spark Jones and Mark Liberman for their efforts in making the series a valuable and respected outlet for computational linguistics titles. They have graciously agreed to continue to advise the Executive Committee on book series matters during this transition period. Discussions are under way with other publishers to investigate possible collaborations. 5. SIGs As Vice-President last year, I had started to study SIG organization, procedures and needs, with particular attention to arrangements for rotation in SIG leadership and to the interaction between SIG-organized meetings and ACL's existing meetings. I have written a draft report on these matters based on input from the SIGs and discussions with members. This will be discussed at the Executive Committee meetings with a view to starting to establish standard SIG procedures. Karen Spark-Jones, as Vice-President, will continue this activity. 5. Program Committees It has been noted from time to time that no written guidelines exist for the running of ACL program committees, with the result that procedures and criteria have to be recreated from year to year. Joanna Moore, who was in this year's program committee, kindly volunteered to collate views of program committee members and chairs and has written a detailed report on the main policy questions facing a program committee. After discussion, we expect this to be the basis for a set of written guidelines for future program committees. 2. SECRETARY-TREASURER'S REPORT Don Walker 19 June 1993 ACL 1992 FINANCIAL STATUS ------------------------- INCOME EXPENSES Membership 56,020 128,446 Proceedings 35,192 1,363 Meetings 65,080 46,142 Workshops 245 3,520 CLR 8,793 Prague Workshop 17,013 TEI 20,000 DCI/CDROM 1,760 NSF Grant 7,184 7,302 Royalties 427 Interest 11,930 European Bonds 40,926 49,826 Foreign Exchange 6,700 ------- ------- TOTALS 218,764 289,135 Difference 70,371 1991 1992 ASSETS 397,751 327,380 ACL 1992 MEMBERSHIP ACCOUNT --------------------------- INCOME EXPENSES Dues 44,444 Services 34,036 Back orders 3,378 Journal 55,350 Mail fees 4,966 Editorial 6,000 Labels 1,563 Post/Ship 12,572 International Fund 1,669 Equipment 3,223 Supplies 1,365 Phone 828 Travel 13,825 Legal 380 Bank 486 Refunds 381 ------- ------- TOTALS 56,020 128,446 ACL MEMBERSHIP STATUS --------------------- YEAR PERSONAL REGULAR STUDENT INSTITUTIONAL 1977 500 201 1978 444 218 1979/80 658 249 1981 1208 264 1982 1545 296 1983 1384 319 1984 1355 325 1985 1969 366 1986 1960 410 1987 2104 1786 318 454 1988 1959 1690 269 (408) 1989 2001 1729 272 (538) 1990 1932 1656 276 (564) 1991 2065 1744 321 (620) 1992 1991 1705 279 (???) 6/93 1807 1503 297 (???) ACL MEMBERSHIP DISTRIBUTION --------------------------- US CANADA EUROPE OTHER PACIFIC RIM ASIA/AFRICA/SA 1987 63% 4% 25% 9% 1988 63% 4% 25% 9% 1989 57% 4% 29% 9% 1990 57% 4% 30% 9% 1991 53% 4% 34% 8% 1% 1992 51% 4% 34% 10% 1% 6/93 46% 4% 39% 10% 1% 2. SECRETARY-TREASURER (TRANSITION TO ASSOCIATE SECRETARY-TREASURER Judith Klavans 18 June 1993 1. Recording Activities and Timetable of the S-T An effort to make a written record of the activities Don and Betty perform over the year was started. I have written down what needs to be done by whom, and at what time of year. There is a month by month breakdown, by activity (eg CFP, proceedings, membership, site visit, pick pc, pick pc chair, solicit exec committee reports, pick officers, site for meetings, financial summary, tax report, etc) of what to do. Not listed in this document is the number of times people have to be reminded to do things, which is an ongoing issue. Over the next year, I will be able to revise and add to that document so we have a more complete record of jobs that need to be taken care of. 2. Site visit I accompanied Don and Betty to the visit to OSU in March to finalize conference details for the 93 meeting. Any local arrangements person will attest to the many items that need to be taken care of, and as I have been told, a diffferent thing goes wrong at each conference. This visit was a help in seeing the kinds of issues to be resolved for arranging the conference, and for helping the local arrangements people. The visit was important for helping me run the 94 meeting in Las Cruces. 3. Other Guidelines In keeping with item 1, although Don has notes on different activities of the officers, and although he has guidelines written up, in order to help document some of the ongoing activities that Don performs, and in order to document some of the ACL's general policies, I have initiated documentation in several areas. The most imporatant this year has been the documentation of the pc meeting, that Johanna Moore has put together. Other pieces of documentation and policy will be emerging over the year. I consider it my job to record ACL policy, and to continue that policy as long as our consituency is in favor of it. 4. Exec and ACL Officers I worked closely with the executive committee to help in ongoing decisions on issues such as the bookseries, the distribution of the proceedings, SIGs, and most of the points we are discussing at this dinner. In addition I have been in contact with some of the officers of the EACL to discuss many of their issues. In fact, what I have been dealing with this year can be summarized on the agenda of the exec dinner and exec committee meetings. It's all there. 3. NOMINATION COMMITTEE REPORT Jerry Hobbs 10 June 1993 The nominating committee, consisting of Jerry Hobbs, Ralph Grishman, and Kathleen McKeown, after considerable deliberation, nominated Karen Sparck-Jones for President, Douglas Appelt for Vice-President, Donald Walker for Secretary-Treasurer, Judith Klavans for Associate Secretary-Treasurer, Eduard Hovy for the Executive Committee, and Fernando Pereira for the Nominating Committee. All nominees have accepted their nomination. 1. COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS: BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Graeme Hirst 15 June 1993 TIMELINESS OF PUBLICATION We are continuing to get most reviews published in a timely manner -- or, at least, get them sent off to The MIT Press in a timely manner. In general, reviewers are responding to the specific deadlines that I set. The distribution of response time is bi-modal: those who are overdue tend to be many months or even years overdue. VOLUME OF REVIEWS PUBLISHED I am continuing to be fairly strict in deciding if a book is to be reviewed. The ``Briefly noted'' section is a compromise between a full review and total neglect. In volume 18 (1992), we published 20 reviews and 15 brief notes. (In 1991, it was 20 reviews, and 8 brief notes). PRODUCTION MATTERS It would save me (and The MIT Press staff) lots of time if the complete LaTeX style file for book reviews were made available to reviewers and editors, and if there were a consistent, published style guide for references. I continue to be indebted to Chrysanne DiMarco for long hours of reading out loud with me to check the galleys. 8. ACL-93 PROGRAM COMMITTEE Lenhart K. Schubert 17 June 1993 The 1993 Program Committee consisted of Bob Carpenter, Garrison Cottrell, Robert Dale, Bonnie Dorr, Julia Hirschberg, Paul Jacobs, Bob Kasper, Slava Katz, Judith Klavans, Bernard Lang, Diane Litman, Mitch Marcus, Kathleen McCoy, Marc Moens, Johanna Moore, John Nerbonne, James Pustejovsky, Uwe Reyle, Lenhart Schubert, Richard Sproat, Jun-ichi Tsujii, Gregory Ward, and Janyce Wiebe for a total of 23 people, including the chair (7 women and 16 men; 17 from the US and 6 from Europe). This is significantly larger than in previous years (e.g., 14 last year), the intention being to reduce the load on PC members and increase expertise within the committee. I believe that more careful, more expert reviewing resulted. The deadline for submission was January 6th. We received a total of 170 submissions, of which nine were too late for consideration and two were withdrawn before consideration. Also, two papers were considered as one, leaving a total of 158 papers reviewed. Of the 158 papers, 34 were accepted and one was later withdrawn to be presented at another conference (AAAI), so the final number of papers to be presented is 33. Here is a breakdown by region of the 158 papers reviewed: Region submitted accepted success rate North America 97 (61%) 27 (79%) 28% Europe 33 (21%) 3 ( 9%) 9% Japan 15 ( 9%) 2 ( 6%) 13% Asia (ex. Japan) 8 ( 5%) 2 ( 6%) 25% Near & Mid. East 3 ( 2%) 0 ( 0%) 0% Australia & Pacific 2 ( 1%) 0 ( 0%) 0% Total 158 34 22% The only noticable change here is the low acceptance rate for papers from Europe (3 out of 33, vs. last year's 7 out of 36). Note (the possibly but not necessarily relevant fact) that last year's committee had 6 Americans and 7 Europeans. Here is a breakdown by subject area of the 158 papers reviewed; Subject area submitted accepted success rate Syntactic theories/formalisms 16.7 (11%) 6.5 (19%) 39% Parsing theory & practice 19.7 (12%) 3.3 (10%) 17% Semantic theories/formalisms 13.3 ( 8%) 1.3 ( 4%) 10% Morphology 2.5 ( 2%) .5 ( 1%) 20% Lexicon 4.2 ( 3%) .5 ( 1%) 12% NLU/dialog strategies and systems 11.5 ( 7%) .8 ( 2%) 7% Superficial discourse phenomena 11.2 ( 7%) 2.8 ( 8%) 25% Underlying discourse phenomena 10.7 ( 7%) 1.5 ( 4%) 14% Speech 7.2 ( 5%) 1.0 ( 3%) 14% Generation 11.0 ( 7%) 1.5 ( 4%) 14% Corpus-based processing 31.5 (20%) 12.5 (37%) 40% Psycholinguistics 2.5 ( 2%) .3 ( 1%) 13% Learning, connectionism 4.7 ( 3%) .8 ( 2%) 17% Information retrieval 2.8 ( 2%) 0 ( 0%) 0% Machine translation 7.2 ( 5%) .5 ( 1%) 7% Miscellaneous 1.5 ( 1%) 0 ( 0%) 0% 158 34 22% (The fractions are the result of counting papers as belonging to up to 3 subject areas. ``Superficial discourse phenomena'' refers to anaphora, indexicality, tense and temporal reference, word sense ambiguity, etc.; ``underlying discourse phenomena'' refers to discourse structure and relations, speech acts, discourse plans, NMR, implicature & presupposition, style, etc.; these groupings proved convenient in terms of reviewer interests.) The overall number is up from last year's 144, as a result of slightly increased submission rates for North America, Japan, and Asia (ex. Asia). The overall acceptance rate is somewhat lower than in most previous years. It would have been possible to accept two or three additional papers without compromising the quality of the conference, but this would have had the undesirable consequence of making the conference run rather late on Saturday. Last year's trend toward high submission rates (20%) and relatively high acceptance rates (40%) in corpus-based/statistical processing is still very much in evidence. Note that exclusive of this area, the acceptance rate was only 17%. Papers with broad scope, describing strategies and systems for NLU and dialog, were up in number (from 2 papers to 11 or 12) but had a notably low success rate (7%). Perhaps it's very hard to write a short paper on a broad topic, or perhaps reviewers tend to look for things of specific interest to them, and find the pickings slim when the topic is broad. The success rate in semantics was also quite low. (However, the numbers involved are too small to lend much statistical significance to these observations.) Here is a breakdown by sex of author (or first author) of the 158 papers: Sex submitted accepted success rate women 28 5 18% men 130 29 22% Total 158 34 22% (**Actually, the rate of success may have been higher or lower for women, depending on the gender of the following first names -- can anyone help?? Kemal (Turkey), Zelal (Turkey), Rey-Long (China), Kjetil (Norway), Relja (Yugosl.), Tetsuya (Japan), Kwangseob (Korea), Hyuk-Chul (USA), Marti (USA).) ``Blind'' Reviewing Reviewing was ``blind'' this time, in the hope of increasing actual and perceived fairness of the reviewing process. The acceptance rates do not give any clear indication whether the blind reviewing in any way affected acceptance patterns. An attempt was also made to address the question of just how accurately reviewers can guess authorship of anonymous papers, by asking committee members to supply guesses, with confidence ratings. However, after some of the responses had been collected (emanating from 6 committee members), the ``guessing game'' was cut short, since it was reportedly making reviewers (who had not finished their reviews) give too much thought to authorship, contrary to the intent of blind reviewing! Time constraints and the need to write up a program with names on it prevented completion of this data collection effort. Nonetheless, here are the partial results, with guesses weighted by their confidence rating (e.g., a wrong guess made with 60% confidence counts as .6 wrong guesses): Correct guesses Incorrect guesses No guess attempted (too unsure) 24.5 6.2 70 out 116 papers Thus the guessing accuracy where guesses were attempted was 80%, and this is not too far off the average confidence of the guesses, 87%. Some reviewers scored close to 100% on their guesses, others were much less accurate. Perhaps the most significant fact here is the number of papers for which no guess was attempted (70/116, i.e., 60%). This may have been somewhat distorted by the reviewers still having a few papers left over (for review); but nonetheless it appears that reviewers hesitated to guess authors for at least half the papers they received. Thus it is not the case, as sometimes claimed, that a majority of authors can be guessed. Author anonymity could be further improved by more specific guidelines for authors. In particular, some of the correct identifications were based on authors' referencing preliminary versions of their papers or companion papers by name. Reviewing Procedure The procedure worked as follows: Each paper was sent to two members of the committee (with each member receiving roughly 11-17 papers). The two referees for each paper exchanged electronic reviews and requested third referees for any case in which their recommendations could not be reconciled. With the increased committee size, it was possible to do most of the third reviews within the committee. At the program committee meeting (19 February), final decisions were made based on the 2 or 3 reviews and further discussion (and in rare cases, 4th reviews). As usual, invited speakers and other program matters were discussed as well; the discussion of invited speakers was based on proposals and discussion previously collected by email. This led to an unusually varied and sparkling invited speaker program, we think. The meeting lasted a full working day and ran somewhat overtime. The following day a prearranged ``mini-symposium'' was held, with several of the committee members giving talks attended by graduate students and faculty at the University of Rochester, as well as many of the other committee members. A thoroughly delightful event! 8. ACL-93 PREREGISTRATION INFORMATION Don Walker 17 June 1993 17 June 1993 ANNUAL REGISTRATION STATISTICS Page 1 CLASS REG# REG $$ ET# ET $$ LT# LT $$ BQT# BQT$$ PR$$ PAID$$ DUE$$ ------ ---- ------ --- ------ --- ------ ---- ----- ---- ------ ----- ---- ------ --- ------ --- ------ ---- ----- ---- ------ ----- Total: $0 $0 $570 $0 $30 $600 $0 Count: 5 0 5 0 Guest ---- ------ --- ------ --- ------ ---- ----- ---- ------ ----- Total: $0 $0 $0 $120 $0 $120 $0 Count: 9 1 1 6 Member ---- ------ --- ------ --- ------ ---- ----- ---- ------ ----- Total: $16440 $1710 $4770 $2320 $420 $25340 $320 Count: 137 19 53 113 Member Late ---- ------ --- ------ --- ------ ---- ----- ---- ------ ----- Total: $320 $90 $90 $40 $30 $570 $0 Count: 2 1 1 2 Nonmember ---- ------ --- ------ --- ------ ---- ----- ---- ------ ----- Total: $10880 $1530 $3060 $920 $150 $16020 $520 Count: 68 17 34 46 Student ---- ------ --- ------ --- ------ ---- ----- ---- ------ ----- Total: $3420 $450 $850 $740 $0 $5350 $110 Count: 57 9 17 37 Student Nonmember ---- ------ --- ------ --- ------ ---- ----- ---- ------ ----- Total: $2880 $400 $300 $500 $0 $3850 $230 Count: 36 8 6 23 Student Nonmember Late ---- ------ --- ------ --- ------ ---- ----- ---- ------ ----- Total: $100 $0 $0 $20 $0 $120 $0 Count: 1 0 0 1 ====== ==== ====== === ====== === ====== ==== ===== ==== ====== ===== Total: $34040 $4180 $9640 $4660 $630 $51970 $1180 Count: 315 55 117 228 HEADERS: #=count, $$=money, ET=early tutorial, LT=late tutorial, BQT=banquet PR=Proceedings TUTORIAL PREREGISTRATIONS Brain & Language 29 Mathematics of Language 26 Multimedia & Multimodal 46 NLP & Information Retrieval 71 8. ACL-93 LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS DEMONSTRATIONS AND EXHIBITS Bob Kasper 16 June 1993 DEMONSTRATIONS The demonstrations listed below are planned. Two of them are being presented by authors of papers at the conference (Hinrich Schuetze, Dekang Lin). Equipment is being provided by Sun Microsystems, and two departments at the Ohio State University (Computer and Information Sciences, Linguistics). Some additional equipment has been rented locally, using funds donated by the demonstrators. 1. Michael O'Donnell, Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney, Australia. (A Systemic Parser, Systemic WorkBench). 2. Ken Litkowski, CL Research, Gaithersburg, MD. (DIMAP-2 dictionary maintenance utilities). 3. Hinrich Schuetze, Center for the Study of Language and Information Stanford University. (Distributed Representations for Part of Speech). 4. David McDonald, Arlington MA. (Sparser: a system for partial ("sparse") parsing of unrestricted text). 5. Marie Mateer, Sage Lab, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY. (SAGE Simulation and Generation Environment) 6. Dekang Lin, Department of Computer Science, University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Canada. (a parser for Government-Binding Theory). 7. Lew Norton, Paramax Systems Corporation, Paoli, PA. (PUNDIT, CBAS: Text Processing in Multi-Sensor Data Fusion Applications, IDUS: An Intelligent Document Understanding System). 8. Rodolfo Delmonte, Dept. Linguistics and Language Teaching, University of Venice, Italy. (GETA_RUN, integrated system for reference resolution and text understanding). 9. David Carter and Manny Rayner, SRI International, Cambridge UK. (SLT Spoken Language Translation system). 10. Jerry Hobbs, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. (FASTUS: A System for Extracting Information from Natural-Language Text). PUBLISHERS EXHIBITS Cambridge University Press, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, and University of Chicago Press are sending their own representatives to staff their exhibits. Blackwell Publishers, Kluwer Academic Publishers, MIT Press, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, and Oxford University Press are sending materials, with local student help hired to staff their exhibits. SUGGESTIONS Although we have eight publisher exhibits (the same number as ACL-92), I believe that we should consider whether the means of contacting and negotiating agreements with the publishers can be improved. Several publishers have commented that they would like to have greater continuity in their relationship with ACL, or more communication about our meetings further in advance. To a significant degree, this problem may stem from the fact that I did not have clear expectations about some of the details that need to be communicated to the publishers far enough in advance. I suspect that the people handling local arrangements are usually, like myself, doing it for the first time and not familiar with the process and the expectations of the publishers. Under our present system, the local arrangements person winds up rediscovering many details each year, including who to contact at various publishers, when they need information in order to allocate funds for an exhibit in their budgets, etc. If ACL had more paid staff, this problem would be largely solved by having a more permanent person handle the ongoing relations and publicity with the publishers, leaving only the logistics of setting up the local site and hiring exhibit monitors to local arrangements. I realize that this logical division of labor may not be easily realized in our current organization, and I certainly do not expect the few dedicated volunteers in the ACL office to do more than they now do. We should, however, consider how to make the communications with publishers more effective. I had few similar difficulties with the arrangements for demonstrations. The group of demonstrators varies considerably from year to year, unlike the publisher exhibits, which represent largely the same companies each year, so less continuity is needed to handle demonstrations effectively. The specific requirements and resources available to handle demonstrations at the local site also change rapidly from year to year, so I think it is still entirely appropriate for local arrangments to assume most of the responsibility for orchestrating the demonstration program. 8. ACL-93 STUDENT SESSION Linda Z. Suri 16 June 1993 1 Background Background on the ACL Student Sessions can be found in David Traum's 1992 ACL Student Session Report. 2 Planning the 1993 Session 2.1 Forming the 1993 Student Session Committee At the 1992 student session luncheon meeting, and in email to the 1992 student authors, David Traum, the 1992 coordinator, asked volunteers for participation on the 1993 committee to send him email. Once I was appointed as the 1993 coordinator, it was suggested that the holdovers from the 1992 committee (Tilman Becker and Cameron Shelley) and I select the rest of the committee. We formed the committee from the list of volunteers, trying to strike a balance for area of interest, geography, gender, expected length of service (so we could have holdovers for the next committee). We also wanted some members who had been a student authors previously. Furthermore, we wanted someone from the host institution. The 1993 planning committee consisted of: Member Institution Tilman Becker University of Saarbruecken Beth Ann Hockey University of Pennsylvania David Hutches University of California, at San Diego Andy Kehler Harvard University Vibhu Mittal University of Southern California (replaced C. Shelley) Sheila Rock University of Edinburgh Cameron Shelley University of Waterloo (resigned due to break in studies) Jim Skon Ohio State University (local arrangements liaison) Linda Suri University of Delaware Keith Vander Linden University of Colorado 2.2 Few Changes from 1992 We made few changes in the 1993 student sessions. This was because the committee felt that people seemed happy with the 1992 student sessions. This impression was partly based on the 1992 student author survey replies and discussion at the 1992 student luncheon meeting. This report will not describe the details of the student session planning, but just note some important points. The committee unanimously agreed that, as in 1992, we wanted podium presentations (as opposed to poster sessions), and that we wanted 3-page papers published in the proceedings. Students would also be given the chance to revise their papers after receiving reviewer comments, as in 1992. The committee was very happy that, as in 1992, the student sessions were scheduled during an afternoon, rather than during a lunch. 2.3 Blind Reviewing The most significant change this year was that the papers were blind-reviewed. Blind reviewing was suggested at the ACL-92 student session luncheon meeting. Blind reviewing made handling email submissions more difficult; the co-chairs had to ensure that the files, including postscript files, we were mailing to reviewers did not contain identifying information. Whether the difficulty of blind reviewing is justified by its benefits needs to be determined. 2.4 Email submissions While the 1992 committee felt that email submissions worked well, the 1993 program co-chairs did not think it worked particularly well. As in 1992, we allowed authors to submit email only, hardcopy only, or email and hardcopy. All but 3 reviewers had at least one hardcopy submission, and one reviewer could not print all the papers sent to him by email. Thus, we had to photocopy and mail hardcopies of papers to all but 2 reviewers. Once one is mailing hardcopies of some papers to a given reviewer, one might as well mail hardcopies of all papers to that reviewer since it doesn't cost additional money and it alleviates the possibility that a paper can not be printed by that reviewer. Additional notes: There were a handful of other papers where I had to ask the authors to resend their submissions, provide style files or (in the case of postscript submissions) reformat their pages to 8.5x11 inches (rather than A4). There was one email submission that I was never able to print; the author supplied a hardcopy by FAX. In sum, we feel email submissions, especially under blind reviewing, were more of a hindrance than a benefit. 2.5 Email reviews We do think that having the reviewers submit their comments by email was helpful. It eliminated postal costs and saved a little time in the review process. 2.6 Formation of Program Committee and the Use of Special Reviewers: The members of the planning committee served as the student members of the program committee. The non-student members of the program committee were nominated and agreed on by student members of the planning committee, taking into account balance in terms of research areas and geography. Non-student members of the ACL program committee: Member Institution Sandra Carberry University of Delaware) (co-chair) Mary Dalrymple Xerox PARC Chrysanne DiMarco University of Waterloo Donald Hindle AT&T Bell Labs Robert Ingria BBN John Lafferty IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Cecile Paris USC/ISI Rebecca Passonneau Columbia University Donia Scott University of Brighton Karen Sparck Jones University of Cambridge Hans Uszkoreit University of Saarbruecken Peter Van Beek University of Alberta David Weir University of Sussex Philip Resnik (University of Pennsylvania) and Christina Tortora (University of Delaware) served as special (student) reviewers. 3 Results of 1993 Student Session We received 30 submissions. We hope and believe the drop in submissions reflects a fluctuation in the number of students at the appropriate stage of graduate studies for submission to the student sessions. Given the reduced number of submissions, we were able to have each paper reviewed by two students and two non-students. Based on the reviewers comments and ratings of the papers, we decided to accept 11 papers (an acceptance rate of 37%), close to that for 1992 (41.6%). Each author will have 15 minutes for presentation and 3 minutes for questions. We eliminated meet-the-author time since last year's authors did not find that time to be particularly beneficial or necessary. With the reduced number of submissions, it was not necessary to have parallel sessions this year. Appended to this report is information on submissions and acceptance rates based on gender and geography. Because the numbers are so small, it is not clear how significant these figures are. 4 Student Directory Unfortunately, the student directory has not been put together yet. We hope that this project can be completed in 1994. 5 Planning for the Future 5.1 1993 Luncheon meeting To help the ACL'94 Student Sessions committee, we will ask students at the ACL'93 luncheon meeting to fill out forms asking for opinions about blind reviewing, names and contact information for other ACL student members, and suggestions for future ACL student sessions. 5.2 Forming the Planning Committee: Proposed method (same method used for forming 1993 committee): * List of volunteers is gathered by asking for volunteers at the ACL'93 Student Luncheon Meeting, and through a survey of the 1993 Student Session authors. 1993 coordinator nominates a coordinator from the list of volunteers (and may seek advice from whomever seems appropriate). Once a coordinator is approved by the ACL executive committee, the 1994 coordinator chooses other members with help of holdover members (and may seek advice from whomever seems appropriate). Final membership approved by ACL executive committee. 6 Appendix: Data on Submissions Because the numbers are so small, it is not clear how significant these figures are. Also, the gender statistics may be inaccurate since I had to guess the gender of some submitters based on their names. 30 papers submitted, 11 accepted, 37% acceptance rate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gender (by author) submitted accepted acceptance rate Female 8 (24%) 4 (31%) 50% Male 24 (71%) 9 (69%) 37% Unsure 2 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 0% All authors 34 (100%) 13 (100%) 38% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Region submitted accepted acceptance rate (by institution) Asia 4 (13%) 3 (27%) 75% Canada 3 (10%) 0 ( 0%) 0% Europe 4 (13%) 1 (09%) 25% U.S.A. 19 (63%) 7 (64%) 37% Total 30 (100%) 11 (100%) 37% 9. ACL-94 LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS Janyce Wiebe (local arrangements) Eric Iverson (student coordinator) 16 June 1993 ACL-94 will be held at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, NM from Tuesday June 28 through Friday July 1, with tutorials on Monday June 27. Las Cruces is 40 miles north of El Paso, which is easily accessible by air. Las Cruces is also conveniently located at the intersection of two interstate highways. A group rate of $25 round trip per person has been set up with the Las Cruces Shuttle for travel between El Paso and Las Cruces. The primary ACL-94 site is New Mexico State's 500-seat Music Auditorium, which is just off University Ave. and which is a 5-minute walk from the Computing Research Laboratory (CRL), located in the Science Hall. Additional meetings will be held in the Corbett Center Ballrooms, about a 10-minute walk from the auditorium. If needed, these ballrooms can be configured to hold 500 as well. It is possible that more conveniently located lecture hall space will be obtained instead, but this has yet to be resolved. Exhibit space for software demonstrations and book exhibits will be located in the Mini Center in the Science Hall. Net access for participants will also be available in the Mini Center. Security will be provided. The Las Cruces Hilton will be our primary conference hotel and will cater the banquet. The Las Cruces Hilton is located 2 miles north of the university, and shuttle buses will be available. Shuttle service will also be available to the Holiday Inn de Las Cruces, Plaza Suites, and Days Inn, all located 4 blocks to the west of NMSU. The following blocks of rooms have been reserved: Location Rooms Rate/night Las Cruces Hilton 150 $65 deluxe $57 standard Holiday Inn de Las Cruces 50 $54 flat Plaza Suites 40 $50 flat Days Inn 60 $44 flat NMSU Dormitories 200 $12.75 single $8.75 double Total Rooms 500 On-Campus meal service will be available to those who wish it. In addition, we are exploring the possibility of arranging with local restaurants and the shuttle to accommodate large groups for lunch. As the conference falls directly before the 4th of July weekend, we are looking into arranging optional trips to the nearby Gila Widerness area and/or White Sands and Cloudcroft. In addition, afternoon tours to Juarez, Mexico will be available. We look forward to welcoming ACL to New Mexico State. 10. GUIDELINES FOR ACL PROGRAM COMMITTEE Johanna Moore 14 June 1993 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT: Many policy questions came up during the two ACL program committee (PC) meetings I attended (1992 and 1993). In many cases, individuals who had served on the ACL PC in the past or had served on the PCs of other major conferences were able to provide suggestions that enabled decisions to be made and the meeting to progress. These individuals typically cited what was done in the past in similar situations. Unfortunately, what has been done from year to year has not always been consistent, and this led to a general sense that a set of guidelines should be collected and written down to act as a kind of institutional memory that can be passed from PC to PC each year. To this end, an e-mail message was sent to all members of the ACL '93 PC and to several past PC chairs asking for views on a set of questions/issues that came up at the meeting and inviting comments on other PC-related issues. The document that follows is my summary of the responses that I received. I viewed my task to be the collection and organization of information to be passed on to the ACL Executive Committee (EC) in order to aid them in setting policy. I have tried to represent all views on the topics. Additional comments and suggestions are welcome and encouraged. DEFINITION OF THE AREA: When is a paper relevant for ACL? In some cases, there were papers submitted that seemed like good work in a given discipline (e.g., "pure" linguistics or formal language theory), but it was not clear how that work related to Computational Linguistics. Suggestions: - We should take an historical view as to whether the subject of the paper has grown within the CL community and thus ACL is the only reasonable forum for the work. - The burden of explaining how the work is relevent to CL is on the authors and must be explained in the paper. What to do with ``Tools'' papers: There was some discussion about what to do with papers that describe tools. Those surveyed suggested that tools papers should be allowed and encouraged if: - the tool is demonstrably useful for Computational Linguistics, or - the tool is based on linguistically interesting methods. In either case, the paper should not be just an advertisement, but should communicate substantial information about the technology used so that * others could build the tool too * it may give people ideas about how to build other useful tools Some expressed interest in a special section in the ACL proceedings for tools papers, along the lines of the student sessions. Ultimately they'd like to see a special issue of CL on tools too, but suggested we experiment with a session in the ACL for 2--3 years first to see how it works. SUBMISSION DEADLINE Every year the PC chair receives several papers that arrive after the deadline and must decide what to do with these. There seems to have been an informal understanding among some in the ACL community that papers received within a ``reasonable'' time after the deadline would be reviewed and considered for publication in the conference as if they had arrived on time. The decision to review papers received after the deadline and the determination of what constitutes a ``reasonable'' time are typically left to the discretion of the program chair who could consult the entire committee if he or she chose. In 1993, Len Schubert consulted the committee about this issue and a large majority of the PC members felt strongly that papers received after the deadline indicated in the Call for Papers (CFP) should be returned to the authors unopened. Everyone agreed that a policy for late submissions must be set and made explicit in the CFP. There is a general sense that the rules should be well known and apply equally. By far the majority still feels that the deadline should be strictly enforced. Many authors work long and hard to submit papers on time. They stay up late working round the clock and send papers via express mail. These papers could no doubt be improved if the author(s) had another few days or a week to polish them. The majority feel that in the interest of fairness, all authors should be subject to the same deadlines. A very small minority feel that there should be a few days' grace period, whose exact length should be covertly determined by the PC chair, based on her or his judgement and constraints at the time. How the Deadline Should be Stated: Several suggested that in the future the deadline be given in terms of a ``postmarked by'' date, rather than a ``must be received by'' date. Advantages: - Would allow the members to save literally thousands of dollars on express mail service. - Would even out the discrepancy between US and overseas submissions. Potential Problems: - The main concern is that the worldwide airmail system varies so greatly that this will create unmanagable logistical problems for reviewing. Ordinary airmail even from Canada can take weeks ESPECIALLY in the holiday season. We would have to set the postmark deadline in mid-December to get the usual schedule to work out. This would give authors significantly less time to finish research and write good papers, and they would be doing it in the pre-holiday tumult. Given the vagaries of the world's postal systems, how could a program chair and his or her committee ever schedule their reviewing? How long do we wait? We will need *some* cut-off date. For this reason, several people thought the ``postmarked by date'' was a TERRIBLE IDEA. E-mail submissions? Several members of the committee suggested that We allow electronic submissions. This would: - cut down on shipping costs - ease distribution to the program committee. - make it possible for PC members to view the abstracts (or full papers) of all the papers submitted, without ACL or authors incurring massive photocopying bills. Apparently EACL used standard style files and e-mail submission and distribution in '93 and it worked astoundingly well. Reviewers received all of their papers electronically in a tar file, and just had to unpack them and send the postscript images to a printer. Some pointed out that electronic submission is feasible only for authors who have the capability to get papers into postscript form and to e-mail or ftp their papers to the PC chair. Although this is true of the majority of authors in the USA, Western Europe and Japan, we cannot assume that this is true for all authors. Therefore, we must continue to allow hardcopy submissions. However, we should try to use electronic mail to the extent possible. For those who do not have access to appropriate e-mail tools for submission, FAXing is an option. LENGTH RESTRICTIONS: Submissions that Violate Restrictions: Every year the PC must tackle the question of what to do with papers that clearly violate the length restriction. While a small number of PC members felt that handling of such papers should be left up to the individual reviewers that received them, the majority felt that all papers should be checked for compliance with length restrictions by an administrator and those that are in clear violation should be returned to authors without review. Many felt strongly that this decision should NOT be left up to individual reviewers as this would lead to inconsistent treatment of papers violating length restrictions. By far the majority feel that length restrictions must be adhered to. One of the most difficult parts of writing an abstract for something like ACL is compressing ideas into 3200 words. Some PC members were appalled by the fact that the PC reviewed, and even accepted some papers that were more than double the length specified in the CFP. This was considered extremely unfair to authors who may have lessened their chances for acceptance by cutting their papers to meet the length restrictions. Specification of Length Restrictions: If we are going to enforce length restrictions, then we need to specify length restrictions in such a way that we can easily check whether or not a paper conforms. Word count is a very hard measure to check. Specifications that detail the font size, margin size, page size, and number of pages seem better. To help authors make sure they meet these guidelines we should provide Latex, Scribe, and MS Word style files that meet ACL specifications. (We could get these from DARPA.) A problem that many authors have noted is that the abstact length is often longer than the final paper length, leaving authors no room to address reviewers' comments. If we gave out style files from the beginning, we could alleviate this problem (since authors would know the final camera-ready paper length from the outset, and/or we could require that submissions be 1/2 page shorter than final papers.) Of course, even if we move to style files, we will need to provide specifications for authors who do not have access to Latex, Scribe, MS Word,etc. Since we expect the number of people in this category to be small and dwindling, this should not be a problem. SUBMISSION TO MULTIPLE CONFERENCES: A small number of PC members feel that ACL (and other conferences) should not allow multiple submissions. They feel that submitting to multiple conferences is an abuse of the reviewing process. It wastes reviewers' time and causes problems with the conference schedule if authors retract their paper from ACL after it has been accepted. However, the majority feel that allowing multiple submissions is good compromise between conference's desires to get their programs finalized and authors' desires to get their work published while it is still fresh. Due to the number of relevant conferences that have submission deadlines in November - February, authors must be allowed to submit to multiple conferences. All agree that if multiple submissions are allowed, authors must declare this fact up front and agree to publish in only one place. Failure to explicitly declare multiple submissions should be grounds for rejection. Most feel that it's up to the PC chair to coordinate with other conferences (e.g., AAAI, COLING, EACL, Cognitive Science) to see that the same paper isn't going to be presented at more than one of them, and it's up to reviewers to make sure that papers haven't been published (outside of workshop proceedings) before. Managing the Schedule if Multiple Submissions are allowed: A serious problem is what to do with multiply submitted papers that are accepted to ACL as well as one or more other conferences. There was concern about how this will affect the schedule. Here are several suggestions for the EC to consider: - Authors of multiple submission MUST declare their intention to withdraw from the OTHER CONFERENCE(s) if their paper is accepted to ACL. This way, the ACL schedule will not be impacted, and this may cut down on multiple submissions. - Keep some of the papers that were borderline on a waiting list to be used in case any papers are withdrawn. - Have the program be shorter by N fewer papers if N papers are withdrawn. WHAT CONSTITUTES PRIOR PUBLICATION?: A number of questions arose regarding the nature of prior publication of work that would make a paper ineligible for publication in the ACL proceedings. The following suggestions were almost unanimous: - Workshops were the hardest to deal with. One person suggested that guidelines for workshops should take account of: (i) the REFEREEING process for the workshop, and (ii) WHO MAY ATTEND, and (iii) AVAILABILITY of proceedings. Most felt that prior presentation at a workshop that did not publish a proceedings, or did not have a serious refereeing process should not prevent a paper from appearing in the ACL proceedings. For example, EVERYONE agrees that workshops like the AAAI symposia for which there are no published proceedings should not preclude publication at ACL. For these workshops, papers are minimally reviewed, participants receive a set of photocopied notes, but these are not published and are not widely available. Some suggest that the criterion should be that ``all papers published without further editing'' should be eligible for ACL. However, if papers from a workshop are reviewed, authors are given time to revise their papers, and the papers are published in a book or proceedings, then these papers should not be eligible for publication in ACL. (For example, the AI and Planning Systems Workshop is almost indistinguishable in format from ACL, but it's called a workshop, so we can't simply go by the title the organizers give.) - Papers that are under review for a journal can be submitted to ACL. A gray area that the EC should discuss is how to handle papers that have been accepted to a journal, but won't appear before ACL. - The most objectively verifiable approach is to use some notion of what it means to be published. Some suggested that appearance in something with an ISBN or ISSN number constitutes publication. This means previous (or soon to be) appearance in a DARPA proceedings or in a Springer-Verlag-published workshop or conference proceedings counts as a publication. Some PC members believe that there is an ordering (total?) of forums (i.e., journal > conferences > no-proceedings workshop)>, so that a publication accepted in a "higher or equal level" forum should not be submitted/published again at lower level. This seems reasonable, since ideas become refined as feedback is gained at lower level meetings, and workshops have shorter turnaournd times than conferences and journals, so one can get their work aired while it is new and exciting. However, there seems to be alot of confusion about ordering. Most agree that it is all right to publish in a conference before a journal, but not vice versa. The EC should take this under consideration. Whatever is decided, it has been suggested that the following are good rules of thumb: * for conference organizers: make the policy clear to authors * for authors: always inform the program chair, or the editor in chief of any submission or prior publication of any similar work (like another paper with a whole section in common). Special consideration for DARPA workshop? There is no agreement on this question. Here are some comments the EC may want to take into account when making their decision on this issue: - The DARPA workshops pose a special problem because in some sense they are not really "optional" for DARPA contractors. With other workshops, it is possible for an author to keep their paper out of the published proceedings to save it for other, more formal, publication, but for DARPA there are political complications. - DARPA is becoming more and more like a conference, and papers presented at DARPA should not be permitted at ACL. - The DARPA workshop should not count as a publication, and therefore can be resubmitted. The main reason is that DARPA conferences are not open, for submission or for attendance. (Note: this should also apply to counting a DARPA publication in one's CV.) HOW TO COMPARE DIFFERENT REVIEWER'S SCORES: Several people felt that different reviewers were using different metrics for scoring and therefore it was difficult to compare scores given by different reviewers. Several suggestions about how to alleviate this problem were made: 1) Papers should be available to all committee members. Some PC members feel that it is crucial that every PC member have a chance to browse through all the abstracts and review whichever they wish to review. This year PC members saw only the papers they were officially asked to review and, since the committee was large, this number was very small (15-20). Without the context of the other abstracts, PC members felt that they couldn't tell whether their sample of a given field was representative, or whether a given paper was better or worse than another similar paper that they weren't officially reviewing and didn't even know existed until the PC meeting. Some felt that it was this problem that made the PC meeting itself seem rather extraneous, since it was very hard to participate in discussions of papers one hadn't even seen, and it was hard to have any idea whether the decisions overall were fair. It was generally agreed that if all papers are made available to all PC members, other PC members might provide useful additional comments on papers for which they were not the primary reviewers, and this would likely strengthen the basis for decisions. However, it was noted that this could allow very "aggressive" PC members to have undue influence in the process by reading all papers and voicing their opinions on them. 2) Some past PC chairs have used spread sheets to calculate statistics such as the mean, mode, and median of each PC members' scores. This was done at the ACL '92 PC meeting and the ACL Applied meeting and was very useful in interpreting reviewers' ratings. 3) Some PC members said they were accepting papers with technical problems, because the idea was interesting, while others would reject such a paper. Clearly, we want to encourage new and interesting ideas, but being incorrect seems very different than having correct but somewhat preliminary results. We need to attempt to operationalize / standardize the meaning of ratings such as "accept," "marginal" etc. 4) The discrepancy may not be so much between individual reviewers, but between subareas of the programme committee. One way to overcome this might be by having more discussion between reviewers, before the plenary programme committee meeting. If reviewers in each subarea identify what they think are the best papers in that area, possibly in some kind of order, then the plenary session can be devoted to constructing a program out of that, without having to compare numbers on individual papers issued by individual reviewers. 5) One person suggested that reviewers just be forewarned that for a 5-point scale from definite accept to definite reject, experience shows that very few papers with ratings less than second-highest will ultimately be included. That should discourage reviewers from employing standards they subsequently regret. BLIND REFEREEING: Although many felt that this was less than successful because they were able to guess who the authors of papers were, most felt that ACL should continue this practice. If continued, ACL should give authors more guidelines about how to avoid recognition. In many cases, reviewers were able to identify authors because authors lack experience about how to reference their own work or deal with acknowledgements when submitting a paper for blind review. SUBMISSION BY PROGRAM COMMITTEE: Most agree that members of the PC should be allowed to submit papers and that their papers should be treated in the same manner as all other submissions, with additional care to keep reviewers anonymous. Some PC members thought this was handled very well in '93, where the PC chair notified authors of accept/reject decisions by handing out slips of paper. SELECTION OF INVITED SPEAKERS: Many felt that this is often handled in an ad hoc fashion because it is left to the time that remains after the decisions on papers are made. One person suggested that choosing invited speakers be done by e-mail as soon as the PC is formed in November/December. This will increase our chances of getting the speakers we want. As it is now, we end up asking a relatively famous person in mid-March to commit to speaking in late June. Several times our first choice(s) are already booked. As to the criteria for selecting invited speakers, several PC members feel that it is preferable to invite speakers outside of the general range of ACL topics. COMMITTEE SIZE: Although a couple of people found the '93 committee consisting of 22 members to be too large, some felt that the larger size had many advantages. It made the reviewing load more modest, allowing more careful reviewing. It also allowed all of the reviewing (save a few instances of delegation) to be done within the committee. This has the crucial advantages that (a) PC members have already set aside time for the job and made a commitment to be punctual, whereas finding reviewers ad hoc and holding them to deadlines is much harder, and (b) all the papers get discussed by all the reviewers at the meeting. Even with the committee of 22, some problems arose in trying to find 3 expert reviewers for some papers. NEED FOR PC MEETING: Comments in favor: - The whole point of having an in-person meeting is to take advantage of as much of our expertise as possible. Yet it is virtually impossible for a person to have a reasonable opinion to contribute if he or she hasn't seen a paper. The problems this year were largely due to the fact that most PC members saw only 15-20 of the papers. To make sure every good paper has ample chance to be discovered and every not-so-good paper has ample chance to be correctly evaluated, we should maximize papers' exposure to members of the PC rather than concluding that we don't need a PC meeting. We do need a PC meeting, but we need to come to it having looked at, if not laboriously reviewed, more papers. This is what makes ACL different from other conferences, and different in a good way. It also makes the reviewing process fairer. If we make all the papers available to everyone (see above), the meeting will potentially provide new information. - This year the number of papers accepted pre-meeting was just about the right quantity. Other years might have way too many or too few papers accepted on a first pass. The meeting is useful if papers have to be reconsidered. - Many rating errors come more from personal biases that are overcome by discussion. - The sense of group ownership of the process is very important, and this would be lost in an electronic approach. - The face-to-face meeting is important -- unless you have a program committee consisting solely of people who really know each other very well already. It's perhaps only in retrospect that we think we could have done it all via email since we now know everyone on the program committee. However, I would have liked to have seen more discussion of the program that was emerging, rather than just have discussion of single papers by two or three committee members at a time. Comments against: - The PC meeting can be held via e-mail. The ACL '93 PC committee assigned 2 reviewers to each paper. Reviewers were given a deadline by which they were expected to have written up their reviews and exchanged them with their co-reviewer. If the 2 reviewers could not come to consensus, they asked for a third review. The PC chair selected a third reviewer and typically a decision could be reached. A few members felt that this was sufficient and that no meeting was necessary. Specific suggestions for how to manage an all electronic PC meeting: 1) Titles for ALL papers should be advertised to the entire PC via email: that way, if there are papers that a committee member definitely wants to review, then they can alert the program chair of this. Otherwise, the program chair will assign papers according to specified areas of interest, as was done this year. (Obviously, there will be SOME cases where the program chair has to adjudicate if several people want to review the same paper.) 2) As was done this year, the pair of reviewers for each paper will come to a consensus by a specified date, or else will ask for a third reviewer if they cannot reach a consensus. After the third reviews are all in (again by a specified date), the decisions for ALL of the papers will be sent to the entire committee via email (modulo some mechanism to handle the anonymity issue -- X may not want Y to know X reviewed Y's paper). Anyone who wants to object to a decision should have an opportunity to do so, and if necessary should be able to get a FAX of the relevant paper: however, since said person would have had the opportunity the first time around to pick the papers for review, such instances should be relatively infrequent. COMMITMENT BY PROGRAM COMMITTEE Several PC members stated that based on their own ACL experiences, and comments they have heard from others at different ACL program committee meetings, it is imperative that all PC members be present at the PC meeting. Having the review is not the same as having the reviewer for the difficult cases. MAKEUP OF PROGRAM COMMITTEE In recent years there has been an attempt to bring new faces onto the ACL PC. While everyone agrees this is important for the community, we must be careful to ensure continuity. Therefore several have suggested that there be an attempt to balance the number of new PC members with persons that have served on the ACL PC in the past. PANELS, TUTORIALS: There was a proposal for a panel, yet many committee members felt that panels were not solicited in the CFP so it was unfair. However, in the past there have been panels and no solicitation, and workshops and tutorials seem to be done without a proposal solicitation. AAAI and IJCAI have explicit calls for these things, and many PC members suggest that ACL do the same. A panel, workshop, or tutorial chair could still seek out people as is done now. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Some PC members heard of three cases where PC members were sent papers from their home institution to review. In one case the PC member knew there was a conflict and returned the paper. In another case the paper was kept even though the reviewer suspected it was from their institution (and it was). The members that reported this feel that this must be prohibited in the future. NSF has quite an explicit policy regarding what constitutes a conflict of interest, which might prove instructive. 11. 1993 LINGUISTIC INSTITUTE Brian D. Joseph, Director June 15, 1993 The 57th Linguistic Institute, sponsored by the Linguistic Society of America and co-sponsored by the ACL (and by AAAI) will take place June 28 until August 6 in Columbus, beginning right after the ACL Annual Meeting. The theme of the 1993 Institute is ``Interfaces'', construed broadly so as to include both grammatical interfaces and disciplinary interfaces. Thus, courses will be offered by regular OSU faculty and distinguished invited scholars in core areas of linguistics (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, historical linguistics), in areas that represent an interface within the field of linguistics or across different fields (e.g., psycholinguistics, mathematical linguistics, computational linguistics), and on special topics pertaining to interfaces between different components of gdammar (e.g. syntax-semantics, syntax-lexicon). Several offerings specifically in Computational Linguistics are planned: LISP for Linguists (Ted Gibson, MIT); Linguistic Knowledge Representation (Carl Pollard & Robert Kasper, OSU); Parsing (Robert Kasper, OSU); Principle-based Parsing (Mark Johnson, Brown Univ. & Edward Stabler, UCLA); Generation (Robert Dale, U Edinburgh); Computational Discourse (Bonnie Lynn Webber, U Pennsylvania); Nonmonotonicity in Linguistics (Richmond Thomason, U Pittsburgh); Processing of Large Corpora (Judith Klavans, Columbia U); The Computational Lexicon and its Interfaces (John Nerbonne, U Saarbruecken); Speech Synthesis (Susan Hertz, Cornell U); Speech Recognition (Terrence Nearey, U Alberta). Courses in related areas include the following: Categorial Grammar (Pauline Jacobson, Brown U); Phrase-Structure Grammars (Georgia Green, U Illinois); Intro to Government & Binding (Peter Culicover, OSU--NOTE: this is a change from earlier announcements, as G. Cinque has withdrawn for personal reasons); Phrase-Structure Grammar Seminar (Robert Levine, OSU & Thomas Hukari, U Victoria); Government-Binding Seminar (David Pesetsky, MIT); Intro to Formal Semantics (Chris Barker, OSU); Intermediate Formal Semantics (Fred Landman, Cornell U); Anaphora and Dynamic Interpretation (Gennaro Chierchia, Cornell U); Situation Theoretic Grammar (Robin Cooper & Jonathan Ginzburg (note: this is a change from previous announcements, as Elisabet Engdahl had to withdraw for personal reasons); Thematic Roles (David Dowty , OSU); Islands and Scope: The Syntax/Semantics Interface (Anna Szabolcsi, UCLA); Point of View (Edit Doron, Hebrew U); Formal Pragmatics (Nirit Kadmon, Tel Aviv U); Mathematical Methods for Linguists (William Rounds, U Michigan); Strong Generative Capacity (Philip Miller, U Lille); Intro Psycholinguistics: Syntax/Semantics (Julie E. Boland, OSU); Intro Psycholinguistics: Phonetics/Phonology (Anne Cutler, MRC App. Psych, Cambridge); Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics (Stephen Crain, U Connecticut). A course on Linguistics and Cognitive Science, originally planned for the Institute, to be taught by Peter Culicover, has been cancelled, since Culicover will now be teaching the Introduction to Government and Binding course (due to Cinque's withdrawal). Attendance for the Institute should be very strong, with over 300 registered students, nearly 100 registered Institute Affiliates, many others coming in for conferences (such as ACL), etc. While it is hard to gauge directly the impact of the ACL meeting, it seems that a significant number of people coming to ACL will stay on for at least part of the Institute; the symbiosis between the two events seems to have been healthy. Preliminary registration figures for the computational linguistics classes from late May are available, with about 75% of the students registered. These figures do NOT include anyone who might be taking the course just as an auditor or Institute and OSU faculty who will be sitting in on courses without any official registration (there being no mechanism at OSU to ``count'' their participation). Thus these figures give only a rough indication of the attendance that can be expected in a given class. To judge from the experience of other Institutes, the number of non-credit auditors and visitors is usually about the same as the number of credit students in a class, so that doubling these figures should give an indication of their potential draw: LISP for Linguists -- 10 Linguistic Knowledge Representation -- 15 Parsing -- 4 Principle-based Parsing -- 6 Generation -- 5 Computational Discourse -- 3 Nonmonotonicity in Linguistics -- 4 Processing of Large Corpora -- 9 The Computational Lexicon and its Interfaces -- 5 Speech Synthesis -- 6 Speech Recognition -- 4 ACL's generous contribution to the Institute was directed towards support of 4 classes: Lisp for Linguists, Principle-Based Parsing, The Computa- tional Lexicon and its Interfaces, and Speech Synthesis. Indirectly also, ACL's contribution made it possible for another course, Processing of Large Corpora, to be added, for money that had been committed to other courses was freed up and made available after ACL made its contribution. ACL made available a large number (c. 100) of pamphlets on the Annual Meeting that the Institute mailed out to those students likely to be interested in the meeting (e.g. those who had signed up for computational classes). The Department of Linguistics is making available a few machines for demo purposes during the ACL Meeting, as a small gesture of appreciation for all ACL has done for the Institute. The Institute promises to be quite successful, and the presence of ACL will have contributed to that success through the financial support and through the holding of the Annual Meeting in Columbus adjacent to the Institute. For the future, it would seem that a continued connection between ACL and the Linguistic Institute would be good for all concerned, as long as the Institutes continue to have a significant computational component (as they are likely to). Better coordination in planning between Institute representatives (who change from year to year, as the Institute moves to other locations) and ACL representatives is essential, and it is regrettable that the Institute organizers were not more cognizant of the potentially significant role that ACL can play in the planning process. Steps have been taken to ensure that there will be better communication between the two groups, through the ratification of an agreement between LSA and the ACL about future Institutes, the appointment of an ACL-Institute liaison (Judith Klavans, this year), and the continuing involvement of the ACL-LSA representative (Terry Langendoen). In the future, any Institutes that are seeking ACL support will involve ACL representatives directly in the planning of the computational linguistic courses. 12. COLING 94 CALL FOR PAPERS Makoto Nagao and Yorick Wilks 20 April 1993 Conference dates: August 5(Fri) -- 9(Tue), 1994 Conference place: Miyako Hotel, Kyoto, Japan General Chairman: Prof. Makoto Nagao Department of Electrical Engineering Kyoto University Tel. +81-75-753-5344 Fax. +81-75-751-1576 Email. firstname.lastname@example.org Program Chairman: Prof. Yorick Wilks University of Sheffield Sheffield, S10 2UH, England Program Committee: Yorick Wilks (Sheffield) Louise Guthrie (Las Cruces) Graeme Hirst (Toronto) Margaret King (Geneva) Judith Klavans (New York) Wendy Lehnert (Amherst) Candy Sidner (Cambridge, MA) Hozumi Tanaka (Tokyo) Henry Thompson (Edinburgh) Jun-ichi Tsujii (Manchester) Michael Zock (Paris) The International Committee on Computational Linguistics invites the submission of papers for COLING 94, the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, in Kyoto, Japan. TOPICS OF INTEREST: Papers are invited on substantial, original, and unpublished research on all aspects of computational linguistics, including, but not limited to, the followings. - syntax - parsing - semantics - generation - phonetics - language understanding - phonology - speech analysis/synthesis - morphology - computational lexicons - discourse - electronic dictionaries - pragmatics - terminology - quantitative/qualitative linguistics - text database and retrieval - mathematical linguistics - documentation - contrastive linguistics - machine translation - cognitive linguistics - machine aids for translation - large text corpora - natural language interface - text processing - dialogue systems - hardware/software for NLP - multimedia systems REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION: Papers should be either topical papers (maximum six pages in final format) or project notes with demonstration (maximum four pages), preferably in English. Both should describe original work. The project note should specify the computer platform that will be used. They should emphasize completed work rather than intended work, and they should indicate clearly the state of completion of the reported results. A paper accepted for presentation at the COLING Conference cannot be presented at another conference. FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION: Authors should submit four copies of preliminary versions of their papers with the page limits above, on A4 paper with the title, author(s), addresses (including email if possible), affiliation across the page top, a short (five line) summary, the words: topical paper or project note, and a specification of the topic area preferably drawn from the list above. As well, authors are strongly urged to email the title page information by the deadline date. Send the papers and emails to: COLING 94 Department of Computer Science University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2UH, England Email: email@example.com IMPORTANT DATES: Preliminary paper submission due: 6 January, 1994 Acceptance notification: 15 March, 1994 Camera-ready copies due: 1 May, 1994 REVIEW SCHEDULE: Preliminary papers are due by 6 January 1994. Papers received after that date will be returned unopened. Notification of receipt will be mailed to the first author (or designated author) soon after receipt. All inquiries regarding lost papers must be made by 27 January 1994. Designated authors will be notified of acceptance by 15 March, 1994. Camera-ready copies of final papers prepared in a double-column format, preferably using a laser printer, must be received by 1 May 1994 at Prof. Makoto Nagao Department of Electrical Engineering Kyoto University Sakyo, Kyoto, Japan along with a signed copyright release statement. Papers received after that date may not be included in the proceedings. OTHER ACTIVITIES: (1) Tutorial program will be presented on 3(Wed) -- 4(Thu), August, 1994. (2) Invited talks and panels will be included in the program. Proposals and suggestions for invited talks and panels should be sent to Prof. Yorick Wilks as soon as possible. (3) Anyone wishing to arrange an exhibit or present a demonstration should send a brief description, together with a specification of physical requirements (space, power, telephone connections, tables, etc.) to Prof. M. Nagao. (4) Many attractive social programs will take place for the occasion of the 1200th anniversary of Kyoto. 13. SIG ISSUES Fernando Pereira 16 June 1993 Here's my summary of SIG issues and possible solutions, from the material I got from SIGs and my own observations: 1. Steering Committees SIGs are typically organized and run by whoever felt the need for the SIG. No formal policies for rotation of SIG organizers seem to exist in any SIG, although SIGMOL seems to have had more deliberate rotation arrangements (I do not know them in detail since I never got a reply from SIGMOL to my inquiries). Some members believe that lack of formal rotation can make SIGs the private club of their initial organizers. While I do not believe that this is a widespread problem, the perception of lack of democracy is one we should avoid. A reasonable model would formalize the arrangements of some of the current SIGs, such as SIGGEN. Each SIG would have a small organizing committee whose members would have a limited term of no more than 4 years. Some subset of the committee would be replaced every two years or so. The electoral mechanics could be either a business meeting at a SIG workshop or e-mail voting based on a mailing list of SIG(+ACL) members. SIG committees are in charge of organizing SIG meetings, overseeing the choice of meeting committees, and maintaining SIG communication channels and membership information. It is not clear that formal titles (chair, secretary, etc.) are needed for committee members, and in fact that may be too bureaucratic for the lightweight organizations that everyone seems to want SIGs to be. 2. Membership Who is a SIG member? The question was raised that some SIGs (most?) reach outside the current ACL community, and benefit from the contributions of non-ACL members. Clearly, we want to reach as widely as possible, so SIG newsletters, electronic mailing lists, etc. might well extend outside the ACL membership. However, for management matters, to stand or vote for SIG committee members ACL membership should be required. 3. Workshops SIGs have a variety of connections to workshops, from sole organization to sponsorship. Some of the SIGs arose from existing meetings, rather than the other way round. Clearly, this is a very healthy intellectual activity that ACL should continue to encourage. One concern that has been repeated often is that workshops start tending towards conferences, with reviewing and proceedings publication, that may take papers away from the main ACL meetings and thus contribute to centrifugal tendencies in ACL. The views from the SIGs and my own discussions with members suggest that there is a reasonable compromise between SIG diversity and ACL unity. If the SIG activity and membership is essentially a focused subset of ACL activity, it is to be expected that conference- or journal-level work will be part of ACL meetings and CL. Then workshops would play their more informal role for extensive discussion of work in progress, and workshop proceedings publication would be the exception. Let's call just these "workshops". On the other hand, for SIGs whose activities include a large component outside ACL's usual constituency (eg. SIGMEDIA), more formal meetings bridging ACL interests to interests of other communities (eg. multimedia graphics) would be quite appropriate, and proceedings publication desirable. Let's call these "conferences" and act accordingly. In particular, it makes a lot of sense to limit the attendance of real workshops so that extensive discussion is possible, but conferences should be open, properly refereed and published so that they serve as a sound record of the state of a subfield. The practice of having workshops immediately adjacent to ACL, EACL or COLING meetings should be encouraged, to increase interactions between SIG groups and the rest of the community and to save on travel costs. 4. Publication In relation to SIG workshops/conferences, there has been a lot of discussion about the type of proceedings publication would be appropriate. As noted above, that varies with the formality of the workshop which depends on the community that the workshop is aimed at. For *real* workshops (as opposed to conferences), we might eventually want to follow the model adopted by AAAI for its symposia. Unedited workshop preprints (abstracts or extended abstracts) are made available to society members as a cheaply produced tech report, but are not distributed outside as books. Copyright stays with authors. ACL does not have currently the paper-handling resources to do this, but if and when some additional clerical help is brought in we might want to consider this possibility. It has been suggested that preparing a paper, even a workshop preprint, requires so much work that publication (citable and includable in resume) should follow. However, following from the notion of workshops as forums for discussion of work in progress, there is no reason why preprints should be anything but papers-in-progress. As the work is refined, hopefully with input from workshop discussion, the papers-in-progress will turn into conference, journal or collection papers, with proper publication and credit. 5. Communications All SIGs that responded to my questions mentioned the importance of electronic communications and mailing lists, as well as the labor involved in managing them. I believe that the new ACL LISTSERV arrangements, which should be soon fully operational, will help make mailing list maintenance more efficient as well as providing a centralized means for communication between ACL and all the SIG members. As soon as the final kinks in the LISTSERV service are ironed out, we should ask SIG committees to investigate using it for their membership communications. 13. SIGMOL (MATHEMATICS OF LANGUAGE) Robert Berwick 15 June 1993 PRESIDENT: Walter J. Savitch, UCSD (firstname.lastname@example.org) ACL Liason: Robert C. Berwick, MIT Official Membership: 78. This has remained relatively stable over the past 2 years. This year, Walter Savitch was elected President via email nomination and subsequent poll of the SIGMOL members. We plan to continue to have an elected President with a term of 1, perhaps 2 years. The main activity of SIGMOL during the past year was the Mathematics of Language Meeting, MOL3, held at the University of Texas at Austin, November 20-21, 1992. LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS CHAIR Robert Wall, Univ. of Texas PROGRAM COMMITTEE Robert Berwick (MIT) Nelson Correa (U. de los Andes) David Johnson (IBM) Aravind Joshi (Penn) Philip Miller (Ohio State) Carl Pollard (Ohio State) Walter Savitch (UCSD, Co-Chair) Thomas Wasow (Stanford) Wlodek Zadrozny (IBM, Co-Chair) Local arrangements and the spirt of the conference were excellent. The papers were considered to be of generally high quality; see the final program schedule below. As with past MOL meetings, a selection of papers from MOL3 have been invited to submit to a special issue of Linguistics and Philosophy; this is still working through the journal machinery. Some details on the conference: 37 submissions 22 accepted 20 papers agreed to be given. 18 finally given. Attendance: 31 Both submissions and attendance were lower than the previous MOL meeting, but not far off from MOL1. The conjectured reasons were: 1. There was a shorter time span since the last MOL. 2. We had to move the date once (due to a football game causing hotel problems; this is Texas, remember). At least one of the two acceptances who did not come was lost because of this. 3. The location was not near any large source of local people who might want to attend. MOL2 was in the NY area and did attract people from local IBM installations and NY schools. In Austin we only had U of Texas as a source. FUTURE ISSUES: There was a great deal of interest in holding MOL3 in Europe, and we will be focusing on an international location for our next meeting. FINAL PROGRAM SCHEDULE--MOL3 NOTE: Talks are 20 minutes long, not 25 minutes long. There are 5 minutes between talks to allow for some questions and the transition to the next speaker. Information on how to get to the sessions on the University of Texas campus follows the program. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1992 Friday morning and afternoon sessions will be held in the Dobie Room of the Flawn Academic Center on the University of Texas campus. 9:15 OPENING REMARKS 9:30 James Barnett Strong Equivalence in CFGs, TAGs, and CSGs 9:55 Aravind K. Joshi TAGs in Categorial Clothing 10:20 DISCUSSION 10:30 BREAK 10:50 Peter A. Bensch and Walter J. Savitch An Occurrence-Based Model of Word Categorization 11:15 Rens Bod Mathematical Properties of the Data Oriented Parsing (DOP) Model 11:40 Paul Smolensky Harmonic Grammar: A Progress Report on Connectionist Mathematical Linguistics 12:05 DISCUSSION 12:20 LUNCH 1:45 Eric Sven Ristad Complexity of Anaphoric Agreement 2:10 Andras Kornai Phonological Representation Theory 2:35 DISCUSSION 2:45 BREAK 3:05 Nelson Correa Context-free Language Recognition on a CAM 3:30 Michael Latta The Intersections of Context-Free Languages. 3:55 DISCUSSION 4:05 BREAK 4:25 Owen Rambow, Tilman Becker, and Michael Niv Scrambling Is Beyond LCFRS 4:50 William B. Dolan Morphology is Not Noncontext-Free 5:15 DISCUSSION 5:25 DINNER 8:30 DISCUSSION--The Longhorn Room at the Guest Quarters Hotel SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1992 All sessions on Saturday will be held in the Bluebonnet Room at the Guest Quarters Hotel 9:30 R.T. Oehrle String-Based Categorial Type Systems 9:55 Bob Carpenter Plural Noun Phrases as Motivation for Lambek Abstraction 10:20 DISCUSSION 10:30 BREAK 10:50 David Milward Dynamic Dependency Grammar 11:15 Jan Tore Loenning Categorial or Unification-Based Syntax-Semantics Interface 11:40 DISCUSSION 11:50 LUNCH 1:45 Sebastian Shaumyan and Frederique Segond Discontinuous Constructions and Applicative Universal Grammar 2:10 M. Andrew Moshier and Carl Pollard The Domain of Set-Valued Feature Structures 2:35 DISCUSSION 2:45 BREAK 3:05 A. Manaster-Ramer and W. Zadrozny Systematic Semantics 3:30 Rohit Parikh Utilities and the Semantics of Common Noun 3:55 David E. Johnson and Lawrence S. Moss Dynamic Syntax 4:20 DISCUSSION 4:45 CLOSING REMARKS 13. SIGPARSE (PARSING) Masaru Tomita 16 June 1993 SIGPARSE is organizing the following workshop this summer. IWPT-93: THIRD INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON PARSING TECHNOLOGIES 10 - 13 August 1993 Tilburg/Durbuy The Third international Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT'93) will take place this year on August 10 through 13. Like IWPT'89, this workshop will take place in two locations: on August 10-11 on the premises of Tilburg University in Tilburg, in the South of The Netherlands; the workshop then moves to Le Sanglier des Ardennes, a resort in the Ardennes in Durbuy, Belgium. Provisional program listing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The following submitted papers will be presented: * Rens BOD (Amsterdam, Netherlands): Monte Carlo parsing * Eric BRILL (Philadelphia, USA): Automatic Grammar Induction and Parsing Free Text: A Transformation-Based Approach * Harry BUNT and Ko van der SLOOT (Tilburg, Netherlands): Parsing as dynamic evaluation * Bob CARPENTER (Pittsburgh, USA): Compilation of Typed Attribute-Value Logic Grammars for Parsing * Gennaro COSTAGLIOLA (Salerno, Italy) LR Parsing from an Arbitrary Starting Point * Nigel R. ELLIS, Roberto GARIGLIANO and Richard G. MORGAN (Durham, England): A New Transformation into Deterministically Parseable Form for Natural language Grammars * Joe GARMAN, Jeffery MARTIN, Paola MERLO and Amy WEINBERG (Geneve, Switzerland): A Parameterised Principle-based Parser for Foreign Language Training in German and Arabic * Karin HARBUSCH (Saarbruecken, Germany): Parsing Multi-Component Tree-Adjoining Grammars with Quasi Trees * G.F. van der HOEVEN (Enschede, Netherlands): An algorithm for the construction of dependency trees * Tanaka HOZUMI, Tokunaga TAKENOBU and Aizawa MICHIO (Tokyo, Japan) Integration of Morphological ans Syntactic Analysis based on the LR Parsing Algorithm * Sadao KUROHASHI and Makoto NAGAO (Kyoto, Japan): Structural Disambiguation in Japanese by Evaluating Case Structures based on Examples in Case Frame Dictionary * Alon LAVIE and Masaru TOMITA (Pittsburgh, USA): An Efficient Word-Skipping Parsing Algorithm for Context-Free Grammars * Rene LEERMAKERS (Eindhoven, Netherlands): The use of bunches in parsing theory. * Rudi LUTZ (Brighton, England): "Dual" Chart Parsing of Flowgraphs for Program Understanding * David D. McDONALD (Brandeis U., USA): The interplay of syntactic and semantic node labels in partial parsing * M.J. NEDERHOF and J.J. SARBO (Nijmegen, Netherlands): Increasing the Applicability of LR Parsing * Michael O'DONNELL (Sydney, Australia): Parsing with Systemic Grammar * Stephan RAAIJMAKERS (Tilburg, Netherlands): A proof-theoretic reconstruction of HPSG * James ROGERS and K. VIJAY-SHANKER (Newark, Delaware, USA): Towards a Formal Understanding of the Determinism Hypothesis in D-Theory * Ralph ROENNQUIST and Mats WIREN (Saarbruecken, Germany): Fully Incremental Parsing * Klaas SIKKEL and Rieks op den AKKER (Enschede, Netherlands): Context-Free Head-Corner Parsing in Cubic Time * Daniel D. SLEATOR and Davy TEMPERLEY (Pittsburg, USA): Parsing English with a Link Grammar * Tomek STRZALKOWKSI (New York, USA): Evaluation of TTP parser: a preliminary report * Hideto TOMABECHI (Tokushima, Japan): A Soft Graph Unification Method for Robust Parsing * Paul OUDE LITTIGHUIS and Klaas SIKKEL (Enschede, Netherlands): Generalized LR Parsing of Attribute Grammars * Akira USHIODA, Alex WAIBEL, Ted GIBSON, David EVANS (Pittsburgh, USA): The Automatic Acquisition of Frequencies of Verb Subcategorization Frames from Tagged Corpora * A. Ruvan WEERASINGHE and Robin P. FAWCETT (Cardiff, UK.): Incremental Parsing in Systemic Functional Grammar * Fuliang WENG (Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA): Handling Syntactic Extra-Grammaticality * Kent WITTENBURG (Bellcore, USA): Adventures in Multidimensional Parsing: Cycles and Disorders Time schedule ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The workshop will begin Tuesday 10 August at 9.00 a.m. at Tilburg University. There will be paper presentations in the morning and in the afternoon. At the end of the day there will be a reception at Tilburg City Hall. The workshop continues Wednesday morning. In the afternoon there will be presentations of research at ITK, after which the workshop moves by bus to Durbuy. There will be welcome drinks and dinner in the conference hotel in Durbuy. There will be a full workshop day on Thursday, with a conference dinner in the evening. On Friday August 13 the last workshop sessions are in the morning; a closing lunch is included in the programme. We intend to arrange bus transportation to Brussels and Tilburg immediately after lunch. The bus should get to Brussels at approx. 4 p.m. For any inquiries please contact: IWPT'93 Secretariat phone + 31-13-663113 fax + 31-13-662537 email: email@example.com Harry Bunt, Workshop Chair ITK, Institute for Language Technology and Artificial Intelligence Tilburg University, POBOX 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands 13. SIGGEN (NATURAL LANGUAGE GENERATION) Karen Kukich 18 June 1993 MEMBERSHIP SIGGEN membership, which currently stands at 170, is open to any member of the ACL whose dues are paid for the current year. Anyone wishing to become a SIGGEN member may contact David McDonald at firstname.lastname@example.org or at the postal address below. The SIGGEN mailing/membership list is available to SIGGEN members. SIGGEN BOARD OF DIRECTORS The SIGGEN Board of Directors is in transition. Volunteer nominations were solicited and an election was held in May and June of 93 to replace two members of the SIGGEN committee with one new professional member and one new student member. Karen Kukich and Marie Meteer volunteered to vacate their positions to create new openings. The results of the nominations and voting were as follows: PROFESSIONAL VOLUNTEERS: ----------------------- Michael Elhadad 23 Cecile Paris 21 Koenraad Desmedt 17 GRAD STUDENT VOLUNTEERS: ----------------------- Manfred Stede 25 Nicolas Nicolov 24 Massimo Fasciano 9 Thus, the new SIGGEN Board of Directors will be comprised of the following: David McDonald Johanna Moore Content Technologies University of Pittsburgh 14 Brantwood Road 520 LRDC Arlington, MA 02174-8004 USA Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA Mcdonald@cs.brandeis.edu email@example.com Robert Dale Michael Elhadad University of Edinburgh Dept of Mathematics and Computer Science Centre for Cognitive Science Ben Gurion University of the Negev 2 Buccleuch Place Beer Sheva 84105 Edinburgh EH8 9LW Scotland Israel R.Dale@edinburgh.ac.uk elhadad@bengus.BGU.AC.IL Manfred Stede Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Toronto M5S 1A4, Canada firstname.lastname@example.org Board members are meeting at the ACL-93 meeting to plan for the transistion. SIGGEN QUERY BOARD The SIGGEN QueryBoard address will change. During 1993 the QueryBoard served as a forum for a lengthy discussion of SIGGEN's raison d'etre and its role in various activities. SIGGEN has sponsored various workshops and mtgs in the past, but SIGGEN as not itself organized such meetings. Some SIGGEN members feel strongly that SIGGEN itself should NOT organize or govern such mtgs, tho it might help coordinate the scheduling of such mtgs with other ACL functions. Other SIGGEN members have suggested that some SIGGEN committee, perhaps analogous to the AAAI secretariate, be set up, by election, to oversee the organization of such mtgs. These issues will be addressed by the new SIGGEN board members. SIGGEN SPONSORED WORKSHOPS SIGGEN co-sponsored the following workshops during the past year: 1) The Nato Advanced Research Workshop on Burning Issues in Discourse, Maratea, Italy, 13th - 15th April, 1993. A notice was posted to the SIGGEN mailing list that proceedings are available for a fee of 8 US dollars or 5 pounds sterling from: Donia Scott, Information Technology Research Institute, University of Brighton, Brighton Bn1 4AT, England 2) The Fourth European Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Pisa - Italy - April 28-30, 1993. An informal report on this workshop written by Robin Fawcett and Koenraad de Smedt was posted to the SIGGEN mailing list. 3) The ACL Workshop on Intentionality & Discourse Structure, Columbus, Ohio, June 21, 1993. Proceedings will be available from Owen Rambow, email@example.com. SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL NLG WORKSHOP The International NLG Workshop has been the primary mtg for NLG researchers. The SIGGEN community has been discussing various issues concerning how this and related mtgs might be organized in the future. A committee consisting of McDonald, de Smedt, Fawcett, Hovy, Meteer, and Scott will be making a recommendation soon. NLG BIBLIOGRAHY A new revised version (23rd February 1993) of Robert Dale's NLG bibliography, in compressed PostScript form, is available by anonymous ftp from scott.cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Internet 126.96.36.199). This version includes new material that has appeared within the last year, plus a significant number of additions and corrections provided by members of the NLG community. 13. SIGPHON (COMPUTATIONAL PHONOLOGY) Steven Bird 10 June 93 The purpose of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology is to (i) place computational phonology firmly on the research agenda in computational linguistics, (ii) develop links between researchers in computational phonology, and (iii) facilitate the dissemination of research results and software. Current membership stands at 110 people and members generally have an active interest in the field rather than just being onlookers. Members receive a bimonthly newsletter and have access to an FTP directory which houses the membership directory, newsletter back-issues, research papers and software. This year, the SIG proposed and was granted a special issue of _Computational Linguistics_, and 22 papers are currently under review. The SIG has recently been advertised in _Phonology_ and in _Computer Speech and Language_, as we try to build on our membership and promote dialogue between the speech and language communities. For further information, contact: Steven Bird.
University of Edinburgh, Centre for Cognitive Science 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, Scotland, U.K. Telephone: (031) 650-4421/4432. Fax: (031) 650-4587. 13. SIGMEDIA (MULTIMEDIA LANGUAGE PROCESSING) Kent Wittenburg 16 June 1993 In late fall of 1992, a new ACL Special Interest Group on Multimedia Language Processing (SIGMEDIA) was approved by the ACL executive committee. Charter members were the approximately 50 ACL members that attended a meeting called at the 1992 annual ACL convention to explore the possibility of setting up such an interest group. There are now 83 ACL members in the SIG. The coordinator is Kent Wittenburg, Bellcore. On December 2, 1992 an unmoderated mailing list was established to serve the group. The list initially included the charter SIGMEDIA members. It has grown substantially since its inception. As of June 14, 1993, there are a total of 131 subscribers. Besides the ACL members, researchers outside the ACL in related organizations such as ACM and IEEE who are interested in ACL SIGMEDIA activities have been encouraged to join. In January a call went out to all subscribers to send a short file that contained a self-introduction including name, affiliation, interests, and sample publications. These self-introductions have been collected and made available to the membership. Approximately 50 of the subscribers have so far have provided introductions. On January 18, 1993, a SIGMEDIA ftp server was established that supports anonymous login. Its current contents are: ACL-info Information about the Association for Computational Lingistics. ACL-dues-info-92 Dues form (outdated but still serviceable) for joining ACL or ordering publications. charter Charter for SIGMEDIA. [included below] contribs Subdirectory containing contributions from the membership. Currently contains a bibliography on multimedia and multimodal parsing submitted by Kent Wittenburg. member-intros Subdirectory containing self-introductions by SIGMEDIA members. sigmedia-info Information about SIGMEDIA including how to join. During the 1993 annual ACL meeting there will be a gathering for current and prospective SIGMEDIA members. Agenda items will include: 1. Governance structure including making provision for a rotating executive committee. 2. A report on SIGMEDIA activities since its inception. 3. Reports on activities in other ACL and non-ACL interest groups and organizations that are relevant to SIGMEDIA interests. 4. Establishing a working committee to consider the prospect of organizing a workshop during 1994. ACL SIGMEDIA Charter As computational technologies rapidly expand into media other than text, the ACL is faced with an opportunity to take a leading role in defining an emergent field. Many members of the ACL community feel that the theories and practice of computational linguistics can contribute much to characterizing the nature of nonverbal as well as verbal media in addition to enabling suitable multimedia human-computer dialogues. Those dialogues which include natural language as data or input modality are of course of special interest to the ACL membership. The need for SIGMEDIA as an interest group separate from SIGCHI is motivated by the difference in focus that computational linguists bring to issues involved in multimedia communication. SIGMEDIA will not in general be concerned with the hardware of new and developing media, the software protocols required to deploy media on different platforms, the (semi-)automated construction of multimedia interfaces (unless these methods employ linguistic techniques), or the details of human factors studies needed for media development. Instead, SIGMEDIA members will address issues that spring from the application of generic questions of communication (morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse, Speech Acts, etc.) to different types of media. A suggested list of research topics to be included within the domain of the SIG follows, where nonverbal media is taken to include (non-speech) sound, 2D/3D graphics, pen-based input, animation, and video; and verbal media includes text and speech: o Foundational work for representation of nonverbal media and concurrent media streams at these levels: o morphology o syntax o semantics o discourse o Parsing and generation algorithms for nonverbal and mixed verbal and nonverbal media o Media integration in interface design based on language models o Media selection and integration in automatic presentation o Media translation, e.g., o natural language text -> 3D animation o voice + gesture -> 2D graphics o Data extraction from verbal together with nonverbal media The following services are envisioned: 1. Facilitate communication between researchers in the area. 2. Help in the organization and planning of workshops and symposia. 3. Distribute information regarding research and resources pertaining to multimedia. 4. Interact with other professional organizations and governmental agencies to further the support of research and development activities. 5. Interact with publishers and software developers to encourage publication of ACL sponsored work and publicize relevant software. For more information on joining the SIG, contact: Kent Wittenburg Bell Communications Research, MRE 2A-347 445 South St. Morristown, NJ 07962-1910 (201)829-4382 email: firstname.lastname@example.org OR email@example.com 14. TEXT ENCODING INITIATIVE Susan Hockey 14 June 1993 Work has continued on preparing Version 2 of the TEI Guidelines. Chapters are being released on the TEI's listserv TEI-L@UICVM as they are completed. During the past year the following chapters have been published: 1. (AB) About These Guidelines 3. (ST) Structure of the TEI Document Type Declarations 4. (CH) Characters and Character Sets 5. (HD) The TEI Header 6. (CO) Tags Available in all TEI DTD's 7. (DS) Default Text Structure 13. (TE) Base Tag Set for Terminological Data 16. (SA) Segmentation and Alignment 26. (CC) Additional Tag Set for Language Corpora Drafts of other chapters have made substantial progress. A meeting of the TEI's Technical Review Group was held outside Oxford in mid-May at which the following chapters were also considered in addition to the chapters listed above and Chapter 10 (Spoken Texts) which was published early in 1992. 2. (SG) Concise Summary of SGML7 7(2) (PR) Base Tag Set for Prose 8. (VE) Base Tag Set for Verse 9. (DR) Base Tag Set for Drama 11. (LM) Letters and Memoranda 12. (DI) Printed Dictionaries 17. (AI) Simple Analytic Mechanisms 18. (FS) Feature Structure Analysis 19. (CE) Certainty 21. (TC) Text Criticism and Apparatus 22. (ND) Names and Dates 23. (23) Graphs, Digraphs and Trees 27. (SH) Structured Header 29. (FD) Feature System Declaration 30. (TD) Tag Set Declaration 31. (CF) TEI Conformance 32. (MD) Modifying DTDs As a result of this meeting, some further amendments were suggested which are now being incorporated. A meeting of the TEI Advisory Board will be held in Chicago on 28-29 June at which representatives of the Participating Organizations will be asked to endorse the Guidelines. Publication of Version 2 is planned for fall 1993. This publication will take the form of a detailed technical document and reference specifications of all the tags. Tutorial and case book material will follow. 15. CONSORTIUM FOR LEXICAL RESEARCH (CLR) Louise Guthrie 16 June 1993 The Consortium for Lexical Research (CLR), established by the Association for Computational Linguistics, with funding from DARPA, is now in the middle of its third year. The Consortium is sited at the Computing Research Laboratory, New Mexico, USA and is advised by a board consisting of Roy Byrd, Ralph Grishman, Mark Liberman and Donald E. Walker. During the past two and a half years, Yorick Wilks has served as director of the CLR with Louise Guthrie as associate director. As of June 1, 1993, when Professor Wilks took up his new position at Scheffield University in England, Louise Guthrie assumed the role of director and Jim Cowie that of associate director. The objective of the Consortium for Lexical Research is to act as a clearinghouse, in the US and internationally, for lexical data and software. It shares lexical data and tools used to perform research on natural language dictionaries and lexicons, as well as communicating the results of that research, thus accelerating the scale and speed of the development of natural language understanding programs via standard lexicons and software. The task of the CLR is primarily to facilitate research, making available to the whole natural language processing community certain resources now held only by a few groups that have special relationships with companies or dictionary publishers. The CLR, as far as is practical, accepts contributions from any source, regardless of theoretical orientation, and makes them available as widely as possible for research. RECENT RESULTS Our focus this year has been on the acquisition of new materials and the recruiting of new members. Response to the Consortium has been enthusiastic and continuous. The repository has grown significantly and the consortium membership has quadrupled in the last year. Information about the CLR including the catalog of offerings, the membership or provider agreements or any previous newsletter can be obtained from firstname.lastname@example.org. Our current status can be summarized as follows: Membership: We now have 52 members of the CLR which include 20 domestic universities, 9 foreign universities, 6 government agencies and 17 commercial companies (including Apple, Microsoft, Xerox and Siemens). We have had over 1,200 ftp accesses in the last four months from more than 25 countries around the world. The government has sponsored a subscription to the CLR for research groups participating in the 5th Message Understanding Conference (MUC5). Collection: The CLR currently has over 150 contributions for lexical use. Of these, some are restricted to MUC5 participants, eight are restricted to "members only" and the others are available to anyone. A catalog is available to anyone with descriptions of the resources. Approximately 50 other contributions are in various stages of negotiations at this time. Contracts: Together with our university lawyers, we have developed contracts for members and providers. Negotiations with dictionary publishers have been difficult, but we now have arrangements with Longman and Harper-Collins publishers which facilitate the purchase of their machine readable dictionaries by members. At present the distribution of the dictionaries is still in the hands of the publishers and is slow. We are working on ways to expedite the process and we are now turning to the major U.S. publishers. Publicity: The Consortium has begun a newsletter which is distributed via email to members and to anyone who has requested information about the CLR. The newsletter highlights a different piece of software or data each month, and informs its readers of any new items which are available. Conferences: In December 1992 the Computing Research Laboratory hosted the second workshop of the Consortium for Lexical Research: U.S./European Cooperation. The workshop was sponsored jointly by NSF and the European Commission to discuss international cooperation of lexical computation. Twenty-five researchers participated in the workshop. A report is available through the Computing Research Laboratory. PLANS FOR THE COMING YEAR We plan to expand membership and holdings steadily over the year, and progress toward our long term goal of establishing the Consortium as a self-supporting entity. We hope to do this by signing agreements with other dictionary publishers to make their products available through the CLR and by more actively seeking contributions of software or data from researchers. Our membership drive will focus on obtaining more international members, and members from the community of researchers and language specialists who may not have everyday access to the internet. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION Renewals: Many members join the CLR just to obtain a particular piece of software. We'd like ideas for renewals. The rate of enhancement of individual items is slow, and although some have been updated regularly (Wordnet, Juman), most items have not changed since they were loaded into the CLR. The rate of acquisitions is also slow due to the time it takes to negotiate and finalize agreements. Why should members renew? Publishers: We are successfully mediating between dictionary publishers and users, but it does not seem reasonable to assume that publishers will relinquish control of their dictionaries. It seems likely we'll have to learn to live with this state of affairs although we will continue to work increase accessibility to all researchers. Any support or ideas ACL can give in this matter would be appreciated. American publishers may prove more amenable than British ones. Viability: Given the current projections for running CLR and continuing the level of support we now give to members (which includes handholding for ftp and for the use of software), we project we'll need to maintain our current level of staffing. It is our opinion that although the CLR is not a self-supporting enterprise, it is providing a useful function to the research community and we are exploring ways of ensuring its existence after the DARPA funding ceases at the end of this year. Comments and suggestions on this point are welcome. 11. EUROPEAN CORPUS INITIATIVE (preliminary draft) Susan Armstrong 18 June 1993 The European Corpus Initiative (ECI) was established in January 1992 to collect corpora for languages other than English as a complement to the ACL/DCI. The work has been supported by the ACL, ELSNET, HCRC, ISSCO, NERC, and the LDC. A first phase of the initiative is nearing completion which will result in a CD-ROM pressing this summer. The CD-ROM will be prepared by the LDC, distribution in Europe will be taken care of by ELSNET and in the States by LDC. Most of the collection and clean-up work has been done at HCRC, ISSCO and LDC with some help from other centers on an ad-hoc basis. Currently, HCRC has some 40-50 sub-corpora varying in size between 12K words and 5 million words. The total size of the corpus to be made available on the CD-ROM will be more than 50 million words. The texts will provide a representative sample of all major Western European languages plus a number of Eastern European languages. A set of parallel texts in English, French, German, and Spanish are also in preparation. Unfortunately, a number of recently acquired parallel texts may not be included due to lack of resources. Future plans include a continued effort to acquire more texts in general, and also to focus on more representative corpora for given languages, text types and limited domains. With the growing interest in using textual resources and the increased funding level of corpus-based projects, both in Europe and in combined efforts across the Atlantic, the community can look forward to an ever larger set of texts for research purposes. As soon as the first ECI CD-ROM is ready for distribution, a public announcement will be made via all appropriate channels. For more information contact Susan Armstrong at ISSCO or Henry Thompson at HCRC. 17. GRADUATE DIRECTORY Martha Evens 10 June 1993 In December, 1992, ACL published the third edition of the Directory of Graduate Programs in Computational Linguistics. It includes 81 entries for programs in the United States and 64 entries for the rest of the world. I would like to raise some questions about the future of the Graduate Directory that the Board may wish to consider (at some more convenient moment): 1. Do you wish to continue the Graduate Directory? 2. If you wish the Graduate Directory to continue, would you wish it to come out on some regular schedule (every year or every other year)? 3. The schedule that best fits the academic year in the United States is September or October. Is this timing appropriate around the world? 4. Could the functions of the Directory be handled by maintaining a file available for ftp on a computer somewhere? (I could maintain such a file on a Sun in my laboratory at IIT, for example and date the information for individual entries.) 5. Could the functions of the Directory be handled by creating a membership list available in print or ftp form sorted by on location as well as by alphabetical order, plus a list of names and addresses (email and conventional) of institutions whether they are members or not? 18. COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS COURSE SURVEY Bonnie Dorr 14 June 1993 We have now completed the Survey of Computational Linguistics courses, which serves as a follow-on to the Directory of Graduate Programs compiled and published as a special CL issue by by Martha Evens. We are in the process of converting both on-line and hardcopy responses into LaTeX. In addition, we are compiling a bibliography (in BibTeX) containing all citations given by respondents. We expect to be done with this compilation by the end of the summer. Three points need to be discussed at the executive committee meeting. If possible, we would like to have some input from the committee on these; please contact Bonnie Dorr (email@example.com) with comments. A. Confusion over intent of CL Survey Many respondents were confused about the intent of this survey. The survey is a systematic compilation of syllabi from individual classes that teach computational linguistics --- it is not intended to be an enumeration of classes taught in CL programs as in the Survey of Graduate Programs. Several institutions sent us 6-15 syllabi for their programs; we had expected to publish only 1 or 2 per institution and an upper bound of 3 in certain (rare) cases. We requested that these institutions pare down the responses to 2 or 3. Many responded that they could not do this because it would not provide a representative description of a whole curriculum in CL. As stated at the outset, this survey was not intended to provide a listing that would be representative of entire CL curricula; we feel that this objective was fulfilled, to a certain extent, by the Survey of Graduate Programs. Rather, this survey was intended to give a detailed description of a small set (preferably 1) of classes that teach computational linguistics more generally. In cases where a large number of course syllabi were sent to us, we had to make a decision as to which ones should be included in the final listing. For example, Saarbrueken sent us responses for the following 15 courses: Introduction to Computational Linguistics Grammar Formalisms Grammar Development CL and AI in Society Mathematical Methods in Linguistics I Parsing Introduction to Logic Programming Introduction to text theory Syntax und Morphologie Word Order Lisp for linguists Semantic Formalisms Semantic Processing Computational Lexicon Mathematical Foundations of Linguistics II In order to keep the compilation task tractable, we decided to include the introductory course (i.e., the first one) and to list the others as part of the COMMENTS section at the end of the questionnaire (including the names of the professors who teach these courses). We would like comments from the Executive committee concerning this point; is this an appropriate solution to the problem? Our suggestion for the next round on this survey is to be more specific in our instructions, in particular, with respect to the following line: "We are eager to include two types of classes: those that teach computational linguistics as the sole topic and those that teach computational linguistics as one of many topics." If we decide that these two types of classes are acceptable, we still need to be careful to exclude those courses that are peripherally related (e.g., "Lisp for linguists") or that are too narrowly focused on a specific topic (e.g., "Word Order"). B. Incomplete bibliographic references Many respondents did not give complete references for their citations. Here are two examples: - Winfried, Handbuch der Semiotik (Handbook of Semiotics) - Zock and Sabah (1988) Incomplete references are slowing down the bibliography compilation considerably. We are using the citation mechanism provided by BibTeX, which helps us to compile statistics about most frequently references material, etc. However, without complete references, we will not be able to achieve this goal fully. We are in the process of tracking some of these down; in some cases we will be contacting respondents and asking them to be more specific. In order to expedite the process, we would also like to ask the executive committee members what they think of the idea of electronically posting the incomplete references so that others can help us out. We're sure that, with the aid of ACL members (as well as others who read the network), we could obtain a complete citation for many of these references. What mechanism should be used to post this request? The next time we conduct the survey, we should be more explicit about requesting complete references (perhaps in a BibTeX format) so that we can provide as complete a bibliography as possible. C. Future plans Two important questions have been raised: does ACL want to do this, and if so, how often? In addition, Martha Evens has offered some suggestions concerning future instantiations of the CL Survey. One is that we might be able to satisfy this need with a file available for anonymous ftp --- which we advertise in the Finite String --- plus printouts that could be mailed to people who did not access to net mail. What is the executive committee's response to this suggestion? If the survey were made electronically available how would updates be executed? Who would maintain the compiled listing? ------------------------------------------------------------------- To the committee: Please send Bonnie Dorr your comments, suggestions, tips, etc. regarding these three points. (See the e-mail address given above.) 19. NATURAL LANGUAGE SOFTWARE REGISTRY Elizabeth Hinkelman 17 June 1993 Second edition: the second edition of the Registry contains nearly one hundred software descriptions, in large part due to participants of the 1992 survey of natural language processing software conducted for the German Ministry for Research and Technology by DFKI inc. under Prof. Wolfgang Wahlster. The Registry now encompasses not only software for various levels of linguistic analysis, large systems that perform several levels of analysis, and application programs, but also a full section on systems for natural language generation. We look forward to a third edition with cooperation from the software survey conducted by the University of Pisa. Pan-european activities: the Registry is supplying its experience with software to various european activities, from which it will derive infrastructural benefits. The Registry is establishing a test site at DFKI for ELSNet's software repositories and distribution mechanism. By the end of the summer, the Registry will also begin conducting experiments in software evaluation and distribution for the EC-sponsored RELATOR project, which has as its mandate the coordination of natural language data and tools. We hope that the participation of the Registry (a fully international project) in these efforts will result in improvements in access to software for researchers located outside of the EC as well. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Substantially revised Secretary-Treasurer Report 2. SECRETARY-TREASURER'S REPORT Don Walker 6 July 1993 ACL 1992 FINANCIAL STATUS ------------------------- INCOME EXPENSES Membership 58,185 121,846 Proceedings 35,192 1,363 Meetings 64,376 46,142 Workshops 245 3,520 CLR 8,793 Prague Workshop 17,013 TEI 20,000 DCI/CDROM 1,760 NSF Grant 7,184 7,302 Royalties 427 Interest 19,289 European Bonds 40,926 49,826 Foreign Exchange 6,700 ------- ------- TOTALS 227,584 282,505 Difference 54,921 1991 1992 ASSETS 375,746 320,825 ACL 1992 MEMBERSHIP ACCOUNT --------------------------- INCOME EXPENSES Dues 44,444 Services 34,036 Back orders 3,378 Journal 55,350 Mail fees 4,966 Editorial 6,000 Labels 1,563 Post/Ship 12,572 International Fund 3,834 Equipment 3,223 Supplies 1,365 Phone 828 Travel 7,225 Legal 380 Bank 486 Refunds 381 ------- ------- TOTALS 58,185 121,846 ACL MEMBERSHIP STATUS --------------------- YEAR PERSONAL REGULAR STUDENT INSTITUTIONAL 1977 500 201 1978 444 218 1979/80 658 249 1981 1208 264 1982 1545 296 1983 1384 319 1984 1355 325 1985 1969 366 1986 1960 410 1987 2104 1786 318 454 1988 1959 1690 269 (408) 1989 2001 1729 272 (538) 1990 1932 1656 276 (564) 1991 2065 1744 321 (620) 1992 1991 1705 279 (???) 6/93 1807 1503 297 (???) ACL MEMBERSHIP DISTRIBUTION --------------------------- US CANADA EUROPE OTHER PACIFIC RIM ASIA/AFRICA/SA 1987 63% 4% 25% 9% 1988 63% 4% 25% 9% 1989 57% 4% 29% 9% 1990 57% 4% 30% 9% 1991 53% 4% 34% 8% 1% 1992 51% 4% 34% 10% 1% 6/93 46% 4% 39% 10% 1%