I think my beggest qualm with this paper are similar to what others have mentioned, the language. The paper is written in a way that is extremely difficult to read. To start with, the author tends to use a variety of words like "ergonomic" and "ambivalence" in a context that I do not find appropriate. These words lead to ambiguities and confusion and, in my opinion, should not be used in a technical paper unless totally necessary.

The paper also uses terms and phrases from a wide variety of papers and introduces new phrases themselves (Melanie mentions a few of these great phrases). This is not necessarily bad, but often the paper introduces these concepts without a detailed explanation. Along these same lines, the paper could have been made much more readable by rephrasing some of these concepts or simply omitting them.

If you can get past the difficulty of the language, however, some of the ideas are interesting. I found the results presented in Table 1 based on the TDT-1 examples quite interesting. The results seem to clearly show the two different usages. I found it interesting that the system could distinguish between somewhat similar concepts, as in the flight example. I was suprised, however, that in this experiment they did not do word stemming. I wonder why they did not choose to stem the words and what effect this had.