You will be presented with a citation segment from the section of an NLP research paper, as well as the context surrounding that citation. Classify the intent behind this citation by choosing from one of the following categories:
- Background: provides context or foundational information related to the topic.
- Extends: builds upon the cited work.
- Uses: applies the methods or findings of the cited work.
- Motivation: cites the work as inspiration or rationale for the research.
- CompareOrContrast: compares or contrasts the cited work with others.
- FutureWork: cites the work as a direction for future research.

Your answer should be a single word from the following list of options: ["Background", "Extends", "Uses", "Motivation", "CompareOrContrast", "FutureWork"]. Do not include any other text in your response.

Section Title:
introduction

Context before the citation:
Discrepancies in length throw constituents off balance, and so prosodic phrasing will cross constituent boundaries in order to give the phrases similar lengths; this is the case in Chickens were eating II the remaining green vegetables, where the subject-predicate boundary finds no prosodic correspondent.4 The most explicit version of this approach is the analysis presented in Gee and Grosjean (1983) (henceforth G&G). Thus syntactic and prosodic structure match when the major constituents of a sentence are roughly equal in length; for example, the main prosodic phrase break corresponds to the subject-predicate boundary in Waiters who remember well II serve orders correctly. Grosjean et al. (1979) claims that such mismatches are due for the most part to constituent length, which interacts with grammatical structure and, in some cases, overrides it.

Citation Sentence:
Discrepancies in length throw constituents off balance , and so prosodic phrasing will cross constituent boundaries in order to give the phrases similar lengths ; this is the case in Chickens were eating II the remaining green vegetables , where the subject-predicate boundary finds no prosodic correspondent .4 The most explicit version of this approach is the analysis presented in Gee and Grosjean ( 1983 ) ( henceforth G&G ) .

Context after the citation:
Drawing on the psycholinguistic studies mentioned above and on aspects of the grammar of prosody outlined in Selkirk (1984), G&G propose an algorithm for mapping syntactic structure onto a hierarchical representation of phrasing; the rules they present accomplish this by integrating syntactic information (e.g. constituent structure, left-toright ordering) with information about constituent length. We have found that their rules, which are described in detail, provide a productive model for investigations of phrasing, and in what follows we shall frequently refer to their analysis. But, as we will show, G&G fall short of providing a comprehensive theory. Their rules are too limited and their syntax too underspecified to achieve moderate coverage for an unrestricted collection of sentences or to provide an adequate description for implemental ion.5
CompareOrContrast