Sentence planning as description using tree adjoining grammar

Stone, Matthew; Doran, Christine

doi:10.3115/976909.979643

Cited by 41 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, unlike LTAG systems (e.g. (Stone and Doran, 1997)), both parsing and generation are not head-driven, but word-by-word incremental. This has the advantage of allowing fully incremental models for all languages, matching psycholinguistic observations (Ferreira, 1996) irrespective of the position in the clausal sequence of the verb.…”

Section: Generationmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…And, though some parsing systems are strictly incremental, generation systems are invariably head-driven (e.g. Stone and Doran, 1997), making the generation of utterances such as the first in example (4) especially problematic. Furthermore, in neither case is there reason to expect parallelism effects across such inverse applications of the use-neutral grammar device.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Grammars as Parsers: Meeting the Dialogue Challenge

Purver

Cann

Kempson

2006

Research Language Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard grammar formalisms are defined without reflection of the incremental, serial and context-dependent nature of language processing; any incrementality must therefore be reflected by independently defined parsing and/or generation techniques, and context-dependence by separate pragmatic modules. This leads to a poor setup for modelling dialogue, with its rich speaker-hearer interaction and high proportion of contextdependent and apparently grammatically ill-formed utterances. Instead, this paper takes an inherently incremental grammar formalism, Dynamic Syntax (DS) , proposes a context-based extension and defines corresponding context-dependent parsing and generation models together with a resulting natural definition of context-dependent well-formedness. These are shown to allow a straightforward model of otherwise problematic dialogue phenomena such as shared utterances, ellipsis and alignment. We conclude that language competence is a capacity for dialogue.

show abstract

Section: Generationmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grammars as Parsers: Meeting the Dialogue Challenge

Purver

Cann

Kempson

2006

Research Language Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A similar approach isStone and Doran's (1997) where each elementary tree has a flat semantic representation, the semantic representations are conjoined when combining them, and variable assignments are done by unification in the feature structures on the derived tree. But there is no underspecification, and the approach is less explicit thanGardent and Kallmeyer's (2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scope and Situation Binding in LTAG Using Semantic Unification

Kallmeyer

Romero

2008

Res on Lang and Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper sets up a framework for Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (LTAG) semantics that brings together ideas from different recent approaches addressing some shortcomings of LTAG semantics based on the derivation tree. The approach assigns underspecified semantic representations and semantic feature structure descriptions to elementary trees. Semantic computation is guided by the derivation tree and consists of adding feature value equations to the descriptions. A rigorous formal definition of the framework is given. Then, within this framework, an analysis is proposed that accounts for the different scopal properties of quantificational NPs (including nested NPs), adverbs, raising verbs and attitude verbs. Furthermore, by integrating situation variables in the semantics, different situation binding possibilities are derived for different types of quantificational elements.

show abstract

“…As a consequence, we closely couple description building with surface realization. Such a coupling has previously been advocated in [12]. In the context of our approach, this means that the chart algorithm attempts to immediately realize new description edges.…”

Section: Processing Framework and Representationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overgenerating Referring Expressions Involving Relations and Booleans

Varges

2004

Natural Language Generation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present a new approach to the generation of referring expressions containing attributive, type and relational properties combined by conjunctions, disjunctions and negations. The focus of this paper is on generating referring expressions involving positive and negated relations. We describe rule-based overgeneration of referring expressions based on the notion of 'extension', and show how to constrain the search space by interleaving logical form generation with realization and expressing preferences by means of costs. Our chart-based framework allows us to develop a search-based solution to the problem of 'recursive' relations.

show abstract

Sentence planning as description using tree adjoining grammar

Cited by 41 publications

References 40 publications

Grammars as Parsers: Meeting the Dialogue Challenge

Grammars as Parsers: Meeting the Dialogue Challenge

Scope and Situation Binding in LTAG Using Semantic Unification

Overgenerating Referring Expressions Involving Relations and Booleans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About