A constraint satisfaction approach to context-sensitive utterance generation in multi-party dialogue systems

  • Vladimir Popescu
  • Jean Caelen
  • Corneliu Burileanu
Article

Abstract

In this paper we present a constraint satisfaction approach to the pragmatic control of the language generation process in dialogue systems. After a brief problem statement providing motivational background for a constraint satisfaction approach to context sensitive language generation, a theoretical framework designed and implemented in part by the authors (in the context of several research and development projects) will be argued for in concise manner. Particularly, the way in which constraints influence the generation of context-sensitive, relevant utterances in simultaneous interaction with several human speakers will be considered in detail, providing a computational framework for handling “pragmatic” aspects, such as the degree of illocutionary force, semantic ellipsis, or lexical selection of concessive connectors. Then, limiting cases of our approach will be pointed out, showing in what measure by acting on the constraints we can enlarge these limits.

Constraint satisfaction Multi-party conversation Dialogue systems Pragmatics Semantics Discourse 

References

  1. Anscombre, J. C. (1995). Topique or not topique: formes topiques intrinsèques et formes topiques extrinsèques. Journal of Pragmatics, 24(1–2), 115–141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Berger, A. (2006). La Communication entre agents de communautés mixtes : un langage de conversation expressive pour agents artificiels. PhD thesis, Grenoble Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  4. Bratman, M. E. (1987). Intention, plans and practical reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  5. Bunt, H., & Black, W. (Eds.) (2000). Abduction, belief and context in dialogue: studies in computational pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  6. Caelen, J., & Xuereb, A. (2007). Interaction et pragmatique—jeux de dialogue et de langage. Paris: Hermès. Google Scholar
  7. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  8. Ducrot, O. (1995). Les modificateurs déréalisants. Journal of Pragmatics, 24(1–2), 145–165. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallier, J. (1986). Logic for computer science. New York: Wiley. MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen. Google Scholar
  11. Jokinen, K. (1994). Response planning in information-seeking dialogues. PhD thesis, University of Manchester. Google Scholar
  12. Jurafsky, D. (2004). Pragmatics and computational linguistics. In R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 578–604). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  13. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  14. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  15. Mann, W. C., & Thomson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281. Google Scholar
  16. Maudet, N., Muller, P., & Prévot, L. (2006). Social constraints on rhetorical relations in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2nd workshop constraints in discourse, Maynooth, Ireland (pp. 133–139). Google Scholar
  17. Minker, W., & Bennacef, S. (2001). Parole et dialogue homme-machine. Paris: CNRS. Google Scholar
  18. Moeschler, J. (1989). Modélisation du dialogue—représentation de l’inférence argumentative. Paris: Hermès. Google Scholar
  19. Moeschler, J., & Reboul, A. (1994). Dictionnaire encyclopédique de pragmatique. Paris: Seuil. Google Scholar
  20. Nguyen, H., & Caelen, J. (2004). Multi-session management in spoken dialogue system. In Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3315, pp. 266–274). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  21. Pereira, F., & Shieber, S. (1987). Prolog for natural-language analysis. CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  22. Piwek, P. (1998). Logic, information and conversation. PhD thesis, University of Eindhoven. Google Scholar
  23. Piwek, P., & van Deemter, K. (2006). Constraint-based natural language generation: a survey (Tech. rep.). Department of Computing, The Open University. Google Scholar
  24. Popescu, V. (2008). Formalisation des contraintes pragmatiques pour la génération des énoncés en dialogue homme-machine multi-locuteurs. PhD thesis, Grenoble Institute of Technology. Available from: http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00343846/en/.
  25. Popescu, V., & Caelen, J. (2008a). A rhetorical structuring model for natural language generation in human-computer multi-party dialogue (Tech. rep.). Laboratoire d’Informatique de Grenoble. Available from: http://hal.inria.fr/hal-00429604/en/.
  26. Popescu, V., & Caelen, J. (2008b). Contextual filtering of rhetorical relations in discourse structuring for natural language generation in human-computer dialogue. In Proceedings of the 3rd workshop constraints in discourse, Potsdam, Germany (pp. 115–122). Google Scholar
  27. Popescu, V., & Caelen, J. (2008c). Contrôle rhétorique de la génération des connecteurs concessifs en dialogue homme-machine. In Proceedings of traitement automatique des langues naturelles, Avignon, France (pp. 79–88). Google Scholar
  28. Popescu, V., & Caelen, J. (2009). Argumentative ordering of utterances in multi-party human-computer dialogue. Argumentation, 23(2), 205–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Popescu, V., Caelen, J., & Burileanu, C. (2007a). Logic-based rhetorical structuring for natural language generation in human-computer dialogue. In Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4629, pp. 309–317). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  30. Popescu, V., Caelen, J., & Burileanu, C. (2007b). Using speech acts in logic-based rhetorical structuring for natural language generation in human-computer dialogue. In Proceedings of the 8th SIGDial workshop on discourse and dialogue, Antwerp, Belgium (pp. 243–246). Google Scholar
  31. Popescu, V., Caelen, J., & Burileanu, C. (2008). Contrôle rhétorique de l’ellipse sémantique en génération du langage pour le dialogue homme-machine à plusieurs locuteurs. Traitement Automatique des Langues, 49(1), 115–139. Google Scholar
  32. Reiter, E., & Dale, R. (2000). Building natural language generation systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  33. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2003). Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. New York: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
  34. Sadek, D. (2005). ARTIMIS rational dialogue agent technology: an overview. In Multi-agent programming (pp. 217–243). Google Scholar
  35. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  36. Stent, A. (2001). Dialogue systems as conversational partners: applying conversational acts theory to natural language generation for task-oriented mixed-initiative spoken dialogue. PhD thesis, University of Rochester. Google Scholar
  37. Traum, D. (1994). A computational theory of grounding in natural language conversation. PhD thesis, University of Rochester. Google Scholar
  38. Tsang, E. (1993). Foundations of constraint satisfaction. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  39. Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and speech acts, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  40. Xuereb, A., & Caelen, J. (2005). Actes de langage et relations rhétoriques en dialogue homme-machine. Revue de l’Université de Moncton, 36(2), 5–51. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vladimir Popescu
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jean Caelen
    • 2
  • Corneliu Burileanu
    • 3
  1. 1.University of AvignonAvignonFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Informatique de Grenoble, CNRSGrenobleFrance
  3. 3.University “Politehnica” of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations