Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 423–443 | Cite as

Lexical Choice and Conceptual Perspective in the Generation of Plural Referring Expressions

Article

Abstract

A fundamental part of the process of referring to an entity is to categorise it (for instance, as the woman). Where multiple categorisations exist, this implicitly involves the adoption of a conceptual perspective. A challenge for the automatic Generation of Referring Expressions is to identify a set of referents coherently, adopting the same conceptual perspective. We describe and evaluate an algorithm to achieve this. The design of the algorithm is motivated by the results of psycholinguistic experiments.

Keywords

Natural language generation Generation of referring expressions Plurals Conceptual coherence Semantic similarity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aloni, M. (2002). Questions under cover. In D. Barker-Plummer, D. Beaver, J. van Benthem, & P. S. de Luzio (Eds.), Words, proofs, and diagrams. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  2. Bard E.G., Robertson D., Sorace A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72(1): 32–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry C., Morrison C.M., Ellis A.W. (1997). Naming the snodgrass and vanderwart pictures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A(3): 560–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Church K.W., Hanks P. (1990). Word association norms, mutual information and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16(1): 22–29Google Scholar
  5. Clark E. (1997). Conceptual perspective and lexical choice in acquisition. Cognition 64, 1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dale, R. (1989). Cooking up referring expressions. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL-89.Google Scholar
  7. Dale R., Reiter E. (1995). Computational interpretation of the Gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions. Cognitive Science, 19(8), 233–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eschenbach, C., Habel, C., Herweg, M., & Rehkamper, K. (1989). Remarks on plural anaphora. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL-89.Google Scholar
  9. Gardent, C. (2002). Generating minimal definite descriptions. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL-02.Google Scholar
  10. Gatt, A. (2006). Structuring knowledge for reference generation: A clustering algorithm. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL-06.Google Scholar
  11. Gatt, A., & van Deemter, K. (2005). Semantic similarity and the generation of referring expressions: A first report. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Computational Semantics, IWCS-6.Google Scholar
  12. Horacek, H. (2004). On referring to sets of objects naturally. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Natural Language Generation, INLG-04.Google Scholar
  13. Jordan, P. W. (2000). Can nominal expressions achieve multiple goals? A corpus study. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL-00.Google Scholar
  14. Kaup B., Kelter S., Habel, C. (2002). Representing referents of plural expressions and resolving plural anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 17(4): 405–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keller, F. (2003). A psychophysical law for linguistic judgments. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci-03.Google Scholar
  16. Kilgarriff, A. (2003). Thesauruses for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the Conference on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering, NLP/KE-03.Google Scholar
  17. Kilgarriff, A., Rychly, P., Smrz, P., & Tugwell, D. (2004). The Sketch Engine. In Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of the European Association for Lexicography, EURALEX-04.Google Scholar
  18. Koh S., Clifton C. (2002). Resolution of the antecedent of a plural pronoun: Ontological categories and predicate symmetry. Journal of Memory and Language 46, 830–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kronfeld, A. (1989). Conversationally relevant descriptions. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL-89.Google Scholar
  20. Langkilde, I. (2000). Forest-based statistical language generation. In Proceedings of the 1st Meeting of the North Americal Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, NAACL-00.Google Scholar
  21. Lapata, M., McDonald, S., & Keller, F. (1999). Determinants of adjective-noun plausibility. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL-99.Google Scholar
  22. Lin, D. (1998a). Automatic retrieval and clustering of similar words. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, COLING-ACL-98.Google Scholar
  23. Lin, D. (1998b). An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning.Google Scholar
  24. Murphy G. (1984). Establishing and accessing referents in discourse. Memory and Cognition 12, 489–497Google Scholar
  25. Papineni, S., Roukos, T., Ward, W., & Zhu, W. (2002). BLEU: A. method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL-02.Google Scholar
  26. Pederson, T., Patwardhan, S., & Michelizzi, J. (2004). Wordnet::similarity—Measuring the relatedness of concepts. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI-04.Google Scholar
  27. Pustejovsky J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  28. Reiter E., Sripada S. (2002). Human variation and lexical choice. Computational Linguistics 28, 545–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sanford, A., & Moxey, L. (1995). Notes on plural reference and the scenario-mapping principle in comprehension. In C. Habel, & G. Rickheit (Eds), Focus and cohesion in discourse. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  30. Siddharthan, A., & Copestake, A. (2004). Generating referring expressions in open domains. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL-04.Google Scholar
  31. Stevens S.S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review 64, 153–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stone, M. (2000). On identifying sets. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Natural Language Generation, INLG-00.Google Scholar
  33. van Deemter, K. (2000). Generating vague descriptions. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Natural Language Generation, INLG-00.Google Scholar
  34. van Deemter K. (2002). Generating referring expressions: Boolean extensions of the Incremental Algorithm. Computational Linguistics 28(1): 37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Varges, S., & Mellish, C. (2001). Instance-based natural language generation. In Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the North Americal Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, NAACL-01.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations