Advertisement

Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 353–375 | Cite as

Performing aggregation and ellipsis using discourse structures

Original Paper

Abstract

This article describes the generation of aggregated and elliptic sentences, using Dependency Trees connected by rhetorical relations as input. The system we have developed can generate both hypotactic and paratactic constructions with appropriate cue words, and various forms of ellipsis such as Gapping and Conjunction Reduction. We contend that Dependency Trees connected by rhetorical relations are excellent input for a generation system that has to generate ellipsis, and we propose a taxonomy of the most common Dutch cue words, grouped according to the kind of discourse relations they signal. Finally, we argue that syntactic aggregation should be performed in the Surface Realizer of a language generation system, because it requires access to language-specific syntactic information.

Keywords

Aggregation Dependency trees Discourse structure Ellipsis Language generation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen H.C. (1975). Sprookjes en vertellingen. Bussum: Van Holkema en Warendorf. Translated by W. van Eeden.Google Scholar
  2. Bouma, G., van Noord, G., & Malouf, R. (2001). Alpino: Wide Coverage Computational Analysis of Dutch. In W. Daelemans, K. Sima’an, J. Veenstra, & J. Zavrel (Eds.), Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands 2000 (pp. 45–59). The Netherlands: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  3. Cahill, L., & Reape, M. (1999). Component tasks in applied NLG systems. Technical Report ITRI- 99-05. Brighton, UK: Information Technology Research Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Callaway, C., & Lester, J. (2001). Evaluating the effects of natural language generation. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2001) (pp. 164–169).Google Scholar
  5. Dalianis H. (1999). Aggregation in natural language generation. Computational Intelligence 15(4): 384–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harbusch, K., & Kempen, G. (2006). ELLEIPO: A module that computes coordinative ellipsis for language generators that don’t. In Proceedings of the 11th conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL 2006) (pp. 115–118).Google Scholar
  7. Hartmann K. (2000). Right node raising and gapping: Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Philadelphia, John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  8. Hendriks P. (2004). Coherence relations, ellipsis, and contrastive topics. Journal of Semantics 21(2): 133–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hielkema, F. (2005). Performing syntactic aggregation using discourse structures. Master’s thesis, Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. Available at http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~theune/VS/.Google Scholar
  10. Hovy E. (1993). Automated discourse generation using discourse structure relations. Artificial Intelligence 63(1–2): 341–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Knott A., Dale R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of rhetorical relations. Discourse Processes 18(1): 35–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Knott A., Dale R. (1996). Choosing a set of coherence relations for text generation: A data-driven approach. In: Adorni G., Zock M. (eds), Trends in natural language generation: An artificial intelligence perspective. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, pp. 47–67Google Scholar
  13. Knott A., Sanders T. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 135–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuno S. (1976). Gapping: A functional analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 300–318Google Scholar
  15. Lavoie, B., Kittredge, R., Korelsky, T., & Rambow, O. (2000). A framework for MT and multilingual NLG systems based on uniform lexico-structural processing. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Applied Natural Language Processing (ANLP/NAACL 2000) (pp. 60–67).Google Scholar
  16. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. (1987). Rhetorical Structure Theory: A theory of text organization. Technical Report ISI/RS-87-190. Los Angeles: ISI: Information Sciences Institute.Google Scholar
  17. Mel’cuk I. (1988). Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany, State University of New York PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Neijt A. (1979). Gapping: A contribution to sentence grammar. Dordrecht, Foris PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  19. Reape, M., & Mellish, C. (1999). Just what is aggregation anyway? In Proceedings of the 7th European workshop on Natural Language Generation (pp. 20–29).Google Scholar
  20. Reiter E., Dale R. (2000). Building natural language generation systems. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Sanders T., Noordman L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 29(1): 37–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sanders T., Spooren W., Noordman L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15, 1–35Google Scholar
  23. Scott D., de Souza C.S. (1990). Getting the message across in RST-based text generation. In: Dale R., Mellish C., Zock M. (eds), Current research in natural language generation. New York, Academic, pp. 47–73Google Scholar
  24. Shaw, J. (1998). Segregatory coordination and ellipsis in text generation. In Proceedings of the 17th COLING and the 36th annual meeting of the ACL (pp. 1220–1226).Google Scholar
  25. Shaw J. (2002). Clause aggregation: An approach to generating concise text. PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Siddharthan A. (2006). Syntactic simplification and text cohesion. Research on Language and Computation 4, 77–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slabbers, N. (2006). Narration for virtual storytelling. Master’s thesis, Human Media Interaction, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. Available at http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~theune/VS/.Google Scholar
  28. Taboada M., Mann W.C. (2006). Applications of Rhetorical Structure Theory. Discourse Studies 8(4): 567–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tai J.H. (1969). Coordination Reduction. PhD thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Theune M., Meijs K., Heylen D., Ordelman R. (2006). Generating expressive speech for storytelling applications. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Processing 14(4): 1137–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Theune, M., Rensen, S., op den Akker, R., Heylen, D., & Nijholt, A. (2004). Emotional characters for automatic plot creation. In S. Göbel, A. Hoffmann, I. Iurgel, O. Schneider, J. Dechau, A. Feix, & U. Spierling (Eds.), Technologies for Interactive Digital Storytelling and Entertainment (TIDSE 2004), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3105 (pp. 95–100). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. van der Wouden, T., Hoekstra, H., Moortgat, M., Renmans, B., & Schuurman, I. (2002). Syntactic analysis in the spoken Dutch corpus. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC).Google Scholar
  33. van Oirsouw R. (1987). The syntax of coordination. London, Croom HelmGoogle Scholar
  34. White M. (2006). Efficient realization of coordinate structures in combinatory categorial grammar. Research on Language and Computation 4, 39–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zwarts, F. (1986). Categoriale grammatica en algebraïsche semantiek. PhD thesis, Groningen University, Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariët Theune
    • 1
  • Feikje Hielkema
    • 2
  • Petra Hendriks
    • 3
  1. 1.Human Media Interaction, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenScotland, UK
  3. 3.Center for Language and Cognition GroningenUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations