Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 487–509 | Cite as

Towards the Use of Automated Reasoning in Discourse Disambiguation

  • Claire Gardent
  • Bonnie Webber
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we claim that the disambiguation ofreferring expressions in discourse can be formulated in terms automatedreasoners can address. Specifically, we show that consistency,informativity and minimality are criteria which (i) can be implementedusing automated reasoning tools and (ii) can be used to disambiguatenoun-noun compounds, metonymy and definite descriptions.

automated reasoning discourse semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, J. and Perrault, C.R., 1982, “Analyzing intention in utterances,” Artificial Intelligence 15, 143-178. Reprinted as pp. 441-458 in Readings in Natural Language Processing, B. Grosz et al., eds., Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. Appelt, D., 1985, Planning English Sentences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Asher, N. and Lascarides, A., 1998, “Bridging,” Journal of Semantics 15, 83-113.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, P. and Kuhn, M., 1999, “Abducing coreference by model construction,” pp. 21-39 in Proceedings of Inference in Computational Semantics, Amsterdam, C. Monz and M. de Rijke, eds.Google Scholar
  5. Blackburn, P. and Bos, J., 1999, Representation and Inference in Natural Language: A First Course in Computational Semantics, Volume II: Working with Discourse Representations, latest draft available at http://www.comsem.org Blackburn, P., Bos, J., Kohlhase, M., and de Nivelle, H., 1999, “Inference and computational semantics,” pp. 5-21 in Third International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-3), Tilburg, The Netherlands, H.C. Bunt, I. van der Sluis, E.G.C. Thijsse, eds.Google Scholar
  6. Bry, F. and Torge, S., 1996, “Minimal model generation with positive unit hyperresolution tableaux,” pp. 143-159 in Proceedings TABLEAUX'96, P. Miglioli, U. Moscato, D. Mundici, and M. Ornaghi, eds.Google Scholar
  7. Charniak, E., 1972, “Towards a model of children's story comprehension,” Ph.D. Thesis, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  8. Charniak, E., 1973, “Jack and Janet in search of a theory of knowledge,” pp. 337-343 in Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  9. Chu-Carroll, J. and Carberry, S., 1994, “A plan-based model for response generation in collaborative task-oriented dialogues,” pp. 59-63 in Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), Washington, DC: AAAI.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, H. and Marshall, C., 1981, “Definite reference and mutual knowledge,” pp. 10-63 in Elements of Discourse Understanding, A. Joshi, B. Webber, and I. Sag, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Crain, S. and Steedman, M., 1985, “On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser,” pp. 320-358 in Natural Language Parsing, L. Kartunnen, D. Dowty, and A. Zwicky, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Finin, T., 1980, “The semantic interpretation of compound nominals,” Ph.D. Thesis, Coordinated Science Laboratory, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  13. Gardent, C. and Konrad, K., 2000a, “Interpreting definites using model generation,” Journal of Language and Computation, to appear.Google Scholar
  14. Gardent, C. and Konrad, K., 2000b, “Understanding “each other”,” Journal of Language and Computation, to appear.Google Scholar
  15. Gardent, C. and Striegnitz, K., 2001, “Generating indirect anaphora,” pp. 138-155 in Fourth International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-4), Tilburg, The Netherlands, H. Bunt, I. van der Sluis and E. Thijsse, eds.Google Scholar
  16. Grice, H., 1975, “Logic and conversation,” pp. 41-58 in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, P. Cole and J. Morgan, eds., New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hahn, U. and Markert, K., 1999, “On the formal distinction between literal and figurative language,” pp. 133-147 in Proceedings of the 5th Portugese Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Evora, Portugal, P. Barahona et al., eds., Springer Lecture Notes Series, Vol. 541, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Hewitt, C., 1969, “Planner: A language for proving theorems in robot,” pp. 295-301 in Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  19. Hinrichs, E., 1986, “Temporal anaphora in discourses of English,” Linguistics & Philosophy 9, 63-82.Google Scholar
  20. Hintikka, J., 1988, “Model minimization-An alternative to circumscription,” Journal of Automated Reasoning 4, 1-13.Google Scholar
  21. Hobbs, J., Stickel, M., Appelt, D., and Martin, P., 1993, “Interpretation as abduction,” Artificial Intelligence 63, 69-142.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson-Laird, P., 1983, Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kamp, H., 1979, “Events, instant and temporal reference,” pp. 376-417 in Semantics from Different Points of View, U.E.R. Bauerel and A. von Stechow, eds., Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Lambert, L. and Carberry, S., 1999, “A process model for recognizing communicative acts and modeling negotiation subdialogues,” Computational Linguistics 25, 1-53.Google Scholar
  25. Lascarides, A. and Asher, N., 1993, “Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and common sense entailments,” Linguistics & Philosophy 16, 437-493.Google Scholar
  26. Lascarides, A. and Copestake, A., 1998, “Pragmatics and word meaning,” Journal of Linguistics 34, 387-414.Google Scholar
  27. Lehnert, W., 1986, “A conceptual theory of question answering,” pp. 651-658 in Readings in Natural Language Processing, B. Grosz, K. Sparck Jones, and B. Webber, eds., Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. First printed as pp. 158-164 in Proceedings of 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1977.Google Scholar
  28. Levi, J., 1979, The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lewis, D., 1979, “Scorekeeping in a language game,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339-359.Google Scholar
  30. Litman, D. and Allen, J., 1990, “Discourse processing and commonsense plans,” pp. 365-388 in P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack (eds.): Intentions in Communication, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lorenz, S., 1994, “A tableau prover for domain minimization,” Journal of Automated Reasoning 13, 375-390.Google Scholar
  32. Markert, K. and Hahn, U., 1997, “On the interaction of metonymies and anaphora,” pp. 1010-1015 in Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJLAI), Nagoya, Japan, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  33. McCarthy, J., 1980, “Circumscription-A form of non-monotonic reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence 13, 27-39.Google Scholar
  34. Moens, M. and Steedman, M., 1988, “Temporal ontology and temporal reference,” Computational Linguistics 14, 3-14.Google Scholar
  35. Monz, C., 1999, “Contextual inference in computational semantics,” pp. 242-255 in Proceedings of the AAAI-99 Workshop on Reasoning in Context for AI Applications, P. Bouquet, P. Brezillon, L. Serafini, M. Benerecetti, and F. Castellan, eds., Washington, DC: AAAI.Google Scholar
  36. Ramsay, A. and Seville, H., 1999, “Models and discourse models,” pp. 111-125 in Proceedings of Inference in Computational Semantics, Amsterdam, C. Monz and M. de Rijke, eds.Google Scholar
  37. Russell, S. and Norvig, P., 1995, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Sacerdoti, E., 1977, A Structure for Plans and Behavior, Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
  39. Schutz, H., 1999, “Generating minimal Herbrand models step by step,” pp. 171-185 in Proceedings TABLEAUX'99, N. Murray, ed., Springer Lecture Notes Series, Vol. 1617, Berlin: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  40. Stolcke, A., Ries, K., Coccaro, N., Shriberg, E., Bates, R., Jurafsky, D., Taylor, P., Martin, R., Ess-Dykema, C.V., and Meteer, M., 2000, “Dialog act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech,” Computational Linguistics 26, 339-374.Google Scholar
  41. Stone, M., 1998, “Modality in dialogue: Planning, pragmatics and computation,” Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer & Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  42. Stone, M., 2000, “Towards a coinputational account of knowledge, action and inference in instructions,” Journal of Language and Computation 1, 231-246.Google Scholar
  43. Stone, M. and Doran, C., 1997, “Sentence planning as description using tree adjoining grammar,” pp. 198-205 in Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL97/EACL97), Madrid, Spain, San Francisco, CA: Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  44. Stone, M. and Webber, B., 1998, “Textual economy through closely coupled syntax and semantics,” pp. 178-187 in Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Canada.Google Scholar
  45. Stone, M., Doran, C., Webber, B., Bleam, T., and Palmer, M., 2001, “Microplanning from communicative intentions: Sentence planning using descriptions (SPUD),” Computational Linguistics, submitted.Google Scholar
  46. Strawson, P., 1950, “On referring,” Mind 59, 320-344.Google Scholar
  47. van der Sandt, R., 1992, “Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution,” Journal of Semantics 9, 333-377.Google Scholar
  48. Wilks, Y., 1986, “An intelligent analyzer and understander of English,” pp. 193-204 in Readings in Natural Language Processing, B. Grosz, K. Sparck Jones, and B. Webber, eds., Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. First printed in Communications of the ACM 18(5), 1975, 264-274.Google Scholar
  49. Winograd, T., 1973, “A procedural model of language understanding,” pp. 152-186 in Computer Models of Thought and Language, R. Schank and K. Colby, eds., New York: W.H. Freeman. Reprinted as pp. 249-266 in Readings in Natural Language Processing, B. Grosz et al., eds., Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claire Gardent
    • 1
  • Bonnie Webber
    • 2
  1. 1.CNRSVandoeuvre-les-NancyFrance
  2. 2.Division of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghU.K.

Personalised recommendations