Dictionary-Based Method for Coherence Maintenance in Man-Machine Dialogue with Indirect Antecedents and Ellipses

  • Alexander Gelbukh
  • Grigori Sidorov
  • Igor A. Bolshakov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1902)


Resolution of referential ambiguity is one of the most challenging problems of natural language processing. Especially frequently it is faced within dialogues. We present a heuristic algorithm for detection of the indirect antecedents for dialogue phrases based on the use of a dictionary of prototypic scenarios associated with each headword as well as of a thesaurus of the standard type. The conditions for filtration of the candidates for the antecedent are presented. We also present a similar algorithm for reconstruction of elliptical phrases of a special kind using a combinatory dictionary.


Natural Language Processing Computational Linguistics Word Combination Anaphora Resolution Demonstrative Pronoun 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Azzam, S., K. Humphreys, R. Gaizauskas: Evaluating a Focus-Based Approach to Anaphora Resolution. Proc. of COLING-ACL’98, 1998, pp. 74–78.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolshakov, I.A., A.F. Gelbukh: A Very Large Database of Collocations and Semantic Links. NLDB’2000: 5th International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, Versailles, France, June 28–30, 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carberry, S., Lambert, L.: A process model for recognizing communicative acts and modeling negotiation subdialogues. Comp. Ling., 25(1), 1999: 1–54.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carter, D.: Interpreting anaphora in natural language texts. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cassidy, P.: An Investigation of the Semantic Relations in the Roget’s Thesaurus: Preliminary results,, 1996.
  6. 6.
    Chierchia, G.: Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar. University of Chicago Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cornish, F.: Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erku, F., J. K. Gundel: The pragmatics of indirect anaphors. In J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1987. pp. 533–545.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferrandez, A., M. Palomar, L. Moreno: Anaphor resolution in unrestricted text with partial parsing. Coling-98, 1998, pp. 385–391.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gelbukh, A., Sidorov, G.: On Indirect Anaphora Resolution. Proc. PACLING-99, Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, August 25–28, 1999, pp. 181–190.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gelbukh, A., G. Sidorov, A. Guzman-Arenas: Use of a Weighted Topic Hierarchy for Document Classification. In: Text, Speech and Dialogue, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1692, Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gundel, J., N. Hedberg, R. Zacharski: Givenness, Implicature and Demonstrative Expressions in English Discourse. Proc. of 25th meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society, Part II (Parasession on Language in Context). Chicago, 1988. pp. 89–103.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fretheim, T, J. K. Gundel (eds.): Reference and referent accessibility. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hahn, U., M. Strube, K. Markert. Bridging textual ellipses. Proc. of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1996. pp. 496–501.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hirst, G., D. St-Onge: Lexical chains as representations of context for the detection and correction of malapropisms. In: Christiane Fellbaum (editor), WordNet: An electronic lexical database and some of its applications, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Indirect Anaphora Workshop. Lancaster University, Lancaster, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kameyama, M.: Recognizing Referential Links: an Information Extraction Perspective. Proc. of ACL’ 97/EACL’ 97 workshop on Operational factors in practical, robust anaphora resolution. Madrid, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kennedy, C., B. Boguraev. Anaphora for Everyone: Pronominal Anaphor Resolution without a Parser. Coling-96, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mitkov, R.: Pronoun Resolution: the Practical Alternative. In: S. Botley and T. McEmery (eds), Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution, Univ. College London Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mitkov, R.: Factors in Anaphora Resolution: They are not the Only Things that Matter. A Case Study Based on Two Different Approaches. Proc. of the ACL’97/EACL’97 workshop on Operational factors in practical, robust anaphora resolution. Madrid, 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mitkov, R.: An Integrated Model for Anaphora Resolution. Coling-94, 1994, pp. 1170–1176.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morris, J., Hirst, G.: Lexical cohesion, the thesaurus, and the structure of text. Computational linguistics, 17(1), March 1991, 21–48.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Murata, M., H. Isahara, M. Nagao: Resolution of Indirect Anaphora in Japanese Sentences Using Examples “X no Y (Y of X).” ACL’99 Workshop on Coreference and Its Applications, Maryland, USA, June 22, 1999.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Partee, B., P. Sgall (Eds.): Discourse and Meaning. Papers in Honour of Eva Hajičova. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sanford, A. J., S. C. Garrod, A. Lucas, R. Henderson: Pronouns without explicit antecedents? Journal of Semantics, 1983, 2: 303–318.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sidorov, G., A. Gelbukh: Demonstrative pronouns as markers of indirect anaphora. Proc. 2nd International Conference on Cognitive Science and 16th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society Joint Conference (ICCS/JCSS99), July 27–30, 1999, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 418–423.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sidorov, G., A. Gelbukh: A method of detection and resolution of hidden anaphora (in Russian, abstract in English). Proc. Annual International Conf. on Applied Linguistics Dialogue-99, May 30–June 5, 1999, Moscow, Russia. pp. 288–297.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ward, G., B. Birner: Definiteness and the English existential. Language, 1994, 71: 722–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Coling-ACL’98 Workshop “Usage of WordNet in Natural Language Processing Systems.” August 16, 1998, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Gelbukh
    • 1
  • Grigori Sidorov
    • 1
  • Igor A. Bolshakov
    • 1
  1. 1.Natural Language Laboratory, Centre for Computing Research (CIC)National Polytechnic Institute (IPN)Mexico D.F.Mexico

Personalised recommendations