Advertisement

Building text temporal structure

  • Irene Pimenta Rodrigues
  • José Gabriel Lopes
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 727)

Abstract

In this paper we present a framework for the interpretation of the tense and aspect of each sentence of a text using the context provided by the previously interpreted sentences. In the proposed interpretation process the text temporal structure is captured. Each eventuality introduced by a new text, sentence is temporally anchored relatively to the previously interpreted eventualities. Whenever it is possible it is structurally2 related with some of those eventualities.

The interpretation process is driven by querying a knowledge base with the temporal predication of the new sentence's main eventuality. The answer to that query is the semantic interpretation of the sentence. It provides the additional knowledge that was not explicitly conveyed by the sentence, and the update of the text temporal structure.

Keywords

Temporal Relation Integrity Constraint Temporal Predication Semantic Interpretation Discourse Structure 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mary Dalrymple. The interpretatin of tense and aspect in english. In 26th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 68–74, June 1988.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kurt Eberle. On representing the temporal structure of a natural language text. In Proceedings of the COLIN G'92, pages 288–294, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kurt Eberle and Walter Kasper. Tenses as anaphora. In Proceedings of the 4th European Chapter of the ACL, pages 43–50, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jerry Hobbs, Mark Stickel, Douglas Appelt, and Paul Martin. Interpretation as abduction. Technical Report 499, SRI International, December 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From Discourse to Logic: An Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Institute for Computational Linguistics, University of Stuttgart, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hans Kamp and Christian Rohrer. Tense in texts. In C. Bauerle, R. Schwarze and A. von Stechow, editors, Use and Interpretation of Language. de Gruyter, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alex Lascarides and Nicholas Asher. Discourse relations and defeasible knowledge. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of ACL, pages 55–62, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 3.
    Alex Lascarides, Nicholas Asher, and Jon Oberlander. Inferring discourse relations in context. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of ACL, pages 55–62, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alex Lascarides and Jon Oberlander. Temporal coherence and defeasible knowledge. In Workshop on Discourse Coherence, April, 1991. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mark Moens and Mark Steedman. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2):15–28, June 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luis Monteiro and Antonio Porto. Contextual logic programming. In Giorgio Levi and Maurizio Martelli, editors, Logic Programming: Proc. 6th International Conference, Cambridge, MA, 1989. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alexander Nakhimovsky. Aspect, aspectual class, and temporal structure of narrative. Computational Linguistics, 14(2):29–43, June 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barbara H. Partee. Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Phylosophy, 7:243–286, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rebecca J. Passonneau. A computational model of the semantics of tense and aspect. Computational Linguistics, 14(2):44–60, June 1988.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. Pereira and M. Pollack. Incremental interpretation. Artificial Intelligence, (50):40–82, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Irene Pimenta Rodrigues and José Gabriel Pereira Lopes. Discourse temporal structure. In Proceedings of the COLING'92, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Irene Pimenta Rodrigues and José Gabriel Pereira Lopes. A framework for text interpretation. In B. du Buley and V. Sgurev, editors, Artificial Intelligence V — methodology, systems and applications, pages 181–190. North Holland, 1992.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murray Shanahan. Prediction is deduction but explanation is abduction. In Proceedings of IJCAI'89, pages 1055–1060, 1989.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yoav Shoham. Reasoning about Change. The MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boonie Lynn Webber. Tense as discourse anaphor. Computational Linguistics, 14(2):61–73, June 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene Pimenta Rodrigues
    • 1
  • José Gabriel Lopes
    • 1
  1. 1.CRIAUNINOVAMontc da CaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations