Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PHRED: A Generator for Natural Language Interfaces

  • Chapter
Natural Language Generation Systems

Part of the book series: Symbolic Computation ((1064))

Abstract

PHRED (PHRasal English Diction) is a natural language generator designed for use in a variety of domains. It was constructed to share a knowledge base with PHRAN (PHRasal ANalyzer) as part of a real-time user-friendly interface. The knowledge base consists of pattern-concept pairs, i.e., associations between linguistic structures and conceptual templates. Using this knowledge base, PHRED produces appropriate and grammatical natural language output from a conceptual representation.

PHRED and PHRAN are currently used as central components of the user interface to the UNIX Consultant System (UC). This system answers questions and solves problems related to the UNIX operating system. UC passes the conceptual form of its responses, usually either questions or answers to questions, to the PHRED generator, which expresses them in the user’s language. Currently the consultant can answer questions and produce its responses in either English or Spanish.

There are a number of practical advantages to PHRED as the generation component of a natural language system. Having a knowledge base shared between analyzer and generator eliminates the redundancy of having separate grammars and lexicons for input and output. It avoids possibly awkward inconsistencies caused by such a separation, and allows for interchangeable interfaces, such as the English and Spanish versions of the UC interface.

The phrasal approach to language processing realized in PHRED has proven helpful in generation as in analysis. PHRED commands the use of idioms, grammatical constructions, and canned phrases without a specialized mechanism or data structure. This is accomplished without restricting the ability of the generator to utilize more general linguistic knowledge.

As the generation component of a natural language interface, PHRED affords extensibility, simplicity, and processing speed. Its design incorporates a cognitive motivation as well. It diverges from the traditional computational approach by focusing on the use of specialized phrasal knowledge. This phrasal approach minimizes the autonomy of the individual word, the bane of some earlier approaches to language processing. The two-stage process used by PHRED to select appropriate linguistic structures also fits well with cognitive theories of language and memory.

This research was sponsored in part by the Office of Naval Research under contract NOOO14-80-C-0732, the National Science Foundation under grants IST-8007045 and IST-8208602, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DOD), ARPA Order No. 3041, Monitored by the Naval Electronic Systems Command under contract NOOO39-82-C0235. I am grateful to Robert Wilensky for his guidance and for his important comments on numerous drafts of this paper, and to Lisa Rau for many helpful suggestions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Appelt, D. 1982. Planning Natural Language Utterances to Satisfy Multiple Goals. SRI International AI Center Technical Note 259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelt, D., 1983. Telegram: A grammar formalism for language planning. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arens, Y. 1982. The context model: language and understanding in context. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J. D. 1975. The Phrasal Lexicon. In R. Schank and B. L. Webber (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobrow, D. and Winograd, T. 1977. An Overview of KRL, a Knowledge Representation Language.Cognitive Science 1 (1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. 1976. Semantic Grammar: an Engineering Technique For Constructing Natural Language Understanding Systems. Bolt Beranek and Newman Report No. 3453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busemann, S. 1984. Topicalization and pronominalization. Extending a natural language generation system. In Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pisa, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W. L. 1968. Idiomaticity as an Anomaly in the Chomsky an Paradigm. Foundations of Language 6 (1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W. L. 1984. Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and Oral Literature. In D. Tannen (ed), Oral and written language. Ablex, Norwood, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danlos, L. 1984. Conceptual and linguistic decisions in generation. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Stanford, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, C. J. 1968. The Case for Case. In E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, C. J. 1979. Innocence: a second idealization for linguistics. In Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Linguistics Symposium, Berkeley, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, C. J.; Kay, P.; and O’ Connor, M. C. 1984. Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammar: The Case of Let Alone. University of California, Cognitive Science Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D., 1983. Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy, Cognitive Science 7, pp. 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, N. 1975. Conceptual Generation. In R. C. Schank (ed.), Conceptual Information Processing. American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. 1968. Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English. Journal of Linguistics 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. University Park Press, Baltimore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Z. 1968. Mathematical Structures of Language. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, R. 1976. Arguments for a Non-Transformational Grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, P. 1983. Generation in a natural language interface. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Karlsruhe, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, P. and Rau, L. 1984. Ace: associating language with meaning. In Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pisa, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, P. 1985. A Knowledge-Based Approach to Language Production. University of California at Berkeley, Computer Science Division Report #UCB/CSD 86/254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. M. and Bresnan, J. (eds.) 1983. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, M. 1979. Functional grammar. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, M. 1984. Functional unification grammar: a formalism for machine translation, in Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Stanford, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempen, G. and Hoenkamp, E. 1982. An Incremental Procedural Grammar for Sentence Formulation. University of Nijmegen (the Netherlands) Department of Psychology, Internal Report 82-FU-14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittredge, R. and Lehrberger, J. 1983. Sublanguages: Studies of Language in Restricted Domains. Walter DeGruyter, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. 1977. Linguistic gestalts. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society,

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. and Johnson, D. 1980. Metaphors we Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. 1984. There-constructions: a case study in grammatical construction theory. University of California, Linguistics Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, S. The Crooked Path of Progress in Cognitive Linguistics. In A. Makkai and D. Lockwood (eds.), Readings in Stratificational Linguistics. University of Alabama Press, University, Alabama.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, D. 1972. Introduction to Stratificational Linguistics. Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makkai, A. 1972. Idiom Structure in English. Mouton, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makkai, A. (ed.) 1975. A Dictionary of American Idioms. Barron#x2019;s Educational Series, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, W. 1983. An overview of the Penman text generation system. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, D. C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, W., and Matthiessen, C. 1983. Nigel: A systemic grammar for text generation, University of Southern California, ISI Technical Report #ISI/RR-83–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, D. D. 1980. Language Production as a Process of Decision-making Under Constraints. Ph. D. dissertation, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, K. 1982. Generating Natural Language Text in Response to Questions about Database Structure. Ph. D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. and Newell, A., 1974. How can MERLIN Understand? In L. Gregg (ed.), Knowledge and Cognition. Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawley, A. and Syder, F. H., 1980. Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pike, K. 1962. Dimensions of Grammatical Constructions. In R. Brand (ed.), Kenneth L. Pike: Selected Writings. Mouton, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riesbeck, C. 1975. Conceptual Analysis. In, R. C. Schank (ed.),Conceptual Information Processing. American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. 1977. Human categorization. In N. Warren (ed.),Studies in Cross- Cultural Psychology (Vol. I). London, Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, John Robert. 1973. Nouniness. In Osamu Fujimura (ed.), Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory. Tokyo, TEC Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, John Robert. 1981. Nominal Decay. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C. (ed.) 1975. Conceptual Information Processing. American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., New York.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Steinacker, I. and Buchberger, E. 1983. Relating syntax and semantics: The syntactico-semantic lexicon of the system VIE-LANG. In Proceedings of the First European Meeting of the ACL, Pisa, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlster, W.; Marburger, H.; Jameson, A.; and Busemann, S. 1983. Overanswering yes-no questions: Extended responses in a natural language interface to a vision system. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Karlsruhe, W. Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, R. and Arens, Y. 1980. PHRAN-A Knowledge-Based Approach to Natural Language Analysis. University of California at Berkeley, Electronics Research Laboratory Memorandum #UCB/ERL M80/34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, R. 1981. A knowledge-based approach to natural language processing: A progress report. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver, British Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, R. 1984. KODIAK - A knowledge representation language. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boulder, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, R.; Arens, Y.; and Chin, D. 1984. Talking to UNIX in English: An Overview of UC.Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 27 (6).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Artificial Intelligence Branch, GE Corporate R & D, Schenectady, NY, 12301, USA

    Paul S. Jacobs

Authors
  1. Paul S. Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Brattle Research Corporation, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    David D. McDonald

  2. Institute of Informatics, Warsaw, Warsaw University, PKin, pok. 850, PL.00.901, Warszawa, Poland

    Leonard Bolc

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1988 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jacobs, P.S. (1988). PHRED: A Generator for Natural Language Interfaces. In: McDonald, D.D., Bolc, L. (eds) Natural Language Generation Systems. Symbolic Computation. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3846-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3846-1_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-8374-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-3846-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation