Advertisement

Anticipating a Listener’s Response in Text Planning

  • Ingrid Zukerman

Abstract

In the process of generating text, competent speakers/writers take into consideration the effect their utterances are likely to have on listeners/readers. In other words, speakers try to generate utterances which are best suited to attain their communicative goals with respect to a particular audience [Hovy 1987].

Keywords

Lexical Item Construction Phase Intelligent Tutor System Access Phase Communicative Goal 
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. Anderson, J.R. (1983), The Architecture of Cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. Appelt, D.E. (1982), Planning Natural Language Utterances to Satisfy Multiple Goals. Technical Note 259, SRI International, March 1982.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, J.S., and Van Lehn, K. (1980), Repair Theory: A Generative Theory of Bugs in Procedural Skills. In Cognitive Science 4, pp. 379–426.Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, B.G. and Shortliffe, E.H. (1985), Rule-Based Expert Systems — The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project,Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  5. Burton, R.R. and Brown, J.S. (1982), An Investigation of Computer Coaching for Informal Learning Activities. In D. Sleeman and J.S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, London: Academic Press, pp. 79–98.Google Scholar
  6. Doyle, J. (1979), A Truth Maintenance System. In Artificial Intelligence 12, pp. 231–272.Google Scholar
  7. Flowers, M. (1982), On Being Contradictory. In AAAI-82 Proceedings, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 269–272.Google Scholar
  8. Gentner, D. (1983), Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy. In Cognitive Science 7, pp. 155–170.Google Scholar
  9. Goldstein, I.P. (1982), The Genetic Graph: A Representation for the Evolution of Procedural Knowledge. In D. Sleeman and J.S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, London: Academic Press, pp. 51–77.Google Scholar
  10. Grice, H.P. (1975), Logic and Conversation. In P.J. Cole and J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
  11. Grosz, B.J. and Sidner, C.L. (1986), Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse. In Computational Linguistics, Volume 12, Number 3, pp. 175–204.Google Scholar
  12. Hovy, E.H. (1987), Generating Natural Language under Pragmatic Constraints. Doctoral Dissertation, Computer Science Department, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  13. Hovy, E.H. (1988), Planning Coherent Multisentential Text. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics,State University of New York, Buffalo, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Kukich, K. (1983), Knowledge-Based Report Generation: A Knowledge-Engineering Approach to Natural Language Report Generation. Doctoral Dissertation, The Interdisciplinary Department of Information Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  15. Lynch, B.J., Parr, R.E. and Keating, H.M. (1979), Maths 8,Sorrett Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. McCoy, K.F. and Cheng, J. (1988), Focus of Attention: Constraining What Can Be Said Next. Presented at the 4th International Workshop on Text Generation, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  17. McKeown, K.R. (1985), Discourse Strategies for Generating Natural Language Text. In Artificial Intelligence 27, pp. 1–41.Google Scholar
  18. Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A. (1987), Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization. Report No. ISI/RS-87–190, Information Sciences Institute, Los Angeles, June 1987.Google Scholar
  19. Matz, M. (1982), Towards a Process Model for High School Algebra Errors. In D. Sleeman and J.S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, London: Academic Press, pp. 25–50.Google Scholar
  20. Moore, J.D. and Swartout, W.R. (1989), A Reactive Approach to Explanation. In IJCAI-11 Proceedings, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1504–1510.Google Scholar
  21. Paris, C.L. (1988), Tailoring Object Descriptions to a User’s Level of Expertise. In Computational Linguistics, Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 64–78.Google Scholar
  22. Sacerdoti, E.D. (1977), A Structure of Plans and Behavior, Elsevier-North Holland Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  23. Sidner, C.L. (1979), Towards a Computational Theory of Definite Anaphora Comprehension in English Discourse. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  24. Sleeman, D. (1984), Mis-Generalization: An Explanation of Observed Mal-rules. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 51–56.Google Scholar
  25. Van Lehn, K. (1983), Human Procedural Skill Acquisition: Theory, Model and Psychological Validation. In AAAI-83 Proceedings, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 420–423.Google Scholar
  26. Zukerman, I. (1987), Goal-based Generation of Motivational Expressions in a Learning Environment. In AAAI-87 Proceedings, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 327–331.Google Scholar
  27. Zukerman, I. and Cheong, Y.H. (1988), Impairment Invalidation: A Computational Model for the Generation of Rhetorical Devices. In Proceedings of the International Computer Science Conference ‘88 Artificial Intelligence, Theory and Applications, pp. 294–300.Google Scholar
  28. Zukerman, I. (1989), A Predictive Approach for the Generation of Rhetorical Devices. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingrid Zukerman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations