Advertisement

Abstract

This paper discusses the planning of multisentential text by computer. In order to construct coherent paragraphs, we have been using relations from Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) operationalized as plans. The paper first describes, in some detail, the current method of planning a paragraph using operationalized RST relation/plans. It then makes two points that illustrate why RST relation/plans are an ideal tool for planning paragraphs. First, these relation/plans can be shown to combine the best features of paragraph-sized schemas and clause-sized planning rules under a top-down planning regime in a way which affords much flexibility to the user. Second, RST relation/plans can support both standard top-down planning and open-ended conversation-like behavior; a small difference in treatment gives rise to either paradigm.

Keywords

Input Unit Computational Linguistics Growth Point Communicative Goal Natural Language Generation 
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.

Bibliography

  1. Appelt, D.E., 1981. Planning Natural Language Utterances to Satisfy Multiple Goals. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  2. Appelt, D.E., 1985. Planning English Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arens, Y., Miller, L., Shapiro, S.C. and Sondheimer, N.K., 1988. Automatic Construction of User-Interface Displays. Proceedings of the 7th AAAI Conference, St. Paul (808–813).Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, P.R. and Levesque, H.J., 1985. Speech Acts and Rationality. Proceedings of the 23rd ACL Conference, Chicago (49–59).Google Scholar
  5. Conklin, E.J. and McDonald, D.D., 1982. Salience: The Key to the Selection Problem in Natural Language Generation. Proceedings of the 20th ACL Conference, Toronto (129–135).Google Scholar
  6. Hovy, E.H., 1988a. Planning Coherent Multisentential Text. Proceedings of the 26th ACL Conference, Buffalo (163–169).Google Scholar
  7. Hovy, E.H., 1988b. On the Study of Text Planning and Realization. Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Text Planning and Realization, St. Paul (17–29).Google Scholar
  8. Hovy, E.H. and McCoy, K.F., 1989. Focusing your RST: A step toward generating coherent multisentential text. Proceedings of the 11th Cognitive Science Society Conference, Ann Arbor (667–674).Google Scholar
  9. Kaczmarek, T.S., Bates, R. and Robins, G., 1986. Recent Developments in NIKL. Proceedings of the 5th AAAI Conference, Philadelphia (978–985).Google Scholar
  10. Mann, W.C., 1983. An Overview of the Nigel Text Generation Grammar. USC/Information Sciences Institute Research Report RR-83–113.Google Scholar
  11. Mann, W.C., 1988. Text Generation: The Problem of Text Structure. In McDonald, D.D. and Bole, L. (eds), Natural Language Generation Systems,New York: Springer Verlag (47–68). Also USC/Information Sciences Institute Research Report RR-87–181.Google Scholar
  12. Mann, W.C. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., 1983. Nigel: A Systemic Grammar for Text Generation. USC/Information Sciences Institute Research Report RR-83–105.Google Scholar
  13. Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A., 1983. Relational Propositions in Discourse. USC/Information Sciences Institute Research Report RR-83–115.Google Scholar
  14. Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A., 1987. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Description and Construction of Text Structures. In Kempen, G. (ed), Natural Language Generation: New Results in Artificial Intelligence, Psychology, and Linguistics Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (85–95). Also USC/Information Sciences Institute Research Report RR-86–174.Google Scholar
  15. Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., 1984. Systemic Grammar in Computation: The Nigel Case. USC/Information Sciences Institute Research Report RR-84–121.Google Scholar
  16. McCoy, K.F., 1985. Correcting Object-Related Misconceptions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  17. McCoy, K.R. and Cheng, J., 1990. Focus of Attention: Constraining what can be said next. In Natural Language Generation in Artificial Intelligence and Computational Linguistics, (this volume). Paris, Swartout, Mann (Eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.Google Scholar
  18. McKeown, K.R., 1982. Generating Natural Language Text in Response to Questions about Database Queries. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  19. Moore, J.D. and Paris, C.L., 1989. Planning Text for Advisory Dialogues. Proceedings of the 27th ACL Conference, Vancouver (203–211).Google Scholar
  20. Moore, J.D. and Swartout, W.R., 1990. A Reactive Approach to Explanation: Taking the User’s Feedback into Account. In Natural Language Generation in Artificial Intelligence and Computational Linguistics, (this volume). Paris, Swartout, Mann (Eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.Google Scholar
  21. Paris, C.L., 1987. The Use of Explicit User Models in Text Generation: Tailoring to a User’s Level of Expertise. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University. To be published by Frances Pinter Publishers in the “Communication in Artificial intelligence” series, Steiner and Fawcett (Eds )Google Scholar
  22. Paris, C.L., 1990. Generation and Explanation: Building an Explanation Facility for the Explainable Expert Systems Framework. In Natural Language Generation in Artificial Intelligence and Computational Linguistics, (this volume). Paris, Swartout, Mann (Eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Sacerdoti, E., 1977. A Structure for Plans and Behavior. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eduard H. Hovy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations