Advertisement

A Translation from Logic to English with Dynamic Semantics

  • Elizabeth Coppock
  • David Baxter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6284)

Abstract

We present a procedure for translating predicate logic into English, which generates both referring and non-referring expressions using a dynamically updated context representation. The system treats referring and non-referring expressions within a unified framework, capturing their common properties – both bound and referential anaphora require an accessible antedecent – and the special properties of non-referring expressions: Non-referring expressions are introduced with quantificational determiners, and correspond to short-term discourse referents.

Keywords

natural language generation dynamic semantics predicate logic quantification anaphora 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Horacek, H.: An algorithm for generating referential descriptions with flexible interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 206–213 (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dale, R.: Cooking up referring expressions. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reiter, E.: The computational complexity of avoiding false implicatures. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reiter, E., Dale, R.: A fast algorithm for the generation of referring expressions. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Nantes, pp. 232–238 (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dale, R., Reiter, E.: Computational interpretations of the Gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions. Cognitive Science 19, 233–263 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Malouf, R., Riehemann, S., Sag, I.: Translation using minimal recursion semantics. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation, Leuven, Belgium (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shaw, J., McKeown, K.: Generating referring quantified expressions. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on natural language generation, Mitzpe Ramon, Israel, pp. 100–107 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krahmer, E., Van Erk, S., Verleg, A.: Graph-based generation of referring expressions. Computational Linguistics (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Deemter, K.: Generating referring expressions: Boolean extensions of the incremental algorithm. Computational Linguistics 28, 37–52 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siddharthan, A., Copestake, A.: Generating anaphora for simplifying text. In: Proceedings of the 4th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, pp. 199–204 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siddharthan, A., Copestake, A.: Generating referring expressions in open domains. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 408–415 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Varges, S., Van Deemter, K.: Generating referring expressions containing quantifiers. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Computational Semantics, pp. 1–13 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kelleher, J.D., Kruijff, G.J.M.: Incremental generation of spatial referring expressions in situated dialog. In: Proceedings of COLING/ACL 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paraboni, I., Van Deemter, K., Masthoff, J.: Generating referring expressions: Making referents easy to identify. Computational Linguistics 33, 229–254 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Deemter, K., Krahmer, E.: Graphs and booleans: on the generation of referring expressions. In: Bunt, H., Muskins, R. (eds.) Computing Meaning, vol. 3, pp. 397–422. Springer, Dordrecht (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Areces, C., Koller, A., Striegnitz, K.: Referring expressions as formulas of description logic. In: White, M., Nakatsu, C., McDonald, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Natural Language Generation Conference, Salt Fork, Ohio, pp. 42–49. Association for Computational Linguistics (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilcock, G., Matsumoto, Y.: Head-driven generation with HPSG. In: Proceedings of COLING-ACL 1998: Workshop on Usage of WordNet in Natural Language Processing Systems, pp. 1393–1397 (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carroll, J., Flickinger, D., Copestake, A., Poznanski, V.: An efficient chart generator for (semi-)lexicalist grammars. In: Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Toulouse, France (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C., Sag, I.A.: Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation 3, 281–332 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carroll, J., Oepen, S.: High efficiency realization for a wide-coverage unification grammar. In: Dale, R., Wong, K.F. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJNLP 2005), Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wedekind, J., Kaplan, R.M.: Ambiguity-preserving generation with LFG- and PATR-style grammars. Computational Linguistics 22, 555–558 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wedekind, J.: Semantic-driven generation with LFG- and PATR-style grammars. Computational Linguistics 25, 277–281 (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaplan, R.M., Wedekind, J.: LFG generation produces context-free languages. In: Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Computational Linguistics, Saarbrücken, Germany, pp. 425–431 (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cahill, A., van Genabith, J.: Robust pcfg-based generation using automatically acquired lfg approximations. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Sydney, Australia, pp. 1033–1040. Association for Computational Linguistics (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Calder, J., Reape, M., Zeevat, H.: An algorithm for generation in unification categorial grammar. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Manchester, UK, pp. 233–240 (1989)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Phillips, J.D.: Generation of text from logical formulae. Machine Translation 8, 209–235 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    White, M.: Reining in CCG chart realization. In: Belz, A., Evans, R., Piwek, P. (eds.) INLG 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3123, pp. 182–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pollard, C., Yoo, E.J.: A unified theory of scope for quantifiers and wh- phrases. Journal of Linguistics 34(2), 415–445 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kamp, H., Reyle, U.: From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heim, I.: The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD thesis, MIT (1982)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Karttunen, L.: Discourse referents. In: McCawley, J.D. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, pp. 363–385. Academic Press, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sailer, M.: Npi licensing, intervention and discourse representation structures in hpsg. In: Müller, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the HPSG 2007 Conference. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reyle, U.: Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, representation, and deduction. Journal of Semantics 10(2), 123–179 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    De Swart, H.: Licensing of negative polarity items under inverse scope. Lingua 105, 175–200 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lenat, D.: Cyc: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communications of the ACM 38 (1995)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ramachandran, D., Reagan, P., Goolsbey, K.: First-orderized ResearchCyc: Expressivity and efficiency in a common-sense ontology. In: Papers from the AAAI Workshop on Contexts and Ontologies: Theory, Practice and Applications, Pittsburg, PA (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Matuszek, C., Cabral, J., Witbrock, M., DeOliveira, J.: An introduction to the syntax and content of Cyc. In: Proceedings of the 2006 AAAI Spring Symposium on Formalizing and Compiling Background Knowledge and Its Applications to Knowledge Representation and Question Answering, Stanford, CA (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Heim, I.: File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In: Baurle, R., Schwarze, C., Von Stechow, A. (eds.) Meaning, Use, and the Interpretation of Language, pp. 164–189. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (1983)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Muskens, R.: Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 143–186 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pollard, C., Sag, I.A.: Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1994)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wechsler, S., Zlatić, L.: The Many Faces of Agreement. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford (2003)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chafe, W.L.: Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In: Li, C.N. (ed.) Subject and topic, pp. 25–55. Academic Press, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ariel, M.: Accessing NP antecedents. Routledge, London (1990)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gundel, J.K., Hedberg, N., Zacharski, R.: Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69, 274–307 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brennan, S.: Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes 10, 137–167 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Grosz, B.J., Joshi, A.K., Weinstein, S.: Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, MA, pp. 44–49 (1983)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Grosz, B.J., Joshi, A.K., Weinstein, S.: Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21, 203–226 (1995)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Beaver, D.I.: The optimization of discourse anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 3–56 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lenat, D.B., Guha, R.V.: Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1990)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Baxter, D., Shepard, B., Siegel, N., Gottesman, B., Schneider, D.: Interactive natural language explanations of cyc inferences. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2005: International Symposium on Explanation-aware Computing, Washington, D.C. (2005)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Heim, I., Kratzer, A.: Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Coppock
    • 1
  • David Baxter
    • 1
  1. 1.Cycorp, IncAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations