Corpus Evidence for Preference-Driven Interpretation

  • Alex Djalali
  • Sven Lauer
  • Christopher Potts
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7218)


We present the Cards corpus of task-oriented dialogues and show how it can inform study of the ways in which discourse is goal- and preference-driven. We report on three experimental studies involving underspecified referential expressions and quantifier domain restriction.


Game Engine Referential Expression Card Reference Intended Referent Chat Message 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, J.F., Miller, B.W., Ringger, E.K., Sikorski, T.: A robust system for natural spoken dialogue. In: Proceedings of ACL, pp. 62–70 (1996)Google Scholar
  2. Büring, D.: On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5), 511–545 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooper, R., Larsson, S.: Accommodation and reaccommodation in dialogue. In Göteborg Papers in Computational Linguistics. Department of Linguistics, Göteborg University (2001)Google Scholar
  4. Davis, C.: Constraining Interpretation: Sentence Final Particles in Japanese. Ph.D. thesis, UMass Amherst (2011)Google Scholar
  5. Dekker, P.: Optimal inquisitive discourse. In: Aloni, M., Butler, A., Dekker, P. (eds.) Questions in Dynamic Semantics, pp. 83–101. Elsevier (2007)Google Scholar
  6. De Vault, D., Stone, M.: Learning to interpret utterances using dialogue history. In: Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the ACL (EACL 2009), pp. 184–192. Association for Computational Linguistics, Athens (2009)Google Scholar
  7. Djalali, A., Clausen, D., Lauer, S., Schultz, K., Potts, C.: Modeling expert effects and common ground using Questions Under Discussion. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Building Representations of Common Ground with Intelligent Agents, AAAI (2011)Google Scholar
  8. Ginzburg, J.: Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In: Seligman, J. (ed.) Language, Logic, and Computation. CSLI (1996)Google Scholar
  9. Ginzburg, J., Fernandez, R.: Computational models of dialogue. In: Clark, A., Fox, C., Lappin, S. (eds.) Handbook of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing. Blackwell (2010)Google Scholar
  10. Groenendijk, J.: The logic of interrogation. In: Matthews, T., Strolovitch, D. (eds.) Proceedings of SALT IX, pp. 109–126. Cornell University (1999)Google Scholar
  11. Malamud, S.: Semantics and Pragmatics of Arbitrariness. Ph.D. thesis, Penn. (2006)Google Scholar
  12. Roberts, C.: Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In: Yoon, J.H., Kathol, A. (eds.) OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 91–136. The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics (1996) (revised 1998)Google Scholar
  13. van Rooy, R.: Questioning to resolve decision problems. Journal Linguistics and Philosophy 26, 727–763 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schoubye, A.: Descriptions, truth value intuitions, and questions. Journal Linguistics and Philosophy 32(6), 583–617 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stoia, L., Shockley, D.M., Byron, D.K., Fosler-Lussier, E.: SCARE: A situated corpus with annotated referring expressions. In: Proceedings of LREC (2008)Google Scholar
  16. Thompson, H.S., Anderson, A., Bard, E.G., Doherty-Sneddon, G., Newlands, A., Sotillo, C.: The HCRC map task corpus: Natural dialogue for speech recognition. In: HLT 1993: Proceedings of the Workshop on Human Language Technology, pp. 25–30. ACL (1993)Google Scholar
  17. Toosarvandani, M.: Association with Foci. Ph.D. thesis, UC Berkeley (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex Djalali
    • 1
  • Sven Lauer
    • 1
  • Christopher Potts
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations