New Generation Computing

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 169–193 | Cite as

Dependency-directed control of text generation using functional unification grammar

  • Kentaro Inui
  • Takenobu Tokunaga
  • Hozumi Tanaka
Special Feature


In text generation, various kinds of choices need to be decided. In conventional frameworks, which we callone-path generation frameworks, choices are made in an order carefully designed in advance. In general, however, since choices depend on one another, it is difficult to make optimal decisions in such frameworks. Our approach to this issue is to introduce the revision process into the overall generation process. In our framework, revision of output texts is realized as dependency-directed backtracking (DDB). As well as Justification-based Truth Maintenance System (JTMS), we maintain dependencies among choices in a dependency network.

In this paper, we propose an efficient implementation of DDB for text generation using functional unification grammar (FUG). We use bindings of logical variables in Prolog and destructive argument substitutions to decrease the overhead of handling a dependency network. This paper describes the algorithm in detail and shows the results of preliminary experiments to demonstrate the performance of our implementation.


Text Generation Surface Generation Revision Dependency-Directed Backtracking Functional Unification Grammar Prolog 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1).
    Appelt, D. E.,Planning English Sentences, Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2).
    Carlsson, M. and Widén, J.,SICStus Prolog User’s Manual, Swedish Institute of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  3. 3).
    de Kleer, J., Forbus, K., and McAllester, D., “Truth Maintenance Systems,”The Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, tutorial program, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4).
    Eisele, A. and Dörre, J., “A Lexical Functional Grammar System in Prolog,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 551–553, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5).
    Elhadad, M., “FUF: The Universal Unifier-User Manual,” version 5.0,Technical Report, CUCS-038-91, Columbia University, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6).
    Elhadad, M. and Robin, J., “Controlling Content Realization,” inAspects of Automated Natural Language Generation (R. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rösner, and O. Stock, eds.), Springer-Verlag, pp. 89–105, 1992.Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 587.Google Scholar
  7. 7).
    Emele, M., Heid, U., and Zajac, R., “Interactions between Linguistic Constraints: Procedural vs. Declarative Approach,”Machine Translation, 6, 4, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8).
    Fasciano, M. and Lapalme, G., “A Prolog Implementation of the Functional Unification Grammar Formalism,” inProceedings of International Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming, pp. 37–45, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9).
    Fawcett, R. P., Tucker, G. H., and Lin, Y. Q., “How a Systemic Functional Grammar Works: The Role of Realization in Realization,” inNew Concepts in Natural Language Generation, Pinter, pp. 114–186, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10).
    Gazder, G. and Mellish, C.,Natural Language Processing in Prolog, Addison Wesley, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11).
    Halliday, M. A. K. and Hassan, R.,Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective, Deakin University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  12. 12).
    Hovy, E. H.,Generating Natural Language under Pragmatic Constraints, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 13).
    Inui, K., Tokunaga, T., and Tanaka, H., “Text Revision: A Model and Its Implementation,” inAspects of Automated Natural Language Ceneration (R. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rösner, and O. Stock, eds.), Springer-Verlag, pp. 215–230, 1992.Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligenc, Vol. 587.Google Scholar
  14. 14).
    Kasper, R., “Systemic Grammar and Functional Unification Grammar,” inSystemic Functional Approaches to Discourse, Ablex, chapter 9, pp. 176–199, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. 15).
    Kay, M., “Functional Unification Grammar: A Formalism for Machine Translation,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 75–78, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 16).
    Mann, W. C., “An Overview of the Penman Text Generation System” inProceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 261–265, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. 17).
    Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A., “Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization,”Technical Report, ISI/RR-87-190, USC-ISI, 1987.Google Scholar
  18. 18).
    Matthiessen, C. and Bateman, J.,Text Generation and Systemic-Functional Linguistics: Experiences from English and Japanese, Printer Publishers, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19).
    McKeown, K. R. and Swartout, W. R., “Language Generation and Explanation,” inAdvances in Natural Language Generation (M. Zock and G. Sabah, eds.), Ablex Publishing Corporation, chapter 1, pp. 1–51, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20).
    Meteer (Vaughan), M. M. and McDonald, D. D., “A Model of Revision in Natural Language Generation,” inProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 90–96, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. 21).
    Patten, T.,Systemic Text Generation as Problem Solving, Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  22. 22).
    Robin, J., “A Revision-Based Generation Architecture for Reporting Facts in Their Historical Context,” inNew Concepts in Natural Language Generation, Pinter, chapter 9, pp. 238–268, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ohmsha, Ltd. and Springer 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kentaro Inui
    • 1
  • Takenobu Tokunaga
    • 1
  • Hozumi Tanaka
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations