Abstract
From the viewpoint of multilingual generation, the common underlying knowledge base should be kept clear of language-specific concepts. This goal presupposes that lexical items of various languages cannot map one-to-one onto concepts all the time. We propose a more flexible way of attaching lexical items to configurations of concepts and roles, and a lexical option finder that determines the set of content words that cover pieces of the message to be expressed, thereby performing the first half of the “chunking” task (dividing the message into separately verbalizable parts). This pool of lexical options will also include synonyms and near-synonyms: items with identical denotation, that is semantic representation in the KB, but different connotational characteristics. From this set, the subsequent steps of the generation process can select the most preferred subset for expressing the message.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
M. Bierwisch, R. Schreuder. “From Concepts to Lexical Items”. In: Cognition 42(1–3), 1992.
D.A. Cruse. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press, 1986.
C. DiMarco, G. Hirst, M. Stede. “The Semantic and Stylistic Differentiation of Synonyms and Near-Synonyms”. In: Working notes of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Building Lexicons for Machine Translation, Stanford University, March 1993.
B. Dorr. “Interlingual Machine Translation: A Parameterized Approach”. In: Artificial Intelligence 63, pp. 429–492, 1993.
M. Emele, U. Heid, S. Momma, R. Zajac. “Interactions between Linguistic Constraints: Procedural vs. Declarative Approaches”. In: Machine Translation 7(1–2), 1992.
B. Garza-Cuarón. Connotation and Meaning. Mouton de-Gruyter, Berlin/New York 1991.
H. Horacek. “The Architecture of a Generation Component in a Complete Natural Language Dialogue System”. In: R. Dale, C. Mellish, M. Zock (eds.): Current Research in Natural Language Generation. Academic Press, London 1990.
E.H. Hovy. Generating Natural Language under Pragmatic Constraints. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (NJ) 1988.
W.J.M. Levelt. Speaking. From Intention to Articulation. MIT Press, Cambridge 1989.
R.M. MacGregor and R. Bates. “The Loom Knowledge Representation Language”. University of Southern California/ISI, Tech. Rep. ISI/RS-87-188.
M. Marcus. “Generation Systems Should Choose Their Words”. In: Y. Wilks (ed.): Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces 1987.
D.D. McDonald. “On the Place of Words in the Generation Process”. In: C.L. Paris, W.R. Swartout, W.C. Mann (eds.): Natural Language Generation in Artificial Intelligence and Computational Linguistics. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1991.
M.A. Miezitis. “Generating Lexical Options by Matching in a Knowledge Base”. Technical Report CSRI-217, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 1988.
S. Nirenburg and I. Nirenburg. “A Framework for Lexical Selection in Natural Language Generation”. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pp. 471–475, Budapest 1988.
J.F. Nogier, M. Zock. “Lexical Choice by Pattern Matching”. In: Knowledge Based Systems 5(3), 1992.
H.-J. Novak. “Integrating a Generation Component into a Natural Language Understanding System”. In: O. Herzog, C. R. Rollinger (eds.): Text Understanding in LILOG. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg 1991.
H.-J. Novak. “Die LILOG-Ontologie aus Generierungssicht”. In: G. Klose, E. Lang, Th. Pirlein (eds.): Ontologie und Axiomatik der Wissensbasis von LILOG. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg 1992.
The Penman documentation. Unpublished documentation for the Penman language generation system. University of Southern California/ISI, 1989.
E. Reiter. “Generating Descriptions that Exploit a User's Domain Knowledge”. In: R. Dale, C. Mellish, M. Zock (eds.): Current Research in Natural Language Generation. Academic Press, London 1990.
D. Rösner, M. Stede. “TECHDOC: A System for the Automatic Production of Multilingual Technical Documents”. In: G. Görz (Ed.): KONVENS 92 — Proceedings of the First German Conference on Natural Language Processing. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg 1992.
C. Schwarze, J. FranÇois. “Heilen und Reparieren”. In: C. Schwarze (ed.): Beiträge zu einem kontrastiven Wortfeldlexikon Deutsch — Französisch. Narr, Tübingen 1985.
N. Sondheimer, S. Cumming, and R. Albano. “How to Realize a Concept: Lexical Selection and the Conceptual Network in Text Generation”. In: Machine Translation 5(1), pp. 57–78, 1990.
M. Stede. “Lexical Choice Criteria in Language Generation”. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the ACL, pp. 454–459, Utrecht 1993.
M. Stede. “Lexicalization in Natural Language Generation: A Survey”. In: Artificial Intelligence Review 8:309–336, 1995.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Stede, M. (1996). Lexical options in multilingual generation from a knowledge base. In: Adorni, G., Zock, M. (eds) Trends in Natural Language Generation An Artificial Intelligence Perspective. EWNLG 1993. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1036. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60800-1_32
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60800-1_32
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-60800-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49457-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive