Advertisement

Utterance and Objective: Issues in Natural Language Communication

  • Barbara Grosz
Chapter
Part of the Linguistica Computazionale book series (LICO, volume 9)

Abstract

Communication in natural language requires a combination of language-specific and general common-sense reasoning capabilities, the ability to represent and reason about the beliefs, goals and plans of multiple agents, and the recognition that utterances are multifaceted. This paper evaluates the capabilities of natural language processing systems against these requirements and identifies crucial areas for future research in language processing, common-sense reasoning, and their coordination. Don Walker’s guiding hand can be seen in the two major premises of this paper — the importance of the communicative situation and of a consideration of language use — and in its argument for an interdisciplinary approach, as well as in the title. His strong support made the articulation of these then controversial views possible.

Keywords

Language Processing Noun Phrase Natural Language Processing Rubber Tree Propositional Content 
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.

References

  1. [1]
    Allen, J. “A Plan-Based Approach to Speech Act Recognition,” Technical Report No. 131/79, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Appelt, D., B. Grosz, G. Hendrix, A. Robinson, “The representation and use of process knowledge,” Technical Note 207, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bobrow, D. et al., “GUS, A Frame Driven Dialog System,” Artificial Intelligence, 8, 1977, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Bruce, B., D. Newman, “Interacting Plans,” Cognitive Science, 2, 1978, 195–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Carbonell, J., “Computer Models of Social and Political Reasoning,” Ph. D. Thesis, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Chafe, W., “The Flow of Thought and the Flow of Language,” in T. Givón (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 12, Academic Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Clark, H., C. Marshall, “Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge,” in A. Joshi, I. Sag, B. Webber (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding: Proceedings of a Workshop on Computational Aspects of Linguistic Structure and Discourse Setting, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Cohen, P., “On Knowing What to Say: Planning Speech Acts,” Technical Report No. 118, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 1978.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Collins, A., “Studies of Plausible Reasoning,” Volume I, BBN Report No. 3810, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA, 1978.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Donnellan, K., “Reference and Definite Descriptions,” in S. Schwartz (ed.), Naming, Necessity and Natural Kind, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1977, 42–65.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Genesereth, M., “Automated Consultation for Complex Computer Systems,” Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1978.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Goffman, E., Frame analysis, Harper, New York, 1974.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Goffman, E., “Response Cries,” Language, Vol. 54, 1978, 787–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Grosz, B., “The Representation and Use of Focus in Dialogue Understanding,” Technical Note 151, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 1977a.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Grosz, B., “The Representation and Use of Focus in a System for Understanding Dialogs,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1977b, 67–76.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Grosz, B., “Focusing and description in natural language dialogues,” in A. Joshi, I. Sag, B. Webber (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding: Proceedings of a Workshop on Computational Aspects of Linguistic Structure and Discourse Setting, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1980.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Grosz, B., G. Hendrix, “A Computational Perspective on Indefinite Reference,” presented at Sloan Workshop on Indefinite Reference, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, December 1978. Also Technical Note No. 181, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Halliday, M., “Language Structure and Language Function,” in J. Lyons (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics, Penguin, 1970.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Halliday, M., “Structure and Function in Language,” presented at Symposium on Discourse and Syntax, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, November 1977.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Hayes, P., “Some Association-Based Techniques for Lexical Disambiguation by Machine,” Doctoral Thesis, Ecole Polytechniques Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1978.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Hendrix, G., E. Sacerdoti, D. Sagalowicz, J. Slocum, “Developing a Natural Language Interface to Complex Data,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 3, No. 2, June 1978, 105–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Hobbs, J., “A Computational Approach to Discourse Analysis,” Research Report 76–2, Department of Computer Sciences, City College, City University of New York, New York, NY, 1976.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Hobbs, J., “Conversation as Planned Behavior,” in Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1979.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Hobbs, J., J. Robinson, “Why Ask?” SRI Technical Note 169, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 1978.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Kasher, A., “Indefinite Reference: Indispensability of Pragmatics,” presented at Sloan Workshop on Indefinite Reference, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, December 1978.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Labov, W., D. Fanshel, Therapeutic Discourse, Academic Press, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Landsbergen, S., “Syntax and Formal Semantics of English in PHLIQAI,” in Coling 76, Preprints of the 6th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Ottawa,Ontario, Canada, June 28—July2, 1976, No. 21.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Levy, D., “Communicative Goals and Strategies: Between Discourse and Syntax,” in T. Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 12, Academic Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Mann, W., J. Moore, J. Levin, “A comprehension model for human dialogue,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1977, 77–87.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    McCarthy, J., “Programs with Common Sense,” in M. Minsky (ed.), Semantic Information Processing, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1968, 403–419.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    McDermott, D., “Artificial Intelligence Meets Natural Stupidity,” SIGARTNewsletter, no. 57, 1976, 4–9.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Moore, R., “Reasoning about Knowledge and Actions,”, Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1979.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Morgan, J., “Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts”, in P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9, Academic Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Nilsson, N., Problem Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Novak, G., “Representations of knowledge in a program for solving physics problems,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1977, 286–291.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Pittenger, R., C. Hockett, J. Danehy, The First Five Minutes, Paul Martineau, Ithaca, NY, 1960.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Plath, W., “Request: A Natural Language Question-Answering System,” IBM Journal of Research and Development, 20, 4, 1976, 326–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Quine, W., Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1960.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Reddy, D. et al, “Speech Understanding Systems: A Summary of Results of the Five-Year Research Effort,” Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1977.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Rieger, C., “Conceptual Overlays: A Mechanism for the Interpretation of Sentence Meaning in Context,” Technical Report TR-354, Computer Science Department, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1975.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Robinson, A., “Understanding Natural-Language Utterances in Dialogs about Tasks,” Technical Note 210, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 1980a.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    Robinson, A., “Interpreting Verb Phrase References in Dialogs,” in Proceedings of the Third Conference of The Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, Victoria, British Columbia, May 14–16, 1980b.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    Rubin, A., “A Theoretical Taxonomy of the Differences Between Oral and Written Language,” in R. Spiro et al. (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    Sacerdoti, E., A Structure for Plans and Behavior, Elsevier, NY, 1977.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    Sacerdoti, E., “What Language Understanding Research Suggests about Distributed Artificial Intelligence,” Proceedings of a workshop held at Carnegie-Mellon University, December 7–8, 1978.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    Sager, N., R. Grishman, “The Restriction Language for Computer Grammars,” Communications of the ACM, 18, 1975, 390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    Schank, R., and Yale A.I. Project 1975, “SAM—A story understander,” Research Report No. 43, Department of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1975.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    Schank, R., R. Abelson, Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding, Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1977.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    Schmidt, C., N.S. Sridharan, “Plan Recognition Using a Hypothesis and Revise Paradigm: An Example,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1977, 480486.Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    Searle, J., Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1969.Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    Sidner, C., “A Computational Model of Co-Reference Comprehension in English,” Ph. D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1979.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    Walker, D. (ed.), Understanding Spoken Language, Elsevier North-Holland, NY, 1978.Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    Wilensky, R., “Understanding Goal-Based Stories,” Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1978.Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    Woods, W. et al., “Speech Understanding Systems: Final Report,” BBN Report No. 3438, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA, 1976.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Grosz
    • 1
  1. 1.Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations