Efficient Computation of Overlay for Multiple Inheritance Hierarchies in Discourse Modeling

  • Jan Alexandersson
  • Tilman Becker
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 83)


Efficient Computation Computational Linguistics Discourse Processing Type Hierarchy Multiple Inheritance 
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. Alexandersson, J. and T. Becker: 2001, ‘Overlay as the Basic Operation for Discourse Processing in a Multimodal Dialogue System’. In: Workshop Notes of the IJCAI-01 Workshop on “Knowledge and Reasoning in Practical Dialogue Systems”. Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
  2. Alexandersson, J. and T. Becker: 2003, ‘The Formal Foundations Underlying Overlay’. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-5). Tilburg, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Alexandersson, J., T. Becker, and N. Pfleger: 2004, ‘Scoring for Overlay based on Informational Distance’. In: KONVENS-04. Vienna, Austria, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, C. F., C. J. Fillmore, and J. Lowe: 1998, ‘The Berkeley FrameNet project’. In: Proceedings of COLING-ACL. Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Bouma, G.: 1990, ‘Defaults in Unification Grammar’. In: Proceedings of the 28nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 165–172.Google Scholar
  6. Calder, J.: 1993, ‘Typed unification for natural language processing’. In: T. Briscoe, V. de Paiva, and A. Copestake (eds.): Inheritance, Defaults, and the Lexicon. Cambridge, CA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–37.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, B.: 1992, The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, B.: 1993, ‘Skeptical and Credulous Default Unification with Applications to Templates and Inheritance’. In: T. Briscoe, V. de Paiva, and A. Copestake (eds.): Inheritance, Defaults, and the Lexicon. Cambridge, CA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–37.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, B. and G. Penn, ‘ALE – The Attribute-Logic Engine’.˜gpenn/ale.html.Google Scholar
  10. Copestake, A.: 1993, ‘The representation of lexical semantic information’. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  11. Copestake, A.: 2002, Implementing Typed Feature Structure Grammars, No. 110 in CSLI lecture notes. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Doherty, P.: 1991, ‘NML3 – A Non-Monotonic Formalism with Explicit Defaults’. Ph.D. thesis, Linköoping University.Google Scholar
  13. Fellbaum, C. (ed.): 1998, WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press. ISBN: 026206197X.Google Scholar
  14. Fouvry, F.: 2003, ‘Robust Processing for Constraint-based Grammar Formalisms’. Ph.D. thesis, University of Essex.Google Scholar
  15. Grover, C., C. Brew, S. Manandhar, and M. Moens: 1994, ‘Priority Union and Generalization in Discourse Grammars’. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Las Cruces, New Mexico, pp. 17–24.Google Scholar
  16. Gurevych, I., R. Porzel, H.-P. Zorn, and R. Malaka: 2003, ‘Semantic Coherence Scoring Using an Ontology’. In: Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference - HLT-NAACL 2003. Edmonton, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Imaichi, O. and Y. Matsumoto: 1995, ‘Integration of Syntactic, Semantic and Contextual Information in Processing Grammatically Ill-Formed Inputs’. In: Proc. of the 14th IJCAI. Montreal, Canada, pp. 1435–1440.Google Scholar
  18. Kaplan, R. M.: 1987, ‘Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics’. In: P. Whitelock, H. Somers, P. Bennett, R. Johnson, and M. M. Wood (eds.): Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications. London: Academic Press, pp. 149–188.Google Scholar
  19. Karttunen, L.: 1986, ‘D-PATR: A Development Environment for Unification- Based Grammars.’. In: Proceedings of COLING ’86. Bonn, Germany, pp. 25–29, Institut föur angewandte Kommunikations- und Sprachforschung e.V. (IKS).Google Scholar
  20. Karttunen, L.: 1998, ‘The Proper Treatment of Optimality in Computational Phonology’. In: K. Oflazer and L. Karttunen (eds.): Finite State Methods in Natural Language Processing. Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
  21. Krieger, H.-U.: 1995, ‘TDL– A Type Description Language for Constraint-Based Grammars. Foundations, Implementation, and Applications.’. Ph.D. thesis, Universitöat des Saarlandes, Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  22. Lascarides, A. and A. A. Copestake: 1999, ‘Default Representation in Constraint-based Frameworks’. Computational Linguistics 25(1), 55–105.Google Scholar
  23. Loeckelt, M., T. Becker, N. Pfleger, and J. Alexandersson: 2002, ‘Making Sense of Partial’. In: Bos, Foster, and Matheson (eds.): Proceedings of the 6th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (EDILOG 2002). Edinburgh, pp. 101–107.Google Scholar
  24. Moore, R. C.: 1995, Logic and Representation, No. 39 in CSLI Lecture Notes. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Moshier, M. A.: 1988, ‘Extensions to Unication Grammars for the Description of Programming Languages’. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  26. Ninomiya, T., Y. Miyao, and J. Tsujii: 2002, ‘Lenient Default Unification for Robust Processing within Unification Based Grammar Formalisms’. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2002. Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 744–750.Google Scholar
  27. Pfleger, N.: 2002, ‘Discourse Processing for Multimodal Dialogues and its Application in SmartKom’. Diplomarbeit, Unversitöat des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
  28. Pfleger, N., J. Alexandersson, and T. Becker: 2002, ‘Scoring Functions for Overlay and their Application in Discourse Processing’. In: KONVENS-02. Saarbröucken, Germany.Google Scholar
  29. Pfleger, N., J. Alexandersson, and T. Becker: 2003, ‘A robust and generic discourse model for multimodal dialogue’. In: Workshop Notes of the IJCAI-03 Workshop on “Knowledge and Reasoning in Practical Dialogue Systems”. Acapulco, Mexico.Google Scholar
  30. Pollard, C. and I. A. Sag: 1994, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press and CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Porzel, R. and I. Gurevych: 2002, ‘Towards Context-adaptive Utterance Interpretation’. In: Proceedings of the 3rd SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue. Philadelphia, PA, pp. 154–161, Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  32. Reithinger, N., J. Alexandersson, T. Becker, A. Blocher, R. Engel, M. Löoeckelt, J. Möueller, N. Pfleger, P. Poller, M. Streit, and V. Tschernomas: 2003, ‘SmartKom - Adaptive and Flexible Multimodal Access to multiple Applications’. In: Proceedings of ICMI 2003. Vancouver, B.C.Google Scholar
  33. Romanelli, M., T. Becker, and J. Alexandersson: 2005, ‘On Plurals and Overlay’. In: C. Gardent and B. Gaiffe (eds.): Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (DIALOR). Nancy, France, pp. 101–108.Google Scholar
  34. Russel, S. and P. Norvig: 1995, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Wahllöof, N.: 1996, ‘A Default Extension to Description Logics and its Applications’. Linköoping University, Licentiate Thesis.Google Scholar
  36. Wahlster, W.: 2003, ‘Towards Symmetric Multimodality: Fusion and Fission of Speech, Gesture, and Facial Expression’. In: B. N. A. Göunther, R. Kruse (ed.): KI 2003: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings of the 26th German Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–18, Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Zeevat, H.: 2005, ‘Conditional Anaphor’. In: C. Gardent and B. Gaiffe (eds.): Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (DIALOR). Nancy, France, pp. 109–114.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Alexandersson
  • Tilman Becker

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations