Natural Language Processing: Past, Present and Future

  • Deborah A. Dahl


This chapter provides a broad discussion of the history of natural ­language understanding for both speech and text. It includes a survey of the general approaches that have been and are currently being applied to the goals of extracting the user’s meaning from human-language inputs and performing useful tasks based on that analysis. The discussion utilizes examples from a wide variety of applications, including mobile personal assistants, Interactive Voice Response (IVR) applications, and question answering.


Speech Recognition Natural Language Processing Sentiment Analysis Interactive Voice Response Syntactic Analysis 
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.


  1. Allen J et al (2000) An architecture for a generic dialogue shell. Nat Lang Eng 6:213–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alshawi H, van Eijck J (1989) Logical forms in the core language engine. In: 27th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin S et al (1991) Proceedings of the speech and natural language workshop, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball CN et al (1989) Answers and questions: processing messages and queries. In: Speech and natural language: Proceedings of a workshop held at Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett JA et al (1980) The SDC speech understanding system. In: Lea WA (ed) Trends in speech recognition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 272–293Google Scholar
  6. Bohus D, Rudnicky AI (2003) RavenClaw: dialog management using hierarchical task decomposition and an expectation agenda. In: Eurospeech, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolt R (1980) Put-that-there: voice and gesture at the graphics interface. Comput Graph 14:262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bray T et al (2004) Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Third Edition). Retrieved November 9, 2012, from
  9. Brill E (1992) A simple rule-based part of speech tagger. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the third conference on Applied natural language processing (ANLC ‘92). Stroudsburg, PA, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chomsky N (1957) Syntactic structures. Mouton, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  11. Chu-Carroll J, Carpenter B (1998) Dialog management in vector-based call routing. In: 36th ACL/COLING, Montreal, pp 256–267Google Scholar
  12. Claburn T (2009) Stephen Wolfram’s Answer To Google. Information Week. Retrieved November 9, 2012, from
  13. Clark P, Harrison P (2008) Boeing’s NLP system and the challenges of semantic representation. In: Semantics in text processing. STEP 2008 conference proceedings, VeniceGoogle Scholar
  14. Crouch S, Khosla R (2012) Sentiment analysis of speech prosody for dialogue adaptation in a diet suggestion program. ACM SIGHIT Rec 2:8Google Scholar
  15. Dahl, Deborah A. (2006, September). Natural Language Processing: The next steps. Speech Technology Magazine, 11Google Scholar
  16. Dahl DA et al (1994) Expanding the scope of the ATIS task: the ATIS-3 corpus. In: ARPA human language technology workshop, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. Dahl, Deborah A., Norton, Lewis M., & Scholz, K.W. (2000, November). Commercialization of natural language processing technology. Communications of the ACM (electronic edition), 43Google Scholar
  18. Dahl DA et al (2011) A conversational personal assistant for senior users. In: Perez-Marin D, Pascual-Nieto I (eds) Conversational agents and natural language interaction: techniques and effective practices. IGI Global, Hershey, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  19. Erman LD et al (1980) The HEARSAY-II speech understanding system: integrating knowledge to resolve uncertainty. Comput Surv 12:213–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fellbaum C (ed) (1998) WordNet: an electronic lexical database. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. Fillmore C (1985) The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Reinhart and WinstonGoogle Scholar
  22. Grishman R et al (1994) Comlex Syntax: building a computational lexicon. In: COLING, Kyoto, pp 268–272Google Scholar
  23. Hirschman L (1989) Overview of the DARPA speech and natural language workshop. In: Speech and natural language: Proceedings of a workshop held at Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  24. Hopcroft JE, Ullman JD (1987) Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  25. Hunt, Andrew, & McGlashan, Scott. (2004) W3C Speech Recognition Grammar Specification (SRGS). Retrieved November 9, 2012, from
  26. Jackson E et al (1991) A template matcher for robust NL interpretation. In: Speech and natural language: proceedings of a workshop held at Pacific Grove, California, 19–22 Feb 1991, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnston M et al (2009) EMMA: Extensible MultiModal Annotation markup language. Retrieved November 9, 2012, from
  28. Jokinen K, McTear M (2010) Spoken dialog systems. Morgan & Claypool, San RafaelGoogle Scholar
  29. Larrson S, Traum D (2000) Information state and dialog management in the TRINDI dialog move engine toolkit. Nat Lang Eng 6:323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee K-F (1989) Automatic speech recognition: the development of the SPHINX system. Kluwer, NorwellGoogle Scholar
  31. Levin B (1993) English verb classes and alternations. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu X et al (2011) Recognizing named entities in tweets. Presented at the proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  33. Marcus M (1980) A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Marcus M et al (1993) Building a large annotated corpus of English: the Penn Treebank. Comput Linguist 19:313–330Google Scholar
  35. McGlashan S et al (2004) Voice Extensible Markup Language (VoiceXML 2.0). Retrieved November 9, 2012, from
  36. Minsky, M (1975) A framework for representing knowledge. In: Nash-Webber BL, Shank R (eds) TINLAP ‘75 Proceedings of the 1975 workshop on Theoretical issues in natural language processing (pp. 104–116). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
  37. Moschitti A et al (2011) Using syntactic and semantic structural kernels for classifying definition questions in Jeopardy! In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  38. Nguyen A, Wobcke W (2005) An agent-based approach to dialogue management in personal assistants. Presented at the proceedings of the 10th international conference on intelligent user interfaces, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  39. Norton LM et al (1991) Augmented role filling capabilities for semantic interpretation of natural language. In: Proceedings of the DARPA speech and language workshop, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  40. Norton LM et al (1992) Recent improvements and benchmark results for the Paramax ATIS system. In: Proceedings of the DARPA speech and language workshop, HarrimanGoogle Scholar
  41. Norton LM et al (1996) Methodology for application development for spoken language systems. In: International conference on spoken language processing, Philadelphia, pp 662–664Google Scholar
  42. Oshry M et al (2007) Voice Extensible Markup Language (VoiceXML) 2.1. Retrieved November 9, 2012, from
  43. Palmer M et al (1993) The Kernel text understanding system. Artif Intell 63:17–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Palmer M et al (2005) The proposition bank: an annotated corpus of semantic roles. Comput Linguist 31:71–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rabiner LR (1989) A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selective applications in speech recognition. Proc IEEE 77(2):257–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rudnicky AI, Hauptmann AG (1992) Chapter 10: Multimodal interaction in speech systems. In: Blattner MM, Dannenberg RB (eds) Multimedia interface design. ACM Press, New York, pp 147–171Google Scholar
  47. Seneff S (1992) TINA: a natural language system for spoken language applications. Comput Linguist 18:61–86Google Scholar
  48. Shannon C (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423, 623–656Google Scholar
  49. Sidner CL (2004) Building spoken-language collaborative interface agents. In: Dahl DA (ed) Practical spoken dialog systems. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  50. Standard ECMA-327 (2001) ECMAScript 3rd Edition Compact Profile. Retrieved November 9, 2012, from
  51. Taylor MM, Neel F, & Bouwhuis, DG (eds) (1989) The Structure of Multimodal Dialogue. Amsterdam: North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  52. Telephony voice user interface conference. Available:
  53. Turing A (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59:433–460MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Turney P (2002) Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down? Semantic Orientation Applied to Unsupervised Classification of Reviews. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Tichelen L, Burke D (2007) Semantic Interpretation for Speech Recognition. Retrieved November 9, 2012, from
  56. Ward W (1989) Understanding Spontaneous Speech. Paper presented at the DARPA Speech and Language Workshop, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  57. Weizenbaum J (1966) ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun ACM 9:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wolf JJ, Woods W (1980) The HWIM speech understanding system. In: Lea WA (ed) Trends in speech recognition. Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, pp 316–339Google Scholar
  59. Woods WA (1970) Transition network grammars for natural language analysis. Commun Assoc Comput Mach 13:591–606MATHGoogle Scholar
  60. Woods W et al (1972) The lunar sciences natural language information system: final report. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  61. Yngve VHA (1960) A model and a hypothesis for language structure. Proc Am Philos Soc 104:444–466MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Conversational TechnologiesPlymouth MeetingUSA

Personalised recommendations