Natural Language Generation in Artificial Intelligence and Computational Linguistics pp 249-292 | Cite as
Lexico(Grammatical) choice in text generation
Abstract
This paper discusses the problem of lexical choice in text generation, suggesting that it has to be viewed as part of the problem of lexicogrammatical choice instead of being isolated. First, the importance of the problem and the need for a general survey are noted. Next, in order to interpret the contributions these approaches have made and to identify the full spectrum of factors that have to be considered, an abstract model of lexis within lexicogrammar is presented. Then, existing approaches are discussed and located in relation to the abstract model. This paper is a shorter version of a longer treatment that also goes into the abstract model presented here in more detail.
Keywords
Lexical Item Lexical Entry Text Generation Lexical Semantic Lexical ResourcePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
- Amsler, R. 1981. A Taxonomy for English Nouns and Verbs. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
- Apresyan, Y. I. Mel’cuk, A. Zholkovsky. 1970. Semantics and lexicography, toward a new type of unilingual dictionary. In F. Kiefer (ed.), Studies in Syntax and Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
- Bateman, J., Gen-ichirou, and Atsuchi Tabuchi. 1987. Designing a computational systemic grammar for text generation: a progress report. Department of Electrical Engineering, Kyoto University.Google Scholar
- Bateman, J. and C. Paris. 1989. Constraining the development of lexicogrammatical resources during text generation: towards a computational instantiation of register theory. Paper presented at ISC 16. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Bazell, C., I. Catford and M.A.K. Halliday (eds). 1966. In Memory of J.R. Firth. London: Longman.Google Scholar
- Becker, J. 1975. The Phrasal Lexicon. In Schank, R. and B. Webber (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge:.Google Scholar
- Benson, J., M. Cummings and W. Greaves (eds). 1988. Linguistics in a systemic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Berlin, B., D. Breedlove, and P. Raven. 1973. General Principles of Classifica- tion and Nomenclature in Folk Biology. American Anthropologist, 75: 214–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Berry, M. 1977. Introduction to Systemic Linguistics II: levels and links. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
- Brachman, R. 1978. A Structural Paradigm for Representing Knowledge. BBN Report No. 3605, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Brown, R. and A. Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. Sebeok (ed), Style in language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- CEC = A Corpus of English Conversation, ed. by R. Quirk and J. Svartvik. 1980. Lund: C W K Gleerup.Google Scholar
- Cruse, D. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Cumming, S. 1986. The Lexicon in Text Generation.Google Scholar
- USC/Information Sciences Institute, ISI/RR-86–168.Google Scholar
- Cumming, S., R. Albano, and N. Sondheimer. 1988. [Paper presented at lex. semantics workshop]Google Scholar
- Danlos, L. 1984. Conceptual and linguistic decisions in generation. In Proceedings of Coling 84, Stanford University. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
- Dik, S. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
- Dik, S. 1987. Generating answers from a linguistically coded knowledge base. In Kempen (ed.). Natural Language Generation. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
- Dinosaurs = Zallinger, P. 1977. Dinosaurs. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
- 100.Dinosaurs = Wilson, R. 100 Dinosaurs from A to Z. New York: Grosset and Dunlap.Google Scholar
- Downing, P. 1981. [Lexical choice paper in Pear Stories Volume] In W. Chafe (ed), The Pear Stories. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
- Emblen, D. 1970. Peter Mark Roget. The word and the man. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
- Ervin-Tripp, S. 1969. Sociolinguistics. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 4.Google Scholar
- Evens, M., B. Litowitz, J. Markowitz, R. Smith, and O. Werner. 1980. Lexical-Semantic Relations: A Comparative Survey. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
- Fawcett, R. 1980. Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the other Components of a Communicating Mind. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag, and Exeter: University of Exeter.Google Scholar
- Fries, P. 1982. On Repetition and Interpretation. Forum Linguisticum 7 (1): 50–64.Google Scholar
- Givn, T. (ed.). 1983. Topic Continuity in Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Goldman, N. 1974. Computer Generation of Natural-Language from a Deep Conceptual Base. Yale University Dissertation.Google Scholar
- Granville, R. 1983. Cohesion in Computer Text Generation: Lexical Substitution. MIT/LCS/TR-310.Google Scholar
- Halliday, M.A.K. 1956. The linguistic basis of a mechanical thesaurus. Mechanical Translation 3.3: 81–8.Google Scholar
- Halliday, M.A.K. 1961. Scales and categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17.3, 241–92.Google Scholar
- Halliday, M.A.K. 1964. Syntax and the consumer. Monograph Series in Languages and Linguistics 17: pp. 14–23. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
- Halliday, M.A.K. 1966. Lexis as a linguistic level. In Baze11 et al.Google Scholar
- Halliday, M.A.K. 1967/8. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics. V. 3.1, 3.2, and 4. 2.Google Scholar
- Halliday, M.A.K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
- Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
- Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
- Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
- Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. 1985. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
- Halliday, M.A.K. 1985b. Spoken and written language. Geelong, Vic: Deakin University Press. (Republished in 1988 by Oxford University Press.)Google Scholar
- Hasan, R. 1987. The grammarian’s dream. In M.A.K. Halliday and R. Fawcett (eds). New Developments in Systemic Linguistics. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
- Hinds, J. 1977. Paragraph Structure and Pronominalization. Papers in Linguistics 10: 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hovy, E. 1987a. Generating Language with a Phrasal Lexicon. In McDonald, D. and Bolc. (eds.). Papers in Natural Language Generation. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Hovy, E. 1987b. Generating Natural Language under Pragmatic Constraints. YALEU/CSD/RR#521. Yale University, Ph.D. Dissertation.Google Scholar
- Hovy, E. and R. Schank. 1984. Language Generation. In Bara and Guida (eds.), Computational Models of Natural Language Processing. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
- Ingria, R. 1986. [ACL Tutorial]Google Scholar
- Jacobs, P. 1985. PHRED: A Generator for Natural Language Interfaces. Computational Linguistics. Volume 11, 4.Google Scholar
- Jacobs, P. 1987. KING: A knowledge-intensive natural language generator. In Kempen (ed).Google Scholar
- Kasper, R. 1988. Systemic Grammar and Functional Uvnification Grammar. In Benson, J. and W. Greaves (eds), Systemic Functional Approaches to Discourse: Selected Papers from the 12th International Systemic Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
- Kay, M. 1979. Functional Grammar. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
- Kempen, G. (ed.). 1987. Natural Language Generation. Dordrecht: Martinus Nij hoff.Google Scholar
- Kittredge, R. and I. Mel’cuk. 1983. Towards a computable model of meaning-text relations within a natural sublanguage. IJCAI.Google Scholar
- Kukich, K. 1983. Design of a Knowledge-Based Report Generator. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the ACL.Google Scholar
- Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
- Leech, G. 1974. Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Lehrer, A. 1967. Semantic Cuisine. Journal of Linguistics.Google Scholar
- Lodwick, F. 1652. The Ground-Work, or foundation laid (or so intended) for the Framing of a New Perfect Language: And an Universali or Common Writing.Google Scholar
- Lyne, A. 1988. Systemic syntax from a lexical point of view. In Benson et al. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- McArthur, T. 1986. Worlds of Reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- McDonald, D. 1980. Language Production as a Process of Decision-making under Constraints. MIT Ph.D. Dissertation, 1980. MIT Report.Google Scholar
- McDonald, D. 1981. Language Production: the Source of the Dictionary. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
- McKeown, K. 1982. Generating Natural Language Text in Response to Questions about Database Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
- Mann, W. 1983. Inquiry semantics: a functional semantics of natural language. In Proceedings of the First Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, European Chapter. Pisa.Google Scholar
- Marcus, M. 1987. Generation Systems Should Choose Their Words. In Y. Wilks (ed.), TINLAP-3. Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing-3. Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive Science. New Mexico State University.Google Scholar
- Martin, J.R. 1989. Life as a noun. Arresting the universe. Paper presented at ISC 16, 1989. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Martin, J.R. 1990. English Text:system and structure. Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Martin, J.R., P. Wignell, S. Eggins and J. Rothery. 1988. Secret English: Discourse Technology in a Junior Secondary School. In L. Gerot, J. Oldenburg, T. Van Leeuwen (eds), Language and socialisation: home and school. Proceedings from the Working Conference on Language in Education. Macquarie University, 1988.Google Scholar
- Matthiessen, C. 1981. A Grammar and a Lexicon for a Text-Production System. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
- Matthiessen, C. 1988. A systemic semantics: the chooser and inquiry framework. In Benson, Cummings and Greaves (eds.). Also as ISI/RS-87–189.Google Scholar
- Matthiessen, C. 1989. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Department of Linguistics, Sydney University. MS.Google Scholar
- Mel’cuk, I. 1982. Lexical Functions in Lexicographic Description. In Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
- Mel’cuk, I. 1986. Semantic Bases of Linguistic Description (Meaning-Text Linguistic Theory). In M. Marino and L. Prez (eds.). The Twelfth Lacus Forum, 1985. Lake Bluff: LACUS.Google Scholar
- Nebel, B. and N. Sondheimer. 1986. A Logical-Form and Knowledge-Based Design for Natural Language Generation. In Proceedings of AAAI-86, Vol. 1.Google Scholar
- Patten, T. 1988. Systemic text generation as problem solving. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Poynton, C. 1984. Names as vocatives: forms and functions. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 13 (Special Issue on Systemic Linguistics).Google Scholar
- Poynton, C. 1985. Language and gender: making the difference. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press. (Republished by London: Oxford University Press, 1988.)Google Scholar
- Pustejovsky, J. and S. Nirenburg. 1987. Lexical Selection in the Process of Language Generation. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
- Quillian, R. 1967. Word Concepts: A Theory and Simulation of Some Basic Semantic Capabilities. Behavioral Science 12: 410–30. Reprinted in Brachman and Levesque (eds.).Google Scholar
- Roget, M. 1852. A Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases, Classified and Arranged so as to facilitate the Expression of Ideas and assist in Literary Composition. Many editions.Google Scholar
- Sigurd, B. 1987. Meta-comments in text-generation. In Kempen (ed.). Sinclair, J. 1966. Beginning the study of lexis. In Bazell et al.Google Scholar
- Sinclair, J. 1987. Collocation: a progress report. In R. Steele and T. Threadgold (eds), Language Topics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Sinclair, J. 1988. Sense and structure in lexis. In Benson et al.Google Scholar
- Sparck-Jones, K. 1964. Synonymy and Semantic Classification. University of Cambridge Ph.D. thesis. Printed in 1986, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
- Trier, J. 1931. Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
- Ure, J. 1971. Lexical density and register differentiation. In G.E. Perren and J.L.M Tim (eds), Applications of linguistics: selected papers of the 2nd International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Cambridge 1969. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Whorf, B.L. 1956. Language Thought and Reality. Selected Writing of Benjamin Lee Whorf, edited by J. Carroll. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Wignell, P., J. R. Martin and S. Eggins. 1987. The discourse of geography: ordering and explaining the experiential world. In Suzanne Eggins, James R. Martin and Peter Wignell (eds), Writing Project Report 1987. Sydney: University of Sydney Linguistics Department (Working Papers in Linguistics, 5: 25–65 )Google Scholar
- Wilkins, J. 1668. An Essay Towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language. London.Google Scholar
- Winograd, T. 1983. Language as a cognitive process. Syntax. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar