Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Joint construction
- Part II Reference
- 5 Referability
- 6 Referring expression generation in interaction: A graph-based perspective
- Part III Handling uncertainty
- Part IV Engagement
- Part V Evaluation and shared tasks
- Author index
- Subject index
- References
6 - Referring expression generation in interaction: A graph-based perspective
from Part II - Reference
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2014
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Joint construction
- Part II Reference
- 5 Referability
- 6 Referring expression generation in interaction: A graph-based perspective
- Part III Handling uncertainty
- Part IV Engagement
- Part V Evaluation and shared tasks
- Author index
- Subject index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Buying new chairs can be complicated. Many constraints have to be kept in mind, including your financial situation, the style and color of the furniture you already own and possibly also the taste of your partner. But once you have made a tentative choice (say, the chair in Figure 6.1 on the left), there is one final hurdle: you have to inform the seller of your desire to buy it. Furniture stores tend to contain many chairs, so somehow you need to refer to your chair of choice, for example I'd like to buy the wooden chair with the thin legs and solid seat, the red one with the open back. It is hardly surprising that many people in this situation resort to pointing (that one). Of course, it would be helpful to know that salespeople might refer to this chair as the red Keystone chair, because that would allow you to adapt to their way of referring.
This problem illustrates the importance of reference in everyday interactions: people can only exchange information about objects when they agree on how to refer to those objects. How this agreement may arise, and how we can model this in natural language generation, is the topic of this chapter. We argue that two possibly competing forces play a role. On the one hand, speakers may have inherent preferences for certain properties when referring to objects in a given domain. On the other, they may also have a tendency to adapt to the references produced by their dialogue partner. We describe how preferences can be determined, and how they interact with adaptation. We model this tradeoff using a graph-based referring expression generation algorithm (Krahmer et al., 2003).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Natural Language Generation in Interactive Systems , pp. 126 - 148Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2014
References
and (2008). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic evaluation measures for referring expression generation. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (ACL-HLT), pages 197-200, Columbus, OH. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
, , , and (2010). Linguistic alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9):2355-2368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22(6):1482-1493.Google ScholarPubMed
, , and (2010). Modelling and evaluation of lexical and syntactic alignment with a priming-based microplanner. In and , editors, Empirical Methods in Natural Language Generation, pages 85-104. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
and (2007). A conceptual graph approach to the generation of referring expressions. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 2456-2461, Hyderabad, India. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
(1989). Cooking up referring expressions. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 68-75, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
and (1991). Content determination in the generation of referring expressions. Computational Intelligence, 7(4):252-265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1995). Computational interpretation of the Gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions. Cognitive Science, 19(2):233-263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2012). The interplay between gesture and speech in the production of referring expressions: Investigating the tradeoff hypothesis. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(2):232-248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2000). The agreement process: An empirical investigation of human-human computer-mediated collaborative dialogue. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(6):1017-1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2006). Do speakers and listeners observe the Gricean maxim of quantity?Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4):554-573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2005). How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions?Cognition, 96(3):263-284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1979). Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman, NewYork, NY.Google Scholar
(2007). Generating Coherent References to Multiple Entities. PhD thesis, Department of Computing Science, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
and (2010). Introducing shared tasks to NLG: The TUNA shared task evaluation challenges. In and , editors, Empirical Methods in Natural Language Generation, pages 264-293. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
, , and (2008). The TUNA challenge 2008: Overview and evaluation results. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (INLG), pages 198-207, Salt Fork, OH. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
, , and (2009). The TUNA-REG challenge 2009: Overview and evaluation results. In Proceedings of the European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG), pages 174-182, Athens, Greece. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
, , and (2011). Attribute preference and priming in reference production: Experimental evidence and computational modelling. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci), pages 2627-2632, Boston, MA. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
, , and (2007). Evaluating algorithms for the generation of referring expressions using a balanced corpus. In Proceedings of the European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG), pages 49-56, Saarbrücken, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
and (2004). Grounded semantic composition for visual scenes. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 21:429-470.Google Scholar
and (2010). Preferences versus adaptation during referring expression generation. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 55-59, Uppsala, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
and (2008). Adapting referring expressions to the task environment. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci), pages 2404-2409, Washington, DC. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
and (2005). Automatic evaluation of referring expression generation using corpora. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Using Corpora for Natural Language Generation (UCNLG), Birmingham, UK. ITRI, University of Brighton.Google Scholar
and (1979). Algorithm AS 136: A k-means clustering algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 28(1):100-108.Google Scholar
and (2010). Learning adaptive referring expression generation policies for spoken dialogue systems. In and , editors, Empirical Methods in Natural Language Generation, pages 67-84. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
and (2005). Learning content selection rules for generating object descriptions in dialogue. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 24(1):157-194.Google Scholar
, , , and (2009). Need I say more? On factors causing referential overspecification. In Proceedings of the CogSci workshop on the Production of Referring Expressions, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Available from http://pre2009.uvt.nl/. Accessed on 11/24/2013.Google Scholar
, , , and (2008). GRAPH: The costs of redundancy in referring expressions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG), pages 227-229, Salt Fork, OH. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
, , and (2003). Graph-based generation of referring expressions. Computational Linguistics, 29(1):53-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2012). Two- and four-year-olds learn to adapt referring expressions to context: Effects of distracters and feedback on referential communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(2):184-210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , , and (2006). A reference architecture for natural language generation systems. Natural Language Engineering, 12(1):1-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1970). Language and thought: Aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics. Psychological Review, 77(4):257-273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1996). Using centering to relax Gricean informational constraints on discourse anaphoric noun phrases. Language and Speech, 39(2-3):229-264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989). Incremental speech production and referential overspecification. Linguistics, 27(1):89-110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2):169-226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2000). Building Natural Language Generation Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1984). The effect of redundant communication on listeners: Why different types may have different effects. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13(2):147-166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2006). Noun phrase generation for situated dialogs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG), pages 81-88, Sydney, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
, , , and (2011). Does size matter: How much data is required to train a REG algorithm? In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (ACL-HLT), pages 660-664, Portland, OR. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
, , , and (2012). Generation of referring expressions: Assessing the Incremental Algorithm. Cognitive Science, 36(5):799-836.Google ScholarPubMed
and (2007). Graphs and booleans: On the generation of referring expressions. In and , editors, Computing Meaning, volume 3, pages 397-422. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
, , and (2006). Building a semantically transparent corpus for the generation of referring expressions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG), pages 130-132, Sydney, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
and (2007). Generating multimodal referring expressions. Discourse Processes, 44(3):145-174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2009). Lexical entrainment and lexical differentiation in reference phrase choice. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(4):448-463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2006). Algorithms for generating referring expressions: Do they do what people do? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG), pages 63-72, Sydney, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
, , , , and (2008). Controlling redundancy in referring expressions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Marrakech, Morocco. European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
, , , and (2007). Individual and domain adaptation in sentence planning for dialogue. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 30(1):413-456.Google Scholar
, , , and (2009). Eye tracking for the online evaluation of prosody in speech synthesis: Not so fast! In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (INTERSPEECH), pages 2523-2526, Brighton, UK. International Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar