Using Grice's maxim of quantity to select the content of plan descriptions

Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 115, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 215-256

  Young, R Michael ^a  

^a North Carolina State University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

PLAN-SPACE SEARCH; TASK-RELATED DISCOURSES;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 0033342829     PISSN: 00043702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00082-X     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bauer M. Quantitative modeling of user preferences for plan recognition. Proc. 4th International Conference on User Modeling, Hyannis, MA. 1994;73-78.
2. Clark H., Clark E. Semantic distinctions and memory for complex sentences. Quarterly J. Experiment. Psychology. 20:1968;129-138.
3. Clark H.H. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. J. Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 12:1973;335-359.
4. Curtis P. Social phenomena in text-based virtual realities. Proc. 1992 Conference on Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing, Berkeley, CA. 1992.
5. Dale R., Reiter E. Computational interpretations of the Gricean Maxims in the generation of referring expressions. Cognitive Sci. 19:(2):1995;233-263.
6. Delin J., Hartley A., Paris C., Scott D., Vander Linden K. Expressing procedural relationships in multilingual instructions. Proc. 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Kennebunkport, ME. 1994;61-70.
7. Di Eugenio B. Understanding natural language instructions: A computational approach to purpose clauses. Ph.D. Thesis:1993;Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
8. Dixon P. Plans and written directions for complex tasks. J. Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 21:1982;70-84.
9. Dixon P. Actions and procedural directions. Tomlin R. Coherence and Grounding and Discourse. 1987;John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
10. Donin J., Bracewell R.J., Frederiksen C.H., Dillinger M. Students' strategies for writing instructions. Written Communication. 9:(2):1992;209-236.
11. Elzer S., Chu-Carroll J., Carberry S. Recognizing and utilizing user preferences in collaborative consultation dialogues. Proc. 4th International Conference on User Modeling, Hyannis, MA. 1994;19-24.
12. Gertner A.S., Webber B.L., Clarke J.R. Upholding the maxim of relevance during patient-centered activities. Proc. 4th Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. 1994;125-131.
13. Golding J.M., Graesser A.C., Millis K.K. What makes a good answer to a question? Testing a psychological model of question answering in the context of narrative text. Discourse Processes. 13:1990;305-326.
14. Graesser A.C., Roberston S.P., Lovelace E., Swineheart D. Answers to why questions expose the organization of story plot and predict recall of actions. J. Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 19:1980;110-119.
15. Green N., Carberry S. A hybrid reasoning model for indirect answers. Proc. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Los Cruces, NM. 1994;59-65.
16. Grice H.P. Logic and conversation. Cole P., Morgan J.L. Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts. 1975;41-58 Academic Press, New York, NY.
17. Grosz B.J., Sidner C.L. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics. 12:1986;175-204.
18. Horacek H. Exploiting conversational implicature for generating concise explanations. Proc. European Association for Computational Linguistics. 1991.
19. Kambhampati S., Knoblock C.A., Qiang Y. Planning as refinement search: A unified framework for evaluating design tradeoffs in partial-order planning. Artificial Intelligence. 76:1995;167-238.
20. Kaufeld J. America Online for Dummies. 1996;IDG Books Worldwide, Foster City, CA.
21. Kintsch W. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review. 95:1988;163-182.
22. Kintsch W., Van Dijk T.A. Propositional and situational representations of text. Psychological Review. 85:1978;363-394.
23. Linde C., Goguen J.A. Structure of planning discourse. J. Social and Biological Structure. 1:1978;219-251.
24. Long D.L., Golding J.M. Superordinate goal inferences: Are they automatically generated during comprehension? Discourse Processes. 16:1993;55-73.
25. Mann, Thompson Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. Polyani L. The Structure of Discourse. 1987;Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
26. Mellish C., Evans R. Natural language generation from plans. Computational Linguistics. 15:(4):1989.
27. Paris C., Scott D. Upper modelling: A level of semantics for natural language processing. Proc. 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Kennebunkport, ME. 1994;54-61.
28. Paris C., Vander Linden K. An interactive support tool for writing mulitlingual manuals. IEEE Computer. 29:(7):1996;49-56.
29. Paris C., Vander Linden K., Fischer M., Hartley A., Pemberton L., Power R., Scott D. A support tool for writing mulitlingual instructions. Proc. IJCAI-95, Montreal, Quebec. 1995;1398-1404.
30. Passonneau R. Integrating Gricean and attentional constraints. Proc. IJCAI-95, Montreal, Quebec. 1995;1267-1273.
31. Rumelhart D.E. Understanding and summarizing brief stories. LaBerge D., Samuels S.J. Basic Processes in Reading: Perception and Comprehension. 1977;Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
32. Tate A. Generating project networks. Proc. IJCAI-77, Cambridge, MA. 1977;888-893.
33. Trabasso T., Sperry L. Causal relatedness and importance of story events. J. Memory and Language. 24:1985;595-611.
34. Trabasso T., van den Broeck P. Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. J. Memory and Language. 24:1985;612-630.
35. US Robotics, PalmPilot Professional Quick Start Guide. 1997;US Robotics, Mountain View, CA.
36. van Beek P. A model for generating better explanations. Proc. Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 1987;215-220 Association of Computational Linguistics, Stanford, CA.
37. van den Broeck P. The effects of causal relations and hierarchical position on the importance of story statements. J. Memory and Language. 27:1988;1-22.
38. Vander Linden K., Martin J.H. Expressing rhetorical relations in instructional text: A case study of the purpose relation. Computational Linguistics. 21:1995;29-57.
39. Walker M., Moore J. Empirical studies in discourse. Computational Linguistics. 23:(1):1997;1-12.
40. Williamson M. A value-directed approach to planning. Ph.D. Thesis:1995;Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington.
41. Wright D., Hull P. How people give verbal instructions. J. Appl. Cognitive Psychology. 4:1990;153-174.
42. Young R.M., Pollack M.E., Moore J.D. Decomposition and causality in partial order planning. Proc. 2nd International Conference on AI and Planning Systems. 1994;188-193.