Intention, interpretation and the computational structure of languages

Cognitive Science

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 781-809

  Stone, Matthew ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Dialogue; Pragmatics; Tree adjoining grammar

Indexed keywords

EID: 13944278569     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.05.001     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. Abeille, A., & Rambow, O. (Eds.). (2000). Tree adjoining grammars: Formalisms, linguistic analyses and processing. CSLI Publications
2. Agre, P. E. (1997). Computation and human experience. Cambridge University Press
3. Allen J. Byron D. Dzikovska M. Ferguson G. Galescu L. Stent A. Towards conversational human-computer interaction AI Magazine 22 4 2001 27-37
4. Allen J.F. Perrault C.R. Analyzing intention in utterances Artificial Intelligence 15 1980 143-178
5. Appelt, D. (1985). Planning English sentences. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
6. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press
7. Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Ph.D. Thesis, University Of Edinburgh (CSLI Publications, revision of 1995)
8. Birner, B. J., & Ward, G. L. (1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing
9. Brachman, R., McGuinness, D., Schneider, P. P., Resnick, L. A., & Borgida, A. (1990). Living with CLASSIC: When and how to use a KL-ONE-like language. In J. Sowa (Ed.), Principles of semantic networks. Morgan Kaufmann
10. Bratman, M. E. (1987). Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
11. Bratman M.E. Israel D.J. Pollack M.E. Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning Computational Intelligence 4 1988 349-355
12. Breiter, P., & Sadek, M. D. (1996). A rational agent as the kernel of a cooperative spoken dialogue system. In J. P. Muller, M. J. Wooldridge, & N. R. Jennings (Eds.), Intelligent agents III. Springer
13. Brennan, S. E. (1990). Seeking and providing evidence for mutual understanding. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University
14. Brennan S.E. Clark H.H. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 22 6 1996 1482-1493
15. Brew, C. (1992). Letting the cat out of the bag: Generation for shake-and-bake MT. In Proceedings of COLING, pp. 610-616
16. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge University Press
17. Brown-Schmidt, S., Campana, E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2004). Reference resolution in the wild: Circumscription of referential domains by naive participants during an interactive problem solving task. In J. C. Trueswell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
18. Bunt, H. (2000). Dialogue pragmatics and context specification. In H. Bunt & W. Black (Eds.), Abduction, belief and context in dialogue (pp. 81-150). Benjamin
19. Cassell J. Embodied conversational interface agents Communications of the ACM 43 4 2000 70-78
20. Cassell, J., Pelachaud, C., Badler, N., Steedman, M., Achorn, B., Becket, T., Douville, B., Prevost, S., & Stone, M. (1994). Animated conversation: Rule-based generation of facial expression, gesture and spoken intonation for multiple conversational agents. In SIGGRAPH (pp. 413-420)
21. Cassell, J., Stone, M., & Yan, H. (2000). Coordination and context-dependence in the generation of embodied conversation. In First International Conference on Natural Language Generation (pp. 171-178)
22. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton
23. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press
24. Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
25. Cohen P.R. Levesque H.J. Intention is choice with commitment Artificial Intelligence 42 1990 213-261
26. Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1990b). Rational interaction as the basis for communication. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 221-256). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
27. Cohen P.R. Levesque H.J. Teamwork Nous 24 4 1991 487-512
28. Cohen P.R. Perrault C.R. Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts Cognitive Science 3 3 1979 177-212
29. Copestake, A., Lascarides, A., & Flickinger, D. (2001). An algebra for semantic construction in unification-based grammars. In ACL (pp. 132-139)
30. Dekker, P. (2002). Pronouns in a pragmatic semantics. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 815-827
31. DeVault, D., & Stone, M. (2004). Interpreting vague utterances in context. In Proceedings of COLING
32. Doran, C., Egedi, D., Hockey, B. A., Srinivas, B., & Zaidel, M. (1994). XTAG System-a wide coverage grammar for English. In Proceedings of COLING (pp. 922-928)
33. Doran, C., Hockey, B. A., Sarkar, A., Srinivas, B., & Xia, F. (2000). Evolution of the XTAG system. In A. Abeille & O. Rambow (Eds.), Tree adjoining grammars: Formal, computational and linguistic aspects (pp. 371-403). CSLI Publications
34. Fagin, R., Halpern, J. Y., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. Y. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. Cambridge MA: MIT Press
35. Fodor, J. A. (1987). Psychosemantics: The problem of meaning in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
36. Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford
37. Fodor, J. A. (2000). The mind doesn't work that way: The scope and limits of computational psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
38. Frank, R. (2002). Phrase structure composition and syntactic dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
39. Gardent, C., & Kallmeyer, L. (2003). Semantic construction in feature-based TAG. In Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics
40. Ginzburg, J. (1995). Resolving questions, I & II. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18(5; 6), 459-527, 567-609
41. Ginzburg, J., & Cooper, R. (2004). Clarification, ellipsis and the nature of contextual updates in dialogue. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27
42. Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I. A. (2002). Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications
43. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
44. Grice H.P. Meaning The Philosophical Review 66 3 1957 377-388
45. Grice H.P. Utterer's meaning and intention Philosophical Review 78 2 1969 147-177
46. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics III: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press
47. Groenendijk J. Stokhof M. Dynamic predicate logic Linguistics and Philosophy 14 1990 39-100
48. Grosz B. Kraus S. Collaborative plans for complex group action Artificial Intelligence 86 2 1996 269-357
49. Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1990). Plans for discourse. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 417-444). Cambridge MA: MIT Press
50. Haddock, N. (1989). Incremental semantics and interactive syntactic processing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh
51. Halpern, J. Y., & Moses, Y. (1985). A guide to the modal logics of knowledge and belief: Preliminary draft. In Proceedings of IJCAI (pp. 480-490)
52. Hanna, J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2004). The use of perspective during referential interpretation. In J. C. Trueswell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
53. Heeman P. Hirst G. Collaborating on referring expressions Computational Linguistics 21 3 1995 351-382
54. Hobbs J. Stickel M. Appelt D. Martin P. Interpretation as abduction Artificial Intelligence 63 1993 69-142
55. Hobbs, J. R. (1985). Ontological promiscuity. In Proceedings of ACL (pp. 61-69)
56. Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and cognition. MIT Press
57. Jackendoff, R. S. (1990). Semantic structures. MIT Press
58. Joshi, A., & Vijay-Shanker, K. (1999). Compositional semantics with lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar (LTAG). In International Workshop on Computational Semantics (pp. 131-145)
59. Joshi, A. K. (1987). The relevance of tree adjoining grammar to generation. In G. Kempen (Ed.), Natural language generation (pp. 233-252). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Press
60. Joshi A.K. Levy L. Takahashi M. Tree adjunct grammars Journal of the Computer and System Sciences 10 1975 136-163
61. Kamp H. Rossdeutscher A. DRS-construction and lexically driven inference Theoretical Linguistics 20 1994 97-164
62. Koller, A., & Striegnitz, K. (2002). Generation as dependency parsing. In Proceedings of ACL (pp. 17-24)
63. Larsson S. Traum D. Information state and dialogue management in the TRINDI Dialogue Move Engine Toolkit Natural Language Engineering 6 2000 323-340
64. Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
65. Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. In R. Bauerle, U. Egli, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Semantics from different points of view (pp. 172-187). Berlin: Springer Verlag
66. Lochbaum K.E. A collaborative planning model of intentional structure Computational Linguistics 24 4 1998 525-572
67. Malle B.F. Knobe J. The folk concept of intentionality Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33 1997 101-121
68. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman
69. Matheson, C., Poesio, M., & Traum, D. (2000). Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proceedings of the North American Association of Computational Linguistics
70. Mellish, C. S. (1985). Computer interpretation of natural language descriptions. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood
71. Meteer M.W. Bridging the generation gap between text planning and linguistic realization Computational Intelligence 7 4 1991 296-304
72. Muskens R. Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation Linguistics and Philosophy 19 2 1996 143-186
73. Newell, A. (1980). Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press
74. Newell A. The knowledge level Artificial Intelligence 18 1982 87-127
75. Poesio, M., & Traum, D. (1998). Toward an axiomatization of dialogue acts. In J. Hulstijn & A. Nijholt (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twente Workshop on the Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogues (13th Twente Workshop on Language Technology) (pp. 207-222)
76. Poesio M. Traum D.R. Conversational actions and discourse situations Computational Intelligence 13 1997 309-347
77. Pollack, M. E. (1990). Plans as complex mental attitudes. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 77-103). Cambridge MA: MIT Press
78. Pollack M.E. The uses of plans Artificial Intelligence 57 1992 43-68
79. Power R. The organisation of purposeful dialogues Linguistics 17 1977 107-152
80. Prince, E. (1986). On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 208-222). Chicago. CLS
81. Pylyshyn Z. Situating vision in the world Trends in Cogntive Sciences 4 5 2000 197-207
82. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1986). Computation and cognition: Toward a foundation for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
83. Reiter, E. (1994). Has a consensus NL generation architecture appeared, and is it psycholinguisti-cally plausible? In Seventh International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (pp. 163-170)
84. Reiter, E., & Dale, R. (2000). Building natural language generation systems. Cambridge University Press
85. Rich C. Sidner C.L. Lesh N. COLLAGEN: Applying collaborative discourse theory to human-computer interaction AI Magazine 22 4 2001 15-26
86. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (1995). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Prentice Hall
87. Sacks H. Schegloff E.A. Jefferson G. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation Language 50 4 1974 696-735
88. Schabes, Y. (1990). Mathematical and computational aspects of lexicalized grammars. Ph.D. thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Pennsylvania
89. Schabes Y. Shieber S.M. An alternative conception of tree-adjoining derivation Computational Linguistics 20 1 1994 91-124
90. Schuler, W. (2001). Computational properties of environment-based disambiguation. In Proceedings of ACL (pp. 466-473)
91. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
92. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics III: Speech acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press
93. Shieber S.M. The problem of logical form equivalence Computational Linguistics 19 1 1993 179-190
94. Sidner, C. (1994). An artificial discourse language for collaborative negotiation. In AAAI (pp. 814-819)
95. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
96. Stalnaker R. On the representation of context Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 1998 3-19
97. Steedman M. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface Linguistic Inquiry 31 4 2000 649-689
98. Steedman, M. (2000b). The syntactic process. MIT Press
99. Stent A.J. A conversation acts model for generating spoken dialogue contributions Computer Speech and Language 16 2002 313-352
100. Stone, M. (2003). Linguistic representation and Gricean inference. In International Workshop on Computational Semantics (pp. 5-21)
101. Stone, M. (2004). Communicative intentions and conversational processes in human-human and human-computer dialogue. In J. Trueswell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), World-situated language use: Psycholinguistc, linguistic and computational perspectives on bridging the product and action traditions. MIT Press
102. Stone, M., Bleam, T., Doran, C., & Palmer, M. (2000). Lexicalized grammar and the description of motion events. In TAG+5: Workshop on tree-adjoining grammar and related formalisms (pp. 199-206)
103. Stone M. Doran C. Webber B. Bleam T. Palmer M. Microplanning with communicative intentions: The SPUD system Computational Intelligence 19 4 2003 311-381
104. Stone, M., & Thomason, R. H. (2002). Context in abductive interpretation. In EDILOG 2002: Proceedings of the sixth workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (pp. 169-176)
105. Stone, M., & Thomason, R. H. (2003). Coordinating understanding and generation in an abductive approach to interpretation. In DIABRUCK2003: Proceedings of the seventh workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (pp. 131-138)
106. Traum, D. R. (1994). A computational theory of grounding in natural language conversation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester
107. Traum, D. R., & Allen, J. F. (1994). Discourse obligations in dialogue processing. ACL (pp. 1-8)a
108. Travis, C. (1997). Pragmatics. In B. Hale & C. Wright (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of language (pp. 97-107). Oxford University Press
109. van Deemter K. Generating referring expressions: Boolean extensions of the incremental algorithm Computational Linguistics 28 1 2002 37-52
110. van Deemter, K. (2003). OT for NLP: Towards a computationally useful notion of superoptimality. In Fifth International Workshop on Computational Semantics
111. van der Sandt R. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution Journal of Semantics 9 2 1992 333-377
112. Vijay-Shanker, K. (1987). A study of tree adjoining grammars. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania
113. Wooldridge, M. (2000). Reasoning about rational agents. MIT Press