The role of conceptual and linguistic ontologies in interpreting spatial discourse

Discourse Processes

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 175-212

  Bateman, John ^a   Tenbrink, Thora ^a   Farrar, Scott ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 41449101868     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01638530701600912     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
2. Bateman, J. (1995). On the relationship between ontology construction and natural language: A socio-semiotic view. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 929-944.
3. Bateman., J. (2006). Linguistic interaction and ontological mediation. In A. Schalley & D. Zaefferer (Eds.), Ontolinguistics. How Ontolinguistics status shapes the linguistic coding of concepts (pp. 115-144). Berlin: de Gruyter.
4. Bateman, J., Borgo, S., Lüttich, K., Masolo, C., & Mossakowski, T. (2007). Ontological modularity and spatial diversity. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 7, 97-128.
5. Bateman, J., & Farrar, S. (2004). Towards a generic foundation for spatial ontology. In A. C. Varzi & L. Vieu (Eds.), Formal ontology in information systems: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (pp. 237-248). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
6. Bateman, J., Henschel, R., & Rinaldi, F. (1995). Generalized Upper Model 2.0: Documentation (Tech. Rep.). Darmstadt, Germany: GMD/Institut für Integrierte Publikations- und Informationssysteme.
7. Bateman, J., Hois, J., Tenbrink, T., Ross, R., Farrar, S., & Vierhuff, T. (2006). Augmenting the Generalized Upper Model for spatial language. (SFB/TR8 internal report). Germany: University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center for Spatial Cognition.
8. Beun, R.-J., van Eijk, R., & Prüst, H. (2004). Ontological feedback in multiagent systems. In N. R. Jennings, C. Sierra, L. Sonenberg, & M. Tambe (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 110-117). New York: ACM Press.
9. Blackburn, P., Gardent, C., & de Rijke, M. (1996). Rich ontologies for tense and aspect. In J. Seligman & D. Westerstahl (Eds.), Logic, language and computation (pp. 72-92). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
10. Bosch, P. (1991). The Bermuda triangle: Natural language semantics between linguistics, knowledge representation, and knowledge processing. In O. Herzog & C.-R. Rollinger (Eds.), Text understanding in LILOG: Integrating computational linguistics and artificial intelligence (Report No. 546, pp. 243-258). Berlin: Springer.
11. Carlson, L. A., & van der Zee, E. (Eds.). (2005). Functional features in language, and space: Insights from perception, categorization and development. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
12. Carlson-Radvansky, L., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Inhibition accompanies reference frame selection. Psychological Science, 9, 386-391.
13. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Logan, G. D. (1997). The influence of reference frame selection on spatial template construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 411-437.
14. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
15. Clark, H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.
16. Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, seeing and acting. The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Essays in Cognitive Psychology series. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
17. Denis, M. (1997). The description of routes: A cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 16, 409-458.
18. Eschenbach, C. (1999). Geometric structures of frames of reference and natural language semantics. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 1, 329-348.
19. Fischer, K. (2003). Linguistic methods for investigating concepts in use. In T. Stolz & K. Kolbe (Eds.), Methodologie in der linguistik (pp. 39-62). Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.
20. Gapp, K.-P. (1995). An empirically validated model for computing spatial relations. In I. Wachsmuth, C-R. Rollinger, & W. Brauer (Eds.) KI-95. Advances in Artificial Intelligence, (pp. 245-256). Berlin: Springer.
21. Garrod, S. C., & Sanford, A. J. (1988). Discourse models as interfaces between language and the spatial world. Journal of Semantics, 6, 147-160.
22. Grabowski, J., & Weiß, P. (1996). The prepositional inventory of languages: A factor that affects comprehension of spatial prepositions. Language Sciences, 18, 19-35.
23. Guarino, N., & Poli, R. (1995). The role of formal ontology in the information technology. International Journal of Human and Computer Studies, 43, 623-624.
24. Gurevych, I., Porzel, R., Slinko, E., Pfleger, N., Alexandersson, J., & Merten, S. (2003). Less is more: Using a single knowledge representation in dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the NAACL 2003 Workshop on Text Meaning. East Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
25. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.
26. Hayes, P. J. (1979). The naive physics manifesto. In D. Michie (Ed.), Expert systems in the microelectronic age (pp. 242-270). Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
27. Herrmann, T. (1990). Vor, hinter, rechts und links: Das 6H-Modell. Psychologische studien zum sprachlichen lokalisieren. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik [Journal of Literature, and Linguistics], 78, 117-140.
28. Herrmann, T., & Deutsch, W. (1976). Psychologie der Objektbenennung [A 16]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
29. Herrmann, T., & Grabowski, J. (1994). Sprechen: Psychologie der Sprachproduktion [Speech: Psychology of Language Production]. Heidelberg, Germany: Spektrum. Verlag.
30. Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Studies in Natural Language. Processing. London: Cambridge University Press.
31. Hobbs, J. R. (1995). Sketch of an ontology underlying the way we talk about the world. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 819-830.
32. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P., & van Harmelen, F. (2003). From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a Web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 1, 7-26.
33. Klippel, A., Tenbrink, T., & Montello, D. (in press). The role of structure and function in the conceptualization of directions. In E. van der Zee & M. Vulchanova (Eds.), Motion encoding in language and space. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
34. Knauff, M., Rauh, R., & Renz, J. (1997). A cognitive assessment of topological spatial relations: Results from an. empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT97).
35. Kruijff, G.-J. M., Zender, H., Jensfelt, P., & Christensen, H. I. (2007). Situated dialogue and spatial organization: What, where ... and why? [Special Issue]. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 4(1), 125-138.
36. Kühnlein, P., Rieser, H., & Zeevat, H. (Eds.). (2003). Perspectives on dialogue in the new millennium. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
37. Lang, E. (1991). The LILOG ontology from a linguistic point of view. In O. Herzog & C-R. Rollinger (Eds.), Text understanding in LILOG: Integrating computational linguistics and artificial intelligence (Rep. No. 546, pp. 464-481). Berlin: Springer.
38. Lankenau, A., Meyer, O., & Krieg-Brückner, B. (1998). Safety in robotics: The Bremen autonomous wheelchair. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control (AMC 98, pp. 524-529). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
39. Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40. Mann, W. C., Arens, Y., Matthiessen, C.M. I. M., Naberschnig, S., & Sondheimer, N. K. (1985, October). Janus abstraction structure-Draft 2 (Tech. Rep.), (circulaed in draft form only). Marina del Rey, CA: USC/Information Sciences Institute.
41. Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., & Oltramari, A. (2003). Ontologies library (final) (Wonder-Web Deliverable D18, ISTC-CNR, Padova, Italy). Retrieved on September 10, 2007, from http://wonderweb. semanticweb.org/deliverables/documents/D18.pdf
42. Milward, D., & Beveridge, M. (2003). Ontology-based dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Knowledge and Reasoning in Practical Dialogue Systems at the 18th International Joint Conference On Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-03). Acapulco, Mexico.
43. Moratz, R., & Tenbrink, T. (2006). Spatial reference in linguistic human-robot interaction: Iterative, empirically supported development of a model of projective relations. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 6, 63-107.
44. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Towards a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-190.
45. Quantz, J., Gehrke, M., Küssner, U., & Schmitz, B. (1994). The VERBMOBIL domain model Version 1.0 (Verbmobil Rep. No. 29). Saarbrücken, Germany: University of the Saarland.
46. Ross, R., Shi, H., Vierhuff, T., Krieg-Brückner, B., & Bateman, J. (2005). Towards dialogue based shared control of navigating robots. In C. Freksa, M. Knauff, B. Krieg-Brückner, B. Nebel, & T. Barkowsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Spatial Cognition: Spatial cognition IV - Reasoning, action, interaction (pp. 478-499). Berlin: Springer.
47. Schober, M. F. (1993). Spatial perspective taking in conversation. Cognition, 47, 1-24.
48. Schober, M. F. (1998). How addressees affect spatial perspective choice in dialogue. In P. Olivier & K.-P. Gapp (Eds.), Representation and processing of spatial expressions (pp. 231-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
49. Shi, H., & Tenbrink, T. (in press). Telling Rolland where to go: HRI dialogues on route navigation. In K. Coventry, T. Tenbrink, & J. Bateman (Eds.), Spatial language and dialogue. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
50. Smith, B. (2003). Ontelogy. In L. Floridi (Ed.), Blackwell guide to the philosophy of computing and information (pp. 155-166). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
51. Smith, R., & van Kuppevelt, J. (Eds.). (2003). Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
52. Tenbrink, T. (2007). Space, time, and the use of language: An investigation of relationships. Berlin: de Gruyter.
53. Tversky, B. (1996). Spatial perspective in descriptions. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 463-491). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54. Tversky, B., Lee, P., & Mainwaring, S. (1999). Why do speakers mix perspectives? Spatial Cognition and Computation, 1, 399-412.
55. van Deemter, K., & Peters, S. (Eds.) (1996). Semantic ambiguity and underspecification. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
56. Vorwerg, C. (2001). Raumrelationen in Wahrnehmung und Sprache: Kategorisierungsprozesse bei der Benennung visueller Richtungsrelationen [Spatial relations inperception and language: Processes of categorization in the naming of visual direction relations]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
57. Vorwerg, C. (in press). Consistency in successive spatial utterances. In K. Coventry, T. Tenbrink, & J. Bateman (Eds.), Spatial language and dialogue. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
58. Vorwerg, C., & Tenbrink, T. (2007). Discourse factors influencing spatial descriptions in English and German. In T. Barkowsky, M. Knauff, G. Ligozat, & D.Montello (Eds.), Spatial cognition V: Reasoning, action, interaction. Berlin: Springer.
59. Watson, M. E., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2004). Alignment of reference frames in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference, of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
60. Winterboer, A., Tenbrink, T., & Moratz, R.( in press). Spatial directionals for robot navigation. In Emile van der Zee and Mila Vulchanova (Eds.), Motion encoding in language and space. England: Oxford University Press.
61. Wölfl, S., & Mossakowski, T. (2005). CASL specifications of qualitative calculi. In A. G. Cohn & D. M. Mark (Eds.), Proceedings of Spatial Information Theory: International Conference (COSIT 2005, pp. 200-217). Berlin: Springer.
62. Zimmer, H. D., Speiser, H. R., Baus, J., Blocher, A., & Stopp, E. (1998). The use of locative expressions in dependence of the spatial relation between target and reference object in two-dimensional layouts. In Spatial Cognition I - An interdisciplinary approach to representing and processing spatial knowledge (pp. 223-240). Berlin: Springer.