Narrative presentation and meaning

AAAI Fall Symposium - Technical Report

Volumn FS-07-05, Issue , 2007, Pages 162-165

  Tomai, Emmett ^a   Forbus, Kenneth D ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN USE; TECHNICAL REPORTS;

CHLORINE COMPOUNDS; COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY;

HEURISTIC METHODS;

EID: 51849153714     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Asher and Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
2. Barthes, R. 1977. Introduction to the structural analysis of narratives. Image, music, text; essays selected and translated by Stephen Heath. Hill and Wang, New York.
3. Bratman, M. 1987. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA, USA. 1987.
4. Charniak, Eugene. 1972. Toward a model of children's story comprehension (AI Laboratory Technical Report 266). Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
5. Clark, P., Harrison, P. and Thompson, J. 2003. A Knowledge-Driven Approach to Text Meaning Processing. Proceedings of the HLT Workshop on Text Meaning Processing, pp 1-6.
6. Dyer, M. 1983. In-Depth Understanding: A Computer Model of Integrated Processing for Narrative Comprehension. MIT Press Cambridge, MA, USA.
7. Forbus, K. 1984. Qualitative process theory. Artificial Intelligence, 24, 1984.
8. Forbus, K., Lockwood, K., Tomai, E., Dehghani, M. and Czyz, J. 2007. Machine Reading as a Cognitive Science Research Instrument. AAAI Spring Symposium on Machine Reading. Stanford University, California.
9. Gratch, J., Marsella, S., and Mao W. 2006. Towards a Validated Model of "Emotional Intelligence." Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI06).
10. Gentner, D. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 1, 155-170.
11. Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, editors, Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, pages 41-58. Academic Press, New York, NY.
12. Hobbs, J. R. 1985. On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse. Technical Report CSLI-85-37, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.
13. Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. 1993. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language. Kluwer Academic Dordrecht; Boston.
14. Kelley, H. H. 1973. The Processes of Causal Attribution. American Psychologist, 28:107-128.
15. nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
16. Kuehne, S. E. 2004. On the Representation of Physical Quantities in Natural Language Text. Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago, Illinois, USA, August.
17. Labov, W. and Waletzky, J. 1966. Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience. Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, June Helms (ed.) 12-44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
18. Mandler, J.M. and Johnson, N.S. 1977. Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111-151.
19. Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A. 1987. Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Framework for the Analysis of Texts. International Pragmatics Association Papers in Pragmatics, 1, 79-105.
20. Mateas, M and Stern, A. 2003. Integrating plot, character and natural language processing in the interactive drama Façade. 1st International Conference on Technologies for Interactive Digital Storytelling and Entertainment.
21. McCarthy, John. 1990. An example for natural language understanding and the AI problems it raises. In John McCarthy, Formalizing common sense, pp. 70-76. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
22. Moorman, Kenneth 1997. A functional theory of creative reading: Process, knowledge, and evaluation (Doctoral dissertation). Atlanta, GA: College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology.
23. Mueller, E. 1999. Prospects for in-depth story understanding by computer. arXiv:cs.AI/0003003
24. Mueller, Erik T. 2004. Understanding script-based stories using commonsense reasoning. Cognitive Systems Research, 5(4), 307-340.
25. Nyberg, E., Mitamura, T., Baker, K., Svoboda, D., Peterson, B., and Williams, J. 2002. Deriving Semantic Knowledge from Descriptive Texts using an MT System. Proceedings of AMTA 2002.
26. Polanyi, L. 1989. The American Story. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, USA.
27. Propp, V. 1969. Morphology of the Folktale. Trans. Laurence Scott. Ed. Louis A. Wagner. 2nd edition. Univ. of Texas Press.
28. Sacerdoti, E.D. 1977. A Structure for Plans and Behavior. American Elsevier, New York.
29. Schank, Roger C., & Abelson, Robert P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Stalnaker, Robert. 1998. On the Representation of Context. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 7:3-19.
31. Szilas, N. 2003. IDtension: a narrative engine for Interactive Drama. 1st International Conference on Technologies for Interactive Digital Storytelling and Entertainment.
32. Tanner, C., Medin D. L., Iliev R. (Forthcoming) "Influence of Deontological vs. Consequentialist Orientations on Act Choices and Framing Effects: When Principles are more Important than Consequences".
33. Trabasso, T., Secco, T. and van den Broek, P.W. 1984. Causal cohesion and story coherence. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein and T. Trabasso (eds.). Learning and comprehension of text. 83-111. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
34. van den Broek, P.W. and Lorch, R.F. Jr. 1993. Network representations of causal relations in memory for narrative texts: Evidence from primed recognition. Discourse Processes, 16, 75-98.
35. Weyhrauch, P. 1997. Guiding Interactive Drama. Ph.D. Dissertation, Tech report CMU-CS-97-109, Camegie Mellon University.