Architectures for natural language generation: Problems and perspectives

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 1036, Issue , 1996, Pages 17-46

  De Smedt, Koenraad ^a   Horacek, Helmut ^b   Zock, Michael ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^b BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS;

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY; EXISTING SYSTEMS; LEXICALIZATION; NATURAL LANGUAGE GENERATION; TEXT PLANNING;

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

EID: 65949098766     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (129)

1. Abb, B., Guenther, C., Herweg, M., Lebeth, K., Maienborn, C. & Schopp, A. (1995). Incremental syntactic and phonological encoding: An outline of the Synphonics formulator. This volume.
2. Aitchison, J. (1987). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. Oxford: Blackwell.
3. André, E., Herzog, G. & Rist, Th. (1988). On the simultaneous interpretation of real world image sequences and their natural language description: The system Soccer. In: Y. Kodratoff (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 449-454). London: Pitman.
4. Appelt, D. (1985). Planning English sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bates, E. & Devescovi, A. (1989). Competition and sentence production. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 225-253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Berg, T. (1988). DieAbbildung des Sprachproduktionsprozesses in einem Aktivationsfluβmodell: Untersuchungen an deutschen und englischen Versprechem (Linguistische Arbeiten, 206). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
7. Bock, J.K. (1986). Meaning, sound, and syntax: Lexical priming in sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 12, 575-586.
8. Bock, J.K. (1987). Exploring levels of processing in sentence production. In G. Kempen (Ed.), Natural language generation: New results in artificial intelligence, psychology and linguistics (pp. 351-363). Dordrecht: Nijhoff (Kluwer)
9. Bock, J.K. (in press). Sentence production: From mind to mouth. In J. L. Miller & P.D. Eimas (Ed.), Handbook of perception and cognition. Vol. 11: Speech, language and communication. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
10. Bock, J.K. & Levelt, W.J.M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M.A. Gemsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945-984). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
11. Bookman, L. & Sun, R. (1993). Integrating neural and symbolic processes. Connection Science, 5, 203-204.
12. Brooks, R. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47, 139-159.
13. Brown, R. & McNeill, D. (1966). The "tip of the tongue" phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 325-337.
14. Buchanan, B. & Shortliffe, E.H. (1984). Rule-based expert systems: The Mycin experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
15. Busemann S. (1993). A holistic view of lexical choice. In H. Horacek & M. Zock (Eds.), New concepts in natural language generation: Planning, realization, and systems (pp. 202-308). London: Pinter.
16. Carberry, S., Chu, J., Green, N. & Lambert, L. (1993). Rhetorical relations: Necessary, but not sufficient. In O. Rambow (Ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations, Columbus, OH, 21 June 1993 (pp. 1-4).
17. Cohen, P. & Levesque, H. (1985). Speech acts and rationality. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 49-60).
18. Cutler, A. (Ed.), (1982). Slips of the tongue and language production. New York: Mouton.
19. Daelemans, W. & De Smedt, K. (1994). Default inheritance in an object-oriented representation of linguistic categories. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41, 149-177.
20. Daelemans, W., De Smedt, K. & Gazdar, G. (1992). Inheritance in natural language processing. Computational Linguistics, 18, 205-218.
21. Daelemans, W., Gillis, S. & Durieux, G. (1994). The acquisition of stress: A data-oriented approach. Computational Linguistics, 20, 421-451.
22. Daelemans, W. & Powers, D. (1992). Background and experiments in machine learning of natural language. Proceedings of the First SHOE Workshop. Institute for Language Technology and Artificial Intelligence, Tilburg University.
23. Dalianis, H. & Hovy, E. (1995). Aggregation in natural language generation. This volume.
24. Danlos, L. (1984). Conceptual and linguistic decisions in generation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Stanford, CA, 2-6 July 1984 (pp. 501-504).
25. Danlos, L. (1987). The linguistic basis of text generation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Dell, G. (1985). Positive feedback in hierarchical connectionist models: Applications to language production. Cognitive Science, 9, 3-23.
27. Dell, G. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283-321.
28. Dell, G. & Reich, P. (1981). Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 611-629.
29. De Smedt, K. (1990). IPF: An incremental parallel formulator. In R. Dale, C. Mellish & M. Zock (Eds.), Current research in natural language generation (pp. 167-192). London: Academic Press.
30. De Smedt, K. (1994). Parallelism in incremental sentence generation. In G. Adriaens & U. Hahn (Eds.), Parallel natural language processing (pp. 421-447). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
31. De Smedt, K. & Kempen, G. (1991). Segment Grammar: A formalism for incremental sentence generation. In C.L. Paris, W.R. Swartout & W.C. Mann (Eds.), Natural language generation in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics (pp. 329-349). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
32. Dijkstra, A. & De Smedt, K. (Eds.), (in press). Computational psycholinguistics: AI and connectionist models of human language processing. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall / Harvester Wheatsheaf.
33. Elhadad, M. & Robin, J. (1992). Controlling content realization with functional unification grammars. In R. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rosner & O. Stock (Eds.), Aspects of automated natural language generation (pp. 89-104). Berlin: Springer.
34. Elman, J.L. (1989). Structured representations and connectionist models. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Fawcett, R.P., Tucker, G.H. & Lin, Y.Q. (1993). How a systemic functional grammar works: The role of realization in realization. In H. Horacek & M. Zock, (Eds.), New concepts in natural language generation: Planning, realization and systems (pp. 114-186). London: Pinter.
36. Finkler, W. & Neumann, G. (1989). Popel-How: A distributed parallel model for incremental natural language production with feedback. Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit (pp. 1518-1523).
37. Flower, L.F. (1981). Problem-solving strategies for writing. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
38. Flower, L.F. & Hayes, J.R. (1984). Images, plans, and prose. The representation of meaning in writing. Written Communication, 1 (4), 120-160.
39. Fodor, J.A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Ford, M. (1982). Sentence planning units: Implications for the speaker's representation of meaningful relations underlying sentences. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 797-827). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Ford, M. & Holmes, V.M. (1978). Planning units in sentence production. Cognition, 6, 35-53.
42. Fromkin, V. (Ed.), (1980). Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen and hand. New York: Academic Press.
43. Gabriel, R. (1986). Deliberate writing. In D. McDonald & L. Bole (Eds.), Natural language generation systems (pp. 1-46). Berlin: Springer.
44. Garman, M. (1990). Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Garrett, M. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9, pp. 133-177). New York: Academic Press.
46. Garrett, M. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (Vol. 1, pp. 177-220). London: Academic Press.
47. Garrett, M. (1982). Production of speech: Observations form normal and pathological language use. In A. Ellis (Ed.), Normality and pathology in cognitive functions (pp. 19-76). London: Academic Press.
48. Gasser, M. & Dyer, M. (1988). Sequencing in a Connectionist Model of Language Processing. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Budapest (pp. 185-190).
49. Gross, M. (1986). Lexicon-grammar: The representation of compound words. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 1-6).
50. Harley, T. (1982). There's more than one way. In Ecai-82: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 267-268).
51. Harley, T. (1984). A critique of top-down independent models of speech production: Evidence from non-plan-intemal speech errors. Cognitive Science, 8, 191-219.
52. Hasida, K., Ishizaki, S. & Isahara, H. (1987). An connectionist approach to the generation of abstracts. In G. Kempen (Ed.), Natural language generation: New results in artificial intelligence, psychology and linguistics (pp. 149-156). Dordrecht: Nijhoff (Kluwer).
53. Horacek, H. (1987). How to say what-It or something. In K. Morik (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 320-329). Berlin: Springer.
54. Horacek, H. (1990). The architecture of a generation component in a complete natural language system. In R. Dale, C. Mellish & M. Zock (Eds.), Current research in natural language generation (pp. 193-227). London: Academic Press.
55. Horacek, H. (1992). An integrated view of text planning. In R. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rösner & O. Stock (Eds.), Aspects of automated natural language generation (pp. 29-44). Berlin: Springer.
56. Horacek, H. (1994). How to avoid explaining obvious things (without omitting central information). Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Amsterdam (pp. 520-524).
57. Horacek, H. & Pyka, C. (1988). Towards bridging two levels of representation: Linking the syntactic-functional and object-oriented paradigms. In J.-L. Lassez & F. Chin (Eds.), International Computer Science Conference'88-Artificial Intelligence: Theory and Applications, Hong Kong (pp.281-288).
58. Houghton, G. (1990). The problem of serial order: A neural network model of sequence learning and recall. In R. Dale, C. Mellish & M. Zock (Eds.), Current research in natural language generation (pp. 287-319). London: Academic Press.
59. Hovy, E. (1985). Integrating text planning and production in generation. Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles (pp. 848-851).
60. Hovy, E. (1988a). Planning coherent multisentential text. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Buffalo, NY (pp. 163-169).
61. Hovy, E. (1988b). Generating natural language under pragmatic constraints. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
62. Hovy, E. (1988c). Generating language with a phrasal lexicon. In D. McDonald & L. Bole (Eds.), Natural language Generation Systems (pp. 353-384). Berlin: Springer.
63. Hovy, E. (1990). Pragmatics and natural language generation. Artificial Intelligence, 43, 153-197.
64. Inui, K., Tokunaga, T. & Tanaka H. (1992). Text revision: A model and its implementation. In R. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rösner & O. Stock (Eds.), Aspects of automated natural language generation (pp. 215-230). Berlin: Springer.
65. Jacobs, P.S. (1987). King: A knowledge-intensive natural language generator. In G. Kempen (Ed.), Natural language generation: New results in artificial intelligence, psychology and linguistics (pp. 219-230). Dordrecht: Nijhoff (Kluwer).
66. Kalita, J. & Shastri, L. (1987). Generation of simple sentences in English using the connectionist model of computation. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Seattle (pp. 555-565). Hove: Erlbaum.
67. Kay, M. (1979). Functional grammar. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (pp. 142-158).
68. Kay, M. (1984). Functional unification grammar: A formalism for machine translation. Proceedings ofCOUNG84, Stanford (pp. 75-78).
69. Kempen, G. & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201-258.
70. Kitano, H. (1990). Parallel incremental sentence production for a model of simultaneous interpretation. In R. Dale, C. Mellish & M. Zock (Eds.), Current research in natural language generation (pp. 321-351). London: Academic Press.
71. Kolk, H. (1987). A theory of grammatical impairment in aphasia. In G. Kempen (Ed.), Natural language generation: New results in artificial intelligence, psychology and linguistics (pp. 377-391). Dordrecht: Nijhoff (Kluwer).
72. Kukich, K. (1983). Design and implementation of a knowledge-based report generator. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, MA (pp. 145-150).
73. Kukich, K. (1988). Fluency in natural language reports. In D. McDonald & L. Bole (Eds.), Natural language generation systems (pp. 280-311). Berlin: Springer.
74. Kukich, K. (1987). Where do phrases come from: Some preliminary experiments in connectionist phrase generation. In G. Kempen (Ed.), Natural language generation: New results in artificial intelligence, psychology and linguistics (pp. 405-421). Dordrecht: Nijhoff (Kluwer).
75. Laird, J.E., Newell, A. & Rosenbloom, P.S. (1987). Soar: An architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 33, 1-64.
76. Levelt, WJ.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
77. Lewis, R.L. (1993). An architecturally-based theory of sentence comprehension (Computer Science Technical Report CMU-CS-93-226). Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.
78. Maes, P. (1986). Introspection in knowledge representation. Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Brighton (pp. 256-269).
79. Maes, P. (1987). Computational reflection (Technical report 87-2). Brussels: Free University of Brussels, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
80. Maier, E. & Hovy, E. (1993). Organising discourse structure relations using metafunctions. In H. Horacek & M. Zock (Eds.), New concepts in natural language generation. Planning, realization, and systems (pp. 69-86). London: Pinter.
81. Mann, W. (1988). Text generation: The problem of text structure. In D. McDonald & L. Bole (Eds.), Natural language generation systems (pp. 47-68). Berlin: Springer.
82. Mann, W. & Moore, J. (1981). Computer generation of multiparagraph English text. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 7, 17-29.
83. Mann, W. & Thompson S. (1987). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Description and construction of text structures. In G. Kempen (Ed.), Natural language generation: New results in artificial intelligence, psychology and linguistics (pp. 85-95). Dordrecht: Nijhoff (Kluwer).
84. Mann, W. & Thompson S. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243-281.
85. Marcus, M. (1987). Generation systems should choose their words. Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing (Tiniap-3), Las Cruces (pp. 211-214).
86. McDonald, D. (1983). Natural language generation as a computational problem: An introduction. In M. Brady & R. Berwick (Eds.), Computational models of discourse (pp. 209-266). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
87. McDonald, D. (1987). Natural language generation. In S. Shapiro (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 642-655). New York: John Wiley.
88. McDonald, D. & Pustejovsky, J. (1985). A computational theory of prose style for natural language generation. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Genève (pp. 187-193).
89. McDonald, D., Vaughan, M. & Pustejovsky, J. (1987). Factors contributing to efficiency in natural language generation. In G. Kempen (Ed.), Natural language generation: New results in artificial intelligence, psychology and linguistics (pp. 159-181). Dordrecht: Nijhoff (Kluwer).
90. McKeown, K. (1982). The TEXT system for natural language generation: An overview. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Toronto (pp. 113-120).
91. McKeown, K. (1985). Text generation using discourse strategies and focus constraints to generate natural language text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
92. McKeown, K. & Swartout, W. (1988). In M. Zock & G. Sabah (Eds.). Advances in natural language generation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 1-51). London: Pinter.
93. Meteer, M. (1990). Expressibility and the problem of efficient text planning. London: Pinter.
94. Miikulainen, R. (1990). A PDP architecture for processing sentences with relative clauses. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki (Vol. 3, pp. 201-206).
95. Moore, J.D. & Paris, C.L. (1993). Planning text for advisory dialogues: Capturing intentional and rhetorical information. Computational Linguistics, 19, 651-694.
96. Moore, J. & Pollack, M. (1992). A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics, 18, 537-544.
97. Motley, M.T, Camden, C.T. & Baars, B.J. (1982). Covert formulation and editing of anomalies in speech production: Evidence from experimentally elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 578-594.
98. Namer, F. (1990). Pronominalisation et effacement du sujet en génération automatique de textes en longues romanes. Doctoral dissertation, Université de Paris 7.
99. Neumann, G. & Finkler, W. (1990). A head-driven approach to incremental and parallel generation of syntactic structures. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki (Vol. 2, pp. 288-293).
100. Nirenburg, S. & Nirenburg, I. (1988). A framework for lexical selection in natural language generation. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Budapest (pp. 471-475).
101. Nirenburg, S., Lesser, V. & Nyberg, E. (1989). Controlling a language generation planner. Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1524-1530).
102. Nogier, J.F. & Zock, M. (1992). Lexical choice by pattern matching. Knowledge Based Systems, 5, 200-212.
103. Novak, H.-J. (1987a). Strategies for generating coherent descriptions of object movements in street scenes. In G. Kempen (Ed.), Natural language generation: New results in artificial intelligence, psychology and linguistics (pp. 117-132). Dordrecht: Nijhoff (Kluwer).
104. Novak, H.-J. (1987b). Textgenerierung von visuellen Daten: Beschreibungen von Straβenszenen. Berlin: Springer.
105. Patten, T. (1988). Systemic text generation as problem solving. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
106. Reithinger, N. (1991). POPEL-A parallel and incremental natural language generation system. In C.L. Paris, W.R. Swartout & W.C. Mann (Eds.), Natural language generation in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics (pp. 179-199). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
107. Reithinger, N. (1992). The performance of an incremental generation component in multi-modal dialog contributions. In R. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rösner & O. Stock (Eds.), Aspects of automated natural language generation (pp. 263-276). Berlin: Springer.
108. Robin, J. (1993). A revision-based generation architecture for reporting facts in their historical context. In H. Horacek & M. Zock (Eds.), New concepts in natural language generation: Planning, realization, and systems (pp. 238-268). London: Pinter.
109. Rösner, D. & Stede, M. (1992). Techdoc: A system for the automatic production of multilingual technical documents. In G. Görz (Ed.), Proceedings ofKONVENS-92 (pp. 329-338). Berlin: Springer.
110. Rubinoff, R. (1992). Integrating text planning and linguistic choice by annotating linguistic structures. In R. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rösner & O. Stock (Eds.), Aspects of automated natural language generation (pp. 45-56). Berlin: Springer.
111. Rubinoff, R. & Lehrman, J.F. (1994). Real-time natural language generation in Nl-Soar. Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Kennebunkport, Maine (pp. 199-206).
112. Rumelhart, D.E., Hinton, G.E. & Williams, R.J. (1986). Learning internal representations by error propagation. In J.L. McClelland & D.E. Rumelhart (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Volume 1 (pp. 318-362). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
113. Saint-Dizier, P. (1992). A constraint logic programming treatment of syntactic choice in natural language generation. In R. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rosner & O. Stock (Eds.), Aspects of automated natural language generation (pp. 119-134). Berlin: Springer.
114. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1979). Speech errors as evidence for a serial ordering mechanism in sentence production. In W.E. Cooper & E.C.T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psychological studies presented in honor to M. Garrett (pp. 295-342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
115. Stede, M. (1993). Lexical choice criteria in language generation. Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 454-459).
116. Stede, M. (1995). Lexical options in multilingual generation from a knowledge base. This volume.
117. Steels, L. (1990). Components of Expertise. AI Magazine, 11(2), 29-49.
118. Stemberger, J. (1985). An interactive activation model of language production. In A.W. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 1, pp. 143-186). Hove: Erlbaum.
119. Stemberger, J. (1990). Wordshape errors in language production. Cognition, 35, 123-157.
120. Thompson, H. (1977). Strategy and tactics: A model for language production. In W. Beach, S. Fox & S. Philosoph (Eds.), Papers from the 13th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 651-668).
121. Valian, V. (1977) Talk, talk, talk: A selective critical review of theories of speech production. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 107-139). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
122. Wanner, L. (1992). Lexical choice and the organization of lexical resources in text generation. In B. Neumann (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vienna (pp. 495-499). New York: Wiley.
123. Wanner, L. (1994). On lexically biased discourse organization in text generation. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling-94), Kyoto (pp. 369-375).
124. Ward, N. (1990). A connectionist treatment of grammar for generation. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Dawson, PA (pp. 15-22).
125. Ward, N. (1992). A parallel approach to syntax for generation. Artificial Intelligence, 57, 183-225.
126. Ward, N. (1994). A connectionist language generator. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
127. Zock, M. (1988). Natural languages are flexible tools, that's what makes them hard to explain, to learn and to use. In M. Zock & G. Sabah (Eds.) Advances in natural language generation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 181-196). London: Pinter.
128. Zock, M. (1990). If you can't open the black box, open a window! A psycholinguistically-motivated architecture of a natural language generation component. In Cognitiva-90, Madrid (pp. 143-152).
129. Zock, M. (1993). Is content generation a one-shot process or a cyclical acitivity of gradual refinement: The case of lexical choice. In H. Horacek & M. Zock (Eds.), New concepts in natural language generation: Planning, realization, and systems (pp. 290-296). London: Pinter.