Natural discourse reference generation reduces cognitive load in spoken systems

Natural Language Engineering

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 311-329

  Campana, E ^a   Tanenhaus, M K ^b   Allen, J F ^c   Remington, R ^d  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

^c University of Rochester   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE LOADS; CONTEXT DEPENDENT; CONTEXT INDEPENDENT; DISCOURSE CONTEXT; DUAL-TASKS; REFERENCE GENERATION;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS;

EID: 79958777087     PISSN: 13513249     EISSN: 14698110     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1351324910000227     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Appelt, D. E. 1985. Planning English referring expressions. Artificial Intelligence 26(1):1-33.
2. Belz, A., and Varges, S. 2007. Generation of repeated references to discourse entities. In Proceedings of the 11th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG'07), pp. 9-16.
3. Belz, A., Gatt, A., Reiter, E., and Viethen, J. 2007. Referring expression generation (Chapter 3). In M. White and R. Dale (eds.), Report of the Workshop on Shared Tasks and Comparative Evaluation in Natural Language Generation, pp. 17-30.
4. Brown-Schmidt, S., Campana, E., and Tanenhaus, M. K. 2005. Real-time reference resolution by nave participants during a task-based unscripted conversation. In J. Trueswell and M. K. Tanenhaus (eds.), Approaches to Studying World-Situated Language Use: Bridging the Language-as-Product and Language-as-Action Traditions, pp. 1-22. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
5. Brown-Schmidt, B. S., and Tanenhaus, M. K. 2008. Real-time investigation of referential domains in unscripted conversation: a targeted language game approach. Cognitive Science 32:643-684.
6. Campana, E., Brown-Schmidt, S., and Tanenhaus, M. K. 2002. Reference resolution by human partners in a natural interactive problem-solving task. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), pp. 2057-2060, Denver, CO, USA.
7. Churcher, G., Atwell, E., and Souter, C. 1996. Dialogues in air traffic control. In S. Luperfoy, A. Nijholt and G. Veldhuijzen van Zanten (eds.), Dialogue Management in Natural Language Systems, Proceedings of the 11th Twente Workshop on Language Technology.
8. Clark, H. H. 1992. Arenas of Language Use. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9. Clark, P., Harrison, P., Murray, W. R., and Thompson, J. 2009. Naturalness vs. predictability: a key debate in controlled languages. Presented at the Workshop on Controlled Natural Language (CNL 2009), Marettimo Island, Italy.
10. Clark, H. H., and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22:1-39.
11. Cowan, N. 2005. Working Memory Capacity. Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
12. Croitoru, M., and Kees van Deemter 2007. A conceptual graph approach to the generation of referring expressions. In Proceedings of the 2007 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 2456-2461, Hyderabad, India.
13. Dale, R. 1988. Generating Referring Expressions in a Domain of Objects and Processes. PhD dissertation, Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh.
14. Dale, R., and Reiter, E. 1995. Computational interpretations of the Gricean Maxims in the generation of referring expressions. Cognitive Science 19:233-263.
15. DeVault, D., Rich, C., and Sidner, C. L. 2004. Natural language generation and discourse context: computing distractor sets from the focus stack. In Proceedings of the International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Symposium (FLAIRS).
16. Dickson, P. 2008. Baseball's Greatest Quotations: An Illustrated Treasury of Baseball Quotations and Historical Lore (Revised Edition). New York: HarperCollins.
17. Hanowski, R. J., Olson, R. L., Hickman, J. S., and Dingus, T. A. 2006. The 100-car naturalistic driving study: a descriptive analysis of light vehicle-heavy vehicle interactions from the light vehicle drivers perspective. Technical Report FMCSA-RRR-06-004, National Technical Information Service, US Department of Transportation.
18. Gatt, A., and van Deemter, K. 2007. Lexical choice and conceptual perspective in the generation of plural referring expressions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information (JoLLI), 16(4):423-443.
19. Gatt, A., and van Deemter, K. 2009. Generating plural NPs in discourse: evidence from the GNOME corpus. In Proceedings of the CogSci 2009 Workshop on the Production of Referring Expressions: Bridging the Gap between Computational and Empirical Approaches to Reference (PRE-CogSci 2009).
20. Greenbacker, C. F., and McCoy, K. F. 2009. Feature selection for reference generation as informed by psycholinguistic research. In Proceedings of the CogSci 2009 Workshop on the Production of Referring Expressions: Bridging the Gap between Computational and Empirical Approaches to Reference (PRE-CogSci 2009).
21. Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts, pp. 43-58. New York: Academic Press.
22. Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., and Weinstein, S. 1995. Centering: a framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21:203-225.
23. Grosz, B. J., and Sidner, C. L. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12(3):175-204.
24. Guhe, M. 2009 Generating referring expressions with a cognitive model. In Proceedings of the CogSci 2009 Workshop on the Production of Referring Expressions: Bridging the Gap between Computational and Empirical Approaches to Reference (PRE-CogSci 2009).
25. Guhe, M., and Bard, E. G. 2008. Adapting referring expressions to the task environment. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. pp. 2404-2409. Austin, TX.
26. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions. Language 68:274-307.
27. Hajičová, E. 1993. Issues of Sentence Structure and Discourse Patterns. Prague, Czech Republic: Charles University Press.
28. Hajičová, E., Sgall, P. and Havelka, J. 2003. Discourse semantics and the salience of referents. Journal of Slavic Language: 127-140.
29. Hone, K. S., and Graham, R. 2000. Towards a tool for the subjective assessment of speech system intefaces (SASSI). Natural Language Engineering 6(3-4):287-303.
30. Kittredge, R. and Lehrberger, J. 1982. Sublanguage: Studies of Languages in Restricted Semantic Domains. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
31. Krahmer, E. and Theune M. 2002. Efficient context-sensitive generation of referring expressions. In K. van Deemter and R. Kibble (eds.), Information Sharing: Givenness and Newness in Language Processing, pp. 223-264. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
32. Krauss, R. M., and Weinheimer, S. 1964. Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: a preliminary study. Psychonomic Science 1:113-114.
33. Krauss, R. M., and Weinheimer, S. 1966. Concurrent feedback, confirmation and the encoding of referents in verbal communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4:343-346.
34. Krauss, R. M., and Weinheimer, S. 1967. Effects of referent similarity and communication mode on verbal encoding. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6:359-363.
35. Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63:81-97.
37. Norman, D. A., and Bobrow, D. G. 1975. On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology 7:44-64.
38. O'Brien, S. 2003. Controlling controlled english: an analysis of several controlled language rule sets. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference combining the 8th International Workshop of the European Association for Machine Translation and the 4th Controlled Language Applications Workshop (EAMT-CLAW 2003).
39. Olson, D. 1970. Language and thought. Aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics. Psychological Review 77:257-273.
40. Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., and Zhu, W. J. 2002. BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In 40th Annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 311-318. Philadelphia, PA, USA.
41. Paraboni, I., Van Deemter, K., and Masthoff, J. 2007. Generating referring expressions: Making referents easy to identity. Computational Linguistics 33 (2).
42. Pechmann, T. 1989. Incremental speech production and referential overspeciification. Linguistics 27:89-110.
43. Pierrehumbert, J. and Hirschberg, J. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in Communication, pp. 271-311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. Reiter, E., and Belz, A. 2009. An investigation into the validity of some metrics for automatically evaluating natural language generation systems. Computational Linguistics 35(4):529-558.
45. Reiter, E. and Dale, R. 2000. Building Natural Language Generation Systems, pp. 144-158. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46. Reiter, E., Sripada, S., Hunter, J., Yu, J., and Davy, I. 2005. Choosing words in computergenerated weather forecasts. Artificial Intelligence 167:137-169. (Pubitemid 41240680)
47. Reuther, U. 2003. Two in one - Can it work? Readability and translatability by means of controlled language. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference combining the 8th International Workshop of the European Association for Machine Translation and the 4th Controlled Language Applications Workshop (EAMT-CLAW 2003).
48. Rantanen, E. M., and Kokayeff, N. K. 2002. Pilot error in copying air traffic control clearances. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
49. Rossion, B., and Pourtois, G. 2001. Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's object database: color and texture improve object recognition. Journal of Vision 1(3):413, 413a.
50. Schneiderman, B. 1980. Natural vs. Precise concise language for operation of computers: Research issues and experimental approaches. In Annual Meeting of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACL), pp. 139-141, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
51. Sidner, C. L., and Forlines, C. 2002. Subset languages for conversing with collaborative interface agents. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), pp. 281-284, Denver, CO, USA.
52. Snodgrass, J. G., and Vanderwart, M. 1980. A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 6:174-215.
53. Toth, A. R., Harris, T. K., Sanders, J., Shriver, S., and Rosenfeld, R. 2002. Towards everycitizen's speech interface: an application generator for speech interfaces to databases. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), pp. 1497-1500, Denver, CO, USA.
54. van der Sluis, I., and Krahmer, E. 2007. Generating multimodal references. Discourse Processes 44(3):145-174.
55. Viethen, J., and Dale, R. 2006. Algorithms for generating referring expressions: do they do what people do? In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Natural Language Generation, pp. 63-70, Sydney, Australia.
56. Viethen, J., Zwarts, S., Dale, R., and Guhe, M. 2010. Generating subsequent referring expressions in a visual domain. In Proceedings of the 7th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC). Malta.
57. Walker, M. A., Joshi, A. K., and Prince, E. 1998. Centering Theory in Discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
58. Walker, M. A., Litman, D. J., Kamm, C. A., and Abella, A. 1998 Evaluating spoken dialogue agents with PARADISE: two case studies. Computer Speech and Language 12-3.