Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.3115/1118121.1118124dlproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigdialConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free access

Non-sentential utterances in dialogue: a corpus-based study

Published: 11 July 2002 Publication History

Abstract

Dialogue is full of intuitively complete utterances that are not sentential in their outward form, most prototypically the "short answers" used to respond to queries. As is well known, processing such non-sentential utterances (NSUs) is a difficult problem on both theoretical and computational grounds. In this paper we present a corpus-based study of NSUs. We propose a comprehensive, theoretically grounded classification of NSUs in dialogue based on a sub-portion of the British National Corpus (BNC). The study suggests that the interpretation of NSUs is amenable to resolution using a relatively intricate grammar combined with an utterance dynamics approach. That is, a strategy that keeps track of a highly structured dialogue record of entities that get introduced into context as a result of utterances. Complex, domain-based reasoning is not, on the whole, very much in evidence.

References

[1]
J. Allen and R. Perrault. 1980. Analyzing intention in utterances. Artificial Intelligence, 15:143--178.
[2]
L. Burnard. 2000. Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (World Edition). Oxford Universtity Computing Services. Accessible from: ftp://sable.ox.ac.uk/pub/ota/BNC/.
[3]
S. Carberry. 1991. Plan Recognition in Natural Language Dialogue. Bradford Books. MIT Press, Cambridge.
[4]
J. Carletta. 1996. Assessing agreement on classification tasks: tha kappa statistics. Computational Linguistics, 2(22):249--255.
[5]
R. Cooper, S. Larsson, J. Hieronymus, S. Ericsson, E. Engdahl, and P. Ljunglof. 2001. GODIS and Questions Under Discussion. In The TRINDI Book. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg. Available from http://www.ling.gu.se/research/projects/trindi.
[6]
M. Dalrymple, F. Pereira, and S. Shieber. 1991. Ellipsis and higher order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy, (14):399--452.
[7]
E. Engdahl, S. Larsson, and S. Ericsson. 2000. Focus-ground articulation and parallelism in a dynamic model of dialogue. Technical report, Trindi:Task Oriented Instructional Dialogue. Accessible from: http://www.ling.gu.se/research/projects/trindi.
[8]
R. Fernández. 2002. An Implemented HSPG Grammar for SHARDS. Technical Report TR-02--04, Department of Computer Science. King's College London.
[9]
J. Ginzburg and R. Cooper. 2001a. Clarification, ellipsis, and the nature of contextual updates. Under review for Linguistics and Philosophy.
[10]
J. Ginzburg and R. Cooper. 2001b. Resolving ellipsis in clarification. In Proceedings of ACL/EACL'01.
[11]
J. Ginzburg and I. Sag. 2001. Interrogative Investigations. CSLI Publications.
[12]
J. Ginzburg, H. Gregory, and S. Lappin. 2001. SHARDS: Fragment resolution in dialogue. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computational Semantics.
[13]
J. Ginzburg. 1996. Interrogatives: Questions, facts, and dialogue. In Shalom Lappin, editor, Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Blackwell, Oxford.
[14]
J. Ginzburg. 1997. Structural mismatch in dialogue. In Proceedings of MunDial 97 (Technical Report 97--106), pages 59--80. Universitaet Muenchen Centrum fuer Informations- und Sprachverarbeitung, Muenchen.
[15]
J. Ginzburg. 1999. Ellipsis resolution with syntactic presuppositions. In Harry Bunt and Reinhard Muskens, editors, Computing Meaning: Current Issues in Computational Semantics. Kluwer.
[16]
J. Ginzburg. 2002. A semantics for interaction in dialogue. Forthcoming for CSLI Publications. Draft chapters available from: http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/ginzburg.
[17]
S. Larson, P. Ljunglof, R. Cooper, E. Engdahl, and S. Ericsson. 2000. GoDiS-an accommodating dialogue system. In Proceedings of ANLP/NAACL-2000 Workshop on Conversational systems.
[18]
S. Larsson. 1998. Questions under discussion and dialogue moves. In J. Hulstijn and A. Nijholt, editors, Proceedings of TwenDial 98, 13th Twente workshop on Language Technology. Twente University, Twente.
[19]
M. Purver, J. Ginzburg, and P. Healey. 2001. On the means for clarification in dialogue. Presented at the SIGdial 2001 workshop on discourse and dialogue.
[20]
M. Purver. 2001. SCoRE: A tool for searching the BNC. Technical Report TR-01-07, Department of Computer Science, King's College London.
[21]
M. Purver. 2002. Processing Unknown Words in a Dialogue System. In Proceedings of ACL/SIGdial-2002 Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue.

Cited By

View all
  • (2005)Towards finding and fixing fragmentsProceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics10.3115/1219840.1219871(247-254)Online publication date: 25-Jun-2005

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image DL Hosted proceedings
SIGDIAL '02: Proceedings of the 3rd SIGdial workshop on Discourse and dialogue - Volume 2
July 2002
222 pages

Publisher

Association for Computational Linguistics

United States

Publication History

Published: 11 July 2002

Qualifiers

  • Article

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 19 of 46 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)54
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9
Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2005)Towards finding and fixing fragmentsProceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics10.3115/1219840.1219871(247-254)Online publication date: 25-Jun-2005

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media