The production of prosodic focus and contour in dialogue

Computer programs designed to converse with humans in natural language provide a framework against which to test supra-sentential theories of language production and interpretation. This thesis seeks to flesh out, in terms of a computer model, two basic assumptions concerning prosody-that speakers use intonation to convey intention, or attitude, and that prosodic prominence serves to convey conceptual prommence. A model of an information-providing agent in is proposed, based on an analysis of a corpus of spontaneous dialogues. This uses an architecture of communicating processes, which perform interpretation, application-specific planning, repair, and the production of output. Dialogue acts are then defined as feature bundles corresponding to significant events. A corpus of read dialogues is analysed in terms of these features, and using conventional intonational labelling. Correlations between the two are examined. Prosodic prominence is examined at three levels. At the level of surface encoding, re-use of substrings and structural parallelism can reduce processing for the speaker, and the listener. At the level of conceptual planning, similar benefits exist, given that speakers and listeners assume a common discourse model wherever possible. At these levels use is made of a short-term buffer of recent forms. A speaker may additionally use contrastive prominence to draw the listener's attention to disparities. Finally, at the level of intentions, a speaker wish to highlight certain information, regardless of accessibility. Prosodic focus is represented relationally, rather than via a simple binary-valued feature. This has the advantage of facilitating the mapping between levels; it also renders straightforward the notion of focus as the product of a number of potentially conflicting influences. Those parts of the theory concerned with discourse representation, language generation, and prosodic focus have been implemented as part of the Sundial dialogue system. In this system, discoursal and pragmatic decisions affecting prosody are converted to annotations on a text string, for realisation by a rule-based synthesizer.

[1]  J. K. Bock Syntactic persistence in language production , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  D. Ladd Phonological Features of Intonational Peaks , 1983 .

[3]  J. Pierrehumbert The phonology and phonetics of English intonation , 1987 .

[4]  Bonnie L. Webber,et al.  Knowledge Representation for Syntactic/Semantic Processing , 1980, AAAI.

[5]  Daniel Hirst,et al.  Interpreting Intonation: A Modular Approach , 1983 .

[6]  Ronald J. Brachman,et al.  An Overview of the KL-ONE Knowledge Representation System , 1985, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  N. Curteanu Book Reviews: Lecture on Contemporary Syntactic Theories: An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar , 1987, CL.

[8]  Jerry R. Hobbs Ontological Promiscuity , 1985, ACL.

[9]  青木 豊,et al.  On language and consciousness , 1987 .

[10]  Lucy Suchman Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication , 1987 .

[11]  L SidnerCandace,et al.  Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse , 1986 .

[12]  A. Cutler Phoneme-monitoring reaction time as a function of preceding intonation contour , 1976 .

[13]  J. Sinclair,et al.  Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils , 1975 .

[14]  Henk Zeevat,et al.  Unification Categorial Grammar: A Concise, Extendable Grammar for Natural Language Processing , 1988, COLING.

[15]  R. Power The organisation of purposeful dialogues , 1979 .

[16]  Philip R. Cohen On knowing what to say: planning speech acts. , 1978 .

[17]  Barbara J. Grosz,et al.  Focusing and Description in Natural Language Dialogues , 1979 .

[18]  H. Thompson Stress and salience in English : theory and practice , 1980 .

[19]  S. Schmerling Aspects of English Sentence Stress , 1976 .

[20]  S. Duncan,et al.  Some Signals and Rules for Taking Speaking Turns in Conversations , 1972 .

[21]  A Cutler,et al.  Prosody and the development of comprehension , 1987, Journal of Child Language.

[22]  Ellen F. Prince,et al.  Toward a taxonomy of given-new information , 1981 .

[23]  František Daneš Sentence Intonation from a Functional Point of View , 1960 .

[24]  D. Ladd The structure of intonational meaning , 1978 .

[25]  Gillian R Brown,et al.  Prosodic Structure and the Given/New Distinction , 1983 .

[26]  S. Isard,et al.  The production of prosody , 1980 .

[27]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[28]  D. Bolinger Contrastive Accent and Contrastive Stress , 1961 .

[29]  Scott McGlashan,et al.  Generating Utterances in Dialogue Systems , 1992, NLG.

[30]  Eduard H. Hovy,et al.  Pragmatics and Natural Language Generation , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[31]  Ronald Geluykens,et al.  Intonation and speech act type: An experimental approach to rising intonation in queclaratives , 1987 .

[32]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  A Uniform Architecture for Parsing and Generation , 1988, COLING.

[33]  Jill House,et al.  Contextually appropriate intonation in speech synthesis , 1990, SSW.

[34]  S. Garrod,et al.  Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination , 1987, Cognition.

[35]  T. Givón,et al.  The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions , 1992 .

[36]  Guy Lapalme,et al.  Text generation , 1990 .

[37]  Mark Steedman Structure and Intonation in Spoken Language Undestanding , 1990, ACL.

[38]  J. Fodor,et al.  Semantic focus and sentence comprehension , 1979, Cognition.

[39]  D. Bolinger Intonation and Its Parts , 1985 .

[40]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[41]  Tom Wachtel,et al.  Pragmatic sensitivity in NL interfaces and the structure of conversation , 1986, COLING.

[42]  Gertjan van Noord An overview of head-driven bottom-up generation , 1990 .

[43]  A. Cutler,et al.  On The Analysis of Prosodic Turn-Taking Cues , 2018, Intonation in Discourse.

[44]  Jill House,et al.  Generating intonation in a voice dialogue system , 1991, EUROSPEECH.

[45]  C. Gussenhoven Focus, mode and the nucleus , 1983, Journal of Linguistics.

[46]  Sieb G. Nooteboom,et al.  Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for given and new information , 1987 .

[47]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  Communicating sequential processes , 1978, CACM.

[48]  M. Garrett Levels of processing in sentence production , 1980 .

[49]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Toward a theory of anaphoric processing , 1984 .

[50]  D. Robert Ladd,et al.  Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure , 1986, Phonology.

[51]  Chris Mellish,et al.  Natural Language Processing in PROLOG , 1989 .

[52]  Alison Cawsey,et al.  Generating Interactive Explanations , 1991, AAAI.

[53]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Implicating Uncertainty: The Pragmatics of Fall-Rise Intonation , 1985 .

[54]  G. Bouma Modifiers and specifiers in categorial unification grammar , 1988 .

[55]  J. O'connor Intonation Of Colloquial English , 1961 .

[56]  Günter Neumann,et al.  POPEL-HOW: A Distributed Parallel Model for Incremental Natural Language Production with Feedback , 1989, IJCAI.

[57]  Harry Bunt,et al.  The TENDUM dialogue system and its theoretical basis , 1984 .

[58]  W.A. Woods,et al.  Important issues in knowledge representation , 1986, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[59]  C. Clifton,et al.  Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[60]  Michael Brady,et al.  Cooperative Responses From a Portable Natural Language Database Query System , 1983 .

[61]  Gillian Brown,et al.  Questions of intonation , 1980 .

[62]  H. H. Clark,et al.  In search of referents for nouns and pronouns , 1979 .

[63]  D. Bolinger Accent Is Predictable (If You're a Mind-Reader) , 1972 .

[64]  Norman M. Fraser,et al.  Making DATR Work for Speech: Lexicon Compilation in SUNDIAL , 1992, Comput. Linguistics.

[65]  C. Fowler,et al.  Talkers' signaling of new and old. words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction , 1987 .

[66]  Daniel Schaffer,et al.  The role of intonation as a cue to turn taking in conversation , 1983 .

[67]  Stephanie Kelter,et al.  Surface form and memory in question answering , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[68]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[69]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Recognition memory for aspects of dialogue. , 1978 .

[70]  Martin Kay,et al.  Functional Unification Grammar: A Formalism for Machine Translation , 1984, ACL.

[71]  Barbara J. Grosz,et al.  The Representation and Use of Focus in a System for Understanding Dialogs , 1977, IJCAI.

[72]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding natural language , 1974 .

[73]  D. Bolinger A Theory of Pitch Accent in English , 1958 .

[74]  David Crystal,et al.  Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English , 1969 .

[75]  Alan W. Biermann,et al.  A Dialog Control Algorithm and Its Performance , 1992, ANLP.

[76]  Félix Bobadilla Elgueta Discourse Intonation and Language Teaching , 1981 .

[77]  E. Couper-Kuhlen An introduction to English prosody , 1986 .

[78]  J. Michael Spivey,et al.  An introduction to Z and formal specifications , 1989, Softw. Eng. J..

[79]  Anne Cutler THE CONTEXT-DEPENDENCE OF "INTONATIONAL MEANINGS" , 1977 .

[80]  W. Chafe Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view , 1976 .

[81]  Merle Horne Why do speakers accent 'given' information ? , 1991, EUROSPEECH.

[82]  Douglas E. Appelt,et al.  Planning English Sentences , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[83]  Jill House,et al.  Evaluating the prosody of synthesized utterances within a dialogue system , 1992, ICSLP.

[84]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Accent and Discourse Context: Assigning Pitch Accent in Synthetic Speech , 1990, AAAI.

[85]  D. Crystal,et al.  Intonation and Grammar in British English , 1967 .

[86]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  Inference in DATR , 1989, EACL.

[87]  M. Halliday A course in spoken English : intonation , 1970 .

[88]  Gertjan van Noord,et al.  A Semantic-Head-Driven Generation Algorithm for Unification-Based Formalisms , 1989, ACL.

[89]  Deirdre Wilson,et al.  Ordered Entailments: An Alternative to Presuppositional Theories , 1979 .

[90]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  The intonational Structuring of Discourse , 1986, ACL.

[91]  Sandra Carberry A Pragmatics-Based Approach to Understanding Intersentential Ellipsis , 1985, ACL.

[92]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Sound Pattern of English , 1968 .

[93]  Mira Ariel Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents , 1990 .

[94]  G. Verleden,et al.  Foreword , 1992, Steroids.

[95]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  Prolog and Natural-Language Analysis , 1987 .

[96]  Jeremy Peckham,et al.  Speech Understanding and Dialogue over the telephone: an overview of the ESPRIT SUNDIAL project. , 1991, HLT.

[97]  S. Garrod,et al.  Understanding written language: Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence , 1981 .

[98]  Robert Dale Generating recipes: an overview of epicure , 1990 .

[99]  Jan Svartvik,et al.  A __ comprehensive grammar of the English language , 1988 .

[100]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Information-based syntax and semantics , 1987 .

[101]  Jacques Moeschler,et al.  Modélisation du dialogue : représentation de l'inférence argumentative , 1989 .

[102]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Discourse structure and performance efficiency in interactive and non-interactive spoken modalities☆ , 1991 .

[103]  Marc Eisenstadt,et al.  Graphical Debugging with the Transparent PROLOG Machine (TPM) , 1987, IJCAI.

[104]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Why is Mrs Thatcher interrupted so often? , 1982, Nature.

[105]  Sandra Carberry A Pragmatics-Based Approach to Ellipsis Resolution , 1989, Comput. Linguistics.

[106]  Gerard Kempen,et al.  An Incremental Procedural Grammar for Sentence Formulation , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[107]  A. Koller,et al.  Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language , 1969 .

[108]  Dwight L. Bolinger,et al.  Two views of accent , 1985, Journal of Linguistics.

[109]  Diane J. Litman,et al.  Plan recognition and discourse analysis: an integrated approach for understanding dialogues , 1986 .

[110]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Prosodic marking in speech repair , 1983 .

[111]  Reinhard Blutner,et al.  Sentence processing and lexical access: The influence of the focus-identifying task , 1988 .

[112]  E. Schegloff Sequencing in Conversational Openings , 1968 .

[113]  Carlos Gussenhoven,et al.  Testing the Reality of Focus Domains , 1983 .

[114]  M. Baltin,et al.  The Mental representation of grammatical relations , 1985 .

[115]  J. Ohala Cross-Language Use of Pitch: An Ethological View , 1983, Phonetica.

[116]  K. Bach,et al.  Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts , 1983 .

[117]  E. Schegloff,et al.  The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation , 1977 .

[118]  Nigel Gilbert,et al.  Simulating speech systems , 1991 .

[119]  Gosse Bouma Defaults in Unification Grammar , 1990, ACL.

[120]  Stephen Isard,et al.  Why to speak, what to say and how to say it: Modelling language production in discourse. , 1987 .

[121]  W. Levelt,et al.  Monitoring and self-repair in speech , 1983, Cognition.

[122]  J. Allen Recognizing intentions from natural language utterances , 1982 .

[123]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation , 1969 .