Managing Ambiguity in Reference Generation: The Role of Surface Structure

This article explores the role of surface ambiguities in referring expressions, and how the risk of such ambiguities should be taken into account by an algorithm that generates referring expressions, if these expressions are to be optimally effective for a hearer. We focus on the ambiguities that arise when adjectives occur in coordinated structures. The central idea is to use statistical information about lexical co-occurrence to estimate which interpretation of a phrase is most likely for human readers, and to avoid generating phrases where misunderstandings are likely. Various aspects of the problem were explored in three experiments in which responses by human participants provided evidence about which reading was most likely for certain phrases, which phrases were deemed most suitable for particular referents, and the speed at which various phrases were read. We found a preference for ''clear'' expressions to ''unclear'' ones, but if several of the expressions are ''clear,'' then brief expressions are preferred over non-brief ones even though the brief ones are syntactically ambiguous and the non-brief ones are not; the notion of clarity was made precise using Kilgarriff's Word Sketches. We outline an implemented algorithm that generates noun phrases conforming to our hypotheses.

[1]  Guy Lapalme,et al.  Generating a controlled language , 2000, INLG.

[2]  Robert Dale,et al.  Computational Interpretations of the Gricean Maxims in the Generation of Referring Expressions , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[3]  Steven Abney,et al.  Statistical Methods and Linguistics , 2002 .

[4]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The 'Good Enough' Approach to Language Comprehension , 2007, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[5]  Albert Gatt,et al.  Generating coherent references to multiple entities , 2007 .

[6]  Ehud Reiter,et al.  Book Reviews: Building Natural Language Generation Systems , 2000, CL.

[7]  Adam Kilgarriff,et al.  The Sketch Engine , 2004 .

[8]  Kees van Deemter Generating Referring Expressions: Boolean Extensions of the Incremental Algorithm , 2002, CL.

[9]  Advaith Siddharthan,et al.  Generating Referring Expressions in Open Domains , 2004, ACL.

[10]  Albert Gatt,et al.  The TUNA-REG Challenge 2009: Overview and Evaluation Results , 2009, ENLG.

[11]  Karen Jensen,et al.  A Semantic Expert Using an Online Standard Dictionary , 1987, IJCAI.

[12]  Judith Masthoff,et al.  Overspecified Reference in Hierarchical Domains: Measuring the Benefits for Readers , 2006, INLG.

[13]  Matthew Stone,et al.  On identifying sets , 2000, INLG.

[14]  M. Pickering,et al.  Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. , 2005 .

[15]  Emiel Krahmer,et al.  Graphs and Booleans: on the Generation of Referring Expressions , 2008 .

[16]  Francis Chantree,et al.  Identifying Nocuous Ambiguities in Natural Language Requirements , 2006, 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'06).

[17]  Günter Neumann,et al.  A uniform computational model for natural language parsing and generation , 1994 .

[18]  David I. Beaver,et al.  The puzzle of ambiguity , 2005 .

[19]  Emiel Krahmer,et al.  Efficient context-sensitive generation of referring expressions , 2002 .

[21]  Albert Gatt,et al.  Attribute Selection for Referring Expression Generation: New Algorithms and Evaluation Methods , 2008, INLG.

[22]  Kentaro Inui,et al.  Text Revision: A Model and Its Implementation , 1992, NLG.

[23]  R. Flesch A new readability yardstick. , 1948, The Journal of applied psychology.

[24]  M. Pickering,et al.  Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution , 1998 .

[25]  Steven Cushing,et al.  Fatal Words: Communication Clashes and Aircraft Crashes , 1994 .

[26]  Robert Dale,et al.  Building Natural Language Generation Systems: Figures , 2000 .

[27]  Helmut Horacek,et al.  On Referring to Sets of Objects Naturally , 2004, INLG.

[28]  Stanley Dubinsky,et al.  FUNCTIONAL PROJECTIONS OF PREDICATES: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FROM COORDINATE STRUCTURE PROCESSING , 2000 .

[29]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  Methods for Dealing With Reaction Time Outliers , 1992 .

[30]  R. P. Fishburne,et al.  Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel , 1975 .

[31]  J. Trueswell THE ROLE OF LEXICAL FREQUENCY IN SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION , 1996 .

[32]  Haodong Wu,et al.  A Computational Method for Resolving Ambiguities in Coordinate Structures , 1998, PACLIC.

[33]  Kees van Deemter Towards a Probabilistic Version of Bidirectional OT Syntax and Semantics , 2004, J. Semant..

[34]  Claire Gardent,et al.  Generating Minimal Definite Descriptions , 2002, ACL.

[35]  Albert Gatt,et al.  The TUNA Challenge 2008: Overview and Evaluation Results , 2008, INLG.

[36]  Karl G. D. Bailey,et al.  Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension , 2002 .

[37]  SUNY Stony,et al.  Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities : Evidence from self-paced reading , 2010 .

[38]  Helen J. Chenery,et al.  Self-paced reading and sentence comprehension in Parkinson's disease , 2006, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[39]  Kees van Deemter,et al.  Generation of Referring Expressions: Managing Structural Ambiguities , 2008, COLING.

[40]  A. Kilgarriff,et al.  Disambiguating coordinations using word distribution information , 2005 .

[41]  A. Willis,et al.  Automatic Identification of Nocuous Ambiguity , 2008 .

[42]  Matthew Stone,et al.  Textual Economy Through Close Coupling of Syntax and Semantics , 1998, INLG.