Cross-Disciplinary Advances in Applied Natural Language Processing: Issues and Approaches

Applied Natural Language Processing (ANLP) is interested in not only the creation of natural language processing approaches (i.e., tools, systems, algorithms, models, theories, and techniques), but it is also (and, arguably, more specifically) interested in how those approaches stack up against new problems, issues, identified knowledge gaps, or created data sets.Cross-Disciplinary Advances in Applied Natural Language Processing: Issues and Approaches defines the role of ANLP within NLP, and alongside other disciplines such as linguistics, computer science, and cognitive science. The description also includes the categorization of current ANLP research, and examples of current research in ANLP. This book is a useful reference for teachers, students, and materials developers in fields spanning linguistics, computer science, and cognitive science.

[1]  William Croft,et al.  Cognitive Linguistics , 2004 .

[2]  S. Levinson,et al.  Can language restructure cognition? The case for space , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  How Language Structures Space , 1983 .

[4]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  S. Garrod,et al.  In and on: investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions , 1999, Cognition.

[6]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Interpreting spatial terms involves simulating interactions , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[7]  Michele I. Feist.  On IN and ON : an investigation into the linguistic encoding of spatial scenes , 2000 .

[8]  D. Geary,et al.  Psychonomic Bulletin Review , 2000 .

[9]  Laura A. Carlson-Radvansky,et al.  “What” Effects on “Where”: Functional Influences on Spatial Relations , 1999 .

[10]  M. Bowerman.  The origins of children's spatial semantic categories: Cognitive vs. linguistic determinants , 1996 .

[11]  B. Meek.  Rethinking Linguistic Relativity , 1998 .

[12]  Barbara Landau,et al.  Objects and places: Geometric and syntactic representations in early lexical learning , 1990 .

[13]  Vyvyan Evans,et al.  Language, cognition, and space:the state of the art and new directions , 2010 .

[14]  M. Bowerman.  Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective , 1996 .

[15]  S. Levinson,et al.  'Natural Concepts' in the Spatial Topologial Domain--Adpositional Meanings in Crosslinguistic Perspective: An Exercise in Semantic Typology , 2003 .

[16]  M. Bowerman,et al.  Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns , 1991, Cognition.

[17]  C. Vandeloise.  Methodology and analyses of the preposition in , 1994 .

[18]  Stephen C. Levinson,et al.  Relativity in spatial conception and description , 1996 .

[19]  Catherine L. Harris,et al.  The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism , 1997 .

[20]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Grounding spatial language in perception: an empirical and computational investigation. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[21]  B. Landau,et al.  “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition , 1993 .

[22]  Georgia M. Green.  On the representation of contain , 1971 .

[23]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[24]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations , 1996 .

[25]  Laura A. Carlson-Radvansky,et al.  The Influence of Functional Relations on Spatial Term Selection , 1996 .

[26]  Simon Garrod,et al.  Discourse Models as Interfaces between Language and the Spatial World , 1988, J. Semant..

[27]  K. Coventry,et al.  Object-specific function, geometry, and the comprehension of in and on , 2001 .

[28]  P. Brown.  The INs and ONs of Tzeltal locative expressions: the semantics of static descriptions of location , 1994 .

[29]  H. Pick,et al.  Spatial orientation : theory, research, and application , 1984 .

[30]  Lis A. Thorseng,et al.  A coding system for spatial relational reference , 1995 .

[31]  Stephen C. Levinson,et al.  Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity , 2006 .

[32]  Michele I. Feist.  Space Between Languages , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[33]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Why some spatial semantic categories are harder to learn than others: The typological prevalence hypothesis , 2009 .

[34]  Charles James Nice Bailey,et al.  New ways of analyzing variation in English , 1973 .

[35]  M. Tarr,et al.  Spatial language and spatial representation , 1995, Cognition.

[36]  Annette Herskovits.  Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English , 2009 .

[37]  William Lopez,et al.  Attention Unites Form and Function in Spatial Language , 2006, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[38]  Kenneth D. Forbus.  Qualitative Process Theory , 1984, Artificial Intelligence.

[39]  Alan Cienki,et al.  Spatial Cognition and the Semantics of Prepositions in English, Polish, and Russian , 1991 .

[40]  Kenny R. Coventry.  Spatial prepositions, functional relations, and lexical specification , 1998 .

[41]  S. Levinson,et al.  LANGUAGE AND SPACE , 1996 .

[42]  Kenneth D. Forbus.  Qualitative Reasoning About Space and Motion , 1983 .

[43]  Kenny R. Coventry,et al.  The interplay between geometry and function in the comprehension of''over , 2001 .

[44]  Kenny R. Coventry,et al.  Seeing, saying and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions , 2004 .

[45]  Kenny R. Coventry,et al.  Spatial Prepositions, Object-Specific Function, and Task Requirements , 1994, J. Semant..

[46]  Soonja Choi,et al.  Space under construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition , 2003 .