Learning the meaning of scalar adjectives

Texts and dialogues often express information indirectly. For instance, speakers' answers to yes/no questions do not always straightforwardly convey a 'yes' or 'no' answer. The intended reply is clear in some cases (Was it good? It was great!) but uncertain in others (Was it acceptable? It was unprecedented.). In this paper, we present methods for interpreting the answers to questions like these which involve scalar modifiers. We show how to ground scalar modifier meaning based on data collected from the Web. We learn scales between modifiers and infer the extent to which a given answer conveys 'yes' or 'no'. To evaluate the methods, we collected examples of question-answer pairs involving scalar modifiers from CNN transcripts and the Dialog Act corpus and use response distributions from Mechanical Turk workers to assess the degree to which each answer conveys 'yes' or 'no'. Our experimental results closely match the Turkers' response data, demonstrating that meanings can be learned from Web data and that such meanings can drive pragmatic inference.

[1]  C. Raymond Perrault,et al.  A Plan-Based Analysis of Indirect Speech Act , 1980, CL.

[2]  C. Raymond Perrault,et al.  Analyzing Intention in Utterances , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Laurence R. Horn,et al.  On the semantic properties of logical operators in english' reproduced by the indiana university lin , 1972 .

[4]  Graeme Hirst,et al.  Computing Word-Pair Antonymy , 2008, EMNLP.

[5]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  Can online reviews reveal a product's true quality?: empirical findings and analytical modeling of Online word-of-mouth communication , 2006, EC '06.

[6]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Generating Typed Dependency Parses from Phrase Structure Parses , 2006, LREC.

[7]  Sasha Blair-Goldensohn,et al.  Building a Sentiment Summarizer for Local Service Reviews , 2008 .

[8]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Logics of Conversation , 2005, Studies in natural language processing.

[9]  H. H. Clark Responding to indirect speech acts , 1979, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  S. Levinson Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature , 2001 .

[11]  Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis,et al.  Get another label? improving data quality and data mining using multiple, noisy labelers , 2008, KDD.

[12]  Brendan T. O'Connor,et al.  Cheap and Fast – But is it Good? Evaluating Non-Expert Annotations for Natural Language Tasks , 2008, EMNLP.

[13]  H. Kamp,et al.  Prototype theory and compositionality , 1995, Cognition.

[14]  Christopher Kennedy Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives , 2007 .

[15]  Henk Zeevat,et al.  Questions and exhaustivity in update semantics , 1994 .

[16]  Nancy Green,et al.  Interpreting and Generating Indirect Answers , 1999, CL.

[17]  Christopher Potts,et al.  Not a Simple Yes or No: Uncertainty in Indirect Answers , 2009, SIGDIAL Conference.

[18]  Beth Ann Hockey,et al.  Can you predict responses to yes/no questions? yes, no, and stuff , 1997, EUROSPEECH.

[19]  Nancy Green,et al.  A Hybrid Reasoning Model for Indirect Answers , 1994, ACL.

[20]  Louise McNally,et al.  SCALE STRUCTURE AND THE SEMANTIC TYPOLOGY OF GRADABLE PREDICATES , 2002 .

[21]  Victor Kuperman,et al.  Crowdsourcing and language studies: the new generation of linguistic data , 2010, Mturk@HLT-NAACL.

[22]  Dan Klein,et al.  Accurate Unlexicalized Parsing , 2003, ACL.