InterleavingNatural Language Parsing and GenerationThrough Uniform

We present a new model of natural language processing in which natural language parsing and generation are strongly interleaved tasks. Interleaving of parsing and generation is important if we assume that natural language understanding and production are not only performed in isolation but also work together to obtain subsentential interactions in text revision or dialog systems. The core of the model is a new uniform agenda-driven tabular algorithm, called UTA. Although uniformly deened, UTA is able to conngure itself dynamically for either parsing or generation, because it is fully driven by the structure of the actual input|a string for parsing and a semantic expression for generation. EEcient interleaving of parsing and generation is obtained through item sharing between parsing and generation. This novel processing strategy facilitates the automatic exchange of items (i.e., partial results) computed in one direction to the other direction as well. The advantage of UTA in combination with the item sharing method is that we are able to extend the use of memorization techniques to the case of an inter-leaved approach. In order to demonstrate UTA's utility for developing high-level performance methods, we present a new algorithm for incremental self-monitoring during natural language production. (project bild) and from the German Bundesministerium f ur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie (BMB+F) to the DFKI projects disco (FKZ ITW 9002), paradice (FKZ ITW 9403) and paradime (FKZ ITW 9704). I would like to thank the following people for the fruitful discussions:

[1]  Wolfgang Wahlster,et al.  User Modelling in Anaphora Generation: Ellipsis and Definite Description , 1982, ECAI.

[2]  Jay Earley,et al.  An efficient context-free parsing algorithm , 1970, Commun. ACM.

[3]  Fernando Pereira,et al.  The Formalism and Implementation of PATR-II , 1983 .

[4]  David H. D. Warren,et al.  Parsing as Deduction , 1983, ACL.

[5]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  Using Restriction to Extend Parsing Algorithms for Complex-Feature-Based Formalisms , 1985, ACL.

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

[7]  Thomas Berg,et al.  The problems of language control: Editing, monitoring, and feedback , 1986 .

[8]  David D. McDonald,et al.  A Model of Revision in Natural Language Generation , 1986, ACL.

[9]  Martin Kay,et al.  Algorithm schemata and data structures in syntactic processing , 1986 .

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

[11]  Douglas E. Appelt,et al.  Bidirectional Grammars and the Design of Natural Language Generation Systems , 1987, TINLAP.

[12]  Koenraad De Smedt,et al.  Incremental Sentence Production, Self-Correction and Coordination , 1987 .

[13]  Gert Smolkaz,et al.  Deenite Relations over Constraint Languages , 1988 .

[14]  Paul S. Jacobs.  Achieving bidirectionality , 1988, COLING.

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

[16]  Gert Smolka,et al.  Feature-Constraint Logics for Unification Grammars , 1989, J. Log. Program..

[17]  Gerard Kempen,et al.  Language generation systems , 1989 .

[18]  W. Levelt,et al.  Speaking: From Intention to Articulation , 1990 .

[19]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  Constraint-based grammar formalisms - parsing and type inference for natural and computer languages , 1992 .

[20]  John Levine,et al.  PRAGMA - A Flexible Bidirectional Dialogue System , 1990, AAAI.

[21]  Jun'ichi Tsujii,et al.  Machine Translation without a source text , 1990, COLING.

[22]  Wolfgang Wahlster,et al.  User and discourse models for multimodal communication , 1991 .

[23]  Wolfgang Wahlster,et al.  Designing Illustrated Texts: How Language Production Is Influenced by Graphics Generation , 1991, EACL.

[24]  Dale Gerdemann.  Parsing and generation of unification grammars , 1992 .

[25]  Hiyan Alshawi,et al.  Monotonic Semantic Interpretation , 1992, ACL.

[26]  M ShieberStuart,et al.  The problem of logical-form equivalence , 1993 .

[27]  Gertjan van Noord,et al.  Reversibility in Natural Language Processing , 1993 .

[28]  Eric Sven Ristad.  The language complexity game , 1993 .

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

[30]  G. Neumann.  Application of explanation-based learning for efficient processing of constraint-based grammars , 1994, Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications.

[31]  Günter Neumann,et al.  DISCO-An HPSG-based NLP System and its Application for Appointment Scheduling Project Note , 1994, COLING.

[32]  Ben E. Cline,et al.  Kalos - A System for Natural Language Generation with Revision , 1994, AAAI.

[33]  James Barnett.  Bi-Directional Preferences , 1994 .

[34]  Tomek Strzalkowski,et al.  A General Computational Method for Grammar Inversion , 1994 .

[35]  Scott P. Robertson,et al.  TSUNAMI: Simultaneous Understanding, Answering, and Memory Interaction for Questions , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[36]  Yasuharu Den,et al.  Generalized Chart Algorithm: An Efficient Procedure for Cost-Based Abduction , 1994, ACL.

[37]  Jochen Dörre,et al.  Memoization of Coroutined Constraints , 1995, ACL.

[38]  Gregor Erbach,et al.  Bottom-up earley deduction for preference-driven natural language processing , 1995 .

[39]  Geert Adriaens,et al.  Technological evaluation of a controlled language application: precision, recall, and convergence tests for SECC , 1995 .

[40]  Martin Kay,et al.  Chart Generation , 1996, ACL.

[41]  Shimei Pan,et al.  Language Generation for Multimedia Healthcare Briefings , 1997, ANLP.

[42]  Günter Neumann,et al.  Applying Explanation-based Learning to Control and Speeding-up Natural Language Generation , 1997, ACL.