Affective Natural Language Generation

The automatic generation of natural language messages (or NLG) has been employed in many computer systems and for various purposes, which go from providing information on a particular subject, to instructing on how to perform some -complex- action, to arguing about a particular claim (for an overview, see [24]).

[1]  Floriana Grasso,et al.  Mediating between hearer's and speaker's views in the generation of adaptive explanations , 1995 .

[2]  D. Christopher Dryer,et al.  Getting Personal with Computers: How to Design Personalities for Agents , 1999, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[3]  Joseph Bates,et al.  Personality-rich believable agents that use language , 1997, AGENTS '97.

[4]  Floriana Grasso,et al.  Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[5]  Eduard Hovy,et al.  ContributorGenerating natural language under pragmatic constraints , 1987 .

[6]  Wolfgang Hoeppner,et al.  Review of Generating natural language under pragmantic constraints by Edward H. Hovy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1988. , 1990 .

[7]  James C. Lester,et al.  Lifelike Pedagogical Agents and Affective Computing: An Exploratory Synthesis , 1999, Artificial Intelligence Today.

[8]  I J Haimowitz.  Modeling all dialogue system participants to generate empathetic responses. , 1991, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[9]  Robert Dale,et al.  Building applied natural language generation systems , 1997, Natural Language Engineering.

[10]  Eduard H. Hovy,et al.  Aggregation in Natural Language Generation , 1993, EWNLG.

[11]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  The Effect of Resource Limits and Task Complexity on Collaborative Planning in Dialogue , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[12]  M. Becker,et al.  Health Belief Model and Personal Health Behavior , 1976 .

[13]  Eduard Hovy,et al.  Generating Natural Language Under Pragmatic Constraints , 1988 .

[14]  William C. Mann,et al.  Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization , 1988 .

[15]  Katia Sycara,et al.  Persuasive argumentation in negotiation , 1990 .

[16]  J. Davenport.  Editor , 1960 .

[17]  S. Banbury,et al.  What do patients want to know: An empirical approach to explanation generation and validation , 1995 .

[18]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  Redundancy in Collaborative Dialogue , 1992, COLING.

[19]  C. Nass,et al.  How “Real” Are Computer Personalities? , 1996 .

[20]  Johanna D. Moore.  Participating in explanatory dialogues , 1994 .

[21]  Floriana Grasso,et al.  Refining instructional text generation after evaluation , 1999, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[22]  R. W. Pickard,et al.  Does HAL cry digital tears? Emotions and computers , 2001 .

[23]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  Improvising linguistic style: social and affective bases for agent personality , 1997, AGENTS '97.

[24]  Wolfgang Stroebe,et al.  Social Psychology and Health , 1995 .

[25]  Anthony Jameson,et al.  How to Juggle Discourse Obligations , 1995 .