Christopher S. Mellish. Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK, 1985.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... (or a spoken utterance) In particular, incrementality is often used as a synonym for interleaved approaches, in which syntax and semantics work in parallel such that each word or phrase is given an interpretation immediately upon being recognized (see, for example, Bobrow and Webber [2] Mellish [11], and Haddock [8, 9] However, the two views are closely related: The left to right view is an idealized, psycholinguistically motivated special case, in which the only kind of change allowed is addition of new material at the end of the current text, resulting in piecemeal expansion of the ....

Christopher S. Mellish. Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, England, 1985.

....is obtained is that RBet al..lows the use of a variety of rules. If the number of rules used in RBET is limited, the number of clauses increases. 7 Related Works Various systems that identify various meanings have been described, including the system proposed by Winograd [11] and that of Mellish [6]. The latter is an improvement of the former to provide greater flexibility. As described in section 6.6, a processing similar to that in the latter system is realized using member atoms. However, the present method avoids creation of many individual algorithms written to handle various situations ....

Mellish, C.: Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions. Ellis Horwood (1985)

....source disambiguation can come from many places, such as the input query, the context of previous interactions and the content of the screen and the domain [7] Formulating these restrictions as a CSP is natural and allows flexible processing. Referent resolution has already been proposed as a CSP [4, 10], and we propose that these two processes can be viewed as an integrated CSP. Source disambiguation is necessary for finding the intended referent of a phrase; conversely, the success or failure of referent resolution provides feedback on any potential solutions to source disambiguation. 3 ....

....same(S7,S8) where S7andS8 represent the two source variables related to the two words respectively. Constraints on Entities are another set of constraints involving at least one entity variable. They come from the following origins of knowledge, the first two of which were introduced by Mellish [10], while the last two are specific to CSP souref. 1. Local semantic information that derives from the components of a referring phrase. In CSP souref, the components are adjectives, nouns and prepositional phrases. For example, the noun car provides a constraint on its entity variable to be a ....

Mellish, C.: Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions. Ellis Horwood series in Artificial Intelligence. Ellis Horwood, 1985.

....a particular possibility is the most likely one. Any interpretation system must, of course, deal with both combinatorial and inferential issues. A number of computational linguistics systems have concentrated on the inferential, rather than the combinatorial, side of the interpretation problem [28, 9, 22]. Others have focused on the combinatorial aspects of single sentence interpretation [45, 38, 32, 37] We do not claim any particular novelty in the inferential machinery that our system relies Pereira and Pollack 6 on to produce interpretations. Rather, our goal has been to develop a detailed ....

....problems in a fixed order, even though the necessary information may become available in a different order. The TACITUS system [22] avoids the ordering problem by eschewing incrementality and treating interpretation as global optimization. A higher degree of incrementality was achieved by Mellish [28] and Haddock [18] but the structure in their systems was insufficient to handle as wide a range of combinatorial problems as we do. Our system suffers from a variety of limitations in linguistic coverage and discourse modeling that could be alleviated with further interpretation rules and the ....

C. S. Mellish. Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, England, 1985.

....9 beliefs. From the work done by Clark and Wilkes Gibbs (1986) these assumptions seem unrealistic. 2.2.2 Understanding Referring Expressions An obvious approach to understanding referring expressions is to regard this task as a constraint satisfaction problem. This technique is employed by Mellish (1985) in his system that understands physics problems. In his system, when a referring expression is encountered, a set of candidate objects is created. Each component of the description supplies a constraint; plus, constraints are derived from other places in the text such as co referring ....

Mellish, C. S. (1985). Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions. Ellis Horwood Series in Artificial Intelligence. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, West Sussex, England.

....inferences (particularly the search for intended referents) a variety of sources of information may affect the result. It is therefore necessary to have some mechanisms which allow the interaction of these disparate sources. It is possible that some of the constraint satisfaction suggestions of (Mellish, 1985) might be useful. If none of the available sources of information resolve the ambiguities, then the query as a whole is ambiguous, but it seems unlikely that this would happen in practice. The challenge is that the processing method should be equally effective at making use of these sources of ....

Mellish, C. S. (1985). Computer interpretation of natural language descriptions. Ellis Horwood series in artificial intelligence. Ellis Horwood.

....checking that this produces no contradiction. Reasonably large implementations have been carried out which use abductive techniques: Hobbs et al. Charniak and Goldman, 1988 ] 4.1. 4 Constraint satisfaction Constraint satisfaction was first used in computational linguistics by Mellish ( Mellish, 1985 ] to solve various reference resolution and quantifier scoping problems. Relevant linguistic and contextual information is collected as a set of constraints and a standard constraint propagation algorithm is used to eliminate candidates until a unique solution is found. The main difficulty ....

Mellish, C. 1985. Computer interpretation of natural language descriptions. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, Sussex.

.... or constituent by constituent The case for incremental parsing is discussed, e.g. in (Crain and Steedman, 1985) and numerous parsing models based on the incrementality hypothesis have now been presented (Jurafsky, 1992) An incremental model of reference interpretation have been developed by Mellish (1985). I will simply mention for the moment that while it is likely that aspects of this idea will have to be incorporated in a theory of disambiguation, a theory of incremental interpretation depends on a theory of underspecification as well, as not all ambiguities can be immediately resolved. For ....

Mellish, C. S. 1985. Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions. Chichester and New York: Ellis Horwood and John Wiley.

....computational complexity. Towards the third ambiguity, Sowa, 1984 ] had suggested conceptual graph (that is canonical) formation rule for restricting the concept to more speci c one. Towards the above mentioned problem, we propose our computational model based on incremental disambiguation [ Mellish, 1985 ] where the process is considered to be the immediate re nement of ambiguous results of semantic processing by newly obtained constraints. In our model, two representations called generalized discrimination network (GDN for short) Okumura et al. 1990 ] and bit vector representation that ....

Mellish, C. S. 1985. Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions. Ellis Horwood.

....Initiative in Cognitive Science HCI, Grant 8826213, EdCAAD and Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh. 2 This example was inspired by the work of Haddock (1987) on incremental interpretation of definite noun phrases. Haddock used an incremental constraint based approach following Mellish (1985) to provide an explanation of why it is possible to use the noun phrase the rabbit in the hat even when there are two hats, but only one hat with a rabbit in it. 3 Example (a) is reconstructed from an actual utterance. Examples (b) and (c) were constructed. b John noticed that the old man and ....

Mellish, C.S. (1985). Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.

....context. Based on this idea, incremental generation of lexical chains realizes incremental word sense disambiguation using contextual information that lexical chains reveal. During the generation of lexical chains, their salience is also incrementally updated. We think incremental disambiguation[9] is a better strategy, because a combinatorial explosion of the number of total ambiguities might occur if ambiguity is not resolved as early as possible during the analytical process. Moreover, incremental word sense disambiguation is indispensable during the generation of lexical chains if ....

C.S. Mellish. Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions. Ellis Horwood, 1985.

.... content of referring expressions, both in constructing and in understanding them, as exemplified by Dale (1989) who chose descriptors on the basis of their discriminatory power, Ehud Reiter (1990) who focused on avoiding misleading conversational implicatures when generating descriptions, and Mellish (1985), who used a constraint satisfaction algorithm to identify referents. Our work follows the plan based approach to language generation and understanding. We 1 For simplicity, we have not shown the change in speakers between refashionings and judgments. extend the earlier approaches of Cohen and ....

Mellish, C. S. 1985. Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions. Ellis Horwood Series in Artificial Intelligence. Chichester, West Sussex, England: Ellis Horwood.

No context found.

Christopher S. Mellish. Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK, 1985.

No context found.

Mellish,C.S.:Computer Interpre- tation of Natural Language Descriptions, Ellis Hotwood Lirdted (1985)

No context found.

Mellish, Chris, 1985. Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions, Ellis Horwood / John Wiley, Chichester, England. 65

No context found.

Mellish CS. Computer interpretation of natural language descriptions. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1985 Chapter in a book (or paper in a proceedings)

No context found.

Mellish, Chris, 1985. Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions, Ellis Horwood / John Wiley, Chichester, England. 65

No context found.

Mellish, C. (1985) Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions.

No context found.

Mellish, Chris 1985. Computer Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions. Ellis Horwood.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC