Levels of complexity in discourse for anaphora disambiguation and speech act interpretation

Bullwinkle, C.

Classics 

U.S.A. Abstract: This paper presents a discussion of means of describing the discourse and its components which makes speech act interpretation and anaphora disambiguation possible with minimal search of the knowledge in the database. A portion of this paper will consider how a frames representation of sentences and common sense knowledge provides a mechanism for representing the postulated discourse components. Finally some discussion of the use of the discourse model and of frames in a discourse understanding program for a personal assistant will be presented. Introduction The person who communicates with a personal assistant, whether human or machine, wants to request some action of the assistant via sentences in English. Generally, a single sentence is insufficient to capture all the information that is to be given as well as an unnatural way to make a request. However, as several example dialogues below will show, the human user does not tightly relate the sentences s/he speaks about a particular subject. It is instead the job of the hearer to interpret how the incoming sentence is related to the previous discourse. Each sentence or clause of a discourse that makes some demand upon the hearer must be interpreted for the kind of demand being made. These demands are generally referred to as speech acts {1}. However, the speech acts are not just strings of individual requests. They have a connecting pattern which the hearer must extract as the discourse goes on. Thus the hearer's task is twofold: to interpret the speech act in a clause and to relate that speech act to the overall discourse. In this paper this two-pronged task will be referred to as speech act interpretation. Closely associated with speech act interpretation is the process of understanding what the various noun and pronoun phrases of the incoming sentence refer to. Speakers denote previously mentioned objects in a variety of ways with apparent ambiguity in the choice of referents.

Duplicate Docs Excel Report

Title
None found

Similar Docs  Excel Report  more

TitleSimilaritySource
None found