A parallel approach to syntax for generation

https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(92)90017-RGet rights and content

Abstract

To produce good utterances from nontrivial inputs a natural language generator should consider many words in parallel, which raises the question of how to handle syntax in a parallel generator. If a generator is incremental and centered on the task of word choice, then the role of syntax is merely to help evaluate the appropriateness of words. One way to do this is to represent syntactic knowledge as an inventory of “syntactic constructions” and to have many constructions active in parallel at run-time. If this is done then the syntactic form of utterances can be emergent, resulting from synergy among constructions, and there is no need to build up or manipulate representations of syntactic structure. This approach is implemented in FIG, an incremental generator based on spreading activation, in which syntactic knowledge is represented in the same network as world knowledge and lexical knowledge.

References (38)

  • C.J. Fillmore

    The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”

  • C.J. Fillmore

    On grammatical constructions, course notes

    (1989)
  • W. Finkler et al.

    POPEL-HOW: A distributed parallel model for incremental natural language production with feedback

  • M. Gasser

    A connectionist model of sentence generation in a first and second language

  • E.H. Hovy
  • P.S. Jacobs

    A knowledge-based approach to language generation

  • D. Jurafsky

    Representing and integrating linguistic knowledge

  • J. Kalita et al.

    Generation of simple sentences in English using the connectionist model of computation

  • H. Karlgren

    Why trees in syntax?

    Stud. Linguist.

    (1976)
  • Cited by (7)

    • Syntactic priming in spoken sentence production - An online study

      2001, Cognition
      Citation Excerpt :

      Such data are in line, moreover, with corpus linguistic observations of naturally occurring speech which provide evidence of the use of a phrasal grammatical encoding scope during speech production (Clark & Wasow, 1998; Garrett, 1975, 1976, 1980). Importantly, such a view of the scope of syntactic planning accords well with incremental models of speech production which have emphasized that speech production, rather than being holistic so that the grammatical structure of an entire sentence is generated simultaneously, is piecemeal so that the grammatical structure of a sentence is broken down into discrete phrasal chunks and formulated at successive points in time (De Smedt, 1994, 1996; Ferreira, 1996; Kempen, 1987; Kempen & Hoenkamp, 1987; Levelt, 1989; Ward, 1992; Wheeldon, Meyer, & Smith, in press; Wundt, 1900). In short, the present study offers a first look at the phenomenon of syntactic persistence in the context of an online experimental design.

    • A control process model of code-switching

      2014, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience
    • Architectures for natural language generation: Problems and perspectives

      1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text