Literature/1975/Nash-Webber

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Authors
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z &

Nash-Webber, Bonnie L. & Roger C. Schank eds. (1975). Proceedings of the 1975 Workshop on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing (TINLAP '75), Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.

Editors[edit]

Abstract[edit]

This collection of papers forms the point of departure of an interdisciplinary workshop on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing sponsored by the Mathematical Social Sciences Board. The impetus for such a workshop, bringing together researchers and students from computational linguistics, psychology, linguistics and artificial intelligence, was a desire to provide a forum at which people with different interests in, and consequently different emphases on, the problems of natural language understanding, could learn of the models developed and difficult issues faced by people working on other aspects of understanding. It was felt that an exposure to different aspects and emphases would have a very beneficial effect on all fields of natural language research, and that without such an interchange the potential for much of that research would not be realized. The idea behind this early circulated volume of position papers was to familiarize all the participants, speakers and audience alike, with the current ideas and paradigms in natural language understanding -- their evolution, scope and deficiencies. Specifically, the contributing speakers were asked to address such questions as:

  1. What computational models and mechanisms have been proposed up to now in these areas?
  2. What aspects of human language behavior are they meant to account for?
  3. Are these models compatible?
  4. Is there a single global view of language understanding and use that is adequately modelled by some combination of them?
  5. Are there still significant aspects of human language use which they cannot account for?
  6. What is the best model of human language use that can be assembled out of the concepts that have been developed in computational linguistics, linguistics, psychology and artificial intelligence?
  7. How well does it really approximate what humans do with language?
  8. With respect to gaps in that model, is there anything currently in the wind adequate to complete them?

Where speakers were not able to get us their position papers in time, their papers will appear in a supplement to this volume to be available at the workshop and to be included in all copies of this volume subsequently distributed.

Abstracts
  • Augmented phrase structure grammars consist of phrase structure rules with embedded conditions and structure-building actions written in a specially developed language. An attribute-value, record-oriented information structure is an integral part of ...
  • About fifteen years of active research in natural language question-answering systems has provided reasonably concise and elegant formulations of computational semantics for understanding English sentences and questions about various microworlds. These ...
  • Theoretical linguists have in recent years concentrated their attention on the productive aspect of language, wherein utterances are formed combinatorically from units the size of words or smaller. This paper will focus on the contrary aspect of language, ...
  • This paper is a spin-off of our work on actors. We have worked out a dictionary for translating between what Minsky et. al. are saying about frames and what we are saying about actors. Using PLASMA [PLANNER-like System Modeled on Actors] ...
  • The notion of a commonsense algorithm is presented as a basic data structure for modeling human cognition. This data structure unifies many current ideas about human memory and information processing. The structure is defined by specifying a set of proposed ...
  • Using knowledge to understand. Minsky's frames paper has created quite a stir within AI but it is not entirely clear that any given researcher who would agree that the frames approach is correct would agree with any other researcher's conception of what exactly that meant. What is a frame anyway? It has been apparent to researchers within the domain of natural language understanding for some time that the eventual limit to our solution of that problem would be our ability to characterize world knowledge. In order to build a real understanding system it will be necessary to organize the knowledge that facilitates understanding. (p. 117) [1] [2] [Full text http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/T/T75/T75-2023.pdf]

Contents[edit]

SESSION: Memory: part I. Natural language input Ann Robinson
Augmented phrase structure grammars George E. Heidorn 1-5
Diagnosis as a notion of grammar Mitchell Marcus 6-10
Computational understanding Christopher K. Riesbeck 11-16
The clowns microworld Robert F. Simmons 17-19
On understanding poetry D. L. Waltz 20-23
The reasoner and the inferencer don't talk much to each other Robert P. Abelson 3-7
Automatic planning from a frames point of view Richard E. Fikes 8-11
Syntactic processing and functional sentence perspective Martin Kay 12-15
What makes SAM run?: script based techniques for question answering Wendy Lehnert 16-21
Errata TINLAP Staff 22-22
SESSION: Representing knowledge: part I. Primitives Jon Allen
A system of semantic primitives Ray Jackendoff 24-29
Comments on lexical analysis George A. Miller 30-33
The primitive acts of conceptual dependency Roger C. Schank 34-37
Primitives and words Yorick Wilks 38-41
SESSION: Memory: part II. Organization Jon Allen
Organization and inference in a frame-like system of common sense knowledge Eugene Charniak 42-51
The trouble with memory distinctions Allan Collins 52-54
How episodic is semantic memory? Andrew Ortony 55-59
SESSION: Natural language generation and belief systems Yorick Wilks
The phrasal lexicon Joseph D. Becker 60-63
Generation as a social action Bertram C. Bruce 64-67
Speaking with many tongues: some problems in modeling speakers of actual discourse John H. Clippinger 68-73
The boundaries of language generation Neil M. Goldman 74-78
A formalism for relating lexical and pragmatic information: its relevance to recognition and generation Aravind K. Joshi & Stanley J. Rosenchein 79-83
Meta-compiling text grammars as a model for human behavior Sheldon Klein 84-88
SESSION: Representing knowledge: part III. Frames Eugene Charniak
Some thoughts on schemata Wallace L. Chafe 89-91
Bad-mouthing frames Jerry Feldman 92-93
Stereotypes as an actor approach towards solving the problem of procedural attachment in frame theories Carl Hewitt 94-103
Minsky's frame system theory ???? 104-116
Using knowledge to understand Roger C. Schank 117-121
SESSION: What is a valid methodology for judging the quality of research in computational linguistics? Daniel Dennett
Considerations for computational theories of speaking: seven things speakers do John H. Clippinger 122-125
Improving methodology in natural language processing William C. Mann 126-129
Methodology in AI and natural language understanding Yorick Wilks 130-133
Some methodological issues in natural language understanding research W. A. Woods 134-139
SESSION: Representing knowledge: part IV. Non-linguistic forms. Andee Rubin
Does a story understander need a point of view? Robert P. Abelson 140-143
Creativity in verbalization as evidence for analogic knowledge Wallace L. Chafe 144-145
On retrieving information from visual images Stephen Michael Kosslyn 146-150
The nature of perceptual representation: an examination of the analog/propositional controversy Stephen E. Palmer 151-159
Do we need images and analogues? Zenon W. Pylyshyn 160-163
Afterthoughts on analogical representations Aaron Sloman 164-168
SESSION: Memory: part III. Reasoning and inference Allan Collins
Bridging Herbert H. Clark 169-174
Formal reasoning and language understanding systems Raymond Reiter 175-179
The commonsense algorithm as a basis for computer models of human memory, inference, belief and contextual language comprehension Chuck Rieger 180-195
Understanding human action Charles F. Schmidt 196-200

Wikimedia[edit]

Chronology[edit]

Comments[edit]


Notes[edit]

Wikiversity-logo-en.svg 1900s ^
'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
'10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19
'20 '21 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29
'30 '31 '32 '33 '34 '35 '36 '37 '38 '39
'40 '41 '42 '43 '44 '45 '46 '47 '48 '49
'50 '51 '52 '53 '54 '55 '56 '57 '58 '59
'60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 '66 '67 '68 '69
'70 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78 '79
'80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99
2000s
'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
'10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19
Wikiversity-logo-en.svg 1900s category ^
'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
'10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19
'20 '21 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29
'30 '31 '32 '33 '34 '35 '36 '37 '38 '39
'40 '41 '42 '43 '44 '45 '46 '47 '48 '49
'50 '51 '52 '53 '54 '55 '56 '57 '58 '59
'60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 '66 '67 '68 '69
'70 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78 '79
'80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99
2000s category
'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
'10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19
Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg 1900s works ad hoc
'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
'10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19
'20 '21 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29
'30 '31 '32 '33 '34 '35 '36 '37 '38 '39
'40 '41 '42 '43 '44 '45 '46 '47 '48 '49
'50 '51 '52 '53 '54 '55 '56 '57 '58 '59
'60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 '66 '67 '68 '69
'70 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78 '79
'80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99
2000s works
'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
'10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19
Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg 1900s books cat. ^
'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
'10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19
'20 '21 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29
'30 '31 '32 '33 '34 '35 '36 '37 '38 '39
'40 '41 '42 '43 '44 '45 '46 '47 '48 '49
'50 '51 '52 '53 '54 '55 '56 '57 '58 '59
'60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 '66 '67 '68 '69
'70 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78 '79
'80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99
2000s books category
'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
'10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19

http://books.google.com/advanced_book_search

Gradient-optical-illusion.svg
The shade of the bar looks invariant in isolation but variant in context, in (favor of) sharp contrast with the color gradient background, hence an innate illusion we have to reasonably interpret and overcome as well as the mirage. Such variance appearing seasonably from context to context may not only be the case with our vision but worldview in general in practice indeed, whether a priori or a posteriori. Perhaps no worldview from nowhere, without any point of view or prejudice at all!

Ogden & Richards (1923) said, "All experience ... is either enjoyed or interpreted ... or both, and very little of it escapes some degree of interpretation."

H. G. Wells (1938) said, "The human individual is born now to live in a society for which his fundamental instincts are altogether inadequate."