skip to main content
10.3115/981251.981294dlproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaclConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

Scruffy text understanding: design and implementation of 'tolerant' understanders

Published:16 June 1982Publication History

ABSTRACT

Most large text-understanding systems have been designed under the assumption that the input text will be in reasonably "neat" form, e.g., newspaper stories and other edited texts. However, a great deal of natural language text, e.g., memos, rough drafts, conversation transcripts, etc., have features that differ significantly from "neat" texts, posing special problems for readers, such as misspelled words, missing words, poor syntactic construction, missing periods, etc. Our solution to these problems is to make use of <u>expectations</u>, based both on knowledge of surface English and on world knowledge of the situation being described. These syntactic and semantic expectations can be used to figure out unknown words from context, constrain the possible word-senses of words with multiple meanings (ambiguity), fill in missing words (ellipsis), and resolve referents (anaphora). This method of using expectations to aid the understanding of "scruffy" texts has been incorporated into a working computer program called NOMAD, which understands scruffy texts in the domain of Navy messages.

References

  1. Birnbaum, L. and Selfridge, M. 1980. Conceptual Analysis of Natural Language, in R. Schank and C. Riesbeck, eds., Inside Computer Understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N. J.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Cullingford, R. 1977. Controlling Inferences in Story Understanding. Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Cambridge, Mass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. DeJong, G. 1979. Skimming Stories in Real Time: An Experiment in Integrated Understanding. Ph.D. Thesis, Yale Computer Science Dept. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Goldman, N. 1973. The generation of English sentences from a deep conceptual base. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Granger, R. 1977. FOUL-UP: A program that figures out meanings of words from context. Proceedings of the Fifth IJCAI, Cambridge, Mass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Granger, R. H. 1980. When expectation fails: Towards a self-correcting inference system. In Proceedings of the First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stanford University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Granger, R. H. 1981. Directing and re-directing inference pursuit: Extra-textual influences on text interpretation. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Vancouver, British Columbia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Lebowitz, M. 1981. Generalization and Memory in an Integrated Understanding System. Computer Science Research Report 186, Yale University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. McGuire, R. 1980. Political Primaries and Words of Pain. Unpublished ms., Dept. of Computer Science, Yale University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Riesbeck, C. and Schank, R. 1976. Comprehension by computer: Expectation-based analysis of sentences in context. Computer Science Research Report 78, Yale University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Schank, R. C., and Abelson, R. 1977 Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N. J.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Wilensky, R. 1978. Understanding Goal-Based Stories. Computer Science Technical Report 140, Yale University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Scruffy text understanding: design and implementation of 'tolerant' understanders

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image DL Hosted proceedings
      ACL '82: Proceedings of the 20th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics
      June 1982
      178 pages
      • Program Chair:
      • Madeleine Bates

      Publisher

      Association for Computational Linguistics

      United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 16 June 1982

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate85of443submissions,19%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader