Representation of actions as an interlingua

ABSTRACT

We present a Parameterized Action Representation (PAR) that provides a conceptual representation of different types of actions used to animate virtual human agents in a simulated 3D environment. These actions involve changes of state, changes of location (kinematic) and exertion of force (dynamic). PARs are hierarchical, parameterized structures that facilitate both visual and verbal expressions. In order to support the animation of the actions, PARs have tomake explicit many details that are often underspecified in the language. This detailed level of representation also provides a suitable pivot representation for generation in other natural languages, i.e., a form of interlingua. We show examples of how certain divergences in machine translation can be solved by our approach focusing specifically on how verb-framed and satellite-framed languages can use our representation.

References

1. Norman I. Badler, Martha Palmer, and Rama Bindiganavale. 1999. Animation control for real-time virtual humans. Communications of the ACM, 42(7):65--73.
2. Norman I. Badler, Rama Bindiganavale, Jan All-beck, William Schuler, Liwei Zhao, and Martha Palmer, 2000. Embodied Conversational Agents, chapter Parameterized Action Representation for Virtual Human Agents. MIT Press. to appear.
3. Rama Bindiganavale, William Schuler, Jan M. All-beck, Norman I. Badler, Aravind K. Joshi, and Martha Palmer. 2000. Dynamically altering agent behaviors using natural language instructions. Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, June.
4. Hoa Trang Dang, Karin Kipper, Martha Palmer, and Joseph Rosenzweig. 1998. Investigating regular sense extensions based on intersective levin classes. In Proceedings of COLING-ACL98, pages 293--299, Montreal, CA, August.
5. Bonnie J. Dorr. 1993. Machine Translation: A View from the Lexicon. MIT Press, Boston, MA.
6. R. Jackendoff. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
7. R. Jackendoff. 1990. Semantic Structures. MIT Press, Boston, Mass.
8. Aravind K. Joshi. 1985. How much context sensitivity is necessary for characterizing structural descriptions: Tree adjoining grammars. In L. Karttunen D. Dowty and A. Zwicky, editors, Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives, pages 206--250. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
9. Aravind K. Joshi. 1987. An introduction to tree adjoining grammars. In A. Manaster-Ramer, editor, Mathematics of Language. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
10. Karin Kipper, Hoa Trang Dang, and Martha Palmer. 2000. Class-based construction of a verb lexicon. In submitted to AAAI.
11. Beth Levin. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternation, A Preliminary Investigation. The University of Chicago Press.
12. Martha Palmer, Joseph Rosenzweig, and William Schuler. 1998. Capturing Motion Verb Generalizations with Synchronous TAG. In Patrick St. Dizier, editor, Predicative Forms in NLP. Kluwer Press.
13. William Schuler. 1999. Preserving semantic dependencies in synchronous tree adjoining grammar. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL '99).
14. Stuart M. Shieber and Yves Schabes. 1990. Synchronous tree adjoining grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING '90), Helsinki, Finland, August.
15. Stuart M. Shieber. 1994. Restricting the weak-generative capability of synchronous tree adjoining grammars. Computational Intelligence, 10(4).
16. Leonard Talmy. 1991. Path to realization-via aspect and result. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, pages 480--519.
17. K. Vijay-Shanker and Aravind Joshi. 1991. Unification based tree adjoining grammars. In J. Wedekind, editor, Unification-based Grammars. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.