File size: 71,576 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 | {
"paper_id": "P95-1018",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:34:06.998707Z"
},
"title": "Investigating Cue Selection and Placement in Tutorial Discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Megan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moser",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh",
"location": {
"postCode": "15260",
"region": "PA"
}
},
"email": "moser@isp@pitt.edu"
},
{
"first": "Johanna",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Moore",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh",
"location": {
"postCode": "15260",
"region": "PA"
}
},
"email": "jmoore@cs.pitt.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Our goal is to identify the features that predict cue selection and placement in order to devise strategies for automatic text generation. Much previous work in this area has relied on ad hoc methods. Our coding scheme for the exhaustive analysis of discourse allows a systematic evaluation and refinement of hypotheses concerning cues. We report two results based on this analysis: a comparison of the distribution of Sn~CE and BECAUSE in our corpus, and the impact of embeddedness on cue selection.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P95-1018",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Our goal is to identify the features that predict cue selection and placement in order to devise strategies for automatic text generation. Much previous work in this area has relied on ad hoc methods. Our coding scheme for the exhaustive analysis of discourse allows a systematic evaluation and refinement of hypotheses concerning cues. We report two results based on this analysis: a comparison of the distribution of Sn~CE and BECAUSE in our corpus, and the impact of embeddedness on cue selection.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Discourse cues play a crucial role in many discourse processing tasks, including plan recognition (Litman and Allen, 1987) , anaphora resolution (Gross and Sidner, 1986) , and generation of coherent multisentential texts (Elhadad and McKeown, 1990; Roesner and Stede, 1992; Scott and de Souza, 1990; Zukerman, 1990) . Cues are words or phrases such as BECAUSE, FIRST, ALTHOUGH and ALSO that mark structural and semantic relationships between discourse entities. While some specific issues concerning cue usage have been resolved (e.g., the disambiguation of discourse and sentential cues (Hirschberg and Litman, 1993) ), our concern is to identify general strategies of cue selection and placement that can be implemented for automatic text generation. Relevant research in reading comprehension presents a mixed picture (Goldman and Murray, 1992; Lorch, 1989 ), suggesting that felicitous use of cues improves comprehension and recall, but that indiscriminate use of cues may have detrimental effects on recall (Millis et al., 1993) and that the benefit of cues may depend on the subjects' reading skill and level of domain knowledge (McNamara et al., In press ). However, interpreting the research is problematic because the manipulation of cues both within and across studies has been very unsystematic (Lorch, 1989) . While Knott and Dale (1994) use systematic manipulation to identify functional categories of cues, their method does not provide the description of those functions needed for text generation.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 122,
"text": "(Litman and Allen, 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 169,
"text": "(Gross and Sidner, 1986)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 248,
"text": "(Elhadad and McKeown, 1990;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 273,
"text": "Roesner and Stede, 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 299,
"text": "Scott and de Souza, 1990;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 315,
"text": "Zukerman, 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 588,
"end": 617,
"text": "(Hirschberg and Litman, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 821,
"end": 847,
"text": "(Goldman and Murray, 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 848,
"end": 859,
"text": "Lorch, 1989",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 1012,
"end": 1033,
"text": "(Millis et al., 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 1135,
"end": 1161,
"text": "(McNamara et al., In press",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1306,
"end": 1319,
"text": "(Lorch, 1989)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 1328,
"end": 1349,
"text": "Knott and Dale (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For the study described here, we developed a coding scheme that supports an exhaustive analysis of a discourse. Our coding scheme, which we call Relational Discouse Analysis (RDA), synthesizes two accounts of discourse structure (Gross and Sidner, 1986; Mann and Thompson, 1988) that have often been viewed as incompatible. We have applied RDA to our corpus of tutorial explanations, producing an exhaustive analysis of each explanation. By doing such an extensive analysis and representing the results in a database, we are able to identify patterns of cue selection and placement in terms of multiple factors including segment structure and semantic relations. For each cue, we determine the best description of its distribution in the corpus. Further, we are able to formulate and verify more general patterns about the distribution of types of cues in the corpus.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 229,
"end": 253,
"text": "(Gross and Sidner, 1986;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 278,
"text": "Mann and Thompson, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The corpus study is part of a methodology for identifying the factors that influence effective cue selection and placement. Our analysis scheme is coordinated with a system for automatic generation of texts. Due to this coordination, the results of our analyses of \"good texts\" can be used as rules that are implemented in the generation system. In turn, texts produced by the generation system provide a means for evaluation and further refinement of our rules for cue selection and placement. Our ultimate goal is to provide a text generation component that can be used in a variety of application systems. In addition, the text generator will provide a tool for the systematic construction of materials for reading comprehension experiments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The study is part of a project to improve the explanation component of a computer system that trains avionics technicians to troubleshoot complex electronic circuitry. The tutoring system gives the student a troubleshooting problem to solve, allows the student to solve the problem with minima] tutor interaction, and then engages the student in a postproblem critiquing session. During this session, the system replays the student's solution step by step, pointing out good aspects of the solution as well as ways in which the solution could be improved.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To determine how to build an automated explanation component, we collected protocols of 3 human expert tutors providing explanations during the critiquing session. Because the explanation component we are building interacts with users via text and menus, the student and human tutor were required to communicate in written form. In addition, in order to study effective explanation, we chose experts who were rated as excellent tutors by their peers, students, and superiors.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Because the recognition of discourse coherence and structure is complex and dependent on many types of non-linguistic knowledge, determining the way in which cues and other linguistic markers aid that recognition is a difficult problem. The study of cues must begin with descriptive work using intuition and observation to identify the factors affecting cue usage. Previous research (Hobbs, 1985; Grosz and Sidner, 1986; Schiffrin, 1987; Mann and Thompson, 1988; Elhadad and McKeown, 1990) suggests that these factors include structural features of the discourse, intentional and informational relations in that structure, givenness of information in the discourse, and syntactic form of discourse constituents. In order to devise an algorithm for cue selection and placement, we must determine how cue usage is affected by combinations of these factors. The corpus study is intended to enable us to gather this information, and is therefore conducted directly in terms of the factors thought responsible for cue selection and placement. Because it is important to detect the contrast between occurrence and nonoccurrence of cues, the corpus study must be be exhaustive, i.e., it must include all of the factors thought to contribute to cue usage and all of the text must be analyzed. From this study, we are deriving a system of hypotheses about cues. In this section we describe our approach to the analysis of a single speaker's discourse, which we call Relational Discourse Analysis (RDA). Applying RDA to a tutor's explanation is exhaustive, i.e., every word in the explanation belongs to exactly one element in the analysis. All elements of the analysis, from the largest constituents of an explanation to the minimal units, are determined by their function in the discourse. A tutor may offer an explanation in multiple segments, the topmost constituents of the explanation. Multiple segments arise when a tutor's explanation has several steps, e.g., he may enumerate several reasons why the student's action was inemcient, or he may point out the flaws in the student's step and then describe a better alternative. Each segment originates with an intention of the speaker; segments are identified by looking for sets of clauses that taken together serve a purpose. Segments are internally structured and consist of a core, i.e., that element that most directly expresses the segment purpose, and any number of contrlbutors, the remaining constituents in the segment each of which plays a role in serving the purpose expressed by the core. For each contributor in a segment, we analyze its relation to the core from an intentional perspective, i.e., how it is intended to support the core, and from an informational perspective, i.e., how its content relates to that of the core. Each segmei,t constituent, both core and contributors, may itself be a segment with a core:contributor structure, or may be a simpler functional element. There are three types of simpler functional elements:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 383,
"end": 396,
"text": "(Hobbs, 1985;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 397,
"end": 420,
"text": "Grosz and Sidner, 1986;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 421,
"end": 437,
"text": "Schiffrin, 1987;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 438,
"end": 462,
"text": "Mann and Thompson, 1988;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 463,
"end": 489,
"text": "Elhadad and McKeown, 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Relational Discourse Analysis",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(1) units, which are descriptions of domain states and actions, (2) matrix elements, which express a mental attitude, a prescription or an evaluation by embedding another element, and (3) relation clusters, which are otherwise like segments except that they have no core:coatributor structure.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Relational Discourse Analysis",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This approach synthesizes ideas which were previously thought incompatible from two theories of discourse structure, the theory proposed by Grosz and Sidner (1986) and Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) proposed by Mann and Thompson (1988) . The idea that the hierarchical segment structure of discourse originates with intentions of the speaker, and thus the defining feature of a segment is that there be a recognizable segment purpose, is due to Grosz and Sidner. The idea that discourse is hierarchically structured by palrwise relations in which one relatum (the nucleus) is more central to the speaker's purpose is due to Mann and Thompson.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 163,
"text": "Grosz and Sidner (1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 238,
"text": "Mann and Thompson (1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Relational Discourse Analysis",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Work by Moore and Pollack (1992) modified the RST assumption that these palrwise relations are unique, demonstrating that intentional and informational relations occur simultaneously. Moser and Moore (1993) point out the correspondence between the relation of dominance among intentions in Grosz and Sidner and the nucleussatellite distinction in RST. Because our analysis realizes this relation/distinction in a form different from both intention dominance and nuclearity, we have chosen the new terms core and contributor.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 32,
"text": "Moore and Pollack (1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 206,
"text": "Moser and Moore (1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Relational Discourse Analysis",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To illustrate the application of RDA, consider the partial tutor explanation in Figure i t. The purpose of this segment is to inform the student that she made the strategy error of testing inside paxt3 too soon. The constituent that expresses the purpose, in this case (B), is the core\" of the segment. The other constituents help to achieve the segment purpose. We analyze the way in which each contributor relates to the core from two perspectives, intentional and informational, as illustrated below. Each constituent may itself be a segment with its own core:contributor structure. For example, (C) is a subsegment whose tin order to make the example more intelligible to the reader, we replaced references to parts of the circuit with the simple labels partl, part~ and part3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Relational Discourse Analysis",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "purpose is to give a reason for testing part2 first, namely that part2 is more susceptible to damage and therefore a more likely source of the circuit fault. The core of this subsegment is (C.2) because it most directly expresses this purpose. The contributor in (C.1) provides a reason for this susceptibility, i.e., that part2 is moved frequently. Due to space limitations, we can provide only a brief description of core:contributor relations, and omit altogether the analysis of the example into the minimal RDA units of state and action units, matrix expressions and clusters. A contributor is analyzed for both its intentional and informational relations to its core. Intentional relations describe how a contributor may affect the heater's adoption of the core. For example, (A) in Figure 1 acknowledges a fact that might have led the student to make the mistake. Such a concession contributes to the hearer's adoption of the core in (B) by acknowledging something that might otherwise interfere with this intended effect. Another kind of intentional relation is evidence, in which the contributors are intended to increase the hearer's belief in the core. For example, (C) stands in the evidence relation to (B). The set of intentional relations in RDA is a modification of the presentational relations of RST. Each core:contributor pair is also analyzed for its informational relation. These relations describe how the situations referred to by the core and contributor are related in the domain.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 789,
"end": 797,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Relational Discourse Analysis",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The RDA analysis of the example in Figure 1 is shown schematically in Figure 2 . As a convention, the core appears as the mother of all the relations it participates in. Each relation is labeled with both its intentional and informational relation, with the order of relata in the label indicating the linear order in the cliscourse. Each relation node has up to two daughters: the cue, if any, and the contributor, in the order they appear in the discourse.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 43,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 78,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Relational Discourse Analysis",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To assess inter-coder reliability of RDA analyses, we compared two independent analyses of the same data. Because the results reported in this paper depend only on the structural aspects of the analysis, our reliability assessment is confined to these. The The reliability coder coded one quarter of the currently analyzed corpus, consisting of 132 clauses, 51 segments, and 70 relations. Here we report the percentage of instances for which the reliability coder agreed with the main coder on the various aspects of coding.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Reliability of RDA application",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "There are several kinds of judgements made in an RDA analysis, and all of them are possible sources of disagreement. First, the two coders could analyze a contributor as supporting different cores. This occurred 7 times (90% agreement). Second, the coders could disagree on the core of a segment. This occurred 2 times (97% agreement). Third, the coders could disagree on which relation a cue was associated with. This occurred 1 time (98% agreement). The final source of disagreement reflects more of a theoretical question than a question of reliable analysis. The coders could disagree on whether a relaturn should be further analyzed into an embedded core:contributor structure. This occurred 8 times (91% agreement).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Reliability of RDA application",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "These rates of agreement cannot be sensibly compared to those found in studies of (nonembedded) segmentation agreement (Grosz and Hirschberg, 1992; Passonneau and Litman, 1993; Hearst, 1994) because our assessment of RDA reliability differs from this work in several key ways. First, the RDA coding task is more complex than identifying locations of segment boundaries. Second, our subjects/coders are not naive about their task; they are trained. Finally, the data is not spoken as in these other studies.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 147,
"text": "(Grosz and Hirschberg, 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 176,
"text": "Passonneau and Litman, 1993;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 190,
"text": "Hearst, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Reliability of RDA application",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Future work will include a more extensive reliability study, one that includes the intentional and informational relations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Reliability of RDA application",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Initial results and their application For each tutor explanation in our corpus, each coder analyzes the text as described above, and then enters this analysis into a database. The technique of representing an analysis in a database and then using database queries to test hypotheses is similar to work using RST analyses to investigate the form of purpose clauses (Vander Linden et al., 1992) . Because our analysis is exhaustive, information about both occurrence and nonoccurrence of cues can be retrieved from the database in order to test and modify hypotheses about cue usage. That is, both cuebased and factor-based retrievals are possible. In cue-based retrievals, we use an occurrence of the cue under investigation as the criterion for retrieving the value of its hypothesized descriptive factors. Factorbased retrievals provide information about cues that is unique to this study. In factor-based retrieval, the occurrence of a combination of descriptive factor values is the criteria for retrieving the accompanying cues. In this section, we report two results, one from each perspective: a comparison of the distribution of sn~cE and BECAUSE in our corpus, and the impact of embeddedness on cue selection.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 364,
"end": 392,
"text": "(Vander Linden et al., 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "These results are based on the portion of our corpus that is analyzed and entered into the database, approximately 528 clauses. These clauses comprise 216 segments in which 287 relations were analyzed. Accompanying these relations were 165 cue occurrences, resulting from 39 distinct cues.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Choice of\"Since ~' or \"Because\" SINCE and BECAUSE were two of the most frequently used cues in our corpus, occurring 23 and 13 times, respectively. To investigate their distribution, we began with the proposal of Elhadad and McKeown (1990) . As with our study, their work aims to define each cue in terms of features of the propositions it connects for the purpose of cue selection during text generation. Their work relies on the literature and intuitions to identify these features, and thus provides an important background for a corpus study by suggesting features to include in the corpus analysis and initial hypotheses to investigate. Quirk et al. (1972) note several distributional differences between the two cues: (i) since is used when the contributor precedes the core, whereas BECAUSE typically occurs when the core precedes the contributor, (ii) BECAUSE can be used to directly answer a ~#hy question, whereas SINCE cannot, and (iii) BECAUSE can be in the focus position of an it-cleft, whereas SINCE cannot. These distributional differences are reflected in our corpus, and the ordering difference (i) is of particular interest. SINCE and BECAUSE are always placed with a contributor. All but one (22/23) occurrences of Sn~CE accompanied relations in contributor:core order, while all (13/13) occurrences of BECAUSE accompanied relations in core:contributor order 2.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 213,
"end": 239,
"text": "Elhadad and McKeown (1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 642,
"end": 661,
"text": "Quirk et al. (1972)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3.1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The crucial factor in distinguishing between S~CE and BECAUSE is the relative order of core and contributor. Elhadad and McKeown (1990) claim that the two cues differ with respect to what Ducrot (1983) calls \"polyphony\", i.e., whether the subordinate relatum is attributed to the hearer or to the speaker. The idea is that SINCE is used when a relatum has its informational source with the hearer (e.g., by being previously said or otherwise conveyed by the hearer). BECAUSE is monophonous, i.e., its relata originate from a single utterer, while sINCE can be polyphonous. According to Elhadad and McKeown, polyphony is a kind of given-new distinction and thus the ordering difference between the two cues reduces to the well-known tendency for given to precede new. Unfortunately, this characterization of the distinction between s~cg and BECAUSE is not supported by our corpus study.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 135,
"text": "Elhadad and McKeown (1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 201,
"text": "Ducrot (1983)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3.1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As shown in Figure 3 , whether or not contributors could be attributed to the hearer did not correlate with the choice of SINCE or BECAUSE. To judge whether a contributor is attributable to the student, mention of ~n action or result of a test that the student previously performed (e.g., you tested 30 to 9round earlier) was counted as 'yes', while information available by observation (e.g., partl a~d part2 are co~r~ected b~l wires), specialized circuit knowledge (e.g., part1 is used bll this test step) and general knowledge (e.g., part~ is more prone to damage )",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 20,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3.1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "were counted as 'no'.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3.1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Cue choice attributable sINCE BECAUSE to student? yes 13 no 10",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is contributor",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Figure 3: Polyphony does not underlie the choice between SINCE and BECAUSE.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is contributor",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This result shows that the choice between since and BECAUSE is determined by something other than the attributability of contributor to hearer. In future work, we will consider other factors that may determine ordering as possible alternative accounts for this choice. Another factor to be considered in distinguishing the two cues is the embeddedness discussed in the next section. Furthermore, this result demonstrates the need to move beyond small numbers of constructed examples and intuitions formed ~This included answers that begin with BECAUSE. In these cases, we took the core to be the presupposition to the question. from unsystematic analyses of naturally occurring data. Only by an exhaustive analysis such as ours can hypotheses such as the one discussed here be systematically evaluated.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is contributor",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The second question we report on here concerns whether segment embeddedness affects cue selection. Much of the work on cue usage, e.g., (Elhadad and McKeown, 1990; Millis etal., 1993; Schiffrin, 1987; Zukerman, 1990) has focused on pairs of text spans, and this has led to the development of heuristics for cue selection that take into account the relation between the spans and other local features of the two relata (e.g., relative ordering of core and contributor, complexity of each span). However, analysis of our corpus led us to hypothesize that the hierarchical context in which a relation occurs, i.e., what segment(s) the relation is embedded in, is a factor in cue usage.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 163,
"text": "(Elhadad and McKeown, 1990;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 183,
"text": "Millis etal., 1993;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 200,
"text": "Schiffrin, 1987;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 216,
"text": "Zukerman, 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Effect of Segment Embeddedness on Cue Selection",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "For example, recall that the relation between C.1 and C.2 in Figure 2 was expressed as part~ is moved frequently, AND THUS it is more susceptible to damage. Now, the relation between C.1 and C.2 could have been expressed, BECAUSE part2 is muted frequently, it is more musceptible to damage. However, this relation is embedded in the contributor of the relation between B and C, which is cued by THIS IS BECAUSE. Intuitively, we expect that, when a relation is embedded in another relation already marked by BECAUSE, a speaker will select an alternative to BECAUSE to mark the embedded relation. That is, two relations, one embedded in the other, should be signaled by different cues. Because RDA analyses capture the hierarchical structure of texts, we were able to explore the effect of embedding on cue selection.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 69,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Effect of Segment Embeddedness on Cue Selection",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "We hypothesized that cue selection for one relation constrains the cue selection for relations embedded in it to be a different cue. To test this hypothesis, we paired each cue occurrence with all the other cue occurrences in the same turn. Then, for each pair of cues in the same turn, it was categorized in two ways: (1) the embeddedness of the relations associated with the two cues, and (2) whether the two cues are the same, alternatives or different. Two cues are alternatives when their use with a relation would contribute (approximately) the same semantic content s . The sets of alternatives in our data are {ALSO,AND}, {BUT,ALTHOUGH,HOWEVER) and SBecause it is based on a test of intersubstitutability, the taxonomy proposed by Knott and Dale (1994) does not establish the sets of alternatives that are of interest here. Two cues may be intersubstitutable in some contexts but not semantic alternatives (e.g., AND and BECAUSE), or they may be semantic alternatives but not intersubstitutable because they are placed in different positions in a relation (e.g., so and BECAUSE). {BECAUSE,SINCE,SO,THUS,THEREFOI:tE}. The question is whether the choice between the same and an alternate cue correlates with the embeddedness of the two relations.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 739,
"end": 760,
"text": "Knott and Dale (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Effect of Segment Embeddedness on Cue Selection",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "As shown in Figure 4 , we can conclude that, when a relation is going to have a cue that is semantically similar to the cue of a relation it is embedded in, an alternative cue must be chosen. Other researchers in text generation recognized the need to avoid repetition of cues within a single text and devised heuristics such as \"avoid repeating the same connective as long as there are others available\" (Roesner and Stede, 1992) . Our results show that this heuristic is over constraining. The first column of Figure 4 shows that the same cue may occur within a single explanation as long as there is no embedding between the two relations being cued. Based on these results, our text generation algorithm will use embeddedness as a factor in cue selection. Figure 4: Embeddedness correlates with choice between same and alternate cues.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 405,
"end": 430,
"text": "(Roesner and Stede, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 20,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 512,
"end": 520,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Effect of Segment Embeddedness on Cue Selection",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "We have introduced Relational Discourse Analysis, a coding scheme for the exhaustive analysis of text or single speaker discourse. RDA is a synthesis of ideas from two theories of discourse structure (Grosz and Sidner, 1986; Mann and Thompson, 1988) . It provides a system for analyzing discourse and formulating hypotheses about cue selection and placement. The corpus study results in rules for cue selection and placement that will then be exercised by our text generator. Evaluation of these automatically generated texts forms the basis for further exploration of the corpus and subsequent refinement of the rules for cue selection and placement. Two initial results from the corpus study were reported. While the factor of core:contributor order accounted for the choice between s~ce and BE-CAUSE, this factor could not be explained in terms of whether the contributor can be attributed to the hearer. Alternative explanations for the ordering factor will be explored in future work, including other types given-new distinctions and larger contextual factors such as focus. Second, the cue selection for one relation was found to constrain the cue selection for embedded relations to be distinct cues. Both of these results are being implemented in our text generator.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 200,
"end": 224,
"text": "(Grosz and Sidner, 1986;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 249,
"text": "Mann and Thompson, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "The research described in this paper was supported by the Office of Naval Research, Cognitive and Neural Sciences Division (Grant Number: N00014-91-J-1694), and a grant from the DoD FY93 Augmentation of Awards for Science and Engineering Research Training (ASSERT) Program (Grant Number: N00014-93-I-0812). We are grateful to Erin Glendening for her patient and careful coding and database entry, and to Maria Gordin for her reliability coding.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Le seas commun. Le dire et le dit. Les editions de Minuit",
"authors": [
{
"first": "O",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ducrot",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "O. Ducrot. 1983. Le seas commun. Le dire et le dit. Les editions de Minuit, Paris.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Generating connectives",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Elhadad",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kathleen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mckeown",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "97--101",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Michael Elhadad and Kathleen McKeown. 1990. Generating connectives. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Compu- tational Linguistics, pages 97-101, Helsinki.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Knowledge of connectors as cohesion devices in text: A comparative study of native-english speakers",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Susan",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Goldman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Murray",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Journal of Educational Ps~lchology",
"volume": "44",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "504--519",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Susan R. Goldman and John D. Murray. 1992. Knowledge of connectors as cohesion devices in text: A comparative study of native-english speakers. Journal of Educational Ps~lchology, 44(4):504-519.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Barbara",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Julia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hirschberg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Barbara Grosz and Julia Hirschberg. 1992. Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Barbara",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Candace",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sidner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "12",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "175--204",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Barbara J. Grosz and Candace L. Sidner. 1986. At- tention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3):175-204.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Multl-paragraph segmentation of expository discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Marti",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hearst",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marti Hearst. 1994. Multl-paragraph segmentation of expository discourse. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Julia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hirschberg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Diane",
"middle": [],
"last": "Litman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "19",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "501--530",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Julia Hirschberg and Diane Litman. 1993. Empiri- cal studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics, 19(3):501-530.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "On the coherence and structure of discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jerry",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hobbs",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "Center for the Study of Language and Information",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jerry R. Hobbs. 1985. On the coherence and struc- ture of discourse. Technical Report CSLI-85-37, Center for the Study of Language and Informa- tion, Leland Stanford Junior University, Stanford, California, October.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Using linguistic pheomena to motivate a set of coherence relations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alistair",
"middle": [],
"last": "Knott",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dale",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Discourse Processes",
"volume": "18",
"issue": "",
"pages": "35--62",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alistair Knott and Robert Dale. 1994. Using lin- guistic pheomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18(1):35-62.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "A plan recognition model for subdialogues in conversations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Diane",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Litman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [
"F"
],
"last": "Allen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Cognitive Science",
"volume": "11",
"issue": "",
"pages": "163--200",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Diane J. Litman and James F. Allen. 1987. A plan recognition model for subdialogues in conversa- tions. Cognitive Science, 11:163-200.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Text signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lorch",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Educational Ps~/chology Review",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "209--234",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Robert Lorch. 1989. Text signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Ps~/chology Review, 1:209-234.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Rhetorical Structure Theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. TEXT",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "William",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sandra",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Mann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Thompson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "",
"volume": "8",
"issue": "",
"pages": "243--281",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Towards a func- tional theory of text organization. TEXT, 8(3):243-281.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "In press. Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Danielle",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Mcnamara",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eileen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kintsch",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nancy",
"middle": [
"Butler"
],
"last": "Songer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Walter",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klatsch",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Cognition and Instruction",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Danielle S. McNamara, Eileen Kintsch, Nancy But- ler Songer, and Walter Klatsch. In press. Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "The impact of connectives on the memory for expository text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Keith",
"middle": [],
"last": "Millis",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Arthur",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gracsser",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Karl",
"middle": [],
"last": "Haberlandt",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Applied Cognitive PsT/ehology",
"volume": "7",
"issue": "",
"pages": "317--339",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Keith Millis, Arthur Gracsser, and Karl Haberlandt. 1993. The impact of connectives on the memory for expository text. Applied Cognitive PsT/ehology, 7:317-339.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Johanna",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Moore",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Pollack",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "18",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "537--544",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Johanna D. Moore and Martha E. Pollack. 1992. A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics, 18(4):537-544.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Investigating discourse relations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Megan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moser",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Johanna",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Moore",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Proceedings of the A CL Workshop on Intentionalit!/and Stureture in Discourse Relations",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "94--98",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Megan Moser and Johanna D. Moore. 1993. Inves- tigating discourse relations. In Proceedings of the A CL Workshop on Intentionalit!/and Stureture in Discourse Relations, pages 94-98.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Intention-based segmentation: Human reliability and correlation with linguistic cues",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Rebecca",
"middle": [],
"last": "Passonneau",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Diane",
"middle": [],
"last": "Litmus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 81st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rebecca Passonneau and Diane Litmus. 1993. Intention-based segmentation: Human reliability and correlation with linguistic cues. In Proceed- ings of the 81st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "A Grammar of Con",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Randolph",
"middle": [],
"last": "Quirk",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1972,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Randolph Quirk et al. 1972. A Grammar of Con. temporary English. Longman, London.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Customizing RST for the automatic production of technical manuals",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dietmar",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roesner",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Manfred",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stede",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Sizth International Workshop on Natural Language Generation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "199--215",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dietmar Roesner and Manfred Stede. 1992. Cus- tomizing RST for the automatic production of technical manuals. In R. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rosner, and O. Stock, editors, Proceedings of the Sizth International Workshop on Natu- ral Language Generation, pages 199-215, Berlin. Springer-Verlag.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Deborah",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schiffrin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Deborah Schiffrin. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cam- bridge University Press, New York.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Getting the message across in RST-based text generation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Donia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Scott",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Clarisse Sieckenius De",
"middle": [],
"last": "Souza",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Current Research in Natural Language Generation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "47--73",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Donia Scott and Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza. 1990. Getting the message across in RST-based text generation. In R. Dale, C. Mellish, and M. Zock, editors, Current Research in Natural Language Generation, pages 47-73. Academic Press, New York.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Expressing local rhetorical relations in instructional text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Keith",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vander Linden",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Susanna",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cumming",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [],
"last": "Martin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Keith Vander Linden, Susanna Cumming, and James Martin. 1992. Expressing local rhetorical relations in instructional text. Technical Report 92-43, University of Colorado. To appear in Com- putational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "A predictive approach for the generation of rhetorical devices",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ingrid",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zukerman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Computational Intelligence",
"volume": "6",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "25--40",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ingrid Zukerman. 1990. A predictive approach for the generation of rhetorical devices. Computa- tional Intelligence, 6(1):25-40.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"text": "An example tutor explanation"
},
"FIGREF1": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"text": "The RDA analysis of the example in Figure 1 categorization of core:contributor relations will not be assessed here."
}
}
}
} |