File size: 107,781 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 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 | {
"paper_id": "P97-1013",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:15:26.294248Z"
},
"title": "The Rhetorical Parsing of Natural Language Texts",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marcu",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Toronto",
"location": {
"postCode": "M5S 3G4",
"settlement": "Toronto",
"region": "Ontario Canada"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We derive the rhetorical structures of texts by means of two new, surface-form-based algorithms: one that identifies discourse usages of cue phrases and breaks sentences into clauses, and one that produces valid rhetorical structure trees for unrestricted natural language texts. The algorithms use information that was derived from a corpus analysis of cue phrases.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P97-1013",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We derive the rhetorical structures of texts by means of two new, surface-form-based algorithms: one that identifies discourse usages of cue phrases and breaks sentences into clauses, and one that produces valid rhetorical structure trees for unrestricted natural language texts. The algorithms use information that was derived from a corpus analysis of cue phrases.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Researchers of natural language have repeatedly acknowledged that texts are not just a sequence of words nor even a sequence of clauses and sentences. However, despite the impressive number of discourse-related theories that have been proposed so far, there have emerged no algorithms capable of deriving the discourse structure of an unrestricted text. On one hand, efforts such as those described by Asher (1993) , Lascarides, Asher, and Oberlander (1992) , Kamp and Reyle (1993) , Grover et al. (1994) , and Pr0st, Scha, and van den Berg (1994) take the position that discourse structures can be built only in conjunction with fully specified clause and sentence structures. And Hobbs's theory (1990) assumes that sophisticated knowledge bases and inference mechanisms are needed for determining the relations between discourse units. Despite the formal elegance of these approaches, they are very domain dependent and, therefore, unable to handle more than a few restricted exampies. On the other hand, although the theories described by Grosz and Sidner (1986) , Polanyi (1988) , and Mann and Thompson (1988) are successfully applied manually, they ,are too informal to support an automatic approach to discourse analysis.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 402,
"end": 414,
"text": "Asher (1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 417,
"end": 457,
"text": "Lascarides, Asher, and Oberlander (1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 460,
"end": 481,
"text": "Kamp and Reyle (1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 484,
"end": 504,
"text": "Grover et al. (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 511,
"end": 547,
"text": "Pr0st, Scha, and van den Berg (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 678,
"end": 703,
"text": "And Hobbs's theory (1990)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1042,
"end": 1065,
"text": "Grosz and Sidner (1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 1068,
"end": 1082,
"text": "Polanyi (1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 1085,
"end": 1113,
"text": "and Mann and Thompson (1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In contrast with this previous work, the rhetorical parser that we present builds discourse trees for unrestricted texts. We first discuss the key concepts on which our approach relies (section 2) and the corpus analysis (section 3) that provides the empirical data for our rhetorical parsing algorithm. We discuss then an algorithm that recognizes discourse usages of cue phrases and that determines clause boundaries within sentences. Lastly, we present the rhetorical parser and an example of its operation (section 4).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The mathematical foundations of the rhetorical parsing algorithm rely on a first-order formalization of valid text structures (Marcu, 1997) . The assumptions of the formalization are the following. 1. The elementary units of complex text structures are non-overlapping spans of text. 2. Rhetorical, coherence, and cohesive relations hold between textual units of various sizes. 3. Relations can be partitioned into two classes: paratactic and hypotactic. Paratactic relations are those that hold between spans of equal importance. Hypotactic relations are those that hold between a span that is essential for the writer's purpose, i.e., a nucleus, and a span that increases the understanding of the nucleus but is not essential for the writer's purpose, i.e., a satellite. 4. The abstract structure of most texts is a binary, tree-like structure. 5. If a relation holds between two textual spans of the tree structure of a text, that relation also holds between the most important units of the constituent subspans. The most important units of a textual span are determined recursively: they correspond to the most important units of the immediate subspans when the relation that holds between these subspans is paratactic, and to the most important units of the nucleus subspan when the relation that holds between the immediate subspans is hypotactic.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 139,
"text": "(Marcu, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Foundation",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In our previous work (Marcu, 1996) , we presented a complete axiomatization of these principles in the context of Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson, 1988) and we described an algorithm that, starting from the set of textual units that make up a text and the set of elementary rhetorical relations that hold between these units, can derive all the valid discourse trees of that text. Consequently, if one is to build discourse trees for unrestricted texts, the problems that remain to be solved are the automatic determination of the textual units and the rhetorical relations that hold between them. In this paper, we show how one can find and exploit approximate solutions for both of these problems by capitalizing on the occurrences of certain lexicogrammatical constructs. Such constructs can include tense and aspect (Moens and Steedman, 1988; Webber, 1988; Lascarides and Asher, 1993) , certain patterns of pronominalization and anaphoric usages (Sidner, 1981; Grosz and Sidner, 1986; Sumita et al., 1992; Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein, 1995) ,/t-clefts (Delin and Oberlander, 1992) , and discourse markers or cue phrases (Ballard, Conrad, and Longacre, 1971; Halliday and Hasan, 1976; Van Dijk, 1979; Longacre, 1983; Grosz and Sidner, 1986; Schiffrin, 1987; Cohen, 1987; Redeker, 1990; Sanders, Spooren, and Noordman, 1992; Hirschberg and Litman, 1993; Knott, 1995; Fraser, 1996; Moser and Moore, 1997 ). In the work described here, we investigate how far we can get by focusing our attention only on discourse markers and lexicogrammatical constructs that can be detected by a shallow analysis of natural language texts.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 34,
"text": "(Marcu, 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 167,
"text": "(Mann and Thompson, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 835,
"end": 861,
"text": "(Moens and Steedman, 1988;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 862,
"end": 875,
"text": "Webber, 1988;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF36"
},
{
"start": 876,
"end": 903,
"text": "Lascarides and Asher, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 965,
"end": 979,
"text": "(Sidner, 1981;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
},
{
"start": 980,
"end": 1003,
"text": "Grosz and Sidner, 1986;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 1004,
"end": 1024,
"text": "Sumita et al., 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
},
{
"start": 1025,
"end": 1059,
"text": "Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 1071,
"end": 1099,
"text": "(Delin and Oberlander, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 1139,
"end": 1176,
"text": "(Ballard, Conrad, and Longacre, 1971;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 1177,
"end": 1202,
"text": "Halliday and Hasan, 1976;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1203,
"end": 1218,
"text": "Van Dijk, 1979;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF35"
},
{
"start": 1219,
"end": 1234,
"text": "Longacre, 1983;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 1235,
"end": 1258,
"text": "Grosz and Sidner, 1986;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 1259,
"end": 1275,
"text": "Schiffrin, 1987;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
},
{
"start": 1276,
"end": 1288,
"text": "Cohen, 1987;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 1289,
"end": 1303,
"text": "Redeker, 1990;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 1304,
"end": 1341,
"text": "Sanders, Spooren, and Noordman, 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
},
{
"start": 1342,
"end": 1370,
"text": "Hirschberg and Litman, 1993;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 1371,
"end": 1383,
"text": "Knott, 1995;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 1384,
"end": 1397,
"text": "Fraser, 1996;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 1398,
"end": 1419,
"text": "Moser and Moore, 1997",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Foundation",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The intuition behind our choice relies on the following facts:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Foundation",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Psycholinguistic and other empirical research (Kintsch, 1977; Schiffrin, 1987; Segal, Duchan, and Scott, 1991; Cahn, 1992; Sanders, Spooren, and Noordman, 1992; Hirschberg and Litman, 1993; Knott, 1995; Costermans and Fayol, 1997) has shown that discourse markers are consistently used by human subjects both as cohesive ties between adjacent clauses and as \"macroconnectors\" between larger textual units. Therefore, we can use them as rhetorical indicators at any of the following levels: clause, sentence, paragraph, and text.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 63,
"text": "(Kintsch, 1977;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 80,
"text": "Schiffrin, 1987;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 112,
"text": "Segal, Duchan, and Scott, 1991;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 124,
"text": "Cahn, 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 162,
"text": "Sanders, Spooren, and Noordman, 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 191,
"text": "Hirschberg and Litman, 1993;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 204,
"text": "Knott, 1995;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 232,
"text": "Costermans and Fayol, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Foundation",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 The number of discourse markers in a typical text --approximately one marker for every two clauses (Redeker, 1990 ) --is sufficiently large to enable the derivation of rich rhetorical structures for texts.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 115,
"text": "(Redeker, 1990",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Foundation",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Discourse markers are used in a manner that is consistent with the semantics and pragmatics of the discourse segments that they relate. In other words, we assume that the texts that we process are well-formed from a discourse perspective, much as researchers in sentence parsing assume that they are well-formed from a syntactic perspective. As a consequence, we assume that one can bootstrap the full syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic analysis of the clauses that make up a text and still end up with a reliable discourse structure for that text.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Foundation",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Given the above discussion, the immediate objection that one can raise is that discourse markers are doubly ambiguous: in some cases, their use is only sentential, i.e., they make a semantic contribution to the interpretation of a clause; and even in the cases where markers have a discourse usage, they are ambiguous with respect to the rhetorical relations that they mark and the sizes of the textual spans that they connect. We address now each of these objections in turn.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Foundation",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases (Hirschberg and Litman, 1993) have shown that just by considering the orthographic environment in which a discourse marker occurs, one can distinguish between sentential and discourse usages in about 80% of cases. We have taken Hirschberg and Litman's research one step further and designed a comprehensive corpus analysis that enabled us to improve their results and coverage. The method, procedure, and results of our corpus analysis are discussed in section 3.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 84,
"text": "(Hirschberg and Litman, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentential and discourse usages of cue phrases.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Discourse markers are ambiguous with respect to the rhetorical relations that they mark and the sizes of the units that they connect. When we began this research, no empirical data supported the extent to which this ambiguity characterizes natural language texts. To better understand this problem, the corpus analysis described in section 3 was designed so as to also provide information about the types of rhetorical relations, rhetorical statuses (nucleus or satellite), and sizes of textual spans that each marker can indicate. We knew from the beginning that it would be impossible to predict exactly the types of relations and the sizes of the spans that a given cue marks. However, given that the structure that we are trying to build is highly constrained, such a prediction proved to be unnecessary: the overall constraints on the structure of discourse that we enumerated in the beginning of this section cancel out most of the configurations of elementary constraints that do not yield correct discourse trees.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentential and discourse usages of cue phrases.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Consider, for example, the following text:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentential and discourse usages of cue phrases.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(1) [Although discourse markers are ambiguous, l]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentential and discourse usages of cue phrases.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[one can use them to build discourse trees for unrestricted texts: 2] [this will lead to many new applications in natural language processing)]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentential and discourse usages of cue phrases.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For the sake of the argument, assume that we are able to break text (1) into textual units as labelled above and that we are interested now in finding rhetorical relations between these units. Assume now that we can infer that Although marks a CONCESSIVE relation between satellite 1 and nucleus either 2 or 3, and the colon. all ELABORATION between satellite 3 and nucleus either 1 or 2. If we use the convention that hypotactic relations are represented as first-order predicates having the form rhet_rel (NAME, satellite, nucleus) and that paratactic relations are represented as predicates having the form rhet_rel(NAME, nucleust, nucleus2), a correct representation for text (1) is then the set of two disjunctions given in (2):",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 507,
"end": 533,
"text": "(NAME, satellite, nucleus)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentential and discourse usages of cue phrases.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "rhet_rel(CONCESSlON, 1,2) V rhet_rel( CONCESSION, 1,3) (2) rhet_rel(ELABORATION, 3, 1) V rhet_rel(ELABORATION, 3, 2)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentential and discourse usages of cue phrases.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Despite the ambiguity of the relations, the overall rhetorical structure constraints will associate only one discourse tree with text (1), namely the tree given in figure 1: any discourse tree configuration that uses relations rhet_rel(CONCESSlON, 1,3) and rhet-reI(ELABORATION, 3, 1) will be ruled out. For example, relation rhet_reI(ELABORATION, 3, 1) will be ruled out because unit I is not an important unit for span [1, 2] and, as mentioned at the beginning of this section, a rhetorical relation that holds between two spans of a valid text structure must also hold between their most important units: the important unit of span [1,2] is unit 2, i.e., the nucleus of the relation rhet_rel(CONCESSlON, 1,2).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 421,
"end": 424,
"text": "[1,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 425,
"end": 427,
"text": "2]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentential and discourse usages of cue phrases.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "3 A corpus analysis of discourse markers",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentential and discourse usages of cue phrases.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We used previous work on cue phrases (Halliday and Hasan, 1976; Grosz and Sidner, 1986; Martin, 1992; Hirschberg and Litman, 1993; Knott, 1995; Fraser, 1996) to create an initial set of more than 450 potential discourse markers. For each potential discourse marker, we then used an automatic procedure that extracted from the Brown corpus a set of text fragments. Each text fragment contained a \"window\" of approximately 200 words and an emphasized occurrence of a marker. On average, we randomly selected approximately 19 text fragments per marker, having few texts for the markers that do not occur very often in the corpus and up to 60 text fragments for markers such as and, which we considered to be highly ambiguous. Overall, we randomly selected more than 7900 texts.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 63,
"text": "(Halliday and Hasan, 1976;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 87,
"text": "Grosz and Sidner, 1986;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 101,
"text": "Martin, 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 130,
"text": "Hirschberg and Litman, 1993;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 143,
"text": "Knott, 1995;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 157,
"text": "Fraser, 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Materials",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "All the text fragments associated with a potential cue phrase were paired with a set of slots in which an analyst described the following. 1. The orthographic environment that characterizes the usage of the potential discourse marker. This included occurrences of periods, commas, colons, semicolons, etc. 2. The type of usage: Sentential, Discourse, or Both. 3. The position of the marker in the textual unit to which it belonged: Beginning, Medial, or End. 4. The right boundary of the textual unit associated with the marker. 5. The relative position of the textual unit that the unit containing the marker was connected to: Before or After. 6. The rhetorical relations that the cue phrase signaled. 7. The textual types of the units connected by the discourse marker: from Clause to Multiple_Paragraph. 8. The rhetorical status of each textual unit involved in the relation: Nucleus or Satellite. The algorithms described in this paper rely on the results derived from the analysis of 1600 of the 7900 text fragments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Materials",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "After the slots for each text fragment were filled, the results were automatically exported into a relational database.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Procedure",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "The database was then examined semiautomatically with the purpose of deriving procedures that a shallow analyzer could use to identify discourse usages of cue phrases, break sentences into clauses, and hypothesize rhetorical relations between textual units. For each discourse usage of a cue phrase, we derived the following:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Procedure",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 A regular expression that contains an unambiguous cue phrase instantiation and its orthographic environment. A cue phrase is assigned a regular expression if, in the corpus, it has a discourse usage in most of its occurrences and if a shallow analyzer can detect it and the boundaries of the textual units that it connects. For example, the regular expression \" [,] although\" identifies such a discourse usage.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 364,
"end": 367,
"text": "[,]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Procedure",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 A procedure that can be used by a shallow analyzer to determine the boundaries of the textual unit to which the cue phrase belongs. For example, the procedure associated with \" [,] although\" instructs the analyzer that the textual unit that pertains to this cue phrase starts at the marker and ends at the end of the sentence or at a position to be determined by the procedure associated with the subsequent discourse marker that occurs in that sentence.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 179,
"end": 182,
"text": "[,]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Procedure",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 A procedure that can be used by a shallow analyzer to hypothesize the sizes of the textual units that the cue phrase relates and the rhetorical relations that may hold between these units. For example, the procedure associated with \"[,] although\" will hypothesize that there exists a CON-CESSION between the clause to which it belongs and the clause(s) that went before in the same sentence. For most markers this procedure makes disjunctive hypotheses of the kind shown in (2) above.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Procedure",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "At the time of writing, we have identified 1253 occurrences of cue phrases that exhibit discourse usages and associated with each of them procedures that instruct a shallow analyzer how the surrounding text should be broken into textual units. This information is used by an algorithm that concurrently identifies discourse usages of cue phrases and determines the clauses that a text is made of. The algorithm examines a text sentence by sentence and determines a set of potential discourse markers that occur in each sentence, It then applies left to fight the procedures that are associated with each potential marker. These procedures have the following possible effects:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 They can cause an immediate breaking of the current sentence into clauses. For example, when an \" [,] although\" marker is found, a new clause, whose right boundary is just before the occurrence of the marker, is created. The algorithm is then recursively applied on the text that is found between the occurrence of\" [,] although\" and the end of the sentence.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 103,
"text": "[,]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 321,
"text": "[,]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 They can cause the setting of a flag. For example, when an \"Although \" marker is found, a flag is set to instruct the analyzer to break the current sentence at the first occurrence of a comma.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 They can cause a cue phrase to be identified as having a discourse usage. For example, when the cue phrase \"Although\" is identified, it is also assigned a discourse usage. The decision of whether a cue phrase is considered to have a discourse usage is sometimes based on the context in which that phrase occurs, i.e., it depends on the occurrence of other cue phrases. For example, an \"and\" will not be assigned a discourse usage in most of the cases; however, when it occurs in conjunction with \"although\", i.e., \"and although\", it will be assigned such a role.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "The most important criterion for using a cue phrase in the marker identification procedure is that the cue phrase (together with its orthographic neighborhood) is used as a discourse marker in at least 90% of the examples that were extracted from the corpus. The enforcement of this criterion reduces on one hand the recall of the discourse markers that can be detected, but on the other hand, increases significantly the precision. We chose this deliberately because, during the corpus analysis, we noticed that most of the markers that connect large textual units can be identified by a shallow analyzer. In fact, the discourse marker that is responsible for most of our algorithm recall failures is and. Since a shallow analyzer cannot identify with sufficient precision whether an occurrence of and has a discourse or a sentential usage, most of its occurrences are therefore ignored. It is true that, in this way, the discourse structures that we build lose some potential finer granularity, but fortunately, from a rhetorical analysis perspective, the loss has insignificant global repercussions: the vast majority of the relations that we miss due to recall failures of and are JOINT and SEQUENCE relations that hold between adjacent clauses.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Evaluation. To evaluate our algorithm, we randomly selected three texts, each belonging to a different genre:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "1. an expository text of 5036 words from Scientific American;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "2. a magazine article of 1588 words from 7~me;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "3. a narration of 583 words from the Brown Corpus.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Three independent judges, graduate students in computational linguistics, broke the texts into clauses. The judges were given no instructions about the criteria that they had to apply in order to determine the clause boundaries; rather, they were supposed to rely on their intuition and preferred definition of clause. The locations in texts that were labelled as clause boundaries by at least two of the three judges were considered to be \"valid clause boundaries\". We used the valid clause boundaries assigned by judges as indicators of discourse usages of cue phrases and we determined manually the cue phrases that signalled a discourse relation. For example, if an \"and\" was used in a sentence and if the judges agreed that a clause boundary existed just before the \"and\", we assigned that \"and\" a discourse usage. Otherwise, we assigned it a sentential usage. Hence, we manually determined all discourse usages of cue phrases and all discourse boundaries between elementary units. We then applied our marker and clause identification algorithm on the same texts. Our algorithm found 80.8% of the discourse markers with a precision of 89.5% (see INPUT: a text T.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "1. Determine the set D of all discourse markers and the set Ur of elementary textual units in T. 2. Hypothesize a set of relations R between the elements of Ur. 3. Use a constraint satisfaction procedure to determine all the discourse trees of T. 4. Assign a weight to each of the discourse trees and determine the tree(s) with maximal weight. 4 Building up discourse trees",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "The rhetorical parsing algorithm is outlined in figure 2.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The rhetorical parsing algorithm",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "In the first step, the marker and clause identification algorithm is applied. Once the textual units are determined, the rhetorical parser uses the procedures derived from the corpus analysis to hypothesize rhetorical relations between the textual units. A constraint-satisfaction procedure similar to that described in (Marcu, 1996) then determines all the valid discourse trees (see (Marcu, 1997) for details). The rhetorical parsing algorithm has been fully implemented in C++. Discourse is ambiguous the same way sentences are: more than one discourse structure is usually produced for a text. In our experiments, we noticed, at least for English, that the \"best\" discourse trees are usually those that are skewed to the right. We believe that the explanation of this observation is that text processing is, essentially, a left-to-rightprocess. Usually, people write texts so that the most important ideas go first, both at the paragraph and at the text level) The more text writers add, the more they elaborate on the text that went before: as a consequence, incremental discourse building consists mostly of expansion of the right branches. In order to deal with the ambiguity of discourse, the rhetorical parser computes a weight for each valid discourse tree and retains only those that are maximal. The weight function reflects how skewed to the right a tree is.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 320,
"end": 333,
"text": "(Marcu, 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 385,
"end": 398,
"text": "(Marcu, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The rhetorical parsing algorithm",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Consider the following text from the November 1996 issue of Scientific American (3). The words in italics denote the discourse markers, the square brackets denote l In fact, journalists axe trained to employ this \"pyramid\" approach to writing consciously (Cumming and McKercher, 1994) . the boundaries of elementary textual units, and the curly brackets denote the boundaries of parenthetical textual units that were determined by the rhetorical parser (see Marcu (1997) [Yet even on the summer pole, { where the sun remains in the sky all day long,} temperatures never warm enough to melt frozen water) \u00b0]",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 255,
"end": 284,
"text": "(Cumming and McKercher, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 458,
"end": 470,
"text": "Marcu (1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The rhetorical parser in operation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Since parenthetical information is related only to the elementary unit that it belongs to, we do not assign it an elementary textual unit status. Such an assignment will only create problems at the formal level as well, because then discourse structures can no longer be represented as binary trees.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The rhetorical parser in operation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "On the basis of the data derived from the corpus ,analysis, the algorithm hypothesizes the following set of relations between the textual units:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The rhetorical parser in operation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "rhet_rel(JUSTIFICATION, 1,2) V rhet..rel(CONDITION, 1,2) rhet_rel(ELABORATION, 3, [1,2]) V rhet_reI(ELABORATION, [3, 6], [ 1,2]) rhet_rel(El_ABOgATlON, [4, 6], 3) V rhet_ret(ELABOr~YlON, [4, 6], [1, 3]) rhet_rel(CONTRAST, 4, 5) (4)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The rhetorical parser in operation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "rhet_rel (EVIDENCE, 6, 5) rhet_reI (ELABORATION, [7, 10] , [1, 6] ) rhet_rel (CONCESSION, 7, 8) rhet_rel (EXAMPLE, 9, [7, 8] ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 19,
"text": "(EVIDENCE,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 22,
"text": "6,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 25,
"text": "5)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 48,
"text": "(ELABORATION,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 52,
"text": "[7,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 56,
"text": "10]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 62,
"text": "[1,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 65,
"text": "6]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 89,
"text": "(CONCESSION,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 92,
"text": "7,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 95,
"text": "8)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 114,
"text": "(EXAMPLE,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 117,
"text": "9,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 121,
"text": "[7,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 124,
"text": "8]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The rhetorical parser in operation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": ") V rhet_rel(EXAMPLE, [9, 10], [7, 8]) rhet_rel(ANTITHESlS, 9, 10) V",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The rhetorical parser in operation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "rhet_rel(ANTITHESlS, [7, 9] , 10)",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 24,
"text": "[7,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 27,
"text": "9]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The rhetorical parser in operation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "The algorithm then determines all the valid discourse trees that can be built for elementary units 1 to 10, given the constraints in (4). In this case, the algorithm constructs 8 different trees. The trees are ordered according to their weights. The \"best\" tree for text (3) has weight 3 and is fully represented in figure 3. The PostScript file corresponding to figure 3 was automatically generated by .'(wth) . '~,~,~o,:, .\" ~th.g i~ : a back-end ,algorithm that uses \"dot\", a preprocessor for drawing directed graphs. The convention that we use is that nuclei are surrounded by solid boxes and satellites by dotted boxes; the links between a node and the subordinate nucleus or nuclei are represented by solid arrows, and the links between a node and the subordinate satellites by dotted lines. The occurrences of parenthetical information are marked in the text by a-P-and a unique subordinate satellite that contains the parenthetical information.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The rhetorical parser in operation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "We believe that there are two ways to evaluate the correctness of the discourse trees that an automatic process builds. One way is to compare the automatically derived trees with trees that have been built manually. Another way is to evaluate the impact that the discourse trees that we derive automatically have on the accuracy of other natural language processing tasks, such as anaphora resolution, intention recognition, or text summarization. In this paper, we describe evaluations that follow both these avenues. Unfortunately, the linguistic community has not yet built a corpus of discourse trees against which our rhetorical parser can be evaluated with the effectiveness that traditional parsers are. To circumvent this problem, two analysts manually built the discourse trees for five texts that ranged from 161 to 725 words. Although there were some differences with respect to the names of the relations that the analysts used, the agreement with respect to the status assigned to various units (nuclei and satellites) and the overall shapes of the trees was significant.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and evaluation",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In order to measure this agreement we associated an importance score to each textual unit in a tree and computed the Spearman correlation coefficients between the importance scores derived from the discourse trees built by each analyst? The Spearman correlation coefficient 2The Spearman rank correlation coefficient is an alternative to the usual correlation coefficient. It is based on the ranks of the data, and not on the data itself, and so is resistant to outliers. The null hypothesis tested by Spearman is that two variables between the ranks assigned for each textual unit on the bases of the discourse trees built by the two analysts was very high: 0.798, atp < 0.0001 level of significance. The differences between the two analysts came mainly from their interpretations of two of the texts: the discourse trees of one analyst mirrored the paragraph structure of the texts, while the discourse trees of the other mirrored a logical organization of the text, which that analyst believed to be important.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and evaluation",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The Spearman correlation coefficients with respect to the importance of textual units between the discourse trees built by our program and those built by each analyst were 0.480, p < 0.0001 and 0.449, p < 0.0001. These lower correlation values were due to the differences in the overall shape of the trees and to the fact that the granularity of the discourse trees built by the program was not as fine as that of the trees built by the analysts.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and evaluation",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Besides directly comparing the trees built by the program with those built by analysts, we also evaluated the impact that our trees could have on the task of summarizing text. A summarization program that uses the rhetorical parser described here recalled 66% of the sentences considered important by 13 judges in the same five texts, with a precision of 68%. In contrast, a random procedure recalled, on average, only 38.4% of the sentences considered important by the judges, with a precision of 38.4%. And the Microsoft Office 97 summarizer recalled 41% of the important sentences with a precision of 39%. We discuss at length the experiments from which the data presented above was derived in (Marcu, 1997) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 697,
"end": 710,
"text": "(Marcu, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and evaluation",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The rhetorical parser presented in this paper uses only the structural constraints that were enumerated in section 2. Co-relational constraints, focus, theme, anaphoric links, and other syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors do not yet play a role in our system, but we nevertheless expect them to reduce the number of valid discourse trees that can be associated with a text. We also expect that other robust methods for determining coherence relations between textual units, such as those described by Harabagiu and Moldovan (1995) , will improve the accuracy of the routines that hypothesize the rhetorical relations that hold between adjacent units.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 508,
"end": 537,
"text": "Harabagiu and Moldovan (1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and evaluation",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We are not aware of the existence of any other rhetorical parser for English. However, Sumita et ,'d. (1992) report on a discourse analyzer for Japanese. Even if one ignores some computational \"bonuses\" that can be easily exploited by a Japanese discourse analyzer (such as co-reference and topic identification), there are still some key differences between Sumita's work and ours. Particularly important is the fact that the theoretical foundations of Sumita et al.'s analyzer do not seem to be able to accommodate the ambiguity of discourse markers: in their axe independent of each other, against the alternative hypothesis that the rank of a variable is correlated with the rank of another variable. The value of the statistic ranges from -1, indicating that high ranks of one variable occur with low ranks of the other variable, through 0, indicating no correlation between tile variables, to + 1, indicating that high ranks of one variable occur with high ranks of the other variable. system, discourse markers are considered unambiguous with respect to the relations that they signal. In contrast, our system uses a mathematical model in which this ambiguity is acknowledged and appropriately treated. Also, the discourse trees that we build are very constrained structures (see section 2): as a consequence, we do not overgenerate invalid trees as Sumita et al. do. Furthermore, we use only surface-based methods for determining the markers and textual units and use clauses as the minimal units of the discourse trees. In contrast, Sumita et al. use deep syntactic and semantic processing techniques for determining the markers and the textual units and use sentences as minimal units in the discourse structures that they build. A detailed comparison of our work with Sumita et al.'s and others' work is given in (Marcu, 1997) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 108,
"text": "Sumita et ,'d. (1992)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1824,
"end": 1837,
"text": "(Marcu, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and evaluation",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We introduced the notion of rhetorical parsing, i.e., the process through which natural language texts are automatically mapped into discourse trees. In order to make rhetorical parsing work, we improved previous algorithms for cue phrase disambiguation, and proposed new algorithms for determining the elementary textual units and for computing the valid discourse trees of a text. The solution that we described is both general and robust.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "5"
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "Acknowledgements. This research would have not been possible without the help of Graeme Hirst; there are no fight words to thank him for it. I am grateful to Melanie Baljko, Phil Edmonds, and Steve Green for their help with the corpus analysis. This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "acknowledgement",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nicholas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Asher",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "The deep and surface grammar of interclausal relations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ballard",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Conrad",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Longacre",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1971,
"venue": "Foundations of language",
"volume": "4",
"issue": "",
"pages": "70--118",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ballard, D. Lee, Robert Conrad, and Robert E. Longacre. 1971. The deep and surface grammar of interclausal relations. Foundations of language, 4:70-118.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "An investigation into the correlation of cue phrases, unfilled pauses and the structuring of spoken discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Janet",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cahn",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of the IRCS Workshop on Prosody in Natural Speech",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "19--30",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Cahn, Janet. 1992. An investigation into the correlation of cue phrases, unfilled pauses and the structuring of spoken discourse. In Proceedings of the IRCS Work- shop on Prosody in Natural Speech, pages 19-30.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Analyzing the structure of argumentative discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Robin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cohen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "13",
"issue": "1-2",
"pages": "11--24",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Cohen, Robin. 1987. Analyzing the structure of argu- mentative discourse. Computational Linguistics, 13 (1- 2): 11-24, January-June.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Processing lnterclausal Relationships. Studies in the Production and Comprehension of Text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jean",
"middle": [],
"last": "Costermans",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fayol",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Costermans, Jean and Michel Fayol. 1997. Processing lnterclausal Relationships. Studies in the Production and Comprehension of Text. Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciates, Publishers.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "The Canadian Reporter: News writing and reporting",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Carmen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cumming",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Catherine",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mckercher",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Cumming, Carmen and Catherine McKercher. 1994. The Canadian Reporter: News writing and reporting. Hartcourt Brace.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Aspectswitching and subordination: the role of/t-clefts in discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Judy",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Delin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jon",
"middle": [],
"last": "Oberlander",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-92)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "281--287",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Delin, Judy L. and Jon Oberlander. 1992. Aspect- switching and subordination: the role of/t-clefts in dis- course. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING- 92), pages 281-287, Nantes, France, August 23-28.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Pragmatic markers",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bruce",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fraser",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Pragmatics",
"volume": "6",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "167--190",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2): 167-190.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Barbara",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Aravind",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Scott",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weinstein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "21",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "203--226",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Grosz, Barbara J., Aravind K. Joshi, and Scott Weinstein. 1995. Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21 (2):203-226, June.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Barbara",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Candace",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Sidner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "12",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "175--204",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Grosz, Barbara J. and Candace L. Sidner. 1986. Atten- tion, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Compu- tational Linguistics, 12(3): 175-204, July-September.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Priority union and generalization in discourse grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Claire",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grover",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Chris",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brew",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Suresh",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manandhar",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Marc",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moens",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for ComputationalLinguistics (ACL-94)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "17--24",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Grover, Claire, Chris Brew, Suresh Manandhar, and Marc Moens. 1994. Priority union and generalization in dis- course grammars. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for ComputationalLinguis- tics (ACL-94), pages 17-24, Las Cruces, June 27-30.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "A marker-propagation algorithm for text coherence",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Sanda",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Harabagiu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [
"I"
],
"last": "Moldovan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "Working Notes of the Workshop on Parallel Processing in Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "76--86",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Harabagiu, Sanda M. and Dan I. Moldovan. 1995. A marker-propagation algorithm for text coherence. In Working Notes of the Workshop on Parallel Process- ing in Artificial Intelligence, pages 76-86, Montreal, Canada, August.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"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": "Hirschberg, Julia and Diane Litman. 1993. Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Compu- tational Linguistics, 19(3):501-530.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Literature and Cognition. CSLI Lecture Notes Number 21",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jerry",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Hobbs",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hobbs, Jerry R. 1990. Literature and Cognition. CSLI Lecture Notes Number 21.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to ModelTheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hand",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kamp",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Uwe",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reyle",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy",
"volume": "42",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kamp, Hand and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to ModelTheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, Boston, Dordrecht. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Volume 42.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "On comprehending stories",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Walter",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kintsch",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1977,
"venue": "Cognitive processes in comprehension",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kintsch, Walter. 1977. On comprehending stories. In Marcel Just and Patricia Carpenter, editors, Cognitive processes in comprehension. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "A Data-Driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alistair",
"middle": [],
"last": "Knott",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Knott, Alistair. 1995. A Data-Driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Temporal interpretation, discourse relations, and common sense entailment",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alex",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lascarides",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nicholas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Asher",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy",
"volume": "16",
"issue": "5",
"pages": "437--493",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lascarides, Alex and Nicholas Asher. 1993. Temporal interpretation, discourse relations, and common sense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(5):437- 493.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Inferring discourse relations in context",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alex",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lascarides",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nicholas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Asher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jon",
"middle": [],
"last": "Oberlander",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-92)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--8",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lascarides, Alex, Nicholas Asher, and Jon Oberlander. 1992. Inferring discourse relations in context. In Pro- ceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-92), pages 1-8.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "The Grammar of Discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Longacre",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Longacre, Robert E. 1983. The Grammar of Discourse. Plenum Press, New York.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "William",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Mann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sandra",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Thompson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Text",
"volume": "8",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "243--281",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mann, William C. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional the- ory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243-281.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Building up rhetorical structure trees",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marcu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial intelligence (AAA1-96 )",
"volume": "2",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1069--1074",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marcu, Daniel. 1996. Building up rhetorical structure trees. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Con- ference on Artificial intelligence (AAA1-96 ), volume 2, pages 1069-1074, Portland, Oregon, August 4-8,.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "The rhetorical parsing, summarization, and generation of natural language texts",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marcu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marcu, Daniel. 1997. The rhetorical parsing, sum- marization, and generation of natural language texts. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Uni- versity of Toronto, Forthcoming.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "English Text. System and Structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Martin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Martin, James R. 1992. English Text. System and Struc- ture. John Benjamin Publishing Company, Philadel- phia/Amsterdam.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Temporal ontology and temporal reference",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Marc",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moens",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "",
"volume": "14",
"issue": "",
"pages": "15--28",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Moens, Marc and Mark Steedman. 1988. Temporal on- tology and temporal reference. Computational Lin- guistics, 14(2): 15-28.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "On the correlation of cues with discourse structure: Results from a corpus study",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Megan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moser",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Johanna",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Moore",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Moser, Megan and Johanna D. Moore. 1997. On the correlation of cues with discourse structure: Results from a corpus study. Submitted for publication.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "A formal model of the structure of discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Livia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Polanyi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Journal of Pragmatics",
"volume": "12",
"issue": "",
"pages": "601--638",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Polanyi, Livia. 1988. A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 12:601-638.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pr0st",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Scha",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van Den",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Berg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy",
"volume": "17",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "261--327",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Pr0st, H., R. Scha, and M. van den Berg. 1994. Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17(3):261-327, June.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse, structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Gisela",
"middle": [],
"last": "Redeker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Journal ofPragmatics",
"volume": "14",
"issue": "",
"pages": "367--381",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Redeker, Gisela 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse, structure. Journal ofPragmatics, 14:367- 381.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ted",
"middle": [
"J M"
],
"last": "Sanders",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Wilbert",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Leo",
"middle": [
"G M"
],
"last": "Spooren",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Noordman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Discourse Processes",
"volume": "15",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--35",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sanders, Ted J.M., Wilbert P.M. Spooren, and Leo G.M. Noordman. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15:1-35.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF31": {
"ref_id": "b31",
"title": "Discourse Markers",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Deborah",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schiffrin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cam- bridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF32": {
"ref_id": "b32",
"title": "The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults' interpretations of simple stories",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Erwin",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Segal",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Judith",
"middle": [
"F"
],
"last": "Duchan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Paula",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Scott",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Discourse Processes",
"volume": "14",
"issue": "",
"pages": "27--54",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Segal, Erwin M., Judith F. Duchan, and Paula J. Scott. 1991. The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults' interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes, 14:27-54.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF33": {
"ref_id": "b33",
"title": "Focusing for interpretation of pronouns",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Candace",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Sidner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "7",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "217--231",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sidner, Candace L. 1981. Focusing for interpretation of pronouns. Computational Linguistics, 7(4):217-231, October-December.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF34": {
"ref_id": "b34",
"title": "A discourse structure analyzer for Japanese text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sumita",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ono",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chino",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ukita",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Amano",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems",
"volume": "2",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1133--1140",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sumita, K., K. Ono, T. Chino, T. Ukita, and S. Amano. 1992. A discourse structure analyzer for Japanese text. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, volume 2, pages 1133-1140.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF35": {
"ref_id": "b35",
"title": "Pragmatic connectives",
"authors": [
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van Dijk",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Teun",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1979,
"venue": "Journal of Pragmatics",
"volume": "3",
"issue": "",
"pages": "447--456",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Van Dijk, Teun A. 1979. Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3:447-456.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF36": {
"ref_id": "b36",
"title": "Tense as discourse anaphor",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "14",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "61--72",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Webber, Bonnie L. 1988. Tense as discourse anaphor. Computational Linguistics, 14(2):61-72, June.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"num": null,
"text": "The discourse tree of text (1).",
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF1": {
"num": null,
"text": "Outline of the rhetorical parsing algorithm",
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF2": {
"num": null,
"text": "for details); the numbers associated with the square brackets are identification labels. (3) [With its distant orbit {--50 percent farther from the sun than Earth --}and slim atmospheric blanket, 1] [Mars experiences frigid weather conditions. 2] [Surface temperatures typically average about -60 degrees Celsius (-76 degrees Fahrenheit) at the equator and can dip to -123 degrees C near the poles)] [Only the midday sun at tropical latitudes is warm enough to thaw ice on occasion:] [but any liquid water formed in this way would evaporate almost instantly 5] [because of the low atmospheric pressure. 6 ] [Although the atmosphere holds a small amount of water, and water-ice clouds sometimes develop, 7] [most Martian weather involves blowing dust or carbon dioxide)] [Each winter,for example, a blizzard of frozen carbon dioxide rages over one pole, and a few meters of this dryice snow accumulate as previously frozen carbon dioxide evaporates from the opposite polar cap. 9]",
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF5": {
"num": null,
"text": "The discourse tree of maximal weight that can be associated with text (3).",
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"TABREF1": {
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Recall Precision</td></tr><tr><td>86.7%</td><td>89.2%</td></tr><tr><td>74.8%</td><td>91.8%</td></tr><tr><td>59.0%</td><td>97.3%</td></tr><tr><td>81.3%</td><td>90.3%</td></tr></table>",
"num": null,
"text": "Evaluation of the clause boundary identification procedure.",
"type_str": "table"
},
"TABREF2": {
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>), a result that outperforms Hirschberg and Lit-</td></tr><tr><td>man's (1993). The same algorithm identified correctly</td></tr><tr><td>81.3 % of the clause boundaries, with a precision of 90.3 %</td></tr><tr><td>(see table 2). We are not aware of any surface-form-based</td></tr><tr><td>algorithms that achieve similar results.</td></tr></table>",
"num": null,
"text": "",
"type_str": "table"
},
"TABREF3": {
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>/ ,</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>-....</td><td>%.</td></tr><tr><td/><td>\u2022 .'\u2022</td><td/><td/><td>/</td><td>\u2022</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>)</td></tr><tr><td/><td>\u2022</td><td/><td/><td>/</td><td>\"</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Each winter,</td></tr><tr><td>'</td><td/><td/><td>[</td><td>Surfaos</td><td>\u2022</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>ex~mxple, a bli~atd</td><td>\"N~</td></tr><tr><td>t Withil.ldhllant</td><td colspan=\"2\">Mm~exl~tien\u00a2~l</td><td colspan=\"2\">I tm~r,u~,s [ typically avenge [ about -60 dagl~ [ eclairs(-76</td><td>\" \"' .....</td><td colspan=\"3\">\u2022 --o-T :atmo~herehokk~a smallJ~ountof</td><td/><td>.... mostMattian I ~athetthvolve~ I</td><td>of ~,.. ~n &oxide rages over onepole, andafew melelnofthia</td><td>\\ [sumn~rpole-P-teml~raml~n~et ] ...... ; Yetevenonthe [</td></tr><tr><td>\u00b0tbit'P\" and sl~m a~osphcafiCblanket,</td><td colspan=\"2\">frigid weather oonthlion3.</td><td colspan=\"2\">[ dagr--Fahzenheit) ' I' g at tl~ eq ..... d</td><td colspan=\"2\">\"C\u00b0nmut \" 1 -i !,but):</td><td colspan=\"2\">water-icewal~r' andclouds</td><td/><td>] orcarbon dioxide. [ blowing du~</td><td>I accemnlttedl~'i ......... \u2022</td><td>fa~n gh to n~ltwat~.</td><td>t</td></tr><tr><td>(I) ...........</td><td>.</td><td>(2)</td><td colspan=\"2\">l [ \u00a2an dip to .123 [ aegr~s C n~ tl~</td><td>t ~\" / \\</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">~meti~esdevelop,. (7)</td><td>~</td><td>(8)</td><td>previotLslyfrozen carbon ,~oxi,t-</td><td>(10)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>poles. (3)</td><td>!</td><td colspan=\"3\">' ...........</td><td/><td>evaporates from the op pc,~li t.. polar cap. (9)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>'</td><td/><td>\\</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Only the midday sun</td><td>I</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>-50 ~rc~nt farther from the SUla I~lm Earth -</td><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">at Izopical latitudes b warm enough to thaw ice on ~on.</td><td colspan=\"2\">___ ~1 [ Evidence [ ( becanse )</td><td/><td/><td>. where the sun r~.~ml in the sky all day long,</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>. /</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">\"\"\u2022'.</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">but any liquid [ ....</td><td>: ......</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"6\">water formed in [ , because ofthe low</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">this way would [ \" atmo~het~c</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"4\">evaporate almo~ [ \u2022</td><td>ppe~sure.</td><td/></tr></table>",
"num": null,
"text": "........ ..'.. ........... !.'2 ............",
"type_str": "table"
}
}
}
} |