Discourse structure and anaphora in tutorial dialogues: An empirical analysis of two theories of the global focus

Research on Language and Computation

Volumn 4, Issue 2-3, 2006, Pages 229-257

  Poesio, M ^a   Patel, A ^a   Di Eugenio, B ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748782555     PISSN: 15707075     EISSN: 15728706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11168-006-9005-z     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Asher N., Lascarides A. (2004) The Logic of Conversation. Cambridge University Press.
2. Carletta J., Isard A., Isard S., Kowtko J., Doherty-Sneddon G., Anderson A. H. (1997) The Reliability of a Dialogue Structure Coding Scheme. Computational Linguistics, 23 1, pp. 13-32.
3. Cristea D., Ide N., Marcu D., Tablan V. (2000) Discourse Structure and Co-Reference: An Empirical Study. Proceedings of COLING, Saarbruecken, pp. 208-214.
4. Cristea D., Ide N., Romary L. (1998) Veins Theory: A Model of Global Discourse Cohesion and Coherence. Proceedings of COLING, Montreal, pp. 281-285.
5. Di Eugenio B., Moore J. D., Paolucci M. (1997) Learning Features that Predict Cue Usage. Proceedings of the 35th ACL, Madrid.
6. Fox B. A. (1987) Discourse Structure and Anaphora. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
7. Grosz B. J., Joshi A. K., Weinstein S. (1995) Centering: A Framework for Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse. Computational Linguistics 21 2, pp. 202-225. (The paper originally appeared as an unpublished manuscript in 1986.)
8. Grosz B. J., Sidner C. L. (1986) Attention, Intention, and the Structure of Discourse. Computational Linguistics 12 3, pp. 175-204.
9. Ide N., Cristea D. (2000) A Hierarchical Account of Referential Accessibility. Proceedings of ACL, Hong Kong.
10. Lesgold A., Lajoie S., Bunzo M., Eggan G (1992) SHERLOCK: A coached practice environment for an electronics troubleshooting job. In Larkin J., Chabay R. (eds.), Computer Assisted Instruction and Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Shared issues and Complementary Approaches, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 201-238.
11. Levinson, S. (1983), Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
12. Mann W. C., Thompson S. A. (1988) Rhetorical Structure Theory: Towards a Functional Theory of Text Organization. Text 8 3, pp. 243-281.
13. Marcu D. (1999) Instructions for Manually Annotating the Discourse Structures of Texts. Unpublished manuscript, USC/ISI.
14. Marcu D., Romera M., Amorrortu E. (1999) Experiments in Constructing a Corpus of Discourse Trees: Problems, Annotation Choices, Issues. In Workshop on Levels of Representation in Discourse. pp. 71-78.
15. Moore J., Pollack M. (1992) A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics 18 4, pp. 537-544.
16. Moser M., Moore J. D. (1996a) On the Correlation of Cues with Discourse Structure: Results from a Corpus Study. Unpublished manuscript.
17. Moser M., Moore J. D. (1996b) Toward a Synthesis of Two Accounts of Discourse Structure. Computational Linguistics 22 3, pp. 409-419.
18. Moser M., Moore J. D., Glendening E. (1996) Instructions for Coding Explanations: Identifying Segments, Relations and Minimal Units. Technical Report 96-17, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Computer Science.
19. Nakatani C. H. (1996) Discourse Structural Constraints on Accent in Narrative. In van Santen J. P. H., Sproat R. W., Olive J. P., Hirschberg J. (eds.), Progress in Speech Synthesis. Springer Verlag, New York, NY.
20. Nakatani C. H., Grosz B. J., Ahn D. D., Hirschberg J. (1995) Instructions for annotating discourses. Technical Report TR-25-95, Harvard University Center for Research in Computing Technology.
21. Poesio M. (2004) The MATE/GNOME Scheme for Anaphoric Annotation, Revisited. Proceedings of SIGDIAL, Boston.
22. Poesio M., Di Eugenio B. (2001) Discourse Structure and Anaphoric Accessibility. In Kruijff-Korbayová I., Steedman M. (eds.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2001 Workshop on Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics.
23. Poesio M., Stevenson R., Di Eugenio B., Hitzeman J. M. (2004) Centering: A Parametric Theory and its Instantiations. Computational Linguistics 30 3, pp. 309-363.
24. Poesio M., Traum D. (1997) Conversational Actions and Discourse Situations. Computational Intelligence 13 3, pp. 309-347.
25. Pollack M., Hirschberg J., Webber B. (1982) User participation in the reasoning process of expert systems. In Proceedings of AAAI. pp. 358-361.
26. Reichman R. (1985) Getting Computers to Talk Like You and Me. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
27. Siegel S., Castellan N. J. (1988) Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, 2nd edition.
28. Tetreault J. (2005) Decomposing Discourse. In Branco A., McEnery T., Mitkov R. (eds.), Anaphora Processing: Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Modelling, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. J. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 73-95.
29. Vieira R., Poesio M. (2000) An empirically-based system for processing definite descriptions. Computational Linguistics 26 4, pp. 539-593.
30. Walker M. A. (1996) Limited Attention and Discourse Structure. Computational Linguistics 22 2, pp. 255-264.
31. Walker M. A. (1998) Centering, anaphora resolution, and discourse structure. In Walker M. A., Joshi A. K., Prince E. F. (eds.), Centering in Discourse. Oxford University Press, Chapt. 19, pp. 401-435.
32. Webber B. L. (1991) Structure and Ostension in the Interpretation of Discourse Deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes 6 2, pp. 107-135.