Reformulating discourse connectives for non-expert readers

NAACL HLT 2010 - Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Main Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 1002-1010

  Siddharthan, Advaith ^a   Katsos, Napoleon ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

RESEARCH AGENDA; SCIENTIFIC WRITING;

TECHNICAL WRITING;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS;

EID: 78650190555     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. R.C. Anderson and A. Davison. 1988. Conceptual and empirical bases of readibility formulas. In Alice Davison and G. M. Green, editors, Linguistic Complexity and Text Comprehension: Readability Issues Reconsidered. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
2. E.G. Bard, D. Robertson, and A. Sorace. 1996. Magnitude estimation for linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1):32-68.
3. R. Barzilay and L. Lee. 2003. Learning to paraphrase: An unsupervised approach using multiple-sequence alignment. In HLT-NAACL 2003, pp 16-23.
4. I.L. Beck, M.G. McKeown, G.M. Sinatra, and J.A. Loxterman. 1991. Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, pp 251-276.
5. E.J. Briscoe and J. Carroll. 2002. Robust accurate statistical annotation of general text. In Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp 1499-1504, Gran Canaria.
6. J. Carletta. 1996. Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics, 22(2):249-254.
7. J. Carroll, G. Minnen, Y. Canning, S. Devlin, and J. Tait. 1998. Practical simplification of English newspaper text to assist aphasic readers. In Proc. of AAAI98 Workshop on Integrating Artificial Intelligence and Assistive Technology, pp 7-10, Madison, WI.
8. W. Cowart. 1997. Experimental Syntax: applying objective methods to sentence judgement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
9. J. Hirschberg and D. Litman. 1993. Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics, 19(3):501-530.
10. B. Hutchinson. 2005. Modelling the substitutability of discourse connectives. In ACL '05: Proc. of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 149-156, Morristown, NJ, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
11. A. Ibrahim, B. Katz, and J. Lin. 2003. Extracting paraphrases from aligned corpora. In Proc. of The Second International Workshop on Paraphrasing.
12. N. Kaji, D. Kawahara, S. Kurohash, and S. Sato. 2002. Verb paraphrase based on case frame alignment. In Proc. of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'02), pp 215-222, Philadelphia, USA.
13. F. Keller, S. Gunasekharan, N. Mayo, and M. Corley. 2008, to appear. Timing accuracy of web experiments: A case study using the webexp software package. Behavior Research Methods.
14. F. Keller. 2000. Gradience in Grammar: Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.
15. A. Knott and R. Dale. 1994. Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18(1):35-62.
16. A. Knott. 1996. A Data-Driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Discourse Relations. Ph.D. thesis, Ph. D. thesis, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
17. T. Linderholm, M.G. Everson, P. van den Broek, M. Mischinski, A. Crittenden, and J. Samuels. 2000. Effects of Causal Text Revisions on More-and Less-Skilled Readers' Comprehension of Easy and Difficult Texts. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4):525-556.
18. W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243-281.
19. L. G. M. Noordmanand W. Vonk. 1992. Reader's knowledge and the control of inferences in reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7:373-391.
20. R. Power, D. Scott, and N. Bouayad-Agha. 2003. Generating texts with style. Proc. of the 4 thInternational Conference on Intelligent Texts Processing and Computational Linguistics.
21. A. Siddharthan. 2006. Syntactic simplification and text cohesion. Research on Language and Computation, 4(1):77-109. (Pubitemid 43830210)
22. B. Webber, A. Joshi, E. Miltsakaki, R. Prasad, N. Dinesh, A. Lee, and K. Forbes. 2005. A Short Introduction to the Penn Discourse TreeBank. Treebanking for discourse and speech: proceedings of the NODAL-IDA 2005 special session on Treebanks for spoken language and discourse.
23. S. Williams and E. Reiter. 2008. Generating basic skills reports for low-skilled readers. Natural Language Engineering, 14(04):495-525.
24. I. Witten and E. Frank. 2000. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques with Java Implementations. Morgan Kaufmann.
25. P. Wolff, B. Klettke, T. Ventura, and G. Song. 2005. Expressing causation in English and other languages. Categorization inside and outside the laboratory: Essays in honor of Douglas L. Medin, pp 29-48.