A PDTB-styled end-to-end discourse parser

Natural Language Engineering

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 151-184

  Ziheng, Lin ^a,b   Hwee Tou, Ng ^a   Min Yen, Kan ^a  

^a National University of Singapore 13 Computing Drive ^*  (Singapore)

^b SAP RESEARCH   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPONENTWISE; COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION; DATA-DRIVEN APPROACH; DISCOURSE PARSERS; GOLD STANDARDS; MULTIPLE COMPONENTS; PARTIAL MATCHING; PIPELINE ARCHITECTURE;

EID: 84894355718     PISSN: 13513249     EISSN: 14698110     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1351324912000307     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Asher, N., and Lascarides, A. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2. Baldridge, J., and Lascarides, A. 2005. Probabilistic head-driven parsing for discourse structure. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CONLL 2005), Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA pp. 96-103.
3. Barzilay, R., and Lapata, M. 2008, March. Modeling local coherence: an entity-based approach. Computational Linguistics 34:1-34.
4. Carlson, L., Marcu, D., and Okurowski, M. E. 2001. Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory. In Proceedings of the Second SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Aalborg, Denmark, pp. 1-10.
5. Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Joshi, A., and Webber, B. 2005. Attribution and the (non)-alignment of syntactic and discourse arguments of connectives. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation II: Pie in the Sky, Ann Arbor, MI, USA pp. 29-36.
6. Du Verle, D., and Prendinger, H. 2009. A novel discourse parser based on support vector machine classification. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP (ACL-IJCNLP 2009), Singapore, pp. 665-673.
7. Elwell, R., and Baldridge, J. 2008. Discourse connective argument identification with connective specific rankers. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC 2008), Santa Clara, CA, USA, pp. 198-205.
8. Forbes, K., Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Sarkar, A., Joshi, A., and Webber, B. 2003. D-LTAG system: discourse parsing with a lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12(3):261-79.
9. Ghosh, S., Johansson, R., Riccardi, G., and Tonelli, S. 2011. Shallow discourse parsing with conditional random fields. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP 2011), Chiang Mai, Thailand, pp. 1071-9 (November).
10. Grosz, Barbara J., and Sidner, Candace L. 1986, July. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12(3):175-204.
11. Grosz, Barbara J., Weinstein, S., and Joshi, Aravind K. 1995, June. Centering: a framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21(2):203-25.
12. Halliday, Michael A. K., and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
13. Hobbs, Jerry R. 1985. On the coherence and structure of discourse. Technical Report CSLI-85-37, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
14. Hobbs, Jerry R. 1990. Literature and cognition. In CSLI Lecture Notes Number 21. Stanford, CA, USA: CSLI.
15. Huong, Le T., Abeysinghe, G., and Huyck, C. 2004. Generating discourse structures for written texts. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2004), Geneva, Switzerland.
16. Knott, A. 1996. A Data-Driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations. PhD thesis, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
17. Knott, A., and Sanders, T 1998. The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: an exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics 30(2):135-75.
18. Lascarides, A., and Asher, N. 1993. Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(5):437-93.
19. Lee, A., Prasad, R., Joshi, A, Dinesh, N., and Webber, B. 2006. Complexity of dependencies in discourse: are dependencies in discourse more complex than in syntax? In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories, Prague, Czech Republic.
20. Lin, Z., Kan, M.-Y., and Ng, H. T 2009. Recognizing implicit discourse relations in the Penn Discourse Treebank. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2009), Singapore, pp. 343-351.
21. Lin, Z., Liu, C., Ng, H. T., and Kan, M.-Y. 2012. Combining coherence models and machine translation evaluation metrics for summarization evaluation. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2012), Jeju, Korea, July, pp. 1006-1014.
22. Lin, Z., Ng, H. T., and Kan, M.-Y. 2010. A PDTB-styled end-to-end discourse parser. Technical Report TRB8/10, School of Computing, National University of Singapore (August).
23. Lin, Z., Ng, H. T., and Kan, M.-Y. 2011. Automatically evaluating text coherence using discourse relations. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (ACL-HLT 2011), Portland, OR, USA, June, pp. 997-1006.
24. Mann, William C., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3):243-81.
25. Marcu, D. 1997. The Rhetorical Parsing, Summarization, and Generation of Natural Language Texts. PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
26. Marcus, Mitchell P., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., and Santorini, B. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: the Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 19(2):313-30.
27. Miller, George A. 1995. Wordnet: a lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM 38(11):39-41.
28. Miltsakaki, E., Dinesh, N., Prasad, R., Joshi, A., and Webber, B. 2005. Experiments on sense annotations and sense disambiguation of discourse connectives. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT2005), Barcelona, Spain (December).
29. Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Joshi, A., and Webber, B. 2004. The Penn Discourse Treebank. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004), Lisbon, Portugal.
30. PDTB-Group 2007. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 Annotation Manual. Pennsylvania, PA, USA: PDTB Research Group.
31. Pitler, E., Louis, A., and Nenkova, A. 2009. Automatic sense prediction for implicit discourse relations in text. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP (ACL-IJCNLP 2009), Singapore, pp. 683-691.
32. Pitler, E., and Nenkova, A. 2009. Using syntax to disambiguate explicit discourse connectives in text. In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers, Singapore, pp. 13-16.
33. Pitler, E., Raghupathy, M., Mehta, H., Nenkova, A., Lee, A., and Joshi, A. 2008. Easily identifiable discourse relations. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2008), Manchester, UK (Short papers).
34. Polanyi, L. 1988. A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 12 (5-6):601-38.
35. Polanyi, L., and Scha, R. 1984. A syntactic approach to discourse semantics. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 1984), pp. 413-9. Stroudsburg, PA, USA.
36. Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A., and Webber, B. 2008. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), Marrakech, Morocco.
37. Prasad, R., Joshi, A., and Webber, B. 2010. Exploiting scope for shallow discourse parsing. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2010), Valletta, Malta, pp. 2076-83 (May).
38. Scha, R., and Polanyi, L. 1988. An augmented context-free grammar for discourse. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 573-7. Stroudsburg PA USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
39. Skadhauge, P. R., and Hardt, D. 2005. Syntactic identification of attribution in the RST Treebank. In Proceedings of the Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2005), Borovets, Bulgaria, pp. 57-61.
40. Soricut, R., and Marcu, D. 2003. Sentence-level discourse parsing using syntactic and lexical information. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLT-NAACL 2003), Edmonton, Canada, pp. 149-156.
41. Subba, R., and Di Eugenio, B. 2009. An effective discourse parser that uses rich linguistic information. In Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL-HLT 2009), Boulder, Colorado (June). Stroudsburg, PA, USA, pp. 566-574.
42. Wang, W. T., Su, J., and Tan, C. L. 2010. Kernel-based discourse relation recognition with temporal ordering information. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2010), Uppsala, Sweden (July), pp. 710-719.
43. Webber, B. 2004. D-LTAG: extending lexicalized TAG to discourse. Cognitive Science 28(5):751-79.
44. Webber, B., Egg, M., and Kordoni, V. 2011. Discourse structure and language technology. Natural Language Engineering 18(4):437-490.
45. Webber, B., and Joshi, A. 1998. Anchoring a lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar for discourse. In COLING-ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 86-92.
46. Wellner, B. 2009. Sequence Models and Ranking Methods for Discourse Parsing. Ph. D. thesis, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, USA.
47. Wellner, B., and Pustejovsky, J. 2007. Automatically identifying the arguments of discourse connectives. In Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL 2007), Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 92-101.
48. Wellner, B., Pustejovsky, J., Havasi, C., Rumshisky, A., and Sauri, R. 2006. Classification of discourse coherence relations: an exploratory study using multiple knowledge sources. In Proceedings of the 7th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Sydney, Australia, pp. 117-125.
49. Wolf, F., and Gibson, E. 2005. Representing discourse coherence: a corpus-based analysis. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2004), Morristown, NJ, USA, pp. 249-288.
50. Zhou, Z.-M., Xu, Y., Niu, Z.-Y., Lan, M., Su, J., and Tan, C. L. 2010. Predicting discourse connectives for implicit discourse relation recognition. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2010), Beijing, China, pp. 1507-14.