Reflections on the Penn discourse Treebank, Comparable Corpora, and complementary annotation

Computational Linguistics

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 921-950

  Prasad, Rashmi ^a   Webber, Bonnie ^b   Joshiy, Aravind ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LINGUISTICS;

COMPARABLE CORPORA; DECISION PROCEDURE; LANGUAGE TECHNOLOGY; LINGUISTIC PHENOMENA; TREEBANKS;

FORESTRY;

EID: 84918537866     PISSN: 08912017     EISSN: 15309312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/COLI_a_00204     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Agarwal, M., R. Shah, and P. Mannem. 2011. Automatic question generation using discourse cues. In Proceedings of the ACL HLT 2011 Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pages 1–9, Portland, OR.
2. Aijmer, K. and A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen. 2004. A model and a methodology for the study of pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 36:1781–1805.
3. Aktaş, B., C. Bozşahin, and D. Zeyrek. 2010. Discourse relation configurations in Turkish and an annotation environment. In Proceedings of the 4th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, pages 202–206, Uppsala.
4. Al-Saif, A. 2012. Human and automatic annotation of discourse relations for Arabic. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leeds.
5. Al-Saif, A. and K. Markert. 2010. The Leeds Arabic Discourse Treebank: Annotating discourse connectives for Arabic. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2010), pages 2,046–2,053, Valletta.
6. Al-Saif, A. and K. Markert. 2011. Modelling discourse relations for Arabic. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 736–747, Edinburgh.
7. Allen, J. 1984. Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence, 23:123–154.
8. Asher, N. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
9. Asher, N. and A. Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press.
10. Asr, F. T. and V. Demberg. 2012a. Implicitness of discourse relations. In Proceedings of COLING, pages 2,669–2,684, Mumbai.
11. Asr, F. T. and V. Demberg. 2012b. Measuring the strength of linguistic cues for discourse relations. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in Discourse Analysis and its Computational Aspects (ADACA), pages 33–42, Mumbai.
12. Asr, F. T. and V. Demberg. 2013. On the information conveyed by discourse markers. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL), pages 84–93, Sofia.
13. Baldridge, J., N. Asher, and J. Hunter. 2007. Annotation for and robust parsing of discourse structure on unrestricted texts. Zeitschrift fur Sprachwissenschaft, 26:213–239.
14. Bejček, E., E. Hajičová, J. Hajič, P. Jínová, V. Kettnerová, V. Kolářová, M. Mikulová, J. Mírovsḱ y, A. Nedoluzhko, J. Panevová, L. Poláková, M. ševčíková, J. štˇepánek, and š árka Zikánová. 2013. Prague Dependency Treebank 3.0 data/ software. Technical report, Univerzita Karlova v Praze, MFF, FAL, Prague. http://ufal.mff.cuni.cz/pdt3.0/.
15. Bunt, H., R. Prasad, and A. Joshi. 2012. First steps towards an ISO standard for annotating discourse relations. In Proceedings of the Joint ISA-7, SRSL-3, and I2MRT Workshop on Semantic Annotation and the Integration and Interoperability of Multimodal Resources and Tools, pages 60–69, Istanbul.
16. Carlson, L., D. Marcu, and M. E. Okurowski. 2001. Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of rhetorical structure theory. In Proceedings of the 2nd SIGDIAL Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Eurospeech 2001, pages 1–10, Aalborg.
17. Danlos, L., D. Antolinos-Basso, C. Braud, and C. Roze. 2012. Vers le FDTB: French Discourse Tree Bank. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference JEP-TALN-RECITAL, pages 471–479, Grenoble.
18. Demirsahin, I., A. Ozturel, C. Bozsahin, and D. Zeyrek. 2013. Applicative structures and immediate discourse in the Turkish Discourse Bank. In Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse, pages 122–130, Sofia.
19. Dinesh, N., A. Lee, E. Miltsakaki, R. Prasad, A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 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, pages 29–36, Ann Arbor, MI.
20. Elwell, R. and J. Baldridge. 2008. Discourse connective argument identification with connective specific rankers. In Proceedings of ICSC-2008, pages 198–205, Santa Clara, CA.
21. Forbes-Riley, K., B. Webber, and A. Joshi. 2006. Computing discourse semantics: The predicate-argument semantics of discourse connectives in D-LTAG. Journal of Semantics, 23:55–106.
22. Ghosh, S., R. Johansson, G. Riccardi, and S. Tonelli. 2011a. Shallow discourse parsing with conditional random fields. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 1,071–1,079, Chiang Mai.
23. Ghosh, S., R. Johansson, G. Riccardi, and S. Tonelli. 2012. Improving the recall of a discourse parser by constraint-based postprocessing. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 2,791–2,794, Istanbul.
24. Ghosh, S., S. Tonelli, G. Riccardi, and R. Johansson. 2011b. End-to-end discourse parser evaluation. In Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing, pages 169–172, Palo Alto, CA.
25. Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. Longman, London.
26. Hirschberg, J. and D. Litman. 1993. Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics, 19(3):501–530.
27. Jayez, J. and C. Rossari. 1998. Pragmatic connectives as predicates: the case of inferential connectives. In P. St Dizier, ed., Predicative forms in natural language and in lexical knowledge bases, pages 285–319. Springer, Dordrecht.
28. Jiang, X. 2013. Predicting the use and interpretation of implicit and explicit discourse connectives. Ph.D. thesis, M.Sc. Thesis, School of Psychology, Philosophy and Language Sciences (PPLS), University of Edinburgh.
29. Jínová, P., J. Mírovsḱ y, and L. Poláková. 2012. Semi-automatic annotation of intra-sentential discourse relations in PDT. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in Discourse Analysis and its Computational Aspects (ADACA), pages 43–58, Mumbai.
30. Kehler, A. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI Publications, Palo Alto, CA.
31. Knott, A. 1996. A Data-Driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.
32. Knott, A., J. Oberlander, M. O’Donnell, and C. Mellish. 2001. Beyond elaboration: The interaction of relations and focus in coherent text. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, and W. Spooren, editors, Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects, pages 181–196. John Benjamins Publishing.
33. Kolachina, S., R. Prasad, D. M. Sharma, and A. Joshi. 2012. Evaluation of discourse relation annotation in the Hindi Discourse Relation Bank. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 823–828, Istanbul.
34. Lakoff, R. 1971. Ifs, ands and buts about conjunction. Studies in Linguistic Semantics, 3:114–149.
35. Lin, Z., H. T. Ng, and M.-Y. Kan. 2012. A PDTB-styled end-to-end discourse parser. Natural Language Engineering, 20:151–184.
36. Mann, W. C. and S. A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243–281.
37. Marcus, M. P., B. Santorini, and M. A. Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):313–330.
38. Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Benjamins, Amsterdam.
39. Meyer, T. 2011. Disambiguating temporal-contrastive connectives for machine translation. In Proceedings of the ACL 2011 Student Session, pages 46–51, Portland, OR.
40. Meyer, T. and A. Popescu-Belis. 2012. Using sense-labeled discourse connectives for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Hybrid Approaches to Machine Translation (HyTra), pages 129–138, Avignon.
41. Meyer, T. and B. Webber. 2013. Implicitation of discourse connectives in (machine) translation. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Discourse in Machine Translation, pages 19–26, Sofia.
42. Miltsakaki, E., N. Dinesh, R. Prasad, A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 2005. Experiments on sense annotation and sense disambiguation of discourse connectives. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT), pages 1–12, Barcelona.
43. Miltsakaki, E., R. Prasad, A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 2004. Annotating discourse connectives and their arguments. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation (Human Language Technology Conference and the Conference of the North American Association of Computational Linguistics), pages 9–16, Boston, MA.
44. Miltsakaki, E., L. Robaldo, A. Lee, and A. Joshi. 2008. Sense annotation in the Penn Discourse Treebank. Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4919:275–286.
45. Mladová, L., šárka Zikánová, and E. Hajičová. 2008. From sentence to discourse: Building an annotation scheme for discourse based on Prague Dependency Treebank. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08), pages 2,564–2,570, Marrakech.
46. Moens, M. and M. Steedman. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2):15–28.
47. Ostler, S. 1987. Academic and ethnic background as factors affecting writing performance. In A. Purves, editor, Writing across Languages and Cultures: Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric, pages 261–272. Sage.
48. Oza, U., R. Prasad, S. Kolachina, S. Meena, D. M. Sharma, and A. Joshi. 2009. Experiments with annotating discourse relations in the Hindi Discourse Relation Bank. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICON), pages 1–10, Hyderabad.
49. Palmer, M., D. Gildea, and P. Kingsbury. 2005. The Proposition Bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31(1):71–106.
50. Pareti, S. 2012. A database of attribution relations. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC12), pages 3,213–3,217, Istanbul.
51. Patterson, G. and A. Kehler. 2013. Predicting the presence of discourse connectives. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 914–923, Seattle, WA.
52. PDTB-Group. 2008. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0 Annotation Manual. Technical report IRCS-08-01, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania.
53. Pitler, E. and A. Nenkova. 2009. Using syntax to disambiguate explicit discourse connectives in text. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 13–16, Singapore.
54. Pitler, E., M. Raghupathy, H. Mehta, A. Nenkova, A. Lee, and A. Joshi. 2008. Easily identifiable discourse relations. In Proceedings of COLING, pages 87–90, Manchester.
55. Poláková, L., P. Jínová, š árka Zikánová, Z. Bedřichová, J. Mírovsḱ y, M. Rysová, J. Zdeˇnková, V. Pavlíková, and E. Hajičová. 2012. Manual for annotation of discourse relations in the Prague Dependency Treebank. Technical report TR-2012/47, Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
56. Poláková, L., J. Mírovsḱ y, A. Nedoluzhko, P. Jínová, V. Zikánová, and E. Hajičová. 2013. Introducing the Prague Discourse Treebank 1.0. In Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 91–99, Nagoya.
57. Polanyi, L., C. Culy, M. van den Berg, G. L. Thione, and D. Ahn. 2004. Sentential structure and discourse parsing. In ACL 2004 Workshop on Discourse Annotation, pages 80–87, Barcelona.
58. Prasad, R., N. Dinesh, A. Lee, A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 2007. Attribution and its annotation in the Penn Discourse TreeBank. Traitement Automatique des Langues, Special Issue on Computational Approaches to Document and Discourse, 47(2):43–64.
59. Prasad, R., N. Dinesh, A. Lee, E. Miltsakaki, L. Robaldo, A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 2008. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In Proceedings of LREC, pages 2,961–2,968, Marrakesh.
60. Prasad, R. and A. Joshi. 2008. A discourse-based approach to generating why-questions from texts. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Question Generation Shared Task and Evaluation Challenge, pages 1–3, Arlington, VA.
61. Prasad, R., A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 2010a. Exploiting scope for shallow discourse parsing. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and their Evaluation, pages 2,076–2,083, Valletta.
62. Prasad, R., A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 2010b. Realization of discourse relations by other means: Alternative lexicalizations. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1,023–1,031, Beijing.
63. Prasad, R., S. McRoy, N. Frid, A. Joshi, and H. Yu. 2011. The Biomedical Discourse Relation Bank. BMC Bioinformatics, 12(188):1–18.
64. Pustejovsky, J., P. Hanks, R. Sauri, A. See, R. Gaizauskas, A. Setzer, and D. Radev. 2003a. The Timebank corpus. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Meeting, pages 647–656, Lancaster.
65. Pustejovsky, J., A. Meyers, M. Palmer, and M. Poesio. 2005. Merging PropBank, NomBank, TimeBank, Penn Discourse Treebank and Coreference. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotations II: Pie in the Sky, pages 5–12, Ann Arbor, MI.
66. Pustejovsky, J., J. Casta ˜ no, R. Ingria, R. Sauri, R. Gaizauskas, A. Setzer, and G. Katz. 2003b. TimeML: Robust specification of event and temporal expressions in text. New Directions in Question Answering, 3:28–34.
67. Ramesh, B., R. Prasad, T. Miller, B. Harrington, and H. Yu. 2012. Automatic discourse connective detection in biomedical text. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 19(5):800–808.
68. Rysová, M. 2012. Alternative lexicalizations of discourse connectives in Czech. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 2,800–2,807, Istanbul.
69. Sharma, H., P. Dakwale, D. Sharma, R. Prasad, and A. Joshi. 2013. Assessment of different workflow strategies for annotating discourse relations: A case study with HDRB. In A. Gelbukh, editor, Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, LNCS 7816, pages 523–532. Springer.
70. Stede, M. 2008. RST revisited: Disentangling nuclearity. In C. Fabricius-Hansen and W. Ramm, editors, ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text–from a cross-linguistic perspective, pages 33–58. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
71. Stede, M. 2012. Discourse Processing. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
72. Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
73. Versley, Y. 2010. Discovery of ambiguous and unambiguous discourse connectives via annotation projection. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Annotation and Exploitation of Parallel Corpora (AEPC), pages 83–92, Tartu.
74. Webber, B. 2013. What excludes an alternative in coherence relations? In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2013), pages 276–287, Potsdam.
75. Webber, B., M. Egg, and V. Kordoni. 2012. Discourse structure and language technology. Natural Language Engineering, 18(4):437–490.
76. Weischedel, R., M. Palmer, M. Marcus, E. Hovy, S. Pradhan, L. Ramshaw, N. Xue, A. Taylor, J. Kaufman, M. Franchini, M. El-Bachouti, R. Belvin, and A. Houston. 2012. Ontonotes release 5.0. Technical report, Linguistic Data Consortium.
77. Wellner, B. 2009. Sequence Models and Re-ranking Methods for Discourse Parsing. Ph.D. thesis, Brandeis University, Boston, MA.
78. Wellner, B. and J. Pustejovsky. 2007. Automatically identifiying the arguments of discourse connectives. In Proceedings of EMNLP-CoNLL, pages 92–101.
79. Xue, N. 2005. Annotating discourse connectives in the Chinese Treebank. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation II: Pie in the Sky, pages 84–91, Ann Arbor, MI.
80. Zeyrek, D., Ümit Deniz Turan, and I. Demirşahin. 2008. Structural and presuppositional connectives in Turkish. In A. Benz, P. K¨ uhnlein, and M. Stede, editors, Constraints in Discourse 3, pages 131–137. University of Potsdam, Germany.
81. Zeyrek, D., Ümit Deniz Turan, C. Bozşahin, R. Çakıcı, A. Sevdik-Çallı, I. Demirşahin, B. Aktaş, İhsan Yalçınkaya, and H. Ögel. 2009. Annotating subordinators in the Turkish Discourse Bank. In Proceedings of the Third Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW III), ACL-IJCNLP-2009, pages 44–48, Singapore.
82. Zeyrek, D., I. Demirşahin, A. Sevdik-Çallı, H. Ögel, İhsan Yalçınkaya, and Ümit Deniz Turan. 2010. The annotation scheme of the Turkish Discourse Bank and an evaluation of inconsistent annotations. In Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW-IV), ACL 2010, pages 282–289, Uppsala.
83. Zeyrek, D., I. Demirşahin, A. Sevdik-Çallı, and R. Çakıcı. 2013. Turkish Discourse Bank: Porting a discourse annotation style to a morphologically rich language. Dialogue and Discourse, 4(2):174–184.
84. Zhou, Y. and N. Xue. (in press). The Chinese Discourse TreeBank: A Chinese corpus annotated with discourse relations. Journal of Language Resources and Evaluation.
85. Zhou, Y. and N. Xue. 2012. PDTB-style discourse annotation of Chinese text. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 69–77, Jeju Island.
86. Zhou, Z.-M., M. Lan, Y. Xu, Z.-Y. Niu, J. Su, and C. L. Tan. 2010. Predicting discourse connectives for implicit discourse relation recognition. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pages 1,507–1,514, Beijing.