Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
diskurz_doporucena_literatura [2012/03/12 08:23] hladka |
diskurz_doporucena_literatura [2012/03/12 08:33] hladka |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===== Doporučená literatura ===== | ===== Doporučená literatura ===== | ||
- | Sem si můžeme psát odkazy na články (především) o diskurzu, které nás zaujaly a které doporučujeme k přečtení i ostatním, např. takto: | + | * Rodger Kibble, Richard Power. 2004. Optimizing referential coherence in text generation. // |
+ | **Abstract** | ||
+ | This article describes an implemented system which uses centering theory for planning of coherent texts and choice of referring expressions. We argue that text and sentence planning need to be driven in part by the goal of maintaining referential continuity and thereby facilitating pronoun resolution: Obtaining a favorable ordering of clauses, and of arguments within clauses, is likely to increase opportunities for nonambiguous pronoun use. Centering theory provides the basis for such an integrated approach. Generating coherent texts according to centering theory is treated as a constraint satisfaction problem. The well-known Rule 2 of centering theory is reformulated in terms of a set of constraints—cohesion, | ||
- | **Florian Wolf, Edward Gibson. 2005. Representing Discourse Coherence: A Corpu-Based Study. Computational Linguistics, | + | *Florian Wolf, Edward Gibson. 2005. Representing Discourse Coherence: A Corpus-Based Study. |
- | 249--287. | + | |
- | **Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi, Bonnie Webber. 2008. //The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0.//** Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008) | + | **Abstract** |
- | [[http:// | + | This article aims to present a set of discourse structure relations that are easy to code and to develop criteria for an appropriate data structure for representing these relations. Discourse structure here refers to informational relations that hold between sentences in a discourse. The set of discourse relations introduced here is based on Hobbs (1985). We present a method for annotating discourse coherence structures that we used to manually annotate a database of 135 texts from theWall Street Journal and the AP Newswire. All texts were independently annotated by two annotators. Kappa values of greater than 0.8 indicated good interannotator agreement. We furthermore present evidence that trees are not a descriptively adequate data structure for representing discourse structure: In coherence structures of naturally occurring texts, we found many different kinds of crossed dependencies, |
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | *Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi, Bonnie Webber. 2008. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In // | ||
**Abstract** | **Abstract** | ||
We present the second version of the Penn Discourse Treebank, PDTB-2.0, describing its lexically-grounded annotations of discourse | We present the second version of the Penn Discourse Treebank, PDTB-2.0, describing its lexically-grounded annotations of discourse |