[ Skip to the content ]

Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics Wiki

[ Back to the navigation ]

You are here: start » diskurz_doporucena_literatura

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
Next revision Both sides next revision
diskurz_doporucena_literatura [2012/03/12 08:30]
hladka 		diskurz_doporucena_literatura [2012/03/12 08:33]
hladka
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 Sem si můžeme psát odkazy na články (především) o diskurzu, které nás zaujaly a které doporučujeme k přečtení i ostatním, např. takto: 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. //Computational linguistics//, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 401-416. [[http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/J/J04/J04-4001.pdf|pdf]] **Abstract** +   * Rodger Kibble, Richard Power. 2004. Optimizing referential coherence in text generation. //Computational linguistics//, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 401-416. [[http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/J/J04/J04-4001.pdf|pdf]]  
-This article describes an implemented system which uses centering theory for planning of coherent +**Abstract** 
-texts and choice of referring expressions. We argue that text and sentence planning need to be +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, salience, cheapness, and continuity—and we show sample outputs obtained under a particular weighting of these constraints. This framework facilitates detailed research into evaluation metrics and will therefore provide a productive research tool in addition to the immediate practical benefit of improving the fluency and readability of generated texts. The technique is generally applicable to natural language generation systems, which perform hierarchical text structuring based on a theory of coherence relations with certain additional assumptions.
-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, salience, cheapness, and continuity—and we show sample +
-outputs obtained under a particular weighting of these constraints. This framework facilitates +
-detailed research into evaluation metrics and will therefore provide a productive research tool in +
-addition to the immediate practical benefit of improving the fluency and readability of generated +
-texts. The technique is generally applicable to natural language generation systems, which perform +
-hierarchical text structuring based on a theory of coherence relations with certain additional +
-assumptions.+
  
    *Florian Wolf, Edward Gibson. 2005. Representing Discourse Coherence: A Corpus-Based Study. //Computational Linguistics//, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 249--287. [[http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/J/J05/J05-2005.pdf|pdf]]    *Florian Wolf, Edward Gibson. 2005. Representing Discourse Coherence: A Corpus-Based Study. //Computational Linguistics//, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 249--287. [[http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/J/J05/J05-2005.pdf|pdf]]
 +
 +**Abstract**
 +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, as well as many nodes with multiple parents. The claims are supported by statistical results from our hand-annotated database of 135 texts.
 +
 +
    *Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi, Bonnie Webber. 2008. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In //Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008)// [[http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~pdtb/papers/pdtb-lrec08.pdf]]    *Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi, Bonnie Webber. 2008. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In //Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008)// [[http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~pdtb/papers/pdtb-lrec08.pdf]]
 **Abstract** **Abstract**

[ Back to the navigation ] [ Back to the content ]