[ 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 08:31]
hladka 		diskurz_doporucena_literatura [2012/03/12 08:34]
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. //Computational linguistics//, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 401-416. [[http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/J/J04/J04-4001.pdf|pdf]]     * 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** **Abstract**
Line 7: Line 6:
  
    *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**
-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 relations and their two abstract object arguments over the 1 million word Wall Street Journal corpus. We describe all aspects of the annotation, including (a) the argument structure of discourse relations, (b) the sense annotation of the relations, and (c) the attribution of discourse relations and each of their arguments. We list the differences between PDTB-1.0 and PDTB-2.0. We present representative statistics for several aspects of the annotation in the corpus.
-relations and their two abstract object arguments over the 1 million word Wall Street Journal corpus. We describe all aspects of the +
-annotation, including (a) the argument structure of discourse relations, (b) the sense annotation of the relations, and (c) the attribution +
-of discourse relations and each of their arguments. We list the differences between PDTB-1.0 and PDTB-2.0. We present representative +
-statistics for several aspects of the annotation in the corpus.+

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