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 [2012/06/11 15:23] hladka |
diskurz_doporucena_literatura [2012/06/11 15:24] hladka |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===== Doporučená literatura ===== | ===== Doporučená literatura ===== | ||
- | * Rodger Kibble, Richard Power. 2004. Optimizing referential coherence in text generation. // | + | * **Rodger Kibble, Richard Power. 2004. Optimizing referential coherence in text generation. // |
**Abstract** | **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, | 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, | ||
Line 32: | Line 33: | ||
Pro věty Ui diskurzu D, kterými text nezačíná, | Pro věty Ui diskurzu D, kterými text nezačíná, | ||
- | *Florian Wolf, Edward Gibson. 2005. Representing Discourse Coherence: A Corpus-Based Study. // | + | Příklady |
+ | |||
+ | 1. Honza1 má rád Adama2. | ||
+ | CB: 0; CF: <Honza, Adam> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2. Navštěvuje (on1) ho2 často. | ||
+ | CB: Honza; CF: <Honza, Adam> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 3. Rád (on1) se s ním2 dívá na filmy3. | ||
+ | CB: Honza; CF: <Honza, Adam, filmy> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 4. Adam2 má filmy3 rád. | ||
+ | CB: Adam; CF: <Adam, filmy> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jazyková realizace diskurzních referentů (vsuvka) | ||
+ | (srov. http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | Pokud jsou prvky v CF realizovány zájmeny, pak je také CB vyjádřeno zájmenem. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1. Lenka1 má ráda Jitku2. | ||
+ | CB: 0; CF: <Lenka, Jitka> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2. (Ona1) Navštěvuje ji2 často. | ||
+ | CB: Lenka; CF: <Lenka, Jitka> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2.‘ (Ona1) Navštěvuje Jitku2 často. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2.# Lenka1 navštěvuje Jitku2 často. | ||
+ | |||
+ | CB je realizováno zájmenem. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1. Lenka1 má ráda Jitku2. | ||
+ | CB: 0; CF: <Lenka, Jitka> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2. (Ona1) Navštěvuje Jitku2 často. | ||
+ | CB: Lenka; CF: <Jitka, Lenka> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2.# Lenka1 navštěvuje Jitku2 často. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Pokud je CB aktuální věty totožný diskurzní referent s CB poslední věty, pak je realizováno zájmenem. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1. Lenka1 má ráda Jitku2. | ||
+ | CB: 0; CF: <Lenka, Jitka> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2. (Ona1) Často ji2 navštěvuje. | ||
+ | CB: Lenka; CF: <Lenka, Jitka> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 3. (Ona1) Ráda se dívá s Jitkou2 na filmy3. | ||
+ | CB: Lenka; CF: <Lenka, Jitka, filmy> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 3.# Lenka1 se ráda dívá s Jitkou2 na filmy3. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Pokud je prvek z CF (Ui–1, D) již v Ui realizován zájmenem, pak je také v CB (Ui, D) realizován zájmenem. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1. Lenka1 má ráda Jitku2. | ||
+ | CB: 0; CF: <Lenka, Jitka> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2. Lenka1 ji2 často navštěvuje. | ||
+ | CB: Lenka; CF: <Lenka, Jitka> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 3. (Ona1) Ráda se dívá s Jitkou2 na filmy3. | ||
+ | CB: Lenka; CF: <Lenka, Jitka, filmy> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 3.# Lenka1 se ráda dívá s Jitkou2 na filmy3. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Důležité textové rysy | ||
+ | |||
+ | koheze | ||
+ | CB (Un – 1) = CB (Un) | ||
+ | |||
+ | salience | ||
+ | CP (Un) = CB (Un) | ||
+ | |||
+ | „cheapness“ | ||
+ | CP (Un – 1) = CB (Un) | ||
+ | |||
+ | kontinuita | ||
+ | CFs (Un-1) ∩ CFs (Un) ≠ 0 | ||
+ | („v každé nové větě se říká něco starého“) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Realizace textových vzorců s využitím koheze, salience, „cheapness“, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Viz tabulka v textu článku, s. 414. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ***Florian Wolf, Edward Gibson. 2005. Representing Discourse Coherence: A Corpus-Based Study. // | ||
**Abstract** | **Abstract** |