[ Skip to the content ]

Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics Wiki

[ Back to the navigation ]

You are here: start » mckeown_abstract

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 Both sides next revision
mckeown_abstract [2012/10/07 15:17]
mirovsky 		mckeown_abstract [2012/11/08 13:52]
ufal
Line 10: Line 10:
 In language generation, discourse structure relations often play a prescriptive role in determining what to say next. If content has already been selected, that content in conjunction with discourse structure can be used to constrain what gets said next. PDTB relations have been empirically determined through analysis of text and there has been an effort to limit the range of relations. One natural question is whether PDTB relations should serve the same role as RST in generating of text or whether there is a difference in how they could be applied.  Could the specific annotation of senses associated with relations be used to help determine content? There is an aspect of the PDTB which differs from earlier work on RST as it ties in closer to the syntactic structure of the text. Could the close coupling of discourse structure, syntactic structure and sense annotation offer an advantage over previous methods? One possibility would be to explore the role it could play in sentence planning, the problem of determining how to combine simple propositions to generate more complex sentences. In language generation, discourse structure relations often play a prescriptive role in determining what to say next. If content has already been selected, that content in conjunction with discourse structure can be used to constrain what gets said next. PDTB relations have been empirically determined through analysis of text and there has been an effort to limit the range of relations. One natural question is whether PDTB relations should serve the same role as RST in generating of text or whether there is a difference in how they could be applied.  Could the specific annotation of senses associated with relations be used to help determine content? There is an aspect of the PDTB which differs from earlier work on RST as it ties in closer to the syntactic structure of the text. Could the close coupling of discourse structure, syntactic structure and sense annotation offer an advantage over previous methods? One possibility would be to explore the role it could play in sentence planning, the problem of determining how to combine simple propositions to generate more complex sentences.
  
 +Regina Barzilay. 2010. Probabilistic Approaches for Modeling Text Structure and Their Application to Text-to-Text Generation. In Emiel Krahmer and Mariet Theune, editors, Empirical Methods in Natural Language Generation: Data-oriented Methods and Empirical Evaluation, Springer, 2010. 
  
-Regina Barzilay, “Probabilistic Approaches for Modeling Text Structure and Their Application to Text-to-Text Generation”  In Emiel Krahmer and Mariet Theune, editors, Empirical Methods in Natural Language Generation: Data-oriented Methods and Empirical Evaluation, Springer, 2010. +Regina Barzilay and Mirella Lapata. 2005. Collective Content Selection for Concept-To-Text Generation. In Proceedings of EMNLP, 2005. 
  
-Regina Barzilay, Mirella Lapata, "Collective Content Selection for Concept-To-Text Generation", In Proc. of EMNLP, 2005.+Eduard Hovy. 1988. Planning coherent multisentential text. In Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 1988, pages 163-169.
  
-Eduard Hovy, “Planning coherent multisentential text”, Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics,  1988, Pages 163-169+Annie Louis and Ani Nenkova. 2012. A coherence model based on syntactic patterns. In Proceedings of EMNLP-CoNLL, 2012. 
  
-Annie Louis and Ani Nenkova, “A coherence model based on syntactic patterns”, Proceedings of EMNLP-CoNLL, 2012.+Bill Mann. 1984. Discourse structures for text generation. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 22nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, 1984, pp. 367-375. 
  
-Bill Mann, “Discourse structures for text generation”, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 22nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, 1984, pp. 367-375.+McKeown, K.R. 1985. Text Generation: Using Discourse Strategies and Focus Constraints to Generate Natural Language Text. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1985. 
  
-McKeown, K.R., Text Generation: Using Discourse Strategies and Focus Constraints to Generate Natural Language Text.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1985.+Johanna Moore and Cecile Paris. 1993. Planning text for advisory dialogues: capturing intentional and rhetorical information. In Journal Computational Linguistics, Volume 19 Issue 4, December 1993, pages 651-694. 
  
-Johanna Moore and Cecile Paris, “Planning text for advisory dialogues: capturing intentional and rhetorical information,” Journal Computational Linguistics, Volume 19 Issue 4, December 1993, pages 651-694.  
  

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