Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
mckeown_abstract [2012/10/07 15:17] mirovsky |
mckeown_abstract [2012/12/23 09:41] (current) ufal |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| **Kathleen McKeown, Columbia University** | **Kathleen McKeown, Columbia University** | ||
| //Penn Discourse Treebank Relations and their Potential for Language Generation// | //Penn Discourse Treebank Relations and their Potential for Language Generation// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ({{: | ||
| In the early eighties, language generation researchers explored the use of rhetorical relations, in the form of schemata or common patterns of rhetorical structure (McKeown 85) and later in the form of rhetorical structure theory (RST) (Mann 84). Researchers in language generation showed how discourse structure could be used to plan the content of a text (McKeown 85, Moore and Paris 93, Hovy 88). In most cases, structure was linked in some way to content, whether directly or through planning how to satisfy speaker intentions, and this was critical to the success of using discourse structure for content planning. Later work (Barzilay 2010, Barzilay and Lapata 2005) took a modern approach to this problem, developing techniques to learn common discourse structures for specific domains and using these learned discourse structures to control content selection and organization. | In the early eighties, language generation researchers explored the use of rhetorical relations, in the form of schemata or common patterns of rhetorical structure (McKeown 85) and later in the form of rhetorical structure theory (RST) (Mann 84). Researchers in language generation showed how discourse structure could be used to plan the content of a text (McKeown 85, Moore and Paris 93, Hovy 88). In most cases, structure was linked in some way to content, whether directly or through planning how to satisfy speaker intentions, and this was critical to the success of using discourse structure for content planning. Later work (Barzilay 2010, Barzilay and Lapata 2005) took a modern approach to this problem, developing techniques to learn common discourse structures for specific domains and using these learned discourse structures to control content selection and organization. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 13: | ||
| - | Regina Barzilay, “Probabilistic Approaches for Modeling Text Structure and Their Application to Text-to-Text Generation” | + | 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 and Mirella Lapata. 2005. Collective Content Selection for Concept-To-Text Generation. In Proceedings of EMNLP, 2005. | ||
| - | Regina Barzilay, Mirella Lapata, " | + | 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”, | + | 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 |
| - | Bill Mann, “Discourse | + | McKeown, K.R. 1985. Text Generation: Using Discourse |
| - | McKeown, K.R., Text Generation: Using Discourse Strategies | + | Johanna Moore and Cecile Paris. 1993. Planning text for advisory dialogues: capturing intentional |
| - | Johanna Moore and Cecile Paris, “Planning text for advisory dialogues: capturing intentional and rhetorical information, | ||