Article published in:
The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence: Theories and applications
Edited by Helmut Gruber and Gisela Redeker
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 254] 2014
► pp. 121–141

Resolving connective ambiguity

a prerequisite for discourse parsing

Automatic discourse parsing refers to the identification of coherence relations and deriving a structural description for a text. Such parsers can derive much information from the presence of surface cues, especially connectives. These lexical signals, however, are ambiguous: Many have additional, non-connective readings; also, many connectives can signal more than one coherence relation. In this paper, we discuss the first problem, focusing on English and German: How many connectives are ambiguous, and how frequent are these in the two languages? Then we examine computational approaches for resolving such ambiguities. For English, we provide an overview of relevant work by other researchers, while for German we largely present our own studies on the utility of part-of-speech tagging for connective disambiguation.
Published online: 26 November 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.254.05ste
References
Asher, Nicholas, and Alex Lascarides
2003 Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge ­University Press.Google Scholar
Bayerl, Petra
2004 “Disambiguierung deutschsprachiger Diskursmarker: Eine Pilotstudie.” Linguistik Online 18: 3–17.Google Scholar
Berzlánovich, Ildikó, and Gisela Redeker
2012 “Genre-dependent Interaction of Coherence and Lexical Cohesion in Written Discourse.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8: 183–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brants, Sabine, Stefanie Dipper, Peter Eisenberg, Silvia Hansen, Esther König, Wolfgang Lezius, Christian Rohrer, George Smith, and Hans Uszkoreit
2004 “TIGER: Linguistic Interpretation of a German Corpus.” Research on Language and Computation 2 (4): 597–620. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brill, Eric
1992 “A Simple Rule-based Part-of-speech Tagger.” In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing (ANLP) , 152–155. Trento.
Carlson, Lynn, Daniel Marcu, and Mary Ellen Okurowski
2003 “Building a Discourse-tagged Corpus in the Framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory.” In Current Directions in Discourse and Dialogue, ed. by Jan van Kuppevelt, and Ronnie Smith, 85–112. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dipper, Stefanie, and Manfred Stede
2006 “Disambiguating Potential Connectives.” In Proceedings of Konferenz zur Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprache (KONVENS), 167–173. Konstanz.
Egg, Markus, and Gisela Redeker
2010 “How Complex is Discourse Structure?” In Proceedings of the Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) , 1619–1623. Malta.
Grote, Brigitte
2004 Signaling Coherence Relations: Temporal Markers and their Role in Text Generation. Dissertation, FB Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, Universität Bremen.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan
1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hernault, Hugo, Helmut Prendinger, David A. duVerle, and Mitsuru Ishizuka
2010 “HILDA – A Discourse Parser Using Support Vector Machine Classification.” Dialogue and Discourse 1 (3): 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia, and Diane Litman
1993 “Empirical Studies on the Disambiguation of Cue Phrases.” Computational Linguistics 19 (3): 501–530.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry
1979 “Coherence and Coreference.” Cognitive Science 3: 67–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knott, Alistair
1996 A Data-driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson
1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Structure.” Text 8 (3): 243–283.Google Scholar
Marcu, Daniel
2000 “The Rhetorical Parsing of Unrestricted Texts: A Surface-based Approach.” Computational Linguistics 26 (3): 395–448. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, James
1992 English Text – System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pasch, Renate, Ursula Brauße, Eva Breindl, and Ulrich Hermman Waßner
2003 Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pitler, Emily, and Ana Nenkova
2009 “Using Syntax to Disambiguate Explicit Discourse Connectives in Text.” In Proceedings of the ACL/IJCNLP Conference Short Papers , 13–19. Suntec/Singapore.
Polanyi, Livia, and Remko Scha
1994 “A Syntactic Approach to Discourse Semantics.” In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling) and 22nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) , 413–419. Stanford University.
Prasad, Rashmi, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber
2008 “The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) , Marrakech.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, 2nd ed. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Redeker, Gisela, Ildikó Berzlánovich, Nynke van der Vliet, Gosse Bouma, and Markus Egg
2012 “Multi-Layer Discourse Annotation of a Dutch Text Corpus.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) , 2820–2825. Istanbul.
Schmid, Helmut
1994 “Probabilistic Part-of-speech Tagging Using Decision Trees.” In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing , Manchester.
Schneider, Angela, and Manfred Stede
2012 “Ambiguity in German Connectives: A Corpus Study.” In Proceedings of the Konferenz zur Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprache (KONVENS) , Vienna.
Smith, Carlota
2003 Modes of Discourse – The Local Structure of Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stede, Manfred
2002 “DiMLex: A Lexical Approach to Discourse Markers.” In Exploring the Lexicon – Theory and Computation, ed. by Alessandro Lenci, and Vittorio Di Tomaso. ­Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
2011 Discourse Processing. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar
Stede, Manfred, and Arne Neumann
2014 “Potsdam Commentary Corpus 2.0: Annotation for Discourse Research.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) , Reykjavik.
Taboada, Maite
2006 “Discourse Markers as Signals (or Not) of Rhetorical Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 567–592. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ann, Mitchell Marcus, and Beatrice Santorini
2003 “The Penn Treebank: An Overview.” In Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Corpora, ed. by Anne Abeillé, 5–22. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Webber, Bonnie
2009 “Genre Distinctions for Discourse in the Penn TreeBank.” In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th IJCNLP of the AFNLP , 674–682. Singapore.
Wolf, Florian, and Edward Gibson
2005 “Representing Discourse Coherence: A Corpus-based Study.” Computational Linguistics 31 (2): 249–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar