What excludes an Alternative in Coherence Relations?

This paper identifies features that occur frequently in coherence relations labelled CHOSEN ALTERNATIVE. This achieves two goals: (1) to identify evidence for an argument being considered an alternative excluded from further consideration, and (2) to contribute to the automatic identification of coherence relations and their arguments. It is shown that the simplest of these features occur significantly more often in implicit CHOSEN ALTERNATIVE relations than in explicit CHOSEN ALTERNATIVE relations, where a connective helps signal this sense.

[1]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  An Unsupervised Approach to Recognizing Discourse Relations , 2002, ACL.

[2]  Michael Halliday,et al.  Cohesion in English , 1976 .

[3]  Hong Yu,et al.  The biomedical discourse relation bank , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[4]  Alistair Knott,et al.  A data-driven methodology for motivating a set of coherence relations , 1996 .

[5]  Barbara Di Eugenio,et al.  Discourse Parsing: Learning FOL Rules based on Rich Verb Semantic Representations to automatically label Rhetorical Relations , 2006, Learning Structured Information@EACL.

[6]  Jeannett Martin,et al.  English Text: System and structure , 1992 .

[7]  F. Palmer,et al.  Mood and modality , 1986 .

[8]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  Building a Discourse-Tagged Corpus in the Framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory , 2001, SIGDIAL Workshop.

[9]  Caterina Mauri,et al.  Towards a typology of disjunction , 2008 .

[10]  Chris Mellish,et al.  Beyond Elaboration: The Interaction of Relations and Focus in Coherent Text , 2000 .

[11]  Graeme Hirst,et al.  Text-level Discourse Parsing with Rich Linguistic Features , 2012, ACL.

[12]  William C. Mann,et al.  Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization , 1988 .

[13]  Livio Robaldo,et al.  The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. , 2008, LREC.

[14]  T. Sanders,et al.  The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages , 1998 .

[15]  Bonnie L. Webber,et al.  Discourse structure and language technology , 2011, Natural Language Engineering.

[16]  Kenji Sagae,et al.  Analysis of Discourse Structure with Syntactic Dependencies and Data-Driven Shift-Reduce Parsing , 2009, IWPT.

[17]  Maki Watanabe,et al.  Discourse Tagging Reference Manual , 2001 .

[18]  Richard Johansson,et al.  Shallow Discourse Parsing with Conditional Random Fields , 2011, IJCNLP.

[19]  Mitsuru Ishizuka,et al.  HILDA: A Discourse Parser Using Support Vector Machine Classification , 2010, Dialogue Discourse.

[20]  Manfred Stede,et al.  Discourse Processing , 2011, NAACL.

[21]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  A Problem for RST: The Need for Multi-Level Discourse Analysis , 1992, CL.

[22]  Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil,et al.  Without a ’doubt’? Unsupervised Discovery of Downward-Entailing Operators , 2009, NAACL.

[23]  Hwee Tou Ng,et al.  A PDTB-styled end-to-end discourse parser , 2012, Natural Language Engineering.

[24]  Livio Robaldo,et al.  The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 Annotation Manual , 2007 .

[25]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Edinburgh Research Explorer Using automatically labelled examples to classify rhetorical relations: an assessment , 2022 .