Motivations And Implications Of Veins Theory

The paper deals with the cohesion part of a model of global discourse interpretation, usually known as Veins Theory (VT). By taking from the Rhetorical Structure Theory the notions of nuclearity and relations, but ignoring the relations’ names, VT computes from rhetorical structures strings of discourse units, called veins, from which domains of accessibility can be determined for each discourse unit. VT’s constructs best fit with an incremental view on discourse processing. Linguistics and cognitive observations that lead to the elaboration of the theory are presented. Cognitive aspects like short-term memory and on-line summarization are explained in terms of VT’s constructs. Complementary remarks are made over anaphora and its resolution in relation with the interpretation of discourse.

[1]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  Discourse Structure and Co-Reference: An Empirical Study , 1999 .

[2]  Carl Pollard,et al.  A Centering Approach to Pronouns , 1987, ACL.

[3]  Scott Weinstein,et al.  Centering: A Framework for Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse , 1995, CL.

[4]  Dan Cristea,et al.  AR-Engine - a framework for unrestricted co-reference resolution , 2002, LREC.

[5]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[6]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  Limited Attention and Discourse Structure , 1995, CL.

[7]  Nancy Ide,et al.  A Hierarchical Account of Referential Accessibility , 2000, ACL.

[8]  Mark T. Maybury,et al.  Automatic Summarization , 2002, Computational Linguistics.

[9]  Dan Cristea,et al.  Summarisation Through Discourse Structure , 2005, CICLing.

[10]  Nancy Ide,et al.  Veins Theory: A Model of Global Discourse Cohesion and Coherence , 1998, ACL.

[11]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Toward a Synthesis of Two Accounts of Discourse Structure , 1996, CL.

[12]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  An Alternative Conception of Tree-Adjoining Derivation , 1992, ACL.

[13]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[14]  Marina del Rey.  A Formal and Computational Synthesis of Grosz and Sidner ’ s and Mann and Thompson ’ s theories , 1999 .

[15]  Frank Schilder,et al.  Robust discourse parsing via discourse markers, topicality and position , 2002, Natural Language Engineering.

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

[17]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  Sentence Level Discourse Parsing using Syntactic and Lexical Information , 2003, NAACL.

[18]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[19]  Dan Cristea.  An Incremental Discourse Parser Architecture , 2000, Natural Language Processing.

[20]  Dan Cristea,et al.  An Integrating Framework for Anaphora Resolution , 2001 .

[21]  Bonnie L. Webber,et al.  Structure and Ostension in the Interpretation of Discourse Deixis , 1991, ArXiv.

[22]  Violeta Seretan,et al.  The Use of Referential Constraints in Structuring Discourse , 2002, LREC.

[23]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Tree Adjunct Grammars , 1975, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[24]  Izumi Tanaka,et al.  The Value of an Annotated Corpus in the Investigation of Anaphoric Pronouns : With Particular Reference to Backwards Anaphora in English. , 2000 .

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

[26]  Bonnie L. Webber,et al.  Expectations in Incremental Discourse Processing , 1997, ACL.

[27]  R. Mitkov,et al.  Handling complex anaphora resolution cases , 2004 .