The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0.

What it is about

PDTB-2.0 is a lexically grounded annotation of discourse relations over the 1-million-word Wall Street Journal corpus. Each relation has two abstract-object arguments (Arg1, Arg2), and an explicit connective (18,459 tokens) or an inserted implicit connective (16,224) marks it; the rest are AltLex, EntRel and NoRel. Each relation has a three-level sense (class, type, subtype), an attribution record (source, type of attribution, scopal polarity, determinacy), and its arguments can lie far from the connective. Agreement is 90.2% exact-match for explicit arguments and 85.1% for implicit ones, and 94%, 84% and 80% at the class, type and subtype levels. The paper is a resource description with statistics, not a method.

Ideas

• I1. A sense table for Mova's explicit connectives, with the set of senses each one can carry (since, while, although, if). Let the frame reader pick a sense from the frames of the two arguments and report the sense set when it cannot choose. Measure per-connective sense accuracy on PDTB sections as a test only (LDC data).
• I2. Arg1 search window for explicit connectives. Subordinating connectives take their own clause as Arg2 and the other clause as Arg1, which is often in an earlier sentence. Let the link search for Arg1 in the previous sentence first, then in earlier sentences, and log how far it reached. Measure the distance distribution on our own text; do not assume the WSJ numbers hold for tales.
• I3. Attribution as a frame feature: each relation records whether its source is the writer, another named agent, or an unnamed one. The verb classes (say, believe, know, want) can come from the speech-act code in prag. A relation attributed to someone else must not be counted as the writer's commitment in the output.
• I4. Report at the class level when unsure. The hierarchy lets the reader answer "TEMPORAL, order unknown" instead of guessing a subtype. Score class-level and subtype-level answers separately so the trade-off is visible.

For Mova

The chapter is 36. Discourse relations and coherence (sections 4, 6, 7 and 11). The code is the frame and link code in prag and the connective handling in en (grep for the connective list before adding anything). The PDTB text and its data are LDC and NC: tests only, never in a release, and no PDTB examples in the repo.

Topics: Discourse analysis · Treebanks

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

@inproceedings{prasad2008penn,
  title = {{The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0.}},
  author = {Prasad, Rashmi and Dinesh, Nikhil and Lee, Alan and Miltsakaki, Eleni and Robaldo, Livio and Joshi, Aravind and Webber, Bonnie},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'08)},
  year = {2008},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/L08-1093/}
}

References

24 references, 9 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Lynn Carlson, Daniel Marcu, and Mary Ellen Okurowski. 2001. Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of rhetorical structure theory. In Proceedings of the 2nd SIGDIAL Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Eurospeech 2001. find our card
2. Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Rashmi Prasad, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber. 2005. Attribution and the (non)-alignment of syntactic and discourse arguments of connectives. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation II: Pie in the Sky. find
3. Katherine Forbes-Riley, Bonnie Webber, and Aravind Joshi. 2006. Computing discourse semantics: The predicate-argument semantics of discourse connectives in D-LTAG. Journal of Semantics, 23:55–106. find
4. Jaakko Hintikka. 1971. Semantics for propositional attitudes. In L. Linsky, editor, Reference and Modality, pages 145–167. Oxford. find
5. Laurence Horn. 1978. Remarks on neg-raising. In Peter Cole, editor, Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York. find
6. Lauri Karttunen. 1971. Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistics, 4:55–69. find
7. Andrew Kehler. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford. find
8. Carol Kiparsky and Paul Kiparsky. 1971. Fact. In D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits, editors, Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, pages 345–369. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. find
9. Alan Lee, Rashmi Prasad, Aravind Joshi, Nikhil Dinesh, and Bonnie Webber. 2006. Complexity of dependencies in discourse: Are dependencies in discourse more complex than in syntax? In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories. find
10. Beth Levin. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. University of Chicago Press. find
11. William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory. Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243–281. ↗ our card
12. Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of english: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):313–330. ↗ our card
13. Eleni Miltsakaki, Rashmi Prasad, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber. 2004. Annotating discourse connectives and their arguments. In Proceedings of the HLT/NAACL Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation, pages 9– 16. find
14. Eleni Miltsakaki, Nikhil Dinesh, Rashmi Prasad, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber. 2005. Experiments on sense annotation and sense disambiguation of discourse connectives. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories. find
15. Martha Palmer, Daniel Guildea, and Paul Kingsbury. 2005. The Proposition Bank: an annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31(1):71–106. find our card
16. Rashmi Prasad, Aravind Joshi, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, and Bonnie Webber. 2005. The Penn Discourse TreeBank as a resource for natural language generation. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Workshop on Using Corpora for NLG. find our card
17. Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber. 2006. Annotating attribution in the Penn Discourse TreeBank. In Proceedings of the COLING/ACL Workshop on Sentiment and Subjectivity in Text, pages 31–38. find our card
18. Ivan A. Sag and Carl Pollard. 1991. An integrated theory of complement control. Language, 67(1):63–113. find
19. PDTB-Group. 2006. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 1.0 Annotation Manual. Technical Report IRCS-06-01, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania. find our card
20. PDTB-Group. 2008. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0 Annotation Manual. Technical Report IRCS-08-01, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania. find our card
21. Bonnie Webber and Aravind Joshi. 1998. Anchoring a lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar for discourse. In Manfred Stede, Leo Wanner, and Eduard Hovy, editors, Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers: Proceedings of the Conference, pages 86–92. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bonnie Webber and Rashmi Prasad. To appear. Discourse structure: Swings and roundabouts. In Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen and Bergljot Behrens, editors, Linguistics, Special issue on Structuring Information in Discourse: the Explicit/Implicit Dimension. find
22. Bonnie Webber, Aravind Joshi, Matthew Stone, and Alistair Knott. 2003. Anaphora and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 29(4):545–587. find our card
23. Janyce Wiebe, Theresa Wilson, and Claire Cardie. 2005. Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. Language Resources and Evaluation, 1(2). find
24. Florian Wolf and Edward Gibson. 2005. Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based study. Computational Linguistics, 31(2). find

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/disc-2008-prasad-penn-discourse-treebank-2-0/