Mova0.5 pre-release⌕
☰
home / docs / papers / English / Reflections on the Penn Discourse TreeBank, Comparable Corpora, and Complementary Annotation

Reflections on the Penn Discourse TreeBank, Comparable Corpora, and Complementary Annotation

What it is about

A guide to the PDTB, written to correct common misreadings. Discourse relations are grounded in lexical items. The PDTB 2.0 has 18,459 explicit relations (signalled by subordinating or coordinating conjunctions, prepositional phrases or adverbs), 16,224 implicit relations (an inserted connective between adjacent sentences), 624 AltLex, 5,210 EntRel and 254 NoRel. The authors argue that several features are under-annotated and therefore easy to misread: AltLex expressions were marked only where an implicit connective seemed redundant; implicit relations were not annotated within sentences; supplementary text was marked for 1,571 explicit relations but only 126 implicit ones. About 5.4% of explicit tokens (999 of 18,459) carry two sense labels. For "since", only 10 of 184 tokens are double-labelled, against 21 of 184 when annotators were given a joint TEMPORAL/CAUSAL option in an earlier study. The paper also compares comparable corpora in other languages and genres, and relates the PDTB to TimeBank and PropBank.

Ideas

For Mova

The chapters are 36. Discourse relations and coherence and 38. Dialogue, discourse markers and reported speech. The code is prag/src/frames.rs and prag/src/infer.rs, for implicatures. The measure is sense-level accuracy on held-out lessons, reported with the set of allowed senses per connective. Run twice and check that the results are identical.

Topics: Discourse analysis · Treebanks

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.1162/coli_a_00204

@article{prasad2014reflections,
  title = {{Reflections on the Penn Discourse TreeBank, Comparable Corpora, and Complementary Annotation}},
  author = {Prasad, Rashmi and Webber, Bonnie and Joshi, Aravind},
  journal = {Computational Linguistics},
  year = {2014},
  doi = {10.1162/coli\_a\_00204},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00204}
}

References

85 references, 10 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Agarwal, M., R. Shah, and P. Mannem. 2011. Automatic question generation using discourse cues. In Proceedings of the ACL HLT 2011 Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pages 1–9, Portland, OR. find
  2. Aijmer, K. and A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen. 2004. A model and a methodology for the study of pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 36:1781–1805. find
  3. Aktaş, B., C. Bozşahin, and D. Zeyrek. 2010. Discourse relation configurations in Turkish and an annotation environment. In Proceedings of the 4th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, pages 202–206, Uppsala. find
  4. Al-Saif, A. 2012. Human and automatic annotation of discourse relations for Arabic. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leeds. find
  5. Al-Saif, A. and K. Markert. 2010. The Leeds Arabic Discourse Treebank: Annotating discourse connectives for Arabic. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2010), pages 2,046–2,053, Valletta. find
  6. Al-Saif, A. and K. Markert. 2011. Modelling discourse relations for Arabic. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 736–747, Edinburgh. find
  7. Allen, J. 1984. Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence, 23:123–154. find
  8. Asher, N. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects. Kluwer, Dordrecht. find
  9. Asher, N. and A. Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press. find
  10. Asr, F. T. and V. Demberg. 2012a. Implicitness of discourse relations. In Proceedings of COLING, pages 2,669–2,684, Mumbai. find
  11. Asr, F. T. and V. Demberg. 2012b. Measuring the strength of linguistic cues for discourse relations. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in Discourse Analysis and its Computational Aspects (ADACA), pages 33–42, Mumbai. find
  12. Asr, F. T. and V. Demberg. 2013. On the information conveyed by discourse markers. In Proceedings of the 4 th Annual Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL), pages 84–93, Sofia. find
  13. Baldridge, J., N. Asher, and J. Hunter. 2007. Annotation for and robust parsing of discourse structure on unrestricted texts. Zeitschrift fur Sprachwissenschaft, 26:213–239. find
  14. Bejček, E., E. Hajičová, J. Hajič, P. Jı́nová, V. Kettnerová, V. Kolářová, M. Mikulová, J. Mı́rovský, A. Nedoluzhko, J. Panevová, L. Poláková, M. Ševčı́ková, J. Štěpánek, and Šárka Zikánová. 2013. Prague Dependency Treebank 3.0 data/ software. Technical report, Univerzita Karlova v Praze, MFF, FAL, Prague. http://ufal.mff.cuni.cz/pdt3.0/. ↗
  15. Bunt, H., R. Prasad, and A. Joshi. 2012. First steps towards an ISO standard for annotating discourse relations. In Proceedings of the Joint ISA-7, SRSL-3, and I2MRT Workshop on Semantic Annotation and the Integration and Interoperability of Multimodal Resources and Tools, pages 60–69, Istanbul. find
  16. Carlson, L., D. Marcu, and M. E. 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, pages 1–10, Aalborg. find our card
  17. Danlos, L., D. Antolinos-Basso, C. Braud, and C. Roze. 2012. Vers le FDTB: French Discourse Tree Bank. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference JEP-TALN-RECITAL, pages 471–479, Grenoble. find
  18. Demirsahin, I., A. Ozturel, C. Bozsahin, and D. Zeyrek. 2013. Applicative structures and immediate discourse in the Turkish Discourse Bank. In Proceedings of the 7 th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse, pages 122–130, Sofia. find
  19. Dinesh, N., A. Lee, E. Miltsakaki, R. Prasad, A. Joshi, and B. 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, pages 29–36, Ann Arbor, MI. find
  20. Elwell, R. and J. Baldridge. 2008. Discourse connective argument identification with connective specific rankers. In Proceedings of ICSC-2008, pages 198–205, Santa Clara, CA. find
  21. Forbes-Riley, K., B. Webber, and A. Joshi. 2006. Computing discourse semantics: The predicate-argument semantics of discourse connectives in D-LTAG. Journal of Semantics, 23:55–106. find
  22. Ghosh, S., R. Johansson, G. Riccardi, and S. Tonelli. 2011a. Shallow discourse parsing with conditional random fields. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 1,071–1,079, Chiang Mai. find
  23. Ghosh, S., R. Johansson, G. Riccardi, and S. Tonelli. 2012. Improving the recall of a discourse parser by constraint-based postprocessing. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 2,791–2,794, Istanbul. find
  24. Ghosh, S., S. Tonelli, G. Riccardi, and R. Johansson. 2011b. End-to-end discourse parser evaluation. In Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing, pages 169–172, Palo Alto, CA. find
  25. Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. Longman, London. find
  26. Hirschberg, J. and D. Litman. 1993. Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics, 19(3):501–530. find
  27. Jayez, J. and C. Rossari. 1998. Pragmatic connectives as predicates: the case of inferential connectives. In P. St Dizier, ed., Predicative forms in natural language and in lexical knowledge bases, pages 285–319. Springer, Dordrecht. find
  28. Jiang, X. 2013. Predicting the use and interpretation of implicit and explicit discourse connectives. Ph.D. thesis, M.Sc. Thesis, School of Psychology, Philosophy and Language Sciences (PPLS), University of Edinburgh. find
  29. Jı́nová, P., J. Mı́rovský, and L. Poláková. 2012. Semi-automatic annotation of intra-sentential discourse relations in PDT. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in Discourse Analysis and its Computational Aspects (ADACA), pages 43–58, Mumbai. find
  30. Kehler, A. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI Publications, Palo Alto, CA. find
  31. Knott, A. 1996. A Data-Driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh. find
  32. Knott, A., J. Oberlander, M. O’Donnell, and C. Mellish. 2001. Beyond elaboration: The interaction of relations and focus in coherent text. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, and W. Spooren, editors, Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects, pages 181–196. John Benjamins Publishing. find
  33. Kolachina, S., R. Prasad, D. M. Sharma, and A. Joshi. 2012. Evaluation of discourse relation annotation in the Hindi Discourse Relation Bank. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 823–828, Istanbul. find
  34. Lakoff, R. 1971. Ifs, ands and buts about conjunction. Studies in Linguistic Semantics, 3:114–149. find
  35. Lin, Z., H. T. Ng, and M.-Y. Kan. 2012. A PDTB-styled end-to-end discourse parser. Natural Language Engineering, 20:151–184. find
  36. Mann, W. C. and S. A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243–281. find our card
  37. Marcus, M. P., B. Santorini, and M. A. Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):313–330. find our card
  38. Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Benjamins, Amsterdam. find
  39. Meyer, T. 2011. Disambiguating temporal-contrastive connectives for machine translation. In Proceedings of the ACL 2011 Student Session, pages 46–51, Portland, OR. find
  40. Meyer, T. and A. Popescu-Belis. 2012. Using sense-labeled discourse connectives for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Hybrid Approaches to Machine Translation (HyTra), pages 129–138, Avignon. find
  41. Meyer, T. and B. Webber. 2013. Implicitation of discourse connectives in (machine) translation. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Discourse in Machine Translation, pages 19–26, Sofia. find
  42. Miltsakaki, E., N. Dinesh, R. Prasad, A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 2005. Experiments on sense annotation and sense disambiguation of discourse connectives. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT), pages 1–12, Barcelona. find
  43. Miltsakaki, E., R. Prasad, A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 2004. Annotating discourse connectives and their arguments. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation (Human Language Technology Conference and the Conference of the North American Association of Computational Linguistics), pages 9–16, Boston, MA. find
  44. Miltsakaki, E., L. Robaldo, A. Lee, and A. Joshi. 2008. Sense annotation in the Penn Discourse Treebank. Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4919:275–286. find our card
  45. Mladová, L., Šárka Zikánová, and E. Hajičová. 2008. From sentence to discourse: Building an annotation scheme for discourse based on Prague Dependency Treebank. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08), pages 2,564–2,570, Marrakech. find
  46. Moens, M. and M. Steedman. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2):15–28. find
  47. Ostler, S. 1987. Academic and ethnic background as factors affecting writing performance. In A. Purves, editor, Writing across Languages and Cultures: Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric, pages 261–272. Sage. find
  48. Oza, U., R. Prasad, S. Kolachina, S. Meena, D. M. Sharma, and A. Joshi. 2009. Experiments with annotating discourse relations in the Hindi Discourse Relation Bank. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICON), pages 1–10, Hyderabad. find
  49. Palmer, M., D. Gildea, and P. Kingsbury. 2005. The Proposition Bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31(1):71–106. find our card
  50. Pareti, S. 2012. A database of attribution relations. In Proceedings of the 8 th Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC12), pages 3,213–3,217, Istanbul. find
  51. Patterson, G. and A. Kehler. 2013. Predicting the presence of discourse connectives. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 914–923, Seattle, WA. find
  52. 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
  53. Pitler, E. and A. Nenkova. 2009. Using syntax to disambiguate explicit discourse connectives in text. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 13–16, Singapore. find our card
  54. Pitler, E., M. Raghupathy, H. Mehta, A. Nenkova, A. Lee, and A. Joshi. 2008. Easily identifiable discourse relations. In Proceedings of COLING, pages 87–90, Manchester. find
  55. Poláková, L., P. Jı́nová, Šárka Zikánová, Z. Bedřichová, J. Mı́rovský, M. Rysová, J. Zdeňková, V. Pavlı́ková, and E. Hajičová. 2012. Manual for annotation of discourse relations in the Prague Dependency Treebank. Technical report TR-2012/47, Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. find
  56. Poláková, L., J. Mı́rovský, A. Nedoluzhko, P. Jı́nová, V. Zikánová, and E. Hajičová. 2013. Introducing the Prague Discourse Treebank 1.0. In Proceedings of the 6 th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 91–99, Nagoya. find
  57. Polanyi, L., C. Culy, M. van den Berg, G. L. Thione, and D. Ahn. 2004. Sentential structure and discourse parsing. In ACL 2004 Workshop on Discourse Annotation, pages 80–87, Barcelona. find
  58. Prasad, R., N. Dinesh, A. Lee, A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 2007. Attribution and its annotation in the Penn Discourse TreeBank. Traitement Automatique des Langues, Special Issue on Computational Approaches to Document and Discourse, 47(2):43–64. find our card
  59. Prasad, R., N. Dinesh, A. Lee, E. Miltsakaki, L. Robaldo, A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 2008. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In Proceedings of LREC, pages 2,961–2,968, Marrakesh. find our card
  60. Prasad, R. and A. Joshi. 2008. A discourse-based approach to generating why-questions from texts. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Question Generation Shared Task and Evaluation Challenge, pages 1–3, Arlington, VA. find
  61. Prasad, R., A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 2010a. Exploiting scope for shallow discourse parsing. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and their Evaluation, pages 2,076–2,083, Valletta. find
  62. Prasad, R., A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 2010b. Realization of discourse relations by other means: Alternative lexicalizations. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1,023–1,031, Beijing. find
  63. Prasad, R., S. McRoy, N. Frid, A. Joshi, and H. Yu. 2011. The Biomedical Discourse Relation Bank. BMC Bioinformatics, 12(188):1–18. find
  64. Pustejovsky, J., P. Hanks, R. Sauri, A. See, R. Gaizauskas, A. Setzer, and D. Radev. 2003a. The Timebank corpus. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Meeting, pages 647–656, Lancaster. find
  65. Pustejovsky, J., A. Meyers, M. Palmer, and M. Poesio. 2005. Merging PropBank, NomBank, TimeBank, Penn Discourse Treebank and Coreference. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotations II: Pie in the Sky, pages 5–12, Ann Arbor, MI. find our card
  66. Pustejovsky, J., J. Castaño, R. Ingria, R. Sauri, R. Gaizauskas, A. Setzer, and G. Katz. 2003b. TimeML: Robust specification of event and temporal expressions in text. New Directions in Question Answering, 3:28–34. find
  67. Ramesh, B., R. Prasad, T. Miller, B. Harrington, and H. Yu. 2012. Automatic discourse connective detection in biomedical text. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 19(5):800–808. find
  68. Rysová, M. 2012. Alternative lexicalizations of discourse connectives in Czech. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 2,800–2,807, Istanbul. find
  69. Sharma, H., P. Dakwale, D. Sharma, R. Prasad, and A. Joshi. 2013. Assessment of different workflow strategies for annotating discourse relations: A case study with HDRB. In A. Gelbukh, editor, Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, LNCS 7816, pages 523–532. Springer. find
  70. Stede, M. 2008. RST revisited: Disentangling nuclearity. In C. Fabricius-Hansen and W. Ramm, editors, ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text–from a cross-linguistic perspective, pages 33–58. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. find
  71. Stede, M. 2012. Discourse Processing. Morgan & Claypool Publishers. find
  72. Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantics. Cambridge University Press. find
  73. Versley, Y. 2010. Discovery of ambiguous and unambiguous discourse connectives via annotation projection. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Annotation and Exploitation of Parallel Corpora (AEPC), pages 83–92, Tartu. find
  74. Webber, B. 2013. What excludes an alternative in coherence relations? In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2013), pages 276–287, Potsdam. find
  75. Webber, B., M. Egg, and V. Kordoni. 2012. Discourse structure and language technology. Natural Language Engineering, 18(4):437–490. find
  76. Weischedel, R., M. Palmer, M. Marcus, E. Hovy, S. Pradhan, L. Ramshaw, N. Xue, A. Taylor, J. Kaufman, M. Franchini, M. El-Bachouti, R. Belvin, and A. Houston. 2012. Ontonotes release 5.0. Technical report, Linguistic Data Consortium. find
  77. Wellner, B. 2009. Sequence Models and Re-ranking Methods for Discourse Parsing. Ph.D. thesis, Brandeis University, Boston, MA. find
  78. Wellner, B. and J. Pustejovsky. 2007. Automatically identifiying the arguments of discourse connectives. In Proceedings of EMNLP-CoNLL, pages 92–101. find
  79. Xue, N. 2005. Annotating discourse connectives in the Chinese Treebank. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation II: Pie in the Sky, pages 84–91, Ann Arbor, MI. find
  80. Zeyrek, D., Ümit Deniz Turan, and I. Demirşahin. 2008. Structural and presuppositional connectives in Turkish. In A. Benz, P. Kühnlein, and M. Stede, editors, Constraints in Discourse 3, pages 131–137. University of Potsdam, Germany. find
  81. Zeyrek, D., Ümit Deniz Turan, C. Bozşahin, R. Çakıcı, A. Sevdik-Çallı, I. Demirşahin, B. Aktaş, İhsan Yalçınkaya, and H. Ögel. 2009. Annotating subordinators in the Turkish Discourse Bank. In Proceedings of the Third Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW III), ACL-IJCNLP-2009, pages 44–48, Singapore. find
  82. Zeyrek, D., I. Demirşahin, A. Sevdik-Çallı, H. Ögel, İhsan Yalçınkaya, and Ümit Deniz Turan. 2010. The annotation scheme of the Turkish Discourse Bank and an evaluation of inconsistent annotations. In Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW-IV), ACL 2010, pages 282–289, Uppsala. find
  83. Zeyrek, D., I. Demirşahin, A. Sevdik-Çallı, and R. Çakıcı. 2013. Turkish Discourse Bank: Porting a discourse annotation style to a morphologically rich language. Dialogue and Discourse, 4(2):174–184. Zhou, Y. and N. Xue. (in press). The Chinese Discourse TreeBank: A Chinese corpus annotated with discourse relations. Journal of Language Resources and Evaluation. find
  84. Zhou, Y. and N. Xue. 2012. PDTB-style discourse annotation of Chinese text. In Proceedings of the 50 th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 69–77, Jeju Island. find
  85. Zhou, Z.-M., M. Lan, Y. Xu, Z.-Y. Niu, J. Su, and C. L. Tan. 2010. Predicting discourse connectives for implicit discourse relation recognition. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pages 1,507–1,514, Beijing. find

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/prasad-2014-reflections-penn-discourse-treebank-comparable/