Richly annotated discourse corpora can facilitate theoretical advances
as well as contribute to language technology.
Discuss issues related to describing and annotating discourse relations.
Describe briefly some specific approaches, which involve reasonably large corpora, highlighting the similarities and differences and how this shapes the resulting annotations.
Describe in detail the predominantly lexicalized approach to discourse relation annotation in the Penn Discourse Treebank (PDTB) – partly released in April 2006, final release, April 2007– and illustrate some of its uses.
Encourage you to provide feedback and USE the PDTB!
What is a discourse relation?
The meaning and coherence of a discourse results partly from how its constituents relate to each other.
Informational discourse relations convey relations that hold in the subject matter.
Intentional discourse relations specify how intended discourse effects relate to each other.
[Moore & Pollack, 1992] argue that discourse analysis requires both types.
This tutorial focuses on the former – informational or semanticrelations (e.g, CONTRAST, CAUSE, CONDITIONAL, TEMPORAL, etc.) between abstract entities of appropriate sorts (e.g., facts, beliefs, eventualities, etc.), commonly called Abstract Objects (AOs) [Asher, 1993].
On a level site you can provide a cross pitch to the entire slab by raising one side of the form, but for a 20-foot-wide drive this results in an awkward 5-inch slant. Instead, make the drive higher at the center.
Here instead cannot be effectively decoded without reference to
the presupposed predication: raising one side of the form
Instead ofraising one side of the form, make the drive higher at the center.