Towards Full Text Shallow Discourse Relation Annotation: Experiments
            with Cross-Paragraph Implicit Relations in the PDTB

Prasad, Rashmi; Forbes-Riley, Katherine; Lee, Alan

doi:10.18653/v1/w17-5502

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In PDTB 2.0, implicit discourse relations have only been annotated between adjacent sentences within paragraphs, as well as between complete clauses delimited by a semi-colon (";") or colon (":") (see also Prasad et al, 2017). In a first round of annotation, a connective was inserted, and the relation label was then assigned in a subsequent step, see Example (3-b).…”

Section: Penn Discourse Treebank (Pdtb)-style Annotationmentioning

confidence: 99%

How compatible are our discourse annotation frameworks? Insights from mapping RST-DT and PDTB annotations

Demberg

Scholman

Asr

2019

dad

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discourse-annotated corpora are an important resource for the community, but they are often annotated according to different frameworks. This makes joint usage of the annotations difficult, preventing researchers from searching the corpora in a unified way, or using all annotated data jointly to train computational systems. Several theoretical proposals have recently been made for mapping the relational labels of different frameworks to each other, but these proposals have so far not been validated against existing annotations. The two largest discourse relation annotated resources, the Penn Discourse Treebank and the Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse Treebank, have however been annotated on the same texts, allowing for a direct comparison of the annotation layers. We propose a method for automatically aligning the discourse segments, and then evaluate existing mapping proposals by comparing the empirically observed against the proposed mappings. Our analysis highlights the influence of segmentation on subsequent discourse relation labelling, and shows that while agreement between frameworks is reasonable for explicit relations, agreement on implicit relations is low. We identify several sources of systematic discrepancies between the two annotation schemes and discuss consequences for future annotation and for usage of the existing resources.

show abstract

Section: Penn Discourse Treebank (Pdtb)-style Annotationmentioning

confidence: 99%

How compatible are our discourse annotation frameworks? Insights from mapping RST-DT and PDTB annotations

Demberg

Scholman

Asr

2019

dad

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Arguments of explicit relations and RST EDUs will be the types of segments we are comparing. Arguments for explicit and implicit relations are of a fundamentally different type (with implicit relation arguments being typically entire sentences, or complete clauses delimited by a (semi-)colon (see Prasad et al (2017) for more details). However, since we do not have implicit relations in our corpus (in fact, this is exactly what we intend to infer from the RST relations), we can discard this difference during the mapping phase.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward Cross-theory Discourse Relation Annotation

Bourgonje¹,

Zolotarenko²

2019

Proceedings of the Workshop on Discourse Relation Parsing and Treebanking 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this exploratory study, we attempt to automatically induce PDTB-style relations from RST trees. We work with a German corpus of news commentary articles, annotated for RST trees and explicit PDTB-style relations and we focus on inducing the implicit relations in an automated way. Preliminary results look promising as a high-precision (but lowrecall) way of finding implicit relations where no shallow structure is annotated at all, but mapping proves more difficult in cases where EDUs and relation arguments overlap, yet do not seem to signal the same relation.

show abstract

“…A special set of cases was defined where the connective actually does not relate to a short non-adjacent segment on its left, but to an adjacent, quite larger segment of text and is interpretable as a means of higher discourse structuring. From another perspective on paragraph boundary, cross-paragraph discourse relations were recently investigated in Prasad et al (2017) for implicit relations, leading to the observation that a first sentence in a given paragraph semantically relates to the immediately preceding last sentence of the previous paragraph in only 52% of their sample, with 48% having links to nonadjacent left contexts. Our analysis of the features of cross-paragraph coherence only takes explicit relations into account (including secondary connectives), although we acknowledge that implicit connecting or other signalling is common between paragraphs.…”

Section: Paragraph-initial Semantic Types and Connectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discourse Relations and Connectives in Higher Text Structure

Poláková¹,

Mírovský²,

Zikánová³

et al. 2021

dad

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present article investigates possibilities and limits of local (shallow) analysis of discourse coherence with respect to the phenomena of global coherence and higher composition of texts. We study corpora annotated with local discourse relations in Czech and partly in English to try and find clues in the local annotation indicating a higher discourse structure. First, we classify patterns of subsequent or overlapping pairs of local relations, and hierarchies formed by nested local relations. Special attention is then given to relations crossing paragraph boundaries and their semantic types, and to paragraph-initial discourse connectives. In the third part, we examine situations in which annotators incline to marking a large argument (larger than one sentence) of a discourse relation even with a minimality principle annotation rule in place. Our analyses bring (i) new linguistic insights regarding coherence signals in local and higher contexts, e.g. detection and description of hierarchies of local discourse relations up to 5 levels in Czech and English, description of distribution differences in semantic types in cross-paragraph and other settings, identification of Czech connectives only typical for higher structures, or the detection of prevalence of large left-sided arguments in locally annotated data; (ii) as another type of contribution, some new reflections on methodologies of the approaches under scrutiny.

show abstract

Towards Full Text Shallow Discourse Relation Annotation: Experiments with Cross-Paragraph Implicit Relations in the PDTB

Cited by 9 publications

References 17 publications

How compatible are our discourse annotation frameworks? Insights from mapping RST-DT and PDTB annotations

How compatible are our discourse annotation frameworks? Insights from mapping RST-DT and PDTB annotations

Toward Cross-theory Discourse Relation Annotation

Discourse Relations and Connectives in Higher Text Structure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About