research-article

Free access

Recognizing implicit discourse relations in the Penn Discourse Treebank

Authors:

Hwee Tou NgAuthors Info & Claims

EMNLP '09: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Volume 1 - Volume 1

Pages 343 - 351

Published: 06 August 2009 Publication History

Abstract

We present an implicit discourse relation classifier in the Penn Discourse Treebank (PDTB). Our classifier considers the context of the two arguments, word pair information, as well as the arguments' internal constituent and dependency parses. Our results on the PDTB yields a significant 14.1% improvement over the baseline. In our error analysis, we discuss four challenges in recognizing implicit relations in the PDTB.

References

[1]

Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Bill MacCartney, and Christopher D. Manning. 2006. Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006), pages 449--454.

[2]

Jerry R. Hobbs. 1990. Literature and cognition. In CSLI Lecture Notes Number 21. CSLI Publications.

[3]

Zheng Ping Jiang and Hwee Tou Ng. 2006. Semantic role labeling of NomBank: A maximum entropy approach. In Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2006), pages 138--145, Sydney, Australia.

Digital Library

[4]

Alistair Knott and Ted Sanders. 1998. The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(2): 135--175.

[5]

Alex Lascarides and Nicholas Asher. 1993. Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(5):437--493.

[6]

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, Prague, Czech Republic, December.

[7]

William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243--281.

[8]

Daniel Marcu and Abdessamad Echihabi. 2002. An unsupervised approach to recognizing discourse relations. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2002), pages 368--375, Morristown, NJ, USA.

Digital Library

[9]

Daniel Marcu. 1998. A surface-based approach to identifying discourse markers and elementary textual units in unrestricted texts. In Proceedings of the COLING-ACL 1998 Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, pages 1--7, Montreal, Canada, August.

[10]

Eleni Miltsakaki, Nikhil Dinesh, Rashmi Prasad, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber. 2005. Experiments on sense annotations and sense disambiguation of discourse connectives. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT2005), Barcelona, Spain, December.

[11]

Alessandro Moschitti. 2004. A study on convolution kernels for shallow semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2004), Barcelona, Spain.

Digital Library

[12]

PDTB-Group, 2007. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 Annotation Manual. The PDTB Research Group, December.

[13]

Emily Pitler, Mridhula Raghupathy, Hena Mehta, Ani Nenkova, Alan Lee, and Aravind Joshi. 2008. Easily identifiable discourse relations. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2008), Manchester, UK, August.

[14]

Emily Pitler, Annie Louis, and Ani Nenkova. 2009. Automatic sense prediction for implicit discourse relations in text. To appear in Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing (ACL-IJCNLP 2009).

Digital Library

[15]

Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber. 2008. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008).

[16]

Manami Saito, Kazuhide Yamamoto, and Satoshi Sekine. 2006. Using phrasal patterns to identify discourse relations. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLT-NAACL 2006), pages 133--136, New York, USA, June.

Digital Library

[17]

Bonnie Webber. 2004. D-LTAG: Extending lexicalized TAG to discourse. Cognitive Science, 28(5):751--779, September.

[18]

Ben Wellner, James Pustejovsky, Catherine Havasi, Anna Rumshisky, and Roser Sauri. 2006. Classification of discourse coherence relations: An exploratory study using multiple knowledge sources. In Proceedings of the 7th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Sydney, Australia, July.

Digital Library

[19]

Florian Wolf and Edward Gibson. 2005. Representing discourse coherence: a corpus-based analysis. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2004), pages 134--140, Morristown, NJ, USA.

Digital Library

Cited By

Munir KBai HZhao HZhao J(2021)Memorizing All for Implicit Discourse Relation RecognitionACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing10.1145/348501621:3(1-20)Online publication date: 13-Dec-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3485016
Liu YWang SZhang JZong C(2019)Experience-based Causality Learning for Intelligent AgentsACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing10.1145/331494318:4(1-22)Online publication date: 21-May-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3314943
Hong YDing SXu YJiang XWang YYao JZhu QZhou G(2019)Focus-sensitive relation disambiguation for implicit discourse relation detectionFrontiers of Computer Science: Selected Publications from Chinese Universities10.1007/s11704-017-6558-y13:6(1266-1281)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11704-017-6558-y
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Recognizing implicit discourse relations in the Penn Discourse Treebank
1. Computing methodologies

Recommendations

Genre distinctions for discourse in the Penn TreeBank
ACL '09: Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP: Volume 2 - Volume 2

Articles in the Penn TreeBank were identified as being reviews, summaries, letters to the editor, news reportage, corrections, wit and short verse, or quarterly profit reports. All but the latter three were then characterised in terms of features ...
The Chinese Discourse TreeBank: a Chinese corpus annotated with discourse relations

The paper presents the Chinese Discourse TreeBank, a corpus annotated with Penn Discourse TreeBank style discourse relations that take the form of a predicate taking two arguments. We first characterize the syntactic and statistical distributions of ...
Sense annotation in the Penn discourse treebank
CICLing'08: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing

An important aspect of discourse understanding and generation involves the recognition and processing of discourse relations. These are conveyed by discourse connectives, i.e., lexical items like because and as a result or implicit connectives ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image DL Hosted proceedings

EMNLP '09: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Volume 1 - Volume 1

August 2009

505 pages

ISBN:9781932432596

Program Chairs:
Philipp Koehn
University of Edinburgh
,
Rada Mihalcea
University of North Texas

Publisher

Association for Computational Linguistics

United States

Publication History

Published: 06 August 2009

Qualifiers

Research-article

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 73 of 234 submissions, 31%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

33
Total Citations
View Citations
756
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)44
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12

Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Munir KBai HZhao HZhao J(2021)Memorizing All for Implicit Discourse Relation RecognitionACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing10.1145/348501621:3(1-20)Online publication date: 13-Dec-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3485016
Liu YWang SZhang JZong C(2019)Experience-based Causality Learning for Intelligent AgentsACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing10.1145/331494318:4(1-22)Online publication date: 21-May-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3314943
Hong YDing SXu YJiang XWang YYao JZhu QZhou G(2019)Focus-sensitive relation disambiguation for implicit discourse relation detectionFrontiers of Computer Science: Selected Publications from Chinese Universities10.1007/s11704-017-6558-y13:6(1266-1281)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11704-017-6558-y
Li JSong YWei ZWong K(2018)A joint model of conversational discourse and latent topics on microblogsComputational Linguistics10.1162/coli_a_0033544:4(719-754)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1162/coli_a_00335
Benamara FInkpen DTaboada M(2018)Introduction to the special issue on language in social mediaComputational Linguistics10.1162/coli_a_0033344:4(663-681)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1162/coli_a_00333
She XJian PZhang PHuang H(2018)Leveraging Hierarchical Deep Semantics to Classify Implicit Discourse Relations via a Mutual Learning MethodACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing10.1145/317845617:3(1-12)Online publication date: 13-Feb-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3178456
Jia YFeng YYe YLv CShi CZhao D(2018)Improved Discourse Parsing with Two-Step Neural Transition-Based ModelACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing10.1145/315253717:2(1-21)Online publication date: 11-Jan-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3152537
Zhang BXiong DSu JZhang M(2018)Learning better discourse representation for implicit discourse relation recognition via attention networksNeurocomputing10.1016/j.neucom.2017.09.074275:C(1241-1249)Online publication date: 31-Jan-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.neucom.2017.09.074
Lei WWang XLiu MIlievski IHe XKan M(2017)SWIMProceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3171837.3171848(4026-4032)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3171837.3171848
Kong FZhou G(2017)A CDT-Styled End-to-End Chinese Discourse ParserACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing10.1145/309955716:4(1-17)Online publication date: 13-Jul-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3099557
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents