SW` J|~ @@@ @@@@?s d\=S| EN DB  7?PU4Ve #MYS eEEWKKwwwwk[[[[ff xbpp_Ghhu  ``""""hii&&&%%%%%(())))****++++,,L++LLL||##----zz0000///2////222!<\ Goutsos19968 Marcu1997] Reitter2003u.r Reitter2003 Renals20066& Renkema2006+ Renkema2008 Renkema2008 Renkema2009t Rich20010 Rienks2007 Rino1996 Rino20011 Rino20022 Rino20044 Rino2004V Rino2006 Rino20077 Risselada1998@ Rist19911O Rist19911 Rist1993hT Rist19966 Rittgen2008 Robin1995s Robin2001 Rocchi2003x Rock20010w Rock20020J Romary19988 Romera1999 Romera1999 Romera2004ZRondhuis1997 Rossari1998 Rossari2001 Rosson20099y Roth20044 Rsner1992b Rsner1992 Rsner1993fRutledge2000gRutledge2000Rutledge2001 Safranj2007 Safranj2008 Safranj2008| Salkie1999k Sanders1986 Sanders1992 Sanders1993 Sanders1993 Sanders1996 Sanders1997 Sanders1998 Sanders1999< Sanders1999 Sanders2000 Sanders2001 Sanders2001 Sanders2002 Sanders2007 Sanders2008 Sanders2008Sanfranj2008 Sarjala1994 Sarkar20012  Say1997 Scha19839 Scha19944  Schauer2000! Schauer2000" Schauer2000# Schauer2001 Scheppers2003$Schilder1998%Schilder19984Schilder1998&Schilder2000'Schilder2002 Schilperoord2008U Schmitz2000 Schutz2007) Scott1990y Scott1994 Scott1994z Scott1996 Scott1996 Scott1996 Scott1999( Scott1999] Scott2000o Scott2001 Scott2003 Scott2006/ Seidel20080V Seno20062* Seville1999 Sharoff1995+ Shaw1998M Shin2006 Shinjo1987Shinmori2002E Shum20060 Shum20066 Sibun1992 Sidner1986e Sidner1993t Sidner20010Siepmann2005 Silla2004 Sitter1992 Sitter1992 Skaf-Molli2006, Smith1997 Smith2004: Smith2006Sokolova1995 Somasundaran2009- Soria1998. Soricut2003 Souza2008 Souza2009u Sparck-Jones1995Spenader2009 Sperry198584Spiliotopoulos20022 Spooren1992 Spooren1993/ Spooren1997 Spooren1998 Spooren1999C Spooren2006 Spooren2008 Sporleder2005 Sporleder2005 Sporleder2007 Sporleder20084 Spyropoulos20024 Stamatakis200222 Stamatopoulos2005 Stamatopoulos2008 Stede1992 Stede1997 Stede19980 Stede1998] Stede1998U Stede2000 Stede2003 Stede2003 Stede2004 Stede2004 Stede2004L Stede2004- Stede2006< Stede2006 Stede2008Stede to appear Steen1999 Steen2002 Steen2004 Stein1994 Stein1994 Stein19971 Stent2000 Stent2009DStephane2003  Stevenson2000 Stewart1987 Stickel1993` Stock1990b Stock1992_ Stock1993E Stone1999F Stone1999C Stone2003 Stys20044 Subba2006 Subba2007 Subba2009 Sumita1992 Sumita1994 Sumita1994 Sutcliffe1994M Sutcliffe2006 Swerts19999 T'sou2000 Tsou2000n Tablan200002 Taboada2001h Taboada20033 Taboada2004 Taboada2004 Taboada2004 Taboada2005 Taboada2006 Taboada2006 Taboada2006 Taboada2006 Taboada2007 Taboada2007 Taboada2008 Taboada2008 Taboada2008 Taboada2008 Taboada2009 Taboada2009z Takeshita1997 Tam2004z Tanaka199794 Tappe1998` Taylor20010 Taylor2002 Taylor2004 Teich1997| Terken19989 Terken19999{ Terken20020 Teruya19989 Tetreault20055 Teufel1999 Teufel2002$ Thielemann2007 Thione2004g Thione2004 Thione2004g Thione2004 Thomas1995Thompson1983Thompson1986Thompson19876Thompson19877Thompson1987MThompson1988Thompson19889Thompson19929Thompson1992RThompson1993NThompson2005 Tienari2005  Timmerman2007 Tofiloski20098Torrance2001 Touir2003Trabasso1985 Trail19959 Traum1993 Trif2007 Tsujii19949_ Ucoluk2003 Ukita19920 Umbach1998 Umbach2005 Unger1996 Uzda2007: Uzuner2003 Vaara2005Q van den Berg1999 van der Berg2004 van der Berg2004 van der Berg2004 van der Berg2004 van der Mije1988;van Eijk1996 Van Kuppevelt1995 Van Kuppevelt1996fvan Ossenbruggen2000gvan Ossenbruggen2000van Wijk1993van Wijk1996|van Wijk19988<van Wijk1999 van Wissen19888 Vandenberg1994> Vander Linden1992^ Vander Linden1992y Vander Linden1994= Vander Linden1994? Vander Linden1995 Vander Linden2004 Vargas-Vera2004 Vassiliadou2009Verberne2007 Verdejo1995Verhagen2001 Vet1999V Vieira20060 Vieira20070, Vieu20070 Vieu20090Virtanen1995 Vivanco2005 Voll2007 Voll20080 Vonk19921 Vonk19921@Wahlster1991OWahlster1991Wahlster1993A Walker1994 Wallace2007 Walton2005 Wan2001\ Wang1993] Wanner1998Watanabe2000Watanabe2000o Webber19977B Webber1998D Webber1999E Webber1999F Webber1999 Webber20012l Webber20022 Webber2002N Webber20030m Webber20032C Webber2003 Webber20042 Webber2004 Webber2005 Webber2006 Webber20088 Webster2001Wheatley1996 Wiebe1993 Wiebe1996 Wiebe1998 Wiebe2009 Wilkinson2001 Wille1998Williams2003Williams2008{ Williamson2000 Wolf2003 Wolf2004 Wolf2004 Wolf2004 Wolf2004 Wolf2004 Wolf2005 Wolf2005 Wolf2006_ Wolfe1998x Wolff2001w Wolff2002` Wong20010 Wong2001 Wong2004 Wu19981 Wu2001o Wu200403 Wu20050g Yang20000 Yang2007P Ye2007^ Yetim1994_ Yondem2003] You1994G Young1994 Yue2005 Zacharski1988 Zancanaro2000 Zancanaro2003 Zeng1998eH Zetie1996 Zhan20000 Zhang2002 Zhang2004[ Zhang2005a Zock19909m Zock19961 Zou2007IZukerman1993JZukerman1995vZukerman2001Zukerman2001Zukerman20019E Webber1999F Webber1999̄ Webber20012l Webber20022 Webber2002N Webber20030m Webber20032C Webber2003̮ Webber20042 Webber2004̣ Wiebe1993 Wille1998{ Williamson2000̩ Wolf2003̪ Wolf2004̫ Wolf2004̬ Wolf2004̭ Wolf2004_ Wolfe1998x Wolff2001w Wolff2002` Wong20010 Wu19981G Young1994 Zacharski1988 Zancanaro2000 Zancanaro2003 Zeng1998eH Zetie1996a Zock19909m Zock19961IZukerman1993JZukerman1995vZukerman200100 Zeng1998eqS eEtWcoHKwk~[f xbp_nGhu^ I`"i&%()*+,L|#MX-z0/2!3FYlr{O5:BA6@$T9<QC.d;>aD'ZRs=.0^3c4568o9e:;d<r=> @ As BpCgEuDhFGwHKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK AuthorsNJournals JKeywords                                j@  Abelen, EricAbeysinghe, GeethaAdorni, GiovanniAfantenos, Stergos DAfantenos, Stergos D. Ahmed, Nabeel Ahn, DavidAizawa, Teruaki Aked, Joy P. Akman, Varol Albrecht, I.Alexandersson, JanAllbritton, D.Allen, Patrick Allen, R. B.Alonso i Alemany, LauraAltenberg, Bengt Amano, S.Amorrortu, Estibaliz Andre, E.Andreyev, SlavaAndr, ElisabethAndriessen, JerryAndroutsopoulos, I.Angelova, GaliaAnscombre, Jean-Claude Antonio, Juliano DesideratoAppelt, Douglas E Arens, YigalArgamon, ShlomoAsher, NicholasAunargue, Mixel Azar, Moshe Babaii, EsmatBach, Paula M. Bahls, D Bailey, BrianBaillet, Susan D.Baker, MichaelBaldridge, JasonBallard, D. Lee Ballim, AzfalBarahona, PedroBarzilay, Regina Bateman, JohnBaumgarten, N.Bazzanella, C.Brenfnger, Maja Beekman, JohnBehrens, Bergljot Bell, Mark A.Benamara, FarahBenwell, Bethan Benz, AntonBerber Sardinha, TonyBerman, Ruth A.Bernrdez, Enrique Berry, D. C.Berzlnovich, Ildik Bestgen, YvesBeun, Robbert-JanBeveridge, MartinBeveridge, MichaelBickmore, Timothy W. Bille, PhilipBinnick, Robert Birchall, A. Bisseret, A.Black, WilliamBlair-Goldensohn, SashaBlakemore, Diane Bloom, LoisBluth, George J.Blhdorn, HardarikBocaniala, Cosmin DanutBontcheva, Kalina Borst, Timo Bos, Johan Boscolo, P.Bosma, Wauter E.Bosque, IgnacioBouayad-Agha, Nadjet Bouwer, A. Boves, Lou Bozsahin, CemBracewell, Rob H.Braden-Harder, LisaBraecke, ChrisBranco, AntnioBrandt, David M.Braue, Ursula Breindl, Eva Breton, G.Brisard, FrankBritton, Bruce K.Brooke, Julian Brown, PollyBruhn de Garavito, JoyceBublitz, Wolfram Bunt, H C Bunt, HarryBurstein, JillBurstein, Jill C.Busa, FedericaBusch, MichaelByron, Donna K. Callow, JohnCampion, GeraudCaplan, David N.Carberry, SandraCarbonel, Thiago IanezCarenini, GiuseppeCarletta, Jean Carlson, Lynn Caro, S.Carreiras, ManuelCarroll, John M.Carter, RonaldCassell, Justine Cavazza, Marc Cawsey, A.Cawsey, AlisonCervenka, Miroslav Chafai, N. E.Chafe, WallaceChan, S. W. K.Chan, Samuel W. K. Chase, Paul Cheng, HuaChiarcos, Christian Chino, T. Cho, Jeong-MiChodorow, MartinChodorow, Martin S.Chotimongkol, Ananlada Chua, T. S.Chua, Tat-seng Chuang, W. T.Ciarlini, A. E. M. Clifton, C.Cmejrkov, SvetlaCoelho, Jorge CsarCohen, Philip R. Collier, N.Collovini, Sandra S. Connor, UllaConrad, Robert J. Conroy, JohnCoppen, Peter-ArnoCoray, Giovanni Cornelis, L.Cornish, FrancisCorston, SimonCorston-Oliver, Simon Cox, Richard Cremers, C.Creswell, Cassandre Cristea, DanCross, Marilyn Cui, SongrenCuly, ChristopherCumming, Susanna D'Urso, V.Dahlgren, Kathleen Dale, Robert Dalianis, H. Daniel, M.Danlos, LaurenceDaradoumis, ThanasisDargnat, MathildeDaskalopolu, AspassiaDassen, Ingrid Dastani, M.Daum, Hal, IIIDavies, Bethan L. Davis, JimDavis, RandallDe Busser, Rikde Campos, Miguel Cardosode Carolis, Berardina de Geus, J. de Rosis, F.de Rosis, FiorellaDe Silva, Nishadi  J IAcm Computing Surveys Acm Transactions on GraphicsActa ScientiarumAI CommunicationsAnglicana Turkuensia83Annual Review of Information Science and Technology$Applied Artificial IntelligenceApplied Linguistics ArgumentationArtificial IntelligenceLIArtificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing(#Artificial Intelligence in Medicine$Artificial Intelligence ReviewAslib Proceedings,(Australian Review of Applied Linguistics0*Cahiers de Grammaire de Toulouse-Le MirailD@Cahiers De Psychologie Cognitive-Current Psychology of Cognition41Circulo de Lingstica Aplicada a la ComunicacinCognitive LinguisticsCognitive ScienceCommunications of the ACM Computational IntelligenceComputational Linguistics Computer Computers and the Humanities@;Copenhagen Working Papers in Language and Speech ProcessingDecision Support SystemsDeutsche Sprache DiscoursDiscourse and SocietyDiscourse ProcessesDiscourse StudiesDocument Design84E-Journal of Asian Linguistics and Language Teaching$ Educational Technology & Society,(European Journal of Cognitive PsychologyFolia LinguisticaFoundations of LanguageFunctions of Language Gesture Historiographia Linguistica Human Communication Research84IEEE Expert-Intelligent Systems & Their ApplicationsIeee Intelligent Systems0-Ieice Transactions on Information and SystemsInformal Logic(#Information and Software Technology Information Design Journal(#Information Processing & Management(%Information Processing and Management Interacting with Computers0,International Journal of Applied Linguistics0,International Journal of Conflict Management0,International Journal of Electronic Commerce4/International Journal of Human-Computer Studies<8International Journal of Logic, Language and Information0,International Journal of Medical InformaticsLHInternational Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial IntelligenceLGInternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge EngineeringLGInternational Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL) InterpretingIPrA Papers in Pragmatics41ITL, International Journal of Applied LinguisticsJavnost-the Public0+Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research$!Journal of Biomedical InformaticsJournal of Child Language0*Journal of Computer Mediated Communication Journal of Computer Science0+Journal of Computer Science and Cybernetics$!Journal of Educational PsychologyHBJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition("Journal of French Language Studies  k Accessibility acquisitionAdjacency pair AgentsAI AlternateAmbiguous Pronouns Analysis anaphoraanaphora resolution Anaphoric NP AnaphorsAnimate subject Annotation Antecedents Appraisal ArgumentationArgumentation Theory BasqueBinding Theorybioinformatics boundariesBrazilian PortugueseCausal relationsCentering Theory children Chinese Citations ClarityClause segmentation coherenceCoherence relations CohesionComputational Linguistics(#Computer Assisted Language Learning$Computer-mediated communication Connectives constructionContext (15250)Contextual information Conversation Conversation Analysis (15605) corporaCorpus analysis Critical Discourse Analysis culture D-LTAG Definitions Derivations Dialog dialogueDialogue Macrogame Theorydiet DiscourseDiscourse analysis Discourse Analysis (19200)dadiscourse analysis, discourse annotation, essay evaluation, machine learning, text classificationDiscourse anaphoraDiscourse coherenceTOdiscourse cues, intentional structure, information structure, tutorial dialogueDiscourse MarkersDiscourse modelDiscourse parsing$Discourse Representation TheoryDiscourse segmentsDiscourse structureDLTAGDocument designDutchDynamic Quantifier Logic EconomyEEG ElaborationEngland (21800) englishERP Essay Marking FinnishFocusForms Foundationframe French Functional Discourse Grammar Gender GenerationGenre German GestureGestures (27950)GISTGlobal discourse Global focusGreekhostage negotiation HypertextILEX Incomplete Inferableinformation extractionInformation retrievalD?information retrieval, legal documents, artificial intelligence Instructions$Interpersonal Behavior (37550) intonation ItalianItalian (38950) x|\l Kittredge, R.d 2002:4Paraphrasing for condensation in journal abstracting(!Journal of Biomedical Informatics\354t265-277i AugaISI:000182607600007 kittredge2002"Rhetorical Structure Theory|NHWhen authors of empirical science articles write abstracts, they employ a wide variety of distinct linguistic operations which interact to condense and rephrase a subset of sentences from the source text. An on-going comparison of biological and biomedical journal articles with their author-written abstracts is providing a basis for a more linguistically detailed model of abstract derivation using syntactic representations of selected source sentences. The description makes use of rich dictionary information to formulate paraphrasing rules of differing degrees of generality, including some which are sublanguage-specific, and others which appear valid in several languages when formulated using "lexical functions" to express important semantic relationships between lexical items. Some paraphrase operations may use both lexical functions and rhetorical relations between sentences to reformulate larger chunks of text in a concise abstract sentence. The descriptive framework is computable and utilizes existing linguistic resources. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.$://0001826076000075*$Kleiber, Georges Vassiliadou, Hlne 2009VOSur la relation d'laboration: des approches intuitives aux approches formelles}("Journal of French Language Studies192183-205kleiber-vassiliadou2009<6Rhetorical Structure Theory SDRT Elaboration Citations0)Citation of Taboada and Mann 2006, part 1gKneser, C. Ploetzner, R. 2001Collaboration on the basis of complementary domain knowledge: observed dialogue structures and their relation to learning successeLearning and Instruction1110 53-83t FebrISI:000165557200004okneser-ploetzner2001"Rhetorical Structure Theorye@:We present an analysis of dialogues produced in an experimental study on collaborative learning. In the study, tenth graders were first taught either qualitative or quantitative knowledge of classical mechanics. Afterwards, dyads of students who had been taught different knowledge collaboratively worked on problems which were beyond the competence of each student, Qualitatively instructed students gained significantly more from the information provided by their quantitatively instructed partners than the other way round. Analyses of the dialogues produced by the students revealed that successfully learning dyads were characterised by coherent dialogue structures and that students who learned most during the collaboration frequently assumed the role of a reflector. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.$://000165557200004 "Knott, Alistair Dale, Robert 1994JCUsing linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relationsuDiscourse Processes\181t 35-62l knott-dale944-Rhetorical Structure Theory Markers RelationsPresentation of a bottom-up methodology for the identification and formal definition of coherence relations based on solid usage data, as opposed to nebulously defined notions of intentions and semantics.81http://www.hcrc.ed.ac.uk/publications/rp-39.ps.gzKnott, Alistair 1996LEA Data-Driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relationsc,%Department of Artificial Intelligencek  Edinburgh, UKl University of Edinburghr 216hPh.D. dissertationknott964-Rhetorical Structure Theory Relations MarkersIn search of a definitive list and classification of discourse relations. Begins with a study of markers, the taxonomy of which leads nicely into a feature-based taxonomy of relations. Ends with new set of relation definitions, and has a very useful appendix listing markers.c2+http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/knott96data.htmlt"Knott, Alistair Dale, Robert 1996XQChoosing a set of coherence relations for text generation: A data-driven approach $Adorni, Giovanni Zock, MichaelTMTrends in Natural Language Generation: an Artificial Intelligence Perspectiven Berlin Springer 47-67 knott-dale964-Rhetorical Structure Theory Markers RelationseHASeems to be a short version of Knott's thesis. Outlines the process from building the list of markers through to the taxonomy of relations. Mentions the one loophole in the methodology: relations with no overt cue. In RST, this is usually the elaboration relation. The solution to this problem is left to future research.6/http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/knott96choosing.html$Knott, Alistair Mellish, Chris 1996\UA feature-based account of the relations signalled by sentence and clause connectives Language and Speechs39 2-3n143-183Qknott-mellish964-Rhetorical Structure Theory Relations MarkersPresents a three stage process investigating the relationship between discourse cues and relations. First, a large corpus of connectives is assembled. Then, the corpus is organized into a taxonomy of synonyms and hyponyms. Finally, a theoretical interpretation is imposed on the taxonomy. The final step is the focus of the paper, in which relations can be defined in terms of a number of orthogonal multi-valued features, and connectives as signallers of feature values.zKnott, Alistair 1998<5Similarity and contrast relations and inductive rulesNHProceedings of ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers Montral, Canada 54-57knott98,%Rhetorical Structure Theory RelationsRLCovers two relations: similarity and contrast, both of which seem to be atypical RST relations. Contrast is unusual in that it is paratactic, and the similarity relation, he illustrates violates the rules of adjacency in RST, as it links non-adjacent spans of text. Suggests defining relations in terms of a set of defeasible rules..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W98-0309"Knott, Alistair Sanders, Ted 1998ngThe classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages\Journal of Pragmatics130135-175) knott-sanders*@:Rhetorical Structure Theory Markers Relations Multilingual|uCombines Knott's English corpus work with Sanders psycholinguistic experiments on speakers of Dutch in order to determine sets of coherence relations. These processes both lead to classifications of markers and relations for each language which are then compared and some interesting congruencies are noted. Hard copy currently on file is incomplete. (Right margin missing)>7http://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/staffpriv/alik/papers/ted.pdfrKnott, Alistairr 2001B;Semantic and pragmatic relations and their intended effectss 81Sanders, Ted Schilperoord, Joost Spooren, WilbertaB://000182054300001Schilder, Frankn 199881Temporal discourse markers and the flow of eventsl .'Stede, Manfred Wanner, Leo Hovy, EduardeVOProceedings of COLING-ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers Montral, Canada 58-61 schilder9860Rhetorical Structure Theory Markers MultilingualPresents a study of the discourse functions of German nachdem as both a temporal marker, but also a signal of a return to a previous discourse thread. Semantic and syntactic corpus data are examined./.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W98-0310Schilder, Frankn 1998B;An underspecified segmented discourse representation theory2Proceedings of 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL'98) Montral, Canada2 2a 1188-1192l schilder98bi<6Rhetorical Structure Theory SDRT Theoretical AlternatePresents Underspecified Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (USDRT). No mention of RST, but the relation names do look like they were RST inspired. At any rate, other papers refer to this theory, so it's worth having on hand..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P98-2194Schilder, Franke 20002+Robust text analysis via underspecificationt .(Ballim, Azfal Pallotta, V Ghorbel, Hatemf`Proceedings of 1st workshop on RObust Methods in Analysis of Natural language Data (ROMAND 2000) Lausanne, Switzerlande105-120s schilder2000<6Rhetorical Structure Theory SDRT Theoretical Alternate<6Presents USDRT as a competitor to RST. Essentially, where RST demands such precision that multiple ambiguous analyses for a single text are possible, USDRT specifies only thse relations which are explicitly signalled, allowing for one indisputable (if underspecified) representation of the discourse structure.60http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/schilder00robust.htmlQtTum, C. Hahn, U. Smith, B.c 2006ZTTowards new information resources for public health - From WordNet to MedicalWordNet(!Journal of BiomediPotter, Andrew 2007HBA discourse approach to explanation aware knowledge representation :3Roth-Berghofer, T. Schulz, S. Leake, D. B. Bahls, D\F?Explanation-Aware Computing: Papers from the 2007 AAAI WorkshopS Menlo Park, CA  AAAI Press 56-630potter-aaai2007n0)Rhetorical Structure Theory Argumentation This study describes a discourse approach to explanation aware knowledge representation. It presents a reasoning model that adheres to argumentation as found in written discourse, intended for use in intelligent human-computer collaboration and inter-agent deliberation. The approach integrates the Toulmin model with Rhetorical Structure Theory and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's (1958) strategic forms of argumentative processes to define a set of constraints for governing argumentative interactions and formulating explanations in an ontologically normalized manner. Arguments, when satisfied, are instantiated into a dynamic rhetorical network that represents the system's model of the situation. Two modalities of instantiation are proposed. Inferential instantiation is used when a claim may be inferred from a ground, and synthetic instantiation is used for descriptive argumentation where both ground and claim must be satisfied for the argument to be instantiated. The instantiation process maps arguments into the network using interaction links. Defined interactions include accrual, concomitance, backing, substantiation, dissociation, rebuttal, undercut, and confusion. It is envisioned that communities of agents endowed with reasoning capabilities would engage in collaborative explanatory argumentation, using these interactions as mechanisms for detecting and managing conflict and agreement.Potter, Andrew 2008D=Linked and convergent structures in discourse-based reasoningeD>ECAI 2008 Workshop on Explanation Aware Computing (ExaCt 2008) Patras, Greecepotter-ecai2008"Rhetorical Structure TheoryzExplanation and argumentation are fundamental to reasoning, and therefore of considerable importance in artificial intelligence. Discourse-based reasoning (DBR) is a knowledge representation technology that uses natural patterns of discourse as a basis for an ontological model of explanatory reasoning. It is envisioned that human and artificial agents will use DBR to engage in collaborative reasoning for discovering and sharing knowledge, detecting, managing and navigating conflict, and rendering knowledge in an intuitive and natural way. This paper builds on previous work in discourse-based reasoning by providing an ontological mechanism for distinguishing between inferential, synthetic, and multinuclear structures which may be used to represent linked and convergent discourse. This provides DBR with an expressive means for representing explanatory and argumentative knowledge.333FF{OOOOO5555555:::B:666AAA66@@@@@$$$TTT9<<QC..d;;;;>>>aDD'D''s===eEt~xiiL|Q>~#TBB.%AOew$E3w<=K.ZAXa6t;I;k9.oHLM2kSOFh_dFYC3^T':.T~ZZZZRMe:a.'.E%2nT%eaO!:C#idO=kk&|RRRR&a6p^TC=_zz&QIKEc`[[[[blYdYdECQQQ~n^W; L5a/'WC~~[^_Sutdu [e0"S eeWWfGhuu`&#XC;Dsrr!={ssseetWwk~[xxp_nnnuuuGb--#i` 332-@{3Z'>>ddCZBBAOGK6xxL#;z5{..:EhMiDn&T..Dh{.6ssZZhhh&;9 C3tW<6<{O<3kb{MC #f=bPastra, Katerina 2008VOCOSMOROE: A cross-media relations framework for modelling multimedia dialecticsrMultimedia Systems145c299-323n pastra200860Rhetorical Structure Theory Multimedia CitationsThough everyday interaction is predominantly multimodal, a purpose-developed framework for describing the semantic interplay between verbal and non-verbal communication is still lacking. This lack not only indicates one's poor understanding of multimodal human behaviour, but also weakens any attempt to model such behaviour computationally. In this article, we present COSMOROE, a corpus-based framework for describing semantic interrelations between images, language and body movements. We argue that in viewing such relations from a message-formation perspective rather than a communicative goal one, one may develop a framework with descriptive power and computational applicability. We test COSMOROE for compliance to these criteria, by using it for annotating a corpus of TV travel programmes; we present all particulars of the annotation process and conclude with a discussion on the usability and scope of such annotated corpora.r0)Citation of Taboada and Mann 2006, part 1cvJIV[HRYue, Ming Feng, Zhiwei 2005\VFindings in a preliminary study on the rhetorical structure of Chinese TV news reports@:First Computational Systemic Functional Grammar Conference Sydney, Australia yue-feng2005*#Rhetorical Structure Theory ChineseZetie, Kendrik P. 19964-The Strange Case of the Bumble Bee Which Flewr 2004 Science in Print Essayzetie96 ,%Rhetorical Structure Theory (related)\haWinner of the Science in Print Award (U.K. Institute of Physics (http://www.iop.org/news/0012i.1)e2+http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~ben/zetie1.htm82Zhang, Zhu Blair-Goldensohn, Sasha Radev, Dragomir 2002("Towards CST-enhanced summarizationProceedings of AAAI 2002 Edmonton, Albertazhang-etal20020)Rhetorical Structure Theory Summarization tmIn this paper, we propose to enhance the process of automatic extractive multi-document text summarization by taking into account cross-document structural relationships as posited in Cross-document Structure Theory (CST). An arbitrary multidocument extract can be CST-enhanced by replacing low salience sentences with other sentences that increase the total number of CST relationships included in the summary. We show that CST-enhanced summaries outperform their unmodified counterparts using the relative utility evaluation metric. We also show that the effect of a CST relationship on an extract depends on its type.:3http://tangra.si.umich.edu/~radev/papers/aaai02.pdf Zhang, Z. Radev, Dragomira 2005`YCombining labeled and unlabeled data for learning cross-document structural relationshipsb0)Natural Language Processing - Ijcnlp 2004{ 3248 32-41(!Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceISI:000228359800004zhang-radev2005"Rhetorical Structure TheoryvpMulti-document discourse analysis has emerged with the potential of improving various NLP applications. Based on the newly proposed Cross-document Structure Theory (CST), this paper describes an empirical study that classifies CST relationships between sentence pairs extracted from topically related documents, exploiting both labeled and unlabeled data. We investigate a binary classifier for determining existence of structural relationships and a full classifier using the full taxonomy of relationships. We show that in both cases the exploitation of unlabeled data helps improve the performance of learned classifiers.$://000228359800004 Zou, Hongjian Yang, Erhong 2007>7Event counts as elementary unit in discourse annotation460Recent Advance of Chinese Computing Technologies453-458 zou-yang200782Rhetorical Structure Theory Segmentation CitationsWe present a strategy on manual annotation of texts reporting occurrences to reveal the discourse structure. Events are chosen as the elementary units in annotation. The nature and the categories of events in discourse are explored in detail. The extraction of event patterns and annotation of events are also discussed. We have annotated 60 texts according to the method above and the experiment shows about 78% sentences can be annotated in great detail.0)Citation of Taboada and Mann 2006, part 1*#Zukerman, Ingrid McConachy, Richardz 1993JCAn optimizing method for structuring inferentially linked discourse RLProceedings of 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-93) Washington, DC202-207zukerman-mcconachy93,&Rhetorical Structure Theory GenerationPresents a system for the organization of planned text. The text plan is represented as a directed graph, where the nodes are rhetorical devices linked by relations. Then, the optimal path through the graph is computed.c:4http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/zukerman93optimizing.html*#Zukerman, Ingrid McConachy, Richardn 1995lfGenerating discourse across several user models: Maximizing belief while avoiding boredom and overload Mellish, Chris^XProceedings of 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAL'95) Montral, Canada 1251-12579zukerman-mcconachy95,&Rhetorical Structure Theory GenerationPresents functional definitions of boredom and overload using rhetorical devices in order to construct a generation system that avoids both of these pitfalls while maximizing belief, using a constraint-based optimization mechanism.e:4http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/zukerman95generating.html*#Zukerman, Ingrid McConachy, Richardt 2001NGWishful: A discourse planning system that considers a user's inferencest Computational Intelligence171d 1-61zukerman-mcconachy2001"Rhetorical Structure Theory ~:2 ~ ,*"Redeker, Gisela Egg, Markusn 2006NHSays who? On the treatment of speech attributions in discourse structure<6Proceedings of the Workshop Constraints in Discourse "Maynooth University, Ireland140-146"redeker-egg-attribution2006i"Rhetorical Structure TheoryaIn this paper, we present what we think is an elegant solution to some problems in the discourse-structural modelling of speech attribution. Using mostly examples from the Wall Street Journal Corpus, we show that the approach proposed by Carlson and Marcu (2001) leads to irresolvable dilemmas that can be avoided with a suitable treatment of attribution in an underspecified representation of discourse structure.Redeker, Giselae 2006D>Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions Fischer, Kerstin(!Approaches to Discourse Particlesr  Amsterdama Elsevier339-358  redeker2006HADiscourse Markers Coherence relations Rhetorical Structure TheoryReed, Chris Long, Derek9 1997Persuasive dialoguel.(OSSA Conference on Argument and Rhetoric St. Catherine's, CanadaG reed-long97 ,&Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation("Argues for a study of monologue as a turn in dialogue, putting forward an account which examines the argumentation involved in persuasive monologue, drawing upon commitment-based theories of dialogue. The various differences between monologue and dialogue are discussed, with particular reference to the possibility of designing a monologue game in which commitments are dynamically incurred and updated as the monologue is created. There is also discussion of why such an approach is preferable to RST and other computationally-based approaches.60http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/reed97persuasive.htmlReed, Chris Long, Derek 1997RKMultiple subarguments in logic, argumentation, rhetoric and text generationthaProceedings of International Joint Conference on Quantitative and Qualitative Practical Reasoning Bad Honnef, Germanyr Springer496-510 reed-long97b,&Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation\VA summary is provided of the problems of representing, determining generating and arranging disjunct multiple subarguments in several fields, including formal systems in uncertain domains, informal logic accounts of argument structure, rhetorical systems for maximising persuasive effect, and the automatic generation of persuasive discourse.4.http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/reed97multiple.html Reed, Chris Long, Derekr 19972+Generating Punctuation in Written Documentsd  London, UK 82Department of Computer Science, University College6 Technical Report RN/97/157: reed-long97c<5Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation Markers LayoutVPA framework for the generation of natural language argument is summarized, and is then shown to be suited to the generation of a number of forms of punctuation which have not be adequately accounted for. It is shown that formatting such as paragraph breaks, footnotes, and quotations require an abstract, intention based representation.60http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/reed97generating.html(!Reed, Chris Daskalopolu, Aspassiaa 1998&Modelling contractual argumentsi4-4th International Conference on Argumentation Amsterdam, Netherlands686-692reed-daskalopolu98.'Theoretical Rhetorical Structure Theory @:Presents an account of the Pragma-Dialectical school's determination of the "goodness" of an argument, and compares with RST's ability to detect a good vs a bad argument. It emerges that there are text types for which RST is not suited (legal contracts) and is generally ill-suited to represent argument structure.@:http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/aspassia/Papers/issa_98.pdfReed, Chris Long, Dereki 1998*$Generating the structure of argumentProceedings of 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL'98) Montral, Canada2 2 1091-1097 reed-long9860Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation AlternateGenerating arguments in natural language requires abstract planning which beyond simple coherence relations. Weaknesses of RST are cited, including the inability to simultaneously represent intentions and information, as well as there being no specific set of argumentative relations, and no way to represent higher-level organisational structures, such as modus ponens and modus tollens..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P98-2179Reitter, David 20026/Rhetorical Theory in LaTeX with the RST Packagec Dublin, IrelandR7a reitter2002y"Rhetorical Structure TheoryrB7Discourse structure and coreference: An empirical study\PJThe 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING'00) Saarbrcken, Germany208-214cristea-etal2000*$Anaphors Rhetorical Structure TheoryPaper discussing the use of hierarchical discourse structure as opposed to linearity in the field of anaphora resolution. Experimental testing demonstrates that the employment of hierarchical analysis increases performance of anaphora resolvers. Performance is further enhanced if proximity is allowed to play a role in the analysis. Nothing really new for RST here, just a cool application.r.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C00-1031LJAU~~Kroly, Krisztina 1998@9Written text analysis: A multidisciplinary field of study\2+Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistikt811 71-108karoly98"Rhetorical Structure TheoryJA critical review of the six approaches to English written text analysis that have the greatest influence on recent work in the field situates them on a cline from primarily language-based to primarily psychological & cognitive orientations: (1) the cohesion analysis of M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (1976), (2) Hasan's (1984) cohesive harmony, (3) J. Swales's (1990) genre analysis, (4) R. B. Kaplan's (1987) contrastive rhetoric, (5) the relational proposition analysis (1986) & rhetorical structure theory (1988) of W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson, & (6) W. Kintsch's & T. Van Dijk's (1978) proposition analysis. Although Kaplan's work ranges across the cline, it is judged excessively intuitive & lacking in methodological rigor & consistency; other approaches are argued to be too limited in disciplinary perspective, & all need revision for greater precision. It is concluded that the complexity of text demands a multidisciplinary perspective. 6 Tables, 10 Figures, 39 References. J. Hitchcock60Keenan, Janice M. Baillet, Susan D. Brown, Polly 1984@:The effects of causal cohesion on comprehension and memory6/Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviourt232115-126 keenan-etal84<6Coherence relations Causal relations PsycholinguisticsTwo experiments are reported in which sentence-by-sentence reading times were collected on two-sentence paragraphs, where the first sentence specified a cause for the event in the second sentence. Each paragraph had four versions. All versions had the same second sentence and were referentially coherent; they differed, however, in the causal relatedness of the two sentences. Despite referential coherence, reading times for second sentences were shown to steadily increase as causal relatedness decreased. Recognition and recall memory for the causes was poorest for the most and least related causes and best for causes of intermediate levels of relatedness.Kehler, Andrew 1995HAInterpreting Cohesive Forms in the Context of Discourse InferencehComputer Science Cambridge, Massachusetts Harvarde 177oPh.D. dissertationkehler95,%Rhetorical Structure Theory Relationsv>7Provides an algorithm for solving cohesive phenomena such as VP-ellipsis, gapping, event reference, tense, and pronominal reference. Argues that these must be informed by discourse level processing, specifically an awareness of relations. The Thesis outlines the theory of relations which informs this algorithmc:4http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/kehler95interpreting.htmlKehler, Andrew 20026/Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammard  Stanford, CA CSLI kehler2002<6coherence Centering Theory Rhetorical Structure Theory,&Khoo, C. S. G. Ou, S. Y. Goh, D. H. L. 2002ZSA hierarchical framework for multi-document summarization of dissertation abstractsuHADigital Libraries: People, Knowledge, and Technology, ProceedingsK 2555 99-110(!Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceCISI:000181472700010s khoo-etali0)Rhetorical Structure Theory Summarization This paper reports initial work on developing methods for automatic generation of multi-document summaries of dissertation abstracts in a digital library. The focus is on automatically generating a summary of a set of dissertation abstracts retrieved in response to user query, and presenting the summary using a visualization method. A hierarchical variable-based framework for multi-document summarization of dissertation abstracts in sociology and psychology is presented. The framework makes use of macro-level and micro-level discourse structure of dissertation abstracts as well as cross-document structure. The micro-level structure of problem statements found in a sample of 50 dissertation abstracts was analyzed, and the common features found are described in the paper. A demonstration prototype with a tree-view interface for presenting multi-document abstracts has been implemented.r$://000181472700010uKhoo, C. S. G. Na, J. C. 20060)Semantic relations in information sciencee:3Annual Review of Information Science and Technologyl40157-228aISI:0002337328000060 khoo-na2006S"Rhetorical Structure Theory$://000233732800006"Kibble, Rodger Richard Power 19994-Using Centering Theory to plan coherent textso2,Proceedings of the 12th Amsterdam Colloquium Amsterdam, The Netherlands187-192rkibble-power2001@:Text planning Centering Theory Rhetorical Structure TheoryThe paper describes an approach to text planning. They integrate centering theory by proposing a constraint that the generator should seek to maximize continuity of reference as defined by the rules and constraints of centering. Centering is relevant for planning coherent texts because by making predictions about which entities are potential Cps, it is possible to determine Cps, Cbs and transitions. The text planner can then select a sequence that best follows the continuity of reference constraint.4-http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/kibble99using.htmle.Syx$Green, Nancy Carberry, Sandrad 19992,Interpreting and generating indirect answers Computational Linguistics\253\389-435 SepsISI:000084262000004green-carberry99>7Rhetorical Structure Theory Natural Language Generationf_This paper presents an implemented computational model for interpreting and generating indirect answers to yes-no questions in English. Interpretation and generation are treated, respectively, as recognition of and construction of a responder's discourse plan for a full answer. An indirect answer is the result of the responder providing only part of the planned response, but intending for his discourse plan to be recognized by the questioner. Discourse plan construction and recognition make use of shared knowledge of discourse strategies, represented in the model by discourse plan operators. In the operators, coherence relations are used to characterize types of information that may accompany each type of answer. Recognizing a mutually plausible coherence relation obtaining between the actual response and a possible direct answer plays an important role in recognizing the responder's discourse plan. During generation, stimulus conditions model a speaker's motivation for selecting a satellite. Also during generation, the speaker uses his own interpretation capability to determine what parts of the plan are inferable by the hearer and thus do not need to be explicitly given. The model provides wider coverage than previous computational models for generating and interpreting indirect answers and extends the plan-based theory of implicature in several ways.$://000084262000004w\VGreen, Nancy Carenini, Giuseppe Kerpedjiev, S. Mattis, J. Moore, Johanna D Roth, S. F. 2004~wAutoBrief: An experimental system for the automatic generation of briefings in integrated text and information graphicsd6/International Journal of Human-Computer Studiesn611a 32-70o JulaISI:000222285500002ngreen-etal2004>7Rhetorical Structure Theory Natural Language GenerationlThis paper describes AutoBrief, an experimental intelligent multimedia presentation system that generates presentations in text and information graphics in the domain of transportation scheduling. Acting as an intelligent assistant, AutoBrief creates a presentation to communicate its analysis of alternative schedules. In addition, the multimedia presentation facilitates data exploration through its complex information visualizations and support for direct manipulation of presentation elements. AutoBrief's research contributions include (1) a design enabling a new human-computer interaction style in which intelligent multimedia presentation objects (textual or graphic) can be used by the audience in direct manipulation operations for data exploration, (2) an application-independent approach to multimedia generation based on the representation of communicative goals suitable for both generation of text and of complex information graphics, and (3) an application-independent approach to intelligent graphic design based upon communicative goals. This retrospective overview paper, aimed at a multidisciplinary audience from the fields of human-computer interaction and natural language generation, presents AutoBrief's design and design rationale. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.$://000222285500002  Green, Nancy 2010NHRepresentation of argumentation in text with Rhetorical Structure Theory Argumentationn to appeari green2010}0)Rhetorical Structure Theory ArgumentationVarious argumentation analysis tools permit the analyst to represent functional components of an argument (e.g., data, claim, warrant, backing), how arguments are composed of subarguments and defenses against potential counterarguments, and argumentation schemes. In order to facilitate a study of argument presentation in a biomedical corpus, we have developed a hybrid scheme that enables an analyst to encode argumentation analysis within the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), which can be used to represent the discourse structure of a text. This paper describes the hybrid representation scheme and illustrates its use for investigation of contexts that license omission of elements of an argument. The analyses given in the paper involve reconstruction of enthymemes. Defeasible argumentation schemes serve as a constraint on reconstruction. In addition, the examples illustrate several other types of contextual constraints on reconstruction of enthymemes.Grimes, Joseph E.i 1975The Thread of Discourse  The Hague Mouton grimes,%coherence Rhetorical Structure Theory Grommes, Patrick 2005*#Prinzipien kohrenter Kommunikatione Berlin $Humboldt Universitt zu BerlinPh.D. dissertation grommes2005VOCoherence Rhetorical Structure Theory Centering Theory Quaestio model Citations2+Citation of: thesis, 2003 IPrA presentation*$Grosz, Barbara J. Sidner, Candace L. 1986<5Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse Computational Linguistics123175-204grosz-sidner86.'Theoretical Rhetorical Structure Theorye`YPublished before the first publication of RST, of course there is no mention, but GST is an important paper to have on hand, as it is often used as a point of comparison for RST, as well as a common subject for unification attempts with RST. In brief, the theory can use text with the same segmentation as RST, however relates larger pieces of text using only two discourse relations: Dominance and Satisfaction Precedence. Most notably, while there are fewer relations applying over larger spans, the end result is a hierarchical structure which is comparable to the higher levels of an RST analysis.a.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J86-3001K XxhaForbes, Katherine Miltsakaki, Eleni Prasad, Rashmi Sarkar, Anoop Joshi, Aravind K. Webber, Bonniet 2001RKD-LTAG system - Discourse parsing with a lexicalised Tree Adjoining Grammars .'Kruijff-Korbayov, Ivana Steedman, MarkWpiProceedings of ESSLLI 2001 Workshop on Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics Helsinki, Finlandforbes-etal2001 DLTAGIntroduction to the Tree Adjoining Grammar for Discourse. Makes some statements as to being empirically superior to RST, as it is more rigorously formalised.60http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~dltag/dltag-parser.pdf& Forbes, Katherine Webber, Bonnie 2002@9A semantic account of adverbials as discourse connectives0D=Proceedings of 3rd SIGDial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue Philadelphia, Pennsylvaniaforbes-webber2002(!Markers DLTAG Coherence relations VODemonstration that some adverbials and prepositions can only be interpreted with respect to discourse, not merely within a local matrix clause. This discourse cue function is shown to be a result of the lexical semantics of the adverbials in question, a view which is supported through the data gathered in a corpus annotation project.m81http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~dltag/sigdial-final.pdfFoster, Robert 2009Improving the output from software that generates multiple choice question (MCQ) test items automatically using Controlled Rhetorical Structure TheoryhaProceedings of the 7th International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing Borovets, Bulgaria foster20094-Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse parsingBarbara A. Fox 1987JDDiscourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English  Cambridges Cambridge University PressPE1398 A52 F6 c.1t fox87l~xAnaphora English Discourse anaphora Discourse model Discourse segments Adjacency pair Gender Rhetorical Structure TheoryChapter 3: Anaphora in conversational English. She identifies two modes of description: (1) the context-determines-use mode; (2) the use-accomplishes-context mode. She describes the basic pattern of anaphora: (1) the fist mention of a referent in a sequence is done with a full NP; (2) after the first mention of a referent, a pronoun is used to display an understanding of the sequence as not yet closed; (3) a full NP is used to display an understanding of the preceding sequence containing other mentions of the same referent as closed. Pronouns are used to display that a sequence is not closed: in the middle of an adjacency pair, in a turn expansion, beyond adjacency pairs: an adjacency pair can be tied to a preceding pair (series, post-elaboration, return pop). Pronouns used to re-open a sequence: an instance of use-determines-context mode, in which the speaker accomplishes a reopening of the relevant sequence by using a pronominal form (40). Full NPs used to display that a sequence is understood as closed Anaphora in the environment of different gender referents: "the appearance of a different-gender referent does not alter the basic pattern of pronominalization established for the situation in which no "interfering" referents are mentioned." (48) Anaphora in the environment of same gender referents: "the simple introduction of another referent does not necessarily produce ambiguity; it is the structural organization of the talk that determines what will count as interfering and what not." (48) Full NPs used when other linguistic devices are not used: pronominalization is possible in the environment of same-gender referents if other linguistic devices besides the anaphor itself are used to guide the recipient to the intended referent. When other devices are not available or not used, full NPs will be used (58). Non-structural factors in anaphora: Disagreements, know + NP: overt recognitionals, assessments (negative), first mentions, demarcating a new unit, replacing an action, using the same anaphoric devices, switching perspective. NRHG dH 2 Mehler, A. 2002<5Components of a model of context-sensitive hypertextsr,%Journal of Universal Computer Sciencee8;10924-943ISI:000180067400006\ mehler2002"Rhetorical Structure TheoryzsOn the background of rising Intranet applications the automatic generation of adaptable, context-sensitive hypertexts becomes more and more important [El-Beltagy et al., 2001]. This observation contradicts the literature on hypertext authoring, where Information Retrieval techniques prevail, which disregard any linguistic and context-theoretical underpinning. As a consequence, resulting hypertexts do not manifest those schematic structures, which are constitutive for the emergence of text types and the context-mediated understanding of their instances, i.e. natural language texts. This paper utilizes Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and its context model as a theoretical basis of hypertext authoring. So called Systemic Functional Hypertexts (SFHT) are proposed, which refer to a stratified context layer as the proper source of text linkage. The purpose of this paper is twofold: First, hypertexts are reconstructed from a linguistic point of view as a kind of supersign, whose constituents are natural language texts and whose structuring is due to intra- and intertextual coherence relations and their context-sensitive interpretation. Second, the paper prepares a formal notion of SFHTs as a first step towards operationalization of fundamental text linguistic concepts. On this background, SFHTs serve to overcome the theoretical poverty of many approaches to link generation.$://000180067400006HAMellish, Chris Knott, Alistair Oberlander, Jon O'Donnell, Michael\ 1998<5Experiments using stochastic search for text planning{@:Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Natural Language Generation "Niagara-on-the-lake, CanadaI 98-107mellish-etal98,&Rhetorical Structure Theory GenerationDescribes heutistics for finding the best out of all possble RST trees for a given text. The task of selecting the "best" analysis is implemented as a stochasitc search throguh randomly generated trees.$http://www.aclweb.org/W98-1404ZSMentis, Helena M. Bach, Paula M. Hoffman, Blaine Rosson, Mary Beth Carroll, John M. 2009HBDevelopment of decision rationale in complex group decision makingVOProceedings of 27th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systemsr  Boston, MA 1341-1350mentis-etal2009a,%Rhetorical Structure Theory Citationsc82This study explores the characteristics of rationale development in a complex group decision making task and considers design implications for better supporting rationale development in group decision making. Twelve three-person, multi-role teams performed three instances of a collaborative decision making task with physical maps. We used rhetorical structure theory to analyze the structure of their decision making discourse. We found that groups begin their reasoning processing by stating and relating information and finish their reasoning through a point-counterpoint discussion. We also found that established groups reduced their need to analyze information during the last moments of a decision. Implications for the design of group decision support systems to encourage rationale development are presented.lfCitation of Taboada and Mann 2006, part 1 and part 2; Taboada 2004 (paper in Moder and Martinovic-Zic) Meteer, MarieT 1993b[Assumptions underlying discourse relations: Which ones are really there and where are they?cZSProceedings of Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations, ACL Ohio State University ACL 82-85meteer93,%coherence Rhetorical Structure Theory Mey, J. L. 2006<6Focus-on issue: The pragmatics of discourse managementJournal of Pragmaticse384e473-474 Apr{ISI:000236643700001umey2006"Rhetorical Structure Theory$://00023664370000181Miike, Seiji Itoh, Etsuo Ono, Kenji Sumita, Kazuo 1994NHA full-text retrieval system with a dynamic abstract generation functionHAProceedings of the 17th Annual International ACM-SIGIR Conference Dublin, Ireland152-161 miike-etal9482Rhetorical Structure Theory Summarization Japanese& Millis, Keith K. Just, Marcel A. 1994<6The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension$Journal of Memory and Language33128-147e millis-just94a>7Coherence relations Discourse Markers Psycholinguistics*$Milosavljevic, Maria Oberlander, Jon 1998D>Dynamic Hypertext catalogues: Helping users to help themselvesD=Proceedings of 9th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia} Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania123-131I milosavljevic-oberlander980*Hypertext ILEX Rhetorical Structure TheoryA demonstration of using natural language generation techniques to produce dynamic hypertext. No direct citation of RST, but some good examples of customised text from the PEBA system. Also makes reference to ILEX.<6http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/milosavljevic98dynamic.html\VMiltsakaki, Eleni Cassandre Creswell Forbes, Kate Joshi, Aravind K. Bonnie Lynn Webber 2003ngAnaphoric arguments of discourse connectives: Semantic properties of antecedents versus non-antecedentsRKProceedings of the Computational Treatment of Anaphora Workshop (EACL-2003)a Budapest, Hungarycmiltsakaki-etal2003S`ZMarkers Relations DLTAG Connectives Discourse structure Anaphora Syntax Discourse anaphoralfThe paper discusses the results of an empirical study of the the adverbial connective 'instead'. The connective is said to be anaphoric since it gets its second argument from the discourse context. The antecedents of the anaphoric arguments of 'instead' are annotated according to seven lexico-syntactic features that distinguish actual antecedents from potential competitors. Follows from previous DLTAG work on connectives as signalling prediates with an anaphoric argument. This paper focuses on the connective 'instead', with results being based upon an examination of 100 corpus occurrences of the connective.4.http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~elenimi/eacl_03.pdf'2,http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~elenimi/grad.html<w(J D Karkaletsis, Vangelis Stamatopoulos, Panagiotis 20054.Summarization from medical documents: a survey*#Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 332157-177 FebISI:000228673800005 afantenos2005"Rhetorical Structure TheoryObjective: The aim of this paper is to survey the recent work in medical documents summarizationGrasso, Floriana 1999XRPlaying with RST: Two algorithms for the automated manipulation of discourse treesHBProceedings of Text, Speech and Dialoge 2nd International Workshop Plzen, Czech RepublicI357-360grasso996/Rhetorical Structure Theory Analysis GenerationBriefly outlines two algorithms for manipulating text (extraction and segment interchange) by exploiting the syntax of RST trees. Includes a formal description of RST trees used in the algorithms.PIhttp://link.springer.de/link/service/series/0558/papers/1692/16920357.pdf,%Grasso, Floriana Cawsey, A. Jones, R.t 2000xqDialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition{6/International Journal of Human-Computer Studies536 1077-1115d DecISI:000166367300006tgrasso-eatl2000n"Rhetorical Structure TheorynConflict situations do not only arise from misunderstandings, erroneous perceptions, partial, knowledge, false beliefs, etc., but also from differences in "opinions" and in the different agents' value systems. It is not always possible, and maybe not even desirable, to "solve" this kind of conflict, as the sources are subjective. The communicating agents can, however, use knowledge of the opponent's preferences, to try and convince the partner of a point of view which they wish to promote. To deal with these situations requires an argumentative capacity, able to handle not only "demonstrative" arguments but also "dialectic" ones, which may not necessarily be based on rationality and valid premises. This paper presents a formalization of a theory of informal argumentation, focused an techniques to change attitudes of the interlocutor, in the domain of health promotion. (C) 2000 Academic Press.s Sp. Iss. SI.$://000166367300006oGrasso, Floriana 200260Towards a framework for rhetorical argumentation 4-Bos, Johan Foster, Mary Ellen Matheson, Colind`YProceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (EDILOG-2002)  Edinburgh, UK 53-60e grasso2002,&Rhetorical Structure Theory GenerationCovers a formalism for rhetorical schemata. Advocates a use of rhetorical theory from philosophy, as opposed to linguistics. Maintains that RST still has a place in the field, though.c6/http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/grasso02towards.htmloGrasso, Floriana 2002$Towards computational rhetoricInformal Logic223i195-229rgrasso-journal20020)Rhetorical Structure Theory Argumentation Z:WL8M,L"(VX B>7Asher, Nicholas Benamara, Farah Mathieu, Yvette Yannick 2008:4Distilling opinion in discourse: A preliminary studyProceedings of COLING Manchester, UK 7-10asher-etal2008,%Sentiment Discourse Discourse parsing>7Asher, Nicholas Benamara, Farah Mathieu, Yvette Yannick 2008(!Categorizing opinion in discourseuXRProceedings of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2008) Patras, Greece835-836asher-etal-ecai2008<6Sentiment Discourse structure SDRT Coherence relations>7Asher, Nicholas Benamara, Farah Mathieu, Yvette Yannick 20094-Appraisal of opinion expressions in discourse4"Linguisticae Investigationes322p279-292  asheretal2009:4Sentiment Appraisal SDRT Rhetorical Structure Theory Azar, Moshec 1999`YArgumentative text as rhetorical structure: An application of Rhetorical Structure Theory Argumentation-131e 97-144 azar99BMore on the Deep and Surface Grammar of Interclausal Relations  Santa Ana, CA &Summer Institute of Linguistics longacre71b},%Rhetorical Structure Theory coherenceR*#Language Data, Asian-Pacific seriesI& Barzilay, Regina Lapata, Mirella 200582Modeling local coherence: An entity-based approachVPProceedings of the 43rd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics  Ann Arbor, MI141-148<barzilay-lapata2005<6Centering Theory Rhetorical Structure Theory Coherence& Barzilay, Regina Lapata, Mirella 200882Modeling local coherence: An entity-based approach Computational Linguisticse34 1-34barzilay-lapata2008Tb\Rhetorical Structure Theory Coherence relations anaphora Computational Linguistics coherenceThis article proposes a novel framework for representing and measuring local coherence. Central to this approach is the entity-grid representation of discourse, which captures patterns of entity distribution in a text. The algorithm introduced in the article automatically abstracts a text into a set of entity transition sequences and records distributional, syntactic, and referential information about discourse entities. We re-conceptualize coherence assessment as a learning task and show that our entity-based representation is well-suited for ranking-based generation and text classification tasks. Using the proposed representation, we achieve good performance on text ordering, summary coherence evaluation, and readability assessment Bateman, JohnT 1990NGFinding translation equivalents: An application of grammatical metaphor Karlgren, Hans\UProceedings of 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING'90) Helsinki, FinlandO23 3E 13-18E bateman90F.'Translation Rhetorical Structure TheorynMerges text generation strategies into machine translation to avoid clumsy structural transfer problems. RST is mentioned only in the context of the planner. Examples are given in German and English..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C90-2003(!Bateman, John Rondhuis, Klaas Jan0 1997:4Coherence relations: Towards a general specificationDiscourse Processes{24 3-49bateman-rondhuis97,%Rhetorical Structure Theory Relations\UAssesses the "State of the Union" in coherence relation analysis, from functional linguistics to formal semantic discourse theory. Organizes the information found into three categories: linguistic "stratification", "metafunction", and "paradigmatic/syntagmatic axiality". Also points out problem areas for future computational specification.9\$CF:EF?Webber, Bonnie Knott, Alistair Stone, Matthew Joshi, Aravind K.r 1999ZTDiscourse relations: A structural and presuppositional account using lexicalised TAGZSProceedings of 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics College Park, Maryland 41-48 webber-etal99haRhetorical Structure Theory Theoretical Coherence relations DLTAG Referring Expressions Relationsw("Shows that discourse structure need not be represented solely structurally. Relations can be deduced through the realisation of anaphoric presupposition, which allows for a fuller representation of relations. Notes the old Moore and Pollack 92 argument as something that can be solved here..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P99-1006F?Webber, Bonnie Knott, Alistair Stone, Matthew Joshi, Aravind K.s 1999d^What are little texts made of? A structural and presuppositional account using lexicalised TAG`YProceedings of International Workshop on Levels of Representation in Discourse (LORID'99)  Edinburgh, UKwebber-etal99c,%Theoretical Coherence relations DLTAGePaper presenting argumentation for the separation of discourse semantics from discourse syntax. (In opposition to RST). One of the earlier DLTAG papers.2,http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/webber99what.htmlF?Webber, Bonnie Stone, Matthew Joshi, Aravind K. Knott, Alistairr 2003& Anaphora and discourse structure Computational Linguisticse294u545-587webber-etal2003a4-Theoretical Coherence relations DLTAG MarkerseArgues that adverbials, generally assumed to signal relations between syntactically connected units work anaphorically to contribute to relational meaning with only indirect dependence on the discourse structure. This provides a "scaffold" for compositional semantics, and shows the multiple ways the relational meaning conveyed anaphorically interact with those derived from structure.vphttp://www.cis.upenn.edu/~pdtb/dltag-webpage-stuff/ss-rev-webb01.pdf http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/J/J03/J03-4002.pdfWebber, Bonnie 20044.D-LTAG: extending lexicalized TAG to discourseCognitive Science2285k751-779sSep-OctuISI:000224287900006\ webber2004>7Discourse Markers Reference Rhetorical Structure Theory8$://000224287900006 rkWebber, Bonnie Joshi, Aravind K Miltsakaki, Eleni Prasad, Rashmi Dinesh, Nikhil Lee, Alan Forbes, Katherine 2005:3A short introduction to the Penn Discourse TreeBankrB;Copenhagen Working Papers in Language and Speech Processing$webber-etal-treebank-intro2005>8Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse Markers Annotation Wheatley, J. 1996F@Flowchart representations of genre in professional communicationJavnost-the Public3h4c 27-38ISI:A1996WB302000040 wheatley96"Rhetorical Structure Theory$://A1996WB30200004 Wiebe, Janyce 1993(!Issues in linguistic segmentationr  Rambow, Owen\VProceedings of ACL SIG Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations Columbus, Ohio148-151wiebe93L"Rhetorical Structure Theoryt 1 Iwayama, MakotoJacques, Marie-Paule Jansen, P.Jayez, JacquesJefferson, GailJekat, Susanne Ji, P. Jing, HongyanJohansson, Stig Johnsen, L. Jones, R.Jordan, Michael P. Jorrand, P.Joshi, Aravind KJoshi, Aravind K.Jucker, Andreas H.Just, Marcel A. Kaestner, Celso Antonio AlvesKamalski, Judith Kamp, Hans Kamps, Thomas Kan, M. Y.Kapellou, EleniKaplan, Bruce A. Kaplan, R. B.Karamanis, NikiforosKarkaletsis, V.Karkaletsis, VangelisKarlgren, HansKato, Tsuenaki Katz, Boris Katz, S. Katzav, J.Kroly, KrisztinaKeenan, Janice M.Kehler, Andrew Kempff, H. Kendon, AdamKeohane, GerardKeravnou, ElpidaKerpedjiev, S.Khan, SharifulahKhoja, ShereenKhoo, C. S. G.Kibble, RodgerKibrik, Andrej A. Kim, Hak Lae Kim, Harksoo Kim, Sanghee Kim, Su NamKintsch, Walter Kipp, M. Kipp, Michael Kittredge, R.Kittredge, RichardKlappholz, A. DavidKleiber, GeorgesKlein, Alexandra Kleinz, Jrg Kneser, C. Knight, KevinKnight, Meredith Knott, A.Knott, AlistairKobayashi, IchiroKong, Kenneth C. C.Korbayov, IvanaKorelsky, Tanya Korhonen, A. Korta, KepaKositi, HasidaKosseim, LeilaKotschi, ThomasKousta, Stavroula-ThaleiaKrasavina, Olga Kreutel, JrnKrifka-Dobes, ZuzanaKroon, CarolineKruijff, Geert-JanKruijff-Korbayova, IvanaKruijff-Korbayov, Ivana Kukich, KarenKuperberg, Gina R. Kurniawan, S.Kurohashi, SadaoKuronen, M. L.Khnberger, Kai-UweKhnlein, PeterLaBerge, David L.Lagerwerf, LuukLahey, MargaretLai, Tom B. Y. Laird, J. E. Laks, BernardLakshmanan, Balaji M. Land, Jentine Lapalme, GuyLapata, MirellaLarrazabal, Jess M.Lascarides, Alex Latif, Khalid Lavid, JuliaLe Draoulec, A. Le, E. Le, Huong T Leake, D. B. Lee, AlanLefvre, Nathalie Lenk, Uta Lenke, Nils Leonardi, P.Lersundi Ayestaran, MikelLeka, Oldrich Lifter, Karin Lin, Chin Yew Lin, R.Lindley, CraigLitman, Diane J.Lobanova, AnnaLobin, Henning Lockman, Abe Long, DerekLongacre, Robert E.Lorenz, GunterLouwerse, Max M. Lu, Chi Lu, S. J. Luo, Airong Luo, J.Luperfoy, SusanLngen, HaraldMaat, Henk PanderMacArthur, Charles AMackenzie, J. Lachlan Madjid, I.Mahlow, MorrisMaier, ElisabethMaiorano, Steven Maleck, IlonaMancini, ClaraMani, InderjeetMann, William C.Mantynen, Anne Kaarina Marcu, Daniel Marir, Fahri Martin, JamesMartin, James H.Martin, James R. Martin, PaulMartinovic-Zic, Aida Martn Zorraquino, M. AntoniaMarukawa, YuzoMaslennikov, Mstislav Masood, Asad Mast, MarionMatheson, ColinMathieu, Yvette YannickMatsumoto, Yuji Matsuo, Y. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. Mattis, J. Maybury, MarkMaynard, Douglas W.McConachy, RichardMcCoy, KathleenMcDonald, SharonMcEnery, Anthony Mark McEnery, TonyMcIlmoil, TaraMcKeever, K. J.McKeown, KathleenMcKeown, Kathleen R. McTear, M. F. Medway, Peter Mehler, A.Mellish, ChrisMendikoetxea, AmayaMentis, Helena M. Menzel, W.Merrifield, William R. Meteer, Marieo ()r'zing, prosodic Schilder, Frank 2002NGRobust discourse parsing via discourse markers, topicality and positionl"Natural Language Engineering8o 2/3t235-255  schilder2002<5Rhetorical Structure Theory SDRT Generation AlternatezsClaims that current approaches to the automated generation of discourse structures is hampered by theory-dependency. Presents an algorithm which uses a theoretical approach known as Underspecified Segmented Discourse Representation Theory, (USDRT) which is itself a growth out of SDRT and DRT. The gist of USDRT is that the algorithm will never fail to generate tree representation; it is just that any number of the relations at the non-terminal nodes will be left unspecified. Full, accurate diagrams are said to be impossible without either an impossibly large wealth of world knowledge, or some very domain-specific coding.0*Scott, Donia de Souza, Clarisse Sieckenius 1990>7Getting the message across in RST-based text generationu 0)Dale, Robert Mellish, Chris Zock, Michaell6/Current Research in Natural Language Generation London Academic Press 47-73scott-desouza90n,&Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation$Presents an apporach to generation that seeks not only to preserve, but actually to enhance the rhetorical aspects of a message. Strongly influenced by psycholinguistic research, and studies of the psychology of memory, viewing stylistics as a matter of cognition as opposed to memory.r0)Scott, Donia Delin, Judy Hartley, Anthonys 1999D=Identifying congruent pragmatic relations in procedural textsrLanguages in Contrastu1p1t 45-82r scott-etal99F?Rhetorical Structure Theory Relations Instructions MultilingualPresents a methodology for the analysis of comparable corpora in different languages using French, English, and Portuguese instructional texts. Discourse perspecive is examined as it is realised by RST relations. It is demonstrated that the three languages tolerate different levels of ambiguity, and prefer different means of semantic disambiguation. Analysis was performed to aid the automatic generation of texts in multiple languages. Scott, Mike 20014-Mapping key words to 'problem' and 'solution'd "Scott, Mike Thompson, Geoffa2+Patterns of Text: In Honour of Michael Hoey Amsterdam/Philadelphia John Benjamins109-127 scott2001,%Rhetorical Structure Theory coherence=$Hovy, Eduard Maier, Elisabeth 1995TMParsimonious or Profligate: How Many and Which Discourse Structure Relations?aUnpublished Articlel hovy-maier95,%Rhetorical Structure Theory RelationsCategorises ten years of research into relations from the two-relation G&S to the open-ended RST, coming up with a final list of over 400 relations, fused down into 70 "increasingly semantic" relations. Also includes a full list of sources.LEhttp://www.isi.edu/natural-language/people/hovy/papers/93discproc.pdf  Hovy, Eduard Lin, Chin Yew 19970)Automated text summarization in Summarist RKProceedings of ACL/EACL Workshop on Intelligent Scalable Text Summarizationl Madrid 18-24 hovy-lin970)Summarization Rhetorical Structure Theory82The authors argue that the process of summarization consists in topic identification, topic interpretation and generation processes. They described a system's architecture and some details about its processes. The topic identification is based on the optimal position policy as a list that indicates in what ordinal positions in the text high topic bearing sentences occur. This method is obtained by training, given a collection of of genre related texts with keywords. The topic interpretation is based on concept fusion using WordNet and the notion of concept signature. The system proceeds by concept counting instead of word counting. The concept signature will identify the most pertinent signatures subsuming the topic words, and the signature head's concept will then be used as the summarizing fuser concepts.RKAbstract from http://www.csi.uottawa.ca/tanka/ArtDB/bibliography.html#topic"Huffman, S. B. Laird, J. E.  1995"Flexibly instructable agents2+Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research\3271-324rISI:A1995TT325000010huffman-laird95"Rhetorical Structure TheoryxrThis paper presents an approach to learning from situated, interactive tutorial instruction within an ongoing agent. Tutorial instruction is a flexible (and thus powerful) paradigm for teaching tasks because it allows an instructor to communicate whatever types of knowledge an agent might need in whatever situations might arise. To support this flexibility, however, the agent must be able to learn multiple kinds of knowledge from a broad range of instructional interactions. Our approach, called situated explanation, achieves such learning through a combination of analytic and inductive techniques. It combines a form of explanation-based learning that is situated for each instruction with a full suite of contextually guided responses to incomplete explanations. The approach is implemented in an agent called INSTRUCTO-SOAR that learns hierarchies of new tasks and other domain knowledge from interactive natural language instructions. INSTRUCTO-SOAR meets three key requirements of flexible instructability that distinguish it from previous systems: (1) it can take known or unknown commands at any instruction point; (2) it can handle instructions that apply to either its current situation or to a hypothetical situation specified in language (as in, for instance, conditional instructions); and (3) it can learn, from instructions, each class of knowledge it uses to perform tasks.$://A1995TT32500001n*#Hulstijn, J. Dignum, F. Dastani, M.t 20052+Coherence constraints for agent interactionrAgent Communication 3396134-152(!Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceISI:000228996900010hulstijn-etal2005"Rhetorical Structure TheoryJNGThis paper describes the use of coherence constraints as a means to regulate agent interaction. Coherence constraints describe relationships between the content of utterances, and the context. They can be used for example to express that an answer must refer back in a meaningful way to the question that it answers. We also discuss several possible ways in which the enforcement of coherence constraints can be implemented in a multiagent system. Finally we describe a possible implementation in the 3APL platform, which shows the feasibility of this form of interaction regulation.s$://000228996900010p H>TZp|j.2 Holler, A. 2007ZSUniform or different? - On the syntactic status of non-restrictive relative clausessDeutsche Sprache353250-270ISI:000255022400005l holler2007"Rhetorical Structure Theory Relative clauses are usually differentiated according to their non-/restrictivity. Numerous theoretical studies look into questions such as how restrictive relative clauses can be distinguished from non-restrictive ones and to what extent the semantic-pragmatic differentiation between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses is based on structural differences. The present article tackles a problem that has generally been neglected in previous research. It investigates from a syntactic perspective whether the class of non-restrictive relative clauses behaves homogeneously. Based on empirical evidence it argues that (i) appositive relative clauses must be distinguished syntactically from continuative relative clauses, and that (ii) continuative w- and d-relative clauses show a uniform syntactic behaviour. In view of these facts, a syntactic analysis is proposed which treats an appositive relative clause and its nominal antecedent as one constituent, and a continuative relative clause as a structurally orphaned syntagma.$://000255022400005 Hovy, Eduard 1988,&Planning coherent multisentential textb\Proceedings of 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'88) Buffalo, New York(163-169} hovy8860Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation RelationsXQPresents a formalisation of 20 RST relations for use in a prototype text planner..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P88-1020 Hovy, Eduard 1990.'Unresolved issues in paragraph planningt 0)Dale, Robert Mellish, Chris Zock, Michael\6/Current Research in Natural Language Generation London Academic Press 17-45s hovy90,&Rhetorical Structure Theory GenerationDiscusses the (then) recent trend of planning paragraphs by dynamically assembling and manipulating the basic building blocks, using a paragraph structure tree. Presents issues with this approach, and possible solutions. Hovy, Eduard 1990^WParsimonious and profligate approaches to the question of discourse structure relationsrB://A1992HP27300003s Hovy, Eduard 1993HBAutomated discourse generation using discourse structure relationsArtificial Intelligencec63 1-2{341-3850 hovy9360Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation RelationsSummarizes the previous five years of work on planning using relations. Outlines several facets of relations as required and used by planners: their nature, number and extension to tasks such as sentence planning and text formatting. Hovy, Eduard 1993^WFrom interclausal relations to discourse structure- A long way behind, a long way ahead $Horacek, Helmut Zock, Michaelh2+New Concepts in Natural Language Generationw London Pinter 57-68fhovy93b60Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation RelationsSummary of ongoing research into the field of discourse structure as motivated by research into the generation of monologic discourse. Special emphasis is on the inquest into relations.x Hovy, Eduard 19952+The multifunctionality of discourse markersc2,Proceedings of Workshop on Discourse Markers Egmond-aan-Zee hovy95*#Markers Rhetorical Structure Theory00)Defines four separate structural analyses of text (semantic, interpersonal, attentional, rhetorical) and inidcates that cues must be employed to minimise potential ambiguities. The paper gives a catalogue of cues for all but the attentional strucutre, and discusses the overloading of cue meaning.LFhttp://www.isi.edu/natural-language/people/hovy/papers/95dp-egmond.pdf^d, M. T. Clifton, C. 2008b[Processing inferential causal statements: Theoretical refinements and the role of verb typeDiscourse Processesn451e 24-51eJan-FebISI:000252848800002amohamed-etal2008"Rhetorical Structure TheoryAn evidential causal relation like, "Because most distinguished students got bad grades, the teacher made some mistakes in evaluating his students' papers," is more difficult to process thKrasavina, Olgae 2004XRUse of the third-person pronouns and rhetorical structure: A corpus-oriented study\UProceedings of 5th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphora Resolution Colloquium (DAARC 2004){ Lisbon, Portugal krasavina2004@:Rhetorical Structure Theory Pronominal reference CitationsCitation of Edilog 2002.(Krifka-Dobes, Zuzana Novak, Hans-Joachim 19930*From constituent planning to text planning $Horacek, Helmut Zock, MichaelrVONew Concepts in Natural Language Generation: Planning, Realization, and Systems London Pinter 87-113krifka-dobes-novak93B;Rhetorical Structure Theory Computational Linguistics PlansXQIn the framework of the LILOG (Linguistic & Logic Methods for the Automatic Understanding of German) project, a text-planning structure based on rhetorical structure theory (RST) is introduced, which allows for input structures above the clause level to be combined by rhetorical relations, thus increasing the flexibility & realizability of computer text generation. LILOG's analysis component & knowledge representation/inference engine are described, addressing its use of a head-driven phrase structure grammar-based syntactic/semantic parser to generate an extended discourse representation structure (EDRS) of input, followed by an evaluation of the proposed RST-based planning schemas in analyzing input EDRSs & planning, revising, & generating appropriate responses to user queries. 2 Figures, 22 References. Adapted from the source document xde Smedt, Koenraad de Souza, Clarisse SieckeniusDecker, StefanDegand, Liesbeth Delin, JudyDemonte, Violetaden Ouden, HannyDesmet, TimothyDi Eugenio, Barbara Dietrich, R. Dignum, F. Dijkstra, TonDimitromanolaki, A.Dinesh, NikhilDipper, Stefanie$!Daz de Ilarraza Snchez, Arantxa Dobes, Z. Dodick, Jeff Dojat, MichelDolan, William B Donald, I.Doran, Christine Dorval, Bruce Doura, IreneDruon, SbastienDucrot, OswaldDuffy, Susan ADurand, JacquesDybkjr, LailaEchihabi, Abdessamad Egg, Markus Eklund, PeterElhadad, Michael Elson, D. K.Endres-Niggemeyer, B. Engel, Ralf et al. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine Fais, Laurel Fant, Lars Faraday, P. Favero, E. L.Fawcett, Robin PFawcett, Robin P. Fellbaum, C. Feng, ZhiweiFerraresi, GisellaFerrari, GiacomoFiess, KathleenFinkelstein, A. C. W.Finkler, WolfgangFischer, KerstinFischer, Marcus Fisher, Amy Fisher, MayFitzgerald, Jill Flood, James Flores, V. Forbes, KateForbes, KatherineFoster, Mary EllenFoster, RobertFox, Barbara A. Fox, John Fraser, BruceFrawley, William J.Freedman, AvivaFries, Peter HFuchs, Juliana ThiesenFuentes Fort, MariaFujiwara, MihoFukumoto, Jun'ichiFuller, Daniel P. Fung, PascaleFurtado, A. L. Furugori, T. Gallardo, S. Gao, W. J. Gao, Weijun Garcea, A.Garrido Medina, Joaqun Garza, G.Gawryjolek, Jakub J.Gelbukh, AlexanderGeluykens, RonaldGeorg, GersendeGernsbacher, Morton Ann Getoor, Lise Geurts, JoostGhorbel, HatemGibson, EdwardGiering, Maria Eduarda Gil, Y.Gilliom, Laura A. Glanzberg, M.Gleitman, Lila R.Glynn, Shawn M.GNOME Goh, D. H. Goh, D. H. L.Goldberg, Adele E.Goldman, AlvinGonzlez Meln, EvaGonzlez, MontserratGordon, Peter C.Goutsos, Dionysis($Gmez Gonzlez, Mara de los ngeles($Gmez-Gonzlez, Mara de los ngeles Grabe, W. Grabski, M. Graf, W.Graf, Winifred Graham, SteveGranville, Robert AlanGrasso, Floriana Graumann, C. Green, NancyGrimes, Joseph E.Grommes, PatrickGrosz, Barbara J.Grote, BrigitteGrover, Claire Groza, TudorGruber, HelmutGundel, Jeanette K. Gurr, C. A.Habert, Benot Hachey, Ben Haddow, Barry Hagen, Eli Hahn, U. Hahn, Udo Haiman, John Hajicov, EvaHalatsis, Constantin Hale, Austin Haller, S.Hamilton, Heidi E. Han, D.Handschuh, Siegfried Hannay, MikeHanneforth, Thomas Haouam, KamelHarabagiu, SandaHardie, AndrewHardman, Lynda Harpur, JohnHarras, GiselaHartley, AnthonyHarvey, TerrencyHasan, Ruqaiya Hasida, KoitiHasselgrd, Hilde Hearst, MartiHedberg, NancyHeeman, Peter A.Heintze, SilvanHenderson, PeterHengeveld, KeesHernandez, NicolasHernault, HugoHerring, SusanHilbert, MircoHirschberg, Julia Hirst, GraemeHitzeman, Janet Hobbs, Jerry Hoey, MichaelHoffman, BlaineHolcomb, Phillip J Holler, A. Hood, LoisHoracek, Helmut Horton, D. Hovy, EduardHuffman, S. B. Hulstijn, J. Hunter, A. Hunter, JulieHuong, Le ThanhHurewitz, FeliciaHuyck, ChristianHwang, S. J. J.Hwang, Shin Ja J. Ide, Nancy Iida, Masayo Inder, RobertInoue, TakafumiIruskieta Quintian, Mikel Ishizuka, M.Ishizuka, Mitsuru Ito, T. Itoh, Etsuo ,e"T+@**Seville, Helen 1999*$Experiments with discourse structure Bunt, H C Thijsse, E G CTMProceedings of 3rd International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-3)3 Tilburg, Netherlands233-2469 seville99n@:Referring Expressions Analysis Rhetorical Structure TheoryTackles the referring expression/discourse relation issue the opposite way around, claiming that discourse can feed referential resolution, while still stating that discourse structure is at least partially formed through referential chains. However, in an algorithm for deriving discourse structure (tree-like, but not strict RST) it was the referring expressions that formed the basis of the analysis. Also deals with Centering theory.:4http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/seville99experiments.html$Sharoff, Serge Sokolova, Lena 1995^XAnalysis of rhetorical structures in technical manuals and their multilingual generationHBProceedings of the Workshop on Multilingual Generation (IJCAI'95) Montral, Canada119-128sharoff-sokolova95.(Rhetorical Structure Theory Multilingual Shaw, Jamesr 19982,Clause agregation using linguistic knowledgeXRProceedings of 9th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (IWNLG 9) Niagra-on-the-Lake, Canada138-1474 shaw98,&Rhetorical Structure Theory GenerationPresents hypotactic and paratactic operators for combining the semantic representations of clauses into concise sentences. Among the factors influencing aggregation, RST relations are listed..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W98-1415F@Shinmori, Akihiro Okumura, Manabu Marukawa, Yuzo Iwayama, Makoto 2002PIRhetorical structure analysis of Japanese patent claims using cue phrases,%Proceedings of the 3rd NTCIR Workshop  Tokyo, Japan (!National Institute of Informaticsshinmori-etal20024-Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse MarkersSibun, Penelopee 1992$Generating text without treesg Computational Intelligence8e1\102-122esibun92\"Rhetorical Structure TheoryoSidner, Candace L. 1993@9On discourse relations, rhetorical relations and rhetoric8ZSProceedings of Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations, ACLl Ohio State University ACL122-124sidner93"Rhetorical Structure TheorySiepmann, Dirk 2005("Discourse Markers across Languages New York  Routledgek siepmann20054-Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse Markers &Sitter, Stefan Maier, ElisabethI 1992F@Rhetorical relations in a model of information-seeking dialogues:310th. European Conference on Artificial Itelligence} Vienna, Austriapsitter-maier-ecai92y<5Rhetorical Structure Theory Computational Linguistics  Smith, Eliot 1997:4A Computational Model of On-Line Story Understanding Birmingham, UK University of Birmingham19Thesis Progress Reportsmith97B;Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse Representation TheoryfCites RST, but really uses DRT as a means of representing discourse structure in a larger framework of modelling the understanding of narrative.:4http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/smith97computational.html<4lZ ("Moore, Johanna D Pollack, Martha E 1992D>A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis Computational Linguisticss184s537-544 moore-pollack@:Rhetorical Structure Theory Theoretical Analysis RelationsClaims that single RST relations are not sufficient. There are cases where both ideational and interpersonal relations hold between the same pieces of text, and both sets of information need to be captured..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J92-4007$Moore, Johanna D Paris, Ccile 1993\VPlanning text for advisory dialogues: Capturing intentional and rhetorical information Computational Linguistics\194{651-694  moore-paris93i,&Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation"Presentation of a text planner that not only tracks the rhetorical relations between parts of the text, but the intention effect of sections of the text upon the reader as well. Follows from the 1992 observation that both ideational and interpersonal information needs to be captured..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J93-4004$Moore, Johanna D Mittal, Vibhu 19960)Dynamically generated follow-up questionsrComputer297i 75-& JulaISI:A1996UW24600026moore-mittal96>7Rhetorical Structure Theory Natural Language GenerationoJDAutomatic text generators are at the heart of systems that provide users with information. The trick is getting the system to answer follow-up questions as naturally as possible. But even in moderately complex domains, the task of handcrafting explanations using ''canned'' text or templates is so time-consuming and error-prone that it becomes infeasible. Furthermore, these techniques cannot be extended to let a system consider the user's prior knowledge, past problem-solving experiences, or the preceding dialogue. To overcome these limitations, researchers have focused on automatically synthesizing text directly from underlying knowledge bases. Automatic text-generation systems pose new opportunities-and new problems. Studies of human-human interactions show that people often follow up requests for information with more questions. This observation also underscores the need for computer-based information systems to let users ask follow-up questions. This capability is especially crucial in patient education, for example, where misunderstandings could have serious consequences. The ability to handle follow-up requests in context is essential, even crucial, to applications like the patient education system described in this article. The direction we've taken presents one alternative to full-fledged natural language-understanding and makes it possible to design systems by adopting a pragmatic (and possibly more useful) approach of generating choices for the user. Our initial system evaluations reveal that users are comfortable with the interface as a way to ask follow-up questions.$://A1996UW24600026"Moreale, E. Vargas-Vera, M.o 2004B://000224855500009 Mori, Yoshiki 1996F@Multiple discourse relations on the sentential level in Japanese\UProceedings of 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING'96) Copenhagen, Denmark2 2788-793 mori96:4Rhetorical Structure Theory Translation MultilingualPresents a problem related to Verbmobil and its application to Japaense-English translation. Because of Japanese's relative lack of definite articles, it is common for more than one discourse relation to hold within a single sentence, which poses a problem for a translation matrix taking discourse representation structures as input. The solution lies in working out relative scope and underspecification issues. No real mention of RST, uses DRT./.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C96-2133*#Morris, S. J. Finkelstein, A. C. W.e 1999f_Engineering via discourse: Content structure as an essential component for multimedia documentsnNGInternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering{9{6{691-724 DecISI:000085662700002morris-finkelstein99"Rhetorical Structure TheoryPractical problems of multimedia document production require software engineers to provide an effective framework for inter-professional work. This paper distinguishes between abstract and physical media and hence provides the basis for definitions of multiple media and multimedia and the context for reviewing content structures proven in other disciplines. Such structures can act as a guide for production and the notion of the navigable discourse structure provides the essential means for testing content design. Combining these structures in a discourse driven process model and production method facilitates both the design of content and the development of associated software in an ordered and integrated manner, thus avoiding the pitfalls of ad hoc approaches. Investigation and testing of these concepts was effected via two case studies involving the production of two multimedia demonstrations of software engineering tools.$://000085662700002e$Moser, Megan Moore, Johanna Ds 1995ZSUsing discourse analysis and automatic text generation to study discourse cue usagetjdProceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation Stanford, California 92-98E moser-moore95FTMMarkers Theoretical Rhetorical Structure Theory Relational Discourse AnalysiseTwo stage methodology for the study of cue usage coordinates an exhaustive corpus analysis with a system for text generation. Coding of the corpus uses Relational Discourse Analysis, a synthesis of RST and G&S. This synthesis is explained. 2,http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/moser95using.html}H, M. F.6 2002LFSpoken dialogue technology: Enabling the conversational Moens, Marie-Francine  2007"Summarizing court decisionse,%Information Processing and Managementa436 1748-1764t NovnISI:000249742500021a moens2007"Rhetorical Structure TheoryIn the field of law there is an absolute need for summarizing the texts of court decisions in order to make the content of the cases easily accessible for legal professionals. During the SALOMON and MOSAIC(2) projects we investigated the summarization and retrieval of legal cases. This article presents some of the main findings while integrating the research results of experiments on legal document summarization by other research groups. In addition, we propose novel avenues of research for automatic text summarization, which we currently exploit when summarizing court decisions in the ACILA(3) project. Techniques for automated concept learning and argument recognition are here the most challenging. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.$://000249742500021*#Mohamed, Aysha H. Omer, Marjzoub R.o 1999XRSyntax as a marker of rhetorical organization in written texts: Arabic and EnglishNGInternational Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL)374291-305Nmohamed-omer99"Rhetorical Structure TheoryleTwo Arabic stories & their English translations & two Arabic & English stories (unrelated by translation) were compared with reference to sentence organization, coordination, & subordination. This comparison showed that Arabic & English sentences are differently organized; coordination is more common in Arabic than in English, while subordination is more frequent in English than in Arabic. It is argued that these syntactic differences & their underlying semantic representations reflect differences at the higher level of rhetorical text organization. 4 Tables, 35 References. Adapted from the source documente]tGmez-Gonzlez2005 Grabe2002< Grabski2006@ Graf19911O Graf19911 Granville1990 Granville1993 Grasso1999m Grasso19999w Grasso2000 Grasso2002 Grasso2002 Grasso2003 Green1992 Green1994x Green1999y Green2004 Green2010S Grimes1975 Grommes2005 Grosz1986 Grote1997 Grote1997 Grote1998 Grover2004  Groza2006 Groza2007 Groza2007 Groza2007 Gruber2005 Gruber20055 Gundel1988z Gurr1997 Hachey2004  Haddow2005 Hagen1994 Hagen1997{ Hagen1999" Hahn20000# Hahn20010| Hahn2002: Hahn20062Halatsis2008 Hale19955} Haller1999v Han2003  Handschuh2006 Handschuh2007 Handschuh2007 Handschuh2007 Hannay2005 Hannay2009 Hanneforth2003 Haouam2002 Haouam2003 Haouam2003 Haouam2004 Haouam2006 Harabagiu1999~ Harabagiu1999f Hardman2000g Hardman2000y Hartley1994z Hartley1996 Hartley1996c Hartley1997( Hartley1999 Harvey1998 Hearst1994 Hedberg1988 Heintze2003 Heintze2004 Henderson2005 Henderson2005 Henderson2006* Henderson2007 Hengeveld2009 Hernandez2009Hernault2009Hernault2009 Hilbert2006 Hilbert2006 Hilbert2006 Hilbert2006 Hirst1996 Hirst2002Hitzeman19988 Hobbs1979 Hobbs1985 Hobbs1993 Hobbs1993 Hoffman2009 Holcomb2006. Holler2007 Horton1996 Hovy1988 Hovy1990j Hovy1990 Hovy1991 Hovy1991 Hovy19911 Hovy1992T Hovy1992b Hovy1992 Hovy1992 Hovy1993 Hovy1993 Hovy19933 Hovy1995 Hovy1995a Hovy19955 Hovy1997] Hovy19989 Huffman1995=Hulstijn2005> Hunter2001 Hunter20070 Huong2003 Huong2003 Huong2004 Huong2007 Huyck2003 Hwang2005J Ide1998 Ide1999n Ide2000 Ide2000 Inder1995z Inoue1997Iruskieta Quintian2009Ishizuka2004Ishizuka20099Ishizuka20099v Ito2003 Itoh19944 Iwayama2002 Jacques20091 Jansen20088 Jayez1998? Ji2006 Jing20044 Johnsen2001w Jones2000 Jordan1992B Joshi1998D Joshi1999E Joshi1999F Joshi1999 Joshi2001l Joshi2002N Joshi2003m Joshi2003C Joshi2003 Joshi2004 Joshi2005 Joshi2006 Joshi2008 Just19949Kaestner2004%Kamalski2007; Kamp19961Y Kamps2001P Kan2007Kapellou20044x Kaplan20010w Kaplan20020 Kaplan2002! Karamanis20074 Karkaletsis2002 Karkaletsis20042 Karkaletsis2005 Karkaletsis2008 Kato19989 Katz2002: Katz20033@ Katzav2008~ Kroly1998 Keenan1984 Kehler1995U Kehler2002 Kempff19929 Keohane2002y Kerpedjiev2004 Khan20088 Khoo2002J Khoo2003A Khoo2006K Khoo2006L Kibble1999 Kibble2004 Kibble2007 Kim2006 Kim2006  Kim2007/ Kipp2008 Kittredge1991 Kittredge1993 Kittredge2002 Kleiber2009Y Kleinz20011 Kneser2001 Knight2003d Knight20030 Knight2005 Knott1994 Knott1996 Knott1996 Knott1996q Knott1998 Knott1998 Knott1998 Knott1998D Knott1999E Knott1999F Knott1999 Knott2000 Knott2001 Knott2001 Knott2001 Knott2001C Knott2003B Knott2007 Kobayashi1998 Kong1998Korelsky19911Korelsky1993Korhonen2006 Kosseim1994 Kosseim2000 Krasavina2004 Krasavina2005 Krasavina2008 Krifka-Dobes1993 Kroon2005 Kukich19955_ Kukich19989^ Kukich20010x Kukich20010w Kukich20020O Kukich20042 Kuperberg2006M Kurniawan2006 Kurohashi1994 Kuronen2005 Lagerwerf1998C Lagerwerf20061 Lagerwerf2008 Lai2000 Lai2000 Laird1995 Lakshmanan2006 Land20070 Lapalme1994r Lapalme1999 Lapalme2000 Lapata20050 Lapata20050 Lapata20080 Lascarides1991 Lascarides1992 Lascarides1993 Lascarides1993U Lascarides1994K Lascarides2003 Lascarides2005 Lascarides2008 Latif2008 Lavid1992h Lavid2003 Lavid2004 Le2003 Le2003 Le Draoulec2005 Lee2005 Lee2006 Lee2008 Lefvre1999 Lenke1997Lersundi Ayestaran2009z Lin1997v Lin2003 Lindley2001 Litman1995 Litman19971Lobanova2009 Lobin2006 Lobin2006 Lobin2006 Lobin2006 Long1997 Long1997 Long1997 Long1998LLongacre1971MLongacre1971VLongacre1976WLongacre1983 Lorenz1999Louwerse2001_ Lu19989x Lu20012w Lu20022 Lu20040 Luo20023 Luo2005 Lngen20066 Lngen2006 Lngen2006 Lngen2006D Madjid2003 Mahlow2006 Maier1991 Maier1991 Maier1992T Maier1992 Maier1992 Maier1992 Maier1993 Maier1994 Maier1995X Maier1996Maiorano19999E Mancini2006 Mancini2006 Mann1983Y Mann1983Z Mann1983 Mann1986 Mann19876 Mann198717 Mann19871M Mann1988 Mann1991 Mann1992 Mann1992 Mann1999 Mann2000 Mann2003i Mann2003 Mann20060 Mann20060 Mann2007Mantynen2003 Marcu1996 Marcu1996 Marcu1997 Marcu1997 Marcu1997 Marcu199797Lagerwerf1998 Lai2000 Lai2000 Lakshmanan2006̲ Lapalme1994r Lapalme1999 Lapalme2000 Lapata20050 Lascarides1991̸ Lascarides1992̷ Lascarides1993̹ Lascarides1993U Lascarides1994K Lascarides2003 Lascarides2008̢ Lavid1992h Lavid2003 Lavid2004 Lefvre1999 Lenke1997 Lindley2001 Litman1995̒ Litman19971 Lobin2006  Long1997 Long1997 Long1997 Long1998LLongacre1971MLongacre1971VLongacre1976WLongacre1983̽ Lorenz1999Louwerse2001_ Lu19989x Lu20012w Lu20022 Luo2002 Lngen20066 Mahlow2006̿ Maier1991 Maier1992T Maier1992 Maier1992 Maier1993 Maier1994 Maier1995X Maier1996Maiorano19999 Mann1983Y Mann1983Z Mann1983 Mann1986 Mann19876 Mann198717 Mann19871M Mann1988 Mann1991 Mann1992 Mann1992 Mann1999 Mann2000 Mann2003i Mann2003̦ Mann20060 Mann20060 Mann2007̼Mantynen2003 Marcu1996 Marcu1996 Marcu1997 Marcu1997 Marcu1997 Marcu1997@$ 1T:3Lagerwerf, Luuk Cornelis, L. de Geus, J. Jansen, P.b 2008XRAdvance organizers in advisory reports - Selective reading, recall, and perceptionWritten Communicationp251 53-75 JanISI:000251888500002lagerwerf-etal2008"Rhetorical Structure TheoryeAccording to research in educational psychology, advance organizers lead to better learning and recall of information. In this research, the authors explored advance organizers from a business perspective, where larger documents are read under time pressure. Graphic and verbal advance organizers were manipulated into six versions of an advisory report, read by 159 experienced professional readers in a between-subjects design. Their reading time was limited to encourage selective reading. The results show that graphic advance organizers facilitate selective reading, but they do not enhance recall. Verbal advance organizers introducing a problem enhance recall, and graphic advance organizers moderate the effects on both selective reading and recall.$://000251888500002& Lascarides, Alex Asher, Nicholas 19912,Discourse relations and defeasible knowledgeb\Proceedings of 29th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'91) Berkeley, California 55-626lascarides-asher91,%Rhetorical Structure Theory RelationsiProposes formal definitions for the interpretation of temporal discourse relations. This is further expanded into formalisations of structures using these relations..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P91-100860Lascarides, Alex Asher, Nicholas Oberlander, Jon 1992.(Inferring discourse relations in contextZSProceedings of 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguisticse Newark, Delaware 1-8lascarides-etal92E,%Rhetorical Structure Theory Relationsob[Provides contextual constraints on a logical theory of text interpretation. On the basis of the interaction between these constraints and other sources of knowledge, general conclusions are drawn on the role of domain-specific information, top-down and bottom-up discourse information flow, and the usefulness of formalisation in discourse theory..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology.P92-1001& Lascarides, Alex Asher, Nicholas 1993NGTemporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment Linguistics and Philosophy165437-493lascarides-asher93,%Rhetorical Structure Theory RelationsvFormal methodology for determining the relations between text, and the relation between the events described therein. Interestingly, temporal judgements are made without having to resort to the examination of tense or aspect.:4http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/lascarides93temporal.html& Lascarides, Alex Oberlander, Jon 19932+Temporal coherence and defeasible knowledge3Theoretical Linguisticsa19 1-37lascarides-oberlander933*$Theoretical Coherence relations SDRT.'Presents a logical account for the coherence of discourse, with a focus on the relation between clause ordering in text, and causal ordering in the real world. Questions are raised about the relation between clause order in discourse and causal order in the world, and about the coherence of certain discourses. It transpires that a constrained set of reasoning patterns underlies the retrieval of certain temporal structures. They also discuss defeasible reasoning in language generation, and some consequences for the semantics-pragmatics interface.w6/http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~alex/papers/thlx.psf@rF A. Pery-Woodley, M. P.o 20052+Temporal management and discourse relationspLangue Francaise 148p 45-+ DecbISI:000234167900004l draoulec-pery-woodley2005 "Rhetorical Structure TheorycIn this study of temporal framing, we examine the interaction between "indexing" via temporal discourse frames and another mode of discourse organisation:Vivanco, Vernicae 2005TNThe absence of connectives and the maintenance of coherence in publicity textsJournal of Pragmaticse378e 1233-1249e Aug;ISI:000229708300006 vivanco20054-Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse MarkersThis paper sets out to explore the distinctive features of publicity messages with respect to other kinds of texts. Since the aim of advertising is to point the consumers' ideas in a certain direction, the communicative intention becomes generally constrained by persuasion strategies, such as are studied in pragmatics. Publicity discourse seems to have some specific features which distinguish it from other genres. As regards coherence strategies, previous studies have shown that scientific and technical texts make great use of connectives in order to predict and signal the type of discourse relations and the relation between adjacent elements or sentences. An examination of technical advertisements taken from specialized journals reveals a relatively low number of connectives. In contrast, coherence is maintained with the aid of lexical and semantic resources. Additionally, what we refer to as 'micromarkers' help pinpoint relations. Although these micromarkers have little lexical or semantic content, they are a necessary tool for tying together the concepts they refer to. It turns out that the absence of auxiliary vocabulary, such as connectives, may be an advantage when storing information in the mental reservoir. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.$://000229708300006d$Voll, Kimberly Taboada, Maited 2007leNot all words are created equal: Extracting semantic orientation as a function of adjective relevancenTNProceedings of the 20th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Gold Coast, Australia337-346avoll-taboada2007B://000228725100070 Cui, Songren 1986JDA Comparison of English and Chinese Expository Rhetorical Structures UCLAMaster's thesisa cui{*#Rhetorical Structure Theory ChinesetDahlgren, Kathleen 1998>7Lexical marking and the recovery of discourse structure .'Stede, Manfred Wanner, Leo Hovy, EduardVOProceedings of COLING-ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers= Montral, Canada 65-71a dahlgren98*#Rhetorical Structure Theory Markersa2+http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/W/W98/W98-0312.pdf 0)Dale, Robert Mellish, Chris Zock, Michaelg 19906/Current Research in Natural Language Generation9 London Academic Press dale-etal90>7Natural Language Generation Rhetorical Structure Theory.-vSmith, Caroline L. 2004XRTopic transitions and durational prosody in reading aloud: Production and modelingSpeech Communication42 3-4;247-270t ApriISI:000221008900001y smith2004oprosody, final lengthening, prosodic modeling, relationship to text structure, perception of prosody to-speech synthesis; discourse structure; sentence; english; text; boundaries; intonation Rhetorical Structure Theory\VThe linguistic structure of an utterance is known to affect the durational prosody of sounds, words and phrases. There has been increasing interest in how discourse-level organization affects prosody, in part because modeling discourse-level effects could improve the comprehensibility of longer passages of synthesized text. The approach taken here is to look at how topics are sequenced in a text, and how this affects durational prosody when that text is read aloud.Two speakers of American English were recorded reading a set of text materials on 10 separate occasions. Measurements of these recordings indicated that the type of transition in topic between two successive sentences had a significant effect on the amount of sentence-final lengthening, the duration of the pause between sentences, and the speech rate at the end of a sentence and the beginning of the following sentence. These measurements were then used to create a mathematical model of one speaker, and to generate several versions of one of this speaker's original recordings, with each version incorporating different manipulations of the durational patterns and their variability. These versions were played to listeners, who preferred those where the manipulations included durational patterns reflecting the organization of topics in the text. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Cited Reference Count: 51 Cited References: *DEN SYST, 1997, CANV 5 US GUID *SAS I, 1998, STATV REF MAN AYERS G, 1994, WORKING PAPERS LINGU, V44, P1 BARBOSA P, 1994, SPEECH COMMUN, V15, P127 BROWN G, 1980, QUESTIONS INTONATION CAMPBELL N, 1990, TALKING MACHINES THE, P211 CAMPBELL N, 2000, PROSODY THEORY EXPT, P281 COHEN J, 1993, BEHAV RES METH INSTR, V25, P257 CRYSTAL TH, 1982, J ACOUST SOC AM, V72, P705 DENOUDEN H, 2000, P 10 ANN M SOC TEXT, P40 EDWARDS J, 1991, J ACOUST SOC AM, V89, P369 EFRON B, 1993, INTRO BOOTSTRAP, P45 FLEISS JL, 1971, PSYCHOL BULL, V76, P378 FON YJJ, 2002, THESIS OHIO STATE U GEE JP, 1983, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V15, P411 GROSZ B, 1992, P INT C SPOK LANG PR, P429 GROSZ B, 1986, COMPUTATIONAL LINGUI, V12, P175 HAASE M, 2001, P EUROSPEECH, P2157 HERMAN R, 2000, J PHONETICS, V28, P466 HIRSCHBERG J, 1986, P 24 ANN M ASS COMP, P136 HIRSCHBERG J, 1996, P 34 ANN M ASS COMP, P286 HIRSCHBERG J, 1993, P ESCA WORKSH PROS, P90 JURAFSKY D, 1997, 9702 U COL I COGN SC KOOPMANSVANBEIN.F, 1996, P I PHON SC U AMST, P1 KREIMAN J, 1982, J PHONETICS, V10, P163 LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159 LEHISTE I, 1975, STRUCTURE PROCESS SP, P195 LEHISTE I, 1979, FRONTIERS SPEECH COM, P191 LITTELL R, SAS SYSTEM MIXED MOD MANN WC, 1988, TEXT, V8, P243 MUNHALL KG, 1985, J ACOUST SOC AM, V78, P1548 NAKAJIMA S, 1997, COMPUTING PROSODY CO, P81 NAKAJIMA S, 1993, PHONETICA, V50, P197 NAKATANI C, 1996, TR2195 HARV U CTR RE NOORDMAN L, 1999, DISCOURSE STUDIES CO, P133 PASSONNEAU RJ, 1996, COMPUTATIONAL CONVER, P161 SHATTUCKHUFNAGEL S, 1996, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V25, P193 SHRIBERG E, 2000, SPEECH COMMUN, V32, P127 SLUIJTER AMC, 1993, PHONETICA, V50, P180 STIRLING L, 2001, SPEECH COMMUN, V33, P113 SWERTS M, 1997, J ACOUST SOC AM, V101, P514 SWERTS M, 1997, SPEECH COMMUN, V22, P25 SWERTS M, 1994, LANG SPEECH, V37, P21 THORSEN NG, 1985, J ACOUST SOC AM, V77, P1205 TURK AE, 1999, J PHONETICS, V27, P171 UMEDA N, 1975, J ACOUST SOC AM, V58, P434 VANDONZEL M, 1999, PROSODIC ASPECTS INF VANSANTEN JPH, 1994, COMPUT SPEECH LANG, V8, P95 WIGHTMAN S, 1992, J ACOUST SOC AM, V92, P1707 WOUTERS J, 2002, J ACOUST SOC AM 1, V111, P417 YULE G, 1980, LINGUA, V52, P33 Article$://000221008900001F?Somasundaran, Swapna Namata, Galileo Wiebe, Janyce Getoor, Lise 2009xrSupervised and unsupervised methods in employing discourse relations for improving opinion polarity classificationD=Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in NLP (EMNLP)  Singaporesomasundaran-etal2009<6Sentiment Discourse Discourse parsing Machine Learning&Soria, Claudia Ferrari, Giacomos 1998HBLexical marking of discourse relations: Some experimental findings .'Stede, Manfred Wanner, Leo Hovy, EduardeVOProceedings of COLING-ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers8 Montral, Canada 36-42soria-ferrari98*#Markers Rhetorical Structure TheoryqZSInvestigates several questions on the relationship between markers, relations, and textual vs. spoken discourse. What role do the markers play in inferring the relation? To what extent is the lexical signalling needed for each relation? Are there any relations that are always/never signalled? Does the medium have an impact on marker use? .(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W98-0306b~O"Benwell, Bethand 1999The organisation of knowledge in British university tutorial discourse: Issues, pedagogic discourse strategies and disciplinary identity Pragmatics9y4c535-565aDecember benwell994.Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse analysisSpoken tutorial discourse is argued to be describable in terms of topic or information hierarchies that can be linked via a finite series of rhetorical relations or "pedagogic discourse strategies." The dialogue from British university tutorials in physics & English literature was used to (1) explore a model of knowledge structuring in spoken tutorial interaction, (2) provide a formal description of how knowledge is structured in two contrastive subject (science & art) tutorials, & (3) describe how this structuring relates in predictable ways to subject methodology. Here the American Rhetorical Structure Theory of W. C. Mann & S. Thompson (1985, 1986, & 1992), generally applied to coherent texts, was used as a starting point for development of a spoken discourse framework with provisions for repetition & for the consequences of clarification or repair. Data were gathered from a physics tutorial & an English literature tutorial, each lasting one hour, involving 8 & 6 students, respectively. Whereas the physics tutorial was characterized by a global pattern of subordination or recursive embedding, the English literature tutorial reflected a coordination of issues. Each tutorial was therefore seen to reflect the core structure of its discipline, the physics tutorial an atomistic process involving accretion of knowledge by pieces, & the English tutorial revealing an organic or holistic structure. 3 Figures, 43 References. L. R. HunterBerber Sardinha, Tony 2006D=Review of: Taboada, M. (2004) Building Coherence and Cohesions Computational Linguisticsn322\283-286\berber-sardinha2006LECitations Review Rhetorical Structure Theory coherence cohesion genremBernrdez, Enrique 1995& Teora y epistemologa del texto Madrid Ctedras bernardez95 4-discourse Spanish Rhetorical Structure Theory360Berzlnovich, Ildik Egg, Markus Redeker, Gisela 2008RKCoherence structure and lexical cohesion in expository and persuasive textsr>7Proceedings of the Workshop on Constraints in Discourse Potsdam, Germany 19-26berzlanovich-etal2008,%Rhetorical Structure Theory CitationsB;Citation of: Taboada 2004 (book); Taboada and Mann (part 1)2+Beveridge, Michael Fox, John Milward, David 2003<5Speech interfaces for point-of-care guideline systemsr60Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Proceedings 2780 76-80.(Lecture Notes in Artificial IntelligenceISI:000187956400011beveridge-etal2003"Rhetorical Structure TheoryzsA major limiting factor in the acceptability of interactive guideline and decision support systems is the case of use of the system in the clinic. A way to reduce demands upon users and increase flexibility of the interface is to use natural language dialogues and speech based interfaces. This paper describes a voice-based data capture and decision support system in which knowledge of underlying task structure (a medical guideline) and domain knowledge (disease ontologies and semantic dictionaries) are integrated with dialogue models based on conversational game theory resulting in a flexible and configurable interface.$://000187956400011 1NT Mey, J. L.Meyer, Bonnie J. F. Miike, SeijiMillis, Keith K.Milosavljevic, MariaMiltsakaki, EleniMilward, David Min, Daihwan Minel, J-L.Mitchell, Heather H.Mitkov, Ruslan Mittal, Vibhu Mizuta, Y.Moder, Carol L. Moeller, Knud Moens, MarcMoens, Marie-FrancineMohamed, Aysha H.Mohamed, M. T. Molina, M.Molina, MartnMontolo Durn, Estella Mooney, DavidMoore, Johanna D Moreale, E.Morgan, Jerry L. Mori, Yoshiki Morris, S. J. Moser, MeganMoxey, Linda M. Mller, Knud Mnnich, UweMulder, Gerben Mullen, T.Muntigl, PeterMurray, GabrielMyers, Jerome L. Na, J. C. Nack, Frank Nagao, MakotoNakagawa, ToruNakano, YukikoNamata, Galileo Neff, M.Nicholas, NickNicolov, NicolasNikolov, Nikolai Nir, BrachaNomoto, Tadashi Noordman, Leo Not, Elena Novak, H. J.Novak, Hans-Joachim Nunes, Maria das Gracas VolpeO'Brien, TheresaO'Donnell, Michael O'Hara, T. P.O'Leary, DianneOates, Sarah LouiseOberlander, J.Oberlander, JonOesterreicher, WulfOhrstrom-Sandgren, T. Oishi, Akira Okazaki, N.Okumura, ManabuOkurowski, Mary EllenOkurowski, Mary-EllenOlson, Michael L.Omer, Marjzoub R. Ono, KenjiOostdijk, NellekeOtterbacher, Jahna Ou, S. Y.Oversteegen, Leonoor Estman, Jan-Ola Pallotta, VPanayiotopoulos, T.Pander Maat, H.Pander Maat, HenkPaolucci, Massimo$!Pardo, Thiago Alexandre Salgueiro Paris, CcilePartee, Barbara H. Pasch, RenatePassonneau, RebeccaPastra, Katerina Patel, Amrita Patry, R.Pattabhiraman, T. Pelachaud, C.Pelachaud, Catherine Pele, D.Pelsmaekers, Katja Peng, GraciePenland, M. J.Penn Discourse TreebankPerfetti, C. A.Pery-Woodley, M. P.Petfi, Jnos S.Pry-Woodley, Marie-PaulePianesi, FabioPianta, Emanuele Pineda, L.Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes Pistol, L. Pit, Mirna Piwek, Paul Ploetzner, R.Poesio, MassimoPoggi, IsabellaPolanyi, LiviaPollack, Martha EPombo, Michael Ponzi, MarcoPortols, Jos Post, M.Postolache, O. Po, M.Potter, AndrewPower, Richard Prahe, HPrasad, RashmiPrendiger, HelmutPrvot, LaurentPrince, Ellen F.Profitlich, Hans-Jrgen Prust, H.Pusks, CsillaPustejovsky, James Qiu, L.Quantz, J. Joachim Rada, R.Radev, Dragomir Rambow, Owen Ramm, Wiebke Ramsay, Guy Ratnakar, V. Rayson, PaulRebeyrolle, Josette Reckman, H.Redeker, Gisela Reed, C. Reed, C. A. Reed, ChrisReichenberger, KlausReichman, RachelReiner, MiriamReisigl, Martin Reiter, EhudReithinger, NorbertReitter, David Renals, Steve Renkema, Jan Reyle, Uwe Rich, CharlesRienks, RutgerRieser, Hannes Rino, Lucia Helena MachadoRisselada, Rodie Rist, T. Rist, Thomas Rittgen, P. Robin, J.Robin, JacquesRocchi, CesareRock, Donald A.Romary, LaurentRomera, MagdalenaRondhuis, Klaas JanRossari, CorinneRosson, Mary Beth Roth, S. F.Roth-Berghofer, T.Rsner, DietmarRumelhart, David E.Rutledge, LloydSafranj, Jelisaveta Saggion, H.Saint-Dizier, PatrickSalkie, RaphaelSamuels, S. Jay Sanders, T. Sanders, TedSanford, Anthony J.Sanfranj, JelisavetaSarjala, Marja Sarkar, Anoop Say, BilgeSnchez-Macarro, Antonia Scha, R.Scha, R. J. H.Schauer, Holger Scheppers, F.Schiffrin, DeborahSchilder, FrankSchilperoord, JoostSchmitz, Birte Schulz, S.Schutz, Alexander Scott, Donia Scott, MikeSeewald-Heeg, Uta Seidel, H. P.J^gfn P. Ohrstrom-Sandgren, T. McKeever, K. J.k 1998<6An empirical approach to temporal reference resolution2+Journal of Artificial Intelligence Researchr9r247-293Rsner, Dietmart 1993`ZIntentions, rhetoric, or discourse relations? A case from multilingual document generation  Rambow, OwenZSProceedings of Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations, ACLe Ohio State University ACL106-109rosner93>7Rhetorical Structure Theory Natural Language GenerationTNLloyd Rutledge Brian Bailey van Ossenbruggen, Jacco Lynda Hardman Joost Geurts 2000D=Generating presentation constraints from rhetorical structuredD>Proceedings of 11th ACM conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia San Antonio, TX 19-28erutledge-etal2000a,&Rhetorical Structure Theory Multimedia60http://homepages.cwi.nl/~lloyd/publications.htmlF?Lloyd Rutledge Jim Davis van Ossenbruggen, Jacco Hardman, Lyndap 2000RKInter-dimensional hypermedia communicative devices for rhetorical structurepLFProceedings of International Conference on Multimedia Modeling (MMM00)  Nagano, Japan 89-105rutledge-etal2000b,&Rhetorical Structure Theory Multimedia60http://homepages.cwi.nl/~lloyd/publications.htmlSafranj, Jelisavetam 2007B;Types of attribution relation in the Financial Times corpusCb[Proceedings of English Language and Literature Studies: Structures across Cultures, ELLSSAC Belgrade sanfranj2007"Rhetorical Structure TheoryRLThe paper presents some results of the research that has been carried out on The Financial Times corpus of 150 on-line newspaper business articles according to the Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson, 1988) that addresses text organization by means of rhetorical relations that hold between parts of a text. RST has been applied to the study of different languages, often with the goal of making cross-linguistic comparisons and generalizations. Some of the studies were within the framework of a Natural Language Generation system. It explains coherence by postulating a hierarchical, connected structure of texts, in which every part of a text has a role, a function to play, with respect to other parts in the text. The notion of text coherence through text relations is widely accepted, and the relations have also been called coherence relations. The research has shown that there are different types of Attribution relation in newspaper business articles and it is highly frequent in the analyzed corpus as well. Texts proceed in certain ways corresponding to their genre structure.Safranj, Jelisaveta8 2008D>Rhetorical organization of business English newspaper articlesjcProceedings of FLLAS International Conference: Language for Specific Purposes - Theory and Practice Belgrade sanfranj2008"Rhetorical Structure Theory4-Rhetorical organisation of business english newspaper articles has been clearly presented in the light of Rhetorical Structure Theory as a descriptive theory of a major aspect of the organization of natural text. It is a linguistically useful method for describing natural texts, characterizing their structure primarily in terms of relations that hold between parts of the text. Because of the nucleus-satellite distinction it is a descriptive basis for studying rhetorical organisation and provides comprehensive analysis rather then selective commentary.o;Tvj, Jelisaveta8 200882Rhetorical Structure in Business English Discourse Belgrade University of BelgradePh.D. dissertationsafranj-thesis2008"*$Furugori, T. Lin, R. Ito, T. Han, D. 2003VOInformation extraction and summarization for newspaper articles on sassho-jiken54-Ieice Transactions on Information and Systems2 E86D9 1728-1735 SepISI:000185276000032 furugori-etal2003"Rhetorical Structure TheoryfDescribed here is an automatic text summarization system for Japanese newspaper articles on sassho-jiken (murders and bodily harms). We extract the pieces of information from a text, inter-connect them to represent the scenes and participants involved in the sassho-jiken, and finally produce a summary by generating sentences from the information extracted. An experiment and its evaluation show that, while a limitation being imposed on the domain, our method works well in depicting important information from the newspaper articles and the summaries produced are better in adequacy and readability than those obtained by extracting sentences.$://000185276000032i Gallardo, S. 2005HAPragmatic support of medical recommendations in popularized textsJournal of Pragmatics\376\813-835 JunISI:000227502100003 gallardo2005"Rhetorical Structure Theory81In order to be successful, speech acts that are intended to get the hearer to do something are often accompanied by supporting utterances aimed at making him/her understand their communicative purpose and, accept it as appropriate, as well as enabling him/her to perform the requested action. The purpose of this article is to determine the type of utterances that support recommendations in a corpus of popularizing medical texts published in two major Argentinean newspapers. The analysis shows that the most frequent supporting functions are those aimed at the acceptance of the communicative purpose. Also, supporting functions have been analyzed in terms of the speakers' acceptance of responsibility, i.e., we have considered whether supporting functions are (re)-formulated as a direct or indirect quotation of the information source or are formulated by the reporter. Findings show that a high percentage of supporting functions that justify recommendations are formulated as a direct quotation of the specialist's voice. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.0$://000227502100003h Marcu, Daniel 1997LEFrom local to global coherence: A bottom-up approach to text planningrHBProceedings of 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence Providence, Rhode Island629-635marcu9760Rhetorical Structure Theory Relations GenerationpiObserves that up to this point, most NLG systems operate with a top-down approach with the overriding goal of "say everything in the knowledge base." Building on the influence of the canonical orderings of nuclei and satellites for certain relations, a bottom-up planner is proposed. This planner assumes that the knowledge base comes pre-specified, with the relations between pieces of text given in one form or another. Then, the set of all possible structures can be generated. In order to select the best results there are a number of possible refinements, based upon the notion of assigning a numerical score to adherence to canonical ordering, and textual adjacency. In the end, a proposal is made that each structure can be weighted for the adherence to both these constraints. Weighting is calculated not just on the relations that appear in the text, but a score is also given for adherence to canonical ordering or adjacency constraints imposed by relations that are not evident in the text (This is mentioned as a justification for (Moore and Paris 1992) where the unrealised relation still plays a part in coherence).(0*http://www.isi.edu/~marcu/papers/aaai97.ps Marcu, Daniel/ 199760The rhetorical parsing of natural language textsleProceedings of 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, (ACL'97/EACL'97)  Madrid, Spain 96-103marcu97b2,Rhetorical Structure Theory Analysis MarkersB;Given a coherent text, an algorithm is now presented that will generate a discourse tree. This relies heavily on the corpus study of discourse markers, which was crucial in finding means of segmenting text, and selecting relations between segments. Markers were identified in their orthographic setting, such that they could be found by a shallow analysis using a simple regular expression. Based on the results of the corpus work, which were fed into a database, an automatic detection algorithm was constructed, working at close to 90% precision for identification of both markers and boundaries. Once input text has been segmented and a set of possible relations has been hypothesised, possible trees are constructed and weighted as described above. As a control, texts submitted to the algorithm were also manually parsed by two separate analysts. Inter-analyst agreement was significant, while agreement between the analysts and the algorithm was significantly lower. The general explanation is that the manual analyses were of a much finer granularity than the artificial one..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P97-1013d& Marcu, Daniel/ 19972+From discourse structures to text summariesd $Mani, Inderjeet Maybury, MarkzLFProceedings of ACL Workshop on Intelligent Scalable Text Summarisation  Madrid, Spain 82-888marcu97c0)Summarization Rhetorical Structure TheoryDescribes a procedure for generating text summaries from RST structures of a given text. An experiment on determining the salience of different elements in text; from this it is concluded that nuclei alone form the basis of a document summary, and that the length of a summary so generated can be manipulated by specifying the "depth" to which an algorithm would go to look for nuclei..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W97-0713 Marcu, Daniel 1997VOThe Rhetorical Parsing, Summarization, and Generation of Natural Language TextsComputer Science Toronto, Canadao University of Torontoe 351pPh.D. dissertationmarcu97dVORhetorical Structure Theory Generation Summarization Analysis Markers Relations Large-Scale exploration of Marcu's work to-date. Includes comparisons to other theories (G&S, Polanyi, Hovy) not included elsewhere. Also has appendices containing lists of relations and markers used for the corpus analysis.The Citeseer page has the wrong Bibtex entry, but following the pdf link does get to the thesis. If in doubt, visit Marcu's homepage.y,%http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/24902.htmly Marcu, DanielT 1998NGTo build text summaries of higher quality, nuclearity is not sufficient PIProceedings of AAAI-98 Spring Symposium on Intelligent Text Summarizationf Stanford, California 1-8marcu98t0)Summarization Rhetorical Structure TheoryThis paper proposes further enhancements to the procedure for generating summaries from RST trees. Here, segments are ranked according to the distance to which they "project" up the discourse tree as a part of the promotion set of mother nodes. Further scoring is considered by examining the interrelations between any given node and neighbour nodes. In the end, there is an increase in precision over (Marcu 1997c) but at the loss of some precision.>8http://www.isi.edu/~marcu/papers/summarization-aaai98.ps Marcu, Daniel 1998rlA surface-based approach to identifying discourse markers and elementary textual units in unrestricted texts .'Stede, Manfred Wanner, Leo Hovy, Eduard{VOProceedings of COLING-ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers Montral, Canada 1-7marcu98b2,Rhetorical Structure Theory Analysis MarkersPaper devoted exclusively for the segmentation portion of the algorithm in (Marcu 1997b). A more detailed explanation of the discourse marker corpus work, and the "shallow analyser" that searches based on simple regular expressions and carries out specific actions for each discourse marker. There is also a better explanation of how the orthographic setting of a DM can serve to disambiguate the local usage of an otherwise ambiguous marker..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W98-0301 Marcu, DanielT 1998@9Improving summarization through rhetorical parsing tuningn<5Proceedings of ACL 6th Workshop on Very Large Corporah Montral, Canada206-215lmarcu98c0)Summarization Rhetorical Structure TheorySeveral heuristics for the automated generation of summaries are discussed- some from other literature, others based on scoring derived from the first order formalisation of RST. The heuristics are tested against simple lead and random methods, as well as human annotators for newspaper articles and Scientific American articles. Through testing, Marcu concludes that different heuristics should be applied to the summarisation task, depending upon the genre of the text, and desired length of the summary. For summarisers that are intended to only work for specific texts and summaries, he recommends a limited algorithm, and for a more robust summariser, training should be carried out for all summary lengths./.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W98-1124 Marcu, DanielT 19996/A decision-based approach to rhetorical parsingtb\Proceedings of 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'99) College Park, Maryland365-372marcu99*$Rhetorical Structure Theory AnalysiszIn a nutshell, a paper outlining the design of a new rhetorical parser which takes previously parsed texts (RST trees) as input for a learning stage, and is then evaluated on previously unseen text. New in this parser is a new method of assigning segment boundaries, this time using a POS tagger, examining a target word and the two adjacent words on either side. If a discourse marker is located in this five-word window, then special attention is given. Crucial to the parser is the shift-reduce algorithm, which reads in text one segment at a time, pushing it onto a stack containing a previously constructed discourse tree for the text read so far. In the reduce stage, the top two elements are popped, combined into a larger tree complete with rhetorical relations, then pushed back to the stack awaiting the next segment. This is meant to model the incremental style of tree-building..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P99-1047 Marcu, DanielT 1999@:Discourse trees are good indicators of importance in texts $Mani, Inderjeet Maybury, Mark.(Advances in Automatic Text Summarization  The MIT Press1123-136rmarcu99b0)Summarization Rhetorical Structure Theory@9Recaps all summarization work to date. No original ideas.82http://www.isi.edu/~marcu/papers/summar-book99.pdf Marcu, DanielT 1999LFInstructions for Manually Annotating the Discourse Structures of Texts Marina del Rey, California50 Manualmarcu99c*$Rhetorical Structure Theory AnalysisThis is the protocol for the Tree Corpus building experiment. Within, there are instructions on how to use the RST tree building software, definitions of all the relations, including helpful hints on how to identify relations, and instructions for relation selection when more than one is possible. This last is formulated similar to a control structure in a piece of software code, using if and elseif statements.B;MANUAL OUT OF DATE! Carlson Marcu 2001 is now the standard.a6/http://www.isi.edu/~marcu/software/manual.ps.gz5,D Marcu, Daniel 1999b[A formal and computational synthesis of Grosz and Sidner's and Mann and Thompson's theoriesF@Proceedings of Workshop on Levels of Representation in Discourse Edinburgh, Scotland101-108marcu99d81Rhetorical Structure Theory Theoretical Alternate1~Relies heavily on (Marcu 1996), as the formal synthesis contains much of the same material. One key addition is something called the "oracle" function, which takes as input an RST rhetorical relation and the salient units over which that relation holds, returning a first order form that can be glossed as similar to GST DSP's (Intend W (Believe R x)). Another key formalism is that the DSP of a given discourse segment dominates the DSP of its immediately subordinated satellite. Satisfaction-Precedence is similarly formalised as a paratactic relation, holding between two arbitrarily large spans which are nuclei in the final analysis.4-http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/marcu99formal.html):4Marcu, Daniel Romera, Magdalena Amorrortu, Estibaliz 1999>7Experiments in constructing a corpus of discourse treesNHProceedings of ACL Workshop on Standards and Tools for Discourse Tagging College Park, Maryland 48-57 marcu-etal99*$Rhetorical Structure Theory AnalysisD=The experimental procedure is described in detail, from a discussion of the relations used (70+ broken down into 23 categories), Including ATTRIBUTION, APPOSITION, & TEXTORGANIZATION. An annotation tool built on the foundations of O'Donnell's 1997 RST-Tool is introduced. This is hailed as a big improvement on its precursor, as analysts are able to build RST trees incrementally. The tool also logs every move made in the course of the building of the tree, collecting data useful in the analysis of the parsing style. There is a good introduction to the Kappa statistic and its application to this problem. Results are discussed for agreement on segmentation, assignment of text spans, nuclearity, and relations. A final statistic is calculated based on a set of relation clusters to test whether there is confusion in assigning relations within or across clusters. There was statistically significant agreement across the board, although there was more agreement with the shorter texts in the corpus. The authors note that this is just as much a result of writing style than length.o.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W99-0307:4Marcu, Daniel Romera, Magdalena Amorrortu, Estibaliz 1999d]Experiments in constructing a corpus of discourse trees: Problems, annotation choices, issuesa81Workshop on Levels of Representation in Discourse  Edinburgh, UK 71-78 marcu-etal99b*$Rhetorical Structure Theory AnalysisCompanion paper to (Marcu Romera Amorrortu 1999), this covers much of the same ground as that paper (very much a second draft). Most notably, there is less discussion of the Kappa calculations, and a more detailed description of sources of discrepancy between annotators. Among these are issues of deciding the relation that holds between large spans (there is mention of nuclearity, hearkening back to (Marcu 1996)), and deciding which relation to use when more than one is possible (the experiment makes no distinction between relation-types a la (Moore and Paris 1992)). There is also a bit more discussion on the stylistic variation between annotators, including stats on how many moves each analyst made.82http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/marcu99experiments.html Marcu, Daniel/ 2000LFThe rhetorical parsing of unrestricted texts: A surface based approach Computational Linguistics263b395-448a marcu2000@:Rhetorical Structure Theory Analysis Summarization MarkersThis is a published summary of all of Marcu's work at U of T, leading up to his PhD Thesis. The rhetorical parser is discussed in detail once again, starting from the corpus study of discourse markers (which is actually discussed in more detail here than in previous papers), all the way through to weighted trees and applications for text summarisation. The shift-reduce algorithm as presented here is also more involved, looking similar to the Japanese version of (Marcu Carlson Watanabe 2000). It emerges that paragraph boundaries are counted as discourse markers in the corpus. Also making a first appearance is the notion of matching similar words as a means of determining the relatedness of spans. This paper also touches on several other discourse approach..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J00-3005 Marcu, Danield 2000{Extending a formal and computational model of Rhetorical Structure Theory with intentional structures a la Grosz and Sidner\PJThe 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING'00) Saarbrcken, Germany1 2523-5298 marcu2000b.'Theoretical Rhetorical Structure Theory .(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C00-1076 Marcu, Daniel0 2000D>The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization Cambridge, Masse  MIT Press marcu-bookJCRhetorical Structure Theory Summarization Computational Linguistics `^< |#NGil, Y. Ratnakar, V. 2002ZSTRELLIS: An interactive tool for capturing information analysis and decision makingB;Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, Proceedingsu 37-42u.(Lecture Notes in Artificial IntelligenceISI:000189412200006ogil-ratnakar2002<5Computational Linguistics Rhetorical Structure Theory-TRELLIS provides an interactive environment that allows users to add their observations, opinions, and conclusions as they analyze information by making semantic annotations about on-line documents. TRELLIS includes a vocabulary and markup language for semantic annotations of decisions and tradeoffs, and allows users to extend this vocabulary with domain specific terms or constructs that are useful to their particular task. To date, we have used TRELLIS with a variety of scenarios to annotate tradeoffs and decisions (e.g., military planning), organize materials (e.g., search results), analyze disagreements and controversies on a topic (e.g., intelligence analysis), and handle incomplete and conflicting information (e.g., genealogy research).Cited Reference Count: 17 Cited References: ACKERMAN MS, 1996, P CSCW 96 ALLEN JF, 1984, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGE, V23 COWIE J, 1996, COMMUN ACM, V39, P80 CROFT WB, 1999, ADV INFORMATION RETR GIL Y, 2002, P 1 INT SEM WEB C SA GRUBER TR, 1991, P 2 INT C PRINC KNOW KOIVUNEN MR, 2001, P K CAP 2001 WORKSH LAWRENCE JD, 2001, P 1 INT C KNOWL CAPT LEMMON E, 1977, INTRO MODAL LOGIC MANN WC, 1988, TEXT, V8 NAGAO K, 2001, IEEE MULTIMEDIA, V8, P69 POLLOCK JL, 1994, ARTIF INTELL, V67, P377 RADEV D, 1998, COMPUTATIONAL LINGUI SHUM SB, 1996, ENCY COMPUTER SCI TE SHUM SB, 2000, J DIGITAL LIB, V3 SMITH R, 2000, AI MAGAZINE FAL WILKINS DE, 1995, J LOGIC COMPUT, V5, P731 Article Volume 2473 in Lecture Notes in AI$://000189412200006n Glanzberg, M.  2002Context and discourse\Mind & Languagea174\333-375 SepeISI:000177781700001n glanzberg2002l"Rhetorical Structure Theory|Current theories of context see context as composed of information that is localizable to individual utterances. Current theories of discourse grant that discourses have important global properties that are not so localizable. In this paper, I argue that context, even narrowly construed as whatever combine, with a sentence to determine truth conditions, must have a discourse-global component. I identify a context-dependence phenomenon related to the linguistic concepts of topic in focus, isolate the pertinent feature of context, and show that this Feature must be discourse-global in nature. I thus argue that context is as complicated as in entire discourse.$://000177781700001iGonzlez, Montserrat 2005`YPragmatic markers and discourse coherence relations in English and Catalan oral narrativelDiscourse Studiesf7t1f 53-86r FebISI:000226536000003 gonzalez20054-Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse MarkersThis article explores the role that markers play in the pragmatic discourse structure of Catalan and English oral narratives. It is argued that their meaning is directly related to the sort of coherence relation that they establish with preceding and following propositions and discourse segments. centring the discussion on four discourse structures/components: ideational. rhetorical, sequential and inferential. The aim is to show the textual form-pragmatic function relationship by means of specific lexical units placed at specific parts of the narrative. The hypothesis held in this article is that pragmatic markers help in the organization of narrative Segments and that their semanticopragmatic traits make them appropriate for their use in specific segments.$://000226536000003Gonzlez Meln, Eva 2006D=Review of: Taboada, M. (2004) Building Coherence and Cohesion81ITL, International Journal of Applied LinguisticsR 151 119-122ogonzalez-melon2006LECitations Review Rhetorical Structure Theory coherence cohesion genretGoutsos, Dionysis 199682A model of sequential relations in expository text Text164t501-533 goutsos96,%Rhetorical Structure Theory Relationso&Aims at developing a model for describing the linear segmentation of discourse. Sequential relations are argued to be interactive with, but independent from ideational, interpersonal, and textual relations. RST is not used explicitly, but some RST relations are classified as sequential.7:3Gmez-Gonzlez, Mara de los ngeles Taboada, Maitee 2005:3Coherence relations in Functional Discourse Grammar @:Mackenzie, J. Lachlan Gmez-Gonzlez, Mara de los ngeles.'Studies in Functional Discourse Grammar Berne  Peter Lang227-259ogomez-gonzalez-taboadaHBRhetorical Structure Theory coherence Functional Discourse GrammarGrabski, M. Stede, M.f 2006RKBei: Intraclausal coherence relations illustrated with a German prepositionsDiscourse Processeso412o195-219\ISI:000235460300005grabski-stede2006"Rhetorical Structure TheoryICoherence relations are typically taken to link two clauses or larger units and to be signaled at the text surface by conjunctions and certain adverbials. Relations, however, also can hold within clauses, indicated by prepositions like despite, due to, or in case of, when these have an internal argument denoting an eventuality. Although these prepositions act as reliable cues to indicate a specific relation, others are lexically more neutral. We investigated this situation for the German preposition bei, which turns out to be highly ambiguous. We demonstrate the range of readings in a corpus study, proposing 6 more specific prepositions as a comprehensive substitution set. All these uses of bei share a common kernel meaning, which is missed by the standard accounts that assume lexical polysemy. We examine the range of coherence relations that can be signaled by bei and provide some factors here supporting the disambiguation task in a framework of discourse interpretation.$://000235460300005Granville, Robert Alan 1990:3The role of underlying structure in text generation\JDProceedings of International Workshop on Natural Language Generation Dawson, Pennsylvania105-111g granville90t,&Rhetorical Structure Theory GenerationWorking under the fact that text structure is just as important to the message as the text content, a new generation system is proposed which uses functional hierarchy approach (as opposed to planning rules) to generate RST structures of text before the actual text is generated./.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W90-0114Granville, Robert Alan 1993HAAn algorithm for high-level organization of multi-paragraph textsi  Rambow, OwenXRProceedings of ACL Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations Columbus, Ohio 19-22- granville93 ,&Rhetorical Structure Theory GenerationAnother explanation of the use of functional hierarchy trees in the generation of long texts. This representation of RST in this way is said to overcome theory-internal problems whereby RST fails to represent multi-paragraph text for generation.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W93-0206, Marcu, Daniel 1999b[A formal and computati0*Marcu, Daniel Carlson, Lynn Watanabe, Maki 200081The automatic translation of discourse structuresole1st Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL'00) Seattle, Washington} 9-17marcu-etal2000:4Rhetorical Structure Theory Translation MultilingualnhDiscusses the possibilities of using discourse trees in MT between Japanese and English. As a basis of study, 40 Japanese news articles are annotated a la (Marcu Romero Amorrortu 1999) along with their English translations. This corpus is then used as a training set for a modified rhetorical parser using an enhanced shift-reduce algorithm, with the ability to re-segment and re-order input text as the discourse tree is built. Further, the parser recognises relations in the source text, but uses learned rules to build the appropriate counterpart tree in the target language. The parser performs well at the sentence level, as well as for the text as a whole, but fails to adequately assign paragraph structure in the output translation. Also included in the paper is a discussion of the statistical agreement among corpus annotators and between them and the algorithm.2+http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/A/A00/A00-2002.pdf0*Marcu, Daniel Carlson, Lynn Watanabe, Maki 2000d^An empirical study in multilingual Natural Language Generation: What should a text planner do?PIFirst International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG'2000) Mitzpe Ramon, Israel 17-23marcu-etal2000b:3Rhetorical Structure Theory Multilingual GenerationzsBegins as a re-hash of (Marcu Carlson Watanabe 2000), with a greater focus on the construction of the tree corpus (40 Japanese trees and trees for all English translations). Then leads to a discussion of multilingual language generation, assessing various methodologies of generating the "same" text in different languages. One approach would be to abstract beyond discourse trees, starting with a very abstract structure and converting to language specific discourse representations. (Delin etal) Another is to start with a single discourse tree, then re-order it from language to language (Stede). The new proposed solution is to use a sort of translation matrix, whereby all texts begin in a certain language, then a set of target-specific rules are applied to derive texts for other languages. Since this sounds like (Marcu Carlson Watanabe 2000), this is the recommended course.o.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W00-1403>p+&fr2xVReitter, David 2003B;Rhetorical Analysis with Rich Feature Support Vector Modelse Computational Linguistics\ Potsdam, Germany University of Potsdam\94Master's thesish reitter2003B;Rhetorical Structure Theory Analysis Multilingual RelationscDiscusses an approach to the automated recognition of discourse relations using a machine learning approach trained on German and English corpora. Also covers the annotation scheme incorporating underspecification.TMhttp://www.reitter-it-media.de/compling/papers/reitter_rstsvm-thesis_2003.pdfz$Reitter, David Stede, Manfred 2003LFStep by step: Underspecified markup in incremental rhetorical analysisLEProceedings of EACL 4th International Workshop on Interpreted Corporae Budapest, Hungarynreitter-stede2003@:Rhetorical Structure Theory Theoretical Analysis RelationsProposes an XML-format annotation scheme to allow for the exploitation of underspecification in the building of discourse annotated corpora. RST is still used, but this approach allows for multiple relations sharing a common nucleus.oPJhttp://www.reitter-it-media.de/compling/papers/reitter-stede_urml_2003.pdfReitter, David 2003jdSimple signals for complex rhetorics: On rhetorical analysis with rich-feature support vector modelsNHLDV-Forum, Journal for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology18 1-2* 38-52*reitter-journal2003a"Rhetorical Structure TheoryT Renkema, Jan 2006f`How to proceed with ambiguity in discourse relations? A proposal based on connectivity variables(!Studies in Communication Sciences{6d1\117-134e renkema2006CRKRhetorical Structure Theory Coherence relations Discourse Markers Citations\81Citation of: book, Taboada and Mann (both papers)l Renkema, Jan 200882Relaciones discursivas y variables de conectividadRevista Signos4166 65-80y renkema2008@9Coherence relations Rhetorical Structure Theory Citations:3Citation of: book, Taboada and Mann (parts 1 and 2) Renkema, Jan 2009The Texture of Discourse Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins renkema2009@9Coherence relations Rhetorical Structure Theory Citations6Citation of: 1. Pragmatics 2006 paper (turn-taking) 2. Taboada and Mann 2006 part 1 3. Taboada and Mann 2006 part 2 4. Taboada 2004 book 5. Taboada and Renkema, corpusRienks, Rutger 2007LFMeetings in Smart Environments: Implications of Progressing Technology Enschede, The Netherlands\ University of TwentePh.D. dissertation rienks2007,%Rhetorical Structure Theory CitationsFD=Citation of Murray et al; Taboada and Mann ('Looking back..')e "@O'Brien, Theresa 1995\VRhetorical structure analysis and the case of the inaccurate, incoherent source-hopperApplied Linguistics-164n442-482obrien95D>Rhetorical Structure Theory Theoretical Analysis Essay MarkingPresents a comparison of a take-home essay and an examination essay written by the same student on the same topic six weeks apart using RST. A contrast is shown between the adequate handling of material in memory under examination conditions leading to a coherent text vs. the uncertain handling of difficult source material leading to an incoherent almost incomprehensible take-home essay.O'Donnell, Michael 1997$RST-Tool: An RST analysis toolNGProceedings of the 6th European Workshop on Natural Language Generationa Duisburg, Germanyodonnell-rsttool97(!Rhetorical Structure Theory Tools4-O'Donnell, Michael Cheng, Hua Hitzeman, Janett 199882Integrating referring and informing in NP planning :4Busa, Federica Mani, Inderjeet Saint-Dizier, PatrickTMProceedings of COLING-ACL Workshop on The Computational Treatment of Nominals Montral, Canada 46-55odonnell-etal98RKGeneration Referring Expressions ILEX Hypertext Rhetorical Structure Theoryf|Integrates an approach to generating NP's that is concerned with providing discourse-new information, as well as the traditional concern of referring. Illustrates the method of knowledge representation in the ILEX program. NP's are built using a nucleus/satellite structure, where referring is borne by the nucleus, and any other (optional) fucntions are the domain os satellites..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W98-0607O'Donnell, Michael 2000@:RSTTool 2.4: A markup tool for Rhetorical Structure TheoryPIFirst International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG'2000)r Mitzpe Ramon, Israel253-256 odonnell20000*Rhetorical Structure Theory Analysis ToolsJCA presentation on the use and applications of O'Donnell's RST tool..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W00-1434HAO'Donnell, Michael Mellish, Chris Oberlander, Jon Knott, Alistairm 2001F?ILEX: An architecture for a dynamic Hypertext generation systemi"Natural Language Engineering7s225-250:odonnell-etal2001;<5Hypertext Generation ILEX Rhetorical Structure TheoryrPresents the architecture of ILEX, describing along the way how the system was formed by the specific demands of generating hypertext, as opposed to traditional text-generation systems..4-http://www.hcrc.ed.ac.uk/~jon/papers/jnle.pdf Oates, Sarah Louisen 1999@:State of the Art Report on Discourse Markers and Relations  Brighton, UK HAUniversity of Brighton, Information Technology Research Instituten47oates999>8Rhetorical Structure Theory Relations Markers GenerationSummarises previous work on discourse markers, and existing models of discourse representation, including G&S, RST, and extensions to 2, 3, and 4 levels of representation. Also touches on the generation of markers.2,http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/oates99state.htmlOates, Sarah Louisef 2000`ZMultiple discourse marker occurrence: Creating hierarchies for Natural Language Generation0)ANLP-NAACL 2000 Student Research Workshop{ Seattle, Washington 41-45 oates20004.Rhetorical Structure Theory Markers GenerationIntroduces a planner capable of embedding multiple discourse markers into a single span. Reflects the claim that multiple relations can hold between spans, each with separate markers..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/A00-3008 $Oberlander, Jon Mellish, Chris 1998& Final Report on the ILEX Project  Edinburgh, UKn 60Division of Informatics, University of Edinburghoberlander-mellish980*Hypertext ILEX Rhetorical Structure TheoryPresents a brief summary of all the stages and developments made during the course of the ILEX project. Includes a bibliography of ILEX-related papers.VOThis was a web-published paper, but the site seems to have been lost in a fire./6TuN.2"Soricut, Radu Marcu, Danieln 2003NHSentence level discourse parsing using syntactic and lexical informationProceedings of Human Language Technology and North American Association for Computational Linguistics Conference (HLT-NAACL'03) Edmonton, Canadasoricut-marcu2003o4.Rhetorical Structure Theory Analysis AlternateAnother paper using the LDC corpus, this time exploiting the fact that the corpus was built using texts already in the treebank, so syntactic parses for the entire corpus are available as well. Syntactic information is used in a new segmentation algorithm, which is an improvement over previous incarnations thereof. This, in turn, will lead to better discourse parses. The discourse parser takes as input a tree structure that has been segmented into discourse units. Parsing is bottom-up, and seems to be an improvement. Introduces the Discourse Segmented Lexicalized Syntactic Tree (DS-LST) which is a hybrid of syntax and RST in one diagram.oB7Eva Hajicov Miroslav Cervenka Oldrich Leka Petr Sgall\`YPrague Linguistic Circle Papers (Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague nouvelle srie) Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins201-227sparck-jones95"Rhetorical Structure TheoryAs part of a research program intended to develop automated systems for summarizing texts, issues in text processing are addressed. The nature of relevant large-scale discourse units exploitable for summaries is explored, & simulation experiments are conducted to compare the output of various summary techniques. Source representations are classified according to the type of information they convey - linguistic, world, or communicative; bottom-up or constructed representation structures are contrasted with top-down or instantiated ones. Results of initial experiments, in which automatic text processing of logical forms of sentences is simulated, are illustrated by a comparison of representation structures & output summaries for a single sample text using (1) bottom-up communicative representations, (2) rhetorical structure theory representations, (3) top-down world-type representations, & (4) text discourse grammar representations. 12 Figures, 31 References. J. Hitchcock(!Spenader, Jennifer Lobanova, Annal 200981Reliable discourse markers for contrast relationsPJProceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Semantics Tilburg, The Netherlandsspenader-lobanova2009>7Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse Markers Citationsn Citation of: JofPrags 2006Spooren, Wilbert 1997:4The processing of underspecified coherence relationsDiscourse Processesd24149-168b spooren97b4-Rhetorical Structure Theory Relations Markersf`Talks about coherence relations that are not explicitly signalled by a cue, or more interestingly, ones which are signalled by a cue whose surface meaning is to signal a different relation. (eg and then for causative, not temporal) The discussion is largely pragmatic, and not too terribly relevant to RST. One cool observation: in the study of the production of such underspecified relations by children, the most common such relation was EVIDENCE, which was the one Marcu and Echihabi's unsupervised approach was best at recognising. Perhaps they are not so underspecified after all? (At least in English)FOu, S. Y. Khoo, C. S. G. Goh, D. H.e 2006RLMulti-document summarization of news articles using an event-based frameworkAslib Proceedingsc583l197-217rISI:000239130800003 ou-e McTear, M. F.6 2002LFSpoken dialogue technology: Enabling the conversational user interfaceAcm Computing Surveysr341r 90-169 MarISI:000175267600003 mctear2002"Rhetorical Structure TheorySpoken dialogue systems allow users to interact with computer-based applications such as databases and expert systems by using natural spoken language. The origins of spoken dialogue systems can be traced back to Artificial Intelligence research in the 1950s concerned with developing conversational interfaces. However, it is only within the last decade or so, with major advances in speech technology, that large-scale working systems have been developed and, in some cases, introduced into commercial environments. As a result many major telecommunications and software companies have become aware of the potential for spoken dialogue technology to provide solutions in newly developing areas such as computer-telephony integration. Voice portals, which provide a speech-based interface between a telephone user and Web-based services, are the most recent application of spoken dialogue technology. This article describes the main components of the technology-speech recognition, language understanding, dialogue management, communication with an external source such as a database, language generation, speech synthesis-and shows how these component technologies can be integrated into a spoken dialogue system. The article describes in detail the methods that have been adopted in some well-known dialogue systems, explores different system architectures, considers issues of specification, design, and evaluation, reviews some currently available dialogue development toolkits, and outlines prospects for future development.$://000175267600003 N1 Seno, E.R.M. Seo, JungyunSeville, Helen Sgall, Petr Sgurev, V.Sharoff, Serge Shaw, James Shin, J. E.Shinjo, MakikoShinmori, AkihiroShum, Simon BuckinghamShum, Simon J. BuckinghamSibun, PenelopeSidner, Candace LSidner, Candace L.Siepmann, DirkSilla, Carlos NascimentoSitter, StefanSkaf-Molli, Hala Smith, B.Smith, Caroline L. Smith, EliotSmith, Raoul N. Smith, RonnieSokolova, LenaSomasundaran, SwapnaSoria, Claudia Soricut, Radu$Souza, Edson Rosa Francisco deSparck-Jones, KarenSpenader, JenniferSperry, Linda L.Spiliotopoulos, D.Spooren, WilbertSporleder, CarolineSpyropoulos, C. D.Stamatakis, K.Stamatopoulos, Panagiotis Stede, M.Stede, ManfredSteedman, Mark Steele, Ross Steen, GerardStein, Adelheit Stent, Amanda Stephane, C.Stevenson, RosemaryStewart, Anne MerrillStickel, GerhardStickel, Mark E Stock, OStock, OlivieroStone, MatthewStrube, MichaelStys, Malgorzata Subba, Rajen Sumita, Kazuo Sutcliffe, A.Sutcliffe, A. G. Swerts, MarT'sou, Benjamin K.Tsou, Benjamin K.Tablan, ValentinTaboada, MaiteTakeshita, Atsushi Tam, Daniel Tanaka, KazuoTannen, DeborahTanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa Tappe, HeikeTaylor, Anthony Taylor, P. J. Teich, ElkeTerken, JacquesTeruya, KazuhiroTetreault, Joel R.Teufel, SimoneThielemann, NadineThijsse, E G CThione, Gian LorenzoThomas, Stephen F. Thompson, G.Thompson, GeoffThompson, Sandra A.Threadgold, Terry Tienari, J.Timmerman, Sander E.J.Tofiloski, MilanTorrance, Mark Touir, A. Trabasso, TomTrail, Ronald L. Traum, DavidTraxler, Matthew J. Trif, DianaTrujillo, ArturoTsui, Amy B. M.Tsujii, Jun'ichi Ucoluk, G. Ukita, T. Umbach, C. Umbach, CarlaUnger, Christoph Uzda, Vincius Rodrigues de Uzuner, Ozlem Vaara, E.van den Berg, Martinvan der Berg, Martinvan der Mije, Anitavan der Wouden, T.van Dijk, Teun A. van Eijk, Janvan Hoek, KarenVan Kuppevelt, J.van Kuppevelt, Janvan Kuppewelt, Janvan Ossenbruggen, Jaccovan Waes, Luukvan Wijk, Carelvan Wissen, CarlaVandenberg, M.Vander Linden, KeithVargas-Vera, M.Vassiliadou, Hlne Ventola, EijaVerberne, SuzanVerdejo, FelisaVerhagen, ArieVerschueren, Jef Vertan, C. Vet, CoVieira, Renata Vieu, LaureVirtanen, TuijaVivanco, VernicaVoll, Kimberly Vonk, W. Vouros, G. A Wahlster, W.Wahlster, WolfgangWaibel, Alexander H.Walker, MarilynWalker, Marilyn A.Wallace, Ken M. Walton, D. Wan, S. Wang, W. G. Wanner, Leo Ward, Nigel Warner, LeoWaner, Ulrich HermannWatanabe, MakiWebber, BonnieWebber, Bonnie LynnWebster, Jonathan J.Weinstein, ScottWekker, Herman Wheatley, J.White, Peter R. R. Wiebe, Janyce Wilkinson, R. Wille, RudolfWilliams, SandraWilliamson, Jeanine MaryWilson, Andrew Wodak, Ruth Wolf, FlorianWolfe, SusanneWolff, SusanneWong, Cecilia S. M. Wong, William Wu, Canzhong Wu, M. F. Wu, Y. J.Yamura-Takei, Mitsuko Yang, Erhong Yang, J. Ye, S. Yetim, F. Yondem, M. T. You, G. N.Young, David JYoung, R Michael Yue, Ming Yuksel, OzgurZacharski, RonZancanaro, Massimo Zeevat, Henk Zeng, LichengZetie, Kendrik P. Zhan, Xuegang Zhang, Z. Zhang, Zhu Zhou, JoeZimmermann, Klaus Ziv, Yael Zock, Michael Zou, HongjianZukerman, Ingrid 9r8N VN 762Thomas, Stephen F. 1995"Rhetorical Structure TheoryuD>Studies in Machine Translation and Natural Language Processing9159-174thomas95"Rhetorical Structure TheoryRhetorical structure theory, as developed by W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (eg, 1989), is outlined & evaluated in terms of its relevance for natural language processing at the level of discourse. Historical roots of the theory are traced to the work of R. E. Longacre (1968) on Philippine languages & J. Beekman & J. Callow (1974) on Bible translation. Relations between text spans are defined in terms of nucleus, satellite, writer, & reader; a taxonomy of relations is exemplified, as are possible schemas & schema applications. Discourse analysis procedure is sketched, & features of text structure are illustrated; it is noted that this model has been used successfully in the analysis of hundreds of texts. Computational implementations of rhetorical structure theory in the area of text planning are described; in the absence of structural cues, however, text analysis in this framework depends on the analyst's intuition regarding the writer's intention & therefore resists computerization. 30 References. J. Hitchcock*$Thompson, Sandra A. Mann, William C. 1987HBRhetorical Structure Theory: A framework for the analysis of texts IPrA Papers in Pragmaticst1r1 79-105thompson-mann8782Rhetorical Structure Theory Foundation Theoretical*$One of the foundation papers of RST.*$Thompson, Sandra A. Mann, William C. 1987F?Antithesis: A study in clause combining and discourse structureT $Steele, Ross Threadgold, TerryF@Language Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, Volume II Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins359-381tthompson-mann87bB8But me some buts: A multidimensional view of conjunction Text256763-791eISI:000233795600003} thompson2005"Rhetorical Structure TheoryO Although the distinction between 'external' and 'internal' conjunction introduced by Halliday and Hasan (1976) is well established, mainstream studies have, with certain notable exceptions, tended to focus on 'external' types as the core categories and to present 'internal' conjunction as a relatively unmotivated set of pragmatic extensions of the core. The present paper, working within the broad framework of systemic functional linguistics (see, e.g., Halliday and Matthiessen 2004), makes the case for recognizing a more central role for 'internal' conjunction. Current accounts of 'internal' conjunction are reviewed and it is argued that the phenomenon can be defined with more precision than is done at present, even in those models that give it full weight. A more discriminating model of analysis is proposed and related to broader features of the language system. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of assigning greater importance to textual and interpersonal dimensions in descriptions of conjunction.a$://000233795600003Timmerman, Sander E.J. 2007B;Automatic Recognition of Structural Relations in Dutch Texto Enschede, The Netherlandsr University of TwenteMasters Thesis timmerman20072+Rhetorical Structure Theory Dutch CitationsXRCitation of Taboada and Mann ('Applications...') and of Journal of Pragmatics 20064.Tofiloski, Milan Brooke, Julian Taboada, Maite 200981A syntactic and lexical-based discourse segmenter^WProceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics  Singaporep 77-80itofiloski-etal-slseg2009>8Discourse segments Clause segmentation Discourse parsing*#Torrance, Mark Bouayad-Agha, Nadjet} 2001TMRhetorical structure analysis as a method for understanding writing processes D>Degand, Liesbeth Bestgen, Yves Spooren, Wilbert van Waes, Luuk0)Multidisciplinary Approaches to Discourse  Amsterdamd Nodus torrance-bouayad-agha2001 *$Rhetorical Structure Theory AnalysisPresents an RST-bases means of analyzing text planning. Based upon transcripts of writers "thinking aloud" and their notes while planning a text. The theory is that a proper analysis of the process will give insights into the final result.:4http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/torrance01rhetorical.html$Trabasso, Tom Sperry, Linda L. 198581Causal relatedness and importance of story events0$Journal of Memory and Language245o595-611trabasso-sperry85<6Coherence relations Causal relations PsycholinguisticstnThe question of what makes a statement important in a story was studied. Causal relations were identified between all pairs of events in six folktales, using context-dependent, logical criteria of necessity, and counterfactual tests of the form: If event A had not occurred, then, in the circumstances of the story, event B would not have occurred. Causal networks were derived from these identifications for each story and two properties of them were found to predict judgments of importance: (1) the number of direct causal connections and (2) whether or not an event was in a causal chain from the opening to the closing of the story. The judged importance of a statement increased with the number of causal connections and causal chain membership. Regression analyses showed that substantial proportions of variance were accounted for jointly by both properties and uniquely by causal connections. The importance of a statement, whether identified by structural analysis or judged by naive subjects, seems to be determined by analogous assessments of the statement's causal and logical relations to other statements in the text.$Trail, Ronald L. Hale, Austins 1995<6A Rhetorical Structure Analysis of a Kalasha NarrativeSouth Asia Work Papers Horsleys Green &Summer Institute of Linguistics trail-hale95*#Rhetorical Structure Theory Kalashao Traum, David 1993F?Rhetorical relations, action and intentionality in conversation2  Rambow, Owen\VProceedings of ACL SIG Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations Columbus, Ohio132-135traum934.Rhetorical Structure Theory Relations AnalysisPrimary interest in conversation; he includes relations between utterances by different speakers (although the ways in which this is achieved are not fully explained). Discusses aspects of rhetorical relations. There are both semantic and pragmatic views of rhetorical relations. Tries to answer the question "Is identification of rhetorical relations necessary?". Describes the implementation of rhetorical relations in the TRAINS system. The system recognizes relations based on surface features (discourse markers, purpose clauses). Relations that are not signalled are not fully identified; rather, the individual speech acts of each span are used, and incorporated into the plan..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W93-0235 N  Vh.c~@Harabagiu, Sanda 1999LEFrom lexical cohesion to textual coherence: A data driven perspectiverNHInternational Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence132247-265 MarISI:000079848700005 harabagiu99"Rhetorical Structure TheoryThis paper presents research that connects the cohesion structure of a text to the derivation of its coherence structure. Two different algorithms that derive the cohesion structure in the form of lexical paths from large thesauri are illustrated. Their results are correlated with (1) cue phrases of discourse usage and (2) coherence constraints empirically derived. A novel model of coherence structure is devised, based on the data provided by lexical paths from real world texts.n$://000079848700005o$Hartley, Anthony Paris, Ccile 1997\VMultilingual Document Production From Support for Translating to Support for AuthoringMachine Translationt12 1-2r109-129Lhartley-paris97>7Rhetorical Structure Theory Natural Language GenerationS(!Harvey, Terrency Carberry, Sandrae 1998:4Integrating text plans for conciseness and coherenceProceedings of 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics Montral, Canada1r 2t512-518eharvey-carberry98 ,&Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation|Specifically working on critique generation, noting that whenever the system encounters a user error, a set of critiques will be generated. Each critique on its own is well formed, however as a whole, the set can be incoherent. An algorithm is presented which takes as input a set of plans, represented as RST trees, and returns a set of more complex trees, all uniformly planned..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P98-1084 Hearst, Marti/ 19946/Multi-paragraph segmentation of expository textmb\Proceedings of 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'94) Las Cruces, New Mexico 9-16hearst94RKSegmentation Computational Linguistics Rhetorical Structure Theory AnalysissPresents an algorithm for the segmentation of long expository texts into smaller, multi-paragraph discourse units. RST seems to be mentioned (along with G&S) only in its eschewal, as a hierarchical structure is abandoned for a simple linear one.9.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P94-1002("Henderson, Peter De Silva, Nishadi 2006NGA narrative approach to collaborative writing: A business process model \UProceedings of 8th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS)u Paphos, Cyprus.henderson-desilva20060F?Rhetorical Structure Theory narrative Computational LinguisticscTMHilbert, Mirco Lobin, Henning Brenfnger, Maja Lngen, Harald Pusks, Csillal 2006TNA text-technological approach to automatic discourse analysis of complex texts"Proceedings of KONVENS 2006hilbert-etal20064-Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse parsing Hirst, Graeme 20022+Patterns of text: In honour of Michael Hoey\ Computational Linguistics0284\560-564 Dec5ISI:000180120400009n hirst2002"Rhetorical Structure Theory$://000180120400009 Hobbs, Jerry 1979 Coherence and coreferenceaCognitive Sciencer61 67-90thobbs79u,%Rhetorical Structure Theory Relationst Formal definitions for several relations are presented, based on the operations of an inference system. In illustrating the coherence of a discourse, coreference is demonstrated to be solved almost as a by-product, by means of "petty converational implicatures."  Hobbs, Jerry 19852+On the Coherence and Structure of Discoursei  Stanford, CA CSLIResearch Report 85-37dhobbs85uB;Theoretical Coherence relations Rhetorical Structure Theory Argues that discourse is structured, by means of coherence relations. Seeks to embed a theory of discourse relations in the larger context of a knowledge-based theory of discourse interpretation.n Hobbs, Jerry 19930)An Approach to the Structure of Discoursel Menlo Park, Californiahobbs-nd&Theoretical Coherence relations@:Argues for a seamless transition from syntax to discourse, grudgingly defining a minimal discourse unit as the minimal unit above which predicate relations are no longer the dominant interpretation of adjacency. Structures discourse with three broadly construed relations: causality, figure-ground, and similarity.pjLooking at the citations, this paper dates from 1995 or later, but an exact determination is not possible.B;Hobbs, Jerry Stickel, Mark E Appelt, Douglas E Martin, Paul  1993"Interpretation as abductionaArtificial Intelligencer63 69-142 hobbs-etal93&Theoretical Coherence relationsThe interpretation of a text is defined as the minimal explanation of why the text would be true. To interpret a text, one must prove the logical form of the text from what is mutually known, allowing for coercions, merging redundancies where possible, and making assumptions as necessary. Produces an elegant integration of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, apparently spanning the range of linguistic phenomena from phonology to discourse structure.4.http://www.isi.edu/~hobbs/interp-abduct-ai.pdf xb*vT|Zm@wv>u<de Carolis, Berardinac 1998>7Introducing reactivity in adaptive Hypertext generation Prahe, HRLProceedings of 13th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'98)  Brighton, UK John Wiley and Sons682-683l de-carolis98,%Hypertext Rhetorical Structure TheorydBrief outline of a model for dynamic hypertext generation. Mention is made of needing further work to establish the role of relations in planning the reactive moves of the dynamic planner.<6http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/decarolis98introducing.htmlde Carolis, Berardina0 1999B;Generating mixed-initiative Hypertexts: A reactive approacht:3Proceedings of Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI'99)r Los Angeles, CaliforniaH 71-78H de-carolis99,%Hypertext Rhetorical Structure TheoryReviews previous dynamic hypertext projects (PEBA, ILEX,...) and provides a nice introduction to the subject. Then introduces a new system which seems to rely heavily on intentional relations. Essentially a longer version of the 1998 paper.<5http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/decarolis99generating.html@:de Carolis, Berardina Pelachaud, Catherine Poggi, Isabella 2000.'Verbal and nonverbal discourse planning0Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Workshop on Achieving Human-Like Behaviour in Interactive Animated Agents Barcelona, Spainde-carolis-etal2000("Agents Rhetorical Structure TheoryNHFirst introductory paper to the notion of using rhetorical information to inform the actions of an autonomous agent. The rhetorical structure will signal changes in facial expression and gaze as the discourse is generated, in order to provide a more life-like interface for the user. Context also plays a role in the generation.:3http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/decarolis2000verbal.htmlo0*de Rosis, F. Grasso, Floriana Berry, D. C. 1999>7Refining instructional text generation after evaluation *#Artificial Intelligence in Medicinen171r 1-36 SepISI:000082601500001n rosis-etal99"Rhetorical Structure Theory In this paper, we describe how user-adapted explanations about drug prescriptions can be generated from already existing data sources. We start by illustrating the two-step approach employed in the first version of the natural language generator and the limitations of generated texts, that we discovered through analytical and empirical evaluations. We claim that, although style refinement would be needed in these texts, particular care should be devoted to implementing some of the persuasion techniques that doctors employ in their explanations. This would require either thoroughly revising the text planning techniques employed or converting to a multistep generation architecture. We justify why we selected this second alternative and propose some heuristics to repair problems found in the first version of the generator. Some final considerations about the advantages of this approach and the possibility of generalizing it to other domains conclude the paper. (C) 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.e$://000082601500001tDe Silva, Nishadiu 2005>7A narrative approach to technical document construction\Proceedings of PREP 2005 Lancaster, United Kingdom desilva2005\F?Rhetorical Structure Theory narrative Computational Linguistics("De Silva, Nishadi Henderson, Peter 20050)Computer support for narrative structuresi0)Proceedings of Computers and Writing 2005 Stanford University, CA\desilva-henderson2005uF?Rhetorical Structure Theory narrative Computational Linguisticsc("De Silva, Nishadi Henderson, Peter 2005XRNarrative support for technical documents: Formalising Rhetorical Structure TheoryXQProceedings of International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS)  Miami, Fl desilva-nishadi-iceis20050F?Rhetorical Structure Theory narrative Computational Linguisticsc("De Silva, Nishadi Skaf-Molli, Hala 2006@9Narratives to preserve coherence in collaborative writingoXQProceedings of The Eighth International Workshop on Collaborative Editing Systems  Banff, Canadadesilva-skaf-molli2006PIRhetorical Structure Theory narrative Computational Linguistics Citationsn0)Citation of Taboada and Mann, first papereDe Silva, Nishadi  2007`ZA Narrative-Based Collaborative Writing Tool for Constructing Coherent Technical Documents University of SouthamptonrPh.D. dissertationdesilva-thesis2007PIRhetorical Structure Theory narrative Computational Linguistics Citations0*Citation of Taboada and Mann (both papers)("De Silva, Nishadi Henderson, Peter 2007>8Narrative-based writing for coherent technical documents\VProceedings of the 25th annual ACM international conference on Design of communication  El Paso, TX208-215v desilva-henderson-acm20072>7coherence writing Rhetorical Structure Theory Citationsn*$Citation of Taboada and Mann, part 2Degand, Liesbeth 199882On classifying connectives and coherence relations .'Stede, Manfred Wanner, Leo Hovy, EduardpVOProceedings of COLING-ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers Montral, Canada 29-35degand984-Rhetorical Structure Theory Relations Markers%Observes that in large scale studies of coherence relations and associated markers, there is sparse overlap between the different analyses. In order to facilitate the comparison of results, a single classification scheme is called for..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W98-03052PR60Abelen, Eric Redeker, Gisela Thompson, Sandra A. 1993LFThe rhetorical structure of US-American and Dutch fund-raising letters Text133323-350 abelen-etal930*Analysis Rhetorical Structure Theory DutchPresents the results of an anlysis of the RST structures of eight Dutch and eight English fund-raising letters from NPO's. Three classes of relation were observed: interpersonal, ideational, and textual. The American letters showed a higher use of the interpersonal relations, whereas the Dutch letters used more of the ideational and textual relations, leading to the conclusion that the Dutch letters are organised with a greater emphasis on clarity than outright persuasion.uNHAfantenos, Stergos D. Doura, Irene Kapellou, Eleni Karkaletsis, Vangelis 2004TMExploiting cross-document relations for multi-document evolving summarizationP & Vouros, G. A Panayiotopoulos, T.rlMethods and Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings of 3rd Hellenic Conference on AI, SETN 2004 Berlin Springer410-419u(!Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceISI:000221610800043afantenos-etal20040)Rhetorical Structure Theory SummarizationThis paper presents a methodology for summarization from multiple documents which are about a specific topic. It is based on the specification and identification of the cross-document relations that occur among textual elements within those documents. Our methodology involves the specification of the topic-specific entities, the messages conveyed for the specific entities by certain textual elements and the specification of the relations that can hold among these messages. The above resources are necessary for setting up a specific topic for our query-based summarization approach which uses these resources to identify the query-specific messages within the documents and the query-specific relations that connect these messages across documents.yCited Reference Count: 7 Cited References: KARKALETSIS V, P 9 PANH C INF PCI 2 MANN WC, 1988, TEXT, V8, P243 MARCU D, 2000, THEORY PRACTICE DISC PAZIENZA MT, 2003, P HUM COMP INT INT H RADEV D, 2000, P 1 ACL SIGDIAL WORK REITER E, 2000, BUILDING NATURAL LAN ZHANG Z, 2002, P AAAI 2002 Article Volume 3025 in Lecture Notes ni Computer Science$://000221610800043JDAfantenos, Stergos D Karkaletsis, Vangelis Stamatopoulos, Panagiotis 20054.Summarization from medical documents: a survey*#Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 332157-177 FebISI:000228673800005 afantenos2005"Rhetorical Structure TheoryObjective: The aim of this paper is to survey the recent work in medical documents summarization. Background: During the last decade, documents summarization got increasing attention by the Al research community. More recently it also attracted the interest of the medical research community as well, due to the enormous growth of information that is available to the physicians and researchers in medicine, through the large and growing number of published journals, conference proceedings, medical sites and portals on the World Wide Web, electronic medical records, etc. Methodology: This survey gives first a general background on documents summarization, presenting the factors that summarization depends upon, discussing evaluation issues and describing briefly the various types of summarization techniques. It then examines the characteristics of the medical domain through the different types of medical documents. Finally, it presents and discusses the summarization techniques used so far in the medical domain, referring to the corresponding systems and their characteristics. Discussion and conclusions: The paper discusses thoroughly the promising paths for future research in medical documents summarization. It mainly focuses on the issue of scaling to large collections of documents in various Languages and from different media, on personalization issues, on portability to new sub-domains, and on the integration of summarization technology in practical applications. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.$://000228673800005yAfantenos, Stergos D 2007~wSome reflections on the task of content determination in the context of multi-document summarization of evolving eventso XRAngelova, Galia Bontcheva, Kalina Mitkov, Ruslan Nicolov, Nicolas Nikolov, NikolaiB;Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2007) Borovets, Bulgaria INCOMA 12-16 afantenos2007F?Rhetorical Structure Theory Computational Linguistics Citationsr0)Citation of Taboada and Mann, first paperrDfQ2007XQAn Investigation of Interactional Coherence in Asynchronous Learning Environments 2+School of Computer and Information Sciencess Fort Lauderdale, USA "Nova Southeastern UniversityPh.D. dissertation potter2007LERhetorical Structure Theory Computer-mediated communication Citations- Numerous studies have affirmed the value of asynchronous online communication ("Livia Polanyi van den Berg, Martin 1999:3Logical structure and discourse anaphora resolution ,%Cristea, Dan Ide, Nancy Marcu, DanieleProceedings of the Workshop on the Relation of Discourse/Dialogue Structure and Reference in the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-99) College Park, Maryland110-118polanyi-vandenBerg99Referring Expressions Alternate Dynamic Quantifier Logic Anaphora Scopal order Antecedents Discourse anaphora Centering Theory Discourse structure Linguistic Discourse Model Rhetorical Structure TheoryThe approach proposed in this paper integrates a theory of discourse level structure (Polanyi's Linguistic Discourse Model) and a theory of formal semantics (van den Berg's Dynamic Quantifier Logic framework). Centering predictions are said to follow from this integrated theory. Proposes the use of Dynamic Quantificational Logic and the Linguistic Discourse Model to resolve anaphora problems computationally. This is said to be preferable to RST or G&S.ZThttp://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W99-0113 http://www.fxpal.com/people/vdberg/pubs.htmPolanyi, Livia 2001,%The linguistic structure of discourseu :3Deborah Schiffrin Deborah Tannen Heidi E. Hamiltona("The Handbook of Discourse Analysis  Malden, Mass  Blackwell265-2812 polanyi2001.'Discourse structure Coherence relations\UPolanyi, Livia Culy, Christopher van der Berg, Martin Thione, Gian Lorenzo Ahn, David; 20040*A rule based approach to discourse parsingHAProceedings of the 5th SIGdial Workshop in Discourse and Dialogueo  Cambridge, MAr108-117polanyi-etal2004NGDiscourse parsing Coherence relations Summarization Discourse structure\UPolanyi, Livia Culy, Christopher van der Berg, Martin Thione, Gian Lorenzo Ahn, Davidd 20040*Sentential structure and discourse parsingB://000185302500005b0*Burstein, Jill Marcu, Daniel Knight, Kevin 2003`ZFinding the WRITE stuff: Automatic identification of discourse structure in student essaysIeee Intelligent Systems181l 32-39eJan-FebeISI:000180929700009 burstein-marcu-knight2003 "Rhetorical Structure TheoryT$://000180929700009tBusch, Michael 2005D=Review of: Taboada, M. (2004) Building Coherence and Cohesion0 LINGUIST List 15.1688\ 2005 May busch-review2005F?Rhetorical Structure Theory Theme Cohesion Genre Spanish Review82http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-1688.htmlCarbonel, Thiago Ianez Seno, E.R.M. Pardo, Thiago Alexandre Salgueiro Coelho, Jorge Csar Collovini, Sandra S. Rino, Lucia Helena Machado Vieira, Renata 2006:3A two-step summarizer of Brazilian Portuguese textsaXRProceedings of the 4th Workshop on Information and Human Language Technology (TIL) Ribeiro Preto-SP, Brazilcarbonel-etal2006e:4Rhetorical Structure Theory Summarization PortugueseCarbonel, Thiago Ianez Collovini, Sandra S. Coelho, Jorge Csar Fuchs, Juliana Thiesen Rino, Lucia Helena Machado Vieira, Renata 2007^WSumm-it: Um corpus anotado com informaes discursivas visando sumarizao automtica piProceedings of XXVII Congresso da SBC: V Workshop em Tecnologia da Informao e da Linguagem Humana TILi Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1605-1614carbonel-etal2007BCarenini, Giuseppe Pianesi, Fabio Ponzi, Marco Stock, Oliviero 199360Natural language generation and hypertext access&Applied Artificial Intelligenceb7l2b135-164H carenini93HBNatural Language Generation Rhetorical Structure Theory MultimediarlCarlson, Lynn Conroy, John Marcu, Daniel O'Leary, Dianne Okurowski, Mary Ellen Taylor, Anthony Wong, William 2001jdAn empirical study of the relation between abstracts, extracts, and the discourse structure of textsB;Proceedings of Document Understanding Conference (DUC-2001) New Orleans, Louisianacarlson-etal20010)Rhetorical Structure Theory SummarizationJDPresents experiments and algortihms aimed at exploring the relation between abstracts, extracts and structure. A study on the judgements by different analysts of what is important in a text is discussed, with the general conclusion that longer documents prove to cause more disagreement, as do varying writing styles. The non-locality of RST is cited as a drawback of earlier summarization algorithms, as there is nothing in the framework that formally recognises any sort of adjacency relations; nor is there anything to assign greater weight to text spans containing more edus.PIhttp://www-nlpir.nist.gov/projects/duc/pubs/2001papers/sigir_usc_paper.psi"Carlson, Lynn Marcu, Daniel, 2001Discourse Tagging Manual @:http://www.isi.edu/~marcu/discourse/tagging-ref-manual.pdf87September 11, 2001 Manualcarlson-marcu20010*Rhetorical Structure Theory Analysis ToolsThe second version of the annotator's manual. Used in the construction of the LDC corpus. Includes instructions on segmentation, identification of cue phrases and related relations, and full relation definitions. Also includes instructions on using Marcu's annotation tool.@:http://www.isi.edu/~marcu/discourse/tagging-ref-manual.pdf^ Bouwer, A. 1998"An ITS for Dutch punctuation"Intelligent Tutoring Systems 1452224-233(!Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceeISI:000082115200028abouwer98.'Rhetorical Structure Theory Punctuationv>7This paper describes a prototype Intelligent Teaching System aimed at improving Dutch university students' use of punctuation in writing and editing texts. Not only grammatical aspects of punctuation are considered, but also the effect of using different punctuation marks with respect to the rhetorical structure of the text. The system offers a student texts in which he should check the punctuation, and if necessary, make corrections. The system then analyses the student's answer and the differences with respect to possible correct solutions, and gives specific feedback based on these analyses. Formative evaluation of the prototype suggests that it has some advantages over using textbooks, because it allows students to understand the way punctuation actually works, rather than merely teaching prescriptive rules.Cited Reference Count: 11 Cited References: BOUWER A, 1996, THESIS VRIJE U AMSTE BRISCOE T, 1996, ACL SIGP INT M PUNCT, P1 MANN WC, 1988, TEXT, V8, P243 MARCU D, 1997, THESIS U TORONTO NUNBERG G, 1990, CSLI LECT NOTES, V18 ONRUST M, 1993, DOCENTENHANDLEIDING ONRUST M, 1993, FORMULEREN SHUAN PL, 1996, ACL SIGP INT M PUNCT, P57 SIMARD M, 1996, ACL SIGPARSE INT M P, P67 VANDERHORST PJ, 1990, LEESTEKENWIJZER VERVOORN AJ, 1991, PRISMA LEESTEKENS HO ArticleN$://000082115200028G 4z.N3dh"Taboada, Maite Lavid, Juliae 2003ZTRhetorical and thematic patterns in scheduling dialogues: A generic characterizationFunctions of Languaged102\147-179Itaboada-lavid-folI(!Rhetorical Structure Theory ThemeTaboada, Maite 2004<5Rhetorical relations in dialogue: A contrastive studyb *$Moder, Carol L. Martinovic-Zic, Aida.'Discourse across Languages and Culturesk Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins 75-97dtaboada-rst-inbookXQRhetorical Structure Theory Discourse Markers Conversation Task-oriented dialogueTaboada, Maite 2004TNBuilding Coherence and Cohesion: Task-Oriented Dialogue in English and Spanish Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins taboada-book>8Rhetorical Structure Theory Theme Cohesion Genre Spanish&Taboada, Maite Mann, William C.a 2006@:Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking back and moving aheadDiscourse Studiesa8n3c423-459 taboada-mann"Rhetorical Structure Theory&Taboada, Maite Mann, William C.f 20062+Applications of Rhetorical Structure TheoryeDiscourse Studies8o4567-588taboada-mann-part2"Rhetorical Structure TheoryTaboada, Maite 2006D=Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relationsdJournal of Pragmaticsn384i567-592 taboada-dm4-Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse Markersu "Taboada, Maite Renkema, Janr 2008*$Discourse relations reference corpus Vancouver and Tilburg tmSimon Fraser University and Tilburg University, http://www.sfu.ca/rst/06tools/discourse_relations_corpus.htmll Corpustaboada-renkema-corpus>7corpora Coherence relations Rhetorical Structure Theoryr Taboada, Maite 2008SFU Review Corpush  Vancouver ZTSimon Fraser University, http://www.sfu.ca/~mtaboada/research/SFU_Review_Corpus.html Corpus taboada-review-corpus2008m>7corpora Sentiment Rhetorical Structure Theory AppraisalA corpus of 400 movie, book, and consumer product reviews from the site Epinions.com. Partially annotated with RST relations and Appraisal labels.B;http://www.sfu.ca/~mtaboada/research/SFU_Review_Corpus.html 2,Taboada, Maite Voll, Kimberly Brooke, Julian 2008NHExtracting Sentiment as a Function of Discourse Structure and Topicality Simon Fraser Universitys22Technical Report2008-20-"taboada-etal-tech-report200860Sentiment Discourse parsing Topic categorizationTaboada, Maite 2008F@Implicit and explicit coherence relations (Invited presentation)8218th Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse  Memphis, TNntaboada-std2008f,%Coherence relations Discourse MarkerskTaboada, Maite 20090)Implicit and explicit coherence relationss  Renkema, JanDiscourse, of Course Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins127-140e$taboada-discourseofcourse2009;,%Coherence relations Discourse MarkerspF@Takeshita, Atsushi Inoue, Takafumi Tanaka, Kazuo Nakagawa, Toru 1997LEMethod and apparatus for recognizing topic structure of language data} $United States Patent 5,642,520 0*Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation 5,642,520takeshita-etal-patent07o"Rhetorical Structure Theory,&A method and apparatus for recognizing the topic structure of language. Language data is divided into simple sentences and a prominent noun portion (PNP) extracted from each. The simple sentences are divided into blocks of data dealing with a single subject. A starting point of at least one topic is detected and a topic introducing region of each topic is determined from block information and language data characteristics. A PNP satisfying a predetermined condition is chosen from the PNPs in each determined topic intro. region as the topic portion (TP) of the topic in the topic intro. region. A topic level indicating a depth of nesting of each topic and a topic scope indicating a region over which the topic continues is determined from the TP and sentences before and after the TP. Sub-topic intro. regions in the remaining area where no topic intro. regions are recognized are determined from block information and language data characteristics. A PNP satisfying a predetermined condition is chosen from the PNPs in each determined sub-topic intro. region as the sub-topic portion (STP) of the sub-topic in the sub-topic intro. region. A temporary topic level indicating a depth of nesting of each sub-topic and a sub-topic scope indicating a region over which the sub-topic continues is determined from the STP and sentences before and after the STP. All determined topics and sub-topics are unified by revising the temporary topic level of each sub-topic according to the topic level of each topic. These topics and their levels are output as a topic structure.http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,642,520.WKU.&OS=PN/5,642,520&RS=PN/5,642,520 "Tappe, Heike Schilder, Frank 1998$Coherence in spoken discourse1Proceedings of 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL'98) Montral, Canada2r 2u 1294-1298,tappe-schilder980*Rhetorical Structure Theory SDRT Alternate Explores the limits of parsing spontaneously generated discourse using RST (and SDRT). Discusses the applicability of Tree Description Grammar (TDG) to such data, using an experiment based on spontaneously elicited descriptions of an evolving image on a computer screen.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P98-2211]>\XZY Bosma, Wauter E. 20052+Extending answers using discourse structureo Saggion, H. Minel, J-L.\XQProceedings of RANLP Workshop on Crossing Barriers in Text Summarization Research 2-9 bosma2005<5Rhetorical Structure Theory Computational Linguistics Bosma, Wauter E. 2005B;Query-based summarization using Rhetorical Structure Theory 82van der Wouden, T. Po, M. Reckman, H. Cremers, C.*#Proceedings of 15th Meeting of CLINo 29-44~bosma-clin20050)Rhetorical Structure Theory SummarizationBosma, Wauter E. 2008& Discourse oriented summarization Enschede University of TwentePh.D. dissertation bosma2008r0)Rhetorical Structure Theory SummarizationBouayad-Agha, Nadjet 2000hbUsing an abstract rhetorical representation to generate a variety of pragmatically congruent textsrkProceedings of the 38th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'00), Student Workshop  Hong Kong2 16-22n bouayad-agha:3Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation MultilingualTBegins with the notions of Abstract and Concrete Rhetorical Representations (ARR & CRR), and investigates what would be required for a text planner to generate all and only the valid CRR's from a given ARR. The approach is OT-like in that it is constraint based, with all possibilities being generated and constraints ruling out unacceptable candidates. The ARR/CRR distinction is justified for text planners where the goal is to produce multiple pragmatically congruent texts expressing the same underlying message. It is also indicated that this methodology could be used for the generations of multilingual texts expressing the same message.,&http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/446443.html60Bouayad-Agha, Nadjet Power, Richard Scott, Donia 2000D=Can text structure be incompatible with rhetorical structure?uXRProceedings of International Conference in Natural Language Generation (INLG-2000) Mitzpe Ramon, Israel194-200 bouayad-agha-etal2000u,&Rhetorical Structure Theory GenerationDiscusses phenomena in which the surface realisation of a text does not directly correspond to the underlying rhetorical structure. The prime example given is a phenomenon call extraposition, whereby a complex constituent within a conditional relation is realised outside the relation, conjoined to the condition at the same level, as opposed to being subordinated within. This is a strategy noted to avoid incomprehensibly dense conditionals.m.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W00-1426I@0 Hahn, U. Smith, B.c 2006ZTTowards new information resources for public health - From WordNet to MedicalWordNet(!Journal of Biomedical Informaticsd393321-332 JunISI:000237980400009fellbaum-etal2006"Rhetorical Structure TheoryIn the last two de Mohamed, M. T. Clifton, C. 2008b[Processing inferential causal statements: Theoretical refinements and the role of verb typeDiscourse Processesn451e 24-51eJan-FebISI:000252848800002amohamed-etal2008"Rhetorical Structure TheoryAn evidential causal relation like, "Because most distinguished students got bad grades, the teacher made some mistakes in evaluating his students' papers," is more difficult to process than a factual one like, "Because he got tired after a long semester, the teacher made some mistakes in evaluating his students' papers" (Noordman & de Blijzer, 2000; Traxler, Sanford, Aked, & Moxey, 1997). Two experiments explored the distinguishing characteristics of different types of causal relations. Experiment I introduced a third type of causal relation-a deductive causal relation-such as, "Because grading a paper is a subjective process, the teacher made some mistakes in evaluating his students' papers." Deductive causal relations are intermediate in difficulty between factual and evidential causal relations but behave in important ways like evidential relations. Experiment 2 found that using psychological verbs (e.g., like) to express evidential relations makes causal statements that express these relations more acceptable than their counterparts expressed using action verbs (e.g., destroy). The article concludes with a discussion of the main characteristics of different types of causal statements. It is argued that understanding the speaker's theory of mind is the basis for comprehending evidential and deductive causal relations. Finally, this article proposes a tentative framework for analyzing the comprehension of causal relations. $://000252848800002eMolina, M. Flores, V. 2006>8Generating adaptive presentations of hydrologic behaviorTMIntelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning - Ideal 2006, Proceedings5 4224896-903(!Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceISI:000241790900107molina-flores2006"Rhetorical Structure TheoryThis paper describes a knowledge-based approach for summarizing and presenting the behavior of hydrologic networks. This approach has been designed for visualizing data from sensors and simulations in the context of emergencies caused by floods. It follows a solution for event summarization that exploits physical properties of the dynamic system to automatically generate summaries of relevant data. The summarized information is presented using different modes such as text, 2D graphics and 3D animations on virtual terrains. The presentation is automatically generated using a hierarchical planner with abstract presentation fragments corresponding to discourse patterns, taking into account the characteristics of the user who receives the information and constraints imposed by the communication devices (mobile phone, computer, fax, etc.). An application following this approach has been developed for a national hydrologic information infrastructure of Spain.o$://000241790900107n4.Mooney, David Carberry, Sandra McCoy, Kathleen 19904.The basic block model of extended explanationsXRProceedings of 5th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (IWNLG 5) Dawson, Pennsylvania112-119- mooney-etal90,&Rhetorical Structure Theory GenerationRefutes the claim that texts are recursively structured at higher levels, citing repetition as an instance of non-recursivity. Higher-level structure must be build bottom-up, separate from the traditional bottom-up RST planner. The alternative computational approach is presented..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W90-0115`jl& Oberlander, Jon Moore, Johanna D 1999VOCue phrases in discourse: Further evidence for the core:Contributor distinctionR81Workshop on Levels of Representation in Discoursea  Edinburgh, UK 87-93oberlander-moore996/Rhetorical Structure Theory Relations AlternatewDiscusses RDA's equivalent of the nuclearity distinction (core=nucleus, contributor=satellite) and how there seems to be a canonical ordering within this structure. The choice of ordering is then related to informational structure considerations (given/new)c6/http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/oberlander99cue.html9& Oberlander, Jon Moore, Johanna D 2001LEDiscourse cues: Further evidence for the core-contributor distinctionCognitive Linguisticst123t317-332ISI:000173987200006oberlander-moore2001discourse cues, intentional structure, information structure, tutorial dialogue coherence Rhetorical Structure Theory Relational Discourse AnalysisEMoser and Moore (1995, to appear) carried out a corpus study of discourse cues in tutorial dialogue. Their annotation uses Relational Discourse Analysis (RDA), which distinguishes core elements (nuclei-like) from contributors (satellite-like). In their discussion of these results, Moser and Moore propose that clauses in the contributor-core order are harder to understand than clauses in core-contributor order, but do not attempt to explain why the "hard" order is ever used. Here, we recruit evidence from work by Stevenson and her collaborators, which substantiates the empirical claim. We then suggest that by distinguishing information structure (given-new) from intentional structure (core-contributor), we can explain why hard orders are surprisingly frequent. We not, however, that this cannot be the whole story, and show how the hierarchical RDA structure helps account for differences between discourse cues such as since, so, this means, and therefore.F@Cited Reference Count: 17 Cited References: ALTMANN G, 1988, COGNITION, V30, P191 ELHADAD M, 1990, P COLING90, V3, P97 GROSZ B, 1986, COMPUTATIONAL LINGUI, V12, P175 GROSZ BJ, 1995, COMPUT LINGUIST, V21, P203 HOBBS JR, 1985, CSLI-8537 CTR STUD L LESGOLD AM, 1992, INTELLIGENT TUTORING, P201 MANN WC, 1988, TEXT, V8, P243 MOSER M, 1995, P 33 ANN M ASS COMP, P130 MOSER M, 1996, COMPUT LINGUIST, V22, P409 MOSER M, IN PRESS DISCOURSE P NORRDMAN LGM, 2001, TEXT REPRESENTATION, P153 OBERLANDER J, 1998, COMPUT LINGUIST, V24, P501 POLANYI L, 1988, PRAGMATICS, V12, P601 REDEKER G, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P367 SPOOREN W, 1989, THESIS KATHOLIEKE U STEVENSON R, 1995, P 17 ANN C COGN SCI, P328 STEVENSON R, 2000, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V15, P225 Article$://000173987200006"Oishi, Akira Matsumoto, Yuji 1998F?Recognition of the coherence relation between te-linked clausesoProceedings of 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL'98) Montral, Canada2 2990-996aoishi-matsumoto98 @:Rhetorical Structure Theory Markers Relations MultilingualPresents a corpus study of sentences containing the te marker in Japanese, and tests an algorithm for the recognition of associated realtions..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P98-2163*#Okazaki, N. Matsuo, Y. Ishizuka, M.c 2004RLCoherent arrangement of sentences extracted from multiple newspaper articlesB;Pricai 2004: Trends in Artificial Intelligence, Proceedingsa 3157882-891t.(Lecture Notes in Artificial IntelligenceISI:000223633300093 okazaki-etal20040)Rhetorical Structure Theory SummarizationeVOMulti-document summarization is a challenge to information overload problem to provide a condensed text for a number of documents. Most multi-document summarization systems make use of extraction techniques (e.g., important sentence extraction) and compile a summary from the selected information. However, sentences gathered from multiple sources are not organized as a comprehensible text. Therefore, it is important to consider sentence ordering of extracted sentences in order to reconstruct discourse structure in a summary. We propose a novel method to plan a coherent arrangement of sentences extracted from multiple newspaper articles. Results of our experiment show that sentence reordering has a discernible effect on summary readability. The results also shows significant improvement on sentence arrangement compared to former methods.n$://000223633300093tOlson, Michael L.n 1981RLBarai Clause Junctures: Toward a Functional Theory of Interclausal Relations $Australian National UniversityPhD dissertationolson81e,%coherence Rhetorical Structure Theoryt,%Ono, Kenji Sumita, Kazuo Miike, Seiji\ 1994B8http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jahna/papers/text_sum.pdf svTBrB   Patry, R., 1992RKThe Problem of Cohesive Force - Is It a Question of Distance or of Function} Linguistique282r 17-33ISI:A1992KH09200002patry92"Rhetorical Structure Theory$://A1992KH0920000281Pelsmaekers, Katja Chris Braecke Ronald Geluykens 1998:4Rhetorical relations and subordination in L2 writing .'Snchez-Macarro, Antonia Carter, RonaldNHLinguistic Choice across Genres: Variation in Spoken and Written English Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins191-213pelsmaekers-etal98>7Rhetorical Structure Theory Second Language AcquisitionF Peng, Gracie 2009piUsing Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) to describe the development of coherence in interpreting trainees Interpreting112a216-243,%Rhetorical Structure Theory Citations60Citation of: Taboada, dissertation; RST web site Penn Discourse Treebank, 2003<5Annotation Guidelines for the Penn Discourse TreeBankl Philadelphia, Pennsylvania NGUniversity of Pennsylvania, Institure for Research in Cognitive Sciencet30 Manualpenn-treebank2003h,%Theoretical Coherence relations DLTAGoXRAnnotation manual for DLTAG, including instructions for using the annotation tool.}Downloads as postscript. Also available as a webpage http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~dltag/annotation-manual/annotation-manual.html:4http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~dltag/annotation-manual.psPerfetti, C. A.3 1997`YSentences, individual differences, and multiple texts: Three issues in text comprehension\Discourse Processes{233{337-355rISI:A1997YC69300006 perfetti97"Rhetorical Structure TheoryHAThree mini-essays review the progress made on two traditional problems and one newer problem in discourse understanding. The first traditional problem is the relationship between individual sentences and discourses. The role of discourse factors on sentence comprehension has received continuing attention, whereas the complementary question of sentences' contribution to discourse comprehension has been neglected. Recent work may have redressed this neglect to some extent. The second traditional topic is individual differences in discourse comprehension; the conclusion is that there has been substantial refinement of earlier hypotheses about the basic word and functional memory sources of such differences, whereas research on higher level causal factors remains inconclusive. The newer third problem, the representation of multiple texts, exposes fresh views of problems of discourse, especially the contrast between situation and text models. A recent representational Documents Model is briefly described. The conclusion suggests some unifying threads among these three problems.$://A1997YC69300006 Pry-Woodley, Marie-Paule9 1998:3Signalling in written text: A corpus-based approacht .'Stede, Manfred Wanner, Leo Hovy, EduardVOProceedings of COLING-ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers Montral, Canada 79-85pery-woodley98*#Markers Rhetorical Structure TheoryvExplores the role of visual formatting and its relation to lexical and other discourse markers. Uses a hybrid of RST and the model of text architecture. The corpus is a set of intructional texts..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W98-0314 Pry-Woodley, Marie-Paulee 2001JDModes d'organisation et de signalisation dans des textes procdurauxLangages 1413 28-46a pery-woodley60Rhetorical Structure Theory Markers InstructionsPresents an analysis of instructional text, noting that there are more ways of signalling structure than just by lexical marking (i.e. layout and punctuation). RST trees are provided along with the texts. "Pianta, Emanuele Not, Elenai 1997F?A Modular Text Planning Architecture for a Multilingual Settingr  Trento, ItalyG ITC-IRST14Ref. No. 9701-06 pianta-not97:3Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation Multilingual Presents the solution adopted in the GIST multilingual generation system, based on a distinction between domain specific and general communication knowledge. Proposes a modular architecture, emphasizing the role of domain specific knowledge and we argue for the need for making this information available throughout the planning process. RST is the representation mode of choice for rhetorical structure. Seems to be a recap of (Not Pianta 1995)PPDF is backwards.r,%http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/49196.htmloPineda, L. Garza, G. 20002+A model for multimodal reference resolution\ Computational Linguisticsu262A139-193M Jun\ISI:000087906500002tpineda-garza20006/Rhetorical Structure Theory Anaphora Multimediao*#An important aspect of the interpretation of multimodal messages is the ability to identify when the same object in the world is the referent of symbols in different modalities. To understand the caption of a picture, for instance, one needs to identify the graphical symbols that are referred to by names and pronouns in the natural language text. One way to think of this problem is in terms oft he notion of anaphora; however, unlike linguistic anaphoric inference, in which antecedents for pronouns are selected from a linguistic context, in the interpretation of the textual part of multimodal messages the antecedents ave selected from a graphical context. Under this view, resolving multimodal references is like resolving anaphora across modalities. Another way to see the same problem is to look at pronouns in texts about drawings as deictic. In this second view, the context of interpretation of a natural language term is defined asa set of expressions of a graphical language with well-defined syntax and semantics. Natural language and graphical terms are thought of as standing in a relation of translation similar to the translation relation that holds between natural languages. In this paper a theory based on this second view is presented. In this theory, the relations between multimodal representation and spatial deixis, on the one hand, and multimodal reasoning and deictic inference, on the other, are discussed. An integrated model of anaphoric and deictic resolution in the context of the interpretation of multimodal discourse is also advanced.$://000087906500002Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes 2006rAIskanje pragmaticnih enot v neoznacenem korpusu: primer kaipotovS:/[b[Proceedings of the Fifth Slovenian and First International Language Technologies Conference6 Ljubljana, Slovenia pisanski2006,%Rhetorical Structure Theory Citations Citation of: JofPrags 2006 Pit, Mirna 2003xqHow to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective: Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French\  Amsterdamt Rodopipit2003\@9Discourse Markers Coherence relations German French Dutch^ i20FMann, William C. 1999\UIntroduccin a la Teora de la Estructura Retrica (Rhetorical Structure Theory: RST)r RST Website: Spanish Pagesmann-intro-spa82Theoretical Foundation Rhetorical Structure Theory\VAn updated introduction to RST, in Spanish. Essentially a condensed version of M&T 88.Mann, William C. 2000.'Pretty Open Questions (POQ's) about RSTs"RST Website: Research Topicsmann-poq82Theoretical Foundation Rhetorical Structure TheoryF@Presents a summary of yet-to-be-resolved issues surrounding RST.2+http://www.sfu.ca/rst/03research/index.htmlMann, William C. 2003 RST Web Site mann-website"Rhetorical Structure TheoryaRKhttp://www.sil.org/~mannb/rst/ (Soon to be moved to: http://www.sfu.ca/rst)lMann, William C. 2003& Models of intentions in language 2+Khnlein, Peter Rieser, Hannes Zeevat, Henke4.Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins165-178nmann-intentions2003("Rhetorical Structure Theory Dialog&Mann, William C. Taboada, Maites 2007 RST Web Sitemann-website-sfu"Rhetorical Structure Theorywhttp://www.sfu.ca/rsteMantynen, Anne Kaarina 2003>8Talking about Language: The Rhetoric of Language Columns Helsinki University of HelsinkiPhD dissertation 200409288u mantynen20030)Rhetorical Structure Theory Finnish GenreThe study focuses on the genre of language columns and the ways Finnish language professionals talk about language. From the perspective of the analysis, one needs to take into consideration the context and discourse practices of a genre when defining the genre of a text. The material of the study consists of 204 language columns in Finnish newspapers. Methodologically the study is based on genre analysis and the techniques of the New Rhetoric. It also applies Rhetorical Structure Theory and metaphor theory. The study demonstrates that in the analysis of genre, the socio-cultural and historical contexts are fundamental. The following aspects pertaining to the development of modern Standard Finnish are apparently vital: national values, language planning and major dictionary projects. Furthermore, the rhetorical analysis shows that the authorities used in the columns are classical and established authors and works, whereas contemporary research is marginally represented. In the analysis of schematic structures one finds two prototypical schemes used in the columns: (1) the problem-solution scheme, and (2) the general-example scheme. These schemes are already suggested by the way a text begins, and they also have different functions. The problem-solution scheme begins with an interrogative or a discourse representation allowing for the discussion of normative issues. The general example scheme begins either with a relational process or a statement, and the typical topics discussed are individual words or particular phenomena. The analysis of metaphors shows that language is conceptualised through metaphors, which can be divided into two semes (minimal units of signification) related either to nature or to culture. Nature metaphors are used to describe language change in which people can, however, have a guiding role. Culture metaphors, then, are related to the societal and contractual aspects of language. The characteristic type of argument of the language columns is the empirical argument, realised through the use of examples and verbs of perception and emotion. These can be used both for reasoning and for evaluation. Negative evaluations especially are expressed through impressions of strangeness.<5Available from UMI, Ann Arbor, MI. Order No. C813682.e Marcu, DanielT 1996,&Building up rhetorical structure treesHBProceedings of 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence Portland, Oregon2c 2e 1069-1074marcu96*$Rhetorical Structure Theory Analysis& Presentation of the first-order formalisation of RST. This formalisation is used to form the basis of a LISP program which, given a set of text segments and a set of possible relations between them will generate the set of all possible well-formed RST trees for the given text. The only constraints on the choice of relation are structural at this point; the software has no means of deciding based on content which is the correct relation. Also important is an insight into the relationship between nuclearity and higher-level assignments of relations. Two composite text spans (a,b) can only enter into a relation if the same relation holds between the nuclei of a and b. A new binary branching tree structure is introduced which expresses all the new information needed for the formal description.6/http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/marcu96building.html Marcu, DanielT 1996:4Distinguishing between coherent and incoherent textsPJProceedings of Student Conference on Computational Linguistics in Montral Montral, Canada136-143marcu96b*$Rhetorical Structure Theory AnalysisHere a simple question is asked: with all the work being put into finding coherence, why not look at what makes a text incoherent? The solution turns out to be elegantly simple, if implemented in a somewhat brute-force manner. Marcu refers to an "underexploited" portion of good old (M&T 1998): the bit about the canonical ordering of nucleus and satellite for certain relations. The hypothesis then becomes a matter of simply checking whether these relations obey the canonical order "most" (>50%) of the time. For two incoherent sample texts, the scores are both below 50%, and the coherent sample scores 70%. Further studies are called for to more accurately define "most."<5http://www.isi.edu/~marcu/papers/clim-96-coherence.psW`ZPardo, Thiago Alexandre Salgueiro Nunes, Maria das Gracas Volpe Rino, Lucia Helena Machado 2004F?DiZer: An automatic discourse analyzer for Brazilian Portuguese0vpProceedings of First International Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Cognitive Science (NLUCS 2004) Porto, Portugal pardo-etal2004D>Rhetorical Structure Theory Summarization Brazilian PortugueseF?Pardo, Thiago Alexandre Salgueiro Nunes, Maria das Gracas Volpen 2006`YReview and evaluation of DiZer - An automatic discourse analyzer for Brazilian PortuguesepleProceedings of the 7th Workshop on Computational Processing of Written and Spoken Portuguese PROPOR Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brazil180-189pardo-nunes2006:4Rhetorical Structure Theory Summarization Portuguese Paris, Ccile Scott, Donia 1994JCIntentions, structure, and expression in multi-lingual instructionsrRKProceedings Seventh International Conference on Natural Language Generationt Kennebunkport, MEo 45-52u paris-scott94a.(Instructions Rhetorical Structure Theory"Observes that not all instructions are written as a set of imperatives; the discourse structure and realization choices are influenced by the writer's attitude towards the reader, and the global structure of the manual. A corpus study for English, French, and Protuguese is presented.The mysterious hard copy is a longer version of a paper presented at IWNLG 7 (1994) in Kennebunkport, Maine. The link to that paper is given below.9.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W94-0306b_ Q0 i3F6C{|R Abelen1993 Abeysinghe2003 Abeysinghe2003 Abeysinghe2003 Afantenos20042 Afantenos2005 Afantenos2007 Afantenos2008 Afantenos2009 Ahmed2008 Ahn2004 Ahn2004 Akman1997/Albrecht2008 Allbritton2002X Allen20003 Allen2005SAlonso i Alemany2003) Altenberg2002 Amano1992 Amorrortu1999 Amorrortu1999O Andre1991^Andreyev2001@ Andr1991 Andr1993T Andr1996m Andriessen19964Androutsopoulos2002 Antonio2001 Antonio2004 Appelt19933 Arens1991` Arens1992a Arens19955 Argamon2008 Asher1991 Asher1992I Asher1993 Asher1993U Asher1994K Asher2003 Asher2007, Asher2007 Asher2008 Asher2008 Asher2009 Asher2009V Azar1999( Babaii2007 Bach20090f Bailey20000 Baillet1984 Baldridge2007L Ballard1971M Ballard1971 Ballim20011Barzilay2005Barzilay2008W Bateman1990[ Bateman1991 Bateman1994Z Bateman1997X Bateman2000Y Bateman2001 Bateman2002 Bateman2005 Baumgarten2007 Bazzanella1999 Brenfnger2006 Brenfnger2006 Brenfnger2006 Brenfnger2006N Beekman1974' Behrens2001q Bell2001Benamara2008Benamara2008Benamara2009 Benwell1999"Berber Sardinha2006 Berman2010O Bernrdez1995m Berry1999 Berzlnovich2008 Bestgen1999b Beveridge2003c Beveridge20036 Beveridge2006tBickmore2001 Bille2005 Binnick2009\Birchall1993eBisseret1997Blair-Goldensohn20027 Blakemore2007 Blhdorn2007[ Bocaniala2000 Borst2006 Boscolo1995Y Bosma2005Z Bosma2005X Bosma2008\ Bouayad-Agha2000] Bouayad-Agha20008 Bouayad-Agha2001 Bouayad-Agha2003 Bouwer1998 Boves2007  Bracewell2007x Braden-Harder2001w Braden-Harder2002 Braecke19988 Breton20060 Britton1982 Brooke20088 Brooke20090 Brown1984Bruhn de Garavito2006_Burstein1998^Burstein2001xBurstein2001wBurstein2002Burstein2003dBurstein2003 Busch2005N Callow19744 Campion2008 Caplan20062Carberry1990Carberry1992Carberry1994Carberry1998xCarberry1999VCarbonel2006Carbonel2007`Carenini1990_Carenini1993yCarenini20045Carletta1999 Carlson2000 Carlson2000` Carlson2001a Carlson2001b Carlson2001n Carlson2002c Carlson2003e Caro1997 Carroll2009t Cassell2001 Cavazza2009 Cavazza2009d Cawsey1990e Cawsey1991 Cawsey1995w Cawsey20008 Chafai2006 Chafe1996f Chafe2002 Chan20000 Chan2000i Chan2000h Chan20049 Chan20065 Chase2008 Cheng1998f Cheng2000g Cheng2000Chiarcos2004Chiarcos2005Chiarcos2008 Chino1992_Chodorow1998xChodorow2001wChodorow2002 Chotimongkol2008 Chua2007oP Chua2007g Chuang2000uCiarlini20010 Clifton2008V Coelho20060 Coelho20070 Collier2006V Collovini2006 Collovini2007L Conrad19711M Conrad19711` Conroy20011 Coppen20070 Coray20011Cornelis20088 Cornish1989 Cornish2009 Cornish2009y Corston2000hCorston-Oliver1998PCorston-Oliver1998jCorston-Oliver1999iCorston-Oliver2000k Cox1999lCreswell2002NCreswell20030mCreswell2003o Cristea1997J Cristea1998 Cristea1999n Cristea2000 Cristea2000 Cristea2000 Cristea2003 Cristea2005j Cristea2005 Cross1998Q Cui1986 Culy20040 Culy20040 Culy20040 Culy2004e> Cumming1992^ Cumming1992Dahlgren1998a Dale1990p Dale1991b Dale1992 Dale19944 Dale19966q Dale1998lDalianis1992kDalianis1999D Daniel20030r Danlos1999 Danlos2006  Danlos2007 Danlos2007 Daradoumis1995s Daradoumis1996 Dargnat2008  Daskalopolu1998 Dassen19999= Dastani2005t Daum2002 Davies19922g Davis2000 Davis2001: Davis2003 De Busser2002y de Campos2000u de Carolis1998v de Carolis1999w de Carolis20001 de Geus2008mde Rosis1999De Silva2005De Silva2005De Silva2005De Silva20066De Silva2006De Silva2007*De Silva2007mde Smedt19969)de Souza1990 Decker20077 Decker20070x Degand1998 Degand1999n Degand2000 Degand2001 Degand2002C Degand20066y Delin1994z Delin1996 Delin1996( Delin1999X Delin2000 Delin2002 Delin2005| den Ouden1998{ den Ouden2002 den Ouden2004 Desmet2004} Di Eugenio1997 Di Eugenio2002 Di Eugenio2006  Di Eugenio2006 Di Eugenio2009= Dignum200504Dimitromanolaki2002 Dinesh20052 Dinesh2006 Dinesh2008- Dipper2006Daz de Ilarraza Snchez2009o Dobes19915 Dodick20088j Dolan1999 Donald2004 Doran1999 Doura2004~ Druon2000 Druon2001 Duffy1987Echihabi2002 Egg2006 Egg2008 Egg2008 Egg2010 Eklund1998p Elhadad1995p Elson2004rEndres-Niggemeyer1994qEndres-Niggemeyer2000'Fabricius-Hansen2001 Faraday1994s Favero2001 Fawcett1988 Fawcett1992:Fellbaum2006 Feng2005 Ferraresi2009- Ferrari1998 Finkelstein1999 Finkler1993 Fischer1994 Fisher2003 Fisher2005I Flores2006 Forbes2001l Forbes20020 Forbes2002N Forbes20030m Forbes20030 Forbes20052 Foster2009K Fox1987b Fox20036 Fox2006t Fraser1999 Fuchs2007 Fuchs2008 Fuchs2008S Fuentes Fort20032Fukumoto1994R Fuller1959u Furtado2001vFurugori2003;Gallardo2005 Gao2000 Gao2000 Garcea1999Garrido Medina2005 Garza2000 Gawryjolek2009 Geluykens1998 Georg2009 Georg2009 Getoor2009nf Geurts20000 Ghorbel2001 Gibson2003 Gibson2004 Gibson2004 Gibson2004 Gibson2004 Gibson2005 Gibson2005 Gibson2006 Giering2007 Giering2007 Giering2008 Gil2002 Glanzberg2002 Glynn1982 Goh2002J Goh2003K Goh2006Gonzlez2005#Gonzlez Meln2006 Goutsos1996 Goutsos1996s1996 J T$Journal of Information Science@=Journal of Information Technology Applications and Management0*Journal of Intelligent Information SystemsJournal of Linguistics0*Journal of Logic, Language and Information$Journal of Memory and LanguageJournal of Pragmatics("Journal of Second Language Writing4/Journal of Technical Writing and Communications(%Journal of Universal Computer Science4/Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour Knowledge Engineering ReviewKnowledge OrganizationKnstliche Intelligenz Langages$ Language and Cognitive ProcessesLanguage and SpeechLanguage SciencesLanguages in ContrastLangue FrancaisePMLDV-Forum, GLDV-Journal for Computational Linguistics and Language TechnologyLHLDV-Forum, Journal for Computational Linguistics and Language TechnologyLearning and Instruction,(Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence$!Lecture Notes in Computer Science LinguaLingua E StileLinguagem em (Dis)curso Linguisticae Investigationes Linguistics Linguistics and Philosophy Linguistique$Llengua Societat i ComunicaciMachine TranslationMind & LanguageMultimedia Systems Nachrichten Fur Dokumentation Natural Language Engineering NeuroImage OrganizationPedagoska stvarnost Poetics Today PragmaticsReading and Writing Reading Research Quarterly40Recent Advance of Chinese Computing Technologies($Research in Language and Computation($Research on Language and ComputationRevista IntercmbioRevista SignosScientometrics Semiotica Signum: Estudos da LinguagemSpeech Communication0+Sprachtheorie und germanistische LinguistikStudia Linguistica$!Studies in Communication SciencesD>Studies in Machine Translation and Natural Language ProcessingStyle SyntheseTechnical CommunicationTesol QuarterlyText Text & TalkDAThe Annals of University Dunarea de Jos of Galati, Fascicle III$!The Internet and Higher Education Theoretical Computer ScienceTheoretical Linguistics(%Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics("Traitement Automatique des LanguesTravail HumainTravaux de Linguistique85University of Melbourne Working Papers in Linguistics$University of Toronto Quarterly Unknown0*User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction VerbumWord<8Word-Journal of the International Linguistic Association~Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics, University of CambridgeWritten Communication0,Zeitschrift fr Dialektologie und LinguistikZeitschrift fr Slawistik("Zeitschrift fr Sprachwissenschaft  gliItalian pragmatic gesture usage, context/illocutionary intent /discourse structure, language relationship Italy (39100) Japanese KalashaKinesics (40850) language Language Acquisition (41600)Latin LayoutLinguistic context Linguistic Discourse ModelMachine LearningMachine Translation MarkersMediametacognitive knowledge Multilingual Multimedia narrative$native speakers, Salerno, Italy Natural Language Generation Natural Language Processing Norwegian Number nutritionOn-line discourseOvert pronouns Parataxis PenmanPlansPlural pronoun PortuguesePragmatics (66850)Pronominal referencePronoun resolution Prosodyhdprosody, final lengthening, prosodic modeling, relationship to text structure, perception of prosodyPsycholinguistics PunctuationQuaestio model Quechua Racism Reading ReferenceReference chainsReferring Expressions Register Relational Discourse Analysis RelationsRelevance Theory ReviewRhetoric (73300) Rhetorical Structure Theory(%Rhetorical Structure Theory (related) Salience Scopal orderSDRT Second Language Acquisition Segmentation sentenceSentence planning Sentiment SpanishSpeech Acts (82400) stereotypes subjectivity Summarization SwedishSwitch reference Syntax$Systemic Functional LinguisticsTAGTask-oriented dialoguetextText Analysis (89100)Text classificationText comprehension Text planning Textbookstextual cohesionThematic progressionThematic rolesTheme Theoreticalto-speech synthesisToolsTopicTopic and Comment (90400)Topic categorization TranslationTrees TurkishTutoring systemsUnit of analysis$ United States of America (92750) Veins Theory VerbMobilvideo recordingsWebword-processor Writing40writing, writing instruction, cognitive approach Zero pronounsqNX,"Y|X.(Bateman, John Delin, Judy Allen, Patrick 2000>7Constraints on layout in multimodal document generationt~xProceedings of First International Natural Language Generation Conference, Workshop on Coherence in Generated Multimedia Mitzpe Ramon, Israelbateman-etal20002+Rhetorical Structure Theory Layout AnalysissDiscusses and compares the rhetorical structure of layout elements (headline, body text, images) of selected British newspaper articles. Layouts that correspond to the rhetorical structure seem to flow better, guiding the reader from one element to the next.:4http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/bateman00constraints.htmlD=Bateman, John Kamps, Thomas Kleinz, Jrg Reichenberger, Klausv 2001\VTowards constructive text, diagram, and layout generation for information presentation Computational Linguistics273409-449Obateman-etal20012+Rhetorical Structure Theory Layout AnalysiswFirst discusses a general method of organising the informational strucutre to be presented, which then informs a text/graphic/layout generation system. Example analyses and pages are given to illustrate the links between layout and RST, as well as sample output of the program./.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J01-3004 Bateman, John Delin, Judyt 2005"Rhetorical structure theory .(Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics Oxford Elsevier589-596 2ndbateman-delin-rst-encv"Rhetorical Structure TheoryBaumgarten, N. 2007XRConverging conventions? Macrosyntactic conjunction with English and and German und Text & Talks272 139-170oISI:000245226900001baumgarten2007:4Rhetorical Structure Theory German Discourse MarkersJCA growing number of investigations into,the historical development and status of academic prose have found that many national languages lose both prestige and distribution as a medium of expression in the sciences, while English progressively develops into the lingua franca of science. The investigation presented in this paper starts from the assumption that the status of English as a global lingua franca not only replaces the use of other languages but that the prestige associated with English styles of scientific writing can also influence text production in other languages in the sense that indigenous language-and culture-specific communicative conventions are superseded by the conventions operative in comparable English texts. Taking the example of macrosyntactic conjunction with and and und in English and German popular scientific texts, this article addresses the question of whether German communicative conventions are adapted to English communicative styles such that language-specific strategies of information organization in German change in the direction of English. Cited References: AIJMER K, 2006, PRAGMATIC MARKERS CO AMMON U, 1994, ENGLISH ONLY EUROPA BAUMGARTEN N, 2005, SECRET AGENT FILM DU BIBER D, 1989, LINGUISTICS, V27, P3 BIBER D, 1999, GRAMMAR SPOKEN WRITT BLAKEMORE D, 1999, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V11, P1 BLAKEMORE D, 2005, LINGUA, V115, P569, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.016 BOTTGER C, 2002, ZEITENWENDE GERMANIS, P253 BYRNES H, 1986, TEXT, V6, P89 CARSTENSEN B, 1975, AMERIKANISMEN DTSCH CHWITALLA J, 1997, GESPROCHENES DTSCH E CLYNE M, 1987, J PRAGMATICS, V11, P101 CLYNE M, 1991, SUBJECT ORIENTED TEX, P49 CLYNE M, 1994, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN DOHERTY M, 1995, STILFRAGEN, P181 DOHERTY M, 1996, LINGUISTICS, V34, P591 DOHERTY M, 2002, LANGUAGE PROCESSING DOHERTY M, 2003, ACROSS LANGUAGES CUL, V4, P19 DORGELOH H, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P1761, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.004 DRESCHER M, 2003, GRUPPENSTILE SPRACHL, P53 ECKERT P, 2005, ANN M LING SOC AM OA EHLICH K, 1992, COOPERATING WRITTEN, P201 EHLICH K, 2005, ENGLISCH ODER DTSCH, P41 FABRICIUSHANSEN C, 1909, SPRACHSPEZIFISCHE AS, P175 FABRICIUSHANSEN C, 2000, WISSENSCHAFTSSPRACHE FABRICIUSHANSEN C, 2005, LINGUISTICS, V43, P17 FRASER B, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P931 GARDT A, 2004, GLOBALIZATION FUTURE GIVON T, 1990, SYNTAX FUNCTIONAL TY GRAEFEN G, 1994, TEXTE DISKURSE METHO, P136 HALLIDAY M, 1976, COHESION ENGLISH HALLIDAY M, 1994, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA HOSUE J, 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P96 HOUSE J, 1996, CONTRASTIVE SOCIOLIN, P345 HOUSE J, 2003, J SOCIOLING, V7, P556 HOUSE J, 2004, MEDIAZIONE LINGUISTI, P21 HYLAND K, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V30, P437 HYLAND K, 2004, APPL LINGUIST, V25, P156 KOLLER W, 2000, SPRACHGESCHICHTE HDB, P112 KOTTHOFF H, 1989, PRO KONTRA FREMDSPRA LANG E, 1977, SEMANTIK KOORDINATIV MANN WC, 1987, RHETORICAL STRUCTURE MANN WC, 1988, TEXT, V8, P243 PETERS P, 2004, CAMBRIDGE GUIDE ENGL QUIRK R, 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA REDEKER G, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P367 REHBEIN J, 1989, BIOGRAPHIEN KOMPLEXE, P163 SCHIFFIN D, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS SCHIFFRIN D, 1986, J PRAGMATICS, V10, P41 STRECKER B, 1997, GRAMMATIK DTSCH SPRA THOMPSON G, 1995, TEXT, V15, P103 THOMPSON G, 2001, APPL LINGUIST, V22, P58 WERINRICH H, 2003, TEXTGRAMMATIK DTSCH Article$://000245226900001TMBrenfnger, Maja Hilbert, Mirco Lobin, Henning Lngen, Harald Pusks, Csilla  2006Cues and constraints for the relational discourse analysis of complex text types: The role of logical and generic document structure @:Sidner, Candace L Harpur, John Benz, Anton Khnlein, Peter>7Proceedings of the Workshop on Constraints in Discourse Maynooth, Ireland  27-347barenfanger-etal2006RKDiscourse structure Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse parsing Citationsd4-Citation of: web site, Taboada and Lavid 2003D>Brenfnger, Maja Lobin, Henning Lngen, Harald Hilbert, Mirco 20060)Using OWL ontologies in discourse parsing6 & Khnberger, Kai-Uwe Mnnich, UweB Martin19922^ Martin19922 Martin19933? Martin1995eMarukawa2002 Maslennikov2007 Masood2008 Mathieu2008 Mathieu2008 Mathieu2009 Matsumoto1998 Matsumoto1999 Matsuo20044 Matthiessen1988 Matthiessen1991[ Matthiessen1991 Matthiessen1992 Matthiessen1998 Matthiessen2005y Mattis20042I McConachy1993J McConachy1995v McConachy2001 McCoy1990 McDonald20000McIlmoil2001McKeever1998g\ McKeown1985 McKeown1995F McTear2002 Mehler2002a Mellish1990 Mellish1996 Mellish1998 Mellish1998g Mellish2000 Mellish2001 Mellish2001 Mentis2009d Meteer1993G Mey2006 Meyer1982 Miike1994 Miike1994 Millis1994q Milosavljevic1998 Milosavljevic1998 Miltsakaki2001l Miltsakaki2002N Miltsakaki2003m Miltsakaki2003O Miltsakaki2004 Miltsakaki2004 Miltsakaki2005 Miltsakaki2008b Milward2003c Milward2003 Min2007 Mittal1992 Mittal1996 Mizuta2006 Moeller20075 Moens1999 Moens2002 Moens2002H Moens2007} Mohamed19990 Mohamed2008I Molina2006 Molina2009 Mooney1990 Moore1992 Moore1993G Moore1994 Moore1995 Moore1995 Moore1996 Moore1996} Moore1997 Moore1999 Moore2001y Moore2004 Moreale2004 Mori1996 Morris1999 Moser1995 Moser1995 Moser1996 Mller2007 Mulder20077 Mullen20060 Muntigl2005 Muntigl2005 Murray2006 Myers1987A Na20060 Nack20011 Nagao1994zNakagawa19977 Nakano1998t Nakano20011 Namata2009n/ Neff2008Nicholas1994Nicholas1995 Nir2010 Nomoto1999 Nomoto2004Noordman1992Noordman1992Noordman1992Noordman1993|Noordman19988Noordman1999Noordman2000{Noordman20022 Not1996 Not1997 Not2000o Novak1991 Novak1993 Nunes2004W Nunes2006 Nunes2007 O'Brien1995 O'Donnell1997 O'Donnell1998 O'Donnell1998k O'Donnell1999 O'Donnell2000 O'Donnell2001 O'Donnell2001 O'Hara1998` O'Leary2001 Oates1999| Oates1999 Oates2000 Oberlander1992 Oberlander1993 Oberlander1995q Oberlander1998 Oberlander1998 Oberlander19989 Oberlander1998k Oberlander1999 Oberlander1999  Oberlander2000 Oberlander2001 Oberlander2001 Oberlander2001 Oberlander2001Ohrstrom-Sandgren1998 Oishi1998 Okazaki2004 Okumura2002` Okurowski2001b Okurowski2001n Okurowski2002c Okurowski2003 Olson1981} Omer19999 Ono1992 Ono1994 Ono1994Oostdijk2007 Otterbacher2002 Otterbacher2004 Ou20020J Ou2003K Ou2006 Pander Maat1998 Pander Maat1999 Pander Maat2001 Pander Maat2001}Paolucci19979 Pardo2001 Pardo2002 Pardo2004 Pardo2004V Pardo2006W Pardo2006 Pardo2007 Paris1992 Paris1993y Paris1994 Paris1994c Paris1997 Paris2001 Paris2002 Paris2004 Passonneau1995 Passonneau1997 Pastra2008 Patel2006 Patry1992w Pelachaud20008 Pelachaud20068 Pele2006 Pelsmaekers1998 Peng2009 Penland1982Penn Discourse Treebank2003Perfetti1997 Pery-Woodley2005 Pry-Woodley1998 Pry-Woodley2001 Pry-Woodley2009_ Pianesi1993 Pianta1997 Pineda2000Pisanski Peterlin2006j Pistol20052s Pit2003 Ploetzner2001 Poesio2002  Poesio2006w Poggi2000 Polanyi1983 Polanyi1988 Polanyi1996Q Polanyi1999 Polanyi2001 Polanyi2004 Polanyi2004 Polanyi2004 Polanyi2004 Pollack1992 Pombo2004` Ponzi1990_ Ponzi1993 Post2004nj Postolache2005 Potter2007T Potter2007Q Potter2008R Potter2008S Potter2008L Power1999 Power1999] Power2000 Power2003 Power2004 Power2008 Prasad20012l Prasad20022m Prasad20032 Prasad20042 Prasad20052 Prasad2006 Prasad2008 Prendiger2009 Prendiger2009 Prvot2004, Prvot2007 Prvot2009 Profitlich1993 Prust1994 Pusks20066 Pusks2006 Pusks20066P Qiu2007\ Rada1993] Rada1994 Radev2000 Radev2002 Radev2002 Radev2004 Radev2004[ Radev2005 Rambow1990 Rambow19919 Rambow1993 Rambow1993A Rambow1994  Ramsay2000  Ramsay2001 Ramsay2001Ratnakar2002 Rebeyrolle2009l Redeker1991R Redeker1993  Redeker2000 Redeker2006 Redeker2006 Redeker2008 Redeker2008 Redeker2010  Reed1997 Reed1997 Reed1997  Reed1998 Reed1998 Reed20050@ Reed20080Y Reichenberger2001 Reiter20030 Reitter2002 Reitter2003 Reitter2003 Reitter2003x0^_nJDBritton, Bruce K. Glynn, Shawn M. Meyer, Bonnie J. F. Penland, M. J. 1982LEEffects of text structure on use of cognitive capacity during reading\(!Journal of Educational Psychology741 51-61britton-etal82PJText comprehension Discourse Markers Coherence relations Psycholinguistics81In three experiments, the demand that text processing imposes on learners' cognitive capacity was measured with a secondary-task technique. In all experiments, the meaning of the textual materials was held constant while several structural (surface) variables were manipulated. Experiment 1 showed that text versions with simplified vocabulary and syntax (but equivalent content) required less cognitive capacity to process than standard versions. Experiment 2 revealed that the reduction in use of cognitive capacity observed in Experiment 1 was due primarily to syntactic factors. Finally, Experiment 3 demonstrated that texts containing signals about idea importance and idea relations required less cognitive capacity to process than texts with approximately the same propositional content, but no such signals. In each experiment, measures of total inspection time and content recall were also secured. In general, the findings of all three experiments indicated that aspects of the surface structure of text made demands on the reader's cognitive processing capacity.nBruhn de Garavito, Joyce 2006D=Review of: Taboada, M. (2004) Building Coherence and Cohesionc&University of Toronto Quarterlya751e184-186tbruhn-de-garavito2004LECitations Review Rhetorical Structure Theory coherence cohesion genreyPJBurstein, Jill C. Kukich, Karen Wolfe, Susanne Lu, Chi Chodorow, Martin S. 1998@9Enriching automated essay scoring using discourse marking .'Stede, Manfred Warner, Leo Hovy, Eduard}Proceedings of 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (ACL-COLING'98) Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers Montral, Canada 15-21burstein-etal9881Essay Marking Markers Rhetorical Structure TheoryVPPresents e-rater, a program for the evaluation of essay exam questions. The program is multi-modal, with a discourse module which proves to be the most reliable in overall prediction of a final score, and closest to human evaluations of sample essays. The discourse module makes heavy use of structure as indicated by discourse markers.D=Burstein, Jill C. Kukich, Karen Andreyev, Slava Marcu, Danielg 2001F@Towards automatic classification of discourse elements in essaysb\Proceedings of 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'01) Toulouse, Franceburstein-etal20010)Essay Marking Rhetorical Structure TheoryInvestigating the possibility of generating automated feedback for student-written esays, particularly at the draft stage, where sentences are ungrammatical. In this paper, the main focus is upon identifying thesis statements. Given a corpus, two human analysts reached a good level of agreement in determining the various rhetorical elements in essays (including thesis statements). RST enters the picture once it is found by inspection that thesis statements often carry specific rhetorical relations. With this, a rhetorical parse of the essays and identification of relations is used as part of a new algorithm for determining thesis statements.v.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P01-1014|Burstein, Jill C. Braden-Harder, Lisa Chodorow, Martin Kaplan, Bruce A. Kukich, Karen Lu, Chi Rock, Donald A. Wolff, Susanne 2001B://000228354100029a*#Ou, S. Y. Khoo, C. S. G. Goh, D. H.e 2006RLMulti-document summarization of news articles using an event-based frameworkAslib Proceedingsc583l197-217rISI:000239130800003 ou-etal2006"Rhetorical Structure TheoryPurpose - The purpose of this research is to develop a method for automatic construction of multi-document summaries of sets of news articles that might be retrieved by a web search engine in response to a user query. Design/methodology/approach - Based on the cross-document discourse analysis. an event-based framework is proposed for integrating and organizing information extracted from different news articles. It has a hierarchical structure in which the summarized information is presented at the top level and more detailed information given at the lower levels. A tree-view interface was implemented for displaying a multi-document summary based on the framework. A preliminary user evaluation was performed by comparing the framework-based summaries against the sentence-based summaries. Findings - In a small evaluation. all the human subjects preferred the framework-based summaries to the sentence-based summaries. It indicates that the event-based framework is ail effective way to summarize a set of news articles reporting an event or a series of relevant events. Research limitations/implications - Limited to event-based news articles only, not applicable to news critiques and other kinds of news articles. A summarization system based on the event-based framework is being implemented. Originality/value - An event-based framework for summarizing sets of news articles was developed and evaluated using a tree-view interface for displaying Such summaries.p$://000239130800003eDB AtFO.(Wahlster, W. Andre, E. Graf, W. Rist, T. 1991HAKnowledge-Based Media Coordination in Intelligent User Interfaces\.(Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 549l 2-17ISI:A1991KV09300001wahlster-etal1991"Rhetorical Structure TheoryMultimodal interfaces combining, e.g., natural language and graphics take advantage of both the individual strength of each communication mode and the fact that several modes can be employed in parallel, e.g., in the text-picture combinations of illustrated documents. It is an important goal of this research not simply to merge the verbalization results of a natural language generator and the visualization results of a knowledge-based graphics generator, but to carefully coordinate graphics and text in such a way that they complement each other. We describe the architecture of the knowledge-based presentation system WIP which guarantees a design process with a large degree of freedom that can be used to tailor the presentation to suit the specific context. In WIP, decisions of the language generator may influence graphics generation and graphical constraints may sometimes force decisions in the language production process. In this paper, we focus on the influence of graphical constraints on text generation. In particular, we describe the generation of cross-modal references, the revision of text due to graphical constraints and the clarification of graphics through text.s$://A1991KV09300001 `ZWahlster, Wolfgang Andr, Elisabeth Finkler, Wolfgang Profitlich, Hans-Jrgen Rist, Thomas 1993HBPlan-based integration of natural language and graphics generationArtificial Intelligencer63387-427wahlster-etal93HBRhetorical Structure Theory Natural Language Generation Multimedia"Walker, Marilyn Rambow, Owen 1994LEThe role of cognitive modelling in achieving communicative intentionsXRProceedings of 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (IWNLG 7) Kennebunkport, Maine171-1807walker-rambow94,&Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation Presents a system by which the cognitive state of the recipient of generated text is modelled in order to guide the selection of information (particularly satellite material) to be included in the text. Merely representing the hearer's knowledge is not enough..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W94-0320Walton, D. Reed, C. A. 2005*$Argumentation schemes and enthymemesSynthese 1453339-370 JulISI:000230964300004owalton-reed20050)Rhetorical Structure Theory ArgumentationThe aim of this investigation is to explore the role of argumentation schemes in enthymeme reconstruction. This aim is pursued by studying selected cases of incomplete arguments in natural language discourse to see what the requirements are for filling in the unstated premises and conclusions in some systematic and useful way. Some of these cases are best handled using deductive tools, while others respond best to an analysis based on defeasible argumentations schemes. The approach is also shown to work reasonably well for weak arguments, a class of arguments that has always been difficult to analyze without the principle of charity producing a straw man.Cited References: BURKE M, 1985, INFORMAL LOGIC, V7, P107 BURNYEAT MF, 1994, ARISTOTLES RHETORIC, P3 CARBERRY S, 1990, PLAN RECOGNITION NAT COPI IM, 1986, INTRO LOGIC ENNIS RH, INFORMAL LOGIC, V21, P97 ENNIS RH, 1982, SYNTHESE, V51, P61 FARRELL TB, 2000, REREADING ARISTOTLE, P93 FREEMAN JB, 1995, FALLACIES CLASSICAL, P263 GARSSEN B, 2001, CRUCIAL CONCEPTS ARG, P81 GERRITSEN S, 2001, CRUCIAL CONCEPTS ARG, P51 GILBERT M, 1991, INFORMAL LOGIC, V13, P159 GOUGH J, 1985, INFORMAL LOGIC, V7, P99 GOVIER T, 1992, PRACTICAL STUDY ARGU GROARKE L, 1999, ARGUMENTATION, V13, P1 GROARKE L, 2001, P OSSA 2001 C ARG IT HASTINGS AC, 1963, REFORMULATION MODES HINTIKKA J, 1979, ERKENNTNIS, V38, P355 HINTIKKA J, 1992, COMMUN COGNITION, V25, P221 HINTIKKA J, 1993, REV INT PHILOS, V1, P5 HINTIKKA J, 1995, DIALECTICA, V49, P229 HITCHCOCK D, INFORMAL LOGIC NEWSL, V3, P7 HITCHCOCK D, 1985, INFORMAL LOGIC, V7, P83 HURLEY PJ, 2000, CONCISE INTRO LOGIC JACKSON S, 1980, Q J SPEECH, V66, P251 JOHNSON RH, 2000, MANIFEST RATIONALITY JOSEPHSON JR, 1994, ABDUCTIVE INFERENCE KIENPOINTNER M, 1987, ARGUMENTATION LINES, P275 KIENPOINTNER M, 1992, ALLTAGSLOGIK STRUKTU KNEALE W, 1962, DEV LOGIC LENAT D, 1995, COMMUNICATIONS ACM, V38 MANN W, 1987, TEXT, V8 PEIRCE CS, 1965, COLLECTED PAPERS CS, V2 PERELMAN C, 1969, NEW RHETORIC PINTO RC, 1993, PRACTICAL GUIDE CANA PRAKASH J, 2002, ELEC SOC S, V2002, P102 REED C, 1998, P 3 INT C MULT SYST, P246 REED C, 2001, ARAUCARIA SOFTWARE P REITER R, 1980, ARTIF INTELL, V13, P81 SNOECK H, 2001, CRUCIAL CONCEPTS ARG, P101 SRIVEN M, 1976, REASONING VANEEMEREN FH, 1992, ARGUMENTATION COMMUN VERHEIJ B, 1996, THESIS U MAASTRICHT VERHEIJ B, 1999, 7 INT C ART INT LAW, P43 WALTON D, 1996, ARGUMENTATION SCHEME WALTON D, 1997, APPEAL EXPERT OPINIO WALTON D, 2001, PHILOS RHETORIC, V34, P93 Article$://000230964300004& Webber, Bonnie Joshi, Aravind K. 1998BCitation of "Discourse markers as signals...", J of Prags 2006JDStevenson, Rosemary Knott, Alistair Oberlander, Jon McDonald, Sharon 2000pjInterpreting pronouns and connectives: Interactions among focusing, thematic roles and coherence relations& Language and Cognitive Processes15225-262ystevenson-etal200082Thematic roles Focus Reference Coherence relationsStewart, Anne Merrille 19876/Clause-Combining in Conchucos Quechua Discourse{ Department of Linguistics *$University of California Los AngelesPh.D. Dissertation stewart87D>coherence Quechua Rhetorical Structure Theory Switch referencePh.D., UCLA, 1987. Clause-combining in Conchucos Quechua Discourse. 384 pp. [Grammar is seen as ultimately motivated by communicative needs in discourse; texts are seen as networks in which each clause is ultimately interconnected with every other clause through a hierarchy of interacting relations. Particular attention is given to the phenomenon of switch-reference. DAI 48(7):1757-A.] [Order # DA 8723204] 3-882,Subba, Rajen Di Eugenio, Barbara Kim, Su Nam 2006}Discourse parsing: Learning FOL rules based on rich verb semantic representations to automatically label rhetorical relationscWorkshop "Learning from structured data" at the 11th Conference of European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics  Trento, Italy 33-40subba-etal20064-Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse parsing Subba, Rajen 2007\UExploiting event semantics to parse the rhetorical structure of natural language texttb\Proceedings of Doctoral Consortium, North American Association for Computational Linguistics  Rochester, NY subba2007<5Rhetorical Structure Theory Computational Linguisticsl& Subba, Rajen Di Eugenio, Barbara 2009JCAn effective discourse parser that uses rich linguistic information"Proceedings of HLT-ACL 2009o  Boulder, COc566-574isubba-dieugenio20094-Discourse parsing Rhetorical Structure Theory<6Sumita, Kazuo Ono, Kenji Chino, T. Ukita, T. Amano, S. 199260A discourse structure analyzer for Japanese textVPProceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems  Tokyo, Japan 1133-1140} sumita-etal92,82Rhetorical Structure Theory Summarization Japanese Sutcliffe, A. Faraday, P.\ 1994>8Systematic Design for Task-Related Multimedia Interfaces*#Information and Software Technology\364\225-234t Apr\ISI:A1994NV95300005{sutcliffe-faraday94"Rhetorical Structure Theory 0*Multimedia interfaces are currently created primarily by intuition. Development of a method for analysis and design of multimedia presentation interfaces is described. The study investigates task based information analysis, persistence of information, selection attention and concurrency in presentation. The method gives an agenda of issues, diagrams and techniques for specification, with guidelines for media selection and presentation scripting. Use of the method is illustrated with an example interface from a shipboard emergency management system.$://A1994NV95300005t0*Sutcliffe, A. G. Kurniawan, S. Shin, J. E. 2006D>A method and advisor tool for multimedia user interface design6/International Journal of Human-Computer Studiesl644375-392 AprISI:000236077900006sutcliffe-etal2006"Rhetorical Structure TheoryZTThis paper describes a multimedia user interface design method and a design assistant tool which supports the method. The method covers specification of user requirements and information architecture, selection of appropriate media to represent the information content, design for directing attention to important information and interaction design to enhance user engagement. Guidelines for media selection and design for attractiveness, i.e. usability and user experience, are given. The method was evaluated in a case study design of a crowd control simulation training system, which demonstrated the method was usable and gave good solutions against an expert gold standard design. The tool provides advice on media selection and attention effects that match specification of the information content expressed as information types and communication goals. A usability evaluation was carried out to measure the usefulness and effectiveness of the tool in comparison to the method, and the results showed that the tool has a positive impact on multimedia design. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.$://000236077900006 PIBenjamin K. Tsou Tom B. Y. Lai Samuel W. K. Chan Weijun Gao Xuegang Zhan 2000B;Enhancement of a Chinese discourse marker tagger with C 4.5oF@Proceedings of the 2nd Chinese Language Processing Workshop, ACL  Hong Kong 38-45tsou200uhaRhetorical Structure Theory Computational Linguistics Chinese Discourse parsing Discourse MarkersTaboada, Maite 2001piCollaborating through Talk: The Interactive Construction of Task-Oriented Dialogue in English and Spanish Madrid Universidad ComplutenseuPh.D. dissertationtaboada-thesisTheme Thematic progression Rhetorical Structure Theory Cohesion coherence Discourse Markers Genre Computational Linguistics Machine Translation Spanish Register Systemic Functional Linguisticszl?("Vander Linden, Keith Martin, James 1995b[Expressing rhetorical relations in instructional text: A case study of the purpose relation  Computational Linguisticsr211A 29-57svanderlinden-martin95iD=Rhetorical Structure Theory Relations Instructions Generationw.(Outlines the steps needed in constructing a text generator, through collection of a corpus for analysis through to algorithm evaluation. This is exemplified by a study of the purpose relation in instructional texts, although the discussion in general is on the generation of rhetorical relations.b\There is a duplicate article with the same formatting, dated 1991 issue 0-0 floating around..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J95-1002F?Verberne, Suzan Boves, Lou Coppen, Peter-Arno Oostdijk, Nelleker 2007l(Exploring discourse structure for Why-QA"&.(10th International Pragmatics Conference Gteborg, Swedenverberne-etal2007RLRhetorical Structure Theory information extraction Computational Linguistics*$Verdejo, Felisa Daradoumis, Thanasis 1995XQUsing rhetorical relations in building a coherent conversational teaching sessionl 6/Beun, Robbert-Jan Baker, Michael Reiner, MiriamTNDialogue and Instruction: Modeling Interaction in Intelligent Tutoring Systems Berlin Springer 56-71rverdejo-daradoumis95"Rhetorical Structure TheoryfVerhagen, Arie 2001xqSubordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Why matrix clauses may be more dependent than complements 81Sanders, Ted Schilperoord, Joost Spooren, WilbertcB://000228354100030hMahlow, Morris 2006d]Entwicklung und Vergleich von zwei Verfahren zur Auswertung von deutschen Freitextkommentarene Potsdamr Universitt Potsdam Diplomarbeit mahlow2006"Rhetorical Structure Theory$Maier, Elisabeth Hovy, Eduardc 1991NGA metafunctionally motivated taxonomy for discourse structure relations}B;Proceedings of 3rd European Workshop on Language Generation. Innsbruck, Austria maier-hovy91"Rhetorical Structure TheorytMaier, Elisabeth 1991F@Zwei Texttheorien in neuem Licht - RST und GSP fuers Abstracting>8Workshop Textzusammenfassen at the yearly GAL conference Mainz, Germanymaier91i0)Rhetorical Structure Theory SummarizationS&Maier, Elisabeth Sitter, StefanR 1992ZTAn extension of rhetorical structure theory for the treatment of retrieval dialoguesVPProceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society Bloomington, INa968973&maier-sitter92("Rhetorical Structure Theory Dialog$Maier, Elisabeth Hovy, Eduard 1993Bden Ouden, Hanny van Wijk, Carel Terken, Jacques Noordman, Leo 19984-Reliability of Discourse Structure Annotation  Eindhoven \UIPO Center for Research on User-System Interaction, Technical University of Eindhoven129-136. 33, Annual Progress Reportden-ouden-etal98@:Discourse structure Rhetorical Structure Theory intonation4.den Ouden, Hanny Noordman, Leo Terken, Jacques 2002B;The prosodic realization of organisational features of textn("Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002 Aix-en-Provence, Franceden-ouden-etal2002*#Markers Rhetorical Structure TheoryProsodic indicators of textual organisation. Segments lower in the RST hierarchy were charactertised by shorter pauses and smaller pitch variances between segments. Nuclearity has an impact upon the speed of speech, and different relations are identifiable by pause length.F?http://www.lpl.univ-aix.fr/sp2002/pdf/ouden-noordman-terken.pdfden Ouden, Hanny 2004.'Prosodic Realizations of Text Structureo Tilburg, The Netherlands University of TilburgPh.D. dissertationdenouden-thesis2004b4.Rhetorical Structure Theory intonation Prosody<6Di Eugenio, Barbara Moore, Johanna D Paolucci, Massimo 1997.(Learning features that predict cue usageb\Proceedings of 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'97)  Madrid, Spaine 80-87edieugenio-etal974.Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation Markers2+Looking for cues to the use and placement of discourse cues in tutorial dialogue to improve automatically generated dialogues. Also a demonstration that machine learning can be used to induce decision trees for the purposes of text generation. Makes use of RDA, which borrows ideas from RST and G&S.9.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology.P97-1011&Dipper, Stefanie Stede, Manfredi 2006*$Disambiguating potential connectives Proceedings of KONVENS-06167-173dipper-stede2006*#Discourse parsing Discourse Markers;Dobes, Z. Novak, H. J. 19912,From Knowledge Structures to Text Structures.(Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 546670-684fISI:A1991KV08500041i dobes-novak91"Rhetorical Structure Theory$://A1991KV08500041Druon, Sbastien 2000piProjet du Taxonomie des Connecteurs du Franais pour le Traitement Automatique: L'exemple des Conscutifs\Science du Langage Bordeaux, France $Universit Michel de Montaigne 114oMaster's thesis} druon2000u60Rhetorical Structure Theory Multilingual MarkersA corpus analysis of French discourse connectives, leading to a typology, with the long term goal of applying the results to a text generator. Appendix includes a listing of French discourse markers.6/http://druon.free.fr/travaux.php3?druon2000.pdfDruon, Sbastien 2001XRApproche Exploratoire de le Relation de Consequence: Description et ImplementationSciences de Langageh Toulouse, France $Universit Toulouse le Mirailn 129hPh.D. dissertation druon2001\@:Rhetorical Structure Theory Relations Markers MultilingualIn-depth study of the Consquence relation, including a catalogue of all lexical and semantic markers, and the implementation of an automatic search algorithm.y6/http://druon.free.fr/travaux.php3?druon2001.pdf"Egg, Markus Redeker, Giselac 2008.'Underspecified discourse representation "Benz, Anton Khnlein, PeterConstraints in Discourse Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins117-138aegg-redeker20080F?Rhetorical Structure Theory coherence Computational Linguistics9"Egg, Markus Redeker, Giselae 2010*#How complex is discourse structure?cPJProceedings of the 7th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) Maltaegg-redeker2010,%Rhetorical Structure Theory Citations0*Citation of: Taboada and Mann 2006, part 1"Eklund, Peter Wille, Rudolfm 1998voA multimodal approach to term extraction using a Rhetorical Structure Theory tagger and formal concept analysisovpProceedings of Second International Conference on Co-operative Multimodal Communication: Theory and Applications Tilburg, Netherlands171-175Feklund-wille980)Summarization Rhetorical Structure TheoryUsing an automated system to derive RST parses of text in order extract semantic content from numerous sources into a single knowledge base. Nuclearity provides the key for identifying the information, making this not unlike previous pure summarization work.82http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/eklund98multimodal.htmlw6Giering, Maria Eduarda 2007^WO texto como sistema aberto e a configurao prototpica de artigos de opinio autoraisnLinguagem em (Dis)curson751d 27-44 gierBurstein, Jill C. Braden-Harder, Lisa Chodorow, Martin S. Kaplan, Bruce A. Kukich, Karen Lu, Chi Rock, Donald A. Wolff, Susannes 2002B://000227796300008sUnger, Christoph 1996RKThe scope of discourse connectives: Implications for discourse organizationkJournal of Linguistics32403-438tunger964-Discourse Markers Rhetorical Structure Theory`ZThe main aim of this paper is to discuss the claim that discourse connectives are best treated as indicators of coherence relations between hierarchically organized discourse units. It will be argued that coherence relations cannot be seen as cognitively real entities. Furthermore, there is no evidence for hierarchical organization in discourse. The intuitions underlying the notion of hierarchical discourse structure are instead explained in terms of consequences of processing a text in the search for optimal relevance. This account draws attention to a hitherto not widely discussed set of data. b\Uzda, Vincius Rodrigues de Pardo, Thiago Alexandre Salgueiro Nunes, Maria das Gracas Volpe 2007XQEstudo e Avaliao de Mtodos de Sumarizao Automtica de Textos Baseados na RST So Carlos, Brazil <6Ncleo Interinstitucional de Lingstica Computacional26 August 2007HTechnical Report NILC-TR-07-07nuzeda-etal2007D>Rhetorical Structure Theory Summarization Portuguese CitationsNeste relatrio, apresentamos a investigao e a avaliao de diversos mtodos de sumarizao automtica de textos baseados na RST (Rhetorical Structure Theory), uma das teorias discursivas mais difundidas atualmente. Alm de mtodos clssicos de sumarizao, novos mtodos so introduzidos. Conduzimos avaliaes comparativas entre os mtodos tanto para a lngua portuguesa quanto para a inglesa, demonstrando o potencial e as limitaes da RST para fins de sumarizao.*$Citation of Taboada and Mann, part 1.(Uzuner, Ozlem Davis, Randall Katz, Boris 2003HBUsing Discourse-Based Text Features for Evaluating Text Similarity MIT58rArticle uzuner-etal2003*$Rhetorical Structure Theory Analysis"Sought information from people on what they use to determine the degree of similarity between texts. Using this, a classifier was trained to recognise similarity based on discourse structure. Based on the works by the first author, this seems to be intended as a plagiarism-detector.Does not seem to have been published anywhere yet. Also, this paper has been removed from the first author's webpage (my original download source), so no link is postable. van Eijk, Jan Kamp, Hans 1996(!Representing Discourse in Context\(!Handbook of Logic and Linguistics\ Amsterdam, Netherlands *$Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica61Article for submissionCS-R9610van-eijck-kamp96NGTheoretical Discourse Representation Theory Rhetorical Structure TheoryThis article gives a survey of Discourse Representation Theory (DRT), including recent developments, and with an emphasis on logical issues. Discourse representation structures are defined, and various prespectives on their static and dynamic meaning are discussed. This discussion leads to the study of the process of merging representation structures, a process which can be viewed as a strategy for memory management. Next, a toy example fragment of English is presented, with a compositional DRT semantics. The final sections are devoted to the treatment of quantification and of tense and aspect. The only mention of RST seems to be in the context of stating that the sample of DRT can cope with only relations that are directly signalled on the surface.w$Link is to zipped postscript.081http://www.cwi.nl/ftp/CWIreports/AP/CS-R9610.ps.Z 1 8:L.U$Stede, Manfred Schmitz, Birte 20002+Discourse particles and discourse functions\Machine Translationb15 1-2125-147}stede-schmitz2000aHARhetorical Structure Theory Machine Translation Discourse MarkersStede, Manfred 2004$The Potsdam commentary corpusnxrProceedings of the Workshop on Discourse Annotation, 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Barcelona, Spain stede2004nLFComputational Linguistics German Rhetorical Structure Theory Reference$Stede, Manfred Heintze, Silvan 200460Machine-assisted rhetorical structure annotationVOProceedings of International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING-04t Geneva, Switzerland stede-heintze,&Rhetorical Structure Theory Annotation Stede, M.2 200460Does discourse processing need discourse topics?Theoretical LinguisticsT30 2-3\241-253ISI:000226541200005e stede2004"Rhetorical Structure Theory$://000226541200005Stede, Manfred 2008*#Disambiguating rhetorical structures*$Research in Language and Computation6i311-332ostede-rolc2008PJRhetorical Structure Theory Computational Linguistics Annotation Citations*$Citation of Taboada and Mann, part 1Stede, Manfred to appeart.'RST Revisited: Disentangling nuclearitye .'Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine Ramm, Wiebke4@:'Subordination' versus 'Coordination' in Sentence and Text Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjaminsstede-rst-nuclearity*$Rhetorical Structure Theory Salience Steen, Gerardd 1999nhAnalyzing metaphor in literature: With examples from William Wordsworth's 'I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud' Poetics Todayt203 499-522l FalISI:000083808600007steen99"Rhetorical Structure Theory$://000083808600007d Steen, Gerardn 2002<6Identifying metaphor in language: A cognitive approach Style363386-407d FalISI:000179281300002  steen2002 "Rhetorical Structure TheoryIn this article I discuss the ways in which cognitive linguistics can contribute to literary study by showing how both writers and readers make use of implicit cognitive mapping strategies in creating and interpreting literary texts. My argument is based on the premise that the same cognitive processes occur to both produce and understand language. I apply contemporary theories of analogical mapping, conceptual metaphor, and conceptual integration networks (blending) to several Dickinson poems and show how different interpretations of a Dickinson text arise from the different mapping strategies readers use, based on their own idealized cognitive cultural models (knowledge domains).$://000179281300002l Steen, Gerard 2004HACan discourse properties of metaphor affect metaphor recognition?rJournal of Pragmaticso367o 1295-1313d JullISI:000222482800007 steen2004"Rhetorical Structure TheoryThis paper presents an empirical study of metaphor recognition by means of an underlining task in a famous Bob Dylan song, "Hurricane". The paper develops a three-dimensional approach to metaphor processing, in which metaphors are assumed to have linguistic, conceptual, and communicative functions for the construction of a mental representation of the discourse [Understanding Metaphor in Literature: An Empirical Approach, Longman, London, 1994]. A selection of structural metaphor properties for each of these discourse functions is discussed, and predictions are formulated regarding which variables are deemed to boost metaphor recognition. Five of the eight variables are shown to behave according to the predictions. The other three variables are related to each other and do not conform to the expectations. Some possible explanations of the results and suggestions for further research are offered in the conclusion. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.$://000222482800007p Stent, Amanda/ 2000$Rhetorical structure in dialog^XProceedings of First International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG'2000) Mitzpe Ramon, Israel247-252a stent200004.Rhetorical Structure Theory Analysis RelationsPresents the preliminary results to attempting the annotation of task-oriented spoken dialogue in RST. Discusses the relations needs and a new annotation scheme to resolve the difficulties encountered..(http://www,aclweb.org/anthology/W00-1433\*zF,NGPrasad, Rashmi Dinesh, Nikhil Lee, Alan Joshi, Aravind K Webber, Bonnies 2006D=Attribution and its annotation in the Penn Discourse TreeBanks("Traitement Automatique des Langues472} 43-63}prasad-etal2006PIRhetorical Structure Theory Coherence relations Discourse Markers corporakIn this paper, we describe an annotation scheme for the attribution of abstract objects (propositions, facts, and eventualities) associated with discourse relations and their arguments annotated in the Penn Discourse TreeBank. The scheme aims to capture both the source and degrees of factuality of the abstract objects through the annotation of text spans signalling the attribution, and of features recording the source, type, scopal polarity, and determinacy of attribution.e pjPrasad, Rashmi Lee, Alan Dinesh, Nikhil Miltsakaki, Eleni Campion, Geraud Joshi, Aravind K. Webber, Bonnie 20086/Penn Discourse Treebank Version 2.0, LDC2008T05 Philadelphia, PA Linguistic Data Consortium LDC2008T05 Corpuspdtb20084-Coherence relations Discourse Markers corporaPrvot, Laurenth 2004nhStructures smantiques et pragmatiques pour la modlisation de la cohrence dans des dialogues finaliss81Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulousee Toulouse Universit Paul SabatierPhD dissertation prevot2004>8coherence Rhetorical Structure Theory dialogue Citations"Citation of: 2001 PhD thesis2+Prvot, Laurent Vieu, Laure Asher, Nicholasm 2009jdUne formalisation plus prcise pour une annotation moins confuse: la relation d'laboration d'entit("Journal of French Language Studies192207-228prevot-etal2009& Rhetorical Structure Theory SDRT(!Prust, H. Scha, R. Vandenberg, M.a 19940*Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora Linguistics and Philosophy173261-327 Jun ISI:A1994NX47900003w prust-etal94"Rhetorical Structure Theoryy$://A1994NX47900003(!Rada, R. Wang, W. G. Birchall, A.a 1993("Retrieval hierarchies in hypertext,%Information Processing and Managementu2931359-371lMay-JuneISI:A1993LE07800007> rada-etal93"Rhetorical Structure TheoryWe have developed a collaborative, reuse hypertext system that has novel browsing and retrieval characteristics. The system, called Many Using and Creating Hypertext (MUCH), has been implemented on a network of UNIX workstations and used extensively in our group. This paper presents the model underlying the use of the MUCH system with respect to organizing, retrieving, and reorganizing information. In order to reuse information successfully, one must first organize it, then retrieve it, and finally reorganize it. The storage layer of hypermedia is logically based on nodes and links, and the MUCH system assumes that the names for these nodes and links represent a kind of semantic net. Documents, thesauri, and discussions may all be connected in this semantic net. The various functionalities of the system then exploit the knowledge in this semantic net. Traversals of the net with various filters are the basis for the views that users get of the semantic net. The standard perspective is of a fold-unfold outline that represents a fisheye view of the semantic net. The reorganization of information also depends on a selection of nodes and their presentation within a connected subnet.$://A1993LE07800007eRadev, Dragomirr 2000jdA common theory of information fusion from multiple text sources. Step one: Cross document structure 0)Dybkjr, Laila Hasida, Koiti Traum, DavidiD=Proceedings of 1st SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue,  Hong Kong 74-83 radev20000)Rhetorical Structure Theory SummarizationIntroduces CST (cross-document structure theory), which uses the rhetorical structures of multiple related texts as a paradigm for multi-document analysis, including summary generation. A taxonomy of CST relations is presented. From source: We introduce CST (cross-document structure theory), a paradigm for multidocument analysis. CST takes into account the rhetorical structure of clusters of related textual documents. We present a taxonomy of cross-document relationships. We argue that CST can be the basis for multidocument summarization guided by user preferences for summary length, information provenance, cross-source agreement, and chronological ordering of facts.f`http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W00-1009 http://tangra.si.umich.edu/clair/CSTBank/acl-disc00.pdf4`$Moser, Megan Moore, Johanna Ds 1995F?Investigating cue selection and placement in tutorial discourselb\Proceedings of 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'95) Cambridge, Massachusetts130-135moser-moore95bHAMarkers Rhetorical Structure Theory Relational Discourse Analysislb[Goal is to identify the features that predict cue placement and selection in order to devise strategies for automatic text generation. Describes a coding scheme for the exhaustive analysis of discourse (RDA), and reports two results based on this analysis: information on the choice of since vs. because, and the effects of embeddig on cue choice.e.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P95-1018$Moser, Megan Moore, Johanna D0 1996@:Towards a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure Computational Linguistics223410-419f moser-moore96LETheoretical Rhetorical Structure Theory Relational Discourse Analysis,$Presents Intentional Linguistic Strucutre, a theory-neutral term for the intentional relations in a text. This is used to lay out the common ground between G&S and RST, showing the possibilities of synthesis. This most likely relates back to RDA, but never seems to have moved forward. .(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J96-3006$Muntigl, Peter Gruber, Helmut 2005(!Introduction: Approaches to genre Folia LinguisticaT39 1-2p 1-18muntigl-gruber2005(!Rhetorical Structure Theory Genre0*Nice summary of German approaches to genre2,Murray, Gabriel Taboada, Maite Renals, Steve 20062+Prosodic correlates of rhetorical relationsl\VProceedings of HLT-NAACL 2006 Workshop on "Analyzing Conversations in Text and Speech" New York 1-7rmurray-etal2006t:4Rhetorical Structure Theory Prosody Machine Learning4.Myers, Jerome L. Shinjo, Makiko Duffy, Susan A 1987.'Degree of causal relatedness and memory $Journal of Memory and Language264o453-465T myers-etal87<6Coherence relations Causal relations PsycholinguisticsJ. M. Keenan, S. D. Baillet, and P. Brown ((1984) Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 115126) varied the causal relation between two sentences in passages read by their subjects. Subsequent recall of one sentence cued by the other improved, and then deteriorated as the causal relatedness of the two sentences increased. The present experiments extended this work and replicated the basic finding of a quadratic relation between recall and causal relatedness. Several explanations are considered to account for these results. The long reading times together with relatively poor recall at low levels of causal relatedness argue against a pure processing effort model. Variations in the integration and elaboration of the representation of the sentence pairs would seem to better account for the relation of recall and causal relatedness. Several issues raised by this explanation are then briefly considered.8}|{N * Haddow, Barry 2005@:Acquiring a Disambiguation Model for Discourse ConnectivesSchool of Informatics  Edinburgh University of Edinburght M.Sc. Thesis haddow2005^XRhetorical Structure Theory SDRT Discourse parsing Connectives Computational Linguistics .(Hagen, Eli Stein, Adelheit Bateman, John 1994NHThe Extension of a Rhetorical Component for the `Speak!' Dialogue System Darmstadt, Germany HBGMD/Institut fr Integrierte Publikations- und Informationssysteme2,COPERNICUS Project 10393; Deliverable R3.2.2 hagen-etal94"Rhetorical Structure Theoryo Hagen, Eli 1999LEAn approach to mixed initiative spoken information retrieval dialogue{0*User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction9g 1-2e167-213lISI:000080725800006hagen99"Rhetorical Structure TheoryWe present an approach to mixed initiative dialogue in acoustic user interfaces to databases. First, we discuss how we distinguish between initiative and control in mixed initiative information retrieval dialogue and how the notions of taking, keeping, and relinquishing initiative and control are reflected in our approach. Based on this discussion, we develop a dialogue planning algorithm. This algorithm distinguished between resources and routines and between the type and the content of an utterance; type and content are calculated separately by routines that reason on the resources - a dialogue model, a dialogue history, and an application description. Through this division we achieve a dialogue where the system adapts to the user's attempts at changing the direction of a dialogue. Finally, we argue that automatic segmentation of the dialogue and automatic tracking of initiative and control is inherent to our approach.$://000080725800006 Hahn, Udo0 2002D>The theory and practice of discourse parsing and summarization Computational Linguisticsg281{ 81-83  MarISI:000175684600007ahahn2002"Rhetorical Structure Theory$://000175684600007 Haller, S. 1999tnAn introduction to interactive discourse processing from the perspective of plan recognition and text planning$Artificial Intelligence Review134259-311 AugISI:000083412700002haller99"Rhetorical Structure TheoryD>People engage in task-oriented dialogues to carry out or plan a task. Each participant in such an interaction must be capable of processing plans in two ways. First, each participant must be capable of understanding the plans that the other participant is using. Researchers have developed theories and models about how computational systems should go about recognizing the plans and goals of another participant, both at the subject-matter level and at the level of the communication. This area of research is called plan recognition. Secondly, each participant must be able to make their owns plans to communicate. This area of natural language research is called text planning. Interactive systems -- systems that understand natural language and that can produce natural language to engage in a task-related interaction -- must address the issue of how understanding plans (the process of plan recognition) relates to making plans for the interaction (the process of text planning). We provide an introduction to these two research areas in natural language processing. Those who need to be familiar with both areas -- to conduct research at their intersection -- will find this introduction useful for building systems that both understand what people are trying to do when they speak and that can actively participate in the interaction.$://0000834127000020"Hannay, Mike Kroon, Caroline 2005>7Acts and the relationship between discourse and grammar}Functions of Language121p 87124hannay-kroon2005d^Discourse Markers Rhetorical Structure Theory Functional Discourse Grammar Speech Acts (82400)In modelling the discoursegrammar interface, a central question concerns the status of discourse act as the minimal unit of discourse organization and its relation to units of grammatical structure. This paper seeks to clarify the notion of act by defining it as a strategic rather than a conceptual unit, and by setting out a classification of strategic acts. Illustration is then offered for the position that discourse acts are to a very considerable extent realized in English by intonation units and punctuation units. This is done by considering how punctuational variation and cases of intonation/syntax mismatch can be explained in terms of the specific discourse contribution of the units concerned. Although the correlation between discourse acts and intonation/punctuation units remains problematic, in that there may not be a 1:1 correspondence, it is still attractive at least for English to see the linguistic correlate of acts in intonation and punctuation units rather than in syntactic structures. The paper finishes by considering the implications for the formalizing of relations between discourse, semantics and syntax in Functional Discourse Grammar. @$Kibble, Rodger Power, Richard 2004:3Optimizing referential coherence in text generationw Computational Linguistics304401-416nkibble-power20042,Centering Theory Rhetorical Structure TheoryThis article describes an implemented system which uses centering theory for planning of coherent texts and choice of referring expressions. We argue that text and sentence planning need to be driven in part by the goal of maintaining referential continuity and thereby facilitating pronoun resolution: Obtaining a favorable ordering of clauses, and of arguments within clauses, is likely to increase opportunities for nonambiguous pronoun use. Centering theory provides the basis for such an integrated approach. Generating coherent texts according to centering theory is treated as a constraint satisfaction problem. The well-known Rule 2 of centering theory is reformulated in terms of a set of constraintscohesion, salience, cheapness, and continuityand we show sample outputs obtained under a particular weighting of these constraints. This framework facilitates detailed research into evaluation metrics and will therefore provide a productive research tool in addition to the immediate practical benefit of improving the fluency and readability of generated texts. The technique is generally applicable to natural language generation systems, which perform hierarchical text structuring based on a theory of coherence relations with certain additional assumptions.Kibble, Rodger 2007@9Generating coherence relations via internal argumentationa0*Journal of Logic, Language and Information164i387-402 kibble2007VORhetorical Structure Theory Argumentation Natural Language Generation Citations,%Citation of Taboada and Mann, paper 14.Kim, Sanghee Bracewell, Rob H. Wallace, Ken M. 2007@9Answering engineers' questions using semantic annotationsiPIArtificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturinga212 155-171d kim-etal2007F?Rhetorical Structure Theory Computational Linguistics Citations0Question-answering (QA) systems have proven to be helpful, especially to those who feel uncomfortable entering keywords, sometimes extended with search symbols such as +, *, and so forth. In developing such systems, the main focus has been on the enhanced retrieval performance of searches, and recent trends in QA systems center on the extraction of exact answers. However, when their usability was evaluated, some users indicated that they found it difficult to accept the answers because of the absence of supporting context and rationale. Current approaches to address this problem include providing answers with linking paragraphs or with summarizing extensions. Both methods are believed to be sufficient to answer questions seeking the names of objects or quantities that have only a single answer, However, neither method addresses the situation when an answer requires the comparison and integration of information appearing in multiple documents or in several places in a single document. This paper argues that coherent answer generation is crucial for such questions, and that the key to this coherence is to analyze texts to a level beyond sentence annotations. To demonstrate this idea, a prototype has been developed based on rhetorical structure theory, and a preliminary evaluation has been carried out. The evaluation indicates that users prefer to see the extended answers that can be generated using such semantic annotations, provided that additional context and rationale information are made available.>7Citation of Discourse Studies article (Looking back...)6/Kittredge, Richard Korelsky, Tanya Rambow, Owen  19914-On the need for domain communication language\ Computational Intelligence7e305-314bkittredge-etal91"Rhetorical Structure TheorybLD&Nomoto, Tadashi0 2004ZTMachine Learning Approaches to Rhetorical Parsing and Open-Domain Text Summarization  Nara, Japanr .(Nara Institute of Science and TechnologyPh.D. dissertation nomoto2004B;Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse parsing SummarizationNoordman, Leo Vonk, W. 1992@:Readers knowledge and the control of inferences in reading& Language and Cognitive Processes7{ 3-4i373-391Aug-NovsISI:A1992JL07700009}noordman-vonk92"Rhetorical Structure Theory There is a consensus in the literature that inferences which contribute to the coherence of the text representation are made during reading. This study demonstrates that this is an over-generalisation and that one has to make a distinction between relations internal to the structure of the representation and relations that involve reference to the world. It is demonstrated that the reader's knowledge of the world is an important factor in controlling inferences. A number of experiments are discussed in which the role of the reader's knowledge with respect to the information to be inferred is investigated by varying the materials in terms of their familiarity to the reader, and by having readers with high and low knowledge with respect to the content domain of the text.e$://A1992JL07700009e(!Noordman, Leo Vonk, W. Kempff, H. 1992>8Causal inferences during the reading of expository texts$Journal of Memory and Language31573-590fnoordman-etal92e*#Rhetorical Structure Theory Reading>8Noordman, Leo Dassen, Ingrid Swerts, Mar Terken, Jacques 1999("Prosodic markers of text structure 6/van Hoek, Karen Kibrik, Andrej A. Noordman, LeouyDiscourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics ConferenceB Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins131-148vnoordman-etal99n@:Discourse structure Rhetorical Structure Theory intonation Not, Elena 1996f_A computational model for generating referring expressions in a multilingual application domain\PJThe 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING'96) Copenhagen, Denmark2 2848-853 not96yRhetorical Structure Theory Theoretical Referring Expressions Multilingual Alternate Centering Theory Discourse structure5Concerned with the generation of referring expressions in multilingual texts. Proposes and extension of centering theory using discourse information. "In this paper we analyze the problem of generating referring expressions in a multilingual generation system that produces instructions on how to fill out pension forms. The model we propose is an implementation of the theoretical investigations of Martin and is based on a clear representation of the knowledge sources and choices that contribute to the identification of the most appropriate linguistic expressions. To cope effectively with pronominalization we propose to augment the Centering Model with mechanisms exploiting the discourse structure. At every stage of the referring expressions generation process issues raised by multilinguality are considered and dealt with by means of rules customized with respect to the output language.".(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C96-2143$Not, Elena Zancanaro, Massimon 2000PIThe MacroNode approach: Mediating between adaptive and dynamic hypermedianLEInternational Conference on Adaptive Hypermedia and Web-Based Systems  Trento, Italy166-178not-zancaro2000,%Hypertext Rhetorical Structure TheoryaThis paper discusses an approach that tries to blur the distinction between adaptive hypermedia and dynamic hypermedia. The approach aims at finding an optimal trade-off between resource reuse and flexibility: existing atomic pieces of data (nodes) are collected and properly annotated; at the interaction time, the system dynamically builds the nodes of the hypermedia composing different pieces together. The annotation includes a listing of rhetorical relations holding between nodes in the database.c4.http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/not00macronode.htmlzyH&n60Degand, Liesbeth Lefvre, Nathalie Bestgen, Yves 1999`YThe impact of connectives and anaphoric expressions on expository discourse comprehension\Document Designn1i1 39-51 degandetal99JCRhetorical Structure Theory coherence Discourse Markers ConnectivestThis study focuses on the impact of linguistic markers of coherence on the comprehension of expository discourse. The impact of such markers on comprehension (i.e. off-line) is a highly controversial topic in current studies, especially for connectives for which a facilitating as well as an interfering role has been demonstrated. As a matter of fact, it seems that connectives facilitate the comprehension process in that they improve the reading process, but that they do not increase comprehension of the text. It might even be possible that they ease the reading task in such a way that they provide the reader with the "impression" of having understood the text instead of a real understanding. -- The objective of the experiment was to test this far reaching hypothesis for the use of connectives in expository texts. We wanted to determine the impact of causal connectives such as because ('parce que') and so ('donc') on comprehension and on the feeling of understanding, contrasting it with the impact of anaphoric expressions. Contrary to previous results, our experiment shows that the presence of connectives actually improved comprehension while it did not have an impact on the feeling of understanding.Degand, Liesbeth 2000HACausal connectives or causal prepositions? Discursive constraintssJournal of Pragmaticsl326l687-707\ MayfISI:000086476300002a degand2000"Rhetorical Structure TheorylIn this article, we draw a comparison between causal prepositions and causal connectives and present them as alternative realizations of the underlying causal situation. It is our aim to investigate under which constraints a language user tends to select either of both causal alternatives. It appeared from a quantitative corpus analysis that these constraints are primarily pragmatic in nature, since they have to do in the first place with the discourse domain and with the management of given/new information. This is also confirmed by an analysis of the grammatical and lexical constraints on causal prepositions and connectives. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.$://000086476300002$Degand, Liesbeth Sanders, Tedx 2002TNThe impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2Reading and Writingf15 7-8i739-758ldegand-sanders2002ZSRhetorical Structure Theory coherence Discourse Markers Second Language AcquisitionAbstract This article reports on an experiment investigating the impact of causal discourse markers (connectives and signaling phrases) on the comprehension of expository texts in L1 and L2. Although several psycholinguistic studies have investigated the impact of connectives and lexical markers of text structure on comprehension (i.e. off-line), there is no consensus on the exact effect of explicit discourse markers on text understanding; three different findings are reported in the literature: markers would have a facilitating effect, an interfering effect or no effect a tall. The first goal of this article is to clarify this problem of contradicting results by limiting the scope of the study to causal relations, and to one specific text type:expository texts. Furthermore, the naturalness of the experimental texts was controlled, readers did not need specific background knowledge to understand the texts and the experimental method consisted of open answer questioning. Our second goal is to investigate to what extent a supposed effect of linguistic marking depends on readers proficiency in a first or second language.The experiment consisted in the reading of short expository texts in two languages, Dutch and French, which both functioned as L1 and L2.The results indicate that readers benefit from the presence of causal relational markers both in L1 and in L2. Implications for (theories of) text processing are discussed, as well as for the further insights in reading comprehension in L1 and L2.RLDelin, Judy Hartley, Anthony Paris, Ccile Scott, Donia Vander Linden, Keith 1994F@Expressing procedural relationships in multilingual instructionsXRProceedings of 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (IWNLG 7) Kennebunkport, Maine 61-70l delin-etal94<5Rhetorical Structure Theory Instructions MultilingualuFocus on the relations Generation and Enablement, illustrating how the same message can be communicated with three different rhetorical structures in three different languages (English, French, German). A corpus study for English, French, and Portuguese illustrates the various syntactic forms these relations can take in those languages, in search of an exploitable overlap for the purposes of multilingual generation.g.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W94-03080)Delin, Judy Scott, Donia Hartley, Anthonyt 1996:3Language-specific mappings from semantics to syntaxc\UProceedings of 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING'96)h Copenhagen, Denmark1 29292-297E delin-etal96@:Rhetorical Structure Theory Relations Markers MultilingualPaper focusing entirely on the cross-linguistic corpus study reported in (Delin etal 1994). The syntactic and punctuation cues in all three languages are discussed. One interesting note, apparently all relations in Portuguese must be overtly marked, at least by punctuation..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C96-1050@BN!Jd%r? Ji, P. 2006D=Multi-document summarization based on unsupervised clustering4-Information Retrieval Technology, Proceedings 4182560-566r(!Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceCISI:000241690200046t ji-etal2006p"Rhetorical Structure TheoryJZTIn this paper, we propose a method for multi-document summarization based on unsupervised clustering. First, the main topics are determined by a MDL-based clustering strategy capable of inferring optimal cluster numbers. Then, the problem of multi-document summarization is formalized on the clusters using an entropy-based object function.$://000241690200046 Johnsen, L.e 2001NGDocument (re)presentation: Object-orientation, visual language, and XMLsTechnical Communicationa481l 59-65T FeblISI:000166895000009 johnsen2001"Rhetorical Structure TheoryArgues that document analysis and design can integrate ideas from modern text theory into object-oriented thinking Demonstrates how object-orientation and visual language may be used to map text structures onto perceptual object configurations.$://000166895000009Jordan, Michael P. 1992D=An integrated three-pronged analysis of a fund-raising letter *$Mann, William C. Thompson, Sandra A.PIDiscourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Texta Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins171-226 jordan9281Rhetorical Structure Theory Theoretical AlternatedPresents an integrated analysis of the ZPG letter using clause relations (Which is in itself an integration of numerous other approaches, including RST), lexical connections, and problem-solution structures. Includes a very detailed diagram of the analysis.*Kamalski, Judith 2007hbCoherence Marking, Comprehension and Persuasion: On the Processing and Representation of Discourse Utrechtr LOTt kamalski2007ZSRhetorical Structure Theory Coherence relations Discourse Markers PsycholinguisticsKaplan, R. B. Grabe, W. 20024-A modem history of written discourse analysist("Journal of Second Language Writing113\191-223t AugrISI:000180006800003kaplan-grabe2002"Rhetorical Structure Theory@:The term discourse analysis has been used interchangeably in two separate contexts spoken discourse (i.e., multiple-source dialogic) and written discourse (i.e., single-source monologic). Such a distinction, however, oversimplifies the situation; while there are obvious overlaps between the two, to some extent each has evolved in its own direction. Written discourse analysis, the subject of our discussion, is obviously closely connected with work in literacy, but it implicates a great heterogeneity of topics and approaches, including at least some from psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics. Discourse analysis, in the sense in which we are using it, emerged in the early 1970s. A modem history of written discourse analysis is perhaps best covered within a 40-50-year time span. In the course of that time, a number of new and emerging disciplines and research fields have contributed to systematic analyses of the linguistic features and patterns occurring in written texts. At the same time, other continuing disciplines have provided contributions that have been important and are ongoing. It should be fairly evident that any attempt to cover such a broad spectrum of views and disciplines would not be appropriate in a single article. We therefore intend to limit the scope of this paper to analyses of written discourse that explore the actual structuring of the text via some consistent framework. Our goal is to highlight and describe historically the various efforts to find the structures and linguistic patterns in texts that contribute to how they are understood, interpreted, and used. It seems to us that, in order to comprehend what has happened in the context of L2 writing research, it is necessary to understand the extensive work that has been done in discourse analysis. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.$://000180006800003Karamanis, Nikiforos 2007^WSupplementing entity coherence with local rhetorical relations for information orderingg0*Journal of Logic, Language and Information16445-464 karamanis2007<6Rhetorical Structure Theory Centering Theory Citations0)Citation of Taboada, J of Pragmatics 2006Katz, S. Allbritton, D. 2002hbGoing beyond the problem given: How human tutors use post-practice discussions to support transfer"Intelligent Tutoring Systems 2363641-650 (!Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceCISI:000180067900065ekatz-allbritton2002m2,Rhetorical Structure Theory Tutoring systemsRecent studies reveal that human tutoring sessions do not always end when the student has solved a problem. Instead, tutors and students frequently use a post-practice discussion to bring new topics to the table or to continue problem-solving discussions. One of the main roles of post-practice dialogues is to support transfer-that is, the student's ability to apply concepts and adapt familiar solution strategies to unfamiliar problems. Several developers of intelligent tutoring systems have implemented post-practice modules, with similar aims. However, in contrast to the integrated instructional planning that human tutors apparently perform, automated planning of reflective activities is typically done independently of instructional planning during problem solving. We present a framework for describing reflective plans that are distributed between problem solving and debrief and evidence that reflective discussions support transfer in elementary mechanics.$://000180067900065Katzav, J. Reed, C.i 200881Modelling argument recognition and reconstructionJournal of Pragmatics401155-172r Jan\ISI:000252227600009bkatzav-reed2008"Rhetorical Structure Theory*$A growing body of recent work in informal logic investigates the process of argumentation. Among other things, this work focuses on the ways in which individuals attempt to understand written or verbalised arguments in light of the fact that these are often presented in forms that are incomplete and unmarked. One of its aims is to develop general procedures for natural language argument recognition and reconstruction. Our aim here is to draw on this growing body of knowledge in informal logic in order to take preliminary steps towards developing an architecture for computer systems that are able to recognise and reconstruct natural language arguments. This architecture aims to structure research of an applied and computational nature that strives to implement linguistic systems of various sorts, and to analyse problems in a way that both yields manageable and relatively independent components and also highlights how implementations can interact with existing resources from natural language processing. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.$://000252227600009 @ R23S)Tm4`a5IUK,V(LMWXYZNq"O6bc7 [YZX\]dxw^_V_``abncetde8fih9fggyhPijklmnJjoQpbaqlk rstuvwm*xnyz{|}-o~pprq's:KtRuv;#<wxyS z {|}~c.jT=>?%!~@UAL B1CVWDXEYZiM[\FdGNOH}0I/JKWs QTQRS\  l   r&+fg|k  !"#$%&')(o*+e,-.u/LU0]1 M23hz45$N67 89:;<=>^?O@ABDEFC{P^_]GH[IJv\*~ittal, Vibhu 19960)Dynamically generated follow-up questionsrComputer297i 75-& JulaISI:A1996UW24600026moore-mittal96>7Rhetorical Structure Theory Natural Language GenerationoJDAutomatic text generators are at the heart of systems that provide users with information. The trick is getting the system to answer follow-up questions as naturally as possible. But even in moderately complex domains, the$Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M.v 2005Remembering Bill Mannm Computational Linguisticsp312u161-172 matthiessen-ob2005"Rhetorical Structure Theory McIlmoil, Tara 2001D>Using RST Lite to Teach Organisational Structure and Coherence28 Essayu mcIlmoil2001:3Theoretical Derivations Rhetorical Structure TheoryrPresents RST-Lite, which is essentially RST using a condensed set of relations, then makes pedagogical suggestions for the use of RST-Lite for teaching coherence and writing style.McKeown, Kathleen R. 1985jcText Generation: Using Discourse Strategies and Focus Constraints to Generate Natural Language Textn  Cambridgen Cambridge University Press mckeown85cZSNatural Language Generation coherence Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse Markers4.McKeown, Kathleen Robin, Jacques Kukich, Karen 19954-Generating concise natural language summariesh,%Information Processing and Managementy315n703-733lmckeown-etal950)Summarization Rhetorical Structure TheoryPresents a new methodology for the generation of summaries by enfolding information on several facts into one concise sentence. Unlike other models, how information is added depends on the wording of the text so far. Not even a citation of RST.The link is to a Gzipped ps file. This is not included with the PDF files because my computer is unable to cope with this file.0*http://www.cin.ufpe.br/~jr/publi/ipm.ps.gzg<g( Cheng, Hua Mellish, Chris0 2000`YCapturing the interaction between aggregation and text planning in two generation systems\VProceedings of First International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG'00) Mitzpe Ramon, Israel186-193 cheng-mellish2000C,&Rhetorical Structure Theory GenerationDiscusses aggregation (the formation of complex textual usints from simple ones) and its interplay with text generation. The specific example of aggregation discussed here is embedding, which would interfere with the local coherence usually achieved by planners by means of sequential ordering. Experiment includes the scoring of relevant features to determine the quality of text generated by two different systems..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W00-1415("Chiarcos, Christian Stede, Manfred 2004$Salience-driven text planningatmNatural Language Generation. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Natural Language Generation Berlin Springer 21-30cchiarcos-stede2004<5Rhetorical Structure Theory Centering Theory SalienceWe present an algorithm for hierarchical text planning of paragraphs involving object descriptions, comparisons and recommendations. Building on previous work on bottom-up text planning and user-tailored text generation, we develop a numerical model of 'propositional salience' to capture both speaker's intentions and local coherence in a single framework for generating complex discourse structures.a*#Chiarcos, Christian Krasavina, Olgah 20052,Rhetorical distance revisited: A pilot study,&Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2005 Birmingham, UK&chiarcos-krasavina-corpuslx2005a"Rhetorical Structure Theory*#Chiarcos, Christian Krasavina, Olga{ 2008<6Rhetorical distance revisited: A parametrized approach "Benz, Anton Khnlein, PeterrConstraints in Discourse Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins 97115("chiarcos-krasavina-constraints2008"Rhetorical Structure TheorytChotimongkol, Ananlada 2008`ZLearning the structure of task-oriented conversations from the corpus of in-domain dialogs&Language Technologies Institutej Pittsburgh, PA Carnegie Mellon UniversityPhD dissertationchotimongkol2008VPRhetorical Structure Theory Citations Task-oriented dialogue Discourse structure0)Citation of Taboada and Mann 2006, part 1Chuang, W. T. Yang, J. 2000ZSText summarization by sentence segment extraction using machine learning algorithms860Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Proceedings 1805454-457.(Lecture Notes in Artificial IntelligenceISI:000170556400049chuang-yang2000"Rhetorical Structure TheorypiWe present an approach to the design of an automatic text summarizer that generates a summary by extracting sentence segments. First, sentences are broken into segments by special cue markers. Each segment is represented by a set of predefined features (e.g. location of the segment, number of title words in the segment). Then supervised learning algorithms are used to train the summarizer to extract important sentence segments, based on the feature vector. Results of experiments indicate that the performance of the proposed approach compares quite favorably with other approaches (including MS Word summarizer).$://000170556400049Cornish, Francis 1989\UDiscourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English (review article)  Lingua79 2-3s229-243c NoveISI:A1989CF70200004l cornish89p>8Anaphora Discourse Structure Rhetorical Structure Theory@9Cited Reference Count: 13 Cited References: ARIEL M, 1988, J LINGUIST, V24, P65 BOSCH P, 1983, AGREEMENT ANAPHORA S CHAFE WL, 1980, PEAR STORIES CLANCY P, 1980, PEAR STORIES COGNITI, P127 CORNISH F, 1986, ANAPHORIC RELATIONS CORNISH F, 1988, J SEMANTICS, V5, P233 DUBOIS JW, 1980, PEAR STORIES COGNITI, P203 FOX BA, 1986, TEXT, V6, P25 GROSZ B, 1977, 5 STANF RES I TECHN MANN W, UNPUB RHETORICAL STR MANN WC, 1988, TEXT, V8, P243 REICHMAN R, 1981, 4681 REP SANFORD AJ, 1988, LANG SPEECH, V31, P43 Review/$://A1989CF702000045k4|L Safranj, Jelisaveta8 200882Rhetorical Structure in Business English Discourse Belgrade University of BelgradePh.D. dissertationsafranj-thesis2008"Rhetorical Structure Theory0*Rhetorical structure in business english discourse has been investigated on the corpus of 150 on-line business news articles published in The Financial Times newspaper. The scope of the study is on the distribution of rhetorical relations that hold between adjacent text spans and characterise journalistic genre on the whole and this particular type as well. Text analysis required building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson, 1988) which addresses the notion of text coherence through text relations. The structure of analysed articles has been conventionally described by rhetorical relations that establish semantic and functional relations between adjacent text spans. This kind of approach explains coherence by postulating a hierarchical, connected structure of texts, in which every part of a text has a role, a function to play, with respect to other parts in the text. The analysis has proved that the articles are organised in the fashion of inverted pyramid, i.e. applying the principle of decreasing interest, which means that the facts are ranged according to their importance, not chronologically as they occured in certain situation, event or problem. A discourse-tagged corpus provided hierarchical discourse tree of every article. Further analysis showed the distribution of rhetorical relations through the segments of analyzed discourse tree and stated the most frequent relations in the corpus that characterize journalistic genre. Moreover, the structure of presented information in the articles have been described according to the distribution of relations through several segments of hierarchical discourse tree. The analysis carried out on document level describes the basic structure of business news articles by the means of rhetorical relations.*#Salkie, Raphael Oates, Sarah Louise  19994-Contrast and Concession in French and EnglishrLanguages in Contrastr2r1T 27-56lsalkie-oates99.(Rhetorical Structure Theory MultilingualhbThe discourse markers but & although are similar but not identical in meaning. We investigate the relationship between them using data from the INTERSECT translation corpus. A collection of cases are examined where although corresponds to French mais. In order to explain the correspondences we draw on rhetorical structure theory (RST). By organizing RST relations in a hierarchy, & adding a new relation to the inventory of RST relations, we can give a systematic explanation of the relationship between contrast & concession. 2 Tables, 1 Figure, 2 Appendixes, 29 References. Adapted from the source document Sanders, Ted 1986De invloed van globale teksteigenschappen op het begrijpen en onthouden van teksten (The influence of global properties of text on understanding and remembering text) Tilburg Universitymaster's thesis sanders86,%Rhetorical Structure Theory coherence2+Sanders, Ted Spooren, Wilbert Noordman, Leoo 1992.(Toward a taxonomy of coherence relationsDiscourse Processesl151t 1-35sanders-etal92,%Rhetorical Structure Theory RelationsPresents a taxonomy of relations, along with a supporting experiment using text fragments. Further experiments involving connectives are said to indicate the cognitive salience of the primitives used in the taxonomy.2+Sanders, Ted Spooren, Wilbert Noordman, Leoa 1993LECoherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representationlCognitive Linguisticsl4o2t 93-133sanders-etal93,%Rhetorical Structure Theory RelationsvOnce again presents the taxonomy of relations based on four primitives. Two psycholinguistic experiments are presented that test the validity of the taxonomy. The taxonomy is shown to be plausible, and the primitives are psychologically salient."Sanders, Ted van Wijk, Carel 1993NGPISA A Procedure for Incremental Structure Analysis of Expository Texts{ Utrecht, Netherlands Draftusanders-vanwijk93rB;Theoretical Coherence relations Rhetorical Structure TheoryPresents PISA, which is meant ot overcome the shortcomings of other theories (like RST): annotator disagreement and subjectivity. PISA is algorithmic, dependent only upon linguistic and lexical knowledge, and psychologically plausible. This last is attained through the use of relations which have been tested for psychological plausibility in separate research. Another abstract: Abstract Intuitions about text structures are formulated in ordered sets of production rules that constitute an analytic procedure so as to solve the indeterminacy for the domain of explanatory texts. Rhetorical structure theory, the linguistic discourse model, & the procedure for incremental structure analysis (PISA) are reviewed in both hierarchical & relational aspects. An illustration of the analytic procedure is in the form of a text of a male, aged 12, trying to explain the use of a telephone. The hierarchical structure of this text is provided, with its relational structure. Hierarchial & relational structures production is detailed, beginning with an overview that includes an inventory of the relevant segment features & a discussion of the input & output of PISA, & an explanation of some of its production rules & the hierarchical structures. Reasons for particular rules & text regularities are outlined, with attention to the structure of explanations, the linguistic markers of text structures, & the flexibility of the procedure. PISA is being used in several current research projects, & its applications for writing behavior, text quality, & procedural & intuitive analysis are considered. 3 Tables, 5 Figures, 1 Appendix, 81 References. Adapted from the source documentv Pander Maat, Henkt 1998RLClassifying negative coherence relations on the basis of linguistic evidenceJournal of Pragmatics0302e177-204{ maat98@:Rhetorical Structure Theory Relations Markers Multilingual Provides a corpus study of the distribution of seven Dutch negative connectives over relational classes, leading to a proposed revision to the relational classification proposed by Sanders etal earlier in the decade. ABSTRACT FROM SOURCE: This article proposes to revise the Sanders et al. (1992, 1993) classification of negative coherence relations on the basis of a comparative, corpus-based analysis of seven Dutch connectives. First, some conceptual problems in the Sanders et al. classification are discussed, with special attention for the 'polarity' parameter that distinguishes between 'positive' and 'negative' relations: Subsequently, a methodological section reviews different kinds of evidence for relation classifications. It is argued that the behavior of linguistic devices for the expression of coherence relations constitutes a crucial source of evidence and it is proposed to use a Discriminating Connective Principle when assessing this linguistic evidence. By means of a corpus study, it is shown that several refinements of the Sanders et al. classification are conceivable. In the revised framework, comparative relations take the place of additive relations, direct and indirect comparisons are distinguished and epistemic negative relations are further differentiated on the basis of the configuration of perspectives in the successive discourse segments. The linguistic support for the revised classification, as provided by the distribution of seven Dutch negative connectives over the relational classes, is shown to be satisfactory.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VCW-3TMR6W2-3-3&_cdi=5965&_orig=browse&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1998&_sk=999699997&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlb-lSzBA&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_userid=10&md5=e4e55dc0bcaa7efea24cd5ad4a5aa5e2&ie=f.pdfPander Maat, H. 1999^WThe differential linguistic realization of comparative and additive coherence relationscCognitive Linguistics\102e147-184aISI:000084143900002 pander-maat99"Rhetorical Structure Theory it is commonly assumed that comparative coherence relations (e.g., Peter is tall but his brother is short) can be analyzed in terms of semantic contrast. In this article it is claimed that comparative relations need to be understood in a context containing a similarity assumption. This assumption may be confirmed (positive polarity) or denied (negative polarity) by the comparative text passage. When two entities are characterized in terms of a common variable without a similarity assumption being present (e.g., Peter's favorite color is red. His brother prefers green), the coherence relation is merely additive. Additive relations are not defined for polarity. While comparative relations may be linguistically marked by connectives like 'but', 'by contrast', or 'and' in English or 'maar', daarentegen', or 'en' in Dutch, additive relations remain unmarked. The distinction between comparative and additive relations is empirically supported by a corpus-based study of the linguistic marking of similarities and differences between the price movements of shares, using 400 fragments from stock-market reports in a Dutch daily newspaper. Some of these fragments clearly invoke similarity assumptions, for instance because of the fact that two companies are in the same branch of industry or because the fragment is preceded by an announcement of the general trend in share prices on a particular day. It was found that the overwhelming majority of linguistic markers of similarities and differences in share price movements occurred in contexts containing similarity assumptions. For instance, similarities that were to be expected may be marked by 'en', 'and' (e.g. Elsevier gained 1.10 [new price 67.80} [Daarentegen] Kluwer lost forty cents (new price 50.70)). Some apparent counterexamples, in which two companies from he same branch of industry show different share price movements while this difference remains unmarked, in fact do not invalidate the similarity assumption framework but support it. In the majority of these cases the similarity assumption has been eliminated or weakened by earlier announcements of difference within a certain branch. A closer analysis of five Dutch comparative connectives reveals that two dimensions of comparative polarity need to be distinguished: a propositional polarity parameter with the values 'difference' and 'similarity', and an assumptional polarity parameter distinguishing between confirmations and denials of the relevant assumption. Different linguistic elements may be characterize in terms of different polarity dimensions. For instance, 'ook', 'also', expresses positive propositional polarity, while 'maar', 'but', is an indication of negative assumptional polarity.$://000084143900002("Pander Maat, Henk Degand, Liesbeth 2001NHScaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker InvolvementCognitive Linguistics123211-245pandermaat-degand2001>7Rhetorical Structure Theory coherence Discourse Markerss$Pander Maat, Henk Sanders, Ted 2001PISubjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in uselCognitive Linguisticse1235247-273ipandermaat-sanders2001VPRhetorical Structure Theory coherence Discourse Markers Connectives subjectivityThe linguistic categories apparent in people's everyday language use provide us with interesting insights into the working of the mind. In this article we study the way in which Dutch speakers categorize causally related events by expressing them with the connectives dus `so' or daarom `that's why'. These two connectives both express volitional and epistemic causal coherence relations. Their overlapping contexts of use raise the question of why two separate, highly grammaticalized linguistic items exist to express similar relationships. We propose an analysis of these connectives, clarifying their similarities and di.erences, in terms of subjectivity: the amount of speaker involvement. Empirical support for this analysis is presented from corpus studies and experiments in which language users were asked to state their preference for one of the connectives in contexts displaying different degrees of subjectivity.B8A summary planner based on a three-level discourse modelF@Proceedings of Natural Language Processing Pacific Rim Symposium  Tokyo, Japan533-538tpardo-rino2001ZTRhetorical Structure Theory Summarization Theoretical Alternate Brazilian PortugueseUses a three-level approach (rhetorical, intentional, and semantic) to discourse representation for its summary planner. Intentionality is represented through a G&S based model, while the rhetorical side is based on RST.4.http://www.afnlp.org/nlprs2001/pdf/0166-01.pdfB8stereotypes; nutrition; diet Rhetorical Structure Theory~wHealth promotion is a complex activity that requires both explanation and persuasion skills. This paper proposes a three-layered model of dialogue coding, based on a rhetorical argumentation model, and a behavioural model of change. The model was applied to the analysis of a corpus of 40 e-mail dialogue exchanges on healthy nutrition advice. Examples of analysis are given.xrCited Reference Count: 25 Cited References: BARRIE K, 1991, COUNSELLING PROBLEM CARENINI G, 2002, P ECAI 2002 WORKSH C CARLETTA J, 1996, COMPUT LINGUIST, V22, P249 CARLETTA J, 1997, COMPUT LINGUIST, V23, P13 CAWSEY A, 1996, P ECAI 96 WORKSH GAP, P19 CAWSEY A, 1999, LECT NOTES ARTIF INT, V1620, P379 COHEN PR, 1990, INTENTIONS COMMUNICA, P221 CORE M, 1997, AAAI FALL S COMM ACT FOX J, 2000, SAFE SOUND ARTIFICIA FRIES E, 1993, J AM DIET ASSOC, V93, P551 GRASSO F, 2000, INT J HUM-COMPUT ST, V53, P1077 GRASSO F, 2002, EDILOG 02 P 6 WORKSH, P53 HORN PW, 1999, LNAI, V1620 MANN WC, 1988, TEXT, V8, P243 PERELMAN C, 1969, NEW RHETORIC TREATIS PROCHASKA J, 1994, HLTH PSYCHOL, V13 PROCHASKA J, 1992, PROGR BEHAV MODIFICA, V28 REED C, 2000, S ARG COMP REED C, 1998, P 36 ANN M ASS COMP, P1091 REITER E, 1999, LECT NOTES ARTIF INT, V1620, P389 SADALLA E, 1981, PSYCHOL TODAY, V15, P51 SEARLE J, 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH STENT A, 2000, 740 U ROCH COMP SCI TEUFEL S, 1999, P EACL TOULMIN S, 1958, USES ARGUMENT Article$://000187956400026e$Green, Nancy Carberry, Sandra 19926/Conversational implicatures in indirect repliestb\Proceedings of 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'92) Newark, Delaware 64-71cgreen-carberry92,&Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation0)Algorithm to calculate discourse implicatures for use in context-dependent replies, based on discourse plans, expectations, and relations. Applicable to generation or interpretation, because this uses elements of already existing discourse processing, it can be incorporated into those processors./.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P92-1009$Green, Nancy Carberry, Sandra0 19944-A hybrid reasoning model for indirect answersaZSProceedings of 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguisticsb Las Cruces, New Mexico 58-65dgreen-carberry94,&Rhetorical Structure Theory GenerationComputational model for intepreting and generating indirect answers to y/n questions, again using a discourse plan based approach to implicature, though improving upon the previous model. There is also mention that the model could be applied to other discourse adjacency pairs./.(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P94-1009 Potter, Andrew 2007XQAn Investigation of Interactional Coherence in Asynchronous Learning Environments 2+School of Computer and Information Sciencess Fort Lauderdale, USA "Nova Southeastern UniversityPh.D. dissertation potter2007LERhetorical Structure Theory Computer-mediated communication Citations-  Numerous studies have affirmed the value of asynchronous online communication as a learning resource. Several investigations, however, have indicated that discussions in asynchronous environments are often neither interactive nor coherent. This research sought to develop an enhanced understanding of interactional coherence in asynchronous learning environments. The study used Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) to analyze and assess the coherence of a several asynchronous discussions. The analysis revealed that the discussions were structurally dynamic. While RST structures resulting from static documents are acyclic tree-shaped structures, the rhetorical networks representing asynchronous threads are frequently cyclic. Thus, the analysis required a modified form of RST based on reduced constraints and restricted schemas. By this means, it was possible to create structural models of the discussions. These models were used to investigate asynchronous argumentation and topic drift and to perform a comparative analysis of multiple discussions. The investigation found argumentation was more prevalent in some groups than others. In one group the analysis indicated the dominant mode of interaction was disagreement; in another group, argumentation was generally constructive; and in a third group, argumentation tended to be supportive and concessive. The investigation found that topic drift does not occur as a matter of chance. Participants use topic drift in order to adapt discussion to a topic of preference. As such, topics do not drift so much as they are pushed and pulled. A consequence of this process is that threads often begin with a strong research-based opening message, but descend to anecdotes and personal commentary. The conferencing systems used for the discussions were similar in their features, but the discussions differed, particularly in their use of threading. In one group, less than half of the messages were threaded, with the remainder posted as singletons. In other groups most of the messages were in threads. This research provides a framework and a terminology for fine-grained analysis of interactional coherence. By showing the applicability of RST to asynchronous discussion, the study has offered evidence that assessment technology could be developed for online discussions. In addition, the development of rhetorical networks as a directed graph theory for representing the semantics of asynchronous interaction could lead to new knowledge representation technologies for multi-agent collaboration systems.PICitation of: book, Text Technology paper, Mann & Taboada (both), web site Boscolo, P.T 1995hbThe Cognitive Approach to Writing and Writing Instruction - a Contribution to a Critical-AppraisalF@Cahiers De Psychologie Cognitive-Current Psychology of Cognition144 343-366  AugISI:A1995TA00300002 boscolo95writing, writing instruction, cognitive approach metacognitive knowledge; textual cohesion; word-processor; coherence; acquisition; children Rhetorical Structure TheoryResearch on writing has been greatly stimulated by cognitive psychology, in which writing has been conceptualized as a problem solving activity. The objective of this paper is to critically analyze some aspects of the cognitive approach to writing and writing instruction: (1) the effects of problem solving analogy in writing research; (2) the lack of a comprehensive theory of writing development; and (3) good vs. competent writing. In the cognitive approach the main objective of writing instruction is to make the pupil into a strategic writer, whereas writing itself is viewed as subordinate to learning and thinking. The concept of writing expertise is analyzed and some suggestions for research on writing instruction are discussed.Cited Reference Count: 91 Cited References: ACKERMAN JM, 1991, RES TEACH ENGL, V25, P133 ADAM JM, 1992, TEXTES TYPES PROTOTY ANDRIESSEN JEB, 1991, MINIMAL STRATEGIES C APPLEBEE AN, 1986, TEACHING WRITING, P95 BANGERTDROWNS RL, 1993, REV EDUC RES, V63, P69 BEAUGRANDE RD, 1984, TEXT PRODUCTION BENTON SL, 1993, J EDUC PSYCHOL, V85, P267 BEREITER C, 1982, ADV INSTRUCTIONAL PS, V2 BEREITER C, 1980, COGNITIVE PROCESS, P73 BEREITER C, 1987, PSYCHOL WRITTEN COMP BERNINGER VW, 1991, READ WRIT, V3, P115 BERNINGER VW, 1992, READING WRITING, V4, P25280 BOSCOLO P, IN PRESS CHILDRENS E BOSCOLO P, 1990, 1 LANGUAGE, V10, P217 BRACEWELL RJ, 1983, RES WRITING PRINCIPL, P436 BRACEWELL RJ, 1980, VISIBLE LANG, V14, P400 BRITTON JN, 1975, DEV WRITING ABILITIE BRONCKART JP, 1985, FONCTIONNEMENT DISCO BRYSON M, 1991, COMPLEX PROBLEM SOLV, P61 CARAMAZZA A, 1990, COGNITION, V37, P243 CARTER M, 1990, COLL COMPOS COMMUN, V41, P265 CHANQUOY L, 1990, CAH PSYCHOL COGN, V10, P513 CHAROLLES M, 1983, TEXT, V3, P71 CHESNET D, 1994, ANN PSYCHOL, V94, P283 COCHRANSMITH M, 1991, REV EDUC RES, V61, P107 COLLINS A, 1980, COGNITIVE PROCESS, P51 COX BE, 1991, RES TEACH ENGL, V25, P179 DAIUTE C, 1986, RES TEACH ENGL, V20, P141 DEBERNARDI B, 1991, EUROPEAN J PSYCHOL E, V6, P143 DEBERNARDI B, IN PRESS ARGUMENTATI DYSON AH, 1991, HDB RES TEACHING ENG, P754 DYSON AH, 1991, RES TEACH ENGL, V25, P97 EIGLER G, 1991, EUROPEAN J PSYCHOL E, V6, P225 ELLIS AW, 1988, HUMAN COGNITIVE NEUR ELLIS AW, 1987, PERSPECTIVES COGNITI, P189 ELLIS AW, 1984, READING WRITING DYSL EMIG J, 1971, COMPOSING PROCESS 12 ENGLERT CS, 1988, EXCEPT CHILDREN, V54, P513 ENGLERT CS, 1988, LEARNING DISABILITY, V11, P18 ESPERET E, 1989, LEARNING INSTRUCTION FARR M, 1993, WRIT COMMUN, V10, P4 FAYOL M, 1991, EUROPEAN J PSYCHOL E, V6, P101 FITZGERALD J, 1987, COGNITION INSTRUCT, V4, P3 FITZGERALD J, 1992, PROMOTING ACAD COMPE, P337 FITZGERALD J, 1986, RES TEACH ENGL, V20, P263 FITZGERALD J, 1987, REV EDUC RES, V57, P481 FLOWER L, 1983, RES WRITTEN LANGUAGE, P206 GALBRAITH D, 1992, INSTR SCI, V21, P45 GLASER R, 1991, TESTING COGNITION, P17 GRAESSER AC, 1985, UNDERSTANDING EXPOSI GUFONI W, 1994, THESIS U BOURGOGNE HARRIS KR, 1992, HELPING YOUNG WRITER HASAN R, 1984, UNDERSTANDING READIN, P181 HAWISHER GE, 1989, CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE HAYES JR, 1987, ADV APPLIED PSYCHOLI, V2, P176 HAYES JR, 1980, COGNITIVE PROCESS, P4 HIDI S, 1983, CURRICULUM INQ, V13, P377 HIGGINS L, 1992, WRIT COMMUN, V9, P48 HOBBS JR, 1982, STRATEGIES NATURAL L, P223 JORAM E, 1992, RES TEACH ENGL, V26, P167 KELLOGG RT, 1994, PSYCHOL WRITING KIEWRA KA, 1989, EDUC PSYCHOL REV, V1, P147 KINTSCH W, 1982, READING EXPOSITORY M, P87 KOZMA RB, 1991, COGNITION INSTRUCT, V8, P1 MANN WC, 1988, TEXT, V8, P243 MATSUHASHI A, 1982, WHAT WRITERS KNOW LA, P269 MATSUHASHI A, 1987, WRITING REAL TIME MCCUTCHEN D, 1986, J MEM LANG, V25, P431 MCCUTCHEN D, 1982, TEXT, V2, P113 MCLANE JB, 1990, VYGOTSKY ED INSTRUCT, P304 MEYER BJF, 1975, ORG PROSE ITS EFFECT MICELI G, 1994, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V32, P317 NEWKIRK T, 1987, RES TEACH ENGL, V21, P121 NYSTRAND M, 1989, WRIT COMMUN, V6, P66 PONTECORVO C, 1991, EUROPEAN J PSYCHOL E, V6, P199 ROUSSEY JY, 1990, LANGUAGE ED, V4, P51 SANDERS TJM, 1992, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V15, P1 SCARDAMALIA M, 1991, GEN THEORY EXPERTISE, P172 SCARDAMALIA M, 1986, HDB RES TEACHING, P778 SCHUMACHER GM, 1992, READING EMPIRICAL RE, P249 SCHUMACHER GM, 1991, RES TEACH ENGL, V25, P67 SCINTO LFM, 1986, WRITTEN LANGUAGE PSY SPIEGEL DL, 1990, RES TEACH ENGL, V24, P48 STEIN N, 1986, REV RES EDUC, V13, P225 STEINBERG ER, 1986, COLL ENGL, V48, P697 STOTSKY S, 1990, COLL COMPOS COMMUN, V41, P37 SWARTS H, 1984, NEW DIRECTIONS COMPO, P53 TANNEN D, 1984, COHERENCE SPOKEN WRI VANDIJK TA, 1985, HDB DISCOURSE ANAL, V2, P103 WEAVER CA, 1991, HDB READING RES, V2, P230 ZAMMUNER VL, 1990, LEARNING INSTRUCTION, P309 Article$://A1995TA00300002 ""Wolf, Florian Gibson, Edward 2004@9Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based analysisi\VProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING) Geneva, Switzerlandwolf-gibson-coling2004"Rhetorical Structure Theory Wolf, Florian  2004F?Coherence in Natural Language: Data Structures and Applicationsh0*Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences  Cambridge, MA MITPh.D. dissertation wolf-diss2004,%coherence Rhetorical Structure Theoryo"Wolf, Florian Gibson, Edward 2005@9Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based analysis Computational Linguistics312e249-287wolf-gibson-cl2005,%Rhetorical Structure Theory coherenceThis article aims to present a set of discourse structure relations that are easy to code and to develop criteria for an appropriate data structure for representing these relations. Discourse structure here refers to informational relations that hold between sentences in a discourse. The set of discourse relations introduced here is based on Hobbs (1985). We present a method for annotating discourse coherence structures that we used to manually annotate a database of 135 texts from theWall Street Journal and the AP Newswire. All texts were independently annotated by two annotators. Kappa values of greater than 0.8 indicated good interannotator agreement. We furthermore present evidence that trees are not a descriptively adequate data structure for representing discourse structure: In coherence structures of naturally occurring texts, we found many different kinds of crossed dependencies, as well as many nodes with multiple parents. The claims are supported by statistical results from our hand-annotated database of 135 texts. @9Wolf, Florian Gibson, Edward Fisher, Amy Knight, Meredithh 2005&Discourse GraphBank, LDC2005T08\  Philadelphia Linguistic Data Consortium LDC2005T08 Corpuswolf-etal-corpus20054-Rhetorical Structure Theory coherence corporar"Wolf, Florian Gibson, Edward 2006F?Coherence in Natural Language: Data Structures and Applicationsg  Cambridge, MA\  MIT Pressrwolf-gibson-book-2006f,%coherence Rhetorical Structure Theory ,dKU@I5(a`4mn82Andriessen, Jerry de Smedt, Koenraad Zock, Michael 1996>8Discourse Planning: Experimental and modeling approaches & Dijkstra, Ton de Smedt, KoenraadZSComputational Psycholinguistics: Symbolic and Network Models of Language Processing London Taylor and Francis247-278andriessen-etal96"Rhetorical Structure TheoryurlAndroutsopoulos, I. Spiliotopoulos, D. Stamatakis, K. Dimitromanolaki, A. Karkaletsis, V. Spyropoulos, C. D. 2002F?Symbolic authoring for multilingual natural language generationC:3Methods and Applications of Artificial Intelligencep 2308131-142i.(Lecture Notes in Artificial IntelligenceISI:000181051700013dandroutsopoulos-etal2002"Rhetorical Structure TheoryWe describe the symbolic authoring facilities of the M-PIRO project. M-PIRO is developing technology that allows personalized multilingual object descriptions, in both textual and spoken form, to be produced from symbolic information in a database and small fragments of text. The technology is being tested in the context of electronic museums, where a prototype that produces dynamically multilingual exhibit descriptions for presentations over the web has already been developed. This paper focuses on M-PIRO's authoring subsystem, which allows domain experts with no language technology expertise to configure the system for new applications. The authoring facilities allow the experts to define or modify the structure of the underlying database, its contents, and the system's domain-dependent linguistic resources. Previews of the generated texts can also be produced during the authoring process to monitor the content and quality of the resulting descriptions.$://000181051700013"Antonio, Juliano Desideratoo 2001pjA estrutura retorica de textos orais e de textos escritos (Rhetorical structure of oral and written texts)Acta Scientiarum231R 19-25t 200209071  antonio2001\,&Rhetorical Structure Theory PortugueseThe goal of this paper is to show that there is an analogy between clause combining in grammar & the rhetorical organization of texts. The analysis of oral & written texts reinforces the hypothesis that the hypotactic & paratactical structures in grammar reflect the grammaticalization of the rhetorical structure of texts. 7 Tables, 4 Figures, 3 Diagrams, 1 Appendix, 15 References. Adapted from the source document"Antonio, Juliano Desideratod 2004Estrutura retrica e articulao de oraes em narrativas orais e em narrativas escritas do portugus (Rhetorical structure and clause combining in oral narratives and written narratives in Brazilian Portuguese)s Araraquara, Brazil UNESPwPh.D. dissertationantonio-thesis200460Rhetorical Structure Theory Brazilian Portuguese Arens, Yigal 1992HAMultimedia Presentation Planning as an Extension of Text Planningt.(Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5870278-280lISI:A1992KV18000021arens92"Rhetorical Structure Theory$://A1992KV18000021 Arens, Yigal Hovy, Eduardm 1995@:The Design of a Model-Based Multimedia Interaction Manager$Artificial Intelligence Review9 2-3167-188 JunISI:A1995RW21900009 arens-hovy95"Rhetorical Structure TheoryvoWe describe here the conceptual design of Cicero, an application-independent human-computer interaction manager that performs run-time media coordination and allocation, so as to adapt dynamically to the presentation context; knows what it is presenting, so as to maintain coherent extended human-machine dialogues; and is plug-in compatible with host information resources such as ''briefing associate'' workstations, expert systems, databases, etc., as well as with multiple media such as natural language, graphics, etc. The system design calls for two linked reactive planners that coordinate the actions of the system's media and information sources. To enable presentational flexibility, the capabilities of each medium and the nature of the contents of each information source are semantically modeled as Virtual Devices - abstract descriptions of device I/O capabilities - and abstract information types respectively in a single uniform knowledge representation framework. These models facilitate extensibility by supporting the specification of new interaction behaviors and the inclusion of new media and information sources.p$://A1995RW21900009e.(Argamon, Shlomo Dodick, Jeff Chase, Paul 2008jdLanguage use reflects scientific methodology: A corpus-based study of peer-reviewed journal articlesScientometrics752203-238v MayISI:000255094900002vargamon-etal2008"Rhetorical Structure TheoryRecently, philosophers of science have argued that the epistemological requirements of different scientific fields lead necessarily to differences in scientific method. In this paper, we examine possible variation in how language is used in peer-reviewed journal articles from various fields to see if features of such variation may help to elucidate and support claims of methodological variation among the sciences. We hypothesize that significant methodological differences will be reflected in related differences in scientists' language style. This paper reports a corpus-based study of peer-reviewed articles from twelve separate journals in six fields of experimental and historical sciences. Machine learning methods were applied to compare the discourse styles of articles in different fields, based on easily-extracted linguistic features of the text. Features included function word frequencies, as used often in computational stylistics, as well as lexical features based on systemic functional linguistics, which affords rich resources for comparative textual analysis. We found that indeed the style of writing in the historical sciences is readily distinguishable from that of the experimental sciences. Furthermore, the most significant linguistic features of these distinctive styles are directly related to the methodological differences posited by philosophers of science between historical and experimental sciences, lending empirical weight to their contentions.G$://000255094900002rAsher, Nicholasr 19930*Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse  Dordrechtu Kluwerasher93r4.Reference Discourse Representation Theory SDRT& Asher, Nicholas Lascarides, Alex 1994.'Intentions and information in discoursel Pustejovsky, James\UProceedings of 32nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'94)l Las Cruces, New Mexico 34-41asher-lascarides94Relations SDRTExtends the argument from (Moore & Pollack 1992), seeking a way of representing intentional and informational structure simultaneously. This is accomplished through SDRT, and a formal methodology of discourse relation inference..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P94-1006& Asher, Nicholas Lascarides, Alex 2003Logics of Conversation  Cambridge Cambridge University Press asher-lascarides-book2003sSDRT Conversationr2+Asher, Nicholas Prvot, Laurent Vieu, Laurem 2007*#Setting the background in discoursenDiscours1axq[Online], Put online on 03 April 2008. URL : http://discours.revues.org//index301.html. Consulted on 08 May 2008.<asher-etal20070*Rhetorical Structure Theory SDRT Citations*$Citation of Taboada and Mann, part 1[f 7B6c& Beveridge, Martin Milward, David 2003RKCombining task descriptions and ontological knowledge for adaptive dialogued,&Text, Speech and Dialogue, Proceedings 2807341-3487.(Lecture Notes in Artificial IntelligenceISI:000186386400048beveridge-milward2003"Rhetorical Structure TheoryThis paper investigates the use. of abstract task specifications for dialogue management in the medical domain. In most current dialogue systems, possible interactions with the system are hand-coded in the design. This is an expensive process, especially for complex dialogues. This paper motivates the use of a task description language for building flexible and adaptive dialogue systems in ontologically rich domains such as medicine. It describes the components of a task specification, and proposes an architecture for dialogue systems which al-lows integration of domain reasoning and dialogue. A high-level dialogue specification is used to support multimodal input and output, including generation of HTML pages, and generation of fragments of VoiceXML for spoken in-teraction.$://000186386400048g"Beveridge, Michael Fox, John 2006PIAutomatic generation of spoken dialogue from medical plans and ontologies(!Journal of Biomedical Informaticsl395t482-499 OctISI:000241483100003beveridge-fox2006"Rhetorical Structure TheoryzsThis paper presents some research undertaken as part of the EU-funded HOMEY project, into the application of intelligent dialogue systems to healthcare systems. The work presented here concentrates on the ways in which knowledge of underlying task structure (e.g., a medical guideline) can be combined with ontological knowledge (e.g., medical semantic dictionaries) to provide a basis for the automatic generation of flexible and re-configurable dialogue. This approach is next evaluated via a specific application that provides decision support to general practitioners to help determine whether or not a patient should be referred to a cancer specialist. The competence of the resulting dialogue application, its speech recognition performance, and dialogue performance are all evaluated to determine the applicability of this approach. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.$://000241483100003 Bille, Philip 2005:3A survey on tree edit distance and related problemsh"Theoretical Computer Science 337 1-3 217-2390 bille2005a(!Rhetorical Structure Theory TreesOBinnick, Roberti 2009B;Altaic hypotaxis and the expression of rhetorical relationss,%Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 34 binnick2009s,%Rhetorical Structure Theory Citations Citation of: JofPrags 2006Blakemore, Diane 2007VPOr'-parentheticals, 'that is'-parentheticals and the pragmatics of reformulationJournal of Linguistics432o311-339\ JulbISI:000248324000002 blakemore2007"Rhetorical Structure Theory The classification of that is, or (in other words), and or rather as reformulation markers would seem to suggest that the utterances they introduce achieve relevance in the same way. However, the examination of a range of discrepancies between reformulations introduced by or, on the one hand, and reformulations introduced by that is, on the other, suggests that any account of the pragmatics of reformulation must be a non-unitary one. In this paper, I build on Burton-Roberts' (1993) suggestion that the reformulations introduced by or are meta-linguistic in character, and show how these can be distinguished from the reformulations introduced by that is, which must be analysed at the level of conceptual representation. I also show how this distinction corresponds to a distinction between the different ways in which a parenthetical construction may be pragmatically integrated with its host. As Potts (2005) would predict, parenthetical that is-reformulations are not themselves part of the truth-conditional content of their hosts. However, in contrast with or-reformulations, they communicate information about the propositional content of their hosts, and in this way can contribute to the identification of their truth-conditional content at the level of pragmatic interpretation.$://000248324000002iBlhdorn, Hardarik 2007piSubordination and coordination in syntax, semantics and discourse: Evidence from the study of connectiveso .'Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine Ramm, WiebkeeB;'Subordination' versus 'Coordination' in Sentence and Text. Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins to appear bluhdorn2007@9Rhetorical Structure Theory Coherence relations Citationst6/Citation of Taboada and Mann, 'Looking back...'Bocaniala, Cosmin Danutd 2000B://000071215400004\VCassell, Justine Nakano, Yukiko Bickmore, Timothy W. Sidner, Candace L. Rich, Charles 2001.'Non-verbal cues for discourse structurelVPProceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Toulouse, France 17-19 cassell-etal2001JDRhetorical Structure Theory Gesture Discourse structure ConversationCawsey, Alison 1990& Generating explanatory discourse 0)Dale, Robert Mellish, Chris Zock, Michaelc6/Current Research in Natural Language Generation1 London Academic Press 75-101cawsey90,&Rhetorical Structure Theory GenerationPresents a system for the generation of interactive explanatory dialogue (human-computer) as opposed to simple text. Integrates theories of text structure, dialogue structure, and user modelling.Cawsey, Alison 1991>7Using plausible inference rules in description planningvpProceedings of 5th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL'91) Berlin, Germany119-124cawsey91,&Rhetorical Structure Theory GenerationPresents a generation system that attempts to account for the inferences made by readers as they move through the text, reducing reduntant pieces of text. Also makes assumptions on the reader's prior knowledge..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/E91-1021 f9h~itf8>bCawsey, Alison 1995ngParticipating in Explanatory Dialogues - Interpreting and Responding to Questions in Context - Moore,Jd; Computational Linguisticsa213i422-424X Sep ISI:A1995RX88100007cawsey95B://A1995RX88100007s6/Chafai, N. E. Pelachaud, C. Pele, D. Breton, G.r 2006<6Gesture expressivity modulations in an ECA application.'Intelligent Virtual Agents, Proceedings{ 4133181-192.(Lecture Notes in Artificial IntelligenceISI:000240268400015 chafai-etal2006n"Rhetorical Structure TheoryPIn this paper, we propose a study of co-verbal gesture properties that could enhance the animation of an Embodied Conversational Agent and their communicative performances. This work is based on the analysis of gesture expressivity over time that we have study from a corpus of 2D animations. First results point out two types of modulations in gesture expressivity that are evaluated on their communicative performances. A model of these modulations is proposed. $://000240268400015sChafe, Wallace 19966/Beyond beads on a string and branches on a treef Goldberg, Adele E.2,Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language  Stanford, CA CSLI 49-65 chafe-rst96"Rhetorical Structure TheoryChafe, Wallace 20022,Searching for meaning in language - A memoir"Historiographia Linguisticat29 1-2m245-261-ISI:000177833700017} chafe2002}"Rhetorical Structure Theory$://000177833700017B;Samuel W. K. Chan Tom B. Y. Lai W. J. Gao Benjamin K. T'sou 2000@:Mining discourse markers for Chinese textual summarizationLFProceedings of the NAACL-ANLP Workshop on Automatic Text Summarization  Seattle, WA 11-20 chan-etal20000haRhetorical Structure Theory Computational Linguistics Discourse parsing Chinese Discourse MarkersChan, S. W. K. 2000jdUsing heterogeneous linguistic knowledge in local coherence identification for information retrieval$Journal of Information Science265a313-328ISI:000167187300004uchan2000"Rhetorical Structure TheorynhThis paper proposes a novel approach to automatic text segmentation without a full semantic understanding. in order to analyse the linguistic bonds and determine the degree of coherence that a text may exhibit, the tremendous diversity of textual relations in a discourse network is represented. A corpus of mutual linguistic knowledge that captures the similarity of meaning and causal relations is encoded in the discourse network, which is then subjected to a cluster algorithm. As a result, segments in the text are segregated into clusters according to their textual similarity. Topic boundaries in a text can be identified by observing the shifts of segments from one cluster to another. The experimental results show that the combination of the heterogeneous knowledge is capable of addressing the topic shifts. Comparison with a related method demonstrates that the algorithm is closely related to the topic boundaries. Given the increasing recognition of text structure in the fields of information retrieval in unpartitioned text, this approach provides a quantitative model and an efficient tool in text segmentation.$://000167187300004dChan, S. W. K. 2004NHAutomatic discourse structure detection using shallow textual continuity6/International Journal of Human-Computer Studieso611d138-1645 JuleISI:000222285500006achan2004"Rhetorical Structure TheoryD=A shallow natural language processing approach to discourse structure detection based on the analysis of textual continuity is described. What distinguishes it from previous research is that it does not work toward on the discovery of the formal subtopic structures. In contrast, attention is focused in uncovering the main factors in textual continuity and simulating a dynamic detection mechanism of cohesive sentence-based fragments. A connectionist filtering algorithm is used to capture the textual continuity as one of the structural backbone of text. As a result, the content conveyed by text with discontinuous topic sequence is, on average, most unlikely to be included in the resultant discourse structure. A prototype and its evaluation with various statistics are included. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.$://000222285500006Chan, S. W. K. 2006piBeyond keyword and cue-phrase matching: A sentence-based abstraction technique for information extractionuDecision Support Systems422f759-777 NovISI:000242209700018chan2006"Rhetorical Structure TheoryoWith the explosion in the quantity of on-line text and multimedia information in recent years, there has been a renewed interest in the automated extraction of knowledge and information in various disciplines. In this paper, we provide a novel quantitative model for the creation of a summary by extracting a set of sentences that represent the most salient content of a text. The model is based on a shallow linguistic extraction technique. What distinguishes it from previous research is that it does not work on the detection of specific keywords or cue-phrases to evaluate the relevance of the sentence concerned. Instead, the attention is focused on the identification of the main factors in the textual continuity. Simulation experiments suggest that this technique is useful because it moves away from a purely keyword-based method of textual information extraction and its associated limitations. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.$://000242209700018 Cheng, Hua 2000RKExperimenting with the interaction between aggregation and text structuringa>8Proceedings of ANLP-NAACL 2000 Student Research Workshop Seattle, WashingtonH 1-6 cheng200060Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation RelationsnhPaper focuses on the interaction between embedding and the planning of local coherence. RST comes in with the coherence side; two new joint-like paratactic relations are posited: disjunct and conjunct. Human and algorithm generated texts featuring embedding of the paratactic relations are then rated, with some of the algorithm-generated samples scoring well. t|s(p H0rklqbpN Dale, Robert 19914.The role of punctuation in discourse structurepjProceedings of AAAI Fall Symposium on Discourse Structure in Natural Language Understanding and Generation  Asilomar, CA 13-14 dale91*#Markers Rhetorical Structure TheorynArgues that sub-sentential discourse structure is indeed possible, and is the domain of punctuation as a discourse marker. Shows that punctuation marks can replace traditional discourse cues in the right environment.ZThttp://www.mri.mq.edu.au/~rdale/publications/papers/1991/aaai-fall-symposium1991.pdf @9Dale, Robert Hovy, Eduard Rsner, Dietmar Stock, Olivieron 199260Aspects of Automated Natural Language Generation Berlin Springer dale-etal92l>7Natural Language Generation Rhetorical Structure TheoryeHADale, Robert Oberlander, Jon Milosavljevic, Maria Knott, Alistairn 1998XRIntegrating Natural Language Generation and Hypertext to produce dynamic documents Interacting with Computers112109-135 dale-etal9890*Hypertext ILEX Rhetorical Structure TheoryIntroduces the concepts of hypertext and NLG, culminating in their merging into Dynamic Hypertext. Goes on to discuss ILEX, and PEBA-II, an interactive encyclopedia project.81http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/dale98integrating.html Dalianis, H. 1992ZSA Method for Validating a Conceptual-Model by Natural-Language Discourse Generation(!Lecture Notes in Computer Science 593425-444ISI:A1992LF68100026{ dalianis92"Rhetorical Structure TheoryenhThe support systems for conceptual modeling of today lack natural language feedback. The paper argues for the need of natural language discourse for the validation of a conceptual model. Based on this conclusion a suggestion is made on a natural language discourse generation system as a validation tool and also as a support tool in simulating a conceptual model. Various appropriate natural language discourses are then proposed in the paper. To conclude the paper a support system based on the natural language generation techniques of today and on previous working systems constructed by the author is suggested.$://A1992LF68100026 Dalianis, H. 19990*Aggregation in natural language generation Computational Intelligence154384-414{ NovlISI:000083780200003n dalianis99"Rhetorical Structure Theory} The content of real-world databases, knowledge bases, database models, and formal specifications is often highly redundant and needs to be aggregated before these representations can be successfully paraphrased into natural language. To generate natural language from these representations, a number of processes must be carried out, one of which is sentence planning where the task of aggregation is carried out. Aggregation, which has been called ellipsis or coordination in Linguistics, is the process that removes redundancies during generation of a natural language discourse, without losing any information. The article describes a set of corpus studies that focus on aggregation, provides a set of aggregation rules, and finally, shows how these rules are implemented in a couple of prototype systems. We develop further the concept of aggregation and discuss it in connection with the growing literature on the subject. This work offers a new tool for the sentence planning phase of natural language generation systems.h$://000083780200003r$Danlos, Laurence Lapalme, Guyt 1999PJWhat is a rhetorical relation? An experiment combining two text generators "Mellish, Chris Scott, DoniappiProceedings of AISB Workshop on Reference Architecture and Data Standards for Natural Language ProcessingE  Edinburgh, UKF 1-7danlos-lapalme9960Rhetorical Structure Theory Generation RelationsZTArgues for the need for a more precise definition of relations. Not only specific relation definitions, but also a more concrete definition of what a relation is, and how it can impact upon the generation process. The paper provides no solid answers, which the authors claim to be support for their claim that relations are fuzzily defined.82http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/danlos99experiment.htmlDanlos, Laurence 2006XQCapacit gnrative forte de RST, SDRT et des DAG de dpendances pour le discours5("Traitement Automatique des Langues472\169-198f danlos20060*Rhetorical Structure Theory SDRT Citations0)Citation of Taboada and Mann, both papersDanlos, Laurence 2007HBD-STAG: un formalisme pour le discours bas sur les TAG synchronesHAProceedings of Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles 2007C Toulousse, France389-398 danlos20070*Rhetorical Structure Theory SDRT Citations0)Citation of Taboada and Mann, first paperDanlos, Laurence 2007:3D-STAG: A discourse formalism using synchronous TAGL 60Aunargue, Mixel Korta, Kepa Larrazabal, Jess M.,&Language, Representation and Reasoning  Bilbao, Spain~ ,&University of the Basque Country Pressdanlos-upv20074-SDRT TAG D-LTAG Coherence relations Citationsa*$Citation to Taboada and Mann, part 1Daradoumis, Thanasis 1996TMTowards a representation of the rhetorical structure of interrupted exchanges $Adorni, Giovanni Zock, MichaelTMTrends in Natural Language Generation: An Artificial Intelligence Perspective} Berlin Springer106-124 daradoumis.'Rhetorical Structure Theory DerivationseA model of dynamic phenomena in dialogue, which marries RST with exchange models of dialogue (Berry, Jim Martin (1992)). The resulting model is called Dialogic Rhetorical Structure Theory (DRST). In this paper, the model is applied to modelling interruptions in tutorial dialogues. (Interruption: a move that does not comply with the intention of the previous move). Interesting approach, merits attention, but it might be RST-inspired rather than RST-based.Dargnat, Mathildee 200860Constructionnalit des parataxes conditionnelles 2,Durand, Jacques Habert, Benot Laks, Bernard:3Congrs Mondial de Linguistique Franaise - CMLF'08 Paris ("Institut de Linguistique Franaise dargnat20086/Parataxis Rhetorical Structure Theory Citations:4Citation of Taboada and Mann 2006, part 1 and part 2$Daum, Hal, III Marcu, Daniel 20024.A noisy-channel model for document compressionb\Proceedings of 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'02) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania449-456adaume-marcu2002E0)Summarization Rhetorical Structure Theorys`ZAnother avenue towards summarisation based upon the LDC corpus. Again, spends more time on the algorithm than RST. One interesting thing to note though is that syntactic structure is now on par with discourse structure in terms of document compression. This paper also introduces a DS-Tree which merges the two structures into one representation..(http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P02-1057 sT'rqrTppElhadad, Michael 1995,&Using argumentation in text generationJournal of Pragmaticsu24189-220o elhadad95>7Rhetorical Structure Theory Natural Language Generation Elson, D. K. 2004^WCategorization of narrative semantics for use in generative multidocument summarizationS.(Natural Language Generation: Proceedings 3123192-197.(Lecture Notes in Artificial IntelligenceISI:000222627300020g elson2004"Rhetorical Structure TheoryZSThe generative summarization of textual stories has been one of the goals of computational narratology since attempts at full semantic NLU in the '70s. Our NLP group has recently created several systems for multidocument news summarization, but using purely statistical methods. Between these poles, there may be an unexplored avenue where knowledge of story structure can give partial, yet useful semantic understanding to a news reader. Such knowledge can then lead to summaries more informed than those based on solely statistical means. This student paper represents work in progress on a two-module system: The first module categorizes news articles into their underlying dramatic structures; the second will attempt to use this understanding to create and execute a generative plan, concisely retelling the story to form a surface-level summary.p$://000222627300020tEndres-Niggemeyer, B. 1994VPSummarizing Text for Intelligent Communication - Results of the Dagstuhl SeminarKnowledge Organization214213-223ISI:A1994QA82800005endres-niggemeyer94"Rhetorical Structure Theoryt"As a result of the transition to full-text storage, multimedia and networking, information systems are becoming more efficient but at the same time more difficult to use in particular because users are confronted with information volumes that increasingly exceed individual processing capacities. Consequently, there is an increase in the demand for user aids such as summarising techniques. Against this background, the interdisciplinary Dagstuhl Seminar Summarising Text for Intelligent Communication, (Dec. 1993) outlined the academic state of the art with regard to summarising (abstracting) and proposed future directions for research and system development. Research is currently shifting its attention from text summarising to summarising states of affairs. Recycling solutions are put forward in order to satisfy short-term needs for summarisation products. In the medium and long term, it is necessary to devise concepts and methods of intelligent summarising which have a better formal and empirical grounding and a more modular organisation.$://A1994QA82800005iEndres-Niggemeyer, B.  2000>8SimSum: an empirically founded simulation of summarizing,%Information Processing and Managementn364c659-682; JulkISI:000086838600008endres-niggemeyer2000"Rhetorical Structure TheorySimSum (Simulation of Summarizing) simulates 20 real-world working steps of expert summarizers. It presents an empirically founded cognitive model of summarizing and demonstrates that human summarization strategies can be simulated. The cognitive model operationalizes the discourse processing model developed by Kintsch and van Dijk. Knowledge engineering followed the KADS approach, empirical modeling used methods of grounded theory development. The observed strategies of expert summarizers have given rise to cooperating object-oriented agents communicating through dedicated blackboards. Each agent is implemented as a CLOS object with an assigned actor at the multimedia user interface. The interface is realized with Macromedia Director. Communication between CLOS and Macromedia Director is mediated by Apple Events. According to the first evaluation results in an educational environment, SimSum transmits summarization know-how effectively. It is, however, not designed as a tutorial system and serves active and curious users best. We are starting its expansion to summarizing in the WWW. (C) 2000 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.$://000086838600008 2,Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine Behrens, Bergljot 2001ZSElaboration and related discourse relations viewed from an interlingual perspective1 University of Oslo\,Reports of the project Languages in Contrast13"fabricius-hansen-behrens2010<6Coherence relations Discourse Markers Norwegian GermanFavero, E. L. Robin, J. 2001TNUsing OLAP and data mining for content planning in natural language generation:3Natural Language Processing and Information Systems{ 1959164-175(!Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceISI:000174117800014favero-robin2001"Rhetorical Structure Theory.We present a new approach to content determination and discourse organization in Natural Language Generation (NLG). This approach relies on two decision-support oriented database technologies, OLAP and data mining, and it can be used for any NLG application involving the textual summarization of quantitative data. It improves on previous approaches to content planning for NLG in quantitative domains by providing: (1) application domain independence, (2) efficient, variable granularity insight search in high dimensionality data spaces, (3) automatic discovery of surprising, counter-intuitive data, and (4) tailoring of output text organization towards different, declaratively specified, analytical perspectives on the input data.$://000174117800014 >7Fawcett, Robin P. van der Mije, Anita van Wissen, Carlaa 1988@:Towards a systemic flowchart model for discourse structure &Fawcett, Robin P Young, David JRKNew Developments in Systemic Linguistics. Volume 2: Theory and Applications London Pinter116-1431fawcett-etal8881Rhetorical Structure Theory Theoretical AlternatemA proposal for a dynamic model of exchange structure, in general terms a model for all discourse: "the present model assumes that monologue is just a special case of an extended turn in dialogue" (p. 176). It claims some similarities with RST (the quote above refers to the differences), but the only similarity is that both try to account for structure of discourse, one monologic, the other dialogic. Dialogue is modelled in flowchart relationships, which in turn contain system networks (following systemic functional grammar). Flowchart lines express syntagmatic relationships of sequence, and system networks express paradigmatic relations of choice. V. Garcea, A. Bazzanella, C.  1999`ZTextual links and the functions of discourse particles in Aulus Gellius's 'Noctes atticae'Lingua E Stile343l403-430r SepISI:000083191100005{garcea-bazzanella99(!Rhetorical Structure Theory LatinNHA prototype taxonomic model will be applied to Aulus Gellius' Noctes Atticae, a miscellaneous work of the 2nd century, in order to analyze more effectively the specific features of a polymorphic text which is not adequately covered by traditional classifications. Gellius' relationship with his sources is in fact dynamic, based not on mimetic intentions but on a blend of different kinds of report and on different text parts, namely incipit, quotation, commentary, narration, and dialogue. The close relationship between text types and linguistic devices is investigated as a recursive feature, by focusing on discourse particles, which both indicate the interactional development and impose an internal textual hierarchy. Nam and sed perform a significant function in the commentaries and in several short chapters of Noctes Atticae, and in this function they cannot be replaced by other coniunctiones which belong to the same class in the normative Latin grammars (respectively, nam and enim to the causal, and at, autem, sed to the adversative). Discourse particles seem to reflect the nature of the text: while in the narrative structure discourse particles do not occur, in the incipit and quotations metatextual discourse particles prevail; in commentaries and dialogues interactional discourse particles signal both agreement and disagreement.$://000083191100005Garrido Medina, Joaqund 2005yLa persuasin en las cartas al director: Estructura de discurso, proceso de resumen y evaluacin de estructuras retricasa$Llengua Societat i Comunicaci3{ 31-46{ garrido2005,%Citations Rhetorical Structure TheorycPara explicar cmo ocurre la persuasin se pueden observar las relaciones entre unas oraciones y otras en los textos. Estas relaciones son retricas en el sentido de que proporcionan pruebas que hacen ms creble lo que se afirma, dan informacin adicional para que se entienda mejor, etc. Los ejemplos de persuasin que se analizan son dos cartas al director que tratan de temas lingsticos, una de la necesidad de correctores y otra del gasto de traducir de unas lenguas a otras en las instituciones europeas. La estructura de discurso que construyen estas relaciones permite distinguir la informacin ms importante, y por tanto permite resumir, y hace posible evaluar la persuasin segn las estrategias de sancin, emocin o razn.tCitation of bookGawryjolek, Jakub J. 2009B