TAILIEUCHUNG - Báo cáo khoa học: "Discourse Relations: A Structural and Presuppositional Account Using Lexicalised TAG*"

We show that discourse structure need not bear the full burden of conveying discourse relations by showing that many of them can be explained nonstructurally in terms of the grounding of anaphoric presuppositions (Van der Sandt, 1992). This simplifies discourse structure, while still allowing the realisation of a full range of discourse relations. This is achieved using the same semantic machinery used in deriving clause-level semantics. | Discourse Relations A Structural and Presuppositional Account Using Lexicalised TAG Bonnie Webber Univ of Edinburgh bonnie@ Alistair Knott Univ of Otago alik@ Matthew Stone Rutgers Univ mdstone @ cs .rut gers. edu Aravind Joshi Univ of Pennsylvania joshi@ Abstract We show that discourse structure need not bear the full burden of conveying discourse relations by showing that many of them can be explained non-structurally in terms of the grounding of anaphoric presuppositions Van der Sandt 1992 . This simplifies discourse structure while still allowing the realisation of a full range of discourse relations. This is achieved using the same semantic machinery used in deriving clause-level semantics. 1 Introduction Research on discourse structure has by and large attempted to associate all meaningful relations between propositions with structural connections between discourse clauses syntactic clauses or structures composed of them . Recognising that this could mean multiple structural connections between clauses Rhetorical Structure Theory Mann and Thompson 1988 simply stipulates that only a single relation may hold. Moore and Pollack 1992 argue that both informational semantic and intentional relations can hold between clauses simultaneously and independently. This suggests that factoring the two kinds of relations might lead to a pair of structures each still with no more than a single structural connection between any two clauses. But examples of multiple semantic relations are easy to find Webber et al. 1999 . Having structure account for all of them leads to the complexities shown in Figure 1 including the crossing dependencies shown in Fig. 1c. These structures are no longer trees making it difficult to define a compositional semantics. This problem would not arise if one recognised additional non-structural means of conveying semantic relations between propositions and modal Our thanks to Mark Steedman Katja Markert Gann .

• Báo cáo khoa học
• Discourse Relations A Structural
• Presuppositional Account
• Lexicalised TAG
• báo cáo khoa học
• mô hình ngôn ngữ
• xử lý ngôn ngữ tự nhiên
• Repressed Discourse
• Economic Environment
• Structural Adjustment
• Feminist Analysis
• Family Relations
• Income Distribution
• Bài giảng Xử lý ngôn ngữ tự nhiên
• Ngôn ngữ tự nhiên
• Kỹ thuật lập trình
• Xử lý nhập nhằng ngữ nghĩa
• Xử lý ngữ nghĩa
• Xử lý ngôn ngữ
• Natural Language Processing
• Ngôn ngữ lập trình
• Nhập nhằng cấu trúc
• Tri thức về ngôn ngữ
• Mô hình n gram
• Dịch máy
• Phương pháp dịch máy
• Hiểu ngôn ngữ
• Phân tích ngữ nghĩa
• Phân loại tin tự động
• Biểu diễn vị từ
• Thuộc tính về sự kiện
• Thuộc tính về sự kiện
• Mô hình ngôn ngữ Google Book N grams
• Mô hình ngôn ngữ KenLM
• Phương pháp làm mịn
• Tách từ tiếng Việt
• Gán nhãn từ loại
• Phân tích cú pháp
• Nghĩa từ vựng
• Phân giải nhập nhằng từ
• Phân loại văn bản
• Lexical chain
• Phản hồi thông tin
• Bài toán PTCP
• Cấu trúc ngữ pháp
• Phân tích cú pháp xác suất
• CKY kết hợp xác suất
• Văn phạm phi ngữ cảnh xác suất
• Hình thái học