Informatics and Applications
2021, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 27-32
STRUCTURED DEFINITIONS OF DISCOURSE RELATIONS IN THE SUPRACORPORA DATABASE OF CONNECTIVES
- O. Yu. Inkova
- M. G. Kruzhkov
Abstract
The paper presents initial outcomes resulting from development of structured definitions of discourse relations based on novel classification principles and describes how these definitions are captured in the Supracorpora Database of Connectives (SCDB). The authors provide an overview of existing approaches to definition of discourse relations and propose novel principles for capturing structured definitions of discourse relations in the SCDB based on several aspects which include (i) the basic semantic operation that the logical-semantic relation (LSR) is based on: implication, relative timeline positioning, comparison, and correlationbetween general and specific, between an element and a set; (ii) the linguistic level that the LSR is established on: propositional level, utterance (illocutionary) level, and metalinguistic level; (iii) thepolarity, i. e., whetherthe LSRis established directly between the provisions p and q featuring in the text or whether their negative correlates should also be considered in the relation interpretation; and (iv) the semantic and pragmatic features of the context. The paper provides some examples of such structured definitions. The structured definitions are captured within the SCDB by a set of interrelated tables. In addition, the "Family" table is introduced to offer information about conceptual closeness of some sets of classification features.
The proposed structure allows researchers to access similarities and distinctions between various LSRs - as of today, this functionality is not implemented in any of the existing corpora that include annotation of discourse relations.
[+] References (16)
- Hobbs, J. R. 1976. A computational approach to discourse analyses. New York, NY: Department of Computer Science, City College, City University of New York. Research Report 76-2. 28-38.
- Hobbs, J. R. 1978. Why is discourse coherent? Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. SRI Technical Note 176. 44 p.
- Hobbs, J. R. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Sci. 3(1):67-90.
- Mann, W. C., and S. A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Towards a functional theory of text organiza-tion. Text 8(3):243-281.
- Knott, A., and R. Dale. 1994. Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Process. 18(1):35-62.
- Goncharov, A. A. 2021. Klassifikatsii vnutritekstovykh otnosheniy: Osnovaniya i printsipy strukturirovaniya [Classification of intratextual relations: Bases and structural principles]. Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Topics in the Study of Language] 3:97-119.
- Webber, B., R. Prasad, A. Lee, and A. Joshi. 2019. The Penn Discourse Treebank 3.0 Annotation Manual. Available at: https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/docs/ LDC2019T05/PDTB3-Annotation-Manual.pdf (accessed October 29, 2021).
- PDTB Research Group. 2008. The Penn Discourse Tree- bank 2.0 Annotation Manual. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania. Technical Report IRCS-08-01. 99 p. Available at: https: //www.seas.upenn.edu/~pdtb/PDTBAPI/pdtb- annotation-manual.pdf (accessed October 29, 2021).
- Inkova, O. Yu. 2021. Opredeleniya diskursivnykh otnosheniy: opyt Nadkorpusnoy bazy dannykh konnektorov [Definition of discourse relations: The case of the Supracorpora Database of Connectives]. Komp'yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual'nye tekhnologii:po mat-lam Mezh- dunar. konf. "Dialog" [Computational Linguistics and In-tellectual Technologies: Papers from the Annual Conference (International) "Dialogue"]. Moscow: RSHI. 20(27):328-338.
- Rudolph, E. 1996. Contrast: Adversative and concessive expressions on sentence and text level. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 564 p.
- Fraser, B. 2009. An account of discourse markers. International Review Pragmatics 1(2):293-320.
- Sanders, T., W. Spooren, andL. Noordman. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Process. 15(1):1-35.
- Inkova, O. Yu. 2019. Logiko-semanticheskie otnosheniya: Problemy klassifikatsii [Logical-semantic relations: Classification problems]. Svyaznost' teksta: mereologicheskie logiko-semanticheskie otnosheniya [Text coherence: Mere- ological logical semantic relations]. Moscow: LRC Publishing House. 11-98.
- Sanders T., V. Demberg, J. Hoek, M. Scholman, F T. Asr,
S. Zufferey, and J. Evers- Vermeul. 2021. Unifying dimensions in coherence relations: How various annotation frameworks are related. Corpus Linguist. Ling. 17(1):1-71.
- In'kova, O.Yu., ed. 2018. Semantika konnektorov: Kontrastivnoe issledovanie [Semantics of connectives: Contrastive study]. Moscow: TORUS PRESS. 368 p.
- In'kova, O.Yu., ed. 2019. Struktura konnektorov i metody ee opisaniya [Structure of connectives and methods of its description]. Moscow: TORUS PRESS. 316 p.
[+] About this article
Title
STRUCTURED DEFINITIONS OF DISCOURSE RELATIONS IN THE SUPRACORPORA DATABASE OF CONNECTIVES
Journal
Informatics and Applications
2021, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 27-32
Cover Date
2021-12-30
DOI
10.14357/19922264210404
Print ISSN
1992-2264
Publisher
Institute of Informatics Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences
Additional Links
Key words
supracorpora database; logical-semantic relations; connectives; annotation; faceted classification
Authors
O. Yu. Inkova and M. G. Kruzhkov
Author Affiliations
Federal Research Center "Computer Science and Control" of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 44-2 Vavilov Str., Moscow 119333, Russian Federation
|