skip to main content
research-article

A Survey of Discourse Representations for Chinese Discourse Annotation

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 January 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A key element in computational discourse analysis is the design of a formal representation for the discourse structure of a text. With machine learning being the dominant method, it is important to identify a discourse representation that can be used to perform large-scale annotation. This survey provides a systematic analysis of existing discourse representation theories to evaluate whether they are suitable for annotation of Chinese text. Specifically, the two properties, expressiveness and practicality, are introduced to compare the representations of theories based on rhetorical relations and the representations of theories based on entity relations. The comparison systematically reveals linguistic and computational characteristics of the theories. After that, we conclude that none of the existing theories are quite suitable for scalable Chinese discourse annotation because they are not both expressive and practical. Therefore, a new discourse representation needs to be proposed, which should balance the expressiveness and practicality, and cover rhetorical relations and entity relations. Inspired by the conclusions, this survey discusses some preliminary proposals on how to represent the discourse structure that are worth pursuing.

References

  1. Stergos Afantenos, Eric Kow, Nicholas Asher, and Jérémy Perret. 2015. Discourse parsing for multi-party chat dialogues. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 928--937.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Stergos D. Afantenos and Nicholas Asher. 2010. Testing SDRT’s right frontier. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Nicholas Asher. 2012. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Vol. 50. Springer Science 8 Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Nicholas Asher, Farah Benamara, and Yvette Yannick Mathieu. 2008. Distilling opinion in discourse: A preliminary study. Coling 2008: Companion volume: Posters (2008), 7--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Parminder Bhatia, Yangfeng Ji, and Jacob Eisenstein. 2015. Better document-level sentiment analysis from RST discourse parsing. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2212--2218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Lidong Bing, Piji Li, Yi Liao, Wai Lam, Weiwei Guo, and Rebecca J. Passonneau. 2015. Abstractive multi-document summarization via phrase selection and merging. Computational Linguistics 31, 4 (2015), 505--530.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Lynn Carlson, Daniel Marcu, and Mary Ellen Okurowski. 2001. Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of rhetorical structure theory. In Proceedings of the 2nd SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue. 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Yllias Chali, Moin Tanvee, and Mir Tafseer Nayeem. 2017. Toward abstractive multi-document summarization using submodular function-based framework, sentence compression and merging. In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers). Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, 418--424.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Yuen Ren Chao. 1965. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. University of California Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen Chen and Vincent Ng. 2013. Chinese zero pronoun resolution: Some recent advances. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1360--1365.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen Chen and Vincent Ng. 2016. Chinese zero pronoun resolution with deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 778--788.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Danqi Chen, Jason Bolton, and Christopher D. Manning. 2016. A thorough examination of the cnn/daily mail reading comprehension task. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2358--2367.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jifan Chen, Qi Zhang, Pengfei Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2016. Implicit discourse relation detection via a deep architecture with gated relevance network. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, 1726--1735.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Sheng Cheng, Kong Fang, and Zhou Guodong. 2017. Towards better Chinese zero pronoun resolution from discourse perspective. In National CCF Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing. Springer, 406--418.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jose M. Chenlo, Alexander Hogenboom, and David E. Losada. 2013. Sentiment-based ranking of blog posts using rhetorical structure theory. In International Conference on Application of Natural Language to Information Systems. Springer, 13--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Chauncey C. Chu. 1993. The prototypicality of Ttpic in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 28, 1 (1993), 25--48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Cheng Hsi Chu. 1998. A Discourse Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. P. Lang.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kevin Clark and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. Entity-centric coreference resolution with model stacking. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, Vol. 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1405--1415.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Kevin Clark and Christopher D. Manning. 2016. Deep reinforcement learning for mention-ranking coreference models. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2256--2262.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Kevin Clark and Christopher D. Manning. 2016. Improving coreference resolution by learning entity-level distributed representations. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 643--653.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. E. Dane. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Laurence Danlos. 2004. Discourse dependency structures as constrained DAGs. In 5th SIGDIAL Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Laurence Danlos. 2005. Comparing RST and SDRT discourse structures through dependency graphs. Proceedings of Constraints in Discourse (2005), 53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Kees van Deemter and Rodger Kibble. 2000. On coreferring: Coreference in MUC and related annotation schemes. Computational Linguistics 26, 4 (2000), 629--637. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. George R. Doddington, Alexis Mitchell, Mark A. Przybocki, Lance A. Ramshaw, Stephanie Strassel, and Ralph M. Weischedel. 2004. The automatic content extraction (ACE) program-tasks, data, and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Angela Downing. 2001. Thematic progression as a functional resource in analysing texts. CLAC (Circulo de Lingüistica Aplicada a la Communicacion).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. David A. Duverle and Helmut Prendinger. 2009. A novel discourse parser based on support vector machine classification. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP. Association for Computational Linguistics, 665--673. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Vanessa Wei Feng and Graeme Hirst. 2012. Text-level discourse parsing with rich linguistic features. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 60--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Rafael Ferreira, Frederico Freitas, Luciano de Souza Cabral, Rafael Dueire Lins, Rinaldo Lima, Gabriel França, Steven J. Simskez, and Luciano Favaro. 2013. A four dimension graph model for automatic text summarization. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT)-Volume 01. IEEE Computer Society, 389--396. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Katherine Forbes, Eleni Miltsakaki, Rashmi Prasad, Anoop Sarkar, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber. 2003. D-LTAG system: Discourse parsing with a lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12, 3 (2003), 261--279. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Shima Gerani, Yashar Mehdad, Giuseppe Carenini, Raymond T. Ng, and Bita Nejat. 2014. Abstractive summarization of product reviews using discourse structure. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1602--1613.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Barbara J. Grosz, Scott Weinstein, and Aravind K. Joshi. 1995. Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21, 2 (1995), 203--225. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Francisco Guzmán, Shafiq Joty, Lluís Màrquez, and Preslav Nakov. 2014. Using discourse structure improves machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, 687--698.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Michael Halliday, Christian MIM Matthiessen, and Christian Matthiessen. 2014. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Bas Heerschop, Frank Goossen, Alexander Hogenboom, Flavius Frasincar, Uzay Kaymak, and Franciska de Jong. 2011. Polarity analysis of texts using discourse structure. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 1061--1070. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Hugo Hernault, Helmut Prendinger, Mitsuru Ishizuka, et al. 2010. HILDA: A discourse parser using support vector machine classification. Dialogue and Discourse 1, 3 (2010), 1--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Tsutomu Hirao, Yasuhisa Yoshida, Masaaki Nishino, Norihito Yasuda, and Masaaki Nagata. 2013. Single-document summarization as a tree knapsack problem. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1515--1520.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Lynette Hirschman. 1997. MUC-7 coreference task definition.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Eduard Hovy, Mitchell Marcus, Martha Palmer, Lance Ramshaw, and Ralph Weischedel. 2006. OntoNotes: The 90% solution. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the NAACL, Companion Volume: Short Papers. Association for Computational Linguistics, 57--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Hen-Hsen Huang, Chi-Hsin Yu, Tai-Wei Chang, Cong-Kai Lin, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2013. Analyses of the association between discourse relation and sentiment polarity with a Chinese human-annotated corpus. In Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse. Association for Computational Linguistics, 70--78.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Peter Jansen, Mihai Surdeanu, and Peter Clark. 2014. Discourse complements lexical semantics for non-factoid answer reranking. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, 977--986.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Yangfeng Ji and Jacob Eisenstein. 2014. Representation learning for text-level discourse parsing. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 13--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Yangfeng Ji and Jacob Eisenstein. 2015. One vector is not enough: Entity-augmented distributional semantics for discourse relations. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 3 (2015), 329--344.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Aravind K. Joshi and Yves Schabes. 1991. Tree-adjoining grammars and lexicalized grammars. Technical Reports (CIS) (1991), 445.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Shafiq Joty, Giuseppe Carenini, Raymond Ng, and Yashar Mehdad. 2013. Combining intra- and multi-sentential rhetorical parsing for document-level discourse analysis. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 1. 486--496.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Hans Kamp, Josef Van Genabith, and Uwe Reyle. 2011. Discourse representation theory. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Springer, 125--394.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Xiaomian Kang, Haoran Li, Long Zhou, Jiajun Zhang, and Chengqing Zong. 2016. An end-to-end Chinese discourse parser with adaptation to explicit and non-explicit relation recognition. Proceedings of the CoNLL-16 Shared Task (2016), 27--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Iskandar Keskes. 2015. Discourse Analysis of Arabic Documents and Application to Automatic Summarization. Ph.D. dissertation. Université de Toulouse, Université Toulouse III-Paul Sabatier.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Fang Kong and Hwee Tou Ng. 2013. Exploiting zero pronouns to improve Chinese coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 278--288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Fang Kong and Guodong Zhou. 2017. A CDT-styled end-to-end Chinese discourse parser. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing 16, 4 (2017), 26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Angeliki Lazaridou, Ivan Titov, and Caroline Sporleder. 2013. A Bayesian model for joint unsupervised induction of sentiment, aspect and discourse representations. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 1630--1639.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Kenton Lee, Luheng He, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. End-to-end neural coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 188--197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Charles N. Li. 1976. Subject and Topic. Academic Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Haoran Li, Jiajun Zhang, and Chengqing Zong. 2017. Implicit discourse relation recognition for English and Chinese with multiview modeling and effective representation learning. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing (TALLIP) 16, 3 (2017), 19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Jiwei Li, Rumeng Li, and Eduard Hovy. 2014. Recursive deep models for discourse parsing. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2061--2069.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Junjie Li, Yu Zhou, Chunyang Liu, and Lin Pang. 2014. Sentiment classification of Chinese contrast sentences. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing. Springer, 205--216.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Junyi Jessy Li, Marine Carpuat, and Ani Nenkova. 2014. Assessing the discourse factors that influence the quality of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers). Cambridge University Press, 283--288.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Sujian Li, Liang Wang, Ziqiang Cao, and Wenjie Li. 2014. Text-level discourse dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 25--35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Yancui Li, Fang Kong, Guodong Zhou, et al. 2014. Building Chinese discourse corpus with connective-driven dependency tree structure. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge University Press, 2105--2114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Ziheng Lin, Hwee Tou Ng, and Min-Yen Kan. 2014. A PDTB-styled end-to-end discourse parser. Natural Language Engineering 20, 2 (2014), 151--184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Ting Liu, Yiming Cui, Qingyu Yin, Weinan Zhang, Shijin Wang, and Guoping Hu. 2017. Generating and exploiting large-scale pseudo training data for zero pronoun resolution. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, 102–111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Yang Liu, Jiajun Zhang, and Chengqing Zong. 2017. Memory augmented attention model for Chinese implicit discourse relation recognition. In Chinese Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing Based on Naturally Annotated Big Data. Springer, 411--423.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Annie Louis, Aravind Joshi, and Ani Nenkova. 2010. Discourse indicators for content selection in summarization. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. Association for Computational Linguistics, 147--156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Ngoc Quang Luong and Andrei Popescu-Belis. 2016. Improving pronoun translation by modeling coreference uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Machine Translation: Volume 1, Research Papers. Association for Computational Linguistics, 12--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8, 3 (1988), 243--281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Daniel Marcu. 1997. From discourse structures to text summaries. Intelligent Scalable Text SummarizationGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Thomas Meyer. 2011. Disambiguating temporal-contrastive discourse connectives for machine translation. In Proceedings of the ACL 2011 Student Session. Cambridge University Press, 46--51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Amit Mishra and Sanjay Kumar Jain. 2014. An approach for computing sentiment polarity analysis of complex why-type questions on product review sites. Research in Computing Science 84 (2014), 65--76.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Subhabrata Mukherjee and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2012. Sentiment analysis in Twitter with lightweight discourse analysis. Proceedings of COLING 2012 (2012), 1847--1864.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Philippe Muller, Stergos Afantenos, Pascal Denis, and Nicholas Asher. 2012. Constrained decoding for text-level discourse parsing. Proceedings of COLING 2012 (2012), 1883--1900.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Karthik Narasimhan and Regina Barzilay. 2015. Machine comprehension with discourse relations. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, Vol. 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1253--1262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Vincent Ng. 2017. Machine learning for entity coreference resolution: A retrospective look at two decades of research. In AAAI. 4877--4884. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Nicolas Nicolov, Franco Salvetti, and Steliana Ivanova. 2008. Sentiment analysis: Does coreference matter. In AISB 2008 Convention Communication, Interaction and Social Intelligence, Vol. 1. 37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Stephan Oepen, Jonathon Read, Tatjana Scheffler, Uladzimir Sidarenka, Manfred Stede, Erik Velldal, and Lilja Øvrelid. 2016. OPT: Oslo--Potsdam--Teesside. Pipelining rules, rankers, and classifier ensembles for shallow discourse parsing. Proceedings of the CoNLL-16 shared task (2016), 20--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Emily Pitler, Annie Louis, and Ani Nenkova. 2010. Automatic evaluation of linguistic quality in multi-document summarization. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 544--554. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Sameer Pradhan, Alessandro Moschitti, Nianwen Xue, Olga Uryupina, and Yuchen Zhang. 2012. CoNLL-2012 shared task: Modeling multilingual unrestricted coreference in OntoNotes. In Joint Conference on EMNLP and CoNLL-Shared Task. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Sameer Pradhan, Lance Ramshaw, Mitchell Marcus, Martha Palmer, Ralph Weischedel, and Nianwen Xue. 2011. Conll-2011 shared task: Modeling unrestricted coreference in ontonotes. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning: Shared Task. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Sameer S. Pradhan, Lance Ramshaw, Ralph Weischedel, Jessica MacBride, and Linnea Micciulla. 2007. Unrestricted coreference: Identifying entities and events in OntoNotes. In International Conference on Semantic Computing. IEEE, 446--453. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Dragomir R. Radev. 2000. A common theory of information fusion from multiple text sources step one: Cross-document structure. In Proceedings of the 1st SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue-Volume 10. Association for Computational Linguistics, 74--83. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Prasad Rashmi, Dinesh Nihkil, Lee Alan, Miltsakaki Eleni, Robaldo Livio, Joshi Aravind, Webber Bonnie, et al. 2008. The Penn discourse Treebank 2.0. In Lexical Resources and Evaluation Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Michael Roth and Anette Frank. 2013. Automatically identifying implicit arguments to improve argument linking and coherence modeling. In 2nd Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (* SEM), Volume 1: Proceedings of the Main Conference and the Shared Task: Semantic Textual Similarity, Vol. 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, 306--316.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Attapol Rutherford, Vera Demberg, and Nianwen Xue. 2017. A systematic study of neural discourse models for implicit discourse relation. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers. Cambridge University Press, 281--291.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Rou Song and Shili Ge. 2013. English-Chinese translation unit and translation model for discourse-based machine translation. Journal of Chinese Information Processing 29, 15 (2013), 125--135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Rou Song, Yuru Jiang, and Jingyi Wang. 2010. On generalized-topic-based Chinese discourse structure. In CIPS-SIGHAN Joint Conference on Chinese Language Processing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Radu Soricut and Daniel Marcu. 2003. Sentence level discourse parsing using syntactic and lexical information. In Proceedings of the 2003 Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 149--156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. Josef Steinberger, Massimo Poesio, Mijail A. Kabadjov, and Karel Ježek. 2007. Two uses of anaphora resolution in summarization. Information Processing and Management 43, 6 (2007), 1663--1680. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Maite Taboada and William C. Mann. 2006. Applications of rhetorical structure theory. Discourse Studies 8, 4 (2006), 567--588.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  89. Rakshit Trivedi and Jacob Eisenstein. 2013. Discourse connectors for latent subjectivity in sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Cambridge University Press, 808--813.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. Feng-fu Tsao. 1990. Clause and sentence structure in Chinese: A functional perspective. Taipei: Student Book Co..Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. Mei Tu, Yu Zhou, and Chengqing Zong. 2013. A novel translation framework based on rhetorical structure theory. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 2. Association for Computational Linguistics, 370--374.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Mei Tu, Yu Zhou, and Chengqing Zong. 2014. Enhancing grammatical cohesion: Generating transitional expressions for SMT. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, 850--860.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  93. Suzan Verberne, L. W. J. Boves, N. H. J. Oostdijk, and P. A. J. M. Coppen. 2007. Discourse-based answering of why-questions.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. Fei Wang, Yunfang Wu, and Likun Qiu. 2012. Exploiting discourse relations for sentiment analysis. Proceedings of COLING 2012: Posters (2012), 1311--1320.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. Xun Wang, Yasuhisa Yoshida, Tsutomu Hirao, Katsuhito Sudoh, and Masaaki Nagata. 2015. Summarization based on task-oriented discourse parsing. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 23, 8 (2015), 1358--1367.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  96. Bonnie Webber. 2004. D-LTAG: Extending lexicalized TAG to discourse. Cognitive Science 28, 5 (2004), 751--779.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  97. Bonnie Webber, Markus Egg, and Valia Kordoni. 2012. Discourse structure and language technology. Natural Language Engineering 18, 4 (2012), 437--490. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. Ralph Weischedel, Martha Palmer, Mitchell Marcus, Eduard Hovy, Sameer Pradhan, Lance Ramshaw, Nianwen Xue, Ann Taylor, Jeff Kaufman, Michelle Franchini, et al. 2013. Ontonotes release 5.0. LDC2013T19, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. Florian Wolf and Edward Gibson. 2004. Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based analysis. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  100. Yongfan Wu, Sujian Li, Mukun Qin, An Yang, and Houfeng Wang. 2017. Exploring Chinese and English discourse dependency treebanks. Proceedings of Chinese Computational Linguistics 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Xuefeng Xi. 2017. Research on Chinese Discourse Topic Structure: Representation, Resource Construction and Its Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation. Soochow University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  102. Xuefeng Xi, Xiaoming Chu, Qingying Sun, and Guodong Zhou. 2017. Research and prospect of discourse topic structure analysis for discourse intentionality. Chinese Journal of Computers 40 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. Xuefeng Xi and Guodong Zhou. 2016. A micro-topic model for coreference resolution based on theme-rheme structure. In Natural Language Understanding and Intelligent Applications. Springer, 648--656.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  104. Xuefeng Xi and Guodong Zhou. 2017. Building a Chinese discourse topic corpus with a micro-topic scheme based on theme-rheme theory. Big Data Analytics 2, 1 (2017), 9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  105. Nianwen Xue, Hwee Tou Ng, Sameer Pradhan, Rashmi Prasad, Christopher Bryant, and Attapol Rutherford. 2015. The conll-2015 shared task on shallow discourse parsing. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning-Shared Task. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  106. Nianwen Xue, Hwee Tou Ng, Sameer Pradhan, Attapol Rutherford, Bonnie Webber, Chuan Wang, and Hongmin Wang. 2016. Conll 2016 shared task on multilingual shallow discourse parsing. Proceedings of the CoNLL-16 Shared Task (2016), 1--19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  107. Bishan Yang and Claire Cardie. 2014. Context-aware learning for sentence-level sentiment analysis with posterior regularization. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Cambridge University Press, 325--335.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  108. Qingyu Yin, Yu Zhang, Weinan Zhang, and Ting Liu. 2017. Chinese zero pronoun resolution with deep memory network. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1309--1318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  109. Ming Yue. 2008. Rhetorical structure annotation of Chinese news commentaries. Journal of Chinese Information Processing 22, 4 (2008), 19--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  110. Biao Zhang, Jinsong Su, Deyi Xiong, Yaojie Lu, Hong Duan, and Junfeng Yao. 2015. Shallow convolutional neural network for implicit discourse relation recognition. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge University Press, 2230--2235.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  111. Lanjun Zhou, Binyang Li, Wei Gao, Zhongyu Wei, and Kam-Fai Wong. 2011. Unsupervised discovery of discourse relations for eliminating intra-sentence polarity ambiguities. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 162--171. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  112. Qiang Zhou and Xiaocong Zhou. 2014. Topic-chain-based coherence annotation scheme for Chinese text. Journal of Chinese Information Processing 28, 5 (2014), 102–111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  113. Yuping Zhou and Nianwen Xue. 2012. PDTB-style discourse annotation of Chinese text. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Long Papers-Volume 1. Cambridge University Press, 69--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  114. Lin Ziheng. 2012. Discourse Parsing: Inferring Discourse Structure, Modeling Coherence, and Its Applications. Ph.D. dissertation. National University of Singapore.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  115. Cäcilia Zirn, Mathias Niepert, Heiner Stuckenschmidt, and Michael Strube. 2011. Fine-grained sentiment analysis with structural features. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, 336--344.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Survey of Discourse Representations for Chinese Discourse Annotation

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

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

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing
        ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing  Volume 18, Issue 3
        September 2019
        386 pages
        ISSN:2375-4699
        EISSN:2375-4702
        DOI:10.1145/3305347
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 25 January 2019
        • Revised: 1 November 2018
        • Accepted: 1 November 2018
        • Received: 1 June 2018
        Published in tallip Volume 18, Issue 3

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!