Abstract
A key requirement for the automatic generation of argumentative or explanatory text is to present the constituent propositions in an order that readers will find coherent and natural, to increase the likelihood that they will understand and accept the author’s claims. Natural language generation systems have standardly employed a repertoire of coherence relations such as those defined by Mann and Thompson’s Rhetorical Structure Theory. This paper models the generation of persuasive monologue as the outcome of an “inner dialogue”, where the author attempts to anticipate potential challenges or clarification requests. It is argued that certain RST relations such as Motivate, Evidence and Concession can be seen to emerge from various pre-empting strategies.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bateman J., Zock M. (2003). Natural language generation. In: Mitkov R. (eds) The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 284–304
Brandom R. (1994). Making it explicit. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press
Brandom R. (2000). Articulating reasons. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press
Cohen P., Levesque H. (1990). Persistence, intention and commitment. In: Cohen P., Morgan J., Pollack M. (eds) Intentions in communication. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, pp. 33–69
Ginzburg, J. (1997). On some semantic consequences of turn taking. In Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium.
Ginzburg J., Cooper R. (2004). Clarification ellipsis and the nature of contextual updates in dialogue. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3): 297–365
Green, N., & Carberry, S. (1999). A computational model for taking initiative in the generation of indirect answers. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 9(1/2), 93–132. Reprinted in Computational Models of Mixed-Initiative Interaction, Susan Haller, Alfred Kobsa, & Susan McRoy (Eds.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 277–316.
Hamblin C. (1970). Fallacies. London, Methuen
Kibble, R. (2001). Inducing rhetorical structure via nested update semantics. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computational Semantics. The Netherlands: University of Tilburg.
Kibble, R. (2004). Elements of a social semantics for argumentative dialogue. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Computational Modelling of Natural Argumentation. Spain: Valencia.
Kibble R. (2006a). Dialectical text planning. In: Grasso F., Kibble R., Reed C. (eds) Proceedings of 6th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argumentation. Italy, Riva del Garda
Kibble R. (2006b). Generating coherence relations via internal dialogue. In: Kibble R., Piwek P., van der Sluis I. (eds) Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2006 workshop: Coherence in Generaton and Dialogue. Spain, University of Malaga
Kibble R. (2006c). Reasoning about propositional commitments in dialogue. Research on Language and Computation 4, 179–202
Kibble R., Power R. (2004). Optimizing referential coherence in text generation. Computational Linguistics 30(4): 401–416
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1987). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. Technical report. Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute.
Matheson, C., Poesio, M., & Traum, D. (2000). Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proceedings of NAACL 2000.
Pickering M., Garrod S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27, 169–225
Reed, C. (1998). Is it a monologue, a dialogue or a turn in a dialogue? In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Argumentation (ISSA98). Foris: Amsterdam.
Reiter, E. (1994). Has a consensus NL generation architecture appeared, and is it psycholinguistically plausible? In Proceedings of 7th International Natural Language Generation Workshop, pp. 163–170.
Taboada M., Mann W. (2006). Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Processes 8(3): 423–459
van Kuppevelt, J. (1993). Intentionality in a topical approach of discourse structure. In O. Rambow (Ed.), Proceedings of ACL Workshop: Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations.
van Kuppevelt J. (1995). Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics 31, 109–147
Walton D., Krabbe E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany, State University of New York Press
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kibble, R. Generating Coherence Relations via Internal Argumentation. J of Log Lang and Inf 16, 387–402 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-007-9045-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-007-9045-2