Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 387–402 | Cite as

Generating Coherence Relations via Internal Argumentation

Article

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.

Keywords

Dialogue Argumentation Coherence relations Generation Text planning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bateman J., Zock M. (2003). Natural language generation. In: Mitkov R. (eds) The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 284–304Google Scholar
  2. Brandom R. (1994). Making it explicit. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandom R. (2000). Articulating reasons. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 33–69Google Scholar
  5. Ginzburg, J. (1997). On some semantic consequences of turn taking. In Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
  6. Ginzburg J., Cooper R. (2004). Clarification ellipsis and the nature of contextual updates in dialogue. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3): 297–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Hamblin C. (1970). Fallacies. London, MethuenGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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 GardaGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 MalagaGoogle Scholar
  13. Kibble R. (2006c). Reasoning about propositional commitments in dialogue. Research on Language and Computation 4, 179–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kibble R., Power R. (2004). Optimizing referential coherence in text generation. Computational Linguistics 30(4): 401–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1987). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. Technical report. Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Matheson, C., Poesio, M., & Traum, D. (2000). Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proceedings of NAACL 2000.Google Scholar
  17. Pickering M., Garrod S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27, 169–225Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Taboada M., Mann W. (2006). Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Processes 8(3): 423–459Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. van Kuppevelt J. (1995). Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics 31, 109–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walton D., Krabbe E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany, State University of New York PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computing, GoldsmithsUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations