Advertisement

Towards a representation of the Rhetorical Structure of interrupted exchanges

  • Thanasis Daradoumis
Issues in Discourse or Text Planning
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1036)

Abstract

This paper presents work on development of a new approach that aims to model dynamic phenomena (such as interruptions) in dialogue while preserving its overall coherence. The main goal of the work is to capture in a representation the dynamic nature of how turns in a dialogue are to be characterized given the fact that the force of a move can change as it is reacted to and as the dialogue takes on unanticipatable directions, particularly because of interruptions. To achieve this, the approach integrates Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) — a potential representation formalism for text generation — with a linguistic theory of exchange structure and dynamics. In particular, the work takes an initial representation of the rhetorical structure of ‘polite consensus’ exchanges as a point of departure and proceeds by extending and giving it a further dynamic perspective. This extension enriches the base of the representational system (i.e., RST) with an extensive set of new principles, notions and technical additions/changes so that we accommodate the style of analysis we have adopted. Though the paper takes, in principle, an analytical approach to language, we show how the resulting model can be fruitfully used to model and generate coherent interactive discourse.

Keywords

dialogue modelling rhetorical structure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berry, M. (1981). Towards layers of exchange structure for directive exchanges. Network 2. 23–32.Google Scholar
  2. Carberry, S. (1990). Plan recognition in natural language dialogue. Cambridge. Mass. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cawsey, A. (1990) Generating communicative discourse. In: Current Research in Natural Language Generation. Dale, R., Mellish, C. and Zock, M. (Ed.). Academic Press. Boston. pp. 75–102.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, H. and Schaefer, E. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science. 13. 259–294.Google Scholar
  5. Daradoumis, T. (1992a). DRST: A “grammar” of exchange structure in dialogue modelling. Available as a Technical Report at the “Universität Politècnica de Catalunya”.Google Scholar
  6. Daradoumis, T. (1992b). An RST-based proposal for coherent treatment of interruptions in interactive discourse. Available as a TR at the “Univ Politècnica de Catalunya”.Google Scholar
  7. Daradoumis, T. & Verdejo, M.F. (1994). Using rhetorical relations in building a coherent conversational teaching session. In: Dialogue and Instruction. Beun, R.J., Baker, M.J. and Reiner, M. (Eds). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag (to appear).Google Scholar
  8. Fawcett, P. and Davies, B. (1992). Monologue as a turn in dialogue: towards an integration of exchange structure and rhetorical structure theory. In: Aspects of Automated Natural Language Generation. Dale, R., Hovy, E., Rösner, D. and Stock, O. (Ed.). (Proc. of the 6th Intern.WS on NLG. Trento, Italy, April 5–7). Springer-Verlag. pp. 151–166.Google Scholar
  9. Grosz, B. and Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics. 12(3) 175–204.Google Scholar
  10. Hovy, E. (1988). Planning coherent multisentential text. In Proc. of the 26th annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Buffalo. pp. 163–169.Google Scholar
  11. Hovy, E. (1990). Unresolved issues in paragraph planning. In: Current Research in Natural Language Generation. Dale, R., Mellish, C. and Zock, M. (Ed.). Academic Press. London. pp. 17–45.Google Scholar
  12. Hovy, E., Lavid, J., Maier, E., Vibhu, M. and Paris, C. (1992) Employing knowledge resources in a new text planner architecture. In: Aspects of Automated Natural Language Generation. Dale, R., Hovy, E., Rösner, D. and Stock, O. (Ed.). (Proc. of the 6th Intern. WS on NLG. Trento, Italy, April 5–7). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Lambert, L. and Carberry, S. (1991). A tripartite plan-based model of dialogue. In: Proc. of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Berkeley. California. pp. 47–54.Google Scholar
  14. Lambert, L. and Carberry, S. (1992). Modeling negotiation subdialogues. In: Proc. of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Newark. De. pp. 193–200.Google Scholar
  15. Litman, D. and Allen, J. (1987). A plan recognition model for subdialogues in conversation. Cognitive Science. 11. 163–200.Google Scholar
  16. Litman, D. and Allen, J. (1990). Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In: Intention in Communication. Cohen, P., Morgan, J. and Pollack, M. (Ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. pp. 365–388.Google Scholar
  17. Maier, E. and Hovy, E. (1991). A metafunctionally motivated taxonomy for discourse structure relations. In: Proc. of the 3rd European Workshop on Language Generation, Judenstein, Austria.Google Scholar
  18. Mann, W. and Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. TEXT, 8(3), 243–281 (also available as USC/Information Sciences Institute. TR: RS-87-190).Google Scholar
  19. Martin, J. Martin, R. (1991). English Text: System and Structure. Benjamin Press. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Moore, J. and Paris, C. (1989). Planning text for advisory dialogues. In Proc. of the 27th Annual Meeting of the ACL. pp. 203–211.Google Scholar
  21. Moore, J. and Pollack, M. (1992). A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis, Computational Linguistics. 18(4). 537–544.Google Scholar
  22. Pollack, M., E. (1986). Inferring domain plans in question-answering. PhD thesis. Univ. of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  23. Redeker, G. (1991). Lexical markers of discourse structure. Linguistics 29.Google Scholar
  24. Rösner, D. and Stede, M. (1992). Customizing RST for the automatic production of technical manuals. In: Aspects of Automated Natural Language Generation. Dale, R., Hovy, E., Rösner, D. and Stock, O. (Ed.). (Proc. of the 6th Intern. WS on NLG. Trento, Italy, April 5–7). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Scott, D. and Souza, C. (1990). Getting the message across in RST-based text generation. In: Current Research in Natural Language Generation. Dale., R., Mellish, C. and Zock, M. (Ed.). Academic Press. Boston. Ch 3.Google Scholar
  26. Van Marcke, K. (1990). GTE-1 User Manual. Knowledge Technologies C.V. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  27. Vander Linden, K., Cumming, S. and Martin, J. (1992). Using systems networks to build rhetorical structures. In: Aspects of Automated Natural Language Generation. Dale, R., Hovy, E., Rösner, D. and Stock, O. (Ed.). (Proc. of the 6th Intern.WS on NLG. Trento, Italy, April 5–7). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thanasis Daradoumis
    • 1
  1. 1.Departament de Llenguatges i Sistemes InformaticsUPCBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations