Skip to main content

Empirical Analysis of Three Dimensions of Spoken Discourse: Segmentation, Coherence, and Linguistic Devices

  • Conference paper
Computational and Conversational Discourse

Part of the book series: NATO ASI Series ((NATO ASI F,volume 151))

Abstract

A discourse consists not simply of a linear sequence of utterances,<sup>1</sup> but of meaningful semantic or pragmatic relations among utterances. Each utterance of a discourse either bears a relation to a preceding utterance or constitutes the onset of a new unit of meaning or action that subsequent utterances may add to. The need to model the relation between such units and linguistic features of utterances is almost universally acknowledged in the literature on discourse. For example, previous work argues for an interdependence between particular cue words and phrases such as anyway, and their location relative to an utterance or text, (e.g., Hirschberg and Litman 1993, Grosz and Sidner 1986, Reichman 1985, Cohen 1984); the distribution and duration of pauses relative to multi-utterance units (e.g., Grosz and Hirschberg 1992, Hirschberg and Grosz 1992, Chafe 1980, Butterworth 1980); and the interdependence between the form of discourse anaphoric noun phrases and the relation of the current utterance to a hierarchical model of utterance actions, or to a model of focus of attention (e.g., Grosz 1977, Grosz and Sidner 1986, Reichman 1985, Sidner 1979, Passonneau 1985). However, there are a variety of distinct proposals regarding how to model the interdependence among the three dimensions of: 1. sequences of semantically and pragmatically related utterances, 2. the units or relations they reflect, and 3. lexico-grammatical or prosodic features. We refer to these dimensions respectively as segmentation, coherence, and linguistic devices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, M. 1991. Notes on prosody. Ms.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterworth, B. 1980. Evidence from pauses in speech. In B. Butterworth (ed.), Language Production. London: Academic Press. 155–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 413–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W.L. 1980. The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative. In W.L. Chafe (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W.L. 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, W.G. 1950. The comparison of percentages in matched samples. Biometrika 37, 256–266.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. 1984. A computational theory of the function of clue words in argument understanding. In Proceedings of COLING-84. Stanford CA. 251–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, B.A. 1987. Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gale, W., K.W. Church and D. Yarowsky. 1992. Estimating upper and lower bounds on the performance of word-sense disambiguation programs. In Proceedings of ACL. Newark DE. 249–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, B.J. and J. Hirschberg. 1992. Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, B.J. 1977. The Representation and Use of Focus in Dialogue Understanding. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, B.J. and C.L. Sidner. 1986. Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12, 175–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J.A. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness. NJ: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hearst, M.A. 1993. TextTiling: A quantitative approach to discourse segmentation. Technical Report 93/24, Sequoia 2000 Technical Report, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hearst, M.A. 1994. Multi—paragraph segmentation of expository texts. Technical Report 94/790, Computer Science Division (EECS), University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bauerle, Schwarze, and von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschberg, J. and B.J. Grosz. 1992. Intonational features of local and global discourse structure. In Proceedings of the DARPA Workshop on Speech and Natural Language.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschberg, J. and D. Litman. 1993. Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J.R. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science 3(1), 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iwánska, L. 1993. Discourse structure in factual reporting (in prep.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N.S. 1985. Coding and analyzing experimental protocols. In T.A. Van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 2: Dimensions of Discourse. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Part I. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum. 277–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L. 1976. Discourse referents. In J. McCawley (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 7. Notes from the Linguistic Underground. New York: Academic Press,.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly

    Google Scholar 

  • Hills CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, E. 1984. Communicating Thematic Structure in Narrative Discourse: The Use of Referring Terms and Gestures. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman, D. and R. Passonneau. 1993. Empirical evidence for intention-based discourse segmentation. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, W.C., C.M.I.M. Matthiessen, and S.A. Thompson. 1992. Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In W.C. Mann and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse Description. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, W.C. and S.A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: towards a functional theory of text organization. Text 243–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J.D. and C.L. Paris. 1993. Planning text for advisory dialogues: Capturing intentional and rhetorical information. Computational Linguistics 19, 652–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J.D. and M.E. Pollack. 1992. A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics 18, 537–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J. and G. Hirst. 1991. Lexical cohesion computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text. Computational Linguistics 17, 21–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passonneau, R.J. 1992. Getting and keeping the center of attention. In R. Weischedel and M. Bates (eds.), Challenges in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passonneau, R.J. 1993. Coding scheme and algorithm for identification of discourse segment boundaries on the basis of the distribution of referential noun phrases. Technical report, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passonneau, R.J. 1994. A plan based architecture for processing definite and indefinite descriptions in discourse. Manuscript in review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passonneau, R.J. and D. Litman. 1993. Intention-based segmentation: Reliability and correlation with linguistic cues. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the ACL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierrehumbert, J. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, L. 1988. A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 601–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, E.F. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 223–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman, R. 1985. Getting Computers to Talk Like You and Me. Cambrdige MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotondo, J.A. 1984. Clustering analysis of subject partitions of text. Discourse Processes 7, 69–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. and H. Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8, 289–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • (Passonneau) Schiffman, R.J. 1985. Discourse Constraints on “it” and “that”: A Study of Language Use in Career-Counseling Interviews. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidner, C.L. 1979. Towards a computational theory of definite anaphora comprehension in English discourse. Technical report, MIT AI Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webber, B.L. 1987. A formal approach to discourse anaphora. Technical Report 3761, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webber, B.L. 1991. Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 107–135.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Passonneau, R.J., Litman, D.J. (1996). Empirical Analysis of Three Dimensions of Spoken Discourse: Segmentation, Coherence, and Linguistic Devices. In: Hovy, E.H., Scott, D.R. (eds) Computational and Conversational Discourse. NATO ASI Series, vol 151. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03293-0_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03293-0_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-08244-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-03293-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics