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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
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.
Beckman, M. 1991. Notes on prosody. Ms.
Butterworth, B. 1980. Evidence from pauses in speech. In B. Butterworth (ed.), Language Production. London: Academic Press. 155–176.
Carlson, G. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 413–457.
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.
Chafe, W.L. 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Cochran, W.G. 1950. The comparison of percentages in matched samples. Biometrika 37, 256–266.
Cohen, R. 1984. A computational theory of the function of clue words in argument understanding. In Proceedings of COLING-84. Stanford CA. 251–258.
Fox, B.A. 1987. Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Grosz, B.J. and J. Hirschberg. 1992. Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing.
Grosz, B.J. 1977. The Representation and Use of Focus in Dialogue Understanding. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Grosz, B.J. and C.L. Sidner. 1986. Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12, 175–204.
Hawkins, J.A. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness. NJ: Humanities Press.
Hearst, M.A. 1993. TextTiling: A quantitative approach to discourse segmentation. Technical Report 93/24, Sequoia 2000 Technical Report, University of California, Berkeley.
Hearst, M.A. 1994. Multi—paragraph segmentation of expository texts. Technical Report 94/790, Computer Science Division (EECS), University of California, Berkeley.
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.
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.
Hirschberg, J. and D. Litman. 1993. Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics 19.
Hobbs, J.R. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science 3(1), 67–90.
Iwánska, L. 1993. Discourse structure in factual reporting (in prep.).
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.
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.
Karttunen, L. 1976. Discourse referents. In J. McCawley (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 7. Notes from the Linguistic Underground. New York: Academic Press,.
Krippendorff, K. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly
Hills CA: Sage Publications.
Levy, E. 1984. Communicating Thematic Structure in Narrative Discourse: The Use of Referring Terms and Gestures. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
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.
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.
Mann, W.C. and S.A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: towards a functional theory of text organization. Text 243–281.
Moore, J.D. and C.L. Paris. 1993. Planning text for advisory dialogues: Capturing intentional and rhetorical information. Computational Linguistics 19, 652–694.
Moore, J.D. and M.E. Pollack. 1992. A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics 18, 537–544.
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.
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.
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.
Passonneau, R.J. 1994. A plan based architecture for processing definite and indefinite descriptions in discourse. Manuscript in review.
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.
Pierrehumbert, J. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Polanyi, L. 1988. A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 601–638.
Prince, E.F. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 223–255.
Reichman, R. 1985. Getting Computers to Talk Like You and Me. Cambrdige MA: MIT Press.
Rotondo, J.A. 1984. Clustering analysis of subject partitions of text. Discourse Processes 7, 69–88.
Schegloff, E. and H. Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8, 289–327.
(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.
Sidner, C.L. 1979. Towards a computational theory of definite anaphora comprehension in English discourse. Technical report, MIT AI Laboratory.
Webber, B.L. 1987. A formal approach to discourse anaphora. Technical Report 3761, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
Webber, B.L. 1991. Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 107–135.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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