Curs 6: Teorii ale discursului: AST şi RST
-
Upload
kylee-vang -
Category
Documents
-
view
67 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Curs 6: Teorii ale discursului: AST şi RST
Curs 6: Teorii ale discursului: AST şi RST
Dan Cristea Selecţie de slide-uri prezentate în tutoriale (RANLP-03, Borovits, Sept. 2003;
ICON-04, Hyderabad, Dec. 2004) şi conferinţe
ContentI. Introduction
– What is discourse? Text versus discourse. Coherence and cohesion.
II. Theories– attentional state theory– rhetorical structure theory
What is discourse?Longman: 1. a serious speech or piece or
writing on a particular subject: Professor Grant delivered a long discourse on aspects of moral theology. 2. serious conversation between people: You can’t expect meaningful discourse when you two disagree so violently. 3. the language used in particular kinds of speech or writing: scientific discourse.
What is discourse?Longman: 1. a serious speech or piece or
writing on a particular subject: Professor Grant delivered a long discourse on aspects of moral theology. 2. serious conversation between people: You can’t expect meaningful discourse when you two disagree so violently. 3. the language used in particular kinds of speech or writing: scientific discourse.
Text versus discourseSyntactically – a discourse is more than a single
sentence.
From Garcia Marquez
A text is not a discourse!
But it becomes a discourse the very moment it is read or heard by a human... or a machine.
Text versus discourse
Time and discourse
Discourse has a dynamic nature
Time axesreal time
discourse time
story time
1 2
2 11000 1030800 920
1 2
Cohesion and coherence
A text manifests cohesion when its parts closely correlate.
A text is coherent when it makes sense, with respect to an accepted setting, real or virtual.
Interpretation of discourse
discourse interpretation
text setting
knowledge about the language
knowledge about the world
knowledge about the situation
knowledge about the author
Discourse phenomena: interruptions and flash-backs
E: Now attach the pull rope to the top of the engine.By the way, did you buy gasoline today?
A: Yes. I got some when I bought the new lawnmower wheel.I forgot to take the gas with me, so I bought a new one.
E: Did it cost much? A: No, and we could use another anyway to keep with the tractor.E: OK, how far have you got? Did you get it attached?
from (Allen, 1987)
Discourse phenomena: pop-overs
E: Now attach the pull rope to the top of the engine.By the way, did you buy gasoline today?
A: Yes. I got some when I bought the new lawnmower wheel.I forgot to take the gas with me, so I bought a new one.
E: Did it cost much? A: No, and we could use another anyway to keep with the tractor.E: OK, how far have you got? Did you get it attached?
from (Allen, 1987)
Discourse phenomena: pop-overs
E: Now attach the pull rope to the top of the engine.By the way, did you buy gasoline today?
A: Yes. I got some when I bought the new lawnmower wheel.I forgot to take the gas with me, so I bought a new one.
E: Did it cost much? A: No, and we could use another anyway to keep with the tractor.E: OK, how far have you got? Did you get it attached?
from (Allen, 1987)
Discourse phenomena: inference load and pronoun use
Why is it that some discourses seem more difficult to understand than others?
Why do we use the pronouns and other anaphoric means the way we do?
localising the settingcohesion is lowercoherence is lower
Discourse theories?
Sub-domain of Computational Linguistics: searching for the intrinsic laws of the discourse and for models making possible an automated analysis, representation and generation of the discourse.
II. Discourse theories
• atentional state theory• rhetorical structure theory• centering theory• veins theory
Attentional state theory (AST)(Barbara Grosz & Candence Sidner, 1987)
Models the linguistic structure of the discourse Gives an account on intentions and how they are combinedExplains the shift of attention during discourse interpretationExplains interruptions and flash-backsPuts in evidence a dynamic domain of referentiality
3 components
AST: 1st component
• a linguistic structure: – more sentences are aggregated in the same
segment– segments display a recursive structure
AST: 2nd component• an intentional structure:
– a segment communicates an intention, it has a goal to accomplish in the reader;
– the goals of the component segments contribute to the realisation of the goal of the overall segment;
– two type of relations between segment goals: dominance and satisfaction-precedence
AA
AST: 2nd componentRelations: dominance
DSP A dominates DSP AA: the intention associated with DSP AA contributes to the satisfaction of the intention associated with DSP A
AA
AA
ABAB AC
ACAAA
AAA
AAB
AAB
ABA
ABA
ABBABB
AST: 2nd componentRelations: satisfaction-precedenceDSP AA satisfaction-precedes DSP AB: DSP AA must be satisfied before
DSP AB
A
AA AB AC
AAA AAB ABA ABB
AST: 3rd component• an attentional state
– to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus
– these spaces have the dynamics of a stack
A
AA AB AC
AAA AAB ABA ABB
A
SA
AST: 3rd component• an attentional state
– to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus
– these spaces have the dynamics of a stack
A
AB AC
AAA AAB ABA ABB
A
SA
AASAA
AST: 3rd component• an attentional state
– to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus
– these spaces have the dynamics of a stack
A
AB AC
AAB ABA ABB
A
SA
AASAA
AAA
SAAA
AST: 3rd component• an attentional state
– to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus
– these spaces have the dynamics of a stack
A
AB AC
ABA ABB
A
SA
AASAA
AAA AAB
SAAB
AST: 3rd component• an attentional state
– to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus
– these spaces have the dynamics of a stack
A
AB AC
ABA ABB
A
SA
AASAB
AAA AAB
AST: 3rd component• an attentional state
– to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus
– these spaces have the dynamics of a stack
A
AB AC
ABA ABB
A
SA
AASAB
AAA AAB
SABA
AST: 3rd component• an attentional state
– to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus
– these spaces have the dynamics of a stack
A
AB AC
ABA ABB
A
SA
AASAB
AAA AAB
SABB
AST: 3rd component• an attentional state
– to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus
– these spaces have the dynamics of a stack
A
AB AC
ABA ABB
A
SA
AASAC
AAA AAB
AST: 3rd component• an attentional state
– to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus
– these spaces have the dynamics of a stack
A
AB AC
ABA ABB
A
SA
AA
AAA AAB
AST: 3rd component• an attentional state
– to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus
– these spaces have the dynamics of a stack
A
AB AC
ABA ABB
A
AA
AAA AAB
AST: 3rd component• an attentional state
– accessibility modeled by the top-down access in the stack
A
AA AB AC
AAA AAB ABA ABB SA
SAB
SABB
AST explains interruptionsE: Now attach the pull rope to the top of the engine.
By the way, did you buy gasoline today?A: Yes. I got some when I bought the new lawnmower wheel.
I forgot to take the gas with me, so I bought a new one.E: Did it cost much? A: No, and we could use another anyway to keep with the tractor.E: OK, how far have you got? Did you get it attached?
from (Allen, 1987)
An interruption is a discourse segment whose DSP is not dominated nor satisfaction-preceded by the DSP of the immediately proceeding segment.
AST: interruptionsE: Now attach the pull rope to the top of the engine.
…
…
…
…
By the way, did you buy gasoline today?A: Yes. I got some when I bought the new lawnmower wheel.
I forgot to take the gas with me, so I bought a new one.E: Did it cost much? A: No, and we could use another anyway to keep with the tractor.E: OK, how far have you got? Did you get it attached?
AST explains flashbacksSinit …SABC …SBill OK. Now how do I say that Bill is...SFB
SBill Now back to Bill.How do I say that Bill is an employee of ABC?
From (Grosz and Sidner, 1987)
Whoops I forgot about ABC.I need an individual concept for the company ABC. …
A flashback is a particular kind of interruption whose DSP satisfaction-precedes the interrupted segment or a segment that dominates the interrupted segment.
AST: flashbacksSinit …SABC …SBill OK. Now how do I say that Bill is...SFB Whoops I forgot about ABC.I need an individual concept for the company ABC. …SBill Now back to Bill.How do I say that Bill is an employee of ABC?
From (Grosz and Sidner, 1987)
A flashback is a particular kind of interruption whose DSP satisfaction-precedes the interrupted segment or a segment that dominates the interrupted segment.
SBill
Sinit
SFB
Sinit
SABC
SBill
SFB
SBill
SFB
Sinit
SABC SBill
Sinit
SFB
flashback starts
flashback ends
AST doesn‘t accommodate left satellites
a. Jack and Sue went to buy a new lawn mowerb. since their old one was stolen.c. Sue had seen the men who took it andd. had chased them down the street,e. but they'd driven away in a truck. f. After looking in the store g. they realized they couldn't afford a new one.h. By the way, Jack lost his job last monthi. so he's been short of cash recently.j. He has been looking for a new one,k. but so far hasn't had any luck. l. Anyway, they finally found a used one at a garage sale.
From (Allen, 1993)
AST doesn‘t accommodate left satellites
a. Jack and Sue went to buy a new lawn mower b. since their old one was stolen.
f. After looking in the store g. they realized they couldn't afford a new one.
l. Anyway, they finally found a used one at a garage sale.
c. Sue had seen the men who took it and d. had chased them down the street, e. but they'd driven away in a truck.
h. By the way, Jack lost his job last month i. so he's been short of cash recently. j. He has been looking for a new one, k. but so far hasn't had any luck.
Attentional state stack
a
a. Jack and Sue went to buy a new lawn mower
a,b
a. Jack and Sue went to buy a new lawn mower b. since their old one was stolen.
c,d,e
a. Jack and Sue went to buy a new lawn mower b. since their old one was stolen.
c. Sue had seen the men who took it and d. had chased them down the street, e. but they'd driven away in a truck.
a,b
Attentional state stack
a. Jack and Sue went to buy a new lawn mower b. since their old one was stolen.
f. After looking in the storeg. they realized they couldn't afford a new one.
c. Sue had seen the men who took it and d. had chased them down the street, e. but they'd driven away in a truck.
a,b,f,g
Attentional state stack
a. Jack and Sue went to buy a new lawn mower b. since their old one was stolen.
f. After looking in the storeg. they realized they couldn't afford a new one.
c. Sue had seen the men who took it and d. had chased them down the street, e. but they'd driven away in a truck.
h. By the way, Jack lost his job last month i. so he's been short of cash recently. j. He has been looking for a new one, k. but so far hasn't had any luck.
h,i,j,k
a,b,f,g
Attentional state stack
a,b,f,g,l
a. Jack and Sue went to buy a new lawn mower b. since their old one was stolen.
f. After looking in the storeg. they realized they couldn't afford a new one.
l. Anyway, they finally found a used one at a garage sale.
c. Sue had seen the men who took it and d. had chased them down the street, e. but they'd driven away in a truck.
h. By the way, Jack lost his job last month i. so he's been short of cash recently. j. He has been looking for a new one, k. but so far hasn't had any luck.
Attentional state stack
Problem:a finer granularity
f. After looking in the store
a. Jack and Sue went to buy a new lawn mower
g. they realized they couldn't afford a new one.
l. Anyway, they finally found a used one at a garage sale.
h, i, j, k
b. since their old one was stolen.c, d, e
Problem
a a a
b
a
b
c,d,e
a, g
f
AST: pluses• Discourse structure:
– a proposal for discourse structure– stack behavior models hierarchical relationships
among text segments• Reference: accounted for by accessibility in
the stack• Explains interruptions• Explains flash-backs
AST: minusesStack mechanism fails for certain
dominant/dominated segment configurations when granularity is sufficiently fine
Does not accommodate left satellitesThe stack model is impurified with an artificial
border (in treating interruptions)Do we have an additional memory from where
states have to be restored (in treating flashbacks)?
Rhetorical structure theory
Basics• text span: un uninterrupted linear interval of text• relation: holds between two or more non-overlapping spans• arguments of relations are of a nuclear type and a satellite type
– a nucleus is more important than a satellite (deletion and substitution tests)
– relations: hypotactic (one nucleus + satellites) and paratactic (all nuclear)• scheme: integrates by a relation two or more text spans (like grammar
rules)• RST analysis are trees• they reflect a judge interpretation (therefore could be subjective)
(William Mann and Sandra Thompson, 1987)
RST schemes
relation
text span: nucleus
text span: satellite
relation
text span: nucleus
text span: nucleus
RST schemes: equivalences
relation1 relation2
relation1
relation2
relation1
relation2
RST schemes: equivalences
relation relation
relation
relation
relation
relation
RST: a relation definition
EVIDENCEconstraint on N: R might not believe N to a
degree satisfactory to Wconstraint on S: R believes S or finds it
credibleeffect: R’s belief of N is increased
EVIDENCE relation
1. The program as published for calendar year 1980 really works.
2. In only a few minutes, I entered all the figures from my 1980 tax return
3. and got a result which agreed with my hand calculations to the penny.
EVIDENCE
1-3
2-31
EVIDENCEconstraint on N: R might not believe N to a
degree satisfactory to Wconstraint on S: R believes S or finds it
credibleeffect: R’s belief of N is increased
CONCESSION relationCONCESSION
constraint on N: W has positive regard to the situation presented in N
constraint on S: W is not claiming that the situation presented in S doesn’t hold
constraint on the combination N+S: W acknowledges a potential incompatibility between the situations presented in N and S; W regards the situation presented in N and S as compatible
effect: R’s positive regard for the situation presented in N is increased
CONCESSION relationCONCESSION
constraint on N: W has positive regard to the situation presented in Nconstraint on S: W is not claiming that the situation presented in S doesn’t holdconstraint on the combination N+S: W acknowledges a potential incompatibility between
the situations presented in N and S; W regards the situation presented in N and S as compatible
effect: R’s positive regard for the situation presented in N is increased
1. Although Dioxin is toxic to certain animals,2. evidence is lacking that it has any serious
long-term effects on human beings.
CONCESSION
1-2
21
CIRCUMSTANCE relationCIRCUMSTANCE
constraint on N: noneconstraint on S: S presents a situationconstraint on the combination N+S: S sets a framework
(spatial or temporal) within which R is intended to interpret the situation presented in N
effect: R recognizes that the situation presented in S provides the framework for interpreting N
CIRCUMSTANCE relationCIRCUMSTANCE
constraint on N: noneconstraint on S: S presents a situationconstraint on the combination N+S: S sets a framework (spatial or temporal) within
which R is intended to interpret the situation presented in Neffect: R recognizes that the situation presented in S provides the framework for
interpreting N
1. Probably the most extreme case of Visitors Fever I ever witnessed was a few summers ago
2. when I visited relatives in Midwest.
CIRCUMSTANCE
1-2
21
A more complex example1. Farmington Police had to help control traffic recently2. when hundreds of people lined up to be among the first
applying for jobs at the yet-to-open Marriot Hotel.3. The hotel’s help-wanted announcement – for 300 openings –
was a rare opportunity for many unemployed.4. The people waiting in line carried a message of claims that the
jobless could be employed if only they showed enough moxie.5. Every rule has exceptions,6. but the tragic and too-common tableaux of hundreds of people
snake-lining up for any task with a paycheck illustrates a lack of jobs,
7 not laziness.
A more complex example1. Farmington Police had to help control traffic recently2. when hundreds of people lined up to be among the first applying for jobs at the yet-to-open Marriot Hotel.3. The hotel’s help-wanted announcement – for 300 openings – was a rare opportunity for many unemployed.4. The people waiting in line carried a message of claims that the jobless could be employed if only they
showed enough moxie.5. Every rule has exceptions,6. but the tragic and too-common tableaux of hundreds of people snake-lining up for any task with a paycheck
illustrates a lack of jobs,7 not laziness.
circumstance
32
2-3
volitional result
1-3
4
evidence
5
6
antithesis
7
6-7
concession
5-7
4-7
background
1-7
RST relationsSubject matter
(informational)
ElaborationCircumstanceSolutionhoodVolitional CauseVolitional ResultNon-Volitional CauseNon-Volitional ResultPurposeConditionOtherwiseInterpretationEvaluationRestatementSummarySequenceContrast
Presentational (intentional)
MotivationAntithesisBackgroundEnablementEvidenceJustifyConcession
Problem: multiple interpretations(Moore and Polack, 1992)
1
2
motivation
3
motivation
Intentional level
3
1
condition
2
condition
Informational level
1. Come back at 5:00.2. Then we can go to the hardware store before it closes.3. This way we can finish the bookshelves tonight.
How distant are AST & RST?
• Mosser&Moore (1996):– granularity: AST - undefined, RST - fine (clause
level)– structure: trees– internal nodes: relations (AST:2, RST: 28,
Hobbs, Knott: hierarchy of relations)• Marcu (1997)
– uses a logical formalism that allows him to prove the equivalence between the AST and RST
RST bibliography or related readingsMann,W. and Thompson,S. (1987): Rhetorical Structure TheoryMoore and Polack (1992): A problem for RST: The need for multi-
level discourse analysisMosser and Moore (1996): Towards a synthesis of two accounts of
discourse structureHobbs Jerry – a lot of writings on discourse coherence, but see also
the abductive modelKnott Alistair: his PhD thesisMarcu,D. (1997): The rhetorical parsing of natural language textsMarcu,D. (2000): The theory and practice of discourse parsing
and summarization, The MIT PressCarlson, L., Marcu, D. and Okurowski, M.E. (2003): Building a
doscourse-tagged corpus in the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory.