The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0.
Published 1 May 2008
Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind K. Joshi
Citations1,130
SJR quartileQ1
SJR score0.48
SNIP1.79
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
Study Snapshot
ObjectiveStudy objective
MethodsResearch methodology
PopulationPopulation studied
Sample sizeSample sizes
OutcomesStudy outcomes here
ResultsStudy results comes here
LimitationsResearch study limitations comes here
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
TL;DR
The second version of the Penn Discourse Treebank, PDTB-2.0, is presented, describing its lexically-grounded annotations of discourse relations and their two abstract object arguments over the 1 million word Wall Street Journal corpus.
Abstract
We present the second version of the Penn Discourse Treebank, PDTB-2.0, describing its lexically-grounded annotations of discourse relations and their two abstract object arguments over the 1 million word Wall Street Journal corpus. We describe all aspects of the annotation, including (a) the argument structure of discourse relations, (b) the sense annotation of the relations, and (c) the attribution of discourse relations and each of their arguments. We list the differences between PDTB-1.0 and PDTB-2.0. We present representative statistics for several aspects of the annotation in the corpus. 1.
Keywords
Computer Science
Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank
7,528 Citations1993Mitchell P. Marcus
Language<b>English verb classes and alternations:</b> A preliminary investigation. By Beth Levin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Pp. xviii, 345. Cloth $45.00, paper $18.95.
2,322 Citations1995Carol L. Tenny
Beth Levin shows how identifying verbs with similar syntactic behavior provides an effective means of distinguishing semantically coherent verb classes, and isolates these classes by examining verb behavior with respect to a wide range of syntactic alternations that reflect verb meaning.
Computational LinguisticsThe Proposition Bank: An Annotated Corpus of Semantic Roles
2,302 Citations2005Martha Palmer, Daniel Gildea +1 more
An automatic system for semantic role tagging trained on the corpus is described and the effect on its performance of various types of information is discussed, including a comparison of full syntactic parsing with a flat representation and the contribution of the empty trace categories of the treebank.
Computers and the HumanitiesAnnotating Expressions of Opinions and Emotions in Language
1,770 Citations2005Janyce Wiebe, Theresa Wilson +1 more
The manual annotation process and the results of an inter-annotator agreement study on a 10,000-sentence corpus of articles drawn from the world press are presented.
Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar
932 Citations2002Andrew Kehler
A theory of discourse coherence and verb phrase ellipsis is presented, which aims to clarify the role of language interpretation in the development of coherent discourse.
Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory
600 Citations2001Lynn Carlson, Daniel Marcu +1 more
Working in the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory, a large annotated resource with very high consistency is created, using a well-defined methodology and protocol to enable researchers to develop empirically grounded, discourse-specific applications.
Semantics for Propositional Attitudes
307 Citations1969Jaakko Hintikka
IPrA Papers in PragmaticsRhetorical structure theory
267 Citations2015Sandra A. Thompson, William C. Mann
Rhetorical Structure Theory is a theory of text organization which provides a framework for an analysis of text, and its mechanisms and applications include studies of clause combining, coherence and assertional effects of discourse structure.
Computational LinguisticsAnaphora and Discourse Structure
244 Citations2003Bonnie Webber, Matthew Stone +2 more
It is argued in this article that many common adverbial phrases generally taken to signal a discourse relation between syntactically connected units within discourse structure instead work anaphorically to contribute relational meaning, with only indirect dependence on discourse structure.
ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania)The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 Annotation Manual
188 Citations2007Rashmi Prasad, Eleni Miltsakaki +4 more
Annotating Discourse Connectives and Their Arguments.
87 Citations2004Eleni Miltsakaki, Aravind K. Joshi +2 more
This paper presents an approach to annotating a level of discourse structure that is based on identifying discourse connectives and their arguments, and provides a detailed preliminary analysis of inter-annotator agreement.
Experiments on Sense Annotations and Sense Disambiguation of Discourse Connectives
82 Citations2005Eleni Miltsakaki, Nikhil Dinesh +3 more
This work presents a set of manual sense annotation studies for three discourse connectives whose arguments have been annotated in the Penn Treebank and a simple MaxEnt model, achieving some success in automatically disambiguating among their senses.
Attribution and the (non-)alignment of syntactic and discourse arguments of connectives
73 Citations2005Nikhil Dines, Alan Lee +4 more
Compared syntactic and discourse annotation of the Penn Discourse Treebank has revealed significant differences between syntactic structure and discourse structure, in terms of the arguments of connectives, due in large part to attribution.
Journal of SemanticsComputing Discourse Semantics: The Predicate-Argument Semantics of Discourse Connectives in D-LTAG
54 Citations2005Kate Forbes-Riley
The unique contribution of this paper lies in showing how compositional rules and anaphora resolution interact within the D-LTAG syntax-semantic interface to yield their semantic interpretations, with multi-component syntactic trees sometimes being required.
HeliyonThe Penn Discourse TreeBank as a Resource for Natural Language Generation
39 Citations2005Rashmi Prasad, Aravind K. Joshi +4 more
Complexity of Dependencies in Discourse: Are Dependencies in Discourse More Complex than in Syntax?
36 Citations2006Alan Lee, Rashmi Prasad +3 more
This paper investigates the complexity of dependencies at the discourse level, in particular the dependencies between discourse connectives and their arguments, and conjecture that the types of discourse dependencies are highly restricted since the more complex cases can be factored out by appealing to discourse notions like anaphora and attribution.
Annotating attribution in the Penn Discourse TreeBank
31 Citations2006Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh +3 more
An annotation scheme for marking the attribution of abstract objects such as propositions, facts and eventualities associated with discourse relations and their arguments annotated in the Penn Discourse TreeBank is described.
arXiv (Cornell University)Anchoring a Lexicalized Tree-Adjoining Grammar for Discourse
26 Citations1998Bonnie Webber, Aravind K. Joshi
A ``fully'' lexicalized Tree-Adjoining Grammar for discourse that takes the basic elements of a (monologic) discourse to be not simply clauses, but larger structures that are anchored on variously realized discourse cues is explored.