Megan Moser
ABSTRACT
Our goal is to identify the features that predict cue selection and placement in order to devise strategies for automatic text generation. Much previous work in this area has relied on ad hoc methods. Our coding scheme for the exhaustive analysis of discourse allows a systematic evaluation and refinement of hypotheses concerning cues. We report two results based on this analysis: a comparison of the distribution of SINCE and BECAUSE in our corpus, and the impact of embeddedness on cue selection.
- O. Ducrot. 1983. Le sens commun. Le dire et le dit. Les editions de Minuit, Paris.Google Scholar
- Michael Elhadad and Kathleen McKeown. 1990. Generating connectives. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 97--101, Helsinki. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Susan R. Goldman and John D. Murray. 1992. Knowledge of connectors as cohesion devices in text: A comparative study of native-english speakers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 44(4):504--519.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barbara Grosz and Julia Hirschberg. 1992. Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing.Google Scholar
- Barbara J. Grosz and Candace L. Sidner. 1986. Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3):175--204. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marti Hearst. 1994. Multi-paragraph segmentation of expository discourse. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Julia Hirschberg and Diane Litman. 1993. Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics, 19(3):501--530. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jerry R. Hobbs. 1985. On the coherence and structure of discourse. Technical Report CSLI-85-37, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Leland Stanford Junior University, Stanford, California, October.Google Scholar
- Alistair Knott and Robert Dale. 1994. Using linguistic pheomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18(1):35--62.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Diane J. Litman and James F. Allen. 1987. A plan recognition model for subdialogues in conversations. Cognitive Science, 11:163--200.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert Lorch. 1989. Text signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1:209--234.Google ScholarCross Ref
- William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. TEXT, 8(3):243--281.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Danielle S. McNamara, Eileen Kintsch, Nancy Butler Songer, and Walter Kintsch. In press. Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction.Google Scholar
- Keith Millis, Arthur Graesser, and Karl Haberlandt. 1993. The impact of connectives on the memory for expository text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7:317--339.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johanna D. Moore and Martha E. Pollack. 1992. A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics, 18(4):537--544. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Megan Moser and Johanna D. Moore. 1993. Investigating discourse relations. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intentionality and Sturcture in Discourse Relations, pages 94--98.Google Scholar
- Rebecca Passonneau and Diane Litman. 1993. Intention-based segmentation: Human reliability and correlation with linguistic cues. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Randolph Quirk et al. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. Longman, London.Google Scholar
- Dietmar Roesner and Manfred Stede. 1992. Customizing RST for the automatic production of technical manuals. In R. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rosner, and O. Stock, editors, Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, pages 199--215, Berlin. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Deborah Schiffrin. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Donia Scott and Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza. 1990. Getting the message across in RST-based text generation. In R. Dale, C. Mellish, and M. Zock, editors, Current Research in Natural Language Generation, pages 47--73. Academic Press, New York. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Keith Vander Linden, Susanna Cumming, and James Martin. 1992. Expressing local rhetorical relations in instructional text. Technical Report 92--43, University of Colorado. To appear in Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
- Ingrid Zukerman. 1990. A predictive approach for the generation of rhetorical devices. Computational Intelligence, 6(1):25--40. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Investigating cue selection and placement in tutorial discourse
Recommendations
Optimal cue selection strategy
NIPS'05: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Neural Information Processing SystemsSurvival in the natural world demands the selection of relevant visual cues to rapidly and reliably guide attention towards prey and predators in cluttered environments. We investigate whether our visual system selects cues that guide search in an ...
A novel method to calculate looming cue for threat of collision
ISCV '95: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer VisionVisual looming is related to an increased projected size of an object on a viewer's retina as the relative distance between the viewer and the object decreases. Psychologists have reported about subjects avoiding collision using this information by ...
Internal and External Visual Cue Preferences for Visualizations in Presentations
Presenters, such as analysts briefing to an executive committee, often use visualizations to convey information. In these cases, providing clear visual guidance is important to communicate key concepts without confusion. This paper explores visual cues ...
Comments