2. 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

3. Content I. Introduction –What is discourse? Text versus discourse. Coherence and cohesion. II. Theories –attentional state theory –rhetorical structure theory

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Text versus discourse Syntactically – a discourse is more than a single sentence. From Garcia Marquez

7. 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

8. Time and discourse Discourse has a dynamic nature Time axes real time discourse time story time 12 21 10001030800920 12

9. 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.

10. Interpretation of discourse discourse interpretation text setting knowledge about the language knowledge about the world knowledge about the situation knowledge about the author

11. 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)

12. 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)

13. 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)

14. 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 setting cohesion is lower coherence is lower

15. 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.

16. II. Discourse theories atentional state theory rhetorical structure theory centering theory veins theory

17. 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 combined Explains the shift of attention during discourse interpretation Explains interruptions and flash-backs Puts in evidence a dynamic domain of referentiality 3 components

18. AST: 1 st component a linguistic structure: –more sentences are aggregated in the same segment –segments display a recursive structure

19. AST: 2 nd 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

20. A A AST: 2 nd component Relations: dominance DSP A dominates DSP AA: the intention associated with DSP AA contributes to the satisfaction of the intention associated with DSP A AA AB AC AAA AAB ABA ABB

21. AST: 2 nd component Relations: satisfaction-precedence DSP AA satisfaction-precedes DSP AB: DSP AA must be satisfied before DSP AB A AA ABAC AAA AAB ABA ABB

22. AST: 3 rd component an attentional state –to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus –these spaces have the dynamics of a stack A AAABAC AAAAABABAABB A SASA

23. AST: 3 rd component an attentional state –to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus –these spaces have the dynamics of a stack A ABAC AAAAABABAABB A SASA AA S AA

24. AST: 3 rd component an attentional state –to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus –these spaces have the dynamics of a stack A ABAC AABABAABB A SASA AA S AA AAA S AAA

25. AST: 3 rd component an attentional state –to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus –these spaces have the dynamics of a stack A ABAC ABAABB A SASA AA S AA AAA AAB S AAB

26. AST: 3 rd component an attentional state –to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus –these spaces have the dynamics of a stack A ABAC ABAABB A SASA AA S AB AAAAAB

27. AST: 3 rd component an attentional state –to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus –these spaces have the dynamics of a stack A ABAC ABAABB A SASA AA S AB AAAAAB S ABA

28. AST: 3 rd component an attentional state –to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus –these spaces have the dynamics of a stack A ABAC ABAABB A SASA AA S AB AAAAAB S ABB

29. AST: 3 rd component an attentional state –to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus –these spaces have the dynamics of a stack A ABAC ABAABB A SASA AA S AC AAAAAB

30. AST: 3 rd component an attentional state –to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus –these spaces have the dynamics of a stack A ABAC ABAABB A SASA AA AAAAAB

31. AST: 3 rd component an attentional state –to each segment corresponds a space of entities under focus –these spaces have the dynamics of a stack A ABAC ABAABB A AA AAAAAB

32. AST: 3 rd component an attentional state –accessibility modeled by the top-down access in the stack A AAABAC AAAAABABAABB SASA S AB S ABB

33. AST explains interruptions 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) An interruption is a discourse segment whose DSP is not dominated nor satisfaction-preceded by the DSP of the immediately proceeding segment.

34. AST: interruptions 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?

35. AST explains flashbacks S init … S ABC … S Bill OK. Now how do I say that Bill is... S FB S Bill 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.

36. AST: flashbacks S init … S ABC … S Bill OK. Now how do I say that Bill is... S FB Whoops I forgot about ABC. I need an individual concept for the company ABC. … S Bill 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. S Bill S init S FB S init S ABC S Bill S FB S Bill S FB S init S ABC S Bill S init S FB flashback starts flashback ends

37. AST doesn‘t accommodate left satellites 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. 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 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. l. Anyway, they finally found a used one at a garage sale. From (Allen, 1993)

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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

41. 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. 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

42. 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. 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

43. 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 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

44. 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

45. Problem a a a b a b c,d,e a, g f

46. 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

47. AST: minuses Stack mechanism fails for certain dominant/dominated segment configurations when granularity is sufficiently fine Does not accommodate left satellites The 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)?

48. 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)

49. RST schemes relation text span: nucleus text span: satellite relation text span: nucleus

50. RST schemes: equivalences relation 1 relation 2 relation 1 relation 2 relation 1 relation 2

51. RST schemes: equivalences relation

52. RST: a relation definition EVIDENCE constraint on N: R might not believe N to a degree satisfactory to W constraint on S: R believes S or finds it credible effect: R’s belief of N is increased

53. 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 2-3 1 EVIDENCE constraint on N: R might not believe N to a degree satisfactory to W constraint on S: R believes S or finds it credible effect: R’s belief of N is increased

54. CONCESSION relation CONCESSION 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

55. CONCESSION relation CONCESSION 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 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 2 1

56. CIRCUMSTANCE relation CIRCUMSTANCE constraint on N: none constraint on S: S presents a situation constraint 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

57. CIRCUMSTANCE relation CIRCUMSTANCE constraint on N: none constraint on S: S presents a situation constraint 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 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 2 1

58. A more complex example 1. Farmington Police had to help control traffic recently 2. 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.

59. A more complex example 1. Farmington Police had to help control traffic recently 2. 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 3 2 2-3 volitional result 1-3 4 evidence 5 6 antithesis 7 6-7 concession 5-7 4-7 background 1-7

60. RST relations Subject matter (informational) Elaboration Circumstance Solutionhood Volitional Cause Volitional Result Non-Volitional Cause Non-Volitional Result Purpose Condition Otherwise Interpretation Evaluation Restatement Summary Sequence Contrast Presentational (intentional) Motivation Antithesis Background Enablement Evidence Justify Concession

61. Problem: multiple interpretations (Moore and Polack, 1992) 1 2 motivation 3 Intentional level 3 1 condition 2 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.

62. 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

63. RST bibliography or related readings Mann,W. and Thompson,S. (1987): Rhetorical Structure Theory Moore and Polack (1992): A problem for RST: The need for multi- level discourse analysis Mosser and Moore (1996): Towards a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure Hobbs Jerry – a lot of writings on discourse coherence, but see also the abductive model Knott Alistair: his PhD thesis Marcu,D. (1997): The rhetorical parsing of natural language texts Marcu,D. (2000): The theory and practice of discourse parsing and summarization, The MIT Press Carlson, L., Marcu, D. and Okurowski, M.E. (2003): Building a doscourse-tagged corpus in the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory.