Motifs in Reconstructed RST Discourse Trees

References

• Alami, N., Meknassi, M., & Rais, N. (2015). Automatic texts summarization: Current state of the art. Journal of Asian Scientific Research, 5(1), 1–15.10.18488/journal.2
   Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. (1991). Modelling diversification phenomena in language. In U. Rothe (Ed.), Diversification processes in language: Grammar (pp. 33–46). Hagen: Rottmann.
   Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. (1997). The art of quantitative linguistics. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 4, 13–22.10.1080/09296179708590074
   Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. (2005). Diversification processes. In R. Köhler, G. Altmann, & R. G. Piotrowski (Eds.), Quantitative linguistics. An international handbook (pp. 648–658). Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Beliankou, A., Köhler, R., & Naumann, S. (2011). Quantitative properties of argumentation motifs. In I. Obradović, E. Kelih, & R. Köhler (Eds.), Methods and Applications of Quantitative Linguistics, selected papers of the 8th International Conference on Quantitative Linguistics (QUALICO) (pp. 35–43). Belgrade, Serbia, April 26–29, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Bille, P. (2005). A survey on tree edit distance and related problems. Theoretical Computer Science, 337, 217–239.10.1016/j.tcs.2004.12.030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, L., & Marcu, D. (2001). Discourse tagging reference manual. Retrieved at 08:50 February 9, 2015, from http://www.isi.edu/~marcu/discourse/tagging-ref-manual.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, L., Marcu, D., & Okurowski, M. E. (2002). RST discourse treebank, LDC2002T07 [Corpus]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, L., Marcu, D., & Okurowski, M. E. (2003). Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of rhetorical structure theory. In Nancy Ide & Jean Véronis (Eds.), Current directions in discourse and dialogue (pp. 85–112). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-010-0019-2
   Google Scholar
• Chiarcos, C., & Krasavina, O. (2008). Rhetorical distance revisited: A parametrized approach. In A. Benz & P. Kühnlein (Eds.), Constraints in discourse (pp. 97–115). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns
   Google Scholar
• da Cunha, I., Torres-Moreno, J. M., & Sierra, G. (2011). On the development of the RST Spanish treebank. In Proceedings of the Fifth Law Workshop (ACL 2011) (pp. 1–10).
   Google Scholar
• Hřebíček, L. (1999). Principle of emergence and text in linguistics. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 6, 41–45.10.1076/jqul.6.1.41.4141
   Google Scholar
• Hřebíček, L. (1992). Text in communication: Supra-sentence structures. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
   Google Scholar
• Kockelman, P. (2009). The complexity of discourse. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 16(1), 1–39.10.1080/09296170802514146
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhler, R. (2012). Quantitative syntax analysis. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter (= Quantitative Linguistics; 65).10.1515/9783110272925
   Google Scholar
• Köhler, R. (2015). Linguistic motifs. In G. K. Mikros & J. Mačutek (Eds.), Sequences in language and text (pp. 89–108). Berlin, Boston, Mass: De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Köhler, R., & Naumann, S. (2010). A syntagmatic approach to automatic text classification. Statistical properties of F- and L-motifs as text characteristics. In P. Grzybek, E. Kelih, & J. Mačutek (Eds.), Text and language. structures, functions, interrelations, quantitative perspectives (pp. 81–89). Wien: Praesens.
   Google Scholar
• Li, S., Wang, L., Cao, Z., & Li, W. (2014). Text-level discourse dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 25–35). Baltimore, Maryland, USA, June 23–25 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H. (2008). Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science, 9, 159–191.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H. (2009a). Dependency grammar: From theory to practice. Beijing: Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H. (2009b). Probability distribution of dependencies based on Chinese dependency treebank. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 16, 256–273.10.1080/09296170902975742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1987). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization ( No. ISI/RS-87–190). Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243–281.
   Google Scholar
• Marcu, D. (1999). Discourse trees are good indicators of importance in text. In I. Mani & M. Maybury (Eds.), Advances in automatic text summarization (pp. 123–136). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marcu, D. (2000). The theory and practice of discourse parsing and summarization. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, J., & Wiemer-Hastings, P. (2003). Discourse in computational linguistics and artificial intelligence. In A. Graesser, M. Gernsbacher, & S. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 439–486). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Pardo, T. A. S., & Nunes, M. G. V. (2008). On the development and evaluation of a Brazilian Portuguese discourse parser. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Computing, 15, 43–64.
   Google Scholar
• Pawlowski, A. (1999). Language in the line vs. language in the mass: On the efficiency of sequential modelling in the analysis of rhythm. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 6, 70–77.10.1076/jqul.6.1.70.4140
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24, 119–147.10.1080/01638539709545009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stede, M. (2004). The Potsdam commentary corpus. In Proceedings of the ACL 2004 Workshop on “Discourse Annotation” (pp. 96–102). Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Taboada, M. (2004). Building coherence and cohesion: Task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.129
   Google Scholar
• Taboada, M., & Mann, W. (2006a). Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies, 8, 423–459.10.1177/1461445606061881
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taboada, M., & Mann, W. (2006b). Applications of rhetorical structure theory. Discourse Studies, 8, 567–588.10.1177/1461445606064836
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torres-Moreno, J. -M. (2014). Automatic text summarization. London: Wiley.10.1002/9781119004752
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures: an interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, S., & Power, R. (2008). Deriving rhetorical complexity data from the RST-DT corpus. In Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) (pp. 2720–2724). Marrakech, Morocco, 28–30 May, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, S., & Reiter, E. (2003). A corpus analysis of discourse relations for natural language generation. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 conference (pp. 899–908). Lancaster University, UK, 28–31 March, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Yue, M., & Feng, Z. (2005). Findings in a preliminary study on the rhetorical structure of Chinese TV news reports. Paper presented at the First Computational Systemic Functional Grammar Conference, Sydney, Australia, 15–16 July, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Yue, M., & Liu, H. (2011). Probability distribution of discourse relations based on a Chinese RST-annotated corpus. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 18, 107–121.10.1080/09296174.2011.556002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar