Quantitative Aspects of PDTB-Style Discourse Relations across Languages

References

• Alsaif, A. (2012). Human and automatic annotation of discourse relations for Arabic. ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Leeds University, Leeds, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. (2005). Diversification processes. In R. Köhler, G. Altmann, & R. G. Piotrowski (Eds.), Quantitative linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 646–658). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Altmann-Fitter. (1997/2017). Iterative fitting of probability distributions. Lüdenscheid: RAM-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Asr, F., & Demberg, V. (2012, December). Implicitness of discourse relations. In Proceedings of Computational Linguistics (ACL 2012) (pp.2669–2684). Mumbai, India.
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, H. (2013). Word frequency distributions. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Begum, R., Husain, S., Dhwaj, A., Misra, D., Bai, L., & Sangal, R. (2008). Dependency annotation scheme for Indian languages. In Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. Hyderabad, India.
   Google Scholar
• Camerer, C., Ho, T., & Chong, J. (2004). A cognitive hierarchy model of games. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), 861–898.10.1162/0033553041502225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, L., Marcu, D., & Okurowski, M. E. (2002). RST discourse treebank LDC2002T07[Corpus]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Caron, J., Micko, C., & Thuring, M. (1988). Conjunctions and the recall of composite sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(3), 309–323.10.1016/0749-596X(88)90057-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, H., & Liu, H. (2016). How to measure word length in spoken and written Chinese. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 23(1), 5–29.10.1080/09296174.2015.1071147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clauset, A., Shalizi, C., & Newman, M. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. Annals of Applied Statistsics, 51(4), 661–703.
   Google Scholar
• Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Demberg, V., Asr, F., & Scholman, M. (2017). Mapping discourse annotations: How consistent are our discourse annotations? Insights form mapping RST-DT and PDTB annotations. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.08893.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109(2), 193–210.10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Djuras, G. (2012). Generalized Poisson models for word length frequencies in texts of Slavic Languages ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Graz University of Technology, Styria, Austria.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrer i Cancho, R., Riordan, O., & Bollobás, B. (2005). The consequences of Zipf’s law for syntax and symbolic reference. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (Series B) 272, 561–565.10.1098/rspb.2004.2957
   Google Scholar
• Ferstl, E. C., Neumann, J., Bogler, C., & von Cramon, Y. (2008). The extended language network: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on text comprehension. Human Brain Mapping, 29, 581–593.10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forbes, C., Eveans, M., Hastings, N., & Peacock, B. (2011). Statistical distributions. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Gao, S., Zhang, H., & Liu, H. (2014). Synergetic properties of Chinese verb valency. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 21(1), 1–21.10.1080/09296174.2013.856132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwood, M. & Yule, G. (1920). An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or of repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 83, 255–279.
   Google Scholar
• Grosz, B., Joshi, A., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 2(21), 203–225.
   Google Scholar
• Haight, F. (1967). Handbook of the Poisson distribution. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hobbs, J. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67–90.10.1207/s15516709cog0301_4
   Google Scholar
• Hovy, E., & Maier, E. (1995). Parsimonious or profligate: How many and which discourse structure relations. Unpublished manuscript, Information Science Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, CA, US.
   Google Scholar
• Jin, L., & Marneffe, M-C. (2015). The overall markedness of discourse relations. In L. Màrquez, C. Callison-Burch, & J. Su (Chairs), Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (ACL 2015) (pp. 1114–1119). Lisbon, Portugal, September.10.18653/v1/D15-1
   Google Scholar
• Joshi, A. (1987). An introduction to tree adjoining grammar. In A. Manaster-Ramer (Ed.), Mathematics of language (pp. 87–114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.35
   Google Scholar
• Karlis, D., & Xekalaki, E. (2005). Mixed poisson distributions. International Statistical Review, 73(1), 35–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kello, C., Brown, G., Ferrer-i-Cancho, R., Holden, J., Linkenkaer-Hansen, K., & Rhodes, T. (2010). Scaling laws in cognitive sciences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(5), 223–232.10.1016/j.tics.2010.02.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhler, R., & Altmann, G. (2000). Probability distributions of syntactic units and properties. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 7(3), 189–200.10.1076/jqul.7.3.189.4114
   Google Scholar
• Köhler, R. (2012). Quantitative syntax analysis. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.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: de Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G., Paczynski, M., & Ditman, T. (2011). Establishing causal coherence across sentences: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(5), 1230–1246.10.1162/jocn.2010.21452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leech, G. (2006). A glossary of English grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li, W. (2013). Characterizing ranked Chinese syllable-to-character mapping spectrum: A bridge between the spoken and written Chinese language. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 20(2), 153–167.10.1080/09296174.2013.773140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Z., Ng, H., & Kan, M. (2014). A PDTB-styled end-to-end discourse parser. Natural Language Engineering, 20(2), 151–184.10.1017/S1351324912000307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, H. (2011). Quantitative properties of English verb valency. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 18(3), 207–233.10.1080/09296174.2011.581849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, H. (2014). Language is more a human-driven system than a semiotic system. Physics of Life Reviews, 11, 309–310.10.1016/j.plrev.2013.12.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maamouri, M., Bies, A., Buckwalter, T., & Wigdan, M. (2004). The Penn Arabic treebank: Building a large-scale annotated Arabic corpus. NEMLAR Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools, Cairo, Egypt.
   Google Scholar
• Manin, D. (2009). Mandelbrot’s model for Zipf’s law: Can Mandelbrot’s model explain Zipf’s law for language? Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 16(3), 274–285.10.1080/09296170902850358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281.
   Google Scholar
• Marcus, M., Santorini, B., Marcinkiewicz, M., & Taylor, A. (1995). Treebnak-2. LDC95T7. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, J., & Pollack, M. (1992). A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics, 18(4), 537–544.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, J. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition, 25(2), 227–236.10.3758/BF03201114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narisong, Jiang, J., & Liu, H. (2014). Word length distribution in Mongolian. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 21(2), 123–152.10.1080/09296174.2014.882191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naranan, S., & Balasubrahmanyan, V. (1998). Models for power law relations in linguistics and information science. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 5(1-2), 35–61.10.1080/09296179808590110
   Google Scholar
• Neophytou, K., van Egmond, M., & Avrutin, S. (2017). Zipf’s law in Aphasia across languages: A comparison of English, Hungarian and Greek. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 24(2-3), 178–196.10.1080/09296174.2016.1263786
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oza, U., Prasad, R., Kolachina, S., Sharma, D., & Joshi, A. (2009, December). Experiments with annotating discourse relations in the Hindi discourse relation Bank. D. M. Sharma, In V. Verma & R. Sangal (Eds.), Proceedings of ICON-2009: The 7th International Conference on Natural Language Processing, Hyderabad, India.
   Google Scholar
• Poláková, L., Mírovský, J., Nedoluzhko, A., & Hajičová, E. (2013, October). Introducing the Prague discourse treebank 1.0. In International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (ACL 2013) (pp. 91–99). Nagoya, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Polanyi, L. (1988). A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 601–638.10.1016/0378-2166(88)90050-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popescu, I., Sven, N., Emmerich, K., Andrij, R., Anja, O., Haruko, S., & Reginald, S. (2013). Word length: Aspects and languages. In R. Köhler & G. Altmann (Eds.), Issues in quantitative linguistics (3) (pp. 224-281). Lüdenscheid: RAM-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., & Joshi, A. (2008). The Penn discourse treebank 2.0 annotation manual. Technical Report, IRCS-08-01, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
   Google Scholar
• Prasad, R., McRoy, S., Frid, N., Joshi, A., & Yu, H. (2011). The biomedical fiscourse relation bank. BMC Bioinformatics, 12(188), 1–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Prasad, R., Webber, B., & Joshi, A. (2014). Reflections on the Penn discourse treebank, comparable corpora, and complementary annotation. Computational Linguistics, 40(4), 921–950.10.1162/COLI_a_00204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In M. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. Le Draoulec, & L. Vieu (Eds.), Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning (pp. 105–114). Toulouse: University of Toulouse-le-Mirail.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T., & Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37–60.10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stede, M. (2012). Discourse Processing. Williston: Morgan & Claypool.
   Google Scholar
• Trabasso, T., Secco, T., & van den Broek, P. (1984). Causal cohesion and story coherence. In H. Mandal, N. Stain, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 83–111). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, L. (2016). Part-of-speech studies in Chinese. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 23(3), 235–255.10.1080/09296174.2016.1169851
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webber, B. (2004). D-LTAG: Extending lexicalized TAG to discourse. Cognitive Science, 28, 751–779.10.1207/s15516709cog2805_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webber, B., & Joshi, A. (1998, August). Anchoring a lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar for discourse. Paper presented at Coling/ACL workshop on discourse relations and discourse markers (pp. 86–92). Montreal, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, A. (2017). Units and constituency in prosodic analysis: A quantitative assessment. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 24(2-3), 163–177.10.1080/09296174.2016.1260275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wimmer, G., Köhler, R., Grotjahn, R., & Altmann, G. (1994). Towards a theory of word length distribution. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 1, 98–106.10.1080/09296179408590003
   Google Scholar
• Xue, N. (2011). Multilingual discourse annotation. Slides for LSA Summer Institute. Retrieved from http://www.cs.brandeis.edu/~xuen/teaching/lsa2011/lsa-lecture4~5.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Xue, N., Zhang, X., Jiang, Z., Palmer, M., Xia, F., & Chiou, F. (2013). Chinese treebank 8.0 LDC2013T21. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
   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
• Zanette, D., & Montemurro, M. (2005). Dynamics of text generation with realistic Zipf’s distribution. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 12(1), 29–40.10.1080/09296170500055293
   Google Scholar
• Zeyrek, D. (2013). Turkish discourse bank: Porting a discourse annotation style to a morphologically rich language. Dialogue and Discourse, 4(2), 174–184.10.5087/dad
   Google Scholar
• Zeyrek, D., & Kurfali, M. (2017). TDB 1.1: Extensions on Turkish discourse bank. In Proceedings of the 11th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (ACL 2017) (pp. 76–81). Valencia, Spain, April, 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, H., & Liu, H. (2016). Quantitative aspects of RST rhetorical relations across individual levels. Glottometrics, 33, 8–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, H., & Liu, H. (2017). Motifs in reconstructed RST discourse trees. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 24(2-3), 107–127.10.1080/09296174.2016.1265794
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, Y., & Xue, N. (2015). The Chinese discourse treebank: A Chinese corpus annotated with discourse relations. Language Source and Evaluation, 49, 397–431.10.1007/s10579-014-9290-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziegler, A. (1998). Word class frequencies in Brazilian-Portuguese press texts. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 5(3), 269–280.10.1080/09296179808590136
   Google Scholar
• Ziegler, A., & Altmann, G. (2003). Text stratification. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 10(3), 275–292.10.1080/09296170512331383605
   Google Scholar