Journals / Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2012 / Sayı: 2

Discourse and coherence relations

Söylem ve bağdaşıklık ilişkileri

Pages
41–65
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this study we address the issues raised in these theories, such as the connective-based approaches to discourse, the possibility ofdirect mapping from syntax to discourse, and whether the number of coherence relations is limited or left open based on empirical observations as suggested by the theories, their degree of reliance on the structure and meaning.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Computational theories of discourse have contributed to our understanding of discourse coherence and natural language processing.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Computational theories of discourse have contributed to our understanding of discourse coherence and natural language processing.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this study we address the issues raised in these theories, such as the connective-based approaches to discourse, the possibility ofdirect mapping from syntax to discourse, and whether the number of coherence relations is limited or left open based on empirical observations as suggested by the theories, their degree of reliance on the structure and meaning.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Computational theories of discourse have contributed to our understanding of discourse coherence and natural language processing. In this study we address the issues raised in these theories, such as the connective-based approaches to discourse, the possibility ofdirect mapping from syntax to discourse, and whether the number of coherence relations is limited or left open based on empirical observations as suggested by the theories, their degree of reliance on the structure and meaning.

Özet

Söylemi konu alan berimsel kuramlar, bağdaşıklık ve doğal dil işlemleme konularını anlamamızı sağlar. Bu yazıda söylemi inceleyen çeşitli berimsel kuramlar ve ele aldıkları konular ele alınmaktadır. Örneğin, bağdaşıklık türlerini bağlaçların varlığıyla açıklayan, sözdizim-söylem arasında doğrudan bir bağ aramayı öneren ve sonlu sayıda olduklarını öne süren kuramlardan söz edilmekte, bu kuramların yapı ve anlama ne derecede bağlı kaldıkları konusuna ışık tutulmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TURAN, Ü. D., ZEYREK, D., BOZŞAHİN, C. (2012). Discourse and coherence relations. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 2, 41–65. https://ajindex.com/articles/156400

References (9)

  1. Afantenos, S. D., Karkaletsis, V., Stamatopoulos, P., ve Halatsis, C. (2008). Using synchronic and diachronic relations for summarizing multiple documents describing evolving events. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 30, 183–226. Bozşahin, C. ve Findler, N. V. (1992). Memory-based Hypothesis Formation: Heuristic Learning of Commonsense Causal Relations from Text. Cognitive Science, 16 (4), 431–454. Creswell, C., Forbes, K., Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Joshi, A. ve Webber, B. (2002). The discourse anaphoric properties of connectives. The Proceedings of 4th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium (DAARC), 45-50.
  2. Lisbon, Portugal. Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Joshi, A. ve Webber, B. (2005). Attribution and the non-alignment of syntactic and discourse arguments of connectives. ACL Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation, 29-36.
  3. Ann Arbor MI. Enç, M. (1986). Topic Switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. D. Slobin ve K. Zimmer (Haz.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics (s.195-208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fox, B., ve Thompson, S. (1990). A Discourse Explanation of the Grammar of Relative Clauses in English Conversation, Language, 66 (2), 297-316.
  4. Forbes, K. M. (2003) Discourse Semantics of S-modıfying Adverbials. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Forbes, K., Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Sarkar, A., Joshi, A. ve Webber, B. (2003). D-LTAG System: Discourse parsing with a lexicalized Tree-Adjoining Grammar. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12, 1-20.
  5. Forbes-Riley, K., Webber, B. ve Joshi, A. (2006). Computing discourse semantics: The predicateargument semantics of discourse connectives in D-LTAG. Journal of Semantics 23, 55–106. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. P Cole ve J. Morgan, (Haz.). Syntax and semantics, Speech Acts, 3 (s. 43–58). New York: Academic Press.
  6. Grosz, B. ve Sidner, C. (1986).
  7. Attention, Intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12 (3), 174-204.
  8. Grosz, B., Joshi, A. ve Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A Framework for Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse. Computational Linguistics, 2 (21), 203-22.
  9. Halliday, M. ve Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hawes, T., Lin, J. ve Resnik, P. (2008). Elements of a Computational Model for Multi-Party Discourse: The Turn-Taking Behavior of Supreme Court Justices. 18.12.2011 tarihinde ulaşıldığı adres: http://lampsrv01.umiacs.umd.edu/pubs/TechReports/LAMP_147