CID 2011

CID 2011
September 14th-16th 2011

AGAY-ROCHES ROUGES
Var, France

endorsed by SIGSEM SIGSEM

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

program [2011/06/20 14:44]
pmuller [Program]
program [2011/09/22 16:15] (current)
clerger
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Program ====== ====== Program ======
  
 +  * [[#Invited speakers]]
   * [[#Oral presentations]]   * [[#Oral presentations]]
   * [[#Posters]]   * [[#Posters]]
Line 10: Line 11:
 | 11h | R. Fernández | L. Danlos & O. Rambow| N. Asher et al. | | 11h | R. Fernández | L. Danlos & O. Rambow| N. Asher et al. |
 | 11h45 |K. Jasinskaja & E. Karagjosova |M. Vergez-Couret et al. |N. Van der Vliet & G. Redeker |  | 11h45 |K. Jasinskaja & E. Karagjosova |M. Vergez-Couret et al. |N. Van der Vliet & G. Redeker | 
-12h30 | **Lunch** |** Lunch** | **Closure & Lunch**   |+12h15 | **Lunch** |** Lunch** | **Closure & Lunch**   |
 | 14h | A. Tantos  |M. Egg  |  | | 14h | A. Tantos  |M. Egg  |  |
-| 14h45 | L. Vieu | **Poster Session**: \\ K. Alahverdzhieva & A. Lascarides, \\ A. Gazdik & G. Winterstein, \\ J. Mayol & E. Castroviejo \\  C. RozeGylling & Korzen | |+| 14h45 | L. Vieu | **Poster Session**: \\ K. Alahverdzhieva & A. Lascarides, \\ A. Gazdik & G. Winterstein, \\ L. Mayol & E. Castroviejo \\  C. Roze \\ M. Gylling & I. Korzen | |
 | 15h30 | **Break** | ::: | | | 15h30 | **Break** | ::: | |
 | 16h | J. Hunter | ::: || | 16h | J. Hunter | ::: ||
Line 20: Line 21:
 ---- ----
 ---- ----
 +===== Invited speakers =====
 +**Barbara di Eugenio** // Semantic Constraints and Discourse Parsing //
 +
 + Abstract: "Discourse Parsing, the computational segmentation and  inference of structure and relations in text, remains a highly challenging task. Efforts have relied mostly on syntactic and lexical information. The use of semantics has been restricted to shallow semantic features such as lexical chains and similarity measures based on word co-occurrences.
 +
 + I will present an innovative discourse parser that uses rich verb semantics and relational information on the structure of  the segment being built. Our discourse parser, based on a modified shift-reduce algorithm, crucially uses a rhetorical relation classifier to determine the site of attachment of a new incoming chunk together with the appropriate relation label. Another novel
 + aspect of our work is that the relation classifier uses Inductive Logic Programming, a method that learns from first-order logic representations. We show that on classifying rhetorical elations,  our results are significantly better than attribute-value learning paradigms such as Decision Trees, RIPPER and Naive Bayes. Our work demonstrates that, when available, semantic information for discourse parsing can be used effectively."
 +
 + BIO: Barbara Di Eugenio is Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science of the
 + University of Illinois, Chicago campus. There she leads the NLP laboratory (http://nlp.cs.uic.edu/). She obtained her laurea in Informatica in 1985, from Universita'
 + di Torino, and her PhD in Computer Science in 1993, from the University of Pennsylvania. She  is an NSF CAREER awardee, a past treasurer of the North American Chapter of the Association
 + for Computational Linguistics, and a past treasurer of SIGDial, the ACL special interest group for
 + discourse and dialogue; she is also one of the founding and managing editors of the Journal of Discourse and Dialogue Research.
 +
 +----
 +**Andrew Kehler** //A Probabilistic Reconciliation of Coherence-Driven and
 +Centering-Driven Theories of Pronoun Interpretation//
 +
 +Abstract: Two classic theories of pronoun interpretation have each sought to
 +specify the relationship between pronoun use and discourse coherence,
 +but make seemingly irreconcilable claims.  According to Hobbs (1979,
 +1990), pronoun interpretation is not governed by an independent
 +mechanism, but instead comes about as a by-product of utilizing world
 +knowledge during the inferential establishment of discourse coherence
 +relations.  Factors pertaining to the grammatical form and information
 +structure of utterances do not come into play.  According to Centering
 +Theory (Grosz et al. 1986/1995, inter alia), on the other hand,
 +pronoun interpretation is predominantly determined by information
 +structural relationships within and between utterances (e.g., topic
 +transitions) and the grammatical roles occupied by potential
 +referents.  Factors pertaining to world knowledge and the
 +establishment of informational coherence relations do not come into
 +play.
 +
 +In this talk I describe a series of psycholinguistic experiments that
 +ultimately suggest a reconciliation of these diverse approaches.
 +These experiments reveal a definitive role for coherence relationships
 +of the Hobbsian sort, demonstrating that pronoun interpretation is
 +affected by (i) probabilistic expectations that hearers have about
 +what coherence relationships will ensue, and (ii) their expectations
 +about what entities will be mentioned next which, crucially, are
 +conditioned on those coherence relationships.  However, these
 +experiments also reveal a role played by the grammatical and/or
 +topichood status of potential referents.  These data are reconciled by
 +a probabilistic model that combines the hearer's coherence-driven
 +prior expectations about what entities will be referred to next and
 +Centering-driven likelihoods that govern the speaker's choice of
 +referential form.  The approach therefore situates pronoun
 +interpretation within a larger body of work in psycholinguistics,
 +according to which language interpretation results when top-down
 +predictions about the ensuing message meet the bottom-up linguistic
 +evidence.
 +
 +This talk contains joint work with Hannah Rohde, Jeffrey Elman, and
 +Staci Osborn.
 +
 +Grosz, Barbara J., Aravind K. Joshi & Scott Weinstein. 1995. Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21(2). 203–225.
 +
 +Hobbs, Jerry R. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science 3. 67–90.
 +
 +Hobbs, Jerry R. 1990. Literature and cognition. Stanford, CA: CSLI Lecture Notes 21.
 +
 + BIO:  Andrew Kehler is Professor and Chair of Linguistics at the University of California, San Diego.  He holds the B.S.E. degree in Computer Science and Engineering from the University of Pennsylvania, and the S.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Computer Science from Harvard University. Before arriving at UCSD in 2000, he served as Senior Computer Scientist at SRI International. He has published numerous articles on pragmatics and discourse interpretation studied from the perspectives of theoretical linguistics, computational linguistics, and psycholinguistics, and is author of the book Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar (2002).
 +----
 +
 +**Jonathan Ginzburg** // Disfluencies as Intra-Utterance Dialogue Moves//
 +
 +Abstract: There are a number of approaches to analyzing dislfluencies, exemplified in (1):
 +
 +(1)  
 +From Levelt (1989):
 +To the right is yellow, and to the right -- further to the right is blue.
 +
 + From Levelt (1989):
 +We go straight on, or-- we enter via red, then go straight on to green.
 +
 + From Besser and Alexandersson (2007):
 +The design of or-- the point of putting two sensors on each side
 +
 + From Fay (1980), cited by Levelt (1989):
 +Why it is -- why is it that nobody makes a decent toilet seat?
 +
 +From Levelt (1989): 
 +Tell me, uh what-- d'you need a hot sauce?
 +
 +In the conversational analysis tradition (following Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977) disfluencies are viewed as a subtype of repair. There are many insights in this type of approach, but it has typically not integrated into a formal model of grammar/dialogue. An alternative approach, common in the computational literature, has been to view disfluencies as filtered away by low-level processes, so that there is no interpretation of disfluencies, that the interpreter (the level of computation of dialogue meaning) doesn't see disfluencies (e.g. Heeman and Allen 1999). Recently, evidence from psycholinguistics has begun emerging that self-corrected material has a long-term processing effect (e.g. Brennan and Schober 20001, Arnold et al 2007), hence is not being 'edited away'. It can also bring about linguistic effects in whose interpretation it plays a significant role, for instance anaphora, as in (2a) from (Heeman and Allen 1999). In fact, disfluencies yield information: (2a) entails (2b) and defeasibly (2c), which in certain settings (e.g.\ legal), given sufficient data, can be useful.
 +
 +(2a) Andy:  Peter was, well he was fired.
 +
 +(2b) Andy was unsure about what he should say, after uttering `was'.
 +
 +(2c) Andy was unsure about how to describe what happened to Peter.
 +
 +
 +In this talk I present a detailed formal account of disfluencies within the framework of KoS (Ginzburg 1994, Larsson 2002, Purver 2006, Ginzburg and Fernandez 2010, Ginzburg 2012) which:
 +
 +1. unifies self- and other-repair without conflating them,
 +
 +2. offers a precise explication of the roles of all key components of
 +a disfluency, including editing phrases and filled pauses,
 +
 +3. accounts for the possibility of self-addressed questions
 +in a disfluency.
 +
 +References:
 +
 +J.E. Arnold  and Kam, C.L.H. and Tanenhaus, M.K. 2007,
 +`If you say `thee uh' you are describing something hard: The on-line attribution of disfluency during reference comprehension.', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33: 914-930.
 +
 +Susan E. Brennan and Michael F. Schober 2001, `How Listeners Compensate for Disfluencies in Spontaneous Speech', Journal of Memory and Language 44: 274--296.
 +
 +Jonathan Ginzburg 1994, `An update semantics for dialogue'. In H. Bunt, ed., _Proceedings of the
 +1st international workshop on computational semantics_ . ITK, Tilburg University,
 +Tilburg, Netherlands.
 +
 +Jonathan Ginzburg 2012 _The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation_ . Oxford: Oxford
 +University Press.
 +
 +Jonathan Ginzburg and R. Fernandez. 2010. `Computational Models of Dialogue'. In A. Clark, C. Fox, and S. Lappin,
 +eds., _Handbook of computational linguistics and natural language_ . Oxford:
 +Blackwell.
 +
 +Peter A. Heeman and James F. Allen,  1999, `Speech Repairs, Intonational Phrases and Discourse Markers: Modeling Speakers' Utterances in Spoken Dialogue',
 +Computational Linguistics 25: 527--571
 +
 +Staffan Larsson 2002. _Issue based dialogue management_ . Ph.D. thesis, Gothenburg
 +University.
 +
 +W.J.M. Levelt 1989, _Speaking: From intention to articulation_
 +The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
 +
 +Matthew Purver 2006, `Clarie: Handling clarification requests in a dialogue system'. Research
 +on Language and Computation , 4: 259-288.
 +
 +Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson and Harvey Sacks 1977,`The preference for 
 +self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation', Language 53:
 +361--382.
 +
 +(joint work with Raquel Fernandez and David Schlangen)
 +
 +BIO : Jonathan Ginzburg has held appointments at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and King's College, London. He is currently Professor of Linguistics at Universite Paris-Diderot (Paris 7). He is the author of Interrogative Investigations: the form, meaning, and use of English Interrogatives (jointly with Ivan A. Sag) and has published more than 70 papers. He is one of the founders and currently editor-in-chief of Dialogue and Discourse, one of the Linguistic Society of America's ejournals.
 +
 ===== Oral presentations ===== ===== Oral presentations =====
 ---- ----
-**[[http://www.let.rug.nl/~vandervliet/|Nynke Van Der Vliet]] and [[http://www.let.rug.nl/~redeker|Gisela Redeker]]** //Complex sentences as leaky units in discourse parsing//+**[[http://www.let.rug.nl/~vandervliet/|Nynke Van Der Vliet]] and [[http://www.let.rug.nl/~redeker|Gisela Redeker]]** //{{:cid2011_submission_2.pdf|Complex sentences as leaky units in discourse parsing}}//
  
 Abstract: \\ Abstract: \\
Line 28: Line 171:
  
 ---- ----
-**[[http://www.angl.hu-berlin.de/faculty/egg|Markus Egg]].** //Discourse particles between cohesion and coherence//+**[[http://www.angl.hu-berlin.de/faculty/egg|Markus Egg]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_4.pdf|Discourse particles between cohesion and coherence}}//
  
    
Line 37: Line 180:
  
  
-**  [[http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~jasinsk/|Katja Jasinskaja]] and Elena Karagjosova.** //Elaboration and Explanation//+**  [[http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~jasinsk/|Katja Jasinskaja]] and Elena Karagjosova.** //{{:cid2011_submission_8.pdf|Elaboration and Explanation}}//
  
 Abstract:\\ Abstract:\\
Line 43: Line 186:
  
 ---- ----
-**  [[http://www.irit.fr/~Nicholas.Asher|Nicholas Asher]], Antoine Venant, [[http://www.irit.fr/~Philippe.Muller/|Philippe Muller]] and [[http://www.irit.fr/-Annuaire-?code=6334|Stergos Afantenos]].** //Complex discourse units and their semantics//+**  [[http://www.irit.fr/~Nicholas.Asher|Nicholas Asher]], Antoine Venant, [[http://www.irit.fr/~Philippe.Muller/|Philippe Muller]] and [[http://www.irit.fr/-Annuaire-?code=6334|Stergos Afantenos]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_9.pdf|Complex discourse units and their semantics}}//
  
 Abstract:\\ Abstract:\\
Line 49: Line 192:
  
 ---- ----
-**  Julie Hunter.** //`Now': A Discourse-Based Theory//+**  Julie Hunter.** //{{:cid2011_submission_10.pdf|`Now': A Discourse-Based Theory}}//
  
 Abstract:\\ Abstract:\\
Line 56: Line 199:
 ---- ----
  
-**  [[http://staff.science.uva.nl/~raquel|Raquel Fernández]].** //Incremental Resolution of Relative Adjectives: A DRT-based Approach//+**  [[http://staff.science.uva.nl/~raquel|Raquel Fernández]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_13.pdf|Incremental Resolution of Relative Adjectives: A DRT-based Approach}}//
  
 Abstract:\\ Abstract:\\
Line 62: Line 205:
  
 ---- ----
-**  [[http://www.labri.fr/perso/moot|Richard Moot]], Laurent Prévot and [[http://www.labri.fr/perso/retore|Christian Retore]].** //Discursive analysis of itineraries in an historical and regional corpus of  travels: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in a unified type theoretical  framework//+**  [[http://www.labri.fr/perso/moot|Richard Moot]], Laurent Prévot and [[http://www.labri.fr/perso/retore|Christian Retore]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_16.pdf|Discursive analysis of itineraries in an historical and regional corpus of  travels: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in a unified type theoretical  framework}}//
  
 Abstract:\\ Abstract:\\
Line 69: Line 212:
 ---- ----
  
-**  [[http://www.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~danlos/|Laurence Danlos]] and Owen Rambow.** //Veridicality of discourse relations and factivity information//+**  [[http://www.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~danlos/|Laurence Danlos]] and Owen Rambow.** //{{:cid2011_submission_21.pdf|Discourse Relations and Propositional Attitudes}}//
  
 Abstract:\\ Abstract:\\
- We show that the notion of (right) veridical  discourse relation cannot be defined as in SDRT in which veridicality is not evaluated relative to the different sources at play.  We put forward  two rules  which should be satisfied respectively by a veridical and right veridical  relation.  These rules rely on a new paradigm for discourse analysis in which factivity information (such as that given in Factbank) plays a crucial role.+ We propose a procedure how discourse should be processed when segments are 
 +not asserted by the writer but attributed by her to other sources.
  
 ---- ----
-**  [[http://www.irit.fr/~Laure.Vieu|Laure Vieu]].** //On the Semantics of Discourse Relations//+**  [[http://www.irit.fr/~Laure.Vieu|Laure Vieu]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_23.pdf|On the Semantics of Discourse Relations}}//
  
 Abstract:\\ Abstract:\\
- I reconsider in this paper the semantics schemata given for veridical discourse relations in SDRT. I claim that for different reasons, structural and semantics, one cannot reduce discourse relations to their semantic effects. I propose revised schema involving public commitment operators to characterize the rhetorical import of discourse relations.+In this paper, I examine the division of labour between discourse semantics and information packaging and reconsider the schemata for the semantics of veridical discourse relations given in SDRT. On 
 +the basis of studies of the phenomena of discourse relation blocking, I claim that one cannot reduce the semantics of discourse relations to their content-level semantic effects. I propose revised semantic schemata involving public commitment operators to characterize the rhetorical import of discourse relations within their semantics.
  
 ---- ----
-**  Alexandros Tantos.** //Discourse Constraints of Clitic Left Dislocation in Modern Greek//+**  Alexandros Tantos.** //{{:cid2011_submission_24.pdf|Discourse Constraints of Clitic Left Dislocation in Modern Greek}}//
  
 Abstract:\\ Abstract:\\
Line 87: Line 232:
  
 ---- ----
-**  Marianne Vergez-Couret, Myriam Bras and Laurent Prévot.** //Discourse contribution of Enumerative Structures involving pour deux raisons//+** Marianne Vergez-Couret, Myriam BrasLaurent Prévot, Laure Vieu and Caroline Attalah** //{{:cid2011_submission_25.pdf|Discourse contribution of Enumerative Structures involving pour deux raisons}}//
  
 Abstract:\\ Abstract:\\
- Description of discourse structure is a major topic of ongoing research (Moore & Wiemer-Hastings, 2003; Péry-Woodley & Scott, 2006). The importance of the discourse level (Asher & Lascarides, 2003; Grosz & Sidner, 1986; Hobbs, 1990; Mann & Thompson, 1987) is commonly accepted but the exact nature of its contribution and the rules that govern the interpretation are still debated. We would like to pay particular attention to enumerative structures as a textual pattern that constrain, in some way, their interpretation and their treatment in the SDRT model (Asher & Lascarides, 2003)Following Bras et al’s (2008) proposition to introduce a new textual discourse relation, Enumeration, we would like to go into this solution in depth in order to question its relevance. In brief, is the Enumeration relation necessary to construe the right representation of texts containing enumerative structures? To suggest possible answers to this question, we will consider discourse segments including the prepositional phrase  pour deux raisons (for two reasons) in order to examine its relations with subsequent segments+We propose to study the discourse contribution of enumerative 
 +structures involving the prepositional phrase pour deux raisons. We would like 
 +to highlight the contribution of the textual information conveyed by 
 +enumerative structures and the prepositional phrase both to the discourse 
 +structure and the discourse content within the SDRT model. We will show that 
 +prepositional phrase like pour deux raisons must introduce a discourse 
 +constituent in the structure attached by the Commentary relation to the left 
 +context and the Enumeration relation to the right context. Finally we propose to 
 +treat pour deux raisons as a new kind of discourse marker: We will show that 
 +its discursive role within enumerative structures is to signal the content-level 
 +relation Explanation.
  
 ---- ----
Line 98: Line 253:
 ---- ----
  
-**  [[http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/s0896251/|Katya Alahverdzhieva]] and [[http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/alex|Alex Lascarides]].** //Semantic Composition of Multimodal Communicative Actions in Constraint-based Grammars//+**  [[http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/s0896251/|Katya Alahverdzhieva]] and [[http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/alex|Alex Lascarides]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_6.pdf|Semantic Composition of Multimodal Communicative Actions in Constraint-based Grammars}}//
  
 Abstract:\\ Abstract:\\
Line 104: Line 259:
  
 ---- ----
-**  Laia Mayol and [[http://elena-castroviejo-miro.cat/|Elena Castroviejo]].** //Solutionhood and conditionalsan analysis of the discourse connective "doncs"//+**  Laia Mayol and [[http://elena-castroviejo-miro.cat/|Elena Castroviejo]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_12.pdf|The connective "doncs" in dialogue and the QUD}}//
  
 Abstract:\\ Abstract:\\
Line 110: Line 265:
  
 ---- ----
-**  [[http://www.llf.cnrs.fr/Gens/Gazdik/index-fr.php|Anna Gazdik]] and [[http://www.linguist.jussieu.fr/~gwinterstein/|Grégoire Winterstein]].** //A Discursive Approach to Discourse Functions in Hungarian//+**  [[http://www.llf.cnrs.fr/Gens/Gazdik/index-fr.php|Anna Gazdik]] and [[http://www.linguist.jussieu.fr/~gwinterstein/|Grégoire Winterstein]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_17.pdf|A Discursive Approach to Discourse Functions in Hungarian}}//
  
 Abstract:\\ Abstract:\\
Line 117: Line 272:
 ---- ----
  
-**  [[http://www.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~croze/|Charlotte Roze]].** //Towards a Discourse Relation Algebra for Comparing Discourse Structures//+**  [[http://www.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~croze/|Charlotte Roze]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_20.pdf|Towards a Discourse Relation Algebra for Comparing Discourse Structures}}//
  
 Abstract:\\ Abstract:\\
Line 123: Line 278:
  
 ---- ----
-**  [[http://uk.cbs.dk/staff/mgj|Morten Gylling]] and [[http://uk.cbs.dk/staff/iorn.korzen|Iørn Korzen]].** //Discourse Constraints in a Cross-linguistic Typological Perspective//+**  [[http://uk.cbs.dk/staff/mgj|Morten Gylling]] and [[http://uk.cbs.dk/staff/iorn.korzen|Iørn Korzen]].** //{{:cid2011_submission_7.pdf|Discourse Constraints in a Cross-linguistic Typological Perspective}}//
  
 Abstract:\\ Abstract:\\