Discourse Structure
(beyond DRT)
Semantic Theory, SS 2008
Manfred Pinkal & Stefan Thater & Michaela Regneri
Motivation
John frowned. Mary kissed him.
2
Motivation
John frowned. Mary kissed him.
2
Motivation
John frowned. Mary kissed him.
2
Motivation
John frowned. Mary kissed him.
2
Motivation
John frowned. Mary kissed him.
events in a sequential relation:
frowning kissing
2
Motivation
John frowned. Mary kissed him.
3
Motivation
John frowned. Mary kissed him.
Mary
3
Motivation
John frowned. Mary kissed him.
Mary
events in a causal relation:
kissing frowning
3
Outline
Discourse Structure
Segmented DRT
Rhetorical Structure Theory
Some current issues
4
Discourse Structure
...explains how clauses form a coherent text
discourse relations mark semantic or textual relations
discourse units (DUs) are hierarchically ordered:
atomic DUs (also: discourse segments) are elementary units
complex DUs consist of several [atomic or complex] DUs
connected by a discourse relation
atomic discourse
Condition
DUs relations
Purpose
(1) [1 If he looks grumpy] C1
[2 I draw little comics]
[3 to make him smile.] C2 C3
complex
DUs 5
Ambiguity in Discourse Structure
(2) [1 John frowned.] sequence cause
ambiguous
[2 Mary kissed him.]
C1 C2 C1 C2 relation
(3) [1 I try to read a novel] alternative condition
[2 if I feel bored] condition alternative
[3 or I am unhappy.] C3 C1
C1 C2 C2 C3
ambiguous hierarchical structure
6
Theories on Discourse Structure
...differ (mainly) with respect to
discourse relations: different sets (names, number) of discourse
relations
hierarchical constitution: the kinds of valid structures (trees, more
general graphs, connected or not connected, ...)
thus also different theoretical foundations, different aims, and
different tasks for which they are appropriate (or not)
we sketch two of them: Segmented DRT (SDRT) and
Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST)
7
From DRT to SDRT
Discourse relations between SDRSs as straight-forward extension
of logical relations between DRSs (, )
(4a) [1 If John smiles] K1: j m, h
[2 Mary kisses him.] K2: K3:
j = john m = mary
smiles( j ) kisses(m, h)
h=j
8
From DRT to SDRT
Discourse relations between SDRSs as straight-forward extension
of logical relations between DRSs (, )
(4a) [1 If John smiles] K1: j m, h
[2 Mary kisses him.] K2: K3:
j = john m = mary
smiles( j ) kisses(m, h)
h=j
(4b) [1 John smiles]
[2 because Mary
kissed him.]
8
From DRT to SDRT
Discourse relations between SDRSs as straight-forward extension
of logical relations between DRSs (, )
(4a) [1 If John smiles] K1: j m, h
[2 Mary kisses him.] K2: K3:
j = john m = mary
smiles( j ) kisses(m, h)
h=j
(4b) [1 John smiles] 1
[2 because Mary 2, 3
kissed him.] 1:
j m, h
2: 3:
j = john m = mary
smiles( j ) kisses(m, h)
h=j
EXPLANATION( 2,3)
8
SDRT - Discourse Relations (1)
...are always binary; the main distinction:
Subordinating Relations: Coordinating Relations:
1: John smiles 1: John smiles 2: then Mary kisses him.
2: because Mary kisses him.
2)
NARRATION( 1,
2)
EXPLANATION( 1,
both DUs contribute equally
weighted parts to the discourse
one DU (1) is more central, the
other one (2) gives additional some coordinating relations
information require an explicit common topic
of the SDRSs (more on topics
later)
there may be more than one relation between two EDUs, but they have
to be of the same type
9
SDRT - Discourse Relations (2)
Subordinating relations:
2): 2 gives the cause for the effects in 1.
EXPLANATION( 1,
Nothing in 1 may have happened before anything in 2
If there are discrete events in 2, they all must have happened
before anything 1.
Examples:
(5a) [1 John smiles] [2 because Mary kissed him.]
(5b) [1 John was not there] [2 because he was sick.]
10
SDRT - Discourse Relations (3)
Subordinating relations:
2): 2 gives more details about the topic of 1.
ELABORATION( 1,
Example:
(6) [1 Max had a lovely meal last night.] [2 He ate lots of salmon.]
2): 2 gives more information about the
BACKGROUND( 1,
surrounding state of affairs of 1.
Example:
(7) [1 Max opened the door.] [2 The room was pitch dark.]
11
SDRT - Discourse Relations (4)
Coordinating relations (* = topic constraint):
* NARRATION(1, 2): A temporal sequence (with 1 before 2)
Example: (8) [1 We first saw a movie] [2 and had a beer afterwards.]
2): 1 gives the cause for the effect in 2. (= the reversal
RESULT( 1,
of EXPLANATION).
Example: (9) [1 John was sick] [2 so he could not come.]
2): same as 1
CONSEQUENCE( 1, 2
12
SDRT - Discourse Relations (5)
Coordinating relations (* = topic constraint):
2): both SDRSs have a similar structure, and
CONTRAST( 1,
contrast in a particular theme.
Example: (10) [1 John loves sports,][2 but he hates football.]
2): same as 1 2
ALTERNATION( 1,
* CONTINUATION(1, 2): some abstract coherence; both SDRSs say
something about the same topic.
Example: (11) [0 The cat disappeared.] [1 I searched in the flat.]
[2 Dad checked the garden.]
13
SDRT - Building Discourse Structures (1)
for reading / writing convenience, we display SDRSs as graphs with
SDRS labels and discourse relations (not the full (S)DRS):
(12) [1 Max had a lovely meal.] [2 He ate lots of salmon.]
[3 He then ordered a big desert] [4 but he could not finish it.]
!1
subordinating relations
drawn downwards Elaboration
(domination)
T2-4
Narration
!2 !3 Contrast !4
coordinating relations drawn sidewards 14
SDRT - Building Discourse Structures (1)
for reading / writing convenience, we display SDRSs as graphs with
SDRS labels and discourse relations (not the full (S)DRS):
(12) [1 Max had a lovely meal.] [2 He ate lots of salmon.]
[3 He then ordered a big desert] [4 but he could not finish it.]
!1
subordinating relations
drawn downwards Elaboration
(domination)
T2-4
topic node for
coordinating
relations with Narration
!2 !3 Contrast !4
topic constraint
coordinating relations drawn sidewards 14
SDRT - Building Discourse Structures (1)
for reading / writing convenience, we display SDRSs as graphs with
SDRS labels and discourse relations (not the full (S)DRS):
(12) [1 Max had a lovely meal.] [2 He ate lots of salmon.]
[3 He then ordered a big desert] [4 but he could not finish it.]
!1
subordinating relations
drawn downwards Elaboration
(domination)
T2-4
topic node for
coordinating
relations with Narration
!2 !3 Contrast !4
topic constraint
coordinating relations drawn sidewards 14
SDRT - Building Discourse Structures (1)
for reading / writing convenience, we display SDRSs as graphs with
SDRS labels and discourse relations (not the full (S)DRS):
(12) [1 Max had a lovely meal.] [2 He ate lots of salmon.]
[3 He then ordered a big desert] [4 but he could not finish it.]
!1
subordinating relations
drawn downwards Elaboration
(domination)
T2-4
topic node for
coordinating
relations with Narration
!2 !3 Contrast !4
topic constraint
coordinating relations drawn sidewards 14
SDRT - Building Discourse Structures (1)
for reading / writing convenience, we display SDRSs as graphs with
SDRS labels and discourse relations (not the full (S)DRS):
(12) [1 Max had a lovely meal.] [2 He ate lots of salmon.]
[3 He then ordered a big desert] [4 but he could not finish it.]
!1
subordinating relations
drawn downwards Elaboration
(domination)
T2-4
topic node for
coordinating
relations with Narration
!2 !3 Contrast !4
topic constraint
coordinating relations drawn sidewards 14
SDRT - Building Discourse Structures (1)
for reading / writing convenience, we display SDRSs as graphs with
SDRS labels and discourse relations (not the full (S)DRS):
(12) [1 Max had a lovely meal.] [2 He ate lots of salmon.]
[3 He then ordered a big desert] [4 but he could not finish it.]
!1
subordinating relations
drawn downwards Elaboration
(domination)
T2-4
topic node for
coordinating
relations with Narration
!2 !3 Contrast !4
topic constraint
coordinating relations drawn sidewards 14
SDRT - Building Discourse Structures (2)
incremental build-up (in textual order); new DUs are attached to
some allowed attachment point
the attachment point corresponds to the SDRS in which the new
SDRS will be (immediately) embedded
schemata for attachment:
Tx-y
!x
coord.
subord.
relation
relation !x !y !x !y
!y coord. relation
+ topic
allowed attachment points for following DUs
15
SDRT - Building Discourse Structures (3)
an example:
(13) [1 Max had a lovely evening last night.]
[2 He had a great meal.]
[3 He ate salmon] 1
[4 and devoured lots of cheese.]
[5 He then won a dancing competition.]
Coordinating: Subordinating:
ALTERNATION
CONTRAST
CONSEQUENCE BACKGROUND
ELABORATION
CONTINUATION(*)
EXPLANATION
NARRATION(*)
RESULT
16
SDRT - Building Discourse Structures (3)
an example:
(13) [1 Max had a lovely evening last night.]
[2 He had a great meal.]
[3 He ate salmon] 1
[4 and devoured lots of cheese.] ELABORATION
[5 He then won a dancing competition.] 2
Coordinating: Subordinating:
ALTERNATION
CONTRAST
CONSEQUENCE BACKGROUND
ELABORATION
CONTINUATION(*)
EXPLANATION
NARRATION(*)
RESULT
16
SDRT - Building Discourse Structures (3)
an example:
(13) [1 Max had a lovely evening last night.]
[2 He had a great meal.]
[3 He ate salmon] 1
[4 and devoured lots of cheese.] ELABORATION
[5 He then won a dancing competition.] 2
ELABORATION
Coordinating: Subordinating:
3
ALTERNATION
CONTRAST
CONSEQUENCE BACKGROUND
ELABORATION
CONTINUATION(*)
EXPLANATION
NARRATION(*)
RESULT
16
SDRT - Building Discourse Structures (3)
an example:
(13) [1 Max had a lovely evening last night.]
[2 He had a great meal.]
[3 He ate salmon] 1
[4 and devoured lots of cheese.] ELABORATION
[5 He then won a dancing competition.] 2
ELABORATION
Coordinating: Subordinating: T3-4
ALTERNATION
CONTRAST
CONSEQUENCE BACKGROUND
ELABORATION
3 NARRATION 4
CONTINUATION(*)
EXPLANATION
NARRATION(*)
RESULT
16
SDRT - Building Discourse Structures (3)
an example:
(13) [1 Max had a lovely evening last night.]
[2 He had a great meal.]
[3 He ate salmon] 1
[4 and devoured lots of cheese.] ELABORATION
[5 He then won a dancing competition.] T2-5
Coordinating: Subordinating: 2 5
NARRATION
ALTERNATION ELABORATION
CONTRAST
T3-4
CONSEQUENCE BACKGROUND
ELABORATION
CONTINUATION(*)
EXPLANATION
NARRATION(*)
RESULT
3 NARRATION4
16
SDRT - Topics
topics represent a common theme of the SDRSes they dominate
they might be explicit (represented as / in some DU - see Maxs
evening and Maxs meal)
they might also be implicit, then thy have to be inferred (but in
presence of NARRATION or CONTINUATION, they have to be there)
[1 Today was the last exam.] [2 Afterwards I packed my stuff]
[3 and hurried to the airport.] [4 The shore was waiting for me.]
the relations of SDRSs and their topics counts as subordinating
relation (topic dominates the other SDRSs)
17
SDRT - The Right Frontier Constraint
attachment restrictions for coordinating relations:
nothing in the following discourse may attach to the first participant
or anything dominated by the first participant
This constraint also restricts anaphoric accessibility:
no referent of the first participant (or anything dominated by it) is
accessible for the following discourse
closed for
Tx-y
attachment
coord.
and anaphora
relation
!x !y
!x !y
open for coord. relation
attachment + topic
and anaphora
18
SDRT - Summary
discourse formalism on top of DRT
discourse relations (either coordinating or subordinating) as binary
predicates connecting two SDRSs
simplified graph representation reducing the displayed information
to discourse relations and structure
constraints on valid discourse structures (right frontier constraint,
topic constraint, type-equality if more than one relation holds
between two DUs)
discourse structure interacts the semantic representation
19
Rhetorical Structure Theory
independent from any semantic formalism; DUs are simply plain
text
more fine-grained set of discourse relations than in SDRT (see
[Link] )
main constraint on discourse structures: relations may only connect
adjacent DUs (not necessarily the case in SDRT, but it is the case in
all our examples)
Volitional Result
[1 John smiles] [2 because Mary kissed him.]
20
RST - Discourse Relations (1)
mononuclear and multinuclear relations
in mononuclear relations, the more central part is called nucleus, the
supplemental part is called satellite
mononuclear relations are usually binary; however, there are multi-
satellite constructions, in which a single nucleus has more than one
satellite (all attached with the same relation)
in multinuclear relations, all participants have equal status (several
nuclei)
multinuclear relations can in general be n-ary, but some particular
ones must be binary (CONTRAST e.g.)
21
RST - Discourse Relations (2)
Examples for Presentational (text-structural) relations, mononuclear:
BACKGROUND (cf. SDRT) PREPARATION
(could be a texts title e.g.)
CONCESSION
(14) [1 Tempting as it may be,] RESTATEMENT
[2 we shouldn't do that.] (repeating the content of a
previous statement, often title
and first sentence e.g.)
JUSTIFY
(15) [1 Lets be clear:]
(Some re-stated arguments) SUMMARY
(summing up previous
statements; nucleus has to
MOTIVATION
consist of more than one atomic
(16) [1 Buy our stuff!]
[2 Its neat and cheap and good!]
DU)
22
RST - Discourse Relations (2)
Examples for Presentational (text-structural) relations, mononuclear:
BACKGROUND (cf. SDRT) PREPARATION
CONCESSION:
(could be a texts title e.g.)
CONCESSION The writer acknowledges a potential or
apparent
(14) [1 Tempting as it may incompatibility
be,] between nucleus
RESTATEMENT
[2 we shouldn't (repeating
do that.] recognizing the
and satellite; the content of a
compatibility
between nucleus and satellite previous statement, often title
increases
the reader's positive and first
regard sentence
for N e.g.)
JUSTIFY
(15) [1 Lets be clear:]
(Some re-stated arguments) SUMMARY
(summing up previous
statements; nucleus has to
MOTIVATION
consist of more than one atomic
(16) [1 Buy our stuff!]
[2 Its neat and cheap and good!]
DU)
22
RST - Discourse Relations (2)
Examples for Presentational (text-structural) relations, mononuclear:
BACKGROUND (cf. SDRT) PREPARATION
(could be a texts title e.g.)
CONCESSION
(14) [1 Tempting as it may be,] RESTATEMENT
[2 we shouldn't do that.] (repeating the content of a
previous statement, often title
and first sentence e.g.)
JUSTIFY
(15) [1 Lets be clear:]
(Some re-stated arguments) SUMMARY
(summing up previous
statements; nucleus has to
MOTIVATION
consist of more than one atomic
(16) [1 Buy our stuff!]
[2 Its neat and cheap and good!]
DU)
22
RST - Discourse Relations (3)
Examples for Subject-Matter (semantic) relations, mononuclear:
CAUSE (volitional or non- OTHERWISE
volitional): Nucleus = cause (18) [1 He has to see the match]
[2 or he will become very grumpy.]
CIRCUMSTANCE
(17) [1 I had the best pizza of my life PURPOSE
yesterday] (19) [1 I draw little comics]
[2 when we got lost in Florence.] [2 to make him smile.]
CONDITION (If...then) RESULT (volitional or non-
volitional): Nucleus = result
ELABORATION (cf. SDRT)
23
RST - Discourse Relations (4)
Multinuclear relations:
CONJUNCTION LIST
(20) [1 They all were very kind] (roughly SDRTs Continuation)
[2 and explained everything
patiently.]
MULTINUCLEAR RESTATEMENT
(like restatement, but both units
CONTRAST (cf. SDRT) are of equal importance)
DISJUNCTION (logical ) SEQUENCE
(roughly SDRTs narration)
JOINT
(adjacent units with no other
relation between them)
24
RST - Building Discourse Structures (1)
the graph notation indicates nucleus marking:
arrows point (sidewards) from satellite to nucleus
lines (downwards) connect DUs of multinuclear relations
(21) [1 Max had a lovely meal.]
[2 He ate lots of salmon.]
[3 He then ordered a big desert]
[4 but he could not finish it.]
25
RST - Building Discourse Structures (2)
a DU is attached to some adjacent DU, order of build up does not
matter
valid attachment points are the (atomic or complex) DUs direct to
the left and direct to the right
thus the order in which the DUs are grouped resolves potential
ambiguity (see example on next slide)
26
RST - Building Discourse Structures (3)
an (ambiguous) example:
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
27
RST - Building Discourse Structures (3)
an (ambiguous) example:
CONDITION
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
27
RST - Building Discourse Structures (3)
an (ambiguous) example:
CONDITION
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
27
RST - Building Discourse Structures (3)
an (ambiguous) example:
OTHERWISE
CONDITION
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
27
RST - Building Discourse Structures (3)
an (ambiguous) example:
OTHERWISE
CONDITION
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
27
RST - Building Discourse Structures (3)
an (ambiguous) example:
OTHERWISE
CONDITION
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
DISJUNCTION
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
27
RST - Building Discourse Structures (3)
an (ambiguous) example:
OTHERWISE
CONDITION
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
CONDITION
DISJUNCTION
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
27
RST - Building Discourse Structures (3)
an (ambiguous) example:
OTHERWISE
CONDITION
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
CONDITION
DISJUNCTION
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
27
RST - Summary
discourse formalism operating with textual representations (rather
than semantic representations)
discourse relations connect a nucleus and a satellite, or multiple
nuclei
very fine-grained relation-set, no formal semantic definitions for
relations
adjacency constraint: relations may only connect neighboring
discourse units
28
Additional Notes on SDRT and RST
SDRT bases on a sound logical framework, all relations have formal
truth conditions, and their incremental assignment is exactly defined (a
default reasoning approach)
SDRT has also a couple more discourse relations, however, most of
them are derivates of the ones introduced here, slightly modified in their
truth conditions for the case of dialog e.g.
for RST, there are a lot more discourse relations, some people even
expanded the original set (for annotation purposes, cf. the RST
Discourse Treebank, Carlson et al. 2002)
most people working with RST (in discourse parsing) chose a reduced
set of relations
29
Some Current Issues
an ultimate set of discourse relations; one more of the
alternatives: (cf. Penn Discourse Treebank, Cresswell et al. 2003):
if
[1 If he looks grumpy]
[2 I draw little comics] in order to
C1
[3 in order to make him smile.]
C2 C3
underspecification formalisms for discourse representations:
condition alternative
alternative condition
condition alternative
C1
C3
C2 C3
C1 C2 C1 C2 C3
[1 I try to read a novel] [2 if I feel bored] [3 or I am unhappy.]
30
Summary
Discourse structure shows how clauses form a coherent text
Different kinds of ambiguity: relations, arrangement of DUs
Two discourse formalisms:
SDRT, on top of DRT
RST
A short outlook
31
