证明一个观点的例子和说明:确定阐述和论证的话语关系

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Dialogue and Discourse Pub Date : 2017-07-19 DOI:10.5087/dad.2017.203

Merel C. J. Scholman, Vera Demberg

{"title":"证明一个观点的例子和说明:确定阐述和论证的话语关系","authors":"Merel C. J. Scholman, Vera Demberg","doi":"10.5087/dad.2017.203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Examples and specifications occur frequently in text, but not much is known about how they function in discourse and how readers interpret them. Looking at how they’re annotated in existing discourse corpora, we find that annotators often disagree on these types of relations; specifically, there is disagreement about whether these relations are elaborative (additive) or argumentative (pragmatic causal). To investigate how readers interpret examples and specifications, we conducted a crowdsourced discourse annotation study. The results show that these relations can indeed have two functions: they can be used to both illustrate / specify a situation and serve as an argument for a claim. These findings suggest that examples and specifications can have multiple simultaneous readings. We discuss the implications of these results for discourse annotation.","PeriodicalId":37604,"journal":{"name":"Dialogue and Discourse","volume":"324 1","pages":"56-83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examples and Specifications that Prove a Point: Identifying Elaborative and Argumentative Discourse Relations\",\"authors\":\"Merel C. J. Scholman, Vera Demberg\",\"doi\":\"10.5087/dad.2017.203\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Examples and specifications occur frequently in text, but not much is known about how they function in discourse and how readers interpret them. Looking at how they’re annotated in existing discourse corpora, we find that annotators often disagree on these types of relations; specifically, there is disagreement about whether these relations are elaborative (additive) or argumentative (pragmatic causal). To investigate how readers interpret examples and specifications, we conducted a crowdsourced discourse annotation study. The results show that these relations can indeed have two functions: they can be used to both illustrate / specify a situation and serve as an argument for a claim. These findings suggest that examples and specifications can have multiple simultaneous readings. We discuss the implications of these results for discourse annotation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dialogue and Discourse\",\"volume\":\"324 1\",\"pages\":\"56-83\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dialogue and Discourse\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2017.203\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialogue and Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2017.203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 21

摘要

例子和规范经常出现在文本中，但对于它们在话语中的作用以及读者如何解释它们却知之甚少。看看它们在现有话语语料库中的注释方式，我们发现注释者经常对这些类型的关系持不同意见;具体来说，对于这些关系是阐述性的(附加的)还是论证性的(语用因果的)存在分歧。为了研究读者如何解读例子和规范，我们进行了一项众包话语注释研究。结果表明，这些关系确实可以有两个功能:它们既可以用来说明/说明一种情况，也可以作为一种主张的论据。这些发现表明示例和规范可以同时有多个读数。我们讨论了这些结果对语篇注释的影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Examples and Specifications that Prove a Point: Identifying Elaborative and Argumentative Discourse Relations

Examples and specifications occur frequently in text, but not much is known about how they function in discourse and how readers interpret them. Looking at how they’re annotated in existing discourse corpora, we find that annotators often disagree on these types of relations; specifically, there is disagreement about whether these relations are elaborative (additive) or argumentative (pragmatic causal). To investigate how readers interpret examples and specifications, we conducted a crowdsourced discourse annotation study. The results show that these relations can indeed have two functions: they can be used to both illustrate / specify a situation and serve as an argument for a claim. These findings suggest that examples and specifications can have multiple simultaneous readings. We discuss the implications of these results for discourse annotation.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Dialogue and Discourse Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： D&D seeks previously unpublished, high quality articles on the analysis of discourse and dialogue that contain -experimental and/or theoretical studies related to the construction, representation, and maintenance of (linguistic) context -linguistic analysis of phenomena characteristic of discourse and/or dialogue (including, but not limited to: reference and anaphora, presupposition and accommodation, topicality and salience, implicature, ---discourse structure and rhetorical relations, discourse markers and particles, the semantics and -pragmatics of dialogue acts, questions, imperatives, non-sentential utterances, intonation, and meta--communicative phenomena such as repair and grounding) -experimental and/or theoretical studies of agents'' information states and their dynamics in conversational interaction -new analytical frameworks that advance theoretical studies of discourse and dialogue -research on systems performing coreference resolution, discourse structure parsing, event and temporal -structure, and reference resolution in multimodal communication -experimental and/or theoretical results yielding new insight into non-linguistic interaction in -communication -work on natural language understanding (including spoken language understanding), dialogue management, -reasoning, and natural language generation (including text-to-speech) in dialogue systems -work related to the design and engineering of dialogue systems (including, but not limited to: -evaluation, usability design and testing, rapid application deployment, embodied agents, affect detection, -mixed-initiative, adaptation, and user modeling). -extremely well-written surveys of existing work. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers on discourse and dialogue and its associated fields, including computer scientists, linguists, psychologists, philosophers, roboticists, sociologists.