Rhetorical Structure Theory has enjoyed continuous attention since its origins in the 1980s. It has been applied, compared to other approaches, and also criticized in a number of areas in discourse analysis, theoretical linguistics, psycholinguistics, and computational linguistics. In this article, we review some of the discussions about the theory itself, especially addressing issues of the reliability of analyses and psychological validity, together with a discussion of the nature of text relations. We also propose areas for further research. A follow-up article (Taboada and Mann, forthcoming) will discuss applications of the theory in various fields.
Afantenos, S.D. , Doura, I. , Kapellou, E. and Karkaletsis, V. (2004) ‘Exploiting Crossdocument Relations for Multi-document Evolving Summarization’, in Methods and Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings of SETN 2004, pp. 410–419. Berlin: Springer .
2.
Andriessen, J. , de Smedt, K. and Zock, M. (1996) ‘Discourse Planning: Experimental and Modeling Approaches’, in T. Dijkstra and K. de Smedt (eds) Computational Psycholinguistics: Symbolic and Network Models of Language Processing, pp. 247–278. London: Taylor and Francis .
3.
Anscombre, J.-C. and Ducrot, O. (1983) L'argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Pierre Mardaga .
4.
Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (1994) ‘Intentions and Information in Discourse’, in J. Pustejovsky (ed.) Proceedings of 32nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’94), pp. 34–41, Las Cruces, NM .
5.
Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (2003) Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
6.
Bateman, J. and Delin, J. (2005) ‘Rhetorical Structure Theory’, in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn.Oxford: Elsevier .
7.
Bateman, J. , Kamps, T. , Kleinz, J. and Reichenberger, K. (2001) ‘Towards Constructive Text, Diagram, and Layout Generation for Information Presentation’ , Computational Linguistics27(3): 409–449 .
8.
Bateman, J. and Rondhuis, K.J. (1997) ‘ Coherence Relations: Towards a General Specification’ , Discourse Processes24: 3–49 .
9.
Benwell, B. (1999) ‘ The Organisation of Knowledge in British University Tutorial Discourse: Issues, Pedagogic Discourse Strategies and Disciplinary Identity’ , Pragmatics9(4): 535–565 .
10.
Blakemore, D. (1987) Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell .
11.
Blakemore, D. (1992) Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell .
12.
Blakemore, D. (2002) Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
13.
Bloom, L. , Lahey, M. , Hood, L. , Lifter, K. and Fiess, K. (1980) ‘ Complex Sentences: Acquisition of Syntactic Connectives and the Semantic Relations they Encode’ , Journal of Child Language7: 235–261 .
14.
Bouayad Agha, N. (2000) ‘Using an Abstract Rhetorical Representation to Generate a Variety of Pragmatically Congruent Texts’, Proceedings of the 38th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ’00), Student Workshop, pp. 16–22, Hong Kong .
15.
Bratman, M. (1987) Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
16.
Burstein, J.C. , Kukich, K. , Andreyev, S. and Marcu, D. (2001) ‘Towards Automatic Classification of Discourse Elements in Essays’, Proceedings of 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ’01). Toulouse, France: ACL .
17.
Byron, D.K. and Stent, A. (1998) ‘A Preliminary Model of Centering in Dialog’, Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ’98), pp. 1475–1477. Montréal, Canada: ACL .
18.
Carletta, J. (1996) ‘ Assessing Agreement on Classification Tasks: The Kappa Statistic’ , Computational Linguistics22(2): 249–254 .
19.
Carlson, L. and Marcu, D. (2001) ‘Discourse Tagging Manual’, unpublished manuscript, available at: [http://www.isi.edu/marcu/discourse/tagging-ref-manual.pdf].
20.
Carlson, L. , Conroy, J. , Marcu, D. , O'Leary, D. , Okurowski, M.E. , Taylor, A. and Wong, W. (2001a) ‘ An Empirical Study of the Relation between Abstracts, Extracts, and the Discourse Structure of Texts’ , Proceedings of Document Understanding Conference (DUC-2001), New Orleans, LA.
21.
Carlson, L. , Marcu, D. and Okurowski, M.E. (2001b) ‘Building a Discourse Tagged Corpus in the Framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory’, Proceedings of 2nd SIGDIAL Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Eurospeech 2001, Aalborg, Denmark .
22.
Carlson, L. , Marcu, D. and Okurowski, M.E. (2002) RST Discourse Treebank. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium .
23.
Cassell, J. , Nakano, Y. , Bickmore, T.W. , Sidner, C.L. and Rich, C. (2001) ‘Non-verbal Cues for Discourse Structure’, Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 17–19, Toulouse, France .
24.
Chafe, W. (1996) ‘Beyond Beads on a String and Branches on a Tree’, in A.E. Goldberg (ed.) Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, pp. 49–65. Stanford, CA: CSLI .
25.
Cohen, P.R. , Morgan, J.L. and Pollack, M.E. (eds) (1990) Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
26.
Connor, U. (2002) ‘New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric’ , Tesol Quarterly36(4): 493–510 .
27.
Cornish, F. (1989) ‘Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English’ , Lingua79(2–3): 229–243 .
28.
Cristea, D. , Ide, N. and Romary, L. (1998) ‘Veins Theory: A Model of Global Discourse Cohesion and Coherence’ , Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (ACL-98/COLING-98), pp. 281–285 , Montréal, Canada.
29.
Cristea, D. , Ide, N. , Marcu, D. and Tablan, V. (2000) ‘Discourse Structure and Coreference: An Empirical Study’ , The 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ’00), Vol. 1, pp. 208–214 , Saarbrücken, Germany.
30.
Dale, R. (1991) ‘The Role of Punctuation in Discourse Structure’, Proceedings of AAAI Fall Symposium on Discourse Structure in Natural Language Understanding and Generation, pp. 13–14, Asilomar, CA .
31.
Degand, L. and Sanders, T. (2002) ‘The Impact of Relational Markers on Expository Text Comprehension in L1 and L2’ , Reading and Writing15(7–8): 739–758 .
32.
Degand, L. , Lefévre, N. and Bestgen, Y. (1999) ‘The Impact of Connectives and Anaphoric Expressions on Expository Discourse Comprehension’ , Document Design1(1): 39–51 .
33.
den Ouden, H. (2004) ‘Prosodic Realizations of Text Structure’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tilburg.
34.
den Ouden, H. , Noordman, L. and Terken, J. (2002) ‘The Prosodic Realization of Organisational Features of Text’, Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002, Aix-en-Provence, France .
35.
den Ouden, H. , van Wijk, C. , Terken, J. and Noordman, L. (1998) Reliability of Discourse Structure Annotation (No. 33, Annual Progress Report). Eindhoven: IPO Center for Research on User-System Interaction, Technical University of Eindhoven .
36.
Eggins, S. and Martin, J.R. (1997) ‘Genres and Registers of Discourse’, in T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, pp. 230–256. London: Sage .
37.
Fox, B.A. (1987) Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
38.
Fraser, B. (1999) ‘What are Discourse Markers?’ , Journal of Pragmatics31: 931–952 .
39.
Fries, P.H. (2004) ‘The Textual Metafunction as a Site for a Discussion of the Goal of Linguistics and Techniques of Linguistic Analysis’ , paper presented at the 31st International Systemic Functional Congress, Kyoto, Japan.
40.
Gil, Y. and Ratnakar, V. (2002) ‘TRELLIS: An Interactive Tool for Capturing Information Analysis and Decision Making’, in Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, Proceedings, pp. 37–42.
41.
Goutsos, D. (1996) ‘A Model of Sequential Relations in Expository Text’ , Text16(4): 501–533 .
42.
Granville, R.A. (1993) ‘An Algorithm for High-level Organization of Multi-paragraph Texts’, in O. Rambow (ed.) Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations, pp. 19–22, Columbus, OH .
43.
Grasso, F. (2003) ‘Rhetorical Coding of Health Promotion Dialogues’ , in Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Proceedings, Vol. 2780, pp. 179–188 .
44.
Grosz, B.J. and Sidner, C.L. (1986) ‘Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse’ , Computational Linguistics12(3): 175–204 .
45.
Grosz, B.J. and Sidner, C.L. (1990) ‘Plans for Discourse’, in P.R. Cohen , J.L. Morgan and M.E. Pollack (eds) Intentions in Communication, pp. 417–444. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
46.
Grosz, B.J. , Joshi, A.K. and Weinstein, S. (1995) ‘Centering: A Framework for Modelling the Local Coherence of Discourse’ , Computational Linguistics21(2): 203–225 .
47.
Haberlandt, K. (1982) ‘Reader Expectations in Text Comprehension’, in J.-F. Le Ny and W. Kintsch (eds) Language and Comprehension, pp. 239–249. Amsterdam: North-Holland .
48.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold .
49.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman .
50.
Harabagiu, S. and Maiorano, S. (1999) ‘Knowledge-lean Coreference Resolution and its Relation to Textual Cohesion and Coherence’, in D. Cristea , N. Ide and D. Marcu (eds) Proceedings of ACL Workshop on The Relation of Discourse/Dialogue Structure and Reference, pp. 29–38, College Park, MD .
51.
Heim, I. (1982) ‘The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
52.
Hirschberg, J. and Litman, D.J. (1987) ‘Now Let's Talk about Now: Identifying Cue Phrases Intonationally’, Proceedings of 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’87), pp. 163–171, Stanford, CA .
53.
Hobbs, J. (1979) ‘Coherence and Coreference’ , Cognitive Science6: 67–90 .
54.
Hobbs, J. (1985) On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse (Research Report 85–37). Stanford, CA: CSLI .
55.
Hovy, E. (1988) ‘Planning Coherent Multisentential Text’, Proceedings of 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’88), pp. 163–169, Buffalo, NY .
56.
Hovy, E. (1990) ‘Parsimonious and Profligate Approaches to the Question of Discourse Structure Relations’, Proceedings of 5th International Workshop on Text Generation, pp. 59–65, Pittsburgh, PA .
57.
Hovy, E. and Maier, E. (1995) ‘Parsimonious or Profligate: How Many and Which Discourse Structure Relations?’, unpublished manuscript.
58.
Hovy, E. , Lavid, J. , Maier, E. , Mittal, V. and Paris, C. (1992) ‘Employing Knowledge Resources in a New Text Planning Architecture’, in R. Dale , E. Hovy , D. Rösner and O. Stock (eds) Aspects of Automated Natural Language Generation, pp. 57–72. Berlin: Springer .
59.
Hubert, L. (1977) ‘Kappa Revisited’ , Psychological Bulletin84(2): 289–297 .
60.
Ide, N. and Cristea, D. (2000) ‘A Hierarchical Account of Referential Accessibility’ , Proceedings of the 38th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong.
61.
Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. (1993) From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Model Theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer .
62.
Károly, K. (1998) ‘Written Text Analysis: A Multidisciplinary Field of Study’ , Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik8(1): 71–108 .
63.
Kehler, A. (2002) Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI .
64.
Kibble, R. and Power, R. (2004) ‘Optimizing Referential Coherence in Text Generation’ , Computational Linguistics30(4): 401–416 .
65.
Knott, A. (1996) ‘A Data-Driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
66.
Knott, A. (1998) ‘Similarity and Contrast Relations and Inductive Rules’, Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, pp. 54–57, Montréal, Canada .
67.
Knott, A. and Dale, R. (1994) ‘Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a Set of Coherence Relations’ , Discourse Processes18(1): 35–62 .
68.
Knott, A. and Dale, R. (1996) ‘Choosing a Set of Coherence Relations for Text Generation: A Data-driven Approach’, in G. Adorni and M. Zock (eds) Trends in Natural Language Generation: An Artificial Intelligence Perspective, pp. 47–67. Berlin: Springer .
69.
Knott, A. and Mellish, C. (1996) ‘A Feature-based Account of the Relations Signalled by Sentence and Clause Connectives’ , Language and Speech39(2–3): 143–183 .
70.
Knott, A. and Sanders, T. (1998) ‘The Classification of Coherence Relations and their Linguistic Markers: An Exploration of Two Languages’ , Journal of Pragmatics30: 135–175 .
71.
Knott, A. , Oberlander, J. , O'Donnell, M. and Mellish, C. (2001) ‘Beyond Elaboration: The Interaction of Relations and Focus in Coherent Text’, in T. Sanders , J. Schilperoord and W. Spooren (eds) Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects, pp. 181–196. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
72.
Korelsky, T. and Kittredge, R. (1993) ‘Towards Stratification of RST’ , Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations, pp. 52–55 , Ohio State University.
73.
Kruijff-Korbayová, I. and Webber, B. (2000) ‘Presuppositional Interpretation of Causal and Additive “Although”’ , Proceedings of Making Sense: From Lexeme to Discourse. Groningen: University of Groningen.
74.
Lascarides, A. and Asher, N. (1993) ‘Temporal Interpretation, Discourse Relations and Commonsense Entailment’ , Linguistics and Philosophy16(5): 437–493 .
75.
Linde, C. (1979) ‘Focus of Attention and the Choice of Pronouns in Discourse’, in T. Givón (ed.) Syntax and Semantics. Volume 12: Discourse and Syntax, pp. 337–354. New York: Academic Press .
76.
Litman, D.J. and Allen, J.F. (1990) ‘Discourse Processing and Commonsense Plans’, in P.R. Cohen , J.L. Morgan and M.E. Pollack (eds) Intentions in Communication, pp. 365–388. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
77.
Louwerse, M.M. (2001) ‘An Analytic and Cognitive Parametrization of Coherence Relations’ , Cognitive Linguistics12(3): 291–315 .
78.
Louwerse, M.M. and Mitchell, H.H. (2003) ‘Toward a Taxonomy of a Set of Discourse Markers in Dialogue: A Theoretical and Computational Linguistic Account’ , Discourse Processes35(3): 243–281 .
79.
Maier, E. and Hovy, E. (1991) ‘A Metafunctionally Motivated Taxonomy for Discourse Structure Relations’ , Proceedings of 3rd European Workshop on Language Generation, Innsbruck, Austria.
80.
Maier, E. and Hovy, E. (1993) ‘Organising Discourse Structure Relations Using Metafunctions’, in H. Horacek and M. Zock (eds) New Concepts in Natural Language Generation, pp. 69–86. London: Pinter .
Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A. (1983) Relational Propositions in Discourse (Technical Report No. ISI/RR-83–115). Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute .
83.
Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A. (1986) Rhetorical Structure Theory: Description and Construction of Text Structures (Technical Report No. ISI/RS-86–174). Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute .
84.
Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A. (1987) Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization (No. ISI/RS-87–190). Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute .
85.
Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A. (1988) ‘Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization’ , Text8(3): 243–281 .
86.
Mann, W.C. , Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. and Thompson, S.A. (1992) Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis’, in W.C. Mann and S.A. Thompson (eds) Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, pp. 39–78. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
87.
Marcu, D. (1996) ‘Building Up Rhetorical Structure Trees’ , Proceedings of 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2, pp. 1069–1074 , Portland, OR.
88.
Marcu, D. (1997) ‘The Rhetorical Parsing, Summarization, and Generation of Natural Language Texts’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.
89.
Marcu, D. (1998a) ‘A Surface-based Approach to Identifying Discourse Markers and Elementary Textual Units in Unrestricted Texts’, in M. Stede , L. Wanner and E. Hovy (eds) Proceedings of COLING-ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, pp. 1–7, Montréal, Canada .
90.
Marcu, D. (1998b) ‘To Build Text Summaries of Higher Quality, Nuclearity is not Sufficient’, Proceedings of AAAI-98 Spring Symposium on Intelligent Text Summarization, pp. 1–8. Stanford, CA .
91.
Marcu, D. (2000a) ‘The Rhetorical Parsing of Unrestricted Texts: A Surface Based Approach’ , Computational Linguistics26(3): 395–448 .
92.
Marcu, D. (2000b) The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
93.
Marcu, D. , Carlson, L. and Watanabe, M. (2000) ‘The Automatic Translation of Discourse Structures’, 1st Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL’00), pp. 9–17, Seattle, WA .
94.
Marcu, D. , Romera, M. and Amorrortu, E. (1999a) Experiments in Constructing a Corpus of Discourse Trees’ , Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Standards and Tools for Discourse Tagging, pp. 48–57 , College Park, MD.
95.
Marcu, D. , Romera, M. and Amorrortu, E. (1999b) ‘Experiments in Constructing a Corpus of Discourse Trees: Problems, Annotation Choices, Issues’, Workshop on Levels of Representation in Discourse, pp. 71–78, Edinburgh.
96.
Martin, J.R. (1984) ‘Language, Register and Genre’, in F. Christie (ed.) Children Writing: Reader, pp. 21–30. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press .
97.
Martin, J.R. (1992) English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. and Thompson, S.A. (1988) ‘The Structure of Discourse and “Subordination”’, in J. Haiman and S.A. Thompson (eds) Clause Combining in Discourse and Grammar, pp. 275–329. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
100.
Meteer, M. (1993) ‘Assumptions Underlying Discourse Relations: Which Ones are Really There and Where are they?’, Proceedings of Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations, ACL, pp. 82–85. Ohio State University: ACL .
101.
Meyer, B.J.F. , Brandt, D.M. and Bluth, G.J. (1980) ‘Use of Top-level Structure in Text: Key for Reading Comprehension in Ninth-grade Students’ , Reading Research Quarterly16(1): 72–103 .
102.
Moore, J.D and Paris, C. (1993) ‘Planning Text for Advisory Dialogues: Capturing Intentional and Rhetorical Information’ , Computational Linguistics19(4): 651–694 .
103.
Moore, J.D. and Pollack, M.E. (1992) ‘A Problem for RST: The Need for Multi-level Discourse Analysis’ , Computational Linguistics18(4): 537–544 .
104.
Moser, M. and Moore, J.D. (1995) ‘Using Discourse Analysis and Automatic Text Generation to Study Discourse Cue Usage’, Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation, pp. 92–98, Stanford, CA .
105.
Moser, M. and Moore, J.D. (1996) ‘Towards a Synthesis of Two Accounts of Discourse Structure’ , Computational Linguistics22(3): 410–419 .
106.
Nicholas, N. (1994) ‘Problems in the Application of Rhetorical Structure Theory to Text Generation’, unpublished Master's thesis, University of Melbourne.
107.
Noordman, L. , Dassen, I. , Swerts, M. and Terken, J. (1999) ‘Prosodic Markers of Text Structure’, in K. van Hoek , A. A. Kibrik and L. Noordman (eds) Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, pp. 131–148. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
108.
O'Brien, T. (1995) ‘Rhetorical Structure Analysis and the Case of the Inaccurate, Incoherent Source-hopper’ , Applied Linguistics16(4): 442–482 .
109.
Poesio, M. and Di Eugenio, B. (2001) ‘Discourse Structure and Anaphoric Accessibility’, in I. Kruijff-Korbayova and M. Steedman (eds) Proceedings of ESSLLI 2001 Workshop on Information Structure and Discourse Semantics, Helsinki, Finland .
110.
Poesio, M. , Di Eugenio, B. and Keohane, G. (2002) Discourse Structure and Anaphora: An Empirical Study (NLE Technical Note No. TN-02–02). Colchester: University of Essex .
111.
Poesio, M. , Stevenson, R. , Di Eugenio, B. and Hitzeman, J. (2004) ‘Centering: A Parametric Theory and its Instantiations’ , Computational Linguistics30(3): 309–363 .
112.
Polanyi, L. (1988) ‘A Formal Model of the Structure of Discourse’ , Journal of Pragmatics12: 601–638 .
113.
Polanyi, L. (2001) ‘The Linguistic Structure of Discourse’, in D. Schiffrin , D. Tannen and H.E. Hamilton (eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, pp. 265–281. Malden, MA: Blackwell .
114.
Ramachandran, V.S. and Anstis, S.M. (1986) ‘The Perception of Apparent Motion’, Scientific American October: 102–108.
115.
Rambow, O. (ed.) (1993) Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations. Columbus, OH: ACL .
116.
Redeker, G. (1990) ‘Ideational and Pragmatic Markers of Discourse Structure’ , Journal of Pragmatics14: 367–381 .
117.
Redeker, G. (1991) ‘Review Article: Linguistic Markers of Linguistic Structure’ , Linguistics29(6): 1139–1172 .
118.
Redeker, G. (2000) ‘Coherence and Structure in Text and Discourse’, in W. Black and H. Bunt (eds) Abduction, Belief, and Context in Dialogue. Studies in Computational Pragmatics, pp. 233–263. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
119.
Reed, C. and Long, D. (1997) Generating Punctuation in Written Documents (Technical Report No. RN/97/157). London: Department of Computer Science, University College London .
120.
Reitter, D. and Stede, M. (2003) ‘Step by Step: Underspecified Markup in Incremental Rhetorical Analysis’ , Proceedings of EACL 4th International Workshop on Interpreted Corpora, Budapest, Hungary.
121.
Rösner, D. (1993) ‘Intentions, Rhetoric, or Discourse Relations? A Case from Multilingual Document Generation’, in O. Rambow (ed.) Proceedings of Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations, ACL, pp. 106–109. Ohio State University: ACL .
122.
Rösner, D. and Stede, M. (1992) ‘Customizing RST for the Automatic Production of Technical Manuals’, in R. Dale , E. Hovy , D. Rösner and O. Stock (eds) Aspects of Automated Language Generation, pp. 119–214. Berlin: Springer .
123.
Rossari, C. (2001) ‘Les relations de discours: Approches rhétoriques, approches pragmatiques et approches sémantiques’ , VerbumXXIII(1): 59–72 .
124.
Roulet, E. (1995) ‘Geneva School’, in J. Verschueren , J.-O. Östman and J. Blommaert (eds) Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 319–323. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
125.
Roulet, E. , Auchlin, A. , Moeschler, J. , Rubattel, C. and Schelling, M. (1985) L'articulation du discours en français contemporain. Bern: Peter Lang .
126.
Sanders, T. (1986) ‘De invloed van globale tekstigneschappen op het begrijpen en onthouden van teksten’ (‘The Influence of Global Properties of Text on Understanding and Remembering Text’), unpublished master's thesis, Tilburg University.
127.
Sanders, T. and Noordman, L. (2000) The Role of Coherence Relations and their Linguistic Markers in Text Processing’ , Discourse Processes29(1): 37–60 .
128.
Sanders, T. and Spooren, W. (1999) ‘Communicative Intentions and Coherence Relations’, in W. Bublitz , U. Lenk and E. Ventola (eds) Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It, pp. 235–250. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
129.
Sanders, T. and van Wijk, C. (1996) ‘PISA: A Procedure for Analyzing the Structure of Explanatory Texts’ , Text16(1): 91–132 .
130.
Sanders, T. , Spooren, W. and Noordman, L. (1992) ‘Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations’ , Discourse Processes15: 1–35 .
131.
Sanders, T. , Spooren, W. and Noordman, L. (1993) ‘Coherence Relations in a Cognitive Theory of Discourse Representation’ , Cognitive Linguistics4(2): 93–133 .
132.
Schauer, H. (2000) ‘From Elementary Discourse Units to Complex Ones’, in L. Dybkjær , K. Hasida and D. Traum (eds) Proceedings of 1st SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 46–55, Hong Kong .
133.
Schauer, H. and Hahn, U. (2001) ‘Anaphoric Cues for Coherence Relations’, Proceedings of International Euroconference ‘Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing’, RANLP 2001, pp. 228–234, Tzigov Chark, Bulgaria .
134.
Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
135.
Schiffrin, D. (2001) ‘Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context’, in D. Schiffrin , D. Tannen and H.E. Hamilton (eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, pp. 54–75. Malden, MA: Blackwell .
136.
Schilder, F. (2002) ‘Robust Discourse Parsing via Discourse Markers, Topicality and Position’ , Natural Language Engineering8(2/3): 235–255 .
137.
Scott, D. and Sieckenius de Souza, C. (1990) ‘Getting the Message Across in RST-based Text Generation’, in R. Dale, C. Mellish and M. Zock (eds) Current Research in Natural Language Generation, pp. 47–73. London: Academic Press .
138.
Sibun, P. (1992) ‘Generating Text without Trees’ , Computational Intelligence8(1): 102–122 .
139.
Siegel, S. and Castellan, N.J. (1988) Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill .
140.
Sparck-Jones, K. (1995) ‘Discourse Modelling for Automatic Summarising’, in E. Hajicová, M. Cervenka , O. Les<caron>ka and P. Sgall (eds) Prague Linguistic Circle Papers (Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague nouvelle série), pp. 201–227. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
141.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell .
142.
Stede, M. (2004) ‘The Potsdam Commentary Corpus’ , Proceedings of the Workshop on Discourse Annotation, 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain.
143.
Stevenson, R. , Knott, A. , Oberlander, J. and McDonald, S. (2000) ‘Interpreting Pronouns and Connectives: Interactions among Focusing, Thematic Roles and Coherence Relations’ , Language and Cognitive Processes15: 225–262 .
144.
Stolke, A. , Ries, K. , Coccaro, N. , Shriberg, E. , Bates, R. , Jurafsky, D. , Taylor, P. , Martin, R. , Van Ess-Dykema, C. and Meteer, M. (2000) ‘Dialogue Act Modeling for Automatic Tagging and Recognition of Conversational Speech’ , Computational Linguistics26(3): 339–373 .
145.
Taboada, M. (2001) ‘Collaborating through Talk: The Interactive Construction of Task Oriented Dialogue in English and Spanish’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Universidad Complutense, Madrid.
146.
Taboada, M. (2004a) Building Coherence and Cohesion: Task-Oriented Dialogue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
147.
Taboada, M. (2004b) ‘Rhetorical Relations in Dialogue: A Contrastive Study’, in C.L. Moder and A. Martinovic-Zic (eds) Discourse across Languages and Cultures, pp. 75–97. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
148.
Taboada, M. (in press) ‘Discourse Markers as Signals (or Not) of Rhetorical Relations , Journal of Pragmatics.
149.
Taboada, M. and Mann, W.C. (forthcoming) ‘Applications of Rhetorical Structure Theory’, Discourse Studies.
150.
Taylor, P.J. (2002) ‘A Partial Order Scalogram Analysis of Communication Behavior in Crisis Negotiation with the Prediction of Outcome’ , International Journal of Conflict Management13(1): 4–37 .
151.
Teufel, S. , Carletta, J. and Moens, M. (1999) ‘An Annotation Scheme for Discourse-level Argumentation in Research Articles’, Proceedings of 9th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL’99), pp. 110–117, Bergen, Norway .
152.
Thomas, S.F. (1995) ‘Rhetorical Structure Theory’ , Studies in Machine Translation and Natural Language Processing9: 159–174 .
153.
Traxler, M.J. , Sanford, A.J. , Aked, J.P. and Moxey, L.M. (1997) ‘Processing Causal and Diagnostic Statements in Discourse’ , Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition23(1): 88–101 .
154.
Vander Linden, K. , Cumming, S. and Martin, J.R. (1992) ‘Using System Networks to Build Rhetorical Structures’, in R. Dale , E. Hovy , D. Rösner and O. Stock (eds) Aspects of Automated Natural Language Generation, pp. 183–198. Berlin: Springer .
155.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1977) Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman .
156.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1979) ‘Pragmatic Connectives’ , Journal of Pragmatics3: 447–456 .
157.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1980) Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse Interaction and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
158.
Van Dijk, T.A. and Kintsch, W. (1983) Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press .
159.
Verhagen, A. (2001) ‘Subordination and Discourse Segmentation Revisited, or: Why Matrix Clauses May be more Dependent than Complements’, in T. Sanders , J. Schilperoord and W. Spooren (eds) Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects, pp. 337–357. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
160.
Wahlster, W. , André, E. , Graf, W. and Rist, T. (1991) ‘Designing Illustrated Texts: How Language Production is Influenced by Graphics Generation’ , Proceedings of 5th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL’91), pp. 8–14 , Berlin, Germany.
161.
Webber, B. (2004) ‘D-LTAG: Extending Lexicalized TAG to Discourse’ , Cognitive Science28(5): 751–779 .
162.
Webber, B. , Knott, A. , Stone, M. and Joshi, A.K. (1999) ‘Discourse Relations: A Structural and Presuppositional Account Using Lexicalised TAG’, Proceedings of 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 41–48, College Park, MD .
163.
Webber, B. , Stone, M. , Joshi, A.K. and Knott, A. (2003) ‘Anaphora and Discourse Structure’ , Computational Linguistics29(4): 545–587 .
164.
Wiebe, J. (1993) ‘Issues in Linguistic Segmentation’, in O. Rambow (ed.) Proceedings of ACL SIG Workshop on Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations, pp. 148–151. Columbus, OH: ACL .
165.
Wolf, F. and Gibson, E. (2004a) ‘Representing Discourse Coherence: A Corpus-based Analysis’ , Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Geneva, Switzerland.
166.
Wolf, F. and Gibson, E. (2004b) ‘A Response to Marcu (2003). Discourse Structure: Trees or Graphs?’, unpublished manuscript, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
167.
Wolf, F. and Gibson, E. (2005) ‘Representing Discourse Coherence: A Corpus-based Analysis’ , Computational Linguistics31(2): 249–287 .
168.
Wolf, F. , Gibson, E. and Desmet, T. (2004) ‘Coherence and Pronoun Resolution’ , Language and Cognitive Processes19(6): 665–675 .
169.
Wolf, F., Gibson, E., Fisher, A. and Knight, M. (2003) ‘A Procedure for Collecting a Database of Texts Annotated with Coherence Relations’, unpublished manuscript, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
170.
Wolf, F. , Gibson, E. , Fisher, A. and Knight, M. (2005) The Discourse Graph Bank: A Database of Texts Annotated with Coherence Relations. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium .
