Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) is a theory of text organization that has led to areas of application beyond discourse analysis and text generation, its original goals. In this article, we review the most important applications in several areas: discourse analysis, theoretical linguistics, psycholinguistics, and computational linguistics. We also provide a list of resources useful for work within the RST framework. The present article is a complement to our review of the theoretical aspects of the theory (Taboada and Mann, 2006).
Abelen, E. , Redeker, G. and Thompson, S. A. (1993) ‘The Rhetorical Structure of US-American and Dutch Fund-raising Letters’ , Text13(3): 323-350 .
2.
Alonso i Alemany, L. and Fuentes Fort, M. (2003) ‘Integrating Cohesion and Coherence for Automatic Summarization’ , Proceedings of EACL’03 Student Research Workshop, pp. 1-8 , Budapest, Hungary.
3.
André, E. and Rist, T. (1996) ‘Coping with Temporal Constraints in Multimedia Presentation Planning’ , Proceedings of Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 142-147 , Portland, OR.
4.
Anscombre, J.-C. and Ducrot, O. (1983) L’argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Pierre Mardaga.
5.
Antonio, J.D. (2004) ‘Estrutura retórica e articulaçäo de oraçöes em narrativas orais e em narrativas escritas do português’ (‘Rhetorical Structure and Clause Combining in Oral Narratives and Written Narratives in Brazilian Portuguese’), unpublished PhD dissertation, UNESP, Araraquara, Brazil.
6.
Asher, N. (1993) Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer .
7.
Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (2003) Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
8.
Azar, M. (1999) ‘Argumentative Text as Rhetorical Structure: An Application of Rhetorical Structure Theory’ , Argumentation13(1): 97-144 .
9.
Bateman, J. and Delin, J. (2005) ‘Rhetorical Structure Theory’, in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn.Oxford: Elsevier .
10.
Bateman, J. , Delin, J. and Allen, P. (2000) ‘Constraints on Layout in Multimodal Document Generation’ , Proceedings of First International Natural Language Generation Conference, Workshop on Coherence in Generated Multimedia, Mitzpe Ramon, Israel.
11.
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 .
12.
Bell, M. A. (2001) ‘Online Notes on the Structure of Argument Essays’, available at: [http://www.users.bigpond.com/m487396/Argument/essay_notes.htm], accessed 25 June 2004.
13.
Benwell, B. (1999) ‘The Organisation of Knowledge in British University Tutorial Discourse: Issues, Pedagogic Discourse Strategies and Disciplinary Identity’ , Pragmatics9(4): 535-565 .
14.
Berry, M. (1981) ‘Towards Layers of Exchange Structure for Directive Exchanges’ , Network2: 23-32 .
15.
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.
16.
Bouwer, A. (1998) ‘An ITS for Dutch Punctuation’ , Intelligent Tutoring Systems1452: 224-233 .
17.
Burstein, J.C., Braden-Harder, L., Chodorow, M.S., Kaplan, B.A., Kukich, K., Lu, C., Rock, D.A. and Wolff, S. (2001a) ‘System and Method for Computer-based Automatic Essay Scoring’, United States Patent 6,181,909, Educational Testing Services.
18.
Burstein, J.C., Braden-Harder, L., Chodorow, M.S., Kaplan, B.A., Kukich, K., Lu, C., Rock, D.A. and Wolff, S. (2002) ‘System and Method for Computer-based Automatic Essay Scoring’, United States Patent 6,366,759, Educational Testing Service.
19.
Burstein, J. C. , Kukich, K. , Andreyev, S. and Marcu, D.(2001b) ‘Towards Automatic Classification of Discourse Elements in Essays’ , Proceedings of 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’01), Toulouse, France.
20.
Burstein, J. , Kukich, K. , Wolfe, S. , Lu, C. and Chodorow, M. (1998) ‘Enriching Automated Essay Scoring Using Discourse Marking’ , in E. Hovy (ed.) Proceedings of 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (ACL-COLING’98) Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, pp. 15-21 , Montréal, Canada.
21.
Burstein, J. and Marcu, D. (2003) ‘A Machine Learning Approach for Identification of Thesis and Conclusion Statements in Student Essays’ , Computers and the Humanities37(4): 455-467 .
22.
Carenini, G. and Moore, J. D. (2000) ‘A Strategy for Generating Evaluative Arguments’ , Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Natural Language Generation, pp. 47-54 , Mitzpe Ramon, Israel.
23.
Carenini, G. , Pianesi, F. , Ponzi, M. and Stock, O. (1993) ‘Natural Language Generation and Hypertext Access’ , Applied Artificial Intelligence7(2): 135-164 .
24.
Carenini, G. , Ponzi, M. and Stock, O. (1990) ‘Combining Natural Language and Hypermedia as New Means for Information Access’ , Proceedings of Fifth European Conference of Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE ‘90), Urbino, Italy.
25.
Carlson, L. , Marcu, D. and Okurowski, M. E. (2002) RST Discourse Treebank. Pennsylvania: Linguistic Data Consortium .
26.
De Carolis, B. (1999) ‘Generating Mixed-initiative Hypertexts: A Reactive Approach’ , Proceedings of Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI’99), pp. 71-78 , Los Angeles, CA.
27.
De Carolis, B , Pelachaud, C. and Poggi, I. (2000) ‘Verbal and Nonverbal Discourse Planning’ , Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Workshop on Achieving Human-Like Behaviour in Interactive Animated Agents, Barcelona, Spain.
28.
Cawsey, A. (1990) ‘Generating Explanatory Discourse’, in R. Dale , C. Mellish and M. Zock (eds) Current Research in Natural Language Generation, pp. 75-101. London: Academic Press .
29.
Chiarcos, C. and Krasavina, O. (2005a) ‘Rhetorical Distance Revisited: A Parametrized Approach’ , Proceedings of Workshop in Constraints in Discourse, Dortmund, Germany.
30.
Chiarcos, C. and Krasavina, O. (2005b) ‘Rhetorical Distance Revisited: A Pilot Study’ , Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2005, Birmingham, UK.
31.
Corston, S. and Cardoso de Campos, M. (2000) ‘Automatically Recognizing the Discourse Structure of a Body of Text’, United States Patent 6,112,168, Microsoft Corporation.
32.
Corston-Oliver, S. (1998) ‘Beyond String Matching and Cue Phrases: Improving Efficiency and Coverage in Discourse Analysis’ , Proceedings of AAAI 1998 Spring Symposium Series, Intelligent Text Summarization, pp. 9-15 , Madison, WI.
33.
Cristea, D. , Ide, N. and Marcu, D. (1999) Proceedings of ACL Workshop on the Relation of Discourse/Dialogue Structure and Reference, College Park, MD.
34.
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), pp. 208-214 , Saarbrüken, Germany.
35.
Cui, S. (1986) ‘A Comparison of English and Chinese Expository Rhetorical Structures’, unpublished Master’s thesis, UCLA.
36.
Dale, R. , Hovy, E. , Rösner, D. and Stock, O. (eds) (1992) Aspects of Automated Natural Language Generation. Berlin: Springer .
37.
Dale, R. , Mellish, C. and Zock, M. (eds) (1990) Current Research in Natural Language Generation. London: Academic Press .
38.
Dale, R. , Oberlander, J. , Milosavljevic, M. and Knott, A. (1998) ‘Integrating Natural Language Generation and Hypertext to Produce Dynamic Documents’ , Interacting with Computers11(2): 109-135 .
39.
Daradoumis, T. (1996) ‘Towards a Representation of the Rhetorical Structure of Interrupted Exchanges’, in G. Adorni and M. Zock (eds) Trends in Natural Language Generation: An Artificial Intelligence Perspective, pp. 106-124. Berlin: Springer .
40.
Delin, J. and Bateman, J. (2002) ‘Describing and Critiquing Multimodal Documents’ , Document Design3(2): 140-155 .
41.
Delin, J. , Hartley, A. , Paris, C. , Scott, D. and Vander Linden, K. (1994) ‘Expressing Procedural Relationships in Multilingual Instructions’ , Proceedings of 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (IWNLG 7), pp. 61-70 , Kennebunkport, ME.
42.
Delin, J. , Hartley, A. and Scott, D. (1996) ‘Towards a Contrastive Pragmatics: Syntactic Choice in English and French Instructions’ , Language Sciences18(3-4): 897-931 .
43.
Eklund, P. and Wille, R. (1998) ‘A Multimodal Approach to Term Extraction Using a Rhetorical Structure Theory Tagger and Formal Concept Analysis’ , Proceedings of Second International Conference on Co-operative Multimodal Communication: Theory and Applications, pp. 171-175 , Tilburg, The Netherlands.
44.
Elhadad, M. (1992) ‘Using Argumentation to Control Lexical Choice: A Functional Unification-Based Approach’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Columbia University, New York.
45.
Elhadad, M. (1995) ‘Using Argumentation in Text Generation’ , Journal of Pragmatics24: 189-220 .
46.
Fawcett, R. P. and Davies, B. L. (1992) ‘Monologue as a Turn in Dialogue: Towards an Integration of Exchange Structure and Rhetorical Structure Theory’, in R. Dale , E. Hovy , D. Rösner and O. Stock (eds) Aspects of Automated Language Generation, pp. 151-166. Berlin: Springer .
47.
Fischer, M , Maier, E. and Stein, A. (1994) ‘Generating Cooperative System Responses in Information Retrieval Dialogues’ , Proceedings of 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (IWNLG 7), pp. 207-216 , Kennebunkport, ME.
48.
Fox, B. A. (1987) Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
49.
Fries, P. H. (1992) ‘The Structuring of Information in Written English Text’ , Language Sciences14(4): 461-488 .
50.
Ghorbel, H. , Ballim, A. and Coray, G. (2001) ‘ROSETTA: Rhetorical and Semantic Environment for Text Alignment’, in P. Rayson , A. Wilson , A. M. McEnery , A. Hardie and S. Khoja (eds) Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001, pp. 224-233, Lancaster, UK .
51.
Goldman, A. (1970) A Theory of Human Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall .
52.
Grasso, F. (2002a) ‘Towards a Framework for Rhetorical Argumentation’ , in J. Bos , M. E. Foster and C. Matheson (eds) Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (EDILOG-2002), pp. 53-60 , Edinburgh, UK.
Grote, B. , Hagen, E. , Stein, A. and Teich, E. (1997a) ‘Speech Production in Human-machine Dialogue: A Natural Language Generation Perspective’, in E. Maier , M. Mast and S. Luperfoy (eds) Dialogue Processing in Spoken Language Systems, pp. 70-85. Berlin: Springer .
55.
Grote, B. , Lenke, N. and Stede, M. (1997b) ‘Ma(r)king Concessions in English and German’ , Discourse Processes24: 87-117 .
56.
Hachey, B. and Grover, C. (2004) ‘A Rhetorical Status Classifier for Legal Text Summarisation’ , Proceedings of Text Summarization Branches Out Workshop, 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain.
57.
Haouam, K. and Marir, F. (2003) ‘SEMIR: Semantic Indexing and Retrieving Web Documents Using Rhetorical Structure Theory’ , Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning2690: 596-604 .
58.
Hartley, A. and Paris, C. (1997) ‘Multilingual Document Production from Support for Translating to Support for Authoring’ , Machine Translation12(1-2): 109-129 .
59.
Horacek, H. and Zock, M. (eds) (1993) New Concepts in Natural Language Generation: Planning, Realization and Systems. London: Pinter .
60.
Hovy, E. (1990) ‘Unresolved Issues in Paragraph Planning’, in R. Dale , C. Mellish and M. Zock (eds) Current Research in Natural Language Generation, pp. 17-45. London: Academic Press .
61.
Hovy, E. (1993) ‘Automated Discourse Generation Using Discourse Structure Relations’ , Artificial Intelligence63: 341-385 .
62.
Hovy, E. and Arens, Y. (1991) ‘Automatic Generation of Formatted Text’ , Proceedings of 9th AAAI Conference, Anaheim, CA.
63.
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 .
64.
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.
65.
Kittredge, R. , Korelsky, T. and Rambow, O. (1991) ‘On the Need for Domain Communication Language’ , Computational Intelligence7: 305-314 .
66.
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 .
67.
Kong, K. C. C. (1998) ‘Are Simple Business Request Letters Really Simple? A Comparison of Chinese and English Business Request Letters’Text18(1): 103-141 .
68.
Kosseim, L. and Lapalme, G. (1994) ‘Content and Rhetorical Status Selection in Instructional Texts’ , Proceedings of 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, pp. 53-60 ,. Kennebunkport, ME.
69.
Kosseim, L. and Lapalme, G. (2000) ‘Choosing Rhetorical Structures to Plan Instructional Texts’ , Computational Intelligence16(3): 408-445 .
70.
Kreutel, J. and Mann, W. C. (2003) ‘Discourse Obligations and Dialogue Macrogame Theory: An Exploratory Analysis’ , Proceedings, 7th Conference on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, DiaBruck, Saarbrucken, Germany.
71.
Krifka-Dobes, Z. and Novak, H.-J. (1993) ‘From Constituent Planning to Text Planning’, in H. Horacek and M. Zock (eds) New Concepts in Natural Language Generation: Planning, Realization, and Systems, pp. 87-113. London: Pinter .
72.
Le, H. T. and Abeysinghe, G. (2003) ‘A Study to Improve the Efficiency of a Discourse Parsing System’ , in A. Gelbukh (ed.) Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, Vol. 2588, pp. 101-114 . Berlin: Springer.
73.
Lindley, C. , Davis, J. , Nack, F. and Rutledge, L. (2001) The Application of Rhetorical Structure Theory to Interactive News Program Generation from Digital Archives (Technical Report No. INS-R0101). Amsterdam: Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica .
74.
Mann, W. C. (1983a) ‘An Overview of the Nigel Text Generation Grammar: ISI/RR-83-113’, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California .
75.
Mann, W. C. (1983b) ‘An Overview of the Penman Text Generation Grammar: ISI/RR-83-114’, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California .
76.
Mann, W. C. (2002a) ‘Dialogue Analysis for Diverse Situations’ , in J. Bos , M. E. Foster and C. Matheson (eds) Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (EDILOG-2002), pp. 109-116 , Edinburgh, UK.
77.
Mann, W. C. (2002b) ‘Dialogue Macrogame Theory’ , Proceedings, 3rd SIGDial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 129-141 , Philadelphia, PA.
78.
Mann, W. C. (2003) ‘Models of Intentions in Language’, in P. Kühnlein , H. Rieser and H. Zeevat (eds) Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium, pp. 165-178. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
79.
Mann, W.C. (2005) RST website, available at: [http://www.sfu.ca/rst].
80.
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 .
81.
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 .
82.
Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A. (1988) ‘Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization’ , Text8(3): 243-281 .
83.
Mantynen, A.K. (2003) ‘Talking about Language: The Rhetoric of Language Columns’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki, Finland.
84.
Marcu, D. (1997a) ‘From Discourse Structures to Text Summaries’ , in I. Mani and M. Maybury (eds) Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Intelligent Scalable Text Summarisation, pp. 82-88 , Madrid, Spain.
85.
Marcu, D. (1997b) ‘The Rhetorical Parsing, Summarization, and Generation of Natural Language Texts’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.
86.
Marcu, D. (2000) The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
87.
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.
88.
Marir, F. and Haouam, K. (2002) ‘RSTIndex: Indexing and Retrieving Web Document Using Computational and Linguistic Techniques’ , Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning - Ideal 20022412: 135-140 .
89.
Martin, J. R. (1992) English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
90.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. , Zeng, L. , Cross, M. , Kobayashi, I. , Teruya, K. and Wu, C. (1998) ‘The Multex Generator and its Environment: Application and Development’ , Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Natural Language Generation, pp. 228-237 , Montréal, Canada.
91.
McKeown, K. R. (1985) Text Generation: Using Discourse Strategies and Focus Constraints to Generate Natural Language Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
92.
Miike, S. , Itoh, E. , Ono, K. and Sumita, K. (1994) ‘A Full-text Retrieval System with a Dynamic Abstract Generation Function’ , Proceedings of the 17th Annual International ACM-SIGIR Conference, pp. 152-161 , Dublin, Ireland.
93.
Miltsakaki, E. , Prasad, R. , Joshi, A. K. and Webber, B. (2004) ‘Annotating Discourse Connectives and their Arguments’ , Proceedings of the HLT/NAACL Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation, Boston, MA.
94.
Moens, M.-F. and De Busser, R. (2002) ‘First Steps in Building a Model for the Retrieval of Court Decisions’ , International Journal of Human-Computer Studies57(5): 429-446 .
95.
Mohamed, A. H. and Omer, M. R. (1999) ‘Syntax as a Marker of Rhetorical Organization in Written Texts: Arabic and English’ , International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL)37(4): 291-305 .
96.
Moore, J. D. and Paris, C. (1993) ‘Planning Text for Advisory Dialogues: Capturing Intentional and Rhetorical Information’ , Computational Linguistics19(4): 651-694 .
97.
Not, E. and Stock, O. (1994) ‘Automatic Generation of Instructions for Citizens in a Multilingual Community’ , Proceedings of First European Language Engineering Convention, Paris.
98.
Oberlander, J. and Mellish, C. (1998) Final Report on the ILEX Project. Edinburgh: Division of Informatics, University of Edinburgh .
99.
O’Donnell, M. (1997) ‘Variable-length On-line Document Generation’ , Proceedings of the 6th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation, pp. 82-91 , Gerhard-Mercator University, Duisburg, Germany.
100.
O’Donnell, M. , Mellish, C. , Oberlander, J. and Knott, A. (2001) ‘ILEX: An architecture for a Dynamic Hypertext Generation System’ , Natural Language Engineering7: 225-250 .
101.
Ono, K. , Sumita, K. and Miike, S. (1994) ‘Abstract Generation Based on Rhetorical Structure Extraction’ , Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING’94), pp. 344-348 , Kyoto, Japan.
102.
Otterbacher, J. , Radev, D. and Luo, A. (2002) ‘Revisions that Improve Cohesion in Multi-document Summaries: A Preliminary Study’ , Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Automatic Summarization, pp. 27-36 , Philadelphia, PA.
103.
Oversteegen, L. E. (1997) ‘On the Pragmatic Nature of Causal and Contrastive Connectives’ , Discourse Processes24: 51-85 .
104.
Pander Maat, H. (1998) ‘Classifying Negative Coherence Relations on the Basis of Linguistic Evidence’ , Journal of Pragmatics30: 177-204 .
105.
Pander Maat, H. and Degand, L. (2001) ‘Scaling Causal Relations and Connectives in Terms of Speaker Involvement’ , Cognitive Linguistics12(3): 211-245 .
106.
Pander Maat, H. and Sanders, T. (2001) ‘Subjectivity in Causal Connectives: An Empirical Study of Language in Use’ , Cognitive Linguistics12(3): 247-273 .
107.
Pardo, T. A. S. , das Gracas Volpe Nunes, M. and Machado Rino, L. H. (2004) ‘DiZer: An Automatic Discourse Analyzer for Brazilian Portuguese’ , Proceedings of First International Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Cognitive Science (NLUCS 2004), Porto, Portugal.
108.
Pardo, T. A. S. and Machado Rino, L. H. (2001) ‘A Summary Planner Based on a Three-level Discourse Model’ , Proceedings of Natural Language Processing Pacific Rim Symposium, pp. 533-538 , Tokyo, Japan.
109.
Pardo, T. A. S. and Machado Rino, L. H. (2002) ‘DMSumm: Review and Assessment’ , Proceedings of Advances in Natural Language Processing, Third International Conference (PorTAL 2002), pp. 263-274 . Faro, Portugal: Springer.
110.
Pelsmaekers, K. , Braecke, C. and Geluykens, R. (1998) ‘Rhetorical Relations and Subordination in L2 Writing’, in A. Sánchez-Macarro and R. Carter (eds) Linguistic Choice across Genres: Variation in Spoken and Written English, pp. 191-213. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
111.
Péry-Woodley, M.-P. (1998) ‘Signalling in Written Text: A Corpus-based Approach’ , in M. Stede , L. Wanner and E. Hovy (eds) Proceedings of COLING-ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, pp. 79-85 , Montréal, Canada.
112.
Péry-Woodley, M.-P. (2001) ‘Modes d’organisation et de signalisation dans des textes procéduraux’ , Langages141: 28-46 .
113.
Pit, M. (2003) How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective: Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi .
114.
Polanyi, L. and Zaenen, A. (2003) ‘Shifting Attitudes’, in L. Lagerwerf , W. Spooren and L. Degand (eds) Determination of Information and Tenor in Texts: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Discourse 2003. Amsterdam and Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU and Nodus Publikationen .
115.
Power, R. , Scott, D. and Bouayad-Agha, N. (2003) ‘Document Structure’ , Computational Linguistics29(2): 211-260 .
116.
Prasad, R. , Miltsakaki, E. , Joshi, A. K. and Webber, B. (2004) ‘Annotation and Data Mining of the Penn Discourse TreeBank’ , Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, Barcelona, Spain.
117.
Radev, D. (2000) ‘A Common Theory of Information Fusion from Multiple Text Sources. Step One: Cross Document Structure’ , in L. Dybkjær , K. Hasida and D. Traum (eds) Proceedings of 1st SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 74-83 , Hong Kong.
118.
Radev, D. , Otterbacher, J. and Zhang, Z. (2004) ‘CST Bank: A Corpus for the Study of Cross-document Structural Relationships’ , Proceedings of LREC 2004, Lisbon, Portugal.
119.
Ramsay, G. (2000) ‘Linearity in Rhetorical Organisation: A Comparative Cross-cultural Analysis of Newstext from the People’s Republic of China and Australia’ , International Journal of Applied Linguistics10(2): 241-258 .
120.
Ramsay, G. (2001) ‘What Are They Getting At? Placement of Important Ideas in Chinese Newstext: A Contrastive Analysis with Australian Newstext’ , Australian Review of Applied Linguistics24(2): 17-34 .
121.
Reed, C. and Daskalopolu, A. (1998) ‘Modelling Contractual Arguments’ , 4th International Conference on Argumentation, pp. 686-692 , Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
122.
Reed, C. and Long, D. (1997) Generating Punctuation in Written Documents (Technical Report No. RN/97/157). London: Department of Computer Science, University College .
123.
Reed, C. and Long, D. (1998) ‘Generating the Structure of Argument’ , Proceedings of 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL’98), Vol. 2, pp. 1091-1097 , Montréal, Canada.
124.
Reichman, R. (1985) Getting Computers to Talk like You and Me: Discourse Context, Focus, and Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
125.
Reitter, D. (2003a) ‘Rhetorical Analysis with Rich Feature Support Vector Models’, unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Potsdam, Germany.
126.
Reitter, D. (2003b) ‘Simple Signals for Complex Rhetorics: On Rhetorical Analysis with Rich-feature Support Vector Models’, in U. Seewald-Heeg (ed.) Sprachthechnologie für die multilinguale Kommunikation, Sankt Augustin, Germany.
127.
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.
128.
Rino, L. H. M. , Pardo, T. A. S. , Silla, C. N. , Kaestner, C. A. A. and Pombo, M. (2004) ‘A Comparison of Automatic Summarization Systems for Brazilian Portuguese Texts’ , Proceedings of the XVII Brazilian Symposium on Artificial Intelligence (SBIA 2004), Säo Luís, Maranhäo, Brazil.
129.
Rino, L. H. M. and Scott, D. (1996) A Discourse Model for Gist Preservation (Technical Report No. ITRI-96-12). Brighton: University of Brighton, Information Technology Research Institute .
130.
Rocchi, C. and Zancanaro, M. (2003) ‘Generation of Video Documentaries from Discourse Structures’ , Proceedings of 9th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (EWNLG 9), Budapest, Hungary.
131.
Romera, M. (2004) Discourse Functional Units: The Expression of Coherence Relations in Spoken Spanish. Munich: LINCOM .
132.
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 .
133.
Rutledge, L. , Bailey, B. , van Ossenbruggen, J. , Hardman, L. and Geurts, J. (2000a) ‘Generating Presentation Constraints from Rhetorical Structure’ , Proceedings of 11th ACM conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, pp. 19-28 , San Antonio, TX.
134.
Rutledge, L. , Davis, J. , van Ossenbruggen, J. and Hardman, L. (2000b) ‘Inter-dimensional Hypermedia Communicative Devices for Rhetorical Structure’ , Proceedings of International Conference on Multimedia Modeling (MMM00), pp. 89-105 , Nagano, Japan.
135.
Sacerdoti, E. D. (1977) A Structure for Plans and Behavior. Amsterdam: Elsevier North Holland .
136.
Sacks, H. , Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974) ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking in Conversation’ , Language50: 696-735 .
137.
Salkie, R. and Oates, S. L. (1999) ‘Contrast and Concession in French and English’ , Languages in Contrast2(1): 27-56 .
138.
Sarjala, M. (1994) ‘Signalling of Reason and Cause Relations in Academic Discourse’ , Anglicana Turkuensia13: 89-98 .
139.
Schilder, F. (2002) ‘Robust Discourse Parsing via Discourse Markers, Topicality and Position’ , Natural Language Engineering8(2/3): 235-255 .
140.
Scott, D. , Delin, J. and Hartley, A. (1999) ‘Identifying Congruent Pragmatic Relations in Procedural Texts’ , Languages in Contrast1(1): 45-82 .
141.
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 .
142.
Sharoff, S. and Sokolova, L. (1995) ‘Analysis of Rhetorical Structures in Technical Manuals and their Multilingual Generation’ , Proceedings of the Workshop on Multilingual Generation (IJCAI’95), pp. 119-128 , Montréal, Canada.
143.
Shinmori, A. , Okumura, M. , Marukawa, Y. and Iwayama, M. (2002) ‘Rhetorical Structure Analysis of Japanese Patent Claims Using Cue Phrases’ , Proceedings of the 3rd NTCIR Workshop. Tokyo, Japan: National Institute of Informatics.
144.
Sparck-Jones, K. (1995) ‘Discourse Modelling for Automatic Summarising’, in E. Hajicová , M. Cervenka , O. Leška 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 .
145.
Stede, M. (2004) ‘The Potsdam Commentary Corpus’ , Proceedings of the Workshop on Discourse Annotation, 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain.
146.
Stent, A. (2000) ‘Rhetorical Structure in Dialog’ , Proceedings of First International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG’2000), pp. 247-252 , Mitzpe Ramon, Israel.
147.
Stewart, A.M. (1987) ‘Clause-Combining in Conchucos Quechua Discourse’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
148.
Sumita, K. , Ono, K. , Chino, T. , Ukita, T. and Amano, S. (1992) ‘A Discourse Structure Analyzer for Japanese Text’ , Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, pp. 1133-1140 , Tokyo, Japan.
149.
Taboada, M. (2001) ‘Collaborating through Talk: The Interactive Construction of Task-Oriented Dialogue in English and Spanish’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
150.
Taboada, M. (2004a) Building Coherence and Cohesion: Task-Oriented Dialogue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
151.
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 .
152.
Taboada, M and Grieve, J. (2004) ‘Analyzing Appraisal Automatically’ , in Y. Qu , J. G. Shanahan and J. Wiebe (eds) Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text (AAAI Technical Report SS-04-07), pp. 158-161 . Stanford, CA: AAAI Press.
153.
Taboada, M. and Mann, W. C. (2006) ‘Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking Back and Moving Ahead’ , Discourse Studies8(3): 423-459 .
154.
Tetreault, J. R. (2005) ‘Decomposing Discourse’, in A. Branco , T. McEnery and R. Mitkov (eds) Anaphora Processing: Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Modelling, pp. 73-95. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
155.
Tetreault, J. R. and Allen, J. (2003) ‘An Empirical Evaluation of Pronoun Resolution and Clausal Structure’ , International Symposium on Reference Resolution and its Applications to Question Answering and Summarization, pp. 1-8 , Venice, Italy.
156.
Teufel, S. and Moens, M. (2002) ‘Summarizing Scientific Articles: Experiments with Relevance and Rhetorical Structure’ , Computational Linguistics28(4): 409-445 .
157.
Thomas, S. F. (1995) ‘Rhetorical Structure Theory’ , Studies in Machine Translation and Natural Language Processing9: 159-174 .
158.
Torrance, M. and Bouayad-Agha, N. (2001) ‘Rhetorical Structure Analysis as a Method for Understanding Writing Processes’, in L. Degand , Y. Bestgen , W. Spooren and L. van Waes (eds) Multidisciplinary Approaches to Discourse. Amsterdam: Nodus .
159.
Trail, R. L. and Hale, A. (1995) A Rhetorical Structure Analysis of a Kalasha Narrative. Horsley Green: Summer Institute of Linguistics .
160.
Turney, P. and Littman, M. (2003) ‘Measuring Praise and Criticism: Inference of Semantic Orientation from Association’ , ACM Transactions on Information Systems21(4): 315-346 .
161.
Vander Linden, K. and Martin, J. (1995) ‘Expressing Rhetorical Relations in Instructional Text: A Case Study of the Purpose Relation’ , Computational Linguistics21(1): 29-57 .
162.
Vapnik, V. N. (1995) The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Berlin: Springer .
163.
Vet, C. (1999) ‘Temps verbaux, relations rhetoriques et chaines topicales’ (‘Verb Tense, Rhetorical Relations, and Topical Chains’) , Travaux de Linguistique39: 59-75 .
164.
Virtanen, T. (1995) ‘Analysing Argumentative Strategies: A Reply to a Complaint’ , Anglicana Turkuensia14: 539-547 .
165.
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.
166.
Williamson, J.M. (2000) ‘The Vocabulary and Rhetorical Structures in Literary Studies Articles about Molly Bloom: A Description, and Applications for Information Science’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC.
167.
Wolf, F. , Gibson, E. , Fisher, A. and Knight, M. (2005) The Discourse GraphBank: A Database of Texts Annotated with Coherence Relations. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium .
168.
Zhang, Z. , Blair-Goldensohn, S. and Radev, D. (2002) ‘Towards CST-Enhanced Summarization’ , Proceedings of AAAI 2002, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
169.
Zukerman, I. and McConachy, R. (2001) ‘Wishful: A Discourse Planning System that Considers a User’s Inferences’ , Computational Intelligence17(1): 1-61 .
