Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Generating Coherence Relations via Internal Argumentation

  • Published:
Journal of Logic, Language and Information Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A key requirement for the automatic generation of argumentative or explanatory text is to present the constituent propositions in an order that readers will find coherent and natural, to increase the likelihood that they will understand and accept the author’s claims. Natural language generation systems have standardly employed a repertoire of coherence relations such as those defined by Mann and Thompson’s Rhetorical Structure Theory. This paper models the generation of persuasive monologue as the outcome of an “inner dialogue”, where the author attempts to anticipate potential challenges or clarification requests. It is argued that certain RST relations such as Motivate, Evidence and Concession can be seen to emerge from various pre-empting strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bateman J., Zock M. (2003). Natural language generation. In: Mitkov R. (eds) The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 284–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandom R. (1994). Making it explicit. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandom R. (2000). Articulating reasons. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen P., Levesque H. (1990). Persistence, intention and commitment. In: Cohen P., Morgan J., Pollack M. (eds) Intentions in communication. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, pp. 33–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, J. (1997). On some semantic consequences of turn taking. In Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium.

  • Ginzburg J., Cooper R. (2004). Clarification ellipsis and the nature of contextual updates in dialogue. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3): 297–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, N., & Carberry, S. (1999). A computational model for taking initiative in the generation of indirect answers. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 9(1/2), 93–132. Reprinted in Computational Models of Mixed-Initiative Interaction, Susan Haller, Alfred Kobsa, & Susan McRoy (Eds.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 277–316.

  • Hamblin C. (1970). Fallacies. London, Methuen

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibble, R. (2001). Inducing rhetorical structure via nested update semantics. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computational Semantics. The Netherlands: University of Tilburg.

  • Kibble, R. (2004). Elements of a social semantics for argumentative dialogue. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Computational Modelling of Natural Argumentation. Spain: Valencia.

  • Kibble R. (2006a). Dialectical text planning. In: Grasso F., Kibble R., Reed C. (eds) Proceedings of 6th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argumentation. Italy, Riva del Garda

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibble R. (2006b). Generating coherence relations via internal dialogue. In: Kibble R., Piwek P., van der Sluis I. (eds) Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2006 workshop: Coherence in Generaton and Dialogue. Spain, University of Malaga

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibble R. (2006c). Reasoning about propositional commitments in dialogue. Research on Language and Computation 4, 179–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kibble R., Power R. (2004). Optimizing referential coherence in text generation. Computational Linguistics 30(4): 401–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1987). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. Technical report. Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute.

  • Matheson, C., Poesio, M., & Traum, D. (2000). Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proceedings of NAACL 2000.

  • Pickering M., Garrod S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27, 169–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. (1998). Is it a monologue, a dialogue or a turn in a dialogue? In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Argumentation (ISSA98). Foris: Amsterdam.

  • Reiter, E. (1994). Has a consensus NL generation architecture appeared, and is it psycholinguistically plausible? In Proceedings of 7th International Natural Language Generation Workshop, pp. 163–170.

  • Taboada M., Mann W. (2006). Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Processes 8(3): 423–459

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kuppevelt, J. (1993). Intentionality in a topical approach of discourse structure. In O. Rambow (Ed.), Proceedings of ACL Workshop: Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations.

  • van Kuppevelt J. (1995). Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics 31, 109–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D., Krabbe E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany, State University of New York Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK

    Rodger Kibble

Authors
  1. Rodger Kibble
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodger Kibble.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kibble, R. Generating Coherence Relations via Internal Argumentation. J of Log Lang and Inf 16, 387–402 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-007-9045-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-007-9045-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation