[Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/riester-2021-combined-discourse-representations-coherence-relations/)

[home](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [docs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/) / [papers](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/) / [English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/) / Combined discourse representations: Coherence relations and questions under Discussion

# Combined discourse representations: Coherence relations and questions under Discussion

**Authors:** [Arndt Riester](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/authors/arndt-riester/), Amalia Canes Nápoles, Jet Hoek · **Year:** 2021 · **Venue:** DiscAnn 2021 (Workshop on Integrating Perspectives on Discourse Annotation) **Link:** [aclanthology.org/2021.discann-1.5](https://aclanthology.org/2021.discann-1.5/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

[**3** citations in our library](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/cited-by/riester-2021-combined-discourse-representations-coherence-relations/) of the 140673 papers whose bibliographies we read[Proceedings of the First Workshop on Integrating Perspectives on Discourse Annotation](https://aclanthology.org/volumes/2021.discann-1/)[licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

- [Publisher's page](https://aclanthology.org/2021.discann-1.5/)
- [PDF](https://aclanthology.org/2021.discann-1.5.pdf)

**Authors (3)**

1. Arndt Riester
2. Amalia Canes Nápoles
3. Jet Hoek

Citations and author metrics from OpenAlex (); authors with the same name are not always told apart.

## What it is about

A short paper that analyses one passage (a section of a 2004 political keynote) three ways: with the Cognitive approach to Coherence Relations (CCR), with RST, and as a QUD tree. CCR and RST found the same 31 clause-level segments; the QUD analysis found 47, because every phrase with its own focus becomes a unit (appositions such as «Barack, or "blessed"», and NP/VP coordinations), while an adjunct clause carrying only given information («While studying here, my father met my mother») is not split off but becomes part of the question's background. Coherence relations map onto QUD trees: a subordinating relation such as REASON becomes a subordinated *why*-QUD; coordinating relations (LIST, JOINT) become sibling answers under one QUD; CONTRAST and SEQUENCE need subquestions with contrastive topics (each event at its own topic time); a CONCESSION that the QUD tree misses can be added as a link between question nodes.

## Ideas

- I1. Read Mova's frame links as QUDs, using the paper's mapping, so that `world/src/qud.rs` and the frame reader share one structure: a `cause` link = a *why*-QUD on the effect frame, answered by the cause frame; a run of `next` links = sibling answers under «what did X do (then)?», each with its own topic time. A *why* question in a course is then answered by walking the same edge. Check that every `cause` link in the frame bench gold yields a QUD the stack accepts.
- I2. Treat an appositive or parenthetical inside a sentence as answering a subquestion, not the main QUD (non-at-issue). The frame reader's appositions (coref `appos` sieve; `appos-quote` repair in `prag/src/frames.rs`) should not compete as answers to the sentence's QUD in the student. Count course errors where the winning frame came from an apposition.
- I3. Do not split off an adjunct clause that only repeats given information: a *while/when*-clause whose event already exists as a frame should link to that frame (as its time) instead of creating a new event. Measure duplicate event frames on the frame bench («next» precision) with and without the merge.

## For Mova

[36. Discourse relations and coherence](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/36-discourse-relations/) §3, §9, §11 (RST, QUD, links between frames), `29-ellipsis-word-order-information-structure.md`. Code: `world/src/qud.rs`, `prag/src/frames.rs` (cause/next links, appositions, when-clauses), `world/src/knowledge.rs`. Measures: frame bench cause/next F1; course answers from apposition frames.

Topics: [Discourse analysis](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/topics/discourse-analysis/)

## Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```
@inproceedings{riester2021combined,
  title = {{Combined discourse representations: Coherence relations and questions under Discussion}},
  author = {Riester, Arndt and Nápoles, Amalia Canes and Hoek, Jet},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the First Workshop on Integrating Perspectives on Discourse Annotation},
  year = {2021},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/2021.discann-1.5/}
}
```

- [← previous A Lexical Process Model of Nominal Compounding in English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/rhyne-1975-lexical-process-model-nominal-compounding/)
- [next → Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/roberts-2012-information-structure-discourse-towards-integrated/)
- [↑ back to English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/)

## References

21 references, 4 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Nicholas+Asher+and+Alex+Lascarides%2E+2003%2E+Logics+of+Conversation%2E+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
2. Daniel Büring. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26(5):511–545. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Daniel+Bu%CC%88ring%2E+2003%2E+On+D%2Dtrees%2C+beans%2C+and+B%2Daccents%2E+Linguistics+and+Philosophy%2C+26%285%29%3A511%E2%80%93545%2E)
3. Daniel Büring. 2016. Intonation and Meaning. Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Daniel+Bu%CC%88ring%2E+2016%2E+Intonation+and+Meaning%2E+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
4. Kordula De Kuthy, Nils Reiter, and Arndt Riester. 2018. QUD-based annotation of discourse structure and information structure: Tool and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 11th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), Miyazaki, JP. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kordula+De+Kuthy%2C+Nils+Reiter%2C+and+Arndt+Riester%2E+2018%2E+QUD%2Dbased+annotation+of+discourse+structure+and+information+structure%3A+Tool+and+evaluation%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+11th+Language+Resources+and+Ev) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/kuthy-2018-qud-based-annotation-discourse-structure/)
5. Jet Hoek, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, and Ted Sanders. 2017. Segmenting discourse: Incorporating interpretation into segmentation? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14:357–386. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jet+Hoek%2C+Jacqueline+Evers%2DVermeul%2C+and+Ted+Sanders%2E+2017%2E+Segmenting+discourse%3A+Incorporating+interpretation+into+segmentation%3F+Corpus+Linguistics+and+Linguistic+Theory%2C+14%3A357%E2%80%93386%2E)
6. Jet Hoek, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, and Ted Sanders. 2019. Using the cognitive approach to coherence relations for discourse annotation. Dialogue & Discourse, 10(2):1–33. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jet+Hoek%2C+Jacqueline+Evers%2DVermeul%2C+and+Ted+Sanders%2E+2019%2E+Using+the+cognitive+approach+to+coherence+relations+for+discourse+annotation%2E+Dialogue+%26+Discourse%2C+10%282%29%3A1%E2%80%9333%2E)
7. Wolfgang Klein. 1992. The present perfect puzzle. Language, 68(3):525–552. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wolfgang+Klein%2E+1992%2E+The+present+perfect+puzzle%2E+Language%2C+68%283%29%3A525%E2%80%93552%2E)
8. William Mann and Sandra Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243–281. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=William+Mann+and+Sandra+Thompson%2E+1988%2E+Rhetorical+Structure+Theory%3A+Toward+a+functional+theory+of+text+organization%2E+Text%2C+8%283%29%3A243%E2%80%93281%2E) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/enud-1988-mann-rhetorical-structure-theory-functional/)
9. Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Milt-sakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber. 2008. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. In The Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Marrakech. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rashmi+Prasad%2C+Nikhil+Dinesh%2C+Alan+Lee%2C+Eleni+Milt%2Dsakaki%2C+Livio+Robaldo%2C+Aravind+Joshi%2C+and+Bonnie+Webber%2E+2008%2E+The+Penn+Discourse+Treebank+2%2E0%2E+In+The+Sixth+International+Conference+on+Language+Res) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/disc-2008-prasad-penn-discourse-treebank-2-0/)
10. Uwe Reyle and Arndt Riester. 2016. Joint information structure and discourse structure analysis in an Underspecified DRT framework. In Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (JerSem), pages 15–24, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Uwe+Reyle+and+Arndt+Riester%2E+2016%2E+Joint+information+structure+and+discourse+structure+analysis+in+an+Underspecified+DRT+framework%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+20th+Workshop+on+the+Semantics+and+Pragmatics+)
11. Arndt Riester. 2019. Constructing QUD trees. In Malte Zimmermann, Klaus von Heusinger, and Edgar Onea, editors, Questions in Discourse. Vol. 2: Pragmatics, pages 163–192. Brill, Leiden. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Arndt+Riester%2E+2019%2E+Constructing+QUD+trees%2E+In+Malte+Zimmermann%2C+Klaus+von+Heusinger%2C+and+Edgar+Onea%2C+editors%2C+Questions+in+Discourse%2E+Vol%2E+2%3A+Pragmatics%2C+pages+163%E2%80%93192%2E+Brill%2C+Leiden%2E)
12. Arndt Riester, Lisa Brunetti, and Kordula De Kuthy. 2018. Annotation guidelines for Questions under Discussion and information structure. In Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude, and Martine Vanhove, editors, Information Structure in Lesser-Described Languages: Studies in Prosody and Syntax, pages 403–443. Benjamins, Amsterdam. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Arndt+Riester%2C+Lisa+Brunetti%2C+and+Kordula+De+Kuthy%2E+2018%2E+Annotation+guidelines+for+Questions+under+Discussion+and+information+structure%2E+In+Evangelia+Adamou%2C+Katharina+Haude%2C+and+Martine+Vanhove%2C+edi) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/pragmatics-2018-riester-annotation-guidelines-questions-under/)
13. Craige Roberts. 2012. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6):1–69. Earlier version (1996) in OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 49. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Craige+Roberts%2E+2012%2E+Information+structure%3A+Towards+an+integrated+formal+theory+of+pragmatics%2E+Semantics+and+Pragmatics%2C+5%286%29%3A1%E2%80%9369%2E+Earlier+version+%281996%29+in+OSU+Working+Papers+in+Linguistics%2C+Vol%2E+4)
14. Mats Rooth. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1):75–116. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mats+Rooth%2E+1992%2E+A+theory+of+focus+interpretation%2E+Natural+Language+Semantics%2C+1%281%29%3A75%E2%80%93116%2E)
15. Ted Sanders and Wilbert Spooren. 2009. The cognition of discourse coherence. Discourse, of course, pages 197–212. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ted+Sanders+and+Wilbert+Spooren%2E+2009%2E+The+cognition+of+discourse+coherence%2E+Discourse%2C+of+course%2C+pages+197%E2%80%93212%2E)
16. Ted Sanders, Wilbert Spooren, and Leo Noordman. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1):1–35. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ted+Sanders%2C+Wilbert+Spooren%2C+and+Leo+Noordman%2E+1992%2E+Toward+a+taxonomy+of+coherence+relations%2E+Discourse+Processes%2C+15%281%29%3A1%E2%80%9335%2E)
17. Roger Schwarzschild. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF, and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7(2):141–177. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Roger+Schwarzschild%2E+1999%2E+GIVENness%2C+AvoidF%2C+and+other+constraints+on+the+placement+of+accent%2E+Natural+Language+Semantics%2C+7%282%29%3A141%E2%80%93177%2E)
18. Manfred Stede, Maite Taboada, and Debopam Das. 2017. Annotation guidelines for rhetorical structure. University of Potsdam and Simon Fraser University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Manfred+Stede%2C+Maite+Taboada%2C+and+Debopam+Das%2E+2017%2E+Annotation+guidelines+for+rhetorical+structure%2E+University+of+Potsdam+and+Simon+Fraser+University%2E)
19. Christiane von Stutterheim and Wolfgang Klein. 1989. Referential movement in descriptive and narrative discourse. In Rainer Dietrich and Carl Graumann, editors, Language Processing in Social Context, pages 39–76. North Holland, Amsterdam. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Christiane+von+Stutterheim+and+Wolfgang+Klein%2E+1989%2E+Referential+movement+in+descriptive+and+narrative+discourse%2E+In+Rainer+Dietrich+and+Carl+Graumann%2C+editors%2C+Language+Processing+in+Social+Context%2C+)
20. Maite Taboada and William Mann. 2006. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies, 8:423–459. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Maite+Taboada+and+William+Mann%2E+2006%2E+Rhetorical+Structure+Theory%3A+Looking+back+and+moving+ahead%2E+Discourse+Studies%2C+8%3A423%E2%80%93459%2E)
21. Jan van Kuppevelt. 1995. Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics, 31:109– 147. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jan+van+Kuppevelt%2E+1995%2E+Discourse+structure%2C+topicality+and+questioning%2E+Journal+of+Linguistics%2C+31%3A109%E2%80%93+147%2E)