Proceedings of the Workshop on Discourse Relation Parsing and Treebanking 2019 2019
DOI: 10.18653/v1/w19-2701
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Introduction to Discourse Relation Parsing and Treebanking (

Abstract: This overview summarizes the main contributions of the accepted papers at the 2019 workshop on Discourse Relation Parsing and Treebanking (DISRPT 2019). Co-located with NAACL 2019 in Minneapolis, the workshop's aim was to bring together researchers working on corpus-based and computational approaches to discourse relations. In addition to an invited talk, eighteen papers outlined below were presented, four of which were submitted as part of a shared task on elementary discourse unit segmentation and connective… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 38 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The tokenization scheme used in the processing of the corpus was based on orthographic words rather than on syntactic words, as used in some parsers like YAP (More et al, 2019) and UD HTB (Zeldes et al, 2022). While such morpho-syntactic parsers are valuable for analyzing Hebrew texts in general, it is important to note that they were trained on normative native Hebrew and are therefore less suitable for parsing learner language, which may contain complex mixtures of errors on all levels of linguistic analysis.…”
Section: Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The tokenization scheme used in the processing of the corpus was based on orthographic words rather than on syntactic words, as used in some parsers like YAP (More et al, 2019) and UD HTB (Zeldes et al, 2022). While such morpho-syntactic parsers are valuable for analyzing Hebrew texts in general, it is important to note that they were trained on normative native Hebrew and are therefore less suitable for parsing learner language, which may contain complex mixtures of errors on all levels of linguistic analysis.…”
Section: Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%