On the coherence and structure of discourse

By Jerry R. Hobbs. 1985

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Natural Language Processing

Citations in the corpus

Towards Coherent and Cohesive Long-form Text Generation (2018, background): “…(Mann and Thompson, 1988), and other forms of coherence and cohesion relations and their quantiﬁ-cation (Edmundson, 1969; Halliday and Hasan, 1976; Hobbs, 1985; McKeown, 1985; Cohen and Levesque, 1985; Hovy, 1988; Liddy, 1991; Hovy, 1991; Mani et al., 1998; Cristea et al., 1998; Barzi-lay and…”
Survey of the State of the Art in Human Language Technology (2010, background): “Equivalent results can be obtained using abductive reasoning to generate different word senses from polysemic lexical representations (Hobbs, Stickel, et al., 1993). The use of lexical rules or abductive reasoning provide a principled alternative to word sense enumeration in the treatment of polysem”
DisSent: Learning Sentence Representations from Explicit Discourse Relations (2019, background): “We thus propose the DisSent task, which uses the Discourse Prediction Task to train sentence embeddings.”
An analytic and cognitve parameterization of coherence relations (2002, methodology): “The current study addresses this question from both an analytic and a processing point of view by proposing an economical parameterization of interclausal relationships based on existing proposals and providing some ®rst cognitive evidence from a series of studies.”
Representing Discourse Coherence: A Corpus-Based Study (2005, methodology): “Hobbs (1985) also includes an evaluation relation, as in example (12) (from Hobbs [1985]), in which discourse segment 2 states an evaluation of what is stated in discourse segment 1.”
Natural Language Processing and Text Mining (2006, methodology): “[13] suggests using the magnitude of the PMI-based SO score as an indicator of the opinion’s strength while [24, 25] use a supervised approach with large lexical and syntactic feature sets in order to distinguish among a few strength levels for sentence clauses.”
Planning Text for Advisory Dialogues: Capturing Intentional and Rhetorical Information (1993, background): “Two theories of discourse structure that make the connection between rhetorical relations and speaker intentions have been proposed: Hobbs’ (1979, 1983, 1985) theory of coherence relations, and Mann and Thompson’s (1988) Rhetorical Structure Theory.”
Knowledge-Lean Coreference Resolution and its Relation to Textual Cohesion and Coherence (1999, background): “Populate the lezico-semantic s~ctu~(TE) " The derivation of the lexico-semantic structure (LSS) follows the steps: Lfor every re/at/on r(wt,,n2) from a TE We base our consideration of textual coherence on the definitions introduced in (Hobbs, 1985).”
Relevance theory: A tutorial (2002, background): “Some of the literature on generalised conversational implicature and discourse pragmatics tacitly invokes a similar distinction (cf. Hobbs 1985; Lascarides & Asher 1993; Lascarides, Copestake & Briscoe 1996; Levinson 2000).”
Data-Driven Response Generation in Social Media (2011, background): “We are motivated by the following observation: In naturally occurring discourse, there is often a strong structural relationship between adjacent utterances (Hobbs, 1985).”
Using Cohesion and Coherence Models for Text Summarization (1998, background): “A variety of different theories from a wide variety of intellectual disciplines have been proposed to provide an analysis of argumentation structure in multi-sentence text, including Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) (Mann and Thompson 1988), Discourse Grammar (Longacre 1979), Macrostructures (Van D”