Examples and specifications that prove a point: Identifying elaborative and argumentative discourse relations

Merel C.J. Scholman, Vera Demberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Examples and specifications occur frequently in text, but not much is known about how how readers interpret them. Looking at how they're annotated in existing discourse corpora, we find that annotators often disagree on these types of relations; specifically, there is disagreement about whether these relations are elaborative (additive) or argumentative (pragmatic causal). To investigate how readers interpret examples and specifications, we conducted a crowdsourced discourse annotation study. The results show that these relations can indeed have two functions: they can be used to both illustrate / specify a situation and serve as an argument for a claim. These findings suggest that examples and specifications can have multiple simultaneous readings. We discuss the implications of these results for discourse annotation.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)56-83
Number of pages28
JournalDialogue and Discourse
Volume8
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Keywords

  • Coherence relations
  • Crowdsourcing
  • Discourse annotation
  • Inter-annotator agreement
  • Signalling

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Examples and specifications that prove a point: Identifying elaborative and argumentative discourse relations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this