@article{scholman-demberg-2017-examples,
title = "Examples and Specifications that Prove a Point: Identifying Elaborative and Argumentative Discourse Relations",
author = "Scholman, Merel C.J. and
Demberg, Vera",
editor = "Stent, Amanda and
Taboada, Maite and
Fern{\'a}ndez, Raquel and
Traum, David and
Poesio, Massimo and
Eugenio, Barbara Di and
Stede, Manfred",
journal = "Dialogue {\&} Discourse",
volume = "8",
month = jul,
year = "2017",
address = "Bielefeld, Germany",
publisher = "University of Bielefeld",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2017.dnd-8.8/",
doi = "10.5087/dad.2017.203",
pages = "56--83",
abstract = "Examples and specifications occur frequently in text, but not much is known about how they function in discourse and 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."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="scholman-demberg-2017-examples">
<titleInfo>
<title>Examples and Specifications that Prove a Point: Identifying Elaborative and Argumentative Discourse Relations</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Merel</namePart>
<namePart type="given">C.J.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Scholman</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Vera</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Demberg</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2017-07</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre authority="bibutilsgt">journal article</genre>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Dialogue & Discourse</title>
</titleInfo>
<originInfo>
<issuance>continuing</issuance>
<publisher>University of Bielefeld</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Bielefeld, Germany</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
<genre authority="bibutilsgt">academic journal</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Examples and specifications occur frequently in text, but not much is known about how they function in discourse and 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.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">scholman-demberg-2017-examples</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.5087/dad.2017.203</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2017.dnd-8.8/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2017-07</date>
<detail type="volume"><number>8</number></detail>
<extent unit="page">
<start>56</start>
<end>83</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Journal Article
%T Examples and Specifications that Prove a Point: Identifying Elaborative and Argumentative Discourse Relations
%A Scholman, Merel C.J.
%A Demberg, Vera
%J Dialogue & Discourse
%D 2017
%8 July
%V 8
%I University of Bielefeld
%C Bielefeld, Germany
%F scholman-demberg-2017-examples
%X Examples and specifications occur frequently in text, but not much is known about how they function in discourse and 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.
%R 10.5087/dad.2017.203
%U https://aclanthology.org/2017.dnd-8.8/
%U https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2017.203
%P 56-83
Markdown (Informal)
[Examples and Specifications that Prove a Point: Identifying Elaborative and Argumentative Discourse Relations](https://aclanthology.org/2017.dnd-8.8/) (Scholman & Demberg, DND 2017)
ACL