{ "paper_id": "W11-0119", "header": { "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", "date_generated": "2023-01-19T05:45:18.125937Z" }, "title": "The Exploitation of Spatial Information in Narrative Discourse", "authors": [ { "first": "Blake", "middle": [ "Stephen" ], "last": "Howald", "suffix": "", "affiliation": { "laboratory": "", "institution": "Georgetown University", "location": {} }, "email": "" }, { "first": "E", "middle": [], "last": "Graham Katz", "suffix": "", "affiliation": { "laboratory": "", "institution": "Georgetown University", "location": {} }, "email": "" } ], "year": "", "venue": null, "identifiers": {}, "abstract": "We present the results of several machine learning tasks that exploit explicit spatial language to classify rhetorical relations and the spatial information of narrative events. Three corpora are annotated with figure and ground (granularity) relationships, mereotopologically classified verbs and prepositions, and frames of reference. For rhetorical relations, Na\u00efve Bayesian models achieve 84.90% and 57.87% accuracy in classifying NARRATION and BACKGROUND / ELABORATION relations respectively (16% and 23% above baseline). For the spatial information of narrative events, K* models achieve 55.68% average accuracy (12% above baseline) for all spatial information types. This result is boosted to 71.85% (28% above baseline) when inertial spatial reference and text sequence information are considered. Overall, spatial information is shown to be central to narrative discourse structure and prediction tasks.", "pdf_parse": { "paper_id": "W11-0119", "_pdf_hash": "", "abstract": [ { "text": "We present the results of several machine learning tasks that exploit explicit spatial language to classify rhetorical relations and the spatial information of narrative events. Three corpora are annotated with figure and ground (granularity) relationships, mereotopologically classified verbs and prepositions, and frames of reference. For rhetorical relations, Na\u00efve Bayesian models achieve 84.90% and 57.87% accuracy in classifying NARRATION and BACKGROUND / ELABORATION relations respectively (16% and 23% above baseline). For the spatial information of narrative events, K* models achieve 55.68% average accuracy (12% above baseline) for all spatial information types. This result is boosted to 71.85% (28% above baseline) when inertial spatial reference and text sequence information are considered. Overall, spatial information is shown to be central to narrative discourse structure and prediction tasks.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Abstract", "sec_num": null } ], "body_text": [ { "text": "Clauses in discourse are related to one another in a number of semantic and pragmatic ways. Some of the most prominent are temporal relations that hold among the times of events and states described (Partee, 1984; Pustejovsky et al., 2003) and the rhetorical relations that hold between a pair of clauses (Mann and Thompson, 1987; Asher and Lascarides, 2003) . For example, (1) illustrates the NARRATION relation which obtains between (1a-b) and between (1b-c).", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 199, "end": 213, "text": "(Partee, 1984;", "ref_id": "BIBREF19" }, { "start": 214, "end": 239, "text": "Pustejovsky et al., 2003)", "ref_id": "BIBREF21" }, { "start": 305, "end": 330, "text": "(Mann and Thompson, 1987;", "ref_id": "BIBREF12" }, { "start": 331, "end": 358, "text": "Asher and Lascarides, 2003)", "ref_id": "BIBREF1" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Introduction", "sec_num": "1" }, { "text": "(1) a. Klose was sitting with his teammates. b. He walked to the sidelines. c. Then he entered the game.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Introduction", "sec_num": "1" }, { "text": "Because of the temporal properties of NARRATION (Asher and Lascarides 2003, p. 462) , the event described in (1a) is taken to precede that described in (1b) and (1b)'s event to precede (1c)'s. As Asher and Lascarides show, there is a close tie between the rhetorical structure of a discourse and its temporal structure. In (2) , for example, the fact that the clauses are related by ELABORATION entails that the temporal relation between (2a) and (2b) is inclusion.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 48, "end": 83, "text": "(Asher and Lascarides 2003, p. 462)", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 323, "end": 326, "text": "(2)", "ref_id": "BIBREF1" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Introduction", "sec_num": "1" }, { "text": "(2) a. Klose scored a goal. b. He headed the ball into the upper corner.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Introduction", "sec_num": "1" }, { "text": "We observe that the spatial relations among the locations of the events described in these discourses are also highly determined by the rhetorical relations between the clauses used to describe them. In the NARRATION-related discourse (1), there is a spatial progression: Klose is located relative to his teammates (1a), he then moves from the bench to the sidelines (1b), and then he moves from the sidelines into the game (1c). In the ELABORATION-related discourse (2) , there is no such progression. In this paper, we investigate the degree to which the spatial structure of discourse and its rhetorical structure are co-determined. Using supervised machine learning techniques (Witten and Frank, 2002) , we evaluate two hypotheses: (a) spatial information encoded in adjacent clauses is highly predictive of the rhetorical relations that hold between them and (b) spatial information is highly predictable based on associated spatial information within narrative event clauses. To do this, we build a corpus of narrative texts which are annotated both for spatial information (figure and ground (granularity) relationships, mereotopologically classified verbs and prepositions, and frames of reference) and rhetorical relations (a binary NARRATION vs. ELABORATION/BACKGROUND distinction discussed in Section 3.2). This corpus is then used to train two types of classifiers -one type that classifies the rhetorical relations holding between clauses on the basis of spatial information, and another type that classifies spatial relationships within clauses where the NARRATION relation holds. The results support both hypotheses and indicate the centrality of spatial information to narrative discourse structure and associated classification tasks.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 467, "end": 470, "text": "(2)", "ref_id": "BIBREF1" }, { "start": 681, "end": 705, "text": "(Witten and Frank, 2002)", "ref_id": "BIBREF26" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Introduction", "sec_num": "1" }, { "text": "Rhetorical relations describe the role that one clause plays with respect to another in a text and contributes to a text's coherence (Hobbs, 1985) . As such, these relations are pragmatic features of a text. In NLP generally, classifying rhetorical relations has been an important area of research (Marcu, 2000; Sporleder and Lascarides, 2005) and has been shown to be useful for tasks such as text summarization (Marcu, 1998) . The inventory of rhetorical relations in Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT) (Asher and Lascarides, 2003) is widely used in these applications. This inventory includes the following relations, illustrated by example: NARRATION In previous work, rhetorical relations have been predicted based on a range of features including discourse connectives, relation location, clause length, part-of-speech, content and function words, and syntactic features (Marcu and Echihabi, 2002; Lapata and Lascarides, 2004) . These systems have a wide range of average accuracies for all relations sought to be predicted -e.g. 33.96% (Marcu and Echihabi, 2002) to 70.70% (Lapata and Lascarides, 2004) -and individual relations -e.g. RESULT -16.21% and EXPLANATION -75.39% (Marcu and Echihabi, 2002) and CONTRAST -43.64% and CONTINUATION -83.35% (Sporleder and Lascarides, 2005) . Our focus is on the NARRATION, BACKGROUND and ELAB-ORATION relations, which account for over 90% of the discourses in our corpus.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 133, "end": 146, "text": "(Hobbs, 1985)", "ref_id": "BIBREF6" }, { "start": 298, "end": 311, "text": "(Marcu, 2000;", "ref_id": "BIBREF14" }, { "start": 312, "end": 343, "text": "Sporleder and Lascarides, 2005)", "ref_id": "BIBREF24" }, { "start": 413, "end": 426, "text": "(Marcu, 1998)", "ref_id": "BIBREF13" }, { "start": 519, "end": 547, "text": "(Asher and Lascarides, 2003)", "ref_id": "BIBREF1" }, { "start": 659, "end": 668, "text": "NARRATION", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 891, "end": 917, "text": "(Marcu and Echihabi, 2002;", "ref_id": "BIBREF15" }, { "start": 918, "end": 946, "text": "Lapata and Lascarides, 2004)", "ref_id": "BIBREF10" }, { "start": 1057, "end": 1083, "text": "(Marcu and Echihabi, 2002)", "ref_id": "BIBREF15" }, { "start": 1195, "end": 1221, "text": "(Marcu and Echihabi, 2002)", "ref_id": "BIBREF15" }, { "start": 1268, "end": 1300, "text": "(Sporleder and Lascarides, 2005)", "ref_id": "BIBREF24" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Background and Related Research 2.1 Rhetorical Relations", "sec_num": "2" }, { "text": "Spatial language has been discussed in a number of NLP contexts. For example, linking natural language with physical locations via semantic mark-up (e.g. SpatialML (MITRE, 2009)); spatial description and wayfinding tasks (e.g. Anderson et al., 1991) ; and dialogue systems (e.g. Coventry et al., 2009) , just to name a very few. Perspectives on spatial language are similarly varied in terms of their focus and theoretical background (e.g. cognitive, semantic and syntactic); however, common threads do emerge. First, all physical spatial references are reducible to figure and ground relationships (Talmy, 2000) . In English, these are triggered by a deictic verb or adverb (e.g. went, here) (3a); a spatial preposition (e.g. in, at) (3b); a particle verb (e.g. put on, got out) (3c); or a motion verb (e.g. drive, follow) (3d). Second, figure and ground relationships qualitatively vary by the type of verb and preposition creating the relationship. These differences can be modeled in mereotopology, which defines spatial relationships in terms of regions and connections (e.g. RCC-8 (Randell et al., 1992) ). We follow Asher and Sablayrolles (1995) Third, figure and ground relationships vary by the perspective used to describe the relationship. For this discussion, perspective takes two forms, granularity of spatial description (following Montello (1993)) and frames of reference (following Levinson (1996)). Granularity refers to the level of detail in a given spatial description. Montello (1993, p. 315) indicates four spatial granularities based on the cognitive organization of spatial knowledge (summarized in (4)). (4a) is a Figural granularity which describes space smaller than the human body. (4b) is a Vista granularity which describes space from a single point of view. (4c) is an Environmental granularity which describes space larger than the body with multiple (scanning) point(s) of view. (4d) is a Geographic granularity which describes space even larger than the body and is learned by symbolic representation. Frames of reference provide different ways of describing the same spatial relationships. For example, given a static scene of Ronaldo sitting on a bench next to his coach, each utterance in (5) would be an accurate spatial description.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 227, "end": 249, "text": "Anderson et al., 1991)", "ref_id": "BIBREF0" }, { "start": 279, "end": 301, "text": "Coventry et al., 2009)", "ref_id": "BIBREF4" }, { "start": 599, "end": 612, "text": "(Talmy, 2000)", "ref_id": "BIBREF25" }, { "start": 1087, "end": 1109, "text": "(Randell et al., 1992)", "ref_id": "BIBREF22" }, { "start": 1123, "end": 1152, "text": "Asher and Sablayrolles (1995)", "ref_id": "BIBREF2" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Spatial Language and Discourse", "sec_num": "2.2" }, { "text": "(5) a. Deictic:", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Spatial Language and Discourse", "sec_num": "2.2" }, { "text": "Ronaldo is there. b. Contiguity:", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Spatial Language and Discourse", "sec_num": "2.2" }, { "text": "Ronaldo is on the bench. c. Named Location: Ronaldo is at the sideline.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Spatial Language and Discourse", "sec_num": "2.2" }, { "text": "Ronaldo is in front of me. e. Intrinsic:", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "d. Relative:", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Ronaldo is behind his coach. f. Absolute:", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "d. Relative:", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Ronaldo is north of his coach.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "d. Relative:", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "(5a-c) are non-coordinated as they relate just the figure and ground. Coordinated information, relating the figure to an additional entity within the ground, occurs in (5d-f). Frames of reference apply to both static and dynamic relationships (Levinson, 1996, p. 360).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "d. Relative:", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "In terms of attending to spatial information in discourse, Herman (2001) argues that spatial information patterns in narrative discourse carve out spatially defined domains that group narrative actions. In particular, the emergence and change in different types of spatial reference to physical location (discourse cues) create maps of the narrative actions. These discourse cues include figure, ground and path (motion) relationships (3); frames of reference (5); and deictic shiftshere vs. there. Herman's demonstration is based on ghost story narratives that are rich in spatial reference.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 59, "end": 72, "text": "Herman (2001)", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "d. Relative:", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Howald (2010) showed in a corpus of serial killer first person narratives, also rich in spatial reference, that these spatial narrative domains, in the form of abstract Pre-Crime, Crime and Post-Crime events, were predicted to a 90% accuracy from three spatial features (figure, ground, and spatial verb) and discourse sequence. Overall, research by Herman (2001) and Howald (2010) demonstrates some level of dependency between spatial information and discourse structure. The present research addresses the specific question of whether there is a systematic relationship between spatial information and temporal information via rhetorical relations and the spatial architecture of narrative events.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 350, "end": 363, "text": "Herman (2001)", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 368, "end": 381, "text": "Howald (2010)", "ref_id": "BIBREF7" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "d. Relative:", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Three corpora of narrative discourse were annotated with rhetorical and spatial information. These corpora were then used to train and test machine learning systems. Summarized in Table 1 , the three different narrative corpora selected for analysis were: (1) narratives from serial criminals (CRI) -oral and written confession statements and guilty pleas; (2) American National Corpus Charlotte Narrative and Conversation Collection (Ide and Suderman, 2007) (ANC) -oral narratives in conversations collected in a sociolinguistic interview format; and (3) The Degree Confluence Project (DEG) -this project, which seeks to map all possible latitude-longitude intersections on Earth, requires that participants who visit these intersections provide written narratives of the visit for inclusion on the project's website. 20 narratives from each corpus were selected. There was a total of 2,909 (independent) clauses with 1,546 of those clauses containing spatial information -spatial clauses (53.14% on average). There was a total of 2,848 relations with 1,533 of those relations where both clauses contained spatial informationspatial rhetorical (53.82% on average).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 180, "end": 187, "text": "Table 1", "ref_id": "TABREF2" } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Data", "sec_num": "3.1" }, { "text": "We developed a coding scheme for spatial information that consolidates the insights on spatial langauge discussed in Section 2. \u2022 FRAME is one of six frames of reference (Deictic, Contiguity, Named Location, Relative, Intrinsic, Absolute) (see (5) above).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Spatial Information and Rhetorical Relation Annotation", "sec_num": "3.2" }, { "text": "The three corpora were annotated by one of the authors. Annotation occurred one narrative at a time and any information from that narrative could be used to resolve rhetorical relations and spatial information. A reference sheet including several examples of each coding element was available to the annotator. The annotation happened in two phases. First, each pair of clauses was annotated with an SDRT relation. Second, each clause that contained a physical figure and ground relationship was identified. The figure, ground, preposition and verb were annotated with a Figure, Verb, Preposition, Ground, and Frame. We illustrate with (6) where the NARRATION relation obtains between (6a-b). Table 2 . An additional individual was queried for inter-rater reliability against the author annotation. The rater was given roughly one-third of the data (10 narratives (4 ANC, 4 DEG, 2 CRI) accounting for 510 spatial clause pairs), the same example sheet used by the author, and as much time as needed to complete the task. Average agreement and Cohen's kappa statistics (Cohen, 1960) were computed between the interrater and the author for the spatial annotations and NARRATION, BACKGROUND, and ELABORATION codings. Individually, BACKGROUND and ELABORATION have low interannotator agreement (\u03ba = 32.92 and 54.20 respectively), but these two relations were often confused (26% of BACKGROUND relations coded as ELABORATION and 12% of ELABORATION relations coded as BACKGROUND). As illustrated in (7-8), both BACKGROUND and ELABORATION add information to the surrounding state of affairs. As evidenced by the annotation confusions, the difference between these relations is difficult to distinguish and the distinction made by Asher and Lascarides (2003) is subtle -BACKGROUND's temporal consequence is one of overlap and ELABORATION, a subordinating relation, is one of part-of. However collapsing these relations resulted in a fairly reliably distinguished category. Average agreement and kappa statistics are summarized in Table 3 . For rhetorical relations, the average agreement and kappa statistic are consistent with previously reported performances (e.g. Agreement = 71.25 / \u03ba = 61.00 (Sporleder and Lascarides, 2005) ). We have not been able to find previously reported performance accuracies for NARRATION, ELABORATION and BACKGROUND relations specifically. However, \u03ba statistics from 60.00 to 75.00 and above are considered acceptable (e.g. Landis and Koch, 1977) . For the spatial codings, the average agreements are relatively high with Preposition and Frame falling lowest. There is no basis for direct comparison of these numbers to other research as the coding scheme is novel.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 1067, "end": 1080, "text": "(Cohen, 1960)", "ref_id": "BIBREF3" }, { "start": 1721, "end": 1748, "text": "Asher and Lascarides (2003)", "ref_id": "BIBREF1" }, { "start": 2187, "end": 2219, "text": "(Sporleder and Lascarides, 2005)", "ref_id": "BIBREF24" }, { "start": 2446, "end": 2468, "text": "Landis and Koch, 1977)", "ref_id": "BIBREF9" } ], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 693, "end": 700, "text": "Table 2", "ref_id": "TABREF3" }, { "start": 2020, "end": 2027, "text": "Table 3", "ref_id": "TABREF4" } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Spatial Information and Rhetorical Relation Annotation", "sec_num": "3.2" }, { "text": "We constructed two machine learning tasks to exploit the annotated spatial information to determine what contributions the information is making to narrative structure. The first task evaluates the prediction of NARRATION and BACKGROUND/ ELABORATION relations based on pairs of spatial clauses. The second task evaluates the prediction of spatial information types, based on the other spatial information types in that clause, in individual clauses where the NARRATION relation holds.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Machine Learning Experiments", "sec_num": "4" }, { "text": "Task 1 builds a 2-way classifier for the NARRATION and BACKGROUND/ ELABORATION relations. Clause pairs were coded as vectors (n = 1,424) -for example, the vector for (6) is NP3, HM, FF, EE, CINT. These vectors were used to train and test (10-fold cross-validation) a number of classifiers. The Na\u00efve Bayes classifier performed the best. Results are reported in Table 4 . For all corpora combined, the majority class (\"baseline\") for NARRATION is 68% and 26% for BACK-GROUND / ELABORATION; the classifier performs 16% and 22% above baseline respectively. The difference between the NARRATION and BACKGROUND / ELABORATION relations and baselines is statistically significant for each corpus and all corpora combined -ANC: \u03c7 2 = 25.64, d.f. = 1, p \u2264 .001; DEG: \u03c7 2 = 33.86, d.f. = 1, p \u2264 .001; CRI: \u03c7 2 = 22.69, d.f. = 1, p \u2264 .001; and TOTAL:\u03c7 2 = 34.09, d.f. = 1, p \u2264 .001.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 361, "end": 368, "text": "Table 4", "ref_id": "TABREF5" } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Methods and Results", "sec_num": "4.1.1" }, { "text": "Again, we have not been able to find reported results for a direct comparison of NARRATION and BACK-GROUND/ ELABORATION. However, the 84.90% and 57.87% (at 16% and 22% over baseline) performance of our Na\u00efve Bayesian model is consistent with results reported in similar tasks. For example, Marcu and Echihabi (2002) report an average accuracy of 33.96% (5-way classifier) and 49.70% (6-way classifier) based on training with very large data sets. Sporleder and Lascarides (2005) report a 57.55% average accuracy, based on training with large data sets, which is 20% over Marcu and Echihabi's 5-way classifier and almost 40% over a random 20% baseline. Lapata and Lascarides (2004) report an average accuracy of 70.70% for inferring temporal relations based on training.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 290, "end": 315, "text": "Marcu and Echihabi (2002)", "ref_id": "BIBREF15" }, { "start": 652, "end": 680, "text": "Lapata and Lascarides (2004)", "ref_id": "BIBREF10" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Discussion", "sec_num": "4.1.2" }, { "text": "We ran an additional set of experiments to determine the relative contribution of spatial features to predict NARRATION and BACKGROUND / ELABORATION relations. As shown in Table 5 , Figure and Verb outperform Ground, Preposition and Frame in accuracy. Figure performs at a 71% average accuracy (85% for NARRATION and 40% for BACKGROUND/ ELABORATION) and Verb performs at a 74% average accuracy (84% for NARRATION and 54% for BACKGROUND/ ELABORATION). Figure and Verb appear to be most discriminating. Note that we are not suggesting that subject and verb generally are similarly discriminatory -Figure and Verb in this task are overtly spatial. Despite the performance of Figure and Verb, different subsets of spatial information worked better (we ran all permutations of spatial features -the top five are listed in Table 5 ). However, the difference in performance is negligible. For example, the best subset of Figure, Verb and Ground (85% and 58%) only performed 1% above NARRATION and BACKGROUND/ ELABORATION prediction based on all five features combined. These results tell us several things about the relationship between spatial information and rhetorical structure as it applies to narrative discourse. First, spatial information predicts rhetorical structure as good as non-spatial types of linguistic information reported in other investigations and with many fewer features. For example, Sporleder and Lascarides (2005) rely on 72 different features falling into nine classes whereas we rely on 14 features in five classes. This suggests that spatial information is not only central to rhetorical stucture, like temporal components, but central to the task of prediction. Second, while the type of spatial information that predicts rhetorical structure is based on the primary figure and ground relationship, it is the qualitative semantic variations within these elements that is providing the discrimination. It is the organization of spatial relationships -(Verb and Preposition) and the perspective provided by the narrator (Figure, Ground and Frame) combined -rather than any individual elements.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 172, "end": 179, "text": "Table 5", "ref_id": "TABREF6" }, { "start": 182, "end": 192, "text": "Figure and", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 252, "end": 267, "text": "Figure performs", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 451, "end": 461, "text": "Figure and", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 672, "end": 682, "text": "Figure and", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 817, "end": 824, "text": "Table 5", "ref_id": "TABREF6" }, { "start": 914, "end": 921, "text": "Figure,", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 2041, "end": 2049, "text": "(Figure,", "ref_id": null } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Discussion", "sec_num": "4.1.2" }, { "text": "Task 2 is a series of five experiments. Each experiment builds a classifier for each type of spatial information: a 6-way classifier for Frame; a 5-way classifier for Figure (Figure types 2 and 5 did not occur in our corpus); and 4-way classifiers for Ground, Preposition and Verb. Single clauses that contribute to the NARRATION relation were coded as vectors (n = 911) -for example, the single vectors for (6a) and (6b) are NP, H, F, E, C and 3, M, F, E, INT. These vectors were used to train and test (10-fold cross-validation) a number of classifiers to predict one of the five spatial features given the remaining four. The K* classifier performed the best. Results are reported in Table 6 . For all corpora combined, the K* classifier performs above baseline for all spatial information ( Figure = 9% , Verb = 17%, Preposition = 9%, Ground = 19%, Frame = 8%) (\u03c7 2 = 20.95, d.f. = 4, p \u2264 .001).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 167, "end": 189, "text": "Figure (Figure types 2", "ref_id": "FIGREF3" }, { "start": 687, "end": 694, "text": "Table 6", "ref_id": "TABREF7" }, { "start": 795, "end": 806, "text": "Figure = 9%", "ref_id": "FIGREF6" } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Methods and Results", "sec_num": "4.2.1" }, { "text": "Even though the accuracies of predicting spatial information are significantly above baseline, we sought ways to boost performance by considering implicit spatial information. For those clauses without explicit spatial information, we extended the annotation of the previous clause's coding based on the inertia of Rapaport, et al. (1994) discuss the temporal inertia of narrative texts -time moves forward through narrative events. In the absence of updating, information is maintained. We suggest that inertia applies to spatial information as well. For example, given the clauses -John entered the room. He sat down.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 315, "end": 338, "text": "Rapaport, et al. (1994)", "ref_id": "BIBREF23" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Discussion", "sec_num": "4.2.2" }, { "text": "-we make the assumption that John sat down in the room that he entered. We illustrate with (9). No explicit spatial information exists in (9b). We took the coding from the explicit spatial information in (9a) and maintained it for (9b). New explicit spatial information occurs in (9c) and the coding is updated. Further, we included explicit sequence information as a measure of a given clause's proportional position within the text (.33, .66 and 1). In the absence of overt temporal specification (occuring in only 10% of the clauses in our corpus), the sequence information, a textual feature, parallels the temporal progression (and inertia) of narrative events. This added 560 additional vectors (n = 1,471). The K* classifier still performed the best. The results are summarized in Table 7 . Inclusion of the spatial inertia values improves performance of the K* classifier in all cases (\u03c7 2 = 40.59, d.f. = 4, p \u2264 .001). Inclusion of sequence information improves performance even further (\u03c7 2 = 102.36, d.f. = 4, p \u2264 .001). Note that, despite the increase in performance, sequencing information alone does not do as well, indicating that spatial information still plays a discriminatory role. Using sequence information alone as a baseline (Figure = 47% , Verb = 52%, Preposition = 47%, Ground = 44%, Frame = 48%;), the normalized performance values above sequence baseline become Figure = 23% , Verb = 27%, Preposition = 28%, Ground = 20%, and Frame = 21%.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 788, "end": 795, "text": "Table 7", "ref_id": "TABREF8" }, { "start": 1248, "end": 1261, "text": "(Figure = 47%", "ref_id": "FIGREF2" }, { "start": 1389, "end": 1402, "text": "Figure = 23%", "ref_id": "FIGREF3" } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Discussion", "sec_num": "4.2.2" }, { "text": "The ability to predict spatial features appears to be dependent both on a patterned distribution of the per-clause spatial information (increased by spatial inertia) and on the textual feature of sequence (temporal inertia). This seems to hold despite the specific subject matter or spatial characteristics of a given narrative. Considering the complete spatiotemporal picture for narrative clauses yields the best prediction results and suggests that the spatial information structure of narrative discourse represents some type of organization akin to what Herman (2001) and Howald (2010) have evaluated in spatiallyrich narratives. Based on the tasks presented here, this organization appears to be fundamental and relative to formal temporally-informed discourse structure.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 559, "end": 572, "text": "Herman (2001)", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 577, "end": 590, "text": "Howald (2010)", "ref_id": "BIBREF7" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Discussion", "sec_num": "4.2.2" }, { "text": "Exploration of the spatial dimension in narrative discourse provides interesting and robust possibilities for computational discourse analysis. We have described two machine learning tasks which exploit spatial linguistic features. In addition to improving on existing prediction systems, both tasks empirically demonstrate that, when available, certain types of spatial information are predictors of the rhetorical structure of narrative discourse and the spatial information of narrative event sequences. Based on these results, we indicate that spatial structure is related to temporal structure in narrative discourse. The coding scheme proposed here models complex and interrelated properties of spatial relationships and perspectives and should be generalizeable to other non-narrative discourses. Future research will focus on different discourse corpora to determine how spatial information is related to rhetorical structure. Additional future research will also focus on automation of the annotation process. The ambiguity of spatial language makes automatic extraction of spatial features infeasible at the current state of the art. Fortunately, average agreement and kappa statistics for coding of the spatial information and rhetorical relations are within acceptable ranges. The annotated spatial features are semantically deep and useful for not only computational discourse systems, but tasks that involve the semantic modeling of spatial relations and spatial reasoning.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conclusion", "sec_num": "5" } ], "back_matter": [ { "text": "Thank you to David Herman and James Pustejovsky for productive comments and discussion and to Jerry Hobbs for suggesting the Degree Confluence Project as a source of spatially rich narratives. Thank you also to four anonymous reviewers for very helpful insights.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Acknowledgments", "sec_num": null } ], "bib_entries": { "BIBREF0": { "ref_id": "b0", "title": "The HCRC Map Task Corpus", "authors": [ { "first": "Anne", "middle": [], "last": "Anderson", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Miles", "middle": [], "last": "Bader", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Ellen", "middle": [], "last": "Bard", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Elizabeth", "middle": [], "last": "Boyle", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Gwyneth", "middle": [], "last": "Doherty", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Simon", "middle": [], "last": "Garrod", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Stephen", "middle": [], "last": "Isard", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Jacqueline", "middle": [], "last": "Kowtko", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Jan", "middle": [], "last": "Mcallister", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Jim", "middle": [], "last": "Miller", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1991, "venue": "", "volume": "34", "issue": "", "pages": "351--366", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Anne Anderson, Miles Bader, Ellen Bard, Elizabeth Boyle, Gwyneth Doherty, Simon Garrod, Stephen Isard, Jacqueline Kowtko, Jan McAllister, Jim Miller, Catherine Sotillo, Henry Thompson, and Regina Weinert. 1991. The HCRC Map Task Corpus. Language and Speech, 34:351-366.", "links": null }, "BIBREF1": { "ref_id": "b1", "title": "Logics of Conversation", "authors": [ { "first": "Nicholas", "middle": [], "last": "Asher", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Alex", "middle": [], "last": "Lascarides", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2003, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.", "links": null }, "BIBREF2": { "ref_id": "b2", "title": "A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Motion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French", "authors": [ { "first": "Nicholas", "middle": [], "last": "Asher", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Pierre", "middle": [], "last": "Sablayrolles", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1995, "venue": "Journal of Semantics", "volume": "12", "issue": "2", "pages": "163--209", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Nicholas Asher and Pierre Sablayrolles. 1995. A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Motion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French. Journal of Semantics, 12(2):163-209.", "links": null }, "BIBREF3": { "ref_id": "b3", "title": "A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales", "authors": [ { "first": "Jacob", "middle": [], "last": "Cohen", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1960, "venue": "Educational and Psychological Measurement", "volume": "20", "issue": "1", "pages": "37--46", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Jacob Cohen. 1960. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1):37-46.", "links": null }, "BIBREF4": { "ref_id": "b4", "title": "Spatial Language and Dialogue", "authors": [ { "first": "Kenny", "middle": [], "last": "Coventry", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Thora", "middle": [], "last": "Tenbrink", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "John", "middle": [], "last": "Bateman", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2009, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Kenny Coventry, Thora Tenbrink, and John Bateman. 2009. Spatial Language and Dialogue. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.", "links": null }, "BIBREF6": { "ref_id": "b6", "title": "On The Coherence and Structure of Discourse", "authors": [ { "first": "R", "middle": [], "last": "Jerry", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Hobbs", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1985, "venue": "CSLI Technical Report", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "85--122", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Jerry R. Hobbs. 1985. On The Coherence and Structure of Discourse. CSLI Technical Report, 85-37.", "links": null }, "BIBREF7": { "ref_id": "b7", "title": "Linguistic Spatial Classifications of Event Domains in Narratives of Crime", "authors": [ { "first": "Blake", "middle": [], "last": "Howald", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2010, "venue": "Journal of Spatial Information Science", "volume": "1", "issue": "", "pages": "75--93", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Blake Howald. 2010. Linguistic Spatial Classifications of Event Domains in Narratives of Crime. Journal of Spatial Information Science, 1.75-93.", "links": null }, "BIBREF8": { "ref_id": "b8", "title": "The Open American National Corpus (OANC", "authors": [ { "first": "Nancy", "middle": [], "last": "Ide", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Keith", "middle": [], "last": "Suderman", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2007, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Nancy Ide and Keith Suderman. 2007. The Open American National Corpus (OANC), available at http://www.AmericanNationalCorpus.org/OANC.", "links": null }, "BIBREF9": { "ref_id": "b9", "title": "The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data", "authors": [ { "first": "Richard", "middle": [], "last": "Landis", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Gary", "middle": [], "last": "Koch", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1977, "venue": "Biometrics", "volume": "33", "issue": "1", "pages": "159--174", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Richard Landis and Gary Koch. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1):159-174.", "links": null }, "BIBREF10": { "ref_id": "b10", "title": "Inferring sentence internal temporal relations", "authors": [ { "first": "Mirella", "middle": [], "last": "Lapata", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Alex", "middle": [], "last": "Lascarides", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2004, "venue": "Proceedings of NAACL-04", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "153--160", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Mirella Lapata and Alex Lascarides. 2004. Inferring sentence internal temporal relations. In Pro- ceedings of NAACL-04, 153-160.", "links": null }, "BIBREF11": { "ref_id": "b11", "title": "Language and Space", "authors": [ { "first": "C", "middle": [], "last": "Stephen", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Levinson", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1996, "venue": "Annual Review of Anthropology", "volume": "25", "issue": "1", "pages": "353--382", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Stephen C. Levinson. 1996. Language and Space. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25(1):353-382.", "links": null }, "BIBREF12": { "ref_id": "b12", "title": "Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Framework for The Analysis of Texts", "authors": [ { "first": "William", "middle": [], "last": "Mann", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Sandra", "middle": [], "last": "Thompson", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1987, "venue": "International Pragmatics Association Papers in Pragmatics", "volume": "1", "issue": "", "pages": "79--105", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "William Mann and Sandra Thompson. 1987. Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Framework for The Analysis of Texts. International Pragmatics Association Papers in Pragmatics, 1:79-105.", "links": null }, "BIBREF13": { "ref_id": "b13", "title": "Improving Summarization Through Rhetorical Parsing Tuning", "authors": [ { "first": "Daniel", "middle": [], "last": "Marcu", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1998, "venue": "The 6th Workshop on Very Large Corpora", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "206--215", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Daniel Marcu. 1998. Improving Summarization Through Rhetorical Parsing Tuning. In The 6th Workshop on Very Large Corpora, 206-215.", "links": null }, "BIBREF14": { "ref_id": "b14", "title": "The Rhetorical Parsing of Unrestricted Texts: A Surface-Based Approach", "authors": [ { "first": "Daniel", "middle": [], "last": "Marcu", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2000, "venue": "Computational Linguistics", "volume": "26", "issue": "3", "pages": "395--448", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Daniel Marcu. 2000. The Rhetorical Parsing of Unrestricted Texts: A Surface-Based Approach. Computational Linguistics, 26(3):395-448.", "links": null }, "BIBREF15": { "ref_id": "b15", "title": "An Unsupervised Approach to Recognizing Discourse Relations", "authors": [ { "first": "Daniel", "middle": [], "last": "Marcu", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Abdessamad", "middle": [], "last": "Echihabi", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2002, "venue": "Proceedings of ACL-02", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "368--375", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Daniel Marcu and Abdessamad Echihabi. 2002. An Unsupervised Approach to Recognizing Dis- course Relations. In Proceedings of ACL-02, 368-375.", "links": null }, "BIBREF16": { "ref_id": "b16", "title": "SpatialML: Annotation Scheme for Marking Spatial Expressions in Natural Language, Version 3.0", "authors": [ { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Mitre", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2009, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "MITRE. 2009. SpatialML: Annotation Scheme for Marking Spatial Expressions in Natural Lan- guage, Version 3.0. April 3, 2009.", "links": null }, "BIBREF17": { "ref_id": "b17", "title": "Scale and Multiple Psychologies of Space", "authors": [ { "first": "R", "middle": [], "last": "Daniel", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Montello", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1993, "venue": "Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS", "volume": "716", "issue": "", "pages": "312--321", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Daniel R. Montello. 1993. Scale and Multiple Psychologies of Space. In A. Frank and I. Campari (eds.), Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS (LNCS 716), 312-321. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.", "links": null }, "BIBREF18": { "ref_id": "b18", "title": "Topological Spatio-temporal Reasoning and Representation", "authors": [ { "first": "Philippe", "middle": [], "last": "Muller", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2002, "venue": "Computational Intelligence", "volume": "18", "issue": "3", "pages": "420--450", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Philippe Muller. 2002. Topological Spatio-temporal Reasoning and Representation. Computational Intelligence, 18(3):420-450.", "links": null }, "BIBREF19": { "ref_id": "b19", "title": "Nominal and Temporal Anaphora", "authors": [ { "first": "Barbara", "middle": [], "last": "Partee", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1984, "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", "volume": "7", "issue": "3", "pages": "243--286", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Barbara Partee. 1984. Nominal and Temporal Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7(3):243-286.", "links": null }, "BIBREF20": { "ref_id": "b20", "title": "Integrating motion predicate classes with spatial and temporal annotations", "authors": [ { "first": "James", "middle": [], "last": "Pustejovsky", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Jessica", "middle": [], "last": "Moszkowicz", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2008, "venue": "COLING", "volume": "2008", "issue": "", "pages": "95--98", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "James Pustejovsky and Jessica Moszkowicz. 2008. Integrating motion predicate classes with spatial and temporal annotations. COLING 2008:95-98.", "links": null }, "BIBREF21": { "ref_id": "b21", "title": "TimeML: Robust Specification of Event and Temporal Expressions in Text", "authors": [ { "first": "James", "middle": [], "last": "Pustejovsky", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Jos\u00e9", "middle": [], "last": "Casta\u00f1o", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Robert", "middle": [], "last": "Ingria", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Roser", "middle": [], "last": "Saur", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Robert", "middle": [], "last": "Gaizauskas", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Andrea", "middle": [], "last": "Setzer", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Graham", "middle": [], "last": "Katz", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2003, "venue": "Proceedings of the IWCS-5, Fifth International Workshop on Computational Semantics", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "James Pustejovsky, Jos\u00e9 Casta\u00f1o, Robert Ingria, Roser Saur, Robert Gaizauskas, Andrea Setzer, and Graham Katz. 2003. TimeML: Robust Specification of Event and Temporal Expressions in Text. In Proceedings of the IWCS-5, Fifth International Workshop on Computational Semantics.", "links": null }, "BIBREF22": { "ref_id": "b22", "title": "A Spatial Logic Based on Regions and Connection", "authors": [ { "first": "David", "middle": [], "last": "Randell", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Zhan", "middle": [], "last": "Cui", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Anthony", "middle": [], "last": "Cohn", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1992, "venue": "Proceedings of KR92", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "394--398", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "David Randell, Zhan Cui, and Anthony Cohn. 1992. A Spatial Logic Based on Regions and Connection. Proceedings of KR92, 394-398. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.", "links": null }, "BIBREF23": { "ref_id": "b23", "title": "Deictic Centers and the Cognitive Structure of Narrative Comprehension", "authors": [ { "first": "William", "middle": [], "last": "Rapaport", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Erwin", "middle": [], "last": "Segal", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Stuart", "middle": [], "last": "Shapiro", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "David", "middle": [], "last": "Zubin", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Gail", "middle": [], "last": "Bruder", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Judith", "middle": [], "last": "Duchan", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Michael", "middle": [], "last": "Almeida", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Joyce", "middle": [], "last": "Daniels", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Mary", "middle": [], "last": "Galbraith", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Janyce", "middle": [], "last": "Wiebe", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Albert", "middle": [], "last": "Yuhan", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1994, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "William Rapaport, Erwin Segal, Stuart Shapiro, David Zubin, Gail Bruder, Judith Duchan, Michael Almeida, Joyce Daniels, Mary Galbraith, Janyce Wiebe and Albert Yuhan. 1994. Deictic Centers and the Cognitive Structure of Narrative Comprehension. Technical Report No. 89-01. Buffalo, NY: SUNY Buffalo Department of Computer Science.", "links": null }, "BIBREF24": { "ref_id": "b24", "title": "Exploiting Linguistic Cues to Classify Rhetorical Relations", "authors": [ { "first": "Caroline", "middle": [], "last": "Sporleder", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Alex", "middle": [], "last": "Lascarides", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2005, "venue": "Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "532--539", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Caroline Sporleder and Alex Lascarides. 2005. Exploiting Linguistic Cues to Classify Rhetorical Relations. Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP-05), 532-539.", "links": null }, "BIBREF25": { "ref_id": "b25", "title": "Toward a Cognitive Semantics", "authors": [ { "first": "Leonard", "middle": [], "last": "Talmy", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2000, "venue": "", "volume": "2", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Leonard Talmy. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Volume 2. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.", "links": null }, "BIBREF26": { "ref_id": "b26", "title": "Data Mining Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques with Java Implementation", "authors": [ { "first": "Ian", "middle": [], "last": "Witten", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Eibe", "middle": [], "last": "Frank", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2002, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Ian Witten and Eibe Frank. 2002. Data Mining Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques with Java Implementation. Morgan Kaufmann.", "links": null } }, "ref_entries": { "FIGREF0": { "uris": null, "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "text": "" }, "FIGREF1": { "uris": null, "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "text": "who classify prepositions based on the position (Positionat, Initial Direction from, Medial Positionthrough, Final Positionto) and contact (Innerin, Contactagainst, Outer along, and Outer-Mostbeyond) of two regions (figure and ground). For verbs, Muller (2002) proposes six mereotopological classes: Reach, Leave, Internal, External, Hit, and Cross. Pustejovsky and Moszkowicz (2008) mapped Muller's classes to FrameNet and VerbNet and propose ten general classes of motion (Move, Move-External, Move-Internal, Leave, Reach, Detach, Hit, Follow, Deviate, Stay)." }, "FIGREF2": { "uris": null, "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "text": "a. Ronaldo jumped on the ball. b. Ronaldo is in the corner. c. Ronaldo is running around the field. d. Ronaldo is in Cape Town." }, "FIGREF3": { "uris": null, "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "text": "FIGURE is an indication of grammatical person or a non-person entity (1 = I, my; 2 = you, your; 3 = he, she, it, his, her; 4 = we, our; 5 = you, your; 6 = they, their; NP = the purse, a bench, three cars); \u2022 VERB is one of the four mereotopological classes -a consolidation of Pustejovsky and Moszkowicz's (2008) ten classifications (State = was, stay, was sitting; Move = run, go, jump; Outside = follow, pass, track; Hit = attach, detach, strike); \u2022 PREPOSITION is one of four mereotopological classes based on Asher and Sablayrolles (1995) (Positional = in, on; Initial = from ; Medial = through; Final = to); \u2022 GROUND is one of four granularities (Figural, Environmental, Vista, Geographic) (see (4) above);" }, "FIGREF4": { "uris": null, "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "text": "a. Kaka kicked the ball into the goal. b. Then he ran to the left side of the bench.The spatial annotation of (6a) is: FIGURE = NP, the ball; VERB = Hit (H), kicked; PREPOSITION = Final (F), into; GROUND = Environmental (E), the goal; and FRAME = Contiguity (C). The spatial annotation of (6b) is: FIGURE = 3, he; VERB = Move (M), ran; PREPOSITION = Final (F), to the left side of; GROUND = Environmental (E), the bench; and FRAME = Intrinsic (INT). The distribution of spatial rhetorical relations is summarized in" }, "FIGREF5": { "uris": null, "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "text": "a. Klose entered the game. b. The pitch was very wet. (8) a. Klose pushed the Serbian midfielder. b. He knew him from school." }, "FIGREF6": { "uris": null, "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "text": "a. Kaka kicked the ball into the goal. NP, H, F, E, C, .33 b. The goaltender yelled in frustration. NP, H, F, E, C, .66 c. Then Kaka ran to the left side of the bench. 3, M, F, E, INT, 1" }, "TABREF1": { "text": "3) a. [Ronaldo] f igure is [here] ground . b. [Ronaldo] f igure is in [the park] ground . c. [Ronaldo] f igure rolled over [\u00d8] ground . d. [Ronaldo] f igure ran to [the park] ground .", "content": "", "type_str": "table", "html": null, "num": null }, "TABREF2": { "text": "Relation and Spatial Clause Distribution", "content": "
CorpusANC (n=20) DEG (n=20) CRI (n=20) Total (N=60)
Total Clauses5886111,7102,909
Spatial Clauses2603549321,546
Average44.2157.9354.5053.14
Total Rhetorical5685911,6902,848
Spatial Rhetorical2593459291,533
Average45.5958.3755.0053.82
", "type_str": "table", "html": null, "num": null }, "TABREF3": { "text": "Spatial Rhetorical Relation Distribution per Corpus", "content": "
RelationANC DEG CRI Total
NARRATION133124 654911
BACKGROUND7487 238399
ELABORATION346317114
CONTINUATION14271051
RESULT322025
EXPLANATION016117
ALTERNATION0099
CONSEQUENCE1607
Total259345 929 1,533
", "type_str": "table", "html": null, "num": null }, "TABREF4": { "text": "Agreement and Kappa Statistics for Relation and Spatial Codings", "content": "
CodingAgreement (%) Kappa (\u03ba)
All Rhetorical Relations71.9760.27
NARRATION86.3274.36
BACKGROUND / ELABORATION73.4062.20
Figure94.9189.92
Verb90.9081.80
Preposition78.3556.70
Granularity87.8775.74
Frame69.3838.76
", "type_str": "table", "html": null, "num": null }, "TABREF5": { "text": "Na\u00efve Bayes Classification Accuracy and F-Measures for Task 1", "content": "
NARRATIONAccuracy (% / baseline) Precision Recall F-Score
ANC63.29 / 58.676.633.654
DEG75.71 / 61.803.757.779
CRI90.12 / 73.822.901.860
TOTAL84.90 / 68.808.841.824
BACK/ ELABAccuracy (% / baseline) Precision Recall F-Score
ANC57.89 / 41.532.579.555
DEG70.11 / 38.642.701.670
CRI45.63 / 26.624.456.527
TOTAL57.87 / 35.622.567.593
", "type_str": "table", "html": null, "num": null }, "TABREF6": { "text": "Single and Combined Spatial Feature Performance", "content": "
FeatureNARRATION BACK/ ELABFeatures NARRATION BACK/ ELAB
Figure (F)85.5840.33FVG85.2458.33
Verb (V)84.5954.97VGP84.3458.33
Prepostion (P)97.341.00FVGR86.3356.45
Ground (G)97.331.00FV86.5656.90
Frame (R)98.022.00VG85.3757.33
", "type_str": "table", "html": null, "num": null }, "TABREF7": { "text": "K* Classification Accuracy and F-Measures for Task 2", "content": "
Spatial Information Accuracy (% / baseline) Precision Recall F-Score
Figure47.97 / 38.464.480.428
Verb67.32 / 50.635.673.640
Preposition53.69 / 46.492.537.499
Ground53.59 / 34.530.536.519
Frame55.67 / 47.507.557.511
narrative texts.
", "type_str": "table", "html": null, "num": null }, "TABREF8": { "text": "", "content": "
K* Classification Accuracy and F-Measures for Task 2 Boosted Vectors
SPATIAL INERTIAAccuracy (% / baseline) Precision Recall F-Score
Figure51.73 / 41.509.517.473
Verb70.22 / 48.673.700.679
Preposition57.30 / 47.571.573.540
Ground62.61 / 35.636.626.611
Frame59.82 / 44.574.598.564
SPATIAL INERTIA + SEQUENCE Accuracy (% / baseline) Precision Recall F-Score
Figure70.56 / 41.702.706.699
Verb79.33 / 48.789.793.790
Preposition67.91 / 47.676.679.674
Ground72.39 / 35.721.724.721
Frame69.06 / 44.678.691.681
", "type_str": "table", "html": null, "num": null } } } }