Annotations of Connectives and Arguments in Malayalam Language

AbstractDiscourse relations in natural languages link clauses in text and compose overall text structure. Discourse connectives are an important part of modeling the Malayalam discourse structure. We followed the annotation procedure of Penn Discourse Tree Bank and worked on tagging of discourse connectives and arguments of Malayalam text and also report the senses of relation. We present our work on annotations of Malayalam discourse connectives and arguments which helps to know more about the discourse connectives and their appearance in case of semantic rules in Malayalam discourse. Discourse connectives may or may not be explicitly present in the relation. In our work, we focus on the annotation of both explicit and implicit connectives and arguments in Malayalam text and showed encouraging results

Multilingual Extension of PDTB-Style Annotation: The Case of TED Multilingual Discourse Bank

We introduce TED-Multilingual Discourse Bank, a corpus of TED talks transcripts in 6 languages (English, German, Polish, EuropeanPortuguese, Russian and Turkish), where the ultimate aim is to provide a clearly described level of discourse structure and semanticsin multiple languages. The corpus is manually annotated following the goals and principles of PDTB, involving explicit and implicitdiscourse connectives, entity relations, alternative lexicalizations and no relations. In the corpus, we also aim to capture the character-istics of spoken language that exist in the transcripts and adapt the PDTB scheme according to our aims; for example, we introducehypophora. We spot other aspects of spoken discourse such as the discourse marker use of connectives to keep them distinct from theirdiscourse connective use. TED-MDB is, to the best of our knowledge, one of the few multilingual discourse treebanks and is hoped tobe a source of parallel data for contrastive linguistic analysis as well as language technology applications. We describe the corpus, theannotation procedure and provide preliminary corpus statistics.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

CRPC-DB – A Discourse Bank for Portuguese

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Discourse Structures and Language Technologies

Proceedings of the 18th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics NODALIDA 2011. Editors: Bolette Sandford Pedersen, Gunta Nešpore and Inguna Skadiņa. NEALT Proceedings Series, Vol. 11 (2011), 12-16. © 2011 The editors and contributors. Published by Northern European Association for Language Technology (NEALT) http://omilia.uio.no/nealt . Electronically published at Tartu University Library (Estonia) http://hdl.handle.net/10062/16955

The biomedical discourse relation bank

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Identification of discourse relations, such as causal and contrastive relations, between situations mentioned in text is an important task for biomedical text-mining. A biomedical text corpus annotated with discourse relations would be very useful for developing and evaluating methods for biomedical discourse processing. However, little effort has been made to develop such an annotated resource.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We have developed the Biomedical Discourse Relation Bank (BioDRB), in which we have annotated explicit and implicit discourse relations in 24 open-access full-text biomedical articles from the GENIA corpus. Guidelines for the annotation were adapted from the Penn Discourse TreeBank (PDTB), which has discourse relations annotated over open-domain news articles. We introduced new conventions and modifications to the sense classification. We report reliable inter-annotator agreement of over 80% for all sub-tasks. Experiments for identifying the sense of explicit discourse connectives show the connective itself as a highly reliable indicator for coarse sense classification (accuracy 90.9% and F1 score 0.89). These results are comparable to results obtained with the same classifier on the PDTB data. With more refined sense classification, there is degradation in performance (accuracy 69.2% and F1 score 0.28), mainly due to sparsity in the data. The size of the corpus was found to be sufficient for identifying the sense of explicit connectives, with classifier performance stabilizing at about 1900 training instances. Finally, the classifier performs poorly when trained on PDTB and tested on BioDRB (accuracy 54.5% and F1 score 0.57).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our work shows that discourse relations can be reliably annotated in biomedical text. Coarse sense disambiguation of explicit connectives can be done with high reliability by using just the connective as a feature, but more refined sense classification requires either richer features or more annotated data. The poor performance of a classifier trained in the open domain and tested in the biomedical domain suggests significant differences in the semantic usage of connectives across these domains, and provides robust evidence for a biomedical sublanguage for discourse and the need to develop a specialized biomedical discourse annotated corpus. The results of our cross-domain experiments are consistent with related work on identifying connectives in BioDRB.</p

Towards interoperable discourse annotation: discourse features in the Ontologies of Linguistic Annotation

This paper describes the extension of the Ontologies of Linguistic Annotation (OLiA) with respect to discourse features. The OLiA ontologies provide a a terminology repository that can be employed to facilitate the conceptual (semantic) interoperability of annotations of discourse phenomena as found in the most important corpora available to the community, including OntoNotes, the RST Discourse Treebank and the Penn Discourse Treebank. Along with selected schemes for information structure and coreference, discourse relations are discussed with special emphasis on the Penn Discourse Treebank and the RST Discourse Treebank. For an example contained in the intersection of both corpora, I show how ontologies can be employed to generalize over divergent annotation schemes