Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2016 / Bridging Corpus for Russian in comparison with Czech

Bridging Corpus for Russian in comparison with Czech

Summary

Bridging is anaphora where the anaphor is linked to an earlier, non-coreferent expression through an implicit relation, as in a bus … the driver. Most annotation schemes define these links semantically, which forces choices about which relation types count and where semantics ends and world knowledge begins. Roitberg and Nedoluzhko propose a syntactic criterion instead, called genitive bridging. A pair is annotated if the anchor could be added to the anaphor as a genitive dependent (voditel' avtobusa, "driver of the bus").

Using this criterion, they build RuGenBridge, which they present as the first Russian corpus with bridging annotation. They then compare it with the semantic scheme of the Czech Prague Dependency Treebank (PDT), mapping every Russian pair onto PDT relation types. Most genitive bridgings have no PDT counterpart. Many involve geographic anchors whose links come from the structure of news texts rather than lexical semantics. The comparison also exposes inconsistencies and gaps in PDT. The authors argue that formal criteria make annotation more consistent, while noting that inter-annotator agreement has not yet been measured.

Key points

  • RuGenBridge corpus: 207 news texts from polit.ru, totalling 35,841 tokens. Part-of-speech tags were assigned automatically with FreeLing, and bridging links were annotated by hand in BRAT.
  • Relation counts: 370 relations in total, made up of 362 BRIDGE links and 8 NON-GEN links. NON-GEN covers near-genitive cases that Russian syntax rules out, often with named entities.
  • Noun phrase labels: markables also carry GEO (157), ORG (35) and POST (22) labels.
  • Mapping to PDT:
    • 218 of the 370 pairs fit no PDT bridging type.
    • GEO anchors account for 135 bridging antecedents (36.5%).
    • Of these, 41 correspond to PDT part–whole relations and 34 to FUNCT relations.
    • The remaining 59 are mostly "place – things located there" pairs, which PDT does not cover.
  • Future work: double annotation with a supervisor to measure inter-annotator agreement, expanding the corpus, and building a resolver for genitive bridging.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages

Topics: Coreference resolution

Cited by

5 papers of our library cite it (of the 140673 whose bibliographies we read); 4 of them have a page here, 1 not yet.

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.18653/v1/w16-0709

@inproceedings{roitberg2016bridging,
  title = {{Bridging Corpus for Russian in comparison with Czech}},
  author = {Roitberg, Anna and Nedoluzhko, Anna},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Workshop on Coreference Resolution Beyond OntoNotes (CORBON 2016)},
  year = {2016},
  doi = {10.18653/v1/w16-0709},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/w16-0709}
}

References

7 references, 3 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides. 1998. Bridging. Journal of Semantics, 15(1):83–113. Eduard Bejček, Eva Hajičová, Jan Hajič, Pavlı́na Jı́nová, Václava Kettnerová, Veronika Kolářová, Marie Mikulová, Jiřı́ Mı́rovský, Anna Nedoluzhko, Jarmila Panevová, Lucie Poláková, Magda Ševčı́k… find
  2. Herbert H Clark. 1975. Bridging. In Proceedings of the 1975 workshop on Theoretical issues in natural language processing, pages 169–174. Association for Computational Linguistics. Claire Gardent, Hélène Manuélian, and Eric Kow. 2003. Which bridges for bridging definite descriptions. In Proceedin… find
  3. Yufang Hou, Katja Markert, and Michael Strube. 2013. Global inference for bridging anaphora resolution. In HLT-NAACL, pages 907–917. Sebastian Löbner. 1998. Definite associative anaphora. manuscript) http://user.phil-fak. uniduesseldorf. de/˜ loebner/publ/DAA-03. pdf. Harald Lüngen. 2008. RRSet-T… ↗ our card
  4. Massimo Poesio and Ron Artstein. 2008. Anaphoric Annotation in the ARRAU Corpus. In LREC. find our card
  5. Massimo Poesio, Rahul Mehta, Axel Maroudas, and Janet Hitzeman. 2004. Learning to resolve bridging references. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, page 143. Association for Computational Linguistics. find our card
  6. Massimo Poesio. 2000. Annotating a corpus to develop and evaluate discourse entity realization algorithms: Issues and preliminary results. In LREC. Lucie Poláková, Jirı́ Mı́rovskỳ, Anna Nedoluzhko, Pavlı́na Jı́nová, Sárka Zikánová, and Eva Hajicová. 2013. Introducing the Prague Discourse Tre… find
  7. Veselin Stoyanov, Uday Babbar, Pracheer Gupta, and Claire Cardie. 2011. Reconciling ontonotes: Unrestricted coreference resolution in ontonotes with reconcile. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning: Shared Task, pages 122–126. Association for Computati… find

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/roitberg-2016-bridging-corpus-russian-comparison-czech/