Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2007 / Annotating a Japanese Text Corpus with Predicate-Argument and Coreference Relations

Annotating a Japanese Text Corpus with Predicate-Argument and Coreference Relations

Summary

Japanese text understanding needs annotated data for coreference resolution and predicate-argument structure analysis. Existing resources, the Kyoto Text Corpus version 4.0 and the GDA-Tagged Corpus, follow loosely defined guidelines whose reliability had not been seriously tested. The authors revisit the annotation decisions for three phenomena: coreference, verb predicate-argument relations, and the arguments of event-nouns.

For coreference, they keep only identity-of-reference anaphora (IRA) links between mentions of specific, non-generic entities. This separates IRA from identity-of-sense anaphora, a distinction Japanese does not mark lexically. Arguments are labelled with case markers rather than semantic roles, but normalized to the logical cases of the base verb so that passive and causative alternations are undone. Omitted arguments (zero-pronouns) are linked to antecedents inside or outside the sentence, or tagged as exophoric.

Starting from Kyoto Corpus 3.0, they built and publicly released the NAIST Text Corpus and assessed its annotation reliability. The corpus has served as evaluation data for coreference and zero-anaphora resolution, and the paper lists remaining open problems.

Key points

  • The corpus contains annotations for 106,628 predicates and 28,569 event-nouns. Nominative (ga) arguments number 105,915 for predicates and 28,464 for event-nouns.
  • Only about 42% of the nominative arguments of predicates stand in a direct dependency relation with the predicate. About 43% are zero-anaphoric (30.5% within the sentence, 12.4% across sentences) and 15% are exophoric.
  • A new label, EX-GA, marks the causer in causativized clauses. In the causative example, the eater keeps the ga (Nominative) case of the bare verb.
  • The NAIST Text Corpus is freely downloadable and had been obtained by 102 unique users at the time of writing. It was the evaluation set in Iida et al. (2005, 2006).
  • Open issues include:
    • judging event-hood for compound nouns and event/result readings (e.g., keiyaku "contract");
    • case-frame ambiguity caused by verb alternation;
    • coreference involving abstract and generic nouns.

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 · Semantic role labeling

Cited by

65 papers of our library cite it (of the 140673 whose bibliographies we read); 11 of them have a page here, 54 not yet.

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

@inproceedings{iida2007annotating,
  title = {{Annotating a Japanese Text Corpus with Predicate-Argument and Coreference Relations}},
  author = {Iida, Ryu and Komachi, Mamoru and Inui, Kentaro and Matsumoto, Yuji},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Linguistic Annotation Workshop},
  year = {2007},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/W07-1522/}
}

References

19 references, 8 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. G. Doddington, A. Mitchell, M. Przybocki, L. Ramshaw, S. Strassel, and R. Weischedel. 2004. Automatic content extraction (ace) program - task definitions and performance measures. In Proceedings of the 4rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2004), pages 837–840. find
  2. Charles J. Fillmore and Collin F. Baker. 2000. Framenet: Frame semantics meets the corpus. In Proceedings of the 74th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. find
  3. K. Hasida. 2005. Global document annotation (gda) annotation manual. http://i-content.org/tagman.html. ↗
  4. L. Hirschman. 1997. MUC-7 coreference task definition. version 3.0. find our card
  5. R. Iida, K. Inui, and Y. Matsumoto. 2005. Anaphora resolution by antecedent identification followed by anaphoricity determination. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing (TALIP), 4:417–434. find
  6. R. Iida, K. Inui, and Y. Matsumoto. 2006. Exploiting syntactic patterns as clues in zero-anaphora resolution. In Proceddings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL), pages 625–632. find our card
  7. R. Jackendoff. 1990. Semantic Structures. Current Studies in Linguistics 18. The MIT Press. find
  8. D. Kawahara, T. Kurohashi, and K. Hasida. 2002. Construction of a japanese relevance-tagged corpus (in japanese). In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Meeting of the Association for Natural Language Processing, pages 495–498. find
  9. K. Kipper, H. T. Dang, and M. Palmer. 2000. Class-based construction of a verb lexicon. In Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and 12th Conference on on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, pages 691–696. find
  10. A. Meyers, R. Reeves, C. Macleod, R. Szekely, V. Zielinska, B. Young, and R. Grishman. 2004. The nombank project: An interimreport. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation. find
  11. Ruslan Mitkov. 2002. Anaphora Resolution. Studies in Language and Linguistics. Pearson Education. find
  12. V. Ng and C. Cardie. 2002. Improving machine learning approaches to coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 40th ACL, pages 104–111. find our card
  13. M. Palmer, D. Gildea, and P. Kingsbury. 2005. The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31(1):71–106. find our card
  14. M. Poesio, R. Mehta, A. Maroudas, and J. Hitzeman. 2004. Learning to resolve bridging references. In Proceddings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 144–151. find our card
  15. W. M. Soon, H. T. Ng, and D. C. Y. Lim. 2001. A machine learning approach to coreference resolution of noun phrases. Computational Linguistics, 27(4):521–544. find our card
  16. M. Tatu and D. Moldovan. 2006. A logic-based semantic approach to recognizing textual entailment. In Proceddings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL), pages 819–826. find
  17. M. Tsuchiya, T. Utsuro, S. Matsuyoshi, S. Sato, and S. Nakagawa. 2006. Development and analysis of an example database of japanese compound functional expressions. IPSJ Journal, 47(6):1728–1741. find
  18. K. van Deemter and R. Kibble. 1999. What is coreference, and what should coreference annotation be? In Proceedings of the ACL ’99 Workshop on Coreference and its applications, pages 90–96. find our card
  19. M. Vilain, J. Burger, J. Aberdeen, D. Connolly, and L. Hirschman. 1995. A model-theoretic coreference scoring scheme. In Proceedings of the 6th Message Understanding Conference (MUC-6), pages 45–52. find our card

↑ back to top