Event and Entity Coreference Across Five Languages: Effects of Context and Referring Expression

Q1 Arts and Humanities
L. Bevacqua, S. Loáiciga, H. Rohde, Christian Hardmeier
{"title":"Event and Entity Coreference Across Five Languages: Effects of Context and Referring Expression","authors":"L. Bevacqua, S. Loáiciga, H. Rohde, Christian Hardmeier","doi":"10.5210/dad.2021.207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Current work on coreference focuses primarily on entities, often leaving unanalysed the use of anaphors to corefer with antecedents such as events and textual segments. Moreover, the anaphoric forms that speakers use for entity and event coreference are not mutually exclusive. This ambiguity has been the subject of work in English, with evidence of a split between comprehenders’ preferential interpretation of personal versus demonstrative pronouns. In addition, comprehenders are shown to be sensitive to antecedent complexity and aspectual status, two verb-driven cues that signal how an event is being portrayed. Here we extend this work via a comparison across five languages (English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish). With a story-continuation experiment, we test how different referring expressions corefer with entity and event antecedents and whether verbal features such as argument structure and aspect influence this choice. Our results show widely consistent, not categorical biases across languages: entity coreference is favoured for personal pronouns and event coreference for demonstratives. Antecedent complexity increases the rate at which anaphors are taken to corefer with an event antecedent, as does portraying an event as completed though the latter does not reach significance. Lastly, we report a comparison of the same referring expressions to refer to entity and event antecedents in a trilingual parallel corpus annotated with coreference. Together, the results provide a first crosslingual picture of coreference preferences beyond the restricted entity-only patterns targeted by most existing work on coreference. The five languages are all shown to allow gradable use of pronouns for entity and event coreference, with biases that align with existing generalizations about the link between prominence and the use of reduced referring expressions. The studies also show the feasibility of manipulating targeted verbdriven cues across multiple languages to support crosslingual comparisons.","PeriodicalId":37604,"journal":{"name":"Dialogue and Discourse","volume":"15 1","pages":"192-226"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialogue and Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5210/dad.2021.207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Current work on coreference focuses primarily on entities, often leaving unanalysed the use of anaphors to corefer with antecedents such as events and textual segments. Moreover, the anaphoric forms that speakers use for entity and event coreference are not mutually exclusive. This ambiguity has been the subject of work in English, with evidence of a split between comprehenders’ preferential interpretation of personal versus demonstrative pronouns. In addition, comprehenders are shown to be sensitive to antecedent complexity and aspectual status, two verb-driven cues that signal how an event is being portrayed. Here we extend this work via a comparison across five languages (English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish). With a story-continuation experiment, we test how different referring expressions corefer with entity and event antecedents and whether verbal features such as argument structure and aspect influence this choice. Our results show widely consistent, not categorical biases across languages: entity coreference is favoured for personal pronouns and event coreference for demonstratives. Antecedent complexity increases the rate at which anaphors are taken to corefer with an event antecedent, as does portraying an event as completed though the latter does not reach significance. Lastly, we report a comparison of the same referring expressions to refer to entity and event antecedents in a trilingual parallel corpus annotated with coreference. Together, the results provide a first crosslingual picture of coreference preferences beyond the restricted entity-only patterns targeted by most existing work on coreference. The five languages are all shown to allow gradable use of pronouns for entity and event coreference, with biases that align with existing generalizations about the link between prominence and the use of reduced referring expressions. The studies also show the feasibility of manipulating targeted verbdriven cues across multiple languages to support crosslingual comparisons.
五种语言中的事件和实体共指:语境和指称表达的影响
目前关于共指称的工作主要集中在实体上,通常没有分析使用类比来与事件和文本片段等先行词进行共指称。此外,说话者用于实体和事件共指的回指形式并不相互排斥。这种歧义一直是英语研究的主题,有证据表明,理解者对人称代词和指示代词的优先解释存在分歧。此外,理解者对先行词的复杂性和方面状态很敏感,这是两个动词驱动的线索,表明事件是如何被描述的。在这里,我们通过五种语言(英语、法语、德语、意大利语和西班牙语)的比较来扩展这项工作。通过一个故事延续实验,我们测试了不同的指称表达如何与实体和事件前词相互关联,以及论点结构和方面等言语特征是否影响这种选择。我们的研究结果显示了不同语言之间广泛一致的、非分类的偏见:人称代词倾向于实体共指,指示代词倾向于事件共指。前词的复杂性增加了指喻与事件前词的关联率,就像将事件描述为完成一样,尽管后者没有达到意义。最后,我们报告了一个三语平行语料库中引用实体和事件先行词的相同引用表达式的比较。总之,这些结果提供了第一幅跨语言的共参照偏好图,超越了大多数现有共参照研究所针对的仅限于实体的模式。这五种语言都显示出允许对实体和事件的共指代词进行分级使用,其偏差与现有的关于突出性和减少指称表达之间联系的概括一致。这些研究还表明,在多种语言中操纵目标动词驱动线索以支持跨语言比较是可行的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dialogue and Discourse
Dialogue and Discourse Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: D&D seeks previously unpublished, high quality articles on the analysis of discourse and dialogue that contain -experimental and/or theoretical studies related to the construction, representation, and maintenance of (linguistic) context -linguistic analysis of phenomena characteristic of discourse and/or dialogue (including, but not limited to: reference and anaphora, presupposition and accommodation, topicality and salience, implicature, ---discourse structure and rhetorical relations, discourse markers and particles, the semantics and -pragmatics of dialogue acts, questions, imperatives, non-sentential utterances, intonation, and meta--communicative phenomena such as repair and grounding) -experimental and/or theoretical studies of agents'' information states and their dynamics in conversational interaction -new analytical frameworks that advance theoretical studies of discourse and dialogue -research on systems performing coreference resolution, discourse structure parsing, event and temporal -structure, and reference resolution in multimodal communication -experimental and/or theoretical results yielding new insight into non-linguistic interaction in -communication -work on natural language understanding (including spoken language understanding), dialogue management, -reasoning, and natural language generation (including text-to-speech) in dialogue systems -work related to the design and engineering of dialogue systems (including, but not limited to: -evaluation, usability design and testing, rapid application deployment, embodied agents, affect detection, -mixed-initiative, adaptation, and user modeling). -extremely well-written surveys of existing work. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers on discourse and dialogue and its associated fields, including computer scientists, linguists, psychologists, philosophers, roboticists, sociologists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信