依赖注释选择:评估普遍依赖的理论和实践问题

Kim Gerdes, Sylvain Kahane
{"title":"依赖注释选择:评估普遍依赖的理论和实践问题","authors":"Kim Gerdes, Sylvain Kahane","doi":"10.18653/v1/W16-1715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article attempts to place dependency annotation options on a solid theoretical and applied footing. By verifying the validity of some basic choices of the current dependency reference framework, Universal Dependencies (UD), in a perspective of general annotation principles, we show how some choices can lead to inconsistencies and discontinuities, partly due to UD’s alternation between syntax and semantics. For some constructions, we propose better suited alternative structures with a clear-cut distinction of syntax and semantics. We propose a classification of conception-oriented, annotatororiented, and finally, treebank end-useroriented considerations to be used in the creation of new annotation schemes.","PeriodicalId":150065,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 10th Linguistic Annotation Workshop held in\n conjunction with ACL 2016 (LAW-X 2016)","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dependency Annotation Choices: Assessing Theoretical and Practical Issues of Universal Dependencies\",\"authors\":\"Kim Gerdes, Sylvain Kahane\",\"doi\":\"10.18653/v1/W16-1715\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article attempts to place dependency annotation options on a solid theoretical and applied footing. By verifying the validity of some basic choices of the current dependency reference framework, Universal Dependencies (UD), in a perspective of general annotation principles, we show how some choices can lead to inconsistencies and discontinuities, partly due to UD’s alternation between syntax and semantics. For some constructions, we propose better suited alternative structures with a clear-cut distinction of syntax and semantics. We propose a classification of conception-oriented, annotatororiented, and finally, treebank end-useroriented considerations to be used in the creation of new annotation schemes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":150065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 10th Linguistic Annotation Workshop held in\\n conjunction with ACL 2016 (LAW-X 2016)\",\"volume\":\"107 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 10th Linguistic Annotation Workshop held in\\n conjunction with ACL 2016 (LAW-X 2016)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W16-1715\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 10th Linguistic Annotation Workshop held in\n conjunction with ACL 2016 (LAW-X 2016)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W16-1715","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

摘要

本文试图将依赖项注释选项置于坚实的理论和应用基础之上。通过从一般注释原则的角度验证当前依赖参考框架通用依赖(Universal Dependencies, UD)的一些基本选择的有效性,我们展示了一些选择是如何导致不一致和不连续性的,部分原因是由于UD在语法和语义之间的交替。对于某些结构,我们提出了更适合的替代结构,并明确区分语法和语义。我们提出了面向概念、面向注释器和面向树库最终用户的分类,以用于创建新的注释方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dependency Annotation Choices: Assessing Theoretical and Practical Issues of Universal Dependencies
This article attempts to place dependency annotation options on a solid theoretical and applied footing. By verifying the validity of some basic choices of the current dependency reference framework, Universal Dependencies (UD), in a perspective of general annotation principles, we show how some choices can lead to inconsistencies and discontinuities, partly due to UD’s alternation between syntax and semantics. For some constructions, we propose better suited alternative structures with a clear-cut distinction of syntax and semantics. We propose a classification of conception-oriented, annotatororiented, and finally, treebank end-useroriented considerations to be used in the creation of new annotation schemes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信