information structure annotation
play

Information Structure Annotation and Secondary Accents Arndt Riester - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 12, 2022 •369 likes •939 views

Information Structure Annotation and Secondary Accents Arndt Riester 1 Stefan Baumann 2 1 Institute for Natural Language Processing University of Stuttgart 2 IfL Phonetics University of Cologne DGfS Workshop Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 Riester

  1. Information Structure Annotation and Secondary Accents Arndt Riester 1 Stefan Baumann 2 1 Institute for Natural Language Processing University of Stuttgart 2 IfL Phonetics University of Cologne DGfS Workshop Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 1 / 22

  2. Annotating Information Structure (Focus-Background) for Research on Prosody Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 2 / 22

  3. Annotating Focus-Background Structure Is considered “difficult”. Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 3 / 22

  4. Annotating Focus-Background Structure Is considered “difficult”. Usually, focus theorists talk about given and new information, about presupposition , about “triggering alternatives”, about contrast . Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 3 / 22

  5. Annotating Focus-Background Structure Is considered “difficult”. Usually, focus theorists talk about given and new information, about presupposition , about “triggering alternatives”, about contrast . All these notions have multiple interpretations and do not easily apply to corpus data. Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 3 / 22

  6. Annotating Focus-Background Structure Is considered “difficult”. Usually, focus theorists talk about given and new information, about presupposition , about “triggering alternatives”, about contrast . All these notions have multiple interpretations and do not easily apply to corpus data. Usually, focus theorists don’t care. Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 3 / 22

  7. Annotating Focus-Background Structure Is considered “difficult”. Usually, focus theorists talk about given and new information, about presupposition , about “triggering alternatives”, about contrast . All these notions have multiple interpretations and do not easily apply to corpus data. Usually, focus theorists don’t care. But we do! In corpus annotation, what comes closest to the given-new distinction are anaphora or information status . This is where we would like to start. Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 3 / 22

  8. Annotating Focus-Background Structure Is considered “difficult”. Usually, focus theorists talk about given and new information, about presupposition , about “triggering alternatives”, about contrast . All these notions have multiple interpretations and do not easily apply to corpus data. Usually, focus theorists don’t care. But we do! In corpus annotation, what comes closest to the given-new distinction are anaphora or information status . This is where we would like to start. Annotating focus “directly” often involves question-answer tests (but where do the questions come from in narrative text?) or prosody (but does every pitch accent mean “focus”?) Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 3 / 22

  9. Some consensus Recently, among people taking an annotation perspective to focus (Selkirk, 2007; Götze et al., 2007; Beaver & Velleman (subm.)) some consensus seems to emerge. Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 4 / 22

  10. Some consensus Recently, among people taking an annotation perspective to focus (Selkirk, 2007; Götze et al., 2007; Beaver & Velleman (subm.)) some consensus seems to emerge. We must identify two sources responsible for the assignment of accent : Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 4 / 22

  11. Some consensus Recently, among people taking an annotation perspective to focus (Selkirk, 2007; Götze et al., 2007; Beaver & Velleman (subm.)) some consensus seems to emerge. We must identify two sources responsible for the assignment of accent : Novelty and F-features (Rooth, 1992: e.g. overt contrast , association with exhaustive particles etc.), whereas the latter are referred to as “focus” (Selkirk), “importance” (Beaver & Velleman), “contrast(ive focus)” (Götze et al.), “elicited alternatives” (Riester & Baumann) Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 4 / 22

  12. What to annotate? Given vs. new constituents (a.k.a. information status ) Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 5 / 22

  13. What to annotate? Given vs. new constituents (a.k.a. information status ) ◮ Information status of DPs / terms (referential information status) Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 5 / 22

  14. What to annotate? Given vs. new constituents (a.k.a. information status ) ◮ Information status of DPs / terms (referential information status) ◮ Focus-background structure additionally requires a notion of Information status for non-referential expressions (lexical information status) Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 5 / 22

  15. What to annotate? Given vs. new constituents (a.k.a. information status ) ◮ Information status of DPs / terms (referential information status) ◮ Focus-background structure additionally requires a notion of Information status for non-referential expressions (lexical information status) ◮ Ref + Lex = RefLex scheme (Baumann & Riester, submitted; Riester & Baumann, 2011) Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 5 / 22

  16. What to annotate? Given vs. new constituents (a.k.a. information status ) ◮ Information status of DPs / terms (referential information status) ◮ Focus-background structure additionally requires a notion of Information status for non-referential expressions (lexical information status) ◮ Ref + Lex = RefLex scheme (Baumann & Riester, submitted; Riester & Baumann, 2011) Alternative-eliciting features (F-features, contrast) Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 5 / 22

  17. Annotating referential information status Units: referring expressions (terms, DPs) (for details, see Baumann & Riester, submitted) Prince (1981): Gundel et al. (1993): · evoked · activated · inferable · familiar · new unused · uniquely identifiable · new brand-new · referential Lambrecht (1994): Götze et al. (2007): · identifiable active · given · identifiable accessible · accessible inferable · identifiable inactive · accessible general · unidentifiable · new Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 6 / 22

  18. Referential vs. lexical GIVENNESS (Baumann & Riester, submitted) Schwarzschild (1999): distinguishes between (i) expressions of type e and (ii) “functional” expressions of type � α, β � Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 7 / 22

  19. Referential vs. lexical GIVENNESS (Baumann & Riester, submitted) Schwarzschild (1999): distinguishes between (i) expressions of type e and (ii) “functional” expressions of type � α, β � i. GIVENNESS = coreference anaphora Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 7 / 22

  20. Referential vs. lexical GIVENNESS (Baumann & Riester, submitted) Schwarzschild (1999): distinguishes between (i) expressions of type e and (ii) “functional” expressions of type � α, β � i. GIVENNESS = coreference anaphora ii. GIVENNESS = entailment / set inclusion (for words: synonymy or hypernymy) Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 7 / 22

  21. Referential vs. lexical GIVENNESS (Baumann & Riester, submitted) Schwarzschild (1999): distinguishes between (i) expressions of type e and (ii) “functional” expressions of type � α, β � i. GIVENNESS = coreference anaphora ii. GIVENNESS = entailment / set inclusion (for words: synonymy or hypernymy) Halliday and Hasan (1976): referential relations vs. lexical cohesion Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 7 / 22

  22. Referential vs. lexical GIVENNESS (Baumann & Riester, submitted) Schwarzschild (1999): distinguishes between (i) expressions of type e and (ii) “functional” expressions of type � α, β � i. GIVENNESS = coreference anaphora ii. GIVENNESS = entailment / set inclusion (for words: synonymy or hypernymy) Halliday and Hasan (1976): referential relations vs. lexical cohesion Baumann & Riester: R - GIVENNESS vs. L - GIVENNESS Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 7 / 22

  23. R - GIVEN vs. L - GIVEN A colleague came in. The idiot dropped a vase. (1) R - GIVEN Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 8 / 22

  24. R - GIVEN vs. L - GIVEN A colleague came in. The idiot dropped a vase. (1) R - GIVEN A student came in. Another student greeted him. (2) L - GIVEN R - GIVEN Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 8 / 22

  25. R - GIVEN vs. L - GIVEN A colleague came in. The idiot dropped a vase. (1) R - GIVEN A student came in. Another student greeted him. (2) L - GIVEN R - GIVEN A policeman came in. Another guy left. (3) L - GIVEN Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 8 / 22

  26. R - GIVEN vs. L - GIVEN A colleague came in. The idiot dropped a vase. (1) R - GIVEN A student came in. Another student greeted him. (2) L - GIVEN R - GIVEN A policeman came in. Another guy left. (3) L - GIVEN A man came in. The man coughed. (4) L - GIVEN R - GIVEN Riester & Baumann (2011) Beyond Semantics 24.2.2011 8 / 22

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend

Annotation Time Stamps Temporal Metadata from the Linguistic Annotation Process Katrin

Annotation Time Stamps Temporal Metadata from the Linguistic Annotation Process Katrin

Annotation Time Stamps Temporal Metadata from the Linguistic Annotation Process Katrin Tomanek Udo Hahn Jena Language & Information Engineering (JULIE) Lab Friedrich-Schiller-Universitt Jena, Germany http://www.julielab.de Katrin

353 views • 8 slides
Web Annotations Building the Experience Annotation An annotation is something added. It is not

Web Annotations Building the Experience Annotation An annotation is something added. It is not

Web Annotations Building the Experience Annotation An annotation is something added. It is not the primary content, or even the secondary content. It is the association. Annotation (cont.) Annotations exist already - Links - Block quotes

452 views • 14 slides
Lecture 2 Annotation tools & Segmentation Summary of Part 1 Annotation theory

Lecture 2 Annotation tools & Segmentation Summary of Part 1 Annotation theory

Center for Reflected Text Analytics Lecture 2 Annotation tools & Segmentation Summary of Part 1 Annotation theory Guidelines Inter-Annotator agreement Inter-subjective annotations Annotation exercise Discuss

671 views • 22 slides
Dialogue Structure Annotation for Multi-Floor Interaction David Traum, Cassidy Henry, Stephanie

Dialogue Structure Annotation for Multi-Floor Interaction David Traum, Cassidy Henry, Stephanie

Dialogue Structure Annotation for Multi-Floor Interaction David Traum, Cassidy Henry, Stephanie Lukin, Ron Artstein, Felix Gervitz, Kimberly A. Pollard, Claire Bonial, Su Lei, Clare R. Voss, Matthew Marge, Cory J. Hayes, Susan G. Hill The work

668 views • 48 slides
Day 2: LFG approaches to information structure LFG The nature of f-structure An f-structure

Day 2: LFG approaches to information structure LFG The nature of f-structure An f-structure

Day 2: LFG approaches to information structure LFG The nature of f-structure An f-structure is restricted by the principles of LFG in a nutshell completeness : a predicate and all its arguments be a part of the structure

471 views • 10 slides
EMMA Extensible Multimodal Annotation markup language Canonical structure semantic

EMMA Extensible Multimodal Annotation markup language Canonical structure semantic

EMMA Extensible Multimodal Annotation markup language Canonical structure semantic interpretations for a variety of inputs including: Speech Natural language text GUI Ink 1 James A. Larson EMMA EMMA Extensible Multimodal

376 views • 15 slides
The OTIM formal annotation model: a preliminary step before annotation scheme . . . . .

The OTIM formal annotation model: a preliminary step before annotation scheme . . . . .

. . The OTIM formal annotation model: a preliminary step before annotation scheme . . . . . Philippe Blache, Roxane Bertrand, Mathilde Guardiola, Marie-Laure Gunot, Christine Meunier, Irina Nesterenko, Berthille Pallaud, Laurent

223 views • 21 slides
Annotation Graphs, Annotation Servers and Multi-Modal Resources Infrastructure for

Annotation Graphs, Annotation Servers and Multi-Modal Resources Infrastructure for

Annotation Graphs, Annotation Servers and Multi-Modal Resources Infrastructure for Interdisciplinary Education, Research and Development Christopher Cieri and Steven Bird University of Pennsylvania Linguistic Data Consortium

439 views • 13 slides
Injecting Linguistics into NLP by Annotation Eduard Hovy Information Sciences Institute

Injecting Linguistics into NLP by Annotation Eduard Hovy Information Sciences Institute

Injecting Linguistics into NLP by Annotation Eduard Hovy Information Sciences Institute University of Southern California Lesson 1: Banko and Brill, HLT-01 Confusion set disambiguation task: {youre | your}, {to | too | two}, {its |

665 views • 19 slides
Corpus Construction and Annotation Why are annotated corpora important for computational

Corpus Construction and Annotation Why are annotated corpora important for computational

Corpus Construction and Annotation Why are annotated corpora important for computational linguists? training and evaluation of NLP tools classification (POS, word sense) parsing (syntactic structure) extraction (named entity, semantic role,

741 views • 25 slides
Annotation for Arabic Information Retrieval Ashraf I. Kaloub Rebhi S. Baraka Alaqsa-Community

Annotation for Arabic Information Retrieval Ashraf I. Kaloub Rebhi S. Baraka Alaqsa-Community

Automatic Ontology-Based Document Annotation for Arabic Information Retrieval Ashraf I. Kaloub Rebhi S. Baraka Alaqsa-Community College Faculty of Information Technology Khan Younis, Gaza Strip Islamic University of Gaza 1 The 3rd Palestinian

536 views • 31 slides
Systematic Annotation Mark Voorhies 4/5/2012 Mark Voorhies Systematic Annotation Review RTFM

Systematic Annotation Mark Voorhies 4/5/2012 Mark Voorhies Systematic Annotation Review RTFM

Systematic Annotation Mark Voorhies 4/5/2012 Mark Voorhies Systematic Annotation Review RTFM PNAS 95:14863 Mark Voorhies Systematic Annotation The Gene Ontology Three directed acyclic graphs (aspects): Biological Process Molecular

689 views • 36 slides
University of Rochester Thesis Proposal Presentation Corpus Annotation and Inference with

University of Rochester Thesis Proposal Presentation Corpus Annotation and Inference with

University of Rochester Thesis Proposal Presentation Corpus Annotation and Inference with Episodic Logic Type Structure Gene Kim May 2, 2018 1/66 Introduction Language understanding is a growing area of interest in NLP. QA : AI2 Reasoning

1.61k views • 109 slides
Open Annotation Support for Apache Stanbol Apache Stanbol Enhancer POST content Results

Open Annotation Support for Apache Stanbol Apache Stanbol Enhancer POST content Results

Rupert Westenthaler Open Annotation Support for Apache Stanbol Apache Stanbol Enhancer POST content Results Analysis as RDF Chain 2 Stanbol Enhancement Structure Mention Suggestion 1 Suggestion 2 3 Open Annotation

497 views • 27 slides
Annotation and Evaluation Diana Maynard, Niraj Aswani University of Sheffield University of

Annotation and Evaluation Diana Maynard, Niraj Aswani University of Sheffield University of

University of Sheffield, NLP Annotation and Evaluation Diana Maynard, Niraj Aswani University of Sheffield University of Sheffield, NLP Topics covered Defining annotation guidelines Manual annotation using the GATE GUI Annotation

570 views • 34 slides
Annotation in a Publishing Context (Or Thinking Beyond the Annotated Bibliography) James

Annotation in a Publishing Context (Or Thinking Beyond the Annotated Bibliography) James

Annotation in a Publishing Context (Or Thinking Beyond the Annotated Bibliography) James Williamson Annotation in Publishing Many in the field dont associate what they do on a daily basis with annotation, but it is.

369 views • 34 slides
Testing 221 238 197 223 171 213 Manoj Nambiar, Tata Blue 50% Tata Blue 25% Purple 50 %

Testing 221 238 197 223 171 213 Manoj Nambiar, Tata Blue 50% Tata Blue 25% Purple 50 %

Title and Content 109 255 131 0 85 214 207 255 56 99 165 73 246 255 155 190 28 42 Dark 1 Light 1 Dark 2 Light 2 Accent 1 Accent 2 185 151 193 255 255 236 175 75 187 221 255 137 164 7 0 62 255 29 Accent 3

329 views • 30 slides
Prosody in Dialog Predicting Accent based on Information Structure and context Defining

Prosody in Dialog Predicting Accent based on Information Structure and context Defining

Prosody in Dialog Predicting Accent based on Information Structure and context Defining Prosodic Features in English Pitch Accent Local Maxima or Minima in f0 o Variable depending on discourse o Lexical Stress Stress results in

501 views • 13 slides
Challenges in Digital Sanskrit Lexicography The Example of Vedic Accent Felix Rau (University of

Challenges in Digital Sanskrit Lexicography The Example of Vedic Accent Felix Rau (University of

Challenges in Digital Sanskrit Lexicography The Example of Vedic Accent Felix Rau (University of Cologne) Cologne Sanskrit Dictionary Vedic Accent a t a a t t t i t r d a d u v n u s a ( Kiparsky 1973) Vedic

406 views • 18 slides
Accent reclassification and speech recognition of Afrikaans, Black and White South African English

Accent reclassification and speech recognition of Afrikaans, Black and White South African English

Accent reclassification and speech recognition of Afrikaans, Black and White South African English Herman Kamper and Thomas Niesler Digital Signal Processing Laboratory Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering Stellenbosch University

710 views • 43 slides
I once had a friend called Joe Who slept in a hole in the snow His coat was old And his feet

I once had a friend called Joe Who slept in a hole in the snow His coat was old And his feet

I once had a friend called Joe Who slept in a hole in the snow His coat was old And his feet were so cold That he woke with a frozen toe

810 views • 23 slides
Principles of Prosody P . S. Langeslag Stress-Timed vs Syllable-Timed Languages (1) The hills

Principles of Prosody P . S. Langeslag Stress-Timed vs Syllable-Timed Languages (1) The hills

Principles of Prosody P . S. Langeslag Stress-Timed vs Syllable-Timed Languages (1) The hills are alive with the sound of music (2) Sur le pont dAvignon The Foot 1/2 (1) The hills are alive with the sound of music (2) Sur le pont

338 views • 19 slides
Wonder Woman Everyday Wisdom | Proverbs 31:10-31

Wonder Woman Everyday Wisdom | Proverbs 31:10-31

Wonder Woman Everyday Wisdom | Proverbs 31:10-31 https://www.instagram.com/p/BU2KOqjgCMb/?utm_source=ig_embed https://twitter.com/JamilahLemieux/status/873320555365224448 http://joshrossi.com/portfolio/uncategorized/wonder-woman-series/

530 views • 33 slides
SPE 106179 Multiscale Mixed Finite Element Modeling of Coupled Wellbore / Near- Well Flow Stein

SPE 106179 Multiscale Mixed Finite Element Modeling of Coupled Wellbore / Near- Well Flow Stein

SPE 106179 Multiscale Mixed Finite Element Modeling of Coupled Wellbore / Near- Well Flow Stein Krogstad 1 , Louis J. Durlofsky 2 1 SINTEF ICT, 2 Stanford University RSS07 Feb 26-28, 2007 1 Motivation: Near-well region extremely

468 views • 20 slides

More recommend