Advertisement

Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 6, Issue 3–4, pp 273–291 | Cite as

The German Temporal Anaphor danach—Ambiguity in Interpretation and Annotation

  • Mareile Hillevi Knees
Article

Abstract

I present different types of ambiguity that occur in annotating and resolving the German anaphoric adverbial danach (“thereafter”). By means of two pilot studies it is shown that referential ambiguity (i.e. the anaphor has several plausible referents) and structual dissociation (i.e. different antecedents specify the same referent) cause bad inter-annotator agreement. Both phenomena can only be explored in detail as the annotation studies do not only concentrate on the textual but also on the referential level involved in anaphoric references. Thus, it can be shown that the competing referents in most referentially ambiguous cases are more or less temporally and conceptually related to each other and specify a similiar reference time for danach (“thereafter”). Moreover, the competing antecedents often textually overlap so that some structurally dissociated cases can be handled by stricter annotation guidelines. Thus, considering the textual and the referential dimensions of anaphoric reference provides further insights into the cognitive processing of sentential anaphors like danach (“thereafter”).

Keywords

Annotation study Pronominal adverb danach Referential ambiguity Temporal anaphora Sentential antecedent Structural dissociation Underspecification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Artstein, R., & Poesio, M. (2006). Identifying reference to abstract objects in dialogue. Paper presented at the Brandial 2006 Proceedings, Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise J., Perry J. (1983) Situations and attitudes. The MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Byron, D. K. (2002). Resolving pronominal reference to abstract entities. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  4. Consten M., Knees M., Schwarz-Friesel M. (2007) The function of complex anaphors in texts. In: Schwarz-Friesel M., Consten M., Knees M. (eds) Anaphors in texts. Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference. John Benjamins Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. Eckert M., Strube M. (2000) Dialogue acts, synchronising units and anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 17(1): 51–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fraurud, K. (1992). Situation reference. What does it’ refer to? In K. Fraurud (Ed.), Processing noun phrases in natural discourse. PhD Thesis. Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  7. Frisson S., Pickering M.J. (2001) Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor & Symbol 16: 149–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gundel J., Hedberg N., Zacharski R. (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Habel, Ch., & Knees, M. (2004). On generating verbal descriptions of temporal succession. In E. Buchberger (Ed.), Proceedings of KONVENS 2004 (pp. 53–60). Wien.Google Scholar
  10. Klebanov B., Shamir E. (2006) Reader-based exploration of lexical cohesion. Language Resources and Evaluation 40: 109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Knees M. (2008) Zur semantisch-konzeptuellen und pragmatischen Bedeutung des temporal-anaphorischen Pronominaladverbs danach. In: Pohl I. (eds) Semantik und Pragmatik—Schnittstellen. Frankfurt/M, Peter LangGoogle Scholar
  12. Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Joshi, A., & Webber, B. L. (2004). Annotating discourse connectives and their arguments. Paper presented at Human Language Technology Conference/North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Pasch R., Brauße U., Breindl E., Waßner U. H. (2003) Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer (Konjunktionen Satzadverbien und Partikeln). de Gruyter, Berlin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Passonneau R.J. (1993) Getting and keeping the center of attention. In: Bates M., Weischedel R.M. (eds) , Challenges in natural language processing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Passonneau, R. J. (1996). Instructions for applying discourse reference annotation for multiple applications (DRAMA). Draft, Department of Computer Science, Columbia University, December 13.Google Scholar
  16. Passonneau, R. J. (2004). Computing reliability for coreference annotation. Paper presented at the 4th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Pinkal, M. (1991). Vagheit und Ambiguität. In: A. v. Stechow/D. Wunderlich (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Semantik (pp. 250–269). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Poesio M. (1996) Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambiguity. In: Deemter K., Peters S. (eds) Semantic ambiguity and underspecification. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Poesio, M. (2000). Annotating a corpus to develop and evaluate discourse entity realization algorithms: Issues and preliminary results. Paper presented at the 2nd Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  20. Poesio M., Modjeska N. (2005) Focus, activation, and THIS-Noun phrases. In: Branco A., McEnery T., Mitkov R. (eds) Anaphora processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, (pp. 429–456)Google Scholar
  21. Poesio M., Sturt P., Artstein R., Filik R. (2006) Underspecification and anaphora: Theoretical issues and preliminary evidence. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal 42(2): 157–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prasad, R., Miltsakaki, E., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Joshi, A., & Webber, B. L. (2006). The Penn discourse TreeBank 1.0. Annotation Manual IRCS. Technical Report IRCS-06-01. Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, March, 2006.Google Scholar
  23. (1978) Vorkommen und Verwendung der adverbialen Proformen im Deutschen. Buske-Verlag, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwarz M. (2000) Indirekte Anaphern in Texten. Studien zur domänengebundenen Kohärenz und Referenz im Deutschen. Tübingen, Niemeyer (= Linguistische Arbeiten 413)Google Scholar
  25. Schwarz-Friesel M., Consten M., Marx K. (2004) Semantische und konzeptuelle Prozesse bei der Verarbeitung von Komplex-Anaphern. In: Pohl I., Konerding K. (eds) Stabilität und Flexibilität in der Semantik. Frankfurt/M., Peter LangGoogle Scholar
  26. Strube M. (2007) Corpus-based and machine learning approaches to anaphora resolution: A critical assessment. In: Schwarz-Friesel M., Consten M., Knees M. (eds) Anaphors in texts. Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference. John Benjamins Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  27. van Deemter K., Kibble R. (2000) On coreferring: Coreference annotation in MUC and related schemes. Computational Linguistics 26(4): 615–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Webber, B. L. (1987). Two steps closer to event reference. MS-CIS-86-74. INC LAB 42. Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  29. Webber B.L. (1991) Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes 6: 107–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Germanistische SprachwissenschaftFriedrich-Schiller-Universität JenaJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations