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”).
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Artstein, R., & Poesio, M. (2006). Identifying reference to abstract objects in dialogue. Paper presented at the Brandial 2006 Proceedings, Potsdam, Germany.
Barwise J., Perry J. (1983) Situations and attitudes. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA
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.
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, Amsterdam
Eckert M., Strube M. (2000) Dialogue acts, synchronising units and anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 17(1): 51–89
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.
Frisson S., Pickering M.J. (2001) Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor & Symbol 16: 149–171
Gundel J., Hedberg N., Zacharski R. (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307
Habel, Ch., & Knees, M. (2004). On generating verbal descriptions of temporal succession. In E. Buchberger (Ed.), Proceedings of KONVENS 2004 (pp. 53–60). Wien.
Klebanov B., Shamir E. (2006) Reader-based exploration of lexical cohesion. Language Resources and Evaluation 40: 109–126
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 Lang
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.
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 York
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, Cambridge
Passonneau, R. J. (1996). Instructions for applying discourse reference annotation for multiple applications (DRAMA). Draft, Department of Computer Science, Columbia University, December 13.
Passonneau, R. J. (2004). Computing reliability for coreference annotation. Paper presented at the 4th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, Boston, MA.
Pinkal, M. (1991). Vagheit und Ambiguität. In: A. v. Stechow/D. Wunderlich (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Semantik (pp. 250–269). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Poesio M. (1996) Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambiguity. In: Deemter K., Peters S. (eds) Semantic ambiguity and underspecification. CSLI Publications, Stanford
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.
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)
Poesio M., Sturt P., Artstein R., Filik R. (2006) Underspecification and anaphora: Theoretical issues and preliminary evidence. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal 42(2): 157–175
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.
(1978) Vorkommen und Verwendung der adverbialen Proformen im Deutschen. Buske-Verlag, Hamburg
Schwarz M. (2000) Indirekte Anaphern in Texten. Studien zur domänengebundenen Kohärenz und Referenz im Deutschen. Tübingen, Niemeyer (= Linguistische Arbeiten 413)
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 Lang
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, Amsterdam
van Deemter K., Kibble R. (2000) On coreferring: Coreference annotation in MUC and related schemes. Computational Linguistics 26(4): 615–623
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.
Webber B.L. (1991) Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes 6: 107–135
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Knees, M.H. The German Temporal Anaphor danach—Ambiguity in Interpretation and Annotation. Res on Lang and Comput 6, 273–291 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-008-9054-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-008-9054-6