The Pragmatic Level of OntoLingAnnot’s Ontologies and Their Use in Pragmatic Annotation for Language Teaching

  • Antonio Pareja-LoraEmail author
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 19)


Recently, linguists have shown great interest in the study of Pragmatics and its associated phenomena, in an attempt to capture the information that is being communicated in a discourse and/or exchanged in a dialogue, especially when this information is not being explicitly stated. With this aim, a pragmatic annotation level has been included in the OntoLingAnnot annotation framework, and the corresponding pragmatic knowledge has been formalized into the linguistic ontologies of this framework. This chapter presents the different units, values, attributes and relations that constitute the pragmatic level of these ontologies, which have been devised for the annotation of dialogues and texts in different contexts (e.g., the development of corpora or language teaching).


Coherence Relation Ontological Module Annotation Framework Pragmatic Attribute Pragmatic Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Asher, Nicholas, and Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Borst, Willem N. 1997. Construction of engineering ontologies. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  3. Buitelaar, Paul, Philipp Cimiano, Peter Haase, and Michael Sintek. 2009. Towards linguistically grounded ontologies. In The semantic web: Research and applications (Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 5554/2009). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Buyko, Ekaterina, Christian Chiarcos, and Antonio Pareja-Lora. 2008. Ontology-based interface specifications for an NLP pipeline architecture. In Proceedings of LREC 2008, Marrakech, May 2008.Google Scholar
  5. Chiarcos, Christian. 2008. An ontology of linguistic annotations. LDV Forum (GLDV-Journal for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology) 23(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
  6. Crystal, David. 1992. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Farrar, Scott. 2007. Using ‘Ontolinguistics’ for language description. In Ontolinguistics: How ontolinguistic status shapes the linguistic coding of concepts, ed. Andrea C. Schalley and Dietmar Zaefferer. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Farrar, Scott, and John A. Bateman. 2005. OntoSpace project reports – Deliverable D3 – Linguistic ontology baseline. University of Bremen, Germany. Accessed 15 June 2013.
  9. GOLD. 2013. Accessed 15 June 2013.
  10. Grice, Herbert P. 1975 (1989). Logic and conversation. Ibid. Reprinted in studies in the way of words, ed. H.P. Grice, 22–40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gruber, Thomas R. 1993. A translation approach to portable ontologies. Journal on Knowledge Acquisition 5(2): 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hovy, Eduard, and Elisabeth Maier. 1995. Parsimonious or profligate: How many and which discourse structure relations? Accessed 15 June 2013.
  13. International Organization for Standardization. 2008. ISO/DIS 24611. Language resource management – Morpho-syntactic annotation framework (MAF).Google Scholar
  14. International Organization for Standardization. 2009a. ISO/DIS 24612. Language resource management – Linguistic annotation framework (LAF).Google Scholar
  15. International Organization for Standardization. 2009b. ISO/DIS 24617-1. Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – Part 1: Time & events. Google Scholar
  16. International Organization for Standardization. 2010a. ISO/DIS 24617-2. Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – Part 2: Dialogue acts.Google Scholar
  17. International Organization for Standardization. 2010b. ISO/PWI 24617-5. Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – Discourse structures.Google Scholar
  18. International Organization for Standardization. 2010c. ISO/PWI 24617-6. Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – Static spatial information.Google Scholar
  19. International Organization for Standardization. 2010d. ISO/FDIS 24615. Language resource management – Syntactic annotation framework (SynAF).Google Scholar
  20. Java, Akshay, Sergei Nirenburg, Marjorie McShane, Tim Finin, Jesse English, and Anupam Joshi. 2007. Using a natural language understanding system to generate semantic web content. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 3(4): 50–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kemps-Snijders, M., M. Windhouwer, P. Wittenburg, and S.E. Wright. 2009. ISOCat: Remodelling metadata for language resources. International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies 4(4): 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  23. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Mahesh, Kavi, and Sergei Nirenburg. 1995. A situated ontology for practical NLP. In Proceedings of the workshop on basic ontological issues in knowledge sharing, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), Montreal, August 1995.
  25. Mairal Usón, Ricardo, and Pamela Faber. 1999. Constructing a Lexicon of English verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Mairal Usón, Ricardo, and Periñán Pascual José Carlos. 2009. The anatomy of the lexicon within the framework of an NLP knowledge base. RESLA: Revista española de lingüística aplicada 22: 217–244.Google Scholar
  27. Martín Arista, Javier, Elisa González Torres, Laura Caballero González, and Beatriz Martínez Fernández. 2002. Markedness and the hierarchy of subject prototypicality. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada (RAEL) 15: 93–112.Google Scholar
  28. Montalvo-Martínez, Martín. 2009. OntoLing Annotizer: Una herramienta de ayuda a la anotación. M.Sc. thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid.Google Scholar
  29. OALD. 2006. Oxford advanced Learners’ dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. OntoNotes. 2013. Accessed 15 June 2013.
  31. Pareja-Lora, Antonio, Guadalupe Aguado de Cea. 2010. Modelling discourse-Related terminology in OntoLingAnnot’s ontologies. In Proceedings of the TKE 2010 workshop “Establishing and using ontologies as a basis for terminological and knowledge engineering resources”, Dublin, Aug 2010.Google Scholar
  32. Prévot, Laurent. 2004. Structures sémantiques et pragmatiques pour la modélisation de la cohérence dans des dialogues finalisés. Thèse de doctorat de l'université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
  33. Roget, Peter M. 1852 (1962, 1982). Roget's thesaurus. In Burnt mill, ed. Susan M. Lloyd. Harlow: Longman Group Limited.Google Scholar
  34. Romera, Magdalena. 2004. Discourse functional units: The expression of coherence relations in spoken Spanish. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
  35. Schalley, Andrea C., and Dietmar Zaefferer. 2007. Ontolinguistics – An outline. In Ontolinguistics: How ontolinguistic status shapes the linguistic coding of concepts, ed. Andrea C. Schalley and Dietmar Zaefferer. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Searle, John. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. SIL. 2013. Glossary of linguistic terms, eds. Eugene E. Loos, Susan Anderson, Dwight H. Day (Jr.), Paul C. Jordan, and J. Douglas Wingate. Accessed 15 June 2013.
  39. van Dijk, Teun. A. (ed.). 1997. Discourse studies, 2 vols. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y Computación/ATLASUniversidad Complutense de Madrid/UNEDMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations