Anaphoric annotation in the ARRAU corpus

Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2008

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 1170-1174

  Poesio, Massimo ^a   Artstein, Ron ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

^b University of Southern California ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXPLICIT REPRESENTATION; TASK-ORIENTED; TREEBANKS; WALL STREET JOURNAL;

ABSTRACTING;

EID: 84455197375     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. Ron Artstein and Massimo Poesio. 2006. Identifying reference to abstract objects in dialogue. In David Schlangen and Raquel Fernández, editors, brandial 2006: Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, pages 56-63, Potsdam, Germany, September.
2. Lynn Carlson, Daniel Marcu, and Mary Ellen Okurowski. 2003. Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory. In Jan van Kuppevelt and Ronnie W. Smith, editors, Current and New Directions in Discourse and Dialogue, volume 22 of Text, Speech, and Language Technology, chapter 5, pages 85-112. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
3. Wallace L. Chafe, editor. 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
4. Eugene Charniak. 2000. A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. In Proceedings of the 1st Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 132-139, Seattle, April-May.
5. Derek Gross, James F. Allen, and David R. Traum. 1993. The Trains 91 dialogues. TRAINS Technical Note 92-1, University of Rochester Computer Science Department, July.
6. Peter A. Heeman and James Allen. 1995. The Trains 93 dialogues. TRAINS Technical Note 94-2, University of Rochester Computer Science Department, March.
7. Lynette Hirschman and Nancy Chinchor. 1997. MUC-7 coreference task definition, version 3.0. In MUC-7 Proceedings.
8. Eduard Hovy, Mitchell Marcus, Martha Palmer, Lance Ramshaw, and Ralph Weischedel. 2006. OntoNotes: the 90% solution. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the NAACL, Companion Volume: Short Papers, pages 57-60, New York, June. Association for Computational Linguistics.
9. Klaus Krippendorff, 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, chapter 12, pages 129-154. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
10. Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):313-330.
11. C. Müller and M. Strube. 2006. Multi-level annotation of linguistic data with mmax2. In S. Braun, K. Kohn, and J. Mukherjee, editors, Corpus Technology and Language Pedagogy. New Resources, New Tools, New Methods, volume 3 of English Corpus Linguistics, pages 197-214. Peter Lang.
12. Massimo Poesio and Ron Artstein. 2005a. Annotating (anaphoric) ambiguity. In Proceedings from the Corpus Linguistics Conference Series, volume 1, Birmingham, England, July.
13. Massimo Poesio and Ron Artstein. 2005b. The reliability of anaphoric annotation, reconsidered: Taking ambiguity into account. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation II: Pie in the Sky, pages 76-83, Ann Arbor, Michigan, June. Association for Computational Linguistics.
14. Massimo Poesio and Natlia N. Modjeska. 2005. Focus, activation, and this-noun phrases: An empirical study. In António Branco, Tony McEnery, and Ruslan Mitkov, editors, Anaphora Processing: Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Modelling, volume 263 of Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, pages 429-442. John Benjamins.
15. Massimo Poesio and Renata Vieira. 1998. A corpus-based investigation of definite description use. Computational Linguistics, 24(2):183-216, June.
16. Massimo Poesio, Rodolfo Delmonte, Antonella Bristot, Luminita Chiran, and Sara Tonelli. 2004. The VENEX corpus of anaphoric information in spoken and written Italian. Manuscript. Available online at http://cswww.essex.ac.uk/staff/poesio/publications/VENEX04.pdf.
17. Massimo Poesio, Uwe Reyle, and Rosemary Stevenson. 2007. Justified sloppiness in anaphoric reference. In Harry Bunt and Reinhard Muskens, editors, Computing Meaning, Volume 3, volume 83 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, pages 11-31. Springer.
18. Massimo Poesio. 2004a. Discourse annotation and semantic annotation in the GNOME corpus. In Bonnie Webber and Donna K. Byron, editors, Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, pages 72-79, Barcelona, July. Association for Computational Linguistics.
19. Massimo Poesio. 2004b. The MATE/GNOME proposals for anaphoric annotation, revisited. In Michael Strube and Candy Sidner, editors, Proceedings of the 5th SIG-dial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 154-162, Cambridge, Massachusetts, April-May. Association for Computational Linguistics.
20. Sameer S. Pradhan, Lance Ramshaw, Ralph Weischedel, Jessica MacBride, and Linnea Micciulla. 2007. Unrestricted coreference: Identifying entities and events in OntoNotes. In Proceedings of ICSC 2007, International Conference on Semantic Computing, pages 446-453, Irvine, CA.
21. Ellen F. Prince. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In Sandra A. Thompson and William C. Mann, editors, Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text, volume New Series 16 of Pragmatics and Beyond, pages 295-325. John Benjamins, Amterdam.
22. Bonnie Lynn Webber. 1991. Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6(2):107-135.
23. Annie Zaenen. 2006. Mark-up barking up the wrong tree. Computational Linguistics, 32(4):577-580.