首页> 外文会议>Linguistic annotation workshop >Filling in the Blanks in Understanding Discourse Adverbials: Consistency, Conflict, and Context-Dependence in a Crowdsourced Elicitation Task
【24h】

Filling in the Blanks in Understanding Discourse Adverbials: Consistency, Conflict, and Context-Dependence in a Crowdsourced Elicitation Task

机译:在了解话语状语中填写空白:一致性,冲突和上下文依赖于众群委托任务

获取原文

摘要

The semantic relationship between a sentence and its context may be marked explicitly, or left to inference. Rohde et al. (2015) showed that, contrary to common assumptions, this isn't exclusive or: a conjunction can often be inferred alongside an explicit discourse adverbial. Here we broaden the investigation to a larger set of 20 discourse adverbials by eliciting ≈28K conjunction completions via crowdsourcing. Our data replicate and extend Rohde et al.'s findings that discourse adverbials do indeed license inferred conjunctions. Further, the diverse patterns observed for the adverbials include cases in which more than one valid connection can be inferred, each one endorsed by a substantial number of participants; such differences in annotation might otherwise be written off as annotator error or bias, or just a low level of inter-annotator agreement. These results will inform future discourse annotation endeavors by revealing where it is necessary to entertain implicit relations and elicit several judgments to fully characterize discourse relationships.
机译:句子及其上下文之间的语义关系可以明确标记,或者留给推断。 Rohde等人。 (2015)表明,与常见假设相反,这不是排他性的或:通常可以在明确的话语状语中推断出结合。在这里,我们通过挤满众包诱导≈28K结合完成对更大的20个语篇状语的调查。我们的数据复制并扩展了Rohde等人。论述证据确实许可的调查结果。此外,针对状语观察到的不同模式包括可以推断出多于一个有效连接的情况,每个有效连接通过大量参与者认识;否则可能会作为注释错误或偏见的诸如注释错误或偏差的此类差异,或者只是较低的注释间协议。这些结果将通过揭示有必要招待隐性关系并引发若干判断,了解未来的话语注释努力,以完全表征话语关系。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号