Cover not available
Part of
Information Structure and Syntactic Change in Germanic and Romance Languages
Edited by Kristin Bech and Kristine Gunn Eide
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 213] 2014
► pp. 17–52

The theoretical foundations of givenness annotation

| University of Oslo
| UiT Arctic University of Norway
| University of Oslo
This article discusses the theory and practice of givenness annotation as applied in the PROIEL corpus, a corpus of old Indo-European New Testament translations. The annotation scheme that we use is based on Discourse Representation Theory (DRT). In the first part, we show how our tags relate to DRT concepts. In the second part, we survey some problems that often arise in practical annotation and show how theoretical awareness can help us overcome them. Finally, we compare our scheme to those used in other annotation projects, and evaluate it based on interannotator agreement rates.
Published online: 7 May 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.213.02hau
References (28)
References
Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex. 1998. Bridging. Journal of Semantics 15(1): 83–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Leila. 2005. Genericity from a cross-linguistic perspective. Linguistics 43(2): 275–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Gillian & Yule, George. 1983. Discourse Analysis [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1975. Bridging. In Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, R.C. Schank & B.L. Nash-Webber (eds). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Eckho, Hanne M. 2011. Old Russian Possessive Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein & Borthen, Kaja. 2007. Resolving the reference of zero and pronominal possessives in Norwegian discourse. Working Paper ISK 4:43–71.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline. 2006. Generic sentences and bare plurals. In Non-definiteness and Plurality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 95], Svetlana Vogeleer & Liliane Tasmowski (eds), 219–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haug, Dag & Jøhndal, Marius L. 2008. Creating a parallel treebank of the old indoeuropean bible translations. In Language Resources and Evaluation , Marrakech, Morocco.Google Scholar
Haug, Dag, Jøhndal, Marius L., Eckhoff, Hanne, Welo, Eirik, Hertzenberg, Mari & Müth, Angelika. 2009. Computational and linguistic issues in designing a syntactically annotated parallel corpus of indo-european languages. Traitement Automatique des Langues 50: 17–45.Google Scholar
Haviland, Susan & Clark, Herbert.1974. What’s new? Aquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13: 512–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. On the Semantics of Defnite and Indefnite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Hertzenberg, Mari. 2012. Third Person Reference in the Itinerarum Egeriae: With a Particular View to Demonstratives, Null Pronouns and Bare NPs. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2011. Specifcity. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning , Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds), 1024–1057 Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language , Part 1, Vol. 135, Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds), 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre. Reprinted in Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds). 1984. Truth, Interpretation, and Information; Selected Papers from the Third Amsterdam Colloquium , 1–41. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. Discourse structure and the structure of context. Ms. [URL]
Kamp, Hans & Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From Discourse to Logic . Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri.1976. Discourse referents. In Syntax and Semantics, 2: Notes From the Linguistic Underground , James McCawley (ed.), 363–385. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, Carlson, Gregory N., ter Meulen, Alice, Chierchia, Gennaro & Link, Godehard. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In The Generic Book , Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds), 1–124. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lindberg, Rebecka. 2013. Defniteness in Old Church Slavonic. MA thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher.1999. Defniteness . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napoli, Maria. 2009. Aspects of defniteness in Greek. Studies in Language 33(3): 569–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nissim, Malvina, Dingare, Shipra, Carletta, Jean & Steedman, Mark. 2004. An annotation scheme for information status in dialogue. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation , Granada, Spain.Google Scholar
Riester, Arndt, Lorenz, David & Seemann, Nina. 2010. A recursive annotation scheme for referential information status. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation , 717–722, Valletta, Malta.Google Scholar
Ritz, Julia, Dipper, Stefanie & Michael Götze. 2008. Annotation of information structure: An evaluation across different types of texts. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2008, 26 May - 1 June 2008 . Marrakech: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1989. Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(6): 683–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie. 2006. Mark-up barking up the wrong tree. Comput. Linguist . 32(4): 577–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Bermúdez-Sabel, Helena, Francesca Dell’Oro & Paola Marongiu
2024. Multi-layered semantic annotation and the formalisation of annotation schemas for the investigation of modality in a Latin corpus. Language Resources and Evaluation DOI logo
Andrushenko, Olena
2023. PARTICULARIZING FOCUS MARKERS IN OLD ENGLISH: JUST A CASE OF ADVERB POLYSEMY?. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Rusten, Kristian A.
2019. Referential Null Subjects in Early English, DOI logo
Dreschler, Gea
2017. Chapter 6. The information status of late subjects in passive main clauses in Old English. In Word Order Change in Acquisition and Language Contact [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 243], ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara
2016. The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, DOI logo
Haug, Dag T.
2015. Treebanks in historical linguistic research. In Perspectives on Historical Syntax [Studies in Language Companion Series, 169], ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.