Cover not available
Part of
Parallel Corpora for Contrastive and Translation Studies: New resources and applications
Edited by Irene Doval and M. Teresa Sánchez Nieto
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 90] 2019
► pp. 159–182

Discourse annotation in the MULTINOT corpus

Issues and challenges

| Complutense University of Madrid
This chapter summarises and discusses recent work on the development of a bilingual (English-Spanish) corpus consisting of original comparable and parallel texts from a variety of genres and annotated with complex linguistic features such as modality and evidentiality, metadiscourse markers, and thematization, as carried out within the framework of the MULTINOT project. The annotation of these complex features in bilingual parallel texts poses important challenges for the researcher at the different stages of the corpus development, from the preprocessing phases to the manual annotation phase, but, at the same time, it allows the investigation of complex linguistic research questions which could not be addressed on the basis of raw corpora or even with the help of an automatic part-of-speech tagging system.
Keywords: discourse, corpus, annotation, English, Spanish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The MULTINOT corpus
  • 3.Annotation procedure
    • 3.1Selecting the “training” corpus
    • 3.2Instantiating the theory
    • 3.3Designing annotation schemes and guidelines
    • 3.4Performing annotation experiments
    • 3.5Evaluating the annotations
    • 3.6Large-scale annotation of the whole corpus
  • 4.Annotating thematization in English and Spanish
  • 5.Annotating modality in English and Spanish
  • 6.Annotating metadiscourse markers in English and Spanish
  • 7.Summary and concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.90.10lop
References (28)
References
Arús, Jorge, Lavid, Julia & Moratón, Lara. 2012. Annotating thematic features in English and Spanish: A contrastive corpus-based study. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 6: 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Kathryn, Bloodgood, Michael, Dorr, Bonnie J., Callison-Burch, Chris, Filardo, Nathaniel W., Piatko, Christine, Lori & Miller, Scott. 2012. Use of modality and negation in semantically informed syntactic MT. Computational Linguistics 38: 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic Meaning: A Crosslinguistic and Functional-cognitive study [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 43]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Correia, Rui, Mamede, Nuno, Baptista, Jorge & Eskenazi, Maxine. 2016. MetaTED: A corpus of metadiscourse for spoken language. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Sara Goggi, Marko Grobelnik, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Hélène Mazo, Asunción Moreno, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis (eds), 3907–3913. <[URL]> (20 July 2017).Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1): 37–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendrickx, Iris, Mendes, Amália & Mencarelli, Silvia. 2012. Modality in text: A proposal for corpus annotation. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation – LREC 2012, Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Uğur Doğan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds), 1805–1812. Istanbul: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Hovy, Eduard & Lavid, Julia. 2010. Towards a ‘science’ of corpus annotation: A new methodological challenge for corpus linguistics. International Journal of Translation 22(1):13–36.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Tse, Polly. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25(2): 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, Klaus. 2004. Reliability in Content Analysis: Some common Misconceptions and Recommendations. Human Communication Research 30(3): 411–433. < [URL]> (12 Nomvember 2018).Google Scholar
Lavid, Julia, Arús, Jorge & Zamorano, Juan R. 2010. Systemic-Functional Grammar of Spanish: a Contrastive Account with English. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lavid, Julia & Moratón, Lara. 2015. Intersubjective positioning and thematisation in English and Spanish: A contrastive analysis of letters to the editor. Nordic Journal of English Studies 14 (1): 289–319.Google Scholar
. 2016. Generic structures, rhetorical relations and thematic patterns in English and Spanish journalistic texts: A comparative study. (Paper presented at the 26th ESFLW).
. 2018. Contrastive annotation of interactional discourse markers in English and Spanish newspaper texts. In The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 296], Maria Ángeles Gómez González & J. Lachlan McKenzie (eds) 75–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lavid, Julia, Carretero, Marta, Arús Hita, Jorge, Moratón, Lara & Zamorano-Mansilla, Juan Rafael. 2014. Contrastive corpus annotation in the CONTRANOT Project: issues and problems. In The Functional Perspective on Language and Discourse. Applications and Implications [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 296], Maria Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco Gonzálvez-García & Angela Downing (eds), 57–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lavid, Julia & Moratón, Lara. 2016. Annotating metadiscourse markers in the English-Spanish MULTINOT corpus: Preliminary Steps. In Conference Handbook of TextLink – Structuring Discourse in Multilingual Europe Second Action Conference, Liesbeth Degand, Csilla Dér, Péter Furkó, Bonnie Webber (eds), 79–81. Debrecen: Debrecen University Press.Google Scholar
Lavid, Julia, Arús, Jorge & Moratón, Lara. 2013. Investigating thematic choices in two newspaper genres: An SFL-based analysis. In Choice in Language: Applications in Text Analysis, Gerard O' Grady & Lise Fontaine (eds), 187–214. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Lavid, Julia, Carretero, Marta & Zamorano, Juan R. 2016a. Contrastive annotation of epistemicity in the multinot project: preliminary steps. In Proceedings of the ISA-12, Twelfth Joint ACL – ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, held in conjunction with Language Resources and Evaluation Conference 2016, Harry Bunt (ed.), 81–88. <[URL]> (20 July 2017).Google Scholar
Lavid, Julia, Carretero, Marta & Zamorano Juan R. 2016b. A linguistically-motivated annotation model of modality in English and Spanish: Insights from MULTINOT. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology 14(4): 1–35. Standford CA: CSLI. <[URL]> (20 July 2017).Google Scholar
McShane, Marjorie, Nirenburg, Sergei & Zacharski, Ron. 2004. Mood and modality: out of theory and into the fray. Natural Language Engineering 10(1): 57–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mora, Natalia. 2017. Annotating Appraisal in English and Spanish Product Reviews from Mobile Application Stores: A Contrastive Study for Linguistic and Computational Purposes. PhD dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Google Scholar
Nissim, Malvina, Pietrandrea, Paola, Sansò, Andrea & Mauri, Caterina. 2013. Cross-linguistic annotation of modality: A data-driven hierarchical model. In Proceedings of the 9th Joint ISO – ACL SIGSEM Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, (isa-9) Harry Bunt (ed.), 7–14. Potsdam. <[URL]> (20 July 2017).Google Scholar
Saurí, Roser & Pustejovsky, James. 2009. Factbank: A corpus annotated with event factuality. Language Resources and Evaluation 43(3): 227–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szarvas, György, Vincze, Veronika, Farkas, Richárd & Csirik, János. 2008. The BioScope corpus: Annotation for negation, uncertainty and their scope in biomedical texts. BioNLP 2008: Current Trends in Biomedical Natural Language Processing, 38–45, Columbus OH: Association for Computational Linguistics. <[URL]> (20 July 2017).Google Scholar
Trnavac, Radoslava, Das, Debopam & Taboada, Maite. 2016. Discourse relations and evaluation. Corpora 11(2): 169–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite. 2016. Sentiment analysis: An overview from linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics 2: 325–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Kauter, Marjan, Coorman, Geert, Lefever, Els, Desmet, Bart, Macken, Lieve & Hoste, Veronique. 2013. LeTs Preprocess: The multilingual LT3 linguistic preprocessing toolkit. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 3: 103–120.Google Scholar
Wiebe, Janyce, Wilson, Theresa & Cardie, Claire. 2005. Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. Language Resources and Evaluation 73(2–3): 165–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeyrek, Deniz, Demirşahin, Işın, Sevdik-Callı, Ayışığı & Cakıcı, Ruket. 2013. Turkish Discourse Bank: Porting a discourse annotation style to a morphologically rich language. Dialogue and Discourse 4(2): 174–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar