<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>In the paper, we present our efforts to annotate evaluative language in the Prague Dependency Treebank 2.0. The project is a follow-up of the series of annotations of small plaintext corpora. It uses automatic identification of potentially evaluative nodes through mapping a Czech subjectivity lexicon to syntactically annotated data. These nodes are then manually checked by an annotator and either dismissed as standing in a non-evaluative context, or confirmed as evaluative. In the latter case, information about the polarity orientation, the source and target of evaluation is added by the annotator. The annotations unveiled several advantages and disadvantages of the chosen framework. The advantages involve more structured and easy-to-handle environment for the annotator, visibility of syntactic patterning of the evaluative state, effective solving of discontinuous structures or a new perspective on the influence of good/bad news. The disadvantages include little capability of treating cases with evaluation spread among more syntactically connected nodes at once, little capability of treating metaphorical expressions, or disregarding the effects of negation and intensification in the current scheme.</p></abstract>

In the paper, we present our efforts to annotate evaluative language in the Prague Dependency Treebank 2.0. The project is a follow-up of the series of annotations of small plaintext corpora. It uses automatic identification of potentially evaluative nodes through mapping a Czech subjectivity lexicon to syntactically annotated data. These nodes are then manually checked by an annotator and either dismissed as standing in a non-evaluative context, or confirmed as evaluative. In the latter case, information about the polarity orientation, the source and target of evaluation is added by the annotator. The annotations unveiled several advantages and disadvantages of the chosen framework. The advantages involve more structured and easy-to-handle environment for the annotator, visibility of syntactic patterning of the evaluative state, effective solving of discontinuous structures or a new perspective on the influence of good/bad news. The disadvantages include little capability of treating cases with evaluation spread among more syntactically connected nodes at once, little capability of treating metaphorical expressions, or disregarding the effects of negation and intensification in the current scheme.

Annotation of the Evaluative Language in a Dependency Treebank

Journal of Linguistics/Jazykovedný casopis

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

{"article-title":"Annotation of the Evaluative Language in a Dependency Treebank"}

In the paper, we present our efforts to annotate evaluative language in the Prague Dependency Treebank 2.0. The project is a follow-up of the series of...

Annotation of the Evaluative Language in a Dependency Treebank

Published Online: Jan 24, 2018

Page range: 336 - 345

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jazcas-2017-0043

Keywords
dependency treebank, corpus, plaintext annotation

© 2017 Jana Šindlerová, published by De Gruyter Open

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Annotation of the Evaluative Language in a Dependency Treebank

Published Online: Jan 24, 2018

Page range: 336 - 345

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jazcas-2017-0043

Keywordsdependency treebank, corpus, plaintext annotation

© 2017 Jana Šindlerová, published by De Gruyter Open

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Keywords
dependency treebank, corpus, plaintext annotation