scholarly journals Categories of coherence relations in discourse annotation

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merel C.J. Scholman ◽  
Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul ◽  
Ted J.M. Sanders
Keyword(s):  
Explicit Instruction ◽  
Basic Operation ◽  
Annotation Scheme ◽  
Cognitive Approach ◽  
Implicit Instruction ◽  
Discourse Coherence ◽  
Annotation Process ◽  
Coherence Relations ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
Current Annotation

Over the last decennia, annotating discourse coherence relations has gained increasing interest of the linguistics research community. Because of the complexity of coherence relations, there is no agreement on an annotation standard. Current annotation methods often lack a systematic order of coherence relations. In this article, we investigate the usability of the cognitive approach to coherence relations, developed by Sanders et al. (1992, 1993), for discourse annotation. The theory proposes a taxonomy of coherence relations in terms of four cognitive primitives. In this paper, we first develop a systematic, step-wise annotation process. The reliability of this annotation scheme is then tested in an annotation experiment with non-trained, non-expert annotators. An implicit and explicit version of the annotation instruction was created to determine whether the type of instruction influences the annotator agreement. The results show that two of the four primitives, polarity and order of the segments, can be applied reliably by non-trained annotators. The other two primitives, basic operation and source of coherence, are more problematic. Participants using the explicit instruction show higher agreement on the primitives than participants used the implicit instruction. These results are comparable to agreement statistics of other discourse corpora annotated by trained, expert annotators. Given that non-trained, non-expert annotators show similar amounts of agreement, these results indicate that the cognitive approach to coherence relations is a promising method for annotating discourse.

scholarly journals Explicit and implicit instruction of refusal strategies: Does working memory capacity play a role?

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-188
Author(s):  
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Explicit Instruction ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Implicit Instruction ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
And Control ◽  
Refusal Strategies

This study investigated the differential effects of implicit and explicit instruction of refusal strategies in English and whether and how the impacts of instruction methods interact with learners’ working memory capacity (WMC). 78 learners of English were assigned to three groups (explicit, implicit, and control). Implicit instruction was operationalized through input enhancement and provision of recast. In the explicit instruction group, participants received description and exemplification of refusal strategies and were provided with explicit corrective feedback. Prior to the treatment, all participants took WMC test, Discourse Completion Test (DCT) and completed a pragmatics comprehension questionnaire (CQ). Results revealed that explicit instruction was more effective than implicit instruction for both production and comprehension of refusals and that both implicit and explicit groups maintained the improvement in the delayed post-test administered two months later. In addition, whilst WMC scores were positively and strongly correlated with gains in the immediate and delayed post-test for both DCT and CQ in the implicit group, no meaningful relationship was found for explicit and control groups. The unique feature of this research is demonstrating that explicit instruction of refusal strategies equalizes learning opportunities for all learners with differential levels of WMC.

Implicit and explicit instruction

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim A.H. Cordewener ◽  
Anna M.T. Bosman ◽  
Ludo Verhoeven
Keyword(s):  
Explicit Instruction ◽  
First Grade ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Implicit Instruction ◽  
Group Condition ◽  
Explicit Condition ◽  
Phonological Rule ◽  
Morphological Rule ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
Implicit Condition

This study examined the influence of implicit and explicit instruction for the acquisition of two types of Dutch spelling rules: a morphological and a phonological rule. A sample of 193 first grade, low- and high skilled spellers was assigned to an implicit-instruction, explicit-instruction, or control-group condition. The results showed that for both rules, students in the explicit condition made more progress than students in the control condition. For the morphological rule, students in the explicit condition had higher posttest scores on pseudo-words than students in the implicit condition. The effects of the three conditions were the same for low- and high-skilled spellers. Both low- and high-skilled spellers in the implicit and explicit condition did not fully generalize their knowledge of both rules to new and pseudo-words.

scholarly journals Using the Cognitive Approach to Coherence Relations for Discourse Annotation

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-33
Author(s):  
Jet Hoek ◽  
Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul ◽  
Ted J. M. Sanders
Keyword(s):  
State Of The Art ◽  
Annotation Scheme ◽  
Cognitive Approach ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Proposal A ◽  
Coherence Relations

The Cognitive approach to Coherence Relations (Sanders, Spooren, & Noordman, 1992) was originally proposed as a set of cognitively plausible primitives to order coherence relations, but is also increasingly used as a discourse annotation scheme. This paper provides an overview of new CCR distinctions that have been proposed over the years, summarizes the most important discussions about the operationalization of the primitives, and introduces a new distinction (disjunction) to the taxonomy to improve the descriptive adequacy of CCR. In addition, it reflects on the use of the CCR as an annotation scheme in practice. The overall aim of the paper is to provide an overview of state-of-the-art CCR for discourse annotation that can form, together with the original 1992 proposal, a comprehensive starting point for anyone interested in annotating discourse using CCR.

scholarly journals An Arabic Dataset for Disease Named Entity Recognition with Multi-Annotation Schemes

Data ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 60
Author(s):  
Nasser Alshammari ◽  
Saad Alanazi
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Named Entity Recognition ◽  
Entity Recognition ◽  
Definite Article ◽  
Linguistic Features ◽  
Annotation Scheme ◽  
Named Entity ◽  
Part Of Speech ◽  
Annotation Process ◽  
Arabic Natural Language Processing

This article outlines a novel data descriptor that provides the Arabic natural language processing community with a dataset dedicated to named entity recognition tasks for diseases. The dataset comprises more than 60 thousand words, which were annotated manually by two independent annotators using the inside–outside (IO) annotation scheme. To ensure the reliability of the annotation process, the inter-annotator agreements rate was calculated, and it scored 95.14%. Due to the lack of research efforts in the literature dedicated to studying Arabic multi-annotation schemes, a distinguishing and a novel aspect of this dataset is the inclusion of six more annotation schemes that will bridge the gap by allowing researchers to explore and compare the effects of these schemes on the performance of the Arabic named entity recognizers. These annotation schemes are IOE, IOB, BIES, IOBES, IE, and BI. Additionally, five linguistic features, including part-of-speech tags, stopwords, gazetteers, lexical markers, and the presence of the definite article, are provided for each record in the dataset.

Discourse connectives across languages

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 264-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandrine Zufferey
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Factors ◽  
Implicit Communication ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Coherence Relations ◽  
Discourse Relations ◽  
Discourse Interpretation ◽  
Target Languages ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
Discourse Connectives

Coherence relations linking discourse segments can be communicated explicitly by the use of connectives but also implicitly through juxtaposition. Some discourse relations appear, however, to be more coherent than others when conveyed implicitly. This difference is explained in the literature by the existence of default expectations guiding discourse interpretation. In this paper, we assess the factors influencing implicitation by comparing the number of implicit and explicit translations of three polysemous French connectives in translated texts across three target languages: German, English and Spanish. Each connective can convey two discourse relations: one that can easily be conveyed implicitly and one that cannot be easily conveyed implicitly in monolingual data. Results indicate that relations that can easily be conveyed implicitly are also those that are most often left implicit in translation in all target languages. We discuss these results in view of the cognitive factors influencing the explicit or implicit communication of discourse relations.

scholarly journals No explanation for the historical present: temporal sequencing and discourse

2018 ◽  
Vol 60 ◽  
pp. 73-90
Author(s):  
Pranav Anand ◽  
Maziar Toosarvandani
Keyword(s):  
Reference Time ◽  
Discourse Coherence ◽  
Coherence Relations ◽  
Temporal Sequencing ◽  
Salient Event ◽  
Narrative Progression

Discourses in the historical (or narrative) use of the simple present in English prohibitbackshifting, though they allow forward sequencing. Unlike both reference time theories anddiscourse coherence theories of these temporal inferences, we propose that backshifting hasa different source from narrative progression. In particular, we argue that backshifting arisesthrough anaphora to a salient event in the preceding discourse.Keywords: tense, discourse coherence, coherence relations, perspective.

scholarly journals THE EFFECTS OF IMPLICIT VERSUS EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS TO TEACH REFUSAL STRATEGIES ON STUDENTS’ SOCIOPRAGMATIC AND PRAGMALINGUISTIC COMPETENCE

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-210
Author(s):  
Trifita Handayani
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Research ◽  
English Language ◽  
Language Education ◽  
Study Program ◽  
Implicit Instruction ◽  
Post Test ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
Refusal Strategies

Abstract The purposes of the study were to explain the effects of implicit instruction on student’s sociopragmatic competences, implicit instructions on students’ pragmalinguistic competences, explicit instructions on students’ sociopragmatic competences, explicit instructions on students’ pragmalinguistic competences, the differences between implicit and explicit instructions on students’ sociopragmatic competences, the differences between implicit and explicit instructions on student’s pragmalinguistic competences, and the interaction between instructions with the students’ sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic competences. The study used a quantitative research by using experimental factorial design 2x2. The data were taken from 80 second semester students at English Language Education Study Program at STAIN. The result of the study revealed that the mean score of post-test in implicit instruction on students’ sociopragmatic was 80.000 while explicit 92.550. Meanwhile, the mean score of post-test in implicit instruction on students’ pragmalinguistic was 83.000 while explicit 95.5000. It could be concluded that explicit has better effect to teach refusal strategies than implicit instruction on students’ sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic competence based on the difference between the means score on implicit and explicit.  

Effecten van Expliciete en Impliciete Instructiewijzen op Taalleren

2003 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 65-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greet Goossens
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
Explicit Instruction ◽  
First Language ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Implicit Instruction ◽  
One Year ◽  
Communicative Context

In this investigation, we wanted to find out what the short-term and long-term effects are of explicit and implicit instruction on language learning with 11/12-year-old LI and L2 learners, characteristics, and whether those effects are different for lexical and syntactic language items. The main conclusions we can draw from this investigation are the following: 11/12-year-old language learners appear to be capable of adequately acquiring explicit information about language in their language acquisition process. But there is the added condition that this explicit instruction should be imbedded in a communicative context. Also after one year, explicit instruction in a communicative context stul scores the best results, but the effect of explicit instruction only is significantly reduced in the long term. When we construct a combination of explicit and implicit instruction, it appears that explicit instruction foHowed by implicit instruction leads to better results than the reverse order; however, the combined input does not produce significantly better results than the teaching conditions with only explicit or only implicit instruction. The teaching effect for first language learners is generally a lot better than that for second language learners. Only for implicit instruction do first language learners proportionally score lower. Explicit instruction appears to be especially effective for introducing lexical language items. For syntactic language items, the results are much less outspoken.

Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning

2015 ◽  
pp. 443-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaemyung Goo ◽  
Gisela Granena ◽  
Yucel Yilmaz ◽  
Miguel Novella
Keyword(s):  
Explicit Instruction ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
Implicit And Explicit
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document