... | @@ -15,19 +15,19 @@ PARSEME-FR annotation guidelines - v1.0 |
... | @@ -15,19 +15,19 @@ PARSEME-FR annotation guidelines - v1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
## Introduction
|
|
## Introduction
|
|
#### Nominal expressions
|
|
#### Nominal expressions
|
|
For **nominal multi-word expressions*, we use a primary distinction concerning the naming convention that links the expression and the entity or entities the expression can refer to. The starting intuition is that:
|
|
For **nominal multi-word expressions*, we use a primary distinction concerning the naming convention that links the expression and the entity or entities the expression can refer to. The starting intuition is that one can distinguish:
|
|
- (1) **entity names** some nominal MWEs work as the **direct name of a specific entity** (for instance *Anna Duval*)
|
|
- (1) **entity names** : some nominal MWEs work as the **direct name of a specific entity** (for instance *Anna Duval*)
|
|
- (2) while others, **instantiable concept names**, work as the name of a concept, which can be used to refer to instances of this concept (e.g. *neural network*).
|
|
- (2) versus **instantiable concept names**, working as the name of a concept, which can be used to refer to instances of this concept (e.g. *neural network*).
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this latter case, knowing the defining characteristics of the concept enables one to use it for future instances, without requiring to learn any new naming convention. This contrasts with entity names: in order to use the name *Anna Duval* for a new person, one needs to learn a new naming convention linking the name and this new person, independently of the characteristics of the person.
|
|
In this latter case, knowing the defining characteristics of the concept enables one to use it for future instances, without requiring to learn any new naming convention. This contrasts with entity names: in order to use the name *Anna Duval* for a new person, one needs to learn a new naming convention linking the name and this new person, and the characteristics of the person plays almost no role (to be precise, with such an example the name tells us the person should be a woman).
|
|
|
|
|
|
This distinction between entity name and instantiable concept name is reminiscent of the proper noun versus common noun distinction, but this latter distinction is not so easy to define precisely. Of course, lexical items that are exclusively used for directly naming entities (e.g. the first and last names for people) are easy to classify as proper nouns. This is why Erhmann (2008) roughly defines proper nouns as the "désignation d’une entité précise par le biais d’une description dont le sens joue un rôle mineur par rapport à la dénomination, opérant directement, du référent" (the designation of a precise entity via a description whose meaning plays a minor role with respect to the denomination of the referent, which operates directly").
|
|
This distinction between entity name and instantiable concept name is reminiscent of the proper noun versus common noun distinction, but this latter distinction is not so easy to define precisely. Of course, lexical items that are exclusively used for directly naming entities (e.g. the first and last names for people) are easy to classify as proper nouns. This is why Erhmann (2008) roughly defines proper nouns as the "désignation d’une entité précise par le biais d’une description dont le sens joue un rôle mineur par rapport à la dénomination, opérant directement, du référent" (the designation of a precise entity via a description whose meaning plays a minor role with respect to the denomination of the referent, which operates directly").
|
|
But an abundant litterature shows that the proper / common noun distinction reveals difficult to characterize in linguistic terms (we refer primarily to (Kleiber, 1981) and (Erhmann, 2008) for a state of the art). Indeed within entity names En effet au sein des noms directs d'entité, on peut distinguer:
|
|
But an abundant litterature shows that the proper / common noun distinction reveals difficult to characterize in linguistic terms (we refer primarily to (Kleiber, 1981) and (Erhmann, 2008) for a state of the art). Indeed within entity names, we can distinguish:
|
|
- (1a) des noms d'entités faits d'éléments lexicaux entièrement dédiés au nommage direct d'entité (pour le dire vite: des noms propres), comme *Italie*, *Anna Duval*, *Microsoft*
|
|
- (1a) entity names composed of lexical items that are dedicated to naming entities (to say it quickly: proper nouns), such as *Italy*, *Anna Duval*, *Microsoft*
|
|
- (1b) des noms d'entités comme l'*Association pour le traitement automatique des langues*, le *Jardin des Plantes*,
|
|
- (1b) entity names that have a descriptive basis, such as the "International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism" or the "Massif central" (litterally the "central massif"): the naming convention between the entity and the name is sociologically typical of a proper noun (the name of an association, of a geographical item), but also clearly results from the compatibility of the entity characteristics and the meaning of the lexical items
|
|
- qui d'un côté ont clairement une base descriptive, et donc la convention de nommage utilise les propriétés définitoires des éléments lexicaux composant ces noms
|
|
- (1c) but also names which serve to designate unique abstract entities (sometimes called "unica"), such as abstract simple nouns ("taxidermy") or abstract MWEs ("Euclidean geometry", "machine translation"): although not intuitively classified as proper nouns, they are still the name of a specific entity (or of a concept with one instance only), for which the speakers have to learn the naming convention.
|
|
- mais pour lesquels, d'un autre côté, l'établissement de la convention de nommage entre le nom et l'entité est sociologiquement typique d'un nom propre (ces entités sont baptisées ainsi).
|
|
|
|
- (1c) et aussi des noms abstraits d’entités uniques non instanciables tels que des noms abstraits simples (“taxidermie”) ou des termes polylexicaux (“géométrie euclidienne”), que l'on ne classe pas traditionnellement comme noms propres, mais qui peuvent également être vus comme le nom direct d'une entité spécifique, dont les locuteurs doivent apprendre la convention de nommage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
En TAL, seul les cas (1a) et (1b) relèvent de ce qui est appelé **entité nommée** (il est notoire que le terme "entité nommée" ajoute de la confusion, cf. il désigne l'entité et pas le nom. L'expression linguistique *Anna Duval* est un nom d'entité et pas une entité nommée, mais nous conservons dans toute la suite le terme consacré "entité nommée").
|
|
En TAL, seul les cas (1a) et (1b) relèvent de ce qui est appelé **entité nommée** (il est notoire que le terme "entité nommée" ajoute de la confusion, cf. il désigne l'entité et pas le nom. L'expression linguistique *Anna Duval* est un nom d'entité et pas une entité nommée, mais nous conservons dans toute la suite le terme consacré "entité nommée").
|
|
En outre, les entités nommées en TAL sont associées à un type sémantique prédéfini.
|
|
En outre, les entités nommées en TAL sont associées à un type sémantique prédéfini.
|
... | | ... | |