Turkish Discourse Bank: Connectives and Their Configurations

  • Deniz Zeyrek
  • Işın Demirşahin
  • Cem BozşahinEmail author
Part of the Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing book series (NLP)


The Turkish Discourse Bank (TDB) is a resource of approximately 400,000 words in its current release in which explicit discourse connectives and phrasal expressions are annotated along with the textual spans they relate. The corpus has been annotated by annotators using a semiautomatic annotation tool. We expect that it will enable researchers to study aspects of language beyond the sentence level. The TDB follows the Penn Discourse Tree Bank (PDTB) in adopting a connective-based annotation for discourse. The connectives are considered heads of annotated discourse relations. We have so far found only applicative structures in Turkish discourse, which, unlike syntactic heads, seem to have no need for composition. Interleaving in-text spans of arguments appears to be only apparently-crossing, and related to information structure.


  1. Aktaş B, Bozşahin C, Zeyrek D (2010) Discourse relation configurations in Turkish and an annotation environment. In: Proceedings of the linguistic annotation workshop, Uppsala, pp 202–206Google Scholar
  2. Asher N (1993) Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. Demirşahin I, Zeyrek D (2017) Pair annotation as a novel annotation procedure: the case of Turkish Discourse Bank. In: Pustejovsky J, Ide N (eds) Handbook of linguistic annotation. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. Demirşahin I, Yalçınkaya İ, Zeyrek D (2012) Pair annotation: adaption of pair programming to corpus annotation. In: Proceedings of the linguistic annotation workshop, Jeju, pp 31–39Google Scholar
  5. Demirşahin I, Öztürel A, Bozşahin C, Zeyrek D (2013) Applicative structures and immediate discourse in the Turkish Discourse Bank. In: Proceedings of the linguistic annotation workshop, Sofia, pp 122–130Google Scholar
  6. Egg M, Redeker G (2008) Underspecified discourse representation. In: Benz A, Kuhnlein P (eds) Constraints in discourse. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 117–138Google Scholar
  7. Fleiss JL (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76(5):378Google Scholar
  8. Forbes-Riley K, Webber B, Joshi A (2006) Computing discourse semantics: the predicate-argument semantics of discourse connectives in D-LTAG. J Semant 23(1):55–106Google Scholar
  9. Hobbs JR (1985) On the coherence and structure of discourse. Tech. Rep. CSLI-85-37, CSLI, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  10. Joshi A (2011) Some aspects of transition from sentence to discourse. Keynote address, Informatics Science Festival, Middle East Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. Lee A, Prasad R, Joshi A, Dinesh N, Webber B (2006) Complexity of dependencies in discourse: are dependencies in discourse more complex than in syntax. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on treebanks and linguistic theories, PragueGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee A, Prasad R, Joshi A, Webber B (2008) Departures from tree structures in discourse: shared arguments in the Penn Discourse Treebank. In: Proceedings of the third workshop on constraints in discourse, PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  13. Mann WC, Thompson SA (1988) Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3):243–281Google Scholar
  14. Nakatsu C, White M (2010) Generating with discourse combinatory categorial grammar. Linguist Issues Lang Technol 4(1):1–62Google Scholar
  15. Polanyi L (1988) A formal model of the structure of discourse. J Pragmat 12(5):601–638Google Scholar
  16. Prasad R, Webber BL, Joshi A (2014) Reflections on the Penn Discourse TreeBank, comparable corpora, and complementary annotation. Comput Linguist 40(4):921–950Google Scholar
  17. Say B, Zeyrek D, Oflazer K, Özge U (2004) Development of a corpus and a treebank for present-day written Turkish. In: Proceedings of the international conference on Turkish Linguistics, Magosa, TRNC, pp 183–192Google Scholar
  18. Shieber S (1985) Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguist Philos 8:333–343Google Scholar
  19. Tın E, Akman V (1994) Situated processing of pronominal anaphora. In: Proceedings of the Konferenz, Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprache, Vienna, pp 369–378Google Scholar
  20. Tüfekçi P, Kılıçaslan Y (2005) A computational model for resolving pronominal anaphora in Turkish using Hobbs’ naïve algorithm. Int J Comput Intell 2(1):71–75Google Scholar
  21. Tüfekçi P, Küçük D, Yöndem MT, Kılıçaslan Y (2007) Comparison of a syntax-based and a knowledge-poor pronoun resolution systems for Turkish. Poster presented at international symposium on computer and information sciences (ISCIS)Google Scholar
  22. Webber B (2004) D-LTAG: Extending lexicalized TAG to discourse. Cognit Sci 28(5):751–779Google Scholar
  23. Williams L, Kessler RR, Cunningham W, Jeffries R (2000) Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Softw 17(4):19–25Google Scholar
  24. Wolf F, Gibson E (2004) Representing discourse coherence: a corpus-based analysis. In: Proceedings of COLING, Geneva, pp 134–140Google Scholar
  25. Wolf F, Gibson E (2005) Representing discourse coherence: a corpus-based study. Comput Linguist 31(2):249–287Google Scholar
  26. Yıldırım S, Kılıçaslan Y, Aykaç RE (2004) A computational model for anaphora resolution in Turkish via centering theory: an initial approach. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computational intelligence, Istanbul, pp 124–128Google Scholar
  27. Yüksel Ö, Bozşahin C (2002) Contextually appropriate reference generation. Nat Lang Eng 8(1):69–89Google Scholar
  28. Zeyrek D, Webber BL (2008) A discourse resource for Turkish: annotating discourse connectives in the METU corpus. In: Proceedings of the workshop on Asian language resources, Hyderabad, pp 65–72Google Scholar
  29. Zeyrek D, Turan ÜD, Bozşahin C, Çakıcı R, Sevdik-Çallı A, Demirşahin I, Aktaş B, Yalçınkaya İ, Ögel H (2009) Annotating subordinators in the Turkish Discourse Bank. In: Proceedings of the 3rd linguistic annotation workshop, Singapore, pp 44–47Google Scholar
  30. Zeyrek D, Demirşahin I, Sevdik-Çallı A, Balaban Hö, Yalçınkaya İ, Turan ÜD (2010) The annotation scheme of the Turkish Discourse Bank and an evaluation of inconsistent annotations. In: Proceedings of the 4th linguistic annotation workshop, Uppsala, pp 282–289Google Scholar
  31. Zeyrek D, Demirşahin I, Sevdik-Çallı A, Çakıcı R (2013) Turkish Discourse Bank: porting a discourse annotation style to a morphologically rich language. Dialogue Discourse 4(2):174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zeyrek, D, Kurfalı, M (2017) TDB 1.1: Extensions on Turkish Discourse Bank. In: Proceedings of the 11th linguistic annotation workshop, Valencia, pp 76–81Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deniz Zeyrek
    • 1
  • Işın Demirşahin
    • 1
  • Cem Bozşahin
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Middle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Cognitive ScienceInstitute of Middle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations