A Karaka Based Annotation Scheme for English

  • Ashwini Vaidya
  • Samar Husain
  • Prashanth Mannem
  • Dipti Misra Sharma
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5449)


The paper describes an annotation scheme for English based on Panini’s concept of karakas. We describe how the scheme handles certain constructions in English. By extending the karaka scheme for a fixed word order language, we hope to bring out its advantages as a concept that incorporates some ‘local semantics’. Our comparison with PTB-II and PropBank brings out its intermediary status between a morpho-syntactic and semantic level. Further work can show how this could benefit tasks like semantic role labeling and automatic conversion of existing English treebanks into this scheme.


Relative Clause Dependency Tree Annotation Scheme Subordinate Clause Semantic Label 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Begum, R., Husain, S., Dhwaj, A., Sharma, D.M., Bai, L., Sangal, R.: Dependency annotation scheme for Indian languages. In: Proceedings of IJCNLP 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bharati, A., Sangal, R., Sharma, D.M., Bai, L.: AnnCorra: Annotating Corpora Guidelines For POS And Chunk Annotation For Indian Languages. Technical Report, Language Technologies Research Centre IIIT, Hyderabad (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bharati, A., Sangal, R., Sharma, D.M.: Shakti Analyser: SSF Representation (2005),
  4. 4.
    Bharati, A., Chaitanya, V., Sangal, R.: Natural Language Processing: A Paninian Perspective. Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi (1995), zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Babko-Malaya, O.: PropBank Annotation Guidelindes (2005),
  6. 6.
    Ekeklint, S., Nivre, J.: A Dependency-Based Conversion of PropBank. In: Proceedings of FRAME 2007: Building Frame Semantics Resources for Scandinavian and Baltic Languages, pp. 19–25 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gildea, D., Palmer, M.: The Necessity of Parsing for Predicate Argument Recognition. In: Proceedings of ACL 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hajicova, E.: Prague Dependency Treebank: From Analytic to Tectogrammatical Annotation. In: Proc. TSD 1998 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herbst, T.: English Valency Structures - A first sketch. Technical report EESE 2/99 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kahane, S.: The Meaning-Text Theory. In: Dependency and Valency. An International Handbook on Contemporary Research. De Gruyter, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kingsbury, P., Palmer, M.: From Treebank to PropBank. In: Proceedings of the 3rd LREC, Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kiparsky., P.: On the Architecture of Panini’s grammar. In: Three lectures delivered at the Hyderabad Conference on the Architecture of Grammar (2002),
  13. 13.
    Kroeger., P.: Analyzing Syntax: A lexical functional approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marcus, M., Santorini, B., Marcinkiewicz, M.A.: Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. In: Computational Linguistics (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marcus, M., Kim, G., Marcinkiewicz, M., MacIntyre, R., Bies, A., Ferguson, M., Katz, K., Schasberger, B.: The Penn treebank: Annotating predicate argument structure. In: Proceedings of the ARPA Human Language Technology Workshop (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A., Webber, B.: The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. In: Proceedings of the 6th LREC (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nivre, J., Hall, J., Nilsson, J., Chanev, A., Eryigit, G., Kübler, S., Marinov, S., Marsi, E.: MaltParser: A language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Natural Language Engineering 13(2), 95–135 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rambow, O., Creswell, C., Szekely, R., Taber, H., Walker, M.: A dependency treebank for English. In: Proceedings of the 3rd LREC, Las Palmas, Gran Canaria, Spain (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rambow, O., Dorr, B., Kucerova, I., Palmer, M.: Automatically Deriving Tectogrammatical Labels from other resources- A comparison of Semantic labels across frameworks. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 79-80, 23–35 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sgall, P., Hajicova, E., Panevova, J.: The meaning of the sentence and its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Reidel, Dordrecht (1986)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Subrahmanyam, P.S.: Pa: ninian Linguistics, Tokyo, Japan: Inst. for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tesnière, L.: Eléments de Syntaxe Structurale. Klincksiek, Paris (1959)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yamada, H., Matsumoto, Y.: Statistical dependency analysis with support vector machines. In: Proceedings of IWPT (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashwini Vaidya
    • 1
  • Samar Husain
    • 1
  • Prashanth Mannem
    • 1
  • Dipti Misra Sharma
    • 1
  1. 1.Language Technologies Research CentreInternational Institute of Information TechnologyHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations