Sentence Modality Assignment in the Prague Dependency Treebank

  • Magda Ševčíková
  • Jiří Mírovský
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7499)


The paper focuses on the annotation of sentence modality in the Prague Dependency Treebank (PDT). Sentence modality (as the contrast between declarative, imperative, interrogative etc. sentences) is expressed by a combination of several means in Czech, from which the category of verbal mood and the final punctuation of the sentence are the most important ones. In PDT 2.0, sentence modality was assigned semi-automatically to the root node of each sentence (tree) and further to the roots of parenthesis and direct speech subtrees. As this approach was too simple to adequately represent the linguistic phenomenon in question, the method for assigning the sentence modality has been revised and elaborated for the forthcoming version of the treebank (PDT 3.0).


sentence modality Prague Dependency Treebank dependency tree coordination root coordinated clause 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Austin, J.L.: How to Do Things with Words. Harvard (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daneš, F., Hlavsa, Z., Grepl, M., et al.: Mluvnice češtiny 3, Praha (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hajič, J., et al.: Prague Dependency Treebank 2.0. CD-ROM, Philadelphia (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mikulová, M., et al.: Annotation on the tectogrammatical level in the Prague Dependency Treebank. Annotation manual. Tech. Rep. Nr. 2006/30, Prague (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mírovský, J.: Searching in the Prague Dependency Treebank, Prague (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pajas, P., Štěpánek, J.: Recent Advances in a Feature-rich Framework for Treebank Annotation. In: Proceedings of Coling 2008, Manchester, pp. 673–680 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pajas, P., Štěpánek, J.: System for Querying Syntactically Annotated Corpora. In: Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Software Demonstrations, Singapore, pp. 33–36 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Portner, P.: Modality, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prasad, R., et al.: The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. In: Proceedings of LREC 2008, Marrakech, pp. 2961–2968 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saurí, R., Pustejovsky, J.: FactBank: a corpus annotated with event factuality. Language Resources and Evaluation 43, 227–268 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Searle, J.: Speech Acts, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sgall, P., Hajičová, E., Panevová, J.: The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects, Dordrecht, Praha (1986)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Šmilauer, V.: Novočeská skladba. 3rd edn., Praha (1969)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zaefferer, D.: On the coding of sentential modality. In: Bechert, J., et al. (eds.) Towards a Typology of European Languages, Berlin, New York, pp. 215–237 (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magda Ševčíková
    • 1
  • Jiří Mírovský
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Institute of Formal and Applied LinguisticsCharles University in PragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations