1. 26./27. Juni 2006 Saarbrücken Workshop on multilingual semantic annotation, Saarbrücken, 26/27-06-06 Comments on Emanuele Pianta: Exploiting Parallel Texts to leverage the manual annotation bottleneck: the MultiSemCor case Ulrich Heid, IMS-CL, Universität Stuttgart

2. 26./27. Juni 2006 Saarbrücken Workshop on multilingual semantic annotation, Saarbrücken, 26/27-06-06 The methodology: transfer of annotations It does around 75% of the annotation work It produces –an annotated TL corpus (pos, lemma, sense) –an annotated parallel corpus

3. 26./27. Juni 2006 Saarbrücken Workshop on multilingual semantic annotation, Saarbrücken, 26/27-06-06 Transfer of annotations: required infrastructure Controlled translation: sentence-wise, pos-preserving where possible Multiword recognition Parallel WordNets: Princeton Target Language Problems could arise: with free translations (cf. Translation Memories) with more deviant WordNets, e.g. GermaNet

4. 26./27. Juni 2006 Saarbrücken Workshop on multilingual semantic annotation, Saarbrücken, 26/27-06-06 Analysing the transfer result Systematic cases of non-alignment: lack of cross-linguistic synonymy translation not 1:1 –not pos-preserving: coexist - coesistenza –1:2: successfully - con successo Do we get the same problems as those discussed as divergences/mismatches in MT? Would a marking of chunks in SL/TL help? Would a morphology system help?

5. 26./27. Juni 2006 Saarbrücken Workshop on multilingual semantic annotation, Saarbrücken, 26/27-06-06 Towards relaxing the conditions on the infrastructure To get the system to work under suboptimal conditions –Would the integration of morphological relations across pos be useful? (Yes for alignment, no for WN synset transfer) –Could the system be made aware of transfer problems (and signal these to the user?) Test with e.g. Acquis Communautaire? Test with Germanic languages?