Skip to Main Content
Table 8: 

Bridging anaphora resolution vs. NP Enrichment comparison.

Description/PaperISNotes (Markert et al., 2012)BASHI (Rösiger, 2018a)ARRAU (Rösiger, 2018b)TNE (ours)
The anchor/bridging expression can be discourse-old No No No Yes 
The anchor/bridging expression has to be anaphoric(not interpretable without the antecedent) Yes Yes No. “Most bridging links are purely lexical bridging pairs which are not context-dependent (e.g., Europe – Spain or Tokyo – Japan).” (Hou, 2020) No 
Cataphoriclinks (to expressions that appear later in the text) are allowed No No No Yes 
Links are annotated as part of a larger task (e.g. IS, anaphoric phenomena) Yes No Yes No 
The relations in the links have to be implicit Yes Yes Yes No 
The relations in the links are limited to certain sematic types No. Any relations are allowed, but, similarly NP Enrichment, “you must be able to rephrase the bridging entity by a complete phrase including the bridging entity and the antecedent.” If the antecedent is an NP, rephrasals are restricted to a PP or possessive/Saxon genitive. “Set bridging” is allowed in special cases. No Yes. Bridging is limited to a set of relations (part-of, element, subset, “other”, “undersp-rel”) (Uryupina et al., 2019). On the other hand, the “undersp-rel” category can include any relations. The relations are marked. No. Any relations that can be expressed with a preposition, are included, as well as element-set and subset-set relations. 
The antecedent/complement can be not only nominal, but also verbal or clausaYes Yes No. All bridging antecedents are nominal. No. Only nominal complements are included 
The bridging expression/anchor has to be definite No. No, but different labels are used to distinguish definite and indefinite expressions. No No. Anchors can be both definite and indefinite 
Multiple antecedents / complements are allowed Yes, but only if they have different mandatory roles in the argument structure of the bridging expression. “As a general principle, one antecedent has to be chosen. In special cases, e.g. comparative cases where two antecedents are needed, the annotator may create two or several links.”20 Multiple antecedents are not allowed by the guidelines but in practice do occur in some cases where two antecedents appeared equally strong. However, such cases are being removed from ARRAU release 3 (forthcoming). All the complements of every anchor should be annotated. Multiple complements are allowed and very common. 
Description/PaperISNotes (Markert et al., 2012)BASHI (Rösiger, 2018a)ARRAU (Rösiger, 2018b)TNE (ours)
The anchor/bridging expression can be discourse-old No No No Yes 
The anchor/bridging expression has to be anaphoric(not interpretable without the antecedent) Yes Yes No. “Most bridging links are purely lexical bridging pairs which are not context-dependent (e.g., Europe – Spain or Tokyo – Japan).” (Hou, 2020) No 
Cataphoriclinks (to expressions that appear later in the text) are allowed No No No Yes 
Links are annotated as part of a larger task (e.g. IS, anaphoric phenomena) Yes No Yes No 
The relations in the links have to be implicit Yes Yes Yes No 
The relations in the links are limited to certain sematic types No. Any relations are allowed, but, similarly NP Enrichment, “you must be able to rephrase the bridging entity by a complete phrase including the bridging entity and the antecedent.” If the antecedent is an NP, rephrasals are restricted to a PP or possessive/Saxon genitive. “Set bridging” is allowed in special cases. No Yes. Bridging is limited to a set of relations (part-of, element, subset, “other”, “undersp-rel”) (Uryupina et al., 2019). On the other hand, the “undersp-rel” category can include any relations. The relations are marked. No. Any relations that can be expressed with a preposition, are included, as well as element-set and subset-set relations. 
The antecedent/complement can be not only nominal, but also verbal or clausaYes Yes No. All bridging antecedents are nominal. No. Only nominal complements are included 
The bridging expression/anchor has to be definite No. No, but different labels are used to distinguish definite and indefinite expressions. No No. Anchors can be both definite and indefinite 
Multiple antecedents / complements are allowed Yes, but only if they have different mandatory roles in the argument structure of the bridging expression. “As a general principle, one antecedent has to be chosen. In special cases, e.g. comparative cases where two antecedents are needed, the annotator may create two or several links.”20 Multiple antecedents are not allowed by the guidelines but in practice do occur in some cases where two antecedents appeared equally strong. However, such cases are being removed from ARRAU release 3 (forthcoming). All the complements of every anchor should be annotated. Multiple complements are allowed and very common. 
Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal