Arguments in TimeML: Events and Entities

TimeML is a specification language for the annotation of events and temporal expressions in natural language text. In addition, the language introduces three relational tags linking temporal objects and events to one another. These links impose both aspectual and temporal ordering over time objects, as well as mark up subordination contexts introduced by modality, evidentiality, and factivity. Given the richness of this specification, the TimeML working group decided not to include the arguments of events within the language specification itself. Full reasoning and inference over natural language texts clearly requires knowledge of events along with their participants. In this paper, we define the appropriate role of argumenthood within event markup and propose that TimeML should make a basic distinction between arguments that are events and those that are entities. We first review how TimeML treats event arguments in subordinating and aspectual contexts, creating eventevent relations between predicate and argument. As it turns out, these constructions cover a large number of the argument types selected for by event predicates.We suggest that TimeML be enriched slightly to include causal predicates, such as lead to, since these also involve event-event relations. As such, causal relationships will be a relation type for the new Discourse Link that will also encode other discourse relations such as elaboration. We propose that all other verbal arguments be ignored by the specification, and any predicate-argument binding of participants to an event should be performed by independent means. In fact, except for the event-denoting arguments handled by the extension to TimeML proposed here, almost full temporal ordering of the events in a text can be computed without argument identification.

[1]  James F. Allen Towards a General Theory of Action and Time , 1984, Artif. Intell..

[2]  J. Hobbs On the coherence and structure of discourse , 1985 .

[3]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[4]  L. Polanyi A formal model of the structure of discourse , 1988 .

[5]  William C. Mann,et al.  Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization , 1988 .

[6]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[7]  Eduard Hovy,et al.  Parsimonious or Profligate: How Many and Which Discourse Structure Relations? , 1992 .

[8]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar , 1996, CL.

[9]  Inderjeet Mani,et al.  Robust Temporal Processing of News , 2000, ACL.

[10]  David L. Davidson,et al.  The Logical Form of Action Sentences , 2001 .

[11]  Andrew Kehler,et al.  Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar , 2002, CSLI lecture notes series.

[12]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based analysis , 2004, COLING.

[13]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Representing Discourse Coherence: A Corpus-Based Study , 2005, CL.

[14]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Logics of Conversation , 2005, Studies in natural language processing.

[15]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  Automating Temporal Annotation with TARSQI , 2005, ACL.

[16]  Frank Schilder,et al.  From Temporal Expressions To Temporal Information: Semantic Tagging Of News Messages , 2001, The Language of Time - A Reader.

[17]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  Classification of Discourse Coherence Relations: An Exploratory Study using Multiple Knowledge Sources , 2006, SIGDIAL Workshop.