<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P05-2019">
  <Title>A corpus-based approach to topic in Danish dialog[?]</Title>
  <Section position="9" start_page="111" end_page="113" type="evalu">
    <SectionTitle>
4 Results
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Our results were on the one hand a subset of the features examined that correlated with topic expressions, and on the other the discovery of the importance of different types of subordination. These results are presented in turn.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="111" end_page="112" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
4.1 Topic-indicating features
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The optimal classification of topic expressions included a subset of important features which appeared in every DT, i.e. +pro, +def, +pre, and -sub.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> Several other features occurred in some of the DTs, i.e. dsi, int, and epi. The performance of all the DTs is summarized in table 2 below.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> 3 &amp;quot;Relevant features&amp;quot; were determined in the following way: A DT was generated using a data set consisting only of NPs annotated identically by the two coders in all the features, i.e. the 16 surface features as well as the topic expression feature. The features constituting this DT, i.e. pro, def, sub, and pre, as well as the topic expression category, were relevant features for the third data set, which consisted only of NPs coded identically by the two coders in these 5 features.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3">  The DT for the Coder 1 data set contains the features def, pro, dsi, sub, and pre. According to this classification, a definite pronoun in the fronted position of a Danish sentence intertwining construction is a topic expression, and other than that, definite pronouns in the preverbal position of non-subordinate clauses are topic expressions. The 10-fold cross validation test yields an 84% success rate.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> F1-score: 0.63.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> The Coder 2 DT contains the features pro, def, sub, pre, int, and epi. Here, if a definite pronoun occurs in a subordinate clause it is not a topic expression, and otherwise it is a topic expression if it occurs in the preverbal position. If it does not occur in preverbal position, but in a question, it is also a topic expression unless it occurs in an epistemic matrix clause. Success rate: 85%. F1-score: 0.67.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> Finally, the Intersection DT contains the features pro, def, sub, and pre. According to this DT, only definite pronouns in preverbal position in non-subordinate clauses are topic expressions. The DT has a high success rate of 89% in the cross validation test -- which is not surprising, given that a large number of possibly difficult cases have been removed (mainly the 50 NPs where the two coders disagreed on the annotation of topic expressions).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> F1-score: 0.72.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> Since there is no gold standard for annotating topic expressions, the best evaluation of the human performance is in terms of the amount of agreement between the two coders. Success rate and F1 analogs for human performance were therefore computed as follows, using the figures displayed in table 1.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9">  Success rate analog: The agreement percentage between the human coders when annotating topic expressions (449 NPS[?](23+27) NPS449 NPS x100 = 89%).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> F1 analog: The performance of Coder 1 evaluated against the performance of Coder 2 (&amp;quot;Preci null the three different data sets. For comparison, we added success rate and F1 analogs for human performance.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="112" end_page="113" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
4.2 Interpersonal subordination
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> We found that syntactic subordination does not have an invariant function as far as information structure is concerned. The emphasized NPs in the following examples are definite pronouns in preverbal position in syntactically non-subordinate clauses. But none of them are perceived as topic expressions.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1">  The reason seems to be that these NPs occur in epistemic matrix clauses (+epi).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> The following utterances have not been annotated for the +epi feature, since the matrix clauses do not seem to state the speaker's attitude towards the truth of the subordinate clause. However, the emphasized NPs seem to stand in a very similar relation to the message being conveyed, and none of them were perceived as topic expressions.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3">  This suggests that a more general type of matrix clause than the epistemic matrix clause, namely the interpersonal matrix clause (Jensen, 2003) would be relevant in this context. This category would cover all of the above cases. It is defined as a matrix clause that expresses some attitude towards the mes- null sage conveyed in its subordinate clause. This more general category presumably signals non-topicality rather than topicality just like the special case of epistemic subordination.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>