* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 21.1039

Wed Mar 03 2010

FYI: Call for Participation: SemEval-2010 Shared Task 7

Editor for this issue: Elyssa Winzeler <elyssalinguistlist.org>

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm.
        1.    Anna Rumshisky, Call for Participation: SemEval-2010 Shared Task 7

Message 1: Call for Participation: SemEval-2010 Shared Task 7
Date: 01-Mar-2010
From: Anna Rumshisky <arumcs.brandeis.edu>
Subject: Call for Participation: SemEval-2010 Shared Task 7
E-mail this message to a friend

Call for Participation

SemEval-2010 Shared Task #7: Argument Selection and Coercion


This shared task will be of interest to researcher working on:
- Predicate-argument structure
- Type shifting violations and coercions
- Metaphor and Metonymy
- Creative word use

Task Description

This task involves identifying the compositional operations involved in
argument selection. Most annotation schemes to date encoding propositional
or predicative content have focused on the identification of the predicate
type, the argument extent, and the semantic role (or label) assigned to
that argument by the predicate. In contrast, this task attempts to capture
the 'compositional history' of the argument selection relative to the
predicate. In particular, this task attempts to identify the operations of
type adjustment induced by a predicate over its arguments when they do not
match its selectional properties. The task is defined as follows: for each
argument of a predicate, identify whether the entity in that argument
position satisfies the type expected by the predicate. If not, then one
needs to identify how the entity in that position satisfies the typing
expected by the predicate; that is, to identify the source and target types
in a type-shifting (or coercion) operation. The possible relations between
the predicate and a given argument will, for this task, be restricted to
selection and coercion.

In selection, the argument NP satisfies the typing requirements of the
predicate. For example, in the sentence 'The child threw the ball', the
object NP 'the ball' directly satisfies the type expected by the predicate,
Physical Object.

If this is not the case, then a coercion has occurred. For example, in the
sentence 'The White House denied this statement.', the type expected in
subject position by the predicate is Human, but the surface NP is typed as
Location. The task is to identify both the type mismatch and the type
shift; namely Location -> Human.

Resources and Corpus Development

The following methodology was used in the creation of the data set: (1) For
a chosen set of selection contexts, randomly select a set of sentences from
a variety of corpora, including the BNC and other sources; (2) Identify the
target noun phrase in each sentence, and determine the composition type in
each case; (3) In cases of coercion, identify the source and target types
for the semantic head of each relevant noun phrase. Double annotation and
adjudication is performed over the data set.

Evaluation Methodology

Precision and recall will be used as evaluation metrics. A scoring program
will be supplied for participants. Two Subtasks will be evaluated
separately: (1) identifying the argument type and (2) identifying the
compositional operation (i.e. selection vs. coercion). This task is part of
a larger effort to annotate text with compositional operations.

James Pustejovsky, Nicoletta Calzolari, Anna Rumshisky,
Elisabetta Jezek, Valeria Quochi, Olga Batiukova, Jessica Moszkowicz

11/10/09 - Trial data for English and Italian posted
3/10/10 - Training data for English and Italian released
3/25/10 - Test data for English and Italian released
4/02/10 - Closing competition

For more up-to-date information, please contact the organzers or see the
task webpage at:

Trial data is currently available now at:

Training and test data will be posted according on the SemEval-2010 website:

Linguistic Field(s): Computational Linguistics; Semantics; Text/Corpus Linguistics

This Year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $65,000. This money will go to help 
keep the List running by supporting all of our Student Editors for the coming year.

See below for donation instructions, and don't forget to check out our Space Fund 
Drive 2010 and join us for a great journey!


There are many ways to donate to LINGUIST!

You can donate right now using our secure credit card form at  

Alternatively you can also pledge right now and pay later. To do so, go to: 

For all information on donating and pledging, including information on how to 
donate by check, money order, or wire transfer, please visit: 

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Eastern Michigan University and as 
such can receive donations through the EMU Foundation, which is a registered 
501(c) Non Profit organization. Our Federal Tax number is 38-6005986. These 
donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your state tax return 
(U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact 
your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that they will match 
any gift you make to a non-profit organization. Normally this entails your 
contacting your human resources department and sending us a form that the 
EMU Foundation fills in and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple 
administrative procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without 
costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if your company 
operates such a program.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!

Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.