Unni Cathrine Eiken February 2005

eferent-guessing procedures. In total 22 such structures were removed. The majority of these
structures originate from adverbial phrases in the text collections. Location and temporal
adverbs, featuring as prepositional phrases in the texts, show up in the EPAS list as structures
disjoint from the rest of the sentence, not unlike the structures mentioned above. The preposition
functions as the EPAS’ predicate, resulting in structures of this type:
(3- 22)
på, funn, åsted
on, finding, crime scene
Such structures were left out of the final EPAS list.
Another type of correctly extracted structure that was omitted from the final list, were structures
particular to the information structure in the grammatical analysis. The extraction script returned
all predicate-argument structures present in the MRS structure for each parsed sentence. This
resulted in a few structures that did not hold information that it was desirable to maintain in the
EPAS list. Below is an example of such a structure:
(3- 23)
unspec_loc, , place
3.6.3 Manually added structures
Not all the predicate-argument structures present in the text collection were successfully
extracted by means of the extraction method. After removing unwanted structures from the
EPAS list, the texts in the text collection were gone through manually to gather any EPAS that
were not returned by the automated extraction process. Had the text collection been larger so
that the list of automatically extracted EPAS had been correspondingly bigger, too, this may not
have been a necessary action. In the case of a (substantially) larger EPAS list, the structures that
were not collected in the extraction process could have been abstained from, as the structures
that would have been extracted would have provided enough information for the subsequent
classifications and analyses. As is the case in this project, though, the text collection and the
resulting EPAS list are very small. All information that can be extracted from the texts is of
54