Annotation Guide

User Manual: Pdf

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 40

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

Semantic Analysis of Image-Based Learner Sentences (SAILS)
Annotation Guide
Levi King
Last updated:
February 12, 2018

Contents
1 Task Background

1.1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2

Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2.1

Non-native speakers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2.2

Native speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2.2.1

Familiar NSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2.2.2

Crowd-sourced NSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.3

Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.4

Item Examples (Targeted and Untargeted) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 Annotating Features
2.1

Grammaticality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.1

Non-contextuality of grammaticality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.2

Defining grammaticality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.3

Incomplete sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.4

Punctuation and capitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.5

Common grammaticality concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.5.1

Events and activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.5.2

Non-propositional responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.5.3

Bare nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.5.4

Missing be verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.5.5
2.2

Misspellings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interpretability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.1

Semi-contextuality of interpretability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.2

Defining interpretability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.2.1

Verb arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.2.2

Content and composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Common interpretability concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.3.1

Grammar and spelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.3.2

Incomplete sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.3.3

States and actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.3.4

Questions and modals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.3.5

First and second person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.3.6

Slang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.3.7

Impossible or unknowable information . . . . . . . . . . . .

Core event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.1

Contextuality of core event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.2

Defining core event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.2.1

Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.2.2

Verb forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.2.3

Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.3

Alternative interpretations & inaccurate information . . . . . . . . .

2.3.4

Language problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.5

Imprecise language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.6

Slang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.7

Intransitive vs. transitive core events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.7.1

Intransitive core events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.7.2

Transitive core events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.8

Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.9

Targeted items and passive responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.10 Untargeted item leniency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Verifiability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4.1

Contextuality of verifiability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4.2

Reasonable inferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4.3

Subject and object variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.3

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

1
1.1

2.4.4

Language problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4.5

Incomplete responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4.6

Alternative interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4.7

Responses in the form of a question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4.8

Modality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4.9

Unverifiable inferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4.9.1

Participant opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4.10 Irrelevant information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Answerhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.5.1

Contextuality of answerhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.5.2

Defining answerhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.5.3

Accuracy

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.5.4

Targeted vs. untargeted items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.5.5

Verb forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.5.5.1

Progressive verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.5.6

Events and activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.5.7

Imminent actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.5.7.1

Targeted subject variations and pronouns . . . . . . . . . .

2.5.7.2

Misspellings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix: Annotated examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Task Background
Overview

In order to best annotate the data, annotators should have a basic understanding of the
task used to collect it. The task is a picture description task (PDT), implemented as an
online survey. The PDT consists of 30 items. An item is one image and corresponding
question. Each item is displayed on a single page of the online survey, and participants type
a response into the provided field before clicking ahead to the next page. The task was
conducted with default web browser settings, so spelling correction and grammar correction
tools were available to participants.
The images used are simple digital drawings. No two images are related, and nothing appears
3

in more than one image. Each image was chosen or created to depict a single event or action.
In order to focus attention on the main action, images contain very little background or other
detail. Each question is intended to elicit a complete sentence capturing the main action in
the image.
The data collected in the task will be used to analyze the differences in English native speaker
(NS) and non-native speaker (NNS) language use. Specifically, this process will use language
tools and NS responses to derive an “answer key” or “gold standard” (GS), which can be
used to automatically evaluate the language and content of NNS responses.

1.2

Participants

1.2.1

Non-native speakers

NNS participants were recruited from intermediate and advanced level English as a Second
Language (ESL) courses in the English Language Improvement Program at Indiana University. 141 NNS students completed the PDT. These participants all performed the task
independently in a computer lab, with the researchers present. Responses from this group
appear to be given in good faith.

1.2.2

Native speakers

Two different groups of NSs participated: “familiar” NSs and crowd-sourced NSs. All NSs
performed the task remotely, without the researchers present.

1.2.2.1

Familiar NSs

40 “familiar” NS participants completed the full task. They were recruited among friends,
family and acquaintances of the researchers. Responses from this group appear to be given
in good faith.

1.2.2.2

Crowd-sourced NSs

Responses were also collected from roughly 330 different NSs through the online platform,
Survey Monkey. The researchers purchased survey responses from the platform’s pool of
users, who may win prizes or earn donations for charities in exchange for completing surveys.
These participants all performed the task remotely, without the researchers present.
Crowd-sourced participants are less likely to complete a lengthy task, so the PDT was
divided into four smaller tasks, and each crowd-sourced NS completed only one of these.
Additionally, a sizable number of these participants completed only part of their task before
abandoning it. The resulting data set is equivalent in size to roughly 100 completed familiar
NS PDTs. Responses from the crowd-sourced group are of varying reliability; The majority
are legitimate and in good faith, but some responses clearly are not. Some crowd-sourced
NSs simply typed random characters in the response fields in order to move on to the next
item and complete the task with minimal time and effort. Others responded with jokes,
sarcasm or profanity.

1.3

Instructions

Before beginning the task, respondents read a short page of instructions including an example
item and possible responses. The instructions are as follows:
In this task, you will view a set of images. For each image, please write one
sentence to answer the question provided with the image. It is important to
answer with a complete sentence, not a word or phrase.
English native speakers (NSs) and non-native speakers (NNSs) complete slightly different
versions of the task. The items are identical in both versions, but whereas NNSs provide one
response to each question, in the NS version, respondents are asked to provide two responses
to each question. They are given the following additional instructions:
Then, you will be asked to write a second, different answer, which is also a complete sentence. This might involve rewording or reorganizing your first sentence.
It does not need to be completely different; some words may be the same. If
you cannot think of another way to answer the question, you may leave the second answer space empty, but any second responses you provide will be greatly
appreciated.
5

1.4

Item Examples (Targeted and Untargeted)

The first half of the task consists of 15 targeted items, and the second half consists of 15
untargeted items. Targeted and untargeted items differ only in the question. All targeted
items take the form of What is X doing?, where X varies but is specified in the question,
always as the subject (or one of the subjects) of the main action in the image. For all
untargeted items, the question is always the same: What is happening?.
For each image used in the task, a roughly equivalent number of targeted and untargeted
responses were collected. Multiple versions of the task were administered; a given image
is used in the targeted section for some versions, and in the untargeted section for other
versions. In all versions, the targeted items precede the untargeted items. This ordering is
intended to avoid the possibility that a participant encounters the question What is happening? consistently in the initial items, assumes that this question applies to the entire task,
and responds to the later targeted items without reading the questions.
The terms targeted and untargeted are never used in the task, and participants are not
explicitly informed of these differences. They are, however, provided with an example of
each type immediately following the instructions, as seen in Figures 1 and 2 below.

Example 1

What is the man doing?
Your sentence:
The man is shouting.
Your second sentence:
He is yelling.
There is not a single correct response. Many responses
may be possible. Other responses might be:
The man is yelling something.
He is speaking loudly.
Figure 1: An example targeted item, as presented in the task instructions. The “second
sentence” portion is presented to native speakers only.

Example 2

What is happening?
Your sentence:
The nurse is giving a patient roses.
Your second sentence:
A woman is getting flowers from a nurse.
There is not a single correct response. Many responses
may be possible. Other responses might be:
The nurse is giving a lady some red flowers.
A patient is receiving flowers from a nurse.
Figure 2: An example untargeted item, as presented in the task instructions. The “second
sentence” portion is presented to native speakers only.

Annotating Features

Each response is annotated according to five dimensions, or features. These features, explained below, are referred to as grammaticality, interpretability, core event, verifiability and answerhood. Annotations for each feature have only two possible values, yes
or no (or 1 or 0 ). The annotation for each response is thus an ordered list (i.e., a vector) of
zeros and ones. For example, [1, 1, 1, 0, 1] would represent a response that was annotated
no for verifiability and yes for all other features.
Some features are non-contextual; these features should be annotated without consideration
of the PDT image or question (See Table 1). The annotation for these features should be the
same for both targeted and untargeted versions of an item. Other features are contextual
and must be annotated with consideration of the image and question; for these features,
targeted and untargeted items must be handled separately.
Feature

Contextual? Targeted v. Untargeted Annotation

Grammaticality

identical

Interpretability

semi

may vary

Core Event

yes

may vary

Verifiability

yes

may vary

Answerhood

yes

may vary

Table 1: Contextuality of annotation features.

2.1

Grammaticality

The grammaticality feature primarily considers the following question: Exactly as written,
does the response convey a proposition and does it lack any grammar or spelling errors?

2.1.1

Non-contextuality of grammaticality

This feature considers only the response, regardless of the item or question. In other words,
a response that is grammatical but irrelevant given the specific item image and question
should still be annotated as “yes” for this feature.

However, grammaticality should be annotated within the bounds of the very general context
of the task; the PDT elicits descriptions of common events, so responses should convey a
proposition and be grammatical when interpreted accordingly.
Moreover, the item question may be taken into consideration when it is necessary for assessing
the grammaticality of a particular response. Responses to targeted questions (What is the
X doing), for example, commonly drop the subject. Such responses can be grammatical; see
Section 2.1.3.

2.1.2

Defining grammaticality

For the current annotation purposes, a grammatical response is one that is free from grammar errors or misspellings, and conveys a reasonable meaning (given the very general context
of the task). Grammar errors come in many forms, including omitted words, out-of-place
words, incorrect word forms, and syntactic disagreement, among others. This feature does
not directly consider meaning. However, the events depicted in the PDT images are all common, unsurprising events that might occur under normal circumstances, and a response that
requires an unreasonable interpretation in order to be grammatical should be annotated “no”
for grammaticality. For example, The boy is dancing on music is probably not grammatical
without resorting to a fairly unusual interpretation – perhaps involving a boy dancing on a
floor covered with sheet music or vinyl records.
Annotators will need to make judgment calls, but should be lenient in judging grammaticality
and the necessary interpretation of meaning. If there is a reasonable reading of the sentence
under which it is grammatical (and has none of the specific grammaticality problems outlined
below), it should be annotated as “yes”. (Annotators should keep in mind that concerns
other than grammar are likely to be captured under the annotation of other features.) For
example, consider this response to the item in Figure 3: A boy listens to music and dancing.
Given the image, one could point out that the meaning conveyed by the response is not
the intended meaning (presumably A boy listens to music and (he) dances), and thus argue
that the response is ungrammatical. However, because the response is not ungrammatical
without the item context, and it conveys an arguably reasonable meaning, such a response
should be annotated “yes”. This also commonly applies to responses that use an incorrect
(but grammatical) pronoun. For example, The boy is talking to her brother, in response to
Figure 4 (where no female is pictured or otherwise indicated as a potential antecedent to
her ), should be annotated “yes” for grammaticality.
10

2.1.3

Incomplete sentences

Although the task asks participants to provide a complete sentence, incomplete sentences
(which are mostly verb phrases among the data) may nonetheless be annotated as “yes” for
grammaticality, so long as the content of the response is indeed grammatical. For example,
“eating pizza” is an incomplete sentence but a grammatical response. This also applies to
any one word responses, but as explained in Section 2.1.5.2, a grammatical response should
be interpretable as a proposition. For example, “eating” should be considered a grammatical
response, because it conveys some propositional meaning, but “pizza” is not grammatical
here because it does not indicate any action or event. Incomplete sentences are subject to
all of the same grammaticality considerations as complete sentences.

2.1.4

Punctuation and capitalization

Responses have been converted to all lowercase letters. Final punctuation has been removed
from most responses. Annotators should ignore these concerns when annotating grammaticality.
Sentence internal punctuation should be considered for this feature, but annotators should
be lenient and keep in mind that many punctuation decisions may simply be a matter of
style rather than grammar. Punctuation (or lack thereof) that results in ambiguity or leads
the annotator to question the overall grammaticality of the sentence should result in a “no”
annotation for the response. Annotators should use their own best judgment in assessing
such cases.

2.1.5
2.1.5.1

Common grammaticality concerns
Events and activities

be accepted. For example, an interview, a volleyball game and a math class are acceptable
responses to What is happening?.
For targeted and untargeted items, such event and activity responses should be properly
formed as a grammatical response to the question, with any necessary determiners or articles. For example, a baseball game should be accepted in response to the question What is
happening?, but baseball and baseball game should not.

2.1.5.2

Non-propositional responses

A response that lacks a grammatical interpretation as a proposition should be annotated
“no” for grammaticality. A proposition typically requires a verb and a subject; for the
current task, a response may be judged as grammatical if it lacks a subject so long as it
indicates an action or event. Non-propositional responses do not fit the general context of
the task. These responses typically lack a verb and some appear to be well-formed noun
phrases, such as A boy with pizza.

2.1.5.3

Bare nouns

A bare noun that is missing a determiner should result in a “no” for grammaticality. Examples include Boy is eating pizza and A man is delivering package.

2.1.5.4

Missing be verbs

Common among the data are responses that omit a necessary copula (or “be” verb). These
often result in what could be interpreted as well-formed noun clauses, such as A little boy
eating pizza. If, as in this case (and most others), one can reasonably assume that the
apparent noun clause is an ungrammatical expression of a copular sentence (A little boy is
eating pizza), the response should be annotated “no” for grammaticality.
Note that incomplete sentences that omit the subject may also omit a “be” verb. In other
words, while A little boy eating pizza should be annotated “no” for grammaticality, simply
eating pizza may be annotated as “yes” if appropriate. (See Section 2.1.3.)

2.1.5.5

Misspellings

Misspellings generally result in a “no” for grammaticality. Misspellings sometimes result in
real but unintended words, so it is not always clear if a word is in fact a misspelling. A
response containing a suspected real word misspelling should be annotated “no” for grammaticality only if it results in a grammar error.
Some responses use proper names for persons, places or objects in the images. When a
proper noun appears to be misspelled, annotators should be less strict. If the proper noun
is reasonably interpretable, the response should still be annotated “yes”, provided it has no
other disqualifying problems. Annotators should use their own judgment in assessing such
cases.

2.2

Interpretability

The interpretability feature primarily considers the following question: Exactly as written,
is the response interpretable enough to evoke a clear image?

2.2.1

Semi-contextuality of interpretability

This feature is largely non-contextual, but because the task asks participants about events,
responses must convey a proposition. In other words, a response must be interpretable as
an event, or as a statement about the state of affairs in the image. Annotators may find it
useful to view the PDT image, but interpretability should be judged without regard to its
contents; to meet the criteria for this feature, a response should evoke an image, regardless
of how similar that image is to the image in the PDT.
For targeted items only, when the subject of the response is omitted, it should generally be
understood to be the same subject given in the targeted question. (This is not appropriate
for all responses that lack a subject, and annotators should use their judgment to decide if
the respondent intended the subject to be understood.) For example, eating pizza should
be annotated as interpretable (according to the criteria below) as a response to the targeted
question, What is the boy doing?
In contrast, for the untargeted question (What is happening? ), a response like eating pizza
would not be interpretable, because a reader could not confidently conjure an image of the
13

subject. (See Section 2.2.3.2 for more discussion of incomplete sentences.)

2.2.2

Defining interpretability

The interpretability feature is concerned with whether or not a response can be adequately
understood and visualized. Because a response is based on an image, its interpretation should
evoke a concrete image. A response should be considered interpretable if it A) includes any
arguments that are syntactically required by the verb, and B) provides enough semantic
content to derive a reasonably specific, unambiguous illustration.

2.2.2.1

Verb arguments

For this first requirement, A man is delivering a package to a woman is interpretable. Delivering is used as a ditransitive verb here, and all syntactically required arguments are
specified; the sentence has a subject, direct object and indirect object. The man is delivering a package should also be considered interpretable. This sentence does not include an
indirect object, but in this transitive use of deliver, the syntax does not require one. However,
A man is delivering is not interpretable, because the verb deliver is missing one or more
syntactically necessary arguments. This consideration requires a grammaticality judgment
on the part of annotators. Annotators may have differing judgments with regard to the
arguments required by given verbs; this is expected. Native speakers would likely agree that
The man is cooking is grammatical as is (without an object), and that The girl is telling is
not grammatical, because it requires an object (or more context). However, native speakers
may disagree on the grammaticality of sentences like The boy is washing or The woman is
buying.

2.2.2.2

Content and composition

Interpretable responses are statements that could be illustrated with a canonical composition, without the need to infer any critical elements. Responses that provide only a broad
description are likely to fail this criterion. A sentence like “The man is working” is not specific enough to evoke a clear image. An illustrator could show a man picking fruit, building
a bridge, typing at a computer, etc., so long as the image contained a man doing some kind

of work. A significant amount of information concerning the action in the image would need
to be inferred.
Likewise, a sentence that uses vague references (“someone”/“something”/unspecified “it”,
etc.) for essential elements or simply leaves them out is not interpretable. Such a response
could not be illustrated as a canonical, representational painting, because some essential
elements would have to be guessed or inferred. The response could, however, be represented
as an abstract painting.
It may be helpful for annotators to think of this as “The Norman Rockwell Rule.” That
is, “Would Norman Rockwell illustrate this response?” Straightforward composition and
a clear representational style are hallmarks of Rockwell’s paintings. A response like “The
man is delivering a package to a woman” fits this style of illustration. “A man is delivering
a package” also fulfills the Rockwell Rule, because a painting of a delivery man leaving a
package in a mailbox or on a doorstep could easily be imagined as a Rockwell painting.
(Annotators should keep in mind that interpretability annotation should not be influenced
by the PDT image and the image evoked by the response is not judged here for how well
it matches the actual PDT image.) For a response like “Someone is delivering things to a
woman,” a Rockwell painting simply would not fit; both the deliverer and the thing being
delivered would have to be out of frame, obscured, somehow abstracted, or purely guessed
at. Annotators should rely on their own judgment when considering these content and
composition concerns.

2.2.3
2.2.3.1

Common interpretability concerns
Grammar and spelling

Grammar and spelling problems do not automatically result in a “no” here; these concerns are
covered by the grammaticality feature. Major or multiple grammar or spelling problems are
likely to result in an uninterpretable sentence, but minor grammar or spelling problems may
leave a sentence’s interpretation intact. Annotators will vary in judging the severity of such
problems, but in general, an annotator should mark a response as “yes” for interpretability
only when he or she can be reasonably confident in the intended meaning. In other words, a
grammar or spelling problem that could be corrected in multiple ways to result in multiple
reasonable corrected sentences should be marked “no” for interpretability. As a reminder,
for this feature, responses should be judged blindly, without influence from the image or
15

previously seen responses.
For example, The boy is danceing contains a spelling error, but a reader can be quite confident
that the intended meaning is dancing. The boy is dacing, however, would likely be judged
uninterpretable, because without more context, the error has numerous plausible candidates
for correction – racing, pacing, daring, etc.
Responses that contain contradictory information should generally be marked “no” for interpretability, but annotators should use their own discretion in handling these cases. Such
problems often take the form of a noun phrase containing disagreement. For example, in The
man is giving the package to a women, it is impossible to determine if the indirect object
would be illustrated as one woman or multiple women. If an annotator feels confident that
other information in the response disambiguates the intended meaning, the annotator may
rate the response “yes” for interpretability. For example, in A young girls feeds a tasty carrot
to her pony, the determiner, the verb form and the later singular pronoun all indicate that
girls should be singular here.
Annotators should be lenient with subject-verb disagreement, unless they feel that such
disagreement derails the interpretation of the response. For example, The children is playing
ball is unambiguous, despite the error.

2.2.3.2

Incomplete sentences

Incomplete sentences should be annotated “yes” for interpretability, so long as they fulfill
the requirements explained above.
In general, responses may rely on information understood from the question. This means
that for targeted items, where the question is of the form What is X doing?, X is may be
understood for responses like washing the car or jogging. For certain responses, like the
laundry or the foxtrot, X is doing can be understood instead. In these cases, note that
the response must be an action or event that is commonly described as being done; do the
laundry is common expression, while do the baseball game is not.
Untargeted responses may also rely on information understood from the question, What is
happening? In these cases, is happening may be understood when appropriate. This means
that noun phrases that can happen as events may be judged as interpretable, provided
they otherwise fulfill the requirements of the feature. Therefore, A fight between a cat and

a dog would probably be marked “yes” for interpretability, because it can happen and it
contains adequate information about the event participants. However, A fight, which can
also happen, would be marked “no”, because it cannot be illustrated confidently without
more information.
Also common among the data are noun phrases resulting from a sentence with an omitted
copular verb (be), such as A man delivering a package (as opposed to A man is delivering
a package). An omitted copula generally does not affect comprehension, so such a response
should be annotated “yes” for interpretability, provided it meets the above requirements for
this feature.
Other forms of incomplete sentences appear in the data. Annotators should use their best
judgment for these, but keep in mind that it is difficult for incomplete sentences to satisfy
the criteria, especially for untargeted items, where very little information can be understood
from the question.

2.2.3.3

States and actions

The PDT is designed to elicit responses that describe an action; as a result, most responses
contain an active verb. Some responses, however, describe a state of affairs in the image, such
as “The boy is wearing a green shirt” or “The boy is ready to eat his pizza”. Responses that
describe a state are nonetheless interpretable, so long as they fulfill the remaining criteria.

2.2.3.4

Questions and modals

A small number of responses among the data take the form of a question. Some of these
responses nonetheless present an assertion. For example, Why is the baby crying? indicates
that the baby is crying. This response should be annotated “yes” for interpretability, because
the assertion it contains meets the criteria for interpretability.
Some responses in the form of a question lack an assertion that can be judged for interpretability, e.g., Do you think the boy likes pizza? Such responses are not interpretable.
Responses that use modality may be considered interpretable if the modality does not effect
information crucial to producing a visual representation. For example, in The boy is eating
so much pizza he may get fat, it is stated as fact that a boy is eating pizza, so this could

be visually represented. The modal part of this sentence contains unnecessary detail and
could be ignored. In contrast, in The man may be proposing marriage to the woman the
modality has scope over the whole predicate, so this response should be marked “no” for
interpretability. (The man may be proposing marriage to the woman, but there is no limit
to the number of things he may be doing.)

2.2.3.5

First and second person

All entities in the PDT items should be represented in the third person. Responses that
use the first or second person to indicate a participant in the image should be considered
uninterpretable. For example, A young man will mail a package for you should be marked
“no”.

2.2.3.6

Slang

Some responses contain what may be considered slang. Such responses are interpretable if
they meet the other requirements for interpretability. For example, The boy is getting his
groove on would probably be taken to mean that the boy is dancing intensely and could thus
be considered interpretable. A response that contains unclear or unknown slang should be
considered uninterpretable. Annotators must rely on their own judgment regarding slang.

2.2.3.7

Impossible or unknowable information

All PDT items consist of a single image. They present information in a straightforward
manner and are almost completely devoid of any text, signs or symbols. Thus all responses
should present information that can be learned from such an image. Responses that present
important information (not details) that could not be known from or represented with a
single image should be marked “no” for interpretability. For example, He is sending a box
to a woman could not be easily represented in a single image, as the man sending the box
and the woman receiving the box would be in different locations. Moreover, the man and
woman (and box) are arguably equally important arguments, so choosing whether to omit
the subject or indirect object when illustrating the image would be problematic.
Responses that present an interpretable proposition but embellish it with unknowable details

should be considered interpretable. (Note that concerns about unverifiable information are
captured under the verifiability feature.) For example, As the man hands the package to the
woman, their eyes meet and a passionate romance ensues presents a simple, illustratable
event – a man handing a package to a woman, perhaps while making eye contact. The
remaining details are unnecessary for assessing interpretability. Annotators must use their
own judgment in such cases.

2.3

Core event

The core event feature primarily considers the following question: Exactly as written, does
the response capture the core event of the item?

2.3.1

Contextuality of core event

Annotation for the core event feature is contextual; it must consider the image and question
presented in the item.

2.3.2

Defining core event

Each image depicts a single core event that could be captured by a simple sentence or verb
phrase. Each core event involves an action; responses that merely describe a state or feature
of the image do not capture the core event. Considering Figure 3, for example, the response
He is a dancing machine does not capture the core event; it describes a characteristic of the
boy, but does not describe what is actually taking place in the image.

2.3.2.1

Subjects

The form of a core event is generally similar to that of a predicate in traditional grammar.
The core event describes what the subject (or agent) is doing. Thus, when annotating for
core event, the predicate of the sentence is the most important consideration. However, there
are some rules pertaining to the subject. The sentence must include a subject. In the case
of targeted items, the subject may be omitted if it can be understood from the question.
Annotators should be quite flexible with regard to the subject, with a few restrictions. Even
for targeted items, the subject in the response does not need to be identical to the subject
19

provided in the question. For example, in response to What is the boy doing?, responses
that restate the subject as guy or kid or proper names like Peter should be accepted. Much
flexibility with regard to age should be given as well; infants aside, man/boy should be
treated interchangeably, as should woman/girl. Crucially, the meaning of the subject in the
response should not be in conflict with what is shown in the image. Thus, a response that
restates the male subject as female or assigns an exclusively female name should not be
accepted. More flexibility is allowed for number; a response that depicts a singular subject
as plural or vice versa is still acceptable. The rationale for this decision is that the core event
feature should avoid penalizing responses for concerns covered by other features. Concerns
about number would primarily be covered with the grammaticality and verifiability features.
Moreover, while a subject is necessary to fulfill the core event, the focus of this feature
is the event itself. In short, responses that assign an incorrect number to the subject are
acceptable, but those that change a subject’s gender are not.

2.3.2.2

Verb forms

The core event is best fulfilled with a present progressive verb form, but responses that use
other verb forms may be acceptable. Crucially, the response should allow for an interpretation in which the verb refers to the specific event displayed in the image. For example, in
most contexts, He enjoys dancing to music would be interpreted to mean that in general,
the subject enjoys the activity of dancing to music. However, in this context, it could refer
to the event displayed in the image; the sentence could be intended as a narration of the image. Likewise, responses that describe the event in past or future terms should be accepted.
Responses that use modality or hedging (e.g., He must be dancing; I think he’s dancing),
and those that are formed as questions (e.g., Is he dancing? ) are also acceptable, as long as
the core event is present and clearly tied to the appropriate subject (or agent).

2.3.2.3

Content

Core events are not predefined; annotators should decide what each core event is and whether
or not a response captures it. Moreover, a core event should be conceived of abstractly rather
than as a particular phrase or expression. Two responses that convey the same concept in
different forms should be judged as equally acceptable. For example, The man is shouting
and He is yelling, as seen in Figure 1, convey the same core event using different words.
20

Given the simplicity of the images, the core event should be clear for each. None of the
images depicts any background events that are unrelated to the core event. Any non-core
event that could be described either supports the core event or is a cause or effect of the core
event. In Figure 2, for example, the untargeted question (What is happening? ) could be
answered with The patient is smiling, but this is clearly an effect of the core event, in which
a nurse is giving the patient flowers. Thus, The patient is smiling should be annotated “no”
here.

2.3.3

Alternative interpretations & inaccurate information

Although every effort was made to produce unambiguous PDT images, reasonable alternative
interpretations are seen among the responses for a very small number of items. For example,
Figure 6 shows a woman seated behind a desk and a man holding a package in front of
the desk. Most participants interpret the scene as the man delivering a package to the
woman. However, a small number of participants interpret this scene as a man picking up
a package from the woman – a reasonable alternative. Such reasonable alternatives should
be annotated “yes” for core event. An even smaller number of participants describe the
scene as a student giving a gift to his teacher. However, the “student” here is wearing a
work uniform and holding a brown parcel with a visible shipping label, so this interpretation
should be rejected. Annotators should use their own in judgement in annotating responses
that contain variations in interpretation.
As long as the core event is present and linked to a reasonable subject (or agent), inaccurate
information in a response should be ignored and the response should be accepted. For
Figure 3, for example, A boy is dancing at a birthday party should be annotated “yes”.
Although we see no evidence of a party, the response nonetheless covers the core event, which
is (boy) is dancing or something equivalent. Likewise, the response The guy is dancing on
the moon should be accepted, because the core event and a reasonable subject are present.

2.3.4

Language problems

Grammatical and spelling problems do not automatically result in a “no” for the core event
feature. Responses with errors that do not obscure the core event may still be annotated
as “yes.” In other words, if, despite a language problem, the necessary elements of the core
event are intact and their relationship is reasonably interpretable, the response is annotated
21

“yes.” Such cases are typically very minor errors. For Figure 7, for example, the responses
He’s eating a peice of pizza and The boy’s eatting pizza should be annotated “yes”, because
the core event in these responses remains intact and interpretable, despite the misspellings.
Misspellings or other language problems that lead to ambiguity about the meaning of the core
event should be annotated “no”. Annotators should use their best judgment in determining
when language problems obscure the core event.

2.3.5

Imprecise language

Responses that use imprecise language should be evaluated for how well they convey the core
event. Consider, for example, Figure 3, which depicts a boy dancing, and Figure 7, which
depicts a boy eating pizza. For Figure 7, the response A boy is enjoying pizza should be
annotated “yes” because to enjoy pizza almost certainly means to eat pizza. For Figure 3,
however, A boy is enjoying music should be annotated “no” because the meaning leaves too
many possible interpretations. To enjoy music could mean to dance to music, but it could
also mean to perform music, to listen to a record or to attend a concert.

2.3.6

Slang

Responses that describe the event using slang should be annotated as “yes” for the core
event if the language used can be readily understood as equivalent to a more canonical
description of the core event. For example, Fig 3 depicts a boy dancing. The responses
The boy is getting down and He is grooving could be understood to mean dancing by
most annotators, so they should be annotated as “yes” for core event. The response He’s
going bananas however, cannot be easily understood as equivalent to dancing, so it should
be annotated as “no” for core event. Annotators will need to use their own judgement in
handling slang responses.

2.3.7

Intransitive vs. transitive core events

The PDT was created using a variety of images intended to cover intransitive, transitive
and ditransitive events in equal numbers. These categories are not given for each item; if it
becomes necessary to explicitly determine the category for a core event, annotators should
use their own judgement. In general, an intransitive event is described without an object, a

Targeted (I01T): What is the boy doing?
Untargeted (I01U): What is happening?
Figure 3: Item 1, for which the core event is roughly boy dancing.
transitive event is described with a direct object, and a ditransitive event is described with
a direct object and an indirect object.

2.3.7.1

Intransitive core events

For intransitive events, the response should link the subject and the verb of the core event.

2.3.7.2

Transitive core events

Predicates. For transitive events (including ditransitives), the response should link the subject with the verb and direct object (i.e., the predicate) of the core event. Where appropriate,
indirect objects are desirable but not not required for the fulfillment of this feature.
A direct object may be omitted when it is sufficiently indicated through either the subject or
the verb. For example, consider the image in Figure 4 and the corresponding questions for the
targeted and untargeted items. Here the core event predicate could be described as asking
a question, or some equivalent, e.g., posing a query or even simply questioning (without

an object). While questioning alone is acceptable here, asking alone is not an acceptable
equivalent for asking a question, because it is not comparably precise. Questioning can be
seen as meaningfully equivalent to asking a question, but simply asking leaves the object
ambiguous; one can ask many things besides questions, such as for help or for money.
As another example, in response to a targeted item What is the professor doing?, both She
is lecturing and She is teaching a lesson are acceptable. Similarly, for an untargeted item
What is happening?, The cyclist is riding and The man is riding a bike both satisfy the core
event feature. In the first response, the subject (the cyclist) sufficiently indicates the bicycle.
Omitted subjects. For the targeted version, a response may omit the subject, because
the subject is included in the question and may thus be understood to be the subject of
the response. Such cases most often involve only a verb phrase, e.g., “asking a question”
or “asking the man a question”. For the untargeted version, a response must indicate
the subject of the core event, because it is not included in the question and thus cannot
automatically be understood.

2.3.8

Pronouns

Pronouns as subjects are acceptable in responses to both targeted and untargeted items. A
pronoun that clearly assigns the wrong gender to a subject or object should result in a “no”
for the core event feature. Otherwise, annotators should retain a high degree of flexibility
with regard to pronouns. The item in Figure 4, for example, depicts an ask action involving
two males, one as the subject and the other as an object. The pronoun “he” could thus
lead to ambiguity, but nonetheless the response “He is asking him a question” should be
annotated as “yes”. Additionally, as discussed in Section 2.3.2.1, the incorrect use of plural
or singular forms to describe subjects (and objects) is not penalized under the core event
annotation, and this applies to pronoun forms as well.

2.3.9

Targeted items and passive responses

In targeted items, a subject is provided in the question. This provided subject (or its
replacement) will be the subject of most responses. However, this is not a hard requirement
for annotating a targeted response as “yes” for the core event. The crucial requirement is
that the provided subject (or its replacement) be indicated as the agent of the core event
predicate, even if it is not expressed as the syntactic subject in the response. For example,
24

the targeted item in Figure 4 asks What is the boy doing? A passivized response may move
this subject to a “by” phrase, as in The man is being asked a question by a boy. Because the
provided subject (the) boy can be understood as the agent of the core event, this response
should be annotated as “yes” here. Omitting this “by” phrase (i.e., The man is being asked
a question) would result in a “no” annotation, however, because the provided subject is lost.
A response that reframes the event like The man is listening to a boy’s question, is annotated
“no”, because boy is not expressed as the agent of the core event.

2.3.10

Untargeted item leniency

In general, with regard to the core event feature, a greater variety of responses may be
annotated as “yes” under the untargeted version of an item than under the targeted version,
because the untargeted question is less specific than the targeted question. This may include
passivizations, such as A man is being asked a question (for Figure 4). Likewise, responses
that simply cast the core event from a different angle may be appropriate and may be
annotated as “yes” for an untargeted item. For example, The man is listening to the boy’s
question would be annotated as “yes” for the untargeted version of this item. Responses
that do not somehow convey the notion of the core event, however, should still be rejected.
For example, The man is crossing his arms and The boy is gesturing with his hands do not
cover the core event and should be rejected.

Targeted (I11T): What is the boy doing?
Untargeted (I11U): What is happening?
Figure 4: Item 11, for which the core event is roughly boy asking question.

2.4

Verifiability

The verifiability feature primarily considers the following question: Exactly as written, is all
information in the response verifiable (or reasonably inferred) based on the image?
This feature is mainly concerned with identifying inaccurate information and unverifiable
inferences.

2.4.1

Contextuality of verifiability

Annotation for the verifiability feature is contextual; it must consider the image presented
in the item.

2.4.2

Reasonable inferences

Responses that contain reasonable inferences should be considered verifiable. For this feature,
an inference that can be assumed to be true for an overwhelming majority of situations like
the one depicted in the image should be taken as “reasonable”. Inferences that posit a

degree of information that cannot safely be assumed (i.e., a guess) should not be considered
reasonable and should be annotated “no” for verifiability. For example, the image in Figure 5
depicts a boy carrying a bag of groceries alone. The first example infers that the destination
for the boy and his groceries is “home”. This is taken as a reasonable inference because
a person carrying a bag of groceries is almost certainly taking the groceries home. The
second example describes the boy’s action as “helping carry” the groceries. This is also
taken as a reasonable inference, because the small boy is very unlikely to be doing his own
grocery shopping. The third example states that the boy is “helping his mother” carry the
groceries. Annotators should give this a “no” for verifiability because the inference posits an
unnecessary and unknowable level of detail; “mother” is a fair guess here, but it is indeed a
guess. Annotators must use their own best judgment in distinguishing between guesses and
reasonable inferences.

2.4.3

Subject and object variation

Because verifiability focuses on the truthfulness of information presented in responses, there
are few restrictions regarding subjects for this feature. Even for targeted items, responses
that omit or change the supplied subject may nonetheless be considered verifiable. Even
responses that ignore the question entirely but present information that is verifiably true
based on the image should be accepted. For this feature, participants are free to refer to
subjects (and other entities) in the images as they wish, so long as they do so accurately and
clearly. Responses to a targeted item that asks about the girl, for example, may refer instead
to the lady, the young woman, the short girl, etc.; if the annotator believes such references
are accurate, the responses should be annotated “yes” for verifiability.
Many responses incorrectly describe a singular subject as plural or vice versa. In cases where
the subject’s number is clearly incorrect or too ambiguous to discern, the response should
be annotated “no” for verifiability. Some responses may indicate an incorrect number but
still contain enough evidence that the correct number is intended, as in “The two little kid
are playing.” Given the “two” and “are”, this response should annotated “yes”, despite the
fact that “kid” should be “kids”. Annotators should use their best judgment in such cases.
With regard to objects, annotators should use their best judgment to determine if similar
changes in number are acceptable. For example, a hunter shown shooting a single bird
might nonetheless reasonably be described as “hunting birds” or “fowl”, but a salesman
shown handing car keys to a lone female customer would not be reasonably described as
27

“selling a car to women” or “selling cars to women”.

Response

Acceptable inference?

1. He’s taking the groceries home.

yes

2. He’s helping carry groceries.

yes

3. He’s helping his mother carry groceries.

Figure 5: Example inference judgments for item 6, targeted: What is the boy doing?

2.4.4

Language problems

Responses that are unintelligible should be annotated “no” for verifiability; if the information
in the response cannot be clearly understood, then it cannot be verified. However, grammar
and spelling problems do not automatically result in a “no” for verifiability. Responses that
contain errors but remain reasonably clear and interpretable should be judged for verifiability
like any other response.

2.4.5

Incomplete responses

Responses that do not present a complete proposition should be annotated “no” for verifiability. For example, untargeted responses that contain only a verb or verb phrase should be
28

annotated “no” for verifiability because they cannot be verified if the subject of the verb is
unknown.

2.4.6

Alternative interpretations

Although every effort was made to produce unambiguous PDT images, reasonable alternative
interpretations are seen among the responses for some items. For example, Figure 6 shows
a woman seated behind a desk and a uniformed man standing across from her holding
a package. Most participants interpret the scene as the man delivering a package to the
woman. However, a small number of participants interpret this scene as a man picking up a
package from the woman – a reasonable alternative. Such reasonable alternatives should be
annotated “yes” for verifiability. Annotators should use their own in judgement in annotating
responses that contain variations in interpretation.

Targeted (I03T): What is the man doing?
Untargeted (I03U): What is happening?
Figure 6: Item 3, in the targeted and untargeted versions.

2.4.7

Responses in the form of a question

A small number of responses among the data take the form of a question. In general,
such responses are not considered verifiable. For the verifiability feature, the content of the
question is not taken as an assertion of facts and cannot be compared against the facts of
the image.
29

2.4.8

Modality

Modality in a response can impact the verifiability. For annotation purposes, a sentence
is modal if it conveys the speaker’s belief about the possibility of that sentence, using a
modal verb (may, should, etc.), or a modal adverb (maybe, perhaps, etc.). (This is known
as epistemic modality, because it involves the speaker’s belief about the facts of the world.)
In a response where modality allows for doubt about the facts, the modal portions should
be ignored, and the remainder of the response should be annotated for verifiability. For
example, The man is smiling as he hands the woman a package, maybe he likes her would
still be annotated “yes” for verifiability, because removing the modal portion (maybe he likes
her ) leaves a verifiable statement based on the image (The man is smiling as he hands the
woman a package).
If, after removing the modal portions, a response is not verifiable, it should be annotated
as “no” for this feature. For example, in Perhaps the boy is asking a question, the modal
adverb has scope over the entire sentence, so removing the modal portion would leave no
verifiable information.

2.4.9

Unverifiable inferences

Responses containing unverifiable inferences are common among the data. Unverifiable inferences that embellish a response with unnecessary detail should result in a “no” annotation
for the response. For example, consider the item in Figure 7, which shows a boy eating a
slice of pizza. Some responses to this item refer to the pizza as “sausage”, “pepperoni” or
“cheese” pizza, and the image is ambiguous enough that one might argue for any of these
descriptions. However, as these inferences cannot be confidently verified and they merely
contribute detail, they should be annotated “no” for verifiability.
Similarly, some creative responses assign names or other unknowable descriptors to persons
in the PDT images. Such responses should be annotated “no” for verifiability.
Some unverifiable inferences are arguably unavoidable based on the PDT item. For example,
Figure 4 depicts a male child speaking to a male adult. Few participants could be expected to
describe these figures as “a male child” and “a male adult” or something similarly unnatural.
Instead, the image lends itself to reasonable inferences that describe the figures based on
a relationship: a father and son, a big brother and little brother, or a student and teacher
30

would all be reasonable and practically unavoidable inferences.
Responses may contain other “creative” inferences, like “He is asking the man where babies
come from” (Figure 4). This information is not verifiable, so the response is annotated “no”
for this feature.

2.4.9.1

Participant opinions

For annotation purposes, unverifiable information also includes statements that seem to
derive only from the opinion of the participant, and not from the content of the image.
To illustrate, consider Figure 7, which depicts a boy eating a slice of pizza. In the first
example response, He’s eating a slice of delicious pizza, the word “delicious” is an expression
of opinion, but based on the pleased expression on the boy’s face, we can consider this
reasonable and not solely dependent on the participant’s opinion.
In the second example response, He’s eating pizza, yuck, the word “yuck” can only be
explained as the respondent’s judgement about pizza, because there is nothing in the image
to indicate that the pizza is “yucky” or undesirable.

2.4.10

Irrelevant information

A less common problem to be considered under this feature is the presentation of irrelevant
information. A response should be annotated “no” for verifiability if it contains mostly
irrelevant information, given the item. In Figure 7, the third response, He will get fat eating
pizza, should be annotated “no” because the event described is not relevant based on the
PDT image and question.

1: He’s eating a delicious slice of pizza.
2: He’s eating pizza, yuck.
3: He will get fat eating pizza.
Figure 7: Item 2 (targeted: What is the boy doing? ) and example responses.

2.5

Answerhood

The answerhood feature primarily considers the following question: Exactly as written, does
the response make an attempt to answer the specific question asked?

2.5.1

Contextuality of answerhood

Annotation for the answerhood feature is contextual; it must consider the question presented
in the item. The image is mostly irrelevant and is only used for targeted items to confirm
that when a response replaces the subject with a pronoun, an appropriate pronoun is used.

2.5.2

Defining answerhood

As noted above, responses should address the specific question in the prompt. In other
words, the response must answer the exact question given; merely answering a similar or
related question is not adequate. Responses should make a positive assertion; responses that
merely point out a negative fact are not acceptable (e.g., The boy is not wearing a helmet.)
In general, because all of the PDT questions use a present progressive verb, responses should
32

either use a present progressive verb or indicate an imminent action; see Section ??. Figure 8
presents a number of example responses and answerhood annotations.

2.5.3

Accuracy

Answerhood should be annotated without regard to the accuracy of the response. Consider
Figure 7 for example. The targeted version asks What is the boy doing? ; the response He’s
eating a sandwich should be annotated “yes” because it does attempt to answer the question,
even though the boy is clearly eating pizza. Moreover, The boy is riding a bicycle would also
be annotated “yes”, despite the fact that no bicycle appears. The accuracy of the response
is accounted for with the core event and verifiability features.

2.5.4

Targeted vs. untargeted items

The answerhood feature, like core event, is dependent on the differences in the targeted
and untargeted versions of the items. In other words, a sentence that may receive a “no”
annotation as a targeted response could receive a “yes” annotation as an untargeted response.
(The opposite should not be possible, as the targeted version of an item always asks a more
specific question than its untargeted counterpart.) For example, consider Figure 6 and the
targeted and untargeted questions: What is the man doing? and What is happening? The
response The man is delivering a package would be annotated “yes” for answerhood for
either version, while The woman is receiving a package would be annotated “yes” only for
the untargeted version.

2.5.5

Verb forms

The PDT items ask what is happening or what a particular figure in the image is doing, and
these present progressive verb forms limit the range of acceptable responses. For the purposes
of answerhood, acceptable responses should either employ a progressive verb form, indicate
imminent action, or present an appropriate event. These forms and related considerations
are explained below.

2.5.5.1

Progressive verbs

The majority of responses use a dynamic verb in the progressive form. Dynamic verbs
are appropriate for responses because they describe an event or action that happens and
typically has a beginning and end. Dynamic verbs often take the (present) progressive form
((is) eating, (is) dancing). This is in contrast with stative verbs, which are inappropriate
for this task as they describe a state or condition. Stative verbs cannot be used in the
progressive form (with rare and arguably non-stative exceptions). Roughly speaking, stative
verbs can be categorized as verbs of cognition (Susan knows karate; Sabrina believes in the
team) and verbs of relation (Josh resembles his father ). Responses that rely on a stative verb
should be annotated “no” for answerhood. These responses (and any others) that simply
describe a state of affairs in the image should be annotated “no”, because they do not directly
answer the question. For example, “The boy loves pizza,” a response to Item 2 (Figure 7) is
annotated “no” for answerhood, because it does not directly answer the question. Likewise,
“The nurse seems happy,” shown in Figure 8, should receive a “no” annotation (for both
the targeted and untargeted versions) because it describes a state depicted in the image but
does not directly answer the question of what the nurse is doing.
Although most responses use a present progressive verb (e.g., “He is eating pizza”), responses
using the simple present form of a verb (“He eats pizza”) are also common among the data.
This form is commonly used to describe general truths or habitual actions, like The horse
eats grass or The river flows east. Responses that use the simple present should be annotated
“no” for answerhood. In most situations, in English the simple present would not be used
to describe the actions in the PDT items, and particularly not in response to the present
progressive questions in the PDT.
With the exception of event responses (see Section 2.5.6) and imminent action responses
(see Section 2.5.7), responses that lack a progressive verb should be annotated “no”, even if
this is the only problem with the response. For example, The boy is hold a pizza and The
boy seems to eat pizza would both be annotated “no”. The mere appearance of a progressive
form verb in a response does not automatically satisfy the answerhood feature, however. The
necessary progressive verb must appear in a linguistic context that indicates that the verb
directly responds to the question. For What is the dog doing?, for example, the response
The dog likes to chase the running cat contains a progressive verb form, but not in a context
that satisfies the answerhood feature.

Responses that omit a “be” verb but include a progressive verb form in an otherwise appropriate context (e.g., The boy holding a pizza) should generally be annotated “yes” for
answerhood. (The grammatical concerns are covered with the grammaticality feature.)
For handling misspelled verbs, see Section 2.5.7.2

2.5.6

Events and activities

In some cases, a noun phrase may be an adequate and natural response to the PDT questions.
For targeted items (What is the X doing? ), a response in the form of a noun or noun phrase
that can be done should be accepted. For example, gymnastics, origami and the laundry
are acceptable in response to What is the woman doing?. Likewise, for untargeted items,
a response in the form of a noun or noun phrase that can happen should be accepted. For
example, an interview, a volleyball game and a math class are acceptable responses to What
is happening?.
For targeted and untargeted items, such event and activity responses should be properly
formed as a grammatical response to the question, with any necessary determiners or articles.
Grammar is not strictly considered for answerhood, but because these responses tend to be
very short, proper form is used to differentiate between low-effort responses and those that
appear to offer a thoughtful answer to the question. Such low-effort responses may simply
describe some element of the image without considering the question. For example, a baseball
game should be accepted in response to the question What is happening?, but baseball and
baseball game should not.

2.5.7

Imminent actions

Some responses describe the item in terms of an imminent action rather than a progressive
action, e.g., The boy is about to eat the pizza. Such imminent action responses are common
among the responses from both native and non-native speakers. Some items elicit more of
this type of response than others; Figure 7, for example, shows a boy holding a slice of pizza
near his mouth. Perhaps because the eating action has not yet begun here, many responses
indicate this as an imminent action rather than a progressive action. In general, responses
that describe the subject’s state in relation to an imminent action should be accepted,
provided they otherwise fulfill the requirements for answerhood. However, responses that

use a future aspect to describe the actions (e.g., The boy will eat the pizza) do not meet the
requirements for answerhood.
Some responses do use a progressive form to indicate an imminent action, such as The boy is
fixin’ to eat the pizza and The doctor is preparing to treat the patient. Such responses should
be annotated “yes”, and annotators should be flexible in accepting variations and informal
forms; for example, preparing, fixin’, fixin, and gonna are all acceptable here.
In general, responses that describe the subject’s state in relation to an imminent action
are acceptable, with or without a progressive form. This includes responses that use these
phrases (or others like them) followed by an action: is ready to, is getting ready to, is
preparing to, is fixing to, is about to, is gonna, etc. In the case of ready to and about to,
because these expressions lack an actual verb, they must be preceded by a copular verb
(is, seems, etc.), which cannot be dropped. Likewise, the subject cannot be dropped. For
example, preparing to eat the pizza is acceptable in response to the question, What is the
boy doing?, but about to eat the pizza is not acceptable.

2.5.7.1

Targeted subject variations and pronouns

All targeted questions take the form of What is the X doing?. Responses should use the
same subject provided in the question, or an appropriate pronoun. This subject should be
in the subject position of the response; if the response contains only a predicate, the subject
of the question should be understood as the subject of the response. Responses should not
alter the subject in any way, or move it from the subject position (as in passivization). This
is in keeping with the requirement to answer the question exactly as it is asked. Several
relevant examples are presented in Figure 8.
To put this concisely, responses to targeted items must either repeat the subject exactly
as presented in the question, or use an appropriate pronoun, or drop the subject so that it
is understood from the question. To clarify, the subject should not be altered in terms of
definiteness, number, specificity, role or any other characteristic. Such responses add context
to the question, and in order to evaluate answerhood, this new information would need to
verified to ensure that the subject presented in the response is indeed the subject provided in
the question. Verifying information for the sake of answerhood adds noise and complication,
so verifiability is left to its own feature. For answerhood purposes, a nurse is not the same
as the nurse. Likewise, neither nurse, the young nurse, the blond nurse, the nurse who is
36

standing, or this nurse is the same as the nurse. Additionally, a targeted subject should not
be expanded to include other persons or entities; in response to What is the man doing?,
The man is greeting the woman is acceptable, while The man and woman are saying hello
is not.
Regarding pronouns, all humans presented in the PDT images are clearly male or female,
and any targeted response that replaces the subject with a pronoun should use a pronoun
that matches the subject’s gender. Exceptions may be made for babies and animals portrayed in the PDT; the gender is not evident, and any third person singular pronoun is
acceptable. For many items, the gender of the subject is clear from the question (What is
the man/woman/boy/girl doing? ). Some items present a human subject in non-gendered
terms, however, such as the nurse, the teacher and the doctor. In these cases, annotators
should check the image to ensure that appropriate gender pronouns are used. Pronouns
should also match the subject in number, and all subjects in the PDT are singular. When
a response presents a subject with a non-matching pronoun, annotators should mark this
as “no” for answerhood, because it is not possible to know if the response was indeed an
attempt to answer the question asked.

2.5.7.2

Misspellings

The answerhood feature addresses whether or not a response makes an attempt to answer
the PDT question, so misspellings do not automatically result in a “no” annotation.
Annotators should be strict in handling misspelled subjects for targeted items. The subject is
provided on screen for the participant, so misspellings should be avoidable. Only misspellings
that are very clearly typos should be accepted here, such as t.he girl. Misspellings that change
the subject or leave it ambiguous in any way should be rejected. Pronouns must be properly
spelled, but pronoun contractions that simply omit or misuse an apostrophe (e.g., Its for It
is) should be accepted.
Verbs, even when misspelled, should appear to have the appropriate form (i.e., progressive).
Annotators should be lenient with regard to misspelled verbs when a response appears to
attempt to answer the question, even if the intended verb is not obvious. For example, The
boy is steeaching his arms in bed should be accepted, despite the badly misspelled attempt
at stretching.
When other elements of a response are misspelled, annotators should be lenient. The key
37

consideration should be whether or not the response attempts to answer the question.

Response

An.

Appropriate question

1 Giving a patient flowers.

yes

(prompt)

2 She’s giving flowers to a patient.

yes

(prompt)

3 The nurse is giving away flowers.

yes

(prompt)

4 A nurse is giving away flowers.

What is happening?

5 A young nurse is giving away flowers.

What is happening?

6 The woman is giving the patient flowers.

What is the woman doing?

7 The nurse is happy.

How is the nurse?

8 The nurse is smiling.

yes

(prompt)

9 The nurse gives flowers away.

What does the nurse do?

10 The nurse gave the patient roses.

What did the nurse do?

11 The young nurse is giving out flowers.

What is the young nurse doing?

12 The smiling nurse is giving away roses.

What is the smiling nurse doing?

13 This nurse is giving away flowers.

What is this nurse doing?

14 That nurse is giving her patient flowers.

What is that nurse doing?

15 Nurse is giving away flowers.

What is Nurse doing?

16 The patient is receiving roses from the nurse.

What is the patient doing?

Figure 8: Example responses to targeted Item 2 (What is the nurse doing? ) and their
answerhood annotations (“An.”). A particular response could be appropriate for multiple
questions, but a likely example is given for each.
39

2.6

Appendix: Annotated examples

I01T: What is the boy doing?

I02T: What is the boy doing?

I03T: What is the man doing?

I11T: What is the boy doing?

Figure 9: Example items used in Table ?? and Table ??. The question for all untargeted
items is What is happening?

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.5
Linearized                      : No
Page Count                      : 40
Page Mode                       : UseOutlines
Author                          : 
Title                           : 
Subject                         : 
Creator                         : LaTeX with hyperref package
Producer                        : pdfTeX-1.40.16
Create Date                     : 2018:02:12 13:55:27-05:00
Modify Date                     : 2018:02:12 13:55:27-05:00
Trapped                         : False
PTEX Fullbanner                 : This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.16 (TeX Live 2015) kpathsea version 6.2.1

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools

Annotation Guide

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation