Replication Data for: The history of Slavonic clausal complementation: a corpus view
<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|> You are a research archivist expert in dataset metadata. Answer the question truthfully.  <|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|> Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'This dataset provides replication data for an article on complementation structures in early Slavonic. Syntactic annotation of historical text, with no access to native-speaker intuitions, poses a number of problems to the annotator who is faced with the task of giving a single analysis of each sentence. The article reports on the experiences from annotating complementation structures in Old Church Slavonic and Old East Slavonic in the PROIEL and TOROT treebanks.Two case studies are examined: complement clauses in Old Church Slavonic and the history of Russian čьto ‘what, which, that’. In the first case the annotation scheme is shown to work well in terms of interannotator agreement and retrievability. However, the price is that a large number of examples with jako ‘that’ are analysed as complement clauses with a subj' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|> {"Answer" : ["complementation","Middle Russian","Old Church Slavonic","Old East Slavonic","syntax"]} <|eot_id|>
 Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'This dataset provides replication data for an article on complementation structures in early Slavonic. Syntactic annotation of historical text, with no access to native-speaker intuitions, poses a number of problems to the annotator who is faced with the task of giving a single analysis of each sentence. The article reports on the experiences from annotating complementation structures in Old Church Slavonic and Old East Slavonic in the PROIEL and TOROT treebanks.Two case studies are examined: complement clauses in Old Church Slavonic and the history of Russian čьto ‘what, which, that’. In the first case the annotation scheme is shown to work well in terms of interannotator agreement and retrievability. However, the price is that a large number of examples with jako ‘that’ are analysed as complement clauses with a subj' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.
This dataset provides replication data for an article on complementation structures in early Slavonic. Syntactic annotation of historical text, with no access to native-speaker intuitions, poses a number of problems to the annotator who is faced with the task of giving a single analysis of each sentence. The article reports on the experiences from annotating complementation structures in Old Church Slavonic and Old East Slavonic in the PROIEL and TOROT treebanks.Two case studies are examined: complement clauses in Old Church Slavonic and the history of Russian čьto ‘what, which, that’. In the first case the annotation scheme is shown to work well in terms of interannotator agreement and retrievability. However, the price is that a large number of examples with jako ‘that’ are analysed as complement clauses with a subj
complementation; Middle Russian; Old Church Slavonic; Old East Slavonic; syntax