Annotation of Pronouns in a Multilingual Corpus
of Mandarin Chinese, English and JapaneseYu Jie Seah and Francis Bond
Linguistics and Multilingual Studies
Nanyang Technological University
yjseah1@e.ntu.edu.sg,bond@ieee.org
Abstract
A qualitative and quantitative approach was used in this study to examine the distribution of pronouns in three languages, English,
Mandarin Chinese and Japanese based on the parallel NTU Multilingual Corpus (NTU-MC). The pronouns are annotated with a componential analysis that allows them to be easily linked across languages. A single text (The Adventure of the Speckled Band, a short story
featuring Sherlock Holmes) in three languages is tagged, annotated and linked in the corpus. The results show that although English has
the highest number of pronouns, Mandarin Chinese has the highest proportion of contentful pronouns in our corpus. Also, English has
more translated counterparts in Mandarin Chinese as compared to Japanese. We attributed this to the difference in usage of pronouns
in the languages. Deprominalisation, surprisingly, was even for both corpora. Findings from this study can shed some light concerningtranslation issues on pronoun usage for learners of the languages and also contribute to improving machine translation of pronouns.
Keywords: pronoun, Chinese, English, Japanese

1. Introduction
Pronouns exist in all the world languages, although there
is considerable variation in how they are used. In this paper, we offer a componential analysis of pronouns that is
extended into three language (English, Mandarin Chineseand Japanese) from three totally different language families(Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan and Japonic), The way they
are employed in different languages is interesting to many
linguists. Furthermore, in such a globalized world like today, languages are always translated into other languages.
Other than translation of content words, how pronouns aretranslated from language to language can allow one to learn
a lot about the language and its translation. English, being
the world’s most globalized language, has been translated
into many different languages. Comparing its translation
to Mandarin Chinese and to Japanese can shed light on theusage of pronouns in each language.
There have been few corpus based studies on differences inpronoun use among languages. According to Kim (2009),
there exist qualitative and quantitative differences in the usage of the second person and first person plural pronouns
in texts he examined from English and Korean newspapers.
In general, English uses pronouns more often, with the notable exception of the first person plural, which was morecommon in Korean. Our research is part of a wider studyof conceptual differences between the languages (Bond etal., 2013). For this reason, we did no restrict ourselves topersonal pronouns, but also considered indefinite pronouns,
demonstratives and interrogative pronouns.

2. Approach
We proceeded in four steps:
1. Identify pronouns used in the corpus
2. Analyze them in terms of components

2.1. Identify the pronouns
We started off by examining words tagged as pronouns in
the NTU Multilingual Corpus (NTU-MC) (Tan and Bond,2012). The NTU-MC exploits the linguistic diversity available in Singapore for the collection of a vast variety oftexts from different languages. The current version is anannotated collection of around 6,000 sentences ( 595,000
words) in 7 languages (Arabic, English, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indonesian and Vietnamese) from
7 language families (Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European, SinoTibetan, Japonic, Korean (language isolate), Austronesianand Austro-Asiatic). Two kinds of annotation are appliedin the NTU-MC –monolingual annotation where texts aretagged for parts of speech (POS) and sense; and crosslingual annotation where texts are aligned across sentences(Bond et al., 2013; Wang and Bond, 2014).
Pronouns from the three languages (English, Mandarin
Chinese and Japanese) were extracted from four data setsin the NTU-MC. They are two short stories from Sherlock Holmes –The Adventure of the Speckled Band and The
Adventure of the Dancing Men (Conan Doyle, 1892; Conan Doyle, 1905), an essay named The Cathedral and the
Bazaar (Raymond, 1999) and on-line articles about Singapore tourism (Singapore Tourist Board, 2012). In eachset, English is the source language while Mandarin Chinese and Japanese translation texts are aligned to it at thesentence level. The texts have been tokenized and automatically POS tagged.
We took as pronouns anything marked as a pronoun by thepart of speech tagger.1 . This includes personal pronouns,
indefinite pronouns and interrogative pronouns. Eachlanguage had slightly different part-of-speech tags, withslightly different coverage. We ended up with 60 different
English pronouns, 54 Chinese and 69 Japanese. The greaternumber of Japanese types reflects the greater orthographic
variation: the same pronoun can be written in Chinese characters (彼 he “kare”) or using hiragana (かれ he “kare”).

3. Tag the pronouns monolingualy in each language
1

4. Analyze the distribution cross lingually

PN, WB, WRB, PRP, PRP$, WP, WP$, 名 詞-代
名詞-一般

Head

(1) I talked to both(2) I talked to both authors

EntityPerson Thing

Time Place

Personal
1stEntityQuantifier

Demonstrative . . .

2nd 3rd1i 1e

Figure 1: Head Types

2.2. Classify the Pronouns
The next stage was to analyze them componentially. The
pronouns were separated into nine categories: Head, Number, Gender, Case, Type, Formality, Politeness, and Distance from Speaker. The features chosen are in line withother research and reference grammars (Backhouse, 1993;
Li and Thompson, 1989; Huddleston, 1988). The purposeof this componential analysis is to code the pronouns sothat we can compare and contrast them across languages.
This also allows the auto-tagging programme to recognize
and link the pronouns by their code. This stage took around
two weeks due to the detailed componential analysis of every pronoun in the four subcorpora and analyzing ambiguous forms particularly in Japanese. The different features
under each heading are shown in Table 1.
2.2.1. HeadIn the first column - Head, there are altogether ten components. These are Demonstratives, Entity, Time, Manner, Person, Place, Reason, Thing, Personal and Quantifier.
This feature restricts the kind of the referent, or says thatthe pronoun is a quantifier and thus has no restriction. We
show them in Figure 1.
Every pronoun extracted will be tagged with one of thesefeatures. For example, Demonstratives refer to pronouns
such as this and that while Entity are pronouns that do nothave a specific category of referent, as it can refer to both
person and object. Such pronouns are all, 俩 lia3 “both”
and いくつ ikutsu “some”. when, how, why and where areexamples of pronouns labeled under Time, Manner, Reason
and Location respectively. For English pronouns, words
that end with -thing are grouped under Thing, while for
Mandarin Chinese and Japanese pronouns, they are not soclear-cut. Lastly personal pronouns and pronouns that talkabout people like everybody and 自己zi4ji3 “self” are categorized under Person.
Personal pronouns are further divided into 1st, 2nd and 3rd
person. 1st person is then divided into exclusive and inclusive (anticipating tagging Indonesian, which makes this
distinction).
Although strictly speaking not pronouns, determiners andadjectives that are closely related to pronouns (such as bothand many)were also analyzed and labeled as Quantifiers.
For example, we annotate both in both (1) and (2) of thefollowing two sentences. They share many of the other features, so it makes sense to analyze them together. We did
not attempt to cover all determiners, only those that sharedsome characteristics with the pronouns.

2.2.2. Number
For this feature, we identified three kinds of number –Dual,
Plural and Singular. both is an example of Dual, those for
Plural and 这 zhe4 “this” for Singular. Many pronouns are
not specified for number.
2.2.3. Gender
For the third column - Gender, three features were identified as well –Masculine, Feminine and Neuter. it in English
is a neuter pronoun while 她 ta1 “she” in Chinese is Feminine. Most pronouns are not marked for gender.
2.2.4. Case
Only English marks case. We distinguish Subjective (nominative), Objective (accusative) and Possessive pronouns:
e.g. I, me, my. Extending to other languages may require
further distinctions.
2.2.5. TypeType differentiates the pronouns by Assertive Existential(somebody), Elective Existential (anybody), Negative (nobody), Reflexive (myself ), Reciprocal (each other), Universal (everybody), Interrogative (who) or Other (anythingelse). In a decomposed semantics, we would treat all but
Reflexive and Reciprocal as quantifiers: anybody thus becomes the equivalent of the quantifier any and the noun person.
2.2.6. Formality
The sixth column shows Formality, whether the pronouns
are informal or formal. This is mainly for the Japanese pronouns, which mark for formality: 僕boku “I” is informal
whereas 私watashi “I” is formal.
2.2.7. PolitenessJapanese and Chinese also encode how respected the referent is, which we call Politeness. 您 nin3 “you” in Chinese
is used to refer to high status people.
Note that Formality and Politeness are somewhat different from the T-V distinctions made in European languages
which typically only mark second person, and show the relation between speaker and hearer (historically a power difference, now more often a difference in familiarity between
the speakers). Japanese pronouns encode a more absolutelevel of respect for their referent.
2.2.8. Proximity
The final feature is meant for pronouns that mark for Proximal, Medial or Distal distance from the speaker. These pronouns are used for demonstratives (this “distal entity”) andby extension location pronouns such as あそこ soko “there:
distal place” and time pronouns (then “distal time”). Chinese and English only have a two way distinction (proximaland distal: this and that). Japanese has a three way system:
これ this “kore”, それ sore “that” and あれ are “that overthere”.

Head
Demonstratives
EntityTime
Manner
PersonPlace
ReasonThing
Personal (1e, 1i, 2, 3)
Quantifier

NumberDual
PluralSingularGenderFeminine
Masculine
NeuterCase
Objective
Possessive
Subjective

Type
Assertive
Elective
Negative
Other
Reciprocal
Universal
Interrogative
Reflexive

Formality
FormalInformal

Politeness
PoliteProximity
DistalMedialProximal

Chinese
1,177
19
1,196
620
12,433

Japanese
463
51
514
702
13,902

Table 1: The 8 types of pronoun features
2.2.9. Summary
The features are used to define a concept, which we treat
as a wordnet synset (Fellbaum, 1998). A single synset
may have multiple lemmas associated with it: for example, the synset with features (Person, Assertive) has two English lemmas someone and somebody. We also linked thetypes to appropriate wordnet senses (for example Person is
personn:1 , Place is locationn:1). The other components were kept as a separate table, linked using the wordnet synset IDs. We ended up with 107 different synsets forthe 60 English, 54 Chinese and 69 Japanese pronouns.

2.3. Monolingual Tagging
After analyzing the pronouns by their different components
we added them to our local wordnets’ sense inventories(14 were already there, mainly interrogatives and indefinite pronouns). For English we use the Princeton Wordnet (Fellbaum, 1998), for Chinese the Chinese Open Wordnet (Wang and Bond, 2013) and for Japanese the JapaneseWordnet (Isahara et al., 2008). Treating the pronouns as
synsets enabled us to use our existing wordnet tagging
tools.
We carried out tagging on a single subcorpus: The Adventure of the Speckled Band and its Chinese and Japanesetranslations. We chose it as it had more (reported) speechthan the other genres, and was thus had a greater variety
of pronouns. We show the numbers of pronouns found ineach language in Table 2. This includes all types, including
quantifiers.
The main issue in the monolingual tagging was distinguishing what we shall call contentful pronouns (such as thosedescribed above) from purely structural pronouns such as
dummy it, existential there, relative pronouns (the dog whobarked) and pronouns in idiomatic expressions (Oh My
God!). We expect contentful pronouns would introduce aquantifier into a formal semantic representation, while thestructural ones would not.
In addition, there were some tokenization errors, mainly in
the Chinese and Japanese corpora. These we fixed as we
carried out the annotation.

2.4. Cross-lingual tagging
In the initial annotation, each pronoun was linked to the
pronoun in the corresponding translation with the best feature match. If there was a tie, the leftmost pronoun pair was
linked first, then the next and so on. The annotator thenwent through the bilingual corpus and checked each pair.

Language
Contentful
Other
Total
Sentences
Words

English
1,370
75
1,445
599
11,628

Table 2: Number of pronouns found in the corpora
At this stage they checked both whether they are tagged
as pronouns correctly by the auto-tagging programme andwhether the concept links between the source language andtarget language are accurate. This was done several times
to ensure accuracy. This stage took around four weeks tocomplete both English-Chinese and English-Japanese corpora, with a longer time needed for the English-Chinese
one due to the greater number of pronouns present there.
On average, three to four sentences can be done every hour.
An example of matching pronouns is given in (3) where
the English is followed by Chinese. The first two English
pronouns match the Chinese, the third has no equivalent.
(3)

our worda. You see that we have been as good as ✿✿✿b. 你 瞧， 我们
是 说到做到ni3 qiao2, wo3men shi4 shuo1dao4zuo4dao4
的
de4‘You see, we do what (we) say’

3. Results
Having linked and tagged the relationships between words,
we proceeded to count the number of pronouns in each language and their links. The number of contentful and noncontentful (structural or segmentation errors) are shown in
Table 2. Differences in word and sentence tokenization givedifferent numbers of words and sentences for the three languages, even though the content is basically the same. Even
allowing for these light differences, English has more pronouns than Chinese which has far more than Japanese. The
non-contentful pronouns are mainly structural for English,
while they are mainly tokenization errors for Chinese andJapanese.
The results for the linkage of the pronouns are separated
into two parts for better understanding — the first part being
the results for the English-Chinese corpus (Table 3) and the# Pronouns

Linked Pronouns# Matching Features
Pronoun56
7
8
9 to Noun
5 19 54 789 58
134

Non-linked Pronouns
EnglishChinese369

215

Table 3: English-Chinese pronoun translation# Pronouns

Linked Pronouns# Matching Features
Pronoun56
7
8
9 to Noun
15 120 114 37 32
139

Non-linked Pronouns
EnglishJapanese943

109

Table 4: English-Japanese pronoun translation
second part for the results found from the English-Japanese
corpus (Table 4).
There are in total 925 English to Chinese pronouns linked
to each other, with 0.5% of them having only 5 pronoun features match, 2.1% having 6 pronoun features match, 5.8%
having 7 pronoun features match, 85.3% having 8 features
match and 6.3% having 9 pronoun features match where 9is the maximum match. Most pronouns match everything
except Case. Those that matched exactly were mainly indefinite pronouns, which don’t show case.
There are also 134 pronouns that are linked to nonpronouns. 76 of them are English pronouns while 58 ofthem are Chinese pronouns. These typically linked to common nouns.
Out of the 1,370 contentful English pronouns, 26.9% ofthem are not linked. For the Chinese contentful pronouns,
only 18.2% were not linked to anything.
For English and Japanese, far fewer pronouns were linked.
There are in total 318 linked English to Japanese pronouns.
Out of these, 4.7% have 5 matched features, 37.7% have 6
matched features, 35.8% have 7 matched features, 11.6%
have 8 matched features and 10% have 9 matched features. The majority of the linked English-Japanese pronouns, unlike the English-Chinese corpus, have around 6
to 7 matched features. This is because they typically mismatch on both Case in English and Politeness or Proximity
in Japanese.
Similar to the English-Chinese corpus, there are 139 pronouns in the English-Japanese corpus that are linked to
non-pronouns. 109 of the pronouns are English pronouns
and the other 30 are Japanese pronouns. In contrast to theEnglish-Chinese corpus, most (68.8%) of the English contentful pronouns do not link to anything at all. Surprisingly,
for the Japanese pronouns, 23.5% of them are not linked toany English words in the English source text.

4. Discussion
English has the most pronouns, followed by Mandarin Chinese and lastly Japanese. If we include non-contentful pronouns (such as dummy it, existential there and also complementizers like that and which), this becomes even more
pronounced. Also, in English, many pronouns can also
double up as determiners (Collins COBUILD, 2005). Determiners share many common words with pronouns suchas this, that and indefinite ones such as all and some. In

contrast, Chinese almost only uses contentful pronouns,
and Japanese tends to drop pronouns altogether.
English personal pronouns have more different forms: Subjective, Accusative and Possessive. English also has othercategories of pronouns that both Mandarin Chinese andJapanese do not have. For example, for the component Negative, English has none and nothing which do not have identical correspondents in Mandarin Chinese and Japanese:
which do not negate inside noun phrases. This is because
both languages tend to use verbs to express negativity instead of marking it in the pronoun like in (4) where theEnglish is followed by Chinese and Japanese.
(4)a. . . . but none commonplace
b. 但是
却 没有
一 例是
Dan4shi4 que4 mei2you3 yi1 li4 shi4
平淡无奇的ping2dan4wu2qi2 de‘But, there is not one case that is featureless.’c. どれ も 尋常では ない事件 である
Dore mo jinjode wa nai jiken dearu‘There is not any unusual case.’

In addition, Mandarin Chinese and Japanese are topicprominent languages (Li and Thompson, 1989; Obana,2000). Once the topic is established, sentences following
it omit any pronouns, as there is no need for them to referback as the readers can infer from contextual knowledge
the subject of the sentence.
Furthermore, out of the three languages, only Japanesemarks politeness and some evidentiality on the verb (Backhouse, 1993), making the use of pronouns rather unnecessary and this seems to play an important role in reducing
the numbers of pronouns found in the corpus as comparedto the English source text and Chinese translation text, resulting in the low rate of links to the English pronouns in
the original text. One example can be seen below in (5),with English and Japanese:(5)a. I have heard of you, Mr. Holmesb. あなたの ことは、以前からお聞きしてAnata no koto wa, izen kara o kiki shite
います。
imasu .
‘About you, (I) humbly heard previously.’Between the English-Chinese corpus and the EnglishJapanese corpus, another major difference is the number ofcorresponding features that majority of the linked pronouns
have. For the English-Chinese corpus, majority of thelinked pronouns have 8 matching pronoun features while
for the English-Japanese corpus, majority of the linked pronouns have around 6 to 7 matching pronoun features. Thisis most likely due to Japanese language having different
speech levels (Obana, 2000). The different speech levels cause a differentiation between the pronouns, resulting in Japanese having a few different words for the samepronoun. For example, for the first person pronoun, inJapanese there are variations such as わしwashi which also
marks for masculine speaker and informal and 私watashi
which marks for formal and politeness. These features do
not exist in English but from the perspective of semantics,
they should be linked to the first person pronouns in English. This problem does not exist in Mandarin Chinese, as
there is no such differentiation in speech levels in Mandarin
Chinese. Therefore, more features can be matched.
Also, from the linking of the pronouns, there were manycases where English pronouns were linked to Mandarin
Chinese and Japanese pronouns that are different in meaning such as the third person pronoun it in the English text
to the demonstrative pronoun それsore “that” or even to
そ こthere “there” in Japanese. Although this happensin the English-Chinese corpus as well, they are less frequent, thus resulting in more of the pronouns linked havemore matched features as compared to those in the EnglishJapanese corpus. We give an example of this in (6), withEnglish and Chinese, where it is linked to 这 zhe4 “this”.
(6)a. It is a swamp adder!
蝰蛇！
b. 这 是 一 条 沼地
Zhe4 shi4 yi1 tiao2 zhao3di4 kui2she2‘This is a swamp adder!’Deprominalisation (a pronoun linking to a noun) occurs
almost evenly in both the English-Chinese and EnglishJapanese corpora As seen in the results, the number ofpronouns matched to non-pronouns in the English-Chinese
corpus is around the same. This result is not expected as
deprominalisation was predicted to occur much more frequently in the English-Japanese corpus than in the EnglishChinese corpus. It could be a case of the source language effecting the translation: although native speakers
said the translations were good, they almost certainly havemore pronouns than texts written originally in Chinese or
Japanese.
From the tagging of the pronouns and their concept links,
there were a few interesting cases that were found. In the
English source text, we realized that pronouns often exist in
idiomatic phrases. However, these pronouns do not actually
have any particular antecedent to refer to as they are almost
always used in the same way regardless of its environment
and this means that they cannot be linked.
(7)

a. My God!
b. 天哪 ！
Tian1na‘Heaven!’

なんてこったい！
Nan te kottai‘What the heck’
We see in (7) that my is used here as a pronoun in an
idiomatic phrase and after translation, no pronouns wereseen. In both the Mandarin Chinese and Japanese text, theidiomatic translation has no pronoun in it. We give anotherexample in (8).
(8)

a. It is very kind of you.
b. 非常
感谢！
Fei1chang2 gan3xie4‘Very grateful’c. 感謝 して いるよKansha shite iru yo‘(I) am grateful.’

We give one final example in (9). The Chinese translation
here again choses to take the figurative meaning of I am
in your hands and translated it to “I will obey all your instructions”. However, in the Japanese text, this is literallytranslated, possibly because the phrase is commonly usedin translating prayers and is thus somewhat established.
(9)a. I assure you that I am in your hands.
b. 我 向你 保证，
我 一切
Wo3 xiang4 ni3 bao3zheng4, wo3 yi2qie4
听从你 的 吩咐
ting1cong2 ni3 de fen1fu4.
‘I promise you, I will obey all your instructions’c. あなたの 手に すべてをおゆだね します
Anata no te ni subete o o yudane shimasu
わwa‘I will leave everything in your hands’

Another interesting note was that other than pronouns,
both Mandarin Chinese and Japanese tend to use classifierphrases anaphorically. Numeral classifiers (like the head in
two head of cattle) are used for most nouns in Japanese.
The classifier can combine with numerals, interrogatives
and in Chinese determiners. The resulting phrase can beused anaphorically: for example 那 na4jian1 “that room
(CLASSIFIER)” which can mean ‘”hat house/room”. Without the need of the proper noun in Mandarin Chinese, thedeterminer+classifier word can be used to refer to a certain room, thus acting like a pronoun. Although classifiers
are not as widely used in English as in Mandarin Chineseand Japanese, numerals in English can sometimes take onanaphoric roles as well.
The annotation scheme we use here has two parts: the lexicon, which in this case is richly structured with components, and the corpus, which allows annotation of concepts
and links between them. The two have to be kept synchronized.

5. Future WorkWe would like to extend the annotation in a few ways. One
is to tag more texts in the NTU-MC. The pronoun distributions in this paper are solely extracted from one story andthus we cannot generalize the results across genres.2 The
second is to add more languages to the pronoun analysis:
our next language will be Indonesian, again from a different language family. We also want to extend the componential analysis to related words such as terms of address
and numeral classifiers. Chinese, Japanese and Indonesian
all use kinship terms to refer to non-kin: you may addressa stranger as uncle or older sister.
We would also like to examine further the cases of pronouns
linking to different pronouns and non-pronouns: Are thesynsets always compatible? and what cues drive the choiceof pronoun or demonstrative or common noun phrase? Wehope that the crosslingual analysis will give some insights
into the different strategies employed in the different languages.
Our distinction between contentful and structural pronouns
is still only informally described. We would like to sharpen
this distinction.
Finally, our analysis is compatible with (and partly inspiredby) the decompositional analysis of pronouns in the English Resource Grammar (ERG), an HPSG implementationof English (Flickinger, 2000). We would like to check that
all our pronouns are in the ERG and add them to the corresponding grammars of Chinese, Indonesian and Japanese.
The HPSG grammars distinguish clearly between contentful and structural pronouns, and could be used to help in themonolingual annotation.
The annotated corpora and extended wordnets will bemade available from the NTU-MC website: http://
compling.ntu.edu.sg/ntumc. The corpus is licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Only License (CC BY)3 , and the wordnets under their respective(open) licenses.

6. Conclusions
In this paper we introduced an annotation scheme for pronouns based on a componential analysis. It was tested on
three languages, and used to tag a Chinese, English andJapanese tritext. The results show that pronouns, though
universal, are used differently across languages, resulting
in a difference in distribution among the three languages
and a difference in the concept links between the EnglishChinese corpus and English-Japanese corpus. We have began to account for these differences and presented examples
of some interesting cases.
With this study, we hope that translation issues regarding
pronoun usage would be useful and clearer to those who arelearning the language and that the material from this study
can contribute to pronoun translation across languages.
Acknowledgments:
This work was supported in part by the Singapore Ministryof Education (Academic Research Fund Tier 2: MOE20132

Ideally, we would like to also annotate text with Chinese andJapanese as their source to control for translationese.
3
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

T2-1-084). Thanks to Shan Wang, David Moeljadi and an
anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments.

7.

References

Anthony E. Backhouse. 1993. The Japanese Language:
An Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Francis Bond, Shan Wang, Eshley Huini Gao,
Hazel Shuwen Mok, and Jeanette Yiwen Tan. 2013.
Developing parallel sense-tagged corpora with wordnets. In Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation
Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse (LAW
2013), pages 149–158, Sofia.
Collins COBUILD. 2005. English grammar. Harper
Collins, 2 edition.
Arthur Conan Doyle. 1892. The Adventures of Sherlock
Homes. George Newnes, London.
Arthur Conan Doyle. 1905. The Return of Sherlock
Homes. George Newnes, London. Project Gutenberg www.gutenberg.org/files/108/108-h/
108-h.htm.
Christine Fellbaum, editor. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic
Lexical Database. MIT Press.
Dan Flickinger. 2000. On building a more efficient grammar by exploiting types. Natural Language Engineering,
6 (1):15–28.
Rodney Huddleston. 1988. English grammar: an outline.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hitoshi Isahara, Francis Bond, Kiyotaka Uchimoto, Masao
Utiyama, and Kyoko Kanzaki. 2008. Development of
the Japanese WordNet. In Sixth International conferenceon Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008),
Marrakech.
Chul-Kyu Kim. 2009. Personal pronouns in English andKorean texts: A corpus-based study in terms of textualinteraction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41:2086–2099.
Charles N. Li and Sandra A. Thompson. 1989. Mandarin
Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Universityof California Press.
Yasuko Obana. 2000. Understanding Japanese: A handbook for learners and teachers. Kurusio Publishers.
Eric S. Raymond. 1999. The Cathedral & the Bazaar.
O’Reilly.
Singapore Tourist Board. 2012. Your Singapore. Online: http://www.yoursingapore.com. [Accessed 2012].
Liling Tan and Francis Bond. 2012. Building and annotating the linguistically diverse NTU-MC (NTUmultilingual corpus). International Journal of Asian
Language Processing, 22(4):161–174.
Shan Wang and Francis Bond. 2013. Building the chinese open wordnet (cow): Starting from core synsets. In
Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Asian Language
Resources, a Workshop at IJCNLP-2013, pages 10–18,
Nagoya.
Shan Wang and Francis Bond. 2014. Building sensetagged multilingual corpora. In Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2014), Reykjavik.