Annotating obscenicons

[kiragrif]

Hi all, wondering how we should annotate "obscenicons" (use of typographical symbols to represent profanities)?

There is a small amount of mixed precedent for this, with some annotators using the (likely) intended profanity, some substituting (context appropriate) non-profanity, and annotating the obscenicon string directly.

Substituting the intended profanity:

From snt. 15 in workset dfb-0516
making up **** 
(m / make-up-10
    :ARG1 (s / shit))

Substituting a non-profanity:

From snt. 29 in workset dfa-51
That's ********
(w / wrong-04 
    :ARG1 (t5 / that)) 

Annotating the string directly:

From snt. 49 in workset  dfb-0240
aspirations and ****
(a / and
    :op1 (t / thing
        :ARG1-of (a2 / aspire-01))
    :op2 "****"

Determining the intended profanity might not always be straightforward, maybe we'd want a special concept or role for these. Thoughts?

[uhermjakob]

I would suggest to substitute the intended profanity as much as possible. Mark "concepts" that are low on meaning and high on emotion/profanity with :mode expressive. Make sure to capture the actual meaning (e.g. and **** is sometimes used a vulgar form of et-cetera).

making up **** 
(m / make-up-10
    :ARG1 (s / shit :mode expressive))

That's ********
(f / fuck-up-02
    :ARG1 (t / that))

aspirations and ****
(a / and
    :op1 (t / thing
           :ARG1-of (a2 / aspire-01))
    :op2 (e / et-cetera))

I've been wearing the same ****ing clothes. 
(w / wear-01
    :ARG0 (i / i)
    :ARG1 (c / clothes
            :ARG1-of (s / same-01)
            :mod (f / fucking :mode expressive)))

When the intended word is unclear, I suggest to use the concept 'expletive':

That's ********
(e / expletive
    :domain (t / that))

[uhermjakob]

At the AMR meeting on Sept. 28, 2015, we agreed to expand/"spell-correct" from **\ to intended meaning if possible.

No consensus yet on ":mode expressive" yet.