{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036585365853658534, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01176343621843298, 'mean_word_length': 5.12491738268341, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Structured Argument Extraction of Korean Question and Command

Intention identification and slot filling is a core issue in dialog management. However, due to the non-canonicality of the spoken language, it is difficult to extract the content automatically from the conversation-style utterances. This is much harder for languages like Korean and Japanese since the agglutination between morphemes make it difficult for the machines to parse the sentence and understand the intention. In order to suggest a guideline to this problem, inspired by the neural summarization systems introduced recently, we propose a structured annotation scheme for Korean questions/commands which is widely applicable to the field of argument extraction. For further usage, the corpus is additionally tagged with general-linguistic syntactical informations.


Introduction
In a semantic and pragmatic view, questions and commands differ from interrogatives and imperatives, respectively. We can easily observe the particular types of declaratives (1a,b) which explicitly require the addressee to give an answer or to take action. Also, some rhetorical questions (1c) and commands (1d) do not require a response.
(1) a. I want to know why he keeps that hidden.
b. I think you should go now. c. Why should you be surprised? d. Imagine what it must have been like for them out there.
In identifying the intention and filling slots for conversational sentences, aforementioned characteristics make it difficult for the spoken language understanding systems to catch what the speaker intends. For these reasons, the concept of dialogue act (Stolcke et al., 2000) was introduced to categorize the sentences regarding the illocutionary act, but the categorization is detailed and does not correspond with the concept of discourse component (Portner, 2004) which is close to what is investigated for slot-filling and dialog management.
In this study, we construct a criteria on materializing arguments from non-rhetorical questions and commands, especially annotating corpus on Seoul Korean. The agglutinative property of Korean is taken into account, in the way of omitting redundant functional particles. For the sentences with overt or covert speech act (SA) layer of question/command, both extractive and abstract paraphrasing are utilized depending on the content.

Related Works
The literature on pointing out the important feature of the document include traditional extractive approaches (Chuang and Yang, 2000;Aliguliyev, 2009;Kågebäck et al., 2014) and abstract approaches inspired by deep learning techniques (Rush et al., 2015). In the field of sentence reduction, the trend is heading to data-driven abstractive approaches (Chopra et al., 2016) from traditional statistic-based approaches (Le Nguyen et al., 2004;Shen et al., 2007). For Korean text, a sentence paraphrasing (Park et al., 2016) and news summarization  were suggested, but little was done on argument extraction.

Corpus annotation
In this section, the annotation scheme regarding the patterns of questions and commands is described. Note that punctuations were removed since the study investigates the transcript of spoken language.

Questions
For each question, its argument and question type label were annotated. Here, questions include not only the interrogatives but also the declaratives with predicates such as want to know or wonder. In the annotation process, rhetorical questions (Rohde, 2006) were excluded.
Question type label was tagged with three classes, namely yes/no, alternative, and whquestions (Huddleston, 1994). Yes/no question, also known as polar question, has a possible answer set of yes/no (2a). Alternative question is the question which gives a multiple choice and requires a selection (2b , what is/to do -between A and B). For various types of wh-questions we tried to avoid repeating the wh-particles in the extraction and instead used the wh-related terms such as '사람'

Commands
For each command, its argument and the positivity label were annotated. Here, commands include not only the imperative forms with covert subject and the requests in the interrogative form (different from the categorization in Portner (2004)), but also the wishes and exhortatives that induce the addressee's response. Imperatives used as exclamation or evocation are not included since they are considered rhetorical. The optatives that are used idiomatically, such as Have a nice day! (Han, 2000), are also not included since the feasibility of the to-do-lists is beyond the addressee's capacity.
Positivity label was tagged with three classes, namely prohibitions, requirements, and strong requirements. Prohibition (PH) is the type of command that stops or prohibits an action. It possibly contains negations (4a1) or the predicates/modifiers that induce the prohibition (4a2). Requirement (REQ) is the type of command that are positive, with no terms that induce the restriction (4b1,2), and corresponds with various sentence forms aforementioned. Strong requirement (SR) is the type of command where the prohibition and requirement are concatenated sequentially, appearing in spoken Korean as an emphasis (4c), due to its head-final property 2 .
(4a1) 태풍 오니까 밖에 나가지 마 thayphwung o-nikka pakk-ey naka-ci ma typhoon come-because outside-to go-ci NEG Don't go outside, typhoon comes.   Table 2: Dataset specification, denoted with the number of instances for each category and the portion. For strong requirements, NEG imply the phrase or word regarding a negation. PH-REQ indicates the sentences like (4c), and REQ-PH implies the scrambled order. NEG-PH implies a double negation as in (4a2).
There are points to be clarified regarding (4a2) and (5a2). Although (4a2) displayed a property of PH induced by '큰일나', the target action contained a negation '안' that a double negation occurred. Therefore, (5a2) was labeled as SR.
Since the commands did not accompany abstract concept as wh-questions did, the argument was obtained mostly in an extractive way. Also, since the command inevitably includes a detailed to-do-list, the removal of functional particles was done only if they were considered redundant, unlike it was highly recommended for the questions. However, there are some exceptions with the information-seeking commands (4b2) including the terms show, inform, tell, find, check, etc.; despite the clear to-do-lists they show, the intent is close to acquiring information. Thus, the argument extraction for those commands followed the scheme regarding the questions (5b2) as described in Section 3.1, avoiding the nominalizer '-(하)기'.

Dataset Specification
We adopted the spoken Korean dataset of size 800K which was primarily constructed for language modeling and speech recognition of Korean. The sentences are in conversation-style and partly non-canonical, and the content covers the topics such as weather, news, housework, e-mail, and stock. From the corpus we randomly selected 20K sentences and classified them into seven sentence types: fragments, rhetorical questions, rhetorical commands, questions, commands, and statements, with κ = 0.85 (Fleiss, 1971).
Argument extraction was done for the questions and commands which are not rhetorical. The spec-ification of the annotated corpus is displayed in Table 2 4 . Since the annotation is quite explicitly defined for both question and command in view of discourse component (Portner, 2004), we performed a double-check instead of finding out an inter-annotator agreement (IAA).
Due to the characteristics of the adopted corpus as a spoken language script targeting smart home agents, the portion of the commands is higher than in the real-life language. We could observe that the alternative questions, PH, and SR (especially the scrambled order and double negation) are relatively scarce, whereas yes/no·wh-questions and REQ dominate in number.

Conclusion
In this paper, we proposed a structured annotation scheme for the argument extraction of conversation-style Korean questions and commands, concerning the discourse component and the properties they show. This is the first dataset on question set/to-do-list extraction for spoken Korean, up to our knowledge, and we annotated the syntax-related properties for the potential usage. For interrogatives and imperatives extended to semantic/pragmatic level, this study may provide an appropriate guideline that helps argument extraction of various conversations in real life.
There's no doubt that the primary application of the dataset is a slot-filling for Korean questions and commands. Although the volume is small, the dataset shows consistency regarding the way it was constructed. In case of need, the utteranceargument pairs can be uncomplicatedly created referring to the examples and flexibly augmented to the original dataset. Also, in the aspect of linguistic characteristics, the annotation scheme can be extended to the languages that is syntactically similar to Korean, such as Japanese. Most importantly, the scheme fits with the spoken language analysis flourishing with the smart agents widely used nowadays. We expect the proposed scheme and dataset can help machines understand the intention of natural language, especially conversation-style directives.