Annotation studies in CL are generally unscientific: they are mostly not reproducible, make use of too few (and often non-independent) annotators and use guidelines that are often something of a moving target. Additionally, the notion of ‘expert annotators' invariably means only that the annotators have linguistic training. While this can be acceptable in some special contexts, it is often far from ideal. This is particularly the case when subtle judgements are required or when, as increasingly, one is making use of corpora originating from technical texts that have been produced by, and intended to be consumed by, an audience of technical experts in the field. We outline a more rigorous approach to collecting human annotations, using as our example a study designed to capture judgements on the meaning of hedge words in medical records.

Evaluating the output of NLG systems is notoriously difficult, and performing assessments of text quality even more so. A range of automated and subject-based approaches to the evaluation of text quality have been taken, including comparison with a putative gold standard text, analysis of specific linguistic features of the output, expert review and task-based evaluation. In this paper we present the results of a variety of such approaches in the context of a case study application. We discuss the problems encountered in the implementation of each approach in the context of the literature, and propose that a test based on the Turing test for machine intelligence offers a way forward in the evaluation of the subjective notion of text quality.

This paper presents a multilingual Natural Language Generation system that produces technical instruction texts in Bulgarian, Czech and Russian. It generates several types of texts, common for software manuals, in two styles. We illustrate the system’s functionality with examples of its input and output behaviour. We discuss the criteria and procedures adopted for evaluating the system and summarise their results. The system embodies novel approaches to providing multilingual documentation, ranging from the re-use of a large-scale, broad coverage grammar of English in order to develop the lexico-grammatical resources necessary for the generation in the three target languages, through to the adoption of a ‘knowledge editing’ approach to specifying the desired content of the texts to be generated independently of the target languages in which those texts finally appear.