Here we list several examples to shed light on the goodFor/badFor annotation scheme. The exmaples are used to emphasize the principle annotation insturctions. For more detailed examples, please refer to our manual.

Annotating Basic goodFor/badFor Events

For a basic goodFor/badFor event, it has a triple of agent, goodFor/badFor event span, object. As in the exmaple:

The reform will lower the skyrocketing healthcare costs.

  • goodFor/badFor - lower (badFor)
  • agent - The reform (positive)
  • object - the skyrocketing healthcare costs (negative)

The writer is negative toward the object costs, since the writer uses the negative word (skyrocketing) to describe the object, perhaps he thinks the costs is too high. Thus, the writer may appreciate the lower event, which decreases the amount of costs and subsequently is a badFor event. The writer may also appreciate the agent of the badFor event, reform, because reform is evoking the lower event.

Now we consider this pair of sentences:

Tom has left his cousin a great deal of property.

Tom has left his cousin a big trouble.

There is no way to break the first sentence up into an agent,goodFor/badFor,object triple which follows our rules. Let's see the possible annotations for the first sentence above.

  • Tom, left, his cousin - We are not able to perceive the goodFor/badFor event polarity by looking only at the triple. If Tom left a great deal of property, it is a goodFor event. If Tom left a big trouble, it is a badFor event. Without knowing what Tom left his cousin, we don’t know whether the event is goodFor or badFor Tom’s cousin. For a goodFor/badFor event, we must be able to perceive the goodFor/badFor event polarity within the triple. Thus, we cannot annotate as this structure.
  • Tom, left his cousin, a great deal of property - This isn’t correct. The event is not goodFor the property, it is goodFor Tom’s cousin.
  • Tom, left his cousin a great deal of property, NULL - Now, we don’t have an object.

We will address such cases in future work. If you cannot break the gfbf into an agent,gfbf,object triple that follows the rules, then please do not mark it. We will address such cases in future work.

Annotating goodFor/badFor Events With Influencers

There are mainly two rules for annotating influencers: (1) If the polarity of the goodFor/badFor is affected, then always mark the influencer, as reverser. (2) If the influencer retains the polarity, that is, if it is a retainer, we mark it only when the influencer-agent and the agent of the influencer-object are different.

Luckily the bill won't wear down the economy.

In the sentence above, the word won't stops the badFor event wear down from happening. It is the reverser of wear down. Thus, the annotations for this sentence are:

  • goodFor/badFor - wear down (badFor)
  • agent - the bill (positive)
  • object - the economy (positive)
  • -------------------
  • influencer - won't (reverse)
  • agent - the bill (positive)
  • object - the bill, wear down, the economy

The object of an influencer is either an influencer of a goodFor/badFor event, according to the manual. In the sentence, the writer uses Luckily to express his positive attitude toward the won't wear down event. Though wear down is a badFor event, it is reversed to be a goodFor event. Since the writer is positive to see the goodFor event, he is positive toward the object. And the writer is positive toward the agent because he appreciates the event.

For a retainer and its object, unless the two agents are different, we do not mark it. As in the example below:

The bill tried to prevent private comapnies from overcharging patientss.

  • goodFor/badFor - overcharging (badFor)
  • agent - patients (positive)
  • object - private comapnies (negative)
  • -------------------
  • influencer - prevent (reverse)
  • agent - The bill (positive)
  • object - private comapnies, overcharging, patients

Though tried to is a retainer, it affects the influencer prevent and the agent of both tried to and prevent is the same, The bill, hence we do not mark it. But we always mark the reverser.

A Special Annotation Case for Negations

Consider the sentences "No member created the shortage" and "None created the shortage". The subject noun phrases of these sentences are actually negators. For such cases we suggest paraphrase the sentence using "normal" negation, and annotate the sentence as if it really were the paraphrase. However, mark the influencer that is in the original sentence.

No member helped create the shortage.

paraphrase: The members did not create the shortage.

  • goodFor/badFor - create (goodFor)
  • agent - member (positive)
  • object - the shortage (negative)
  • -------------------
  • influencer - No (reverse)
  • agent - member (positive)
  • object - member, create, the shortage