@inproceedings{barbu-mititelu-etal-2026-se,
title = "{SE} Constructions Revisited: Focus on Treebanks for {R}omance Languages",
author = "Barbu Mititelu, Verginica and
Irimia, Elena and
Pagano, Adriana S. and
Ciolaneanu, Roxana and
Buhnila, Ioana",
editor = {{\c{C}}{\"o}ltekin, {\c{C}}a{\u{g}}r{\i} and
Dobrovoljc, Kaja},
booktitle = "Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on {U}niversal {D}ependencies ({UDW} 2026)",
month = may,
year = "2026",
address = "Palma de Mallorca, Spain",
publisher = "ELRA Language Resources Association (ELRA)",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.udw-1.12/",
doi = "10.63317/3grvvhmni3v6",
pages = "142--152",
abstract = "We analyze the current annotation of SE constructions, i.e. verbal constructions marked by the clitic \textit{se} and its cognates across five Romance languages (French, Italian, Portuguese (European and Brazilian), Romanian and Spanish) in several Universal Dependencies treebanks (version 2.17). We discuss the morphologic, syntactic and semantic characteristics of such constructions in each of the languages considered, both from a theoretical perspective and from that of existing annotation. To address inconsistencies in the data and strengthen Universal Dependencies as a scaffold for the automatic conversion of morphosyntactic annotation into semantic representations (Uniform Meaning Representation), we propose a clear distinction between argumental and non-argumental uses of the reflexive clitic, and outline systematic ways to implement this distinction in annotation guidelines. We also examine how some of the reported inconsistencies are handled in the treebanks under study and discuss the extent to which these practices can be extended to other treebanks, within the same or across different languages."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="barbu-mititelu-etal-2026-se">
<titleInfo>
<title>SE Constructions Revisited: Focus on Treebanks for Romance Languages</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Verginica</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Barbu Mititelu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Elena</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Irimia</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Adriana</namePart>
<namePart type="given">S</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Pagano</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Roxana</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ciolaneanu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ioana</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Buhnila</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2026-05</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW 2026)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Çağrı</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Çöltekin</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kaja</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Dobrovoljc</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>ELRA Language Resources Association (ELRA)</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Palma de Mallorca, Spain</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>We analyze the current annotation of SE constructions, i.e. verbal constructions marked by the clitic se and its cognates across five Romance languages (French, Italian, Portuguese (European and Brazilian), Romanian and Spanish) in several Universal Dependencies treebanks (version 2.17). We discuss the morphologic, syntactic and semantic characteristics of such constructions in each of the languages considered, both from a theoretical perspective and from that of existing annotation. To address inconsistencies in the data and strengthen Universal Dependencies as a scaffold for the automatic conversion of morphosyntactic annotation into semantic representations (Uniform Meaning Representation), we propose a clear distinction between argumental and non-argumental uses of the reflexive clitic, and outline systematic ways to implement this distinction in annotation guidelines. We also examine how some of the reported inconsistencies are handled in the treebanks under study and discuss the extent to which these practices can be extended to other treebanks, within the same or across different languages.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">barbu-mititelu-etal-2026-se</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.63317/3grvvhmni3v6</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.udw-1.12/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2026-05</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>142</start>
<end>152</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T SE Constructions Revisited: Focus on Treebanks for Romance Languages
%A Barbu Mititelu, Verginica
%A Irimia, Elena
%A Pagano, Adriana S.
%A Ciolaneanu, Roxana
%A Buhnila, Ioana
%Y Çöltekin, Çağrı
%Y Dobrovoljc, Kaja
%S Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW 2026)
%D 2026
%8 May
%I ELRA Language Resources Association (ELRA)
%C Palma de Mallorca, Spain
%F barbu-mititelu-etal-2026-se
%X We analyze the current annotation of SE constructions, i.e. verbal constructions marked by the clitic se and its cognates across five Romance languages (French, Italian, Portuguese (European and Brazilian), Romanian and Spanish) in several Universal Dependencies treebanks (version 2.17). We discuss the morphologic, syntactic and semantic characteristics of such constructions in each of the languages considered, both from a theoretical perspective and from that of existing annotation. To address inconsistencies in the data and strengthen Universal Dependencies as a scaffold for the automatic conversion of morphosyntactic annotation into semantic representations (Uniform Meaning Representation), we propose a clear distinction between argumental and non-argumental uses of the reflexive clitic, and outline systematic ways to implement this distinction in annotation guidelines. We also examine how some of the reported inconsistencies are handled in the treebanks under study and discuss the extent to which these practices can be extended to other treebanks, within the same or across different languages.
%R 10.63317/3grvvhmni3v6
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.udw-1.12/
%U https://doi.org/10.63317/3grvvhmni3v6
%P 142-152
Markdown (Informal)
[SE Constructions Revisited: Focus on Treebanks for Romance Languages](https://aclanthology.org/2026.udw-1.12/) (Barbu Mititelu et al., UDW 2026)
ACL