Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (76) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (55)
- Conference Proceeding (12)
- Part of a Book (6)
- Book (2)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (76) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (25)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (13)
- Gesprochene Sprache (7)
- Konversationsanalyse (6)
- Französisch (4)
- German (4)
- Interaktion (4)
- Mehrsprachigkeit (4)
- Chatten <Kommunikation> (3)
- Component MetaData Infrastructure (CMDI) (3)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (40)
- Postprint (7)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (3)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (76) (remove)
Publisher
The Component MetaData Infrastructure (CMDI) is a framework for the creation and usage of metadata formats to describe all kinds of resources in the CLARIN world. To better connect to the library world, and to allow librarians to enter metadata for linguistic resources into their catalogues, a crosswalk from CMDI-based formats to bibliographic standards is required. The general and rather fluid nature of CMDI, however, makes it hard to map arbitrary CMDI schemas to metadata standards such as Dublin Core (DC) or MARC 21, which have a mature, well-defined and fixed set of field descriptors. In this paper, we address the issue and propose crosswalks between CMDI-based profiles originating from the NaLiDa project and DC and MARC 21, respectively.
In their analysis of methods that participants use to manage the realization of practical courses of action, Kendrick and Drew (2016/this issue) focus on cases of assistance, where the need to be addressed is Self’s, and Other lends a helping hand. In our commentary, we point to other forms of cooperative engagement that are ubiquitously recruited in interaction. Imperative requests characteristically expect compliance on the grounds of Other’s already established commitment to a wider and shared course of actions. Established commitments can also provide the engine behind recruitment sequences that proceed nonverbally. And forms of cooperative engagement that are well glossed as assistance can nevertheless be demonstrably oriented to established commitments. In sum, we find commitment to shared courses of action to be an important element in the design and progression of certain recruitment sequences, where the involvement of Other is best defined as contribution. The commentary highlights the importance of interdependent orientations in the organization of cooperation. Data are in German, Italian, and Polish.
Co-development of action, conceptualization and social interaction mutually scaffold and support each other within a virtuous feedback cycle in the development of human language in children. Within this framework, the purpose of this article is to bring together diverse but complementary accounts of research methods that jointly contribute to our understanding of cognitive development and in particular, language acquisition in robots. Thus, we include research pertaining to developmental robotics, cognitive science, psychology, linguistics and neuroscience, as well as practical computer science and engineering. The different studies are not at this stage all connected into a cohesive whole; rather, they are presented to illuminate the need for multiple different approaches that complement each other in the pursuit of understanding cognitive development in robots. Extensive experiments involving the humanoid robot iCub are reported, while human learning relevant to developmental robotics has also contributed useful results.
Disparate approaches are brought together via common underlying design principles. Without claiming to model human language acquisition directly, we are nonetheless inspired by analogous development in humans and consequently, our investigations include the parallel co-development of action, conceptualization and social interaction. Though these different approaches need to ultimately be integrated into a coherent, unified body of knowledge, progress is currently also being made by pursuing individual methods.
Wiktionary is increasingly gaining influence in a wide variety of linguistic fields such as NLP and lexicography, and has great potential to become a serious competitor for publisher-based and academic dictionaries. However, little is known about the "crowd" that is responsible for the content of Wiktionary. In this article, we want to shed some light on selected questions concerning large-scale cooperative work in online dictionaries. To this end, we use quantitative analyses of the complete edit history files of the English and German Wiktionary language editions. Concerning the distribution of revisions over users, we show that — compared to the overall user base — only very few authors are responsible for the vast majority of revisions in the two Wiktionary editions. In the next step, we compare this distribution to the distribution of revisions over all the articles. The articles are subsequently analysed in terms of rigour and diversity, typical revision patterns through time, and novelty (the time since the last revision). We close with an examination of the relationship between corpus frequencies of headwords in articles, the number of article visits, and the number of revisions made to articles.
We present an empirical study addressing the question whether, and to which extent, lexicographic writing aids improve text revision results. German university students were asked to optimise two German texts using (1) no aids at all, (2) highlighted problems, or (3) highlighted problems accompanied by lexicographic resources that could be used to solve the specific problems. We found that participants from the third group corrected the largest number of problems and introduced the fewest semantic distortions during revision. Also, they reached the highest overall score and were most efficient (as measured in points per time). The second group with highlighted problems lies between the two other groups in almost every measure we analysed. We discuss these findings in the scope of intelligent writing environments, the effectiveness of writing aids in practical usage situations and teaching dictionary skills.
The present study uses electromagnetic articulography, by which the position of tongue and lips during speech is measured, for the study of dialect variation. By using generalized additive modeling to analyze the articulatory trajectories, we are able to reliably detect aggregate group differences, while simultaneously taking into account the individual variation of dozens of speakers. Our results show that two Dutch dialects show clear differences in their articulatory settings, with generally a more anterior tongue position in the dialect from Ubbergen in the southern half of the Netherlands than in the dialect of Ter Apel in the northern half of the Netherlands. A comparison with formant-based acoustic measurements further reveals that articulography is able to reveal interesting structural articulatory differences between dialects which are not visible when only focusing on the acoustic signal.
We present an approach to the new task of opinion holder and target extraction on opinion compounds. Opinion compounds (e.g. user rating or victim support) are noun compounds whose head is an opinion noun. We do not only examine features known to be effective for noun compound analysis, such as paraphrases and semantic classes of heads and modifiers, but also propose novel features tailored to this new task. Among them, we examine paraphrases that jointly consider holders and targets, a verb detour in which noun heads are replaced by related verbs, a global head constraint allowing inferencing between different compounds, and the categorization of the sentiment view that the head conveys.
The Component MetaData Infrastructure (CMDI) is the dominant framework for describing language resources according to ISO 24622 (ISO/TC 37/SC 4, 2015). Within the CLARIN world, CMDI has become a huge success. The Virtual Language Observatory (VLO) now holds over 800.000 resources, all described with CMDI-based metadata. With the metadata being harvested from about thirty centres, there is a considerable amount of heterogeneity in the data. In part, there is some use of controlled vocabularies to keep data heterogeneity in check, say when describing the type of a resource, or the country the resource is originating from. However, when CMDI data refers to the names of persons or organisations, strings are used in a rather uncontrolled manner. Here, the CMDI community can learn from libraries and archives who maintain standardised lists for all kinds of names. In this paper, we advocate the use of freely available authority files that support the unique identification of persons, organisations, and more. The systematic use of authority records enhances the quality of the metadata, hence improves the faceted browsing experience in the VLO, and also prepares the sharing of CMDI-based metadata with the data in library catalogues.
The Component MetaData Infrastructure (CMDI) provides a lego-brick framework for the creation, use and re-use of self-defined metadata formats. The design of CMDI can be a force forgood, but history shows that it has often been misunderstood or badly executed. Consequently,it has led the community towards the dark ages of metadata clutter rather than the bright side of semantic interoperability. In this abstract, we report on the condition of CMDI but also outlinean agenda to make the CMDI world a better place to use, share and profit from metadata.
Der Begriff der „Gattung“ wird in der Soziologie und der Sprachwissenschaft als Sammelbegriff für verfestigte, (sprachlich) ähnliche Muster mit repetitiver Frequenz zur Lösung verwandter kommunikativer Probleme gefasst (z.B. unterschiedliche moralische Gattungen, vgl. Bergmann/Luckmann (Hg.) 1999). Wenig Aufmerksamkeit wurde bislang den Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschieden – also den Abgrenzungsmöglichkeiten – von prototypischen zu weniger prototypischen Vertretern einzelner Gattungsfamilien zuteil. Im vorliegenden Beitrag beschreiben wir anhand von authentischen Daten die sogenannten „Gassigespräche“ als spontane Kommunikation des Alltags von Hundebesitzer/innen. Außerhalb der Sprachwissenschaft werden diese primär als Hyponym des Hyperonyms „Small Talk“ subsumiert. Wir versuchen zunächst unter gattungsanalytischen Gesichtspunkten die obligatorischen und fakultativen Einheiten um ein – sofern es denn überhaupt existiert – prototypisches Zentrum von Small-Talk zu gruppieren. Anhand eines paradigmatischen Falls beschreiben wir Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede in Bezug auf andere Gattungen, die sich im Spektrum der Alltagsgespräche – oder auch darüber hinaus – ansiedeln. Wir plädieren in der Diskussion dafür, Gattungsfamilien als mehr oder weniger verfestigte Muster mit teils wiederkehrenden Merkmalen zu sehen, die ihre Eigenschaften in Form und Funktion teilen können.