Refine
Year of publication
- 2009 (49) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (17)
- Part of a Book (16)
- Article (11)
- Book (2)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (49) (remove)
Keywords
- Korpus <Linguistik> (11)
- Deutsch (9)
- Computerlinguistik (8)
- Annotation (5)
- Automatische Sprachanalyse (4)
- Natürliche Sprache (3)
- Syntaktische Analyse (3)
- Verb (3)
- Algorithmus (2)
- Bildung (2)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (21)
- Postprint (9)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (4)
Reviewstate
Publisher
- Elsevier (3)
- Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis (2)
- Benjamins (2)
- Narr (2)
- Niemeyer (2)
- Oxford University Press (2)
- Palgrave Macmillan (2)
- Springer (2)
- AAAI Press (1)
- Association for Computational Linguistics (1)
We compare the use of überhaupt and sowieso in Dutch and German. We use the world-wide web as the main resource and pursue a zigzag strategy, trying to find usages going back and forth between dictionaries, intuitions and real data obtained through web search. To our surprise, the results more or less confirm the decision of Dutch dictionaries to consider überhaupt and sowieso synonymous. In German, we find no synonymy, but only a great overlap of usage conditions in declarative sentences.
In spite of the obvious importance that is accorded to the notion grammatical construction in any approach that sees itself as a construction grammar (CxG), there is as yet no generally accepted definition of the term across different variants of the framework. In particular, there are different assumptions about which additional requirements a given structure has to meet in order to be recognized as a construction besides being a ‘form-meaning pair’. Since the choice of a particular definition will determine the range of both relevant phenomena and concrete observations to be considered in empirical research within the framework, the issue is not just a mere terminological quibble but has important methodological repercussions especially for quantitative research in areas such as corpus linguistics. The present study illustrates some problems in identifying and delimiting such patterns in naturally occurring text and presents arguments for a usage-based interpretation of the term grammatical construction.
Manual development of deep linguistic resources is time-consuming and costly and therefore often described as a bottleneck for traditional rule-based NLP. In my PhD thesis I present a treebank-based method for the automatic acquisition of LFG resources for German. The method automatically creates deep and rich linguistic presentations from labelled data (treebanks) and can be applied to large data sets. My research is based on and substantially extends previous work on automatically acquiring wide-coverage, deep, constraint-based grammatical resources from the English Penn-II treebank (Cahill et al.,2002; Burke et al., 2004; Cahill, 2004). Best results for English show a dependency f-score of 82.73% (Cahill et al., 2008) against the PARC 700 dependency bank, outperforming the best hand-crafted grammar of Kaplan et al. (2004). Preliminary work has been carried out to test the approach on languages other than English, providing proof of concept for the applicability of the method (Cahill et al., 2003; Cahill, 2004; Cahill et al., 2005). While first results have been promising, a number of important research questions have been raised. The original approach presented first in Cahill et al. (2002) is strongly tailored to English and the datastructures provided by the Penn-II treebank (Marcus et al., 1993). English is configurational and rather poor in inflectional forms. German, by contrast, features semi-free word order and a much richer morphology. Furthermore, treebanks for German differ considerably from the Penn-II treebank as regards data structures and encoding schemes underlying the grammar acquisition task. In my thesis I examine the impact of language-specific properties of German as well as linguistically motivated treebank design decisions on PCFG parsing and LFG grammar acquisition. I present experiments investigating the influence of treebank design on PCFG parsing and show which type of representations are useful for the PCFG and LFG grammar acquisition tasks. Furthermore, I present a novel approach to cross-treebank comparison, measuring the effect of controlled error insertion on treebank trees and parser output from different treebanks. I complement the cross-treebank comparison by providing a human evaluation using TePaCoC, a new testsuite for testing parser performance on complex grammatical constructions. Manual evaluation on TePaCoC data provides new insights on the impact of flat vs. hierarchical annotation schemes on data-driven parsing. I present treebank-based LFG acquisition methodologies for two German treebanks. An extensive evaluation along different dimensions complements the investigation and provides valuable insights for the future development of treebanks.
While written corpora can be exploited without any linguistic annotations, speech corpora need at least a basic transcription to be of any use for linguistic research. The basic annotation of speech data usually consists of time-aligned orthographic transcriptions. To answer phonetic or phonological research questions, phonetic transcriptions are needed as well. However, manual annotation is very time-consuming and requires considerable skill and near-native competence. Therefore it can take years of speech corpus compilation and annotation before any analyses can be carried out. In this paper, approaches that address the transcription bottleneck of speech corpus exploitation are presented and discussed, including crowdsourcing the orthographic transcription, automatic phonetic alignment, and query-driven annotation. Currently, query-driven annotation and automatic phonetic alignment are being combined and applied in two speech research projects at the Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS), whereas crowdsourcing the orthographic transcription still awaits implementation.
“Linguistic Landscapes” (LL) is a research method which has become increasingly popular in recent years. In this paper, we will first explain the method itself and discuss some of its fundamental assumptions. We will then recall the basic traits of multilingualism in the Baltic States, before presenting results from our project carried out together with a group of Master students of Philology in several medium-sized towns in the Baltic States, focussing on our home town of Rēzekne in the highly multilingual region of Latgale in Eastern Latvia. In the discussion of some of the results, we will introduce the concept of “Legal Hypercorrection” as a term for the stricter compliance of language laws than necessary. The last part will report on advantages of LL for educational purposes of multilingualism, and for developing discussions on multilingualism among the general public.
Though polarity classification has been extensively explored at document level, there has been little work investigating feature design at sentence level. Due to the small number of words within a sentence, polarity classification at sentence level differs substantially from document-level classification in that resulting bag-of-words feature vectors tend to be very sparse resulting in a lower classification accuracy.
In this paper, we show that performance can be improved by adding features specifically designed for sentence-level polarity classification. We consider both explicit polarity information and various linguistic features. A great proportion of the improvement that can be obtained by using polarity information can also be achieved by using a set of simple domain-independent linguistic features.
The paper discusses from various angles the morphosyntactic annotation of DeReKo, the Archive of General Reference Corpora of Contemporary Written German at the Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS), Mannheim. The paper is divided into two parts. The first part covers the practical and technical aspects of this endeavor. We present results from a recent evaluation of tools for the annotation of German text resources that have been applied to DeReKo. These tools include commercial products, especially Xerox' Finite State Tools and the Machinese products developed by the Finnish company Connexor Oy, as well as software for which academic licenses are available free of charge for academic institutions, e.g. Helmut Schmid's Tree Tagger. The second part focuses on the linguistic interpretability of the corpus annotations and more general methodological considerations concerning scientifically sound empirical linguistic research. The main challenge here is that unlike the texts themselves, the morphosyntactic annotations of DeReKo do not have the status of observed data; instead they constitute a theory and implementation-dependent interpretation. In addition, because of the enormous size of DeReKo, a systematic manual verification of the automatic annotations is not feasible. In consequence, the expected degree of inaccuracy is very high, particularly wherever linguistically challenging phenomena, such as lexical or grammatical variation, are concerned. Given these facts, a researcher using the annotations blindly will run the risk of not actually studying the language but rather the annotation tool or the theory behind it. The paper gives an overview of possible pitfalls and ways to circumvent them and discusses the opportunities offered by using annotations in corpus-based and corpus-driven grammatical research against the background of a scientifically sound methodology.