Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (25) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (25) (remove)
Language
- English (25) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (25)
Keywords
- Deutsch (7)
- Sprachpolitik (4)
- Computerlinguistik (3)
- Digital Humanities (3)
- Englisch (3)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (3)
- language policy (3)
- Annotation (2)
- Automatische Sprachverarbeitung (2)
- Estland (2)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (13)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (9)
- Postprint (7)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (13)
- Peer-Review (7)
- (Verlags-)Lektorat (1)
- Peer-review (1)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (4)
- Palgrave Macmillan (3)
- De Gruyter Mouton (2)
- Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group (2)
- The Association for Computational Linguistics (2)
- De Gruyter (1)
- German Society for Computational Linguistics & Language Technology und Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (1)
- Lang (1)
- Lexical Computing CZ s.r.o. (1)
- MIT Press (1)
Colonial studies
(2019)
In this chapter, we discuss steps toward extending CMDI’s semantic interoperability beyond the Social Sciences and Humanities: We stress the need for an initial data curation step, in part supported by a relation registry that helps impose some structure on CMDI vocabulary; we describe the use of authority file information and other controlled vocabulary to help connecting CMDI-based metadata to existing Linked Data; we show how significant parts of CMDI-based metadata can be converted to bibliographic metadata standards and hence entered into library catalogs; and finally we describe first steps to convert CMDI-based metadata to RDF. The initial grassroots approach of CMDI (meaning that anybody can define metadata descriptors and components) mirrors the AAA slogan of the Semantic Web (“Anyone can say Anything about Any topic”). Ironically, this makes it hard to fully link CMDI-based metadata to other Semantic Web datasets. This paper discusses the challenges of this enterprise.
Question Answering Systems for retrieving information from Knowledge Graphs (KG) have become a major area of interest in recent years. Current systems search for words and entities but cannot search for grammatical phenomena. The purpose of this paper is to present our research on developing a QA System that answers natural language questions about German grammar.
Our goal is to build a KG which contains facts and rules about German grammar, and is also able to answer specific questions about a concrete grammatical issue. An overview of the current research in the topic of QA systems and ontology design is given and we show how we plan to construct the KG by integrating the data in the grammatical information system Grammis, hosted by the Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS). In this paper, we describe the construction of the initial KG, sketch our resulting graph, and demonstrate the effectiveness of such an approach. A grammar correction component will be part of a later stage. The paper concludes with the potential areas for future research.
Starting from early approaches within Generative Grammar in the late 1960s, the article describes and discusses the development of different theoretical frameworks of lexical decomposition of verbs. It presents the major subsequent conceptions of lexical decompositions, namely, Dowty’s approach to lexical decomposition within Montague Semantics, Jackendoff’s Conceptual Semantics, the LCS decompositions emerging from the MIT Lexicon Project, Pustejovsky’s Event Structure Theory, Wierzbicka’s Natural Semantic Metalanguage, Wunderlich’s Lexical Decompositional Grammar, Hale and Kayser’s Lexical Relational Structures, and Distributed Morphology. For each of these approaches, (i) it sketches their origins and motivation, (ii) it describes the general structure of decompositions and their location within the theory, (iii) it explores their explanative value for major phenomena of verb semantics and syntax, (iv) and it briefly evaluates the impact of the theory. Referring to discussions in article 7 [Semantics: Foundations, History and Methods] (Engelberg) Lexical decomposition, a number of theoretical topics are taken up throughout the paper concerning the interpretation of decompositions, the basic inventory of decompositional predicates, the location of decompositions on the different levels of linguistic representation (syntactic, semantic, conceptual), and the role they play for the interfaces between these levels.
This chapter investigates differences in language regards in Latvia and Estonia. Based on the results of a survey that had about 1000 respondents in each country, it analyses general views on languages and language-learning motivation, as well as specific regards of Estonian, Latvian, Russian, English, German and other languages. The results show that languages and language learning are generally important for the respondents; language-learning motivation is overwhelmingly instrumental. Besides the obvious value of the titular languages of each country, English and Russian are to differing degrees considered of importance for professional and leisure purposes, ahead of German, Finnish (in Estonia) and French, whereas other languages are of little relevance. In more emotionally related categories, differences are more salient. L1-speakers of Russian differ in their views from L1-speakers of Estonian and Latvian, indicating that the linguistic acculturation of society in Estonia tends to be more monodirectional towards Estonian, whereas in Latvia there are more bidirectional tendencies as both Latvian and Russian L1-speakers regard each other’s languages as at least moderately relevant.
Research on language politics, policy, and planning is of importance to contact linguistics, since political relations between groups of language users, the way in which the use of language(s) is organized, and how language issues are politicized fundamentally shape the political and social conditions under which language varieties are in contact. This chapter first provides a short sketch of how language policy, planning, and politics have so far been conceptualized. Major subfields will be discussed, and then relevant actors and factors in these processes will be introduced. At the end, these aspects will be discussed from a contact linguistic perspective and summarized in a graphic visualization.
Latvia
(2019)
This chapter deals with current issues in bilingual education in the framework of language and educational policies in Latvia, and also outlines similarities or common tendencies in the two other Baltic states, Estonia and Lithuania. As commonly understood in the 21st century, the term ‘bilingual education’ includes ‘multilingual education, as the umbrella term to cover a wide spectrum of practice and policy’ (García, 2009: 9).