Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (76) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (34)
- Conference Proceeding (25)
- Part of a Book (6)
- Other (3)
- Book (2)
- Part of Periodical (2)
- Report (2)
- Course Material (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (76) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (76)
Keywords
- Interaktion (20)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (20)
- Konversationsanalyse (19)
- Deutsch (14)
- Forschungsdaten (10)
- Computerlinguistik (9)
- Kommunikation (8)
- conversation analysis (8)
- Semantik (7)
- Syntax (6)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (76) (remove)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (66)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (3)
Publisher
- Taylor & Francis (11)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (7)
- Association for Computational Linguistics (6)
- Linköping University Electronic Press (6)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (4)
- Benjamins (3)
- CLARIN (3)
- Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (3)
- Zenodo (3)
- Frontiers Media SA (2)
We describe a simple procedure for the automatic creation of word-level alignments between printed documents and their respective full-text versions. The procedure is unsupervised, uses standard, off-the-shelf components only, and reaches an F-score of 85.01 in the basic setup and up to 86.63 when using pre- and post-processing. Potential areas of application are manual database curation (incl. document triage) and biomedical expression OCR.
We are witnessing an emerging digital revolution. For the past 25–30 years, at an increasing pace, digital technologies—especially the internet, mobile phones and smartphones—have transformed the everyday lives of human beings. The pace of change will increase, and new digital technologies will become even more tightly entangled in human everyday lives. Artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), 6G wireless solutions, virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (XR), robots and various platforms for remote and hybrid communication will become embedded in our lives at home, work and school.
Digitalisation has been identified as a megatrend, for example, by the OECD (2016; 2019). While digitalisation processes permeate all aspects of life, special attention has been paid to its impact on the ageing population, everyday communication practices, education and learning and working life. For example, it has been argued that digital solutions and technologies have the potential to improve quality of life, speed up processes and increase efficiency. At the same time, digitalisation is likely to bring with it unexpected trends and challenges. For example, AI and robots will doubtlessly speed up or take over many routine-based work tasks from humans, leading to the disappearance of certain occupations and the need for re-education. This, in turn, will lead to an increased demand for skills that are unique to humans and that technologies are not able to master. Thus, developing human competences in the emerging digital era will require not only the mastering of new technical skills, but also the advancement of interpersonal, emotional, literacy and problem-solving skills.
It is important to identify and describe the digitalisation phenomena—pertaining to individuals and societies—and seek human-centric answers and solutions that advance the benefits of and mitigate the possible adverse effects of digitalisation (e.g. inequality, divisions, vulnerability and unemployment). This requires directing the focus on strengthening the human skills and competences that will be needed for a sustainable digital future. Digital technologies should be seen as possibilities, not as necessities.
There is a need to call attention to the co-evolutionary processes between humans and emerging digital technologies—that is, the ways in which humans grow up with and live their lives alongside digital technologies. It is imperative to gain in-depth knowledge about the natural ways in which digital technologies are embedded in human everyday lives—for example, how people learn, interact and communicate in remote and hybrid settings or with artificial intelligence; how new digital technologies could be used to support continuous learning and understand learning processes better and how health and well-being can be promoted with the help of new digital solutions.
Another significant consideration revolves around the co-creation of our digital futures. Important questions to be asked are as follows: Who are the ones to co-create digital solutions for the future? How can humans and human sciences better contribute to digitalisation and define how emerging technologies shape society and the future? Although academic and business actors have recently fostered inclusion and diversity in their co-creation processes, more must be done. The empowerment of ordinary people to start acting as active makers and shapers of our digital futures is required, as is giving voice to those who have traditionally been silenced or marginalised in the development of digital technology. In the emerging co-creation processes, emphasis should be placed on social sustainability and contextual sensitivity. Such processes are always value-laden and political and intimately intertwined with ethical issues.
Constant and accelerating change characterises contemporary human systems, our everyday lives and the environment. Resilience thinking has become one of the major conceptual tools for understanding and dealing with change. It is a multi-scalar idea referring to the capacity of individuals and human systems to absorb disturbances and reorganise their functionality while undergoing a change. Based on the evolving new digital technologies, there is a pressing need to understand how these technologies could be utilised for human well-being, sustainable lifestyles and a better environment. This calls for analysing different scales and types of resilience in order to develop better technology-based solutions for human-centred development in the new digital era.
This white paper is a collaborative effort by researchers from six faculties and groups working on questions related to digitalisation at the University of Oulu, Finland. We have identified questions and challenges related to the emerging digital era and suggest directions that will make possible a human-centric digital future and strengthen the competences of humans and humanity in this era.
In conversation, speakers need to plan and comprehend language in parallel in order to meet the tight timing constraints of turn taking. Given that language comprehension and speech production planning both require cognitive resources and engage overlapping neural circuits, these two tasks may interfere with one another in dialogue situations. Interference effects have been reported on a number of linguistic processing levels, including lexicosemantics. This paper reports a study on semantic processing efficiency during language comprehension in overlap with speech planning, where participants responded verbally to questions containing semantic illusions. Participants rejected a smaller proportion of the illusions when planning their response in overlap with the illusory word than when planning their response after the end of the question. The obtained results indicate that speech planning interferes with language comprehension in dialogue situations, leading to reduced semantic processing of the incoming turn. Potential explanatory processing accounts are discussed.
In this paper, the meaning and processing of the German conditional connectives (CCs) such as wenn ‘if’ and nur wenn ‘only if’ are investigated. In Experiment 1, participants read short scenarios containing a conditional sentence (i.e., If P, Q.) with wenn/nur wenn ‘if/only if’ and a confirmed or negated antecedent (i.e., P/not-P), and subsequently completed the final sentence about Q (with or without negation). In Experiment 2, participants rated the truth or falsity of the consequent Q after reading a conditional sentence with wenn or nur wenn and a confirmed or negated antecedent (i.e., If P, Q. P/not-P. // Therefore, Q?). Both experiments showed that neither wenn nor nur wenn were interpreted as biconditional CCs. Modus Ponens (If P, Q. P. // Therefore, Q) was validated for wenn, whereas it was not validated in the case of nur wenn. While Denial of the Antecedent (If P, Q. not-P. // Therefore, not-Q.) was validated in the case of nur wenn, it was not validated for wenn. The same method was used to test wenn vs. unter der Bedingung, dass ‘on condition that’ in Experiment 3, and wenn vs. vorausgesetzt, dass ‘provided that’ in Experiment 4. Experiment 5, using Affirmation of the Consequent (If P, Q. Q. // Therefore, P.) to test wenn vs. nur wenn replicated the results of Experiment 2. Taken together, the results show that in German, unter der Bedingung, dass is the most likely candidate of biconditional CCs whereas all others are not biconditional. The findings, in particular of nur wenn not being semantically biconditional, are discussed based on available formal analyses of conditionals.
This paper will address the challenge of creating a knowledge graph from a corpus of historical encyclopedias with a special focus on word sense alignment (WSA) and disambiguation (WSD). More precisely, we examine WSA and WSD approaches based on article similarity to link messy historical data, utilizing Wikipedia as aground-truth component – as the lack of a critical overlap in content paired with the amount of variation between and within the encyclopedias does not allow for choosing a ”baseline” encyclopedia to align the others to. Additionally, we are comparing the disambiguation performance of conservative methods like the Lesk algorithm to more recent approaches, i.e. using language models to disambiguate senses.
Obwohl Smartphones und andere mobile Endgeräte mittlerweile ein fester Bestandteil unseres Alltags sind, betonen öffentliche und wissenschaftliche Diskurse immer noch bevorzugt mögliche negative Auswirkungen ihres Gebrauchs auf Gesundheit und Kommunikationsverhalten. Dieser Beitrag skizziert einen anderen Ansatz zur Analyse alltäglichen Technologiegebrauchs, indem er zunächst auf Studien aus der angewandten Linguistik und insbesondere der interaktionalen Forschung eingeht, die sich auf dessen öffentliche Beobachtbarkeit, Mobilität und Ubiquität konzentrieren. Anhand zweier Auszüge aus videoaufgezeichneten Interaktionen wird dann aufgezeigt, wie eine multimodale und sequentielle Analyse dazu beitragen kann, Technologiegebrauch als eine routinemäßige und geordnete soziale Praktik zu verstehen, die nicht mit sozialem, kooperativem Handeln in Widerspruch steht oder dieses gefährdet. Ein detaillierter Blick auf situierten Smartphonegebrauch in informellen und institutionellen Face-to-Face-Settings lenkt die analytische Aufmerksamkeit weg von einer generisch positiven oder negativen Bewertung der Technologie hin zu verschiedenen interaktionalen Phänomenen, die mit ihrer Handhabung und Erkundung in Zusammenhang stehen. Es wird abschließend argumentiert, dass diese Art von mikroanalytischem Ansatz zu einer facettenreichen und objektiveren Perspektive auf die situierte Nutzung mobiler Geräte beitragen kann.
The term “pivot” usually refers to two overlapping syntactic units such that the completion of the first unit simultaneously launches the second. In addition, pivots are generally said to be characterized by the smooth prosodic integration of their syntactic parts. This prosodic integration is typically achieved by prosodic-phonetic matching of the pivot components. As research on such turns in a range of languages has illustrated, speakers routinely deploy pivots so as to be able to continue past a point of possible turn completion, in the service of implementing some additional or revised action. This article seeks to build on, and complement, earlier research by exploring two issues in more detail as follows: (1) what exactly do pivotal turn extensions accomplish on the action dimension, and (2) what role does prosodic-phonetic packaging play in this? We will show that pivot constructions not only exhibit various degrees of prosodic-phonetic (non-)integration, i.e., differently strong cesuras, but that they can be ordered on a continuum, and that this cline maps onto the relationship of the actions accomplished by the components of the pivot construction. While tighter prosodic-phonetic integration, i.e., weak(er) cesuring, co-occurs with post-pivot actions whose relationship to that of the pre-pivot tends to be rather retrospective in character, looser prosodic-phonetic integration, i.e., strong(er) cesuring, is associated with a more prospective orientation of the post-pivot’s action. These observations also raise more general questions with regard to the analysis of action.
This paper investigates situations in French videogame interactions where non-players who share the same physical space as players, participate in the gaming activities as spectators. Through a detailed multimodal and sequential analysis, we show that being a spectator is a local achievement of all co-present participants - players and non-players.
This study analyzes how participants playing VR games construct co-presence and shared gameplay. The analysis focuses on instances of play where one person is wearing the VR equipment, and other participants are located nearby without the ability to directly interact with the game. We first show how the active player using the VR equipment draws on talk and embodied activity to signal their presence in the shared physical environment, while simultaneously conducting actions in the virtual space, and thus creates spaces for the other participants to take part in gameplay. Second, we describe how other participants draw on the contextual configurations of the moment in displaying co-presence and position themselves as active and consequential co-players. The analysis demonstrates how gameplay can be communicatively constructed even in situations where the participants have differential rights and possibilities to act and influence the game.
Schegloff (1996) has argued that grammars are “positionally-sensitive”, implying that the situated use and understanding of linguistic formats depends on their sequential position. Analyzing the German format Kannst du X? (corresponding to English Can you X?) based on 82 instances from a large corpus of talk-in-interaction (FOLK), this paper shows how different action-ascriptions to turns using the same format depend on various orders of context. We show that not only sequential position, but also epistemic status, interactional histories, multimodal conduct, and linguistic devices co-occurring in the same turn are decisive for the action implemented by the format. The range of actions performed with Kannst du X? and their close interpretive interrelationship suggest that they should not be viewed as a fixed inventory of context-dependent interpretations of the format. Rather, the format provides for a root-interpretation that can be adapted to local contextual contingencies, yielding situated action-ascriptions that depend on constraints created by contexts of use.