Korpuslinguistik
Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (6) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Keywords
- Korpus <Linguistik> (5)
- Deutsch (3)
- software (2)
- tokenization (2)
- Automatische Sprachanalyse (1)
- Automatische Sprachverarbeitung (1)
- Collocations (1)
- Computerlingustik (1)
- Corpora (1)
- Daten (1)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (6)
Publisher
- IDS-Verlag (6) (remove)
In many European languages, propositional arguments (PAs) can be realized as different types of structures. Cross-linguistically, complex structures with PAs show a systematic correlation between the strength of the semantic bond and the syntactic union (cf. Givón 2001; Wurmbrand/Lohninger 2023). Also, different languages show similarities with respect to the (lexical) licensing of different PAs (cf. Noonan 1985; Givón 2001; Cristofaro 2003 on different predicate types). However, on a more fine-grained level, a variation across languages can be observed both with respect to the syntactic-semantic properties of PAs as well as to their licensing and usage. This presentation takes a multi-contrastive view of different types of PAs as syntactic subjects and objects by looking at five European languages: EN, DE, IT, PL and HU. Our goal is to identify the parameters of variation in the clausal domain with PAs and by this to contribute to a better understanding of the individual language systems on the one hand and the nature of the linguistic variation in the clausal domain on the other hand. Phenomena and Methodology: We investigate the following types of PAs: direct object (DO) clauses (1), prepositional object (PO) clauses (2), subject clauses (3), and nominalizations (4, 5). Additionally, we discuss clause union phenomena (6, 7). The analyzed parameters include among others finiteness, linear position of the PA, (non) presence of a correlative element, (non) presence of a complementizer, lexical-semantic class of the embedding verb. The phenomena are analyzed based on corpus data (using mono- and multilingual corpora), experimental data (acceptability judgement surveys) or introspective data.
This paper describes a method for extracting collocation data from text corpora based on a formal definition of syntactic structures, which takes into account not only the POS-tagging level of annotation but also syntactic parsing (syntactic treebank model) and introduces the possibility of controlling the canonical form of extracted collocations based on statistical data on forms with different properties in the corpus. Specifically, we describe the results of extraction from the syntactically tagged Gigafida 2.1 corpus. Using the new method, 4,002,918 collocation candidates in 81 syntactic structures were extracted. We evaluate the extracted data sample in more detail, mainly in relation to properties that affect the extraction of canonical forms: definiteness in adjectival collocations, grammatical number in noun collocations, comparison in adjectival and adverbial collocations, and letter case (uppercase and lowercase) in canonical forms. The conclusion highlights the potential of the methodology used for the grammatical description of collocation and phrasal syntax and the possibilities for improving the model in the process of compilation of a digital dictionary database for Slovene.
When comparing different tools in the field of natural language processing (NLP), the quality of their results usually has first priority. This is also true for tokenization. In the context of large and diverse corpora for linguistic research purposes, however, other criteria also play a role – not least sufficient speed to process the data in an acceptable amount of time. In this paper we evaluate several state of the art tokenization tools for German – including our own – with regard to theses criteria. We conclude that while not all tools are applicable in this setting, no compromises regarding quality need to be made.
Vergleichbare Korpora für multilinguale kontrastive Studien. Herausforderungen und Desiderata
(2022)
This contribution aims to show the necessity of working in the development of multilingual corpora and appropriate tools for multilingual contrastive studies. We take the corpus of the lexicographical project COMBIDIGILEX as example to show, how difficultit is to build a suitable data basis to study and compare linguistic phenomena in German, Spanish and Portuguese. Despite the availability of big reference corpora for the three languages (at least for written language), it is not able to obtain a comparable data basis from, because the mentioned corpora are created according to different requirements and they are also powered by disparate information systems and analyse tools. To break the status quo, we plead for increasing research infrastructures by means of compatible language technology and sharing data.
When comparing different tools in the field of natural language processing (NLP), the quality of their results usually has first priority. This is also true for tokenization. In the context of large and diverse corpora for linguistic research purposes, however, other criteria also play a role – not least sufficient speed to process the data in an acceptable amount of time. In this paper we evaluate several state-ofthe-art tokenization tools for German – including our own – with regard to theses criteria. We conclude that while not all tools are applicable in this setting, no compromises regarding quality need to be made.
Dictionaries are often a reflection of their time; their respective (socio-)historical context influences how the meaning of certain lexical units is described. This also applies to descriptions of personal terms such as man or woman. Lexicographers have a special responsibility to comprehensively investigate current language use before describing it in the dictionary. Accordingly, contemporary academic dictionaries are usually corpus-based. However, it is important to acknowledge that language is always embedded in cultural contexts. Our case study investigates differences in the linguistic contexts of the use of man and woman, drawing from a range of language collections (in our case fiction books, popular magazines and newspapers). We explain how potential differences in corpus construction would therefore influence the “reality”1 depicted in the dictionary. In doing so, we address the far-reaching consequences that the choice of corpus-linguistic basis for an empirical dictionary has on semantic descriptions in dictionary entries.
Furthermore, we situate the case study within the context of gender-linguistic issues and discuss how lexicographic teams can engage with how dictionaries might perpetuate traditional role concepts when describing language use.