Korpuslinguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (41) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (41)
Keywords
- Korpus <Linguistik> (32)
- Deutsch (7)
- Annotation (6)
- Gesprochene Sprache (3)
- Sprachstatistik (3)
- Syntaktische Analyse (3)
- XML (3)
- Auszeichnungssprache (2)
- Computerlinguistik (2)
- Computerunterstützte Lexikographie (2)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (41) (remove)
Publisher
Knowledge in textual form is always presented as visually and hierarchically structured units of text, which is particularly true in the case of academic texts. One research hypothesis of the ongoing project Knowledge ordering in texts - text structure and structure visualisations as sources of natural ontologies1 is that the textual structure of academic texts effectively mirrors essential parts of the knowledge structure that is built up in the text. The structuring of a modern dissertation thesis (e.g. in the form of an automatically generated table of contents - toes), for example, represents a compromise between requirements of the text type and the methodological and conceptual structure of its subject-matter. The aim of the project is to examine how visual-hierarchical structuring systems are constructed, how knowledge structures are encoded in them, and how they can be exploited to automatically derive ontological knowledge for navigation, archiving, or search tasks. The idea to extract domain concepts and semantic relations mainly from the structural and linguistic information gathered from tables of contents represents a novel approach to ontology learning.
Extending the possibilities for collaborative work with TEI/XML through the usage of a wiki system
(2013)
This paper presents and discusses an integrated project-specific working environment for editing TEI/XML-files and linking entities of interest to a dedicated wiki system. This working environment has been specifically tailored to the workflow in our interdisciplinary digital humanities project GeoBib. It addresses some challenges that arose while working with person-related data and geographical references in a growing collection of TEI/XML-files. While our current solution provides some essential benefits, we also discuss several critical issues and challenges that remain.
The present paper reports the first results of the compilation and annotation of a blog corpus for German. The main aim of the project is the representation of the blog discourse structure and relations between its elements (blog posts, comments) and participants (bloggers, commentators). The data included in the corpus were manually collected from the scientific blog portal SciLogs. The feature catalogue for the corpus annotation includes three types of information which is directly or indirectly provided in the blog or can be construed by means of statistical analysis or computational tools. At this point, only directly available information (e.g. title of the blog post, name of the blogger etc.) has been annotated. We believe, our blog corpus can be of interest for the general study of blog structure or related research questions as well as for the development of NLP methods and techniques (e.g. for authorship detection).
In this paper we present an approach to faceted search in large language resource repositories. This kind of search which enables users to browse through the repository by choosing their personal sequence of facets heavily relies on the availability of descriptive metadata for the objects in the repository. This approach therefore informs the collection of a minimal set of metatdata for language resources. The work described in this paper has been funded by the EC within the ESFRI infrastructure project CLARIN.
This paper presents an extension to the Stuttgart-Tübingen TagSet, the standard part-of-speech tag set for German, for the annotation of spoken language. The additional tags deal with hesitations, backchannel signals, interruptions, onomatopoeia and uninterpretable material. They allow one to capture phenomena specific to spoken language while, at the same time, preserving inter-operability with already existing corpora of written language.
We discovered several recurring errors in the current version of the Europarl Corpus originating both from the web site of the European Parliament and the corpus compilation based thereon. The most frequent error was incompletely extracted metadata leaving non-textual fragments within the textual parts of the corpus files. This is, on average, the case for every second speaker change. We not only cleaned the Europarl Corpus by correcting several kinds of errors, but also aligned the speakers’ contributions of all available languages and compiled every- thing into a new XML-structured corpus. This facilitates a more sophisticated selection of data, e.g. querying the corpus for speeches by speakers of a particular political group or in particular language combinations.
This paper presents a thorough examination of the validity of three evaluation measures on parser output. We assess parser performance of an unlexicalised probabilistic parser trained on two German treebanks with different annotation schemes and evaluate parsing results using the PARSEVAL metric, the Leaf-Ancestor metric and a dependency-based evaluation. We reject the claim that the TüBa-D/Z annotation scheme is more adequate then the TIGER scheme for PCFG parsing and show that PARSEVAL should not be used to compare parser performance for parsers trained on treebanks with different annotation schemes. An analysis of specific error types indicates that the dependency-based evaluation is most appropriate to reflect parse quality.
Recent studies focussed on the question whether less-configurational languages like German are harder to parse than English, or whether the lower parsing scores are an artefact of treebank encoding schemes and data structures, as claimed by Kübler et al. (2006). This claim is based on the assumption that PARSEVAL metrics fully reflect parse quality across treebank encoding schemes. In this paper we present new experiments to test this claim. We use the PARSEVAL metric, the Leaf-Ancestor metric as well as a dependency-based evaluation, and present novel approaches measuring the effect of controlled error insertion on treebank trees and parser output. We also provide extensive past-parsing crosstreebank conversion. The results of the experiments show that, contrary to Kübler et al. (2006), the question whether or not German is harder to parse than English remains undecided.
How to Compare Treebanks
(2008)
Recent years have seen an increasing interest in developing standards for linguistic annotation, with a focus on the interoperability of the resources. This effort, however, requires a profound knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of linguistic annotation schemes in order to avoid importing the flaws and weaknesses of existing encoding schemes into the new standards. This paper addresses the question how to compare syntactically annotated corpora and gain insights into the usefulness of specific design decisions. We present an exhaustive evaluation of two German treebanks with crucially different encoding schemes. We evaluate three different parsers trained on the two treebanks and compare results using EVALB, the Leaf-Ancestor metric, and a dependency-based evaluation. Furthermore, we present TePaCoC, a new testsuite for the evaluation of parsers on complex German grammatical constructions. The testsuite provides a well thought-out error classification, which enables us to compare parser output for parsers trained on treebanks with different encoding schemes and provides interesting insights into the impact of treebank annotation schemes on specific constructions like PP attachment or non-constituent coordination.
We present data-driven methods for the acquisition of LFG resources from two German treebanks. We discuss problems specific to semi-free word order languages as well as problems arising from the data structures determined by the design of the different treebanks. We compare two ways of encoding semi-free word order, as done in the two German treebanks, and argue that the design of the TiGer treebank is more adequate for the acquisition of LFG resources. Furthermore, we describe an architecture for LFG grammar acquisition for German, based on the two German treebanks, and compare our results with a hand-crafted German LFG grammar.