Korpuslinguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (200)
- Conference Proceeding (161)
- Article (105)
- Book (34)
- Part of Periodical (10)
- Other (9)
- Working Paper (7)
- Review (4)
- Doctoral Thesis (3)
- Preprint (3)
Language
- German (274)
- English (265)
- Multiple languages (1)
Keywords
- Korpus <Linguistik> (457)
- Deutsch (165)
- Gesprochene Sprache (64)
- Annotation (56)
- Forschungsdaten (36)
- Computerlinguistik (33)
- Korpuslinguistik (28)
- corpus linguistics (27)
- Deutsches Referenzkorpus (DeReKo) (25)
- Grammatik (25)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (322)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (142)
- Postprint (23)
- Erstveröffentlichung (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (237)
- Peer-Review (202)
- Peer-review (5)
- Qualifikationsarbeit (Dissertation, Habilitationsschrift) (5)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (3)
- Abschlussarbeit (Bachelor, Master, Diplom, Magister) (Bachelor, Master, Diss.) (2)
- Verlags-Lektorat (2)
- Peer-reviewed (1)
- Review-Status-unbekannt (1)
- Verlagslektorat (1)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (81)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (58)
- Narr (33)
- European Language Resources Association (ELRA) (25)
- European Language Resources Association (24)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (20)
- Narr Francke Attempto (15)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (11)
- Linköping University Electronic Press (10)
- CLARIN (8)
Neologie und Korpus
(1998)
Das in der Germanistik lange vernachlässigte Thema der Neologie und des lexikalischen Wandels wird in theoretischen, methodologischen und praktischen Aspekten beleuchtet. Es wird gezeigt, welchen Beitrag die Korpuslinguistik bei der Objektivierung des Bedeutungswechsels bereits vorhandener lexikalischer Ausdrücke leisten kann und welche Relevanzkriterien für die lexikographische Bearbeitung erfüllt sein müssen.
In this paper, we present first results of training a classifier for discriminating Russian texts into different levels of difficulty. For the classification we considered both surface-oriented features adopted from readability assessments and more linguistically informed, positional features to classify texts into two levels of difficulty. This text classification is the main focus of our Levelled Study Corpus of Russian (LeStCoR), in which we aim to build a corpus adapted for language learning purposes – selecting simpler texts for beginner second language learners and more complex texts for advanced learners. The most discriminative feature in our pilot study was a lexical feature that approximates accessibility of the vocabulary by the second language learner in terms of the proportion of familiar words in the texts. The best feature setting achieved an accuracy of 0.91 on a pilot corpus of 209 texts.
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.
Designing a Bilingual Speech Corpus for French and German Language Learners: a Two-Step Process
(2014)
We present the design of a corpus of native and non-native speech for the language pair French-German, with a special emphasis on phonetic and prosodic aspects. To our knowledge there is no suitable corpus, in terms of size and coverage, currently available for the target language pair. To select the target L1-L2 interference phenomena we prepare a small preliminary corpus (corpus1), which is analyzed for coverage and cross-checked jointly by French and German experts. Based on this analysis, target phenomena on the phonetic and phonological level are selected on the basis of the expected degree of deviation from the native performance and the frequency of occurrence. 14 speakers performed both L2 (either French or German) and L1 material (either German or French). This allowed us to test, recordings duration, recordings material, the performance of our automatic aligner software. Then, we built corpus2 taking into account what we learned about corpus1. The aims are the same but we adapted speech material to avoid too long recording sessions. 100 speakers will be recorded. The corpus (corpus1 and corpus2) will be prepared as a searchable database, available for the scientific community after completion of the project.
The IFCASL corpus is a French-German bilingual phonetic learner corpus designed, recorded and annotated in a project on individualized feedback in computer-assisted spoken language learning. The motivation for setting up this corpus was that there is no phonetically annotated and segmented corpus for this language pair of comparable of size and coverage. In contrast to most learner corpora, the IFCASL corpus incorporate data for a language pair in both directions, i.e. in our case French learners of German, and German learners of French. In addition, the corpus is complemented by two sub-corpora of native speech by the same speakers. The corpus provides spoken data by about 100 speakers with comparable productions, annotated and segmented on the word and the phone level, with more than 50% manually corrected data. The paper reports on inter-annotator agreement and the optimization of the acoustic models for forced speech-text alignment in exercises for computer-assisted pronunciation training. Example studies based on the corpus data with a phonetic focus include topics such as the realization of /h/ and glottal stop, final devoicing of obstruents, vowel quantity and quality, pitch range, and tempo.
The paper presents best practices and results from projects in four countries dedicated to the creation of corpora of computer-mediated communication and social media interactions (CMC). Even though there are still many open issues related to building and annotating corpora of that type, there already exists a range of accessible solutions which have been tested in projects and which may serve as a starting point for a more precise discussion of how future standards for CMC corpora may (and should) be shaped like.
This paper is a contribution to the ongoing discussion on treebank annotation schemes and their impact on PCFG parsing results. We provide a thorough comparison of two German treebanks: the TIGER treebank and the TüBa-D/Z. We use simple statistics on sentence length and vocabulary size, and more refined methods such as perplexity and its correlation with PCFG parsing results, as well as a Principal Components Analysis. Finally we present a qualitative evaluation of a set of 100 sentences from the TüBa- D/Z, manually annotated in the TIGER as well as in the TüBa-D/Z annotation scheme, and show that even the existence of a parallel subcorpus does not support a straightforward and easy comparison of both annotation schemes.
The aim of this paper is to highlight the actual need for corpora that have been annotated based on acoustic information. The acoustic information should be coded in features or properties and is needed to inform further processing systems, i.e. to present a basis for a speech recognition system using linguistic information. Feature annotation of existing corpora in combination with segmental annotation can provide a powerful training material for speech recognition systems, but will as well challenge the further processing of features to segments and syllables. We present here the theoretical preliminaries for our multilingual feature extraction system, that we are currently working on.
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.
Dieser Beitrag nimmt Bezug auf ein lexikologisches Arbeitsprojekt des Instituts für deutsche Sprache (Mannheim) und will einen Einblick in die Voraussetzungen und Ziele dieses Vorhabens sowie in die Arbeitsweise der Projektmitarbeiter geben. Dabei soll Aspekten der Korpus- und Computernutzung in den einzelnen Arbeitsetappen besondere Aufmerksamkeit gelten.
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.
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.