The spatial and linguistic division of the city of Malaga

The city of Malaga underwent considerable growth in the 19th and 20th centuries. The territorial expansion paired with a massive influx of immigrants occurred in three waves and as a consequence the city of Malaga remains divided into three different parts up to today. The differences between these three neighbourhoods of the city lie in the type of houses, different cultural and industrial activities, socioeconomic level, and very interestingly, also in speech. Thus, the aim of this study is an examination of the interrelation between speech (phonetic features) and urban space in Malaga. A combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis was used, based on two types of data: 1) production data stemming from recordings of 120 speakers; 2) perception data (salience, estimated frequency of use, attitude, spatial and social perception, imitation) which was collected from several surveys with 120 participants each. Results show that the speech production data divides the city of Malaga clearly into three different parts. This tripartition is confirmed by the analysis of the perception data. Moreover, the habitants of these three areas are perceived as different social types, to whom a range of social features is attributed. That is, certain linguistic features, the different neighbourhoods of the city and the social characteristics associated with them are undergoing a process of indexicalization and iconization. As a result, the linguistic features in question function as identity markers on the intraurban level.

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web 1. INTRODUCTION. LINGUISTIC TOOLS AND ANNOTATIONS: THEIR LIGHTS AND SHADOWS Computational Linguistics is already a consolidated research area. It builds upon the results of other two major ones, namely Linguistics and Computer Science and Engineering, and it aims at developing computational models of human language (or natural language, as it is termed in this area). Possibly, its most well-known applications are the different tools developed so far for processing human language, such as machine translation systems and speech recognizers or dictation programs. These tools for processing human language are commonly referred to as linguistic tools. Apart from the examples mentioned above, there are also other types of linguistic tools that perhaps are not so well-known, but on which most of the other applications of Computational Linguistics are built. These other types of linguistic tools comprise POS taggers, natural language parsers and semantic taggers, amongst others. All of them can be termed linguistic annotation tools. Linguistic annotation tools are important assets. In fact, POS and semantic taggers (and, to a lesser extent, also natural language parsers) have become critical resources for the computer applications that process natural language. Hence, any computer application that has to analyse a text automatically and ‘intelligently’ will include at least a module for POS tagging. The more an application needs to ‘understand’ the meaning of the text it processes, the more linguistic tools and/or modules it will incorporate and integrate. However, linguistic annotation tools have still some limitations, which can be summarised as follows: 1. Normally, they perform annotations only at a certain linguistic level (that is, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, etc.). 2. They usually introduce a certain rate of errors and ambiguities when tagging. This error rate ranges from 10 percent up to 50 percent of the units annotated for unrestricted, general texts. 3. Their annotations are most frequently formulated in terms of an annotation schema designed and implemented ad hoc. A priori, it seems that the interoperation and the integration of several linguistic tools into an appropriate software architecture could most likely solve the limitations stated in (1). Besides, integrating several linguistic annotation tools and making them interoperate could also minimise the limitation stated in (2). Nevertheless, in the latter case, all these tools should produce annotations for a common level, which would have to be combined in order to correct their corresponding errors and inaccuracies. Yet, the limitation stated in (3) prevents both types of integration and interoperation from being easily achieved. In addition, most high-level annotation tools rely on other lower-level annotation tools and their outputs to generate their own ones. For example, sense-tagging tools (operating at the semantic level) often use POS taggers (operating at a lower level, i.e., the morphosyntactic) to identify the grammatical category of the word or lexical unit they are annotating. Accordingly, if a faulty or inaccurate low-level annotation tool is to be used by other higher-level one in its process, the errors and inaccuracies of the former should be minimised in advance. Otherwise, these errors and inaccuracies would be transferred to (and even magnified in) the annotations of the high-level annotation tool. Therefore, it would be quite useful to find a way to (i) correct or, at least, reduce the errors and the inaccuracies of lower-level linguistic tools; (ii) unify the annotation schemas of different linguistic annotation tools or, more generally speaking, make these tools (as well as their annotations) interoperate. Clearly, solving (i) and (ii) should ease the automatic annotation of web pages by means of linguistic tools, and their transformation into Semantic Web pages (Berners-Lee, Hendler and Lassila, 2001). Yet, as stated above, (ii) is a type of interoperability problem. There again, ontologies (Gruber, 1993; Borst, 1997) have been successfully applied thus far to solve several interoperability problems. Hence, ontologies should help solve also the problems and limitations of linguistic annotation tools aforementioned. Thus, to summarise, the main aim of the present work was to combine somehow these separated approaches, mechanisms and tools for annotation from Linguistics and Ontological Engineering (and the Semantic Web) in a sort of hybrid (linguistic and ontological) annotation model, suitable for both areas. This hybrid (semantic) annotation model should (a) benefit from the advances, models, techniques, mechanisms and tools of these two areas; (b) minimise (and even solve, when possible) some of the problems found in each of them; and (c) be suitable for the Semantic Web. The concrete goals that helped attain this aim are presented in the following section. 2. GOALS OF THE PRESENT WORK As mentioned above, the main goal of this work was to specify a hybrid (that is, linguistically-motivated and ontology-based) model of annotation suitable for the Semantic Web (i.e. it had to produce a semantic annotation of web page contents). This entailed that the tags included in the annotations of the model had to (1) represent linguistic concepts (or linguistic categories, as they are termed in ISO/DCR (2008)), in order for this model to be linguistically-motivated; (2) be ontological terms (i.e., use an ontological vocabulary), in order for the model to be ontology-based; and (3) be structured (linked) as a collection of ontology-based triples, as in the usual Semantic Web languages (namely RDF(S) and OWL), in order for the model to be considered suitable for the Semantic Web. Besides, to be useful for the Semantic Web, this model should provide a way to automate the annotation of web pages. As for the present work, this requirement involved reusing the linguistic annotation tools purchased by the OEG research group (http://www.oeg-upm.net), but solving beforehand (or, at least, minimising) some of their limitations. Therefore, this model had to minimise these limitations by means of the integration of several linguistic annotation tools into a common architecture. Since this integration required the interoperation of tools and their annotations, ontologies were proposed as the main technological component to make them effectively interoperate. From the very beginning, it seemed that the formalisation of the elements and the knowledge underlying linguistic annotations within an appropriate set of ontologies would be a great step forward towards the formulation of such a model (henceforth referred to as OntoTag). Obviously, first, to combine the results of the linguistic annotation tools that operated at the same level, their annotation schemas had to be unified (or, preferably, standardised) in advance. This entailed the unification (id. standardisation) of their tags (both their representation and their meaning), and their format or syntax. Second, to merge the results of the linguistic annotation tools operating at different levels, their respective annotation schemas had to be (a) made interoperable and (b) integrated. And third, in order for the resulting annotations to suit the Semantic Web, they had to be specified by means of an ontology-based vocabulary, and structured by means of ontology-based triples, as hinted above. Therefore, a new annotation scheme had to be devised, based both on ontologies and on this type of triples, which allowed for the combination and the integration of the annotations of any set of linguistic annotation tools. This annotation scheme was considered a fundamental part of the model proposed here, and its development was, accordingly, another major objective of the present work. All these goals, aims and objectives could be re-stated more clearly as follows: Goal 1: Development of a set of ontologies for the formalisation of the linguistic knowledge relating linguistic annotation. Sub-goal 1.1: Ontological formalisation of the EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) de facto standards for morphosyntactic and syntactic annotation, in a way that helps respect the triple structure recommended for annotations in these works (which is isomorphic to the triple structures used in the context of the Semantic Web). Sub-goal 1.2: Incorporation into this preliminary ontological formalisation of other existing standards and standard proposals relating the levels mentioned above, such as those currently under development within ISO/TC 37 (the ISO Technical Committee dealing with Terminology, which deals also with linguistic resources and annotations). Sub-goal 1.3: Generalisation and extension of the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and ISO/TC 37 to the semantic level, for which no ISO/TC 37 standards have been developed yet. Sub-goal 1.4: Ontological formalisation of the generalisations and/or extensions obtained in the previous sub-goal as generalisations and/or extensions of the corresponding ontology (or ontologies). Sub-goal 1.5: Ontological formalisation of the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the previously developed ontology (or ontologies). Goal 2: Development of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, a standard-based abstract scheme for the hybrid (linguistically-motivated and ontological-based) annotation of texts. Sub-goal 2.1: Development of the standard-based morphosyntactic annotation level of OntoTag’s scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996a) and also the recommendations included in the ISO/MAF (2008) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.2: Development of the standard-based syntactic annotation level of the hybrid abstract scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996b) and the ISO/SynAF (2010) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.3: Development of the standard-based semantic annotation level of OntoTag’s (abstract) scheme. Sub-goal 2.4: Development of the mechanisms for a convenient integration of the three annotation levels already mentioned. These mechanisms should take into account the recommendations included in the ISO/LAF (2009) standard draft. Goal 3: Design of OntoTag’s (abstract) annotation architecture, an abstract architecture for the hybrid (semantic) annotation of texts (i) that facilitates the integration and interoperation of different linguistic annotation tools, and (ii) whose results comply with OntoTag’s annotation scheme. Sub-goal 3.1: Specification of the decanting processes that allow for the classification and separation, according to their corresponding levels, of the results of the linguistic tools annotating at several different levels. Sub-goal 3.2: Specification of the standardisation processes that allow (a) complying with the standardisation requirements of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, as well as (b) combining the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.3: Specification of the merging processes that allow for the combination of the output annotations and the interoperation of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.4: Specification of the merge processes that allow for the integration of the results and the interoperation of those tools performing their annotations at different levels. Goal 4: Generation of OntoTagger’s schema, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract scheme for a concrete set of linguistic annotations. These linguistic annotations result from the tools and the resources available in the research group, namely • Bitext’s DataLexica (http://www.bitext.com/EN/datalexica.asp), • LACELL’s (POS) tagger (http://www.um.es/grupos/grupo-lacell/quees.php), • Connexor’s FDG (http://www.connexor.eu/technology/machinese/glossary/fdg/), and • EuroWordNet (Vossen et al., 1998). This schema should help evaluate OntoTag’s underlying hypotheses, stated below. Consequently, it should implement, at least, those levels of the abstract scheme dealing with the annotations of the set of tools considered in this implementation. This includes the morphosyntactic, the syntactic and the semantic levels. Goal 5: Implementation of OntoTagger’s configuration, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract architecture for this set of linguistic tools and annotations. This configuration (1) had to use the schema generated in the previous goal; and (2) should help support or refute the hypotheses of this work as well (see the next section). Sub-goal 5.1: Implementation of the decanting processes that facilitate the classification and separation of the results of those linguistic resources that provide annotations at several different levels (on the one hand, LACELL’s tagger operates at the morphosyntactic level and, minimally, also at the semantic level; on the other hand, FDG operates at the morphosyntactic and the syntactic levels and, minimally, at the semantic level as well). Sub-goal 5.2: Implementation of the standardisation processes that allow (i) specifying the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation according to the requirements of OntoTagger’s schema, as well as (ii) combining these shared level results. In particular, all the tools selected perform morphosyntactic annotations and they had to be conveniently combined by means of these processes. Sub-goal 5.3: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the combination (and possibly the improvement) of the annotations and the interoperation of the tools that share some level of annotation (in particular, those relating the morphosyntactic level, as in the previous sub-goal). Sub-goal 5.4: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the integration of the different standardised and combined annotations aforementioned, relating all the levels considered. Sub-goal 5.5: Improvement of the semantic level of this configuration by adding a named entity recognition, (sub-)classification and annotation subsystem, which also uses the named entities annotated to populate a domain ontology, in order to provide a concrete application of the present work in the two areas involved (the Semantic Web and Corpus Linguistics). 3. MAIN RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF ONTOTAG’S UNDERLYING HYPOTHESES The model developed in the present thesis tries to shed some light on (i) whether linguistic annotation tools can effectively interoperate; (ii) whether their results can be combined and integrated; and, if they can, (iii) how they can, respectively, interoperate and be combined and integrated. Accordingly, several hypotheses had to be supported (or rejected) by the development of the OntoTag model and OntoTagger (its implementation). The hypotheses underlying OntoTag are surveyed below. Only one of the hypotheses (H.6) was rejected; the other five could be confirmed. H.1 The annotations of different levels (or layers) can be integrated into a sort of overall, comprehensive, multilayer and multilevel annotation, so that their elements can complement and refer to each other. • CONFIRMED by the development of: o OntoTag’s annotation scheme, o OntoTag’s annotation architecture, o OntoTagger’s (XML, RDF, OWL) annotation schemas, o OntoTagger’s configuration. H.2 Tool-dependent annotations can be mapped onto a sort of tool-independent annotations and, thus, can be standardised. • CONFIRMED by means of the standardisation phase incorporated into OntoTag and OntoTagger for the annotations yielded by the tools. H.3 Standardisation should ease: H.3.1: The interoperation of linguistic tools. H.3.2: The comparison, combination (at the same level and layer) and integration (at different levels or layers) of annotations. • H.3 was CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s ontology-based configuration: o Interoperation, comparison, combination and integration of the annotations of three different linguistic tools (Connexor’s FDG, Bitext’s DataLexica and LACELL’s tagger); o Integration of EuroWordNet-based, domain-ontology-based and named entity annotations at the semantic level. o Integration of morphosyntactic, syntactic and semantic annotations. H.4 Ontologies and Semantic Web technologies (can) play a crucial role in the standardisation of linguistic annotations, by providing consensual vocabularies and standardised formats for annotation (e.g., RDF triples). • CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s RDF-triple-based annotation schemas. H.5 The rate of errors introduced by a linguistic tool at a given level, when annotating, can be reduced automatically by contrasting and combining its results with the ones coming from other tools, operating at the same level. However, these other tools might be built following a different technological (stochastic vs. rule-based, for example) or theoretical (dependency vs. HPS-grammar-based, for instance) approach. • CONFIRMED by the results yielded by the evaluation of OntoTagger. H.6 Each linguistic level can be managed and annotated independently. • REJECTED: OntoTagger’s experiments and the dependencies observed among the morphosyntactic annotations, and between them and the syntactic annotations. In fact, Hypothesis H.6 was already rejected when OntoTag’s ontologies were developed. We observed then that several linguistic units stand on an interface between levels, belonging thereby to both of them (such as morphosyntactic units, which belong to both the morphological level and the syntactic level). Therefore, the annotations of these levels overlap and cannot be handled independently when merged into a unique multileveled annotation. 4. OTHER MAIN RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS First, interoperability is a hot topic for both the linguistic annotation community and the whole Computer Science field. The specification (and implementation) of OntoTag’s architecture for the combination and integration of linguistic (annotation) tools and annotations by means of ontologies shows a way to make these different linguistic annotation tools and annotations interoperate in practice. Second, as mentioned above, the elements involved in linguistic annotation were formalised in a set (or network) of ontologies (OntoTag’s linguistic ontologies). • On the one hand, OntoTag’s network of ontologies consists of − The Linguistic Unit Ontology (LUO), which includes a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of linguistic elements (i.e., units) identifiable in a written text; − The Linguistic Attribute Ontology (LAO), which includes also a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of features that characterise the linguistic units included in the LUO; − The Linguistic Value Ontology (LVO), which includes the corresponding formalisation of the different values that the attributes in the LAO can take; − The OIO (OntoTag’s Integration Ontology), which  Includes the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the LUO, the LAO and the LVO;  Can be viewed as a knowledge representation ontology that describes the most elementary vocabulary used in the area of annotation. • On the other hand, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the knowledge included in the different standards and recommendations for linguistic annotation released so far, such as those developed within the EAGLES and the SIMPLE European projects or by the ISO/TC 37 committee: − As far as morphosyntactic annotations are concerned, OntoTag’s ontologies formalise the terms in the EAGLES (1996a) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Morphosyntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/MAF, 2008) standard; − As for syntactic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the terms in the EAGLES (1996b) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Syntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/SynAF, 2010) standard draft; − Regarding semantic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies generalise and extend the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and, since no stable standards or standard drafts have been released for semantic annotation by ISO/TC 37 yet, they incorporate the terms in SIMPLE (2000) instead; − The terms coming from all these recommendations and standards were supplemented by those within the ISO Data Category Registry (ISO/DCR, 2008) and also of the ISO Linguistic Annotation Framework (ISO/LAF, 2009) standard draft when developing OntoTag’s ontologies. Third, we showed that the combination of the results of tools annotating at the same level can yield better results (both in precision and in recall) than each tool separately. In particular, 1. OntoTagger clearly outperformed two of the tools integrated into its configuration, namely DataLexica and FDG in all the combination sub-phases in which they overlapped (i.e. POS tagging, lemma annotation and morphological feature annotation). As far as the remaining tool is concerned, i.e. LACELL’s tagger, it was also outperformed by OntoTagger in POS tagging and lemma annotation, and it did not behave better than OntoTagger in the morphological feature annotation layer. 2. As an immediate result, this implies that a) This type of combination architecture configurations can be applied in order to improve significantly the accuracy of linguistic annotations; and b) Concerning the morphosyntactic level, this could be regarded as a way of constructing more robust and more accurate POS tagging systems. Fourth, Semantic Web annotations are usually performed by humans or else by machine learning systems. Both of them leave much to be desired: the former, with respect to their annotation rate; the latter, with respect to their (average) precision and recall. In this work, we showed how linguistic tools can be wrapped in order to annotate automatically Semantic Web pages using ontologies. This entails their fast, robust and accurate semantic annotation. As a way of example, as mentioned in Sub-goal 5.5, we developed a particular OntoTagger module for the recognition, classification and labelling of named entities, according to the MUC and ACE tagsets (Chinchor, 1997; Doddington et al., 2004). These tagsets were further specified by means of a domain ontology, namely the Cinema Named Entities Ontology (CNEO). This module was applied to the automatic annotation of ten different web pages containing cinema reviews (that is, around 5000 words). In addition, the named entities annotated with this module were also labelled as instances (or individuals) of the classes included in the CNEO and, then, were used to populate this domain ontology. • The statistical results obtained from the evaluation of this particular module of OntoTagger can be summarised as follows. On the one hand, as far as recall (R) is concerned, (R.1) the lowest value was 76,40% (for file 7); (R.2) the highest value was 97, 50% (for file 3); and (R.3) the average value was 88,73%. On the other hand, as far as the precision rate (P) is concerned, (P.1) its minimum was 93,75% (for file 4); (R.2) its maximum was 100% (for files 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10); and (R.3) its average value was 98,99%. • These results, which apply to the tasks of named entity annotation and ontology population, are extraordinary good for both of them. They can be explained on the basis of the high accuracy of the annotations provided by OntoTagger at the lower levels (mainly at the morphosyntactic level). However, they should be conveniently qualified, since they might be too domain- and/or language-dependent. It should be further experimented how our approach works in a different domain or a different language, such as French, English, or German. • In any case, the results of this application of Human Language Technologies to Ontology Population (and, accordingly, to Ontological Engineering) seem very promising and encouraging in order for these two areas to collaborate and complement each other in the area of semantic annotation. Fifth, as shown in the State of the Art of this work, there are different approaches and models for the semantic annotation of texts, but all of them focus on a particular view of the semantic level. Clearly, all these approaches and models should be integrated in order to bear a coherent and joint semantic annotation level. OntoTag shows how (i) these semantic annotation layers could be integrated together; and (ii) they could be integrated with the annotations associated to other annotation levels. Sixth, we identified some recommendations, best practices and lessons learned for annotation standardisation, interoperation and merge. They show how standardisation (via ontologies, in this case) enables the combination, integration and interoperation of different linguistic tools and their annotations into a multilayered (or multileveled) linguistic annotation, which is one of the hot topics in the area of Linguistic Annotation. And last but not least, OntoTag’s annotation scheme and OntoTagger’s annotation schemas show a way to formalise and annotate coherently and uniformly the different units and features associated to the different levels and layers of linguistic annotation. This is a great scientific step ahead towards the global standardisation of this area, which is the aim of ISO/TC 37 (in particular, Subcommittee 4, dealing with the standardisation of linguistic annotations and resources).

The secret to legal foretelling: generic and inter-generic aspects of vagueness in contracts, patents and regulations

In this genre analysis research paper, we compare U.S. patents, contracts, and regulations on technical matters with a focus upon the relation between vagueness and communicative purposes and subpurposes of these three genres. Our main interest is the investigation of intergeneric conventions across the three genres, based on the software analysis of three corpora (one for each genre, 1 million words per corpus). The result of the investigation is that intergeneric conventions are found at the level of types of expressed linguistic vagueness, but that intergeneric conventions at the level of actual formulations are rare. The conclusion is that at this latter level the influence from the situation type underlying the individual genre is more important than the overarching legal character of the genres, when we talk about introducing explicit vagueness in the text.

Enhancing the expressiveness of linguistic structures

In the information society large amounts of information are being generated and transmitted constantly, especially in the most natural way for humans, i.e., natural language. Social networks, blogs, forums, and Q&A sites are a dynamic Large Knowledge Repository. So, Web 2.0 contains structured data but still the largest amount of information is expressed in natural language. Linguistic structures for text recognition enable the extraction of structured information from texts. However, the expressiveness of the current structures is limited as they have been designed with a strict order in their phrases, limiting their applicability to other languages and making them more sensible to grammatical errors. To overcome these limitations, in this paper we present a linguistic structure named ?linguistic schema?, with a richer expressiveness that introduces less implicit constraints over annotations.

Linguistic linked data for sentiment analysis

In this paper we describe the specification of amodel for the semantically interoperable representation of language resources for sentiment analysis. The model integrates "lemon", an RDF-based model for the specification of ontology-lexica (Buitelaar et al. 2009), which is used increasinglyfor the representation of language resources asLinked Data, with Marl, an RDF-based model for the representation of sentiment annotations (West-erski et al., 2011; Sánchez-Rada et al., 2013)

Ordo ministrandi fidelibus pleraque sacramenta sepeliendi christianorum corpora ac peragendi ecclesiasticas alias functiones iuxta forman ritualis romani vel prasim diocesis caesaraugustanae [Texto impreso]

Sign.: A-P4, Q2

3LD: towards high quality, industry-ready linguistic Linked Licensed Data

The application of Linked Data technology to the publication of linguistic data promises to facilitate interoperability of these data and has lead to the emergence of the so called Linguistic Linked Data Cloud (LLD) in which linguistic data is published following the Linked Data principles. Three essential issues need to be addressed for such data to be easily exploitable by language technologies: i) appropriate machine-readable licensing information is needed for each dataset, ii) minimum quality standards for Linguistic Linked Data need to be defined, and iii) appropriate vocabularies for publishing Linguistic Linked Data resources are needed. We propose the notion of Licensed Linguistic Linked Data (3LD) in which different licensing models might co-exist, from totally open to more restrictive licenses through to completely closed datasets.

Language resources and linked data: a practical perspective

Recently, experts and practitioners in language resources have started recognizing the benefits of the linked data (LD) paradigm for the representation and exploitation of linguistic data on the Web. The adoption of the LD principles is leading to an emerging ecosystem of multilingual open resources that conform to the Linguistic Linked Open Data Cloud, in which datasets of linguistic data are interconnected and represented following common vocabularies, which facilitates linguistic information discovery, integration and access. In order to contribute to this initiative, this paper summarizes several key aspects of the representation of linguistic information as linked data from a practical perspective. The main goal of this document is to provide the basic ideas and tools for migrating language resources (lexicons, corpora, etc.) as LD on the Web and to develop some useful NLP tasks with them (e.g., word sense disambiguation). Such material was the basis of a tutorial imparted at the EKAW’14 conference, which is also reported in the paper.

Un estudio del adjetivo en un corpus de textos escritos en inglés y español pertenecientes al discurso de especialidad de las Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones

Esta investigación se enmarca dentro de los denominados lenguajes de especialidad que para esta tesis será el de las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación (TIC). De todos los aspectos relacionados con el estudio de estos lenguajes que pudieran tener interés lingüístico ha primado el análisis del componente terminológico. Tradicionalmente la conceptualización de un campo del saber se representaba mayoritariamente a través del elemento nominal, así lo defiende la Teoría General de la Terminología (Wüster, 1968). Tanto la lexicología como la lexicografía han aportado importantes contribuciones a los estudios terminológicos para la identificación del componente léxico a través del cual se transmite la información especializada. No obstante esos primeros estudios terminológicos que apuntaban al sustantivo como elmentos denominativo-conceptual, otras teorías más recientes, entre las que destacamos la Teoría Comunicativa de la Terminología (Cabré, 1999) identifican otras estructuras morfosintácticas integradas por otros elementos no nominales portadores igualmente de esa carga conceptual. A partir de esta consideración, hemos seleccionado para este estudio el adjetivo relacional en tanto que representa otra categoría gramatical distinta al sustantivo y mantiene un vínculo con éste debido a su procedencia. Todo lo cual puede suscitar cierto interés terminológico. A través de esta investigación, nos hemos propuesto demostrar las siguientes hipótesis: 1. El adjetivo relacional aporta contenido especializado en su asociación con el componente nominal. 2. El adjetivo relacional es portador de un valor semántico que hace posible identificar con más precisión la relación conceptual de los elementos -adjetivo y sustantivo - de la combinación léxica resultante, especialmente en algunas formaciones ambiguas. 3. El adjetivo relacional, como modificador natural del sustantivo al que acompaña, podría imponer cierta restricción en sus combinaciones y, por tanto, hacer una selección discriminada de los integrantes de la combinación léxica especializada. Teniendo en cuenta las anteriores hipótesis, esta investigación ha delimitado y caracterizado el segmento léxico objeto de estudio: la ‘combinación léxica especializada (CLE)’ formalmente representada por la estructura sintáctica [adjR+n], en donde adjR es el adjetivo y n el sustantivo al que acompaña. De igual forma hemos descrito el marco teórico desde el que abordar nuestro análisis. Se trata de la teoría del Lexicón Generatvio (LG) y de la representación semántica (Pustojovsky, 1995) que propone como explicación de la generación de significados. Hemos analizado las distintas estructuras de representación léxica y en especial la estructura qualia a través de la cual hemos identificado la relación semántica que mantienen los dos ítems léxicos [adjR+n] de la estructura sintáctica de nuestro estudio. El estudio semántico de las dos piezas léxicas ha permitido, además, comprobar el valor denominativo del adjetivo en la combinación. Ha sido necesario elaborar un corpus de textos escritos en inglés y español pertenecientes al discurso de especialidad de las TIC. Este material ha sido procesado para nuestros fines utilizando distintas herramientas electrónicas. Se ha hecho uso de lexicones electrónicos, diccionarios online generales y de especialidad y corpus de referencia online, estos últimos para poder eventualmente validad nuetros datos. Asimismo se han utilizado motores de búsqueda, entre ellos WordNet Search 3.1, para obtener la información semántica de nuestros elementos léxicos. Nuestras conclusiones han corroborado las hipótesis que se planteaban en esta tesis, en especial la referente al valor denominativo-conceptual del adjetivo relacional el cual, junto con el sustantivo al que acompaña, forma parte de la representación cognitiva del lenguaje de especialidad de las TIC. Como continuación a este estudio se proponen sugerencias sobre líneas futuras de investigación así como el diseño de herramientas informáticas que pudieran incorporar estos datos semánticos como complemento de los ítems léxicos dotados de valor denominativo-conceptual. ABSTRACT This research falls within the field of the so-called Specialized Languages which for the purpose of this study is the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) discourse. Considering their several distinguishing features terminology concentrates our interest from the point of view of linguistics. It is broadly assumed that terms represent concepts of a subject field. For the classical view of terminology (Wüster, 1968) these terms are formally represented by nouns. Both lexicology and terminology have made significant contributions to the study of terms. Later research as well as other theories on Terminology such as the Communicative Theory of Terminology (Cabré, 1993) have shown that other lexical units can also represent knowledge organization. On these bases, we have focused our research on the relational adjective which represents a functional unit different from a noun while still connected to the noun by means of its nominal root. This may have a potential terminological interest. Therefore the present research is based on the next hypotheses: 1. The relational adjective conveys specialized information when combined with the noun. 2. The relational adjective has a semantic meaning which helps understand the conceptual relationship between the adjective and the noun being modified and disambiguate certain senses of the resulting lexical combination. 3. The relational adjective may impose some restrictions when choosing the nouns it modifies. Considering the above hypotheses, this study has identified and described a multi-word lexical unit pattern [Radj+n] referred to as a Specialized Lexical Combination (SLC) linguistically realized by a relational adjective, Radj, and a noun, n. The analysis of such a syntactic pattern is addressed from the framework of the Generative Lexicon (Pustojovsky, 1995). Such theory provides several levels of semantic description which help lexical decomposition performed generatively. These levels of semantic representation are connected through generative operations or generative devices which account for the compositional interpretation of any linguistic utterance in a given context. This study analyses these different levels and focuses on one of them, i.e. the qualia structure since it may encode the conceptual meaning of the syntactic pattern [Radj+n]. The semantic study of these two lexical items has ultimately confirmed the conceptual meaning of the relational adjective. A corpus made of online ICT articles from magazines written in English and Spanish – some being their translations - has been used for the word extraction. For this purpose some word processing software packages have been employed. Moreover online general language and specialized language dictionaries have been consulted. Search engines, namely WordNet Search 3.1, have been also exploited to find the semantic information of our lexical units. Online reference corpora in English and Spanish have been used for a contrastive analysis of our data. Finally our conclusions have confirmed our initial hypotheses, i.e. relational adjectives are specialized lexical units which together with the nouns are part of the knowledge representation of the ICT subject field. Proposals for new research have been made together with some other suggestions for the design of computer applications to visually show the conceptual meaning of certain lexical units.

Linguistic aspects of speech synthesis.

The conversion of text to speech is seen as an analysis of the input text to obtain a common underlying linguistic description, followed by a synthesis of the output speech waveform from this fundamental specification. Hence, the comprehensive linguistic structure serving as the substrate for an utterance must be discovered by analysis from the text. The pronunciation of individual words in unrestricted text is determined by morphological analysis or letter-to-sound conversion, followed by specification of the word-level stress contour. In addition, many text character strings, such as titles, numbers, and acronyms, are abbreviations for normal words, which must be derived. To further refine these pronunciations and to discover the prosodic structure of the utterance, word part of speech must be computed, followed by a phrase-level parsing. From this structure the prosodic structure of the utterance can be determined, which is needed in order to specify the durational framework and fundamental frequency contour of the utterance. In discourse contexts, several factors such as the specification of new and old information, contrast, and pronominal reference can be used to further modify the prosodic specification. When the prosodic correlates have been computed and the segmental sequence is assembled, a complete input suitable for speech synthesis has been determined. Lastly, multilingual systems utilizing rule frameworks are mentioned, and future directions are characterized.

New trends in natural language processing: statistical natural language processing.

The field of natural language processing (NLP) has seen a dramatic shift in both research direction and methodology in the past several years. In the past, most work in computational linguistics tended to focus on purely symbolic methods. Recently, more and more work is shifting toward hybrid methods that combine new empirical corpus-based methods, including the use of probabilistic and information-theoretic techniques, with traditional symbolic methods. This work is made possible by the recent availability of linguistic databases that add rich linguistic annotation to corpora of natural language text. Already, these methods have led to a dramatic improvement in the performance of a variety of NLP systems with similar improvement likely in the coming years. This paper focuses on these trends, surveying in particular three areas of recent progress: part-of-speech tagging, stochastic parsing, and lexical semantics.

Estudo semântico-lexical do códice oitocentista Memoria sobre o Plano de Guerra Offensiva e Deffensiva da Capitania de Matto Grosso

Esta tese, com o intuito de contribuir para uma reflexão em torno da história da formação da língua portuguesa no Brasil, propõe como objetivo geral realizar um estudo do léxico no município de Cáceres-MT, tendo como base a discussão sobre manutenção, tendência à manutenção, desuso, tendência ao desuso e neologismo semântico de unidades lexicais extraídas de um manuscrito oitocentista. Os objetivos específicos são os seguintes: (i) compreender a história social da Capitania de Mato Grosso e do município de Cáceres, a partir das informações constantes no manuscrito Memoria, e aspectos que envolvam as condições de produção do documento e a biografia do autor; (ii) levantar o léxico do manuscrito, com recorte nos substantivos e adjetivos para servir de base na seleção das unidades lexicais a serem testadas in loco, e investigar a acepção registrada no documento das unidades lexicais, caracterizando, assim, o léxico do período oitocentista; (iii), fazer um cotejo lexicográfico abrangendo dicionários gerais dos séculos XVIII ao XXI; (iv) testar e identificar, a partir do corpus oral constituído por meio de pesquisa de campo na região urbana cacerense, o grau de manutenção, tendência à manutenção, desuso, tendência ao desuso e neologismo semântico em relação às unidades lexicais e suas respectivas acepções registradas no manuscrito. Dessa forma, toma-se como corpus de língua escrita de análise o manuscrito oitocentista Memoria sobre o plano de guerra offensiva e deffensiva da Capitania de Matto Grosso e, a partir das unidades lexicais selecionadas e extraídas dele, realizou-se a pesquisa de campo para o recolhimento do corpus de língua oral. Antes dessa recolha, tendo como base teórico-metodológica as disciplinas de Dialetologia e de Geolinguística, selecionou-se a localidade (município de Cáceres - MT) e os informantes (total de dezesseis); elaborou-se o questionário semântico-lexical, considerando fundamentalmente a proposta apresentada pelo Comitê Nacional do Projeto ALiB (2001); e realizou-se a pesquisa de campo e as transcrições das entrevistas. Para análise de natureza semântico-lexical dos corpora, recorreu aos estudos lexicográficos e lexicológicos. Tomando por base os resultados do estudo realizado, constatou-se que na realidade linguística do informante cacerense encontram-se unidades que já integravam o léxico oitocentista da língua portuguesa escrita no Brasil, ou seja, há uma memória semântico-lexical que se mantém no sistema lexical, provavelmente, devido às condições sócioculturais do município de Cáceres, Mato Grosso, cuja população, em grande parte, por quase duzentos anos, viveu na área rural. Todavia, vislumbrou-se um certo equilíbrio entre a manutenção do léxico oitocentista sem deixar de lado a inovação e o mecanismo polissêmico constitutivo do léxico.