La respuesta de Diómedes : Construcción discursiva de la autoridad y el disenso en el Agón verbal del canto IX de Ilíada

En Ilíada, los combates o agones verbales resultan esenciales en tanto instancias de confrontación de argumentos. Sin embargo, el desacuerdo con la autoridad no es un mecanismo instalado desde el inicio del poema. En el canto IX encontramos una escena de enfrentamiento verbal, la asamblea, que da lugar a la posibilidad de un discurso de oposición ante una propuesta por parte de Agamenón. Desde el punto de vista del análisis del discurso examinaremos la respuesta de Diomedes a Agamenón, observando la situación enunciativa, las elecciones léxicas y los ordenamientos relevantes, en función de analizar su configuración discursiva. Partimos de considerar la participación en el agón como determinada por el presupuesto de una condición de igualdad. En base a esto, indagaremos acerca de las posibilidades de expresar el disenso frente a la autoridad máxima, lo cual permitirá explorar el contexto y la estructura del debate que Ilíada presenta

La tradición clásica en Los devaneos de Erato de Ana Rossetti

En Los devaneos de Erato, Ana Rossetti retoma motivos, temas e imágenes de la tradición clásica y los reinterpreta. El mundo clásico se transforma así en un medio por el cual Rossetti busca subvertir el imaginario mítico y parodiar el mundo patriarcal, dando lugar a una lectura personal donde el erotismo cobra especial importancia. A partir de un corpus de poemas pertenecientes a dicho libro, rastrearemos, por un lado, los modos en los que la poeta hace referencia al mito clásico (como la imitación de la sintaxis, la selección lexical o haciendo referencia directa a las fuentes de la literatura clásica de las que se sirve) y los efectos de sentido a los que llega a través de ellos; por otro lado, veremos cómo Rossetti pretende invertir el orden tradicional hombre-sujeto/mujer-objeto, presentando al hombre como objeto de deseo y no como sujeto que siente y experimenta, frente a la mujer que, en la tradición poética occidental, tiene una posición de pasividad. Es a través del mito que Rossetti configura una nueva identidad femenina y es en este punto en el que nos detendremos, pues consideramos que es el que realiza el aporte más original respecto a la tradición clásica

Desterritorialización y heterogeneidad : La traducción literal en la narrativa de Sandra Cisneros

Esta tesis indaga acerca de algunos de los aspectos lingüísticos y discursivos presentes en la construcción de la narrativa de la autora chicana Sandra Cisneros (1954-). En contraposición a la literatura canónica, la literatura chicana se define como escritura de minorías. Según G. Deleuze y F. Guattari (1975), una literatura de minorías se caracteriza por la desterritorialización de una lengua mayoritaria a través de su uso en esa literatura, la articulación de loindividual en lo inmediato político y el dispositivo colectivo de enunciación. La obra de S. Cisneros, que se desarrolla principalmente a partir del inglés, pone de manifiesto el contacto entre el español y el inglés de un modo particular. En este trabajo, se analiza el fenómeno del contacto de lenguas vinculado a la traducción literal, cuya presencia se vuelve un rasgo distintivo del estilo de la autora y una estrategia clave para la desterritorialización del lenguaje. En este sentido, la hipótesis central de nuestra investigación indica que bajo la apariencia de una única lengua, el inglés (L1), hay otra lengua, el español (L2), que se manifiesta en la utilización de alguno de sus niveles (léxico-semántico, pragmático, morfosintáctico o gráfico), lo cual contribuye a la desterritorialización de L1 y constituye un caso especial de alternancia de lenguas. Esta hipótesis ha guiado la clasificación del corpus de esta investigación constituido por frases y estructuras que registran cierta fijación,pertenecientes a la colección de relatos Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories (1991). El interés en estas formas reside en que si bien aparecen expresadas en inglés, remiten al español como marco discursivo, acentuando el carácter heterogéneo constitutivo de toda palabra. Dado que la traducción literal no integra los modelos sociolingüísticos revisados (S. Poplack: 1982; C. Myers-Scotton: 1993a y 1993b) y considerando que el contacto de lenguastambién se manifiesta a través de esta operación de traducción, que conforma un punto de heterogeneidad fuerte, fue necesario buscar una teoría lingüísticaque pudiera explicar la complejidad el discurso de Cisneros. Así, la teoría de las heterogeneidades enunciativas (J. Authier-Revuz: 1984, 1995) se presenta como un marco más amplio para el estudio de las marcas de heterogeneidad y desterritorialización en el seno de la narrativa de S. Cisneros. Esta perspectivateórica, que da cuenta de los procesos que se ponen en marcha en la constitución del discurso y atiende, entre otras, la función de las marcas gráficas presentes en el texto escrito, propone un marco más amplio para abordar nuestro objeto. Son dos los objetivos principales de esta investigación: describir la operación de desterritorialización en el interior de este discurso y establecer relaciones entre algunos de los modelos que abordan el estudio de la alternancia de lenguas (S. Poplack: 1982; C. Myers-Scotton: 1993a y 1993b) y la teoría de las heterogeneidades enunciativas propuesta por J. Authier-Revuz (1984, 1995).

Aportes de los estudios de variación lingüística a la enseñanza de una lengua segunda y extranjera en su dinamismo cultural

En este trabajo se propone reflexionar sobre los principales postulados de la Etnopragmática (García 1990, 1995; Martínez 1995, 2000; Mauder 2000) y los aportes que brindar a la enseñanza/aprendizaje de una lengua segunda y extranjera. Esta teoría centra sus estudios en la variación lingüística (intra e interhablante) pues en ella se reflejan los distintos perfilamientos cognitivos de los hablantes frente al mundo referido con el fin de transmitir mensajes coherentes. Esto fundamenta que el análisis de los morfemas, los cuales aportan un significado básico y constante a la comunicación, sea necesariamente en sus contextos de aparición.A través del análisis de la variación interhablante, puede observarse cómocada lengua o variedad lingüística proyecta una visión diferente de mundo. En cada estructura semántica, sintáctica y lexical, las lenguas cristalizan la manera en que conciben el mundo. Perder de vista esta dimensión en la enseñanza de una lengua, ya sea Materna, segunda o extranjera, significa excluir explicaciones que pueden consolidar la comprensión del uso. Aprender una lengua segunda y extranjera en su dinamismo cultural abre las puertas a otras maneras de ver y pensar la realidad, como también a reflexionar sobre las características de nuestra propia lengua. Creemos, en este sentido, que los postulados de la Etnopragmática ofrecen herramientas sumamente productivas para la enseñanza/aprendizaje de una lengua segunda y extranjera en su dinamismo cultural.

El léxico del Lazarillo

Se ilustra un Glosario exhaustivo de todas las palabras del Lazarillo registradas en el devenir de los contextos, realizado de manera distinta de las Concordancias y que pronto se va a colgar en la red. El Glosario permite estudiar datos estadísticos (cifras y porcentajes), clases gramaticales, voces más frecuentes, campos semánticos dominantes, estilemas, sintagmas, topografía de términos y voces exclusivas de un Tratado, etc. La conclusión es que el Lazarillo es obra muy rica en léxico (por tener muchas palabras con una sola mención y a la vez un bajo índice de repetición) y que expolios como éstos son imprescindibles, sea para estudios lingüísticos y estilísticos, sea para una edición crítica por brindar reunido el usus scribendi del autor con el que sopesar variantes adiáforas o dudosas

Variação e mudança no português da amazônia : Uma análise do marcador pragmático extra-cláusula tá no falar santareno (Estado do Pará)

Este trabalho é orientado pela vertente funcionalista da linguagem, que estuda a estrutura linguística associada a fatores comunicativos. Nosso objetivo é identificar e analisar a multifuncionalidade do marcador pragmático extra-cláusula tá na comunidade de fala do município de Santarém, localizado a oeste do estado do Pará (PA). Considerando o processo de gramaticalizaçao, compreendido como o processo de mudança linguística pelo qual um item e/ou construçao lexical torna se gramatical ou um item e/ou construçao gramatical torna-se ainda mais gramatical (Hopper & Traugott,1993), apresentamos os diferentes usos do verbo estar, isto é, a coocorrência de seus usos como verbo lexical (estar, como em Ele está em casa), verbo funcional (como em Ele está cansado), verbo auxiliar (estar + Vndo, como em Ele está escrevendo) e como marcador pragmático (tá, como em vou descrever agora a sala, tá?). Etimologicamente, o verbo estar resulta da forma latina stare, cujo significado indicava localizaçao física no espaço era empregada com sentido locativo. Após investigaçao preliminar dos usos dessa forma, levantamos a hipótese de que o verbo ESTAR sofre o processo de gramaticalizaçao o que explica os diferentes usos do verbo e a migraçao do item TA para a categoria dos marcadores pragmáticos extra cláusulas (Dik, 1997; Hengeveld E Mackenzie,2008). Entendemos por marcadores pragmáticos extra cláusulas expressoes que nao podem ser analisadas nem como cláusulas nem como fragmentos de cláusula. Os resultados confirmam nossa hipótese e apontam que o marcador TA desempenha as seguintes funçoes: de afirmaçao, de iniciador de tópico, de finalizador, de sequenciador e de checador. Como nossa abordagem é funcionalista, valemo-nos de dados reais da língua, constituímos um corpus de ocorrência do item em causa, extraído de textos do tipo Narrativa de Experiência Pessoal e Descriçao de Local que constituem o Corpus de Textos Orais do Português Santareno - CTOPS organizado por Pena-Ferreira e Lima-Gomes (2010)

Text Comprehension And roduction in University Students: Text Reformulation

This paper sets out to report on findings about features of task-specific reformulation observed in university students in the middle stretch of the Psychology degree course (N=58) and in a reference group of students from the degree courses in Modern Languages, Spanish and Library Studies (N=33) from the National University of La Plata (Argentina). Three types of reformulation were modeled: summary reformulation, comprehensive and productive reformulation.The study was based on a corpus of 621 reformulations rendered from different kinds of text. The versions obtained were categorised according to the following criteria: presence or absence of normative, morphosyntactic and semantic difficulties. Findings show that problems arise particularly with paraphrase and summary writing. Observation showed difficulties concerning punctuation, text cohesion and coherence , and semantic distortion or omission as regards extracting and/or substituting gist, with limited lexical resources and confusion as to suitability of style/register in writing. The findings in this study match those of earlier, more comprehensive research on the issue and report on problems experienced by a significant number of university students when interacting with both academic texts and others of a general nature. Moreover, they led to questions, on the one hand, as to the nature of such difficulties, which appear to be production-related problems and indirectly account for inadequate text comprehension, and on the other hand, as to the features of university tuition when it comes to text handling.

Contribuições ao estudo da ambiguidade da linguagem sob a ótica enunciativa

Parte da linguística analisa o fenômeno da ambiguidade em funçao das regras gramaticais e tende a categorizá-lo em diferentes níveis, o que faz emergir taxonomias que remetem a ambiguidade a problemas tencionáveis nos âmbitos semântico, lexical, sintático, morfológico, etc. Assim, esse trabalho se foca na releitura de algumas dessas taxonomias com o suporte teórico-metodológico da Teoria das Operaçoes Predicativas e Enunciativas (TOPE) do linguista francês Antoine Culioli, o qual nao propoe uma divisao do estudo da língua em abordagens fonéticas, semânticas, morfologias, etc. por crer que tais divisoes nao trazem uma visao do todo da linguagem. Ao contrário, ele insiste num um trabalho que afirma a necessidade de um sistema de representaçao que suporte a generalizaçao, que vê o significado e a sintaxe como inseparáveis e propoe que se observem valores semântico-discursivos veiculados por marcas de diferentes ordens (entoacional, lexical, morfológica, etc.) geradas na relaçao léxico- gramática. Na verdade, apostamos na indeterminaçao da linguagem para chegarmos a resultados que mostrem que as categorizaçoes sao instáveis e elegem, muitas vezes, apenas questoes de língua para determinar as taxonomias ao invés de tomarem ciência dos valores (entre eles a modalidade, o tempo e o aspecto) responsáveis pela ambiguidade fundamental da linguagem e pela criaçao de um cenário sociopsicológico que torna cada ato enunciativo uma construçao ímpar de um espaço orientado e determinado, o qual estabiliza os valores referenciais. Dessa forma, atribuir apenas à gramática o papel de desencadeadora de uma ambiguidade (seja ela no campo do léxico ou da sintaxe) é desconsiderar que a linguagem se prolifera e possibilita um jogo incessante de significaçoes garantido pela dissimetria inevitável entre produçao e reconhecimento interpretativo. Essa espécie de jogo fundadora da comunicaçao

La lengua gauchesca en sus orígenes

La llamada 'lengua gauchesca' presenta serios inconvenientes cuando se pretende su definición. La dificultad estriba en que puede ponerse en discusión tanto su carácter de lengua diferenciada como su atribución al 'gaucho', en tanto este colectivo no es unívoco, sino responde a diferentes perfiles sociales, diversamente evaluados a lo largo de la historia colonial y poscolonial rioplatense. El presente trabajo intenta probar que la lengua gauchesca es un constructo literario, lingüísticamente basado en la variedad rural rioplatense, a partir de la cual los autores del género sintetizaron un nuevo código, elaborado desde un vocabulario inicial hasta la formación de una variedad secundaria estandarizada

Cambaceres, lector de Potpourri : 1882-1883

Las dos primeras ediciones de Potpourri. Silbidos de un vago aparecieron en octubre y noviembre de 1882; la tercera se publicó en diciembre del 83. Para la segunda, salvo la corrección de cinco erratas, el autor no introdujo ningún cambio. Sí lo hizo para la publicación de la tercera; el más importante: el agregado de un prólogo. En cuanto al resto del texto, el tipo de intervenciones -sustituciones léxicas y modificaciones formales que en ocasiones involucran transformaciones semánticas, ajustes que benefician la coherencia de la trama y la legibilidad- revela una preocupación evidente por el detalle

La respuesta de Diómedes : Construcción discursiva de la autoridad y el disenso en el Agón verbal del canto IX de Ilíada

En Ilíada, los combates o agones verbales resultan esenciales en tanto instancias de confrontación de argumentos. Sin embargo, el desacuerdo con la autoridad no es un mecanismo instalado desde el inicio del poema. En el canto IX encontramos una escena de enfrentamiento verbal, la asamblea, que da lugar a la posibilidad de un discurso de oposición ante una propuesta por parte de Agamenón. Desde el punto de vista del análisis del discurso examinaremos la respuesta de Diomedes a Agamenón, observando la situación enunciativa, las elecciones léxicas y los ordenamientos relevantes, en función de analizar su configuración discursiva. Partimos de considerar la participación en el agón como determinada por el presupuesto de una condición de igualdad. En base a esto, indagaremos acerca de las posibilidades de expresar el disenso frente a la autoridad máxima, lo cual permitirá explorar el contexto y la estructura del debate que Ilíada presenta

Representaciones de la Guerra Civil en el diario El País : 1986, 1996, 2006

El lenguaje es siempre valorativo, aún cuando adopte formas aparentemente objetivas o neutras. Esta conjetura básica guía el análisis comparativo de diversos artículos aparecidos en el diario El País en los meses de julio de 1986, 1996 y 2006 en ocasión de los aniversarios del inicio de la Guerra Civil española (50, 60 y 70 años respectivamente). La intención es indagar qué versiones de la guerra ofrece cada uno y cuáles son las estrategias discursivas que utilizan para hacerlo. Es decir, cómo construyen una representación de ese acontecimiento fundamental en la historia de España y qué diferencias encontramos en el tratamiento discursivo que hacen de él. Se analizan algunas opciones discursivas que son claves en la construcción del referente: la selección temática y lexical, las expresiones que aluden a la guerra y la gramática particular que exhibe u oculta los participantes de las acciones. El hecho de que sea el mismo periódico nos autoriza a suponer que las diferencias lingüísticas e ideológicas que encontremos en la comparación responderán a cambios en las representaciones sociales de las cuales los medios son vehículos privilegiados. De este modo, el análisis luz sobre las transformaciones que la memoria de la Guerra Civil española sufrió en los últimos veinte años.

What, no rhumba? Los recitales de Eusebia Cosme y las tensiones entre "raza" y "cultura" en torno a la definición de la "poesía negra" hispanoamericana en los años treinta y cuarenta

El presente artículo analiza, en líneas generales, el repertorio de las presentaciones de la recitadora cubana Eusebia Cosme entre 1934 y 1946, así como el diseño de los programas impresos de esas presentaciones. El propósito de este análisis es elucidar la importancia que ellas tuvieron en la constitución del canon de la moderna "poesía negra" hispanoamericana; investigar las motivaciones de los desplazamientos lexicales producidos en los atributos dados a esta poesía, e inquirir las razones de la persistencia, en el período, de las tensiones entre las categorías de "raza" y "cultura"

Relational and Allegorical Semantics for Constraint Logic Programming

El cálculo de relaciones binarias fue creado por De Morgan en 1860 para ser posteriormente desarrollado en gran medida por Peirce y Schröder. Tarski, Givant, Freyd y Scedrov demostraron que las álgebras relacionales son capaces de formalizar la lógica de primer orden, la lógica de orden superior así como la teoría de conjuntos. A partir de los resultados matemáticos de Tarski y Freyd, esta tesis desarrolla semánticas denotacionales y operacionales para la programación lógica con restricciones usando el álgebra relacional como base. La idea principal es la utilización del concepto de semántica ejecutable, semánticas cuya característica principal es el que la ejecución es posible utilizando el razonamiento estándar del universo semántico, este caso, razonamiento ecuacional. En el caso de este trabajo, se muestra que las álgebras relacionales distributivas con un operador de punto fijo capturan toda la teoría y metateoría estándar de la programación lógica con restricciones incluyendo los árboles utilizados en la búsqueda de demostraciones. La mayor parte de técnicas de optimización de programas, evaluación parcial e interpretación abstracta pueden ser llevadas a cabo utilizando las semánticas aquí presentadas. La demostración de la corrección de la implementación resulta extremadamente sencilla. En la primera parte de la tesis, un programa lógico con restricciones es traducido a un conjunto de términos relacionales. La interpretación estándar en la teoría de conjuntos de dichas relaciones coincide con la semántica estándar para CLP. Las consultas contra el programa traducido son llevadas a cabo mediante la reescritura de relaciones. Para concluir la primera parte, se demuestra la corrección y equivalencia operacional de esta nueva semántica, así como se define un algoritmo de unificación mediante la reescritura de relaciones. La segunda parte de la tesis desarrolla una semántica para la programación lógica con restricciones usando la teoría de alegorías—versión categórica del álgebra de relaciones—de Freyd. Para ello, se definen dos nuevos conceptos de Categoría Regular de Lawvere y _-Alegoría, en las cuales es posible interpretar un programa lógico. La ventaja fundamental que el enfoque categórico aporta es la definición de una máquina categórica que mejora e sistema de reescritura presentado en la primera parte. Gracias al uso de relaciones tabulares, la máquina modela la ejecución eficiente sin salir de un marco estrictamente formal. Utilizando la reescritura de diagramas, se define un algoritmo para el cálculo de pullbacks en Categorías Regulares de Lawvere. Los dominios de las tabulaciones aportan información sobre la utilización de memoria y variable libres, mientras que el estado compartido queda capturado por los diagramas. La especificación de la máquina induce la derivación formal de un juego de instrucciones eficiente. El marco categórico aporta otras importantes ventajas, como la posibilidad de incorporar tipos de datos algebraicos, funciones y otras extensiones a Prolog, a la vez que se conserva el carácter 100% declarativo de nuestra semántica. ABSTRACT The calculus of binary relations was introduced by De Morgan in 1860, to be greatly developed by Peirce and Schröder, as well as many others in the twentieth century. Using different formulations of relational structures, Tarski, Givant, Freyd, and Scedrov have shown how relation algebras can provide a variable-free way of formalizing first order logic, higher order logic and set theory, among other formal systems. Building on those mathematical results, we develop denotational and operational semantics for Constraint Logic Programming using relation algebra. The idea of executable semantics plays a fundamental role in this work, both as a philosophical and technical foundation. We call a semantics executable when program execution can be carried out using the regular theory and tools that define the semantic universe. Throughout this work, the use of pure algebraic reasoning is the basis of denotational and operational results, eliminating all the classical non-equational meta-theory associated to traditional semantics for Logic Programming. All algebraic reasoning, including execution, is performed in an algebraic way, to the point we could state that the denotational semantics of a CLP program is directly executable. Techniques like optimization, partial evaluation and abstract interpretation find a natural place in our algebraic models. Other properties, like correctness of the implementation or program transformation are easy to check, as they are carried out using instances of the general equational theory. In the first part of the work, we translate Constraint Logic Programs to binary relations in a modified version of the distributive relation algebras used by Tarski. Execution is carried out by a rewriting system. We prove adequacy and operational equivalence of the semantics. In the second part of the work, the relation algebraic approach is improved by using allegory theory, a categorical version of the algebra of relations developed by Freyd and Scedrov. The use of allegories lifts the semantics to typed relations, which capture the number of logical variables used by a predicate or program state in a declarative way. A logic program is interpreted in a _-allegory, which is in turn generated from a new notion of Regular Lawvere Category. As in the untyped case, program translation coincides with program interpretation. Thus, we develop a categorical machine directly from the semantics. The machine is based on relation composition, with a pullback calculation algorithm at its core. The algorithm is defined with the help of a notion of diagram rewriting. In this operational interpretation, types represent information about memory allocation and the execution mechanism is more efficient, thanks to the faithful representation of shared state by categorical projections. We finish the work by illustrating how the categorical semantics allows the incorporation into Prolog of constructs typical of Functional Programming, like abstract data types, and strict and lazy functions.

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).