990 resultados para 200408 Linguistic Structures (incl. Grammar Phonology Lexicon Semantics)


Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

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.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

El treball següent ofereix una visió global d'un dels dialectes de la llengua alemanya que menys ha estat objecte de recerca i investigació, el saxó, centrant-se en la presència escrita de què gaudeix aquesta varietat actualment i el seu prestigi social a Alemanya a través dels anys

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

En väsentlig fråga inom såväl lingvistiska som kognitiva teorier är, hur språket beskriver kausala relationer. I finskan finns det en speciell typ av kausativa verb avledda med suffixet (U)ttA som används för att uttrycka att handlingen i fråga utförs av någon annan än subjektreferenten, t.ex. Maija haetuttaa Matilla kirjastosta kirjan ’Maija låter Matti hämta boken från biblioteket’ och Matti juoksuttaa Maijan kaupunkiin ’Matti låter Maija springa till staden’. Syftet med denna avhandling var att med exempel av sociala dominansens kausativer undersöka ordbildningens natur samt begreppet ’socialt förorsakande’. För att beskriva avledningars regelbundna argumentstruktur i form av kopplingen mellan syntaxen och semantiken upprättades deras prototypiska strukturer. Dessa verb har emellertid också specifika användningsområden som framhäver variationer i sociala relationer. Säregna egenskaper hos den sociala dominansens kausativer inkluderades i undersökningen och definierades som konstruktioner. Konstruktionerna omfattar speciella syntaktiska och/eller semantiska element och utöver det också pragmatiska värderande implikationer. Uppbyggnaden av den sociala dimensionen hos de undersökta verben består av egenskaper förbundna med typen av förorsakande, argumentens agentiva egenskaper (aktivitet eller passivitet, dominans, kontroll, viljestyrdhet och ansvarighet) samt konventionaliserade attityder och tolkningar. Ett exempel på en s.k. 'tolkningskonstruktion’ är den negativa dominansens uttryck som i avhandlingen kallas Maktmissbrukskonstruktionen. Denna konstruktion inkluderar talarens starkt kritiska hållning till den uttryckta situationen, t.ex. Asiakas juoksuttaa lentoemäntää ’Kunden låter flygvärdinnan springa’. Dessa konstruktioner fyller en viktig funktion i språklig kommunikation: att beskriva avvikande av sociala normer och att foga expressivitet till budskapet. Metodologiskt kombinerar denna avhandling teorier som baseras på det aktuella språkbruket och teoretisk lingvistisk analys. Verbens samt konstruktionernas konceptuella lexikala struktur och prototypstrukturerna analyserades med hjälp av den konceptuella semantikens verktyg, som har utvecklats av Jackendoff, Nikanne och Pörn.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The human language-learning ability persists throughout life, indicating considerable flexibility at the cognitive and neural level. This ability spans from expanding the vocabulary in the mother tongue to acquisition of a new language with its lexicon and grammar. The present thesis consists of five studies that tap both of these aspects of adult language learning by using magnetoencephalography (MEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during language processing and language learning tasks. The thesis shows that learning novel phonological word forms, either in the native tongue or when exposed to a foreign phonology, activates the brain in similar ways. The results also show that novel native words readily become integrated in the mental lexicon. Several studies in the thesis highlight the left temporal cortex as an important brain region in learning and accessing phonological forms. Incidental learning of foreign phonological word forms was reflected in functionally distinct temporal lobe areas that, respectively, reflected short-term memory processes and more stable learning that persisted to the next day. In a study where explicitly trained items were tracked for ten months, it was found that enhanced naming-related temporal and frontal activation one week after learning was predictive of good long-term memory. The results suggest that memory maintenance is an active process that depends on mechanisms of reconsolidation, and that these process vary considerably between individuals. The thesis put special emphasis on studying language learning in the context of language production. The neural foundation of language production has been studied considerably less than that of perceptive language, especially on the sentence level. A well-known paradigm in language production studies is picture naming, also used as a clinical tool in neuropsychology. This thesis shows that accessing the meaning and phonological form of a depicted object are subserved by different neural implementations. Moreover, a comparison between action and object naming from identical images indicated that the grammatical class of the retrieved word (verb, noun) is less important than the visual content of the image. In the present thesis, the picture naming was further modified into a novel paradigm in order to probe sentence-level speech production in a newly learned miniature language. Neural activity related to grammatical processing did not differ between the novel language and the mother tongue, but stronger neural activation for the novel language was observed during the planning of the upcoming output, likely related to more demanding lexical retrieval and short-term memory. In sum, the thesis aimed at examining language learning by combining different linguistic domains, such as phonology, semantics, and grammar, in a dynamic description of language processing in the human brain.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

This study examines the structure of the Russian Reflexive Marker ( ся/-сь) and offers a usage-based model building on Construction Grammar and a probabilistic view of linguistic structure. Traditionally, reflexive verbs are accounted for relative to non-reflexive verbs. These accounts assume that linguistic structures emerge as pairs. Furthermore, these accounts assume directionality where the semantics and structure of a reflexive verb can be derived from the non-reflexive verb. However, this directionality does not necessarily hold diachronically. Additionally, the semantics and the patterns associated with a particular reflexive verb are not always shared with the non-reflexive verb. Thus, a model is proposed that can accommodate the traditional pairs as well as for the possible deviations without postulating different systems. A random sample of 2000 instances marked with the Reflexive Marker was extracted from the Russian National Corpus and the sample used in this study contains 819 unique reflexive verbs. This study moves away from the traditional pair account and introduces the concept of Neighbor Verb. A neighbor verb exists for a reflexive verb if they share the same phonological form excluding the Reflexive Marker. It is claimed here that the Reflexive Marker constitutes a system in Russian and the relation between the reflexive and neighbor verbs constitutes a cross-paradigmatic relation. Furthermore, the relation between the reflexive and the neighbor verb is argued to be of symbolic connectivity rather than directionality. Effectively, the relation holding between particular instantiations can vary. The theoretical basis of the present study builds on this assumption. Several new variables are examined in order to systematically model variability of this symbolic connectivity, specifically the degree and strength of connectivity between items. In usage-based models, the lexicon does not constitute an unstructured list of items. Instead, items are assumed to be interconnected in a network. This interconnectedness is defined as Neighborhood in this study. Additionally, each verb carves its own niche within the Neighborhood and this interconnectedness is modeled through rhyme verbs constituting the degree of connectivity of a particular verb in the lexicon. The second component of the degree of connectivity concerns the status of a particular verb relative to its rhyme verbs. The connectivity within the neighborhood of a particular verb varies and this variability is quantified by using the Levenshtein distance. The second property of the lexical network is the strength of connectivity between items. Frequency of use has been one of the primary variables in functional linguistics used to probe this. In addition, a new variable called Constructional Entropy is introduced in this study building on information theory. It is a quantification of the amount of information carried by a particular reflexive verb in one or more argument constructions. The results of the lexical connectivity indicate that the reflexive verbs have statistically greater neighborhood distances than the neighbor verbs. This distributional property can be used to motivate the traditional observation that the reflexive verbs tend to have idiosyncratic properties. A set of argument constructions, generalizations over usage patterns, are proposed for the reflexive verbs in this study. In addition to the variables associated with the lexical connectivity, a number of variables proposed in the literature are explored and used as predictors in the model. The second part of this study introduces the use of a machine learning algorithm called Random Forests. The performance of the model indicates that it is capable, up to a degree, of disambiguating the proposed argument construction types of the Russian Reflexive Marker. Additionally, a global ranking of the predictors used in the model is offered. Finally, most construction grammars assume that argument construction form a network structure. A new method is proposed that establishes generalization over the argument constructions referred to as Linking Construction. In sum, this study explores the structural properties of the Russian Reflexive Marker and a new model is set forth that can accommodate both the traditional pairs and potential deviations from it in a principled manner.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

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).

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

RÉSUMÉ Cette thèse porte sur le développement de méthodes algorithmiques pour découvrir automatiquement la structure morphologique des mots d'un corpus. On considère en particulier le cas des langues s'approchant du type introflexionnel, comme l'arabe ou l'hébreu. La tradition linguistique décrit la morphologie de ces langues en termes d'unités discontinues : les racines consonantiques et les schèmes vocaliques. Ce genre de structure constitue un défi pour les systèmes actuels d'apprentissage automatique, qui opèrent généralement avec des unités continues. La stratégie adoptée ici consiste à traiter le problème comme une séquence de deux sous-problèmes. Le premier est d'ordre phonologique : il s'agit de diviser les symboles (phonèmes, lettres) du corpus en deux groupes correspondant autant que possible aux consonnes et voyelles phonétiques. Le second est de nature morphologique et repose sur les résultats du premier : il s'agit d'établir l'inventaire des racines et schèmes du corpus et de déterminer leurs règles de combinaison. On examine la portée et les limites d'une approche basée sur deux hypothèses : (i) la distinction entre consonnes et voyelles peut être inférée sur la base de leur tendance à alterner dans la chaîne parlée; (ii) les racines et les schèmes peuvent être identifiés respectivement aux séquences de consonnes et voyelles découvertes précédemment. L'algorithme proposé utilise une méthode purement distributionnelle pour partitionner les symboles du corpus. Puis il applique des principes analogiques pour identifier un ensemble de candidats sérieux au titre de racine ou de schème, et pour élargir progressivement cet ensemble. Cette extension est soumise à une procédure d'évaluation basée sur le principe de la longueur de description minimale, dans- l'esprit de LINGUISTICA (Goldsmith, 2001). L'algorithme est implémenté sous la forme d'un programme informatique nommé ARABICA, et évalué sur un corpus de noms arabes, du point de vue de sa capacité à décrire le système du pluriel. Cette étude montre que des structures linguistiques complexes peuvent être découvertes en ne faisant qu'un minimum d'hypothèses a priori sur les phénomènes considérés. Elle illustre la synergie possible entre des mécanismes d'apprentissage portant sur des niveaux de description linguistique distincts, et cherche à déterminer quand et pourquoi cette coopération échoue. Elle conclut que la tension entre l'universalité de la distinction consonnes-voyelles et la spécificité de la structuration racine-schème est cruciale pour expliquer les forces et les faiblesses d'une telle approche. ABSTRACT This dissertation is concerned with the development of algorithmic methods for the unsupervised learning of natural language morphology, using a symbolically transcribed wordlist. It focuses on the case of languages approaching the introflectional type, such as Arabic or Hebrew. The morphology of such languages is traditionally described in terms of discontinuous units: consonantal roots and vocalic patterns. Inferring this kind of structure is a challenging task for current unsupervised learning systems, which generally operate with continuous units. In this study, the problem of learning root-and-pattern morphology is divided into a phonological and a morphological subproblem. The phonological component of the analysis seeks to partition the symbols of a corpus (phonemes, letters) into two subsets that correspond well with the phonetic definition of consonants and vowels; building around this result, the morphological component attempts to establish the list of roots and patterns in the corpus, and to infer the rules that govern their combinations. We assess the extent to which this can be done on the basis of two hypotheses: (i) the distinction between consonants and vowels can be learned by observing their tendency to alternate in speech; (ii) roots and patterns can be identified as sequences of the previously discovered consonants and vowels respectively. The proposed algorithm uses a purely distributional method for partitioning symbols. Then it applies analogical principles to identify a preliminary set of reliable roots and patterns, and gradually enlarge it. This extension process is guided by an evaluation procedure based on the minimum description length principle, in line with the approach to morphological learning embodied in LINGUISTICA (Goldsmith, 2001). The algorithm is implemented as a computer program named ARABICA; it is evaluated with regard to its ability to account for the system of plural formation in a corpus of Arabic nouns. This thesis shows that complex linguistic structures can be discovered without recourse to a rich set of a priori hypotheses about the phenomena under consideration. It illustrates the possible synergy between learning mechanisms operating at distinct levels of linguistic description, and attempts to determine where and why such a cooperation fails. It concludes that the tension between the universality of the consonant-vowel distinction and the specificity of root-and-pattern structure is crucial for understanding the advantages and weaknesses of this approach.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Nowadays the accelerated development arising from globalization and the interrelation of the nations, the great increase in communication between different countries and the necessity for knowledge in different linguistic structures, the interest in learning a foreign language is crescent, and thinking about it, this work has the scope to verify how young and adult learners of a foreign language, in this case English, behave, that is, how best to develop the four language skills of the language: listening, writing, speaking, and reading and how the use of recreational and educational games can help this dichotomy between teaching-learning. The present research, theoretical and analytical basis, aims to make a study on how fun games can influence the teaching and learning of English in an audience of young and adult people and that includes a study of how human history has evolved, more precisely, as history of education was influenced by the playful and how the human mind also becomes over time. Nowadays, the playful is a tool that has been widely used pedagogically in teaching foreign languages and every day opens new manners and ways of teaching languages, always with its array of spaced more possibilities. Under this assumption, the focus of this research is discover how the use of recreational and educational games may influence grammar greater understanding and language development of young and adults students in learning English, and also what better way to introduce these games, that is, a contextualized content being discussed each time during the school way, so that the games may be, of course, used for relaxation of the students, but also (and especially) for their intellectual growth and language development

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)