Alignment-based extraction of multiword expressions

Due to idiosyncrasies in their syntax, semantics or frequency, Multiword Expressions (MWEs) have received special attention from the NLP community, as the methods and techniques developed for the treatment of simplex words are not necessarily suitable for them. This is certainly the case for the automatic acquisition of MWEs from corpora. A lot of effort has been directed to the task of automatically identifying them, with considerable success. In this paper, we propose an approach for the identification of MWEs in a multilingual context, as a by-product of a word alignment process, that not only deals with the identification of possible MWE candidates, but also associates some multiword expressions with semantics. The results obtained indicate the feasibility and low costs in terms of tools and resources demanded by this approach, which could, for example, facilitate and speed up lexicographic work.

Complex networks analysis of manual and machine translations

Complex networks have been increasingly used in text analysis, including in connection with natural language processing tools, as important text features appear to be captured by the topology and dynamics of the networks. Following previous works that apply complex networks concepts to text quality measurement, summary evaluation, and author characterization, we now focus on machine translation (MT). In this paper we assess the possible representation of texts as complex networks to evaluate cross-linguistic issues inherent in manual and machine translation. We show that different quality translations generated by NIT tools can be distinguished from their manual counterparts by means of metrics such as in-(ID) and out-degrees (OD), clustering coefficient (CC), and shortest paths (SP). For instance, we demonstrate that the average OD in networks of automatic translations consistently exceeds the values obtained for manual ones, and that the CC values of source texts are not preserved for manual translations, but are for good automatic translations. This probably reflects the text rearrangements humans perform during manual translation. We envisage that such findings could lead to better NIT tools and automatic evaluation metrics.

Análise cognitiva do estudo comparativo entre estratégias humanas de tradução e mecanismos de traduções automáticos

Embora os progressos na área de informática sejam bastante significativos e velozes, na tradução automática há muito ainda o que ser feito. Desde meados dos anos 40 já havia um interesse, em especial pelos americanos e ingleses, numa tradução mais rápida e eficiente de documentos russos, porém até hoje o que se vê em termos de tradução automática está aquém daquilo que se possa chamar de uma boa tradução. Para buscar uma tradução automática eficiente os cientistas têm usado como fonte principal meios estatísticos de solução para tal problema. Esse trabalho visa dar um novo enfoque a tal questão, buscando na ciência cognitiva sua principal fonte de inspiração. O resultado a que se chega com o presente trabalho é que a estatística deve continuar sendo sim uma fonte de auxílio em especial na definição de padrões. Porém, o trabalho trás consigo o propósito de levantar a sobreposição semântica como via de possível solução que possa vir auxiliar, ou, até mesmo trazer maior rapidez a questão da tradução automática. No campo organizacional levanta uma questão interessante, o valor da experiência como meio inteligente de buscar melhores resultados para as empresas.

As ambiguidades linguísticas no inglês e a tradução automática inglês-português: um estudo exploratório

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Structure-semantics interplay in complex networks and its effects on the predictability of similarity in texts

The classification of texts has become a major endeavor with so much electronic material available, for it is an essential task in several applications, including search engines and information retrieval. There are different ways to define similarity for grouping similar texts into clusters, as the concept of similarity may depend on the purpose of the task. For instance, in topic extraction similar texts mean those within the same semantic field, whereas in author recognition stylistic features should be considered. In this study, we introduce ways to classify texts employing concepts of complex networks, which may be able to capture syntactic, semantic and even pragmatic features. The interplay between various metrics of the complex networks is analyzed with three applications, namely identification of machine translation (MT) systems, evaluation of quality of machine translated texts and authorship recognition. We shall show that topological features of the networks representing texts can enhance the ability to identify MT systems in particular cases. For evaluating the quality of MT texts, on the other hand, high correlation was obtained with methods capable of capturing the semantics. This was expected because the golden standards used are themselves based on word co-occurrence. Notwithstanding, the Katz similarity, which involves semantic and structure in the comparison of texts, achieved the highest correlation with the NIST measurement, indicating that in some cases the combination of both approaches can improve the ability to quantify quality in MT. In authorship recognition, again the topological features were relevant in some contexts, though for the books and authors analyzed good results were obtained with semantic features as well. Because hybrid approaches encompassing semantic and topological features have not been extensively used, we believe that the methodology proposed here may be useful to enhance text classification considerably, as it combines well-established strategies. (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Extractive summarization using complex networks and syntactic dependency

The realization that statistical physics methods can be applied to analyze written texts represented as complex networks has led to several developments in natural language processing, including automatic summarization and evaluation of machine translation. Most importantly, so far only a few metrics of complex networks have been used and therefore there is ample opportunity to enhance the statistics-based methods as new measures of network topology and dynamics are created. In this paper, we employ for the first time the metrics betweenness, vulnerability and diversity to analyze written texts in Brazilian Portuguese. Using strategies based on diversity metrics, a better performance in automatic summarization is achieved in comparison to previous work employing complex networks. With an optimized method the Rouge score (an automatic evaluation method used in summarization) was 0.5089, which is the best value ever achieved for an extractive summarizer with statistical methods based on complex networks for Brazilian Portuguese. Furthermore, the diversity metric can detect keywords with high precision, which is why we believe it is suitable to produce good summaries. It is also shown that incorporating linguistic knowledge through a syntactic parser does enhance the performance of the automatic summarizers, as expected, but the increase in the Rouge score is only minor. These results reinforce the suitability of complex network methods for improving automatic summarizers in particular, and treating text in general. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Bitext alignment: building and evaluating a bilingual corpus and translation memory of academic course descriptions

Following the internationalization of contemporary higher education, academic institutions based in non-English speaking countries are increasingly urged to produce contents in English to address international prospective students and personnel, as well as to increase their attractiveness. The demand for English translations in the institutional academic domain is consequently increasing at a rate exceeding the capacity of the translation profession. Resources for assisting non-native authors and translators in the production of appropriate texts in L2 are therefore required in order to help academic institutions and professionals streamline their translation workload. Some of these resources include: (i) parallel corpora to train machine translation systems and multilingual authoring tools; and (ii) translation memories for computer-aided tools. The purpose of this study is to create and evaluate reference resources like the ones mentioned in (i) and (ii) through the automatic sentence alignment of a large set of Italian and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) institutional academic texts given as equivalent but not necessarily parallel (i.e. translated). In this framework, a set of aligning algorithms and alignment tools is examined in order to identify the most profitable one(s) in terms of accuracy and time- and cost-effectiveness. In order to determine the text pairs to align, a sample is selected according to document length similarity (characters) and subsequently evaluated in terms of extent of noisiness/parallelism, alignment accuracy and content leverageability. The results of these analyses serve as the basis for the creation of an aligned bilingual corpus of academic course descriptions, which is eventually used to create a translation memory in TMX format.

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

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

The Need for Professional Translation and Interpretation in School Districts

The language barrier prevents Latino students from experiencing academic success, and prevents Latino parents from participating in their children's education. Through a review of journal articles, research projects, doctoral dissertations, legislation, and books, this project studies the benefits and dangers of various methods of translating and interpreting in the education system, including issues created by language barriers in schools, common methods of translating and interpreting, and legislation addressing language barriers and education. The project reveals that schools use various methods to translate and interpret, including relying on children, school staff and machine translation, although such methods are often problematic and inaccurate. The project also reveals that professional translation and interpretation are superior to the various non-professional methods.

The Internet and other IT resources:tools for translators within a translation programme

Information technology has increased both the speed and medium of communication between nations. It has brought the world closer, but it has also created new challenges for translation — how we think about it, how we carry it out and how we teach it. Translation and Information Technology has brought together experts in computational linguistics, machine translation, translation education, and translation studies to discuss how these new technologies work, the effect of electronic tools, such as the internet, bilingual corpora, and computer software, on translator education and the practice of translation, as well as the conceptual gaps raised by the interface of human and machine.

A Taxonomy of Big Data for Optimal Predictive Machine Learning and Data Mining

Big data comes in various ways, types, shapes, forms and sizes. Indeed, almost all areas of science, technology, medicine, public health, economics, business, linguistics and social science are bombarded by ever increasing flows of data begging to be analyzed efficiently and effectively. In this paper, we propose a rough idea of a possible taxonomy of big data, along with some of the most commonly used tools for handling each particular category of bigness. The dimensionality p of the input space and the sample size n are usually the main ingredients in the characterization of data bigness. The specific statistical machine learning technique used to handle a particular big data set will depend on which category it falls in within the bigness taxonomy. Large p small n data sets for instance require a different set of tools from the large n small p variety. Among other tools, we discuss Preprocessing, Standardization, Imputation, Projection, Regularization, Penalization, Compression, Reduction, Selection, Kernelization, Hybridization, Parallelization, Aggregation, Randomization, Replication, Sequentialization. Indeed, it is important to emphasize right away that the so-called no free lunch theorem applies here, in the sense that there is no universally superior method that outperforms all other methods on all categories of bigness. It is also important to stress the fact that simplicity in the sense of Ockham’s razor non-plurality principle of parsimony tends to reign supreme when it comes to massive data. We conclude with a comparison of the predictive performance of some of the most commonly used methods on a few data sets.

Statistical dialog management for health interventions

Research endeavors on spoken dialogue systems in the 1990s and 2000s have led to the deployment of commercial spoken dialogue systems (SDS) in microdomains such as customer service automation, reservation/booking and question answering systems. Recent research in SDS has been focused on the development of applications in different domains (e.g. virtual counseling, personal coaches, social companions) which requires more sophistication than the previous generation of commercial SDS. The focus of this research project is the delivery of behavior change interventions based on the brief intervention counseling style via spoken dialogue systems. ^ Brief interventions (BI) are evidence-based, short, well structured, one-on-one counseling sessions. Many challenges are involved in delivering BIs to people in need, such as finding the time to administer them in busy doctors' offices, obtaining the extra training that helps staff become comfortable providing these interventions, and managing the cost of delivering the interventions. Fortunately, recent developments in spoken dialogue systems make the development of systems that can deliver brief interventions possible. ^ The overall objective of this research is to develop a data-driven, adaptable dialogue system for brief interventions for problematic drinking behavior, based on reinforcement learning methods. The implications of this research project includes, but are not limited to, assessing the feasibility of delivering structured brief health interventions with a data-driven spoken dialogue system. Furthermore, while the experimental system focuses on harmful alcohol drinking as a target behavior in this project, the produced knowledge and experience may also lead to implementation of similarly structured health interventions and assessments other than the alcohol domain (e.g. obesity, drug use, lack of exercise), using statistical machine learning approaches. ^ In addition to designing a dialog system, the semantic and emotional meanings of user utterances have high impact on interaction. To perform domain specific reasoning and recognize concepts in user utterances, a named-entity recognizer and an ontology are designed and evaluated. To understand affective information conveyed through text, lexicons and sentiment analysis module are developed and tested.^

Statistical Dialog Management for Health Interventions

Research endeavors on spoken dialogue systems in the 1990s and 2000s have led to the deployment of commercial spoken dialogue systems (SDS) in microdomains such as customer service automation, reservation/booking and question answering systems. Recent research in SDS has been focused on the development of applications in different domains (e.g. virtual counseling, personal coaches, social companions) which requires more sophistication than the previous generation of commercial SDS. The focus of this research project is the delivery of behavior change interventions based on the brief intervention counseling style via spoken dialogue systems. Brief interventions (BI) are evidence-based, short, well structured, one-on-one counseling sessions. Many challenges are involved in delivering BIs to people in need, such as finding the time to administer them in busy doctors' offices, obtaining the extra training that helps staff become comfortable providing these interventions, and managing the cost of delivering the interventions. Fortunately, recent developments in spoken dialogue systems make the development of systems that can deliver brief interventions possible. The overall objective of this research is to develop a data-driven, adaptable dialogue system for brief interventions for problematic drinking behavior, based on reinforcement learning methods. The implications of this research project includes, but are not limited to, assessing the feasibility of delivering structured brief health interventions with a data-driven spoken dialogue system. Furthermore, while the experimental system focuses on harmful alcohol drinking as a target behavior in this project, the produced knowledge and experience may also lead to implementation of similarly structured health interventions and assessments other than the alcohol domain (e.g. obesity, drug use, lack of exercise), using statistical machine learning approaches. In addition to designing a dialog system, the semantic and emotional meanings of user utterances have high impact on interaction. To perform domain specific reasoning and recognize concepts in user utterances, a named-entity recognizer and an ontology are designed and evaluated. To understand affective information conveyed through text, lexicons and sentiment analysis module are developed and tested.

Is phraseology the third articulation of language? Fresh insights into a theoretical conundrum

Is phraseology the third articulation of language? Fresh insights into a theoretical conundrum Jean-Pierre Colson University of Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) Although the notion of phraseology is now used across a wide range of linguistic disciplines, its definition and the classification of phraseological units remain a subject of intense debate. It is generally agreed that phraseology implies polylexicality, but this term is problematic as well, because it brings us back to one of the most controversial topics in modern linguistics: the definition of a word. On the other hand, another widely accepted principle of language is the double articulation or duality of patterning (Martinet 1960): the first articulation consists of morphemes and the second of phonemes. The very definition of morphemes, however, also poses several problems, and the situation becomes even more confused if we wish to take phraseology into account. In this contribution, I will take the view that a corpus-based and computational approach to phraseology may shed some new light on this theoretical conundrum. A better understanding of the basic units of meaning is necessary for more efficient language learning and translation, especially in the case of machine translation. Previous research (Colson 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014), Corpas Pastor (2000, 2007, 2008, 2013, 2015), Corpas Pastor & Leiva Rojo (2011), Leiva Rojo (2013), has shown the paramount importance of phraseology for translation. A tentative step towards a coherent explanation of the role of phraseology in language has been proposed by Mejri (2006): it is postulated that a third articulation of language intervenes at the level of words, including simple morphemes, sequences of free and bound morphemes, but also phraseological units. I will present results from experiments with statistical associations of morphemes across several languages, and point out that (mainly) isolating languages such as Chinese are interesting for a better understanding of the interplay between morphemes and phraseological units. Named entities, in particular, are an extreme example of intertwining cultural, statistical and linguistic elements. Other examples show that the many borrowings and influences that characterize European languages tend to give a somewhat blurred vision of the interplay between morphology and phraseology. From a statistical point of view, the cpr-score (Colson 2016) provides a methodology for adapting the automatic extraction of phraseological units to the morphological structure of each language. The results obtained can therefore be used for testing hypotheses about the interaction between morphology, phraseology and culture. Experiments with the cpr-score on the extraction of Chinese phraseological units show that results depend on how the basic units of meaning are defined: a morpheme-based approach yields good results, which corroborates the claim by Beck and Mel'čuk (2011) that the association of morphemes into words may be similar to the association of words into phraseological units. A cross-linguistic experiment carried out for English, French, Spanish and Chinese also reveals that the results are quite compatible with Mejri’s hypothesis (2006) of a third articulation of language. Such findings, if confirmed, also corroborate the notion of statistical semantics in language. To illustrate this point, I will present the PhraseoRobot (Colson 2016), a computational tool for extracting phraseological associations around key words from the media, such as Brexit. The results confirm a previous study on the term globalization (Colson 2016): a significant part of sociolinguistic associations prevailing in the media is related to phraseology in the broad sense, and can therefore be partly extracted by means of statistical scores. References Beck, D. & I. Mel'čuk (2011). Morphological phrasemes and Totonacan verbal morphology. Linguistics 49/1: 175-228. Colson, J.-P. (2011). La traduction spécialisée basée sur les corpus : une expérience dans le domaine informatique. In : Sfar, I. & S. Mejri, La traduction de textes spécialisés : retour sur des lieux communs. Synergies Tunisie n° 2. Gerflint, Agence universitaire de la Francophonie, p. 115-123. Colson, J.-P. (2012). Traduire le figement en langue de spécialité : une expérience de phraséologie informatique. In : Mogorrón Huerta, P. & S. Mejri (dirs.), Lenguas de especialidad, traducción, fijación / Langues spécialisées, figement et traduction. Encuentros Mediterráneos / Rencontres Méditerranéennes, N°4. Universidad de Alicante, p. 159-171. Colson, J.-P. (2013). Pratique traduisante et idiomaticité : l’importance des structures semi-figées. In : Mogorrón Huerta, P., Gallego Hernández, D., Masseau, P. & Tolosa Igualada, M. (eds.), Fraseología, Opacidad y Traduccíon. Studien zur romanischen Sprachwissenschaft und interkulturellen Kommunikation (Herausgegeben von Gerd Wotjak). Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, p. 207-218. Colson, J.-P. (2014). La phraséologie et les corpus dans les recherches traductologiques. Communication lors du colloque international Europhras 2014, Association Européenne de Phraséologie. Université de Paris Sorbonne, 10-12 septembre 2014. Colson, J-P. (2016). Set phrases around globalization : an experiment in corpus-based computational phraseology. In: F. Alonso Almeida, I. Ortega Barrera, E. Quintana Toledo and M. Sánchez Cuervo (eds.), Input a Word, Analyse the World: Selected Approaches to Corpus Linguistics. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, p. 141-152. Corpas Pastor, G. (2000). Acerca de la (in)traducibilidad de la fraseología. In: G. Corpas Pastor (ed.), Las lenguas de Europa: Estudios de fraseología, fraseografía y traducción. Granada: Comares, p. 483-522. Corpas Pastor, G. (2007). Europäismen - von Natur aus phraseologische Äquivalente? Von blauem Blut und sangre azul. In: M. Emsel y J. Cuartero Otal (eds.), Brücken: Übersetzen und interkulturelle Kommunikationen. Festschrift für Gerd Wotjak zum 65. Geburtstag, Fráncfort: Peter Lang, p. 65-77. Corpas Pastor, G. (2008). Investigar con corpus en traducción: los retos de un nuevo paradigma [Studien zur romanische Sprachwissenschaft und interkulturellen Kommunikation, 49], Fráncfort: Peter Lang. Corpas Pastor, G. (2013). Detección, descripción y contraste de las unidades fraseológicas mediante tecnologías lingüísticas. In Olza, I. & R. Elvira Manero (eds.) Fraseopragmática. Berlin: Frank & Timme, p. 335-373. Leiva Rojo, J. (2013). La traducción de unidades fraseológicas (alemán-español/español-alemán) como parámetro para la evaluación y revisión de traducciones. In: Mellado Blanco, C., Buján, P, Iglesias N.M., Losada M.C. & A. Mansilla (eds), La fraseología del alemán y el español: lexicografía y traducción. ELS, Etudes Linguistiques / Linguistische Studien, Band 11. München: Peniope, p. 31-42. Leiva Rojo, J. & G. Corpas Pastor (2011). Placing Italian idioms in a foreign milieu: a case study. In: Pamies Bertrán, A., Luque Nadal, L., Bretana, J. &; M. Pazos (eds), (2011). Multilingual phraseography. Second Language Learning and Translation Applications. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag (Colección: Phraseologie und Parömiologie, 28), p. 289-298. Martinet, A. (1966). Eléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Colin. Mejri, S. (2006). Polylexicalité, monolexicalité et double articulation. Cahiers de Lexicologie 2: 209-221.

Adaptive Neural Translation for Enterprises (ANTE). La traduzione automatica neurale a sostegno delle imprese emiliano-romagnole

Il progetto ANTE riguarda i nuovi sistemi di traduzione automatica (TA) e la loro applicazione nel mondo delle imprese. Lo studio prende spunto dai recenti sviluppi legati all’intelligenza artificiale e ai Big Data che negli ultimi anni hanno permesso alla TA di raggiungere livelli qualitativi molto elevati, al punto tale da essere impiegata da grandi multinazionali per raggiungere nuove quote di mercato. La TA può rispondere positivamente anche ai bisogni delle imprese di piccole dimensioni e a basso tenore tecnologico, migliorando la qualità delle comunicazioni multilingue attraverso delle traduzioni in tempi brevi e a costi contenuti. Lo studio si propone quindi di contribuire al rafforzamento della competitività internazionale delle piccole e medie imprese (PMI) emiliano- romagnole, migliorando la loro capacità di comunicazione in una o più lingue straniere attraverso l’introduzione e l’utilizzo efficace e consapevole di soluzioni ICT di ultima generazione e fornire, così, nuove opportunità di internazionalizzazione.