Élaboration d'un corpus étalon pour l'évaluation d'extracteurs de termes

Ce travail porte sur la construction d’un corpus étalon pour l’évaluation automatisée des extracteurs de termes. Ces programmes informatiques, conçus pour extraire automatiquement les termes contenus dans un corpus, sont utilisés dans différentes applications, telles que la terminographie, la traduction, la recherche d’information, l’indexation, etc. Ainsi, leur évaluation doit être faite en fonction d’une application précise. Une façon d’évaluer les extracteurs consiste à annoter toutes les occurrences des termes dans un corpus, ce qui nécessite un protocole de repérage et de découpage des unités terminologiques. À notre connaissance, il n’existe pas de corpus annoté bien documenté pour l’évaluation des extracteurs. Ce travail vise à construire un tel corpus et à décrire les problèmes qui doivent être abordés pour y parvenir. Le corpus étalon que nous proposons est un corpus entièrement annoté, construit en fonction d’une application précise, à savoir la compilation d’un dictionnaire spécialisé de la mécanique automobile. Ce corpus rend compte de la variété des réalisations des termes en contexte. Les termes sont sélectionnés en fonction de critères précis liés à l’application, ainsi qu’à certaines propriétés formelles, linguistiques et conceptuelles des termes et des variantes terminologiques. Pour évaluer un extracteur au moyen de ce corpus, il suffit d’extraire toutes les unités terminologiques du corpus et de comparer, au moyen de métriques, cette liste à la sortie de l’extracteur. On peut aussi créer une liste de référence sur mesure en extrayant des sous-ensembles de termes en fonction de différents critères. Ce travail permet une évaluation automatique des extracteurs qui tient compte du rôle de l’application. Cette évaluation étant reproductible, elle peut servir non seulement à mesurer la qualité d’un extracteur, mais à comparer différents extracteurs et à améliorer les techniques d’extraction.

Bilingual Corpus - Digital Repository for Preservation of Language Heritage

The article briefly reviews bilingual Slovak-Bulgarian/Bulgarian-Slovak parallel and aligned corpus. The corpus is collected and developed as results of the collaboration in the frameworks of the joint research project between Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, and Ľ. Štúr Institute of Linguistics, Slovak Academy of Sciences. The multilingual corpora are large repositories of language data with an important role in preserving and supporting the world's cultural heritage, because the natural language is an outstanding part of the human cultural values and collective memory, and a bridge between cultures. This bilingual corpus will be widely applicable to the contrastive studies of the both Slavic languages, will also be useful resource for language engineering research and development, especially in machine translation.

Modes de conceptualisation métaphoriques et théorie de l’évolution : analyse textuelle et traduction

Éminent naturaliste du XIXe siècle, Charles Darwin publie en 1859 ce qui s'avérera être l’un des textes fondateurs des sciences de la vie : On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (ou OS). Ce volumineux ouvrage pose les assises conceptuelles de la théorie darwinienne de l'évolution. Cette dernière suscite encore de nos jours la controverse : certains la nient (créationnisme, dessein intelligent, etc.) alors que d'autres la poussent à l'extrême (eugénisme, darwinisme social, etc.). Vu la grande portée de l'OS, le problème de sa traduction en français se présente de lui-même. Ce champ d'étude reste pourtant largement inexploré. Nous avons donc choisi, dans le présent travail, d’étudier les traductions françaises de l’OS. Notre étude s’inscrivant dans un axe de recherche qui s’intéresse aux modes de conceptualisation métaphorique en usage dans les domaines biomédicaux, ainsi qu’aux problèmes de traduction qu’ils soulèvent, nous avons choisi de nous concentrer plus particulièrement sur les modes de conceptualisation métaphorique présents dans le texte de l'OS, et sur la manière dont ils ont été traduits en français. Pour mener à bien ce projet, nous avons élaboré une méthodologie à partir de celle déjà utilisée avec succès dans des études antérieures menées au sein du même axe de recherche que le nôtre. En plus de l’annotation et l’interrogation informatisée de notre corpus, cette méthodologie consiste en la mise en relation, au plan informatique, de plusieurs traductions d’un même texte. De par sa complexité technique, son élaboration constitue l’un des objectifs majeurs de notre étude. Les résultats obtenus nous ont permis de confirmer deux de nos trois hypothèses : 1) la totalité des modes de conceptualisation identifiés dans notre corpus anglais se retrouvent également dans chacune des traductions, et 2) aucun mode de conceptualisation métaphorique ne peut être dégagé des traductions françaises qui n’est pas déjà présent dans l’original anglais. En plus de nous permettre de comparer chaque traduction à l’original anglais, ces résultats nous ont également permis de comparer entre elles les différentes traductions françaises de l’OS. Ce mémoire de maîtrise comporte six chapitres, qui correspondent tour à tour à : notre cadre théorique, l'état de la question, nos hypothèses et nos objectifs, notre méthodologie, nos résultats et la discussion de ces résultats.

Annotation XML et interrogation de corpus pour l’étude de la conceptualisation métaphorique

Département de linguistique et de traduction

Annotation syntaxico-sémantique des actants en corpus spécialisé

L’annotation en rôles sémantiques est une tâche qui permet d’attribuer des étiquettes de rôles telles que Agent, Patient, Instrument, Lieu, Destination etc. aux différents participants actants ou circonstants (arguments ou adjoints) d’une lexie prédicative. Cette tâche nécessite des ressources lexicales riches ou des corpus importants contenant des phrases annotées manuellement par des linguistes sur lesquels peuvent s’appuyer certaines approches d’automatisation (statistiques ou apprentissage machine). Les travaux antérieurs dans ce domaine ont porté essentiellement sur la langue anglaise qui dispose de ressources riches, telles que PropBank, VerbNet et FrameNet, qui ont servi à alimenter les systèmes d’annotation automatisés. L’annotation dans d’autres langues, pour lesquelles on ne dispose pas d’un corpus annoté manuellement, repose souvent sur le FrameNet anglais. Une ressource telle que FrameNet de l’anglais est plus que nécessaire pour les systèmes d’annotation automatisé et l’annotation manuelle de milliers de phrases par des linguistes est une tâche fastidieuse et exigeante en temps. Nous avons proposé dans cette thèse un système automatique pour aider les linguistes dans cette tâche qui pourraient alors se limiter à la validation des annotations proposées par le système. Dans notre travail, nous ne considérons que les verbes qui sont plus susceptibles que les noms d’être accompagnés par des actants réalisés dans les phrases. Ces verbes concernent les termes de spécialité d’informatique et d’Internet (ex. accéder, configurer, naviguer, télécharger) dont la structure actancielle est enrichie manuellement par des rôles sémantiques. La structure actancielle des lexies verbales est décrite selon les principes de la Lexicologie Explicative et Combinatoire, LEC de Mel’čuk et fait appel partiellement (en ce qui concerne les rôles sémantiques) à la notion de Frame Element tel que décrit dans la théorie Frame Semantics (FS) de Fillmore. Ces deux théories ont ceci de commun qu’elles mènent toutes les deux à la construction de dictionnaires différents de ceux issus des approches traditionnelles. Les lexies verbales d’informatique et d’Internet qui ont été annotées manuellement dans plusieurs contextes constituent notre corpus spécialisé. Notre système qui attribue automatiquement des rôles sémantiques aux actants est basé sur des règles ou classificateurs entraînés sur plus de 2300 contextes. Nous sommes limités à une liste de rôles restreinte car certains rôles dans notre corpus n’ont pas assez d’exemples annotés manuellement. Dans notre système, nous n’avons traité que les rôles Patient, Agent et Destination dont le nombre d’exemple est supérieur à 300. Nous avons crée une classe que nous avons nommé Autre où nous avons rassemblé les autres rôles dont le nombre d’exemples annotés est inférieur à 100. Nous avons subdivisé la tâche d’annotation en sous-tâches : identifier les participants actants et circonstants et attribuer des rôles sémantiques uniquement aux actants qui contribuent au sens de la lexie verbale. Nous avons soumis les phrases de notre corpus à l’analyseur syntaxique Syntex afin d’extraire les informations syntaxiques qui décrivent les différents participants d’une lexie verbale dans une phrase. Ces informations ont servi de traits (features) dans notre modèle d’apprentissage. Nous avons proposé deux techniques pour l’identification des participants : une technique à base de règles où nous avons extrait une trentaine de règles et une autre technique basée sur l’apprentissage machine. Ces mêmes techniques ont été utilisées pour la tâche de distinguer les actants des circonstants. Nous avons proposé pour la tâche d’attribuer des rôles sémantiques aux actants, une méthode de partitionnement (clustering) semi supervisé des instances que nous avons comparée à la méthode de classification de rôles sémantiques. Nous avons utilisé CHAMÉLÉON, un algorithme hiérarchique ascendant.

Corpus annotation of causal relations and their signals in English and Spanish

El estudio de las relaciones causales y su expresión lingüística ha sido comúnmente estudiado desde diferentes perspectivas en los años recientes. Sin embargo, pocos estudios han intentado combinar diferentes enfoques para establecer el significado de estas relaciones, y han investigado de manera contrastiva las señales usadas para expresarlas. Este trabajo de fin de master es un proyecto para avanzar el conocimiento en este área mediante la investigación de: a) la posibilidad de caracterizar las relaciones causales en diferentes tipos, usando características que combinan un enfoque funcional y cognitivo; b) los tipos de relaciones causales preferidas en los textos expositivos en inglés y sus traducciones al español; c) las expresiones lingüísticas preferidas para expresar dichas relaciones causales en los textos originales en inglés y sus traducciones al español. La metodología usada en esta investigación se basa en la anotación manual de un corpus bilingüe compuesto de un total de 37 textos expositivos (incluyendo los textos originales en inglés y sus traducciones al español) extraídos del corpus MULTINOT, un corpus de alta calidad, con registros diversificados y multifuncional bilingüe inglésespañol, actualmente compilado y anotado multidimensionalmente por los miembros del grupo de investigación FUNCAP con el proyecto MULTINOT (véase Lavid et al.2015) El estudio se llevó a cabo en cuatro pasos principales: primero, un esquema de anotación para las relaciones causales en inglés y español fue diseñado constando de tres sistemas interrelacionados y sus correspondientes características; tras ello, se compiló un inventario de señales para las relaciones causales en inglés y español, y una categorización en diferentes tipos; seguidamente, el esquema de anotación fue implementado en la herramienta UAM Corpus Tool y el conjunto de textos bilingües fue anotado por el autor de este estudio; finalmente, los datos extraídos de la anotación fueron analizados estadísticamente para comprobar las posibles diferencias entre los textos originales en inglés y sus traducciones al español respecto a la selección del tipo de relación de causa y sus señales. El análisis estadístico de los datos anotados sugiere que los tipos de relaciones de causa preferidos en los textos originales en inglés y son los tipos de contenido y no volitivos, que el orden de aparición de estos tipos de señales preferido es la segunda posición, y las señales más recurrentes usadas para expresar dichas relaciones son las conjunciones, seguidas de los sintagmas verbales. El análisis de las traducciones al español revela un alto grado de similitud con los datos de los textos originales en inglés, lo que sugiere que en las traducciones al español se conservan las preferencias de los textos originales en la mayoría de los casos y que estas elecciones pueden considerarse un indicativo de los textos expositivos en inglés. Proyectos futuros se centraran en el análisis de los textos originales en español para comprobar si las tendencias observadas en los textos originales en inglés y sus traducciones al español son también validas en textos originales en español, y en la especificación de patrones que puede ayudar al análisis automático de estas relaciones

Thematic patterning in English and Spanish: contrastive annotation of a bilingual newspaper corpus for liguistic and computational applications

Thematization is recognized as a fundamental phenomenon in the construction of messages and texts by di erent linguistic schools. This location within a text privileges the elements that guide the reader in the orientation and interpretation of discourse at di erent levels. Thematizing a linguistic unit by locating it in the rst-initial position of a clause, paragraph, or text, confers upon it a special status: a signal of the organizational strategy which characterizes di erent text types playing a role as a variable in the distinction of registers, text types and genres. However, in spite of the importance of the study of thematization for message and textual structuring, to date there are no linguistic studies that have undertook the task of validating its aspects in a comparative manner, either for linguistic or computational purposes. This study, therefore, lls a research gap by implementing a methodology based on contrastive corpus annotation, which allows to empirically validate aspects of the phenomenon of Thematization in English and Spanish, it also seeks to develop a bilingual English-Spanish comparable corpus of newspaper texts automatically annotated with thematic features at clausal and discourse levels. The empirically validated categories (Thematic Field and its elements: Textual Theme, Interpersonal Theme, PreHead and Head) are used to annotate a larger corpus of three newspaper genres news reports, editorials and letters to the editor in terms of thematic choices. This characterization, reveals interesting results, such as the use of genre-speci c strategies in thematic position. In addition, the thesis investigates the possibility to automate the annotation of thematic features in the bilingual corpus through the development of a set of JAVA rules implemented in GATE. It also shows the e cacy of this method in comparison with the manual annotation results...

Improving gene annotation using peptide mass spectrometry

Annotation of protein-coding genes is a key goal of genome sequencing projects. In spite of tremendous recent advances in computational gene finding, comprehensive annotation remains a challenge. Peptide mass spectrometry is a powerful tool for researching the dynamic proteome and suggests an attractive approach to discover and validate protein-coding genes. We present algorithms to construct and efficiently search spectra against a genomic database, with no prior knowledge of encoded proteins. By searching a corpus of 18.5 million tandem mass spectra (MS/MS) from human proteomic samples, we validate 39,000 exons and 11,000 introns at the level of translation. We present translation-level evidence for novel or extended exons in 16 genes, confirm translation of 224 hypothetical proteins, and discover or confirm over 40 alternative splicing events. Polymorphisms are efficiently encoded in our database, allowing us to observe variant alleles for 308 coding SNPs. Finally, we demonstrate the use of mass spectrometry to improve automated gene prediction, adding 800 correct exons to our predictions using a simple rescoring strategy. Our results demonstrate that proteomic profiling should play a role in any genome sequencing project.

Discourse-level Annotation over Europarl for Machine Translation: Connectives and Pronouns

This paper describes methods and results for the annotation of two discourse-level phenomena, connectives and pronouns, over a multilingual parallel corpus. Excerpts from Europarl in English and French have been annotated with disambiguation information for connectives and pronouns, for about 3600 tokens. This data is then used in several ways: for cross-linguistic studies, for training automatic disambiguation software, and ultimately for training and testing discourse-aware statistical machine translation systems. The paper presents the annotation procedures and their results in detail, and overviews the first systems trained on the annotated resources and their use for machine translation.

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).

FATS: a framework for annotation of travel blogs based on subjectivity

This paper describes a framework for annotation on travel blogs based on subjectivity (FATS). The framework has the capability to auto-annotate -sentence by sentence- sections from blogs (posts) about travelling in the Spanish language. FATS is used in this experiment to annotate com- ponents from travel blogs in order to create a corpus of 300 annotated posts. Each subjective element in a sentence is annotated as positive or negative as appropriate. Currently correct annotations add up to about 95 per cent in our subset of the travel domain. By means of an iterative process of annotation we can create a subjectively annotated domain specific corpus.

IARG-AnCora: anotación de los corpus AnCora con argumentos implícitos

IARG-AnCora tiene como objetivo la anotación con papeles temáticos de los argumentos implícitos de las nominalizaciones deverbales en el corpus AnCora. Estos corpus servirán de base para los sistemas de etiquetado automático de roles semánticos basados en técnicas de aprendizaje automático. Los analizadores semánticos son componentes básicos en las aplicaciones actuales de las tecnologías del lenguaje, en las que se quiere potenciar una comprensión más profunda del texto para realizar inferencias de más alto nivel y obtener así mejoras cualitativas en los resultados.

Issues in creating a corpus for EAP pedagogy and research

UK universities are accepting increasing numbers of students whose L1 is not English on a wide range of programmes at all levels. These students require additional support and training in English, focussing on their academic disciplines. Corpora have been used in EAP since the 1980s, mainly for research, but a growing number of researchers and practitioners have been advocating the use of corpora in EAP pedagogy, and such use is gradually increasing. This paper outlines the processes and factors to be considered in the design and compilation of an EAP corpus (e.g., the selection and acquisition of texts, metadata, data annotation, software tools and outputs, web interface, and screen displays), especially one intended to be used for teaching. Such a corpus would also facilitate EAP research in terms of longitudinal studies, student progression and development, and course and materials design. The paper has been informed by the preparatory work on the EAP subcorpus of the ACORN corpus project at Aston University. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A Curated Corpus for Sentiment-Topic Analysis

Postprint