Linguistic Knowledge of Reality: A Metaphysical Impossibility?

Reality contains information (significant) that becomes significances in the mind of the observer. Language is the human instrument to understand reality. But is it possible to attain this reality? Is there an absolute reality, as certain philosophical schools tell us? The reality that we perceive, is it just a fragmented reality of which we are part? The work that the authors present is an attempt to address this question from an epistemological, linguistic and logical-mathematical point of view.

LMM: an OWL-DL metamodel to represent heterogeneous lexical knowledge

In this paper we present a Linguistic Meta-Model (LMM) allowing a semiotic-cognitive representation of knowledge. LMM is freely available and integrates the schemata of linguistic knowledge resources, such as WordNet and FrameNet, as well as foundational ontologies, such as DOLCE and its extensions. In addition, LMM is able to deal with multilinguality and to represent individuals and facts in an open domain perspective.

Strategy clusters and sources of knowledge in French L2 listening comprehension

This article reports on an exploratory investigation into the listening strategies of lower-intermediate learners of French as an L2, including the sources of knowledge they employed in order to comprehend spoken French. Data from 14 learners were analysed to investigate whether employment of strategies in general and sources of knowledge in particular varied according to the underlying linguistic knowledge of the student. While low linguistic knowledge learners were less likely to deploy effectively certain strategies or strategy clusters, high linguistic knowledge levels were not always associated with effective strategy use. Similarly, while there was an association between linguistic knowledge and learners’ ability to draw on more than one source of knowledge in a facilitative manner, there was also evidence that learners tended to over-rely on linguistic knowledge where other sources, such as world knowledge, would have proved facilitative. We conclude by arguing for a fresh approach to listening pedagogy and research, including strategy instruction, bottom-up skill development and a consideration of the role of linguistic knowledge in strategy use.

Linguistic interfaces and language acquisition in childhood: introduction to the special issue

Much contemporary L1 acquisition theory and empirical research are guided by the hypothesis that acquisition delays in children are often related to the integration of information across grammatical and other cognitive modules, such as syntax and discourse-pragmatics (see e.g., Grinstead, 2010). This special issue brings together cutting edge research from all relevant paradigms addressing interface issues in child language acquisition and provides a platform for the study of the interaction between different levels of linguistic knowledge. In this introduction, we present the reader with the tools needed to best understand the contributions of the individual studies and what they bring to bear on larger theoretical questions as a collective.

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).

Discovering knowledge structures in mind maps of mental health risks

This thesis addressed the problem of risk analysis in mental healthcare, with respect to the GRiST project at Aston University. That project provides a risk-screening tool based on the knowledge of 46 experts, captured as mind maps that describe relationships between risks and patterns of behavioural cues. Mind mapping, though, fails to impose control over content, and is not considered to formally represent knowledge. In contrast, this thesis treated GRiSTs mind maps as a rich knowledge base in need of refinement; that process drew on existing techniques for designing databases and knowledge bases. Identifying well-defined mind map concepts, though, was hindered by spelling mistakes, and by ambiguity and lack of coverage in the tools used for researching words. A novel use of the Edit Distance overcame those problems, by assessing similarities between mind map texts, and between spelling mistakes and suggested corrections. That algorithm further identified stems, the shortest text string found in related word-forms. As opposed to existing approaches’ reliance on built-in linguistic knowledge, this thesis devised a novel, more flexible text-based technique. An additional tool, Correspondence Analysis, found patterns in word usage that allowed machines to determine likely intended meanings for ambiguous words. Correspondence Analysis further produced clusters of related concepts, which in turn drove the automatic generation of novel mind maps. Such maps underpinned adjuncts to the mind mapping software used by GRiST; one such new facility generated novel mind maps, to reflect the collected expert knowledge on any specified concept. Mind maps from GRiST are stored as XML, which suggested storing them in an XML database. In fact, the entire approach here is ”XML-centric”, in that all stages rely on XML as far as possible. A XML-based query language allows user to retrieve information from the mind map knowledge base. The approach, it was concluded, will prove valuable to mind mapping in general, and to detecting patterns in any type of digital information.

As relações sons e letras e letras e sons em livros didáticos de alfabetização (PNLD 2010) : limitações e desafios ao encontro de uma abordagem discursiva de linguagem

Este estudo teve como foco inicial de investigação o modo como livros didáticos de alfabetização propõem o estudo das relações entre sons e letras e letras e sons, e como essa dimensão se articula (ou não) a uma concepção de alfabetização que toma o texto como unidade de ensino. Caracteriza-se como uma pesquisa de cunho documental, trazendo para estudo produções acadêmico-científicas acerca da temática de investigação, tendências teóricas no estudo da alfabetização, o processo histórico da política de avaliação de livros didáticos no Brasil, o Guia de livros didáticos – PNLD 2010 – letramento e alfabetização – língua portuguesa – 2009 e duas coleções de livros didáticos de alfabetização, quais sejam: A Escola é Nossa – Letramento e Alfabetização Linguística; e Porta Aberta – Letramento e Alfabetização Linguística, avaliadas e selecionadas pelo Programa Nacional do Livro Didático (PNLD), na edição de 2009, para o ano letivo de 2010. Assume a hipótese de que a proposta de trabalho com as relações sons e letras e letras e sons trazida pelos livros didáticos de alfabetização, no contexto do letramento, por não tomar o texto como unidade de ensino, acaba por criar obstáculos para a própria compreensão dessas relações pelos estudantes. Toma como princípios teóricos e metodológicos a abordagem bakhtiniana de linguagem, bem como a concepção de alfabetização que baliza este estudo (GONTIJO; SCHWARTZ, 2009). Conclui que, ao não trazer os textos (gêneros discursivos) como enunciados, indiferentes à alternância dos sujeitos do discurso, os livros analisados, não obstante as poucas diferenças existentes entre um e outro, que se referem mais especificamente a informações que tangem à linguística, vão ao encontro de uma concepção de linguagem como um sistema de normas que devem ser anteriormente internalizadas pelo estudante para que este possa proceder à leitura e à escrita. Tratam, pois, a língua materna como uma língua estrangeira ou morta, como se esta fosse estática, permanecendo imune à evolução histórica. O estudo corroborou a hipótese de investigação, uma vez que, desconsiderando e/ou desconhecendo o aspecto dialógico do enunciado, os livros analisados minimizam a possibilidade da instauração de uma abordagem discursiva de linguagem, o que incide no tratamento das relações sons e letras e letras e sons que acabam por apresentarem-se dicotomizadas do texto e seu contexto discursivo e, dessa forma, sua reflexão e sistematização pelos estudantes distancia-se de um estudo dessas relações no bojo dos aspectos sócio-históricos, ideológicos, linguísticos, estilísticos, dentre outros que perpassam seu ensino. Logo, por não propiciarem um tratamento discursivo da linguagem, pouco contribuem para um tratamento “linguístico” adequado, acabando por criar obstáculos para a compreensão dessas relações pelos estudantes. Entende que conhecimentos linguísticos, principalmente referentes às variedades linguísticas e dialetais, tornam-se importantes quando da abordagem dessas relações, entretanto, estes por si sós não garantem sua apropriação. Ressalta o necessário conhecimento por parte dos professores (e autores) acerca da abordagem linguística tomada pelo livro didático de alfabetização e o resgate da autoria docente diante do ensino da língua materna, instaurando um processo autoral-dialógico da produção de conhecimentos junto aos estudantes.

Competências em língua portuguesa à saída da licenciatura: o caso da licenciatura em Educação Básica da ESELx (2010-11)

O presente artigo tem como objetivo geral analisar o desempenho dos alunos da licenciatura em Educação Básica da Escola Superior de Educação de Lisboa na prova de língua portuguesa de acesso ao 2º Ciclo de estudos, no ano letivo de 2010-11. Em concreto, procurar-se-á: (i) caracterizar os candidatos; (ii) identificar as áreas de maior (in)sucesso no âmbito das competências em avaliação (leitura, escrita e conhecimento linguístico).

A rule-based grapheme-to-phone converter for TTS systems in european portuguese

In this paper, a linguistically rule-based grapheme-to-phone (G2P) transcription algorithm is described for European Portuguese. A complete set of phonological and phonetic transcription rules regarding the European Portuguese standard variety is presented. This algorithm was implemented and tested by using online newspaper articles. The obtained experimental results gave rise to 98.80% of accuracy rate. Future developments in order to increase this value are foreseen. Our purpose with this work is to develop a module/ tool that can improve synthetic speech naturalness in European Portuguese. Other applications of this system can be expected like language teaching/learning. These results, together with our perspectives of future improvements, have proved the dramatic importance of linguistic knowledge on the development of Text-to-Speech systems (TTS).

Paraphrasing : scope and typology : a computational approach

This PhD project aims to study paraphrasing, initially understood as the different ways in which the same content is expressed linguistically. We will go into that concept in depth trying to define and delimit its scope more accurately. In that sense, we also aim to discover which kind of structures and phenomena it covers. Although there exist some paraphrasing typologies, the great majority of them only apply to English, and focus on lexical and syntactic transformations. Our intention is to go further into this subject and propose a paraphrasing typology for Spanish and Catalan combining lexical, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic knowledge. We apply a bottom-up methodology trying to collect evidence of this phenomenon from the data. For this purpose, we are initially using the Spanish Wikipedia as our corpus. The internal structure of this encyclopedia makes it a good resource for extracting paraphrasing examples for our investigation. This empirical approach will be complemented with the use of linguistic knowledge, and by comparing and contrasting our results to previously proposed paraphrasing typologies in order to enlarge the possible paraphrasing forms found in our corpus. The fact that the same content can be expressed in many different ways presents a major challenge for Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications. Thus, research on paraphrasing has recently been attracting increasing attention in the fields of NLP and Computational Linguistics. The results obtained in this investigation would be of great interest in many of these applications.

Estudo de caso: o uso da língua portuguesa por jovens provindos de outros países no domínio privado, público e educativo

A afluência de imigrantes a Portugal, nas últimas três décadas transformou radicalmente todo o tecido social português, caracterizando-se hoje pela sua heterogeneidade. Até ao início da década de 90 do século XX, os fluxos migratórios provinham essencialmente dos Países de Língua Oficial Portuguesa, com maior incidência de Cabo Verde, Brasil e Angola. É nessa década que se registam movimentos bastante significativos de imigrantes provenientes da Europa Central e Oriental, principalmente da Ucrânia, Rússia, Roménia e Moldávia, assim como da Ásia, destacando-se os naturais da China, Índia, Paquistão e das antigas repúblicas soviéticas. De acordo com a análise apresentada pelo Instituto Nacional de Estatística em Dezembro de 2006, residiam de forma legal em Portugal 329 898 cidadãos de nacionalidade estrangeira, sendo as maiores comunidades de Cabo Verde (57 349), Brasil (41 728) e Angola (28 854). A sociedade portuguesa do século XXI, distancia-se cada vez mais do conceito de monolinguismo, tal como se evidencia no Projecto Gulbenkian “Diversidade Linguística na Escola Portuguesa”, que, segundo o estudo feito, onze por cento dos alunos residentes na área da Grande Lisboa nasceram fora de Portugal e têm como línguas maternas cinquenta e oito idiomas. É urgente uma intervenção diferente no que corresponde a esta nova realidade linguística em Portugal e sobretudo no que concerne à integração do “outro”, reconhecendo e respeitando as várias línguas maternas e culturas, como também a sua preservação a fim de possibilitar o desenvolvimento íntegro e harmonioso da identidade. A heterogeneidade da actual sociedade portuguesa impõe um olhar atento para com esta nova realidade no país, sobretudo em muitas das escolas onde a par do uso da língua portuguesa outras línguas são também usadas como forma de comunicação entre os mesmos pares, situação esta perfeitamente desajustada da realidade escolar madeirense Estudo de caso: O uso da Língua Portuguesa por jovens oriundos de outros países nos domínios privado, público e educativo. 10 de inícios da década de 90 do século XX, à excepção dos alunos provenientes da Venezuela, os denominados luso-descendentes. A escola mudara, tudo se alterara, havia que tentar perceber o que estava a ocorrer, um novo Mundo “invadira” as turmas, prontas a aprender, a saber, a descobrir. Era preciso preencher o silêncio expectante. Aprender uma nova língua, a portuguesa, decorrente da obrigatoriedade implícita de tratar-se da língua oficial, obrigava a repensar o ensino, a continuamente desvendar novos caminhos possibilitadores de encontro entre a língua materna e a segunda, de reencontro com a identidade linguística e cultural que não se quer perdidas, só tornado possível na diferença. A par de uma escola que se apresentava de forma diferente, cuja intervenção teria de ser oposta à de então, uma vez que a aprendizagem do português era feita como língua segunda (L2), muitas foram e são as inquietações, um turbilhão de interrogações decorriam deste contacto constante de uma língua que se diz minha, fonte de partilha com outros jovens. O uso da língua portuguesa confinar-se-á unicamente à escola com os professores e colegas ou despoletará curiosidades, vontades, interesses, motivados por objectivos confinados ao percurso e à história humana? Muitas são as interrogações que ocorrem, muitos são também os momentos de sabedoria mútua de línguas e países a desvendar num contínuo ininterrupto e é essa constante procura que determina a busca de respostas. Entre muitas interrogações uma afigurava-se de forma latente, quiçá fonte de resposta para outras interrogações inerentes à língua portuguesa como língua segunda. A sua utilização por parte dos alunos de outras nacionalidades nos domínios privado, público e educativo engloba domínios diversos capazes de informar acerca do uso dessa mesma língua. Importa no entanto reforçar que estes alunos constituem um grupo heterogéneo sob diversos pontos de vista: etário, linguístico e cultural. Do ponto de vista linguístico a população que tem o português como língua segunda abrange alunos falantes de diferentes línguas maternas, umas mais próximas, outras mais afastadas do português, propiciando diferentes graus de transferência de conhecimentos linguísticos e de experiências comunicativas, como também em diferentes estádios de aquisição e que fora da escola o usam em maior ou menor número de contextos e com um grau de frequência desigual. Estudo de caso: O uso da Língua Portuguesa por jovens oriundos de outros países nos domínios privado, público e educativo. 11 Dispõem também de diferentes capacidades individuais para discriminar, segmentar e produzir sequências linguísticas. Já do ponto de vista cultural apresentam diferentes hábitos de aprendizagem, bem como diferentes representações e expectativas face à escola. Todos estes factores determinarão ritmos de progressão distintos no que respeita à aprendizagem do português como língua segunda. As oportunidades de aprendizagem e de uso que cada indivíduo tem ao longo da vida, determinantes no processo de aquisição, desenvolvimento e aprendizagem de uma língua, variam bastante de indivíduo para indivíduo. Os alunos podem viver num mesmo contexto no entanto razões variadíssimas determinarão diferentes oportunidades de aprendizagem e de uso. Viver-se num contexto de imersão não é suficiente para que todos tenham o mesmo grau de exposição a material linguístico rico e variado da L2. Essas oportunidades também se relacionam com a distância linguística entre língua primeira (L1) e a língua segunda, quanto mais afastadas são as duas línguas mais os falantes da L2 se refugiam na sua língua materna, assim como também se associam aos hábitos culturais da comunidade e da família.

Estudo de caso : o uso da língua portuguesa por jovens provindos de outros países no domínio privado, público e educativo

A afluência de imigrantes a Portugal, nas últimas três décadas transformou radicalmente todo o tecido social português, caracterizando-se hoje pela sua heterogeneidade. Até ao início da década de 90 do século XX, os fluxos migratórios provinham essencialmente dos Países de Língua Oficial Portuguesa, com maior incidência de Cabo Verde, Brasil e Angola. É nessa década que se registam movimentos bastante significativos de imigrantes provenientes da Europa Central e Oriental, principalmente da Ucrânia, Rússia, Roménia e Moldávia, assim como da Ásia, destacando-se os naturais da China, Índia, Paquistão e das antigas repúblicas soviéticas. De acordo com a análise apresentada pelo Instituto Nacional de Estatística em Dezembro de 2006, residiam de forma legal em Portugal 329 898 cidadãos de nacionalidade estrangeira, sendo as maiores comunidades de Cabo Verde (57 349), Brasil (41 728) e Angola (28 854). A sociedade portuguesa do século XXI, distancia-se cada vez mais do conceito de monolinguismo, tal como se evidencia no Projecto Gulbenkian “Diversidade Linguística na Escola Portuguesa”, que, segundo o estudo feito, onze por cento dos alunos residentes na área da Grande Lisboa nasceram fora de Portugal e têm como línguas maternas cinquenta e oito idiomas. É urgente uma intervenção diferente no que corresponde a esta nova realidade linguística em Portugal e sobretudo no que concerne à integração do “outro”, reconhecendo e respeitando as várias línguas maternas e culturas, como também a sua preservação a fim de possibilitar o desenvolvimento íntegro e harmonioso da identidade. A heterogeneidade da actual sociedade portuguesa impõe um olhar atento para com esta nova realidade no país, sobretudo em muitas das escolas onde a par do uso da língua portuguesa outras línguas são também usadas como forma de comunicação entre os mesmos pares, situação esta perfeitamente desajustada da realidade escolar madeirense Estudo de caso: O uso da Língua Portuguesa por jovens oriundos de outros países nos domínios privado, público e educativo. 10 de inícios da década de 90 do século XX, à excepção dos alunos provenientes da Venezuela, os denominados luso-descendentes. A escola mudara, tudo se alterara, havia que tentar perceber o que estava a ocorrer, um novo Mundo “invadira” as turmas, prontas a aprender, a saber, a descobrir. Era preciso preencher o silêncio expectante. Aprender uma nova língua, a portuguesa, decorrente da obrigatoriedade implícita de tratar-se da língua oficial, obrigava a repensar o ensino, a continuamente desvendar novos caminhos possibilitadores de encontro entre a língua materna e a segunda, de reencontro com a identidade linguística e cultural que não se quer perdidas, só tornado possível na diferença. A par de uma escola que se apresentava de forma diferente, cuja intervenção teria de ser oposta à de então, uma vez que a aprendizagem do português era feita como língua segunda (L2), muitas foram e são as inquietações, um turbilhão de interrogações decorriam deste contacto constante de uma língua que se diz minha, fonte de partilha com outros jovens. O uso da língua portuguesa confinar-se-á unicamente à escola com os professores e colegas ou despoletará curiosidades, vontades, interesses, motivados por objectivos confinados ao percurso e à história humana? Muitas são as interrogações que ocorrem, muitos são também os momentos de sabedoria mútua de línguas e países a desvendar num contínuo ininterrupto e é essa constante procura que determina a busca de respostas. Entre muitas interrogações uma afigurava-se de forma latente, quiçá fonte de resposta para outras interrogações inerentes à língua portuguesa como língua segunda. A sua utilização por parte dos alunos de outras nacionalidades nos domínios privado, público e educativo engloba domínios diversos capazes de informar acerca do uso dessa mesma língua. Importa no entanto reforçar que estes alunos constituem um grupo heterogéneo sob diversos pontos de vista: etário, linguístico e cultural. Do ponto de vista linguístico a população que tem o português como língua segunda abrange alunos falantes de diferentes línguas maternas, umas mais próximas, outras mais afastadas do português, propiciando diferentes graus de transferência de conhecimentos linguísticos e de experiências comunicativas, como também em diferentes estádios de aquisição e que fora da escola o usam em maior ou menor número de contextos e com um grau de frequência desigual. Estudo de caso: O uso da Língua Portuguesa por jovens oriundos de outros países nos domínios privado, público e educativo. 11 Dispõem também de diferentes capacidades individuais para discriminar, segmentar e produzir sequências linguísticas. Já do ponto de vista cultural apresentam diferentes hábitos de aprendizagem, bem como diferentes representações e expectativas face à escola. Todos estes factores determinarão ritmos de progressão distintos no que respeita à aprendizagem do português como língua segunda. As oportunidades de aprendizagem e de uso que cada indivíduo tem ao longo da vida, determinantes no processo de aquisição, desenvolvimento e aprendizagem de uma língua, variam bastante de indivíduo para indivíduo. Os alunos podem viver num mesmo contexto no entanto razões variadíssimas determinarão diferentes oportunidades de aprendizagem e de uso. Viver-se num contexto de imersão não é suficiente para que todos tenham o mesmo grau de exposição a material linguístico rico e variado da L2. Essas oportunidades também se relacionam com a distância linguística entre língua primeira (L1) e a língua segunda, quanto mais afastadas são as duas línguas mais os falantes da L2 se refugiam na sua língua materna, assim como também se associam aos hábitos culturais da comunidade e da família.

Acerca de la competencia lingüística del alumnado de origen inmigrante en educación secundaria

Ante la creciente incorporación de alumnado de origen inmigrante a nuestros centros educativos, y dada la práctica inexistencia de estudios empíricos que aborden esta nueva situación, entre el profesorado suelen primar ciertas creencias o ideas previas que condicionan las respuestas educativas en torno al proceso de enseñar la lengua o lenguas de la sociedad de acogida a estos alumnos. Nuestra investigación, a partir de la evaluación del conocimiento lingüístico adquirido en castellano por parte de un grupo de alumnos y alumnas de 1º de ESO, ha analizado algunos de los factores que determinan sus niveles de competencia lingüística. Ello, además de contrastar determinadas creencias sobre el aprendizaje de la lengua de estos colectivos, nos ha permitido formular ciertas indicaciones o sugerencias para abordar la cuestión.

Creencias y conocimiento acerca de la competencia lingüística de alumnado inmigrante: el caso de la provincia de Huesca

Ante la creciente incorporación de alumnado de origen inmigrante a nuestros centros educativos, y dada la práctica inexistencia de estudios empíricos que aborden esta nueva situación, entre el profesorado suelen primar ciertas creencias o ideas previas que condicionan las respuestas educativas en torno al proceso de enseñar la lengua o lenguas de la sociedad de acogida a estos alumnos. Nuestra investigación, a partir de la evaluación del conocimiento lingüístico adquirido en castellano por parte de un grupo de alumnos y alumnas de 1º de ESO, ha analizado algunos de los factores que determinan sus niveles de competencia lingüística. Ello, además de contrastar determinadas creencias sobre el aprendizaje de la lengua de estos colectivos, nos ha permitido formular ciertas indicaciones o sugerencias para abordar la cuestión