Refine
Year of publication
- 2007 (16) (remove)
Document Type
- Preprint (16) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (16)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (16) (remove)
Keywords
- Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (2)
- Syntaktische Analyse (2)
- syntax (2)
- Beauvoir (1)
- Computerlinguistik (1)
- Datenstruktur (1)
- Formalismes syntaxiques (1)
- Hilfsverb (1)
- Jean-Paul (1)
- Khoisan (1)
Institute
Die Frage, was Literatur ist, scheint nicht nur die grundlegendste zu sein, die sich der Literaturwissenschaft stellt, sie ist zugleich ihre abgründigste. Grundlegend ist sie, weil sie nach dem Wesen der Literatur fragt und damit eigentlich eine Selbstverständlichkeit aufruft, die die Auseinandersetzung mit Literatur begleitet. Abgründig ist sie, weil auch die scheinbar selbstverständlichsten Definitionen der Literatur bisher nicht zu einer einheitlichen Auffassung vom Wesen der Literatur geführt haben. So steht die Literaturwissenschaft bereits mit der ersten Frage, die sich ihr stellt, vor einem scheinbar unaufhebbaren Dilemma. Auf den Gegenstand angesprochen, der ihr zugehört und der entsprechend über ihre Berechtigung als Wissenschaft Auskunft zu geben vermöchte, bleibt sie im Unklaren.
Effective knowledge communication presupposes common ground (Clark & Brennan, 1991) that needs to be established and maintained. This is particularly difficult in remote communication as well as in non-interactive settings, because the speaker cannot use gestures or mimic and has to tailor his utterances to the addressee without receiving feedback. In these situations, the speaker may achieve mutual understanding for example by adopting the addressee’s perspective. We present a study conducted to test the impact of instructions that support and hinder individual problem solving and knowledge communication. We used a picture-sorting task requiring individual cognitive processes of feature search (Treisman & Gelade, 1980) in addition to referential communication. As our study focused on the design of utterances, all participants assumed the role of speaker. Participants were told that their descriptions would be recorded and then listened to later on by a participant in the role of addressee. Eight sets of pictures were used, which varied on two dimensions: the individual cognitive demands of detecting the relevant features (varied as between-subject factor) and the communicative demands (varied as within-subject factor). A further between-subject factor was the type of instructions: The participants received either a collaboration script as supporting instructions, or time pressure was applied to induce stress, or else they were given no additional instructions (control group). We used the speakers’ verbal utterances to examine the quality of the speakers’ descriptions. For both dimensions of difficulty, we found the expected effects. In the conditions with a collaboration script, there were fewer irrelevant features mentioned and fewer features were described with delay. In the conditions with time pressure, there were fewer irrelevant features described, but the number of correctly described pictures was impaired through the fact that relevant features were also neglected. Under time pressure, speakers tended to provide ambiguous descriptions regarding the frame of reference.
Language universals are statements that are true of all languages, for example: “all languages have stop consonants”. But beneath this simple definition lurks deep ambiguity, and this triggers misunderstanding in both interdisciplinary discourse and within linguistics itself. A core dimension of the ambiguity is captured by the opposition “absolute vs. statistical universal”, although the literature uses these terms in varied ways. Many textbooks draw the boundary between absolute and statistical according to whether a sample of languages contains exceptions to a universal. But the notion of an exception-free sample is not very revealing even if the sample contained all known languages: there is always a chance that an as yet undescribed language, or an unknown language from the past or future, will provide an exception.
Presupposition
(2007)
We adopt Markert and Nissim (2005)’s approach of using the World Wide Web to resolve cases of coreferent bridging for German and discuss the strength and weaknesses of this approach. As the general approach of using surface patterns to get information on ontological relations between lexical items has only been tried on English, it is also interesting to see whether the approach works for German as well as it does for English and what differences between these languages need to be accounted for. We also present a novel approach for combining several patterns that yields an ensemble that outperforms the best-performing single patterns in terms of both precision and recall.
The renowned Grimm Dictionary (1854-1961) makes the statement that the German copula sein (to be) is “the most general and colourless of all verbal concepts” (der allgemeinste und farbloseste aller verbalbegriffe). A more concise summary of the linguistic issues surrounding the copula is hardly possible. These two properties (and the latent tension between them!) make copulas a particularly interesting and vexing subject of linguistic research. Copulas appear to be almost colourless, i.e., devoid of any concrete meaning, thus leading to the question of why such expressions exist at all, not only in German but in the majority of the world’s languages. And at the same time copulas presumably provide the best window into the core of verbal concepts thereby telling us what it actually means to be a verb – at least in a language like German or English. While there is a rather rich body of research on copulas in philosophical and formal semantics including several in-depth studies on the copular systems of individual languages, copulas have received comparably little attention from a typological perspective. The monograph of Regina Pustet sets out to fill this gap. She presents an extensive cross-linguistic study of copula usage based on a sample of 154 languages drawn from the language families of the world. The analysis is embedded in the theoretical framework of functional typology. The study aims at uncovering universal principles that govern the distribution of copulas in nominal, adjectival, and verbal predications. Its major objective is the development of a “semantically-based model of copula distribution” (p.62) by means of which the presence vs. absence of copulas can be motivated through the inherent meaning of the lexical items they potentially combine with. Drawing mainly on the work by Givón (1979, 1984) and Croft (1991, 2001), who provide a functional foundation of the traditional parts of speech, Pustet identifies four semantic parameters which, if taken together, are claimed to support substantial generalisations on copula distribution – within a given language as well as crosslinguistically. These parameters are DYNAMICITY, TRANSIENCE, TRANSITIVITY, and DEPENDENCY. Pustet goes on to argue – and this is in fact the driving force behind the overall monograph – that the distributional behaviour of copulas, in turn, yields a useful methodology for developing a general approach to lexical categorization. Thus, in the long run Pustet aims at contributing to a better understanding of the traditional parts of speech, noun, adjective, and verb by defining them in terms of “semantic feature bundles, which can be arranged in [a] coherent semantic similarity space” (p.193).
Recent approaches to Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) generally fall into two classes: (1) information-intensive approaches and (2) information-poor approaches. Our hypothesis is that for memory-based learning (MBL), a reduced amount of data is more beneficial than the full range of features used in the past. Our experiments show that MBL combined with a restricted set of features and a feature selection method that minimizes the feature set leads to competitive results, outperforming all systems that participated in the SENSEVAL-3 competition on the Romanian data. Thus, with this specific method, a tightly controlled feature set improves the accuracy of the classifier, reaching 74.0% in the fine-grained and 78.7% in the coarse-grained evaluation.
Prepositional phrase (PP) attachment is one of the major sources for errors in traditional statistical parsers. The reason for that lies in the type of information necessary for resolving structural ambiguities. For parsing, it is assumed that distributional information of parts-of-speech and phrases is sufficient for disambiguation. For PP attachment, in contrast, lexical information is needed. The problem of PP attachment has sparked much interest ever since Hindle and Rooth (1993) formulated the problem in a way that can be easily handled by machine learning approaches: In their approach, PP attachment is reduced to the decision between noun and verb attachment; and the relevant information is reduced to the two possible attachment sites (the noun and the verb) and the preposition of the PP. Brill and Resnik (1994) extended the feature set to the now standard 4-tupel also containing the noun inside the PP. Among many publications on the problem of PP attachment, Volk (2001; 2002) describes the only system for German. He uses a combination of supervised and unsupervised methods. The supervised method is based on the back-off model by Collins and Brooks (1995), the unsupervised part consists of heuristics such as ”If there is a support verb construction present, choose verb attachment”. Volk trains his back-off model on the Negra treebank (Skut et al., 1998) and extracts frequencies for the heuristics from the ”Computerzeitung”. The latter also serves as test data set. Consequently, it is difficult to compare Volk’s results to other results for German, including the results presented here, since not only he uses a combination of supervised and unsupervised learning, but he also performs domain adaptation. Most of the researchers working on PP attachment seem to be satisfied with a PP attachment system; we have found hardly any work on integrating the results of such approaches into actual parsers. The only exceptions are Mehl et al. (1998) and Foth and Menzel (2006), both working with German data. Mehl et al. report a slight improvement of PP attachment from 475 correct PPs out of 681 PPs for the original parser to 481 PPs. Foth and Menzel report an improvement of overall accuracy from 90.7% to 92.2%. Both integrate statistical attachment preferences into a parser. First, we will investigate whether dependency parsing, which generally uses lexical information, shows the same performance on PP attachment as an independent PP attachment classifier does. Then we will investigate an approach that allows the integration of PP attachment information into the output of a parser without having to modify the parser: The results of an independent PP attachment classifier are integrated into the parse of a dependency parser for German in a postprocessing step.
This paper presents an LTAG analysis of reflexives like himself and reciprocals like each other. These items need to find a c-commanding antecedent from which they retrieve (part of) their own denotation and with which they syntactically agree. The relation between anaphoric item and antecendent must satisfy the following important locality conditions (Chomsky (1981)).