Refine
Year of publication
- 2006 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (3) (remove)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- Aufsatzsammlung (1)
- Bibliographie (1)
- Deutsch (1)
- Englisch (1)
- Hilfsverb (1)
- Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus (1)
- Sadie, Stanley (1)
- role labeling (1)
- speech tagging (1)
- time annotation (1)
Institute
- Extern (3) (remove)
This report explores the question of compatibility between annotation projects including translating annotation formalisms to each other or to common forms. Compatibility issues are crucial for systems that use the results of multiple annotation projects. We hope that this report will begin a concerted effort in the field to track the compatibility of annotation schemes for part of speech tagging, time annotation, treebanking, role labeling and other phenomena.
As editor of the next iteration of the Köchel Catalogue, I have to deal with the current (sixth) edition’s Appendix C, devoted to "Doubtful and Misattributed Works." My goal is to reduce the potentially vast dimensions of that appendix to only those works for which some connection to Mozart cannot be ruled out. In the decades since 1964, when the current edition of Köchel was published, many of the works listed in Appendix C have been convincingly attributed to other composers. Other works therein can confidently be dismissed as never having had any meaningful connection to Mozart. Yet even after removing the reattributed and trivially misattributed works from the appendix, we are left with a handful of works that may possibly have had something to do with Mozart, even if clear evidence one way or the other remains elusive. One must, of course, be cautious in removing questionable and doubtful works from the catalogue, as the present case-study will illustrate. The work under consideration, catalogued as K6 Anh. C 9.07, is an unaccompanied piece for three or four voices with the text "Venerabilis barba capucinorum." ...
The retreat of BE as perfect auxiliary in the history of English is examined. Corpus data are presented showing that the initial advance of HAVE was most closely connected to a restriction against BE in past counterfactuals. Other factors which have been reported to favor the spread of HAVE are either dependent on the counterfactual effect, or significantly weaker in comparison. It is argued that the effect can be traced to the semantics of the BE perfect, which denoted resultativity rather than anteriority proper. Related data from other older Germanic and Romance languages are presented, and finally implications for existing theories of auxiliary selection stemming from the findings presented are discussed.