DOCSLIB.ORG

A Corpus-Based Investigation of Lexical Cohesion in En & It

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Corpus-Based Investigation of Lexical Cohesion in En & It A CORPUS-BASED INVESTIGATION OF LEXICAL COHESION IN EN & IT NON-TRANSLATED TEXTS AND IN IT TRANSLATED TEXTS A thesis submitted To Kent State University in partial Fufillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Leonardo Giannossa August, 2012 © Copyright by Leonardo Giannossa 2012 All Rights Reserved ii Dissertation written by Leonardo Giannossa M.A., University of Bari – Italy, 2007 B.A., University of Bari, Italy, 2005 Approved by ______________________________, Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Brian Baer ______________________________, Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Richard K. Washbourne ______________________________, Erik Angelone ______________________________, Patricia Dunmire ______________________________, Sarah Rilling Accepted by ______________________________, Interim Chair, Modern and Classical Language Studies Keiran J. Dunne ______________________________, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Timothy Moerland iii Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. xii ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... xiv INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 Why Study Lexical Cohesion? ......................................................................................... 1 Research Hypotheses ....................................................................................................... 8 Research Method ............................................................................................................. 9 Significance of my Research Hypotheses ...................................................................... 12 Summary of Chapters .................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER I ...................................................................................................................... 16 1.1 Coherence vs. Cohesion .......................................................................................... 16 1.2 Lexical Cohesion ..................................................................................................... 21 1.3 Lexical Cohesion Studies in Discourse Analysis and Linguistics ........................... 26 1.4 Lexical Chaining Sources ........................................................................................ 32 1.4.1 The WordNet Project ........................................................................................ 32 1.5 Cohesion and Lexical Cohesion in Translation Studies .......................................... 34 CHAPTER II ..................................................................................................................... 44 2.1 Methodological Approaches: Text Analysis and Corpus Linguistics ..................... 45 2.1.1 Text Analysis..................................................................................................... 45 iv 2.2 Tools ........................................................................................................................ 57 2.2.1 WordSmith Tools .............................................................................................. 57 2.2.2 WordNet ............................................................................................................ 60 2.3 Preliminary Analysis ............................................................................................... 62 2.4 Semantic Relation Analysis ..................................................................................... 66 2.5 Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................. 70 CHAPTER III ................................................................................................................... 72 3.1 Parallel and Comparable Corpora ............................................................................ 72 3.2 Textual Analysis ...................................................................................................... 73 3.2.1 Standardized Type-Token Ratio........................................................................ 73 3.2.2 Sentence number ............................................................................................... 77 3.2.3 Lexical Density ................................................................................................. 82 3.2.4 Readability ........................................................................................................ 84 3.2.5 Average Sentence Length.................................................................................. 86 3.3 Semantic Analysis ................................................................................................... 89 3.3.1 Repetition and Modified Repetition .................................................................. 90 3.3.2 Synonyms .......................................................................................................... 93 3.3.3 Antonyms, Meronyms and Holonyms .............................................................. 95 3.3.4 Hypernyms ...................................................................................................... 101 3.3.5 Hyponyms ....................................................................................................... 103 3.4 SPSS Statistical Analysis....................................................................................... 106 3.4.1 Textual Features .............................................................................................. 106 v 3.4.2 SPSS Statistical Analysis: Semantic Features ................................................. 108 CHAPTER IV ................................................................................................................. 113 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 113 4.2 Textual Features .................................................................................................... 117 Average Sentence length .......................................................................................... 117 Sentence number ...................................................................................................... 119 STTR ........................................................................................................................ 121 Lexical Density ........................................................................................................ 122 4.3 Semantic Features .................................................................................................. 123 4.3.1 Repetition ........................................................................................................ 123 4.3.2 Synonyms ........................................................................................................ 126 4.3.3 Meronyms, Holonyms, Hypernyms, Hyponyms, Antonyms .......................... 127 4.3.4 Semantic categories other than repetitions as a whole .................................... 128 CHAPTER V .................................................................................................................. 133 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 133 5.2 Pedagogical Implications ....................................................................................... 138 5.3 Limitations and Future Directions ......................................................................... 152 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................... 157 References ....................................................................................................................... 159 Webography: ................................................................................................................... 167 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – WordList Frequency List ................................................................................. 58 Figure 2 – Wordlist Statistics ............................................................................................ 59 Figure 3 – MultiWordNet Interface .................................................................................. 61 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Preliminary Textual Analysis Screenshot ......................................................... 63 Table 2 – Semantic Relation Analysis .............................................................................. 66 Table 3.1 – Parallel Corpus STTRs .................................................................................. 73 Table 3.2 – Parallel Corpus Types .................................................................................... 74 Table 3.3 Comparable Corpus STTRs .............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Way with Words: Recent Advances in Lexical Theory and Analysis: a Festschrift for Patrick Hanks
    A Way with Words: Recent Advances in Lexical Theory and Analysis: A Festschrift for Patrick Hanks Gilles-Maurice de Schryver (editor) (Ghent University and University of the Western Cape) Kampala: Menha Publishers, 2010, vii+375 pp; ISBN 978-9970-10-101-6, e59.95 Reviewed by Paul Cook University of Toronto In his introduction to this collection of articles dedicated to Patrick Hanks, de Schryver presents a quote from Atkins referring to Hanks as “the ideal lexicographer’s lexicogra- pher.” Indeed, Hanks has had a formidable career in lexicography, including playing an editorial role in the production of four major English dictionaries. But Hanks’s achievements reach far beyond lexicography; in particular, Hanks has made numerous contributions to computational linguistics. Hanks is co-author of the tremendously influential paper “Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography” (Church and Hanks 1989) and maintains close ties to our field. Furthermore, Hanks has advanced the understanding of the relationship between words and their meanings in text through his theory of norms and exploitations (Hanks forthcoming). The range of Hanks’s interests is reflected in the authors and topics of the articles in this Festschrift; this review concentrates more on those articles that are likely to be of most interest to computational linguists, and does not discuss some articles that appeal primarily to a lexicographical audience. Following the introduction to Hanks and his career by de Schryver, the collection is split into three parts: Theoretical Aspects and Background, Computing Lexical Relations, and Lexical Analysis and Dictionary Writing. 1. Part I: Theoretical Aspects and Background Part I begins with an unfinished article by the late John Sinclair, in which he begins to put forward an argument that multi-word units of meaning should be given the same status in dictionaries as ordinary headwords.
    [Show full text]
  • Usage of IT Terminology in Corpus Linguistics Mavlonova Mavluda Davurovna
    International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE) ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-8, Issue-7S, May 2019 Usage of IT Terminology in Corpus Linguistics Mavlonova Mavluda Davurovna At this period corpora were used in semantics and related Abstract: Corpus linguistic will be the one of latest and fast field. At this period corpus linguistics was not commonly method for teaching and learning of different languages. used, no computers were used. Corpus linguistic history Proposed article can provide the corpus linguistic introduction were opposed by Noam Chomsky. Now a day’s modern and give the general overview about the linguistic team of corpus. corpus linguistic was formed from English work context and Article described about the corpus, novelties and corpus are associated in the following field. Proposed paper can focus on the now it is used in many other languages. Alongside was using the corpus linguistic in IT field. As from research it is corpus linguistic history and this is considered as obvious that corpora will be used as internet and primary data in methodology [Abdumanapovna, 2018]. A landmark is the field of IT. The method of text corpus is the digestive modern corpus linguistic which was publish by Henry approach which can drive the different set of rules to govern the Kucera. natural language from the text in the particular language, it can Corpus linguistic introduce new methods and techniques explore about languages that how it can inter-related with other. for more complete description of modern languages and Hence the corpus linguistic will be automatically drive from the these also provide opportunities to obtain new result with text sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Finetuning Pre-Trained Language Models for Sentiment Classification of COVID19 Tweets
    Technological University Dublin ARROW@TU Dublin Dissertations School of Computer Sciences 2020 Finetuning Pre-Trained Language Models for Sentiment Classification of COVID19 Tweets Arjun Dussa Technological University Dublin Follow this and additional works at: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/scschcomdis Part of the Computer Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Dussa, A. (2020) Finetuning Pre-trained language models for sentiment classification of COVID19 tweets,Dissertation, Technological University Dublin. doi:10.21427/fhx8-vk25 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Computer Sciences at ARROW@TU Dublin. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ARROW@TU Dublin. For more information, please contact arrow.admin@tudublin.ie, aisling.coyne@tudublin.ie. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License Finetuning Pre-trained language models for sentiment classification of COVID19 tweets Arjun Dussa A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Technological University Dublin for the degree of M.Sc. in Computer Science (Data Analytics) September 2020 Declaration I certify that this dissertation which I now submit for examination for the award of MSc in Computing (Data Analytics), is entirely my own work and has not been taken from the work of others save and to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the test of my work. This dissertation was prepared according to the regulations for postgraduate study of the Technological University Dublin and has not been submitted in whole or part for an award in any other Institute or University.
    [Show full text]
  • Lexical Analysis
    From words to numbers Parsing, tokenization, extract information Natural Language Processing Piotr Fulmański Lecture goals • Tokenizing your text into words and n-grams (tokens) • Compressing your token vocabulary with stemming and lemmatization • Building a vector representation of a statement Natural Language Processing in Action by Hobson Lane Cole Howard Hannes Max Hapke Manning Publications, 2019 Terminology Terminology • A phoneme is a unit of sound that distinguishes one word from another in a particular language. • In linguistics, a word of a spoken language can be defined as the smallest sequence of phonemes that can be uttered in isolation with objective or practical meaning. • The concept of "word" is usually distinguished from that of a morpheme. • Every word is composed of one or more morphemes. • A morphem is the smallest meaningful unit in a language even if it will not stand on its own. A morpheme is not necessarily the same as a word. The main difference between a morpheme and a word is that a morpheme sometimes does not stand alone, but a word, by definition, always stands alone. Terminology SEGMENTATION • Text segmentation is the process of dividing written text into meaningful units, such as words, sentences, or topics. • Word segmentation is the problem of dividing a string of written language into its component words. Text segmentation, retrieved 2020-10-20, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_segmentation Terminology SEGMENTATION IS NOT SO EASY • Trying to resolve the question of what a word is and how to divide up text into words we can face many "exceptions": • Is “ice cream” one word or two to you? Don’t both words have entries in your mental dictionary that are separate from the compound word “ice cream”? • What about the contraction “don’t”? Should that string of characters be split into one or two “packets of meaning?” • The single statement “Don’t!” means “Don’t you do that!” or “You, do not do that!” That’s three hidden packets of meaning for a total of five tokens you’d like your machine to know about.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Annotation of the Digital Papyrological Corpus: Sematia
    Marja Vierros Linguistic Annotation of the Digital Papyrological Corpus: Sematia 1 Introduction: Why to annotate papyri linguistically? Linguists who study historical languages usually find the methods of corpus linguis- tics exceptionally helpful. When the intuitions of native speakers are lacking, as is the case for historical languages, the corpora provide researchers with materials that replaces the intuitions on which the researchers of modern languages can rely. Using large corpora and computers to count and retrieve information also provides empiri- cal back-up from actual language usage. In the case of ancient Greek, the corpus of literary texts (e.g. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae or the Greek and Roman Collection in the Perseus Digital Library) gives information on the Greek language as it was used in lyric poetry, epic, drama, and prose writing; all these literary genres had some artistic aims and therefore do not always describe language as it was used in normal commu- nication. Ancient written texts rarely reflect the everyday language use, let alone speech. However, the corpus of documentary papyri gets close. The writers of the pa- pyri vary between professionally trained scribes and some individuals who had only rudimentary writing skills. The text types also vary from official decrees and orders to small notes and receipts. What they have in common, though, is that they have been written for a specific, current need instead of trying to impress a specific audience. Documentary papyri represent everyday texts, utilitarian prose,1 and in that respect, they provide us a very valuable source of language actually used by common people in everyday circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Lexical Sense Labeling and Sentiment Potential Analysis Using Corpus-Based Dependency Graph
    mathematics Article Lexical Sense Labeling and Sentiment Potential Analysis Using Corpus-Based Dependency Graph Tajana Ban Kirigin 1,* , Sanda Bujaˇci´cBabi´c 1 and Benedikt Perak 2 1 Department of Mathematics, University of Rijeka, R. Matejˇci´c2, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia; sbujacic@uniri.hr 2 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, SveuˇcilišnaAvenija 4, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia; bperak@uniri.hr * Correspondence: bank@uniri.hr Abstract: This paper describes a graph method for labeling word senses and identifying lexical sentiment potential by integrating the corpus-based syntactic-semantic dependency graph layer, lexical semantic and sentiment dictionaries. The method, implemented as ConGraCNet application on different languages and corpora, projects a semantic function onto a particular syntactical de- pendency layer and constructs a seed lexeme graph with collocates of high conceptual similarity. The seed lexeme graph is clustered into subgraphs that reveal the polysemous semantic nature of a lexeme in a corpus. The construction of the WordNet hypernym graph provides a set of synset labels that generalize the senses for each lexical cluster. By integrating sentiment dictionaries, we introduce graph propagation methods for sentiment analysis. Original dictionary sentiment values are integrated into ConGraCNet lexical graph to compute sentiment values of node lexemes and lexical clusters, and identify the sentiment potential of lexemes with respect to a corpus. The method can be used to resolve sparseness of sentiment dictionaries and enrich the sentiment evaluation of Citation: Ban Kirigin, T.; lexical structures in sentiment dictionaries by revealing the relative sentiment potential of polysemous Bujaˇci´cBabi´c,S.; Perak, B. Lexical Sense Labeling and Sentiment lexemes with respect to a specific corpus.
    [Show full text]
  • Creating and Using Multilingual Corpora in Translation Studies Claudio Fantinuoli and Federico Zanettin
    Chapter 1 Creating and using multilingual corpora in translation studies Claudio Fantinuoli and Federico Zanettin 1 Introduction Corpus linguistics has become a major paradigm and research methodology in translation theory and practice, with practical applications ranging from pro- fessional human translation to machine (assisted) translation and terminology. Corpus-based theoretical and descriptive research has investigated written and interpreted language, and topics such as translation universals and norms, ideol- ogy and individual translator style (Laviosa 2002; Olohan 2004; Zanettin 2012), while corpus-based tools and methods have entered the curricula at translation training institutions (Zanettin, Bernardini & Stewart 2003; Beeby, Rodríguez Inés & Sánchez-Gijón 2009). At the same time, taking advantage of advancements in terms of computational power and increasing availability of electronic texts, enormous progress has been made in the last 20 years or so as regards the de- velopment of applications for professional translators and machine translation system users (Coehn 2009; Brunette 2013). The contributions to this volume, which are centred around seven European languages (Basque, Dutch, German, Greek, Italian, Spanish and English), add to the range of studies of corpus-based descriptive studies, and provide exam- ples of some less explored applications of corpus analysis methods to transla- tion research. The chapters, which are based on papers first presented atthe7th congress of the European Society of Translation Studies held in Germersheim in Claudio Fantinuoli & Federico Zanettin. 2015. Creating and using multilin- gual corpora in translation studies. In Claudio Fantinuoli & Federico Za- nettin (eds.), New directions in corpus-based translation studies, 1–11. Berlin: Language Science Press Claudio Fantinuoli and Federico Zanettin July/August 20131, encompass a variety of research aims and methodologies, and vary as concerns corpus design and compilation, and the techniques used to ana- lyze the data.
    [Show full text]
  • Corpus Linguistics As a Tool in Legal Interpretation Lawrence M
    BYU Law Review Volume 2017 | Issue 6 Article 5 August 2017 Corpus Linguistics as a Tool in Legal Interpretation Lawrence M. Solan Tammy Gales Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Applied Linguistics Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Lawrence M. Solan and Tammy Gales, Corpus Linguistics as a Tool in Legal Interpretation, 2017 BYU L. Rev. 1311 (2018). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2017/iss6/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact hunterlawlibrary@byu.edu. 2.GALESSOLAN_FIN.NO HEADERS.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/26/2018 3:54 PM Corpus Linguistics as a Tool in Legal Interpretation Lawrence M. Solan* & Tammy Gales** In this paper, we set out to explore conditions in which the use of large linguistic corpora can be optimally employed by judges and others tasked with construing authoritative legal documents. Linguistic corpora, sometimes containing billions of words, are a source of information about the distribution of language usage. Thus, corpora and the tools for using them are most likely to assist in addressing legal issues when the law considers the distribution of language usage to be legally relevant. As Thomas R. Lee and Stephen C. Mouritsen have so ably demonstrated in earlier work, corpus analysis is especially helpful when the legal standard for construction is the ordinary meaning of the document’s terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Automated Citation Sentiment Analysis Using High Order N-Grams: a Preliminary Investigation
    Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences Turk J Elec Eng & Comp Sci (2018) 26: 1922 – 1932 http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/elektrik/ © TÜBİTAK Research Article doi:10.3906/elk-1712-24 Automated citation sentiment analysis using high order n-grams: a preliminary investigation Muhammad Touseef IKRAM1;∗,, Muhammad Tanvir AFZAL1, Naveed Anwer BUTT2, 1Department of Computer Science, Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan 2Department of Computer Science, University of Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan Received: 03.12.2017 • Accepted/Published Online: 02.02.2018 • Final Version: 27.07.2018 Abstract: Scientific papers hold an association with previous research contributions (i.e. books, journals or conference papers, and web resources) in the form of citations. Citations are deemed as a link or relatedness of the previous work to the cited work. The nature of the cited material could be supportive (positive), contrastive (negative), or objective (neutral). Extraction of the author’s sentiment towards the cited scientific articles is an emerging research discipline due to various linguistic differences between the citation sentences and other domains of sentiment analysis. In this paper, we propose a technique for the identification of the sentiment of the citing author towards the cited paper by extracting unigram, bigram, trigram, and pentagram adjective and adverb patterns from the citation text. After POS tagging of the citation text, we use the sentence parser for the extraction of linguistic features comprising adjectives, adverbs, and n-grams from the citation text. A sentiment score is then assigned to distinguish them as positive, negative, and neutral. In addition, the proposed technique is compared with manually classified citation text and 2 commercial tools, namely SEMANTRIA and THEYSAY, to determine their applicability to the citation corpus.
    [Show full text]
  • A Framework for Representing Lexical Resources
    A framework for representing lexical resources Fabrice Issac LDI Universite´ Paris 13 Abstract demonstration of the use of lexical resources in different languages. Our goal is to propose a description model for the lexicon. We describe a software 2 Context framework for representing the lexicon and its variations called Proteus. Various Whatever the writing system of a language (logo- examples show the different possibilities graphic, syllabic or alphabetic), it seems that the offered by this tool. We conclude with word is a central concept. Nonetheless, the very a demonstration of the use of lexical re- definition of a word is subject to variation depend- sources in complex, real examples. ing on the language studied. For some Asian lan- guages such as Mandarin or Vietnamese, the no- 1 Introduction tion of word delimiter does not exist ; for others, such as French or English, the space is a good in- Natural language processing relies as well on dicator. Likewise, for some languages, preposi- methods, algorithms, or formal models as on lin- tions are included in words, while for others they guistic resources. Processing textual data involves form a separate unit. a classic sequence of steps : it begins with the nor- malisation of data and ends with their lexical, syn- Languages can be classified according to their tactic and semantic analysis. Lexical resources are morphological mechanisms and their complexity ; the first to be used and must be of excellent qual- for instance, the morphological systems of French ity. or English are relatively simple compared to that Traditionally, a lexical resource is represented of Arabic or Greek.
    [Show full text]
  • Against Corpus Linguistics
    Against Corpus Linguistics JOHN S. EHRETT* Corpus linguistics—the use of large, computerized word databases as tools for discovering linguistic meaning—has increasingly become a topic of interest among scholars of constitutional and statutory interpretation. Some judges and academics have recently argued, across the pages of multiple law journals, that members of the judiciary ought to employ these new technologies when seeking to ascertain the original public meaning of a given text. Corpus linguistics, in the minds of its proponents, is a powerful instrument for rendering constitutional originalism and statutory textualism “scientific” and warding off accusations of interpretive subjectivity. This Article takes the opposite view: on balance, judges should refrain from the use of corpora. Although corpus linguistics analysis may appear highly promising, it carries with it several under-examined dangers—including the collapse of essential distinctions between resource quality, the entrenchment of covert linguistic biases, and a loss of reviewability by higher courts. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………..…….51 I. THE RISE OF CORPUS LINGUISTICS……………..……………..……54 A. WHAT IS CORPUS LINGUISTICS? …………………………………54 1. Frequency……………………………………………...…54 2. Collocation……………………………………………….55 3. Keywords in Context (KWIC) …………………………...55 B. CORPUS LINGUISTICS IN THE COURTS……………………………56 1. United States v. Costello…………………………………..56 2. State v. Canton……………………………………………58 3. State v. Rasabout………………………………………….59 II. AGAINST “JUDICIALIZING”C ORPUS LINGUISTICS………………….61 A. SUBVERSION OF SOURCE AUTHORITY HIERARCHIES……………..61 * Yale Law School, J.D. 2017. © 2019, John S. Ehrett. 51 THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL ONLINE [VOL. 108 B. IMPROPER PARAMETRIC OUTSOURCING…………………………65 C. METHODOLOGICAL INACCESSIBILITY…………………………...68 III. THE FUTURE OF JUDGING AND CORPUS LINGUISTICS………………70 INTRODUCTION “Corpus linguistics” may sound like a forensic investigative procedure on CSI or NCIS, but the reality is far less dramatic—though no less important.
    [Show full text]
  • TEI and the Documentation of Mixtepec-Mixtec Jack Bowers
    Language Documentation and Standards in Digital Humanities: TEI and the documentation of Mixtepec-Mixtec Jack Bowers To cite this version: Jack Bowers. Language Documentation and Standards in Digital Humanities: TEI and the documen- tation of Mixtepec-Mixtec. Computation and Language [cs.CL]. École Pratique des Hauts Études, 2020. English. tel-03131936 HAL Id: tel-03131936 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03131936 Submitted on 4 Feb 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Préparée à l’École Pratique des Hautes Études Language Documentation and Standards in Digital Humanities: TEI and the documentation of Mixtepec-Mixtec Soutenue par Composition du jury : Jack BOWERS Guillaume, JACQUES le 8 octobre 2020 Directeur de Recherche, CNRS Président Alexis, MICHAUD Chargé de Recherche, CNRS Rapporteur École doctorale n° 472 Tomaž, ERJAVEC Senior Researcher, Jožef Stefan Institute Rapporteur École doctorale de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études Enrique, PALANCAR Directeur de Recherche, CNRS Examinateur Karlheinz, MOERTH Senior Researcher, Austrian Center for Digital Humanities Spécialité and Cultural Heritage Examinateur Linguistique Emmanuel, SCHANG Maître de Conférence, Université D’Orléans Examinateur Benoit, SAGOT Chargé de Recherche, Inria Examinateur Laurent, ROMARY Directeur de recherche, Inria Directeur de thèse 1.
    [Show full text]