Slides-Framenet

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Slides-Framenet Returning to Jin broke the projector Semantic Role Labelling, cont. • Frame for break: Frameset break.01 “break, cause to not be whole": Arg0: breaker Martha Palmer Arg1: thing broken Arg2: instrument University of Colorado Arg3: pieces LING 7800/CSCI 7000-017 February 5, 2013 1 Full example Everyday Jin broke the projector before class because he didn’t want annotation… to hear Jena talk. • Given relation break: • Arg0: Jin • REL: broke • Arg1: the projector • ArgM-TMP: before class • ArgM-CAU: because he didn’t want to hear Jena talk. 1 Mapping from PropBank to VerbNet Mapping from PB to VerbNet (similar mapping for PB-FrameNet) verbs.colorado.edu/~semlink Frameset id = Sense = VerbNet class = leave.02 give future-having 13.3 Arg0 Giver Agent/Donor* Arg1 Thing given Theme Arg2 Benefactive Recipient Baker, Fillmore, & Lowe, COLING/ACL-98 *FrameNet Label Fillmore & Baker, WordNetWKSHP, 2001 CLEAR – Colorado 5 VerbNet CLEAR – Colorado VerbNet 6 FrameNet Introducing FrameNet -Thanks to Chuck Fillmore and Collin Baker In one of its senses, the verb observe evokes a frame Baker, Collin F., Charles J. Fillmore, and called Compliance: this frame concerns people’s responses John B. Lowe. (1998) The Berkeley to norms, rules or practices. FrameNet project. In Proceedings of The following sentences illustrate the use of the verb in the COLING/ACL-98 , pages 86--90, Montreal. intended sense: Our family observes the Jewish dietary laws. Fillmore, Charles J. and Collin F. Baker. You have to observe the rules or you’ll be penalized. (2001). Frame semantics for text How do you observe Easter? understanding. In the Proceedings of NAACL Please observe the illuminated signs. WordNet and Other Lexical Resources Workshop Pittsburgh, June. 7 8 2 FrameNet The FrameNet Product The FrameNet database constitutes FrameNet records information about English a set of frame descriptions words in the general vocabulary in terms of a set of corpus examples annotated with respect to 1. the frames (e.g. Compliance) that they evoke, the frame elements of the frame evoked by each 2. the frame elements (semantic roles) that make up the lexical unit components of the frames (in Compliance, Norm is lexical entries, including definitions and displays of one such frame element), and the combinatory possibilities of each lexical unit, as 3. each word’s valence possibilities, the ways in which automatically derived from the annotations information about the frames is provided in the linguistic a display of frame-to-frame relations, showing how structures connected to them (with observe, Norm is some frames are elaborations of others, or are typically the direct object). components of other frames. 9 10 theta Frame Elements for Compliance - You do a whole frame for just observe? - No. There are other Compliance words too. The frame elements that figure in the Compliance frame are called V - adhere, comply, conform, follow, heed, obey, submit, ...; Norm (the rule, practice or convention) AND NOT ONLY VERBS Protagonist (the person[s] reacting to the N - adherence, compliance, conformity, obedience, Norm) observance, ...; Act (something done by the Protagonist that is A - compliant, obedient, ...; evaluated in terms of the Norm) PP - in compliance with, in conformity to, ...; AND NOT ONLY WORDS FOR POSITIVE RESPONSES TO NORMS State_of_affairs (a situation evaluated in terms of the Norm) V - break, disobey, flout, transgress, violate ,...; N - breach, disobedience, transgression, violation,...; PP - in violation of, in breach of, ... 11 12 3 Tagging Compliance sentences - Are we finished with the verb observe? - No. This verb has several other meanings too. Protagonist State_of_affairs In the Becoming-aware frame we get the Our family The light switches in uses seen in observing children at play, this room observing an ant colony, sharing frame observes membership with watch, attend, listen to, are in full conformity the dietary laws view & pay attention. with the building code In a Commenting frame, observe and observation share frame membership with remark & comment. 13 14 Norm Norm Lexical Unit LUs and V-N relationships Our unit of description is not the word (or Note that the nouns based on observe are “lemma”) but the lexical unit (Cruse 1986), – a observance in the Compliance frame, pairing of a word with a sense. In our terms this is observation in the Perception_active frame the pairing of a word with a single frame. Similarly, the nouns based on adhere are adherence in the Compliance frame, The lexical unit - roughly equivalent to a word in adhesion in the Attachment frame. a synset - is the unit in terms of which important generalizations about lexical relations, meanings When we need to be precise we show the frame- specific sense of a lemma (the full name of an and syntactic behavior can best be formulated. LU) with a dotted expression: Compliance.observe, Attachment.adhere, etc. 15 16 4 words, frames, lexical units words, frames, lexical units Compliance Perception Compliance Attachment observance observe observation adherence adhere adhesion 2 lexical units sharing same form: 2 lexical units sharing the same form: Compliance.observe, Compliance.adhere, Perception.observe Attachment.adhere 17 18 The study of polysemy concerns Different LU, Different Valence membership in different frames Compliance.observe generally has an NP as its Compliance Perception Commenting direct object. Perception.observe has these patterns: NP: Observe the clouds overhead. NP+Ving: I observed the children playing. wh-clause: Observe what I’m doing. observe that-clause: We observed that the process terminated after an hour. Comment.observe occurs frequently with a quoted comment: “That was brilliant,” he observed snidely. 19 20 5 advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion Lexical-units: Wrap-up In recent years, through NSF subcontracts with Colorado and Penn colleagues, and Lexical units are the entities with respect to which we define through our participation in the AQUAINT meanings program, we have begun using FrameNet grammatical behavior semantic relations with other entities techniques for analyzing full texts. morphological relations with other entities In short, there aren’t interesting things to say about the verb observe in general, but only about the individual lexical units that happen to have the form observe. 21 22 advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion In October 2002, the U.S. State Department Telling.inform informed Telling.inform North Korea that Time In 2002, the U.S. Speaker the U.S. State Department was aware of this program, Target INFORMED and Addressee North Korea regards it Message that the U.S. was aware of this program , and as a violation regards it as a violation of Pyongyang's of Pyongyang's nonproliferation commitments nonproliferation commitments. 23 24 6 advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion Inform Licensed Omission The syntactic possibilities of the verb inform give The meaning of inform that we wish to describe belongs us a chance to introduce a concept that will be to a Telling frame; here the emphasis is on getting information to an addressee, and is thus distinct from developed in some detail later on: null Statement. instantiation. The Telling frame is shared by inform, tell, notify, etc., The Content FE of this verb can be omitted - as Statement is shared by say, announce, state, etc. in The meaning of inform in the Telling frame is distinct from the sense it has as a member of the Reporting They already informed me. frame, where it occurs as part of a phrasal verb, inform This omission is only licensed when the on. Other members of this frame are report (they reported intended Content is already known in the me to the authorities), tell on, rat on, fink on. context. This variety of zero anaphora will play an important role in the final section of this presentation. 25 26 advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion In October 2002, the U.S. State Department Awareness.aware informed North Korea that Cognizer the U.S. the U.S. was aware Awareness.aware TARGET was AWARE of this program, and Content of this program regards it as a violation of Pyongyang's nonproliferation commitments. 27 28 7 advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion In October 2002, the U.S. State Department Categorization.regard informed North Korea that the U.S. Cognizer the U.S. was aware of this program, TARGET REGARDS and Item it regards Categorization.regard it Category as a violation of Pyongyang's as a violation nonproliferation commitments of Pyongyang's nonproliferation commitments. 29 30 advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion In October 2002, the U.S. State Department Compliance.violation informed North Korea that Act it the U.S. Target a VIOLATION was aware of this program, Norm of Pyongyang's nonproliferation and commitments regards it as a violation Compliance.violation of Pyongyang's nonproliferation commitments. 31 32 8 advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion In October 2002, the U.S. State Department Commitment.commitment informed North Korea that Speaker Pyongyang's the U.S. Message nonproliferation was aware of this program, Target COMMITMENTS. and regards it as a violation of Pyongyang's nonproliferation commitments. Commitment.commitment 33 34 advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion advertisement - review - step-by-step - three-way - users - cohesion Support Verbs and Polysemy In October 2002, the U.S. State Department informed Telling.inform Commitment also occurs in the North Korea Institutionalization frame: committing a person that to a mental hospital.
Recommended publications
  • Talk Bank: a Multimodal Database of Communicative Interaction
    Talk Bank: A Multimodal Database of Communicative Interaction 1. Overview The ongoing growth in computer power and connectivity has led to dramatic changes in the methodology of science and engineering. By stimulating fundamental theoretical discoveries in the analysis of semistructured data, we can to extend these methodological advances to the social and behavioral sciences. Specifically, we propose the construction of a major new tool for the social sciences, called TalkBank. The goal of TalkBank is the creation of a distributed, web- based data archiving system for transcribed video and audio data on communicative interactions. We will develop an XML-based annotation framework called Codon to serve as the formal specification for data in TalkBank. Tools will be created for the entry of new and existing data into the Codon format; transcriptions will be linked to speech and video; and there will be extensive support for collaborative commentary from competing perspectives. The TalkBank project will establish a framework that will facilitate the development of a distributed system of allied databases based on a common set of computational tools. Instead of attempting to impose a single uniform standard for coding and annotation, we will promote annotational pluralism within the framework of the abstraction layer provided by Codon. This representation will use labeled acyclic digraphs to support translation between the various annotation systems required for specific sub-disciplines. There will be no attempt to promote any single annotation scheme over others. Instead, by promoting comparison and translation between schemes, we will allow individual users to select the custom annotation scheme most appropriate for their purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Collection of Usage Information for Language Resources from Academic Articles
    Collection of Usage Information for Language Resources from Academic Articles Shunsuke Kozaway, Hitomi Tohyamayy, Kiyotaka Uchimotoyyy, Shigeki Matsubaray yGraduate School of Information Science, Nagoya University yyInformation Technology Center, Nagoya University Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, 464-8601, Japan yyyNational Institute of Information and Communications Technology 4-2-1 Nukui-Kitamachi, Koganei, Tokyo, 184-8795, Japan fkozawa,[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Recently, language resources (LRs) are becoming indispensable for linguistic researches. However, existing LRs are often not fully utilized because their variety of usage is not well known, indicating that their intrinsic value is not recognized very well either. Regarding this issue, lists of usage information might improve LR searches and lead to their efficient use. In this research, therefore, we collect a list of usage information for each LR from academic articles to promote the efficient utilization of LRs. This paper proposes to construct a text corpus annotated with usage information (UI corpus). In particular, we automatically extract sentences containing LR names from academic articles. Then, the extracted sentences are annotated with usage information by two annotators in a cascaded manner. We show that the UI corpus contributes to efficient LR searches by combining the UI corpus with a metadata database of LRs and comparing the number of LRs retrieved with and without the UI corpus. 1. Introduction Thesaurus1. In recent years, such language resources (LRs) as corpora • He also employed Roget’s Thesaurus in 100 words of and dictionaries are being widely used for research in the window to implement WSD.
    [Show full text]
  • MASC: the Manually Annotated Sub-Corpus of American English
    MASC: The Manually Annotated Sub-Corpus of American English Nancy Ide*, Collin Baker**, Christiane Fellbaum†, Charles Fillmore**, Rebecca Passonneau†† *Vassar College Poughkeepsie, New York USA **International Computer Science Institute Berkeley, California USA †Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey USA ††Columbia University New York, New York USA E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract To answer the critical need for sharable, reusable annotated resources with rich linguistic annotations, we are developing a Manually Annotated Sub-Corpus (MASC) including texts from diverse genres and manual annotations or manually-validated annotations for multiple levels, including WordNet senses and FrameNet frames and frame elements, both of which have become significant resources in the international computational linguistics community. To derive maximal benefit from the semantic information provided by these resources, the MASC will also include manually-validated shallow parses and named entities, which will enable linking WordNet senses and FrameNet frames within the same sentences into more complex semantic structures and, because named entities will often be the role fillers of FrameNet frames, enrich the semantic and pragmatic information derivable from the sub-corpus. All MASC annotations will be published with detailed inter-annotator agreement measures. The MASC and its annotations will be freely downloadable from the ANC website, thus providing
    [Show full text]
  • From CHILDES to Talkbank
    From CHILDES to TalkBank Brian MacWhinney Carnegie Mellon University MacWhinney, B. (2001). New developments in CHILDES. In A. Do, L. Domínguez & A. Johansen (Eds.), BUCLD 25: Proceedings of the 25th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 458-468). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. a similar article appeared as: MacWhinney, B. (2001). From CHILDES to TalkBank. In M. Almgren, A. Barreña, M. Ezeizaberrena, I. Idiazabal & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Research on Child Language Acquisition (pp. 17-34). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Recent years have seen a phenomenal growth in computer power and connectivity. The computer on the desktop of the average academic researcher now has the power of room-size supercomputers of the 1980s. Using the Internet, we can connect in seconds to the other side of the world and transfer huge amounts of text, programs, audio and video. Our computers are equipped with programs that allow us to view, link, and modify this material without even having to think about programming. Nearly all of the major journals are now available in electronic form and the very nature of journals and publication is undergoing radical change. These new trends have led to dramatic advances in the methodology of science and engineering. However, the social and behavioral sciences have not shared fully in these advances. In large part, this is because the data used in the social sciences are not well- structured patterns of DNA sequences or atomic collisions in super colliders. Much of our data is based on the messy, ill-structured behaviors of humans as they participate in social interactions. Categorizing and coding these behaviors is an enormous task in itself.
    [Show full text]
  • The British National Corpus Revisited: Developing Parameters for Written BNC2014 Abi Hawtin (Lancaster University, UK)
    The British National Corpus Revisited: Developing parameters for Written BNC2014 Abi Hawtin (Lancaster University, UK) 1. The British National Corpus 2014 project The ESRC Centre for Corpus Approaches to Social Science (CASS) at Lancaster University and Cambridge University Press are working together to create a new, publicly accessible corpus of contemporary British English. The corpus will be a successor to the British National Corpus, created in the early 1990s (BNC19941). The British National Corpus 2014 (BNC2014) will be of the same order of magnitude as BNC1994 (100 million words). It is currently projected that the corpus will reach completion in mid-2018. Creation of the spoken sub-section of BNC2014 is in its final stages; this paper focuses on the justification and development of the written sub- section of BNC2014. 2. Justification for BNC2014 There are now many web-crawled corpora of English, widely available to researchers, which contain far more data than will be included in Written BNC2014. For example, the English TenTen corpus (enTenTen) is a web-crawled corpus of Written English which currently contains approximately 19 billion words (Jakubíček et al., 2013). Web-crawling processes mean that this huge amount of data can be collected very quickly; Jakubíček et al. (2013: 125) note that “For a language where there is plenty of material available, we can gather, clean and de-duplicate a billion words a day.” So, with extremely large and quickly-created web-crawled corpora now becoming commonplace in corpus linguistics, the question might well be asked why a new, 100 million word corpus of Written British English is needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive and Consistent Propbank Light Verb Annotation Claire Bonial,1 Martha Palmer2 1U.S
    Comprehensive and Consistent PropBank Light Verb Annotation Claire Bonial,1 Martha Palmer2 1U.S. Army Research Laboratory, 2University of Colorado, Boulder 12800 Powder Mill Rd., Adelphi, MD, USA E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Recent efforts have focused on expanding the annotation coverage of PropBank from verb relations to adjective and noun relations, as well as light verb constructions (e.g., make an offer, take a bath). While each new relation type has presented unique annotation challenges, ensuring consistent and comprehensive annotation of light verb constructions has proved particularly challenging, given that light verb constructions are semi-productive, difficult to define, and there are often borderline cases. This research describes the iterative process of developing PropBank annotation guidelines for light verb constructions, the current guidelines, and a comparison to related resources. Keywords: light verb constructions, semantic role labeling, NLP resources 2. PropBank Background 1. Introduction PropBank annotation consists of two tasks: sense annotation and role annotation. The PropBank lexicon The goal of PropBank (Palmer et al., 2005) is to supply provides a listing of the coarse-grained senses of a verb, consistent, general-purpose labeling of semantic roles noun, or adjective relation, and the set of roles associated across different syntactic realizations. With over two with each sense (thus, called a “roleset”). The roles are million words from diverse genres, the benchmark listed as argument numbers (Arg0 – Arg6) and annotated corpus supports the training of automatic correspond to verb-specific roles. For example: semantic role labelers, which in turn support other Natural Language Processing (NLP) areas, such as Offer-01 (transaction, proposal): machine translation.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Corpus Tools for Lexicographers
    Comp. by: pg0994 Stage : Proof ChapterID: 0001546186 Date:14/5/12 Time:16:20:14 Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0001546186.3D31 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 14/5/2012, SPi 3 Corpus tools for lexicographers ADAM KILGARRIFF AND IZTOK KOSEM 3.1 Introduction To analyse corpus data, lexicographers need software that allows them to search, manipulate and save data, a ‘corpus tool’. A good corpus tool is the key to a comprehensive lexicographic analysis—a corpus without a good tool to access it is of little use. Both corpus compilation and corpus tools have been swept along by general technological advances over the last three decades. Compiling and storing corpora has become far faster and easier, so corpora tend to be much larger than previous ones. Most of the first COBUILD dictionary was produced from a corpus of eight million words. Several of the leading English dictionaries of the 1990s were produced using the British National Corpus (BNC), of 100 million words. Current lexico- graphic projects we are involved in use corpora of around a billion words—though this is still less than one hundredth of one percent of the English language text available on the Web (see Rundell, this volume). The amount of data to analyse has thus increased significantly, and corpus tools have had to be improved to assist lexicographers in adapting to this change. Corpus tools have become faster, more multifunctional, and customizable. In the COBUILD project, getting concordance output took a long time and then the concordances were printed on paper and handed out to lexicographers (Clear 1987).
    [Show full text]
  • Università Degli Studi Di Macerata
    UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MACERATA Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici – Lingue, Mediazione, Storia, Lettere, Filosofia Corso di Laurea Magistrale in Lingue Moderne per la Comunicazione e la Cooperazione Internazionale (ClasseLM-38) Traduzione per laComunicazione Internazionale – inglese -mod. B STRUMENTI E TECNOLOGIE PER LA TRADUZIONESPECIALISTICA 1 What is a corpus? Some (authoritative) definitions • “a collection of naturally-occurring language text, chosen to characterize a state or variety of a language” (Sinclair, 1991:171) • “a collection of texts assumed to be representative of a given language, dialect, or other subset of a language, to be used for linguistic analysis” (Francis, 1992:7) • “a closed set of texts in machine-readable form established for general or specific purposes by previously defined criteria” (Engwall, 1992:167) • “a finite-sized body of machine-readable text, sampled in order to be maximally representative of the language variety under consideration” (McEnery & Wilson, 1996:23) • “a collection of (1) machine-readable (2) authentic texts […] which is (3) sampled to be (4) representative of a particular language or language variety” (McEnery et al., 2006:5) What is / is not a corpus…? • A newspaper archive on CD-ROM? The answer is • An online glossary? always “NO” • A digital library (e.g. Project (see Gutenberg)? definition) • All RAI 1 programmes (e.g. for spoken TV language) Corpora vs. web •Corpora: – Usually stable •searches can be replicated – Control over contents •we can select the texts to be included, or have control over selection strategies – Ad-hoc linguistically-aware software to investigate them •concordancers can sort / organise concordance lines • Web (as accessed via Google or other search engines): – Very unstable •results can change at any time for reasons beyond our control – No control over contents •what/how many texts are indexed by Google’s robots? – Limited control over search results •cannot sort or organise hits meaningfully; they are presented randomly Click here for another corpus vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Methods and Resources for Discriminating Similar Languages
    Exploring Methods and Resources for Discriminating Similar Languages Marco Lui♥♣, Ned Letcher♥, Oliver Adams♥, Long Duong♥♣, Paul Cook♥ and Timothy Baldwin♥♣ ♥ Department of Computing and Information Systems The University of Melbourne ♣ NICTA Victoria [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract The Discriminating between Similar Languages (DSL) shared task at VarDial challenged partici- pants to build an automatic language identification system to discriminate between 13 languages in 6 groups of highly-similar languages (or national varieties of the same language). In this paper, we describe the submissions made by team UniMelb-NLP, which took part in both the closed and open categories. We present the text representations and modeling techniques used, including cross-lingual POS tagging as well as fine-grained tags extracted from a deep grammar of English, and discuss additional data we collected for the open submissions, utilizing custom- built web corpora based on top-level domains as well as existing corpora. 1 Introduction Language identification (LangID) is the problem of determining what natural language a document is written in. Studies in the area often report high accuracy (Cavnar and Trenkle, 1994; Dunning, 1994; Grefenstette, 1995; Prager, 1999; Teahan, 2000). However, recent work has shown that high accu- racy is only achieved under ideal conditions (Baldwin and Lui, 2010), and one area that needs further work is accurate discrimination between closely-related languages (Ljubesiˇ c´ et al., 2007; Tiedemann and Ljubesiˇ c,´ 2012). The problem has been explored for specific groups of confusable languages, such as Malay/Indonesian (Ranaivo-Malancon, 2006), South-Eastern European languages (Tiedemann and Ljubesiˇ c,´ 2012), as well as varieties of English (Lui and Cook, 2013), Portuguese (Zampieri and Gebre, 2012), and Spanish (Zampieri et al., 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Background and Context for CLASP
    Background and Context for CLASP Nancy Ide, Vassar College The Situation Standards efforts have been on-going for over 20 years Interest and activity mainly in Europe in 90’s and early 2000’s Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) – 1987 Still ongoing, used mainly by humanities EAGLES/ISLE Developed standards for morpho-syntax, syntax, sub-categorization, etc. (links on CLASP wiki) Corpus Encoding Standard (now XCES - http://www.xces.org) Main Aspects" ! Harmonization of formats for linguistic data and annotations" ! Harmonization of descriptors in linguistic annotation" ! These two are often mixed, but need to deal with them separately (see CLASP wiki)" Formats: The Past 20 Years" 1987 TEI Myriad of formats 1994 MULTEXT, CES ~1996 XML 2000 ISO TC37 SC4 2001 LAF model introduced now LAF/GrAF, ISO standards Myriad of formats Actually…" ! Things are better now" ! XML use" ! Moves toward common models, especially in Europe" ! US community seeing the need for interoperability " ! Emergence of common processing platforms (GATE, UIMA) with underlying common models " Resources 1990 ! WordNet gains ground as a “standard” LR ! Penn Treebank, Wall Street Journal Corpus World Wide Web ! British National Corpus ! EuroWordNet XML ! Comlex ! FrameNet ! American National Corpus Semantic Web ! Global WordNet ! More FrameNets ! SUMO ! VerbNet ! PropBank, NomBank ! MASC present NLP software 1994 ! MULTEXT > LT tools, LT XML 1995 ! GATE (Sheffield) 1996 1998 ! Alembic Workbench ! ATLAS (NIST) 2003 ! What happened to this? 200? ! Callisto ! UIMA Now: GATE
    [Show full text]
  • FERSIWN GYMRAEG ISOD the National Corpus of Contemporary
    FERSIWN GYMRAEG ISOD The National Corpus of Contemporary Welsh Project Report, October 2020 Authors: Dawn Knight1, Steve Morris2, Tess Fitzpatrick2, Paul Rayson3, Irena Spasić and Enlli Môn Thomas4. 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose of this report This report provides an overview of the CorCenCC project and the online corpus resource that was developed as a result of work on the project. The report lays out the theoretical underpinnings of the research, demonstrating how the project has built on and extended this theory. We also raise and discuss some of the key operational questions that arose during the course of the project, outlining the ways in which they were answered, the impact of these decisions on the resource that has been produced and the longer-term contribution they will make to practices in corpus-building. Finally, we discuss some of the applications and the utility of the work, outlining the impact that CorCenCC is set to have on a range of different individuals and user groups. 1.2. Licence The CorCenCC corpus and associated software tools are licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA v4 and thus are freely available for use by professional communities and individuals with an interest in language. Bespoke applications and instructions are provided for each tool (for links to all tools, refer to section 10 of this report). When reporting information derived by using the CorCenCC corpus data and/or tools, CorCenCC should be appropriately acknowledged (see 1.3). § To access the corpus visit: www.corcencc.org/explore § To access the GitHub site: https://github.com/CorCenCC o GitHub is a cloud-based service that enables developers to store, share and manage their code and datasets.
    [Show full text]
  • ESP Corpus Construction: a Plea for a Needs-Driven Approach Bâtir Des Corpus En Anglais De Spécialité : Plaidoyer Pour Une Approche Fondée Sur L’Analyse Des Besoins
    ASp la revue du GERAS 68 | 2015 Varia ESP corpus construction: a plea for a needs-driven approach Bâtir des corpus en anglais de spécialité : plaidoyer pour une approche fondée sur l’analyse des besoins Hilary Nesi Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/asp/4682 DOI: 10.4000/asp.4682 ISSN: 2108-6354 Publisher Groupe d'étude et de recherche en anglais de spécialité Printed version Date of publication: 23 October 2015 Number of pages: 7-24 ISSN: 1246-8185 Electronic reference Hilary Nesi, « ESP corpus construction: a plea for a needs-driven approach », ASp [Online], 68 | 2015, Online since 01 November 2016, connection on 02 November 2020. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/asp/4682 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.4682 This text was automatically generated on 2 November 2020. Tous droits réservés ESP corpus construction: a plea for a needs-driven approach 1 ESP corpus construction: a plea for a needs-driven approach Bâtir des corpus en anglais de spécialité : plaidoyer pour une approche fondée sur l’analyse des besoins Hilary Nesi 1. Introduction 1 A huge amount of corpus data is now available for English language teachers and learners, making it difficult for them to decide which kind of corpus is most suited to their needs. The corpora that they probably know best are the large, publicly accessible general corpora which inform general reference works and textbooks; the ones that aim to cover the English language as a whole and to represent many different categories of text. The 100 million word British National Corpus (BNC), created in the 1990s, is a famous example of this type and has been used extensively for language learning purposes, but at 100 million words it is too small to contain large numbers of texts within each of its subcomponents, and it is now too old to represent modern usage in the more fast-moving fields.
    [Show full text]