Publications

Displaying 401 - 406 of 406
  • Zampieri, M., & Gebre, B. G. (2012). Automatic identification of language varieties: The case of Portuguese. In J. Jancsary (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Natural Language Processing 2012, September 19-21, 2012, Vienna (pp. 233-237). Vienna: Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Artificial Intelligende (ÖGAI).

    Abstract

    Automatic Language Identification of written texts is a well-established area of research in Computational Linguistics. State-of-the-art algorithms often rely on n-gram character models to identify the correct language of texts, with good results seen for European languages. In this paper we propose the use of a character n-gram model and a word n-gram language model for the automatic classification of two written varieties of Portuguese: European and Brazilian. Results reached 0.998 for accuracy using character 4-grams.
  • Zampieri, M., Gebre, B. G., & Diwersy, S. (2012). Classifying pluricentric languages: Extending the monolingual model. In Proceedings of SLTC 2012. The Fourth Swedish Language Technology Conference. Lund, October 24-26, 2012 (pp. 79-80). Lund University.

    Abstract

    This study presents a new language identification model for pluricentric languages that uses n-gram language models at the character and word level. The model is evaluated in two steps. The first step consists of the identification of two varieties of Spanish (Argentina and Spain) and two varieties of French (Quebec and France) evaluated independently in binary classification schemes. The second step integrates these language models in a six-class classification with two Portuguese varieties.
  • Zhang, Y., Chen, C.-h., & Yu, C. (2019). Mechanisms of cross-situational learning: Behavioral and computational evidence. In Advances in Child Development and Behavior; vol. 56 (pp. 37-63).

    Abstract

    Word learning happens in everyday contexts with many words and many potential referents for those words in view at the same time. It is challenging for young learners to find the correct referent upon hearing an unknown word at the moment. This problem of referential uncertainty has been deemed as the crux of early word learning (Quine, 1960). Recent empirical and computational studies have found support for a statistical solution to the problem termed cross-situational learning. Cross-situational learning allows learners to acquire word meanings across multiple exposures, despite each individual exposure is referentially uncertain. Recent empirical research shows that infants, children and adults rely on cross-situational learning to learn new words (Smith & Yu, 2008; Suanda, Mugwanya, & Namy, 2014; Yu & Smith, 2007). However, researchers have found evidence supporting two very different theoretical accounts of learning mechanisms: Hypothesis Testing (Gleitman, Cassidy, Nappa, Papafragou, & Trueswell, 2005; Markman, 1992) and Associative Learning (Frank, Goodman, & Tenenbaum, 2009; Yu & Smith, 2007). Hypothesis Testing is generally characterized as a form of learning in which a coherent hypothesis regarding a specific word-object mapping is formed often in conceptually constrained ways. The hypothesis will then be either accepted or rejected with additional evidence. However, proponents of the Associative Learning framework often characterize learning as aggregating information over time through implicit associative mechanisms. A learner acquires the meaning of a word when the association between the word and the referent becomes relatively strong. In this chapter, we consider these two psychological theories in the context of cross-situational word-referent learning. By reviewing recent empirical and cognitive modeling studies, our goal is to deepen our understanding of the underlying word learning mechanisms by examining and comparing the two theoretical learning accounts.
  • Zinn, C., Wittenburg, P., & Ringersma, J. (2010). An evolving eScience environment for research data in linguistics. In N. Calzolari, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odjik, K. Choukri, S. Piperidis, M. Rosner, & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10) (pp. 894-899). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).

    Abstract

    The amount of research data in the Humanities is increasing at fastspeed. Metadata helps describing and making accessible this data tointerested researchers within and across institutions. While metadatainteroperability is an issue that is being recognised and addressed,the systematic and user-driven provision of annotations and thelinking together of resources into new organisational layers havereceived much less attention. This paper gives an overview of ourevolving technological eScience environment to support suchfunctionality. It describes two tools, ADDIT and ViCoS, which enableresearchers, rather than archive managers, to organise and reorganiseresearch data to fit their particular needs. The two tools, which areembedded into our institute's existing software landscape, are aninitial step towards an eScience environment that gives our scientistseasy access to (multimodal) research data of their interest, andempowers them to structure, enrich, link together, and share such dataas they wish.
  • Zuidema, W., & Fitz, H. (2019). Key issues and future directions: Models of human language and speech processing. In P. Hagoort (Ed.), Human language: From genes and brain to behavior (pp. 353-358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Zwitserlood, I. (2012). Classifiers. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign Language: an International Handbook (pp. 158-186). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Abstract

    Classifiers (currently also called 'depicting handshapes'), are observed in almost all signed languages studied to date and form a well-researched topic in sign language linguistics. Yet, these elements are still subject to much debate with respect to a variety of matters. Several different categories of classifiers have been posited on the basis of their semantics and the linguistic context in which they occur. The function(s) of classifiers are not fully clear yet. Similarly, there are differing opinions regarding their structure and the structure of the signs in which they appear. Partly as a result of comparison to classifiers in spoken languages, the term 'classifier' itself is under debate. In contrast to these disagreements, most studies on the acquisition of classifier constructions seem to consent that these are difficult to master for Deaf children. This article presents and discusses all these issues from the viewpoint that classifiers are linguistic elements.

Share this page