Displaying 401 - 408 of 408
-
Wittenburg, P., Broeder, D., Klein, W., Levinson, S. C., & Romary, L. (2006). Foundations of modern language resource archives. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006) (pp. 625-628).
Abstract
A number of serious reasons will convince an increasing amount of researchers to store their relevant material in centers which we will call "language resource archives". They combine the duty of taking care of long-term preservation as well as the task to give access to their material to different user groups. Access here is meant in the sense that an active interaction with the data will be made possible to support the integration of new data, new versions or commentaries of all sort. Modern Language Resource Archives will have to adhere to a number of basic principles to fulfill all requirements and they will have to be involved in federations to create joint language resource domains making it even more simple for the researchers to access the data. This paper makes an attempt to formulate the essential pillars language resource archives have to adhere to. -
Zavala, R. (2000). Multiple classifier systems in Akatek (Mayan). In G. Senft (
Ed. ), Systems of nominal classification (pp. 114-146). Cambridge University Press. -
Zeshan, U. (2006). Sign language of the world. In K. Brown (
Ed. ), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (vol. 11) (pp. 358-365). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Abstract
Although sign language-using communities exist in all areas of the world, few sign languages have been documented in detail. Sign languages occur in a variety of sociocultural contexts, ranging from sign languages used in closed village communities to officially recognized national sign languages. They may be grouped into language families on historical grounds or may participate in various language contact situations. Systematic cross-linguistic comparison reveals both significant structural similarities and important typological differences between sign languages. Focusing on information from non-Western countries, this article provides an overview of the sign languages of the world. -
Zinn, C., Cablitz, G., Ringersma, J., Kemps-Snijders, M., & Wittenburg, P. (2008). Constructing knowledge spaces from linguistic resources. In Proceedings of the CIL 18 Workshop on Linguistic Studies of Ontology: From lexical semantics to formal ontologies and back.
-
Zinn, C. (2008). Conceptual spaces in ViCoS. In S. Bechhofer, M. Hauswirth, J. Hoffmann, & M. Koubarakis (
Eds. ), The semantic web: Research and applications (pp. 890-894). Berlin: Springer.Abstract
We describe ViCoS, a tool for constructing and visualising conceptual spaces in the area of language documentation. ViCoS allows users to enrich existing lexical information about the words of a language with conceptual knowledge. Their work towards language-based, informal ontology building must be supported by easy-to-use workflows and supporting software, which we will demonstrate. -
Zwitserlood, I., & Van Gijn, I. (2006). Agreement phenomena in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In P. Ackema (
Ed. ), Arguments and Agreement (pp. 195-229). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
Zwitserlood, I., Ozyurek, A., & Perniss, P. M. (2008). Annotation of sign and gesture cross-linguistically. In O. Crasborn, E. Efthimiou, T. Hanke, E. D. Thoutenhoofd, & I. Zwitserlood (
Eds. ), Construction and Exploitation of Sign Language Corpora. 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages (pp. 185-190). Paris: ELDA.Abstract
This paper discusses the construction of a cross-linguistic, bimodal corpus containing three modes of expression: expressions from two sign languages, speech and gestural expressions in two spoken languages and pantomimic expressions by users of two spoken languages who are requested to convey information without speaking. We discuss some problems and tentative solutions for the annotation of utterances expressing spatial information about referents in these three modes, suggesting a set of comparable codes for the description of both sign and gesture. Furthermore, we discuss the processing of entered annotations in ELAN, e.g. relating descriptive annotations to analytic annotations in all three modes and performing relational searches across annotations on different tiers. -
Zwitserlood, I. (2008). Morphology below the level of the sign - frozen forms and classifier predicates. In J. Quer (
Ed. ), Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR) (pp. 251-272). Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Abstract
The lexicons of many sign languages hold large proportions of “frozen” forms, viz. signs that are generally considered to have been formed productively (as classifier predicates), but that have diachronically undergone processes of lexicalisation. Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands; henceforth: NGT) also has many of these signs (Van der Kooij 2002, Zwitserlood 2003). In contrast to the general view on “frozen” forms, a few researchers claim that these signs may be formed according to productive sign formation rules, notably Brennan (1990) for BSL, and Meir (2001, 2002) for ISL. Following these claims, I suggest an analysis of “frozen” NGT signs as morphologically complex, using the framework of Distributed Morphology. The signs in question are derived in a similar way as classifier predicates; hence their similar form (but diverging characteristics). I will indicate how and why the structure and use of classifier predicates and “frozen” forms differ. Although my analysis focuses on NGT, it may also be applicable to other sign languages.
Share this page