Publications

Displaying 401 - 403 of 403
  • Wittenburg, P., Bel, N., Borin, L., Budin, G., Calzolari, N., Hajicova, E., Koskenniemi, K., Lemnitzer, L., Maegaard, B., Piasecki, M., Pierrel, J.-M., Piperidis, S., Skadina, I., Tufis, D., Van Veenendaal, R., Váradi, T., & Wynne, M. (2010). Resource and service centres as the backbone for a sustainable service infrastructure. 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. 60-63). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).

    Abstract

    Currently, research infrastructures are being designed and established in manydisciplines since they all suffer from an enormous fragmentation of theirresources and tools. In the domain of language resources and tools the CLARINinitiative has been funded since 2008 to overcome many of the integration andinteroperability hurdles. CLARIN can build on knowledge and work from manyprojects that were carried out during the last years and wants to build stableand robust services that can be used by researchers. Here service centres willplay an important role that have the potential of being persistent and thatadhere to criteria as they have been established by CLARIN. In the last year ofthe so-called preparatory phase these centres are currently developing four usecases that can demonstrate how the various pillars CLARIN has been working oncan be integrated. All four use cases fulfil the criteria of beingcross-national.
  • 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.
  • Zwitserlood, I. (2003). Word formation below and above little x: Evidence from Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Proceedings of SCL 19. Nordlyd Tromsø University Working Papers on Language and Linguistics (pp. 488-502).

    Abstract

    Although in many respects sign languages have a similar structure to that of spoken languages, the different modalities in which both types of languages are expressed cause differences in structure as well. One of the most striking differences between spoken and sign languages is the influence of the interface between grammar and PF on the surface form of utterances. Spoken language words and phrases are in general characterized by sequential strings of sounds, morphemes and words, while in sign languages we find that many phonemes, morphemes, and even words are expressed simultaneously. A linguistic model should be able to account for the structures that occur in both spoken and sign languages. In this paper, I will discuss the morphological/ morphosyntactic structure of signs in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands, henceforth NGT), with special focus on the components ‘place of articulation’ and ‘handshape’. I will focus on their multiple functions in the grammar of NGT and argue that the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM), which accounts for word formation in spoken languages, is also suited to account for the formation of structures in sign languages. First I will introduce the phonological and morphological structure of NGT signs. Then, I will briefly outline the major characteristics of the DM framework. Finally, I will account for signs that have the same surface form but have a different morphological structure by means of that framework.

Share this page