Knowledge Driven Intelligent Survey Systems for Linguists

  • Ricardo Soares
  • Elspeth Edelstein
  • Jeff Z. PanEmail author
  • Adam Wyner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11341)


In this paper, we propose Knowledge Graph (KG), an articulated underlying semantic structure, to be a semantic bridge between human and systems. To illustrate our proposal, we focus on KG based intelligent survey systems. In state of the art systems, knowledge is hard-coded or implicit in these systems, making it hard for researchers to reuse, customise, link, or transmit the structured knowledge. Furthermore, such systems do not facilitate dynamic interaction based on the semantic structure. We design and implement a knowledge-driven intelligent survey system which is based on knowledge graph, a widely used technology that facilitates sharing and querying hypotheses, survey content, results, and analyses. The approach is developed, implemented, and tested in the field of Linguistics. Syntacticians and morphologists develop theories of grammar of natural languages. To evaluate theories, they seek intuitive grammaticality (well-formedness) judgments from native speakers, which either support a theory or provide counter-evidence. Our preliminary experiments show that a knowledge graph based linguistic survey can provide more nuanced results than traditional document-based grammaticality judgment surveys by allowing for tagging and manipulation of specific linguistic variables.


Knowledge graph Intelligent survey system Grammaticality judgments 



This work was supported the EU Marie Currie K-Drive project (286348).


  1. 1.
    Pan, J.Z., Vetere, G., Manuel Gomez-Perez, J., Wu, H.: Exploiting Linked Data and Knowledge Graphs for Large Organisations. Springer, Cham (2016). ISBN 978-3-319-45654-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pan, J.Z., et al. (eds.): Reasoning Web 2016. LNCS, vol. 9885. Springer, Cham (2017). ISBN 978-3-319-49493-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pan, J.Z., Staab, S., Aßmann, U., Ebert, J., Zhao, Y.: Ontology-Driven Software Development. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). ISBN 978-3-642-31226-7CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donnelly, K.: SNOMED-CT: the advanced terminology and coding system for eHealth. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 121, 279–290 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tzitzikas, Y., et al.: Integrating heterogeneous and distributed information about marine species through a top level ontology. In: Garoufallou, E., Greenberg, J. (eds.) MTSR 2013. CCIS, vol. 390, pp. 289–301. Springer, Cham (2013). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiarcos, C., Cimiano, P., Declerck, T., McCrae, J.P.: Linguistic linked open data. Introduction and overview. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics (LDL 2013): Representing and Linking Lexicons, Terminologies and Other Language Data, pp. 1–9 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murray, T., Simon, B.L.: At the intersection of regional and social dialects: the case of like + past participle in American English. Am. Speech 77(1), 32–69 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edelstein, E.: This syntax needs studied. In: Zanuttini, R., Horn, L.R. (eds.) Micro-Syntactic Variation in North American English, pp. 242–268. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Poveda-Villalón, M., Gómez-Pérez, A., Suárez-Figueroa, M.C.: OOPS!(OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!): an on-line tool for ontology evaluation. J. Semant. Web Inf. Syst. 10(2), 7–34 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giunchiglia, F., ChenuAbente, R.: Scientific knowledge objects v. 1. University of Trento (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bechhofer, S., et al.: Why linked data is not enough for scientists. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 29(2), 599–611 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schlereth, C., Skiera, B.: DISE: dynamic intelligent survey engine. In: Diamantopoulos, A., Fritz, W., Hildebrandt, L. (eds.) Quantitative Marketing and Marketing Management, pp. 225–243. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Myers, J.: MiniJudge: software for minimalist experimental syntax. In: Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Computational Linguistics and Speech Processing, pp. 271–285 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen, T.Y., Myers, J.: Worldlikeness: a web-based tool for typological psycholinguistic research. Univ. Penn. Work. Pap. Linguist. 23(1), 21–30 (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keller, F., Gunasekharan, S., Mayo, N., Corley, M.: Timing accuracy of web experiments: a case study using the WebExp software package. Behav. Res. Methods 41(1), 1–12 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ibex 0.3.8 Manual. Accessed 1 Aug 18
  17. 17.
    Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S., Fedorenko, K.: Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Lang. Linguist. Compass 5(8), 509–524 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Erlewine, M.Y., Kotek, H.: A streamlined approach to online linguistic surveys. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 34(2), 481–495 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricardo Soares
    • 1
  • Elspeth Edelstein
    • 2
  • Jeff Z. Pan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Adam Wyner
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.School of Language, Literature, Music and Visual CultureUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  3. 3.School of Law and Department of Computer ScienceSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations