Advertisement

Linguistic Information Modeling: From Kilivila Verb Morphology to RelaxNG

  • Dieter Metzing
  • Jens Pönninghaus
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 209)

Abstract

We will explore the role of an advanced type of document grammar, RelaxNG, in the context of different approaches to the formalization of linguistic regularities based on corpora and XML annotations. Our domain of exploration will be Kilivila verb morphology. The following topics will be focused on: Which kind of regularities in the domain can be expressed given formal limitations of document grammars, i.e. tree grammars? Which linguistic analyses may be taken as a basis for document grammar development? In which way can a document grammar be sensitive to properties of annotations and raw data (document validation and data validation)? Which kinds of formalization may be helpful in the (semi-automatic) development of a document grammar in the case explored? In the first part we will consider aspects of Kilivila verb morphology from the point of view of linguistic analyses. In the second part different strategies for the development of a RelaxNG based document grammar will be examined.

Keywords

Surface Form Tree Automaton Position Class Tree Grammar Realization Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    K. R. Beesley and L. Karttunen. Finite State Morphology. CSLI Publications, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Bird and M. Liberman. A Formal Framework for Linguistic Annotation. Speech Communication, 33(1–2):33–66, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    T. Bray, J. Paoli, and C. Sperberg-McQueen. Extensible Markup Language Recommendation (XML) 1.0, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    D. Broeder, H. Brugman, and G. Senft. Documentation of Languages and Archiving of Language Data at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen. Linguistische Berichte, 201:89–103, 2005.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Carletta, S. Evert, U. Heid, J. Kilgour, J. Robertson, and H. Voormann. The NITE XML Toolkit: Flexible Annotation for Multimodal Language Data. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 35(3):353–63, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Good. The Descriptive Grammar as a (Meta)Database. E-MELD Workshop on Linguistic Databases and Best Practice, 2004. http:// wwwfiemeld.org/workshop/2004/jcgood-paper.html.
  7. [7]
    XML Schema Part 1: Structures. Second Edition. W3C Recommendation, October 2004.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. Inkelas. Nimboran Position Class Morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 11:559–624, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    ISO. Information Technology - Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL) - Part 2: Grammar-based validation - RELAX NG. published as ISO/IEC 19757–2:2003, 2003.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    L. Karttunen. Computing with Realizational Morphology. In Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing: 4th International Conference, CICLing 2003 Mexico City, volume 2588 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 203–214. Springer, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    C. Lehmann. Directions for Interlinear Morphemic Translations. Folia Linguistica, 16:193–224, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    R. Malouf. Disjunctive Rule Ordering in Finite State Morphology. Paper presented at the 41st Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, April 2005. http://bulba.sdsu.edu/~malouf/papers/cls05-abs.pdf.
  13. [13]
    J. McDonough. Athabaskan redux: Against the position class as a morphological category. In W. Dressler, O. E. Pfeifier, M. Pöchtrager, and J. R. Rennison, editors, Morphological Analysis in Comparison, volume 201 of Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, pages 155–178. John Benjamins Publishing, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. Murata, D. Lee, and M. Mani. Taxonomy of XML Schema Languages using Formal Language Theory. In Extreme Markup Languages, Montreal, Canada, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    D. Penton, C. Bow, S. Bird, and B. Hughes. Towards a General Model for Linguistic Paradigms, 2004.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    G. Senft. Kilivila: The language of the Trobriand Islanders. Mouton de Gruyter, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    G. Senft. These ‘Procrustean’ Feelings - Some of my Problems in Describing Kilivila. In G. Reesink, editor, Topics in Descriptive Austronesian Linguistics, pages 86–105. Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost- Azië en Oceanië, Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, Leiden, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    G. T. Stump. Infiectional Morphology - A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Text Encoding Initiative Consortium, Oxford, Providence, Charlottesville, Bergen. TEI P4: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange, 2002.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    C. Wegener. Verbfiektion im Kilivila. Technical report, Universität Bielefeld, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    A. Witt. Meaning and Interpretation of Concurrent Markup. In Joint Conference of the ALLC and ACH (ALLCACH2002), Tübingen, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    A. Witt. Multiple Hierarchies: New Aspects of an Old Solution. In S. Dipper and M. Götze, editors, Heterogeneity in Focus: Creating and Using Linguistic Databases, volume 2 of Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS), Working Papers of the SFB 632. Universitätsverlag, Potsdam, Germany, 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dieter Metzing
    • 1
  • Jens Pönninghaus
    • 1
  1. 1.Bielefeld UniversityBielefeld

Personalised recommendations