Predictors, big data and new measuring: The impact of computational linguistics on linguistic theory

The papers, observed in the overview, employ the methods of computational linguistics to enhance theoretical framework. The overview aims to demonstrate a detailed analysis of the benefits that a theoretical linguistic study could gain with the help of methods and instruments of computational approach. In particular, two domains seem to be very perspective. First of all, the use of machine learning technique as a prediction instrument for analysis of multifactorial linguistic phenomena. Secondly, there are completely new opportunities for typological studies due to big data of deeply annotated corpora, created for purposes of computational linguistics for different languages.

Keywords

computational linguistics, dative alternation, definiteness, language theory tree-bank, machine learning, natural language processing, referential choice, theoretical linguistics, typology

Received

11.04.2016

Publication date

11.04.2016

Number of characters

1125

Cite Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in

GOST	Bonch-Osmolovskaya A. Predictors, big data and new measuring: The impact of computational linguistics on linguistic theory // Voprosy Jazykoznanija – 2016. – Issue 2 C. 100-120 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ras.jes.su/vopjaz/s207987840000364-9-1-en (circulation date: 18.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0000985-2
MLA	Bonch-Osmolovskaya, Anastasia "Predictors, big data and new measuring: The impact of computational linguistics on linguistic theory." Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2 (2016):100-120. DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0000985-2
APA	Bonch-Osmolovskaya A. (2016). Predictors, big data and new measuring: The impact of computational linguistics on linguistic theory. Voprosy Jazykoznanija (2), pp.100-120 DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0000985-2


1	\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Price publication: 0

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 869

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Kibrik A. A., Dobrov G. B., Zalmanov D. A., Linnik A. S., Lukashevich N. V. Referential choice as multifactorial probabilistic process. Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii. Po materialam ezhegodnoi Mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog». Moscow: Russian State Univ. for the Humanities, 2010. Vol. 9 (16). Pp. 173—179.

2. Lyashevskaya O. N., Astaf’eva I., Bonch-Osmolovskaya A., Gareishina A., Gri shina Yu., D’yachkov V., Ionov M., Koroleva A., Kudrinskii M., Lityagina A., Luchina E., Sidorova E., Toldova S., Savchuk S., Koval’ S. Assessment of methods of text automatic analysis: Morphological parcers of the Russian language. Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii. Po materialam ezhegodnoi Mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog». Moscow: Russian State Univ. for the Humanities, 2010. Vol. 9 (16). Pp. 318—326.

3. Toldova S. Yu., Sokolova E. G., Astaf’eva I., Gareishina A., Koroleva A. N., Privoznov D., Sidorova E., Tupikina L., Lyashevskaya O. N. Assessment of methods of text automatic analysis: Syntactic parcers of the Russian language. Vestnik komp’yuternykh i informatsionnykh tekhnologii. 2012. No. 8. Pp. 14—19.

4. Toldova S. Yu., Lyashevskaya O. N. Contemporary issues and trends in computational linguistics. Voprosy jazykoznanija. 2014. No. 1. Pp. 120—145.

5. Agirre E., Edmonds P. G. (eds). Word sense disambiguation: Algorithms and applications (Text, speech and language technology. Vol. 33). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.

6. Bhatia A., Lin Ch., Schneider N., Tsvetkov Yu., Talib Al-Raisi F., Roostapour L., Bender J., Kumar A., Levin L., Simons M., Dyer Ch. Automatic classification of communicative functions of definiteness. Proceedings of the 25th International conference on computational linguistics. Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014. Pp. 1059—1070.

7. Bresnan J. Is knowledge of syntax probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. Linguistics in search of its evidential base, series: Studies in generative grammar. Featherston S., Sternefeld W. (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007. Pp. 75—96.

8. Bresnan J., Cueni A., Nikitina T., Baayen R. H. Predicting the dative alternation. Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Boume G., Krämer I., Zwarts J. (eds). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, 2007. Pp. 69—94.

9. Bresnan J., Ford M. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language. 2010. Vol. 86. No. 1. Pp. 168—213.

10. Bresnan J., Nikitina T. The gradience of the dative alternation. Reality exploration and discovery. Pattern interaction in language and life. Uyechi L., Wee L.-H. (eds). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 2009. Pp. 161—184.

11. Daume III, H. Campbell L. A Bayesian model for discovering typological implications. Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Prague, June 23—30, 2007. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2007. Pp. 65—72.

12. Dryer M. S., Haspelmath M. (eds). The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013. Available at: http://wals.info,Accessed on 2015-04-10.

13. Farkas R., Vincze V., Móra G., Csirik J., Szarvas G. The CoNLL-2010 shared task: Learning to detect hedges and their scope in natural language text. Proceedings of the Fourteenth conference on computational natural language learning: Shared task. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2010. Pp. 1—12.

14. Futrell, Mahowald K., Gibson E. CLIQS: Crosslinguistic investigations in quantitative syntax. Poster presented at AMLaP 2014.

15. Gibson E., Fedorenko E. The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes. 2013. Vol. 28. № 1—2. Pp. 88—124.

16. Gibson E., Piantadosi S. T., Fedorenko E. Quantitative methods in syntax / semantics research: A response to Sprouse and Almeida. Language and cognitive processes. 2012. Vol. 28. No. 3. Pp. 229—240.

17. Gildea D., Temperley D. Optimizing grammars for minimum dependency length. Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Prague, June 23—30, 2007. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2007. Pp. 184—191.

18. Green G. Some implications of an interaction among constraints. Papers from the Seventh regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, The University of Chicago, 1971. Pp. 85—100.

19. Green G. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1974.

20. Grüning A., Kibrik A. A. A neural network approach to referential choice. Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii. Trudy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog-2003». Moscow: Nauka, 2003. Pp. 260—266. [Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии. Труды международной конференции «Диалог-2003». М.: Наука, 2003. C. 260—266.]

21. Grüning A., Kibrik A. A. Modeling referential choice in discourse: A cognitive calculative approach and a Neural Networks approach. Anaphora processing: Linguistic, cognitive and computational modelling. Branco A., McEnery T., Mitkov R. (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005. Pp. 163—198.

22. Hajič J., Ciaramita M., Johansson R., Kawahara D., Martí M. A., Màrquez L., Meyers A., Nivre J., Padó S., Štěpánek J., Straňák P., Surdeanu M., Xue N., Zhang Y. The CoNLL-2009 shared task: Syntactic and semantic dependencies in multiple languages. Proceedings of the Thirteenth conference on computational natural language learning: Shared task. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2009. Pp. 1—18.

23. Kibrik A. A. Anaphora in Russian narrative discourse: A cognitive calculative account. Studies in anaphora. Fox B. (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1996. Pp. 255—304.

24. Kibrik A. A. Reference and working memory: Cognitive inferences from discourse observation. Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics. Van Hoek K., Kibrik A. A., Noordman L. (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999. Pp. 29—52.

25. Mann W. C., Thompson S. A. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text. 1988. Vol. 8 (3). Pp. 243—281.

26. Nedoluzhko A., Toldova S., Novák M. Coreference chains in Czech, English and Russian: Preliminary findings. Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii. Po materialam ezhegodnoi Mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog». Moscow: Russian State Univ. for the Humanities, 2015. Vol. 14 (21). Pp. 474—486.

27. Ng H. T., Wu S. M., Wu Y., Hadiwinoto C., Tetreault J. The CoNLL 2013 shared task on grammatical error correction. Proceedings of the Seventeenth conference on computational natural language learning. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2013. Pp. 1—24.

28. Nilsson J., Riedel S., Yuret D. The CoNLL 2007 shared task on dependency parsing. Proceedings of the CoNLL shared task session of EMNLP-CoNLL. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2007. Pp. 915—932.

29. Pinker S. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989.

30. Pradhan S., Ramshaw L., Marcus M., Palmer M., Weischedel R., Xue N. CoNLL 2011 shared task: Modeling unrestricted coreference in ontonotes. Proceedings of the Fifteenth conference on computational natural language learning: shared task. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011. Pp. 1—27.

31. Pradhan S., Moschitti A., Xue N., Uryupina O., Zhang Y. CoNLL-2012 shared task: Modeling multilingual unrestricted coreference in OntoNotes. Joint conference on EMNLP and CoNLL-shared task. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2012. Pp. 1—40.

32. Surdeanu M., Johansson R., Meyers A., Màrquez L., Nivre J. The CoNLL-2008 shared task on joint parsing of syntactic and semantic dependencies. Proceedings of the Twelfth conference on computational natural language learning. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2008. Pp. 159—177.

33. Toldova S., Roytberg A., Ladygina A., Vasilyeva M., Azerkovich I., Kurzukov M., Sim G., Gorshkov D., Ivanova A., Nedoluzhko A., Grishina Y. RU-EVAL-2014: Evaluating anaphora and coreference resolution for Russian. Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii. Po materialam ezhegodnoi Mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog». Moscow: Russian State Univ. for the Humanities, 2014. Vol. 13 (20). Pp. 77—90.

34. Wintner S. What science underlies natural language engineering? Computational Linguistics. 2009. Vol. 35. No. 4. Pp. 641—644.