Evaluation of automatic hypernym extraction from technical corpora in English and Dutch

In this research, we evaluate different approaches for the automatic extraction of hypernym relations from English and Dutch technical text. The detected hypernym relations should enable us to semantically structure automatically obtained term lists from domain- and user-specific data. We investigated three different hypernymy extraction approaches for Dutch and English: a lexico-syntactic pattern-based approach, a distributional model and a morpho-syntactic method. To test the performance of the different approaches on domain-specific data, we collected and manually annotated English and Dutch data from two technical domains, viz. the dredging and financial domain. The experimental results show that especially the morpho-syntactic approach obtains good results for automatic hypernym extraction from technical and domain-specific texts

Towards a collocation writing assistant for learners of Spanish

This paper describes the process followed in creating a tool aimed at helping learners produce collocations in Spanish. First we present the Diccionario de colocaciones del español (DiCE), an online collocation dictionary, which represents the first stage of this process. The following section focuses on the potential user of a collocation learning tool: we examine the usability problems DiCE presents in this respect, and explore the actual learner needs through a learner corpus study of collocation errors. Next, we review how collocation production problems of English language learners can be solved using a variety of electronic tools devised for that language. Finally, taking all the above into account, we present a new tool aimed at assisting learners of Spanish in writing texts, with particular attention being paid to the use of collocations in this language

On the automaticity of language processing

People speak and listen to language all the time. Given this high frequency of use, it is often suggested that at least some aspects of language processing are highly overlearned and therefore occur “automatically”. Here we critically examine this suggestion. We first sketch a framework that views automaticity as a set of interrelated features of mental processes and a matter of degree rather than a single feature that is all-or-none. We then apply this framework to language processing. To do so, we carve up the processes involved in language use according to (a) whether language processing takes place in monologue or dialogue, (b) whether the individual is comprehending or producing language, (c) whether the spoken or written modality is used, and (d) the linguistic processing level at which they occur, that is, phonology, the lexicon, syntax, or conceptual processes. This exercise suggests that while conceptual processes are relatively non-automatic (as is usually assumed), there is also considerable evidence that syntactic and lexical lower-level processes are not fully automatic. We close by discussing entrenchment as a set of mechanisms underlying automatization

Uncertainty Detection as Approximate Max-Margin Sequence Labelling

This paper reports experiments for the CoNLL 2010 shared task on learning to detect hedges and their scope in natural language text. We have addressed the experimental tasks as supervised linear maximum margin prediction problems. For sentence level hedge detection in the biological domain we use an L1-regularised binary support vector machine, while for sentence level weasel detection in the Wikipedia domain, we use an L2-regularised approach. We model the in-sentence uncertainty cue and scope detection task as an L2-regularised approximate maximum margin sequence labelling problem, using the BIO-encoding. In addition to surface level features, we use a variety of linguistic features based on a functional dependency analysis. A greedy forward selection strategy is used in exploring the large set of potential features. Our official results for Task 1 for the biological domain are 85.2 F1-score, for the Wikipedia set 55.4 F1-score. For Task 2, our official results are 2.1 for the entire task with a score of 62.5 for cue detection. After resolving errors and final bugs, our final results are for Task 1, biological: 86.0, Wikipedia: 58.2; Task 2, scopes: 39.6 and cues: 78.5