110 research outputs found

    The origin of the ADAR gene family and animal RNA editing

    Get PDF

    Bilingualism and conversational understanding in young children

    No full text
    The purpose of the two experiments reported here was to investigate whether bilingualism confers an advantage on children’s conversational understanding. A total of 163 children aged 3 to 6 years were given a Conversational Violations Test to determine their ability to identify responses to questions as violations of Gricean maxims of conversation (to be informative and avoid redundancy, speak the truth, and be relevant and polite). Though comparatively delayed in their L2 vocabulary, children who were bilingual in Italian and Slovenian (with Slovenian as the dominant language) generally outperformed those who were either monolingual in Italian or Slovenian. We suggest that bilingualism can be accompanied by an enhanced ability to appreciate effective communicative responses

    Past Tense Formation in Williams Syndrome

    Get PDF
    It has been claimed that in the language systems of people with Williams syndrome (WS), syntax is intact but lexical memory is impaired. Evidence has come from past tense elicitation tasks with a small number of participants where individuals with WS are said to have a specific deficit in forming irregular past tenses. However, typically developing children also show poorer performance on irregulars than regulars in these tasks, and one of the central features of WS language development is that it is delayed. We compared the performance of 21 participants with WS on two past tense elicitation tasks with that of four typically developing control groups, at ages 6, 8, 10, and adult. When verbal mental age was controlled for, participants in the WS group displayed no selective deficit in irregular past tense performance. However, there was evidence for lower levels of generalisation to novel strings. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the WS language system is delayed because it has developed under different constraints, constraints that perhaps include atypical phonological representations. The results are discussed in relation to dual-mechanism and connectionist computational models of language development, and to the possible differential weight given to phonology versus semantics in WS development

    Ovine pedomics : the first study of the ovine foot 16S rRNA-based microbiome

    Get PDF
    We report the first study of the bacterial microbiome of ovine interdigital skin based on 16S rRNA by pyrosequencing and conventional cloning with Sanger-sequencing. Three flocks were selected, one a flock with no signs of footrot or interdigital dermatitis, a second flock with interdigital dermatitis alone and a third flock with both interdigital dermatitis and footrot. The sheep were classified as having either healthy interdigital skin (H), interdigital dermatitis (ID) or virulent footrot (VFR). The ovine interdigital skin bacterial community varied significantly by flock and clinical condition. The diversity and richness of operational taxonomic units was greater in tissue from sheep with ID than H or VFR affected sheep. Actinobacteria, Bacteriodetes, Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were the most abundant phyla comprising 25 genera. Peptostreptococcus, Corynebacterium and Staphylococcus were associated with H, ID and VFR respectively. Sequences of Dichelobacter nodosus, the causal agent of ovine footrot, were not amplified due to mismatches in the 16S rRNA universal forward primer (27F). A specific real time PCR assay was used to demonstrate the presence of D. nodosus which was detected in all samples including the flock with no signs of ID or VFR. Sheep with ID had significantly higher numbers of D. nodosus (104-109 cells/g tissue) than those with H or VFR feet

    Spatially Resolved Transcriptomes of Mammalian Kidneys Illustrate the Molecular Complexity and Interactions of Functional Nephron Segments

    Get PDF
    Available transcriptomes of the mammalian kidney provide limited information on the spatial interplay between different functional nephron structures due to the required dissociation of tissue with traditional transcriptome-based methodologies. A deeper understanding of the complexity of functional nephron structures requires a non-dissociative transcriptomics approach, such as spatial transcriptomics sequencing (ST-seq). We hypothesize that the application of ST-seq in normal mammalian kidneys will give transcriptomic insights within and across species of physiology at the functional structure level and cellular communication at the cell level. Here, we applied ST-seq in six mice and four human kidneys that were histologically absent of any overt pathology. We defined the location of specific nephron structures in the captured ST-seq datasets using three lines of evidence: pathologist's annotation, marker gene expression, and integration with public single-cell and/or single-nucleus RNA-sequencing datasets. We compared the mouse and human cortical kidney regions. In the human ST-seq datasets, we further investigated the cellular communication within glomeruli and regions of proximal tubules–peritubular capillaries by screening for co-expression of ligand–receptor gene pairs. Gene expression signatures of distinct nephron structures and microvascular regions were spatially resolved within the mouse and human ST-seq datasets. We identified 7,370 differentially expressed genes (padj < 0.05) distinguishing species, suggesting changes in energy production and metabolism in mouse cortical regions relative to human kidneys. Hundreds of potential ligand–receptor interactions were identified within glomeruli and regions of proximal tubules–peritubular capillaries, including known and novel interactions relevant to kidney physiology. Our application of ST-seq to normal human and murine kidneys confirms current knowledge and localization of transcripts within the kidney. Furthermore, the generated ST-seq datasets provide a valuable resource for the kidney community that can be used to inform future research into this complex organ

    Comparison of the welfare of beef cattle in housed and grazing systems: hormones, health and behaviour

    Get PDF
    Animal welfare encompasses all aspects of an animal's life and the interactions between animals. Consequently, welfare must be measured across a variety of factors that consider aspects such as health, behaviour and mental state. Decisions regarding housing and grazing are central to farm management. In this study, two beef cattle systems and their herds were compared from weaning to slaughter across numerous indicators. One herd (‘HH’) were continuously housed, the other (‘HG’) were housed only during winter. Inspections of animals were conducted to assess body condition, cleanliness, diarrhoea, hairlessness, nasal discharge and ocular discharge. Hair and nasal mucus samples were taken for quantification of cortisol and serotonin. Qualitative behaviour assessments (QBA) were also conducted and performance monitored. Physical health indicators were similar between herds with the exception of nasal discharge which was more prevalent in HH (P < 0.001). During winter, QBA yielded differences between herds over PC1 (arousal) (P = 0.032), but not PC2 (mood) (P = 0.139). Through summer, there was a strong difference across both PC1 (P < 0.001) and PC2 (P = 0.002), with HG exhibiting more positive behaviour. A difference was found in hair cortisol levels, with the greatest concentrations observed in HG (P = 0.011), however such a pattern was not seen for nasal mucus cortisol or for serotonin. Overall, providing summer grazing (HG) appeared to afford welfare benefits to the cattle as shown with more positive QBA assessments, but also slightly better health indicators, notwithstanding the higher levels of cortisol in that group

    Irony Detection in Twitter: The Role of Affective Content

    Full text link
    © ACM 2016. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive Version of Record was published in ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, Vol. 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2930663.[EN] Irony has been proven to be pervasive in social media, posing a challenge to sentiment analysis systems. It is a creative linguistic phenomenon where affect-related aspects play a key role. In this work, we address the problem of detecting irony in tweets, casting it as a classification problem. We propose a novel model that explores the use of affective features based on a wide range of lexical resources available for English, reflecting different facets of affect. Classification experiments over different corpora show that affective information helps in distinguishing among ironic and nonironic tweets. Our model outperforms the state of the art in almost all cases.The National Council for Science and Technology (CONACyT Mexico) has funded the research work of Delia Irazu Hernandez Farias (Grant No. 218109/313683 CVU-369616). The work of Viviana Patti was partially carried out at the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia within the framework of a fellowship of the University of Turin cofunded by Fondazione CRT (World Wide Style Program 2). The work of Paolo Rosso has been partially funded by the SomEMBED TIN2015-71147-C2-1-P MINECO research project and by the Generalitat Valenciana under the grant ALMAMATER (PrometeoII/2014/030).Hernandez-Farias, DI.; Patti, V.; Rosso, P. (2016). Irony Detection in Twitter: The Role of Affective Content. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology. 16(3):19:1-19:24. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930663S19:119:24163Rob Abbott, Marilyn Walker, Pranav Anand, Jean E. Fox Tree, Robeson Bowmani, and Joseph King. 2011. How can you say such things?&excl;?: Recognizing disagreement in informal political argument. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Languages in Social Media (LSM&#8217;11). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2--11.Laura Alba-Juez and Salvatore Attardo. 2014. The evaluative palette of verbal irony. In Evaluation in Context, Geoff Thompson and Laura Alba-Juez (Eds.). John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, 93--116.Magda B. Arnold. 1960. Emotion and Personality. Vol. 1. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.Giuseppe Attardi, Valerio Basile, Cristina Bosco, Tommaso Caselli, Felice Dell&#8217;Orletta, Simonetta Montemagni, Viviana Patti, Maria Simi, and Rachele Sprugnoli. 2015. State of the art language technologies for italian: The EVALITA 2014 perspective. Journal of Intelligenza Artificiale 9, 1 (2015), 43--61.Salvatore Attardo. 2000. Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 6 (2000), 793--826.Stefano Baccianella, Andrea Esuli, and Fabrizio Sebastiani. 2010. SentiWordNet 3.0: An enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC&#8217;10). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Valletta, Malta, 2200,2204.David Bamman and Noah A. Smith. 2015. Contextualized sarcasm detection on twitter. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Web and Social Media, (ICWSM&#8217;15). AAAI, Oxford, UK, 574--577.Francesco Barbieri, Horacio Saggion, and Francesco Ronzano. 2014. Modelling sarcasm in twitter, a novel approach. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis. Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore, Maryland, 50--58.Valerio Basile, Andrea Bolioli, Malvina Nissim, Viviana Patti, and Paolo Rosso. 2014. Overview of the evalita 2014 SENTIment POLarity classification task. In Proceedings of the 4th Evaluation Campaign of Natural Language Processing and Speech tools for Italian (EVALITA&#8217;14). Pisa University Press, Pisa, Italy, 50--57.Cristina Bosco, Viviana Patti, and Andrea Bolioli. 2013. Developing corpora for sentiment analysis: The case of irony and senti-TUT. IEEE Intelligent Systems 28, 2 (March 2013), 55--63.Andrea Bowes and Albert Katz. 2011. When sarcasm stings. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal 48, 4 (2011), 215--236.Margaret M. Bradley and Peter J. Lang. 1999. Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction Manual and Affective Ratings. Technical Report. Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.Konstantin Buschmeier, Philipp Cimiano, and Roman Klinger. 2014. An impact analysis of features in a classification approach to irony detection in product reviews. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis. Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore, Maryland, 42--49.Erik Cambria, Andrew Livingstone, and Amir Hussain. 2012. The hourglass of emotions. In Cognitive Behavioural Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7403. Springer, Berlin, 144--157.Erik Cambria, Daniel Olsher, and Dheeraj Rajagopal. 2014. SenticNet 3: A common and common-sense knowledge base for cognition-driven sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI, Qu&#233;bec, Canada, 1515--1521.Jorge Carrillo de Albornoz, Laura Plaza, and Pablo Gerv&#225;s. 2012. SentiSense: An easily scalable concept-based affective lexicon for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC&#8217;12) (23-25), Nicoletta Calzolari (Conference Chair), Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Ugur Dogan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk, and Stelios Piperidis (Eds.). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Istanbul, Turkey, 3562--3567.Paula Carvalho, Lu&#237;s Sarmento, M&#225;rio J. Silva, and Eug&#233;nio de Oliveira. 2009. Clues for detecting irony in user-generated contents: Oh&hallip;&excl;&excl; It&#8217;s &#8220;so easy&#8221; ;-). In Proceedings of the 1st International CIKM Workshop on Topic-sentiment Analysis for Mass Opinion (TSA&#8217;09). ACM, New York, NY, 53--56.Yoonjung Choi and Janyce Wiebe. 2014. +/-EffectWordNet: Sense-level lexicon acquisition for opinion inference. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP&#8217;14). Association for Computational Linguistics, Doha, Qatar, 1181--1191.Dmitry Davidov, Oren Tsur, and Ari Rappoport. 2010. Semi-supervised recognition of sarcastic sentences in twitter and amazon. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL&#8217;10). Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden, 107--116.Shelly Dews, Joan Kaplan, and Ellen Winner. 1995. Why not say it directly? The social functions of irony. Discourse Processes 19, 3 (1995), 347--367.Paul Ekman. 1992. An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion 6, 3--4 (1992), 169--200.Elisabetta Fersini, Federico Alberto Pozzi, and Enza Messina. 2015. Detecting irony and sarcasm in microblogs: The role of expressive signals and ensemble classifiers. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA&#8217;15). IEEE Xplore Digital Library, Paris, France, 1--8.Elena Filatova. 2012. Irony and sarcasm: Corpus generation and analysis using crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC&#8217;12). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Istanbul, 392--398.Aniruddha Ghosh, Guofu Li, Tony Veale, Paolo Rosso, Ekaterina Shutova, John Barnden, and Antonio Reyes. 2015. SemEval-2015 task 11: Sentiment analysis of figurative language in twitter. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval&#8217;15). Association for Computational Linguistics, Denver, Colorado, 470--478.Raymond W. Gibbs. 2000. Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol 15, 1--2 (2000), 5--27.Rachel Giora and Salvatore Attardo. 2014. Irony. In Encyclopedia of Humor Studies. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.Rachel Giora and Ofer Fein. 1999. Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol 14, 4 (1999), 241--257.Roberto Gonz&#225;lez-Ib&#225;&#241;ez, Smaranda Muresan, and Nina Wacholder. 2011. Identifying sarcasm in twitter: A closer look. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (HLT&#8217;11). Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, OR, 581--586.H. Paul Grice. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds.). Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 41--58.Iraz&#250; Hern&#225;ndez Far&#237;as, Jos&#233;-Miguel Bened&#237;, and Paolo Rosso. 2015. Applying basic features from sentiment analysis for automatic irony detection. In Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9117. Springer International Publishing, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 337--344.Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. 2004. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD&#8217;04). ACM, Seattle, WA, 168--177.Aditya Joshi, Vinita Sharma, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2015. Harnessing context incongruity for sarcasm detection. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Beijing, China, 757--762.Jihen Karoui, Farah Benamara, V&#233;ronique Moriceau, Nathalie Aussenac-Gilles, and Lamia Hadrich-Belguith. 2015. Towards a contextual pragmatic model to detect irony in tweets. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Beijing, China, 644--650.Roger J. Kreuz and Gina M. Caucci. 2007. Lexical influences on the perception of sarcasm. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Figurative Language (FigLanguages&#8217;07). Association for Computational Linguistics, Rochester, NY, 1--4.Florian Kunneman, Christine Liebrecht, Margot van Mulken, and Antal van den Bosch. 2015. Signaling sarcasm: From hyperbole to hashtag. Information Processing & Management 51, 4 (2015), 500--509.Christopher Lee and Albert Katz. 1998. The differential role of ridicule in sarcasm and irony. Metaphor and Symbol 13, 1 (1998), 1--15.John S. Leggitt and Raymond W. Gibbs. 2000. Emotional reactions to verbal irony. Discourse Processes 29, 1 (2000), 1--24.Stephanie Lukin and Marilyn Walker. 2013. Really? Well. Apparently bootstrapping improves the performance of sarcasm and nastiness classifiers for online dialogue. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Language Analysis in Social Media. Association for Computational Linguistics, Atlanta, GA, 30--40.Diana Maynard and Mark Greenwood. 2014. Who cares about sarcastic tweets? Investigating the impact of sarcasm on sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC&#8217;14) (26-31). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Reykjavik, Iceland, 4238--4243.Skye McDonald. 2007. Neuropsychological studies of sarcasm. In Irony in Language and Thought: A Cognitive Science Reader, H. Colston and R. Gibbs (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum, 217--230.Saif M. Mohammad and Peter D. Turney. 2013. Crowdsourcing a word--emotion association lexicon. Computational Intelligence 29, 3 (2013), 436--465.Saif M. Mohammad, Xiaodan Zhu, Svetlana Kiritchenko, and Joel Martin. 2015. Sentiment, emotion, purpose, and style in electoral tweets. Information Processing & Management 51, 4 (2015), 480--499.Finn &#197;rup Nielsen. 2011. A new ANEW: Evaluation of a word list for sentiment analysis in microblogs. In Proceedings of the ESWC2011 Workshop on &#8220;Making Sense of Microposts&#8221;: Big Things Come in Small Packages (CEUR Workshop Proceedings), Vol. 718. CEUR-WS.org, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 93--98.W. Gerrod Parrot. 2001. Emotions in Social Psychology: Essential Readings. Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA.James W. Pennebaker, Martha E. Francis, and Roger J. Booth. 2001. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2001. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 71.Robert Plutchik. 2001. The nature of emotions. American Scientist 89, 4 (2001), 344--350.Soujanya Poria, Alexander Gelbukh, Amir Hussain, Newton Howard, Dipankar Das, and Sivaji Bandyopadhyay. 2013. Enhanced senticnet with affective labels for concept-based opinion mining. IEEE Intelligent Systems 28, 2 (2013), 31--38.Tom&#225;&#353; Pt&#225;&#269;ek, Ivan Habernal, and Jun Hong. 2014. Sarcasm detection on Czech and English twitter. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING&#8217;14). Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland, 213--223.Ashwin Rajadesingan, Reza Zafarani, and Huan Liu. 2015. Sarcasm detection on twitter: A behavioral modeling approach. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM&#8217;15). ACM, 97--106.Antonio Reyes and Paolo Rosso. 2014. On the difficulty of automatically detecting irony: Beyond a simple case of negation. Knowledge Information Systems 40, 3 (2014), 595--614.Antonio Reyes, Paolo Rosso, and Tony Veale. 2013. A multidimensional approach for detecting irony in twitter. Language Resources and Evaluation 47, 1 (2013), 239--268.Ellen Riloff, Ashequl Qadir, Prafulla Surve, Lalindra De Silva, Nathan Gilbert, and Ruihong Huang. 2013. Sarcasm as contrast between a positive sentiment and negative situation. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, (EMNLP&#8217;13). Association for Computational Linguistics, Seattle, Washington, 704--714.Simone Shamay-Tsoory, Rachel Tomer, B. D. Berger, Dorith Goldsher, and Judith Aharon-Peretz. 2005. Impaired &#8220;affective theory of mind&#8221; is associated with right ventromedial prefrontal damage. Cognitive Behavioral Neurology 18, 1 (2005), 55--67.Philip J. Stone and Earl B. Hunt. 1963. A computer approach to content analysis: Studies using the general inquirer system. In Proceedings of the May 21-23, 1963, Spring Joint Computer Conference (AFIPS&#8217;63 (Spring)). ACM, New York, NY, 241--256.Emilio Sulis, Delia Iraz&#250; Hern&#225;ndez Far&#237;as, Paolo Rosso, Viviana Patti, and Giancarlo Ruffo. 2016. Figurative messages and affect in Twitter: Differences between #irony, #sarcasm and #not. Knowledge-Based Systems. In Press. Available online.Maite Taboada and Jack Grieve. 2004. Analyzing appraisal automatically. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text: Theories and Applications. AAAI, Stanford, CA, 158--161.Yi-jie Tang and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2014. Chinese irony corpus construction and ironic structure analysis. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING&#8217;14). Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland, 1269--1278.Tony Veale and Yanfen Hao. 2010. Detecting ironic intent in creative comparisons. In Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 765--770.Byron C. Wallace. 2015. Computational irony: A survey and new perspectives. Artificial Intelligence Review 43, 4 (2015), 467--483.Byron C. Wallace, Do Kook Choe, and Eugene Charniak. 2015. Sparse, contextually informed models for irony detection: Exploiting user communities, entities and sentiment. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Beijing, China, 1035--1044.Angela P. Wang. 2013. #Irony or #sarcasm&#8212;a quantitative and qualitative study based on twitter. In Proceedings of the 27th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information, and Computation (PACLIC&#8217;13). Department of English, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan, 349--356.Juanita M. Whalen, Penny M. Pexman, J. Alastair Gill, and Scott Nowson. 2013. Verbal irony use in personal blogs. Behaviour & Information Technology 32, 6 (2013), 560--569.Cynthia Whissell. 2009. Using the revised dictionary of affect in language to quantify the emotional undertones of samples of natural languages. Psychological Reports 2, 105 (2009), 509--521.Deirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber. 1992. On verbal irony. Lingua 87, 1--2 (1992), 53--76.Theresa Wilson, Janyce Wiebe, and Paul Hoffmann. 2005. Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT&#8217;05). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, 347--354.Alecia Wolf. 2000. Emotional expression online: Gender differences in emoticon use. CyberPsychology & Behavior 3, 5 (2000), 827--833.Zhibiao Wu and Martha Palmer. 1994. Verbs semantics and lexical selection. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL&#8217;94). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, 133--138
    • 

    corecore