<b>A rainbow of corpora:</b> Corpus linguistics and the languages of the world. Ed. by Andrew Wilson, Paul Rayson, and Tony McEnery. (Linguistics edition 40.) Munich: LINCOM Europa, 2003. Pp. 165. ISBN 3895868728. $73.20 (Hb).
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: A rainbow of corpora: Corpus linguistics and the languages of the world ed. by Andrew Wilson, Paul Rayson, and Tony McEnery Heiko Narrog A rainbow of corpora: Corpus linguistics and the languages of the world. Ed. by Andrew Wilson, Paul Rayson, and Tony McEnery. (Linguistics edition 40.) Munich: LINCOM Europa, 2003. Pp. 165. ISBN 3895868728. $73.20 (Hb). This volume is a collection of papers that were originally presented at Corpus Linguistics 2001, a conference held 30 March–2 April 2001 at Lancaster University (UK). The sister volume to the ‘English-oriented’ Corpus linguistics by the Lune: A festschrift for Geoffrey Leech (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2003), it includes contributions that are concerned with non-English languages. The languages dealt with in the present volume range from the better-known Indo-European languages to Biblical Hebrew, Korean, and Arabic. Content-wise, the individual articles can be roughly divided into three categories. First, there are three diachronically oriented papers from the workshop ‘Corpus linguistics, ancient languages, and older language periods’: Beatrix Färber on a corpus of Medieval Irish (19–26), Wolf-Dieter Syring on the design and usage of a text database of Biblical Hebrew (141–52), and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Stanley E. Porter, and Jeffrey T. Reed on the database-assisted discourse analysis of texts from the New Testament (109–21). The other papers, which come from the main session, deal with modern languages. Half of them are primarily concerned with corpora as such that is, their design, mark-up, usage, and so on. Anne Abeillé, Lionel Clément, Alexandra Kinyon, and François Toussenel discuss the PARIS 7 annotated corpus for French (1–10), and Martin Beaudoin and Michel Samard present their work on a large corpus of written Canadian French (11–18). R. Rossini Favretti, F. Tamburini, and C. de Santis deal with the CORIS corpus of written Italian (27–38), and Eva Hajičová and Petr Sgall discuss the Prague Dependency Treebank (39–50). Shereen Khoja, Roger Garside, and Gerry Knowles present a tagset for the morphosyntactic tagging of Arabic (59–72),and Kiril Simov, Gergana Popova, and Petya Osenova introduce a HPSG-based syntactic treebank of Bulgarian (133–40). Apart from language-specific interests, the papers by Abeillé and colleagues and Hajičová and Sgall are particularly impressive. The former shows how a corpus tagged with higher accuracy than previous corpora can completely overturn research results based on corpora tagged with lower accuracy. The latter presents a corpus that is marked up for syntactic features, including topic-focus structure, with a depth that is probably unmatched in any language. The rest of the papers present corpus-based linguistic research. The paper by Beom-mo Kang, Hung-gyu Kim, and Myung-hoe Huh applies Douglas Biber’s multidimensional text analysis to Korean (51–57); Maarten Lemmens investigates the functions and meaning range of posture verbs in Swedish from a typological perspective (73–85); Martina Möllering analyzes the use of the German modal particle eben in a corpus of telephone conversations (87–97); P.-O. Nilsson shows how Swedish texts translated from English exhibit systematically different [End Page 904] lexical and grammatical patterns from those found in texts written originally in Swedish (99–107); Katja Ploog explores the syntax of pronominal subjects in Abidjanee French in contrast to standard French (123–32); and Adriana Vlad, Adrian Mitrea, and Mihai Mitrea investigate Romanian texts from a stochastic perspective (153–65). Many of these contributions combine quantitative corpus methods with qualitative methods of investigation and persuasively demonstrate how corpus-based research can contribute to broader linguistic issues. On the whole, not all papers in this volume are of the same theoretical interest, but each of them is at least informative. In contrast, the editing is rather disappointing. There is a table of contents and a...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,017 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,024 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,129 | 0,094 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».