Computational linguistics and discourse complexology: paradigms and research methods
The modern areas of research in computational linguistics and linguistic complexology and definition a solid rationale for the new interdisciplinary field, discourse complexology. Contribution of theoretical linguistics to computational linguistics.
| Рубрика | Иностранные языки и языкознание |
| Вид | статья |
| Язык | английский |
| Дата добавления | 07.05.2023 |
| Размер файла | 141,9 K |
Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже
Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
Одной из таких ситуаций является когнитивный анализ ошибок, допускаемых при изучении иностранного языка. Этой проблематике посвящены работы О.Н. Ляшевской с соавторами и Л. Янды с соавторами. В них исследования выходят на уровень взаимосвязей между сложностью текстов и когнитивными ресурсами, необходимыми для их понимания. В первой работе получен следующий интересный результат: чем сложнее используемые обучающимся аффиксы, тем меньше он допускает ошибок в текстах. Во второй работе описана компьютерная система, предназначенная для анализа и адекватного объяснения ошибок изучающего русский язык как иностранный.
Заключение
Успехи компьютерной лингвистики последних лет во многом обеспечили достижения дискурсивной комплексологии и позволили ученым не только автоматизировать ряд операций лингвистического анализа, но и создать удобные для пользователей профайлеры текстов. Такие инструменты, как ReaderBench, Coh-Metrix и RuMOR (подробно описанные в статьях данного выпуска) способны решать как исследовательские, так и практические задачи: осуществлять подбор текстов для целевой аудитории, редактировать и сокращать тексты, производить анализ когнитивных причин возникновения ошибок и даже предлагать стратегии вербального поведения. Алгоритмы, используемые разработчиками при создании инструментов автоматического анализа текстов, имеют в своей основе классические методы и методы машинного обучения, включая нейронные сети глубокого обучения и одну из новейших систем - систему BERT. В настоящее время, и это хорошо показано в ряде статей спецвыпуска, ученые успешно совмещают методы машинного обучения и «параметрического подхода».
Однако важнейшей особенностью современных исследований является значительное расширение научной проблематики и повышение точности расчетов за счет способности искусственных нейронных сети к обучению и модификации. Прорыв в области искусственного интеллекта был обусловлен тремя основными факторами: появлением новых, более совершенных алгоритмов самообучения, повышением скорости работы компьютеров, многократным увеличением объема данных для обучения. Современные базы данных, а также разработанные в последние годы словари и инструменты для русского языка позволили авторам спецвыпуска обратиться и успешно решить целый ряд проблем в области сложности текста.
Еще одним фундаментом успеха в области сложности текста послужили открытия ученых когнитологов, сделанные в начале нашего века и навсегда поменявшие научную парадигму комплексологии. Если основным достижением комплексологии текста XX в. являлся вывод о том, что «разные типы текстов сложны по-разному», то дискурсивная комплексология XXI в. не только сумела предложить и верифицировать предикторы сложности для различных типов текстов, но разработала инструментарий для оценки относительной сложности текста в различных коммуникативных ситуациях. С обращением к когнитивным наукам комплексология обрела две дополнительные переменные: языковую личность читателя и коммуникативную ситуацию процесса чтения.
Новая исследовательская парадигма лингвистической комплексологии также отражена в тех работах спецвыпуска, которые посвящены поиску новых критериев сложности текста: на смену экспертной оценке, тестам на понимание и скорости чтения пришли новые методы, позволяющие выявлять дискурсивные единицы, влияющие на сложность восприятия текста.
Исследования, публикуемые в специальном выпуске высветили и основные проблемы, стоящие перед отечественной лингвистической комплексологией: создание матрицы сложности текстов различных типов и жанров, расширение списка предикторов сложности, валидация новых критериев сложности, расширение баз данных для русского языка.
Список литературы
1. Апресян Ю.Д., Богуславский И.М., Иомдин Л.Л., Лазурский А.В., Перцов Н.В., Санников В.З., Цинман Л.Л. Лингвистическое обеспечение системы ЭТАП-2. М.: Наука, 1989. [Apresyan, Yurii D., Igor M. Boguslavskii, Leonid L. Iomdin, Aleksandr V. Lazurskii, Nikolai V. Pertsov, Vladimir Z. Sannikov, Leonid L. Tsinman. 1989. Lingvisticheskoe obespechenie sistems ETAP-2 (Linguistic support of the system STAGE-2). Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)].
2. Бердичевский А. Языковая сложность // Вопросы языкознания. 2012. № 5. С. 101-124. [Berdichevskii, Aleksandr. 2012. Yazykovaya slozhnost' (Language complexity). Voprosy yazykoznaniya 5. 101-124.] (In Russ.)
3. Вахтин, Н. Рец. на кн.: Peter Trudgil. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity // Антропологический форум. 2014. № 2. С. 301-309. [Vakhtin, Nikolai. 2014. Review of Peter Trudgil. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Antropologicheskii Forum 2. 301-309. (In Russ.)].
4. Даль Э. Возникновение и сохранение языковой сложности. М.: ЛКИ, 2009. [Dahl, Osten. 1976. Vozniknovenie i sokhranenie yazykovoi slozhnosti (The emergence and persistence of language complexity). Moscow: LKI. (In Russ.)].
5. Жирмунский В.М. Общее и германское языкознание: Избранные труды. Л.: Наука, 1976. [Zhirmunskii, Viktor M. 1976. Obshchee i germanskoe yazykoznanie: Izbrannye trudy (General and Germanic Linguistics: Selected works). Leningrad: Nauka. (In Russ.)]. Зализняк А.А. Грамматический словарь русского языка. М.: Русский язык, 1977. [Zaliznyak, Andrei A. 1977. Grammaticheskii slovar' russkogo yazyka (Grammatical dictionary of the Russian language). Moscow. (In Russ.)].
6. Избыточность в грамматическом строе языка / под ред. М.Д. Воейковой. СПб.: Наука, [Voeikova, Mariya D. (ed.). 2010. Izbytochnost' v grammaticheskom stroe yazyka (Redundancy in the Grammatical Structure of the Language). Saint Petersburg: Nauka. (In Russ.)].
7. Казак М.Ю. Морфемика и словообразования современного русского языка. Теория. Белгород: ИД «Белгород», 2012. [Kazak, Mariya Yu. 2012. Morfemika i slovoobrazovaniya sovremennogo russkogo yazyka. Teoriya (Morphemics and word formation of the modern Russian language. Theory). Belgorod: ID «Belgorod». (In Russ.)].
8. Кибрик А.А., Подлесская В.И. (ред.). Рассказы о сновидениях. Корпусное исследование устного русского дискурса. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2009. [Kibrik, A. A. & V. I. Podlesskaya (eds.). 2009. Night Dream Stories: A Corpus Study of Russian Spoken Discourse. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul'tur. (In Russ.)].
9. Маннинг К.Д., Рагхаван П., Шютце Х. Введение в информационный поиск. М.: Вильямс, [Manning, Kristofer D., Prabkhakar Ragkhavan & Khinrich Shyuttse. 2011.
10. Vvedenie v informatsionnyi poisk (Introduction to Information Search). Moscow: Vil'yams. (In Russ.)].
11. Мельчук И.А. Опыт теории лингвистических моделей «Смысл ^ Текст». М., 1974. [Mel'chuk, Igor' A. 1974. Opyt teorii lingvisticheskikh modelei «Smysl ^ Tekst» (The experience of the theory of linguistic models «Meaning ^Text»). Moscow. (In Russ.)].
12. Подлесская В.И., Кибрик А.А. Дискурсивные маркеры в структуре устного рассказа: Опыт корпусного исследования // Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии: По материалам ежегод. Междунар. конф. «Диалог». 2009. Вып. 8 (15). С. 390-396. [Podlesskaya, V.I. & Kibrik A.A. 2009. Diskursivnye markery v strukture ustnogo rasskaza: Opyt korpusnogo issledovaniya (Discursive mrkers in the structure of oral narrative: The Experience of Corpus Research). In Komp'yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual'nye tekhnologii: Proceedings of the Annual international conference Dialogue 8(15). 390-396].
13. Солнышкина M.^, Кисельников А.С. Сложность текста: Этапы изучения в отечественном прикладном языкознании // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2015. № 6. С. 86-99. [Solnyshkina, M.I., Kise'nikov, A.S. 2015. Slozhnost' teksta: Ehtapy izucheniya v otechestvennom prikladnom yazykoznanii (Text complexity: Stages of study in domestic applied linguistics). Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya 6. 86-99].
14. Allahyari, Mehdi, Seyedamin Pouriyeh, Mehdi Assefi, Saeid Safaei, Elizabeth D. Trippe, Juan B. Gutierrez & Krys Kochut. 2017. Text summarization techniques: A brief survey. arXiv 1707.02268, URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.02268.pdf. (accessed 20.01.2022).
15. Batrinca, Bogdan & Philip Treleaven. 2015. Social media analytics: A survey of techniques, tools and platforms. AI & Soc 30 (1). 89-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-014-0549-4
16. Bisang, Walter. 2009. On the evolution of complexity: Sometimes less is more in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 34-49. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Braunmtiller, Kurt. 1990. Komplexe flexionssysteme - (k)ein problem fur die nattirlichkeitstheorie? Zeitschrift fur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 43. 625-635.
18. Cambria, Erik, Dipankar Das, Sivaji Bandyopadhyay & Antonio Feraco (eds.). 2017. A Practical Guide to Sentiment Analysis. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
19. Chen, Danqi & Christopher D. Manning. 2014. A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 740-750. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/D14-1082
20. Church, Kenneth & Mark Liberman. 2021. The future of computational linguistics: On beyond alchemy. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 4. 625341. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.625341
21. Cinelli, Matteo, Walter Quattrociocchi, Alessandro Galeazzi, Carlo Michele Valensise, Emanuele Brugnoli, Ana Lucia Schmidt, Paola Zola, Fabiana Zollo & Antonio Scala. 2020. The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Sci Rep 10. 16598. https://doi.org/10.103 8/s41598-020-73510-5
22. Clark, Alexander, Chris Fox & Shalom Lappin (eds.). 2013. The Handbook of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing. John Wiley & Sons.
23. Crossley, S.A., Greenfield, J. & McNamara, D. S. 2008. Assessing Text Readability Using Cognitively Based Indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42 (3), 475-493.
24. Dammel, Antje & Sebastian Ktirschner. 2008. Complexity in nominal plural allomorphy. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemaki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 243-262. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
25. Deutscher, Guy. 2009. «Overall complexity»: A wild goose chase? In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 243-251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Deutscher, Guy. 2010. Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages. New York: Metropolitan Books.
27. Devlin, Jacob, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee & Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv 1810.04805v2. URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.04805.pdf. (accessed 20.01.2022).
28. Domingue, John, Dieter Fensel & James A. Hendler (eds.). 2011. Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies. Springer Science & Business Media.
29. Fellbaum, Christiane (ed.). 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud & August Fenk. 2008. Complexity trade-offs between the subsystems of language. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemaki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 43-65. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
31. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon W. Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1-88. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
32. Ghani, Noijihan A., Suraya Hamida, Ibrahim AbakerTargio Hashemb & Ejaz Ahmedc. 2019. Social media big data analytics: A survey. Computers in Human Behavior 101. 417-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.039
33. Gil, David. 2008. How complex are isolating languages? In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemaki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 109-131. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
34. Givon, Thomas. 2009. The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Ontogeny, NeuroCognition, Evolution. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
35. Hoang, Mickel, Oskar Alija Bihorac & Jacobo Rouces. 2019. Aspect-based sentiment analysis using BERT. In Mareike Hartmann & Barbara Plank (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Nordic conference on computational linguistics, 187-196. Turku, Finland: Linkoping University Electronic Press Publ.
36. Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.
37. Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1999. On Language: On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species. Cambridge, U.K. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38. Hutchins, John. 1999. Retrospect and prospect in computer-based translation. In Proceedings of MTSummit VII «MTin the Great Translation Era». 30-44. Tokyo: AAMT.
39. Indurkhya, Nitin & Fred J. Damerau (eds.). 2010. Handbook of Natural Language Processing. CRC Press.
40. Jiang, Ridong, Rafael E. Banchs & Haizhou Li. 2016. Evaluating and combining name entity recognition systems. In Nancy Chen, Rafael E. Banchs, Xiangyu Duan, Min Zhang & Haizhou Li (eds.), Proceedings of NEWS 2016. The Sixth named entities workshop, 21-27. Berlin, Germany.
41. Karlsson, Fred. 2009. Origin and maintenance of clausal embedding complexity. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 192-202. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42. Kortmann, Bernd & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2004. Global synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in English. In Bernd Kortmann, Edgar Schneider Werner, Clive Upton,
43. Kate Burridge & Rajend Mesthrie(eds.), A Handbook of varieties of English, 1142-1202. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
44. Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. Utrecht: LOT.
45. Kutuzov, Andrey & Elizaveta Kuzmenko. 2017. WebVectors: A toolkit for building web interfaces for vector semantic models. In Wil M. P. van der Aalst, Dmitry I. Ignatov, Michael Khachay, Sergei O. Kuznetsov, Victor Lempitsky, Irina A. Lomazova, Natalia Loukachevitch, Amedeo Napoli, Alexander Panchenko, Panos M. Pardalos, Andrey V. Savchenko &Stanley Wasserman (eds.), Analysis of Images, Social Networks and Texts, 155-161. Moscow: AIST.
46. Lauriola, Ivano, Alberto Lavelli & Fabio Aiolli. 2022. An introduction to deep learning in natural language processing: Models, techniques, and tools. Neurocomputing 470. 443-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2021.05.103
47. Loukachevitch, Natalia V. & Anatolii Levchik. 2016. Creating a general Russian sentiment lexicon. In Proceedings of Language Resources and Evaluation Conference LREC-2016.
48. Loukachevitch, Natalia V. & G. Lashevich. 2016. Multiword expressions in Russian Thesauri RuThes and RuWordNet. In Proceedings of the AINL FRUCT. 66-71. Saint-Petersburg.
49. McNamara, Danielle S., Elieen Kintsch, Nancy Butler Songer & Walter Kintsch. 1996. Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning from Text. Cognition and Instruction, 14 (1), 1-43
50. McWhorter, John. 2001. The world's simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 6. 125-166. https://doi.org/10.1515/LITY.2001.001
51. McWhorter, John. 2008. Why does a language undress? Strange cases in Indonesia. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemaki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 167-190. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
52. Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Yuan Kui Shen, Aviva Presser Aiden, Adrian veres, Matthew K. Gray, The Google books team, Joseph P. Pickett & Dale Hoiberg. 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331 (6014). 176-182. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1199644
53. Miestamo, Matti, Kaius Sinnemaki & Fred Karlsson (eds.). 2008. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
54. Miestamo, Matti. 2008. Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemaki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 23-42. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
55. Mikolov, Thomas, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado & Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv 1301.3781. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781 (accessed 20.01.2022).
56. Miranda-Jimenez, Sabino, Alexander Gelbukh & Grigori Sidorov. 2013. Summarizing conceptual graphs for automatic summarization task. In Conceptual Structures for STEM Research and Education. 245-253. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7735.
57. Moon, Chang Bae, Jong Yeol Lee, Dong-Seong Kim & Byeong Man Kim. 2020. Multimedia content recommendation in social networks using mood tags and synonyms. Multimedia Systems 26 (6). 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00530-019-00632-w
58. Mtihlhausler, Peter. 1974. Pidginization and Simplification of Language. Canberra: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
59. Nasirian, Farzaneh, Mohsen Ahmadian & One-Ki D. Lee. 2017. AI-based Voice Assistant Systems: Evaluating from the Interaction and Trust Perspectives. Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston.
60. Nassif, Ali Bou, Ismail Shahin, Imtinan Attili, Mohammad Azzeh & Khaled Shaalan. 2019. Speech recognition using deep neural networks: A systematic review. IEEE access 7. 19143-19165. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2896880
61. Nichols, Johanna. 2009. Linguistic complexity: A comprehensive definition and survey. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 64-79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
62. Ojokoh, Bolanle & Emmanuel Adebisi. 2018. A review of question answering systems. Journal of Web Engineering 17 (8). 717-758. https://doi.org/10.13052/jwe1540-9589.1785
63. Ortega, Lourdes. 2003. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 24. 492-518.
64. Parkvall, Mikael. 2008. The simplicity of creoles in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemaki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 265-285. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
65. Patel, Krupa & Hiren B. Patel. 2020. A state-of-the-art survey on recommendation system and prospective extensions. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 178. 105779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105779
66. Pons Borderia, Salvador & Pascual Aliaga E. 2021. Inter-annotator agreement in spoken language annotation: Applying ua-family coefficients to discourse segmentation. Russian Journal of Linguistics 25(2). 478-506. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-202125-2-478-506
67. Riley, Michael D. 1989. Some applications of tree-based modelling to speech and language indexing. In Proceedings of the DARPA Speech and Natural Language Workshop. 339-352. San Mateo, CA.
68. Sahlgren, Magnus. 2008. The Distributional Hypothesis. From context to meaning. In distributional models of the lexicon in linguistics and cognitive science (special issue of the Italian Journal of Linguistics). Rivista di Linguistica 20 (1). 33-53.
69. Sampson, Geoffrey, David Gil & Peter Trudgill. 2009. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford linguistics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
70. Schmidhuber, Jtirgen. 2015. Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural Networks 61. 85-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003
71. Sharnagat, Rahul. 2014. Named Entity Recognition: A Literature Survey. Center for Indian Language Technology.
72. Shosted, Ryan K. 2006. Correlating complexity: A typological approach. Linguistic Typology 10 (1). 1-40.
73. Sigdel, Bijay, Gongqi Lin, Yuan Miao & Khandakar Ahmed. 2020. Testing QA systems' ability in processing synonym commonsense knowledge. IEEE [Special issue].
74. 24th International Conference Information Visualisation (IV). 317-321. https://doi.org/10.1109/IV51561.2020.00059
75. Solovyev, Valery & Vladimir Ivanov. 2014. Dictionary-based problem phrase extraction from user reviews. In Petr Sojka, Ales Horak, Ivan Kopecek & Karel Pala (eds.), Text, speech and dialogue, 225-232. Springer.
76. Solovyev, Valery D., Vladimir V. Bochkarev & Svetlana S. Akhtyamova. 2020. Google Books Ngram: Problems of representativeness and data reliability. Communications in Computer and Information Science 1223. 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51913-1_10
77. Su, Xiaoyuan & Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar. 2009. A survey of collaborative filtering techniques. Advances in Artificial Intelligence. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/421425
78. Tan, Xu, Tao Qin, Frank Soong & Tie-Yan Liu. 2021. A survey on neural speech synthesis. arXiv 2106.15561. URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.15561.pdf (accessed 20.01.2022).
79. Tesniere, Lucien. 2015. Elements of Structural Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
80. Trudgill, Peter. 1999. Language contact and the function of linguistic gender. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 35. 133-152.
81. Trudgill, Peter. 2004. Linguistic and Social Typology: The Austronesian migrations and phoneme inventories. Linguistic Typology 8(3). 305-320.
82. Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press (reprinted 2012).
83. Trudgill, Peter. 2012. On the sociolinguistic typology of linguistic complexity loss. In Frank Seifart, Geoffrey Haig, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, Dagmar Jung, Anna Margetts & Paul Trilsbeek (eds.), Language documentation & conservation special publication No. 3 (August 2012): Potentials of language documentation: Methods, analyses, and utilization, 90-95.
84. Valdez, Cruz & Monika Louize. 2021. Voice Authentication Using Python's Machine Learning and IBM Watson Speech to Text. Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya.
85. Wang, Yu, Yining Sun, Zuchang Ma, Lisheng Gao, Yang Xu & Ting Sun. 2020. Application of pre-training models in named entity recognition. In 2020 12th International Conference on Intelligent Human-Machine Systems and Cybernetics (IHMSC). 23-26. Hangzhou, China.
Размещено на Allbest.ru
...Подобные документы
Legal linguistics as a branch of linguistic science and academic disciplines. Aspects of language and human interaction. Basic components of legal linguistics. Factors that are relevant in terms of language policy. Problems of linguistic research.
реферат [17,2 K], добавлен 31.10.2011Categorization is a central topic in cognitive psychology, in linguistics, and in philosophy, precisely. Practical examples of conceptualization and categorization in English, research directions of these categories in linguistics at the present stage.
презентация [573,5 K], добавлен 29.05.2015New scientific paradigm in linguistics. Problem of correlation between peoples and their languages. Correlation between languages, cultural picularities and national mentalities. The Method of conceptual analysis. Methodology of Cognitive Linguistics.
реферат [13,3 K], добавлен 29.06.2011Style as a Linguistic Variation. The relation between stylistics and linguistics. Stylistics and Other Linguistic Disciplines. Traditional grammar or linguistic theory. Various linguistic theories. The concept of style as recurrence of linguistic forms.
реферат [20,8 K], добавлен 20.10.2014Phonetics as a branch of linguistics. Aspects of the sound matter of language. National pronunciation variants in English. Phoneme as many-sided dialectic unity of language. Types of allophones. Distinctive and irrelevant features of the phoneme.
курс лекций [6,9 M], добавлен 15.04.2012The definition of concordance in linguistics as a list of words used in a body of work, or dictionary, which contains a list of words from the left and right context. The necessity of creating concordance in science for learning and teaching languages.
контрольная работа [14,5 K], добавлен 18.01.2012Concept of Contractions: acronyms, initialisms. Internet Slang. Sociolinguistics, its role in contractions. Lexicology - a Branch of Linguistics. Comparison. Contraction Methods. Formal Writing Rules. Formal or Informal Writing. Concept of Netlinguistics.
курсовая работа [339,2 K], добавлен 01.02.2016The term "concept" in various fields of linguistics. Metaphor as a language unit. The problem of defining metaphor. The theory of concept. The notion of concept in Linguistics. Metaphoric representation of the concept "beauty" in English proverbs.
курсовая работа [22,2 K], добавлен 27.06.2011Development of guidelines for students of the fifth year of practice teaching with the English language. Definition of reading, writing and speaking skills, socio-cultural component. Research issues in linguistics, literary and educational studies.
методичка [433,9 K], добавлен 18.01.2012Text and its grammatical characteristics. Analyzing the structure of the text. Internal and external functions, according to the principals of text linguistics. Grammatical analysis of the text (practical part based on the novel "One day" by D. Nicholls).
курсовая работа [23,7 K], добавлен 06.03.2015The ways of expressing evaluation by means of language in English modern press and the role of repetitions in the texts of modern newspaper discourse. Characteristics of the newspaper discourse as the expressive means of influence to mass reader.
курсовая работа [31,5 K], добавлен 17.01.2014The connection of lexicology with other branches of linguistics. Modern Methods of Vocabulary Investigation. General characteristics of English vocabulary. The basic word-stock. Influence of Russian on the English vocabulary. Etymological doublets.
курс лекций [44,9 K], добавлен 15.02.2013Act of gratitude and its peculiarities. Specific features of dialogic discourse. The concept and features of dialogic speech, its rationale and linguistic meaning. The specifics and the role of the study and reflection of gratitude in dialogue speech.
дипломная работа [66,6 K], добавлен 06.12.2015The study of political discourse. Political discourse: representation and transformation. Syntax, translation, and truth. Modern rhetorical studies. Aspects of a communication science, historical building, the social theory and political science.
лекция [35,9 K], добавлен 18.05.2011The concept as the significance and fundamental conception of cognitive linguistics. The problem of the definition between the concept and the significance. The use of animalism to the concept BIRD in English idioms and in Ukrainian phraseological units.
курсовая работа [42,0 K], добавлен 30.05.2012Language as main means of intercourse. Cpornye and important questions of theoretical phonetics of modern English. Study of sounds within the limits of language. Voice system of language, segmental'nye phonemes, syllable structure and intonation.
курсовая работа [22,8 K], добавлен 15.12.2010Lexicology, as a branch of linguistic study, its connection with phonetics, grammar, stylistics and contrastive linguistics. The synchronic and diachronic approaches to polysemy. The peculiar features of the English and Ukrainian vocabulary systems.
курсовая работа [44,7 K], добавлен 30.11.2015Theories of discourse as theories of gender: discourse analysis in language and gender studies. Belles-letters style as one of the functional styles of literary standard of the English language. Gender discourse in the tales of the three languages.
дипломная работа [3,6 M], добавлен 05.12.2013Theoretical aspects of gratitude act and dialogic discourse. Modern English speech features. Practical aspects of gratitude expressions use. Analysis of thank you expression and responses to it in the sentences, selected from the fiction literature.
дипломная работа [59,7 K], добавлен 06.12.2015Research methods are strategies or techniques to conduct a systematic research. To collect primary data four main methods are used: survey, observation, document analysis and experiment. Several problems can arise when using questionnaire. Interviewing.
реферат [16,7 K], добавлен 18.01.2009
