* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 17.1784

Tue Jun 13 2006

Calls: Computational Linguistics

Editor for this issue: Maria Moreno-Rollins <marialinguistlist.org>

As a matter of policy, LINGUIST discourages the use of abbreviations or acronyms in conference announcements unless they are explained in the text. To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
        1.    Ron Artstein, Research on Language and Computation

Message 1: Research on Language and Computation
Date: 13-Jun-2006
From: Ron Artstein <ambiguityessex.ac.uk>
Subject: Research on Language and Computation

Full Title: Research on Language and Computation

Linguistic Field(s): Computational Linguistics

Call Deadline: 15-Oct-2006

Research on Language and Computation
Ambiguity and semantic judgments

Special issue edited by Massimo Poesio and Ron Artstein

Deadline for submissions: 15 October 2006

We invite articles for a special issue on ambiguity and semantic judgments
from a computational, theoretical and psychological perspective. Much
research in computational linguistics assumes that tasks have a single
answer: word sense disambiguation looks for an unambiguous sense in
context, anaphora resolution algorithms look for a unique antecedent,
question-answering systems look for the best answer, semantic role labeling
identifies the most appropriate role, and so on. Yet theoretical and
psychological evidence show that ambiguity is abundant, and semantic
annotation tasks often display disagreements between coders which are the
result of genuine ambiguity rather than annotation error.

We are interested in ambiguity, broadly defined. On the one hand, there are
cases where ambiguities constitute clearly distinct interpretations,
preserved despite the context. On the other hand, there are instances of
underspecification which may or may not be construed as ambiguous given a
context. And in between there may be cases where different modes of
processing give rise to differences of emphasis which may or may not
warrant classifying as ambiguities. All these shades of variation, and the
disputes they give rise to, call for more empirical study of matters of
ambiguity, especially as they pertain to semantic judgments used in corpus
annotation and computational implementation.

For this special issue we are looking for high-quality, original,
full-length journal articles on any aspect pertaining to ambiguity and
semantic judgment. We especially welcome articles on the following topics:

- Computational implementations which take ambiguity into account
- Empirical research on ambiguity and annotator agreement
- Psychologically motivated research on semantic ambiguity

Submission instructions
Deadline for submissions: 15 October 2006
Late submissions will only be considered if time and space allow. It would
be helpful if authors who intend to submit an article could let us know by
1 August 2006, or as soon as possible thereafter, by sending an email to

Length: There is no formal length restriction, but please try to keep the
length of the articles moderate (around 25-30 pages). If an article is so
long as to exclude other articles from the issue, we may ask the authors to
shorten it.

Blind review: Please do not include any information identifying the author
in the manuscript submitted for review.

Submission method: For review purposes, please submit your article as a PDF
attachment to ambiguityessex.ac.uk. Include contact information in the
body of the email.
Further information: http://cswww.essex.ac.uk/ambiguity/

Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.