LINGUIST List 19.634: Computational Ling/UK; Phonology/Canada

Eastern Michigan University

Wayne State University

LINGUIST List 19.634
Mon Feb 25 2008 Calls: Computational Ling/UK; Phonology/Canada Editor for this issue: F. Okki Kurniawan <okkilinguistlist.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.
Directory 1. Sabine Schulte im Walde, Coling 2008 Workshop on Human Judgements in CL 2. Charles Reiss, Fifth North American Phonology Conference Message 1: Coling 2008 Workshop on Human Judgements in CL
Date: 24-Feb-2008 From: Sabine Schulte im Walde <schulteims.uni-stuttgart.de> Subject: Coling 2008 Workshop on Human Judgements in CL E-mail this message to a friend Full Title: Coling 2008 Workshop on Human Judgements in CL Short Title: hjcl Date: 23-Aug-2008 Location: Manchester, United Kingdom Contact Person: Sabine Schulte im Walde Meeting Email: schulteims.uni-stuttgart.de Web Site: http://workshops.inf.ed.ac.uk/hjcl/ Linguistic Field(s): Computational Linguistics Call Deadline: 05-May-2008 Meeting Description: Coling 2008 workshop on human judgements in Computational Linguistics Manchester, UK 23 August 2008 http://workshops.inf.ed.ac.uk/hjcl/ Call for Papers Human judgements play a key role in the development and the assessment of linguistic resources and methods in Computational Linguistics. They are commonly used in the creation of lexical resources and corpus annotation, and also in the evaluation of automatic approaches to linguistic tasks. Furthermore, systematically collected human judgements provide clues for research on linguistic issues that underlie the judgement task, providing insights complementary to introspective analysis or evidence gathered from corpora. We invite papers about experiments that collect human judgements for Computational Linguistic purposes, with a particular focus on linguistic tasks that are controversial from a theoretical point of view (e.g., some coding tasks having to do with semantics or pragmatics). Such experimental tasks are usually difficult to design and interpret, and they typically result in mediocre inter-rater reliability. We seek both broad methodological papers discussing these issues, and specific case studies. Topic of interest include, but are not limited to: 1. Experimental design: - Which types of experiments support the collection of human judgements? Can any general guidelines be defined? Is there a preference between lab-based experiments and web-based experiments? - Which experimental methodologies support controversial tasks? For instance, does underspecification help? What is the role of ambiguity and polysemy in these tasks? - What is the appropriate level of granularity for the category labels? - What kind of participants should be used (e.g., expert vs. non-expert), how is it affected by the type of experiment, and how should the experiment design be varied according to this issue? - How much and which kind of information (examples, context, etc.) should be provided to the experiment participants? When does information turn into a bias? - Is it possible to design experiments that are useful for both computational linguistics and psycholinguistics? What do the two research areas have in common? What are the differences? 2. Analysis and interpretation of experimental data: - How important is inter-annotator agreement in human judgement collection experiments? How is it best measured for complex tasks? - What other quantitative tools are useful for analysing human judgement collection experiments? - What qualitative methods are useful for analysing human judgement collection experiments? Which questions should be asked? Is it possible to formulate general guidelines? - How is the analysis similar to psycholinguistic analysis? How is it different? - How do results from all of the methods above affect the development of annotation instructions and procedures? 3. Application of experiment insights: - How do the experimental data fit into the general resource-creating process? - How to modify the set of labels and the criteria or guidelines for the annotation task according to the experimental results? How to avoid circularity in this process? - How can the data be used to refine or modify existing theoretical proposals? - More generally, under what conditions can the obtained judgements be applied to research questions? Organisers: Ron Artstein, Institute for Creative Technologies, University of Southern California Gemma Boleda, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya Frank Keller, University of Edinburgh Sabine Schulte im Walde, Universität Stuttgart Keynote Speaker: Martha Palmer, University of Colorado Programme Committee: Toni Badia, Universitat Pompeu Fabra Marco Baroni, University of Trento Beata Beigman Klebanov, Northwestern University André Blessing, Universität Stuttgart Chris Brew, Ohio State University Kevin Cohen, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center Barbara Di Eugenio, University of Illinois at Chicago Katrin Erk, University of Texas at Austin Stefan Evert, University of Osnabrück Afsaneh Fazly, University of Toronto Alex Fraser, Universität Stuttgart Jesus Gimenez, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya Roxana Girju, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Ed Hovy, University of Southern California Nancy Ide, Vassar College Adam Kilgarriff, University of Brighton Alexander Koller, University of Edinburgh Anna Korhonen, University of Cambridge Mirella Lapata, University of Edinburgh Diana McCarthy, University of Sussex Alissa Melinger, University of Dundee Paola Merlo, University of Geneva Sebastian Padó, Stanford University Martha Palmer, University of Colorado Rebecca Passonneau, Columbia University Massimo Poesio, University of Trento Sameer Pradhan, BBN Technologies Horacio Rodriguez, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya Bettina Schrader, Universität Potsdam Suzanne Stevenson, University of Toronto Submission: Deadline for the receipt of papers is 5 May 2008, 23:59 UTC. For submission information see the following web page: http://workshops.inf.ed.ac.uk/hjcl/submission.html Important Dates: Paper submission deadline: 5 May 2008 Notification of acceptance: 10 June 2008 Camera-ready copy due: 1 July 2008 Workshop date: 23 August 2008 Message 2: Fifth North American Phonology Conference
Date: 23-Feb-2008 From: Charles Reiss <reissalcor.concordia.ca> Subject: Fifth North American Phonology Conference E-mail this message to a friend Full Title: Fifth North American Phonology Conference Short Title: NAPhC5 Date: 09-May-2008 - 11-May-2008 Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada Contact Person: Charles Reiss Meeting Email: cogscialcor.concordia.ca Web Site: http://linguistics.concordia.ca/naphc5/ Linguistic Field(s): Phonology Call Deadline: 01-Mar-2008 Meeting Description: Fifth North American Phonology Conference Concordia University, Montreal Theme: Phonology as Symbolic Computation May 9-11, 2008 Last Call for Papers Fifth North American Phonology Conference Call Deadline: 01-Mar-2008 Invited Speakers: Andries Coetzee, Michigan John Kingston, UMass David Odden, Ohio State Bridget Samuels, Harvard Recent work in phonology has met with a number of recalcitrant problems. 1. Probabilistic and exemplar-based models of phonological learning and phonological computation have failed to deal with the same conceptual and empirical challenges that led to the demise of their empiricist, behaviorist forebears. 2. Objections against the computational complexity associated with derivations with multiple levels of representation have turned out to have been ill-grounded, and stubborn problems of analysis have forced 'two-level' theorists to allow complex derivations to sneak back in, as in the Stratal, Harmonic Serialism and Candidate Chains models of recent work in Optimality Theory. 3. The grounding of constraints in markedness 'theory' remains an elusive goal that fails on both logical and empirical grounds to provide explanations. In this context, we invite papers on the prospects of future research in Good Old Fashioned Phonology (GOFP, an adaptation of Haugeland's Good Old Fashioned Artificial Intelligence). That is, we propose an exploration of phonology as a substance-free, symbolic computation system. Papers critiquing GOFP are also very welcome. A substance-free theory considers the formal properties of a grammar without regard for transduction between symbols in the grammar and the input and output systems involved in language acquisition and use. Relevant sources for this position in phonology and elsewhere are Hjelmslev and Uldall (see Fudge 2006:88), Chomsky and Halle (1968), Kaplan 1987, Hale and Reiss (2000, 2008) and Pylyshyn (2003). Formal topics might include the use of quantifiers or operator-variable structures, computation of locality, computational power of phonological grammars, and formal grammar and biolinguistic considerations. Abstracts should be sent in pdf format to cogscialcor.concordia.ca, up to 3 pages in length. Anonymity is not required. Deadline: March 1, 2008 Organizers: Concordia Linguistics Program http://linguistics.concordia.ca Concordia Linguistics Student Association http://linguistics.concordia.ca/lsa/ Concordia Cognitive Science Group http://linguistics.concordia.ca/ccsg/ Computational Linguistics at Concordia http://www.cs.concordia.ca/CLAC/ Read more issues\|LINGUIST home page\|Top of issue

Print This Page

Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

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