Slieve Donard Hotel, Newcastle, Co. Down.

>20-24 May

ICAME, the annual get together for corpus linguists, was held this year in a luxurious Victorian hotel in Newcastle, Co. Down, where the mountains of Mourne come down to the sea (and they do), organized with great panache by John Kirk from Queens University Belfast. The food was outstanding in both quantity and quality, there were magnificent sea views, the weather was splendid, and the conference programme was full of substance and variety. With about a hundred participants, the conference was not too big to allow for plenty of interaction and socializing, even with a fairly crowded programme of sixty formal papers and a dozen posters spread across three days. Also, I counted nearly twenty presentations of one kind or another explicitly derived from work using the BNC, which was (as they say) nice. In what follows, I summarize briefly only those sessions I attended, passing over in silence a few I could not attend either through an inability to be in two places at once, or through conference-fatigue.

For the third time, it had been decided to hold a separate one-day Historical corpora Workshop as a curtain raiser to the main event. This was opened by Matti Rissanen's annual survey of projects and resources for diachronic corpus studies, now available or underway, in which he also said some nice things about the Oxford Text Archive. Irma Taavitsainen from Helsinki reported on a study of what she termed "metatextual" comments in a corpus of Early English medical texts dated 1375 to 1550: the claim was that both form and incidence of such comments as It is to be seen that, I will now demonstrate etc change over this period to reflect other changes from personal to impersonal modes of narrative, or from an oral to a literary style. Terttu Nevalainen, also from Helsinki, presented CEEC, an interesting attempt to apply sociological criteria in the design of a Collection of Early English (1417-1681) Correspondence. Of necessity, the 6000 letters making it up had all been taken from published editions, (thus introducing a rats-nest of copyright problems), and also thus to some extent reflecting modern editorial practices in such matters as spelling or selection procedure (less than a sixth of the letters are from women, for example). Nevertheless, the corpus is clearly of immense interest as a way of quantifying and detailing hypotheses about such phenomena as the social distribution of you/ye forms, or the changes from -s to -th verbal forms, or the use of multiple negation.

In the first of two papers about the Lampeter corpus, I rattled through an account of its design and encoding, focussing mostly on the problems of getting from a semi-SGML form of markup to one which actually validated against a TEI dtd, before Claudia Claridge (Chemnitz) reported on some real work done using it as a source of information to substantiate theories about the development of scientific thought; for example, the lexical patterns typifying the empirical approach, and the gradual replacement of active voice reporting forms by passive constructions over the century that this corpus samples.

After our first experience of a Slieve Donard lunch, Douglas Biber (Arizona) author of a recently-published book on corpus linguistics, described an application of factor analysis techniques to 18th century English. Unlike previous work in which the parameters studied had been derived from 20th century material, this work began by constructing a number of specifically 18th century "dimensions" along which the rates of occurrences for a wide range of linguistic features were shown to cluster in different ways in texts taken from ARCHER corpus. Different genres are then identifiable by their location along these dimensions.

Ann Curzan (Michigan) reported on a study of the shift from grammatical to natural gender agreement for anaphoric pronouns across the period 1150-1215 in the Helsinki corpus: her study shows that this was by no means a simple transition, involving both factors relating to both lexis (some nouns remaining stubbornly gendered) and syntax (eg distance between anaphor and antecedent). Christer Geisler (Uppsala) presented a mass of data relating to postmodified clauses in the tree-banked version of the Helsinki corpus, the purpose of which went straight over my head. Gerry Knowles (Lancaster) was also fairly recondite as to methodology, but the purpose was plain enough: to identify the origins of northern varieties of English by analysis of evidence from dialect maps rather than on the assumption that they derived from some homogenous Middle English dialect.

The Historical Workshop closed with a discussion as to whether or not it was A Good Thing, or whether it would be better to roll its contributions in with the rest of ICAME. Since ICAME's expansion is now officially International Computer Archive of Mediaeval and Modern English, I felt that it probably should; others, perhaps more territorially minded, disagreed, and we all adjourned to the bar.

Next day ICAME proper began with John Kirk explaining the structure of the event: there would be a a series of themed sessions, focussing on major corpus development initiatives: today ICE, tomorrow the BNC, then Birmingham, and so on. He'd also planned a session on dialectology, but the dialectologists had not co-operated. John reminded us that the result of the Northern Ireland Referendum would be due around tea time on Saturday, and that we all had a copy of the consultation document in our packs, so that we could consider whether or not the verbs exercise and discharge were in fact used synonymously. A special excursion in the evening would take us to a secret location near Belfast where the joint Anglo-Irish secretariat would ply us with drink before the Referendum result hopefully removed it (the secretariat, not the drink) from existence.

The ICE session began with a presentation by Baz Arts and Sean Wallis from UCL of the ICECUP annotation and search software. This is a classy piece of Windows software which allows you to search the completely parsed ICE-GB corpus of one million words in terms of its linguistic annotation. The interface looked a bit like the SARA query builder screen, or the Linguistic Database (LDB) searching software developed by Hans van Halteren for the TOSCA project many years ago -- but on steroids. The idea is that the user defines fuzzy tree fragments -- templates for nodes which are to be matched in the complete syntactic tree. Each node has three parts (function, POS category, feature) and the arcs can be directional, or non-directional. The system performed well and looked good, but Sean spent rather a lot of his time explaining how model based systems query front ends like this were an improvement on those based on logical expressions, which whether true or not was fairly uninteresting to non computer-scientists. There were promises of an enhanced and extended ICE-GB corpus to be developed later, with the software bundled, presumably contingent on grants coming through. I asked how the system handled contextual queries (since metadata wasn't included within the nodes) but didn't understand the answer. Chuck Meyer, a real linguist, then reported his experience of using the new system, and in particular of comparing its usability with his analyses of the same corpus published in 1996: he focussed however on minutiae of the results rather than usability issues which meant that I rapidly fell asleep.

I awoke (briefly) to hear Atro Voutilainen and Pasi Tapainenen from Finnish language engineering company Conexor, newly formed to exploit the run away success of their English Constraints Grammar Parser, probably the most widely used and amongst the most successful of current automatic tagging systems for English. A new version called Englite is now available on the web. Most of the technical detail of the Finnish team's impressive work is available in publications elsewhere, to which he gave several useful pointers He also demonstrated some Unix tools for processing the parser output, for example to produce new groupings of idiomatic phrases. The tools look good, but you have to be a true believer in dependency grammar to get the best out of them.

Jim Cowie from New Mexico State repeated some fairly well-worn observations about the role of corpora in improving automatic translation, citing some nice examples (how to distinguish storms of ice cream from snowstorms in a Spanish text) and also showing some nice software. He said there was a need to enhance the lexica used by your average MT system with frequency and contextual information, which is as true now as it was when Mike Lesk said it in 1986. Ylva Berglund presented World Wide Web Access to Corpora from Essex, a JTAP project which aims to demonstrate how corpora can be used in language teaching. Her presentation was meticulous but the project remains seriously underwhelming from my point of view. Its future remains unclear and there were some politely critical remarks from the floor about the need for such a project to be a little less self-promoting, and maybe more extensive in its coverage. The afternoon was given over to software demos, which went without a hitch: I demonstrated some of the spiffier bits of Sara, in particular how to use it to examine differing usage patterns for the word pretty as an adverb by men and women; the Zurich team demonstrated their impressive web front end to SARA, which they promised we could distribute for them when it was ready; and I went for a walk along the beach with Tony Mcenery. As to the secret reception, we went by bus for miles along twisty Northern Irish roads to a place surrounded with barbed wire which looked rather like a converted school hall, where everyone had a lot to drink, and I explained at least seven times to different people what the state of the BNC currently was.

Next morning began with an hour of deeply statistical discussion by Professor Nakumura and colleagues from Tokushima University, concerned with various methods of automatically identifying text-type within the LOB corpus. The rest of the morning was largely devoted to papers reporting work done with the BNC. It began however with two serious papers from Douglas Biber and Geoffrey Leech both derived from their Corpus Grammar work. Biber's was mostly on the ways lexical patterns explained explain different usage rates in different registers for apparently interchangeable constructions, in this case complement classes (verb+that vs verb+to). Leech's focused on conversation, and proposed some interpretations for the characteristic patterns of difference found amongst the four basic genres analysed in their grammar. Speech is characterized by shared knowledge, an avoidance of elaboration, a plethora of interactions, a need to express emotion and stance, freqent repetition of set phrases and (because of its time-based nature) frequent front or back loading of syntactic structures. All of these can be shown to underly the significantly different syntactic patterns found in speech.

After coffee, Tony McEnery lowered the tone of the proceedings by reporting with relish his investigations into the naughty words used throughout the BNC. He produced a number of examples to demolish various intuitive claims about who swears about what to whom published by one G. Hughes, and also remarked in passing how odd it was that the Norwegians came in for so much invective in the spoken part of the BNC.

Hans Martin Lehmann and Gunnel Tottie from Zurich reported a technique and some results for the automatic retrieval of adverbial relatives (e.g. this is the place where/at which/that/0 he found it) and for investigating their different usage patterns. Automatically retrieving zero-marked relatives is particularly tricky, even for the ingenious Lehmann, involving running the untagged text through the Helsinki parser, to identify potentially appropriate patterns, which are then manually checked. Apparently, the manual search missed 20% of the cases found by the automated process -- but the program was entirely at the mercy of tagging errors in the parser.

Sebastian Hoffman, also from Zurich gave a thoughtful presentation about the collocational evidence available from the BNC. Most people believe that native speakers know many complex lexical items: but empirical evidence showed that for relatively infrequent words there were disparities between predicted collocates and those actually attested in the corpus (using log-likelihood measurement of the collocational strength). The question of how speakers recognize such combinations in rare words remains open.

At this point, and in a major departure from ICAME norms, the conference split into two parallel strands. I sat tight for two more presentations on the BNC. Roberta Facchinetti (Verona) presented a study of preferences for will vs going to in speech and writing, somewhat marred by the observation that the written part of the BNC did not reliably distinguish reported speech. Jurgen Gerner (Berlin) discussed the increasing use of they as what should grammatically be a singular pronoun, used anaphorically to refer to everyone or somebody (as in everybody should do what he/they can): there seemed to be a preference for the singular only with the some- form.

After the usual extravagant and irresistible lunch, we settled down for an afternoon of presentations from Birmingham. Ramesh Krishnamurthy briefly described TRACTOR, a research archive for the various corpora and resources being created by and for the TELRI project, which has recently obtained a further three years funding for its pioneering work in corpus-ifying the languages of Eastern and Central Europe. The archive will include a number of interesting tools, integrated into a single framework, as well as the various corpora already produced and in production by TELRI member sites. Ramesh was at pains to distinguish the project from Multext East (less specific) and Parole (more specific), but TELRI still sounds more of a club than a project to me. Not that there's anything wrong with clubs (especially if they will admit me as a member, which I did my best to persuade them they should).

Geoff Barnbrook made deprecating remarks about the Bank of English and COBUILD, briefly touching on the political fallout from the recent massive "downsizing" of the latter, before giving a fairly anodyne description of a parsing system under development for the definition texts of the COBUILD dictionaries. He was followed by Oliver Mason, who again discussed the notion of lexical gravity in collocation together with some useful techniques for its automatic calculation: this remains no less impressive than when I saw it presented at PALC last year, but does not seem to have advanced much since then. Sue Blackwell discussed how the words look and well are used as markers of discourse function in a range of examples from the Bank of English; Willem Meijs gave a fairly thorough overview of national stereotypes as revealed by mutual information scores, but came to no firm conclusions that I noticed, perhaps because my attention was beginning to flag by this stage of the day.

Revived by tea, I plumped for the parallel session for annotation-dweebs (thus regrettably missing three papers on the slightly unlikely topic of dialect studies in the BNC) and managed to follow quite a lot of Eric Atwell and Clive Souter's discussion of the problems of mapping between the outputs of different parsing systems. As part of the Amalgam project, they had attempted mappings between nine different parsers and (despite the best efforts of Expert Advisory Groups for Language Engineering Standards) concluded that for syntactic analyses at least there simply is no obvious or even non-obvious interlingua. Even something as simple as labelled bracketting is controversial if you happen to be mapping an analysis based on a dependency rather than a phrase structure grammar. This dispiriting news was followed by an interesting paper from Yibin Ni (Singapore) who had been trying to make explicit by tagging some fairly recondite co-referential relations in discourse, but who did not seem to have hit on any notational scheme adequate to the purpose. Final paper in the session was from Geoff Sampson, presenting with characteristic clarity some of the problems in trying to define an annotation scheme that can guarantee consistency if application across corpora of transcribed speech: such common features of speech as repair and truncation wreak havoc with the best designed syntactic tagging schemes, to say nothing of the gaps in an analysis caused by <unclear> elements. The day concluded with a mammoth session in which each of the poster presenters got five minutes to announce themselves, and a reception at which John Kirk tried to explain some salient features of Northern Irish linguistic history. I think.

My notes on the next day begin with Vincent Ooi (Singapore) who promised to explore the different "reality" evidenced by collocational data from Singaporean and Malaysian English, but instead gave only what I found a rather impressionistic account of some multi-word phrases in English as she is spoke in the Straits. I did however learn that Singaporean lifts are equipped with devices which sound an alarm should anyone be taken short whilst inside: these are rather unimaginatively known as urine detectors.

Martin Wynne (Lancaster) presented the results of an interesting comparison between two part-of-speech taggers: CLAWS, from Lancaster, and QTAG, from Birmingham. The comparison was effected by running both parsers on the same corpus (the written half of the BNC sampler), mapping the results into the EAGLES recommended annotation scheme, and comparing the results. Martin conceded that this was grossly unfair on several counts: the EAGLES scheme is much closer to CLAWS in the first place; CLAWS was trained on the BNC; in cases of ambiguity, CLAWS uses portmanteau tagging, whereas QTAG gives a prioritized list from which they always took the first. He also spent a lot of time saying that he didn't regard the results (in a corpus of over a million words, CLAWS disagreed with the reference scheme 2% of the time, and QTAG about 15%) as proving anything, in which case one couldnt help wondering why they were being presented.

Antoinette Renouf (Liverpool) reported on the next phase of her unit's continuing and (I think) unique work on neologisms. The AVIATOR project, which monitored the appearance of new words in newspaper texts over a four year period, demonstrated that such words tended to have very low frequencies, thus requiring the development of rather rarefied statistical techniques for their detection and classification. Such techniques having been developed in collaboration with Harald Baayen from Nijmegen, Antoinette announced the arrival of a new project called Analysis and Prediction of Innovation in the Lexicon (APRIL), the aim of which is to develop a system of automated classification, accounting qualitatively and quantitatively for the features found in huge amounts of text, and then extrapolate from this to predict the structure of the future lexicon. Allegedly.

Graeme Kennedy (Victoria University of Wellington), author of the other newly published book on corpus linguistics, presented an intriguing paper on Maori borrowings into contemporary New Zealand English, couched largely as a comparison between those reported in the new dictionary of NZ english and those attested in a recently compiled corpus of spoken New Zealand English. Apparently, 77% of the words in the dictionary are not attested in the corpus, while 86% of forms found in the corpus don't appear in the dictionary.

Under the title It's enough funny, man, Anna-Brita Stenström reported on some features of teenage talk familiar to those with teenage daughters (e.g. use of enough and well as adjective pre-modifiers) but maybe not to others. In traditional ICAME fashion, she presented a mass of useful and interesting evidence for these usages, and their typical contexts based on searches of the COLT and the BNC; she had also used the online OED as a source of comparative diachronic information, enabling her to reveal that enough as a premodifier appears about 800 times in OED citations, while well is well frequent in Old English, thus suggesting that teenagers have merely rediscovered an enough established feature of Early Modern English.

Due to other committments, I had to make my excuses and leave at this point, thus missing amongst other things a report on the Lancaster multimedia corpus of children's writing as well as the closing celebrations. Despite this sacrifice, I still somehow managed to missed my flight home and had to spend an extra night at the Belfast airport hotel. Even this did not dampen my enthusiasm for the event: one of the best of a long series, and a hard act to follow.