Multiple sequence alignments in linguistics

Proceedings of the EACL 2009 Workshop on Language Technology and Resources for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Education, LaTeCH-SHELT and R 2009

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 18-25

  Prokíc, Jelena ^a   Wieling, Martijn ^a   Nerbonne, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALIGNMENT; COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; QUALITY CONTROL;

AUTOMATIC GENERATION; GOLD STANDARDS; HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION; MULTIPLE ALIGNMENT; MULTIPLE SEQUENCE ALIGNMENTS; PAIRWISE ALIGNMENT; PHONETIC TRANSCRIPTIONS; STRING ALIGNMENT;

ITERATIVE METHODS;

EID: 85071034004     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. Laura Alonso, Irene Castellon, Jordi Escribano, Xavier Messeguer, and Lluis Padro. 2004. Multiple Sequence Alignment for characterizing the linear structure of revision. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.
2. Quentin Atkinson, Geoff Nicholls, David Welch, and Russell Gray. 2005. From words to dates: water into wine, mathemagic or phylogenetic inference. Transcriptions of the Philological Society, 103:193- 219.
3. Lyle Campbell. 2004. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press, second edition.
4. Russel D. Gray and Quentin D. Atkinson. 2003. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature, 426:435-339.
5. Russel D. Gray and Fiona M. Jordan. 2000. Language trees support the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion. Nature, 405:1052-1055.
6. Dan Gusfield. 1997. Algorithms on Strings, Trees and Sequences: Computer Science and Computational Biology. Cambridge University Press.
7. Wilbert Heeringa and Brian Joseph. 2007. The relative divergence of Dutch dialect pronunciations from their common source: An exploratory study. In John Nerbonne, T. Mark Ellison, and Grzegorz Kondrak, editors, Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Morphology and Phonology.
8. Wilbert Heeringa, John Nerbonne, and Peter Kleiweg. 2002. Validating dialect comparison methods. In Wolfgang Gaul and Gunter Ritter, editors, Classification, Automation, and New Media. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Klassifikation e. V., University of Passau, March 15- 17, 2000, pages 445-452. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York.
9. Wilbert Heeringa. 2004. Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences using Levenshtein Distance. Ph.D. thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
10. Lawrence Hubert and Phipps Arabie. 1985. Comparing partitions. Journal of Classification, 2:193-218.
11. Grzegorz Kondrak. 2002. Algorithms for Language Reconstruction. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto.
12. William M. Rand. 1971. Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of American Statistical Association, 66(336):846-850, December.
13. Tandy Warnow, Steven N. Evans, Donald Ringe, and Luay Nakhleh. 2006. A stochastic model of language evolution that incorporates homoplasy and borrowing. In Peter Forster and Colin Renfrew, editors, Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages. MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.