<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The method of automatic term recognition based on machine learning is focused primarily on the most important quantitative term attributes. It is able to successfully identify terms and non-terms (with success rate of more than 95 %) and find characteristic features of a term as a terminological unit. A single-word term can be characterized as a word with a low frequency that occurs considerably more often in specialized texts than in non-academic texts, occurs in a small number of disciplines, its distribution in the corpus is uneven as is the distance between its two instances. A multi-word term is a collocation consisting of words with low frequency and contains at least one single-word term. The method is based on quantitative features and it makes it possible to utilize the algorithms in multiple disciplines as well as to create cross-lingual applications (verified on Czech and English).</abstract>

Machine Learning in Terminology Extraction from Czech and English Texts

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This comparative reading of two conceptual corpora, Russian formalism and Germano-Austrian or Germanic formalism, begins with the idea that the European formalism presents a coherent unit. The continuity of this program authorizes such a comparative reading. The comparative analysis of formalisms in Europe could be a research program aimed at an epistemological reading of the phenomenon of European formalism at the turn of the 20th century. This program deals with a rereading of two conceptual fields–Russian formalism and Germanic (Germano-Austrian) formalism. This study seeks to contextualise the formalist project within the knowledge of its time by showing its genetic links with the disciplines of this period and by introducing it as an epistemological fact. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the growth of psychologism in aesthetic theories, constitutes a reaction against the dominant scientific positivism in the “humanities” of this period. Stemming from the tensions between “aesthetics from below” and “aesthetics from above,” European formalism expresses and achieves a heterogeneous aesthetic program, halfway between “experimental science” and the “science of lived experience.”</abstract>

Russian Formalism vs Germanic Formalism: exploring the concept of European Formalism

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The article responds to the current variability of research into linguistic laws and the explanation of these laws. We show basic features to approach linguistic laws in the field of quantitative linguistics and research on linguistic laws outside the field of language and text. Language laws are usually explained in terms of the language system—especially as economizing—or of the information structure of the text (Piantadosi 2014). One of the hallmarks of the transmission of linguistic laws outside the realm of language and text is that they provide other kinds of explanations (Torre et al. 2019). We want to show that the problem of linguistics in the explanation of linguistic laws lies primarily in its inability to clarify the internal structure of language material, and the influence of the theory or method used for sample processing on the result of law analysis—which was formulated by Peter Grzybek (2006). We would like to show that this is the reason why linguistics avoids explanations of linguistic laws.</abstract>

Explain the law: When the evidence is not enough

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Recent research in syntax and corpus linguistics has shown how the German <italic>Perfekt</italic> (present perfect) and <italic>Präteritum</italic> (simple past) are widely used in written language—even though these tenses are commonly described in DAF (German as a foreign language) materials as used respectively in the spoken and written forms. While these analyses only focus on written corpora, an extensive study on the use of tenses in spoken interaction is still missing. In this paper, I try to fill this gap in the literature by exploring the use of <italic>Perfekt</italic> and <italic>Präteritum</italic> in the recordings of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials, held in Frankfurt am Main, from December 20, 1963, to August 19, 1965, and available on the web page of the Fritz Bauer Institute. Textual analyses of the depositions of five former German prisoners of the Polish concentration camp show that German native speakers use both tenses in their spoken interactions. These results widely contradict their depiction in DAF materials, textbooks, and grammars. Furthermore, the types of <italic>Präteritum</italic> found are far more diverse than is traditionally held by scholars, who claimed that the use of this tense in spoken language is limited to verbs such as <italic>sein</italic> (to be), <italic>haben</italic> (to have) and modals, such as <italic>können</italic> (can), <italic>müssen</italic> (must), <italic>sollen</italic> (should), etc. The outcome of this study shows how the difference between <italic>Perfekt</italic> and <italic>Präteritum</italic> is determined by the subjective attitude of the speakers in relation to the information they want to convey.</abstract>

Grammatical Tenses and Communicative Intentions: A case study of the German Perfekt and Präteritum

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This article’s purpose is to analyse the derived forms of term frère in French culture, where its correspondent is <italic>frérot</italic>, and in Italian culture, where the correspondent is <italic>fratè</italic>. We will try to show how and why, if yes or not, the two terms represent the same realities in both languages; if there is a same semantic extension and how the speakers of both languages use the two derived forms in their conversations. This study is contrastive, and its objective is also to define convergences and divergences of the use of the two forms <italic>fratè</italic> and <italic>frérot</italic> in the languages under analysis, that is to say French and Italian.</abstract>

Termes d’adresse dans la société contemporaine: deux cultures à l’aune du regard du chercheur

Erratum

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 6 (2023): Issue 3 (December 2023)

Volume 6 (2023): Issue 2 (September 2023)

Volume 6 (2023): Issue 1 (June 2023)

Volume 5 (2022): Issue 3 (December 2022)

Volume 5 (2022): Issue 2 (September 2022)

Volume 5 (2022): Issue 1 (June 2022)

Volume 4 (2021): Issue 3 (December 2021)

Volume 4 (2021): Issue 2 (September 2021)

Volume 4 (2021): Issue 1 (June 2021)

Volume 3 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)

Volume 3 (2020): Issue 1 (June 2020)

Volume 2 (2019): Issue 1 (June 2019)

Volume 1 (2018): Issue 2 (December 2018)

Volume 1 (2018): Issue 1 (March 2018)

Linguistic Frontiers

 Linguistic Frontiers is a peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on research and collaboration in linguistics, life science, mathematics, social science and the humanities, applying formal and experimental approaches from linguistic interdisciplines like quantitative linguistics, psycholinguistics, biosemiotics, sociolinguistics, corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, natural language processing and linguistic field research. The guiding ambition of Linguistic Frontiers is to fruitfully transfer and apply methods and topics between these fields of linguistic research. Linguistic Frontiers also publishes reviews of scientific publications, reports on conferences and research programs. We welcome host editors for special theme issues as well.　Subject areas of study include, but are not limited to:  general linguistics (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics) quantitative linguistics, computational linguistics semiotics philosophy of language biosemiotics, biolinguistics, DNA linguistics cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics applied linguistics glottochronology, stylometry (critical) discourse analysis Linguistic Frontiers is published in English, but occasionally we accept special issues in other world languages (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German). Authors are requested to submit their papers in doc. format. We offer a double blinded review process with an average length of 3 months. Linguistic Frontiers is a continuation of the journal Czech and Slovak Linguistic Revue (CSLR) http://cslr.upol.cz/archive/, published in print and electronically at Palacký University since 2011. After 2018, CSLR with an extended international editorial board merged into Linguistic Frontiers and has been published by De Gruyter Open (now Sciendo) in electronic form only. Since 2021 we publish three issues per year (June, September, December).　  Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.   Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 