@inproceedings{konrad:12023:sign-lang:lrec,
  author    = {Konrad, Reiner and Hanke, Thomas and K{\"o}nig, Susanne and Langer, Gabriele and Matthes, Silke and Nishio, Rie and Regen, Anja},
  title     = {From form to function. A database approach to handle lexicon building and spotting token forms in sign languages},
  pages     = {87--94},
  editor    = {Crasborn, Onno and Efthimiou, Eleni and Fotinea, Stavroula-Evita and Hanke, Thomas and Kristoffersen, Jette and Mesch, Johanna},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the {LREC2012} 5th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between Corpus and Lexicon},
  maintitle = {8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation ({LREC} 2012)},
  publisher = {{European Language Resources Association (ELRA)}},
  address   = {Istanbul, Turkey},
  day       = {27},
  month     = may,
  year      = {2012},
  language  = {english},
  url       = {https://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/lrec/pub/12023.html},
  abstract  = {Using a database with type entries that are linked to token tags in transcripts has the advantage that consistency in lemmatising is not depending on ID-glosses. In iLex types are organised in different levels. The type hierarchy allows for analysing form, iconic value, and conventionalised meanings of a sign (sub-types). Tokens can be linked either to types or sub-types.
\par
We expanded this structure for modelling sign inflection and modification as well as phonological variation. Differences between token and type form are grouped by features, called qualifiers, and specified by feature values (vocabularies). Built-in qualifiers allow for spotting the form difference when lemmatising. This facilitates lemma revision and helps to get a clear picture of how inflection, modification, or phonological variation is distributed among lexical signs. This is also a strong indicator for further POS tagging. In the long term this approach will extend the lexical database from citation-form closer to  full-form.
\par
The paper will explain the type hierarchy and introduce the qualifiers used up-to-date. Further on the handling and how the data are displayed will be illustrated. As we report work in progress in the context of the DGS corpus project, the modelling is far from complete.}
}

@inproceedings{nishio:10026:sign-lang:lrec,
  author    = {Nishio, Rie and Hong, Sung-Eun and K{\"o}nig, Susanne and Konrad, Reiner and Langer, Gabriele and Hanke, Thomas and Rathmann, Christian},
  title     = {Elicitation methods in the {DGS} ({German} {Sign} {Language}) Corpus Project},
  pages     = {178--185},
  editor    = {Dreuw, Philippe and Efthimiou, Eleni and Hanke, Thomas and Johnston, Trevor and Mart{\'i}nez Ruiz, Gregorio and Schembri, Adam},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the {LREC2010} 4th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpora and Sign Language Technologies},
  maintitle = {7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation ({LREC} 2010)},
  publisher = {{European Language Resources Association (ELRA)}},
  address   = {Valletta, Malta},
  day       = {22--23},
  month     = may,
  year      = {2010},
  language  = {english},
  url       = {https://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/lrec/pub/10026.html},
  abstract  = {The DGS Corpus Project is a long-term project with two major aims: (i) to establish an extensive corpus of DGS and (ii) to develop a comprehensive dictionary of DGS-German based on the analysis of the corpus data. During the first three years the main focus is on data collection. Before setting up the corpus design we conducted a survey to get an overview on the existing elicitation materials. The design of our data collection contains a variety of different stimuli and tasks with the special attention to free conversation, dialogues and monologues. To this effect, a range of possible discourse modes were considered: narration and renarration, discussion, report and description. The stimuli include pictures, picture stories, non-verbal film clips (e.g. cartoons and realistic film clips) and signed movies. In order to minimize the influence of the surrounding spoken/written language, written German is not used if possible. Introduction and explanation of each task is provided in DGS in form of movie clips. All tasks were tested in a pilot phase to examine their feasibility and reliability. Some of the tasks tested needed to go through several rounds of modifications while others did not work at all and thus were excluded from the data collection. In this paper, we not only present the tasks for elicitation and stimuli, but also describe their development process. We also discuss reasons why some stimuli were adopted from other projects while others had to be developed specifically for the purpose of our project.}
}