The computational linguistics community has recently revived its interest in the use of empirical
methods, thus creating a demand for large-scale
corpora. Numerous data-gathering efforts exist on
both sides of the Atlantic to provide wide-spread
access to both mono- and bi-lingual resources of
sufficient size and coverage for data-oriented
work, including the U.S. Linguistic Data Consortium, the European Corpus Initiative (ECI), ICAME, the British National Corpus (BNC), and recently, the European Language Resources
Association (ELRA). The rapid multiplication of
such efforts has made it critical for the language
engineering community to create a set of standards
for encoding corpora.
The MULTEXT project and the EAGLES subgroup on Text Representation have joined efforts
to develop a Corpus Encoding Standard (CES)
optimally suited for use in corpus linguistics and
language engineering applications, which can serve as a widely accepted set of encoding standards
for European corpus work. The first goal is the
identification of a minimal encoding level that
corpora must achieve to be considered standardized in terms of descriptive representation (marking of structural and linguistic information) as
well as general architecture (so as to be maximally
suited for use in a text database). The standard also
provides encoding conventions for more extensive
encoding of linguistic corpora, and for linguistic
The CES is an application of SGML (ISO 8879:
1986, Information Processing–Text and Office
Systems–Standard Generalized Markup Language). It is based on and in broad agreement with the
TEI Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and
Interchange. The TEI Guidelines were expressly
designed to be applicable across a broad range of
applications and disciplines and therefore treat not
only a vast array of textual phenomena, but are
also designed with an eye toward the maximum of
generality and flexibility. The CES, on the other
hand, treats a specific domain and set of applications, and can therefore be more restrictive and
prescriptive in its specifications. In addition, because the TEI is not complete, there are some areas
of importance for corpus encoding that the TEI
Guidelines do not cover. Therefore, the first major
task in developing the CES has involved evaluating, adapting, selecting from, and extending the
TEI Guidelines to meet the specific needs of corpus-based work.
Overview of the CES
In its present form, the CES provides the following:
• a set of metalanguage level recommendations (particular profile of SGML use, character sets, etc.);
• tagsets and a DTD for documentation of the
• tagsets, DTDs, and recommendations for encoding textual data, including written texts
across all genres, for the purposes of corpusbased work in language engineering.
The significant differences between the CES and
the TEI are:
• The CES does not adopt the TEI strategy of
building a single, large DTD using various
modules (see Burnard, 1995). Instead, the
CES comprises a set of individual DTDs for
use with different documents.
• CES headers are stored independently of the
text, in a central directory, in a separate
SGML document with its own DTD.
Types of information covered by the CES
We distinguish three broad categories of information which are of direct relevance for the encoding
of corpora for use in corpus linguistics.
This includes global information about the text, its
content, and its encoding. For example:
• bibliographic description of the document;
• documentation of character sets and entities;
• description of encoding conventions; etc.
B. Primary data
Within the primary data, we distinguish two types
• Gross structure: This includes universal text
elements down to the level of paragraph,
which is the smallest unit that can be identified language-independently; for example:
– structural units of text, such as volume,
chapter, etc., down to the level of paragraph; also footnotes, titles, headings, tables, figures, etc.;
– features of typography and layout, for previously printed texts: e.g., list item markers;
– non-textual information (graphics, etc.).
• Sub-paragraph structures: This includes elements appearing at the sub-paragraph level
which are usually signalled (sometimes ambiguously) by typography in the text and
which are language-dependent; for example:
– orthographic sentences, quotations;
– orthographic words;
– abbreviations, names, dates, highlighted
C. Linguistic annotation
This type of information enriches the text with the
results of some linguistic analyses; most often in
language engineering applications, such analysis
is at the sub-paragraph level. For example:
• morphological information;
• syntactic information (e.g., part of speech,
• alignment of parallel texts;
• prosody markup; etc.
As noted above, the CES header is stored in a
separate SGML document with its own DTD, and
all text headers for the corpus are stored in a central
directory together with a corpus header describing
the corpus as a whole. This strategy has the following advantages:
• Parts or all of a corpus may be stored in
different directories or in remote sites, while
information about the component texts is
retained in a single repository.
• The header can have a DTD which is different from the DTD for the text, which in turn
– enables a modularity that SGML does not
provide, so that it is possible to define the
content of elements common to the header
and text (e.g., title, author, etc.) in a way
which is appropriate to each context, and
so that changes to the same element in one
context do not affect the other.
– in those cases where it is appropriate, enables using the TEI header with a CES
– can faciliate processing by corpus-handling tools, for which the header is often
irrelevant, since the text can be easily
– conversely, it enables using the CES header with an SGML-encoded text which is
not itself CES conformant; this is advantageous in the early stages of corpus preparation, where the text may temporarily
be in a freer SGML format such as Rainbow, TEI Lite, FORMEX, etc.
• The user does not necessarily need to know
where a corpus or text is stored to access it.
The CES header, which is now very nearly a
subset of the TEI header, is an area which needs
more development. We see that it will eventually
be possible to provide for precise pieces of information in a rigid structure, tailor-made to suit the
needs of corpus work, that will facilitate retrieval.
We also see the need to provide additional fields
for the headers of annotation data. By the time of
the ALLC/ACH conference the CES header
should be more fully developed along these lines.
Encoding primary data
The CES has also been developed taking into
account several practical realities surrounding the
encoding of corpora intended for use in linguistic
research and applications. In particular, at the present time and for the foreseeable future, the majority of corpora will be adapted from legacy data,
that is, pre-existing electronic data encoded in
some arbitrary format (typically, word processor,
typesetter, etc. formats intended for printing). The
vast quantities of data involved and the difficulty
(and cost) of the translation into usable formats
imply that the CES must be designed in such a way
that this translation does not require prohibitively
large amounts of manual intervention. In many
instances, the markup that would be most desirable for the linguist is not achievable by automatic
means. Therefore, the CES provides a series of
Document Type Definitions (DTDs) for various
levels of primary data encoding, corresponding to
increasing enhancement in the amount of encoded
information and increasing precision in the identification of text elements. Among these levels, the
CES identifies a minimum level of encoding required to make the corpus (re)usable across all
possible language engineering applications.
The development of this part of the CES has
demanded the most detailed consideration and
will receive ample treatment in the presentation.
Briefly, it has required:
• Identification of those elements which are
automatically retrievable from legacy data,
and a mapping among elements acccording
to increasing degrees of refinement (and,
usually, cost of capture)–for example, italics
can be automatically transduced to <hi>
(highlighted); it usually requires human intervention to determine that the highlighting
signifies a foreign word (<foreign>), and
even more work may be required to ascertain
that the element is a technical term (<term>);
thus we can identify a sequence of increasingly precise encodings <hi> -> <foreign>
-> <term> , which in turn enables defining
the minimum, recommended, and desirable
• Provision of a precise semantics for tag content, and in particular for those elements of
special interest for corpus linguistics (sentence, word, etc.).
• Identification and provision of encoding specifications for those elements which comprise unbreakable “tokens” (names, dates, etc.),
based on linguistic criteria as well as processing needs.
• specifications for encoding dialogue, and
especially for handling the overlapping hierarchies that sometimes exist between dialogue and sentence markup.
Encoding linguistic annotation
The CES provides a set of DTDs for encoding
linguistic analyses commonly associated with
texts in language engineering, currently including:
• Segmentation of the text into sentences and
• Morpho-syntactic tagging;
• Parallel text alignment.
The CES adopts a strategy whereby annotation
information is not merged with the original, but
rather retained in separate SGML documents and
linked to the original or other annotation documents. Linkage between documents is based on
the HyTime-based TEI addressing mechanisms.
This approach has several advantages for corpusbased research:
• It avoids the creation of potentially unwieldy
documents– envision, in a worst case, a single document containing segmentation and
part of speech markup, plus markup for
alignment with translations in several
languages, plus alignment with the speech
recording, plus variant part of speech taggings from several taggers, etc.
• The original or hub document remains stable
and is not modified by any process which
may add annotation.
• It avoids problems with markup containing
• Different versions of the same kind of annotation (e.g., different POS annotation) can be
associated with the text.
• Annotation can be accomplished by associating the SGML original or other annotation
documents with other, pre-existing documents–e.g., instead of generating a document
containing morphosyntactic markup and linking it to the original, links could be made
directly with lexicon entries.
Thus, in our scheme the hyper-document comprising each text in the corpus and its annotations
consists of several documents. The base or “hub”
document is the unannotated document containing
only primary data markup. The hub document is
“read only” and is not modified in the annotation
process. Each annotation document is a proper
SGML document with a DTD, containing annotation information linked to its appropriate location
in the hub document. The precise data architecture, including linking mechanisms, etc. will be
described in full in the presentation.
The CES exists in a first draft, and the standard
will continue to evolve on the basis of input and
feedback from users. We see this process as essential; it is not possible to develop a priori a standard
which can address every need for corpus-based
work. It is also necessary to allow for the continued development of the CES even while large
amounts of text are being encoded according to its
specifications. Therefore, the CES is being developed “bottom-up”, beginning with relatively minimal specifications to which we can can easily
add, rather than attempting to be comprehensive
at the outset. In principle, earlier versions of the
CES will be upwardly compatible with later versions, so that texts encoded using earlier versions
are not rendered obsolete.
At the ALLC/ACH conference in Paris in 1994,
we presented a paper outlining a broad set of
encoding principles for the design of an encoding
scheme suited to linguistic corpora. This paper is
intended as a complement to the earlier paper, by
giving the details of the encoding scheme that has
been built on those principles. We will provide a
fuller overview in the presentation of various technical details and considerations for the encoding
of linguistic corpora, not covered here due to lack
If this content appears in violation of your intellectual property rights, or you see errors or omissions, please reach out to Scott B. Weingart to discuss removing or amending the materials.
Hosted at University of Bergen
June 25, 1996 - June 29, 1996
147 works by 190 authors indexed
Scott Weingart has print abstract book that needs to be scanned; certain abstracts also available on dh-abstracts github page. (https://github.com/ADHO/dh-abstracts/tree/master/data)
Conference website: https://web.archive.org/web/19990224202037/www.hd.uib.no/allc-ach96.html