TYTO – A Collaborative Research Tool for Linked Linguistic Data

  • Andrea C. Schalley


In this paper, I introduce a computational tool, TYTO (“Typology Tool”), that utilises Semantic Web technologies in order to provide novel ways to process, integrate, and query cross-linguistic data. Its data store incorporates a set of ontologies (comprising linguistic examples, annotations, language background information, and metadata) backed by a logic reasoner software. This allows for highly targeted querying, and, with enough data on the relevant interest areas, TYTO can return answers to rather specific typological questions such as ‘Which other languages in the North America, in addition to Yuchi, do encode senior kin and in-group (such as belonging to the same ethnic group) in a suffixal case marking system?’ TYTO’s data store can be extended with additional ontologies and adapted to allow for project-specific analyses of linguistic data. It is further designed to facilitate collaboration and allow multi-user contributions, including automatic integration of data submitted at different stages by different contributors.


Knowledge Base Semantic Concept Language Universal Language Data Version Control System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bickel B, Comrie B, Haspelmath M (2008) Leipzig glossing rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Available online at Accessed on 2011-11-27
  2. BMIR (2011) The Protégé Ontology Editor and Knowledge Acquisition System. Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. Available online at Accessed on 2011-11-27
  3. Borkowski A, Schalley A (2011) Going beyond archiving - a collaborative tool for typological research. In: Thieberger N, Barwick L, Billington R, Vaughan J (eds) Sustainable data from digital research: Humanities perspectives on digital scholarship, Custom Book Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne Google Scholar
  4. Bow C, Huges B, Bird S (2003) Towards a general model of interlinear text. In: Proceedings of EMELD 2003, available online at Accessed on 2011-11-27
  5. Comrie B, Smith N (1977) Lingua descriptive studies: questionnaire. Lingua 42:1–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Comrie B, Croft W, Lehmann C, Zaefferer D (1993) A framework for descriptive grammars. In: Crochetière A, Boulanger JC, Ouellon C (eds) Actes du XVe Congrès International des Linguistes/Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Linguists, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, Sainte-Foy, pp 159–170 Google Scholar
  7. Corbett G (2007) Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83(1):8–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cysouw M, Good J, Albu M, Bibiko HJ (2005) Can gold ‘cope’ with wals? retrofitting an ontology onto the world atlas of languages structures. In: Proceedings of EMELD 2005. Available online at Accessed on 2011-11-27
  9. Dimitriadis A, Windhouwer M, Saulwick A, Goedemans R, Bíró T (2009) How to integrate databases without starting a typology war: the typological database system. In: Everaert M, Musgrave S, Dimitriadis A (eds) The Use of Databases in Cross-Linguistic Studies, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 155–207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dryer M, Haspelmath M (eds) (2011) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Max Planck Digital Library, Munich, available online at Accessed on 2011-11-27. Google Scholar
  11. Evans N, Levinson S (2009) The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32:429–492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galoes (n.d.) Available online at Accessed on 2011-11-27.
  13. GOLD (2010) Generalised Ontology for Linguistic Description. Available online at Accessed on 2011-11-27.
  14. Haspelmath M (2010) Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3):663–687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. JasperForge (2000-2010) Jasperreports: Open Source Java Reporting Library. Available online at Accessed on 2011-11-27.
  16. Lewis M (ed) (2009) Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. SIL International, Dallas, online version available at Accessed on 2011-11-27. Google Scholar
  17. McGuinness D, van Harmelen F (2004) Owl web ontology language. overview. W3C Recommendation 10 February, available online at Accessed on 2011-11-27
  18. Munro R, Nathan D (2005) Towards portability and interoperability for linguistic annotation and language-specific ontologies. In: Proceedings of EMELD 2005, available online at Accessed on 2011-11-27
  19. Nordhoff S (2008) Electronic reference grammars for typology: challenges & solutions. Language Documentation and Conservation 2(2):296–324 Google Scholar
  20. Prud’hommeaux E, Seaborne A (2008) SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Recommendation 15 January, available online at Accessed on 2011-11-27.
  21. Rooryck J, Smith N, Liptak A, Blakemore editors D (2010) Special issue on Evans & Levinson’s “The myth of language universals”. Lingua 120(12):2651–2758 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schalley A (in press) Many languages, one knowledge base: Introducing a collaborative ontolinguistic research tool. In: Schalley A (ed) Practical Theories and Empirical Practice, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia Google Scholar
  23. SSWL (n.d.) Database of Syntactic Structures of the World’s Languages. Available online at Accessed on 2011-11-27.
  24. Zaefferer D (2006) Realizing Humboldt’s dream: Cross-linguistic grammatography as data-base creation. In: Ameka F, Dench A, Evans N (eds) Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar-Writing, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 113–136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Griffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations