JOURNAL ARTICLE
On the implementation of Latin part-of-speech taggers in intertextuality analysis: TreeTagger, CLTK, Cracovia system, LatinCy, and ChatGPT compared.
Published In: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 2025, v. 40, n. 1. P. 329 1 of 3
Database: Academic Search Ultimate 2 of 3
Authored By: Wittweiler, Michael; Schropp, Franziska; Konrad, Thomas E; Revellio, Marie; Feichtinger, Barbara 3 of 3
Abstract
The article focuses on evaluating Latin part-of-speech (POS) taggers to improve digital-assisted intertextuality analysis by filtering text matches based on grammatical criteria derived from Mare Revellio's historical text-reuse grammar (HTRG). The study compares several POS taggers—including the transformer-based Cracovia system, the probabilistic TreeTagger, the Classical Language Toolkit (CLTK), LatinCy, and ChatGPT—using Latin texts by Virgil and Jerome. Results show that the Cracovia system achieves the highest accuracy (F2-measure of 0.9627), benefiting from transformer architecture and enriched training data, while ChatGPT, despite high precision, has lower recall and is less reliable for this specific task. The authors recommend applying POS tagging to whole sentences with context-aware comparison (implementation 3b) to best approximate traditional hermeneutic methods and enhance citation detection in ancient Latin literature.
Additional Information
- Source:Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. 2025/04, Vol. 40, Issue 1, p329
- Document Type:Article
- Subject Area:History
- Publication Date:2025
- ISSN:2055-768X
- DOI:10.1093/llc/fqae078
- Accession Number:184296825
- Copyright Statement:Copyright of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Looking to go deeper into this topic? Look for more articles on EBSCOhost.