Suchergebnisse

Russian school of book science attributed to the Continental European bibliography school is at present one of the strongest since it has deep traditions of this science which have for a long time been influencing (and are still influencing) the development of the book science in the neighboring countries, the republics of the former Soviet Union and other countries. This research is a work on the book science history the object of which is an independent book science which has formed in the 2nd – 3rd decade of the 20th century in Russia when its relation with bibliography playing the generalizing role of the book science radically changed. The object of research is new on the one part due to its non-traditional scholarly organizational aspect and on the other part it's new in chronological sense because no other research of the history of the book science has been carried out which included all period of independent existence of the Russian book science, i.e. the 20th century. Thus this paper is the first attempt to discover systematically the development of the Russian book science in the 20th century with the help of scholarly organizational system analysis – such was the aim of this research. Organizational system of the Russian book science was analyzed in three levels: book science institutions, book science conferences and book science press. Despite the method of analysis used, there was no attempt to separate mechanically the elements of the research since due to their close interaction a completely isolated (at least in the first stage of the research) research would have been neither effective nor probably generally possible. Due to the limited size of the paper and broadness of the topic only the most notable and the most significant moments of organization of the Russian book science are presented. Besides, the emphasis on autonomy of the book science as such pushed the organizational status of bibliography and librarianship, which are gaining greater and greater independence in the latter years, beyond the scope of the research. In order to reach the aim the following tasks were formulated: 1. to find out the most important institutions, events (conferences) and the state of the press of the Russian book science in the 20th century; 2. to show the change of the general level of the Russian book science organization in the 20th century, to distinguish between its stages of development, more prominent tendencies and the causes of changes; 3. to show the significance of manifestations of science organization to the general development of the book science; 4. to check the hypothesis about analytical (individual) and synthesized (general) research of the distinguished levels of science organization as a means for revealing the development of the Russian book science in the 20th century. The following general scientific and theoretical methods of research were used: analysis, synthesis, bibliographic and comparative (comparative – historical, comparative analysis). The researched showed that organizational system of the book science being the most public, human factor and practice related side of the science has always reacted sensitively to political-economical factors and was under their influence. Moreover, it was proved that each individual level of the book science organization and especially their synthesized research reflects the general development of the Russian book science and corresponds to its traditional periodization. On the one hand, this fact proved the hypothesis raised at the beginning of the research and, on the other hand, it undoubtedly pointed to the fact that the scholarly organizational aspect was one of the most important and strongest arguments in determining chronological boundaries of the stages of development of the Russian book science in the 20th century.

Russian school of book science attributed to the Continental European bibliography school is at present one of the strongest since it has deep traditions of this science which have for a long time been influencing (and are still influencing) the development of the book science in the neighboring countries, the republics of the former Soviet Union and other countries. This research is a work on the book science history the object of which is an independent book science which has formed in the 2nd – 3rd decade of the 20th century in Russia when its relation with bibliography playing the generalizing role of the book science radically changed. The object of research is new on the one part due to its non-traditional scholarly organizational aspect and on the other part it's new in chronological sense because no other research of the history of the book science has been carried out which included all period of independent existence of the Russian book science, i.e. the 20th century. Thus this paper is the first attempt to discover systematically the development of the Russian book science in the 20th century with the help of scholarly organizational system analysis – such was the aim of this research. Organizational system of the Russian book science was analyzed in three levels: book science institutions, book science conferences and book science press. Despite the method of analysis used, there was no attempt to separate mechanically the elements of the research since due to their close interaction a completely isolated (at least in the first stage of the research) research would have been neither effective nor probably generally possible. Due to the limited size of the paper and broadness of the topic only the most notable and the most significant moments of organization of the Russian book science are presented. Besides, the emphasis on autonomy of the book science as such pushed the organizational status of bibliography and librarianship, which are gaining greater and greater independence in the latter years, beyond the scope of the research. In order to reach the aim the following tasks were formulated: 1. to find out the most important institutions, events (conferences) and the state of the press of the Russian book science in the 20th century; 2. to show the change of the general level of the Russian book science organization in the 20th century, to distinguish between its stages of development, more prominent tendencies and the causes of changes; 3. to show the significance of manifestations of science organization to the general development of the book science; 4. to check the hypothesis about analytical (individual) and synthesized (general) research of the distinguished levels of science organization as a means for revealing the development of the Russian book science in the 20th century. The following general scientific and theoretical methods of research were used: analysis, synthesis, bibliographic and comparative (comparative – historical, comparative analysis). The researched showed that organizational system of the book science being the most public, human factor and practice related side of the science has always reacted sensitively to political-economical factors and was under their influence. Moreover, it was proved that each individual level of the book science organization and especially their synthesized research reflects the general development of the Russian book science and corresponds to its traditional periodization. On the one hand, this fact proved the hypothesis raised at the beginning of the research and, on the other hand, it undoubtedly pointed to the fact that the scholarly organizational aspect was one of the most important and strongest arguments in determining chronological boundaries of the stages of development of the Russian book science in the 20th century.

Russian school of book science attributed to the Continental European bibliography school is at present one of the strongest since it has deep traditions of this science which have for a long time been influencing (and are still influencing) the development of the book science in the neighboring countries, the republics of the former Soviet Union and other countries. This research is a work on the book science history the object of which is an independent book science which has formed in the 2nd – 3rd decade of the 20th century in Russia when its relation with bibliography playing the generalizing role of the book science radically changed. The object of research is new on the one part due to its non-traditional scholarly organizational aspect and on the other part it's new in chronological sense because no other research of the history of the book science has been carried out which included all period of independent existence of the Russian book science, i.e. the 20th century. Thus this paper is the first attempt to discover systematically the development of the Russian book science in the 20th century with the help of scholarly organizational system analysis – such was the aim of this research. Organizational system of the Russian book science was analyzed in three levels: book science institutions, book science conferences and book science press. Despite the method of analysis used, there was no attempt to separate mechanically the elements of the research since due to their close interaction a completely isolated (at least in the first stage of the research) research would have been neither effective nor probably generally possible. Due to the limited size of the paper and broadness of the topic only the most notable and the most significant moments of organization of the Russian book science are presented. Besides, the emphasis on autonomy of the book science as such pushed the organizational status of bibliography and librarianship, which are gaining greater and greater independence in the latter years, beyond the scope of the research. In order to reach the aim the following tasks were formulated: 1. to find out the most important institutions, events (conferences) and the state of the press of the Russian book science in the 20th century; 2. to show the change of the general level of the Russian book science organization in the 20th century, to distinguish between its stages of development, more prominent tendencies and the causes of changes; 3. to show the significance of manifestations of science organization to the general development of the book science; 4. to check the hypothesis about analytical (individual) and synthesized (general) research of the distinguished levels of science organization as a means for revealing the development of the Russian book science in the 20th century. The following general scientific and theoretical methods of research were used: analysis, synthesis, bibliographic and comparative (comparative – historical, comparative analysis). The researched showed that organizational system of the book science being the most public, human factor and practice related side of the science has always reacted sensitively to political-economical factors and was under their influence. Moreover, it was proved that each individual level of the book science organization and especially their synthesized research reflects the general development of the Russian book science and corresponds to its traditional periodization. On the one hand, this fact proved the hypothesis raised at the beginning of the research and, on the other hand, it undoubtedly pointed to the fact that the scholarly organizational aspect was one of the most important and strongest arguments in determining chronological boundaries of the stages of development of the Russian book science in the 20th century.

Russian school of book science attributed to the Continental European bibliography school is at present one of the strongest since it has deep traditions of this science which have for a long time been influencing (and are still influencing) the development of the book science in the neighboring countries, the republics of the former Soviet Union and other countries. This research is a work on the book science history the object of which is an independent book science which has formed in the 2nd – 3rd decade of the 20th century in Russia when its relation with bibliography playing the generalizing role of the book science radically changed. The object of research is new on the one part due to its non-traditional scholarly organizational aspect and on the other part it's new in chronological sense because no other research of the history of the book science has been carried out which included all period of independent existence of the Russian book science, i.e. the 20th century. Thus this paper is the first attempt to discover systematically the development of the Russian book science in the 20th century with the help of scholarly organizational system analysis – such was the aim of this research. Organizational system of the Russian book science was analyzed in three levels: book science institutions, book science conferences and book science press. Despite the method of analysis used, there was no attempt to separate mechanically the elements of the research since due to their close interaction a completely isolated (at least in the first stage of the research) research would have been neither effective nor probably generally possible. Due to the limited size of the paper and broadness of the topic only the most notable and the most significant moments of organization of the Russian book science are presented. Besides, the emphasis on autonomy of the book science as such pushed the organizational status of bibliography and librarianship, which are gaining greater and greater independence in the latter years, beyond the scope of the research. In order to reach the aim the following tasks were formulated: 1. to find out the most important institutions, events (conferences) and the state of the press of the Russian book science in the 20th century; 2. to show the change of the general level of the Russian book science organization in the 20th century, to distinguish between its stages of development, more prominent tendencies and the causes of changes; 3. to show the significance of manifestations of science organization to the general development of the book science; 4. to check the hypothesis about analytical (individual) and synthesized (general) research of the distinguished levels of science organization as a means for revealing the development of the Russian book science in the 20th century. The following general scientific and theoretical methods of research were used: analysis, synthesis, bibliographic and comparative (comparative – historical, comparative analysis). The researched showed that organizational system of the book science being the most public, human factor and practice related side of the science has always reacted sensitively to political-economical factors and was under their influence. Moreover, it was proved that each individual level of the book science organization and especially their synthesized research reflects the general development of the Russian book science and corresponds to its traditional periodization. On the one hand, this fact proved the hypothesis raised at the beginning of the research and, on the other hand, it undoubtedly pointed to the fact that the scholarly organizational aspect was one of the most important and strongest arguments in determining chronological boundaries of the stages of development of the Russian book science in the 20th century.

Summary The object of the master thesis paper is the political attitudes and activities of Bronys Raila who was a famous Lithuanian intellectual, former third front line solder who joined the left–wing campus after the World War II, during the 4th decade of the 20th century. This theme has not received any attention from the researchers of historiography yet. The research has been conducted on the basis of vast historical resources. After it has been conducted, it emerged that Bronys Raila was a controversial personality of Lithuanian history of the 20th century who had not any clear ideological attitudes and who was distinguished by his radical views and activities, especially during the 4th decade of the mentioned century. Early in life, Bronys Raila was influenced by the leftist ideas and, for some time, he collaborated in the social–democratic press; further, during the period of 1930 and 1931, he worked in the journal "Trečiasis frontas" (The Third Front) of the leftist procommunist Lithuanian writers. He was one of its ideological leaders, which he himself never fancied to admit. After the Lithuanian government prohibited its printing, the third front line solders dispersed. However, Bronys Raila's retreat was influenced not by his ideological motives but by the external factors. The most influential ones were the severe critic of the Lithuanian communist party towards the third front line solders, constant attacks (even curses) of Bronys Raila in the communist press, which influenced Bronys Raila's backslide from the "left–wing" and presumably from the evolution to the communist regime. It is fairly important to note that Bronys Raila could no longer publish after "Trečiasis frontas" was closed. After he joined the nationalists, Bronys Raila became a severe opponent of his former congenial, the leftists. He constantly criticized his former friends in the nationalist press. A true critical action took place in 1936 when Bronys Raila openly and ruthlessly criticized the leftist journal "Literatūra" (Literature), the very core of which consisted of the third front line solders. At the age of twenty seven, in several articles, Bronys Raila openly criticized its editor Vincas Krėvė and accused its employees of the propaganda of cultural bolshevist ideas in Lithuania. In this case, he was unerring. As he was in the Lithuanian Nationalist League, he was perpetually publishing, collaborated in several periodical nationalist publications simultaneously, and worked in the state radio. During the short period in the 4th decade, Bronys Raila became one of the ideological leaders of nationalists. The future minister of pro–German LAF propaganda, in the middle of the 4th decade, Bronys Raila was incredulous at the social, economical achievements of Nazi Germany and the very ideology of National Socialism due to the openly demonstrated expansionism of Germany. However, at the end of the mentioned decade, the Nazi state order became appropriate for him due to the implementation of the "stepped–up nationalism" in Lithuania. In the middle of the 4th decade and during its second half, the reflections of Bronys Raila on the political order disclosed his sympathies solely to the national state that was ruled by a strong, dynamic and strict power. According to him, the power of the authoritarian regime of Antanas Smetona was a "mild one". Bronys Raila's sympathies to the cult of a leader and the total execution of opposition were enhanced by the establishment of total regimes in Europe at the end of the decade. At this time, his articles reflected the ideal of the "Lithuanian Lithuania" that excluded Poles, Germans and Jews as its full citizens.

Summary The object of the master thesis paper is the political attitudes and activities of Bronys Raila who was a famous Lithuanian intellectual, former third front line solder who joined the left–wing campus after the World War II, during the 4th decade of the 20th century. This theme has not received any attention from the researchers of historiography yet. The research has been conducted on the basis of vast historical resources. After it has been conducted, it emerged that Bronys Raila was a controversial personality of Lithuanian history of the 20th century who had not any clear ideological attitudes and who was distinguished by his radical views and activities, especially during the 4th decade of the mentioned century. Early in life, Bronys Raila was influenced by the leftist ideas and, for some time, he collaborated in the social–democratic press; further, during the period of 1930 and 1931, he worked in the journal "Trečiasis frontas" (The Third Front) of the leftist procommunist Lithuanian writers. He was one of its ideological leaders, which he himself never fancied to admit. After the Lithuanian government prohibited its printing, the third front line solders dispersed. However, Bronys Raila's retreat was influenced not by his ideological motives but by the external factors. The most influential ones were the severe critic of the Lithuanian communist party towards the third front line solders, constant attacks (even curses) of Bronys Raila in the communist press, which influenced Bronys Raila's backslide from the "left–wing" and presumably from the evolution to the communist regime. It is fairly important to note that Bronys Raila could no longer publish after "Trečiasis frontas" was closed. After he joined the nationalists, Bronys Raila became a severe opponent of his former congenial, the leftists. He constantly criticized his former friends in the nationalist press. A true critical action took place in 1936 when Bronys Raila openly and ruthlessly criticized the leftist journal "Literatūra" (Literature), the very core of which consisted of the third front line solders. At the age of twenty seven, in several articles, Bronys Raila openly criticized its editor Vincas Krėvė and accused its employees of the propaganda of cultural bolshevist ideas in Lithuania. In this case, he was unerring. As he was in the Lithuanian Nationalist League, he was perpetually publishing, collaborated in several periodical nationalist publications simultaneously, and worked in the state radio. During the short period in the 4th decade, Bronys Raila became one of the ideological leaders of nationalists. The future minister of pro–German LAF propaganda, in the middle of the 4th decade, Bronys Raila was incredulous at the social, economical achievements of Nazi Germany and the very ideology of National Socialism due to the openly demonstrated expansionism of Germany. However, at the end of the mentioned decade, the Nazi state order became appropriate for him due to the implementation of the "stepped–up nationalism" in Lithuania. In the middle of the 4th decade and during its second half, the reflections of Bronys Raila on the political order disclosed his sympathies solely to the national state that was ruled by a strong, dynamic and strict power. According to him, the power of the authoritarian regime of Antanas Smetona was a "mild one". Bronys Raila's sympathies to the cult of a leader and the total execution of opposition were enhanced by the establishment of total regimes in Europe at the end of the decade. At this time, his articles reflected the ideal of the "Lithuanian Lithuania" that excluded Poles, Germans and Jews as its full citizens.

An important role in the formation of modern Lithuanian society was played by pharmacists who at the beginning of the 20th century were one of the most numerous parts of Lithuanian intelligentsia. They chose a job in a pharmacy not as a mission of life but due to political, social, and economic reasons. The majority of pharmacists were children of peasants who had refused to obey their parents and study in the seminary of priests. Those people who had been ousted from gymnasiums because of an anticzarist activity or those who had not finished school due to the lack of money also became pharmacists. Young men who had chosen a way of self-support left to the biggest cities of Russia and started the practice of an apprentice in a pharmacy. Later, they took examinations to become an assistant of a pharmacist, and after two years of studies at university, they took examinations of a pharmacist at last. Having got a diploma, they usually did not return to their motherland because there was a large network of pharmacies; thus, business conditions were harder, of course. They established pharmacies in various provinces of Russia most often, and it is supposed that only 10% of Lithuanian pharmacists worked in their native country. Living and working in a Russian environment, however, they enshrined national patriotic ideas, were active participants in social activities, published a Lithuanian professional newspaper "Farmaceutų reikalai" (translation, "Matters of pharmacists"), and attempted to unite all Lithuanians living in czarist Russia to struggle against denationalization, to encourage people to return to their motherland, and to work for its good. This article deals with the path for a career of Lithuanian pharmacists in czarist Russia and their national patriotic activity.

An important role in the formation of modern Lithuanian society was played by pharmacists who at the beginning of the 20th century were one of the most numerous parts of Lithuanian intelligentsia. They chose a job in a pharmacy not as a mission of life but due to political, social, and economic reasons. The majority of pharmacists were children of peasants who had refused to obey their parents and study in the seminary of priests. Those people who had been ousted from gymnasiums because of an anticzarist activity or those who had not finished school due to the lack of money also became pharmacists. Young men who had chosen a way of self-support left to the biggest cities of Russia and started the practice of an apprentice in a pharmacy. Later, they took examinations to become an assistant of a pharmacist, and after two years of studies at university, they took examinations of a pharmacist at last. Having got a diploma, they usually did not return to their motherland because there was a large network of pharmacies; thus, business conditions were harder, of course. They established pharmacies in various provinces of Russia most often, and it is supposed that only 10% of Lithuanian pharmacists worked in their native country. Living and working in a Russian environment, however, they enshrined national patriotic ideas, were active participants in social activities, published a Lithuanian professional newspaper "Farmaceutų reikalai" (translation, "Matters of pharmacists"), and attempted to unite all Lithuanians living in czarist Russia to struggle against denationalization, to encourage people to return to their motherland, and to work for its good. This article deals with the path for a career of Lithuanian pharmacists in czarist Russia and their national patriotic activity.

The second half of the 19th century is related to 1pskr.11 movements in different countries. During this period many Lithuanians left their homeland. The fact that Lithuania was situated between Russia and Germany facilitated their emigration. The largest number of Lithuanians migrated to the USA (1pskr.1 from the ports of Germany and Liepaja). The emigration of Lithuanians to America is a rather widely discussed topic. There are numerous historical sources about their social, cultural, political and everyday life beyond the Atlantic ocean. However, we should not forget that the U.S.A. was not the only place Lithuanians migrated to. As the railway lines were built, communication with the neighbour states became more convenient, therefore, Lithuanians moved to industrial Latvian cities, such as Riga, Liepaja and Jelgava, seeking job as at that time Lithuania was still an underdeveloped agrarian country. The biggest number of Lithuanians gathered in Riga – the centre of the governorate of Livland at that time, where local ethnic minorities had quite good opportunities to 1pskr.1 themselves in culture and education. Having these conditions Lithuanians began to form groups, which later became large fellowships with prominent representatives, active movement and merits to both Latvia and Lithuania. At present there is a lack of thorough researches about the activity of Lithuanian fellowships in Latvia. Nevertheless, a few researches were made by both Latvian and Lithuanian researchers. However, they only discussed life of Lithuanians in 1pskr.11n general but did not 1pskr.1 education and culture. For this reason in my research I focus on educational and cultural activity of Lithuanian fellowships in Riga from the end of 19th until the first half of 20th century. What concerns Lithuanian imigrants and the activity of their fellowships in Riga, first of all we have to find out the reasons why Lithuanians migrated to this seaport of Russian empire; what were political and economical conditions in the governorates of Kaunas, Kuršas and Livland and later in the republics of Lithuania and Latvia; what were the reasons of such choice; why Lithuanians were able to 1pskr.1 themselves more actively in Riga than in Lithuania. It is important to find out what motivated Lithuanians to establish fellowships and what was the nature of their activity. To summarize the research, it can be said that the first features of socio-cultural activity of Lithuanian fellowships in Riga were noticeable in the end of 19th century. With the help of fellowships Lithuanians cultivated Lithuanian culture through education, press and participated in politics.

The second half of the 19th century is related to 1pskr.11 movements in different countries. During this period many Lithuanians left their homeland. The fact that Lithuania was situated between Russia and Germany facilitated their emigration. The largest number of Lithuanians migrated to the USA (1pskr.1 from the ports of Germany and Liepaja). The emigration of Lithuanians to America is a rather widely discussed topic. There are numerous historical sources about their social, cultural, political and everyday life beyond the Atlantic ocean. However, we should not forget that the U.S.A. was not the only place Lithuanians migrated to. As the railway lines were built, communication with the neighbour states became more convenient, therefore, Lithuanians moved to industrial Latvian cities, such as Riga, Liepaja and Jelgava, seeking job as at that time Lithuania was still an underdeveloped agrarian country. The biggest number of Lithuanians gathered in Riga – the centre of the governorate of Livland at that time, where local ethnic minorities had quite good opportunities to 1pskr.1 themselves in culture and education. Having these conditions Lithuanians began to form groups, which later became large fellowships with prominent representatives, active movement and merits to both Latvia and Lithuania. At present there is a lack of thorough researches about the activity of Lithuanian fellowships in Latvia. Nevertheless, a few researches were made by both Latvian and Lithuanian researchers. However, they only discussed life of Lithuanians in 1pskr.11n general but did not 1pskr.1 education and culture. For this reason in my research I focus on educational and cultural activity of Lithuanian fellowships in Riga from the end of 19th until the first half of 20th century. What concerns Lithuanian imigrants and the activity of their fellowships in Riga, first of all we have to find out the reasons why Lithuanians migrated to this seaport of Russian empire; what were political and economical conditions in the governorates of Kaunas, Kuršas and Livland and later in the republics of Lithuania and Latvia; what were the reasons of such choice; why Lithuanians were able to 1pskr.1 themselves more actively in Riga than in Lithuania. It is important to find out what motivated Lithuanians to establish fellowships and what was the nature of their activity. To summarize the research, it can be said that the first features of socio-cultural activity of Lithuanian fellowships in Riga were noticeable in the end of 19th century. With the help of fellowships Lithuanians cultivated Lithuanian culture through education, press and participated in politics.

In our paper we present a corpus of transcribed Lithuanian parliamentary speeches. The corpus is prepared in a specific format, appropriate for different authorship identification tasks. The corpus consists of approximately 111 thousand texts (24 million words). Each text matches one parliamentary speech produced during an ordinary session from the period of 7 parliamentary terms starting on March 10, 1990 and ending on December 23, 2013. The texts are grouped into 147 categories corresponding to individual authors, therefore they can be used for authorship attribution tasks; besides, these texts are also grouped according to age, gender and political views, therefore they are also suitable for author profiling tasks. Whereas short texts complicate recognition of author speaking style and are ambiguous in relation to the style of other authors, we incorporated only texts containing not less than 100 words into the corpus. In order to make each category as comprehensive and representative as possible, we included only those authors, who produced speeches at least 200 times. All the texts are lemmatized, morphologically and syntactically annotated, tokenized into the character n-grams. The statistical information of the corpus is also available. We have also demonstrated that the created corpus can be effectively used in authorship attribution and author profiling tasks with supervised machine learning methods. The corpus structure also allows using it with unsupervised machine learning methods and can be used for creation of rule-based methods, as well as in different linguistic analyses.

In our paper we present a corpus of transcribed Lithuanian parliamentary speeches. The corpus is prepared in a specific format, appropriate for different authorship identification tasks. The corpus consists of approximately 111 thousand texts (24 million words). Each text matches one parliamentary speech produced during an ordinary session from the period of 7 parliamentary terms starting on March 10, 1990 and ending on December 23, 2013. The texts are grouped into 147 categories corresponding to individual authors, therefore they can be used for authorship attribution tasks; besides, these texts are also grouped according to age, gender and political views, therefore they are also suitable for author profiling tasks. Whereas short texts complicate recognition of author speaking style and are ambiguous in relation to the style of other authors, we incorporated only texts containing not less than 100 words into the corpus. In order to make each category as comprehensive and representative as possible, we included only those authors, who produced speeches at least 200 times. All the texts are lemmatized, morphologically and syntactically annotated, tokenized into the character n-grams. The statistical information of the corpus is also available. We have also demonstrated that the created corpus can be effectively used in authorship attribution and author profiling tasks with supervised machine learning methods. The corpus structure also allows using it with unsupervised machine learning methods and can be used for creation of rule-based methods, as well as in different linguistic analyses.

In our paper we present a corpus of transcribed Lithuanian parliamentary speeches. The corpus is prepared in a specific format, appropriate for different authorship identification tasks. The corpus consists of approximately 111 thousand texts (24 million words). Each text matches one parliamentary speech produced during an ordinary session from the period of 7 parliamentary terms starting on March 10, 1990 and ending on December 23, 2013. The texts are grouped into 147 categories corresponding to individual authors, therefore they can be used for authorship attribution tasks; besides, these texts are also grouped according to age, gender and political views, therefore they are also suitable for author profiling tasks. Whereas short texts complicate recognition of author speaking style and are ambiguous in relation to the style of other authors, we incorporated only texts containing not less than 100 words into the corpus. In order to make each category as comprehensive and representative as possible, we included only those authors, who produced speeches at least 200 times. All the texts are lemmatized, morphologically and syntactically annotated, tokenized into the character n-grams. The statistical information of the corpus is also available. We have also demonstrated that the created corpus can be effectively used in authorship attribution and author profiling tasks with supervised machine learning methods. The corpus structure also allows using it with unsupervised machine learning methods and can be used for creation of rule-based methods, as well as in different linguistic analyses.

In our paper we present a corpus of transcribed Lithuanian parliamentary speeches. The corpus is prepared in a specific format, appropriate for different authorship identification tasks. The corpus consists of approximately 111 thousand texts (24 million words). Each text matches one parliamentary speech produced during an ordinary session from the period of 7 parliamentary terms starting on March 10, 1990 and ending on December 23, 2013. The texts are grouped into 147 categories corresponding to individual authors, therefore they can be used for authorship attribution tasks; besides, these texts are also grouped according to age, gender and political views, therefore they are also suitable for author profiling tasks. Whereas short texts complicate recognition of author speaking style and are ambiguous in relation to the style of other authors, we incorporated only texts containing not less than 100 words into the corpus. In order to make each category as comprehensive and representative as possible, we included only those authors, who produced speeches at least 200 times. All the texts are lemmatized, morphologically and syntactically annotated, tokenized into the character n-grams. The statistical information of the corpus is also available. We have also demonstrated that the created corpus can be effectively used in authorship attribution and author profiling tasks with supervised machine learning methods. The corpus structure also allows using it with unsupervised machine learning methods and can be used for creation of rule-based methods, as well as in different linguistic analyses.

In our paper we present a corpus of transcribed Lithuanian parliamentary speeches. The corpus is prepared in a specific format, appropriate for different authorship identification tasks. The corpus consists of approximately 111 thousand texts (24 million words). Each text matches one parliamentary speech produced during an ordinary session from the period of 7 parliamentary terms starting on March 10, 1990 and ending on December 23, 2013. The texts are grouped into 147 categories corresponding to individual authors, therefore they can be used for authorship attribution tasks; besides, these texts are also grouped according to age, gender and political views, therefore they are also suitable for author profiling tasks. Whereas short texts complicate recognition of author speaking style and are ambiguous in relation to the style of other authors, we incorporated only texts containing not less than 100 words into the corpus. In order to make each category as comprehensive and representative as possible, we included only those authors, who produced speeches at least 200 times. All the texts are lemmatized, morphologically and syntactically annotated, tokenized into the character n-grams. The statistical information of the corpus is also available. We have also demonstrated that the created corpus can be effectively used in authorship attribution and author profiling tasks with supervised machine learning methods. The corpus structure also allows using it with unsupervised machine learning methods and can be used for creation of rule-based methods, as well as in different linguistic analyses.