Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (30)
- Part of a Book (20)
- Preprint (8)
- Conference Proceeding (6)
- Other (2)
- Working Paper (2)
- Book (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Keywords
- Korpus <Linguistik> (23)
- Deutsch (21)
- Sprachstatistik (19)
- Wortschatz (17)
- Computerunterstützte Lexikographie (12)
- COVID-19 (10)
- Lexikostatistik (9)
- Sprachwandel (9)
- Online-Medien (8)
- Vielfalt (8)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (37)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (12)
- Postprint (6)
- Preprint (2)
Reviewstate
Publisher
- De Gruyter (10)
- de Gruyter (8)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (7)
- Cornell University (4)
- IDS-Verlag (3)
- MDPI (3)
- Erich Schmidt (2)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (2)
- Oxford University Press (OUP) (2)
- Springer Nature (2)
A comparison between morphological complexity measures: typological data vs. language corpora
(2016)
Language complexity is an intriguing phenomenon argued to play an important role in both language learning and processing. The need to compare languages with regard to their complexity resulted in a multitude of approaches and methods, ranging from accounts targeting specific structural features to global quantification of variation more generally. In this paper, we investigate the degree to which morphological complexity measures are mutually correlated in a sample of more than 500 languages of 101 language families. We use human expert judgements from the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS), and compare them to four quantitative measures automatically calculated from language corpora. These consist of three previously defined corpus-derived measures, which are all monolingual, and one new measure based on automatic word-alignment across pairs of languages. We find strong correlations between all the measures, illustrating that both expert judgements and automated approaches converge to similar complexity ratings, and can be used interchangeably.
In this paper, an exploratory data-driven method is presented that extracts word-types from diachronic corpora that have undergone the most pronounced change in frequency of occurrence in a given period of time. Combined with statistical methods from time series analysis, the method is able to find meaningful patterns and relationships in diachronic corpora, an idea that is still uncommon in linguistics. This indicates that the approach can facilitate an improved understanding of diachronic processes.
In this paper, a method for measuring synchronic corpus (dis-)similarity put forward by Kilgarriff (2001) is adapted and extended to identify trends and correlated changes in diachronic text data, using the Corpus of Historical American English (Davies 2010a) and the Google Ngram Corpora (Michel et al. 2010a). This paper shows that this fully data-driven method, which extracts word types that have undergone the most pronounced change in frequency in a given period of time, is computationally very cheap and that it allows interpretations of diachronic trends that are both intuitively plausible and motivated from the perspective of information theory. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the method is able to identify correlated linguistic changes and diachronic shifts that can be linked to historical events. Finally, it can help to improve diachronic POS tagging and complement existing NLP approaches. This indicates that the approach can facilitate an improved understanding of diachronic processes in language change.
One of the fundamental questions about human language is whether all languages are equally complex. Here, we approach this question from an information-theoretic perspective. We present a large scale quantitative cross-linguistic analysis of written language by training a language model on more than 6500 different documents as represented in 41 multilingual text collections consisting of ~ 3.5 billion words or ~ 9.0 billion characters and covering 2069 different languages that are spoken as a native language by more than 90% of the world population. We statistically infer the entropy of each language model as an index of what we call average prediction complexity. We compare complexity rankings across corpora and show that a language that tends to be more complex than another language in one corpus also tends to be more complex in another corpus. In addition, we show that speaker population size predicts entropy. We argue that both results constitute evidence against the equi-complexity hypothesis from an information-theoretic perspective.
Classical null hypothesis significance tests are not appropriate in corpus linguistics, because the randomness assumption underlying these testing procedures is not fulfilled. Nevertheless, there are numerous scenarios where it would be beneficial to have some kind of test in order to judge the relevance of a result (e.g. a difference between two corpora) by answering the question whether the attribute of interest is pronounced enough to warrant the conclusion that it is substantial and not due to chance. In this paper, I outline such a test.
In the first volume of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Gries (2005. Null-hypothesis significance testing of word frequencies: A follow-up on Kilgarriff. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2). doi:10.1515/ cllt.2005.1.2.277. http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cllt.2005.1.issue-2/cllt.2005. 1.2.277/cllt.2005.1.2.277.xml: 285) asked whether corpus linguists should abandon null-hypothesis significance testing. In this paper, I want to revive this discussion by defending the argument that the assumptions that allow inferences about a given population – in this case about the studied languages – based on results observed in a sample – in this case a collection of naturally occurring language data – are not fulfilled. As a consequence, corpus linguists should indeed abandon null-hypothesis significance testing.
In the first volume of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Gries (2005. Null-hypothesis significance testing of word frequencies: A follow-up on Kilgarriff. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2). doi:10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.277. http://www.degruyter.com/view//cllt.2005.1.issue-2/cllt.2005.1.2.277/cllt.2005.1.2.277.xml: 285) asked whether corpus linguists should abandon null-hypothesis significance testing. In this paper, I want to revive this discussion by defending the argument that the assumptions that allow inferences about a given population – in this case about the studied languages – based on results observed in a sample – in this case a collection of naturally occurring language data – are not fulfilled. As a consequence, corpus linguists should indeed abandon null-hypothesis significance testing.
This thesis consists of the following three papers that all have been published in international peer-reviewed journals:
Chapter 3: Koplenig, Alexander (2015c). The Impact of Lacking Metadata for the Measurement of Cultural and Linguistic Change Using the Google Ngram Data Sets—Reconstructing the Composition of the German Corpus in Times of WWII. Published in: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [doi:10.1093/llc/fqv037]
Chapter 4: Koplenig, Alexander (2015b). Why the quantitative analysis of dia-chronic corpora that does not consider the temporal aspect of time-series can lead to wrong conclusions. Published in: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [doi:10.1093/llc/fqv030]
Chapter 5: Koplenig, Alexander (2015a). Using the parameters of the Zipf–Mandelbrot law to measure diachronic lexical, syntactical and stylistic changes – a large-scale corpus analysis. Published in: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. [doi:10.1515/cllt-2014-0049]
Chapter 1 introduces the topic by describing and discussing several basic concepts relevant to the statistical analysis of corpus linguistic data. Chapter 2 presents a method to analyze diachronic corpus data and a summary of the three publications. Chapters 3 to 5 each represent one of the three publications. All papers are printed in this thesis with the permission of the publishers.
Frimer et al. (2015) claim that there is a linear relationship between the level of prosocial language and the level of public disapproval of US Congress. A re-analysis demonstrates that this relationship is the result of a misspecified model that does not account for first-order autocorrelated disturbances. A Stata script to reproduce all presented results is available as an appendix.