Computerlinguistik
Refine
Document Type
- Preprint (4) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Korpus <Linguistik> (2)
- Autocorrelated errors (1)
- Computerlinguistik (1)
- Datenstruktur (1)
- Häufigkeitsverteilung (1)
- Kommunikation (1)
- Kulturwandel (1)
- Metadaten (1)
- N-Gramm (1)
- Non-native speaker (1)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (2)
- Preprint (1)
Publisher
In a previous study, Aceves and Evans present a large-scale quantitative information-theoretic analysis of parallel corpus data in ~1,000 languages to show that there are apparently strong associations between the way languages encode information into words and patterns of communication, e.g. the configuration of semantic information. During the peer review process, one reviewer raised the question of the extent to which the presented results depend on different corpus sizes (see the Peer Review File). This is a very important question given that most, if not all, of the quantities associated with word frequency distributions vary systematically with corpus size. While Aceves and Evans claim that corpus size does not affect the results presented, I challenge this view by presenting reanalyses of the data that clearly suggest that it does.
In a recent paper published in the Journal of Language Evolution, Kauhanen, Einhaus & Walkden (KEW) challenge the results presented in one of my papers (Koplenig, Royal Society Open Science, 6, 181274 (2019)), in which I tried to show through a series of statistical analyses that large numbers of L2 (second language) speakers do not seem to affect the (grammatical or statistical) complexity of a language. To this end, I focus on the way in which the Ethnologue assesses language status: a language is characterised as vehicular if, in addition to being used by L1 (first language) speakers, it should also have a significant number of L2 users. KEW criticise both the use of vehicularity as a (binary) indicator of whether a language has a significant number of L2 users and the idea of imputing a zero proportion of L2 speakers to non-vehicular languages whenever a direct estimate of that proportion is unavailable. While I recognise the importance of post-publication commentary on published research, I show in this rejoinder that both points of criticism are explicitly mentioned and analysed in my paper. In addition, I also comment on other points raised by KEW and demonstrate that both alternative analyses offered by KEW do not stand up to closer scrutiny.
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.
As a result of legal restrictions the Google Ngram Corpora datasets are a) not accompanied by any metadata regarding the texts the corpora consist of and the data are b) truncated to prevent an indirect conclusion from the n-gram to the author of the text. Some of the consequences of this strategy are discussed in this article.