Quantitative Linguistik
Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (5)
- Article (3)
- Other (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (9)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (9) (remove)
Keywords
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (5)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (4)
- Postprint (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (5)
- Peer-Review (2)
- Verlags-Lektorat (2)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (3)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (1)
- Mouton de Gruyter (1)
- Peeters (1)
- RAM (1)
- Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr OHG (1)
- de Gruyter Mouton (1)
In der Korpuslinguistik und der Quantitativen Linguistik werden ganz verschiedenartige formale Maße verwendet, mit denen die Gebrauchshäufigkeit eines Wortes, eines Ausdrucks oder auch abstrakter oder komplexer sprachlicher Elemente in einem gegebenen Korpus gemessen und ggf. mit anderen Gebrauchshäufigkeiten verglichen werden kann. Im Folgenden soll für eine Auswahl dieser Maße (absolute Häufigkeit, relative Häufigkeit, Wahrscheinlichkeitsverteilung, Differenzenkoeffizient, Häufigkeitsklasse) zusammengefasst werden, wie sie definiert sind, welche Eigenschaften sie haben und unter welchen Bedingungen sie (sinnvoll) anwendbar und interpretierbar sind – dabei kann eine Rolle spielen, ob das Häufigkeitsmaß auf ein Korpus als Ganzes angewendet wird oder auf einzelne Teilkorpora. Zusätzlich zu den bei den einzelnen Häufigkeitsmaßen genannten Einschränkungen gilt generell der folgende vereinfachte Zusammenhang: Je seltener ein Wort im gegebenen Korpus insgesamt vorkommt und je kleiner dieses Korpus ist, desto stärker hängt die beobachtete Gebrauchshäufigkeit des Wortes von zufälligen Faktoren ab, d.h., desto geringer ist die statistische Zuverlässigkeit der Beobachtung.
This paper argues that a lectometric approach may shed light on the distinction between destandardization and demotization, a pair of concepts that plays a key role in ongoing discussions about contemporary trends in standard languages. Instead of a binary distinction, the paper proposes three different types of destandardization, defined as quantitatively measurable changes in a stratigraphic language continuum. The three types are illustrated on the basis of a case study describing changes in the vocabulary of Dutch in The Netherlands and Flanders between 1990 and 2010.
We present a technique called event mapping that allows to project text representations into event lists, produce an event table, and derive quantitative conclusions to compare the text representations. The main application of the technique is the case where two classes of text representations have been collected in two different settings (e.g., as annotations in two different formal frameworks) and we can compare the two classes with respect to their systematic differences in the event table. We illustrate how the technique works by applying it to data collected in two experiments (one using annotations in Vladimir Propp’s framework, the other using natural language summaries).
We compare the use of überhaupt and sowieso in Dutch and German. We use the world-wide web as the main resource and pursue a zigzag strategy, trying to find usages going back and forth between dictionaries, intuitions and real data obtained through web search. To our surprise, the results more or less confirm the decision of Dutch dictionaries to consider überhaupt and sowieso synonymous. In German, we find no synonymy, but only a great overlap of usage conditions in declarative sentences.
How (and when) do speakers generalise from memorised exemplars of a construction to a productive schema? The present paper presents a novel take on this issue by offering a corpus-based approach to semantic extension processes. Focusing on clusters of German ADJ N expressions involving the heavily polysemous adjective tief ‚deep’, it is shown that type frequency (a commonly used measure of productivity) needs to be relativised to distinct semantic classes within the overall usage spectrum of a given construction in order to predict the occurrence of novel types within a particular region of this spectrum. Some methodological and theoretical implications for usage-based linguistic model building are considered.
According to a widespread conception, quantitative linguistics will eventually be able to explain empirical quantitative findings (such as Zipf’s Law) by deriving them from highly general stochastic linguistic ‘laws’ that are assumed to be part of a general theory of human language (cf. Best (1999) for a summary of possible theoretical positions). Due to their formal proximity to methods used in the so-called exact sciences, theoretical explanations of this kind are assumed to be superior to the supposedly descriptive-only approaches of linguistic structuralism and its successors. In this paper I shall try to argue that on close inspection such claims turn out to be highly problematic, both on linguistic and on science-theoretical grounds.