A New Measure of Text Formality: An Analysis of Discourse of Mao Zedong

References

• Andrén, M., Sanne, J. M., & Linell, P. (2010). Striking the balance between formality and informality in safety-critical communication: Train traffic control calls. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 220–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, J. M. (1982). Understanding formality: The categorization and production of “formal” interaction. British Journal of Sociology, 33, 86–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in society, 13, 145–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (Eds.). (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1994). Corpus-based approaches in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 15, 169–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biber, D., Davies, M., Jones, J. K., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2006). Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: A multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora, 1, 1–37.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., & Hared, M. (1992). Dimensions of register variation in Somali. Language Variation and Change, 4, 41–75.
   Google Scholar
• Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004a). Charisma under crisis: Presidential leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 211–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004b). Charting the language of leadership: A methodological investigation of President Bush and the Crisis of 9/11. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 562–574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bussmann, H. (1996). Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B. (1966). Vectors of prose style. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 283–292). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N., & Miller, G. A. (1963). Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 269–321). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (Eds.). (2001). Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies. London, UK: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Crystal, D. (1987). Style: The varieties of English. In W. F. Bolton (Ed.), A history of literature in the English language, 10 (pp. 241–263). London, UK: Sphere.
   Google Scholar
• Curran, J. R., & Clark, S. (2003). Language independent NER using a maximum entropy tagger. In W. Daelemans & M. Osborne (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003-Volume 4 (pp. 164–167). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Dowell, N., Windsor, L., & Graesser, A. (in press). Computational linguistics analysis of leaders during crises in authoritarian regimes. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict.
   Google Scholar
• Elvin, M. (1985). Between the earth and heaven: Conceptions of the self in China. In M. Carrithers, S. Collins, & S. Lukes (Eds.), The category of the person: Anthropology, philosophy, history (pp. 156–189). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fang, A. C., & Cao, J. (2009). Adjective density as a text formality characteristic for automatic text classification: A study based on the British National Corpus. In O. Kwong (Ed.), Proceedings of the PACLIC (pp. 130–139). Hong Kong, China: City University of Hong Kong Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feng, H. (2002). 《毛泽东文集》编辑记事 [Editing memorandum for collected works of Mao Tse-Tung]. Party Literature, 1, 76–85.
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 371–398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Cai, Z., Conley, M., Li, H., & Pennebaker, J. (2014). Coh-Metrix measures text characteristics at multiple levels of language and discourse. Elementary School Journal, 115, 210–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40, 223–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193–202.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Anchor Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hao, S. (1993). 毛泽东与鲁迅若干文艺观点比较论 [Comparison of some literary and artistic views between Mao Zedong and Xun Lu]. Journal of Xinyang Teacher College, 13, 18–26.
   Google Scholar
• Heylighen, F., & Dewaele, J. M. (2002). Variation in the contextuality of language: An empirical measure. Foundations of Science, 7, 293–340.
   Google Scholar
• Hsu, F. L. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives, 24, 55.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, J., Chung, C. K., Hui, N., Lin, Y., Xie, Y., Lam, Q., Cheng, W., Bond, M., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2012). 中文版語文探索與字詞計算字典之建立 [The development of the Chinese Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count dictionary]. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 54, 185–201.
   Google Scholar
• Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach (Vol. 65). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joos, M. (1961). The five clocks. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.
   Google Scholar
• Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2009). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., & Lentz, L. (2008). Coherence marking, prior knowledge, and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes, 45, 323–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y.-J., & Biber, D. (1994). A corpus-based analysis of register variation in Korean. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp. 157–181). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klare, G. R. (1974–1975). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koslin, B. I., Zeno, S., & Koslin, S. (1987). The DRP: An effective measure in reading. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
   Google Scholar
• Labov, W. (1973). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lahiri, S., & Lu, X. (2011). Inter-rater agreement on sentence formality. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15, 474–496.
   Google Scholar
• Landauer, T., McNamara, D., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Landis, R. J., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, H., Cai, Z., Graesser, A. C., & Duan, Y. (2012). A comparative study on English and Chinese word uses with LIWC. In G. M. Youngblood, & P. M. McCarthy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 238–243). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li, H., Graesser, A. C., & Cai, Z. (2013a). Comparing two measures of formality. In C. Boonthum-Denecke & G. M. Youngblood (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 220–225). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li, H., Graesser, A. C., & Cai, Z. (2013b). Component model in discourse analysis. In S. K. D'Mello, R. A. Calvo, & A. Olney (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 326–327). Memphis, TN: International Educational Data Mining Society.
   Google Scholar
• Li, H., Graesser, A. C., & Cai, Z. (2014). Comparison of Google translation with human translation. In W. Eberle & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 190–195). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li, J., & Wang, S. (2008). 中国近现代史纲要 [Outline of Chinese modern and contemporary history]. Beijing, China: Higher Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Linell, P., Alemyr, L., & Jönsson, L. (1993). Admission of guilt as a communicative project in judicial settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 153–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: Across the ages and genres. In J. P. Sabatini & E. Albro (Eds.), Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pennebaker, J. W. (2013). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC [computer software]. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, J., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1997). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London, UK: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24, 119–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sardinha, T. B., & Pinto, M. V. (Eds.). (2014). Multi-dimensional analysis, 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Sheikha, F. A., & Inkpen, D. (2012). Learning to classify documents according to formal and informal style. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 8, 1–31.
   Google Scholar
• Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigley, R. (1997). Text categories and where you can stick them: A crude formality index. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2, 199–237.
   Google Scholar
• Simons, H. W. (2000). A dilemma-centered analysis of Clinton's August 17th apologia: Implications for rhetorical theory and method. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 86, 438–453.
   Google Scholar
• Stenner, A. J. (1996). Measuring reading comprehension with the lexile framework. Durham, NC: Metametrics, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Tauscik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1, 24–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teddiman, L. (2009). Contextuality and beyond: Investigating an online diary corpus. In E. Adar, M. Hurst, T. Finin, N. Glance, N. Nicolov, & B. Tseng (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 331–333). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thayer, A., Evans, M. B., McBride, A. A., Queen, M., & Spyridakis, J. H. I. (2010). I, pronoun: A study of formality in online content. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 40, 447–458.
   Google Scholar
• Toutanova, K., & Manning, C. D. (2000). Enriching the knowledge sources used in a maximum entropy part-of-speech tagger. In H. Schiitze & K. Su (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2000 Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora & the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 13 (pp. 63–70). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11, 11–52.
   Google Scholar
• Van Swol, L. M., & Braun, M. T. (2013). Communicating deception: Differences in language use, justifications, and questions for lies, omissions, and truths. In MartinovskiB. (Ed.), Proceedings of Group Decision and Negotiation (pp. 1–25). Kista, Stockholm: University of Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Z. (1998). 现代汉语虚词词典 [Dictionary of function words in modern Chinese language]. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Lexicographical Publishing House.
   Google Scholar
• Whissell, C. (2010). Leading with words? Emotion and style in the language of U.S. president Clinton's public communications. Psychology of Language and Communication, 14, 81–91.
   Google Scholar
• Witten, I. H., Frank, E., & Hall, M. A. (2011). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Xue, N., Xia, F., Chiou, F. D., & Palmer, M. (2005). The Penn Chinese TreeBank: Phrase structure annotation of a large corpus. Natural Language Engineering, 11, 207–238.
   Google Scholar