Dependency Distance and Its Probability Distribution: Are They the Universals for Measuring Second Language Learners’ Language Proficiency?

References

• Altmann-Fitter. (2013). Altmann-Fitter user guide. The 3.1 version. Retrieved May 4, 2020, from https://www.ram-verlag.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Fitter-User-Guide.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. (1980). Prolegomena to Menzerath’s law. In R. Grotjahn (Ed.), Glottometrika (Vol. 2, pp. 1–10). Brockmeyer.
   Google Scholar
• Andreev, V. (2020). Fitting the distribution of the syllabic types in different positions of verse. Glottometrics, 49, 87–97. https://ram-verlag.org/382-fitting-the-distribution-of-the-syllabic-typesin-different-positions-of-verse
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing, 3, 73–112. https://www.academia.edu/download/44487135/Functionalism_and_the_Competition_Model20160406-28539-9h7uea.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Beöthy, E., & Altmann, G. (1982). Das Piotrowski-Gesetz und der Lehnwortschatz. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 1(2), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.1982.1.2.171
   Google Scholar
• Bi, P., & Jiang, J. (2020). Syntactic complexity in assessing young adolescent EFL learners’ writings: Syntactic elaboration and diversity. System, 91, 102248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102248
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall Regents.
   Google Scholar
• Che, W., Li, Z., & Liu, T. (2010). LTP: A Chinese language technology platform. In Proceedings of the Coling Demonstrations (pp. 13–16). Beijing, China . http://ltp.ai/
   Google Scholar
• Chen, H., & Xu, H. (2019). Quantitative linguistics approach to interlanguage development: A study based on the Guangwai-Lancaster Chinese Learner Corpus. Lingua, 230, 102736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(1–4), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1–4.161
   Google Scholar
• Dryer, M. S. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language, 68(1), 81–138. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryer, M. S. (2013). Order of subject, object and verb. In M. S. Dryer, and M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved 25 October 2021 from http://wals.info/chapter/81
   Google Scholar
• Eppler, E. (2011). The dependency distance hypothesis for bilingual code-switching. Proceedings of dependency linguistics (pp. 145–154). Barcelona. Retrieved August 4, 2020, from http://depling.org/proceedingsDepling2011/papers/eppler.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Eppler, E. (2010). Emigranto:The syntax of German-English code-switching. Wilhelm Braumüller.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R., Gómez-Rodríguez, C., Esteban, J. L., & Alemany-Puig, L. (2020). The optimality of syntactic dependency distances. ArXiv. abs/2007.15342
   Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R., & Hernández-Fernández, A. (2013). The failure of the law of brevity in two new World primates. Statistical Caveats. Glottotheory, 4(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1524/glot.2013.0004
   Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2004). Euclidean distance between syntactically linked words. Physical Review E, 70(5), 056135. https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.70.056135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukui, N. (1988). Deriving the differences between English and Japanese: A case study in parametric syntax. English Linguistics, 5, 249–270. https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.5.249
   Google Scholar
• Futrell, R., Mahowald, K., & Gibson, E. (2015). Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), 10336–10341. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502134112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1992). Language transfer in language learning (Revised ed.). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95126). 95126). The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gildea, D., & Temperley, D. (2010). Do grammars minimize dependency length? Cognitive Science, 34(2), 286–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01073.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. (2004). The language of science. Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Herdan, G. (1964). Quantitative linguistics. Butterworth.
   Google Scholar
• Heringer, H. J., Strecker, B., & Wimmer, R. (1980). Syntax: Fragen-Lösungen-Alternativen.München. Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Hiranuma, S. (1998). Measuring the processing load of Japanese words. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 1–28. https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/PUB/WPL/98papers/hiranuma.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hiranuma, S. (1999). Syntactic difficulty in English and Japanese: A textual study. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 309–322.
   Google Scholar
• Hřebíček, L. (2002). Zipf’ s law and text. Glottometrics, 3, 27–38. https://d-nb.info/1165200732/34#page=31
   Google Scholar
• Hřebíček, L. (1996). Word associations and text. In P. Schmidt (Ed.), Glottometrika (Vol. 15, pp. 12–17). Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, R. (1995). Measuring syntactic difficulty [Unpublished paper]. Retrieved August 13, 2020 from https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Difficulty.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, R. (2007). Language networks: The new word grammar. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., Sassa, Y., Haji, T., Usui, N., Taira, M., Horie, K., Sato, S., & Kawashima, R. (2007). Effect of syntactic similarity on cortical activation during second language processing: A comparison of English and Japanese among native Korean Trilinguals. Human Brain Mapping, 28(3), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20269
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, J., & Liu, H. (2015). The effects of sentence length on dependency distance, dependency direction and the implications–based on a parallel English–Chinese dependency treebank. Language Sciences, 50, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, J., & Ouyang, J. (2017). Dependency distance: A new perspective on the syntactic development in second language acquisition: Comment on “Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural language” by Haitao Liu et al. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 209–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.06.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jing, J., & Liu, H. (2015). Mean hierarchical distance augmenting mean dependency distance. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Dependency Linguistics, 161–170. https://aclanthology.org/W15-2119.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Köhler, R., Altmann, G., & Piotrowski, R. G. (2005). Quantitative linguistics-An international handbook. Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Komori, S., Sugiura, M., & Li, W. (2019). Examining MDD and MHD as syntactic complexity measures with intermediate Japanese learner corpus data. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling, SyntaxFest 2019), 130–135. https://aclanthology.org/W19-7715.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, W., & Yan, J. (2020). Probability distribution of dependency distance based on a treebank of Japanese EFL learners’ interlanguage. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 2, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2020.1754611
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H., Hudson, R., & Feng, Z. (2009). Using a Chinese treebank to measure dependency distance. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2009.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, H., & Xu, C. (2012). Quantitative typological analysis of romance languages. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Lingus, 48(4), 597–625. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2012-0027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, H., Zhao, Y., & Li, W. (2009). Chinese syntactic and typological properties based on dependency syntactic treebanks. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 45(4), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10010-009-0025-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, H. (2007). Probability distribution of dependency distance. Glottometrics, 15, 1–12. https://www.ram-verlag.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/glo15abstract.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H. (2008). Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science, 9(2), 159–191. https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2008.9.2.159
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H. (2009). Dependency grammar: From theory to practice. Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H. (2010). Dependency direction as a means of word-order typology: A method based on dependency treebanks. Lingua, 120(6), 1567–1578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, H. (2017). An introduction to quantitative linguistics. The Commercial Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, Q., & Liu, H. (2016). Does dependency distance distribute regularly? Journal of Zhe Jiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), 4, 1–14. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=ZJDX201604006&DbName=CJFQ2016
   Google Scholar
• Lu, X. (2011). A corpus‐based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college‐level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrill, G. (2000). Incremental processing and acceptability. Computational Linguistics, 26(3), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1162/089120100561728
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative systems of Foreign language learners. IRAL-Interlanguage Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Learning, 9(2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1971.9.2.115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nida, E. A. (1982). Translating meaning. English Language Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524537
   Google Scholar
• Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouyang, J., & Jiang, J. (2018). Can the probability distribution of dependency distance measure language proficiency of second language learners? Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 25(4), 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2017.1373991
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oya, M. (2013). Syntactic dependency structures of English and Japanese. Mejiro Journal of Humanities 9, 151–164. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228932242.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Popescu, I. I., Best, K. H., & Altmann, G. 2014. Unified modeling of length in language (= studies in quantitative linguistics 16). RAM-Verlag. 978-3942303-26-2.
   Google Scholar
• Ramat, A. G. (2003). Typology and second language acquisition. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. American Cancer Society.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, J. C., Plott, J., & Platt, H. (1996). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(3), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209
   Google Scholar
• Shibatani, M. (1990). The languages of Japan. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, U., & Altmann, G. (2006). Diversification - laws in quantitative linguistics. Retrieved April 8, 2021, from http://www.uni-trier.de/uni/fb2/ldv/lql_wiki/index.php/Diversification
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, U., Grzybek, P., & Altmann, G. (2006). Word length and word frequency. In P. Grzybek (Ed.), Contributions to the science of text and language: Word length studies and related issues (pp. 277294). 277294). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Temperley, D. (2007). Minimization of dependency length in written English. Cognition, 105(2), 300–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Temperley, D. (2008). Dependency-length minimization in natural and artificial languages. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 15(3), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296170802159512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tesnière, L. (1959). Eléments de la syntaxe structurale. Klincksieck.
   Google Scholar
• VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yan, H., & Li, Y. (2019). Beyond length: Investigating dependency distance across L2 modalities and proficiency levels. Open Linguistics, 5(1), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2019-0033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zipf, K. G. (1936). The psychobiology of language. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zipf, K. G. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar