Syntactic Complexity of Different Text Types: From the Perspective of Dependency Distance Both Linearly and Hierarchically

References

• Arnold, J., Wasow, T., Losongco, A., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. Newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 17(1), 28–55. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2000.0045
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poopon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? Tesol Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buda, A., & Jarynowski, A. (2010). Life-time of correlations and its applications Vol .1. Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo Niezalezne. https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.6265
   Google Scholar
• Collins, M. (1996). A new statistical parser based on bigram lexical dependencies. In A. Joshi, & M. Palmer (Eds.), 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) (Vol. 34, pp. 184–191). Santa Cruz: University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, W. E., & Ross, J. R. (1975). World order. In R. E. Grossman, L. J. San, & T. J. Vance (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism (pp. 63–111). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
   Google Scholar
• Eppler, E. M. (2005). The syntax of German-English code-switching [Doctoral dissertation]. London: University of London.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (1991). Effects of length and syntactic complexity on initiation times for prepared utterances. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(2), 2110–2233. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90004-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-cancho, R. (2003). Language: Universals, principles and origins [Doctoral dissertation]. Barcelona: Polytechnic University of Catalonia. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/671775.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-cancho, R. (2016). Kauffman’s adjacent possible in word order evolution. In S.G. Roberts, C. Cuskley, L. McCrohon, L. Barceló-Coblijn, O. Fehér & T. Verhoef (Eds.), The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference (EVOLANG11). http://evolang.org/neworleans/papers/83.html
   Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-cancho, R., Gómez-Rodríguez, C., Esteban, J. L., & Alemany-Puig, L. (2020). The optimality of syntactic dependency distances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.15342.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-cancho, R., & Gómez-Rodríguez, C. (2021). Anti dependency distance minimization in short sequences. A graph theoretic approach. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 28(1), 50–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2019.1645547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. & Liu, H. (2014). The risks of mixing dependency lengths from sequences of different length. Glottotheory, 5(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1515/glot-2014-0014
   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
• Ferrer-i-cancho, R. (2013). Hubiness, length, crossings and their relationships in dependency trees. Glottometrics, 25, 1–21. https://dblp.org/rec/journals/glottometrics/Ferrer-i-Cancho13.bib
   Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-cancho, R. (2017). Towards a theory of word order. Comment on “dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural language” by Haitao Liu et al. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 218–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.06.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 129–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   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
• 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
• Givón, T. (1991). Markedness in grammar: Distributional, communicative and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure. Studies in Language, 15(2), 335–370. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.15.2.05giv
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, J. A. (1994). Performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hiranuma, S. (1999). Syntactic difficulty in English and Japanese: A textual study. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 309–322. https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/PUB/WPL/99papers/hiranuma.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, R. A. (1995). Measuring syntactic difficulty. London: University College.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, R. A. (2010). An introduction to word grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1–23. https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/49151
   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 Science, 50, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jing, Y., & Liu, H. (2015). Mean hierarchical distance augmenting mean dependency distance. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2015). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
   Google Scholar
• Kubon, V. (2001). A method for analyzing clause complexity. Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 75, 5–28.
   Google Scholar
• Lasky, M. J. (Ed.). (2018). The language of journalism: Volume 1, newspaper culture. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lei, L., & Wen, J. (2019). Is dependency distance experiencing a process of minimization? A diachronic study based on the State of the Union addresses. Lingua, 102762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102762
   Google Scholar
• Liu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Dependency distance in language evolution: Comment on “Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural languages” by Haitao Liu et al. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 194–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.06.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, H., & Jing, Y. (2016). A quantitative analysis of English hierarchical structure. Journal of Foreign Languages, 39(6), 2–11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319493889_juzijiegoucengjidefenbuguilu/link/59af2bffa6fdcca654242ef8/download
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H., Xu, C., & Liang, J. (2017). Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural languages. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, H. (2007). Probability distribution of dependency distance. Glottometrics, 15, 1–12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274195011_Probability_Distribution_of_Dependency_Distance/link/55188db20cf2f7d80a3dfa31/download
   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. Beijing: Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H. (2017). The hierarchical distribution of sentence structure. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 49(3), 345–352. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319493889_juzijiegoucengjidefenbuguilu/link/59af2bffa6fdcca654242ef8/download
   Google Scholar
• Mondorf, B. (2003). Support for more-support. In G. Rohdenburg, and B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 251–304). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   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
• Popescu, I.-I., Best, K.-H., & Altmann, G. (2014). Unified modeling of length in language(= studies in quantitative linguistics 16). Lüdenscheid: RAM-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-942303-26-2
   Google Scholar
• Quirk, R. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman Group.
   Google Scholar
• Rijkhoff, J. (1990). Explaining word order in the noun phrase. Linguistics, 28(1), 5–42. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1990.28.1.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohdenburg, G. (1996). Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 149–182. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149
   Google Scholar
• Schleppegrell, M. (1992). Subordination and linguistic complexity. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15(1), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefan, T. G. (2013). Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction (2nd rev ed.). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
   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). Elèments de syntaxe structural. Librairie C: Klincksieek.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, H., & Liu, H. (2014). The effect of length and complexity on constituent ordering in written English. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 50(4), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2014-0024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Y., & Liu, H. (2017). The effects of genre on dependency distance and dependency direction. Language Sciences, 59, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasow, T., & Arnold, J. (2011). Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In G. Rohdenburg, and B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 119–154). New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Wasow, T. (1997). Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9(1), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500001800
   Google Scholar
• Wimmer, G., & Altmann, G. (1999). Thesaurus of univariate discrete probability distributions. Essen: STAMM.
   Google Scholar
• Yan, J., & H. Liu. (2021). Semantic roles or syntactic functions: The effects of annotation scheme on the results of dependency measures. Studia Linguistica. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12177
   Google Scholar
• Yang, J. (2019). Syntactic hierarchy depth: Distribution, interrelation and cross-linguistic properties. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 26(2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2018.1453962
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar