Quantifying Syntactic Complexity in Czech Texts: An Analysis of Mean Dependency Distance and Average Sentence Length Across Genres

References

• Bejček, E., Panevová, J., Popelka, J., Straňák, P., Ševčíková, M., Štěpánek, J., & Žabokrtský, Z. (2012). Prague dependency treebank 2.5 – a revisited version of PDT 2.0. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2012) (pp. 231–246). Mumbai.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, X., & Gerdes, K. (2022). Dependency distances and their frequencies in indo-European language. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 29(1), 106–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2020.1771135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016). The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500031X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Marneffe, M. C., & Nivre, J. (2019). Dependency grammar. Annual Review of Linguistics, 5(1), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011842
   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., & 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
• 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
• Gerdes, K., Kahane, S., & Chen, X. (2021). Typometrics: From implicational to quantitative universals in word order typology. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.764
   Web of Science ®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. (Ed.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95–126). 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
• Glazer, S. M. (1974). Is sentence length a valid measure of difficulty in readability formulas? The Reading Teacher, 27(5), 464–468.
   Google Scholar
• Heringer, H. J., Strecker, B., & Wimmer, R. (1980). Syntax: Fragen-Lösungen-Alternativen. Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, R. A. (1995). Measuring syntactic difficulty. Manuscript. University College.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, R. A. (2003). The psychological reality of syntactic dependency relations. In S. Kahane & A. Nasr (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory (MTT2003) (pp. 181–192). Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Jelínek, T., Křivan, J., Petkevič, V., Skoumalová, H., & Šindlerová, J. (2021). SYN2020: A new corpus of Czech with an innovated annotation. In K. Ekštein, F. Pártl, & M. Konopík (Eds.), Text, speech, and dialogue. TSD 2021. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 12848, pp. 48–59). Springer.
   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
• Křen, M., Cvrček, V., Henyš, J., Hnátková, M., Jelínek, T., Kocek, J., Kováříková, D., Křivan, J., Milička, J., Petkevič, V., Procházka, P., Skoumalová, H., Šindlerová, J., & Škrabal, M. (2020). SYN2020: reprezentativní korpus psané češtiny. Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK, Praha. https://www.korpus.cz
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H. (2007). Probability distribution of dependency distance. Glottometrics, 15, 1–12. https://glottometrics.iqla.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/g15zeit-1.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., Hudson, R., & Feng, Z. (2009). Using a Chinese treebank to measure dependency distance. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2009.007
   Web of Science ®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
• Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, Q., Xu, C., & Liu, H. (2016). Can chunking reduce syntactic complexity of natural languages? Complexity, 21(S2), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.21779
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oya, M. (2011). Syntactic dependency distance as sentence complexity measure. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, Hong Kong (pp. 313–316).
   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
• Xu, Y., & Reitter, D. (2016, August). Convergence of syntactic complexity in conversation. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Berlin (Vol. 2. pp. 443–448).
   Google Scholar
• Yan, J., & Liu, H. (2024). Basic word order typology revisited: A crosslinguistic quantitative study based on UD and WALS. Linguistics Vanguard, 9(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2021-0001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar