1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Languages in Contrast
  4. Volume 24, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 24, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

We use Universal Dependencies (UD) for the study of cross-linguistic diachronic syntactic complexity reduction. Specifically, we look at whether and how scientific English and German minimize the length of syntactic dependency relations in the Late Modern period (ca. 1650–1900). Our linguistic analysis follows the assumption that over time, scientific discourse cross-linguistically develops towards an increasingly efficient syntactic code by minimizing Dependency Length (DL) as a factor of syntactic complexity. For each language, we analyse a large UD-annotated scientific and general language corpus for comparison. While on a macro level, our analysis suggests that there is an overall diachronic cross-linguistic and cross-register reduction in Average Dependency Length (ADL), on the micro level we find that only scientific language shows a sentence length independent reduction of ADL, while general language shows an overall decrease of ADL due to sentence length reduction. We further analyse the syntactic constructions responsible for this reduction in both languages, showing that both scientific English and German increasingly make use of short, intra-phrasal dependency relations while long dependency relations such as clausal embeddings become rather disfavoured over time.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00038.kri
2024-02-16
2024-12-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lic.00038.kri
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aarts, B., López-Couso, M. and Méndez-Naya, B.
    2012 Late Modern English Syntax. InEnglish Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook, A. Bergs and L. J. Brinton (eds), 869–887. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Admoni, W.
    1990 Historische Syntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Atkinson, D.
    1996 The “Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,” 1675–1975: A Sociohistorical Discourse Analysis. Language in Society, 25(3), 333–371.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Banks, D.
    2008 The Development of Scientific Writing. Linguistic Features and Historical Context. London: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Romero-Barranco, J.
    2020 Linguistic Complexity across two Early Modern English Scientific Text Types. Atlantis42(2): 50–71. 10.28914/Atlantis‑2020‑42.2.03
     https://doi.org/10.28914/Atlantis-2020-42.2.03 [Google Scholar]
  6. Beneš, E.
    1981 Die formale Struktur der wissenschaftlichen Fachsprachen aus syntaktischer Hinsicht. InWissenschaftssprache, T. Bungarten (ed.), 185–212. München: Fink.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D.
    2006 University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D. and Clark, V.
    2002 Historical Shifts in Modification Patterns with Complex Noun Phrase Structures. InEnglish Historical Morphology, T. Fanego, M. López-Couso and J. Pérez-Guerra (eds). 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.223.06bib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.223.06bib [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, D. and Gray, B.
    2011 The Historical Shift of Scientific Academic Prose in English towards less Explicit Styles of Expression: Writing without Verbs. InResearching Specialized Languages, V. Bathia, P. Sánchez, and P. Pérez-Paredes (eds), 11–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.47.04bib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.47.04bib [Google Scholar]
  10. 2016 Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Studies in English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. De Marneffe, M., Manning, C., Nivre, J. and Zeman, D.
    2021 Universal Dependencies. Computational Linguistics47(2): 255–308. 10.1162/coli_a_00402
     https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00402 [Google Scholar]
  12. De Smet, H.
    2006 A Corpus of Late Modern English Texts. ICAME Journal291: 69–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Degaetano-Ortlieb, S., Kermes, H., Khamis, A. and Teich, E.
    2018 An Information-Theoretic Approach to Modelling Diachronic Change in Scientific English. InFrom Data to Evidence in English Language Research, C. Suhr, T. Nevalainen and I. Taavitsainen (eds), 258–281. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fischer, S., Menzel, K., Knappen, J. and Teich, E.
    2020 The Royal Society Corpus 6.0 providing 300+ Years of Scientific Writing for Humanistic Study. Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2020). Marseille, France, 11–16 May 2020. European Language Resources Association. 794–802.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Futrell, R., Mahowald, K. and Gibson, E.
    2015 Large-Scale Evidence of Dependency Length Minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112(33): 10336–10341. 10.1073/pnas.1502134112
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502134112 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gerdes, K. and Kahane, S.
    2001 Word Order in German: A Formal Dependency Grammar using a Topological Hierarchy. Proceedings of the Thirty-Nineth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Toulouse, France, 6–11 July. Association for Computational Linguistics. 220–227. 10.3115/1073012.1073041
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1073012.1073041 [Google Scholar]
  17. Geyken, A., Boenig, M., Haaf, S., Jurish, B., Thomas, C. and Wiegand, F.
    2018 Das Deutsche Textarchiv als Forschungsplattform für historische Daten in CLARIN. InGermanistische Sprachwissenschaft um 2020, H. Lobin, R. Schneider and A. Witt (eds), 219–248. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110538663‑011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110538663-011 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Piantadosi, S., Dautriche, V., Mahowald, K., Bergen, L. and Levy, R.
    2019 How Efficiency Shapes Human Language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences23(5): 389–407. 10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gibson, E.
    2000 Dependency Locality Theory: A Distance-Based Theory of Linguistic Complexity. InImage, Language, Brain: Papers from the first Mind Articulation Project Symposium, A. Miyashita, Y. Marantz and W. O’Neil (eds), 95–126. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gildea, D. and Temperley, D.
    2010 Do Grammars minimize Dependency Length?Cognitive Science34(2): 286–310. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2009.01073.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01073.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Gonnerman, L. and Hayes, C.
    2005 The Professor Chewed the Students… out: Effects of Dependency, Length, and Adjacency on Word Order Preferences in Sentences with Verb Particle Constructions. Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 05). Stresa, Italy, July 21–23. 785–790.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Gulordava, K., Merlo, P. and Crabbé, B.
    2015 Dependency Length Minimisation Effects in Short Spans: A Large-Scale Analysis of Adjective Placement in Complex Noun Phrases. Proceedings of the Fifty-Third Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the Seventh International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. Beijing, China, July 26–31. 477–482. 10.3115/v1/P15‑2078
     https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/P15-2078 [Google Scholar]
  23. Habermann, M.
    2011 Deutsche Fachtexte der Neuzeit. Naturkundlich-medizinische Wissensvermittlung im Spannungsfeld von Latein und Volkssprache. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Halliday, M. A. K. and Martin, J.
    1993 Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1988 On the Language of Physical Science. InRegisters of Written English: Situational Factors and Linguistic Features, M. Ghadessy (ed.), 162–177. London: Pinter.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Heringer, H., Strecker, B. and Wimmer, R.
    1980 Syntax: Fragen, Lösungen, Alternativen. München: Fink.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hudson, R.
    1995 Measuring Syntactic Difficulty. Manuscript, University College.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hundt, M., Denison, D. and Schneider, G.
    2012 Relative Complexity in Scientific Discourse. English Language & Linguistics16(2): 209–240. 10.1017/S1360674312000032
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674312000032 [Google Scholar]
  29. Juzek, T. S., Krielke, M.-P. and Teich, E.
    2020 Exploring Diachronic Syntactic Shifts with Dependency Length: The Case of Scientific English. Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Universal Dependencies. Barcelona, Spain, 13 December 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. 109–119.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Krielke, M.-P.
    2021 Relativizers as Markers of Grammatical Complexity: A Diachronic, Cross-Register Study of English and German. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies11(1): 91–120. 10.15845/bells.v11i1.3440
     https://doi.org/10.15845/bells.v11i1.3440 [Google Scholar]
  31. Krielke, M.-P., Talamo, L., Fawzi, M. and Knappen, J.
    2022 Tracing Syntactic Change in the Scientific Genre: Two Universal Dependency-Parsed Diachronic Corpora of Scientific English and German. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2022). Marseille, France, 20–25 June 2022. European Language Resources Association. 4808–4816.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lei, L. and Wen, J.
    2020 Is Dependency Distance Experiencing a Process of Minimization? A Diachronic Study Based on the State of the Union Addresses. Lingua2391: 102762. 10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102762
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102762 [Google Scholar]
  33. Liu, H., Xu, C. and Liang, J.
    2017 Dependency Distance: A New Perspective on Syntactic Patterns in Natural Languages. Physics of Life Reviews211: 171–193. 10.1016/j.plrev.2017.03.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  34. Möslein, K.
    1974 Einige Entwicklungstendenzen in der Syntax der wissenschaftlich-technischen Literatur seit dem Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts. Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur941: 156–198.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Nicenboim, B., Vasishth, S., Gattei, C., Sigman, M., and Kliegl, R.
    2015 Working Memory Differences in Long-Distance Dependency Resolution. Frontiers in Psychology61: 312. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00312
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00312 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rudnicka, K.
    2018 Variation of Sentence Length across Time and Genre: Influence on Syntactic Usage in English. InDiachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change, R. J. Whitt (ed.), 219–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.85.10rud
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.85.10rud [Google Scholar]
  37. Straka, M. and Straková, J.
    2017 Tokenizing, POS Tagging, Lemmatizing and Parsing UD 2.0 with UDPIPE. Proceedings of the Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) 2017. Vancouver, Canada, 3–4 August 2017. 88–99. 10.18653/v1/K17‑3009
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/K17-3009 [Google Scholar]
  38. Tily, H.
    2010 The Role of Processing Complexity in Word Order Variation and Change. PhD Thesis, Stanford University.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Wang, G., Wang, H., Sun, X., Wang, N., & Wang, L.
    2023 Linguistic complexity in scientific writing: A large-scale diachronic study from 1821 to 1920. Scientometrics, 128(1), 441–460. 10.1007/s11192‑022‑04550‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04550-z [Google Scholar]
  40. Wasow, T. and Arnold, J.
    2003 Post-Verbal Constituent Ordering in English. InDeterminants of Grammatical Variation in English, G. Rohdenburg and B. Mondorf (eds), 119–154. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110900019.119
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110900019.119 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00038.kri
Loading
Cross-linguistic Dependency Length Minimization in scientific language
Languages in Contrast 24, 133 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00038.kri
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00038.kri
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00038.kri
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): diachronic change; English/German; grammatical complexity; universal dependencies

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error