1887
Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper contrasts lexical cohesion between English and German spoken and written registers, reporting findings from a quantitative lexical analysis. After an overview of research aims and motivations we formulate hypotheses on distributions of shallow features as indicators of lexical cohesion across languages and modes and with respect to register ranking and variation. The shallow features analysed are: highly frequent words in texts, lexical density, standardized type-token-ratio, top-frequent content words of the language within individual registers and texts, and several types of Latinate words. Descriptive analyses of the corpus are then presented and statistically validated with the help of univariate and multivariate analyses. The results are interpreted relative to our hypotheses and related to the following properties of texts in terms of lexical cohesion: semantic variability, cohesive strength, number and length of nominal chains, degree of specification of lexis, and degree of variation along all of these properties.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.16005.kun
2017-11-28
2019-11-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baayen, H.
    2008Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  2. Beaugrande, R.-A. de and Dressler, W. U.
    1981Introduction to Text Linguistics. London, New York: Longman (German version also published by Niemeyer in 1981).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Berg, T.
    2012 The cohesiveness of English and German compounds. The Mental Lexicon7/2, 1–33 doi: 10.1075/ml.7.1.01ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.7.1.01ber [Google Scholar]
  4. Berzlanovich, I.
    2008Lexical Cohesion and the Organization of Discourse. First year report PhD student: University Groningen.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D.
    1988Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D. and Finegan, E.
    1989 Drift and evolution of English style: a history of three genres. Language. 65:487–517. doi: 10.2307/415220
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415220 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. and Finegan, E.
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brinker, K.
    2005Linguistische Textanalyse: Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden. 6th edition. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chambers, J. M. , Cleveland, W. S. , Kleiner, B. , and Tukey, P. A.
    1983Graphical Methods for Data Analysis. The Wadsworth Statistics / Probability Series. Duxbury Press, Boston.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Collins, P.
    2012 Grammatical Variation in English Worldwide: The Role of Colloquialization. Linguistics and the Human Sciences8(3):289–306.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohen, J.
    1992 A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1):155–159. doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.112.1.155
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 [Google Scholar]
  12. Deutsche Akademie für Sprache und Dichtung, Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften (ed.)
    Deutsche Akademie für Sprache und Dichtung, Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften (ed.) 2013Reichtum und Armut der deutschen Sprache. Erster Bericht zur Lage der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110334739
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110334739 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fiehler, R. , Barden, B. , Elstermann, M. and Kraft, B.
    2004Eigenschaften gesprochener Sprache. Tübingen: Narr (Studien zur Deutschen Sprache 30).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fischer, K.
    2013Satzstrukturen im Deutschen und Englischen. Typologie und Textrealisierung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gast, V.
    2008 V-N Compounds in English and German. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik56(3). 269–282. doi: 10.1515/zaa.2008.56.3.269
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa.2008.56.3.269 [Google Scholar]
  16. Greenacre, M.
    2010Correspondence Analysis in Practice. CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.
    1976Cohesion in English. London, New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Halliday, M. A. K.
    2005On Grammar. Vol.1of Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday . London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hansen-Schirra, S. , Neumann, S. and Steiner, E.
    2012Cross-linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations. Insights from the Language Pair English – German. Series Text, Translation, Computational Processing. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110260328
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328 [Google Scholar]
  20. Haspelmath, M.
    2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language86(4).
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hawkins, J. A.
    1986A Comparative Typology of English and German. Unifying the Contrasts. London etc. Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hennig, M.
    2006Grammatik der gesprochenen Sprache in Theorie und Praxis. Kassel: University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. House, J.
    1997Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jenset, G. B. and McGillivray, B.
    2012 Multivariate analyses of affix productivity in translated English. InQuantitative Methods in Corpus-Based Translation Studies, M. P. Oakes and M. Ji (eds). John Benjamins. 301–324. doi: 10.1075/scl.51.12jen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.51.12jen [Google Scholar]
  25. Koch, P. and Oesterreicher, W.
    1985 Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch36/85:15–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. König, E. and Gast, V.
    2012Understanding English–German Contrasts. Grundlagen der Anglistik und Amerikanistik. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. [3rd, extended edition].
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kunz, K. , Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. and Martínez Martínez, J. M.
    2016 Beyond Identity Coreference: Contrasting Indicators of Textual Coherence in English and German. InProceedings of CORBON at NAACL-HLT2016, San Diego. doi: 10.18653/v1/W16‑0704
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W16-0704 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kunz, K. , Degaetano-Ortlieb, S. , Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. , Menzel, K. and Steiner, E.
    (2017) English-German contrasts in cohesion and implications for translation. In De Sutter, G. and Delaere, I. and Lefer, M.-A. (eds.). Empirical Translation Studies. New Theoretical and Methodological Traditions. TILSM series. Vol.300. Mouton de Gruyter, 265–312
  29. Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. , Kunz, K. and Amoia, M.
    2012 Compiling a Multilingual Spoken Corpus. Proceedings of the VIIth GSCP International Conference: Speech and corpora, Firenze: Firenze University Press 2012, 79–84, Available at: store.torrossa.it/pages/ipplatform/itemDetails.faces [last accessed16/02/2015]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. and Kunz, K.
    2014 Annotating Cohesion for Multillingual Analysis. Proceedings of the 10th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation in conjunction with LREC2014 the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Reykjavik, Iceland 2014 Available at: www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/workshops/LREC2014Workshop-ISA-10%20Proceedings.pdf [last accessed18/01/2015]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Leech, G. , Hundt, M. , Mair, C. and Smith, N.
    2009Change in Contemporary English. A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511642210
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511642210 [Google Scholar]
  32. Leisi, E. and Mair, C.
    2008Das heutige Englisch: Wesenszüge und Probleme. 9th editionHeidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Martínez Martínez, J. M.
    2015 GECCo UPOS. Internal Technical Report. Available at: www.gecco.uni-saarland.de/GECCo/Korpus_files/gecco_upos_tech_report.pdf [Last accessed15/02/2016]
  34. Martínez Martínez, J. M. , Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. and Kunz, K.
    2016 Annotation of Lexical Cohesion in English and German: Automatic and Manual Procedures. Proceedings of the Conference on Natural Language Processing, KONVENS-2016, September19–21, Bochum, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Mair, C.
    2006Twentieth-Century English: History, Variation and Standardization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486951
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486951 [Google Scholar]
  36. Nenadic, O. and Greenacre, M.
    2007 Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software20(3): 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Neumann, S.
    2013Contrastive register variation. A quantitative approach to the comparison of English and German. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110238594
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238594 [Google Scholar]
  38. Petrov, S. , Das, D. , and McDonald, R.
    2012 A Universal Part-of-Speech Tagset. Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12). Istanbul, Turkey: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Available at: www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/pdf/274_Paper.pdf [last accessed18/01/2015]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Steiner, E.
    2015 Contrastive studies of cohesion and their impact on our knowledge of translation (English–German). Special issueDiscourse Analysis in Translation Studies. Target27(3): 351–369 doi: 10.1075/target.27.3.02ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.27.3.02ste [Google Scholar]
  40. Schmid, H.
    1995 Improvements in Part-of-Speech Tagging with an Application to German. Proceedings of the ACL SIGDAT-Workshop. Dublin, Ireland.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 1994 Probabilistic Part-of-Speech Tagging Using Decision Trees. Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, Manchester, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Stokes, N.
    2004Applications of Lexical Cohesion Analysis in the Topic Detection and Tracking Domain. PhD ThesisDublin: UCD.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Tanskannen, S.
    2006Collaborating towards Coherence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.146
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.146 [Google Scholar]
  44. Venables, W. N. and Smith, D. M.
    2010An Introduction to R. Notes on R: A Programming Environment for Data Analysis and Graphics. Electronic edition. Available at:cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-intro.html.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.16005.kun
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.16005.kun
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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