Register in computational language research

References

1. Abbasi, A., & Chen, H.
   (2007) Categorization and analysis of text in computer mediated communication archives using visualization. InProceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp.11–18). New York: ACM.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Aizawa, A.
   (2003) An information-theoretic perspective of tf–idf measures. Information Processing & Management, 39(1), 45–65. 10.1016/S0306‑4573(02)00021‑3
   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(02)00021-3 [Google Scholar]
3. Amasyalı, M. F., & Diri, B.
   (2006) Automatic Turkish text categorization in terms of author, genre and gender. InInternational Conference on Application of Natural Language to Information Systems (pp.221–226). Berlin: Springer.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Argamon-Engelson, S., Koppel, M., Avneri, G.
   (1998) Style-based text categorization: What newspaper am I reading?InProc. of AAAI Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization 1998 (pp.1–4).
   [Google Scholar]
5. Argamon, S., & Levitan, S.
   (2005) Measuring the usefulness of function words for authorship attribution. InProceedings of the 2005 ACH/ALLC Conference.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Argamon, S., & Koppel, M.
   (2010) The rest of the story: Finding meaning in stylistic variation. InThe structure of style (pp.79–112). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑12337‑5_5
   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12337-5_5 [Google Scholar]
7. Argamon, S., Dodick, J., & Chase, P.
   (2008) Language use reflects scientific methodology: A corpus-based study of peer-reviewed journal articles. Scientometrics, 75(2), 203–238. 10.1007/s11192‑007‑1768‑y
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1768-y [Google Scholar]
8. Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., & Shimoni, A. R.
   (2003) Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text, 23(3), 321–346. 10.1515/text.2003.014
   https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.014 [Google Scholar]
9. Argamon, S., Whitelaw, C., Chase, P., Hota, S. R., Garg, N., & Levitan, S.
   (2007) Stylistic text classification using functional lexical features. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(6), 802–822. 10.1002/asi.20553
   https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20553 [Google Scholar]
10. Atkinson, D.
    (1992) The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: The case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal. Applied Linguistics, 13(4), 337–374. 10.1093/applin/13.4.337
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/13.4.337 [Google Scholar]
11. Bateman, J. A., Maier, E. A., Teich, E., & Wanner, L.
    (1991) Towards an architecture for situated text generation. InProceedings of the ICCICL (pp.289–302).
    [Google Scholar]
12. Belz, A.
    (2005) Statistical generation: Three methods compared and evaluated. InProceedings of ENLG-2005 (pp.15–23).
    [Google Scholar]
13. Berber Sardinha, T.
    (2017) Text types in Brazilian Portuguese: A multi-dimensional perspective. Corpora, 12(3), 483–515. 10.3366/cor.2017.0129
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2017.0129 [Google Scholar]
14. Biber, D.
    (1989) A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27(1), 3–44. 10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.3 [Google Scholar]
15. Biber, D.
    (1991) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Biber, D.
    (1995) Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519871
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519871 [Google Scholar]
17. Biber, D.
    (2003) Variation among university spoken and written registers: A new multi-dimensional analysis. Language and Computers, 46, 47–70.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Biber, D.
    (2004) Conversation text types: A multi-dimensional analysis. InLe poids des mots: Proc. of the 7th International Conference on the Statistical Analysis of Textual Data (pp.15–34). Louvain: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Biber, D., & Barbieri, F.
    (2007) Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific P_urposes, 26(3), 263–286. 10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003 [Google Scholar]
20. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2001) Register variation: A corpus approach. InD. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.175–196). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
22. Biber, D., & Finegan, E.
    (2001) Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. InS. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies (pp.66–83). Harlow: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Brooke, J., Wang, T., & Hirst, G.
    (2010) Automatic acquisition of lexical formality. InProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Posters (pp.90–98). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Carroll, J., Minnen, G., & Briscoe, T.
    (1999) Corpus annotation for parser evaluation. InProceedings of the EACL workshop on LINC, June 1999.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Clarke, I., & Grieve, J.
    (2017) Dimensions of abusive language on twitter. InProceedings of the First Workshop on Abusive Language Online (pp.1–10).
    [Google Scholar]
26. Cohen, W. W.
    (1995) Fast effective rule induction. InProceedings 12th International Conference on Machine Learning (pp.115–123). Burlington MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Conrad, S. M.
    (1996) Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: An example from biology. Linguistics and Education, 8(3), 299–326. 10.1016/S0898‑5898(96)90025‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(96)90025-X [Google Scholar]
28. Crowston, K., & Kwasnik, B. H.
    (2003) Can document-genre metadata improve information access to large digital collections?Library Trends, 52(2), 345–361.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Crystal, D.
    (2011) Internet linguistics: A student guide. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203830901
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203830901 [Google Scholar]
30. Damashek, M.
    (1995) Gauging similarity with n-grams: Language-independent categorization of text. Science, 267(5199), 843–848. 10.1126/science.267.5199.843
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.267.5199.843 [Google Scholar]
31. De Vel, O., Anderson, A., Corney, M., & Mohay, G.
    (2001) Mining e-mail content for author identification forensics. ACM Sigmod Record, 30(4), 55–64. 10.1145/604264.604272
    https://doi.org/10.1145/604264.604272 [Google Scholar]
32. Degaetano-Ortlieb, S., Kermes, H., Khamis, A., & Teich, E.
    (2016) An information-theoretic approach to modeling diachronic change in scientific English. InC. Suhr, T. Nevalainen, & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Selected papers from Varieng – From data to evidence (d2e), Helsinki, Finland. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Diederich, J., Kindermann, J., Leopold, E., & Paass, G.
    (2003) Authorship attribution with support vector machines. Applied Intelligence, 19(1–2), 109–123. 10.1023/A:1023824908771
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023824908771 [Google Scholar]
34. DiMarco, C., & Foster, M. E.
    (1997) The automated generation of Web documents that are tailored to the individual reader. InProceedings of the AAAI-97 Spring Symposium on Natural Language Processing for the World Wide Web, Stanford, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Dong, L., Watters, C., Duffy, J., & Shepherd, M.
    (2008) An examination of genre attributes for web page classification. InProceedings of HICSS (pp.133). IEEE.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Eisenstein, J., Smith, N. A., & Xing, E. P.
    (2011) Discovering sociolinguistic associations with structured sparsity. InProceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies-Volume1 (pp.1365–1374). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Ficler, J., & Goldberg, Y.
    (2017) Controlling linguistic style aspects in neural language generation. InProceedings from the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) Workshop on Stylistic Variation (pp.94–104). 10.18653/v1/W17‑4912
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-4912 [Google Scholar]
38. Finn, A., & Kushmerick, N.
    (2006) Learning to classify documents according to genre. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(11), 1506–1518. 10.1002/asi.20427
    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20427 [Google Scholar]
39. Freund, L., Clarke, C. L., & Toms, E. G.
    (2006) Towards genre classification for IR in the workplace. InProceedings of the 1st International Conference on Information Interaction in Context (pp.30–36). ACM. 10.1145/1164820.1164829
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1164820.1164829 [Google Scholar]
40. Fu, Z., Tan, X., Peng, N., Zhao, D. & Yan, R.
    (2018) Style transfer in text: Exploration and evaluation. InProceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Gatt, A., & Krahmer, E.
    (2018) Survey of the state of the art in natural language generation: Core tasks, applications and evaluation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 61, 65–170. 10.1613/jair.5477
    https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.5477 [Google Scholar]
42. Genkin, A., Lewis, D., & Madigan, D.
    (2006) Large-scale Bayesian logistic regression for text categorization. Technometrics, 49(3), 291–304. doi:  10.1198/004017007000000245
    https://doi.org/10.1198/004017007000000245 [Google Scholar]
43. Giesbrecht, E., & Evert, S.
    (2009) Is part-of-speech tagging a solved task? An evaluation of POS taggers for the German web as corpus. InProceedings of the Fifth Web as Corpus Workshop (pp.27–35).
    [Google Scholar]
44. Glover, A., & Hirst, G.
    (1996) Detecting stylistic inconsistencies in collaborative writing. InM. Sharples & T. van der Geest (Eds.), The New Writing Environment (pp.147–168). London: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4471‑1482‑6_12
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-1482-6_12 [Google Scholar]
45. Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., & Bengio, Y.
    (2014) Generative adversarial nets. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems27 (pp.2672–2680).
    [Google Scholar]
46. Goutte, C., & Gaussier, E.
    (2005, March). A probabilistic interpretation of precision, recall and F-score, with implication for evaluation. InEuropean Conference on Information Retrieval (pp.345–359). Berlin: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Gries, S. T., & Mukherjee, J.
    (2010) Lexical gravity across varieties of English: An ICE-based study of n-grams in Asian Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 520–548. 10.1075/ijcl.15.4.04gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.04gri [Google Scholar]
48. Gries, S. T., Newman, J., & Shaoul, C.
    (2011) N-grams and the clustering of registers. Empirical Language Research Journal, 5(11).
    [Google Scholar]
49. Grieve, J., Biber, D., Friginal, E. & Nekrasova, T.
    (2010) Variation among blogs: A multi-dimensional analysis. InGenres on the Web (pp.303–322). Springer, Dordrecht.10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9178‑9_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9178-9_14 [Google Scholar]
50. Grieve, J., Biber, D., Friginal, E. and Nekrasova, T.
    (2010) Variation among blogs: A multi-dimensional analysis. InA. Mehler, S. Sharoff, & M. Santini (Eds.), Genres on the Web (pp.303–322). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9178‑9_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9178-9_14 [Google Scholar]
51. Halliday, M., & Hasan, R.
    (1989) Language, Context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective, 2nd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Halliday, M. A., McIntosh, A., & Strevens, P.
    (1968) The users and uses of language. InJ. Fischman (Ed.), Readings in the sociology of language (139–169). The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110805376.139
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805376.139 [Google Scholar]
53. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C.
    (2004) An introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Hammerton, J., Osborne, M., Armstrong, S., & Daelemans, W.
    (2002) Introduction to special issue on machine learning approaches to shallow parsing. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2, 551–558.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Herring, S., Johnson, D. A., & DiBenedetto, T.
    (1995) This discussion is going too far!: Male resistance to female participation on the internet. InK. Hall & M. Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self (pp.67–96). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Herring, S. C., & Paolillo, J. C.
    (2006) Gender and genre variation in weblogs. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 439–459. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2006.00287.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00287.x [Google Scholar]
57. Heylighen, F., & Dewaele, J.
    (1999) Formality of language: definition, measurement and behavioral determinants. Interner Bericht, Center “Leo Apostel”, Vrije Universiteit Brüssel.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J.
    (1997) Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8), 1735–1780. 10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735
    https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 [Google Scholar]
59. Holmes, D.
    (1998) The evolution of stylometry in humanities scholarship. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 13(3), 111–117. 10.1093/llc/13.3.111
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/13.3.111 [Google Scholar]
60. Hoorn, J. F., Frank, S. L., Kowalczyk, W., & van Der Ham, F.
    (1999) Neural network identification of poets using letter sequences. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 14(3), 311–338. 10.1093/llc/14.3.311
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/14.3.311 [Google Scholar]
61. Hovy, E., Lavid, J., Maier, E., Mittal, V., & Paris, C.
    (1992) Employing knowledge resources in a new text planner architecture. InAspects of automated natural language generation (pp.57–72). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/3‑540‑55399‑1_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55399-1_5 [Google Scholar]
62. Hovy, E. H.
    (1990) Pragmatics and natural language generation. Artificial Intelligence, 43(2), pp.153–197. 10.1016/0004‑3702(90)90084‑D
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(90)90084-D [Google Scholar]
63. Hovy, E. H.
    (1991) Approaches to the planning of coherent text. InR. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rösner, & O. Stock (Eds.), Natural language generation in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics (pp.83–102). Boston, MA: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4757‑5945‑7_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5945-7_3 [Google Scholar]
64. Husson, F., Lê, S., & Pags, J.
    (2010) Exploratory multivariate analysis by example using R. London: Chapman & Hall CRC. 10.1201/b10345
    https://doi.org/10.1201/b10345 [Google Scholar]
65. Jhamtani, H., Gangal, V., Hovy, E., & Nyberg, E.
    (2017) Shakespearizing modern language using copy-enriched sequence to sequence models. InProceedings of the Workshop on Stylistic Variation at EMNLP 2017 (pp.10–19). 10.18653/v1/W17‑4902
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-4902 [Google Scholar]
66. Johansson, S., Leech, G. N., & Goodluck, H.
    (1978) Manual of information to accompany the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, for use with digital computer. Oslo: Department of English, University of Oslo.
    [Google Scholar]
67. Jolliffe, I.
    (2011) Principal component analysis. InM. Lovric (Ed.), International encyclopedia of statistical science (pp.1094–1096). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑04898‑2_455
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_455 [Google Scholar]
68. Kakkonen, T., & Sutinen, E.
    (2008) Coverage-based evaluation of parser generalizability. InProceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, Volume–II.
    [Google Scholar]
69. Kan, M. Y., & McKeown, K. R.
    (2002) Corpus-trained text generation for summarization. InProceedings of the International Natural Language Generation Conference (pp.1–8).
    [Google Scholar]
70. Kanaris, I., & Stamatatos, E.
    (2007) Webpage genre identification using variable-length character n-grams. InProceedings of the 19th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (p.3–10). Washington, DC. 10.1109/ICTAI.2007.107
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTAI.2007.107 [Google Scholar]
71. Karlgren, J.
    (1999) Stylistic experiments in information retrieval. InT. Strzalkowski (Ed.) Natural Language Information Retrieval (pp.147–166). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑2388‑6_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2388-6_6 [Google Scholar]
72. Kešelj, V., Peng, F., Cercone, N., & Thomas, C.
    (2003) N-gram-based author profiles for authorship attribution. InProceedings of the Conference Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics, PACLING, 3 (pp.255–264).
    [Google Scholar]
73. Kjell, B.
    (1994a) Authorship attribution of text samples using neural networks and Bayesian classifiers. InIEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, San Antonio, TX. 10.1109/ICSMC.1994.400086
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.1994.400086 [Google Scholar]
74. Kjell, B., Woods, W. A., Frieder, O.
    (1995) Information retrieval using letter tuples with neural network and nearest neighbor classifiers. InIEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (Vol., pp.1222–1225). Vancouver, BC.
    [Google Scholar]
75. Koehn, P., Hoang, H., Birch, A., Callison-Burch, C., Federico, M., Bertoldi, N., Cowan, B., Shen, W., Moran, C., Zens, R., Dyer, C., Bojar, O., Constantin, A., & Herbst, E.
    (2007) Moses: open source toolkit for statistical machine translation. InProceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the ACL on Interactive Poster and Demonstration Sessions. 10.3115/1557769.1557821
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1557769.1557821 [Google Scholar]
76. Kohavi, R.
    (1995) A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. InC. S. Mellish (Ed.). Proceedings IJCAI-95, 14(2), 1137–1145. Montreal, Quebec.
    [Google Scholar]
77. Koller, D., Friedman, N., & Bach, F.
    (2009) Probabilistic graphical models: Principles and techniques. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.
    [Google Scholar]
78. Koppel, M., Argamon, S., & Shimoni, A. R.
    (2002) Automatically categorizing written texts by author gender. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 17(4), 401–412. 10.1093/llc/17.4.401
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/17.4.401 [Google Scholar]
79. Koppel, M., & Schler, J.
    (2003) August. Exploiting stylistic idiosyncrasies for authorship attribution. InProceedings of IJCAI’03 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Style Analysis and Synthesis (Vol.69, pp.72–80).
    [Google Scholar]
80. Koppel, M., Schler, J., & Zigdon, K.
    (2005) Determining an author’s native language by mining a text for errors. InProceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery in data mining (pp.624–628). ACM. 10.1145/1081870.1081947
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1081870.1081947 [Google Scholar]
81. Langkilde-Geary, I.
    (2002) An empirical verification of coverage and correctness for a general-purpose sentence generator. InProceedings of the International Natural Language Generation Conference (pp.17–24).
    [Google Scholar]
82. Lee, D.
    (2001) Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology, 5(3). 37–72.
    [Google Scholar]
83. Loehlin, J. C.
    (1998) Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
84. Louwerse, M. M., & Graesser, A. C.
    (2004) Coherence in discourse. InP. Strazny (Ed.), Encyclopedia of linguistics. Chicago, IL: Fitzroy Dearborn.
    [Google Scholar]
85. Lowe, D., & Matthews, R.
    (1995), Shakespeare vs. Fletcher: A stylometric analysis by radial basis functions. Computers and the Humanities, 29, 449–461. 10.1007/BF01829876
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01829876 [Google Scholar]
86. Madigan, D., Genkin, A., Lewis, D. D., Argamon, S., Fradkin, D., & Ye, L.
    (2006) Author identification on the large scale. InProc. of Classification Society of N. America 2005.
    [Google Scholar]
87. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1988) Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 8(3), 243–281. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
88. Marcu, D.
    (2000) The theory and practice of discourse parsing and summarization. Cambridge: The MIT press.
    [Google Scholar]
89. Marcu, D.
    (1997) From local to global coherence: A bottom-up approach to text planning. InAAAI/IAAI (pp.629–635).
    [Google Scholar]
90. Martin, J. H., & Jurafsky, D.
    (2000) Speech and language processing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
91. Martin, J. R.
    (1992) English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
92. Matthews, R., & Merriam, T.
    (1993) Neural computation in stylometry : An application to the works of Shakespeare and Fletcher. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 203–209. 10.1093/llc/8.4.203
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/8.4.203 [Google Scholar]
93. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
    (2015) Register in the round: Registerial cartography. Functional Linguistics, 2(1), 9. 10.1186/s40554‑015‑0015‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-015-0015-8 [Google Scholar]
94. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & Teruya, K.
    (2015) Grammatical realizations of rhetorical relations in different registers. Word, 61(3), 232–281. 10.1080/00437956.2015.1071963
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2015.1071963 [Google Scholar]
95. McKeown, K., Kukich, K., & Shaw, J.
    (1994) Practical issues in automatic documentation generation. InProceedings of the Fourth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing (pp.7–14). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/974358.974361
    https://doi.org/10.3115/974358.974361 [Google Scholar]
96. Merriam, T., & Matthews, R.
    (1994) Neural compuation in stylometry II: An application to the works of Shakespeare and Marlowe. Literary and Linguistic Computing9, 1–6. 10.1093/llc/9.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/9.1.1 [Google Scholar]
97. Moore, J. D., & Paris, C. L.
    (1993) Planning text for advisory dialogues: Capturing intentional and rhetorical information. Computational Linguistics, 19(4), 651–694.
    [Google Scholar]
98. Morato, J., Llorens, J., Génova, G., & Moreiro, J. A.
    (2003) Experiments in discourse analysis impact on information classification and retrieval algorithms. Information Processing & Management, 39(6), 825–851. 10.1016/S0306‑4573(02)00081‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(02)00081-X [Google Scholar]
99. Mosquera, A., & Moreda, P.
    (2012) A qualitative analysis of informality levels in web 2.0 texts: The Facebook case study. InProceedings of the LREC workshop:@ NLP can u tag# user generated content (pp.23–29).
    [Google Scholar]
100. Nowson, S.
     (2006) The language of weblogs: A study of genre and individual differences. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Edinburgh.
101. Nowson, S., Oberlander, J., & Gill, A. J.
     (2005) Weblogs, genres and individual differences. InProceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.1666–1671). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
102. Och, F. J., & Ney, H.
     (2003) A systematic comparison of various statistical alignment models. Computational Linguistics, 29(1), 19–51. 10.1162/089120103321337421
     https://doi.org/10.1162/089120103321337421 [Google Scholar]
103. Paiva, D. S., & Evans, R.
     (2005) Empirically-based control of natural language generation. InProceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’05) (pp.58–65).
     [Google Scholar]
104. Pavalanathan, U., Fitzpatrick, J., Kiesling, S., & Eisenstein, J.
     (2017) A multi-dimensional lexicon for interpersonal stancetaking. InProceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.884–895). Vancouver, CA: Association for Computation Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
105. Pearl, J.
     (2009) Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803161
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803161 [Google Scholar]
106. Peng, F., Schuurmans, D., & Wang, S.
     (2004) Augmenting naive bayes classifiers with statistical language models. Information Retrieval, 7(3–4), 317–345. 10.1023/B:INRT.0000011209.19643.e2
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:INRT.0000011209.19643.e2 [Google Scholar]
107. Power, R., Scott, D., & Bouayad-Agha, N.
     (2003) Generating texts with style. InInternational Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (pp.444–452). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/3‑540‑36456‑0_47
     https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36456-0_47 [Google Scholar]
108. Prabhumoye, S., Tsvetkov, Y., Salakhutdinov, R., & Black, A. W.
     (2018) Style transfer through back-translation. InProceedings of Association for Computational Linguistics Conference. Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.
     [Google Scholar]
109. Quinlan, J. R.
     (2014) C4. 5: Programs for machine learning. Oxford: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
110. Raileanu, L. E., & Stoffel, K.
     (2004) Theoretical comparison between the GINI index and information gain criteria. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 41(1), 77–93. 10.1023/B:AMAI.0000018580.96245.c6
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AMAI.0000018580.96245.c6 [Google Scholar]
111. Rehbein, I., & Bildhauer, F.
     (2017) Data point selection for genre-aware parsing. InProceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (pp.95–105).
     [Google Scholar]
112. Reiter, E., & Dale, R.
     (2000) Building natural language generation systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519857
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519857 [Google Scholar]
113. Reiter, E., Sripada, S., Hunter, J., & Yu, J.
     (2005) Choosing words in computer-generated weather forecasts. Artificial Intelligence, 167(1–2), 137–169. 10.1016/j.artint.2005.06.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2005.06.006 [Google Scholar]
114. Reiter, E., & Williams, S.
     (2010) Generating texts in different styles. InS. Argamon, K. Burns, & S. Dubnov (Eds.), The structure of style. Algorithmic approachees to understanding manner and meaning (pp.59–75). Heidelberg: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
115. Santini, M.
     (2005) Genres in formation? An exploratory study of web pages using cluster analysis. InProceedings of the 8th Annual Colloquium for the UK Special Interest Group for Computational Linguistics (CLUK05). Manchester, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
116. Santini, M.
     (2006) Some issues in automatic genre classification of web pages. InProceedings of JADT 2006: 8èmes Journées Internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles.
     [Google Scholar]
117. Santini, M.
     (2008) Zero, single, or multi? Genre of web pages through the users’ perspective. Information Processing & Management, 44(2), 702–737. 10.1016/j.ipm.2007.05.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.05.011 [Google Scholar]
118. Sebastiani, F.
     (2002) Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 34(1), 1–47. 10.1145/505282.505283
     https://doi.org/10.1145/505282.505283 [Google Scholar]
119. Sennrich, R., Haddow, B., & Birch, A.
     (2016) Controlling politeness in neural machine translation via side constraints. InProceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp.35–40).
     [Google Scholar]
120. Sharoff, S., Wu, Z., & Markert, K.
     (2010) The Web Library of Babel: Evaluating genre collections. InProceedings of the Seventh conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10).
     [Google Scholar]
121. Sheika, F. A., & Inkpen, D.
     (2012) Learning to classify documents according to formal and informal style. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 8(1), 1–29.
     [Google Scholar]
122. Speelman, D., Gondelaers, S., & Geeraerts, D.
     (2006) A profile-based calculation of region and register variation: The synchronic and diachronic status of the two main national varieties of Dutch. InA. Wilson, D. Archer, & P. Rayson (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics Around the World (pp.181–194). Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401202213_015
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401202213_015 [Google Scholar]
123. Stamatatos, E.
     (2008) Author identification: Using text sampling to handle the class imbalance problem. Information Processing & Management, 44(2), 790–799. 10.1016/j.ipm.2007.05.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.05.012 [Google Scholar]
124. Stamatatos, E., Fakotakis, N., & Kokkinakis, G.
     (2000) Automatic text categorization in terms of genre and author. Computational Linguistics, 26(4), 471–495. 10.1162/089120100750105920
     https://doi.org/10.1162/089120100750105920 [Google Scholar]
125. Svartvik, J., & Quirk, R.
     (1980) A corpus of English conversation. Lund: Gleerup.
     [Google Scholar]
126. Szmrecsanyi, B.
     (2009) Typological parameters of intralingual variability: Grammatical analyticity versus syntheticity in varieties of English. Language Variation and Change, 21(3), 319–353. 10.1017/S0954394509990123
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394509990123 [Google Scholar]
127. Tambouratzis, G., Markantonatou, S., Hairetakis, N., Vassiliou, M., Tambouratzis, D., & Carayannis, G.
     (2000) Discriminating the registers and styles in the Modern Greek language. InProceedings of the workshop on Comparing corpora (Vol.9, pp.35–42). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
128. Teich, E., & Fankhauser, P.
     (2010) Exploring a corpus of scientific texts using data mining. Language & Computers, 71(1), 233–247.
     [Google Scholar]
129. Teich, E., Degaetano-Ortlieb, S., Kermes, H., & Lapshinova-Koltunski, E.
     (2013) Scientific registers and disciplinary diversification: a comparable corpus approach. InProceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Building and Using Comparable Corpora (pp.59–68).
     [Google Scholar]
130. The British National Corpus
     The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) (2007) Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
131. Tweedie, S. Singh, & Holmes, D. I.
     (1996) Neural network applications in stylometry: The Federalist Papers. Computers and the Humanities, 30(1), 1–10. 10.1007/BF00054024
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00054024 [Google Scholar]
132. van Dijk, T. A.
     (1993) Stories and racism. InD. K. Mumby (Ed.). Narrative and social control: Critical perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483345277.n6
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483345277.n6 [Google Scholar]
133. Vidulin, V., Luštrek, M., & Gams, M.
     (2007) Using genres to improve search engines. InProceedings of the International Workshop Towards Genre-Enabled Search Engines (pp.45–51).
     [Google Scholar]
134. Waseem, Z., & Hovy, D.
     (2016) Hateful symbols or hateful people? predictive features for hate speech detection on twitter. InProceedings of Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2016. (pp.88–93). Stroudsburg, PA: The Association for Computational Linguistics https://aclweb.org/anthology/N/N16/N16-2.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
135. Waugh, S., Adams, A., & Tweedie, F. J.
     (2000) Computational stylistics using Artificial Neural Networks. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 15(2), 187–198. 10.1093/llc/15.2.187
     https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/15.2.187 [Google Scholar]
136. Xiao, R.
     (2009) Multi-dimensional analysis and the study of world Englishes. World Englishes, 28(4), 421–450. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.2009.01606.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2009.01606.x [Google Scholar]
137. Xu, W., Ritter, A., Dolan, B., Grishman, R., & Cherry, C.
     (2012) Paraphrasing for style. InProceedings of COLING 2012 (pp.2899–2914).
     [Google Scholar]
138. Zhao, Y. & Zobel, J.
     (2005) Effective and scalable authorship attribution using function words. InAsia Information Retrieval Symposium (pp.174–189). Heidelberg: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
139. Zheng, R., Li, J., Chen, H., & Huang, Z.
     (2006) A framework for authorship identification of online messages: Writing-style features and classification techniques. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 378–393. 10.1002/asi.20316
     https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20316 [Google Scholar]