capturing patterns of linguistic interaction in a parsed corpus
DESCRIPTION
Capturing patterns of linguistic interaction in a parsed corpus. A methodological case study. Sean Wallis Survey of English Usage University College London [email protected]. Capturing linguistic interaction. Parsed corpus linguistics Intra-structural priming Experiments - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Capturing patterns of Capturing patterns of linguistic interaction in a linguistic interaction in a
parsed corpusparsed corpusA methodological case study
Sean WallisSurvey of English Usage
University College [email protected]
Capturing linguistic Capturing linguistic interaction...interaction...• Parsed corpus linguistics• Intra-structural priming• Experiments
– Attributive AJPs before a noun– Embedded postmodifying clauses– Sequential postmodifying clauses– Speech vs. writing
• Conclusions• The handout explains the analytical method in more detail
(so read it later!)
Parsed corpus linguisticsParsed corpus linguistics• An example tree from ICE-GB (spoken)
S1A-006 #23
Parsed corpus linguisticsParsed corpus linguistics• Three kinds of evidence may be obtained
from a parsed corpusFrequency evidence of a particular known
rule, structure or linguistic eventCoverage evidence of new rules, etc.Interaction evidence of the relationship
between rules, structures and events• This evidence is necessarily framed within
a particular grammatical scheme– How might we evaluate this grammar?
Intra-structural primingIntra-structural priming• Priming effects within a structure
– Study repeating an additive step in structures
• Consider– a phrase or clause that may (in principle)
be extended ad infinitum• e.g. an NP with a noun head
N
Intra-structural primingIntra-structural priming• Priming effects within a structure
– Study repeating an additive step in structures
• Consider– a phrase or clause that may (in principle)
be extended ad infinitum• e.g. an NP with a noun head
– a single additive step applied to this structure
• e.g. add an attributive AJP before the head
N
AJP
Intra-structural primingIntra-structural priming• Priming effects within a structure
– Study repeating an additive step in structures• Consider
– a phrase or clause that may (in principle) be extended ad infinitum
• e.g. an NP with a noun head– a single additive step applied to this structure
• e.g. add an attributive AJP before the head– Q. What is the effect of repeatedly applying
this operation to the structure?
shipN
N
AJP
Intra-structural primingIntra-structural priming• Priming effects within a structure
– Study repeating an additive step in structures• Consider
– a phrase or clause that may (in principle) be extended ad infinitum
• e.g. an NP with a noun head– a single additive step applied to this structure
• e.g. add an attributive AJP before the head– Q. What is the effect of repeatedly applying
this operation to the structure?
shipNAJP
tall
N
AJP
Intra-structural primingIntra-structural priming• Priming effects within a structure
– Study repeating an additive step in structures• Consider
– a phrase or clause that may (in principle) be extended ad infinitum
• e.g. an NP with a noun head– a single additive step applied to this structure
• e.g. add an attributive AJP before the head– Q. What is the effect of repeatedly applying
this operation to the structure?
shipNAJP
very greentallAJP
N
AJP
Intra-structural primingIntra-structural priming• Priming effects within a structure
– Study repeating an additive step in structures• Consider
– a phrase or clause that may (in principle) be extended ad infinitum
• e.g. an NP with a noun head– a single additive step applied to this structure
• e.g. add an attributive AJP before the head– Q. What is the effect of repeatedly applying
this operation to the structure?
shipNAJP
very greentallAJP
N
AJP
AJPold
Experiment 1: analysis of Experiment 1: analysis of resultsresults• Sequential probability analysis
– calculate probability of adding each AJP– error bars: Wilson intervals– probability falls
• second < first• third < second
– decisions interact
– Every AJP addedmakes it harderto add another
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0 1 2 3 4 5
probability
Experiment 1: explanations?Experiment 1: explanations?• Feedback loop: for each successive AJP,
it is more difficult to add a further AJP logical-semantic constraints
• tend to say the tall green ship • do not tend to say tall short ship or green tall ship
communicative economy• once speaker said tall green ship, tends to only say ship
memory/processing constraints• unlikely: this is a small structure, as are AJPs
Experiment 1: speech vs. Experiment 1: speech vs. writingwriting• Spoken vs. written subcorpora
– Same overall pattern– Spoken data tends to have fewer attributive AJPs
• Support for communicative economy or memory/processing hypotheses?
– Significance tests• Paired 2x1 Wilson tests
(Wallis 2011)• first and second
observed spoken probabilities are significantly smallerthan written
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0 1 2 3 4 5
probability
written
spoken
Experiment 2: preverbal AVPsExperiment 2: preverbal AVPs• Consider adverb phrases before a verb
– Results very different• Probability does not fall significantly between first and
second AVP• Probability does fall
between third and second AVP
– Possible constraints• (weak) communicative • (weak) semantic
– Further investigationneeded 0.00
0.05
0.10
0 1 2 3 4
probability
Experiment 3: postmodifying Experiment 3: postmodifying clausesclauses• Another way to specify nouns in English
– add clause after noun to explicate it• the ship [that was in the port]• the ship [called Ariadne]
– may be embedded• the ship [that was in the port [we visited last week]]
– or successively postmodified• the ship [called Ariadne][that was in the port]
Experiment 3: (i) Experiment 3: (i) embeddingembedding• Probability of adding a further embedded
postmodifying clause falls with size– All data
• second < first• third < first
– Spoken• second < first
– Written• third < second
• Compare with effect ofsequential postmodification of same head
0.00
0.05
0.10
0 1 2 3 4
probability
written
spoken
all
Experiment 3: (ii) Experiment 3: (ii) sequentialsequential• Probability of sequential postmodifying
falls - and - for spoken data, falls, then rises– All data
• second < first– Spoken
• third > second
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0 1 2 3 4 5
probability
written
spoken
Experiment 3: (ii) Experiment 3: (ii) sequentialsequential• Probability of sequential postmodifying falls -
and - for spoken data, falls, then rises– All data
• second < first– Spoken
• third > second– Option: count
conjoins separatelyor treat as single item
• Either way, results showsimilar pattern
– Negative feedback: the ‘in for a penny’ effect0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0 1 2 3 4 5
probability
written
spoken
Experiment 3: (iii) Experiment 3: (iii) embedembed vs. vs. seqseq• Embedded vs. sequential postmodification
• embedding > sequence (second level)– It is slightly easier to
modify the latest headthan a more remoteone:
• semantic constraints?• backtracking cost?
– Third level• embedding < sequence
(if counting conjoins)• long sequences seem to be easier to construct than
comparable layers of embedding0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0 1 2 3 4 5
probability
embedding
sequential
ConclusionsConclusions• A method for evaluating interactions along
grammatical axes– General purpose, robust, structural– More abstract than ‘linguistic choice’ experiments– Depends on a concept of grammatical distance
along an axis, based on the chosen grammar• Method has philosophical implications
– Grammar viewed as outcome of linguistic choices– Linguistics as an evaluable observational science
• Signature (trace) of language production decisions– A unification of theoretical and corpus linguistics?
Potential applicationsPotential applications• Corpus linguistics
– Optimising existing grammatical framework• e.g. coordination, compound nouns
– Comparing genres/languages/periods• Theoretical linguistics
– Comparing different grammars, same language• Psycholinguistics
– Search for evidence of language production constraints in spontaneous speech corpora
• speech and language therapy• language acquisition and development
ReferencesReferencesNelson, G., Wallis, S. & Aarts, B. (2002) Exploring natural
language. Benjamins.Pickering, M. & Ferreira, V. (2008) Structural priming.
Psychological Bulletin 134, 427–459.Wallis, S.A. (2011) Comparing χ² tests for separability.
Survey of English Usage.
• For explanation of the analysis method see the handout!• For more detail and a draft of the full paper see
http://corplingstats.wordpress.com