Cover not available

Article In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Dependency distance and directionality in aviation maintenance English

A four-decade history under human intervention

ORCiD logo with link | The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
ORCiD logo with link | The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Dependency distance minimization (DDM) operates as a universal principle in naturally evolving languages, driven by cognitive efficiency pressures favoring shorter dependencies. However, diachronic investigation of controlled languages remains absent. This study explored syntactic complexity evolution in aviation maintenance English over four decades of implementation of Simplified Technical English (STE), the dominant controlled language standard in international aviation. Situated within dependency grammar, we tracked both large-grained indices (dependency distance and direction) and fine-grained indices (dependency types and part-of-speech distributions) in continuously revised aircraft maintenance manuals from an industry-leading manufacturer (1982–2024). Results showed dependency distances increased before stabilizing around 2002–2003, while structures shifted toward more head-initial patterns. Fine-grained analysis revealed how grammatical changes across four subsystems collectively shaped these large-grained patterns. These findings extend DDM theory to controlled language contexts, carrying implications for controlled language design and training for the global aviation maintenance workforce, where second language English readers predominate.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Dependency grammar and controlled language in aviation
    • 2.1Dependency grammar
    • 2.2Controlled language and simplification in aviation
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Corpus collection and preparation
    • 3.2Calculation of dependency distance and dependency direction
    • 3.3Feature extraction for exploratory analysis
    • 3.4Statistical analysis
      • 3.4.1Primary temporal trend analyses
      • 3.4.2Secondary exploratory analyses: Linguistic feature trends
  • 4.Syntactic complexity evolution in aviation maintenance English
    • 4.1The length-stratified temporal analyses
    • 4.2Linguistic feature trends over time (1982–2024)
      • 4.2.1Verbal system
      • 4.2.2Nominal system
      • 4.2.3Quantification and modification
      • 4.2.4Clause relations
  • 5.Implications
    • 5.1Implications for DDM
    • 5.2Implications for controlled language and training
    • 5.3Implications for methodology and future studies
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Data availability statement
  • Notes
  • References
References (59)
References
ASD. (2025). ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English: Standard for technical documentation (Issue 9). Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe. [URL]
Bi, Y., & Tan, H. (2024). Language transfer in L2 academic writings: A dependency grammar approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1384629. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, D., & Manning, C. (2014). A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks. In A. Moschitti, B. Pang, & W. Daelemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (pp. 740–750). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chervak, S., Drury, C. G., & Ouellette, J. P. (1996). Field evaluation of simplified English for aircraft workcards. In W. T. Shepherd (ed.), Proceedings of the tenth meeting on human factors: Issues in aircraft maintenance and inspection (pp. 123–136). Federal Aviation Administration Office of Aviation Medicine. [URL]
Cooper, W. E., & Ross, J. R. (1975). World order. In R. E. Grossman, L. J. San, & T. J. Vance (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism (pp. 63–111). Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J., & Rodríguez-Juárez, C. (2023). Computational analysis of adjuncts in ASD-STE100 for the NLP parser ARTEMIS. VIAL-Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20, 107–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2010). The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 25(4), 447–464. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora, 7(2), 121–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Marneffe, M.-C., Manning, C. D., Nivre, J., & Zeman, D. (2021). Universal Dependencies. Computational Linguistics, 47(2), 255–308. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Douglas, S., & Hurst, M. (1996). Controlled language support for Perkins Approved Clear English (PACE). In G. Adriaens (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications (pp. 93–105). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drury, C. G., Guy, K. P., & Wenner, C. A. (2010). Outsourcing aviation maintenance: Human factors implications, specifically for communications. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 20(2), 124–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2004). Euclidean distance between syntactically linked words. Physical Review E, Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 70(5), 056135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, R., & Gómez-Rodríguez, C. (2021). Anti dependency distance minimization in short sequences: A graph theoretic approach. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 28(1), 50–76. Google Scholar logo with link to 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 of the United States of America, 112(33), 10336–10341. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gao, N., & He, Q. (2023). A corpus-based study of the dependency distance differences in English academic writing. SAGE Open, 13(3), 21582440231198408. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025). A corpus-based dependency study of the syntactic complexity in the connected speech of Alzheimer’s disease. Aphasiology, 39(11), 1456–1479. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. P. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the first Mind Articulation Project symposium (pp. 95–126). MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilardone, G., Viganò, M., Costantini, G., Monti, A., Corbo, M., Cecchetto, C., & Papagno, C. (2023). The role of verbal short-term memory in complex sentence comprehension: An observational study on aphasia. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 58(4), 1182–1190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentenial complexity. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 261–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hao, Y., Wang, X., Bin, S., Yang, Q., & Liu, H. (2024). How syntactic complexity indices predict Chinese L2 writing quality: An analysis of unified dependency syntactically-annotated corpus. Assessing Writing, 61, 100847. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1995). Measuring syntactic difficulty. University College London.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamprath, C., Adolphson, E., Mitamura, T., & Nyberg, E. (1998). Controlled language for multilingual document production: Experience with Caterpillar Technical English. In T. Mitamura (ed.), CLAW ’98: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications (pp. 51–61). Language Technologies Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lei, L., & Wen, J. (2020). Is dependency distance experiencing a process of minimization? A diachronic study based on the State of the Union addresses. Lingua, 239, 102762. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, W., & Yan, J. (2021). Probability distribution of dependency distance based on a treebank of Japanese EFL learners’ interlanguage. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 28(2), 172–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liang, Y., & Sang, Z. (2022). Syntactic and typological properties of translational language: A comparative description of dependency treebank of academic abstracts. Lingua, 273, 103345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, H. (2008). Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science, 9(2), 159–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Dependency direction as a means of word-order typology: A method based on dependency treebanks. Lingua, 120(6), 1567–1578. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, H., Hudson, R., & Feng, Z. (2009). Using a Chinese treebank to measure dependency distance. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(2), 161–174. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, J., Wu, M., & Liu, H. (2025). Investigating the dynamic relationship of lexical and syntactic complexity in L2 writing across proficiency levels: A CDST-inspired study. System, 131, 103678. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, J., Yang, N., & Wu, M. (2025). A quantitative and comparative study of syntactic complexity of subclasses of English nominal clauses. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 32(3), 279–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ma, J., Drury, C. G., & Marin, C. V. (2009). Language error in aviation maintenance: Quantifying the issues and interventions in four world regions. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 20(1), 25–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2013). Writing. In F. Grosjean & P. Li (Eds.), The psycholinguistics of bilingualism (pp. 100–115). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. A. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 313–330. [URL]
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitamura, T. (1999). Controlled language for multilingual machine translation. In J.-I. Tsujii (ed.), Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit VII (pp. 46–54). Kent Ridge Digital Labs. [URL]
Mogensen, E. (2004). Controlled language. Perspectives, 12(4), 243–255. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Niu, R., & Liu, H. (2022). Effects of syntactic distance and word order on language processing: An investigation based on a psycholinguistic treebank of English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 51(5), 1043–1062. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ouyang, J., Jiang, J., & Liu, H. (2022). Dependency distance measures in assessing L2 writing proficiency. Assessing Writing, 51, 100603. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Juárez, C., & Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J. (2022). A Role and Reference Grammar account of adjuncts in the Airbus Corpus: A quantitative-based study. Atlantis, 44(2), 20–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shubert, S. K., Spyridakis, J. H., Holmback, H. K., & Coney, M. B. (1995). The comprehensibility of simplified English in procedures. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 25(4), 347–369. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Song, J., & Lei, L. (2025). Lexical bloom, syntactic retreat: Examining complexity trade-offs within Classical Chinese evolution across two millennia. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spaggiari, L., Beaujard, F., & Cannesson, E. (2005). A controlled language at Airbus. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 28(1), 107–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stallings, L. M., MacDonald, M. C., & O’Seaghdha, P. G. (1998). Phrasal ordering constraints in sentence production: Phrase length and verb disposition in heavy-NP shift. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(3), 392–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. ([1959]2015). Elements of structural syntax (T. Osborne & S. Kahane, trans.). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, M., Jaffe, G., Kincaid, J. P., & Stees, Y. (1992). Learning to use simplified English: A preliminary study. Technical Communication, 39(1), 69–73. [URL]
Wang, A. W., & Friginal, E. (2025). The case of English for aviation maintenance: A multi-dimensional analysis of commercial aircraft manuals. English for Specific Purposes, 79, 87–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, H., & Liu, K. (2023). Syntactic simplification in interpreted English: Dependency distance and direction measures. Lingua, 294, 103607. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yadav, H., Vaidya, A., Shukla, V., & Husain, S. (2020). Word order typology interacts with linguistic complexity: A cross-linguistic corpus study. Cognitive Science, 44(4), e12822. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, X., & Li, W. (2024). The development of syntactic complexity of Chinese JFL learners based on Mean Dependency Distance and Mean Hierarchical Distance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 62(1), 79–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, L., & Zhang, C. (2021). Why do L2 learners choose the implicit marker for object relative clauses when it is optionally explicit? Lingua, 258, 103097. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhu, H., Liu, X., & Pang, N. (2022). Investigating diachronic change in dependency distance of modern English: A genre-specific perspective. Lingua, 272, 103307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-dark jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-light jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold prag Twitter_Logo_Blue