Article in:
Languages in Contrast: Online-First Articles

Modelling crosslinguistic n‑gram correspondence in typologically different languages

| Charles University , Czech Republic
| Charles University , Czech Republic
| Charles University , Czech Republic
N‑gram analysis (popularized e.g. by Biber et al., 1999) has become a popular method for the identification of recurrent language patterns. Although the extraction of n‑grams from a corpus may seem straightforward, it proves to be very challenging when applied cross-linguistically (cf. e.g. Ebeling and Ebeling, 2013; Granger and Lefer, 2013; Čermáková and Chlumská, 2017). The major issue is that the quantities of n‑grams of a certain length in typologically different languages do not correspond. Consequently, n‑grams of a given length may function differently across languages, rendering a direct comparison inadequate. Our paper introduces a function capable of modelling the relation between the quantities of n‑grams in typologically distant languages, using the example of Czech and English (and some other language pairs). Based on our model, we can suggest what n‑gram lengths should be contrasted to better reflect the size of n‑gram inventories in each language. The correspondence may not be intuitive (e.g. a Czech 2-gram may best correspond to an English 2.5-gram), but it still provides researchers with a general guide as to what might be useful to include in their analysis (e.g. in this case 2-grams in Czech and 2- and 3-grams in English).
Keywords: n‑grams, parallel corpus, correspondence, Czech/English/Spanish
Published online: 12 January 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19018.mil
References

References

Baker, M.
2004 A Corpus-Based View of Similarity and Difference in Translation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(2): 167–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E.
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Kim, Y. and Tracy-Ventura, N.
2010 A Corpus-Driven Approach to Comparative Phraseology: Lexical Bundles in English, Spanish, and Korean. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Volume 17, S. Iwasaki, H. Hoji, P. M. Clancy and S.-O. Sohn (eds), 75–94. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C. and Warren, M.
2006 From N‑gram to Skipgram to Concgram. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(4): 411–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cortes, V.
2008 A Comparative Analysis of Lexical Bundles in Academic History Writing in English and Spanish. Corpora 3(1): 43–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cvrček, V.
2019 Calc: Corpus Calculator. Prague: Czech National Corpus. Available at http://​www​.korpus​.cz​/calc
Čermák, F. and Rosen, A.
2012 The Case of InterCorp, a Multilingual Parallel Corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(3): 411–427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Čermáková, A. and Chlumská, L.
2017 Expressing Place in Children’s Literature: Testing the Limits of the N‑gram Method in Contrastive Linguistics. In Cross-Linguistic Correspondences: From Lexis to Genre, T. Egan and H. Dirdal (eds), 75–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ebeling, J. and Ebeling, S. Oksefjell
2013 Patterns in Contrast. Studies in Corpus Linguistics 58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 A Cross-Linguistic Comparison of Recurrent Word Combinations in a Comparable Corpus of English and Norwegian Fiction. In Contrasting English and other Languages through Corpora, M. Janebová, E. Lapshinova-Koltunski and M. Martínková (eds), 2–31. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Forchini, P. and Murphy, A. C.
2008 N‑grams in Comparable Specialized Corpora: Perspectives on Phraseology, Translation, and Pedagogy. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(3): 351–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S.
2014 A Lexical Bundle Approach to Comparing Languages: Stems in English and French. Languages in Contrast 14(1): 58–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. and Lefer, M.-A.
2013 Enriching the Phraseological Coverage of High-Frequency Adverbs in English–French Bilingual Dictionaries. In Advances in Corpus-Based Contrastive Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds), 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, H.
2017 Temporal Expression in English and Norwagian. In Contrasting English and other Languages through Corpora, M. Janebová, E. Lapshinova-Koltunski and M. Martínková (eds), 75–101. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.
2009 Korean Lexical Bundles in Conversations and Academic Texts. Corpora 4(2): 135–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mahlberg, M.
2012 Corpus Stylistics and Dickens’s Fiction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Milička, J.
2013 Rank-Frequency Relation & Type-Token Relation: Two Sides of the Same Coin. In Methods and Applications of Quantitative Linguistics, M. Obradovič, E. Kelih, R. Köhler (eds), 163–172. Belgrade: University of Belgrade and Academic Mind.Google Scholar
Nebeský, L. and Novák, P.
1996 Větné faktory a jejich podíl na analýze věty. Slovo a Slovesnost 57(4): 282–295.Google Scholar
Rapoport, A.
1982 Zipf’s Law Re-Visited. Quantitative Linguistics 16(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Rosen, A., Vavřín, M. and Zasina, A. J.
2018 The InterCorp Corpus, Version 11 of 11 October 2018. Praha: Institute of the Czech National Corpus. FF UK. Available at www​.korpus​.cz
Sinclair, J.
2004 The Search for Units of Meaning. In Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse, R. Carter (ed.), 24–48. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tracy-Ventura, N., Cortes, V. and Biber, D.
2007 Lexical Bundles in Spanish Speech and Writing. In Working with Spanish Corpora, G. Parodi (ed.), 217–231. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K.
1949 Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar