CC BY
58
Russian Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 2687-0088 (print), ISSN 2686-8024 (online)
2022 Vol. 26 No. 2 371-390
http://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics
https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30178
Research article
What neural networks know about linguistic complexity
Serge SHAROFF 0
University of Leeds, Leeds, Great Britain Hs.sharoff@leeds.ac.uk
Abstract
Linguistic complexity is a complex phenomenon, as it manifests itself on different levels (complexity of texts to sentences to words to subword units), through different features (genres to syntax to semantics), and also via different tasks (language learning, translation training, specific needs of other kinds of audiences). Finally, the results of complexity analysis will differ for different languages, because of their typological properties, the cultural traditions associated with specific genres in these languages or just because of the properties of individual datasets used for analysis. This paper investigates these aspects of linguistic complexity through using artificial neural networks for predicting complexity and explaining the predictions. Neural networks optimise millions of parameters to produce empirically efficient prediction models while operating as a black box without determining which linguistic factors lead to a specific prediction. This paper shows how to link neural predictions of text difficulty to detectable properties of linguistic data, for example, to the frequency of conjunctions, discourse particles or subordinate clauses. The specific study concerns neural difficulty prediction models which have been trained to differentiate easier and more complex texts in different genres in English and Russian and have been probed for the linguistic properties which correlate with predictions. The study shows how the rate of nouns and the related complexity of noun phrases affect difficulty via statistical estimates of what the neural model predicts as easy and difficult texts. The study also analysed the interplay between difficulty and genres, as linguistic features often specialise for genres rather than for inherent difficulty, so that some associations between the features and difficulty are caused by differences in the relevant genres. Keywords: automatic text classification, deep learning, interpreting neural networks
For citation:
Sharoff, Serge. 2022. What neural networks know about linguistic complexity. Russian Journal of Linguistics 26 (2). 371-390. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30178
Научная статья
Что нейронные сети знают о лингвистической сложности
С.А. ШАРОВ И
Университет Лидса, Лидс, Великобритания Hs.sharoff@leeds.ac.uk
Аннотация
Лингвистическая сложность - это комплексное явление, поскольку оно проявляется на разных уровнях (от сложности текстов до предложений, от слов до подсловных единиц), через
© Serge Sharoff, 2022
■0 q ' This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
https://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by/4.0/
разные особенности (от жанров до синтаксиса и семантики), а также через разные задачи (изучение языка, перевод, обучение, специфические потребности различных аудиторий). Наконец, результаты анализа сложности будут отличаться для разных языков из-за их типологических свойств, культурных традиций, связанных с конкретными жанрами в этих языках, или просто из-за свойств отдельных наборов данных, используемых для анализа. В данной статье эти аспекты лингвистической сложности исследуются с помощью искусственных нейронных сетей для прогнозирования сложности и объяснения данных прогнозов. Нейронные сети оптимизируют миллионы параметров для создания эмпирически эффективных моделей прогнозирования, работая как черный ящик, т.е. не определяя, какие лингвистические факторы приводят к конкретному решению. В статье показано, как связать нейронные прогнозы сложности текста с обнаруживаемыми свойствами лингвистических данных, например, с частотой союзов, дискурсивных частиц или придаточных предложений. Конкретное исследование касается нейронных моделей прогнозирования сложности, которые были обучены различать более простые и сложные тексты в разных жанрах на английском и русском языках, а также были исследованы на предмет лингвистических свойств, которые коррелируют с прогнозами. Представленное исследование показывает, что количество существительных и связанная с этим сложность именных групп влияют на сложность текста. Данная закономерность подтверждена статистически, а нейронная модель предсказывает сложность текста. В исследовании также проанализирована взаимосвязь сложности текста и жанра, поскольку лингвистические особенности часто связаны с жанром, а не с непосредственной сложностью текста, в связи с чем некоторые параметры взаимосвязи между функциями и сложностью детерминированы различиями в соответствующих жанрах. Ключевые слова: автоматическая классификация текста, глубокое обучение, интерпретация нейронных сетей
Для цитирования:
Sharoff S. What neural networks know about linguistic complexity. Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2022. Vol. 26. № 2. P. 371-390. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30178
1. Introduction
Linguistic complexity is a complex phenomenon, as it manifests itself on different levels, through different features, and via different application tasks. In terms of levels of complexity analysis, it is natural to analyse complexity on the level of words, as some of them are naturally more difficult than others, which allows for a way of ranking them as is often done in Complex Word Identification (CWI) tasks. A different set of categories is needed to analyse complexity of sentences, which primarily depends on the networks of syntactic and semantic relations between words. Yet another level of complexity analysis concerns difficulty with respect to global text properties, which is primarily about capturing the flow of argumentation: even when individual sentences are easy to understand, the links between them might require a greater cognitive load.
Another aspect of complexity analysis concerns the features we use in our description of complexity. For words we can refer to their frequencies or their semantic features, such as abstractness, whereas morphosyntactic features are connected with the part-of-speech categories or the dependency relations. For textlevel analysis we can use rhetorical relations as well as a typology of genres. In any case, each level of analysis (words, sentences or texts) is described computationally by a vector of such features with a fixed number of dimensions.
There is also a multitude of reasons why we are interested in the phenomenon of complexity. This determines what is considered to be simple or complex in each case. A typical example of applications of complexity analysis concerns language learning, which presupposes the existence of an audience of non-native speakers acquiring a foreign language either as children or adults. In this kind of application, we can tune our analysis for specific language teaching tasks, as some phenomena are less likely to cause problems in understanding, but more problems in production, or we can refer to a target audience, as different phenomena are likely to cause problems depending on the the learners' native language. Another example of applications concerns translation training, which is different from language learning, as the challenge for a trainee translator often consists in transferring various aspects of the source texts into their native language. A related case concerns analysis of complexity in the context of language acquisition for children learning their native language. Yet another example concerns specific needs of other kinds of audiences, such as production of texts for native speakers with various mental disabilities.
Finally, the results of complexity analysis will differ for different languages, because of their typological properties (such as greater complexity of syntactic relations between words vs greater morphological complexity of word forms); or the cultural traditions associated with specific genres in these languages, for example, emphasis on plain language in research papers in English vs traditionally accepted forms of academic discourse in Russian. It is also important to understand the properties of individual datasets used for analysis, as occasional confounding variables for the dataset, such as a limited range of genres or authors, might affect the replicability of the findings.
This paper investigates some of these aspects by focusing on word- and sentence-level analysis while also investigating the impact of genres. In terms of the task, the focus is on studying difficulties for adult learners for two languages, English and Russian, without a specification of their native language and with a specific focus on the language understanding task.
In terms of the computational methodology, the study uses artificial neural networks for predicting complexity. It deals with neural difficulty prediction models which have been trained to differentiate between easier and more complex texts in different genres in English and Russian. While neural networks produce empirically efficient prediction models by optimising millions of parameters, they operate as a black box without determining which linguistic factors lead to a specific prediction. Following the Bertology framework (Rogers et al. 2020), this paper shows how to link neural predictions of text difficulty to detectable properties of linguistic data, for example, to the frequency of conjunctions, discourse particles or subordinate clauses. More specifically, the linguistic features are primarily based on Douglas Biber's Multidimensional Analysis (Biber 1995), such as the rate of that deletion or public verbs, to explain predictions of fine-tuned transformer models, such as XLM-Roberta (Conneau et al. 2019).
2. Methodology
The study presented in this paper focuses on the fine-grained difficulty assessment, when difficulty analysis is transformed from the text level to the sentence level. The focus of this study is on the prediction of complexity with respect to teaching foreign languages, more specifically vide licet, automatic assessment of reading exercises from language learning textbooks. What varies in this study is a set of properties, namely the influence of genres, syntax and lexical semantics on the predictions.
2.1. Classification methods
From the computational viewpoint, the complexity prediction problem can be defined as a short-text classification task, which assigns a complexity label for a short text or a segment. Since difficulty naturally operates on a scale (some texts are considered as more difficult than others), this problem can be also defined as a regression task, which predicts a numeric difficulty value for a text. The study focuses on the classification task, because many statistical operations need categorical labels and because the original annotated corpora use a small fixed number of levels. While there is a range of methods for the short-text classification task, recent studies favoured fine-tuning pre-trained transformer models. The pre-training of neural networks aims at establishing their weights by the task of predicting missing words on large corpora, for example, Wikipedias in the case of BERT (Devlin et al. 2018) or Common Crawl in the case of XLM-Roberta transformer model (Conneau et al. 2019). In the end, the pre-trained representations can be shown to reflect general linguistic phenomena, such as agreement or semantic classes (Rogers et al. 2020). Fine-tuning on a target task (difficulty prediction in this case) adapts the weights of the pre-trained representations, so that the general phenomena can be linked to the target task.
In addition to building the difficulty prediction classifiers, other text parameters can be tested. More specifically, this study applied existing neural classifiers for genres to both training and testing corpora using a well-tested automatic genre annotation model (Sharoff 2021). This allows us to compare properties of texts of the same difficulty but in different genres, as well as texts in the same genre, but of different difficulty levels.
2.2. Human interpretation of neural predictions
Neural networks produce empirically efficient prediction models, especially the modern setup which is based on fine-tuning pre-trained transformer models, such as BERT. However, they act as a blackbox, as it is difficult to determine why a model with a given set of training parameters produced a specific prediction. Therefore, the NLP field recently has started developing a range of approaches under the name of Bertology to understand reasons for predictions (Rogers et al. 2020).
Bertology analysis of prediction difficulty developed in this study extends the framework from (Sharoff 2021), which uses Logistic Regression (LR) to detect the
linguistic features associated with (more accurate) predictions of a neural model. LR is a fast and transparent Machine Learning method, which is defined as:
P
In--= w0 +w1x1+. ..+wnxn
1 — p
It fits a linear model to predict the log-odds ratio, wherep is the probability of a text having a particular label, for example, Easy or Difficult, x^ are
interpretable variables, e.g., the proportion of verbs or conjunctions. Since the model is linear, the relative contribution of each feature can be determined through its weight for detecting this function. To assist in comparing the weights, the variables have been standardised with respect to their values and dispersion prior to fitting the logistic regression, so that for each feature its mean is zero and its standard deviation is one. In the end, the feature weights can be directly compared. Another advantage of logistic regression over other machine learning methods is that it has been well investigated from the statistical viewpoint, thus allowing a number of tests to determine the significance of each feature. One of the approaches for testing the feature significance is based on the likelihood ratio test, which compares the likelihood of the data under the full model against the likelihood of the data under a model with one of the features removed (Hosmer Jr. et al. 2013). If the behaviour of the logistic regression model changes significantly when a feature is removed, the feature can be considered as more significant for this label. The lists below show the weights of features selected under the likelihood ratio test.
The linguistic features used in this study are based on the set introduced by Douglas Biber for describing register variation via Multi-Dimensional Analysis (Biber 1988). The features include the following categories:
Lexical features such as:
• public verbs = acknowledge, admit, agree, assert, claim, complain, declare, deny...
• time adverbials = afterwards, again, earlier, early, eventually, formerly, immediately,.
• amplifiers = absolutely, altogether, completely, enormously, entirely,.
Part-of-speech (POS) features such as:
• nominalisations
• prepositions
• past tense verbs.
Syntactic features such as:
• be as the main verb
• that deletions
• pied piping.
Text-level features such as:
• average word length
• average sentence length
• type/token ratio (TTR).
This set was designed specifically for English. However, some of its features are nearly universal, which could be exemplified with text-level features, even though their exact values are language-dependent. Many lexical features are comparable across languages if they can be translated reliably, public verbs is a good illustration. Many part-of-speech features can be used across a number of languages as well, particularly nominalisations, while many syntactic features are comparable only across a smaller set of closely related languages, for example, pied piping. Some functionally equivalent features are included into the list for Russian even when they are expressed in a different way in Russian. For instance, F18 (BYpassives according to (Biber 1988)) is expressed via passives with the agent in the instrumental case, but for consistency this feature still keeps the same name as in English. Similarly, detecting C12 (do as pro-verb in English) is based in Russian on detecting ellipsis in conditions similar to those used for detecting C12 in English. See the list in Appendix 1 for the full description of the features. Even though the set of features was introduced to describe register variation, it is sufficiently general to provide explanations for the difficulty levels.
Table 1. CEFR-annotated datasets for English and Russian
Level English Russian
Texts Segments Texts Segments
A1 0 0 178 1149
A2/KET 64 304 121 1707
B1/PET 60 516 134 2109
B2/FCE 71 1354 167 4022
C1/CAE 67 1606 120 1937
C2/CPE 69 1540 6 121
2.3. Datasets
The training datasets came from the Cambridge Readability Dataset (Xia et al. 2016) for English and from the Rufola corpus (Laposhina et al. 2018) for Russian. In both cases, the source texts have been taken from existing textbooks marked with the CEFR levels by the developers of the respective corpora. Namely, the Cambridge Proficiency Tests have been mapped to the CEFR levels for English, while the levels of several textbooks have been unified into the CEFR scheme for Russian. In both cases, the corpora are annotated by the CEFR levels on the text level, which means that a text corresponds to a single reading exercise. Since the amount of data on the text level does not provide enough training samples for building reliable classifiers, each text in the respective datasets was split into smaller segments with the aim of training within a window of several sentences. The optimal window size was determined to be of three sentences (this window was expanded if the total length of three adjacent sentences was less than 15 words). The distribution of training data on the document level vs the chosen window level is given in Table 1.
Large-scale testing of the linguistic properties has been conducted with raw text corpora from the English and Russian portions of the Aranea family (Benko
2016), which were obtained by Web crawling and post-processing of websites in the respective languages. These corpora offer a reliable snapshot of how English and Russian are used in Web pages. In addition, the Nauka-Plus portion of the Taiga corpus (Shavrina & Shapovalova 2017) was used for testing in Russian, since it has been also annotated with difficulty levels, though the focus of its annotation was on assessing its difficulty for the native speakers of Russian. The reason for using Nauka-Plus in this study is to compare the automatic difficulty predictions aimed at the non-native speakers with the verified difficulty estimates for the native speakers.
Table 2. Accuracy of XLM-Roberta for English and Russian
English Russian
Precision Recall F1-score Precision Recall F1-score
A1 0.72 0.75 0.74
A2 0.75 0.84 0.79 0.51 0.64 0.57
B1 0.58 0.66 0.62 0.50 0.66 0.57
B2 0.53 0.74 0.62 0.71 0.59 0.65
C1 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.58 0.47 0.52
C2 0.77 0.49 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00
macro avg 0.70 0.62 0.63 0.50 0.52 0.51
accuracy 0.60 0.60
Binary case
Easy 0.89 0.98 0.93 0.90 0.98 0.94
Difficult 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.92 0.65 0.76
macro avg 0.94 0.97 0.96 0.91 0.82 0.85
accuracy 0.97 0.91
Table 3. Confusion matrices
A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
A2 256 37 10 0 1
B1 40 343 118 12 3
B2 18 129 1001 175 31
C1 4 60 505 845 192
C2 6 18 238 531 747
The classifiers for difficulty were built by fine-tuning the XLM-Roberta transformer model (Conneau et al. 2019) from the HuggingFace library (Wolf et al. 2019) using the CUP and Rufola training sets respectively for English and Russian. Another set of classifiers for probing the neural predictions was built on the basis of the Multi-Dimensional Analysis features and the Logistic Regression model (see Section 2.2 below). Table 2 lists the cross-validation accuracy scores after fine-tuning on the respective training corpora. The overall accuracy of both models is 60%, but the Russian model is trailing behind with respect to the F1 score. Since C2 is a minority class for Russian (see Table 1), this class is not detected in cross-validation (its texts are all classified as C1), thus bringing the macro-average F1 score down. Overall, more difficult texts (C1 and C2) are not very common in the Russian training set, which makes the task of their detection more challenging in
comparison to English. Nevertheless, in the binary scenario of distinguishing between Easy (A1, A2, B1) and Difficult (C1 and C2) texts the accuracy reaches 91% for Russian and 97% for English, which is sufficient for our purposes.
3. Results
To simplify the presentation of the results, the study provides the contrast of Easy vs Difficult texts, i.e., those predicted at the lowest three levels (A1, A2 and B1) vs those at the top two level (C1 and C2) with the B2 level reserved as a boundary, since the errors of the classifiers overlap over this boundary. The reason for extending the scale of Easy texts to B1 comes from the lack of data for Web pages detected as suitable for A1 and A2 levels (the total number of such pages is less than 1% for either language), so what is presented as Easy in the analysis below comes mostly from pages classified as suitable for the B1 level.
Table 4. Association of features with difficulty for English
DIFFICULT EASY
A01.pastVerbs 0.299 C07.2persProns 0.341
J43.TTR 0.229 K45.conjuncts 0.271
P67.analNegn 0.205 I39.preposn 0.206
E14.nominalizations 0.133 B04.placeAdverbials 0.160
C06.1persProns -0.116 L54.predicModals 0.134
G19.beAsMain -0.120 G19.beAsMain 0.120
L54.predicModals -0.134 C06.1persProns 0.116
B04.placeAdverbials -0.160 E14.nominalizations -0.133
I39.preposn -0.206 P67.analNegn -0.205
K45.conjuncts -0.271 J43.TTR -0.228
C07.2persProns -0.341 A01.pastVerbs -0.300
Table 5. Association of features with difficulty for Russian
DIFFICULT EASY
A03.presVerbs 0.294 C07.2persProns 0.340
I42.ADV 0.292 J44.wordLength 0.332
E14.nominalizations 0.289 D13.whQuestions 0.024
I39.preposn 0.208 C08.3persProns -0.077
P67.analNegn 0.207 C09.impersProns -0.078
H37.conditional 0.098 H37.conditional -0.132
H38.otherSubord 0.094 I39.preposn -0.216
B05.timeAdverbials 0.094 A01.pastVerbs -0.239
C09.impersProns 0.086 I42.ADV -0.341
C06.1persProns -0.205 P67.analNegn -0.381
C07.2persProns -0.242 A03.presVerbs -0.390
Tables 4 and 5 list associations of the positive and negative weights of the most significant features with respect to the predicted difficulty levels. Some features work in the same way in both languages. For example, the rate of the first and second person pronouns has the strongest positive association with easy texts and the strongest negative association with difficult texts. These pronouns indicate
personal interaction, which is often expressed in interactive spoken-like texts, even though the classifiers were applied to written language in HTML Web pages. The rate of first and second person pronouns is likely to be higher in discourse about areas of "immediate relevance" as expected for the A-level CEFR texts (Council of Europe 2001). Similarly, the greater rate of nominalisations and negations is consistently associated with difficult text across both languages. This quantitative evidence supports other linguistic studies concerning the extra complexity involved in processing negations in comparison to positive sentences (Doughty & Long 2008). Similarly, nominalisations and complex noun phrases have been linked to the conceptual difficulty of grammatical metaphors when actions, which are congruently expressed by verbs, get packed into noun phrases, for example, from how glass cracks into the glass crack growth rate (Halliday 1992).
Some difficulty indicators are language-specific. They can be often linked to prominent language-specific constructions. In particular, G19.beAsMain is associated with easy texts for English, as this construction offers a simple formulaic expression for relational predicates (X is Y), while other relational predicates, for example, X involves Y, are more likely to be found in more advanced writing. The same feature does not appear prominently in easier Russian texts, as the Russian equivalent of to be is not overtly expressed in the present tense and therefore it is not counted by the feature extraction mechanism.
It is interesting to note that the feature I39.preposn is associated with different directions of complexity in English and Russian. For English its greater rate indicates easier texts, while for Russian this is associated with more difficult ones. This can be explained by the typological differences between the two languages: what is expressed by the basic prepositions in English (of to or with) is often rendered by the case endings in Russian (respectively, genitive, dative or instrumental). Therefore, a more active use of the prepositions in Russian correlates with more complex writing styles, when sentences need to include more information than the basic Subject-Verb-Object skeleton which introduces the main participants. At the same, more accessible writing styles in English need to use prepositions at a high rate, while this rate is reduced in more complex styles because of the more active use of other features, such as negations or noun compounds.
The adverbials as a syntactic function appear in Tables 4 and 5 in three different forms: as adverbs, which are detected as a POS category, and as either time adverbials or place adverbials, which are detected via lexical lists, for example, behind or South. Therefore, the rates of adverbials of different kinds affect difficulty in different ways. General adverbs tend to occur as modifiers of adjectives and verbs, thus leading to more elaborated constructions associated with more complex styles. However, time and place adverbials often occur in narratives, hence they are less likely to be associated with complex styles.
Some features do not offer an easy cross-lingual explanation, such as the greater rate of conjuncts in easier English texts or the greater rate of conditionals in more difficult Russian texts. Also, quite surprisingly, word length has a positive correlation with easier Web pages in Russian and has not been detected as a significant factor associated with difficulty in English.
Table 6. Association of features with difficulty for Nauka-Plus
DIFFICULT EASY
C10.demonstrProns 0.542 N60.thatDeletion 0.461
C08.3persProns 0.406 J43.TTR 0.431
I40.attrAdj 0.375 I39.preposn 0.184
E14.nominalizations 0.343 B05.timeAdverbials 0.162
I42.ADV 0.298 D13.whQuestions -0.010
A03.presVerbs 0.247 H38.otherSubord -0.041
C12.doAsProVerb -0.137 A03.presVerbs -0.113
P67.analNegn -0.154 K48.amplifiers -0.120
K45.conjuncts -0.178 E14.nominalizations -0.300
I39.preposn -0.185 C08.3persProns -0.341
B05.timeAdverbials -0.381 I40.attrAdj -0.348
J43.TTR -0.397 C10.demonstrProns -0.392
There is an apparent problem in interpreting the results of the Type-Token Ratio (TTR) score as reported in Table 6 for Nauka-Plus texts against the results reported in Table 4. The TTR rate (J43) in Table 4 is in line with previous studies, such as (Collins-Thompson & Callan 2004), when the higher TTR is associated with greater lexical diversity and hence with more difficult texts. At the same time, Table 6 for Nauka-Plus associates TTR with easier texts. It seems that the answer to this discrepancy comes from differences in the corpus composition in terms of topics, genres or other text properties. In this specific case, news reporting is the most common genre category in the Nauka Plus dataset (57%) with the second most common category being academic writing (30%), Table 9. As features vary across genres, the TTR is often considerably higher in news reporting as it often includes many personal names and locations, thus increasing their TTR without necessarily increasing their perceived difficulty. This can be illustrated by variation of the TTR across the genre categories in this dataset. For example, the Inter-Quartile Range (IQR) of TTR on the Nauka-Plus corpus is 0.5727 to 0.6727, with texts with the top quartile of the TTR values (i.e., above 0.6727) contain a higher proportion of news reporting (72%) vs academic writing (19%) in comparison to the entire corpus (57% vs 40%). Even relatively infrequent named entities do not necessarily contribute to the greater difficulty of their texts, for example, Британское подразделение американской компании Локхид Мартин провело испытания модернизированной боевой машины пехоты Warrior ('The British office of Lockheed Martin tested a upgraded version of their armoured carrier Warrior'). Another indicator of easy texts for Nauka Plus happens to be the higher rate of prepositions and time adverbials, which are also more typical for news reporting. This is another indication of the importance of genres to determining the difficulty features, as the preposition rate (I39) is also contrary to the observations from the general Web pages in Russian, which associate the higher rate of prepositions with more difficult texts.
Nauka Plus texts are closer to academic writing contain explications, which are treated as more difficult according to the annotators. From the viewpoint of the linguistic features, they contain more verbs in the present tense and more attributive
adjectives, while they tend to repeat relevant terms, thus leading to lower TTR, for example, Burkholderia одновременно является патогенным паразитическим микроорганизмом, изменяющим геном амеб... ('At the same time Burkholderia is a pathogenic parasitic microorganism, which alters the amoeba genome...') with words Burkholderia, amoeba, genome, microorganism, pathogenic repeated throughout the article.
Table 7. Association of difficulty with communicative functions for English
Difficult #Texts Functions Easy #Texts Functions
23.15% 945958 A12.promotion 35.93% 195245 A12.promotion
17.50% 715187 A16.information 17.85% 97005 A7.instruction
16.97% 693702 A1.argumentation 15.80% 85831 A8.newswire
12.08% 493616 A8.newswire 9.44% 51302 A16.information
9.40% 384344 A7.instruction 7.37% 40024 A11.personal
6.56% 268242 A11.personal 7.16% 38898 A1.argumentation
5.10% 208218 A17.reviewing 4.30% 23372 A17.reviewing
4.26% 174118 A14.academic 1.88% 10193 A9.legal
3.88% 158695 A9.legal 0.21% 1136 A4.fiction
1.09% 44571 A4.fiction 0.06% 349 A14.academic
Table 8. Association of difficulty with communicative functions for Russian
Difficult #Texts Functions Easy #Texts Functions
19.12% 212072 A1.argumentation 29.28% 251923 A12.promotion
15.37% 170401 A7.instruction 19.68% 169320 A8.newswire
15.34% 170121 A12.promotion 12.35% 106272 A16.information
14.64% 162356 A8.newswire 11.77% 101265 A7.instruction
13.26% 147047 A16.information 9.08% 78111 A1.argumentation
7.79% 86435 A11.personal 6.07% 52224 A11.personal
6.01% 66696 A17.reviewing 5.36% 46098 A17.reviewing
4.07% 45123 A14.academic 3.92% 33734 A9.legal
3.18% 35264 A9.legal 1.91% 16460 A14.academic
1.21% 13396 A4.fiction 0.56% 4843 A4.fiction
The close link between difficulty and genres observed in the Nauka-Plus corpus calls for experiments comparing predictions for these categories. Tables 7 and 8 present the association between genres (expressed in terms of generic communicative functions) and difficulty levels in the Aranea corpora for English and Russian. The tables highlight the cases when the proportion of genres predicted as Difficult or Easy is higher than for the opposite case. For example, the proportion of texts with the predicted function of A7.instruction is higher for Easy texts in English (17.85% vs 9.4% for Difficult texts in Table 7). Overall, the classifiers predict a greater proportion of promotional, news reporting, instructional and personal reporting texts as Easy across both languages. This matches the intuition of the language teachers who tend to include such texts in exercises. The Fiction category is an exception to this intuition as it is often treated as a prime example of texts useful for language learners with many exercises based on examples from novels. At the same time, this study finds that typical authentic examples of fiction (at least as found on the Web) are predicted as less suitable for the learners.
Serge Sharoff. 2022. Russian Journal of Linguistics 26 (2). 371-390
Table 9. Distribution of genres in Nauka-Plus
4463 A8.newswire
2295 A14.academic
319 A12.promotion
29 A12.promotion/A8.newswire
20 A8.newswire/A14.academic
16 Al.argumentation
16 A8.newswire/A12.promotion
13 A14.academic/A18.newswire
9 A7.instruction
Table 10. Human annotations for difficulty Nauka-Plus vs predicted CEFR levels
NP1: Human CEFR
1325 L4 C1
972 L1 B1
899 L3 C1
871 L2 B1
837 L2 C1
Despite the different aims of the human annotation of difficulty available in the Nauka-Plus corpus (aimed at the native Russian speakers) and the automatic difficulty predictions in terms of CEFR levels, the difficulty levels are well aligned (see Table 10). The most difficult texts according to the human annotation in Nauka-Plus receive the highest CEFR level predictions and vice versa, while the automatic classifier avoids making C2 and A-level predictions.
Table 11. Positive and negative features for easy instructional and news texts
A7.instructional A8.news
C07.2persProns 0.5155 K55.publicVerbs 0.2913
C06.1persProns 0.1791 H35.causative 0.2666
B04.placeAdverbials 0.1702 H38.otherSubord 0.2214
I39.preposn 0.1603 N59.contractions 0.2192
L54.predicModals 0.1371 K47.generalHedges 0.2129
N60.thatDeletion 0.1341 D13.whQuestions 0.1841
B05.timeAdverbials 0.1028 A01.pastVerbs 0.1756
L53.necessModals 0.0638 C09.impersProns 0.1525
H35.causative -0.0784 C08.3persProns 0.0521
K56.privateVerbs -0.0902 F18.BYpassives -0.1857
H25.presPartClaus -0.0984 K48.amplifiers -0.1864
E14.nominalizations -0.1146 K50.discoursePart -0.2290
I42.ADV -0.1366 L54.predicModals -0.2427
C09.impersProns -0.1612 E16.Nouns -0.2705
A03.presVerbs -0.1678 K45.conjuncts -0.3521
E16.Nouns -0.2482 C07.2persProns -0.4385
A7.instruction and A8.news are among the communicative functions which are common in both Easy and Difficult parts of Aranea. Table 11 lists the linguistic features which are specific to easy texts within these genres. Some features resemble what is characteristic for Easy texts in English in general, such as the use of the first and second personal pronouns, as well as the prepositions and time and
place adverbials for instructions. As expected, the use of nouns, nominalisations, adverbs as modifiers, as well as more complex syntactic constructions in the form of subordinate clauses of different kinds, is associated with more difficult texts. At the same time, a novel feature specific to this genre concerns the use of modal verbs, either necessity or prediction modals, which can be associated with more complex writing styles in general, but in the case of instructions, the use of modals makes them clearer.
The two examples below illustrate instructional texts which are classified as respectively easy and difficult:
EASY The Executive Hire Show takes place at The Ricoh Arena , Coventry . </p> Bus Public transport from train station to the Ricoh Arena : - Number 8 bus from Coventry Train Station to Coventry Transport Museum - Then catch the number 4 or number 5 from Coventry Transport Museum to Arena Park ( Tesco ) - Once you arrive at Arena Park there is an underpass which takes you into Car Park B of the Ricoh Arena . Follow signs for the Ricoh Arena main entrance from here . </p> Taxi For our local taxi service please visit www.mgmtaxi.co.uk or call 02476 375550 </p> Train Please note - The last train leaving Coventry Railway Station to London Euston is 23 : 31 DIFFICULT Introduction </p> The most important part of working with this particular linked dataset , and probably datasets in general , is understanding what the variables mean and how they are coded . This is aided by studying the codebook, where available, and by running frequency tables of categorical and ordinal variables and means / medians of continuous variables . The codebook describes (or should describe the name of each variable, what it is supposed to measure, and the number of levels or range of the values the variable takes on in the dataset. This will tell you, for example, if sex is coded as M and F, or 0 and 1, or 1 and 2, or 1, 2 and 9, etc. The codebook for the linked Census data tells you that the income variables actually refer to 1985 income, even though the Census was taken in June of 1986. It is important to keep this in mind when analyzing the data . </p> One-way or two-way frequency tables not only give information on how the variables are distributed , but also ... 2
Examples also show that the neural transformer model is able to detect the inherent difficulty of topics, for example, descriptions of a statistical procedure (Difficult) as compared to giving directions (Easy), because the latter topic is more expected in texts for learners of lower levels. However, this inherent difficulty is not reflected in the set of the Biber features, and therefore is not captured in probing experiments as reported in Tables 4 or 11.
As for distinguishing easy and difficult texts among the news reporting texts, TTR is not in this list, thus implying that this feature has less impact on the difficulty level within news items. The strongest indicator of difficult texts in this genre is K45.conjuncts, such as in particular, instead, otherwise, similarly, which are linked
1 http ://www.executivehireshow.co.uk/visiting/travel
2 http://mchp-appserv.cpe.umanitoba.ca/viewConcept.php?conceptID=1244
to more complex reporting styles, also with fewer past tense verbs. The counterintuitive link between the difficult news articles and the second person pronouns rate (which featured prominently for easy texts in Table 4) is related to incomplete cleaning of some of the Web pages, as the most frequent contexts for you in this collection are legalistic boilerplate privacy notes, such as When you subscribe we will use the information you provide to send you these newsletters.., which are not considered as simple by the classifier.
While the rate of nouns was not considered as a predictive feature for the full corpus, as it varies considerably across the genres, this was detected as a significant feature within the two genres in Table 11.
4. Related studies
Statistical methods for analysing text complexity can be traced to frequency studies aimed at designing systems of shorthand writing (Kading 1897), which was followed by traditional measures of readability, such as Lorge or Flesch-Kincaid measures, initially developed in the context of American adult education (Lorge 1944, DuBay 2004). There has also been a long line of research in statistical frequency distribution models, which can be linked to complexity (Juilland 1964, Orlov 1983, Baayen 2008).
With the rise of Machine Learning, novel methods for readability prediction appeared, initially based on extraction of features (Pitler & Nenkova 2008, Collins-Thompson 2014, Vajjala & Meurers 2014), such as those introduced by Biber, or on various frequency measures. In particular, it has been shown that unsupervised Principal Component Analysis arrives at the two principal dimensions with groups of features resembling lexical difficulty, for example, frequencies or word length, and syntactic difficulty, such POS codes (Sharoff et al. 2008). Other studies have also experimented with expanding the models from the document to the sentence level (Vajjala & Meurers 2014) with a specific aim of comparing sentences from the Simple English Wikipedia against aligned sentences from the standard English Wikipedia.
As in many other areas of computational linguistics, feature-less neural networks provided better efficiency in difficulty predictions (Nadeem & Ostendorf 2018), especially with the rise of pre-trained transformer models (Khallaf & Sharoff 2021), which outperform both the linguistic features and the traditional neural networks.
Other studies have also emphasised the influence of genres on the predictions of the classifiers. In particular, existing approaches for measuring text complexity tend to overestimate the complexity levels of informational texts while simultaneously underestimating the complexity levels of literary texts (Sheehan et al. 2013). The authors of that study had to design different difficulty models for each of the two kinds of texts.
This study uses the CUP and Rufola datasets for training the classifiers. There are also many other sources for building models to distinguish easy or difficult
texts. For English a commonly used choice is the WeeBit corpus (Vajjala & Meurers 2012), which consists of texts from the Weekly reader magazine and from the BBC Bite-Size website. The other source is the Core Standards for secondary education in the US context3. In all of these datasets, the aim of difficulty annotation assumes the audience of native learners aged 7—17. A related experiment investigated syntactic parameters for predicting difficulty of Russian academic texts (Solovyev et al. 2019). There are also various sources of texts with difficulty assessed for adult speakers, for example, the WikiHow corpus (Debnath & Roth 2021), which is based on Wiki texts edited for vagueness in instructions. Yet another source comes from other training scenarios, for example, from translation training, when texts are assessed with respect to the quality of their rendering by translation students. For instance, for translation into Russian (Kunilovskaya & Lapshinova-Koltunski 2019) or Chinese (Yuan & Sharoff 2020) the drop in quality or time spent on translation can be an indicator of difficulty.
5. Conclusions and further research
This paper presents a statistical study conducted on a large corpus to determine which features contribute to difficulty of English and Russian texts. This is based on a framework which combines a transformer-based neural prediction model operating as a blackbox and well-studied linguistic features providing a statistical explanation of how these features affect difficulty. For example, this study shows how the rate of nouns and the related complexity of noun phrases affects difficulty via statistical estimates of what the neural model predicts as easy and difficult texts (cf. Corlatescu et al., this issue).
The study also analysed the interplay between difficulty and genres, as linguistic features often specialise for genres rather than for inherent difficulty, so that some associations between the features and difficulty are caused by differences in the relevant genres. In particular, the Type-Token Ratio (TTR) is a good indicator of lexical diversity and it is usually higher with more difficult texts if both texts are in the same genre. At the same time, the study shows that the TTR of easy news reporting texts is likely to be higher than that of more difficult argumentative texts which make repeated references to the same key concepts.
From the practical viewpoint, the methods of this study help in automatic assessment of texts from the Web with the aim of extending the use of authentic texts in language teaching. The methods also help us to understand what makes authentic texts difficult and what might require their manual or automatic simplification. For example, despite the popularity of Fiction in language teaching applications, the study provides statistical evidence for the higher difficulty scores associated with fiction commonly found on the Web. This should not prevent tutors from using fiction for language teaching, as it can be beneficial for both engagement and pedagogic purposes, but this calls for more attention to choosing and simplifying such texts when necessary.
3 http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix\_B.pdf
Further extensions planned for improving the neural difficulty detection models involve several lines of research. First, this study focused almost exclusively on reading exercises for language learners. We need more experiments on studying variations in the link between difficulty and linguistic features with respect to different difficulty assessment needs or the composition of the training datasets. Even within the area of studying language teaching and expressing difficulty via the CEFR levels, different datasets might have different approaches to what constitutes a B1 text, for example. Some texts are also included into a textbook for a specific level not because they fully correspond to a specific level, but because they can be used in other exercises for this level. For example, an authentic interview included into a B1 textbook might contain rare words or more complex grammatical constructions beyond expectations of typical B1 students, while it can be a good basis for a number of exercises for understanding how native speakers express their opinions. From the viewpoint of Machine Learning, an interview of this kind, even if legitimately included in the textbook, acts as noise for training neural prediction models. We need to experiment with various statistical tests to establish how annotation noise can lead to less reliable predictions and how to improve our prediction models (for example, see Paun et al. 2018).
Second, there is a rise in research on causal models (for example, Fytas et al. 2021), because when we have a classifier, it is important to know whether this decision has been made for the right reasons, rather than because of mere correlations in our training data. Recent causal interaction methods can explain some of the issues with interpretation of predictions reported above (Janizek et al. 2021).
Third, a related line of research involves assessment of the process of mapping CEFR levels of documents to the level of segments. The process of segmentation used in this study can lead to noise, because some 3-sentence segments coming from a textbook of a higher level can still be suitable for students on lower levels. This has already been noticed in the context of using simplified Wikipedia (Vajjala & Meurers 2014). A similar task exists in other areas, for example, turning models which predict the quality of sentence-level translations to models predicting word quality (Zhai et al. 2020).
Finally, we need to pay more attention to cognitive aspects of difficulty processing beyond simple scores, such as exemplified by the CEFR levels. For example, this involves adding an explicit model for processing named entities (NEs), such as people's names or locations. Anecdotal experience shows that language learners can often handle NEs, even if they are very rare, either because they are similar to how they are expressed in their native languages (see the example with Lockheed Martin above) or because they can understand the function of a personal name or a location even without knowing this particular entity. This needs to be quantified. NEs are also important in a different way, as neural models can be brittle to NE replacements. For example, replacing NEs in the co-reference task changes 85% of predictions (Balasubramanian et al. 2020).
REFERENCES
Baayen, Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Balasubramanian, Sriram, Naman Jain, Gaurav Jindal, Abhijeet Awasthi & Sunita Sarawagi. 2020. What's in a name? Are BERT named entity representations just as good for any other name? Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online. 205-214.
Benko, Vladimir. 2016. Two years of Aranea: Increasing counts and tuning the pipeline. Proc LREC. Portoroz, Slovenia.
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press.
Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge University Press.
Collins-Thompson, Kevyn. 2014. Computational assessment of text readability: A survey of current and future research. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 165(2). 97-135.
Collins-Thompson, Kevyn & Jamie Callan. 2004. A language modeling approach to predicting reading difficulty. Proc. of HLT/NAACL. Boston. 193-200.
Conneau, Alexis, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzman, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer & Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.02116.
Debnath, Alok & Michael Roth. 2021. A computational analysis of vagueness in revisions of instructional texts. Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online. 30-35.
Devlin, Jacob, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee & Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805.
Doughty, Catherine, J. Michael & H. Long. 2008. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition 27. John Wiley & Sons.
DuBay, William H. 2004. The Principles of Readability. Technical report, Impact Information.
Fytas, Panagiotis, Georgios Rizos & Lucia Specia. 2021. What makes a scientific paper be accepted for publication? Proceedings of the First Workshop on Causal Inference and NLP. Association for Computational Linguistics, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. 44-60.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1992. Language as system and language as instance: The corpus as a theoretical construct. In J. Svartvik (ed.), Directions in corpus linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82 Stockholm 65, 61-77. Walter de Gruyter.
Hosmer Jr, David W., Stanley Lemeshow & Rodney X. Sturdivant. 2013. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley & Sons.
Janizek, Joseph D., Pascal Sturmfels & Su-In Lee. 2021. Explaining explanations: Axiomatic feature interactions for deep networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research 22(104). 1-54.
Juilland, Alphonse. 1964. Frequency Dictionary of Spanish Words. Mouton.
Käding, Friedrich Wilhelm (ed.). 1897. Häufigkeitswörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache. Selbstverlag.
Khallaf, Nouran & Serge Sharoff. 2021. Automatic difficulty classification of Arabic sentences. Proceedings of the Sixth Arabic Natural Language Processing Workshop. Association for Computational Linguistics, Kyiv, Ukraine (Virtual). 105-114.
Kunilovskaya, Maria & Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski. 2019. Translationese features as indicators of quality in English-Russian human translation. Proceedings of the
Human-Informed Translation and Interpreting Technology Workshop (HiT-IT 2019). Incoma Ltd., Shoumen, Bulgaria, Varna, Bulgaria. 47-56.
Laposhina, Antonina N., Tatyana Veselovskaya, Maria Lebedeva & Olga Kupreshchenko. 2018. Automated text readability assessment for Russian second language learners. Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Proceedings of the International Conference "Dialogue".
Lorge, Irving. 1944. Predicting readability. Teachers College Record.
Nadeem, Farah & Mari Ostendorf. 2018. Estimating linguistic complexity for science texts.
Proceedings of the Thirteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications. Association for Computational Linguistics, New Orleans, Louisiana. 45-55.
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). Technical report, Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
Orlov, Jurij. 1983. Ein modell der hàufigkeitsstruktur des vokabulars. In H. Guiter & M. Arapov (eds.), Studies on Zipf's law, 154-233.
Paun, Silviu, Bob Carpenter, Jon Chamberlain, Dirk Hovy, Udo Kruschwitz & Massimo Poesio. 2018. Comparing Bayesian models of annotation. Transactions ofthe Association for Computational Linguistics 6. 571-585.
Pitler, Emily & Ani Nenkova. 2008. Revisiting readability: A unified framework for predicting text quality. Proc EMNLP. 186-195.
Rogers, Anna, Olga Kovaleva & Anna Rumshisky. 2020. A primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT works. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 8. 842-866.
Sharoff, Serge. 2021. Genre annotation for the web: Text-external and text-internal perspectives. Register Studies 3. 1-32.
Sharoff, Serge, Svitlana Kurella, & Anthony Hartley. 2008. Seeking needles in the Web haystack: Finding texts suitable for language learners. Proc Teaching and Language Corpora Conference, TaLC 2008. Lisbon.
Shavrina, Tatiana & Olga Shapovalova. 2017. To the methodology of corpus construction for machine learning: Taiga syntax tree corpus and parser. CORPORA, International Conference. Saint-Petersburg.
Sheehan, Kathleen M., Michael Flor & Diane Napolitano. 2013. A two-stage approach for generating unbiased estimates of text complexity. Proceedings of the Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Improving Textual Accessibility. Association for Computational Linguistics, Atlanta, Georgia. 49-58.
Solovyev, Valery, Marina Solnyshkina, Vladimir Ivanov & Ildar Batyrshin. 2019. Prediction of reading difficulty in Russian academic texts. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy System 36(5). 4553-4563.
Straka, Milan & Jana Strakovâ. 2017. Tokenizing, POS tagging, lemmatizing and parsing UD 2.0 with UDPipe. Proc CoNLL 2017 Shared Task. Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada. 88-99.
Vajjala, Sowmya & Detmar Meurers. 2012. On improving the accuracy of readability classification using insights from second language acquisition. Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Building Educational Applications Using NLP. Association for Computational Linguistics, Montréal, Canada. 163-173.
Vajjala, Sowmya & Detmar Meurers. 2014. 'Readability assessment for text simplification: From analysing documents to identifying sentential simplifications'. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics 165(2). 194-222.
Wolf, Thomas, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest & Alexander M. Rush. 2019. HuggingFace's Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771.
Xia, Menglin, Ekaterina Kochmar & Ted Briscoe. 2016. Text readability assessment for second language learners. Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications. Association for Computational Linguistics, San Diego, CA. 12-22.
Yuan, Yu & Serge Sharoff. 2020. Sentence level human translation quality estimation with
attention-based neural networks. Proc LREC, Marseilles. Zhai, Yuming, Gabriel Illouz & Anne Vilnat. 2020. Detecting non-literal translations by fine-tuning cross-lingual pre-trained language models. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. International Committee on Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain (Online). 5944-5956.
Appendix 1. Linguistic features
The order of the linguistic features and their codes are taken from (Biber 1988). The conditions for detecting the features for English replicate the published procedures from (Biber 1988), many of them are expressed via lists of lexical items or via POS annotations, which in this study are provided by UDPIPE (Straka & Strakova 2017). The Russian features are either based on translating the English word lists or on using identical or functionally similar constructions.
Code Label Condition
A01 past verbs VERB, Tense=Past
A03 present verbs VERB, Tense=Pres
B04 place adverbials ADV, lex in (aboard,above,abroad,across...)
B05 time adverbials ADV, lex in (afterwards,again,earlier...)
C06 first person pronouns PRON, lex in (I,we,me,us,my...)
C07 second person pronouns PRON, lex in (you,your,yourself,yourselves)
C08 third person pronouns PRON, lex in (she,he,they,her,him,them,his...)
C09 impersonal pronouns Conditions from (Biber 1988)
C10 demonstrative pronouns Conditions from (Biber 1988)
C11 indefinite pronouns PRON, lex in (anybody,anyone,anything,everybody...)
C12 do as pro-verb Conditions from (Biber 1988)
D13 wh-questions Conditions from (Biber 1988)
E14 nominalizations lex ends with ('tion','ment','ness', 'ism')
E16 nouns Conditions from (Biber 1988)
F18 passives with by Conditions from (Biber 1988)
G19 be as main verb Conditions from (Biber 1988)
H23 wh-clauses Conditions from (Biber 1988)
H34 sentence relatives Conditions from (Biber 1988)
H35 causatives CONJ, lex in (because)
H36 concessives CONJ, lex in (although,though,tho)
H37 conditionals CONJ, lex in (if, unless)
H38 other subordination Conditions from (Biber 1988)
I39 prepositions ADP
Code Label Condition
I40 attributive adjectives Conditions from (Biber 1988)
I41 predicative adjectives Conditions from (Biber 1988)
I42 adverbs ADV
J43 type-token ratio Using 400 words as in (Biber 1988)
J44 word length Average length of orthographic words
K45 conjuncts Conditions from (Biber 1988)
K46 downtoners lex in (almost,barely,hardly,merely...)
K47 general hedges lex in (maybe, at about, something like...)
K48 amplifiers lex in (absolutely,altogether,completely,enormously...)
K49 general emphatics Conditions from (Biber 1988)
K50 discourse particles Conditions from (Biber 1988)
K55 public verbs VERB, lex in (acknowledge,admit,agree...)
K56 private verbs VERB, lex in (anticipate,assume,believe...)
K57 suasive verbs VERB, lex in (agree,arrange,ask...)
K58 seem/appear VERB, lex in (appear, seem)
L52 possibility modals VERB, lex in (can,may,might,could)
L53 necessity modals VERB, lex in (ought,should,must)
L54 prediction modals VERB, lex in (shall,will,would), excluding future tense
N59 contractions Conditions from (Biber 1988)
N60 that deletion Conditions from (Biber 1988)
P66 synthetic negation Conditions from (Biber 1988)
P67 analytic negation Conditions from (Biber 1988)
Article history:
Received: 20 October 2021 Accepted: 08 February 2022
Bionote:
Serge SHAROFF is a Researcher at the Centre for Translation Studies, University of Leeds, UK. His research interests include language technology, machine translation, corpus linguistics, genres and text classification. Contact information:
Centre for Translation Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK e-mail: s.sharoff@leeds.ac.uk ORCID: 0000-0002-4877-0210
Сведения об авторе:
Сергей Александрович ШАРОВ - научный сотрудник Центра переводоведения университета Лидса (Великобритания). В сферу его научных интересов входят языковые технологии, машинный перевод, классификация текстов и жанров. Контактная информация:
Центр переводоведения, Университет Лидса, Лидс, Великобритания e-mail: s.sharoff@leeds.ac.uk ORCID: 0000-0002-4877-0210
