1932

Abstract

Corpus-based studies have become increasingly common in linguistic typology over recent years, amounting to the emergence of a new field that we call corpus-based typology. The core idea of corpus-based typology is to take languages as populations of utterances and to systematically investigate text production across languages in this sense. From a usage-based perspective, investigations of variation and preferences of use are at the core of understanding the distribution of conventionalized structures and their diachronic development across languages. Specific findings of corpus-based typological studies pertain to universals of text production, for example, in prosodic partitioning; to cognitive biases constraining diverse patterns of use, for example, in constituent order; and to correlations of diverse patterns of use with language-specific structures and conventions. We also consider remaining challenges for corpus-based typology, in particular the development of crosslinguistically more representative corpora that include spoken (or signed) texts, and its vast potential in the future.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-104629
2022-01-14
2024-07-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/8/1/annurev-linguistics-031120-104629.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-104629&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Arnold JE. 2008. Reference production: production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Lang. Cogn. Process. 23:4495–527
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barth D, Evans N 2017. SCOPIC design and overview. The Social Cognition Parallax Interview Corpus (SCOPIC): A Cross-Linguistic Resource D Barth, N Evans1–23 Honolulu: Univ. Hawai'i Press
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barth D, Evans N, Arka IW, Bergqvist H, Forker D et al. 2021. Language versus individuals in cross-linguistic corpus typology. See Haig et al. 2021b. In press
  4. Barth D, Schnell S. 2021. Understanding Corpus Linguistics London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates E, Elman J, Johnson MH, Karmiloff-Smith A, Parisi D, Plunkett K. 1998. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectivist Perspective on Development Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bentz C, Ferrer-i-Cancho R 2016. Zipf's law of abbreviation as a language universal. Proceedings of the Leiden Workshop on Capturing Phylogenetic Algorithms for Linguistics C Bentz, G Jäger, I Yanovich Univ Tübingen, Ger.: accessed on Jul. 12, 2021. https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/handle/10900/68558
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber D. 1993. Representativeness in corpus design. Lit. Linguist. Comput. 8:4243–57
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber D. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber D, Conrad S 2009. Register, Genre, and Style Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bickel B. 2003. Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language 79:4708–36
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bickel B. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: major current developments. Linguist. Typology 11:1239–51
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bickel B, Nichols J, Zakharko T, Witzlack-Makarevich A, Hildebrandt K et al. 2017. The AUTOTYP typological database Version 0.1.2. https://github.com/autotyp/autotyp-data
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bickel B, Witzlack-Makarevich A, Choudhary KK, Schlesewsky M, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I 2015. The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: evidence from case marking. PLOS ONE 10:8e0132819
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Blasi DE, Cotterell R, Wolf-Sonkin L, Stoll S, Bickel B, Baroni M. 2019. On the distribution of deep clausal embeddings: a large cross-linguistic study. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics3938–43 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I, Schlesewsky M. 2009a. Processing Syntax and Morphology: A Neurocognitive Perspective Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I, Schlesewsky M 2009b. The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: a cross-linguistic approach. Lang. Linguist. Compass 3:119–58
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bresnan J, Cueni A, Nikitina T, Baayen H 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation G Boume, I Kraemer, J Zwarts 69–94 Amsterdam: R. Neth. Acad. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bresnan J, Dingare S, Manning CD 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: voice and person in English and Lummi. Proceedings of the LFG 01 Conference M Butt, TH King Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bresnan J, Ford M 2010. Predicting syntax: processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86:1168–213
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bresnan J, Hay J. 2008. Gradient grammar: an effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118:2245–59
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bybee JL. 2006. From usage to grammar: the mind's response to repetition. Language 82:4711–33
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Bybee JL 2009. Language universals and usage-based theory. Language Universals M Christiansen, C Collins, S Edelman 17–39 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Bybee JL, Paglucia W, Perkins RD 1990. On the asymmetries of the affixation of grammatical material. Studies in Typology and Diachrony: Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on His 75th Birthday W Croft, S Kemmer 1–42 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Chafe W. 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production Norwood, NJ: Ablex
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Chafe W 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. Coherence and Grounding in Discourse RS Tomlin 21–51 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Cohen Priva U. 2017. Informativity and the actuation of lenition. Language 93:3569–97
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Croft W. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach London: Longman
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Cutler A, Hawkins J, Gilligan G. 1985. The suffixing preferences: a processing explanation. Linguistics 23:5723–58
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Cysouw M, Wälchli B. 2007. Parallel texts: using translational equivalents in linguistic typology. Sprachtypol. Universalienforschung 60:295–99
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dahl Ö. 2015. How WEIRD are WALS languages? Talk presented at the Closing Conference of the Department of Linguistics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology May 1–3 Leipzig, Ger: https://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/linguistics/conferences/2015-diversity-linguistics/Dahl_slides.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Davies M. 2021. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Diessel H. 2020. A dynamic network approach to the study of syntax. Front. Psychol. 11:604853
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Dingemanse M, Blythe J, Dirksmeyer T 2014. Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages. Stud. Lang. 18:15–43
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Dingemanse M, Rossi G, Floyd S 2017. Place reference in story beginnings: a cross-linguistic study of narrative and interactional affordances. Lang. Soc 46:2129–58
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Dryer MS. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68:181–138
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Dryer MS 2005. Feature 83A: order of object and verb. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online MS Dryer, M Haspelmath Leipzig, Ger.: Max Planck Inst. Evol. Anthropol.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Dryer MS 2013. Feature 83A: order of object and verb. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online MS Dryer, M Haspelmath Leipzig, Ger.: Max Planck Inst. Evol. Anthropol. https://wals.info/feature/83A#2/18.0/152.8
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Dryer MS, Haspelmath M 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online Leipzig, Ger.: Max Planck Inst. Evol. Anthropol https://wals.info/
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Du Bois J 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63:4805–55
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Du Bois J 2003. Argument structure: grammar in use. Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function J Du Bois, L Kumpf, WJ Ashby 11–60 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Duranti A. 1981. The Samoan Fono: A Sociolinguistic Study Canberra: Aust. Natl. Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Duranti A. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Evans N. 2003. Context, culture, and structuration in the languages of Australia. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 32:13–40
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Evans N, Levinson S. 2009. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behav. Brain Sci. 32:429–48
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Futrell R, Levy RP, Gibson E. 2020. Dependency locality as an explanatory principle for word order. Language 96:2371–412
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Futrell R, Mahowald K, Gibson E 2015. Quantifying word order freedom in dependency corpora. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2015)91–100 Uppsala, Sweden: Aug. 24–26
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gerdes K, Kahane S, Chen X 2021. Typometrics: from implicational to quantitative universals in word order typology. Glossa 6:1 https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.764
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Gibson E, Futrell R, Piantadosi SP, Dautriche I, Mahowald K et al. 2019. How efficiency shapes human language. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23:5389–407
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Gippert J, Himmelmann NP, Mosel U 2006. Essentials of Language Documentation Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Greenberg JH 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of Grammar J Greenberg 73–113 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Greenberg JH. 1966. Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies The Hague, Neth: Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Haig G 2014. Verb-goal (VG) word order in Kurdish and Neo-Aramaic: typological and areal considerations. Neo-Aramaic and Its Linguistic Context G Khan, L Napiorkowska 407–25 New York: Gorgias Press
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Haig G. 2020. Stability and adaptivity of word order in the Western Asian transition zone: evidence from West Iranian. Paper presented at the workshop Tracing Contact in Closely Related Languages Zürich: Nov. 19–20
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Haig G, Schnell S. 2015. Multi-CAST: Multilingual Corpus of Annotated Spoken Texts Bamberg, Ger: Univ. Bamberg https://multicast.aspra.uni-bamberg.de/
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Haig G, Schnell S. 2016. The discourse basis of ergativity revisited. Language 92:3591–618
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Haig G, Schnell S, Schiborr NN. 2021a. Universals of reference in discourse and grammar: evidence from the Multi-CAST collection of spoken corpora. See Haig et al. 2021b. In press
  57. Haig G, Schnell S, Seifart F 2021b. Advances in Corpus-Based Typology: State of the Art Spec. Publ. Lang. Doc. Conserv Honolulu: Univ. Hawai'i Press In press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Haig G, Schnell S, Wegener C 2011. Comparing corpora from endangered languages: explorations in language typology based on original texts. Documenting Endangered Languages: Achievements and Perspectives G Haig, N Nau, S Schnell, C Wegener 55–86 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Haspelmath M. 2021. Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: form-frequency correspondences and predictability. J. Linguist. 57:3605–33
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Hawkins JA. 1983. Word Order Universals New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hawkins JA. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Hawkins JA 2008. An asymmetry between VO and OV languages: the ordering of obliques. Case and Grammatical Relations: Studies in Honor of Bernard Comrie GG Corbett, M Noonan 167–90 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hawkins JA. 2014. Cross-Linguistic Variation and Efficiency Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Hellwig B. 2021. Child language documentation: the Sketch Acquisition Project. See Haig et al. 2021b In press.
  65. Himmelmann NP. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36:2161–95
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Himmelmann NP. 2014. Asymmetries in the prosodic phrasing of function words: another look at the suffixing preference. Language 90:4927–60
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Hymes DH 1961. Functions of speech: an evolutionary approach. Anthropology and Education FC Gruber 55–83 Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Hymes DH 1962. The ethnography of speaking. Anthropology and Human Behaviour T Gladwin, WC Sturtevant 13–53 Washington, DC: Anthropol. Soc. Wash.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Kendall T, Bresnan J, Van Herk G. 2011. The dative alternation in African American English: researching syntactic variation and change across sociolinguistic datasets. Corpus Linguist. Linguist. Theory 7:2229–44
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Labov W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Labov W. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 1: Internal Factors Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Labov W, Rosenfelder I. 2011. The Philadelphia Neighborhood Corpus Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Labov W, Rosenfelder I, Fruehwald J 2014. One hundred years of sound change in Philadelphia: linear incrementation, reversal, and reanalysis. Language 89:130–65
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Levshina N. 2016. Verbs of letting in Germanic and Romance languages: a quantitative investigation based on a parallel corpus of film subtitles. Lang. Contrast 16:184–117
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Levshina N. 2019. Token-based typology and word order entropy: a study based on universal dependencies. Linguist. Typology 23:3533–72
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Levshina N. 2021. Corpus-based typology: applications, challenges and some solutions. Linguist. Typology. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-0118
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. Liu Z. 2019. A comparative corpus analysis of PP ordering in English and Chinese. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Quantitative Syntax (Quasy, SyntaxFest 2019)33–45 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Liu Z. 2020. Mixed evidence for cross-linguistic dependency length minimization. Sprachtypol. Universalienforschung 74:3605–33
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Lucy J. 1992. Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  80. MacWhinney B. 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Mansfield J, Stanford J 2017. Documenting sociolinguistic variation in lesser-studied indigenous communities: challenges and practical solutions. Documenting Variation in Endangered Languages KA Hildebrandt, C Jany, W Silva 13116–36 Spec. Publ. Lang. Doc. Conserv Honolulu: Univ. Hawai'i Press
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Mansfield JB, Stoll S, Bickel B. 2020. Category clustering: a probabilistic bias in the morphology of verbal agreement marking. Language 96:2255–93
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Mayer M. 1969. Frog, Where Are You? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Mayer T, Cysouw M 2014. Creating a massively parallel Bible corpus. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2014)3148–63 May 26–31 Reykjavik:
    [Google Scholar]
  85. McEnery T, Wilson A. 2001. Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction Edinburgh, Scotl: Edinburgh Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Mettouchi A, Martine V, Caubet D 2015. Corpus-Based Studies of Lesser-Described Languages: The CorpAfroAs Corpus of Spoken AfroAsiatic Languages Amsterdam: John Benjamins https://corpafroas.huma-num.fr/
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Meyerhoff M. 2000. The emergence of creole subject-verb agreement and the licensing of null subjects. Lang. Var. Change 12:203–30
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Meyerhoff M. 2009. Replication, transfer, and calquing: using variation as a tool in the study of language contact. Lang. Var. Change 21:3297–317
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Moran S, Schikowski R, Pajović D, Hysi C, Stoll S. 2016. The ACQDIV database: min(d)ing the ambient language. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016)4423–29 May 23–28 Portorož, Slovenia:
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Myhill J. 1992. Typological Discourse Analysis London: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Myhill J 2004. Typology and discourse analysis. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis S Schiffrin, S Tannen, HE Hamilton 161–74 London: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Nichols J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Nivre J, de Marneffe M, Ginter F, Goldberg Y, Hajič J et al. 2016. Universal Dependencies 1.0 http://hdl.handle.net/11234/1-1464
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Ozerov P. 2015. Information structure without topic and focus: differential object marking in Burmese. Stud. Lang. 39:2386–423
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Ozerov P. 2018. Tracing the sources of information structure: towards the study of interactional management of information. J. Pragmat. 138:77–97
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Ozerov P. 2021a. Multifactorial information management (MIM): summing up the emerging alternative to information structure. Linguist. Vanguard 7:120200039
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Ozerov P. 2021b. This research topic of yours, is it a research topic?. See Haig et al. 2021b. In press
  98. Piantadosi ST. 2014. Zipf's word frequency law in natural language: a critical review and future directions. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 21:51112–30
    [Google Scholar]
  99. San Roque L, Rumsey A, Gawne L, Spronck S, Hoenigman D et al. 2012. Getting the story straight: language fieldwork using a narrative problem-solving task. Lang. Doc. Conserv. 6:134–73
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Sapir E. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York Harcourt Brace
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Sauppe S, Choudhary KK, Giroud Rickenbacher NR, Blasi DE, Norcliffe E et al. 2021. Neural signatures of syntactic variation in speech planning. PLOS Biol 19:1e3001038
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Schiborr NN. 2019. Multi-CAST collection overview. Multi-CAST: Multilingual Corpus of Annotated Spoken Texts G Haig, S Schnell Bamberg, Ger.: Univ. Bamberg https://multicast.aspra.uni-bamberg.de/data/docs/general/collection-overview/mc_collection-overview.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Schiborr NN. 2021. Lexical anaphora: a corpus-based typological study of referential choice Unpublished PhD Diss., Univ Bamberg, Ger:.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Schnell S, Barth D. 2018. Discourse motivations for pronominal and zero objects across genres in Vera'a. Lang. Var. Change 30:151–81
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Schnell S, Barth D. 2020. Expression of anaphoric subjects in Vera'a: functional and structural factors in the choice between pronoun and zero. Lang. Var. Change 32:3267–91
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Schnell S, Schiborr NN, Haig G. 2021. Efficiency in discourse processing: Does morphosyntax adapt to accommodate new referents?. Linguist. Vanguard 7:s320190064
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Seifart F. 2015. Direct and indirect affix borrowing. Language 91:3511–31
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Seifart F. 2021. Combining documentary linguistics and corpus phonetics to advance corpus-based typology. See Haig et al. 2021b. In press
  109. Seifart F, Paschen L, Stave M 2022. Language Documentation Reference Corpus (DoReCo) 1.0 Berlin: Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Lab. Dyn. Lang https://doreco.huma-num.fr/about
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Seifart F, Strunk J, Danielsen S, Hartmann I, Pakendorf B et al. 2018. Nouns slow down speech across structurally and culturally diverse languages. PNAS 115:225720–25
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Stanford J, Preston D 2009. Variation in Indigenous Minority Languages Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Stefanowitsch A. 2020. Corpus Linguistics: A Guide to the Methodology Berlin: Lang. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Stoll S, Bickel B 2009. How deep are differences in referential density?. Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin J Guo, E Lieven, N Budwig, S Ervin-Tripp, K Nakamura, Ş Özçalışkan 543–55 London: Psychol. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Stoll S, Bickel B 2013. Capturing diversity in language acquisition research. Language Typology and Historical Contingency: In Honor of Johanna Nichols B Bickel, LA Grenoble, DA Peterson, A Timberlake 195–216 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Stoll S, Lieven E 2014. Studying language acquisition cross-linguistically. South and South East Asian Psycholinguistics H Winskel, P Padakannaya 19–35 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Stolz T. 2007. Harry Potter meets Le Petit Prince—on the usefulness of parallel corpora in crosslinguistic investigations. Sprachtypol. Universalienforschung 60:2100–117
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Taraldsen T. 1980. On the NIC, vacuous application and the that-trace filter Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Linguist. Club
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Torres Cacoullos R, Travis CE. 2019. Variationist typology: shared probabilistic constraints across (non-)null subject languages. Linguistics 57:3653–92
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Trudgill P. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Wälchli B. 2009. Data reduction typology and the bimodal distribution bias. Linguist. Typology 13:77–94
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Wasow T. 1997. Remarks on grammatical weight. Lang. Var. Change 9:91–105
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Wasow T. 2002. Postverbal Behaviour Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Yadav H, Husain S, Futrell R 2021. Do dependency lengths explain constraints on crossing dependencies?. Linguist. Vanguard 7:e320190070
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Zeman D, Marecek D, Popel M, Ramasamy L, Stepánek J et al. 2012. Hamle DT: To parse or not to parse?. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation2735–41 Paris: Eur. Lang. Resour. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Zeman D, Nivre J, Abrams M, Ackermann E, Aepli N et al. 2020. Universal Dependencies 2.6 Prague: Universal Dependencies Consortium http://hdl.handle.net/11234/1-3226
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Zeman D, Nivre J, Abrams M, Ackermann E, Aepli N et al. 2021. Universal Dependencies 2.8 Prague: Universal Dependencies Consortium https://universaldependencies.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Zipf GK. 1935. The Psycho-Biology of Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-104629
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-104629
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error