scholarly journals Evaluating language models for the retrieval and categorization of lexical collocations

Author(s):  
Luis Espinosa Anke ◽  
Joan Codina-Filba ◽  
Leo Wanner
Author(s):  
Hairul Azhar Mohamad ◽  
Muhammad Luthfi Mohaini ◽  
Pavithran Ravinthra Nath

This research investigated into the lexical density and frequencies of five types of lexical chunks located in 300 online business letters. Top 10 websites on business correspondence had been identified in terms of traffic visitors and bounce rate under one million web rankings worldwide. Criterion Sampling method was identified prior to extracting the sample letters from the websites. The data was then run with Antconc Concordance Program (ACP) for lexical density and frequency analysis. Top 15 lexical chunks in online business letters (OBL) were compared against those top 15 in Business Letter Corpus (BLC). Findings revealed that there was a total of 39 916-word tokens and 939 counts of lexical chunks found in this corpus. It was found that more lexical words do not imply more lexical chunks used in based on types of business letters.  All 5 types of lexical chunks were identified and ranked in descending order; Sentence Builders (SB) as the most frequent type, followed by Collocations (COL), Deictic locutions (DLs), Polywords (POLs) and Institutionalized Expressions (IUs) as the least frequent type of lexical chunk. Sub-divisional analysis indicated that Grammatical Collocations (GCs) were more common than Lexical Collocations (LCs). Majority of lexical chunks were formed more at sentence level than phrasal level. Comparative analysis between top 15 lexical chunks in OBL and BLC discovered that most top lexical chunks in online business letters are representative of those corporate business letters in BLC. Pedagogical implications in terms of the reliability of online business letters for academic reference and future research considerations are also addressed.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Goodwin ◽  
Yaacov Petscher ◽  
Jamie Tock

Various models have highlighted the complexity of language. Building on foundational ideas regarding three key aspects of language, our study contributes to the literature by 1) exploring broader conceptions of morphology, vocabulary, and syntax, 2) operationalizing this theoretical model into a gamified, standardized, computer-adaptive assessment of language for fifth to eighth grade students entitled Monster, PI, and 3) uncovering further evidence regarding the relationship between language and standardized reading comprehension via this assessment. Multiple-group item response theory (IRT) across grades show that morphology was best fit by a bifactor model of task specific factors along with a global factor related to each skill. Vocabulary was best fit by a bifactor model that identifies performance overall and on specific words. Syntax, though, was best fit by a unidimensional model. Next, Monster, PI produced reliable scores suggesting language can be assessed efficiently and precisely for students via this model. Lastly, performance on Monster, PI explained more than 50% of variance in standardized reading, suggesting operationalizing language via Monster, PI can provide meaningful understandings of the relationship between language and reading comprehension. Specifically, considering just a subset of a construct, like identification of units of meaning, explained significantly less variance in reading comprehension. This highlights the importance of considering these broader constructs. Implications indicate that future work should consider a model of language where component areas are considered broadly and contributions to reading comprehension are explored via general performance on components as well as skill level performance.


Author(s):  
Xiaoyu Shen ◽  
Youssef Oualil ◽  
Clayton Greenberg ◽  
Mittul Singh ◽  
Dietrich Klakow

Author(s):  
Vitaly Kuznetsov ◽  
Hank Liao ◽  
Mehryar Mohri ◽  
Michael Riley ◽  
Brian Roark

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grant P. Strimel ◽  
Ariya Rastrow ◽  
Gautam Tiwari ◽  
Adrien Piérard ◽  
Jon Webb

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document