Advertisement

Studying the difference between natural and programming language corpora

  • Casey Casalnuovo
  • Kenji Sagae
  • Prem Devanbu
Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Code corpora, as observed in large software systems, are now known to be far more repetitive and predictable than natural language corpora. But why? Does the difference simply arise from the syntactic limitations of programming languages? Or does it arise from the differences in authoring decisions made by the writers of these natural and programming language texts? We conjecture that the differences are not entirely due to syntax, but also from the fact that reading and writing code is un-natural for humans, and requires substantial mental effort; so, people prefer to write code in ways that are familiar to both reader and writer. To support this argument, we present results from two sets of studies: 1) a first set aimed at attenuating the effects of syntax, and 2) a second, aimed at measuring repetitiveness of text written in other settings (e.g. second language, technical/specialized jargon), which are also effortful to write. We find that this repetition in source code is not entirely the result of grammar constraints, and thus some repetition must result from human choice. While the evidence we find of similar repetitive behavior in technical and learner corpora does not conclusively show that such language is used by humans to mitigate difficulty, it is consistent with that theory. This discovery of “non-syntactic” repetitive behaviour is actionable, and can be leveraged for statistically significant improvements on the code suggestion task. We discuss this finding, and other future implications on practice, and for research.

Keywords

Language modeling Programming languages Natural languages Syntax & grammar Parse trees Corpus comparison 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professors C. Sutton, Z. Su, V. Filkov, and R. Aranovich, along with the UC Davis DECAL and NLP Reading groups for comments and feedback on this research. We also would like to especially thank V. Hellendoorn for his feedback and input on our experiment between parse trees in Java and English. We also acknowledge support from NSF Grant #1414172, Exploiting the Naturalness of Software. Finally we are grateful to the reviewers and editors of this journal for their thoughtful comments, which were very helpful in improving the work presented in this paper.

References

  1. Abadi M, Barham P, Chen J, Chen Z, Davis A, Dean J, Devin M, Ghemawat S, Irving G, Isard M, et al. (2016) Tensorflow: a system for large-scale machine learning. In: OSDI, vol 16, pp 265–283Google Scholar
  2. Allamanis M, Sutton C (2013) Mining source code repositories at massive scale using language modeling. In: 2013 10th IEEE working conference on mining software repositories (MSR), pp 207–216.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MSR.2013.6624029
  3. Allamanis M, Sutton C (2014) Mining idioms from source code. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering. ACM, New York, NY, USA, FSE 2014, pp 472–483.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2635868.2635901
  4. Allamanis M, Barr ET, Devanbu P, Sutton C (2017) A survey of machine learning for big code and naturalness. arXiv:170906182
  5. Andor D, Alberti C, Weiss D, Severyn A, Presta A, Ganchev K, Petrov S, Collins M (2016) Globally normalized transition-based neural networks. arXiv:160306042
  6. Bachmann A, Bernstein A (2009) Software process data quality and characteristics: a historical view on open and closed source projects. In: Proceedings of the joint international and annual ERCIM workshops on principles of software evolution (IWPSE) and software evolution (Evol) workshops. ACM, New York, NY, USA, IWPSE-Evol ’09, pp 119–128.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1595808.1595830
  7. Baxter G, Frean M, Noble J, Rickerby M, Smith H, Visser M, Melton H, Tempero E (2006) Understanding the shape of java software. In: ACM Sigplan notices. ACM vol 41, pp 397–412Google Scholar
  8. Bird S (2006) Nltk: the natural language toolkit. In: Proceedings of the COLING/ACL on interactive presentation sessions. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 69–72Google Scholar
  9. Bradley DC (1978) Computational distinctions of vocabulary type. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  10. Bright W (2017) Social factors in language change. In: The handbook of sociolinguistics. Wiley-Blackwell, chap 5, pp 81–91.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405166256.ch5
  11. Busjahn T, Bednarik R, Begel A, Crosby M, Paterson JH, Schulte C, Sharif B, Tamm S (2015) Eye movements in code reading: relaxing the linear order. In: 2015 IEEE 23rd international conference on program comprehension (ICPC). IEEE, pp 255–265Google Scholar
  12. Ferrer i Cancho R, Solé R V (2001) Two regimes in the frequency of words and the origins of complex lexicons: Zipf’s law revisited? Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 8(3):165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlstrom B, Price N (2013) Gachon learner corpusGoogle Scholar
  14. Chelba C, Mikolov T, Schuster M, Ge Q, Brants T, Koehn P (2013) One billion word benchmark for measuring progress in statistical language modeling. CoRR arXiv:1312.3005
  15. Chen SF, Goodman J (1998) An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling. In: Harvard computer science group technical report TR-10-98Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky N (2002) An interview on minimalism. In: Belletti A, Rizzi L (eds) On nature and language, chap 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 92–161.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613876.005
  17. Concas G, Marchesi M, Pinna S, Serra N (2007) Power-laws in a large object-oriented software system. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(10):687–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conklin K, Schmitt N (2008) Formulaic sequences: are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Appl Linguis 29(1):72–89.  https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Danet B (1980) Language in the legal process. Law Soc Rev 14(3):445–564. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3053192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Cock S (2000) Repetitive phrasal chunkiness and advanced efl speech and writing. Lang Comput 33: 51–68Google Scholar
  21. De Marneffe MC, Manning CD (2008) The stanford typed dependencies representation. In: Coling 2008: proceedings of the workshop on cross-framework and cross-domain parser evaluation. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  22. De Marneffe MC, MacCartney B, Manning CD, et al. (2006) Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In: Proceedings of LREC, vol 6. Genoa Italy, pp 449–454Google Scholar
  23. Demberg V, Keller F (2008) Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition 109(2):193–210.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.008. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027708001741 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dig D, Johnson R (2005) The role of refactorings in api evolution. In: Null. IEEE, pp 389–398Google Scholar
  25. Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  26. Frank S (2013) Uncertainty reduction as a measure of cognitive load in sentence comprehension. Top Cogn Sci 5(3):475–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gerlach M, Altmann EG (2013) Stochastic model for the vocabulary growth in natural languages. Phys Rev X 3(2):021006Google Scholar
  28. Ginter F, Hajič J, Luotolahti J, Straka M, Zeman D (2017) CoNLL 2017 shared task - automatically annotated raw texts and word embeddings. http://hdl.handle.net/11234/1-1989 LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at the institute of formal and applied linguistics (ÚFAL) faculty of mathematics and physics, Charles University
  29. Gopstein D, Iannacone J, Yan Y, Delong LA, Zhuang Y, Yeh MKC, Cappos J (2017) Understanding misunderstandings in source code. In: Proceedings of the 2017 11th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering. ACM, pp 129–139Google Scholar
  30. Gopstein D, Zhou HH, Frankl P, Cappos J (2018) Prevalence of confusing code in software projects: atoms of confusion in the wild. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on mining software repositories. ACM, pp 281–291.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3196398.3196432
  31. Gotti M (2011) Investigating specialized discourse. Peter LangGoogle Scholar
  32. Gousios G, Spinellis D (2012) GHTorrent: Github’s data from a firehose. In: MSR. IEEE, pp 12–21Google Scholar
  33. Hale J (2003) The information conveyed by words in sentences. J Psycholinguist Res 32(2):101–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harker SD, Eason KD, Dobson JE (1993) The change and evolution of requirements as a challenge to the practice of software engineering. In: Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, 1993. IEEE, pp 266–272Google Scholar
  35. Hathhorn C, Ellison C, Roşu G (2015) Defining the undefinedness of c. In: ACM SIGPLAN notices, vol 50. ACM, pp 336–345Google Scholar
  36. Hayes JH, Dekhtyar A, Sundaram SK (2005) Improving after-the-fact tracing and mapping: supporting software quality predictions. IEEE Soft 22(6):30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heafield K (2011) Kenlm: faster and smaller language model queries. In: Proceedings of the sixth workshop on statistical machine translation, association for computational linguistics, pp 187–197Google Scholar
  38. Hellendoorn VJ, Devanbu P (2017) Are deep neural networks the best choice for modeling source code?. In: Proceedings of the 2017 11th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering, ser. ESEC/FSE, pp 763–773Google Scholar
  39. Hellendoorn VJ, Devanbu PT, Bacchelli A (2015) Will they like this?: evaluating code contributions with language models. In: Proceedings of the 12th working conference on mining software repositories. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, MSR ’15, pp 157–167 . http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2820518.2820539
  40. Hindle A, Barr ET, Su Z, Gabel M, Devanbu P (2012) On the naturalness of software. In: Proceedings of the 34th international conference on software engineering. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, ICSE ’12, pp 837–847. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2337223.2337322
  41. Hochreiter S, Schmidhuber J (1997) Long short-term memory. Neural Comput 9(8):1735–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hoffmann L (1984) Seven roads to lsp. Fachsprache 6:1–2Google Scholar
  43. Hothorn T, Hornik K, van de Wiel MA, Zeileis A (2006) A lego system for conditional inference. Am Stat 60(3):257–263MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jbara A, Feitelson DG (2017) How programmers read regular code: a controlled experiment using eye tracking. Empir Softw Eng 22(3):1440–1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kavaler D, Sirovica S, Hellendoorn V, Aranovich R, Filkov V (2017) Perceived language complexity in github issue discussions and their effect on issue resolution. In: Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, ASE 2017, pp 72–83 . http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3155562.3155576
  46. Khanh Dam H, Tran T, Pham T (2016) A deep language model for software code. arXiv:160802715
  47. Kim M, Cai D, Kim S (2011) An empirical investigation into the role of api-level refactorings during software evolution. In: Proceedings of the 33rd international conference on software engineering. ACM, pp 151–160Google Scholar
  48. Kneser R, Ney H (1995) Improved backing-off for m-gram language modeling. In: ICASSP-95., 1995 international conference on acoustics, speech, and signal processing, 1995, vol 1. IEEE, pp 181–184Google Scholar
  49. Knuth DE (1984) Literate programming. Comput J 27(2):97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kučera H, Francis WN (1967) Computational analysis of present-day American English. Dartmouth Publishing GroupGoogle Scholar
  51. Lehman MM (1980) Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. Proc IEEE 68(9):1060–1076.  https://doi.org/10.1109/PROC.1980.11805 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lehman MM (1996) Laws of software evolution revisited. In: European workshop on software process technology. Springer, pp 108–124Google Scholar
  53. Levy R (2008) Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106 (3):1126–1177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027707001436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Liu H, Sun C, Su Z, Jiang Y, Gu M, Sun J (2017) Stochastic optimization of program obfuscation. In: Proceedings of the 39th international conference on software engineering. IEEE Press, pp 221– 231Google Scholar
  55. Louridas P, Spinellis D, Vlachos V (2008) Power laws in software. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodolog (TOSEM) 18(1):2Google Scholar
  56. Mandelbrot B (1953) An informational theory of the statistical structure of language. Commun Theory 84:486–502Google Scholar
  57. Manning CD, Schütze H (1999) Foundations of statistical natural language processing. MIT Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. Marcus MP, Marcinkiewicz MA, Santorini B (1993) Building a large annotated corpus of english: the penn treebank. Comput Linguist 19(2):313–330. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=972470.972475 Google Scholar
  59. Michael L (2014) Social dimensions of language change. In: The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, Routledge, chap 22.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315794013.ch22, https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315794013.ch22
  60. Mikolov T, Karafiát M, Burget L, Cernockỳ J, Khudanpur S (2010) Recurrent neural network based language model. In: Interspeech, vol 2, p 3Google Scholar
  61. Mitzenmacher M (2004) A brief history of generative models for power law and lognormal distributions. Internet Math 1(2):226–251MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Norvig P (2009) Natural language corpus data. In: Segaran T, Hammerbacher J (eds) Beautiful data: the stories behind elegant data solutions, chap 14. O’Reilly Media, pp 219–242Google Scholar
  63. Paquot M, Granger S (2012) Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32:130–149. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1289774805?accountid=14505, copyright - Copyright Cambridge University Press 2012; Last updated - 2015-05-30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Petersen AM, Tenenbaum JN, Havlin S, Stanley HE, Perc M (2012) Languages cool as they expand: allometric scaling and the decreasing need for new words. Sci Rep 2:943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Petrov S (2016) Announcing syntaxnet: the world’s most accurate parser goes open source. Google Research BlogGoogle Scholar
  66. Petrov S, Barrett L, Thibaux R, Klein D (2006) Learning accurate, compact, and interpretable tree annotation. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on computational linguistics and the 44th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, association for computational linguistics, pp 433–440Google Scholar
  67. Piantadosi ST (2014) Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: a critical review and future directions. Psychon Bull Rev 21(5):1112–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Piantadosi ST, Tily H, Gibson E (2012) The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition 122(3):280–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pierret D, Poshyvanyk D (2009) An empirical exploration of regularities in open-source software lexicons. In: IEEE 17th international conference on program comprehension, 2009. ICPC’09. IEEE, pp 228–232Google Scholar
  70. Salager F (1983) Compound nominal phrases in scientific-technical literature: proportion and rationale. ERICGoogle Scholar
  71. Salvador A, Hynes N, Aytar Y, Marin J, Ofli F, Weber I, Torralba A (2017) Learning cross-modal embeddings for cooking recipes and food images. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognitionGoogle Scholar
  72. Santos EA, Hindle A (2016) Judging a commit by its cover: correlating commit message entropy with build status on travis-ci. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on mining software repositories. ACM, New York, NY, USA, MSR ’16, pp 504–507.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2901739.2903493
  73. Scalabrino S, Bavota G, Vendome C, Linares-Vásquez M, Poshyvanyk D, Oliveto R (2017) Automatically assessing code understandability: how far are we?. In: Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering. IEEE Press, pp 417–427Google Scholar
  74. Schmitt N, Carter R (2004) Formulaic sequences in action. Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use: 1–22Google Scholar
  75. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication, part i, part ii. Bell Syst Tech J 27:623–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Shannon CE (1951) Prediction and entropy of printed english. Bell Labs Tech J 30(1):50–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Siegmund J, Kästner C, Apel S, Parnin C, Bethmann A, Leich T, Saake G, Brechmann A (2014) Understanding understanding source code with functional magnetic resonance imaging. In: Proceedings of the 36th international conference on software engineering. ACM, pp 378–389Google Scholar
  78. Stefik A, Ladner R (2017) The quorum programming language. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education. ACM, pp 641–641Google Scholar
  79. Stefik A, Siebert S (2013) An empirical investigation into programming language syntax. ACM Trans Comput Educ (TOCE) 13(4):19Google Scholar
  80. Sundaram SK, Hayes JH, Dekhtyar A (2005) Baselines in requirements tracing. In: ACM SIGSOFT Software engineering notes, ACM, vol 30, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  81. Sundermeyer M, Schlüter R, Ney H (2012) Lstm neural networks for language modeling. In: Thirteenth annual conference of the international speech communication associationGoogle Scholar
  82. Trockman A, Cates K, Mozina M, Nguyen T, Kästner C, Vasilescu B (2018) “Automatically assessing code understandability” reanalyzed: combined metrics matter. In: International conference on mining software repositories. ACM, pp 314–318.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3196398.3196441
  83. Tsay J, Dabbish L, Herbsleb J (2014) Influence of social and technical factors for evaluating contribution in github. In: Proceedings of the 36th international conference on software engineering. ACM, pp 356–366Google Scholar
  84. Tu Z, Su Z, Devanbu P (2014) On the localness of software. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering. ACM, New York, NY, USA, FSE 2014, pp 269–280.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2635868.2635875
  85. Varantola K (1986) Special language and general language: linguistic and didactic aspects. Unesco Alsed-LSP Newsletter (1977-2000) 9(2)Google Scholar
  86. Vinyals O, Kaiser Ł, Koo T, Petrov S, Sutskever I, Hinton G (2015) Grammar as a foreign language. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 2773–2781Google Scholar
  87. Wasow T, Perfors A, Beaver D (2005) The puzzle of ambiguity. Morphology and the web of grammar: essays in memory of Steven G Lapointe: 265–282Google Scholar
  88. Weintrop D, Wilensky U (2015) Using commutative assessments to compare conceptual understanding in blocks-based and text-based programs. In: Proceedings of the eleventh annual international conference on international computing education research, ICER ’15. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 101–110.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787721
  89. White M, Vendome C, Linares-Vásquez M, Poshyvanyk D (2015) Toward deep learning software repositories. In: 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th working conference on mining software repositories (MSR). IEEE, pp 334–345Google Scholar
  90. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, Berlin. http://ggplot2.org CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Xue X (2015) Ten thousand english compositions of chinese learners (the teccl corpus), version 1.1Google Scholar
  92. Zhang H (2008) Exploring regularity in source code: software science and zipf’s law. In: WCRE’08. 15th working conference on reverse engineering, 2008. IEEE, pp 101–110Google Scholar
  93. Zhi J, Garousi-Yusifoğlu V, Sun B, Garousi G, Shahnewaz S, Ruhe G (2015) Cost, benefits and quality of software development documentation: a systematic mapping. J Syst Softw 99:175–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zipf G (1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley, Cambody Mus Am Arch and Ethnol(Harvard Univ) Papers 19:1–125Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations