Advertisement

Exploratory Analysis of Word Use and Sentence Length in the Spoken Dutch Corpus

  • Pascal Wiggers
  • Leon J. M. Rothkrantz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4629)

Abstract

We present an analysis of word use and sentence length in different types of Dutch speech, ranging from conversations over discussions and formal speech to read speech. We find that the distributions of sentence length and personal pronouns are characteristic for the type of speech. In addition, we analyzed differences in word use between male and female speakers and between speakers with high and low education levels. We find that male speaker use more fillers, while women use more pronouns and adverbs. Furthermore, gender specific differences turn out to be stronger than differences in language use between groups with different education levels.

Keywords

Personal Pronoun Sentence Length Spontaneous Speech Female Speaker Male Speaker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Boves, T., Gerritsen, M.: Inleiding in de sociolinguistiek. Uitgeverij Het Spectrum, Utrecht (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wiggers, P., Rothkrantz, L.J.: Topic-based language modeling with dynamic bayesian networks. In: the Ninth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (Interspeech 2006 ICSLP) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 1866–1869 (September 2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schuurman, I., Schouppe, M., Hoekstra, H., van der Wouden, T.: Cgn, an annotated corpus of spoken dutch. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora (LINC 2003), Budapest, Hungary (April 14, 2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dunning, T.: Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19(1), 61–74 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kilgarri, A.: Comparing corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 37, 1–37 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rayson, P., Garside, R.: Comparing corpora using frequency profiling (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daille, B.: Combined approach for terminology extraction: lexical statistics and linguistic.ltering. Technical Report 5, Lancaster University (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rayson, P., Leech, G., Hodges, M.: Social di.erentiation in the use of english vocabulary: some analyses of the conversational component of the british national corpus. s. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2(1), 133–152 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harnqvist, K., Christianson, U., Ridings, D., Tingsell, J.G.: Vocabulary in interviews as related to respondent characteristics. Computers and the Humanities 37, 179–204 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Binnenpoorte, D., Bael, C.V., Os, E.D., Boves, L.: Gender in everyday speech and language: a corpus-based study. In: Interspeech 2005, pp. 2213–2216 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Gijsel, S., Speelman, D., Geeraerts, D.: Locating lexical richness: a corpus linguistic, sociovariational analysis. In: J.M.V., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Conferene on the statistical analysis of textual data (JADT), Besanon, France, pp. 961–971 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., Shimoni, A.R.: Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text 23(3) (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pascal Wiggers
    • 1
  • Leon J. M. Rothkrantz
    • 1
  1. 1.Man–Machine Interaction Group, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 4, 2628 CD DelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations