We present a preview of the Syntactic Acceptability Dataset, a resource being designed for both syntax and computational linguistics research. In its current form, the dataset comprises 1,000 English sequences from the syntactic discourse: Half from textbooks and half from the journal Linguistic Inquiry, the latter to ensure a representation of the contemporary discourse. Each entry is labeled with its grammatical status (“well-formedness” according to syntactic formalisms) extracted from the literature, as well as its acceptability status (“intuitive goodness” as determined by native speakers) obtained through crowdsourcing, with highest experimental standards. Even in its preliminary form, this dataset stands as the largest of its kind that is publicly accessible. We also offer preliminary analyses addressing three debates in linguistics and computational linguistics: We observe that grammaticality and acceptability judgments converge in about 83% of the cases and that “in-betweenness” occurs frequently. This corroborates existing research. We also find that while machine learning models struggle with predicting grammaticality, they perform considerably better in predicting acceptability. This is a novel finding. Future work will focus on expanding the dataset.

We report ongoing research on linking elements in German compounds, with a focus on noun-noun compounds in which the first constituent is ending in schwa. We present a corpus of about 3000 nouns ending in schwa, annotated for various phonological and morpho-syntactic features, and critically, the dominant linking strategy. The corpus analysis is complemented by an unsuccessful attempt to train neural networks and by a pilot experiment asking native speakers to indicate their preferred linking strategy. In addition to existing nouns, the experimental stimuli included nonce words, also ending in schwa. While neither the corpus study nor the experiment offer a clear picture, the results nevertheless provide interesting insights into the intricacies of German compounding. Overall, we find a predominance of the paradigmatic linking element -n for feminine and masculine nouns. At the same time, the results for nonce words show that -n is not a default strategy.

We report on an application of universal dependencies for the study of diachronic shifts in syntactic usage patterns. Our focus is on the evolution of Scientific English in the Late Modern English period (ca. 1700-1900). Our data set is the Royal Society Corpus (RSC), comprising the full set of publications of the Royal Society of London between 1665 and 1996. Our starting assumption is that over time, Scientific English develops specific syntactic choice preferences that increase efficiency in (expert-to-expert) communication. The specific hypothesis we pursue in this paper is that changing syntactic choice preferences lead to greater dependency locality/dependency length minimization, which is associated with positive effects for the efficiency of human as well as computational linguistic processing. As a basis for our measurements, we parsed the RSC using Stanford CoreNLP. Overall, we observe a decrease in dependency length, with long dependency structures becoming less frequent and short dependency structures becoming more frequent over time, notably pertaining to the nominal phrase, thus marking an overall push towards greater communicative efficiency.

Translationese is a phenomenon present in human translations, simultaneous interpreting, and even machine translations. Some translationese features tend to appear in simultaneous interpreting with higher frequency than in human text translation, but the reasons for this are unclear. This study analyzes translationese patterns in translation, interpreting, and machine translation outputs in order to explore possible reasons. In our analysis we – (i) detail two non-invasive ways of detecting translationese and (ii) compare translationese across human and machine translations from text and speech. We find that machine translation shows traces of translationese, but does not reproduce the patterns found in human translation, offering support to the hypothesis that such patterns are due to the model (human vs machine) rather than to the data (written vs spoken).