Analyzing writing styles with coh-metrix

FLAIRS 2006 - Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference

Volumn 2006, Issue , 2006, Pages 764-769

  McCarthy, Philip M ^a   Lewis, Gwyneth A ^a   Dufty, David F ^a   McNamara, Danielle S ^a  

^a University of Memphis   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL TOOLS; STYLISTIC MARKERS; STYLOMETRICIANS;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; COMPUTER SCIENCE; LINGUISTICS; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; STATISTICAL METHODS;

PATTERN RECOGNITION;

EID: 33746084854     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Biber, D. (1987). A textual comparison of British and American Writing. American Speech, 62, 99-119.
2. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Biber, D. (1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8, 1-15.
4. Brinegar, C.S. (1963). Mark Twain and the Quintius Curtius Snodgrass letters: A statistical test of authorship. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 85-96.
5. Brill, E. (1995). Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing: A case study in part-of-speech tagging. Computational Linguistics, 21, 543-565.
6. Burrows, J. (1987). Word-patterns and story-shapes: The statistical analysis of narrative style. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 2, 61-70.
7. Charniak, E. (1997). Statistical techniques for natural language parsing. Al Magazine, 18, 33-44.
8. Charniak, E. (2000). A Maximum-Entropy-Inspired Parser. Proceedings of the 1st Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. (pp. 132-139). Seattle, W A.
9. Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge: MIT Press
10. Fucks W. (1952). On the mathematical analysis of style. Biometrica, 39, 122-129.
11. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193-202.
12. Haberlandt, K., & Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 114, 357-374.
13. Haliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman
14. Holms, D.I. & Forsyth, R.S. (1995). The Federalist revisited: New directions in authorship attribution. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 10, 111-127.
15. Jurafsky, D. S., & Martin, J. H. (2000). Speech and language processing. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16. Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
17. Karlsgren J. & Cutting, D. (1994). Recognizing text genres with simple metrics using discriminant analysis. International Conference on Computational Linguistics Proceedings of the 15th conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 2. Kyoto, Japan: 1071-1075.
18. Kessler, B., Nunberg, G., & Schuetze, H. (1997). Automatic detection of text genre. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 8th Meeting of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Madrid: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 32-38.
19. Klare, G. R. (1974-75). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62-102.
20. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
21. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
22. Ledger, G. R., & Merriam, T. V. N. (1994). Shakespeare, Fletcher, and the two noble kinsmen. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 9, 235-248
23. Louwerse, M.M. (2002). An analytic and cognitiveparameterization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 291-315.
24. Louwerse, M. M. (2004). Semantic variation in idiolect and sociolcct: Corpus linguistic evidence from literary texts. Computers and the Humanities, 38, 207-221.
25. Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (2004). Variation in language and cohesion across written and spoken registers. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 843-848). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high and low coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62.
27. Mealand, D. L. (1995). Correspondence analysis of Luke. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 10, 171-182.
28. Morton, A. (1965). The authorship of Greek prose. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 128, 169-233.
29. Mosteller, F., & Wallace, D. (1984). Applied bayesian and classical inference: The case of the Federalist papers. MA: Addison-Wesley, Reading.
30. Rudman, J. (1998). The state of authorship attribution studies: Some problems and solutions. Computers and the Humanities, 31, 351-365.
31. Smith, J. A., & Kelly, C. (2002). Stylistic constancy and change across literary corpora: Using measures of lexical richness to date works. Computers and the Humanities, 36, 411-430.
32. Stamatatos, E., Fakotakis, N., & Kokkinakis, G. (1999). Automatic extraction of rules for sentence boundary disambiguation. Proceedings of the Workshop on Machine Learning in Human Language Technology, ECCAI Advanced Course on Artificial Intelligence (ACAI-99), 88-82.
33. Stamatatos, E., Fakotakis, N., & Kokkinakis, G. (2001). Automatic text categorization in terms of genre and author. Computational Linguistics, 26, 471-495.