Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Makes Your Writing Style Unique? Significant Differences Between Two Famous Romanian Orators

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computational Collective Intelligence (ICCCI 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9875))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1335 Accesses

Abstract

This paper introduces a novel, in-depth approach of analyzing the differences in writing style between two famous Romanian orators, based on automated textual complexity indices for Romanian language. The considered authors are: (a) Mihai Eminescu, Romania’s national poet and a remarkable journalist of his time, and (b) Ion C. Brătianu, one of the most important Romanian politicians from the middle of the 18th century. Both orators have a common journalistic interest consisting in their desire to spread the word about political issues in Romania via the printing press, the most important public voice at that time. In addition, both authors exhibit writing style particularities, and our aim is to explore these differences through our ReaderBench framework that computes a wide range of lexical and semantic textual complexity indices for Romanian and other languages. The used corpus contains two collections of speeches for each orator that cover the period 1857–1880. The results of this study highlight the lexical and cohesive textual complexity indices that reflect very well the differences in writing style, measures relying on Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) and Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) semantic models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. de Saussure, F.: Cours de Linguistique Générale. Payot, Paris (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bo, L., Gaussier, E., Morin, E., Hazem, A.: Degré de comparabilité, extraction lexicale bilingue et recherche d’information interlingue. In: Conf´erence sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles, vol. 1, pp. 211–222. LIRMM Montpellier, Montpellier (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Morin, E., Daille, B.: Comparabilité de corpus et fouille terminologique multilingue. Traitement Automatique des Langues 47(1), 113–136 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gîfu, D.: Contrastive diachronic study on romanian language. In: FOI 2015, pp. 296–310. Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, Academy of Sciences of Moldova (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Aijmer, K., Altenberg, B., Johansson, M.: Languages in contrast: papers from a symposium on text-based cross-linguistic studies, Lund 4–5 March 1994, vol. 88. Lund studies in English (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Vianu, T.: Arta prozatorilor români. Ed. Contemporană, Bucharest (1941)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Coteanu, I.: Stilistica Funcțională a Limbii Române, vol. 81. Editura Academiei, Bucharest (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibrăileanu, G.: Spiritul Critic în Cultura Românească. Tipografia Moldova, Iaşi (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brătianu, I.C.: Memoire sur l’Empire d’Autriche dans la question d’Orient, Paris, France (1855)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brătianu, I.C.: Memoire sur la situation de la Moldo–Valachie depuis la Traite de Paris, Paris, France (1857)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dascalu, M.: Analyzing Discourse and Text Complexity for Learning and Collaborating. SCI, vol. 534. Springer, Cham (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dascalu, M., Gifu, D.: Evaluating the complexity of online Romanian press. In: 11th International Conference “Linguistic Resources and Tools for Processing the Romanian Language”, Iasi, Romania, pp. 149–162 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dascalu, M., Dessus, P., Bianco, M., Trausan-Matu, S., Nardy, A.: Mining texts, learner productions and strategies with ReaderBench. In: Peña-Ayala, A. (ed.) Educational Data Mining. SCI, vol. 524, pp. 335–377. Springer, Cham (2014)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Dascalu, M., Stavarache, L.L., Dessus, P., Trausan-Matu, S., McNamara, D.S., Bianco, M.: ReaderBench: an integrated cohesion-centered framework. In: Conole, G., Klobucar, T., Rensing, C., Konert, J., Lavoué, E. (eds.) EC-TEL 2015. LNCS, vol. 9307, pp. 505–508. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24258-3_47

    Google Scholar 

  15. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers: Common Core State Standards. Authors, Washington D.C. (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Eggins, S., Martin, J.R.: Genres and register of discourse. In: van Dijk, T.A. (ed.) Discourse as Structure and Process (Discourse Studies – A Multidisciplinary Introduction), vol. 1, pp. 231–232. Sage Publications, London (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Biber, D.: A textual comparison of British and American Writing. Am. Speech 62, 99–119 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosetti, A., Cazacu, B., Onu, L.: Istoria limbii române literare. Editura Minerva, Bucureşti (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Iordan, I.: Stilistica Limbii Române. Editura Ştiințifică, Bucureşti (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sala, M.: De la latină la română. Limba română, vol. 1. Editura Univers Enciclopedic & Academia Română, Bucureşti (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Guţu-Romalo, V.: Aspecte ale evoluţiei limbii române, Vol. Repere. Editura Humanitas Educaţional, Bucureşti (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Slotnick, H.: Toward a theory of computer essay grading. J. Educ. Meas. 9(4), 253–263 (1972)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wresch, W.: The imminence of grading essays by computer—25 years later. Comput. Compos. 10(2), 45–58 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nelson, J., Perfetti, C., Liben, D., Liben, M.: Measures of text difficulty: Testing their predictive value for grade levels and student performance. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shannon, C.E.: Prediction and entropy of printed English. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 30, 50–64 (1951)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Shannon, C.E.: A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J., 27, 379–423 & 623–656 (1948)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gervasi, V., Ambriola, V.: Quantitative assessment of textual complexity. In: Barbaresi, M.L. (ed.) Complexity in Language and Text, pp. 197–228. Plus, Pisa (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  28. McNamara, D.S., Graesser, A.C., Louwerse, M.M.: Sources of text difficulty: Across the ages and genres. In: Sabatini, J.P., Albro, E., O’Reilly, T. (eds.) Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability, pp. 89–116. R&L Education, Lanham (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  29. van Dijk, T.A., Kintsch, W.: Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. Academic Press, New York (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Crossley, S.A., Dascalu, M., Trausan-Matu, S., Allen, L., McNamara, D.S.: Document Cohesion Flow: Striving towards Coherence. In: 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dascalu, M., Trausan-Matu, S., McNamara, D.S., Dessus, P.: ReaderBench – automated evaluation of collaboration based on cohesion and dialogism. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collaborative Learn. 10(4), 395–423 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dascalu, M., Dessus, P., Trausan-Matu, Ş., Bianco, M., Nardy, A.: ReaderBench, an environment for analyzing text complexity and reading strategies. In: Lane, H.C., Yacef, K., Mostow, J., Pavlik, P. (eds.) AIED 2013. LNCS, vol. 7926, pp. 379–388. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Trausan-Matu, S., Dascalu, M., Dessus, P.: Textual complexity and discourse structure in computer-supported collaborative learning. In: Cerri, S.A., Clancey, W.J., Papadourakis, G., Panourgia, K. (eds.) ITS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7315, pp. 352–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Foltz, P.W., Kintsch, W., Landauer, T.K.: An analysis of textual coherence using latent semantic indexing. In: 3rd Annual Conference of the Society for Text and Discourse, Boulder, CO (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Landauer, T.K., Dumais, S.T.: A solution to Plato’s problem: the Latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychol. Rev. 104(2), 211–240 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Manning, C.D., Schütze, H.: Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Blei, D.M., Ng, A.Y., Jordan, M.I.: Latent Dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3(4–5), 993–1022 (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Blei, D.M., Lafferty, J.: Topic models. In: Srivastava, A., Sahami, M. (eds.) Text Mining: Classification, Clustering, and Applications, pp. 71–93. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Golub, G.H., Kahan, W.: Calculating the singular values and pseudo-inverse of a matrix. J. Soc. Ind. Appl. Math.: Ser. B, Numer. Anal. 2(2), 205–224 (1965)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Kotz, S., Balakrishnan, N., Johnson, N.L.: Dirichlet and Inverted Dirichlet Distributions. Continuous Multivariate Distributions, vol. 1, Models and Applications, pp. 485–527. Wiley, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Dascalu, M., Trausan-Matu, S., Dessus, P., McNamara, D.S.: Discourse cohesion: a signature of collaboration. In: 5th International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (LAK 2015), pp. 350–354. ACM, Poughkeepsie (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tufiș, D., Barbu Mititelu, V., Bozianu, L., Mihăilă, C.: Romanian wordnet: new developments and applications. In: 3rd Global Wordnet Conference 2006 (GWC 2006), Jeju Island, Korea, pp. 337–344 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Stevens, J.P.: Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Lawrence Erblaum, Mahwah (2002)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Garson, G.D.: Multivariate GLM, MANOVA, and MANCOVA. Statistical Associates Publishing, Asheboro (2015)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially funded by the 2008-212578 LTfLL FP7 project, as well as the EC H2020 project RAGE (Realising and Applied Gaming Eco-System); http://www.rageproject.eu/ No. 644187.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department, University Politehnica of Bucharest, 313 Splaiul Independenței, 060042, București, Romania

    Mihai Dascalu & Stefan Trausan-Matu

  2. Faculty of Computer Science, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University, 16 General Berthelot, 700483, Iaşi, Romania

    Daniela Gîfu

Authors
  1. Mihai Dascalu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniela Gîfu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Trausan-Matu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mihai Dascalu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland

    Ngoc-Thanh Nguyen

  2. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Lazaros Iliadis

  3. Department of Forestry and Management, Democritus University of Thrace, Orestiada, Thrace, Greece

    Yannis Manolopoulos

  4. Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland

    Bogdan Trawiński

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dascalu, M., Gîfu, D., Trausan-Matu, S. (2016). What Makes Your Writing Style Unique? Significant Differences Between Two Famous Romanian Orators. In: Nguyen, NT., Iliadis, L., Manolopoulos, Y., Trawiński, B. (eds) Computational Collective Intelligence. ICCCI 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9875. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45243-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45243-2_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45242-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45243-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation