Linguistic Features as Evidence for Historical Context Interpretation

  • Jyi-Shane LiuEmail author
  • Ching-Ying Lee
  • Hua-Yuan Hsueh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10415)


Inspired by the great potential of linguistic features in preserving and revealing writers’ state of mind and conception in certain space and time, we use linguistic features as a vehicle to extract pieces of significant information from a large set of text of known origin so as to construct a context for personal inspection on the writer(s). In this research, we choose a set of linguistic features, each of a grammatical function or a grammatical association pattern, and each represents a different perspective of contextual annotation. In particular, the selected grammatical items include personal pronoun, negation, noun chunk, and are used as text slicing tubes for extracting a certain aspect of information. The initial results show that some selected grammatical constructions are effective in extracting descriptive evidence for construing historical context. Our study has contributed to exploring an effective avenue for innovative history studies by means of examining linguistic evidence.


Linguistic feature Historical context 


  1. 1.
    Biber, D., Reppen, R.: Corpus Linguistics. Sage, London (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brewer, M.B., Gardner, W.: Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71(1), 83 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burrows, J.: ‘Delta’: a measure of stylistic difference and a guide to likely authorship. Literary Linguist. Comput. 17(3), 267–287 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaski, C.E.: Who’s at the keyboard? Authorship attribution in digital evidence investigations. Int. J. Digit. Evid. 4(1), 1–13 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eggins, S.: Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. A&C Black, London (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halliday, M., Matthiessen, C.M., Matthiessen, C.: An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Routledge, London (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoover, D.L.: Frequent word sequences and statistical stylistics. Literary Linguist. Comput. 17(2), 157–180 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hu, X., Wang, Y., Wu, Q.: Multiple authors detection: a quantitative analysis of dream of the red chamber. Adv. Adapt. Data Anal. 6(04), 1450012 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Íñigo-Mora, I.: On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities. J. Lang. Polit. 3(1), 27–52 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koppel, M., Schler, J., Argamon, S.: Computational methods in authorship attribution. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(1), 9–26 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Love, H.: Attributing Authorship: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schleppegrell, M.J.: Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguist. Educ. 12(4), 431–459 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tu, H.C.: Using a text mining approach to study the authorship controversy on the last 40 chapters of the dream of the red chamber. In: Hsiang, J. (ed.) Digital Humanities and Craft: Technological Change. Center of Humanities Research, Taiwan (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zeijlstra, H.: Negation in natural language: on the form and meaning of negative elements. Lang. Linguist. Compass 1(5), 498–518 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, Center for Creativity and Innovation StudiesNational Chengchi UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Applied Foreign LanguagesUniversity of Kang NingTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of HistoryNational Chengchi UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations