Computational analysis of present-day American English

By H. Kucera, W. Francis, W. Twaddell, M. L. Marckworth, Laura M. Bell, John B. Carroll. 1967

Subfields: Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics & Semantics

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Natural Language Processing

In Computational Linguistics & Semantics

Citations in the corpus

Measuring Data (2022, methodology): “Further distinctions include that the assignment of numbers must be systematic (e.g., Roberts (1985)), that they facilitate 2 Etymologically, while the word measurement in English derives from the ancient Greek term µ ´ (cid:15)τρoν (roughly, MEH-tron ), metric is directly traceable to the use of th”
An Empirical Study of Smoothing Techniques for Language Modeling (1996, methodology): “The text of the Brown corpus (Kucera and Francis, 1967) was extracted from the tagged text in the Penn Treebank (Marcus, Santorini, and Marcinkiewicz, 1993) and amounted to about one million words.”
The remarkable inefficiency of word recognition (2003, background): “We addressed these concerns by measuring human and ideal thresholds for identification of one of 2,213 five-letter words (the most common 2,213), presenting each word at the same relative frequency as it appears in prin”
Selective attention and emotional vulnerability: assessing the causal basis of their association through the experimental manipulation of attentional bias. (2002, background): “Each of these initial 140 word pairs contained members that differed in emotional valence, but they were matched in terms of both letter length and frequency of usage (according to Kucera & Francis, 1967).”
Bilingual working memory span is affected by language skill (2002, background): “Twelve of the last words in the English WM task, frequency range 63–1207 (KucÏ era & Francis, 1967), were selected and arranged into triplets.”
Phonological similarity effects in simple and complex span tasks (2011, unknown): “The words were normed for frequency ( Kucera & Francis, 1967 ), meaningfulness (Toglia & Battig, 1978), familiarity (pooled; Gilhooly & Logie, 1980; Pavio, 2011; Toglia & Battig, 1978), concreteness (pooled; Gilhooly & Logie, 1980 ;P avio,2011; Toglia & Battig, 1978), and imageability (pooled; Gilho”
The cost of remembering to remember in event-based prospective memory: investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance. (2003, methodology): “A pool of 12 critical words was chosen from theKucera and Francis (1967)norms such that theyhad a medium level of frequency.”
Relationships between sounds and letters in English monosyllables (2001, background): “…lists of Han et al. (1966) and Harm and Seidenberg (19 The smaller size of some other studies on mo syllables (less than 2900 words in Seidenber McClelland, 1989, and Ziegler et al., 1997) w often due to the fact that they were based on corpus of Kucˇera and Francis (1967), which of limited extent.”
Types and tokens in visual letter perception. (1989, methodology): “Frequency was measured by computing the number of English words containing each CVC string, weighted by the word frequency count of Kucera and Francis (1967); all strings with net frequency of occurrence less than 10 were discarded.”
Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. (1996, methodology): “…1988; but see Sutton, 1992, for a recently developed on-line version).5 Second, by implementing frequencies with multiplication rather than sampling, any range of frequencies can be used; later we will investigate the effects of using the actual Kucera and Francis (1967) frequencies in simulations.”