• Akmajian, A., Farmer, A. K., Bickmore, L., Demers, R. A., & Harnish, R. M. (2017).Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication. The MIT Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Atkinson, D. (1998).Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Routledge.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Bakker, D. (1998). Flexibility and consistency in word order patterns in the languages of Europe. In A. Siewierska (Ed.),Constituent order in the languages of Europe (pp. 383–420). De Gruyter Mouton.https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110812206.383

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Bentz, C., & Berdicevskis, A. (2016, December 1).Learning pressures reduce morphological complexity: Linking corpus, computational and experimental evidence. ACLWeb; The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee.http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W16-4125

• Bentz, C., Ruzsics, T., Koplenig, A., & Samardžić, T. (2016, December 1).A Comparison Between Morphological Complexity Measures: Typological Data vs. Language Corpora. ACLWeb; The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee.http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W16-4117

• Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016).Grammatical complexity in academic English Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S. (2014). Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels.Applied Linguistics,37(5), 639–668.https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu059

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bizzoni, Y., Degaetano-Ortlieb, S., Fankhauser, P., & Teich, E. (2020). Linguistic variation and change in 250 years of English scientific writing: A data-driven approach.Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence,3, 73.https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.00073

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. InDimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 23–46). John Benjamins.

• Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Specialized science.Infection and Immunity,82(4), 1355–1360.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Chen, B., Deng, D., Zhong, Z., & Zhang, C. (2020). Exploring linguistic characteristics of highly browsed and downloaded academic articles.Scientometrics,122(3), 1769–1790.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03361-4

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Covington, M. A., & McFall, J. D. (2010). Cutting the Gordian Knot: The moving-average type-token ratio (MATTR).Journal of Quantitative Linguistics,17(2), 94–100.https://doi.org/10.1080/09296171003643098

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cvrček, V., & Chlumská, L. (2015). Simplification in translated Czech: A new approach to type-token ratio.Russian Linguistics,39(3), 309–325.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-015-9151-8

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Degaetano-Ortlieb, S., Kermes, H., Khamis, A., & Teich, E. (2018). An information-theoretic approach to modeling diachronic change in scientific English. InFrom data to evidence in English language research (pp. 258–281). Brill.

• Degaetano-Ortlieb, S., & Teich, E. (2018). Using relative entropy for detection and analysis of periods of diachronic linguistic change. InProceedings of the Second Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature, 22–33.

• Degaetano-Ortlieb, S., & Teich, E. (2019). Toward an optimal code for communication: The case of scientific English.Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2018-0088

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Der, V. (1997).Information theory. Cambridge University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Ehret, K. (2014). Kolmogorov complexity of morphs and constructions in English.Linguistic Issues in Language Technology.https://doi.org/10.33011/lilt.v11i.1363

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ehret, K. (2017).An information-theoretic approach to language complexity: Variation in naturalistic corpora. Doctoral dissertation. Freiburg im Breis: University of Freiburg.

• Ehret, K. (2021). An information-theoretic view on language complexity and register variation: Compressing naturalistic corpus data.Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory,17(2), 383–410.https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2018-0033

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ehret, K., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2016). An information-theoretic approach to assess linguistic complexity. In R. Baechler & G. Seiler (Eds.),Complexity, isolation, and variation (pp. 71–94). de Gruyter.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Ehret, K., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2019). Compressing learner language: An information-theoretic measure of complexity in SLA production data.Second Language Research,35(1), 23–45.https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316669559

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ehret, K., & Taboada, M. (2021). The interplay of complexity and subjectivity in opinionated discourse.Discourse Studies,23(2), 141–165.https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620966923

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Fortson, B. W. (2010).Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.

  Google Scholar 

• Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. (2002).Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Hawkins, J. A. (2009).An efficiency theory of complexity and related phenomena. Oxford University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Houghton, B. (1975).Scientific periodicals: Their historical development, characteristics and control. Bingley.

  Google Scholar 

• Hundt, M., & Mair, C. (1999). Agile” and “uptight” genres.International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,4(2), 221–242.https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.4.2.02hun

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal?English for Specific Purposes,45, 40–51.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Juola, P. (1998). Measuring linguistic complexity: The morphological tier.Journal of Quantitative Linguistics,5(3), 206–213.https://doi.org/10.1080/09296179808590128

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Juola, P. (2008). Assessing linguistic complexity. InLanguage Complexity: Typology, contact, change (pp. 89–108). John Benjamins Publishing.https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.94.07juo

• Juzek, T. S., Krielke, M.-P., & Teich, E. (2020). Exploring diachronic syntactic shifts with dependency length: the case of scientific English. InProceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW 2020), 109–119.

• Kendall, M. G. (1955).Rank correlation methods second edition, revised and enlarged. Charles Griffin & Co.

  Google Scholar 

• Kolmogorov, A. N. (1968). Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information*.International Journal of Computer Mathematics,2(1–4), 157–168.https://doi.org/10.1080/00207166808803030

  Article MATH  Google Scholar 

• Koplenig, A., Meyer, P., Wolfer, S., & Müller-Spitzer, C. (2017). The statistical trade-off between word order and word structure: Large-scale evidence for the principle of least effort.PLoS ONE,12(3), e0173614.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173614

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kusters, W. (2003).Linguistic complexity: the influence of social change on verbal inflection. Lot.

  Google Scholar 

• Kusters, W. (2008). Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change. InLanguage complexity: Typology, contact, change (pp. 3–22). John Benjamins.https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027291356-slcs.94.03kus

• Li, M., Chen, X., Li, X., Ma, B., & Vitanyi, P. M. B. (2004). The similarity metric.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,50(12), 3250–3264.https://doi.org/10.1109/tit.2004.838101

  Article MATH  Google Scholar 

• Lu, C., Bu, Y., Dong, X., Wang, J., Ding, Y., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., Paul, L., & Zhang, C. (2019a). Analyzing linguistic complexity and scientific impact.Journal of Informetrics,13(3), 817–829.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.07.004

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lu, C., Bu, Y., Wang, J., Ding, Y., Torvik, V., Schnaars, M., & Zhang, C. (2019b). Examining scientific writing styles from the perspective of linguistic complexity.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,70(5), 462–475.https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24126

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mack, C. (2015). 350 years of scientific journals.Journal of Micro/nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS,14(1), 010101.https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jmm.14.1.010101

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mann, H. B. (1945). Nonparametric tests against trend.Econometrica,13(3), 245.https://doi.org/10.2307/1907187

  Article MATH  Google Scholar 

• McWhorter, J. H. (2001). The worlds simplest grammars are creole grammars.Linguistic Typol.,5, 2–3.https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2001.001

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Menzel, K., Knappen, J., & Teich, E. (2021). Generating linguistically relevant metadata for the Royal Society Corpus.Research in Corpus Linguistics,9(1), 1–18.https://doi.org/10.32714/ricl.09.01.02

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Miestamo, M. (2004). On the feasibility of complexity metrics.FinEst Linguistics, Proceedings of the Annual Finnish and Estonian Conference of Linguistics, Tallinn, 11–26.

• Nichols, J. (2013). The vertical archipelago: Adding the third dimension to linguistic geography. InSpace in Language and Linguistics (pp. 38–60). De Gruyter.

• Nichols, J. (2016). Complex edges, transparent frontiers: Grammatical complexity and language spreads. InComplexity, isolation, and variation (pp. 117–138). de Gruyter.

• Pitkin, R. M. (1999). Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles.The Journal of the American Medical Association,281(12), 1110.https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.281.12.1110

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Sadeniemi, M., Kettunen, K., Lindh-Knuutila, T., & Honkela, T. (2008). Complexity of European Union Languages: A comparative approach∗.Journal of Quantitative Linguistics,15(2), 185–211.https://doi.org/10.1080/09296170801961843

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication.Bell System Technical Journal,27(4), 623–656.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x

  Article MATH  Google Scholar 

• Steger, M., & Schneider, E. W. (2012). Complexity as a function of iconicity: The case of complement clause constructions in New Englishes. In B. Kortmann & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.),Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact (pp. 156–191). De Gruyter.https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229226.156

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Sun, K., Liu, H., & Xiong, W. (2021). The evolutionary pattern of language in scientific writings: A case study of philosophical transactions of royal society (1665–1869).Scientometrics,126(2), 1695–1724.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03816-8

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ure, J. (1982). Introduction: Approaches to the study of register range.International Journal of the Sociology of Language,1982, 35.https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1982.35.5

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wells, R. (1954). Archiving and language typology.International Journal of American Linguistics,20(2), 101–107.https://doi.org/10.1086/464260

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Yan, J., & Liu, H. (2021). Morphology and word order in Slavic languages: Insights from annotated corpora.Voprosy Jazykoznanija,4, 131.https://doi.org/10.31857/0373-658x.2021.4.131-159

  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references