Using Letter Positional Probabilities to Assess French Word Complexity
Abstract
We use Letter Positional Probabilities (LPPs) to examine the orthographic differences between simple and complex French words. We draw from a sample of 38,000 French words scored by reaction time on a lexical decision task. We take the 5000 highest reaction time words and the 5000 lowest as a proxy for high and low word complexity groups respectively. We create 18 variables based on the structure of the words, such as length and number of syllables. We also reduce each word to a string of binary values by one-hot encoding each letter according to the 42 characters of the standard French alphabet up to a length of 25 letters. Thus, each word is represented by 42 x 25 binary characters. We then create LPPs by looking at the average binary scores for simple as opposed to complex words for all letter/positions. We find that there is a high number of LPPs that are associated with word complexity. For example, we find that most accented letters are associated with simpler words. We examine the effects of structural and LPP variables in classifiers and find that word length alone enables a classification accuracy of 77.27%, while adding the binary variables from the first 6 letter positions provided an accuracy of 83.95%. We discuss possible explanations as to how complexity could be encoded in orthography.
Figures & tables
| Gzip | Compress | DLETDC | ETDC | SCDC | CAFTS | |
| Dutch | 2.86 | 3.04 | 2.91 | 2.84 | 2.80 | 3.23 |
| English | 3.06 | 3.22 | 2.82 | 2.78 | 2.70 | 3.23 |
| Finnish | 3.03 | 3.25 | 4.12 | 4.02 | 3.99 | 3.36 |
| French | 2.87 | 3.11 | 3.15 | 3.09 | 3.04 | 3.18 |
| German | 2.98 | 3.24 | 3.40 | 3.32 | 3.28 | 3.45 |
| Italian | 3.10 | 3.24 | 3.29 | 3.21 | 3.17 | 3.29 |
| Variable | Mean – Low Complexity ( ) | Mean – High Complexity ( ) | value (Bonf. ) |
| o6 | 0.011 | 0.051 | |
| e5 | 0.168 | 0.092 | |
| n2 | 0.035 | 0.086 | |
| a6 | 0.042 | 0.094 | |
| é6 | 0.056 | 0.017 | |
| i1 | 0.020 | 0.060 |
| Feature | Low Mean | High Mean | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| é6 | 0.056 | 0.017 | Low |
| ê2 | 0.007 | 0.000 | Low |
| â2 | 0.008 | 0.001 | Low |
| é5 | 0.040 | 0.023 | Low |
| û3 | 0.005 | 0.000 | Low |
| â6 | 0.000 | 0.004 | High |
| Feature | Low Mean | High Mean | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| a4 | 0.069 | 0.102 | High |
| a6 | 0.042 | 0.094 | High |
| i5 | 0.089 | 0.127 | High |
| i6 | 0.053 | 0.105 | High |
| o5 | 0.040 | 0.078 | High |
| o6 | 0.011 | 0.051 | High |
| Feature | Low Mean | High Mean | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vowels | |||
| o6 | 0.011 | 0.051 | High |
| a6 | 0.042 | 0.094 | High |
| i6 | 0.053 | 0.105 | High |
| â6 | 0.000 | 0.004 | High |
| e6 | 0.161 | 0.097 | Low |
| Feature | Low Mean | High Mean | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| i1 | 0.020 | 0.060 | High |
| j1 | 0.019 | 0.005 | Low |
| v1 | 0.044 | 0.021 | Low |
| l1 | 0.032 | 0.017 | Low |
| a1 | 0.063 | 0.088 | High |
| f1 | 0.053 | 0.034 | Low |
| Feature | Low Mean | High Mean | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| n2 | 0.035 | 0.086 | High |
| o2 | 0.195 | 0.129 | Low |
| l2 | 0.043 | 0.022 | Low |
| ê2 | 0.007 | 0.000 | Low |
| m2 | 0.015 | 0.032 | High |
| â2 | 0.008 | 0.001 | Low |
| Feature | Low Mean | High Mean | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| y3 | 0.014 | 0.004 | Low |
| u3 | 0.087 | 0.060 | Low |
| h3 | 0.005 | 0.014 | High |
| t3 | 0.061 | 0.085 | High |
| û3 | 0.005 | 0.000 | Low |
| r3 | 0.082 | 0.108 | High |
| Feature | Low Mean | High Mean | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| a4 | 0.069 | 0.102 | High |
| r4 | 0.061 | 0.088 | High |
| o4 | 0.060 | 0.084 | High |
| Feature | Low Mean | High Mean | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| e5 | 0.168 | 0.092 | Low |
| o5 | 0.040 | 0.078 | High |
| i5 | 0.089 | 0.127 | High |
| m5 | 0.012 | 0.028 | High |
| r5 | 0.077 | 0.108 | High |
| z5 | 0.007 | 0.001 | Low |
| Classifier | Preprocessing | Model specification |
|---|---|---|
| Support Vector Machine | Median imputation; standardisation | Linear SVM ( LinearSVC ); ; maximum 10,000 iterations. |
| Random Forest | Median imputation | 500 decision trees; square-root feature sampling at each split; all available processor cores used during training. |
| Neural Network | Median imputation; standardisation | Feed-forward network with three hidden layers containing 128, 64 and 32 units, respectively (ReLU activation). Dropout of 0.20 after the first two hidden layers. Single sigmoid output unit; Adam optimiser; binary cross-entropy loss. |
| Feature Set | NN | SVM | RF |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length | 0.7727 | 0.7727 | 0.7727 |
| Structural | 0.7785 | 0.7775 | 0.7620 |
| Structural + All Positions | 0.8111 | 0.8031 | 0.8085 |
| First 6 Positions | 0.7657 | 0.6932 | 0.8012 |
| All Positions | 0.8091 | 0.7966 | 0.8364 |
| Structural + First 6 Positions | 0.8184 | 0.7951 | 0.8031 |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Variable | Mean – Low Complexity | Mean – High Complexity | value |
|---|---|---|---|
| ( ) | ( ) | (Bonf. ) | |
| LENGTH | 6.694 | 9.766 | |
| SYLLABLES | 2.071 | 3.050 | |
| UNIQUE_LETTERS | 5.922 | 7.562 | |
| LETTER_DIVERSITY | 0.897 | 0.790 | |
| REPEATED_LETTERS | 0.773 | 2.204 |
Computational Psycholinguistics
Computational psycholinguistics models how people learn, produce, and understand language using formal theories, algorithms, and behavioral data.
See all 89 papers