» Articles » PMID: 38030922

Lingualyzer: A Computational Linguistic Tool for Multilingual and Multidimensional Text Analysis

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty Social Sciences
Date 2023 Nov 29
PMID 38030922
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Most natural language models and tools are restricted to one language, typically English. For researchers in the behavioral sciences investigating languages other than English, and for those researchers who would like to make cross-linguistic comparisons, hardly any computational linguistic tools exist, particularly none for those researchers who lack deep computational linguistic knowledge or programming skills. Yet, for interdisciplinary researchers in a variety of fields, ranging from psycholinguistics, social psychology, cognitive psychology, education, to literary studies, there certainly is a need for such a cross-linguistic tool. In the current paper, we present Lingualyzer ( https://lingualyzer.com ), an easily accessible tool that analyzes text at three different text levels (sentence, paragraph, document), which includes 351 multidimensional linguistic measures that are available in 41 different languages. This paper gives an overview of Lingualyzer, categorizes its hundreds of measures, demonstrates how it distinguishes itself from other text quantification tools, explains how it can be used, and provides validations. Lingualyzer is freely accessible for scientific purposes using an intuitive and easy-to-use interface.

Citing Articles

Jiwar: A database and calculator for word neighborhood measures in 40 languages.

Alzahrani A Behav Res Methods. 2025; 57(3):98.

PMID: 39971880 PMC: 11839700. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-025-02612-7.

References
1.
Abney D, Dale R, Louwerse M, Kello C . The Bursts and Lulls of Multimodal Interaction: Temporal Distributions of Behavior Reveal Differences Between Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication. Cogn Sci. 2018; 42(4):1297-1316. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12612. View

2.
Adelman J, Brown G, Quesada J . Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychol Sci. 2006; 17(9):814-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01787.x. View

3.
Bentz C, Gutierrez-Vasques X, Sozinova O, Samardzic T . Complexity trade-offs and equi-complexity in natural languages: a meta-analysis. Linguist Vanguard. 2023; 9(Suppl1):9-25. PMC: 10234276. DOI: 10.1515/lingvan-2021-0054. View

4.
Blasi D, Henrich J, Adamou E, Kemmerer D, Majid A . Over-reliance on English hinders cognitive science. Trends Cogn Sci. 2022; 26(12):1153-1170. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2022.09.015. View

5.
Brysbaert M, New B . Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):977-90. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977. View