Coder 4.0 (June 2001) Statistical study: Comparative

Comparative Statistics for file: all-codings.cd2

Data split on system: ARTICLE-TYPE

Date: Fri Jun 15 12:42:45 2001
Filter: finite-clause
Counting: Local

System: EVENT-TYPE

Feature	fpn(N=132)		edit(N=189)
	Mean	Stddv	Mean	Stddv	Tstat	Lvl
state	0.273	0.447	0.492	0.501	4.031	+++
event	0.712	0.454	0.476	0.501	4.313	+++
iteration-usuality	0.015	0.123	0.032	0.176	0.937

Interpretation

Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: state (49.20% vs. 27.30%).
Set1 (fpn) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: event (71.20% vs. 47.60%).
Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: iteration-usuality ( 3.20% vs. 1.50%).

System: REALIS

Feature	fpn(N=132)		edit(N=189)
	Mean	Stddv	Mean	Stddv	Tstat	Lvl
realis	0.720	0.451	0.598	0.492	2.259	++
irrealis	0.280	0.451	0.402	0.492	2.259	++

Interpretation

Set1 (fpn) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: realis (72.00% vs. 59.80%).
Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: irrealis (40.20% vs. 28.00%).

System: REALIS-TYPE

Feature	fpn(N=95)		edit(N=113)
	Mean	Stddv	Mean	Stddv	Tstat	Lvl
completed-process	0.800	0.402	0.478	0.502	5.042	+++
ongoing-process	0.200	0.402	0.522	0.502	5.042	+++

Interpretation

Set1 (fpn) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: completed-process (80.00% vs. 47.80%).
Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: ongoing-process (52.20% vs. 20.00%).

System: PRIMARY-EVENT-FORM

Feature	fpn(N=132)		edit(N=189)
	Mean	Stddv	Mean	Stddv	Tstat	Lvl
clausal-primary	1.000	0.000	1.000	0.000	0.000
nominal-primary	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000

Interpretation

Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: clausal-primary (100.00% vs. 100.00%).
Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: nominal-primary ( 0.00% vs. 0.00%).

System: CLAUSE-FINITENESS

Feature	fpn(N=132)		edit(N=189)
	Mean	Stddv	Mean	Stddv	Tstat	Lvl
nonfinite-clause	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
finite-clause	1.000	0.000	1.000	0.000	0.000

Interpretation

Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: nonfinite-clause ( 0.00% vs. 0.00%).
Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: finite-clause (100.00% vs. 100.00%).

System: PERFECT-TENSE

Feature	fpn(N=10)		edit(N=23)
	Mean	Stddv	Mean	Stddv	Tstat	Lvl
past-perfect	0.200	0.422	0.087	0.288	0.898
present-perfect	0.700	0.483	0.913	0.288	1.580
future-perfect	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
modal-perfect	0.100	0.316	0.000	0.000	1.549

Interpretation

Set1 (fpn) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: past-perfect (20.00% vs. 8.70%).
Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: present-perfect (91.30% vs. 70.00%).
Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: future-perfect ( 0.00% vs. 0.00%).
Set1 (fpn) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: modal-perfect (10.00% vs. 0.00%).

System: NONMODAL-GATE

Feature	fpn(N=111)		edit(N=161)
	Mean	Stddv	Mean	Stddv	Tstat	Lvl
nonmodal-clause	1.000	0.000	1.000	0.000	0.000

Interpretation

Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: nonmodal-clause (100.00% vs. 100.00%).

System: MODAL-GATE

Feature	fpn(N=21)		edit(N=28)
	Mean	Stddv	Mean	Stddv	Tstat	Lvl
modal-clause	1.000	0.000	1.000	0.000	0.000

Interpretation

Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: modal-clause (100.00% vs. 100.00%).

System: SIMPLE-TENSE

Feature	fpn(N=122)		edit(N=166)
	Mean	Stddv	Mean	Stddv	Tstat	Lvl
simple-past	0.598	0.492	0.235	0.425	6.701	+++
simple-present	0.205	0.405	0.476	0.501	4.909	+++
simple-future	0.033	0.179	0.120	0.327	2.685	+++
simple-modal	0.164	0.372	0.169	0.376	0.106

Interpretation

Set1 (fpn) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: simple-past (59.80% vs. 23.50%).
Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: simple-present (47.60% vs. 20.50%).
Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: simple-future (12.00% vs. 3.30%).
Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: simple-modal (16.90% vs. 16.40%).

System: CLAUSE-DEPENDENCY

Feature	fpn(N=132)		edit(N=189)
	Mean	Stddv	Mean	Stddv	Tstat	Lvl
dependent-clause	0.303	0.461	0.328	0.471	0.472
independent-clause	0.697	0.461	0.672	0.471	0.472

Interpretation

Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: dependent-clause (32.80% vs. 30.30%).
Set1 (fpn) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: independent-clause (69.70% vs. 67.20%).

System: CLAUSE-ASPECT

Feature	fpn(N=132)		edit(N=189)
	Mean	Stddv	Mean	Stddv	Tstat	Lvl
perfect-clause	0.076	0.266	0.122	0.328	1.333
non-perfect-clause	0.924	0.266	0.878	0.328	1.333

Interpretation

Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: perfect-clause (12.20% vs. 7.60%).
Set1 (fpn) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: non-perfect-clause (92.40% vs. 87.80%).

System: EVENT-POLARITY

Feature	fpn(N=132)		edit(N=189)
	Mean	Stddv	Mean	Stddv	Tstat	Lvl
negative-polarity	0.098	0.299	0.111	0.315	0.361
positive-polarity	0.902	0.299	0.889	0.315	0.361

Interpretation

Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: negative-polarity (11.10% vs. 9.80%).
Set1 (fpn) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: positive-polarity (90.20% vs. 88.90%).

System: ROOT-SYS

Feature	fpn(N=132)		edit(N=189)
	Mean	Stddv	Mean	Stddv	Tstat	Lvl
explicit-temporal-	0.250	0.435	0.243	0.430	0.135
no-temporal-placem	0.750	0.435	0.757	0.430	0.135

Interpretation

Set1 (fpn) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: explicit-temporal-placement (25.00% vs. 24.30%).
Set2 (edit) exhibits significantly higher use of the feature: no-temporal-placement (75.70% vs. 75.00%).