SlowGuess/ACL_2020_OCR huggingface dataset:
6692
Eva Maria Vecchi, Marco Baroni, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2011. (Linear) maps of the impossible: Capturing semantic anomalies in distributional space. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Distributional Semantics and Compositionality, pages 1-9. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Bernard L. Welch. 1947. The generalization of "Student's" problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika, 34(1/2):28-35.
Michael Wertheimer. 1958. The relation between the sound of a word and its meaning. *The American Journal of Psychology*, 71(2):412-415.
Bernd Wiese. 2000. Warum flexionsklassen? über die deutsche substantivdeklation. In Rolf Thieroff, Matthias Tamrat, Nanna Fuhrhop, and Oliver Teuber, editors, Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis. De Gruyter.
Adina Williams. 2018. Representing Relationality: MEG Studies on Argument Structure. Ph.D. thesis, New York University.
Adina Williams, Damián Blasi, Lawrence Wolf-Sonkin, Hanna Wallach, and Ryan Cotterell. 2019. Quantifying the semantic core of gender systems. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5733-5738, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Adina Williams, Ryan Cotterell, Lawrence Wolf-Sonkin, Damian Blasi, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. On the relationships between the grammatical genders of inanimate nouns and their co-occurring adjectives and verbs. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Wolfgang Ullrich Wurzel. 1989. *Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness*, volume 9. Springer Science & Business Media.
6693
A Further Notes on Preprocessing
The breakdown of our declension classes is given in Table 4. We will first discuss more details about our preprocessing and linguistic analysis for Czech, and then for German.
Czech. The Czech classes were initially derived from an edit-distance heuristic between nouns. A fluent speaker—linguist then identified major noun classes by grouping together nouns with shared suffixes in the surface (orthographic) form. If the differences between two sets of suffixes in the surface form could then be accounted for by positing a basic phonological rule—for example, vowel shortening in monosyllabic words—then the two sets were collapsed.
Among masculine nouns, four large classes were identified that seemed to range from "very animate" to "very inanimate." The morphological divisions between these classes were very systematic, but there was substantial overlap: dat.sg and loc.sg differentiated 'animate1' from 'animate2', 'inanimate1' and 'inanimate2'; acc.sg, nom.pl and voc.pl differentiated 'animate2' from 'inanimate1' and 'inanimate2', and gen.sg differentiated 'inanimate1' from 'inanimate2' (see Figure 3). Further subdivisions were made within the two animate classes for the apparent idiosyncratic nominative plural suffix, and within the 'inanimate2' class, where nouns took either -u or -e as the genitive singular suffix. This division may have once reflected a final palatal on nouns taking -e in the genitive singular case, but this distinction has since been lost. All nouns in the 'inanimate2' "soft" class end in coronal consonants, whereas nouns in the 'inanimate1' "hard" class have a variety of final consonants.
Among feminine nouns, the 'feminine -a' class contained all feminine words that ended in -a in the nominative singular form. (Note that there exist masculine nouns ending in -a, but these did not pattern with the 'feminine -a' class). The 'feminine pl -e' class contained feminine nouns ending in -e, -e, or a consonant, and as the name suggests, had the suffix -e in the nominative plural form. The 'feminine pl -i' class contained feminine nouns ending in a consonant and had the suffix -i in the nominative plural form. No feminine nouns ended in a dorsal consonant.
Among neuter nouns, all words ended in a vowel.
German. After extracting declension classes from CELEX2, we made some additional prepro
cessing decisions for German, usually based on orthographic or other considerations. For example, we combined the classes S1 with S4 classes, P1 with P7, and P6 with P3 because the difference between each member of any of these pairs lies solely in spelling (a final  $< s >$  is doubled in the spelling when GEN.SG -(e)s, or the PL -(e)n is attached).
Whether a given singular, say S1, becomes inflected as P1 or P2—or, for that matter, the corresponding unlauted versions of these plural classes—is phonologically conditioned (Alexiadou and Müller, 2008). If the stem ends in a trochee whose second syllable consists of schwa plus /n/, /l/, or /r/, the schwa is not realized, i.e., it gets P2, otherwise it gets P1. For this phonological reason, we also chose to collapse P1 and P2.
We also collapsed all loan classes (i.e., those with P8-P10) under one plural class 'Loan'. This choice resulted in us merging loans with Greek plurals (like P9, Myth-os / Myth-en) with those with Latin plurals (like P8, Maxim-um / Maxim-a and P10, Trauma / Trauma-ta). This choice might have unintended consequences on the results, as the orthography of Latin and Greek differ substantially from each other, as well as from the native German orthography, and might be affecting our measure of higher form-based MI for S1/Loan and S3/Loan classes in Table 3 of the main text. One could reasonably make a different choice, and instead remove these examples from consideration, as we did for classes with fewer than 20 lemmata.
animate1	animate2	inanimate1	inanimate2
Singular	nom	-	-	-	-
gen	a	a	a	u
acc	a	a	-	-
dat	ovi	u	u	u
loc	ovi	u	u	u
instr	em	em	em	em
voc	e	e	e	e
Plural	nom	i	i	y	y
gen	ü	ü	ü	ü
acc	y	y	y	y
dat	üm	üm	üm	üm
loc	ech	ech	ech	ech
instr	y	y	y	y
voc	i	i	i	i
Figure 3: Czech paradigm for masculine nouns.
B Some prototypical examples
To explore which examples, across classes might be most prototypical, we sampled the top five high
6694
Czech	German
class	#	gender	class	#	classic class	gender(s)
masculine, inanimate2	823	MSC	S1/P1	1157	Decl I	MSC, NEUT
feminine, -a	818	FEM	S3/P3	1105	Decl VI	FEM
feminine, pl -e	275	FEM	S1/P0	264	Singularia Tantum	MSC, NEUT, FEM
neuter, -o	149	NEUT	S1/P5	256	“default -s PL”	MSC, NEUT, FEM
neuter, -ení	133	NEUT	S3/P0	184	Singularia Tantum	MSC, NEUT, FEM
masculine, animate2, pl -i)	130	MSC	S1/P1u	154	Decl II	MSC
masculine, animate1, pl -i)	112	MSC	S2/P3	151	Decl V	MSC
feminine, pl -i	80	FEM	S1/P3	70	Decl IV	MSC, NEUT
masculine, animate1, pl -ové	55	MSC	S3/loan	67	Loanwords	MSC, NEUT, FEM
masculine, inanimate1	32	MSC	S3/P1	51	Decl VIII	FEM
special, masculine, pl -ata	26	MSC	S1/P4u	51	Decl III	MSC, NEUT
neuter, -e/-è/-i	21	NEUT	S3/P5	49	“default -s PL”	MSC, NEUT, FEM
masculine, animate1, pl -é	18	MSC	S1/loan	41	Loanwords	MSC, NEUT
S3/P1u	35	Decl VII	FEM
S1/P4	25	Decl III	MSC, NEUT
S1/P2u	24	Decl II	MSC, phon.
Total	2672	3684
Table 4: Declension classes. 'class' refers to the declension class identifier, '#' refers to the number of lexemes in each declension class, and 'gender' refers to the gender(s) present in each class. German declension classes came from CELEX2, for which 'S' refers to a noun's singular form, 'P' refers to its plural, 'classic class' refers to the conception of class from Brockhaus Wahrig Wörterbuch.
stem	Czech	German
class	H(C | W, V)	stem	class	H(C | W, V)
pavouk	masculine, animate2, pl -i	11.54	Balance	FEM, ?, S1P5	13.16
investor	masculine, animate2, pl -i	10.93	Hertz	NEUT, ?, S3P0	13.05
vül	masculine, animate2, pl -i	10.78	Schmack	MSC, 6, S3P3	12.17
dlaždič	masculine, animate1, pl -ové	10.01	See	FEM, 6, S3P3	12.12
opylovač	masculine, animate2, pl -i	9.21	Reling	FEM, ?, S3P5	11.81
optika	feminine, -a	2.2x10-4	Glocke	FEM, 6, S3P3	5.7x10-3
kritika	feminine, -a	2.2x10-4	Schale	FEM, 6, S3P3	5.7x10-3
pahorkatina	feminine, -a	2.1x10-4	Schnecke	FEM, 6, S3P3	5.6x10-3
kachna	feminine, -a	2.1x10-4	Zecha	FEM, 6, S3P3	5.6x10-3
matematika	feminine, -a	2.1x10-4	Parzelle	FEM, 6, S3P3	4.8x10-3
Table 5: Five highest and lowest surprisal examples given form and meaning (w2v) by language.
est and lowest suprisal examples. The results are in Table 5. We observe that the lowest surprisal forms for each language generally come from a single class for each language: feminine, -a for Czech and S3/P3 for German. These two classes were among the largest, having lower class entropy, and both contained feminine nouns. Forms with higher surprisal generally came from several smaller classes, and were predominately masculine. This sample size is small however, so it remains to be investigated whether this tendency in our data belies a genuine statistically significant relationship between gender, class size, and surprisal.
6695