Utilizing Machine Learning Techniques for Classifying Translated and Non-Translated Corporate Annual Reports

References

• Ajina, A., M. Laouiti, and B. Msolli. 2016. Guiding through the fog: Does annual report readability reveal earnings management? Research in International Business and Finance 38:509–30. doi:10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.07.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Jabr, A. F. 2006. Effect of syntactic complexity on translating from/into English/Arabic. Babel 52 (3):203–21. doi:10.1075/babel.52.3.01alj.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, H. E., and D. D. Kare. 1992. Relationship between annual report readability and corporate financial performance. Management Research News 15 (2):1–4. doi:10.1108/eb028188.
   Google Scholar
• Balodis, K., and D. Deksne. 2019. Fasttext-based intent detection for inflected languages. Information 10 (5):161. doi:10.3390/info10050161.
   Google Scholar
• Baroni, M., and S. Bernardini. 2006. A new approach to the study of translationese: Machine-learning the difference between original and translated text. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21 (3):259–74.
   Google Scholar
• Beattie, V., B. McInnes, and S. Fearnley. 2004. A methodology for analysing and evaluating narratives in annual reports: A comprehensive descriptive profile and metrics for disclosure quality attributes. Accounting Forum 28 (3):205–36. doi:10.1016/j.accfor.2004.07.001.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, R. G. 2012. Reconstructing readability: Recent developments and recommendations in the analysis of text difficulty. Educational Psychology Review 24 (1):63–88. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9181-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhatia, V. K. 2008. Genre analysis, ESP and professional practice. English for Specific Purposes 27 (2):161–74. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2007.07.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhatia, V. K. 2010. Interdiscursivity in professional communication. Discourse & Communication 4 (1):32–50. doi:10.1177/1750481309351208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulté, B., and A. Housen. 2014. Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing 26:42–65. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, J., D. Li, and K. Liu. 2024. Unraveling cognitive constraints in constrained languages: A comparative study of syntactic complexity in translated, EFL, and native varieties. Language Sciences 102 (5):101612. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2024.101612.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, D. P., S. L. Hrasky, and C. G. Tan. 2009. Voluntary narrative disclosures by local governments: A comparative analysis of the textual complexity of mayoral and chairpersons’ letters in annual reports. Australian Journal of Public Administration 68 (2):194–207. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2009.00630.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courtis, J. K. 1995. Readability of annual reports: Western versus Asian evidence. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal 8 (2):4–17. doi:10.1108/09513579510086795.
   Google Scholar
• Courtis, J. K., and S. Hassan. 2002. Reading ease of bilingual annual reports. Journal of Business Communication 39 (4):394–413. doi:10.1177/002194360203900401.
   Google Scholar
• Crossley, S., S. Skalicky, C. Berger, and A. Heidari 2022. Assessing readability formulas in the wild. In Polyphonic Construction of Smart Learning Ecosystems: Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Smart Learning Ecosystems and Regional Development, ed. M. Dascalu, P. Marti, and F. Pozzi, 91–101. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Dogra, V., A. Singh, S. Verma, A. Alharbi, and W. Alosaimi. 2021. Event study: Advanced machine learning and statistical technique for analyzing sustainability in banking stocks. Mathematics 9 (24):3319. doi:10.3390/math9243319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domingos, P., and M. Pazzani. 1997. On the optimality of the simple Bayesian classifier under zero-one loss. Machine Learning 29 (2/3):103–30. doi:10.1023/A:1007413511361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frantz, R. S., L. E. Starr, and A. L. Bailey. 2015. Syntactic complexity as an aspect of text complexity. Educational Researcher 44 (7):387–93. doi:10.3102/0013189X15603980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garzone, G. 2004. Annual company reports and CEO’s letters: Discoursal features and cultural markedness. In Intercultural aspects of specialized communication, ed. C. Candlin and M. Gotti, 311–43. US: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Habib, A., and M. M. Hasan. 2020. Business strategies and annual report readability. Accounting & Finance 60 (3):2513–47. doi:10.1111/acfi.12380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habic, V., A. Semenov, and E. L. Pasiliao. 2020. Multitask deep learning for native language identification. Knowledge-Based Systems 209:106440. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halverson, S. L. 2003. The cognitive basis of translation universals. Target International Journal of Translation Studies 15 (2):197–241. doi:10.1075/target.15.2.02hal.
   Google Scholar
• Halverson, S. L. 2017. Gravitational pull in translation: Testing a revised model. In Empirical translation studies: New methodological and theoretical traditions, ed. G. D. Sutter, M. Lefer, and I. Delaere, 9–46. US: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Hand, D. J. 2012. Assessing the performance of classification methods. International Statistical Review 80 (3):400–14. doi:10.1111/j.1751-5823.2012.00183.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• House, J. 2014. Translation quality assessment: Past and present. US: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Housen, A., and F. Kuiken. 2009. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30 (5):461–73. doi:10.1093/applin/amp048.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, D., and Y. Wang. 2020. A CGA-Based study on translation characteristics of chairman speeches in company annual reports. Journal of Literature and Art Studies 10 (5):126–35. doi:10.17265/2159-5836/2020.02.005.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, A. H., H. Wang, and Y. Yang. 2023. FinBERT: A large language model for extracting information from financial text. Contemporary Accounting Research 40 (2):806–41. doi:10.1111/1911-3846.12832.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, H., and S. Kübler. 2021. Investigating translated Chinese and its variants using machine learning. Natural Language Engineering 27 (5):339–72. doi:10.1017/S1351324920000182.
   Google Scholar
• Ilisei, I., D. Inkpen, G. C. Pastor, and R. Mitkov. 2010. Identification of translationese: A machine learning approach. In Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing. CICLing 2010, Vol. 6008 of lecture notes in computer science, ed. A. Gelbukh, 503–11. US: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jagaiah, T., N. G. Olinghouse, and D. M. Kearns. 2020. Syntactic complexity measures: Variation by genre, grade level, students’ writing abilities, and writing quality. Reading and Writing 33 (5):2577–638. doi:10.1007/s11145-020-10057-x.
   Google Scholar
• Jeanjean, T., C. Lesage, and H. Stolowy. 2010. Why do you speak English (in your annual report)? The International Journal of Accountin 45 (2):200–23. doi:10.1016/j.intacc.2010.04.003.
   Google Scholar
• Jeanjean, T., H. Stolowy, and M. Erkens. 2010. Really “Lost in translation”? The economic consequences of issuing an annual report in English. Crises et nouvelles problématiques de la Valeur 1–36.
   Google Scholar
• Jin, T., X. Lu, and J. Ni. 2020. Syntactic complexity in adapted teaching materials: Differences among grade levels and implications for benchmarking. The Modern Language Journal 104 (1):192–208. doi:10.1111/modl.12622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M. J. 1994. A comment to contextualize “Performance and readability: A comparison of annual reports of profitable and unprofitable corporations. The Journal of Business Communication 31 (3):225–30. doi:10.1177/002194369403100305.
   Google Scholar
• Kuncheva, L. I., and C. J. Whitaker. 2003. Measures of diversity in classifier ensembles and their relationship with the ensemble accuracy. Machine Learning 51 (2):181–207. doi:10.1023/A:1022859003006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, R. Y., S. Y. Liao, R. C. W. Kwok, K. Xu, Y. Xia, and Y. Li. 2012. Text mining and probabilistic language modeling for online review spam detection. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems 2 (4):1–30. doi:10.1145/2070710.2070716.
   Google Scholar
• Lehavy, R., F. Li, and K. Merkley. 2011. The effect of annual report readability on analyst following and the properties of their earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review 86 (3):1087–115. doi:10.2308/accr.00000043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lei, L., and Y. Shi. 2023. Syntactic complexity in adapted extracurricular reading materials. System 113:103002. doi:10.1016/j.system.2023.103002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, F. 2008. Annual report readability, current earnings, and earnings persistence. Journal of Accounting and Economics 45 (2–3):221–47. doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2008.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao, S. 2021. A multidimensional analysis of letters to the shareholders by Chinese and American advanced equipment manufacturing companies. International Journal of Language and Linguistics 9 (4):161–68. doi:10.11648/j.ijll.20210904.14.
   Google Scholar
• Li, J., W. Luo, and X. Deng. 2019. The effect of chairman’s statement tone changes in annual reports from Hong Kong. Journal of Physics Conference Series 1168 (3):032024. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1168/3/032024.
   Google Scholar
• Lim, E. K., K. Chalmers, and D. Hanlon. 2018. The influence of business strategy on annual report readability. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 37 (5):65–81. doi:10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2018.01.003.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, Y., and J. Liang. 2023. Informativeness across interpreting types: Implications for language shifts under cognitive load. Entropy 25 (2):243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, K., and M. Afzaal. 2021. Syntactic complexity in translated and non-translated texts: A corpus-based study of simplification. Public Library of Science ONE 16 (6):e0253454. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253454.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, K., Z. Liu, and L. Lei. 2022. Simplification in translated Chinese: An entropy-based approach. Lingua 286 (5):103364. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103364.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, K., R. Ye, Z. Liu, and R. Ye. 2022. Entropy-based discrimination between translated Chinese and original Chinese using data mining techniques. Public Library of Science ONE 17 (3):e0265633. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265633.
   Google Scholar
• Loughran, T., and B. McDonald. 2014. Measuring readability in financial disclosures. The Journal of Finance 69 (4):1643–71. doi:10.1111/jofi.12162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, X. 2010. Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15 (4):474–96. doi:10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, X. 2011. A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly 45 (1):36–62. doi:10.5054/tq.2011.240859.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, X., and H. Ai. 2015. Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing 29:16–27. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, X., D. A. Gamson, and S. A. Eckert. 2014. Lexical difficulty and diversity in American elementary school reading textbooks: Changes over the past century. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19 (1):94–117. doi:10.1075/ijcl.19.1.04lu.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manning, C. D., P. Raghavan, and H. Schütze. 2008. Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mouthami, K., K. N. Devi, and V. M. Bhaskaran. 2013. Sentiment analysis and classification based on textual reviews. In 2013 International Conference on Information communication and embedded systems (ICICES), 271–76. Chennai.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen, B. Q. V., and Y. T. Kim. 2021. Landslide spatial probability prediction: A comparative assessment of naïve Bayes, ensemble learning, and deep learning approaches. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 80 (5):4291–321. doi:10.1007/s10064-021-02194-6.
   Google Scholar
• Nisioi, S., and L. P. Dinu. 2013. A clustering approach for translationese identification. In Proceedings of the International Conference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing RANLP 2013, 532–38.
   Google Scholar
• Opitz, D., and R. Maclin. 1999. Popular ensemble methods: An empirical study. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 11:169–98. doi:10.1613/jair.614.
   Google Scholar
• Ortega, L. 2003. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 24 (5):492–518. doi:10.1093/applin/24.4.492.
   Google Scholar
• Ortega, L. 2015. Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (5):82–94. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008.
   Google Scholar
• Pallotti, G. 2015. A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research 31 (5):117–34. doi:10.1177/0267658314536435.
   Google Scholar
• Rabinovich, E., and S. Wintner. 2015. Unsupervised identification of translationese. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 3 (5):419–32. doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00148.
   Google Scholar
• Ren, C., and X. Lu. 2021. A multi-dimensional analysis of the management’s discussion and analysis narratives in Chinese and American corporate annual reports. English for Specific Purposes 62 (5):84–99. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2020.12.004.
   Google Scholar
• Rokach, L. 2010. Ensemble-based classifiers. Artificial Intelligence Review 33 (1–2):1–39. doi:10.1007/s10462-009-9124-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubino, R., E. Lapshinova-Koltunski, and J. Van Genabith. 2016. Information density and quality estimation features as translationese indicators for human translation classification. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, San Diego, California, USA, 960–70.
   Google Scholar
• Rutherford, B. A. 2003. Obfuscation, textual complexity and the role of regulated narrative accounting disclosure in corporate governance. Journal of Management & Governance 7 (5):187–210. doi:10.1023/A:1023647615279.
   Google Scholar
• Sagi, O., and L. Rokach. 2018. Ensemble learning: A survey. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 8 (4):e1249. doi:10.1002/widm.1249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder, N., and C. Gibson. 1990. Readability of management’s discussion and analysis. Accounting Horizons 4 (December):78–87.
   Google Scholar
• SEC (The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission). A plain English handbook: How to create clear SEC disclosure documents. 1998. Accessed July 16, 2023. http://www.sec.gov/pdf/handbook.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M., A. Jamil, Y. Chik Johari, and S. Ahmar Ahmad. 2006. The chairman’s statement in Malaysian companies: A test of the obfuscation hypothesis. Asian Review of Accounting 14 (1–2):49–65. doi:10.1108/13217340610729464.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M., and R. Taffler. 1992. The chairman’s statement and corporate financial performance. Accounting & Finance 32 (4):75–90. doi:10.1111/j.1467-629X.1992.tb00187.x.
   Google Scholar
• Subramanian, R., R. G. Insley, and R. D. Blackwell. 1993. Performance and readability: A comparison of annual reports of profitable and unprofitable corporations. Journal of Business Communication 30 (1):49–61. doi:10.1177/002194369303000103.
   Google Scholar
• Volansky, V., N. Ordan, and S. Wintner. 2015. On the features of translationese. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30 (1):98–118. doi:10.1093/llc/fqt031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, P. 2014. A comparison between Chinese version and English version of company annual reports. The Journal of Chinese Sociolinguistics 2:33–44.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Z., K. Liu, and R. Moratto. 2023. A corpus-based study of syntactic complexity of translated and non-translated chairman’s statements. Translation & Interpreting 15 (1):135–51. doi:10.12807/ti.115201.2023.a07.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, J., K. Liu, R. Hu, and W. Zhou. 2023. A comparative study of the syntactic complexity of translated Chinese and original Chinese. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 55 (2):264–75.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, X., A. Mauranen, and L. Lei. 2020. Syntactic complexity in English as a lingua franca academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 43:100798. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, J., and J. Li. 2021. A syntactic complexity analysis of translational English across genres. Across Languages and Cultures 22 (2):214–32. doi:10.1556/084.2021.00015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, H., and K. Liu. 2023. Syntactic simplification in interpreted English: Dependency distance and direction measures. Lingua 294 (5):103607. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103607.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, S., K. Li, and Y. Liu. 2009. Text categorization based on topic model. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 2 (4):398–409. doi:10.1080/18756891.2009.9727671.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar