Constraints and Type Hierarchies for Korean Serial Verb Constructions - An Analytic Study within the HPSG Framework -

PACLIC 21 / Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea / November 1-3, 200

한국인 고등학생의 영어 형용사 타동결과구문 학습에서의 인공지능 챗봇 기반 교수의 효과

학위논문(박사) -- 서울대학교대학원 : 사범대학 외국어교육과(영어전공), 2022.2. 김기택.English adjectival transitive resultative constructions (VtR) are notoriously challenging for Korean L2 English learners due to their syntactic and semantic differences from their L1 counterparts. To deal with such a complex structure, like English adjectival VtR, Korean L2 English learners need instructional interventions, including explicit instructions and corrective feedback on the target structure. Human instructors are virtually incapable of offering adequate corrective feedback, as providing corrective feedback from a human teacher to hundreds of students requires excessive time and effort. To deal with the practicality problems faced by human instructors in providing corrective feedback, numerous artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have been developed to provide foreign language learners with corrective feedback on par with human teachers. Regrettably, many currently available AI chatbots remain underdeveloped. In addition, no prior research has been conducted to assess the effectiveness of corrective feedback offered by an AI chatbot, a human instructor, or additional explicit instruction via video material. The current study examined the instructional effects of corrective feedback from an AI chatbot on Korean high school students’ comprehension and production of adjectival VtR. Also, the current study investigated whether the corrective feedback generated by the AI chatbot enables Korean L2 English learners to expand their constructional repertoire beyond instructed adjectival VtR to uninstructed prepositional VtR. To investigate these issues, text-based Facebook Messenger AI chatbots were developed by the researcher. The effectiveness of the AI chatbots’ corrective feedback was compared with that of a human instructor and with additional video material. Students were divided into four groups: three instructional groups and one control group. The instructional groups included a chatbot group, a human group, and a video group. All learners in the three instructional groups watched a 5-minute explicit instruction video on the form and meaning pairings of the adjectival VtR in English. After that, learners were divided into three groups based on their preferences for instructional types. The learners volunteered to participate in the instructional procedures with corrective feedback from a text-based AI chatbot, a human instructor, or additional explicit instruction using a 15-minute video. Moreover, they took part in three testing sessions, which included a pretest, an immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest. The control group students were not instructed, and only participated in the three testing sessions. Two tasks were used for each test session: an acceptability judgment task (AJT) and an elicited writing task (EWT). The AJT tested participants’ comprehension of instructed adjectival VtR and uninstructed prepositional VtR. The EWT examined the correct production of instructed adjectival VtR and uninstructed prepositional VtR. The results of the AJT revealed that the instructional treatment (e.g., corrective feedback from the AI chatbot or a human instructor, or additional explicit instruction from the video material) was marginally more effective at improving the comprehension of adjectival VtR than was the case with the control group. On the other hand, the instructional treatment on the adjectival VtR failed in the generalization to prepositional VtR which was not overtly instructed. In the EWT, the participants in the corrective feedback groups (e.g., the chatbot and human groups) showed a more significant increase in the correct production of the instructed adjectival VtR more so than those in the video and control groups. Furthermore, the chatbot group learners showed significantly higher production of uninstructed prepositional VtR compared to any other group participants. These findings suggest that chatbot-based instruction can help Korean high school L2 English learners comprehend and produce complex linguistic structures—namely, adjectival and prepositional VtR. Moreover, the current study has major pedagogical implications for principled frameworks for implementing AI chatbot-based instruction in the context of foreign language learning.영어 형용사 타동결과구문(English Adjectival Transitive Resultative Construction)은 한국인 영어 학습자들에게 모국어의 대응 구문이 갖는 의미 통사론적 차이로 인해 학습하기 매우 어려운 것으로 알려져 있다. 따라서 영어 형용사 타동결과구문과 같은 복잡한 구문을 학습하기 위해서, 한국인 영어 학습자들에게는 목표 구조에 대한 명시적 교수와 교정적 피드백을 포함한 교수 처치가 요구된다. 수백 명의 학습자들에게 교정적 피드백을 제공하기 위해서는 과도한 시간과 노력이 요구되기 때문에, 인간 교사가 적절한 양의 교정적 피드백을 제공한다는 것은 사실상 불가능하다. 교정적 피드백을 제공할 때 직면하는 이러한 실용성 문제를 해결하기 위하여, 외국어 학습자들에게 인간 교사와 유사한 교정 피드백을 제공할 수 있는 수많은 인공 지능(AI) 챗봇이 개발되었다. 유감스럽게도, 현재 사용 가능한 많은 외국어 학습용 인공지능 챗봇은 아직 충분히 개발되지 않은 상태에 남아있으며, 인공지능 챗봇의 교정적 피드백이 갖는 교수효과를 비교 분석한 연구는 현재 이루어지지 않은 상태다. 이러한 선행연구의 한계에 초점을 두어, 본 연구에서는 인공지능 챗봇의 교정적 피드백이 한국 고등학생의 영어 형용사 타동결과구문의 이해와 생성에 미치는 교수 효과를 살펴보았다. 또한 본 연구에서는 이러한 교수 효과가 언어적으로 관련된 다른 영어 구문의 학습에도 영향을 끼치는지를 알아보기 위해 교실에서 직접 가르치지 않았던 구문인 영어 전치사 타동결과구문(English Prepositional Transitive Resultative Construction)의 학습 양상을 알아보았다. 이를 위해, 본 연구에서는 텍스트 메시지 기반의 페이스북 메신저에서 구동되는 인공지능 챗봇을 개발하였다. 인공지능 챗봇의 교수효과 검증을 위해 본 연구에 참여한 학생들은 네 개의 집단으로 구분되었다: 세 개의 교수 집단에는 교수처치가 적용되었고, 한 개의 통제 집단에서는 교수처치가 적용되지 않았다. 교수처치가 적용된 세 개의 집단은 챗봇그룹, 인간그룹, 영상그룹으로 분류되었으며, 이들은 모두 영어로 된 형용사 타동결과구문의 형태와 의미 쌍에 대한 5분 길이의 학습 비디오를 시청함으로써 명시적 교수 처치를 받았다. 또한 비디오를 시청한 후 세 그룹의 학습자들은 교재를 통해 제공되는 언어연습자료를 해결하는 과업에 참여하였다. 다음으로 세 집단(챗봇그룹, 인간그룹, 영상그룹)은 다음과 같은 추가적 교수처치를 받았다: 챗봇그룹 학습자들은 교재 활동과 관련된 텍스트 기반 인공지능 챗봇과의 대화에 참여함으로써 오류에 대한 교정적 피드백을 받았다. 인간그룹 학습자들은 교재활동을 완수한 내용을 인간 교사에게 전송하고, 이에 대한 교정적 피드백을 받았다. 영상그룹 학습자들은 교재활동을 완수한 후 이에 대한 15분의 추가적인 명시적 교수자료를 영상으로 시청하였다. 학습자의 교수효과는 사전시험, 사후시험 및 지연 사후시험으로 검증되었다. 한편 통제 집단 학생들은 교수처치 없이 세 번의 시험에만 참여하였다. 세 차례의 시험에서는 수용성판단과제(AJT)와 유도작문과제(EWT)의 두 가지 과제가 사용되었다. 수용성판단과제를 통하여, 교수된 영어 형용사 타동결과구문과 지시되지 않은 영어 전치사 타동결과구문 대한 참가자의 이해도를 측정하였다. 유도작문과제를 통하여 교수된 영어 형용사 타동결과구문과 지시되지 않은 영어 전치사 타동결과구문을 참여자가 정확하게 산출할 수 있는지를 측정하였다. 시험의 결과는 다음과 같았다. 수용성판단과제의 경우, 교수처치가 적용된 세 집단이 통제 집단보다 형용사 타동결과구문의 이해도 향상에 약간 더 효과적인 것으로 나타났다. 하지만 형용사 타동결과구문에 대한 교수적처치는 교수되지 않은 전치사 타동결과구문으로의 학습에 영향을 주지 못하였다. 유도작문과제의 경우, 인공지능 챗봇이나 인간 교사에 의해 제공되는 교정 피드백 그룹의 참가자가 영상그룹 및 통제집단의 참가자보다 형용사 타동결과구문의 올바른 생성에 더 유의미한 영향을 미치는 것으로 드러났다. 동일한 교수 효과가 전치사 타동결과구문의 학습에서도 관측되어, 형용사 타동결과구문의 학습이 전치사 타동결과구문의 학습에 일반화가 일어났다. 본 연구는 인간 교사가 직면해야 하는 실용성 문제를 극복하고, 인공지능 챗봇이 한국인 고등학교 L2 영어 학습자가 형용사 및 전치사 타동결과구문과 같은 복잡한 언어 구조를 이해하고 생성하는 데에 인간 교사와 비견될 정도로 교정적 피드백을 제공할 수 있을 것임을 시사한다. 또한, 본 연구는 인공지능 챗봇 기반 외국어 교육의 실제적 사례 및 효과를 선도적으로 보여주었다는 점에서 의미가 있다.ABSTRACT i TABLE OF CONTENTS iii LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. Statement of Problems and Objectives 1 1.2. Scope of the Research 6 1.3. Research Questions 9 1.4. Organization of the Dissertation 10 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 12 2.1. Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of Korean and English Transitive Resultative Constructions 13 2.1.1. Syntactic Analysis of English Transitive Resultative Construction 13 2.1.2. Syntactic Analysis of Korean Transitive Resultative Constructions 25 2.1.3. Semantic Differences in VtR between Korean and English 46 2.1.4. Previous acquisition study on English adjectival and prepositional VtR 54 2.2. Corrective Feedback 59 2.2.1. Definition of Corrective Feedback 59 2.2.2. Types of Corrective Feedback 61 2.2.3. Noticeability in Corrective Feedback 67 2.2.4. Corrective Recast as a Stepwise Corrective Feedback 69 2.3. The AI Chatbot in Foreign Language Learning 72 2.3.1. Non-communicative Intelligent Computer Assisted Language Learning (ICALL) 73 2.3.2. AI Chatbot without Corrective Feedback 79 2.3.3. AI Chatbot with Corrective Feedback 86 2.4. Summary of the Literature Review 92 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 98 3.1. Participants 98 3.2. Target Structure 102 3.3. Procedure of the Study 106 3.4. Instructional Material Shared by the Experimental Group 107 3.4.1. General Framework of the Instructional Session 108 3.4.2. Instructional Material Shared by Experimental Groups 111 3.5. Group-specific Instructional Treatments: Post-Written Instructional Material Activities on Corrective Feedback from Chatbot, Human, and Additional Explicit Instruction via Video 121 3.5.1. Corrective Feedback from the AI Chatbot 122 3.5.2. Corrective Feedback from a Human Instructor 136 3.5.3. Additional Instruction via Video Material 139 3.6. Test 142 3.6.1. Acceptability Judgment Task (AJT) 144 3.6.2. Elicited Writing Task (EWT) 150 3.7. Statistical Analysis 152 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 154 4.1. Results of Acceptability Judgment Task (AJT) 154 4.1.1. AJT Results of Instructed Adjectival VtR 155 4.1.2. AJT Results of Uninstructed Prepositional VtR 160 4.1.3. Discussion 164 4.2. Results of Elicited Writing Task (EWT) 175 4.2.1. EWT Results for Instructed Adjectival VtR 176 4.2.2. EWT Results of Uninstructed Prepositional VtR 181 4.2.3. Further Analysis 187 4.2.4. Discussion 199 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION 205 5.1. Summary of the Findings and Implications 205 5.2. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 213 REFERENCES 217 APPENDICES 246 ABSTRACT IN KOREAN 297박

Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition

It was long considered to be impossible to learn grammar based on linguistic experience alone. In the past decade, however, advances in usage-based linguistic theory, computational linguistics, and developmental psychology changed the view on this matter. So-called usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition state that language can be learned from language use itself, by means of social skills like joint attention, and by means of powerful generalization mechanisms. This paper first summarizes the assumptions regarding the nature of linguistic representations and processing. Usage-based theories are nonmodular and nonreductionist, i.e., they emphasize the form-function relationships, and deal with all of language, not just selected levels of representations. Furthermore, storage and processing is considered to be analytic as well as holistic, such that there is a continuum between children's unanalyzed chunks and abstract units found in adult language. In the second part, the empirical evidence is reviewed. Children's linguistic competence is shown to be limited initially, and it is demonstrated how children can generalize knowledge based on direct and indirect positive evidence. It is argued that with these general learning mechanisms, the usage-based paradigm can be extended to multilingual language situations and to language acquisition under special circumstances

Distributional effects and individual differences in L2 morphology learning

Second language (L2) learning outcomes may depend on the structure of the input and learners’ cognitive abilities. This study tested whether less predictable input might facilitate learning and generalization of L2 morphology while evaluating contributions of statistical learning ability, nonverbal intelligence, phonological short-term memory, and verbal working memory. Over three sessions, 54 adults were exposed to a Russian case-marking paradigm with a balanced or skewed item distribution in the input. Whereas statistical learning ability and nonverbal intelligence predicted learning of trained items, only nonverbal intelligence also predicted generalization of case-marking inflections to new vocabulary. Neither measure of temporary storage capacity predicted learning. Balanced, less predictable input was associated with higher accuracy in generalization but only in the initial test session. These results suggest that individual differences in pattern extraction play a more sustained role in L2 acquisition than instructional manipulations that vary the predictability of lexical items in the input

More is more in language learning:reconsidering the less-is-more hypothesis

The Less-is-More hypothesis was proposed to explain age-of-acquisition effects in first language (L1) acquisition and second language (L2) attainment. We scrutinize different renditions of the hypothesis by examining how learning outcomes are affected by (1) limited cognitive capacity, (2) reduced interference resulting from less prior knowledge, and (3) simplified language input. While there is little-to-no evidence of benefits of limited cognitive capacity, there is ample support for a More-is-More account linking enhanced capacity with better L1- and L2-learning outcomes, and reduced capacity with childhood language disorders. Instead, reduced prior knowledge (relative to adults) may afford children with greater flexibility in inductive inference; this contradicts the idea that children benefit from a more constrained hypothesis space. Finally, studies of childdirected speech (CDS) confirm benefits from less complex input at early stages, but also emphasize how greater lexical and syntactic complexity of the input confers benefits in L1-attainment

CLiFF Notes: Research In Natural Language Processing at the University of Pennsylvania

CLIFF is the Computational Linguists\u27 Feedback Forum. We are a group of students and faculty who gather once a week to hear a presentation and discuss work currently in progress. The \u27feedback\u27 in the group\u27s name is important: we are interested in sharing ideas, in discussing ongoing research, and in bringing together work done by the students and faculty in Computer Science and other departments. However, there are only so many presentations which we can have in a year. We felt that it would be beneficial to have a report which would have, in one place, short descriptions of the work in Natural Language Processing at the University of Pennsylvania. This report then, is a collection of abstracts from both faculty and graduate students, in Computer Science, Psychology and Linguistics. We want to stress the close ties between these groups, as one of the things that we pride ourselves on here at Penn is the communication among different departments and the inter-departmental work. Rather than try to summarize the varied work currently underway at Penn, we suggest reading the abstracts to see how the students and faculty themselves describe their work. The report illustrates the diversity of interests among the researchers here, as well as explaining the areas of common interest. In addition, since it was our intent to put together a document that would be useful both inside and outside of the university, we hope that this report will explain to everyone some of what we are about