Judging grammaticality: experiments in sentence classification

A classifier which is capable of distinguishing a syntactically well formed sentence from a syntactically ill formed one has the potential to be useful in an L2 language-learning context. In this article, we describe a classifier which classifies English sentences as either well formed or ill formed using information gleaned from three different natural language processing techniques. We describe the issues involved in acquiring data to train such a classifier and present experimental results for this classifier on a variety of ill formed sentences. We demonstrate that (a) the combination of information from a variety of linguistic sources is helpful, (b) the trade-off between accuracy on well formed sentences and accuracy on ill formed sentences can be fine tuned by training multiple classifiers in a voting scheme, and (c) the performance of the classifier is varied, with better performance on transcribed spoken sentences produced by less advanced language learners

Grammatical Error Correction: A Survey of the State of the Art

Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) is the task of automatically detecting and correcting errors in text. The task not only includes the correction of grammatical errors, such as missing prepositions and mismatched subject-verb agreement, but also orthographic and semantic errors, such as misspellings and word choice errors respectively. The field has seen significant progress in the last decade, motivated in part by a series of five shared tasks, which drove the development of rule-based methods, statistical classifiers, statistical machine translation, and finally neural machine translation systems which represent the current dominant state of the art. In this survey paper, we condense the field into a single article and first outline some of the linguistic challenges of the task, introduce the most popular datasets that are available to researchers (for both English and other languages), and summarise the various methods and techniques that have been developed with a particular focus on artificial error generation. We next describe the many different approaches to evaluation as well as concerns surrounding metric reliability, especially in relation to subjective human judgements, before concluding with an overview of recent progress and suggestions for future work and remaining challenges. We hope that this survey will serve as comprehensive resource for researchers who are new to the field or who want to be kept apprised of recent developments

Addressing the grammar needs of Chinese EAP students: an account of a CALL materials development project

This study investigated the grammar needs of Chinese EAP Foundation students and developed electronic self-access grammar materials for them. The research process consisted of three phases. In the first phase, a corpus linguistics based error analysis was conducted, in which 50 student essays were compiled and scrutinized for formal errors. A tagging system was specially devised and employed in the analysis. The EA results, together with an examination of Foundation tutors’ perceptions of error frequency and gravity led me to prioritise article errors for treatment; in the second phase, remedial materials were drafted based on the EA results and insights drawn from my investigations into four research areas (article pedagogy, SLA theory, grammar teaching approaches and CALL methodologies) and existing grammar materials; in the third phase, the materials were refined and evaluated for their effectiveness as a means of improving the Chinese Foundation students’ use of the article. Findings confirm the claim that L2 learner errors are systematic in nature and lend support to the value of Error Analysis. L1 transfer appears to be one of the main contributing factors in L2 errors. The salient errors identified in the Chinese Foundation corpus show that mismanagement of the article system is the most frequent cause of grammatical errors; Foundation tutors, however, perceive article errors to be neither frequent nor serious. An examination of existing materials reveals that the article is given low priority in ELT textbooks and treatments provided in pedagogical grammar books are inappropriate in terms of presentation, language and exercise types. The devised remedial materials employ both consciousness-raising activities and production exercises, using EAP language and authentic learner errors. Preliminary evaluation results suggest that the EA-informed customised materials have the potential to help learners to perform better in proofreading article errors in academic texts

The use of and-coordination in terms of its syntactic (a)symmetry in argumentative essays : a corpus-based study of three university learner groups in MICUSP and NUCLE.

Studies found EL learners overuse and as an additive connector at the sentence-initial position (Bolton, Hung, & Nelson, 2002), and they underuse and as a coordinator (Leung, 2005). Generally, the use of the and-coordinator has often been overlooked in corpus research and in English teaching because of its seemingly simplicity. To test previous findings about the and-coordinator and to examine the influence of English proficiency on the use of and in academic writing, three learner corpora--MICUSP-NNS (advanced level), MICUSP-NS (advanced level), and NUCLE-NNS (upper-intermediate) were compared, with regard to the use of (a)symmetric structures of the and-coordination. Each corpus contains 31 argumentative essays written by 31 university students

A Phenomenological Study of Graduate Chinese Students’ English Writing Challenges

More students from China are looking to the United States for learning opportunities. However, such students have serious English writing deficiencies. This is due to significant differences between the two languages. This phenomenological study of five Chinese, graduate level students in the United States, informs us of these issues and provides a basis upon which we can explore viable instructional strategies to deal with such issues. The key findings suggest that the participants feel marginalized due to English language deficiencies, which is complicated by a deficiently structured English language instructional system. Based on these findings, several themes are presented that underpin the core challenges faced by the participants, as well as participants’ views of desirable support mechanisms to help their English writing process

Google Translate: A helpful aide? A mixed method sequential explanatory study on the usage and effects of Google Translate in three Norwegian EFL classes

This thesis investigates how learners in Norway use Google Translate to aid them in EFL writing as well as how the usage of Google Translate affects the quality of the texts they write. A mixed method study was used in three Norwegian EFL classes situated in the same school along with learner stimulated recall interviews and teacher interviews. The aim of the study was to determine how effective Google Translate is at helping Norwegian learners at different performance levels and to see how dependant these learners are on Google Translate to help them in EFL writing. Two writing sessions were conducted to gather data on learners’ usage of Google Translate and determine whether the translation tool had any effect on the quality of their written products. The first writing session consisted of learners using dictionaries to help them translate from Norwegian to English, and in total, 33 learners participated in this writing session. In the second writing session, learners were encouraged to use Google Translate as they would normally to help in EFL writing, and 33 learners participated in this writing session, 22 of whom used Google Translate. By comparing vocabulary, syntax errors, subject-verbal concord errors, essay length, and spelling mistakes between the texts from the two writing sessions of learners who used Google Translate in the second writing session, comments could be made on the effectiveness Google Translate has on the quality of learners’ texts. A separate analysis was conducted of how Google Translate was being used by learners in the second writing session, i.e. how many times Google Translate was used to translate words, phrases, sentences, entire texts or for other purposes. Based on the analysis comparing two sets of 22 learners’ screen recorded videos and the learners’ writing along with information from stimulated recall interviews and teacher interviews, it seems that learners’ current usage of Google Translate does not affect the quality of their written product in a positive nor negative way, except for syntax related errors which lowered for all learner groups from the first to the second writing session. Google Translate mostly serves as a quicker alternative to dictionaries as it provides translations at a much fast speed compared to dictionaries. Further, learners mostly use Google Translate to aid in the translation of words and phrases, rarely using it to translate whole sentences or longer texts. However, there is a disparity between lower performing learners, average performing learners, and higher performing learners in how much they use the tool. Furthermore, there is a lack of training given to learners and teachers on how to use Google Translate as an efficient translation tool. Both learners and teachers that participated in the study reported a lack of training received on proper usage of the tool and reviewing 31 screen recorded videos from the second writing session, it was clear that learners lacked knowledge of the many capabilities the tool has to offer. There has previously been concern amongst teachers that Google Translate hinders learners in learning English as the translation tool produces incorrect output or that learners use the tool to translate large amounts of text. However, statements from teacher interviews reveal that these teachers seem to have become more acceptant of the translator being used in their class. Previous studies also reveal that Google Translate has reached the point where it has the capability of providing output equivalent to the minimum level of accuracy required for university entrance, thereby providing output better than what most learners in primary school could produce themselves (Mundt & Groves, 2015; Stapleton & Leung, 2019). Finally, based on the analysis of 64 screen recordings, the author of this thesis argues that Google Docs and other word processors should be a greater concern for teachers than Google Translate and other tools that aid in translation. This is due to a substantial number of learners who participated in the study being heavily dependent on the grammatical and spelling correction tools that the software provides, making it difficult for teachers to assess whether learners know various grammatical rules and possess the ability to apply these rules in written texts