101 research outputs found

    CARE: Commonsense-Aware Emotional Response Generation with Latent Concepts

    Full text link
    Rationality and emotion are two fundamental elements of humans. Endowing agents with rationality and emotion has been one of the major milestones in AI. However, in the field of conversational AI, most existing models only specialize in one aspect and neglect the other, which often leads to dull or unrelated responses. In this paper, we hypothesize that combining rationality and emotion into conversational agents can improve response quality. To test the hypothesis, we focus on one fundamental aspect of rationality, i.e., commonsense, and propose CARE, a novel model for commonsense-aware emotional response generation. Specifically, we first propose a framework to learn and construct commonsense-aware emotional latent concepts of the response given an input message and a desired emotion. We then propose three methods to collaboratively incorporate the latent concepts into response generation. Experimental results on two large-scale datasets support our hypothesis and show that our model can produce more accurate and commonsense-aware emotional responses and achieve better human ratings than state-of-the-art models that only specialize in one aspect.Comment: AAAI-202

    ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ๊ณ ๋“ฑํ•™์ƒ์˜ ์˜์–ด ํ˜•์šฉ์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ ํ•™์Šต์—์„œ์˜ ์ธ๊ณต์ง€๋Šฅ ์ฑ—๋ด‡ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ๊ต์ˆ˜์˜ ํšจ๊ณผ

    Get PDF
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ(๋ฐ•์‚ฌ) -- ์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต๋Œ€ํ•™์› : ์‚ฌ๋ฒ”๋Œ€ํ•™ ์™ธ๊ตญ์–ด๊ต์œก๊ณผ(์˜์–ด์ „๊ณต), 2022.2. ๊น€๊ธฐํƒ.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 studentsโ€™ 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 chatbotsโ€™ 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 participantsโ€™ 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 structuresโ€”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.์˜์–ด ํ˜•์šฉ์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ(English Adjectival Transitive Resultative Construction)์€ ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ์˜์–ด ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์—๊ฒŒ ๋ชจ๊ตญ์–ด์˜ ๋Œ€์‘ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์ด ๊ฐ–๋Š” ์˜๋ฏธ ํ†ต์‚ฌ๋ก ์  ์ฐจ์ด๋กœ ์ธํ•ด ํ•™์Šตํ•˜๊ธฐ ๋งค์šฐ ์–ด๋ ค์šด ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ์•Œ๋ ค์ ธ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ๋”ฐ๋ผ์„œ ์˜์–ด ํ˜•์šฉ์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ๊ฐ™์€ ๋ณต์žกํ•œ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์„ ํ•™์Šตํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด์„œ, ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ์˜์–ด ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์—๊ฒŒ๋Š” ๋ชฉํ‘œ ๊ตฌ์กฐ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๋ช…์‹œ์  ๊ต์ˆ˜์™€ ๊ต์ •์  ํ”ผ๋“œ๋ฐฑ์„ ํฌํ•จํ•œ ๊ต์ˆ˜ ์ฒ˜์น˜๊ฐ€ ์š”๊ตฌ๋œ๋‹ค. ์ˆ˜๋ฐฑ ๋ช…์˜ ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์—๊ฒŒ ๊ต์ •์  ํ”ผ๋“œ๋ฐฑ์„ ์ œ๊ณตํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด์„œ๋Š” ๊ณผ๋„ํ•œ ์‹œ๊ฐ„๊ณผ ๋…ธ๋ ฅ์ด ์š”๊ตฌ๋˜๊ธฐ ๋•Œ๋ฌธ์—, ์ธ๊ฐ„ ๊ต์‚ฌ๊ฐ€ ์ ์ ˆํ•œ ์–‘์˜ ๊ต์ •์  ํ”ผ๋“œ๋ฐฑ์„ ์ œ๊ณตํ•œ๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์€ ์‚ฌ์‹ค์ƒ ๋ถˆ๊ฐ€๋Šฅํ•˜๋‹ค. ๊ต์ •์  ํ”ผ๋“œ๋ฐฑ์„ ์ œ๊ณตํ•  ๋•Œ ์ง๋ฉดํ•˜๋Š” ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ์‹ค์šฉ์„ฑ ๋ฌธ์ œ๋ฅผ ํ•ด๊ฒฐํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•˜์—ฌ, ์™ธ๊ตญ์–ด ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์—๊ฒŒ ์ธ๊ฐ„ ๊ต์‚ฌ์™€ ์œ ์‚ฌํ•œ ๊ต์ • ํ”ผ๋“œ๋ฐฑ์„ ์ œ๊ณตํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋Š” ์ˆ˜๋งŽ์€ ์ธ๊ณต ์ง€๋Šฅ(AI) ์ฑ—๋ด‡์ด ๊ฐœ๋ฐœ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์œ ๊ฐ์Šค๋Ÿฝ๊ฒŒ๋„, ํ˜„์žฌ ์‚ฌ์šฉ ๊ฐ€๋Šฅํ•œ ๋งŽ์€ ์™ธ๊ตญ์–ด ํ•™์Šต์šฉ ์ธ๊ณต์ง€๋Šฅ ์ฑ—๋ด‡์€ ์•„์ง ์ถฉ๋ถ„ํžˆ ๊ฐœ๋ฐœ๋˜์ง€ ์•Š์€ ์ƒํƒœ์— ๋‚จ์•„์žˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ, ์ธ๊ณต์ง€๋Šฅ ์ฑ—๋ด‡์˜ ๊ต์ •์  ํ”ผ๋“œ๋ฐฑ์ด ๊ฐ–๋Š” ๊ต์ˆ˜ํšจ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ๋น„๊ต ๋ถ„์„ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ํ˜„์žฌ ์ด๋ฃจ์–ด์ง€์ง€ ์•Š์€ ์ƒํƒœ๋‹ค. ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ์„ ํ–‰์—ฐ๊ตฌ์˜ ํ•œ๊ณ„์— ์ดˆ์ ์„ ๋‘์–ด, ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ๋Š” ์ธ๊ณต์ง€๋Šฅ ์ฑ—๋ด‡์˜ ๊ต์ •์  ํ”ผ๋“œ๋ฐฑ์ด ํ•œ๊ตญ ๊ณ ๋“ฑํ•™์ƒ์˜ ์˜์–ด ํ˜•์šฉ์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ์ดํ•ด์™€ ์ƒ์„ฑ์— ๋ฏธ์น˜๋Š” ๊ต์ˆ˜ ํšจ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ์‚ดํŽด๋ณด์•˜๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ๋Š” ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ๊ต์ˆ˜ ํšจ๊ณผ๊ฐ€ ์–ธ์–ด์ ์œผ๋กœ ๊ด€๋ จ๋œ ๋‹ค๋ฅธ ์˜์–ด ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ํ•™์Šต์—๋„ ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ๋ผ์น˜๋Š”์ง€๋ฅผ ์•Œ์•„๋ณด๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ๊ต์‹ค์—์„œ ์ง์ ‘ ๊ฐ€๋ฅด์น˜์ง€ ์•Š์•˜๋˜ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์ธ ์˜์–ด ์ „์น˜์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ(English Prepositional Transitive Resultative Construction)์˜ ํ•™์Šต ์–‘์ƒ์„ ์•Œ์•„๋ณด์•˜๋‹ค. ์ด๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•ด, ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ๋Š” ํ…์ŠคํŠธ ๋ฉ”์‹œ์ง€ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜์˜ ํŽ˜์ด์Šค๋ถ ๋ฉ”์‹ ์ €์—์„œ ๊ตฌ๋™๋˜๋Š” ์ธ๊ณต์ง€๋Šฅ ์ฑ—๋ด‡์„ ๊ฐœ๋ฐœํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ธ๊ณต์ง€๋Šฅ ์ฑ—๋ด‡์˜ ๊ต์ˆ˜ํšจ๊ณผ ๊ฒ€์ฆ์„ ์œ„ํ•ด ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์— ์ฐธ์—ฌํ•œ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์€ ๋„ค ๊ฐœ์˜ ์ง‘๋‹จ์œผ๋กœ ๊ตฌ๋ถ„๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค: ์„ธ ๊ฐœ์˜ ๊ต์ˆ˜ ์ง‘๋‹จ์—๋Š” ๊ต์ˆ˜์ฒ˜์น˜๊ฐ€ ์ ์šฉ๋˜์—ˆ๊ณ , ํ•œ ๊ฐœ์˜ ํ†ต์ œ ์ง‘๋‹จ์—์„œ๋Š” ๊ต์ˆ˜์ฒ˜์น˜๊ฐ€ ์ ์šฉ๋˜์ง€ ์•Š์•˜๋‹ค. ๊ต์ˆ˜์ฒ˜์น˜๊ฐ€ ์ ์šฉ๋œ ์„ธ ๊ฐœ์˜ ์ง‘๋‹จ์€ ์ฑ—๋ด‡๊ทธ๋ฃน, ์ธ๊ฐ„๊ทธ๋ฃน, ์˜์ƒ๊ทธ๋ฃน์œผ๋กœ ๋ถ„๋ฅ˜๋˜์—ˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ, ์ด๋“ค์€ ๋ชจ๋‘ ์˜์–ด๋กœ ๋œ ํ˜•์šฉ์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ํ˜•ํƒœ์™€ ์˜๋ฏธ ์Œ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ 5๋ถ„ ๊ธธ์ด์˜ ํ•™์Šต ๋น„๋””์˜ค๋ฅผ ์‹œ์ฒญํ•จ์œผ๋กœ์จ ๋ช…์‹œ์  ๊ต์ˆ˜ ์ฒ˜์น˜๋ฅผ ๋ฐ›์•˜๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ ๋น„๋””์˜ค๋ฅผ ์‹œ์ฒญํ•œ ํ›„ ์„ธ ๊ทธ๋ฃน์˜ ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์€ ๊ต์žฌ๋ฅผ ํ†ตํ•ด ์ œ๊ณต๋˜๋Š” ์–ธ์–ด์—ฐ์Šต์ž๋ฃŒ๋ฅผ ํ•ด๊ฒฐํ•˜๋Š” ๊ณผ์—…์— ์ฐธ์—ฌํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋‹ค์Œ์œผ๋กœ ์„ธ ์ง‘๋‹จ(์ฑ—๋ด‡๊ทธ๋ฃน, ์ธ๊ฐ„๊ทธ๋ฃน, ์˜์ƒ๊ทธ๋ฃน)์€ ๋‹ค์Œ๊ณผ ๊ฐ™์€ ์ถ”๊ฐ€์  ๊ต์ˆ˜์ฒ˜์น˜๋ฅผ ๋ฐ›์•˜๋‹ค: ์ฑ—๋ด‡๊ทธ๋ฃน ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์€ ๊ต์žฌ ํ™œ๋™๊ณผ ๊ด€๋ จ๋œ ํ…์ŠคํŠธ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์ธ๊ณต์ง€๋Šฅ ์ฑ—๋ด‡๊ณผ์˜ ๋Œ€ํ™”์— ์ฐธ์—ฌํ•จ์œผ๋กœ์จ ์˜ค๋ฅ˜์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๊ต์ •์  ํ”ผ๋“œ๋ฐฑ์„ ๋ฐ›์•˜๋‹ค. ์ธ๊ฐ„๊ทธ๋ฃน ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์€ ๊ต์žฌํ™œ๋™์„ ์™„์ˆ˜ํ•œ ๋‚ด์šฉ์„ ์ธ๊ฐ„ ๊ต์‚ฌ์—๊ฒŒ ์ „์†กํ•˜๊ณ , ์ด์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๊ต์ •์  ํ”ผ๋“œ๋ฐฑ์„ ๋ฐ›์•˜๋‹ค. ์˜์ƒ๊ทธ๋ฃน ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์€ ๊ต์žฌํ™œ๋™์„ ์™„์ˆ˜ํ•œ ํ›„ ์ด์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ 15๋ถ„์˜ ์ถ”๊ฐ€์ ์ธ ๋ช…์‹œ์  ๊ต์ˆ˜์ž๋ฃŒ๋ฅผ ์˜์ƒ์œผ๋กœ ์‹œ์ฒญํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ํ•™์Šต์ž์˜ ๊ต์ˆ˜ํšจ๊ณผ๋Š” ์‚ฌ์ „์‹œํ—˜, ์‚ฌํ›„์‹œํ—˜ ๋ฐ ์ง€์—ฐ ์‚ฌํ›„์‹œํ—˜์œผ๋กœ ๊ฒ€์ฆ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ํ•œํŽธ ํ†ต์ œ ์ง‘๋‹จ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์€ ๊ต์ˆ˜์ฒ˜์น˜ ์—†์ด ์„ธ ๋ฒˆ์˜ ์‹œํ—˜์—๋งŒ ์ฐธ์—ฌํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์„ธ ์ฐจ๋ก€์˜ ์‹œํ—˜์—์„œ๋Š” ์ˆ˜์šฉ์„ฑํŒ๋‹จ๊ณผ์ œ(AJT)์™€ ์œ ๋„์ž‘๋ฌธ๊ณผ์ œ(EWT)์˜ ๋‘ ๊ฐ€์ง€ ๊ณผ์ œ๊ฐ€ ์‚ฌ์šฉ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์ˆ˜์šฉ์„ฑํŒ๋‹จ๊ณผ์ œ๋ฅผ ํ†ตํ•˜์—ฌ, ๊ต์ˆ˜๋œ ์˜์–ด ํ˜•์šฉ์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ์ง€์‹œ๋˜์ง€ ์•Š์€ ์˜์–ด ์ „์น˜์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์ฐธ๊ฐ€์ž์˜ ์ดํ•ด๋„๋ฅผ ์ธก์ •ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์œ ๋„์ž‘๋ฌธ๊ณผ์ œ๋ฅผ ํ†ตํ•˜์—ฌ ๊ต์ˆ˜๋œ ์˜์–ด ํ˜•์šฉ์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ์ง€์‹œ๋˜์ง€ ์•Š์€ ์˜์–ด ์ „์น˜์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์„ ์ฐธ์—ฌ์ž๊ฐ€ ์ •ํ™•ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ์‚ฐ์ถœํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋Š”์ง€๋ฅผ ์ธก์ •ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์‹œํ—˜์˜ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋Š” ๋‹ค์Œ๊ณผ ๊ฐ™์•˜๋‹ค. ์ˆ˜์šฉ์„ฑํŒ๋‹จ๊ณผ์ œ์˜ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ, ๊ต์ˆ˜์ฒ˜์น˜๊ฐ€ ์ ์šฉ๋œ ์„ธ ์ง‘๋‹จ์ด ํ†ต์ œ ์ง‘๋‹จ๋ณด๋‹ค ํ˜•์šฉ์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ์ดํ•ด๋„ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์— ์•ฝ๊ฐ„ ๋” ํšจ๊ณผ์ ์ธ ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ฌ๋‹ค. ํ•˜์ง€๋งŒ ํ˜•์šฉ์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๊ต์ˆ˜์ ์ฒ˜์น˜๋Š” ๊ต์ˆ˜๋˜์ง€ ์•Š์€ ์ „์น˜์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์œผ๋กœ์˜ ํ•™์Šต์— ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ์ฃผ์ง€ ๋ชปํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์œ ๋„์ž‘๋ฌธ๊ณผ์ œ์˜ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ, ์ธ๊ณต์ง€๋Šฅ ์ฑ—๋ด‡์ด๋‚˜ ์ธ๊ฐ„ ๊ต์‚ฌ์— ์˜ํ•ด ์ œ๊ณต๋˜๋Š” ๊ต์ • ํ”ผ๋“œ๋ฐฑ ๊ทธ๋ฃน์˜ ์ฐธ๊ฐ€์ž๊ฐ€ ์˜์ƒ๊ทธ๋ฃน ๋ฐ ํ†ต์ œ์ง‘๋‹จ์˜ ์ฐธ๊ฐ€์ž๋ณด๋‹ค ํ˜•์šฉ์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ์˜ฌ๋ฐ”๋ฅธ ์ƒ์„ฑ์— ๋” ์œ ์˜๋ฏธํ•œ ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ๋ฏธ์น˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋“œ๋Ÿฌ๋‚ฌ๋‹ค. ๋™์ผํ•œ ๊ต์ˆ˜ ํšจ๊ณผ๊ฐ€ ์ „์น˜์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ํ•™์Šต์—์„œ๋„ ๊ด€์ธก๋˜์–ด, ํ˜•์šฉ์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ํ•™์Šต์ด ์ „์น˜์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ํ•™์Šต์— ์ผ๋ฐ˜ํ™”๊ฐ€ ์ผ์–ด๋‚ฌ๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ์ธ๊ฐ„ ๊ต์‚ฌ๊ฐ€ ์ง๋ฉดํ•ด์•ผ ํ•˜๋Š” ์‹ค์šฉ์„ฑ ๋ฌธ์ œ๋ฅผ ๊ทน๋ณตํ•˜๊ณ , ์ธ๊ณต์ง€๋Šฅ ์ฑ—๋ด‡์ด ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ๊ณ ๋“ฑํ•™๊ต L2 ์˜์–ด ํ•™์Šต์ž๊ฐ€ ํ˜•์šฉ์‚ฌ ๋ฐ ์ „์น˜์‚ฌ ํƒ€๋™๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ๊ฐ™์€ ๋ณต์žกํ•œ ์–ธ์–ด ๊ตฌ์กฐ๋ฅผ ์ดํ•ดํ•˜๊ณ  ์ƒ์„ฑํ•˜๋Š” ๋ฐ์— ์ธ๊ฐ„ ๊ต์‚ฌ์™€ ๋น„๊ฒฌ๋  ์ •๋„๋กœ ๊ต์ •์  ํ”ผ๋“œ๋ฐฑ์„ ์ œ๊ณตํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์„ ๊ฒƒ์ž„์„ ์‹œ์‚ฌํ•œ๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ, ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ์ธ๊ณต์ง€๋Šฅ ์ฑ—๋ด‡ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์™ธ๊ตญ์–ด ๊ต์œก์˜ ์‹ค์ œ์  ์‚ฌ๋ก€ ๋ฐ ํšจ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ์„ ๋„์ ์œผ๋กœ ๋ณด์—ฌ์ฃผ์—ˆ๋‹ค๋Š” ์ ์—์„œ ์˜๋ฏธ๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋‹ค.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 297๋ฐ•

    Towards collaborative dialogue in Minecraft

    Get PDF
    This dissertation describes our work in building interactive agents that can communicate with humans to collaboratively solve tasks in grounded scenarios. To investigate the challenges of building such agents, we define a novel instantiation of a situated, Minecraft-based, Collaborative Building Task in which one player (A, the Architect) is shown a target structure, denoted Target, and needs to instruct the other player (B, the Builder) to build a copy of this structure, denoted Built, in a predefined build region. While both players can interact asynchronously via a chat interface, we define the roles to be asymmetric: A can observe B and Target, but is invisible and cannot place blocks; meanwhile, B can freely place and remove blocks, but has no explicit knowledge of the target structure. Each agent requires a different set of abilities in order to be successful at this task: specifically, A's main challenges arise in the task of generating situated instructions by comparing Built and Target, while B's responsibilities focus mainly on comprehending A's situated instructions using both dialogue and world context. Both agents must be able to interact asynchronously in an evolving dialogue context and a dynamic world state within which they are embodied. In this work, we specifically examine how well end-to-end neural models can learn to be instruction givers (i.e., Architects) from a limited amount of real human-human data. In order to examine how humans complete the Collaborative Building Task, as well as use human-human data as a gold standard for training and evaluating models, we present the Minecraft Dialogue Corpus, a collection of 509 conversations and game logs. We then introduce baseline models for the challenging subtask of Architect utterance generation, and evaluate them offline, using both automated metrics and human evaluation. We show that while conditioning our model on a simple representation of the world gives our model improved ability to generate correct instructions, there are still many obvious shortcomings, and it is difficult for these models to learn the large variety of abilities needed to be successful Architects in an entirely end-to-end manner. To combat this, we show that including meaningful, structured inputs about the world and discourse state as additional inputs -- specifically, by adding oracle information about the Builder's next actions, as well as enriching our linguistic representation with Architect dialogue acts -- improves the performance of our utterance generation models. We also augment the data with shape information by pretraining 3D shape localization models on synthetically generated block configurations. Finally, we integrate Architect utterance generation models into actual Minecraft agents and evaluate them in a fully interactive setting

    English Medium Instruction as a Local Practice

    Get PDF
    From the perspective of translanguaging and instruction theories, this Open Access book examines Chinese English Medium Instruction (EMI) lecturersโ€™ linguistic and pedagogical characteristics. This book demonstrate that โ€˜Englishโ€™ in EMI is not a monolingual issue and EMI lecturers have applied their bilingual advantages to systematically and strategically advance their pedagogy practices through a translanguaging process. This book reflects upon EMI lecturersโ€™ culture-imbedded teaching and learning philosophies and explores the implications of local classroom practices, such as topic-centered instruction and teacher presentation through demonstration. This book argues that EMI teaching is not an approach that can reach universal consent across linguistic, cultural and educational systems; it is an approach that is exclusively contextualised in the lecturersโ€™ closely related cultural and educational system, and restricted by the available resources. This is an open access book

    English Medium Instruction as a Local Practice

    Get PDF
    From the perspective of translanguaging and instruction theories, this Open Access book examines Chinese English Medium Instruction (EMI) lecturersโ€™ linguistic and pedagogical characteristics. This book demonstrate that โ€˜Englishโ€™ in EMI is not a monolingual issue and EMI lecturers have applied their bilingual advantages to systematically and strategically advance their pedagogy practices through a translanguaging process. This book reflects upon EMI lecturersโ€™ culture-imbedded teaching and learning philosophies and explores the implications of local classroom practices, such as topic-centered instruction and teacher presentation through demonstration. This book argues that EMI teaching is not an approach that can reach universal consent across linguistic, cultural and educational systems; it is an approach that is exclusively contextualised in the lecturersโ€™ closely related cultural and educational system, and restricted by the available resources. This is an open access book

    Acoustic correlates of encoded prosody in written conversation

    Get PDF
    This thesis presents an analysis of certain punctuation devices such as parenthesis, italics and emphatic spellings with respect to their acoustic correlates in read speech. The class of punctuation devices under investigation are referred to as prosodic markers. The thesis therefore presents an analysis of features of the spoken language which are represented symbolically in text. Hence it is a characterization of aspects of the spoken language which have been transcribed or symbolized in the written medium and then translated back into a spoken form by a reader. The thesis focuses in particular on the analysis of parenthesis, the examination of encoded prominence and emphasis, and also addresses the use of paralinguistic markers which signal attitude or emotion.In an effort to avoid the use of self constructed or artificial material containing arbitrary symbolic or prosodic encodings, all material used for empirical analysis was taken from examples of electronic written exchanges on the Internet, such as from electronic mail messages and from articles posted on electronic newsgroups and news bulletins. This medium of language, which is referred to here as written conversation, provides a rich source of material containing encoded prosodic markers. These occur in the form of 'smiley faces' expressing attitudes or feelings, words highlighted by a number of means such as capitalization, italics, underscore characters, or asterisks, and in the form of dashes or parentheses, which provide suggestions on how the information in a text or sentence may be structured with regard to its informational content.Chapter 2 investigates in detail the genre of written conversation with respect to its place in an emerging continuum between written and spoken language, concentrating on transcriptional devices and their function as indicators of prosody. The implications these symbolic representations bear on the task of reading, by humans as well as machines, are then examined.Chapters 3 and 4 turn to the acoustic analysis of parentheticals and emphasis markers respectively. The experimental work in this thesis is based on readings of a corpus of selected materials from written conversation with the acoustic analysis concentrating on the differences between readings of texts with prosodic markers and readings of the same texts from which prosodic markers have been removed. Finally, the effect of prosodic markers is tested in perception experiments involving both human and resynthesized utterances
    • โ€ฆ
    corecore