Error Recognition and Feedback with Lexical Functional Grammar
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v20i3.497-512Keywords:
Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), Intelligent Computer-Assisted Language Learning (ICALL), Error Recognition, Parsing, FeedbackAbstract
This paper describes the error recognition module of an interactive ICALL system with a special focus on the underlying grammar theory. Using the system, language learners are invited to produce complete written sentences in small question-answer dialogs with the computer. This setting challenges learners to use language interactively in order to enhance the development of communicative competence. Emphasis is put on the possibility of giving adequate feedback to the learner if a syntactically ill formed sentence is encountered. It is argued that the theory of Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) is well suited to be used in the parsing and error recognition module of the system as well as to provide intelligent feedback to learners. The concepts and structures used in LFG closely resemble the descriptive knowledge of language learners about a language, and, therefore, the results of an automatic analysis can easily be translated from a computationally tractable form to language easily understood by the learner.
References
Austin, P. K. (2001). Lexical functional grammar. In N. J. Smelser & P. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (pp. 8748-8754). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bresnan, J. (Ed.). (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Butt, M., Dipper, S., Frank, A., & King, T. H. (1999). Writing large-scale parallel grammars for English, French and German. In M. Butt & T. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG99 conference. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, CSLI. Available: csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG
Carpenter, B. (1993). Sceptical and credulous default unification with applications to templates and inheritance. In T. Briscoe, A. Copestake, & V. D. Paiva (Eds.), Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon (pp. 13-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clément L., Gerdes, K., & Kahane, S. (2002). An LFG-type grammar for german based on the topological model. In M. Butt & T. King (Eds.), Proceedings of LFG02 conference. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, CSLI. Available: cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG
Clément, L., & Kinyon, A. (2001). XLFG—an LFG Parsing Scheme for French. In M. Butt & T. King (Eds.), Proceedings of LFG01 conference. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, CSLI. Available: csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG
Dalrymple, M., Kaplan, R. M., Maxwell, J., & Zaenen, A. (Eds.). (1995). Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar. Palo Alto: CSLI, Stanford University.
Earley, J. (1970). An efficient context-free parsing algorithm. Communications of the ACM, 13, 94-102.
Eisenberg, P. (1999). Grundrß der deutschen Grammatik - Der Satz (Vol. 2). Stuttgart: Metzler.
Heift, T. (1998). Designed intelligence: A language teacher model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Heift, T. (2001). Error-specific and individualized feedback in a web-based language tutoring system: Do they read it? ReCALL, 13 (2), 129-142.
Heift, T., & Nicholson, D. (2001). Web delivery of adaptive and interactive language tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12 (4), 310-325.
Heringer, H. J. (1995). Aus Fehlern lernen [CD-ROM for Win9x/NT]. Augsburg: Universität Augsburg.
Hubbard, P. L. (1994). Non-transformational theories of grammar: Implications for language teaching. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 49-71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R. M., & Maxwell, J. T. (1993). LFG grammar writer’s workbench. Palo Alto, CA: Xerox PARC. Available: www2.parc.com/istl/groups/nltt/
Kars, J., & Häussermann, U. (1997). Grundgrammatik Deutsch. Frankfurt a.M.: Diesterweg.
Kato, T. (1994). Yet another chart-based technique for pars-ing ill-formed input. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on applied natural language process-ing (ANLP) (pp. 107-112). Stuttgart: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Lee, K. Joo, Kweon, C. J., Seo, J., & Kim, G. C. (1995). A robust parser based on syntactic information. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL) (pp. 223-228). Dublin: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Mellish, C. S. (1989). Some chart-based techniques for parsing ill-formed input. In Proceedings of the 27th conference of the association for computational linguistics (ACL) (pp. 102-109). Vancouver, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics
Menzel, W., & Schröder, I. (1998). Constraint-based diagnosis for intelligent language tutoring systems (Fachbereich Informatik Report Nr. FBI-HH-B-208-98), Universit Hamburg: Universität Hamburg. Available: nats-www.informatik.unihamburg.de/~wolfgang/#publi
Schneider, D., & McCoy, K. F. (1998). Recognizing syntactic errors in the writing of second language learners. In Proceedings of the 17th international donference on computational linguistics (COLING) (pp. 1198-1204). Montreal, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Schwarze, C. (1995). Grammatik der italienischen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Schwind, C. (1988). Sensitive parsing: Error analysis and explanation in an intelligent language tutoring system. In D. Vargha (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th COLING (pp. 608-613). Budapest: ICCL.
Vogel, C., & Cooper, R. (1995). Robust chart parsing with mildly inconsistent feature structures. In A. Schöter & C. Vogel (Eds.), Nonclassical feature systems (Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, 10, pp. 197-216). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
