NEALT Proceedings Series
Northern European Association for Language Technology
Refine
Document Type
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2) (remove)
Keywords
- Korpus <Linguistik> (2) (remove)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (1)
Publisher
39
Content
1 Predicting learner knowledge of individual words using machine learning
Drilon Avdiu, Vanessa Bui, Klára Ptacinová Klimci´ková
2 Automatic Generation and Semantic Grading of Esperanto Sentences in a Teaching Context
Eckhard Bick
3 Toward automatic improvement of language produced by non-native language learners
Mathias Creutz, Eetu Sjöblom
4 Linguistic features and proficiency classification in L2 Spanish and L2 Portuguese
Iria del Ri´o
5 Integrating large-scale web data and curated corpus data in a search engine supporting German literacy education
Sabrina Dittrich, Zarah Weiss, Hannes Schröter, Detmar Meurers
6 Formalism for a language agnostic language learning game and productive grid generation
Sylvain Hatier, Arnaud Bey, Mathieu Loiseau
7 Understanding Vocabulary Growth Through An Adaptive Language Learning System
Elma Kerz, Andreas Burgdorf, Daniel Wiechmann, Stefan Meeger,Yu Qiao, Christian Kohlschein, Tobias Meisen
8 Summarization Evaluation meets Short-Answer Grading
Margot Mieskes, Ulrike Padó
9 Experiments on Non-native Speech Assessment and its Consistency
Ziwei Zhou, Sowmya Vajjala, Seyed Vahid Mirnezami
10 The Impact of Spelling Correction and Task Context on Short Answer Assessment for Intelligent Tutoring Systems
Ramon Ziai, Florian Nuxoll, Kordula De Kuthy, Björn Rudzewitz, Detmar Meurers
1
This paper is a contribution to the ongoing discussion on treebank annotation schemes and their impact on PCFG parsing results. We provide a thorough comparison of two German treebanks: the TIGER treebank and the TüBa-D/Z. We use simple statistics on sentence length and vocabulary size, and more refined methods such as perplexity and its correlation with PCFG parsing results, as well as a Principal Components Analysis. Finally we present a qualitative evaluation of a set of 100 sentences from the TüBa- D/Z, manually annotated in the TIGER as well as in the TüBa-D/Z annotation scheme, and show that even the existence of a parallel subcorpus does not support a straightforward and easy comparison of both annotation schemes.