DOCSLIB.ORG

Launching a Constraint Grammar Tool for North Sámi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Launching a Constraint Grammar Tool for North Sámi Many shades of grammar checking – Launching a Constraint Grammar tool for North Sámi Linda Wiechetek [email protected] Sjur Moshagen [email protected] Børre Gaup [email protected] Thomas Omma [email protected] Divvun UiT Norgga árktalaš universitehta 1 Introduction language community. The released grammar checker is a light gram- This paper discusses the characteristics and evalu- mar checker in the sense that it detects and corrects ation of the very first North Sámi spell- and gram- errors that do not require rearranging the whole mar checker. At its launch it supports LibreOf- sentence, but typically just one or several adjacent fice, MS Word and GoogleDocs. We describe word forms based on a grammatical analysis of its component parts, the technology used such as the sentence. Additionally, a number of format- Constraint Grammar (Karlsson, 1990; Karlsson ting errors are covered. The main new features et al., 1995; Bick and Didriksen, 2015) and Hfst- are implemented by means of several Constraint pmatch (Hardwick et al., 2015) and its evaluation Grammar-based modules. These include correc- with a new evaluation tool specifically designed tion of formatting and punctuation errors, filtering for that purpose. of speller suggestions, much improved tokenisa- Only the modules of the full-scale grammar tion and sentence boundary detection, as well as checker described in Wiechetek (2017) that have advanced compound error analysis and correction. been tested and improved sufficiently for the pub- This paper shows how a finite-state based lic to use are released in this launch. More spellchecker can be upgraded to a much more advanced syntactic errors will be included at powerful spelling and grammar checking tool by a later stage. The grammar checker modules adding several Constraint Grammar modules. are an enhancement to an existing North Sámi spellchecker (Gaup et al., 2006), following a phi- 2 Framework losophy of release early, release often, and using An open-source spelling checker for North Sámi continuous integration (ci) and continuous deliv- has been freely distributed since 2007, the be- ery (cd) to deliver updates with new error correc- ginnings of which have been described by Gaup tion types, as new parts of the grammar checker et al. (2006). The tool discussed in this paper are sufficiently tested. Releasing at an early stage includes the open-source spelling checker refer- of development gives the user community early enced above, but further developed and using the access to improved and much needed tools and al- hfst-based spelling mechanism described in Piri- lows the developers to improve the tools based on nen and Lindén (2014). The spelling checker is the community’s feedback. enhanced with five Constraint Grammar modules, North Sámi is a Uralic language spoken in cf. Figure 1. It should be noted that the spelling Norway, Sweden and Finland by approximately checker is exactly the same as the regular North 25 700 speakers (Simons and Fennig, 2018). Sámi spelling checker used by the language com- These countries have other majority languages, munity, but with the added functionality that all making all Sámi speakers bilingual. Bilingual suggestions are returned to the pipeline with their users frequently face bigger challenges regarding full morphological analysis. The analyses are then literacy in the lesser used language than in the ma- used by subsequent Constraint Grammar rules dur- jority language due to reduced access to language ing disambiguation and suggestion filtering. arenas (Outakoski, 2013; Lindgren et al., 2016). All components are compiled and built using Therefore, tools that support literacy, like spelling the Giella infrastructure (Moshagen et al., 2013). and grammar checkers, are more important in a Five constraint grammar modules, i.e. a va- minority language community than in a majority lency grammar (valency.cg3), a tokenizer (mwe- Figure 1: System architecture of the North Sámi grammar checker dis.cg3) and a morpho-syntactic disambiguator Sámi, but can directly be used by any language (grc-disambiguator.cg3), a disambiguation mod- in the Giella system, e.g. other Sámi languages ule for spellchecker suggestions (spellchecker.cg3) as well as any other language. Presently there is and a module for more advanced grammar check- an early version of a working Faroese grammar ing (grammarchecker-release.cg3) are included in checker in addition to the North Sámi one, and the spelling and grammar checker. initial work has started for a number of the other The current order of the modules has shown Sámi languages. to be the most optimal one for our use and The system does error detection at four differ- has been established during the work with the ent stages of the pipeline. Non-word typos are grammar checker. It follows the principle of marked by means of the spellchecker. Secondly, growing complexity, and information necessary a Constraint Grammar module marks whitespace to subsequent modules is made available to errors in punctuation contexts based on input from them. Valencies for example are used in the the second whitespace analyser. Compound errors disambiguation of compounds, which is why are identified by means of a Constraint Grammar- the module preceeds the multi-word disambigua- based tokenisation disambiguation file. And a tion module. The first whitespace tagging mod- fourth Constraint Grammar module marks quota- ule preceeds other modules because it is used tion errors. to inserts hints about the text structure, such As a tool intended to be used in production by as <firstWordOfParagraph>. Such hints regular users, it targets all types of errors, from must be available early on. The second whites- technical typesetting errors such as wrong quota- pace analyser is applied after the multiword dis- tion marks and faulty use of spaces, via spelling ambiguation, but could be applied later. Its pur- errors to advanced grammatical error detection pose is to tag potentially wrong use of whites- and correction. In the evaluation all of these are pace, and must be added before the final grammar counted as grammar checker errors, as we want to checking module, but any position between the evaluate the overall performance of the tool. The multiword disambiguation and grammar checking only errors not included in the evaluation are those is going to work. Spellchecking is performed be- that we do not target at all (which are quite a few fore disambiguation so that more sentence context in this first beta release). is available to the disambiguator. The sentence in (1) includes a typo (Norgag It should be noted that we do not use a guesser should be Norgga ‘Norway’ (Gen.)), a space er- for out-of-vocabulary words. A major part of new ror (before ‘.’) and a compound error (iskkadan words are formed using productive morphology of bargguin should be iskkadanbargguin) ‘survey’ the language, like compounding and derivation, (Loc. Pl.). In addition, there is a congruence er- both of which are encoded in the morphological ror, i.e. dáid (Gen. Pl.) ‘these’ should be dáin analyser. Also, the lexicon is constantly being up- (Loc. Pl.), i.e. it should agree in case and num- dated, so that proper nouns and other potential out- ber with iskkadan bargguin. The launched gram- of-vocabulary words will quickly be covered. As mar checker can detect the first three errors, but updates are made available frequently, this should not the last one, since syntactic error rules are not be a major issue for users. not included in this initial launch of the grammar The infrastructure is not only valid for North checker. (1) Oktiibuot 13 Norgag doaktára leat sults for correcting both, spelling and compound- altogether 13 Norway.GEN doctor.GEN have ing errors are the following: precision is 90.8% leamaš mielde dáid and recall is 86.8%. been with these.GEN iskkadan bargguin_. As opposed to the evaluation done in Wiechetek testing work.LOC.PL et al. (2019), this evaluation will be automatic and ‘Altogether 13 Norwegian doctors have based on an evaluation corpus. This is meaning- participated in these surveys.’ ful as the error corrections intended in this launch typically include a limited amount of adjacent The whitespace analyser detects an erroneous word forms, which is relatively straightforward. space before ‘.’ The suggested correction is Reference-less approaches as proposed in Napoles "<iskkadan bargguin.>". The tokenisation disam- et al. (2016) are not an option as they require pre- biguation module detects the compound error and existing and independently developed tools that suggests iskkadanbargu+N+Sg+Com = iskkadan- are sensitive to grammatical errors, a luxury not bargguin. The tokeniser is used to disambiguate available to most minority languages. between syntactically related n-grams and mis- A part of the North Sámi SIKOR cor- spelled compounds, where the misspelling is an pus (SIKOR2016) containing error mark-up for erroneous space at the word boundaries. orthographical and grammatical errors is used as This module is clearly checking more than the evaluation corpus. It consists of 181 512 spelling conventions, i.e. grammar, as writing, words. SIKOR is split in one part that contains for example, two consecutive nouns as one or two publicly available texts, and one part that contains words has syntactic implications. Such noun-noun texts that cannot be redistributed.1 The genres rep- combinations do not necessarily need to be com- resented in the evaluation corpus are news, blogs, pounds even if the first element is in nominative and teaching materials.2 case. They can also be syntactically related as in We evaluate the output of the launched grammar the agent construction in ex. (2) where addin ‘giv- checker tool against a reference text that is manu- ing’ is a (nominalized) non-finite verb that modi- ally marked for spelling errors (only non-words), fies the second noun, vuod¯du¯ ‘basis’.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NLP Commercialisation in the Last 25 Years
    Natural Language Engineering (2019), 25, pp. 419–426 doi:10.1017/S1351324919000135 Anniversary INDUSTRY WATCH NLP commercialisation in the last 25 years Robert Dale∗ Language Technology Group ∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Abstract The Journal of Natural Language Engineering is now in its 25th year. The editorial preface to the first issue emphasised that the focus of the journal was to be on the practical application of natural language processing (NLP) technologies: the time was ripe for a serious publication that helped encourage research ideas to find their way into real products. The commercialisation of NLP technologies had already started by that point, but things have advanced tremendously over the last quarter-century. So, to celebrate the journal’s anniversary, we look at how commercial NLP products have developed over the last 25 years. 1. Some context For many researchers, work in natural language processing (NLP) has a dual appeal. On the one hand, the computational modelling of language understanding or language production has often been seen as means of exploring theoretical questions in both linguistics and psycholinguistics; the general argument being that, if you can build a computational model of some phenomenon, then you have likely moved some way towards an understanding of that phenomenon. On the other hand, the scope for practical applications of NLP technologies has always been enticing: the idea that we could build truly useful computational artifacts that work with human language goes right back to the origins of the field in the early machine translation experiments of the 1950s. However, it was in the early 1990s that commercial applications of NLP really started to flourish, pushed forward in particular by targeted research in both the USA, much of it funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) via programs like the Message Understanding Conferences (MUC), and Europe, via a number of large-scale forward-looking EU-funded research programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellibot: a Domain-Specific Chatbot for the Insurance Industry
    IntelliBot: A Domain-specific Chatbot for the Insurance Industry MOHAMMAD NURUZZAMAN A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy UNSW Canberra at Australia Defence Force Academy (ADFA) School of Business 20 October 2020 ORIGINALITY STATEMENT ‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institute, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’ Signed Date To my beloved parents Acknowledgement Writing a thesis is a great process to review not only my academic work but also the journey I took as a PhD student. I have spent four lovely years at UNSW Canberra in the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA). Throughout my journey in graduate school, I have been fortunate to come across so many brilliant researchers and genuine friends. It is the people who I met shaped who I am today. This thesis would not have been possible without them. My gratitude goes out to all of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Grammar Checker for Hindi and Other Indian Languages
    International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 6, June-2020 1783 ISSN 2229-5518 Grammar Checker for Hindi and Other Indian Languages Anjani Kumar Ray, Vijay Kumar Kaul Center for Information and Language Engineering Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, Wardha (India) Abstract: Grammar checking is one of the sentence is grammatically well-formed. In most widely used techniques within absence of the potential syntactic parsing natural language processing (NLP) approach, incorrect or not-so-well applications. Grammar checkers check the grammatically formed sentences are grammatical structure of sentences based analyzed or produced. The preset paper is on morphological and syntactic an exploratory attempt to devise the hybrid processing. These two steps are important models to identify the grammatical parts of any natural language processing relations and connections of the words to systems. Morphological processing is the phrases to sentences to the extent of step where both lexical words (parts-of- discourse. Language Industry demands speech) and non-word tokens (punctuation such economic programmes doing justice marks, made-up words, acronyms, etc.) are and meeting the expectations of language analyzed into IJSERtheir components. In engineering. syntactic processing, linear sequences of words are transformed into structures that Keywords: Grammar Checking, Language show grammatical relationships among the Engineering, Syntax Processing, POS words in the sentence (Rich and Knight Tagging, Chunking, morphological 1991) and between two or more sentences Analysis joined together to make a compound or complex sentence. There are three main Introduction: Grammar Checker is an approaches/models which are widely used NLP application that helps the user to for grammar checking in a language; write correct sentence in the concerned language.
    [Show full text]
  • Chatbot in English Classrooms Encourage Negotiations of Meaning
    Chatbot in English Classrooms Encourage Negotiations of Meaning Bachelor’s Thesis of Kelvin Louis, 8th Semester [email protected] Nicola Cocquio, 8th Semester [email protected] University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland (FHNW) School of Engineering Computer Science Supervisors Manfred Vogel [email protected] Ivo Nussbaumer [email protected] Brugg-Windisch, 19.03.2019 Abstract Chatbots have become more prevalent in recent years, due to increasing demand as well as improvements in the fields of natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning. Within the field of education research, past studies have rightfully questioned the usefulness of chatbots as means of acquiring a foreign language. A review of the relevant literature shows that the applied chatbots were rule-based and limited to chitchatting in an open-domain. In this thesis we propose an alternate approach to using chatbots in English as a second language (ESL) classrooms. We evaluated the current state of technology to develop a machine learning-based chatbot capable of detecting errors in the students’ language. The chatbot’s domain is confined to interacting with the students in a room reservation roleplay exercise. Prerecorded transcripts of ESL student interactions were used to derive wordings of intents and utterances which served to train and test the chatbot’s machine learning models. Since misspellings are the most common errors in ESL students’ language, a language error detection was introduced into the chatbot’s architecture, providing additional feedback to the students and thereby mitigating repetitive errors. To test the performance of our solution, usability tests and a survey were conducted.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Version of Multilingual Semantic Text Analysis
    V4Design Visual and textual content re-purposing FOR(4) architecture, Design and virtual reality games H2020-779962 D3.3 Basic version of multilingual semantic text analysis Dissemination level: Public Contractual date of delivery: Month 18, 30 June 2019 Actual date of delivery: Month 18, 30 June 2019 Workpackage: WP3 Visual and Textual content analysis Task: T3.2 Entity identification and linking, word sense disambiguation and lexical modelling T3.3 Dependency-based semantic parsing T3.4 Conceptual relation extraction Type: Report Approval Status: Approved Version: 1.2 Number of pages: 64 Filename: D3.3_V4Design_BasicAnalysisTechniques_v1.2.pdf Abstract In this deliverable, we report the advances on the Language Analysis components achieved during the first half of the V4Design project. The components include in particular a multilingual candidate concept detection tool, multilingual dependency parsers, semantic analysers, lexical resources, and a projection of the extracted dependency-based linguistic representations into ontological ones. The information in this document reflects only the author’s views and the European Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. The information in this document is provided as is and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and liability. Page 1 co-funded by the European Union Page 2 D3.3 – V1.2 History Version Date Reason Revised by 0.1 05/04/2019 Creation
    [Show full text]
  • Using a Grammar Checker for Detection Translated English Sentence
    Using a Grammar Checker for Detection Translated English Sentence Nay Yee Lin, Khin Mar Soe, Ni Lar Thein University of Computer Studies, Yangon [email protected], [email protected] Abstract verification of the structure of a sentence and of relations between words (e.g. agreement). Machine Translation Systems expect target Grammar checkers are most often language output to be grammatically correct implemented as a feature of a larger program, within the frame of proper grammatical such as a word processor. Although all major category. In Myanmar-English statistical Open Source word processors offer spell machine translation system, the proposed system checking and grammar checker feature. Such a concerns with the target language model to feature is not available as a separate free program smooth the translated English sentences. Most of either for machine translation. Therefore, our the typical grammar checkers can detect approach is a free program which can be used ungrammatical sentences and seek for what both as a stand-alone grammar checker. error it is. However, they often fail to detect Three methods are widely used for grammar grammar errors for translated English sentence checking in a language; syntax-based checking, such as missing words. Therefore, we intend to statistics-based checking and rule-based develop an ongoing grammar checker for checking. In syntax based grammar checking , English as a second language (ESL). There are each sentence is completely parsed to check the two main tasks in this approach: detecting the grammatical correctness of it. The text is sentence pattern in chunk structure and considered incorrect if the syntactic parsing fails.
    [Show full text]
  • Various Techniques Used for Grammar Checking
    www.ijcait.com International Journal of Computer Applications & Information Technology Vol. 9, Issue I (Special Issue on NLP) 2016 (ISSN: 2278-7720) Various Techniques Used For Grammar Checking Blossom Manchanda Vijay Anant Athavale Sanjeev kumar Sharma Assistant Professor Director Assistant professor Department of CSE Gulzar Group of Institutions DAV University GNDEC Ludhiana Khanna Jalandhar ABSTRACT Grammar checker is one of proofing tool used for syntactic analysis of the text. Various techniques are used for development of grammar checker. These techniques includes rule based technique, statistical based technique and syntax based technique. In this research article, all these three techniques have been discussed. Both advantages and disadvantages of these techniques have also been discussed at the end. Keywords Grammar checker, rule based, statistical technique, syntax based technique 1. INTRODUCTION Grammar checker of a language is a system that detects various grammatical errors in a given text based on the grammar of that particular language, and reports those errors to the user along with a list of helpful suggestions to rectify those errors. It is also expected to provide the error details including the error reason to explain that why a particular error is being dubbed a grammatical error. A grammar checker not only detects grammatical errors, but also suggests possible corrections. Grammar checkers are also part of the fundamental tools line word processor needed for NLP in any language. Till date best supported language in NLP is English. A lot of work has gone into developing sophisticated systems that have gone into widespread use, such as automatic translators, grammar checker and spell checkers.
    [Show full text]
  • Spell Checker in CET Designer
    Linköping University | Department of Computer Science Bachelor thesis, 16 ECTS | Datateknik 2016 | LIU-IDA/LITH-EX-G--16/069--SE Spell checker in CET Designer Rasmus Hedin Supervisor : Amir Aminifar Examiner : Zebo Peng Linköpings universitet SE–581 83 Linköping +46 13 28 10 00 , www.liu.se Upphovsrätt Detta dokument hålls tillgängligt på Internet – eller dess framtida ersättare – under 25 år från publiceringsdatum under förutsättning att inga extraordinära omständigheter uppstår. Tillgång till dokumentet innebär tillstånd för var och en att läsa, ladda ner, skriva ut enstaka kopior för enskilt bruk och att använda det oförändrat för ickekommersiell forskning och för undervisning. Överföring av upphovsrätten vid en senare tidpunkt kan inte upphäva detta tillstånd. All annan användning av dokumentet kräver upphovsmannens medgivande. För att garantera äktheten, säkerheten och tillgängligheten finns lösningar av teknisk och admin- istrativ art. Upphovsmannens ideella rätt innefattar rätt att bli nämnd som upphovsman i den omfattning som god sed kräver vid användning av dokumentet på ovan beskrivna sätt samt skydd mot att dokumentet ändras eller presenteras i sådan form eller i sådant sam- manhang som är kränkande för upphovsmannenslitterära eller konstnärliga anseende eller egenart. För ytterligare information om Linköping University Electronic Press se förlagets hemsida http://www.ep.liu.se/. Copyright The publishers will keep this document online on the Internet – or its possible replacement – for a period of 25 years starting from the date of publication barring exceptional circum- stances. The online availability of the document implies permanent permission for anyone to read, to download, or to print out single copies for his/hers own use and to use it unchanged for non-commercial research and educational purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Many Shades of Grammar Checking – Launching a Constraint Grammar
    Many shades of grammar checking – Launching a Constraint Grammar tool for North Sámi Linda Wiechetek [email protected] Sjur Moshagen [email protected] Børre Gaup [email protected] Thomas Omma [email protected] Divvun UiT Norgga árktalaš universitehta 1 Introduction Version Date Divvun 1.0 (2007-12-12) This paper discusses the characteristics and evalu- Divvun 1.0.1 (2007-12-21) ation of the very first North Sámi spell- and gram- Divvun 1.1 (2008-12-17) mar checker. At its launch it supports MS Word Divvun 2.0 (2010-12-08) and GoogleDocs1, cf. Figure 1. We describe Divvun 2.1 (2011-03-21) its component parts, the technology used, such Divvun 2.2 (2011-11-23) as Constraint Grammar (Karlsson, 1990; Karlsson Divvun 2.3 (2013-02-08) et al., 1995; Bick and Didriksen, 2015) and Hfst- Divvun 2.3 (2013-02-08) pmatch (Hardwick et al., 2015), and its evaluation Divvun 3.0 (2013-06-13) with a new evaluation tool specifically designed Divvun 4.0 (2015-12-17) for that purpose. Divvun 4.0.1 (2016-03-17) Only the modules of the full-scale grammar Divvun 4.1 (2016-12-15) checker described in Wiechetek (2017) that have Divvun 4.2 (2018-12-20) been tested and improved sufficiently for the pub- GramDivvun 1.0 beta (2019-09-27) lic to use are released in this launch. More advanced syntactic errors will be included at Table 1: Divvun release history (2007-2019) a later stage. The grammar checker modules are an enhancement to an existing North Sámi spellchecker (Gaup et al., 2006), following a phi- tools developed by the Divvun group.
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting and Correcting Syntactic Errors in Machine Translation Using Feature-Based Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars
    Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing Vol. 17, No. 4, December 2012, pp. 1-14 1 © The Association for Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing Detecting and Correcting Syntactic Errors in Machine Translation Using Feature-Based Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars Wei-Yun Ma∗, and Kathleen McKeown∗ Abstract Statistical machine translation has made tremendous progress over the past ten years. The output of even the best systems, however, is often ungrammatical because of the lack of sufficient linguistic knowledge. Even when systems incorporate syntax in the translation process, syntactic errors still result. To address this issue, we present a novel approach for detecting and correcting ungrammatical translations. In order to simultaneously detect multiple errors and their corresponding words in a formal framework, we use feature-based lexicalized tree adjoining grammars, where each lexical item is associated with a syntactic elementary tree, in which each node is associated with a set of feature-value pairs to define the lexical item’s syntactic usage. Our syntactic error detection works by checking the feature values of all lexical items within a sentence using a unification framework. In order to simultaneously detect multiple error types and track their corresponding words, we propose a new unification method which allows the unification procedure to continue when unification fails and also to propagate the failure information to relevant words. Once error types and their corresponding words are detected, one is able to correct errors based on a unified consideration of all related words under the same error types. In this paper, we present some simple mechanism to handle part of the detected situations.
    [Show full text]
  • Selected Grand Challenges in Cognitive Science
    Selected Grand Challenges in Cognitive Science Search Engine for the Real World Test Taker Report Generator Reading to Learn Prepared by the MITRE Corporation for DARPA IPTO October 2005 Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. Case Number 05-1218. ©2005-The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. Overview This compilation of Selected Grand Challenges in Cognitive Science includes challenge specifications, briefings, supplemental materials, and FY’06 plans for 4 challenges selected by DARPA IPTO: Search Engine for the Real World, Test Taker, Report Generator, and Reading to Learn. The overview summarizes each challenge and highlights future plans. The rest of the document is divided into individual challenge sections. Each section consists of a summary page and brief descriptions of the attached materials. Search Engine for the Real World: Grand Treasure Hunt Adventure Mobile robots use navigation and visual recognition to discover objects in a real world treasure hunt Participants have 20 minutes to locate a treasure within a house. In order to uncover the identity and location of the treasure, the robot participants will be given hints to find 10 other required objects along the way, some of which may reveal additional clues. In FY’06, we plan to conduct a proof-of-concept treasure hunt to assess challenge feasibility and establish baseline capability. We propose to construct a sample house, implement a communication protocol, and collaborate with UMass Lowell and MITRE robot teams to test and refine. Test Taker: Taking the SAT An autonomous system will take the SAT® and score in the 50th percentile of high school students taking the examination.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Evaluation of Grammar Checkers in Multiple Languages
    Design and evaluation of grammar checkers in multiple languages Antje HELFRICH Bradley MUSIC NLG, Microsoft Corp. NLG, Microsoft Corp. 1 Microsoft Way 1 Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 Redmond, WA 98052 [email protected] [email protected] Abstract This paper describes issues involved in the development of a grammar checker in multiple languages at Microsoft Corporation. Focus is on design (selecting and prioritizing error identification rules) and evaluation (determining product quality). is to create documents as efficiently as possible. Introduction We don’t want to distract, delay or bother people The goal of the project discussed here is to develop with a picky proofing component that points out French, German and Spanish grammar checkers linguistic issues most users don’t care about (even for a broad user base consisting of millions of if we could critique those with high precision1)or Microsoft Word customers – users who create eagerly highlights any “suspicious” sentence with a documents of all types, styles and content, using potential problem. Instead, we focus on critiques various terminology and dialects, and who want that are actually helpful to the majority of users proofing tools that help eliminate mistakes in an from their point of view and support them in their efficient and non-intruding fashion. ultimate goal of creating grammatically clean The fact that the user base is so broad documents efficiently. poses many challenges, among them the questions of which errors are most common among such a Researching the customer diverse set of users, and what types of input the The first step towards determining the feature set is grammar checkers need to be tested and evaluated to describe the target user of the grammar checker.
    [Show full text]