Cover not available

Article published In: Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 8:2 (2019) ► pp.228–247

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

On the performance of modern digital grammar checkers for native and second language learners

A study of gender marking in French

ORCiD logo with link | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 7 June 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.18009.bri
Abstract
In this study we conducted an experiment aiming to compare the performance of language learners and digital grammar checkers at supplying gender marking in French. A set of test items exhibiting typical gender marking configurations was submitted to three grammar checkers for French (Antidote, Scribens and BonPatron). The outcomes were compared to those of native speakers and second language learners of French at a B1 level.
The results revealed that only Antidote and Scribens outperformed both native speakers and second language learners of French in adjective-noun and fronted noun-past participle agreement constructions. An opposite pattern, however, appeared for clitic-past participle constructions for which native speakers outperformed Antidote and Scribens.
We thus conclude that from the three grammar checkers under investigation, Antidote and Scribens might be effective to improve the native speakers’ and second language learners’ awareness of gender marking errors, but only in adjective-noun and fronted noun-past participle agreement constructions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Main aim and research question
  • 3.The detection of errors by grammar checkers
    • 3.1Types of grammar checkers
    • 3.2French grammar checkers: Antidote, BonPatron and Scribens
  • 4.The effect of digital writing programs on language acquisition
  • 5.Gender marking in French
  • 6.The experiment
    • 6.1Method
      • 6.1.1Participants in Bril (2016)
      • 6.1.2Materials
        • Native speakers’ task
        • Second language learners’ task
      • 6.1.3Procedure
      • 6.1.4Analysis
    • 6.2Results
    • 6.3Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (26)
References
Antidote (versienummer 10): Digitale spelling- en grammaticachecker voor Engels en Frans. Montréal: Druide Informatique. [URL]
Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational research, 63(1), 69–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartning, I. (2000). Gender agreement in L2 French: Pre-advanced vs. advanced learners. Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 225–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biesemans, K. (2005). Les correcteurs d’orthographe et leur utilité didactique: Analyse de productions d’apprenants de FLE. Unpublished master’s thesis, K.U. Leuven.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
BonPatron: Online spelling- en grammaticachecker voor Frans. Alberta: Nadaclair Language Technologies inc. [URL]
Bril, M. (2016). Syntactic complexity and inflections in the written production of L1 and L2 French. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, XVIII (2), 99–114.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Persistent grammatical writing errors of L1 and L2 learners of French: Analysis and remedy. Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burston, J. (1998). Review of Antidote 98. CALICO Journal, 16(2), 197–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). BonPatron: An online, spelling, grammar and expression checker. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 337–347.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, C. F. E., & Cheng, W. Y. E. C. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 94–112.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2000). An unsupervised method for detecting grammatical errors. Paper presented at the 1st Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Seattle, USA.
Chuo, T. W. I. (2007). The effects of the WebQuest Writing Instruction Program on EFL learners’ writing performance, writing apprehension and perception. TESL-EJ, 11(3). Available from [URL]
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 1–46). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gueutal, H. G. (1989). Utilizing high technology: Computer-aided design and user performance. Information and Management 17(1), 13–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heift, T., & Schulze, M. (2007). Errors and Intelligence in Computer-Assisted Language Learning. New York, Routeledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, G., & Rodgers, C. (1999). Treacherous allies: Foreign language grammar checkers. Calico Journal, 16(4), 509–530. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jensen, K. (1993). PEG: the PLNLP English Grammar. In K. Jensen, G. E. Heidorn, & S. D. Richardson (Eds.), Natural Language Processing: The PLNLP Approach (pp. 29–45). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Naber, D. (2003). A rule-based style and grammar checker. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bielefeld, Germany.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nadasdi, T. & Sinclair, S. (2007). Anything I can do, CPU can do better: A comparison of human and computer grammar correction for L2 writing using Bonpatron.com. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved Sept, 1, 2010.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, J. C., Palmer, M., & Washburn, G. (1997). An English grammar checker as a writing aid for students of English as a second language. Proceedings of the Conference of Applied Natural Language Processing (ANLP), Washington, DC. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scribens: Online spelling- en grammaticachecker voor Frans. Montpellier: Thiebaut Alban. [URL]
Teixeira Martins, R., Hasegawa, R., Graças Volpe Nunes, M. das, Montilha, G., & Novais de Oliveira, O. (1998). Linguistic issues in the development of ReGra: A grammar checker for Brazilian Portuguese. Natural Language Engineering, 4(4), 287–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vernon, A. (2000). Computerized grammar checkers 2000: Capabilities, limitations, and pedagogical possibilities. Computers and Composition, 20(3), 329–349. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Y. J., Shang, H.-F., & Briody, P. (2013). Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 234–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. Calico Journal, 21(1), 7–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Shadiev, Rustam & Yingying Feng
2023. Using automated corrective feedback tools in language learning: a review study. Interactive Learning Environments ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue