Cover not available

Article published In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 26:2 (2021) ► pp.187–218

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

Subcategorization frame identification for learner English

ORCiD logo with link | University of Cambridge
 | University of Birmingham
 | University of Cambridge
 | University of Cambridge
Published online: 8 December 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18097.hua
Abstract
As large-scale learner corpora become increasingly available, it is vital that natural language processing (NLP) technology is developed to provide rich linguistic annotations necessary for second language (L2) research. We present a system for automatically analyzing subcategorization frames (SCFs) for learner English. SCFs link lexis with morphosyntax, shedding light on the interplay between lexical and structural information in learner language. Meanwhile, SCFs are crucial to the study of a wide range of phenomena including individual verbs, verb classes and varying syntactic structures. To illustrate the usefulness of our system for learner corpus research and second language acquisition (SLA), we investigate how L2 learners diversify their use of SCFs in text and how this diversity changes with L2 proficiency.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Subcategorization frames and their automatic identification
  • 3.A SCF identification system for learner English
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Method
    • 3.3Training and evaluation
      • 3.3.1Accuracy
      • 3.3.2Error analysis
        • i.Distinction between arguments and adjuncts
        • ii.Prepositional attachment
  • 4.Case study: SCF diversity and L2 proficiency
    • 4.1Design of SCF diversity metrics
      • 4.1.1Basic design
        • i.Repetition
        • ii.Evenness
        • iii.Dispersion
        • iv.Disparity
      • 4.1.2Control for text length
    • 4.2Data selection and statistical analysis method
    • 4.3Results
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (49)
References
Al-Rfou’, R., Perozzi, B., & Skiena, S. (2013). Polyglot: Distributed word representations for multilingual NLP. In J. Hockenmaier & S. Riedel (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (pp. 183–192). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL]
Alexopoulou, T., Michel, M., Murakami, A., & Meurers, D. (2017). Task effects on linguistic complexity and accuracy: A large-scale learner corpus analysis employing natural language processing techniques. Language Learning, 67(S1), 180–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andor, D., Alberti, C., Weiss, D., Severyn, A., Presta, A., Ganchev, K., Petrov, S., & Collins, M. (2016). Globally normalized transition-based neural networks. In K. Erk & N. A. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) (pp. 2442–2452). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aston, G., & Burnard, L. (1998). The BNC Handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, S., Reichart, R., & Korhonen, A. (2014). An unsupervised model for instance level subcategorization acquisition. In A. Moschitti, B. Pang, & W. Daelemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 278–289). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL].
Berger, A. L., Pietra, V. J. Della, & Pietra, S. A. Della. (1996). A maximum entropy approach to natural language processing. Computational Linguistics, 22(1), 39–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boguraev, B., & Briscoe, T. (1987). Large lexicons for natural language processing: Utilising the grammar coding system of LDOCE. Computational Linguistics, 13(3–4), 203–218.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Briscoe, T., & Carroll, J. (1997). Automatic extraction of subcategorization from corpora. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing (pp. 356–363). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL].
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charniak, E., & Johnson, M. (2005). Coarse-to-fine n-best parsing and MaxEnt discriminative reranking. In K. Knight, H. T. Ng, & K. Oflazer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 173–180). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL].
Chen, X., & Meurers, D. (2019). Linking text readability and learner proficiency using linguistic complexity feature vector distance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(4), 418–447. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Covington, M. A., & McFall, J. D. (2010). Cutting the Gordian Knot: The Moving-Average Type–Token Ratio (MATTR). Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 17(2), 94–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Marneffe, M.-C., & Manning, C. D. (2008). The Stanford typed dependencies representation. In J. Bos, E. Briscoe, A. Cahill, J. Carroll, S. Clark, A. Copestake, D. Flickinger, J. van Genabith, J. Hockenmaier, A. Joshi, R. Kaplan, T. Holloway King, S. Kuebler, D. Lin, J. T. Lønning, C. Manning, Y. Miyao, J. Nivre, S. Oepen, …, Y. Zhang (Eds.), COLING 2008: Proceedings of the Workshop on Cross-Framework and Cross-Domain Parser Evaluation (pp. 1–8). Coling 2008 Organizing Committee. [URL].
Dušek, O., Hajič, J., & Urešová, Z. (2014). Verbal valency frame detection and selection in Czech and English. In T. Mitamura, E. Hovy, & M. Palmer (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Workshop on EVENTS: Definition, Detection, Coreference, and Representation (pp. 6–11). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geertzen, J., Alexopoulou, T., & Korhonen, A. (2013). Automatic linguistic annotation of large scale L2 databases: The EF-Cambridge Open Language Database (EFCAMDAT). In R. T. Miller, K. I. Martin, C. M. Eddington, A. Henery, N. M. Miguel, A. Tseng, A. Tuninetti, & D. Walter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Second Language Research Forum: Building Bridges Between Disciplines. Cascadilla Proceedings Project. [URL]
Gerz, D., Vulić, I., Hill, F., Reichart, R., & Korhonen, A. (2016). SimVerb-3500: A large-Scale evaluation set of verb similarity. In J. Su, K. Duh, & X. Carreras (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 2173–2182). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL].
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Berez, A. L. (2017). Linguistic annotation in/for corpus linguistics. In N. Ide & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Handbook of Linguistic Annotation (pp. 379–409). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grishman, R., Macleod, C., & Meyers, A. (1994). COMLEX syntax: Building a computational lexicon. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Computational Linguistics-Volume 1 (pp. 268–272). [URL].
Helbig, G., & Schenkel, W. (1991). Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben [Dictionary of the valency and distribution of German verbs]. VEB Bibliographisches Institut. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Y., Murakami, A., Alexopoulou, T., & Korhonen, A. (2018). Dependency parsing of learner English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(1), 28–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. MIT press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2013). Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning, 63(s1), 87–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kyle, K. (2016). Measuring Syntactic Development in L2 Writing: Fine Grained Indices of Syntactic Complexity and Usage-based Indices of Syntactic Sophistication [Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University]. [URL]
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marcus, M. P., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., & Santorini, B. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 313–330.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meurers, D., Krivanek, J., & Bykh, S. (2013). On the automatic analysis of learner corpora: Native language identification as experimental testbed of language modeling between surface features and linguistic abstraction. In A. A. Sintes & S. V. Hernández (Eds.), Diachrony and Synchrony in English Corpus Studies. Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyers, A., Macleod, C., & Grishman, R. (1996). Standardization of the complement adjunct distinction. In M. Gellerstam, J. Järborg, S.-G. Malmgren, K. Norén, L. Rogström, & C. Röjder Papmehl (Eds.), Proceedings of EURALEX 96 (International Conference on Lexicography). Novum Grafiska AB. [URL]
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. In Y. Bengio & Y. LeCun (Eds.), 1st International Conference on Learning Representations. [URL]
Nicholls, D. (2003). The Cambridge Learner Corpus: Error coding and analysis for lexicography and ELT. In A. Dawn, P. Rayson, A. Wilson, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 Conference (pp. 572–581). UCREL. [URL]
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Preiss, J., Briscoe, T., & Korhonen, A. (2007). A system for large-scale acquisition of verbal, nominal and adjectival subcategorization frames from corpora. In A. Zaenen & A. van den Bosch (Eds.), Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp. 912–919). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL]
Procter, P. (1978). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quochi, V., Frontini, F., Bartolini, R., Hamon, O., Poch, M., Padró, M., Bel, N., Thurmair, G., Toral, A., & Kamram, A. (2014). Third Evaluation Report: Evaluation of PANACEA v3 and Produced Resources. [URL]
Römer, U., O’Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Using COBUILD grammar patterns for a large-scale analysis of verb-argument constructions. In N. Groom, M. Charles, & S. John (Eds.), Corpora, Grammar and Discourse: In Honour of Susan Hunston (pp. 43–72). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Römer, U., Roberson, A., O’Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C. (2014). Linking learner corpus and experimental data in studying second language learners’ knowledge of verb-argument constructions. ICAME Journal, 38(1), 115–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Somers, H. L. (1984). On the validity of the complement-adjunct distinction in valency grammar. Linguistics, 22(4), 507–530. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., Crawford, W., & Wetzel, D. Z. (2013). What linguistic features are indicative of writing quality? A case of argumentative essays in a college composition program. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 420–430. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1965). Eléments de Syntaxe Structurale [Elements of structural syntax]. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tono, Y. (2004). Multiple comparisons of IL, L1 and TL corpora: The case of L2 acquisition of verb subcategorization patterns by Japanese learners of English. In G. Aston, S. Bernardini, & D. Stewart (Eds.), Corpora and Language Learners (pp. 45–66). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue