On the performance of modern digital grammar checkers for native and second language learners
A study of gender marking in French
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.
Keywords: L1 acquisition, L2 acquisition, French, gender marking, grammar checkers
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: 07 June 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.18009.bri
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.18009.bri
Full-text
On the performance of modern digital grammar checkers for native and second language learnersReferences
References
Antidote (versienummer 10): Digitale spelling- en grammaticachecker voor Engels en Frans
Montréal: Druide Informatique. https://www.antidote.info/en/antidote-10/french-module
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. 
Bartning, I.
(2000) Gender agreement in L2 French: Pre-advanced vs. advanced learners. Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 225–237.
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 Unpublished master’s thesis, K.U. Leuven.
BonPatron: Online spelling- en grammaticachecker voor Frans
Alberta: Nadaclair Language Technologies inc. https://bonpatron.com/
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.
(2018) Persistent grammatical writing errors of L1 and L2 learners of French: Analysis and remedy. Amsterdam: VU University Press.
Burston, J.
(1998) Review of Antidote 98. CALICO Journal, 16(2), 197–212.
(2008) BonPatron: An online, spelling, grammar and expression checker. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 337–347.
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.
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 http://tesl-ej.org/ej43/a3.pdf
Ellis, R.
(2001) Investigating form-focused instruction In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 1–46). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gueutal, H. G.
(1989) Utilizing high technology: Computer-aided design and user performance. Information and Management 17(1), 13–21.
Heift, T., & Schulze, M.
(2007) Errors and Intelligence in Computer-Assisted Language Learning. New York, Routeledge.
Jacobs, G., & Rodgers, C.
(1999) Treacherous allies: Foreign language grammar checkers. Calico Journal, 16(4), 509–530.
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.
Naber, D.
(2003) A rule-based style and grammar checker. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bielefeld, Germany.
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.
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.
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processablity theory. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing.
Scribens: Online spelling- en grammaticachecker voor Frans
Montpellier: Thiebaut Alban. https://www.scribens.fr/
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.
Vernon, A.
(2000) Computerized grammar checkers 2000: Capabilities, limitations, and pedagogical possibilities. Computers and Composition, 20(3), 329–349.
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.
Zhao, Y.
(2003) Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. Calico Journal, 21(1), 7–27.