Mova0.5 pre-release⌕
☰
home / docs / papers / Modern Hebrew / The Hebrew Essay Corpus

The Hebrew Essay Corpus

What it is about

The authors describe a corpus of argumentative essays in Hebrew from applicants to Israeli higher education. It has 1000 essays by native speakers (from the Psychometric Test, 30 minutes, about 329 tokens per essay) and 3000 essays by non-native speakers with three L1s, Arabic, French and Russian (from the YAEL test, 15 minutes, about 140 tokens each). The corpus is tokenised, POS- and dependency-annotated with YAP and in-house tools, and the non-native essays get target-hypothesis corrections. Two annotators corrected 54 essays: they agreed on whether a token was corrected in 93.5% of tokens, but on identical corrections in only 50%. About 1000 of the 3000 non-native essays were annotated at the time. The authors note that the Hebrew script's sparse vowels and attached prepositions make the "orthographic neighbourhood" of a word large, so single-letter errors often give valid words. Classifiers built on the corpus (Nguyen and Wintner 2022) show that L1 and proficiency are recoverable from it.

Ideas

For Mova

I1 and I2 go into 2. Script and spelling and tools/ocrfix (a spelling-correction test). I3 is a reporting rule for any test set built from annotated corrections; the spelling side belongs in 10. Historical layers: Biblical, Mishnaic, Medieval and Modern Hebrew (non-native and historical spelling). The corpus itself is not for building: it is NC and is used only as a measurement, if access is granted.

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.63317/22go5e8wgixe

@inproceedings{gafni2022hebrew,
  title = {{The Hebrew Essay Corpus}},
  author = {Gafni, Chen and Prior, Anat and Wintner, Shuly},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference},
  year = {2022},
  doi = {10.63317/22go5e8wgixe},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.63317/22go5e8wgixe}
}

References

31 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Bergsma, S., Post, M., and Yarowsky, D. (2012). Stylometric analysis of scientific articles. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 327–337. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
  2. Berzak, Y., Reichart, R., and Katz, B. (2015). Contrastive analysis with predictive power: Typology driven estimation of grammatical error distributions in ESL. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 94–102, July. find
  3. Bykh, S. and Meurers, D. (2012). Native language identification using recurring n-grams – investigating abstraction and domain dependence. In Proceedings of COLING 2012, pages 425–440, Mumbai, India, December. find
  4. Dabrowska, E. (2018). Experience, aptitude and individual differences in native language ultimate attainment. Cognition, 178:222–235. find
  5. De Knop, S. and Meunier, F. (2015). The ‘learner corpus research, cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition’ nexus: a SWOT analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11(1):1–18. find
  6. Durrant, P. and Schmitt, N. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47(2):157–177. find
  7. Estival, D., Gaustad, T., Pham, S. B., Radford, W., and Hutchinson, B. (2007). Author profiling for English emails. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 263–272. find
  8. Fabri, R., Gasser, M., Habash, N., Kiraz, G., and Wintner, S. (2014). Linguistic introduction: The orthography, morphology and syntax of Semitic languages. In Imed Zitouni, editor, Natural Language Processing of Semitic Languages, Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing, pages 3–41. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg. find
  9. Gafni, C. (2015). Child phonology analyzer: processing and analyzing transcribed speech. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pages 1–5. The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS. find
  10. Gilquin, G. and Paquot, M. (2008). Too chatty: Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction, 1(1):41–61. find
  11. Gilquin, G. (2008). Combining contrastive and interlanguage analysis to apprehend transfer: detection, explanation, evaluation. In Gaëtanelle Gilquin, et al., editors, Linking Up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, volume 66 of Language and computers, pages 3–33. Rodopi, Amsterdam. find
  12. Goldin, G., Rabinovich, E., and Wintner, S. (2018). Native language identification with user generated content. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3591–3601. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
  13. Sylviane Granger, et al., editors. (2015). The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. find
  14. Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In K. Aijmer, et al., editors, Languages in contrast. Text-based cross-linguistic studies, pages 37–51. Lund University Press, Lund. find
  15. Granger, S. (2002). A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research. In Sylviane Granger, editor, Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching, volume 6 of Language learning and language teaching, pages 3–33. Benjamins, Amsterdam. find
  16. Granger, S. (2015). Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1):7–24. find
  17. Gries, S. T. and Deshors, S. C. (2015). EFL and/vs. ESL. a multi-level regression modelling on bridging the paradigm gap. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1):130–159. find
  18. Gries, S. T. (2008). Corpus-based methods in analyses of second language acquisition data. In Peter Robinson et al., editors, Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, pages 406–431. Routledge. find
  19. Gries, S. T. (2015). Statistics for learner corpus research. In Sylviane Granger, et al., editors, The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, pages 159–181. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. find
  20. Hirschmann, H., Lüdeling, A., Rehbein, I., Reznicek, M., and Zeldes, A. (2013). Underuse of syntactic categories in Falko. a case study on modification. In Sylviane Granger, et al., editors, 20 Years of Learner Corpus Research. Looking Back, Moving Ahead., pages 223–234. Presses Universitaires de Louvain, Louvain la Neuve. find
  21. Koppel, M., Schler, J., and Zigdon, K. (2005). Determining an author’s native language by mining a text for errors. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery in data mining, pages 624–628. ACM. find
  22. Krause, T. and Zeldes, A. (2014). ANNIS3: A new architecture for generic corpus query and visualization. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. find
  23. Krause, T., Leser, U., and Lüdeling, A. (2017). graphANNIS: A fast query engine for deeply annotated linguistic corpora. Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics. Special Issue on Korpuslinguistische Softwarewerkzeuge, 31(1):1–25. find
  24. More, A., Seker, A., Basmova, V., and Tsarfaty, R. (2019). Joint transition-based models for morphosyntactic parsing: Parsing strategies for MRLs and a case study from Modern Hebrew. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:33–48, March. find
  25. Nguyen, I. and Wintner, S. (2022). Predicting the proficiency level of nonnative Hebrew authors. In Proceedings of LREC-2022, June. find our card
  26. Reznicek, M., Lüdeling, A., and Hirschmann, H. (2013). Competing target hypotheses in the Falko corpus: A flexible multi-layer corpus architecture. In Ana Dı́az-Negrillo, et al., editors, Automatic Treatment and Analysis of Learner Corpus Data, pages 101–124. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. find
  27. Tetreault, J., Blanchard, D., and Cahill, A. (2013). A report on the first native language identification shared task. In Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop on Building Educational Applications Using NLP. Association for Computational Linguistics, June. find
  28. Tomokiyo, L. M. and Jones, R. (2001). You’re not from ’round here, are you?: naive Bayes detection of non-native utterance text. In Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1– 8. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
  29. Tono, Y. (2003). Learner corpora: Design, development and applications. In Dawn Archer, et al., editors, Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 Conference, pages 800–809, Lancaster University. University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language. find
  30. Tsvetkov, Y., Twitto, N., Schneider, N., Ordan, N., Faruqui, M., Chahuneau, V., Wintner, S., and Dyer, C. (2013). Identifying the L1 of non-native writers: the CMU-Haifa system. In Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pages 279–287. Association for Computational Linguistics, June. find
  31. Vyatkina, N., Hirschmann, H., and Golcher, F. (2015). Syntactic modification at early stagesof L2 German writing development: A longitudinal learner corpus study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29:28– 50, September. find

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/lingbulk-2022-gafni-hebrew-essay-corpus/