The contributions of NLP to the readability of the French as foreign language;Les apports du TAL à la lisibilité du français langue étrangère

TAL Traitement Automatique des Langues

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 171-200

  François, Thomas ^a   Fairon, Cédrick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Difficulty of texts; Natural language processing; Readability of FFL

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886633772     PISSN: 12489433     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Agresti A., Categorical Data Analysis. 2nd edition, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 2002.
2. Aluisio S., Specia L., Gasperin C., Scarton C., « Readability assessment for text simplification », Fifth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, Los Angeles, p. 1-9, 2010.
3. Andrews S., « The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval : Resolving neighborhood conflicts », Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol. 4, no 4, p. 439-461, 1997.
4. Bahns J., Eldaw M., « Should We Teach EFL Students Collocations ? », System, vol. 21, no 1, p. 101-14, 1993.
5. Berthet A., Hugot C., Kizirian V., Sampsonis B.,WaendendriesM., Alter Ego 1, Hachette, Paris, 2006a.
6. Berthet A., Hugt C., Kizirian V., Sampsonis B.,WaendendriesM., Alter Ego 2, Hachette, Paris, 2006b.
7. Bormuth J., « Readability : A new approach », Reading research quarterly, vol. 1, no 3, p. 79- 132, 1966.
8. Boser B., Guyon I., Vapnik V., « A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers », Proceedings of the fifth annual workshop on Computational learning theory, p. 144-152, 1992.
9. Bowers J., « In defense of abstractionist theories of repetition priming and word identification », Psychonomic bulletin and review, vol. 7, no 1, p. 83-99, 2000.
10. Breiman L., « Bagging predictors », Machine learning, vol. 24, no 2, p. 123-140, 1996.
11. Breiman L., Friedman H., Olsen R., Stone J., Classification and regression trees, Chapman & Hall, New York, 1984.
12. Carrell P., « The effects of rhtorical organization on ESL readers », TESOL quarterly, vol. 18, no 3, p. 441-469, 1984.
13. Chall J., Dale E., Readability Revisited : The New Dale-Chall Readability Formula, Brookline Books, Cambridge, 1995.
14. Chen S., Goodman J., « An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling », Computer Speech and Language, vol. 13, no 4, p. 359-393, 1999.
15. Collins-Thompson K., Callan J., « A language modeling approach to predicting reading difficulty », Proceedings of HLT/NAACL 2004, Boston, USA, p. 193-200, 2004.
16. Collins-Thompson K., Callan J., « Predicting reading difficulty with statistical language models », Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 56, no 13, p. 1448-1462, 2005.
17. Coltheart M., Davelaar E., Jonasson T., Besner D., « Access to the internal lexicon », in S. Dornic (ed.), Attention and Performance VI, Academic Press, London, p. 535-555, 1977.
18. Conseil de l'Europe ., Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues, 2001.
19. Cornaire C., « La lisibilité : essai d'application de la formule courte d'Henry au français langue étrangére », Canadian Modern Language Review, vol. 44, no 2, p. 261-273, 1988.
20. Dale E., Chall J., « A formula for predicting readability », Educational research bulletin, vol. 27, no 1, p. 11-28, 1948.
21. Dale E., Tyler R., « A study of the factors influencing the difficulty of reading materials for adults of limited reading ability », The Library Quarterly, vol. 4, p. 384-412, 1934.
22. Daoust F., Laroche L., Ouellet L., « SATO-CALIBRAGE : Présentation d'un outil d'assistance au choix et á la rédaction de textes pour l'enseignement », Revue québécoise de linguistique, vol. 25, no 1, p. 205-234, 1996.
23. Feng L., Elhadad N., Huenerfauth M., « Cognitively motivated features for readability assessment », Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, p. 229-237, 2009.
24. Feng L., Jansche M., Huenerfauth M., Elhadad N., « A Comparison of Features for Automatic Readability Assessment », COLING 2010 : Poster Volume, p. 276-284, 2010.
25. Flesch R., «A new readability yardstick », Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 32, no 3, p. 221- 233, 1948.
26. Foltz P., Kintsch W., Landauer T., « The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis », Discourse processes, vol. 25, no 2, p. 285-307, 1998.
27. François T., « Combining a statistical language model with logistic regression to predict the lexical and syntactic difficulty of texts for FFL », Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the EACL : Student Research Workshop, p. 19-27, 2009a.
28. François T., «Modéles statistiques pour l'estimation automatique de la difficulté de textes de FLE », 11e Rencontre des Étudiants Chercheurs en Informatique pour le Traitement Automatique des Langues, 2009b.
29. François T., « La lisibilité computationnelle : un renouveau pour la lisibilité du français langue premiére et seconde ? », International Journal of Applied Linguistics (ITL), vol. 160, p. 75- 99, 2011a.
30. François T., Les apports du traitement automatique du langage á la lisibilité du français langue étrangére, PhD thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain, 2011b
31. Thesis Supervisors : Cédrick Fairon and Anne Catherine Simon. François T., Miltsakaki E., « Do NLP and machine learning improve traditional readability formulas ? », Proceedings of the 2012 Workshop on Predicting and improving text readability for target reader populations (PITR2012), 2012.
32. François T., Watrin P., « On the contribution of MWE-based features to a readability formula for French as a foreign language », Proceedings of the International Conference RANLP 2011, 2011.
33. Fry E., « A readability formula that saves time », Journal of reading, vol. 11, no 7, p. 513-578, 1968.
34. Gale W., Sampson G., « Good-Turing frequency estimation without tears », Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, vol. 2, no 3, p. 217-237, 1995.
35. Galley M., McKeown K., « Improving word sense disambiguation in lexical chaining », International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 18, p. 1486-1488, 2003.
36. Gillie P., « A simplified formula for measuring abstraction in writing. », Journal of applied psychology, vol. 41, no 4, p. 214-217, 1957.
37. Gougenheim G., Michéa R., Rivenc P., Sauvageot A., L'élaboration du français fondamental (1er degré), Didier, Paris, 1964.
38. Graesser A., McNamara D., Louwerse M., Cai Z., « Coh-Metrix : Analysis of text on cohesion and language », Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, vol. 36, no 2, p. 193-202, 2004.
39. Greenfield J., « Readability formulas for EFL », Japan Association for Language Teaching, vol. 26, no 1, p. 5-24, 2004.
40. Guilford J., Fundamental statistics in psychology and education, McGraw-Hill, New-York, 1965.
41. Heilman M., Collins-Thompson K., Callan J., Eskenazi M., « Combining lexical and grammatical features to improve readability measures for first and second language texts », Proceedings of NAACL HLT, p. 460-467, 2007.
42. Heilman M., Collins-Thompson K., Eskenazi M., « An analysis of statistical models and features for reading difficulty prediction », Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. The 3rd Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, p. 1-8, 2008.
43. Henry G., Comment mesurer la lisibilité, Labor, 1975.
44. Howell D., Méthodes statistiques en sciences humaines, 6e édition, De Boeck, Bruxelles, 2008.
45. Howes D., Solomon R., « Visual duration threshold as a function of word probability », Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 41, no 40, p. 1-4, 1951.
46. Johnson G., « An objective method of determining reading difficulty », The Journal of Educational Research, vol. 21, no 4, p. 283-287, 1930.
47. Kandel L.,Moles A., « Application de l'indice de Flesch á la langue française », Cahiers Études de Radio- Télévision, vol. 19, p. 253-274, 1958.
48. Kate R., Luo X., Patwardhan S., FranzM., Florian R.,Mooney R., Roukos S.,Welty C., « Learning to predict readability using diverse linguistic features », Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), p. 546-554, 2010.
49. Kemper S., «Measuring the inference load of a text. », Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 75, no 3, p. 391-401, 1983.
50. Kincaid J., Fishburne R., Rodgers R., Chissom B., « Derivation of new readability formulas for navy enlisted personnel », Research Branch Report, 1975.
51. Kintsch W., Kozminsky E., Streby W., McKoon G., Keenan J., « Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables1 », Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, vol. 14, no 2, p. 196-214, 1975.
52. Kintsch W., Mandel T., Kozminsky E., « Summarizing scrambled stories. », Memory & Cognition, vol. 5, p. 547-552, 1977.
53. Kintsch W., Vipond D., « Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory », in L. Nilsson (ed.), Perspectives on Memory Research, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, p. 329-365, 1979.
54. Koda K., Insights into second language reading : A cross-linguistic approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.
55. Krashen S., «We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading : Additional evidence for the input hypothesis », The Modern Language Journal, vol. 73, no 4, p. 440-464, 1989.
56. Lee H., Gambette P., Maillé E., Thuillier C., « Densidées : calcul automatique de la densité des idées dans un corpus oral », Actes de la 12e Rencontre des Étudiants Chercheurs en Informatique pour le Traitement Automatique des langues (RECITAL), 2010.
57. Lively B., Pressey S., « A method for measuring the "vocabulary burden" of textbooks », Educational Administration and Supervision, vol. 9, p. 389-398, 1923.
58. Lorge I., « Predicting readability », the Teachers College Record, vol. 45, no 6, p. 404-419, 1944.
59. Lupker S., «Visual word recognition : Theories and findings », inM. Snowling, C. Hulme (eds), The science of reading : A handbook, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, p. 39-60, 2005.
60. McClusky H., « A Quantitative Analysis of the Difficulty of Reading Materials », The Journal of Educational Research, vol. 28, p. 276-282, 1934.
61. Mesnager J., « La lisibilité dans la littérature enfantine », Les actes de lecture, vol. 13, p. 31-39, 1986.
62. Meyer B., « Reading research and the composition teacher : The importance of plans », College composition and communication, vol. 33, no 1, p. 37-49, 1982.
63. Michel J., Shen Y., Aiden A., Veres A., Gray M., Team T. G. B., Pickett J., Hoiberg D., Clancy D., Norvig P., Orwant J., Pinker S., Nowak M., Aiden E., « Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books », Science, vol. 331, no 6014, p. 176-182, 2011.
64. Miller J., Kintsch W., « Readability and recall of short prose passages : A theoretical analysis », Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Learning and Memory, vol. 6, no 4, p. 335- 354, 1980.
65. Monsell S., « The nature and locus of word frequency effects in reading », in D. Besner, G. Humphreys (eds), Basic processes in reading : Visual word recognition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, p. 148-197, 1991.
66. Myers J., ShinjoM., Duffy S., «Degree of causal relatedness and memory », Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 26, no 4, p. 453-465, 1987.
67. Nelson J., Perfetti C., Liben D., Liben M., Measures of text difficulty : Testing their predictive value for grade levels and student performance, Technical report, Technical report, The Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012.
68. New B., Brysbaert M., Veronis J., Pallier C., « The use of film subtitles to estimate word frequencies », Applied Psycholinguistics, vol. 28, no 04, p. 661-677, 2007.
69. O'Connor R., Bell K., Harty K., Larkin L., Sackor S., Zigmond N., « Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate grades : A comparison of text difficulty », Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 94, no 3, p. 474-485, 2002.
70. Ozasa T., Weir G., Fukui M., «Measuring readability for Japanese learners of English », Proceedings of the 12th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 2007.
71. Pitler E., Nenkova A., « Revisiting readability : A unified framework for predicting text quality », Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, p. 186-195, 2008.
72. Prasad R., Dinesh N., Lee A., Miltsakaki E., Robaldo L., Joshi A., Webber B., « The penn discourse treebank 2.0 », Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), p. 2961-2968, 2008.
73. Redish J., Selzer J., « The place of readability formulas in technical communication », Technical communication, vol. 32, no 4, p. 46-52, 1985.
74. Reitsma P., « Reading practice for beginners : Effects of guided reading, reading-whilelistening, and independent reading with computer-based speech feedback », Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 23, no 2, p. 219-235, 1988.
75. Schapire R., Freund Y., « A decision theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting », Journal Computer and System Sciences, vol. 55, p. 119-139, 1997.
76. Schlesinger I., Sentence structure and the reading process, Mouton, The Hague, 1968.
77. Schmid H., « Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees », Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, vol. 12, Manchester, UK, 1994.
78. Schwarm S., Ostendorf M., « Reading level assessment using support vector machines and statistical language models », Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, p. 523-530, 2005.
79. Si L., Callan J., « A statistical model for scientific readability », Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, ACMNew York, NY, USA, p. 574-576, 2001.
80. Smith E., « Devereaux readability index », The Journal of Educational Research, vol. 54, no 8, p. 289-303, 1961.
81. Stenner A., « Measuring reading comprehension with the lexile framework », Fourth North American Conference on Adolescent/Adult Literacy, 1996.
82. Taylor W., « Cloze procedure : A new tool for measuring readability », Journalism quarterly, vol. 30, no 4, p. 415-433, 1953.
83. Tharp J., « The Measurement of Vocabulary Difficulty », The Modern Language Journal, vol. 24, no 3, p. 169-178, 1939.
84. Tufféry S., Data mining et statistique décisionnelle l'intelligence des données, Éd. Technip, Paris, 2007.
85. Uitdenbogerd S., « Readability of French as a foreign language and its uses », Proceedings of the Australian Document Computing Symposium, p. 19-25, 2005.
86. van Oosten P., Hoste V., Tanghe D., « A Posteriori Agreement as a Quality Measure for Readability Prediction Systems », in A. Gelbukh (ed.), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, vol. 6609 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg, p. 424-435, 2011.
87. Vitu F., O'Regan J., Mittau M., « Optimal landing position in reading isolated words and continuous text », Perception & Psychophysics, vol. 47, no 6, p. 583-600, 1990.
88. Vogel M., Washburne C., « An objective method of determining grade placement of children's reading material », The Elementary School Journal, vol. 28, no 5, p. 373-381, 1928.
89. Witten I., Frank E., Data Mining : Practical machine learning tools and techniques, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 2005.