ACL3 Project 2000/1

 

 

 

 

Title: Analysis of Email Tandem Learning

 

 

 

Claire Healy

98284363

 

 

Supervisor: Christine Appel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Contents

 

Section:     Description:                                                                                                                                                                              

1.0                   Introduction                                                                                                                                                                                           

2.0                   Foreign / Second Language Learning                                            

 

3.0                   CALL                                                                                                              

 

4.0                   Tandem Language Learning                                                                 

 

5.0                   Email Tandem Learning                                                                          

5.1                   Advantages of Email Tandem Learning                                  

5.2                   Disadvantages of Email Tandem Learning                           

 

6.0                   NLP and CALL                                                                                              

 

7.0                   Tagging                                                                                                       

 

8.0                   Mini Implementation                                                                                

8.1                   Tools                                                                                                          

8.2                                                       PERL PROGRAM                                                                                                                                              

 

9.0                   Further Developments                                                                       

 

                        Bibliography                                                                                             

                        URLS                                                                                                             

 

                        Appendix A - Text, Input File                                                                

 

                        Appendix B - Code                                                                                               

 

                        Appendix C - Results                                                     

 

 

 

 

                       

1.0    Introduction

 

When I began researching for this project, my main focus was on CALL. I then became interested in Tandem Learning via email, and I believe it to be an important tool for foreign language learners.  Because email tandem learning is still relatively new, and pilot projects between universities are still ongoing, there have not been many tools created to help students using this medium. My main aim of this project was to analyse email tandem learning, and create a useful tool that could be incorporated as part of a tandem site.

 

 

 

 

2.0    Foreign / Second Language Learning

 

Second language learning and foreign language learning are quite similar, but there is a distinction. Foreign language learning normally occurs in the classroom. Second language learning takes place in a natural environment, usually a country where the (second) language is spoken. Second language acquisition implies that acquisition (as opposed to learning) of a language occurs. The process of acquiring the second language occurs in a more natural situation where the language is adopted. Both second and foreign language learning research how language learning occurs and how it best succeeds. Both strive for the best results from their different methods.

 

The use of computers to aid language learning is relatively new. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) - developed in the 1960s – has played and still plays an active role in the language learning process. Second language learning materials and methods have been employed, with the use of the computer, to encourage language learning outside the classroom. But as Levy (1997, page 153) points out, CALL should be regarded as a “tool” in language learning rather than a “tutor”, or a substitute for a teacher. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0    CALL

 

Computer Assisted Language Learning, according to Levy (1997,page 1) is “the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning”. It seeks to employ computers to improve language learning.    

                                                        

CALL is seen as an attractive alternative to traditional methods of language learning and language teaching (Nerbonne, 2001, chapter 36). In the beginning (1960s and ‘70s) CALL was predominantly behaviouristic (“drill and practice”). The computer delivered instructional materials to the student. Its direction changed during the 1970s and ‘80s and CALL reached its second phase, basing itself on the communicative approach to teaching. It moved away from the “drill and kill” method, and focused more on the involvement of student choice, control and interaction.

 

 With the rapid technological developments of the late 1980s and ‘90s, CALL became the focus of two important areas of this technology – Multimedia computers and the Internet. Multimedia, mainly CD-ROMS, opened up a new and exciting field for CALL. It allowed a variety of media (graphics, animation, sound, and video) to present a new method of language learning using the computer. A more authentic learning environment was created, combining listening and seeing (reading, writing, speaking and listening) in a single activity. This new method motivated the students and also allowed them to work and learn at their own pace. Although Multimedia was regarded as an exciting breakthrough with CALL, it did not appeal to all areas of the learning community.  The industrial sector invested in this technology often at considerable expense. Schools and universities also invested in multimedia software, but some were and still are on tight budgets and had uncertain hardware and software infrastructures. Language learners and teachers turned towards the Internet (Warschauer, 1996, page 4). The poor quality of Multimedia material also drew language learners and teachers towards the Internet.

 

Today, the Internet is the most widely used resource in both educational institutions and industrial bodies. The World Wide Web (WWW) can be used to search through millions of files throughout the world, to locate materials such as newspaper articles, radio broadcasts, books etc. With regards to language learning, the Internet is seen as a more efficient and less expensive medium (in comparison to multimedia software). It offers a store of information and resources that teachers can use to expose students to authentic language use (Gitsaki & Taylor, 1999, page 47). The expansion of the Internet has more recently brought with it a wide variety of opportunities for exploitation in the language learning field. This is contributing to the redefining of CALL and opening up new horizons which were barely conceivable a decade ago (Woodin, 1997, page 30).                                                                                            

 

Computer–Mediated Communication (CMC) has existed in primitive form since the 1960s (Warschauer, 1996, page 5), but has only become widespread in the last decade, thanks to the Internet and the widespread availability of the Personal Computer (PC). Taking all computer applications to date into account, it has probably had the greatest impact on language learning and teaching. The use of electronic mail (e-mail)/chat is one of the most efficient methods of communication. It has become a reliable means of communication in everyday life in the last five years. E-mail has widened the scope for language learners and become an important tool in today’s methods of language teaching and learning.  

 
 
 
 
4.0    Tandem Language Learning

 

Tandem learning developed firstly as face-to-face meetings between learners with different mother tongues, both of whom wanted to learn the other’s native language. Learners teamed up with a native speaker, such as an exchange student, and learned each other’s language, while being supported by a framework of counselling sessions, collaborative tasks and activities, etc. Tandem learning occupies a place somewhere between classroom learning and self-instruction (Schwienhorst, 1999, page 2).

 

There are three principles of tandem learning. The first principle is reciprocity. Both learners must benefit equally from the partnership. Each learner depends on the other’s help, and expects to receive as much help as he/she gives. Each learner relies on the other’s support to make the partnership a success. The second principle is bilingualism. Each partner should contribute equal amounts of L1 and L2 to the conversation. The third principle is learner autonomy. Tandem partners are responsible for their own learning process. There is a mutual responsibility to make the partnership as beneficial as possible to each other. With the support of one another, both partners avail of the opportunity to communicate in their target language, as frequent involvement in purposeful communication plays a crucial role in the development of oral proficiency. Another benefit of this type of learning is that learners develop new perspectives on their own and their target language, precisely because they communicate with their partner bilingually (Little & Ushioda, 1998, page 96). Unfortunately, face-to-face tandem learning is not as widespread or as available as we would like it to be. Organising two native speakers of different languages, wanting to learn each other’s language in the same place at the same time is more difficult than it seems. Tandem learning via email has become a more common medium in the last few years, but that is not to say that face-to-face tandem learning is a thing of the past.

 

For a number of years email has been used as a tool for second language learning, formally and informally. Formally, various projects have involved email to link language classrooms in different countries, and informally, language learners with individual email accounts have sought ‘pen’-friendships with native speakers of their target language (Little & Ushioda, 1998, page 95 ).  But in more recent years, mainly thanks to the International Email Tandem Network (http://www.slf.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/email/ ), CALL’s interest has turned towards email and has integrated this into Tandem Language Learning.  The three principles of Tandem Learning (discussed above) are applied to Tandem Language Learning via email. Email is an exclusively written medium, but it is  accepted that email discourse is a combination of written and spoken discourse (Murray, 1991, cited by Woodin, 1997, page 29). Tandem learning via email not only develops writing skills but it also develops oral proficiency and linguistic and metalinguistic awareness. Writing and reading provide an analytic insight into how language is constructed.

 

 

 

5.0    Email Tandem Learning

 

Email Tandem Learning is generally between two partners, who exchange one-to-one emails, but some institutions also make discussion forums available to the learners, where every message that is sent is automatically received by all members of the group. With one-to-one emailing, each student is teamed up with a native speaker of his/her target language. The topics of discussion can be agreed on and are generally much more meaningful than classroom discussions. Tandem learning is mainly used as part of a curriculum. It is integrated within the existing course structure, and students from both universities are generally set similar projects, based on their target language or target culture. This provides ready-made topics of discussion for those shy students. Although, this seems to be an exciting venture, it can be somewhat daunting for learners. Participants need to form a relationship with a native speaker of a foreign language who they have never met before and cannot see. They must negotiate a series of exchanges and obtain information of interest to them, write in the foreign language without the support of non-verbal clues and maintain the relationship once the initial excitement has disappeared. They need to be more explicit than in face-to-face conversations and yet be tactful so as not to offend (Woodin 1997, page 29). But, the students generally have the support and counselling of their teachers.

 

Students email their partners in both L1 and L2. This can be done by writing firstly in their native language and then in their target language, or vice versa, but as the partners become more acquainted and more comfortable with each other they can experiment by mixing the two languages within paragraphs, sentences, etc. On the principle of reciprocity, both partners should help each other, especially with regards to error correction. Because the partners’ teachers are not explicitly involved, they must rely on each other’s corrections and suggestions to improve their language learning. This is difficult at first, as students do not want to correct all their partner’s mistakes, and therefore must decide which are the most important ones to correct. It is not motivating for the students if they receive their emails back, with numerous corrections inserted. Students must be clear when giving feedback. Native speakers generally base their corrections on intuition, rather than knowledge of grammatical rules. Re-using their partner’s corrections, and idioms and expressions from their emails shows an active involvement in the learning process.

 

 

 

 

5.1       Advantages of Email Tandem Learning

 

1.      Partners can write to each other any time.                                           

2.      It is more relaxed and informal than classroom learning.

3.      When writing messages, learners can think about what they are going to write,                                           

      and have time to write it correctly.

4.      Partners can teach each other colloquial idioms, which are generally not taught in 

      the classroom.

5.      Learners can receive first-hand information about the target language, country    

      and culture.

6.      Each student has a record of all emails and corrections, and so can review them 

      any time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.2    Disadvantages of Email Tandem Learning

 

1.      Some students don’t view their partner as a real person, and consider them more as a machine (according to a study by Woodin, 1997, page 27).

2.      Because it is not synchronous communication, the response from the user is slower than that of face-to-face tandem learning and so the learning process may be viewed as slower. It may be argued that this may benefit the learner because he/she has time to reflect on corrections and also to take in new concepts that he/she ahs learned from his/her partner. 

3.      Because the participants are not teachers, errors may be left uncorrected, because they may be either unnoticed or considered unimportant, but one could argue that a native speaker would have more of an insight into what is important / unimportant because it is his / her native tongue

 

 

 

 

 

6.0    NLP and CALL

 

Natural Language Processing (NLP) uses computers to process language – analyse, store, sort and search it. NLP technology uses many tools to better aid us in the task of studying and processing Natural Language. It is only natural for these technologies to be applied to language learning and teaching. Below are some NLP applications which have sought to contribute to CALL:

 

Concordancing

Text-Alignment

Speech Recognition and Synthesis

Machine Translation

Syntactic Processing

Morphological Processing

 

These technologies are applied to illustrate linguistic structures, make language comprehensible, provide varied exercise material and spot and correct errors. For the more advanced language learners, corpora are an invaluable source of information and authentic material. A corpus allows students to appreciate linguistic patterns and distinctions. Bilingual corpora provide similar information to monolingual corpora and also a convenient translation into a known language. A bilingual corpus is of little practical value to language learners and teachers without the application of text alignment. One of the most convenient and useful tools applied to corpora is a part-of-speech tagger.

 

 

 

7.0    Tagging

 

Part-of-Speech (POS) tagging is the process of assigning a POS or other lexical marker to each word in a corpus. Knowledge of the different POS in a text plays an important role in NLP. The input to a tagging algorithm is a string of words and a specified tagset. The output is a single best tag for each word. Take for example, the sample sentences below, taken from the ATIS corpus of dialogues about air-travel reservations.

 

VB    DT    NN

Book that flight.

 

VBZ   DT   NN    VB     NN

Does that flight serve dinner?

 
 
( DT = Determiner
 NN = Noun, singular or mass
 VB = Verb, base form
 VB = Verb, 3rd person singular present )
 

(see http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/projekte/CorpusWorkbench/CQP-HTMLDemo/PennTreebankTS.html for the full Penn Treebank Tagset)

 

The sentences above are simple and unambiguous as a whole, but individually some of the words are ambiguous. Most words in English have only one meaning (are unambiguous) and therefore have only a single tag. But many of the most commonly used words in English have more than one meaning (are ambiguous, when context is not taken into account) and so have at least two tags. In the first example above, “Book” is a verb, but it can also be a noun (“The book is on the shelf”). The problem of POS tagging is to resolve these ambiguities, choosing the proper tag for the context. Many ambiguous tokens are easy to disambiguate. This is because the various tags associated with a word are not equally likely.

 

Most tagging algorithms fall into one of two classes: Rule-based taggers and

Stochastic taggers.  Rule-based taggers generally involve a large database of hand-written disambiguation rules which specify, for example, that an ambiguous word is a noun rather than a verb if it follows a determiner. Stochastic taggers generally resolve tagging ambiguities by using a training corpus to complete the probability of a given word having a given tag in a given context. These taggers are based on the Hidden Markov Model or HMM (see Jurafsky &Martin 2000, Chapter 7) For a given sentence or word sequence HMM taggers choose the tag sequence that maximises the following formula:          

            P(word | tag) * P(tag | previous n tags)

The transformation based tagger or Brill tagger shares features of both tagging architectures outlined above.

 

As part of my mini implementation, a piece text have been previously tagged by a language-independent POS tagger called the TreeTagger. The TreeTagger has been developed within the Text Corpora (TC) project (http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/projekte/tc/) at the Institute for Computational Linguistics at the University of Stuttgart. This tagger has been successfully used to tag English, German, French and Italian text. The TreeTagger is a probabilistic POS tagger. It avoids problems that Markov Model based taggers face, when they have to estimate transition probabilities from sparse data. The performance of the TreeTagger was tested on data from the Penn-Treebank corpus. Some 2 million words were used for training and 100,000 words from a different part of the Penn-Treebank corpus for testing. The TreeTagger achieves 96.36% accuracy on Penn-Treebank data, which is better than that of a trigram tagger (96.06%) on the same data. (for more information on the tagger see http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/projekte/corplex/TreeTagger/DecisionTreeTagger.html). Decisions for implementing this particular tagger will be discussed Section 8.1 (TOOLS).

 

 

 

 

8.0    Mini Implementation

 

My implementation is a presentation of a text, and its tags. The text has been previously tagged by the TreeTagger (discussed above), so the POS of each word is available. The text should be able to be viewed and the main POS (verb, noun, adjective, adverb, preposition, determiner, conjunction, pronoun) can in turn be selected, and will show up in different colours. The idea of the program is to equip learners of English with a better understanding of English POS, and the construction of sentences.

 

The implementation is aimed at Foreign/Second Language Learners of English, at a high intermediate level (probably Leaving Certificate equivalent / 1st year university students). It could also be used by language teachers and researchers. Teachers can use this in a language lab environment to show students to illustrate the different POS, and their role in the language. As outlined above, it should facilitate the students’ understanding of the POS in English and English grammar in general. The students will be able to choose  which POS they want to see highlighted. For example, if they choose to look at all the nouns in any text, they will be highlighted in RED, or similarly verbs in BLUE.  Viewing each highlighted POS separately in a text will create a greater awareness of that particular POS within that piece of text.  Learners should be able to see more clearly the structure of English sentences,  and how each POS plays a role in this structure, ie. the order of subjects, adjectives etc. Generally language learners literally translate sentences from their native language into their target language, and do not take into account that sentence structure varies from language to language.  This tool should aid them to become more aware of both their target spoken and written language.   An alternative would be to show the tag labels of each word, for example e-mail <NN>, as in a corpus, but as discussed earlier, corpora are for more advanced learners. Studying texts and their tags is a time-consuming process.

 

 

 

 

8.1       Tools

 

The use of colours should keep the student interested, focused and motivated. Using colours is an important factor in the psychology of learning. Colour brings black and white text alive. According to Rhodes and Thame (1988, page 122), ‘colour’ highlighting of this kind is an ingenious tool for revealing structure in written material, which is precisely the aim of the implementation. The allocation of colours to the POS are as follows:

           

NOUN                          RED

            VERB                          DARK BLUE

            PRONOUN                 ORANGE

            ADJECTIVE                GREEN

ADVERB                     LIGHT BLUE  

            CONJUNCTION          ILLUMINOUS GREEN

            DETERMINER            PURPLE        

            PREPOSITION           YELLOW

 

Some of the POS are closely linked, for example, Verb and Adverb (modifies the verb) and Noun and Pronoun (refers to some noun phrase or entity or event), and so their similar colours have be chosen to show the relationship between them.

 

The programming language chosen for this implementation is PERL, as it is the most appropriate language for dealing with texts. PERL was designed to write short programs to process text files, using its elaborate and powerful pattern matching techniques, and then produce results of that processing.

 

There are many taggers freely available online for commercial and personal use. But I chose the TreeTagger, as it has already been used to successfully tag German, English, Italian and French texts, and it is easily adaptable to other languages if a lexicon and a manually tagged training corpus are available. This tagger is ideal for my project, because I hope to use it further as part of my 4th year project, and incorporate texts in another language (probably French – see Further Developments).

 

 

 

 

 

8.2           Perl Program

 

-           The program reads in the Input File (See Appendix A) which contains the tags to the text used in this implementation. 

-           The Input File consists of three columns – Word, Tag, Lemma (a Lemma is an entire collection of related words. (Eg. provides, provided, providing. Lemma is Provide)) 

-           Each line of the text is split into these three elements.

-           These elements are processed in different ways, depending on the task (“action”) specified on the command line (See Appendix C).

-          “plain” prints out the text similar to it’s original format. It simply takes each Word  (1st element of the input text) and prints it to a file with a space in between each one.

-           “tags” uses the 1st and 2nd elements of the input text, and “assigns” each Tag (POS) to its Word.

-           “colour” uses a similar process to “tags” as it  prints out the Word and it’s “Colour Tag” beside it.

           

This program is very basic. It will need to be implemented in CGI (Common Gateway Interface), which will allow me to have a more user-friendly interface, using menus and different screens. CGI is used along with HTML, and so is ideal for interactive websites. CGI allows the user to interact with the website, ie. it prompts the user for input and processes this information.   By programming this implementation in CGI, I can use colours to highlight the words, rather than the primitive “Colour Tags” used in this Perl program. Also, the user will have a choice as to which POS he/she wants to view.  This allows the user to have more control of the tool, and so the user can learn at his/her own pace.

 

 

 

 

 

9.0    Further Developments

 

My main area of interest in the Computational Linguistics field is CALL, more precisely Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). I have focused my attention on Tandem Language Learning, as I see this area as an important tool in assisting the development of foreign language learning. My mini implementation in this project is a basis for my 4th year project implementation. Tandem Language Learners learning via email need as much support and as many tools as possible to be made available to them, since it is an “outside the classroom” activity. I propose to incorporate my POS highlighting program (programmed in CGI and Perl)  into a email tandem website, as a tool to aid language learners and also their supervisors. The texts to be processed would not be pre-chosen. They would be the students’ emails that they have sent and received. The emails could be viewed, with the chosen POS highlighted (using this project’s implementation). But because the language to be processed will be a natural language (English/French), written by the learners of that language, problems will be encountered. Spelling mistakes, slang words, metaphors, colloquial idioms etc. will be some of the main obstacles.  I hope to get around these obstacles (perhaps by accessing a spell checker and dictionary) and create a useful tool for foreign language learners using email tandem learning.

                       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Christiansen, T & Torkington, N 1998. Perl cookbook. Cambridge : O'Reilly

 

Gitsaki, C & Taylor, R. P 1999. Internet-based activities for the ESL classroom. RECALL Journal. Vol.11 No.1 May, 1999.

 

Jufafsky, D Martin, J 2000. Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. Prentice Hall Inc.

 

Levy, M 1997. Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Little, D & Ushioda, E 1998. Designing, implementing and evaluating a project in tandem language learning via e-mail. RECALL Journal. Vol.10 No.1 May, 1998.

 

Murray, D 1991. Conversation for action: the computer terminal as a medium of communication, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

 

Nerbonne, J. Chapter 36. Natural Language Processing in Comuter-Assisted Language     Learning. -  Ruslan Mitkov (ed.)  Handbook of Computational Linguistics, Oxford University Press, 2001.

 

Rhodes, J & Thame, S 1988. The Colours of Your Mind. Collins

 

Schwienhorst, K 1997. Talking on the MOO: Learner autonomy and language learning in tandem. Paper presented at the CALLMOO: Enhancing Language Through Internet Technologies, Bergen, Norway.

 

Sebesta, R W. 1999. A little book on Perl. - Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall,

 

Warschauer, M 1996. Computer-Assisted Language Learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Eds) Multimedia language teaching. Tokyo, Japan: Logos International.

 

Woodin, J 1997. Email tandem learning and the communicative curriculum. RECALL Journal. Vol.9 No.1 May 1997.

 

 

 

 

URLS

 

http://www.slf.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/email/                  last visited: 27/08/01

 

http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/projekte/tc/                last visited: 20/08/01

 

http://wilde.cs.tcd.ie:2222/d-tandem.html                   last visited: 11/08/01

 

http://llt.msu.edu/                                                        last visited: 30/08/01

 

http://www.activestate.com                                        last visited 24/08/01

 

http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/projekte/CorpusWorkbench/CQP-HTMLDemo/PennTreebankTS.html

                                                                                    last visited 18/10/01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A – Text, Input File

 

 

Text

 

For a number of years e-mail has been used to support second language learning both formally and informally. At the formal end of the spectrum there have been projects of various kinds linking language classrooms in different countries (see, e.g., Eck et al. 1995); and at the informal end, language learners with individual e-mail accounts have sought pen-friend-ships with native speakers of their target language. More recently there has been a surge of interest in the use of e-mail for tandem language learning, thanks largely to the work of the International E-Mail Tandem Network, co-ordinated by Helmut Brammerts at the           R u h r-Universität Bochum (see Little and Brammerts 1996). Inevitably, the Network’s first concern has been to establish reliable infrastructures so that tandem language learning by e-mail can actually take place. But members of the Network recognize that long-term progress depends on elaborating appropriate theories, using the theories to shape pedagogical experiments, and subjecting those experiments to  empirical evaluation. T h i s paper is a preliminary contribution to that process. It first explores some of the central issues of principle that arise from the concept of tandem language learning in general and its e-mail version in particular, and then reports on the pilot phase of an e-mail tandem project involving Irish university students learning German and German university students learning English.

 

 

 

 

Input File

 

For  IN   for

a    DT   a

number    NN   number

of   IN   of

years     NNS  year

e-mail    NN   mail

has  VBZ  have

been VBN  be

used VBN  use

to   TO   to

support   VB   support

second    JJ   second

language  NN   language

learning  VBG  learn

both DT   both

formally  RB   formally

and  CC   and

informally    RB   informally

.    SENT .

At   IN   at

the  DT   the

formal    JJ   formal

end  NN   end

of   IN   of

the  DT   the

spectrum  NN   spectrum

there     EX   there

have VBP  have

been VBN  be

projects  NNS  project

of   IN   of

various   JJ   various

kinds     NNS  kind

linking   VBG  link

language  NN   language

classrooms    NNS  classroom

in   IN   in

different JJ   different

countries NNS  country

(    (    (

see  VB   see

,    ,    ,

e.g. NP   e.g.

,    ,    ,

Eck  NP   Eck

et   NP   et

al   NN   al

.    SENT .

1995 CD   @card@

)    )    )

;    :    ;

and  CC   and

at   IN   at

the  DT   the

informal  JJ   informal

end  NN   end

,    ,    ,

language  NN   language

learners  NNS  learners

with IN   with

individual    JJ   individual

e-mail    NN   mail

accounts  NNS  account

have VBP  have

sought    VBN  seek

pen-friend-ships   NNS  ship

with IN   with

native    JJ   native

speakers  NNS  speaker

of   IN   of

their     PP$  their

target    NN   target

language  NN   language

.    SENT .

More RBR  more

recently  RB   recently

there     EX   there

has  VBZ  have

been VBN  be

a    DT   a

surge     NN   surge

of   IN   of

interest  NN   interest

in   IN   in

the  DT   the

use  NN   use

of   IN   of

e-mail    NN   mail

for  IN   for

tandem    JJ   tandem

language  NN   language

learning  NN   learning

,    ,    ,

thanks    NNS  thanks

largely   RB   largely

to   TO   to

the  DT   the

work NN   work

of   IN   of

the  DT   the

International NP   International

E-Mail    NP   Mail

Tandem    NP   Tandem

Network   NP   Network

,    ,    ,

co-ordinated  VBN  co-ordinated

by   IN   by

Helmut    NP   Helmut

Brammerts NP   Brammerts

at   IN   at

the  DT   the

R    NP   R

u    NP   u

h    NN   h

r-Universität NP   r-Universität

Bochum    NP   Bochum

(    (    (

see  VBP  see

Little    NP   Little

and  CC   and

Brammerts NP   Brammerts

1996 CD   @card@

)    )    )

.    SENT .

Inevitably    RB   inevitably

,    ,    ,

the  DT   the

Network's NP   Network's

first     JJ   first

concern   NN   concern

has  VBZ  have

been VBN  be

to   TO   to

establish VB   establish

reliable  JJ   reliable

infrastructures    NNS  infrastructures

so   IN   so

that DT   that

tandem    JJ   tandem

language  NN   language

learning  VBG  learn

by   IN   by

e-mail    NN   mail

can  MD   can

actually  RB   actually

take VB   take

place     NN   place

.    SENT .

But  CC   but

members   NNS  member

of   IN   of

the  DT   the

Network   NP   Network

recognize VBP  recognize

that DT   that

long-term JJ   long-term

progress  NN   progress

depends   VBZ  depend

on   IN   on

elaborating   VBG  elaborate

appropriate   JJ   appropriate

theories  NNS  theory

,    ,    ,

using     VBG  use

the  DT   the

theories  NNS  theory

to   TO   to

shape     VB   shape

pedagogical   JJ   pedagogical

experiments   NNS  experiment

,    ,    ,

and  CC   and

subjecting    VBG  subject

those     DT   those

experiments   NNS  experiment

to   TO   to

empirical JJ   empirical

evaluation    NN   evaluation

.    SENT .

T    NP   T

h    JJ   h

i    NN   i

s    NN   s

paper     NN   paper

is   VBZ  be

a    DT   a

preliminary   JJ   preliminary

contribution  NN   contribution

to   TO   to

that DT   that

process   NN   process

.    SENT .

It   PP   it

first     RB   first

explores  VBZ  explore

some DT   some

of   IN   of

the  DT   the

central   JJ   central

issues    NNS  issue

of   IN   of

principle NN   principle

that WDT  that

arise     VBP  arise

from IN   from

the  DT   the

concept   NN   concept

of   IN   of

tandem    JJ   tandem

language  NN   language

learning  VBG  learn

in   IN   in

general   NN   general

and  CC   and

its  PP$  its

e-mail    NN   mail

version   NN   version

in   IN   in

particular    JJ   particular

,    ,    ,

and  CC   and

then RB   then

reports   NNS  report

on   IN   on

the  DT   the

pilot     NN   pilot

phase     NN   phase

of   IN   of

an   DT   an

e-mail    NN   mail

tandem    NN   tandem

project   NN   project

involving VBG  involve

Irish     JJ   Irish

university    NN   university

students  NNS  student

learning  VBG  learn

German    JJ   German

and  CC   and

German    JJ   German

university    NN   university

students  NNS  student

learning  VBG  learn

English.  JJ   English.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B – Code

 

 

# program.pl

# Input: File containing Part-of-Speech tags of a tagged text,

#        specified on  the command line

# Output: The text on its own, the text with its POS tags, and the text with

#        colour tags assigned.

# Claire Healy

# CL3

# 98284363

# 31.08.01

 

 

 

 

#! c:/perl/bin/perl.exe

 

 

 

($InFileName, $OutFileName, $action) = @ARGV;         # the 3 arguments on the      

                                           # command line-input file

                                                              # output file, action

open (IN, $InFileName);                    # open input file

$OutFileName = ">" . $OutFileName;         # allows output file to be    

open (OUT, $OutFileName);                  # open output file

                                            # written to

if ($action eq "tags")                     # if the 3rd argument on the

                                           # command line is "tags",procede

{                                    

  $wordCount = 0;                          # set word count to 0 

  while ($line = <IN>)                     # while the end of the file

  {                                        # hasn't been reached yet

    ($word, $tag, $lemma) = split /\t/,$line;   # read in the line and split it

                                           # into 3 elements

     print OUT "$word<$tag> ";             # print (to the output file) the

                                           # word and its tag.

    $wordCount++;                          # increment word count.

    if ($wordCount == 6)                   # when the number of words on a

    {                                      # line reaches 6,

        print OUT "\n";                    # print a newline (move onto a                                     # new line)

        $wordCount = 0;                    # set the word count back to 0

    }#endif                                # - this ensures words are not

                                           # seperated from their tags.

 

}#endwhile

}#endif

 

 

elsif ($action eq "plain")                 # if the 3rd argument on the

{                                          # command line is"plain",procede

  $wordCount = 0; 

  while ($line = <IN>)                     # same as above, except it only

  {                                        # prints out the words,

      ($word, $tag, $lemma) = split /\t/,$line; # so plain text is created.

print OUT "$word ";

    $wordCount++;

    if ($wordCount == 10)                 # the number of words per line

    {                                     # is 10.

          print OUT "\n";

          $wordCount = 0;

    }#endif

   }#endwhile

 }#endelsif

 

 

elsif ($action eq "colour")                # if the 3rd argument on the

{                                          # command line is                

#"colour"procede

 

      while ($line = <IN>)

      {

          ($word, $tag, $lemma) = split /\t/,$line;

 

          if ($tag =~ /NN/i)               # print out the corresponding

          {                                # colour for each tag, beside

              print OUT "$word<RED> ";     # the word

              }#endif

 

          elsif ($tag =~ /IN/i)

          {

              print OUT "$word<YELLOW> ";

          }#endelsif

 

          elsif ($tag =~ /DT/i)

          {

              print OUT "$word<PURPLE> ";

          }#endelsif

 

        elsif ($tag =~ /JJ/i)

          {

              print OUT "$word<GREEN> ";

          }#endelsif

    

          elsif ($tag =~ /RB/i)

          {

               print OUT "$word<LIGHT BLUE> ";

          }#endelsif

 

          elsif ($tag =~ /CC/i)

          {

               print OUT "$word<ILLUMINOUS GREEN> ";

          }#endelsif

 

          elsif ($tag =~ /VB/i)

          {

               print OUT "$word<BLUE> ";

          }#endelsif

 

          elsif ($tag =~ /PP/i)

          {

               print OUT "$word<ORANGE> ";

          }#endelsif

 

    

          else                             # print out the word on its

          {                                # own,if it does not have one

              print OUT "$word ";          # of the above 8 tags

          }#endelse

 

    }#endwhile

 }#endelsif

 

 

close OUT;                                 # close the ouput file

close IN;                                  # close the input file

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C – Results

 

Command line prompt:

H:\>perl program.pl pos.txt plain.txt plain

 

Result:

                                                plain.txt

 

For a number of years e-mail has been used to

support second language learning both formally and informally . At

the formal end of the spectrum there have been projects

of various kinds linking language classrooms in different countries (

see , e.g. , Eck et al . 1995 )

; and at the informal end , language learners with

individual e-mail accounts have sought pen-friend-ships with native speakers of

their target language . More recently there has been a

surge of interest in the use of e-mail for tandem

language learning , thanks largely to the work of the

International E-Mail Tandem Network , co-ordinated by Helmut Brammerts at

the R u h r-Universität Bochum ( see Little and

Brammerts 1996 ) . Inevitably , the Network's first concern

has been to establish reliable infrastructures so that tandem language

learning by e-mail can actually take place . But members

of the Network recognize that long-term progress depends on elaborating

appropriate theories , using the theories to shape pedagogical experiments

, and subjecting those experiments to empirical evaluation . T

h i s paper is a preliminary contribution to that

process . It first explores some of the central issues

of principle that arise from the concept of tandem language

learning in general and its e-mail version in particular ,

and then reports on the pilot phase of an e-mail

tandem project involving Irish university students learning German and German university students learning English.

 

 

 

 

 

Command line prompt:

H:\>perl program.pl pos.txt tag.txt tags

 

 

Result:

                                                tag.txt

 

For<IN> a<DT> number<NN> of<IN> years<NNS> e-mail<NN>

has<VBZ> been<VBN> used<VBN> to<TO> support<VB> second<JJ>

language<NN> learning<VBG> both<DT> formally<RB> and<CC> informally<RB>

.<SENT> At<IN> the<DT> formal<JJ> end<NN> of<IN>

the<DT> spectrum<NN> there<EX> have<VBP> been<VBN> projects<NNS>

of<IN> various<JJ> kinds<NNS> linking<VBG> language<NN> classrooms<NNS>

in<IN> different<JJ> countries<NNS> (<(> see<VB> ,<,>

e.g.<NP> ,<,> Eck<NP> et<NP> al<NN> .<SENT>

1995<CD> )<)> ;<:> and<CC> at<IN> the<DT>

informal<JJ> end<NN> ,<,> language<NN> learners<NNS> with<IN>

individual<JJ> e-mail<NN> accounts<NNS> have<VBP> sought<VBN> pen-friend-ships<NNS>

with<IN> native<JJ> speakers<NNS> of<IN> their<PP$> target<NN>

language<NN> .<SENT> More<RBR> recently<RB> there<EX> has<VBZ>

been<VBN> a<DT> surge<NN> of<IN> interest<NN> in<IN>

the<DT> use<NN> of<IN> e-mail<NN> for<IN> tandem<JJ>

language<NN> learning<NN> ,<,> thanks<NNS> largely<RB> to<TO>

the<DT> work<NN> of<IN> the<DT> International<NP> E-Mail<NP>

Tandem<NP> Network<NP> ,<,> co-ordinated<VBN> by<IN> Helmut<NP>

Brammerts<NP> at<IN> the<DT> R<NP> u<NP> h<NN>

r-Universität<NP> Bochum<NP> (<(> see<VBP> Little<NP> and<CC>

Brammerts<NP> 1996<CD> )<)> .<SENT> Inevitably<RB> ,<,>

the<DT> Network's<NP> first<JJ> concern<NN> has<VBZ> been<VBN>

to<TO> establish<VB> reliable<JJ> infrastructures<NNS> so<IN> that<DT>

tandem<JJ> language<NN> learning<VBG> by<IN> e-mail<NN> can<MD>

actually<RB> take<VB> place<NN> .<SENT> But<CC> members<NNS>

of<IN> the<DT> Network<NP> recognize<VBP> that<DT> long-term<JJ>

progress<NN> depends<VBZ> on<IN> elaborating<VBG> appropriate<JJ> theories<NNS>

,<,> using<VBG> the<DT> theories<NNS> to<TO> shape<VB>

pedagogical<JJ> experiments<NNS> ,<,> and<CC> subjecting<VBG> those<DT>

experiments<NNS> to<TO> empirical<JJ> evaluation<NN> .<SENT> T<NP>

h<JJ> i<NN> s<NN> paper<NN> is<VBZ> a<DT>

preliminary<JJ> contribution<NN> to<TO> that<DT> process<NN> .<SENT>

It<PP> first<RB> explores<VBZ> some<DT> of<IN> the<DT>

central<JJ> issues<NNS> of<IN> principle<NN> that<WDT> arise<VBP>

from<IN> the<DT> concept<NN> of<IN> tandem<JJ> language<NN>

learning<VBG> in<IN> general<NN> and<CC> its<PP$> e-mail<NN>

version<NN> in<IN> particular<JJ> ,<,> and<CC> then<RB>

reports<NNS> on<IN> the<DT> pilot<NN> phase<NN> of<IN>

an<DT> e-mail<NN> tandem<NN> project<NN> involving<VBG> Irish<JJ>

university<NN> students<NNS> learning<VBG> German<JJ> and<CC> German<JJ>

university<NN> students<NNS> learning<VBG> English.

<JJ>

 

 

 

 

 

Command line prompt:

H:\>perl program.pl pos.txt colour.txt colour

 

 

Result:

                                                colour.txt

 

For<YELLOW> a<PURPLE> number<RED> of<YELLOW> years<RED> e-mail<RED> has<BLUE> been<BLUE> used<BLUE> to support<BLUE> second<GREEN> language<RED> learning<BLUE> both<PURPLE>  formally<LIGHT BLUE> and<ILLUMINOUS GREEN>  informally<LIGHT BLUE> . At<YELLOW> the<PURPLE> formal<GREEN> end<RED> of<YELLOW> the<PURPLE> spectrum<RED> there have<BLUE> been<BLUE> projects<RED> of<YELLOW> various<GREEN> kinds<RED> linking<BLUE> language<RED> classrooms<RED> in<YELLOW> different<GREEN> countries<RED> ( see<BLUE> , e.g. , Eck et al<RED> . 1995 ) ; and<ILLUMINOUS GREEN> at<YELLOW> the<PURPLE> informal<GREEN> end<RED> , language<RED> learners<RED> with<YELLOW> individual<GREEN> e-mail<RED> accounts<RED> have<BLUE> sought<BLUE> pen-friend-ships<RED> with<YELLOW> native<GREEN> speakers<RED> of<YELLOW> their<ORANGE> target<RED> language<RED> .  More<LIGHT BLUE>  recently<LIGHT BLUE> there has<BLUE> been<BLUE> a<PURPLE> surge<RED> of<YELLOW> interest<RED> in<YELLOW> the<PURPLE> use<RED> of<YELLOW> e-mail<RED> for<YELLOW> tandem<GREEN> language<RED> learning<RED> , thanks<RED>  largely<LIGHT BLUE> to the<PURPLE> work<RED> of<YELLOW> the<PURPLE> International E-Mail Tandem Network , co-ordinated<BLUE> by<YELLOW> Helmut Brammerts at<YELLOW> the<PURPLE> R u h<RED> r-Universität Bochum ( see<BLUE> Little and<ILLUMINOUS GREEN> Brammerts 1996 ) .  Inevitably<LIGHT BLUE> , the<PURPLE> Network's first<GREEN> concern<RED> has<BLUE> been<BLUE> to establish<BLUE> reliable<GREEN> infrastructures<RED> so<YELLOW> that<PURPLE> tandem<GREEN> language<RED> learning<BLUE> by<YELLOW> e-mail<RED> can  actually<LIGHT BLUE> take<BLUE> place<RED> . But<ILLUMINOUS GREEN> members<RED> of<YELLOW> the<PURPLE> Network recognize<BLUE> that<PURPLE> long-term<GREEN> progress<RED> depends<BLUE> on<YELLOW> elaborating<BLUE> appropriate<GREEN> theories<RED> , using<BLUE> the<PURPLE> theories<RED> to shape<BLUE> pedagogical<GREEN> experiments<RED> , and<ILLUMINOUS GREEN> subjecting<BLUE> those<PURPLE> experiments<RED> to empirical<GREEN> evaluation<RED> . T h<GREEN> i<RED> s<RED> paper<RED> is<BLUE> a<PURPLE> preliminary<GREEN> contribution<RED> to that<PURPLE> process<RED> . It<ORANGE>  first<LIGHT BLUE> explores<BLUE> some<PURPLE> of<YELLOW> the<PURPLE> central<GREEN> issues<RED> of<YELLOW> principle<RED> that<PURPLE> arise<BLUE> from<YELLOW> the<PURPLE> concept<RED> of<YELLOW> tandem<GREEN> language<RED> learning<BLUE> in<YELLOW> general<RED> and<ILLUMINOUS GREEN> its<ORANGE> e-mail<RED> version<RED> in<YELLOW> particular<GREEN> , and<ILLUMINOUS GREEN>  then<LIGHT BLUE> reports<RED> on<YELLOW> the<PURPLE> pilot<RED> phase<RED> of<YELLOW> an<PURPLE> e-mail<RED> tandem<RED> project<RED> involving<BLUE> Irish<GREEN> university<RED> students<RED> learning<BLUE> German<GREEN> and<ILLUMINOUS GREEN> German<GREEN> university<RED> students<RED> learning<BLUE> English.

<GREEN>