We introduce a detailed annotation scheme for argument structure constructions (ASCs) along with a manually annotated ASC treebank. This treebank encompasses 10,204 sentences from both first (5,936) and second language English datasets (1,948 for written; 2,320 for spoken). We detail the annotation process and evaluate inter-annotation agreement for overall and each ASC category.

In this paper we introduce a freely available treebank that includes argument structure construction (ASC) annotation. We then use the treebank to train probabilistic annotation models that rely on verb lemmas and/ or syntactic frames. We also use the treebank data to train a highly accurate transformer-based annotation model (F1 = 91.8%). Future directions for the development of the treebank and annotation models are discussed.

We introduce the Korean-Learner-Morpheme (KLM) corpus, a manually annotated dataset consisting of 129,784 morphemes from second language (L2) learners of Korean, featuring morpheme tokenization and part-of-speech (POS) tagging. We evaluate the performance of four Korean morphological analyzers in tokenization and POS tagging on the L2- Korean corpus. Results highlight the analyzers’ reduced performance on L2 data, indicating the limitation of advanced deep-learning models when dealing with L2-Korean corpora. We further show that fine-tuning one of the models with the KLM corpus improves its accuracy of tokenization and POS tagging on L2-Korean dataset.

This study investigates the extent to which currently available morpheme parsers/taggers apply to lesser-studied languages and language-usage contexts, with a focus on second language (L2) Korean. We pursue this inquiry by (1) training a neural-network model (pre-trained on first language [L1] Korean data) on varying L2 datasets and (2) measuring its morpheme parsing/POS tagging performance on L2 test sets from both the same and different sources of the L2 train sets. Results show that the L2 trained models generally excel in domain-specific tokenization and POS tagging compared to the L1 pre-trained baseline model. Interestingly, increasing the size of the L2 training data does not lead to improving model performance consistently.