Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-7245
  • E-ISSN: 2211-7253



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.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Antidote (versienummer 10): Digitale spelling- en grammaticachecker voor Engels en Frans
    Antidote (versienummer 10): Digitale spelling- en grammaticachecker voor Engels en Frans. Montréal: Druide Informatique. https://www.antidote.info/en/antidote-10/french-module
  2. 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. 10.3102/00346543063001069
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063001069 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bartning, I.
    (2000) Gender agreement in L2 French: Pre-advanced vs. advanced learners. Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 225–237. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00062
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00062 [Google Scholar]
  4. 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 Unpublished master’s thesis, K.U. Leuven.
  5. BonPatron: Online spelling- en grammaticachecker voor Frans
    BonPatron: Online spelling- en grammaticachecker voor Frans. Alberta: Nadaclair Language Technologies inc.https://bonpatron.com/
  6. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2018) Persistent grammatical writing errors of L1 and L2 learners of French: Analysis and remedy. Amsterdam: VU University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Burston, J.
    (1998) Review of Antidote 98. CALICO Journal, 16(2), 197–212. 10.1558/cj.34912
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.34912 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2008) BonPatron: An online, spelling, grammar and expression checker. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 337–347.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C.
    (2000) An unsupervised method for detecting grammatical errors. Paper presented at the1st Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Seattle, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 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 fromtesl-ej.org/ej43/a3.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ellis, R.
    (2001) Investigating form-focused instructionInR. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp.1–46). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gueutal, H. G.
    (1989) Utilizing high technology: Computer-aided design and user performance. Information and Management17(1), 13–21. 10.1016/0378‑7206(89)90051‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7206(89)90051-7 [Google Scholar]
  15. Heift, T., & Schulze, M.
    (2007) Errors and Intelligence in Computer-Assisted Language Learning. New York, Routeledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Jacobs, G., & Rodgers, C.
    (1999) Treacherous allies: Foreign language grammar checkers. Calico Journal, 16(4), 509–530. 10.1558/cj.v16i4.509‑529
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v16i4.509-529 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jensen, K.
    (1993) PEG: the PLNLP English Grammar. InK. Jensen, G. E. Heidorn, & S. D. Richardson (Eds.), Natural Language Processing: The PLNLP Approach (pp.29–45). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑3170‑8_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-3170-8_3 [Google Scholar]
  18. Naber, D.
    (2003) A rule-based style and grammar checker. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bielefeld, Germany.
  19. 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. RetrievedSept, 1, 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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. 10.3115/974281.974296
    https://doi.org/10.3115/974281.974296 [Google Scholar]
  21. Pienemann, M.
    (1998) Language processing and second language development: Processablity theory. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/sibil.15
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.15 [Google Scholar]
  22. Scribens: Online spelling- en grammaticachecker voor Frans
    Scribens: Online spelling- en grammaticachecker voor Frans. Montpellier: Thiebaut Alban. https://www.scribens.fr/
  23. 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. 10.1017/S135132499800206X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S135132499800206X [Google Scholar]
  24. Vernon, A.
    (2000) Computerized grammar checkers 2000: Capabilities, limitations, and pedagogical possibilities. Computers and Composition, 20(3), 329–349. 10.1016/S8755‑4615(00)00038‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(00)00038-4 [Google Scholar]
  25. 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. 10.1080/09588221.2012.655300
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.655300 [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhao, Y.
    (2003) Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. Calico Journal, 21(1), 7–27. 10.1558/cj.v21i1.7‑27
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v21i1.7-27 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): French; gender marking; grammar checkers; L1 acquisition; L2 acquisition
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error