Direct User Guidance in e-Dictionaries for Text Production and Text Reception — The Verbal Relative in Sepedi as a Case Study

Abstract

This article introduces a prototype of a writing (and learning) assistant for verbal relative clauses of the African language Sepedi, accessible from within a dictionary or from a word processor. It is an example of how a user support tool for complicated grammatical structures in a scarcely resourced language can be compiled. We describe a dynamic light-weight tool aimed at combining user-knowledge with text production support, i.e., user-involved interactive text production of the complicated verbal relative in Sepedi. In this article, the focus is on access in a dictionary use situation. Although the tool is intended as a writing assistant to support users in text production; it also satisfies text reception and cognitive needs, but its focus is on solving text production issues related with the interaction between lexical items and complex grammatical structures in the African (Bantu) languages and for learning by users and/or training users in this interaction.

Corpus-driven Bantu Lexicography Part 3: Mapping Meaning onto Use in Lusoga

“…The opposite also occurs, namely when a primarily microstructural aspect impacts the macrostructure, again with examples for Northern Sotho: left-expanded microstructures (Gouws and Prinsloo 2005), reversibility (de Schryver 2006), communicative equivalence (Prinsloo 2006), and paradigms (Prinsloo 2014a). It has furthermore been noted that the distinction between the macrostructural and microstructural levels tends to disappear in a digital dictionary environment, as has also been illustrated abundantly for Northern Sotho (Prinsloo 2005, Prinsloo et al 2014, Prinsloo et al 2017. Lastly, dictionary reviews, of for instance the corpus-based Oxford Bilingual School Dictionary: Northern Sotho and English (de Schryver 2007), likewise tend to focus on microstructural aspects (Prinsloo 2009, Chabata and Nkomo 2010, Faaß 2010, Klein 2010a, b, Madiba and Nkomo 2010, Kosch 2013.…”

An overview of Digital Lexicography and directions for its future: An interview with Gilles-Maurice de Schryver

“…G-MdS: The digital format offers far more options to 'solve' problematic lexicographical issues, especially for languages with complex morphology. English is trivial lexicographically speaking (it has typically two forms for nouns, four forms for verbs, and very little morphology and thus lemmatisation issues elsewhere); this is very different for many other language families, including for instance the Bantu De Schryver, Chishman e Silva -An overview of Digital Lexicography and directions for its future: An interview with Gilles-Maurice de Schryver languages, which are agglutinative, and where digital dictionaries may truly simplify look-up for both decoding as well as encoding purposes (Prinsloo, 2005;Prinsloo et al, 2012;Prinsloo et al, 2017). Moreover, for polysynthetic languages, such as several of the Amerindian languages, the only truly successful way to lemmatise lexis in a user-friendly way is in a digital product (Frawley et al, 2002).…”

A writing assistant en route to a full computational grammar for Sepedi

“…The need for and value of these writing assistants were clearly indicated by these user studies and are briefly discussed. Detailed discussions of such support systems are given in Prinsloo et al (2017) and Bothma et al (2018). The most prominent writing tools include Interactive Language Toolbox (Verlinde and Peeters 2012; https://ilt.kuleuven.be/inlato/), the Louvain EAP Dictionary (LEAD) (Paquot 2012; https://leaddico.uclouvain.be) and Schrijfhulp Portaal (https://ilt.kuleuven.be/schrijfhulp/).…”

“…This article represents an extended implementation of the Sepedi Helper (Prinsloo et al 2015; http://sepedihelper. co.za/) as a follow-up to verbal relative constructions as presented at eLex 2011 (Prinsloo et al 2011), eLex 2013 (Bothma et al 2013;Prinsloo et al 2017).…”