Construction and educational application of a linguistically grounded dependency treebank for Uyghur
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Developing effective educational technologies for low-resource agglutinative languages like Uyghur is often hindered by the mismatch between existing annotation frameworks and specific grammatical structures. To address this challenge, this study introduces the Modern Uyghur Dependency Treebank (MUDT), a linguistically grounded annotation framework specifically designed to capture the agglutinative complexity of Uyghur, including zero copula constructions and fine-grained case marking. Utilizing a hybrid pipeline that combines Large Language Model pre-annotation with rigorous human correction, a high-quality treebank consisting of 3,456 sentences was constructed. Intrinsic structural evaluation reveals that MUDT significantly improves dependency projectivity by reducing the crossing-arc rate from 7.35% in the Universal Dependencies standard to 0.06%. Extrinsic parsing experiments using UDPipe and Stanza further demonstrate that models trained on MUDT achieve superior in-domain accuracy and cross-domain generalization compared to UD-based baselines. To validate the practical utility of this computational resource, an AI-assisted grammar tutoring system was developed to translate MUDT-based syntactic analyses into interpretable pedagogical feedback. A controlled experiment involving 35 second-language learners indicated that students receiving syntax-aware feedback achieved significantly higher learning gains compared to those in a control group. These findings establish MUDT as a robust foundation for syntactic analysis and underscore the critical role of linguistically informed natural language processing resources in bridging the gap between computational models and the cognitive needs of second-language learners.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jul 2025.
Builds on
16 of 75 references.
References · 16
- 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 870
- 2020The State and Fate of Linguistic Diversity and Inclusion in the NLP Worldcited by 798
- 2020Stanza: A Python Natural Language Processing Toolkit for Many Human Languagescited by 723
- 2016Deep Biaffine Attention for Neural Dependency Parsingcited by 334
- 2020Universal Dependencies v2: An Evergrowing Multilingual Treebank Collectioncited by 271
- 2022Is GPT-3 a Good Data Annotator?cited by 208
- 2020A Survey on Recent Approaches for Natural Language Processing in Low-Resource Scenarioscited by 171
- 2021Systematic Inequalities in Language Technology Performance across the World's Languagescited by 120
- 2024Why do language models perform worse for morphologically complex languages?cited by 62
- 2020Is Supervised Syntactic Parsing Beneficial for Language Understanding? An Empirical Investigationcited by 34
- 2022Measuring Annotator Agreement Generally across Complex Structured, Multi-object, and Free-text Annotation Taskscited by 17
- 2020UDPipe at EvaLatin 2020: Contextualized Embeddings and Treebank Embeddingscited by 6
4 more
- 2025An overview of artificial intelligence in computer-assisted language learningcited by 2
- 2025Parsing the Switch: LLM-Based UD Annotation for Complex Code-Switched and Low-Resource Languagescited by 2
- 2025Enhancing Korean Dependency Parsing with Morphosyntactic Featurescited by 1
- 2025Foundations and Evaluations in NLPcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.