<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>LEXICO-SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF ESSAYS IN HINDI LANGUAGE</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Seema Mahato</string-name>
          <email>seema_mahato@yahoo.co.in</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Dr. (Mrs.) Ani Thomas</string-name>
          <email>tpthomas22@yahoo.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Professor, Dept. of Computer Applications, Bhilai Institute of Technology</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>DURG (C.G.)</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="IN">INDIA</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Research Scholar, Dr. C.V. Raman University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>BILASPUR (C.G.)</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="IN">INDIA</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2001</year>
      </pub-date>
      <abstract>
        <p>Large number of researchers consider essay as a tool to judge learning outcomes and intellectual capabilities and to assess the organized and integrated thoughts. Due to increase in the number of universities students and distance and ubiquitous e-learning approaches, the intention of using Computer-based Assessment Systems has rise rapidly in a decade. Manual grading of students' essays requires significant amount of time and hard work and also an expensive activity for educational institutions and need a practical solution to this task. The automated essay grading or evaluation system is solution to such need. So now-adays, most of the online competitive and universities exams are trying to evaluate the human written essays by examiners / teachers as well as by machines like automated essay grading system. Such system has to significantly focus on vocabulary and text syntax, and text semantics. The research paper focus on the existing automated essay grading systems, their functional technologies and proposes a methodology to overcome the issues related to them while evaluating such as grammatical and semantic error as well as influence of local and regional languages in Hindi essays.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>eol&gt;Automated Essay Grading</kwd>
        <kwd>AEG</kwd>
        <kwd>NLP</kwd>
        <kwd>Text Processing</kwd>
        <kwd>Essay Evaluation</kwd>
        <kwd>Semantic Attributes</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>ववश्वास
साथ लोग अपने घरो के
आँगन
मे रंगोली या
आलपोना से सजाते है” and “राखी के पण्ु य पवव पर घर मे ककसी
के ननधन</p>
      <p>से यह त्योहा र खोटा हो जाता है”, the influence of
regional or local language can be clearly identified.
Presently Computer-based Assessment Systems (CbAS) are
Copyright © 2017 for the individual papers by the papers’ authors.
Copying permitted for private and academic purposes. This
volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
rare whose primary focus is to provide automatic grading
and evaluation of Hindi essays. Automated Essay Grading
(AEG) Systems, also known as Automated Writing
Evaluation Systems or Automated Essay Assessors. The
aim of such system is to score student’s essays on a specific
topic and give feedback to the student on deficiencies in
his/her essay. These systems lower down the burden of the
evaluator as unable to give personalized attention to the
student’s needs. Such systems provide human capability of
reading and writing and also time-to-time feedback to the
writers/students which help them to improve their writing
skill.</p>
      <p>
        PEG is one of the initial implementations of automated
essay grading. PEG is a statistical approach based on the
assumption that the quality of essays is reflected by the
measurable proxes [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. It uses factors such as “proxes” i.e.
computer approximations or measures of trins which
includes length of essay in terms of words to represent the
trin of fluency; counts of prepositions, relative pronouns
and other parts of speech. It also act as an indicator for
complexity of sentence structure and variation in word
length to indicate diction using previously manually
marked essays as a training sets in order to calculate the
regression coefficients. The other factor is intrinsic
variables to simulate human rater grading. Natural
Language Processing (NLP) technique and lexical content
are not considered in PEG at all.
      </p>
      <p>
        IEA is a domain-independent tool based on the Latent
Semantic Analysis (LSA) technique that was originally
designed for indexing documents and text retrieval [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ].
LSA represents documents and their word content in a
large two-dimensional matrix semantic space. Using a
matrix algebra technique known as Singular Value
Decomposition (SVD), new relationships between words
and documents are uncovered, and existing relationship are
modified to more accurately represent their true
significance [4][5]. IEA includes relatively low unit cost,
quick customized feedback, and plagiarism detection as its
key features. The system is very well suited to analyze and
score expository essays on science, social studies, history,
medicine or business topics and automatically assesses and
criticizes electronically submitted text essay [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ].
E-Rater is a statistical and corpus based approach uses
Microsoft Natural Language Processing tool for parsing the
essay and to extract linguistic features from the essays and
are finally evaluated against a benchmark set of human
graded essays [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">6</xref>
        ][7]. E-Rater includes domain based
analysis of the discourse structure, of the syntactic structure
and of the vocabulary usage. It is composed by five main
independent modules. Three of these modules identify
features for scoring guide criteria for the syntactic variety,
the organization of ideas and the vocabulary usage of an
essay. The rest modules are used to select and weigh
predictive features for essay scoring and to compute the
final score. A feedback component provide additional
feedback about qualities of writing related to topic and
fluency only
IEMS can be used both as an assessment tools and for
diagnostic and tutoring purposes in many content-based
subjects [8]. It is based on Pattern Indexing Neural
Network (the Indextron). Indextron is defined as a specific
clusterisation algorithm and can be implemented as a neural
network embedded with an intelligent tutoring system for
fast grading which provide feedback to students.
TEST is a domain based first AES tool for Hindi need prior
knowledge before checking an essay. It uses quality of
content, local coherence, factual accuracy, and global
coherence as scoring parameters [9]. Each sentence in an
essay is connected to previous sentences. The degree of this
connection measures the coherence of the sentence pairs.
Local coherence measures the inter sentence similarity
whereas global coherence classify the structure of essays as
good, average or bad. It takes human graded essays as
training sets and rates them as good essays and bad essays.
The fact evaluation module contain topic specific
keywords, list of essays, correct facts list, and incorrect
facts list and produce individual essay reports &amp; scores
with N X 1 Score Matrix for Internal use by TEST. It does
not include grammatical checking and spell-check.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>3. HINDI DEPENDENCY TREEBANK</title>
      <p>Hindi Dependency Treebank (henceforth HDT) uses karaka
- a syntactico-semantic relation as an intermediary step to
express the semantic relations through vibhaktis [10]. Each
karaka has a default vibhakti. In linguistics, grammatical
relations (also called grammatical functions or grammatical
roles, or syntactic functions) refer to functional
relationships between constituents in a clause [11]. The role
of grammatical relations in theories of grammar is greatest
in dependency grammars, which tend to posit dozens of
distinct grammatical relations. Every head-dependent
dependency bears a grammatical function. Semantic
analysis can be done using HDT as it includes
Part-ofspeech, Chunk Information, and Dependency Information.
For each sentence, the output of HDT has four columns
which are mentioned below,
 1st Column represents Token or chunk id such as
1, 1.1, 2, 2.2 etc.
 2nd Column indicates the actual word or word
groups in the sentence having the attribute 'name'
for naming.
 3rd Column specifies part of speech
</p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>4th Column represents feature structure which holds morphological information, grammatical roles, semantic information etc..</title>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>4. LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF HINDI</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>SENTENCES</title>
      <p>A precise research in this decade has helped us to
understand the AI &amp; Machine Learning techniques based
existing AEG systems, going through some limitations to
propose a methodology which could work under Indian
context. The methodology is based on the series of
semantic evaluations.</p>
      <p>For checking grammatical or semantic error, HDT of each
sentence is captured. In this methodology, the features
obtained from treebank are used to develop machine
learning techniques to identify the errors. The machine
learning procedure analyzes each noun, pronoun and verb
and postposition associated with it. It also analyzes the
number and gender agreement between noun/pronoun and
verb.</p>
      <p>Hindi is a free-word-order language but its default word
order of sentences is Subject-Object-Verb (SOV). The
object may be direct or indirect or both. In Hindi,
postposition or vibhaktis/case marker is used instead of
preposition in English language and is combined with noun
or pronoun or more generally a noun phrase. Vibhaktis like
ने ,को ,से,का के ,को ,में, etc. are attached as suffix with noun or
pronoun. Sentences in Hindi may follow default word order
conventions for coding the information of grammatical
relations. Hindi language has rich morphological case in
which the subject and object and other verb arguments are
identified in terms of the case markers that they bear
(e.g. nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, ergative,
etc.). The subject in a sentence must agree with the finite
verb in person, number, and gender to be grammatical
correct. A sentence is considered to be ungrammatical if it
contains syntactic error. Let us consider the following
sentences,
Eg1. राम ने रावण मारा .</p>
      <p>Eg2. लड़की स् क ू ल में जाती हैं./ लड़की स् क ू ल को जाती हैं.
Eg3. गोपाल अपने भाई से लंबी हैं ।
Although Eg1. is ungrammatically as it is missing “को ”
after रावण</p>
      <p>in the sentence, HDT considers it to be
grammatically correct as shown by the dependency
structures of the sentences “राम ने रावण
मारा ”, “राम ने
रावण को मारा ” and “राम रावण को मारा ” in the figure 1, 2
and 3 respectively where k1 indicates Karta karaka
/Nominative Case (having ‘ने’ case marker) and k2
represent Karma karaka /Accusative case (having ‘को’ case
marker).</p>
      <p>This indicate that absence of case marker is not treated as
grammatical error by HDT. Sentences in eg2. are
grammatical but it could be more proper by eliminating the
“में” and “को ” as “लड़की ्स क ू ल जाती हैं”. In eg3: गोपाल अपने
भाई से लंबी हैं, the verb “लंबी” does not agree with the
subject “गोपाल” as it possesses masculine gender whereas
the verb here has feminine gender. Now consider the
sentence “चला जाऐंगा अपने
आप
सुन ील” which is
ungrammatical too. Hence, the gender and number
agreement helps in lexical analysis.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>5. SEMANTIC ANALYSIS</title>
      <p>Semantic knowledge provided information such as
animacy, named entity categories and verb selectional
restrictions. Named entity tag information is used to match
the category of pronoun and their referent. The semantic
class information (noun category) is used for the finding
facts and fact evaluation in essays. The pairs which do not
have semantic feature match are filtered out. Using the
semantic knowledge for each word, semantic analysis is
performed. "Semantic Analysis" refers to a formal analysis
of meaning, and "computational" refer to approaches that in
principle support effective implementation [12]. Semantic
analysis involves the identification of the intended meaning
at the word level i.e. word-sense disambiguation, as
word has multiple meanings in different contexts. Semantic
analysis also helps to understand that how different
sentence and textual elements fit together. The analysis
began with the identification of word senses
computationally, exploring the interrelationships between
the elements of a sentence, and relations between sentences
(e.g., coreference), and examine the semantic
relations and sentiment analysis. The dependency structures
shown in figure 1,2, and 3 indicates that HDT shows the
meaning of these sentences to be correct although they are
grammatically incorrect. The dependency structure shows
the relation of noun phrases and verb phrases which are
semantically interrelated. Semantic knowledge analyzes
multiple words and identifies their relations between as
hypernymy &amp; hyponymy and meronymy &amp; holonymy too.
Hindi WordNet is a system for bringing together different
lexical and semantic relations between the Hindi words
[13]. For each word (lexical item) there is a synonym set,
or synset, in the Hindi WordNet, representing one lexical
concept. Further, each synset is mapped to a concept
ontology which defines the semantic properties of lexical
items of a given synset.</p>
      <sec id="sec-5-1">
        <title>Example</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-2">
        <title>Word: फल</title>
        <sec id="sec-5-2-1">
          <title>Possible Senses</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-5-2-2">
          <title>Sense 1: Result</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-5-2-3">
          <title>Sense 2: Fruit</title>
        </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-3">
        <title>Related cluster snapshot: सफलता [success],द्धीप [island],फल [result], पररणाम [result],असफलता [failure],प्रततफल [failure]</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-4">
        <title>Related cluster snapshot: आम [mango],फल</title>
        <p>[fruit],भारत [India], खेल [game], मोटर
[automobile]
Hence, the verbs and adverbs can be matched against the
attributes related to various senses and shall manage the
correlation between the segments of the sentences or
clauses.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>6. CONCLUSION</title>
      <p>The proposed methodology improves automated
assessment by incorporating vast semantic attributes and
grammar checking to overcome the issues related to
automated essay evaluation systems. The system has to be
evaluated on the basis of dependency and the supporting
information from WordNet about sense and correctness of
the sentences. In future, the size and variety of the corpus
has to be increased. The factors of grammar checking other
than number and gender agreements are considered as
future research directions.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</title>
      <p>This work was supported by Research and Development
Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and
Engineering at Bhilai Institute of Technology, Durg,
Chhattisgarh, India, awaiting sponsorship from suitable
funding agencies.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Salvatore</given-names>
            <surname>Valenti</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Francesca Neri and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Alessandro</given-names>
            <surname>Cucchiarelli</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>2003. An Overview of Current Research on Automated Essay Grading. DIIGA - Universita' Politecnica delle Marche</source>
          , Ancona,
          <source>Italy Journal of Information Technology Education</source>
          Volume 2
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hearst</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2000</year>
          .
          <source>The Debate On Automated Essay Grading. IEEE Intelligent Systems</source>
          ,
          <volume>15</volume>
          (
          <issue>5</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>22</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>37</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Deerwester</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S. C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dumais</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S. T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Landauer</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T. K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Furnas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G. W.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Harshman</surname>
            <given-names>R. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>1990</year>
          .
          <article-title>Indexing By Latent Semantic Analysis</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</source>
          ,
          <volume>41</volume>
          (
          <issue>6</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>391</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>407</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Whittington</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hunt</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>1999</year>
          .
          <article-title>Approaches To The Computerized Assessment Of Free Text Responses</article-title>
          . In M. Danson (Ed.),
          <source>Proceedings of the Sixth International Computer Assisted Assessment Conference</source>
          , Loughborough University, UK.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Williams</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2001</year>
          .
          <source>Automated Essay Grading: An Evaluation Of Four Conceptual Models. In A.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hermann &amp; M.M.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Kulski (eds). Expanding Horizons in Teaching and Learning</article-title>
          .
          <source>Proceedings of the 10th Annual Teaching and Learning Forum</source>
          , Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Burstein</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kukich</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wolff</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chodorow</surname>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>1998</year>
          .
          <article-title>Enriching Automated Essay Scoring Using Discourse Marking</article-title>
          .
          <source>Proceedings of the Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse</source>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Blackburn</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bos</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2005</year>
          .
          <article-title>Representation and Inference For Natural Language: A First Course In Computational Semantics</article-title>
          ,
          <source>CSLI Publications. ISBN 1-57586-496-7</source>
          . http://www.cfilt.iitb.ac.in/wordnet/webhwn/
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>