▪ Paper presentation schedule

Date # Authors (Year) Title
9/2 1 Kyle & Eguchi (2024) Evaluating NLP models with written and spoken L2 samples
9/9 2 Hanks et al. (2024) Building LANA-CASE, a spoken corpus of American English conversation: Challenges and innovations in corpus compilation
9/16 3 Jarvis & Hashimoto (2021) How operationalizations of word types affect measures of lexical diversity (available through the library)
9/16 4 Beinborn & Pinter (2023) Analyzing Cognitive Plausibility of Subword Tokenization
9/23 5 Lu & Hu (2022) Sense-aware lexical sophistication indices and their relationship to second language writing quality
9/30 6 Hemilton et al. (2016) Diachronic Word Embeddings Reveal Statistical Laws of Semantic Change
10/7 7 Berzak et al. (2016) Universal dependencies for learner English
10/14 8 Kim & Lu (2024) L2 English speaking syntactic complexity: Data preprocessing issues, reliability of automated analysis, and the effects of proficiency, L1 background, and topic
10/14 9 Biber & Larsson (2018) Analyzing grammatical complexity in L2-English development: A linguistically-grounded approach
10/21 10 Sung & Kyle (2024) Leveraging pre-trained language models for linguistic analysis: A case of argument structure constructions
11/4 11 Ettinger et al. (2023) “You Are An Expert Linguistic Annotator”: Limits of LLMs as Analyzers of Abstract Meaning Representation
11/18 12 Taboada (2016) Sentiment analysis: An overview from linguistics
11/18 13 Zeldes et al. (2025) eRST: A signaled graph theory of discourse relations and organization
11/25 14 Kuperman et al. (2025) New data on text reading in English as a second language
11/25 15 Tian et al. (2026) The KLiCKe Corpus: Keystroke Logging in Compositions for Knowledge Evaluation
12/2 16 Imperial et al. (2025) UniversalCEFR: Enabling Open Multilingual Research on Language Proficiency Assessment

▪ Guidelines

The goal of this assignment is to introduce a paper related to our course topics to the class. You will benefit most from reading the paper carefully and identifying its key points. In your presentation, focus less on technical implementation details and more on clearly explaining what problem the study addresses, what it does, what it finds, and what it contributes to the field.

When preparing your presentation, consider the following guiding questions:

  1. What problem does the paper address?
  2. Why is this problem important?
  3. What research gap does this paper identify?
  4. What research questions or goals guide the study?
  5. How did the authors approach the problem?
  6. What are the key findings?
  7. What does this paper contribute to the field?
  8. What are the strengths and limitations of the study?
  9. What remains unresolved or could be improved?
  10. What are potential future directions?
  11. Are there any studies that have built on this work?
  12. Prepare a short Q&A slide for the end.

▪ Evaluation

Presentations will be evaluated using the following criteria (10 points total):

  1. Clarity (3 points): Are the key ideas communicated clearly and effectively?
  2. Depth (3 points): Does the presenter demonstrate a solid understanding of the problem, approach, findings, and significance of the paper?
  3. Organization (2 points): Is the presentation well-structured and easy to follow?
  4. Timing (2 points): Does the presentation stay within the allotted time?