Marjou (2021)

• Marjou, Xavier. 2021. 'OTEANN: Estimating the Transparency of Orthographies with an Artificial Neural Network', ACL Anthology, texte.

es 66.9 ± 2.0 85.3 ± 1.3 fi 97.7 ± 0.3 92.3 ± 0.8 fr 28.0 ± 1.4 79.6 ± 1.7 fro 99.0 ± 0.3 89.7 ± 1.1 it 94.5 ± 0.8 71.6 ± 0.9 ko 81.9 ± 1.0 97.5 ± 0.5

Orthography	Write	Read
ent	99.6 ± 0.3	99.8 ± 0.1
eno	0.0 ± 0.0	0.0 ± 0.0
Arabic	84.3 ± 0.8	99.4 ± 0.3
Breton	80.6 ± 0.6	77.2 ± 1.6
German	69.1 ± 1.0	78.0 ± 1.5
English	36.1 ± 1.5	31.1 ± 1.3
Esperanto	99.3 ± 0.2	99.7 ± 0.1
Spanish	66.9 ± 2.0	85.3 ± 1.3
Finnish	97.7 ± 0.3	92.3 ± 0.8
French	28.0 ± 1.4	79.6 ± 1.7
"French ortofacil"	99.0 ± 0.3	89.7 ± 1.1
Italian	94.5 ± 0.8	71.6 ± 0.9
Korean	81.9 ± 1.0	97.5 ± 0.5
Dutch	72.9 ± 1.7	55.7 ± 2.2
Portuguese	75.8 ± 1.0	82.4 ± 0.9
Russian	41.3 ± 1.6	97.2 ± 0.5
Serbo-Croatian	99.2 ± 0.3	99.3 ± 0.3
Turkish	95.4 ± 0.7	95.9 ± 0.6
Chinese	19.9 ± 1.4	78.7 ± 0.9

 "p.6.
 Breton, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish: 
 With all their scores above 65% their orthography was also measured as fairly transparent. 
 [...]
 French: With a low writing score (28%), the results showed that the chances of correctly

writing a French word on the sole basis of its pronunciation were rare, as anticipated given the high number of phoneme-to-grapheme possibilities. Without being able to access a broader context than the word itself, the ANN was not able to reliably predict how to write a French word. With a much higher reading score (80%), the ANN obtained good reading results. As a comparison, for the same language, the alternative ’fro’ orthography obtained excellent writing score (99%) and reading score (90%). Recall that the difference between its two scores is due to the fact that the ’fro’ orthography is not bijective. For instance, in the reading direction, the <o> letter can be translated into /o/ or /ɔ/)."