Computerized grammar checkers 2000: capabilities, limitations, and pedagogical possibilities

Vernon, Alex

doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(00)00038-4

Cited by 34 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that they appear in published texts-see the collection in appendix A of [34]-indicates that these errors cannot be automatically detected and corrected by state-of-the-art grammar checkers, as Gubelmann [19] confirmed in a small-scale study for German errors. In the last decade, various studies [59,26,48] pointed out general deficits of checkers for English and German in larger studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from Errors: Systematic Analysis of Complex Writing Errors for Improving Writing Technology

Mahlow

2014

Language Production, Cognition, and the Lexicon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we describe ongoing research on writing errors with the ultimate goal to develop error-preventing editing functions in word-processors. Drawing from the state-of-the-art research in errors carried out in various fields, we propose the application of a general concept for action-slips as introduced by Norman [39]. We demonstrate the feasibility of this approach by using a large corpus of writing errors in published texts. The concept of slips considers both the process and the product: some failure in a procedure results in an error in the product, i.e., is visible in the written text. In order to develop preventing functions, we need to determine causes of such visible errors.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from Errors: Systematic Analysis of Complex Writing Errors for Improving Writing Technology

Mahlow

2014

Language Production, Cognition, and the Lexicon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unlike computer-assisted language learning in the context of Swedish as a second language, language tools for Swedish have an important place within the writing process of native speakers. However, concentrated as they have been on the development of robust and highly efficient algorithms and rules that are able to correctly detect and diagnose language errors, they have neglected the pedagogical potential of such tools (Vernon, 2000). Developed to support correct writing, they have often been based on models of native writers neglecting then writers who are learning Swedish as a second language.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming grammar checking technology into a learning environment for second language writing

Knutsson

Pargman

Eklundh

2003

Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 03 Workshop on Building Educational Applications Using Natural Language Processing -

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the transformation of grammar checking technology into a learning environment for second language writing. Our starting point is a grammar checker for Swedish, called Granska. Two studies have been conducted aimed at exploring the use of computer support for writing in the context of second language learning. In the first study, we developed a methodology to study naturalistic writing, and the impact of the grammar checker on the writer's text. In the second study, we were interested in how the methodology developed earlier would work in an educational setting. The problems with false alarms and limited recall are definitely a sensitive issue in the context of second language learners and educational settings. Both learners and teachers are concerned about the false alarms, and without perfectly working text analyzers, new strategies for dealing with these problems have to be further explored and developed together with learners and teachers.

show abstract

“…Experiments (e.g., [3,4,5,2]) have shown, that writers of all ages work in loops and cycles, acting as composer, revisor and editor of their own text. Most of the revising and editing takes place in a conscious phase after composing a text or a text fragment.…”

Section: Writing As a Process -What Do Writers Do When Revising?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Today, Microsoft's Grammar and Style Checker is the most widely used checker. Studies from composition teachers (e.g., [3,8]) have shown that grammar checkers don't work accurately and reliably, but that there are educational scenarios where you can make good use of them; for example, one can use a flagged element and the explanation and proposed revision offered by the grammar checker as a starting point for classroom discussions about grammar, thereby gaining insights about grammar and style.…”

Section: Checkersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With respect to their original purpose of helping writers with producing texts conforming to grammar and style or genre rules, authors agree in discouraging their use (e.g., [3,8]). Studies have shown that grammar checkers detect only a small portion of problems in a text, that they flag false positives, that they frequently detect problematic sentences but incorrectly identify the issues, that they give misleading or misunderstandable hints for revising, etc.…”

Section: Checkersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Linguistic Support for Revising and Editing

Mahlow

Piotrowski

Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Revising and editing are important parts of the writing process. In fact, multiple revision and editing cycles are crucial for the production of high-quality texts. However, revising and editing are also tedious and error-prone, since changes may introduce new errors. Grammar checkers, as offered by some word processors, are not a solution. Besides the fact that they are only available for few languages, and regardless of the questionable quality, their conceptual approach is not suitable for experienced writers, who actively create their texts. Word processors offer few, if any, functions for handling text on the same cognitive level as the author: While the author is thinking in high-level linguistic terms, editors and word processors mostly provide low-level character oriented functions. Mapping the intended outcome to these low-level operations is distracting for the author, who now has to focus for a long time on small parts of the text. This results in a loss of global overview of the text and in typical revision errors (duplicate verbs, extraneous conjunctions, etc.) We therefore propose functions for text processors that work on the conceptual level of writers. These functions operate on linguistic elements, not on lines and characters. We describe how these functions can be implemented by making use of NLP methods and linguistic resources. Abstract. Revising and editing are important parts of the writing process. In fact, multiple revision and editing cycles are crucial for the production of high-quality texts. However, revising and editing are also tedious and error-prone, since changes may introduce new errors. Grammar checkers, as offered by some word processors, are not a solution. Besides the fact that they are only available for few languages, and regardless of the questionable quality, their conceptual approach is not suitable for experienced writers, who actively create their texts. Word processors offer few, if any, functions for handling text on the same cognitive level as the author: While the author is thinking in high-level linguistic terms, editors and word processors mostly provide low-level character oriented functions. Mapping the intended outcome to these low-level operations is distracting for the author, who now has to focus for a long time on small parts of the text. This results in a loss of global overview of the text and in typical revision errors (duplicate verbs, extraneous conjunctions, etc.). We therefore propose functions for text processors that work on the conceptual level of writers. These functions operate on linguistic elements, not on lines and characters. We describe how these functions can be implemented by making use of NLP methods and linguistic resources. Linguistic Support for Revising and Editing

show abstract

Computerized grammar checkers 2000: capabilities, limitations, and pedagogical possibilities

Cited by 34 publications

References 22 publications

Learning from Errors: Systematic Analysis of Complex Writing Errors for Improving Writing Technology

Learning from Errors: Systematic Analysis of Complex Writing Errors for Improving Writing Technology

Transforming grammar checking technology into a learning environment for second language writing

Linguistic Support for Revising and Editing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About