English Language Correction Software ??

Question

hi,could you tell me if there is a good correction software for English (spelling/grammar/thesorus etc...)thanks

Usenet · Accepted Answer

fred wrote on 26 Oct 2004:
[nq:1]hi, could you tell me if there is a good correction software for English (spelling/grammar/thesorus etc...)[/nq]
The only good software of that type is the human brain.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Usenet · Answer

CyberCypher filted:
[nq:1]fred wrote on 26 Oct 2004:[/nq]
[nq:2]could you tell me if there is a good correction software for English (spelling/grammar/thesorus etc...)[/nq]
[nq:1]The only good software of that type is the human brain.[/nq]
For suitably small values of "good"..r

Usenet · Answer

In our last episode,
(Email Removed), the lovely and talented fred broadcast on alt.usage.english:
[nq:1]hi, could you tell me if there is a good correction software for English (spelling/grammar/thesorus etc...)[/nq]
A variety of checker programs exist - such a variety that it is impossible to name a few without knowing what the operating environment might be. But there is nothing that should be called "correction software."
Checkers can be useful to writers who are fluent in the language. The purpose of checkers is to reduce careless errors. Checkers can identify many possible errors, but cannot be relied upon to suggest correct alternatives.
Usage and grammar checkers require extensive customization to be very useful. Checkers can err in two ways. The checker can miss possible errors, or it can identify as possible errors instances which are in fact correct. Generally the attempt to reduce one sort of error will result in an increase in the other kind. Customizing the software is usually a considerable task which requires an extensive knowledge of the language, the user's style, the kind of writing that will be done, and the user's particular weaknesses. Unfortunately, many people try to use the software as it comes out of the box. Those who know the language typically discover too many false alerts. Those who do not know the language simply have no chance of getting things right in the face of the software's many suggestions.
Spelling checker are, perhaps, the simplest kind of checking software. Essentially a spelling checker takes a string which from the presence of spaces and punctuation seems to be a word, looks up the string in its permanent lexicon and then in a user's lexicon to see if it is a valid word, and if the string is not found to be a correct work, the software highlights the string and in one way or another presents a list of suggested alternatives. A spelling checker cannot identify an error if the error spells a valid word. If you write "principle" but meant "principal," a spelling checker cannot know anything is wrong. If you wrote "principel," the spelling checker may suggest both "principal" and "principle." It has no way of knowing which you meant, nor whether you know the difference.A typical grammar or usage checker will flag every occurrence of either "principal" or "principle." Parsing engines simply are not good enough to guess from context which is more likely to be correct. Conceivably there are contexts in which either would be sensible, but only the writer knows which he meant. Writers who do not know the distinction are likely to by mystified by the brief usage message the software provides. Yet other writers will always know which they meant and will spell the one they meant correctly.

In both these cases the checker does little good and may be so annoying that the writer will give up using the checker altogether. There is a third case, however: the writer who knows the difference but who also occasionally types the wrong word. The checker may benefit this writer in this particular case. But the writer who needs a reminder with "principal/principle" may not need help with "affect/effect" and vice versa.
In sum:
1) A checker cannot help a user who doesn't know better than thechecker.

2) A checker is annoying if it is not adjusted to the particularneeds of the writer.

3) Customizing the checker may be more trouble than it is worth,and will certainly require knowledge that only someone who is fluent in the language has.

Lars Eighner ~~finger for geek code~~ (Email Removed) http://www.io.com/~eighner/ "The very essence of the creative is its novelty, and hence we have no standard by which to judge it." Carl R. Rogers, On Becoming a Person

Usenet · Answer

(snip, good comments.)
[nq:1]In sum: 1) A checker cannot help a user who doesn't know better than the checker. 2) A checker is ... trouble than it is worth, and will certainly require knowledge that only someone who is fluent in the language has.[/nq]
When I first used a spelling checker that had a pretty fair dictionary, it usually showed me "uncommon" vocabulary; that was useful for suggesting that I should simplify.

And here is a warning about using "Correct all" be very careful. I once read a job application where the word Psychology was misspelled throughout, from a person who had been a psychology major.

Rich Ulrich, (Email Removed)
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]hi, could you tell me if there is a good correction software for English (spelling/grammar/thesorus etc...)[/nq]
There is not.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1](snip, good comments.)[/nq]
[nq:2]In sum: 1) A checker cannot help a user who ... that only someone who is fluent in the language has.[/nq]
[nq:1]When I first used a spelling checker that had a pretty fair dictionary, it usually showed me "uncommon" vocabulary; that ... read a job application where the word Psychology was misspelled throughout, from a person who had been a psychology major.[/nq]
Why would that be the fault of the spell checker unless they replaced it with something like "physiology"?

English Language Correction Software ??

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions