12.2078, Sum: Autocorrect Function/Word Processing Software

The LINGUIST List linguist at linguistlist.org
Tue Aug 21 20:02:17 UTC 2001

LINGUIST List:  Vol-12-2078. Tue Aug 21 2001. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 12.2078, Sum: Autocorrect Function/Word Processing Software

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	Lydia Grebenyova, EMU		Jody Huellmantel, WSU
	James Yuells, WSU		Michael Appleby, EMU
	Marie Klopfenstein, WSU		Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.
	Heather Taylor-Loring, EMU	Dina Kapetangianni, EMU

Software: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
          Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>


Date:  Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:30:47 -0400 (EDT)
From:  Kari Kraus <kkru at mail.rochester.edu>
Subject:  Autocorrect function in word processing software

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:30:47 -0400 (EDT)
From:  Kari Kraus <kkru at mail.rochester.edu>
Subject:  Autocorrect function in word processing software

Dear list:

Last spring, I sent the following inquiry to Linguist:

>I'm looking for information (articles, white papers) on the >autocorrect
>technology built into most word processing software (e.g., Microsoft
>I want to understand (in broad terms) the software engineering side of
>things (how does the technology work?), but just as importantly, the
>theoretical side (e.g., classification of errors [haplography,
>metathesis, etc.] according to current thinking on the physiological
>mechanisms involved in copying/transcribing/typing (perhaps this sort >of
>falls within the purview of visual word recognition?).

I received two off-list replies, one from Mike Maxwell, the other from
Robert Dale.

Robert Dale provided a bibliographic starting point:

> There's a paper by the Word Grammar Checker team (principally George
> Heidorn) in R Dale, H Moisl and H Somers (eds.) [2000], Handbook of
> Language Processing. Marcel Dekker.  I believe that's the most detailed
> exposition around.
> I don't know of any material on aspects of text correction in Word other
> than the grammar checker -- the spelling checker, autocorrects etc are
> separate.

Mike Maxwell initally wrote to say that the replace-text-as-you-type feature
in Word relies on a hand-built correction list, which one can consult
by selecting "Autocorrect" from the "Tools" pull-down menu:

>My understanding of Autocorrect, is that all there is to it is a list >of
>"from" and "to" spellings: misspellings and corrections, or >abbreviations
>and their translations ("(c)" gets changed to the copyright symbol).  >So
>when you type a space or punctuation, there is presumably an action >that
>Word performs in the background: it selects the preceding word (as
>by whitespace and/or punctuation), and looks on the "from" field of >the
>records in its correction list.  (You'll notice that list is >alphabetized,
>so lookup is fast.)  If Word finds a match, it substitutes the "to" >field
>from that same record.  I think it's also smart enough to copy the
>capitalization from your word into the substituted word.

He later wrote back to partially amend that statement:

>It seems to
>have at least the ability to automatically correct metathesized >letters
>certain omitted letters.  I say that because I've seen it fix words >that
>sure it doesn't have in its correction list (particularly linguistic
>I just watched it correct 'alolmorph' and 'alomorph' to 'allomorph').
>Presumably it's using its spell checker for a list of correct words,
>together with some notion of common errors.  For example, it corrects
>'alomorph' but not 'alloorph', so it seems to know that writing a >single
>for a double 'll' is a common mistake, while omitting an 'm' is not.

>In sum, it's smarter than I thought.

My thanks to Robert Dale and Mike Maxwell for their helpful responses. I'd
be interested in any additional information others could provide.


Kari Kraus
University of Rochester
kkru at mail.rochester.edu

LINGUIST List: Vol-12-2078

More information about the Linguist mailing list