article about Microsoft grammar checker

[Mark A. Mandel]

    SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/217802_grammar28.asp
    A Word to the unwise -- program's grammar check isn't so smart

    Monday, March 28, 2005

    By TODD BISHOP
    SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

    Microsoft the company should big improve Word grammar check.

    No, your eyes aren't deceiving you. That sentence is a confusing
    jumble. However, it is perfectly fine in the assessment of Microsoft
    Word's built-in grammar checker, which detects no problem with the
    prose.

    Sandeep Krishnamurthy thinks Microsoft can do a lot better.

    The University of Washington associate professor has embarked on a
    one-man mission to persuade the Redmond company to improve the
    grammar-checking function in its popular word-processing program.
    Krishnamurthy is also trying to raise public awareness of the issue.

    "If you're a grad student turning in your term paper, and you think
    grammar check has completely checked your paper, I have news for you
    -- it really hasn't," he said.

    Microsoft says it has been making continuous improvements in the
    grammar-checking tool, and the company notes that the issue is more
    complex than it might seem. Experts in natural-language processing say
    the broader issue reflects a deep technological challenge beyond the
    current capabilities of computer science.

    "It is tremendously difficult," said Karen Jensen, a retired Microsoft
    researcher who led the company's Natural Language Processing research
    group as it developed the underlying technology for the grammar
    checker, which debuted in 1997. "It gives you all kinds of respect for
    a human being's native ability to learn and understand in natural
    language."

    But Krishnamurthy, a professor of marketing and e-commerce at the UW's
    Bothell campus, isn't convinced that the software giant is doing
    everything it can -- and he supports his point with eye-catching
    examples.

    He has crafted and posted for public download several documents
    containing awful grammar. Depending on the version and settings, the
    Word grammar checker sometimes detects a few of the problems. But it
    overlooks the majority of them -- skipping misplaced apostrophes,
    singular-plural inconsistencies, missing articles, sentence fragments,
    improper capitalization and other problems.

    An excerpt from one of his documents: "Marketing are bad for brand big
    and small. You Know What I am Saying? It is no wondering that
    advertisings are bad for company in America, Chicago and Germany. ...
    McDonald's and Coca Cola are good brand. ... Gates do good marketing
    job in Microsoft."

    With examples like that passing through unflagged, Krishnamurthy
    questions whether Microsoft should even offer the grammar-checking
    feature in its existing state.

    "If you're including a feature in a widely used program like Microsoft
    Word, it's got to pick up more things than it currently does," he
    said. "I agree, the English language is very complicated, but I think
    we should expect more from grammar check."

    By comparison, the grammar checker in Corel Corp.'s WordPerfect Office
    12 catches many of the errors in Krishnamurthy's test documents that
    aren't detected by the Microsoft Word 2003 grammar checker, even set
    at the highest sensitivity to errors.

    In fact, there is room for Microsoft to make incremental improvements
    in Word's grammar checker, said Christopher Manning, assistant
    professor of linguistics and computer science at Stanford University.

    For example, he said, the Word grammar checker could benefit from
    greater use of advanced probabilistic and statistical methods to
    analyze sentences and flag problems. Microsoft has applied some of
    that more advanced research to competitive and high-profile areas such
    as Web search and spam detection.

    Microsoft says the grammar-checker does use probabilistic techniques
    in addition to more basic, rules-based methods. But with further use
    of advanced approaches, it appears possible for Word's grammar checker
    to improve, Manning said. However, he said, "It still wouldn't be as
    good as a good human editor."

    Microsoft calls that the fundamental issue. Responding to an inquiry
    about Krishnamurthy's examples, the Microsoft Office group said in a
    statement that the grammar checker "was created to be a guide and a
    tool, not a perfect proofreader." Microsoft also makes that point in
    Word's product documentation.

    The statement added, "It is possible to list a number of sentences
    that you would expect the Word grammar checker to catch that it
    doesn't. But that doesn't represent real-world usage. The Word grammar
    checker is designed to catch the kinds of errors that ordinary users
    make in normal writing situations."

    It would be possible to "dial up the sensitivity" of the Word grammar
    checker to catch more errors, the company said. However, that could
    also cause it to flag sentences considered correct in colloquial
    usage.

    That would risk making the tool more intrusive than people want, the
    company said. In fact, Microsoft dialed down the sensitivity of the
    grammar checker in certain respects starting in 2002, responding to
    customer feedback. For example, some people objected when the tool
    flagged sentences of more than 40 words as "perhaps excessively
    complex."

    Krishnamurthy said he considers the company's view too simplistic. He
    suggested that Microsoft further increase the available settings,
    beyond the current options, to let people essentially "pick the level
    of intrusion." He also said the company should offer an add-on for
    people who need extra help, such as students for whom English is a
    second language.

    As it now stands, the tool helps good writers but "really doesn't help
    bad writers at all," he said.

    Krishnamurthy, 37, grew up in Hyderabad, India. A textbook author and
    a frequent contributor to scholarly journals, he is passionate about
    writing and the English language.

    But how did a marketing and e-commerce professor become a
    grammar-checking crusader? While always stressing the importance of
    writing well in the first place, Krishnamurthy would also routinely
    tell his students to run the Word spelling and grammar checks as a
    precaution before turning in their papers.

    Then, last year, one student turned in a badly written report.

    "The least you could have done is run spell-check and grammar-check,"
    Krishnamurthy said.

    "But I did!" the student said.

    That prompted the professor to investigate, and he began discovering
    blind spots in the Word grammar-checking tool. Krishnamurthy
    ultimately decided to assemble specific examples of bad grammar that
    made it through undetected. He began circulating them last week via
    e-mail to friends, colleagues and Seattle-area media. He also created
    a Web page for the purpose:
    http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/check.

    The professor is careful to point out that he's not out to bash
    Microsoft. But he says the company is spending too much energy on
    extraneous capabilities, while neglecting core features such as the
    grammar checker. Among other things, Microsoft is trying to expand the
    market for Microsoft Office by adding a series of related server-based
    programs.

    Office and related software make up Microsoft's second-most profitable
    division, bringing in more than $7.1 billion in operating profit in
    the last fiscal year. The core Office programs dominate the market.

    Despite the lack of intense competition, there is a business incentive
    for Microsoft to invest in core features, said analyst Rob Helm,
    research director at Kirkland-based research firm Directions on
    Microsoft. That's because one of the company's biggest challenges is
    persuading customers to upgrade from older versions of its own
    programs.

    By making improvements to features such as the grammar and spelling
    checkers, Microsoft "can give people an additional incentive" to shift
    to the newer version, Helm said.

    Jensen, the retired Microsoft researcher who worked on the original
    grammar-checking technology, said major advances would involve making
    computers understand sentences in ways that humans would.

    As an example, she cited one of the sentences used in Krishnamurthy's
    sample documents: "Gates do good marketing job in Microsoft." Only by
    knowing that "Gates" probably refers to Bill Gates -- and not to the
    plural of the movable portion of a fence -- would the program know to
    suggest using "does" instead.

    "It's this level of understanding that you just can't expect a
    computer to have at this point," Jensen said. "Someday, of course, it
    would be great, but we're not there yet."

    In the meantime, Krishnamurthy is spreading the message. He doesn't
    suggest that anyone stop using the grammar-checking tool, but he wants
    people to fully understand its limitations and not consider it a
    substitute for good writing and editing.

    In one part of his Web site, he has posted a cautionary list of "top
    writing mistakes" made by his students. No. 11: "Assuming that
    Microsoft Word's spelling and grammar check will solve all writing
    problems."
    ___________________________________

    On the Net: faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/check

    P-I reporter Todd Bishop can be reached at 206-448-8221or
    toddbishop at seattlepi.com

    P-I senior online producer Brian Chin contributed to this report.

    © 1998-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer