, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 63–81 | Cite as

Spelling correction and morphological analysis to aid electronic dictionary look-up

  • Nikki AdamsEmail author
Original Paper


We discuss here the potential use of a morphologically aware spelling corrector to aid second language learners in finding words in an electronic dictionary, using Korean as the language of instantiation but with a method extensible to many languages. The tool discussed is a composition of two parts: a spelling corrector and morphological analyzer. When these two parts are composed, it allows for the spelling correction of morphologically complex words. The results include correct spellings as well as one or more possible morphological parses, which can aid the student both in their spelling and in their understanding of the components of the words. It can be particularly useful when students hear a word (rather than constructing it themselves) and may, therefore, not know the correct spelling or all the morphemes in it. The performance of this method is tested with data obtained from a Korean student learner error corpus and then compared with that of another publicly available morphologically aware spellchecker—the online Pusan National University spelling and grammar checker. Testing and findings reveal that traditional spellcheckers will not find many student errors, because they are not designed to; the word they typed is a correct word, but the incorrect one for the context. Providing students with multiple search results at all times allows them to choose the correct one for their context, and doing so allowed our tool to offer spelling correction, where a more traditional spellchecker did not.


Spellchecking Spelling correction Morphology Electronic dictionary Korean L2 


  1. Adams, Nikki and Michael Maxwell. 2016. Somali spelling corrector and morphological analyzer. In Proceedings of LREC 2016 Workshop CCURL (Collaboration and Computing for Under-resourced Languages): towards an alliance for digital language diversity, eds. Claudia Soria, Laurette Pretorius, Thierry Declerck, Joseph Mariani, Kevin Scannell, Eveline Wandl-Vogt. Portorož, Slovenia, 22–29.Google Scholar
  2. Agirre, Eneko, Inaki Alegria, Xabier Arregi, Xabier Artola, A. Díaz de Ilarraza, Montse Maritxalar, Kepa Sarasola, and Miriam Urkia. 1992. XUXEN: A spelling checker/corrector for Basque based on two-level morphology. In Proceedings of the third conference on Applied natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 119–125.Google Scholar
  3. Chang, Charles B. 2013. The production and perception of coronal fricatives in Seoul Korean. Korean Linguistics 15: 7–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheon, Sang Yee. 2005. Production and perception of phonological contrasts in second language acquisition: Korean and English fricatives. PhD diss., University of Hawai’i.Google Scholar
  5. Francis, Alexander L., and Howard C. Nusbaum. 2002. Selective attention and the acquisition of new phonetic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 28(2): 349–366.Google Scholar
  6. Gnanadesikan, Amalia E. 2011. The writing revolution: Cuneiform to the internet. Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Hill, Monica, and Batia Laufer. 2003. Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in incidental vocabulary acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 41(2): 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hulden, Mans. 2009. Foma: a finite-state compiler and library. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Demonstrations Session. Association for Computational Linguistics, 29–32.Google Scholar
  9. Kang, Mi-Young, Aesun Yoon, and Hyuk-Chul Kwon. 2003. Improving partial parsing based on error-pattern analysis for a Korean grammar-checker. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing (TALIP) 2(4): 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kim, Minho, Jingzhi Jin, Hyuk-Chul Kwon, and Aesun Yoon. 2013. Statistical context-sensitive spelling correction using typing error rate. In 2013 IEEE 16th International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, 1242–1246.Google Scholar
  11. Knight, Susan. 1994. Dictionary use while reading: the effects on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern Language Journal 78(3): 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ko, Seok Ju, M. Kim, S. Seo, H. Chung, and S. Han. 2004. Korean learners’ corpora and error analysis. Seoul: Hanguk Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  13. Koppel, Moshe, Jonathan Schler, and Kfir Zigdon. 2005. Determining an author’s native language by mining a text for errors. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery in data mining, 624–628.Google Scholar
  14. Koyama, Toshiko, and Osamu Takeuchi. 2007. Does look-up frequency help reading comprehension of EFL learners? Two empirical studies of electronic dictionaries. CALICO Journal 25(1): 110–125.Google Scholar
  15. Laufer, Batia, and Monica Hill. 2000. What lexical information do L2 learners select in a CALL dictionary and how does it affect word retention? ERIC. Accessed 16 June 2016.
  16. Lee, Sun-Hee, Seok Bae Jang, and Sang-Kyu Seo. 2009. Annotation of Korean learner corpora for particle error detection. CALICO Journal 26(3): 529–544.Google Scholar
  17. Levenshtein, Vladimir I. 1966. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10(8): 707–710.Google Scholar
  18. Mitton, Roger. 2009. Ordering the suggestions of a spellchecker without using context. Natural Language Engineering 15(2): 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Németh, Lászlo, Trón Viktor, Péter Halácsy, András Kornai, András Rung, and István Szakadát. 2004. Leveraging the open source ispell codebase for minority language analysis. In SALTMIL Workshop at LREC 2004: First Steps in Language Documentation for Minority Languages, ed. Julie Carson-Berndsen, 56–59.Google Scholar
  20. Oflazer, Kemal. 1996. Error-tolerant finite-state recognition with applications to morphological analysis and spelling correction. Computational Linguistics 22(1): 73–89.Google Scholar
  21. Oh, Janet S., Sun-Ah Jun, Leah M. Knightly, and Au Terry Kit-fong. 2003. Holding on to childhood language memory. Cognition 86(3): B53–B64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pretorius, Laurette, and Sonja E. Bosch. 2003. Finite-state computational morphology: An analyzer prototype for Zulu. Machine Translation 18(3): 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rytting, C.Anton, David M. Zajic, Paul Rodrigues, Sarah C. Wayland, Christian Hettick, Tim Buckwalter, and Charles C. Blake. 2011. Spelling correction for dialectal Arabic dictionary look up. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing (TALIP) 10(1): 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Savary, Agata. 2002. Typographical nearest-neighbor search in a finite-state lexicon and its application to spelling correction. In Implementation and Application of Automata, eds. B.W. Watson and D. Wood, 251–260. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  25. Shaalan, Khaled, Rana Aref, and Aly Fahmy. 2010. An approach for analyzing and correcting spelling errors for non-native Arabic learners. In Informatics and systems (INFOS) 2010, the 7th International Conference on Informatics and Systems, 1–7.Google Scholar
  26. Shin, Eurie. 2007. How do non-heritage students learn to make the three-way contrast of Korean stops? The Korean Language in America 12: 85–105.Google Scholar
  27. Topac, V. 2010. Efficient fuzzy search enabled hash map. In 2010 4th International Workshop on Soft Computing (SOFA), 39–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations