Linguistic Support for Revising and Editing

  • Cerstin Mahlow
  • Michael Piotrowski
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4919)


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.


Noun Phrase Word Form Word Processor Writing Process Linguistic Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Haar, C.: Definitions and distinctions. [14], ch. 2Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kruse, O., et al. (eds.): Prozessorientierte Schreibdidaktik. Schreibtraining für Schule, Studium und Beruf. Haupt, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vernon, A.: Computerized grammar checkers 2000: capabilities, limitations, and pedagogical possibilities. Computers and Composition 17, 329–349 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blatt, I., Hartmann, W. (eds.): Schreibprozesse im medialen Wandel. Ein Studienbuch. Diskussionsforum Deutsch. Schneider, Hohengehren (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Merz-Grötsch, J.: Schreiben als System. Band 1: Schreibforschung und Schreibdidaktik. Ein Überblick. 2 edn. Filibach, Freiburg i. Breisgau (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Langer, I., Schulz von Thun, F., Tausch, R.: Sich verständlich ausdrücken. Reinhardt, München (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hajnal, I., Item, F.: Schreiben und Redigieren, auf den Punkt gebracht! Huber, Frauenfeld (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McGee, T., Ericsson, P.: The politics of the program: MS Word as the invisible grammarian. Computers and Composition 19, 453–470 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heilker, P.: Revision worship and the computer as audience. Computers and Composition 9, 59–69 (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Piolat, A.: Effects of word processing on text revision. Language and Education 5, 255–272 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Piolat, A., Roussey, J., Thunin, O.: Effect of screen presentation on text reading and revising. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 47, 565–589 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eyman, D., Reilly, C.: Revising with word processing/technology/document design. In: [14], ch. 7Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Björk, L., Bräuer, G., Rienecker, L., Jörgensen, P.S. (eds.): Teaching Academic Writing in European Higher Education (Studies in Writing). Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horning, A., Becker, A. (eds.): Revision: History, Theory, and Practice (Reference Guides to Rhetoric and Composition). Parlor Press (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cerstin Mahlow
    • 1
  • Michael Piotrowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computational LinguisticsUniversity of ZurichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations