Am I right in thinking that if something else is better, it means that the original one is good? I wonder why the correction was classified as an ‘unnatural’ expression by the corrector. The distinction between ‘incorrect’, ‘good’, and ‘better’ is necessary. This is what I have been saying in each post, not to mention incorrect correction.
. . .
‘×, ◯, and ◎’ I hope that these three signs will be used by ‘tutors’ in order to differentiate between incorrect, good, and better. Tutors do not necessarily need to show grammatical explanations if this classification system is applied in every correction. I hope that this proposal does not sound arrogant. (I wonder how your tone detector will respond to my proposal.)
. . .
“I’m not a walking grammar book. So, either he wants to accept my help or not.” This sounds arrogant, doesn’t it? If I were a tutor of Japanese, I would not word like this. At least, I would show the difference between incorrect, good, and better.
I have never actually come across these particular symbols, but my instinct, in the context of language correction, is that ‘better’ implies that the original text is acceptable or correct, but perhaps awkward or not the most natural way that a native speaker would phrase it. I would prefer to use a phrase like ‘OK’ for these utterances, rather than good–for me, good suggests outright praise for style, rather than just distinguishing grammatical and ungrammatical utterances. So in fact, if I were correcting a text, I would only use this ‘good/OK’ designation to draw the learner’s attention to the fact that something needs improvement, even if it isn’t technically incorrect.
I’m not sure what you mean in the last sentence about incorrect correction; I guess that you’re referring to inconsistencies in different tutors’ evaluations of the same text?
I think your idea is a good one–I’m new to the site, so maybe this already exists and I just haven’t found it, but some sort of community standards would help make corrections more consistent, especially for advanced learners who don’t speak/write incorrectly, but are still working on mastering the nuances of their target langauge. The problem is that with so many regional varieties and standards, different English speakers will have different ideas of what ‘sounds good’. From my experience in linguistics using speakers’ grammaticality judgments though, I think some difference of opinion is unavoidable.
On the arrogance scale your proposal would fall into the ‘x’ range, not a lot of arrogance there! The suggestion seems a “big circle” one. It does make sense to use symbols, although many people like a bit of grammar explanation I have heard. I also agree that this approach would be “double circle” for more advanced learners. Beginners might still like a concrete example.
Let’s see whether your idea will spread.
P.S. I had trouble producing the symbols (see above).
The three assumed categories:
× : incorrect–“this expression should be changed”
◯ : okay–“no correction is needed”
◎ : better–“this is okay, but there is a better expression”
The second category ‘okay/good’ is assumed to exist, although it is a kind of ‘residual’ category.