paraphrasing machine translation

Rewrite your text with precision and ease

Transform your writing with DeepL’s AI-powered paraphraser and grammar checker. Offering unparalleled accuracy and versatility in rewriting, experience the future of paraphrasing today.

Revolutionize your writing with our advanced AI paraphraser

Embrace the power of DeepL’s cutting-edge AI to transform your writing. Our paraphrasing tool goes beyond simple synonym replacement, using a sophisticated language model to capture and convey the nuances of your text. 

With our paraphraser, you'll not only retain the essence of your original content, but also enhance its clarity.

We currently offer text rewriting only in English and German. In the future, we'll  release new languages gradually  to ensure we deliver texts that are not just rewritten, but elevated.

Why use DeepL’s paraphrasing tool?

With our AI writing assistant, you can:

Improve your writing

Enhance the clarity, tone, and grammar of your text, especially in professional contexts.

Avoid errors

Forgo errors and present your ideas concisely for more polished writing.

Speed up writing

Expedite the writing process with suggestions for more formal, refined language.

Express yourself clearly

Perfect sentences and express yourself clearly—particularly for non-native English and German speakers.

Here's what you can do with our paraphraser

For business use:

• Great for short-form writing, like emails or messages, and long-form content, like PowerPoint presentations, essays, or scientific papers.

For personal use:

• Improve your writing and vocabulary, generate ideas, and express your thoughts more clearly.

DeepL’s paraphraser is also helpful for language learners. For example, you can memorize suggested vocabulary and phrases.

Try our paraphrasing tool to improve your writing instantly

Key features of our AI paraphrasing tool

• Incorporated into translator: Translate your text into English or German, and click "Improve translation" to explore alternate versions of your translation. No more copy/paste between tools.
• Easy-to-see changes: When you insert the text to be rewritten, activate "Show changes" to see suggested edits.
• AI-powered suggestions: By deactivating "Show changes", you can click on any word to see suggestions and refine your writing.
• Grammar and spell checker: Our paraphrasing tool is all-in-one, helping you correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
• Helpful integrations:  Access our paraphrasing tool in  Gmail, Google Slides, or Google Docs  via our browser extension or in  Microsoft Word via add-ins .

"The fastest, easiest, and most efficient translation tool I've ever used."

" You can easily modify the translation to use the vocabulary you want and make it sound natural. "

Still have questions about DeepL’s paraphrasing tool?

1. what makes our paraphrasing tool unique.

DeepL uses advanced AI to provide high-quality, context-aware paraphrasing in English and German. Our tool intelligently restructures and rephrases text, preserving the original meaning and enhancing your writing.

2. How do you use DeepL’s paraphrasing tool?

To accomplish writing tasks, you can:

- Paste your existing text into the tool

- Compose directly in the tool

- Use DeepL Translator before refining your writing with our paraphraser

3. Can the tool paraphrase complex academic texts?

Absolutely. DeepL's paraphraser is designed to handle complex sentence structures, making it useful for academic writing.

4. How does DeepL's paraphraser support language learners?

By making suggestions, the tool enables you to learn new phrases or words to incorporate into your vocabulary.

5. Is the paraphrasing tool free to use?

For now, the tool is completely free to use.

Explore the capabilities of our tool

Rewrite: Paraphrase your writing for free

Instantly rewrite paragraphs, reword sentences, or humanize AI content with Wordtune.

Do more with Rewrite. Much more.

• 01.   Sign up for Wordtune (it’s free)
• 02.   Write or paste your text
• 03.   Highlight the text you want to paraphrase
• 04.   Click “Rewrite”
• 05.   Choose a paraphrasing suggestion
• 06.   Pick the tone and/or length of your choice

I have some exciting

news to share with you.

I'm thrilled to let you know that we have some new developments to share.

I have some very exciting and important news to share with you all today.

Translate with AI

Ai text humanizer.

Join 10s of millions of users who use Wordtune to go beyond their English boundaries 

Join 10s of millions of users who use wordtune on a daily basis.

Wordtune is the best in my opinion, when it comes to rewriting content.

Can't live without wordtune, as someone who writes a-lot of sales related copy wordtune helps me personalize and gives me ideas on how to rewrite words or sentences.

It's like having 10 friends all willing to suggest alternatives to a sentence I'm writing, and I can pick the best one without hurting anyone's feelings.  :-)

Though my writing's pretty cogent, I'm always running it through Wordtune to find inspiration and better ways to express myself.

Everything you need to keep your words flowing

Produce AI content

Identify typos before hitting ‘send’

Catch grammatical errors in real time

Instant AI proofreading

Wordtune offers both free and premium plans. The free version offers up to 10 Rewrites and Spices, three AI generations, and three summaries a day. On top of that, you have unlimited grammar and spelling corrections. There are a range of premium plans with different features and pricing, including Advance, Unlimited, and Business options. Compare pricing and plans.

Yes, Wordtune integrates with other apps, including various web applications, your chosen internet browser, and Google Docs.

Wordtune has a variety of features, including grammar and spell check, Rewrite tools, a Summarizer, and your own personalized knowledge library. To learn more about the features, read this guide or check out our dedicated support section .

Yes. Wordtune has a smart synonym tool that allows you to highlight a single word and get a list of optional synonyms or substitutions. It also works on phrases, so you’re not just limited to single words.

Absolutely. You can easily switch between rewriting a sentence or a whole paragraph, too. When your Rewrite panel pops up, simply choose Sentence or Paragraph in the right-hand corner.

Yes. Wordtune is a fine choice for students who are working on essays, reports, or really any formal piece of writing. Unlike other AI tools, it actually cites its source of information, avoiding common AI problems like hallucinations or copycatting. The best part is it allows you to take even further steps to avoid plagiarism and assure that your work is your own by offering you a wide array of rephrasing options.

Yes. Wordtune’s AI-assisted translation can help you rewrite your text in English from any of these 10 languages: Chinese - Mandarin, Arabic, Hebrew, Korean, Hindi, Russian, Spanish, German, French, Portuguese. Simply click Rewrite and Wordtune will translate your text into English.

Perfect your writing with Rewrite

Paraphrasing Tool

Paraphrasing Tool powered by QuillBot. Paraphrase everywhere with the free Chrome Extension .

Try our other writing services

Avoid plagiarism in your paraphrased text

What is a paraphrasing tool?

This AI-powered paraphrasing tool lets you rewrite text in your own words. Use it to  paraphrase articles, essays, and other pieces of text. You can also use it to rephrase sentences and find synonyms for individual words. And the best part? It’s all 100% free!

What is paraphrasing?

Paraphrasing involves expressing someone else’s ideas or thoughts in your own words while maintaining the original meaning. Paraphrasing tools can help you quickly reword text by replacing certain words with synonyms or restructuring sentences. They can also make your text more concise, clear, and suitable for a specific audience. Paraphrasing is an essential skill in academic writing and professional communication. 

Why use this paraphrasing tool?

• Save time: Gone are the days when you had to reword sentences yourself; now you can rewrite an individual sentence or a complete text with one click.
• Improve your writing: Your writing will always be clear and easy to understand. Automatically ensure consistent language throughout. 
• Preserve original meaning: Paraphrase without fear of losing the point of your text.
• No annoying ads: We care about the user experience, so we don’t run any ads.
• Accurate: Reliable and grammatically correct paraphrasing.
• No sign-up required: We don’t need your data for you to use our paraphrasing tool.
• Super simple to use: A simple interface even your grandma could use.
• It’s 100% free: No hidden costs, just unlimited use of a free paraphrasing tool.

People are in love with our paraphrasing tool

No Signup Needed

You don’t have to register or sign up. Insert your text and get started right away.

The Paraphraser is Ad-Free

Don’t wait for ads or distractions. The paraphrasing tool is ad-free!

Multi-lingual

Use our paraphraser for texts in different languages.

Features of the paraphrasing tool

Rephrase individual sentences

With the Scribbr Paraphrasing Tool, you can easily reformulate individual sentences.

• Write varied headlines
• Rephrase the subject line of an email
• Create unique image captions

Paraphrase a whole text

Our paraphraser can also help with longer passages (up to 125 words per input). Upload your document or copy your text into the input field.

With one click, you can reformulate the entire text.

Find synonyms with ease

Simply click on any word to open the interactive thesaurus.

• Choose from a list of suggested synonyms
• Find the synonym with the most appropriate meaning
• Replace the word with a single click

Paraphrase in two ways

• Standard: Offers a compromise between modifying and preserving the meaning of the original text
• Fluency: Improves language and corrects grammatical mistakes

Upload different types of documents

Upload any Microsoft Word document, Google Doc, or PDF into the paraphrasing tool.

Download or copy your results

After you’re done, you can easily download or copy your text to use somewhere else.

Powered by AI

The paraphrasing tool uses natural language processing to rewrite any text you give it. This way, you can paraphrase any text within seconds.

Avoid accidental plagiarism

Want to make sure your document is plagiarism-free? In addition to our paraphrasing tool, which will help you rephrase sentences, quotations, or paragraphs correctly, you can also use our anti-plagiarism software to make sure your document is unique and not plagiarized.

Scribbr’s anti-plagiarism software enables you to:

• Detect plagiarism more accurately than other tools
• Ensure that your paraphrased text is valid
• Highlight the sources that are most similar to your text

Start for free

How does this paraphrasing tool work?

1. put your text into the paraphraser, 2. select your method of paraphrasing, 3. select the quantity of synonyms you want, 4. edit your text where needed, who can use this paraphrasing tool.

Paraphrasing tools can help students to understand texts and improve the quality of their writing. 

Create original lesson plans, presentations, or other educational materials.

Researchers

Explain complex concepts or ideas to a wider audience. 

Journalists

Quickly and easily rephrase text to avoid repetitive language.

Copywriters

By using a paraphrasing tool, you can quickly and easily rework existing content to create something new and unique.

Bloggers can rewrite existing content to make it their own.

Writers who need to rewrite content, such as adapting an article for a different context or writing content for a different audience.

A paraphrasing tool lets you quickly rewrite your original content for each medium, ensuring you reach the right audience on each platform.

The all-purpose paraphrasing tool

The Scribbr Paraphrasing Tool is the perfect assistant in a variety of contexts.

Brainstorming

Writer’s block? Use our paraphraser to get some inspiration.

Professional communication

Produce creative headings for your blog posts or PowerPoint slides.

Academic writing

Paraphrase sources smoothly in your thesis or research paper.

Social media

Craft memorable captions and content for your social media posts.

Paraphrase text online, for free

The Scribbr Paraphrasing Tool lets you rewrite as many sentences as you want—for free.

Write with 100% confidence 👉

Scribbr & academic integrity.

Scribbr is committed to protecting academic integrity. Our plagiarism checker , AI Detector , Citation Generator , proofreading services , paraphrasing tool, grammar checker , summarizer , and free Knowledge Base content are designed to help students produce quality academic papers.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Frequently asked questions

The act of putting someone else’s ideas or words into your own words is called paraphrasing, rephrasing, or rewording. Even though they are often used interchangeably, the terms can mean slightly different things:

Paraphrasing is restating someone else’s ideas or words in your own words while retaining their meaning. Paraphrasing changes sentence structure, word choice, and sentence length to convey the same meaning.

Rephrasing may involve more substantial changes to the original text, including changing the order of sentences or the overall structure of the text.

Rewording is changing individual words in a text without changing its meaning or structure, often using synonyms.

It can. One of the two methods of paraphrasing is called “Fluency.” This will improve the language and fix grammatical errors in the text you’re paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing and using a paraphrasing tool aren’t cheating. It’s a great tool for saving time and coming up with new ways to express yourself in writing.  However, always be sure to credit your sources. Avoid plagiarism.  

If you don’t properly cite text paraphrased from another source, you’re plagiarizing. If you use someone else’s text and paraphrase it, you need to credit the original source. You can do that by using citations. There are different styles, like APA, MLA, Harvard, and Chicago. Find more information about citing sources here.

Paraphrasing without crediting the original author is a form of plagiarism , because you’re presenting someone else’s ideas as if they were your own.

However, paraphrasing is not plagiarism if you correctly cite the source . This means including an in-text citation and a full reference, formatted according to your required citation style .

As well as citing, make sure that any paraphrased text is completely rewritten in your own words.

Plagiarism means using someone else’s words or ideas and passing them off as your own. Paraphrasing means putting someone else’s ideas in your own words.

So when does paraphrasing count as plagiarism?

• Paraphrasing is plagiarism if you don’t properly credit the original author.
• Paraphrasing is plagiarism if your text is too close to the original wording (even if you cite the source). If you directly copy a sentence or phrase, you should quote it instead.
• Paraphrasing  is not plagiarism if you put the author’s ideas completely in your own words and properly cite the source .

Try our services

Grab your spot at the free arXiv Accessibility Forum

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computation and Language

Title: paraphrase generation as unsupervised machine translation.

Abstract: In this paper, we propose a new paradigm for paraphrase generation by treating the task as unsupervised machine translation (UMT) based on the assumption that there must be pairs of sentences expressing the same meaning in a large-scale unlabeled monolingual corpus. The proposed paradigm first splits a large unlabeled corpus into multiple clusters, and trains multiple UMT models using pairs of these clusters. Then based on the paraphrase pairs produced by these UMT models, a unified surrogate model can be trained to serve as the final \sts model to generate paraphrases, which can be directly used for test in the unsupervised setup, or be finetuned on labeled datasets in the supervised setup. The proposed method offers merits over machine-translation-based paraphrase generation methods, as it avoids reliance on bilingual sentence pairs. It also allows human intervene with the model so that more diverse paraphrases can be generated using different filtering criteria. Extensive experiments on existing paraphrase dataset for both the supervised and unsupervised setups demonstrate the effectiveness the proposed paradigm.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

DBLP - CS Bibliography

Bibtex formatted citation.

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Paraphrase Tool

• Plagiarism check
• AI Check New
• Get premium

Featured in

Paraphrase variations in 18 writing modes.

Your words and thoughts matter, and we’ve designed our paraphrase tool to ensure find the best words to match your expression. Just paste or start writing your text in our input box above, and our best in class AI will help you to generate the best paraphrases from your original writing.

Write 10x faster with keywords in Compose mode

Who has time for writer’s block? Our Composer can help you write 10x faster by enabling you to create paragraphs from keywords instantly for articles, cover letters, essays, and more than 500 other types of writing in 100+ Languages. This way you can focus more on your final work rather than your first draft.

Check plagiarism in 50+ languages

None of us wants to accidentally plagiarize, especially when we spend so much time getting our ideas on paper and refining them. Be sure that your text is unique and 100% FREE of plagiarism by using our plagiarism checker for 50+ languages.

Paraphrase Tool uses state-of-the-art AI to paraphrase and compose in more than 100+ languages

Paraphrase Tool uses state-of-the-art AI to produce variations of your text in more than 100+ languages for each of the eighteen (12 free and 6 premium) styles that we offer. By doing this, we are able to offer more value and variety than any other service.

Billed every month

• Unlimited paraphrasing in 20 styles
• Up to 500 paragraphs/month
• Up to 100 plagiarism checks/month
• More powerful paraphrasing for all modes and languages

$89.99 billed every 12 months

• Unlimited paragraph generating
• Unlimited plagiarism checks

About Paraphrase Tool

Getting your wording just right.

Paraphrasing is a natural part of the writing process as it helps you clarify your thinking and suit your words to your audience. Using a Paraphrase Tool helps structure and streamline this work, and our paraphrase tool offers 20 modes, many of them free, for accomplishing just this. The 20 modes we offer are diverse, including a summarize tool, a free grammar checker, a mode to simplify text, and a sentence shortener. There are sentence rephrasers and paraphrase rephrase tools, and we pride ourselves on having both, since our reword generator accounts for context at both the sentence and paragraph levels.

When you google paraphrase you will get a variety of results, from a free Paraphrase Tool , to an article spinner, to a general phrase tool, and it can be hard to determine which of these rephrase tools will best help you complete your work. If you simply need to get a word rephrase, that is, reword only small elements within the sentence, many tools will suffice, but there is the risk that you end up with a tool that does not consider context and produces very awkward and ungrammatical sentences. Rephrasing is very much an art, and we’ve built our paraphrase bot to produce the most correct results in 20 modes in over 100 languages, making it the best paraphrasing tool at an exceptionally low cost. So whether you need to paraphrase deutsch, paraphrase greek, or paraphrase bahasa melayu, the next time you think, I need something to paraphrase this for me, you’ll know where to turn.

From keywords to paragraphs

Generating paragraphs with unique ideas can be challenging, and too often writers get stuck at this stage of the writing process. With our paragraph tool, you can enter keywords and let our AI generate paragraphs for you, so that you can have something to work with, refine the output, and become more engaged in your writing.

A paragraph generator creates links between your ideas, such that the output is sensible, unique, and stimulating, very close to what you would expect a thoughtful human paragraph writer to produce.

Paragraph makers are nice, but what about a short story generator? Because our AI is generalized, it serves a story generator, an essay generator, a poem generator, and much more. To generate compelling stories, you should provide the story generator with useful keywords from which it can develop plot elements, including characters, setting details, and any situational information. To generate reasonably good essays, you should likewise provide the essay maker with details around argumentative positions and any other pertinent ideas. If you more specifically want an introduction paragraph generator or conclusion paragraph generator, you can provide starter text and keywords that will best enable our essay creator to produce them.

You may well ask, “is this essay generator free?” Everything on this site is free within a 3-day trial, so you can test and develop confidence in our products. You may also be wondering where this is an essay automatic writer or if it will take a while to get results. All results appear within a matter of seconds, so you can move through your work as quickly as possible.

You may have professional needs for creating paragraphs as well, such as those needed for cover letter. Most of the time a cover letter template includes information that is not relevant to you; by using your own keywords, we can produce cover letter examples that are relevant to your use case and often require very little editing. By using this service, you can also learn how to write a cover letter and achieve the cover letter format you need.

Plagiarism checker free

Like everything else on our site, you can check plagiarism free within a trial, which is a great opportunity for those who want to check a paper for plagiarism without committing to paying before they see results. This free plagiarism checker is great for students and clearly indicates how to check for plagiarism by highlighting areas of similarity between the two texts. Just to be sure you are not accidentally plagiarizing, be sure to check all of your paraphrases as well.

Paraphrasing Tool

Paraphrasing Tool in partnership with QuillBot. Paraphrase everywhere with the free Chrome Extension .

Try our other writing services

Avoid plagiarism in your paraphrased text

What's a paraphrasing tool?

This AI-powered paraphraser lets you rewrite text in your own words. Use it to  paraphrase articles, essays, and other pieces of text. You can also use it to rephrase sentences and find synonyms for individual words. And the best part? It’s all 100% free!

What's paraphrasing?

Paraphrasing involves expressing someone else’s ideas or thoughts in your own words while maintaining the original meaning. Paraphrasing tools can help you quickly reword text by replacing certain words with synonyms or restructuring sentences. They can also make your text more concise, clear, and suitable for a specific audience. Paraphrasing is an essential skill in academic writing and professional communication.

Why use this paraphrasing tool?

• Save time: Gone are the days when you had to reword sentences yourself; now you can rewrite an individual sentence or a complete text with one click.
• Improve your writing: Your writing will always be clear and easy to understand. Automatically ensure consistent language throughout. 
• Preserve original meaning: Paraphrase without fear of losing the point of your text.
• No annoying ads: We care about the user experience, so we don’t run any ads.
• Accurate: Reliable and grammatically correct paraphrasing.
• No sign-up required: We don’t need your data for you to use our paraphrasing tool.
• Super simple to use: A simple interface even your grandma could use.
• It’s 100% free: No hidden costs, just unlimited use of a free paraphrasing tool.

People are in love with our paraphrasing tool

Features of the paraphrasing tool

Rephrase individual sentences

With the Scribbr Paraphrasing Tool, you can easily reformulate individual sentences.

• Write varied headlines
• Rephrase the subject line of an email
• Create unique image captions

Paraphrase a whole text

Our paraphraser can also help with longer passages (up to 125 words per input). Upload your document or copy your text into the input field.

With one click, you can reformulate the entire text.

Find synonyms with ease

Simply click on any word to open the interactive thesaurus.

• Choose from a list of suggested synonyms
• Find the synonym with the most appropriate meaning
• Replace the word with a single click

Paraphrase in two ways

• Standard: Offers a compromise between modifying and preserving the meaning of the original text
• Fluency: Improves language and corrects grammatical mistakes

Upload different types of documents

Upload any Microsoft Word document, Google Doc, or PDF into the paraphrasing tool.

Download or copy your results

After you’re done, you can easily download or copy your text to use somewhere else.

Powered by AI

The paraphrasing tool uses natural language processing to rewrite any text you give it. This way, you can paraphrase any text within seconds.

How does this paraphrasing tool work?

1. put your text into the paraphraser, 2. select your method of paraphrasing, 3. select the quantity of synonyms you want, 4. edit your text where needed, who can use this paraphrasing tool.

Paraphrasing tools can help students to understand texts and improve the quality of their writing. 

Create original lesson plans, presentations, or other educational materials.

Researchers

Explain complex concepts or ideas to a wider audience. 

Journalists

Quickly and easily rephrase text to avoid repetitive language.

Copywriters

By using a paraphrasing tool, you can quickly and easily rework existing content to create something new and unique.

Bloggers can rewrite existing content to make it their own.

Writers who need to rewrite content, such as adapting an article for a different context or writing content for a different audience.

A paraphrasing tool lets you quickly rewrite your original content for each medium, ensuring you reach the right audience on each platform.

The all-purpose paraphrasing tool

The Scribbr Paraphrasing Tool is the perfect assistant in a variety of contexts.

Brainstorming

Writer’s block? Use our paraphraser to get some inspiration.

Professional communication

Produce creative headings for your blog posts or PowerPoint slides.

Academic writing

Paraphrase sources smoothly in your thesis or research paper.

Social media

Craft memorable captions and content for your social media posts.

Paraphrase text online, for free

The Scribbr Paraphrasing Tool lets you rewrite as many sentences as you want—for free.

Write with 100% confidence 👉

Ask our team.

Want to contact us directly? No problem. We are always here for you.

• Chat with us
• Email [email protected]
• Call +44 (0)20 3917 4242
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Frequently asked questions

The act of putting someone else’s ideas or words into your own words is called paraphrasing, rephrasing, or rewording. Even though they are often used interchangeably, the terms can mean slightly different things:

Paraphrasing   is restating someone else’s ideas or words in your own words while retaining their meaning. Paraphrasing changes sentence structure, word choice, and sentence length to convey the same meaning.

Rephrasing   may involve more substantial changes to the original text, including changing the order of sentences or the overall structure of the text.

Rewording   is changing individual words in a text without changing its meaning or structure, often using synonyms.

It can. One of the two methods of paraphrasing is called “Fluency.” This will improve the language and fix grammatical errors in the text you’re paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing and using a paraphrasing tool aren’t cheating. It’s a great tool for saving time and coming up with new ways to express yourself in writing.  However, always be sure to credit your sources.  Avoid plagiarism.  

If you don’t properly reference text paraphrased from another source, you’re plagiarising. If you use someone else’s text and paraphrase it, you need to credit the original source. You can do that by using citations. There are different styles, like APA, MLA, Harvard, and Chicago. Find more information about referencing sources  here.

Paraphrasing   without crediting the original author   is a   form of plagiarism , because you’re presenting someone else’s ideas as if they were your own.

However, paraphrasing is not plagiarism if you correctly referencing the source . This means including an   in-text citation   and a full reference, formatted according to your required   citation style.

As well as citing, make sure that any paraphrased text is completely rewritten in your own words.

Plagiarism   means using someone else’s words or ideas and passing them off as your own.   Paraphrasing   means putting someone else’s ideas in your own words.

So when does paraphrasing count as plagiarism?

• Paraphrasing   is   plagiarism if you don’t properly credit the original author.
• Paraphrasing   is   plagiarism if your text is too close to the original wording (even if you cite the source). If you directly copy a sentence or phrase, you should   quote   it instead.
• Paraphrasing  is not   plagiarism if you put the author’s ideas completely in your own words   and   properly referencing the source .

2020 Duolingo Shared Task

Staple: simultaneous translation and paraphrase for language education.

This challenge is in conjunction with the WNGT workshop at ACL 2020 .

Introduction

Machine translation systems typically produce a single output , but in certain cases, it is desirable to have many possible translations of a given input text. This situation is common with Duolingo (the world's largest language-learning platform), where some learning happens via translation-based exercises, and grading is done by comparing learners' responses against a large set of human-curated acceptable translations. We believe the processes of grading and/or manual curation could be vastly improved with richer, multi-output translation + paraphrase systems .

In this shared task, participants start with English prompts and generate high-coverage sets of plausible translations in five other languages. For evaluation, we provide sentences with handcrafted, field-tested sets of possible translations, weighted and ranked according to actual learner response frequency. We will also provide high-quality automatic translations of each input sentence that may (optionally) be used as a reference/anchor point, and also serves as a strong baseline. In this way, we expect the task to be of interest to diverse researchers in machine translation, MT evaluation, multilingual paraphrase, and language education technology fields.

Novel and interesting research opportunities in this task:

• A large set of sentences with comprehensive translations (though not exhaustive, per se)
• Translations weighted by real language-learner data
• Datasets in 5 language pairs .

The outcomes of this shared task will be:

• New translation datasets provided to the community
• New benchmarks for MT and paraphrasing

Take note of the task timeline below. Quick links:

• Mailing list for updates & announcements
• Data sets at Dataverse
• Baseline starter code at GitHub
• Official submissions & results at CodaLab

Official Results

(Updated May 26, 2020) The table below shows the overall results on the TEST set for each language, in terms of weighted F1. We have omitted results that did not outperform the baselines. More detailed results can be found in this spreadsheet .

These results differ slightly from the CodaLab leaderboard . CodaLab chooses to display a results from a team's entire submission (according to some comparison function). We have chosen to select each team's highest performing score for each language track, which are not necessarily all from the same submission.

Read the 2020 STAPLE Task Overview Paper »

Important Dates

Mailing List & Organizers

We have created a Google Group to foster discussion and answer questions related to this task:

Join the STAPLE Shared Task group »

The task organizers (all from Duolingo) are:

• Klinton Bicknell
• Chris Brust
• Stephen Mayhew
• Bill McDowell
• Will Monroe
• Burr Settles

Task Definition & Data

Duolingo is a free, award-winning, online language learning platform. Since launching in 2012, more than 300 million students from all over the world have enrolled in one of Duolingo's 90+ game-like language courses, via the website or mobile apps. For comparison, that is more than the total number of students in the entire U.S. school system.

A portion of learning on Duolingo happens through translation-based exercises. In this task, we focus on the challenges where users are given a prompt in the language they are learning (English), and type a response in their native language. Some examples of this are shown in the following images, which are taken from English lessons for Portuguese speakers.

Prediction Task

Participants are given an English sentence, and are required to produce a high-coverage set of translations in the target language. In order to level the playing field, we also provide a high-quality automatic reference translation (via Amazon), which may be considered as a strong baseline for the machine translation task.

The prompt sentences come from Duolingo courses, and are often relatively simple (and a little quirky). For example, below is a sentence taken from the course that teaches English to Portuguese speakers:

Examining these data, it’s clear that not all accepted translations are equally likely, and therefore, they should be scored accordingly. As stewards of the world's largest and most comprehensive corpus of language learning data, we are able to use lesson response data to estimate which translations are more likely. This is used in the metric, described below.

The data for this task comes from five Duolingo courses. All use English prompts, with multiple translations, although weighted by frequency from speakers of each of the following languages:

• en_pt — Portuguese
• en_hu — Hungarian
• en_ja — Japanese
• en_ko — Korean
• en_vi — Vietnamese

The TRAIN data will include comprehensive accepted translations along with weights for participating teams to use in tuning their systems.

Statistics for the released training data are below. All dev and test sets have the same number of prompts (500). The training sets are sampled from each course.

Download the data »

Data Format

The provided data takes the following format. The weights on each translation correspond to user response rates. These weights are used primarily for scoring. You are not required to output weights.

Submission & Evaluation

Starter code.

You can find starter code here: https://github.com/duolingo/duolingo-sharedtask-2020/ . This contains code to train standard seq2seq models, as well as the official scoring function, and some data readers.

Get the starter code »

The main scoring metric will be weighted macro \(F_1\), with respect to the accepted translations. In short, systems are scored based on how well they can return all human-curated acceptable translations , weighted by the likelihood that an English learner would respond with each translation.

In weighted macro \(F_1\), we calculate weighted \(F_1\) for each prompt \(s\), and take the average over all prompts in the corpus. We chose to calculate precision in an unweighted fashion, and weight only recall. Specifically, for weighted true positives (WTP) and weighted false negatives (WFN), we have:

The weighted \(F_1\)'s are then averaged over all prompts in the corpus.

Evaluation: CodaLab

All system submissions and evaluation will be done via CodaLab . There will be a DEV phase where you can submit predictions online after the phase 2 data release, and a TEST phase for final evaluation after the phase 3 data release. Check for more details as the submission deadline approaches.

Submit results on CodaLab »

Prediction Format

The submission file format is similar to the Amazon Translate prediction file.

Submission should have blocks of text separated by one empty line, where the first line of the block is an ID and prompt, and all following lines are unique predicted paraphrases, order doesn't matter. During evaluation, the punctuation will be stripped, and all text lowercased.

Here is an example prediction file, with prompts corresponding to the example above:

System Papers & Citation Details

All teams are expected to submit a system paper describing their approach and results, to be published in the workshop proceedings and available through the ACL Anthology website. Please do so even if you are unable to travel to the ACL conference in July 2020.

Note that we are interested not only in top-performing systems (i.e., metrics), but also meaningful findings (i.e., insights for language and/or learning). Teams are encouraged to focus on both in their write-ups!

Papers should follow the the ACL 2020 submission guidelines . Teams are invited to submit a full paper (4-8 pages of content, with unlimited pages for references). We recommend using the official style templates:

• LaTeX + MS Word

All submissions must in PDF format and should not be anonymized . Supplementary files (hyperparameter settings, external features or ablation results too extensive to fit in the main paper, etc.) are also welcome, so long as they follow the ACL 2020 Guidelines. Final camera ready versions of accepted papers will be given up to one additional page of content (9 pages plus references) to address reviewer comments. Papers must include the following citation:

Stephen Mayhew, Klinton Bicknell, Chris Brust, Bill McDowell, Will Monroe, and Burr Settles. 2020. Simultaneous Translation And Paraphrase for Language Education. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Neural Generation and Translation (WNGT) , ACL.

Submit your paper through START »

Tips, Resources, & Related Work

The following resources may prove useful. We may update this section as the challenge progresses....

Translation

• fairseq is a Pytorch-based framework for sequence modeling, such as machine translation or text generation.
• KyTea may be useful for segmentation in Japanese.
• Multilingual contextual models, many of which are available through HuggingFace transformers.
• Multilingual BERT has proven to be remarkably useful for cross-lingual applications.
• XLM (Lample & Conneau, 2019), and XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2019), by virtue of parallel text in training, may outperform Multilingual BERT.
• It may be important to maintain a diverse beam when decoding (Ippolito et al., 2019).
• Given the nature of the data, phrase-based systems such as Giza++ , Moses , and others may in fact be competitive with more modern, neural methods (see statmt.org for many resources)

MT Evaluation

• In the HyTer metric (Dreyer & Marcu, 2012), a translation prediction is scored against a comprehensive list of manually-gathered translations. Our evaluation is similar in the sense that we have high-coverage translation options at test time, but the goals are slightly different. Where HyTer is concerned with accurate measurement of machine translation, this task pursues high-coverage output. We also provide real-world weights with each translation option.
• Where HyTer employed humans in writing all possible translations of a sentence, Automated HyTer (Apidianaki et al., 2018) uses the Paraphrase Database (PPDB) .

Paraphrasing

• The Multilingual Paraphrase Database (PPDB) may prove useful (Ganitkevitch & Callison-Burch, 2014)
• Towards Universal Paraphrastic Sentence Embeddings (Wieting et al., 2015)
• Simple and Effective Paraphrastic Similarity from Parallel Translations (Wieting et al, 2019)
• Learning to Paraphrase: An Unsupervised Approach Using Multiple-Sequence Alignment (Barzilay & Lee, 2003)
• Opensubtitles
• News Commentary
• The OPUS Collection

2018 SLAM Shared Task · ACL 2020 · WNGT · SIGEDU · Duolingo Research · Duolingo Careers

Paraphrase text

Paraphrase definition & meaning.

  It’s a Powerful and Free Paraphrasing Tool

  like a human rewrite,   ai based rewriter,   saving the original meaning,   multi-language rewriter, what is paraphrasing tool, do paraphrasing tools work, is the paraphrasing tool free, is paraphrasing illegal, does paraphrasing tool count as plagiarism, what is the best online paraphrasing tool, what is the website that rewords text, is there a website that paraphrases for you.

• Original article
• Open access
• Published: 26 January 2017

Using Internet based paraphrasing tools: Original work, patchwriting or facilitated plagiarism?

• Ann M. Rogerson 1 &
• Grace McCarthy 1  

International Journal for Educational Integrity volume  13 , Article number:  2 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

77k Accesses

63 Citations

167 Altmetric

Metrics details

A casual comment by a student alerted the authors to the existence and prevalence of Internet-based paraphrasing tools. A subsequent quick Google search highlighted the broad range and availability of online paraphrasing tools which offer free ‘services’ to paraphrase large sections of text ranging from sentences, paragraphs, whole articles, book chapters or previously written assignments. The ease of access to online paraphrasing tools provides the potential for students to submit work they have not directly written themselves, or in the case of academics and other authors, to rewrite previously published materials to sidestep self-plagiarism. Students placing trust in online paraphrasing tools as an easy way of complying with the requirement for originality in submissions are at risk in terms of the quality of the output generated and possibly of not achieving the learning outcomes as they may not fully understand the information they have compiled. There are further risks relating to the legitimacy of the outputs in terms of academic integrity and plagiarism. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the existence, development, use and detection of use of Internet based paraphrasing tools. To demonstrate the dangers in using paraphrasing tools an experiment was conducted using some easily accessible Internet-based paraphrasing tools to process part of an existing publication. Two sites are compared to demonstrate the types of differences that exist in the quality of the output from certain paraphrasing algorithms, and the present poor performance of online originality checking services such as Turnitin® to identify and link material processed via machine based paraphrasing tools. The implications for student skills in paraphrasing, academic integrity and the clues to assist staff in identifying the use of online paraphrasing tools are discussed.

Introduction

A casual question from a student regarding another student’s contribution to a group work assignment inadvertently led to an explanation of some unusual text submitted for assessment in a previous session. The student queried whether the use of a paraphrasing tool was acceptable in the preparation of a written submission for assessment. Discussing the matter further, the student revealed that they had queried the writing provided by one member of the group as their contribution to the report “did not make sense”. When asked, the group member stated that they had taken material from a journal article and used a fee free Internet paraphrasing tool “so that the words were not the same as the original to avoid plagiarism”. After the clarification, the group did not accept the submission from their team member and instead worked with them to develop an original submission. The group were thanked for their approach to the situation; however this revelation provided a potential explanation for some analogous submissions for previous subjects.

One particular submission from a previous subject instance had phrasing that included “constructive employee execution” and “worker execution audits” for an assessment topic on employee performance reviews. The student was interviewed at the time about why they had submitted work relating the words execution and employees and no satisfactory or plausible explanation was provided. With a new awareness of paraphrasing tools, a Google search revealed in excess of 500,000 hits and a simple statement was entered into one tool to test this connection. Testing the phrase ‘employee performance reviews’ via the top search response revealed an explanation for the unusual student submission as the paraphrase was returned as ‘representative execution surveys’. Choosing to use output generated by these tools begs the question – is it original work, patchwriting or facilitated plagiarism?

Having had our attention drawn to the existence and use of paraphrasing tools it was decided to investigate the phenomenon. What became apparent was that the ease of access to and use of such tools was greater than first thought. Consequently it is important to bring the use and operation of paraphrasing tools to a wider audience to encourage discussion about developing individual writing skills and improve the detection of these emerging practices, thereby raising awareness for students, teachers and institutions.

Paraphrasing and patchwriting

Academic writing is largely reliant on the skill of paraphrasing to demonstrate that the author can capture the essence of what they have read, they understand what they have read and can use the appropriately acknowledged evidence in support of their responses (Fillenbaum, 1970 ; Keck, 2006 , 2014 ; Shi, 2012 ). In higher education a student’s attempts at paraphrasing can provide “insight into how well students read as well as write” (Hirvela & Du, 2013 , p.88). While there appears to be an underlying assumption that students and researchers understand and accept that there is a standard convention about how to paraphrase and appropriately use and acknowledge source texts (Shi, 2012 ), there can be inconsistencies between underlying assumptions in how paraphrases are identified, described and assessed (Keck, 2006 ). Poorer forms of paraphrasing tend to use a simplistic approach where some words are simply replaced with synonyms found through functionality available in word processing software or online dictionaries. This is a form of superficial paraphrasing or ‘close paraphrasing’ (Keck, 2010 ) or ‘patchwriting’ (Howard, 1995 ). The question as to “the exact degree to which text must be modified to be classified as correctly paraphrased” (Roig, 2001 , p.309) is somewhat vague, although Keck ( 2006 ) outlined a Taxonomy of Paraphrase Types where paraphrases are classified in four categories ranging from near copy to substantial revision based on the number of unique links or strings of words.

Research in this area appears to concentrate more specifically on second language (L2) students rather than students per se (For a review see Cumming et al. 2016 ) although many native English writers may also lack the language skills to disseminate academic discourse in their own voice (Bailey & Challen, 2015 ). Paraphrasing is a skill that transcends the written form as it is actually a communication strategy required for all language groups in interpersonal or intergroup interactions and includes oral (Rabab’ah, 2016 ) and visual forms (Chen et al. 2015a ). Paraphrasing allows the same idea to be expressed in different ways as appropriate for the intended audience. It can also be used for persuasion (Suchan, 2014 ), explanations (Patil & Karekatti, 2015 ) and support (Bodie et al. 2016 ). In coaching, paraphrasing is used to ensure that the coach has correctly understood what the coachee is saying, thus allowing the coachee to further clarify their meaning (McCarthy, 2014 ).

Online writing tools

The prevalence and easy access to digital technologies and Internet-based sources have shifted “the way knowledge is constructed, shared and evaluated” (Evering & Moorman, 2012 , p.36). However the quality, efficacy, validity and reliability of some Internet-based material is questionable from an educational standpoint (Niño, 2009 ). Internet-based paraphrasing tools are text processing applications and associated with the same approaches used for machine translation (MT). While MT usually focusses on the translation of one language to another, the broader consideration of text processing can operate between or within language corpuses (Ambati et al. 2010 ).

Internet-based conversion and translation tools are easily accessible, and a number of versions are available to all without cost (Somers, 2012 ). Developments in the treatment of translating natural language as a machine learning problem (known as statistical machine translation - SMT) are leading to continual improvements in this field although the linguistic accuracy varies based on the way each machine ‘learns’ (Lopez, 2008 ). The free tools available via the Internet lack constant updates and improvements as the code is controlled by webmasters and not by experts in MT (Carter & Inkpen, 2012 ). This means advances in methods and algorithms are not always available to individuals relying on free Internet based tools. Consequently there are issues with the quality of MT which may require a level of post-editing to correct the raw output so that it is fit for purpose (Inaba et al. 2007 ).

Post-editing of an online output may be problematic or difficult for an individual with a low level of proficiency in the language they are being taught or assessed in as grammatical inaccuracies and awkward phrasing cannot be easily identified and therefore corrected (Niño, 2009 ). Where a student is considered to lack the necessary linguistic skills, the errors or inaccuracies may be interpreted by assessors as a student having a poor understanding of academic writing conventions rather than recognising that a student may not have written the work themselves. Where an academic is working in an additional language, they may find the detection of the errors or inaccuracies more difficult to identify.

Nor is the issue of paraphrasing or article spinning tool use confined to students. Automated article spinners perform the same way as paraphrasing tools, where text is entered into one field with a ‘spun’ output provided on the same webpage. They were initially developed for re-writing web content to maximise exposure and links to particular sites, without being detected as a duplicate of original content (Madera et al. 2014 ). The underlying purpose appears to allow website owners to “make money from the new, but not strictly original, article” (Lancaster & Clarke, 2009 ). These sites are freely available to students leading to a new label covering the use of these tools as ‘essay spinning’ (Lancaster & Clarke, 2009 , p.26). However, these spinning tools are equally available to academics who may be enticed with the notion of repurposing already published content as a way of increasing research output.

Although the quality levels of MT output varies widely, careful editing and review can address the errors further disguising the original source material (Somers, 2012 ). Roig ( 2016 ) highlights that some forms of text recycling are normal in academic life such as converting conference presentations and theses to journal articles and the textual reuse between editions of books, as long as there is appropriate acknowledgement of the original source. However Roig also points out that authors should be concerned about reusing previous work as with technological advances it will not be long before all forms of academic written work can “be easily identified, retrieved, stored and processed in ways that are inconceivable at the present time” (Roig, 2016 , p.665).

The fact remains that taking another author’s work, processing it through an online paraphrasing tool then submitting that work as ‘original’ is not original work where it involves the use of source texts and materials without acknowledgement. The case of a student submitting work generated by an online tool without appropriate acknowledgement could be considered as a form of plagiarism, and the case of academics trying to reframe texts for alternate publications could be considered as a form of self-plagiarism. Both scenarios could be considered as ‘facilitated plagiarism’ where an individual actively seeks to use some form of easily accessible Internet-based source to prepare or supplement submission material for assessment by others (Granitz, 2007 ; Scanlon & Neumann, 2002 ; Stamatatos, 2011 ). Applying technology to identify where the paraphrasing tools have been used is difficult as detection moves beyond text summarisation and matching to comparison of meaning and evaluation of machine translation (Socher et al. 2011 ).

Furthermore, students using an online paraphrasing system fail to demonstrate their understanding of the assessment task and hence fail to provide evidence of achieving learning outcomes. If they do not acknowledge the source of the text which they have put through the paraphrasing tool, they are also guilty of academic misconduct. On both counts, they would not merit a pass in the subject for which they submit such material.

Methodology

In order to test the quality of output generated by some free Internet based paraphrasing tools and how the originality of the output is assessed by Turnitin®, the following experiment was conducted. A paragraph from an existing publication by this article’s authors from a prior edition of the International Journal of Educations Integrity (IJEI) was selected to be the original source material (McCarthy & Rogerson, 2009 , p.49). To assess how a paraphrasing tool processes an in-text citation, one in-text citation was included (Thatcher, 2008 ). A set of three bibliographic entries from the reference list of the same article were also selected to test how references are interpreted.

As students are more likely to use Google as the Internet search engine of choice and rely on results near the top of page (Spievak & Hayes-Bohanan, 2016 ), this approach was used to identify and select some online paraphrasing tools for testing. The selected paragraph (including the in-text citation), and the selected references were entered into the first two hits on a Google search on www.google.com.au for ‘ paraphrasing tools ’. Consequently the sites used for the experiment were www.paraphrasing-tool.com (Tool 1) and www.goparaphrase.com (Tool 2).

The next step was to compare the outputs from the original journal article material to the outputs of Tool 1 and Tool 2. Exact matches to the original text were observed, tagged and highlighted in grey. Matches between the two paraphrasing outputs that did not match the original source were highlighted by placing the relevant text in a box. Contractions and unusual matches were highlighted by double underlining the text. For the first set of comparisons (paragraph with an in-text citation) the following summary characteristics were calculated: total word counts, total word matches and percentage of similarity to the original paragraph.

In order to identify how Turnitin® interpreted the paragraph and bibliographic outputs from the paraphrasing tools, the original source material and two paraphrasing outputs were uploaded to Turnitin® to check whether the journal publication could be identified. Turnitin® comprises a suite of online educative writing and evaluation tools where assessment tasks can be uploaded, checked and assessed ( www.turnitin.com ). It can be accessed via the Internet or through an interface with an institutional learning management system (LMS). The originality checking area compares a submission against a range of previously published materials and a database of previously submitted assignments. The system generates an originality report where text that matches closely to a previously published or submitted source is highlighted by colour and number with links provided to publicly accessible materials. Matches to papers submitted at other institutions cannot be accessed without the express permission of the owning institution. As Baggaley and Spencer note ( 2005 ) Turnitin® originality reports require careful analysis, for the reports identify text “which may or may not have been correctly attributed” (Baggaley & Spencer, 2005 , p. 56) and cannot be used as the sole determinant of whether or not a work is plagiarised or if source materials have been inappropriately used (Rogerson, 2014 ).

A separate Turnitin® assessment file was created for the experiment on an institutional academic integrity LMS site (Moodle) where a bank of dummy student profiles is available for testing purposes. Three dummy student accounts were used to load the individual ‘outputs’ under two assignment parts. The uploads included one instance of the source material in order to generate comparative originality reports for both the paragraph outputs (loaded under part 1) and the reference list outputs (loaded under part 2). For both sets of outputs the overall Turnitin® similarity percentages and document matches were reviewed for comparison purposes.

The highlighted comparisons of the paragraph outputs are presented in Fig.  1 (comparing Tool 1) and Fig.  2 (comparing Tool 2). The summary characteristics for the paragraph outputs are presented in Table  1 .

Comparison with output from www.paraphrasing-tool.com . Original source materials from McCarthy and Rogerson ( 2009 , p.49) and citing Thatcher ( 2008 )

Comparison with www.goparaphrase.com . Original source materials from McCarthy and Rogerson ( 2009 , p.49) and citing Thatcher ( 2008 )

There are obvious differences in how the online paraphrasing tools have reengineered the original work based on the number of identifiable matches between the original and output texts. For example there are differences in how words such as plagiarism are expressed (Original source: plagiarism ; Tool 1: copyright infringement ; Tool 2: counterfeit ). Both tools have used additional words (Tool 1: additional five words; Tool 2: additional 20 words). The output from Tool 1 has used 77 words or 50% of the words in the original paragraph but these were predominately coordinating conjunctions. Tool 1 has followed the correct use of capitalisations in all words and sentences, however Tool 2 has not capitalised words such as English, and Chinese, but did capitalise seven random words mid-sentence ( Audit, Numerous, Concerning, Likewise, Taking, and What’s ). In addition Tool 2 used contractions ( doesn’t ) and the words ‘ can have ’ in the original have been reprocessed to ‘ camwood ’.

The highlighted comparisons of the reference section outputs are presented in Fig.  3 (comparing the original source with Tool 1 and Tool 2). The summary characteristics of the Turnitin® results for the reference section outputs are presented in Table  2 .

Comparison with three reference list entries. Original source materials from McCarthy and Rogerson ( 2009 , p.56) and citing Carroll and Appleton ( 2005 ), Crisp ( 2007 ), and Dahl ( 2007 )

The Turnitin® results for both the paragraph and reference list uploads identified the original source as 100% match to the online location of the journal supporting Turnitin’s® claim in relation to identifying legitimate academic resources. What is of concern is Turnitin’s® apparent inability to identify the similarities evident by a manual comparison of the source and outputs. Figures  1 and 2 demonstrate the similarities between the original source materials and the output of the tools yet the similarity percentages noted in Table  2 indicate that the re-engineered paragraphs are not detected. One of the current limitations of Turnitin® is that it can detect some but not all cases of synonym replacement (Menai, 2012 ). Despite the patterned nature of the text matching identified through a visual examination of the output, the machine-based originality similarity checking software continues to have limitations in identifying materials that appear to be plagiarised through the use of an online paraphrasing tool or language translation application.

Turnitin® was more successful in matching up bibliographic data to the original source. This was likely due to the fact that the paraphrasing tools did not alter (or barely altered) long strings of numbers, letters and website URLs. The higher Turnitin® match to the output from Tool 1 (72% similarity) was due to the retention of most of the journal name ( International replaced with Global ) however the author name ‘ Crisp’ was altered to ‘ Fresh’ . The output from Tool 2 retained the authors’ last names, but added in 11 additional words to replace author Dahl’s first initial of ‘S’ which would have affected the calculation of similarity percentage. It is interesting that the change to lower case for authors’ initials appeared to impact on Turnitin’s® capacity to identify the authors in the first reference and missed the end of the journal details in the third reference, which also would have contributed to the lower similarity percentage. This led to Turnitin® overlooking 15 word matches and 13 other number and character matches in the Tool 2 submission that were identified as direct matches in the Tool 1 output.

A further examination of both sets of outputs from the paraphrasing tools identified that the tools appear to retain most words and formatting close to punctuation. For example both tools retained [ , policed, ], and the name and intext citation [Thatcher ( 2008 )] in the paragraph comparison, and a string in the reference section comparison [ Integrity, 3, 3–15, from http://www . ]. Without knowing the algorithms for the paraphrasing tools or Turnitin®, patterns such as these can only be observed rather than analysed.

The outputs and comparisons presented in Figs.  1 and 2 appear more like patchwriting rather than paraphrasing. Li and Casanave ( 2012 ) argue that patchwriting is an indication that the student is a novice writer still learning how to write and understand the “complexities of appropriate textual borrowing” (Li & Casanave, 2012 , p.177) although their study was confined to L2 students submitting assessment material in English. They further argue that deeming text as patchwriting does not attract the same negative connotations of plagiarism nor would it attract the same penalties. In our examples the patterns of text, language and phrasing can identify a student requiring learning support. This determination is likely due to the presence of poor expression, grammatical errors and areas of confused meaning which are sometimes referred to as a ‘word salad’. The term word salad is drawn from psychology but has been adopted in areas such as MT to classify unintelligible and random collections of words and phrases (Definition:word salad, 2016 ). Word salads are produced by MT “when translation engines fail to do a complete analysis of their input” (Callison-Burch & Flournoy, 2001 , p.1).

While the output from Tool 1 is mainly intelligible, some of the results from Tool 2 could be classified as word salads, for example in the last line the following string of words was produced ‘ duplicating Likewise an approach about Taking in starting with What's more paying admiration to previous aces’ . If an unintelligible string of words was submitted as part of an assessment task it may be a reason to have a conversation with a student to understand how they are going about their writing, and to determine if paraphrasing tools or article spinners have contributed. Where a citation is provided, it may be a case of a student having a poor understanding of academic writing conventions. Where there is no citation or any reference to the original source the situation may warrant investigation under academic integrity institutional policies and procedures.

If the percentage calculations presented in Fig.  1 are compared with Kecks ( 2006 ) Taxonomy of Paraphrase Types , the outputs from the online tools would fall into the category of paraphrases with minimal revision when compared to the original text (Keck, 2014 , p.9). The manual comparison of documents in this experiment indicates a level of patchwriting, however Turnitin® could not establish a relationship between the original source paragraph and the machine generated paraphrasing-tool outputs. It is more akin to some of the plagiarism behaviours described by Walker ( 1998 , p.103) such as “illicit paraphrasing” where material is reused without any source acknowledgement or even “sham paraphrasing” where text is directly copied but includes a source acknowledgement. This is a cause for concern as the comparison with the online paraphrasing tool output was only possible as the original source was known. It is not just a question of percentages but in the patterns clearly visible in Figs.  1 , 2 and 3 . Consequently, this set of experiments indicates a level of similarity that is concerning in two key areas, firstly where the original source is not acknowledged or identifiable, and secondly if this level of similarity were found in student work, it would suggest that the student may not have understood the material, or at least that he/she has not demonstrated their understanding.

Manual analysis and academic judgement are integral parts of the process of detection of plagiarised materials (Bretag & Mahmud, 2009b ), and are heavily reliant on the level of experience an assessor has in identifying clues, markers and textual patterns (Rogerson & Bassanta, 2016 ). In this experiment the original source of the plagiarised materials would be difficult to identify, however the presence of clues and patterns may be sufficient to motivate a lecturer or tutor to initiate an initial conversation with a student to determine whether the work is actually the student’s own (Somers et al. 2006 ).

A further investigation of the results from the Google search on ‘paraphrasing tools’ identified that many of the sites have multiple public faces—that is that there are additional URLs that direct users back to the same paraphrasing machine. The purpose behind the existence of the sites is not clear. The sites do carry Internet advertising so their existence and multiple faces may be related to a way to generate income. Alarmingly the sites examined in this study showed advertisements for higher education institutions which could be misinterpreted by users as tacit approval for the sites and their output. Other sites highlight that rudimentary paraphrasing tools are highly inaccurate but promote their paid services to correct the output—i.e. a process that could be interpreted as another form of contracted plagiarism (Clarke & Lancaster, 2013 ).

One of the questions that arises in assessing work as plagiarised is associated with intentionality—that is, did the person intend to deceive another about the originality of work (Lee, 2016 ). In the case of students “it is the inappropriate research and writing practices and the resulting misappropriate or misuse of information that leads students to breach academic integrity expectations” (Pfannenstiel, 2010 , p.43). Pfannenstiel’s use of the word ‘expectations’ is both interesting and enlightening as it is probable that differences in expectations is what is at the crux of the issue with online paraphrasing or article spinning tools. Expectations can be influenced by cultural and educational backgrounds, a lack of understanding or skills in paraphrasing and linguistic and language resources (Cumming et al., 2016 ; Sun, 2012 ). For example: a student may sincerely believe that as they have not submitted an exact copy of the original source, and that there is no evidence of match to the original source via online originality checking software that they have met the objective of submitting original work. Conversely, an academic may reasonably consider this to be direct plagiarism as the student copied the original work of someone else and reused it without any acknowledgement (Davis & Morley, 2015 ). This area of confusion was noted in Shi’s ( 2012 ) study where a student stated that using a translation of an original text did not require acknowledgment of the original source as the translation was not directly the original source. (Shi, 2012 , p.140).

While Turnitin® cannot currently connect the writing and the paraphrases in this experiment, it and other MT tools are in a constant state of evolution and their ability to identify poor quality machine translated text will continue to improve over time (Carter & Inkpen, 2012 ). In order to test the progress, Carter and Inkpen ( 2012 ) suggest that multiple tests of the same piece of text be conducted over a period of years to measure both the quality of output and the ability to detect their use. The literature reviewed in this area focusses on the detection of phrases and sentences, with Socher et al. ( 2011 ) noting that once detection switches from phrases to full sentences a comparison of meaning is more difficult for a machine to learn.

This article does not attempt to outline all the work being undertaken in this area, instead it highlights that there is research being undertaken to develop and further enhance MT (encoding and decoding) and detection of MT use. This includes computers learning computational semantics and managing expanded vocabularies to move beyond recognition of specific tasks (Kiros et al., 2015 ). Turnitin®’s ability to match large sections of text outside of their own repository of previously submitted assessment tasks is very useful because the majority of academic materials that can be plagiarised are text based (Bretag & Mahmud, 2009a ). Using text-matching as a basis for detection instead of semantic matching means that uses of online paraphrasing tools and article spinners continues to be difficult for technology to detect at this time. Therefore for the foreseeable future the onus of detection of unoriginal material remains with academics, lecturers and teachers (Rogerson, 2014 ).

Further confusion arises when institutions develop computer based paraphrasing tools as a way of developing English language writing skills for L2 students. Aware of the difficulties that L2 learners have with paraphrasing tasks, Chen, Huang, Chang and Liou developed a web and corpus based ‘paraphrasing assistant system’ designed to suggest paraphrases with corresponding Chinese translations (Chen et al. 2015b , p.23). Students familiar with using such a system in their home country may seek similar assistance if studying abroad. Without access to an approved technology they may seek to discover similar assistance tools on the Internet—where they can easily locate the paraphrasing tools identified in this experiment. These same students may also lack the judgement skills to discern the difference between the output from approved and poor quality online tools whether they are paraphrasing tools, article spinners or language translators.

Implications for practice: working with students

One way of confronting or approaching this issue is to openly demonstrate to students the errors and inaccuracies that can result in using online tools (Niño, 2009 ). Communicating proactively about the issue provides students with a greater awareness of the problems that can result from using online paraphrasing sites as well as ensuring that students understand that they should not expect to graduate unless they can demonstrate they understand the course material. Their current and future employers have the right to expect that for example, a student graduating with a degree in marketing will be able to articulate their understanding of marketing concepts. Proactive approaches can also promote learning development and support services offered by the educational institution providing students with advice about paraphrasing and strategies for improving their writing skills and therefore avoiding problematic practices. This educates students about alternatives to using online machine text generation tools.

Some students have expressed concerns that other students will continue to take advantage of technology based aids even though they had been told not to use them and knowing that to do so could be classified as cheating (Burnett et al. 2016 ). Students who do not cheat but put in the effort themselves are usually outraged if fellow students get away with cheating and may even bring cases they notice to the institutions’ attention (Warnock, 2006 ). This was the case with the casual comment by the student who brought the online paraphrasing tools to our attention. The actions of our students working with their group member to develop their own work also demonstrates how honest students can be allies in upholding the academic standards of the institution (Bretag & Mahmud, 2016 ). If the benefits of learning and developing individual paraphrasing skills are linked to the broader benefits of effective interpersonal and intergroup communication, the open approach to confronting and discussing the issue may be more successful.

Implications for practice: working with staff

The development of reading, summarising and paraphrasing skills are not the sole responsibility of learning developers. Educators need to embed academic skills in lectures and tutorials and provide feedback on student progress measured through effective assessment (Sambell et al. 2013 ). Clear assessment requirements and use of rubrics indicate the importance and differences to grades for the various levels of academic skills (Atkinson & Lim, 2013 ) providing students with a reason to develop their skills. Effective feedback assists students in identifying where they have achieved certain levels of academic skills and which skills require further development (Evans, 2013 ).

A further approach to tackling the issue is to re-design assessment tasks to include an oral component where the student has to present a summary of their argument and answer questions. This approach can ensure that the student understands and has achieved the learning outcomes, although it is no guarantee of the student’s academic integrity in preparing for their presentation. Finally, academics can also be trained to look for linguistic markers indicating the possibility of the use of such online paraphrasing tools so that they can investigate cases appropriately. Such markers include sentences that do not make sense, odd use of capitalisations in the middle of sentences, unusual phrases and, in the case where students have reprocessed work from old textbooks, out of date and superseded reference material.

Conclusion and recommendations for further research

This study has demonstrated that students can use online paraphrasing tools or article spinners in ways that avoid detection by originality checking software such as Turnitin®. Whether or not it is the student’s intent to avoid plagiarism is not the issue examined here. Rather, the intent of this paper is to ensure that those involved in teaching and learning are aware of the practice, can detect its use and initiate meaningful conversations with students about the perils of using such tools. There is a fine line between use of paraphrasing tools and the use of tools to plagiarise, however it is only through open discussion that students will learn to appreciate the benefits of articulating their understanding in their own words with the appropriate acknowledgement of sources.

Paraphrasing is a skill that transcends an ability to interpret and restate an idea or concept in writing. It is an important skill that needs to be introduced and developed in terms of written, visual and oral forms. The capacity of students and academics to rephrase, frame and restate the ideas and intentions of original authors themselves with appropriate acknowledgements of sources is fundamental to the principles of academic integrity and personal development. The proliferation of fee-based and free Internet-based tools designed to re-engineer text is a concern. Of greater concern is that tools contracted to identify original source materials cannot necessarily be used at this time to identify where writing has been repurposed. Regardless of the ease of access to online text regeneration tools and the work being done to try to electronically detect their use, individuals should be encouraged to improve their own paraphrasing expertise as an essential part of individual skill development in and beyond educational institutions.

Further work is needed to identify linguistic markers indicating use of online paraphrasing tools such as those identified in this study. Academics are already time poor and while they may be strongly in favour of upholding academic standards, they may also be reluctant to undertake time-consuming investigations into possible misconduct. They need encouragement to integrate the observation of textual patterns and markers into their grading and assessment practice. Research is also needed in exploring the most effective techniques or combination of educational, deterrent and punitive techniques and machine detection tools to combat the use of online paraphrasing tools and article spinners and other forms of academic malpractice. Such developments will assist in directing the focus of writing efforts back to where it should be – which is individuals writing and submitting their own work with appropriate acknowledgements.

Ambati V, Vogel S, and Carbonell JG (2010). Active learning and crowd-sourcing for machine translation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10), Malta.

Atkinson D, Lim SL (2013) Improving assessment processes in Higher Education: Student and teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of a rubric embedded in a LMS. Australas J Educ Technol 29(5):651–666

Google Scholar  

Baggaley J, Spencer B (2005) The mind of a plagiarist. Learning, Media and Technology 30(1):55–62. doi: 10.1080/13581650500075587

Article   Google Scholar  

Bailey C, Challen R (2015) Student perceptions of the value of Turnitin text-matching software as a learning tool. Practitioner Research in Higher Education 9(1):38–51

Bodie GD, Cannava KE, Vickery AJ (2016) Supportive communication and the adequate paraphrase. Commun Res Rep 33(2):166–172. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2016.1154839

Bretag T, and Mahmud S (2009a). A model for determining student plagiarism: Electronic detection and academic judgement. Paper presented at the 4APFEI Asia Pacific Conference on Education Integrity APFEI, Wollongong.

Bretag T, Mahmud S (2009b) Self-plagiarism or appropriate textual re-use? J Academic Ethics 7(3):193–205. doi: 10.1007/s10805-009-9092-1

Bretag T, Mahmud S (2016) A conceptual framework for implementing exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore, pp 463–480

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Burnett AJ, Enyeart Smith TM, Wessel MT (2016) Use of the Social Cognitive Theory to Frame University Students’ Perceptions of Cheating. J Academic Ethics 14(1):49–69. doi: 10.1007/s10805-015-9252-4

Callison-Burch C, Flournoy RS (2001) A program for automatically selecting the best output from multiple machine translation engines, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Machine Translation Summit VIII

Carroll J, Appleton J (2005). Towards consistent penalty decisions for breaches of academic regulations in one UK university. Int J Educ Integr 1(1):1–11

Carter D, Inkpen D (2012) Searching for poor quality machine translated text : Learning the difference between human writing and machine translations, Paper presented at the Advances in Artificial Intelligence: 25th Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Canadian AI 2012, 28–30 May 2012., Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Chen J, Kuznetsova P, Warren D, and Choi Y (2015). Déja image-captions: A corpus of expressive descriptions in repetition. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies.

Chen MH, Huang ST, Chang JS, Liou HC (2015b) Developing a corpus-based paraphrase tool to improve EFL learners’ writing skills. Comput Assist Lang Learn 28(1):22–40. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2013.783873

Clarke R, and Lancaster T (2013). Commercial aspects of contract cheating. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education.

Cumming A, Lai C, Cho H (2016) Students’ writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. J Engl Acad Purp 23:47–58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.002

Crisp G (2007). Staff attitudes to dealing with plagiarism issues: Perspectives from one Australian university. Int J Educ Integr 3(1):3–15

Dahl S (2007). Turnitin®: The student perspective on using plagiarism detection software. Act Learn Higher

Davis M, Morley J (2015) Phrasal intertextuality: The responses of academics from different disciplines to students’ re-use of phrases. J Second Lang Writ 28:20–35, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.004

Evans C (2013) Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Rev Educ Res 83(1):70–120. doi: 10.3102/0034654312474350

Evering LC, Moorman G (2012) Rethinking plagiarism in the digital age. J Adolesc Adult Lit 56(1):35–44. doi: 10.1002/JAAL.00100

Fillenbaum S (1970) A note on the “Search after meaning”: Sensibleness of paraphrases of well formed and malformed expressions. Psychon Sci 18(2):67–68. doi: 10.3758/bf03335699

Granitz N (2007) Applying ethical theories: Interpreting and responding to student plagiarism. J Bus Ethics 72(3):293–306. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9171-9

Hirvela A, Du Q (2013) “Why am I paraphrasing?” Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. J Engl Acad Purp 12(2):87–98, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005

Howard RM (1995) Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. Coll Engl 57(7):788–806. doi: 10.2307/378403

Inaba R, Murakami Y, Nadamoto A, and Ishida T (2007). Multilingual communication support using the language grid Intercultural Collaboration. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, p 118–132

Keck C (2006) The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. J Second Lang Writ 15(4):261–278

Keck C (2010). How do university students attempt to avoid plagiarism? A grammatical analysis of undergraduate paraphrasing strategies. Writing & Pedagogy 2(2):192-222

Keck C (2014) Copying, paraphrasing, and academic writing development: A re-examination of L1 and L2 summarization practices. J Second Lang Writ 25:4–22, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.005

Kiros R, Zhu Y, Salakhutdinov R, Zemel RS, Torralba A, Urtasun R, Fidler S (2015) Skip-Thought Vectors, Paper presented at the Neural Information Processing Systems 2015, Montreal, Canada

Lancaster T, Clarke R (2009) Automated essay spinning–an initial investigation, Paper presented at the 10 th Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences

Lee A (2016) Student perspectives on plagiarism. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore, pp 519–535

Li Y, Casanave CP (2012) Two first-year students’ strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism? J Second Lang Writ 21(2):165–180, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.002

Lopez A (2008) Statistical machine translation. ACM Computing Survey 40(3):1–49. doi: 10.1145/1380584.1380586

Madera Q, García-Valdez M, and Mancilla A (2014). Ad text optimization using interactive evolutionary computation techniques Recent Advances on Hybrid Approaches for Designing Intelligent Systems. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 671–680

McCarthy G (2014). Coaching and mentoring for business: Sage, London

McCarthy G, Rogerson AM (2009) Links are not enough: using originality reports to improve academic standards, compliance and learning outcomes among postgraduate students. Int J Educ Integr 5(2):47–57

Menai MEB (2012) Detection of plagiarism in Arabic documents. Int J Inf Technol Comput Sci 4(10):80–89

Niño A (2009) Machine translation in foreign language learning: language learners’ and tutors’ perceptions of its advantages and disadvantages. ReCALL 21(02):241–258

Patil S, Karekatti T (2015) The use of communication strategies in oral communicative situations by engineering students. Language in India 15(3):214–238

Pfannenstiel AN (2010) Digital literacies and academic integrity. Int J Educ Integr 6(2):41–49

Rabab’ah G (2016) The effect of communication strategy training on the development of EFL learners’ strategic competence and oral communicative ability. J Psycholinguist Res 45(3):625–651. doi: 10.1007/s10936-015-9365-3

Rogerson AM (2014). Detecting the work of essay mills and file swapping sites: some clues they leave behind. Paper presented at the 6th International Integrity and Plagiarism Conference Newcastle-on-Tyne.

Rogerson AM, Bassanta G (2016) Peer-to-peer file sharing and academic integrity in the Internet age. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore, pp 273–285

Roig M (2001) Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics & Behavior 11(3):307–323

Roig M (2016) Recycling our own work in the digital age. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore, pp 655–669

Sambell K, McDowell L, Montgomery C (2013) Assessment for learning in higher education. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon

Scanlon PM, Neumann DR (2002) Internet plagiarism among college students. J Coll Stud Dev 43(3):374–385

Shi L (2012) Rewriting and paraphrasing source texts in second language writing. J Second Lang Writ 21:134–148. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.003

Socher R, Huang EH, Pennin J, Manning CD, Ng AY (2011) Dynamic pooling and unfolding recursive autoencoders for paraphrase detection, Paper presented at the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), Granada, Spain

Somers H (2012). Computer-assisted language learning and machine translation. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Hoboken, p 1-9

Somers H, Gaspari F, Niño A (2006) Detecting inappropriate use of free online machine-translation by language students-A special case of plagiarism detection, Paper presented at the 11th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation–Proceedings, Oslo, Norway

Spievak ER, Hayes-Bohanan P (2016) Creating order: The role of heuristics in website selection. Internet Reference Services Quarterly 21(1–2):23–46. doi: 10.1080/10875301.2016.1149541

Stamatatos E (2011) Plagiarism and authorship analysis: Introduction to the special issue. Lang Resour Eval 45(1):1–4. doi: 10.1007/s10579-011-9136-1

Suchan J (2014) Toward an understanding of Arabic persuasion: A western perspective. Int J Bus Commun 51(3):279–303. doi: 10.1177/2329488414525401

Sun Y-C (2012) Does text readability matter? A study of paraphrasing and plagiarism in English as a foreign language writing context. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 21(2):296–306

Thatcher SG (2008) China’s copyright dilemma. Learned Publishing 21(4):278–284

Walker J (1998) Student plagiarism in universities: What are we doing about it? Higher Education Research & Development 17(1):89–106

Warnock S (2006) “Awesome job!”—Or was it? The “many eyes” of asynchronous writing environments and the implications on plagiarism. Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification 1:178–190

Word salad (2016). English Oxford Living Dictionaries online. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/word_salad . Accessed 23 Aug 2016

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on the original version of this manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

AR 80%. GM 20%. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Business, University of Wollongong, Building 40, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia

Ann M. Rogerson & Grace McCarthy

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ann M. Rogerson .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rogerson, A.M., McCarthy, G. Using Internet based paraphrasing tools: Original work, patchwriting or facilitated plagiarism?. Int J Educ Integr 13 , 2 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-016-0013-y

Download citation

Received : 09 October 2016

Accepted : 10 December 2016

Published : 26 January 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-016-0013-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Paraphrasing
• Internet tools
• Machine translation
• Patchwriting
• Academic integrity
• Paraphrasing tools

International Journal for Educational Integrity

ISSN: 1833-2595

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Paraphrase Generation as Zero-Shot Multilingual Translation: Disentangling Semantic Similarity from Lexical and Syntactic Diversity

Brian Thompson , Matt Post

Export citation

• Preformatted

Markdown (Informal)

[Paraphrase Generation as Zero-Shot Multilingual Translation: Disentangling Semantic Similarity from Lexical and Syntactic Diversity](https://aclanthology.org/2020.wmt-1.67) (Thompson & Post, WMT 2020)

• Paraphrase Generation as Zero-Shot Multilingual Translation: Disentangling Semantic Similarity from Lexical and Syntactic Diversity (Thompson & Post, WMT 2020)
• Brian Thompson and Matt Post. 2020. Paraphrase Generation as Zero-Shot Multilingual Translation: Disentangling Semantic Similarity from Lexical and Syntactic Diversity . In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Machine Translation , pages 561–570, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Paraphrase - Reword & Rewriter 4+

Plagiarism remover paraphraser, talha rehman.

• 4.5 • 26 Ratings
• Offers In-App Purchases

Screenshots

Description.

This paraphrase app uses the latest artificial intelligence to rewrite and rephrase text accurately. An advanced AI paraphrasing tool that helps you enhance your writing with ease. You can paraphrase sentences, paragraphs, or complete articles to make them better. This paraphrase app uses the latest artificial intelligence to rewrite and rephrase text accurately. Our AI paraphraser goes beyond basic synonym replacement to understand context and meaning, resulting in more natural-sounding and readable paraphrases. Transform Your Writing with an AI Paraphrasing App Our paraphrasing writing assistant implements advanced natural language processing to precisely convey your ideas with different wording. It maintains tone and style while fixing awkward phrasings, repetitions, grammatical mistakes, and plagiarism. Key Features of AI Paraphrasing Tool App Besides paraphrasing text, here are some key features this AI paraphraser app offers: • Rewrite sentences, paragraphs, articles, or complete essays. You can paraphrase up to 2500 words as a premium user. This means you can rewrite essays or paraphrase complete assignments or articles. • Adjustable parameters to control paraphrasing strength. This means you can control the type of output you want while paraphrasing text. • Different writing styles, such as standard, fluency, and formal. These writing styles help you turn your input text into a totally different yet engaging SEO friendly content. • Built-in plagiarism checker to compare original and rewritten text. It means the paraphrased content will not have plagiarism or similarity score. We’ve integrated this within our paraphrasing tool so that you don’t have to use additional tools to verify if your content is unique. • The paraphrasing app has a built-in AI writing detector. It means the app helps you paraphrase text using AI. When we use AI for rephrasing, the content becomes robotic, and online tools can detect AI similarity. To avoid AI plagiarism, we’ve trained an AI detector and integrated it into our AI paraphraser. This makes our rewriting tool provide human-like, unique, and engaging content, and AI checkers can’t detect AI plagiarism within its paraphrased content. • Built-in feature of finding and removing spelling, punctuation, and grammar mistakes. It means when you provide input for paraphrasing, our app uses AI to fix spelling, punctuation, and grammar mistakes. You get content which is unique, looks human written and easily readable. • Upload document for rephrasing or rewriting. How to use AI Paraphraser tool app? Just copy and paste text for paraphrasing or uploading documents. Set your preferences and click “Paraphrase”. Review and edit the rewrite as desired before exporting or copying it to other apps. In case you don’t like the paraphrased text, you can redo it to get a new rewritten text. Who can use this rewriting app? This AI paraphrasing app isn’t only for students. In fact, the rephrase app is equally useful for students, writers, marketers, researchers, and anyone who wants to enhance existing content. Here are some additional ways our rewriting app can be used, • For learning • For teaching • For researching • For content writing and blogging • Freelance writing and content creation This app uses artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing to understand the context and provide human-like phrases. This AI-based paraphrasing tool takes the effort out of rewriting while giving you unique, readable text every time. Terms of Use: https://techboeing.blogspot.com/2023/03/terms-of-use.html

Version 1.0.4

Add Academic Mode, Make more faster, Bugs fixes, Performance Improvements

Ratings and Reviews

First day using it.

This my first day using this app, and I’m already loving it! I highly recommended this app for anyone who writes management reports as part of their job. It’s easy, intuitive, and provides excellent, fast results! Get it! You will be glad you did!

Developer Response ,

Thank you for your glowing 5-star review and recommendation! We're thrilled that you're loving our paraphrasing app on your first day. Our goal is to provide an easy, intuitive, and fast rewording tool for management report writing. We're glad to have you on board!

So far, so good

I used this app last week for a manuscript I am working on. I was impressed. I will keep using it a while longer and then write another review. So far, so good. Thanks for creating this app.

Thank you for your wonderful review and for choosing our Paraphrase app for your manuscript work! We're delighted to hear that you were impressed with the app and that it's meeting your needs. We look forward to your continued satisfaction and feedback. If you have any suggestions or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to reach out. Happy paraphrasing, and thank you for your support!

For the non writers

The app has saved me so many times when I just run out of things to say in a paper. Definatly use.

App Privacy

The developer, talha rehman , indicated that the app’s privacy practices may include handling of data as described below. For more information, see the developer’s privacy policy .

Data Used to Track You

The following data may be used to track you across apps and websites owned by other companies:

• Identifiers

Data Not Linked to You

The following data may be collected but it is not linked to your identity:

• Diagnostics

Privacy practices may vary, for example, based on the features you use or your age. Learn More

Information

• Paraphrase Premium - Monthly $6.99
• Paraphrase Premium - Weekly $2.99
• Paraphrase Premium - Yearly $29.99
• Developer Website
• App Support
• Privacy Policy

More By This Developer

Plagiarism Checker with Report

Chemical Equation Balancer App

Merge PDF - Combine PDF

Grammar Check: Spell Corrector

PDF & PowerPoint Converter

Rounding Calculator

You Might Also Like

Paraphrase - Reword Tool

AI Essay Writer - ParaWriter

Humanize AI - Text Paraphrase

Rewrite: Sentence Corrector

Check Plagiarism

QuillBot - AI Writing Keyboard