Fritz: Full analysis Vs Blunder check In Fritz, I am interested to know the differences between the Full Analysis and Blunder Check. 

The differences at the first look seem superficial. For example, I wouldn't mind if there is no natural language used in the analysis which comes with full analysis. Blunder check seems to give good number of variations. So it seems better.

Is natural language the only aspect missing in Blunder Check analysis compared to full analysis? I am trying to figure out what 'full' means here.
The following can be found on USCFSales Steve's ChessBase Tips:

“Full analysis” mode is likely the better choice for less experienced
chess players, due to the relative brevity of the alternative
variations it provides, the short verbal commentary, and the fact that
variations are evaluated symbolically rather than with numerical
values.
Blundercheck gives much more &quot;hard&quot; information than does &quot;full
analysis&quot;.
The core purpose in both forms of analysis remains the same: to show
where each of the players went wrong and what they should have played
instead. “Full analysis” mode provides the information in a much
simpler form.
“Blundercheck” mode will only show improvements, not “what if…?” moves
which are actually worse.

You can find much more information on the website provided
above.  The author, Steve Lopez, has been the authority on ChessBase/Fritz software for nearly two decades.