Skip to main content

Providing intelligent language feedback for augmentative communication users

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Assistive Technology and Artificial Intelligence

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1458))

Abstract

People with severe speech and motor impairments (SSMI) can often use augmentative communication devices to help them communicate. While these devices can provide speech synthesis or text output, the rate of communication is typically very slow. Consequently, augmentative communication users often develop telegraphic patterns of language usage. A natural language processing technique termed compansion (compression-expansion) has been developed that expands uninflected content words (i.e., compressed or telegraphic utterances) into syntactically and semantically well-formed sentences.

While originally designed as a rate enhancement technique, compansion may also be viewed as a potential tool to support English literacy for augmentative communication users. Accurate grammatical feedback from ill-formed inputs might be very beneficial in the learning process. However, the problems of dealing with inherently ambiguous errors and multiple corrections are not trivial. This paper proposes the addition of an adaptive user language model as a way to address some of these difficulties. It also discusses a possible implementation strategy using grammatical mal-rules for a prototype application that uses the compansion technique.

This work has been supported by a Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center Grant from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the U.S. Department of Education (#H133E30010) and by NSF Grant # IRI-9416916. Additional support has been provided by the Nemours Research Program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. J. Allen. Natural Language Understanding. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, CA, 1995.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. N. Bailey, C. Madden, and S. D. Krashen. Is there a “natural sequence≓ in adult second language processing? Language Learning, 24(2):235–243, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  3. E. Charniak. Statistical Language Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. N. Chin. KNOME: Modeling what the user knows in UC. In Alfred Kobsa and Wolfgang Wahlster, editors, User Models in Dialog Systems, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo, 1989. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. Crystal. Profiling Linguistic Disability. Edward Arnold, London, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  6. P. W. Demasco and K. F. McCoy. Generating text from compressed input: An intelligent interface for people with severe motor impairments. Communications of the ACM, 35(5):68–78, May 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. H. C. Dulay and M. K. Burt. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(1):37–53, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  8. C. J. Fillmore. The case for case. In E. Bach and R. Harms, editors, Universals in Linguistic Theory, pages 1–90, New York, 1968. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. J. Fillmore. The case for case reopened. In P. Cole and J. M. Sadock, editors, Syntax and Semantics VIII: Grammatical Relations, pages 59–81, New York, 1977. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. A. Hawkins. Language universals in relation to acquisition and change: A tribute to Roman Jakobson. In Linda R. Waugh and Stephen Rudy, editors, New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation, pages 473–493. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  11. D. Ingram. First Language Acquisition: Method, Description, and Explanation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. Jones, P. Demasco, K. McCoy, and C. Pennington. Knowledge representation considerations for a domain independent semantic parser. In J. J. Presperin, editor, Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual RESNA Conference, pages 109–111, Washington, D.C., 1991. RESNA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. E. L. Keenan and S. Hawkins. The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. In Edward L. Keenan, editor, Universal Grammar: 15 Essays, pages 60–85. Croon Helm, London, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  14. L. L. Lee. Developmental Sentence Analysis: A Grammatical Assessment Procedure for Speech and Language Clinicians. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  15. K. F. McCoy, P. W. Demasco, M. A. Jones, C. A. Pennington, P. B. Vanderheyden, and W. M. Zickus. A communication tool for people with disabilities: Lexical semantics for filling in the pieces. In Proceedings of the First Annual ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies, pages 107–114, New York, 1994. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  16. K. F. McCoy and L. N. Masterman. A tutor for deaf users of American sign language. In Proceedings of Natural Language Processing for Communication Aids, an ACL/EACL '97 Workshop, Madrid, Spain, July 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  17. K. F. McCoy, W. M. McKnitt, C. A. Pennington, D. M. Peischl, P. B. Vanderheyden, and P. W. Demasco. AAC-user therapist interactions: Preliminary linguistic observations and implications for Compansion. In Mary Binion, editor, Proceedings of the RESNA '94 Annual Conference, pages 129–131, Arlington, VA, 1994. RESNA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. K. F. McCoy, C. A. Pennington, and L. Z. Suri. English error correction: A syntactic user model based on principled ≓mal-rule“ scoring. In Proceedings of UM-96, the Fifth International Conference on User-Modeling, pages 59–66, Kailua-Kona, HI, January 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  19. G. A. Miller. Wordnet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, pages 39–41, November 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  20. E. Schuster. Grammars as user models. In Proceedings of IJCAI 85, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  21. D. H. Sleeman. Inferring (mal) rules from pupil's protocols. In Proceedings of ECAL-82, pages 160–164, Lisay, France, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  22. L. Z. Suri and K. F. McCoy. Correcting discourse-level errors in CALL systems for second language learners. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 6(3):215–231, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  23. A. Ushioda, D. A. Evans, T. Gibson, and A. Waibel. Frequency estimation of verb subcategorization frames based on syntactic and multidimensional statistical analysis. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT3), Tilburg, The Netherlands, August 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  24. R. M. Weischedel and N. K. Sondheimer. Meta-rules as a basis for processing ill-formed input. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 9(3–4):161–177, July–December 1983.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Vibhu O. Mittal Holly A. Yanco John Aronis Richard Simpson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pennington, C.A., McCoy, K.F. (1998). Providing intelligent language feedback for augmentative communication users. In: Mittal, V.O., Yanco, H.A., Aronis, J., Simpson, R. (eds) Assistive Technology and Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1458. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0055970

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0055970

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64790-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68678-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics