DOCSLIB.ORG

Sign Language Processing Workshop Lisbon 2004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sign Language Processing Workshop Lisbon 2004 Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages From SignWriting to Image Processing. Information techniques and their implications for teaching, documentation and communication. Workshop on the occasion of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2004 Lisbon, 30 May 2004 The Workshop Programme Sunday, May 30th 2004 Invited talks 9:00 – 9:30 Thomas Hanke HamNoSys – Representing Sign Language Data in Language Resources and Language Processing Contexts 9:30 – 10:00 Carol Neidle, Robert G. Lee Corpus Annotation, SignStream 10:00 – 10:30 Richard Gleaves, Valerie Sutton SignWriter 10:30 – 11:00 Break 11:00 – 12:30 Oral presentations (I session) 11:00 – 11:30 Galini Sapountzaki, Eleni Efthimiou, Costas Karpouzis, Vassilis Kourbetis Open-ended Resources in Greek Sign Language: Development of an e- Learning Platform 11:30 – 12:00 Onno Crasborn, Els van der Kooij, Daan Broeder, Hennie Brugman Sharing sign language corpora online: proposals for transcription and metadata categories 12:00 – 12:30 Matt Huenerfauth Spatial Representation of Classifier Predicates for Machine Translation into American Sign Language 12:30 – 14:00 Lunch Oral presentations (II session) 14:00 – 14:30 Antônio Carlos da Rocha Costa, Graçaliz Pereira Dimuro, Juliano Baldez de Freitas A Sign Matching Technique to Support Searches in Sign Language Texts 14:30 – 15:00 Angel Herrero A Practical Writing System for Sign Languages 15:00 – 15:30 Maria Papadogiorgaki, Nikos Grammalidis, Nikos Sarris, Michael G. Strintzis Synthesis of Virtual Reality Animations from SWML using MPEG-4 Body Animation Parameters 15:30 – 16:00 Coffee Break I 16:00 – 18:00 Poster session Eleni Efthimiou, Anna Vacalopoulou, Stavroula Evita Fotinea, Gregory Steinhauer Multipurpose Design and Creation of GSL Dictionaries Chiara Vettori, Oliver Streiter, Judith Knapp From Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) to Sign Language Processing: the Design of E-LIS, an Electronic Bilingual Dictionary of Italian Sign Language and Italian Rubén Nogueira, Jose M. Martínez 19th Century Signs in the Online Spanish Sign Language Library: the Historical Dictionary Project Elana Ochse A language via two others: learning English through LIS Ingvild Roald Making Dictionaries of Technical Signs: from Paper and Glue through SW- DOS to SignBank Steven Aerts, Bart Braem, Katrien Van Mulders, Kristof De Weerdt Searching SignWriting Signs Inge Zwitserlood, Doeko Hekstra Sign Printing System – SignPS Boris Lenseigne, Frédérick Gianni, Patrice Dalle A New Gesture Representation for Sign Language Analysis Jose L. Hernandez – Rebollar Phonetic Model for Automatic Recognition of Hand Gestures Daniel Thomas Ulrich Noelpp Development of a New „SignWriter“ Program Ralph Elliott, John Glauert, Vince Jennings, Richard Kennaway An Overview of the SiGML Notation and SiGMLSigning Software System Jan Bungeroth, Hermann Ney Statistical Sign Language Translation Guylhem Aznar, Patrice Dalle Computer Support for SignWriting Written Form of Sign Language Yiqiang Chen, Wen Gao, Changshui Yang, Dalong Jiang, Cunbao Ge Chinese Sign Language Synthesis and Its Applications Paola Laterza, Claudio Baj Progetto e-LIS@ II Workshop Organisers - Oliver Streiter, Research Area “Language and Law” - European Academy of Bolzano, Italy - Antônio Carlos da Rocha Costa, Escola de Informática - Universidade Católica de Pelotas, Brazil - Christian Retoré, Laboratoire Bordelais de Recherche en Informatique, France - Chiara Vettori, Research Area “Language and Law” - European Academy of Bolzano, Italy Workshop Programme Committee - Antônio Carlos da Rocha Costa, Escola de Informática - Universidade Católica de Pelotas, Brazil - Carol Neidle, Department of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures - Boston University, Boston MA - Chiara Vettori, Research Area “Language and Law” - European Academy of Bolzano, Italy - Christian Retoré, Laboratoire Bordelais de Recherche en Informatique, France - Eva Safar, School of Computing Sciences - University of East Anglia, Norwich, England - Ian Marshall, School of Computing Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Englan - Marco Consolati, Cooperativa Alba, Torino, Italy - Oliver Streiter, Research Area “Language and Law” - European Academy of Bolzano, Italy - Patrice Dalle, Équipe "Traitement et Compréhension d'Images", IRIT - Université Paul Sabatier, France III Table of Contents Preface .................................................................................................................................................i Thomas Hanke HamNoSys – Representing Sign Language Data in Language Resources and Language Processing Contexts...............................................................................................................................................1 Richard Gleaves, Valerie Sutton SignWriter ...........................................................................................................................................7 Galini Sapountzaki, Eleni Efthimiou, Costas Karpouzis, Vassilis Kourbetis Open-ended Resources in Greek Sign Language: Development of an e-Learning Platform ...........13 Onno Crasborn, Els van der Kooij, Daan Broeder, Hennie Brugman Sharing sign language corpora online: proposals for transcription and metadata categories .......20 Matt Huenerfauth Spatial Representation of Classifier Predicates for Machine Translation into American Sign Language...........................................................................................................................................24 Antônio Carlos da Rocha Costa, Graçaliz Pereira Dimuro, Juliano Baldez de Freitas A Sign Matching Technique to Support Searches in Sign Language Texts .....................................32 Angel Herrero A Practical Writing System for Sign Languages...............................................................................37 Maria Papadogiorgaki, Nikos Grammalidis, Nikos Sarris, Michael G. Strintzis Synthesis of Virtual Reality Animations from SWML using MPEG-4 Body Animation Parameters........................................................................................................................................43 Eleni Efthimiou, Anna Vacalopoulou, Stavroula Evita Fotinea, Gregory Steinhauer Multipurpose Design and Creation of GSL Dictionaries .................................................................51 Chiara Vettori, Oliver Streiter, Judith Knapp From Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) to Sign Language Processing: the Design of E-LIS, an Electronic Bilingual Dictionary of Italian Sign Language and Italian............................59 IV Rubén Nogueira, Jose M. Martínez 19th Century Signs in the Online Spanish Sign Language Library:the Historical Dictionary Project ...........................................................................................................................................................63 Elana Ochse A language via two others: learning English through LIS ...............................................................68 Ingvild Roald Making Dictionaries of Technical Signs: from Paper and Glue through SW-DOS to SignBank.....75 Steven Aerts, Bart Braem, Katrien Van Mulders, Kristof De Weerdt Searching SignWriting Signs ............................................................................................................79 Inge Zwitserlood, Doeko Hekstra Sign Printing System – SignPS..........................................................................................................82 Boris Lenseigne, Frédérick Gianni, Patrice Dalle A New Gesture Representation for Sign Language Analysis............................................................85 Jose L. Hernandez - Rebollar Phonetic Model for Automatic Recognition of Hand Gestures.........................................................91 Daniel Thomas Ulrich Noelpp Development of a New „SignWriter“ Program................................................................................95 Ralph Elliott, John Glauert, Vince Jennings, Richard Kennaway An Overview of the SiGML Notation and SiGMLSigning Software System .....................................98 Jan Bungeroth, Hermann Ney Statistical Sign Language Translation............................................................................................105 Guylhem Aznar, Patrice Dalle Computer Support for SignWriting Written Form of Sign Language.............................................109 Yiqiang Chen, Wen Gao, Changshui Yang, Dalong Jiang, Cunbao Ge Chinese Sign Language Synthesis and Its Applications..................................................................111 Paola Laterza, Claudio Baj Progetto e-LIS@ .............................................................................................................................113 V Author Index Aerts, Steven ........................................................................................................................................79 Aznar, Guylhem.................................................................................................................................109 Baj, Claudio .......................................................................................................................................113 Baldez de Freitas, Juliano ....................................................................................................................32 Braem, Bart ..........................................................................................................................................79
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Animated Avatar to Interpret Signwriting Transcription
    An Animated Avatar to Interpret SignWriting Transcription Yosra Bouzid Mohamed Jemni Research Laboratory of Technologies of Information and Research Laboratory of Technologies of Information and Communication & Electrical Engineering (LaTICE) Communication & Electrical Engineering (LaTICE) ESSTT, University of Tunis ESSTT, University of Tunis [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—People with hearing disability often face multiple To address this issue, different methods and technologies barriers when attempting to interact with hearing society. geared towards deaf communication have been suggested over The lower proficiency in reading, writing and understanding the the last decades. For instance, the use of sign language spoken language may be one of the most important reasons. interpreters is one of the most common ways to ensure a Certainly, if there were a commonly accepted notation system for successful communication between deaf and hearing persons in sign languages, signed information could be provided in written direct interaction. But according to a WFD survey in 2009, 13 form, but such a system does not exist yet. SignWriting seems at countries out of 93 do not have any sign language interpreters, present the best solution to the problem of SL representation as it and in many of those countries where there are interpreters, was intended as a practical writing system for everyday there are serious problems in finding qualified candidates. communication, but requires mastery of a set of conventions The digital technologies, particularly video and avatar-based different from those of the other transcriptions systems to become a proficient reader or writer. To provide additional systems, contribute, in turn, in bridging the communication support for deaf signers to learn and use such notation, we gap.
    [Show full text]
  • A Human-Editable Sign Language Representation for Software Editing—And a Writing System?
    A human-editable Sign Language representation for software editing—and a writing system? Michael Filhol [email protected] LIMSI, CNRS, Université Paris Saclay Orsay, France Abstract To equip SL with software properly, we need an input system to rep- resent and manipulate signed contents in the same way that every day software allows to process written text. Refuting the claim that video is good enough a medium to serve the purpose, we propose to build a repres- entation that is: editable, queryable, synthesisable and user-friendly—we define those terms upfront. The issue being functionally and conceptually linked to that of writing, we study existing writing systems, namely those in use for vocal languages, those designed and proposed for SLs, and more spontaneous ways in which SL users put their language in writing. Ob- serving each paradigm in turn, we move on to propose a new approach to satisfy our goals of integration in software. We finally open the prospect of our proposition being used outside of this restricted scope, as a writing system in itself, and compare its properties to the other writing systems presented. 1 Motivation and goals The main motivation here is to equip Sign Language (SL) with software and foster implementation as available tools for SL are paradoxically limited in such digital times. For example, translation assisting software would help respond arXiv:1811.01786v1 [cs.CL] 5 Nov 2018 to the high demand for accessible content and information. But equivalent text-to-text software relies on source and target written forms to work, whereas similar SL support seems impossible without major revision of the typical user interface.
    [Show full text]
  • Greek Alphabet ( ) Ελληνικ¿ Γρ¿Μματα
    Greek alphabet and pronunciation 9/27/05 12:01 AM Writing systems: abjads | alphabets | syllabic alphabets | syllabaries | complex scripts undeciphered scripts | alternative scripts | your con-scripts | A-Z index Greek alphabet (ελληνικ¿ γρ¿μματα) Origin The Greek alphabet has been in continuous use for the past 2,750 years or so since about 750 BC. It was developed from the Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet and the order and names of the letters are derived from Phoenician. The original Canaanite meanings of the letter names was lost when the alphabet was adapted for Greek. For example, alpha comes for the Canaanite aleph (ox) and beta from beth (house). At first, there were a number of different versions of the alphabet used in various different Greek cities. These local alphabets, known as epichoric, can be divided into three groups: green, blue and red. The blue group developed into the modern Greek alphabet, while the red group developed into the Etruscan alphabet, other alphabets of ancient Italy and eventually the Latin alphabet. By the early 4th century BC, the epichoric alphabets were replaced by the eastern Ionic alphabet. The capital letters of the modern Greek alphabet are almost identical to those of the Ionic alphabet. The minuscule or lower case letters first appeared sometime after 800 AD and developed from the Byzantine minuscule script, which developed from cursive writing. Notable features Originally written horizontal lines either from right to left or alternating from right to left and left to right (boustophedon). Around 500 BC the direction of writing changed to horizontal lines running from left to right.
    [Show full text]
  • Expanding Information Access Through Data-Driven Design
    ©Copyright 2018 Danielle Bragg Expanding Information Access through Data-Driven Design Danielle Bragg A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2018 Reading Committee: Richard Ladner, Chair Alan Borning Katharina Reinecke Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Computer Science & Engineering University of Washington Abstract Expanding Information Access through Data-Driven Design Danielle Bragg Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Richard Ladner Computer Science & Engineering Computer scientists have made progress on many problems in information access: curating large datasets, developing machine learning and computer vision, building extensive networks, and designing powerful interfaces and graphics. However, we sometimes fail to fully leverage these modern techniques, especially when building systems inclusive of people with disabilities (who total a billion worldwide [168], and nearly one in five in the U.S. [26]). For example, visual graphics and small text may exclude people with visual impairments, and text-based resources like search engines and text editors may not fully support people using unwritten sign languages. In this dissertation, I argue that if we are willing to break with traditional modes of information access, we can leverage modern computing and design techniques from computer graphics, crowdsourcing, topic modeling, and participatory design to greatly improve and enrich access. This dissertation demonstrates this potential
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Issue
    _____________________________________________________________ Volume 8 October 1993 Number 2 _____________________________________________________________ Editor Editorial Assistants John Miles Foley Dave Henderson Elizabeth P. McNulty Catherine S. Quick Slavica Publishers, Inc. For a complete catalog of books from Slavica, with prices and ordering information, write to: Slavica Publishers, Inc. P.O. Box 14388 Columbus, Ohio 43214 ISSN: 0883-5365 Each contribution copyright (c) 1993 by its author. All rights reserved. The editor and the publisher assume no responsibility for statements of fact or opinion by the authors. Oral Tradition seeks to provide a comparative and interdisciplinary focus for studies in oral literature and related fields by publishing research and scholarship on the creation, transmission, and interpretation of all forms of oral traditional expression. As well as essays treating certifiably oral traditions, OT presents investigations of the relationships between oral and written traditions, as well as brief accounts of important fieldwork, a Symposium section (in which scholars may reply at some length to prior essays), review articles, occasional transcriptions and translations of oral texts, a digest of work in progress, and a regular column for notices of conferences and other matters of interest. In addition, occasional issues will include an ongoing annotated bibliography of relevant research and the annual Albert Lord and Milman Parry Lectures on Oral Tradition. OT welcomes contributions on all oral literatures, on all literatures directly influenced by oral traditions, and on non-literary oral traditions. Submissions must follow the list-of reference format (style sheet available on request) and must be accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope for return or for mailing of proofs; all quotations of primary materials must be made in the original language(s) with following English translations.
    [Show full text]
  • Signwriting Symbols to Students
    JTC1/SC2/WG2 N4342 L2/12-321 2012-10-14 Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set International Organization for Standardization Organisation Internationale de Normalisation Международная организация по стандартизации Doc Type: Working Group Document Title: Proposal for encoding Sutton SignWriting in the UCS Source: Michael Everson, Martin Hosken, Stephen Slevinski, and Valerie Sutton Status: Individual Contribution Action: For consideration by JTC1/SC2/WG2 and UTC Date: 2012-10-14 Replaces: N4015 1. Introduction. SignWriting is a script developed in 1974 by Valerie Sutton, the inventor of Sutton Movement Writing, who two years earlier had developed DanceWriting. SignWriting is a featural script, its glyphs being visually iconic as well as in their spatial arrangement in text, which represents a sort of snapshot of any given sign. SignWriting is currently being used to write the following Sign Languages: American Sign Language (in USA, English-speaking Canada) Japanese Sign Language Arabian Sign Languages Malawi Sign Language Australian Sign Language Malaysian Sign Language Bolivian Sign Language Maltese Sign Language Brazilian Sign Language Mexican Sign Language British Sign Language Nepalese Sign Language Catalan Sign Language New Zealand Sign Language Colombian Sign Language Nicaraguan Sign Language Czech Sign Language Norwegian Sign Language Danish Sign Language Peruvian Sign Language Dutch Sign Language Philippines Sign Language Ethiopian Sign Language Polish Sign Language Finnish Sign Language Portugese Sign Language Flemish Sign Language Québec Sign Language French-Belgian Sign Language South African Sign Language French Sign Language Spanish Sign Language German Sign Language Swedish Sign Language Greek Sign Language Swiss Sign Language Irish Sign Language Taiwanese Sign Language Italian Sign Language Tunisian Sign Language A variety of literature exists in SignWriting.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cross-Linguistic Guide to Signwriting ® a Phonetic Approach
    A Cross-Linguistic ® Guide to SignWriting A phonetic approach Stephen Parkhurst Dianne Parkhurst A Cross-Linguistic Guide to SignWriting ®: A phonetic approach ©2008 Stephen Parkhurst Revision 2010 For use at SIL-UND courses during the summer of 2010. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recorded or otherwise, without permission from the authors. Stephen and Dianne Parkhurst E-mail: [email protected] A note from the authors SignWriting®, also known as Sutton Movement Writing for Sign Language, was invented by Valerie Sutton in 1974. Over the years the system has changed significantly and has gradually grown in acceptance and popularity in more than 30 countries. While there are other writing systems and notation systems for writing signed languages, we have not found any system that is as useful for writing accurately any sign or movement (including all non-manual movements and expressions) with relative ease and speed. It is also the only writing system that we have tried that is possible to read faster than one can physically produce the signs (outpacing even photos and line drawings in ease and speed of reading). We have taken much of the material for this manual from a course we developed for teaching SignWriting (SW) to Deaf adults in Spain. That course in Spain focused on teaching the symbols of SW that are used in Spanish Sign Language (or LSE, for Lengua de Signos Española) with a heavy focus on reading.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Notation Systems for Machine Translation of Sign Languages
    Analysis of Notation Systems for Machine Translation of Sign Languages Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Bachelor of Science (Honours) of Rhodes University Jessica Jeanne Hutchinson Grahamstown, South Africa November 2012 Abstract Machine translation of sign languages is complicated by the fact that there are few stan- dards for sign languages, both in terms of the actual languages used by signers within regions and dialogue groups, and also in terms of the notations with which sign languages are represented in written form. A standard textual representation of sign languages would aid in optimising the translation process. This area of research still needs to determine the best, most efficient and scalable tech- niques for translation of sign languages. Being a young field of research, there is still great scope for introducing new techniques, or greatly improving on previous techniques, which makes comparing and evaluating the techniques difficult to do. The methods used are factors which contribute to the process of translation and need to be considered in an evaluation of optimising translation systems. This project analyses sign language notation systems; what systems exists, what data is currently available, and which of them might be best suited for machine translation purposes. The question being asked is how using a textual representation of signs could aid machine translation, and which notation would best suit the task. A small corpus of SignWriting data was built and this notation was shown to be the most accessible. The data was cleaned and run through a statistical machine translation system. The results had limitations, but overall are comparable to other translation systems, showing that translation using a notation is possible, but can be greatly improved upon.
    [Show full text]
  • Unicode Character Properties
    Unicode character properties Document #: P1628R0 Date: 2019-06-17 Project: Programming Language C++ Audience: SG-16, LEWG Reply-to: Corentin Jabot <[email protected]> 1 Abstract We propose an API to query the properties of Unicode characters as specified by the Unicode Standard and several Unicode Technical Reports. 2 Motivation This API can be used as a foundation for various Unicode algorithms and Unicode facilities such as Unicode-aware regular expressions. Being able to query the properties of Unicode characters is important for any application hoping to correctly handle any textual content, including compilers and parsers, text editors, graphical applications, databases, messaging applications, etc. static_assert(uni::cp_script('C') == uni::script::latin); static_assert(uni::cp_block(U'[ ') == uni::block::misc_pictographs); static_assert(!uni::cp_is<uni::property::xid_start>('1')); static_assert(uni::cp_is<uni::property::xid_continue>('1')); static_assert(uni::cp_age(U'[ ') == uni::version::v10_0); static_assert(uni::cp_is<uni::property::alphabetic>(U'ß')); static_assert(uni::cp_category(U'∩') == uni::category::sm); static_assert(uni::cp_is<uni::category::lowercase_letter>('a')); static_assert(uni::cp_is<uni::category::letter>('a')); 3 Design Consideration 3.1 constexpr An important design decision of this proposal is that it is fully constexpr. Notably, the presented design allows an implementation to only link the Unicode tables that are actually used by a program. This can reduce considerably the size requirements of an Unicode-aware executable as most applications often depend on a small subset of the Unicode properties. While the complete 1 Unicode database has a substantial memory footprint, developers should not pay for the table they don’t use. It also ensures that developers can enforce a specific version of the Unicode Database at compile time and get a consistent and predictable run-time behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Scripts Project: Statement of Significance and Impact
    Universal Scripts Project: Statement of Significance and Impact The Universal Scripts Project expands the capabilities of the Internet by providing digital access to text materials from a variety of modern and historical cultures whose writing systems are not currently included in the international standard for electronic representation of scripts, known as Unicode. People who write in these scripts find it difficult to use email, compose and send documents electronically, and post documents on the World Wide Web, without relying on nonstandard fonts or other cumbersome workarounds, and are therefore left out of the “technological revolution.” About 66 scripts are currently included in the Unicode standard, but over 80 are not. Some 40 of these missing scripts belong to modern linguistic minorities in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, China, and other countries in Southeast Asia; about 40 are scripts of historical importance. The project’s goal for 2007–2008 is to provide the standards bodies overseeing character sets with proposals for 15 scripts to be included in the Unicode standard. The scripts selected for inclusion include 9 modern minority scripts and 6 historical scripts. The need is urgent, because the entire process, from first proposal to acceptance, typically takes from 2 to 5 years, and support among corporations and national bodies for adding more scripts to Unicode is uncertain. If the proposals are not submitted soon, these user communities will not be able to use their scripts in the near future. The scripts selected for this grant have established scholarly and user-community connections, which will help guarantee that the proposals meet the users' needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Writing Signed Languages: What For? What Form? Donald A
    Writing Signed Languages: What For? What Form? Donald A. Grushkin American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 161, Number 5, Winter 2017, pp. 509-527 (Article) Published by Gallaudet University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2017.0001 For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/648961 Access provided by University of Connecticut @ Storrs (9 Jun 2017 21:07 GMT) 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 509 Grushkin, D. A. (2017). Writing signed languages: What for? What form? American Annals of the Deaf, 161 (5), 509–527. WRITING SIGNED LANGUAGES : W HAT FOR ? WHAT FORM ? IGNED LANGUAGES around the world have tended to maintain an “oral,” unwritten status. Despite the advantages of possessing a written form of their language, signed language communities typically resist and reject attempts to create such written forms. The present article ad - dresses many of the arguments against written forms of signed lan - guages, and presents the potential advantages of writing signed languages. Following a history of the development of writing in spoken as well as signed language populations, the effects of orthographic types upon literacy and biliteracy are explored. Attempts at writing signed lan - guages have followed two primary paths: “alphabetic” and “icono - graphic.” It is argued that for greatest congruency and ease in developing biliteracy strategies in societies where an alphabetic script is used for the spoken language, signed language communities within Sthese societies are best served by adoption of an alphabetic script for DONALD A. G RUSHKIN writing their signed language. Keywords: writing, written signed the development of a conventionally GRUSHKIN IS A PROFESSOR , D EAF STUDIES languages, biliteracy, Deaf education, accepted written system for signed lan - PROGRAM , C ALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY , orthography guages has yet to take place.
    [Show full text]
  • Sign Language Recognition, Generation, And
    Sign Language Recognition, Generation, and Translation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective Danielle Bragg1 Oscar Koller2 Mary Bellard2 Larwan Berke3 Patrick Boudreault4 Annelies Braffort5 Naomi Caselli6 Matt Huenerfauth3 Hernisa Kacorri7 Tessa Verhoef8 Christian Vogler4 Meredith Ringel Morris1 1Microsoft Research - Cambridge, MA USA & Redmond, WA USA {danielle.bragg,merrie}@microsoft.com 2Microsoft - Munich, Germany & Redmond, WA USA {oscar.koller,marybel}@microsoft.com 3Rochester Institute of Technology - Rochester, NY USA {larwan.berke,matt.huenerfauth}@rit.edu 4Gallaudet University - Washington, DC USA {patrick.boudreault,christian.vogler}@gallaudet.edu 5LIMSI-CNRS - Orsay Cedex, France [email protected] 6Boston University - Boston, MA USA [email protected] 7University of Maryland - College Park, MD USA [email protected] 8Leiden University - Leiden, Netherlands [email protected] ABSTRACT of the Deaf, there are over 300 sign languages used around Developing successful sign language recognition, generation, the world, and 70 million deaf people using them [89]. Sign and translation systems requires expertise in a wide range of languages, like all languages, are naturally evolved, highly felds, including computer vision, computer graphics, natural structured systems governed by a set of linguistic rules. They language processing, human-computer interaction, linguistics, are distinct from spoken languages – i.e., American Sign Lan- and Deaf culture. Despite the need for deep interdisciplinary guage (ASL) is not a manual form of English – and do not knowledge, existing research occurs in separate disciplinary have standard written forms. However, the vast majority of silos, and tackles separate portions of the sign language pro- communications technologies are designed to support spoken cessing pipeline. This leads to three key questions: 1) What or written language (which excludes sign languages), and most does an interdisciplinary view of the current landscape reveal? hearing people do not know a sign language.
    [Show full text]