Advertisement

Language Resources and Evaluation

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 143–151 | Cite as

Human language technology and communicative disabilities: requirements and possibilities for the future

  • Marina B. RuiterEmail author
  • Lilian J. Beijer
  • Catia Cucchiarini
  • Emiel J. Krahmer
  • Toni C. M. Rietveld
  • Helmer Strik
  • Hugo Van hamme
Report

Abstract

For some years now, the Nederlandse Taalunie (Dutch Language Union) has been active in promoting the development of human language technology (HLT) applications for speakers of Dutch with communicative disabilities. The reason is that HLT products and services may enable them to improve their communication skills and verbal autonomy. We sought to identify a minimum common set of HLT resources that is required to develop tools for a wide range of communication disabilities. In order to reach this goal, we investigated the specific needs of communicatively disabled people and related these needs to the underlying HLT software components. By analysing the availability and quality of these essential HLT resources, we were able to identify which of the crucial elements need further research and development to become usable for developing applications for communicatively disabled speakers of Dutch. The results obtained in the current survey can be used to inform policy institutions on how they can stimulate the development of HLT resources for this target group. In the current survey results were obtained for Dutch, but a similar approach can also be applied to other languages.

Keywords

Human language technology (HLT) Communicative disabilities Requirements Future development 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Dirk Lembrechts and Vincent de Jong, who—together with the co-authors—formed the working group of experts. Moreover, we thank all interviewees and participants in the round table conference of September 28, 2007 (too many to name in person) as well as Antal van den Bosch, Onno Crasborn, Inge de Mönnink, Bart Noë, Arthur Dirksen, Michel Boekestein, Remco van Veenendaal, Loes Theunissen, and Marie Pruyn for their valuable contribution to the work presented in this paper. We would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.

References

  1. Binnenpoorte, D., de Vriend, F., Sturm, J., Strik, H., Daelemans, W., & Cucchiarini, C. (2002). A field survey for establishing priorities in the development of HLT resources for Dutch. In Proceedings LREC 2002. Third international conference on language resources and evaluation. Paris: ELRA, European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
  2. Cucchiarini, C., Lembrechts, D., & Strik, H. (2008). HLT and communicative disabilities: The need for co-operation between government, industry and academia. In Proceedings of LangTech-2008, Rome (pp. 125–128). Google Scholar
  3. Daelemans, W., & Strik, H. (2002). Het Nederlands in taal- en spraaktechnologie: Prioriteiten voor basistaalvoorzieningen [Dutch put into human language technology: Priorities for a minimum common set of HLT resources]. Den Haag: Nederlandse Taalunie.Google Scholar
  4. Elenius, K., Forsbom, E., & Megyesi, B. (2006). Language resources and tools for Swedish: A survey. In Proceedings LREC.Google Scholar
  5. Kolk, H. H. J. (2007). Variability is the hallmark of aphasic behaviour: Grammatical behaviour is no exception. Brain and Language, 101, 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Krauwer, S. (1998). ELSNET and ELRA: A common past and a common future, ELRA Newsletter, 3(2), 4–5.Google Scholar
  7. Maegaard, B., Krauwer, S., & Choukri, K. (2009). BLARK for Arabic. MEDAR report.Google Scholar
  8. Pogson, G. (2005a). Language technology for a mid-sized language: Part I. Multilingual Computing & Technology, 16, 43–48.Google Scholar
  9. Pogson, G. (2005b). Language technology for a mid-sized language: Part II. Multilingual Computing & Technology, 16, 29–34.Google Scholar
  10. Rietveld, T., & Stolte, I. (2005). Taal- en spraaktechnologie en communicatieve beperkingen. [Human language technology and communicative disabilities] Den Haag: Nederlandse Taalunie.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marina B. Ruiter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lilian J. Beijer
    • 1
  • Catia Cucchiarini
    • 2
  • Emiel J. Krahmer
    • 3
  • Toni C. M. Rietveld
    • 4
  • Helmer Strik
    • 4
  • Hugo Van hamme
    • 5
  1. 1.Sint Maartenskliniek Research, Development and EducationNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Nederlandse TaalunieThe HagueThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Tilburg University, Tilburg Centre for Cognition and Communication (TiCC)TilburgThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of LinguisticsRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.K.U. Leuven, ESAT-PSI, Centre for the Processing of Speech and ImagesLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations