To What Extent Does Text Simplification Entail a More Optimized Comprehension in Human-Oriented CNLs?

  • Nataly JahchanEmail author
  • Anne Condamines
  • Emmanuelle Cannesson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9767)


The aim of this study is to develop a new cockpit controlled language for future Airbus aircraft by using psycholinguistic testing to optimize pilot comprehension. Pilots are aided by cockpit messages in order to deal with different situations during aircraft operations. The current controlled languages used on the Airbus aircraft have been carefully constructed to avoid ambiguity, inaccuracy, inconsistency, and inadequacy [21] in order to ensure the safety of the navigation, operational needs, and the adaptability of the human-computer interaction to different situations in the cockpit. However, this controlled language has several limitations, mostly due to small screen sizes (limited number of words and sentences) and is highly codified (non-conforming to natural language syntax, color-coded, etc.) so that it requires prior pilot training in order to achieve fluency. As future cockpit design is under construction, we might be looking at a different flexibility margin: less limitations, different screen sizes, less coding, etc.


Comprehension-oriented CNL Controlled language Airbus cockpit alarms Human factors Psycholinguistics Text comprehension Comprehension optimization 


  1. 1.
    Austin, J.L.: How to do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, Cambridge (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bisseret, A.: Psychology for man computer cooperation in knowledge processing. In: Masson, R.F.A. (ed.) IFIP 1983, Information Processing 1983 (1983)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chervak, S.: The Effects of Simplified English on the Performance of a Maintenance Procedure. Master’s Thesis. State University of New York (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chervak, S., Drury, C., Ouellette, J.: Simplified English for aircraft workcards. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 40(5), 303–307 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Condamines, A., Warnier, M.: Linguistic analysis of requirements of a space project and their conformity with the recommendations proposed by a controlled natural language. In: Davis, B., Kaljurand, K., Kuhn, T. (eds.) CNL 2014. LNCS, vol. 8625, pp. 33–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crystal, D., Davy, D.: Investigating English Style. Longman, London (1969) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    DuBay, W.: Principles of Readability. Impact Information, Costa Mesa (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eckert, D.: The Use of Simplified English to Improve Task Comprehension For non-native English Speaking aviation maintenance technician students. Doctoral Dissertation, West Virginia University, WV (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flesch, R.: How basic is basic English? Harper’s Mag. 188(1126), 339–343 (1944)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fuchs, N.E., Schwitter, R.: Attempto controlled english (ace). arXiv preprint cmp-lg/9603003 (1996) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fuchs, N.E., Schwitter, R.: Specifying logic programs in controlled natural language. In: Proceedings of CLNLP 1995, 16 pages, Edinburgh (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hart, S., Simpson, C.: Effects of linguistic redundancy on synthesized cockpit warning message comprehension and concurrent time estimation, pp. 309–321 (1976)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hinson, D.E.: Simplified English—Is it really simple? In: Proceedings of the 38th International Technical Communication Conference (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kittredge, R.I.: Sublanguages and controlled languages. In: Mitkov, R. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics, pp. 430–447 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiwan, D., Ahmed, A., Pollitt, A.: The effects of time-induced stress on making inferences in text comprehension. In: European Conference on Educational Research, Edinburgh, September 2000Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuhn, T.: A survey and classification of controlled natural languages. Comput. Linguist. 40(1), 121–170 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lopez, S., Condamines, A., Josselin-Leray, A., O’Donoghue, M., Salmon, R.: Linguistic analysis of english phraseology and plain language in air-ground communication. J. Air Transp. Stud. 4(1), 44–60 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., McCarthy, P., Graesser, C.: Coh-Metrix: capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Process. 47(4), 292–330 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shubert, K., Spyridakis, J.H., Heat, S.: The comprehensibility of simplified English in procedures. J. Tech. Writ. Commun. 25(4), 347–369 (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simpson, C.A.: Effects of linguistic redundancy on pilot’s comprehension of synthesized speech, pp. 294–308 (1976)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spaggiari, L., Beaujard, F., Cannesson, E.: A controlled language at airbus. In: Proceedings of EAMT-CLAW03, pp. 151–159 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stewart, K.: Effect of AECMA Simplified English on the Comprehension of Aircraft Maintenance Procedures by Non-native English Speakers. University of British Columbia (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Temnikova, I.: Text Complexity and Text Simplification in the Crisis Management Domain. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wolverhampton (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Oosten, P., Tanghe, D., Hoste, V.: Towards an improved methodology for automated readability prediction. In: 7th Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2010). European Language Resources Association (ELRA) (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nataly Jahchan
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Anne Condamines
    • 1
  • Emmanuelle Cannesson
    • 2
  1. 1.CLLE, University of Toulouse, CNRSToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Airbus Operations SASToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations