8 ms·

The headline is wildly inaccurate, and the article papers over huge problems. They did not build a translation device. For one thing, ASL has certain morphemes

by DenisM 10y ago

The headline is wildly inaccurate, and the article papers over huge problems. They did not build a translation device. For one thing, ASL has certain morphemes that are expressed through use of external objects, facial expressions, etc. Things other than hands. Another, bigger problem is that ASL is not English. You can't just take a word, translate it into a different language and assume you have a valid sentence in the target language. There is a very detailed explanation written in this letter [1], by the linguistics department of UW. That is in contrast to the press office of UW. Among other things: [...] Deaf signers who have viewed the demonstration video of SignAloud do not recognize what is being demonstrated as ASL: [...] Unfortunately (IMHO) this letter[1] got mixed with a lot of politics in it, but the technical aspect is solid. [1] https://catalyst.uw.edu/workspace/file/download/5c706e255e89d3eea9cc0a7d6ac1fb3e89c44cfdc54774630e7637ef0eb47f94?inline=1 https://catalyst.uw.edu/workspace/file/download/5c706e255e89...

d33 10y ago
So basically they didn't understand what was being signalled? If they did and it would actually take a new "bridge sign landuage" that would be easy to translate and the device would be easily accessible (cheap and open source), then I guess it would be worth it. Fun fact: In Poland, there are two sign languages used: Polish Sign Language ("Polski Język Migowy", PJM) [1] and Signed Polish (język migany) or System Językowo-Migowy (SJM) [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Sign_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Sign_Language [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed_Polish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed_Polish
- jacalata 10y ago
  The US has American Sign Language and Signed English, that breakdown is quite common. There are a lot of criticisms of the "signed x" systems: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manually_coded_language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manually_coded_language
aroman 10y ago
And apparently the two students even endorsed the letter.
- DenisM 10y ago
  It bothers me a whole lot that they did. I can only imagine how much pressure they were under.
XaspR8d 10y ago
Another challenge is that there is very little corpus data available for ASL (for one thing, there's no natural orthography so notation systems can vary wildly between studies and have only started coalescing recently). So you really can't build a statistical MT system the likes of Google Translate because there simply isn't the raw data to train it on.
gugagore 10y ago
This project has been bothering me for (what feels like) months and I am glad to see there was an official response by the linguistics department of UW. How'd you find it? By politics, do you mean that the letter mentions the social issues surrounding this project/its advertisement? Why did you think it's unfortunate? One of my friends helped me see that one of the great practical applications of linguistics is to provide justice and value to minority languages and dialects.
- DenisM 10y ago
  >How'd you find it? My girlfriend works there, we discussed it at length. >Why did you think it's unfortunate? Primarily because they botched it. I wish it was well-enough written so that I could use to convince the people who actually need serious convincing (unlike the PR office or the two kids). Alas it's far too inflammatory, and on so many levels. It's also mushed together in a way that thinking back I can't separate one argument from another. If they separated politics from the technical aspects at least I could use the latter part, but as it is, it's pretty much hopeless. So now if I am to convince anyone either in the need for scientific rigor or in the need to pay attention to the plights of the Deaf I am entirely on my own, using my own clumsy word. This is not how enlightenment is supposed to work. The most educated and knowledgeable, those with the most authority, those who can write well, or should be able to, they should be providing ideological ammunition to those who are willing to spread the message. Instead they ended up publicly flogging the PR office, which might have been misguided but is fundamentally on "our" side, in a fit of anger. A squandered opportunity.
Jun8 10y ago
"Unfortunately (IMHO) this letter[1] got mixed with a lot of politics in it, but the technical aspect is solid." Totally agree, question is why didn't the Linguistics Department finish the letter after that section, i.e. why the convoluted discussions about audism, appropriation and such? Not having a deaf person on your team or checking the results with the Deaf Community is certainly to be criticized with respect to the naivete of developing an accurate translation system but the letter treats this as a colonial assault. If I want to develop my own French to English translation system (I don't know anything about French) should this be interpreted as my (perhaps) subconscious feelings of superiority? Evidently so.
- teraflop 10y ago
  If you built a system that translated word-by-word from a pidgin French into English, and then tried to sell it as a tool that would unlock "the fundamental right of communication" for those poor French people, then yeah, I think you should expect some push-back.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Sure, but if the linguistics department wrote a response which spent half a page explaining why the app didn't actually interpret French very well and might have benefited from a native speaker on the team and devoted considerably more space to attacking the creators' motivation with specious drivel about how it was "cultural appropriation" to take their language "without permission", I'd think they were the ones displaying the arrogant colonialist mentality.
    - teraflop 10y ago
      Well, I don't agree but that's probably because I don't think "cultural appropriation" is an inherently specious concept, as you seem to. Whatever else you might think about that letter, I thought the authors made it very explicit that they were not attacking the SignAloud creators' motivation.
      - 10y ago
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
This letter seems absurdly critical of a promising, if incomplete, technology. Really, it's like criticizing babelfish back in the day because it can't convey the tone of voice used. The gloves are really quite an achievement.
- gugagore 10y ago
  I think perhaps you are not familiar with prior art in the area.
tyenl 10y ago
That letter spends a large portion on detailing how the gloves are not capable of two way communication but it seems like the path from speaker -> deaf could be tackled using supplementary technology. One such method (ignoring problems with real-time language processing) would be a speech to text displayed on a HUD (think google glass). Perhaps their criticism against the marketing of the project still stands as it is definitely not a panacea for the problem of communication between ASL and English. They also bring up the problem of hand motions not being enough to fully express the ASL statement in English, however one could imagine a dialect of ASL that could utilize alternate syntax that would allow for better compatibility with English. As with the other criticism, it seems the gloves are merely the first piece of the puzzle but certainly not the full solution.
- DenisM 10y ago
  Can you imagine a dialect of English that has the syntax and morpheme structure of French?

by DenisM 10y ago

d33 10y ago

So basically they didn't understand what was being signalled? If they did and it would actually take a new "bridge sign landuage" that would be easy to translate and the device would be easily accessible (cheap and open source), then I guess it would be worth it. Fun fact: In Poland, there are two sign languages used: Polish Sign Language ("Polski Język Migowy", PJM) [1] and Signed Polish (język migany) or System Językowo-Migowy (SJM) [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Sign_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Sign_Language [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed_Polish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed_Polish

jacalata 10y ago
The US has American Sign Language and Signed English, that breakdown is quite common. There are a lot of criticisms of the "signed x" systems: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manually_coded_language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manually_coded_language

aroman 10y ago

And apparently the two students even endorsed the letter.

DenisM 10y ago
It bothers me a whole lot that they did. I can only imagine how much pressure they were under.

XaspR8d 10y ago

Another challenge is that there is very little corpus data available for ASL (for one thing, there's no natural orthography so notation systems can vary wildly between studies and have only started coalescing recently). So you really can't build a statistical MT system the likes of Google Translate because there simply isn't the raw data to train it on.

gugagore 10y ago

This project has been bothering me for (what feels like) months and I am glad to see there was an official response by the linguistics department of UW. How'd you find it? By politics, do you mean that the letter mentions the social issues surrounding this project/its advertisement? Why did you think it's unfortunate? One of my friends helped me see that one of the great practical applications of linguistics is to provide justice and value to minority languages and dialects.

DenisM 10y ago
>How'd you find it? My girlfriend works there, we discussed it at length. >Why did you think it's unfortunate? Primarily because they botched it. I wish it was well-enough written so that I could use to convince the people who actually need serious convincing (unlike the PR office or the two kids). Alas it's far too inflammatory, and on so many levels. It's also mushed together in a way that thinking back I can't separate one argument from another. If they separated politics from the technical aspects at least I could use the latter part, but as it is, it's pretty much hopeless. So now if I am to convince anyone either in the need for scientific rigor or in the need to pay attention to the plights of the Deaf I am entirely on my own, using my own clumsy word. This is not how enlightenment is supposed to work. The most educated and knowledgeable, those with the most authority, those who can write well, or should be able to, they should be providing ideological ammunition to those who are willing to spread the message. Instead they ended up publicly flogging the PR office, which might have been misguided but is fundamentally on "our" side, in a fit of anger. A squandered opportunity.

Jun8 10y ago

"Unfortunately (IMHO) this letter[1] got mixed with a lot of politics in it, but the technical aspect is solid." Totally agree, question is why didn't the Linguistics Department finish the letter after that section, i.e. why the convoluted discussions about audism, appropriation and such? Not having a deaf person on your team or checking the results with the Deaf Community is certainly to be criticized with respect to the naivete of developing an accurate translation system but the letter treats this as a colonial assault. If I want to develop my own French to English translation system (I don't know anything about French) should this be interpreted as my (perhaps) subconscious feelings of superiority? Evidently so.

teraflop 10y ago
If you built a system that translated word-by-word from a pidgin French into English, and then tried to sell it as a tool that would unlock "the fundamental right of communication" for those poor French people, then yeah, I think you should expect some push-back.
- notahacker 10y ago
  Sure, but if the linguistics department wrote a response which spent half a page explaining why the app didn't actually interpret French very well and might have benefited from a native speaker on the team and devoted considerably more space to attacking the creators' motivation with specious drivel about how it was "cultural appropriation" to take their language "without permission", I'd think they were the ones displaying the arrogant colonialist mentality.
  - teraflop 10y ago
    Well, I don't agree but that's probably because I don't think "cultural appropriation" is an inherently specious concept, as you seem to. Whatever else you might think about that letter, I thought the authors made it very explicit that they were not attacking the SignAloud creators' motivation.
    - 10y ago

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago

This letter seems absurdly critical of a promising, if incomplete, technology. Really, it's like criticizing babelfish back in the day because it can't convey the tone of voice used. The gloves are really quite an achievement.

gugagore 10y ago
I think perhaps you are not familiar with prior art in the area.

tyenl 10y ago

That letter spends a large portion on detailing how the gloves are not capable of two way communication but it seems like the path from speaker -> deaf could be tackled using supplementary technology. One such method (ignoring problems with real-time language processing) would be a speech to text displayed on a HUD (think google glass). Perhaps their criticism against the marketing of the project still stands as it is definitely not a panacea for the problem of communication between ASL and English. They also bring up the problem of hand motions not being enough to fully express the ASL statement in English, however one could imagine a dialect of ASL that could utilize alternate syntax that would allow for better compatibility with English. As with the other criticism, it seems the gloves are merely the first piece of the puzzle but certainly not the full solution.

DenisM 10y ago
Can you imagine a dialect of English that has the syntax and morpheme structure of French?