Directional adposition use in English, Swedish and Finnish

Directional adpositions such as to the left of describe where a Figure is in relation to a Ground. English and Swedish directional adpositions refer to the location of a Figure in relation to a Ground, whether both are static or in motion. In contrast, the Finnish directional adpositions edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) solely describe the location of a moving Figure in relation to a moving Ground (Nikanne, 2003). When using directional adpositions, a frame of reference must be assumed for interpreting the meaning of directional adpositions. For example, the meaning of to the left of in English can be based on a relative (speaker or listener based) reference frame or an intrinsic (object based) reference frame (Levinson, 1996). When a Figure and a Ground are both in motion, it is possible for a Figure to be described as being behind or in front of the Ground, even if neither have intrinsic features. As shown by Walker (in preparation), there are good reasons to assume that in the latter case a motion based reference frame is involved. This means that if Finnish speakers would use edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) more frequently in situations where both the Figure and Ground are in motion, a difference in reference frame use between Finnish on one hand and English and Swedish on the other could be expected. We asked native English, Swedish and Finnish speakers’ to select adpositions from a language specific list to describe the location of a Figure relative to a Ground when both were shown to be moving on a computer screen. We were interested in any differences between Finnish, English and Swedish speakers. All languages showed a predominant use of directional spatial adpositions referring to the lexical concepts TO THE LEFT OF, TO THE RIGHT OF, ABOVE and BELOW. There were no differences between the languages in directional adpositions use or reference frame use, including reference frame use based on motion. We conclude that despite differences in the grammars of the languages involved, and potential differences in reference frame system use, the three languages investigated encode Figure location in relation to Ground location in a similar way when both are in motion. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslingiuistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M.F. Garrett (Eds.) Language and Space (pp.109-170). Massachusetts: MIT Press. Nikanne, U. (2003). How Finnish postpositions see the axis system. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Walker, C. (in preparation). Motion encoding in language, the use of spatial locatives in a motion context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lincoln, Lincoln. United Kingdo

Beyond English text: Multilingual and multimedia information retrieval.

Non

A preliminary bibliography on focus

[I]n its present form, the bibliography contains approximately 1100 entries. Bibliographical work is never complete, and the present one is still modest in a number of respects. It is not annotated, and it still contains a lot of mistakes and inconsistencies. It has nevertheless reached a stage which justifies considering the possibility of making it available to the public. The first step towards this is its pre-publication in the form of this working paper. […] The bibliography is less complete for earlier years. For works before 1970, the bibliographies of Firbas and Golkova 1975 and Tyl 1970 may be consulted, which have not been included here

DeepASL: Enabling Ubiquitous and Non-Intrusive Word and Sentence-Level Sign Language Translation

There is an undeniable communication barrier between deaf people and people with normal hearing ability. Although innovations in sign language translation technology aim to tear down this communication barrier, the majority of existing sign language translation systems are either intrusive or constrained by resolution or ambient lighting conditions. Moreover, these existing systems can only perform single-sign ASL translation rather than sentence-level translation, making them much less useful in daily-life communication scenarios. In this work, we fill this critical gap by presenting DeepASL, a transformative deep learning-based sign language translation technology that enables ubiquitous and non-intrusive American Sign Language (ASL) translation at both word and sentence levels. DeepASL uses infrared light as its sensing mechanism to non-intrusively capture the ASL signs. It incorporates a novel hierarchical bidirectional deep recurrent neural network (HB-RNN) and a probabilistic framework based on Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC) for word-level and sentence-level ASL translation respectively. To evaluate its performance, we have collected 7,306 samples from 11 participants, covering 56 commonly used ASL words and 100 ASL sentences. DeepASL achieves an average 94.5% word-level translation accuracy and an average 8.2% word error rate on translating unseen ASL sentences. Given its promising performance, we believe DeepASL represents a significant step towards breaking the communication barrier between deaf people and hearing majority, and thus has the significant potential to fundamentally change deaf people's lives

Searching Spontaneous Conversational Speech

The ACM SIGIR Workshop on Searching Spontaneous Conversational Speech was held as part of the 2007 ACM SIGIR Conference in Amsterdam.\ud The workshop program was a mix of elements, including a keynote speech, paper presentations and panel discussions. This brief report describes the organization of this workshop and summarizes the discussions