语言学家研究AAC:与书写系统和自然语言相比,用于增强和替代交流的语言表示系统

Q1 Arts and Humanities
C. Tenny
{"title":"语言学家研究AAC:与书写系统和自然语言相比,用于增强和替代交流的语言表示系统","authors":"C. Tenny","doi":"10.1080/17586801.2014.959459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Writing systems are technological innovations that make it possible to record and reproduce the spoken utterances in a human language. They are the oldest, but not the only, kind of language representation system developed by human technology. The field of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) has created various technologies to facilitate communication for people who cannot communicate through language in the normal way. Users of AAC devices are persons with a physical or mental disability which compels them to produce speech using a technological device; and these persons depend on the Language Representation System (LRS) associated with their particular device in order to communicate. The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to introduce the kinds of Language Representation Systems used in AAC devices to the audience of this journal; and second, to compare these LRSs with written language. In making this comparison, I show that they are forced into certain inevitable parallels by the structure of natural language which they must represent. They obey the same constraints, among these the impossibility of a truly semantic language representation system. In this paper, I illustrate the range of these LRSs used in AAC devices by illustrating and comparing three different systems, using a tripartite taxonomy of these systems. The three systems are compared with each other and with writing systems, focusing on how they map to the linguistic units of natural language and the compositional structure of natural language. I focus on a subset of the population employing AAC devices: those persons who are physically impaired but cognitively intact; and whose linguistic ability is comparable to any person who communicates through language in the normal way. Next, I compare one of these systems, with the writing system for Japanese, and show that they have converged on some similar responses to different engineering challenges. Finally, I propose that writing systems should be regarded as a subclass of a larger set of Language Representation Systems, of which both they and these LRSs for AAC technology are members.","PeriodicalId":39225,"journal":{"name":"Writing Systems Research","volume":"8 1","pages":"119 - 84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17586801.2014.959459","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A linguist looks at AAC: Language representation systems for augmentative and alternative communication, compared with writing systems and natural language\",\"authors\":\"C. Tenny\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17586801.2014.959459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Writing systems are technological innovations that make it possible to record and reproduce the spoken utterances in a human language. They are the oldest, but not the only, kind of language representation system developed by human technology. The field of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) has created various technologies to facilitate communication for people who cannot communicate through language in the normal way. Users of AAC devices are persons with a physical or mental disability which compels them to produce speech using a technological device; and these persons depend on the Language Representation System (LRS) associated with their particular device in order to communicate. The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to introduce the kinds of Language Representation Systems used in AAC devices to the audience of this journal; and second, to compare these LRSs with written language. In making this comparison, I show that they are forced into certain inevitable parallels by the structure of natural language which they must represent. They obey the same constraints, among these the impossibility of a truly semantic language representation system. In this paper, I illustrate the range of these LRSs used in AAC devices by illustrating and comparing three different systems, using a tripartite taxonomy of these systems. The three systems are compared with each other and with writing systems, focusing on how they map to the linguistic units of natural language and the compositional structure of natural language. I focus on a subset of the population employing AAC devices: those persons who are physically impaired but cognitively intact; and whose linguistic ability is comparable to any person who communicates through language in the normal way. Next, I compare one of these systems, with the writing system for Japanese, and show that they have converged on some similar responses to different engineering challenges. Finally, I propose that writing systems should be regarded as a subclass of a larger set of Language Representation Systems, of which both they and these LRSs for AAC technology are members.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39225,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Writing Systems Research\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"119 - 84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17586801.2014.959459\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Writing Systems Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2014.959459\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Writing Systems Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2014.959459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

书写系统是一项技术创新,它使记录和再现人类语言的口头表达成为可能。它们是人类技术开发的最古老的语言表示系统,但不是唯一的。辅助和替代沟通(AAC)领域创造了各种技术来促进无法通过语言以正常方式进行沟通的人们的沟通。使用AAC装置的人士是身体或精神有残疾的人士,以致他们不得不使用科技装置说话;这些人依靠与他们的特定设备相关联的语言表示系统(LRS)来进行交流。本文的目的有两个:首先,向本刊的读者介绍AAC设备中使用的各种语言表示系统;第二,将这些lrs与书面语言进行比较。在进行这种比较时,我表明,它们必须代表的自然语言结构迫使它们不可避免地形成某些相似之处。它们遵循相同的约束,其中一个不可能是一个真正的语义语言表示系统。在本文中,我通过说明和比较三个不同的系统来说明这些LRSs在AAC设备中使用的范围,使用这些系统的三方分类法。这三种系统相互比较,并与书写系统进行比较,重点是它们如何映射到自然语言的语言单位和自然语言的组成结构。我关注的是使用AAC设备的人群中的一个子集:那些身体受损但认知完好的人;他们的语言能力可以与任何正常的语言交流的人相媲美。接下来,我将其中一个系统与日语的书写系统进行比较,并展示它们对不同的工程挑战有一些相似的反应。最后,我建议将书写系统视为更大的语言表示系统集合的一个子类,它们和AAC技术的LRSs都是其中的成员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A linguist looks at AAC: Language representation systems for augmentative and alternative communication, compared with writing systems and natural language
Writing systems are technological innovations that make it possible to record and reproduce the spoken utterances in a human language. They are the oldest, but not the only, kind of language representation system developed by human technology. The field of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) has created various technologies to facilitate communication for people who cannot communicate through language in the normal way. Users of AAC devices are persons with a physical or mental disability which compels them to produce speech using a technological device; and these persons depend on the Language Representation System (LRS) associated with their particular device in order to communicate. The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to introduce the kinds of Language Representation Systems used in AAC devices to the audience of this journal; and second, to compare these LRSs with written language. In making this comparison, I show that they are forced into certain inevitable parallels by the structure of natural language which they must represent. They obey the same constraints, among these the impossibility of a truly semantic language representation system. In this paper, I illustrate the range of these LRSs used in AAC devices by illustrating and comparing three different systems, using a tripartite taxonomy of these systems. The three systems are compared with each other and with writing systems, focusing on how they map to the linguistic units of natural language and the compositional structure of natural language. I focus on a subset of the population employing AAC devices: those persons who are physically impaired but cognitively intact; and whose linguistic ability is comparable to any person who communicates through language in the normal way. Next, I compare one of these systems, with the writing system for Japanese, and show that they have converged on some similar responses to different engineering challenges. Finally, I propose that writing systems should be regarded as a subclass of a larger set of Language Representation Systems, of which both they and these LRSs for AAC technology are members.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Writing Systems Research
Writing Systems Research Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信