skip to main content
10.1145/3126858.3126871acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebmediaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

AnyLanguage-To-LIBRAS: Evaluation of an Machine Translation Service of Any Oralized Language for the Brazilian Sign Language

Authors Info & Claims
Published:17 October 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Deaf people communicate naturally through visual-gesture languages, called sign languages (LS). As a result, they have a great deal of difficulty absorbing oral content, either in written or spoken form, even in the oral language (LO) of their native country. In addition, if it is already difficult to a deaf to access information in the oral language of your country, obstacles to accessing information in foreign languages become almost insurmountable, reducing the level of access to information. Among the approaches to the problem, one of the most promising ones involves the use of automatic translators to translate written or spoken content into sign language through an avatar. However, the vast majority of these machine translation platforms are focused on translating a single oral language into a single associated sign language. In order to expand the range of oral languages that Brazilian deaf people could have access to, this article investigates the use of "text-to-text" machine translation mechanisms before the "text-to-gloss" machine translation. The idea is to evaluate the offer of a service for automatic translation of digital content (text, audio or video, for example) in any oral language for the Brazilian Language of Signals (LIBRAS). As a way of validating the proposal a prototype based on the Suite VLibras was constructed. A series of computational and user evaluations were carried out to verify if the proposed flow of chained translations allows the suitable understanding of the content in foreign languages.

References

  1. Tiago Maritan Ugulino de Araújo. 2012. Uma solucção para geracção automática de trilhas em Língua Brasileira de Sinais em conteúdos multimídia. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Rachel Colacique Gomes. 2011. E-acessibilidade para surdos. Revista Brasileira de Traducção Visual 7, 7 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Tiago Maritan U De Araújo, Felipe LS Ferreira, et al. 2014. An approach to generate and embed sign language video tracks into multimedia contents. Information Sciences 281 (2014), 762--780.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. T. M. U. de Araújo, F. L. S. Ferreira, D. A. N. dos S. Silva, L. D. Oliveira, E. L. Falcão, L. A. Domingues, V. F. Martins, I. A. C. Portela, Y. S. Nßbrega, G. L. de Souza Filho Lima, T. A. Tavares, and A. N. Duarte. 2014. An approach to generate and embed sign language video tracks into multimedia contents. Information Sciences 281 (Outubro 2014), 762--780. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Maria Cecília Rafael de Gßes. 2002. Linguagem, surdez e educacção. Autores Associados.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. P. Jordan Dorr, B. and J. Benoite. 1999. A survey of current paradigms in machine translation. Advances In Computers, 49, 1--68 (1999).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Instituto ICTS e CTS Ltda. [n. d.]. Rybená Web. http://www.rybena.com.br/site-rybena/conheca-o-rybena/web. ([n. d.]). Accessed 25-Jun-2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Roy T. Fielding and Richard N. Taylor. 2002. Principled Design of the Modern Web Architecture. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 2, 2 (May 2002), 115--150. https://doi.org/10.1145/514183.514185 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C. Freitas, P. Rocha, and E. Bick. 2008. Floresta sintá(c)tica: bigger, thicker and easier. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Computational Processing of the Portuguese Language, PROPOR'08. Aveiro, Portugal, 216--219. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Sang-Woon Kim, Zhe-Xue Li, and Y. Aoki. 2004. On intelligent avatar communication using Korean, Chinese and Japanese sign-languages: an overview. In ICARCV 2004 8th Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision Conference, 2004., Vol. 1. 747--752 Vol. 1. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICARCV.2004.1468921Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M. A.C.B. Lima, T. M.U. Araújo, and E. S. Oliveira. 2015. Incorporation of Syntactic-Semantic Aspects in a LIBRAS Machine Translation Service to Multimedia Platforms. In Proceedings of the 21st Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web, Webmedia 2015. 133--140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. ProDeaf Tecnologias Assistivas LTDA. 2010. ProDeaf. http://prodeaf.net/O.eE/. (2010). Accessed 25-Jun-2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. F. R. Melo, H. C. O. Matos, and E. R. B. Dias. 2014. Aplicacção da Métrica BLEU para Avaliacção Comparativa dos Tradutores Automáticos Bing Tradutor e Google Tradutor. E-scrita 5, 3 (2014), 33--45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Morrissey and A. Way. 2013. Manual labour: tackling machine translation for sign languages. Machine Translation 27, 1 (Marc¸o 2013), 25--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. K. Papineni, S. Roukos, T. Ward, and W. Zhu. 2001. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 311--318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig. 2003. Inteligência Artificial: uma abordagem moderna. Ed. Campus, 2a Edicção. São Paulo, Brazil (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. R. San-segundo, R. Barra, et al. 2008. Speech to sign language translation system for spanish. Speech Communication 50, 11 (2008), 1009--1020. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Charles Schafer and David Smith. 2006. An Overview of Statistical Machine Translation. http://homedirs.ccs.neu.edu/dasmith/smt-tutorial.pdf. (2006). Accessed 01-April-2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Stephen Shankland. 2009. Google Translate now serves 200 million people daily. https://www.cnet.com/news/ google-translate-now-serves-200-million-people-daily/. (2009). Accessed 10-Fev-2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. H. Y. Su and A. H.Wu. 2009. Improving structural statistical machine translation for sign language with small corpus using thematic role templates as translation memory. In IEEE Transactions on Machine Translation, Audio, Speech, and Language Processing. 1305--1315.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. H. Y. Su and C. H. Wu. 2009. Improving Structural Statistical Machine Translation for Sign Language with Small Corpus Using .ematic Role Templates As Translation Memory. Trans. Audio, Speech and Lang. Proc. 17, 7 (Sept. 2009), 1305--1315. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASL.2009.2016234Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Hand Talk. 2012. Hand Talk. http://www.handtalk.me/. (2012). Accessed 25-Jun-2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. AnyLanguage-To-LIBRAS: Evaluation of an Machine Translation Service of Any Oralized Language for the Brazilian Sign Language

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      WebMedia '17: Proceedings of the 23rd Brazillian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web
      October 2017
      522 pages
      ISBN:9781450350969
      DOI:10.1145/3126858

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      © 2017 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 17 October 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      WebMedia '17 Paper Acceptance Rate38of138submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate270of873submissions,31%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader