Article published In:
Dutch Journal of Applied LinguisticsVol. 3:2 (2014) ► pp.137–154
Improving word prediction for augmentative communication by using idiolects and sociolects
Word prediction, or predictive editing, has a long history as a tool for augmentative and assistive communication. Improvements in the state-of-the-art can still be achieved, for instance by training personalized statistical language models. We developed the word prediction system Soothsayer. The main innovation of Soothsayer is that it not only uses idiolects, the language of one individual person, as training data, but also sociolects, the language of the social circle around that person. We use Twitter for data collection and experimentation. The idiolect models are based on individual Twitter feeds, the sociolect models are based on the tweets of a particular person and the tweets of the people he often communicates with. The sociolect approach achieved the best results. For a number of users, more than 50% of the keystrokes could have been saved if they had used Soothsayer.
References (34)
Aha, D.W., Kibler, D., & Albert, M.K. (1991). Instance-based learning algorithms. Machine Learning, 61, 37–66. 
Asur, S., & Huberman, B.A. (2010). Predicting the future with social media. In Proceedings of the 2010 ieee/wic/acm International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, Vol 011 (pp. 492–499). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
Bagavandas, M., & Manimannan, G. (2008). Style consistency and authorship attribution: A statistical investigation. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 15(1), 100–110.
Barlow, M. (2010). Individual usage: A corpus-based study of idiolects. In
Laud conference
, Landau, Germany. from [URL]
Carlberger, A., Carlberger, J., Magnuson, T., Hunnicutt, S., Cagigas, S.E.P., & Navarro, S.A. (1997). Profet, a new generation of word prediction: An evaluation study. In
ACL Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Communication Aids
(pp. 23 -28).
Church, K.W. (2000). Empirical estimates of adaptation: The chance of two noriegas is closer to p/2 than p2. In
Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Computational Linguistics
, Vol 11 (pp. 180–186).
Copestake, A. (1997). Augmented and alternative nlp techniques for augmented and alternative nlp techniques for augmentative and alternative communication. In
Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Communication Aids
(pp. 37–42).
Daelemans, W., Van den Bosch, A., & Weijters, A. (1997). Igtree: Using trees for compression and classiffication in lazy learning algorithms. Artificial Intelligence Review, 111, 407–423.
Darragh, J.J., Witten, I.H., & James, M.L. (1990). The reactive keyboard: A predictive typing aid. Computer, 23(11), 41–49.
Eisner, J. (1996). An empirical comparison of probability models for dependency grammar. In Technical Report IRCS-96-11, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science. University of Pennsylvania.
Fazly, A., & Hirst, G. (2003). Testing the efficacy of part-of-speech information in word completion. In
Proceedings of the 2003 eacl Workshop on Language Modeling for Text Entry Methods
(pp. 9–16).
Garay-Vitoria, N., & Abascal, J. (2006). Text prediction systems: A survey. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(3), 188–203.
Garay-Vitoria, N., & Gonzalez-Abascal, J. (1997). Intelligent word-prediction to enhance text input rate. In
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
(pp. 241–244).
Haugen, E. (1972). From idiolect to language. In E.S. Firchow, K. Grimstad, N. Hasselmo, & W.A. O’Neil (Eds.), Studies by Einar Haugen. Presented on the occasion of his 65th birthday (pp. 415–421). The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
Heil, B., & Piskorski, M. (2009). New twitter research: Men follow men and nobody tweets( Blog No. June 1). [URL].
Horstmann Koester, H., & Levine, S.P. (1996). Effect of a word prediction feature on user performance. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12(3), 155–168.
. (1998). Model simulations of user performance with word prediction. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14(1), 25–35.
How, Y., & Kan, M.-Y. (2005, July). Optimizing predictive text entry for short message service on mobile phones. In M.J. Smith & G. Salvendy (Eds.), HCII ’05: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Las Vegas, NV: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hunnicutt, S. (1987). Input and output alternatives in word prediction. STL-QPSR, 28(2-3), 015–029.
Langlais, P., Foster, G., & Lapalme, G. (2000). Transtype: A computer-aided translation typing system. In
Proceedings of the 2000 NAACL-ANLP Workshop on Embedded Machine Translation Systems
, Vol 51 (pp. 46–51).
Lesher, G.W., Moulton, B.J., & Higginbotham, D.J. (1999). Effects of Ngram order and training text size on word prediction. In
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Resna
(pp. 52–55).
Louwerse, M.M. (2004). Semantic variation in idiolect and sociolect: Corpus linguistic evidence from literary texts. Computers and the Humanities, 38(2), 207–221.
Matiasek, J., Baroni, M., & Trost, H. (2002). FASTY: A multi-lingual approach to text prediction. In Computers helping people with special needs (pp. 165–176). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
Mollin, S. (2009). I entirely understand is a Blairism: The methodology of identifying idiolectal collocations. Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 367–392.
Nantais, T., Shein, F., & Johansson, M. (2001). Efficacy of the word prediction algorithm in wordq. In
Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Technology and Disability
, RESNA.
Oostdijk, N., Reynaert, M., Hoste, V., & Schuurman, I. (2013). The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. In P. Spyns & J. Odijk (Eds.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch (pp. 219–247). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Rui, H., & Whinston, A. (2012). Information or attention? An empirical study of user contribution on twitter. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 10(3), 309–324.
Shein, F., Nantais, T., Nishiyama, R., Tam, C., & Marshall, P. (2001). Word cueing for persons with writing difficulties: Wordq. In
Proceedings of csun 16th Annual Conference on Technology for Persons with Disabilities
.
Stocky, T., Faaborg, A., & Lieberman, H. (2004). A commonsense approach to predictive text entry. In CHI ‘04: CHI ‘04 Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1163–1166). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Swiffin, A.L., Pickering, J.A., Arnott, J.L., & Newell, A.F. (1985). PAL: An effort efficient portable communication aid and keyboard emulator. In
Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Rehabilitation Technology
, resna (pp. 197–199).
Tanaka-Ishii, K. (2007). Word-based predictive text entry using adaptive language models. Natural Language Engineering, 13(1), 51–74.
Van den Bosch, A. (2011). Effects of context and recency in scaled word completion. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal, 11, 79–94.
Van den Bosch, A., & Bogers, T. (2008). Efficient context-sensitive word completion for mobile devices. In Mobilehci 2008:
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, IOP-MMI Special Track
(pp. 465–470).
Verberne, S., Van den Bosch, A., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2012). The effect of domain and text type on text prediction quality. In
Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics
, Avignon, France (pp. 561–569). New Brunswick, NJ: ACL.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Tomas, Frédéric, Olivier Dodier & Samuel Demarchi
2022. Computational Measures of Deceptive Language: Prospects and Issues. Frontiers in Communication 7 
Cucchiarini, Catia & Monique Lamers
2014. E-health for people with communicative disorders. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 3:2 ► pp. 121 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.