2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.specom.2005.03.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Investigating syllabic structures and their variation in spontaneous French

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
37
0
6

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
(8 reference statements)
3
37
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Johnson (2004) reported on the basis of part of the Buckeye corpus (Pitt, Johnson, Hume, Kiesling, & Raymond, 2005) that in American English informal conversations over 60% of the word tokens deviate from their citation forms on at least one segment, and that in approximately 25% of the word tokens at least one segment is absent. Similar numbers have been reported for Dutch (Schuppler, Ernestus, Scharenborg, & Boves, 2011) and French (Adda-Decker, Boula de Mareüil, Adda, & Lamel, 2005). Reduced pronunciation variants appear to be more frequent in informal situations than in formal situations (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Johnson (2004) reported on the basis of part of the Buckeye corpus (Pitt, Johnson, Hume, Kiesling, & Raymond, 2005) that in American English informal conversations over 60% of the word tokens deviate from their citation forms on at least one segment, and that in approximately 25% of the word tokens at least one segment is absent. Similar numbers have been reported for Dutch (Schuppler, Ernestus, Scharenborg, & Boves, 2011) and French (Adda-Decker, Boula de Mareüil, Adda, & Lamel, 2005). Reduced pronunciation variants appear to be more frequent in informal situations than in formal situations (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…It can also be highlighted that syllable-based features are in the top of the list. These conclusions are consistent with previous studies [18,3,1].…”
Section: Linguistic Feature Selectionsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…The ASR system chose the most probable pronunciation variant for each word token. The acoustic phone models were trained at a frame shift of 5 ms instead of the default of 10 ms (e.g Van Bael et al, 2007b;Adda-Decker et al, 2005;Schuppler et al, 2009) in order to improve the annotation of very short segments, which are especially frequent in spontaneous speech. The lexicon with pronunciation variants had one major improvement over previous lexica used for the automatic creation of phonetic transcriptions for Dutch (Cucchiarini and Binnenpoorte, 2002;Van Bael et al, 2007b): Our lexicon contained pronunciation variants generated by, among others, vowel deletion rules that referred to the stress patterns and syllable structures of the words (3.2 -3.4 in Table 2 and 4.13 -4.19 Table 3).…”
Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The models were trained at a frame shift of 5 ms and a window length of 25 ms, where for each frame 13 MFCCs (i.e., the mel-scaled cepstral coefficients C0-C12) and their first and second order derivatives (39 features) were calculated. We used a shorter frame shift than the default of 10 ms used in earlier studies of segmental reductions (e.g., Van Bael et al, 2007b;Adda-Decker et al, 2005;Schuppler et al, 2009) tin order to achieve more accurate positions of the segment boundaries and in order to be able to identify very short segments. With a frame shift of 5ms and acoustic models consisting of three emitting states (no skips), segments will be assigned a minimum length of 15ms.…”
Section: Corpus Datamentioning
confidence: 99%