Contrast in concept-to-speech generation

Computer Speech and Language

Volumn 16, Issue 3-4, 2002, Pages 491-531

  Theune, Mariët ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; LINGUISTICS; PROBLEM SOLVING; SENSORY PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECOGNITION; SYNTACTICS;

CONCEPT-TO-SPEECH (CTS) SYSTEMS;

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

EID: 0036663537     PISSN: 08852308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0885-2308(02)00010-4     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Abeillé, A. & Schabes, Y. (1989). Parsing idioms in lexicalized TAGs. Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL'89), Manchester, UK, pp. 1-9.
2. Alshawi, H. & Crouch, R. (1992). Monotonic semantic interpretation. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'92), New York, USA, pp. 32-39.
3. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. Croon Helm Linguistics Series, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
4. Asher, N., Hardt, D. & Busquets, J. (2001). Discourse parallelism, ellipsis, and ambiguity. Journal of Semantics 18(1), 1-25.
5. Aust, H., Oerder, M., Seide, F. & Steinbiss, V. (1995). The Philips automatic train timetable information system. Speech Communication 17, 249-262.
6. Baart, J.L.G. (1987). Focus, syntax and accent placement. PhD thesis, University of Leiden.
7. Bateman, J. (1992). The theoretical status of ontologies in natural language processing. In: S. Preuss & B.Schmitz, Proceedings of the Workshop on Text Representation and Domain Modelling - Ideas from Linguistics and AI (pp. 50-99), Berlin, Germany, 1992. KIT-Report 97.
8. Bock, J. & Mazzella, J. (1983). Intonational marking of given and new information. Memory and Cognition 11(1), 64-76.
9. Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and its Parts: Melody in Spoken English. Arnold, London.
10. Brown, G. (1983). Prosodic structure and the given/new distinction. In Prosody: Models and Measurements (D.R. Ladd and A. Cutler, eds), pp. 67-77. Springer, Berlin.
11. Büring, D. (1997). The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent. Routledge Studies in German Linguistics, volume 3. Routledge, London.
12. Cahn, J. (1995). The effect of pitch accenting on pronoun referent resolution. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'95), Cambridge, USA, pp. 290-292.
13. Chafe, W.L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. In Subject and Topic (C.N. Li, ed), pp. 25-55. Academic Press, New York.
14. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
15. Cruse, D.A. (1977). The pragmatics of lexical specificity. Journal of Linguistics 13, 153-368.
16. Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
17. Davis, J.R. & Hirschberg, J. (1988). Assigning intonational features in synthesized spoken directions. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'88), Buffalo, USA, pp. 187-193.
18. Delin, J. & Zacharski, R. (1997). Pragmatic determinants of intonation contours for dialogue systems. International Journal of Speech Technology 1, 109-120.
19. Dirksen, A. (1992). Accenting and deaccenting: A declarative approach. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING'92), Nantes, France, pp. 865-869.
20. Dirksen, A. & Quené, H. (1993). Prosodic analysis: The next generation. In Analysis and Synthesis of Speech: Strategic Research Towards High-Quality Text-to-Speech Generation (V. van Heuven and L. Pols, eds), pp. 131-144. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
21. Fellbaum C. (ed) (1998). In Word Net: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge.
22. Fitzpatrick, E. (2001). The prosodic phrasing of clause-final prepositional phrases. Language 77(3), 544-561.
23. Gardent, C. & Kohlhase, M. (1997). Computing parallelism in discourse. Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'97). Tokyo, Japan, pp. 1016-1021.
24. Gigi, E. & Vogten, L. (1997). A mixed-excitation vocoder based on exact analysis of harmónic components. IPO Annual Progress Report 32, 105-110.
25. Grosz, B., Joshi, A. & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21(2), 203-225.
26. Grosz, B. & Sidner, (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12(3), 175-204.
27. Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69, 274-307.
28. Halliday, M.A.K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics 3, 199-244.
29. Hirschberg, J. (1992). Using discourse context to guide pitch accent decisions in synthetic speech. In Talking Machines: Theories, Models and Designs (G. Bailly, C. Benoît and T.R. Sawallis, eds), pp. 367-376. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam.
30. Hirschberg, J. & Sproat, R. (1993). Pitch accent prediction from text analysis. In Linguistics and Computation (J. Cole, G.M. Green and J.L. Morgan, eds), pp. 281-296. CSLI Publications, Stanford.
31. Hobbs, J.R. & Kehler, A. (1997). A theory of parallelism and the case of VP ellipsis. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL/EACL'97). Madrid, Spain, pp. 394-401.
32. Horne, M. & Filipsson, M. (1997). Computational extraction of lexico-grammatical information for generation of Swedish intonation, In Progress in Speech Synthesis (J. van Santen, R. Sproat, J. Olive and J. Hirschberg, eds), pp. 443-457. Springer, New York.
33. Joshi, A. (1987). An introduction to Tree Adjoining Grammars. In Mathematics of Language (A. Manaster-Ramer, ed), pp. 87-114. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
34. Kameyama, M. (1986). A property-sharing constraint in Centering. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'86), New York, USA, pp. 200-206.
35. Kameyama, M. (1999). Stressed and unstressed pronouns: Complementary preferences. In Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives (P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt, eds), pp. 306-321. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
36. Klabbers, E. (2000). Segmental and prosodic improvements to speech generation. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.
37. Kohlhase, M. (1994). A mechanization of sorted higher-order logic based on the resolution principle. PhD thesis, Universität des Saarlandes.
38. Krahmer, E., Landsbergen, J., Odijk, J. (1997). A guided tour through LGM: How to generate spoken route descriptions? Report 1182, IPO, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
39. Krahmer, E. & Swerts, M. (2001). On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication 34(4), 391-405.
40. Ladd, D.R. (1980). The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English. indiana University Press, Bloomington.
41. Lakoff, G. (1971). Presupposition and relative well-formedness, in Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology (D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits, eds), pp. 329-340. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
42. Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. MIT Press, Cambridge.
43. Miller, G. (1995). Word Net: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM 38(11), 39-41.
44. Monaghan, A. (1994). Intonation accent placement in a concept-to-dialogue system. Proceedings of the AAAI/ ESCA/IEEE Conference on Speech Synthesis, New York, USA, pp. 171-174.
45. Nachtegaal, D. (1997). An evaluation of Goal Getter's accentuation. Report 1142, IPO, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
46. Nakatani, C. (1997). The computational processing of intonational prominence: A functional prosody perspective. PhD thesis, Harvard University.
47. Nakatani, C. & Chu-Carroll, J. (2000). Using dialogue representations for concept-to-speech generation. Proceedings of the ANLP-NAACL Workshop on Conversational Systems, Seattle, USA.
48. Odijk, J. (1995). Generation of coherent monologues, in CLIN V: Proceedings of the 5th CLIN Meeting-Enschede, The Netherlands (T. Andernach, M. Moll and A. Nijholt, eds), pp. 123-131.
49. Pierrehumbert, J. & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse, in Intentions in Communication (P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan and M.E. Pollack, eds), chapter 14, pp. 271-311. MIT Press, Cambridge.
50. Pouteau, X. & Arévalo, L. (1998). Robust spoken dialogue systems for consumer products: A concrete application. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP'98). Sydney, Australia, vol. 4, pp. 1231-1234.
51. Prevost, S. (1995). A semantics of contrast and information structure for specifying intonation in spoken language generation. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
52. Prevost, S. (1996). An information structural approach to spoken language generation. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'96). Santa Cruz, USA, pp. 294-301.
53. Prince, E.F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given/new information, in Radical Pragmatics (P. Cole, ed), pp. 223-255. Academic Press, New York.
54. Prüst, H. (1992). On discourse structuring, VP anaphora and gapping. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.
55. Pulman, S. (1997). Higher order unification and the interpretation of focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 73-115.
56. Reiter, E. & Dale, R. (2000). Building Applied Natural Language Generation Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
57. Rietveld, T., Kerkhoff, J., Emons, M.J.W.M., Meijer, E.J., Sanderman, A.A. & Sluijter, A.M.C. (1997). Evaluation of speech synthesis systems for Dutch in telecommunication applications in GSM and PSTN networks. Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech'97). Rhodes, Greece, pp. 577-580.
58. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.
59. Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75-116.
60. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Cognition and Categorization (E. Rosch and B. Lloyd, eds), pp. 27-48. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
61. Sanderman, A. (1996). Prosodic phrasing: Production, perception, acceptability and comprehension. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.
62. Schmerling, S.F. (1976). Aspects of English Sentence Stress, University of Texas Press, Austin.
63. Sluijter, A., Bosgoed, E., Kerkhoff, J., Meier, E., Rietveld, T., Sanderman, A., Swerts, M. & Terken, J. (1998). Evaluation of speech synthesis systems for Dutch in telecommunication applications. Proceedings of the 3rd ESCA/COCOSDA International Workshop on Speech Synthesis. Jenolan Caves, Australia, pp. 213-218.
64. Sproat, R. (1995). Text interpretation for TtS synthesis. In Survey of the State of the Art in Human Language Technology (R. Cole, J. Mariani, H. Uszkoreit, A. Zaenen and V. Zue, eds), pp. 202-209. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
65. J. 't Hart, J., Collier, R. & Cohen, A. (1990). A Perceptual Study of Intonation: An Experimental Phonetic Approach to Speech Melody, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
66. Terken, J. & Hirschberg, J. (1994). Deaccentuation of words representing 'Given' information: Effects of persistence of grammatical function and surface position. Language and Speech 37(2), 125-145.
67. Terken, J. & Nooteboom, S. (1987). Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for given and new information. Language and Cognitive Processes 2, 145-163.
68. Theune, M. (2000). From data to speech: language generation in context. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.
69. Theune, M., Klabbers, E., de Pijper, J.R., Krahmer, E. & Odijk, J. (2001). From data to speech: A generic approach. Natural Language Engineering 7(1), 47-86.
70. van Deemter, K. (1994a). Contrastive stress, contrariety, and focus. In Focus and Natural Language Processing, vol 1: Intonation and Syntax (P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt. eds), pp. 39-49. IBM Institute for Logic & Linguistics, Heidelberg.
71. van Deemter, K. (1994b). What's new? A semantic perspective on sentence accent. Journal of Semantics 11, 1-31.
72. van Deemter, K. (1998). A blackboard model of accenting. Computer Speech and Language 12, 143-164.
73. van Deemter, K. (1999). Contrastive stress, contrariety, and focus. In Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives (P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt, eds), pp. 3-17. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
74. van Deemter, K., Landsbergen, J., Leermakers, R. & Odijk, J. (1994). Generation of spoken monologues by means of templates. Proceedings of the 8th Twente Workshop on Language Technology (TWLT 8): Speech and Language Engineering. Enschede, The Netherlands, pp. 87-96.
75. van Deemter, K. & Odijk, J. (1997). Context modeling and the generation of spoken discourse. Speech Communication 21(1/2), 101-121.
76. van Donzel, M., (1999). Prosodic aspects of information structure in discourse. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.
77. van Noord, G., Bouma, G., Koeling, R. & Nederhof, M. (1999). Robust grammatical analysis for spoken dialogue systems. Natural Language Engineering 5(1), 45-93.
78. Veldhuijzen van Zanten, G. (1998). Adaptive mixed-initiative dialogue management. Proceedings of IVTTA 1998. Turin, Italy, pp. 65-70.
79. Williams, S. (1998). Generating pitch accents in a concept-to-speech system using a knowledge base. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP'98). Sydney, Australia, vol. 4, pp. 1159-1162.