Perception of english compound vs. phrasal stress: Natural vs. synthetic speech

Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, INTERSPEECH

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 1699-1702

  Vogel, Irene ^a   Hestvik, Arild ^a   Bunnell, H Timothy ^a,b   Spinu, Laura ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

^b NEMOURS CHILDREN S CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Phonetics; Phonology; Prosody; Speech synthesis

Indexed keywords

PHONETICS; SYNTHETIC SPEECH;

COMPLEXATION; LINGUISTICS; SPEECH SYNTHESIS;

SPEECH COMMUNICATION;

EID: 70450158739     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19909772     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (8)

1. Chomsky, N. and M. Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.
2. Plag, I., G. Kunter, S. Lappe and M. Braun (2008). The role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress assignment in English. Language. 84: 760-794.
3. Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Sluijter, A., V. van Heuven and J. Pically(1997). Spectral balance as a cue in the perception of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America. 101:503-513.
5. Atkinson-King, K. (1973). Children's acquisition of phonological stress contrasts. UCLA: Unpublished Ph.D. Diss.
6. Vogel, I. and E. Raimy (2002). The acquisition of compound vs. phrasal stress: the role of prosodic constituents. Journal of Child Language. 29:225-250.
7. Bunnell, H.T., Pennington, C., Yarrington, D., and Gray, J. (2005). Automatic personal synthetic voice construction. Proceedings of the Eurospeech 2005, Lisbon, Portugal. September 4-8, 2005.
8. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.