A finite state and data-oriented method for grapheme to phoneme conversion

1st Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, NAACL 2000 - co-located with 6th Applied Natural Language Processing Conference, ANLP 2000 - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2000, Pages 303-310

  Bouma, Gosse ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA ORIENTED METHODS; FINITE STATE METHODS; FINITE-STATE; GRAPHEME-TO-PHONEME CONVERSION; TRANSFORMATION-BASED LEARNING;

EID: 84904642817     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Evan L. Antworth. 1990. PC-KIMMO: a two-level processor for morphological analysis. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas, Tex.
2. R. H. Baayen, R. Piepenbrock, and H. van Rijn. 1993. The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
3. Alan Black, Kevin Lenzo, and Vincent Pagel. 1998. Issues in building general letter to sound rules. In Proceedings of the 3rd ESCA/COCSADA Workshop on Speech Synthesis, pages 77-81, Jenolan Caves, Australia.
4. Eric Brill. 1995. Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing: A case study in part-of-speech tagging. Computational Linguistics, 21:543-566.
5. Bertjan Busser. 1998. TreeTalk-D: a machine learning approach to Dutch word pronunciation. In Proceedings TSD Conference, pages 3-8, Masaryk University, Czech Republic.
6. W. Daelemans and A. van den Bosch. 1996. Language-independent data-oriented graphemeto-phoneme conversion. In Progress in Speech Synthesis, pages 77-90, New York. Springer Verlag.
7. Thierry Dutoit. 1997. An Introduction to Text-to-Speech Synthesis. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
8. Dale Gerdemann and Gertjan van Noord. 1999. Transducers from rewrite rules with backreferences. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 126-133, Bergen.
9. Veronique Hoste, Walter Daelemans, Erik Tjong Kim Sang, and Steven Gillis. 2000a. Meta-learning of phonemic annotation of corpora. ms., University of Antwerp.
10. Veronique Hoste, Steven Gillis, and Walter Daelemans. 2000b. A rule induction approach to modelling regional pronunciation variation. ms., University of Antwerp.
11. Ronald Kaplan and Martin Kay. 1994. Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics, 20 (3).
12. L. Karttunen, J. P. Chanod, G. Grefenstette, and A. Schiller. 1997. Regular expressions for language engineering. Natural Lanv. age Engineering, pages 1-24.
13. Lauri Karttunen. 1995. The replace operator. In 33th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 16-23, Boston, Massachusetts.
14. Torbjorn Lager. 1999. The μ-TBL System: Logic programming tools for transformationbased learning. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL '99), pages 33-42, Bergen.
15. S. C. G. Lawrence and G. Kaye. 1986. Alignment of phonemes with their corresponding orthography. Computer Speech and Language, 1 (2) :153-165.
16. Bernd Möbius, Richard Sproat, Jan van Santen, and Joseph Olive. 1997. The Bell Labs German textto-speech system: An overview. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, pages 2443-2446, Rhodes.
17. J. R. Quinlan. 1993. C4.5: programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo.
18. Emmanuel Roche and Yves Schabes. 1997. Deterministic part-of-speech tagging with finite-state transducers. In Emmanuel Roche and Yves Schabes, editors, Finite state language processing, pages 205-239. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
19. Ken Samuel, Sandra Carberry, and K. Vijay-Shanker. 1998. Dialogue act tagging with transformation-based learning. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL '98), Montreal.
20. Briony Williams. 1994. Welsh letter-to-sound rules: rewrite rules and two-level rules compared. Computer Speech and Language, 8:261-277.