Cited by 53Speech Recognition and SynthesisSpeech and dialogue systemsNatural Language Processing Techniques

Effective use of prosody in parsing conversational speech

Open access
Kahn, Jeremy G., Lease, Matthew, Charniak, Eugene, Johnson, Mark, Ostendorf, Mari·2005·Proceedings of the conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing - HLT '05

Abstract

We identify a set of prosodic cues for parsing conversational speech and show how such features can be effectively incorporated into a statistical parsing model. On the Switchboard corpus of conversational speech, the system achieves improved parse accuracy over a state-of-the-art system which uses only lexical and syntactic features. Since removal of edit regions is known to improve downstream parse accuracy, we explore alternatives for edit detection and show that PCFGs are not competitive with more specialized techniques.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3115/1220575.1220605

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • After conversion from speech to text, NLP techniques that perform well on grammatically correct sentences break down with conversational speech because of the lack of punctuation and sentence boundaries, grammatical differences between spoken and written language, and lack of structure.

    “After conversion from speech to text, NLP techniques that perform well on grammatically correct sentences break down with conversational speech because of the lack of punctuation and sentence boundaries, grammatical differences between spoken and written language, and lack of structure.7,24,25”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. M. Johnson, E. Charniak, and M. Lease. 2004. An im- proved model for recognizing disfluencies in conver- sational speech. Proc. Rich Transcription Workshop.
  2. J. G. Kahn, M. Ostendorf, and C. Chelba. 2004. Pars- ing conversational speech using enhanced segmenta- tion. Proc. HLT-NAACL 2004, pp. 125-128.
  3. M.A. thesis, U. Wash. LDC. 2004. Simple metadata annotation specification. Tech. report, Linguistic Data Consortium. Available at http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Projects/MDE.
  4. M. Ostendorf et al. 2001. A prosodically labeled database of spontaneous speech. ISCA Workshop on Prosody in Speech Recognition and Understanding, pp. 119-121, 10.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kahn, J. G., Lease, M., Charniak, E., Johnson, M., & Ostendorf, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing - HLT '05
Published
2005
Pages
233-240
OpenAlex
W2067030274
Cited by
53
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4
FWCI
2.62
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
prosody, prosodic cues, statistical parsing, Switchboard corpus, probabilistic context-free grammars, spoken language understanding

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review