Can syllabification improve pronunciation by analogy of English?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spite of difficulty in defining the syllable unequivocally, and controversy over its role in theories of spoken and written language processing, the syllable is a potentially useful unit in several practical tasks which arise in computational linguistics and speech technology. For instance, syllable structure might embody valuable information for building word models in automatic speech recognition, and concatenative speech synthesis might use syllables or demisyllables as basic units. In this paper, we first present an algorithm for determining syllable boundaries in the orthographic form of unknown words that works by analogical reasoning from a database or corpus of known syllabifications. We call this syllabification by analogy (SbA). It is similarly motivated to our existing pronunciation by analogy (PbA) which predicts pronunciations for unknown words (specified by their spellings) by inference from a dictionary of known word spellings and corresponding pronunciations. We show that including perfect (according to the corpus) syllable boundary information in the orthographic input can dramatically improve the performance of pronunciation by analogy of English words, but such information would not be available to a practical system. So we next investigate combining automatically-inferred syllabification and pronunciation in two different ways: the series model in which syllabification is followed sequentially by pronunciation generation; and the parallel model in which syllabification and pronunciation are simultaneously inferred. Unfortunately, neither improves performance over PbA without syllabification. Possible reasons for this failure are explored via an analysis of syllabification and pronunciation errors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".