Is Speech Emotion Recognition Language-Independent? Analysis of English and Bangla Languages using Language-Independent Vocal Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A language agnostic approach to recognizing emotions from speech remains an incomplete and challenging task. In this paper, we used Bangla and English languages to assess whether distinguishing emotions from speech is independent of language. The following emotions were categorized for this study: happiness, anger, neutral, sadness, disgust, and fear. We employed three Emotional Speech Sets, of which the first two were developed by native Bengali speakers in Bangla and English languages separately. The third was the Toronto Emotional Speech Set (TESS), which was developed by native English speakers from Canada. We carefully selected language-independent prosodic features, adopted a Support Vector Machine (SVM) model, and conducted three experiments to carry out our proposition. In the first experiment, we measured the performance of the three speech sets individually. This was followed by the second experiment, where we recorded the classification rate by combining the speech sets. Finally, in the third experiment we measured the recognition rate by training and testing the model with different speech sets. Although this study reveals that Speech Emotion Recognition (SER) is mostly language-independent, there is some disparity while recognizing emotional states like disgust and fear in these two languages. Moreover, our investigations inferred that non-native speakers convey emotions through speech, much like expressing themselves in their native tongue.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".