|
| Text to Speech Synthesis with Prosody Feature: Implementation of Emotion in Speech Output using Forward Parsing
|
|
Full
text: |
 PDF(448.5KB) |
|
|
Source |
International Journal of Computer Science and Security (IJCSS) |
|
Table of Contents |
|
|
Download
Complete Issue PDF(4.51MB) |
|
Volume: 4 Issue: 3 |
| |
Pages: 265-372 |
|
Publication
Date: July 2010 |
|
ISSN
(Online): 1985-1553 |
|
|
|
|
|
Pages |
352 - 360 |
|
Author(s) |
|
|
|
Published
Date |
10-08-2010 |
|
Publisher |
CSC
Journals, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia |
|
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION |
| Keywords Abstract References Cited by Related Articles Collaborative
Colleague |
| |
|
| |
KEYWORDS: Text to Speech Synthesis, Forward Parsing, Emotion Generator, Prosody Feature |
|
|
| |
|
|
| This Manuscript is indexed in the following databases/websites:- |
|
| 1. Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) |
| 2. Docstoc |
| 3. Scribd |
| 4. PDFCAST |
| 5. Google Scholar |
| 6. WorldCat |
| 7. Academic Index |
| 8. Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE) |
| 9. refSeek |
| 10. Socol@r |
| 11. iSEEK |
| 12. ResearchGATE |
| 13. Academic Journals Database |
| 14. Libsearch |
| 15. slideshare |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| One of the key components of Text to Speech Synthesizer is prosody generator. There are basically two types of Text to Speech Synthesizer, (i) single tone synthesizer and (ii) multi tone synthesizer. The basic difference between two approaches is the prosody feature. If the output of the synthesizer is required in normal form just like human conversation, then it should be added with prosody feature. The prosody feature allows the synthesizer to vary the pitch of the voice so as to generate the output in the same form as if it is actually spoken or generated by people in conversation.
The paper describes various aspects of the design and implementation of speech synthesizer, which is capable of generating variable pitch output for the text. The concept of forward parsing is used to find out the emotion in the text and generate the output accordingly.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| 1 |
Bender, O., S. Hasan, D. Vilar, R. Zens, and H. Ney. 2005. Comparison of generation strategies for interactive machine translation. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation (EAMT05), pages 33–40, Budapest
|
|
|
| 2 |
Casacuberta, F. and E. Vidal. 2007. Learning finite-state models for machine translation. Machine Learning, 66(1):69–91.
|
|
|
| 3 |
Tom´as, J. and F. Casacuberta. 2006. Statistical phrase-based models for interactive computer-assisted translation. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 21th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING/ACL 06), pages 835–841, Sydney.
|
|
|
| 4 |
I. Titov and R. McDonald. 2008. A Joint Model of Text and Aspect Ratings for Sentiment Summarization. ACL-2008
|
|
|
| 5 |
Allen, J., M.S. Hunnicutt, and D.H. Klatt, From Text to Speech: the MITalk System, 2007, Cambridge, UK, University Press.
|
|
|
| 6 |
J. Wiebe, and T. Wilson. 2002. Learning to Disambiguate Potentially Subjective Expressions. CoNLL-2002.
|
|
|
| 7 |
F. Casacuberta et al. Some approaches to statistical and finite-state speech-to-speech translation. Computer Speech and Language,18:25–47, 2004.
|
|
|
| 8 |
D. Jurafsky and J. H. Martin. Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2000
|
|
|
| 9 |
Fangzhong Su and Katja Markert. 2008. From word to sense: a case study of subjectivity recognition. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Manchester
|
|
|
| 10 |
Andrea Esuli and Fabrizio Sebastiani. 2007. PageRanking wordnet synsets: An application to opinion mining.In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pages 424–431, Prague, Czech Republic, June
|
|
|
| 11 |
Hong Yu and Vasileios Hatzivassiloglou. 2003. Towards answering opinion questions: Separating facts from opinions and identifying the polarity of opinion sentences. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 129–136, Sapporo,Japan.
|
|
|
| 12 |
B. Pang and L. Lee. 2004. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In (ACL-04), pages 271–278, Barcelona, ES. Association for Computational Linguistics
|
|
|
| 13 |
Laxmi-India, Gr.Noiida, March 2010. Development of Expert Search Engine for Web Environment. In International Journal for Computer Science and Security, pages 130-135, Vol 4. Issue 1, CSC Journals, Malaysia.
|
|
|
| 14 |
J. Yuan, J. Brenier, and D. Jurafsky, “Pitch accent prediction: Effects of genre and speaker,” in Proc. Interspeech 2005, Lisbon, Portugal, 2005
|
|
|
| 15 |
V. Strom, R. Clark, and S. King, “Expressive prosody for unit-selection speech synthesis,” in Proc. Interspeech, Pittsburgh, 2006.
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| 1 |
T. R. Cunningham, “Understanding Synthetic Speech and Language Processing of Students with and without a Reading Disability”, Thesis for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy in Human Development and Applied Psychology, University of Toronto, 2011.
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| MANOJ B. CHANDAK : Colleagues
|
|
| R.V.Dharaskar : Colleagues
|
|
| V.M.Thakre : Colleagues
|
|
