1. You’re Not From ‘Round Here, Are You? Naïve Bayes Detection of Non-native Utterance Text Laura Mayfield Tomokiyo Rosie Jones Carnegie Mellon University

2. Overview  Motivation  Speech data  Accent detection as document classification  Classification performance  Discriminative tokens  Conclusions

3. Non-native speech recognition The warship U.S.S. Jarrett has pulled into port in San Diego, CA after training voyage Native recognizer (word accuracy = 26.7): Tomorrow CPU a sister at has spilled into port and sandy and afford after a training wage Non-native recognizer (word accuracy = 73.3): The worst eighty U.S.S. chart has pulled into port in San Diego California after training warrior

4. Motivation  Practical  can we detect non-native users with enough accuracy to switch acoustic models?  Exploratory  how well does an algorithm based only on text features work?  what tokens are discriminative for non-native speakers?

5. Speech examples Over the next two months, public officials, Native American leaders, businesses and environmental groups will come up with plans for meeting the law’s requirements. Spontaneous speech Read speech I like to have anything very special in Boston, very native in Boston. Local specialties

6. Speech data Read speechSpontaneous speech Native language Speaker count Utterance count Word count (types) Speaker count Utterance count Word count (types) Japanese1095715868 (3195) 31168515934 (826) English875610237 (2073) 63204117 (418) Mandarin --- 63743490 (391)

7. Transcripts and hypotheses A safety net for the salmons Environment= environmentalists… A safety net forced simon Um environmental activists… Usually gives a good idea of gold standard Finds true differences in linguistic usage Implicitly models acoustics Benefits from amplified difference between native and non-native samples Classification based on transcripts: Classification based on hypotheses: “A safety net for salmon: environmentalists, the government, and ordinary folks team up to save the Northwest’s wondrous wild salmon”

8. Related work  Acoustic feature based accent discrimination (e.g. Fung and Liu 1999)  Competing HMM based accent discrimination (e.g. Teixeira et al 1996)  Classification of documents according to style (Argamon-Engleson et al 1998), author (Mosteller and Wallace 1964)

9. Accent detection as document classification Native speaker utterances Non-native speaker utterances Classifier

10. Accent detection as document classification Classifier Test speaker utterances Classification decision: native or non-native?

11. Experimental methodology  Rainbow naïve Bayes classifier  Both word and part-of-speech tokens were examined  Classification based on token unigrams and bigrams  No feature selection initially  Stopwords were not excluded from feature set  Data randomly split into 30% testing, 70% training data for evaluation; evaluation repeated 20 times and classification results averaged  Utterances from the same speaker never appeared in both training and test sets

12. Classification of spontaneous speech (transcripts only) Native/ Japanese Native/ Chinese Japanese/ Chinese Native/ Non-native Native/ Japanese/ Chinese

13. Classification of read speech A train: same texts test: same texts baseline

14. Classification of read speech A train: same texts test: same texts B train: disjoint texts test: disjoint texts C train: disjoint texts test: same texts D train: same texts test: disjoint texts baseline

15. Classification of read speech A train: same texts test: same texts B train: disjoint texts test: disjoint texts C train: disjoint texts test: same texts D train: same texts test: disjoint texts baseline

16. Feature Selection MethodNumber of featuresAccuracy None 4087 47 IG-524 524 69 SMART-524 524 88 IG-200 200 74 SMART-524, IG-200 200 88 IG-70 70 M&W-70 70 87 IG-48 48 74 SMART-48 48 84

17. Discriminative sequences Speech typeToken typeNativeNon-native ReadWordNMFSthe + the thethat ReadPOSnoun(pl)noun(sing) noun(pl)verb(past) SpontaneousWordWonderlandthe SpontaneousPOSTO + verb(base)noun(sing) SpontaneousPOSNounamnoun(sing) transcriptionshypotheses

18. Conclusions  Transcriptions of spontaneous speech can be classified with high accuracy for both 2-way and 3-way distinctions  Read speech samples, which are simple transformations of native-produced text, can be classified with high accuracy  Recognizer output is classified more accurately than transcripts

19. Future directions  Incorporating the classification decision in acoustic model selection  Minimizing the number of samples from the test speaker needed for classification  Applying classification to parsing grammar selection, language model construction, writer identification

20. Discriminative POS sequences NativeNon-native Noun(pl)Noun(sing) DeterminerPreposition Noun(pl);prepositionPreposition;preposition Adjective;noun(Pl)Noun(sing);noun(sing) Gerund;particleParticle;preposition Noun(s);verb(3s)Cardinal#;cardinal# Noun(pl);modalVerb(past)

21. Discriminative word sequences NativeNon-native NMFSthe;the the;NMFSin;in nineteen;hundredsthe hundreds;nowin hundredsthat habitats;andhabitat;and

22. Phone-based classification NativeNon- native Phone identity /D//D/ /I/ Phone class CCC V Discriminative tokens Condition B