<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-1046">
  <Title>Pronouncing Text by Analogy</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Pronunciation-by-analogy (PbA) is an influential psychological model of the process of reading aloud.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> In PbA, most words are pronounced by retrieving their phonemic form from the readers's lexicon, or dictionary. The pronunciation for a 'novel' word not in the lexicon, however, is derived not by the application of abstract letter-to-sound rules hut is 'assembled' from the (known) pronunciations of words that it resembles.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> PbA has obvious application to text-to-speech conversion by machine.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Although PbA programs have been presented in the literature, they are they are few in number. Dedina and Nusbaum (1991) describe PRONOUNCE: a rather simple system for English. Sullivan and Damper (1990; 1992; 1993) describe a considerably more complex and developed system, but which apparently yields a much poorer perfornmnce.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> As a psychological theory, PbA is under-specified: offering little meaningfifl guidance on the implementation choices which confront the programmer. Indeed, Sullivan and Damper (1993) show that such choices can have a profound impact on performance. In this paper, we seek to understand how Dedina and Nusbaum's largely unjustified implementational choices affected their results and, thereby, to resolve the conflict between their performance claims and Sullivan and Damper's.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>