Linguistic knowledge plays a crucial role in spoken language comprehension. It provides essential semantic and syntactic context for speech perception in noisy environments. However, most speech enhancement (SE) methods predominantly rely on acoustic features to learn the mapping relationship between noisy and clean speech, with limited exploration of linguistic integration. While text-informed SE approaches have been investigated, they often require explicit speech-text alignment or externally provided textual data, constraining their practicality in real-world scenarios. Additionally, using text as input poses challenges in aligning linguistic and acoustic representations due to their inherent differences. In this study, we propose the Cross-Modality Knowledge Transfer (CMKT) learning framework, which leverages pre-trained large language models (LLMs) to infuse linguistic knowledge into SE models without requiring text input or LLMs during inference. Furthermore, we introduce a misalignment strategy to improve knowledge transfer. This strategy applies controlled temporal shifts, encouraging the model to learn more robust representations. Experimental evaluations demonstrate that CMKT consistently outperforms baseline models across various SE architectures and LLM embeddings, highlighting its adaptability to different configurations. Additionally, results on Mandarin and English datasets confirm its effectiveness across diverse linguistic conditions, further validating its robustness. Moreover, CMKT remains effective even in scenarios without textual data, underscoring its practicality for real-world applications. By bridging the gap between linguistic and acoustic modalities, CMKT offers a scalable and innovative solution for integrating linguistic knowledge into SE models, leading to substantial improvements in both intelligibility and enhancement performance.

Are the longstanding robustness issues in NLP resolved by today's larger and more performant models? To address this question, we conduct a thorough investigation using 19 models of different sizes spanning different architectural choices and pretraining objectives. We conduct evaluations using (a) OOD and challenge test sets, (b) CheckLists, (c) contrast sets, and (d) adversarial inputs. Our analysis reveals that not all OOD tests provide further insight into robustness. Evaluating with CheckLists and contrast sets shows significant gaps in model performance; merely scaling models does not make them sufficiently robust. Finally, we point out that current approaches for adversarial evaluations of models are themselves problematic: they can be easily thwarted, and in their current forms, do not represent a sufficiently deep probe of model robustness. We conclude that not only is the question of robustness in NLP as yet unresolved, but even some of the approaches to measure robustness need to be reassessed.