Article published in:
Models of Discourse Units in Romance Languages
Edited by Margarita Borreguero Zuloaga, Vahram Atayan and Sybille Große
[Revue Romane 53:1] 2018
► pp. 3062
References

References

Amir, N., Silber-Varod, V., Izre’el, S.
(2004): Characteristics of Intonation Unit Boundaries in Spontaneous Spoken Hebrew: Perception and Acoustic Correlates, in: Bel, B., Marlien, I. (eds.): Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004, ISCA, pp. 677–680.Google Scholar
Arbib, M.
(2012): How the brain got language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M.
(2012): Research Paradims in Pragmatics, in: Allan, K., Jaszczolt, K. M. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 23–47 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L.
(1962): How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingartner, D., Reber, E., Selting, M.
(eds.) (2010): Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam, Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, C.
(2006): Discourse Markers in Italian: towards a ‘compositional’ meaning, in: Fisher, K. (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, Elsevier, pp. 504–524.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999): The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., Bilger, M., Rouget., van den Eynde, K., Mertens, P.
(1990): Le Français Parlé: Études Grammaticales. Éditions du C.N.R.S., Paris.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C.
(1997): Approches de la Langue Parlée en Français. Ophrys, Paris.Google Scholar
(2003): Le recouvrement de la syntaxe et de la macro-syntaxe, in: Scarano, A. (ed.): Macro-syntaxe et pragmatique. Bulzoni, Roma, pp. 53–75.Google Scholar
Bishop, J.
(2012): Information structural expectations in the perception of prosodic prominence, in: G. Elordieta & P. Prieto (eds.), Prosody and meaning. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. pp. 239–270.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buhmann, J., Caspers, J., van Heuven, V., Hoekstra, H., Martens, J. -P. & Swerts, M.
(2002): Annotation of prominent words, prosodic boundaries, and segmental lenghtening by no-expert transcribersin the spoken Dutch Corpus, in: Rodriguez, M. G., Suarez Araujo, C. (eds.): Proceedings of the International Conference LREC2002. ELDA, Paris, pp. 779–785.Google Scholar
Büring, D.
2003; (2003): On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents. Linguistics & Philosophy 26:5. pp. 511–545.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cavalcante, F. A.
(2015): The topic unit in spontaneous American English. A corpus-based study, Phd Thesis . UFMG, Belo Horizonte.Google Scholar
Cavalcante, F. A., Ramos, A.
(2016): The American English spontaneous speech minicorpus. Architecture and comparability, CHIMERA. Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies 3 (vol. 2)Google Scholar
Cimmino, D.
(2017): La topicalizzazione nell’italiano giornalistico online, Un approccio contrastivo con l’inglese. PhD Thesis, Universität Basel.Google Scholar
Chafe, W.
(1970): Meaning and the structure of language. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., Warren, M.
(2005): A Corpus-driven Study of Discourse Intonation: The Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English. Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2004): “Prosody and Sequence Organizations in English Conversation. The Case of New Beginnings”. In: Couper-Kuhlen, E., Ford, C. (eds.): Sound Patterns in Interaction. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 335–376.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cresti, E.
(2000): Corpus di italiano parlato. Accademia della Crusca, Firenze.Google Scholar
(2005): Per una nuova classificazione dell’illocuzione a partire da un corpus di parlato (LABLITA), in: Burr, E. (ed.): Tradizione e innovazione: il parlato. Atti del VI Convegno internazionale SILFI. Cesati, Pisa, pp. 233–246.Google Scholar
(2014): Syntactic properties of spontaneous speech in the Language into Act Theory: data on Italian complements and relative clauses, in: Raso, T. & Mello, H. (eds), Spoken corpora and linguistics studies. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 365–410.Google Scholar
forthcoming): The empirical foundation of illocutionary classification, in: De Meo, A., Dovetto, F. eds. Atti del Convegno internazionale GSCP, La comunicazione parlata Università Federico II Napoli
Cresti, E., Moneglia, M.
(eds.) (2005): C-ORAL-ROM. Integrated reference corpora for spoken romance languages. Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010): The Informational Patterning Theory and the Corpus-based description of Spoken language. The compositional issue in Topic-Comment pattern, in: Moneglia, M., Panunzi, A. (eds.): Proceedings of 3rd International LABLITA work-shop in Corpus Linguistics. Bootstrapping Information From Corpora in a Cross Linguistic Perspective. Firenze University Press, Firenze, pp. 13–46.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A.
(1997): Intonation. Second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D.
(1975): The English Tone of Voice. Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Danieli, M., Garrido, J. M., Moneglia, M., Panizza, A., Quazza, S., Swerts, M.
(2004): Evaluation of Consensus on the Annotation of Prosodic Breaks in the Romance Corpus of Spontaneous Speech C-ORAL-ROM, in: Draxler, C., van den Heuvel, H., Schiel, F. (eds.): Speech Corpus Production and Validation. LREC 2004: Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. ELRA, Paris, pp. 1513–1516.Google Scholar
Debaisieux, J. -M.
(ed.) (2013): Analyses linguistiques sur corpus: subordination et insubordination en français. Lavoisier, Paris.Google Scholar
Dehé, N.
(2014) : Parentheticals in Spoken English. The Syntax-Prosody Relation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., Paolino, D.
(1993): Outline of discourse transcription, in: Edwards, J. A., Lampert, M. D. (eds.): Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ, pp. 45–89.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C. & Thompson, S. A.
(2000) : Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 1. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Fagioli, Massimo
[1972 1] 2010 Istinto di morte e conoscenza. Edizioni L’Asino d’oro, Roma.Google Scholar
[1975 1] 2012 Teoria della nascita e castrazione umana. Edizioni L’Asino d’oro, Roma.Google Scholar
Firenzuoli, V.
(2003): Le Forme Intonative di Valore Illocutivo dell’Italiano Parlato: Analisi Sperimentale di un Corpus di Parlato Spontaneo (LABLITA). Phd Thesis. University of Florence.Google Scholar
Firenzuoli, V. & Signorini, S.
(2003): Lunità informativa di Topic: correlati intonativi, in : Marotta, G. & Nocchi, N. (eds.) : Atti delle XIII Giornate GFS. ETS, Pisa, pp. 177–184.Google Scholar
Firenzuoli, V. & Tucci, I.
(2003): L’unità informativa di Inciso: correlati intonativi, in : Marotta, G. & Nocchi, N. (eds.) : Atti delle XIII Giornate GFS. ETS, Pisa, pp. 185–192.Google Scholar
Frosali, F.
(2008): Il Lessico degli ausili dialogici, in: Cresti, E. (ed.), Prospettive nello studio del lessico italiano, Atti del IX Congresso della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana. FUP, Firenze, pp. 417–424.Google Scholar
Giani, D.
(2005): Il discorso riportato nell’italiano parlato e letterario: confronto tra due corpora. PhD Thesis. Università di Firenze, Firenze.Google Scholar
Gundel, J.
(2012): Pragmatics and Information Structure, in: Allan, K., Jaszczolt, K. M. (eds.): Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 585–598. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. & Rietveld, T.
(1994): Intonation contours and the prominence of F0 peaks. ICSLP 94, Yokohama. 339–342.Google Scholar
‘t Hart, J., Collier, R., Cohen, A.
(1990): A Perceptual Study on Intonation. An Experimental Approach to Speech Melody. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, D., Di Cristo, A.
(eds.) (1998): Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F.
(1958): A Course in Modern Linguistics. The Macmillan Company, New York.Google Scholar
Izre’el, S.
(2005): Intonation Units and the Structure of Spontaneous Spoken Language: A View from Hebrew, in: Auran, C., Bertrand, R., Chanet, C., Colas, A., Di Cristo, A., Portes, C., Reynier, A. & Vion, M. (eds.): Proceedings of the IDP05 International Symposium on Discourse-Prosody Interfaces, University of Aix-Marseille.Google Scholar
Izre’el, S., Mettouchi, A.
(2015): Representation of Speech in CorpAfroAs. Transcriptional Strategies and Prosodic Units, in: Mettouchi, A., Vanhove, M., Caubet, D. (eds.): Corpus-based Studies of Lesser-described Languages: The CorpAfroAs corpus of spoken AfroAsiatic languages. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 13–41.Google Scholar
Kahane, S., Lacheret, A., Pietrandrea, P.
eds. forthcoming Rhapsodie: Prosodic and Syntactic Treebank for Spoken French Benjamins, Amsterdam
Karcevsky, S.
(1931): Sur la phonologie de la phrase. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague, IV, pp. 188–228.Google Scholar
Krifka, M.
(2007): Basic notions of information structure, in: Féry, C., Fanselow, G., Krifka, M. (eds.): Interdisciplinary Studies of Information Structure 6. Universitätsverlag, Potsdam, pp. 13–55.Google Scholar
Krifka, M., Musan, R.
(eds.) (2012): The Expression of Information Structure. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin/Boston.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, R.
(1996): Intonational Phonology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
(1994): Information Structureand sentence form. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D.
(1973): Counterfactuals, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Re-issued London: Blackwell 2001.Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, E.
(2015): Pesare l’implicito, in: Ferrari, A., Lala, L. & Stojmenova, R. (eds.), Testualità. Fondamenti, unità, relazioni. Textualité. Fondaments, unités, relations. Textualidad. Fundamentos, unidades, relaciones, Firenze, Cesati, 61–81.Google Scholar
Lombardi-Vallauri, E.
(2014): What can Japanese -wa tell us about the the function of Appendixes. Faits de Langues 43, pp. 61–86Google Scholar
Martin, L., Degand, L., Simon, A.
(2014): Forme et fonction de la périphérie gauche dans un corpus oral multigenres annoté, in: Salvador Pons Bordería (ed.): Discourse Segmentation in Romance Languages. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 243–265.Google Scholar
Martin, Ph
(2015): The structure of spoken language. Intonation in romance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masia, V.
(2017) Sociobiological Bases of Information Structure. Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Mittmann-Malvesi, M.
(2012): O C-ORAL-BRASIL e o estudo da fala informal: um novo olhar sobre o Topico no Portugues Brasileiro, Phd Thesis UMFG, Belo HorizonteGoogle Scholar
Mittmann-Malvesi, M. & Barbosa, P.
(2016): An automatic speech segmentation tool based on multiple acoustic parameters, CHIMERA 3/2.Google Scholar
Moneglia, M., Cresti, E.
(2006): C-ORAL-ROM Prosodic boundaries for spontaneous speech analysis, in: Kawaguchi, Y., Zaima, S., Takagaki, T. (eds.): Spoken Language Corpus and Linguistics Informatics. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 89–114.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015): The Cross-linguistic comparison of information patterning in spontaneous speech corpora: Data from C-ORAL-ROM ITALIAN and C-ORAL-BRASIL, in: Klaeger, S., Thörle, B. (eds.): Interactional linguistics: grammar and interaction in romance languages from a contrasting point of view. Stauffenburg, Tübingen, pp. 107–128.Google Scholar
Moneglia, M., Raso, T.
(2014): Notes on the Language into Act Theory, in: Raso, T., Mello, H. (eds.): Spoken corpora and linguistics studies. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 468–494.Google Scholar
Moneglia, M., Raso, T., Mittmann Malvessi, M. & Mello, H.
(2010): Challenging the Perceptual Prominence of Prosodic Breaks in Multilingual Spontaneous Speech Corpora: C-ORAL-ROM/C-ORAL-BRASIL, in Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago.Google Scholar
Nicolas Martinez, C.
(2012): Cor-DiAL, (Corpus oral didáctico anotado lingüísticamente). Liceus, Madrid.Google Scholar
Panunzi, A., Malvessi-Mittmann, M.
(2012): The IPIC resource and a cross-linguistic analysis of information structure in Italian and Brazilian Portuguese, in: Raso, T., Mello, H., Pettorino, M. (eds.): Speech and Corpus linguistics. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 129–151.Google Scholar
Pons Borderia, S.
2010Unidades, Marcadores Discursivos y Posición, in: Loureda Lamas, Ó. & Acín Villa, E. (eds.) Los estudios sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy. Arco Libros, Madrid, pp. 327–358.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J.
(1985): A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London/New York.Google Scholar
Raso, T., Mello, H.
(eds.) (2012): C-ORAL-BRASIL I: Corpus de referência de português brasileiro falado informal. Editora UFMA, Belo Horizonte.Google Scholar
Raso, T.
(2014): Prosodic Constraints for Discourse Markers, in: Raso, T. & Mello, H. (eds): Spoken Corpora and Linguistic Studies. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 411–467.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, T.
(1981): Pragmatics and Linguistics: an Analysis of Sentence Topics. Philosophica 27, (1), pp. 53–94.Google Scholar
Rocha, B.
(2016): Uma metodologia empírica para a identificação e descrição de ilocuções e a sua aplicação para o estudo da Ordem em PB e Italiano, PhD Thesis, UFMG: Belo Horizonte.Google Scholar
Rooth, M.
(1992): A theory of focus interpretation, Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116.Google Scholar
Searle, J., Verstraten, D.
(1985): Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.
(1986): Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction, in: Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., Thompson, S. (eds.): Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 52–133.Google Scholar
Szczepek, R.
(2010): Intonational phrases in natural conversation: A participant’s cathegory?, in: Barth-Weingartner, D., Reber, E., Selting, M. (eds.) (2010): Prosody in Interaction. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 191–2012 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szczepek, R., Raymond, G.
(eds.) (2013): Units of Talk – Units of Action, Bejamins, Amsterdam.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Signorini, S.
(2005): Topic e soggetto in corpora di italiano parlato. PhD. Thesis, University of FlorenceGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
(1987): Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorianello, P.
(2006): Per una definizione fonetica dei confini prosodici, in: Pettorino, M., Giannini, A. Savy, R. (eds.): Atti del Convegno Internazionale, La comunicazione parlata. Liguori, Napoli, pp. 310–330.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R.
(1968): A Theory of Conditionals. Studies in Logical Theory, American Philosophical Quarterly, (2), pp. 98–111.Google Scholar
(1999): Context and Content. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swerts, M.
(1997): Prosodic features at discourse boundaries of different strength. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 101, pp. 514–521.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swerts, M. & Geluykens, R.
(1993): The prosody of information units in spontaneous monologues. Phonetica, 50, pp. 189–196.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tucci, I.
(2009): The scope of lexical modality and the informational structure in spoken Italian, in: Mereu, L. (ed.): Information structure and its interfaces. Mouton, Berlin/New York, pp. 203–226.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010): Obiter dictum. La funzione informativa delle unità parentetiche, in: Pettorino, M., Giannini, A. & Dovetto, F. (eds): Atti del Convegno Internazionale GSCP La Comunicazione parlata. Università l’Orientale Press, Napoli, pp. 635–654.Google Scholar
Vanderveken, D.
(1990): Meaning and Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wharton, T.
(2012): Pragmatics and Prosody, in: Allan, K., Jaszczolt, K. M. (eds.): Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 567–584. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Cimmino, Doriana
2021.  In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325],  pp. 171 ff. Crossref logo
Cresti, Emanuela
2020. Ancora sulla paratassi dello scritto letterario. CHIMERA: Revista de Corpus de Lenguas Romances y Estudios Lingüísticos 7  pp. 23 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 november 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.