Cover not available
Part of
Crossing Boundaries through Corpora: Innovative corpus approaches within and beyond linguistics
Edited by Sarah Buschfeld, Patricia Ronan, Theresa Neumaier, Andreas Weilinghoff and Lisa Westermayer
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 119] 2024
► pp. 154–191

Chapter 7
Syntactic segmentation of spoken corpus data

What prosody can contribute

| Ruhr Universität Bochum
| Philipps-Universität Marburg
| Philipps-Universität Marburg
Most corpus-based syntactic segmentation schemes rely on transcriptions alone, which can lead to segmentation difficulties, especially when analyzing spontaneous conversations. We therefore suggest an approach to segmentation that complements syntactic segmentation techniques with prosodic analyses and describe correspondences in syntactic and prosodic segmentation as well as the exact syntactic contexts in which prosodic analyses are necessary to avoid ambiguities and potential inaccuracies. Using 10 recordings from the Louvain Corpus of Native English Conversation, utterances are independently and manually segmented and annotated for various linguistic variables. While the results of our analyses indicate a considerable overlap of intermediate phrases and clausal units, we also showcase syntactic contexts where prosody is needed for disambiguation (e.g. monologs, discourse markers, dysfluencies, and adverbials).
Keywords: spoken language, L1 English, syntax-prosody interface, syntactic and prosodic segmentation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Syntactic vs. prosodic units and analyses
    • 2.1Comparing basic concepts and definitions
    • 2.2Comparing syntactic and prosodic structures of speech
    • 2.3Approaches to analyses at the syntax-prosody interface
  • 3.Database and methodology
    • 3.1Corpus
    • 3.2Prosodic segmentation
    • 3.3Syntactic segmentation
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Correspondence of intonation units and syntactic units
    • 4.2Lengths of intonation units and syntactic units
    • 4.3Analyzing the necessity of prosody for syntactic segmentation
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 17 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.119.07mcc
References (53)
References
Anttila, Arto. 2016. Phonological effects on syntactic variation. Annual Review of Linguistics 2(1): 115–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bäcklund, Ingegerd. 1992. Theme in English telephone conversation. Language Sciences 14(4): 545–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bear, John & Price, Patti. 1990. Prosody, syntax and parsing. In 28th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 17–22. Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3: 255–309. . DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Ryan & Elfner, Emily. 2019. The syntax-prosody interface. Annual Review of Linguistics 5: 151–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Ryan, Elfner, Emily & McCloskey, James. 2016. Lightest to the right: An apparently anomalous displacement in Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 47(2): 169–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman. Also published as Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 2021. Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2019. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.43) [Computer software]. <[URL]> (29 May 2024).Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Around the edge of language: Intonation. In Intonation, Dwight Bolinger (ed.), 19–29. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Brazil, David. 1997. The Communicative Value of Intonation in English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian & Yule, George. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Clopper, Cynthia G. & Smiljanic, Rajka. 2011. Effects of gender and regional dialect on prosodic patterns in American English. Journal Phonetics 39(2): 237–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cock, Sylvie. 2004. Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures (BELL) 2004: 225–246.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1991. Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics 1(1): 71–106.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Paolino, Danae & Cummings, Susanna. 1992. Discourse Transcription [Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 4]. Santa Barbara CA: Dept. of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Cumming, Susanna & Paolino, Danae. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Talking Data. Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, Jane Anne Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (eds), 45–89. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily. 2018. The syntax-prosody interface: Current theoretical approaches and outstanding questions. Linguistics Vanguard 4(1): 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández, Eva M. 2010. Reading aloud in two languages. The interplay of syntax and prosody. In Research in Second Language Processing and Parsing [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 53], Bill VanPatten & Jill Jegerski (eds), 297–320. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Kathleen W. 1997. Form and function of the discourse marker anyway: Implications for discourse analysis. Linguistics 35(2): 343–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 134–184. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, Pauline, Tonkyn, Alan & Wigglesworth, Gillian. 2000. Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics 21(3): 354–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, De Cock, Sylvie & Granger, Sylviane (eds). 2010. LINDSEI: Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Gráf, Tomáš. 2015. Accuracy and Fluency in the Speech of the Advanced Learner of English. PhD dissertation, Charles University Prague.Google Scholar
Gut, Ulrike. 2009. Non-Native Speech: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Phonological and Phonetic Properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunt, Kellogg W. 1965. Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade levels [NCTE Research Report No. 3]. Champaign IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Kentner, Gerrit & Franz, Isabelle. 2019. No evidence for prosodic effects on the syntactic encoding of complement clauses in German. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
Klewitz, Gabriele & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1999. Quote-unquote. The role of prosody in the contextualization of reported speech sequences. Pragmatics 9(4): 459–485.Google Scholar
Lange, Claudia. 2021. Basically in Singapore English. World Englishes 40(4): 1–14.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2000. Grammar of spoken English: New outcomes of corpus-oriented research. Language Learning 50(4): 675–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levon, Erez. 2016. Gender, interaction and intonational variation: The discourse functions of high rising terminals in London. Journal of Sociolinguistics 20(2): 133–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nance, Claire, Kirkham, Sam & Groarke, Eve. 2018. Studying intonation in varieties of English: Gender and individual variation in Liverpool. In Sociolinguistics in England, Natalie Braber & Sandra Jansen (eds), 275–295. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1992. Intonation and discourse type. Text 12(3): 397–427.Google Scholar
McClellan, Karin. 2024. English Prosody in First and Second Language Speakers: A Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis Across Intonational Dimensions [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 120]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <[URL]> (29 May 2024).
Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2014. ‘Pragmatic punting’ and prosody: Evidence from corpora. In The Functional Perspective on Language and Discourse. Applications and Implications [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 247], María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruíz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco Gonzálvez-García & Angela Downing (eds), 209–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rowles, Chris D. & Huang, Xiuming. 1992. Prosodic aids to syntactic and semantic analysis of spoken English. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 112–119. Newark DE: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(1): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2012. How phonological is intonation? Presented at Jahrestagung der deutschen Gesell-schaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS), Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In Discourse and Syntax [Syntax and Semantics 12], Talmy Givón (ed.), 261–288. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Turn-organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 52–133. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2000. The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 29(4): 477–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Syntax and prosody as methods for the construction and identification of turn-constructional units in conversation. In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 17], Auli Hakulinen & Margret Selting (eds), 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Prosody in interaction: State of the art. In Prosody in Interaction interaction [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 23], Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber, & Margret Selting (eds), 3–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverman, Kim, Beckman, Mary E., Pitrelli, John F., Ostendorf, Mari, Wightman, Colin W., Price, Patti, Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Hirschberg, Julia. 1992. ToBI: A standard scheme for labeling prosody. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 867–870. New York NY: ISCA.Google Scholar
Szaszák, György, Nagy, Katalin & Beke, András. 2011. Analysing the correspondence between automatic prosodic segmentation and syntactic structure. In 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, 1057–1060. New York NY: ISCA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite & Zabala, Loreley Hadic. 2008. Deciding on units of analysis within Centering Theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4(1): 63–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko. 1999. Turn-taking in Japanese Conversation: A Study in Grammar and Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 56]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tao, Hongyin 1996. Units in Mandarin Conversation. Prosody, Discourse, and Grammar [Studies on Discourse and Grammar 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2015. Phonological evidence in syntax. In Syntax-Theory and Analysis, Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds), 1154–1198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, Hadley. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd edn). New York NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar