Chapter published in:
In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language: A corpus-driven approach
Edited by Shlomo Izre'el, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi and Tommaso Raso
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 94] 2020
► pp. 35–76

Chapter 1
Russian spoken discourse

Local structure and prosody

| Institute of Linguistics RAS and Lomonosov Moscow State University
| Russian State University for the Humanities
| Russian State University for the Humanities

We previously developed an approach to spoken Russian monologic discourse, and are now extending that, looking primarily at interactional multi-party discourse, contextualizing speech phenomena as multichannel (multimodal) communication. The evidence analyzed is the Russian Pear Chats and Stories corpus, see <multidiscourse​.ru>. Scores transcripts are introduced to annotate the interlocutors’ shared time line, including periods of silence. The elementary discourse unit (EDU) is posited as a central building block of local discourse structure. Canonical EDUs coincide with clauses; additionally, subclausal, superclausal, and paraclausal EDUs are found. Prosodic phenomena are considered; EDUs and groups of EDUs are accounted through a discourse-semantic category of phase. Disfluencies and other structural phenomena are systematically treated. Conventions of discourse transcription capture both prosodic and functional aspects of discourse.

Keywords: spoken discourse, discourse transcription, local discourse structure, elementary discourse unit, prosody, pause, discourse accent, phase, spoken sentence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.General organization of vocal discourse
  • 3.Elementary discourse units
    • 3.1Identification
    • 3.2EDUs and clauses
  • 4.Accents, pitch, and phase
  • 5.Illocution-final EDUs
    • 5.1Statement and question
    • 5.2Directive
    • 5.3Semi-statement
    • 5.4Vocative
    • 5.5Exclamation
  • 6.Illocution-non-final EDUs
    • 6.1Default incompleteness: Rising pitch accent
    • 6.2Default incompleteness: Falling pitch accent plus a subsequent rise
    • 6.3Default incompleteness: Falling pitch accent
    • 6.4Default incompleteness combined with a local illocutionary meaning
    • 6.5Elucidation
    • 6.6Inexhaustiveness
  • 7.Disfluencies
  • 8.Other phenomena
  • 9.Conclusion: Vocal channels and their interaction with non-vocal channels
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.94.01kib
References
Adolphs, S., & Carter, R.
(2013) Spoken corpus linguistics: From monomodal to multimodal. New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aelbrecht, L., Haegeman, L., & Nye, R.
(Eds.) (2012) Main clause phenomena: New horizons. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P.
(2005) Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bryzgunova, E. A.
(1963) Praktičeskaja fonetika i intonacija russkogo jazyka [Practical phonetics and intonation in Russian]. Moscow: MSU.Google Scholar
(1980) Intonacija [Intonation]. In N. Švedovа, A. Bondarko, V. Ivanov, V. Lopatin, I. Uluhanov, N. Arutyunova (Eds.), Russkaja grammatika [Russian grammar] (Vol. 1, pp. 98–118). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Bossaglia, G., Mello, H., & Raso, T.
this volume). Illocution as a unit of reference for spontaneous speech: An account for insubordinated adverbial clauses in Brazilian Portuguese. In S. Izre’el, H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso Eds. In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach Amsterdam John Benjamins Crossref
Buchstaller, I.
(2014) Quotatives: New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, I., & van Alphen, I.
(Eds.) (2012) Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W.
(Ed.) (1980) The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E.
(2002) Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cresti, E.
this volume). The pragmatic analysis of speech and its illocutionary classification according to Language into Act Theory. In S. Izre’el, H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso Eds. In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach Amsterdam John Benjamins Crossref
Croft, W.
(1995) Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics, 33, 839–852. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M., & Martin, P.
this volume). Syntactic and prosodic segmentation in spoken French. In S. Izre’el, H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso Eds. In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach Amsterdam John Benjamins Crossref
Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D.
(1992) Discourse transcription. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, 4, 1–225.Google Scholar
Fedorova, O.V., & Kibrik, A.A.
(Eds.) (2020) The MCD handbook: A practical guide to annotating multichannel discourse. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS.Google Scholar
Fedorova, O. V., Kibrik, A. A., Korotaev, N. A., Litvinenko, A. O., & Nikolaeva, Ju. V.
(2016) Vremennaja koordinacija meždu žestovymi i rečevymi edinicami v mul’timodal’noj kommunikacii [Temporal coordination between gestural and speech units in multimodal communication]. Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Papers From the Annual International Conference “Dialog”, 15 (22), 159–170. Retrieved from http://​multidiscourse​.ru​/data​/pub​/fedorova%20et%20al%20dialog%202016​.pdf
Fernandez-Vest, M. M. J.
(2016) Detachment linguistics and information grammar of oral languages. In M. M. J. Fernandez-Vest & R. D. Van Valin Jr. (Eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 7–32). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ford, M., & Holmes, V. M.
(1978) Planning units and syntax in sentence production. Cognition, 6(1), 35–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F.
(1972) Pauses, clauses, sentences. Language and Speech, 15, 103–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Izre’el, S.
this volume). The basic unit of spoken language and the interface between prosody, discourse and syntax: A view from spontaneous spoken Hebrew. In S. Izre’el, H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso Eds. In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach Amsterdam John Benjamins Crossref
Iwasaki, S., & Tao, H.
(1993) A comparative study of the structure of the intonation unit in English, Japanese, and Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from https://​www​.researchgate​.net​/publication​/241563041​_A​_Comparative​_Study​_of​_the​_Structure​_of​_the​_Intonation​_Unit​_in​_English​_Japanese​_and​_Mandarin​_Chinese
Jaworski, A.
(Ed.) (1997) Silence: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G.
(2004) Glossary of transcript symbols. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, A. A.
(2011) Cognitive discourse analysis: Local discourse structure. In M. Grygiel & L. A. Janda (Eds.), Slavic linguistics in a cognitive framework (pp. 273–304). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2015) Pear stories, 40 years later. Symposium conducted at the EuroAsianPacific Joint Conference on Cognitive Science, Torino, Italy, September 2015. Retrieved from http://​ceur​-ws​.org​/Vol​-1419​/section0010​.pdf
(2018) Russkij mul’tikanal’nyj diskurs. Čast’ II. Razrabotka korpusa i napravlenija issledovanij [Russian multichannel discourse. Part II. Corpus development and avenues of research]. Psixologičeskij Žurnal, 39(2), 79–89.Google Scholar
Kibrik, A. A., & Fedorova, O. V.
(2018) An empirical study of multichannel communication: Russian pear chats and stories. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 15(2), 191–200.Google Scholar
Kibrik, A. A., Korotaev, N. A., & Podlesskaya, V. I.
this volume). The Moscow approach to local discourse structure: An application to English. In S. Izre’el, H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso Eds. In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach Amsterdam John Benjamins Crossref
Kibrik, A. A., & Podlesskaya, V. I.
(2006) Problema segmentacii ustnogo diskursa i kognitivnaja sistema govorjaščego [Segmentation of spoken discourse and the speaker’s cognitive system]. In V. D. Solovyev (Ed.), Kognitivnye issledovanija [Cognitive studies], 1 (pp. 138–158). Moscow: Institut psixologii RAN.Google Scholar
(Eds.) (2009) Rasskazy o snovidenijax: korpusnoe issledovanie ustnogo russkogo diskursa [Night dream stories: A corpus study of spoken Russian discourse]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.Google Scholar
Kodzasov, S. V.
(1996) Kombinatornaja model’ frazovoj prosodii [A combinatory model of phrasal prosody]. In T. M. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Prosodičeskij stroj russkoj reči [Prosodic structure of the Russian speech] (pp. 85–123). Moscow: IRJA RAN.Google Scholar
(2009) Issledovanija v oblasti russkoj prosodii [Studies in the field of Russian prosody]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.Google Scholar
Korotaev, N. A.
(2015) Kommunikativno-prosodičeskij podxod k vyjavleniju èlementarnyx diskursivnyx edinic v ustnom monologičeskom tekste [Elementary discourse units in spoken monologues: Evidence from communicative prosody]. Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialog”, 14(21), 294–307.Google Scholar
(2018a) Vopos i poluutverždenie v structure mul’tikanal’nogo diskursa [Questions and semi-statements in multichannel discourse]. In A. K. Krylov & V. D. Solovyev (Eds.), The eigth international conference on cognitive science. October 18–21, 2018, Svetlogorsk, Russia. Abstracts (pp. 1311–1313). Moscow: Institut psixologii RAN.Google Scholar
(2018b) O vremennoj koordinacii žestikuljacionnyx i rečevyx edinic v nepodgotovlennoj ustnoj kommunikacii [On temporal coordination between gesture and speech units in spontaneous spoken discourse]. In S. O. Savčuk (Ed.), “Slovo i žest” [Speech and gesture] (pp. 10–12). Moscow: Institut russkogo jazyka.Google Scholar
Kress, G.
(2010) Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to communication. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
Krivnova, O. F.
(2007) Faktor rečevogo dyxanija v intonacionno-pauzal’nom členenii reči [The factor of speech breathing in the intonational-pausal segmentation of speech]. In V. A. Vinogradov (Ed.), Lingvističeskaja polifonija. Sbornik v čest’ jubileja prof. R. K. Potapovoj [Linguistic polyphony. Festschrift to honor R. K. Potapova] (pp. 424–445). Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H.
(1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20, 441–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M.
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Markus, O. V.
(2009) Lokal’naja struktura diskursa v verxnekuskokvimskom atabaskskom jazyke [Local discourse structure in Upper Kuskokwim Athabaskan] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lomonosov MSU, Moscow, Russia.Google Scholar
Maruyama, T., Den, Y., & Koiso, H.
this volume). Design and annotation of two-level utterance-units: From Japanese viewpoint. In S. Izre’el, H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso Eds. In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach Amsterdam John Benjamins Crossref
Matsumoto, K.
(2003) Intonation units in Japanese conversation: Syntactic, informational and functional structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D.
(1992) Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, L.
(2016) Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20, 336–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S.
(Eds.) (2013) Body – Language – Communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H.
(2000) The one-clause-at-a-time hypothesis. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 163–199). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S.
(2011) Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: The on-line formatting of left and right dislocations in French conversation. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp. 45–87). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Podlesskaya, V. I.
(2011a) Relative clauses in spoken Russian and elsewhere: A corpus approach. Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialog”, 10(17), 529–537.Google Scholar
(2011b) K tipologii strukturnyx edinic v spontannoj ustnoj reči [Towards a typology of structural units in spontaneous spoken discourse]. In Meždunarodnaja konferencija, posvjaščennaja 50-letiju Peterburgskoj tipologičeskoj školy [Fifty years of St. Petersburg school of linguistic typology: Papers from the international conference] (pp. 146–150). St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istorija.Google Scholar
(2015) A corpus-based study of self-repairs in Russian spoken monologues. Russian Linguistics, 39(1), 63–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sornicola, R.
(2006) Interaction of syntactic and pragmatic factors on basic word order in the languages of Europe. In G. Bernini & M. L. Schwartz (Eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe (pp. 357–544). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Švedovа, N., Bondarko, A., Ivanov, V., Lopatin, V., Uluhanov, I., Arutyunova, N.
(Eds.) (1980) Russkaja grammatika [ Russian grammar ] (Vol. 1). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tannen, D., & Saville-Troike, M.
(Eds.) (1985) Perspectives on silence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2005) The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies, 7, 481–506. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wouk, F.
(2008) The syntax of intonation units in Sasak. Studies in Language, 32, 137–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yanko, T.
(2008) Intonacionnye strategii russkoj reči v tipologičeskom aspekte [Intonational strategies in spoken Russian from a comparative perspective]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.Google Scholar
(2017) Word order and accent placement in topics, foci, and markers of discourse continuity. In S. S. Alvestad (Ed.), Comparative Slavic syntax and semantics. Oslo Studies in Language, 9(1), pp. 45–57.Google Scholar
Zemskaja, E. A., Kitajgorodskaja, M. V., & Širjaev, E. N.
(1981) Russkaja razgovornaja reč’. Obščie voprosy. Slovoobrazovanie. Sintaksis [Colloquial spoken Russian. General issues. Word formation. Syntax]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Izre'el, Shlomo
2020.  In In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 94], ► pp. 77 ff. Crossref logo
Izre'el, Shlomo, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi & Tommaso Raso
2020.  In In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 94], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Kibrik, Andrej A.
2021.  In Advances in Cognitive Research, Artificial Intelligence and Neuroinformatics [Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1358], ► pp. 3 ff. Crossref logo
Kibrik, Andrej A., Nikolay A. Korotaev & Vera I. Podlesskaya
2020.  In In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 94], ► pp. 367 ff. Crossref logo
Korotaev, Nikolay A., Grigory B. Dobrov & Andrei N. Khitrov
2021.  In Advances in Cognitive Research, Artificial Intelligence and Neuroinformatics [Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1358], ► pp. 385 ff. Crossref logo
Panunzi, Alessandro, Lorenzo Gregori & Bruno Rocha
2020.  In In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 94], ► pp. 403 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 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.

audio