Cover not available
Part of
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. 181–220

Chapter 6
The pragmatic analysis of speech and its illocutionary classification according to the Language into Act Theory

 | University of Florence – LABLITA
According to the Language into Act Theory, reference units in speech have a pragmatic nature: they correspond to the activation of sensory-motor schemas leading to the performance of different speech acts. Our background is the affective and psychic motivations of the Human Birth Theory (Fagioli, 1971), compatible with recent theories of Embodied Cognition. Identification and classification of speech acts rest on corpus-based research. Speech activity is encoded by prosody, that conveys utterance boundaries, illocutionary force and information structure. The utterance nucleus is the Comment, responsible for illocutionary force. We illustrate the methodology for the induction of illocutions from corpora and detail pragmatic and prosodic features which allow classifying illocutionary types. A case study is presented for four original illocutions (self-conclusion, assertion taken for granted, ascertainment, evidentiality assertion).
Keywords: speech activity, illocutions, spoken corpora, prosody, information structure
Article outline
  • 1.Premises
    • 1.1Introduction to Language into Act Theory
    • 1.2The corpus-based analysis of spontaneous speech
    • 1.3The empirical research
  • 2.Some examples of spontaneous speech
    • 2.1A single turn
    • 2.2A negotiation
    • 2.3An interactive multi-dialogue
    • 2.4A family conversation
  • 3.The L-AcT classification system
    • 3.1Background
    • 3.2Pragmatic features
    • 3.3Working procedure for the identification of an illocutionary type in the corpus
  • 4.Prosodic research
    • 4.1Description of the prosodic nucleus
    • 4.2The distinction between order and instruction
  • 5.A first classification
    • 5.1A general overview
    • 5.2The assertive class and its sub-classes
    • 5.3Examples of the self-conclusion type from the weak assertion sub-class
    • 5.4Examples of the assertion taken for granted type belonging to the weak assertion sub-class
    • 5.5Examples of the ascertainment type in the strong assertion sub-class
    • 5.6Examples of the assertion of evidence type from the strong assertion sub-class
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 18 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.94.06cre
References (96)
References
Arbib, M. (2012). How the brain got language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D., Reber, E., & Selting, M. (Eds.). (2010). Prosody in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (Eds.). (1999). The longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (1997). Approches de la langue parlée en Français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
(2003). Le recouvrement de la syntaxe et de la macro-syntaxe. In A. Scarano (Ed.), Macro-syntaxe et pragmatique. L’analyse linguistique de l’oral (pp. 53–75). Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., Rouget, C., Bilger, M., & van den Eynde, K. (Eds.). (1990). Le Français parlé. Études grammaticales. Paris: Éditions du C.N.R.S.Google Scholar
Buhmann, J., Caspers, J., van Heuven, V. J., Hoekstra, H., Martens, J. P., & Swerts, M. (2002). Annotation of prominent words, prosodic boundaries and segmental lengthening by non-expert transcribers in the Spoken Dutch Corpus. In M. G. Rodriguez, & C. Suarez Araujo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd LREC conference (pp. 779–785). Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar
Calesini, I. (2017). Fagioli’s human birth theory and the possibility to cure mental illness. International Journal of Environment and Health, 8(3), 185–192. Retrieved from <
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
>
Carletta, J., Isard, S., Doherty-Sneddon, G., Isard, A., Kowtko, J. C., & Anderson, A. H. (1997). The reliability of a dialogue structure coding scheme. Computational Linguistics, 23(1), 13–31.Google Scholar
Carlson, L. (1983). Dialogue games: An approach to discourse analysis. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Cavalcante, F. A., & Ramos, A. C. (2016). The American English spontaneous speech minicorpus. Architecture and comparability. CHIMERA: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies, 3(2), 99–124.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1980). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., & Warren, M. (2008). A corpus-driven study of discourse intonation: The Hong Kong corpus of spoken English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2004). Prosody and sequence organizations in English conversation; The case of new beginnings. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction (pp. 335–376). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cresti, E. (2000). Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
(2005). Per una nuova classificazione dell’illocuzione a partire da un corpus di parlato (LABLITA). In E. Burr (Ed.), Tradizione e innovazione: Il parlato. Atti del VI convegno internazionale SILFI (pp. 233–246). Pisa: Cesati.Google Scholar
(2011). The definition of focus in the framework of the Language into Act Theory (L-AcT). In A. Panunzi, T. Raso, & H. Mello (Eds.), Pragmatics and prosody. Illocution, modality, attitude, information patterning and speech annotation (pp. 39–82). Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
(2017). The empirical foundation of illocutionary classification. In A. De Meo & F. Dovetto (Eds.), Atti del convegno, la comunicazione parlata, Napoli, SLI – GSCP International Conference Napoli 2016 (pp. 243–264). Napoli: Aracne.Google Scholar
(2018). Per una classificazione empirica dell’illocuzione. Lo stato dell’arte. In M. Biffi, F. Cialdini, & R. Setti (Eds.), “Acciò che’l nostro dire sia ben chiaro”. Scritti per Nicoletta Maraschio (pp. 261–279) Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
(2019). Dal polilogo al monologo nell’italiano parlato: La base pragmatico/prosodica del bi-/multi-dialogo e la sua declinazione monologica in testi narrativi e argomentativi. In E. Jamirovsky & M. Durkiewicz (Eds.), Dal monologo al polilogo: l’Italia nel mondo. Lingue, letterature e culture in contatto.Kwartalinik Neofilologiczny, 2–2019, vol. III, 341–352Google Scholar
Cresti, E., & Firenzuoli, V. (1999). Illocution et profils intonatifs de l’italien. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquèe, 4(2), 77–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cresti, E., & Fujimura, I. (2018). The information structure of spontaneous spoken Japanese and Italian in comparison: A pilot study. In A. Manco (Ed.), Le lingue extraeuropee e l’italiano. Problemi didattici, sociolinguistici, culturali (pp. 167–189). Milano: Officina 21.Google Scholar
Cresti, E., & Moneglia, M. (Eds.). (2005). C-ORAL-ROM. Integrated reference corpora for spoken romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). The illocutionary basis of information structure. Language into Act Theory (L-AcT). In E. Adamou, K. Haude, & M. Vanhove (Eds.), Information structure in lesser-described languages: Studies in prosody and syntax (pp. 359–401). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(this volume). Some notes on the excerpts according to L-AcT. 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.
Cresti, E., Moneglia, M., & Martin, P. (2003). L’intonation des illocutions naturelles répresentatives: Analyse et validation perceptive. In A. Scarano (Ed.), Macro-syntaxe et pragmatique. L’analyse linguistique de l’oral (pp. 243–264). Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Cresti, E., Moneglia, M., & Panunzi, A. (2018). The LABLITA corpus & the Language into Act Theory: Analysis of Viterbo excerpts. In A. De Dominicis (Ed.), Atti del convegno internazionale “Speech audio archives: Preservation, restoration, annotation, aimed at supporting the linguistic analysis”. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, CDXV, n.137 (pp. 47–63).Google Scholar
Cresti, E., Moneglia, M., & Tucci, I. (2011). Annotation de l’entretien d’Anita Musso selon la théorie de la langue en acte. Langue Française, 2, 95–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. (1975). The English tone of voice. London: Arnold.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 M. T. Lino, M. F. Xavier, F. Ferreira, R. Costa, & R. Silva (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th LREC conference (pp. 1513–1516). Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M. (Ed.). (2013). Analyses linguistiques sur corpus: Subordination et insubordination en français. Paris: Hermès-Lavoisier.Google Scholar
Degand, L. & Simon, A. (2009). Mapping prosody and syntax as discourse strategy: How basic discourse units vary across genres. In A. Wichmann, D. Barth-Weingarten, & N. Dehé (Eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics: Research at the interface (pp. 79–105). Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DIT++ Taxonomy of dialogue acts (Version 5.2) [Computer software]. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Du Bois, J. W., Cumming, S., Schuetze-Coburn, S., & Paolino, D. (Eds.). (1992). Discourse transcription. Santa Barbara papers in linguistics 4. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., & Thompson, S. A. (2000). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Part 1. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Egorova, N., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F. (2015). Brain basis of communicative actions in language. NeuroImage, 125, 857–867. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fagioli, M. (2010). Istinto di morte e conoscenza. Roma: L’Asino d’oro.Google Scholar
(2011). La marionetta e il burattino. Roma: L’Asino d’oro.Google Scholar
(2012). Teoria della nascita e castrazione umana. Roma: L’Asino d’oro.Google Scholar
Fava, E. (1995). Tipi di atti e tipi di frase. In L. Renzi, G. Salvi, & A. Cardinaletti (Eds.), Grande grammatica iItaliana di consultazione (pp. 19–48). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Firenzuoli, V. (2000). Nuovi dati statistici sull’italiano parlato. Romanische Forschungen, 13, 213–225.Google Scholar
(2003). Le forme intonative di valore illocutivo dell’Italiano parlato: Analisi sperimentale di un corpus di parlato spontaneo (LABLITA) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Università di Firenze, Italy.Google Scholar
Gatti, M. G., Becucci, E., Fargnoli, F., Fagioli, M., Ådén, U., & Buonocore, G. (2012). Functional maturation of neocortex: A base of viability. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 25(1), 101–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giorgini, L., Petrucci, M., Melcarne, R., Raballo, A., Gatti, M., & Gebhardt, E. (forthcoming). A contribute to the psychotherapeutic treatment according to the Human Birth Theory. In Proceedings of XII world congress of psychiatry, 27–30th September 2018. Mexico City: Elsevier.
Goldsmith, J. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
’t Hart, J., Collier, R., & Cohen, A. (1990). A perceptual study on intonation. An experimental approach to speech melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izre’el, S. (2005). Intonation units and the structure of spontaneous spoken language: A view from Hebrew. In C. Auran, R. Bernard, C. Chanet, A. Colass, A. Di Christo, C. Portes, A. Reynier, & M. Vion (Eds.), Proceedings of the IDP05 international symposium on discourse-prosody interfaces. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.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
Izre’el, S., & Mettouchi, A. (2015). Representation of speech in CorpAfroAs: Transcriptional strategies and prosodic units. In A. Mettouchi, M. Vanhove, & D. Caubet (Eds.), Corpus-based studies of lesser-described languages: The CorpAfroAs corpus of spoken AfroAsiatic languages (pp. 13–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karcevsky, S. (1931). Sur la phonologie de la phrase. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 4, 188–228.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1977). Propositional structure and illocutionary force: A study of the contribution of sentence meaning to speech acts. New York, NY: T.Y. Crowell.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. (1977). Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (2007). Basic notions of information structure. In C. Fery & M. Krifka (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure (Vol. 6, pp. 13–56). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Krifka, M., & Musan, R. (Eds.). (2012). The expression of information structure. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lacheret-Dujour, A., Kahane, S., & Pietrandrea, P. (Eds.). (2018). Rhapsodie: A prosodic and syntactic tree-bank for spoken French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maccari, S., Polese, D., Reynaert, M.-L., & Fagioli, F. (2016). Early-life experiences and the development of adult diseases with a focus on mental illness: The human birth. Neuroscience, 342, 232–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, P. (2015). The structure of spoken language. Intonation in romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mello, H. (2014). Methodological issues for spontaneous speech corpora compilation: The case of C-ORAL-BRASIL. In T. Raso & H. Mello, (Eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistic studies (pp. 27–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mello, H., Raso, T., Mittmann, M., Vale, H., & Côrtes, P. (2012). Transcrição e segmentação prosódica do corpus C-ORAL-BRASIL: Critérios de implementação e validação. In T. Raso & H. Mello (Eds.), C-ORAL-BRASIL I: Corpus de referência de português brasileiro falado informal (pp. 125–176). Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMA.Google Scholar
Mittmann-Malvessi, M., & Raso, T. (2012). The C-ORAL-BRASIL informationally tagged mini-corpus. In H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso (Eds.), Illocution, modality, attitude, information patterning and speech annotation (pp. 151–183). Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
Mollo, G., Pulvermüller, F., & Hauk, O. (2016). Movement priming of EEG/MEG brain responses for action-words characterizes the link between language and action. Cortex, 74, 262–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moneglia, M. (2006). Units of analysis of spontaneous speech and speech variation in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Y. Kawaguchi, S. Zaima, & T. Takagaki (Eds.), Spoken language corpus and linguistics informatics (pp. 153–179). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Spoken corpora and pragmatics. Revista Brasileira de Lingustica Aplcada, 11(2), 479–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moneglia, M., & Cresti, E. (1997). L’intonazione e i criteri di trascrizione del parlato adulto e infantile. In U. Bortolini, & E. Pizzuto (Eds.), Il progetto CHILDES Italia (pp. 57–90). Pisa: Del Cerro.Google Scholar
(2006). C-ORAL-ROM prosodic boundaries for spontaneous speech analysis. In Y. Kawaguchi, S. Zaima, & T. Takagaki (Eds.), Spoken language corpus and linguistics informatics (pp. 89–114). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The cross-linguistic comparison of information patterning in spontaneous speech corpora: Data from C-ORAL-ROM ITALIAN and C-ORAL-BRASIL. In S. Klaeger, & B. Thörle (Eds.), Interactional linguistics: Grammar and interaction in romance languages from a contrasting point of view (pp. 107–128). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Moneglia, M., & Raso, T. (2014). Notes on the Language into Act Theory. In T. Raso & H. Mello (Eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistics studies (pp. 468–494). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moneglia, M., Raso, T., Mittmann-Malvessi, M., & Mello, H. (2010). Challenging the perceptual relevance of prosodic breaks in multilingual spontaneous speech corpora: C-ORAL-BRASIL/C-ORAL-ROM. In Speech prosody 2010 conference proceedings. (pp. 1–4). Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Nicolás Martínez, M. C. (2012). Cor-DiAL (Corpus oral didáctico anotado lingüísticamente). Madrid: Liceus.Google Scholar
Nicolás Martínez, M. C., & Lombán, M. (2018). Mini-corpus del español para DB-IPIC. CHIMERA, 5(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panunzi, A., & Gregori, L. (2011). DB-IPIC. AN XML database for the representation of information structure in spoken language. In H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso (Eds.), Pragmatics and prosody. Illocution, modality, attitude, information patterning and speech annotation (pp. 133–150). Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
Panunzi, A., & Mittmann-Malvessi, M. (2014). The IPIC resource and a cross-linguistic analysis of information structure in Italian and Brazilian Portuguese. In T. Raso & H. Mello (Eds.), Spoken corpora and Linguistic Studies (pp. 129–151). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, G. (1990). Intonational phrasing and discourse segmentation. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in Communication (pp. 271–311). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Raso, T. (2014). Prosodic constraints for discourse markers. In T. Raso & H. Mello (Eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistic studies (pp. 411–467). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raso, T., & Mello, H. (Eds.). (2012). C-ORAL-BRASIL I: Corpus de referência de português brasileiro falado informal. Belo Horizonte: UFMG.Google Scholar
Raso, T., & Mittmann-Malvessi, M. (2009). Validação estatística dos critérios de segmentação da fala espontânea no corpus C-ORAL-BRASIL. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 17(2), 73–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reed, C. (2006). Representing dialogic argumentation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 19, 22–31. DOI logoGoogle 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 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil).Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation, Language, 50(4), 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, M. (1989). Linguaggio, ragione, interazione: Per una teoria pragmatica degli atti linguistici. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Sbisà, M., & Turner, K. (Eds.). (2013). Pragmatics of speech actions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1986). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swerts, M. (1997). Prosodic features at discourse boundaries of different strength. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 514–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swerts, M., & Geluykens, R. (1993). The prosody of information units in spontaneous monologues. Phonetica, 50, 189–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and speech acts: Volume 1, principles of language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weisser, M. (2014). The dialogue annotation and research tool (DART) (Version 1.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved from <[URL]>
audio

Example 1a

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Example 5

Example 6

Example 7

Example 8

Example 9

Example 10

Example 11

Example 12

Example 13

Example 14

Example 15

Example 16

Example 17

Example 18

Example 19

Example 20

Example 21

Example 22

Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

De Cesare, Anna-Maria
2022. To be or not to be focus adverbials?. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 204 ff. DOI logo
Moneglia, Massimo
2022. Le unità di informazione Parentetiche alla periferia destra del Comment nella Teoria della Lingua in Atto. DILEF. Rivista digitale del Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia :1 ► pp. 88 ff. DOI logo
Cimmino, Doriana
2021. Chapter 6. Interactions between distribution and functional uses in Italian adversative pragmatic markers. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Cresti, Emanuela
2021. The Appendix of Comment according to Language into Act Theory. CHIMERA: Revista de Corpus de Lenguas Romances y Estudios Lingüísticos 8 ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Saccone, Valentina & Chiara Trombetta
2021. Parenthetical Units and Structures in Italian and German spoken language: Prosodic and textual analysis. CHIMERA: Revista de Corpus de Lenguas Romances y Estudios Lingüísticos 8 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bossaglia, Giulia, Heliana Mello & Tommaso Raso
2020. Chapter 7. Illocution as a unit of reference for spontaneous speech. In In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 94], ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Cresti, Emanuela & Massimo Moneglia
2020. Chapter 7. Some notes on the Hearts and Navy excerpts according to the Language into Act Theory. In In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 94], ► pp. 383 ff. DOI logo
Cresti, Emanuela & Massimo Moneglia
2023. The role of prosody for the expression of illocutionary types. The prosodic system of questions in spoken Italian and French according to Language into Act Theory. Frontiers in Communication 8 DOI logo
Kibrik, Andrej A., Nikolay A. Korotaev & Vera I. Podlesskaya
2020. Chapter 1. Russian spoken discourse. In In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 94], ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 september 2024. 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.