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. 309–326

Chapter 1
Segmentation and analysis of the two English excerpts

The Brazilian team proposal

| Federal University of Minas Gerais, CNPq, FAPEMIG
| State University of Campinas, Institute for Language Studies, CNPq
| Federal University of Minas Gerais, CAPES
| Unifacvest
This paper has a tripartite focus: (1) to establish the best segmentation for two American English texts according to inter-rater agreement measurements. By doing this, we differentiate the behavior of experts and non-experts annotators. The experts’ annotation constitute the basis for the analysis; (2) to capture, measure, and analyze the phonetic features that correlate with boundaries, as they are marked by the expert annotators; (3) to informationally annotate prosodic units according to the Language into Act Theory, and analyze their corresponding information structure: in order to do this, we make and justify decisions in marking the reference units and assigning informational value to prosodic units; additionally we further discuss some cases of major disagreements.
Keywords: speech segmentation, boundaries, phonetic features, inter-rater agreement, information structure annotation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Inter-rater agreement in the segmentation
  • 3.Phonetic measurements
  • 4.Reference unit and IUs: A functional analysis
    • 4.1The reference unit
    • 4.2Intonation units and information pattern
  • 5.Final remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 18 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.94.10ras
References (36)
References
Barbosa, P. A. (2013). Semi-automatic and automatic tools for generating prosodic descriptors for prosody research. In B. Bigi & D. Hirst (Eds.), TRASP 2013 Proceedings (Vol. 13, pp. 86–89). Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage.Google Scholar
Barbosa, P., & Raso, T. (2018). Spontaneous speech segmentation: Functional and prosodic aspects with applications for automatic segmentation. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 26(4), 1361–1396.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2016). Intonation units revisited. Cesura in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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.
Campbell, W. N. (1992). Syllable-based segmental duration. In G. Bailly, C. Benoıt, & T. R. Sawallis (Eds.), Talking machines: Theories, models, and designs (pp. 221–224). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Cavalcante, F. (2016). The topic unit in spontaneous American English (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil.Google Scholar
(2018). The Information Unit of Topic: A Crosslinguistic, Statistical Study Based on Spontaneous Speech Corpora (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil.Google Scholar
Cresti, E. (2000). Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
(2009). La Stanza: un'unità di costruzione testuale del parlato. In A. Ferrari (Ed.), Sintassi storica e sincronica dell’italiano. Subordinazione, coordinazione, giustapposizione. Atti del X Congresso della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana, vol 2 (pp. 713–732). Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
(2011). The definition of focus in Language into Act Theory (L-AcT). In H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso, Pragmatics and prosody, illocution, modality, attitude, information patterning and speech annotation (pp. 39–82). Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
(2018). The illocution-prosody relationship and the information pattern in spontaneous speech according to the Language into Act Theory. In M. Heinz & M. C. Moroni (Eds.), Prosody: Grammar, information structure, interaction. Linguistik Online, 88(1), 33–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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.
Cresti, E., & Moneglia, M. (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.
Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., & Thompson, S. A. (2000–2005). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Part 1–4. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 378–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frosali, F. F. (2008). L’unità di informazione di ausilio dialogico: Valori percentuali, caratteri intonativi, lessicali e morfo-sintattici in un corpus di italiano parlato (C-ORAL-ROM). In E. Cresti (Ed.), Prospettive nello studio del lessico italiano (pp. 417–424). Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
Giani, D. (2004). Una strategia di costruzione del testo parlato: L’introduttore locutivo. In F. A. Leoni, F. Cutugno, M. Pettorino, & R. Savy (Eds.), Atti del convegno “Il parlato italiano” Napoli, 13–15.02 2003 (pp. 84–97). Napoli: M. D‟Auria.Google Scholar
t’Hart, J. (1981). Differential sensitivity to pitch distance, particularly in speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69(3), 811–821. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maia Rocha, B., & Raso, T. (2011). A unidade informacional de introdutor locutivo no português do Brasil: Uma primeira descrição baseada em corpus. Domínios de Linguagem, 5(1), 327–343.Google Scholar
Mittmann, M., & Barbosa, P. A. (2016). An automatic speech segmentation tool based on multiple acoustic parameters. CHIMERA: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies, 3(2), 133–147.Google Scholar
Moneglia, M. (2005). The C-ORAL-ROM resource. In E. Cresti & M. Moneglia (Eds.), C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated reference corpora for spoken Romance languages (pp. 1–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moneglia, M., & Raso, T. (2014). Notes on language into act theory. In T. Raso & H. Mello (Eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistic studies (pp. 468–495). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quené, H. (2007). On the just noticeable difference for tempo in speech. Journal of Phonetics, 35(3), 353–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raso, T. (2014). Prosodic constraints for discourse markers. In T. Raso & H. Mello (Eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistic studies (pp. 412–467). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raso, T., Cavalcante, F., & Mittmann, M. (2017). Prosodic forms of the topic information unit in a cross-linguistic perspective: A first survey. In A. De Meo & F. M. Dovetto, La comunicazione parlata/Spoken communication (pp. 473–498). Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
Raso, T., Ferrari, L. Uso dei Segnali Discorsivi in corpora di parlato spontaneo italiano e brasiliano. In: Ferroni, R., Birello, M. (forthcoming). La competenza discorsiva a lezione di lingua straniera. Roma: AracneGoogle Scholar
Raso, T., Mittmann, M., & Oliveira Mendes, A. C. (2015). O papel da pausa na segmentação prosódica de corpora de fala. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 23(3), 883–922. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raso, T., & Rocha, B. (2017). Illocution and attitude: On the complex interaction between prosody and pragmatic parameters. Journal of Speech Science, 5, 5–27.Google Scholar
Rocha, B., & Raso, T. (2016). The interaction between illocution and attitude, and its consequences for the empirical study of illocutions. In C. Bardel & A. De Meo (Eds.), Parler les langues romanes: Proceedings of the international GSCP conference (Stockholm, 2014) (pp. 69–88). Napoli: Università degli Studi L’Orientale.Google Scholar
Senn, P., Kompis, M., Vischer, M., & Haeusler, R. (2005). Minimum audible angle, just noticeable interaural differences and speech intelligibility with bilateral cochlear implants using clinical speech processors. Audiology and Neurotology, 10, 342–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silber-Varod, V. (2011). The SpeeCHain perspective: Prosody-syntax interface in spontaneous spoken Hebrew (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tel- Aviv University, Israel.Google Scholar
Teixeira, B. H. (2018). Correlatos fonético-acústicos de fronteiras prosódicas na fala espontânea (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.Google Scholar
Teixeira, B. H., Barbosa, P., & Raso, T. (2018). Automatic detection of prosodic boundaries in Brazilian Portuguese spontaneous speech. In A. Villavicencio, V. Moreira, A. Abad, H. Caseli, P. Gamallo, C. Ramisch, H. G. Oliveira, & G. H. Paetzold (Eds.), Computational processing of the Portuguese language (pp. 429–437). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Teixeira, B. H., & Mittmann, M. M. (2018). Acoustic models for the automatic identification of prosodic boundaries in spontaneous speech. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 26(4), 1455–1488.Google Scholar
Tucci, I. (2004). L’inciso: Caratteristiche morfosintattiche e intonative in un corpus di riferimento. In F. A. Leoni, F. Cutugno, M. Pettorino, & R. Savy (Eds.), Atti del convegno “Il parlato italiano” (CD-ROM -14 p.). Napoli: M. D’Auria.Google Scholar