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. 337–348

Chapter 3
Applying criteria of spontaneous Hebrew speech segmentation to English

| Tel Aviv University
Taking prosody to be the leading component in speech segmentation, this chapter attempts to transfer segmentation methodologies from Hebrew to English spontaneous speech. Following a process of segmentation by perception of two English chunks a detailed acoustic analysis has been conducted, using acoustic criteria that have been found meaningful for similar analyses of Hebrew, as detailed in my chapter for Part I of this volume, “The Basic Unit of Spoken Language and the Interface Between Prosody, Discourse and Syntax: A View from Spontaneous Spoken Hebrew”. This process has produced suggestive results. Further analysis into the interface of prosody with discourse has also been found meaningful. Some terminological issues are discussed as well.
Keywords: prosodic units, segmentation, spontaneous spoken language, Hebrew, English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Prosody: Segmentation and annotation
  • 3.Discourse annotation
  • 4.Syntactic annotation
  • 5.Comments on individual units
    • 5.1Hearts
    • 5.2Navy
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 18 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.94.12izr
References (30)
References
Amir, N., Silber-Varod, V., & Izre’el, S. (2004). Characteristics of intonation unit boundaries in spontaneous spoken Hebrew: Perception and acoustic correlates. In B. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.), Speech prosody 2004 (pp. 677–680). Nara, Japan: ISCA.Google Scholar
Avanzi, M., & Martin, P. (2007). L’intonème conclusif: Une fin de phrase en soi? Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 28, 247–258.Google Scholar
Bally, C. (1965). Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Quatrième edition revue et corrigée. Berne: Éditions Francke.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (2000). Approches de la langue parlée en français. Gap-Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
(2010). Le français: Usages de la langue parlée. Avec la collaboration de Philippe Martin pour l’étude de la prosodie. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. (1997). The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., & Warren, M. (2005). A corpus-driven study of discourse intonation: The Hong Kong corpus of spoken English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cresti, E., & Moneglia, M. (Eds.). (2005). C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated reference corpora for spoken romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (1997). Intonation (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deulofeu, J. (2013). Le rôle de l’élément que dans les phénomènes de subordination. In J.-M. Debaisieux (Ed.), Analyses linguistiques sur corpus: Subordination et insubordination en français (pp. 427–497). Cachan: Hermès & Lavoisier.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Cumming, S., Schuetze-Coburn, S., & Paolino, D. (1992). Discourse transcription. Santa Barbara, CA: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar
(1993). Outline of discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 45–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2004). Representing discourse, Part 2: Appendices and projects. Santa Barbara, CA: Linguistics Department, University of California.Google Scholar
Harrington, J., & Cassidy, S. (1999). Techniques in speech acoustics. Dodrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirst, D., & Di Cristo, A. (Eds.). (1998). Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Izre’el, S. (2012). Basic sentence structure: A view from spoken Israeli Hebrew. In S. Caddéo, M.-N. Roubaud, M. Rouquier, & F. Sabio (Eds.), Penser les langues avec Claire Blanche-Benveniste (pp. 215–227). Aix-en-Provence: Presses Universitaires de Provence.Google Scholar
Izre'el, S. (2018a). Unipartite clauses: A View from Spoken Israeli Hebrew. In M. Tosco (Ed.), Afroasiatic: Data and Perspectives (pp. 235 – 259). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Syntax, Prosody, Discourse and Information Structure: The Case for Unipartite Clauses. A View from Spoken Israeli Hebrew. Revista de Estudos da linguagem 26/4, 1675–1726.Google Scholar
Izre’el, S. (this volume). The basic unit of 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. DOI logo
Martin, P. (2009). Intonation du français. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Martin, J.-P. (2015). The structure of spoken language: Intonation in romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mettouchi, A., Vanhove, M., & Caubet, D. (Eds.). (2015). Corpus-based studies of lesser-described languages: The CorpAfroAs corpus of spoken AfroAsiatic languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. (2002). Rhetorical nominalization in Barbareno Chumash. In L. Conathan & T. McFarland (Eds.), Report #12: Proceedings of the 50th anniversary conference of the survey of California and other Indian languages (pp. 55–63). Berkeley CA: University of California.Google Scholar
(2005). On the assumption of the sentence as the basic unit of syntactic structure. In Z. Frajzyngier, A. Hodges, & D. S. Rood (Eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories (pp. 169–183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language, 83, 69–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers: Language, meaning and context. In D. Shiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis 1 (pp. 54–75). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silber-Varod, V. (2011). The SpeeCHain perspective: Prosody-syntax interface in spontaneous spoken Hebrew (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tel-Aviv University, Israel. Retrieved from <[URL]>
(2013). The SpeeCHain perspective: Form and function of prosodic boundary tones in spontaneous spoken Hebrew. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar