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. 359–366

Chapter 5
Segmentation of the English texts Navy and Hearts with SUU and LUU

| Senshu University / NINJAL
The chapter shows segmentation analyses of two English texts according to the criteria of the SUU (Short Utterance-Unit) and the LUU (Long Utterance-Unit). Our basic idea of segmentation is to identify utterance boundaries at two different levels. SUUs represent small information chunks, which are related to speakers’ planning and hearers’ understanding in a short time, and roughly correspond to prosodic and intonational units. LUUs, on the other hand, are basic chunks of interaction between the speaker and the hearer, corresponding to syntactic, discourse, and interactional units. Acoustic, prosodic, syntactic, and interactional boundaries were used as cues for segmenting utterances at two different levels. The technique of segmentation offers a way to view the multi-layered structure of spontaneous speech.
Keywords: SUU, LUU, prosodic/intonational boundaries, syntactic/interactional boundaries, multi-layered structure of spontaneous speech
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Two types of utterance units
  • 2.Some observations on the monologue Navy
  • 3.Some observations on the dialogue Hearts
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 18 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.94.14mar
References (8)
References
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R., & Tao, H. (1996). The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den, Y., Koiso, H., Maruyama, T., Maekawa, K., Takanashi, K., Enomoto, M., & Yoshida, N. (2010). Two-level annotation of utterance-units in Japanese dialogs: An empirically emerged scheme. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, M. Rosner, & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th language resources and evaluation conference (LREC2010) (pp. 2103–2110). Valetta, Malta: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Japanese Discourse Research Initiative. (2017). Utterance-Unit Labeling Manual (Version 2.1). Retrieved from <[URL]>
Maruyama, T., Den, Y., & Koiso, H. (this volume). Design and annotation of two-level utterance units in Japanese. 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
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Panunzi, Alessandro, Lorenzo Gregori & Bruno Rocha
2020. Chapter 8. Comparing annotations for the prosodic segmentation of spontaneous speech. In In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 94], ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.