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. 403–432

Chapter 8
Comparing annotations for the prosodic segmentation of spontaneous speech

Focus on reference units

| University of Florence – LABLITA
| Universityy of Florence – LABLITA
| Federal University of Minas Gerais

This chapter reports a quantitative and qualitative comparison of seven annotations performed on the same two American English texts: a monologue and a dialogue. The analysis of these data is complex, since the annotations have been made independently by each research group on the basis of their own theoretical frameworks. Despite this difference, the fundamental role of prosody in the analysis of speech emerges clearly in every annotation. Prosodic breaks can be then viewed as theory independent entities. After summarizing the key features of theoretical models, we derived a unified tagset and developed a web application (SLAC) to compare different annotations. Finally, agreement on prosodic breaks has been measured in different ways, reporting promising results in terminal break identification.

Keywords: spoken language models, segmentation criteria, prosodic breaks, annotation comparison, agreement
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Comparing the different theoretical perspectives
    • 2.1Preliminary remarks
    • 2.2The segmentation of the speech flow into discrete units
    • 2.3The relation between prosody and syntax
    • 2.4The nature of the reference units for spoken speech
  • 3.The SLAC database
    • 3.1Web interface
    • 3.2The Unified Tagset
  • 4.Overall agreement
    • 4.1Starting data and preliminary choices
    • 4.2Interpreting the data
    • 4.3Standard agreement
  • 5.Pairwise agreement
    • 5.1ANY: agreement on prosodic break perception
    • 5.2OTB: agreement on terminal break
    • 5.3Strong and weak disagreement
    • 5.4Weighted agreement
  • 6.Final remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 18 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.94.17pan
References
Austin, J. L.
(1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barbosa, P. A., & Raso, T.
(2018) Spontaneous speech segmentation: Functional and prosodic aspects with applications for automatic segmentation [A segmentação da fala espontânea: Aspectos prosódicos, funcionais e aplicações para a tecnologia]. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 26(4), 1361–1396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C.
(1990) Le français parlé, études grammaticales. Paris: Edition du CNRS.Google Scholar
Carletta, J.
(1996) Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics, 22, 249–254. Retrieved from [URL]
Chafe, W.
(1994) Discourse, counsciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cresti, E.
(2000) Corpus di italiano parlato: Introduzione (Vol. 1). Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
Davies, M., & Fleiss, J. L.
(1982) Measuring agreement for multinomial data. Biometrics, 38(4), 1047–1051. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M.
(Ed.) (2013) Analyses linguistiques sur corpus: Subordination et insubordination en français contemporain. Paris: Hermès.Google 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 DOI logo
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
Deulofeu, H.-J.
(2003) L’approche macrosyntaxique en syntaxe : Un nouveau modèle de rasoir d’Occam contre les notions inutiles. Scolia, 16, 112–125.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J., Chafe, W., Meyer, C., Thompson, S., Englebretson, R., & Martey, N.
(2000–2005) Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Fleiss, J. L.
(1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, A. A., Korotaev, N. A., & Podlesskaya, V. I.
this volume). Russian spoken discourse: Local structure and prosody. 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
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 DOI logo
Krippendorff, K.
(1980) Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Martin, P.
this volume). Analysis of two examples with the dependency incremental prosodic structure model. 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
Maruyama, T.
this volume). Segmentation of English texts Navy and Hearts with SUU and LUU. 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
Mithun, M.
this volume). Basic units. 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
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
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

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
Rocha, Bruno, Tommaso Raso, Heliana Mello & Lucia Ferrari
2022. Information structure in the speech of individuals with schizophrenia. CHIMERA: Revista de Corpus de Lenguas Romances y Estudios Lingüísticos 9 ► pp. 217 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 march 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.