Notation Systems in Spoken Language Corpora

Uta Lenk
Table of contents

Description of the grammar of languages has traditionally been based on language use in the written mode. Not only was spoken language frequently considered inferior to written language and not worthy of description as a model for language use, due to the fleeting nature of sound it was also not possible to collect a sufficient amount of data on which to base an adequate description. Technical inventions of the twentieth century have ended the problem of non-collectability of spoken data, and altered beliefs about the quality and value of spoken language have changed the approach towards this most common kind of language use. The description of spoken language characteristics and sequential patterns nowadays are focal aspects of some areas of linguistic research. For this end, a preservation of conversational data is vitally important, and as the possiblities of technical storage are continually improving, researchers are being provided with overwhelming amounts of data. For the purpose of analysis, however, recorded data needs to be put into an analyzable format, and transcription of spoken data into some kind of written form is still the norm if linguistic analysis is to take place. Certain characteristics of spoken language set it apart from written language (Biber 1988) and impose particular demands on the process of transcription. A detailed and informative transcription of spoken language requires the inclusion of many features that are a vital part of spoken interaction but do not figure importantly – if at all – in written language, such as intonation contours, (mis)pronunciations, overlaps or truncations of utterances, emphasis, and many more.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Altenberg, B.
1986 ICAME bibliography. ICAME News 10: 67–97. Google Scholar
Bausch, K.-H.
1971 Zur Umschrift gesprochener Hochsprache. In H. Steger, U. Engel & H. Moser (eds.) vol. II/2: 33–54. Google Scholar
Biber, D.
1988 Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., E. Finegan & D. Atkinson
1994 ARCHER and its challenges: compiling and exploring A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. In U. Fries, G. Tottie and P. Schneider, eds., Creating and using English language corpora: 1–14. Rodopi. Google Scholar
Chafe, W., J. Dubois & S.A. Thompson
1991 Towards a new corpus of spoken American English. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg eds.. English Corpus Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik: 64–92. Longman. Google Scholar
Crystal, D. & D. Davy
1969 Investigating English style. Longman. Google Scholar
Dubois, J., S. Schutze-Coburn, D. Paolino & S. Cumming
1992 Discourse Transcription. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics Vol. IV. Department of Linguistics. Google Scholar
1993 Outline of Discourse Transcription. In J. Edwards & M. Lampert (eds.) Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research: 45–87. Erlbaum.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S.
1972 Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23: 283–292. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1973 Toward a grammar for dyadic conversation. Semiotica 9: 29–45. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1974 On the structure of speaker-auditor interaction during speaking turns. Language in Society 2: 161–180. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S. & G. Niederehe
1974 On signalling that it’s your turn to speak. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10: 234–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehlich, K. & J. Rehbein
1980 Sprache in Institutionen. In J.P. Althaus, H. Henne & H.E. Weigand (eds.) Lexikon der germanistischen Linguistik: 338–345. Niemeyer.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981 Die Wiedergabe intonatorischer nonverbaler und aktionaler Ph,änomene im Verfahren HIAT. In A. Lange-Seidl (ed.) Zeichenkonstitution: 174–186. de Gruyter. Google Scholar
Ehlich, K. & A. Redder
1994 Einleitung. In A. Redder & K. Ehlich (eds.) Gesprochene Sprache: Transkripte und Tondokumente: 1–16. Niemeyer. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Francis, W.
1992 Language corpora B.C. In J. Svartvik (ed.) Directions in corpus linguistics: 17–32. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. & J. Svartvik
1990 The London-Lund-Corpus of Spoken English. In J. Svartvik (ed.): 11–59. Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A. & E.-L. Seppänen
1992 Finnish kato: from verb to particle. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 527–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J., B. Vine & G. Johnson
1998 Guide to The Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English. School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies Victoria University. Google Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H.
1997 Being friendly in survey interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 591–623. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Instituto Cervantes
1996 Report on Linguistic Resources for Spanish (II). Written and Spoken Corpora Available or in Progress in Spain. Observatorio Espanol de Industrias de la Lengua. Google Scholar
Kendon, A.
1967 Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 26: 22–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, P. & W. Österreicher
1990 Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koole, T.
1999 The pragmatic aspects of turn-taking: evidence from meta-pragmatics. Paper presented at the Pragma99 conference, Tel Aviv/Jerusalem.
Labov, W.
1972 The study of language in its social context. In J. Pride & J. Holmes, eds. Sociolinguistics: 180–202. Penguin.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, M.J. & J. Heritage
1984 Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
O’connell, D. & S. Kowal
1995 Transcription systems for spoken discourse. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman & J. Blommaert (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics Manual: 646–656. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff & G. Jefferson
1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A. & H. Sacks
1973 Opening up closings. Semiotica 8: 289–327. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A., G. Jefferson & H. Sacks
1977 The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–382. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Scheiter, S.
1992 German spoken language corpora and their text representation schemes – an overview. Ms., Dortmund.
1993 Text representation and annotation schemes in German language corpora. Ms.
Sorjonen, M.-L.
1996 On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (eds.) Interaction and grammar: 277–327. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steger, H., U. Engel & H. Moser
(eds.) 1971 Texte gesprochener deutscher Standardsprache. Hueber/Schwann.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J.
(ed.) 1990 The London-Lund-Corpus of Spoken English. Description and Research. Lund University Press. Google Scholar
1992 Lexis in English language corpora. In H. Tommola, K. Varantoly, T. Salmi-Tolonen & J. Schopp (eds.) Euralex ’92 Proceedings, vol. I: 17–31. Tampere Department of Translation Studies. Google Scholar