Best Practices for Speech Corpora in Linguistic Research Workshop ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Herbert H. Clark and Thomas Wasow. 1998. Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 37:201–242. Graham Crookes. 1990. The utterance and other basic units for second language discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 11:183–199. José Deulofeu, Lucie Duffort, Kim Gerdes, Sylvain Kahane, and Paola Pietrandrea. 2010. Depends on what the French say. Spoken corpus annotation with and beyond syntactic functions. In Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop, LAW IV ’10, pages 274– 281. Association for Computational Linguistics. Erich Drach. 1937. Grundgedanken der Deutschen Satzlehre. Raquel Fernandez and Jonathan Ginzburg. 2002. Nonsentential utterances in dialogue: A corpus-based study. In Proceedings of the Third SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue. Raquel Fernández, Jonathan Ginzburg, and Shalom Lappin. 2007. Classifying non-sentential utterances in dialogue: A machine learning approach. Computational Linguistics, 33(3):397–427. Pauline Foster, Alan Tonkyn, and Gillian Wigglesworth. 2000. Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3):354–375. Ulrike Freywald, Katharina Mayr, Tiner Özcelik, and Heike Wiese. 2011. Kiezdeutsch as a multiethnolect. In Friederike Kern and Margret Selting, editors, Ethnic Styles of Speaking in European Metropolitan Areas, pages 45–73. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. John J. Godfrey, Edward C. Holliman, and Jane McDaniel. 1992. Switchboard: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), volume 1, pages 517–520, San Francisco, California, USA. Tilman Höhle. 1998. Der Begriff ”Mittelfeld”, Anmerkungen über die Theorie der topologischen Felder. In Akten des Siebten Internationalen Germanistenkongresses 1985, pages 329–340, Göttingen, Germany. Daniel Jurafsky, Elizabeth Shriberg, and Debra Biasca. 1997. Switchboard SWBD-DAMSL. Shallowdiscourse-function annotation. Coders manual, draft 13. Technical report, University of Colorado, Boulder. Institute of Cognitive Science. Willem J.M. Levelt. 1983. Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14:41–104. Mitchell P. Marcus, Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz, and Beatrice Santorini. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: the penn treebank. Compututational Linguistics, 19(2):313–330. Marie Meteer et al. 1995. Dysfluency annotation stylebook for the Switchboard corpus. Linguistic Data Consortium. ftp://ftp.cis.upenn.edu/pub/treebank/ swbd/doc/DFL-book.ps. Revised June 1995 by Ann Taylor. Petya Osenova and Kiril Simov. 2003. The Bulgarian HPSG treebank: Specialization of the annotation scheme. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Tree- 36 banks and Linguistic Theories (TLT 2003), pages 81–93, Växjö, Sweden. Slav Petrov, Leon Barrett, Romain Thibaux, and Dan Klein. 2006. Learning accurate, compact, and interpretable tree annotation. In The 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL- COLING), pages 433–440. Slav Petrov, Dipanjan Das, and Ryan McDonald. 2011. A universal part-of-speech tagset. In ArXiv, April. Geoffrey Sampson. 2000. Christine corpus, stage i: Documentation. Technical report, Sussex: University of Sussex. Anne Schiller, Simone Teufel, and Christine Thielen. 1995. Guidelines für das Tagging deutscher Textkorpora mit STTS. Technical report, Universität Stuttgart, Universität Tübingen. Margret Selting, Peter Auer, Birgit Barden, Jörg Bergmann, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Susanne Günthner, Uta Quasthoff, Christoph Meier, Peter Schlobinski, and Susanne Uhmannet. 1998. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT). Linguistische Berichte, 173:91–122. Elizabeth E. Shriberg. 1994. Preliminaries to a Theory of Speech Disfluencies. Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley. Rosmary Stegmann, Heike Telljohann, and Erhard W. Hinrichs. 2000. Stylebook for the german treebank in verbmobil. Technical Report 239, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Tübingen. Wolfgang Wahlster, editor. 2000. Verbmobil: Foundations of Speech-to-Speech Translation. Springer, Berlin. Heike Wiese. 2009. Grammatical innovation in multiethnic urban europe: New linguistic practices among adolescents. Lingua, 119:782–806. Heike Wiese. 2011. The role of information structure in linguistic variation: Evidence from a German multiethnolect. In Frans Gregersen, Jeffrey Parrott, and Pia Quist, editors, Language Variation – European Perspectives III, pages 83–95. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Turns in interdisciplinary scientific research meetings: Using ‘R’ for a simple and flexible tagging system Seongsook Choi, Keith Richards Centre for Applied Linguistics University of warwick S.Choi@warwick.ac.uk, K.Richards@warwick.ac.uk Abstract This paper presents our initial step towards identifying and mapping functions (of utterances/turns) and actions (a series of connected actions managed over the course of a sequence of turns) inherent in authentic spoken language data using a simple and flexible tagging system in R. Our ultimate goal is to capture the patterns of dynamic practices through which interactants produce and understand talkin-interaction both qualitatively and quantitatively. The procedure involves annotating the transcripts with tags that blends elements of CA (conversation analysis) and DA (discourse analysis), which we can then analyse quantitatively. The paper addresses the challenge of developing and annotating a CA and DA integrated tagging system and demonstrates graphical representation of a quantitative analysis that can be derived from it. Keywords: conversation analysis, discourse analysis, R, turn-taking 1. Introduction This paper presents our initial attempt at mapping functions (of utterances/turns (Crookes, 1990)) and actions (a series of connected actions managed over the course of a sequence of turns) inherent in authentic spoken language data using a simple and flexible tagging system in R (R Development Core Team, 2011). Our ultimate goal is to capture the patterns of dynamic practices through which interactants produce and understand talk-in-interaction both qualitatively and quantitatively. We carry this out by annotating the transcripts with tags that blends elements of CA (conversation analysis) and DA (discourse analysis), which we can then analyse quantitatively. While DA allows the use of priori categories as analytical resources, this is explicitly rejected in CA methodology, which has led to the assumption that the two are irreconcilable, though CA findings have been used as the basis for subsequent quantitative analysis (e.g. Mangione-Smith, Stivers, Elliott, McDonald and Heritage, 2003). We seek a closer integration of the two, using a CA analysis of sequences of talk to reveal aspects of participant design which would remain hidden in a DA approach, then identifying discourse patterns within these which can be mapped, using DA, across large data sets in order to reveal ways in which relevant features of talk play out in different interactional contexts. This paper focuses on issues of representation in the quantitative dimension of our work, focusing specifically on turn-taking. 2. The challenge of CA/DA synthesis The overarching aim of this project is to combine the analytic penetration of CA with the potential applications of DA to large databases of spoken interaction. In this section we identify the challenges which this presents and the ways in which we intend to address these. Although DA embraces a much wider analytical spectrum 37 than CA, their very different conceptual foundations make procedural synthesis inherently problematic. While ethnography and CA have been widely accepted as complementary approaches (e.g. Miller and Fox, 2004), as have ethnography and DA (e.g. Sarangi and Roberts, 2005) and, more broadly, ethnography and linguistics (Rampton, Tusting, Maybin, Barwell, Creese and Lytra, 2004), the differences between CA and DA, at least in the form that we draw on this project, were exposed in debates that began over a quarter of a century ago (e.g. Levinson, 1983; Schegloff, 2005; Van Rees, 1992). Since then each has followed its own lines of development, CA developing in applied areas and connecting with Membership Categorisation Analysis, DA engaging with contextual aspects to the point where researchers would now claim that ‘at its heart DA remains an ethnographically grounded study of language in action’ (Sarangi and Roberts, 2005, p. 639). To our knowledge, no attempt has been made to bring them together as part of the same analytic enterprise and our attempt to do so draws on forms of DA which are susceptible to coding and quantitative analysis. The reason for this is clear from the following comment on quantitative studies from a CA perspective (Heritage, 1995, p. 406): Quantitative studies have not, so far, matched the kinds of compelling evidence for the features and uses of conversation practices that have emerged from ‘case by case’ analysis of singular exhibits of interactional conduct. It does not, at the present time, appear likely that they will do so in the future. For quantitative studies inexorably draw the analyst into an ‘external’ view of the data of interaction, draining away the conductevidenced local intelligibility of particular situated actions which is the ultimate source of security that the object under investigation is not a theoretical or statistical artefact.
Page 1 and 2: Best Practices for Speech Corpora i
Page 3 and 4: Editors Michael Haugh Griffith Univ
Page 5 and 6: Author Index Broeder, Daan ........
Page 7 and 8: A linguistics-based speech corpus J
Page 9 and 10: Figure 2: Grammatical tags are visi
Page 11: In Jokinen, Kristiina and Eckhard B
Page 14 and 15: 2.2 Parameters of the Corpus Design
Page 16 and 17: switching and code mixing, we have
Page 18 and 19: � 12
Page 20 and 21: French and Russian screen versions
Page 22 and 23: singularity, expressiveness, semant
Page 24 and 25: is often fluid in terms of communic
Page 26 and 27: annotation. Researchers have often
Page 28 and 29: � 22
Page 30 and 31: in various research and/or student
Page 32 and 33: As previously mentioned, the degree
Page 34 and 35: 9. References Corpus of Spoken Gree
Page 36 and 37: In addition to part-of-speech tags
Page 38 and 39: POS description example translitera
Page 40 and 41: Figure 4: Different syntactic analy
Page 44 and 45: The ‘externality’ of DA arises
Page 46 and 47: 6. Data analysis Each turn is annot
Page 48 and 49: � 42
Page 50 and 51: 3. manual phonetic transcription (t
Page 52 and 53: • comparative linguistic research
Page 54 and 55: ��
Page 56 and 57: ��
Page 58 and 59: The global corpus data model is a s
Page 60 and 61: a) b) c) Figure 6: Web experiment o
Page 62 and 63: � 56
Page 64 and 65: conversation across 26 languages; t
Page 66 and 67: codes marked through special Unicod
Page 68 and 69: demographic fields, as are designat
Page 70 and 71: methods for eliciting metadata. Che
Page 72 and 73: � 66
Page 74 and 75: difference between corpora that can
Page 76 and 77: database can be reconstructed at an

Best Practices for Speech Corpora in Linguistic Research Workshop ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?