Rhapsodie

A prosodic and syntactic treebank for spoken French

Editors
| CNRS Modyco, Paris Nanterre University
| CNRS Modyco, Paris Nanterre University
| CNRS, SLT, Lille University
Hardbound – Available
ISBN 9789027202208 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book –
ISBN 9789027262929 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
This monograph describes the development of Rhapsodie, a 33,000-word syntactic and prosodic treebank of spoken French created with the aim of modeling the interface between prosody, syntax and discourse in spoken French. Theoretical foundations and methodological choices are presented and discussed, and compared with other contemporary approaches. Why is a data-driven instead of a corpus-based approach necessary when one wants to model and analyze discourse without neglecting the features typical of everyday speech, in order to capture not only what we say but also how we say it? How can one show that verbal exchange operates as a collaborative enterprise and how can the specific syntactic and prosodic markers of this collaboration be merged? The description proposed in this collective book is of interest for specialists of spoken French studies, and also for scholars who would like to extend Rhapsodie-like annotation schemes to other languages.
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 89]  2019.  xv, 396 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.89
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
ix
Preface
xi–xv
Introduction
Anne Lacheret-Dujour, Sylvain Kahane and Paola Pietrandrea
1–6
Chapter 1. Collecting data for the Rhapsodie treebank: Corpus design and ethical issues
Anne Lacheret-Dujour, Paola Pietrandrea, Olivier Baude, Nicolas Obin, Anne-Catherine Simon and Atanas Tchobanov
7–20
Chapter 2. Orthographic and phonetic transcriptions of Rhapsodie recording
Anne Dister, Jean-Philippe Goldman and Renaud Marlet
21–34
Chapter 3. Syntactic annotation of the Rhapsodie corpus: An overview
Sylvain Kahane and Paola Pietrandrea
35–47
Chapter 4. Microsyntactic annotation
Sylvain Kahane, Kim Gerdes and Rachel Bawden
49–68
Chapter 5. The annotation of list structures
Sylvain Kahane, Paola Pietrandrea and Kim Gerdes
69–95
Chapter 6. Macrosyntactic annotation
Paola Pietrandrea and Sylvain Kahane
97–125
Chapter 7. Annotation tools for syntax
Kim Gerdes, Sylvain Kahane, Rachel Bawden, Julie Belião, Eric de la Clergerie and Ilaine Wang
127–146
Chapter 8. Prosodic annotation of the Rhapsodie corpus: Expectations and issues
Anne Lacheret-Dujour
147–155
Chapter 9. The annotation of syllabic prominences and disfluencies
Mathieu Avanzi, Guri Bordal, Anne Lacheret-Dujour, Nicolas Obin and Jérémi Sauvage-Vincent
157–173
Chapter 10. Segmentation into intonational periods
Anne Lacheret-Dujour and Bernard Victorri
175–211
Chapter 11. Derivation of the prosodic structure
Anne Lacheret-Dujour, Guri Bordal and Arthur Truong
213–231
Chapter 12. From pitch stylization to automatic tonal annotation of speech corpora
Piet Mertens
233–250
Chapter 13. Tonal annotation: Stylization of complex melodic contours over arbitrary linguistic units
Nicolas Obin, Julie Belião and Anne Lacheret-Dujour
251–260
Chapter 14. Tools for fundamental frequency estimation in Rhapsodie
Philippe Martin
261–269
Chapter 15. Exploration of the Rhapsodie corpus: Data structure, formats and query tools
Anne Lacheret-Dujour, Sylvain Kahane, Rachel Bawden, Serge Fleury and Ilaine Wang
271–283
Chapter 16. Macrosyntax at work: Functions and distribution of macrosyntactic patterns in the Rhapsodie corpus
Paola Pietrandrea and Aline Delsart
285–314
Chapter 17. The distribution of prosodic features in the Rhapsodie corpus: From general observations to discourse characterization
Anne Lacheret-Dujour, Guillaume Desagulier, Serge Fleury and Frédéric Isel
315–338
Chapter 18. Syntax and prosody mapping: What and how?: The case of intonational periods and illocutionary units
Sylvain Kahane and Anne Lacheret-Dujour
339–363
Chapter 19. Conclusion
Anne Lacheret-Dujour, Sylvain Kahane and Paola Pietrandrea
365–368
References
369–391
Subject index
393
References

References

Aarts, B. & Wallis, S.
2006 The Diachronic Corpus of Present-Day Spoken English (DCPSE). (Version ICECUP 3.1). [Software]. Survey of English Usage. London: UCL.Google Scholar
Abeillé, A., Clément, L. & Toussenel, F.
2003 Building a treebank for French. In Treebanks, A. Abeillé (ed.), 165–187. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, A., Crabbé, B.
2013 Vers un treebank du français parlé. In Proceedings of TALN, 174–187, https://​aclanthology​.coli​.uni​-saarland​.de​/events​/jep​-taln​-recital​-2013Google Scholar
Abney, S. P.
1991 Parsing by chunks. In Principle-based Parsing [Computation and Psycholinguistics 44], R. C. Berwick, S. P. Abney & C. Tenny (eds), 257–278. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Adam, J. M.
1999 Linguistique textuelle: Des genres de discours au texte. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Adda-Decker, M., Gendrot, C. & Nguyen, N.
2008a Contributions du traitement automatique de la parole à l’étude des voyelles orales du français. Traitement Automatique des Langues 49: 13–46.Google Scholar
Adda-Decker, M., Habert, B., Barras, Cl., Boula de Mareüil, Ph. & Paroubek, P.
2004 Une étude des disfluences pour la transcription automatique de la parole et l’amélioration des modèles de langage. Actes des JEP, http://​www​.afcp​-parole​.org​/spip​.php​?rubrique27Google Scholar
Adda-Decker, M., Habert, B., Boula de Mareuil, P., Barras, C., Adda, G. & Paroubek, P.
2008b Annotation and analysis of overlapping speech in political interviews. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC).Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. & Vandenbergen, A.-M.
2011 Pragmatic markers. In Discursive Pragmatics, J. Zienkowski, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (eds), 8: 223–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Albano Leoni, F., Cutugno, F., Pettorino, M. & Savy, R.
(eds) 2004 Il parlato italiano. Atti del Convegno Nazionale. Naples: D’Auria Editore.Google Scholar
Al Moubayed, S. & Beskow J.
2010 Prominence detection in Swedish using syllable correlates. In Proceedings of Interspeech, http://​www​.speech​.kth​.se​/prod​/publications​/files​/3477​.pdfGoogle Scholar
d’Alessandro, C. & Mertens, P.
1995 Automatic pitch contour stylization using a model of tonal perception. Computer Speech and Language 9(3): 257–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ananthakrishnan, S. & Narayanan, S. S.
2008 Automatic prosodic event detection using acoustic, lexical, and syntactic evidence. IEEE Transactions on Audio Speech and Language 16(1): 216–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, D. & Wagner, P.
2008 The influence of top-down expectations on the perception of syllable prominence. In Proceedings of the ISCA Workshop on Experimental Linguistics, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​_open​/archive​_papers​/exling2008​/exl8​_025​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Arnold, D., Wagner, P. & Möbius, B.
2011 Comparing word and syllable prominence rated by naïve listeners. In Proceedings of Interspeech, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/archive​_papers​/interspeech​_2011​/i11​_1877​.pdfGoogle Scholar
2012 Obtaining prominence judgments from naïve listeners – Influence of rating scales, linguistic levels and normalization. In Proceedings of Interspeech, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/archive​_papers​/interspeech​_2012​/i12​_2394​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Asher, N. & Lascarides, A.
2003 Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Astésano, C., Besson, M. & Alter, K.
2004 Brain potentials during semantic and prosodic processing in French. Cognitive Brain Research 18 (2): 172–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Astésano, C., Magne, C., Morel, M., Coquillon, A. L., Espesser, R., Besson, M. & Lacheret, A.
2004 Marquage acoustique du focus contrastif non codé syntaxiquement en français. Actes des JEP, hal​.archives​-ouvertes​.fr​/hal​-00250278​/documentGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, M. J. & Heritage, J.
1999 Jefferson’s transcript notation. In The Discourse Reader, A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (eds), 158–166. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aubergé, V.
1991 La synthèse de la parole: Des règles aux lexiques. PhD dissertation, Université Pierre Mendès-France, Grenoble.
Aubergé, V., Lacheret-Dujour, A. & Loevenbruck, H.
(eds) 2003 Actes des Journées Prosodie 2001. Grenoble.Google Scholar
Auchlin, A. & Ferrari, A.
1994 Structuration prosodique, syntaxe, discours: Évidences et problèmes. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 15: 187–126.Google Scholar
Auer, P. & Di Luzio, A.
1992 The Contextualization of Language [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Müller, F.
1999 Language in Time: The Rhythm and Tempo of Spoken Interaction. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Avanzi, M.
2012 L’interface prosodie/syntaxe en français. Dislocations, incises et asyndètes. Bruxelles: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Avanzi, M., Lacheret, A. & Victorri, B.
2008 Analor, a tool for semi-automatic annotation of French prosodic structure. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody , Campinas, Brazil, 119–122.
Avanzi, M., Simon, A-C., Goldman, J-P. & Auchlin, A.
2010a C-PROM. An annotated corpus for French prominence studies. Prosodic prominence: Perceptual and automatic identification. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody , Chicago IL.
2010b C-PROM. Un corpus de français parlé annoté pour l’étude des proéminences. In Actes des 23èmes journées d'étude sur la parole , Mons, Belgique.
Avanzi, M., Goldman, J. P., Lacheret-Dujour, A., Simon, A. C. & Auchlin, A.
2007 Méthodologie et algorithmes pour la détection automatique des syllabes proéminentes dans les corpus de français parlé. Cahiers of French Language Studies 7(1): 2–30.Google Scholar
Avanzi, M., Lacheret-Dujour, A., & Victorri, B.
2010b A Corpus-based Learning Method for Prominence Detection in Spontaneous Speech. In Proceedings of Prosodic Prominence, Speech Prosody Workshop, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/sp2010​/papers​/sp10​_2004​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Avanzi, M., Lacheret-Dujour, A., Obin, N. & Victorri, B.
2011a Vers une modélisation continue de la structure prosodique: le cas des proéminences syllabiques. Journal of French Language Studies 21: 53–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Avanzi, M. & Martin, Ph.
2007 L’intonème conclusive: une fin (de phrase) en soi ?. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 28, 247–258, Université de Genève.Google Scholar
Avanzi, M., Obin, N., Lacheret-Dujour, A. & Victorri, B.
2011b Toward a continuous modeling of French prosodic structure: Using acoustic features to predict prominence location and prominence degree. In Proceedings of Interspeech, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/interspeech​_2011​/i11​_2033​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Avanzi, M., Schwab, S., Dubosson, P. & Goldman, J. Ph.
2012 La prosodie de quelques variétés de français parlées en Suisse romande. In La variation prosodique régionale en français, A. C. Simon (ed.), 89–120. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck/Duculot.Google Scholar
Avanzi, M., Simon, A. C., Goldman, J.-P. & Auchlin, A.
2010a C-PROM: An annotated corpus for French prominence study. In Proceedings of Prosodic Prominence, Speech Prosody Workshop, http://​www​.speechprosody2010​.illinois​.edu​/papers​/102005​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Badino, L., Clark, R. A. J. & Wester, M.
2012 Towards hierarchical prosodic prominence generation in TTS synthesis. In Proceedings of Interspeech, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/interspeech​_2012​/i12​_2398​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bakhtine, M.
1984 Esthétique de la création verbale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bally, C.
1932 Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Berne: Francke.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D., Reber, E. & Selting, M.
(eds) 2010 Prosody in Interaction [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 23] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benzitoun C., Sabio, F., Kahane S., Pietrandrea, P. with the Rhapsodie’s syntax team
2012 Protocole de codage macrosyntaxique. https://​www​.projet​-rhapsodie​.fr​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2017​/04​/Codage​_macro​-oct12​.pdf
Benzitoun, C., Dister, A., Gerdes, K., Kahane, S. & Marlet, R.
2009 Annoter du des textes tu te demandes si c’est syntaxique tu vois. In Proceeding of the 28th International Conference on Lexis and Grammar (LGC), vol. 4, 16–27.Google Scholar
Bartkova, K., Delais-Roussarie, E. & Santiago-Vargas, F.
2012 ProsoTran: A tool to annotate prosodically non-standard data. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody , 55–58.
Baude, O.
(ed.) 2006 Corpus oraux, guide des bonnes pratiques. Orléans & Paris: PUO & CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Beaufort, R. & Ruelle, A.
2006 eLite: Système de synthèse de la parole à orientation linguistique. In Actes de la XXVIe Journées d’Etude sur la Parole , 509–512.
Beckman, M. E.
1997 A typology of spontaneous speech. In Computing Prosody, Y. Sagisaka, N. Cambell & N. Higushi (eds), 7–28. New York NY: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, M. E. & Ayers Elam, G.
1997 Guidelines for ToBI Labelling [Technical report]. Linguistics Department, Ohio State University.
Beckman, M. E., Hirschman, J. & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S.
2005 The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Prosody Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, S-A. Jun (ed.), 9–54. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berrendonner, A.
1990 Pour une macro-syntaxe. Travaux de Linguistique 21: 25–36.Google Scholar
2002 Morpho-syntaxe, pragma-syntaxe, et ambivalences sémantiques. In H. L. Andersen &H. Nølke (eds.), Macro-syntaxe et macrosémantique. Actes du colloque international d’Århus, 23–41. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Beyssade, Cl. & Marandin, J.-M.
2006 The speech act assignment problem revisited: Disentangling speaker’s commitment from speaker’s call on addressee. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6: 37–68.Google Scholar
Béguelin, M-J., Avanzi, M. & Corminboeuf, G.
(eds) 2010 La parataxe, Tome 1: Entre dépendance et intégration; Tome 2: Structures, marquages et exploitation discursive. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bejček, E., Hajičová, E., Hajič, J., Jínová, P., Kettnerová, V., KoláĜová, V., Mikulová, M., Mírovský, J., Nedoluzhko, A., Panevová, J., Poláková, L., Ševčíková, M., Štěpánek, J. & Zikánová, Š.
2013 Prague Dependency Treebank 3.0. Data/software. Prague: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, MFF, ÚFAL.Google Scholar
Belião, J.
2012 Création d’un multi-arbre à partir d’un texte balisé. Actes de la conférence jointe JEP-TALN-RECITAL 3: 109–123.Google Scholar
2016 How Prosody and Syntax are Mapping: A Study of Synchronization and Congruence. PhD dissertation, Université Paris Nanterre.
Benzitoun, C., Dister, A., Gerdes, K., Kahane, S., Pietrandrea, P., Sabio, F. & Debaisieux, J. M.
2010 tu veux couper là faut dire pourquoi. Propositions pour une segmentation syntaxique du français parlé. In Actes du 2e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française (CMLF) . EDP Sciences.
Berrendonner, A.
2011 Unités syntaxiques et unités prosodiques. Langue Française 2: 81–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Conrad, S.
2009 Register, Genre and Style. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bilger, M.
2000 Petite typologie des conventions de transcription de l’oral. Quelques aspects pratiques et théoriques. In Linguistique sur corpus. Études et réflexions [Cahiers de l’Université de Perpignan 31], M. Bilger (ed.), 77–92. Pergignan: University of Perpignan.Google Scholar
Bird, S. & Liberman, M.
2001 A formal framework for linguistic annotation. Speech Communication 33(1–2): 23–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C.
2002a Phrase et construction verbale. Verbum 1–2: 7–22.Google Scholar
2002b Réflexions sur les transcriptions de corpus de français parlé. Revue Parole 22–24: 91–117.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. & Jeanjean, C.
1986 Le français parlé. Transcription et édition. Paris: Didier Érudition.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. & Willems, D.
2007 Un nouveau regard sur les verbes faibles. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 102(1): 217–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., Bilger, M., Rouget, C. & Van den Eynde, K.
1990 Le français parlé – études grammaticales. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., Borel, B., Deulofeu, J., Durand, J., Giacomi, A., Loufrani, C., Meziane, B. & Pazery, N.
1979 Des grilles pour le français parlé. Recherches sur le Français Parlé 2: 163–205.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D.
1987 Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Cl.
1995 Le semblable et le dissemblable en syntaxe. Recherches sur le français parlé 13: 7–33.Google Scholar
1997 Approches de la langue parlée en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
2003a Le recouvrement de la syntaxe et de la macrosyntaxe. In Scarano, Antonietta (ed.), Macro-syntaxe et pragmatique, Roma: Bulzoni, 53–75.Google Scholar
2003b La naissance des syntagmes dans les hésitations et répétitions du parler. In Le sens et la mesure. De la pragmatique à la métrique. Hommages à Benoît de Cornulier, J-L. Aroui (ed.), 153–169. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Cl. & Jeanjean, C.
1986 Le français parlé. Editions et transcription. Paris: Didier Erudition.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Cl., Bilger, M., Rouget, C. & Van den Eynde, K.
1990a Le français parlé – études grammaticales. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D.
2013 Praat, www​.fon​.hum​.uva​.nl​/praat/
2013 Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.10. http://​www​.praat​.org/Google Scholar
Bohnet, B.
2010 Very high accuracy and fast dependency parsing is not a contradiction. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 89–97. Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
1968 Aspects of Language. New York NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanich.Google Scholar
Bolly, C. & Degand, L.
2013 Have you seen what I mean? From verbal constructions to discourse structuring markers. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14(2): 210–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bonvino, E., Frascarelli, M. & Pietrandrea, P.
2008 Semantica, sintassi e prosodia di alcune espressioni avverbiali nel parlato spontaneo. In Atti del congresso internazionale, la cominicazione parlata, M. Pettorino, A. Giannini, M. Vallone & R. Savy (eds.), 565–607.Google Scholar
Bonvino, E., Masini, F. & Pietrandrea, P.
2009 List constructions: A semantic network. Grammars in construction(s). Paper delivered at La 3ème Conférence Internationale AFLiCo Conference , Paris. http://​francescamasini​.caissa​.it​/Presentations​_files​/parigi​_draft​.pdf
Boullier, P. & Sagot, B.
2005 Analyse syntaxique profonde à grande échelle: SxLFG. Traitement Automatique des Langues 46(2): 65–89.Google Scholar
Bourigault, D., Fabre, C., Frérot, C., Jacques, M-P. & Ozdowska, S.
2005 Syntex, analyseur syntaxique de corpus. In Actes de la Conférence sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN) , Dourdan, France.
Bordal, G.
2012 Prosodie et contact de langues : le cas du système tonal du français centrafricain. PhD Thesis, Oslo University.
Bove, R.
2008 Analyse syntaxique automatique de l’oral: étude des disfluences. PhD Thesis, Université de Provence.
Branca-Rosoff, S., Fleury, S., Lefeuvre, F. & Pires, M.
2012 Discours sur la ville. Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien des années 2000 (CFPP200). http://​cfpp200​.univ​-paris3​.frGoogle Scholar
Brants, Th.
2000 Inter-annotator agreement for a German newspaper corpus. In Proceedings of Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) . <http://​lrec​-conf​.org​/proceedings​/lrec2000/>
Braunschweiler, N.
2005 The Prosodizer – Automatic prosodic annotations of speech synthesis databases. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody Dresden , Germany. http://​isle​.illinois​.edu​/sprosig​/sp2006/
Brazil, D.
1997 The Communicative Role of Intonation in English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Brinton, J. L.
1996 Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broeder, D., Schonefeld, O., Trippel, T., van Uytvanck, D. & Witt, A.
2011 A pragmatic approach to XML interoperability – the component metadata infrastructure (CMDI). In Proceedings of Balisage: The Markup Conference. Balisage Series on Markup Technologies , Vol. 7.
Broeder, D., van Uytvanck, D., Gavrilidou, M., Trippel, T. & Windhouwer, M.
2012 Standardizing a component metadata infrastructure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) , 1387–1390.
Buchholz, S. & Marsi, E.
2006 CoNLL-X shared task on multilingual dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, 149–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buhmann, J., Caspers, J., van Heuven, V., Hoekstra, H., Martens, J-P. & Swerts, M.
2002 Annotation of prominent words, prosodic boundaries and segmental lengthening by non expert transcribers in the Spoken Dutch Corpus. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) , 779–785.
Calhoun, S., Carletta, J., Brenier, J. M., Mayo, N., Jurafsky, D., Steedman, M. & Beaver, D.
2010 NXT-format Switchboard Corpus: A rich resource for investigating the syntax, semantics, pragmatics and prosody of dialogue. Language Resources and Evaluation 44(4): 387–419. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Camacho, A.
2007 SWIPE: A Sawtooth Waveform Inspired Pitch Estimator for Speech and Music. PhD dissertation, University of Florida.
Campione, E. & Véronis, J.
2001 Etiquetage prosodique semi-automatique des corpus oraux. In Actes de la Conférence sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN) , 123–132.
Campione, E., Hirst, D. & Véronis, J.
2000a Automatic stylisation and modelling of French and Italian intonation. In Intonation: Analysis, Modelling and Technology, A. Botinis (ed.), 185–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
2000b Automatic stylisation and symbolic coding of F0: Implementations of the INTSINT model. In Intonation: Research and Applications, A. Botinis (ed.), 185–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Campione, E. & Véronis, J.
2004 Pauses et hésitations en français spontané. Actes des JEP, http://​afcp​-parole​.org​/doc​/Archives​_JEP​/2004​_XXVe​_JEP​_Fes​/actes​/jep2004​/Campione​-Veronis​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Campione, E., Hirst, D. & Véronis, J.
2000 Automatic stylisation and symbolic coding of F0: Implementations of the INTSINT Model. In Model. Intonation. Research and Applications, 185–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Candito, M-H.
1996 A principle-based hierarchical representation of LTAGs. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Computational Linguistics, Vol. 1, Association for Computational Linguistics (ed.), 194–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Candito, M-H. & Seddah, D.
2012 Le corpus sequoia: Annotation syntaxique et exploitation pour l’adaptation d’analyseur par pont lexical. In Actes de la conférence sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN) . http://​aclweb​.org​/anthology​/F12​-5
Cerisara, C. & Gardent, C.
2011 The JSafran platform for semi-automatic speech processing. In Proceedings of 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association – Interspeech , 3241–3244.
Cerisara, C., Gardent, C. & Anderson, C.
2010 Building and exploiting a dependency treebank for French radio broadcast. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT9) , Tartu, Estonia, 31–42.
Chafe, W.
1994 Discourse, Consciousness and Time. The Flow and Placement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1995 Adequacy, user-friendliness, and practicality in transcribing. In Spoken English on Computer. Transcription, Mark-up and Application, G. Leech, G. Myers & J. Thomas (eds), 54–61. New York NY: Longman.Google Scholar
1998 Language and the flow of thought. In The New Psychology of Language, M. Tomasello (ed.), 93–111. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Charolles, M., Le Goffic, P. & Morel, M.-A.
2002 Y-a-t il une syntaxe au-delà de la phrase. Verbum, Nancy.Google Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C. & Warren, M.
2008 Discourse Intonation Systems. A Corpus-driven Study of Discourse Intonation The Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English (Prosodic) [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 32]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M.
1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Cinque, G.
1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Clément, L., Lang, B. & Sagot, B.
2004 Morphology based automatic acquisition of large-coverage lexica. In Proceedings of Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) , 1841–1844.
Cleveland, W. & Devlin, S.
1988 Locally weighted regression: An approach to regression analysis by local fitting. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83(403): 596–610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J.
1960 A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20: 37–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J., Mo, Y. & Baek, S.
2010a The role of syntactic structure in guiding prosody perception with ordinary listeners and everyday speech. Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 1141–1177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J., Mo, Y. & Hasegawa-Johnson, M.
2010b Signal-based and expectation-based factors in the perception of prosodic prominence. Laboratory Phonology 1: 425–452.Google Scholar
Cole, J., Hasegawa-Johnson, M., Shih, Ch., Lee, E-Ky., Heejin, K, Mo, Y. & Yoon, T. I.
2005 Prosodic parallelism as a cue to repetition and hesitation disfluency. In Proceedings of DISS (An ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop), www​.isle​.illinois​.edu​/sst​/pubs​/2005​/cole05diss​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cole, J., Mo, Y. & Hasegawa-Johnson, M.
2010 Signal-based and expectation-based factors in the perception of prosodic prominence. Laboratory Phonology 1(2): 425–452.Google Scholar
Cook, G.
1995 Theoretical issues: Transcribing the untranscribable. In Spoken English on Computer. Transcription, Mark-up and Application, G. Leech, G. Myers & J. Thomas (eds), 35–53. New York NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Core Team, R
2016 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
2004 Prosody and sequence organization: The case of new beginnings. In Sound Patterns in Interaction [Typological Studies in Language 62], E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (eds), 335–376. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Intonation and discourse: Current views from within. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (eds), 13–34. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M.
1996 Prosody in Conversation, Interactional Studies. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cresti, E.
2000 Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
Cresti, E. & Moneglia, M.
(eds.) 2005 C-ORAL-ROM. Integrated reference corpora for spoken Romance languages.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cresti, E.
1994 Information and intonational patterning. In Accent, Intonation and Modèles Phonologiques, P. Martin, B. G. Ferguson & H. Gezundhajt (eds), 99–140. Toronto: Edition Mélodie.Google Scholar
2000 Corpus di italiano parlato. Florence: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
2005 Notes on lexical strategy, structural strategies and surface clause indexes in the C-ORAL-ROM spoken corpora. In Cresti & Moneglia (eds), 209–256.Google Scholar
Cresti, E. & Moneglia, M.
(eds) 2005 C-ORAL-ROM. Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 15]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, S.
2005 Subordination. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A. & Ladd, B.
1983 Prosody: Models and Measurements. Heidelberg: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cutugno, F. & Voghera, M.
2004 AN.ANA.S.: Analisi sintattica e annotazione XML a contatto. In Proceedings of the National Conference ‘Il parlato Italiano’ , CD-Rom. Napoli: D’Auria Editore.
Crowdy, S.
1995 The BNC spoken corpus. In Spoken English on computer. Transcription, mark-up and application, G. Leech, G. Myers & J. Thomas (eds), 224–234. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Crystal, D.
2003 A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
de Cheveigné, A. & Kawahara, H.
2002 YIN, a fundamental frequency estimator for speech and music. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111(4): 1917–1930. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 YIN, a fundamental frequency estimator for speech and music. JASA 111(4): 1917–1930. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Degand, L., Cornillie, B. & Pietrandrea, P.
2013 Modal particles and discourse markers: Two sides of the same coin? Introduction. In Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and description, L. Degand, B. Cornillie & P. Pietrandrea (eds.), 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delattre, P.
1938 L’accent final en français : accent d’intensité, accent de hauteur, accent de durée. French Review 12: 141–145.Google Scholar
Diewald, G.
2013 Same but different – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and description, L. Degand, B. Cornillie & P. Pietrandrea (eds.), 19–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dines, E.
1980 Variation in discourse – ‘and stuff like that’. Language in Society 9: 13–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dister, A.
2007 Étiquetage morphosyntaxique de corpus textuels oraux. Le cas de la banque de données VALIBEL. PhD Thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain.
de la Clergerie, É.
2005a From metagrammars to factorized TAG/TIG parsers. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Parsing Technology , 190–191. Crossref
2005b DyALog: A tabular logic programming based environment for NLP. In Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Constraint Solving and Language Processing , Barcelona, Spain.
2013 Improving a symbolic parser through partially supervised learning. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Parsing Technologies (IWPT) , Nara, Japan.
de La Clergerie, É., Sagot, B., Nicolas, L. & Guénot, M-L.
2009 FRMG: l’Évolution d’un analyseur syntaxique TAG du français. Communication à la journée ATALA: Quels analyseurs syntaxiques pour le français? http://​alpage​.inria​.fr​/iwpt09​/atala​.fr​.htmlGoogle Scholar
de La Clergerie, É., Hamon, O., Mostefa, D., Ayache, C., Paroubek, P. & Vilnat, A.
2008 Passage: From French parser evaluation to large sized treebank. In Proceedings of Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC’08) . http://​www​.lrec​-conf​.org​/proceedings​/lrec2008/
Del Monte, G.. et al.
2007 Monitoring Notch1 activity in development: Evidence for a feedback regulatory loop. Developmental Dynamics: An Official Publication of the American Association of Anatomists 236(9): 2594–2614. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Debaisieux, J-M.
2008 Linguistique descriptive et didactique des langues. D’une cohabitation heureuse à une collaboration effective. Mémoire d’Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, Université Paris-Nanterre.
2013 Quelques problèmes posés par la notion de subordination. In Analyses linguistiques sur corpus. Subordination et insubordination en français, J-M. Debaisieux (ed.), 36–60. Paris: Hermès Lavoisier.Google Scholar
Debaisieux, J-M., Benzitoun, C. & Deulofeu, H. J.
2016 Le projet ORFEO: Un corpus d'études pour le français contemporain. Revue Corpus 15: 91–114.Google Scholar
Degand, L. & Simon, A-C.
2005 ‘My brother, he drives like crazy’. Contextual salience, linguistic marking and discourse organisation in spoken French. In Salience in Discourse: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Discourse, M. Stede, C. Chiarcos, M. Grabski & L. Lagerwerf (eds), 43–52. Munster: Nordus Publikationen.Google Scholar
2009a Mapping prosody and syntax as discourse strategies: How basic discourse units vary across genres. In Where Prosody Meets Pragmatics: Research at the Interface, A. Wichmann, D. Barth-Weingarten & N. Dehé (eds), 79–105. Emerald: Bingley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009b On identifying basic discourse units in speech: Theoretical and empirical issues. Discours 4. https://​journals​.openedition​.org​/discours​/5852Google Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, E.
2005 Phonologie et Grammaire: Etudes et modélisation des interfaces prosodiques. Mémoire d’Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, Université de Toulouse-le Mirail.
Delais-Roussarie, E. & Yoo, H-Y.
2011 Transcrire la prosodie: Un préalable à l’échange et à l’analyse des données. In La prosodie Française: Regards croisés sur la prosodie du français: Des données a la modélisation, M. Avanzi & E. Delais (eds), 13–37. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, E., Yoo, H-Y. & Post, B.
2011 Quand frontières prosodiques et frontières syntaxiques se rencontrent. Langue Française 170(2): 29–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, E., Post, B., Avanzi, M., Buthke, C., Di Cristo, A., Feldhausen, I., Sun-Ah, J., Martin, P., Meisenburg, T., Rialland, A., Sichel-Bazin, R. & Yoo, H-Y.
2015 Intonational phonology of French: Developing a ToBI system for French. In Intonation in Romance, Sonia Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds), 63–100. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delattre, P.
1966 Les dix intonations de base du français. The French Review 40(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
DELIC
2003 Présentation du Corpus de Référence du français parlé. Recherches sur le Français Parlé 18.Google Scholar
Dell, F., Hirst, D. & Vergnaud, J-R.
(eds) 1984 Forme sonore du langage, structure des représentations en phonologie.Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Delmonte, R., Bristot, A. & Tonelli, S.
2007 VIT – Venice Italian Treebank: Syntactic and quantitative features. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories , vol. 1, 43–54.
Desagulier, G.
2017 Corpus Linguistics and Statistics with R. New York NY: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deulofeu, H. J.
1999 Recherches sur les formes de la prédication dans les énoncés assertifs en français contemporain (le cas des énoncés introduits par le morphème que). PhD dissertation, Université Paris 3.
2003 L’approche macrosyntaxique en syntaxe: Un nouveau modèle de rasoir d’Occam contre les notions inutiles. Scolia 16: 77–95.Google Scholar
2011 Peut-on établir un système de ponctuation des transcriptions de textes oraux linguistiquement fondé? Les propositions du groupe Rhapsodie. Langue Française 4: 115–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deulofeu, H. J., Dufort, L., Gerdes, K., Kahane, S. & Pietrandrea, P.
2010 Depends on what the French say: Spoken corpus annotation with and beyond syntactic function. In The Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW IV) , 274–281. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Di Cristo, A.
1998 Intonation in French. In Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages, D. Hirst & A. Di Cristo (eds), 195–218. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2016 Les musiques du français parlé. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T.
1977 Connectives in text grammar. In Text and Discourse Construction, Empirical Aspects. Theoretical Approaches, J. S. Petőfi (ed.), 11–63. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C.
1997 The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dilley, L., Breen, M., Gibson, E., Bolivar, M. & Kraemer, J.
2006 A comparison of inter-coder reliability for two systems of prosodic transcriptions: RaP (Rhythm and Pitch) and ToBI (Tones and Break Indices). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing , Pittsburgh PA.
Dister, A.
2012 Les conventions de transcriptions du Corpus Rhapsodie. http://​projet​-rhapsodie​.frGoogle Scholar
Dister, A., Francard, M., Geron, G., Hambye, P., Simon, A-C. & Wilmet, R.
2006 Conventions de transcription régissant les corpus de la banque de données VALIBEL. Working paper, Université catholique de Louvain.
Doukhan, D., Rilliard, A., Rosset, S., & d’Alessandro, C.
2012 Modelling pause duration as a function of contextual length. In Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, 659–662Google Scholar
Dobrovoljc, K. & Nivre, J.
2016 The Universal Dependencies Treebank of Spoken Slovenian. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16) , 1566–1573.
Du Bois, J. W.
1991 Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics 1(1): 71–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S. & Paolino, D.
1993 Outline of discourse transcription. In Talking Data. Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (eds), 45–89. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O.
1980 Les mots du discours. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Durand, J., Laks, B. & Lyche, C.
2009 Le projet PFC (phonologie du français contemporain): Une source de données primaires structurées. In Phonologie, variation et accents du français, J. Durand, B. Laks & C. Lyche (eds), 19–61. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. A.
1993 Principles and contrasting systems of discourse transcription. In Talking Data. Transcription and Coding in Discourse Reasearch, J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (eds), 3–31. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
1995 Principles and alternative systems in the transcription, coding and mark-up of spoken discourse. In Spoken English on Computer. Transcription, Mark-up and Application, G. Leech, G. Myers & J. Thomas (eds), 19–34. New York NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Ehlich, K.
1993 HIAT: A transcription system for discourse data. In Talking Data. Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (eds), 123–166. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Eriksson, A., Grabe, E. & Traunmüller, H.
2002 Perception of Syllable Prominence by Listeners with and without Competence in the Tested Language. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​_open​/sp2002​/sp02​_275​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Eshkol-Taravella, I., Baude, O., Maurel, D., Hriba, L., Dugua, C. & Tellier, I.
2011 Un grand corpus oral ‘disponible’: Le corpus d’Orléans 1968–2012. Ressources Linguistiques Libres TAL 52(3): 17–46.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A.
1922 On the interpretation of χ2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of P. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 85(1): 87–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fleury, S. & Zimina, M.
2014 Trameur: A framework for annotated text corpora exploration. In Proceedings of COLING (International Conference on Computational Linguistics), System Demonstrations , Dublin, Ireland, 57–61.
Fleiss, J. L. & Cohen, J.
. 1971 The equivalence of weighted Kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement 33: 613–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fouché, P.
1956 Traité de prononciation française. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Frost, D.
2011 Stress and cues to relative prominence in English and French: A perceptual study. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41: 67–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, A. H.
1932 The Theory of Speech and Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gavaldà, M.
2004 SOUP: A parser for realworld spontaneous speech. In New Developments in Parsing Technology, H. Bunt, J. Carroll & G. Satta (eds), 339–350. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gendrot, C., Gerdes, K. & Adda-Decker, M.
2016 Détection automatique d’une hiérarchie prosodique dans un corpus de parole journalistique. Langue Française 3: 123–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geoffrois, E.
1995 Extraction robuste de paramètres prosodiques pour la reconnaissance de la parole. PhD dissertation, Université Paris XI Orsay.
Gerdes, K.
2006 Sur la non-équivalence des représentations syntaxiques: Comment la représentation en X-barre nous amène au concept du mouvement. Cahiers de Grammaire 30: 175–192.Google Scholar
2013 Collaborative dependency annotation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling) , 88–97.
Gerdes, K. & Kahane, S.
2009 Speaking in piles. Paradigmatic annotation of a spoken French corpus. In Proceedings of The Corpus Linguistics Conference , Liverpool. http://​ucrel​.lancs​.ac​.uk​/publications​/cl2009
2011, Defining dependencies (and constituents). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling) , Barcelona, 17–27.
2013 Defining dependencies (and constituents). In Computational Dependency Theory [Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 258], K. Gerdes, E. Hajičová & L. Wanner (eds), 1–25. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
2015 Non-constituent coordination and other coordinative constructions as dependency graphs. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling) , Uppsala, 101–110.
2017 Trois schémas d’annotation syntaxique en dépendance pour un même corpus de français oral: Le cas de la macrosyntaxe. In Actes de la 24e Conférence sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues (TALN), Atelier sur les corpus annotés du français (ACor4French) , Orléans, 1–9.
Gilquin, G. & De Cock, S.
(eds) 2013 Errors and Disfluencies in Spoken Corpora [Benjamins Current Topics 52]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J.
2012 The Interactive Stance. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J., Fernández, R. & Schlangen, D.
2014 Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves. Semantics & Pragmatics 7(9): 1–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, J-P.
2011 EasyAlign: An automatic phonetic alignment tool under Praat. In Proceedings of Interspeech’11, 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association , 3233–3236.
Goldman, J-P., Auchlin, A., Roekhaut, S., Simon, A-C. & Avanzi, M.
2010 Prominence perception and accent detection in French. A corpus-based account. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010 , Chicago IL. http://​speechprosody2010​.illinois​.edu/
Goldsmith, J.
1990 Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldman, J. Ph., Auchlin, A., Roekhaut, S., Simon, A. C. & Avanzi, M.
2010b Prominence perception and accent detection in French. A corpus-based account. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/sp2012​/sp12​_266​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Goldman, J. Ph., Avanzi, M. & Auchlin, A.
2010a Hesitations in Read vs Spontaneous French in a multi-genre corpus. In Proceedings of DiSS-LPSS, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/diss​_lpss​_2010​/papers​/dl10​_101​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Goldman, J. Ph., Avanzi, M, Simon, A. C. & Auchlin, A.
2012 A continuous prominence score based on acoustic features. In Proceedings of Interspeech, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/interspeech​_2012​/i12​_0106​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Goldman, J. Ph., Avanzi, M., Simon, A. C., Lacheret-Dujour, A. & Auchlin, A.
2007 A methodology for the automatic detection of perceived prominent syllables in Spoken French. In Proceedings of Interspeech, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/archive​_papers​/interspeech​_2007​/i07​_0098​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Groupe DE Fribourg
2012 Grammaire de la période. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Guénot, M.-L.
2006 La coordination considérée comme un entassement paradigmatique: description, représentation et intégration. In Proceedings of TALN, 178–187.Google Scholar
Gravier, G., Bonastre, J. F., Galliano, S., Geoffrois, E., Tait, K. M. & Choukri, K.
2004 ESTER, une campagne d’évaluation des systèmes d’indexation d’émissions radiophoniques. In Actes des XXVes Journées d’Étude sur la Parole (JEP) . http://​www​.afcp​-parole​.org​/doc​/Archives​_JEP​/2004​_XXVe​_JEP​_Fes​/index​.html
Grice, M.
2006 Intonation. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 5, 2nd edn, K. Brown (ed.), 778–788. Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. & Berenz, N.
1993 Transcribing conversational exchanges. In Talking Data. Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (eds), 91–120. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. & Thompson, S.
(eds) 1988 Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hajič, J., Panevová, J., Buráňová, E., Urešová, Z. & Bémová, A.
1999 Annotations at analytical level – Instructions for annotators, on-line technical report. https://​ufal​.mff​.cuni​.cz​/pdt2​.0​/doc​/manuals​/en​/a​-layer​/html​/index​.html>
Hajič, J.
1998 Building a Syntactically annotated corpus: The Prague Dependency Treebank. In Issues of Valency and Meaning, 106–132, Karolinum, Praha.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
1989 Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
‘t Hart, J.
1976 Psychoacoustic backgrounds of pitch contour stylisation. IPO Annual Progress Report 11: 11–19.Google Scholar
1981 Differential sensitivity to pitch distance, particularly in speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69(3): 811–821. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
‘t Hart, J., Collier, R. & Cohen, A.
1990 In Perceptual Study of Intonation: An Experimental-Phonetic Approach to Speech Melody. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hermes, D.
2006 Stylization of pitch contours. In Methods in Empirical Prosody Research, S. Sudhoff, D. Lenertova, R. Meyer, S. Pappert, P. Augurzky, I. Mleinek & J. Schließer (eds), 29–61. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, E. W., Bartels, J. Kawata,Y, Kordoni, V. & Telljohann, H.
, 2000 The VERBMOBIL treebanks. In Proceedings KONVENS 2000 Sprachkommunikation, W. Zuehlke & E. G. Schukat-Talamazzini (eds.), ITG-Fachbericht 161, 107–112. VDE Verlag.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, E., Bartels, J., Kawata, Y., Kordoni, V. & Telljohann, H.
2000a The VERBMOBIL Treebanks. In Proceedings of KONVENS 2000 Sprachkommunikation, W. Zuehlke & E. G. Schukat-Talamazzini (eds). ITG-Fachbericht 161: 107–112.Google Scholar
2000b The Tubingen Treebanks for Spoken German, English, and Japanese. In Verbmobil: Foundations of Speech-to-Speech Translation, W. Wahlster (ed.), 552–576. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Hirst, D. J.
2005 Form and function in the representation of speech prosody. Speech Communication 46: 334–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 The analysis by synthesis of speech melody: From data to models. Journal of Speech Science 1 (1): 55–83.Google Scholar
Hirst, D. J. & Di Cristo, A.
1998 A survey of intonation systems. In Intonation Systems. A Survey of Twenty Languages, D. Hirst & A. Di Cristo (eds), 1–44. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hirst, D. & Espesser, R.
1993 Automatic modelling of fundamental frequency using a quadratic spline function. Travaux de l’Institut de Phonétique d’Aix 15: 71–85.Google Scholar
Hirst, D. J., Nicolas, P. & Espesser, R.
1991 Coding the F0 of a continuous text in French: An experimental approach. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences , Aix-en-Provence, France, 234–237.
Honnibal, M. & Johnson, M.
2014 Joint incremental disfluency detection and dependency parsing. Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics 2: 131–142.Google Scholar
House, D.
1990 Tonal Perception in Speech. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
1995 The influence of silence on perceiving the preceding tonal contour. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 13 , Vol. 1, Stockholm, 122–125.
1996 Differential perception of tonal contours through the syllable. In Proceedings of International Conference of Spoken Language Processing , Philadelphia PA, 2048–2051.
House, J.
2006 Constructing a context with intonation. In Proceedings of the Prosody and Pragmatics Conference , Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1542–1558. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A.
2004 Are determiners heads? Functions of language 11(1): 7–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Husson, F., Josse, J., Pages, J. & Lê, S.
2009 FactoMineR, An R package dedicated for multivariate analysis. http://​factominer​.free​.fr​/more​/article​_FactoMineR​.pdf
Hyman, L.
2006 Word-prosodic typology. Phonology 23: 225–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
IBM Corp. Released
2015 IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
Ito, K. & Speer, S. R.
2008 Effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language 58(2): 541–553. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, A., Oepen, S., Øvrelid, L. & Flickinger, D.
2012 Who did what to whom? A contrastive study of syntacto-semantic dependencies. In Proceedings of the 6th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW VI), ACL, 2–11.Google Scholar
Izre’el, S., Mello, H., Panunzi, A. & Raso, T.
(eds.) Forthcoming A Corpus-driven Cross-linguistic Approach to Spontaneous Spoken Communication Amsterdam John Benjamins
Jackendoff, R.
1971 Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 21–35.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G.
1991 List construction as a task and resource. In Interactional Competence, G. Psathas (ed.), 63–92, New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1977 X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 2]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jeon, J-H. & Liu, Y.
2012 Automatic prosodic event detection using a novel labeling and selection method in co-training. Speech Communication 54: 445–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Ch. & Tøndering, J.
2005 Choosing a scale for measuring perceived prominence. In Proceedings of Interspeech, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/interspeech​_2005​/i05​_2385​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
1924 The Philosophy of Grammar. London: G. Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. & Jørgensen, F.
2006 Annotating and parsing spoken language. In Treebanking for Discourse and Speech [Copenhagen Studies in Language 32], P. Juel Henrichsen & P. Rossen Skadhauge (eds), 83–104. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, A. K., Levy, L. S. & Takahashi, M.
1975 Tree adjunct grammars. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 10(1): 136–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jun, S. A.
2006 Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Prosodic Typology, II: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, 520–539. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jun, S. A. & Fougeron, C.
2000 A Phonological Model of French Intonation. In Intonation: Analysis, Modelling and Technology, A. Botinis (ed.), 209–242. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
2002 The realizations of the accentual phrase in French intonation. In special issue on Intonation in the Romance Languages, José Hualde (ed.). Pobus 14: 147–172.Google Scholar
Kahane, S.
2001 Grammaires de dépendance formelles et théorie Sens-Texte, Tutorial. In Actes de la conférence sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN) , Vol. 2, 17–76.
2002 A propos de la position syntaxique des mots qu- . In Mophèmes en qu-, P. Le Goffic (ed.), Verbum XXIV(4): 399–434.Google Scholar
2008 Les unités de la syntaxe et de la sémantique: Le cas du français. In Actes du 1er Congrès de Linguistique Française (CMLF), 2531–2550.
Kahane, S. & Mazziotta, N.
2015 Syntactic polygraphs. A formalism extending both constituency and dependency. In Proceedings of Mathematics of Language (MoL) , Chicago IL, 152–164.
Kahane, S. & Pietrandrea, P.
2009 Les parenthétiques comme ‘Unités Illocutoires Associées’: Une perspective macrosyntaxique. In Les verbes parenthétiques: Hypotaxe, parataxe ou parenthèse?, M. Avanzi & J. Glikman (ed.). Linx 61: 49–70.Google Scholar
2012 Types d’entassement en français. In Actes du Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française (CMLF 2012) , 1809–1828.
Kahane, S., Deulofeu, H. J., Gerdes, K., Nasr, A. & Valli, A.
2017 Annotation micro- et macrosyntaxique manuelle et automatique de français parlé. Paper delivered at Journée FLORAL , Orléans.
Kahane, S.
2012 De l’analyse en grille à la modélisation des entassements. In S. Caddeo, M.-N. Roubaud, M. Rouquier & F. Sabio (eds.), Penser les langues avec Claire Blanche-Benveniste, 101–116, Presses de l’université de Provence.Google Scholar
Kalinli, O. & Narayanan, S.
2009 Prominence detection using auditory attention cues and task-dependent high level information. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 17(5): 1009–1024. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, E.
1991 The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. Londres: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S.
1975 French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G.
2003 Faut-il dire adieu à la phrase ? L’information Grammaticale 98: 17–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, G., Wichmann, A. & Alderson, P.
(eds) 1996 Working with Speech: Perspectives on Research into the Lancaster/IBM Spoken English Corpus. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W.
2001 Langage parlé et langage écrit. Lexicon der Romanistischen Linguistik 1(2): 584–627.Google Scholar
Kochanski, G., Grabe, E., Coleman, J. & Rosner, B.
2005 Loudness predicts prominence: Fundamental frequency lends little. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 118: 1038–1054. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krause, T. & Zeldes, A.
2016 ANNIS3: A new architecture for generic corpus query and visualization. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 31(1): 118–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, W. & Wallis, W. A.
1952 Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 47(260): 583–621. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lacheret, A., Kahane, S., Beliao, J., Dister, A., Gerdes, K., Goldman, J.-P., Obin, N., Pietrandrea, P. & Tchobanov, A.
2014 Rhapsodie: A prosodic-syntactic treebank for Spoken French. In Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), http://​www​.lrec​-conf​.org​/proceedings​/lrec2014​/summaries​/381​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Lacheret, A., Simon, A. C., Goldman, J. P. & Avanzi, M.
(2013) Prominence perception and accent detection in French: From phonetic processing to grammatical analysis. Language Sciences 39: 95–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lacheret-Dujour, A. & Simon, A. C.
2013 Annotation prosodique et bases de données phonologiques : approche basée sur l’usage. In La phonologie du français : des normes aux périphéries, J. Durand, G. Kristoffersen & B. Laks (eds.), 301–326. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Nanterre.Google Scholar
Lacheret-Dujour, A.
2003 La prosodie des circonstants. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
2007 Prosodie du discours, une interface à multiples facettes. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française, Interface Discours-Prosodie 28: 7–40.Google Scholar
Lacheret-Dujour, A. & Beaugendre, F.
1999 La prosodie du français. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Lacheret-Dujour, A. & Morel, M.
2011 Modéliser la prosodie pour la synthèse à partir du texte: Perspectives sémantico-pragmatiques. In Au commencement était le verbe. Syntaxe, sémantique et cognition, Mélanges en l’honneur du Professeur Jacques François, F. Neveu, P. Blumenthal & N. Le Querler (eds), 299–326. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lacheret-Dujour, A. & Victorri, B.
2002 La période intonative comme unité d’analyse pour l'étude du français parlé: Modélisation et enjeux linguistiques. In Verbum n°1–2 : Y-a-t-il une syntaxe au-delà de la phrase? M. Charolles, P. Le Goffic & M. A. Morel (eds), 55–72.Google Scholar
Lacheret-Dujour A., Obin, N. & Avanzi, M.
2010 Design and evaluation of shared prosodic annotation for spontaneous French speech: From expert knowledge to non-expert annotation. In Proceedings of the 4th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAWIV) , 265–273. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.
Ladd, D. R.
2008 Intonational Phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lafon, P.
1980 Sur la variabilité de la fréquence des formes dans un corpus. Mots 1: 127–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. R. & Koch, G.
1977 The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1): 159–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lascarides, A. & Asher, N.
2007 Segmented discourse representation theory: Dynamic semantics with discourse structure. In Computing Meaning, vol. 3, H. Bunt & R. Muskens (eds.), 87–124. Springer.Google Scholar
Laver, J.
1980 The Phonetic Description of Voice Quality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lebart, L. & Salem, A.
1994 Statistique textuelle. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Lebaud, D., Paulin, C. & Ploog, K.
(eds) 2006 Constructions verbales et production de sens. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté.Google Scholar
Lecerf, Y.
1961 Une représentation algébrique de la structure des phrases dans diverses langues naturelles. Paris: C. R. Acad. Sc.Google Scholar
Lefeuvre, F. & Moline, E.
(eds) 2011 Unités syntaxiques et unités prosodiques. Langue Française 170. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Levelt, W.
1983 Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 14(1): 41–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Llisterri, J.
1996 EAGLES. Preliminary Recommendations on Spoken Texts. http://​www​.ilc​.cnr​.it​/EAGLES96​/spokentx​/spokentx​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Maingueneau, D.
1996 Les termes clés de l’analyse du discours. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Mann, W. & Thompson, S.
1988 Rethorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8(3): 243–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 Rethorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8(3): 243–281.Google Scholar
Marcus, M. P., Marcinkiewicz, M. A. & Santorini, B.
1993 Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 19(2): 313–330.Google Scholar
Marneffe, M-C. & Manning, C. D.
2008 Stanford Typed Dependencies Manual. http://​nlp​.stanford​.edu​/downloads​/dependencies​_manual​.pdf (revised in November 2013).
2008 Stanford Typed Dependencies Manual. http://​nlp​.stanford​.edu​/downloads​/dependencies​_manual​.pdf (revised in November 2013).Google Scholar
Martin, P.
1975 Analyse phonologique de la phrase française. Linguistics 146: 35–67.Google Scholar
1978 Questions de phonosyntaxe et de phonosémantique en français. Lingvisticae Investigationes 2: 93–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1981 Extraction de la fréquence fondamentale par intercorrélation avec une fonction peigne. In Actes des 12e Journées d’Etude sur la Parole , 221–232.
2008 Cross-correlation of adjacent spectra enhances fundamental frequency estimation. In Proceedings of Interspeech , Brisbane, 26–28 September.
2009 Intonation du français. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
2012 Automatic detection of voice creak. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody , Shanghai, 22–25 May.
2014 Speech and corpora: How spontaneous speech analysis changed our point of view on some linguistic facts. In Spoken Corpora and Linguistic Studies [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 61], Tommaso Raso & Heliana Mello (eds), 191–209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, L., Degand, L. & Simon, A-C.
2014 Forme et fonction de la périphérie gauche dans un corpus oral multigenres annoté. Corpus 13: 243–265.Google Scholar
Masini, F. & Pietrandrea, P.
2010 Magari. Cognitive Linguistics 21(1): 75–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masini, F., Mauri, C. & Pietrandrea, P.
2012 The role of lists and list markers in the coding of vagueness: A cross linguistic analysis. Paper delivered at the Workshop Meaning and form of vagueness: a cross-linguistic perspective, 45th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE) , Stockholm, 29 August–1 September.
In press. Lists: Towards a unified account. Italian Journal of Linguistics.
Martin, Ph.
2006 La transcription des proéminences accentuelles : mission impossible. Bulletin PFC 6: 81–87.Google Scholar
Masini F., Mauri C. & Pietrandrea P.
2018 List constructions: Towards a unified account. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 49–94.Google Scholar
Mauri, C.
2008 Coordination Relations in the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mazziotta, N.
2010 Building the syntactic reference corpus of medieval French using notabene rdf annotation tool. In Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop , Association for Computational Linguistics (ed.), 142–146.
McKelvie, D.
1998 The syntax of disfluency in spontaneous spoken language. In Corpus Linguistics: Reading in widening discipline, G. Sampson & D. McCarthy (eds), 404–420, London/Oxford: Bloomsburry.Google Scholar
Mertens, P.
1991 Local prominence of acoustic and psychoacoustic functions and perceived stress in French. In Proceedings of ICPHS, 218–221, www​.internationalphoneticassociation​.org​/icphs​/icphs1991.Google Scholar
2004 The prosogram: Semi-Automatic transcription of prosody based on a tonal perception model. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 549–552.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I.
1988 Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. Albany NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. & Pertsov, N.
1987 Surface Syntax of English. A Formal Model within the Meaning-text Framework [Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe 13]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, P.
1987 L’intonation du français: De la description linguistique à la reconnaissance automatique. PhD dissertation, Université de Louven.
1989 Automatic recognition of intonation in French and Dutch. Eurospeech 89(1): 46–50.Google Scholar
1990 L’intonation. In Le français parlé: Études grammaticales, C. Blanche-Benveniste, M. Bilger, C. Rouget & K. Van den Eynde (eds), 159–176. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
1993 Accentuation, intonation et morphosyntaxe. Travaux de Linguistique 26: 21–69.Google Scholar
1997 De la chaîne linéaire à la séquence de tons. Traitement Automatique des Langues 38(1): 27–51.Google Scholar
2004a The Prosogram: Semi-automatic transcription of prosody based on a tonal perception model. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004, B. Bel & I. Marlen (eds), 549–552.Google Scholar
2004b Un outil pour la transcription de la prosodie dans les corpus oraux. Traitement Automatique des Langues 45(2): 109–130.Google Scholar
2006 A predictive approach to the analysis of intonation in discourse in French. In Prosody and Syntax [Usage-Based Linguistic Informatics 3], Y. Kawaguchi, I. Fonagy & T. Moriguchi (eds), 64–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2014 Polytonia: A system for the automatic transcription of tonal aspects in speech corpora. Journal of Speech Sciences 4(2): 17–57.Google Scholar
Mertens, P., Beaugendre, F. & d’Alessandro, C.
1997 Comparing approaches to pitch contour stylization for speech synthesis. In Progress in Speech Synthesis, J. P. H. van Santen, R. W. Sproat, J. P. Olive & J. Hirschberg (eds), 347–363. New York NY: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meteer, M., Taylor, A., MacIntyre, R. & Iyer, R.
1995 Dysfluency Annotation Stylebook for the Switchboard Corpus. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Miller, J. & Weinert, R.
1998[2009] Spontaneous Spoken Language. Syntax and Discourse. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mithun, M.
2014 Syntactic and prosodic structures: Segmentation, integration, and in between. In Spoken Corpora and Linguistics Studies, T. Raso & H. Mello (eds.), 297–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morel, M. A. & Danon-Boileau, L.
1998 Grammaire de l’intonation : l’exemple du français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Mondada, L.
2000 Les effets théoriques des pratiques de transcription. LINX 42: 131–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morel, M., Lacheret-Dujour, A., Lyche, C. & Poiré, F.
2006 Vous avez dit proéminence? In Actes des 26èmes journées d’étude sur la parole 183–187.
Ndiaye, M.
1989 L’analyse syntaxique par joncteurs de liste. PhD dissertation, Aix-Marseille Université.
Nølke, H.
1983 Les adverbes paradigmatisants : fonction et analyse. Copenhague: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
2001 Le regard du locuteur 2 : Pour une linguistique des traces énonciatives. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
Nederhof, M-J.
1999 The computational complexity of the correct-prefix property for TAGs. Computational Linguistics 25(3): 345–360.Google Scholar
Née, E., MacMurray, E. & Fleury, S.
2012 Textometric explorations of writing processes: A discursive and genetic approach to the study of drafts. In Actes des Journées Internationales d’Analyse Statistiques des Données Textuelles (JADT) .
Nelson, G., Wallis, S. & Aarts, B.
(eds) 2002 Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English [Varieties of English Around the World G29]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, M.
2010 Prosody: An interview with Marina Nespor. ReVEL l8(15): 381–387.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I.
1986 Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nilsson, J., Riedel, S. & Deniz Yuret, D.
2007 The CoNLL 2007 shared task on dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the CoNLL shared task session of EMNLP-CoNLL .
Nivre, J., de Marneffe, M-C., Ginter, F., Goldberg, Y., Hajič, J., Manning, C., McDonald, R., Petrov, S., Pyysalo, S., Silveira, N., Tsarfaty, R. & Zeman, D.
2016 Universal Dependencies v1: A multilingual treebank collection. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation . http://​lrec2016​.lrec​-conf​.org​/media​/filer​_public​/2016​/06​/14​/lrec2016​-boa​-ws​.pdf
Noll, M. A.
1967 Cepstrum pitch determination. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 41(2): 293–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nolke, H. & Adam, J-M.
2000 Approches modulaires. De la langue au discours. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
Obin, N., Beliao, J., Veaux, Ch. & Lacheret, A.
2014 SLAM: Automatic stylization and labelling of speech melody. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 246–250. Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Obin, N., Lacheret-Dujour, A. & Rodet, X.
2008 French prominence: A probabilistic framework. In Proceedings of ICASSP, https://​ieeexplore​.ieee​.org​/document​/4518529Google Scholar
Obin, N., Rodet, X. & Lacheret A.
2009 A syllable-based prominence detection model based on discriminant analysis and context-dependency. In Proceedings of SPECOM, https://​halshs​.archives​-ouvertes​.fr​/file​/index​/docid​/419977​/filename​/SPECOM09​_184​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E.
1979 Transcription as theory. In Developmental Pragmatics, E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (eds), 43–72. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Osborne, T., Putnam, M. & Groß T.
2012 Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax, 15(4), 354–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, M.
2005 And stuff und so: Investigating pragmatics expressions in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1845–1864. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J.
1995 The COBUILD spoken corpus: Transcription conventions. In Spoken English on Computer. Transcription, Mark-up and Application, G. Leech, G. Myers & J. Thomas (eds), 203–207. New York NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Panunzi, A. & Mittmann-Malvessi, M.
2014 The IPIC resource and a cross-linguistic analysis of information structure in Italian and Brazilian Portuguese. In Spoken Corpora and Linguistics Studies, T. Raso & H. Mello (eds.), 129–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panunzi, A. & Gregori, L.
2012 DB-IPIC. AN XML database for the representation of information structure in spoken language. In Pragmatics and Prosody. Illocution, Modality, Attitude, Information Patterning and Speech Annotation, H. Mello, A. Panunzi & T. Raso (eds.), 133–150. Firenze: FUP.Google Scholar
Petrone, C., Lonobile, A., Zielinski, C. & Ito, K.
2016 Effects of prosody in processing speaker commitment in French. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 821–825. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J.
1980 The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed 1988, Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Pietrandrea, P.
2008 Certamente and sicuramente. Encoding dynamic and discursive aspects of commitment in Italian. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22: 221–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pietrandrea, P., Kahane, S., Lacheret-Dujour, A. & Sabio, F.
2014 The notion of sentence and other discourse units in corpus annotation. In Spoken Corpora and Linguistic Studies [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 61], T. Raso & H. Mello (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poiré, Fr.
2005 La codification de la prosodie. Bulletin PFC 4: 89–98.Google Scholar
2006 La perception des proéminences et le codage prosodique. Bulletin PFC 5: 69–79.Google Scholar
Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M. & Baayen, H.
2005 Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118(4): 2561–2569. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Portele, T., Heuft, B., Widera, C., Wagner, P. & Wolters, M.
2000 Perceptual prominence. In Speech and Signals. Aspects of Speech Synthesis and Automatic Speech Recognition, Festschrift Dedicated to Wolfgang Hess on his 60th Birthday [Forum Phoneticum 69], 97–116. Frankfurt: Hektor.Google Scholar
Post, B.
2000 Tonal and Phrasal Structures in French Intonation. PhD dissertation, University of Nijmegen.
Post, B., Delais-Roussarie, E. & Simon, A-C.
2006 IVTS, un système de transcription pour la variation prosodique. Bulletin de la Phonologie du Français Contemporain 6: 51–68.Google Scholar
Praat
2008 <www​.praat​.org
Pulgram, E.
1970 Syllable, Word, Nexus, Cursus. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J.
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman.Google Scholar
Rahman, A. & Sampson, G. R.
2000 Extending grammar annotation standards to spontaneous speech. In Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English, J. M. Kirk (ed.), 295–311, Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2000 Extending grammar annotation standards to spontaneous speech. In Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English, J. M. Kirk (ed.), 295–311. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A.
2009 Automatic Detection and Classification of Prosodic Events. PhD dissertation, Columbia University.
2010 AuToBI – A tool for automatic ToBI annotation. In Proceedings of Interspeech , 146–149. https://​github​.com​/AndrewRosenberg​/AuToBI/
Rossi, M.
1978 Interactions of intensity glides and frequency glissandos. Language and Speech 21: 384–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979 Le français, langue sans accent? In L’accent en français contemporain [Studia Phonetica 15], Ivan Fonagy & Pierre Léon (eds), 13–51. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
1999 L’intonation, le système du français: Description et modélisation. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Rossi, M., Di Cristo, A., Hirst, D., Martin, P. & Nishinuma, Y.
1981 L’intonation. De l’acoustique à la sémantique. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Roulet, E.
2001 Un modèle et un instrument d’analyse de l’organisation du discours. Berne: Lang.Google Scholar
Rudolph, E.
1987 Connective relations, connective expressions, connective structures. In Text and Discourse Construction. Empirical Aspects. Theoretical Approaches, J. S. Petőfi (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sabio, F.
2006a Phrases et constructions verbales: Quelques remarques sur les unités syntaxiques dans le français parlé. In Lebaud, et al. (eds), 127–140.Google Scholar
2006b L’antéposition des compléments en français contemporain: l’Exemple des objets directs. Linguisticae Investigationes 29: 173–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sagot, B. & Boullier, P.
2005 From raw corpus to word lattices: Robust pre-parsing processing with SXPipe. Archives of Control Sciences 15(4).Google Scholar
Saks, H.
1995 Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G.
2004 The CHRISTINE project. https://​www​.grsampson​.net​/RChristine​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
1987 Discourse Markers [Interactional Sociolinguistics 5]. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schourup, L.
1999 Discourse markers. Lingua 107: 227–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schuurman, I., Goedertier, W., Hoekstra, H., Oostdijk, N., Piepenbrock, R. & Schouppe, M.
2004 Linguistic annotation of the Spoken Dutch Corpus: If we had to do it all over again… In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) . http://​www​.lrec​-conf​.org​/lrec2004/
Schweitzer, A. & Möbius, B.
2009 Experiments on automatic prosodic labeling. In Proceedings Interspeech 2009 , 2515–2518.
Selkirk, E.
1984a Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1984b On the major class features and syllable theory. In Language Sound Structure: Studies in Phonology Presented to Morris Halle by his Teacher and Students, M. Aronoff & R. T. Oehrle (eds), 107–136. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005 Comments on intonational phrasing. In Prosodies: With Special Reference to Iberian Languages, S. Frota, M. Vigário & J. Freitas (eds), 11–58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2005b Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In Prosodies, S. Frota, M. Vigario & M. João Freitas (eds), 11–58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011 The syntax-phonology interface. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn, J. Goldsmith, J. Riggle & A. Yu (eds), 435–483. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selting, M.
2007 Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 483–526. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shribert, E.
1994 Preliminaries to a theory of speech disfluencies. PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
Shriberg, E., Andreas, S. & Baron, D.
2001 Observations on overlap: Findings and implications for automatic processing of multi-party conversation. In Proceedings of Eurospeech , 1359–1362.
Silber-Varod, V.
2014 Dependencies over prosodic boundary tones in Spontaneous Spoken Hebrew. In Dependency Linguistics. Recent Advances in Linguistic Theory Using Dependency Structures [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 215], K. Gerdes, E. Hajičová & L. Wanner (eds), 207–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Silverman, K., Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C., Price, P., Pierrehumbert, J. & Hirschberg, J.
1992 TOBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing , 867–870.
Simon, A.-C. & Christodoulides, G.
2016 Frontières prosodiques perçues: corrélats acoustiques et indices syntaxiques. Langue française 191(3): 83–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simon, A-C.
2004 La structuration prosodique du discours en français. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2015 Les unités de discours: Pourquoi et comment? In Le(s) discours en sciences du langage: Unités et niveaux d'analyse. Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès. http://​hdl​.handle​.net​/2078​.1​/159078Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.
2001 Review of Biber, et al. (1999). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 6: 339–359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. L.
2009 Naïve listeners’ perceptions of French prosody compared to the predictions of theoretical models. In Proceedings of the Third Symposium Prosody/Discourse Interfaces, 335–349. Paris.Google Scholar
Smith, C.
2011 Naïve listeners’ perceptions of French prosody compared to the predictions of theoretical models. In Proceedings of the 3rd IDP Conference , 349–335.
Surdeanu, M., Johansson, R., Meyers, A., Marquez, L. L. & Nivre, J.
2008 The CoNLL-2008 shared task on joint parsing of syntactic and semantic dependencies. In Proceedings of CoNLL. http://​aclweb​.org​/anthology​/W08​-2121.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J.
(ed.) 1990 The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M.
1990 Genre Analysis. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Syrdal, A. K., Hirschberg, J., McGory, J. & Beckman, M.
2001 Automatic ToBI prediction and alignment to speed manual labeling of prosody. Speech Communication 33(1–2): 135–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szymański, M. & Grocholewski, S.
2006 Post-processing of automatic segmentation of speech using dynamic programming in text, speech and dialogue. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference TSD 2006 , 523–530.
Tamburini, F.
2005 Fenomeni Prosodici e Prominenza: un Approccio Acustico. Bologna: PUB.Google Scholar
2006 Reliable prominence identification in English spontaneous speech. In Proeedings of Speech Prosody, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/sp2006​/sp06​_019​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Tamburini, F., & Wagner, P.
2007 On automatic prominence detection for german. In Proceedings of Interspeech, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/interspeech​_2007​/i07​_1809​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Tamburini, F. & Caini, C.
2005 An automatic system for detecting prosodic prominence in American English. International Journal of Speech Technology 8(1): 33–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P.
1994 The rise/fall/connection model of intonation. Speech Communication 15: 169–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 The TILT intonation model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing , 1383–1386.
Taylor, A., Mitchell, M. & Santorini, B.
2003 The Penn Treebank: An overview. Text Speech and Language Technology 20: 5–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
TEI
2002 Text Encoding Initiative. http://​www​.tei​-c​.org​.uk/Google Scholar
Terken, J.
1991 Fundamental frequency and perceived prominence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 89: 1768–1776. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Terken, J. & Hermes, D.
2000 The perception of prosodic prominence. In Theory and Experiment. Studies Presented to Gösta Bruce, M. Horne (éd.), 89–127. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L.
1959 Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck. English translation by T. Osborne & S. Kahane 2015. Elements of structural syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://​www​.jbe​-platform​.com​/content​/books​/9789027269997 (Open Access).Google Scholar
Teutenberg, J., Watson, C. & Riddle, P.
2008 Modelling and synthesising F0 contours with the Discrete Cosine Transform. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing , 3973–3976.
Tognini-Bonelli, E.
2001 Corpus Linguistics at Work [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traverso, V.
2012 Listes et mise en place de classes d’objets dans les échanges ordinaires. In La synonymie au-delà du lexique, S. Cappello, M. Conenna & J.-P. Dufiet (eds.), Udine: Forum.Google Scholar
2016 Décrire le français parlé en interaction. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Tseng, J.
2002 Remarks on marking. In Proceedings of the 8th International HPSG Conference, 267–283. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publication.Google Scholar
Vaissière, J.
1980 La structuration acoustique de la phrase française. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Serie III, X(2), 529–560.Google Scholar
van der Wouden, T., Hoekstra, H., Moortgat, M., Schuurman, I. & Renmans, B.
2002 Syntactische annotatie voor het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands (CGN). Nederlandse Taalkunde 7(4): 335–352.Google Scholar
van Rijsbergen, C. J. K.
1979 Information Retrieval. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Verstraete, J.-C.
2007 Rethinking the Coordinate-Subordinate Dichotomy. Interpersonal Grammar and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in English. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Victorri, B. & Fuchs, C.
1996 La polysémie – Construction dynamique du sens. Paris: Hermes.Google Scholar
Villemonte de la Clergerie, É.
2010 Building factorized TAGs with meta-grammars. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms – TAG+10 , 111–118.
Voghera, M. & Cutugno, F.
2009 AN.ANA.S.: Aligning text to temporal syntagmatic progression in Treebanks. In Proceedings of the fifth Corpus Linguistics Conference , Liverpool, 20–23.
Wagner, P.
2005 Great Expectations – Introspective vs Perceptual Prominence Ratings and their Acoustic Correlates. In Proceedings of Interspeech, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/interspeech​_2005​/i05​_2381​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P. & Portele, Th.
1999 Two dimensions of prominence. In Proceedings of DIAPRO, https://​pub​.uni​-bielefeld​.de​/publication​/1917004Google Scholar
Wagner, P. & Tamburini, F.
2012 Prosodic prominence: Annotation, prediction, applications. Special Session of Interspeech, https://​www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/interspeech​_2012/Google Scholar
Wagner, P., Tamburini, F. & Windmann, A.
2012 Objective, subjective and linguistic roads to perceptual prominence. How are they compared and why? Proceedings of Interspeech, www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/interspeech​_2012​/i12​_2386​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Wagner, A.
2009 Analysis and recognition of accentual patterns. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2009 , 2427–2430.
Wagner, P., Origlia, A., Avesani, C., Christodoulides, G., Cutugno, F., D’Imperio, M., Escudero Mancebo, D., Gili Fivela, B., Lacheret, A., Ludusan, B., Moniz, H., Chasaide, A., Niebuhr, O., Rousier-Vercruyssen, L., Simon, A-C., Šimko, J., Tesser, F. & Vainio, M.
2015 Different parts of the same elephant: A roadmap to disentangle and connect different perspectives on prosodic prominence. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences . https://​www​.internationalphoneticassociation​.org​/icphs​-proceedings​/ICPhS2015​/Papers​/ICPHS0202​.pdf
Wang, I. & Bawden, R.
2015 Description of the tabular format of Rhapsodie TreeBank (morpho-syntax, micro-syntax, macro-syntax, prosody). http://​www​.projet​-rhapsodie​.fr
Wang, I., Kahane, S. & Tellier, I.
2014 Macrosyntactic segmenters of a spoken French Corpus. In Proceedings of LREC (Language Resources and Evaluation Conference) .
Ward, G. & Birner, B.
1993 The semantics and pragmatics of and everything. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 205–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, A.
2000 Intonation in Text and Discourse, Beginnings, Models and Ends. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wightman, C.
2002 Tobi or not Tobi? In Proceedings of Speech Prosody . http://​www​.isle​.illinois​.edu​/sprosig​/sp2002​/pdf​/wightman​.pdf
Wightman, C. W., & Ostendorf, M.
1994 Automatic labeling of prosodic patterns. IEEE Transactions Speech and Audio Processing 2: 469–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. & Wharton, T.
2006 Relevance of Prosody. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1559–1579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
WinPitch
2014 <www​.winpitch​.com
Wong, T. S., Gerdes, K., Leung, H. & Lee, J.
2017 Quantitative Comparative Syntax on the Cantonese-Mandarin Parallel Dependency Treebank. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2017) , 266–275.
Zellner, B.
1998 Fast and slow speech rate: A characterisation for French. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), vol. 7, 3159–3163.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

No author info given
2020.  In Introduction to Corpus Linguistics, ► pp. 233 ff. Crossref logo
Eychenne, Julien
2019. On the deletion of word-final schwa in Southern French. Phonology 36:3 ► pp. 355 ff. Crossref logo
Lacheret-Dujour, Anne, Sylvain Kahane, F. Neveu, B. Harmegnies, L. Hriba, S. Prévost & A. Steuckardt
2020. Unités syntaxiques et unités intonatives majeures en français parlé : inclusion, fragmentation, chevauchement. SHS Web of Conferences 78 ► pp. 14005 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 may 2021. 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.

Subjects

Linguistics

Romance linguistics
Syntax
Corpus linguistics
Pragmatics
Discourse studies
Phonology
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009030 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Pragmatics
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2018048676 | Marc record