Book contents
- Data and Methods in Corpus Linguistics
- Data and Methods in Corpus Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Comparative Approaches to Data and Methods in Corpus Linguistics
- Part I Corpus Dimensions and the Viability of Methodological Approaches
- 1 Comparing Standard Reference Corpora and Google Books Ngrams
- 2 Comparing Approaches to Phonological and Orthographic Corpus Formats
- Part II Selection, Calibration and Preparation of Corpus Data
- Part III Perspectives on Multifactorial Methods
- Part IV Applications of Classification-Based Approaches
- Index
- References
2 - Comparing Approaches to Phonological and Orthographic Corpus Formats
Revisiting the Principle of Rhythmic Alternation
from Part I - Corpus Dimensions and the Viability of Methodological Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 May 2022
Book contents
- Data and Methods in Corpus Linguistics
- Data and Methods in Corpus Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Comparative Approaches to Data and Methods in Corpus Linguistics
- Part I Corpus Dimensions and the Viability of Methodological Approaches
- 1 Comparing Standard Reference Corpora and Google Books Ngrams
- 2 Comparing Approaches to Phonological and Orthographic Corpus Formats
- Part II Selection, Calibration and Preparation of Corpus Data
- Part III Perspectives on Multifactorial Methods
- Part IV Applications of Classification-Based Approaches
- Index
- References
Summary
The authors compare approaches to studying the effects of the prosodic Principle of Rhythmic Alternation on the basis of two fundamentally different corpus formats. The first consists of orthographic transcriptions of speech, or of originally written data, while the other one provides access to the sound files of the spoken data, too. The authors’ main argument is that the nature and size of the corpus determines, or at least constrains, the range of methods that can be applied – and as a corollary of this, the findings that can be gained. Due to the greater availability and accessibility of written and transcribed spoken corpus data, much of the evidence in prior research is rather abstract and comes from large corpora accessed via the orthographic route only. Exploiting the recently available sound files of parts of the spoken section of the original British National Corpus, the authors analyse the data from an auditory perspective. This direct and highly controlled approach partially converges with and adds to the findings of previous studies. Thus, both approaches can be shown to complement each other, resulting in a better overall understanding of the phenomenon at hand.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Data and Methods in Corpus LinguisticsComparative Approaches, pp. 46 - 72Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Further Reading
Cole, Jennifer, and Shattuck-Hufnagel., Stefanie 2016. New Methods for Prosodic Transcription: Capturing Variability as a Source of Information. Laboratory Phonology 7(1). 8. https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.29.Google Scholar
Durand, Jacques. 2017. Corpus Phonology. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian, and Arndt-Lappe., Sabine 2021. Better Data for More Researchers: Using the Audio Features of BNCweb. ICAME Journal 45. 125–54.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2015. Rhythmic Influence on Grammar: Scope and Limitations. In Vogel, Ralf and van de Vijver, Ruben, eds. Rhythm in Cognition and Grammar: A Germanic Perspective. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 286). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 179–205.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S. 2017. Phonological Influences in Syntactic Alternations. In Gribanova, Vera and Shih, Stephanie S., eds. The Morphosyntax-Phonology Connection. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 223–52.Google Scholar
References
Arndt-Lappe, Sabine, and Ernestus, Mirjam. 2020. Morphology–Phonology Interaction: The Role of Lexical Storage. In Pirelli, Vito, Plag, Ingo and Dressler, Wolfgang U., eds. Word Knowledge and Word Usage: A Cross-disciplinary Guide to the Mental Lexicon. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 191–227. www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110440577-006/html.Google Scholar
Arnon, Inbal, and Snider, Neal. 2010. More Than Words: Frequency Effects for Multi-word Phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62(1). 67–82.Google Scholar
Azzabou-Kacem, Soundess. 2018. Stress Shift in English Rhythm Rule Environments: Effects of Prosodic Boundary Strength and Stress Clash Types. Doctoral thesis. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald R. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blass, Anne-Katrin. 2020. The Big Mess Construction: Forms and Functions in Present-Day English. Doctoral dissertation. Trier: Trier University. https://ubt.opus.hbz-nrw.de/opus45-ubtr/frontdoor/index/index/docId/1427.Google Scholar
BNC Consortium, Bodleian Libraries, Oxford. 2007. The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Weenink, David J. M.. 2021. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer, version 6.1.40. Computer program. www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1965. Forms of English: Accent, Morpheme, Order. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1981. Two Kinds of Vowels, Two Kinds of Rhythm. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Breiss, Canaan, and Hayes, Bruce. 2020. Phonological Markedness Effects in Sentence Formation. Language 96(2). 338–70.Google Scholar
Burnard, Lou, ed. 2007. Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (XML Edition). www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/docs/URG.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1999. Usage-Based Phonology. In Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A., Noonan, Michael Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Wheatley, Kathleen, eds. Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, vol. 1, General Papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 211–42.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Beckner, Clay. 2015. Usage-Based Theory. In Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 953–79.Google Scholar
Coleman, John, Baghai-Ravary, Ladan, Pybus, John and Grau, Sergio. 2012. Audio BNC: The Audio Edition of the Spoken British National Corpus. Oxford: Phonetics Laboratory, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Coleman, John, Liberman, Mark Y., Kochanski, Greg, Burnard, Lou and Yuan, Jiahong. 2011. Mining a Year of Speech. Paper Presented at VLSP 2011: New Tools and Methods for Very-Large-Scale Phonetics Research. University of Pennsylvania, 29–31 January 2011.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 Million Words, 1990–Present. www.english-corpora.org/coca.Google Scholar
Grabe, Ester, and Warren, Paul. 1995. Stress Shift: Do Speakers Do It or Do Listeners Hear It? In Connell, Bruce and Arvaniti, Amalia, eds. Phonology and Phonetic Evidence: Papers in Laboratory Phonology IV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 95–110.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1991. The English Rhythm Rule as an Accent Deletion Rule. Phonology 8(1). 1–35.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 2014. Phonological Complexity and Input Optimization. Phonological Studies 17. 85–94.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 2016. Input Optimisation: Phonology and Morphology. Phonology 33(3). 459–491.Google Scholar
HarrellJr, Frank E. 2020. rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. Manual. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rms.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian, and Arndt-Lappe., Sabine 2021. Better Data for More Researchers: Using the Audio Features of BNCweb. ICAME Journal 45. 125–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian, and Evert, Stefan. 2006. BNCweb (CQP-edition): The Marriage of Two Corpus Tools. In Braun, Sabine, Kohn, Kurt and Mukherjee, Joybrato, eds. Corpus Technology and Language Pedagogy: New Resources, New Tools, New Methods. (English Corpus Linguistics 3). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 177–95.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian, Evert, Stefan, Smith, Nicholas, Lee, David and Prytz, Ylva Berglund. 2008. Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb. A Practical Guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia, and Shattuck-Hufnagel., Stephanie 2002. A Prosodic View of Word Form Encoding for Speech Production. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 101. 112–56.Google Scholar
Kentner, Gerrit. 2015. Stress Clash Hampers Processing of Noncanonical Structures in Reading. In Vogel, Ralf and van de Vijver, Ruben, eds. Rhythm in Cognition and Grammar: A Germanic Perspective. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs (TiLSM) 286. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 111–35.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Garside, Roger and Bryant, Michael. 1994. CLAWS4: The Tagging of the British National Corpus. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 94). Kyoto, Japan. 622–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hans-Martin, Lehmann, Schneider, Peter and Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2000. BNCweb. In Kirk, John, ed. Corpora Galore: Analysis and Techniques in Describing English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 259–66.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J., Roelofs, Ardi and Meyer, Antje S.. 1999. A Theory of Lexical Access in Speech Production. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(1). 1–38; discussion 38–75.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark Y., and Prince, Alan. 1977. On Stress and Linguistic Rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Arne. 2014. English Co-ordinate Constructions. A Processing Perspective on Constituent Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew, and Syder, Francis H.. 1983. Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency. In Richards, Jack C. and Schmidt, Richard W., eds. Language and Communication. London: Longman. 191–226.Google Scholar
Pitt, Mark, Dilley, Laura C., Johnson, Keith et al. 2007. Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech. Second release. Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2005. Rhythmic Grammar: The Influence of Rhythm on Grammatical Variation and Change in English. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2015. Rhythmic Influence on Grammar: Scope and Limitations. In Vogel, Ralf and van de Vijver, Ruben, eds. Rhythm in Cognition and Grammar: A Germanic Perspective. (TiLSM 286). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 179–205.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia, and Knappe, Gabriele. 2018. Synonym Selection as a Strategy of Stress Clash Avoidance. In Hoffmann, Sebastian, Sand, Andrea, Arndt-Lappe, Sabine and Dillmann, Lisa, eds. Corpora and Lexis. Amsterdam: Brill. 69–105.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, Katrin, Walsh, Michael, Calhoun, Sasha et al. 2015. Exploring the Relationship between Intonation and the Lexicon: Evidence for Lexicalised Storage of Intonation. Speech Communication 66. 65–81.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 1995. The Importance of Phonological Transcription in Empirical Approaches to ‘Stress Shift’ versus ‘Early Accent’: Comments on Grabe & Warren, and Vogel, Bunnell & Hoskins. In Connell, Bruce and Arvaniti, Amalia, eds. Phonology and Phonetic Evidence: Papers in Laboratory Phonology IV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 128–40.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 2019. Toward an (Even) More Comprehensive Model of Speech Production Planning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 34(9). 1202–13.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie, Ostendorf, Mari and Ross, K.. 1994. Stress Shift and Early Pitch Accent Placement in Lexical Items in American English. Journal of Phonetics 22(4). 357–88.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S. 2017. Phonological Influences in Syntactic Alternations. In Gribanova, Vera and Shih, Stephanie S., eds. The Morphosyntax-Phonology Connection. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 223–52.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie, Grafmiller, Jason, Futrell, Richard and Bresnan, Joan. 2015. Rhythm’s Role in Genitive Construction Choice in Spoken English. In Vogel, Ralf and van de Vijver, Ruben, eds. Rhythm in Cognition and Grammar: A Germanic Perspective. (TiLSM 286). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 207–34.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steen, Francis F., Hougaard, Anders, Joo, Jungseock et al. 2018. Toward an Infrastructure for Data-Driven Multimodal Communication Research. Linguistics Vanguard 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0041.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1876. Words, Logic, and Grammar. In Transactions of the Philological Society, 1875–1876. 470–503.Google Scholar
Tilsen, Sam. 2012. Utterance Preparation and Stress Clash: Planning Prosodic Alternations. In Fuchs, Susanne, ed. Speech Planning and Dynamics (Speech production and perception 1). Frankfurt am Main/New York: Peter Lang. 115–50.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, John M., Liu, Qiang and Fox Tree, Jean E.. 2014. The Perceptual Nature of Stress Shifts. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(9). 1046–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhrig, Peter. 2018. NewsScape and the Distributed Little Red Hen Lab: A digital Infrastructure for the Large-Scale Analysis of TV Broadcasts. In Zwierlein, Anne-Julia, Petzold, Jochen, Boehm, Katharina and Decker, Martin, eds. Anglistentag 2018 in Regensburg: Proceedings./Proceedings of the Conference of the German Association of University Teachers of English. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. 99–114.Google Scholar
Wennerstrom, Ann. 1993. Focus on the Prefix: Evidence for Word-Internal Prosodic Words. Phonology 10. 309–24.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 2016. Prosodic Parallelism: Comparing Spoken and Written Language. Frontiers in Psychology 7. 1598.Google Scholar