臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：以計算統計方法及聲學參數研究中文自然語流之韻律短語切分
作者：陳正賢
作者(外文)：Cheng-Hsien Chen
校院名稱：臺灣大學
系所名稱：語言學研究所
指導教授：曾淑娟
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2012
主題關鍵詞：韻律段落；聲學參數；音韻單位；自然語言處理；口語處理；子句切分；計算模型；prosodic phrasing；acoustic-prosodic；prosodic unit；spontaneous speech processing；spoken language processing；clause segmentation；computational modeling
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:209
本文以計算統計方法及聲學參數研究中文自然語流中，韻律切分與其語法結構之互動關係。我們首先標記自然語流對話中的子句(Clause unit, CU)邊界以及每個子句的主要謂語。根據Chinese PropBank的標記原則，標示每個子句的語意角色。接著，我們利用聲學參數量化Liu & Tseng (2009)為「現代漢語連續口語對話語音語料庫」所標記的韻律段落(Prosodic unit, PU)。本研究所採取的聲學參數計算，融合實驗音韻學的研究成果以及計算語言學的韻律模型，希望提出一群具代表性的聲學參數，作為跨語言韻律對比研究的基礎，更能在自然語言處理的應用上有其實用價值。
本文主要關心議題是PU內部語法結構所造成的韻律結構改變。研究方法主要利用多變量線性模式來分析語法和韻律之間的互動，觀察語法因子如何影響PU的聲學參數表徵。本研究與之前研究不同在於，我們將語法對韻律切分的影響視為程度上變異，而非二元分類問題。
首先，我們探討不同的PU與CU對應程度如何影響PU的聲學參數表現。跨語言的研究發現，口語韻律段落，在型態不同的語言裡，均與該語言的子句有明顯的相關對應。而前人研究多半著眼於PU和CU的邊界對應，本文採取計算統計方法，利用聲學參數進而觀察PU和CU之間的對應，是否會有系統地造成聲學參數的改變。研究結果發現，PU與CU之間的對應程度明顯反映在PU的聲學參數變化，如音調、音節時長、韻律及語速的改變。因此，我們認為，儘管PU和CU之間的邊界對應並非完美，但中文自然口語中韻律段落的聲學參數，明顯地且有系統地反映了我們深層語法知識中的子句模式(Clause Schema)。
除了PU與CU對應關係以外，我們進而觀察其他相關的語法結構是否會影響韻律結構的改變，包括言談對話中重要的停頓點、音韻長度考量、韻律段落在子句中的相對位置、以及韻律段落的邊界單位等。我們先將PU與CU對應所無法解釋的聲學參數變異獨立出來，進而檢視這些額外的語言因素如何影響這些聲學參數的殘差，以及它們對於韻律段落的聲學變化之獨立貢獻。
最後，我們將本文所提出的聲學參數應用在口語自然語言處理上，利用實驗方式，檢視韻律段落標記自動化的可能性。韻律段落切分可為口語自然語流提供一個中介的切分段落，作為後端進階語法處理的基本單位。此中介單位若可經由聲學參數自動化辨識，不僅可為後端處理提供額外的語言相關信息，亦顯示本文所提出的聲學參數計算，不僅對言談對話中語意概念規劃有其理論蘊含，同時在實際自然語言處理應用上亦有實用價值。實驗結果顯示，系統能夠有效地辨識出口語自然語流中的韻律段落，文中更進一步指出韻律段落在後端語言處理上可能的應用。
本研究主要貢獻分述如下。首先，我們為語法知識中的子句模式，提出實證的語音證據，強調自然語流的韻律段落，反映說話者概念規劃中，有系統地以子句模式作為概念化的基礎。再者，根據本文研究結果，我們認為單一層次的韻律切分段落若以聲學參數量化，應可讓我們更客觀地觀察與分析韻律與語法之間的互動關係。
Our research investigates the interaction between prosodic phrasing and its grammatical configuration in Mandarin spontaneous speech from a computational-acoustic perspective. We manually segment conversational discourse into clause units (CU), identify their main predicates and perform a semantic role labeling for each CU based on the guidelines proposed in Chinese PropBank. We then propose a comprehensive set of acoustic-prosodic measures to characterize the prosodic units (PU) annotated by Liu and Tseng (2009). Highlighting the gradient and composite nature of prosodic structures, these continuous measures draw insights from both linguistic studies on laboratory phonology and computational modeling of speech prosody in hope to offer a more efficient and theory-independent model of prosodic phrasing for both cross-linguistic comparative studies and its application to natural language processing.
We are primarily concerned with the gradient variation of the PU resulting from its grammatical configuration. The methodological commitment of the present study is to utilize multivariate linear models to evaluate the relation between prosodic phrasing and its interaction with grammar within an integrated model and simultaneously assess the independent effects of multiple hypothesized linguistic factors on different acoustic-prosodic aspects. Our endeavor differs from previous literature in that we look at the influence of the linguistic structures on prosody as a problem of degrees (e.g., How does the linguistic structure contribute to the variation of the acoustic-prosodic measures at the PU boundary?), rather than a problem of a binary classification (e.g., Will the linguistic structure be provided with a PU boundary?).
We first examine how the PU-CU alignment may contribute to the variation of the acoustic-prosodic measures of the PU. This initiative is motivated by the cross-linguistic observation of a strong PU-CU correlation. Previous studies have paid attention to the exact alignment between PU and CU boundaries. We take a computational-modeling approach to examine how the PU-CU alignment may lead to different prosodic structures. Our findings show that the degree to which a PU is coextensive with a CU is systematically reflected in the variation of the acoustic-prosodic measures (such as pitch change, durational pattern, rhythm alteration, change of speech rates). We therefore argue that a clause schema contributes to systematic patterns in prosodic phrasing of Mandarin spontaneous speech.
We further investigate several relevant linguistic factors that might influence the structure of the PU in addition to the CU, including interactionally relevant junctures, phonological factors, relative syntactic positions, and the boundary types of PUs at different linguistic levels. We statistically isolate the prosodic variation of the acoustic-prosodic measures that cannot be attributed to the PU-CU alignment and evaluate the influence of these additional linguistic factors on these acoustic-prosodic residuals. The residualization of the acoustic-prosodic measures enables us to assess the accumulative effects of these linguistic factors on the structure of PUs without the potential confounding of the PU-CU alignment.
Finally, we apply our computational-acoustic representation of PUs in spontaneous speech processing. We explore the possibility of the automatic PU boundary detection by utilizing the comprehensive set of acoustic-prosodic features proposed in this study. Prosodic phrasing creates an intermediate-level segmentation unit that is both linguistically motivated and acoustically prominent. If this intermediate unit can be automatically identified, it would thus provide additional linguistic information for processing spontaneous speech corpora. The objective is to see to what extent our acoustic-prosodic measurements can contribute to the practical task of the automatic PU boundary detection. Encouraging experimental results are obtained and the potential applications of the PU are envisioned. It is suggested that our measures not only have theoretical implications for our conceptual planning and grammatical structuring in speech production, but also have practical values in the application of the computational modeling.
The contributions of the thesis are threefold. We offer empirical evidence in support of the claim that the clause schema is prosodically indexed in spontaneous speech production. We argue that the look-ahead conceptual planning in our incremental speech production may proceed on a clausal basis as the general outset of the intended proposition is often prosodically anticipated at the onset of the prosodic phrasing. Finally, we argue against a syntax-based prosodic hierarchy superimposed upon the analysis of prosody in conversational discourse as it contains several flaws that have limited its application in the modeling of conversational speech. We suggest that a computational-acoustic representation of one-level PUs may elucidate more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between prosody and grammar in conversational discourse.
Abercrombie, D. 1965. Studies in phonetics and linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
Ashby, W. J. & P. Bentivoglio. 1993. Preferred argument structure in spoken French and Spanish. Language Variation and Change 5. 61-76.
Atkinson, Q. D. & R. D. Gray. 2005. Curious parallels and curious connections: Phylogenetic thinking in biology and historical linguistics. Systematic Biology 54(4). 513-526.
Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baeza-Yates, R. A. & B. Ribeiro-Neto. 1999. Modern information retrieval. New York: Addison Wesley.
Baken, R. J. & R. F. Orlikoff. 2000. Clinical measurement of speech and voice, 2nd edn. San Diego: Singular.
Baker, C. F., C. J. Fillmore & J. B. Lowe. 1998. The Berkeley Framenet project. In Proceedings of COLING/ACL, 86-90. Montreal, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Baker, M. C. 1989. Objects sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 9(1). 17-48.
Bates, D. 2006. Linear mixed model implementation in lme4. Madison: Department of Statistics, University of Wisconsin.
Batliner, A., R. Kompe, A. Kiessling, M. Mast, H. Niemann & E. Noth. 1998. M = syntax + prosody: A syntactic-prosodic labelling scheme for large spontaneous speech databases. Speech Communication 25(4). 193-222.
Beattie, G. W. 1979. Planning units in spontaneous speech: Some evidence from hesitation in speech and speaker gaze direction in conversation. Linguistics 17(1-2). 61-78.
Beckman, M. E. & G. A. Elam. 1997. Guidelines for ToBI labelling. Manuscript. Columbus: The Ohio State University Research Foundation.
Beckman, M. E. & J. Hirschberg. 1994. The ToBI annotation conventions. Manuscript. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Beckman, M. E., J. Hirschberg & S. Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2006. The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In S.-A. Jun (ed.) Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 9-54. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biq, Y.-O. 2004. Construction, reanalysis, and stance: ''V yi ge N'' and variations in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 36. 1655-1672.
Boas, H. C. 2002. Bilingual framenet dictionaries for machine translation. Paper presented at LREC 2002, Las Palms, Spain.
Breiman, L., J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen & C. J. Stone. 1984. Classification and regression trees. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Bresnan, J. & M. Ford. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1). 168-213.
Brown, P. & S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burchardt, A., K. Erk, A. Frank, A. Kowalski, S. Pado & M. Pinkal. 2006. The SALSA corpus: a German corpus resource for lexical semantics. In Proceedings of LREC 2006, 969-974. Genoa, Italy.
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. 1998. The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society 34. 421-435.
Bybee, J. 2002. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givon & B. F. Malle (eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language, 109-134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. & P. J. Hopper. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chafe, W. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. S. Tomlin (ed.) Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21-51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chafe, W. 1988. Linking intonation units in spoken English. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 1-27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: the flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chang, F., G. S. Dell & K. Bock. 2006. Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113(2). 234-272.
Chen, A. C.-H. 2006. Transitivity in Mandarin: A realistic account of argument structure. Taipei: National Taiwan University MA thesis.
Chen, A. C.-H. 2009. Corpus, lexicon, and construction: A quantitative corpus approach to Mandarin possessive construction. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 14(3). 305-340.
Chen, A. C.-H. 2010. A conceptual understanding of bodily orientation in Mandarin: A quantitative corpus perspective. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(1). 1-28.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects and the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chui, K. 2003. Is the correlation between grounding and transitivity universal? Studies in Language 27(2). 221-244.
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H. 2002. Speaking in time. Speech Communication 36(1-2). 5-13.
Clark, H. H. & T. Wasow. 1998. Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology 37(3). 201-242.
Clausner, T. C. & W. Croft. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10(1). 1-31.
Clifton Jr., C., K. Carlson & L. Frazier. 2002. Informative prosodic boundaries. Language and Speech 45(2). 87-114.
Clifton Jr., C., K. Carlson & L. Frazier. 2006. Tracking the what and why of speakers'' choices: Prosodic boundaries and the length of constituents. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13(5). 854-861.
Cohen, A., R. Collier & J. ''t HART. 1982. Declination: construct or intrinsic feature of speech pitch? Phonetica 39(4-5). 254-273.
Cole, J., Y. Mo & S. Baek. 2010. The role of syntactic structure in guiding prosody perception with ordinary listeners and everyday speech. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(7). 1141-1177.
Comrie, B. 1978. Ergativity. In W. P. Lehmann (ed.) Syntactic typology, 329-394. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. 1986. An introduction to English prosody. London: Edward Arnold.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. 2001. Intonation and discourse: current views from within. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 13-34. Malden, MA.: Blackwell.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & M. Selting. 1996a. Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & M. Selting. 1996b. Towards an interactional perspective on prosody and a prosodic perspective on interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (eds.), 11-56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crawley, M. J. 2007. The R book. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Croft, W. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. 1995. Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics 33. 839-882.
Croft, W. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. 2002. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, 161–205. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Croft, W. 2008. Evolutionary Linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology 37(1). 219-234.
Croft, W. 2010. The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics 48(1). 1-48.
Croft, W. & D. A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crowley, T. 2002. Serial verb in Oceania: A descriptive typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cruttenden, A. 1997. Intonation, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. 1969. Prosodic systems and intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curran, J. R. 2004. From distributional to semantic similarity. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh dissertation.
Cutler, A., D. Dahan & W. van Donselaar. 1997. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech 40(2). 141-201.
Dankovičcova, J. 1997. The domain of articulation rate variation in Czech. Journal of Phonetics 25(3). 287-312.
de Pijper, J. R. & A. A. Sanderman. 1994. On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96(4). 2037-2047.
de Ruiter, J.-P., H. Mitterer & N. J. Enfield. 2006. Projecting the end of a speaker''s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language 82(3). 515-535.
Degand, L. & A. C. Simon. 2009. Mapping prosody and syntax as discourse strategies: How basic discourse units vary across genres. In D. Barth-Weingarten, N. Dehe & A. Wichmann (eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics, 79-105. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Diessel, H. 2003. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Journal of Linguistics 39(1). 167-172.
Divjak, D. S. & S. T. Gries. 2006. Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(1). 23-60.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55. 59-74.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1995. Complement clauses and complementation strategies. In F. R. Palmer (ed.) Grammar and meaning: Essays in honor of Sir John Lyons, 175-220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Douglas-Cowie, E. & R. Cowie. 1997. Macrostructures in prosody: The case of phonecalls. In A. Botinis, G. Kouroupetroglou & G. Carayiannis (eds.), Intonation: Theory, models and applications, 103-106. Athens: Proceedings of an ESCA workshop.
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547-619.
Dryer, M. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In J. Bybee, J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Esssays on language function and language type, 115-143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Du Bois, J. W. 2003. Argument structure: grammar in use. In J. W. Du Bois, L. E. Kumpf & W. J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 10-60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Du Bois, J. W., S. Schuetze-Coburn, D. Paolino & S. Cumming. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding methods for language research, 45-89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Duanmu, S. 2000. Phonology of standard Chinese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duffy, S. A. & D. B. Pisoni. 1992. Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: A review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Speech 35(4). 351-389.
Dunn, M., A. Terrill, G. Reesink, R. A. Foley & S. C. Levinson. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science 309(5743). 2072-2075.
Durie, M. 1997. Grammatical structure in verb serialization. In J. Alex & P. Sells (eds.), Complex predicate, 289-354. Stanford: CSLI.
Edelman, G. M. 1992. Bright air, brilliant fire: On the matter of the mind. New York: Basic Books.
Faraway, J. J. 2006. Extending the linear model with R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Fauconnier, G. 1998. Mental spaces, language modalities, and conceptual integration. In M. Tomasello (ed.) The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 251-279. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 2002. The way we think. New York: Basic Books.
Fellbaum, C. ed. 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ferreira, F. 1993. Creation of prosody during sentence production. Psychological Review 100(2). 233-253.
Ferreira, F. 2007. Prosody and performance in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 22(8). 1151-1177.
Ferreira, F. & B. Swets. 2002. How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. Journal of Memory and Language 46(1). 57-84.
Ferrer, L. 2002. Prosodic features extraction. Technical report. SRI.
Fillmore, C. J. & B. T. Atkins. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, 75-102. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence.
Fillmore, C. J., P. Kay & M. K. O''Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501-538.
Firth, J. R. 1961. Papers in linguistics, 1934-1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fon, J. 2002. A cross-linguistic study on syntactic and discourse boundary cues in spontaneous speech. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation.
Fon, J. & K. Johnson. 2004. Syllable onset intervals as an indicator of discourse and syntactic boundaries in Taiwan Mandarin. Language and Speech 47(1). 57-82.
Fon, J., K. Johnson & S. Chen. 2011. Durational patterning at syntactic and discourse boundaries in Mandarin spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 54(1). 5-32.
Ford, C. E. 1993. Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ford, C. E. & S. A. Thompson. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 134-184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forman, M. L. 1993. Verb serialization, word order typology, and Zamboangueno: A comparative approach. Oceanic Linguistics 32(1). 163-182.
Fougeron, C. & P. A. Keating. 1997. Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101(6). 3728-3740.
Fox, B. A. 2007. Principles shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse Studies 9(3). 299-318.
Fox, J. & S. Weisberg. 2010. An R companion to applied regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fox, T. J. E. 1995. The effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 34(6). 709-738.
Frazier, L., K. Carlson & C. Clifton Jr. 2006. Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(6). 244-249.
Frazier, L., C. Clifton Jr. & K. Carlson. 2004. Don''t break, or do — prosodic boundary preferences. Lingua 114(1). 3-28.
Gee, J. P. & F. Grosjean. 1983. Performance structures: A psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology 15(4). 411-458.
Genzel, D. & E. Charniak. 2002. Entropy rate constancy in text. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Assoication for Computational Linguistics, 199-206. Philadelphia: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Gerken, L. 1996. Phonological and distributional information in syntax acquisition. In J. L. Morgan & K. Demuth (eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, 411-425. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gibbon, D. 2006. Time types and time trees: Prosodic mining and alignment of temporally annotated data. In S. Sudhoff, D. Lenertova, R. Meyer, S. Pappert, P. Augurzky, I. Mleinek, N. Richter & J. Schliesser (eds.), Methods in empirical prosody research, 181-209. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Gildea, D. & D. Jurafsky. 2002. Automatic labeling of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics 28(3). 245-288.
Givon, T. 1984. Syntax: A functional and typological introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givon, T. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism, and non-artibtrary coding in syntax. In J. Haiman (ed.) Iconicity in syntax, 187-220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givon, T. 1991a. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language 1(15). 85-114.
Givon, T. 1991b. Serial verbs and the mental reality of ''events'': Grammatical vs. cognitive package. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization I: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, 81-127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givon, T. 1993. English grammar: A function-based introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givon, T. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gleitman, L. R. & E. Wanner. 1982. Language acquisition: The state of the art. In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman (eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art, 3-48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. 1999. The emergence of argument structure semantics. In B. MacWhinney (ed.) The emergence of language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goldberg, A. E., D. Casenhiser & N. Sethuraman. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15. 286-316.
Goldman-Eisler, F. 1968. Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous spoken discourse. London: Academic Press.
Goldman-Eisler, F. 1972. Pauses, clauses, sentences. Language and Speech 15(2). 103-113.
Goldsmith, J. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. Cambridge: MIT dissertation.
Goodwin, C. 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in a natural conversation. In G. Psathats (ed.) Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 97-121. New York: Irvington.
Goodwin, C. & J. Heritage. 1990. Conversation analysis. The Annual Review of Anthropology 19. 283-307.
Gordon, M. & P. Munro. 2007. A phonetic study of final vowel lengthening in Chickasaw. International Journal of American Linguistics 73(3). 293-330.
Grabe, E., G. Kochanski & J. Coleman. 2003. Quantitative modelling of intonational variation. In Proceeding of speech analysis and recognition in technology, linguistics and medicine. Addison: Wesley.
Grabe, E. & E. L. Low. 2002. Durational variability in speech and the rhythm class hypothesis. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (eds.), Laboratory phonology VII, 515-546. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, J. E. 1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. & G. J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics, 79-100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Greenberg, J. H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of language, 73-113. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gries, S. T. 2009. Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grosz, B. J. & C. L. Sidner. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12(3). 175-204.
Hohle, B. 2009. Bootstrapping mechanisms in first language acquisition. Linguistics 47(2). 359-382.
Haegeman, L. M. V. 1994. Introduction to government and binding theory, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Haiman, J. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3). 515-540.
Haiman, J. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59. 781-819.
Hall, M., E. Frank, G. Holmes, B. Pfahringer, P. Reutemann & I. H. Witten. 2009. The WEKA data mining software: An update. SIGKDD Explorations 11(1).
Halliday, M. A. K. 1989. Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hannay, M. & C. Kroon. 2005. Acts and the relationship between discourse and grammar. Functions of Language 12(1). 87-124.
Hansell, M. 1993. Serial verbs and complement constructions in Mandarin: A clause linkage analysis. In R. D. Van Valin Jr. (ed.) Advances in role and reference grammar, 197-233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harbusch, K. 2011. Incremental sentence production inhibits clausal coordinate ellipsis: A treebank study into Dutch and German. Dialogue & Discourse 5. 313-332.
Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayashi, M. 1999. Where grammar and interaction meet: A study of co-participant completion in Japanese conversation. Human Studies 22(2). 475-499.
Heine, B. & T. Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Helasvuo, M.-L. 2001. Syntax in the making: the emergence of syntactic units in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Helasvuo, M.-L. 2004. Shared syntax: the grammar of co-constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 36(8). 1315-1336.
Heritage, J. 1989. Current developments in conversation analysis. In D. Roger & P. Bull (eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective, 21-47. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hermes, D. J. 2006. Stylization of pitch contours. In S. Sudhoff, D. Lenertova, R. Meyer, S. Pappert, P. Augurzky, I. Mleinek, N. Richter & J. Schliesser (eds.), Methods in empirical prosody research, 29-61. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hilpert, M. 2007. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hirst, D., A. Di Cristo & R. Espesser. 2000. Levels of representation and levels of analysis for the description of intonation systems. In M. Horne (ed.) Prosody: Theory and experiment. Studies presented to Gosta Bruce, 51-87. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hopper, P. J. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 139-157.
Hopper, P. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 17-35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hopper, P. J. & S. A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251-299.
Hopper, P. J. & S. A. Thompson. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60(4). 703-752.
Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howell, D. C. 2007. Statistical methods for psychology, 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
Huang, C.-R., K. Ahrens, L.-L. Chang, K.-J. Chen, M.-C. Liu & M.-C. Tsai. 2000. The module-attribute representation of verbal semantics: From semantics to argument strcuture. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 5(1). 19-46.
Huang, S. 1999. The emergence of a grammatical category definite article in spoken Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 31(1). 77-94.
Huang, S. 2003. Doubts about complementation: A functionalist analysis. Language and Linguistics 4(2). 429-455.
Huang, S. & K. Chui. 1997. Is Chinese a pragmatic order language? Chinese Languages and Linguistics 4. 51-79.
Huang, Z., L. Chen & M. Harper. 2006a. An open source prosodic feature extraction tool. In LREC 2006.
Huang, Z., L. Chen & M. Harper. 2006b. Purdue prosodic feature extraction toolkit on Praat. (ftp://ftp.ecn.purdue.edu/harper/praat-prosody.tar.gz) Purdue University: Spoken Language Processing Lab.
Hwang, J.-L. 2000. On grammaticalization in serial verb constructions in Chinese. University of Hawaii Dissertation.
Ishi, C. T., H. Ishiguro & N. Hagita. 2006. Analysis of prosodic and linguistic cues of phrase finals for turn-taking and dialog acts. In Proceeding of Interspeech 2006.
Ishi, C. T., P. Mokhtari & N. Campbell. 2003. Perceptually-related acoustic-prosodic features of phrase finals in spontaneous speech. In Proceeding of Eurospeech 2003, 405-408.
Iwasaki, S. & H. Tao. 1993. A comparative study of the structure of the intonation unit in English, Japanese, and Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Los Angelas, California.
Jaeger, T. F. 2006. Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.
Jaeger, T. F. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61. 23-62.
Jefferson, G. 1989. Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a ''standard maximum'' silence of approximately one second in conversation. In D. Roger & P. Bull (eds.), Conversation: an interdisciplinary perspective, 166-196. Clevedon, Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Jeng, J.-Y. 2008. The timing isochrony of spoken Mandarin at different speaking rates. Chinese Journal of Psychology 50(1). 471-488.
Johnson, K. 1997. Acoustic and auditory phonetics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Johnson, K. 2005. Speaker normalization in speech perception. In D. B. Pisoni & R. E. Remez (eds.), The handbook of speech perception, 363-389. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jun, S.-A. 2006. Prosodic typology. In S.-A. Jun (ed.) Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 430-458. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jurafsky, D. & J. H. Martin. 2008. Speech and language processing : An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition, 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jusczyk, P. W., K. Hirsh-Pasek, D. G. K. Nelson, L. J. Kennedy, A. Woodward & J. Piwoz. 1992. Perception of acoustic correlates of major phrasal units by young infants. Cognitive Psychology 24(2). 252-293.
Karkkainen, E. 1996. Preferred argument structure and subject role in American English conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 25. 675-701.
Kaufman, L. & P. J. Rousseeuw. 2005. Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis, 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kay, P. & C. J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What''s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1). 1-34.
Keating, P. A., T. Cho, C. Fougeron & C.-S. Hsu. 1999. Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 97. 139-151.
Keller, E. 1979. Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. Journal of Pragmatics 3(3-4). 219-238.
Kempen, G. & K. Harbusch. 2002. Performance grammar: A declarative definition. Language and Computers 45(1). 148-162.
Kempen, G. & E. Hoenkamp. 1987. An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science 11. 201-258.
Kim, H. 2003. Functions of single full NP turns with rising intonation in English conversation. Discourse and cognition 10(4). 49-77.
Klatt, D. H. 1975. Vowel lengthening is syntactically determined in a connected discourse. Journal of Phonetics 3(3). 129-140.
Kohler, K. J. 2010. The transmission of meaning by prosodic phrasing A comparison of French with English and German using no Ls and Hs. Phonetica 67(1-2). 100-124.
Kudo, T. 2005. CRF++: Yet another CRF toolkit. (http://crfpp.sourceforge.net/).
Ladd, D. R. 1984. Declination: a review and some hypotheses. Phonology 1(1). 53-74.
Ladd, D. R. 1993. On the theoretical status of ''the baseline'' in modelling intonation. Language and Speech 36(4). 435-451.
Ladd, D. R. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lafferty, J., A. McCallum & F. Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, 282-289.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic books.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. 2001. Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2). 143-188.
Langacker, R. W. 2003. Constructions in cognitive grammar. English Linguistics 20. 41-83.
Lehiste, I. 1973. Phonetic disambiguation of syntactic ambiguity. Glossa 7(2). 107-122.
Lehmann, C. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 181-225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lenneberg, E. H. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Lerner, G. H. 2004. Collaborative turn sequences. In G. Lerner (ed.) Conversationa analysis: Studies from the first generation, 225-256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lerner, G. H. & T. Takagi. 1999. On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: A co-investigation of English and Japanese grammatical practices. Journal of Pragmatics 31(1). 49-75.
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Levelt, W. J. M. 1999. Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoort (eds.), The neurocognition of language, 83-122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levelt, W. J. M. & A. Cutler. 1983. Prosodic marking in speech repair. Journal of Semantics 2(2). 205-217.
Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MTI Press.
Li, C. N. & S. A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lieberman, P. 1967. Intonation, perception, and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lin, C.-K. & L.-S. Lee. 2009. Improved features and models for detecting edit disfluencies in transcribing spontaneous Mandarin speech. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 17(7). 1263-1278.
Lin, Y.-J. 2009. Units in Zhuokeji rGyalrong discourse: Prosody and grammar. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Santa Barbara dissertation.
Linell, P. 2005. The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. London: Routledge.
Liu, M.-C. 2002. Mandarin verbal semantics: A corpus-based approach. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Liu, Y.-F. & S.-C. Tseng. 2009. Linguistic patterns detected through a prosodic segmentation in spontaneous Taiwan Mandarin speech. In S.-C. Tseng (ed.) Linguistic patterns in spontaneous speech, 147-166. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Liu, Y.-F., S.-C. Tseng & J.-S. R. Jang. 2011. A syllable-aligner for spontaneous speech of Mandarin. Manuscript.
Liu, Y.-F., S.-C. Tseng, J.-S. R. Jang & A. C.-H. Chen. 2010. Coping imbalanced prosodic unit boundary detection with linguistically-motivated prosodic features. In INTERSPEECH 2010, 1417-1420. Makuhari, Japan.
Liu, Y. 2004. Structural event detection for rich transcription of speech. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University dissertation.
Liu, Y., N. V. Chawla, M. Harper, E. Shriberg & A. Stolcke. 2006. A study in machine learning from imbalanced data for sentence boundary detection in speech. Computer Speech & Language 20(4). 468-494.
Liu, Y., A. Stolcke, E. Shriberg & M. Harper. 2004. Comparing and combining generative and posterior probability models: Some advances in sentence boundary detection in speech. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
Liu, Y., A. Stolcke, E. Shriberg & M. Harper. 2005. Using conditional random fields for sentence boundary detection in speech. In ACL ''05 Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 451-458. Ann Arbor: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Low, E. L., E. Grabe & F. Nolan. 2000. Quantitative characterisation of speech rhythm: Syllable timing in Singapore English. Language and Speech 43(4). 377-401.
Lyon, C., B. Dickerson & C. L. Nehaniv. 2002. The segmentation of speech and its implications for the emergence of language structure. Evolution of communication 4(2). 161-182.
Lyon, C., C. L. Nehaniv & B. Dickerson. 2007. Clues from information theory indicating a phased emergence of grammar. In C. Lyon, C. L. Nehaniv & A. Cangelosi (eds.), Emergence of communication and language, 71-85. London: Springer-Verlag.
Ma, J. K.-Y. 2007. The interaction between intonation and tone in Cantonese. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong dissertation.
Mann, W. C. & S. A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. Text 8(3). 243-281.
Manning, C. D. & H. Schutze. 1999. Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marcu, D. 2000. The rhetorical parsing of unrestricted texts: A surface-based approach. Computational Linguistics 26(3). 395-448.
Matsumoto, K. 1997. NPs in Japanese conversation. Pragmatics 7(2). 163-181.
Matsumoto, K. 1998. Detached NPs in Japanese conversation: Types and functions. Text 18(3). 417-444.
Matsumoto, K. 2000. Intonation units, clauses and preferred argument structure in conversational Japanese. Language Sciences 22. 63-86.
Matsumoto, K. 2001. Japanese intonation units and syntactic structure. Studies in Language 24(3). 515-564.
Maynard, S. K. 2002. Linguistic emotivity: Centrality of place, the topic-comment dynamic, and an ideology of pathos in Japanese discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McMahon, A. & R. McMahon. 2003. Finding families: Quantitative methods in language classification. Transactions of the Philological Society 101(1). 7-55.
McMahon, A. & R. McMahon. 2005. Language classification by numbers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meyers, A., R. Reeves, C. Macleod, R. Szekely, V. Zielinska, B. Young & R. Grishman. 2004. The NomBank project: An interim report. In Proceedings of NAACL/HLT Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation, 24-31. Boston, MA.
Michaelis, L. A. & K. Lambrecht. 1996. Toward a construction-based model of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72. 215-247.
Miller, J. & R. Weinert. 1998. Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mulac, A. & S. A. Thompson. 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of complementizer that in conversational Enlgish. Journal of Pragmatics 15. 237-251.
Narayanan, S. & S. Harabagiu. 2004. Question answering based on semantic structures. Paper presented at The 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Geneva, Switzerland.
Nespor, M. & I. Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Newmeyer, F. J. 1992. Iconicity and generative grammar. Language 68(4). 756-796.
Niu, Z.-Y. & P.-Q. Chai. 2001. A statistical approach based on boundary POS feature to prosodic phrasing. Journal of Chinese Information Processing 15(5). 19-25.
Nolan, F. 2003. Intonational equivalence: an experimental evaluation of pitch scales. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 771-774. Barcelona.
O''Connell, D. C. & S. Kowal. 2008. Communicating with one another: Toward a psychology of spontaneous spoken discourse. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Ochs, E., E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson. 1996. Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oller, D. K. 1973. The duration of speech segments: The effect of position in utterance on speech segment duration in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 54(5). 1235-1247.
Ono, T. & S. A. Thompson. 1994. Unattached NPs in English conversation. Berkeley Linguistic Society 20. 402-419.
Ono, T. & S. A. Thompson. 1995. What can conversation tell us about syntax? In P. W. Davis (ed.) Descriptive and theoretical modes in the alternative linguistics, 213-271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ono, T. & S. A. Thompson. 1996. Interaction and syntax in the structure of conversational discourse: Collaboration, overlap, and syntactic dissociation. In E. H. Hovy & D. R. Scott (eds.), Computational and conversational discourse: Burning issues, an interdisciplinary account, 67-96. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Ostendorf, M. & N. Veilleux. 1994. A hierarchical stochastic model for automatic prediction of prosodic boundary location. Computational Linguistics 20(1). 27-54.
Palmer, M., D. Gildea & P. Kingsbury. 2005. The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics 31(1). 71-106.
Park, J. S.-Y. 2002. Cognitive and interactional motivations for the intonation unit. Studies in Language 26(3). 637-680.
Pawley, A. & F. H. Syder. 2000. The one-clause-at-a-time hypothesis. In H. RiggenBach (ed.) Perspectives on fluency, 163-199. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Peng, S.-h., M. K. M. Chan, C.-y. Tseng, T. Huang, O. J. Lee & M. E. Beckman. 2006. Towards a Pan-Mandarin system for prosodic transcription. In S.-A. Jun (ed.) Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 230-270. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perniss, P., R. L. Thompson & G. Vigliocco. 2010. Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 1. 1-15.
Pierrehumbert, J. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Price, P., M. Ostendorf, S. Shattuck-Hufnagel & C. Fong. 1991. The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90(6). 2956-2970.
R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (http://www.r-project.org/) Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Radford, A. 2004. Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ramus, F. 2002. Acoustic correlates of linguistic rhythm: Perspectives. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 115-120.
Ramus, F., M. Nespor & J. Mehler. 1999. Correlates of linguistic rhythm in the speech signal. Cognition 73(265). 265-292.
Ravuri, S. & D. P. W. Ellis. 2008. Stylization of pitch with syllable-based linear segments. In Proceeding of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 3985-3988. Las Vegas.
Reeves, C., A. R. Schmauder & R. K. Morris. 2000. Stress grouping improves performance on an immediate serial list recall task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26(6). 1638-1654.
Roskies, A. L. 1999. The binding problem: Review introduction. Neuron 24. 7-9.
Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Malden: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff & G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696-735.
Saeed, J. I. 1997. Semantics. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Sakita, T. I. 2003. Preferred argument structure in conversational reporting. Doshisha Studies in Language and Culture 6(2). 275-297.
Schafer, A. J., S. R. Speer, P. Warren & S. D. White. 2000. Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29(2). 169-182.
Schegloff, E. A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ''uh huh'' and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (ed.) Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1981), 71-93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. 1987. Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly 50(2). 101-114.
Schegloff, E. A. 1991. Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasely (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 150-171. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.
Scheibman, J. 2002. Point of view and grammar: Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schuetze-Coburn, S. 1994. Prosody, syntax, and discourse pragmatics: Assessing information flow in German conversation. Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles dissertation.
Schuetze-Coburn, S., M. Shapley & E. G. Weber. 1991. Units of intonation in discourse: A comparison of acoustic and auditory analyses. Language and Speech 34(3). 207.
Schuppler, B., M. Ernestus, O. Scharenborg & L. Boves. 2011. Acoustic reduction in conversational Dutch: A quantitative analysis based on automatically generated segmental transcriptions. Journal of Phonetics 39. 96-109.
Schwenter, S. A. & E. C. Traugott. 2000. Invoking scalarity: The development of in fact. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1). 7-25.
Scott, D. R. 1982. Duration as a cue to the perception of a phrase boundary. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 71. 996-1007.
Selkirk, E. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Selkirk, E. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371-405.
Selkirk, E. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In M. Horne (ed.) Prosody: Theory and experiment, 231-261. Amsterdam: Kluwer.
Selting, M. 2010. Prosody in interaction: State of the art. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber & M. Selting (eds.), Prosody in Interaction, 3-40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shen, X. S. 1992. A pilot study on the relation between the temporal and syntactic structures in Mandarin. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 22(1-2). 35-43.
Shriberg, E. 2001. To err is human: Ecology and acoustics of speech disfluencies. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 31(1). 153-169.
Shriberg, E., A. Stolcke, D. Hakkani-Tur & G. Tur. 2000. Prosody-based automatic segmentation of speech into sentences and topics. Speech Communication 32. 127-154.
Silverman, K., M. E. Beckman, J. Pitrelli, M. Ostendorf, C. Wightman, P. Price, J. Pierrehumbert & J. Hirschberg. 1992. ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. In ICSLP-92, Vol. 2, 867-870.
Slobin, D. I. 1996. From "thought and language" to "thinking for speaking". In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, C. 2002. Prosodic finality and sentence type in French. Language and Speech 45(2). 141-178.
Steen, G. 2005. Basic discourse acts: Towards a psychological theory of discourse segmentation. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez & M. S. Pena Cervel (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 283-312. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch, A. & S. T. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209-243.
Stelma, J. H. & L. J. Cameron. 2007. Intonation units in spoken interaction: Developing transcription skills. Text & Talk 27(3). 361-393.
Stolcke, A., K. Ries, N. Coccaro, E. Shriberg, R. Bates, D. Jurafsky, P. Taylor, R. Martin, C. V. Ess-Dykema & M. Meteer. 2000. Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech. Computational Linguistics 26(3). 1-35.
Sturges, P. T. & J. H. Martin. 1974. Rhythmic structure in auditory temporal pattern perception and immediate memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology 102(3). 377-383.
Su, L. I.-w. 2004. Subjectification and the use of the complementizer SHUO. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 30(1). 19-40.
Surdeanu, M., S. Harabagiu, J. Williams & P. Aarseth. 2003. Using predicate-argument structures for information extraction. Paper presented at ACL 2003, Ann Arbor, MI.
Swerts, M. & R. Geluykens. 1994. Prosody as a marker of information flow in spoken discourse. Language and Speech 37(1). 21-43.
Swerts, M., R. Geluykens & J. Terken. 1992. Prosodic correlates of discourse units in spontaneous speech. In ICSLP-1992, 421-424.
Syrdal, A. K. & J. McGory. 2000. Inter-transcriber reliability of ToBI prosodic labeling. In Proceedings of the ICSLP-2000, 235-238.
Taboada, M. 2006. Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics 38(4). 567-592.
Taboada, M. & W. C. Mann. 2006. Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies 8(3). 423-459.
Tao, H. 1992. NP intonation units and referent identification. Berkeley Linguistic Society 18. 237-247.
Tao, H. 1996. Units in Mandarin conversation: Prosody, discourse, and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tao, H. 2003. A usage-based approach to argument structure: ''remember'' and ''forget'' in spoken English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(1). 75-95.
Tao, H. & S. A. Thompson. 1994. The discourse and grammar interface: Preferred clause structure in Mandarin conversation. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 29(3). 1-34.
Taylor, P. & A. W. Black. 1998. Assigning phrase breaks from part-of-speech sequences. Computer speech and language 12. 99-117.
Taylor, T. J. 1997. Theorizing language: Analysis, normativity, rhetoric, history. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Tench, P. 1990. The roles of intonation in English discourse. Frankfurt: Lang.
Thompson, S. A. 2002. "Object complements" and conversation: towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1). 125-164.
Thompson, S. A. & E. Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7(4-5). 481-506.
Thompson, S. A. & P. J. Hopper. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In J. Bybee & P. J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27-60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thompson, S. A. & H. Tao. 2010. Conversation, grammar, and fixedness: Adjectives in Mandarin revisited. Chinese Language and Discourse 1(1). 3-30.
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Traugott, E. C. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In D. Stein & S. Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. & R. B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Truckenbrodt, H. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2). 219-255.
Tseng, C.-y. 2010a. An F0 analysis of discourse construction and global information in realized narrative prosody. Language and Linguistics 11(2). 183-218.
Tseng, C.-y. & F.-c. Chou. 1999. Machine readable phonetic transcription system for Chinese dialects spoken in Taiwan. Journal of Acoustical Society of Japan 20(3). 215-224.
Tseng, C.-y., S.-h. Pin, Y. Lee, H.-m. Wang & Y.-c. Chen. 2005. Fluent speech prosody: Framework and modeling. Speech Communication 46(3-4). 284-309.
Tseng, S.-C. 2004. Mandarin conversational dialogue corpus. In K. Yoneyama & K. Maekawa (eds.), Spontaneous speech: data and analysis, 73-86. Tokyo: National Institute for Japanese Language.
Tseng, S.-C. 2006. Repairs in Mandarin conversation. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 34(1). 80-120.
Tseng, S.-C. 2008. Spoken corpora and analysis of natural speech. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 6(2). 1-26.
Tseng, S.-C. 2010b. Directional complements in Taiwan Mandarin natural speech. Language and Linguistics 11(3). 469-501.
Tyler, A. & V. Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Santen, J., T. Mishra & E. Klabbers. 2008. Prosodic Processing. In J. Benesty, M. M. Sondhi & Y. Huang (eds.), Springer handbook of speech processing, 471-487. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Walker, G. 2004. The phonetic design of turn endings, beginnings, and continuations in conversation. Heslington, York: University of York dissertation.
Walker, G. 2010. The phonetic constitution of a turn-holding practice. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber & M. Selting (eds.), Prosody in interaction, 51-72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wang, M. Q. & J. Hirschberg. 1992. Automatic classification of intonational phrase boundaries. Computer Speech & Language 6(2). 175-196.
Wang, Y.-F. 2002. The preferred information sequences of adverbial linking in Mandarin Chinese discourse. Text 22(1). 141-172.
Wang, Y.-F., A. Katz & C.-H. Chen. 2003. Thinking as saying: shuo (‘say’) in Taiwan Mandarin conversation and BBS talk. Language Sciences 25(5). 457-488.
Watson, D. & E. Gibson. 2004a. Making sense of the sense unit condition. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3). 508-517.
Watson, D. & E. Gibson. 2004b. The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 19(6). 713-755.
Wichmann, A. 2000. Intonation in text and discourse: Beginnings, middles, and ends. London: Longman.
Wichmann, A. & J. Caspers. 2001. Melodic cues to turn-taking in English: evidence from perception. In Proceedings of SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, 1-6.
Wiechmann, D. 2008. On the computation of collostruction strength: Testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4(2). 253-290.
Wightman, C. W. 2002. ToBI or not ToBI. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 25-29.
Witten, I. H., E. Frank & M. A. Hall. 2011. Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques, 3rd edn. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Xue, N. 2007. Annotation guidelines for the Chinese Proposition Bank. (http://verbs.colorado.edu/chinese/cpb/cpbguide.pdf). Manuscript.
Xue, N. 2008. Labeling Chinese predicates with semantic roles. Computational Linguistics 34(2). 225-255.
Xue, N. & M. Palmer. 2003. Annotating the propositions in the Penn Chinese Treebank. In Proceedings of the Second Sighan Workshop, Sapporo, Japan, 47-54.
Xue, N., F. Xia, F.-D. Chiou & M. Palmer. 2005. The Penn Chinese TreeBank: Phrase structure annotation of a large corpus. Natural Language Engineering 11(02). 207-238.
Yoon, T.-J., J. Cole & M. Hasegawa-Johnson. 2007. On the edge: Acoustic cues to layered prosodic domains. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1017-1020. Saarbruecken, Germany.
Zong, C. & F. Ren. 2003. Chinese utterance segmentation in spoken language translation. In A. Gelbukh (ed.) Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing, 516-525. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.



 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1498（臺灣：1486，外國：12） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1855660 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67650843
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上