Cover not available

In:In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language: A corpus-driven approach
Edited by Shlomo Izre'el, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi and Tommaso Raso
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 94] 2020
► pp. 77–106

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 2
The basic unit of spoken language and the interfaces between prosody, discourse and syntax

A View from spontaneous spoken Hebrew

 | Tel Aviv University
Published online: 18 June 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.94.02izr
Abstract
Looking at spoken language as an integrative whole, where prosody, syntax and discourse features interplay as to conveying information, I will try to figure out the best methodology for its research by advocating that the best candidate to be regarded as the basic unit of spoken discourse is the utterance. Arguments brought will be mainly phonetic, phonological (prosodic), informational, and syntactic. In addition, arguments from pragmatics and conversation analysis will be mentioned.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Units of spoken language: Definitions and terminology
    • 2.1Prosodic and information (discourse) units
      • 2.1.1Prosodic module (PM), segmental module (SM) and information module (IM)
      • 2.1.2Prosodic set (PS) and utterance (Utt) or information set
    • 2.2Syntax: The clause
  • 3.In search of the basic unit of spoken language
    • 3.1The interface between prosodic, information (discourse), and syntactic units
    • 3.2Hypotheses
    • 3.3One single utterance consists of a single clause
    • 3.4Utterances with no syntactic contents
    • 3.5Expanded configurations
      • 3.5.1Clause+
      • 3.5.2Clause clusters
    • 3.6Interim conclusions
    • 3.7Utterances ending in minor boundaries and Utts continuing after major boundaries
      • 3.7.1Utterances ending in minor boundaries
        • 3.7.1.1Isotony
        • 3.7.1.2Backchannels
        • 3.7.1.3Greetings and courtesy phrases
        • 3.7.1.4Suspended utterances
      • 3.7.2Major boundaries in mid-utterance position
        • 3.7.2.1Inserts
        • 3.7.2.2Split utterances
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (59)
References
Amir, N., Silber-Varod, V., & Izre’el, S. (2004). Characteristics of intonation unit boundaries in spontaneous spoken Hebrew: Perception and acoustic correlates. In B. Bel, & I. Marlien (Eds.), Speech prosody 2004 (pp. 677–680). Nara, Japan: ISCA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1972 [1964]). Around the edge of language: Intonation. In D. Bolinger (Ed.), Intonation: Selected readings (pp. 19–29). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). Intonation and its parts: Melody in spoken English. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bossaglia, G., Mello, H., & Raso, T. (this volume). Illocution as a unit of reference for spontaneous speech: An account for insubordinated adverbial clauses in Brazilian Portuguese. In S. Izre’el, H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso (Eds.), In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brazil, D. (1995). A grammar of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1993). Prosodic and functional units of language. In J. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 33–43). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
CoSIH. (2012). The corpus of spoken Israeli Hebrew (CoSIH). Retrieved from <[URL]>
Cresti, E. (2000). Corpus di Italiano parlato. Florence: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1995). Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics, 33, 839–882. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Intonation units and grammatical structure in Wardaman and English. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 27, 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (1997). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Debaisieux, J-M. (Ed.). (2013). Analyses linguistiques sur corpus: Subordination et insubordination en français. Cachan: Hermès & Lavoisier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Debaisieux, J-M., & Martin, P. (this volume). Syntactic and prosodic segmentation in spoken French. In S. Izre’el, H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso (Eds.), In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Den, Y., Koiso, H., Takehiko, M., Maekawa, K., Takanashi, K., Enomoto, M., & Yoshida, N. (2010). Two-level annotation of utterance-unit in Japanese dialogs: An empirically emerged scheme. Proceedings of LREC 2010, 2103–2110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2006). Representing discourse. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Du Bois, J. W., Cumming, S., Schuetze-Coburn, S., & Paolino, D. (1992). Discourse transcription. Santa Barbara, CA: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Outline of discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 45–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 366–431). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Féry, C. (2017). Intonation and prosodic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (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 (pp. 134–184). Cambrige: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. Fourth edition revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. London and New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1951). Structural linguistics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirst, D., & Di Cristo, A. (Eds.). (1998). Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York, NY: Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inbar, A. (2016). Is subordination viable? The case of Hebrew ʃɛ ‘that’. CHIMERA: Romance Corpora And Linguistic Studies, 3(2), 287–310.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwasaki, S. (1993). The structure of intonation units in Japanese. In S. Choi (Ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics (Vol. 3, pp. 39–53). Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwasaki, S., & Tao, H. (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 Linguistics Society of America, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Izre’el, S. (2002). The corpus of spoken Israeli Hebrew: Textual samples. Leshonénu, 64, 289–314.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Intonation units and the structure of spontaneous spoken language: A view from Hebrew. In C. Auran, R. Bertrand, C. Chanet, A. Colas, A. Di Cristo, C. Portes, A. Reynier, & M. Vion (Eds.), Proceedings of the IDP05 international symposium on discourse-prosody interfaces. Retrieved from <[URL]>
(2012). Basic sentence structures: A view from spoken Israeli Hebrew. In S. Caddéo, M.-N. Roubaud, M. Rouquier, & F. Sabio (Eds.), Penser les langues avec Claire Blanche-Benveniste (pp. 215–227). Aix-en-Provence: Presses Universitaires de Provence.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018a). Unipartite clauses: A view from spoken Israeli Hebrew. In M. Tosco (Ed.), Afroasiatic: Data and perspectives (pp. 235–259). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018b). Syntax, prosody, discourse and information structure: The case for unipartite clauses. A view from spoken Israeli Hebrew. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 26(4), 1675–1726. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Izre’el, S., & Mettouchi, A. (2015). Representation of speech in CorpAfroAs: Transcriptional strategies and prosodic units. In A. Mettouchi, M. Vanhove, & D. Caubet (Eds.), Corpus-based studies of lesser-described languages: The CorpAfroAs corpus of spoken AfroAsiatic languages (pp. 13–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kibrik, A. A., Korotaev, N. A., & Podlesskaya, V. I. (this volume). Russian spoken discourse: Local structure and prosody. In S. Izre’el, H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso (Eds.), In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kibrik, A. A., & Podlesskaya, V. I. (2006). Problema segmentacii ustnogo diskursa i kognitivnaja sistema govorjashchego [Segmentation of spoken discourse and the speaker’s cognitive system]. In V. D. Solovyev, (Ed.), Kognitivnye issledovanija (Vol. 1, pp. 138–158). Moscow: Institut psixologii RAN.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Is sentence viable? In The third international conference on cognitive science. June 20–25, 2008, Moscow, Russia. Abstracts (Vol. 1, pp. 84–85). Moscow: IP RAN.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(Eds.). (2009). Rasskazy o snovidenijax: korpusnoe issledovanie ustnogo russkogo diskursa [Night dream stories: A corpus study of spoken Russian discourse]. Moskva: Iazyki Slavjanskyx Kultur.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). Introduction to conversation analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieberman, P. (1967). Intonation, perception and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieberman, P., & Blumstein, S. E. (1988). Speech physiology, speech perception, and acoustic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, P. (2015). The structure of spoken language: Intonation in romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (2008). The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language, 83, 69–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raso, T., & Moneglia, M. (2014). Notes on Language into Act Theory (L-AcT). In T. Raso & H. Mello (Eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistic studies (pp. 468–495). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. L. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (2001). The syntax-phonology interface. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 23, pp. 895–899). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shor, L. (2016). Cognitive and interactional motivations for prosodic phrasing: A corpus-based analysis of the clause in spoken Israeli Hebrew. CHIMERA: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies, 3(2), 325–343.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silber-Varod, V. (2011). The SpeeCHain perspective: Prosodic-syntactic interface in spontaneous spoken Hebrew (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Tel-Aviv University, Israel. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Sornicola, R. (2006). Topic and comment. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 766–773). Oxford: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szczepek Reed, B. (2011). Analysing conversation: An introduction to prosody. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warren, P. (2016). Uptalk: The phenomenon of rising intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wichmann, A. (2000). Intonation in text and discourse: Beginnings, middles and ends. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Majhenič, Simona, Mitja Beras & Janez Križaj
2025. The Neglected Group: Cognitive Discourse Markers as Signposts of Prosodic Unit Boundaries. Languages 10:7 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Raso, Tommaso, Saulo Mendes Santos, Albert Rilliard & João A. Moraes
2025. 65Defining and Identifying Discourse Markers in Spontaneous Speech. In Prosodic Interfaces, ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Ozerov, Pavel
2023. From sentential syntax to syntax of interaction. Journal of Speech Sciences 12 ► pp. e023001 ff. DOI logo
Izre'el, Shlomo
2022. The syntax of existential constructions. Journal of Speech Sciences 11 ► pp. e022001 ff. DOI logo
Izre'el, Shlomo
2022. The syntax of existential constructions. Journal of Speech Sciences 11 ► pp. e022002 ff. DOI logo
Izre'el, Shlomo
2024. Letter to the editor on seeing an elephant. Journal of Speech Sciences 13 ► pp. e024001 ff. DOI logo
Bossaglia, Giulia, Heliana Mello & Tommaso Raso
2020. Illocution as a unit of reference for spontaneous speech. In In search of basic units of spoken language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 94], ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Izre’el, Shlomo
2020. Applying criteria of spontaneous Hebrew speech segmentation to English. In In search of basic units of spoken language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 94], ► pp. 337 ff. DOI logo
Izre’el, Shlomo, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi & Tommaso Raso
2020. In search of a basic unit of spoken language. In In search of basic units of spoken language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 94], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kibrik, Andrej A., Nikolay A. Korotaev & Vera I. Podlesskaya
2020. Russian spoken discourse. In In search of basic units of spoken language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 94], ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Shor, Leon
2020. Reassessing the third person pronominal “copula” in spoken Israeli Hebrew. Linguistics 58:6 ► pp. 1807 ff. DOI logo
Weise, Andreas, Vered Silber-Varod, Anat Lerner, Julia Hirschberg & Rivka Levitan
2020. Entrainment in spoken Hebrew dialogues. Journal of Phonetics 83 ► pp. 101005 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. 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.

audio

Example 1

Example 1 line [1]

Example 1 line [2]

Example 1 line [3]

Example 1 line [4]

Example 1 line [5]

Example 1 line [6]

Example 1 line [7]

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Example 5

Example 6

Example 7

Example 8

Example 9

Example 10

Example 11

Example 12

Example 13

Example 14

Example 15

Example 16

Example 17

Example 18

Example 19

Example 20

Example 21

Example 22

Example 23a

Example 23b

Example 24

Example 25

Example 26

Example 27

Example 28

Example 29

Example 30

Example 31

Example 32

Example 33

Example 34

Example 35

Example 36

Example 37

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue