Advertisement

Audible Paralinguistic Phenomena in Everyday Spoken Conversations: Evidence from the ORD Corpus Data

  • Tatiana SherstinovaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 943)

Abstract

Paralinguistic phenomena are non-verbal elements in conversation. Paralinguistic studies are usually based on audio or video recordings of spoken communication. In this article, we will show what kind of audible paralinguistic information may be obtained from the ORD speech corpus of everyday Russian discourse containing long-term audio recordings of conversations made in natural circumstances. This linguistic resource provides rich authentic data for studying the diversity of audible paralinguistic phenomena. The frequency of paralinguistic phenomena in everyday conversations has been calculated on the base of the annotated subcorpus of 187,600 tokens. The most frequent paralinguistic phenomena turned out to be: laughter, inhalation noise, cough, e-like and m-like vocalizations, tongue clicking, and the variety of unclassified non-verbal sounds (calls, exclamations, imitations by voice, etc.). The paper reports on distribution of paralinguistic elements, non-verbal interjections and hesitations in speech of different gender and age groups.

Keywords

Paralinguistics Audible paralinguistic phenomena Vocalizations Everyday conversation Spoken interaction Speech corpus Russian language Laughter Interjections Hesitations Fillers Gender Age 

References

  1. 1.
    Abercrombie, D.: Paralanguage. Br. J. Disord. Commun. 3, 55–59 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asinovsky, A., Bogdanova, N., Rusakova, M., Ryko, A., Stepanova, S., Sherstinova, T.: The ORD speech corpus of Russian everyday communication “One Speaker’s Day”: creation principles and annotation. In: Matoušek, V., Mautner, P. (eds.) TSD 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5729, pp. 250–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04208-9_36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Austin, W.M.: Some social aspects of paralanguage. Can. J. Linguist. 11(1), 31–39 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bogdanova-Beglarian, N., et al.: Sociolinguistic extension of the ORD corpus of Russian everyday speech. In: Ronzhin, A., Potapova, R., Németh, G. (eds.) SPECOM 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9811, pp. 659–666. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43958-7_80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bogdanova-Beglarian, N., Sherstinova, T., Blinova, O., Martynenko, G.: Linguistic features and sociolinguistic variability in everyday spoken Russian. In: Karpov, A., Potapova, R., Mporas, I. (eds.) SPECOM 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10458, pp. 503–511. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66429-3_50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burkhardt, F., Huber, R., Batliner, A.: Application of speaker classification in human machine dialog systems. In: Müller, C. (ed.) Speaker Classification I. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4343, pp. 174–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74200-5_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Campbell, N.: Conversational speech synthesis and the need for some laughter. IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 14, 1171–1178 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campbell, N.: Speech & expression; the value of a longitudinal corpus. In: LREC 2004, pp. 183–186 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crystal, D.: Prosodic and paralinguistic correlates of social categories. In: Ardener, E. (ed.) Social Anthropology, pp. 185–206. Tavistock, London (1971)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crystal, D.: Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Univ. Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crystal, D., Quirk, R.: Systems of Prosodic and Paralinguistic Features in English. Mouton, The Hague (1964)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Du Bois, J.: Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics 1, 71–106 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Edwards, J., Lampert, M.D. (eds.): Talking Data. Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, Hillsdale (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ELAN homepage. https://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/. Accessed 17 July 2017
  15. 15.
    Fisher, W.M., Doddington, G.R., Goudie-Marshall, K.M.: The DARPA Speech Recognition Research Database: Specifications and Status, pp. 93–99 (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hepburn, A., Bolden, G.: The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In: Stivers, T., Sidnell, J. (eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Blackwell, Oxford (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johar, S.: Emotion, Affect and Personality in Speech. The Bias of Language and Paralanguage. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28047-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kendon, A.: Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kipyatkova, I., Verkhodanova, V., Ronzhin, A.: Segmentation of paralinguistic phonation phenomena in spontaneous Russian speech, Perm University Herald. Russ. Foreign Philol. 2(18), 17–23 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knapp, M.L., Hall, J.A., Horgan, T.G.: Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction, 8th edn. Wadsworth, Boston (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McTear, M., Callejas, Z., Griol, D.: The Conversational Interface. Talking to Smart Devices. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32967-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mohammadi, G., Vinciarelli, A., Mortillaro, M.: The voice of personality: mapping nonverbal vocal behavior into trait attributions. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Social Signal Processing, Florence, pp. 17–20 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nöth, W.: Handbook of Semiotics. Indiana University Press (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pittenger, R.E., Hockett, C.F., Danehy, J.J.: The First Five Minutes: A Sample of Microscopic Interview Analysis. Paul Martineau, Ithaca (1960)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poyatas, F.: Paralanguage: A Linguistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to Interactive Speech and Sounds. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Poyatos, F.: Nonverbal Communication Across Disciplines. John Benjamins Pub. Co., Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Praat homepage. http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/. Accessed 17 July 2017
  28. 28.
    Redder, A.: Aufbau und Gestaltung von Transkriptionssystemen. In: Brinker, K., Antos, G., Heinemann, W., Sager, S.F. (Hgg.): Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Linguistics of Text and Conversation. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 2. Halbband, vol. 2, pp. 1038–1059. de Gruyter, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scherer, K.G.: Vocal communication of emotion: a review of research paradigms. Speech Commun. 40, 227–256 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scherer, K.R., Ekman, P. (eds.): Handbook of Methods in Nonverbal Behavior Research, pp. 136–198. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schuller, B., Batliner, A.: Computational Paralinguistics: Emotion, Affect and Personality in Speech and Language Processing, 1st edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schuller, B., Müller, R., Eyben, F., et al.: Being bored? Recognising natural interest by extensive audiovisual integration for real-life application. Image Vis. Comput. 27(12), 1760–1774 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schuller, B., et al.: Paralinguistics in speech and language—state-of-the-art and the challenge. Comput. Speech Lang. Spec. Issue Paralinguistics Nat. Speech Lang. 27(1), 4–39 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Selting, M., et al.: Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT). Linguistische Berichte 173, 91–122 (1998)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sherstinova, T.: Speech acts annotation of everyday conversations in the ORD сorpus of spoken Russian. In: Ronzhin, A., Potapova, R., Németh, G. (eds.) SPECOM 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9811, pp. 627–635. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43958-7_76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sherstinova, T.: Macro episodes of Russian everyday oral communication: towards pragmatic annotation of the ORD speech corpus. In: Ronzhin, A., Potapova, R., Fakotakis, N. (eds.) SPECOM 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9319, pp. 268–276. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23132-7_33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sherstinova, T.: The most frequent words in everyday spoken Russian (in the gender dimention and depending on communication settings). In: Komp’juternaja Lingvistika i Intellektual’nye Tehnologii, vol. 15, no. 22, pp. 616–631 (2016)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sherstinova, T.: Some observations on everyday singing behaviour based on long-term audio recordings. In: Eismont, P., Konstantinova, N. (eds.) LMAC 2015. CCIS, vol. 561, pp. 88–100. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27498-0_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smith, H.L.: The Communication Situation. Foreign Service Institute (mimeographed), Washington (1950)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Steidl, S.: Automatic Classification of Emotion Related User States in Spontaneous Children’s Speech. Logos-Verl. (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Trager, G.L.: Paralanguage: a first approximation. Stud. Linguist. 13, 1–12 (1958)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Trouvain, J.: Laughter, breathing, clicking—the prosody of nonverbal vocalisations. In: Campbell, Gibbon, and Hirst (eds.) Speech Prosody, pp. 598–602 (2014)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wharton, T.: Paralanguage. In: Barron, A., Gu, Y., Steen, G. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. Routledge (2017)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Winkler, P.: Notationen des Sprechausdrucks. Zeitschrift für Semiotik 1(2/3), 211–224 (1979)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saint Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsSt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations