Chapter 6. The Moscow approach to local discourse structure

Functional Models of Elementary Discursive Units in Russian Esports Commentary

“…They simply do not have a right to keep silence for too long, as there is audience waiting for the emotions expressing and explanations of what is happening. Apparently, it results in deviations from the norm of the Russian spoken discourse shown in Kibrik and Podlesskaya (2009): average EDUs are pronounced faster (1.26 s. for the commentary vs. 1.85 s. for the common discourse); pauses shift from the EDU boundaries inwards (40.01 % boundary pauses for the commentary vs. 62.7 % for the common discourse); during tense game moments everything except nouns (à objects) and verbs (à actions) is omitted for time saving; the most frequent EDUs patterns are very short (participles, nouns), etc.…”

“…Whereas the speech apparatus can be trained, consciousness limits the volume of information that can be simultaneously kept active and requires time for switching between frame slots [Chafe, 1996]. Therefore, commentators resort to various pauses usage in almost similar way as children in Kibrik and Podlesskaya's (2009) study: both in casters' and children's speech absolute pauses occur in 84.5 % of cases, while filled and mixed pauses more often take place inside EDUs; discursive markers (particles) are often used for taking time to think. Nuclear accents are typically held (92 %) in order to denote the purpose of the current discursive step and focus audience's attention on the most significant aspects of the narrative.…”

“…Apart of prosodic characteristics of speech, discursive transcription reflects other language aspects such as grammar and semantics, as well as situational, extralinguistic information [p. [73][74]. Thirteen years ago, Kibrik and his colleagues developed a cognitive-discursive transcription system, a set of related rules and principles for discrete reflection of Russian spoken discourse [namely, Kibrik & Podlesskaya, 2009]. The groundwork of this system is particularly repre-sented by the proceedings by Austin (1963), Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983), Mann and Thompson (1988), Chafe (1994), Du Bois (1992), Du Bois et al (1993), Levelt (1993), Tomlin et al (1997) and Kibrik (2003).…”

Synergy of Languages & Cultures 2022: Interdiscipilinary Studies

“…Apart of prosodic characteristics of speech, discursive transcription reflects other language aspects such as grammar and semantics, as well as situational, extralinguistic information [p. 73-74]. Thirteen years ago, Kibrik and his colleagues developed a cognitive-discursive transcription system, a set of related rules and principles for discrete reflection of Russian spoken discourse [namely, Kibrik & Podlesskaya, 2009]. The groundwork of this system is particularly repre-sented by the proceedings by Austin (1963), Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983), Mann and Thompson (1988), Chafe (1994), Du Bois (1992, Du Bois et al (1993), Levelt (1993), Tomlin et al (1997) and Kibrik (2003).…”

An automatic speech segmentation tool based on multiple acoustic parameters

“…Studies on different languages have also pointed to a strong connection between prosodic parsing and information/discourse structure (Swerts et al 1992;Chafe 1993;Cresti & Moneglia 2010;Izre'el 2005;Kibrik 2012). There is sufficient evidence from corpus-driven and corpus-based research that the segmentation of speech should be based on prosodic criteria.…”