From the Publisher:
This book takes an empirical approach to language processing, based on applying statistical and other machine-learning algorithms to large corpora.Methodology boxes are included in each chapter. Each chapter is built around one or more worked examples to demonstrate the main idea of the chapter. Covers the fundamental algorithms of various fields, whether originally proposed for spoken or written language to demonstrate how the same algorithm can be used for speech recognition and word-sense disambiguation. Emphasis on web and other practical applications. Emphasis on scientific evaluation. Useful as a reference for professionals in any of the areas of speech and language processing.

/pdf/speech-and-language-processing-an-introduction-to-natural-atzaecqfem.pdf

Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition

The article proposes a framework for the analysis of identity as produced in linguistic interaction, based on the following principles: (1) identity is the product rather than the source of linguis...

/pdf/identity-and-interaction-a-sociocultural-linguistic-approach-2nkp45pi1r.pdf

Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach

/pdf/language-typology-and-syntactic-description-75tdqtyriz.pdf

Language typology and syntactic description

HANDBOOK OF MIXED METHODS IN SOCIAL & BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH (Book)

http://wjh.harvard.edu/~pal/pdfs/prosody/clark-foxtree02.pdf

Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking

Introduction The research reported in this chapter is intended as a contribution to an understanding of the basic linguistic units used by speakers in spontaneous communication. Our interest is in the linguistic factors associated with the split-second timing of next turn onset that has been documented in conversation analytic literature (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson, 1974; Jefferson, 1973; Wilson and Zimmerman, 1986). In the past two decades, conversation analysts have uncovered patterns and principles of interaction, particularly in the areas of turn-taking and the sequential organization of talk. The picture of spontaneous interaction that emerges very clearly from this research depicts a complex and intricately monitored human practice that is maximally sensitive to moment-by-moment input by all parties to a conversation, and is, therefore, characterized by an organization that is locally managed. Turns at talk vary widely in length, and their length is not unilaterally controlled. The extension of a turn at talk has everything to do with the manner in which that turn is being responded to by the other participant(s) in the conversation (e.g., Atkinson and Heritage, 1984; Davidson, 1984; C. Goodwin, 1979, 1981, 1986a, 1986b, 1987; M. Goodwin, 1980; Goodwin and Goodwin, 1986, 1987, forthcoming; Heritage, 1984, 1989; Jefferson, 1973, 1987, 1989; Lerner, 1987, 1989, 1991, in progress; Sacks, et al. 1974; Schegloff, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992; Schegloff and Sacks, 1973; Wilson and Zimmerman, 1986; and Wilson et al. 1984). To understand the syntax and rhetoric of conversational language use, linguists need to take very seriously the situated practices of conversationalists as revealed in the careful work of conversation analysts.

Interaction and grammar: Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns

PurposeDespite sincere commitment to egalitarian, meritocratic principles, subtle gender bias persists, constraining women’s opportunities for academic advancement. The authors implemented a pair-matched, single-blind, cluster randomized, controlled study of a gender-bias-habit-changing intervention

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/30271/cdc_30271_DS1.pdf

The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial.

1: Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson: Introduction 2: Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson: Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments 3: Lisa Capps and Elinor Ochs: Cultivating Prayer 4: Charles Goodwin, Marjorie H. Goodwin, and David Olsher: Producing Sense with Nonsense Syllables: Turn and Sequence in Conversations with a Man with Severe Aphasia 5: Makoto Hayashi, Junko Mori, and Tomoyo Tagaki: Contingent Achievement of Co-Tellership in a Japanese Conversation: An Analysis of Talk, Gaze and Gesture 6: Sally Jacoby and Patrick Gonzales: Saying What Wasn't Said: Negative Observation as a Linguistic Resource for the Interactional Achievement of Performance Feedback 7: Marja-Leena Sorjonen: Recipient Activities: The Particle No as a Go-Ahead Response in Finnish Conversations 8: John Heritage: Oh-Prefaced Responses to Assessments: A Method of Modifying Agreement/Disagreement 9: Gene H. Lerner: Turn-Sharing: The Choral Co-Production of Talk-in-Interaction 10: Robert Jasperson: Some Linguistic Aspects of Closure Cut-Off Index

The language of turn and sequence

This study began with a simple question that has been on our minds, indMdually and collectively, for some time: What are the basic units of talk-in-conversation? Units in conversation must be understood as usable for the construction of joint activities, not merely as packages of information to be parsed. Features of turn construction are adapted to such functions as displaying responsiveness to other turns and making interpretable contributions to an ongoing interactional sequence. Furthermore, timing of speaker onset is crucial to the making of meaning in conversation, whether that onset is produced in overlap, after some gap, or precisely at the point where a current speaker stops. It has been manifestly clear for some time that, for the description of the basic units of talk-in-interaction, neither a strictly syntactic/semantic nor a strictly prosodic approach to conversational units will suffice by itself (Schegloff 1996); "sentences" and "clauses" are only part of the picture, but "tone units" (Crystal 7969; Cruttenden 1986) or "intonation units" (Chafe 1987, 1988, 1992, 7993, 1994; Du Bois et al. 1993) are also only part of the picture. The basic conversational unit must be an amalgam of at least these two types of units, but its niche in a developing interactional context must also play a major part in its construction. An obvious place to turn for discussion of this question is to Conversation Analysis (CA), since this framework has concerned itself intensively with the organization of turn-taking. In their celebrated and highly influential paper outlining the practices under$ing conversational turn-taking, Sacks et al. (1974) propose a model in which turns at talk are analyzed as being made up of "turn-constructional

https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/elanguage/pragmatics/article/download/478/478-796-1-PB.pdf

Practices in the Construction of Turns: The "TCU" Revisited

1 Introduction 2 Overview of the conversational corpus 3 Initial adverbial clauses 4 Final versus initial adverbial clauses in continuous intonation 5 Final adverbial clauses after ending intonation 6 Comparison of clause types and apparent deviations from the general patterns 7 Conclusion

Cecilia E. Ford

Papers

Interaction and grammar: Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns

The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial.

The language of turn and sequence

Practices in the Construction of Turns: The "TCU" Revisited

Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations