Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-gs9qr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T11:24:34.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tool-assisted analysis of interactional corpora: voilà in the CLAPI database

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

MICHEL BERT ,
SYLVIE BRUXELLES ,
CAROLE ETIENNE ,
LORENZA MONDADA  and
VÉRONIQUE TRAVERSO
MICHEL BERT
Affiliation:
ICAR Research Lab (CNRS and University of Lyon)
SYLVIE BRUXELLES
Affiliation:
ICAR Research Lab (CNRS and University of Lyon)
CAROLE ETIENNE
Affiliation:
ICAR Research Lab (CNRS and University of Lyon)
LORENZA MONDADA*
Affiliation:
ICAR Research Lab (CNRS and University of Lyon)
VÉRONIQUE TRAVERSO*
Affiliation:
ICAR Research Lab (CNRS and University of Lyon)
*
Address for correspondence: Lorenza Mondada, Véronique Traverso, ICAR UMR 5191 CNRS, Ecole Normale Supérieure Lettres et Sciences Humaines, 15, Parvis René Descartes, BP 7000, 69342 LYON cedex 07, France e-mail: lorenza.mondada@univ-lyon2.fr, veronique_travers@univ-lyon2.fr
Address for correspondence: Lorenza Mondada, Véronique Traverso, ICAR UMR 5191 CNRS, Ecole Normale Supérieure Lettres et Sciences Humaines, 15, Parvis René Descartes, BP 7000, 69342 LYON cedex 07, France e-mail: lorenza.mondada@univ-lyon2.fr, veronique_travers@univ-lyon2.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to show how databases and computer tools can be used for archiving and browsing corpora of social interactions. The development of specific search engines allows for both qualitative analysis of naturally occurring interactions and for quantitative explorations of larger corpora. The paper is based on the CLAPI Workbench <http://clapi.univ-lyon2.fr>, an interfaced ensemble of analytic tools which operates on a consistent body of corpora to facilitate their description and theoretical reconstruction. The analytical part of the paper focuses on the uses of a discourse particle in French interaction: voilà.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 1: Le français à la lumière des corpus , March 2008 , pp. 121 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Auchlin, A. (1981). Réflexions sur les marqueurs de structuration de la conversation. Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée, 44: 88–104.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2005). Syntax als Prozess. InLiSt, 41, URL <http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/inlist/issues/41/index.htm>Google Scholar
Balthasar, L. and Bert, M. (2005). La plate-forme Corpus de Langues Parlées en Interaction (CLAPI): Historique, état des lieux, perspectives. Lidil, 31: 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bange, P. (1987). La Dame de Caluire: une consultation. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Baude, O. (ed.) (2006). Corpus oraux. Guide des bonnes pratiques 2006. Paris-Orléans: CNRS éditions and PUO.Google Scholar
Bruxelles, S., Greco, L. and Mondada, L. (to appear). Pratiques de transition: ressources multimodales pour la structuration de l'activité. In: Détienne, F. and Traverso, V. (eds.), Méthodologies d'analyse de situations coopératives de conception: Corpus MOSAIC. Nancy: PUN.Google Scholar
Bruxelles, S. and Traverso, V. (2002). Les corpus de langue parlée en interaction au GRIC. In: Pusch, K. and Raible, W. (eds.), Romanistiche Korpuslinguistik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, pp. 59–70.Google Scholar
Bruxelles, S. and Traverso, V. (2006). Usages de la particule voilà dans une réunion de travail: analyse multimodale. In: Drescher, M. and B. Job (eds.), Les marqueurs discursifs dans les langues romanes: approches théoriques et méthodologiques. Bern: Lang, pp. 71–92.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction. The case of actually. Language, 77/2: 245–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosnier, J. and Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (eds.) (1987). Décrire la conversation. Lyon: PUL.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. (eds.) (1996). Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Détienne, F. and Traverso, V. (eds.) (to appear). Méthodologies d'analyse de situations coopératives de conception: Corpus MOSAIC. Nancy: PUN.Google Scholar
Filliettaz, L. (2001). L'hétérogénéité sémiotique de la gestualité en contexte transactionnel. De la gestualité coverbale à la verbalité cogestuelle. In: Cavé, C., Guaïtella, I. and Santi, S.. (eds.), Oralité et gestualité. Interactions et comportements multimodaux dans la communication. Paris: L'Harmattan, pp. 401–404.Google Scholar
Ford, C., Fox, B., and Thompson, S. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In: Ford, C., B. Fox and Thompson, S.. (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 14–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse Studies, 9: 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32: 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2003). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia. In: Goodwin, C.. (ed.), Conversation and Brain Damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 90–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groupe ICOR (2007). Variations interactionnelles et changement catégoriel: l'exemple de ‘attends’. Langues, Cultures, Interaction. Actes du Colloque du Réseau Français de Sociolinguistique, Paris, Oct. 2005. Paris, L'Harmattan.Google Scholar
Groupe ICOR (to appear a). Voilà, approche qualitative et investigations quantitatives. L'apport de la plate-forme outillée de Corpus de LAngue Parlée en Interaction (CLAPI). 3e rencontre Fribourgeoise de la linguistique de corpus. Tübingen: ScriptOralia, Günter Narr.Google Scholar
Groupe ICOR (to appear b). Exploitation de la plate-forme Corpus de Langue Parlée en Interaction (CLAPI) pour l'étude interactionnelle des particules discursives en chevauchement. In: S. Bruxelles, L. Mondada, A.-C. Simon and V. Traverso. (eds.), Grands corpus de français parlé: bilan historique et perspectives, Interactions & Langages, 1.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Watson, D. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In: Psathas, G.. (ed.), Everyday Language. New York: Irvington Publishers, pp. 123–163.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. BLS, 13: 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner, G.. (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katsiki, S. and Traverso, V. (2004). Les dénominations ordinaires spontanées des activités langagières et la question des équivalences entre les communautés discursives. Langages, 154: 47–59.Google Scholar
Local, J., Kelly, J. and Wells, W. (1986). Towards a phonology of conversation: turn-taking in Tyneside English. Journal of Linguistics, 22: 411–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2005). L'analyse de corpus en linguistique interactionnelle: de l'étude de cas singuliers à l'étude de collections. In: Condamine, A. (ed), Sémantique et corpus. Paris: Hermès, pp. 76–108.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. and Traverso, V. (2005). (Dés)alignements en clôture. Lidil, 31: 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. and Thompson, S. (eds.) (1996). Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plauché, M. and Bergen, B. (1999). The evolution of binary spatial deictics: French voilà and voici. In: Chang, S., Liaw, L. and Ruppenhofer, J.. (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, URL <http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~bbergen/MarkednessPaper.PDF>Google Scholar
Plauché, M. and Bergen, B. (2001). Voilà voilà: extensions of deictic constructions in French. In: Cienk, A., Luka, B. and Smith, M.. (eds.), Conceptual and Discourse Factors in Linguistic Structure, URL <http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/NTL/papers/BergenCSDL4.pdf>Google Scholar
Roulet, E., Auchlin, A., Moeschler, J., Rubattel, C. and Schelling, M. (1985). L'articulation du discours en français contemporain. Bern, Frankfurt, New York, Paris: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70/6: 1075–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In: Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction and co-participant context. In: Hovy, E. H. and Scott, D.. (eds.), Computational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues. An Interdisciplinary Account. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, pp. 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53/2: 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In: Psathas, G.. (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, pp. 23–78.Google Scholar
Selting, M. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.) (2001). Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barden, B., Bergmann, J., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Günthner, S., Quasthoff, U., Meier, C., Schlobinski, P. and Uhmann, S. (1998). Gesprächanalytische Transkriptionsysteme (GAT). Linguistische Berichte, 173: 91–122.Google Scholar
Traverso, V. (2005). Quelques formats intégrant la répétition comme ressource pour le développement thématique dans la conversation ordinaire. Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata, Special Issue on Conversation Analysis, IV-2/3: 153–166.Google Scholar
Traverso, V. (to appear). Co-élaboration de solutions et rôle du graphico-gestuel: analyse interactionnelle. In: Détienne, F. and Traverso, V. (eds.), Méthodologies d'analyse de situations coopératives de conception: Corpus MOSAIC. Nancy: PUN.Google Scholar
Wootton, A. J. (1997). Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Internet websites

CLAPI (Corpus de LAngue Parlée en Interaction), URL <http://clapi.univ-lyon2.fr>>Google Scholar
CORINTE (CORpus d'INTEraction): URL <http://icar.univ-lyon2.fr/projets/corinte/>' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CORINTE+(CORpus+d'INTEraction):+URL+>Google Scholar
Talk Bank: URL <http://talkbank.talkbank.org/>>Google Scholar