1. Updating the LINDSEI for Pragmatic Analysis and Evaluation

2. Outline Background on LINDSEI Positive Design Aspects
Shortcomings of the Annotation Scheme
Mix of Tasks
Mix of Conventions
Absence of Punctuation/Structuring
The Proposed Format
Adding/Added Feature Information
Examples of Analysis Potential

3. Background on LINDSEI
LINDSEI = Louvain International Corpus of Spoken English Interlanguage
NNS data from 11 language backgrounds
started in 1995
ver. 1 released in 2002, ver. 2 in 2009
CD-ROM with simple database interface
NS counterpart LOCNEC (Louvain Corpus of Native English Conversation)

4. Positive Design Aspects
transcription conventions generally well adhered to
apparently few inconsistencies
few ‘idiosyncratic’ additions/applications
relatively easy to convert 
unfilled pauses generally marked for relevant speaker, i.e. turn-initially
attempts at
encoding data in Unicode (UTF-16)
representing some additional relevant phonologi-cal/prosodic features, i.e. strong forms of articles

5. Shortcomings of the Annotation Scheme (I) – Mix of Tasks
3 task sub-genres within one file
set topic for ‘warm-up’
3 choices
too much variation in topics
free discussion
picture description
contravenes Sinclair’s ‘integrity principle’ “The integrity and representativeness of complete artefacts is far more important than the difficulty of reconciling texts of different dimensions” (2005)
better to keep ‘sub-genres’ separate

6. Shortcomings of the Annotation Scheme (II) – Mix of Conventions
(pseudo-)SGML tags for
speaker turns (<A>…</A>, <B>…</B>)
unclear words/passages (<X>, <XX>, <XXX>)
uncertain words/endings (<?>)
foreign words (<foreign></foreign>)
‘CA conventions’
pauses (., .., …)
truncation (=)
lengthening (:)
article pronunciation ([ei] for [eɪ] & [i:] for [ðiː])

7. Shortcomings of the Annotation Scheme (III) – Absence of Punctuation/Structuring
leads to ‘run-on’ text
e.g. I'll talk about one of the films that I think is a good film the name of the film is . dangerous mind it's about a teacher who (em) . worked .. in the[i:] . slum . school […]
no easy option for identifying, distinguishing, & understanding different functional units
no easy option for distinguishing different syntax types/functions & grammar-related errors
issues in ‘countability’
number of functional units? (required for accurate norming)
distinction initial/medial/final pauses/hesitation phenomena
etc.

8. The Proposed Format (I) – ‘Simple XML’
encoded in UTF-8
more efficient/space saving than UTF-16
standard for XML
allows representing phonological & non-English info adequately
simplified ‘hierarchy’
low number of ‘container’ elements
more empty ones
more consistency in representing annotation features (avoiding mix)
easier to trap/avoid annotation errors
display can be controlled via style sheets
enhanced readability/usability/searchability

9. The Proposed Format (I) – Structure
<?xml version="1.0"?>
(optional style sheet for rendering)
<dialogue id="CH013_free_interview" corpus="LINDSEI" sub-corpus="CH" lang="en">
<turn speaker="interviewer_CH013" n="1">
[unit 1]
[unit 2]
</turn>
<turn speaker="learner_CH013" n="2">
[unit 3]
[unit 4]
  
</dialogue>
XML declaration
dialogue container
dialogue id; based on sub-genre
corpus id
sub-corpus id
turns, including speaker
details/roles
c-units, generally with empty <punct type="…" /> elements; text interspersed with freely definable empty elements, e.g. comments, etc.

10. The Proposed Format (II) – Annotation Details
attributes for:
speech-act, polarity, semantics, & ‘IFIDs’
syntax ‘container” elements
consistent use of empty elements & relevant attributes for other information
contingent attribute status for abandoned or interrupted units

11. The Proposed Format (III) – Main Markup Features
syntax categories: yes( response), no( response), d(iscourse )m(arker), q-wh, q-yn, imp(erative), decl(arative), frag(ment), exclam(ation), (term of )address
speech acts:
taxonomy comprises 70+ categories
some combinable
see for details
still evolving

12. The Proposed Format (IV) – Main Markup Features
modes:
Searle’s ‘IFIDs’
semantico-pragmatic key-phrase patterns, i.e. interactional/interpersonal markers
generic; evolving
topics:
semantic key-phrase patterns
generic + domain-specific; evolving
backchannel info
integrated into interlocutor’s turn

13. Adding/Added Feature Information (I)
theoretically unlimited options for adding freely definable empty elements, but overuse may decrease readability
currently used:
comments related to
grammar (e.g. if you are <comment type="grammar" content="missing indefinite determiner" /> student)
idiom (e.g. … the <phon sounds_like="ðiː" /> not very far <comment type="idiom" content="unusual pre-modification" /> place …)
vocabulary (e.g. … the palace is […] forbidden for the <pause type="short" /> populates <comment type="vocab" content="should be people or general population" /> …)
pronunciation in IPA
original marked article strong forms (e.g. … the <phon sounds_like="ðiː" /> not very far […])
potentially other idiosyncrasies

14. Adding/Added Feature Information (II)
lengthening (e.g. because er i heard something like that she <phon type="lengthening" /> <punc type="incomplete" />)
corrections (e.g. some people have the habit <pause type="medium" /> em <pause type="short" /> of em swimming every <correction orig="everyday" /> day […])
disfluency-related annotation
some information already present in mode attribute for repetitions
more explicit info can be added manually, as for Quan & Weisser (2015), e.g.
when I <pause type="medium" /> when I <recycling type="2WR" start="ADV" count="1" /> got her house
we are qualified for <pause type="medium" /> to <replacement type="" target="PP" /> be a teacher

15. Examples of Analysis Potential I – Interactional Speaker Profiling
potential ‘insecurity’ markers
‘initiative’/topic control indicators
‘empty’ interaction signals

16. Examples of Analysis Potential II – Error Profiling
problems with singular/plural distinction
problems with determiners

17. Examples of Analysis Potential III – Ngram/Lexical Bundle Analysis

18. References
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, De Cock, Sylvie, & Granger, Sylviane. (Eds.). Louvain International Database of Spoken Interlanguage (LINDSEI). Louvain: UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Quan, Lihong & Weisser, Martin. (2015). A study of ‘self-repair’ operations in conversation by Chinese English learners. System, 49, pp. 39–49. DOI: /j.system
Searle, John. (1969). Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CUP.
Sinclair, John. (2005). Corpus and Text – Basic Principles. In Wynne, M. (Ed.). Developing Linguistic Corpora: A Guide to Good Practice. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 1–16. Available online from
Weisser, Martin. (2016a). Practical Corpus Linguistics: an Introduction to Corpus-Based Language Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Weisser, Martin. (2016b). DART – the Dialogue Annotation and Research Tool. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), pp DOI: /cllt
Weisser, Martin. (forthcoming 2016). Profiling Agents & Callers: a Dual Comparison Across Speaker Roles and British vs. American English. In Pickering, L., Friginal, E., & Staples, S. (Eds.). Talking at Work: Corpus-based Explorations of Workplace Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan.