What is the best way to analyze spontaneous spoken language? In their search for the basic units of spoken language the authors of this volume opt for a corpus-driven approach. They share a strong conviction that prosodic structure is essential for the study of spoken discourse and each bring their own theoretical and practical experience to the table. In the first part of the book they segment spoken material from a range of different languages (Russian, Hebrew, Central Pomo (an indigenous language from California), French, Japanese, Italian, and Brazilian Portuguese). In the second part of the book each author analyzes the same two spoken English samples, but looking at them from different perspectives, using different methods of analysis as reflected in their respective analyses in... Part I. This approach allows for common tendencies of segmentation to emerge, both prosodic and segmental.;;We previously developed an approach to spoken Russian monologic discourse, and are now extending that, looking primarily at interactional multi-party discourse, contextualizing speech phenomena as multichannel (multimodal) communication. The evidence analyzed is the Russian Pear Chats and Stories corpus, see < http://multidiscourse.ru/ >. Scores transcripts are introduced to annotate the interlocutors’ shared time line, including periods of silence. The elementary discourse unit (EDU) is posited as a central building block of local discourse structure. Canonical EDUs coincide with clauses; additionally, subclausal, superclausal, and paraclausal EDUs are found. Prosodic phenomena are considered; EDUs and groups of EDUs are accounted through a discourse-semantic category of phase. Disfluencies and other structural phenomena are systematically treated. Conventions of discourse capture both prosodic and functional aspects of discourse.;;Looking at spoken language as an integrative whole, where prosody, syntax and discourse features interplay as to convey information, I will try to figure out the best methodology for its research by advocating that the best candidate to be regarded as the basic unit of spoken discourse is the utterance . Arguments brought will be mainly phonetic, phonological (prosodic), informational, and syntactic. In addition, arguments from pragmatics and conversation analysis will be mentioned.;;In some theoretical frameworks, it is assumed that prosodic structure is a direct reflection of syntactic structure. Close examination of unscripted speech confirms that though the two often work in concert, they are distinct. Prosodic structure differs from grammatical structure in some fundamental ways. Prosody (pitch, intensity, rhythm) involves continua and can be more responsive to certain subtle differences in cognitive state, discourse context, and interactive goals. Grammar (morphology and syntax) can mark more distinctions, but these are categorical and conventionalized: an affix is either present or absent; one constituent either precedes or follows another. Here some prosodic structures, their functions, and their relation to grammatical structures are discussed with examples from Central Pomo, a language indigenous to Northern California.;;This chapter presents first of all the analytical framework adopted for the syntactical study of spoken French productions. In line with the work of the pronominal approach, the framework postulates that three components are involved in the constitution of utterances. Two syntactical components, micro- and macrosyntax, and a prosodic component interact independently in the constitution of units. The second part of the chapter presents the application of this framework to the analysis of a conversation excerpt and an excerpt from a monologue.;;We introduce an annotation scheme of two-level utterance units in Japanese speech, thus identifying utterance units in two different levels, which are called “short utterance-unit” (SUU) and “long utterance-unit” (LUU). SUUs are divided by acoustic and prosodic boundaries, corresponding to Intonation Units (Chafe, 1994), considered as basic units of speakers’ planning. LUUs, on the other hand, correspond to Clausal Units (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999), being divided by major syntactic breaks and/or communicative interactions. Those are basic units of syntactic chunks and/or participants’ interaction. We show a design of SUU and LUU consisting of prosodic, clausal and non-clausal units. Annotating SUU and LUU in 12 dialogues of two hours altogether, we examine their characteristics and distribution in the corpus.;;According to the Language into Act Theory, reference units in speech have a pragmatic nature: they correspond to the activation of sensory-motor schemas leading to the performance of different speech acts. Our background is the affective and psychic motivations of the Human Birth Theory (Fagioli, 1971), compatible with recent theories of Embodied Cognition . Identification and classification of speech acts rest on corpus-based research. Speech activity is encoded by prosody, that conveys utterance boundaries, illocutionary force and information structure . The utterance nucleus is the Comment , responsible for illocutionary force. We illustrate the methodology for the induction of illocutions from corpora and detail pragmatic and prosodic features which allow classifying illocutionary types. A case study is presented for four original illocutions (self-conclusion, assertion taken for granted, ascertainment, evidentiality assertion).;;In this paper we propose a synchronic, corpus-based account of insubordination, through the analysis of adverbial clauses in Brazilian Portuguese spontaneous speech at the syntax/prosody interface. The segmentation of the speech flow through prosodic cues is crucial to analyse linguistic and, specifically, syntactic relations in spoken language. Besides, it is through prosody that illocutionary and informational values are conveyed in speech. Our claim is that insubordination can be studied without assuming the existence of a grammaticalization path or main clause ellipsis processes, given that through specific illocutionary prosodic profiles, syntactically dependent clauses are assigned pragmatic autonomy.;;This chapter deals with segmentation, definition of reference units and annotation of the first corpus of Russian narratives by individuals with brain damage – people with aphasia and right hemisphere damage – and neurologically healthy speakers. We show that parameters such as pause length and intonation contours cannot be used for segmentation of impaired speech. Instead, we use syntactic criteria for the identification of the reference, or – as they are called in this paper – elementary discourse units (EDUs). The Russian CliPS (Clinical Pear Stories) corpus contains multi-layer annotation of audio- and video-recordings, performed on micro- and macro-linguistic level, and can be used as a source for qualitative and quantitative research on various aspects of speech in aphasia and right hemisphere damage.;;This chapter tests an algorithm for the automatic detection of speech breaks in read and narrated speech in Brazilian Portuguese (BP), European Portuguese (EP), French, and German. The algorithm is independent of previous transcription or linguistic analysis (syllable, phone labeling and segmentation), requiring only the audio file. It operates in two stages: vowel onsets detection firstly, followed by V-to-V duration intervals normalization for smoothed duration z-scores. Peaks over 2.5 of the latter were considered speech breaks. Compared to human segmentation, hits for reading (70%) were higher than for narration (60%). Crosslinguistic results show EP and French having the highest proportion of hits. A test with the English Navy audio file reveals a hit proportion similar to German.;;This paper has a tripartite focus: (1) to establish the best segmentation for two American English texts according to inter-rater agreement measurements. By doing this, we differentiate the behavior of experts and non-experts annotators. The experts’ annotation constitute the basis for the analysis; (2) to capture, measure, and analyze the phonetic features that correlate with boundaries, as they are marked by the expert annotators; (3) to informationally annotate prosodic units according to the Language into Act Theory, and analyze their corresponding information structure: In order to do this, we make and justify decisions in marking the reference units and assigning informational value to prosodic units; additionally we further discuss some cases of major disagreements.;;Two examples of English spontaneous speech are analyzed prosodically, using the dependency incremental prosodic structure model. Instead of annotating prosodic events with the ToBI system, stressed accentual phrases and final syllables are described in terms of rising or falling melodic contours, characterized by their melodic change above or below the glissando threshold. These contours indicate dependency relations between accentual phrases, which in turn define the sentence prosodic structure.;;Taking prosody to be the leading component in speech segmentation, this chapter attempts to transfer segmentation methodologies from Hebrew to English spontaneous speech. Following a process of segmentation by perception of two English chunks a detailed acoustic analysis has been conducted, using acoustic criteria that have been found meaningful for similar analyses of Hebrew, as detailed in my chapter for Part I of this volume, “The Basic Unit of Spoken Language and the Interface Between Prosody, Discourse and Syntax: A View from Spontaneous Spoken Hebrew”. This process has produced suggestive results. Further analysis into the interface of prosody with discourse has also been found meaningful. Some terminological issues are discussed as well.;;The segmentation of the monologue Navy and the dialogue Hearts described here is based solely on the acoustic signal. The unit of reference is the intonation unit as defined in the work of Chafe, characterized by a single, coherent pitch contour. Units defined by pitch often coincide with intensity, pauses, rhythm, and phonation type, though not always. In English they typically begin with a pitch reset followed by declination. Series of intonation units often form larger prosodic sentences, which can show an overall declination in pitch, often with intermediate pitch resets at the beginning of each unit. As shown by Chafe (1987, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2018), each unit tends to convey one new idea or focus of consciousness. They often correlate with syntactic constituents or sentences, though not always.;;The chapter shows segmentation analyses of two English texts according to the criteria of the SUU (Short Utterance-Unit) and the LUU (Long Utterance-Unit). Our basic idea of segmentation is to identify utterance boundaries at two different levels. SUUs represent small information chunks, which are related to speakers’ planning and hearers’ understanding in a short time, and roughly correspond to prosodic and intonational units. LUUs, on the other hand, are basic chunks of interaction between the speaker and the hearer, corresponding to syntactic, discourse, and interactional units. Acoustic, prosodic, syntactic, and interactional boundaries were used as cues for segmenting utterances at two different levels. The technique of segmentation offers a way to view the multi-layered structure of spontaneous speech.;;This chapter is an exploratory study in which we apply an approach to local discourse structure and prosody, developed for spoken Russian, to English talk. A key conceptual element of our approach is the notion of elementary discourse unit (EDU). EDUs are identified on the basis of prosodic criteria and demonstrate substantial correspondence to clauses. A range of structural, prosodic and discourse-semantic phenomena are reviewed, including pausing, discourse accent, phase, and spoken sentence. The analysis begins with those phenomena that are characteristic of both monologic and multi-party discourse, and proceeds with those features that are only found in interactional exchange. The Russian-oriented system of discourse transcription and analysis turns out to be generally applicable to the English evidence.;;The paper sketches the Language into Act Theory and how it catches the difference between the Navy monologue and the Hearts dialogue. According to L-AcT, two types of reference units, both ending with a prosodic terminal break are identified: utterance matching with a single speech act and stanza expressing a flow of thought through an adjunction process. Navy is a sequence of two narrative stanzas with a complex informational organization, while Hearts is organized in 11 utterances showing high illocutionary variation. The core of the information pattern is the Comment accomplishing the illocutionary force. The information structure, expressing a closed set of functions, is in one-to-one correspondence with the prosodic structure. The linguistic content of information units is not compositional.;;This chapter reports a quantitative and qualitative comparison of seven annotations performed on the same two American English texts: a monologue and a dialogue. The analysis of these data is complex, since the annotations have been made independently by each research group on the basis of their own theoretical frameworks. Despite this difference, the fundamental role of prosody in the analysis of speech emerges clearly in every annotation. Prosodic breaks can be then viewed as theory independent entities. After summarizing the key features of theoretical models, we derived a unified tagset and developed a web application (SLAC) to compare different annotations. Finally, agreement on prosodic breaks has been measured in different ways, reporting promising results in terminal break identification.