Difference between revisions of "Ogden2015"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) (BibTeX auto import 2015-08-20 02:56:09) |
m |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
| + | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| + | |Author(s)=Richard Ogden; | ||
| + | |Title=Data always invite us to listen again: arguments for mixing our methods | ||
| + | |Tag(s)=Transcription; EMCA; technology; methodology; phonetics; | ||
|Key=Ogden2015 | |Key=Ogden2015 | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction | |Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction | ||
|Volume=48 | |Volume=48 | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=271–275 |
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2015.1058601 |
|DOI=10.1080/08351813.2015.1058601 | |DOI=10.1080/08351813.2015.1058601 | ||
|Abstract=Moore (2015/this issue) claims, provocatively to some, that speech technology can be used as a labor-saving device. He points out that the production of transcriptions is time consuming, that some aspects of collection building can be handled with a degree of automation, and that some aspects of measurement can be made objective and reliable by using machines. I respond as a phonetician and interactional linguist. I want to argue that while automation is not always the right approach, working with large corpora can be healthy for our relation to data when used in the right ways. | |Abstract=Moore (2015/this issue) claims, provocatively to some, that speech technology can be used as a labor-saving device. He points out that the production of transcriptions is time consuming, that some aspects of collection building can be handled with a degree of automation, and that some aspects of measurement can be made objective and reliable by using machines. I respond as a phonetician and interactional linguist. I want to argue that while automation is not always the right approach, working with large corpora can be healthy for our relation to data when used in the right ways. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 18:46, 29 March 2021
| Ogden2015 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Ogden2015 |
| Author(s) | Richard Ogden |
| Title | Data always invite us to listen again: arguments for mixing our methods |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | Transcription, EMCA, technology, methodology, phonetics |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 48 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 271–275 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351813.2015.1058601 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Moore (2015/this issue) claims, provocatively to some, that speech technology can be used as a labor-saving device. He points out that the production of transcriptions is time consuming, that some aspects of collection building can be handled with a degree of automation, and that some aspects of measurement can be made objective and reliable by using machines. I respond as a phonetician and interactional linguist. I want to argue that while automation is not always the right approach, working with large corpora can be healthy for our relation to data when used in the right ways.
Notes
