Reliability vs. granularity in discourse annotation: What is the trade-off?

Ludivine Crible, Liesbeth Degand

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract / Description of output

We report on the results of an annotation experiment comparing naïve and expert coders in a sense disambiguation task consisting in the assignment of function labels to discourse markers (e.g. well, but, I mean) in spoken French and English using a taxonomy specifically designed for speech. Our qualitative-quantitative assessment of its reliability led us to suggest fundamental revisions of the structure of the taxonomy, striving to find a better balance between reliability and granularity. The resulting model articulates two independent levels of annotation (domains and functions) which, once combined, provide a robust tool for the analysis of discourse markers and relate them to more general functions of spoken language.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)71–99
JournalCorpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory
Issue number1
Early online date23 Mar 2017
Publication statusPublished - May 2019

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

  • discourse markers
  • annotation
  • taxonomy
  • corpus-based
  • inter-rater reliability


Dive into the research topics of 'Reliability vs. granularity in discourse annotation: What is the trade-off?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this