Location: Group 1: Annotation Standards

Discussion: IPAReported This is a featured thread

Category: Discussion Forum / General Discussion
Showing 2 posts
rawright@u.washingto
rawright@u.washingto
IPA
Jul 8 2009, 3:25 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 8 2009, 3:25 PM EDT
Seems like an obvious standard. Is it used regularly in the cyberling community? Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None
mebeckman
mebeckman
1. RE: IPA
Jul 8 2009, 7:20 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 8 2009, 7:20 PM EDT
Yes, it is used. Richard, do you want to take charge of this? The issues that we might discuss / document here include:
(1) the fact that the Unicode symbols are UTF-16 rather than UTF-8 and so muck up FOS-wiki sites and can't be used easily in some systems such as EMU and the EMU library for R
(2) the various ASCII-fications that have been developed (WorldBet, SAMPA, etc.) to get around the problems of the standard symbols being UTF-16, and who uses them for what purposes
(3) the arguments pro and con on broad versus narrow tagging for various purposes such as tagging for speech synthesis versus speech recognition versus sociophonetic studies, etc.
(4) inter-annotator consistency rates for different degrees of "narrowness"
(5) the whole question about alignment and how good (for the different purposes) various HTK-based aligners are
(6) the literature on consistency and tagging practices with child speech, etc.
 Do you find this valuable?