{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01669941060903733, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0009823182711198428, 'mean_word_length': 5.660130718954249, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Prosodic Marking, Pitch and Intensity in Spontaneous Lexical Self-Repair in Dutch

Abstract This paper presents results of a phonetic analysis of instances of lexical selfrepair drawn from a corpus of spontaneous Dutch speech. The analysis addresses questions concerning the phonetic details of prosodic marking in self-repair and its conditioning factors. In particular, it examines the relevance of semantic, temporal and frequency-related factors in modelling f0 and intensity measures and auditory judgements of whether repairs are prosodically marked. It addresses the extent to which observations made in studies using experimentally-elicited speech can be expected to generalise to repairs drawn from uncontrolled spontaneous speech. The results suggest that prosodic marking is rare in spontaneous lexical self-repair, and that semantic, temporal and frequency factors play a limited role only in conditioning speakers' choices for or against prosodic marking, although several weak tendencies can be observed.