CHAT/CLAN discussion

[Katherine Demuth]

Dear Yahya -

For the corpora we are currently collecting and analyzing we:

1. Do initial transcription in CHAT/CLAN.  Main advantages - linking of 
audio/video files, and future donation to CHILDES, plus a few automated 
calculations.

2. Do analysis in Excel. Using a CHILDES > Excel conversion program we 
can then code and calculate whatever we choose.

After considering several alternatives, this works pretty well for our 
phonological and morphological research on 1-3-year-olds.

Katherine Demuth




On Jun 17, 2005, at 9:54 AM, Yahya E-rramdani wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> In preparation of the transcription and the analysis of data of a 
> research on child language development (3-6 years), focussing on: 
> lexicon, morpho-syntax and discourse, we have been discussing the 
> (dis)-advantages of using CHAT/CLAN programme. I am listing below a 
> number of statements on the disadvantages of using CHAT/CLAN in data 
> analysis. I would like from to hear from you whether these statements 
> are true or. 
> 	• 	 We should reconsider whether to make transcripts directly in CHAT 
> or first in MS Word (and to export the transcript as .rtf to CHAT or 
> to another processor). Arguments contra working directly in CHAT: less 
> flexibility, more difficulties with exporting to other programs.
> 	• 	 There is discussion and careful consideration needed how to do 
> the actual coding. The classical CHAT-approach is adding (and filling 
> out) code-lines below each utterance. With the analysis program CLAN a 
> number of operations are possible, but as far as we know it all boils 
> down to counting codes per transcript or computing a ratio. For 
> further analysis, over sessions and subjects, a form of exportation to 
> SPSS (or EXCEL) is needed, but CHAT/CLAN seems to lack direct options 
> for that. Exportation will mean entering data (that is, printed 
> results from many CLAN-runs) in SPSS by hand.
> 	• 	Another disadvantage is that CHAT/CLAN seems to have difficulties 
> with dealing with different levels of aggregation, that is, provides 
> no explicit and easy ways of coding of the ‘multilevel/nested’ 
> structure of the speech data. SPSS (or EXCEL) is much more transparent 
> in this respect and has procedures for computing aggregate scores (and 
> the reverse, for de-aggregating scores).
>
>
> We welcome all other comments on the use of CHAT/CLAN in general. 
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
> Yours,
>
>
> Yahya E-Rramdani
> Tilburg University
> Babylon: Centre for Studies of the Multicultural Society
> Tilburg University
> PB 90153
> 5000 LE Tilburg
> The Netherlands
> Tel: +31 (0)13-466.20.27
>  FAx: +31-(0)13-466.31.10
> http://let.uvt.nl/GENERAL/PEOPLE/YE-RRAMD/
>
Katherine Demuth
Professor, Cognitive & Linguistic Sciences
Brown University, Box 1978
Providence, RI 02912 USA
tel (401) 863-1053
fax (401 863-2255
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 4130 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/info-childes/attachments/20050617/b0f2e2c1/attachment.bin>