Palavras-chave
Gesture prosody synchronization
Gesture affiliation
Information structure
Métricas
Como Citar
Resumo
In the last decade, much research in the Autosegmental framework (Loehr 2012; 2014; Rohrer et al. 2023; Rohrer 2022) has highlighted a strong synchronization between Strokes' apex and prosodic prominences (pitch accents and prosodic edges). The paper addresses whether the synchrony with prosodic prominence signals the gesture’s semantic affiliation. The question is studied through the fine-grained analysis of an interview given by an actor where gestures were previously annotated (Cantalini 2022). The detection of prominences is achieved following the Language into Act Theory (Cresti 2000; Moneglia & Raso 2004), which connects Perceptively Relevant Prosodic Contours (‘t hart et al. 1990) to the pragmatic functions of the Information Units (IUs). Even assuming this framework, the synchronization of gestures to prosodic prominence is systematic. The paper shows that the affiliation of gestures must concern the IU where the prominence falls (neither backward nor forward). Prosodic synchrony, however, does not determine the type of semantic affiliation, which can be lexical, modal, or pragmatic; it does, however, impose substantial restrictions. The stance of modal gestures can scope on one word or one IU. Pragmatic gestures correlate with the pragmatic functions foreseen by L-AcT and synchronize with prominences bearing the corresponding value. IUs not bearing a functional prominence (Scanning IU) can affiliate lexical or modal but never pragmatic gestures.
Referências
1. Amir N, Silber-Varod V, Izre’el S. Characteristics of Intonation Unit Boundaries in Spontaneous Spoken Hebrew: Perception and Acoustic Correlates. In: Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004. Nara: ISCA; 2004. p. 677-680. http://dx.doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2004-156
2. Austin J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1962.
3. Barbosa P, Raso T. Spontaneous Speech Segmentation: Functional and Prosodic Aspects with Applications for Automatic Segmentation / A segmentação da fala espontânea: aspectos prosódicos, funcionais e aplicações para a tecnologia. Rev. Estud. Ling. 2018; 26/4: 1361-1396. http://dx.doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.26.4.1361-1396
4. Biber D, & Finegan E. Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect. Text. 1989; 9: 93-124. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
5. Biber D, Johansson S, Leech G, Conrad S, Finegan E. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman; 1999.
6. Bressem J. A linguistic perspective on the notation of form features in gestures. In: C. Müller C, Cienki A, Fricke E, Ladewig S.H, McNeill D, Teßendorf S. Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter-Mouton; 2013. p. 1079–1098. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318.1079
7. Bressem J, Ladewig SH, Müller C. Linguistic Annotation System for Gestures (LASG). In: Müller C, Cienki A, Fricke E. Ladewig SH., McNeill D, Teßendorf S., editors. Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38) Vol. 1, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton; 2013. p. 1098–1125.
8. Bressem J, Müller C. A repertoire of German recurrent gestures with pragmatic functions. In: Müller C, Cienki A, Fricke H, Ladewig S, McNeill D, Bressem J. Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, Vol 2.Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton; 2014. p. 1575-1591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318.1098
9. Buhmann J, Caspers J, van Heuven V, Hoekstra H, Martens J-P, Swerts M. Annotation of prominent words, prosodic boundaries, and segmental lengthening by non-expert transcribers in the spoken Dutch Corpus. In: Gonzales Rodriguez M, Suarez Araujo C., editors. Proceedings of the International Conference LREC2002. Paris: ELDA; 2002. p. 779–785.
10. Beckman M, Hirschberg J, Shattuck-Hufnagel S. The original ToBI system and the Evolution of the ToBI Framework. In: Sun-Ah J., editor. Prosodic Typology. The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 9–54. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249633.003.0002
11. Cantalini G. Corpus multimodale annotato per lo studio della gestualità co-verbale nel parlato-parlato e nel parlato-recitato. In; Cresti E, Moneglia M., editors. Corpora e Studi Linguistici. Milano: Officinaventuno; 2022. p. 135-149. https://doi.org/10.48448/3k4n-hg49
12. Cantalini G, Moneglia M. The annotation of Gesture and Gesture / Prosody synchronization in Multimodal Speech Corpora. Journal of Speech Science, 9, 1-24, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.20396/joss.v9i00.14956
13. Cantalini G, Gagliardi G, Moneglia M, Proietti M. La correlazione gesto/prosodia e la sua variabilità: il parlato spontaneo di contro alla performance attorale. In: De Meo A, Dovetto F., editors. La Comunicazione Parlata, Atti del convegno: GSCP (Napoli, 12-14 Dicembre 2018), Roma: Aracne; 2020. p. 63-90. DOI:10.4399/97888255339034
14. Cavalcante F.A. The information unit of Topic: a crosslinguistic, statistical study based on spontaneous speech corpora. PhD diss., Belo Horizonte: UFMG; 2020. http://hdl.handle.net/1843/33673
15. Chafe W. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1994.
16. Cienki A. The study of gesture in cognitive linguistics: How it could inform and inspire other research in cognitive science. WIREs Cognitive Science. 2022; 13(6): e1623. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1623
17. Cienki A. Speakers’ Gestures and Semantic Analysis. Cognitive Semantics. 2023; 9: 167–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10051
18. Cienki A, Müller C., editors. Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2008. https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.3?locatt=mode:legacy
19. Collier R, Rolelof D, de Pijper J, Sanderman A. Perceived prosodic boundaries and their phonetic correlate. In: Human Language Technology: Proceedings of a Workshop (Plainsboro, NJ, USA, March 21- 24). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc; 1993. p. 341-345. https://aclanthology.org/H93-1068.pdf
20. Couper-Kuhlen E, Selting M. Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction, Chapter F, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018.
21. Cresti E. Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca; 2000.
22. Cresti E. La Stanza: un’unità di costruzione testuale del parlato. In: Ferrari A., editor. Sintassi storica e sincronica dell'italiano. Subordinazione, coordinazione e giustapposizione. Atti del X° Convegno SILFI. Firenze, Cesati; 2010. p. 713-732.
23. Cresti E. L'unité de suffixe: identification et interprétation des unités de la langue parlé. In: Caddéo S, Roubaud M-N, Rouquier M, Sabio F., editors. Penser les langues avec Claire Blanche-Benveniste. Aix-en-Provence: Presses Universitaires de Provence; 2012. p. 201–213.
24. Cresti E. The pragmatic analysis of speech and its illocutionary classification according to the Language into Act Theory. In: Izre’el S, Mello H, Panunzi A, Raso T., editors. In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language: A Corpus-Driven Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2020. p. 181-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/scl.94.06cre
25, Cresti E. The Appendix of Comment according to Language into Act Theory: A corpus-based research on Italian spoken data. CHIMERA: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies. 2021; 8:45–69. https://doi.org/10.15366/chimera2021.8.003
26. Cresti E, Moneglia M. The definition of the Topic within Language into Act Theory and its identification in spontaneous speech corpora, in Borreguero, M., Atayan, V. & Gross, S., editors. Special issue on Models of Discourse Units, Revue Romane. 2018; 53(1): 30-62. https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.00005.cre?locatt=mode:legacy
27. Cresti E, Moneglia M. The illocutionary basis of information structure. Language into Act Theory (L-AcT). In: Adamou E, Haude K, Vanhove M., editors. Information structure in lesser-described languages: Studies in prosody and syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2018. p. 359-401. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.13cre?locatt=mode:legacy
28. Cresti E, Moneglia M. The definition of Connectors, Connectives, and Conjunctions according to Language into Act Theory, in Ferrari A, Pecorari F., editors. Special Issue, Nuove prospettive di analisi dei connettivi, SILTA. 2021; 1: 31-51.
29. Cresti E, Moneglia M. The role of prosody for the expression of illocutionary types. The prosodic system of questions in spoken Italian and French according to Language into Act Theory. Front. Commun. 2023; 8:1124513. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1124513
30. Dehé N. Parentheticals in Spoken English: The Syntax-Prosody Relation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139032391
31. Dankel P, Satti I. Multimodale Listen. Form und Funktion körperlicher Ressourcen in Aufzählungen in französischen, spanischen und italienischen Interaktionen. Romanistisches Jahrbuch. 2019; 70(1): 58–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/roja-2019-0003
32. Dressel D, Dankel P, Kalkhoff A.M.T. What can collaboratively produced lists tell us about constructions? A multimodal analysis of co-constructed enumeration practices in spoken Spanish, in Constructions in Spanish; 2023. p. 340–374. Available at: 10.1075/cal.34.13dre.
33. Firenzuoli V. Le forme intonative di valore illocutivo dell’italiano parlato: analisi sperimentale di un corpus di parlato spontaneo (LABLITA) [PhD Thesis]. Firenze: Università di Firenze; 2003.
34. Firenzuoli V., Signorini S. L’unità informativa di Topic. Correlati intonativi. In: Marotta G, Nocchi N. editors. La Coarticolazione. Atti delle XIII Giornate del Gruppo di Fonetica Sperimentale, Pisa: ETS; 2003. p. 177-184.
35. Frege G. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philo¬sophie Und Philosophische Kritik. 1892; 100/1: 25-50.
36. ’t Hart J. Psychoacoustic backgrounds of pitch contour stylization. IPO Ann. Prog. Rep. 1976; 11: 11–19.
37. ’t Hart J, Collier R, Cohen S. A Perceptual Study of Intonation. An Experimental-Phonetic Approach to Speech Melody. Cambridge: CUP; 1990. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627743
38. Izre’el S, Mettouchi A. Representation of Speech in CorpAfroAs. Transcriptional Strategies and Prosodic Units. In: Mettouchi A, Vanhove M, Caubet D., editors. Corpus-based Studies of Lesser-described Languages: The CorpAfroAs corpus of spoken AfroAsiatic languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2015. p. 13–41. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.68.01izr?locatt=mode:legacy
39. Izre’el S, Mello H, Panunzi A, Raso T. (2020). In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language: A Corpus-Driven Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.94?locatt=mode:legacy
40. Kanane S, Pietrandrea P, Gerdes K. The annotation of list structures, In Lacheret A, Kahane S, Pietrandrea P., editors. Rhapsodie: a Prosodic and Syntactic Treebank for Spoken French. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2019. p. 69-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/scl.89.06kah
41. Kendon A. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: CUP; 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572
42. Kendon A. Pragmatic functions of gestures: some observations on the history of their study and their nature. Gesture. 2017; 16: 157-175. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.2.01ken?locatt=mode:legacy
43. Kirchhof C. So What's Your Affiliation With Gesture? In Kirchhof CZ. Malisz Z, Wagner P. editors. GeSpIn 2011, vol 2. Bielefeld. 2011. p. 1-7.
44. Kita S, van Gijn I, van der Hulst H. Movement phases in signs and co-speech gestures, and their transcription by human coders. In: Wachsmuth I, Fröhlich M., editors. Gesture and Sign Language in Human-Computer Interaction Berlin: Springer; 1998. p. 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620850.011
45. Krifka M. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica. 2008; 55(3–4): 243-276. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26190905
46. Krifka M, Musan R., editors. The Expression of Information Structure. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261608
47. Ladd DR. Intonational Phonology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/fol.17.2.08ogr
48. Ladewig SH, Bressem J. A linguistic perspective on the notation of gesture phases. In: Müller C, Cienki A, Fricke E, Ladewig SH, McNeill D, Teßendorf S., editors. Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38) Vol. 1, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton; 2013. p. 1060–1079. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318.1060
49. Loehr D. Gesture and Intonation [Ph.D Thesis]. Washington, DC: Georgetown University; 2004.
50. Loehr D. Temporal, structural, and pragmatic synchrony between intonation and gesture. Laboratory Phonology. 2012; 3(1): 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2012-0006
51. Loehr D. Gesture and prosody. In: Müller C, Cienki A, Fricke E, Ladewig SH, McNeill D, Teßendorf S., editors. Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction (38.2). Berlin, De Gruyter Mouton; 2014. p. 1381-1391. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302028.1381
52. Lopez-Ozieblo R. Proposing a revised functional classification of pragmatic gestures. Lingua. 2020; 247, 102870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102870
53. Martin PH. The Structure of Spoken Language Intonation in Romance, Cap. 11 Winpitch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015. p. 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139566391.013
54. McNeill D. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1576015
55. McNeill D. Gesture and thought. University of Chicago Press; 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226514642.001.0001
56. McNeill D. Why We Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316480526
57. McNeill D, Duncan SD. Growth point in thinking-for-speaking. In: McNeill D., editor. Language and Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. p. 141-161.
58. McNeill D, Quek F, McCullough KE, Duncan SD, Furuyama N, Bryll R, Furuyama N, Ansari R. Catchments, prosody and discourse. Gesture. 2001; 1(1): 9–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/gest.1.1.03mcn
59. Mittmann-Malvessi M. O C-ORAL-BRASIL e o estudo da fala informal: um novo olhar sobre o Tópico no Português Brasileiro [PhD Thesis] - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte.
60. Moneglia M. Spoken corpora and pragmatics. Rev. Brasileira Ling. Apl. 2011; 11: 479–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1984-63982011000200009
61. Moneglia M. Gesture/Speech synchronization and gesture's scope across Information Unit types, in Korotaev N, Sumbatova N., editors. Corpus scientiae: Papers in honor of Vera I. Podlesskaya. Moscow: Buki Vedi; 2024. p. 339-365.
62. Moneglia M, Raso T, Malvessi-Mittmann M, Mello H. Challenging the perceptual relevance of prosodic breaks in multilingual spontaneous speech corpora: C-ORAL-BRASIL / C-ORAL-ROM. In: Speech Prosody 2010, W1.09, Satellite workshop on Prosodic Prominence: Perceptual, Automatic Identification. Chicago; 2010. Retrieved from: https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/sp2010/sp10_2010.html, .
63. Moneglia M, Raso T. Notes on Language into Act Theory (L-AcT). In: Raso T, Mello H, editors. Spoken Corpora and Linguistic Studies, Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2014. p. 468–495. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.61.15mon?locatt=mode:legacy
64. Moneglia M, Fabbri M, Quazza S, Panizza A, Danieli M, Garrido JM, Swert M. Evaluation of consensus on the annotation of terminal and non-terminal prosodic breaks in the C-ORAL-ROM corpus. In: Cresti E., Moneglia M., editors. C-ORAL-ROM. Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2005. p. 257-276. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.15.09mon?locatt=mode:legacy
65. Müller C. Gestural Modes of Representation as Techniques of Depiction. In: Müller C. Cienki A, Fricke E, Ladewig SH, McNeill D, Bressem J., editors. Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton; 2014. p. 1687–1702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110302028.1687
66. Müller C. Gesture and Sign: Cataclysmic Break or Dynamic Relations? Front. Psychol. 2018; 9: 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01651
67. Müller C, Bressem J, Ladewig SH. Towards a grammar of gestures: A form-based view in Body Language Communication. In: Müller C, Cienki A, Fricke E, Ladewig SH., McNeill D, Teßendorf S., editors. Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter-Mouton; 2013. p. 707-733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318.707
68. Pierrehumbert J, Hirshberg J. The meaning of Intonational Contour in the Interpretation of Discourse. In: Cohen PH., Morgan JL, Pollack ME., editors. Intensions in Communication. Cambridge MA: MIT Press; 1990. p. 271-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0016
69. Raso T. Prosodic Constraints for Discourse Markers. In: Raso T, Mello H., editors. Spoken Corpora and Linguistics Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2014. p. 411-467. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.61.14ras?locatt=mode:legacy
70. Raso T, Vieira MA. description of Dialogic Units/Discourse Markers in spontaneous speech corpora based on phonetic parameters. Chimera: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies. 2016; 3: 221-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.15366/chimera2016.3.2.008
71. Raso T, Cavalcante F, Mittmann M. Prosodic forms of the Topic information unit in a cross-linguistic perspective: a first survey. In: de Meo A, Dovetto F., editors. La comunicazione parlata. Proceedings of the GSCP International Conference, 13-15 June 2016. Roma: Aracne; 2017. p. 473-498. DOI:
10.4399/978882552064427
72. Rocha B. Uma Metodologia Empírica Para a Identificação e Descrição de Ilocuções e a Sua Aplicação Para o Estudo da Ordem em, PB, e Italiano [Ph.D. thesis]. Belo Horizonte: UFMG; 2016.
73. Rohrer PA. temporal and pragmatic analysis of gesture-speech association: A corpus-based approach using the novel MultiModal MultiDimensional (M3D) labeling system [Ph.D. thesis]. Barcelona: University Pompeu Fabra; 2022. https://theses.hal.science/tel-03994053v1
74. Rohrer PA, Delais-Roussarie E, Prieto P. Visualizing prosodic structure: Manual gestures as highlighters of prosodic heads and edges in English academic discourses, Lingua. 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103583
75. Rossi M. Le seuil de glissando ou seuil de perception des variations tonales pour la parole. Phonetica. 1971; 23: 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1159/000259328
76. Rossi M. La perception des glissando descendants dans les con-tours prosodiques. Phonetica 35, 11–40. https://doi.org/10.1159/000259920
77. Panunzi A, Gregori L, Rocha B. Comparing annotations for the prosodic segmentation of spontaneous speech. In: S. Izre’el S., Mello H., Panunzi A., Raso T., editors. In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language: A Corpus-Driven Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2020. p. 403–432. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.94.17pan?locatt=mode:legacy
78. Panunzi A., Saccone V. Complex illocutive units in L-AcT: an analysis of non-terminal prosodic breaks of bound and multiple Comments. Rev. Estud. Ling. 2018; 26: 1647–1674. https://doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.26.4.1647-1674
79. Saccone V. La stanza nella Teoria della Lingua in Atto. CHIMERA. Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies. 2020; 7: 55-68. https://doi.org/10.15366/chimera2020.7.003
80. Saccone V, Panunzi A. Le unità di Comment multiplo. Analisi secondo la Teoria della Lingua in Atto. In: De Meo A., Dovetto F., editors. La comunicazione parlata. Atti del Congresso GSCP – Università degli Studi di Napoli L’Orientale (Napoli, 12-14 dicembre 2018). Roma: Aracne; 2020. p. 263-286.
81. Saccone V., Trombetta C., Parenthetical Units and Structures in Italian and German spoken language: prosodic and textual analysis. CHIMERA. Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies. 2021; 8: 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.15366/chimera2021.8.001
82. Saccone V, Vieira M, Panunzi A. Illocutive Unit in Language into Act Theory: an analysis of non-terminal prosodic breaks of Bound Comments and Lists. Journal of Speech Sciences. 2018; 7(2): 51–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.20396/joss.v7i2.14998
83. Saccone V, Panunzi A. Le strutture parentetiche nel parlato italiano: classificazione funzionale e identificazione prosodica. In: Castagneto M, Ravetto M., editors. La comunicazione parlata, Atti del Congresso GSCP – 2021 Vercelli, Roma: Aracne; 2023. p. 461-486. DOI: 10.53136/979122180945917
84. Schriffin D. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841
85. Signorini S. Topic e soggetto in corpora di italiano Parlato [PhD. Thesis]. University of Florence; 2005.
86. Swerts M. Prosodic features at discourse boundaries of different strengths. J. Acoustic. Soc. Am. 1997; 101: 514–521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.418114
87. Tucci I. Obiter dictum: la funzione informativa delle unità parentetiche. In: Pettorino M, Giannini A, Dovetto F., editors. La Comunicazione parlata 3. Atti del Congresso GSCP (Napoli, 23-25 febbraio 2009). Napoli: Università l’Orientale Press; 2010. p. 635-654.
88. Tucci I. Illocution and Modality in Spoken Italian: performing a Speech Act through words and Judging their Semantic Content. A Corpus-Based Analysis. In: Mello H, Panunzi A, Raso T., editors. Pragmatics and Prosody Illocution, Modality, Attitude, Information Patterning, and Speech Annotation. Firenze: FUP; 2012. p. 83-100. 10.36253/978-88-6655-084-6
Online resources
89. WINPITCH https://www.winpitch.com/
90. PRAAT https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
91. ELAN https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Massimo Moneglia, Giorgina Cantalini