1887
Volume 26, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Analysis of a series of computer science seminars indicates that use of the discourse marker ‘so’ in monologic talk is not random, rather it plays an important role in orienting the listener to the overall structure of the seminar. Although the institutional nature of seminar talk is such that only one person speaks for an extended turn, detailed analysis of seminars indicates that presenters do not maintain a continuous stream of talk. They talk for a bit, pause, and then talk for a bit more. These bits of talk (or sections) are characterised by a number of features, including discourse markers. The analysis shows how the discourse marker ‘so’ occurs in specific environments, with specific prosodic features, and that its role and function varies according to where it occurs within the seminar. The close interaction between talk (in this case, presenters’ use of ‘so’), and action (in this case, putting slides on the overhead projector), is also made apparent.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.26.2.04ren
2003-01-01
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atkinson, J.M. & Heritage, J.
    (Eds.) (1984) Structures of social interaction: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, G. & Yule, G.
    (1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511805226
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226 [Google Scholar]
  3. Button, G.
    (1990) On varieties of closing. In G. Psathas , (Ed.) Interaction competence: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, (pp.93–147) Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (1991) Conversation-in-a-series. In D. Boden , & D. Zimmerman (Eds.) Talk and social structure. (pp.251–277) Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Button, G. & Lee, J.R.E.
    (Eds.) (1987) Talk and social organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chafe W.L.
    (1979) The flow of thought and the flow of language. In T. Givón (Ed.) Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntaxVol12. (pp.159–81) New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chaudron, C. & Richards, J.
    (1986) The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics7 (2), 113–127. doi: 10.1093/applin/7.2.113
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.2.113 [Google Scholar]
  8. Flowerdew, J. & Tauroza, S.
    (1995) The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition17, 435–458. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100014406
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014406 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fraser, B.
    (1990) An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics14, 383–395. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90096‑V
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V [Google Scholar]
  10. Gardner, R.
    (1994) Conversation analysis transcription. In R. Gardner (Ed.) Spoken interaction studies in Australia. (Australian Review of Applied Linguistics Series S No. 11) (pp.185–191) ALAA: Canberra.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Goffman, E.
    (1981) Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Goodwin, C.
    (1996) Transparent vision. In E. Ochs , E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (Eds.) Interaction and grammar, (pp.370–404) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gumperz, J.J.
    (1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  14. Heritage, J.
    (1985) Analysing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.) Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol.3. Discourse and dialogue, (pp.95–117) London: Academic Press Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Heritage, J. & Watson, D.R.
    (1980) Aspects of the properties of formulations in natural conversation: Some instances analysed. Semiotica. 30 (3/4) 245–262.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hinds, J.
    (1979) Organizational patterns in discourse. In T. Givón (Ed.) Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax. (pp. 135–54) New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Jucker, A.H.
    (1993) The discourse marker well: a relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics19, 435–452. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90004‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ochs, E. , Gonzales, P. & Jacoby, S.
    (1996) “When I come down I’m in the domain state”: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretative activity of physicists. In E. Ochs , E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (Eds.) Interaction and grammar. (pp. 328–69) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.007 [Google Scholar]
  19. Rendle-Short, J.
    (1998) Discourse markers in computer science seminar talk. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Linguistics, ANU.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1999) When ‘okay’ is okay in computer science seminar talk. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics22/2, 19–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2002) Talk and action in the computer science seminar. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Department of Linguistics, ANU.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (forthcoming). Showing structure: Using ‘um’ in monologic talk.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Sacks, H. , Jefferson, G. & Schegloff, E.A.
    (1977) The preference for self-correc-tion in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53 (2), 361–382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  24. Sacks, H.
    (1984) On doing “being ordinary”. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (1984) (pp.413–429).
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Sacks, H. , Schegloff, E.A. & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest semantics for the organisation of turn-raking in conversation. Language50 (4), 695–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  26. Schegloff, E.A. & Sacks, H.
    (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica8, 289–327. doi: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  27. Schiffrin, D.
    (1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  28. Schourup, L.
    (1999) Discourse markers. Lingua107, 227–265. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)90026‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
  29. Segel, E.M. , Duchan, J.F. & Scott, P.J.
    (1991) The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults’ interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes14, 27–54. doi: 10.1080/01638539109544773
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544773 [Google Scholar]
  30. Watson, D.R.
    (1990) Some features of the elicitation of confessions in murder interrogations. In G. Psathas (Ed.) Interaction competence: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, (pp. 263–295) Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.26.2.04ren
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error