1887
image of How do speakers and hearers disambiguate multi-functional words?
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

is an exemplary multi-functional word performing pragmatic and syntactic functions. That multi-functionality poses a potential problem: How do hearers in conversation determine which function is actualized and how do speakers project the function actualized? We address both questions examining factors hearers rely on to disambiguate and the resources speakers deploy to designate ’s function. The study is based on 8-, 9-, and 10-word turns containing extracted from the British National Corpus for which audio files from the Audio BNC are available. We include duration, measuring s durations in Praat. The workflow comprised both qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitatively, all turns were manually inspected and the functions and subfunctions of were identified. Due to data paucity the quantitative analysis was based only on a broad distinction between syntactic and pragmatic functions. The analysis involved two logistic regression model selection processes, one adopting a hearer, one a speaker perspective. Based on the factors position in the turn, duration and lexical context, our final models indicate that hearers disambiguate the two main functions of drawing on lexical context and position in the turn while speakers project ’s functions by modulating duration. We propose that 6th priming hypothesis, concerned with polysemy, can be extended to also include polyfunctionality. Position also suggests a reading in terms of Hoey’s ‘textual colligation’ hypothesis related to a word’s : particularly in its incarnation as a marker of dispreferreds, pragmatic is heavily primed to occur turn-initially.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.18050.ruh
2020-06-04
2020-12-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2013Understanding pragmatic markers. A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Albert, Saul, Laura E. de Ruiter, & Jan Peter de Ruiter
    2015 CABNC: the Jeffersonian transcription of the Spoken British National Corpus. Available online atsaulalbert.github.io/CABNC/
  3. Andersen, Gisle
    1998 The pragmatic marker ‘like’ from a relevance-theoretic perspective. InAndreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), Discourse markers: Description and theory, 147–170. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.57.09and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.09and [Google Scholar]
  4. Arndt, Horst & Richard W. Janney
    1987InterGrammar. Towards an integrative model of verbal, prosodic and kinesic choices in speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110872910
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872910 [Google Scholar]
  5. Arnold, Jennifer E., Anthony Losongco, Thomas Wasow & Ryan Gsintrom
    2000 Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language76. 28–55. 10.1353/lan.2000.0045
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2000.0045 [Google Scholar]
  6. Aylett, Matthew & Alice Turk
    2004 The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech47(1). 31–56. 10.1177/00238309040470010201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309040470010201 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baayen, R. Harald, Petar Milin, Dusica Filipović-Đurđević, Peter Hendrix & Marco Marelli
    2011 An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review118. 438–482. 10.1037/a0023851
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023851 [Google Scholar]
  8. Barthel, Mathias, Antje S. Meyer & Stephen C. Levinson
    2017 Next speakers plan their turn early and speak after turn-final “go-signals”. Frontiers of Psychology8. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00393
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00393 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bolden, Galina
    2004 The quote and beyond: Defining boundaries of reported speech in conversational Russian. Journal of Pragmatics36. 1071–1118. 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.015 [Google Scholar]
  10. Boersma, Paul & David Weenink
    2012 Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. www.praat.org/
  11. Brinton, Laurel J.
    2010 Discourse markers. InAndreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 285–314. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Coleman, John, Ladan Baghai-Ravary, John Pybus, & Sergio Grau
    2012Audio BNC: The audio edition of the Spoken British National Corpus. Phonetics Laboratory, University of Oxford. Available online atwww.phon.ox.ac.uk/AudioBNC
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Crowdy, Steve
    1995 The BNC spoken corpus. InGeoffrey Leech, Greg Myers & Jenny Thomas (eds.), Spoken English on computer: Transcription, mark-up and application, 224-234. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. De Klerk, Vivian
    2005 Procedural meanings of well in a corpus of Xhosa English. Journal of Pragmatics37. 1183-1205. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fraser, Bruce
    1990 An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics14. 383-395.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gries, Stefan Th.
    Forthcoming. Analyzing dispersion. InMagali Paquot & Stefan Th. Gries eds.
  17. 2018 The discriminatory power of lexical context for alternations: An information-theoretic exploration. Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science5(1-2). 78-106. 10.1558/jrds.38227
    https://doi.org/10.1558/jrds.38227 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gries, Stefan Th. & Philip Durrant
    . Forthcoming. Analyzing co-occurrence data. InMagali Paquot & Stefan Th. Gries eds.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gravano, Agustín, Julia Hirschberg & Štefan Beňuš
    2012 Affirmative cue words in task-oriented dialogue. Computational Linguistics38(1). 1–39. 10.1162/COLI_a_00083
    https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00083 [Google Scholar]
  20. Heritage, John
    2015Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics88. 88–104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hoey, Michael
    2005Lexical priming. A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Holt, Elizabeth
    1996 Reporting talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction29(3). 219–245. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2 [Google Scholar]
  23. Indefrey, Peter & Willem J. M. Levelt
    2004 The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition92. 101–144. 10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jucker, Andreas H.
    1993 The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics19(5). 435-452. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90004‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9 [Google Scholar]
  25. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2013 Action formation and ascription. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 103-130. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Levinson, Stephen C. & Judith Holler
    2014 The origin of human multi-modal communication. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society369. 20130302. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0302
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0302 [Google Scholar]
  28. Levinson, Stephen C. & Francisco Torreira
    2015 Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology6. 731. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lester, Nicholas A.
    2017 The syntactic bits of nouns: How prior syntactic distributions affect comprehension, production, and acquisition. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California PhD thesis.
  30. Liddicoat, Anthony J.
    2007An introduction to conversation analysis. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Milin, Petar, Dusica Filipović-Đurđević & Fermín Moscoso del Prado Martín
    (2009) The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Memory and Language60. 50–64. 10.1016/j.jml.2008.08.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.08.007 [Google Scholar]
  32. Paquot, Magali & Stefan Th. Gries
    eds. Forthcoming. Practical handbook of corpus linguistics. Berlin: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Rayson, Paul, Geoffrey Leech & Mary Hodges
    1997 Social differentiation in the use of English vocabulary: Some analyses of the conversational component of the British National Corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics2(1). 133–152. 10.1075/ijcl.2.1.07ray
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.2.1.07ray [Google Scholar]
  35. Renwick, Margaret E. L., Ladan Baghai-Ravary, Rosalind Temple & John S. Coleman
    2013 Assimilation of word-final nasals to following word-initial place of articulation in UK English, INTERSPEECH-2013, 3047–3051. Available online atwww.isca-speech.org/archive/archive_papers/interspeech_2013/i13_3047.pdf
  36. Romero-Trillo, Jesús
    2015 Prosodic modeling and position analysis of pragmatic markers in English conversation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory14(1). 169–195. 10.1515/cllt‑2014‑0026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0026 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rühlemann, Christoph
    2013Narrative in English conversation: A corpus analysis of storytelling. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139026987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026987 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rühlemann, Christoph, Andrej Bagoutdinov & Matthew B. O’Donnell
    2015 Modest XPath and XQuery for corpora: Exploiting deep XML annotation. ICAME Journal39. 47–84. 10.1515/icame‑2015‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2015-0003 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rühlemann, Christoph
    2018 How long does it take to say ‘well’? Evidence from the Audio BNC. Corpus Pragmatics3(1). 49–66. 10.1007/s41701‑018‑0046‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-018-0046-y [Google Scholar]
  40. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson
    1974 A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language50(4). 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Gene H. Lerner
    2009 Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction42(2). 91-115. 10.1080/08351810902864511
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864511 [Google Scholar]
  42. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schnur, Tatiana T., Albert Costa & Alfonso Caramazza
    2006 Planning at the phonological level during sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research35. 189–213. 10.1007/s10936‑005‑9011‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-9011-6 [Google Scholar]
  44. Seyfarth, Scott
    2014 Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition133(1). 140–155. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  45. Stein, Dieter
    1985 Discourse markers in Early Modern English. InRoger Eatono, Olga Fischer, Willem Koopman & Frederike van der Leek (eds.), 283–303. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Stivers, Tanja, Nick J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Federico Rossano, Jan Peter de Ruiter, Kyung-Eun Yoon & Stephen C. Levinson
    2009 Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences. U.S.A.106(26). 10587–10592. doi:  10.1073/pnas.0903616106
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tao, Hongyin
    2003 Turn initiators in spoken English: A corpus-based approach to interaction and grammar. InPepi Leistyna & Charles F. Meyer (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 187–207. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Torreira, Francisco, Sara Bögels & Stephen C. Levinson
    2015 Breathing for answering: The time course of response planning in conversation. Frontiers in Psychology. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00284
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00284 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wennerstrom, Ann
    2001The music of everyday speech: Prosody and discourse analysis. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Zipf, George K.
    1949Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.18050.ruh
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.18050.ruh
Loading

Data & Media 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