1887
Volume 25, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Turns-at-talk often do not start with their main business but rather with a pre-start (Sacks et al., 1974). This paper investigates the correlation of pre-starts with inserts, one of three major word classes (Biber et al., 1999). Based on the BNC’s mark-up, I investigate how inserts are positionally distributed in large amounts of turns of varied lengths. The analysis shows that inserts are overwhelmingly attracted to turn-first positions, the likely location of pre-starts. Further, in a subsample of 1,000 ten-word turns manually coded for pre-starts, 86% of all inserts serve a pre-start function. The findings call into question current speech processing models that fail to factor in turn structure. Further, pre-starts have crucial sequential and interactional implications as early indicators whether the new turn “agrees” with the prior turn and are likely key signals aiding listeners’ action ascription.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.19098.ruh
2020-08-28
2020-09-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K.
    (2013) Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijmer, K., & Rühlemann, C.
    (Eds.) (2015) Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139057493
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ameka, F.
    (1992) Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(2–3), 101–118. 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90048‑G
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90048-G [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
    (2012) Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version 6.0.37) [Computer software]. www.praat.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bögels, S., Kendrick, K. H., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2015) Never say no … How the brain interprets the pregnant pause in conversation. PLoS ONE, 10(12), e0145474. 10.1371/journal.pone.0145474
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145474 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bögels, S., Magyari, L., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2015) Neural signatures of response planning occur midway through an incoming question in conversation. Scientific Reports, 5(12881), 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brinton, L. J.
    (2010) Discourse markers. InA. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Historical Pragmatics (pp.285–314). De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Buysse, L.
    (2012) So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1764–1782. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.012 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carter, R. A., Hughes, R., & McCarthy, M. J.
    (2000) Exploring Grammar in Context. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Clayman, S. E.
    (2013) Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.150–166). Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (2017) Interactional Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139507318
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139507318 [Google Scholar]
  13. Crystal, D.
    (2003) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Damian, M. F., Vigliocco, G., & Levelt, W. J. M.
    (2001) Effects of semantic context in the naming of pictures and words. Cognition, 81, B77–B86. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(01)00135‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00135-4 [Google Scholar]
  15. Diani, G.
    (2004) The discourse functions of I don’t know in English conversation. InK. Aijmer & B. Stenström. (Eds.), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora (pp.157–171). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.120.11dia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.120.11dia [Google Scholar]
  16. Evison, J.
    (2012) A corpus linguistic analysis of turn-openings in spoken academic discourse: Understanding discursive specialisation. English Profile Journal, 3(4), 1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fraser, B.
    (1990) An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 383–395. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90096‑V
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V [Google Scholar]
  18. Gisladottir, R. S., Bögels, S., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2018) Oscillatory brain responses reflect anticipation during comprehension of speech acts in spoken dialog. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 1–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00034
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gumperz, J. J.
    (1992) Contextualization and understanding. InA. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp.229–252). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1996) The linguistic and cultural relativity of inference. InJ. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Heldner, M., & Edlund, J.
    (2010) Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations. Journal of Phonetics, 38(4), 555–568. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.002
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Heritage, J.
    (1998) Oh-prefaced Responses to Inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291–334. 10.1017/S0047404500019990
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019990 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2013) Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 331–337. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2015) Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2018) Turn-initial particles in English: The cases of and well. InJ. Heritage & M. L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial Particles across Languages (pp.155–189). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31.06her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.06her [Google Scholar]
  27. Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M. L.
    (2018) Analyzing turn-initial particles. InJ. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial Particles across Languages (pp.1–22). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31.01her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.01her [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoey, M.
    (2005) Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hoffmann, S., Evert, S., Smith, N., Lee, D., & Berglund Prytz, Y.
    (2008) Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb: A Practical Guide. Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Holler, J., Kendrick, K. H., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2017) Processing language in face-to-face conversation: Questions with gestures get faster responses. Psychonometric Bulletin Review, 25, 1900–1918. 10.3758/s13423‑017‑1363‑z
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1363-z [Google Scholar]
  31. Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. M.
    (2004) The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition, 92(1–2), 101–144. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jefferson, G.
    (1973) A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotics, 9(1), 47–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (1986) Notes on ‘latency’ in overlap onset. Human Studies, 9, 153–183. 10.1007/BF00148125
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148125 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. InG. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp.13–31). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  35. Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. M.
    (1994) Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 824–843.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Jongman, S. R., Piai, V., & Meyer, A. S.
    (2019) Planning for language production: The electrophysiological signature of attention to the cue to speak. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. Advance online publication. 10.1080/23273798.2019.1690153
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1690153 [Google Scholar]
  37. Jucker, A. H.
    (1993) The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(5), 435–452. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90004‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9 [Google Scholar]
  38. De Klerk, V.
    (2005) Procedural meanings of well in a corpus of Xhosa English. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1183–1205. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Koivisto, A.
    (2012) Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(10), 1254–1272. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  40. Levelt, W. J. M., Praamstra, P., Meyer, A. S., Helenius, P., & Salmelin, R.
    (1998) An MEG study of picture naming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(5), 553–567. 10.1162/089892998562960
    https://doi.org/10.1162/089892998562960 [Google Scholar]
  41. Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S.
    (1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38. 10.1017/S0140525X99001776
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776 [Google Scholar]
  42. Levinson, S. C.
    (2003) Contextualizing ‘contextualization cues’. InS. Eerdmans, C. Prevignano, & P. Thibault (Eds.), Language and Interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz (pp.31–39). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.117.04lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.117.04lev [Google Scholar]
  43. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2013) Action formation and ascription. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.103–130). Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (2016) Turn-taking in human communication: Origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 6–14. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  46. Levinson, S. C., & Holler, J.
    (2014) The origin of human multi-modal communication. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369(1651), 20130302. doi:  10.1098/rstb.2013.0302
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0302 [Google Scholar]
  47. Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F.
    (2015) Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(731), 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Mayes, P.
    (1990) Quotation in spoken English. Studies in Language, 14(2), 325–363. 10.1075/sl.14.2.04may
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.14.2.04may [Google Scholar]
  49. Magyari, L., Bastiaansen, M. C. M., de Ruiter, J. P., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2014) Early anticipation lies behind the speed of response in conversation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(11), 2530–2539. 10.1162/jocn_a_00673
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00673 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Ramirez-Esparza, N., Slatcher, R. B., & Pennebaker, J. W.
    (2007) Are women really more talkative than men?Science, 317(5834), 82. 10.1126/science.1139940
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139940 [Google Scholar]
  51. Norrick, N.
    (2009) Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 866–891. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  52. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A.
    (Eds.) (1996) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  53. Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A.
    (1965) Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 273–28. 10.1080/17470216508416445
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216508416445 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pfeiffer, M.
    (2016) The deictic dimension of exclamations: On the use of wh-exclamatives in German face-to-face interaction. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique, 40, 35–57. 10.4000/rsp.288
    https://doi.org/10.4000/rsp.288 [Google Scholar]
  55. Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J.
    (2013) Preference. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.210–228). Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Rayson, P., Leech, G., & Hodges, M.
    (1997) Social differentiation in the use of English vocabulary: Some analyses of the conversational component of the British National Corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2(1), 133–152. 10.1075/ijcl.2.1.07ray
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.2.1.07ray [Google Scholar]
  57. Roberts, S. G., Torreira, F., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2015) The effects of processing and sequence organization on the timing of turn taking: a corpus study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(509), 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Roberts, S. G., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2017) Conversation, cognition and cultural evolution: A model of the cultural evolution of word order through pressures imposed from turn taking in conversation. Interaction Studies, 18(3), 402–429. 10.1075/is.18.3.06rob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.3.06rob [Google Scholar]
  59. Rochmont, M., & Cullicover, P.
    (1990) English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Romero-Trillo, J.
    (2018) Prosodic modeling and position analysis of pragmatic markers in English conversation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14, 169–195. 10.1515/cllt‑2014‑0026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0026 [Google Scholar]
  61. Rühlemann, C.
    (2013) Narrative in English Conversation: A Corpus Analysis. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139026987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026987 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2018a) Corpus Linguistics for Pragmatics. Routledge. 10.4324/9780429451072
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429451072 [Google Scholar]
  63. (2018b) How long does it take to say ‘well’? Evidence from the Audio BNC. Corpus Pragmatics, 3(1), 49–66. 10.1007/s41701‑018‑0046‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-018-0046-y [Google Scholar]
  64. (2018c) TCU-initial backchannel overlap in storytelling. Narrative Inquiry, 28(2), 257–279. 10.1075/ni.17060.ruh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.17060.ruh [Google Scholar]
  65. (2020) Visual Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction to Quantitative Interactional Linguistics. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.228
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.228 [Google Scholar]
  66. Rühlemann, C., & Gee, M.
    (2017) Conversation Analysis and the XML method. Gesprächsforschung, 18, 274–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Rühlemann, C., & Schweinberger, M.
    (under review). Information in turns-at-talk: Modeling the placement of nuclear stress.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Sacks, H.
    (1987) On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. InG. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organisation. Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  70. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1996) Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. InE. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp.52–133). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  71. Schegloff, E. A.
    (2000) Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29(1), 1-63. doi:  10.1017/S0047404500001019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500001019 [Google Scholar]
  72. Schegloff, E. A., & Lerner, G. H.
    (2009) Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(2), 91–115. 10.1080/08351810902864511
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864511 [Google Scholar]
  73. Schiffrin, D.
    (1985) Conversational coherence: The role of well. Language, 61(3), 640–667. 10.2307/414389
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414389 [Google Scholar]
  74. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  75. Schleppegrell, M.
    (1991) Paratactic because. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(4), 323–337. 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90085‑C
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90085-C [Google Scholar]
  76. Sicoli, M., Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2015) Marked initial pitch in questions signals marked communicative function. Language and Speech, 58, 204–223. 10.1177/0023830914529247
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830914529247 [Google Scholar]
  77. Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K.-E., & Levinson, S. C.
    (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.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Stubbs, M.
    (2002) Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Svartvik, J.
    (1980) Well in conversation. InS. Greenbaum, G. Leech, & J. Svartvik (Eds.), Studies in English Linguistics: For Randolph Quirk (pp.167–177). Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Tao, H.
    (2003) Turn initiators in spoken English: A corpus-based approach to interaction and grammar. InP. Leistyna & C. F. Meyer (Eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use (pp.187–207). Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004334410_011
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004334410_011 [Google Scholar]
  81. Torreira, F., Bögels, S. & Levinson, S. C.
    (2015) Breathing for answering: The time course of response planning in conversation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–11. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00284
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00284 [Google Scholar]
  82. Tottie, G.
    (2015) Turn management and the fillers uh and um. InK. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp.381–407). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139057493.021
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.021 [Google Scholar]
  83. Vaughan, E., McCarthy, M., & Clancy, B.
    (2017) Vague category markers as turn-final items in Irish English. World Englishes, 36(2), 208–223. 10.1111/weng.12254
    https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12254 [Google Scholar]
  84. Yuan, J., M. Liberman, & Cieri, C.
    (2006) Towards an integrated understanding of speaking rate in conversation. In Interspeech 2006 – ICSLP (pp.541–544). Pittsburgh, PA. https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/archive_papers/interspeech_2006/i06_1795.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.19098.ruh
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.19098.ruh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): action ascription , contextualization cue , interjection , speech planning and textual colligation
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