1887
Volume 34, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study examines the linguistic and discursive format as well as the functions of hypothetical quotations in everyday, informal conversations amongst Greek Cypriot friends. Drawing from a dataset of 270 minutes of naturally-occurring conversations, this study documents the linguistic format of sixty-one hypothetical quotations and examines why speakers resort to formulating such quotations to begin with. To do so, Goffman’s (1981) work on footing and participation framework is employed along with an analysis of these quotations in interaction following the work of Goodwin (2007). This study shows that most instances of hypothetical quotations are formulated as direct quotations. There can be both self- and other-quotations, and the quotative can take various forms. Hypothetical quotations serve an array of discursive functions, such as showing the listener’s involvement in an interaction, creating humour, supporting one’s argument or refuting the argument of the other, in line with other studies in the literature.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20049.fot
2023-04-25
2024-02-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acuña, Virginia
    2020 “Staging Mental Discursive Processes and Reactions: The Construction of Direct Reported Thought (DRT) in Conversational Storytelling”. Language in Society50 (2): 235–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2021 “The Construction of Future and Hypothetical Dialogues in Third-party Complaints as Enactments of a Subsequent Direct Complaint”. Journal of Pragmatics1811: 68–79. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.014 [Google Scholar]
  3. Antaki, Charles
    2003 “The Uses of Absurdity”. InAnalyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Research Interview, ed. byHarry van den Berg, Margaret Wetherell, and Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, 85–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Antaki, Charles, and Ivan Leudar
    1990 “Claim-backing and Other Explanatory Genres in Talk”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology91: 279–292. 10.1177/0261927X9094004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X9094004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Archakis, Argiris, and Dimitris Papazachariou
    2008 “Prosodic Cues of Identity Construction: Intensity in Greek Young Women’s Conversational Narratives”. Journal of Sociolinguistics12 (5): 627–647. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2008.00385.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00385.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
    1981The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. byMichael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bublitz, Wolfram
    2015 “Introducing Quoting as a Ubiquitous Meta-communicative Act”. InThe Pragmatics of Quoting Now and Then, ed. byJenny Arendholz, Wolfram Bublitz, and Monika Kirner, 1–26. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110427561‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110427561-002 [Google Scholar]
  9. Buchstaller, Isabelle, and Alexandra D’Arcy
    2009 “Localized Globalization: A Multi-local, Multivariate Investigation of Quotative Be Like”. Journal of Sociolinguistics13 (3): 291–331. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2009.00412.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00412.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, Herbert H., and Richard J. Gerrig
    1990 “Quotations as Demonstrations”. Language66 (4): 764–805. 10.2307/414729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clift, Rebecca
    2007 “Getting There First: Non-narrative Reported Speech in Interaction”. InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. byElizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 120–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fetzer, Anita
    2020 “‘And I Quote’: Forms and Functions of Quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions”. Journal of Pragmatics1571: 89–100. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fetzer, Anita, and Daniel Weiss
    2020 “Doing Things with Quotes: Introduction”. Journal of Pragmatics1571: 84–88. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fotiou, Constantina
    2015 “An Empirical Study of English in Cypriot Greek Conversations and Print Media”. PhD diss.University of Essex
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2017a “English–Greek Code-switching in Greek Cypriot Magazines and Newspapers – An Analysis of Its Textual Forms and Functions”. Journal of World Languages4 (1): 1–27. 10.1080/21698252.2017.1385922
    https://doi.org/10.1080/21698252.2017.1385922 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2017b “English Discourse Markers in Cypriot Greek”. InResearchers in Progress II. Languages in Contact: Languages with History. Proceedings of the 2nd UCY-LC International Forum of Young Researchers, ed. byPedro J. Molina Muñoz, 103–116. Nicosia: Language Centre – University of Cyprus.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2018 “A Linguistic Analysis of Cypriot Greek–English Compound Verbs.” Lingua2151: 1–26. 10.1016/j.lingua.2018.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2019 “Debunking a Myth: The Greek Language in Cyprus Is Not Being Destroyed. A Linguistic Analysis of Cypriot Greek–English Codeswitching”. International Journal of Bilingualism23 (6): 1358–84. 10.1177/1367006918786466
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006918786466 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2020 ““Θέλεις huge sample για να φκάλεις valid statistical results [You want a huge sample to generate valid statistical results]”: A Conversational Analysis of Cypriot Greek – English Codeswitching”. InProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, ed. byMaria Chondrogianni, Simon Courtenage, Geoffrey Horrocks, Amalia Arvaniti, and Ianthi Tsimpli. London: Westminster Computation and Linguistics Group, pp.93–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2022 “English in Cyprus: The Now and Then of English in a Former British Colony”. English Today: 1–7. 10.1017/S0266078422000268
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078422000268 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fotiou, Constantina, and Ioli Ayiomamitou
    2021 ““We Are in Cyprus, We Have to Use Our Language, Don’t We?” Pupils’ and Their Parents’ Attitudes towards Two Proximal Linguistic Varieties”. Linguistics and Education631: 100931. 10.1016/j.linged.2021.100931
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2021.100931 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fotiou, Constantina, and Kleanthes K. Grohmann
    2022 “A Small Island with Big Differences? Folk Perceptions in the Context of Dialect Levelling and Koineization”. Frontiers in Communication61. 10.3389/fcomm.2021.770088
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.770088 [Google Scholar]
  23. Goffman, Erving
    1974Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Lebanon: University Press of New England.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1981Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Goodwin, Marjorie H.
    1990aHe-said-she-said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1990b “Retellings, Pretellings and Hypothetical Stories”. Research on Language and Social Interaction24 (1–4): 263–276. 10.1080/08351819009389342
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351819009389342 [Google Scholar]
  27. Golato, Andrea
    2012 “Impersonal Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. InQuotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. byIsabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam, Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/celcr.15.04gol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.04gol [Google Scholar]
  28. Goodwin, Charles
    2007 “Interactive Footing”. InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interactioned. byElizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Haakana, Markku
    2007 “Reported Thought in Complaint Stories”. InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. byElizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 150–78. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Haberland, Hartmut
    1986 “Reported Speech in Danish”. InDirect and Indirect Speech, ed. byFlorian Coulmas, 219–253. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110871968.219
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.219 [Google Scholar]
  31. Heritage, John
    1984 “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement”. InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Holt, Elizabeth
    2000 “Reporting and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech”. Research on Language and Social Interaction33 (4): 425–454. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_04
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_04 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2007 “‘I’m Eyeing Your Chop Up Mind’: Reporting and Enacting”. InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. byElizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 47–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Irvine, Judith Temkin
    1996 “Shadow Conversations: The Indeterminacy of Participant Roles”. InNatural Histories of Discourse, ed. byMichael Silverstein, and Greg Urban, 131–159. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Koester, Almut, and Michael Handford
    2018 “It’s Not Good Saying: ‘Well It Might Do That or It Might Not’: Hypothetical Reported Speech in Business Meetings”. Journal of Pragmatics1301: 67–80. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  36. Labov, William
    1972Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lehner, Adrienne
    1989 “Remembering and Representing Prose: Quoted Speech as a Data Source”. Discourse Processes121: 105–125. 10.1080/01638538909544721
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538909544721 [Google Scholar]
  38. Mayes, Patricia
    1990 “Quotation in Spoken English”. International Journal Studies in Language14 (2): 325–363. 10.1075/sl.14.2.04may
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.14.2.04may [Google Scholar]
  39. Mohammad, Abeer, and Camilla Vásquez
    2015 “‘Rachel’s Not Here’: Constructed Dialogue in Gossip”. Journal of Sociolinguistics19 (3): 351–71. 10.1111/josl.12125
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12125 [Google Scholar]
  40. Myers, Greg
    1999 “Functions of Reported Speech in Group Discussions”. Applied Linguistics20 (3): 376–401. 10.1093/applin/20.3.376
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.376 [Google Scholar]
  41. Park, Innhwa
    2018 “Reported Thought as (Hypothetical) Assessment”. Journal of Pragmatics1291: 1–12. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  42. Pascual, Esther, and Emilia Królak
    2018 “The ‘Listen to Characters Thinking’ Novel: Fictive Interaction as Narrative Strategy in English Literary Bestsellers and their Spanish and Polish Translations”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics16 (2): 399–430. 10.1075/rcl.00016.pas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00016.pas [Google Scholar]
  43. Pascual, Esther
    2014Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language and Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.47 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pascual, Esther, and Todd Oakley
    2017 “Fictive Interaction”. InCambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byBarbara Dancygier, 347–360. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.022 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pomerantz, Anita
    1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims”. Human Studies91: 219–229. 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pujolar, Joan
    2001Gender, Heteroglossia and Power: A Sociolinguistic Study of Youth Culture. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110809121
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110809121 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sandler, Sergeiy
    2016 Fictive Interaction and the Nature of Linguistic Meaning. InThe Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction [Human Cognitive Processing 55], ed. byEsther Pascual, and Sergeiy Sandler, 23–41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.02san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.02san [Google Scholar]
  48. Sandler, Sergeiy, and Esther Pacual
    2019 “In the Beginning There Was Conversation”. Pragmatics29 (2): 250–276. 10.1075/prag.18047.san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18047.san [Google Scholar]
  49. Sandlund, Erica
    2014 “Prescribing Conduct: Enactments of Talk or Thought in Advice-Giving Sequences”. Discourse Studies16 (5): 645–66. 10.1177/1461445614539065
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614539065 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sams, Jessie
    2010 “Quoting the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics421: 3147–3160. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.024
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.024 [Google Scholar]
  51. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  52. Simmons, Katie, and Amanda LeCouteur
    2011 “‘Hypothetical Active-voicing’: Therapists ‘Modelling’ of Clients’ Future Conversations in CBT Interactions”. Journal of Pragmatics431: 3177–3192. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  53. Tannen, Deborah
    1986 “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narratives”. InDirect and Indirect Speech, ed. byFlorian Coulmas, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110871968.311
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.311 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618987 [Google Scholar]
  55. Trester, Anna Marie
    2009 “Discourse Marker ‘Oh’ as a Means for Realizing the Identity Potential of Constructed Dialogue in Interaction”. Journal of Sociolinguistics13 (2): 147–68. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2009.00402.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00402.x [Google Scholar]
  56. Weiss, Daniel
    2020 “Analogical Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics1551: 101–110. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  57. Winchatz, Michaela R., and Alexander Kozin
    2008 “Comical Hypothetical: Arguing for a Conversational Phenomenon”. Discourse Studies10 (3): 383–405. 10.1177/1461445608089917
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608089917 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20049.fot
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20049.fot
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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