1887
Volume 10, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Over the years, linguists have borrowed from other allied fields, including speech events from cultural anthropology, schema theory from psychology, speech acts from philosophy, and conversational strategies from rhetoric. In analyzing large and continuous chunks of conversational data, the first and most important of these borrowings is the speech event, for it sets the stage in which the other language elements are embedded and provides a useful sequence for analyzing everything else, including the conventional linguistic tools of the grammar and lexicon.

The present paper represents the optimal sequence of analysis as an Inverted Pyramid, starting with the speech event and then moving down the order to schemas, agendas, speech acts, conversational strategies, and finally to the grammar and lexicon that are embedded within each other. Two prominent criminal law investigations are used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Inverted Pyramid approach for understanding this evidence.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.18060.shu
2019-10-22
2019-11-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austin, John L.
    1962How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bartlett, Frederic
    1932Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bauman, Richard & Charles Briggs
    1990 “Poetics and Performance as Critical Perspectives on Language and Social Life”. Annual Review of Anthropology19: 59–88. 10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.000423
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.000423 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bauman, Richard and Joel Sherzer
    (eds.) 1974Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, Gillian & George Yule
    1983Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805226
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chafe, Wallace
    1972 “Discourse structure and human knowledge”. InRoy Freedle & John B. Carroll (eds.), Language Comprehension and the Acquisition of Knowledge, 67–81. Washington, D.C.: V.H. Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Comaroff, John
    1975 “Talking Politics: Oratory and Authority in a Tswana Chiefdom”. InM. Bloch (ed.), Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society, 141–183. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Davison, Alice
    1975 “Indirect Speech Acts and What to Do with Them”. InPeter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts, 143–185. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Duranti, Alessandro
    1985 “Sociocultural Dimensions of Discourse”. InTeun van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 193–230. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 1997Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511810190
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810190 [Google Scholar]
  11. Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green
    2006Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gumperz, John
    1972 “Introduction”. InJohn Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, 1–25. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 1982 “Introduction: language and the communication of social identity”. InJohn Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity, 1–21. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1997 “On the Interactional Bases of Speech Community Membership”. InGregory Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schiffrin, and John Baugh (eds.), Towards a Social Science of Language, Social Interaction and Discourse Structures, Papers in honor of William Labov, 183–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hansell, Mark and Cheryl Ajirotutu
    1982 “Negotiating interpretations in interethnic settings”. InJohn Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity, 85–94. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hymes, Dell
    1964 “Toward Ethnographies of Communication”. American Anthropologist66–6 (part 2) (1–34). 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00010
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00010 [Google Scholar]
  17. 1972 “Models of interaction of language and the social life”. InJohn Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jackendoff, Ray
    1996 “Conceptual semantics and Cognitive Linguistics”. Cognitive Linguistics7(1): 93–129. 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.1.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kates, Carol
    1980Pragmatics and Semantics: An Empiricist Theory. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Keenan-Ochs, Elinor & Bambi Schieffelin
    1976 “Topic as discourse notion: a study of topic in the conversations of children and adults.” InCharles Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kuipers, Joel
    1990Power in Performance: The Creation of Textual Authority in Weyewa Ritual Speech. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 10.9783/9781512803341
    https://doi.org/10.9783/9781512803341 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Rumelhart, David
    1980 “Schemata: the building blocks of cognition.” InR. J. Spiro (ed.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Searle, John
    1969Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  25. 1975 “Indirect Speech Acts.” InPeter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1983Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173452
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173452 [Google Scholar]
  27. Shuy, Roger W.
    1990 “Tape-recorded conversations”. InPaul Andrews and Marilyn Peterson (eds.), Criminal Intelligence Analysis, 117–148. Loomis, Calif.: Palmer Enterprises.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1993Language Crimes. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1997 “Discourse clues to coded language in an impeachment hearing”. InGregory Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schiffrin, and John Baugh (eds.), Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov, 121–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.128.10shu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.128.10shu [Google Scholar]
  30. Sherzer, Joel
    1989 “Kamakke, Sunmakke, Kormakke; three types of Cuna speech event.” InRichard Bauman and Joel Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, 263–282. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611810.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611810.018 [Google Scholar]
  31. Shuy, Roger W.
    2005Creating Language Crimes. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195181661.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195181661.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2013The Language of Bribery Cases. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945139.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945139.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2014The Language of Murder Cases. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199354832.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199354832.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2017Deceptive Ambiguity by Police and Prosecutors. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190669898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190669898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Tannen, Deborah
    1994Gender and Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.18060.shu
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.18060.shu
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