Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory

Founded by Gries, Stefan Th. / Stefanowitsch, Anatol

Ed. by Wulff, Stefanie


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.200
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.386

CiteScore 2017: 0.80

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.288
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.930

Online
ISSN
1613-7035
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Prosodic modeling and position analysis of pragmatic markers in English conversation

Jesús Romero-Trillo
Published Online: 2018-04-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0026

Abstract

The objective of this article is to investigate the use of three of the most frequent pragmatic markers in English conversation in the London-Lund Corpus, i.e. “well”, “you know” and “I mean”. Specifically, the aim is to study the characteristics of the prosodic patterns and the Tone Unit position in the realization of pragmatic functions by the markers. The article combines the thorough analysis of the corpus data with the description of the function of these elements in the realization of Adaptive Context within the Dynamic Model of Meaning approach to pragmatics and communication.

Keywords: pragmatic markers; prosody; Adaptive Context; position; specificity index; London-Lund corpus; Dynamic Model of Meaning

References

  • Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Aijmer, Karin. 2013. Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

  • Aijmer, Karin & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.), 2006. Pragmatic markers in contrast. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Balog, Heather. 2012. Early prosodic production: pragmatic and acoustic analyses for L2 language learners. In Jesús Romero-Trillo (ed.), Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching. Dordrecht: Springer. 133–147.Google Scholar

  • Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Blakemore, Diane & Fabrizio Gallai. 2014. Discourse markers in free indirect style and interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics 60. 106–120.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Intonation and its uses: Melody in grammar and discourse. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

  • Brazil, David. 1975. Discourse intonation 1/2. Birmingham University Press, Birmingham.Google Scholar

  • Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Bryman, Alan & Duncan Cramer. 1997. Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A guide for social scientists. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Buysse, Lieven. 2012. So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 1764–1782.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Davies, Martin. 1992. Prosodic cohesion in a systemic perspective: Philip Larkin reading ‘toads revisited’. In Paul Tench (ed.), Studies in systemic phonology. London: Pinter. 206–230.Google Scholar

  • Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. Approaches to discourse particles. Oxford, England: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Gladkova, Anna & Jesús Romero-Trillo. 2014. Ain’t it beautiful? The conceptualization of beauty from an ethnopragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 60. 140–159.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. A course in spoken English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hirschberg, Julia & Diane Litman. 1993. Empirical studies on disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics 19. 501–530.Google Scholar

  • Kecskes, Istvan. 2004. Editorial: Lexical merging, conceptual blending, and cultural crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics 1. 1–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kecskes, Istvan. 2006. On my mind: Thoughts about salience, context and figurative language from a second language perspective. Second Language Research 22. 219–237.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 385–406.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Norrick, Neil R. 2009. Pragmatic markers: introduction. Journal of Pragmatics 41. 863–865.Web of ScienceCrossref

  • Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 1993. Reading aloud and the structure of information. Revista Complutense de Estudios Ingleses 1. 133–142.Google Scholar

  • Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 1994. Ahm,ehm…You call it theme? A thematic approach to spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 22. 495–509.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Romero Trillo, Jesús. 2001. A mathematical model for the analysis of variation in discourse. Journal of Linguistics 37. 527–550.Google Scholar

  • Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2002a. The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 34. 769–784.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2002b. The sympathetic circularity function in English: An intonation corpus-driven analysis. Revista Complutense De Estudios Ingleses 10. 87–112.Google Scholar

  • Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2007. Adaptive management in discourse: The case of involvement discourse markers in English and Spanish conversations. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6. 81–94.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2012a. Pragmatic markers. In Chapelle, Carol (ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 4522–4528. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley.

  • Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2012b. Introduction. In Romero-Trillo, Jesús (ed.), Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching. Dordrecht: Springer. 1–6.

  • Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2012c. Pragmatic triangulation and misunderstanding: A prosodic perspective. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 6. 43–53Google Scholar

  • Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2014. ‘Pragmatic punting’ and prosody: evidence from corpora. In María de los Angeles Gómez González, Francisco J. Ruíz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco Gonzálvez García & Angela Downing (eds.), The functional perspective on language and discourse: Applications and implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 209–221.

  • Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2015. It is a truth universally acknowledged…You know? The role of adaptive management and prosody to start a turn in conversation. Pragmatics and Society 6. 117–145.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Romero-Trillo, Jesús & Laura Maguire. 2011. Adaptive context, the fourth element of meaning. International Review of Pragmatics 3. 228–241CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Romero-Trillo, Jesús & Jessica Newell. 2012. Prosody and feedback in native and non-native speakers of English. In Jesús Romero-Trillo (ed.), Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching. Dordrecht: Springer. 117–131.

  • Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Svartvik, Jan. 1980. ‘Well in conversation’. In Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey N. Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds)., Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk. London: Longman. 167–177.Google Scholar

  • Svartvik, Jan & Randolph Quirk. 1980. A corpus of English conversation. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar

  • Tench, Paul. 1992. Tone and the status of information. In Paul Tench (ed.), Studies in systemic phonology. London: Pinter. 161–174.Google Scholar

  • Torgersen, Eivind N., Costas Gabrielatos, Sebastian Hoffmann & Susan Fox. 2011. A corpus-based study of pragmatic markers in London English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7. 93–118Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Vaez Dalili, Mehdi & Hossein Vahid Dastjerdi. 2013. A contrastive corpus-based analysis of the frequency of discourse markers in NE and NNE media discourse: Implications for a “universal discourse competence”. In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9. 39–69.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Watts, Richard J. 1989. Taking the picture to the ‘well.’ Native speaker’s perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 13. 203–237.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wichmann, Anne, Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen & Karin Aijmer. 2010. How prosody reflects semantic change: a synchronic case study of ‘of course’. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and gramaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 103–154.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-04-07

Published in Print: 2018-04-25


Citation Information: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages 169–195, ISSN (Online) 1613-7035, ISSN (Print) 1613-7027, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0026.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in