Difference between revisions of "Fox-etal2010"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Barbara A. Fox; Yael Maschler; Susanne Uhmann; |Title=A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebre...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Barbara A. Fox; Yael Maschler; Susanne Uhmann; | |Author(s)=Barbara A. Fox; Yael Maschler; Susanne Uhmann; | ||
| − | |Title=A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, | + | |Title=A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew |
| − | and Hebrew | ||
|Tag(s)=Interactional Linguistics; Self-repair; Typology; Discourse-functional syntax; Comparative syntax; | |Tag(s)=Interactional Linguistics; Self-repair; Typology; Discourse-functional syntax; Comparative syntax; | ||
|Key=Fox-etal2010 | |Key=Fox-etal2010 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=42 | |Volume=42 | ||
|Number=9 | |Number=9 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=2487–2505 |
| − | |DOI= | + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037821661000041X |
| − | |Abstract=This paper presents the results of a quantitative analysis of recycle and replacement self- | + | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.006 |
| − | repairs in English, Hebrew and German. The analysis revealed patterns of similarities and | + | |Abstract=This paper presents the results of a quantitative analysis of recycle and replacement self-repairs in English, Hebrew and German. The analysis revealed patterns of similarities and differences across the languages. Beginning with patterns of difference, we found first that English and Hebrew speakers engage in simple recycling about two-thirds of the time, while German speakers make less frequent use of simple recycling. Second, we found that English speakers frequently recycle back to the subject pronoun of a clause, while Hebrew and German speakers make much less use of subject pronoun as a destination of recycling. Third, we found that Hebrew and German speakers recycle back to prepositions much more frequently than do English speakers. With regard to similarities across the three languages, we noted that all three languages used function words as destinations of recycling more often than content words, while replacing content words at a disproportionately high rate. We claimed that entrenched word order patterns play a crucial role in explaining the facts we have observed; patterns of morphological dependence across collocates also shape self-repair practices in these languages. This study is thus further evidence of the shaping role that morpho-syntactic resources have on the self-repair practices of a speech community. |
| − | differences across the languages. Beginning with patterns of difference,we found | ||
| − | English and Hebrew speakers engage in simple recycling about two-thirds of the time, | ||
| − | while German | ||
| − | English speakers frequently recycle back to the subject pronoun of a clause, while Hebrew | ||
| − | and German | ||
| − | Third, we found that Hebrew and German speakers recycle back to prepositions much | ||
| − | more frequently than do English speakers. With regard to similarities across the three | ||
| − | languages, we noted that all three languages used function words as destinations of | ||
| − | recycling more often than content words, while replacing content words at a | ||
| − | disproportionately high rate. We claimed that entrenched word order patterns play a | ||
| − | crucial role in explaining the facts we have observed; patterns of morphological | ||
| − | dependence across collocates also shape self-repair practices in these languages. This | ||
| − | study is thus further evidence of the shaping role that morpho-syntactic resources have on | ||
| − | the self-repair practices of a speech community. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:30, 25 November 2019
| Fox-etal2010 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Fox-etal2010 |
| Author(s) | Barbara A. Fox, Yael Maschler, Susanne Uhmann |
| Title | A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | Interactional Linguistics, Self-repair, Typology, Discourse-functional syntax, Comparative syntax |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2010 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 42 |
| Number | 9 |
| Pages | 2487–2505 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.006 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a quantitative analysis of recycle and replacement self-repairs in English, Hebrew and German. The analysis revealed patterns of similarities and differences across the languages. Beginning with patterns of difference, we found first that English and Hebrew speakers engage in simple recycling about two-thirds of the time, while German speakers make less frequent use of simple recycling. Second, we found that English speakers frequently recycle back to the subject pronoun of a clause, while Hebrew and German speakers make much less use of subject pronoun as a destination of recycling. Third, we found that Hebrew and German speakers recycle back to prepositions much more frequently than do English speakers. With regard to similarities across the three languages, we noted that all three languages used function words as destinations of recycling more often than content words, while replacing content words at a disproportionately high rate. We claimed that entrenched word order patterns play a crucial role in explaining the facts we have observed; patterns of morphological dependence across collocates also shape self-repair practices in these languages. This study is thus further evidence of the shaping role that morpho-syntactic resources have on the self-repair practices of a speech community.
Notes
