Difference between revisions of "Couper-Kuhlen-Ono2007"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen; Tsuyoshi Ono; | |Author(s)=Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen; Tsuyoshi Ono; | ||
| − | |Title=‘Incrementing’ in conversation | + | |Title=‘Incrementing’ in conversation: a comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese |
| − | |||
|Tag(s)=IL; Post-possible completion; Turn-constructional unit (TCU); Increment; Same-turn self-repair; Transition relevance place (TRP); Free constituent; Japanese predicate finality; German sentence brace; Right dislocation; Syntactic headedness; Zero anaphora | |Tag(s)=IL; Post-possible completion; Turn-constructional unit (TCU); Increment; Same-turn self-repair; Transition relevance place (TRP); Free constituent; Japanese predicate finality; German sentence brace; Right dislocation; Syntactic headedness; Zero anaphora | ||
|Key=Couper-Kuhlen-Ono2007 | |Key=Couper-Kuhlen-Ono2007 | ||
| Line 11: | Line 10: | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
|Pages=513–552 | |Pages=513–552 | ||
| + | |URL=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou | ||
|DOI=10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou | |DOI=10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou | ||
|Abstract=This cross-linguistic study focuses on ways in which conversationalists speak beyond a point of possible turn completion in conversation, specifically on turn extensions which are grammatically dependent, backward-looking and extend the prior action. It argues that further distinctions can be made in terms of whether the extension is prosodically integrated with the prior unit, its host, (Non-add-on) or not, and in terms of whether it repairs some part of the host (Replacement) or not. Added-on, non-repairing extensions are further distinguished in terms of whether they are grammatically fitted to the end of the host (Glue-ons) or not (Insertables). A preliminary survey of TCU continuation in English, German and Japanese conversation reveals a number of significant differences with respect to frequency and range of extension type. English is at one extreme in preferring Glue-ons over Non-Add-ons and Insertables, whereas Japanese is at the other extreme in preferring Non-add-ons and Insertables over Glue-ons. German occupies an intermediary position but is on the whole more like Japanese. The preference for Glue-ons vs. Insertables appears to reflect a language’s tendency towards syntactic left- vs. right headedness. In conclusion the study argues for a classification of ‘increment’ types which goes beyond the English-based Glue-on, attributes a central role to prosodic delivery and adopts a usage-based understanding of word order. | |Abstract=This cross-linguistic study focuses on ways in which conversationalists speak beyond a point of possible turn completion in conversation, specifically on turn extensions which are grammatically dependent, backward-looking and extend the prior action. It argues that further distinctions can be made in terms of whether the extension is prosodically integrated with the prior unit, its host, (Non-add-on) or not, and in terms of whether it repairs some part of the host (Replacement) or not. Added-on, non-repairing extensions are further distinguished in terms of whether they are grammatically fitted to the end of the host (Glue-ons) or not (Insertables). A preliminary survey of TCU continuation in English, German and Japanese conversation reveals a number of significant differences with respect to frequency and range of extension type. English is at one extreme in preferring Glue-ons over Non-Add-ons and Insertables, whereas Japanese is at the other extreme in preferring Non-add-ons and Insertables over Glue-ons. German occupies an intermediary position but is on the whole more like Japanese. The preference for Glue-ons vs. Insertables appears to reflect a language’s tendency towards syntactic left- vs. right headedness. In conclusion the study argues for a classification of ‘increment’ types which goes beyond the English-based Glue-on, attributes a central role to prosodic delivery and adopts a usage-based understanding of word order. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 09:53, 19 November 2019
| Couper-Kuhlen-Ono2007 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Couper-Kuhlen-Ono2007 |
| Author(s) | Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Tsuyoshi Ono |
| Title | ‘Incrementing’ in conversation: a comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | IL, Post-possible completion, Turn-constructional unit (TCU), Increment, Same-turn self-repair, Transition relevance place (TRP), Free constituent, Japanese predicate finality, German sentence brace, Right dislocation, Syntactic headedness, Zero anaphora |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2007 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Pragmatics |
| Volume | 17 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 513–552 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This cross-linguistic study focuses on ways in which conversationalists speak beyond a point of possible turn completion in conversation, specifically on turn extensions which are grammatically dependent, backward-looking and extend the prior action. It argues that further distinctions can be made in terms of whether the extension is prosodically integrated with the prior unit, its host, (Non-add-on) or not, and in terms of whether it repairs some part of the host (Replacement) or not. Added-on, non-repairing extensions are further distinguished in terms of whether they are grammatically fitted to the end of the host (Glue-ons) or not (Insertables). A preliminary survey of TCU continuation in English, German and Japanese conversation reveals a number of significant differences with respect to frequency and range of extension type. English is at one extreme in preferring Glue-ons over Non-Add-ons and Insertables, whereas Japanese is at the other extreme in preferring Non-add-ons and Insertables over Glue-ons. German occupies an intermediary position but is on the whole more like Japanese. The preference for Glue-ons vs. Insertables appears to reflect a language’s tendency towards syntactic left- vs. right headedness. In conclusion the study argues for a classification of ‘increment’ types which goes beyond the English-based Glue-on, attributes a central role to prosodic delivery and adopts a usage-based understanding of word order.
Notes
