Reber2021a

From emcawiki
Revision as of 07:35, 10 January 2022 by AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Reber2021a
BibType ARTICLE
Key Reber2021a
Author(s) Elisabeth Reber
Title On the variation of fragmental constructions in British English and American English post-match interviews
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Linguistics, Post-match interviews, Sports, Fragmental constructions, Routinisation
Publisher
Year 2021
Language
City
Month
Journal Sociolinguistica
Volume 35
Number 1
Pages 217–241
URL Link
DOI 10.1515/soci-2021-0011
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This article takes a cognitive, interactional perspective on pluricentricity and examines the use of fragmental constructions in a mid-sized dataset, drawing on recordings of British English and American English post-match interviews (PMIs), i.e. media interviews conducted with football players after matches in the British and North American top leagues. It examines what types of fragmental constructions are deployed in the PMIs and whether the use and distribution of such constructions vary between the British and American “communities of practice” (Lave/Wenger 1991). The study finds that the quantity and quality of fragments largely differ, with the British English data showing a higher relative frequency of fragmental constructions, more grammatical variation, and a use of fragmental constructions which do not necessarily draw on latent grammatical structures from the prior speech for meaning-making. It has been suggested by Biber et al. (1999) that clausal elliptical structures are generally less typical of American English. The present genre-specific analysis suggests an interdependence between fragmental constructions and their routinisation and frozenness, interactional constraints, as well as deviant sports and media cultures shared by these communities of practice, which can be treated as a form of “enregisterment” (Agha 2007).

Notes