Difference between revisions of "Wilkinson2009"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Ray Wilkinson; |Title=Projecting a reference in aphasic talk and normal talk |Tag(s)=EMCA; Reference; Aphasia |Key=Wilkinson2009 |Year=2...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=46 | |Volume=46 | ||
|Number=2-3 | |Number=2-3 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=206–225 |
| − | |URL=https://doi | + | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01638530902728892 |
|DOI=10.1080/01638530902728892 | |DOI=10.1080/01638530902728892 | ||
| − | |Abstract=In this article, a form of intra-turn projection is analyzed where the | + | |Abstract=In this article, a form of intra-turn projection is analyzed where the first component of a compound turn-constructional unit (TCU) containing a phrase, such as “the one (who/that),” projects that a reference (e.g., to a person or to an entity, such as a film) is due to be produced in a later component. This type of utterance is described by linguists as a pseudo-cleft construction or as a paraphrase of the pseudo-cleft construction. It is observed that the use of this form of a compound TCU allows a speaker to highlight a person or entity in terms of some displayed relevance or uniqueness for the speaker or the interaction at that point. The use of this type of TCU is analyzed in the talk of a speaker with aphasia (a language disorder acquired following brain damage) and also in the talk of normal (i.e., non-communication disordered) speakers. One notable feature of the examples in this dataset is that the projected reference regularly engenders a word search, and it is argued that this may be linked to a turn design feature of this type of TCU whereby the reference is projected to occur as the possibly terminal item of the unit. A second feature is that in some cases a speaker can be seen to deploy certain turn-constructional practices that have a consequence of delaying the talk in the unfolding utterance arriving at the possibly terminal item slot within the final TCU component where the projected reference is due to be produced. The analysis highlights how features of language production, such as the production of a name, can be seen not only as the outcome of neuropsychological processes but also of interactional practices. |
| − | of a compound turn-constructional unit (TCU) containing a phrase, such as “the | ||
| − | one (who/that),” projects that a reference (e.g., to a person or to an entity, such | ||
| − | as a | ||
| − | described by linguists as a pseudo-cleft construction or as a paraphrase of the | ||
| − | pseudo-cleft construction. It is observed that the use of this form of a compound | ||
| − | TCU allows a speaker to highlight a person or entity in terms of some displayed | ||
| − | relevance or uniqueness for the speaker or the interaction at that point. The use | ||
| − | of this type of TCU is analyzed in the talk of a speaker with aphasia (a language | ||
| − | disorder acquired following brain damage) and also in the talk of normal (i.e., | ||
| − | non-communication disordered) speakers. One notable feature of the examples in | ||
| − | this dataset is that the projected reference regularly engenders a word search, and | ||
| − | it is argued that this may be linked to a turn design feature of this type of TCU | ||
| − | whereby the reference is projected to occur as the possibly terminal item of the | ||
| − | unit. A second feature is that in some cases a speaker can be seen to deploy | ||
| − | certain turn-constructional practices that have a consequence of delaying the talk | ||
| − | in the unfolding utterance arriving at the possibly terminal item slot within the | ||
| − | |||
| − | analysis highlights how features of language production, such as the production | ||
| − | of a name, can be seen not only as the outcome of neuropsychological processes | ||
| − | but also of interactional practices. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:10, 23 November 2019
| Wilkinson2009 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Wilkinson2009 |
| Author(s) | Ray Wilkinson |
| Title | Projecting a reference in aphasic talk and normal talk |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Reference, Aphasia |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Processes |
| Volume | 46 |
| Number | 2-3 |
| Pages | 206–225 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/01638530902728892 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this article, a form of intra-turn projection is analyzed where the first component of a compound turn-constructional unit (TCU) containing a phrase, such as “the one (who/that),” projects that a reference (e.g., to a person or to an entity, such as a film) is due to be produced in a later component. This type of utterance is described by linguists as a pseudo-cleft construction or as a paraphrase of the pseudo-cleft construction. It is observed that the use of this form of a compound TCU allows a speaker to highlight a person or entity in terms of some displayed relevance or uniqueness for the speaker or the interaction at that point. The use of this type of TCU is analyzed in the talk of a speaker with aphasia (a language disorder acquired following brain damage) and also in the talk of normal (i.e., non-communication disordered) speakers. One notable feature of the examples in this dataset is that the projected reference regularly engenders a word search, and it is argued that this may be linked to a turn design feature of this type of TCU whereby the reference is projected to occur as the possibly terminal item of the unit. A second feature is that in some cases a speaker can be seen to deploy certain turn-constructional practices that have a consequence of delaying the talk in the unfolding utterance arriving at the possibly terminal item slot within the final TCU component where the projected reference is due to be produced. The analysis highlights how features of language production, such as the production of a name, can be seen not only as the outcome of neuropsychological processes but also of interactional practices.
Notes
