Difference between revisions of "Kaimaki2012"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Marianna Kaimaki |Title=Sequential and prosodic design of English and Greek non-valenced news receipts |Tag(s)=EMCA; Interactional Lingu...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Marianna Kaimaki | |Author(s)=Marianna Kaimaki | ||
|Title=Sequential and prosodic design of English and Greek non-valenced news receipts | |Title=Sequential and prosodic design of English and Greek non-valenced news receipts | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Interactional Linguistics; Sequence organization; Greek; News receipts; Prosody; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Interactional Linguistics; Sequence organization; Greek; News receipts; Prosody; |
|Key=Kaimaki2012 | |Key=Kaimaki2012 | ||
|Year=2012 | |Year=2012 | ||
| − | |Journal=Language and | + | |Journal=Language and Speech |
|Volume=55 | |Volume=55 | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=99–117 |
| + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0023830911428862 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1177/0023830911428862 | ||
| + | |Abstract=Results arising from a prosodic and interactional study of the organization of everyday talk in English suggest that news receipts can be grouped into two categories: valenced (e.g., oh good) and non-valenced (e.g., oh really). In-depth investigation of both valenced and non-valenced news receipts shows that differences in their prosodic design do not seem to affect the sequential structure of the news informing sequence. News receipts with falling and rising pitch may have the same uptake and are treated in the same way by co-participants. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A preliminary study of a Greek telephone corpus yielded the following receipts of news announcements: a malista, a(h) orea, a ne, a, oh. These are news markers composed of a standalone particle or a particle followed by an adverb or a response token (ne). Analysis of the sequential and prosodic design of Greek news announcement sequences is made to determine any interactional patterns and/or prosodic constraints. By examining the way in which co-participants display their interpretation of these turns I show that the phonological systems of contrast are different depending on the sequential environment, in much the same way that consonantal systems of contrast are not the same syllable initially and finally. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 09:15, 30 November 2019
| Kaimaki2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Kaimaki2012 |
| Author(s) | Marianna Kaimaki |
| Title | Sequential and prosodic design of English and Greek non-valenced news receipts |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Interactional Linguistics, Sequence organization, Greek, News receipts, Prosody |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Language and Speech |
| Volume | 55 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 99–117 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0023830911428862 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Results arising from a prosodic and interactional study of the organization of everyday talk in English suggest that news receipts can be grouped into two categories: valenced (e.g., oh good) and non-valenced (e.g., oh really). In-depth investigation of both valenced and non-valenced news receipts shows that differences in their prosodic design do not seem to affect the sequential structure of the news informing sequence. News receipts with falling and rising pitch may have the same uptake and are treated in the same way by co-participants.
A preliminary study of a Greek telephone corpus yielded the following receipts of news announcements: a malista, a(h) orea, a ne, a, oh. These are news markers composed of a standalone particle or a particle followed by an adverb or a response token (ne). Analysis of the sequential and prosodic design of Greek news announcement sequences is made to determine any interactional patterns and/or prosodic constraints. By examining the way in which co-participants display their interpretation of these turns I show that the phonological systems of contrast are different depending on the sequential environment, in much the same way that consonantal systems of contrast are not the same syllable initially and finally.
Notes
