Difference between revisions of "Auer2009a"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Peter Auer; |Title=Online-syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language |Tag(s)=IL; Emergent grammar; Language and time; Speec...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Peter Auer; | + | |Author(s)=Peter Auer; |
|Title=Online-syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language | |Title=Online-syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language | ||
|Tag(s)=IL; Emergent grammar; Language and time; Speech vs. writing; Syntax of spoken language; | |Tag(s)=IL; Emergent grammar; Language and time; Speech vs. writing; Syntax of spoken language; | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
|Pages=1-3 | |Pages=1-3 | ||
| − | |DOI= | + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0388000107001118 |
| − | |Abstract=One fundamental difference between spoken and written language has to do with the ‘linearity’ of speaking in time, in that the temporal structure of speaking is inherently the outcome of an interactive process between speaker and listener. But despite the status of ‘‘linearity’’ as one of Saussure’s fundamental principles, in practice little more than lip-service is paid to the temporality of spoken language, which is treated as having few if any consequences for syntactic analysis. It is trivial to point out that a structuralist definition of the sentence is incompatible with an on-line model of syntax processing. A structuralist analysis, even of ostensibly spoken language, is carried out not from a real-time emergence perspective but as if it were – like a written text – a finished product. This article suggests that a significantly untraditional approach to | + | |DOI=10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004 |
| − | syntax is required when one focuses on its on-line emergence, and outlines such an approach. | + | |Abstract=One fundamental difference between spoken and written language has to do with the ‘linearity’ of speaking in time, in that the temporal structure of speaking is inherently the outcome of an interactive process between speaker and listener. But despite the status of ‘‘linearity’’ as one of Saussure’s fundamental principles, in practice little more than lip-service is paid to the temporality of spoken language, which is treated as having few if any consequences for syntactic analysis. It is trivial to point out that a structuralist definition of the sentence is incompatible with an on-line model of syntax processing. A structuralist analysis, even of ostensibly spoken language, is carried out not from a real-time emergence perspective but as if it were – like a written text – a finished product. This article suggests that a significantly untraditional approach to syntax is required when one focuses on its on-line emergence, and outlines such an approach. |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:07, 23 November 2019
| Auer2009a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Auer2009a |
| Author(s) | Peter Auer |
| Title | Online-syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | IL, Emergent grammar, Language and time, Speech vs. writing, Syntax of spoken language |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Language Sciences |
| Volume | 31 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 1-3 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
One fundamental difference between spoken and written language has to do with the ‘linearity’ of speaking in time, in that the temporal structure of speaking is inherently the outcome of an interactive process between speaker and listener. But despite the status of ‘‘linearity’’ as one of Saussure’s fundamental principles, in practice little more than lip-service is paid to the temporality of spoken language, which is treated as having few if any consequences for syntactic analysis. It is trivial to point out that a structuralist definition of the sentence is incompatible with an on-line model of syntax processing. A structuralist analysis, even of ostensibly spoken language, is carried out not from a real-time emergence perspective but as if it were – like a written text – a finished product. This article suggests that a significantly untraditional approach to syntax is required when one focuses on its on-line emergence, and outlines such an approach.
Notes
