Difference between revisions of "Bilmes2010"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) m (SaulAlbert moved page Bilmes 2010 to Bilmes2010 without leaving a redirect) |
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Jack Bilmes; | + | |Author(s)=Jack Bilmes; |
|Title=Scaling as an Aspect of Formulation in Verbal Interaction. | |Title=Scaling as an Aspect of Formulation in Verbal Interaction. | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=CA; Formulations; Scales | + | |Tag(s)=CA; Formulations; Scales; EMCA |
| − | |Key= | + | |Key=Bilmes2010 |
|Publisher=Center for Human Activity Theory, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan | |Publisher=Center for Human Activity Theory, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan | ||
|Year=2010 | |Year=2010 | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|Abstract=This paper is one of a series on properties of formulation. In three previous articles, I have examined generalization/specification and contrast/co-categorization. In this paper, I offer a preliminary investigation of the property of scaling. The analysis is based on a transcript excerpt from an informal interview. One major theme is that semantic relations are, to a large extent, created on the spot through sequential processes. It will be argued that any particular realization of scalar relations in conversation potentially has sequential and implicational consequences. | |Abstract=This paper is one of a series on properties of formulation. In three previous articles, I have examined generalization/specification and contrast/co-categorization. In this paper, I offer a preliminary investigation of the property of scaling. The analysis is based on a transcript excerpt from an informal interview. One major theme is that semantic relations are, to a large extent, created on the spot through sequential processes. It will be argued that any particular realization of scalar relations in conversation potentially has sequential and implicational consequences. | ||
The scalar position of an item refers to its degree of strength, intensity, or extremity in relation to other items in the talk. The approach taken here is different from linguistic pragmatic studies of scalar implicature in several respects. First, I am interested in the workings of scalar relations in actual conversation. Second, the emphasis is shifted from purely logical/semantic scales to culturally and conversationally constructed scales. Third, I will propose a distinction between primary and modulating scales. Finally, I attend to the interactive, sequential consequences of scalar properties in actual situations of talk. | The scalar position of an item refers to its degree of strength, intensity, or extremity in relation to other items in the talk. The approach taken here is different from linguistic pragmatic studies of scalar implicature in several respects. First, I am interested in the workings of scalar relations in actual conversation. Second, the emphasis is shifted from purely logical/semantic scales to culturally and conversationally constructed scales. Third, I will propose a distinction between primary and modulating scales. Finally, I attend to the interactive, sequential consequences of scalar properties in actual situations of talk. | ||
| + | |||
The underlying assumption of this paper is that formulations in interactive talk are elements in a field of meaning constructed in part by that talk. Like generalization and specification, and contrast and co-categorization, scaling is a dimension of that field and contributes to a general conceptual apparatus for determining a particular formulation's nature and conversational function. | The underlying assumption of this paper is that formulations in interactive talk are elements in a field of meaning constructed in part by that talk. Like generalization and specification, and contrast and co-categorization, scaling is a dimension of that field and contributes to a general conceptual apparatus for determining a particular formulation's nature and conversational function. | ||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 13:18, 20 April 2017
| Bilmes2010 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Bilmes2010 |
| Author(s) | Jack Bilmes |
| Title | Scaling as an Aspect of Formulation in Verbal Interaction. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | CA, Formulations, Scales, EMCA |
| Publisher | Center for Human Activity Theory, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan |
| Year | 2010 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 3-9 |
| URL | |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Language Learning and Socialization through Conversations |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper is one of a series on properties of formulation. In three previous articles, I have examined generalization/specification and contrast/co-categorization. In this paper, I offer a preliminary investigation of the property of scaling. The analysis is based on a transcript excerpt from an informal interview. One major theme is that semantic relations are, to a large extent, created on the spot through sequential processes. It will be argued that any particular realization of scalar relations in conversation potentially has sequential and implicational consequences. The scalar position of an item refers to its degree of strength, intensity, or extremity in relation to other items in the talk. The approach taken here is different from linguistic pragmatic studies of scalar implicature in several respects. First, I am interested in the workings of scalar relations in actual conversation. Second, the emphasis is shifted from purely logical/semantic scales to culturally and conversationally constructed scales. Third, I will propose a distinction between primary and modulating scales. Finally, I attend to the interactive, sequential consequences of scalar properties in actual situations of talk.
The underlying assumption of this paper is that formulations in interactive talk are elements in a field of meaning constructed in part by that talk. Like generalization and specification, and contrast and co-categorization, scaling is a dimension of that field and contributes to a general conceptual apparatus for determining a particular formulation's nature and conversational function.
Notes
