|
|
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | |BibType=ARTICLE | | |BibType=ARTICLE |
| | |Author(s)=Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen; | | |Author(s)=Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen; |
| − | |Title=Intonation and clause-combining in discourse: The case of because | + | |Title=Intonation and clause-combining in discourse: the case of because |
| − | |Tag(s)=IL; Prosody; Clause-combining; because; | + | |Tag(s)=IL; Prosody; Clause-combining; because; |
| | |Key=Couper-Kuhlen1996a | | |Key=Couper-Kuhlen1996a |
| − | |Publisher=John Benjamins Publishing
| |
| | |Year=1996 | | |Year=1996 |
| | |Language=English | | |Language=English |
| − | |Address=Amsterdam / Philadelphia
| |
| | |Journal=Pragmatics | | |Journal=Pragmatics |
| | |Volume=6 | | |Volume=6 |
| | |Number=2 | | |Number=2 |
| − | |Pages=389-426 | + | |Pages=389–426 |
| − | |URL=https://www.benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/prag.6.3.04cou/details | + | |URL=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.6.3.04cou |
| | |DOI=10.1075/prag.6.3.04cou | | |DOI=10.1075/prag.6.3.04cou |
| − | |Abstract=Recent years have seen extensive discussion of clause combining in synchronic and
| |
| − | diachronic perspective (Haiman & Thompson 1988; Traugott & Konig l99l;
| |
| − | Hopper & Traugott 1993). The thrust of much of this research - implicit in the term 'clause combining' itself - has been to cast doubt upon the traditional dichotomy of
| |
| − | coordination vs. subordination (Irhmann 1988; also Haiman & Thompson 1984).
| |
| − | New models have been proposed for describing text-semantic, or rhetorical, links
| |
| − | between clauses at the level of discourse rather than at the level of sentence (Mann
| |
| − | 1984; Matthiessen & Thompson 1988; Mann 1992). And empirical studies have
| |
| − | begun to appear showing what lexical and grammatical resources real speakers and
| |
| − | writers rely on for particular kinds of clause linkage in spoken and written discourse
| |
| − | (for causal linkage, see e.g. Altenberg 1984, 1987; Ford 1993, 1994). Yet with only
| |
| − | one or two notable exceptions, the intonation of clause combining has not figured
| |
| − | centrally in these investigations.
| |
| − | The present study, aligned in the empirical tradition, sets out to examine
| |
| − | specifically how English speakers deploy pitch, loudness and timing in the
| |
| − | configuration of lexically marked causal clause combining in discourse.l The study
| |
| − | is based on close analysis of the use of becawe as a clause connector in
| |
| − | approximately four hours of British and American spoken discourse, including
| |
| − | face-to-face family chat, radio phone-in programs and televised public debate.
| |
| − | Approximately 200 tokens of because underwent auditory and instrumental phonetic
| |
| − | analysis in the course of the study. It will be argued that there is evidence for two
| |
| − | distinct intonational patterns associated with causal clause combining in English.
| |
| − | These patterns are found in different sequential environments and can be shown to
| |
| − | have different sequential implications for subsequent talk. Moreover, they appear
| |
| − | to be used prototypically for trvo different types of semantic causality and can thus
| |
| − | be said to contribute to the constitution of distinct constructional schemas for causal
| |
| − | linkage. However, the two constructions differ in terms of markedness. This
| |
| − | markedness relation togetherwith a preference for'degrammaticizing'constructional
| |
| − | schemas for causal clause combining in conversation conspire to favor only one of
| |
| − | the intonational and sequential patterns vith becarue, thus accounting for its
| |
| − | prevalence in the data corpus.
| |
| | }} | | }} |
