Difference between revisions of "Koivisto2012"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Aino Koivisto; |Title=Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions |Tag(s)=Interactional Linguistics; |Key=Koivisto2012 |Year=2012 |...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Aino Koivisto; | + | |Author(s)=Aino Koivisto; |
|Title=Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions | |Title=Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=Interactional Linguistics; | + | |Tag(s)=Interactional Linguistics; |
|Key=Koivisto2012 | |Key=Koivisto2012 | ||
|Year=2012 | |Year=2012 | ||
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | |Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | ||
|Volume=44 | |Volume=44 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=10 |
| + | |Pages=1254–1272 | ||
| + | |URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216612001324 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.006 | ||
| + | |Abstract=This article describes the regularities in the use of the Finnish conjunctions ja (‘and’) and mutta (‘but’) as turn-final particles in ordinary conversation. The data is analyzed using conversation analytic and interactional linguistic methods. The basic observation discussed in this article is that as final particles, the words ja and mutta recurrently occur as parts of fixed, two-part discourse patterns. In the case of ja (‘and’), the discourse pattern consists of a general claim and a specifying list that ends in ja. This list-final ja implies that the list is not exhaustive but only exemplifies the earlier claim. On the other hand, mutta (‘but’) occurs at the end of the concessive turns that are used to retract some earlier claim by the same speaker. By using the turn-final mutta, the speaker implies that the earlier claim still holds – despite the retraction. This paper argues that the identification of the recurrent discourse patterns helps to explain the functions and the recognizability of conjunctions as final particles. The discourse patterns described in the article may be seen as reduced versions of highly predictable, larger patterns in which the obvious continuation is left implicit, with the conjunction occurring in final position. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:00, 25 February 2016
| Koivisto2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Koivisto2012 |
| Author(s) | Aino Koivisto |
| Title | Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | Interactional Linguistics |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 44 |
| Number | 10 |
| Pages | 1254–1272 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.006 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article describes the regularities in the use of the Finnish conjunctions ja (‘and’) and mutta (‘but’) as turn-final particles in ordinary conversation. The data is analyzed using conversation analytic and interactional linguistic methods. The basic observation discussed in this article is that as final particles, the words ja and mutta recurrently occur as parts of fixed, two-part discourse patterns. In the case of ja (‘and’), the discourse pattern consists of a general claim and a specifying list that ends in ja. This list-final ja implies that the list is not exhaustive but only exemplifies the earlier claim. On the other hand, mutta (‘but’) occurs at the end of the concessive turns that are used to retract some earlier claim by the same speaker. By using the turn-final mutta, the speaker implies that the earlier claim still holds – despite the retraction. This paper argues that the identification of the recurrent discourse patterns helps to explain the functions and the recognizability of conjunctions as final particles. The discourse patterns described in the article may be seen as reduced versions of highly predictable, larger patterns in which the obvious continuation is left implicit, with the conjunction occurring in final position.
Notes
