Szczepek-Reed2013

From emcawiki
Revision as of 12:19, 2 December 2019 by AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Szczepek-Reed2013
BibType ARTICLE
Key Szczepek-Reed2013
Author(s) Beatrice Szczepek Reed
Title Glottalisation and word linking as resources for multi-unit turn construction in German talk-in-interaction: Initial observations
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, IL, glottalisation, turn continuation, word linking, German talk-in-interaction
Publisher
Year 2013
Language
City
Month
Journal Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion
Volume 14
Number
Pages 8–30
URL Link
DOI http://www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2013/ga-szczepek.pdf
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

In spoken German, glottal stops are frequently inserted before word initial vowels (ʔewig) and at morphological boundaries (ʔurʔalt). As part of a conversation analytic investigation into glottalisation in naturally occurring German, this pilot study is concerned with a specific conversational context in which variation between glottalisation and direct linking from the end of one word to the beginning of the next are routinely employed. The context in question is multi-unit turn construction. It is found that in the pilot study corpus vowel-fronted TCUs that continue an action-in-progress are frequently preceded by glottalisation; vowel-fronted TCUs that implement a new action, but are being integrated into an ongoing turn, are typically linked across from preceding TCUs. This finding contradicts a potential hypothesis that action boundaries are always accompanied by phonetic ones. Instead, the participants in these data implement the opposite pattern: where there is an action boundary they delete the phonetic one, possibly in order to design their talk as continuing phonetically when sequentially it is not. These findings suggest that linguistic practices are not the result of interactional structure, but instead are resources for its implementation.

Notes