No abstract

Previous work has shown that stance—the way speakers position themselves with respect to what they are talking about and who they are talking to—provides powerful insights into why speakers choose certain linguistic variants, beyond correlations with macro-social categories such as gender, ethnicity, and social class. However, as stancetaking moves are highly context-dependent, they have rarely been explored quantitatively, making the observed variable patterns difficult to generalize. This article seeks to contribute to this methodological gap by proposing a formal guide to coding stance and demonstrating how it can be operationalized quantitatively. Drawing on a corpus of eight individuals, self-recorded in three situations with varying levels of social distance, we apply this method to variation between English complementizers that and zero (i.e. no overt complementizer), providing a replicable and theoretically grounded protocol that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative analyses in a variationist sociolinguistic study. (Stance, complementizers, that, English)*

No abstract

Switch-reference has been analyzed as a reference tracking mechanism, whose main function is to avoid ambiguity of reference. One domain where this function has been argued to manifest itself is referential choice. Kibrik (Kibrik, Andrej. 2011. Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press) notably proposed that switch-reference marking plays the role of a referential aid, which helps to prevent referential conflict, thereby enabling the production of reduced referential expressions such as pronouns and zeros. The present study probes this theory through an analysis of the role of switch-reference marking in multifactorial models of referential choice in Mbyá Guaraní. We show that while switch-reference increases the likelihood of mention reduction in Mbyá Guaraní, this effect is marginal relative to other predictors of referential choice. We argue that this result is compatible with the analysis of switch-reference as a referential aid, but also supports analyses that emphasize the multiplicity of its functions, beyond the disambiguation of reference.

The Hungarian question tag mi? is subject to more special contextual restrictions compared to ugye?. An utterance that features mi? i) tentatively commits the addressee as a source for the anchor proposition of the tag question, and ii) it commits the speaker as a source for the addressee's being a source for p, which is a pragmatic presupposition. A speaker is a source for a proposition p if that speaker's commitment to p does not depend on any other discourse participant's commitment (Gunlogson 2008). The results of an online survey of a minimal set of pragmatically relevant contexts support claim i), and indirectly, claim ii). The effect of mi? on the immediate context of the discourse is modeled on a conversational scoreboard (Farkas & Bruce 2010; Malamud & Stephenson 2015).