On the preference for minimization in referring to persons: Evidence from Hebrew conversation

Hacohen, Gonen; Schegloff, Emanuel A.

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.004

Cited by 33 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first person construction, lo yode'a / yoda'at ma ('I don't know (masc / fem) what'), appears in this corpus with the subject pronoun only once, although Hebrew is a so-called semi-pro-drop 14 language (a phenomenon studied by many linguists, e.g., Ornan 1972, Berman 1978, Givón 1983, Bolozky 1984, Ariel 1990, 1998b, Doron 1992, Gutman 2004, Polak-Yitzhaki 2004, Hacohen and Schegloff 2006) not allowing omission of the subject pronoun in the present, according to traditional grammar. We also often find it phonologically reduced, as in line 60 of excerpt 7, from lo yoda'at ma to loydat ma (cf.…”

Section: Question Word Following Yada Verbmentioning

confidence: 91%

Emergent projecting constructions

Maschler

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present analysis is grounded in a view of grammar emerging in interaction and coming into being through mundane language use. By analyzing Hebrew interactional data, I outline the continua of synchronic usage from literal constructions involving the verb yada ('know') to three projecting constructions of the discourse marker variety. The study furthers our understanding of how projecting constructions are sedimentations of interactional practices. I combine interactional linguistics with grammaticization studies to show phonological, morphological, syntactic, pragmatic, and prosodic evidence in support of different grammaticization paths from matrix clause to discourse marker. Diachronic evidence from Mishnaic and Medieval Hebrew is added as further support for the paths suggested. The previously debated issue of complement-taking predicates is thus situated in another language and in a wider context, showing that different constructions employing the same matrix verb may follow different grammaticization paths. The study continues along an existing path of investigation into the issue of complement-taking constructions viewed as grammatically superordinate vs. as attachments to essentially monoclausal utterances. I argue for a more differentiated analysis recognizing both types of usage.

show abstract

Section: Question Word Following Yada Verbmentioning

confidence: 91%

Emergent projecting constructions

Maschler

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These constraints take the form of conversational preferences for 1) not using personal names under conditions of taboo (Blythe 2013;Garde 2008;Levinson 2007); 2) using recognitionals (reference forms that invite interlocutors to recognise who is being spoken about) (Sacks & Schegloff 1979;Schegloff, 1996Schegloff, , 2007; and 3) using forms that are not more verbose than necessary (Enfield 2013;Hacohen & Schegloff 2006;Levinson 1987). Trirelational terms satisfy these constraints by 1) not being names; 2) being highly specific and semantically dense reference forms-which makes them useful as recognitionals; and 3) being extremely compact.…”

Section: The Utility-driven Emergence Of a Specialised Class Of Wordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genesis of the Trinity: The Convergent Evolution of Trirelational Kinterms

Blythe

2018

Skin, Kin and Clan: The Dynamics of Social Categories in Indigenous Australia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Sacks and Schegloff (1979: 16) were the first to observe that speakers adhere to the principle of minimalization while simultaneously recipient-designing the reference form. In other words, speakers try to neither over-tell nor under-tell (Enfield, 2007;Hacohen and Schegloff, 2006;Sacks and Schegloff, 1979). Typically, preferred reference formats consist of one-word references which must be recognizable to the recipient.…”

Section: Prior Work On Person Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, these scholars have focused on the use of names, kin-names, and deixis (his, her, it, etc.) in face-to-face interaction in various languages and cultures such as Bequian Creole English (Sidnell, 2007), Finnish (Arminen, 1998), French (Mondada, 2002), Hebrew (Hacohen and Schegloff, 2006), Japanese (Hayashi, 2005), Kilivila (Senft, 2007), Korean (Oh, 2007a,b) and Yélî Dnye (Levinson, 2007). These studies understand the system of person reference as an interactional accomplishment through which participants communicate not only their reference to the world, but also their positioning within the socio-contextual and discursive spaces.…”

Section: Prior Work On Person Referencementioning

confidence: 99%