Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English

Haselow, Alexander

doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2012.04.008

Cited by 139 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We suggest that the utterance-final use of DMs is an additional feature of IM language. As already mentioned, utterance-final DMs serve to express intersubjective meanings (see references in the Introduction), which include meanings other than turn management ones (see also Beeching & Detges, 2014b;Brinton, 1996), such as modal functions (Hansen, 1997) or common ground management (Haselow, 2012). Like in speech, this final position seems "particularly suitable as a host place for such elements [i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent work on utterance-final DMs in a variety of languages seems to indicate that DMs in this position serve mainly to express so-called intersubjective meanings 3 (Barth-Weingarten & Couper- Kuhlen, 2002;Degand, 2011aDegand, , 2011bDegand, , 2014Haselow, 2011Haselow, , 2012Haugh, 2008;Kim & Jahnke, 2011;McGloin & Konishi, 2010;Mulder & Thompson, 2008;Saigo, 2011;Strauss & Xiang, 2009;Yap, Wang, & Lam, 2010). Following Traugott (2010), intersubjectivity is to be understood as the orientation toward the addressee and addressee's face 4 (see also Brems, Ghesquière, & Van de Velde, 2012).…”

Section: Dms As Turn-transition Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Discourse Markers as Turn-Transition Devices: Evidence From Speech and Instant Messaging

Degand

Bergen

2016

Discourse Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we investigate the relation between discourse markers and turntransition strategies in face-to-face conversations and Instant Messaging (IM), that is, unplanned, real-time, text-based, computer-mediated communication. By means of a quantitative corpus study of utterances containing a discourse marker, we show that utterance-final discourse markers are used more often in IM than in face-to-face conversations. Moreover, utterance-final discourse markers are shown to occur more often at points of turn-transition compared with points of turn-maintenance in both types of conversation. From our results we conclude that the discourse markers in utterance-final position can function as a turn-transition mechanism, signaling that the turn is over and the floor is open to the hearer. We argue that this linguistic turntaking strategy is essentially similar in face-to-face and IM communication. Our results add to the evidence that communication in IM is more like speech than like writing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dms As Turn-transition Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discourse Markers as Turn-Transition Devices: Evidence From Speech and Instant Messaging

Degand

Bergen

2016

Discourse Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These can be as subtle as a minute pause or the use of continuers such as "m hm" and "uh huh." Certain final particles have also been shown to do work in maintaining intersubjectivity in the assumed understanding interlocutors' display of prior utterances (Haselow 2012). Other research distinguishes types of acts that achieve intersubjectivity, such as joint attention versus requesting (Mundy, Kasari & Sigman 1992), or the coordination of action versus displays of feeling and being (Du Bois 2011).…”

Section: Understanding and Intersubjectivity In Conversationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Misunderstanding as a resource in interaction

Robles

2022

PRAG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phenomenon of misunderstanding is a recurrent feature of everyday life – sometimes a source of frustration, sometimes a site of blame. But misunderstandings can also be seen as getting interactants out of (as well as into) trouble. For example, misunderstandings may be produced to deal with disaffiliative implications of ‘not being on the same page,’ and as such they may be deployed as a resource for avoiding trouble. This paper examines misunderstanding as a pragmatic accomplishment, focusing on the uses to which it is put in interactions as a practice for dealing with threats to intersubjectivity: the extent to which persons are aligned in terms of a current referent, activity, assessment, etc. A multimodal discourse analysis of audio and video recordings of naturally-occurring talk inspects moments in which misunderstandings are purported or displayed (rather than overtly invoked) as well as how such misunderstandings are oriented to as simply-repairable references, versus inferential matters more misaligned and potentially fraught. Rather than being a straightforward reflection of an experience of trouble with understanding, misunderstanding may also be collaboratively produced to manage practical challenges to intersubjectivity.

show abstract

“…Conjunctions occupy initial position in modern European languages, whereas conjunctive adverbs can occupy initial, medial and final position; see the following Spanish examples taken from Martín Zorraquino & Portolés Lázaro (1999: 4063): 13 Conjunctive adverbs function on Kroon's presentational level; Kroon distinguishes, following Halliday & Hasan (1976), three levels determining the coherence relations among discourse units: representational (concerned with the representation of content), presentational (concerned with organisation), and interactive (concerned with the interaction of interlocutors). The presentational level is concerned with the organisation whereby the information is presented, and it "captures the fact that a language user imposes an organizing and rhetorical perspective on the ideas conveyed" (Kroon 1995: 61 The position of these elements has garnered some interest in the last years; see, for instance, Georgakopoulou & Goutsos (1998); Altenberg (2006); Haselow (2012); Lenker (2010: 43-44, 67-72, 197-213 and 233-241); Traugott (2016); and Goutsos (2017). These studies mainly focus on medial and final position.…”

Section: Conjunctive Adverbs and Their Positionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conjunctive adverbs in Ancient Greek

Delgado

2018

J. Greek Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conjunctive adverbs have generally been neglected in Ancient Greek grammars. In this language, textual cohesion is mostly assured by a battery of connective particles. While connective particles exhibit fixed position, conjunctive adverbs show a certain degree of positional variability. They usually take initial position, as well as medial position when preceded by a preposed constituent. Final position is very rare and most instances are due to ellipsis. This is comparable to the early phases of the development of similar adverbs in other languages.

show abstract

Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English

Cited by 139 publications

References 35 publications

Discourse Markers as Turn-Transition Devices: Evidence From Speech and Instant Messaging

Discourse Markers as Turn-Transition Devices: Evidence From Speech and Instant Messaging

Misunderstanding as a resource in interaction

Conjunctive adverbs in Ancient Greek

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About