LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Curl, T.S.; Local, J.; Walker, G. (2006)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Repetition poses certain problems for pragmatics, as evidenced by Sperber and Wilson’s claim that ‘‘the effects of repetition on utterance interpretation are by no means constant’’. This is particularly apposite when we examine repetitions produced in naturally occurring talk. As part of an ongoing study of how phonetics relates to the dynamic evolution of meaning within the sequential organisation of talk-in-interaction, we present a detailed phonetic and pragmatic analysis of a particular kind of self- repetition. The practice of repetition we are concerned with exhibits a range of forms: ‘‘have another go tomorrow . . . have another go tomorrow’’, ‘‘it might do . . . it might do’’, ‘‘it’s a shame . . . it’s a shame’’. The approach we adopt emphasises the necessity of exploring participants’ displayed understandings of pragmatic inferences and attempts not to prejudge the relevance of phonetic (prosodic) parameters. The analysis reveals that speakers draw on a range of phonetic features, including tempo and loudness as well as pitch, in designing these repetitions. The pragmatic function of repetitions designed in this way is to close sequences of talk. Our findings raise a number of theoretical and methodological issues surrounding the prosody– pragmatics interface and participants’ understanding of naturally occurring discourse.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Abercrombie, David, 1965. Parameters and phonemes. In: Studies in Phonetics and Linguistics, Oxford University Press, London. 120-124.
    • Anderson, Anne H., Bader, Miles, Bard, Ellen Gurman, Boyle, Elizabeth, Doherty, Gwyneth, Garrod, Simon, Isard, Stephen, Kowtko, Jacqueline, McAllister, Jan, Miller, Jim, Sotillo, Catherine, Thompson, Henry S., Weinert, Regina, 1991. The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech 34, 351-3668.
    • Bard, Ellen G., Anderson, Anne H., 1994. The unintelligibility of speech to children: Effects of referent availability. Journal of Child Language 21, 623-48.
    • Blakemore, Diane, 2001. Discourse and relevance theory. In: Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah, Hamilton, Heidi E. (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Blackwell, Oxford. 100-118.
    • Button, Graham, 1987. Moving out of closings. In: Button, Graham, Lee, John R.E.
    • (Eds.), Talk and Social Organisation, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon. 101-151.
    • Button, Graham, 1990. On varieties of closings. In: Psathas, George, Frankel, Richard M. (Eds.), Interactional Competence, Ablex, Norwood, NJ. 93-148.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article