{"title":"What dialog is absent from constructed dialog?","authors":"Christoph Rühlemann","doi":"10.1075/etc.00038.ruh","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper is concerned with constructed dialog in conversational storytelling. Based on Clark & Gerrig’s (1990) demonstration theory, its focus is on what is absent from constructed dialog.\n To determine what is absent, a comparison is made between constructed dialog tokens and utterances in conversation. The inquiry\n uses both quantitative and qualitative methods. It is based on the Narrative Corpus (NC; Rühlemann & O’Donnell 2012), a corpus of conversational narratives extracted from the conversational component of\n the British National Corpus (BNC), and its systematic annotation of constructed dialog (that is, direct speech introduced by a\n quotative and free direct speech without any introducer). The quantitative comparison of verbalizations used in constructed dialog\n as opposed to verbalizations used in conversational utterances demonstrates that a particular utterance type is significantly\n missing from constructed dialog: the continuer utterance, whose basic function is to exhibit an understanding that a form of\n ‘telling’ by another speaker is going on. The qualitative analysis, based on a subset of storytellings from the NC that were\n re-analyzed acoustically and re-transcribed using Jeffersonian conventions based on the Audio BNC (Coleman et al. 2012), reveals a stark mismatch between the commonness of tellings in talk-in-interaction\n and their uncommonness in constructed dialog. The absence of continuers from constructed dialog is discussed against the backdrop of\n indexicality. I argue that continuers share the key properties of indexicals – semantic vacuity and an existential relationship with\n the ‘thing’ indicated – and can therefore be seen as indexicals themselves. As indexicals, intrinsically connected to the speech\n situation of their utterance, continuers cannot be included in constructed dialog, which typically occurs in a different speech\n situation with different interactional parameters. Finally, I offer initial thoughts on the underrepresentation of telling\n sequences in constructed dialog.","PeriodicalId":42970,"journal":{"name":"English Text Construction","volume":"13 1","pages":"132-157"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English Text Construction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.00038.ruh","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
This paper is concerned with constructed dialog in conversational storytelling. Based on Clark & Gerrig’s (1990) demonstration theory, its focus is on what is absent from constructed dialog.
To determine what is absent, a comparison is made between constructed dialog tokens and utterances in conversation. The inquiry
uses both quantitative and qualitative methods. It is based on the Narrative Corpus (NC; Rühlemann & O’Donnell 2012), a corpus of conversational narratives extracted from the conversational component of
the British National Corpus (BNC), and its systematic annotation of constructed dialog (that is, direct speech introduced by a
quotative and free direct speech without any introducer). The quantitative comparison of verbalizations used in constructed dialog
as opposed to verbalizations used in conversational utterances demonstrates that a particular utterance type is significantly
missing from constructed dialog: the continuer utterance, whose basic function is to exhibit an understanding that a form of
‘telling’ by another speaker is going on. The qualitative analysis, based on a subset of storytellings from the NC that were
re-analyzed acoustically and re-transcribed using Jeffersonian conventions based on the Audio BNC (Coleman et al. 2012), reveals a stark mismatch between the commonness of tellings in talk-in-interaction
and their uncommonness in constructed dialog. The absence of continuers from constructed dialog is discussed against the backdrop of
indexicality. I argue that continuers share the key properties of indexicals – semantic vacuity and an existential relationship with
the ‘thing’ indicated – and can therefore be seen as indexicals themselves. As indexicals, intrinsically connected to the speech
situation of their utterance, continuers cannot be included in constructed dialog, which typically occurs in a different speech
situation with different interactional parameters. Finally, I offer initial thoughts on the underrepresentation of telling
sequences in constructed dialog.