Pub Date : 2023-10-02DOI: 10.1080/0163853x.2023.2252699
Markus Bader, Jacopo Torregrossa, Esther Rinke
This article investigates how animacy in interaction with the syntactic function of a referent’s antecedent determines the interpretation of different types of pronouns and demonstratives in German and Italian. The results of a sentence continuation task conducted in both languages show that Italian null pronouns and German p-pronouns have a strong tendency to refer to a preceding subject, but only if its referent is animate. With inanimate subjects, both forms tend to refer to the animate referent in object position, showing that animacy enhances a referent’s accessibility more than the syntactic function of its previous mention. Demonstratives in German and Italian generally tend to refer to object antecedents, a tendency that is also influenced by the animacy of the referent, especially in German. The cross-linguistic comparison reveals that the effect of animacy is overall stronger in German than in Italian, suggesting that across languages, different forms may show a different sensitivity to syntactic function and animacy.
{"title":"Pinning down the interaction between animacy and syntactic function in the interpretation of German and Italian personal and demonstrative pronouns","authors":"Markus Bader, Jacopo Torregrossa, Esther Rinke","doi":"10.1080/0163853x.2023.2252699","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2023.2252699","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates how animacy in interaction with the syntactic function of a referent’s antecedent determines the interpretation of different types of pronouns and demonstratives in German and Italian. The results of a sentence continuation task conducted in both languages show that Italian null pronouns and German p-pronouns have a strong tendency to refer to a preceding subject, but only if its referent is animate. With inanimate subjects, both forms tend to refer to the animate referent in object position, showing that animacy enhances a referent’s accessibility more than the syntactic function of its previous mention. Demonstratives in German and Italian generally tend to refer to object antecedents, a tendency that is also influenced by the animacy of the referent, especially in German. The cross-linguistic comparison reveals that the effect of animacy is overall stronger in German than in Italian, suggesting that across languages, different forms may show a different sensitivity to syntactic function and animacy.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135895815","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-02DOI: 10.1080/0163853x.2023.2260247
Lijuan Chen, Xiaodong Xu, Hongling Lv
ABSTRACTA fictional story is always narrated from a certain narrative voice and mode of focalization. These core narrative techniques have a major impact on how readers interpret the narrative plot and connect with the characters. This study used eye-tracking to investigate how classic narrative reading is affected by narrative voice and focalization. The results showed that the third-person narrative voice was read more slowly than the first-person narrative voice, especially when the narrative was presented with internal focalization. Importantly, the transition from a first-person to a third-person narrative voice generally resulted in longer reading times, whereas a switch from a third-person to a first-person narrative voice only yielded limited benefits in terms of reduced reading time. These findings provide direct evidence to support the assumption that there is a distinction between the first-person narration and the third-person narration and demonstrate the important role of narrative voice and focalization in understanding narrative texts. AcknowledgmentsWe are grateful to Professor Jie Zhang for his invaluable support in conducting this study. We are also grateful to Tianyue Wang and Yiyi Lu for their assistance in collecting and analyzing the data. We are thankful to the reviewer for prompting us to consider this important question.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis study was supported by the Jiangsu Social Science Fund (Grant No. [23YYB010]), the Grand for the Social Science Foundation of the Higher Education Institutions of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. [2021SJA0086]), the High-quality Research Project on the Application of Social Science in Jiangsu Province (Grant No. [22SWB-17]), and the National Social Science Foundation of China (Key Program: Grant No. [18AYY010]; Major Program: Grant No. [21&ZD288]).
{"title":"How literary text reading is influenced by narrative voice and focalization: <i>evidence from eye movements</i>","authors":"Lijuan Chen, Xiaodong Xu, Hongling Lv","doi":"10.1080/0163853x.2023.2260247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2023.2260247","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTA fictional story is always narrated from a certain narrative voice and mode of focalization. These core narrative techniques have a major impact on how readers interpret the narrative plot and connect with the characters. This study used eye-tracking to investigate how classic narrative reading is affected by narrative voice and focalization. The results showed that the third-person narrative voice was read more slowly than the first-person narrative voice, especially when the narrative was presented with internal focalization. Importantly, the transition from a first-person to a third-person narrative voice generally resulted in longer reading times, whereas a switch from a third-person to a first-person narrative voice only yielded limited benefits in terms of reduced reading time. These findings provide direct evidence to support the assumption that there is a distinction between the first-person narration and the third-person narration and demonstrate the important role of narrative voice and focalization in understanding narrative texts. AcknowledgmentsWe are grateful to Professor Jie Zhang for his invaluable support in conducting this study. We are also grateful to Tianyue Wang and Yiyi Lu for their assistance in collecting and analyzing the data. We are thankful to the reviewer for prompting us to consider this important question.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis study was supported by the Jiangsu Social Science Fund (Grant No. [23YYB010]), the Grand for the Social Science Foundation of the Higher Education Institutions of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. [2021SJA0086]), the High-quality Research Project on the Application of Social Science in Jiangsu Province (Grant No. [22SWB-17]), and the National Social Science Foundation of China (Key Program: Grant No. [18AYY010]; Major Program: Grant No. [21&ZD288]).","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135898308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-26DOI: 10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255494
Alexandra Lorson, Hannah Rohde, Chris Cummins
When communicating, interlocutors negotiate knowledge by proposing propositional content to be added to their shared common ground. The way in which speakers put forward propositional content – expressing more or less confidence in its truthfulness – may affect the way in which other interlocutors react to such content. This article examines speakers’ production choices and hearers’ interpretations of the formulations believe/know/bare assertion to test how (maximal) certainty is expressed and inferred, whether speakers adjust their production choices depending on their communicative goals and whether hearers are able to adjust their interpretations correspondingly. For this purpose, we created two scenarios – one with a cooperative interlocutor and one with a potentially uncooperative interlocutor. The results suggest that know is epistemically the most powerful formulation – stronger than the bare assertion – but that the bare assertion may still be preferred over know for expressing maximal certainty in cooperative scenarios. Our findings also suggest that believe is used to hedge the assertive strength of statements in cooperative settings. Whereas speakers and hearers agree in the relative epistemic ordering of the formulations (believe < bare assertion < know), when inferring the speakers’ degrees of belief hearers to not appear to consistently take into account that speakers’ communicative goals may shift as a function of context.
{"title":"Epistemicity and communicative strategies","authors":"Alexandra Lorson, Hannah Rohde, Chris Cummins","doi":"10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255494","url":null,"abstract":"When communicating, interlocutors negotiate knowledge by proposing propositional content to be added to their shared common ground. The way in which speakers put forward propositional content – expressing more or less confidence in its truthfulness – may affect the way in which other interlocutors react to such content. This article examines speakers’ production choices and hearers’ interpretations of the formulations believe/know/bare assertion to test how (maximal) certainty is expressed and inferred, whether speakers adjust their production choices depending on their communicative goals and whether hearers are able to adjust their interpretations correspondingly. For this purpose, we created two scenarios – one with a cooperative interlocutor and one with a potentially uncooperative interlocutor. The results suggest that know is epistemically the most powerful formulation – stronger than the bare assertion – but that the bare assertion may still be preferred over know for expressing maximal certainty in cooperative scenarios. Our findings also suggest that believe is used to hedge the assertive strength of statements in cooperative settings. Whereas speakers and hearers agree in the relative epistemic ordering of the formulations (believe < bare assertion < know), when inferring the speakers’ degrees of belief hearers to not appear to consistently take into account that speakers’ communicative goals may shift as a function of context.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134958351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-18DOI: 10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255075
Jordan Gallant, Kerry Sluchinski
ABSTRACT This study investigated the processing of the Chinese nongendered third-person singular pronoun, “TA,” in a series of self-paced reading experiments. We begin by investigating the perceived appropriateness of TA using a novel implementation of the modified maze task. We then contrasted reading latencies for TA and male- and female-gender pronouns in reference to antecedents with varying stereotypical gender (e.g., occupation terms) and definitional gender (e.g., kinship terms). In our analysis, we assessed several means of operationalizing stereotypical gender information. Optimal model performance was achieved with a continuous measure that accounted for individual differences in gender perception, suggesting the involvement of a probabilistic component. Results for reading latencies and perceived appropriateness of TA support previous findings from discourse analysis that TA is not entirely gender-neutral but rather has nuanced contexts of use in modern Chinese written discourse.
{"title":"Non-gendered pronoun processing: an investigation of the gender non-specific third person singular pronoun ‘TA’ in Chinese","authors":"Jordan Gallant, Kerry Sluchinski","doi":"10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255075","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study investigated the processing of the Chinese nongendered third-person singular pronoun, “TA,” in a series of self-paced reading experiments. We begin by investigating the perceived appropriateness of TA using a novel implementation of the modified maze task. We then contrasted reading latencies for TA and male- and female-gender pronouns in reference to antecedents with varying stereotypical gender (e.g., occupation terms) and definitional gender (e.g., kinship terms). In our analysis, we assessed several means of operationalizing stereotypical gender information. Optimal model performance was achieved with a continuous measure that accounted for individual differences in gender perception, suggesting the involvement of a probabilistic component. Results for reading latencies and perceived appropriateness of TA support previous findings from discourse analysis that TA is not entirely gender-neutral but rather has nuanced contexts of use in modern Chinese written discourse.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135203397","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-18DOI: 10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255508
Katherine Chia, Ashley A. Edwards, Christopher Schatschneider, Michael P. Kaschak
ABSTRACTWe report three experiments that assess whether structural priming in a question–answer dialogue context is affected by the use of direct requests, conventional indirect requests, and nonconventional indirect requests. In Experiments 1 and 2, experimenters made phone calls to businesses and asked either Can you tell me (at) what time you close? (conventional indirect request) or May I ask you (at) what time you close? (nonconventional indirect request). Structural priming was demonstrated by participants’ greater tendency to produce a preposition in their response (At 9 vs. 9 o’clock) when the question had a preposition than when it did not. The results of Experiments 1 and 2 suggest that priming is not statistically different across request types. In Experiment 3, we compared priming for the conventional indirect requests to priming for direct requests ([At] what time do you close?). Again, priming did not differ across question types. We conducted a final analysis that included data from all three experiments plus a large dataset collected using the same procedure. The larger analysis (n > 43,000) confirmed that priming did not differ across sentence types. AcknowledgmentWe thank the many research assistants who assisted with these studies: Rebecca Applebaum, Samirah Artiste, Haley Barash, Mia Carter, Alathea Fairweather, Matthew Gomes, Karina Guenin, Alex Gutowski, Victoria Kolev, Elizabeth Lacy, Mollie Londot, Jordan Madsen, Jennifer Mast, Casey Oberdick, Maria Ribeiro-Siqueira, Kayla Sizemore, Lindsey Summerlin, Kristen Tinnerman, Jeremiah Townsend, Richard Valencia, Olivia Wentworth-Buchanan, Alyssa Westmoreland, Rachel White, Jordan Wiener, and Ashlyn Young.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. We analyzed the data with the following model: Dependent Variable ~ Question Type × Sentence + (1 + Question Type | Experimenter).2. Confidence intervals computed using the confint() function in R, based on the model specified in footnote 1.3. The designation “responded to the direct component of the indirect request” should only apply to the conventional and nonconventional indirect requests. However, there were a small number of cases where participants responded to What time do you close? (a direct request) by saying Sure! We close at 9 (or something similar). These were coded as “1” because the participant provided a yes or no answer before responding to the request for information (even though the question did not include a yes or no component).
{"title":"Structural repetition in responses to indirect requests","authors":"Katherine Chia, Ashley A. Edwards, Christopher Schatschneider, Michael P. Kaschak","doi":"10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255508","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255508","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTWe report three experiments that assess whether structural priming in a question–answer dialogue context is affected by the use of direct requests, conventional indirect requests, and nonconventional indirect requests. In Experiments 1 and 2, experimenters made phone calls to businesses and asked either Can you tell me (at) what time you close? (conventional indirect request) or May I ask you (at) what time you close? (nonconventional indirect request). Structural priming was demonstrated by participants’ greater tendency to produce a preposition in their response (At 9 vs. 9 o’clock) when the question had a preposition than when it did not. The results of Experiments 1 and 2 suggest that priming is not statistically different across request types. In Experiment 3, we compared priming for the conventional indirect requests to priming for direct requests ([At] what time do you close?). Again, priming did not differ across question types. We conducted a final analysis that included data from all three experiments plus a large dataset collected using the same procedure. The larger analysis (n > 43,000) confirmed that priming did not differ across sentence types. AcknowledgmentWe thank the many research assistants who assisted with these studies: Rebecca Applebaum, Samirah Artiste, Haley Barash, Mia Carter, Alathea Fairweather, Matthew Gomes, Karina Guenin, Alex Gutowski, Victoria Kolev, Elizabeth Lacy, Mollie Londot, Jordan Madsen, Jennifer Mast, Casey Oberdick, Maria Ribeiro-Siqueira, Kayla Sizemore, Lindsey Summerlin, Kristen Tinnerman, Jeremiah Townsend, Richard Valencia, Olivia Wentworth-Buchanan, Alyssa Westmoreland, Rachel White, Jordan Wiener, and Ashlyn Young.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. We analyzed the data with the following model: Dependent Variable ~ Question Type × Sentence + (1 + Question Type | Experimenter).2. Confidence intervals computed using the confint() function in R, based on the model specified in footnote 1.3. The designation “responded to the direct component of the indirect request” should only apply to the conventional and nonconventional indirect requests. However, there were a small number of cases where participants responded to What time do you close? (a direct request) by saying Sure! We close at 9 (or something similar). These were coded as “1” because the participant provided a yes or no answer before responding to the request for information (even though the question did not include a yes or no component).","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135203604","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-18DOI: 10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255501
Yuki Arita
ABSTRACTThis conversation analytic study investigates the use of the Japanese contrastive marker demo “but” as a preface to responses to polar questions. Demo-prefaced responses are one type of nonconforming answers, that is, responses that provide (dis)affirmation to preceding questions without yes/no-tokens. This study explores how question recipients treat the preceding questions with their demo-prefaced responses. The data analysis is twofold: this research first examines the turn-initial demo to scrutinize basic properties of demo-prefacing in responses to polar questions; then the study explores how the basic properties are in effect with a + demo-prefacing (i.e., demo-prefacing preceded by the turn-initial particle a), the largest set of combined turn-beginning elements involving demo in the database. This study reveals that demo-prefacing fundamentally serves to proffer qualification upon implied affirmation. When used with a, demo registers question recipients’ implied acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the question’s presupposition while projecting disaffirmation of the inquired proposition. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Appendix 1Transcript symbolsTableDownload CSVDisplay TableAbbreviationsTableDownload CSVDisplay TableNotes1. The English translation for demo is provided in the title of this article for the benefit of readers with no Japanese language background. It is not the author’s intention to suggest an absolute correspondence between demo and but.2. A similar function has been reported for the English but as well. Schiffrin (Citation1987) identifies but as a point-making device. She observes that speakers use but to return to a prior concern that had been interrupted, misunderstood, and/or challenged during activities of storytelling or argument building. See also Choe and Reddington (Citation2018), who examine the use of but-prefacing as a practice of refocusing on the main course of action in public discourse.3. As discussed later, however, certain properties of demo-prefacing to disagreeing turns which Mori (Citation1999) documents are also observed in demo-prefaced question responses in this study.4. Iya is one of the Japanese disaffirming tokens. Kushida (Citation2005) points out that while iya can be translated into “no,” iya cannot be used as a free-standing particle and thus has functions broader than those of the English “no.” Kushida further shows that iya can preface both conforming and nonconforming responses to polar questions. In the present study, iya + demo-prefacing always introduces nonconforming responses (n = 7). The possible interactional correlation of demo-prefacing with iya-prefacing should be investigated with more examples.5. The particle n (or un, nn) is an informal form of an affirmation particle hai “yes.” The affirmation particle n is typically pronounced with a falling pitch. On the contrary, the particle n placed before demo is elongated and p
摘要本会话分析研究考察了日语对比标记“但是”作为极性问题回答的开场白。演示开头的回答是一种非一致性回答，也就是说，对前面的问题提供(非)肯定的回答，而不使用是/否标记。本研究探讨了问题接受者如何用他们的示范开场白来对待前面的问题。数据分析是双重的:本研究首先考察了转向-初始演示，以考察极性问题回答中演示开头的基本性质;然后，研究探讨了在数据库中涉及demo的最大组合turn- starting元素集a + demo-prefacing(即，demo-prefacing前面有turn-initial particle a)下，基本属性是如何生效的。本研究揭示了演示序语的基本作用是对默示肯定提供限定条件。当与a连用时，演示表达了问题接受者对问题预设的合法性的隐含承认，同时投射出对被询问命题的否定。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。附录1Transcript symbolsTableDownload CSVDisplay table缩写stabledownload CSVDisplay TableNotes1。为了方便没有日语背景的读者，本文的标题中提供了demo的英文翻译。作者无意建议demo和but之间有绝对的对应关系。据报道，英语中也有类似的功能。Schiffrin (Citation1987)认为but是一种表达观点的手段。她观察到，讲话者在讲故事或建立论点的过程中使用but来回到先前被打断、误解和/或挑战的问题。另见Choe和Reddington (Citation2018)，他们研究了使用但前缀作为一种重新关注公共话语中的主要行动过程的实践。然而，正如稍后讨论的那样，Mori (Citation1999)文献中提到的，在本研究中也可以在演示开头的问题回答中观察到不同意转折的演示开头的某些特性。Iya是日本人否定的象征之一。Kushida (Citation2005)指出，虽然iya可以翻译成“不”，但iya不能作为一个独立的粒子使用，因此它的功能比英语中的“不”更广泛。Kushida进一步表明，对于极性问题，iya可以为符合和不符合的回答做序。在本研究中，iya + demo-prefacing总是会引入不符合的响应(n = 7)， demo-prefacing与iya-prefacing之间可能存在的交互关系有待更多的实例研究。助词n(或un, nn)是肯定助词hai“yes”的非正式形式。肯定助词n的发音通常是降调的。相反，放置在demo之前的粒子n被拉长，产生一个平坦的音高，它通常用作占位符而不是肯定令牌。虽然不同情况下，伸长率n:的长度会有轻微的变化，但在本表中总结为n:。此数据集仅包括a紧跟着demo而中间没有停顿的匝数。换句话说，a和demo是作为一个回合结构单元和由同一扬声器产生的后续回合组件一起生产的。因此，焦点a +演示序可以被视为“词汇化预制件”之一，即“由多个单词组成的半固定形式，但作为一个韵律整体传递”(Thompson et al.， Citation2015, p. 80)。在英语中，“不”是用来对否定疑问句做出肯定的回答(例如:A:你不会说日语吗?B:没有。)。8。摘要(1)中以demo开头的转折也是用kedo设计的，它被放置在转折的最后(即，demo mukashi hodo dewa nai kedo ne“demo they aren’t as much as they were before”在第6行)。Ono等人(Citation2012)指出，转折的最后粒子kedo让接受者理解其对比语义的含义，而这些含义本来是在主句中呈现的。在Rie的演示开头的转折中，转折结尾的kedo(随后是话语结尾的助词ne)似乎也有助于表明她对先前问题的隐含肯定。Mori (Citation1999)也观察到在不同意的回合中使用turn-final kedo，认为它有助于减轻分歧或暗示部分同意。本研究选择在涉及demo的其他回合开始元素中检查+ demo前置，主要有两个原因。
{"title":"<i>Demo</i> “but”-prefaced responses to inquiry in Japanese","authors":"Yuki Arita","doi":"10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255501","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255501","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThis conversation analytic study investigates the use of the Japanese contrastive marker demo “but” as a preface to responses to polar questions. Demo-prefaced responses are one type of nonconforming answers, that is, responses that provide (dis)affirmation to preceding questions without yes/no-tokens. This study explores how question recipients treat the preceding questions with their demo-prefaced responses. The data analysis is twofold: this research first examines the turn-initial demo to scrutinize basic properties of demo-prefacing in responses to polar questions; then the study explores how the basic properties are in effect with a + demo-prefacing (i.e., demo-prefacing preceded by the turn-initial particle a), the largest set of combined turn-beginning elements involving demo in the database. This study reveals that demo-prefacing fundamentally serves to proffer qualification upon implied affirmation. When used with a, demo registers question recipients’ implied acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the question’s presupposition while projecting disaffirmation of the inquired proposition. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Appendix 1Transcript symbolsTableDownload CSVDisplay TableAbbreviationsTableDownload CSVDisplay TableNotes1. The English translation for demo is provided in the title of this article for the benefit of readers with no Japanese language background. It is not the author’s intention to suggest an absolute correspondence between demo and but.2. A similar function has been reported for the English but as well. Schiffrin (Citation1987) identifies but as a point-making device. She observes that speakers use but to return to a prior concern that had been interrupted, misunderstood, and/or challenged during activities of storytelling or argument building. See also Choe and Reddington (Citation2018), who examine the use of but-prefacing as a practice of refocusing on the main course of action in public discourse.3. As discussed later, however, certain properties of demo-prefacing to disagreeing turns which Mori (Citation1999) documents are also observed in demo-prefaced question responses in this study.4. Iya is one of the Japanese disaffirming tokens. Kushida (Citation2005) points out that while iya can be translated into “no,” iya cannot be used as a free-standing particle and thus has functions broader than those of the English “no.” Kushida further shows that iya can preface both conforming and nonconforming responses to polar questions. In the present study, iya + demo-prefacing always introduces nonconforming responses (n = 7). The possible interactional correlation of demo-prefacing with iya-prefacing should be investigated with more examples.5. The particle n (or un, nn) is an informal form of an affirmation particle hai “yes.” The affirmation particle n is typically pronounced with a falling pitch. On the contrary, the particle n placed before demo is elongated and p","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135203609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-12DOI: 10.1080/0163853x.2023.2252695
Ning Zhu, Ruth Filik
{"title":"The role of social status in sarcasm interpretation: evidence from the United Kingdom and China","authors":"Ning Zhu, Ruth Filik","doi":"10.1080/0163853x.2023.2252695","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2023.2252695","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135877983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-09DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2023.2245313
Emily R. Smith, R. B. Lea, E. J. O'Brien
ABSTRACT The current set of experiments was designed to explore the processing of spatial information during reading, specifically the spatial-shift effect and the spatial-gradient effect. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that when participants were presented with text alone (i.e., without prior map memorization, virtual environments, task demands, or prior knowledge of the spatial information), the spatial-shift effect does emerge. Using the time to name a spatial location as a measure of spatial activation, participant naming times were faster for the original spatial location when the protagonist had moved a smaller distance relative to when the protagonist had moved a larger distance. Further, Experiment 3 provided evidence to support that a spatial gradient of activation is evident; this was done by adding an additional point of spatial distance in which the protagonist did not move from the initial location. The results are discussed within the context of the memory-based view of text comprehension.
{"title":"Exploring the spatial gradient effect in narratives","authors":"Emily R. Smith, R. B. Lea, E. J. O'Brien","doi":"10.1080/0163853X.2023.2245313","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2245313","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The current set of experiments was designed to explore the processing of spatial information during reading, specifically the spatial-shift effect and the spatial-gradient effect. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that when participants were presented with text alone (i.e., without prior map memorization, virtual environments, task demands, or prior knowledge of the spatial information), the spatial-shift effect does emerge. Using the time to name a spatial location as a measure of spatial activation, participant naming times were faster for the original spatial location when the protagonist had moved a smaller distance relative to when the protagonist had moved a larger distance. Further, Experiment 3 provided evidence to support that a spatial gradient of activation is evident; this was done by adding an additional point of spatial distance in which the protagonist did not move from the initial location. The results are discussed within the context of the memory-based view of text comprehension.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45352440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-09DOI: 10.1080/0163853x.2023.2252696
Marie-Luise C. R. Schmidt, Julia R. Winkler, Markus Appel, Tobias Richter
Emotional shifts in stories are assumed to contribute to narrative persuasion by enhancing engagement with the story. This effect might depend on the congruency of audiences’ emotional experience to the emotions implied by the story. In two experiments with wellcontrolled story manipulations, we compared the persuasive effect of stories with shifts in valence (from positive to negative to positive) to continuously positive story versions and examined moderating influences of event-congruent emotions and narrative transportation. The positive story versions were consistently more persuasive than the versions with emotional shifts. Transportation increased the persuasive effect of the stories, but only in audiences that listened to the shifting stories. In both emotional story trajectories, event-congruent emotional experience enhanced persuasion. We discuss our findings in terms of boundary conditions of the effect of emotional shifts in narrative persuasion.
{"title":"Emotional shifts, event-congruent emotions, and transportation in narrative persuasion","authors":"Marie-Luise C. R. Schmidt, Julia R. Winkler, Markus Appel, Tobias Richter","doi":"10.1080/0163853x.2023.2252696","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2023.2252696","url":null,"abstract":"Emotional shifts in stories are assumed to contribute to narrative persuasion by enhancing engagement with the story. This effect might depend on the congruency of audiences’ emotional experience to the emotions implied by the story. In two experiments with wellcontrolled story manipulations, we compared the persuasive effect of stories with shifts in valence (from positive to negative to positive) to continuously positive story versions and examined moderating influences of event-congruent emotions and narrative transportation. The positive story versions were consistently more persuasive than the versions with emotional shifts. Transportation increased the persuasive effect of the stories, but only in audiences that listened to the shifting stories. In both emotional story trajectories, event-congruent emotional experience enhanced persuasion. We discuss our findings in terms of boundary conditions of the effect of emotional shifts in narrative persuasion.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135745924","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-09DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2023.2245310
Harry T. Clelland, M. Haigh
ABSTRACT Uncertain language can be used to express genuine uncertainty but can also be used to manage face (e.g., by softening bad news). These conflicting motivations can create ambiguity in health communication. In this preregistered two-part experiment, participants assumed the position of a health specialist and wrote a letter communicating either a certain or an uncertain medical diagnosis. This was addressed to either a patient (high face threat) or the patient’s family doctor (low face threat). Letters written under high face threat contained more words and more dispreferred markers (e.g., sorry, unfortunately) than those written under low face threat. The number of explicit hedges (e.g., possibly, maybe) did not differ as a function of face threat. Time taken to write the letters was elevated only in the condition where face threat was high and the diagnosis was uncertain, suggesting that the joint pressures of communicating uncertain information in a tactful way increased the task demands. Our data demonstrate that participants spontaneously produced dispreferred markers (but not explicit hedges) to manage face and that face management is more taxing under uncertainty. Ratings from a second set of participants indicate that face management strategies did not affect the perceived meaning or manner of the message. For open materials, data, and code, see https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZU2AN.
{"title":"Politeness and the communication of uncertainty when breaking bad news","authors":"Harry T. Clelland, M. Haigh","doi":"10.1080/0163853X.2023.2245310","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2245310","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Uncertain language can be used to express genuine uncertainty but can also be used to manage face (e.g., by softening bad news). These conflicting motivations can create ambiguity in health communication. In this preregistered two-part experiment, participants assumed the position of a health specialist and wrote a letter communicating either a certain or an uncertain medical diagnosis. This was addressed to either a patient (high face threat) or the patient’s family doctor (low face threat). Letters written under high face threat contained more words and more dispreferred markers (e.g., sorry, unfortunately) than those written under low face threat. The number of explicit hedges (e.g., possibly, maybe) did not differ as a function of face threat. Time taken to write the letters was elevated only in the condition where face threat was high and the diagnosis was uncertain, suggesting that the joint pressures of communicating uncertain information in a tactful way increased the task demands. Our data demonstrate that participants spontaneously produced dispreferred markers (but not explicit hedges) to manage face and that face management is more taxing under uncertainty. Ratings from a second set of participants indicate that face management strategies did not affect the perceived meaning or manner of the message. For open materials, data, and code, see https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZU2AN.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49502914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：