构造对话中缺少什么对话?

IF 0.1 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS English Text Construction Pub Date : 2020-12-10 DOI:10.1075/etc.00038.ruh
Christoph Rühlemann
{"title":"构造对话中缺少什么对话?","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

本文主要研究会话故事中的对话结构。基于Clark和Gerrig(1990)的演示理论,其重点是构建的对话中缺少什么。为了确定缺少什么,在构建的对话令牌和会话中的话语之间进行比较。调查采用了定量和定性两种方法。它基于叙事语料库(NC;Rühlemann&O’Donnell 2012),这是一个从英国国家语料库(BNC)的会话组成部分中提取的会话叙事语料库,以及它对构建的对话(即由引用和自由的直接言语在没有任何介绍人的情况下引入的直接言语)的系统注释。构建对话中使用的言语化与会话话语中使用的话语化的定量比较表明,构建对话中明显缺少一种特定的话语类型:连续话语,其基本功能是表现出对另一个说话者正在进行的一种形式的“讲述”的理解,基于来自NC的故事讲述的子集,这些故事讲述使用基于音频BNC的Jeffersonian约定进行了声学分析和重新转录(Coleman等人,2012),揭示了在互动中谈话中讲述故事的常见性与其在构建的对话中的不常见性之间的明显不匹配。在指数化的背景下,讨论了所构建的对话中连续词的缺失。我认为,连续词具有索引词的关键性质——语义的空虚性和与所指“物”的存在关系——因此可以被视为索引词本身。作为与话语的言语环境有内在联系的索引词,连续词不能包含在构建的对话中,而构建的对话通常发生在具有不同交互参数的不同言语环境中。最后,我对构建对话中讲述序列的代表性不足提出了初步的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What dialog is absent from constructed dialog?
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
English Text Construction
English Text Construction LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Creating an information security policyin a bank “May the path never close” Dating “Sweet Desire” ‘Narrative structure’, ‘rhetorical structure’, ‘text structure’ A contrastive look at Theme as point of departure in English and Spanish academic writing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1