FN Thomson Reuters Web of Science™ VR 1.0 PT J AU Shubert, CW Meredith, DC AF Shubert, Christopher W. Meredith, Dawn C. TI Stimulated recall interviews for describing pragmatic epistemology SO PHYSICAL REVIEW SPECIAL TOPICS-PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH LA English DT Article ID INTRODUCTORY PHYSICS; PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY; RESOURCES; STUDENTS; INSTRUCTION; BELIEFS AB Students' epistemologies affect how and what they learn: do they believe physics is a list of equations, or a coherent and sensible description of the physical world? In order to study these epistemologies as part of curricular assessment, we adopt the resources framework, which posits that students have many productive epistemological resources that can be brought to bear as they learn physics. In previous studies, these epistemologies have been either inferred from behavior in learning contexts or probed through surveys or interviews outside of the learning context. We argue that stimulated recall interviews provide a contextually and interpretively valid method to access students' epistemologies that complement existing methods. We develop a stimulated recall interview methodology to assess a curricular intervention and find evidence that epistemological resources aptly describe student epistemologies. C1 [Shubert, Christopher W.; Meredith, Dawn C.] Univ New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824 USA. RP Shubert, CW (reprint author), FiveStars Loyalty Inc, San Francisco, CA 94103 USA. EM dawn.meredith@unh.edu FU National Science Foundation [0737458] FX The authors gratefully acknowledge Professor James Vesenka and Professor Jessica Bolker who were collaborators on this project, and Professor Eric Brewe for his help in the development of the Modeling Instruction labs. The work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0737458. CR Adams W K, 2006, Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, V2, P010101, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010101 Brownlee J, 2012, TEACH TEACH EDUC, V28, P440, DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.012 CALDERHEAD J, 1981, BRIT J EDUC PSYCHOL, V51, P211 Charmaz K., 2006, CONSTRUCTING GROUNDE Chin J, 2009, ACS SYM SER, V1004, P113 Creswell J, 2007, QUALITATIVE INQUIRY de Groot A., 1965, THOUGHT CHOICE CHESS diSessa A. A., 2002, INTENTIONAL CONCEPTU, P237 DISESSA AA, 1993, COGNITION INSTRUCT, V10, P105, DOI 10.1207/s1532690xci1002&3_2 Duschl R. A., 2002, STUDIES SCI ED, V38, P39, DOI DOI 10.1080/03057260208560187 Elby A, 2001, AM J PHYS, V69, pS54, DOI 10.1119/1.1377283 Elby A, 2001, SCI EDUC, V85, P554, DOI 10.1002/sce.1023 Elby A, 2009, J LEARN SCI, V18, P138, DOI 10.1080/10508400802581684 Gaier EL, 1954, J GEN PSYCHOL, V50, P147 Halloun I., 1998, SCI ED, V7, P553, DOI 10.1023/A:1008645410992 Hammer D., 1989, Physics Teacher, V27, P664, DOI 10.1119/1.2342910 HAMMER D, 1994, COGNITION INSTRUCT, V12, P151, DOI 10.1207/s1532690xci1202_4 Hammer D, 2003, J LEARN SCI, V12, P53, DOI 10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_3 Hammer D, 2002, PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BELIEFS ABOUT KNOWLEDGE KNOWING, P169 Hammer D, 2000, AM J PHYS, V68, pS52, DOI 10.1119/1.19520 HESTENES D, 1992, AM J PHYS, V60, P732, DOI 10.1119/1.17080 Hofer B., 2002, PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOG Hofer BK, 1997, REV EDUC RES, V67, P88, DOI 10.2307/1170620 Lising L, 2005, AM J PHYS, V73, P372, DOI 10.1119/1.1848115 Louca L, 2004, EDUC PSYCHOL, V39, P57, DOI 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_6 Lyle J, 2003, BRIT EDUC RES J, V29, P861, DOI 10.1080/0141192032000137349 Meredith DC, 2012, AM J PHYS, V80, P913, DOI 10.1119/1.4733357 Minsky M., 1986, SOC OF MIND NISBETT RE, 1977, PSYCHOL REV, V84, P231, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231 Otero V. K., 2009, GETTING STARTED PHYS, V1 Redish EF, 2009, AM J PHYS, V77, P629, DOI 10.1119/1.3119150 Redish EF, 1998, AM J PHYS, V66, P212, DOI 10.1119/1.18847 Rosenberg S, 2006, J LEARN SCI, V15, P261, DOI 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_4 Sandoval WA, 2005, SCI EDUC, V89, P634, DOI 10.1002/sce.20065 Sandoval WA, 2009, J LEARN SCI, V18, P150, DOI 10.1080/10508400802581700 Sayre EC, 2008, PHYS REV SPEC TOP-PH, V4, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.020105 Scherr RE, 2009, COGNITION INSTRUCT, V27, P147, DOI 10.1080/07370000902797379 Scherr RE, 2007, AM J PHYS, V75, P272, DOI 10.1119/1.2410013 Scherr RE, 2009, PHYS REV SPEC TOP-PH, V5, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020106 Schram T. H., 2006, CONCEPTUALIZING PROP Seidman I, 2006, INTERVIEWING QUALITA Tannen Deborah, 1993, FRAMING DISCOURSE WELLS M, 1995, AM J PHYS, V63, P606, DOI 10.1119/1.17849 Wittmann MC, 2006, PHYS REV SPEC TOP-PH, V2, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.020105 NR 44 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 4 U2 9 PU AMER PHYSICAL SOC PI COLLEGE PK PA ONE PHYSICS ELLIPSE, COLLEGE PK, MD 20740-3844 USA SN 1554-9178 J9 PHYS REV SPEC TOP-PH JI Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.-Phys. Educ. R. PD DEC 29 PY 2015 VL 11 IS 2 AR 020138 DI 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020138 PG 15 WC Education & Educational Research; Education, Scientific Disciplines SC Education & Educational Research GA CZ8YW UT WOS:000367386000002 ER PT J AU Zhu, CS Zhang, JF AF Zhu, Chunshen Zhang, Junfeng TI Dancing with Ideology: Grammatical Metaphor and Identity Presentation in Translation SO META LA English DT Article DE transitivity; grammatical metaphor; political translation; textual accountability AB This paper begins with an account of a high-profile political speech event centring on a Chinese slangy expression '[we] bu zheteng' when it was used by the then Chinese President Hu Jintao in a 2008 speech, of which the Chinese government preferred a zero translation despite the existing translations and various choices already available in Chinese-English dictionaries. The paper then discusses from the perspective of grammatical metaphor how and why an innocent-looking pragmatic usage has given rise to a series of ideologically charged debates over its translation. To that end, the paper conducts a critical review of grammatical metaphor, a key Systemic Functional Linguistic concept in describing congruence-to-metaphor evolution of language. Our cross lingual observation of this translation-related speech event enables us to argue that different textual means of presentation/concealment of human participation in transitivity are key to accounting for the discursive function of grammatical metaphors and to discerning the "chain" between congruent and metaphorical expressions. In the light of concealment of human participation in the transitivity process, the paper also observes that it is the association between the vague self -referencing 'we' and the adverse actions/situations, that is, (causing) commotions, alluded to by the term zheteng that has made a semantically explicit translation ideologically less desirable. As such, this operation of zero translation appears to be an instance of discursive manoeuvre rather than a sign of semantic impasse. To substantiate its theoretical claim, the paper relates the case to some similar political speech events in the world's political arena and demonstrates how, prompted by this functional awareness of grammatical metaphors, one may devise a translation with better informed sensitivity to identity presentation/concealment in discourse. C1 [Zhu, Chunshen] City Univ Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. [Zhang, Junfeng] Cent China Normal Univ, Wuhan, Peoples R China. RP Zhang, JF (reprint author), Cent China Normal Univ, Wuhan, Peoples R China. EM ctzhu@cityu.edu.hk; david1998@126.com CR Alexander Luis G., 1988, LONGMAN ENGLISH GRAM BRANSFORD John, 1977, THINKING READINGS CO, P377 CHENG QiLong, 1994, XITONG GONGNENG YUFA Halliday M. A. K., 1985, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA Halliday MAK, 1999, INCOMMENSURABILITY AND TRANSLATION, P85 HALLIDAY Michael Alexander Kirkwood, 1998, CONSTRUING EXPERIENC Hernandez-Campoy JM, 2010, LANG COMMUN, V30, P297, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2010.07.001 ZAKOLYUKINA Anastasia, 2010, 2060 STANF GSB LI RuiHuan, 2007, BIANZHENGFA SUITAN Martschukat Jurgen, 2003, GESCHICHTSWISSENSCHA, P1 Newmark Peter, 2001, TXB TRANSLATION Newmark Peter, 2001, APPROACHES TRANSLATI Newton N., 1996, FDN UNDERSTANDING TAVERNIERS Miriam, 2003, GRAMMATICAL METAPHOR, P5 Thompson G., 1996, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA Lawrence Venuti, 1995, TRANSLATORS INVISIBI Venuti L, 2008, TRANSL STUD, V1, P18, DOI 10.1080/14781700701706393 WANG SongMao, 1983, HANYU DAICI LIJIE Yang YN, 2008, LANG SCI, V30, P450, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.01.007 ZHU ChunShen, 2011, CHINESE TRANSLATORS, V32, P68 ZHU ChunShen, 1996, MULTILINGUA, V15, P397 NR 21 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 7 PU PRESSES UNIV MONTREAL PI MONTREAL PA PO BOX 6128, SUCCURSALE A, 3744 RUE JEAN-BRILLANT, MONTREAL, QUEBEC H3T 1P1, CANADA SN 0026-0452 J9 META JI Meta PD DEC PY 2015 VL 60 IS 3 BP 387 EP 405 PG 19 WC Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DH0MA UT WOS:000372477100002 ER PT J AU Davidson, K AF Davidson, Kathryn TI Quotation, demonstration, and iconicity SO LINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPHY LA English DT Article DE Quotation; Iconicity; Sign languages; Classifiers; Event semantics; Indexicals ID CLASSIFIERS; BODY AB Sometimes form-meaning mappings in language are not arbitrary, but iconic: they depict what they represent. Incorporating iconic elements of language into a compositional semantics faces a number of challenges in formal frameworks as evidenced by the lengthy literature in linguistics and philosophy on quotation/direct speech, which iconically portrays the words of another in the form that they were used. This paper compares the well-studied type of iconicity found with verbs of quotation with another form of iconicity common in sign languages: classifier predicates. I argue that these two types of verbal iconicity can, and should, incorporate their iconic elements in the same way using event modification via the notion of a context dependent demonstration. This unified formal account of quotation and classifier predicates predicts that a language might use the same strategy for conveying both, and I argue that this is the case with role shift in American Sign Language. Role shift is used to report others' language and thoughts as well as their actions, and recently has been argued to provide evidence in favor of Kaplanian "monstrous'' indexical expressions. By reimagining role shift as involving either (i) quotation for language demonstrations or (ii) "body classifier'' predicates for action demonstrations, the proposed account eliminates one major argument for these monsters coming from sign languages. Throughout this paper, sign languages provide a fruitful perspective for studying quotation and other forms of iconicity in natural language due to their (i) lack of a commonly used writing system which is otherwise often mistaken as primary data instead of speech, (ii) the rich existing literature on iconicity within sign language linguistics, and (iii) the ability of role shift to overtly mark the scope of a language report. In this view, written language is merely a special case of a more general phenomenon of sign and speech demonstration, which accounts more accurately for natural language data by permitting more strict or loose verbatim interpretations of demonstrations through the context dependent pragmatics. C1 [Davidson, Kathryn] Harvard Univ, Dept Linguist, Boylston Hall,3rd Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA. RP Davidson, K (reprint author), Harvard Univ, Dept Linguist, Boylston Hall,3rd Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA. EM kathryndavidson@fas.harvard.edu CR Aarons D., 2003, SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIE, V3, P125, DOI DOI 10.1353/SLS.2003.0001 ABBOTT B., 2005, BELGIAN J LINGUISTIC, V17, P13 ALLAN K, 1977, LANGUAGE, V53, P285, DOI 10.2307/413103 Anand P., 2004, P SALT 14 Anand P., 2009, P SALT 18 Anand P, 2007, THEOR LINGUIST, V33, P199, DOI 10.1515/TL.2007.012 Barbera G., 2012, THESIS U POMPEU FABR Benedicto E, 2004, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V22, P743, DOI 10.1007/s11049-003-4698-2 CLARK HH, 1990, LANGUAGE, V66, P764, DOI 10.2307/414729 Cogill-Koez D., 2000, SIGN LANGUAGE LINGUI, V3, P209, DOI [10.1075/sll.3.2.04cog, DOI 10.1075/SLL.3.2.04C0G] Cormier Kearsy, SIGN LANGUA IN PRESS DAVIDSON D, 1979, THEOR DECIS, V11, P27, DOI 10.1007/BF00126690 Davidson D., 1967, LOGIC DECISION ACTIO, P81, DOI DOI 10.1093/0199246270.003.0006 Davidson K., 2014, P SINN BED 18, P18 DeMatteo A., 1977, ON THE OTHER HAND Saussure F. d., 2016, COURS LINGUISTIQUE G Dik S. C., 1975, LINGUISTICS NETHERLA, P96 Dingemanse M., 2012, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V6, P654, DOI [10.1002/Inc3.361, DOI 10.1002/LNC3.361] Dudis PG, 2004, COGN LINGUIST, V15, P223, DOI 10.1515/cogl.2004.009 Emmorey Karen, 1998, P 29 ANN STANF CHILD, P81 Herzig M., 2003, PERSPECTIVES CLASSIF, P222 Emmorey K, 2008, BILING-LANG COGN, V11, P43, DOI 10.1017/S1366728907003203 ENGBERGPEDERSEN E, 1995, LANGUAGE, GESTURE, AND SPACE, P133 Gehrke B., 2015, NATURAL LANGUAGE LIN Haynie H, 2014, PLOS ONE, V9, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0092852 Heim Irene, 1982, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Hermann A., 2012, QUOTATIVES CROSS LIN, P203 Hinton L., 2006, SOUND SYMBOLISM Huebl A., 2012, TEX LING SOC C AUST Janis Wynne, 1992, THESIS STATE U NEW Y KAPLAN D., 1989, THEMES KAPLAN, P481 KASIMIR E., 2008, ZAS PAPERS LINGUISTI, V49, P67 KEGL J, 1990, SIGN LANGUAGE RESEARCH, P149 Klima E., 1979, SIGNS LANGUAGE Koulidobrova E., 2015, P SINN BED 19 Kratzer A., 1998, P SEM LING THEOR SAL Landman M., 2003, P W C LING WECOL 11 Liddell Scott K., 2003, GRAMMAR GESTURE MEAN Liddell S. K, 1980, AM SIGN LANGUAGE SYN Lillo-Martin D, 2011, LINGUA, V121, P623, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.001 Lillo-Martin D, 2012, SIGN LANGUAGE INT HD, P365 Lillo-Martin D., 2008, P 3 WORKSH REPR PROC, P129 LILLOMARTIN D, 1995, LANGUAGE, GESTURE, AND SPACE, P155 Macken Elizabeth, 1993, SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIE, V81, P375 Maier Emar, 2014, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V7, P1 Meir I, 2007, J LINGUIST, V43, P531, DOI 10.1017/S0022226707004768 Morzycki M., 2014, KEY TOPICS SEM UNPUB Nyst V., 2007, THESIS U AMSTERDAM U Peirce C. Y., 1931, COLLECTED PAPERS CS, VI-VIII Petroj V., 2014, P BOST U C LANG DEV Pinon C., 2007, C ER TUB DEC Potts C., 2004, DIRECT COMPOSITIONAL, P405 Quer Josep, 2005, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, V15, P152 Quine W., 1940, MATH LOGIC, V4 Quinto-Pozos D, 2007, LINGUA, V117, P1285, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.12.003 Schick B., 1987, THESID PURDUE U Schick B., 1990, INT J SIGN LINGUISTI, V1, P15 Schlenker P., 2014, SUPER MONSTERS UNPUB Schlenker P, 2003, LINGUIST PHILOS, V26, P29, DOI 10.1023/A:1022225203544 Schlenker P, 2013, LINGUIST PHILOS, V36, P91, DOI 10.1007/s10988-013-9129-1 Shan CC, 2010, LINGUIST PHILOS, V33, P417, DOI 10.1007/s10988-011-9085-6 Shin SJ, 2012, SYNTHESE, V186, P149, DOI 10.1007/s11229-012-0075-1 Stokoe W., 1960, STUDIES LINGUISTICS, V8 Supalla Ted, 1982, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Tannen D, 1989, TALKING VOICES REPET von Fintel K., 2010, HARV MIT UC WORKSH I Zucchi S., 2012, EVENT DESCRIPTIONS C Zucchi S., 2004, MONSTERS VISUA UNPUB Zwitserlood I., 2012, SIGN LANGUAGE INT HD, P158 Zwitserlood I., 1996, THESIS UTRECHT U NR 70 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 2 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0165-0157 EI 1573-0549 J9 LINGUIST PHILOS JI Linguist. Philos. PD DEC PY 2015 VL 38 IS 6 BP 477 EP 520 DI 10.1007/s10988-015-9180-1 PG 44 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DD1PH UT WOS:000369693100001 ER PT J AU Jun, SA Bishop, J AF Jun, Sun-Ah Bishop, Jason TI Priming Implicit Prosody: Prosodic Boundaries and Individual Differences SO LANGUAGE AND SPEECH LA English DT Article DE Structural priming; implicit prosody; relative clause attachment; comma; autistic traits ID SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION; SENTENCE PRODUCTION; LANGUAGE PRODUCTION; WORKING-MEMORY; ATTACHMENT; CLAUSE; PREFERENCES; PERSISTENCE; PUNCTUATION; HYPOTHESIS AB Using the structural priming paradigm, the present study explores predictions made by the implicit prosody hypothesis (IPH) by testing whether an implicit prosodic boundary generated from a silently read sentence influences attachment preference for a novel, subsequently read sentence. Results indicate that such priming does occur, as evidenced by an effect on relative clause attachment. In particular, priming an implicit boundary directly before a relative clause - cued by commas in orthography - encouraged high attachment of that relative clause, although the size of the effect depended somewhat on individual differences in pragmatic/communication skills (as measured by the Autism Spectrum Quotient). Thus, in addition to supporting the basic claims of the IPH, the present study demonstrates the relevance of such individual differences to sentence processing, and that implicit prosodic structure, like syntactic structure, can be primed. C1 [Jun, Sun-Ah] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA. [Bishop, Jason] CUNY Coll Staten Isl, Staten Isl, NY 10314 USA. [Bishop, Jason] CUNY, Grad Ctr, New York, NY USA. RP Jun, SA (reprint author), Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Linguist, 3125 Campbell Hall,Box 951543, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA. EM jun@humnet.ucla.edu FU University of California, Los Angeles Faculty Senate Grant FX This work was supported by a University of California, Los Angeles Faculty Senate Grant to Sun-Ah Jun. CR Baron-Cohen S, 2001, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V31, P5, DOI 10.1023/A:1005653411471 Barr DJ, 2013, J MEM LANG, V68, P255, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 Bergmann A., 2007, COMMUNICATION 0824 Bergmann A., 2008, P SPEECH PROS 2008 C Bishop J., 2012, UCLA WORKING PAPERS, V111, P1 Bishop J. L., 2013, THESIS BOCK JK, 1986, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V18, P355, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 Breen M., 2014, LINGUISTICS LANGUAGE, V8, P37, DOI [10.1111/lnc3.12061, DOI 10.1111/LNC3.12061] Brysbaert M, 1996, Q J EXP PSYCHOL-A, V49, P664, DOI 10.1080/027249896392540 Carlson K, 2001, J MEM LANG, V45, P58, DOI 10.1006/jmla.2000.2762 CARREIRAS M, 1993, LANG SPEECH, V36, P353 CUETOS F, 1988, COGNITION, V30, P73, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2 Dussias P, 2003, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V25, P529 Ehrlich K., 1999, 12 ANN CUNY C HUM SE Felser Claudia, 2003, LANG ACQUIS, V11, P127, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327817LA1103_1 Fernandez E. M, 2003, BILINGUAL SENTENCE P Fernandez E. M., 1999, 12 ANN CUNY C HUM SE FERREIRA F, 1993, PSYCHOL REV, V100, P233 Fodor JD, 1998, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V27, P285, DOI 10.1023/A:1023258301588 Fodor Janet Dean, 2002, N E LINGUISTIC SOC N, V32, P113 Frazier L., 1996, CONSTRUAL FRAZIER L, 1990, COMPREHENSION PROCESSES IN READING, P303 Frazier L, 2004, LINGUA, V114, P3, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00044-5 FRAZIER L, 1978, COGNITION, V6, P291, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1 Hemforth B, 1998, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V31, P293 Hill R., 2000, THESIS Hirotani M, 2006, J MEM LANG, V54, P425, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.001 Jun Sun-Ah, 2008, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V13, P41 Jun SA, 2003, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V32, P219, DOI 10.1023/A:1022452408944 Jun S.-A., 1998, PHONOLOGY, V15, P189, DOI 10.1017/S0952675798003571 Jun S.-A., 2004, P INT ICSLP JEJ KOR Jun S. -A., STUDIES THEORETICAL, V46 Jun S.-A., 2008, P SPEECH PROS 2008 C Jun SA, 2010, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V25, P1201, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2010.503658 Jun SA, 2007, PHONOL PHONET, V12-2, P143 Kamide Y, 1997, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V26, P247, DOI 10.1023/A:1025017817290 Kjelgaard MM, 1999, J MEM LANG, V40, P153, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1998.2620 Lee EK, 2011, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V26, P262, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2010.491650 Loncke M, 2011, EXP PSYCHOL, V58, P227, DOI 10.1027/1618-3169/a000089 Lovri N., 2000, AMLAP C LEID Lovri N., 2001, SUNY CUNY NYU C STON Maynell L. A., 1999, 12 ANN CUNY C HUM SE Nieuwland MS, 2010, J MEM LANG, V63, P324, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005 Papadopoulou D, 2003, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V24, P501 Payne BR, 2014, COGNITION, V130, P157, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.10.005 Quinn D., 2000, 13 ANN CUNY C HUM SE Schafer A, 1996, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V11, P135, DOI 10.1080/016909696387240 Schafer A. J., 1997, THESIS Scheepers C, 2003, COGNITION, V89, P179, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00119-7 Snedeker J, 2003, J MEM LANG, V48, P103, DOI 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00519-3 Speer S., STUDIES THEORETICAL, V46 Staub A, 2007, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V33, P550, DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.550 Staub A, 2013, PSYCHON B REV, V20, P1304, DOI 10.3758/s13423-013-0444-x Steinhauer K, 1999, NAT NEUROSCI, V2, P191, DOI 10.1038/5757 Steinhauer K, 2003, BRAIN LANG, V86, P142, DOI 10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00542-4 Swets B, 2007, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V136, P64, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.64 Tooley K., 2013, J EXPT PSYCHOL LEARN, V40, P348 Traxler MJ, 2007, MEM COGNITION, V35, P1107, DOI 10.3758/BF03193482 Traxler MJ, 2009, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V38, P491, DOI 10.1007/s10936-009-9102-x Watson D, 2004, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V19, P713, DOI 10.1080/01690960444000070 Xiang Ming, 2013, Front Psychol, V4, P708, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00708 Zagar D, 1997, Q J EXP PSYCHOL-A, V50, P421, DOI 10.1080/027249897392161 NR 62 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 7 U2 9 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 0023-8309 EI 1756-6053 J9 LANG SPEECH JI Lang. Speech PD DEC PY 2015 VL 58 IS 4 BP 459 EP 473 DI 10.1177/0023830914563368 PG 15 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Psychology GA DA0FK UT WOS:000367472500003 PM 27483740 ER PT J AU Al-Gahtani, S Roever, C AF Al-Gahtani, Saad Roever, Carsten TI The Development of Requests by L2 Learners of Modern Standard Arabic: A Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Study SO FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS LA English DT Article DE interlanguage pragmatics; second language acquisition; speech acts ID PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT; ORGANIZATION; PROFICIENCY; CHINESE; TALK AB This study examined the development of requests made by second language (L2) learners of Modern Standard Arabic at four levels of L2 ability. The study used longitudinal and cross-sectional data collection to investigate how learners' performance of requests developed over a five-month period and differed as a function of ability level. The results indicated U-shaped development, with learners initially decreasing their use of direct requests and increasing their use of indirect requests as their overall language ability increased. However, at higher ability levels, learners approximated native speaker norms by reverting to direct requests. This developmental pattern demonstrated the constraining effect of learners' sociopragmatic competence on their pragmalinguistic performance. In addition, the findings highlighted the nonuniversality of developmental stages proposed by Kasper and Rose (2002), showing that developmental trajectories differ between languages with a preference for indirect requests (such as English and Greek) and those with a preference for direct requests (such as Arabic). C1 [Al-Gahtani, Saad] King Saud Univ, Appl Linguist, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. [Roever, Carsten] Univ Melbourne, Appl Linguist, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia. RP Al-Gahtani, S (reprint author), King Saud Univ, Appl Linguist, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. FU Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University [RG-1435-038] FX The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this research group (RG-1435-038). CR Achiba M., 2003, LEARNING REQUEST 2 L Al-Gahtani S, 2012, APPL LINGUIST, V33, P42, DOI 10.1093/applin/amr031 Aldawish R., 2003, ARABIC FOR BEGINNERS Alshamrani H., 2012, ARABIC FOR THE WORLD Bachman L. F., 2010, LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT Bardovi-Harlig K, 2013, LANG LEARN, V63, P68, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x Bardovi-Harlig K., 1993, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V15, P279, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100012122 Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN Bataller R., 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V43, P160 Bella S, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1917, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.014 [Anonymous], 1986, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Ellis R., 1992, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V14, P1, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100010445 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P253, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.013 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2012, ENCY APPL LINGUISTIC, P2801 Golato A, 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/24.1.90 Golato A., 2012, ENCY APPL LINGUISTIC, P4601 Goy E, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V217, P51 Hepburn A., 2013, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P57, DOI DOI 10.1002/9781118325001 Hill T., THESIS Jefferson Gail, 2004, CONVERSATION ANAL ST, P13 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kasper G., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P281 Li S, 2014, SYSTEM, V45, P103, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2014.05.001 Li S, 2012, LANG LEARN, V62, P403, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00629.x Marquez Reiter R., 2005, SPANISH PRAGMATICS Omar A., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P227 Rose KR, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P2345, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.04.002 Rose K., 2000, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V22, P27, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100001029 SACKS H, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P696, DOI 10.2307/412243 Schauer G. A., 2004, EUROSLA YB, V4, P253, DOI 10.1075/eurosla.4.12sch Schauer Gila A., 2009, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Schauer GA, 2006, LANG LEARN, V56, P269, DOI 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00348.x Schauer G., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P193, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.011 Schegloff EA, 2007, SEQUENCE ORGANIZATION IN INTERACTION: A PRIMER IN CONVERSATION ANALYSIS I, P1, DOI 10.2277/ 0521532795 Schmidt R., 1983, SOCIOLINGUISTICS LAN, P137 Shively RL, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1818, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030 Shively R. L., 2008, THESIS Stokoe E, 2013, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V46, P165, DOI 10.1080/08351813.2013.780341 Taguchi Naoko, 2011, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V49, P265 Taguchi N., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7, P333 Takahashi Tomoko, 1987, JALT J, V8, P131 Trosborg A., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Woodfield H, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V217, P9 NR 44 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 4 U2 4 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0015-718X EI 1944-9720 J9 FOREIGN LANG ANN JI Foreign Lang. Ann. PD WIN PY 2015 VL 48 IS 4 BP 570 EP 583 DI 10.1111/flan.12157 PG 14 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CZ6OQ UT WOS:000367221000004 ER PT J AU Peace, MM AF Peace, Meghann M. TI Other-Orientation in Nonnative Spanish and Its Effect on Direct Objects SO FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS LA English DT Article DE Spanish; discourse analysis; interaction with; among peers; postsecondary; higher education; pragmatics AB Other-orientation (Linell, 2009) is an essential element of language in that all speakers dialogue with an other when communicating. They take into consideration the other's assumed perspective, knowledge, and needs, and manipulate their language in response to these assumptions. This study investigated the extent to which other-orientation was present in second language (L2) Spanish learners and, if so, how it affected L2 learners' production of direct object nominal, pronominal, and null expressions. The results indicated that L2 Spanish learners were sensitive to their interlocutors' perspective. However, the actual effect that other-orientation had on direct object expressions was constrained by the limits of the learners' interlanguage in that only higher-level learners were capable of manipulating direct object expressions in accordance with the assumed accessibility of the referents. The results support Bardovi-Harlig's (1999) argument that grammatical competence is a necessary condition of pragmatic competence. C1 [Peace, Meghann M.] St Marys Univ, Spanish, San Antonio, TX 78228 USA. RP Peace, MM (reprint author), St Marys Univ, Spanish, San Antonio, TX 78228 USA. FU University of Minnesota Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship FX I would like to acknowledge the University of Minnesota Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship for funding this project. CR Ariel M., 2001, TEXT REPRESENTATION, P29, DOI DOI 10.1075/HCP.8.04ARI Bardovi-Harlig K, 1999, LANG LEARN, V49, P677, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00105 Bentivoglio P, 1983, TOPIC CONTINUITY DIS, P255 Bentivoglio P., 1993, CURRENT ISSUES LINGU, P211 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Clements J. C., 2006, FUNCTIONAL APPROACHE, P134 Face T., 2003, CATALAN J LINGUISTIC, V2, P115 Face T., 2005, ITALIAN J LINGUISTIC, V17, P271 Gass S. M., 2000, STIMULATED RECALL ME Geeslin K. L., 2010, SEL P 12 HISP LING S, P246 Ishihara Noriko, 2010, TEACHING LEARNING PR Klee C. A., 2005, SEL P 7 HISP LING S, P12 Klein-Andreu F, 2000, VARIACION ACTUAL EVO Lee J. F., 2003, SPANISH 2 LANGUAGE A, P98 Linell P, 2009, ADV CULT PSYCHOL CON, pXXI Malovrh P., 2008, THESIS Malovrh P. A., 2013, DEV DIMENSION INSTRU Malovrh P. A., 2013, HDB SPANISH 2 LANGUA, P185 Malovrh P. A., 2010, 2 LANGUAGE PROCESSIN, P231 Montrul S., 2010, SECOND LANG RES, V27, P21 Ocampo A., 2013, PERSPECTIVAS TEORICA, P321 Ocampo F, 2003, ROMANCE PERSPECTIVE, P195 Prince E., 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P223 Tello Rueda Y, 2008, COLOMB APPL LINGUIST, V8, P169 Schwenter S. A., 2006, SEL P 8 HISP LING S, P23 Silva-Corvalan C, 1981, PAPERS ROMANCE S2, V3, P163 VANPATTEN B, 1990, MULTILING, V58, P118 Yule G., 1997, REFERENTIAL COMMUNIC Zyzik E., 2006, SEL P 7 C ACQ SPAN P, P122 Zyzik EC, 2008, SECOND LANG RES, V24, P65, DOI 10.1177/0267658307082982 NR 30 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0015-718X EI 1944-9720 J9 FOREIGN LANG ANN JI Foreign Lang. Ann. PD WIN PY 2015 VL 48 IS 4 BP 669 EP 687 DI 10.1111/flan.12166 PG 19 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CZ6OQ UT WOS:000367221000010 ER PT J AU Menke, MR AF Menke, Mandy R. TI How Native Do They Sound? An Acoustic Analysis of the Spanish Vowels of Elementary Spanish Immersion Students SO HISPANIA-A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE TEACHING OF SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE LA English DT Article DE acquisition/adquisicion; early language learning/aprendizaje temprano; immersion education/inmersion; pronunciation/pronunciacion; second language/segunda lengua; vowels/vocales ID FOREIGN-LANGUAGE; ENGLISH VOWELS; PRONUNCIATION; 2ND-LANGUAGE; ACQUISITION; PHONETICS; SYSTEMS; BILINGUALS; PHONOLOGY; SPEAKERS AB Language immersion students' lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic competencies are well documented, yet their phonological skill has remained relatively unexplored. This study investigates the Spanish vowel productions of a cross-sectional sample of 35 one-way Spanish immersion students. Learner productions were analyzed acoustically and compared to those of Spanish-English bilingual peers. Findings reveal that learners' productions differ from those of their native Spanish-speaking peers on nearly all measures; observed differences may be the result of transfer of first language phonetic and phonological tendencies and the nature of the input received. C1 [Menke, Mandy R.] Univ Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA. RP Menke, MR (reprint author), Univ Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA. FU Graduate School at the University of Minnesota FX I wish to thank the students, parents, teachers, and administrators of the two school districts involved in this project for allowing me to work with them. I would also like to recognize and thank Dr. Sango Otiengo and Ashley Eckard from the Statistical Consulting Center at Grand Valley State University, whose assistance was pivotal in carrying out the statistical analysis. This research was made possible by a Thesis Research Grant from the Graduate School at the University of Minnesota. CR Kuhl Patricia K., 1999, J ACOUST SOC AM, V105.2, P1095, DOI 10.1121/1.425135 Arteaga DL, 2000, MOD LANG J, V84, P339, DOI 10.1111/0026-7902.00073 Barajas Jennifer, 2014, SOCIOPHONETIC APPROA Blanco-Iglesias Susana, 1995, CURRENT STATE INTERL, P241 Bolton Kingsley, 1990, J ASIAN PACIFIC COMM, V1, P147 BRADLOW AR, 1995, J ACOUST SOC AM, V97, P1916, DOI 10.1121/1.412064 Cazabon Mary T., 1998, 3 CTR RES ED DIV EXC Christian D., 1997, PROFILES 2 WAY IMMER Cook V., 2003, EFFECTS 2 LANGUAGE 1 Garcia de las Bayonas Mariche G, 2004, THESIS Delattre Pierre, 1965, COMP PHONETIC FEATUR Eguchi S, 1969, Acta Otolaryngol Suppl, V257, P1 ELLIOTT AR, 1995, MOD LANG J, V79, P530, DOI 10.2307/330005 Elliott AR, 1997, HISPANIA-J DEV INTER, V80, P95, DOI 10.2307/345983 Emil Flege James, 1995, SPEECH PERCEPTION LI, P233 FLEGE JE, 1987, J PHONETICS, V15, P47 Flege James Emil, 1984, J ACOUST SOC AM, V76.4, P706 Flege JE, 1999, J ACOUST SOC AM, V106, P2973, DOI 10.1121/1.428116 FLEGE JE, 1989, LANG SPEECH, V32, P123 Fortune Tara W, 2001, THESIS Fortune Tara W, 2006, DUAL LANG IMM PREC I Holmquist Jonathan, 2007, SEL P 3 WORKSH SPAN, P30 Genesee F. H., 1978, CANADIAN J ED, V3, P31, DOI [10.2307/1494684, DOI 10.2307/1494684] Genesee F. H., 1987, LEARNING 2 LANGUAGES Gregory Ann E., 2005, RES APPL LINGUISTICS, P201 GROSJEAN F, 1989, BRAIN LANG, V36, P3, DOI 10.1016/0093-934X(89)90048-5 Guion SG, 2003, PHONETICA, V60, P98, DOI 10.1159/000071449 HAMMERLY H, 1982, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V20, P17, DOI 10.1515/iral.1982.20.1-4.17 Harada Tetsuo, 1999, THESIS Harley B., 1984, INTERLANGUAGE, P291 Harmegnies Bernard, 2004, SPEECH COMMUN, V11.4-5, P429 Hopp H, 2013, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V34, P361, DOI 10.1017/S0142716411000737 Kuhl PK, 1997, SCIENCE, V277, P684, DOI 10.1126/science.277.5326.684 Lambert W. E., 1972, BILINGUAL ED CHILDRE LEAHY RM, 1980, TESOL QUART, V14, P209, DOI 10.2307/3586315 Lev-Ari S, 2010, J EXP SOC PSYCHOL, V46, P1093, DOI 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.025 LILJENCRANTS J, 1972, LANGUAGE, V48, P839, DOI 10.2307/411991 Lindblom Bjorn, 1986, EXPT PHONOLOGY, P13 Lindblom B., 1983, PRODUCTION SPEECH, P217 LINDBLOM B, 1989, J PHONETICS, V17, P107 Lippi-Green Rosina, 1997, ENGLISH ACCENT LANGU Lord G, 2005, HISPANIA-J DEV INTER, V88, P557 Lord Gillian, 2008, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V41.2, P354 Lyster R, 2007, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V18, P1 LYSTER R, 1987, CAN MOD LANG REV, V43, P701 Menke M., 2010, STUDIES HISPANIC LUS, V3, P181 Menke Mandy R., 2010, SW J LINGUISTICS, V28.2, P98 Morrison Geoffrey Stewart, 2007, P 16 INT C PHON SCI, P6 Munro MJ, 1996, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V17, P313, DOI 10.1017/S0142716400007967 MUNRO MJ, 1993, LANG SPEECH, V36, P39 Oliver Julia, 2008, THESIS O'Rourke Erin, 2010, SEL P 4 C LAB APPR S, P20 Oyama Susan, 1982, CHILD ADULT DIFFEREN, P20 Plann Sandra, 1979, ACQUISITION USE SPAN, P119 Potowski K., 2007, SPAN CONTEXT, V4, P187, DOI 10.1075/sic.4.2.04pot Potowski Kim, 2005, SEL P 6 C ACQ SPAN P, P123 Quilis A., 1983, ESTUDIOS DE FONETICA, P159 Rajan Julia Oliver, 2007, SEL P 3 WORKSH SPAN, P44 Ronquest Rebecca E., 2014, SEL P 15 HISP LING S Schwartz JL, 1997, J PHONETICS, V25, P255, DOI 10.1006/jpho.1997.0043 Sebastian-Galles N, 1999, COGNITION, V72, P111, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00024-4 SIMOES ARM, 1996, HISPANIA-J DEV INTER, V79, P87, DOI 10.2307/345617 Smiljanic Rajka, 2005, J ACOUST SOC AM, V118.3, P415 Snow Marguertie Ann, 1985, PROGR 2 LANGUAGE ACQ, P19 Stevens John J., 2011, ARIZONA WORKING PAPE, V18, P77 Swain M., 1985, INPUT 2 LANGUAGE ACQ, P235 Swain M., 1982, EVALUATING BILINGUAL Tarone E, 2005, HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH IN SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING, P485 TARONE E, 1995, MOD LANG J, V79, P166, DOI 10.2307/329617 Uther M, 2007, SPEECH COMMUN, V49, P2, DOI 10.1016/j.specom.2006.10.003 Valdes G, 2011, STUD BILINGUAL, V42, P113 Willis Erik, 2001, SW J LINGUISTICS, V24, p[1, 185] Willis Erik, 2008, ACT 15 C INT AS LING NR 73 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 5 PU AMER ASSOC TEACHERS SPANISH PORTUGUESE, INC PI WALLED LAKE PA 900 LADD RD, WALLED LAKE, MI 48390 USA SN 0018-2133 EI 2153-6414 J9 HISPANIA-J DEV INTER JI Hispania-J. Devoted Teach. Span. Port. PD DEC PY 2015 VL 98 IS 4 BP 804 EP 824 PG 21 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics; Literature, Romance SC Linguistics; Literature GA CZ6IC UT WOS:000367203400023 ER PT J AU Gibbs, RW AF Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. TI Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Metaphor; Conceptual metaphor theory; Deliberate metaphor AB Different signals, or tuning devices, in language, including certain discourse markers, comparatives, intensifiers and semantic metalanguage, sometimes accompany verbal metaphors. Some scholars have claimed that these signals give evidence of "deliberate metaphor" use on the part of speakers and writers. So, understanding these particular uses of metaphor requires people to infer deliberation, which leads them to pay greater notice to these figures and enhances their understanding of the cross-domain mappings motivating metaphorical utterances. Many linguistic analyses argue that deliberate metaphor is a critical part of metaphor use, yet no empirical study has explored whether people really infer greater deliberation and cross-domain mappings when encountering so-called pragmatic signals of metaphor. The present study tested this idea and did not find evidence in support of the deliberate metaphor proposal. This conclusion raises serious doubts about the psychological validity of the idea that some metaphors are produced and understood as being deliberate. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr.] Univ Calif Santa Cruz, Dept Psychol, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA. RP Gibbs, RW (reprint author), Univ Calif Santa Cruz, Dept Psychol, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA. EM gibbs@ucsc.edu CR Blakemore D., 2002, RELEVANCE LINGUISTIC Cameron L., 2003, METAPHOR ED DISCOURS Charteris-Black J., 2012, METAPHOR SOC WORLD, V2, P1, DOI DOI 10.1075/MSW.2.1.01CHA FRASER B, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P383, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V Gibbs RW, 2011, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V48, P529, DOI 10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103 Gibbs R. W., 1994, POETICS MIND FIGURAT Gibbs RW, 2012, INTERPRETING FIGURATIVE MEANING, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139168779 Gibbs Raymond W., 2011, METAPHOR SOCIAL WORL, V1, P26, DOI [10.1075/msw.1.1.03gib, DOI 10.1075/MSW.1.1.03GIB] Goatly A., 1997, LANGUAGE METAPHORS JACKENDOFF R, 1991, LANGUAGE, V67, P320, DOI 10.2307/415109 Krennmayr Tina, 2011, LOT DISSERTATION SER, P276 Nacey Susan, 2013, METAPHOR LEARNER ENG Pinker S., 2007, THE STUFF OF THOUGHT Shutova E, 2010, P LREC 2010 MALT, P3255 Steen Gerard, MIXING META IN PRESS Steen G, 2008, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V23, P213, DOI 10.1080/10926480802426753 Steen GJ, 2011, REV COGN LINGUIST, V9, P26, DOI 10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste Steen G. J., 2013, J COGN SEMIOT, V5, P179, DOI DOI 10.1515/COGSEM.2013.5.12.179 NR 18 TC 4 Z9 4 U1 1 U2 6 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD DEC PY 2015 VL 90 BP 77 EP 87 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.021 PG 11 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CZ0EI UT WOS:000366777500007 ER PT J AU Joersz, AC AF Joersz, Alison C. TI Sloganization and the Political Pragmatics of Interdiscursivity: The Social Life of a Haitian Political Critique SO JOURNAL OF LINGUISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY LA English DT Article DE entextualization; interdiscursivity; political pragmatics; social life of discourse; Haiti ID POETICS AB In the weeks leading up to the 2013 Carnival season in Haiti, the release of a Carnival song, Aloral, sparked controversy because of the song's critical message accusing the Martelly administration of false promises. What began as a pointed political critique (pwen) transformed into a slogan, widely repeated and recontextualized to fit a variety of discursive scenarios. This article examines the entextualization process through which the aloral critique became a slogan (sloganization). I explore the social context within which it was released and responded to, the poetic features that favored detachability, and the political partisanship of its recontextualized usages. By tracing the social life of the aloral critique, I show how it was communally mobilized across time and space through public negotiations of meaning. The aloral case points to the role of political stance-taking and discursive negotiation of meaning as a fundamental aspect of the sloganization process. Beyond the specific case of Haiti, sloganization serves as a useful way to conceptualize the political pragmatics of interdiscursivity, as it points to a shared quality of interdiscursive texts while also highlighting the role of differential political productivity. La sortie, juste avant le Carnaval 2013 en Haiti, de la chanson << Aloral >> qui accusait l'administration du President Martelly de ne pas avoir tenu ses promesses, fit l'objet d'une vive controverse. Cette critique politique directe (un << pwen >>) est vite devenue un slogan qui s'est diffuse largement et a ete adapte a une grande variete de scenarios discursifs. Cet article analyse le processus d'entextualisation a travers lequel la critique << aloral >> est devenue un slogan (<< sloganisation >>): j'analyse le contexte social dans lequel la chanson est sortie et les reponses qu'elle a suscitees, les caracteristiques poetiques qui ont permis au texte d'etre deploye dans d'autres contextes, et les affiliations politiques auxquelles ont correspondu les usages du slogan dans differents contextes. L'analyse du fonctionnement social de la critique << aloral >> met en lumiere les facons dont des individus ont activement OEuvre a (re)configurer des relations socialesaussi bien a l'echelle des relations interpersonnelles qu'a celle de la nation haitienne. Dans un contexte d'ambiguite politique, les slogans sont parvenus a reconfigurer un public et une communaute politique. Au-dela du cas particulier d'Haiti, la sloganisation est un moyen utile de concevoir la pragmatique politique de l'interdiscursivite. Qu'elle exprime des sentiments pre-existants ou qu'elle serve a en faconner de nouveaux, la sloganisation represente un processus diffus a travers lequel des mots ou des phrases deviennent un moyen formate pour exprimer et diffuser des sentiments politiques complexes. C1 [Joersz, Alison C.] Univ Michigan, Dept Anthropol, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA. RP Joersz, AC (reprint author), Univ Michigan, Dept Anthropol, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA. EM aljoersz@umich.edu CR Agha A., 2005, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V15, P1, DOI DOI 10.1525/JLIN.2005.15.1.38 Averill Gage, 1997, DAY HUNTER DAY PREY AVERILL G, 1994, ETHNOMUSICOLOGY, V38, P217, DOI 10.2307/851739 Bauman Richard, 2005, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V15, P145, DOI 10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.145 BAUMAN R, 1990, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V19, P59, DOI 10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.000423 BRENNEIS D, 1987, MAN, V22, P499, DOI 10.2307/2802502 Brown Karen McCarthy, 2003, TRANSPARENCY CONSPIR, P233 Brown Karen McCarthy, 1989, AFRICAS OGUN OLD WOR, P65 Comhaire-Sylvain Suzanne, 1951, PRESENSE AFRICAINE, V12, P61 Faraclas Nicolas, 2005, POLITENESS FACE CARI, P45 Fischer Lawrence, 1976, AM ETHNOL, V3, P227 Gates Henry Louis, 1988, SIGNIFYING MONKEY TH Goffman E, 1981, FORMS TALK Haugerud Angelique, 2013, NO BILLIONAIRE LEFT Haugerud Angelique, 1995, CULTURE POLITICS MOD Irvine J. T., 1993, RESPONSIBILITY EVIDE, P105 Jackson J., 2013, POLITICAL ORATORY CA Kivland Chelsey, 2012, THESIS Labov William, 1972, LANGUAGE INNER CITY Lempert M., 2012, CREATURES POLITICS Lempert Michael, 2012, HDB INTERCULTURAL DI, P180 McAlister E., 2002, RARA VODOU POWER PER Mitchell-Kernan Claudia, 1972, RAPPIN STYLIN OUT CO, P315 Morgan Marcyliena, 2002, LANGUAGE DISCOURSE P Morgan Marcyliena, 1996, GRAMMAR INTERACTION, P405 Richman Karen E., 1990, FOLKLORE FORUM, V23, P115 Richman Karen E., 2005, MIGRATION AND VODOU Silverstein M, 2005, J ANTHROPOL RES, V61, P1 Silverstein Michael, 2005, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V15, P6, DOI DOI 10.1525/JLIN.2005.15.1.6 Smith JM, 2004, ETHNOMUSICOLOGY, V48, P105 Smith J. M., 2001, HANDS ARE MANY COMMU Debra Spitulnik, 1996, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V6, P161, DOI 10.1525/jlin.1996.6.2.161 Debra Spitulnik, 2003, MEDIA DEMOCRACY AFRI, P177 Squires L, 2014, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V24, P42, DOI 10.1111/jola.12036 Urban Greg, 1991, DISCOURSE CTR APPROA Wirtz K, 2011, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V21, pE11, DOI 10.1111/j.1548-1395.2011.01095.x Yelvington KA, 1996, J ROY ANTHROPOL INST, V2, P313, DOI 10.2307/3034098 NR 37 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 2 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 1055-1360 EI 1548-1395 J9 J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL JI J. Linguist. Anthropol. PD DEC PY 2015 VL 25 IS 3 BP 303 EP 321 DI 10.1111/jola.12105 PG 19 WC Anthropology; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Anthropology; Linguistics GA CY5BW UT WOS:000366423900004 ER PT J AU Hiramoto, M AF Hiramoto, Mie TI Sentence-final adverbs in Singapore English and Hong Kong English SO WORLD ENGLISHES LA English DT Article ID SUBSTRATUM TRANSFER; PARTICLES AB Available corpus data show that adverbs with modifying meanings, already, also, and only, occur at the clause-final or sentence-final position more often in Asian Englishes' (Hong Kong English and Singapore English) than British English and Canadian English. This paper posits a link between the motivation of sentence-final adverbs in Asian English and substrate transfer due to linguistic (both grammatical and pragmatic) structures of influential non-English languages in the regions. C1 [Hiramoto, Mie] Natl Univ Singapore, Fac Arts & Social Sci, Dept English Language & Literature, Singapore 117570, Singapore. RP Hiramoto, M (reprint author), Natl Univ Singapore, Fac Arts & Social Sci, Dept English Language & Literature, Blk AS5,7 Arts Link, Singapore 117570, Singapore. EM ellmh@nus.edu.sg CR Bacon-Shone John, 2008, LANGUAGE SOC HONG KO, P25 Bao Z., 2006, WORLD ENGLISH, V25, P105 Bao Zhiming, 1999, WORLD ENGLISH, V18, P1, DOI DOI 10.1111/1467-971X.00117 Bao Z.-M., 1995, WORLD ENGLISH, V14, P181 Bao ZM, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P1727, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.001 Bao ZM, 2010, LANGUAGE, V86, P792 Bao ZM, 2012, J LINGUIST, V48, P479, DOI 10.1017/S0022226712000114 Bhatt Rakesh M, 2000, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V4, P69, DOI 10.1017/S1360674300000149 Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Bolton K., 2000, WORLD ENGLISH, V19, P265, DOI 10.1111/1467-971X.00179 BOLTON KINGSLEY, 2003, CHINESE ENGLISHES Chan, 2008, LANGUAGE SOC HONG KO, P376 Gisborne Nikolas, 2011, TYPOLOGY ASIAN ENGLI, P27 Greenbaum S., 1996, WORLD ENGLISH, V15, P3, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00088.x Greenbaum S., 1988, WORLD ENGLISH, V7, P315, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.1988.tb00241.x Gupta Anthea Fraser, 1992, SOCIOLINGUISTICS TOD, P323 Gupta A. F, 1994, STEP TONGUE CHILDREN Hiramoto M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P890, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.013 Hogue Cavan, 2001, WHOS CTR NOW PRESENT, P165 Kachru Braj, 1992, OTHER TONGUE ENGLISH Kwan-Terry Anna, 1989, INTERLINGUAL PROCESS, P33 Kwok H., 1984, SENTENCE PARTICLES C Lange Claudia, 2007, ENGL WORLD-WIDE, V28, P89, DOI 10.1075/eww.28.1.05lan Lee NH, 2009, WORLD ENGLISH, V28, P293 Lee Nala Huiying, 2014, THESIS Leimgruber J, 2012, WORLD ENGLISH, V31, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2011.01743.x Ler Soon Lay Vivien, 2006, APPROACHES DISCOURSE, P149 Li C., 1981, MANDARIN CHINESE FUN Lim Lisa, 2011, TYPOLOGY ASIAN ENGLI, P1 Lim L., 2007, WORLD ENGLISH, V26, P446, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1467-971X.2007.00522.X Luke K. K., 1990, UTTERANCE PARTICLES Luke Kang-kwong, 1982, ENGL WORLD-WIDE, V3, P47, DOI 10.1075/eww.3.1.04kan Matthews S., 1994, CANTONESE COMPREHENS Matthews Stephen J., 2009, STUD LANG, V33, P366 McArthur Tom, 2003, OXFOED GUIDE WORLD E Mufwene S. S., 2001, ECOLOGY LANGUAGE EVO Nelson Gerald, 2012, INT CORPUS ENGLISH Nelson Gerald, 2002, EXPLORING NATURAL LA Parviainen H, 2012, WORLD ENGLISH, V31, P226, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2012.01752.x Platt J., 1983, SINGAPORE MALAYSIA, VT4 Platt John, 1980, ENGLISH SINGAPORE MA Rai Rajesh, 2008, TRACING INDIAN DIASP, P29 Richards Jack C., 1977, ENGLISH LANGUAGE SIN, P141 Rogers Chandrika, 2003, REGISTER VARIATION I Schneider EW, 2003, LANGUAGE, V79, P233, DOI 10.1353/lan.2003.0136 Sharma Devyani, 2003, NOMINALS INSIDE OUT, P59 Sharma Devyani, 2011, TYPOLOGY ASIAN ENGLI, P49 Siegel J, 2008, EMERGENCE PIDGIN CRE Siegel J, 2003, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V25, P185, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263103000093 Siegel J, 2012, J LINGUIST, V48, P473, DOI 10.1017/S0022226712000060 Singapore Department of Statistics, 2011, CENS POP 2010 STAT R Soh Hooi Ling, 2011, INT S MAL IND LING I Soh Hooi Ling, 2012, AUSTR FORM LING ASS Sohn Ho-Min, 1983, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V9, P93 Speak Good English Movement, 2011, IMPR YOUR ENGL ASS T Wong J, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P739, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00070-5 NR 56 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0883-2919 EI 1467-971X J9 WORLD ENGLISH JI World Englishes PD DEC PY 2015 VL 34 IS 4 BP 636 EP 653 DI 10.1111/weng.12157 PG 18 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CX1BA UT WOS:000365430000007 ER PT J AU Tyler, JC AF Tyler, Joseph C. TI Expanding and Mapping the Indexical Field: Rising Pitch, the Uptalk Stereotype, and Perceptual Variation SO JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE intonation; uptalk; indexicality; indexical field; perception; HRT; matched guise ID AUSTRALIAN ENGLISH; INTONATION AB While rising terminal pitch on declarative syntax (uptalk) has received a fair amount of attention in scholarly and popular media, relatively little work has focused specifically on perceptions of uptalk. And among perceptual work, no study has systematically asked listeners to provide their own meanings for uptalk. Study 1 was designed to fill this gap, where listeners were presented with two cases of stereotypical uptalk and asked to answer questions about its meaning. Two follow-up studies analyzed variability in the perception of meanings supplied in Study 1. Study 2 used a matched guise design to compare perceptions of nonstereotypical uptalk and synthetically manipulated falling versions of the same tokens, finding that rises were perceived as less finished, happier, and clearer. Study 3 elicited perceptions of the stereotypical uptalk samples from Study 1, showing perceptions of youth' and California' and low agreement with meanings like finished' and intelligent.' In both studies, correlation analyses reveal relationships among the meanings for uptalk, for example, the relative independence of perceptions of finished.' These results are theorized in the context of Eckert's indexical field and Silverstein's indexical orders, and I argue that indexical fields need to incorporate semantic and pragmatic meanings to more fully capture the meaning of a linguistic feature. Moreover, correlation analyses can help map the indexical field, identifying which meanings cluster together and which ones are more independent. C1 [Tyler, Joseph C.] Morehead State Univ, Morehead, KY 40351 USA. RP Tyler, JC (reprint author), Morehead State Univ, Dept English, Bert Combs Bldg 103, Morehead, KY 40351 USA. EM josephctyler@gmail.com FU Institutional Development Award (IDeA) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [5P20GM103436-13]; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health [R15HD072713] FX The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was partially supported by an Institutional Development Award (IDeA) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under grant number 5P20GM103436-13 and by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R15HD072713. CR Acton EK, 2014, J SOCIOLING, V18, P3, DOI 10.1111/josl.12062 Alan Cruttenden, 1997, INTONATION Amazon Mechanical Turk, 2015, AM MECH TURK ART ART Amanda Ritchart, 2013, USE HIGH RISE TERMIN McLemore Cynthia Ann, 1991, PRAGMATIC INTERPRETA Paul Boersma, 2015, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC Newman John David, 1992, J INT PHON ASSOC, V22, P1 Britain David, 1992, LANG VAR CHANGE, V4, P77, DOI 10.1017/S0954394500000661 Campbell-Kibler K, 2009, LANG VAR CHANGE, V21, P135, DOI 10.1017/S0954394509000052 Carlson K, 2001, J MEM LANG, V45, P58, DOI 10.1006/jmla.2000.2762 Richard Cauldwell, 1996, ELT J, V50, P327, DOI 10.1093/elt/50.4.327 CHING MKL, 1982, AM SPEECH, V57, P95, DOI 10.2307/454443 Hank Davis, 2010, PSYCHOL TODAY Douglas B, 2013, LME4 LINEAR MIXED EF Eckert P, 2008, J SOCIOLING, V12, P453, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x Elinor Ochs, 1992, RETHINKING CONTEXT L, P335 Fletcher J, 2002, LANG SPEECH, V45, P229 George Lakoff, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Gibson E., 2011, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V5, P509, DOI [DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2011.00295.X, DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2011] Di Jessop Lorena Crook Gioacchino Martina, 2010, TORONTO WORKING PAPE, V33, P1 James Gorman, 1993, NY TIMES Gunlogson C., 2008, BELGIAN J LINGUISTIC, V22, P101 GUY G, 1986, LANG SOC, V15, P23 Gregory Guy, 1984, AUSTR J LINGUISTICS, V4, P1, DOI 10.1080/07268608408599317 Jason Horowitz, 2006, NEW YORK OBSERVER IMDb, 2015, BLAIR FOWL BIOGR Jacob C., 1988, STAT POWER ANAL BEHA Jaeger TF, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P434, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 Janet Fletcher, 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH, P390 Du Bois John W., 2000, SANTA BARBABA CORP 1 Joseph Tyler, 2014, U PENNSYLVANIA WORKI, V20, P1 Joseph Tyler, 2014, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V51, P656 Julia Hirschberg, 2008, HDB PRAGMATICS, P515 Silverman Kim E. A., 1992, 2 INT C SPOK LANG PR Linneman Thomas J, 2012, GENDER SOC, V27, P82 Marcus Woo, 2013, NATL GEOGRAPHIC Marie Nilsenova, 2006, STUDIES SEMANTICS PR MCCONNELLGINET S, 1978, SIGNS, V3, P541, DOI 10.1086/493501 McLain DL, 2009, PSYCHOL REP, V105, P975, DOI 10.2466/PR0.105.3.975-988 Michael Silverstein, 2003, LANG COMMUN, V23, P193, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2 Moore E, 2009, LANG SOC, V38, P447, DOI 10.1017/S0047404509990224 Benjamin Munson, 2010, LAB PHONOLOGY, V1, P157, DOI DOI 10.1515/LABPHON.2010.008 John Oliver P., 2008, HDB PERSONALITY THEO, P114 Paolacci G, 2010, JUDGM DECIS MAK, V5, P411 Paul Warren, 2000, NZ ENGLISH, P146 Penelope Brown, 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Penelope Eckert, 2015, VOWEL SHIFTS NO CALI Janet Pierrehumbert, 1990, INTENTIONS COMMUNICA, P271 Pierre Bourdieu, 1991, LANGUAGE SYMBOLIC PO Podesva RJ, 2011, J ENGL LINGUIST, V39, P233, DOI 10.1177/0075424211405161 PRICE PJ, 1991, J ACOUST SOC AM, V90, P2956, DOI 10.1121/1.401770 Quene H, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P413, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.002 Douglas Quenqua, 2012, NY TIMES, pD1 R Development Core Team, 2013, R LANG ENV STAT COMP Amanda Ritchart, 2014, HUFFINGTON POST Robert Ladd D., 2008, INTONATIONAL PHONOLO Robert Podesva, 2008, SALSA 15 2007, P134 Smith E., 2010, LAB PHONOL, V1, P121, DOI [10.1515/labphon.2010.007, DOI 10.1515/LABPHON.2010.007] Sprouse J, 2012, J LINGUIST, V48, P609, DOI 10.1017/S0022226712000011 Sprouse J, 2011, BEHAV RES METHODS, V43, P155, DOI 10.3758/s13428-010-0039-7 Vanessa Shokeir, 2008, U PENNSYLVANIA WORKI, V36, P16 Warren Paul, 2005, LANG VAR CHANGE, V17, P209 NR 62 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 3 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC PI THOUSAND OAKS PA 2455 TELLER RD, THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91320 USA SN 0075-4242 EI 1552-5457 J9 J ENGL LINGUIST JI J. Engl. Linguist. PD DEC PY 2015 VL 43 IS 4 BP 284 EP 310 DI 10.1177/0075424215607061 PG 27 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CW8MN UT WOS:000365253900002 ER PT J AU Gartner, HM AF Gaertner, Hans-Martin TI On infinitivals hosting logophors: The case of Icelandic SO NORDIC JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE Icelandic; infinitival clauses; logophors; reflexives; subjunctives AB This squib provides counterexamples to the claim that Icelandic reflexive sig cannot be construed logophorically if immediately contained inside an infinitival clause. Consequences for Eric Reuland's views on the division of labor between grammar and pragmatics are discussed. C1 [Gaertner, Hans-Martin] Hungarian Acad Sci, Res Inst Linguist, H-1068 Budapest, Hungary. RP Gartner, HM (reprint author), Hungarian Acad Sci, Res Inst Linguist, Benczur Utca 33, H-1068 Budapest, Hungary. EM gaertner@nytud.hu CR von Stechow Arnim, 2004, SYNTAX SEMANTICS LEF, P431, DOI [10.1515/9783110912111, DOI 10.1515/9783110912111] David Restle, 2006, THESIS LMU MUNCHEN Eric Reuland, 2006, BLACKWELL COMPANION, V2, P544, DOI [10.1002/9780470996591, DOI 10.1002/9780470996591] Eric Reuland, 2011, ANAPHORA LANGUAGE DE Eric Reuland, 1997, ATOMISM AND BINDING, P323 Halldor Sigurosson, 2011, MOOD LANGUAGES EUROP, P33 Hans-Martin Gartner, 2009, NORMS WORKSH REL REF Hoskuldur Thrainsson, 2007, SYNTAX ICELANDIC KOOPMAN H, 1989, LINGUIST INQ, V20, P555 Paul Portner, 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, P1262 Philippe Schlenker, 1999, THESIS Quer Josep, 2006, BLACKWELL COMPANION, V4, P660, DOI DOI 10.1002/9780470996591 Reuland E, 2001, LINGUIST INQ, V32, P439, DOI 10.1162/002438901750372522 Schlenker P, 2004, MIND LANG, V19, P279, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2004.00259.x Schlenker P, 2003, LINGUIST PHILOS, V26, P29, DOI 10.1023/A:1022225203544 Schlenker P., 2005, ROMANCE LANGUAGES LI, P269, DOI DOI 10.1075/CILT.270 Sigurosson H., 2004, RIV LINGUISTICA, V16, P219 Strahan Tania, 2011, NORDLYD, V37, P151 Diekhoff Tobias J. C, 1911, SCH REV, V19, P624, DOI [10.1086/435826, DOI 10.1086/435826] Whelpton Matthew, 2002, NAT LANG SEMANT, V10, P167, DOI 10.1023/A:1022107429786 NR 20 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI CAMBRIDGE PA EDINBURGH BLDG, SHAFTESBURY RD, CB2 8RU CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND SN 0332-5865 EI 1502-4717 J9 NORD J LINGUIST JI Nord. J. Linguist. PD DEC PY 2015 VL 38 IS 3 BP 365 EP 370 DI 10.1017/S0332586515000244 PG 6 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CW9PI UT WOS:000365330300004 ER PT J AU Lantto, H AF Lantto, Hanna TI Conventionalized code-switching: Entrenched semantic-pragmatic patterns of a bilingual Basque-Spanish speech style SO International Journal of Bilingualism LA English DT Article DE Code-switching; conventionalization; Basque; patterns; community AB Aims and objectives: This article examines a grey area on the code-switching-borrowing continuum in a Basque-Spanish language contact situation. It is argued that the notion of conventionalized code-switching is needed to explain the clear semantic-pragmatic patterns that emerge under these specific sociolinguistic circumstances. A key aspect of conventionalized code-switching is its predictability: items that pertain to certain semantic-pragmatic categories are switched as default. Approach: The approach follows the principles of usage-based grammar: cognitive organization of linguistic material can be deduced from the usage. Conventionalized code-switching informs us about the bilingual informants' mental representation of the contact varieties. Data and analysis: Two types of data were examined for this research: (1) 22 hours of naturally occurring speech data with 22 informants from the Greater Bilbao area, and (2) eight hours of metalinguistic conversations about code-switching with 33 informants. Findings and conclusions: The informants seem to use Spanish pragmatic markers, swear words and colloquialisms throughout the data as default expressions for these semantic-pragmatic domains. Their Basque equivalents are almost absent from the data. Even though frequently used, the conventionalized expressions still retain their Spanishness and have not become established borrowings for the informants. Originality: The discussion about code-switching and borrowing has concerned mainly single items. In this article, the focus is on patterns. The paper also connects the study of synchronic code-switching with loanword layers studied in historical contact linguistics. Significance: The article paints a comprehensive picture of ongoing lexical language change. Yet, conventionalized code-switching is fundamentally a synchronic phenomenon and does not always turn into diachronic establishment of these elements. Limitations: The code-switching of aforementioned semantic-pragmatic categories has been conventionalized in the bilingual community, but there is great variation of entrenched items in the individual repertoires. This individual variation is worth further study. C1 Univ Helsinki, Dept Modern Languages, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland. RP Lantto, H (reprint author), Univ Helsinki, Dept Modern Languages, POB 2400014,Unioninkatu 40 B, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland. EM hanna.lantto@helsinki.fi CR Aaron J., INT J BILINGUALISM Aikhenvald Alexandra Y., 2002, LANGUAGE CONTACT AMA Andersson L.-G., 1990, BAD LANGUAGE Auer P, 2007, PALGRAVE ADV, P319 Backus AD, 2003, LINGUISTICS, V41, P83, DOI 10.1515/ling.2003.005 Basque Government, 2011, 5 ENC SOC Basque Government, 2006, 4 MAP SOC Blommaert J., 2011, WORKING PAPERS URBAN, V67 Bybee J., 2009, OXFORD HDB LINGUISTI, P827 de Rooij Vincent A., 2000, INT J BILINGUAL, V4, P447, DOI DOI 10.1177/13670069000040040401 Dewaele J-M., 2004, ESTUDIOS SOCIOLINGUI, V5, P83 DISCIULLO AM, 1986, J LINGUIST, V22, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700010537 Esnaola I., 1999, IKERKUNTZA KOADERNOA, V1 Gardner-Chloros P., 1987, DEVENIR BILINGUE PAR, P99 Halmari H., 1997, STUDIES BILINGUALISM, V12 Heller M, 2007, PALGRAVE ADV, P1 Jorgensen AM, 2009, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V184, P95 Jorgensen J. N., 2011, DIVERSITIES, V13, P23 Ljung M, 2011, SWEARING: A CROSS-CULTURAL LINGUISTIC STUDY, P1 Maschler Y., 2000, INT J BILINGUAL, V4, P529 Maschler Y., 2000, SPECIAL ISSUE INT J, V4, P437 Matras Yaron, 2009, LANGUAGE CONTACT Matras Yaron, 2000, INT J BILINGUAL, V4, P505 MUYSKEN Pieter, 2000, BILINGUAL SPEECH TYP Myers-Scotton C., 1997, DUELLING LANGUAGES G PFAFF CW, 1979, LANGUAGE, V55, P291, DOI 10.2307/412586 Poplack S., 1998, INT J BILINGUAL, V2, P127 Poplack Shana, 2000, BILINGUALISM READER, P221 Rajagoplan K., 2001, CAUCE, V24, P17 Romaine S., 1995, BILINGUALISM Treffers-Daller J, 2009, CAMB HB LANG LINGUIS, P58 Urla Jacqueline, 2012, RECLAIMING BASQUE LA NR 32 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 6 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 1367-0069 EI 1756-6878 J9 INT J BILINGUAL JI Int. J. Biling. PD DEC PY 2015 VL 19 IS 6 BP 753 EP 768 DI 10.1177/1367006914552830 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CV6WP UT WOS:000364412800008 ER PT J AU Ryan, J AF Ryan, Jonathon TI Overexplicit Referent Tracking in L2 English: Strategy, Avoidance, or Myth? SO LANGUAGE LEARNING LA English DT Article DE referent tracking; overexplicitness; Accessibility Theory; L2 pragmatics; developmental pragmatics; noun phrases ID NARRATIVE DISCOURSE; SUBJECT-PROMINENCE; 2ND-LANGUAGE; LEARNERS; CONVERSATION; ANAPHORA; GESTURES; CHINESE AB The tendency of intermediate and advanced second language speakers to underuse pronouns and zero anaphora has been characterized as a developmental stage of overexplicitness, yet little consideration has been given to whether learners create sufficient contexts for their use. This study analyzed references across eight degrees of accessibility, revealing that this did not account for infrequent pronoun use by Chinese learners of English. Further analysis revealed that participants were seldom overexplicit when referring to highly accessible individuals, particularly those that represented continued topics, but were significantly more likely than native speakers to use lexical noun phrases elsewhere, particularly for main characters. This is discussed in relation to a possible role of overexplicitness as a clarity-based communication strategy. C1 [Ryan, Jonathon] Waikato Inst Technol, Hamilton 3206, New Zealand. RP Ryan, J (reprint author), Waikato Inst Technol, Ctr Languages, Waikato Mail Ctr, Tristram St Private Bag 3036, Hamilton 3206, New Zealand. EM jonathon.ryan@wintec.ac.nz OI Ryan, Jonathon/0000-0003-0980-6900 FU University of Waikato FASS Postdoctoral Stipendiary Writing Award FX The writing of this paper was supported by a University of Waikato FASS Postdoctoral Stipendiary Writing Award and benefited greatly from the guidance of Roger Barnard. I would like to warmly thank the editor, associate editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and highly constructive feedback on earlier versions of this paper. My thanks also go to Ian Bruce for his help at an earlier stage of the project and to all of the participants, who were so generous with their time. The elicitation instruments used for this study can be accessed by readers in the IRIS digital repository (http://www.iris-database.org). CR Ahrenholz B., 2005, STRUCTURE LEARNER VA, P19 Ariel M, 2004, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V37, P91, DOI 10.1207/s15326950dp3702_2 Ariel M., 2001, TEXT REPRESENTATION, P29, DOI DOI 10.1075/HCP.8.04ARI Ariel M, 1999, STUD LANG, V23, P217, DOI 10.1075/sl.23.2.02ari Ariel Mira, 1990, ACCESSING NOUN PHRAS Arnold J. E., 2010, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V4, P187, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2010.00193.X Arnold JE, 2008, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V23, P495, DOI 10.1080/01690960801920099 AUER JCP, 1984, J PRAGMATICS, V8, P627, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(84)90003-1 Beaver DI, 2004, LINGUIST PHILOS, V27, P3, DOI 10.1023/B:LING.0000010796.76522.7a Bernstein B., 1971, CLASS CODES CONTROL, V1 Blum-Kulka Shoshana, 1986, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V8, P165, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100006069 Brennan Susan, 1987, P 25 ANN M ASS COMP, P155, DOI DOI 10.3115/981175 Bublitz W, 1999, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V63, P153 Carroll M., 2003, TYPOLOGY 2 LANGUAGE, P365 Chini M., 2005, STRUCTURE LEARNER VA, P65 Clancy P. M., 1980, PEAR STORIES COGNITI, P127 Cloitre M., 1988, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V3, P293, DOI 10.1080/01690968808402092 Crosthwaite P., 2014, THESIS U CAMBRIDGE U Edmondson W., 1991, FOREIGN 2 LANGUAGE P, P273 Dahl o., 1996, REFERENCE REFERENT A, P47 Geluykens Ronald, 1994, PRAGMATICS DISCOURSE Givon Talmy, 1983, TOPIC CONTINUITY DIS Goodman B. A., 1986, Computational Linguistics, V12 GROSZ BJ, 1995, COMPUT LINGUIST, V21, P203 Gullberg M., 2003, INFORM STRUCTURE LIN, P311 Gullberg M, 2006, LANG LEARN, V56, P155, DOI 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00344.x Gullberg M, 2008, ESL APPL LING PROF, P185 Gundel J. K., 1993, LANGUAGE, V69, P247 Hawkins P. R., 1973, CLASS CODES CONTROL, V2, P81 Hayes A. F., 2007, COMMUNICATION METHOD, V1, P77, DOI DOI 10.1080/19312450709336664 Hendriks H., 2003, TYPOLOGY 2 LANGUAGE, P291 Hickmann M, 1999, J CHILD LANG, V26, P419, DOI 10.1017/S0305000999003785 Huang Y., 2000, ANAPHORA CROSS LINGU Huddleston Rodney, 2002, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Jarvis S., 2002, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V24, P387, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263102003029 JIN HG, 1994, LANG LEARN, V44, P101 Joshi A., 2006, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, V1, P223 Jung EH, 2004, LANG LEARN, V54, P713 Kang JY, 2009, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V46, P439, DOI 10.1080/01638530902959638 Kang JY, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P1975, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.007 Karmiloff-Smith A., 1985, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V1, P61, DOI 10.1080/01690968508402071 Kim Hae-Young, 2000, THESIS U HAWAII MANO Klein Wolfgang, 1992, UTTERANCE STRUCTURE Lang Y., 2010, GRAMMAR AND THE CHIN Leclercq P., 2013, DISCOURS REV LINGUIS, V12, P3, DOI [10.4000/discours.8801, DOI 10.4000/DISCOURS.8801] Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Levinson SC, 2007, LANG CULT COGN, P29 Li C., 1981, MANDARIN CHINESE FUN Lumley J. R., 2013, THESIS NEWCASTLE U N Lyons Cristopher, 1999, DEFINITENESS Miltsakaki E, 2003, THESIS U PENNSYLVANI Mitkov R., 2002, ANAPHORA RESOLUTION MORROW DG, 1985, J MEM LANG, V24, P304, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(85)90030-0 Munoz C., 1995, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V17, P517, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014431 Nakahama Y., 2007, STUDIES LANGUAGE SCI, V6, P179 Nakahama Y., 2003, STUDIES LANGUAGE CUL, V25, P127 Nakahama Y, 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P241, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00859.x Neuendorf K. A., 2002, CONTENT ANAL GUIDEBO Perdue C, 1984, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI Reinhart T., 1981, PHILOSOPHICA, V27, P53 Ryan J, 2015, INTRO REFERENT UNPUB Ryan J, 2012, THESIS U WAIKATO HAM Sacks H, 2007, LANG CULT COGN, P23 Salaberry MR, 1999, APPL LINGUIST, V20, P151, DOI 10.1093/applin/20.2.151 SCHEGLOFF EA, 1977, LANGUAGE, V53, P361, DOI 10.2307/413107 Swierzbin B, 2004, THESIS U MINNESOTA M Tao Liang, 1996, STUDIES ANAPHORA, P487 Tarone E., 1987, DISCOURSE CULTURES S, P49 Tomlin R. S., 1990, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V12, P155, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100009062 Toole J., 1996, REFERENCE REFERENT A, P263 Tzanne A., 2000, TALKING CROSS PURPOS Williams J., 1988, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V10, P339, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100007488 Yanagimachi T., 2000, JAPANESE LANGUAGE ED, V10, P109 Yoshioka K, 2008, GESTURE, V8, P236, DOI 10.1075/gest.8.2.07yos NR 74 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 3 U2 7 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0023-8333 EI 1467-9922 J9 LANG LEARN JI Lang. Learn. PD DEC PY 2015 VL 65 IS 4 BP 824 EP 859 DI 10.1111/lang.12139 PG 36 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CU9NH UT WOS:000363870700003 ER PT J AU Leonard, LB AF Leonard, Laurence B. TI Time-related grammatical use by children with SLI across languages: Beyond tense SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY LA English DT Article DE Specific language impairment; aspect; modal verbs; temporal adverbs ID CANTONESE-SPEAKING CHILDREN; VERB MORPHOLOGY; IMPAIRED CHILDREN; ENGLISH-SPEAKING; ACQUISITION; GERMAN; INFINITIVES AB Purpose. For years, investigators have studied the use of tense by children with specific language impairment (SLI). This review article provides a summary of research on the use of other time-related grammatical forms by these children.Method. The literature on children's use of grammatical and lexical aspect, modal verbs and temporal adverbs is reviewed. Findings from children with SLI acquiring a range of different languages are considered.Result. Grammatical aspect and lexical aspect appear to be special weaknesses in children with SLI and problems with lexical aspect may also have an adverse effect on these children's ability to use past tense morphology. Although children with SLI are below age level in their use of modal verbs and temporal adverbs, the available evidence suggests that these weaknesses are no greater than these children's more general limitations with language.Conclusion. The evidence thus far indicates that time-related notions further on the morphosyntactic end of the language continuum (aspect) are more problematic for these children than those time-related notions (modals, temporal adverbs) that include a pragmatic and/or semantic component. In some languages, aspect may prove to be a useful clinical marker of this disorder. C1 [Leonard, Laurence B.] Purdue Univ, Speech, Language & Hearing Sci, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA. RP Leonard, LB (reprint author), Purdue Univ, Speech, Lang Hrg Sci, 715 Clin Dr,Lyles Porter Hall, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA. EM xdxl@purdue.edu CR Abdalla F, 2008, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V29, P315, DOI 10.1017/S0142716408080156 Blom E, 2008, STUD GENERAT GRAMM, V94, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110211436 Blom E, 2014, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V57, P952, DOI 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-13-0104 Bol G., 1992, SCANDINAVIAN J LOGOP, V17, P17 Bybee J., 1985, MORPHOLOGY STUDY REL Vang Christensen R., 2012, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V55, P1671 Comrie B., 1976, ASPECT Conti-Ramsden G, 2001, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V42, P741, DOI 10.1111/1469-7610.00770 de Jong J, 1999, GRONINGEN DISSERTATI, V28 de Jong J., 2013, DUMMY AUXILIARIES 1, P251 Fletcher P, 2005, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V48, P621, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/043) Hansson K, 2000, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V43, P848 Hoekstra T, 1998, LINGUA, V106, P81, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00030-8 Hoover JR, 2012, J CHILD LANG, V39, P835, DOI 10.1017/S0305000911000365 Ingram D, 2002, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V45, P559, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/044) Ingram D, 1996, LANGUAGE, V72, P97, DOI 10.2307/416795 KELLY DJ, 1994, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V37, P182 Krantz LR, 2007, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V50, P137, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/012) Kunnari S, 2011, J CHILD LANG, V38, P999, DOI 10.1017/S0305000910000528 Leonard L. B., 1992, LANG ACQUIS, V2, P151, DOI 10.1207/s15327817la0202_2 Leonard LB, 2007, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V42, P209, DOI 10.1080/13682820600624240 Leonard LB, 2012, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V33, P305, DOI 10.1017/S0142716411000361 Leonard LB, 2010, J CHILD LANG, V37, P395, DOI 10.1017/S0305000909990018 Leonard Laurence B, 2004, Lang Acquis, V12, P219, DOI 10.1207/s15327817la1203&4_3 Leonard LB, 2007, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V50, P759, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/053) Leonard LB, 2003, J CHILD LANG, V30, P769, DOI 10.1017/S0305000903005816 Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, 1994, LSHK CANT ROM SCH Lukacs A, 2009, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V52, P98, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0183) MOORE ME, 1993, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V14, P515, DOI 10.1017/S0142716400010729 Oetting JB, 1997, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V40, P62 Ott S, 2013, J CHILD LANG, V40, P169, DOI 10.1017/S030500091200027X Owen AJ, 2011, J CHILD LANG, V38, P675, DOI 10.1017/S0305000910000279 Paradis J, 2000, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V43, P834 PARADIS J, 2001, LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, V0009 Penner Z, 2003, LINGUISTICS, V41, P289, DOI 10.1515/ling.2003.010 Radford Andrew, 1997, SYNTACTIC THEORY STR Rice ML, 2003, LANGUAGE COMPETENCE ACROSS POPULATIONS, P63 Rice ML, 1996, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V39, P1239 Schulz P, 2003, PROC ANN BUCLD, P727 Schulz P, 2001, BRAIN LANG, V77, P407, DOI 10.1006/brln.2000.2411 Shirai Y, 1995, LANGUAGE, V71, P743, DOI 10.2307/415743 Smith Carlota S., 1997, PARAMETER ASPECT Stokes S, 2003, LINGUISTICS, V41, P381, DOI 10.1515/ling.2003.013 Stokes SF, 2000, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V35, P527 NR 44 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 5 PU TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXON, ENGLAND SN 1754-9507 EI 1754-9515 J9 INT J SPEECH-LANG PA JI Int. J. Speech-Lang. Pathol. PD NOV 2 PY 2015 VL 17 IS 6 BP 545 EP 555 DI 10.3109/17549507.2015.1016111 PG 11 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA CX3PJ UT WOS:000365611000003 ER PT J AU Botha, A Herselman, M AF Botha, Adele Herselman, Marlien TI A Teacher Tablet Toolkit to meet the challenges posed by 21st century rural teaching and learning environments SO SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE classroom practice; gamification; mobile learning; teacher professional development; technology integration; toolkit ID DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH; PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE; INFORMATION-SYSTEMS RESEARCH; PROFESSIONAL-DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION; HEALTH-CARE; ACQUISITION AB This article draws upon the experiences gained in participating in an Information and Communication Technology for Rural Education (ICT4RED) initiative, as part of a larger Technology for Rural Education project (TECH4RED) in Cofimvaba in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. The aim of this paper is to describe the conceptualisation, design and application of an innovative teacher professional development course for rural teachers, enabling them to use tablets to support teaching and learning in their classrooms. The course, as outcome, is presented as a Teacher Tablet Toolkit, designed to meet the challenges inherent to the 21st century rural technology enhanced teaching and learning environment. The paper documents and motivates design decisions, derived from literature and adapted through three iterations of a Design Science Research Process, to be incorporated in the ICT4RED Teacher Professional Development Course. The resulting course aims to equip participating teachers with a toolkit consisting of technology hardware, pragmatic pedagogical and technology knowledge and skills, and practice based experience. The significance of game design elements such as simulation and fun, technology in need rather than in case, adequate scaffolding and a clear learning path with interim learning goals are noted. C1 [Botha, Adele] Univ S Africa, CSIR Meraka Inst, ZA-0001 Pretoria, South Africa. Univ S Africa, Sch Comp, ZA-0001 Pretoria, South Africa. RP Botha, A (reprint author), Univ S Africa, CSIR Meraka Inst, ZA-0001 Pretoria, South Africa. EM abotha@csir.co.za FU Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR); Department of Basic Education (DBE); CSIR; Eastern Cape Provincial Department of Education, the ICT4RED core team FX This work acknowledges the TECH4RED Initiative, and more specifically the ICT4RED component, which was initiated by the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and supported by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR), the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and the CSIR. The wonderful people in the Nciba district of Cofimvaba in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa and the support provided by the Eastern Cape Provincial Department of Education, the ICT4RED core team, other outsourced companies and universities are also acknowledged. CR Abell SK, 2008, INT J SCI EDUC, V30, P1405, DOI 10.1080/09500690802187041 Al-Awidi HM, 2012, ETR&D-EDUC TECH RES, V60, P923, DOI 10.1007/s11423-012-9239-4 Aldunate R, 2013, COMPUT HUM BEHAV, V29, P519, DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.017 BANDURA A, 1965, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V1, P589, DOI 10.1037/h0022070 Bate P, 2004, MILLION CHANGE AGENT Bauer J., 2005, J TECHNOLOGY TEACHER, V13, P519 Bobrowsky W., 2001, ANN M NAT ASS RES SC Botha A, 2014, LEARNING BRIEFS TEAC Botha A, 2014, ICT4RED TEACHER PROF Botha A, 2014, P 2 INT C ADV COMP C, DOI 10.15224/978-1-63248-051-4-138 Botha A, 2014, IST AFR C P MER IL M, DOI [10.1109/ISTAFRICA.2014.6880651, DOI 10.1109/ISTAFRICA.2014.6880651] Bower Matt, 2008, Educational Media International, V45, P3, DOI 10.1080/09523980701847115 Buabeng-Andoh C., 2012, INT J ED DEV USING I, V8, P136 Carney JM, 1998, J COMPUTING TEACHER, V15, P7, DOI [10.1080/1042454.1998.10784355, DOI 10.1080/10402454.1998.10784355] Corcoran MA, 2003, PRACTICAL SKILLS TRA Costello B., 2007, P 2007 C DES PLEAS P, P76, DOI 10.1145/1314161.1314168 COX M., 1999, BRIT ED RES ASS ANN Department of Basic Education, 2011, INTR CAPS GRAD R 3 G Department of Education, 1997, FDN PHAS GRAD R 3 PO Deterding S., 2011, P 15 INT AC MINDTREK, P9, DOI DOI 10.1145/2181037.2181040 Dobozy Eva, 2013, Educational Media International, V50, P63, DOI 10.1080/09523987.2013.777181 Drent M, 2008, COMPUT EDUC, V51, P187, DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.001 Fisher D, 2013, BETTER LEARNING STRU Fishman BJ, 2001, DESIGN RES PROFESSIO Fishman BJ, 2003, TEACH TEACH EDUC, V19, P643, DOI 10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00059-3 Forrest G, 2009, NEW TECHNOLOGIES NEW Fullan M, 2007, NEW MEANING ED CHANG Gadamer H. G., 1998, PRAISE THEORY SPEECH Glover I, 2013, P EDMEDIA WORLD C ED Gregor S, 2013, MIS QUART, V37, P337 Grossman P. L., 1990, MAKING TEACHER TEACH Guzman A, 2009, J COMPUT ASSIST LEAR, V25, P453, DOI [10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00322.X, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00322.x] Harland J., 1997, J IN SERVICE ED, V23, P71, DOI 10.1080/13674589700200005 Hedberg John, 2011, Educational Media International, V48, P1, DOI 10.1080/09523987.2011.549673 Herrington A, 2009, NEW TECHNOLOGIES NEW Herselman M, 2014, DESIGNING IMPLEMENTI Hevner AR, 2004, MIS QUART, V28, P75 Hevner A. R., 2007, SCANDINAVIAN J INFOR, V19, P4 Hew KF, 2007, ETR&D-EDUC TECH RES, V55, P223, DOI 10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5 Hill LG, 2007, PREV SCI, V8, P25, DOI 10.1007/s11121-006-0051-4 Huotari K., 2012, P 16 INT AC MINDTREK Keengwe J, 2008, J SCI EDUC TECHNOL, V17, P560, DOI 10.1007/s10956-008-9123-5 Kervin L, 2009, NEW TECHNOLOGIES NEW Kinder K, 1991, IMPACT INSET CASE PR Koehler M., 2008, HDB TECHNOLOGICAL PE Koehler Matthew J, 2009, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, V9, P60 Lankshear C, 2006, NRE LITERACIES CHANG Lawless KA, 2007, REV EDUC RES, V77, P575, DOI 10.3102/0034654307309921 Loughran J, 1997, J EDUC TEACHING, V23, P159, DOI 10.1080/02607479720105 Magnusson S., 1999, EXAMINING PEDAGOGICA Malinowsky C, 2014, SCAND J OCCUP THER, V21, P199, DOI 10.3109/11038128.2013.847119 Marache-Francisco C, 2014, EMERGING RES TRENDS March ST, 2008, MIS QUART, V32, P725 Microsoft Partners in Learning, 21 CLD LEARNING ACTI Mishra P, 2006, TEACH COLL REC, V108, P1017, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x Mueller J, 2008, COMPUT EDUC, V51, P1523, DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.003 Mumtaz S., 2000, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, V9, P319 Olney IW, 2009, NEW TECHNOLOGIES NEW Pearson P. D, 1983, CONTEMP EDUC PSYCHOL, V8, P112 Peffers K, 2007, J MANAGE INFORM SYST, V24, P45, DOI 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302 Costa F. A., 2007, ED SCI J, V3, P75 Piaget J., 1952, ORIGINS INTELLIGENCE Pirkkalainen H, 2015, VANGUARD DESIGN SCI Radaelli G, 2014, CREAT INNOV MANAG, V23, P400, DOI 10.1111/caim.12084 Shaffer N, 2008, GAME USABILITY ADVIC Shulman L. S., 1986, EDUC RES, V15, P4, DOI DOI 10.3102/0013189X015002004 Smolin L., 2007, INFORM COMMUNICATION Stott A., 2013, ANAL GAMIFICATION ED Vannatta R. A., 2004, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, V36, P253 Vrasidas C, 2004, ONLINE PROFESSIONAL Vrasidas C, 2015, BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL, V46, P370, DOI 10.1111/bjet.12149 Vygotsky L, 1978, MIND SOC DEV HIGHER Vygotsky L., 1962, THOUGHT LANGUAGE Wang J, 2014, ADV RES TEACHING, V20 Wilson SM, 1999, REV RES EDUC, V24, P173 WOOD D, 1976, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V17, P89, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x Woodrow J. E. J., 1992, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, V25, P200 Yeung AS, 2012, BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL, V43, P859, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01253.x Youngman M, 1998, MULTIMEDIA PORTABLES NR 79 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 10 U2 16 PU EDUCATION ASSOC SOUTH AFRICA PI SILVER LAKES PA SCIENCE AFRICA, PO BOX 11890, SILVER LAKES, 0054, SOUTH AFRICA SN 0256-0100 EI 2076-3433 J9 S AFR J EDUC JI S. Afr. J. Educ. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 35 IS 4 AR 1218 PG 19 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA DC7GB UT WOS:000369386400007 ER PT J AU Ellawadi, AB Weismer, SE AF Ellawadi, Allison Bean Weismer, Susan Ellis TI Using Spoken Language Benchmarks to Characterize the Expressive Language Skills of Young Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders SO AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY LA English DT Article ID COMMUNICATIVE DEVELOPMENT INVENTORY; FOLLOW-UP; REPETITIVE BEHAVIORS; PRESCHOOL-CHILDREN; DIAGNOSTIC INTERVIEW; JOINT ATTENTION; 1ST WORDS; 2ND YEAR; TODDLERS; ASD AB Purpose: Spoken language benchmarks proposed by Tager-Flusberg et al. (2009) were used to characterize communication profiles of toddlers with autism spectrum disorders and to investigate if there were differences in variables hypothesized to influence language development at different benchmark levels. Method: The communication abilities of a large sample of toddlers with autism spectrum disorders (N = 105) were characterized in terms of spoken language benchmarks. The toddlers were grouped according to these benchmarks to investigate whether there were differences in selected variables across benchmark groups at a mean age of 2.5 years. Results: The majority of children in the sample presented with uneven communication profiles with relative strengths in phonology and significant weaknesses in pragmatics. When children were grouped according to one expressive language domain, acrossgroup differences were observed in response to joint attention and gestures but not cognition or restricted and repetitive behaviors. Conclusion: The spoken language benchmarks are useful for characterizing early communication profiles and investigating features that influence expressive language growth. C1 [Ellawadi, Allison Bean] Ohio State Univ, Columbus, OH 43210 USA. [Weismer, Susan Ellis] Univ Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 USA. RP Ellawadi, AB (reprint author), Ohio State Univ, Columbus, OH 43210 USA. EM ellawadi.1@osu.edu FU National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [R01 DC007223, T32 DC05359]; [P30 HD03352] FX This research was supported by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant R01 DC007223 and Training Grant, T32 DC05359 (awarded to S. Ellis Weismer, PI) as well as by a core grant to the Waisman Center, NICHD Grant P30 HD03352 (awarded to M. Mailick, PI). We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the children and parents who participated in this research. CR American Psychological Association, 1994, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT Bayley N., 2006, BAYLEY SCALES INFANT Bhat AN, 2012, INFANT BEHAV DEV, V35, P838, DOI 10.1016/j.infbeh.2012.07.019 Bishop SL, 2006, CHILD NEUROPSYCHOL, V12, P247, DOI 10.1080/09297040600630288 Bloom L., 1993, TRANSITION INFANCY L Charman T, 2003, J CHILD LANG, V30, P213, DOI 10.1017/S0305000902005482 Charman T., 2003, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V38, P165 Chawarska K, 2007, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V48, P128, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01685.x Chawarska K, 2009, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V50, P1235, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02101.x Chiat S, 2013, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V56, P1824 Davidson MM, 2014, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V44, P828, DOI 10.1007/s10803-013-1936-2 Dominick KC, 2007, RES DEV DISABIL, V28, P145, DOI 10.1016/j.ridd.2006.02.003 Eigsti IM, 2011, RES AUTISM SPECT DIS, V5, P681, DOI 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.09.001 Ellis Weismer S., 2014, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V57, P534 Lord C, 2010, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V40, P1259, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10803-010-0983-1 Fein D, 2013, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V54, P195, DOI 10.1111/jcpp.12037 Fenson L., 2007, MACARTHUR BATES COMM FENSON L, 1993, MACARTHUR BATES COMM Gotham K, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P693, DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0674-3 Hoff E, 2003, CHILD DEV, V74, P1368, DOI 10.1111/1467-8624.00612 Howlin P, 2000, AUTISM, V4, P63, DOI DOI 10.1177/1362361300004001005 Hus V, 2014, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V44, P2400, DOI 10.1007/s10803-012-1719-1 Kasari C., 2005, CLIN NEUROPSYCHIATRY, V2, P380, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10803-010-0955-5 Kasari C, 2012, J AM ACAD CHILD PSY, V51, P487, DOI 10.1016/j.jaac.2012.02.019 Kelley E, 2006, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V36, P807, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0111-4 Lord C., 2011, AUTISM RES, V3, P162 Kjelgaard MM, 2001, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V16, P287 Kjellmer L, 2012, RES DEV DISABIL, V33, P172, DOI 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.09.003 Klin A, 2000, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V30, P163, DOI 10.1023/A:1005415823867 Lloyd M, 2013, AUTISM, V17, P133, DOI 10.1177/1362361311402230 Lord C, 2006, ARCH GEN PSYCHIAT, V63, P694, DOI 10.1001/archpsyc.63.6.694 LORD C, 1994, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V24, P659, DOI 10.1007/BF02172145 Lord C, 2000, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V30, P205, DOI 10.1023/A:1005592401947 Luyster R, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P1305, DOI 10.1007/s10803-009-0746-z Luyster R, 2007, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V50, P667, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/047) Luyster R, 2007, J CHILD LANG, V34, P623, DOI 10.1017/S0305000907008094 Luyster RJ, 2008, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V38, P1426, DOI 10.1007/s10803-007-0510-1 Malesa E, 2013, AUTISM, V17, P558, DOI 10.1177/1362361312444628 Maljaars J, 2012, AUTISM, V16, P487, DOI 10.1177/1362361311402857 Mayo J, 2013, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V43, P253, DOI 10.1007/s10803-012-1558-0 Miniscalco C, 2014, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V49, P369, DOI 10.1111/1460-6984.12085 Mitchell S, 2006, J DEV BEHAV PEDIATR, V27, pS69, DOI 10.1097/00004703-200604002-00004 Moore V, 2003, AUTISM, V7, P47, DOI 10.1177/1362361303007001018 Mundy P., 2003, MANUAL ABRIDGED EARL MUNDY P, 1994, DEV PSYCHOPATHOL, V6, P389, DOI 10.1017/S0954579400006003 National Research Council, 2001, ED CHILDR AUT ONeill D.K., 2009, LANGUAGE USE INVENTO Paul R, 2008, AUTISM RES, V1, P97, DOI 10.1002/aur.12 Paul R, 2013, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V43, P418, DOI 10.1007/s10803-012-1583-z POSNER MI, 1990, ANNU REV NEUROSCI, V13, P25, DOI 10.1146/annurev.neuro.13.1.25 Ray-Subramanian CE, 2012, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V42, P2113, DOI 10.1007/s10803-012-1463-6 Richler J, 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P73, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0332-6 Richler J, 2010, DEV PSYCHOPATHOL, V22, P55, DOI 10.1017/S0954579409990265 Rutter M., 2003, AUTISM DIAGNOSTIC IN Shriberg LD, 2011, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V41, P405, DOI 10.1007/s10803-010-1117-5 Siller M, 2008, DEV PSYCHOL, V44, P1691, DOI 10.1037/a0013771 Siller M, 2013, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V43, P540, DOI 10.1007/s10803-012-1584-y Sparrow S., 2005, VINELAND ADAPTIVE BE Sullivan K., 2013, FRONTIERS INTEGRATIV, V7, P1 Tager-Flusberg H, 2009, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V52, P643, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0136) Tek S, 2014, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V44, P75, DOI 10.1007/s10803-013-1853-4 Thurm A, 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P1721, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0300-1 Tsiouri I, 2012, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V42, P1281, DOI 10.1007/s10803-011-1358-y Venker CE, 2014, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V44, P546, DOI 10.1007/s10803-013-1903-y Volden J, 2011, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V20, P200, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0035) Weismer SE, 2011, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V41, P1065, DOI 10.1007/s10803-010-1134-4 Wetherby A. M., 2002, COMMUNICATION SYMBOL WETHERBY AM, 1984, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V27, P364 Wetherby AM, 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P960, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0237-4 Yurovsky D, 2013, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V16, P959, DOI 10.1111/desc.12036 Zimmerman I. L., 2002, PRESCHOOL LANGUAGE S NR 71 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 9 U2 11 PU AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC PI ROCKVILLE PA 10801 ROCKVILLE PIKE, ROCKVILLE, MD 20852-3279 USA SN 1058-0360 EI 1558-9110 J9 AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT JI Am. J. Speech-Lang. Pathol. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 24 IS 4 BP 696 EP 707 DI 10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0190 PG 12 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA DB3RW UT WOS:000368430100026 PM 26254475 ER PT J AU Kim, E Montrul, S Yoon, J AF Kim, Eunah Montrul, Silvina Yoon, James TI The on-line processing of binding principles in second language acquisition: Evidence from eye tracking SO APPLIED PSYCHOLINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID PICTURE NOUN PHRASES; PRAGMATIC REDUCTION; UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR; 2ND LANGUAGE; PRONOUNS; REFLEXIVES; RESOLUTION; ANAPHORA; ENGLISH; COMPREHENSION AB This study examined how adult L2 learners make use of grammatical and extragrammatical information to interpret reflexives and pronouns. Forty adult English native speakers and 32 intermediate-advanced Korean L2 learners participated in a visual world paradigm eye-tracking experiment. We investigated the interpretation of reflexives (himself) and pronouns (him) in contexts where there is a potential coargument antecedent and in the context of picture noun phrases (a picture of him/himself), where the distribution of reflexives and pronouns can overlap. The results indicated that the learners interpreted reflexives in a nativelike fashion in both contexts, whereas they interpreted pronouns differently from native speakers, even when learners had advanced English proficiency. Adopting the binding theory as developed in the reflexivity/primitives of binding framework (Reinhart & Reuland, 1993; Reuland, 2001, 2011), we interpret these results to mean that while adult L2 learners are able to apply syntactic binding principles to assign an interpretation to anaphoric expressions, they have difficulty in integrating syntactic information with contextual and discourse information. C1 [Kim, Eunah; Montrul, Silvina; Yoon, James] Univ Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 USA. RP Montrul, S (reprint author), Univ Illinois, Dept Linguist, 4080 Foreign Languages Bldg,MC-176, Urbana, IL 61801 USA. EM montrul@illinois.edu FU University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign [08223] FX This work was supported by a Research Board grant for Project 08223 (to J.Y., Principal Investigator, and S.M., Co-Principal Investigator) from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Several stages of this work were presented at CUNY 2011, GALANA 2010, BUCLD 2010, World Congress of Scholars of English Linguistics (Seoul, Korea, 2012), and GASLA 2013. We thank all of the audiences in these venues as well as Holger Hopp, Roumyana Slabakova, Kiel Christianson, Sion Yoon, Sarah Brown-Schmidt, Myeong Hyeon Kim, Eun Hee Kim, and the anonymous reviewer(s) from Applied Psycholinguistics for their constructive comments and suggestions. We are solely responsible for any remaining errors. CR Badecker W, 2002, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V28, P748, DOI 10.1037//0278-7393.28.4.748 Barr DJ, 2013, J MEM LANG, V68, P255, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 Bley-Vroman R, 2009, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V31, P175, DOI 10.1017/S0272263109090275 Bley-Vroman Robert, 1990, LINGUISTIC ANAL, V20, P3 Burkhardt P., 2005, SYNTAX DISCOURSE INT Wexler Kenneth, 1990, LANG ACQUIS, V1, P225, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327817LA0103_2 Chomsky Noam, 1981, LECT GOVT BINDING Chomsky N., 1980, RULES REPRESENTATION Chomsky Noam, 1986, KNOWLEDGE LANGUAGE Christie K., 1998, GENERATIVE STUDY 2 L, P239 Chung E.-S., 2013, THESIS Clackson K., 2011, J MEM LANG, V112, P55 Clahsen H, 2006, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V27, P3, DOI 10.1017/S0142716406060024 Clifton C, 1997, J MEM LANG, V36, P276, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1996.2499 Conroy A, 2009, LINGUIST INQ, V40, P446, DOI 10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.446 DeKeyser R. M., 2000, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V22, P499 Felser C, 2009, BILING-LANG COGN, V12, P485, DOI 10.1017/S1366728909990228 Felser C, 2012, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V33, P571, DOI 10.1017/S0142716411000488 Finer D., 1986, NELS 16 Hamilton R., 1998, SECOND LANG RES, V14, P292 Harris T, 2000, BRAIN LANG, V75, P313, DOI 10.1006/brln.2000.2318 Hirakawa Makiko, 1990, SECOND LANG RES, V6, P60, DOI 10.1177/026765839000600103 HUANG Y, 1991, J LINGUIST, V27, P301, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700012706 Huang Y., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P288 Kaiser E, 2009, COGNITION, V112, P55, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.03.010 Kennison SM, 2003, J MEM LANG, V49, P335, DOI 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00071-8 Koornneef A., 2008, THESIS Koornneef A., 2010, LINGUISTICS ENTERPRI, P141 Lee D., 1997, LANG ACQUIS, V6, P333, DOI 10.1207/s15327817la0604_3 LEVINSON SC, 1991, J LINGUIST, V27, P107, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700012433 LEVINSON SC, 1987, J LINGUIST, V23, P379, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700011324 Manzini Rita, 1987, LINGUIST INQ, V18, P413 McDonald JL, 2006, J MEM LANG, V55, P381, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.006 NICOL J, 1989, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V18, P5, DOI 10.1007/BF01069043 O'Neill R, 1981, AM KERNEL LESSONS AD Phillips C., 2012, GALANA 2012 Pinango M. M., 2005, ANAPHORA PROCESSING, P221 POLLARD C, 1992, LINGUIST INQ, V23, P261 Pollard C., 1994, HEAD DRIVEN SENTENCE R Development Core Team, 2012, R LANG ENV STAT COMP REINHART T, 1993, LINGUIST INQ, V24, P657 Reuland E, 2001, LINGUIST INQ, V32, P439, DOI 10.1162/002438901750372522 Reuland Eric, 2011, ANAPHORA LANGUAGE DE Roberts L, 2008, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V30, P333, DOI 10.1017/S0272263108080480 Runner JT, 2003, COGNITION, V89, pB1, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00065-9 Runner JT, 2006, COGNITIVE SCI, V30, P193, DOI 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_58 SCHACHTER J, 1988, APPL LINGUIST, V9, P219, DOI 10.1093/applin/9.3.219 Schwartz B, 1996, SECOND LANG RES, V12, P40, DOI DOI 10.1177/026765839601200103 SELLS P, 1987, LINGUIST INQ, V18, P445 Sorace A, 2009, INT J BILINGUAL, V13, P1 Sorace A, 2006, SECOND LANG RES, V22, P339, DOI 10.1191/0267658306sr271oa Sorace A, 2011, LINGUIST APPROACH BI, V1, P2, DOI 10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor Sturt P, 2003, J MEM LANG, V48, P542, DOI 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00536-3 TANENHAUS MK, 1995, SCIENCE, V268, P1632, DOI 10.1126/science.7777863 THOMAS M, 1991, LANGUAGE, V67, P211, DOI 10.2307/415105 THOMAS Marget, 1995, SECOND LANG RES, V11, P206, DOI 10.1177/026765839501100302 Ullman M. T., 2001, BILING-LANG COGN, V4, P105, DOI DOI 10.1017/S1366728901000220 White L., 2003, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI White L, 1996, CAN J LING/REV CAN L, V41, P235 White L, 1997, LANG LEARN, V47, P145, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.41997004 White L., 1998, SECOND LANG RES, V14, P425 Xiang M, 2009, BRAIN LANG, V108, P40, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.10.002 Yuan B, 1998, SECOND LANG RES, V14, P324 ZRIBIHERTZ A, 1989, LANGUAGE, V65, P695, DOI 10.2307/414931 NR 64 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 8 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI NEW YORK PA 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY 10013-2473 USA SN 0142-7164 EI 1469-1817 J9 APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST JI Appl. Psycholinguist. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 36 IS 6 BP 1317 EP 1374 DI 10.1017/S0142716414000307 PG 58 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA DB0XY UT WOS:000368233000002 ER PT J AU Petrova, S AF Petrova, Svetlana TI Synchronic variation and diachronic change in the expression of indefinite reference: evidence from historical German SO ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT LA English DT Article DE indefinite noun phrases; indefinite article; specificity; Old and Middle High German AB The present article discusses the semantic and discourse-pragmatic properties of different competing types of indefinite noun phrases in Old High German, the earliest attested period of German. In particular, it investigates the behavior of indefinites marked by sum, ein and various interrogative-based determiners, with respect to properties considered constitutive of specific indefinites from a theoretic and cross-linguistic perspective. Upon analyzing newly retrieved corpus data, the paper shows that already at the beginning of the attestation, all marked types of indefinites in historical German violate basic conditions of specificity, understood in terms of any of the relevant notions distinguished in the literature. This result rejects previous scenarios according to which marked indefinites in historical German are correlates of specific reference and challenges the explanation of the diachronic development of ein from a numeral towards an indefinite determiner via an assumed separate, intermediate stage during which it assigns referential-specific interpretation to the noun phrase. C1 [Petrova, Svetlana] Univ Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany. RP Petrova, S (reprint author), Univ Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany. EM petrova@uni-wuppertal.de CR Behaghel Otto, 1917, BEITRAGE GESCH DTSCH, V42, P158, DOI 10.1515/bgsl.1917.1917.42.158 Behaghel Otto, 1923, DTSCH SYNTAX EINE GE, VI Braune W., 2004, ALTHOCHDEUTSCHE GRAM Carlier Anne, 2012, RES OLD FRENCH STATE, P45 Chung Sandra, 2004, RESTRICTION SATURATI Deichsel Annika, 2011, P 23 EUR SUMM SCH LO, P70 Deichsel Annika, 2011, ANAPHORA REFERENCE R, P144 Desportes Yvon, 2000, GESCH NOMINALGRUPPE, P213 Donhauser Karin, 1995, FESTSCHRIFT ANLASSLI, P61 Donhauser Karin, 2012, INT Z HIST ANTHR, V21, P159 Erben Johannes, 1950, BEITRAGE GESCH DTSCH, V72, P193, DOI 10.1515/bgsl.1950.1950.72.193 Farkas Donka, 2002, J SEMANT, V19, P213, DOI 10.1093/jos/19.3.213 Fobbe Eilika, 2004, INDEFINITPRONOMINA D FODOR JD, 1982, LINGUIST PHILOS, V5, P355, DOI 10.1007/BF00351459 Gallmann Peter, 1997, ARBEITSPAPIERE SONDE Geist Ljudmila, 2014, COMPLEX VISIBLES OUT, P83 Geist Ljudmila, 2013, FORMAL DESCRIPTION S, V9, P125 Giannakidou A., 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, Vii, P1660 Gianollo Chiara, 2013, P 6 NER INT WORKSH T, V127, P55 Givon Talmy, 1981, FOLIA LINGUISTICA HI, V2, P35, DOI 10.1515/flih.1981.2.1.35 Givon Talmy, 1973, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V2, P95 Grimm Jacob, 1837, DTSCH GRAMMATIK, V4 Haspelmath Martin, 1997, INDEFINITE PRONOUNS Heine Bernd, 1997, COGNITIVE FDN GRAMMA Ionin T., 2010, PRAGMATICS ENCY, P449 Ionin T, 2006, NAT LANG SEMANT, V14, P175, DOI 10.1007/s11050-005-5255-9 Ionin Tania, 2013, DIFFERENT KINDS SPEC, P75 Jager A, 2010, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V28, P787, DOI 10.1007/s11049-010-9113-1 Jager Agnes, 2007, NOMINAL DETERMINATIO, P141 Jaggar Philip, 1988, STUDIES HAUSA LANGUA, P45 Jaggar Philip, 1985, FACTORS GOVERNING MO Karttunen Lauri, 1976, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V7, P363 Matthewson Lisa, 1999, NAT LANG SEMANT, V7, P79, DOI 10.1023/A:1008376601708 Oubouzar Erika, 2000, GESCH NOMINALGRUPPE, P255 Rissanen Matti, 1988, LUICK REVISITED, P295 Rissanen Matti, 1997, GRAMMATICALIZATION W, P87 Szczepaniak Renata, 2009, GRAMMATIKALISIERUNG Gunkel Lutz, 2012, DTSCH SPRACHVERGLEIC, P417 Klein Udo, 2013, DIFFERENT KINDS SPEC, P155 von Heusinger Klaus, 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V2, P1025 von Kraus Carl, 1930, Z DTSCH ALTERTUM DTS, V67, P1 WRIGHT S, 1987, STUD LANG, V11, P1, DOI 10.1075/sl.11.1.02wri NR 42 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0721-9067 EI 1613-3706 J9 Z SPRACHWISS JI Z. Sprachwiss. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 34 IS 2 BP 213 EP 246 DI 10.1515/zfs-2015-0011 PG 34 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DA5YY UT WOS:000367879800003 ER PT J AU Sperlich, D AF Sperlich, Darcy TI Assessing anaphoric relations via the phased choice methodology SO IRAL-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING LA English DT Article DE anaphora; reflexive; binding; Chinese; ziji ID EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE; 2ND-LANGUAGE ACQUISITION; UNCONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE; REFLEXIVES; LEARNERS; BINDING; ENGLISH; LANGUAGE; IMPLICIT; CHINESE AB There has been a continued interest in discovering how learners of another language acquire a target language's anaphoric system. While our understanding of the issues has improved, the development of methodologies to assess the interpretation of anaphora in a learner's interlanguage has not. This paper is concerned with introducing a methodology named 'Phased Choice' to assess anaphoric reference, which more effectively tackles the issues facing anaphoric testing. The data was gathered from an experiment that focused on English and Korean learners of Chinese acquiring the Chinese reflexive ziji 'self', results showing that the Korean learners are at an advantage to their English counterparts due to the similar pragmatic strategies Korean and Chinese share. Moreover, the methodology in comparison to the literature shows its strength, dealing effectively with problems past tests faced. C1 [Sperlich, Darcy] Natl Kaohsiung Univ Appl Sci, Dept Appl Foreign Languages, Kaohsiung 80778, Taiwan. RP Sperlich, D (reprint author), Natl Kaohsiung Univ Appl Sci, Dept Appl Foreign Languages, 415 Chien Kung Rd, Kaohsiung 80778, Taiwan. EM darcy.sperlich@kuas.edu.tw CR Akiyama Y, 2002, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V24, P27, DOI 10.1017/S027226310200102X BAKER CL, 1995, LANGUAGE, V71, P63, DOI 10.2307/415963 Berent Gerlad P., 1990, LANGUAGE, V66, P717 Birdsong D., 1989, METALINGUISTIC PERFO Blackwell SE, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P389, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00057-0 CARROLL JM, 1981, LANGUAGE, V57, P368, DOI 10.2307/413695 Chen Dongdong, 1996, MCGILL WORKING PAPER, V12, P1 Chen Dongdong, 1995, PENNSYLVANIA WORKING, V2, P37 Chomsky Noam, 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM COOK VJ, 1990, LANG LEARN, V40, P557, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00606.x Cowart Wayne, 1997, EXPT SYNTAX APPL OBJ Crain S., 1986, P NELS 16, P94 Davies WD, 1998, APPL LINGUIST, V19, P183, DOI 10.1093/applin/19.2.183 Demirci Mahide, 2000, SECOND LANG RES, V16, P325, DOI DOI 10.1177/026765830001600402 Demirci Mahide, 1997, THESIS Dienes Z, 2005, PSYCHOL RES-PSYCH FO, V69, P338, DOI 10.1007/s00426-004-0208-3 Dienes Z, 2008, PROG BRAIN RES, V168, P49, DOI 10.1016/S0079-6123(07)68005-4 Dugarova Esuna, 2008, THEORETICAL EMPIRICA, P7 Ellis R, 2005, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V27, P141, DOI 10.1017/S0272263105050096 Ellis R, 2004, LANG LEARN, V54, P227, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x Ellis R, 2009, IMPLICIT EXPLICIT KN, P3 Ellison R, 2009, IMPLICIT EXPLICIT KN, P31 Finer Daniel L., 1986, P NELS 16 GLSA AMH, P154 Finer Daniel, 1991, POINT COUNTERPOINT U, P351 Gass Susan M., 1994, RES METHODOLOGY 2 LA, P303 Givon T., 1979, UNDERSTANDING GRAMMA Gordon PC, 1997, COGNITION, V62, P325, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00788-3 Hamilton Robert, 1996, SECOND LANG RES, V12, P420, DOI 10.1177/026765839601200405 Heinat Fredrik, 2008, PROBES PRONOUNS BIND Hicks Glyn, 2009, DERIVATION ANAPHORIC Hirakawa Makiko, 1990, SECOND LANG RES, V6, P60, DOI 10.1177/026765839000600103 Hu JH, 2001, LINGUISTICS, V39, P1117, DOI 10.1515/ling.2001.043 Hua Te-Fang, 1994, U HAWAII WORKING PAP, V13, P53 Huang C.-T. J., 1982, LOGICAL RELATIONS CH Huang CTJ, 2001, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V33, P141 Huang C.-T. James, 1991, LONG DISTANCE ANAPHO, P263, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09780511627835.014 Huang Y., 2000, ANAPHORA CROSS LINGU Huang Y., 1994, SYNTAX PRAGMATICS AN [Anonymous], 2009, SECOND LANG RES, DOI DOI 10.1177/0267658309349435 Kim Hye-Ryun, 1993, 1 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISI Kim Ji-Hye, 2004, HARVARD STUDIES KORE, V10, P86 Kim Ji-Hye, 2008, Journal of Cognitive Science, V9, P1 Kim JH, 2009, LANG ACQUIS, V16, P3, DOI 10.1080/10489220802575293 Kuno Susumu, 1987, FUNCTIONAL SYNTAX AN Lakshmanan Usha, 1994, RES METHODOLOGY 2 LA, P185 Selinker L., 2001, SECOND LANG RES, V17, P393, DOI 10.1191/026765801681495886 Lee Kum-Young, 2009, FINITE CONTROL KOREA Lee Kum-Young, 2008, SEL P 2007 2 LANG RE, P97 Loewen Shawn, 2009, IMPLICIT EXPLICIT KN, P65 MacLaughlin Dawn, 1995, 2 LANG RES FOR CORN Pinker S, 1994, LANGUAGE INSTINCT Purapura James E., 2004, ASSESSING GRAMMAR Rebuschat P., 2008, THESIS Rebuschat P, 2012, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V33, P829, DOI 10.1017/S0142716411000580 Reuland Eric, 2011, ANAPHORA LANGUAGE DE Vanden Wyngaerd Guido J., 2011, DISSOLVING BINDING T Runner JT, 2011, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V37, P219, DOI 10.1108/S0092-4563(2011)0000037011 Sorace Antonella, 1988, LEARNABILITY 2 LANGU, P167 Sorace Antonella, 1996, HDB 2 LANGUAGE ACQUI, P375, DOI 10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50014-1 Sperlich Darcy, THESIS Tang C. C. Jane, 2000, YUYAN JI YUYANXUE, V1, P191 THOMAS M, 1991, LANGUAGE, V67, P211, DOI 10.2307/415105 Thomas Margaret, 1989, STUDIES 2ND LANGUAGE, V11, P281, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100008147 Thomas Margaret, 1991, POINT COUNTERPOINT U, P221 Wells Terri L, 1998, MORPHOLOGY ITS INTER, P227 White L, 1997, LANG LEARN, V47, P145, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.41997004 WHITE L, 1995, SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORY AND PEDAGOGY, P63 Ying H. G., 1999, SECOND LANG RES, V15, P41, DOI 10.1191/026765899672835412 Yip Virginia, 1998, MORPHOLOGY ITS INTER, P165 Yuan B, 1998, SECOND LANG RES, V14, P324 YULE G, 1985, LANG LEARN, V35, P473, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01088.x NR 71 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 4 PU WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, D-10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1613-4141 J9 IRAL-INT REV APPL LI JI IRAL-Int. Rev. Appl. Linguist. Lang. Teach. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 53 IS 4 BP 355 EP 388 DI 10.1515/iral-2015-0017 PG 34 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CZ5TD UT WOS:000367164000001 ER PT J AU Haugh, M Chang, WLM AF Haugh, Michael Chang, Wei-Lin Melody TI Understanding im/politeness across cultures: an interactional approach to raising sociopragmatic awareness SO IRAL-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING LA English DT Article DE sociopragmatics; politeness; face; Chinese; English; interactional pragmatics ID PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT; AUSTRALIAN ENGLISH; JOCULAR MOCKERY; IMPOLITENESS; POLITENESS; FACE; CONVERSATION; INSTRUCTION; COMPETENCE; EVERYDAY AB Politeness is an important aspect of communication, particularly across cultures where misunderstandings can have very negative relational consequences. Yet while various approaches to politeness in the context of second language learning have been developed, such approaches have either been largely atheoretical in their conceptualisation of politeness or have employed models that do not adequately capture participant understandings of politeness across cultures. In this paper, it is argued that an approach encompassing participant understandings of politeness is a more appropriate starting point for raising sociopragmatic awareness about im/politeness across languages and cultures. An interactional approach whereby raising pragmalinguistic awareness about the interactional achievement of particular meanings and actions in interaction is combined with raising sociopragmatic awareness about what underlies evaluations of those meanings and actions as im/polite is advocated. It is argued that raising sociopragmatic awareness in this way provides learners with the means to analyse differences between the politeness systems of their first and second languages, thereby allowing them to make more informed choices in regards to both constituting their L2 identities as well as their relationships with others. C1 [Haugh, Michael] Griffith Univ, Sch Languages & Linguist, Brisbane, Qld 4111, Australia. [Chang, Wei-Lin Melody] Univ Wollongong, Sch Humanities & Social Inquiry, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. RP Haugh, M (reprint author), Griffith Univ, Sch Languages & Linguist, Brisbane, Qld 4111, Australia. EM m.haugh@griffith.edu.au RI Haugh, Michael/H-4783-2016 OI Haugh, Michael/0000-0003-4870-0850 FU Chiang Ching-Kuo Foundation [RG025-P-10] FX We would like to acknowledge the support of a grant from the Chiang Ching-Kuo Foundation ("Politeness in Taiwan", RG025-P-10) which enabled the research underpinning this paper to be carried out. An earlier, significantly abbreviated translated version of this paper was published in 2013. 207-220. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. CR Arundale Robert B., 2006, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V2, P193, DOI DOI 10.1515/PR.2006.011 Arundale RB, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2078, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P13 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P401, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.004 Barraja-Rohan A.-M., 1997, AUSTR REV APPL LIN S, V14, P71 Bella Spryidoula, 2015, TEACHING LEARNING IM Bou-Franch P., 2003, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V41, P1, DOI 10.1515/iral.2003.001 Boxer D, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V27, P275, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00031-8 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Byon Andrew Sangpil, 2004, APPL LANGUAGE LEARNI, V14, P37 Chang WLM, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P411, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.019 Chang YF, 2011, LANG SCI, V33, P786, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.02.002 Chui Kawai, 2008, TAIWAN J LINGUISTICS, V6, P119 Cravotta Joseph, 2004, OSAKA MEIJO DAIGAKU, V4, P31 Culpeper Jonathan, 2011, PRAGMATICS SOC, P393 da Silva A. J. B., 2003, 2 LANGUAGE STUDIES, V22, P55 Davies Eirlys, 1986, ANGLO AM STUDIES, V6, P117 DREW P, 1987, LINGUISTICS, V25, P219, DOI 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219 Eelen Gino, 2001, CRITIQUE POLITENESS Eslami-Rasekh Z., 2005, ELT J, V59, P199, DOI 10.1093/elt/cci039 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P165 Fukushima Saeko, 1987, JACET B, V18, P31 Goddard C, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P29, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.002 Goddard C, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1038, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.010 GU YG, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P237, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O Hassall T, 2012, LANG SCI, V34, P376, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.12.001 Haugh M., 2011, SITUATED POLITENESS, P165 Haugh Michael, COMMUNICATI IN PRESS Haugh Michael, 2015, IM POLITENESS IMPLIC Haugh Michael, 2013, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V13, P133 Haugh Michael, 2006, CULTURE LANGUAGE REP, V3, P17 Haugh M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1099, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003 Haugh M, 2007, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V3, P295, DOI 10.1515/PR.2007.013 Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P52, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003 Haugh M, 2014, AUST J LINGUIST, V34, P76, DOI 10.1080/07268602.2014.875456 Haugh M, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P657, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.005 Haugh M, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2106, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018 Holmes Janet, 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P121, DOI 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.121 House J, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P561, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.026 Huth T, 2006, LANG TEACH RES, V10, P53, DOI 10.1191/1362168806lr184oa Ishihara N, 2010, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V4, P938 Ishihara Noriko, 2010, NONNATIVE SPEAKERS E, P35 Ishihara Noriko, 2010, TEACHING LEARNING PR Jeon EH, 2006, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V13, P165 Jiang Wenying, 2001, ELT J, V55, P382, DOI 10.1093/elt/55.4.382 Kadar DZ, 2011, POLITENESS ACROSS CULTURES, P1 Kadar DZ, 2013, UNDERSTANDING POLITENESS, P1 Kasper G., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P1 Kasper G., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P33 Kasper G, 2001, APPL LINGUIST, V22, P502, DOI 10.1093/applin/22.4.502 Kasper G., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P281 Keltner D, 2001, PSYCHOL BULL, V127, P229, DOI 10.1037//0033-2909.127.2.229 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC LoCastro V., 1997, LANG TEACH RES, V1, P239, DOI 10.1177/136216889700100304 Locher Miriam A., 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P9, DOI DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2005.1.1.9 Locher MA, 2004, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V12, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110926552 MAO LR, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V21, P451, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6 Meier A. J, 1997, ELT J, V51, P21 Mills Sara, 2003, GENDER POLITENESS Mitchell N, 2015, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V11, P207, DOI 10.1515/pr-2015-0009 Mugford G., 2011, SITUATED POLITENESS, P53 Mugford G, 2012, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V8, P195, DOI 10.1515/pr-2012-0011 Murray N, 2010, ELT J, V64, P293, DOI 10.1093/elt/ccp056 Norrick Neal R., 1993, CONVERSATIONAL JOKIN Overstreet M., 1999, APPL LANGUAGE LEARNI, V10, P1 Pan Y, 2011, POLITENESS HIST CONT PAWLUK CJ, 1989, J THEOR SOC BEHAV, V19, P145, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1989.tb00142.x Rose Kenneth R., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P145 Rose Kenneth, 1994, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V5, P52 Rose K. R., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P385, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.003 Schmidt R., 1995, ATTENTION AWARENESS, P1 Schmidt R., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P21 SCHMIDT RW, 1990, APPL LINGUIST, V11, P129, DOI 10.1093/applin/11.2.129 Scollon R., 1995, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Straehle Carolyn, 1993, FRAMING DISCOURSE, P210 Taguchi N, 2014, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V52, P157, DOI 10.1515/iral-2014-0007 Taguchi N, 2011, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V31, P289, DOI 10.1017/S0267190511000018 Takahashi S, 2005, APPL LINGUIST, V26, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/amh040 Takahashi S., 2010, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGES, P391 Takahashi S., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P437, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.006 Takimoto M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1240, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.007 Takimoto M, 2008, MOD LANG J, V92, P369, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00752.x Tanaka S., 1982, STUDIES 2ND LANGUAGE, V5, P18, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100004575 TANAKA S, 1983, PSYCHOLOGIA, V26, P40 THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Van Compernolle RA, 2012, APPL LINGUIST, V33, P184, DOI 10.1093/applin/amr048 Waring HZ, 2013, LANG AWARE, V22, P1, DOI 10.1080/09658416.2011.644797 Watts R., 2003, POLITENESS Wong J., 2002, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V40, P37, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2002.003 Yates L., 2010, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V12, P113 Ye Zhengdao, 2004, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V1, P211, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2004.1.2.211 Yu MC, 2004, MOD LANG J, V88, P102, DOI 10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00220.x Yu MC, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1127, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.025 NR 93 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 12 PU WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, D-10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1613-4141 J9 IRAL-INT REV APPL LI JI IRAL-Int. Rev. Appl. Linguist. Lang. Teach. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 53 IS 4 BP 389 EP 414 DI 10.1515/iral-2015-0018 PG 26 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CZ5TD UT WOS:000367164000002 ER PT J AU Wagner, SE Hesson, A Bybee, K Little, H AF Wagner, Suzanne Evans Hesson, Ashley Bybee, Kali Little, Heidi TI Quantifying the referential function of general extenders in North American English SO LANGUAGE IN SOCIETY LA English DT Article DE Discourse-pragmatic variation; general extenders; methodological approaches; American English; Canadian English ID NEW-ZEALAND ENGLISH; DISCOURSE MARKERS; GRAMMATICALIZATION; COMMUNITY; CORPUS; STUFF AB Discourse markers (like, I don't know, etc.) are known to vary in frequency across English dialects and speech settings. It is difficult to make meaningful generalizations over these differences, since quantitative discourse-pragmatic variation studies 'lack [a] coherent set of methodological principles' (Pichler 2010: 582). This has often constrained quantitative studies to focus on the form, rather than the function of discourse-pragmatic features. The current article employs a novel method for rigorously identifying and quantifying the referential function (set-extension) of general extenders (GEs), for example, and stuff like that, or whatever. We apply this method to GEs extracted from three corpora of contemporary North American English speech. The results demonstrate that, across varieties, (i) referential GEs occur at a comparable proportional rate in vernacular speech, and (ii) referential GEs are longer than nonreferential GEs. Collectively, these findings represent a step towards comparative quantitative studies of GEs' functions in discourse. C1 [Wagner, Suzanne Evans; Hesson, Ashley; Bybee, Kali; Little, Heidi] Michigan State Univ, Dept Linguist & Languages, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA. RP Wagner, SE (reprint author), Michigan State Univ, Dept Linguist & Languages, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA. EM wagnersu@msu.edu; bartell6@msu.edu; hybelkal@msu.edu; littlehe@msu.edu CR Aijmer K., 2002, STUDIES CORPUS LINGU, V10 AIJMER Karin, 1985, 8 SCAND C LING, P366 Ball Catherine, 1978, PENN REV LINGUISTICS, V3, P35 Brinton Laurel J, 2003, HDB DISCOURSE ANAL Buchstaller Isabelle, 2008, ENGL WORLD-WIDE, V29, P15, DOI DOI 10.1075/EWW.29.1.03BUC Channell J., 1994, VAGUE LANGUAGE CHESHIRE J, 1987, LINGUISTICS, V25, P257, DOI 10.1515/ling.1987.25.2.257 Cheshire J, 2007, J SOCIOLING, V11, P155, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00317.x Cheshire J, 2011, J SOCIOLING, V15, P151 Chomsky Noam, 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM Cieri Christopher, 2004, FISHER ENGLISH TRA 1 Cieri Christopher, 2005, FISHER ENGLISH TRA 2 D'Arcy A, 2012, LANG VAR CHANGE, V24, P343, DOI 10.1017/S0954394512000166 D'Arcy A, 2006, AM SPEECH, V81, P339, DOI 10.1215/00031283-2006-024 Denis Derek, 2015, DEV PRAGMATIC MARKER Denis Derek, 2011, U PENNSYLVANIA WORKI, V17 DINES ER, 1980, LANG SOC, V9, P13 DIXON WJ, 1950, ANN MATH STAT, V21, P488, DOI 10.1214/aoms/1177729747 Dubois Sylvie, 1992, LANG VAR CHANGE, V4, P179, DOI 10.1017/S0954394500000740 ECKERT P, 1992, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V21, P461, DOI 10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333 Fischer Kerstin, 1998, REV SEMANTIQUE PRAGM, V8, P111 Gwet KL, 2012, HDB INTERRATER RELIA Hinneburg A, 2007, Literary & Linguistic Computing, V22, DOI 10.1093/llc/fqm006 Jefferson G., 1990, INTERACTION COMPETEN, P63 Johnson Daniel Ezra, 2009, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V3, P359, DOI [10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00108.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2008.00108.X] Kendall Tyler, 2008, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V2, P332 Kendall T, 2011, CORPUS LINGUIST LING, V7, P1, DOI 10.1515/CLLT.2011.001 Labov W., 2006, SOCIAL STRATIFICATIO LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159, DOI 10.2307/2529310 LAVANDERA BR, 1978, LANG SOC, V7, P171 MacWhinney Brian, 2010, Gesprachsforschung, V11, P154 Norrby Catrin, 2002, P 2001 C AUSTR LING Okeeffe A, 2004, LANG COMPUT, P1 Maryann Overstreet, 1997, J ENGL LINGUIST, V25, P250, DOI 10.1177/007542429702500307 Maryann Overstreet, 1999, WHALES CANDLELIGHT S Martinez IMP, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2452, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.011 Levey Stephen, 2010, U READING LANGUAGE S, V2, P17 Pichler H, 2010, J SOCIOLING, V14, P581, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.00455.x Pichler H, 2011, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V15, P441, DOI 10.1017/S1360674311000128 R Core Team, 2013, R LANG ENV STAT COMP Sankoff G, 2005, SOZIOLINGUISTIK, PART 2, P1003 Schiffrin D., 1994, APPROACHES DISCOURSE Singler John Victor, 2001, U PENNSYLVANIA WORKI, V7, P257 STUBBE M, 1995, LANG COMMUN, V15, P63, DOI 10.1016/0271-5309(94)00016-6 Tagliamonte Sali, 2007, 410070048 SOC SCI HU Tagliamonte S, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1896, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.017 Tagliamonte Sali, 2003, 41020030005 SOC SCI Tagliamonte S. A., 2012, VARIATIONIST SOCIOLI Tagliamonte SA, 2010, J ENGL LINGUIST, V38, P335, DOI 10.1177/0075424210367484 Wagner Suzanne Evans, 2008, LANGUAGE CHANGE STAB Wagner Suzanne Evans, 2012, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V6, P371, DOI DOI 10.1002/LNC3.343 Wagner Suzanne Evans, 2016, DISCOURSE PRAGMATIC Walker James A., 2010, VARIATION LINGUISTIC WARD G, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P205, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90028-N Wenger E., 1998, COMMUNITIES PRACTICE Youssef Valerie, 1993, DISCOURSE SOC, V4, P291, DOI 10.1177/0957926593004003001 NR 56 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 0 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI NEW YORK PA 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY 10013-2473 USA SN 0047-4045 EI 1469-8013 J9 LANG SOC JI Lang. Soc. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 44 IS 5 BP 705 EP 731 DI 10.1017/S0047404515000603 PG 27 WC Linguistics; Sociology SC Linguistics; Sociology GA CZ5VD UT WOS:000367169400005 ER PT J AU Dobrovol'skij, D Poppel, L AF Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij Poppel, Ludmila TI Pragmatic potential of Russian discursive units: a constructional approach SO ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SLAWISTIK LA English DT Article DE discursive units; pragmatics; semantics; corpus analysis; constructions AB Because different languages often lack semantic equivalents, translation may require looking for other cross-linguistic correlations on the level of the utterance. To find a functional equivalent that is adequate to the translation of a given context, the search should focus on pragmatic correspondences rather than semantic equivalents. The present article examines this phenomenon on the basis of the Russian near-synonymous discursive units with focus-sensitive semantics imenno (just/precisely) and kak raz (just/precisely). They are important elements of communication but have far not been fully described. Using relevant lexicographic information, text corpora, including parallel corpora, and Works of fiction, we are going to show that synonymy of these discursive units is not as complete as it appears at first glance. We will analyze their semantic and pragmatic properties, usage peculiarities as well as systemic and translational equivalents in English, German and Swedish. C1 [Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij] Russian Acad Sci, Russian Language Inst, Moscow 119019, Russia. [Poppel, Ludmila] Stockholms Univ, Inst Slaviska & Baltiska Sprak Finska Nederlandsk, Slaviska Sprak, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden. RP Dobrovol'skij, D (reprint author), Russian Acad Sci, Russian Language Inst, Volkhonka 18-2, Moscow 119019, Russia. EM dm-dbrv@yandex.ru; ludmila.poppel@slav.su.se CR Baranov Anatolij N., 1993, PUTEVODITEL DISKURSI Sergej A, BOLSOJ TOLKOVYJ SLOV Davidsson Karin, 1976, RUSSKO SVEDSKIJ SLOV Dobrovol'skij Dmitrij, 2013, GERMANISTISCHE LINGU, p[19, 221] [Anonymous], 2015, YB CORPUS LINGUISTIC Dobrovol'skij Dmitrij O., 2012, ANN INT C DIAL 2012, V1, P138 Dobrovol'skij Dmitrij O., 2014, T I RUSSKOGO JAZYKA, P334 Kiseleva Ksenija L., 1998, DISKURSIVNYJE SLOVA Kiseleva Ksenija L., 2003, DISKURSIVNYJE SLOVA Kobozeva Irina M., 2006, VESTNIK MGU, P37 Levontina Irina B., 2004, NOVYJOB JASNITELNY, P1065 Levontina Irina B., 2004, NOVYJ JASNITELNYJ SL, P440 Lubensky Sophia, 2013, RUSSIAN ENGLISH DICT [Anonymous], 1985, SLOV JAZY CET TOM Molotkov Aleksandr I., 1967, FRASEOLOGICESKIJ SLO Paduceva Elena V., 2014, VOPROSY JAZYKOZNANIJ, V5, P3 Paillard Denis, 1998, DISKURSIVNYJE SLOVA, P278 Saronovl'gor' A., 2009, ANN INT C DIAL 2009, P543 NR 18 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, D-10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0044-3506 J9 Z SLAWISTIK JI Z. Slaw. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 60 IS 4 BP 613 EP 628 DI 10.1515/slaw-2015-0039 PG 16 WC Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CZ2PQ UT WOS:000366947500006 ER PT J AU Schubert, C AF Schubert, Christoph TI Unidentified speakers in news discourse: A pragmatic approach to anonymity SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Anonymity; News discourse; Cooperative principle; Conversational maxims; Relevance; Evidentiality ID TELEVISION-NEWS; STORIES AB Anonymous speakers pose a great pragmatic challenge to other communicative interactants, since their appearance implies a lack of contextual information. Nevertheless, news discourse makes frequent use of unidentified speakers, so that its cooperativeness might potentially be restricted by this practice. Hence, this paper investigates the occurrence of unnamed speakers in news discourse based on a corpus of 218 online transcripts of the TV program CNN Newsroom from the year 2014. The study shows that recipients may employ several strategies of constructing the identity of anonymous participants, relying on hints by news anchors, reporters, or the nameless interlocutors themselves. Moreover, with the help of the frameworks of the Cooperative Principle, Relevance Theory, and evidentiality, the paper points out that the non-identification of speakers fulfills a number of pragmatic functions, such as creating suspense or suggesting that knowledge about the speaker's identity is unnecessary for comprehension. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Schubert, Christoph] Univ Vechta, Dept English, D-49377 Vechta, Germany. RP Schubert, C (reprint author), Univ Vechta, Dept English, Driverstr 22, D-49377 Vechta, Germany. EM christoph.schubert@uni-vechta.de CR Aikhenvald Alexandra, 2004, EVIDENTIALITY Bednarek M., 2012, NEWS DISCOURSE Bell A., 1991, LANGUAGE NEWS MEDIA Berkowitz DA, 2009, INT COMMUN ASSOC HAN, P102 Brown G., 1983, DISCOURSE ANAL Bublitz W, 1999, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V63, P1 Chafe W.L, 1986, EVIDENTIALITY LINGUI, P261 Conboy M., 2007, LANGUAGE NEWS Cotter C, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1890, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.020 Crystal David, 2011, INTERNET LINGUISTICS Diewald G., 2010, LINGUISTIC REALIZATI, P1, DOI [10.1515/9783110223972, DOI 10.1515/9783110223972] Durant Alan, 2009, LANGUAGE MEDIA RESOU Fowler R., 1991, LANGUAGE NEWS DISCOU Garretson G, 2008, STUD CORPUS LINGUIST, V31, P157 Gerhards J, 2014, INT COMMUN GAZ, V76, P3, DOI 10.1177/1748048513504158 Goffman E, 1981, FORMS TALK Goffman E., 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL E Goodman S, 1997, LANG COMMUN, V17, P53, DOI 10.1016/S0271-5309(96)00028-6 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES Hoffmann S, 2007, LANG COMPUT, V59, P69 Hymes D., 1972, LANGUAGE SOCIAL CONT, P21 Johnstone B., 2008, DISCOURSE ANAL Jucker A. H., 1996, TEXT, V16.3, P373, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1996.16.3.373 Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Lidsky LB, 2007, NOTRE DAME LAW REV, V82, P1537 Lorenzo-Dus Nuria, 2009, TELEVISION DISCOURSE Lumsden D, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P1896, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.007 Montgomery Martin, 2007, DISCOURSE BROADCAST Nylund M, 2003, DISCOURSE STUD, V5, P517, DOI 10.1177/14614456030054004 Perrin D, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1865, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.023 Schubert Christoph, 2014, CERTAINTY UNCERTAINT, V4, P58 SEARLE JR, 1976, LANG SOC, V5, P1 Simpson John A., 1989, OXFORD ENGLISH DICT, V1 Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Spina S, 2012, LANG COMPUT, V75, P213 Stenvall M, 2008, JOURNALISM STUD, V9, P229, DOI 10.1080/14616700701848279 Tanskanen Sanna-Kaisa, 2006, COLLABORATING COHERE Jenny Thomas, 1995, MEANING INTERACTION Virtanen T., 2005, PERSUASION GENRES LI, P153 Ward SJA, 2009, INT COMMUN ASSOC HAN, P295 Weldon Michele, 2008, EVERYMAN NEWS CHANGI White PRR, 2012, DISCOURSE CONTEXT ME, V1, P57, DOI 10.1016/j.dcm.2012.10.004 Youm KH, 2009, INT COMMUN ASSOC HAN, P279 Yus Francisco, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V30, P305 Yus Francisco, 2006, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, P512 NR 48 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 4 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 89 BP 1 EP 13 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.09.003 PG 13 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CZ0CW UT WOS:000366773700001 ER PT J AU Takimoto, M AF Takimoto, Masahiro TI Assertions and lexical invisibility in EFL learners' academic essays SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Lexical invisibility; Certainty item; Probability item; Possibility item; Hedge; Booster AB The two studies presented here analyzed English academic essays written by Japanese learners of English and native speakers of English. A corpus-basis analysis indicated that the Japanese leamers of English used more boosters than hedges, using straightforward and explicit expressions in English, whereas native speakers of English tended to express themselves more tentatively, using more hedges than boosters. Furthermore, a follow-up study sought to discover whether the Japanese learners of English were aware of the important pragmatic roles of hedges and boosters. The quantitative results suggested that although the certainty items were more visible to the Japanese learners of English, the learners had greater difficulty in identifying the pragmatic roles of the possibility and probability items and misapprehended their meanings. The relationship between possibility and probability items and metaphors of spatial relations for EFL learners is also considered. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Takimoto, Masahiro] Aoyama Gakuin Univ, Chuo Ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan. RP Takimoto, M (reprint author), Aoyama Gakuin Univ, Chuo Ku, 5-10-1 Fuchinobe, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan. EM ra57482@rd5.so-net.ne.jp FU [26370632] FX This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research 26370632. CR Anthony L., 2014, ANTCONC 3 4 3 Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Butler Christopher, 1990, WRITING SCHOLAR STUD, P137 Clyne Michael, 1991, SUBJECT ORIENTED TEX Crismore A., 1990, WRITING SCHOLAR STUD, P118 Educational Testing Service, 2014, TEST SCOR DAT Fetzer Anita, 2010, NEW APPROACHES HEDGI, P15 Fraser B, 2010, STUD PRAGMAT, V9, P15 Gaskell G. D., 1993, PSYCHOLOGIST, V6, P500 Grabe William, 1997, HEDGING DISCOURSE AP, P3 Grady JE, 1999, AMST STUD THEORY HIS, V175, P79 Halliday M. A. K., 2014, HALLIDAYS INTRO FUNC Hanania E. A. S., 1985, ESP J, V4, P49, DOI [10.1016/0272-2380(85)90006-X, DOI 10.1016/0272-2380(85)90006-X] Holmes J., 1995, WOMEN MEN POLITENESS Horn Laurence R., 2001, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Huddleston Rodney, 2002, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Hyland K., 2000, LANG AWARE, V9, P179 Hyland K, 1996, APPL LINGUIST, V17, P433, DOI 10.1093/applin/17.4.433 Hyland Ken, 1998, TEXT, V18, P349, DOI DOI 10.1515/TEXT.1.1998.18.3349 Hyland K., 1997, J SECOND LANG WRIT, V6, P183, DOI DOI 10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3 Hyland K., 2012, DISCIPLINARY IDENTIT Hyland K., 1998, HEDGING SCI RES ARTI Lakoff G., 1972, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V8, P183 Lakoff G., 1999, PHILOS FLESH LASSITER D, 2011, THESIS Lassiter D., 2010, SALT, V20, P197 Low G, 1996, APPL LINGUIST, V17, P1, DOI 10.1093/applin/17.1.1 McClostie James, 2008, ICAME J, V32, P97 Ohori Toshio, 2012, JELS, V30, P320 Ohori Toshio, 2002, COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC Pech-Tyson Stephanie, 1998, LEARNER ENGLISH COMP, P107 Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Salager-Meyer F., 1994, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V13, P149, DOI DOI 10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2 Statistical, 2010, PACK SOC SCI VERS 19 Sugiura Masatoshi, 2014, NAGOYA INTERLANGUAGE Tyler A, 2012, COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC NR 37 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 2 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 89 BP 85 EP 99 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.09.009 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CZ0CW UT WOS:000366773700007 ER PT J AU Gibson, E Jacobson, P Graff, P Mahowald, K Fedorenko, E Piantadosi, ST AF Gibson, Edward Jacobson, Pauline Graff, Peter Mahowald, Kyle Fedorenko, Evelina Piantadosi, Steven T. TI A Pragmatic Account of Complexity in Definite Antecedent-Contained-Deletion Relative Clauses SO JOURNAL OF SEMANTICS LA English DT Article ID EMPTY CATEGORIES AB Hackl, Koster-Hale & Varvoutis (2012; HKV) provide data that suggest that in a null context, antecedent-contained-deletion (ACD) relative clause structures modifying a quantified object noun phrase (NP; such as every doctor) are easier to process than those modifying a definite object NP (such as the doctor). HKV argue that this pattern of results supports a 'quantifier-raising' (QR) analysis of both ACD structures and quantified NPs in object position: under the account they advocate, both ACD resolution and quantified NPs in object position require movement of the object NP to a higher syntactic position. The processing advantage for quantified object NPs in ACD is hypothesized to derive from the fact that-at the point where ACD resolution must take place-the quantified NP has already undergone QR whereas this is not the case for definite NPs. Although in other work it is shown that HKV's reading time analyses are flawed, such that the critical effects are not significant (Gibson et al. submitted), the effect in HKV's acceptability rating is robust. But HKV's interpretation is problematic. We present five experiments that provide evidence for an alternative, pragmatic, explanation for HKV's observation. In particular, we argue that the low acceptability of the the / ACD condition is largely due to a strong pressure in the null context to use a competing form, by adding also or same. This pressure does not exist with quantified NPs either because the competing form is absent (*every same) or because the addition of also actually degrades the sentence. In support of this interpretation, we show that the difference between the the / ACD and every / ACD conditions (a) persists even when the relative clause contains no ellipsis and thus nothing is forcing QR; (b) disappears when either also or same is added; and (c) disappears in supportive contexts. Together, these findings show that HKV's QR hypothesis should be rejected in favor of a pragmatic account. C1 [Gibson, Edward; Mahowald, Kyle; Fedorenko, Evelina] MIT, Dept Brain & Cognit Sci, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA. [Jacobson, Pauline] Brown Univ, Dept Cognit Linguist & Psychol Sci, Providence, RI 02912 USA. [Graff, Peter] Intel Corp, Santa Clara, CA 95054 USA. [Piantadosi, Steven T.] Univ Rochester, Dept Brain & Cognit Sci, Rochester, NY 14627 USA. RP Gibson, E (reprint author), MIT, Dept Brain & Cognit Sci, E25-618, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA. EM egibson@mit.edu; pauline_jacobson@brown.edu; peter.graff@intel.com; kylemaho@mit.edu; evelina9@mit.edu; spiantadosi@bcs.rochester.edu FU NSF [BCS 0646081] FX We thank Leon Bergen, Veena Dwivedi, Bart Geurts, Jeremy Hartman, Laura Kertz, David Pesetsky, Geoffrey Pullum, Norvin Richards and two anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of this work and issues related to it. We also thank Jorie Koster-Hale for help in constructing some of the materials in Experiment 5. P.J.'s research was supported in part by NSF Grant BCS 0646081. CR Pascal Amsili, 2012, WORKSH AN U PAR DID Bach E., 1968, UNIVERSALS LINGUIST, P90 Barker C., 2002, Natural Language Semantics, V10, P211, DOI 10.1023/A:1022183511876 Barr DJ, 2013, J MEM LANG, V68, P255, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 Bates D., 2008, LME4 LINEAR MIXED EF Bergen L., 2012, P 34 ANN C COGN SCI, P120 BEVER TG, 1988, LINGUIST INQ, V19, P35 Bouton Laurence F., 1970, 6 REG M CHIC LING SO, P154 Cormack Annabel, 1984, VARIETIES FORMAL SEM, P81 Evans Frederic, 1988, P 5 ANN E STAT C LIN, P122 Fodor JD, 1998, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V27, P285, DOI 10.1023/A:1023258301588 Frank Michael, 2012, SCIENCE, V25, P998 GIBSON E, 1993, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V8, P147, DOI 10.1080/01690969308406952 Gibson Edward, 2012, ERRONEOUS ANAL UNPUB Gibson E., 2011, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V5, P509, DOI [DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2011.00295.X, DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2011] Gibson E, 2013, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V110, P8051, DOI 10.1073/pnas.1216438110 Hackl M, 2012, J SEMANT, V29, P145, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffr009 Heim Irene, 1991, SEMANTIK INT HDB ZEI, P487 Heim I., 1998, SEMANTICS GENERATIVE Hendriks Herman, 1993, THESIS ILLC Jacobson Pauline, 1992, SALT, V2, P193 Jacobson Pauline, 2009, THEORY EVIDENCE SEMA, P81 Jacobson Pauline, 2014, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, V24 Jacobson Pauline, 1992, FORMAL GRAMMAR THEOR, P129 Jacobson P, 2008, TOPICS IN ELLIPSIS, P30 KAPLAN J, 1984, LANGUAGE, V60, P510, DOI 10.2307/413989 Kempson R., 2001, DYNAMIC SYNTAX FLOW Lakoff G., 1971, SEMANTICS INTERDISCI, P232 MacDonald Maryellen C., 1989, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V4, P35, DOI 10.1080/01690968908406356 May Robert, 1977, THESIS McCawley James, 1970, READINGS ENGLISH TRA, P166 McKoon G, 1996, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V22, P1494 Montague R., 1974, FORMAL PHILOS SELECT, P247 NICOL JL, 1994, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V20, P1229, DOI 10.1037//0278-7393.20.5.1229 Partee Barbara, 1983, MEANING USE INTERPRE, P262 PICKERING M, 1991, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V6, P229, DOI 10.1080/01690969108406944 R Core Development Team, 2008, R LANG ENV STAT COMP Rooth Mats, 1992, P STUTTG ELL WORKSH Sag I, 1976, THESIS STEEDMAN M, 1987, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V5, P403, DOI 10.1007/BF00134555 Szabolcsi Anna, 2013, J SEMANT, V31, P135 Christopher Tancredi, 1992, THESIS NR 42 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU OXFORD UNIV PRESS PI OXFORD PA GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND SN 0167-5133 EI 1477-4593 J9 J SEMANT JI J. Semant. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 32 IS 4 BP 579 EP 618 DI 10.1093/jos/ffu006 PG 40 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CY8AP UT WOS:000366631100001 ER PT J AU Hinterwimmer, S Schueler, D AF Hinterwimmer, Stefan Schueler, David TI Requantification, Underquantification and Partial Focus in Indefinites SO JOURNAL OF SEMANTICS LA English DT Article AB Based on an intricate pattern concerning the interpretation of indefinites in both mono- and biclausal sentences with adverbial quantifiers, we propose an analysis which combines the idea that restrictor- and nucleus situations/events of adverbial quantifiers are related via initially underspecified matching functions (Rothstein 1995) with pragmatic assumptions concerning preferences for the specification of these matching functions as well as the independently motivated pragmatic principle Maximize Presuppositions! (MP, Heim 1991). We show that neither the traditional situation semantics approach to adverbial quantification which assumes both restrictor- and scope minimization (von Fintel 1994) nor a revision of this picture using neo-Davidsonian events (Herburger 2001) is able to account for the full pattern in a uniform manner. Finally, we provide additional evidence that the Novelty Condition (Heim 1982) does not exist as an independent principle and that its putative effects, where they occur, can be derived from MP (cf. Singh 2011). C1 [Hinterwimmer, Stefan] Univ Cologne, Dept German Language & Literature 1, D-50923 Cologne, Germany. RP Hinterwimmer, S (reprint author), Univ Cologne, Dept German Language & Literature 1, Albertus Magnus Pl, D-50923 Cologne, Germany. EM shinterw@uni-koeln.de; daschuel@comcast.net CR Amsili Pascal, 2008, P 2 WORKSH CONSTR DI Asher N., 2003, LOGICS CONVERSATION Beaver David, 2008, SENSE SENSITIVITY FO Buring Daniel, 2001, AUDIATUR VOX SAPIENT, P70 Cinque G., 1999, ADVERBS FUNCTIONAL H CINQUE G, 1993, LINGUIST INQ, V24, P239 Diesing Molly, 1992, INDEFINITES Elbourne PD, 2005, CURR STUD LINGUIST, P1 Fox D, 2002, LINGUIST INQ, V33, P63, DOI 10.1162/002438902317382189 Fox D, 1999, LINGUIST INQ, V30, P157, DOI 10.1162/002438999554020 Frey W, 2001, THEOR LINGUIST, V27, P137, DOI 10.1515/thli.2001.27.2-3.137 Heim Irene, 1991, SEMANTIK INT HDB ZEI, P487 Heim Irene, 1983, P W COAST C FORM LIN HEIM I, 1990, LINGUIST PHILOS, V13, P137, DOI 10.1007/BF00630732 Heim Irene, 1982, THESIS Herburger Elena, 2001, WHAT COUNTS FOCUS QU Hinterwimmer Stefan, 2008, Q ADVERBS SELECTIVE Kamp Hans, 1981, FORMAL METHODS STUDY, P277 Katzir R, 2013, NAT LANG SEMANT, V21, P333, DOI 10.1007/s11050-013-9095-8 Kayne Richard S., 1994, ANTISYMMETRY SYNTAX, V25 Keshet Ezra, 2010, NAT LANG SEMANT, V18, P385 Kratzer Angelika, 1978, SEMANTIK REDE KONTEX KRATZER A, 1989, LINGUIST PHILOS, V12, P607, DOI 10.1007/BF00627775 Kratzer Angelika, 2011, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS Kratzer A, 2004, CURR STUD LINGUIST, V37, P389 Krifka M., 1998, EVENTS GRAMMAR, V197-235, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_9 Landman Fred, 2000, EVENTS AND PLURALITY Lewis D, 1975, FORMAL SEMANTICS NAT, P3 Neeleman Ad, 1998, PROJECTION ARGUMENTS, P309 Parsons T, 2000, SPEAKING OF EVENTS, P81 Parsons T., 1990, EVENTS SEMANTICS ENG Percus Orin, 2006, THEORETICAL EMPIRICA, P52 Reinhart T, 2006, LINGUIST INQ MONOGR, V45, P1 Rooth Mats, 1992, NAT LANG SEMANT, V1, P75, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF02342617 Rooth Mats E., 1985, THESIS Rothstein Susan, 1995, NAT LANG SEMANT, V3, P1, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF01252883 Rullmann Hotze, 2003, J SEMANT, V20, P329, DOI 10.1093/jos/20.4.329 Saebo K. J., 2004, J SEMANT, V21, P199, DOI 10.1093/jos/21.2.199 Sauerland Uli, 2008, SENTENCE CONTEXT LAN Sauerland U., 2004, Natural Language Semantics, V12, P63, DOI 10.1023/B:NALS.0000011201.91994.4f Schlenker Philippe, 2006, MAXIMIZE PRESU UNPUB Schlenker Philippe, 2009, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V2, P1, DOI 10.3765/sp.2.3 Schlenker P, 2010, PHILOS STUD, V151, P115, DOI 10.1007/s11098-010-9586-0 Schueler D, 2008, THESIS Schwarz Florian, 2009, THESIS Schwarz F, 2012, NAT LANG SEMANT, V20, P431, DOI 10.1007/s11050-012-9086-1 Singh R, 2011, NAT LANG SEMANT, V19, P149, DOI 10.1007/s11050-010-9066-2 Stanley J, 2000, MIND LANG, V15, P219, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00130 von Fintel K., 1994, THESIS Wagner M, 2012, CONTRASTS AND POSITIONS IN INFORMATION STRUCTURE, P102 NR 50 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU OXFORD UNIV PRESS PI OXFORD PA GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND SN 0167-5133 EI 1477-4593 J9 J SEMANT JI J. Semant. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 32 IS 4 BP 749 EP 797 DI 10.1093/jos/ffu012 PG 49 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CY8AP UT WOS:000366631100005 ER PT J AU Honan, CA McDonald, S Gowland, A Fisher, A Randall, RK AF Honan, Cynthia A. McDonald, Skye Gowland, Alison Fisher, Alana Randall, Rebekah K. TI Deficits in comprehension of speech acts after TBI: The role of theory of mind and executive function SO BRAIN AND LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE Traumatic brain injury; Executive function; Theory of mind; Social cognition; Pragmatic language ID TRAUMATIC BRAIN-INJURY; ASSESSING SOCIAL-PERCEPTION; DIFFUSE AXONAL INJURY; EMOTION RECOGNITION; FRONTAL LOBES; HEAD-INJURY; COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY; PERSPECTIVE-TAKING; WORKING-MEMORY; EYES TEST AB Theory of mind (TOM) is critical to effective communication following traumatic brain injury (TBI) however, whether impairments are specific to social cognition, or reflective of executive demands is unclear. This study examined whether ToM impairments are predicted by executive function difficulties using everyday conversation tasks. Twenty-five individuals with severe-TBI were compared to 25 healthy controls on low- and high-ToM tasks across four conditions: (1) low cognitive load, (2) high flexibility, (3) high working memory (WM) and (4) high inhibition. TBI individuals were impaired on high-ToM tasks in the WM condition. When the WM demands of the task were controlled, the impairments were no longer apparent. TBI individuals were not impaired on high-TOM tasks in the inhibition and flexibility conditions, suggesting these tasks may not have been sufficiently demanding of ToM abilities. The results suggest that ToM impairments in everyday communication may arise due to WM demands, in individuals with TBI. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. C1 [Honan, Cynthia A.; McDonald, Skye; Gowland, Alison] Univ New S Wales, Sch Psychol, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. [Honan, Cynthia A.; McDonald, Skye] Moving Ahead Ctr Res Excellence Brain Recovery, Sydney, NSW, Australia. [Fisher, Alana] Univ Sydney, Ctr Med Psychol & Evidence Based Decis Making CeM, Sch Psychol, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. [Randall, Rebekah K.] Univ Melbourne, Sch Psychol Sci, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. RP Honan, CA (reprint author), Univ New S Wales, Sch Psychol, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. EM c.honan@unsw.edu.au; s.mcdonald@unsw.edu.au; Alison.gowland@gmail.com; a.fisher@sydney.edu.au; Rebekah.k.randall@gmail.com FU Australian Research Council [DP09886689] FX This research was supported by the Australian Research Council with an ARC Discovery Project Grant [number DP09886689]. We are grateful to the Royal Ryde Rehabilitation Centre who assisted with recruitment. We are particularly grateful to the people with traumatic brain injuries and our control participants who gave willingly of their time to assist this research. CR ADAMS JH, 1989, HISTOPATHOLOGY, V15, P49 Adolphs R, 1999, TRENDS COGN SCI, V3, P469, DOI 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01399-6 Adolphs R, 2009, ANNU REV PSYCHOL, V60, P693, DOI 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163514 Alvarez JA, 2006, NEUROPSYCHOL REV, V16, P17, DOI 10.1007/s11065-006-9002-x Bach L. J., 2000, COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCH, V5, P175 Baron-Cohen S, 2001, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V42, P241, DOI 10.1017/S0021963001006643 Benton A. L., 1983, CONTRIBUTION NEUROPS Benton A. L., 1994, MULTILINGUAL APHASIA Bibby H, 2005, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V43, P99, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.04.027 Bigler E. D., 2011, NEUROREHABILITATION, V28, P1 Bigler ED, 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, V21, P515, DOI 10.1037/0894-4105.21.5.515 Brownell H., 1988, RIGHT HEMISPHERE LAN, P309 Bull R, 2008, COGNITION, V107, P663, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.015 Burgess P. W., 1997, HAYLING BRIXTON TEST Byom LJ, 2012, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V47, P310, DOI 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00102.x Carlson SM, 2002, INFANT CHILD DEV, V11, P73, DOI 10.1002/icd.298 Carrington SJ, 2009, HUM BRAIN MAPP, V30, P2313, DOI 10.1002/hbm.20671 Channon S, 2000, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V38, P1006, DOI 10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00154-2 Channon Shelley, 2003, Cogn Neuropsychiatry, V8, P243, DOI 10.1080/135468000344000002 Channon S, 2010, NEUROPSYCHOL REHABIL, V20, P739, DOI 10.1080/09602011003794583 Cicerone K, 2006, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V18, P1212, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1212 Courville C. B., 1945, PATHOLOGY NERVOUS SY D'Argembeau A, 2007, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V19, P935, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.6.935 Dennis M, 2009, J CLIN EXP NEUROPSYC, V31, P835, DOI 10.1080/13803390802572419 Dress ML, 2008, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V27, P71, DOI 10.1177/0261927X07309512 Martin-Rodriguez JF, 2010, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V48, P1181, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.02.009 GENTRY LR, 1988, AM J ROENTGENOL, V150, P663 HADLEY DM, 1988, CLIN RADIOL, V39, P131 Happe F, 1999, COGNITION, V70, P211, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00005-0 HAPPE FGE, 1993, COGNITION, V48, P101, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90026-R Havet-Thomassin V, 2006, BRAIN INJURY, V20, P83, DOI 10.1080/02699050500340655 Henry JD, 2006, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V44, P1623, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.03.020 Hughes C, 1998, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V16, P233 Johnco C, 2013, J ANXIETY DISORD, V27, P576, DOI 10.1016/j.janxdis.2012.10.004 Johnston L, 2008, AUST J PSYCHOL, V60, P135, DOI 10.1080/00049530701449521 Kennedy MRT, 2009, J INT NEUROPSYCH SOC, V15, P130, DOI 10.1017/S1355617708090024 Kortte Kathleen Bechtold, 2002, Appl Neuropsychol, V9, P106, DOI 10.1207/S15324826AN0902_5 Leukel F, 1972, INTRO PHYSL PSYCHOL Levy N. K., 2014, CHILD NEUROPSYCHOLOG Linacre J. M., 2006, USERS GUIDE WINSTEPS Lough S, 2006, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V44, P950, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.08.009 Lovibond P., 1995, MANUAL DEPRESSION AN Maehara Y, 2011, ACTA PSYCHOL, V138, P367, DOI 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.09.009 Marcovitch S., 2014, COGNITIVE DEV, V33, P40 Marosszeky N. E. V., 1997, PTA PROTOCOL GUIDELI Mathias JL, 2007, BRIT J CLIN PSYCHOL, V46, P457, DOI 10.1348/014466507X190197 McDonald S, 2005, J INT NEUROPSYCH SOC, V11, P392, DOI 10.1017/S1355617705050447 McDonald S., 2011, AWARENESS SOCIAL INF McDonald S, 2003, J HEAD TRAUMA REHAB, V18, P219, DOI 10.1097/00001199-200305000-00001 McDonald S, 2004, NEUROPSYCHOL REHABIL, V14, P285, DOI 10.1080/09602010343000237 McDonald S, 2004, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, V18, P572, DOI 10.1037/0894-4105.18.3.572 McDonald S, 2013, J INT NEUROPSYCH SOC, V19, P231, DOI 10.1017/S1355617712001506 McDonald S, 2014, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, V28, P801, DOI 10.1037/neu0000089 McDonald S, 2012, AUST PSYCHOL, V47, P39, DOI 10.1111/j.1742-9544.2011.00054.x Meythaler JM, 2001, ARCH PHYS MED REHAB, V82, P1461, DOI 10.1053/apmr.2001.25137 Milders M, 2006, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, V20, P400, DOI 10.1037/0894-4105.20.4.400 Milders M, 2008, J INT NEUROPSYCH SOC, V14, P318, DOI 10.1017/S1355617708080351 Morris PG, 2005, BRIT J CLIN PSYCHOL, V44, P209, DOI 10.1348/014466505X34174 Muller F, 2010, CORTEX, V46, P1088, DOI 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.08.014 Ochsner KN, 2001, AM PSYCHOL, V56, P717, DOI 10.1037//0003-066X.56.9.717 Perner J, 1999, TRENDS COGN SCI, V3, P337, DOI 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01362-5 Pickup GJ, 2008, PSYCHOPATHOLOGY, V41, P206, DOI 10.1159/000125554 PREMACK D, 1978, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V1, P515 The Psychological Corporation, 2001, WECHSLER TEST ADULT Reitan RM, 1992, TRAIL MAKING TEST Ruby P, 2004, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V16, P988, DOI 10.1162/0898929041502661 Smith A, 1961, ARCH NEUROL-CHICAGO, V5, P16 Shamay-Tsoory SG, 2005, COGN BEHAV NEUROL, V18, P55, DOI 10.1097/01.wnn.0000152228.90129.99 Spikman JM, 2012, J NEUROTRAUM, V29, P101, DOI 10.1089/neu.2011.2084 Stone VE, 1998, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V10, P640, DOI 10.1162/089892998562942 Stuss DT, 2011, CURR OPIN NEUROL, V24, P584, DOI 10.1097/WCO.0b013e32834c7eb9 Stuss DT, 2011, J INT NEUROPSYCH SOC, V17, P759, DOI 10.1017/S1355617711000695 Tate R, 1999, J HEAD TRAUMA REHAB, V14, P543 TEASDALE GM, 1995, J NEUROL NEUROSUR PS, V58, P526, DOI 10.1136/jnnp.58.5.526 Troyer AK, 1998, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V36, P499, DOI 10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00152-8 Turkstra LS, 2008, BRAIN INJURY, V22, P397, DOI 10.1080/02699050802027059 Viano DC, 2005, NEUROSURGERY, V57, P891, DOI 10.1227/01.NEU.0000186950.54075.3B Wechsler D, 1997, WECHSLER ADULT INTEL Wechsler D., 1997, WECHSLER MEMORY SCAL Wells R, 2005, BRAIN INJURY, V19, P1105, DOI 10.1080/02699050500150062 NR 80 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 6 U2 12 PU ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE PI SAN DIEGO PA 525 B ST, STE 1900, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4495 USA SN 0093-934X EI 1090-2155 J9 BRAIN LANG JI Brain Lang. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 150 BP 69 EP 79 DI 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.08.007 PG 11 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Neurosciences; Psychology, Experimental SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Neurosciences & Neurology; Psychology GA CY1EG UT WOS:000366148900008 PM 26335998 ER PT J AU Craig, J Tomlinson, C Stevens, K Kotagal, K Fornadley, J Jacobson, B Garrett, CG Francis, DO AF Craig, Jennifer Tomlinson, Carey Stevens, Kristin Kotagal, Kiran Fornadley, Judith Jacobson, Barbara Garrett, C. Gaelyn Francis, David O. TI Combining voice therapy and physical therapy: A novel approach to treating muscle tension dysphonia SO JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION DISORDERS LA English DT Article ID DISORDERS; FIBROMYALGIA; HANDICAP; QUALITY; IMPACT AB Objective: This study investigated the role of a specialized physical therapy program for muscle tension dysphonia patients as an adjunct to standard of care voice therapy. Study Design: Retrospective Cohort Study Methods Adult MTD patients seen between 2007 and 2012 were identified from the clinical database. They were prescribed voice therapy and, if concomitant neck pain, adjunctive physical therapy. In a pragmatic observational cohort design, patients underwent one of four potential treatment approaches: voice therapy alone (VT), voice therapy and physical therapy (VT + PT), physical therapy alone (PT), or incomplete/no treatment. Voice handicap outcomes were compared between treatment approaches. Results: Of 153 patients meeting criteria (Median age 48 years, 68% female, and 30% had fibromyalgia, chronic pain, chronic fatigue, depression, and/or anxiety), there was a similar distribution of patients with moderate or severe pre-treatment VHI scores across treatment groups (VT 45.5%, VT + PT 43.8%, PT 50%, no treatment 59.1%; p = 0.45). Patients treated with VT alone had significantly greater median improvement in VHI than those not treated: 10-point vs. 2-point (p = 0.02). Interestingly, median VHI improvement in patients with baseline moderate-severe VHI scores was no different between VT (10), VT + PT (8) and PT alone (10; p = 0.99). Conclusions: Findings show voice therapy to be an effective approach to treating MTD. Importantly, other treatment modalities incorporating physical therapy had a similar, albeit not significant, improvement in VHI. This preliminary study suggests that physical therapy techniques may have a role in the treatment of a subset of MTD patients. Larger, comparative studies are needed to better characterize the role of physical therapy in this population. Learning Outcomes: The reader will describe symptoms associated with muscle tension dysphonia and current treatment. The reader will describe the systematic adjunctive physical therapy approach and understand the rationale to consider incorporation of physical therapy into the current treatment regimen. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. C1 [Craig, Jennifer; Garrett, C. Gaelyn; Francis, David O.] Vanderbilt Voice Ctr, Nashville, TN 37212 USA. [Tomlinson, Carey] Vanderbilt Dayani Ctr, Nashville, TN 37212 USA. [Stevens, Kristin] Vanderbilt Univ, Sch Med, Nashville, TN 37212 USA. [Kotagal, Kiran] Northwest Clin Voice & Swallowing, Portland, OR USA. [Fornadley, Judith] Univ Hlth Shrevport, Shreveport, LA USA. RP Craig, J (reprint author), Vanderbilt Voice Ctr, 1215 21st Ave South,7302 Med Ctr East,South Tower, Nashville, TN 37212 USA. EM Jennifer.n.craig@vanderbilt.edu FU NIH HHS/United States [K23 DC013559/DC/NIDCD] FX Grant support: Dr. Francis is supported by K23 DC013559/DC/NIDCD NIH HHS/United States. CR Verdolini Abbott K, 2008, LESSAC MADSEN RESONA American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2005, TECHNICAL REPORT Arffa RE, 2012, J VOICE, V26, P462, DOI 10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.04.006 Aronson A. E., 1990, CLIN VOICE DISORDERS Behrman, 2006, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V15, P215 Boone DR, 2010, VOICE VOICE THERAPY Carding PN, 1999, J VOICE, V13, P72, DOI 10.1016/S0892-1997(99)80063-0 Cohen SM, 2006, ANN OTO RHINOL LARYN, V115, P128 Elert J, 2001, J RHEUMATOL, V28, P1361 Gilman M., 2010, ASHA CONVENTION, V19 Gurbuzler L, 2013, AURIS NASUS LARYNX, V40, P554, DOI 10.1016/j.anl.2013.04.002 Harris PA, 2009, J BIOMED INFORM, V42, P377, DOI 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 Jacobson BH, 1997, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V6, P66 Kooijman PGC, 2005, FOLIA PHONIATR LOGO, V57, P134, DOI 10.1159/000084134 MacKenzie, 2001, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V323, P658 MORRISON MD, 1993, ACTA OTO-LARYNGOL, V113, P428, DOI 10.3109/00016489309135839 Pettersen V, 2005, J VOICE, V19, P623, DOI 10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.08.007 Roy N, 2005, LARYNGOSCOPE, V115, P1988, DOI 10.1097/01.mlg.0000179174.32345.41 Roy N, 1998, CURRENT OPINION OTOL, V6, P151, DOI 10.1097/00020840-199806000-00002 Roy N, 2009, J COMMUN DISORD, V42, P124, DOI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2008.10.001 Ruotsalainen, 2007, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, V17, P4 Schneider CM, 1997, J VOICE, V11, P332, DOI 10.1016/S0892-1997(97)80012-4 Thieme K, 2006, J PSYCHOSOM RES, V61, P671, DOI 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2006.07.004 Titze, 2006, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V49, P448 van Leer E, 2012, J VOICE, V26, P447, DOI 10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.05.006 Van Houtte E., 2001, J VOICE, V25, P202 Verdolini K, 2001, Logoped Phoniatr Vocol, V26, P37, DOI 10.1080/140154301300109125 Willinger U, 2005, PSYCHIAT RES, V134, P85, DOI 10.1016/j.psychres.2003.07.007 NR 28 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 13 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC PI NEW YORK PA 360 PARK AVE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NY 10010-1710 USA SN 0021-9924 EI 1873-7994 J9 J COMMUN DISORD JI J. Commun. Disord. PD NOV-DEC PY 2015 VL 58 BP 169 EP 178 DI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2015.05.001 PG 10 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA CX8DT UT WOS:000365933500014 PM 26012419 ER PT J AU Murphy, S AF Murphy, Sean TI I will proclaim myself what I am: Corpus stylistics and the language of Shakespeare's soliloquies SO LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE LA English DT Article DE Soliloquy; soliloquies; Shakespeare; literary stylistics; keywords; corpus linguistics ID TALK AB This article reports on a corpus stylistic study of the language of soliloquies in Shakespeare's plays. Literary corpus stylistics can use corpus linguistic methods to test claims made by literary critics and identify hitherto unnoticed features. Existing literary studies of soliloquies tend to define and classify them, to trace the history of the form or to offer literary appreciation; yet they pay surprisingly little attention to the language which characterises soliloquies. By creating a soliloquy corpus and a dialogue corpus from 37 Shakespeare plays, and comparing the former against the latter using WordSmith Tools, I identify key language forms in soliloquies. Using an analytical framework broadly based on Halliday's ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions of language, I interpret my results and relate them, where possible, to literary critical interpretations. I also compare comedy, history and tragedy soliloquy corpora. My main findings show the following linguistic features to be characteristic of soliloquies in general: words relating to mental states and the body; pragmatic noise; linking adverbials and first-person pronouns. Characteristic forms in comedy, history and tragedy emphasise love, the monarch and the supernatural respectively. The empirical evidence presented here shows that Shakespeare regularly exploited certain language forms in soliloquies to represent expressions of doubt, resolve, introspection and strong emotion, among others. These forms not only add depth to characterisation, aid plot development and provide performance cues for actors, but may also conform to certain audience expectations. C1 [Murphy, Sean] Univ Barcelona, Dept Teaching Language & Literature, Fac Educ, Barcelona 08035, Spain. [Murphy, Sean] Univ Barcelona, Inst Sci Educ, Sch Modern Languages, Barcelona 08035, Spain. [Murphy, Sean] Univ Barcelona, Sch Modern Languages, Barcelona 08035, Spain. RP Murphy, S (reprint author), Univ Barcelona, Dept Didact Llengua & Literatura, Campus Mundet,Pg Vall dHebron 171, Barcelona 08035, Spain. EM smurphy@ub.edu CR Adamson Sylvia, 2001, READING SHAKESPEARES Anthony L., 2014, ANTCONC VERSION 3 4 Arnold ML, 1911, SOLILOQUIES SHAKESPE Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Blake Norman, 2002, GRAMMAR SHAKESPEARES Clemen W, 1964, SHAKESPEARES SOLILOQ Clemen W, 1987, SHAKESPEARES SOLILOQ Crystal David, 2008, THINK MY WORDS EXPLO Crystal D, 2002, SHAKESPEARES WORDS G Culpeper Jonathan, 2010, EARLY MODERN ENGLISH Culpeper J, 2009, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V14, P29, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.14.1.03cul Dunning T., 1993, Computational Linguistics, V19, P61 Dusinberre Juliet, 1975, SHAKESPEARE NATURE W Emmott C, 2002, COGNITIVE STYLISTICS, P153 Fischer-Starcke B, 2009, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V14, P492, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.14.4.03fis GILBERT AJ, 1995, ENGL STUD, V76, P221, DOI 10.1080/00138389508598969 Halliday Michael A. K., 1994, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA Herman Vimala, 1995, DRAMATIC DISCOURSE D Hirsh James, 2003, SHAKESPEARE HIST SOL Hunston S., 2002, CORPORA APPL LINGUIS Hussey SS, 1992, LIT LANGUAGE SHAKESP Mahlberg M., 2013, CORPUS STYLISTICS DI Moon R., 1998, FIXED EXPRESSIONS ID Nevalainen T, 2006, EDINB TEXTB ENGL LAN, P1 Scott M. R., 2008, WORDSMITH TOOLS VERS Semino E., 1997, LANGUAGE WORLD CREAT Semino E., 2004, CORPUS STYLISTICS SP Shakespeare W, 1916, COMPLETE WORKS W SHA Sinclair J., 1996, TEXTUS, V9, P75 Skiffington LA, 1985, HIST ENGLISH SOLILOQ Stubbs M., 2002, WORDS PHRASES CORPUS Taavitsainen I, 1995, PRAGMATICS, V3, P439 Thomson Peter, 1997, NEW HIST EARLY ENGLI, p[321, 321] Tissari H, 2006, STUDI LINGUISTICI FI, V4, P131 Williams R, 1983, WRITING SOC, P31 NR 35 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 5 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 0963-9470 EI 1461-7293 J9 LANG LIT JI Lang. Lit. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 24 IS 4 BP 338 EP 354 DI 10.1177/0963947015598183 PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CX5JM UT WOS:000365737900004 ER PT J AU Hassall, T AF Hassall, Tim TI Influence of fellow L2 learners on pragmatic development during study abroad SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE interlanguage pragmatics; study abroad; Indonesian; multimethod approach ID COMPETENCE AB This is an initial exploratory study of how study-abroad learners influence each other's pragmatic development in naturalistic settings. It focuses on a cohort of 12 Australian learners of Indonesian during a short summer course and uses a multimethod approach, including a pretest/posttest instrument, diary entries, and regular interviews. Findings revealed a variety of influences on each other's development. Learners noticed pragmatic features in talk produced by fellow learners that was addressed to native speakers of the target language. They also sometimes noticed features in talk by native speakers that was addressed to their fellow learners, or in talk between fellow learners. They reflected on the relevant features and often modified their knowledge about them. The learners also talked with each other about the pragmatics of the L2 in various ways, such as through explicit discussion, correction of each other's performance, or the telling of personal anecdotes. That talk too prompted the learners to reflect on pragmatic features and modify their knowledge about them. The learners also planned complex pragmatic action together and performed it together, which can affect pragmatic development in myriad ways. To sum up, the study changes our perceptions of how learners learn pragmatics during study abroad by showing how time spent with fellow learners can stimulate that learning. C1 [Hassall, Tim] Australian Natl Univ, Indonesian & Translat, Canberra, ACT, Australia. RP Hassall, T (reprint author), Australian Natl Univ, ANU Coll Asia & Pacific, Indonesian Dept, Canberra, ACT, Australia. EM timothy.hassall@anu.edu.au CR Allen Heather, 2010, FRONTIERS INTERDISCI, V19, P1 Bailey K. M., 1983, CLASSROOM ORIENTED R, P67 Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN Belz JA, 2003, LANG LEARN, V53, P591, DOI 10.1046/j.1467-9922.2003.00238.x Cohen AD, 2007, MOD LANG J, V91, P189, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00540.x Dewey D. P., 2013, FRONTIERS INTERDISCI, VXXII, P84 DuFon Margaret, 2000, THESIS Hassall T., 2006, LANGUAGE LEARNERS ST, P31 Chapelle Carol, 2012, ENCY APPL LINGUISTIC, V8, P4516 Hassall T, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V55, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.003 Hassall T, 2015, MULTILINGUA, V34, P33, DOI 10.1515/multi-2013-0050 Hassall Tim, 2001, AUSTR REV APPL LINGU, V24, P97 Iino M., 2006, LANGUAGE LEARNERS ST, P151 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kinginger C, 2009, LANGUAGE LEARNING AND STUDY ABROAD: A CRITICAL READING OF RESEARCH, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230240766 Kinginger C., 2004, FRONTIERS INTERDISCI, V10, P19 Kinginger C., 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P369, DOI DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2005.2A369 Kinginger C, 2008, MOD LANG J, V92, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00821.x Liddicoat A., 2006, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V3, P55, DOI 10.1515/IP.2006.003 Liddicoat AJ, 2014, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V11, P259, DOI 10.1515/ip-2014-0011 Magnan SS, 2007, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V40, P43 Marriott Helen, 1995, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P197 Martinsen R. A., 2010, APPL LANGUAGE LEARNI, V20, P45 Matsumura S, 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P465, DOI 10.1093/applin/24.4.465 Mendelson V. G., 2004, FRONTIERS INTERDISCI, V10, P43 Ohta A., 1995, ISSUES APPL LINGUIST, V6, P93 Ortega L., 2009, UNDERSTANDING 2 LANG Schmidt R., 2001, COGNITION 2 LANGUAGE, P3, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09781139524780.003 SCHMIDT RW, 1990, APPL LINGUIST, V11, P129, DOI 10.1093/applin/11.2.129 Shively RL, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1818, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030 Siegal M, 1996, APPL LINGUIST, V17, P356, DOI 10.1093/applin/17.3.356 Swain M., 1985, INPUT 2 LANGUAGE ACQ, P235 Taguchi N, 2015, SYSTEM, V48, P3, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.001 NR 33 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 4 U2 7 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1612-295X EI 1613-365X J9 INTERCULT PRAGMAT JI Intercult. Pragmat. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 12 IS 4 BP 415 EP 442 DI 10.1515/ip-2015-0022 PG 28 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CW2XA UT WOS:000364855200001 ER PT J AU Savic, M AF Savic, Milica TI "Can I very please borrow it?": Request development in young Norwegian EFL learners SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE interlanguage pragmatics; young EFL learners; request development; pragmalinguistic development; sociopragmatic development AB With the introduction of the notion of communicative competence to second-language learning and teaching (Canale and Swain 1980), and the recognition of the role of pragmatic competence within it (Bachman 1990; Bachman and Palmer 1996), interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) research has gained in popularity. However, with a few notable exceptions (Achiba 2002; Baron Pares 2012; Ellis 1992; Rose 2000 and Rose 2009), ILP research has focused almost exclusively on adult learners, and even with that learner group, studies of pragmatic development have been comparatively rare (Kasper and Rose 2002). The present study set out to address a generally neglected area in ILP research: developmental patterns in speech acts - more specifically, the development of requests in young Norwegian EFL learners. The aims of the study were to identify specific request strategies that emerge at different stages of development and to explore learners' sensitivity to social power as a contextual factor. Three age groups of pupils (8, 10, and 12 years old) participated in this cross-sectional study. The data were collected through a short structured interview and role plays and analyzed in terms of the level of directness, the types of head acts, and their internal and external modification (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989). While the results revealed clear patterns of pragmalin-guistic development with regard to the complexity of head acts and the use of alerters, supportive moves, and downgraders, little evidence of sociopragmatic development was found in the data. This exploratory study opens a number of avenues for further exploration of pragmatic development in young EFL learners. C1 [Savic, Milica] Univ Stavanger, Dept Cultural Studies & Languages, Stavanger, Norway. RP Savic, M (reprint author), Univ Stavanger, Fac Arts & Educ, Dept Cultural Studies & Languages, Stavanger, Norway. EM milica.savic@uis.no CR Achiba Machik, 2002, LEARNING REQUEST 2 L Bachman L., 1990, FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDER Bachman L.F., 1996, LANGUAGE TESTING PRA Barron A., 2002, ACQUISITION INTERLAN Blum-Kulka Soshana, 1985, LANGUAGE SOCIAL SITU, P113 Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Blum-Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P123 BLUMKULKA S, 1987, J PRAGMATICS, V11, P131, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5 Brubaek Silje, 2012, ACTA DIDACTICA NORGE, V6, P1 Canai'e M., 1980, APPLIED LINGUISTICS, V1, P1, DOI DOI 10.1093/APPLIN/1.1.1 Cohen A.D., 1996, SPEECH ACTS CULTURES, P21 Cole Simon, 2001, LANGUAGE TEACHER, V25 Economidou-Kogetsidis M, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2262, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.001 Ellis R., 1992, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V14, P1, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100010445 Faerch Claus, 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P221 Fukushima S., 2003, REQUESTS CULTURE POL Hasselgreen A., 2004, TESTING SPOKEN ENGLI Hasselgreen Angela, 2012, YOUNG LANGUAGE LEARN Hill T., 1997, DEV PRAGMATIC COMPET House J., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P96 Jianda L., 2006, REFLECTIONS ENGLISH, V5, P1 Johansen Stine Hulleberg, 2008, COMP STUDY GRATITUDE Kasper G., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P3 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2003, COUNTR REP NORW LANG Baron Pares Julia, 2012, NEW PERSPECTIVES IM, P174 Marquez Reiter R., 2000, LINGUISTIC POLITENES Rinnert Carol, 1999, HIROSHIMA J INT STUD, V5, P163 Rose KR, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P2345, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.04.002 Rose K., 2000, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V22, P27, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100001029 Flores Salgado Elizabeth, 2011, PRAGMATICS REQUESTS Savic Milica, 2014, POLITENESS PRISM REQ Scarcella R., 1979, TESOL 79, P275 Schauer G. A., 2004, EUROSLA YB, V4, P253, DOI 10.1075/eurosla.4.12sch Schauer Gila A., 2009, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Schauer G., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P193, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.011 SpencerOatey H, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V26, P1, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00047-X Trosborg A., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Woodfield Helen, 2012, INTERLANGUAGE REQUES, P9 NR 39 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 3 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1612-295X EI 1613-365X J9 INTERCULT PRAGMAT JI Intercult. Pragmat. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 12 IS 4 BP 443 EP 480 DI 10.1515/ip-2015-0023 PG 38 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CW2XA UT WOS:000364855200002 ER PT J AU Comstock, LB AF Comstock, Lindy B. TI Facilitating active engagement in intercultural teleconferences: A pragmalinguistic study of Russian and Irish participation frameworks SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE intercultural communication; pragmalinguistics; sociopragmatics; workplace interactions ID TURN-TAKING; CONVERSATION; ORGANIZATION; LANGUAGE; ENGLISH; TALK; REQUESTS AB Taking the Russian and Irish teleconference team of a multinational IT company as the subject of analysis, this paper problematizes the assumption that a community of practice (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992) will converge on a set of conventions through prolonged, recurrent interaction. Although the teleconference team successfully achieves a level of communication sufficient to carry out their task, key pragmalinguistic conventions remain resistant to passive assimilation, affecting the level of engagement expressed by team members. Thus the study of participation frameworks (Goffman 1981) can reveal how participant engagement is established and sustained, as well as where crosslinguistic transfer of pragmalinguistic norms may hinder participation. By means of discourse analysis, CA analysis, and deviant case analysis, normative discourse practices and linguistic strategies in the intra-and intercultural data are identified in terms of their pragmatic function and the participation frameworks they elicit. Attempts to facilitate engagement are analyzed, and general recommendations are made for why the study of culturally specific participation frameworks may have particular relevance for high-level nonnative speakers. C1 [Comstock, Lindy B.] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA. RP Comstock, LB (reprint author), Univ Calif Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA. EM lbcomstock@ucla.edu CR Canagarajah S, 2007, MOD LANG J, V91, P923, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00678.x Coates J., 1994, RES LANGUAGE LITERAC, P177 Coupland J, 2003, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V36, P1, DOI 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_1 Cuff Edward C., 1985, HDB DISCOURSE ANAL, V3, P149 Eckert P, 1989, JOCKS BURNOUTS SOCIA ECKERT P, 1992, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V21, P461, DOI 10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333 Enfield Nick J., 2003, LINGUISTIC EPIDEMIOL Fox B. A., 1996, INTERACTION GRAMMAR, P185, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004 Gardner R, 1998, APPL LINGUIST, V19, P204, DOI 10.1093/applin/19.2.204 Gass S., 1985, STUDIES 2ND LANGUAGE, V7, P37, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100005143 Giles H, 1991, CONTEXTS ACCOMMODATI Goffman E, 1981, FORMS TALK GOLDMANEISLER F, 1972, LANG SPEECH, V15, P103 GOODWIN C, 1986, HUM STUD, V9, P205, DOI 10.1007/BF00148127 Goodwin C., 1996, INTERACTION GRAMMAR, P370, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09780511620874.008 Goodwin C., 1981, CONVERSATIONAL ORG I Goodwin C, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V46, P8, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003 Goodwin M. H., 1997, SOCIAL SCI LANGUAGE, P77 Grice H. Paul, 1975, P ADDRESSES AM PHILO, V48, P23 Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES Hatim Basil, 1997, ENGLISH ARABIC ARABI Heinemann T, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P1081, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013 Heritage J., 2010, TALK ACTION INTERACT Heritage J., 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P299, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09780511665868 Heritage J, 2005, SOC PSYCHOL QUART, V68, P15 HERITAGE J, 1986, AM J SOCIOL, V92, P110, DOI 10.1086/228465 van Dijk T. A., 1985, HDB DISCOURSE ANAL, V3, P95 Heritage J, 1998, LANG SOC, V27, P291 Holmes Janet, 2010, J INTERCULTURAL COMM, V22 JEFFERSON G., 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, pix Jefferson Gail, 1983, TILBURG PAPERS LANGU, V30, P1 Jenkins S, 2000, INT J INTERCULT REL, V24, P477, DOI 10.1016/S0147-1767(00)00011-0 Kidwell Mardi, 2000, ISSUES APPL LINGUIST, V11, P17 Lemak Alina, 2012, SILENCE INTERCULTURA Levinson Stephen C., 1981, STUDIES LANGUAGE COM, V7, P473 Levontina Irina, 2007, MEANING TEXT THEORY, P259 Ogiermann E, 2009, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V5, P189, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2009.011 Raupach Manfred, 1980, TEMPORAL VARIABLES S, P263 Riazantseva A., 2001, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V23, P497, DOI DOI 10.1017/S027226310100403X SACKS H, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P696, DOI 10.2307/412243 Schegloff Emanuel A., 2001, LING I SANT BARB CA Schegloff E.A., 2007, SEQUENCE ORG INTERAC, V1 Schegloff E.A., 1982, ANAL DISCOURSE TEXT, P71 Schegloff EA, 2000, LANG SOC, V29, P1 Silverstein Michael, 1979, ELEMENTS PARASESSION, P193 Silverstein Michael, 1981, WORKING PAPERS SOCIO, V84 Spencer-Oatey Helen, 2000, CULTURALLY SPEAKING Steensig J., 2011, MORALITY KNOWLEDGE C, P82, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO780511921674.005 Stivers T, 2009, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V106, P10587, DOI 10.1073/pnas.0903616106 Stivers T, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2772, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 Stivers T, 2008, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V41, P31, DOI 10.1080/08351810701691123 Svedova Natalia Ul'evna, 2005, RUSSKAIA GRAMMATIKA Tedlock D, 1983, SPOKEN WORD WORK INT ten Thije Jan D., 2003, COMMUNICATION CULTUR, P197 Thomas Jenny A., 1998, RELC C RELC SING 22 Thompson Sandra A., 2014, GRAMMAR EVERYDAY TAL TSE L, 1995, HISPANIC J BEHAV SCI, V17, P180, DOI 10.1177/07399863950172003 Wenger E., 1998, COMMUNITIES PRACTICE NR 58 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1612-295X EI 1613-365X J9 INTERCULT PRAGMAT JI Intercult. Pragmat. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 12 IS 4 BP 481 EP 514 DI 10.1515/ip-2015-0024 PG 34 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CW2XA UT WOS:000364855200003 ER PT J AU Schmid, HJ Mantlik, A AF Schmid, Hans-Joerg Mantlik, Annette TI Entrenchment in Historical Corpora? Reconstructing Dead Authors' Minds from their Usage Profiles SO ANGLIA-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ENGLISCHE PHILOLOGIE LA English DT Article AB Data from eight historical corpora spanning the period between 1250 and 1871 are investigated with regard to occurrences of the 'N+BE+that-construction' (as in my concern is that [...], the idea was that [...]). The formal, semantic, and pragmatic changes of this construction are described on the basis of 1,588 attestations retrieved from the corpora. Following this, the usage profiles of individual authors are examined. It is shown that even authors who are comparable in terms of period and genre show significant differences with regard to the frequency of use of the construction, collocational ranges and preferences, the use of semi-fixed lexical expressions manifesting the construction, as well as their functional preferences. These differences are interpreted from the perspective of the so-called 'Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model' (Schmid 2014a and 2015). It is argued that the usage profiles of individual authors can provide insights into the ways in which the construction under investigation was represented in these authors' minds, and that the observable collective long-term changes arise from the interaction of the cognitive processes in individual minds and the social processes taking place in the speech community. C1 [Schmid, Hans-Joerg] Univ Munich, D-81377 Munich, Germany. RP Schmid, HJ (reprint author), Univ Munich, Marchioninistr 15, D-81377 Munich, Germany. EM hans-joerg.schmid@anglistik.uni-muenchen.de; annette-mantlik@gmx.de CR Barlow M, 2013, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V18, P443, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.18.4.01bar BYBEE J., 2003, HDB HIST LINGUISTICS, P602, DOI 10.1002/9780470756393.ch19 Bybee J., 2010, LANGUAGE USAGE COGNI BYBEE J, 2015, LANGUAGE CHANGE Cannon Christopher, 2004, CAMBRIDGE COMPANION, P233, DOI 10.1017/CCOL0521815568.014 William Robert, 1952, J AUSTENS LETT HER S Craig Hugh, 2002, EARLY MODERN LIT STU, V8, P1 Craig H., 1992, STYLE, V26, P199 Craig H, 2011, SHAKESPEARE QUART, V62, P53 Diessel H, 2007, NEW IDEAS PSYCHOL, V25, P108, DOI 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.002 Finegan Edward, 1995, VERB CONT ENGLISH, P241 Fischer Olga, 2011, OXFORD HDB GRAMMATIC, P31 Valentine Eric, 1953, PASTON LETT PAPERS 1 Gries Stefan, 2012, OXFORD HDB HIST ENGL, P134 Heine Bernd, 1991, GRAMMATICALIZATION C Hilpert Martin, 2013, CONSTRUCTIONAL CHANG Hock Hans Henrich, 2003, HDB HIST LINGUISTICS, P441, DOI 10.1002/9780470756393.ch11 Horobin Simon, 2007, CHAUCERS LANGUAGE Huber Magnus, 2007, ANNOTATING VARIATION Janda R. D., 2003, HDB HIST LINGUISTICS, P3 Krug M., 2000, EMERGING ENGLISH MOD LANGACKER RW, 1987, LANGUAGE, V63, P53, DOI 10.2307/415384 Magnus Magnus Nissel, 2012, SPOKEN ENGLISH 18 19 Mantlik Annette, 2011, THESIS Mantlik Annette, 2013, RECORDING ENGLISH RE, P133 Mantlik Annette, NOUN PHRASE ENGLISH Raumolin-Brunberg Helena, 2011, OXFORED HDB GRAMMATI, P251 Rissanen Matti, 1991, ENGLISH CORPUS LINGU, P272 Rohdenburg Gunter, 2013, RES METHODS LANGUAGE, P136 Schmid HJ, 2013, LINGUISTICS, V51, P75, DOI 10.1515/ling-2013-0003 Schmid Hans-Jorg, 2015, YB GERMAN CONGITIVE, V3, P5 Schmid Hans-Jorg, 2014, CONSTRUCTIONS COLLOC, P239 Schmid H. J, 2000, ENGLISH ABSTRACT NOU Schmid Hans-Jorg, 2014, FRAMEWORK UNDERSTAND TAAVITSAINEN I, 1995, CHAUCER REV, V30, P191 Givon Talmy, 1991, GRAMMATOCALIZATION C, V2 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2013, CONSTRUCTIONALIZATIO Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2004, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Zimmerer VC, 2011, MEM COGNITION, V39, P491, DOI 10.3758/s13421-010-0039-y [Anonymous], 2000, OXFORD ENGLISH DICT NR 40 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 0 U2 0 PU WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, D-10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0340-5222 EI 1865-8938 J9 ANGLIA-Z ENGL PHILOL JI Anglia-Z. Engl. Philol. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 133 IS 4 BP 583 EP 623 DI 10.1515/anglia-2015-0056 PG 41 WC Language & Linguistics; Literature SC Linguistics; Literature GA CV9GM UT WOS:000364595700001 ER PT J AU Llinares, A Dalton-Puffer, C AF Llinares, Ana Dalton-Puffer, Christiane TI The role of different tasks in CLIL students' use of evaluative language SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE Task-based learning; CLIL; Task-types; Evaluative language; Appraisal; Student language use; Classroom discourse; Social science subjects ID PRAGMATICS AB Some consider CLIL to be a "particular pedagogic manifestation of the task-based approach" (Skehan 1998, 276). In this study we examine learners working on a range of naturalistic tasks following the rationales of CLIL social science subjects in three European contexts (Austria, Finland, Spain). The focus is on learners' use of interpersonal resources, especially the language of evaluation. Using an integrative analytical framework that draws on systemic functional appraisal theory (Martin & White 2005), Goffman's (1981) participation framework as well as educational-pragmatic notions of academic discourse functions (e.g. evaluating; Dalton-Puffer 2007, 2013), we analyze CLIL students' evaluative language across five ecologically viable task-types (whole-class discussions, group-work discussions, individual interviews, oral presentations and role-plays). Findings show clear differences in the frequency and distribution of different appraisal types between different tasks, with role-play and whole-class discussion forming the opposite ends of a continuum. The analysis puts particular emphasis on the resources for engagement because of its significance for expressing learners' epistemological stance on curricular content. In educational terms such resources are often framed in terms of higher order thinking skills or discourse functions like arguing, evaluating. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Llinares, Ana] Univ Autonoma Madrid, E-28049 Madrid, Spain. [Dalton-Puffer, Christiane] Univ Wien, Vienna, Austria. RP Llinares, A (reprint author), Univ Autonoma Madrid, Dept Filol Inglesa, Campus Cantoblanco, E-28049 Madrid, Spain. EM ana.llinares@uam.es FU INTERCLIL Project - Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Spain [FFI2010-20790]; CONCLIL Project - Academy of Finland FX Work on this article was supported by the INTERCLIL Project, financed by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Spain (FFI2010-20790) and the CONCLIL Project, financed by the Academy of Finland. CR Anderson L. W., 2001, TAXONOMY LEARNING TE Badertscher H., 2009, WISSENSERWERB CONTEN Ballinger S., 2013, J IMMERSION CONTENT, V1, P131, DOI [10.1075/jicb.1.1.06bal, DOI 10.1075/JICB.1.1.06BAL] BMUKK. Bundesministerium fur Unterricht Kunst und Kultur, 2005, LEHRPL HS AHS GESCH Bunch G. C., 2009, LINGUISTICS ED, V20, P81, DOI 10.1016/j.linged.2009.04.001 Christie F., 2002, CLASSROOM DISCOURSE Coffin C., 2006, HIST DISCOURSE LANGU Coffin C., 1997, GENRE I SOCIAL PROCE, P196 Coyle D., 2010, CLIL CONTENT LANGUAG Dalton-Puffer C, 2011, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V31, P182, DOI 10.1017/S0267190511000092 Dalton-Puffer C, 2006, APPL LINGUIST, V27, P241, DOI 10.1093/applin/aml007 Dalton-Puffer C, 2014, APPL LINGUIST, V35, P213, DOI 10.1093/applin/amu010 Dalton-Puffer Christiane, 2007, DISCOURSE CONTENT AN Dalton-Puffer C., 2013, EUROPEAN J APPL LING, V1, P1, DOI [10.1515/eujal-2013-0011, DOI 10.1515/EUJAL-2013-0011] Ellis R., 2003, TASK BASED LANGUAGE European Commission, 2003, PROM LANG LEARN LING, P1 European Commission, 1995, WHIT PAP ED TRAIN TE, P47 Gassner D., 2006, VIENNA ENGLISH WORKI, V15, P15 Goffman E, 1981, FORMS TALK Halliday M. A. K., 2004, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA Jakonen T., 2014, SOC S JUN 2014 JYV, P15 Llinares A., 2012, ROLES LANGUAGE CLIL Llinares A., 2012, DISCOURSE LEARNING L, P105 Llinares A., 2010, CLASSROOM DISCOURSE, V1, P46, DOI DOI 10.1080/19463011003750681 Llinares A, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V59, P81, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.011 Lyster R, 2007, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V18, P1 Maillat D, 2010, AILA APPL LINGUIST S, V7, P39 Marsh D., 2013, CLIL TRAJECTORY ED I Marshall S., 2006, LANGUAGE LITERACY FU, P252 Martin J., 2000, EVALUATION TEXT AUTH, P142 Martin J. R., 2005, LANGUAGE EVALUATION Ostojic I., 2010, THESIS U VIENNA Polias J., 2003, ENGLISH 2 LANGUAGE S Sarangi S., 2003, TEXT, V23, P165, DOI 10.1515/text.2003.006 Schleppegrell M. J., 2004, LANGUAGE SCH FUNCTIO White P. R. R., 2003, TEXT, P259 Zareva A, 2013, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V32, P72, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2012.11.001 NR 37 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 3 U2 17 PU ELSEVIER SCI LTD PI OXFORD PA THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, OXON, ENGLAND SN 0346-251X EI 1879-3282 J9 SYSTEM JI System PD NOV PY 2015 VL 54 SI SI BP 69 EP 79 DI 10.1016/j.system.2015.05.001 PG 11 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CV6NX UT WOS:000364388000007 ER PT J AU Yates, L AF Yates, Lynda TI Intercultural communication and the transnational: managing impressions at work SO MULTILINGUA-JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL AND INTERLANGUAGE COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE interlanguage pragmatics; cultural values; workplace language; English language teaching; transnationals; migration ID SOCIOPRAGMATIC SKILLS; DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOCIAL INCLUSION; HEALTH-CARE; SMALL TALK; LANGUAGE; AUSTRALIA; WORKPLACE; SOCIALIZATION; SETTLEMENT AB Whether in pursuit of a safer place to live, economic advancement or simply from a desire to travel, increasing numbers of professionals find themselves working outside familiar cultural settings and using a language in which they did not train. As a country of migration, Australia is home to many such transnationals. Despite high levels of proficiency in English, however, many find that communication at work can be something of a challenge, and that different perspectives on professional roles and identities as well as differences in pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic assumptions can become invisible barriers to success and progression. In this article I will draw on recent research into the demands of two different professions, childcare and medicine, to consider some of the issues faced by transnationals seeking to master not only the language but also the professional and community cultures underlying talk at work. I argue that language instruction programs designed to prepare new arrivals to enter the workforce should include explicit attention to cultural values based on empirical evidence in order to increase understanding of both how and why people talk the way they do in different working environments. C1 Macquarie Univ Linguist, N Ryde, NSW 2065, Australia. RP Yates, L (reprint author), Macquarie Univ Linguist, C5A 6b, N Ryde, NSW 2065, Australia. EM lynda.yates@mq.edu.au CR Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P13 Bardovi-Harlig K., 1993, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V15, P279, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100012122 Baxter J, 2002, DISCOURSE SOC, V13, P827, DOI 10.1177/0957926502013006760 Bilbow GT, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V28, P461, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00036-2 Burns A., 2010, DOING ACTION RES ENG Burns A, 2010, TESOL QUART, V44, P409, DOI 10.5054/tq.2010.232478 Clyne Michael, 1994, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Colic-Peisker V, 2002, J SOCIOL, V38, P149, DOI 10.1177/144078302128756552 Colic-Peisker V, 2005, J ETHN MIGR STUD, V31, P615, DOI 10.1080/13691830500109720 Colic-Peisker V, 2009, ETHNICITIES, V9, P175, DOI 10.1177/1468796809103459 Dahm M., 2013, TESOL CANADA J, V30, P21 Dahm MR, 2011, AUST FAM PHYSICIAN, V40, P895 Daly N, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P945, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.12.004 de Bres J, 2009, LANG TEACH, V42, P519, DOI 10.1017/S0261444809990061 Deng XD, 2008, PRAGMATICS, V18, P303 Department of Immigration and Border Protection, FACT SHEET POP GROWT Derwing Tracey M, 2014, IRPP STUDY, V31 Diepenbroek Lori G., 2013, TESL CANADA, V30, P1 Duff PA, 2000, CAN MOD LANG REV, V57, P9 Esmail A, 2004, BRIT MED J, V328, P1448, DOI 10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1448 Fraser B, 2010, STUD PRAGMAT, V9, P15 Fuller Janet M., 2003, MULTILINGUA, V22, P185, DOI DOI 10.1515/MULT.2003.010 Goffman E., 1959, PRESENTATION SELF EV Gumperz John, 1982, DISCOURSESSTRATEGIES Hall P, 2004, MED TEACH, V26, P120, DOI 10.1080/01421590310001653982 Adolphs S., 2012, ROUTLEDGE HDB DISCOU, P470 He A. W., 2000, LINGUISTICS ED, V11, P119, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0898-5898(00)00025-5 Holmes J., 2005, 2 LANGUAGE NEEDS ANA, P344, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511667299.012 Holmes Janet, 2009, LANGUAGE WORKPLACE O, P10 Holmes J, 2011, ELT J, V65, P376, DOI 10.1093/elt/ccq071 Hudak PL, 2011, SOCIOL HEALTH ILL, V33, P634, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01343.x Ishihara Noriko, 2010, TEACHING LEARNING PR Jackling B., 2007, PEOPLE PLACE, V15, P31 Kallia Alexandria, 2005, BROADENING HORIZON L, P217 Kasper G, 1992, SECOND LANG RES, V8, P203, DOI 10.1177/026765839200800303 Kramsch C., 1993, CONTEXT CULTURE LANG Liddicoat A. J., 2013, INTERCULTURAL LANGUA Llurda Enric, 2000, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V10, P85, DOI 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2000.tb00141.x Lundell FF, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P756, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.010 Marra Meredith, 2007, HUMOUR WORK ORG, P139 Marra M, 2007, HANDB APPL LINGUIST, V7, P153 Matsumura S, 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P465, DOI 10.1093/applin/24.4.465 Meier Ardith J., 2010, SPEECH ACT PERFORMAN, P109 Meier Ardith J, 2003, PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE, P133 Miller J., 2003, AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE E Moore E, 2013, PRAGMAT SOC, V4, P317, DOI 10.1075/ps.4.3.03moo Burns A., 2008, PROSPECT AUSTR J TES, V23, P47 Newton Jonathan, 2004, PROSPECT, V19, P47 O'Grady C., 2011, ENGLISH LANGUAGE MED, P43 Piller Ingrid, 2012, 1 DEP IMM CIT Piller I., 2011, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Pilotto LS, 2007, MED J AUSTRALIA, V187, P225 Riddiford N, 2015, SYSTEM, V48, P129, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.010 Riddiford N, 2010, TESOL QUART, V44, P195, DOI 10.5054/tq.2010.215252 Roberts C, 2003, MED EDUC, V37, P192, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01443.x Rose K. R., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P385, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.003 SCHMIDT RW, 1990, APPL LINGUIST, V11, P129, DOI 10.1093/applin/11.2.129 Schnurr S., 2013, EXPLORING PROFESSION SpencerOatey H, 2009, RES PRACT APPL LINGU, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230244511 Stewart M, 2003, PATIENT CTR MED TRAN Takahashi Satomi, 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, VVI, P391 THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Tipton Sara, 2005, J APPL LINGUISTICS, V2, P395 Trosborg Anna, 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, VVII, P391 Vanda Koczogh H., 2007, ARGUMENTUM, V3, P46 Vine B., 2004, GETTING THINGS DONE von Munchow P, 2011, INTERLANGUES, P9 Yates L, 2005, SEC LANG ACQ RES, P67 Yates Lynda, 2005, APPL LINGUISTICS LAN YATES Lynda, 2010, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGES, P287 Yates Lynda, 2008, NOT SO GENERIC SKILL Yates Lynda, 2014, LANG TEACHING, DOI [10.1017/S0261444814000238, DOI 10.1017/S0261444814000238] Yates L, 2011, INT J BILING EDUC BI, V14, P457, DOI 10.1080/13670050.2011.573068 Yates L, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P109 Yates L, 2015, SYSTEM, V48, P141, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.011 [Anonymous], 2015, ABC NEWS REPORT Gass SM, 2006, STUD LANG ACQUIS, V11, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110219289 NR 77 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 10 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0167-8507 EI 1613-3684 J9 MULTILINGUA JI Multilingua PD NOV PY 2015 VL 34 IS 6 SI SI BP 773 EP 795 DI 10.1515/multi-2014-0063 PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CV5ME UT WOS:000364314000004 ER PT J AU Cervel, MSP AF Pena Cervel, Maria Sandra TI A constructionist approach to causative frighten verbs SO LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE causative frighten verbs; high-level metaphor; high-level metonymy ID ARGUMENT STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTIONS; LINGUISTIC INFORMATION; COERCION; GRAMMAR; SEMANTICS; METONYMY; WEBCORP; CORPUS; WEB AB This paper studies, on the basis of corpus data, the licensing and blocking factors in the lexical-constructional integration process of causative frighten verbs into a number of constructions. This study is particularly compatible with the central postulates of Goldberg's (1995, 2006) Cognitive Construction Grammar. Thus, the analysis is carried out on the basis of construction-specific and more general constraints spelled out in order to avoid the mismatch between coercing and coerced constructional elements. We devote our attention to constraints involving conceptual compatibility between lexical items and constructional configurations, and to the metonymic and metaphoric activity which underlies such compatibility. We also explore the pragmatic and discourse-functional features which influence acceptability in constructional environments. In addition, two families of constructions are identified and discussed as separate from other constructions: the fake intransitive and the cause subject constructions. We offer a fine-grained analysis of both constructional families and of each of the members that each accommodates. C1 Univ La Rioja, Dept Filol Modernas, Logrono 26004, La Rioja, Spain. RP Cervel, MSP (reprint author), Univ La Rioja, Dept Filol Modernas, C San Jose de Calasanz 33,Edificio Filol, Logrono 26004, La Rioja, Spain. EM sandra.pena@unirioja.es FU Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [FFI2011-29798-C02-01, FFI2013-43593-P] FX This article is based on research supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, grants no. FFI2011-29798-C02-01 and FFI2013-43593-P. CR Ait-Kaci Hassan, 1984, THESIS U PENNSYLVANI Baicchi Annalisa, 2007, WORKSH BRIDG GAP FUN Baicchi Annalisa, 2008, 27 C LEX GRAMM AQ 10 Baker C. F., 2002, P 28 ANN M BERK LING, P27 Barcelona Antonio, 2005, COGN LINGUIST, P313 Bergen Benjamin K., 2005, CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR, P121 Boas H., 2003, CONSTRUCTIONAL APPRO Boas HC, 2011, LINGUISTICS, V49, P1271, DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.036 Boas Hans C, 2013, OXFORD HDB CONSTRUCT, P233 Boas HC, 2011, MORPHOSYNTACTIC ALTE, P207 Bod R, 2009, COGN LINGUIST, V20, P129, DOI 10.1515/COGL.2009.006 Cortes Francisco J., 2007, ENGLISH CONSTR UNPUB Cortes Francisco J., 2013, ONOMAZEIN, V27, P221 Cortes Francisco J., 2009, DECONSTRUCTING CONST, P247 Croft William, 2001, RADICAL CONSTRUCTION Croft William, 2003, STUDIES G RADDEN, P49 De Swart H, 1998, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V16, P347, DOI 10.1023/A:1005916004600 Ruiz de Mendoza F. J., 2007, INTERLINGUISTICA, V17, P26 DEMENDOZA FJR, 2000, METAPHOR METONYMY CR, P109 Luzondo A, 2012, COGN LINGUIST, P117 Ruiz de Mendoza F., 2007, ASPECTS MEANING CONS, P33, DOI DOI 10.1075/Z.136.05RUI Ruiz de Mendoza FJ, 2001, LANG COMMUN, V21, P321, DOI [10. 1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8, DOI 10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8] Ruiz de Mendoza FJ, 2011, MORPHOSYNTACTIC ALTE, P62 Ruiz de Mendoza F.J., 2014, COGNITIVE MODELING L Ruiz de Mendoza F., 2008, CURRENT TRENDS CONTR, P251 Ruiz de Mendoza FJ, 2008, COGNITIVE APPROACHES, P121 Ruiz de Mendoza F., 2013, LINKING CONSTRUCTION, P231, DOI DOI 10.1075/SLCS.145.09IB225 Ruiz de Mendoza F., 2003, ITALIAN J LINGUISTIC, V15, P293 DEMENDOZA FJR, 2002, METAPHOR METONYMY CO, P489 Ruiz de Mendoza F.J., 2007, PERSPECTIVES METONYM, P11 Mairal Ricardo, 2008, FOLIA LINGUIST, V42, P355 Gonzalvez-Garcia Francisco, 2011, BRIT AM STUDIES, VXVII, P75 Diez Olga I., 2005, THESIS U LA RIOJA Diez Olga I., 2002, EPOS, VXVIII, P309 Dik Simon C., 1997, THEORY FUNCTIONAL 1 Dirven Rene, 1993, LEUVENSE BIJDRAGEN, V82, P1 [Anonymous], 1999, CONSTRUCTING LEXICON Fellbaum Christiane, 1986, MIDDLE CONSTRUCTION Fillmore C. J., 1982, LINGUISTICS MORNING, P111 Fillmore Charles, 2010, OXFORD HDB LINGUISTI, P313 Galera A., 2012, LANG SCI, V34, P54 Gatto M., 2014, WEB CORPUS THEORY PR Goddard Cliff, 2014, WORDS MEANINGS LEXIC Goldberg AE, 2011, COGN LINGUIST, V22, P131, DOI 10.1515/COGL.2011.006 Goldberg AE, 2005, CONSTR APPROACH LANG, V3, P17 GOLDBERG A. E., 1995, CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR Goldberg Adele E., 2006, CONSTRUCTIONS WORK N Goldberg AE, 2004, LANGUAGE, V80, P532, DOI 10.1353/lan.2004.0129 Goldberg A., 2001, LANG SCI, V23, P503, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00034-6 Gonzalvez-Garcia F, 2009, LANG SCI, V31, P663, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003 Gonzalvez-Garcia F, 2011, LINGUISTICS, V49, P1305, DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.037 Gonzalvez-Garcia Francisco, 2007, ANN REV COGNITIVE LI, V5, P193 Grady Joseph, 1997, FDN MEANING PRIMARY Grimshaw J., 1993, KNOWLEDGE LANGUAGE, P143 Hale Kenneth L., 1987, LEXICON PROJECT WORK, V10 Halliday MAK, 1967, J LINGUIST, V3, P199, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700016613 Halliday M. A. K., 2004, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA Faulhaber Susen, 2011, PHRASEOLOGICAL VIEW Herbst T, 2010, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V13, P225 Herbst T, 2011, Z ANGLIST AM, V59, P347 Heyvaert Liesbet, 2003, COGNITIVE FUNCTIONAL Hodgson Miren J., 2006, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Levin Beth, 1998, PROJECTION ARGUMENTS, P97 Seizi Iwata, 2008, LOCATIVE ALTERNATION lackendoff Ray S., 1997, ARCHITECTURE LANGUAG Jimenez Rocio, 2004, P 2004 INT C ROL REF, P120 Jimenez Rocio, 2006, STUDIES CONTRASTIVE, P407 Johnson M, 2002, COGN LINGUIST, V13, P245, DOI 10.1515/cogl.2002.016 Johnson M., 1999, PHILOS FLESH EMBODIE Kay Paul, 2012, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V3, P2271 Kay P, 2005, CONSTR APPROACH LANG, V4, P71 Kehoe Antoinette, 2007, MULTIMEDIA CORPUS ST, P2 Kehoe A, 2006, LANG COMPUT, P297 Kovecses Z, 1998, COGN LINGUIST, V9, P37, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 Kuperberg GR, 2010, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V22, P2685, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2009.21333 Lakoff George, 1977, P CHICAGO LINGUISTIC, V13, P236 Lakoff George, 1987, WOMEN FIRE DANGEROUS Langacker RW, 2009, COGN LINGUIST, V20, P167, DOI 10.1515/COGL.2009.010 Lauwers P, 2011, LINGUISTICS, V49, P1219, DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.034 Lemmens Maarten, 2006, CONSTRUCTIONS, V1 Levin B., 1995, UNACCUSATIVITY SYNTA Levin B., 1993, ENGLISH VERB CLASSES Mairal Ricardo, 2010, GRAMATICA SENTIDO LE, P123 MAIRAL Ricardo, 2009, DECONSTRUCTING CONST, P153, DOI DOI 10.1075/SLCS.107.08LEV Mairal R., 2008, REV CANARIA ESTUDIOS, V57, P137 Mairal Ricardo, 2008, ESTUDIOS FILOLOGIA I, P219 Michaelis LA, 2003, COG LIN RES, V23, P163, DOI 10.1515/9783110219074.163 Michaelis LA, 2004, COGN LINGUIST, V15, P1, DOI 10.1515/cogl.2004.001 Michaelis Laura A., 2004, 4 INT C CONSTR GRAMM Michaelis Laura A., 2003, MISMATCH FORM FUNCTI, P259 Michaelis LA, 2011, LINGUISTICS, V49, P1359, DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.038 Moens M., 1988, Computational Linguistics, V14, P15 Morley B, 2006, LANG COMPUT, P283 Nemoto N, 2005, CONSTR APPROACH LANG, V4, P119 Panther Klaus-Uwe, 2005, COGN LINGUIST, P353 Panther K-U., 1999, METONYMY LANGUAGE TH, P333, DOI DOI 10.1075/HCP.4.19PAN Panther Klaus-Uwe, 2003, METONYMY PRAGMATIC I Panther Klaus-Uwe, 2007, HDB COGNITIVE LINGUI, P236 Parsons T., 1990, EVENTS SEMANTICS ENG Partee B., 1987, STUDIES DISCOURSE RE, V8, P115 Pena Maria Sandra, 2009, LANG SCI, V31, P740, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.LANGSCI.2009.05.003 Perez Lorena, 2009, ATLANTIS, V31, P57 Pinango MM, 1999, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V28, P395, DOI 10.1023/A:1023241115818 Pinker S., 1989, LEARNABILITY COGNITI Pylkkanen L, 2007, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V19, P1905, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.11.1905 Pylkkanen L., 2008, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V2, P712, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2008.00073.X Radden Gunter, 1999, METONYMY LANGUAGE TH, P17, DOI DOI 10.1075/HCP.4.03RAD Renouf A, 2004, LANG COMPUT, P403 Renouf A, 2007, LANG COMPUT, V59, P47 Rice Sally, 1988, BLS, V14, P202 Rosch Eleanor, 1977, STUDIES CROSS CULTUR, V1, P1 Rosch E. H., 1973, COGNITIVE DEV ACQUIS, P111 Rosch E., 1978, COGNITION CATEGORIZA, P27 Smith C. S., 1970, LINGUISTIC LIT STUDI, V2, P101 Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Stefanowitsch Anatol, 2003, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V8, P209, DOI [DOI 10.1075/IJCL.8.2.03STE, DOI 10.1075/IJC1.8.2.03STE] Stefanowitsch A., 2005, CORPUS LINGUIST LING, V1, P1, DOI DOI 10.1515/CLLT.2005.1.1.1 Suttle L, 2011, LINGUISTICS, V49, P1237, DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.035 Sweet H., 1891, NEW ENGLISH GRAMMAR Talmy L., 2000, COGNITIVE SEMANTICS Taylor John R., 2003, COGNITIVE GRAMMAR Taylor John R., 2003, STUDIES HONOUR GUNTE, P27 Traugott EC, 2007, COGN LINGUIST, V18, P523, DOI 10.1515/COG.2007.027 van Oosten Jeanne, 1986, NATURE SUBJECTS TOPI Wierzbicka A., 1996, SEMANTICS PRIMES UNI Anna Wierzbicka, 2006, ENGLISH MEANING CULT Wright Saundra, 2000, 74 ANN M LING SOC AM Ziegeler Debra, 2010, CONSTRUCTIONS FRAMES, V2, P33 Ziegeler D, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P990, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.014 Ostman JO, 2005, CONSTR APPROACH LANG, V3, P1 NR 130 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 18 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0024-3949 EI 1613-396X J9 LINGUISTICS JI Linguistics PD NOV PY 2015 VL 53 IS 6 BP 1247 EP 1302 DI 10.1515/ling-2015-0032 PG 56 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CU9EY UT WOS:000363848000001 ER PT J AU Suzuki, D AF Suzuki, Daisuke TI Form and function of the modal adverbs: Recent linguistic change and constancy in British English SO LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE modal adverbs; functional analysis; corpus data; discourse; grammaticalization/pragmaticalization AB This study examines the modal adverbs in English including doubtless, indeed, no doubt, and of course from a functional perspective. Although an increasing number of studies have investigated "core" modal adverbs (e. g., certainly, possibly, probably), a comprehensive analysis including these four modal adverbs has not been offered in modal adverb studies. The present study begins to address this research gap by providing descriptions of these adverbs using data from the LOB (1961) and FLOB (1991) corpora. To adopt a more comprehensive view of the set of modal adverbs, I compare the behaviors of the modal adverbs without -ly to those with -ly in terms of their discourse and interpersonal functions in the text, and present the relationship between form and function of the modal adverbs. The results of the analysis demonstrate that the modal adverbs that convey the same degree of probability fulfill different functions at the discourse-pragmatic level. Moreover, the modal adverbs without -ly have increased their pragmatic functions over time, thus signaling a short-term diachronic development. Finally, I provide an explanation of this change in terms of grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. C1 Kyoto Univ, Sakyo Ku, Kyoto 6068501, Japan. RP Suzuki, D (reprint author), Kyoto Univ, Sakyo Ku, Kyoto 6068501, Japan. EM suzuki0213@gmail.com FU Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [25.5013] FX This research was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 25.5013). CR Aijmer K., 1997, MODALITY GERMANIC LA, P1 Arnovick Leslie K., 1999, 7 CASE STUDIES ENGLI Baker Mark, 2003, LEXICAL CATEGORIES V BELLERT I, 1977, LINGUIST INQ, V8, P337 Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Brinton Laurel J., 2005, LEXICALIZATION LANGU Bybee J., 1985, MORPHOLOGY STUDY REL Bybee Joan L., 1994, EVOLUTION GRAMMAR TE Cinque G., 1999, ADVERBS FUNCTIONAL H Cinque G, 2004, LINGUA, V114, P683, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00048-2 Diewald G, 2011, LINGUISTICS, V49, P365, DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.011 DOHERTY M, 1987, FOLIA LINGUIST, V21, P45, DOI 10.1515/flin.1987.21.1.45 Erman B, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1337, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00066-7 Ernst Thomas, 2010, P 22 N AM C CHIN LIN, V2, P178 Ernst Thomas, 2002, SYNTAX ADJUNCTS ERNST THOMAS, 1984, INTEGRATED THEORY AD Ernst T, 2004, LINGUA, V114, P755, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00050-0 Ernst T, 2009, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V27, P497, DOI 10.1007/s11049-009-9069-1 Fischer Olga, 2007, MORPHOSYNTACTIC CHAN Fowler H. W., 2004, FOWLERS MODERN ENGLI Giegerich HJ, 2012, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V16, P341, DOI 10.1017/S1360674312000147 Sidney Greenbaum, 1969, STUDIES ENGLISH ADVE HALLIDAY MA, 1970, FOUND LANG, V6, P322 Halliday M. A. K., 2004, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA Haspelmath Martin, 2004, CLINE NATURE GRAMMAT, P17 Hoye Leo, 1997, ADVERBS MODALITY ENG Huddleston Rodney, 2002, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Hundt M, 1997, LANG COMPUT, P135 Jackendoff R., 2002, FDN LANGUAGE BRAIN M Leech Geoffrey, 2003, MODALITY CONT ENGLIS, P223 Leech G, 2004, LANG COMPUT, P61 Leech Geoffrey, 2009, CHANGE CONT ENGLISH Leech Geoffrey, 2006, CHANGING FACE CORPUS, P186 Christian Lehmann, 1995, THOUGHTS GRAMMATICAL Lyons J, 1977, SEMANTICS, V2 Mair C., 2002, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V7, P245 Mair C, 1997, LANG COMPUT, P195 [Anonymous], 1994, MERRIAM WEBSTERS DIC Nevalainen Terttu, 1997, GRAMMATICALIZATION W, P145, DOI 10.1515/9783110810745.145 Nilsen O, 2004, LINGUA, V114, P809, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00052-4 Nuyts Jan, 2001, EPISTEMIC MODALITY L Oxford, 2008, OXFORD LEARNERS THES Papafragou A., 2000, MODALITY ISSUES SEMA Papafragou A, 2006, LINGUA, V116, P1688, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.05.009 Payne J., 2010, WORD STRUCTURE, V3, P31, DOI 10.3366/E1750124510000486 [Anonymous], 2002, LONGMAN LANGUAGE ACT Perkins M. R., 1983, MODAL EXPRESSIONS EN Plag I., 2003, WORD FORMATION ENGLI Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Simon-Vandenbergen A.M., 2007, SEMANTIC FIELD MODAL Simon-Vandenbergen Anne-Marie, 2011, LINGUISTICS, V49, P333, DOI [10.1515/ling.2011.010, DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.010] Smith N., 2003, MODALITY CONT ENGLIS, P241 Sugioka Yoko, 1983, CLS, p[19, 293] Swan Michael, 2005, PRACTICAL ENGLISH US Swan Toril, 1988, SENTENCE ADVERBIALS Tancredi Christopher, 2007, MULTIMODEL M 1 UNPUB WATTS RJ, 1984, ENGL STUD, V65, P129, DOI 10.1080/00138388408598312 Zwicky Arnold M., 1995, 31 REG M CHIC LING 1, V31, P523 [Anonymous], 2009, OXFORD THESAURUS ENG NR 59 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 5 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0024-3949 EI 1613-396X J9 LINGUISTICS JI Linguistics PD NOV PY 2015 VL 53 IS 6 BP 1365 EP 1389 DI 10.1515/ling-2015-0035 PG 25 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CU9EY UT WOS:000363848000004 ER PT J AU Boudry, M Paglieri, F Pigliucci, M AF Boudry, Maarten Paglieri, Fabio Pigliucci, Massimo TI The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life SO ARGUMENTATION LA English DT Article DE Fallacies; Demarcation; Fallacy Fork; Pseudoscience; Argumentum ad ignorantiam; Genetic fallacy; Post hoc ergo propter hoc; Ad hominem; Ecological rationality; Probabilistic reasoning; Pragma-dialetics; Destructive dilemma; Irrationality ID BAYESIAN-APPROACH; RATIONALITY; EVOLUTION AB Philosophers of science have given up on the quest for a silver bullet to put an end to all pseudoscience, as such a neat formal criterion to separate good science from its contenders has proven elusive. In the literature on critical thinking and in some philosophical quarters, however, this search for silver bullets lives on in the taxonomies of fallacies. The attractive idea is to have a handy list of abstract definitions or argumentation schemes, on the basis of which one can identify bad or invalid types of reasoning, abstracting away from the specific content and dialectical context. Such shortcuts for debunking arguments are tempting, but alas, the promise is hardly if ever fulfilled. Different strands of research on the pragmatics of argumentation, probabilistic reasoning and ecological rationality have shown that almost every known type of fallacy is a close neighbor to sound inferences or acceptable moves in a debate. Nonetheless, the kernel idea of a fallacy as an erroneous type of argument is still retained by most authors. We outline a destructive dilemma we refer to as the Fallacy Fork: on the one hand, if fallacies are construed as demonstrably invalid form of reasoning, then they have very limited applicability in real life (few actual instances). On the other hand, if our definitions of fallacies are sophisticated enough to capture real-life complexities, they can no longer be held up as an effective tool for discriminating good and bad forms of reasoning. As we bring our schematic "fallacies" in touch with reality, we seem to lose grip on normative questions. Even approaches that do not rely on argumentation schemes to identify fallacies (e.g., pragma-dialectics) fail to escape the Fallacy Fork, and run up against their own version of it. C1 [Boudry, Maarten] Univ Ghent, Dept Philosophy & Moral Sci, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. [Paglieri, Fabio] CNR, Ist Sci & Tecnol Cogniz, Rome, Italy. [Pigliucci, Massimo] CUNY City Coll, Dept Philosophy, New York, NY 10031 USA. RP Boudry, M (reprint author), Univ Ghent, Dept Philosophy & Moral Sci, St Pietersnieuwstr 49, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. EM maartenboudry@gmail.com; fabio.paglieri@istc.cnr.it; massimo@platofootnote.org RI Boudry, Maarten/N-3090-2016 OI Boudry, Maarten/0000-0003-0932-3394 CR Aikin SF, 2011, ARGUMENTATION, V25, P87, DOI 10.1007/s10503-010-9199-y Alcock J., 2011, SKEPTICAL ENQUIRER, V35, P31 Barrett J. L., 2007, RELIG COMPASS, V1, P1, DOI [10.1111/j.1749-8171.2007.00042.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1749-8171.2007.00042.X] Barth E. M., 1982, AXIOM DIALOGUE PHILO Bering J., 2012, BELIEF INSTINCT PSYC Boone D.N., 2002, INFORMAL LOGIC, V22, P93 De Smedt J., 2011, RELIGION, V41, P517 Boudry M, 2011, PHILOSOPHIA, V39, P145, DOI 10.1007/s11406-010-9254-9 Boudry M, 2010, FOUND SCI, V15, P227, DOI 10.1007/s10699-010-9178-7 Boudry M, 2015, CONSCIOUS COGN, V33, P524, DOI 10.1016/j.concog.2014.08.025 Brinton A., 1995, FALLACIES CLASSICAL, P213 Carroll R.T., 2000, BECOMING CRITICAL TH Copi I. M., 1998, INTRO LOGIC Cummings L., 2002, INFORMAL LOGIC, V22, P113 Dennett D.C., 1996, DARWINS DANGEROUS ID DiCarlo C., 2011, BECOME REALLY GOOD P FINOCCHIARO MA, 1981, AM PHILOS QUART, V18, P13 Fishman YI, 2009, SCI EDUC-NETHERLANDS, V18, P813, DOI 10.1007/s11191-007-9108-4 Galperin A, 2012, SYD SYM SOC PSYCHOL, P45 Gardner M, 1957, FADS FALLACIES NAME Gigerenzer G., 2008, RATIONALITY MORTALS Gigerenzer G., 2011, HEURISTICS FDN ADAPT GRUNBAUM A, 1979, AM PHILOS QUART, V16, P131 Hahn U, 2006, SYNTHESE, V152, P207, DOI 10.1007/s11229-005-5233-2 Hahn U, 2007, PSYCHOL REV, V114, P704, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.704 Hamblin Charles L., 1970, FALLACIES Hansen H., 1995, FALLACIES CLASSICAL Hart D. B., 2013, EXPERIENCE GOD BEING Hertwig R, 1999, J BEHAV DECIS MAKING, V12, P275 Jacobs D.M., 1998, THREAT SECRET AGENDA Schneider EW, 2008, VARIETIES OF ENGLISH 2: THE AMERICAS AND THE CARIBBEAN, P1 Johnson P.E., 1997, DEFEATING DARWINISM Johnson Ralph H., 1987, ARGUMENTATION, V1, P239, DOI 10.1007/BF00136776 Jong J, 2014, INT J PHILOS RELIG, V76, P243, DOI 10.1007/s11153-014-9461-6 Kahane G., 2010, NOUS, V45, P103 Kahneman D, 1982, JUDGMENT UNCERTAINTY Kennedy JE, 2003, J PARAPSYCHOL, V67, P53 Krabbe ECW, 2009, ARGUMENTATION, V23, P127, DOI 10.1007/s10503-008-9112-0 Laudan Larry, 1982, SCI TECHNOL, V7, P16, DOI 10.1177/016224398200700402 Lewinski M, 2011, ARGUMENTATION, V25, P469, DOI 10.1007/s10503-011-9227-6 Macagno F, 2013, ARGUMENTATION, V27, P369, DOI 10.1007/s10503-013-9291-1 Mack J.E., 1995, ABDUCTION HUMAN ENCO Massey G. J., 1981, MIDWEST STUD PHILOS, V6, P489, DOI 10.1111/j.1475-4975.1981.tb00454.x Menuge A., 2004, DEBATING DESIGN, P32 Mercier H, 2011, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V34, P57, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X10000968 Mill J. S., 2009, SYSTEM LOGIC RATIOCI Nieminen P, 2014, EVOL EDUC OUTREACH, V7, P11, DOI DOI 10.1186/s12052-014-0011-6 Paglieri F., 2014, ARGUMENT COMPUTATION, V5, P119 Pigliucci M., 2013, PHILOSOPHIA, V42, P487 Pigliucci M., 2013, PHILOS PSEUDOSCIENCE Pinto R., 1995, FALLACIES CLASSICAL, P302 Ritchie SJ, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0033423 Sagan C., 1996, DEMON HAUNTED WORLD Salmon W. C., 1984, LOGIC Shermer Michael, 1997, WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE W Sterelny K., 2006, AM SCI, V94, P461 Tindale C, 2007, FALLACIES ARGUMENT A Tomic T, 2013, ARGUMENTATION, V27, P347, DOI 10.1007/s10503-013-9292-0 Van Bendegem J., 2013, PHILOS PSEUDOSCIENCE, P287 van Eemeren F, 2004, SYSTEMATIC THEORY AR van Eemeren F.H., 1995, FALLACIES CLASSICAL, P130 van Eemeren F. H., 2001, CRUCIAL CONCEPTS ARG, P135 van Eemeren Frans H., 2014, HDB ARGUMENTATION TH Van Eemeren Frans, 1987, ARGUMENTATION, V1, P283, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF00136779 Van Eemeren F.H., 1984, SPEECH ACTS ARGUMENT Van Eemeren F.H., 1992, ARGUMENTATION COMMUN Van Eermeren F, 2006, ARGUMENTATION, V20, P381 Houtlosser P., 2002, DIALECTIC RHETORIC W, P131 Wagemans JHM, 2011, ARGUMENTATION, V25, P329, DOI 10.1007/s10503-011-9225-8 Wagenmakers EJ, 2011, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V100, P426, DOI 10.1037/a0022790 Walton D., 1988, ARGUMENTATION, V2, P233 WALTON D, 1992, AM PHILOS QUART, V29, P381 Walton Douglas, 1995, PRAGMATIC THEORY FAL Walton D, 1999, ARGUMENTATION, V13, P367, DOI 10.1023/A:1007780012323 Walton D. N., 1989, ARGUMENTATION, V3, P169, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF00128147 Walton D, 2010, J APPL LOGIC, V8, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.jal.2008.07.002 Walton D, 2010, INFORMAL LOG, V30, P159 Ward AC, 2010, INFORMAL LOG, V30, P1 Woods J, 2004, DEATH ARGUMENT FALLA WOODS J, 1989, FALLACIES SELECTED P Woods J., 1982, ARGUMENT LOGIC FALLA Woods J., 2013, ERRORS REASONING NAT WOODS J, 1977, REV METAPHYS, V30, P569 Yap A., 2012, ARGUMENTATION, V27, P97 Zarefsky D, 2008, ARGUMENTATION, V22, P317, DOI 10.1007/s10503-008-9096-9 NR 85 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 11 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0920-427X EI 1572-8374 J9 ARGUMENTATION JI Argumentation PD NOV PY 2015 VL 29 IS 4 BP 431 EP 456 DI 10.1007/s10503-015-9359-1 PG 26 WC Communication; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics; Philosophy SC Communication; Linguistics; Philosophy GA CU4FL UT WOS:000363482400003 ER PT J AU Cepollaro, B AF Cepollaro, Bianca TI In defence of a presuppositional account of slurs SO LANGUAGE SCIENCES LA English DT Article DE Slurs; Presuppositions; Conventional implicatures; Cancellability; Hate speech AB In the last 15 years philosophers and linguists have turned their attention to slurs: derogatory expressions that target certain groups on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality and so on. This interest is due to the fact that, on the one hand, slurs possess puzzling linguistic properties; on the other hand, the questions they pose are related to other crucial issues, such as the descriptivism/expressivism divide, the semantics/pragmatics divide and, generally speaking, the theory of meaning. Despite these recent investigations about pejoratives, there is no widely accepted explanation of slurs: in my paper I consider the intuitions we have about slurs and I assess the difficulties that the main theories encounter in explaining how these terms work in order to identify the phenomena that a satisfactory account of slurs needs to explain. Then, I focus on the pragmatic theories that deal with the notions of conventional implicature and pragmatic presupposition: I assess the objections that have been raised and I propose two ways of defending the presuppositional account, taking into consideration the notion of cancellability. I will claim that the reason why most pragmatic strategies seem to fail to account for slurs is that they assume a rigid divide between conventional implicatures and presuppositions that should not be taken for granted. Reconsidering the relationship between these two notions gives a hint about how a pragmatic account of slurs should look like. Finally, I assess the problem of which presupposition slurs in fact trigger. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Scuola Normale Super Pisa, Inst Jean Nicod, Paris, France. RP Cepollaro, B (reprint author), Scuola Normale Super Pisa, Inst Jean Nicod, Paris, France. EM bianca.cepollaro@gmail.com CR Anderson Luvell, 2013, ANALYTIC PHILOS, V54, P350 Beaver D., 2010, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS Bianchi C, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V66, P35, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.009 Brontsema R., 2004, COLORADO RES LINGUIS, V17, P1 CHIERCHIA G., 1990, MEANING GRAMMAR INTR Croom A., 2014, SOCIOCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P1 Croom AM, 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P177, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.03.008 Croom AM, 2011, LANG SCI, V33, P343, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.11.005 Galinsky AD, 2003, RES MANAG GROUP TEAM, V5, P221 Galinsky AD, 2013, PSYCHOL SCI, V24, P2020, DOI 10.1177/0956797613482943 Hedger JA, 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P205, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.04.004 Hom C., 2010, PHILOS COMPASS, V5, P164, DOI [10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00274.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1747-9991.2009.00274.X] Horn Christopher, 2008, J PHILOS, V105, P416 Hom Christopher, 2012, PHILOS STUD, V159, P383 HORNSBY J., 2001, MIDWEST STUD PHILOS, VXXV, P128, DOI 10.1111/1475-4975.00042 Kaplan D., MEANING OUCH O UNPUB Karttunen L., 1974, THEOR LINGUIST, V1, P181, DOI DOI 10.1515/THLI.1974.1.1-3.181 Karttunen Lauri, 1979, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V11, P1 KENNEDY R., 2003, NIGGER STRANGE CAREE Macia J, 2002, THEORIA-SPAIN, V17, P499 Potts C., 2003, P N E LING SOC, V33, P303 POTTS C., 2012, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V3, P2516 Potts C., 2005, LOGIC CONVENTIONAL I Potts C, 2007, THEOR LINGUIST, V33, P165, DOI 10.1515/TL.2007.011 Predelli S, 2010, NEW WAVES PHILOS, P164 RICHARD M., 2008, TRUTH GIVES OUT Schlenker P, 2007, THEOR LINGUIST, V33, P237, DOI 10.1515/TL.2007.017 Simons M., 2004, SEMANTICS VS PRAGMAT, P329 Soames S., 1989, HDB PHILOS LOGIC, VIV Stalnaker R., 1999, CONTEXT AND CONTENT Stalnaker R, 2002, LINGUIST PHILOS, V25, P701, DOI 10.1023/A:1020867916902 Whiting D., 2013, ANAL PHILOS, V54, P364 NR 32 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 1 U2 2 PU ELSEVIER SCI LTD PI OXFORD PA THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, OXON, ENGLAND SN 0388-0001 EI 1873-5746 J9 LANG SCI JI Lang. Sci. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 52 SI SI BP 36 EP 45 DI 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.11.004 PG 10 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CU2HT UT WOS:000363345300005 ER PT J AU Yoon, S AF Yoon, Suwon TI Semantic constraint and pragmatic nonconformity for expressives: compatibility condition on slurs, epithets, anti-honorifics, intensifiers, and mitigators SO LANGUAGE SCIENCES LA English DT Article DE Multidimensionality; Compatibility Condition Model (CCM); Compatibility Condition Index (CCI); Slurs; E- vs. H-expressives; Korean ID JAPANESE; PERCEPTION; IRONY AB The main goal of this paper is to propose the Compatibility Condition for multiple expressive elements in Korean, which is highly applicable in other languages. Exploring the behavior of ethnic slurs in the presence of other regular expressive elements, I show the systematicity of how various expressive items interact with one another. For this purpose, looking at Korean is advantageous since it extensively makes use of expressives across lexical categories. In doing so, I try to answer two main questions that haven't been taken seriously before. First, the multiple occurrences of identical expressives are known to be possible, but what about co-occurrences of different expressives with varying attitudes, including the conflicting ones? Do they freely occur within one utterance? If not, what constrains their compatibility condition and the degree of the compatibility? To solve this puzzle, I investigate the dynamic paradigm of multiple expressives. I propose the Compatibility Condition Model (CCM) and the Compatibility Condition Index (CCI), showing how a language like Korean constrains the possible co-occurrences of various types of expressives such as slurs, epithets, anti-honorifics, intensifiers, or mitigators. Second, how strict is the Compatibility Condition of expressives, and what happens if the condition is flouted? I show how in practice people intentionally flout the Compatibility Condition to achieve various pragmatic effects, presenting four interesting cases: (i) the juxtaposition of opposite attitudes with stronger pragmatic effects such as sarcasm, irony, or hyperbole; (ii) the well-known flip-flop of bipolar emotional index; (iii) the code-switching at Honorific-dimension as a strategy of modulating social distance; and (iv) the question of whether Emotion- and Honorific-dimensions operate autonomously. The result supports the notion of multidimensionality (Potts, 2005 et seq.) and furthermore the newfound hybrid nature of Conditional Autonomy, i.e., autonomy with intercommunication amongst expressive dimensions. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Yoon, Suwon] Univ Texas Arlington, Dept Linguist, Arlington, TX 76015 USA. [Yoon, Suwon] Univ Texas Arlington, TESOL, Arlington, TX 76015 USA. RP Yoon, S (reprint author), Univ Texas Arlington, Dept Linguist, 3008 Franciscan Dr 224, Arlington, TX 76015 USA. EM suwon.yoon@uta.edu FU Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; University of Texas at Arlington FX My special thanks go to the guest editor for the special issue on slurs, Adam Croom, and three anonymous reviewers at Language Sciences for their very helpful feedback. I thank Anastasia Giannakidou, Jason Merchant, Christopher Kennedy, and Marcel den Dikken for their support and inspiration. I also thank James Yae at the University of Houston for the extensive discussion of the data. Finally, I thank Dong-Joo Lee, Jong-Hum Yen, In-Bum Hwang, Sang-Gu Lee at the Department of Computer Science at Seoul National University for their guidance with the search with the kkokkoma program. This project is financially supported in part by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and also by the Startup Fund at the University of Texas at Arlington. CR Amaral P., 2008, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P707 Bartlett J., 2014, DEMOS, P1 Washington N. B., 2014, LANG SCI Bianchi C, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V66, P35, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.009 Blakemore D., 2014, LANG SCI, P1 Boisvert DR, 2008, PAC PHILOS QUART, V89, P169, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2008.00315.x Brontsema R., 2004, COLORADO RES LINGUIS, V17, P1 Canstant N., 2009, SPRACHE DATENVERARBE, V33, P5 Choe Jae-Woong, 2004, [Studies in Generative Grammar, 생성문법연구], V14, P545 Cook Haruko, 2006, MULTILINGUA, V25.3, P269, DOI 10.1515/MULTI.2006.016 Croom AM, 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P177, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.03.008 Croom AM, 2011, LANG SCI, V33, P343, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.11.005 Croom AM, 2014, LANG SCI, V41, P227, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.07.003 Cruse D. A., 1986, LEXICAL SEMANTICS Cupkovic G, 2015, LANG SCI, V52, P215, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.09.002 Dunn CD, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1890, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.024 Farkas Donka F, 1992, ROMANCE LANGUAGES MO, P69 FLIER MS, 1975, SLAVIC E EUR J, V19, P218, DOI 10.2307/306777 Fortin A., 2011, THESIS U OXFORD Galinsky AD, 2013, PSYCHOL SCI, V24, P2020, DOI 10.1177/0956797613482943 Geurts B, 2007, THEOR LINGUIST, V33, P209, DOI 10.1515/TL.2007.013 Giannakidou Anastasia, 1998, POLARITY SENSITIVITY Giannakidou A., 2009, P 13 SINN BED, P141 Giannakidou A, 1999, LINGUIST PHILOS, V22, P367, DOI 10.1023/A:1005492130684 Giannakidou A, 2011, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V29, P621, DOI 10.1007/s11049-011-9133-5 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Gutzmann D., 2011, EMPIRICAL ISSUES SYN, V7, P123 Hay R., 2012, EUR J PHILOS, P1 Hedger J., 2012, LINGUISTIC PHILOS IN, V11, P74 Hedger JA, 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P205, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.04.004 Henry PJ, 2014, J EXP SOC PSYCHOL, V53, P185, DOI 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.03.012 Lee C., 2002, P 10 JAP KOR LING C KAPLAN D., 1999, MEANING OUCH O UNPUB Karttunen Lauri, 1979, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V11, P1 Kennedy Randall, 2002, NIGGER STRANGE CAREE Kim JB, 2007, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V16, P303, DOI 10.1007/s10831-007-9014-4 KIM KO, 1977, J LINGUIST, V13, P67, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005211 KLEIN E, 1985, LINGUIST PHILOS, V8, P163, DOI 10.1007/BF00632365 Kratzer A., 1999, CORN C THEOR CONT DE Lasersohn P, 2005, LINGUIST PHILOS, V28, P643, DOI 10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x Lasersohn P., 2008, U CHIC COMP WORKSH M Lasersohn P, 2009, SYNTHESE, V166, P359, DOI 10.1007/s11229-007-9280-8 Lee Iksop, 2000, KOREAN LANGUAGE Lee J.-B., 2001, CHARACTERISTICS STRA Lobner S., 2002, UNDERSTANDING SEMANT, V17, P156 McCready E., 2009, WORKSH NONTR COND ME McCready E., 2010, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V3, P1, DOI DOI 10.3765/SP.3.8 Mwun H.-S., 2009, KWUK NOPH PHYOH PALT O'Dea CJ, 2015, LANG SCI, V52, P155, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.09.005 Okamoto S, 2002, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V17, P119, DOI 10.1207/S15327868MS1702_3 Okamoto S, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P1143, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.08.012 Potts C., 2004, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, V14, P235 Potts C., 2005, LOGIC CONVENTIONAL I Potts C, 2009, LINGUIST INQ, V40, P356, DOI 10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.356 Potts C, 2007, THEOR LINGUIST, V33, P165, DOI 10.1515/TL.2007.011 Pullum GK, 2007, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P277, DOI 10.1007/s10988-007-9013-y Rhee S., 2009, LACUS FORUM, V34, P201 RICHARD M., 2008, TRUTH GIVES OUT Sawada O., 2010, THESIS U CHICAGO Schroeder Mark, 2008, BEING EVALUATING SEM Seo C.-S, 1984, CONTAYPEPUY YENKWU Sohn Ho-Min, 1999, KOREAN LANGUAGE Strauss S, 2003, LINGUISTICS, V41, P653, DOI 10.1515/ling.2003.021 Svenonius P., 2004, NORDLYD, V32.2, P177 Wang L., 2005, SNIPPETS, V10, P13 Whiting D., 2013, ANAL PHILOS WILLIAMSON T., 2009, PHILOS D KAPLAN, P137 Yoo S.-Y., 1997, THESIS KOREA U Yoon JHS, 2005, LING AKT, V74, P239 Yoon S., 2012, THESIS U CHICAGO Yoon S.-S, 2015, INTERDISCIP IN PRESS Yoon S, 2013, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V22, P133, DOI 10.1007/s10831-012-9100-0 NR 72 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 3 U2 5 PU ELSEVIER SCI LTD PI OXFORD PA THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, OXON, ENGLAND SN 0388-0001 EI 1873-5746 J9 LANG SCI JI Lang. Sci. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 52 SI SI BP 46 EP 69 DI 10.1016/j.langsci.2015.03.009 PG 24 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CU2HT UT WOS:000363345300006 ER PT J AU Archer, D AF Archer, Dawn TI Slurs, insults, (backhanded) compliments and other strategic facework moves SO LANGUAGE SCIENCES LA English DT Article DE Slurs; Face aggravation; Face enhancement; Strategic facework; Pragmatic space ID IMPOLITENESS AB Slurs such as nigger tend to function as "disparaging remarks": that is, they are an attempt by speakers (S) to deliberately deprecate a target - or targets (T) - in some way (Croom, 2011). Accordingly, they can be seen to share the same pragmatic space as other verbally aggressive acts such as insults, put-downs, snubs and backhanded compliments (Jucker and Taavitsainen, 2000). Mention of backhanded compliments, in turn, serves as a useful reminder that compliments can be seen as representing the positive end of a larger pragmatic space relating to the speaker's evaluation of the addressee, with slurs and insults representing the negative end (Taavitsainen and kicker, 2008) and back-handed compliments, a positive/negative blend. In this paper, I introduce a facework scale that serves to capture face-enhancing and face-threatening strategies (and combinations thereof). It can thus explain various uses of terms such as nigger: for example, its use in order to slur or negatively frame another (Croom, 2011); its use (by in-group members) to express affection for or approval of another (Smitherman, 2006); and unsuccessful cases of (re-)appropriation (Bianchi, 2014) such that an utterance meant to build camaraderie between S and T ultimately serves to offend T. The facework scale can also explain additional facework moves, such as S's use of strategic facework strategies which afford them some plausibility deniability (Archer, 2011; Leech, 1983). Although paradigmatic slurs are not likely to be (strategically) denied by S. given their overt use in insulting, injuring, threatening the face of, or otherwise imposing a negative identity on T (Croom, 2013: 178), facework which is strategically ambivalent in some way(s) can be an effective means of S manipulating others' views of T without explicitly "doing" impoliteness (Archer, 2011). This work thus contributes to the field of im/politeness research as well as to the growing body of (pragmatic) research focussing on slurs. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Cent Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, Lancs, England. RP Archer, D (reprint author), Univ Cent Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, Lancs, England. EM dearcher@uclan.ac.uk CR Archer D., 2011, HIST SOCIOPRAGMATICS, P109 Archer D., 2014, DIACHRONIC CORPUS PR, P277 Archer Dawn, 2010, HIST PRAGMATICS, P379 Archer D, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3216, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.007 Archer D, 2015, J PRAGMATICS, V76, P46, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.009 Archer DE, 2008, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V21, P181 Arnovick L. K., 1999, PRAGMATICS SERIES, V68 Bianchi C, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V66, P35, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.009 BOURDIEU P, 1977, SOC SCI INFORM, V16, P645, DOI 10.1177/053901847701600601 Bousfield D, 2008, IMPOLITENESS INTERAC Bousfield D., 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P101 Brown P., 1978, QUESTIONS POLITENESS, P56 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Capone A., 2013, PERSPECTIVES ON LING, V2, P153 Cheung H., 2012, C BALE INSIDE STORY Cialdini A. B., 1993, INFLUENCE THE PSYCHO Conley J. M., 2005, JUST WORDS LAW LANGU Cotterill J, 2003, LANGUAGE AND POWER IN COURT: A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL, P1 Croom AM, 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P177, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.03.008 Croom AM, 2011, LANG SCI, V33, P343, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.11.005 Croom AM, 2014, LANG SCI, V41, P227, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.07.003 Culpeper J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P349, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 Culpeper Jonathan, 1998, EXPLORING LANGUAGE D, P83 Jonathan Culpeper, 2011, IMPOLITENESS USING L Culpeper Jonathan, 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P35, DOI DOI 10.1515/JP1R.2005.1.1.35 Culpeper J, 2008, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V21, P17 Devito J. A., 2012, 50 COMMUNICATION STR DREW P, 1987, LINGUISTICS, V25, P219, DOI 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219 Eckert Penelope, 2003, LANGUAGE GENDER Edelmann R.J., 1994, CHALLENGE FACEWORK, P231 Galinsky AD, 2003, RES MANAG GROUP TEAM, V5, P221 Geen R. G., 2001, HUMAN AGGRESSION Goffman E., 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL E Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Grimshaw A.D., 1990, CONFLICT TALK SOCIOL, P281 Harris Sandra, 2011, DISCURSIVE APPROACHE, P85 Hewes D., 1985, HUM COMMUN RES, V5, P355 Holmes Janet, 2000, DISCOURSE STUDIES, V2, P159, DOI DOI 10.1177/1461445600002002002 Huang Y., 2012, THE OXFORD DICTIONAR Inbau EE., 2013, ESSENTIALS REID TECH Jagodzinski P., 2013, THESIS A MICKIEWICZ Jane B. C., 1999, THE INVESTIGATOR ANT Jucker Andreas H., 2000, J HIST PRAGMAT, V1, P67, DOI 10.1075/jhp.1.1.07juc Kilduff M, 2010, RES ORGAN BEHAV, V30, P129, DOI 10.1016/j.riob.2010.10.002 Roman Kopytko, 1995, HIST PRAGMATICS PRAG, P515, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.35.27K0P LAKOFF Robin. T., 1990, TALKING POWER POLITI Leech G., 1977, LAUT SERIES A Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Locher MA, 2008, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V21, P77 Magnussan L., 2004, SHAKESPEARE SOCIAL D Mills Sara, 2003, GENDER POLITENESS Morgan M., 1998, AFRICAN AM ENGLISH S, P251 PENMAN R, 1990, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V9, P15, DOI 10.1177/0261927X9091002 Potts C., 2008, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA Graham Scott G., 2006, SURVIVAL GUIDE WORKI Smitherman Geneva, 2006, WORD MOTHER LANGUAGE Smitherman Geneva, 1977, TALKIN TESTIFYIN LAN Taavitsainen I, 2008, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V176, P195 Terkourafi M, 2008, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V21, P45 THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Timberg B., 2002, TELEVISION TALK HIST Vrij A., 2008, DETECTING LIES DECEI Watts R., 2003, POLITENESS Woolrych H. W., 1852, LIFE JUDGE JEFFREYS NR 64 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 3 PU ELSEVIER SCI LTD PI OXFORD PA THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, OXON, ENGLAND SN 0388-0001 EI 1873-5746 J9 LANG SCI JI Lang. Sci. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 52 SI SI BP 82 EP 97 DI 10.1016/j.langsci.2015.03.008 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CU2HT UT WOS:000363345300008 ER PT J AU Croom, AM AF Croom, Adam M. TI Slurs, stereotypes, and in-equality: a critical review of "How Epithets and Stereotypes are Racially Unequal" SO LANGUAGE SCIENCES LA English DT Article DE Slurs; Stereotypes; Re-appropriation; Semantics; Pragmatics; Philosophy of language ID HOLLYWOOD FILM; IDENTITY; THREAT; PERFORMANCE; WORK; RACE; EXPRESSIVES; WHITENESS; LANGUAGE; STIGMA AB Are racial slurs always offensive and are racial stereotypes always negative? How, if at all, are racial slurs and stereotypes different and unequal for members of different races? Questions like these and others about slurs and stereotypes have been the focus of much research and hot debate lately, and in a recent article Embrick and Henricks (2013) aimed to address some of the aforementioned questions by investigating the use of racial slurs and stereotypes in the workplace. Embricic and Henricks (2013) drew upon the empirical data they collected at a baked goods company in the southwestern United States to argue that racial slurs and stereotypes function as symbolic resources that exclude minorities but not whites from opportunities or resources and that racial slurs and stereotypes are necessarily considered as negative or derogatory irrespective of their particular context of use (pp. 197-202). They thus proposed an account of slurs and stereotypes that supports the context-insensitive position of Fitten (1993) and Hedger (2013) yet challenges the context-sensitive position of Kennedy (2002) and Croom (2011). In this article I explicate the account of racial slurs and stereotypes provided by Embrick and Henricks (2013), outline 8 of their main claims, and then critically evaluate these claims by drawing upon recent empirical evidence on racial slurs (both in-group and out-group uses) and stereotypes (for both whites and blacks) to point out both strengths and weaknesses of their analysis. Implications of the present analysis for future work on slurs and stereotypes will also be discussed. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Croom, Adam M.] Univ Penn, Dept Linguist, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA. [Croom, Adam M.] Univ Penn, Dept Philosophy, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA. RP Croom, AM (reprint author), Univ Penn, Dept Linguist, 619 Williams Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA. EM adam.m.croom@gmail.com CR Alim HS, 2010, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V20, P116, DOI 10.1111/j.1548-1395.2010.01052.x Alim HS, 2009, PRAGMATICS, V19, P103 Alim H. S., 2005, INTERCULTURAL DISCOU, P180, DOI 10.1002/9780470758434.ch12 Alim H. S., 2004, YOU KNOW MY STEEZ ET Alim HS, 2002, AM SPEECH, V77, P288, DOI 10.1215/00031283-77-3-288 Alim H. Samy, 2006, ROC MIC RIGHT LANGUA Alim H. S., 2003, BLACK LINGUISTICS LA, P40 Alim H. S., 2009, GLOBAL LINGUISTIC FL, P1 Alim H. S., 2006, TALKIN BLACK TALK LA Alim H. S., 2009, LINGUISTIC ANTHR REA, P272 Alim H. Samy, 2005, ED RES, V34.7, P24, DOI [10.3102/0013i89X034007024, DOI 10.3102/0013189X034007024] Anderson L, 2013, NOUS, V47, P25, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00820.x Bartlett J., 2014, DEMOS, P1 Baugh John, 1983, BLACK STREET SPEECH Block CJ, 2012, J APPL SOC PSYCHOL, V42, pE128, DOI 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01014.x Boyd T., 2002, NEW H N I C HEAD NIG Brontsema R., 2004, COLORADO RES LINGUIS, V17, P1 Brown P., 1978, QUESTIONS POLITENESS, P56 Bucholtz M., 2001, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V11, P84, DOI DOI 10.1525/JLIN.2001.11.1.84 Bucholtz M., 2011, WHITE KIDS LANGUAGE Bucholtz Mary, 1999, J SOCIOLING, V3, P443, DOI DOI 10.1111/1467-9481.00090 Bucholtz M, 2011, J SOCIOLING, V15, P680, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00513.x Bucholtz M, 2011, LANG COMMUN, V31, P255, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2011.02.004 Camp Elisabeth, 2013, ANAL PHILOS, V54, P330, DOI DOI 10.1111/PHIB.12022 Cass C., 2011, MSNBC Croom A. M., 2014, LINGUISTIC PHILOS IN, V13, P11 Croom AM, 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P177, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.03.008 Croom AM, 2011, LANG SCI, V33, P343, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.11.005 Croom AM, 2014, LANG SCI, V41, P227, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.07.003 Croom A. M., 2008, DIALOGUE, V51, P34 Croom A. M., 2010, 4 N AM SUMMER SCH LO Croom A. M., 2012, U PENNS PROGR DEM CI Croom A. M., 2013, ANAL METAPHYS, V12, P11 Cutler Cecilia, 2003, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V13, P211, DOI [10.1525/jlin.2003.13.2.211, DOI 10.1525/JLIN.2003.13.2.211] Cutler C., 2007, PRAGMATICS, V17, P9 Cutler C., 2009, GLOBAL LINGUISTIC FL, P195 Czopp AM, 2006, BASIC APPL SOC PSYCH, V28, P233, DOI 10.1207/s15324834basp2803_3 Denzin NK, 2001, SYMB INTERACT, V24, P243, DOI 10.1525/si.2001.24.2.243 Echegoyen H., 2006, N WORD DIVIDED WE ST Embrick DG, 2013, SYMB INTERACT, V36, P197, DOI 10.1002/symb.51 Fitten R. K., 1993, SEATTLE TIMES Fitzmaurice S., 2010, HIST IMPOLITENESS, P87 Foreman T., 2013, CNN 0702 Foster T., 2013, THE DETROIT NEW 0808 Galis A., 2013, PSYCHOL SCI, P1 Galinsky AD, 2003, RES MANAG GROUP TEAM, V5, P221 Gates H., 2009, TIME, P9 Goffman E., 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL E Greene R., 2011, ECONOMIST Haley H, 2006, PERS SOC PSYCHOL B, V32, P656, DOI 10.1177/0146167205283442 Hedger JA, 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P205, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.04.004 Heffernan V., 2005, NY TIMES hooks bell, 1992, BLACK LOOKS RACE REP Horn Christopher, 2008, J PHILOS, V105, P416 Hughey MW, 2012, SOC PSYCHOL QUART, V75, P219, DOI 10.1177/0190272512446756 Jackson D., 2013, US TODAY Jeshion Robin, 2013, ANAL PHILOS, V54, P314, DOI DOI 10.1111/PHIB.12021 KAPLAN D., 1999, MEANING OUCH O UNPUB Kaufman G., 2012, MTV NEWS 0927 Kennedy Randall, 2002, NIGGER STRANGE CAREE Kratzer A., 1999, CORN C THEOR CONT DE Lee JY, 2009, SOC PROBL, V56, P578, DOI 10.1525/sp.2009.56.3.578 Lee J, 2009, SOC PSYCHOL QUART, V72, P306 Lemon D., 2013, CNN 0701 MacDonald M., 2000, ALL SOULS FAMILY STO Marx DM, 2006, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V91, P243, DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.243 Miron LF, 2000, CULT STUD RES VOL, V5, P85 Murphy MC, 2007, PSYCHOL SCI, V18, P879, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x Norton MI, 2011, PERSPECT PSYCHOL SCI, V6, P215, DOI 10.1177/1745691611406922 Pfeil Fred, 1995, WHITE GUYS STUDIES P Potts C., 2003, P N E LING SOC, V33, P303 Potts C., 2004, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, V14, P235 Potts C., 2005, LOGIC CONVENTIONAL I Potts C, 2009, LINGUIST INQ, V40, P356, DOI 10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.356 Potts C, 2007, THEOR LINGUIST, V33, P165, DOI 10.1515/TL.2007.011 Pullum GK, 2007, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P277, DOI 10.1007/s10988-007-9013-y Rahman J., 2004, THESIS STANFORD U Rahman J, 2007, AM SPEECH, V82, P65, DOI 10.1215/00031283-2007-003 Rahman J, 2012, J ENGL LINGUIST, V40, P137, DOI 10.1177/0075424211414807 Ryan CS, 1996, J EXP SOC PSYCHOL, V32, P71, DOI 10.1006/jesp.1996.0004 Rydell RJ, 2010, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V99, P883, DOI 10.1037/a0021139 Schmader T, 2008, PSYCHOL REV, V115, P336, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336 Smith D. M., 2013, NBC SPORTS 0808 Smitherman G., 2000, BLACK TALK WORDS PHR Sniderman P., 2002, BLACK PRIDE BLACK PR Spears A. K., 1998, AFRICAN AM ENGLISH S, P226 Steele CM, 1997, AM PSYCHOL, V52, P613, DOI 10.1037//0003-066X.52.6.613 Storrs D, 1999, SYMB INTERACT, V22, P187, DOI 10.1525/si.1999.22.3.187 Sweetland J., 2002, J SOCIOLING, V6, P514, DOI DOI 10.1111/1467-9481.00199 Walton GM, 2003, J EXP SOC PSYCHOL, V39, P456, DOI 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00019-2 Wilson R., 2013, CBS SPORTS 0808 WITTGENSTEIN L., 1953, PHILOS INVESTIGATION [Anonymous], 2009, BBC NEWS NR 93 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 7 PU ELSEVIER SCI LTD PI OXFORD PA THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, OXON, ENGLAND SN 0388-0001 EI 1873-5746 J9 LANG SCI JI Lang. Sci. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 52 SI SI BP 139 EP 154 DI 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.03.001 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CU2HT UT WOS:000363345300013 ER PT J AU O'Dea, CJ Miller, SS Andres, EB Ray, MH Till, DF Saucier, DA AF O'Dea, Conor J. Miller, Stuart S. Andres, Emma B. Ray, Madelyn H. Till, Derrick F. Saucier, Donald A. TI Out of bounds: factors affecting the perceived offensiveness of racial slurs SO LANGUAGE SCIENCES LA English DT Article DE Racial slurs; Insults; Prejudice; Offensiveness; Pragmatics; Semantics ID PERCEPTIONS; PUNISHMENT; ATTITUDES; PREJUDICE; WORDS; CRIME AB Racial slurs are terms used primarily to disparage individuals belonging to the targeted social group. In two studies, we manipulated racial slurs ("nigger", "nigga") used by White individuals toward Black individuals in different situations (between friends versus between strangers) to assess different levels of perceived offensiveness in White third party observers. Consistent with our hypotheses, in Study 1 we found that the use of racial slurs between friends was perceived to be less offensive than between strangers, and "nigga" was perceived to be less offensive than "nigger". In Study 2 we replicated these results, and extended them by finding that ratings of offensiveness, consistent with hypotheses, were correlated with individual differences relating to the justification and suppression of prejudice. Our findings suggest that observers' reactions to racial slurs depend on the context in which the slur is used and perceivers' beliefs about the social appropriateness of expressing prejudice. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [O'Dea, Conor J.; Miller, Stuart S.; Andres, Emma B.; Ray, Madelyn H.; Till, Derrick F.; Saucier, Donald A.] Kansas State Univ, Dept Psychol Sci, Manhattan, KS 66506 USA. RP O'Dea, CJ (reprint author), Kansas State Univ, Dept Psychol Sci, 496 Bluemont Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506 USA. EM codea@ksu.edu CR Anderson L, 2013, NOUS, V47, P25, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00820.x Camp Elisabeth, 2013, ANAL PHILOS, V54, P330, DOI DOI 10.1111/PHIB.12022 Cozzarelli C, 2001, J SOC ISSUES, V57, P207, DOI 10.1111/0022-4537.00209 Croom AM, 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P177, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.03.008 Croom AM, 2014, LANG SCI, V41, P227, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.07.003 Cushman F, 2008, COGNITION, V108, P353, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.006 Galinsky A.D., 2013, REAPPROPRIATION SIGM GREENBERG J, 1985, J EXP SOC PSYCHOL, V21, P61, DOI 10.1016/0022-1031(85)90006-X Hedger J., 2012, LINGUISTIC PHILOS IN, V11, P74 Hedger JA, 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P205, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.04.004 Hodson G, 2010, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V99, P660, DOI 10.1037/a0019627 Horn Christopher, 2008, J PHILOS, V105, P416 Jeshion Robin, 2013, ANAL PHILOS, V54, P314, DOI DOI 10.1111/PHIB.12021 Kennedy Randall, 2002, NIGGER STRANGE CAREE King EB, 2010, PERS PSYCHOL, V63, P881 MCCONAHAY JB, 1981, J CONFLICT RESOLUT, V25, P563 Merskin Debra, 2010, HOWARD J COMMUN, V21, P345, DOI [10.1080/10646175.2010.519616, DOI 10.1080/10646175.2010319616;] Miller DA, 2004, GROUP PROCESS INTERG, V7, P221, DOI 10.1177/1368430204046109 Mullen B, 2001, J SOC ISSUES, V57, P457, DOI 10.1111/0022-4537.00223 Pizarro D, 2003, PSYCHOL SCI, V14, P267, DOI 10.1111/1467-9280.03433 Plant EA, 1998, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V75, P811, DOI 10.1037//0022-3514.75.3.811 Rahman J, 2012, J ENGL LINGUIST, V40, P137, DOI 10.1177/0075424211414807 Saucier DA, 2005, PERS SOC PSYCHOL REV, V9, P2, DOI 10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_1 Saucier DA, 2008, J INTERPERS VIOLENCE, V23, P685, DOI 10.1177/0886260507313774 Saucier DA, 2010, J INTERPERS VIOLENCE, V25, P1767, DOI 10.1177/0886260509358386 Simon L, 1996, PERS SOC PSYCHOL B, V22, P1195, DOI 10.1177/01461672962212001 Sydell EJ, 2000, SOC SCI J, V37, P627, DOI 10.1016/S0362-3319(00)00105-1 Vallee R, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V61, P78, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.013 Woolfolk RL, 2006, COGNITION, V100, P283, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.05.002 NR 29 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 5 PU ELSEVIER SCI LTD PI OXFORD PA THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, OXON, ENGLAND SN 0388-0001 EI 1873-5746 J9 LANG SCI JI Lang. Sci. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 52 SI SI BP 155 EP 164 DI 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.09.005 PG 10 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CU2HT UT WOS:000363345300014 ER PT J AU Martinez, IP AF Palacios Martinez, Ignacio TI Variation, development and pragmatic uses of innit in the language of British adults and teenagers SO ENGLISH LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID LONDON ENGLISH; GENERAL EXTENDERS; TAG QUESTIONS; DISCOURSE; MARKERS; STUFF AB The so-called invariant tags, such as eh, okay, right and yeah, are extremely frequent in general English speech and have been studied extensively in recent years, especially in the spoken expression of teenagers, where they are a very common feature. In this article I focus on innit, as in She love her chocolate innit? and It was good innit? For this purpose, I analyse and discuss data extracted from two comparable corpora of teen speech: the Bergen Corpus of London Teenage Language (COLT), compiled in 1993, and the Linguistic Innovators Corpus (LI), created in 2004. The analysis considers the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of the expression, and asks three fundamental questions: has innit remained stable in use over time or has it increased in frequency? Has innit preserved its original grammatical features, or has it undergone notable changes? To what extent is innit especially associated with teentalk, at least in London speech, rather than with the speech of adults? Contrasts are also drawn with the standard tag isn't it. Findings confirm that innit is typical of the language of London teenagers and has not gone out of use; on the contrary, its frequency has increased over the last few years. In contrast, the proportion of tokens found in the language of their adult counterparts is rather marginal. At present, innit conserves syntactic features of its own: it does not follow the regular question tag formation rules and can represent not only the verb BE but also DO, HAVE and most of the modal verbs. Furthermore, it continues to show a high degree of flexibility in the sentence, occurring not only in final but also in initial and medial positions. Finally, it appears that innit should no longer be regarded as a simple invariant tag. It tends to behave more and more like a pragmatic marker serving to express the speaker's attitude to the content of the message, thus often reflecting the relationship between the participants in the interaction, and also contributing to the organisation of the discourse. In this respect, two new discourse functions of innit are identified and described: emphatic and text organiser. C1 Univ Santiago de Compostela, Dept English & German, Fac Filol, Santiago De Compostela 15782, Spain. RP Martinez, IP (reprint author), Univ Santiago de Compostela, Dept English & German, Fac Filol, Avda Alfonso Castelao S-N, Santiago De Compostela 15782, Spain. EM ignacio.palacios@usc.es RI Palacios Martinez, Ignacio/J-9770-2014 OI Palacios Martinez, Ignacio/0000-0001-9202-9190 FU Galician Ministry of Innovation and Industry [CN2011/11, CN/2012/81]; Spanish Ministry for Science and Innovation [FF/2012-31450] FX A preliminary version of this article was presented at the Thirty-sixth International Conference of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies (AEDEAN), held at the University of Malaga, 14-16 November 2012. I would like to thank the members of the audience for their comments and suggestions. I would also like to express my gratitude to the editors of the journal and to two anonymous reviewers for useful comments on the article. The research reported here was funded by the Galician Ministry of Innovation and Industry (CN2011/11 and CN/2012/81) and by the Spanish Ministry for Science and Innovation (FF/2012-31450). These grants are hereby gratefully acknowledged. CR Algeo John, 1988, ENGL WORLD-WIDE, V9, P171, DOI DOI 10.1075/EWW.9.2.03ALG Algeo J, 1990, STATE LANGUAGE, P443 Andersen Gisele, 2001, PRAGMATIC MARKERS SO Anderwald Lieselotte, 2002, NEGATION NONSTANDARD Bertland Utags, 1997, THESIS U BERGEN Biber Douglas, 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR WRIT Brinton Laurel, 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN CATTELL R, 1973, LANGUAGE, V49, P612, DOI 10.2307/412354 Cheshire Jenny, 1991, DIALECTS ENGLISH STU, P54 Cheshire Jenny, 1982, VARIATION ENGLISH DI Cheshire J, 2011, J SOCIOLING, V15, P151 Columbus Georgie, 2009, LANGUAGE COMPUTERS, V14, P201 Columbus G, 2010, ENGL WORLD-WIDE, V31, P288, DOI 10.1075/eww.31.3.03col Erman Britt, 1998, 16 SCAND C LING TURK, P87 Fox Susan, 2012, ANAL SPOKEN ENGLISH Fraser B, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P931, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 Gabrielatos C, 2010, J ENGL LINGUIST, V38, P297, DOI 10.1177/0075424209352729 Hewitt R., 1986, WHITE TALK BLACK TAL Holmes Janet, 1982, ENGLISH LANGUAGE RES, V3, P40 Horn Laurence R., 2011, EXPRESSION NEGATION Huddleston Rodney, 2002, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Kerswill Paul, 2013, ENGLISH CONTACT LANG, P258 Bernd Kortmann, 2004, HDB VARIETIES ENGLIS, V2 Bernd Kortmann, 2013, ELECT WORLD ATLAS VA Krug M, 1998, AAA-ARB ANGLIST AM, V23, P145 Mazzon Gabriella, 2004, HIST ENGLISH NEGATIO McGregor William, 1995, SUBJECT THEME DISCOU, P91 Moore E, 2009, LANG SOC, V38, P447, DOI 10.1017/S0047404509990224 Ostman Jan Ola, 1981, STUDIA ANGLICA POSNA, V13, P3 Overstreet M, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1845, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.015 Maryann Overstreet, 1999, WHALES CANDLELIGHT S Martinez IMP, 2011, J ENGL LINGUIST, V39, P4, DOI 10.1177/0075424210366905 Martinez IMP, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2452, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.011 Martinez IMP, 2010, ENGL STUD, V91, P548, DOI 10.1080/0013838X.2010.488841 Pichler Heike, 2013, STRUCTURE DISCOURSE Pichler Heike, 2008, THESIS U ABERDEEN Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Stenstrom A., 2002, TRENDS TEENAGE TALK Stenstrom AB, 2014, PALGRAVE PIVOT, P1, DOI 10.1057/9781137430380 Stenstrom AB, 1996, LANG COMPUT, P189 Tagliamonte SA, 2010, J ENGL LINGUIST, V38, P335, DOI 10.1177/0075424210367484 Torgersen EN, 2011, CORPUS LINGUIST LING, V7, P93, DOI 10.1515/CLLT.2011.005 Tottie Gunnel, 2006, J ENGL LINGUIST, V34, P283, DOI 10.1177/0075424206294369 Tottie G., 1991, NEGATION ENGLISH SPE van Ostade Tieken-Boon, 1999, NEGATION HIST ENGLIS Winter Joanne, 2000, P 1999 C AUSTR LING, P1 Iyeiri Y, 2005, ASPECTS OF ENGLISH NEGATION, P1 NR 47 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 9 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI CAMBRIDGE PA EDINBURGH BLDG, SHAFTESBURY RD, CB2 8RU CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND SN 1360-6743 EI 1469-4379 J9 ENGL LANG LINGUIST JI Engl. Lang. Linguist. PD NOV PY 2015 VL 19 IS 3 BP 383 EP 405 DI 10.1017/S1360674314000288 PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CT7EE UT WOS:000362975800001 ER PT J AU Buchanan, H Jelsma, J Siegfried, N AF Buchanan, Helen Jelsma, Jennifer Siegfried, Nandi TI Measuring evidence-based practice knowledge and skills in occupational therapy-a brief instrument SO BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE Occupational therapy; Evidence-based Practice; Knowledge; Skills; Adapted Fresno Test of Competence in Evidence-based Practice; Evaluation; Instrument; Psychometric; Reliability; Responsiveness ID EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FRESNO TEST; QUESTIONNAIRE; COMPETENCE; VALIDATION; EDUCATION; BEHAVIOR AB Background: Valid and reliable instruments are required to measure the effect of educational interventions to improve evidence-based practice (EBP) knowledge and skills in occupational therapy. The aims of this paper are to: 1) describe amendments to the Adapted Fresno Test of Competence in EBP (AFT), and 2) report the psychometric properties of the modified instrument when used with South African occupational therapists. Methods: The clinical utility of the AFT was evaluated for use with South African occupational therapists and modifications made. The modified AFT was used in two studies to assess its reliability and validity. In Study 1 a convenience sample of 26 occupational therapists in private practice or government-funded health facilities in a South African province were recruited to complete the modified AFT on two occasions 1 week apart. Completed questionnaires were scored independently by two raters. Inter-rater, test-retest reliability and internal consistency were determined. Study 2 was a pragmatic randomised controlled trial involving occupational therapists in four Western Cape Department of Health district municipalities (n = 58). Therapists were randomised in matched pairs to one of two educational interventions (interactive or didactic), and completed the modified AFT at baseline and 12 weeks after the intervention. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Data were not normally distributed, thus non-parametric statistics were used. Results: In Study 1, 21 of 26 participants completed the questionnaire twice. Test-retest (ICC = 0.95, 95 % CI = 0.88-0.98) and inter-rater reliability (Time 1: ICC = 0.995, 95 % CI = 0.99-0.998; Time 2: ICC = 0.99, 95 % CI = 0.97-0.995) were excellent for total scores. Internal consistency based on time 1 scores was satisfactory (a = 0.70). In Study 2, 28 participants received an interactive educational intervention and completed the modified AFT at baseline and 12 weeks later. Median total SAFT scores increased significantly from baseline to 12-weeks (Z = -4.078, p < 0.001) with a moderate effect size (r = 0.55). Conclusion: The modified AFT has demonstrated validity for detecting differences in EBP knowledge between two groups. It also has excellent test-retest and inter-rater reliability. The instrument is recommended for contexts where EBP is an emerging approach and time is at a premium. C1 [Buchanan, Helen; Jelsma, Jennifer] Univ Cape Town, Dept Hlth & Rehabil Sci, ZA-7925 Cape Town, South Africa. RP Buchanan, H (reprint author), Univ Cape Town, Dept Hlth & Rehabil Sci, F45 Old Groote Schuur Hosp Bldg, ZA-7925 Cape Town, South Africa. EM helen.buchanan@uct.ac.za FU National Research Foundation, South Africa [TTK2006041900018]; University Research Committee of the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Cape Town FX This work was funded by the National Research Foundation (TTK2006041900018), South Africa, and the University Research Committee of the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Cape Town. The first author would like to thank the participants for giving their time so generously. CR Bennett S, 2003, AUSTR OCCUPATIONAL T, V50, P13, DOI DOI 10.1046/J.1440-1630.2003.00341.X Bland JM, 1997, BRIT MED J, V314, P572 Boynton PM, 2004, BRIT MED J, V328, P1372, DOI 10.1136/bmj.328.7452.1372 Buchanan H, 2011, THESIS U CAPE TOWN C Buchanan H, 2014, TRIALS, V15, DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-216 Caldwell E, 2008, AUST OCCUP THER J, V55, P79, DOI 10.1111/j.1440-1630.2007.00669.x CICCHETTI DV, 1981, AM J MENT DEF, V86, P127 COHEN J, 1992, PSYCHOL BULL, V112, P155, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Crabtree Jeffrey L, 2012, Occup Ther Health Care, V26, P138, DOI 10.3109/07380577.2012.694584 DePoy E, 2005, INTRO RES UNDERSTAND Dysart AM, 2002, AM J OCCUP THER, V56, P275 Flores-Mateo G, 2007, BMC HEALTH SERV RES, V7, DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-7-119 Glegg SMN, 2010, CAN J OCCUP THER, V77, P219, DOI 10.2182/cjot.2010.77.4.4 Ilic D, 2009, BMC MED EDUC, V9, DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-9-53 Jerosch-Herold C, 2005, BRIT J OCCUPATIONAL, V68, P347 Johnston JM, 2003, MED EDUC, V37, P992, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01678.x Lewis LK, 2011, BMC MED EDUC, V11, DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-11-77 Lizarondo Lucylynn M, 2012, BMC Res Notes, V5, P588, DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-5-588 MacDermid J, 2006, IMPLEMENT SCI, P1 McClusky A., 2003, AUSTR OCCUPATIONAL T, V50, P3, DOI DOI 10.1046/J.1440-1630.2003.00303.X McCluskey Annie, 2005, BMC Med Educ, V5, P40, DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-5-40 McCluskey A, 2009, J CONTIN EDUC HEALTH, V29, P119, DOI 10.1002/chp.20021 McColl A, 1998, BRIT MED J, V316, P361 McDowell I., 2006, MEASURING HLTH GUIDE McGraw KO, 1996, PSYCHOL METHODS, V1, P30, DOI 10.1037/1082-989X.1.4.390 Novak I, 2010, AUST OCCUP THER J, V57, P386, DOI 10.1111/j.1440-1630.2010.00861.x Pain K., 1996, CANADIAN J REHABILIT, V9, P93 Ramos KD, 2003, BRIT MED J, V326, P319, DOI 10.1136/bmj.326.7384.319 Shaneyfelt T, 2006, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V296, P1116, DOI 10.1001/jama.296.9.1116 Spek Bea, 2012, J Allied Health, V41, P77 Streiner D, 2001, Evid Based Ment Health, V4, P70 Streiner DL, 2008, HLTH MEASUREMENT SCA Tilson JK, 2010, BMC MED EDUC, V10, DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-10-38 Upton D, 1998, BRIT J THERAPY REHAB, V5, P647, DOI DOI 10.12968/BJTR.1998.5.12.14028 NR 34 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 3 PU BIOMED CENTRAL LTD PI LONDON PA 236 GRAYS INN RD, FLOOR 6, LONDON WC1X 8HL, ENGLAND SN 1472-6920 J9 BMC MED EDUC JI BMC Med. Educ. PD OCT 30 PY 2015 VL 15 AR 191 DI 10.1186/s12909-015-0475-2 PG 12 WC Education & Educational Research; Education, Scientific Disciplines SC Education & Educational Research GA CV3SG UT WOS:000364185100001 PM 26519165 ER PT J AU Atoofi, S AF Atoofi, Saeid TI Context from a social semiotic perspective: a discourse analytical study of the children TV show, Bubble Guppies SO SOCIAL SEMIOTICS LA English DT Article DE semiotics; context; discourse; linguistics; children TV; Edusemiotics ID TELEVISION AB In mainstream linguistics, context is either entirely ignored or dominantly viewed as an objective property of the external world. For instance, in sociolinguistics or pragmatics, scholars frequently attempt to learn about the meaning of words or sentences given certain social context. The social semiotic method presented in this paper challenges the objectivity of context and explores the dynamic between content and context from the perspective of Peircian semiotics. An episode of a children animations series, Bubble Guppies, where human-like mermaids learn about the mysteries of ancient Egypt, is used as a point of departure to show that content and context recursively co-construct with viewers' participation. For instance, while there is little physical similarity between where the Guppies meet in the show's story and a typical classroom, the context of a classroom is clearly established through the way the Guppies interact with each other and with objects they encounter. Additionally, the results indicate that learning is an important product of such context-construction, as TV viewers must constantly elaborate on events and link interactions that are perceived not as objects but as signs entangled in a growing web of symbolic system. C1 Univ Chile, Dept Linguist, Santiago, Chile. RP Atoofi, S (reprint author), Univ Chile, Dept Linguist, Santiago, Chile. EM saeedat@yahoo.com FU Chilean FONDECYT, Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Cientifico y Tecnologico [11121119] FX This work was supported by the Chilean FONDECYT, Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Cientifico y Tecnologico [grant number 11121119]. CR Anderson Daniel R., 1983, CHILDRENS UNDERSTAND, P1 Anderson R. C., 1984, HDB READING RES, P255 Bakhtin Mikhail, 1981, DIALOGIC IMAGINATION Bakhtin MM, 1984, PROBLEMS DOSTOEVSKYS Bateson G., 1979, MIND NATURE NECESSAR Berkeley George, 1878, TREATISE PRINCIPLES Blumer H., 1969, SYMBOLIC INTERACTION Bogue Ronald, 2004, EDUC PHILOS THEORY, V36, P327, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2004.00071.x Briggs Matt, 2007, SOCIAL SEMIOTICS, V17, P503, DOI [10.1080/10350330701637080, DOI 10.1080/10350330701637080] Bruni LE, 2008, AM J SEMIOTICS, V24, P57, DOI DOI 10.5840/AJS2008241/35 Buckingham D., 2005, MEDIA LITERACY CHILD Caldas-Coulthard Carmen R., 2003, SOCIAL SEMIOTICS, V13, P5, DOI [10.1080/1035033022000133490, DOI 10.1080/1035033022000133490] Chomsky N., 1968, LANGUAGE MIND Chorianopoulos Konstantinos, 2007, COMPUTERS ENTERTAINM, V5, P4, DOI [10.1145/1279540.1279544, DOI 10.1145/1279540.1279544] Chun MM, 1998, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V36, P28, DOI 10.1006/cogp.1998.0681 Deacon Terrence W., 2012, SYMBOLIC SPECIES EVO, P9 Deacon T. W., 1997, SYMBOLIC SPECIES COE Deleuze G, 1987, 1000 PLATEAUS CAPITA Duranti A., 1992, RETHINKING CONTEXT L Duranti A, 2010, ANTHROPOL THEOR, V10, P16, DOI 10.1177/1463499610370517 Favareau Donald, 2004, THESIS UCLA Favareau Donald, 2008, BIOSEMIOTICS, P169 GOODWIN C, 1980, SOCIOL INQ, V50, P272, DOI 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x Goodwin Charles, 1979, EVERYDAY LANGUAGE ST, P97 GOODWIN C, 1986, SEMIOTICA, V62, P29, DOI 10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.29 Goodwin C., 1981, CONVERSATIONAL ORG I Goodwin MH, 1997, J NARRAT LIFE HIST, V7, P107 [Anonymous], 2003, SOCIAL SEMIOTICS, DOI DOI 10.1080/1035033032000152589 Gunter Barrie, 1997, CHILDREN TELEVISION Haiman John, 1985, CAMBRIDGE STUDIES LI, V44, P1 Halliday M., 1978, LANGUAGE SOCIAL SEMI Halliday M. A. K., 1993, LINGUISTICS ED, V5, P93, DOI DOI 10.1016/0898-5898(93)90026-7 Heritage J., 1984, GARFINKEL ETHNOMETHO Hodge RIV, 1986, CHILDREN TELEVISION HOFFMEYER J., 2010, INFORM NATURE REALIT, P185, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511778759.010 HUSTON AC, 1990, DEV PSYCHOL, V26, P409, DOI 10.1037//0012-1649.26.3.409 Linebarger DL, 2005, AM BEHAV SCI, V48, P624, DOI 10.1177/0002764204271505 Nakamura Ian, 2010, LANGUAGE TEACHER, V34, P9 Noth Winfried, 1995, HDB SEMIOTICS Ochs E., 1996, INTERACTION GRAMMAR Pavlov I. P, 1927, CONDITIONED REFLEXES Petrilli Susan, 2010, SIGN CROSSROADS GLOB Potter James W., 1998, MEDIA LITERACY RAPACZYNSKI W, 1982, J COMMUN, V32, P46, DOI 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1982.tb00494.x Revelle G. L., 2003, COMPUTERS ENTERTAINM, V1, P1 Reymond Geoffrey, 2003, AM SOCIOL REV, V68, P939, DOI [10.2307/1519752, DOI 10.2307/1519752] RICE M, 1983, DEV REV, V3, P211, DOI 10.1016/0273-2297(83)90030-8 Samaniego Concepcion M., 2007, INT REV EDUC, V53, P5, DOI [10.1007/s11159-006-9028-6, DOI 10.1007/S11159-006-9028-6] Schegloff E. A., 1982, GEORGETOWN U ROUNDTA, P71 Schegloff E. A., 1990, CONVERSATIONAL ORG I, V38, P51 Semetsky I, 2012, DISCOURSE-ABINGDON, V33, P47, DOI 10.1080/01596306.2012.632163 Semetsky I, 2010, EDUC PHILOS THEORY, V42, P476, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00486.x Skinner B. F., 1957, VERBAL BEHAV Smith K. U., 1966, CYBERNETIC PRINCIPLE Andrew Stables, 2012, BECOMING HUMAN SEMIO Stables A, 2015, NEW DIRECTION PHILOS, P1 Stjernfelt F, 2007, SYNTH LIBR, V336, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-5652-9 Pierre E. A., 2004, EDUC PHILOS THEORY, V36, P283, DOI [10.1111/j.1469-5812.2004.00068.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1469-5812.2004.00068.X] Tan AX, 1997, COMMUN MONOGR, V64, P82 Hughes M., 2008, YOUNG CHILDREN LEARN Van Leeuwen T., 2005, INTRO SOCIAL SEMIOTI von Uelddill Jakob, 1957, INSTINCTIVE BEHAV DE, P5 Wertsch J. V., 1991, VOICES MIND SOCIOCUL NR 63 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 4 U2 9 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 1035-0330 EI 1470-1219 J9 SOC SEMIOT JI Soc. Semiot. PD OCT 20 PY 2015 VL 25 IS 5 BP 558 EP 577 DI 10.1080/10350330.2015.1041790 PG 20 WC Humanities, Multidisciplinary; Communication; Linguistics SC Arts & Humanities - Other Topics; Communication; Linguistics GA CU6RD UT WOS:000363659600002 ER PT J AU Rudsberg, K Ohman, J AF Rudsberg, Karin Ohman, Johan TI The role of knowledge in participatory and pluralistic approaches to ESE SO ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE argumentation; participatory ESE; knowledge; practical epistemology; pragmatism ID SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TRANSACTIONAL APPROACH; SCIENCE CLASSROOM; EDUCATION; ARGUMENTATION; DISCUSSIONS; DISCOURSE; GENETICS; INQUIRY AB The purpose of this article is to investigate in situ the functions that knowledge has when used by students in argumentative discussions. The study is based on Dewey's pragmatic perspective of knowledge, which means that knowledge gets its meaning in the activity at hand. The analyses are conducted using Transactional Argumentation Analysis, which is a combination of pragmatic meaning analysis and Toulmin's argument pattern. The empirical material consists of video-recorded lessons from two seminars in a Swedish upper secondary school. The results show that knowledge plays a crucial role in the discussions. Six different functions are identified: emphasising complexity, clarifying and correcting, highlighting conflicting interests, providing evidence in a counterargument, predicting the consequences and adding support to an earlier claim. Knowledge also has general functions, such as justifying a claim, and is part of a collective process aimed at understanding the issues discussed. Further, the students use knowledge from different disciplines, such as environmental studies, history, politics, biology and human geography. C1 [Rudsberg, Karin] Uppsala Univ, Dept Educ, Uppsala, Sweden. [Ohman, Johan] Univ Orebro, Sch Humanities Educ & Social Sci, SE-70182 Orebro, Sweden. RP Rudsberg, K (reprint author), Uppsala Univ, Dept Educ, Uppsala, Sweden. EM karin.rudsberg@oru.se CR Albe V., 2007, SCI ED, V17, P805 Almqvist J., 2006, INTERCHANGE, V37, P225, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10780-006-9002-Z Arvola AO, 2012, RES SCI EDUC, V42, P1121, DOI 10.1007/s11165-011-9237-2 Bell RL, 2003, SCI EDUC, V87, P352, DOI 10.1002/sce.10063 Berkowitz M. W., 2003, ROLE MORAL REASONING, P117 Berland LK, 2011, SCI EDUC, V95, P191, DOI 10.1002/sce.20420 Berland LK, 2009, SCI EDUC, V93, P26, DOI 10.1002/sce.20286 Biesta G., 2003, PRAGMATISM ED RES Borg C, 2012, RES SCI TECHNOL EDUC, V30, P185, DOI 10.1080/02635143.2012.699891 Breiting S, 2010, ENVIRON EDUC RES, V16, P9, DOI 10.1080/13504620903533221 Christiansen N., 2011, J SCI EDUC TECHNOL, V21, P342 Dewey John, 1997, EXPERIENCE ED Dewey J., 1958, EXPERIENCE NATURE, DOI [10.1037/13377-000, DOI 10.1037/13377-000] Erduran S, 2004, SCI EDUC, V88, P915, DOI 10.1002/sce.20012 Grace MM, 2002, INT J SCI EDUC, V24, P1157, DOI 10.1080/09500690210134848 Huckle J, 2008, ENVIRON EDUC RES, V14, P65, DOI 10.1080/13504620701843392 Jimenez-Aleixandre MP, 2000, SCI EDUC, V84, P757, DOI 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F Kolsto SD, 2001, INT J SCI EDUC, V23, P877, DOI 10.1080/09500690010016102 Laessoe J, 2010, ENVIRON EDUC RES, V16, P39, DOI 10.1080/13504620903504016 Lewis J, 2006, INT J SCI EDUC, V28, P1267, DOI 10.1080/09500690500439348 Lidar M, 2006, SCI EDUC, V90, P148, DOI 10.1002/sce.20092 Lindahl MG, 2009, SCI EDUC-NETHERLANDS, V18, P1285, DOI 10.1007/s11191-008-9148-4 Nielsen JA, 2012, SCI EDUC, V96, P428, DOI 10.1002/sce.21001 Nielsen JA, 2012, INT J SCI EDUC, V34, P275, DOI 10.1080/09500693.2011.572305 Ohman J., 2008, VALUES DEMOCRACY ED Ohman J, 2013, ENVIRON EDUC RES, V19, P324, DOI 10.1080/13504622.2012.695012 Ohman J, 2007, J MORAL EDUC, V36, P151, DOI 10.1080/03057240701325258 Osborne J, 2004, J RES SCI TEACH, V41, P994, DOI 10.1002/tea.20035 Ostman L, 1996, J CURRICULUM STUD, V28, P37, DOI 10.1080/0022027980280102 Quennerstedt M, 2011, SPORT EDUC SOC, V16, P159, DOI 10.1080/13573322.2011.540423 Ratcliffe M., 2003, SCI ED CITIZENSHIP T Rorty R., 1990, PRAGMATISM PEIRCE DA, P1 Roth W.-M., 2004, RETHINKING SCI LITER, DOI [10.4324/9780203463918, DOI 10.4324/9780203463918] Rudsberg K, 2010, ENVIRON EDUC RES, V16, P95, DOI 10.1080/13504620903504073 Rudsberg K, 2013, SCI EDUC, V97, P594, DOI 10.1002/sce.21065 Sadler T. D., 2003, SCI ED, V88, P4 Sadler TD, 2005, SCI EDUC, V89, P71, DOI 10.1002/sce.20023 Sadler TD, 2004, J RES SCI TEACH, V41, P513, DOI 10.1002/tea.20009 Sadler TD, 2007, RES SCI EDUC, V37, P371, DOI 10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9 Sadler TD, 2006, INT J SCI EDUC, V28, P1463, DOI 10.1080/09500690600708717 Sampson V, 2008, SCI EDUC, V92, P447, DOI 10.1002/sce.20276 Scott W., 2003, SUSTAINABLE DEV LEAR, DOI [10.4324/9780203464625, DOI 10.4324/9780203464625] Toulmin S. E., 2003, USES ARGUMENT von Aufschnaiter C, 2008, J RES SCI TEACH, V45, P101, DOI 10.1002/tea.20213 Walker KA, 2007, INT J SCI EDUC, V29, P1387, DOI 10.1080/09500690601068095 Wickman PO, 2002, SCI EDUC, V86, P601, DOI 10.1002/sce.10036 Wickman P.-O., 2006, AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE Wickman PO, 2002, INT J SCI EDUC, V24, P465, DOI 10.1080/09500690110074756 Wickman PO, 2004, SCI EDUC, V88, P325, DOI 10.1002/sce.10129 Wickman PO, 2001, RESEARCH IN SCIENCE EDUCATION - PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE, P319 Wu YT, 2007, INT J SCI EDUC, V29, P1163, DOI 10.1080/09500690601083375 Zeidler DL, 2002, SCI EDUC, V86, P343, DOI 10.1002/sce.10025 Zeidler D. L., 2003, ROLE MORAL REASONING, DOI [10.1007/1-4020-4996-X, DOI 10.1007/1-4020-4996-X] NR 53 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 18 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 1350-4622 EI 1469-5871 J9 ENVIRON EDUC RES JI Environ. Educ. Res. PD OCT 3 PY 2015 VL 21 IS 7 BP 955 EP 974 DI 10.1080/13504622.2014.971717 PG 20 WC Education & Educational Research; Environmental Studies SC Education & Educational Research; Environmental Sciences & Ecology GA CQ7ZD UT WOS:000360824600001 ER PT J AU Harris, J Leggett, G AF Harris, Jo Leggett, Gemma TI Influences on the expression of health within physical education curricula in secondary schools in England and Wales SO SPORT EDUCATION AND SOCIETY LA English DT Article DE Discourse; Health; Physical Education; Schools; Secondary ID FITNESS; TEACHERS; GENDER; PEDAGOGIES; POLICY; MODEL; BODY; SELF; PE AB This paper presents selected findings from a wider study on the expression of health within physical education (PE) curricula in secondary schools in England and Wales. The study revealed that the expression of health in PE broadly reflected ideologies associated with promoting 'fitness for life' and 'fitness for performance' and that representations of both discourses were present, to a lesser or greater extent, in all schools in the study. Curiously, however, rhetorical 'fitness for life' discourses were commonly expressed through 'fitness for performance' practices in the form of testing and training activities. This paper attempts to explain this mismatch between health-related policy and practice by focusing on what was revealed about the influences on the expression of health in PE. A case study approach was adopted, involving five state secondary schools, three in England and two in Wales. Data sources included health-related school documentation, interviews with PE teachers and observation of a health-related unit of work in one of the schools. The reasons that testing and training activities were the most common contexts for the delivery of health-related learning included the following: conceptual confusion and limited understanding, leading to a belief that training and testing activities are unproblematic and result in increased health, activity and fitness levels; the resolution of pragmatic issues associated with large groups, limited space and minimal equipment as well as preparation for accredited courses in PE; tradition and a desire by teachers to remain with familiar content and teaching approaches, and limited awareness of alternative 'fitness for life' pedagogies. This study has served to increase awareness of the influences on and tensions between health-related discourses in secondary school PE curricula in England and Wales and has provided further demonstration of and insight into the complex relationship between health-related policy and practice. C1 [Harris, Jo] Univ Loughborough, Sch Sport Exercise & Hlth Sci, Loughborough LE11 3TE, Leics, England. [Leggett, Gemma] Humphrey Perkins Sch, Loughborough, Leics, England. RP Harris, J (reprint author), Univ Loughborough, Sch Sport Exercise & Hlth Sci, Loughborough LE11 3TE, Leics, England. EM j.p.harris@lboro.ac.uk CR Awdurdod Cwricwlwm Ac Asesu Cymry (ACAAC), 1999, PHYS ED NAT CURR WAL Alfrey L, 2012, PHYS EDUC SPORT PEDA, V17, P477, DOI 10.1080/17408989.2011.594429 Armour K, 2013, QUEST, V65, P201, DOI 10.1080/00336297.2013.773531 Bernstein B., 1990, STRUCTURING PEDAGOGI, VIV Brown D, 1999, SPORT EDUC SOC, V4, P143, DOI 10.1080/1357332990040203 Burrows L, 2004, SPORT EDUC SOC, V9, P193, DOI 10.1080/1357332042000233930 Burrows L, 2002, J TEACH PHYS EDUC, V22, P39 Burrows L, 2012, DISCOURSE-ABINGDON, V33, P729, DOI 10.1080/01596306.2012.696502 Cale L, 2005, EXERCISE YOUNG PEOPL Cale L., 2009, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, V14, P89, DOI 10.1080/17408980701345782 Cale L., 2002, B PHYS ED, V38, P145 Carabine J, 2001, DISCOURSE DATA GUIDE, P267 Castelli D, 2007, J TEACH PHYS EDUC, V26, P3 CHARMAZ K, 2000, HDB QUALITATIVE RES, V2, P509, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327027HC1901_5 Cliff K, 2012, SPORT EDUC SOC, V17, P293, DOI 10.1080/13573322.2011.608935 Cothran D. J., 2006, J IN SERVICE ED, V32, P533, DOI 10.1080/13674580601024556 Department for Children Schools and Families, 2008, PE SPORT STRAT YOUNG Department for Education and Employment and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 1999, PHYS ED Department for Education and Skills, 2003, NEW SPEC SYST TRANSF Domangue EA, 2012, SPORT EDUC SOC, V17, P207, DOI 10.1080/13573322.2011.607950 Doyle W., 1977, CURRICULUM THEORY, P74 Evans J, 2008, ED DISORDERED EATING EVANS J, 1990, BRIT J SOCIOL EDUC, V11, P155, DOI 10.1080/0142569900110203 Evans J, 2008, BRIT EDUC RES J, V34, P387, DOI 10.1080/01411920802042812 Foucault Michel, 1972, ARCHAEOLOGY KNOWLEDG Green K, 2002, SPORT EDUC SOC, V7, P65, DOI 10.1080/135733201201113585 Haerens L, 2011, QUEST, V63, P321 Harris J, 2000, HLTH RELATED EXERCIS Harris J, 2005, PHYS ED ESSENTIAL IS, P78 Harris J., 1995, British Journal of Physical Education, V26, P25 Harris J, 2006, EUR PHYS EDUC REV, V12, P201, DOI 10.1177/1356336X06065359 Harwood V, 2012, DISCOURSE-ABINGDON, V33, P611, DOI 10.1080/01596306.2012.696496 HOPPLE C, 1995, J TEACH PHYS EDUC, V14, P408 Horrell A, 2012, SPORT EDUC SOC, V17, P163, DOI 10.1080/13573322.2011.607948 Johns DP, 2005, SPORT EDUC SOC, V10, P69, DOI 10.1080/1357332052000298811 Kirk D., 1986, STUDIES SOCIOLOGY PH, P167 LUKE MD, 1991, J TEACH PHYS EDUC, V11, P31 McDermott L, 2012, SPORT EDUC SOC, V17, P405, DOI 10.1080/13573322.2011.608942 Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs (MEETYA), 2008, MELB DECL ED GOALS Y Miles M. B., 2002, QUALITATIVE RES COMP Penney D., 2000, EUROPEAN PHYS ED REV, V6, P249, DOI [10.1177/1356336X000063003, DOI 10.1177/1356336X000063003] Penney D., 1999, POLITICS POLICY PRAC Puhse U., 2011, INT J PHYS ED, V3, P2 Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), 2007, PHYS ED PROGR STUD K Rich E, 2011, HEALTH, V15, P3, DOI 10.1177/1363459309358127 SALLIS JF, 1991, RES Q EXERCISE SPORT, V62, P124 Sparkes A, 1990, WINNERS LOSERS MYTH Sparkes A, 1991, ISSUES PHYSICAL ED, P20 Sykes H, 2008, SOCIOL SPORT J, V25, P66 Trost S., 2006, HDB PHYS ED, P163 USDHHS, 2000, HLTH PEOPL 2010 UND U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), 1996, PHYS ACT HLTH REP SU Webb L, 2010, INT J QUALITATIVE ST, V23, P785, DOI DOI 10.1080/09518398.2010.529471 Wright J., 2004, DISCOURSE, V25, P211, DOI 10.1080/01596300410001692157 Wright J., 2004, CRITICAL INQUIRY PRO Zanker C, 2008, SOCIOL SPORT J, V25, P48 NR 56 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 9 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 1357-3322 EI 1470-1243 J9 SPORT EDUC SOC JI Sport. Educ. Soc. PD OCT 3 PY 2015 VL 20 IS 7 BP 908 EP 923 DI 10.1080/13573322.2013.853659 PG 16 WC Education & Educational Research; Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism; Sport Sciences SC Education & Educational Research; Social Sciences - Other Topics; Sport Sciences GA CO7PI UT WOS:000359352500006 ER PT J AU Henery, A AF Henery, Ashlie TI On the development of metapragmatic awareness abroad: two case studies exploring the role of expert-mediation SO LANGUAGE AWARENESS LA English DT Article DE study abroad; concept-based pragmatics instruction; L2 pragmatics; French ID PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT AB This paper examines the resulting qualitative transformation of two students' metapragmatic awareness following a semester abroad in southern France - one of whom had access to a concept-based pragmatics instruction programme (expert-mediation), while the other followed a standard semester programme. The larger study from which these cases are drawn was designed to address the many calls for pedagogical interventions to help students to engage in, interpret, and negotiate the complexities that surround them during study abroad. Through a thematic discourse analysis of pre- and post-programme language awareness interviews, both focal students exhibited development and growth in their metapragmatic awareness but each student's development was markedly different in nature. These case studies show that expert-mediation provided one learner with notably more systematic, reliable, and recontextualisable conceptual knowledge (in comparison to her non-expert-mediated counterpart) through which she could interpret the language use she encountered through everyday interactions abroad. Subsequent theoretical and pedagogical implications are also discussed. C1 [Henery, Ashlie] Univ Penn, Romance Languages, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA. [Henery, Ashlie] Univ Penn, Grad Sch Educ, Educ Linguist Div, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA. RP Henery, A (reprint author), Univ Penn, Romance Languages, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA. EM ahenery@sas.upenn.edu FU Cultural Services of the French Embassy under the Chateaubriand Fellowship; Barbara F. Freed Dissertation Year Award FX This work was supported by the Cultural Services of the French Embassy under the Chateaubriand Fellowship; and the Barbara F. Freed Dissertation Year Award. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers, whose comments greatly improved the manuscript. CR Agar M., 1994, LANGUAGE SHOCK UNDER Arievitch IM, 2005, EDUC PSYCHOL, V40, P155, DOI 10.1207/s15326985ep4003_2 Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN Cook V., 2002, PORTRAITS L2 USER, P1 Crystal D., 1997, CAMBRIDGE ENCY LANGU Davies A., 2004, HDB APPL LINGUISTICS, P431, DOI 10.1002/9780470757000.ch17 Dewaele J. -M., 2007, LANGUAGE LEARNING TE, P162 Galperin P. I., 1992, J RUSSIAN E EUROPEAN, V30, P60 Gal'perin P. Y., 1979, SOV PSYCHOL, V18, P84 Gal'perin P. Y., 1989, SOV PSYCHOL, V26, P45 Henery A., 2014, THESIS Hoffman-Hicks S., 1999, THESIS Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kasper G., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE Kinginger C., 2008, MODERN LANGUAGE J S, V92, piii Kinginger C., 2004, FRONTIERS INTERDISCI, V10, P19 Kinginger C., 2008, LONGITUDINAL STUDY A, P223 Kinginger C, 2011, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V31, P58, DOI 10.1017/S0267190511000031 Lantolf J., 2006, SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY Lantolf JP, 2007, MOD LANG J, V91, P877, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00675.x Negueruela E., 2003, THESIS Ortega L., 2014, MULTILINGUAL TURN IM, P32 Regan V., 2009, ACQUISITION SOCIOLIN Ren W, 2013, PRAGMATICS, V23, P715 Schmidt-Rinehart BC, 2004, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V37, P254 Shardakova Maria, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P423, DOI DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2005.2.4.423 Siegal M., 1995, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI Taguchi N, 2011, MOD LANG J, V95, P605, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01246.x Tharp R. G., 1991, ROUSING MINDS LIFE T van Compernolle RA, 2014, LANG LEARN, V64, P549, DOI 10.1111/lang.12054 van Compernolle RA, 2013, LANG TEACH RES, V17, P282, DOI 10.1177/1362168813482917 van Compernolle RA, 2015, LANG TEACH RES, V19, P351, DOI 10.1177/1362168814541719 VanCompernolle RA, 2014, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V74, P1 Van Compernolle R. A., AUTHENTICIT IN PRESS Vellenga H., 2004, TEACHING ENGLISH 2 F, V8, P1 Wilkinson S., 1998, FRONTIERS INTERDISCI, V4, P121 NR 36 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 3 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0965-8416 EI 1747-7565 J9 LANG AWARE JI Lang. Aware. PD OCT 2 PY 2015 VL 24 IS 4 BP 316 EP 331 DI 10.1080/09658416.2015.1113982 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CX3SS UT WOS:000365620100003 ER PT J AU Davidson, K Mayberry, RI AF Davidson, Kathryn Mayberry, Rachel I. TI Do Adults Show an Effect of Delayed First Language Acquisition When Calculating Scalar Implicatures? SO LANGUAGE ACQUISITION LA English DT Article ID 2ND-LANGUAGE ACQUISITION; PRAGMATIC TOLERANCE; AGE CONSTRAINTS; TIME-COURSE; INFORMATIVENESS; ALTERNATIVES; INFERENCES AB Language acquisition involves learning not only grammatical rules and a lexicon but also what people are intending to convey with their utterances: the semantic/pragmatic component of language. In this article we separate the contributions of linguistic development and cognitive maturity to the acquisition of the semantic/pragmatic component of language by comparing deaf adults who had either early or late first exposure to their first language (ASL). We focus on the particular type of meaning at the semantic/pragmatic interface called scalar implicature, for which preschool-age children typically differ from adults. Children's behavior has been attributed to either their not knowing appropriate linguistic alternatives to consider or to cognitive developmental differences between children and adults. Unlike children, deaf adults with late language exposure are cognitively mature, although they never fully acquire some complex linguistic structures and thus serve as a test for the role of language in such interpretations. Our results indicate an overall high performance by late learners, especially when implicatures are not based on conventionalized items. However, compared to early language learners, late language learners compute fewer implicatures when conventionalized linguistic alternatives are involved (e.g., ). We conclude that (i) in general, Gricean pragmatic reasoning does not seem to be impacted by delayed first language acquisition and can account for multiple quantity implicatures, but (ii) the creation of a scale based on lexical items can lead to ease in alternative creation that may be advantageously learned early in life and that this may be one of several factors contributing to differences between adults and children on scalar implicature tasks. C1 [Davidson, Kathryn] Yale Univ, New Haven, CT 06520 USA. [Mayberry, Rachel I.] Univ Calif San Diego, San Diego, CA 92103 USA. RP Davidson, K (reprint author), Yale Univ, Program Cognit Sci, 370 Temple St, New Haven, CT 06520 USA. EM kathryn.davidson@yale.edu FU NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC012797] CR Baayen R. H, 2008, ANAL LINGUISTIC DATA Barner D, 2011, COGNITION, V118, P84, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.010 Birdsong D, 2001, J MEM LANG, V44, P235, DOI 10.1006/jmla.2000.2750 Bott L, 2004, J MEM LANG, V51, P437, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006 Boudreault P, 2006, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V21, P608, DOI 10.1080/01690960500139363 Breheny R, 2006, COGNITION, V100, P434, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.003 Chierchia G, 2001, PROC ANN BUCLD, P157 Chierchia Gennaro, 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB LA, V44, P1 Chierchia G, 2006, LINGUIST INQ, V37, P535, DOI 10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535 Davidson Kathryn, 2013, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V6, P1, DOI DOI 10.3765/SP.6.4 Davidson Kathryn, 2011, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Flege JE, 1999, J MEM LANG, V41, P78, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1999.2638 Foppolo Francesca, 2012, LANGUAGE LEARNING DE, V8, P364 Gazdar Gerald, 1979, PRAGMATICS IMPLICATU Geurts B., 2010, QUANTITY IMPLICATURE Grice H. Paul, 1967, W JAMES LECT Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Gruter Theres, 2008, P 9 GEN APPR 2 LAN A, P47 Gualmini Andrea, 2001, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST Horn L. R., 1989, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Huang YT, 2009, DEV PSYCHOL, V45, P1723, DOI 10.1037/a0016704 Jaeger TF, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P434, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 JOHNSON JS, 1991, COGNITION, V39, P215, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90054-8 Katsos Napoleon, 2007, SYNTHESE, V165, P385 Katsos N, 2011, COGNITION, V120, P67, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015 Katsos N, 2010, PROC ANN BUCLD, P221 Katzir R, 2007, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P669, DOI 10.1007/s10988-008-9029-y Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS MATSUMOTO Y, 1995, LINGUIST PHILOS, V18, P21, DOI 10.1007/BF00984960 Mayberry RI, 2003, BRAIN LANG, V87, P369, DOI 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00137-8 Mayberry RI, 2002, NATURE, V417, P38, DOI 10.1038/417038a Mitchell Ross, 2004, SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIE, V4, P138, DOI DOI 10.1353/SLS.2004.0005 Newport Elissa L., 2002, ENCY COGNITIVE SCI, P737, DOI DOI 10.1002/0470018860.S00506 Noveck IA, 2003, BRAIN LANG, V85, P203, DOI 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00053-1 Noveck IA, 2001, COGNITION, V78, P165, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1 Papafragou Anna, 2004, LANG ACQUIS, V12, P71, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327817LA1201_3 Papafragou A, 2003, COGNITION, V86, P253, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00179-8 Ramirez NF, 2013, J CHILD LANG, V40, P391, DOI 10.1017/S0305000911000535 Russell Benjamin, 2006, J SEMANT, V23, P361, DOI DOI 10.1093/JOS/FFL008 Sandler W, 2006, SIGN LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTIC UNIVERSALS, P1, DOI 10.2277/ 0521483956 Sauerland Uli, 2012, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V6, P36, DOI DOI 10.1002/LNC3.321 Siegal M., 2007, P 8 TOK C PSYCH, P265 Siegal M, 2004, TRENDS COGN SCI, V8, P534, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.007 Slabakova R, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P2444, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.005 Stiller Alex, 2011, P 33 ANN M COGN SCI Van Rooij R., 2004, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, V13, P491, DOI 10.1007/s10849-004-2118-6 NR 46 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 3 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 1048-9223 EI 1532-7817 J9 LANG ACQUIS JI Lang. Acquisition PD OCT 2 PY 2015 VL 22 IS 4 BP 329 EP 354 DI 10.1080/10489223.2014.962140 PG 26 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CU1ZA UT WOS:000363319700001 PM 26997850 ER PT J AU Ebrahimi, SF Chan, SH AF Ebrahimi, Seyed Foad Chan, Swee Heng TI Research Article Abstracts in Applied Linguistics and Economics: Functional Analysis of the Grammatical Subject SO AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE Grammatical Subject; Discourse Function; Disciplinary Difference; Research Article Abstract; Text Development ID RHETORICAL STRUCTURE; METADISCOURSE; DISCIPLINARY; ENGLISH; PRAGMATICS; DISCOURSE; READER; GENRE AB The aims of this paper are to analyse and compare the discourse functions of grammatical subjects used in research article abstracts in the disciplines of Applied Linguistics and Economics. The data for this study consisted of 60 research article abstracts published in 2010 and 2011 in the journals of Applied Linguistics and Oxford Economic Papers. The corpus was analysed using the classification of discourse functions of grammatical subjects established by Gosden. The analysis revealed disciplinary differences concerning the discourse functions enacted by the application of the grammatical subject. These findings add to the claim that academic writing (research article abstract writing in this study) is shaped by the writer's disciplinary background with particular reference to the use of the grammatical subject as a theme in text development. C1 [Ebrahimi, Seyed Foad] Islamic Azad Univ, Shadegan Branch, Shadegan, Iran. [Chan, Swee Heng] Univ Putra Malaysia, Dept English, Serdang 43400, Malaysia. RP Ebrahimi, SF (reprint author), Islamic Azad Univ, Shadegan Branch, Shadegan, Iran. EM seyedfoade@yahoo.com; chansweeheng@gmail.com CR Becher Tony, 2001, ACAD TRIBES TERRITOR Becher T., 1989, ACAD TRIBES TERRITOR Berry M, 1989, THEMATIC DEV ENGLISH, P55 Brown G., 1983, DISCOURSE ANAL Bruce I, 2010, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V9, P153, DOI 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.011 Cutting J, 2012, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V11, P283, DOI 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.004 Davies F., 1988, ESPECIALIST, V9, P173 Fries PH, 1983, FORUM LINGUISTICUM, V6, P1 Fries P. H., 1992, OCCASIONAL PAPERS SY, V6, P45 Gillaerts P, 2010, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V9, P128, DOI 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004 Golebiowski Z, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P753, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.009 GOSDEN H, 1993, APPL LINGUIST, V14, P56, DOI 10.1093/applin/14.1.56 Halliday M. A. K., 1985, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA Harwood N, 2005, APPL LINGUIST, V26, P343, DOI 10.1093/applin/ami012 Hu GW, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2795, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007 Huckin T., 2006, ACAD WRITING CONTEXT, P93 Hyland K, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V30, P437, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5 Hyland K, 2005, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V24, P123, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002 Hyland K., 2005, METADISCOURSE EXPLOR Hyland K., 2009, TAIWAN INT ESP J, V1, P5 Hyland K., 2008, INT J ENGLISH STUDIE, V8, P1 Hyland K, 2001, WRIT COMMUN, V18, P549, DOI 10.1177/0741088301018004005 Jalilifar AR, 2009, RES ARTICLE APPL LIN Kanoksilapatham B., 2013, 3L SE ASIAN J ENGLIS, V19, P1 Lester JD, 2006, WRITING RES PAPERS S Li T, 2012, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V11, P345, DOI 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004 Lores R, 2004, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V23, P280, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2003.06.001 Lovejoy K. B., 1991, LINGUISTICS ED, V3, P315, DOI DOI 10.1016/0898-5898(91)90013-9 MACDONALD SP, 1992, WRIT COMMUN, V9, P533, DOI 10.1177/0741088392009004004 Martin J, 1986, WRITING MEAN TEACHIN Martin JR, 1992, OCCASIONAL PAPERS SY, V6, P147 Martin JR, 1995, THEMATIC DEV ENGLISH, P105 Martin MP, 2003, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V22, P25, DOI [10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00033-3, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00033-3] Martinez IA, 2001, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V20, P227, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00013-2 Martinez I. A., 2003, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V2, P103, DOI [10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00003-1, DOI 10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00003-1] MYERS G, 1989, APPL LINGUIST, V10, P1, DOI 10.1093/applin/10.1.1 North S, 2005, APPL LINGUIST, V26, P431, DOI 10.1093/applin/ami023 Pho PD, 2008, DISCOURSE STUD, V10, P231, DOI 10.1177/1461445607087010 Salager-Meyer F., 1992, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V11, P93, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(05)80002-X Samraj B., 2008, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V7, P55, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.JEAP.2008.02.005 Samraj B, 2005, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V24, P141, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2002.10.001 SILVER Marc, 2006, LANGUAGE DISCIPLINES Swales J., 1990, GENRE ANAL ENGLISH A Vande Kopple WJ, 1992, RHETORIC DOING ESSAY, P328 Vande Kopple WJ, 1986, STUDYING WRITING LIN, P72 Vande Kopple WJ, 1991, WRIT COMMUN, V8, P311, DOI [10.1177/0741088391008003002, DOI 10.1177/0741088391008003002] VANDEKOPPLE WJ, 1994, WRIT COMMUN, V11, P534, DOI 10.1177/0741088394011004004 Ventola Eija, 1994, WRITING VS SPEAKING, P333 NR 48 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 10 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0726-8602 EI 1469-2996 J9 AUST J LINGUIST JI Aust. J. Linguist. PD OCT 2 PY 2015 VL 35 IS 4 BP 381 EP 397 DI 10.1080/07268602.2015.1070660 PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CT5VI UT WOS:000362878800005 ER PT J AU Starks, D Willoughby, L AF Starks, Donna Willoughby, Louisa TI The meta-pragmatic discourses of Australian high school students on language, migration and belonging SO LANGUAGE AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE Migration; integration; language ideologies; adolescents; Australian language policy ID COMMUNICATION; ENGLISH; SELF AB Recent years have seen a backlash against multiculturalism in many Western countries and increasing calls to restrict migration and citizenship rights to those who can pass language tests. This paper explores the sentiment of high school students who were born and raised in Australia towards issues of language and migration, including the need for migrants to speak English and use Australian dialect and accent. Results show that Australian youth have diverse and sophisticated understandings of what is a complex and often polarising issue of public debate. While public multicultural backlash discourse may be influencing some students who support the idea that migrants should learn English before coming to Australia, many students believe that individual circumstances should be considered when evaluating migrant language issues. Student views about migrants' use of Australian dialect and accent also vary but these responses include less mitigation than to those about migrants' English language abilities, suggesting that the role of English is more contested than the role of dialect and accent. We close by reflecting on the design of our data instruments for eliciting opinions in this controversial area and what our findings might mean for future Australian discourse on language, migration and belonging. In den letzten Jahren steigt in vielen westlichen Landern der Widerstand gegen kulturelle Vielfalt. Dieser Widerstand ist von steigenden Versuchen begleitet Einwanderung und Einburgerung mit Sprachkompetenz zu verbinden. In diesem Aufsatz untersuchen wir den Ausma ss in dem solche Einstellungen in Bemerkungen von australischen Sekundarschulern zu finden sind. Schuler Einstellung uber australische Umgangsprache und Aussprache wurden bemerkt, aber nicht als so wichtig bewertet in vergleich zu allgemeinen englische Sprachkenntisse. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen, dass australische Jugendliche ein vielfaltiges und differenziertes Verstandnis dieser komplexen und haufig polarisierenden Streitfrage besitzen. Der Diskurs der Gegenreaktion zur multikulturellen Vielfalt mag manche Schuler zu der Meinung gebracht haben, dass alle Einwanderer vor der Einwanderung Englisch vollstandig beherrschen sollen. Im Gegensatz dazu zeigen viele Schuler ein starkes Bekenntnis zum alltaglichen Multikulturalismus' (Harris 2013). Zum Schluss diskutieren wir den Entwurf unserer Methoden die Meinungen in diesem kontroversen Bereich heraus zu finden, und was das fur weitere australische Diskurs uber Sprache, Einwanderung und Zugehorigkeit bedeutet. C1 [Starks, Donna] La Trobe Univ, Sch Educ, Coll Arts Social Sci & Commerce, Bundoora, Vic 3086, Australia. [Willoughby, Louisa] Monash Univ, Sch Languages Literatures Cultures & Linguist, Clayton, Vic 3800, Australia. RP Starks, D (reprint author), La Trobe Univ, Sch Educ, Coll Arts Social Sci & Commerce, Bundoora, Vic 3086, Australia. EM louisa.willoughby@monash.edu OI Willoughby, Louisa/0000-0001-6823-0791 CR Archakis A, 2014, DISCOURSE SOC, V25, P297, DOI 10.1177/0957926513519539 Baumgarten N, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1184, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.018 Verschueren J., 1998, DEBATING DIVERSITY A Blommaert J, 2013, J LANG IDENTITY EDUC, V12, P193, DOI 10.1080/15348458.2013.797276 Bonilla-Silva E, 2000, DISCOURSE SOC, V11, P50, DOI 10.1177/0957926500011001003 Boomgaarden HG, 2009, EUR J POLIT RES, V48, P516, DOI 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01831.x Canagarajah S, 2013, LANG INTERCULT COMM, V13, P202, DOI 10.1080/14708477.2013.770867 Castles S., 2000, CITIZENSHIP MIGRATIO CHAMBERS JK, 1992, LANGUAGE, V68, P673, DOI 10.2307/416850 Condor S, 2006, BRIT J SOC PSYCHOL, V45, P657, DOI 10.1348/014466605XB2341 Creese G., 2010, INT MIGRATION INTEGR, V11, P295, DOI DOI 10.1007/S12134-010-0139-3 Eberhardt M, 2012, LANG COMMUN, V32, P358, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.08.002 Extra Guus, 2009, LANGUAGE TESTING MIG, P125, DOI DOI 10.1075/DAPSAC.33.08EXT Gal S, 1995, SOC RES, V62, P967 Gluszek A, 2010, PERS SOC PSYCHOL REV, V14, P214, DOI 10.1177/1088868309359288 Harris A., 2013, YOUNG PEOPLE EVERYDA Harrison G, 2013, INT MIGR, V51, P192, DOI 10.1111/imig.12005 Harwood Jake, 1994, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V108, P167, DOI 10.1515/ijsl.1994.108.167 Hatoss A., 2011, SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUD, V5, P257 Hogan-Brun G., 2009, DISCOURSE LANGUAGE I Hornberger N., 2008, HERITAGE LANGUAGE ED, P1 Jaspers J, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1264, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.012 Johansson M, 2014, GENDER WORK ORGAN, V21, P18, DOI 10.1111/gwao.12009 Johnson DC, 2010, APPL LINGUIST, V31, P72, DOI 10.1093/applin/amp011 Joppke C, 2013, CITIZENSHIP STUD, V17, P1, DOI 10.1080/13621025.2012.669965 Kramsch C, 2008, APPL LINGUIST, V29, P645, DOI 10.1093/applin/amn022 Long M. H., 1990, STUDIES 2ND LANGUAGE, V12, P251, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100009165 Mainsah H, 2011, EUR J CULT STUD, V14, P179, DOI 10.1177/1367549410391926 McNamara T, 2009, LANG ASSESS Q, V6, P106, DOI 10.1080/15434300802606663 Musgrave S., 2014, AUSTR REV APPL LINGU, V37, P198 O'Doherty K, 2008, J COMMUNITY APPL SOC, V18, P576, DOI 10.1002/casp.973 Ozolins U., 1993, POLITICS LANGUAGE AU Payne Arvilla, 1980, LOCATING LANGUAGE TI, P143 Simon-Vandenbergen Anne-Marie, 2000, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V10, P41, DOI [10.1111/j.1473-4192.2000.tb00139.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1473-4192.2000.TB00139.X] Starks D, 2012, NAMES, V60, P135, DOI 10.1179/0027773812Z.00000000019 Stevenson Patrick, 2006, LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES, P147, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10993-007-9067-2 Stewart L., 2011, AUSSIE SLANG DICT Van Dijk Teun, 1992, DISCOURSE SOC, V3, P87, DOI DOI 10.1177/0957926592003001005 Watts-Taffe S., 2000, LANG ARTS, V77, P258 Willoughby L., 2014, CURRENT ISSUES LANGU, V15, P265, DOI [10.1080/14664208.2014.915457, DOI 10.1080/14664208.2014.915457] Willoughby L, 2013, AUST J LINGUIST, V33, P31, DOI 10.1080/07268602.2013.787904 Zamora-Kapoor A., 2014, MIGRATION STUDIES, Vmnu034, DOI [10.1093/migration/mnu034, DOI 10.1093/MIGRATION/MNU034] MarMolinero C, 2005, LANG GLOB, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230523883 NR 43 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 5 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 1470-8477 EI 1747-759X J9 LANG INTERCULT COMM JI Lang. Intercult. Commun. PD OCT 2 PY 2015 VL 15 IS 4 BP 550 EP 566 DI 10.1080/14708477.2015.1051986 PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CR5JS UT WOS:000361378100007 ER PT J AU Adams, C Gaile, J Lockton, E Freed, J AF Adams, Catherine Gaile, Jacqueline Lockton, Elaine Freed, Jenny TI Integrating Language, Pragmatics, and Social Intervention in a Single-Subject Case Study of a Child With a Developmental Social Communication Disorder SO LANGUAGE SPEECH AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS LA English DT Article ID SCHOOL-AGE-CHILDREN; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS; HIGH-FUNCTIONING AUTISM; IMPAIRMENT; SPEECH; SKILLS; THERAPY; PROGRAM; PROJECT AB Purpose: This clinical focus article presents an illustration of a complex communication intervention, the Social Communication Intervention Programme (SCIP), as delivered to a child who has a social communication disorder (SCD). The SCIP intervention combined language processing and pragmatic and social understanding therapies in a program of individualized therapy activities and in close liaison with families. Method: The study used an enhanced AB single-subject design in which an 8-year-old child with an SCD participated in 20 therapy sessions with a specialist speech-language pathologist. A procedure of matching assessment findings to intervention choices was followed to construct an individualized treatment program. Examples of intervention content and the embedded structure of SCIP are illustrated. Observational and formal measurements of receptive and expressive language, conversation, and parent-teacher ratings of social communication were completed before therapy, after therapy, and at a 6-month follow-up session. Results: Outcomes revealed change in total and receptive language scores but not in expressive language. Conversation showed marked improvement in responsiveness, appreciation of listener knowledge, turn taking, and adaptation of discourse style. Teacher-reported outcomes included improved classroom behavior and enhanced literacy skills. Parent-reported outcomes included improved verbal interactions with family members and personal narratives. Conclusions: This clinical focus article demonstrates the complexity of needs in a child with an SCD and how these can be addressed in individualized intervention. Findings are discussed in relation to the essential nature of language support including pragmatic therapy for children with SCDs. Discussion of the role of formal and functional outcome measurement as well as the proximity of chosen outcomes to the intervention is included. C1 [Adams, Catherine; Gaile, Jacqueline; Lockton, Elaine; Freed, Jenny] Univ Manchester, Sch Psychol Sci, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. RP Adams, C (reprint author), Univ Manchester, Sch Psychol Sci, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. EM catherine.adams@manchester.ac.uk OI Freed, Jenny/0000-0003-1093-1186 FU Nuffield Foundation [EDU/32953]; National Health Service (NHS) FX This study was embedded with the SCIP two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial and was carried out in accordance with the National Health Service (NHS, the UK publicly funded medical and health services) Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care (NHS 2005) and was approved by the Northern and Yorkshire NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC 07/MRE03/3). This research was supported by a grant to Catherine Adams and Elaine Lockton from the Nuffield Foundation (Grant EDU/32953). All parents gave written informed consent for their child's participation. Informed consent was also gained from the child (where able), school, teacher and LSA, and relevant local authorities. Thanks are due to Connor's parents, teacher, and LSA, who provided valuable feedback and who participated in the intervention. Thanks to Jenny Gibson for use of data from the MIPO study. CR Adams C, 2001, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V36, P289, DOI 10.1080/13682820119881 Adams C, 2006, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V41, P41, DOI 10.1080/13693780500179793 Adams C., 2011, SPEECH LANGUAGE THER, P7 Adams C, 2001, ASSESSMENT COMPREHEN Adams C., 2013, ENCY AUTISM SPECTRUM, P2320 Adams C, 2012, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V47, P245, DOI 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2012.00147.x Adams C, 2012, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V47, P233, DOI 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00146.x Adams C, 2015, LANG SPEECH DISORD, P141 American Psychiatric Association, 2013, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT Bishop D., 2003, TEST RECEPTION GRAMM Bishop D. V., 2004, ASSESSMENT Bishop DVM, 2000, DEV PSYCHOPATHOL, V12, P177, DOI 10.1017/S0954579400002042 Bishop DV, 2000, SPEECH LANGUAGE IMPA, P99 Bishop DVM, 2002, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V43, P917, DOI 10.1111/1469-7610.00114 Bishop D.V.M., 2003, CHILDRENS COMMUNICAT Blank M., 1987, DIRECTING DISCOURSE Bowers L., 2009, SOCIAL LANGUAGE TRAI Bowers L., 2008, SOCIAL LANGUAGE DEV Brinton B, 2004, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V35, P283, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2004/026) Brinton B, 2005, TOP LANG DISORD, V25, P338 Brinton B, 2007, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V50, P798, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/055) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014, TRANSP REP EV NONR D Cordier R, 2014, RES DEV DISABIL, V35, P1588, DOI 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.03.050 Dennis M, 2001, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V31, P47, DOI 10.1023/A:1005661613288 Des Jarlais DC, 2004, AM J PUBLIC HEALTH, V94, P361, DOI 10.2105/AJPH.94.3.361 Dunn L. M., 1997, BRIT PICTURE VOCABUL Eadie P, 2014, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V49, P215, DOI 10.1111/1460-6984.12065 Fujiki M., 2009, HDB CHILD LANGUAGE D, P406 Fujiki M, 2013, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V44, P3, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-103) Gerber S, 2012, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V43, P235, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0047) Gibson J, 2011, RES DEV DISABIL, V32, P2458, DOI 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.07.014 Karmiloff-Smith A, 2009, DEV PSYCHOL, V45, P56, DOI 10.1037/a0014506 KAZDIN AE, 1981, J CONSULT CLIN PSYCH, V49, P183, DOI 10.1037//0022-006X.49.2.183 Kazdin A. E., 2008, ANNU REV CLIN PSYCHO, V3, P1 Kazdin AE, 2008, AM PSYCHOL, V63, P146, DOI 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.146 Kelly A., 2007, TALKABOUT SOCIAL COM Kleiman K. I., 2011, FUNCTIONAL CONVERSAT Koenig K, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P1163, DOI 10.1007/s10803-009-0728-1 LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159, DOI 10.2307/2529310 Law J, 2008, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V43, P245, DOI 10.1080/13682820701489717 Law J., 2012, WHAT WORKS INTERVENT Lopata C, 2010, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V40, P1297, DOI 10.1007/s10803-010-0989-8 Lord C, 2000, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V30, P205, DOI 10.1023/A:1005592401947 Martin I, 2003, BRAIN LANG, V85, P451, DOI 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00070-1 Merrison S., 2005, CHILD LANG TEACH THE, V212, P191 Norbury CF, 2014, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V55, P204, DOI 10.1111/jcpp.12154 Owens G, 2008, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V38, P1944, DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0590-6 Perkins M, 2007, PRAGMATIC IMPAIRMENT Peterson C, 1999, J CHILD LANG, V26, P49, DOI 10.1017/S0305000998003651 Phelps-Gunn T., 2007, TEST PRAGMATIC LANGU Pugmire A., 2011, SOCIAL COMMUNICATION Ratner NB, 2006, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V37, P257, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2006/029) Raven J. C., 1979, COLOURED PROGR MATRI Reichow Brian, 2013, Evid Based Child Health, V8, P266, DOI 10.1002/ebch.1903 Klecan-Aker J. S., 2000, CHILD LANG TEACH THE, V16, P23, DOI 10.1191/026565900669464327 Rinaldi W., 2004, SOCIAL USE LANGUAGE Rutter M., 2003, SOCIAL COMMUNICATION SEMEL E., 2006, CLIN EVALUATION LANG Timler GR, 2005, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V36, P73, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2005/007) Tonelli MR, 2006, J EVAL CLIN PRACT, V12, P248, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2004.00551.x White SW, 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P1858, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0320-x Whitehouse AJO, 2009, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V44, P511, DOI 10.1080/13682820802708098 NR 62 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 15 PU AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC PI ROCKVILLE PA 10801 ROCKVILLE PIKE, ROCKVILLE, MD 20852-3279 USA SN 0161-1461 EI 1558-9129 J9 LANG SPEECH HEAR SER JI Lang. Speech Hear. Serv. Sch. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 46 IS 4 BP 294 EP 311 DI 10.1044/2015_LSHSS-14-0084 PG 18 WC Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA DB3SW UT WOS:000368432900002 PM 26252361 ER PT J AU Ritz, ME Schultze-Berndt, E AF Ritz, Marie-Eve Schultze-Berndt, Eva TI Time for a change? The semantics and pragmatics of marking temporal progression in an Australian language SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Semantics; Pragmatics; Discourse temporal connective; Temporal progression; 'Now'; 'Then' ID DISCOURSE; ANAPHORA AB This paper contributes to a more general understanding of the semantic diversity in temporal connectives cross-linguistically by investigating in some detail a clitic found in the Australian language Jaminjung. This clitic, similar or equal to biyang, variously translates into English as now or then. Now and then in English have complex meanings and each can be said to correspond, temporally, to at least two different semantic representations. We propose that the Jaminjung clitic always signals temporal progression, and because of the absence of any deictic component is compatible with all tenses and aspects. Drawing on the analysis of English then by Altshuler (2009) and representation of tense and temporal progression in discourse in Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) (Kamp and Reyle, 1993; Kamp et al., 2011), we argue that the clitic expresses a relation between two events, locating the event of its host clause in the consequent state of an antecedent event, and so does not contribute a location time for the eventuality in its clause. Yet, the clitic is also used in stative clauses and can relate two states in a relation of temporal progression. Our analysis proposes that the clitic in such cases relies on a cessation implicature (Altshuler and Schwarzschild, 2012) as well as what we have termed an inception implicature. The end and start of the two states are events that a hearer needs to infer and order via a relation of temporal succession. Temporal inferences are supported by inferences of rhetorical relations (Asher and Lascarides, 2003). We also examine various discourse marking functions of the clitic, arguing that it is used to mark progression in discourse time in a way that parallels its temporal functions. Crown Copyright (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Ritz, Marie-Eve] Univ Western Australia M258, Linguist, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia. [Schultze-Berndt, Eva] Univ Manchester, Linguist & English Language, Sch Arts Languages & Cultures, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. RP Schultze-Berndt, E (reprint author), Univ Manchester, Linguist & English Language, Sch Arts Languages & Cultures, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. EM marieeve.ritz@uwa.edu.au; eva.schultze-berndt@manchester.ac.uk FU European Commission FP7 Marie Curie International Research Scholar Exchange Scheme [PI RSES-GA-2008-2230818-TAMEAL]; Volkswagen Foundation [82957, 86101] FX We wish to express our gratitude to three anonymous reviewers who provided extremely detailed and insightful feedback on previous drafts. We thank them for being generous with their time and for showing so much engagement with our work. The paper has greatly benefitted from their input and any remaining errors are entirely ours. We also gratefully acknowledge Alan Dench who provided comments on two drafts of this paper, and Candide Simard who provided valuable input regarding prosody and information structure. The current research was made possible thanks to the Tense, Aspect, Modality and Evidentiality in Australian Languages (TAMEAL) project, funded under a European Commission FP7 Marie Curie International Research Scholar Exchange Scheme (2009-2013) (Grant agreement PI RSES-GA-2008-2230818-TAMEAL) and to the Volkswagen Foundation (DoBeS Programme Grants 82957 and 86101) which has provided generous financial support for work on Jaminjung and Ngaliwurru. Our final and foremost thanks are due to the Jaminjung and Ngaliwurru speakers - many of whom now deceased - who have worked with the second author over the years on the description and documentation of these languages. CR Altshuler D., 2012, P SINN BED, V17, P45 Altshuler D., 2009, AMST C 2009, P183 Asher N., 2003, LOGICS CONVERSATION Boneh Nora, 2008, THEORETICAL CROSSLIN, P321 Bras M., 2009, OSLO STUDIES LANGUAG, V1, P149 Bras M., 2003, CAHIERS CHRONOS, V11, P71 Breindl E., 2008, DTSCH SPRACHE, V1, P27 Tryon D. T., 1997, BOUNDARY RIDER STUDE, P95 Comrie B., 1976, ASPECT Vastko I., 1996, LANG SCI, V18, P791, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00048-4 Gladkova A, 2012, HUM COGN PROCESS, V37, P167 Glasbey S.R., 1993, NAT LANG SEMANT, V1, P285 Graber P., 1987, SIL WORKING PAPERS L, V21, P1 Hansen MBM, 1998, LINGUA, V104, P235, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00003-5 Harvey M., 2008, PROTO MIRNDI DISCONT HINRICHS E, 1986, LINGUIST PHILOS, V9, P63 Hobbs J.R., 1985, CSLI8537 Hunter J., 2012, LECT NOTES COMPUTER, V7218, P371 Jacobs J, 2001, LINGUISTICS, V39, P641, DOI 10.1515/ling.2001.027 Kamp H., 1993, DISCOURSE LOGIC INTR Kamp H., 2011, HDB PHILOS LOGIC, V15, P124 Kratzer A., 2008, EVENT STRUCTURES LIN, P269 Krifka Manfred, 1992, LEXICAL MATTERS, P29 Manfred K., 2007, INTERDISCIPLINARY ST, V6, P13 Landman Fred, 1996, HDB CONT SEMANTIC TH, P425 Lee E, 2009, J SEMANT, V26, P87, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffn012 Link Godehard, 1983, MEANING USE INTERPRE, P302 Maslova E., 2006, PRAGMATIC ORG DISCOU, P67 MELCHUK IA, 1985, RUSS LINGUIST, V9, P257 Moens M., 1988, Computational Linguistics, V14, P15 Moens M, 1987, THESIS PARTEE BH, 1984, LINGUIST PHILOS, V7, P243, DOI 10.1007/BF00627707 Reichenbach Hans, 1947, ELEMENTS SYMBOLIC LO Ritz ME, 2012, AUST J LINGUIST, V32, P41, DOI 10.1080/07268602.2012.657753 Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS Schultze-Berndt E, 2003, YEARB MORPHOL, P145, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-1513-7_7 Schultze-Berndt E, 2012, AUST J LINGUIST, V32, P7, DOI 10.1080/07268602.2012.657752 Schultze-Berndt E., 2007, CROSS LINGUISTIC PES, P69 Schultze-Berndt Eva, 2000, THESIS Schultze-Berndt E., 2015, VALENCY CLASSES WORL, V2 Simard C., 2014, P LANGUAGE DOCUMENTA, V4 Simard C., 2010, THESIS Simpson Jane, 2007, ARCHITECTURES RULES, P403 Simpson J, 2008, STUD LANG C, V104, P25 Smith CS, 2005, LINGUISTICS, V43, P713, DOI 10.1515/ling.2005.43.4.713 Smith Carlota S., 1997, PARAMETER ASPECT Thompson E, 1999, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V17, P123, DOI 10.1023/A:1006032417846 Verstraete J., 2006, AUSTR J LINGUISTICS, V26, P59, DOI 10.1080/07268600500531636 Webber B. L., 1988, Computational Linguistics, V14, P61 NR 49 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 3 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0024-3841 EI 1872-6135 J9 LINGUA JI Lingua PD OCT PY 2015 VL 166 BP 1 EP 21 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.07.007 PN A PG 21 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CX0IM UT WOS:000365380100001 ER PT J AU Peng, XW AF Peng, Xuanwei TI Pragmatic presupposition in Chinese categorization: A figure-ground angle of radicals' roles in Shuowen Jiezi SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Lexical presupposition; Categorization; Ancient Chinese radical; Shuowen Jiezi; Figure and ground AB Lexical Pragmatics has focused to date on implicature by inference in lexicon and the pragmatic presupposition on statements related to sentences (utterances) and text (discourse). This paper aims to address an issue to be termed Lexical Presupposition (LP). The study elaborates on an extended notion of presupposition in the categorization construed in lexis in a historical context on a cognitive basis. In particular, it discusses LP in terms of ostensive inferences in ancient Chinese categorization: the functions of the radicals in their derivatives in Shuowen Jiezi. In fact, these radicals work to constitute a ground figure opposition with the most salient and characteristic features resembling statement assertions in sentences, which may be called lexical assertions, or LAs, i.e., 'there is LP' and 'LP have/be/do LA or LA (LP). This propositional analogy aims to recover or reconstruct the possible historical mechanisms of categorization and to analyze three general groups of LPs that contain a number of sub-types: constitutional (meronymic, taxonomic, material), manner (means [agent, instrument, and medium] and comparison-and-contrast), and other minor ones. In these processes, metaphors play an important role. The findings of this paper should be applicable to word formation in other languages, such as Indo-European languages. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Peng, Xuanwei] Beijing Normal Univ, Sch Foreign Languages & Literature, Beijing 100875, Peoples R China. RP Peng, XW (reprint author), Beijing Normal Univ, Sch Foreign Languages & Literature, Xinjiekouwai Ave 19, Beijing 100875, Peoples R China. EM xuanweipeng@bnu.edu.cn FU major research program at the Center for Chinese Folklore, Classic, and Characters at Beijing Normal University; key research basis of humanity and social sciences of higher education under the Ministry of Education [13JJD740004] FX The study is supported as a major research program at the Center for Chinese Folklore, Classic, and Characters at Beijing Normal University, a key research basis of humanity and social sciences of higher education under the Ministry of Education (Number: 13JJD740004). The author takes this opportunity to extend gratitude to Professor Ning Wang and Professor Lijun Wang for their most generous help whenever needed. Professor Dingfang Shu at Shanghai Foreign Studies University initiated this project. Professor Yongping Ran at Guangdong Foreign Studies University checked the literature in an earlier version of this paper. Professor Shengli Feng, then at Harvard University and now at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, read the whole paper and contributes valuable corrections and supplements, which guarantee proper understanding of the original data. Professor Yan Huang at the University of Auckland read the draft and generously provided a necessary reference. Professor Jonathan Webster at the City University of Hong Kong processed the wordings of an earlier draft of this paper. The anonymous reviewers' constructive suggestions and comments have contributed essentially to the revision of this paper. Finally yet importantly, I am deeply touched with the patience, dedication, and prompts from both Professor Neal Norrick, the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Pragmatics, and Doctor Matthieu Renaud, the Journal Manager, without whom it is impossible for the paper to have come into the present state. Yet I am alone responsible for any possible weak points that may remain. CR Atlas Jay D., 1975, PRAGMAT MICROFICHE, p1D13 Barlow M., 2000, USAGE BASED MODELS L Maruenda Bataller Sergio, 2005, THESIS Bauerle Rainer, 2010, PRESUPPOSITIONS DISC Beaver David I., 2001, PRESUPPOSITION ASSER Blutner R., 2002, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V10, P27 Reinhard Blutner, 1998, J SEMANT, V15, P115, DOI DOI 10.1093/JOS/15.2.115 Caffi C., 2006, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, P17 Chierchia Gennaro, 1995, DYNAMICS MEANING ANA Cooper David, 1974, PRESUPPOSITION Croft William, 2001, RADICAL CONSTRUCTION Cruse D. A., 1986, LEXICAL SEMANTICS Dong Lianchi, 2005, SHUOWEN JIEZI KAO ZH Dong Lianchi, 2007, SHUOWEN BUSHOU XING Duan Yucai, 2006, ANNOTATION SHUOWEN J DUCROT O., 1972, DIRE ET NE PAS DIRE Evans V., 2007, GLOSSARY COGNITIVE L Fauconnier G., 2002, THE WAY WE THINK Feng Shengli, 1998, ANC CHIN STUD, V80, P2 Fillmore Charles, 1971, OHIO STATE U WORKING, V2, P65 Frege G., 1892, TRANSLATIONS PHILOS, V100, p[25, 56] Gazdar Gerald, 1978, PRAGMATICS IMPLICATU Geurts B, 1999, PRESUPPOSITIONS PRON Geurts B, 2010, CURR RES SEMANT PRAG, V21, P125 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Grundy Peter, 2008, DOING PRAGMATICS Halliday Michael A. K., 1994, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA Halliday Michael A.K., 1995, P 4 INT S HIST DISC Heim Irene, 1989, SEMANTICS DEFINITE I Horn L.R., 2002, SOPHIA LINGUISTICA, V49, P1 Horn Laurence R., 1996, HDB CONT SEMANTIC TH, P299 HORN LR, 1991, J PRAGMATICS, V15, P313, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(91)90034-U Horn L.R., 1984, MEANING FORM USE CON, P11 Huang Y., 2009, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V1, P118, DOI [10.1163/187731009X455866, DOI 10.1163/187731009X455866] Hudson R., 1980, SOCIOLINGUISTICS Jucker Andreas H, 1995, HIST PRAGMATICS PRAG Jucker Andreas H, 2010, HIST PRAGMATICS Jucker Andreas H., 2000, ENGLISH DIACHRONIC P, P17 Kadmon N., 2001, FORMAL PRAGMATICS SE Kamp Hans, 1981, FORMAL METHODS STUDY, P277 Kamp H, 1993, DISCOURSE LOGIC Kamp Hans, 2002, CONTEXT DEPENDENCE A Karttunen L., 1974, THEOR LINGUIST, V1, P181, DOI DOI 10.1515/THLI.1974.1.1-3.181 Karttunen Lauri, 1973, REMARKS PRESUPPOSITI Karttunen Lauri, 1977, P 3 ANN M BERK LING, P360 Kempson Ruth M., 1975, PRESUPPOSITION DELIM Krahmer E, 1998, PRESUPPOSITION ANAPH Lakoff George, 1987, WOMEN FIRE DANGEROUS Lakoff G, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Lascarides A, 1998, J LINGUIST, V34, P387, DOI 10.1017/S0022226798007087 Lee HK, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P595, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.004 Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS LEVINSON SC, 1987, J LINGUIST, V23, P379, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700011324 Lewis D, 1975, FORMAL SEMANTICS NAT, P3 Ii Jae Y., 1998, PRESUPPOSITIONAL ANA Lorenz Sven, 1992, PRESUPPOSITION ANAPH Ma Rusen, 2008, YINXU JIAGUWEN SHIYO Meng Shikai, 2009, JIAGUXUE ZIDIAN Partridge E., 1983, ORIGINS SHORT ETYMOL Pearsall J., 1998, NEW OXFORD DICT ENGL Pustejovsky J., 1995, GENERATIVE LEXICON Russell Bertrand, 1905, MIND, V14, P479, DOI DOI 10.1093/MIND/XIV.4.479 Sadock Jerrold M., 1978, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V9, P281 Sauerland U, 2007, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P1 Schmid HJ, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1529, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00027-3 Shore B., 1996, CULTURE MIND COGNITI Shudo S., 2002, PRESUPPOSITION DISCO Song Jihua, 2006, J CHIN INF PROCESS, V2, P53 Strauss Claudia, 1997, COGNITIVE THEORY CUL Strawson PF, 1950, MIND, V59, P320 Talmy Leonard, 2001, COGNITIVE SEMANTICS TOMASELLO Michael, 1999, CULTURAL ORIGINS HUM van der Sandt R. A., 1992, J SEMANT, V9, P333, DOI DOI 10.1093/JOS/9.4.333 Verschueren J., 1999, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMA Wang Ning, 2002, LECT CHINESE CHARACT Wang Ning, 1996, PRINCIPLES TRADITION Wilson Deirdre, 1979, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P229 Carston Robyn, 2007, PRAGMATICS, P230 Wilson Deirdre, 2003, ITALIAN J LINGUISTIC, V15, P273 Xu Zhongshu, 2006, JIAGUWEN ZIDIAN Xu Zhongshu, 1996, HANYU DA ZIDIAN Yule George, 1996, PRAGMATICS Eviatar Zerubavel, 1997, SOCIAL MINDSCAPES IN Zong Fubang, 2007, GU XUN HUI ZHUAN Zufferey S., 2010, LEXICAL PRAGMATICS T NR 85 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 12 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 88 BP 1 EP 18 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.007 PG 18 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CW3LJ UT WOS:000364893500001 ER PT J AU Kim, A AF Kim, Ahrim TI Utterance-final -ketun in spoken Korean: A particle for managing information structure in discourse SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE -ketun; Utterance-final particle; Information structure; Information management; Intersubjective marker ID FORM AB This paper explores the functions of the utterance-final particle -ketun in Modern Spoken Korean. In it, I analyze naturally occurring spontaneous conversational data to provide a unified account of utterance-final -ketun's several apparently disparate functions, arguing that its basic function is to manage the flow of information in discourse. Specifically, I claim that -ketun presents a pragmatic assertion that, in the speaker's view, should be or should have been a pragmatic presupposition, as if it were a pragmatic presupposition. The data analyzed in this study suggest that -ketun is a useful device by which speakers can ease the disorderly flow of information in spontaneous conversations, in particular to repair or avoid potential hitches in the order of presentation. This basic information-management function can be extended to highlight or manage mismatches between the speaker's and the hearer's states of knowledge, as part of either politeness strategies or impoliteness strategies. Collectively, the usages of -ketun discussed in this paper suggest that it is a highly intersubjective marker, in that it reflects the speaker's attention to the hearer's state of knowledge and changes in that state of knowledge. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Kim, Ahrim] Hankuk Univ Foreign Studies, English Linguist Dept, Seoul 130791, South Korea. RP Kim, A (reprint author), Hankuk Univ Foreign Studies, English Linguist Dept, 107 Imun Ro, Seoul 130791, South Korea. EM ahrimkim@unm.edu FU Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund FX This work was supported by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund. CR ARIEL M, 1988, J LINGUIST, V24, P65, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700011567 Bolinger Dwight, 1982, 18 REG M CHIC LING S, P1 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Chae Young Hee, 1998, HANKWUKE UYMIHAK, V3, P159 Chafe W., 1994, DISCOURSE CONSCIOUSN Chafe W. L., 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC, P25 Choi Hyun Bae, 1937, WULIMALPON BOOK OUR Diewald Gabriele, 1998, LINGUISTICA, V38, P75 Du Bois J. W., 1993, TALKING DATA TRANSCR, P45 GUNDEL JK, 1993, LANGUAGE, V69, P274, DOI 10.2307/416535 Halliday MAK, 1967, J LINGUIST, V3, P199, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700016613 Haselow A, 2012, LANG COMMUN, V32, P182, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.04.008 Heritage J, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1427, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3 Imo W., 2008, KONSTRUKTIONSGRAMMAT, V11, P135 Jeon Youngjin, 2002, THESIS Jo Min-Ha, 2011, THESIS Jun Sun-Ah, 2000, 99 UCLA Jung Y.-H., 2001, THESIS Keisanen Tiina, 2006, THESIS Kim Ahrim, 2015, THESIS Kim Kyu-hyun, 2010, TAMHWAWA INCI, V17, P1 Suh Kyung-Hee, 2010, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V17, P423 Kim Kyu-hyun, 2010, SAHOYENEHAK, V18, P217 Koo Hyun Jung, 2001, TAMWA WA INCI, V8, P1 Kuno Susumu, 1972, LINGUIST INQ, V3, P269 Kuno Susumu, 1978, CURRENT TRENDS TEXTL, P275 Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Lee HS, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P243, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00066-6 Lee Hyo Sang, 1999, NEW REFL GRAMM 1 POS Lee Jong-chul, 2002, KWUKE KYOYWUK, V108, P271 Lee Kee-Dong, 1993, KOREAN GRAMMAR SEMAN Lewis Diana, 2003, PARTICLES, V16, P79 Li Boya, 2006, THESIS Luke KK, 2012, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V49, P155, DOI 10.1080/0163853X.2012.664110 McGloin Naomi H., 2010, LANG SCI, V32, P507 Park MJ, 2002, JAPANESE/KOREAN LINGUISTICS, VOL 10, P306 Park Seok Joon, 1999, KYOYWUKYEKKWU, V7, P225 Park YY, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P191, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00060-5 Park Yong-Yae, 1998, CROSSROADS LANG INTE, V1, P71 Pomerantz Anita, 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P57, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511665868 Prince E., 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P223 Prince Ellen, 1992, DISCOURSE DESCRIPTIO, P295, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.16.12PRI Saigo Hideki, 2011, JAPANESE SENTENCE FI Schegloff Emanuel A., 2000, C INT LING SPA BELG Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS Schwenter SA, 1998, DISCOURSE AND COGNITION: BRIDGING THE GAP, P423 Schwenter Scott A., 1996, HISPANIC LINGUISTICS, V8, P316 Searle JR, 1969, SPEECH ACTS Shin Ji-Yeon, 2000, THEYKSUTHUENEHAK, V8, P251 Simon-Vandenbergen Anne-Marie, 2007, STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONA, P9 Son Okhyun, 2009, HANKWUKE UYMIHAK, V28, P49 Stalnaker Robert C., 1974, SEMANTICS PHILOS, P197 Traugott Elizabeth C., 2001, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Traugott Elizabeth C., 2011, CAMBRIDGE HDB PRAGMA, P549 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2010, SUBJECTIFICATION INT, P29, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 Turk Monica J., 1999, CLIC LISO C U CAL SA van der Wouden Foolen, 2011, NEDERLANDSE TAALKUND, V16, P307 Lam Charles Tsz-Kwan, 2010, TAIWAN J LINGUISTICS, V8, P63 Yeom Jae-II, 2005, ENEYENKWU, V41, P749 NR 59 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 1 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 88 BP 27 EP 54 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.006 PG 28 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CW3LJ UT WOS:000364893500003 ER PT J AU Gast, V Deringer, L Haas, F Rudolf, O AF Gast, Volker Deringer, Lisa Haas, Florian Rudolf, Olga TI Impersonal uses of the second person singular: A pragmatic analysis of generalization and empathy effects SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE qua-Assertion; Simulation; Empathy; Attitude de re; Attitude de dicto; you ID PRONOUNS; LOGIC AB Pronominal and verbal forms of the second person singular are canonically used with personal reference, i.e., as referring (exclusively) to the addressee. In what is often called 'impersonal' uses, the range of reference is broadened from the addressee to a more comprehensive set of referents, and Sometimes the relevant sentences are not literally speaking true, as properties are attributed to the addressee which (s)he does not actually have. The question arises whether impersonally used forms of the second person singular constitute a grammatical category of their own, or whether they exhibit the same (underlying) semantics as canonical uses of the second person. On the basis of a dynamic-inferential view of communication, we argue for a unified analysis of personal and impersonal second person forms. Effects of generalization are claimed to emerge in sentences which are generalizing independently of the occurrence of a second person form. Uses of the second person that lead to truth-conditionally false sentences are claimed to involve (an invitation to) simulation and the creation of empathy. According to this analysis, impersonal uses of the second person establish a direct referential link to the addressee, just like personal uses, and their status as 'impersonal' is a function of sentential contexts and conversational conditions. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Gast, Volker; Deringer, Lisa; Haas, Florian; Rudolf, Olga] Univ Jena, Jena, Germany. RP Gast, V (reprint author), Univ Jena, Jena, Germany. EM volker.gast@uni-jena.de; lisa.deringer@uni-jena.de; florian.haas@uni-jena.de; olga.rudolf@uni-jena.de FU German Science Foundation (DFG) [Ga-1288/6]; Agence National de la Recherche FX The present study grew out of a project on 'A typology of human impersonal pronouns', jointly funded by the German Science Foundation (DFG, Ga-1288/6) and the Agence National de la Recherche (principal investigators V. Gast/DFG and P. Cabredo Hofherr/ANR). Financial support from these institutions is gratefully acknowledged. We wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions. Moreover, we are grateful for input from various colleagues, especially Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, Holger Diessel, Stephan Druskat, Martin Schafer and Christoph Rzymski. CR Blakemore Diane, 1992, UNDERSTANDING UTTERA BOLINGER D, 1979, AM SPEECH, V54, P194, DOI 10.2307/454949 BROACKES J, 1986, PHILOS QUART, V36, P374, DOI 10.2307/2220191 Buhler Karl, 1934, SPRACHTHEORIE DARSTE CLARK HH, 1989, COGNITIVE SCI, V13, P259, DOI 10.1016/0364-0213(89)90008-6 CLARK HH, 1984, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V113, P121, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 Craik K., 1943, NATURE EXPLANATION Creissels Denis, 2013, STUDIES MEMORY A SIE, P53 Deringer Lisa, PERSONAL PR IN PRESS Diessel Holger, 2012, INT HDB NATURAL LANG, V3, P2407 Elbourne P, 2008, LINGUIST PHILOS, V31, P409, DOI 10.1007/s10988-008-9043-0 Fine K., 1982, SPRACHE ONTOLOGIE, P97 Gast V., 2013, LANGUAGES BOUNDARIES, P119 Goldman A. I., 1989, MIND LANG, V4, P161, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1989.tb00249.x GOLDSMITH J, 1982, LINGUIST INQ, V13, P79 Gordon R. M., 1992, MIND LANG, V1, P158, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1986.tb00324.x GROENENDIJK J, 1991, LINGUIST PHILOS, V14, P39, DOI 10.1007/BF00628304 Heim Irene, 1982, THESIS Huddleston Rodney, 2002, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Johnson -Laird Philip N., 2004, PSYCHOL REASONING TH, P179 JOHNSONLAIRD PN, 1980, COGNITIVE SCI, V4, P71, DOI 10.1207/s15516709cog0401_4 Kamio A, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1111, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00052-7 Kamp Hans, 1981, TRUTH REPRESENTATION, P277 Kaplan David, 1978, J PHILOS LOGIC, V8, P81 KITAGAWA C, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P739, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-W Kripke Saul, 1980, NAMING NECESSITY Lyons J., 1977, SEMANTICS Malamud SA, 2012, J COMP GER LINGUIST, V15, P1, DOI 10.1007/s10828-012-9047-6 Moltmann F, 2010, MIND LANG, V25, P440 NUNBERG G, 1993, LINGUIST PHILOS, V16, P1, DOI 10.1007/BF00984721 O'Connor Patricia E., 1994, TEXT, V14, P45, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1994.14.1.45 Plantinga Alvin, 1969, NOUS, V3, P235, DOI 10.2307/2214550 QUINE WV, 1956, J PHILOS, V53, P177, DOI 10.2307/2022451 Quine W. V. O., 1960, WORD OBJECT Rubenstein Molly Wenig, 2010, YOU DO BILINGUAL PER Searle JR, 1969, SPEECH ACTS Siewierska Anna, 2004, PERSON Siewierska Anna, 2011, IMPERSONAL CONSTRUCT, P57, DOI DOI 10.1075/SLCS.124.03SIE Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Stirling L, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1581, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.002 van der Auwera Johan, 2012, LEUVENSE BIJDRAGEN, V98, P27 Wechsler S, 2010, LANGUAGE, V86, P332 Zobel Sarah, 2012, THESIS Zobel S, 2010, LECT NOTES ARTIF INT, V6284, P292 Zufferey S., 2010, LEXICAL PRAGMATICS T NR 45 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 5 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 88 BP 148 EP 162 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.009 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CW3LJ UT WOS:000364893500011 ER PT J AU Helmbrecht, J AF Helmbrecht, Johannes TI A typology of non-prototypical uses of personal pronouns: synchrony and diachrony SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Reference; Non-prototypical use; Grammaticalization; Politeness; Empathy; Personal pronouns ID SYSTEM AB Personal pronouns as referential means have been investigated in general and comparative linguistics mostly with regard to their normal, prototypical use, which usually confirms to the essential combinations of person and number features, This paper deals with a much less investigated topic in the realm of pronouns, the non-prototypical uses of personal pronouns. Non-prototypical uses of personal pronouns are discourse uses, in which the reference (set) of the pronoun deviates from its prototypical one. For instance, a first person plural pronoun can be used to refer to a second person singular in doctor patient dialogs. Or, a second person singular pronoun can be used impersonally in many languages. Non-prototypical uses of personal pronouns are restricted to certain communicative situations and usually have some additional pragmatic effects. In the first part of the paper, a synchronic typology of the non-prototypical uses of personal pronouns is presented together with a short characterization of the communicative motivations and effects. Examples from a variety of mostly European languages will illustrate these uses. The second part of the paper examines the question whether these non-prototypical uses have an effect on the diachrony of personal pronouns. It will be argued that this is indeed the case and that these effects cannot be subsumed under the heading of grammaticalization. It will be hypothesized that personal pronouns may acquire new person/number values historically only, if these new category values are semantically either more individuated (plural > singular) or higher on the person hierarchy (3 > 2 > 1), or both. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Helmbrecht, Johannes] Univ Regensburg, D-93053 Regensburg, Germany. RP Helmbrecht, J (reprint author), Univ Regensburg, Fak Sprach Literatur & Kulturwissensch, Univ Str 31, D-93053 Regensburg, Germany. EM johannes.helmbrecht@sprachlit.uni-regensburg.de CR Ariel Mira, 1990, ACCESSING NOUN PHRAS Benveniste Emile, 1956, FOR R JAKOBSON, P34 BIQ YO, 1991, J PRAGMATICS, V16, P307, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(91)90084-B Blust Robert A., 1977, U HAWAII WORKING PAP, V9, P1 Brown Penelope, 1987, POLITENESS Brown Roger, 1960, STYLE LANG, P253 Buhler Karl, 1984, SPRACHTHEORIE Cysouw Michael, 2003, PARADIGMATIC STRUCTU Dahl Otto Christian, 1976, PROTOAUSTRONESIAN De Cock B, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2762, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.009 Donohue M, 1998, OCEAN LINGUIST, V37, P65, DOI 10.2307/3623280 Forchheimer Paul, 1953, CATEGORY PERSON LANG Haspelmath M., 1997, OXFORD STUDIES TYPOL Haugen Einar, 1984, SKANDINAVISCHEN SPRA Heine Bernd, 1984, GRAMMATICALIZATION R Heine Bernd, 2010, LANGUAGE COGNITION, V2, P117, DOI DOI 10.1515/LANGCOG.2010.005 Heine Bernd, 2002, WORLD LEXICON GRAMMA Heine B, 2011, J LINGUIST, V47, P587, DOI 10.1017/S0022226711000016 Helmbrecht Johannes, 2004, Z SPRACHWISS, V23, P211, DOI 10.1515/zfsw.2004.23.2.211 Helmbrecht Johannes, 2005, WORLD ATLAS LANGUAGE, P186 Helmbrecht Johannes, 2004, THESIS Helmbrecht Johannes, 2003, PRAGMATICS, V112, P185 Helmbrecht J, 2005, FOLIA LINGUIST, V39, P417 Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Jakobson Roman, 1971, R JAKOBSON SELECTED, VII, P130 KITAGAWA C, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P739, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-W Laberge Suzanne, 1979, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V12, P419 Langacker Ronald W., 1977, SIL PUBL IN LING, V1 Langacker Ronald W., 1977, P 3 ANN M BERK LING, P85 LEHMANN C, 1985, LINGUA STILE, V20, P303 Christian Lehmann, 1995, THOUGHTS GRAMMATICAL Matras Yaron, 2009, LANGUAGE CONTACT Muhlhausler P., 1990, PRONOUNS PEOPLE LING Myers G, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1206, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.005 Queneau R, 1959, ZAZIE DANS LE METRO Rankin Robert L., 1996, SSILA WINT M JAN 199 Serzisko Fritz, 1998, CASE PRONOUN I UNPUB Siewierska Anna, 2011, IMPERSONAL CONSTRUCT, P57, DOI DOI 10.1075/SLCS.124.03SIE Simon H. J., 1997, SPRACHTYPOLOGIE UNIV, V50, P267 Simon H. J., 2003, GRAMMATISCHE KATEGOR Sneddon J. N., 1996, INDONESIAN COMPREHEN Thomas D, 1955, WORD, V11, P204 Thomason Sarah G., 2001, P 27 ANN M BERK LING, P301 Traugott Elizabeth C., 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, V2 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, V1 Ushie Yukiko, 1994, OCHANOMIZU U STUDIES, V47, P127 Vila M. R., 1987, REV ESPANOLA LINGUIS, V17, P57 NR 47 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 4 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 88 BP 176 EP 189 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.004 PG 14 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CW3LJ UT WOS:000364893500013 ER PT J AU Daniel, M AF Daniel, Michael TI Logophoric reference in Archi SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Logophoric pronouns; Reported speech; East Caucasian languages; Archi AB The paper considers the pronoun used in logophoric contexts in Archi, an East Caucasian language of the Lezgic group. Like many other languages of the family, Archi shows a formal connection between logophoric and reflexive pronouns. The latter differs from the former in that it carries an obligatory intensifier particle. This connection questions the suggestion in Culy (1997); cf. also Dimmendaal (2001) to separate African-style 'pure' logophoric systems from systems where a long-distance reflexive is used in the same context. Culy (1997), in a typological analysis of logophoricity, argues that long-distance reflexives in logophoric contexts are a secondary extension of the reflexive function. Toldova (1999), in an overview of East Caucasian systems, suggests on the contrary that, in these languages, logophoricity is the primary function and the reflexive function is its extension. In their approaches, neither Culy nor Toldova rely on notions such as focus of empathy (Kuno, 1987), and Culy even explicitly disproves its relevance for the typology of logophoric systems. The solution suggested in the present study is discourse-based and is not unlike the focus of empathy. Both logophoric and reflexive uses of the Archi pronoun, corresponding to two clearly different and well established comparative concepts, constitute one descriptive category (Haspelmath, 2010). They both are extensions of the core function of the pronoun which is to mark the special pragmatic/discourse role of its referent extensions that involve grammaticization of the pronoun in specific contexts as reflexives and logophoric. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Daniel, Michael] Natl Res Univ Higher Sch Econ, Sch Linguist, Moscow, Russia. RP Daniel, M (reprint author), Natl Res Univ Higher Sch Econ, Sch Linguist, Moscow, Russia. EM misha.daniel@gmail.com FU Academic Fund Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) [14-01-0095]; Government of the Russian Federation FX The article was prepared within the framework of the Academic Fund Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) in 2014-2015 (grant no. 14-01-0095, Logophoric / reflexive pronouns and reported speech constructions in Archi: corpus data and intragenetic typology) and supported within the framework of a subsidy granted to the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program. CR Aikhenvald AY, 2008, LANG SCI, V30, P383, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.07.009 Archi Electronic Corpus, 2006, COLLECTION ARC UNPUB Bybee Joan L., 1994, EVOLUTION GRAMMAR TE Chumakina Marina, 2007, ENDANGERED LANG, V14, P143 Chumakina Marina, 2007, DICT ARCHI ARCHI RUS Corbett Greville, 2013, LANGUAGES BOUNDARIES Creissels Denis, 2008, SPRACHTYPOLOGIE UNIV, V61, P309 Culy C, 1997, LINGUISTICS, V35, P845, DOI 10.1515/ling.1997.35.5.845 CULY C, 1994, LINGUISTICS, V32, P1055, DOI 10.1515/ling.1994.32.6.1055 Dimmendaal Gerrit J., 2001, AUSTR J LINGUISTICS, V21, P131, DOI 10.1080/07268600120042499 Dirr Adolf, 1908, ARCHINSKIJ JAZYK SBO, VXXXIX Dobrushina Nina, 2011, DIVERSITAS LINGUARUM, V30, P95 Dobrushina N, 2013, J SOCIOLING, V17, P376, DOI 10.1111/josl.12041 Ekkehard Konig, 2005, WORLD ATLAS LANGUAGE Evans Nicholas, 2013, CANONICAL MORPHOLOGY, P66 Frajzyngier Zygmunt, 1985, J AFRICAN LANGUAGES, V7, P23, DOI 10.1515/jall.1985.7.1.23 Hagege Claude, 1974, B SOC LINGUISTIQUE P, V69, P287 Haspelmath M, 2010, LANGUAGE, V86, P663 Huang Yan, 2000, ANAPHORA Kibrik Aleksandr, 1970, JAZYK I CHELOVEK Kibrik Aleksandr, 2001, HDB MORPHOLOGY Kibrik Aleksandr, 1977, ARCHINSKIJ JAZYK TEK Kibrik Aleksandr, 1977, OPYT STRUKTURNOGO OP, V2 Kibrik Andrei A., 2011, REFERENCE DISCOURSE Kibrik Aleksandr, 2002, NOUN PHRASE STRUCTUR, P37 Kuno Susumu, 1987, FUNCTIONAL SYNTAX AN Lamers MJA, 2012, STUD THEOR PSYCHOLIN, V40, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_1 Magometov Aleksandr, 1982, MEGEBSKIJ DIALEKT DA Mikailov Kazbek, 1967, ARCHINSKIJ JAZYK GRA Nichols J., 2011, INGUSH GRAMMAR Nikitina T, 2012, LINGUIST TYPOL, V16, P233, DOI 10.1515/lingty-2012-0008 Reuland Eric, 2006, BLACKWELL COMPANION, P1, DOI 10.1002/9780470996591.ch38 SELLS P, 1987, LINGUIST INQ, V18, P445 Sumbatova Nina, 2011, DIVERSITAS LINGUARUM, V30, P131 Toldova Svetlana, 1999, T MEZHD K DIAL 1999 Toldova Svetlana, 1998, VOPROSY JAZYKOZNANIJ, V4, P35 Van den Berg H, 1999, FOLIA LINGUIST, V33, P153, DOI 10.1515/flin.1999.33.1-2.153 NR 37 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 1 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 88 BP 202 EP 219 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.002 PG 18 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CW3LJ UT WOS:000364893500015 ER PT J AU Miskovic-Lukovic, M Dedaic, MN Polomac, V AF Miskovic-Lukovic, Mirjana Dedaic, Mirjana N. Polomac, Vladimir TI The meaning and interpretation of the Serbian discourse marker BRE SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Discourse marker; Procedural meaning; Higher-level explicature; Relevance theory; Serbian AB BRE is a word whose origin is neither exclusively tied to the Serbian language, nor is it even derived from the elements of the South Slavic languages. Nonetheless, it has come to serve as a most prominent typically Serbian linguistic item to the extent that a number of people in the social networks in Serbia (e.g. Facebook) have been signed in with the discourse marker BRE between the first and the last names, in the place of the middle name (e.g. Jovan BRE Markovic). This "small" BRE (as Kapor (1989:9) would qualify it with the Serbian adjective malo) inconspicuous, as it were has a potential of an important accompaniment to the tune of a Serbian expression, to use a music metaphor. This has presented us with a challenge worthy of a deeper investigation: BRE, clearly, contributes to the meaning of an utterance in which it occurs, but the question is what kind of contribution. Working within the relevance-theoretic framework (Sperber and Wilson, 1986/95; Blakemore, 2002; Carston, 2002), we explore the issue of how this discourse marker contributes to the relevance of its host utterance. We conduct our analysis around the cognitive semantic distinction between conceptual and procedural types of meaning and the pragmatic distinction between explicitly and implicitly communicated assumptions by the speaker's utterance. Basing our findings on a corpus collected from Serbian newspapers and magazines as well as face-to-face exchanges, we conclude that BRE is a procedural constraint on the construction of a higher-level explicature which expresses a speaker's particular attitude to the addressee. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Miskovic-Lukovic, Mirjana; Polomac, Vladimir] Univ Kragujevac, Fac Philol & Arts, Kragujevac, Serbia. [Dedaic, Mirjana N.] Univ Split, Split, Croatia. [Dedaic, Mirjana N.] Fairfield Univ, Fairfield, CT USA. [Dedaic, Mirjana N.] Georgetown Univ, Washington, DC 20057 USA. [Dedaic, Mirjana N.] Univ Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA. RP Miskovic-Lukovic, M (reprint author), Univ Kragujevac, Fac Philol & Arts, Kragujevac, Serbia. EM mirjanamiskovic@yahoo.co.uk; dedaic@gmail.com; vladimir.polomac@gmail.com FU Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Serbia [178014, 178001] FX The description presented in this paper has been conducted as part of the project Dinamika struktura savremenog srpskog jezika (178014) ('The dynamics of structures in the contemporary Serbian language') and Istorija srpskog jezika (178001) ('The history of the Serbian language') funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Serbia. CR Andersen G, 2000, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V79, P17 Benson Morton, 1991, SERBOCROATIAN ENGLIS Blakemore D., 1997, PRAGMAT COGN, V5, P1, DOI 10.1075/pc.5.1.04bla Blakemore D., 1987, SEMANTIC CONSTRAINTS Blakemore D., 2002, RELEVANCE LINGUISTIC Blakemore D, 1996, J LINGUIST, V32, P325, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700015917 Blass Regina, 1990, RELEVANCE RELATIONS Bruckner Aleksander, 1927, ETYMOLOGICAL DICT PO Bukumiric Mileta, 2012, DICT DIALECTS NO MET Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Cortelazzo Manlio, 1970, LINFLUSSO LINGUISTIC Cupic Drago, 1997, DICT ZAGARAC DIALECT Dedaic Mirjana N., 2010, S SLAVIC DISCOURSE P Dinic Jaksa, 2008, DICT TIMOK DIALECTS Elezovic Glisa, 1932, DICT DIALECTS KOSOVO ESUM, 1982, ETYM DICT UKR LANG, VI Georgiev Vladimir lvanov, 1971, BULGARIAN ETYMOLOGIC, VI, pA Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Ifantidou E, 2000, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V79, P119 JASMINA M, 2012, JAZYKY SLAVJANSKOJ K Joseph Brian D., 1997, BALKANISTICA, V10, P255 Kapor Momo, 1989, POLITIKA Stefanovic Karadzic Vuk, 1818, SERBIAN DICT PROSVET Klaic Bratoljub, 1978, DICT FOREIGN WORDS N Misovic Mirjana, 2001, PRAGMATICS, V11, P17 Miskovic-Lukovic M, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P602, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.014 Miskovic-Lukovic M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1355, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.013 Piper Predrag, 2013, NORMATIVE GRAMMAR SE Premilovac A, 2010, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V197, P91 RJA, 1880, DICT CROAT SERB LANG, VI-XXIII RMS, 1967, DICT SERB CROAT LIT, VI-VI RSANU, 1959, DICT SERB CROAT LIT RSGV, 2000, DICT SERB DIAL VOJV RSJ, 2007, DICT SERB LANG MAT S Skaljic Abdulah, 1966, TURKISH LOANS SERBO Skok Petar, 1971, ETYMOLOGICAL DICT CR, VI-IV Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Stevanovio Mihailo, 1967, DICT SERBO CROATIAN Stevanovid Mihailo, 1986, CONT SERBO CROATIAN Stojanovic Radosav, 2010, SERBIAN DIALECTAL P, V57, P9 Tanaka Hiroaki, 1997, PRAGMATICS, V7, P367 Boricic Tivranski Vuk, 2002, DICT VASOJEVIC VERNA Tomic Mile, 1989, SERBIAN DIALECTAL P, V35, P3 Vasmer Max, 1944, GRICHISCHEN LEHNWORT Vujaklija Milan, 1996, DICT FOREIGN WORDS P WILSON D, 1993, LINGUA, V90, P1, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 Zirojevic Olga, 2008, REPUBLIKA, P440 NR 47 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 4 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 87 BP 18 EP 30 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.004 PG 13 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CV4PT UT WOS:000364249700002 ER PT J AU Chan, ASL Yap, FH AF Chan, Ariel Shuk-ling Yap, Foong Ha TI "Please continue to be an anime lover": The use of defamation metaphors in Hong Kong electoral discourse SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Defamation metaphor; Conceptual blending; Verbal indirectness strategy; Common ground; Political discourse; Hong Kong politics ID CONCEPTUAL INTEGRATION; POLITICAL DISCOURSE; INDIRECTNESS; ELECTION AB This article explores how metaphors are deployed as a tool by politicians to create a negative political identity for their adversaries. Drawing on five televised debates from the Hong Kong Legislative Council election campaign in 2012, the present study examines the use of defamation metaphors in electoral discourse from a socio-pragmatic and cognitive perspective. Our analysis reveals how defamation metaphors, sometimes with humour embedded, allow politicians to construct (as well as reconstruct) political identities for and with each other, and at the same time touch on sensitive political issues in a less face-threatening way. Our findings not only contribute to the understanding of how metaphors are adopted as a verbal indirectness strategy to yield certain political gains, but also shed light on how politicians establish common ground with the public in the unique and unprecedented political situation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Chan, Ariel Shuk-ling; Yap, Foong Ha] Hong Kong Polytech Univ, Dept English, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. RP Chan, ASL (reprint author), Hong Kong Polytech Univ, Dept English, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. EM arielsl.chan@gmail.com; foong.ha.yap@polyu.edu.hk FU Internal Competitive Research Grant [HKPU G-YK85] FX This work was supported by the Internal Competitive Research Grant 2012-2014 [grant number HKPU G-YK85] for the research project entitled "Establishing Common Ground in Public Discourse: An Analysis of Electoral Speeches, Press Conferences and Q&A Sessions in Hong Kong" awarded to the second author. We wish to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. We also wish to thank I-wen Su, Dennis Tay, William Feng, Brian Wai, Steven Wong, Tak-sum Wong and Vivien Yang for insightful discussions at various stages in the preparation of this paper. Earlier versions of various parts of this paper have been presented at the 2012 Annual Research Forum of the Linguistics Society of Hong Kong, the 21st Annual Meeting of the International Association of Chinese Linguistics, and the 13th Conference of International Pragmatics Association, and we also wish to thank the participants for their helpful feedback. CR Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Burnes S, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2160, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.010 Chan Ariel Shuk-ling, 2013, 21 ANN C INT ASS CHI Yap Foong Ha, 2012, ANN RES FOR LING SOC Charteris-Black J, 2006, DISCOURSE SOC, V17, P563, DOI 10.1177/0957926506066345 Cheng WN, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V74, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.006 Chilton P., 1993, DISCOURSE SOC, V4, P7, DOI DOI 10.1177/0957926593004001002 Chilton P., 1995, LANGUAGE PEACE, P37 CHILTON P, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V21, P583, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90100-7 de Ayala SP, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P143 Defibaugh S, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V67, P61, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.007 Fauconnier G, 2000, COGN LINGUIST, V11, P283 Fauconnier G., 2002, WAY WE THINK CONCEPT Fauconnier G, 1998, COGNITIVE SCI, V22, P133, DOI 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 Fauconnier G., 1997, MAPPINGS THOUGHT LAN FAUCONNIER G., 1994, MENTAL SPACES Goffman E., 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL E Goffman E., 1959, PRESENTATION SELF EV Jaworski Adam, 1998, TEXT, V18, P525, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1998.18.4.525 Johnson Mark, 1987, BODY MIND BODILY BAS Kuo SH, 2003, J CHINESE LINGUIST, V31, P72 LAKOFF George, 1989, MORE COOL REASON FIE Lakoff George, 1986, VERSUS, V44-45, P119 Lakoff G, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Lui Percy Luen-tim, 2012, CONT HONG KONG GOVT, P45 Ma Ngok, 2005, J CONTEMP CHINA, V14, P465, DOI 10.1080/10670560500115416 Ma Ngok, 2012, CONT HONG KONG GOVT, V2, P159 Ma Ngok, 2007, POLITICAL DEV HONG K Miners Norman, 1994, ASIAN J PUBLIC ADM, V16, P224 Obeng SG, 1997, DISCOURSE SOC, V8, P49, DOI 10.1177/0957926597008001004 OBENG SG, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V21, P37, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90046-9 Oksanen K, 2011, J CONTEMP CHINA, V20, P479, DOI 10.1080/10670564.2011.565179 Scott Ian, 1991, ASIAN J PUBLIC ADM, V13, P11 Semino E, 1996, DISCOURSE SOC, V7, P243, DOI 10.1177/0957926596007002005 SWANN WB, 1984, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V46, P1287, DOI 10.1037//0022-3514.46.6.1287 SWANN WB, 1987, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V53, P1038, DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1038 Sweetser E., 1991, ETYMOLOGY PRAGMATICS Tsakona V, 2009, TEXT TALK, V29, P219, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2009.010 Turner Mark, 2006, LANG LIT, V15, P17, DOI 10.1177/0963947006060550 VANTEEFFELEN T, 1994, DISCOURSE SOC, V5, P381, DOI 10.1177/0957926594005003006 Wei Jennifer M., 1997, 6 INT C CHIN LING LE Wei Jennifer M., 2000, SOC S 2000 BRIST UK Wei Jennifer M, 2001, VIRTUAL MISSILES MET Wei Jennifer M, 1999, SOOCHOW J FOREIGN LA, V14 Wilson J., 1990, POLITICALLY SPEAKING Wong SHW, 2015, ELECTORAL POLITICS P Yap Foong Ha, 2013, INT C POL HUM MOD CH Yip S, 2014, ELECT STUD, V35, P366, DOI 10.1016/j.electstud.2014.01.001 NR 48 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 6 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 87 BP 31 EP 53 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.001 PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CV4PT UT WOS:000364249700003 ER PT J AU Siegel, MEA AF Siegel, Muffy E. A. TI In your dreams: Flouting Quality II SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Quality Maxim; Epistemic inaccessibility; Denial; Conversational implicature; Relevance maxim; Focus AB Responses like in your dreams or on some other planet have a prominent reading (SDR) that strongly denies a Given proposition p. Since speakers have no evidence about the truth of p in inaccessible places like other peoples' dreams, an SDR speaker provides an answer ('p in your dreams') to the Question Under Discussion ('?p') that is relatively weak in the conversational context. Assuming the SDR speaker's competence, such a weak response predictably gives rise to a conversational implicature that p is false, and focus-marking makes this negative implicature more salient. This article gives a unified pragmatic account of the previously unstudied syntactic/semantic and discourse-function properties that distinguish SDRs from other utterances with similar negative implicatures and focus: the peculiar strength of their denials, their obligatory focus-marking, their resistance to clefting, only, but, definite reference and embedding, and the displacement, by the denial implicature they engender, of their propositional content. This leaves the propositional content to contribute only Relevance implicatures. It is argued that SDRs speakers' flouting of the second, evidence part of Grice's Quality Maxim is responsible for all these properties, even though such Quality II flouting is unusual because evidenceless claims are predominantly also irrelevant ones. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Siegel, Muffy E. A.] Temple Univ, Philadelphia, PA 19122 USA. [Siegel, Muffy E. A.] Univ Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA. RP Siegel, MEA (reprint author), Temple Univ, Dept English Linguist 022 29, 1114 Polett Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19122 USA. EM muffy.siegel@temple.edu CR Asher N., 2003, LOGICS CONVERSATION Camp E, 2012, NOUS, V46, P587, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00822.x Chierchia G., 2012, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V33, P2297 Chierchia G., 2004, STRUCTURES, P39 Cohen A, 2009, J SEMANT, V26, P1, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffn005 Cohen Jonathan, 1971, PRAGMATICS NATURAL L, P50 Faller M, 2012, LINGUIST PHILOS, V35, P285, DOI 10.1007/s10988-012-9119-8 Farkas DF, 2010, J SEMANT, V27, P81, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffp010 Gazdar Gerald, 1979, PRAGMATICS IMPLICATU Geurts B., 2010, QUANTITY IMPLICATURE Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Hirschberg Julia Bell, 1991, THEORY SCALAR IMPLIC Horn L. R., 1989, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Horn L. R., 1972, THESIS UCLA Karttunen Lauri, 1976, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V7, P363 Kratzer A., 1991, SEMANTICS INT HDB CO, P639 Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS McDonnell Patrick, 2011, PHILADELPHIA INQUIRE Merin Arthur, 1999, LOGIC LANGUAGE COMPU, V2 Murray Sarah, 2014, SEMANT PRAGMAT, V7, P1 Potts C., 2005, LOGIC CONVENTIONAL I Roberts C., 2012, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V5, P1 Roberts C., 1996, OSU WORKING PAPERS L, V49 Rooth Mats, 1992, NAT LANG SEMANT, V1, P75, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF02342617 Russell Benjamin, 2006, J SEMANT, V23, P361, DOI DOI 10.1093/JOS/FFL008 Sauerland Uli, 2004, LINGUIST PHILOS, V27, P267 Schulz K, 2006, LINGUIST PHILOS, V29, P205, DOI 10.1007/s10988-005-3760-4 Schwarzschild Roger, 1999, NAT LANG SEMANT, V7, P141, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1008370902407 Searle John R., 1993, METAPHOR THOUGHT Siegel MEA, 2005, INT J SPEECH LANG LA, V12, P255, DOI 10.1558/sll.2005.12.2.255 Simons Mandy, 2010, SALT, V10, P309 Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber D, 2002, MIND LANG, V17, P3, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00186 Stalnaker R., 1999, CONTEXT AND CONTENT Van Rooij R., 2004, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, V13, P491, DOI 10.1007/s10849-004-2118-6 Rooij Robert van, 2003, J SEMANT, V20, P239, DOI 10.1093/jos/20.3.239 von Fintel Kai, 2009, INTENSIONAL SEMANTIS NR 37 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 3 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 87 BP 64 EP 79 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.008 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CV4PT UT WOS:000364249700005 ER PT J AU Hayashi, M Kim, SH AF Hayashi, Makoto Kim, Stephanie Hyeri TI Turn formats for other-initiated repair and their relation to trouble sources: Some observations from Japanese and Korean conversations SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Other-initiated repair; Turn formats; Japanese; Korean; Conversation analysis ID SELF-CORRECTION; ORGANIZATION; PREFERENCE; CONTEXT AB Intended as a contribution to our understanding of the principles underlying the selection of turn formats used for other-initiated repair (OIR), this study explores the relationship between OIR turn formats involving the "what" token in Japanese and Korean and the types of trouble addressed by them. We focus in particular on the differentiation between "open class repair initiators" (Drew, 1997) and OIR that targets a specific referential element in the trouble-source turn. We show that, while prosody plays an important role in distinguishing the two in Korean, it does not in Japanese. Instead, Japanese speakers rely on grammatical resources, in particular postpositional particles, to accomplish the differentiation. We also discuss one type of OIR turn format in Japanese, nani ga ('what' followed by the nominative particle ga), whose workings deviate from those of all the other OIR turn formats consisting of "what" followed by a postpositional particle. We suggest that nani ga has undergone a process of pragmatic specialization and that, as a result, it is treated by speakers as an unanalyzed chunk used for specific pragmatic purposes. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Hayashi, Makoto] Univ Illinois, Dept East Asian Languages & Cultures, Urbana, IL 61801 USA. [Kim, Stephanie Hyeri] Calif State Univ Northridge, Linguist TESL Dept, Northridge, CA 91330 USA. RP Hayashi, M (reprint author), Univ Illinois, Dept East Asian Languages & Cultures, 2090 Foreign Languages Bldg,707 South Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL 61801 USA. EM mhayashi@illinois.edu; stephanie.kim@csun.edu CR Benjamin T, 2012, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V45, P82, DOI 10.1080/08351813.2012.646742 Canavan Alexandra, 1996, CALLFRIEND JAPANESE Clancy Patricia M., 1980, PEAR STORIES COGNITI, P55 Drew P, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V28, P69, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7 Egbert M., 2009, CONVERSATION ANAL CO, P104, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09780511635670.005 Egbert M, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P1467, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.007 Egbert Maria, 2007, INT PRAGM C HELD GOT Egbert MM, 1996, LANG SOC, V25, P587 Fagyal Zsuzsanna, 2008, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V41, P1 Golato A, 2013, DEUT SPRACHE, V41, P31 Hayashi M., 2013, CONVERSATIONAL REPAI, P293 Hayashi M, 2006, STUD LANG, V30, P485, DOI 10.1075/sl.30.3.02hay Hinds John, 1983, TOPIC CONTINUITY DIS, P43 Iwasaki Noriko, 2007, MIT WORKING PAPERS L, V53, P205 Jun S.-A., 1998, PHONOLOGY, V15, P189, DOI 10.1017/S0952675798003571 Jun S.-A., 1993, THESIS OHIO STATE U Kim HRS, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P3055, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.022 Kim K. H., 1993, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V3, P3 Kim Kyu-hyun, 1999, TAMHWA WA INJI, V6, P141 MOERMAN M, 1977, LANGUAGE, V53, P872, DOI 10.2307/412915 Oh SY, 2007, DISCOURSE STUD, V9, P462, DOI 10.1177/1461445607079163 Sohn Sung-Ock, 2002, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V10, P306 Robinson JD, 2006, COMMUN MONOGR, V73, P137, DOI 10.1080/03637750600581206 Robinson J. D., 2013, CONVERSATIONAL REPAI, P261, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511757464 Robinson JD, 2010, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V43, P232, DOI 10.1080/08351813.2010.497990 Schegloff EA, 2004, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V37, P95, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_2 SCHEGLOFF EA, 1977, LANGUAGE, V53, P361, DOI 10.2307/413107 Schegloff E.A., 2007, SEQUENCE ORG INTERAC, V1 Schegloff EA, 1997, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V23, P499 Selling Margret, 1996, PROSODY CONVERSATION, P231 SELTING M, 1988, J PRAGMATICS, V12, P293, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90035-5 Sidnell Jack, 2010, ANAL INTERACTIONS CH, P102 Jack Sidnell, 2009, CONVERSATION ANAL CO, V27, P304, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.011 Sidnell J, 2008, J SOCIOLING, V12, P477, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00377.x Sidnell J, 2007, LANG CULT COGN, P281 Sohn Ho-Min, 1999, KOREAN LANGUAGE Steensig J., 2011, MORALITY KNOWLEDGE C, P82, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO780511921674.005 Stivers T, 2004, HUM COMMUN RES, V30, P260, DOI 10.1093/hcr/30.2.260 Suzuki Kana, 2010, THESIS KOBE U Svennevig J, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P333, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.007 Terao Yasushi, 1995, B TOKOHA GAKUEN JUNI, V26, P245 WU RUEY, 2009, CONVERSATION ANAL CO, P31 Wu RJR, 2006, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V41, P67, DOI 10.1207/s15326950dp4101_5 NR 43 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 2 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 87 BP 198 EP 217 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.014 PG 20 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CV4PT UT WOS:000364249700013 ER PT J AU Riester, A Piontek, J AF Riester, Arndt Piontek, Joern TI Anarchy in the NP. When new nouns get deaccented and given nouns don't SO LINGUA LA English DT Article; Proceedings Paper CT 35th Annual Conference of the German-Linguistic-Society CY MAR 12-15, 2013 CL Potsdam, GERMANY DE Adjective; Corpus pragmatics; Deaccentuation; Givenness; Information structure; Question under Discussion ID STRESS; GERMAN; ACCENT; DISCOURSE; ENGLISH; RHYTHM AB We investigate a semantic pragmatic hypothesis (relative givenness, Wagner, 2006) on an annotated corpus of German speech data. We show that nominal deaccentuation in an [A N] (adjective noun) combination neither requires the givenness of N nor the availability of a different [A' N] sequence in the overt discourse context but results from the fact that a referentially distinct alternative is either explicitly or implicitly under discussion. If no such alternative is under discussion, given nouns typically receive main prominence. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Riester, Arndt] Univ Stuttgart, Inst Nat Language Proc IMS, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany. [Piontek, Joern] Univ Gottingen, Dept English, D-37073 Gottingen, Germany. RP Riester, A (reprint author), Univ Stuttgart, Inst Nat Language Proc IMS, Pfaffenwaldring 58, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany. EM arndt.riester@ims.uni-stuttgart.de FU Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SFB 732] FX The authors would like to thank Michael Wagner and two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments, which have led to substantial improvements. Owing to their insistence, we have made the adjective-noun data available in an accessible format. Many thanks to Moritz Stiefel for implementing the SQL query and to Antje Schweitzer for help with Praat. This work was presented in 2013 and 2014 at the 2nd Graz Workshop on Information Structure, the 4th Meeting of the DFG Network Questions in Discourse at Amsterdam, as well as in colloquia at the Universities of Frankfurt am Main, Potsdam, Stuttgart and Vienna. Special thanks go to Daniel Baring, Kerstin Eckart, Nadja Schauffler, Bernadett Smolibocki, Manfred Stede and Judith Tonhauser. Finally, we are extremely grateful to the editors of this volume, Stefan Baumann and Frank Kugler, for all their advice, support and patience. All remaining errors are our own. We acknowledge the kind support of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), via the SFB 732 Incremental specification in context (projects A1 and A6) at the University of Stuttgart. CR Abney Steven Paul, 1987, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE ALLERTON DJ, 1979, J LINGUIST, V15, P49, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700013104 Asher N., 2003, LOGICS CONVERSATION Baumann S., 2012, INTERFACE EXPLORATIO, V25, P119 Beaver David, 2008, SENSE SENSITIVITY FO Beckman M. E., 1986, PHONOLOGY YB, V3, P255, DOI [10.1017/S095267570000066X, DOI 10.1017/S095267570000066X] Buring D., 2003, LINGUIST PHILOS, V26, P511 Buring D., 2008, P 34 ANN M BERK LING, P403 Buring D., 2006, ARCHITECTURE FOCUS, P321 Bjorkelund A, 2014, LREC 2014 - NINTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE RESOURCES AND EVALUATION, P3222 Boersma P., 1996, PRAAT SYSTEM DOING P, V132 BOLINGER D, 1972, LANGUAGE, V48, P633, DOI 10.2307/412039 Buring D, 2012, CONTRASTS AND POSITIONS IN INFORMATION STRUCTURE, P27 Calhoun S, 2010, LANGUAGE, V86, P1 Chafe W., 1994, DISCOURSE CONSCIOUSN Chomsky N., 1968, SOUND PATTERN ENGLIS Chomsky N., 1971, SEMANTICS CINQUE G, 1993, LINGUIST INQ, V24, P239 Crouch D., 1993, XLE DOCUMENTATION Downing B., 1970, THESIS U TEXAS Drubig H. B., 1994, ARBEITSPAPIERE SFB, V340 Eckart K., 2012, LINKED DATA LINGUIST, P65 Fery C., 1986, STUDIUM LINGUISTIK, V20, P16 Fery C, 2006, LANGUAGE, V82, P131, DOI 10.1353/lan.2006.0031 Fery C, 2008, J PHONETICS, V36, P680, DOI 10.1016/j.wocn.2008.05.001 GINZBURG J, 1995, LINGUIST PHILOS, V18, P459, DOI 10.1007/BF00985365 Givon Talmy, 1983, TOPIC CONTINUITY DIS Grice M., 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH, P55 Gussenhoven C., 1999, FOCUS LINGUISTIC COG, P43 GUSSENHOVEN C, 1983, J LINGUIST, V19, P377, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700007799 Gussenhoven C., 1992, THEMATIC STRUCTURE I, P91 Halliday M.A.K., 1976, COHESION ENGLISH HAYES B, 1984, LINGUIST INQ, V15, P33 Jackendoff R., 1972, SEMANTIC INTERPRETAT Karttunen L., 1974, THEOR LINGUIST, V1, P181, DOI DOI 10.1515/THLI.1974.1.1-3.181 Kentner G., 2012, THESIS GOETHE U FRAN Klein W, 1987, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V108, P163 Kratzer A, 2007, LINGUIST REV, V24, P93, DOI 10.1515/TLR.2007.005 Manfred K., 2007, INTERDISCIPLINARY ST, V6, P13 Krifka M., 1999, P SALT 8, P111 Krifka Manfred, 2006, ARCHITECTURE FOCUS, P105 Ladd DR, 2008, CAMB STUD LINGUIST, V79, P1 LIBERMAN M, 1977, LINGUIST INQ, V8, P249 Mann W, 1988, TEXT, V8, P243 Mayer Jorg, 1995, TRANSCRIPTION GERMAN MILLER JL, 1984, PHONETICA, V41, P215 Nespor Marina, 1986, PROSODIC PHONOLOGY Pfitzinger H., 2001, FORSCHUNGSBERICHTE I, V38, P117 Potts C., 2005, LOGIC CONVENTIONAL I Pradhan S, 2012, JOINT C EMNLP CONLL, P1 Prince E., 1981, SYNTAX SEMANTICS RAD, V14, P223 Reinhart T., 1981, PHILOSOPHICA, V27, P53 Riester A., 2013, DIALOGUE DISCOURSE, V4, P215, DOI DOI 10.5087/DAD.2013.210 Riester A, 2010, LOGIC LANGUAGE MEANI, P374 Riester A., 2015, REFLEX SCHEME UNPUB Roberts C., 1996, OSU WORKING PAPERS L, V49 Rochemont M., 1986, FOCUS GENERATIVE GRA Rochemont M, 2013, LINGUA, V136, P38, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.016 Rohrer C., 2006, P LANG RES EV C LREC, P2206 Rooth Mats, 1992, NAT LANG SEMANT, V1, P75, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF02342617 Rooth Mats, 1996, HDB CONT SEMANTIC TH, P271 Rooth M., 2010, INFORM STRUCTURE THE, P15 Sauerland U., 2005, P SINN BED 9, V9, P370 Schmerling S. F., 1976, ASPECTS ENGLISH SENT Schwarzschild Roger, 1999, NAT LANG SEMANT, V7, P141, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1008370902407 Selkirk E., 1984, PHONOLOGY AND SYNTAX Selkirk E., 1995, HDB PHONOLOGICAL THE, P550 SHATTUCKHUFNAGEL S, 1994, J PHONETICS, V22, P357 Simons M, 2015, DISCOURSE P IN PRESS Simons M, 2011, P SALT, V20, P309 Tilsen S, 2012, SPEECH PRODUCTION PE, P119 Truckenbrodt H, 1999, LINGUIST INQ, V30, P219, DOI 10.1162/002438999554048 Truckenbrodt H., 1995, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE Truckenbrodt H, 2007, CAMBRIDGE HANDBOOK OF PHONOLOGY, P435 Uhmann S., 1991, FOKUSPHONOLOGIE Umbach C, 2012, LINGUA, V122, P1843, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.01.011 van Deemter K., 1994, J SEMANT, V11, P1 VANKUPPEVELT J, 1995, J LINGUIST, V31, P109 Verhoeven E, 2015, LINGUA, V165, P298, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.09.013 Wagner M., 2015, OXFORD HDB IN PRESS Wagner M., 2006, P SALT 16, P295 Wagner M, 2012, CONTRASTS AND POSITIONS IN INFORMATION STRUCTURE, P102 Watson D, 2004, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V19, P713, DOI 10.1080/01690960444000070 Zubizarreta Maria L., 1998, PROSODY FOCUS WORD O NR 84 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 0 U2 1 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0024-3841 EI 1872-6135 J9 LINGUA JI Lingua PD OCT PY 2015 VL 165 SI SI BP 230 EP 253 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.03.006 PN B PG 24 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CV8BV UT WOS:000364502400004 ER PT J AU Verhoeven, E Kugler, F AF Verhoeven, Elisabeth Kuegler, Frank TI Accentual preferences and predictability: An acceptability study on split intransitivity in German SO LINGUA LA English DT Article; Proceedings Paper CT 35th Annual Conference of the German-Linguistic-Society CY MAR 12-15, 2013 CL Potsdam, GERMANY DE Nuclear accent; Prosodic phrasing; Unaccusativity; Unergative verbs; Predictability; Information structure ID PROSODIC PROMINENCE; ENGLISH INVERSION; HYPOTHESIS AB The difference in the default prosodic realization of simple sentences with unergative vs. unaccusative/passive verbs (assigning early nuclear accent with unaccusative/passive verbs but late nuclear accent with unergative verbs) is often related to the syntactic distinction of their nominative arguments as starting off in different hierarchical positions. Alternative accounts try to trace this prosodic variation back to asymmetries in the semantic or pragmatic contribution of the verb to an utterance. The present article investigates the interaction of the assignment of default nuclear accent with the predictability of the verb. In an experimental study testing the acceptability of nuclear accent assignment, we confirmed that the predictability of the verb influences accentual preferences (such that highly predictable verbs are preferably not accented). However, the experiment also reveals that the unaccusativity distinction cannot be accounted for by means of pragmatic phenomena of this type: the two verb classes are associated with distinct accentual patterns in the baseline condition, that is, without the predictability manipulation. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Verhoeven, Elisabeth] Humboldt Univ, D-10099 Berlin, Germany. [Kuegler, Frank] Univ Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany. RP Verhoeven, E (reprint author), Humboldt Univ, Inst Deutsch Sprache & Linguist, Unter Linden 6, D-10099 Berlin, Germany. EM verhoeve@cms.hu-berlin.de FU German Research Association (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) [SFB 632] FX Special thanks are due to Victoria Bartlitz, who carried out the experimental study, to Nico Lehmann for proofreading, and to two anonymous reviewers for very helpful and constructive comments. This study was presented at the workshop "Prosody and Information Status in Typological Perspective" during the 35th annual meeting of the DGfS in Potsdam, Germany, in March 2013. Thanks to the audience for discussion and comments. This work was supported by the German Research Association (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) [grant number SFB 632 "Information structure", projects D5 and T2, and additional grants to the first author]. CR Abraham W., 2001, GRONINGER ARBEITEN G, V44, P213 Alexiadou A., 2004, UNACCUSATIVITY PUZZL ALLERTON DJ, 1979, J LINGUIST, V15, P49, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700013104 Aylett M, 2004, LANG SPEECH, V47, P31 Baayen RH, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P390, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 Baker M. C., 1988, INCORPORATION THEORY Barr DJ, 2013, J MEM LANG, V68, P255, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 Bates D., 2013, LME4 LINEAR MIXED EF Baumann S, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P1636, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.017 Beckman M. E., 1986, PHONOLOGY YB, V3, P255, DOI [10.1017/S095267570000066X, DOI 10.1017/S095267570000066X] Beckman M. E., 1986, STRESS NONSTRESS ACC Bell A, 2009, J MEM LANG, V60, P92, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003 BELLETTI A, 1988, LINGUIST INQ, V19, P1 Birner B, 1995, LINGUA, V97, P233, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(95)00026-7 Birner Betty J., 1998, INFORM STATUS NONCAN BIRNER BJ, 1994, LANGUAGE, V70, P233, DOI 10.2307/415828 Boersma P., 2011, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC BOLINGER D, 1972, LANGUAGE, V48, P633, DOI 10.2307/412039 Burzio L., 1986, ITALIAN SYNTAX GOVT Calhoun S, 2010, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V25, P1099, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2010.491682 CHAFE WL, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P111, DOI 10.2307/412014 Chomsky Noam, 2001, K HALE LIFE LANGUAGE, P1 Contreras Helen, 1976, THEORY WORD ORDER SP Core Team R, 2013, R LANG ENV STAT COMP FABER D, 1987, J LINGUIST, V23, P341, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700011300 Fanselow G., 1992, DTSCH SYNTAX ANSICHT, P276 Fery Caroline, 1993, GERMAN INTONATIONAL Fery C, 2008, J PHONETICS, V36, P680, DOI 10.1016/j.wocn.2008.05.001 Fery C, 2011, LINGUA, V121, P1906, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.07.005 Fuchs Anna, 1984, INTONATION ACCENT RH, P134 FUCHS A, 1976, LINGUA, V38, P293, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(76)90016-4 Geyken A., 2011, KORPORA LEHRE FORSCH, P129 Gollrad A., 2013, THESIS POTSDAM U Grabe E, 1998, MPI SERIES PSYCHOLIN, V7 Grewendorf Gunther, 1989, ERGATIVITY IN GERMAN Grice M., 2007, NONNATIVE PROSODY PH, P25 Grimshaw J., 1987, P NELS, V17, P244 Gussenhoven C., 2004, PHONOLOGY TONE INTON Gussenhoven Carlos, 1984, GRAMMAR SEMANTICS SE Gussenhoven C., 1992, THEMATIC STRUCTURE I, P147 Haider H., 1984, PAPIERE LINGUISTIK, V30, P22 Hatcher A. G., 1956, THEME UNDERLYING Q S, V3 Hirsch A., 2011, GLOW 34 Hoskins S, 1996, ICSLP 96 - FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SPOKEN LANGUAGE PROCESSING, PROCEEDINGS, VOLS 1-4, P1632, DOI 10.1109/ICSLP.1996.607937 Irwin P., 2011, P 28 W COAST C FORM, P275 Irwin P., 2012, THESIS NEW YORK U NE Jackendoff R., 1972, SEMANTIC INTERPRETAT Jacobs J, 2001, LINGUISTICS, V39, P641, DOI 10.1515/ling.2001.027 Jacobs J., 1991, INFORMATIONSSTRUKTUR, P220 Jager G., 2001, J SEMANT, V18, P83, DOI 10.1093/jos/18.2.83 Kahnemuyipour Arsalan, 2009, SYNTAX SENTENTIAL ST Selkirk E., 2007, LINGUIST REV, V24, P93 Krifka M., 1984, FOKUS TOPIK SY UNPUB Gollrad A., 2011, P 17 INT C PHON SCI, P1154 Kugler F., 2008, P SPEECH PROS 2008 C, P591 Ladd D. R., 1996, INTONATIONAL PHONOLO Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Legate JA, 2003, LINGUIST INQ, V34, P506, DOI 10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506 Levin B., 1995, UNACCUSATIVITY SYNTA Perlmutter D. M., 1978, P BERKELEY LINGUISTI, V4, P157 Pierrehumbert J, 1980, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE Riester A, 2015, LINGUA, V165, P230, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.03.006 SASSE HJ, 1987, LINGUISTICS, V25, P511, DOI 10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511 Schafer Florian, 2008, SYNTAX ANTICAUSATIVE Schmerling S. F., 1976, ASPECTS ENGLISH SENT Selkirk E., 1995, HDB PHONOLOGICAL THE, P550 Selkirk E. O., 1984, PHONOLOGY SYNTAX REL Sorace A, 2000, LANGUAGE, V76, P859, DOI 10.2307/417202 Uhmann S., 1991, FOKUSPHONOLOGIE ANAL Zimmermann M, 2008, ACTA LINGUIST HUNGAR, V55, P347, DOI 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.9 Zubizarreta M. L., 2005, BLACKWELL COMPANION, V3, P522 Zubizarreta Maria L., 1998, PROSODY FOCUS WORD O NR 72 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 1 U2 2 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0024-3841 EI 1872-6135 J9 LINGUA JI Lingua PD OCT PY 2015 VL 165 SI SI BP 298 EP 315 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.09.013 PN B PG 18 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CV8BV UT WOS:000364502400007 ER PT J AU Nicholas, A AF Nicholas, Allan TI A concept-based approach to teaching speech acts in the EFL classroom SO ELT JOURNAL LA English DT Article ID CONVERSATION ANALYSIS; PRAGMATICS AB While concept-based instruction (CBI), grounded in sociocultural theory, has been the subject of increased attention in recent years, it is still a relatively unknown methodology in language teaching contexts. In this approach, the emphasis is on helping learners develop a deep, conceptual understanding of a skill or knowledge area, so that this knowledge can then be applied in a variety of situations. This article reports on a study in which elements of CBI were combined with findings from conversation analysis research to create a short course on speech acts and the act of requesting. By combining these two areas, the author addresses some of the challenges facing teachers wishing to teach pragmatics in the classroom. The article discusses key features of the course, and proposes a number of principles for effective concept-based speech act instruction. C1 Kanda Univ, External Language Consultancy Ctr, Chiba, Japan. RP Nicholas, A (reprint author), Kanda Univ, External Language Consultancy Ctr, Chiba, Japan. EM allannicholas@me.com CR Austin J. L., 1962, DO THINGS WORDS Barraja-Rohan AM, 2011, LANG TEACH RES, V15, P479, DOI 10.1177/1362168811412878 Barraja-Rohan A.-M., 1997, TALK COURSE COMMUNIC Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Di Pietro R. J., 1987, STRATEGIC INTERACTIO Fukushima S., 2000, REQUESTS AND CULTURE Gal'perin P. Y., 1979, SOV PSYCHOL, V18, P19 Gibbs Raymond W., 2005, EMBODIMENT COGNITIVE Huth T, 2006, LANG TEACH RES, V10, P53, DOI 10.1191/1362168806lr184oa Kasper G, 2006, AILA REV, V19, P83, DOI 10.1075/aila.19.07kas LoCastro V., 2012, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE McConachy T, 2013, ELT J, V67, P294, DOI 10.1093/elt/cct017 Mey Jacob, 1993, PRAGMATICS INTRO Negueruela E., 2008, SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY Vygotsky L, 1978, MIND SOC DEV HIGHER NR 15 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 10 PU OXFORD UNIV PRESS PI OXFORD PA GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND SN 0951-0893 EI 1477-4526 J9 ELT J JI ELT J. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 69 IS 4 BP 383 EP 394 DI 10.1093/elt/ccv034 PG 12 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CT7AA UT WOS:000362964200004 ER PT J AU Roever, C Al-Gahtani, S AF Roever, Carsten Al-Gahtani, Saad TI The development of ESL proficiency and pragmatic performance SO ELT JOURNAL LA English DT Article AB ESL learners can find it challenging to use English in a way that is pragmatically appropriate to the situation and interlocutor. In this article, we explore the impact of increased proficiency on learners' pragmatic performance. ESL learners in Australia at four proficiency levels completed three role plays, and we analysed how the learners formulated their requests. We found that the expansion of learners' linguistic repertoire with increased proficiency also led to a wider variety of request formats. Where beginner learners used imperatives and 'want-statements', lower-intermediate learners added the modal 'can', upper-intermediate learners introduced 'could', and advanced learners used more complex expressions. Despite their improvement, learners showed little sensitivity to the social situation. We suggest ways of facilitating learners' pragmatic development through instruction. C1 [Roever, Carsten] Univ Melbourne, Appl Linguist, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia. [Al-Gahtani, Saad] King Saud Univ, Appl Linguist, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. RP Roever, C (reprint author), Univ Melbourne, Appl Linguist, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia. EM carsten@unimelb.edu.au; saasmm@gmail.com FU Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University [RG-1435-038] FX The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this Research Group (No. RG-1435-038). CR Al-Gahtani S, 2013, ELT J, V67, P413, DOI 10.1093/elt/cct036 Bardovi-Harlig K, 1998, TESOL QUART, V32, P233, DOI 10.2307/3587583 Bardovi-Harlig K, 2013, LANG LEARN, V63, P68, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x Bardovi-Harlig K., 2003, TEACHING PRAGMATICS Economidou-Kogetsidis Maria, 2012, INTERLANGUAGE REQUES Ishihara Noriko, 2010, TEACHING LEARNING PR Richards J., 2012, INTERCHANGE Rose K., 2000, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V22, P27, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100001029 Salsbury T., 2001, MONOGRAPH SERIES, V10 Uso-Juan E., 2008, ELT J, V62, P349 NR 10 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 6 PU OXFORD UNIV PRESS PI OXFORD PA GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND SN 0951-0893 EI 1477-4526 J9 ELT J JI ELT J. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 69 IS 4 BP 395 EP 404 DI 10.1093/elt/ccv032 PG 10 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CT7AA UT WOS:000362964200005 ER PT J AU Economidou-Kogetsidis, M AF Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria TI Teaching email politeness in the EFL/ESL classroom SO ELT JOURNAL LA English DT Article ID PRAGMATIC FAILURE AB Writing status-congruent emails is a skill that requires high pragmatic competence and awareness of the politeness conventions and email etiquette that need to be followed. Planning and composing such emails pose a greater challenge for EFL learners who use English in lingua franca communication (ELF), as they not only often struggle with grammatical accuracy but might also be faced with a clash between English L1 norms and lingua franca norms, especially when finding themselves living in the L1 speech community. This study discusses the need for explicit email instruction in the EFL/ESL classroom by examining how a number of authentic emails, written by Greek-Cypriot university students in English, are perceived by a group of British English native speaking university lecturers. The article aims to highlight the unwelcome potential effects of EFL emails and to offer a number of practical suggestions and recommendations for pedagogical intervention. C1 Univ Nicosia, Appl Linguist, Nicosia, Cyprus. RP Economidou-Kogetsidis, M (reprint author), Univ Nicosia, Appl Linguist, Nicosia, Cyprus. EM kogetsidis.m@unic.ac.cy CR Alcon-Soler E., 2008, INVESTIGATING PRAGMA Bachman L., 1990, FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDER Bardovi-Harlig K, 1998, TESOL QUART, V32, P233, DOI 10.2307/3587583 Economidou-Kogetsidis M, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3193, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006 Hartford B. S., 1996, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V7 Hassall T., 1999, PRAGMATICS, V9, P585, DOI DOI 10.1075/PRAG.9.4.02HAS Hendriks B, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P221, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.011 House J., 2003, PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE Rose K., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE Schmidt R., 1995, ATTENTION AWARENESS THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 NR 11 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 10 PU OXFORD UNIV PRESS PI OXFORD PA GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND SN 0951-0893 EI 1477-4526 J9 ELT J JI ELT J. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 69 IS 4 BP 415 EP 424 DI 10.1093/elt/ccv031 PG 10 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CT7AA UT WOS:000362964200007 ER PT J AU Becker, I AF Becker, Israela TI The good, the not good, and the not beautiful: On the non-obligatoriness of suppression following negation SO CORPUS LINGUISTICS AND LINGUISTIC THEORY LA English DT Article DE psycholinguistics; negation; mitigation; retention; suppression; polarity strength; customer reviews ID LANGUAGE; CREDIBILITY; ADJECTIVES; ACTIVATION; METAPHORS; ATLAS AB The view that suppression of a concept within the scope of negation is not unconditional was originally introduced by Giora (2003, 2006; Giora and Fein 1999; Giora et al. 2007) via the retention hypothesis. Giora and her colleagues argue that negation does not necessarily suppress the concept within its scope. Instead, it often retains it for pragmatic considerations, both in the mind of the speaker and the addressee. The present study provides a quantitative corpus-based test for the retention hypothesis, that is the non-obligatoriness of suppression of negated concepts (also known as the negation as mitigation hypothesis, Giora 2003; Giora et al. 2005b), via a two-pronged method which combines corpus data and behavioral data. It focuses on the notion of polarity strength, which is a numerical value disclosing the degree of positivity or negativity associated with an adjective. A simple statistic which is introduced for the sake of this study - the Strength Index (SI) - naively assumes that canonical adjectives can be mitigated by replacing them with their negated antonyms, thus making it possible to attribute SI to them. SI is calculated for 8 canonical adjectival antonymous pairs of an emotive nature (such as good-bad). Depending on prior positive expectations, the retention hypothesis will gain support if the following results are obtained: Correlation between the SIs of unfavorable adjectives (e.g., bad) and behavioral data on the one hand, and the lack of correlation between the SIs of favorable adjectives (e.g., good) and behavioral data, on the other hand. Results attest to this correlation pattern, providing support for the retention hypothesis (see also Colston 1999). C1 Tel Aviv Univ, Dept Linguist, IL-69978 Tel Aviv, Israel. RP Becker, I (reprint author), Tel Aviv Univ, Dept Linguist, IL-69978 Tel Aviv, Israel. EM israela2@post.tau.ac.il FU Tel-Aviv University FX I am grateful to Stefan Th. Gries and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this article. I am indebted to my brother, Yonatan Becker, who served as my devoted assistant in meticulously filtering the adjectives' lists, as well as in handling many of the technicalities of this research. I am thankful to Aviad Albert for his useful suggestions regarding the transcriptions of the Hebrew items into standard IPA. All errors and oversights are, of course, my own. This research was supported by the Tel-Aviv University dean of humanities' scholarship for outstanding Master's students in linguistics. CR Alcalay Reuven, 1996, COMPLETE ENGLISH HEB Autry KS, 2014, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V51, P535, DOI 10.1080/0163853X.2013.871192 Autry KS, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1474, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.014 Blitzer John, 2007, ANN M ASS COMP LING Bradac J.J., 1979, HUMAN COMMUNICATION, V5, P257, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00639.x BRISLIN RW, 1970, J CROSS CULT PSYCHOL, V1, P185, DOI 10.1177/135910457000100301 Brown P., 1987, STUDIES INTERACTIONA Colston HL, 1999, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V28, P237 DEESE J, 1964, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V3, P347, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(64)80001-3 Deese J., 1965, STRUCTURE ASS LANGUA Burgers Christian, 2013, DISCOURSE CONTEXT ME, V2, P75 Esuli Andrea, 2006, INT C LANG RES EV GE Fraenkel T, 2008, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V5, P517, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2008.025 FRANZWA HH, 1969, SPEECH MONOGR, V36, P103 GILPIN AR, 1973, J PSYCHOL, V85, P277 Giora R., 2003, OUR MIND SALIENCE CO Giora R, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P981, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.12.006 Giora R, 2005, FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION: SOCIAL AND CULTURAL INFLUENCES, P233 Giora R, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P1601, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00006-5 Giora R, 2005, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V39, P81, DOI 10.1207/s15326950dp3901_3 Giora R, 2007, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V43, P153 Godbole Namrat, 2007, INT C WEBL SOC MED B GROSS D, 1989, J MEM LANG, V28, P92, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(89)90030-2 Hamilton M. A., 1990, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V9, P235, DOI DOI 10.1177/0261927X9094002 Hasson U, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P1015, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.12.005 Heise David R., 2000, ANN M AM SOC ASS WAS Horn L. R., 1989, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO JENKINS JJ, 1960, AM J PSYCHOL, V73, P274, DOI 10.2307/1419905 JENKINS JJ, 1958, AM J PSYCHOL, V71, P688, DOI 10.2307/1420326 Jensen ML, 2013, J MANAGE INFORM SYST, V30, P293, DOI 10.2753/MIS0742-1222300109 Jespersen Otto, 1917, NEGATION ENGLISH OTH Jones Steven, 2007, CORPORA, V2, P129, DOI 10.3366/cor.2007.2.2.129 Kamps Jaap, 2004, INT C LANG RES EV LI Kaup B, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P1033, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.012 Leveli W. J., 1989, SPEAKING INTENTION A Levi Judith N, 1978, SYNTAX SEMANTICS COM MACDONALD MC, 1989, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V15, P633, DOI 10.1037//0278-7393.15.4.633 Mann William C, 1968, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V7, P760 Mayo R, 2004, J EXP SOC PSYCHOL, V40, P433, DOI 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.008 McCrae Robert R., 1997, AM PSYCHOL, V52, P509 Miller, 1990, INT J LEXICOGR, V3, P235 Osgood Charles E., 1975, CROSS CULTURAL UNIVE Osgood C. E., 1957, MEASUREMENT MEANING Paradis Carita, 2010, ANN TEXTS FOREIGN GU Paradis C, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P1051, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.11.009 Pickering MJ, 2013, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V36, P329, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X12001495 Pornpitakpan C, 2004, J APPL SOC PSYCHOL, V34, P243, DOI 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x SCHWARTZ SH, 1992, ADV EXP SOC PSYCHOL, V25, P1, DOI 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6 Shuval N, 2008, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V5, P445, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2008.022 Slater MD, 1996, JOURNALISM MASS COMM, V73, P974 Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Stephens GJ, 2010, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V107, P14425, DOI 10.1073/pnas.1008662107 Stone P. J., 1966, GEN INQUIRER COMPUTE Taboada M, 2011, TEXT TALK, V31, P247, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2011.011 Tottie Gunnel, 1991, QUANTITATIVE ANAL EN Tottie Gunnel, 1982, S PROBL LING STUD IM Paradis C., 2012, FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN, V2, P255 Williams Gbolahan K., 2009, INT C WEBL SOC MED S NR 58 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 7 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1613-7027 EI 1613-7035 J9 CORPUS LINGUIST LING JI Corpus Linguist. Linguist. Theo. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 11 IS 2 BP 255 EP 283 DI 10.1515/cllt-2014-0010 PG 29 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CS0IF UT WOS:000361741500002 ER PT J AU Bel, A Ortells, M Morgan, G AF Bel, Aurora Ortells, Marta Morgan, Gary TI Reference control in the narratives of adult sign language learners SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM LA English DT Article DE Catalan Sign Language (LSC); discourse organisation; reference; second language acquisition; interfaces ID PRONOUNS; ANTECEDENTS; RESOLUTION; ARGUMENTS; DISCOURSE; AGREEMENT; CHILDREN AB Aims and Objectives: Learning to control reference in narratives is a major step in becoming a speaker of a second language, including a signed language. Previous research describes the pragmatic and cognitive mechanisms that are used for reference control and it is clear that differences are apparent between first and second language speakers. However, some debate exists about the reasons for second language learners' tendency for over-redundancy in reference forms especially in the use of pronouns. In this study we tested these proposed reasons for L2 differences. Methodology: Narratives by 11 native signers and 13 adult advanced-learners of Catalan sign language were analysed for person reference. Data: Analysis focused on forms for introduction, reintroduction and maintenance of characters. Findings: The results indicate both groups used reference forms according to information saliency principles in similar ways. Differences between the groups were in the use of pronominal signs, where the learners adopted an over-redundancy strategy in line with one hypothesis in the previous studies on second language acquisition in spoken languages. Significance: The results are discussed in terms of the vulnerable syntax-pragmatics interface in developing bilinguals C1 [Bel, Aurora; Ortells, Marta] Univ Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. [Morgan, Gary] City Univ London, Language & Commun Sci, London EC1V 0HB, England. RP Morgan, G (reprint author), City Univ London, Language & Commun Sci, Northampton Sq, London EC1V 0HB, England. EM g.morgan@city.ac.uk OI Morgan, Gary/0000-0002-9495-1274 FU Ministry of Science and Innovation of the Spanish Government [FFI2009-09349, FFI2012-35058]; Economic and Social Research Council (Deafness, Cognition and Language Research Centre) [620-28-600] FX The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This research was supported by a grant to Aurora Bel from the Ministry of Science and Innovation of the Spanish Government (FFI2009-09349 & FFI2012-35058). Gary Morgan's research was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (Grant 620-28-600 Deafness, Cognition and Language Research Centre). CR Ariel Mira, 2001, TEXT REPRESENTATION, V8, P29 Ariel Mira, 1990, ACCESSING NOUN PHRAS Arnold JE, 2000, COGNITION, V76, pB13, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00073-1 Bamberg M., 1991, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V14, P227 Barbera G., 2010, TISLR 10 PURD U Barbera G., 2012, THESIS U POMPEU FABR Baus C, 2008, COGNITION, V108, P856, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.012 Bel A., 2010, WRITTEN LANGUAGE LIT, V13, P234 Berman R. A., 1994, RELATING EVENTS NARR Berman RA, 2008, J CHILD LANG, V35, P735, DOI 10.1017/S0305000908008787 Brugman H., 2004, P LREC 2004 4 INT C Carminati M. N., 2002, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Casey S, 2009, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V24, P290, DOI 10.1080/01690960801916188 Chamberlain C., 2000, LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Cormier K, 2012, COGNITION, V124, P50, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.003 Quadros R. M. de, 1999, THESIS PUC PORTO ALE Emmorey K., 2002, LANGUAGE COGNITION B EMMOREY K, 1991, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V6, P207, DOI 10.1080/01690969108406943 Emmorey K, 2004, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V33, P321, DOI 10.1023/B:JOPR.0000035104.83502.0b Emmorey K., 2003, PERSPECTIVES CLASSIF Emmorey K., 1999, STORYTELLING CONVERS, P3 Emmorey K, 2012, J MEM LANG, V67, P199, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2012.04.005 Emmorey K., 2000, J SPATIAL COGNITION, V2, P157 Garcia-Alcaraz E., 2011, REV LINGUISTICA LENG, V6, P165 GARVEY C, 1975, COGNITION, V3, P227, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(74)90010-9 GEE JP, 1983, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V6, P243 Givon Talmy, 1983, TOPIC CONTINUITY DIS GORDON PC, 1993, COGNITIVE SCI, V17, P311, DOI 10.1207/s15516709cog1703_1 Hendriks H., 2005, STRUCTURE LEARNER VA Hendriks P., 2013, LANGUAGE COGNITIVE P Hickmann M., 2004, RELATING EVENTS NARR, P282 Janzen T, 2004, COGN LINGUIST, V15, P149, DOI 10.1515/cogl.2004.006 Janzen T, 1999, STUD LANG, V23, P271, DOI 10.1075/sl.23.2.03jan Jarvis S., 2008, CROSSLINGUISTIC INFL Klima E., 1979, SIGNS LANGUAGE Lillo-Martin D, 2011, LINGUA, V121, P623, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.001 LILLOMARTIN D, 1986, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V4, P415, DOI 10.1007/BF00134469 Lozano C., 2006, ACQUISITION SYNTAX R, P371 MacSweeney M., 2008, TRENDS COGN SCI, V12, P232 Margaza P., 2006, P 8 GEN APPR 2 LANG, P88 Metzger M, 1994, SOCIOLINGUISTICS DEA, P255 Meurant L, 2008, SIGNS OF THE TIME Montanari S., 2002, INT J BILINGUAL, V8, P449 Montrul S, 2004, BILING-LANG COGN, V7, P125, DOI DOI 10.1017/S1366728904001464 Morales-Lopez E, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P474, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.010 Morgan G, 2003, PERSPECTIVES ON CLASSIFIER CONSTRUCTIONS IN SIGN LANGUAGES, P297 Morgan G., 2002, J SIGN LANGUAGE LING, V5, P127 Morgan G., 2002, DIRECTIONS SIGN LANG Morgan G, 2005, ADV SIGN LANGUAGE DE Morgan G, 2007, LINGUA, V117, P1159, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.01.006 MULLER N, 2001, BILINGUALISM LANGUAG, V0004 Neidle C., 2000, SYNTAX AM SIGN LANGU Perez-Leroux AT, 1999, SECOND LANG RES, V15, P220 Perniss Pamela M., 2012, SIGN LANGUAGE INT HD, P412 Petitto L. A., 1997, INHERITANCE INNATENE, P45 Pyers JE, 2008, PSYCHOL SCI, V19, P531, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02119.x Quer J., 2011, CATALAN REV, V25, P45 Quer J, 2011, THEOR LINGUIST, V37, P189, DOI 10.1515/THLI.2011.014 Sandler W, 2006, SIGN LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTIC UNIVERSALS, P1, DOI 10.2277/ 0521483956 SCHICK B., 2006, ADV SIGN LANGUAGE DE Serratrice L., 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P1058 Shin NL, 2012, LANG ACQUIS, V19, P3, DOI 10.1080/10489223.2012.633846 Sorace A, 2009, INT J BILINGUAL, V13, P195, DOI 10.1177/1367006909339810 Sorace A, 2009, LINGUA, V119, P460, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.008 Sorace A, 2006, SECOND LANG RES, V22, P339, DOI 10.1191/0267658306sr271oa Sorace A, 2011, LINGUIST APPROACH BI, V1, P2, DOI 10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor Stokoe W., 1960, STUD LINGUIST, V8, P1 Stromqvist Sven, 2004, RELATING EVENTS NARR, V2 Stromqvist S., 1989, GOTEBORG PAPERS THEO, V56, P1 Sutton-Spence R, 1999, LINGUISTICS BRIT SIG Tang G., 2002, MODALITY STRUCTURE S, P296 Thompson R, 2006, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V24, P571, DOI 10.1007/s11049-005-1829-y Trueswell J. C., 2011, PROCESSING ACQUISITI, P65 Filiaci F., 2004, INT J BILINGUAL, V8, P257, DOI DOI 10.1177/13670069040080030601 [Anonymous], 1994, SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIE NR 75 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 3 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 1367-0069 EI 1756-6878 J9 INT J BILINGUAL JI Int. J. Biling. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 19 IS 5 BP 608 EP 624 DI 10.1177/1367006914527186 PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CS1IZ UT WOS:000361818900007 ER PT J AU Turco, G Dimroth, C Braun, B AF Turco, Giuseppina Dimroth, Christine Braun, Bettina TI Prosodic and lexical marking of contrast in L2 Italian SO SECOND LANGUAGE RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE polarity contrast; L1 transfer; intonation; information structure ID CATEGORICAL-DATA; FOCUS; DUTCH; ACQUISITION; INTONATION; AGREEMENT; PHONOLOGY; EMPHASIS; SPEAKERS; MODELS AB We investigated the second language (L2) acquisition of pragmatic categories that are not as consistently and frequently encoded in the L2 than in the first language (L1). Experiment 1 showed that Italian speakers linguistically highlighted affirmative polarity contrast (e.g. The child ate the candies following after The child did not eat the candies) in 34.3% of the cases, by producing a nuclear pitch accent on the finite verb (i.e. verum focus accent). Experiment 2 revealed that high-proficient German and Dutch non-native speakers of Italian linguistically encoded polarity contrast more frequently, either using a verum focus accent (German) or lexical markers (Dutch). This corresponds closely to the patterns preferred in their native languages. Our results show L1 transfer on three levels: (1) the relevance of the pragmatic category (i.e. marking polarity contrast on the assertion component), (2) the linguistic markers to encode polarity contrast and (3) the phonetic implementation of the intonational marking. These three levels of transfer have implications for how non-native speakers acquire the L2 discourse organizational principles and the linguistic markers to encode them. C1 [Turco, Giuseppina] Univ Stuttgart, D-70174 Stuttgart, Germany. [Dimroth, Christine] Univ Munster, Munster, Germany. [Braun, Bettina] Univ Konstanz, Constance, Germany. RP Turco, G (reprint author), Univ Stuttgart, Inst Linguist Anglist, Keplerstr 17, D-70174 Stuttgart, Germany. EM giuseppina.turco@ifla.uni-stuttgart.de FU ANR-DFG project 'LANGACROSS' [DI 808/1-2] FX This research is part of a PhD project of the first author funded by the ANR-DFG project 'LANGACROSS' (DI 808/1-2, awarded to Christine Dimroth). This research was also supported by the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (Nijmegen, The Netherlands), which offered technical support and research facilities. CR Antinucci F, 1977, STUDI GRAMMATICA ITA, V6, P121 Atterer M, 2004, J PHONETICS, V32, P177, DOI 10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00039-1 Baayen R. H, 2008, ANAL LINGUISTIC DATA Bates D., 2007, LME4 LINEAR MIXED EF Baumann S, 2006, INTONATION GIVENNESS, V508 Belletti A, 2009, ROUTL LEAD LINGUISTS, P1 Benazzo, 2012, LANGUAGE INTERACTION, V3, P173 Beninca P, 1993, INTRO ITALIANO CONT, V1, P247 Beninca P., 1988, GRANDE GRAMMATICA IT, V1, P129 Bernini G., 1995, GRANDE GRAMMATICA IT, V3, P175 Bernini G, 2009, INTERFACE EXPLOR, V19, P105, DOI 10.1515/9783110213973.2.105 Bocci G, 2011, P 12 ANN C INT SPEEC, P1357 Bocci G, 2014, SYNTAX PROSODY INTER Boersma P., 2012, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC Brunetti L, 2010, P 5 INT C SPEECH PRO Carroll M., 2000, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V22, P441, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100003065 Carroll M., 2006, ED ADV FOREIGN LANGU, P54 Carroll M., 2003, TYPOLOGY 2 LANGUAGE, P365 Caspers J, 2008, LINGUISTIK ONLINE, V44, P121 COHEN J, 1960, EDUC PSYCHOL MEAS, V20, P37, DOI 10.1177/001316446002000104 Cunnings I, 2012, SECOND LANG RES, V28, P369, DOI 10.1177/0267658312443651 D'Imperio M, 2001, SPEECH COMMUN, V33, P339, DOI 10.1016/S0167-6393(00)00064-9 D'Imperio Mariapaola, 2002, PROBUS, V14, P37, DOI DOI 10.1515/PRBS.2002.005 Dimroth C, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P3328, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.009 Face LT, 2005, ITALIAN J LINGUISTIC, V17, P271 Farnetani E, 1997, P ESCA WORKSH INT AT, P115 Fery C, 2006, LANGUAGE, V82, P131, DOI 10.1353/lan.2006.0031 Gili Fivela B, 2002, P 1 INT C SPEECH PRO, P339 Frascarelli M, 2004, PARLATO ITALIANO Giordano R, 2004, THESIS U DEGLI STUDI Grice Martine, 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH, P362, DOI DOI 10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199249633.003.0013 Gussenhoven C., 1999, FOCUS LINGUISTIC COG, P43 Gut Ulrike, 2009, NONNATIVE SPEECH COR He X, 2011, P 17 ICPHS HONG KONG, P843 Hendriks H, 2011, LANGUAGE AND BILINGUAL COGNITION, P315 Hirschberg J, 1997, P ESCA WORKSH INT AT, P189 Hogeweg L, INT REV APPL LINGUIS Jaeger TF, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P434, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 Keller F, 2001, COGNITION, V79, P301, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00131-1 KELM OR, 1987, HISPANIA-J DEV INTER, V70, P627, DOI 10.2307/343447 Klein W, 1998, ESSAYS HONOR J WEISS, P225 Klein W, 2008, EMPIRISCHE FORSCHUNG, P287 Klein W, 2006, STUD THEOR PSYCHOLIN, V35, P245, DOI 10.1007/1-4020-4485-2_10 Krifka Manfred, 2012, EXPRESSION INFORM ST, P1, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110261608.1 Ladd DR, 2008, CAMB STUD LINGUIST, V79, P1 LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159, DOI 10.2307/2529310 Matic D, 2013, J LINGUIST, V49, P127, DOI 10.1017/S0022226712000345 McGory TJ, 1997, THESIS OHIO STATE U Mennen I, 2004, J PHONETICS, V32, P543, DOI 10.1016/j.wocn.2004.02.002 Mollering M, 1995, APPL LANGUAGE LEARNI, V6, P41 Mollering M, 2001, LANGUAGE LEARNING TE, V5, P130 Nespor Marina, 1986, PROSODIC PHONOLOGY Nguyen TAT, 2008, J PHONETICS, V36, P158, DOI 10.1016/j.wocn.2007.09.001 Pinheiro J, 2000, MIXED EFFECTS MODELS Poletto C, 2013, LINGUA, V128, P124, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.016 R Development Core Team, 2012, R LANG ENV STAT COMP Rasier L, 2007, NOUVEAUX CAHIERS LIN, V28, P41 Rizzi Luigi, 1997, KLUWER INT HDB LINGU, V1, P281, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8 Rooth Mats, 1996, HDB CONT SEMANTIC TH, P271 Sardelli E, 2006, THESIS U PISA ITALY Selkirk E, 1995, OPTIMALITY THEORY PH, P464 Swerts M, 2002, J PHONETICS, V30, P629, DOI 10.1006/jpho.2002.0178 Swerts M, 2010, P 5 INT C SPEECH PRO Truckenbrodt H, 1999, LINGUIST INQ, V30, P219, DOI 10.1162/002438999554048 Turco G, 2011, P 12 ANN C INT SPEEC, P961 Turco G, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V62, P94, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.020 Turco G, 2013, LANG SPEECH, V56, P461, DOI 10.1177/0023830912460506 Ueyama Motoko, 1998, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V7, P629 Von Stutterheim C, 2005, STRUCTURE LEARNER VA, P203 von Stutterheim Christiane, 2005, Z LITERATURWISSENSCH, V35, P7 von Stutterheim C, 2003, LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE, V3 Zubizarreta ML, 2011, LINGUA, V121, P652, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.06.013 NR 72 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 2 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 0267-6583 EI 1477-0326 J9 SECOND LANG RES JI Second Lang. Res. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 31 IS 4 BP 465 EP 491 DI 10.1177/0267658315579537 PG 27 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CR6XI UT WOS:000361491300003 ER PT J AU Kalashnikova, M Mattock, K Monaghan, P AF Kalashnikova, Marina Mattock, Karen Monaghan, Padraic TI The effects of linguistic experience on the flexible use of mutual exclusivity in word learning SO BILINGUALISM-LANGUAGE AND COGNITION LA English DT Article DE mutual exclusivity; lexical overlap; word learning; bilingualism; language acquisition ID BILINGUAL CHILDRENS USE; INFANTS; LANGUAGE; ASSUMPTION; DISAMBIGUATION; LEARNERS; MEANINGS; OBJECTS; LABELS; BIAS AB Mutual Exclusivity (ME) is a prominent constraint in language acquisition, which guides children to establish one-to-one mappings between words and referents. But how does unfolding experience of multiple-to-one word-meaning mappings in bilingual children's environment affect their understanding of when to use ME and when to accept lexical overlap? Three-to-five-year-old monolingual and simultaneous bilingual children completed two pragmatically distinct tasks, where successful word learning relied on either the default use of ME or the ability to accept overlapping labels. All children could flexibly use ME by following the social-pragmatic directions available in each task. However, linguistic experience shaped the development of ME use, whereby older monolinguals showed a greater reliance on the one-to-one mapping assumption, but older bilinguals showed a greater ability to accept lexical overlap. We suggest that flexible use of ME is thus shaped by pragmatic information present in each communicative interaction and children's individual linguistic experience. C1 [Kalashnikova, Marina; Mattock, Karen] Univ Western Sydney, MARCS Inst, Sydney, NSW 2751, Australia. [Kalashnikova, Marina; Monaghan, Padraic] Univ Lancaster, Dept Psychol, Ctr Res Human Dev & Learning, Lancaster LA1 4YW, England. [Mattock, Karen] Univ Western Sydney, Sch Social Sci & Psychol, Sydney, NSW 2751, Australia. RP Kalashnikova, M (reprint author), Univ Western Sydney, MARCS Inst, Locked Bag 1797, Sydney, NSW 2751, Australia. EM m.kalashnikova@uws.edu.au RI Monaghan, Padraic/E-6812-2010; OI Monaghan, Padraic/0000-0003-3965-2682 CR AU TKF, 1990, CHILD DEV, V61, P1474, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02876.x Bialystok E, 2010, J COGN DEV, V11, P485, DOI 10.1080/15248372.2010.516420 Byers-Heinlein K, 2013, BILING-LANG COGN, V16, P198, DOI 10.1017/S1366728912000417 Byers-Heinlein K, 2009, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V12, P815, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00902.x Byers-Heinlein K, 2013, COGNITION, V128, P407, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.05.010 Clark EV, 1998, J CHILD LANG, V25, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0305000997003309 Davidson D, 2005, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V92, P25, DOI 10.1016/j.jeep.2005.03.007 Davidson D, 1997, J CHILD LANG, V24, P3, DOI 10.1017/S0305000996002917 Deak GO, 1998, DEV PSYCHOL, V34, P224, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.34.2.224 Diesendruck G, 2001, DEV PSYCHOL, V37, P630, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.37.5.630 Diesendruck G, 2005, DEV PSYCHOL, V41, P451, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.41.3.451 Dunn L. M., 2009, BRIT PICTURE VOCABUL Poulin-Dubois D., 2002, INT J BILINGUAL, V6, P125, DOI DOI 10.1177/13670069020060020201 Tomasello M., 2009, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V13, P252 Halberda J, 2003, COGNITION, V87, pB23, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00186-5 Halberda J, 2006, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V53, P310, DOI 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.04.003 Hall G., 1996, DEV PSYCHOL, V32, P177 Haryu E, 1998, JPN PSYCHOL RES, V40, P82, DOI 10.1111/1468-5884.00078 Houston-Price C, 2010, INFANCY, V15, P125, DOI 10.1111/j.1532-7078.2009.00009.x Jaswal VK, 2010, J CHILD LANG, V37, P95, DOI 10.1017/S0305000909009519 Kalashnikova M, 2014, FIRST LANG, V34, P125, DOI 10.1177/0142723714525946 LIITTSCHWAGER JC, 1994, DEV PSYCHOL, V30, P955, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.30.6.955 MARKMAN EM, 1988, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V20, P121, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(88)90017-5 MARKMAN EM, 1990, COGNITIVE SCI, V14, P57, DOI 10.1016/0364-0213(90)90026-S Markman EM, 2003, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V47, P241, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00034-3 Plunkett K., 2010, J CHILD LANG, V38, P933 Meisel J., 1989, BILINGUALISM LIFESPA, P13, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09780511611780.003 MERRIMAN WE, 1993, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V14, P229, DOI 10.1017/S0142716400009565 MERRIMAN WE, 1986, CHILD DEV, V57, P942, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1986.tb00257.x MERRIMAN WE, 1991, DEV REV, V11, P164, DOI 10.1016/0273-2297(91)90006-A Merriman W. E., 1989, MONOGRAPHS SOC RES C, V54, P3 MERVIS CB, 1994, CHILD DEV, V65, P1163, DOI 10.2307/1131312 Oliver B, 2002, EARLY CHILD DEV CARE, V172, P337, DOI 10.1080/03004430212713 PEARSON BZ, 1995, J CHILD LANG, V22, P345 PEARSON BZ, 1993, LANG LEARN, V43, P93, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00174.x Piccin T. B., 2007, FIRST LANG, V27, P5, DOI 10.1177/0142723707067544 Savage SL, 1996, CHILD DEV, V67, P3120, DOI 10.2307/1131770 Saylor MM, 2002, DEV PSYCHOL, V38, P993, DOI 10.1037//0012-1649.38.6.993 WOODWARD AL, 1991, DEV REV, V11, P137, DOI 10.1016/0273-2297(91)90005-9 NR 39 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 8 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI NEW YORK PA 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY 10013-2473 USA SN 1366-7289 EI 1469-1841 J9 BILING-LANG COGN JI Biling.-Lang. Cogn. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 18 IS 4 BP 626 EP 638 DI 10.1017/S1366728914000364 PG 13 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CQ6DN UT WOS:000360694700004 ER PT J AU Kanto, L Laakso, ML Huttunen, K AF Kanto, Laura Laakso, Marja-Leena Huttunen, Kerttu TI Differentiation in language and gesture use during early bilingual development of hearing children of Deaf parents SO BILINGUALISM-LANGUAGE AND COGNITION LA English DT Article DE KODA; Kid of Deaf Adults; bilingualism; language differentiation; modality ID PRAGMATIC DIFFERENTIATION; COMMUNICATION; ACQUISITION; BRITISH; SYSTEM; WORD; SIGN AB Hearing children of Deaf parents simultaneously acquire sign language and spoken language, which have many structural differences and represent two different modalities. We video-recorded eight children every six months between the ages of 12 and 24 months during three different play sessions: with their Deaf parent, with the Deaf parent and a hearing adult, and with a hearing adult alone. Additionally, we collected data on their vocabulary development in both sign language and spoken language. Children as young as 12 months old accommodated their language use according to the language(s) of their interlocutor(s). Additionally, the children used a manual modality that included gestures more frequently and in a more diverse way when interacting with their Deaf parent than with a hearing person. These findings bring new knowledge about language differentiation and gesture use of bilingual children during the early phases of language acquisition. C1 [Kanto, Laura; Huttunen, Kerttu] Univ Oulu, FI-90014 Oulu, Finland. [Laakso, Marja-Leena] Univ Jyvaskyla, SF-40351 Jyvaskyla, Finland. [Huttunen, Kerttu] Univ Hosp Oulu, Oulu, Finland. RP Kanto, L (reprint author), Univ Oulu, Fac Humanities, Logoped, POB 1000, FI-90014 Oulu, Finland. EM laura.kanto@oulu.fi FU Emil Aaltonen Foundation; Southern Ostrobothnia Hospital District [EVO198]; Ministry of Education and Culture FX This work was supported in part by the Emil Aaltonen Foundation, the Southern Ostrobothnia Hospital District's grant number EVO198, and the Ministry of Education and Culture. We are especially grateful to all the families that participated in this study and committed themselves to the longitudinal follow-up. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. CR Anderson D., 2002, J DEAF STUD DEAF EDU, V7, P83, DOI [10.1093/deafed/7.2.83, DOI 10.1093/DEAFED/7.2.83] Hicks S. L., 1990, HEARING MOTHER FATHE Bonvillian J. D., 1994, EARLY SIGN LANGUAGE, P219 BUTCHER C, 1991, COGNITIVE DEV, V6, P315, DOI 10.1016/0885-2014(91)90042-C Capirci O, 2005, GESTURE, V5, P155, DOI DOI 10.1075/GEST.5.1-2.12CAP Volterra V., 2002, BILING-LANG COGN, V5, P25 Casey S, 2009, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V24, P290, DOI 10.1080/01690960801916188 Cenoz J., TRENDS BILINGUAL ACQ Cheek A, 2001, LANGUAGE, V77, P292, DOI 10.1353/lan.2001.0072 Comeau L., 2003, INT J BILINGUAL, V7, P113, DOI [10.1177/13670069030070020101, DOI 10.1177/13670069030070020101] Quay S., 2000, BILINGUAL ACQUISITIO Emmorey K., 2008, BILING-LANG COGN, V11, P46 Emmorey K., 2003, PERSPECTIVES CLASSIF Fenson L., 1991, MACARTHUR COMMUNICAT GENESEE F, 1989, J CHILD LANG, V16, P161 Genesee F, 1996, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V17, P427, DOI 10.1017/S0142716400008183 Genessee F, 1995, J CHILD LANG, V22, P611 GOLDINMEADOW S, 1984, MONOGR SOC RES CHILD, V49, P1, DOI 10.2307/1165838 Goldin-Meadow S., 2003, HEARING GESTURE OUR Goodwyn S. W., 1998, NEW DIR CHILD ADOLES, V79, P61 Hatzopoulou M., 2008, THESIS STOCKHOLM U Hoiting N, 2007, GESTURE STUD, V1, P51 Huttunen KH, 2013, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V42, P81, DOI 10.1007/s10936-012-9205-7 Huttunen K. H., 2012, SENSE EMPTINESS INTE, P94 Iverson Jana M, 2008, First Lang, V28, P164, DOI 10.1177/0142723707087736 Iverson JM, 1999, COGNITIVE DEV, V14, P57, DOI 10.1016/S0885-2014(99)80018-5 Iverson JM, 2005, PSYCHOL SCI, V16, P367, DOI 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01542.x Jakkula K., 2002, ACTA U OULUENSIS E, V52 Kanto L, 2013, J DEAF STUD DEAF EDU, V18, P242, DOI 10.1093/deafed/ens071 Helasvuo M.-L., 2010, SKY J LINGUISTICS, V23, P199 Lausberg H, 2009, BEHAV RES METHODS, V41, P841, DOI 10.3758/BRM.41.3.841 Liddell Scott K., 2003, GRAMMAR GESTURE MEAN Lyytinen P., 1999, VARHAISEN KOMMUNIKAA Mallory B. L., 1993, SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIE, V78, P73 Maneva B, 2002, PROC ANN BUCLD, P383 Meisel J. M., 2001, SIMULTANEOUS ACQUISI, P11 Montanari S, 2009, J CHILD LANG, V36, P597, DOI 10.1017/S0305000908009112 Morgenstern A, 2010, GESTURE, V10, P172, DOI 10.1075/gest.10.2-3.04mor Nicoladis E., 2000, FIRST LANG, V20, P3, DOI DOI 10.1177/014272370002005801 Nicoladis E, 1996, LANG LEARN, V46, P439, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01243.x Nicoladis E, 1999, DEV PSYCHOL, V35, P514 Nicoladis E, 2009, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V38, P573, DOI 10.1007/s10936-009-9121-7 Papousek M, 2012, INFANT MENT HEALTH J, V33, P585, DOI 10.1002/imhj.21371 Paradis J., 2007, INT J BILING EDUC BI, V10, P277, DOI [10.2167/beb444.0, DOI 10.2167/BEB444.0] Paradis J., 2001, INT J BILINGUAL, V5, P19, DOI 10.1177/13670069010050010201 Paradis J., 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P1, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014662 Pearson B. Z., 1995, J CHILD LANG, V28, P453 Petitto L., 1988, DEV LANGUAGE LANGUAG, P187 Petitto LA, 2001, J CHILD LANG, V28, P453 Petitto L. A., 1994, TRANSITION GESTURE S, P153 Petitto L. A., 1991, SCIENCE, V22, P1496 Pika S, 2006, BILING-LANG COGN, V9, P319, DOI 10.1017/S1366728906002665 Poulin-Dubois D., 2001, LANGUAGE DIFFERENTIA, P95 Preston P., 1994, MOTHER FATHER DEAF L Sarimski K, 2002, J COMMUN DISORD, V35, P483, DOI 10.1016/S0021-9924(02)00117-X Sherman J., 2004, GESTURE, V4, P143, DOI 10.1075/gest.4.2.03she Baker A. E., 2008, BIMODAL LANGUAGE ACQ, P99 VIHMAN MM, 1994, J CHILD LANG, V21, P517 VOLTERRA V, 1978, J CHILD LANG, V5, P311 VOLTERRA V, 1995, LANGUAGE, GESTURE, AND SPACE, P371 Volterra V., GESTURE LANGUAGE HEA Volterra V., 2005, ADV SIGN LANGUAGE, P46 Wilhelm A., 2008, SOCIOLINGUISTIC ASPE, P162 Woolfe T, 2010, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V51, P322, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02151.x NR 64 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 21 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI NEW YORK PA 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY 10013-2473 USA SN 1366-7289 EI 1469-1841 J9 BILING-LANG COGN JI Biling.-Lang. Cogn. PD OCT PY 2015 VL 18 IS 4 BP 769 EP 788 DI 10.1017/S1366728914000169 PG 20 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CQ6DN UT WOS:000360694700014 ER PT J AU Nordholm, DE AF Nordholm, Daniel Erik TI Sense-making in a Temporary Organization: Implementing a New Curriculum in a Swedish Municipality SO SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE sense-making; implementation; school development; temporary organization ID READING POLICY; SENSEMAKING AB This article explores sense-making in a municipality-led temporary organization established in response to the introduction of a new curriculum and marking system in Sweden. Qualitative data were extracted from audio-recorded interviews (n = 18) and observations of central subject group meetings (n = 6). By applying core elements of sociological theories of sense-making, the findings suggest that participants established coherent knowledge structures by pragmatic task interpretation and reduction of complexity in connection with disruptions of the work. The forms of complexity reduced were related to the specific tasks assigned and the separate, short-term nature of the organizational units. The article concludes that the process of sense-making impacts the character and outcome of development efforts by temporary organizations. C1 Univ Gothenburg, Dept Sociol & Work Sci, S-40530 Gothenburg, Sweden. RP Nordholm, DE (reprint author), Univ Gothenburg, Dept Sociol & Work Sci, Box 720, S-40530 Gothenburg, Sweden. EM daniel.nordholm@gu.se CR Andersson E., 1988, LAGESBEDOMNINGAR GYM, V1988, p[0282, 20] Berg G., 1980, PERSONALLAGSUTBILDNI Bjorn C., 2002, ORGANISERA UTVECKLIN Blossing U., 2007, 1 KARLST U Coburn CE, 2001, EDUC EVAL POLICY AN, V23, P145, DOI 10.3102/01623737023002145 Coburn CE, 2005, EDUC POLICY, V19, P476, DOI 10.1177/089504805276143 Dalin P., 2005, SCH DEV THEORIES STR Dalin P., 1993, CHANGING SCH CULTURE Ekholm M., 1985, FORTBILDNINGENS HIST Ellstrom P-E., 2004, LARANDE FORANDRING O, P17 Ellstrom P-E., 2001, HUMAN RESOURCE DEV Q, V12, P421, DOI [10.1002/hrdq.1006, DOI 10.1002/HRDQ.1006] Forsberg E., 2010, SVENSK FORSKNING BED Gibbs G., 2007, ANAL QUALITATIVE DAT Hultman G., 1980, KAN SKOLAN FORANDRAS Hutchinson C., 2005, CURRICULUM J, V16, P225, DOI [10.1080/09585170500136184, DOI 10.1080/09585170500136184] Jaquith A., 2010, 2 INT HDB ED CHANGE, P85, DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_5 Lander R., 1987, 2 U GOTH, V1987, p[0282, 01] Lander R., 1985, PROFETER EGEN SKOLA, V1985, p[0282, 08] Lundahl L., 2002, EUROPEAN ED RES J, V1, P625, DOI DOI 10.2304/EERJ.2002.1.4.2 Lundahl L, 2002, J EDUC POLICY, V17, P687, DOI 10.1080/0268093022000032328 Lundahl L., 2005, EUROPEAN ED, V37, P10 Miles M. B., 1964, INNOVATION ED, P437 Muijs D, 2011, COLLABORATION AND NETWORKING IN EDUCATION, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-0283-7_1 Muijs D, 2010, SCH EFF SCH IMPROV, V21, P1, DOI 10.1080/09243450903569676 [Anonymous], 2009, REFLECTIVE PRACTICE Nordholm D., 2014, J ED CHANGE, V15, P57, DOI [10.1007/s10833-013-9211-z, DOI 10.1007/S10833-013-9211-Z] Schmuck R. A., 1994, HDB ORG DEV SCH COLL Schmuck R. A., 1977, 2 HDB ORG DEV SCH Swedish National Agency for Education, 2000, 190 SWD NAT AG ED Swedish National Audit Office, 2011, LIK BET LIK KUNSK UP Swedish National Audit Office, 2004, BET MED LIK VARD GRA WEICK KE, 1976, ADMIN SCI QUART, V21, P1, DOI 10.2307/2391875 Weick KE, 2005, ORGAN SCI, V16, P409, DOI 10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 Weick K. E., 1995, SENSE MAKING ORG West M, 2010, SCH EFF SCH IMPROV, V21, P93, DOI 10.1080/09243450903569767 NR 35 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 4 U2 4 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0031-3831 EI 1470-1170 J9 SCAND J EDUC RES JI Scand. J. Educ. Res. PD SEP 3 PY 2015 VL 59 IS 5 BP 531 EP 545 DI 10.1080/00313831.2014.937358 PG 15 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CQ3YM UT WOS:000360540700003 ER PT J AU Hylton, K AF Hylton, Kevin TI 'Race' talk! Tensions and contradictions in sport and PE SO PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORT PEDAGOGY LA English DT Article DE political race consciousness; pedagogy; critical race theory; 'race' talk ID PHYSICAL-EDUCATION; RACISM; GENDER; BLACK; BRYANT,KOBE; MEDIA AB Background: The universal sport discourses of meritocracy and equality are so engrained that few challenge them. The most cursory interest in sport, Physical Education (PE), and society will reveal that the lived reality is quite different. Racial disparities in the leadership and administration of sport are commonplace worldwide; yet, from research into 'race' in sport and PE, awareness of these issues is widespread, where many know that racism takes place it is generally claimed to be somewhere else or someone else. For many, this racism is part of the game and something to manipulate to steal an advantage; for others, it is trivial. This paper explores the contradictions and tensions of the author's experience of how sport and PE students talk about 'race' and racism. 'Race' talk is considered here in the context of passive everyday 'race' talk, dominant discourses in sporting cultures, and colour blindness. Theoretical framework: Drawing on Guinier and Torres' [2003. The Miner's Canary: Enlisting Race, Resisting Power, Transforming Democracy. London: Harvard University Press] ideas of resistance through political race consciousness and Bonilla-Silva's [2010. Racism Without Racists: Colour-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Plymouth: Rowan and Littlefield] notion of colour blindness, the semantics of 'race' and racialisation in sport and PE are interrogated through the prism of critical race theory (CRT). CRT is used here to centre 'race' and racialised relations where disciplines have consciously or otherwise excluded them. Importantly, the centring of 'race' by critical race scholars has advanced a strategic and pragmatic engagement with this slippery concept that recognises its paradoxical but symbolic location in society. Discussion: Before exploring 'race' talk in the classroom, using images from the sport media as a pedagogical tool, the paper considers how 'race' is recreated and renewed. The paper then turns to explore how the effortless turn to everyday 'race' talk in the classroom can be viewed as an opportunity to disrupt racialised assumptions with the potential to implicate those that passively do so. Further, the diagnostic, aspirational, and activist goals of political race consciousness are established as vehicles for a positive sociological experience in the classroom. Conclusion: The work concludes with a consideration of the uses and dangers of passive 'race' talk and the value of a political race consciousness in sport and PE. Part of the explanation for the perpetuation of 'race' talk and the relative lack of concern with its impact on education and wider society is focused on how the sovereignty of sport and PE trumps wider social concerns of 'race' and racism because of at least four factors: (1) the liberal left discourses of sporting utopianism, (2) the 'race' logic that pervades sport, based upon the perceived equal access and fairness of sport as it coalesces with the (3) 'incontrovertible facts' of black and white superiority (and inferiority) in certain sports, ergo the racial justifications for patterns of activity in sport and PE, and (4) the racist logic of the Right perpetuated through a biological reductionism in sport and PE discourses. C1 Leeds Beckett Univ, Carnegie Fac, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England. RP Hylton, K (reprint author), Leeds Beckett Univ, Carnegie Fac, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England. EM k.hylton@leedsbeckett.ac.uk CR Ahmed S., 2012, BEING INCLUDED RACIS Ahmed S., 2006, MERIDIANS FEMINISM R, V7, P104, DOI [10.2979/MER.2006.7.1.104, DOI 10.2979/MER.2006.7.1.104] Andrews DL, 1996, SOCIOL SPORT J, V13, P125 Azzarito L., 2009, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, V14, P19, DOI 10.1080/17408980701712106 Bonilla-Silva E, 2010, RACISM RACISTS COLOU Brunsma DL, 2013, CRIT SOCIOL, V39, P717, DOI 10.1177/0896920512446759 Burdsey D., 2007, BRIT ASIANS FOOTBALL Cooky C, 2010, SOCIOL SPORT J, V27, P139 Crowley-Long K, 1995, CLEARING HOUSE, V68, P134, DOI [10.1080/00098655.1995.9957214, DOI 10.1080/00098655.1995.9957214] Dalal F, 2008, RACE IDENTITY BELONG, P123 Douglas DD, 2013, SPORT EDUC SOC, V18, P453, DOI 10.1080/13573322.2011.602395 Essed P, 1991, UNDERSTANDING EVERYD Essed P, 2002, COMPANION RACIAL ETH, P202 Essed P., 2002, RACE CRITICAL THEORI, P176 Ferber AL, 2007, J SPORT SOC ISSUES, V31, P11, DOI 10.1177/0193723506296829 Fine Michelle, 1994, HDB QUALITATIVE RES, P70 Fine M., 2003, LANDSCAPE QUALITATIV, P162 Santamaria L. J., 2015, PHYS EDUC SPORT PEDA, P1, DOI [10.1080/17408989.2014.990372, DOI 10.1080/17408989.2014.990372.] Fitzpatrick K, 2013, SPORT EDUC SOC, V18, P135, DOI 10.1080/13573322.2011.559221 Flintoff A., 2014, PHYS EDUC SPORT PEDA, P1, DOI [10.1080/17408989.2014.962017, DOI 10.1080/17408989.2014.962017.] Flintoff A, 2012, SPORT EDUC SOC, V17, P571, DOI 10.1080/13573322.2011.553951 FRA, 2010, RAC ETHN DISCR EXCL, V11 Gillborn D, 2008, RACISM ED COINCIDENC Gilroy P, 1998, ETHNIC RACIAL STUD, V21, P838, DOI 10.1080/014198798329676 Gilroy P, 1993, SMALL ACTS Godreau I., 2008, CENTRO J, V20, P5 Goldberg D, 1993, RACIST CULTURE GUINIER LANI, 2003, MINERS CANARY ENLIST Harrison L., 2004, RACE ETHNIC EDUC-UK, V7, P159 hooks bell, 1989, TALKING BACK THINKIN Hooks B., 1994, TEACHING TRANSGRESS HYLTON K., 2012, INTEMATIONAL JOURNAL, V4, P379, DOI DOI 10.1080/19406940.2012.656688 Hylton K., 2009, RACE SPORT CRITICAL Hylton K., 2013, SPORT DEV POLICY PRO, P80 Hylton K., 2005, RACE STUDIES, V24, P81, DOI DOI 10.1080/02614360412331313494 Hylton K, 2013, ICSSPE B J SPORT SCI, V65 Hylton K, 2010, INT REV SOCIOL SPORT, V45, P335, DOI 10.1177/1012690210371045 Leonard DJ, 2004, J SPORT SOC ISSUES, V28, P284, DOI 10.1177/0193723504267546 Long J., 1995, WHATS DIFFERENCE STU Long J., 1997, Leisure Studies, V16, P249 Long J., 2002, Leisure Studies, V21, P87, DOI 10.1080/02614360210152575 Long J. A., 2004, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, V39, P405, DOI 10.1177/1012690204049068 Lusted J, 2011, ROUTL RES SPORT CULT, V6, P207 Markovitz J, 2006, SOCIOL SPORT J, V23, P396 McDonald B, 2013, EUR PHYS EDUC REV, V19, P183, DOI 10.1177/1356336X13486052 McDonald MG, 1999, SOCIOL SPORT J, V16, P111 Wright Mills C., 1970, SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINA Murji Karim, 2005, RACIALIZATION STUDIE Ochoa GL, 2008, RADICAL HIST REV, P45 Omi M., 1994, RACIAL FORMATION US Rovegno I., 2007, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, V12, P205, DOI 10.1080/17408980701610151 SAILES GA, 1993, SOCIOL SPORT J, V10, P88 Singer JN, 2005, J SPORT MANAGE, V19, P464 Solorzano D., 2002, QUALITATIVE INQUIRY, V8, P23, DOI DOI 10.1177/107780040200800103 Spracklen K, 2008, LEISURE STUD, V27, P221, DOI 10.1080/02614360801902257 Sterkenburg J. van, 2013, Soccer and Society, V14, P386, DOI 10.1080/14660970.2013.801267 van Sterkenburg J, 2011, GLOB CULT SPORT, P19 West C, 2001, RACE MATTERS Yuval-Davis N, 2008, RACE IDENTITY BELONG, P101 Long J, 2011, GLOB CULT SPORT, P1 NR 60 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 4 U2 26 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 1740-8989 EI 1742-5786 J9 PHYS EDUC SPORT PEDA JI Phys. Educ. Sport Pedag. PD SEP 3 PY 2015 VL 20 IS 5 SI SI BP 503 EP 516 DI 10.1080/17408989.2015.1043253 PG 14 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CP3HZ UT WOS:000359770700004 ER PT J AU Charbeneau, J AF Charbeneau, Jessica TI White faculty transforming whiteness in the classroom through pedagogical practice SO RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE whiteness; pedagogy; faculty; race; hegemony; postsecondary education ID INSTRUCTOR; COLOR AB The primary objective of this qualitative study is to present a conceptual framework of pedagogical practices reported by white faculty that serve to challenge the hegemony of whiteness in the university classroom. These transformative teaching practices surfaced through a review of racialized pedagogies discussed in the literature and in interviews with a small sample of white faculty formally or informally recognized for their skill teaching in diverse classrooms. In an effort to bring greater resonance to these teaching practices, parallels are drawn between these practices and behaviors that take place in everyday social relations that also serve to transform white dominance. Included here are the following forms of interactions: Expressing racial awareness by disclosing personal whiteness, acknowledging and attending to plurality and revealing patterns of white hegemony; and challenging white supremacy by creating alliances and acting to alter structures and cultures. Presentation of these findings in a categorization system provides clarity about some ways whiteness is being transformed within higher education and offers a pragmatic guide for faculty and postsecondary institutions committed to faculty development around diversity issues. C1 Univ Michigan, Dept Sociol, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA. RP Charbeneau, J (reprint author), Univ Michigan, Dept Sociol, LSA Bldg,500 S State St, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA. EM jcharben@umich.edu CR Adams M., 1997, TEACHING DIVERSITY S Anderson J. A., 1992, NEW DIRECTIONS TEACH, V49, P19, DOI DOI 10.1002/(ISSN)1536-0768 Astin Helen S, 1997, RACE ETHNICITY AM AUSTER CJ, 1994, TEACH SOCIOL, V22, P289, DOI 10.2307/1318921 Bell Lee Ann, 1997, TEACHING DIVERSITY S, P299 Bonilla-Silva E, 2000, DISCOURSE SOC, V11, P50, DOI 10.1177/0957926500011001003 Bonilla-Silva E., 2006, RACISM RACISTS COLOR Brenda Boudreau, 2002, RACE COLLEGE CLASSRO, P200 Boysen GA, 2009, J DIVERS HIGH EDUC, V2, P219, DOI 10.1037/a0017538 Charbeneau Jessica M., 2009, THESIS Chesler Mark, 2005, CHALLENGING RACIMS H Chesler M. A., 2003, WHITE OUT CONTINUING, P215 Angelo De, 2009, AM COLL TEACHER NATL Doane Ashley W., 2003, WHITE OUT CONTINUING, P1 Feagin C B, 1986, DISCRIMINATION AM ST FLAGG BJ, 1993, MICH LAW REV, V91, P953, DOI 10.2307/1289678 Forman Tyrone A., 2006, DU BOIS REV, V3, P175, DOI DOI 10.1017/S1742058X06060127 Freire Paulo, 2002, PEDAGOGY OPPRESSED Garcia M., 1996, ED NEW MAJORITY, P265 Johnson A. G., 2006, PRIVILEGE POWER DIFF Kendall F. E., 2006, UNDERSTANDING WHITE Kincheloe Joe E., 1998, WHIT REIGN DEPLOYING Kivel Paul, 1996, UPROOTING RACISM HIW Kolb D., 1984, EXPERIENTIAL LEARNIN Law I., 2004, I RACISM HIGHER D, P93 Lewis AE, 2004, SOCIOL THEOR, V22, P623, DOI 10.1111/j.0735-2751.2004.00237.x Lindholm J.A., 2005, AM COLL TEACHER NATL Lindholm JA, 2008, REV HIGH EDUC, V31, P185 Maher Frances A., 2003, RACE HIGHER ED CLASS, P69 Marchesani Linda, 1992, NEW DIRECTIONS TEACH, V52, P9, DOI [10.1002/(ISSN)1536-0768, DOI 10.1002/TL.37219925203] Margolis E, 1998, HARVARD EDUC REV, V68, P1 Grace Mathieson, 2004, IDENTIFYING RACE TRA, P235 Maxwell Kelly, 2004, IDENTIFYING RACE TRA, P153 Mayberry Katherine, 1996, TEACHING WHAT YOU AR McIntosh P., 1989, PEACE FREEDOM, V49, P10 Messner Michael, 2000, MEN MASC, V2, P457, DOI 10.1177/1097184X00002004005 Morey A., 1997, MULTICULTURAL COURSE O'Brien E., 2004, IDENTFYING RACE TRAN, P68 Perry G, 2009, J HIGH EDUC, V80, P80 Katz Joseph, 1991, RACIAL CRISIS AM HIG, P187 Picower B, 2009, RACE ETHN EDUC, V12, P197, DOI 10.1080/13613320902995475 Proudman Bill, 2005, DIVERSITY PARTNERSHI Quaye Stephen John, 2012, EQUITY EXCELLENCE ED, V45, P100, DOI [10.1080/10665684.2012.643684, DOI 10.1080/10665684.2012.643684] Scheurich J. J., 2002, RACIAL CRISIS AM HIG, P221 Schoem David, 1993, MULTICULTURAL TEACHI Sleeter Christine, 2005, EQUITY EXCELLENCE ED, V38, P290, DOI 10.1080/10665680500299684 Thompson Becky, 2001, PROMISE WAY LIFE WHI, P113 Thompson Cooper, 2003, WHITE MEN CHALLENGIN Turner C. S. V., 2000, FACULTY COLOR ACAD B TuSmith Bonnie, 2002, RACE COLL CLASSROOM, P315 Vargas L., 2002, WOMEN FACULTY COLOR Wagner A., 2005, RACE ETHNIC EDUC-UK, V8, P261, DOI DOI 10.1080/13613320500174333 Weinstein Gerald, 1992, NEW DIRECTIONS TEACH, V52, P39, DOI 10.1002/(ISSN)1536-0768 Wise T, 2008, WHITE ME REFLECTIONS NR 54 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 4 U2 11 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 1361-3324 EI 1470-109X J9 RACE ETHNIC EDUC-UK JI Race Ethn. Educ. PD SEP 3 PY 2015 VL 18 IS 5 BP 655 EP 674 DI 10.1080/13613324.2013.831823 PG 20 WC Education & Educational Research; Ethnic Studies SC Education & Educational Research; Ethnic Studies GA CL0XK UT WOS:000356666200004 ER PT J AU Alos, J AF Alos, Julieta TI Explicating the implicit: an empirical investigation into pragmatic competence in translator training SO INTERPRETER AND TRANSLATOR TRAINER LA English DT Article DE English-Arabic translation; discourse markers; text analysis; pragmatic competence; empirical classroom research ID COHERENCE RELATIONS; LINGUISTIC MARKERS; DISCOURSE MARKERS AB The present study is an investigation into the role of text-analysis training in developing the pragmatic competence of English-Arabic trainee translators, as represented by their inferential ability to interpret implied discourse relations in an English source text. Drawing on research into second language pragmatics acquisition, the study employs a think-aloud protocol (TAP) to monitor the participants' translation process. Based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative data analyses, different patterns of inferential processing are identified as regards the interpretation of discourse relations. The results both demonstrate the problematic nature of this aspect of translation competence and highlight the role of classroom instruction in the development of trainee translators' pragmatic abilities. A cross-disciplinary investigation, this study brings an empirical angle to a fledgling area of research, concerned with the application of second language acquisition concepts to translator training. C1 [Alos, Julieta] Qatar Univ, Coll Arts & Sci, Dept English Literature & Linguist, Doha, Qatar. RP Alos, J (reprint author), Qatar Univ, Coll Arts & Sci, Dept English Literature & Linguist, Doha, Qatar. EM julieta.alos@qu.edu.qa CR Alves F., 2003, TRIANGULATING TRANSL, P69 Alves F, 2003, TRIANGULATING TRANSL Alves F, 2013, TARGET-NETH, V25, P107, DOI 10.1075/target.25.1.09alv Baker M., 2011, OTHER WORDS COURSEBO Blakemore Diane, 1992, UNDERSTANDING UTTERA Blakemore D., 2002, RELEVANCE LINGUISTIC Blass Regina, 1990, RELEVANCE RELATIONS Colina S., 2003, IVORY TOWER RETHINKI, P29 Dimitrova BE, 2005, BENJAMIN TRANSL LIB, V64, P1 Dong DH, 2010, INTERPRET TRANSL TRA, V4, P47 [Anonymous], 2006, APPROACHES DISCOURSE Fraser Bruce, 1996, PRAGMATICS, V6, P167 FRASER B, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P383, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V Galan-Manas A, 2010, INTERPRET TRANSL TRA, V4, P197 Gile D., 2009, BASIC CONCEPTS MODEL Gopferich S., 2011, COGNITIVE EXPLORATIO Hansen G., 2003, TRIANGULATING TRANSL, P25 Bardovi Harlig K., 1999, LANG LEARN, V49, P677, DOI [10.1111/lang.1999.49.issue-4, DOI 10.1111/LANG.1999.49.ISSUE-4] Hatim B., 1990, DISCOURSE TRANSLATOR Hatim B., 1997, COMMUNICATION CULTUR IELTS, IELTS BAND SCOR Jensen A, 2000, BENJAMIN TRANSL LIB, V39, P105 Kasper G, 2001, APPL LINGUIST, V22, P502, DOI 10.1093/applin/22.4.502 Kasper G., 1997, COMMUNICATION STRATE, P1 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kelly D., 2005, TRANSLATION PRACTICE, V10 Khalil E., 2000, GROUNDING ENGLISH AR Knott A, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V30, P135, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00023-X Leinonen E, 2003, LINGUISTICS, V41, P407, DOI 10.1515/ling.2003.014 Lewis DM, 2006, STUD PRAGMAT, V1, P43 Lonsdale A. B., 1996, DIDACTICS TRANSLATIO, V3 Lorscher W, 2005, META, V50, P597 Mann W, 1988, TEXT, V8, P243 Noveck N., 2004, EXPT PRAGMATICS [Anonymous], 2009, LANGUAGES CULTURES, DOI DOI 10.1556/ACR.10.2009.2.3 Pym A, 2003, META, V48, P481 Ryding K. C., 2005, REFERENCE GRAMMAR MO Saeed A. T., 2006, INT J BILING EDUC BI, V9, P19, DOI [10.1080/13670050608668628, DOI 10.1080/13670050608668628] Sanders TJM, 2000, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V29, P37, DOI 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3 Schaffner C. H., 2002, ROLE DISCOURSE ANAL Schmidt R., 1995, ATTENTION AWARENESS, P1 Snell-Hornby Mary, 1988, TRANSLATION STUDIES Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Taboada M, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P567, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010 Taguchi N., 2012, CONTEXT INDIVIDUAL D Tirkkonen-Condit S, 2005, META, V50, P405 Tirkkonen-Condit S., 2000, TAPPING MAPPING PROC, P123, DOI DOI 10.1075/BTL.37.13TIR Trosborg A., 1997, TEXT TYPOLOGY TRANSL NR 48 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 12 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 1750-399X EI 1757-0417 J9 INTERPRET TRANSL TRA JI Interpret. Transl. Train. PD SEP 2 PY 2015 VL 9 IS 3 BP 287 EP 305 DI 10.1080/1750399X.2015.1100398 PG 19 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CY2YD UT WOS:000366273200002 ER PT J AU Waillet, NV Roskam, I Possoz, C AF Waillet, Nastasya van der Straten Roskam, Isabelle Possoz, Cecile TI On the epistemological features promoted by 'Philosophy for Children' and their psychological advantages when incorporated into RE SO BRITISH JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE Philosophy for Children; beliefs; psychology; epistemology ID IDENTITY FORMATION; ADOLESCENCE; FRAMEWORK; EDUCATION; COGNITION; RELIGION; BELIEFS; VALUES AB This article presents the epistemological paradigm in which Philosophy for Children (P4C) is embedded and the personal epistemological positions that are promoted by P4C, in order to address the concern that P4C might induce relativism in pupils. On the basis of theoretical considerations and empirical results, it is shown that P4C does not promote absolutism or relativism, either in its premises or in pupils' personal epistemology. Rather, this method is related to a socio-constructivist and pragmatic paradigm and it promotes an evaluativist position. The relevance of promoting evaluativism (rather that absolutism or relativism) during RE lessons in pupils is then examined through a psychological perspective. The conclusion is that it is worth integrating P4C in RE because it stimulates an evaluativist perspective that is beneficial in terms of both personal need for meaning and social cohesion. C1 [Waillet, Nastasya van der Straten; Roskam, Isabelle] Catholic Univ Louvain, Psychol Sci Res Inst, Louvain, Belgium. [Possoz, Cecile] Catholic Univ Louvain, Relig Spiritual Cultures & Soc Inst, Louvain, Belgium. RP Waillet, NV (reprint author), Catholic Univ Louvain, Psychol Sci Res Inst, Louvain, Belgium. EM nastasya.vanderstraten@uclouvain.be CR Bleazby J, 2011, EDUC PHILOS THEORY, V43, P453, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00567.x BOYES MC, 1992, J YOUTH ADOLESCENCE, V21, P277, DOI 10.1007/BF01537019 Burke BL, 2010, PERS SOC PSYCHOL REV, V14, P155, DOI 10.1177/1088868309352321 Chandler MJ, 2002, PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BELIEFS ABOUT KNOWLEDGE KNOWING, P145 Cooling T, 2012, J BELIEFS VALUES, V33, P169, DOI 10.1080/13617672.2012.694060 Daniel Marie-France, 1997, PHILOS ENFANTS MODEL Daniel Marie-France, 2005, PHILOS ENFANTS MODEL, P25 Daniel Marie-France, 2012, CHILDHOOD PHILOS, V8, P115 Desrochers Lisa, 2011, COMMUNAUTE RECHERCHE, P67 Dewey John, 1978, MIDDLE WORKS 1899 19, V6 Erikson E. H., 1968, IDENTITY YOUTH CRISI Erricker C, 2010, RELIG ED CONCEPTUAL Ferris Abbott L., 2002, J HAPPINESS STUD, V3, P199, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1020684404438 Feucht F. C., 2010, PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOG, P55, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511691904, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511691904] Gagnon Mathieu, 2011, COMMUNAUTE RECHERCHE, P267 Gottlieb E, 2007, J LEARN SCI, V16, P5, DOI 10.1207/s15327809jls1601_2 Landau Mark, 2009, HDB PREJUDICE STEREO, P309 Gregory Maughn, 2004, INT J APPL PHILOS, V18, P163, DOI [10.5840/ijap20041829, DOI 10.5840/IJAP20041829] Gregory M, 2011, J PHILOS EDUC, V45, P199, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2011.00795.x Habermas, 2006, EUR J PHILOS, V14, P1, DOI DOI 10.1111/EJOP.2006.14.ISSUE-1 Haerle Florian C., 2006, THESIS C VONOSSIETZK Haerle F. C., 2008, KNOWING KNOWLEDGE BE, P151, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6596-5 Hampshire County Council, 2011, LIVING DIFFERENCE RE Hannam P, 2012, PHILOSOPHY FOR CHILDREN THROUGH THE SECONDARY CURRICULUM, P127 Herriot P., 2007, RELIG FUNDAMENTALISM Hill L, 2000, J TEACH EDUC, V51, P50, DOI 10.1177/002248710005100106 Hofer B., 2002, PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOG Hofer BK, 2002, PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BELIEFS ABOUT KNOWLEDGE KNOWING, P3 [Anonymous], 2008, KNOWING KNOWLEDGE BE, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6596-5_1 Hofer BK, 1997, REV EDUC RES, V67, P88, DOI 10.2307/1170620 Hogg MA, 2010, PERS SOC PSYCHOL REV, V14, P72, DOI 10.1177/1088868309349692 Honderich T., 1995, OXFORD COMPANION PHI Iversen G. Y., 2009, HOVERING FACE DEEP, P117 Iversen Gertrud Yde, 2009, HOVERING FACE DEEP Jackson R., 2003, INT PERSPECTIVES CIT Jorgensen Henrik Vestergaard, 2009, HOVERING FACE DEEP, P13 Kennedy N, 2011, J PHILOS EDUC, V45, P265, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2011.00793.x Kinnvall C, 2004, POLIT PSYCHOL, V25, P741, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00396.x Knight Sue, 2013, ED PHILOS THEORY Krettenauer T, 2004, INT J BEHAV DEV, V28, P461, DOI 10.1080/01650250444000180 Krettenauer T, 2005, J YOUTH ADOLESCENCE, V34, P185, DOI 10.1007/s10964-005-4300-9 Kuhn D, 2000, COGNITIVE DEV, V15, P309, DOI 10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00030-7 Kuhn D, 2002, PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BELIEFS ABOUT KNOWLEDGE KNOWING, P121 Kuhn DN, 2011, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V48, P26, DOI 10.1080/01638531003653344 Kuhn D, 2009, CHILD DEV PERSPECT, V3, P112 Leleux C., 2005, PHILOS ENFANTS MODEL, P117 Lipman M., 2003, THINKING ED, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511840272, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511840272] Lipman M., 1980, PHILOS CLASSROOM Loobuyck P, 2011, BRIT J RELIG EDUC, V33, P17, DOI 10.1080/01416200.2011.523517 Lyle S, 2008, LANG EDUC-UK, V22, P222, DOI 10.2167/le778.0 MARCIA JE, 1966, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V3, P551, DOI 10.1037/h0023281 Martens E., 2009, HOVERING FACE DEEP, P97 Meyer Tania, 2010, THESIS U S AUSTR ADE Muis KR, 2006, EDUC PSYCHOL REV, V18, P3, DOI 10.1007/s10648-006-9003-6 Perry W. G., 1970, FORMS INTELLECTUAL E Piaget Jean, 1955, PROBLEME STADES PSYC, P33 Piaget J., 1970, CARMICHAELS MANUAL C, P703 Buttner Gerhard, 2009, HOVERING FACE DEEP, P177 SOLOMON S, 1991, ADV EXP SOC PSYCHOL, V24, P93, DOI 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60328-7 Taylor M, 2006, TERROR POLIT VIOLENC, V18, P585, DOI 10.1080/09546550600897413 Turiel Elliot, 2000, IMAGINING IMPOSSIBLE, P269, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511571381.011 Rothschild Zachary K., 2010, PERSONALITY SOCIAL P, V14, P84, DOI [10.1177/1088868309351165, DOI 10.1177/1088868309351165] Vygotski L., 1934, PENSEE LANGAGE van der Straten Waillet Nastasya, 2012, EPISTEMOLOGICA UNPUB Wainryb C, 2001, DEV PSYCHOL, V37, P373, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.37.3.373 Waterman A. S., 2007, IDENTITY INT J THEOR, V7, P289, DOI [DOI 10.1080/15283480701600769, 10.1080/15283480701600769] Wright Jennifer Cole, 2012, PHILOS PSYCHOL, V26, P336 Ysseldyk R, 2010, PERS SOC PSYCHOL REV, V14, P60, DOI 10.1177/1088868309349693 NR 68 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 3 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0141-6200 EI 1740-7931 J9 BRIT J RELIG EDUC JI Brit. J. Relig. Educ. PD SEP 2 PY 2015 VL 37 IS 3 BP 273 EP 292 DI 10.1080/01416200.2014.937795 PG 20 WC Education & Educational Research; Religion SC Education & Educational Research; Religion GA CQ9DE UT WOS:000360910400005 ER PT J AU Adamczyk, M AF Adamczyk, Magdalena TI DO HEDGES ALWAYS HEDGE? ON NON-CANONICAL MULTIFUNCTIONALITY OF JAKBY IN POLISH SO PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Hedges; Pragmatic markers; (Non-)propositional meaning; (Non-)canonical use of language ID CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS; DISCOURSE MARKERS; ENGLISH; ARTICLES AB One of the canonical uses of jakby in Polish is that of the Lakoffian hedge, which modifies the propositional content of an utterance by pointing to its fuzziness, inexactitude or approximation. In conversational speech the word is frequently put to excessive use, which appears to significantly deviate from the prescribed one, and as such deserves closer attention. The aim of the present study, which makes use of corpus linguistics tools to collect naturally-occurring data and discourse analysis framework to manually examine them, is twofold. Initially, it sets out to examine the linguistic contexts of jakby, which are assumed to furnish valuable guidelines for sifting out the prototypical uses of the word from the innovative ones. Next, the focus shifts onto indentifying context-sensitive functions of the latter in highly diversified stretches of discourse. The research findings demonstrate that the cotextual settings of the non-canonical jakby exhibit a number of distinctive characteristics, such as frequent co-occurrence of the word with pragmatic markers, reflexive discourse and unfilled pauses, all indicative of its relatively tenuous link with the neighbouring portions of text. As regards the functions of the unconventional jakby, the word emerges as a pragmatically multifunctional yet no longer hedging device, capable of, among others, facilitating floor-holding/-grabbing, helping to plan discourse, marking register clash and introducing elaboration on prior thought. Rich in pragmatic functions and syntactically more detached from the adjacent textual material than its canonical base, the investigated jakby appears to fit into the category of propositionally empty yet strategically salient pragmatic markers. C1 [Adamczyk, Magdalena] Univ Zielona Gora, Inst Modern Languages, Dept English, Zielona Gora, Poland. RP Adamczyk, M (reprint author), Univ Zielona Gora, Inst Modern Languages, Dept English, Zielona Gora, Poland. EM m.adamczyk@wh.uz.zgora.pl CR Abdollahzadeh E, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P288, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019 Aijmer K., 2002, STUDIES CORPUS LINGU, V10 Behnam Biook, 2012, ENGLISH LANGUAGE LIT, V2, P20 BLUMKULKA S, 1985, THEOR LINGUIST, V12, P213 Brinton L. J., 1996, TOPICS ENGLISH LINGU, V19 Brown Penelope, 1978, CAMBRIDGE PAPERS SOC, V8, P56 Caffi C, 2007, STUD PRAGMAT, V4, P1 Caffi C, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P881, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8 Channell Joanna, 1994, DESCRIBING ENGLISH L Channell Joanna, 1990, WRIT COMMUN, V3, P95 Clemen Gudrun, 1997, RES TEXT THEORY, V24, P235 Defrancq B, 2010, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V15, P183, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.15.2.03def Diewald Gabriele, 2006, ROMANISTISCHE LINGUI, V7, P295 Duszak Anna, 1994, LANGUAGE COMPUTERS S, V21, P291 Fetzer A, 2010, STUD PRAGMAT, V9, P49 [Anonymous], 2006, STUDIES PRAGMATICS FLOWERDEW J, 1991, J PRAGMATICS, V15, P253, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(91)90013-N Fraser Bruce, 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P187 FRASER B, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P383, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V Hansen Maj-Britt Mosegaard, 1998, PRAGMATICS NEW SERIE, V53 Holmes Janet, 1984, TE REO, V27, P47 Holmes Janet, 1982, RELC J, V13, P9, DOI 10.1177/003368828201300202 Hu GW, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2795, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007 Hubler Axel, 1983, PRAGMATICS 4, V6 Hyland K., 1998, PRAGMATICS NEW SERIE, V54 Itakura H, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V45, P131, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.003 Jalilifar A, 2012, DISCOURSE COMMUN, V6, P135, DOI 10.1177/1750481311434763 Lakoff George, 1987, WOMEN FIRE DANGEROUS Lakoff George, 1982, LINGUISTIC AGENCY A, V96 Lakoff George, 1986, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V22, P152 Lakoff G., 1972, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V8, P183 Schroder Hartmut, 1997, RES TEXT THEORY, V24, P3 Mauranen Anna, 2004, PRAGMATICS BEYOND, V120, P173 Mclaren-Hankin Y, 2008, DISCOURSE STUD, V10, P635, DOI 10.1177/1461445608094216 Meyer Paul G., 1997, RES TEXT THEORY, V24, P21 Miodek Jan, 1996, Z PRAC I FILOLOGII P Miskovic-Lukovic Mirjana, 2006, SEMANTIKA PRAGMATIKA Mortelmans T, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P2150, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.011 MYERS G, 1989, APPL LINGUIST, V10, P1, DOI 10.1093/applin/10.1.1 Nikula Tarja, 1997, RES TEXT THEORY, V24, P188 Pezik Piotr, 2012, NARODOWY KORPUS JEZY, P272 Cabanes PP, 2007, REV ESP LINGUIST APL, V20, P139 Bosk Charles, 1982, ADV DISCOURSE PROCES, V8, P83 REDEKER G, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P367, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90095-U Heider [Rosch] Eleanor, 1971, INTERNAL STRUC UNPUB Schegloff Emanuel A., 2004, LECT REPAIR CATEGO B, V244b/266 Schourup L, 1999, LINGUA, V107, P227, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 Zimmer Dagmar, 1997, RES TEXT THEORY, V24, P249 Sidnell Jack, 2010, LANGUAGE SOC Tchimarova IK, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1143, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.003 Varttala Teppo, 1999, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V18, P177, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00007-6 Vass Holly, 2004, IBERICA, V7, P125 Weinreich Uriel, 1966, UNIVERSALS LANG, P142 Wierzbicka Anna, 1991, TRENDS LINGUISTICS S, V53 Yang YL, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V50, P23, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008 ZADEH LA, 1971, INFORM SCIENCES, V3, P159, DOI 10.1016/S0020-0255(71)80004-X ZADEH LA, 1965, INFORM CONTROL, V8, P338, DOI 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X Zuck Joyce G., 1985, BEADS BRACELET DO WE, P172 [Anonymous], 2013, SLOWNIK JEZYKA POLSK Szymczak Mieczyslaw, 1978, SLOWNIK JEZYKA POLSK Cutting J, 2007, VAGUE LANGUAGE EXPLORED, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230627420 NR 61 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 3 PU INT PRAGMATICS ASSOC- IPRA PI ANTWERP PA UNIV ANTWERP, STADSCAMPUS (S D 222)PRINSSTRAAT 13, ANTWERP, B-2000, BELGIUM SN 1018-2101 J9 PRAGMATICS JI Pragmatics PD SEP PY 2015 VL 25 IS 3 BP 321 EP 344 PG 24 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DF0IV UT WOS:000371023300001 ER PT J AU Kadar, DZ Paternoster, A AF Kadar, Daniel Z. Paternoster, Annick TI HISTORICITY IN METAPRAGMATICS-A STUDY ON 'DISCERNMENT' IN ITALIAN METADISCOURSE SO PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Metapragmatics; Self-reflexivity; Historicity; 'Discernment'; Italian ID POLITENESS; JAPANESE; FACE AB The present paper contributes to metapragmatics, by examining the question of how historicity influences the validity of certain modern metaterms that are accepted as 'neutral' and 'scientific' in pragmatics. We argue that it is fundamental to explore the history and development of such metaterms, and also to study their historically situated meanings, in order to increase the self-reflexivity and rigour of analyses. We analyse the notion of 'discernment' as a case study, and we will show that the way in which the Italian equivalent of this term (discernere) - which supposedly influenced historical English understandings of 'discernment' as well - is used in historical Italian metadiscourses contradicts the modern application of this metaterm. C1 [Kadar, Daniel Z.] Univ Huddersfield, English Language & Linguist, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, W Yorkshire, England. [Paternoster, Annick] Univ Svizzera Italiana, ISI, CH-6904 Lugano, Switzerland. RP Kadar, DZ (reprint author), Univ Huddersfield, English Language & Linguist, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, W Yorkshire, England. EM d.z.kadar@hud.ac.uk; annick.paternoster@usi.ch FU Swiss National Research Foundation [100012_153031] FX Annick Paternoster's research has been carried out within the project The Reasons for Politeness. The Birth of Contemporary Politeness in the Behavioural Treatises of 19th Century Italy, funded by the Swiss National Research Foundation (project no. 100012_153031). CR Bax Marcel, 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V8, P483 Blum-Kulka Shoshana, 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P196 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Burke Peter, 1995, FORTUNES COURTIER Busse Beatrix, 2012, INVESTIGATIONS METAC Castiglione Baldassarre, 2002, IL CORTIGIANO Castiglione Baldessar, 2014, COURTYER COUNT BALDE Castiglione Baldassarre, 2002, BOOK COURTIER Zolli Paolo, 1999, NUOVO ETIMOLOGICO DI Culpeper Jonathan, 2015, J HIST PRAGMATICS Jonathan Culpeper, 2011, IMPOLITENESS USING L Culpeper Jonathan, 2013, NEGLECTED W 1 ORDER Eden K, 1997, HERMENEUTICS RHETORI Quondam A, 1993, CIVIL CONVERSAZIONE Guazzo Stefano, 2014, CIUILE CONUERSATION Obana Yasuko, 2011, POLITENESS E ASIA, P147 Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.009 HILL B, 1986, J PRAGMATICS, V10, P347, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(86)90006-8 Ide Sachiko, 1992, MOSAIC LANGUAGE ESSA, P298 Ide S., 1989, MULTILINGUA, V2, P223, DOI 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223 Jucker Andreas H, 2010, HIST IMPOLITENESS, P175 Kadar DZ, 2013, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V9, P133, DOI 10.1515/pr-2013-0007 Kadar DZ, 2015, J PRAGMATICS, V77, P41, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.011 Kadar Daniel Z, 2015, IMPOLITENESS METAPRA Kadar DZ, 2013, UNDERSTANDING POLITENESS, P1 Kadar Daniel Z., 2010, HIST IMPOLITENESS, P9 Kadar DZ, 2013, RELATIONAL RITUALS AND COMMUNICATION: RITUAL INTERACTION IN GROUPS, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230393059 Kadar Daniel Z, 2015, J HIST PRAGMATICS Kadar Daniel Z, 2015, J POLITENESS RES 10 Kadar Daniel Z, 2015, RITUAL IMPOLITENESS Lucy John A., 1993, REFLEXIVE LANGUAGE R, P9, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511621031.003 Mazzon Gabriella, 2010, HIST PRAGMATICS, P351 Mey Jacob L., 1985, WHOSE LANGUAGE STUDY Moreno MC, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P15, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00074-6 ODriscoll J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P1, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)00069-X Okamoto S., 1999, PRAGMATICS, V9, P51 Papasogli B, 2013, RIV STOR LETT RELIG, V49, P3 Paternoster Annick, 2015, CORTESI SCORTESI PER Paternoster Annick, 2010, HIST IMPOLITENESS, P201 Patrizi Giorgio, 2003, DIZIONARIO BIOGRAFIC, V60 Pizziconi Barbara, 2011, POLITENESS E ASIA, P45 Pizziconi B, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1471, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00200-X Defour Tine, 2012, INVESTIGATIONS METAC, P223 Usami M., 2002, DISCOURSE POLITENESS Verschueren Jef, 2012, INVESTIGATIONS METAC, P111 Watts Richard, 1999, PRAGMATICS, V9, P5 Wierzbicka A, 2003, MOUTON TXB, P1 Zhu H., 2014, EXPLORING INTERCULTU NR 48 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU INT PRAGMATICS ASSOC- IPRA PI ANTWERP PA UNIV ANTWERP, STADSCAMPUS (S D 222)PRINSSTRAAT 13, ANTWERP, B-2000, BELGIUM SN 1018-2101 J9 PRAGMATICS JI Pragmatics PD SEP PY 2015 VL 25 IS 3 BP 369 EP 391 PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DF0IV UT WOS:000371023300003 ER PT J AU Martinez, IMP Pertejo, PN AF Palacios Martinez, Ignacio M. Nunez Pertejo, Paloma TI "GO UP TO MISS THINGY". "HE'S PROBABLY LIKE A WHATSIT OR SOMETHING". PLACEHOLDERS IN FOCUS. THE DIFFERENCES IN USE BETWEEN TEENAGERS AND ADULTS IN SPOKEN ENGLISH SO PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Vague language; Teen talk; Placeholders; General reference nouns; Spoken English ID PRAGMATIC MARKERS; BRITISH; CORPUS; LANGUAGE; SPEECH; INTENSIFIERS; QUOTATIVES; DISCOURSE; COOL AB In this paper we focus on some of the so-called 'placeholders', words that are almost empty semantically, used with multiple functions in communication and whose meaning has to be inferred by the listener (Jucker et al. 2003: 1749). This category of placeholders includes terms such as thing, thingy, stuff, thingummybob, thingybob and whatsit. We firstly identify the most common words in this category in the language of British adults and teenagers and we then consider them from a syntactic, a semantic and a pragmatic perspective. Our findings suggest that (i) the importance of these words lies in their pragmatic rather than in their semantic functions; (ii) contrary to what we expected, placeholders are not more common, statistically speaking, in the language of the younger generations than in that of adults; (iii) adults and teenagers share some of the uses of these terms; (iv) in the language of teenagers these dummy words are used in a wider range of contexts and situations. We finally contend that these lexical items show properties typical of pragmatic markers, since they help in the organisation of discourse, they are sometimes used as devices to hold or cede the floor and they also function interpersonally by promoting cooperation between the participants in the conversation. C1 [Palacios Martinez, Ignacio M.; Nunez Pertejo, Paloma] Univ Santiago Compostela, Dept Filol Inglesa & Alemana, Avda Alfonso Castelao S-N, Santiago De Compostela 15782, Spain. RP Martinez, IMP (reprint author), Univ Santiago Compostela, Dept Filol Inglesa & Alemana, Avda Alfonso Castelao S-N, Santiago De Compostela 15782, Spain. EM ignacio.palacios@usc.es; pnunez.pertejo@usc.es RI Palacios Martinez, Ignacio/J-9770-2014 OI Palacios Martinez, Ignacio/0000-0001-9202-9190 FU Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness; European Regional Development Fund [FFI 2011-26693-C02-01, FFI2012-31450, FFI2014-51873-REDT]; Directorate General for Scientific and Technological Promotion of the Regional Government of Galicia [GPC2014/004, R2014/016] FX A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea held at the University of Split from 18th to 21st September, 2013. We would like to thank the members of the audience for useful suggestions. The research reported on in this article was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the European Regional Development Fund (grants FFI 2011-26693-C02-01, FFI2012-31450 and FFI2014-51873-REDT), and by the Directorate General for Scientific and Technological Promotion of the Regional Government of Galicia (grants GPC2014/004 and R2014/016). These grants are hereby gratefully acknowledged. CR Aijmer Karin, 1985, 8 SCAND C LING, P66 Aijmer K, 2013, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMATIC MARKERS: A VARIATIONAL PRAGMATIC APPROACH, P1 Andersen Gisle, 2013, ICAME 34 C 22 26 MAY Andersen Gisele, 2001, PRAGMATIC MARKERS SO Bengt Nordberg, 1986, NORDIC LANGUAGES MOD, P256 Brinton Laurel, 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN Buchstaller I, 2010, LANG VAR CHANGE, V22, P191, DOI 10.1017/S0954394510000098 Buchstaller I, 2012, CONV EVI LANG COMMUN, V15, pXI Carter R., 2006, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Channell J., 1994, VAGUE LANGUAGE Cheshire Jenny, 2011, J SOCIOLING, V15, P1511 Cheshire J, 2007, J SOCIOLING, V11, P155, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00317.x Crystal D., 1975, ADV CONVERSATIONAL E Crystal David, 1995, ELT J, V79.2, P107 Dailey-O'Cain Jennifer, 2000, J SOCIOLING, V4, P60, DOI DOI 10.1111/1467-9481.00103 Deese James, 1974, HUMAN COMMUNICATION, P13 Douglas Biber, 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR WRIT Drave Neil, 2000, NEW FRONTIERS CORPUS, P25 Dubois Sylvie, 1992, LANG VAR CHANGE, V4.2, P163 ECKERT P, 1988, LANG SOC, V17, P183 Erman Britt, 1995, 15 SCAND C LING OSL, P136 Erman B, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1337, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00066-7 Fox BA, 2010, DISCOURSE STUD, V12, P715, DOI 10.1177/1461445610381862 Fox S, 2012, CONV EVI LANG COMMUN, V15, P231 FRONEK J, 1982, LINGUISTICS, V20, P633, DOI 10.1515/ling.1982.20.9-10.633 Rodriguez Gonzalez Felix, 2002, LENGUAJE JOVENES Huddleston Rodney, 2002, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Jefferson G., 1990, INTERACTION COMPETEN, P63 Jucker Andreas, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1737 Kaye Alan S., 1990, ENGL TODAY, V6.1, P70, DOI 10.1017/S0266078400004569 KERSWILL Peter, 1996, LANG VAR CHANGE, V8, P177, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0954394500001137 Koester A, 2007, VAGUE LANGUAGE EXPLORED, P40 Leech Geoffrey, 1995, VERB CONT ENGLISH TH, P183 Louro CR, 2013, ENGL WORLD-WIDE, V34, P48, DOI 10.1075/eww.34.1.03rod Macaulay Ronald, 1985, VARIETIES ENGLISH WO, P101 Meyerhoff Miriam, 1992, WORKING PAPERS LANGU, V2.1, P59 Okeeffe A, 2004, LANG COMPUT, P1 Maryann Overstreet, 1997, J ENGL LINGUIST, V25, P250, DOI 10.1177/007542429702500307 Overstreet M, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1845, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.015 Overstreet Maryann, 2011, HDB PRAGMATICS, V5, P293 Maryann Overstreet, 1999, WHALES CANDLELIGHT S Martinez IMP, 2013, DISCOURSE STUD, V15, P439, DOI 10.1177/1461445613482431 Martinez IMP, 2012, TEXT TALK, V32, P773, DOI 10.1515/text-2012-0036 Martinez IMP, 2011, J ENGL LINGUIST, V39, P4, DOI 10.1177/0075424210366905 Martinez IMP, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2452, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.011 Martinez IMP, 2011, ATLANTIS-SPAIN, V33, P105 Paradis Carita, 2003, P 8 C ENGL STUD, P71 Peirce Charles S., 2002, DICT PHILOS PSYCHOL, VII Rickford JR, 2007, AM SPEECH, V82, P3, DOI 10.1215/00031283-2007-001 Suzanne Romaine, 1984, LANGUAGE CHILDREN AD Simpsom Rita C., 2004, STUDIES CORPUS LINGU, V16, P37 Stenstrom A., 2002, TRENDS TEENAGE TALK Stenstrom Anna-Brita, 2006, SPAN CONTEXT, V3.1, P115, DOI DOI 10.1075/SIC.3.1.08STE Stenstrom Anna-Brita, 2005, STUDIES CELEBRATION, P279 Stenstrom AB, 2014, PALGRAVE PIVOT, P1, DOI 10.1057/9781137430380 Tagliamonte Sali, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P896, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.PRAGMA.2005.02.017 Tagliamonte Sali, 1999, J SOCIOLING, V3.2, P147, DOI 10.1111/1467-9481.00070 Tagliamonte S, 2005, AM SPEECH, V80, P280, DOI 10.1215/00031283-80-3-280 Tagliamonte SA, 2008, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V12, P361, DOI 10.1017/S1360674308002669 Torgersen EN, 2011, CORPUS LINGUIST LING, V7, P93, DOI 10.1515/CLLT.2011.005 WARD G, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P205, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90028-N Winter Joanne, 2000, P 1999 C AUSTR LING, P1 Cutting J, 2007, VAGUE LANGUAGE EXPLORED, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230627420 NR 63 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 4 PU INT PRAGMATICS ASSOC- IPRA PI ANTWERP PA UNIV ANTWERP, STADSCAMPUS (S D 222)PRINSSTRAAT 13, ANTWERP, B-2000, BELGIUM SN 1018-2101 J9 PRAGMATICS JI Pragmatics PD SEP PY 2015 VL 25 IS 3 BP 425 EP 451 PG 27 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DF0IV UT WOS:000371023300005 ER PT J AU Bauer, M Bade, N Beck, S Dorge, C von Eckartsberg, B Niefer, J Ottschofski, S Zirker, A AF Bauer, Matthias Bade, Nadine Beck, Sigrid Doerge, Carmen von Eckartsberg, Burkhard Niefer, Janina Ottschofski, Saskia Zirker, Angelika TI Emily Dickinson's "My life had stood a loaded gun" - An interdisciplinary analysis SO JOURNAL OF LITERARY SEMANTICS LA English DT Article DE compositional semantics; methodology; literary analysis AB In this article we analyse Emily Dickinson's poem "My life had stood a loaded gun" using a specific methodology that combines linguistic and literary theory. The first step is a textual analysis with the methods of compositional semantics. The second step is a literary analysis enriching the literal meaning with information about the wider context of the poem. The division of these two steps reflects the distinction between an objective interpretation of the text based solely on the rules of grammar and a subjective reading which draws on various external fields of reference. In combining both steps, we show why some interpretations of the poem are more plausible than others and how different lines of interpretation are related to each other. However, it is not our aim to provide one definite interpretation of the poem or to favour one reading over the others. Rather, we wish to show how Dickinson's use of specific grammatical mechanisms leads to a number of interpretations which are more or less plausible. That is, we identify plausible interpretations on the basis of grammatical evidence, and we relate these to each other by pointing at instances in the poem where a divergence of interpretations is possible (]cases of ambiguity, for example). This method is helpful for literary studies since formal linguistics helps produce a systematic and non-arbitrary analysis, and it is helpful for linguistic analysis since it uncovers which violations of grammar do or do not disturb the interpretative process, and which kind of structures need pragmatic enrichment. C1 [Bauer, Matthias; Bade, Nadine; Beck, Sigrid; Doerge, Carmen; von Eckartsberg, Burkhard; Niefer, Janina; Ottschofski, Saskia; Zirker, Angelika] Univ Tubingen, Tubingen, Germany. RP Ottschofski, S (reprint author), Univ Tubingen, Tubingen, Germany. EM saskia.ottschofski@uni-tuebingen.de CR Bauer Matthias, 2006, BIBELDICHTUTZG, P373 Bauer Matthias, 2009, DIMENSIONEN ZWEITSPR, P289 Bauer M, 2010, LILI, V40, P98 Bauer M, 2014, CURR RES SEMANT PRAG, V32, P250, DOI 10.1163/9789004279377_012 Beck Sigrid, 2006, P SINN BEDEUTUNG, V10, P43 Sauerland Uli, 2000, NAT LANG SEMANT, V8, P349, DOI 10.1023/A:1011240827230 Crane Stephen, 1995, FLANAGAN HIS SHORT F Franklin R. W., 1986, MASTER LETT E DICKIN Franklin R. W., 1998, POEMS E DICKINSON Freeman Margaret, 1998, E DICKINSON HDB, P258 Frege G., 1892, Z PHILOS PHILOS KRIT, V100, P25 Hagenbuchle Roland, 1984, MODES INTERPRETATION, P213 Heim I., 1998, SEMANTICS GENERATIVE Herbert G., 2007, ENGLISH POEMS G HERB Horace, 2005, ARS POETICA Horace, 2004, LOEB CLASSICAL LIB, V33 Johnson Thomas H., 1961, COMPLETE POEMS E DIC Johnson T. H., 1955, POEMS E DICKINSON Jungel Eberhard, 1993, TOD Kratzer Angelika, 1991, INT HDB CONT RES, P639 LEITER Sharon, 2007, CRITICAL COMPANION E Link Godehard, 1991, INT HDB ZEITGENOSSIS, P418 Miller Cristanne, 1987, E DICKINSON POETS GR Montague Richard, 1973, APPROACHES NATURAL L, P221, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-94-010-2506-5_10 Ouida, 1971, UNDER 2 FLAGS, V1 Ovid, 1980, METAMORPHOSES OVID Porter David T., 1981, DICKINSON MODERN IDI Shakespeare William, 2000, SONNETS Sparks Eliza Kay, 2011, CHRONOLOGICAL LIST C Spenser Edmund, 1958, THE MINOR POEMS, V2 von Stechow Arnim, 2008, EXPRESSION TIME LANG, P129 Webster Noah, 1970, AM DICT ENGLISH LANG, VI Weisbuch Robert, 1975, E DICKINSONS POETRY Wyatt Thomas, 1981, COMPLETE POEMS NR 34 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 0 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0341-7638 EI 1613-3838 J9 J LITERARY SEMANTICS JI J. Lit. Sem. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 44 IS 2 BP 115 EP 140 DI 10.1515/jls-2015-0010 PG 26 WC Language & Linguistics; Literature SC Linguistics; Literature GA CZ1XG UT WOS:000366898600002 ER PT J AU Selmer, SJ Luna, MJ Rye, JA AF Selmer, Sarah J. Luna, Melisa J. Rye, James A. TI Insights Into Teachers' Experiences Implementing Garden-Based Learning: Characterizing the Relationship Between the Teacher and the Curriculum SO TEACHERS COLLEGE RECORD LA English DT Article ID PROFESSIONAL-DEVELOPMENT; KNOWLEDGE; INSTRUCTION; MATHEMATICS AB Background/Context: This study seeks insights into teachers' experiences implementing Garden-Based Learning (GBL) in an elementary school. The breadth of studies supporting the use of GBL in K-8 schools in the United States alongside the paucity of studies specific to teachers' experiences implementing GBL highlights the importance of this work. Purpose: Our study uses Remillard's framework for characterizing and studying teachers' interactions with curriculum materials specifically in the context of GBL. We believe that exploring the dynamic relationship between teachers and a GBL curriculum may help those involved in supporting teachers in implementing GBL to gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of the teacher/GBL curriculum relationship. This research examined teachers' GBL implementation experiences in order to answer the following research question: How do we describe and characterize teachers' interactions with GBL curriculum materials? Research Design: Twenty teachers employed from one elementary school were interviewed using a semistructured task-based protocol resulting in a teacher-created diagram of supports and challenges he/she encountered while implementing GBL over the past year. The diagram was used as a tool to stimulate and access teachers' thinking about these supports and challenges in order to provide insight into the teacher and curricular resources at play when implementing GBL. Findings/Results: Using a grounded theory analysis of each participant's diagram, we characterized each teacher's participatory relationship with GBL. We found 13% of supports and challenges elicited from all teachers had a teaching and learning focus. On an individual level, supports and challenges had a substantial teaching and learning focus for only two teachers. Thirteen teachers were characterized as having a pragmatic focus. Of the seven teachers characterized to have an experiential focus: supports and challenges focused more so on what students were doing for four teachers and more so on what teachers were doing for three teachers. Conclusions/Recommendations: We used Remillard's framework to investigate and characterize the participatory relationship between teachers and the GBL curriculum. The resulting characterizations provide insight for supporting GBL teacher learning contexts and will help guide future research. Based on this study, it is critical that individuals involved in educational change continue trying to understand and develop spaces for teacher learning. These spaces should move beyond traditional professional development focused on teacher participation toward experiences focused on teacher learning within and across their teaching contexts. C1 [Selmer, Sarah J.] W Virginia Univ, Math Educ, Dept Curriculum & Instruct, Morgantown, WV 26506 USA. [Luna, Melisa J.; Rye, James A.] W Virginia Univ, Sci Educ, Dept Curriculum & Instruct, Morgantown, WV 26506 USA. RP Selmer, SJ (reprint author), W Virginia Univ, Math Educ, Dept Curriculum & Instruct, Morgantown, WV 26506 USA. CR Agodini R., 2013, 2 YEARS 3 ELEMENTARY Ball D. L., 1996, EDUC RES, V25, P6, DOI DOI 10.3102/0013189X025009006 Baxter J., 2012, SCI CHILDREN, V50, P42 Blair D, 2009, J ENVIRON EDUC, V40, P15 Borko H, 2004, ED RES, V33, P3, DOI DOI 10.3102/0013189X033008003 BRISCOE C, 1991, SCI EDUC, V75, P185, DOI 10.1002/sce.3730750204 Carroll K., 2009, SCI CHILDREN, V46, P20 Charalambous CY, 2012, J CURRICULUM STUD, V44, P443, DOI 10.1080/00220272.2011.650215 Charmaz K., 2002, HDB INTERVIEW RES CO, P675 Cochran-Smith M, 1999, REV RES EDUC, V24, P249, DOI 10.3102/0091732X024001249 Creswell JW, 2012, QUALITATIVE INQUIRY Darling-Hammond L., 2007, PREPARING TEACHERS C Davis EA, 2009, SCI EDUC, V93, P745, DOI 10.1002/sce.20311 DeMarco L. W., 1999, HORTTECHNOLOGY, V9, P276 Desimone LM, 2007, TEACH COLL REC, V109, P1086 Desimone LM, 2002, EDUC EVAL POLICY AN, V24, P81, DOI 10.3102/01623737024002081 Eick C., 2013, SCI CHILDREN, V50, P61 Estes F., 2013, SCI CHILDREN, V50, P47 Forbes CT, 2010, J RES SCI TEACH, V47, P820, DOI 10.1002/tea.20379 Forbes CT, 2011, SCI EDUC, V95, P927, DOI 10.1002/sce.20444 Forbes CT, 2008, SCI EDUC, V92, P909, DOI 10.1002/sce.20265 Gee James Paul, 2001, REV RES EDUC, V25, P99, DOI DOI 10.3102/0091732X025001099 Gee J. P., 1999, INTRO DISCOURSE ANAL Gee J. P., 2005, INTRO DISCOURSE ANAL Glaser BG, 2009, DISCOVERY GROUNDED T Goldman SR, 2013, COGNITION INSTRUCT, V31, P255, DOI 10.1080/10824669.2013.773217 Gopal J., 2013, SCI CHILDREN, V50, P36 Graham H, 2005, J AM DIET ASSOC, V105, P1797, DOI 10.1016/j.jada.2005.08.034 Greeno J. G., 2003, RES COMPANION PRINCI, P304 Harre R., 1999, POSITIONING THEORY M, P14 Keeley P., 2011, SCI CHILDREN, V48, P24 Lave J., 1991, SITUATED LEARNING LE Lee O., 2012, TEACH COLL REC, V114, P1 McNeill KL, 2008, J RES SCI TEACH, V45, P53, DOI 10.1002/tea.20201 McNeill KL, 2009, SCI EDUC, V93, P233, DOI 10.1002/sce.20294 Morris AK, 2009, J RES MATH EDUC, V40, P491 Moran M., 2013, LANG ARTS, V90, P253 Remillard JT, 2005, REV EDUC RES, V75, P211, DOI 10.3102/00346543075002211 Remillard JT, 1999, CURRICULUM INQ, V29, P315, DOI 10.1111/0362-6784.00130 Roehrig GH, 2007, J RES SCI TEACH, V44, P883, DOI 10.1002/tea.20180 Rye J., 2015, SCI CHILDREN, V52, P158 Rye J.A., 2012, TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL, V44, P58 Schuster D., 2010, SCI CHILDREN, V48, P53 Schwarz CV, 2008, SCI EDUC, V92, P345, DOI 10.1002/sce.20243 Selmer S., 2014, SCI ACTIVITIES, V51, P17 Skelly S. M., 2000, HORTTECHNOLOGY, V10, P229 Spillane JP, 2002, REV EDUC RES, V72, P387, DOI 10.3102/00346543072003387 Strauss Anselm Leonard, 1990, BASICS QUALITATIVE R, V15 White J., 2009, MATH IN THE GARDEN Williams DR, 2013, REV EDUC RES, V83, P211, DOI 10.3102/0034654313475824 NR 50 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 3 PU TEACHERS COLL OF COLUMBIA UNIV PI NEW YORK PA 525 W 120TH ST, NEW YORK, NY 10027 USA SN 0161-4681 EI 1467-9620 J9 TEACH COLL REC JI Teach. Coll. Rec. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 117 IS 9 AR 090302 PG 36 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CV0DZ UT WOS:000363919900002 ER PT J AU Haugh, M Obana, Y AF Haugh, Michael Obana, Yasuko TI Transformative continuations, (dis)affiliation, and accountability in Japanese interaction SO TEXT & TALK LA English DT Article DE joint production; joint utterance; affiliation; alignment; Japanese; interactional pragmatics; transformative continuation ID TALK-IN-INTERACTION; ORGANIZATION; COMPLETION; PARTICIPATION; CONVERSATION; CONSTRUCTION; DISCOURSE; SENTENCE; GRAMMAR; SYNTAX AB Studies of joint productions have often focused on instances where a recipient anticipates through completions what a speaker might be about to say, or through expansion what that speaker could plausibly go on to say. However, recent work suggests that grammatically fitted continuations may also alter or redirect the projected trajectory of a prior speaker's turn or utterance. In this paper, building on this prior work, we focus on cases in Japanese interaction where grammatically fitted continuations of one speaker's turn or utterance by another speaker accomplished through "format tying" (Goodwin and Goodwin 1987) effects some kind of transformation of the action or stance implemented by that prior turn. We term these "transformative continuations," and propose that while they are invariably disaligning, they may nevertheless implement both affiliative and disaffiliative stances. We propose that an analysis of transformative continuations thus leads us to a consideration of both the degree to which participants may orient to these as (dis) affiliative, as well as the ways in which the respective participants may be held accountable for such instances of joint production. C1 [Haugh, Michael] Griffith Univ, Sch Languages & Linguist, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia. [Obana, Yasuko] Kwansei Gakuin Univ, Sch Sci & Technol, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, Japan. RP Haugh, M (reprint author), Griffith Univ, Sch Languages & Linguist, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia. EM m.haugh@griffith.edu.au; yobana@kwansei.ac.jp RI Haugh, Michael/H-4783-2016 OI Haugh, Michael/0000-0003-4870-0850 CR Antaki C, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P151, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)00081-6 Arundale RB, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2078, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 Bolden G. B., 2003, GESTURE, V3, P187, DOI 10.1075/gest.3.2.04bol Clift R, 1999, LANG SOC, V28, P523 Couper-Kuhlen Elizabeth, 2007, PRAGMATICS, V17, P513, DOI DOI 10.1075/PRAG.17.4 Couper-Kuhlen E, 2011, FDN PRAGMATICS, P491 CULPEPER J, 2014, PRAGMATICS ENGLISH L Diaz F, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V26, P525, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00060-7 Du Bois JW, 2014, COGN LINGUIST, V25, P359, DOI 10.1515/cog-2014-0024 Duranti A., 1986, TEXT, V6, P239, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1986.6.3.239 FERRARA K, 1992, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V15, P207 Glenn P. J., 2003, LAUGHTER INTERACTION Goffman Erving, 1979, SEMIOTICA, V25, P1, DOI DOI 10.1515/SEMI.1979 Goodwin Charles, 1987, LANGUAGE GENDER SEX, P200 Goodwin Charles, 1986, TEXT, V6, P283, DOI DOI 10.1515/TEXT.1.1986.6.3.283 Goodwin Charles, 2003, DISCUSSING CONVERSAT, P57 Goodwin C, 2007, DISCOURSE SOC, V18, P53, DOI 10.1177/0957926507069457 Goodwin C, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V46, P8, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003 Goodwin C, 2006, TEXT TALK, V26, P443, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2006.018 Gregoromichelaki Eleni, 2013, PERSPECTIVES LINGUIS, P185 Eleni Gregoromichelaki, 2011, DIALOGUE DISCOURSE, V2, P199 Haugh Michael, 2010, ROLE DATA SEMANTICS, P349 Haugh M., 2012, CAMBRIDGE HDB PRAGMA, P251 Haugh Michael, 2015, PARTICIPATION PUBLIC, P99 Hayashi M, 2004, LANG SOC, V33, P343, DOI 10.1017/S0047404505043023 Hayashi M, 2005, SEMIOTICA, V156, P21 Hayashi Makoto, 2014, USAGE BASED APPROACH, P223 Hayashi M, 1999, HUM STUD, V22, P475, DOI 10.1023/A:1005492027060 Hayashi M., 2003, JOINT UTTERANCE CONS Hayashi M., 1998, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V7, P77 Hayashi Makoto, 2002, LANGUAGE TURN SEQUEN, P81 Hayashi M., 2013, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P167 Hayashi Makoto, 2001, STUDIES INTERACTIONA, P317 Helasvuo ML, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P1315, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.007 Heritage J., 1984, GARFINKEL ETHNOMETHO Heritage J, 2002, LANGUAGE TURN SEQUEN, P196 Holt E., 2013, STUDIES LAUGHTER INT, P69 Holt Elizabeth, 2014, INT C CONV AN ICCA14 Holt E, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1513, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.011 Howes Christine, 2011, DIALOGUE DISCOURSE, V2, P279 Iwasaki Shimako, 2013, UNITS TALK UNITS ACT, P243 Jefferson G., 1979, EVERYDAY LANGUAGE ST, P79 Jefferson Gail, 2004, CONVERSATION ANAL ST, P13 Kempson Ruth, 2013, STUDIES GREEK LINGUI, V33, P107 Kushida Shuya, 2006, SOOGOOKOOI CHITSUJO Lerner Gene, 1992, QUALITATIVE SOCIOLOG, V15, P247, DOI 10.1007/BF00990328 Lerner Gene, 1987, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Lerner GH, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P49, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00051-4 Lerner Gene, 2004, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V37, P154 Lerner GH, 1996, SOC PSYCHOL QUART, V59, P303, DOI 10.2307/2787073 Lerner G.H., 2002, LANGUAGE TURN SEQUEN, P225 Lerner G. H., 1989, W J SPEECH COMMUNICA, V53, P167 LERNER GH, 1991, LANG SOC, V20, P441 Lerner G. H., 1993, TEXT, V13, P213, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1993.13.2.213 Lerner Gene H., 2004, CONVERSATION ANAL ST, P225 Lerner G., 1996, INTERACTION GRAMMAR, P238, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005 Lindstrom Anna, 2013, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P350 Local J, 2005, FIGURE OF SPEECH: A FESTSCHRIFT FOR JOHN LAVER, P263 Luke KK, 2012, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V49, P155, DOI 10.1080/0163853X.2012.664110 Mandelbaum Jenny, 1993, TEXT, V13, P247, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1993.13.2.247 Monzoni CM, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P197, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.002 Mori Junko, 2008, JAPANESE APPL LINGUI, P52 Morita E, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P298, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.004 Nishizaka Aug, 2011, Commun Med, V8, P247 Obana Yasuko, 2015, DIALOGUE DISCOURSE, V6, P1 Ono Tsuyoshi, 1995, ALTERNATIVE LINGUIST Poesio Massimo, 2010, DIALOGUE DISCOURSE, V1, P1 Schenkein J., 1978, STUDIES ORG CONVERSA, P79 Reed BS, 2007, PROSODIC ORIENTATION IN ENGLISH CONVERSATION, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230625273 Richards K., 1999, TEXT, V19, P143, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1999.19.1.143 Robinson JD, 2006, COMMUN MONOGR, V73, P137, DOI 10.1080/03637750600581206 Ruhlemann C., 2007, CONVERSATION CONTEXT Sacks Harvey, 1992, LECT CONVERSATION, V1 Sacks H, 1992, LECT CONVERSATION, VII Sarangi S., 2010, J APPL LINGUISTICS P, V7, P75 Schegloff Emanuel, 2000, 1 EUR INT LING SPA B Schegloff E. A., 1996, INTERACTION GRAMMAR, P52, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 Sidnell J, 2012, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V49, P314, DOI 10.1080/0163853X.2012.654760 Smithson Janet, 1996, TEXT, V16, P251, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1996.16.2.251 Steensig Jakob, 2013, ENCY APPL LINGUISTIC, P944 Stivers Tanya, 2011, MORALITY KNOWLEDGE C, P3, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 Stivers T, 2010, LANG SOC, V39, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0047404509990637 Stivers T, 2008, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V41, P31, DOI 10.1080/08351810701691123 Szatrowski Polly, 2007, GRAMMAR PRAGMATICS I, P313 Szczepek Beatrice, 2000, INLIST INTERACTION L, V21 Tanaka Hiroko, 2001, STUDIES INTERACTIONA, P81 Tholander M., 2002, TEXT, V22, P559, DOI 10.1515/text.2002.022 NR 87 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 5 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1860-7330 EI 1860-7349 J9 TEXT TALK JI Text Talk PD SEP PY 2015 VL 35 IS 5 BP 597 EP 619 DI 10.1515/text-2015-0015 PG 23 WC Communication; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Communication; Linguistics GA CT1NW UT WOS:000362566500002 ER PT J AU Locher, MA AF Locher, Miriam A. TI Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Relational work; Interpersonal pragmatics; Pragmatic turn; Discursive turn; (Im)politeness; Methodology ID RELATIONAL WORK; IDENTITY; IMPOLITENESS; POLITENESS; ISSUES; TALK; FACE AB In light of the fact that politeness research has been on the map since the 1970s, this paper revisits some of the more recent developments. The scope of analysis has been widened from face-maintaining and face-enhancing data to instances of conflictual and face-aggravating behaviour. There is an increase in discussions about appropriate methodological and theoretical approaches to politeness, and we see a tendency to creatively draw on approaches from other fields (such as identity construction research). These trends have made the field an especially vibrant one that is currently witnessing a struggle to (re)define its focus. Two connected issues (clarifying and refining the scope of our research questions and efforts of developing an interdisciplinary approach within interpersonal pragmatics) are particularly discussed in an endeavour to outline potential research paths. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Basel, Dept Sprach & Literaturwissensch, Engl Seminar, CH-4052 Basel, Switzerland. RP Locher, MA (reprint author), Univ Basel, Dept Sprach & Literaturwissensch, Engl Seminar, Nadelberg 6, CH-4052 Basel, Switzerland. EM Miriam.Locher@unibas.ch CR Arundale R. B., 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P137 Arundale RB, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2078, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 Blitvich PGC, 2009, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V5, P273, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2009.014 Blitvich PGC, 2013, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V9, P1, DOI 10.1515/pr-2013-0001 Bousfield D, 2008, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V4, P161, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2008.008 Brown Penelope, 1987, POLITENESS Culpeper J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P349, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 Culpeper Jonathan, 1998, EXPLORING LANGUAGE D, P83 CULPEPER J, 2014, PRAGMATICS ENGLISH L Kadar D. Z., PALGRAVE HDB LINGUIS Jonathan Culpeper, 2011, IMPOLITENESS USING L Kadar D. Z., 2010, HIST IMPOLITENESS Culpeper Jonathan, 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P35, DOI DOI 10.1515/JP1R.2005.1.1.35 Culpeper J, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1545, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2 Culpeper J., 2014, EMOTION AFFECT SENTI, P67 Culpeper J, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1128, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.011 Culpeper J, 2011, J HIST PRAGMAT, V12, P49, DOI 10.1075/jhp.12.1-2.03cul Culpeper J, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P3232, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007 Culpeper J, 2008, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V21, P17 Hall K, 2013, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V9, P123, DOI 10.1515/pr-2013-0006 Haugh M., 2015, IMPOLITENESS IMPLICA Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.009 Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P52, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003 Kadar DZ, 2013, UNDERSTANDING POLITENESS, P1 Lakoff R., 1973, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V9, P292 Langlotz A., 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P167 Langlotz A., 2015, CREATING SOCIAL ORIE Locher M. A., PALGRAVE HDB LINGUIS Langlotz A, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1591, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.002 Langlotz A, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P87, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.014 Leech G., 2014, PRAGMATICS POLITENES Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Locher M. A., 2012, NEW PERSPECTIVES IMP, P36 Locher Miriam A., 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P9, DOI DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2005.1.1.9 Graham Sage L., 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, V6, P1 Locher M. A., 2014, ANGL 2013 KONST P WI, P309 Locher M. A., 2006, ADVICE GIVING AM INT Schnurr S., PALGRAVE HDB LINGUIS Locher Miriam, 2008, B SUISSE LINGUISTIQU, V88, P165 Locher MA, 2008, HANDB APPL LINGUIST, V2, P509 Locher MA, 2008, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V21, P77 Miller ER, 2013, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V9, P75, DOI 10.1515/pr-2013-0004 SILVERMAN D, 1990, SOCIOL HEALTH ILL, V12, P293, DOI 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347251 Spencer-Oatey H, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P639, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004 Spencer-Oatey H, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3565, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.009 NR 45 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 19 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 86 BP 5 EP 10 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.010 PG 6 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CR3TH UT WOS:000361255500002 ER PT J AU Haugh, M AF Haugh, Michael TI Impoliteness and taking offence in initial interactions SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Impoliteness; Pragmatic act; Activity type; American English; Australian English; Interactional pragmatics ID LANGUAGE AB The notion of "offence" lies at the core of current models of impoliteness. Yet is also well acknowledged that being impolite is not necessarily the same thing as being offended. In this paper, it is suggested that previous work on causing offence (Culpeper, 2011) can be usefully complemented by an analysis of taking offence. It is proposed that taking offence can be productively examined with respect to a model of (im)politeness as interactional social practice (Haugh, 2015). On this view, taking offence is analysed in part as a social action in and of itself, which means those persons registering or sanctioning offence in an interaction, whether explicitly or implicitly, can themselves be held morally accountable for this taking of offence. It is further suggested that taking offence as a form of social action can be productively theorised as a pragmatic act which is invariably situated with respect to particular activity types and interactional projects therein (Culpeper and Haugh, 2014). This position is illustrated by drawing from analyses of initial interactions amongst speakers of (American and Australian) English who are not previously acquainted. It is suggested that ways in which taking offence are accomplished both afforded and constrained by the demonstrable orientation on the part of participants to agreeability in the course of getting acquainted. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Griffith Univ, Sch Languages & Linguist, Brisbane, Qld 4111, Australia. RP Haugh, M (reprint author), Griffith Univ, Sch Languages & Linguist, Brisbane, Qld 4111, Australia. EM m.haugh@griffith.edu.au RI Haugh, Michael/H-4783-2016 OI Haugh, Michael/0000-0003-4870-0850 CR Bousfield D, 2008, IMPOLITENESS INTERAC Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Carbaugh Donal, 2002, CHANGING CONVERSATIO, P61 Sendra VC, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V47, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.008 Culpeper J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P349, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 Culpeper Jonathan, 2015, INTERDISCIPLINARY ST CULPEPER J, 2014, PRAGMATICS ENGLISH L Jonathan Culpeper, 2011, IMPOLITENESS USING L Culpeper Jonathan, 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P35, DOI DOI 10.1515/JP1R.2005.1.1.35 Culpeper J, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1545, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2 Culpeper J, 2008, MULTILINGUA, V27, P297, DOI 10.1515/MULTI.2008.015 Dobs AM, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V53, P112, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.002 Haugh Michael, 2015, HDB COMMUNI IN PRESS Haugh M., 2015, IMPOLITENESS IMPLICA Haugh M, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P7, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.002 Haugh M, 2015, MULTILINGUA, V34, P461, DOI 10.1515/multi-2014-0104 Haugh M, 2007, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V3, P295, DOI 10.1515/PR.2007.013 Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P52, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003 Haugh M, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2106, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018 Jefferson G., 2004, CONVERSATION ANAL ST, V125, P13, DOI 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef Jefferson G., 1987, TALK SOCIAL ORG, P86 Kadar DZ, 2015, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V11, P239, DOI 10.1515/pr-2015-0010 Kadar DZ, 2013, UNDERSTANDING POLITENESS, P1 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC LEVINSON SC, 1979, LINGUISTICS, V17, P365, DOI 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 Locher MA, 2004, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V12, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110926552 Mey J. L., 2001, PRAGMATICS INTRO Mitchell Nathaniel, THESIS GRIFFITH U BR Mitchell N, 2015, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V11, P207, DOI 10.1515/pr-2015-0009 Schenkein J., 1978, STUDIES ORG CONVERSA, P79 Sacks H, 1992, LECT CONVERSATION, VII Sacks Harvey, 1987, TALK SOCIAL ORG, P54 Schneider K. P., 1988, SMALL TALK ANAL PHAT Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Svennevig J., 1999, GETTING ACQUAINTED C Taylor Charlotte, 2015, THESIS LANCASTER U Jenny Thomas, 1995, MEANING INTERACTION NR 37 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 9 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 86 BP 36 EP 42 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018 PG 7 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CR3TH UT WOS:000361255500007 ER PT J AU Romero-Trillo, J AF Romero-Trillo, Jesus TI Understanding vagueness: A prosodic analysis of endocentric and exocentric general extenders in English conversation SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE General extenders; Pragmatic markers; Vaguenes; Prosody; Conversation ID STUFF LIKE; GRAMMATICALIZATION; DISCOURSE; GERMAN AB Recent research has evidenced the role of general extenders as specific pragmatic markers that contribute to the understanding of the dynamics of conversation, in spite of the vagueness of their meaning (Aijmer, 2013; Buysse, 2014; Palacios-Martinez, 2011). Nevertheless, the specific prosodic features of general extenders in English conversation have not benefited from the detailed prosodic analysis that other types of pragmatic markers have attracted in native and non-native speakers (Romero-Trillo, 2014,2015a,b; Romero-Trillo and Newell, 2012). The present paper will investigate the prosodic patterns of general extenders in English conversation and will show how their patterns determine their functions and distribution, thus showing that vagueness does not mean randomness in their case. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Autonoma Madrid, Dept Filol Inglesa, Fac Filosofia & Letras, E-28049 Madrid, Spain. RP Romero-Trillo, J (reprint author), Univ Autonoma Madrid, Dept Filol Inglesa, Fac Filosofia & Letras, E-28049 Madrid, Spain. EM jesus.romero@uam.es FU Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (Spain) [FFI2012-30839] FX I am grateful to the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (Spain), Project: FFI2012-30839 for its support. CR Aijmer K., 2002, ENGLISH DISCOURSE PA Aijmer K, 2013, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMATIC MARKERS: A VARIATIONAL PRAGMATIC APPROACH, P1 Brinton Laurel, 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN Bryman A., 1997, QUANTITATIVE DATA AN Buysse L., 2014, YB CORPUS LINGUISTIC, V2, P213 Cheshire J, 2007, J SOCIOLING, V11, P155, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00317.x Cruttenden A., 1997, INTONATION DINES ER, 1980, LANG SOC, V9, P13 Dubois Sylvie, 1992, LANG VAR CHANGE, V4, P179, DOI 10.1017/S0954394500000740 Halliday M.A.K, 1970, COURSE SPOKEN ENGLIS Halliday M. A. K., 1967, INTONATION GRAMMAR B Okeeffe A, 2004, LANG COMPUT, P1 Maryann Overstreet, 1997, J ENGL LINGUIST, V25, P250, DOI 10.1177/007542429702500307 Overstreet M, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1845, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.015 Palacios-Martinez Ignacio M., 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2452 Pichler H, 2011, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V15, P441, DOI 10.1017/S1360674311000128 Romero-Trillo J, 2015, PRAGMAT SOC, V6, P117, DOI 10.1075/ps.6.1.06rom Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2014, FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTI, P209 Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2015, CORPUS LINGUISTICS L Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2007, CATALAN J LINGUISTIC, V6, P81 Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2012, ENCY APPL LINGUISTIC, P4522 Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2012, PRAGMATICS PROSODY E, P117, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_8 Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2001, J LINGUIST, V37, P527, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226701001050 Svartvik Jan, 1980, CORPUS ENGLISH CONVE Terraschke A., 2007, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V45, P141, DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2007.006 Terraschke A, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P449, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.020 NR 26 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 6 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 86 BP 54 EP 62 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.011 PG 9 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CR3TH UT WOS:000361255500010 ER PT J AU Jucker, AH AF Jucker, Andreas H. TI Pragmatics of fiction: Literary uses of uh and um SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Pragmatics of fiction; Literary language; Planners; Hesitators ID ENGLISH AB For some time now fictional language has been recognized as a legitimate source of data for pragmatic analyses as long as it is studied on its own terms and not as a less than perfect representation of other types of language use. The planners uh and um are particularly interesting elements because of their pervasive and nevertheless often inconspicuous nature in spoken language. In fictional language they are less frequent and more conspicuous. They may even serve as stylistic devices as is shown by a brief analysis of the use of uh and um in Douglas Adams' mock science fiction novel The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights. reserved. C1 Univ Zurich, Dept English, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland. RP Jucker, AH (reprint author), Univ Zurich, Dept English, Plattenstr 47, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland. EM ahjucker@es.uzh.ch OI Jucker, Andreas H./0000-0003-3495-2213 CR BROWN R, 1989, LANG SOC, V18, P159 CHRISTENFELD N, 1995, J NONVERBAL BEHAV, V19, P171, DOI 10.1007/BF02175503 Culpeper Jonathan, 2010, STUDIES ENGLISH LANG Culpeper J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P349, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 Jucker Andreas H., 2015, DEV ENGLISH EXPANDIN, P162, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09781139833882.013 Kjellmer G, 2003, ENGL STUD, V84, P170, DOI 10.1076/enst.84.2.170.14903 Klosowski Thorin, 2012, SPOT LIARS PAYING AT KROPF CR, 1988, SCI-FICTION STUD, V15, P61 Pawlak A, 2012, PHILOSOPHY AND THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY, P236 PRATT ML, 1977, SPEECH ACT THEORY LI Rendle-Short Johanna, 2004, PRAGMATICS, V14, P479 Salmon Vivian, 1965, T PHILOL SOC, P105 Schegloff EA, 2010, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V47, P130, DOI 10.1080/01638530903223380 Sell Roger D., 2000, PRAGMATICS NEW SERIE, V78 Sell R.D., 2014, DIALOGUE STUDIES, V22, P1 Tottie G, 2011, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V16, P173, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.16.2.02tot Tree JEF, 2007, TEXT TALK, V27, P297, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2007.012 van Dijk Teun, 1980, STUDIES PRAGMATICS D, P3 NR 18 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 5 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 86 BP 63 EP 67 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.012 PG 5 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CR3TH UT WOS:000361255500011 ER PT J AU Traugott, EC AF Traugott, Elizabeth Closs TI "Ah, pox o' your Pad-lock": Interjections in the Old Bailey Corpus 1720-1913 SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Interjections; Cognitive expressive function; Emotive function; Insight; Pragmatic noise; Old Bailey Corpus AB In Early Modern English Dialogs: Spoken Interaction as Writing (2010), Jonathan Culpeper and Merja Kyto discuss the function and distribution of interjections such as Ah, Oh, and "pragmatic noise" such as Tush in Early Modern English, as represented in A Corpus of English Dialogs 1560-1760. Although they recognize trials as major sources of data close to speech, Culpeper and Kyto mention them only briefly in connection with interjections. I explore the use of the interjections Oh, O, Ah, Ay(e), and Ha(h) in the Modern British English Old Bailey Corpus (1720-1913). As might be expected from trial records, the interjections are used with low frequency. Most appear in narratives by defendants and witnesses, but a few also occur in interactions among courtroom participants. After identifying the inventory of interjections used in the Old Bailey Corpus, I analyze their functions, and the extent to which they evidence change between Early Modem English, as described by Culpeper and Kyto, and Modern English as represented in the later parts of The Old Bailey Corpus. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Stanford Univ, Dept Linguist, Palo Alto, CA 94305 USA. RP Traugott, EC (reprint author), Stanford Univ, Dept Linguist, Palo Alto, CA 94305 USA. EM traugott@stanford.edu CR Aijmer Karin, 1987, P 7 INT C ENGL LANG, P61 AMEKA F, 1992, J PRAGMATICS, V18, P101, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90048-G Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Kyto Merja, CORP ENGL DIAL 1560 Culpeper Jonathan, 2010, EARLY MODERN ENGLISH Huber Magnus, 2007, EVARIENG STUDIES VAR, V1 Huber Magnus, 2012, OLD BAIL CORP SPOK E Taavitsainen Irma, 1995, HIST PRAGMATICS PRAG, P439, DOI [10.1075/pbns.35.23taa, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.35.23TAA] NR 8 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 1 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 86 BP 68 EP 73 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.013 PG 6 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CR3TH UT WOS:000361255500012 ER PT J AU Huang, Y AF Huang, Yan TI Lexical cloning in English: A neo-Gricean lexical pragmatic analysis SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Lexical cloning; Contrastive focus reduplication; Context-dependency; Neo-Gricean lexical pragmatics AB Lexical cloning, formally known as 'contrastive focus reduplication', refers to the phenomenon whereby there is a modifier reduplication of a lexical item. The reduplicated modifier, which receives a contrastive focus accent, is used to single out some privileged sense, in contrast to other senses, of an ambiguous, polysemous, vague or loose lexical expression (Huang, 2009). Lexical cloning is found in a variety of Englishes including American, Australian, British, Canadian, New Zealand, and South African English, but it is most widely used in American English. It is also a recent phenomenon. Furthermore, the use of lexical clones is largely restricted to a certain, informal conversational register of spoken English. Even the tokens of lexical cloning that are found in written English such as scripts for plays, films and TV programmes are largely representations of spontaneous spoken language (as a mode) in written form (as the medium). In this short paper, improving on Huang (2009), I shall first provide a description of lexical cloning in English. I shall then discuss context-dependency of lexical cloning. Finally, I shall outline a neo-Gricean lexical pragmatic analysis of this novel lexical phenomenon in the language. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Auckland, Auckland 1, New Zealand. RP Huang, Y (reprint author), Univ Auckland, Auckland 1, New Zealand. EM yan.huang@auckland.ac.nz CR Dray Nancy, 1987, THESIS U CHICAGO Fabricius H., 1998, COMP SURVEY REDUPLIC Ghomeshi J, 2004, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V22, P307, DOI 10.1023/B:NALA.0000015789.98638.f9 Gomez GG, 2014, BRILL STUD INDIG LAN, V7, P1, DOI 10.1163/9789004272415 Hohenhaus Peter, 2005, FOLIA LINGUIST, V38, P297 Horn Laurence R., 2006, WAI GUO YU J FOREIGN, P2 Huang Y., 2000, ANAPHORA CROSS LINGU Huang Y., 1994, SYNTAX PRAGMATICS AN Huang Y., 2009, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V1, P118, DOI [10.1163/187731009X455866, DOI 10.1163/187731009X455866] Huang Yan, 2014, PRAGMATICS Lasersohn P, 1999, LANGUAGE, V75, P522, DOI 10.2307/417059 Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Tamanji N. Pius, 2012, ASPECTS REDUPLICATIO Whitton Laura, 2008, SEMANTICS CONT UNPUB NR 14 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 86 BP 80 EP 85 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.005 PG 6 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CR3TH UT WOS:000361255500014 ER PT J AU Norrick, NR AF Norrick, Neal R. TI Narrative illocutionary acts direct and indirect SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Narrative function; Illocutionary act; Storytelling; Indirect speech act; Outside-in AB The pragmatics of narrative can approach functions of narrative in context from the outside in or from the inside out. In this short essay, I will take an outside-in perspective, considering what speakers accomplish in telling stories in interaction. When we take an outside-in approach to conversational stories, we find them functioning not just to entertain or to illustrate a point, but with illocutionary forces like confessing and indicting, even apologizing and warning, albeit indirectly, but seemingly not with the illocutionary force of commissives or declarations, either directly or indirectly. When the data come from natural everyday conversation, and the stories analyzed are just a few moves long rather than the extended products of written literary fiction, it becomes natural to see stories as fulfilling (direct and indirect illocutionary) speech act functions. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Saarland, D-66123 Saarbrucken, Germany. RP Norrick, NR (reprint author), Univ Saarland, Campus C 5 3, D-66123 Saarbrucken, Germany. EM neal@norrick.de CR Bernaerts L, 2010, NARRATIVE, V18, P276 Craig R. T., 1983, CONVERSATIONAL COHER Hymes D., 2001, FDN SOCIOLINGUISTICS Kearns Michael, 1999, RHETORICAL NARRATOLO Mey J., 2001, PRAGMATICS Pike K., 1954, LANGUAGE RELATION UN PRATT ML, 1977, SPEECH ACT THEORY LI Searle JR, 1969, SPEECH ACTS Searle John R., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS SPE, V3 Toolan Michael, 1998, EXPLORING LANGUAGE D, P142 Tsiplakou S, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V45, P119, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.004 Watts RJ, 1981, PRAGMALINGUISTIC ANA NR 12 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 5 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 86 BP 94 EP 99 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.008 PG 6 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CR3TH UT WOS:000361255500016 ER PT J AU Kubota, Y Lee, J AF Kubota, Yusuke Lee, Jungmee TI THE COORDINATE STRUCTURE CONSTRAINT AS A DISCOURSE-ORIENTED PRINCIPLE: FURTHER EVIDENCE FROM JAPANESE AND KOREAN SO LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE coordinate structure constraint; Japanese; Korean; coordination; subordination; island constraints; discourse relation ID CATEGORIES; SEMANTICS; GRAMMAR AB We reexamine the status of the COORDINATE STRUCTURE CONSTRAINT (CSC; Ross 1967) by drawing on evidence from Japanese and Korean. Contrary to the standard view that the CSC is a syntactic constraint, the empirical patterns from the two languages show that it should instead be viewed as a pragmatic principle. We propose a pragmatic analysis by building on and extending a previous proposal by Kehler (2002). Examining the Japanese and Korean data turns out to be vital in the comparison of the syntactic and pragmatic approaches, since the syntactic differences between the relevant constructions in the two languages and their counterparts in English crucially distinguish the predictions of the two approaches. C1 [Kubota, Yusuke] Univ Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan. [Kubota, Yusuke] Ohio State Univ, Columbus, OH 43210 USA. [Lee, Jungmee] Seoul Natl Univ Sci & Technol, Seoul, South Korea. RP Kubota, Y (reprint author), 108A Ohio Stadium East 1961 Tuttle Pk Pl, Columbus, OH 43210 USA. EM kubota.7@osu.edu; jungmeelee@seoultech.ac.kr FU Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS); Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Postdoctoral Fellowship for Research Abroad) FX We would like to thank Bob Levine for his continued encouragement and numerous inputs (of various sorts) on this work throughout its long gestation. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Keihanna, Japan, 2008) and the 83rd annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America (San Francisco, 2009); we would like to thank the participants of these conferences for feedback. Thanks are also due to the members of the syntax-semantics discussion group 'Synners' at the OSU Linguistics Department. We would also like to thank four anonymous Language referees for their comments, which helped improve both the content and presentation of the article greatly. Last but not least, we would like to thank Language editor Greg Carlson for his very thoughtful editorial guidance and various useful remarks on this work. The first author was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS; PD 2010-2013 and Postdoctoral Fellowship for Research Abroad 2013-2014) when he worked on the revisions of this article, and would like to thank the JSPS for its financial support. CR Bayer S, 1996, LANGUAGE, V72, P579, DOI 10.2307/416279 Campbell J., 1982, GRAMMATICAL MAN INFO CHAVES RUI PEDRO, 2007, THESIS U LISBON PORT Chaves RP, 2012, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V30, P465, DOI 10.1007/s11049-011-9164-y CHO SAE-YOUN, 2005, LANGUAGE INFORM, V9, P35 Deane P., 1991, Cognitive Linguistics, V2, P1, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1991.2.1.1 Fox Danny, 2000, EC SEMANTIC INTERPRE Goldsmith John A., 1985, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V21, P133 Haspelmath Martin, 2007, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SY, V2, P1 Hofmeister P, 2010, LANGUAGE, V86, P366 Kehler Andrew, 2002, COHERENCE REFERENCE Kennedy C, 2005, LANGUAGE, V81, P345, DOI 10.1353/lan.2005.0071 Kennedy C, 2007, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P1, DOI 10.1007/s10988-006-9008-0 Kluender Robert, 1992, ISLAND CONSTRAINTS T, P223 Kluender R., 1998, THE LIMITS OF SYNTAX, P241 Kuno Susumu, 1973, STRUCTURE JAPANESE L Kuroda Sige-Yuki, 1986, ISSUES JAPANESE LING, P229 Lakoff George, 1986, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V22, P152 Lee J, 2010, J SEMANT, V27, P307, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffq005 LEVIN NANCY, 1986, PAP LINGUIST, V19, P351 Lewis D, 1973, COUNTERFACTUALS Matsumoto Yoshiko, 1997, NOUN MODIFYING CONST YOUNGHEE NA, 1992, JOY GRAMMAR FESTSCHR, P251 Partee Barbara, 1983, MEANING USE INTERPRE, P361, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110852820.361 Pollard C., 1994, HEAD DRIVEN PHRASE S Pustejovsky J., 1995, GENERATIVE LEXICON ROBERTS CRAIGE, 2012, OSU WORKING PAPERS L Ross John Robert, 1967, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE Sag I., 2003, SYNTACTIC THEORY FOR SAG IA, 1985, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V3, P117, DOI 10.1007/BF00133839 SAG IVAN A., 2000, ANOTHER ARGUMENT WH SCHMERLING SUSAN, 1972, STUDIES LINGUISTIC S, V2, P91104 Schmerling Susan, 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P211 [Anonymous], 2012, TAKING SCOPE Steedman M, 2011, NON-TRANSFORMATIONAL SYNTAX: FORMAL AND EXPLICIT MODELS OF GRAMMAR, P181 TOKASHIKI KYOKO, 1989, THESIS OHIO STATE U YATABE SHUICHI, 2003, NIHON GENGOGAKKAI DA, P262 YOON JAMES HYE SUX, 1997, HARVARD STUDIES KORE, V7, P3 YOON JAE-HAK, 1993, OHIO STATE U WORKING NR 39 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 3 PU LINGUISTIC SOC AMER PI WASHINGTON PA 1325 18TH ST NW, SUITE 211, WASHINGTON, DC 20036-6501 USA SN 0097-8507 EI 1535-0665 J9 LANGUAGE JI Language PD SEP PY 2015 VL 91 IS 3 BP 642 EP 675 PG 34 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CR5WK UT WOS:000361414900005 ER PT J AU Mazzone, M AF Mazzone, Marco TI Pragmatics and mindreading: Forward and backward inferences in shared intentional contexts SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE pragmatics; mindreading; joint action; inference; goal ID COMPREHENSION; FRAMEWORK; RELEVANCE; LANGUAGE; BEHAVIOR; MIND AB The general hypothesis discussed here is that pragmatic understanding is embedded in a more general understanding of action. To this purpose I first summarize ideas from Grice, Levinson and relevance theorists, all contributing to the view that utterance understanding is based on inferential recognition of the speakers' communicative goals, and that this process may be affected backwards by expectations about non-communicative goals. I also provide reasons to think that the double dynamic of forward and backward inferences described by relevance theorists is present in action execution and observation as well, and that we construe shared intentional contexts which automatically mesh ours and others' goals. Finally, the suggestion is made that, in order to account for the full contribution of mindreading to utterance understanding, Relevance Theory needs to consider not only the comprehension procedure in itself, but also the way in which it interacts with other external mechanisms. C1 Univ Catania, Dipartimento Sci Umanistiche, I-95124 Catania, Italy. RP Mazzone, M (reprint author), Univ Catania, Dipartimento Sci Umanistiche, Piazza Dante 32, I-95124 Catania, Italy. EM mazzonem@unict.it OI Mazzone, Marco/0000-0001-7195-2760 CR Atmaca S, 2008, SOC NEUROSCI, V3, P410, DOI 10.1080/17470910801900908 Atmaca S, 2011, EXP BRAIN RES, V211, P371, DOI 10.1007/s00221-011-2709-9 BARGH J A, 1989, P3 Bargh J. A., 1990, HDB MOTIVATION COGNI, V2, P93 BRATMAN ME, 1992, PHILOS REV, V101, P327, DOI 10.2307/2185537 Brennan Susan E., 2010, PSYCHOL LEARN MOTIV, V53, P302 Carston Robyn, 2007, SAYING MEANING REFER, P1 Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Carston R., 1997, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V8, P103 Clark H. H., 1996, USING LANGUAGE Dijksterhuis A, 2007, SOCIAL PSYCHOL UNCON, P51 Ferguson Melissa J., 2007, HDB MOTIVATION SCI, P150 Gallese V, 2007, PHILOS T R SOC B, V362, P659, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2006.2002 Garrod S, 2004, TRENDS COGN SCI, V8, P8, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.016 Glenberg AM, 2012, CORTEX, V48, P905, DOI 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.010 Hassin Ran R., 2009, OXFORD HDB HUMAN ACT, P442 Hommel B, 2001, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V24, P849, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X01000103 Hommel Bernhard, 2003, ScientificWorldJournal, V3, P593 Huang JY, 2014, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V37, P121, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X13000290 Iacoboni M, 2005, PLOS BIOL, V3, P529, DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030079 Jeannerod Marc, 2006, DOES CONSCIOUSNESS C, P25 Jordan Scott, 2009, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V46, P127 Kecskes I, 2010, PRAGMAT SOC, V1, P50, DOI 10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec Levinson S. C., 1992, COMMUNICATION, P66 Mazzarella Diana, 2013, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V35, P20 Mazzone Marco, 2013, WHAT KIND ASS UNPUB Mazzone Marco, 2015, FRONT PSYCHOL, V6, P1 Marco Mazzone, 2014, REV PHILOS PSYCHOL, V5, P583, DOI DOI 10.1007/S13164-014-0201-8 Mazzone Marco, 2013, PERSPECTIVES LINGUIS, P443 Mazzone Marco, TRIVIALIZING M UNPUB Mazzone Marco, 2009, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V1, P321 Mazzone M, 2013, PHILOS PSYCHOL, V26, P267, DOI 10.1080/09515089.2011.641743 Mazzone M, 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P106, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.01.001 Milanese N, 2010, COGNITION, V116, P15, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.010 Newell BR, 2014, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V37, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X12003214 Paul Grice H., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Paul Grice H., 1957, PHILOS REV, V66, P377 Pickering MJ, 2013, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V36, P329, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X12001495 Recanati F, 2004, LITERAL MEANING Sebanz N, 2003, PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE COGNITIVE SCIENCE SOCIETY, PTS 1 AND 2, P1070 SIMON HA, 1959, AM ECON REV, V49, P253 Sperber D, 2002, MIND LANG, V17, P3, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00186 Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber D., 1998, LANGUAGE THOUGHT INT, P184 Sperber D, 2010, MIND LANG, V25, P359 Tomasello M, 2008, ORIGINS HUMAN COMMUN Wenke D, 2011, REV PHILOS PSYCHOL, V2, P147, DOI DOI 10.1007/S13164-011-0057-0 Wilson D, 2002, MIND, V111, P583, DOI 10.1093/mind/111.443.583 Wilson Deirde, 2002, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V14, P249 Wilson D, 2006, MIND LANG, V21, P404, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x Wolpert DM, 2003, PHILOS T R SOC B, V358, P593, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2002.1238 NR 51 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 6 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1612-295X EI 1613-365X J9 INTERCULT PRAGMAT JI Intercult. Pragmat. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 12 IS 3 BP 289 EP 307 DI 10.1515/ip-2015-0015 PG 19 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ9IQ UT WOS:000360927900001 ER PT J AU Dynel, M AF Dynel, Marta TI Intention to deceive, bald-faced lies, and deceptive implicature: Insights into Lying at the semantics-pragmatics interface SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE bald-faced lie; deception; figure of speech; first maxim of Quality; Grice; implicature; lie; what is said AB This paper gives a critical overview of Jorg Meibauer's (2014) monograph entitled Lying at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface and addresses a selection of theoretical issues pertinent to lying and deception. Thus, following a brief summary of the volume's contents, more attention is paid to the speaker's intention to deceive as a potentially necessary condition for lying, which invites a question concerning the status of bald-faced lies. Further, this article focuses on deception performed by dint of implicature. Meibauer's (2014) postulates in reference to these issues are critically revisited, and the focal phenomena are examined from a broader perspective. C1 Univ Lodz, Dept Pragmat, PL-90131 Lodz, Poland. RP Dynel, M (reprint author), Univ Lodz, Dept Pragmat, PL-90131 Lodz, Poland. EM marta.dynel@yahoo.com CR Adler Jonathan, 1997, J PHILOS, V94, P435, DOI DOI 10.2307/2564617 Alston William, 2000, ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS S Barnes J. A., 1994, PACK LIES SOCIOLOGY Blome-Tillmann M, 2008, ANALYSIS, V68, P156, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8284.2007.00731.x Bok Sissela, 1978, LYING MORAL CHOICE P BRANDOM R, 1983, NOUS, V17, P637, DOI 10.2307/2215086 Carson Thomas, 2010, LYING DECEPTION THEO Carson TL, 2006, NOUS, V40, P284, DOI 10.1111/j.0029-4624.2006.00610.x CHISHOLM RM, 1977, J PHILOS, V74, P143, DOI 10.2307/2025605 Davidson D., 1985, THE MULTIPLE SELF, P79 Dynel Marta, 2011, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V5, P454 Dynel Marta, 2011, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V3, P137, DOI DOI 10.1163/187731011X610996 Dynel M, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1628, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.016 Dynel M, 2013, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V10, P403, DOI 10.1515/ip-2013-0018 Ekman P., 1985, TELLING LIES CLUES D Falkenberg Gabriel, 1982, LUGEN GRUNDZUGE THEO Fallis Don, 2010, PHILOS IMPRINT, V10, P1 Fallis D, 2015, RATIO, V28, P81, DOI 10.1111/rati.12055 Fallis D, 2009, J PHILOS, V106, P29 Fallis D, 2012, DIALECTICA, V66, P563, DOI 10.1111/1746-8361.12007 Faulkner Paul, 2013, INT ENCY ETHICS, DOI [10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee482, DOI 10.1002/9781444367072.WBIEE482] Faulkner Paul, 2007, PHILOS PHENOMENOLOGI, V75, P524 Frankfurt H. G., 1988, IMPORTANCE WHAT WE C, P117 Frankfurt H. G., 2002, CONTOURS AGENCY ESSA, P340 Fraser Bruce, 1994, PRETENDING COMMUNICA, P143 Green SP, 2001, HASTINGS LAW J, V53, P157 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Grice H. P., 1989, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P22 Grice H. P., 1978, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V9, P113 Grice H. P., 1975, THE LOGIC OF GRAMMAR, P64 Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS, P22 Jary Mark, 2014, INT WORKSH LYING DEC Jaszczolt Kasia, 2005, DEFAULT SEMANTICS FD Jaszczolt KM, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P259, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.015 KUPFER J, 1982, REV METAPHYS, V36, P103 Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Mahon James Edwin, 2008, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS Mahon James, 2008, INT J APPL PHILOS, V22, P211, DOI DOI 10.5840/IJAP200822216 Mannison D., 1969, AUSTR J PHIL, V47, P132, DOI 10.1080/00048406912341141 Vincent Marrelli Jocelyne, 2004, WORDS WAY TRUTH TRUT Vincent Marrelli Jocelyne, 2003, HDB PRAGMATICS, P1, DOI DOI 10.1075/HOP.8.TRU2 Meibauer J, 2014, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V14, P1, DOI 10.1515/9781614510840 Meibauer J, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1373, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.12.007 Meibauer J, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P277, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.013 Newey Glen, 1997, PUBLIC AFFAIRS Q, V11, P93 Peirce Charles, 1934, COLLECT PAPERS, V5, P376 Saul Jennifer, 2012, LYING MISLEADING ROL SIEGLER FA, 1966, AM PHILOS QUART, V3, P128 SIMPSON D, 1992, PHILOS PHENOMEN RES, V52, P623, DOI 10.2307/2108211 Sorensen R, 2010, ANALYSIS-UK, V70, P608, DOI 10.1093/analys/anq072 Sorensen R, 2007, PAC PHILOS QUART, V88, P251, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2007.00290.x Stalnaker R, 2002, LINGUIST PHILOS, V25, P701, DOI 10.1023/A:1020867916902 Stalnaker Robert C, 1984, INQUIRY Stokke Andreas, 2013, PHILOS COMPASS, V8, P348 Stokke A, 2014, NOUS, V48, P496, DOI 10.1111/nous.12001 Stokke A, 2013, J PHILOS, V110, P33 VANHORNE WA, 1981, PHILOS PHENOMEN RES, V42, P171 Vincent Jocelyne, 1981, POSSIBILITIES LIMITA, P749 Weiner M, 2006, ANALYSIS, V66, P127, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8284.2006.00599.x Williams Bernard, 2002, TRUTH TRUTHFULNESS E NR 60 TC 8 Z9 8 U1 0 U2 4 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1612-295X EI 1613-365X J9 INTERCULT PRAGMAT JI Intercult. Pragmat. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 12 IS 3 BP 309 EP 332 DI 10.1515/ip-2015-0016 PG 24 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ9IQ UT WOS:000360927900002 ER PT J AU Sydorenko, T AF Sydorenko, Tetyana TI The use of computer-delivered structured tasks in pragmatic instruction: An exploratory study SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE pragmatic instruction; oral practice; task types; computer-delivered structured tasks; learner-learner role-plays; focus-on-form ID INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMATICS; L2 PRAGMATICS; RECOGNITION; REPETITION; REQUESTS; FLUENCY; DCTS; TALK AB This study examines the effect of oral practice via computer-delivered structured tasks (CASTs) with native speaker (NS) models and open-ended tasks without NS input (i.e., learner-leaner role-plays) on pragmatic development of second language learners. While prior studies have indicated that structured tasks afford more opportunities for focus on form (FonF) than open-ended tasks (Lee and VanPatten 2003; Lyster 2004; Ranta and Lyster 2007; Skehan and Foster 1999; Tavakoli and Foster 2011), differences between these tasks in pragmatic instruction (PI) have not been examined. Additionally, the effect of practice has been widely examined with regard to oral development, but much less so for pragmatics (e.g., Li 2013; Takimoto 2012a). In this study, one group of ESL learners practiced request speech acts via CASTs, and another group did so via learner-learner open role-plays. Qualitative analysis of participants' output during practice suggests that rehearsal via CASTs promotes FonF and incorporation of NS models into learners' speech, while rehearsal via role-plays results in more creative, but often pragmatically inappropriate, language and content. Additionally, role-plays, but not CASTs, appear to be conducive to humorous language play, metapragmatic discussions, and extended turns similar to those in naturalistic interactions. The study offers insights regarding task types in PI. C1 Portland State Univ, Dept Appl Linguist, Portland, OR 97207 USA. RP Sydorenko, T (reprint author), Portland State Univ, Dept Appl Linguist, Portland, OR 97207 USA. EM tsydorenko@pdx.edu FU U.S. Department of Education International Research and Studies (IRS) [P017A100100]; Michigan State University FX This study was funded by (1) the U.S. Department of Education International Research and Studies (IRS) Program Grant, special project number P017A100100, and (2) Dissertation Completion Fellowship from Michigan State University. CR Adolphs S, 2008, STUD CORPUS LINGUIST, V30, P1 Ahmadian MJ, 2011, LANG TEACH RES, V15, P35, DOI 10.1177/1362168810383329 Bardovi-Harlig K, 2005, SEC LANG ACQ RES, P7 Bardovi-Harlig K, 2013, LANG LEARN, V63, P68, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x Bardovi-Harlig K, 2009, LANG LEARN, V59, P755 Bardovi-Harlig K, 2015, LANG TEACH RES, V19, P324, DOI 10.1177/1362168814541739 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 1999, LANG LEARN, V49, P677 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P13 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P171, DOI DOI 10.1017/S027226310001487X Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 2010, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V12, P163 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P401, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.004 Barron Anne, 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P129, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.009 Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Bygate M., 2005, PLANNING TASK PERFOR, P37 Cohen A. D, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P275, DOI DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2005.2.3.275 de Jong N, 2011, LANG LEARN, V61, P533, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x DeKeyser RM, 2007, CAM APPL L, P208 Economidou-Kogetsidis M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V53, P21, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.014 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P253, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.013 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P165 Foster P., 1999, LANG TEACH RES, V3, P215, DOI DOI 10.1177/136216889900300303 Golato A, 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/24.1.90 Haugh M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1099, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003 Hudson Thom, 1995, DEV PROTOTYPIC MEASU Ishihara Noriko, 2010, TEACHING LEARNING PR Jeon EH, 2006, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V13, P165 Judd E. L., 1999, CULTURE 2 LANGUAGE T, P152 Kadar DZ, 2013, UNDERSTANDING POLITENESS, P1 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG KOIKE DA, 1989, MOD LANG J, V73, P279, DOI 10.2307/327002 Koike D. A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P481, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.008 Kuha Mai, 1999, THESIS INDIANA U Kuha Mai, 1997, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V8, P99 Lee J., 2003, MAKING COMMUNICATIVE Li S., 2013, TECHNOLOGY INTERLANG, P43 Long M. H., 1991, FOREIGN LANGUAGE RES, V2, P39, DOI DOI 10.1075/SIBIL.2 Lyster R., 2004, J FRENCH LANGUAGE ST, V14, P321, DOI 10.1017/S0959269504001826 Martinez-Flor A., 2010, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGES, V7, P423 Uso-Juan E., 2006, APPL LANGUAGE LEARNI, V16, P39 Martinez-Flor A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P463, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.007 Mochizuki N, 2008, LANG TEACH RES, V12, P11, DOI 10.1177/1362168807084492 Olshtain E., 1991, TEACHING ENGLISH 2 F, P154 Pomerantz Anne, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P556 Ranta L, 2007, CAM APPL L, P141 Roever C, 2009, HDB LANGUAGE TEACHIN, P560, DOI 10.1002/9781444315783.ch29 Roever Carsten, 2014, TESTING ESL SOCIOPRA Rose KR, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P2345, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.04.002 Rose K. R., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P385, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.003 Schauer G., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P193, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.011 Schmidt R., 2001, COGNITION 2 LANGUAGE, P3, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09781139524780.003 Schmidt R., 1993, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V13, P206, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0267190500002476 Shauer Gila, 2006, SYSTEM, V34, P119 Shively Rachel, 2014, PRAGM LANG LEARN C B Skehan P., 2005, PLANNING TASK PERFOR, P193 Skehan P, 1999, LANG LEARN, V49, P93, DOI 10.1111/1467-9922.00071 Swain M., 2006, ADV LANGUAGE LEARNIN, P95 Sydorenko Tetyana, 2011, THESIS MICHIGAN STAT Sykes Julie, 2008, THESIS U MINNESOTA Taguchi N., 2012, CONTEXT INDIVIDUAL D Taguchi Naoko, 2013, TECHNOLOGY INTERLANG, P1 Taguchi N, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P113, DOI 10.1093/applin/aml051 Takahashi S., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P171 [Anonymous], 2010, SPEECH ACT PERFORMAN Takimoto M, 2006, SYSTEM, V34, P601, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2006.09.003 Takimoto M, 2012, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V9, P71, DOI 10.1515/ip-2012-0004 Takimoto M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1240, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.007 Taleghani-Nikazm C, 2010, MULTILINGUA, V29, P185, DOI 10.1515/mult.2010.008 Tavakoli P, 2011, LANG LEARN, V61, P37, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00642.x Vandergriff Ilona, 2009, CALICO J, V27, P26 Walkinshaw Ian, 2009, LEARNING POLITENESS Yates L., 2010, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V12, P113 Yuan Y, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P271, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00031-X NR 73 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1612-295X EI 1613-365X J9 INTERCULT PRAGMAT JI Intercult. Pragmat. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 12 IS 3 BP 333 EP 362 DI 10.1515/ip-2015-0017 PG 30 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ9IQ UT WOS:000360927900003 ER PT J AU Valdeon, RA AF Valdeon, Roberto A. TI The (ab)use of taboo lexis in audiovisual translation: Raising awareness of pragmatic variation in English-Spanish SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE taboo words; expletives; English-Spanish; audiovisual translation; L2 classroom AB This paper proposes the use of translation as an exercise capable of raising students' awareness of pragmatic differences between English and Spanish, with particular emphasis on taboo words, rarely studied in a formal environment. This difficult area of the L2 has been brought to the fore after the publication of two corpus-driven grammars (Biber et al. 1999; Carter and McCarthy 2006). The translation exercise was carried out with two groups of advanced students, who had to render two episodes of the British sitcom The I. T. Crowd into Spanish. Then the results were compared with the choices in the dubbed versions. Two hypotheses were put to the test: (1) that students would tone down the swearwords used in the original text, (2) that translators might remain closer to the colloquial tone of the English scripts and, thus, maintain taboo items. For the second hypothesis all six episodes of series 1 were used. The results showed that while students were indeed cautious in the treatment of offensive language, translators increased the use of swearwords exponentially. C1 [Valdeon, Roberto A.] Univ Oviedo, Dept English French & German Studies, Oviedo, Spain. [Valdeon, Roberto A.] Univ Free State, Dept Linguist & Language Practice, Bloemfontain, South Africa. RP Valdeon, RA (reprint author), Univ Oviedo, Dept English French & German Studies, Oviedo, Spain. EM valdeon@uniovi.es CR Allan K, 2006, FORBIDDEN WORDS: TABOO AND THE CENSORING OF LANGUAGE, P1, DOI 10.2277/ 0521819601 Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Burridge K, 2010, ENGL TODAY, V26, P3, DOI 10.1017/S0266078410000027 Carter R., 2006, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Carter Ronald, 2000, EXPLORING ENGLISH GR Chambers Angela, 2011, LANG LEARN, V39, P85, DOI 10.1080/09571736.2010.520728 Chaume Frederic, 2004, CINE Y TRADUCCION Dewaele J.-M., 2004, J MULTILING MULTICUL, V25, P204, DOI DOI 10.1080/01434630408666529 Dewaele JM, 2010, EMOTIONS IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230289505 Dewaele J-M., 2004, ESTUDIOS SOCIOLINGUI, V5, P83 Djigunovic JM, 2008, LANG TEACH RES, V12, P433, DOI 10.1177/1362168808089926 Edwards C, 2005, TEACHERS EXPLORING TASKS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING, P256 Fernandez-Gavela Dolores, 2015, GRAMMAR LEXIS CONVER Fletcher William H., 1996, CANADIAN J NETHERLAN, V17, P231 Foley Mark, 2003, ADV LEARNERS GRAMMAR Frankerberg-Garcia Ana, 2004, CORPORA LANGUAGE LEA, P213 Gambier Yves, 2007, LINGUISTICA ANTWERPI, V6, P97 Gass S. M., 2008, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI Harris C. L, 2004, J MULTILING MULTICUL, V24, P223, DOI [10.1080/01434630408666530, DOI 10.1080/01434630408666530] Hayes D, 2008, LANG TEACH RES, V12, P471, DOI 10.1177/1362168808097160 Hughes G., 2006, ENCY SWEARING SOCIAL Hummel K, 2010, LANG TEACH RES, V14, P61, DOI 10.1177/1362168809346497 Jaaskelainen Riita, 2003, TRANSLATOR, V9, P307 Jacob Benjamin, 2006, FRENCH STUDIES B, V27, P103 Jay T, 2008, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V4, P267, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2008.013 Johansson S., 2007, SEEING MULTILINGUAL Karjalainen M., 2002, THESIS U HELSINKI FI Kecskes I., 2014, INTERCULTURAL PRAGMA Kenny Dorothy, 2004, MEANINGFUL TEXTS EXT, P154 Landau S., 2001, DICT ART CRAFT LEXIC Leaver B. L., 2004, TASK BASED INSTRUCTI Liao P., 2006, RELC J, V37, P191, DOI 10.1177/0033688206067428 LoCastro V., 1997, LANG TEACH RES, V1, P239, DOI 10.1177/136216889700100304 Mattiello Elisa, 2005, MOST PALABRAS WORDS, V6, P7 Napoli DJ, 2009, STUD LANG, V33, P612, DOI 10.1075/sl.33.3.04nap Nation I. S. P., 2001, LEARNING VOCABULARY Neves J., 2004, TOPICS AUDIOVISUAL T, P127 Nord C., 2005, TEXT ANAL TRANSLATIO Olohan M., 2004, INTRO CORPORA TRANSL Pavesi M., 2005, TRADUZIONE FILMICA A Pavesi Maria, 2008, DIDACTICS AUDIOVISUA, P215 Pavlenko Aneta, 2009, EMOTIONS MULTILINGUA Pavlenko A, 2014, BILINGUAL MIND: AND WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT, P1 Pinto D, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P257, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.012 Richards J. C., 2008, TEACHING LISTENING S Scheu-Lottgen Dagmar, 1998, INT J INTERCULTURAL, V22, P375 Stenstrom AB, 2014, PALGRAVE PIVOT, P1, DOI 10.1057/9781137430380 Swan Michael, 2005, PRACTICAL ENGLISH US Swan Michael, 1980, PRACTICAL ENGLISH US Timmis I., 2005, ELT J, V59, P117, DOI DOI 10.1093/ELTJ/CCI025 Toury G., 1995, DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLAT Trillo JR, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P769 Valdeon R. A., 2008, LANGUAGES CONTRAST, V8, P208 Vandaele Jeroen, 2001, TARGET, V13, P29 Wachal RS, 2002, AM SPEECH, V77, P195, DOI 10.1215/00031283-77-2-195 Webb S, 2007, LANG TEACH RES, V11, P63, DOI 10.1177/1362168806072463 WIDDOWSON Henry G., 2003, DEFINING ISSUES ENGL NR 57 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 12 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1612-295X EI 1613-365X J9 INTERCULT PRAGMAT JI Intercult. Pragmat. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 12 IS 3 BP 363 EP 385 DI 10.1515/ip-2015-0018 PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ9IQ UT WOS:000360927900004 ER PT J AU Zhang, SJ Zhang, YF AF Zhang, Shaojie Zhang, Yanfei TI Scalar implicature: a Saussurean system-based approach SO LANGUAGE SCIENCES LA English DT Article DE Scalar implicature; Saussure; System; Convention; Associative set; Associative implicature AB Scalar implicature is a cutting-edge issue in linguistic pragmatics. The study is intended to argue that, within Saussure's thought of language as a system, scalar implicature is manifested as the system-based meaning, i.e., it is generated by the language system. It maintains that the notion of "scalar implicature" as one type of "associative implicature" should be integrated into the coherent theoretical model formulated in this study, thereby also rescuing Horn's theory on scales. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Zhang, Shaojie] NE Normal Univ, Sch Foreign Languages, Changchun 130024, Jilin, Peoples R China. [Zhang, Yanfei] Shandong Univ, Sch Foreign Languages, Jinan 250100, Shandong, Peoples R China. RP Zhang, YF (reprint author), Shandong Univ, Sch Foreign Languages, Hongjialou 5, Jinan 250100, Shandong, Peoples R China. EM zyfsdu@gmail.com FU National Social Science Foundation of China [14AYY022]; Social Science Foundation of the Ministry of Education of China [12YJC740142] FX We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful revising suggestions. This work is supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 14AYY022) and the Social Science Foundation of the Ministry of Education of China (Grant No. 12YJC740142). CR Bach K., 1979, LINGUISTIC COMMUNICA Bach K., 1994, MIND LANG, V9, P124, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1468-0017.1994.TB00220.X Carston Robyn, 1998, RELEVANCE THEORY APP, P179 Bianchi C., 2004, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, P65 Carston Robyn, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P303, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.303 Carston R., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P633 Carston R., 2009, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V1, P35 Chierchia G., 2004, STRUCTURES, P39 Davis W. A., 2003, MEANING EXPRESSION T Davis W. A., 1998, IMPLICATURE INTENTIO de Saussure Ferdinand, 1959, COURSE GEN LINGUISTI De Saussure F., 2006, WRITINGS GEN LINGUIS Saussure Ferdinand de, 1993, SAUSSURES 3 COURSE L Evans V, 2006, COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS: AN INTRODUCTION, P1 Geurts B., 2010, QUANTITY IMPLICATURE GODEL R., 1957, SOURCES MANUSCRITES [Anonymous], 2001, ASPECTS OF REASON Grice P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P41 Grice Paul H., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Hirschberg Julia Bell, 1991, THEORY SCALAR IMPLIC Horn L., 1984, MEANING FORM USE CON, P11 Horn Laurence, 2012, CAMBRIDGE HDB PRAGMA, P69 Horn L, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P191, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.2.191 Horn L. R., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P3 Horn Laurence R., 2000, NEGATION POLARITY SY, P147 Horn L. R., 1972, THESIS UCLA Horn Laurence R., 2009, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V1, P3 Horn Laurence R., 2001, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO HORN LR, 1984, LINGUIST PHILOS, V7, P397, DOI 10.1007/BF00631074 Huang Y., 2007, PRAGMATICS LaPolla R, 1998, ETHNOSYNTA, P138 Lehrer Adrienne, 1974, SEMANTIC FIELDS LEXI Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS LEWIS D. H. GEIRSSON, 1996, READINGS LANGUAGE MI, P134 Lewis David K., 2002, CONVENTION PHILOS ST Marmor A, 2009, PRINC MONOGR PHILOS, P1 Peter C., 1978, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V9, P261 Noveck Ira A, 2007, PRAGMATICS, P184 Searle John R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH Searle John R., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P59 Thibault P., 1997, REREADING SAUSSURE D Tobin Y., 1990, SEMIOTICS LINGUISTIC Zhang S., 2014, LANG HIST, V57, P155 NR 44 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 6 U2 7 PU ELSEVIER SCI LTD PI OXFORD PA THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, OXON, ENGLAND SN 0388-0001 EI 1873-5746 J9 LANG SCI JI Lang. Sci. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 51 BP 43 EP 53 DI 10.1016/j.langsci.2015.05.003 PG 11 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ8QZ UT WOS:000360874800003 ER PT J AU Grieve, AM AF Grieve, Averil Marie TI The Impact of Host Family Relations and Length of Stay on Adolescent Identity Expression during Study Abroad SO MULTILINGUA-JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL AND INTERLANGUAGE COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE study abroad; pragmatic markers; adolescent identity; second language acquisition; identity ID DISCOURSE MARKERS; CONVERSATION; ENGLISH AB This study focuses on the relationships between host family success, social integration, length of stay and acquisition of adolescent language by students on extended international homestay programmes. Degree of adolescent language acquisition and integration is measured by use of two hallmarks of adolescent language: markers of approximation (e.g. "and stuff") and intensification (e.g. "like"). Participants are 26 German teenagers on either a 5- or a 10-month exchange to Australia. Their use of approximation and intensification markers is measured quantitatively before arriving in Australia and then after 5 months of living in the host country. Host family relations and levels of social integration are measured qualitatively by analysis of interview content and responses to a Language Contact Profile. Results indicate that there is a direct link between host family relations, social integration and acquisition of markers of adolescent language. Additionally, exchange students on a 5-month exchange use fewer of those approximation and intensification markers most associated with Australian adolescent language than students on a 10-month programme. This can be explained by lower investment and integration in the Australian adolescent community. C1 Univ Melbourne, Linguist & Appl Linguist, Clifton Hills, Vic 3068, Australia. RP Grieve, AM (reprint author), Univ Melbourne, Linguist & Appl Linguist, 3 Caroline St, Clifton Hills, Vic 3068, Australia. EM agrieve@unimelb.edu.au CR Aijmer K., 2002, ENGLISH DISCOURSE PA Allen H. W., 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V43, P27, DOI [10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01058.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1944-9720.2010.01058.X] Andersen Gisele, 2001, PRAGMATIC MARKERS SO Athanasiadou Angeliki, 2007, LANG SCI, V29, P554 Pellegrino Aveni V. A., 2005, STUDY ABROAD 2 LANGU Banerjee M, 1999, CAN J STAT, V27, P3, DOI 10.2307/3315487 Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN Baumgarten N, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1184, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.018 Beebe Leslie, 1984, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V46, P5, DOI 10.1515/ijsl.1984.46.5 Biber D, 1989, TEXT, V9, P93, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 Bremer K., 1993, ADULT LANGUAGE ACQUI, VII, P153 Chafe W.L, 1986, EVIDENTIALITY LINGUI, P261 Chambers Jack K., 2000, SOCIOLINGUISTIC THEO Channell J., 1994, VAGUE LANGUAGE DeKeyser R., 1991, FOREIGN LANGUAGE ACQ, P104 [Anonymous], 1997, SYSTEM, DOI 10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00061-9 Ellis Rod, 2002, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI Freed Barbara, 2004, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V26, P249 Grieve Averil, 2013, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V13, P147 Grieve Averil, 2010, ADOLESCENT IDENTITY HALL JK, 1995, APPL LINGUIST, V16, P206, DOI 10.1093/applin/16.2.206 Isabelli-Garcia C., 2006, LANGUAGE LEARNERS ST, V15, P231 Ito R, 2003, LANG SOC, V32, P257, DOI 10.1017/S0047404503322055 Jackson J, 2008, STUD APPL LING, P1 Jucker AH, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1737, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00188-1 Kinginger Celeste, 2008, MODERN LANGUAGE J MO, V92 Kinginger C, 2009, LANGUAGE LEARNING AND STUDY ABROAD: A CRITICAL READING OF RESEARCH, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230240766 Knight S., 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V43, P64 Labov William, 1985, MEANING FORM USE CON, P43 Lamiroy Beatrice, 1994, PRAGMATICS, V4, P183 Lenk Uta, 1998, MARKING DISCOURSE CO Lenk U, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V30, P245, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00027-7 Matsumura S, 2001, LANG LEARN, V51, P635, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00170 Menard-Warwick J., 2005, LINGUISTICS ED, V16, P253, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.LINGED.2006.02.001 Miller Laura, 1995, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P293 Nikula T., 1996, PRAGMATIC FORCE MODI NORTON B, 2000, IDENTITY LANGUAGE LE Norton B, 2010, NEW PERSP LANG EDUC, P349 Ochs E., 1990, CULTURAL PSYCHOL ESS, P287 Ostman Jan-Ola, 1995, ANGLICANA TURKUENSIA, V14, P95 Overstreet M, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P45, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00125-3 Overstreet M, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1845, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.015 Peters H., 1994, STUDIES EARLY MODERN, P269 Prince E. F., 1982, LINGUISTICS PROFESSI, P83 Sankoff Gillian, 1997, LANG VAR CHANGE, V9, P191 Scheibman Joanne, 2002, POINT VIEW GRAMMAR S Schiffrin Deborah, 2003, HDB DISCOURSE ANAL, P54, DOI 10.1111/b.9780631205968.2003.00004.x Schourup L. C., 1985, COMMON DISCOURSE PAR Schumann J., 1978, PIDGINIZATION PROCES Segalowitz N, 2004, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V26, P173, DOI 10.1017/S0272263104062023 Tagliamonte S, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1896, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.017 Waksler R, 2001, AM SPEECH, V76, P128, DOI 10.1215/00031283-76-2-128 Wang Chilin, 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V43, P51 Weedon Chris, 1997, FEMINIST PRACTICE PO Wierzbicka A, 2003, MOUTON TXB, P1 NR 55 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 9 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0167-8507 EI 1613-3684 J9 MULTILINGUA JI Multilingua PD SEP PY 2015 VL 34 IS 5 BP 623 EP 657 DI 10.1515/multi-2014-0089 PG 35 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CR0EU UT WOS:000360992000001 ER PT J AU Marti, L AF Marti, Luisa TI Grammar versus Pragmatics: Carving Nature at the Joints SO MIND & LANGUAGE LA English DT Article ID NOUN INCORPORATION; UNARTICULATED CONSTITUENTS; DENOMINAL VERBS; ELLIPSIS; CONTEXT; FORM AB I argue that the debate on the division of labor between grammar and pragmatics, at least as it pertains to pragmatic free enrichment, needs to be better grounded empirically. Often, only a reduced set of facts from English is used to substantiate claims regarding pragmatic free enrichment. But considering a reduced set of facts from a single language can only afford limited (and, sometimes, wrong) results, because we can merely see whatever this one language chooses to express. Two cases studies are presented: adjectival fragments, and implicit indefinite objects. A grammatical analysis is defended for them. C1 [Marti, Luisa] Queen Mary Univ London, Dept Linguist, London E1 4NS, England. RP Marti, L (reprint author), Queen Mary Univ London, Sch Languages Linguist & Film, Mile End Rd, London E1 4NS, England. EM luisa.marti@qmul.ac.uk CR ALLEN BJ, 1984, INT J AM LINGUIST, V50, P292, DOI 10.1086/465837 AXELROD M, 1990, INT J AM LINGUIST, V56, P179, DOI 10.1086/466149 Baker M. C., 1988, INCORPORATION THEORY Barton Ellen, 1990, NONSENTENTIAL CONSTI Barton E., 2005, ELLIPSIS NONSENTENTI Beavers J., 2004, P 2004 HPSG C STANF Bittner Maria, 1994, CASE SCOPE BINDING Bresnan J., 1978, LINGUISTIC THEORY PS Browne W., 1993, SLAVONIC LANGUAGES R Carlson Greg, 2006, NONDEFINITENESS PLUR, P35 Carston Robyn, 2004, SEMANTICS A READER, V156, p[817, 156] Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Chung Sandra, 1995, NAT LANG SEMANT, V3, P239, DOI 10.1007/BF01248819 Chung Sandra, 2004, RESTRICTION SATURATI Condoravdi Cleo, 1996, QUANTIFIERS DEDUCTIO Culicover P. W., 2005, SIMPLER SYNTAX Depiante Marcela, 2000, THESIS U CONNECTICUT desReuse W, 1994, INT J AM LINGUIST, V60, P199 Dowty David, 1981, SCOPE LEXICAL RULES, P79 Dowty D., 1989, PROPERTY THEORY TYPE Dyk S., 1997, THESIS RIJKSUNIVERSI Etxeberria U., 2007, C CONT DEP PERSP REL Etxeberria U., 2005, THESIS U BASQUE COUN Farkas Donka, 2003, SEMANTICS INCORPORAT Fiengo Robert, 1994, INDICES IDENTITY FILLMORE CHARLES, 1986, BERKELEY LINGUISTICS, V12, P95 Fillmore Charles, 1969, STUDIES SYNTAX SEMAN, P109 FODOR JA, 1980, LINGUIST INQ, V11, P759 Fortin C, 2007, LINGUA, V117, P67, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.09.004 Gerdts D, 2001, HDB MORPHOLOGY, P84 Gerdts DB, 2008, INT J AM LINGUIST, V74, P409, DOI 10.1086/595571 Gillon BS, 2012, LINGUIST PHILOS, V35, P313, DOI 10.1007/s10988-012-9120-2 Ginzburg Jonathan, 2000, INTERROGATIVE INVEST GROEFSEMA M, 1995, LINGUA, V96, P139, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(95)00002-H Hale Ken, 2002, PROLEGOMENON THEORY Hale K., 1993, VIEW BUILDING, P53 Hall A, 2009, THESIS U COLL LONDON HANKAMER J, 1976, LINGUIST INQ, V7, P391 Hardt Dan, 1993, THESIS U PENNSYLVANI Hardt D, 1999, LINGUIST PHILOS, V22, P185 Haugen JD, 2008, INT J AM LINGUIST, V74, P439, DOI 10.1086/595573 Haugen JD, 2008, LING AKT, V117, P1 Hill K. C, 2003, MIT WORKING PAPERS E, V5, P215 Iten C., 2004, P 2004 CAN LING ASS, P1 Jelinek E., 2000, UTO AZTECAN STRUCTUR, P171 Jelinek Eloise, 1998, PROJECTION ARGUMENTS, P195 Johnson Kyle, 2001, HDB CONT SYNTACTIC T, P439, DOI 10.1002/9780470756416.ch14 Johnson K, 1996, GLOT INT, V2, P3 Kroeber AL, 1911, AM ANTHROPOL, V13, P577, DOI 10.1525/aa.1911.13.4.02a00070 Kroeber A. L., 1909, VERHANDLUNGEN 16 AM, P569 Lasnik Howard, 2001, P N E LINGUISTIC SOC, V2, P301 Lasnik H, 1999, LINGUIST INQ, V30, P197, DOI 10.1162/002438999554039 Lasnik H., 1999, FRAGMENTS STUDIES EL, P141 Anne Lobeck, 1995, ELLIPSIS FUNCTIONAL Mardirussian G., 1975, P CHICAGO LINGUISTIC, V11, P383 Marlett SA, 2008, INT J AM LINGUIST, V74, P471, DOI 10.1086/595574 Marti L., 2003, THESIS U CONNECTICUT Marti L, 2006, LINGUIST PHILOS, V29, P135, DOI 10.1007/s10988-005-4740-4 Merchant J., 2007, 3 KINDS ELLIPS UNPUB Merchant J, 2004, LINGUIST PHILOS, V27, P661 Merchant J., 2001, SYNTAX SILENCE SLUIC Merchant J., 2007, COMMUNICATION Merchant J, 2008, TOPICS IN ELLIPSIS, P132 MINER KL, 1986, INT J AM LINGUIST, V52, P242, DOI 10.1086/466021 MITHUN M, 1984, LANGUAGE, V60, P847, DOI 10.2307/413800 MITHUN M, 1986, LANGUAGE, V62, P32, DOI 10.2307/415599 Mittwoch A, 1980, LINGUIST INQ, V13, P113 Pullum G., 2001, J HANKAMER WEBFEST Recanati F, 2002, LINGUIST PHILOS, V25, P299, DOI 10.1023/A:1015267930510 ROSEN ST, 1989, LANGUAGE, V65, P294, DOI 10.2307/415334 Ross John Robert, 1969, 5 REG M CHIC LING SO, P252 SADOCK JM, 1986, LANGUAGE, V62, P19, DOI 10.2307/415598 SADOCK JM, 1980, LANGUAGE, V56, P300, DOI 10.2307/413758 Sag I., 1980, DELETION LOGICAL FOR SAG IA, 1984, LINGUIST PHILOS, V7, P325, DOI 10.1007/BF00627709 Sapir E, 1911, AM ANTHROPOL, V13, P250, DOI 10.1525/aa.1911.13.2.02a00060 SCHACHTER P, 1978, LINGUIST ANAL, V4, P187 SCHACHTER P, 1977, LINGUIST INQ, V8, P763 SHOPEN T, 1973, FOUND LANG, V10, P65 Spencer A.J., 1991, MORPHOLOGICAL THEORY Stainton Robert, 2006, WORDS THOUGHTS SUBSE Stanley J, 2000, LINGUIST PHILOS, V23, P391, DOI 10.1023/A:1005599312747 SULLIVAN PR, 1984, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V26, P138 THOMAS AL, 1979, LINGUA, V47, P43, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(79)90066-4 TORREGO E, 1984, LINGUIST INQ, V15, P103 vansGeenhoven V, 1998, SEMANTIC INCORPORATI Wilson D., 2000, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V12, P215 NR 87 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 1 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0268-1064 EI 1468-0017 J9 MIND LANG JI Mind Lang. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 30 IS 4 BP 437 EP 473 DI 10.1111/mila.12086 PG 37 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CQ6VN UT WOS:000360742200003 ER PT J AU Rivlina, A AF Rivlina, Alexandra TI Bilingual creativity in Russia: English-Russian language play SO WORLD ENGLISHES LA English DT Article ID WORLD ENGLISHES AB The paper shows that English in modern Russia, like in many other Expanding Circle countries, is predominantly used in a mix with Russian in the creative (poetic, aesthetic, imaginative, or innovative) function in various domains. In this article, the peculiarities of the creative use of English in the Russian context are highlighted, and the article also discusses the semantic and pragmatic aspects of English-Russian language play, demonstrating that English can be played on either just for entertainment or for conveying complex ideological meanings, determined by controversial attitudes to Westernization and Englishization in Russian society. C1 Natl Res Univ, Higher Sch Econ, Sch Foreign Languages, Dept English Social Sci, Moscow 101000, Russia. RP Rivlina, A (reprint author), Natl Res Univ, Higher Sch Econ, Sch Foreign Languages, Dept English Social Sci, 20 Masnitskaia, Moscow 101000, Russia. EM rivlina@mail.ru RI Rivlina, Alexandra/G-8257-2015 OI Rivlina, Alexandra/0000-0002-9772-3349 CR Alvarez-Caccamo Celso, 1998, CODE SWITCHING CONVE, P29 Apte Mahadeo L., 2001, CONCISE ENCY SOCIOLI, P276 Auer P., 2007, STYLE SOCIAL IDENTIT, P1 Backhaus P., 2007, LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPE Bassetti Benedetta, 2013, HDB BILINGUALISM MUL, P649 Berns Margie, 2005, WORLD ENGLISH, V24, P85, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.0883-2919.2005.00389.X Bhatia Tej, 2013, HDB BILINGUALISM MUL, P565 Bolton K, 2010, WORLD ENGLISH, V29, P452, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2010.01673.x Bolton K, 2010, WORLD ENGLISH, V29, P455, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2010.01674.x Bolton K, 2012, WORLD ENGLISH, V31, P30, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2011.01748.x Carter R., 2004, LANGUAGE CREATIVITY Chirsheva Galina N., 2000, INTRO ONTOLOGICAL BI Chirsheva Galina N., 2008, LANG COMMUN, V6, P63 Chomsky N., 2006, LANGUAGE MIND Crystal D., 1998, LANGUAGE PLAY Davydova J, 2012, WORLD ENGLISH, V31, P366, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2012.01763.x Dimova S, 2012, WORLD ENGLISH, V31, P15, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2011.01731.x D'Souza Jean, 2001, 3 CIRCLES ENGLISH, P3 Eddy Anna, 2008, CULTURE LANGUAGE CON, V10, P19 Eddy Anna, 2007, PUBLICATION WAYNE ST Rossiyskaia Gazeta, 2005, GOSUDARSTVENNOM IAZY Gorter D., 2006, LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPE, P81 Higgins C, 2009, CRIT LANG LIT STUD, P1 Hoffer Bates L., 2002, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN, V11, P1 Il'iasova Svetlana V., 2009, IAZYKOVAIA IGRA KOMM Isaeva Maria G., 2010, THESIS CHEREPOVETS S Isakova Alla A., 2005, THESIS TYUMEN STATE Ivleva Natalya V., 2005, INNOVATIONS REPROD C Jakobson R., 1952, PRELIMINARIES SPEECH Kachru Braj B., 1985, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V6, P20 Kachru Yamuna, 2006, WORLD ENGLISH, V25, P223, DOI 10.1111/j.0083-2919.2006.00461.x Kazkenova Aimgul' K., 2013, ONTOLOGIIA ZAIMSTVOV Kirkpatrick Andy, 2010, ROUTLEDGE HDB WORLD, P1 Krongauz Maxim, 2009, RUSSKII IAZYK GRANI Krysin Leonid P., 2000, RUSSKII IAZYK KONTSA, P142 Kuz'mina Natal'ia A., 2013, AKTIVNYE PROTSESSY R Lee Jamie Shinhee, 2010, 16 ANN IAWE C WORLD Levontina Irina B., 2010, RUSSKII SO SLOVAREM Marinova Elena V., 2008, INOIAZYCHNYE SLOVA R Martin Elizabeth, 2008, J CREATIVE COMMUNICA, V3, P49, DOI 10.1177/097325860800300104 Maximova Tamara, 2002, ENGLISH EUROPE, P195 Maynard Senko K., 2007, LINGUISTIC CREATIVIT Mechkovskaia Nina B., 2009, ISTORIIA IAZYKA ISTO Moody Andrew, 2009, ENGLISHIZATION ASIA, P181 Myers-Scotton Carol, 2002, CONTACT LINGUISTICS Pitzl M-L., 2012, J ENGLISH LINGUA FRA, V1, P27 Proshina Zoya G., 2012, ASIAN ENGLISHES, V15, P30 Proshina Zoya G., 2007, ABC CONTROVERSIES WO Proshina Zoya G., 2010, ROUTLEDGE HDB WORLD, P299 Rivlina Alexandra A., 2013, HUMANITIES SOCIAL ST, V37, P61 Rivlina Alexandra A., 2010, P 14 NATE 7 FEELTA I, V2, P8 Rivlina Alexandra A., 2005, WORLD ENGLISH, V24, P477 Sannikov V. Z., 2002, RUSSKII IAZYK ZERKAL Sannikov Vladimir Z., 2005, VOPROSY IAZYKOZNANII, V4, P3 Shaposhnikov Vladimir N., 2010, RUSSKAIA RECH 1990 K, V3rd Sichyova Olga N., 2005, WORLD ENGLISH, V24, P487 Stefanowitsch Anatol, 2002, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN, V11, P67 Thomason Sarah G., 2005, LANGUAGE CONTACT INT Ustinova Irina, 2011, INT J DIVERSITY ORG, V10, P67 Ustinova I., 2005, WORLD ENGLISH, V24, P495 Valgina Nina S., 2003, AKTIVNYE PROTSESSY S Wales Katie, 2001, DICT STYLISTICS Wei Li, 2001, BILINGUALISM READER, P4 Yelenevskaya Maria, 2008, GLOBALLY SPEAKING MO, P98 Yudina Natal'ia, 2010, RUSSKII IAZYK 21 VEK Yunik Stanley, 2001, 3 CIRCLES ENGLISH, P159 Zemskaia Elena A., 1994, RUSSKAIA RAZGOVORNAI, P172 Zemskaia Elena A., 2000, RUSSKII IAZYK KONTSA, P9 NR 68 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 3 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0883-2919 EI 1467-971X J9 WORLD ENGLISH JI World Englishes PD SEP PY 2015 VL 34 IS 3 BP 436 EP 455 DI 10.1111/weng.12153 PG 20 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ4OD UT WOS:000360583400007 ER PT J AU Cocquyt, M Mommaerts, MY Dewart, H Zink, I AF Cocquyt, Mie Mommaerts, Maurice Yves Dewart, Hazel Zink, Inge TI Measuring pragmatic skills: early detection of infants at risk for communication problems SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE & COMMUNICATION DISORDERS LA English DT Article DE pragmatics; screening; instrument development; assessment; infants ID LANGUAGE USE INVENTORY AB BackgroundFor the early detection of children who are at risk of communication problems, we need appropriate assessment instruments. Two Dutch-language standardised screening instruments are available: the Dutch version of the Non Speech Test (NNST) and the Dutch version of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories (N-CDIs). These instruments gauge the precursors of language development, early vocabulary and early morphosyntactic skills. However, they do not adequately assess pragmatic skills. AimsTo develop a norm-referenced instrument to examine the pragmatic skills of Dutch-speaking infants that is translatable into other languages. Methods & ProceduresThe instrument Lists for the Evaluation of Pragmatic Skills in Infants' is based on The Pragmatics Profile of Everyday Communication Skills in Children' Dewart and Summers (1995). We translated the instrument into Dutch and transformed the structured interview format into a parent questionnaire. The parent questionnaireEvaluatie van Pragmatische Vaardigheden (EPV)was created following extensive research on item selection, norm table development, and reliability and validity studies. The EPV1 is applicable to children 6-15 months old; EPV2 is applicable to children 16-30 months old. Outcomes & ResultsWe developed norm tables for the number of pragmatic skills achieved by the child and also for how and to what extent the skills are exhibited. For the norming study of EPV1 and EPV2 we included 390 and 534 infants respectively. The reliability scores are high for both lists. Concept validity and criterion validity studies demonstrate adequate results for the overall lists, the subscale components and specific items. Conclusions & ImplicationsThe parent questionnaire is a valuable tool that specifically targets pragmatic skills in infants. The instrument can detect communication delays in infants. It is translatable into other languages and avoids having the infant examined directly by a stranger. C1 [Cocquyt, Mie] Vrije Univ Brussel, Univ Coll Ghent, Brussels, Belgium. [Mommaerts, Maurice Yves] Univ Ziekenhuis Brussel VUB, Brussels, Belgium. [Dewart, Hazel] Univ Westminster, Dept Psychol, London W1R 8AL, England. [Zink, Inge] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Neurosci, ExpORL, Leuven, Belgium. RP Cocquyt, M (reprint author), Univ Coll Ghent, Educ Hlth & Social Work, Keramiekstr 80, B-9000 Ghent, Oost Vlaanderen, Belgium. EM Marie.Cocquyt@vub.ac.be FU Federaties van Centra voor Ambulante Revalidatie (Federations of Outpatient Rehabilitation Centers); Adviesraad Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Scientific Research Advisory Board) of the Flemish forming and training service Sig vzw FX This study was supported by the Federaties van Centra voor Ambulante Revalidatie (Federations of Outpatient Rehabilitation Centers; see http://www.revalidatie.be; assessed 24 on December 2013) and the Adviesraad Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Scientific Research Advisory Board) of the Flemish forming and training service Sig vzw. The authors thank all the parents who completed the parent questionnaires as well as the parents of the five children who participated in the case studies (Matteo, Robbe, Lisa, Anna and Lana). They also thank all the experts, students (of University College Ghent and the Catholic University of Louvain), and other participants who contributed to the development of the EPVs. Also thanks to Professor Annemie Desoete, Ghent University, and Professor Paul Corthals, Ghent University and University College Ghent, for their help with the statistical analysis and interpretation of the results. Thanks too to Professor Herbert Roeyers of Ghent University for his specific advice regarding item selection and help in developing the scoring system. Also a big thank you to Mr Tony Markus, Consultant Maxillofacial Surgeon, Nuffield Hospital, Bournemouth, UK, for content and linguistic advice. The authors thank the parents of Hilde Gielkens (who died in 2005) for providing all the data that their daughter had collected. CR Alston E, 2005, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V40, P123, DOI 10.1080/13682820400006861 Brace N., 2006, SPSS PSYCHOL GUIDE D Cocquyt M., 2010, EPVS LIJSTEN EVALUAT Cross M., 2011, CHILDREN EMOTIONAL B DesGraeve J, 2006, THESIS CATHOLIQUE U DesMoor G., 2009, INLEIDING BIOMEDISCH Dewart H, 1995, PRAGMATICS PROFILE E Fenson L., 1993, MACARTHUR COMMUNICAT Fenson L, 1994, MONOGRAPHS SOC RES C, V59, P5, DOI DOI 10.2307/1166093 Fleiss J, 1973, STAT METHODS RATES P Girolametto L., 1995, CLEFT PALATE SPEECH, P167 Hulit L. M., 2002, BORN TALK INTRO SPEE Lund N., 1983, ASSESSING CHILDRENS McCauley RJ, 2001, ASSESSMENT LANGUAGE O'Neill DK, 2007, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V50, P214, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/017) Pepper J., 2004, IT TAKES 2 TALK GUID Pesco D, 2012, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V55, P421, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0273) Rossetti L. M., 2001, COMMUNICATION INTERV Semel E., 2004, CLIN EVALUATION LANG Shprintzen J., 1995, CLEFT PALATE SPEECH Ward S, 2000, BABYTALKPROGRAMMA GE Zink I., 2002, N CDIS LIJSTEN COMMU Zink I, 2000, NNST NEDERLANDSTALIG NR 23 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 11 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 1368-2822 EI 1460-6984 J9 INT J LANG COMM DIS JI Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. PD SEP-OCT PY 2015 VL 50 IS 5 BP 646 EP 658 DI 10.1111/1460-6984.12167 PG 13 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA CQ3LE UT WOS:000360503000007 PM 25950833 ER PT J AU Kriz, M Chemla, E AF Kriz, Manuel Chemla, Emmanuel TI Two methods to find truth-value gaps and their application to the projection problem of homogeneity SO NATURAL LANGUAGE SEMANTICS LA English DT Article DE Plurals; Homogeneity; Presupposition projection; Scalar implicatures; Truth-value gaps; Experimental pragmatics AB Presupposition, vagueness, and oddness can lead to some sentences failing to have a clear truth value. The homogeneity property of plural predication with definite descriptions may also create truth-value gaps: The books are written in Dutch is true if all relevant books are in Dutch, false if none of them are, and neither true nor false if, say, half of the books are written in Dutch. We study the projection property of homogeneity by deploying methods of general interest to identify truth-value gaps. Method A consists in collecting both truth judgments (completely true vs. not completely true) and, independently, falsity judgments (completely false vs. not completely false). The second method, employed in experiment series B and C, is based on one-shot ternary judgments: completely true vs. completely false vs. neither. After a calibration of these methods, we use them to demonstrate that homogeneity projects out of negation, the scope of universal sentences and the scope of non-monotonic quantifiers such as exactly two, to some extent (i.e., in two out of three conceivable kinds of gap situations). We assess our results in light of different theoretical approaches to homogeneity-approaches based on presuppositions, scalar implicatures, and something like supervaluations, respectively. We identify free parameters in these theories and assess various variants of them based on our results. Our experimental paradigms may be of broader significance insofar as they can be applied to other phenomena which result in the failure of a sentence to have a definite truth value. C1 [Kriz, Manuel] Univ Vienna, Vienna, Austria. [Chemla, Emmanuel] LSCP, Paris, France. RP Kriz, M (reprint author), Univ Vienna, Vienna, Austria. EM manuel.kriz@univie.ac.at FU European Research Council under the European Union [n.313610]; [ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL]; [ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC] FX We would like to thank Alexandre Cremers, Paul Egre, Martin Hackl, Irene Heim, Jeremy Kuhn, Florian Schwarz, Benjamin Spector, and Jeremy Zehr for critical discussion and guidance. We would also like to thank the editors and reviewers at Natural Language Semantics. This research has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement n.313610 and was supported by ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL* and ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC. CR Abrusan M., 2013, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V6, P1, DOI DOI 10.3765/SP.6.10 Alxatib S., 2011, VAGUENESS COMMUNICAT, V6517, P13, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-18446-8_2 Barr DJ, 2013, J MEM LANG, V68, P255, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 Bates D., 2014, J STAT SOFTWAR UNPUB, DOI DOI 10.18637/JSS.V067.I01 Bott L, 2004, J MEM LANG, V51, P437, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006 Breheny Richard, 2005, P 5 AMST C, P59 Brisson Christine, 1998, THESIS RUTGERS U Buring D., 2013, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V6, P1 Burnett H., 2013, COMMUNICATION NOV Chemla E., REV PHILOS IN PRESS Chemla E, 2014, COGNITION, V130, P380, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.013 Chemla E, 2009, NAT LANG SEMANT, V17, P299, DOI 10.1007/s11050-009-9043-9 Chierchia G., 2012, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V33, P2297 Egre P, 2013, J LOG LANG INF, V22, P391, DOI 10.1007/s10849-013-9183-7 Fodor J. D., 1970, THESIS MIT Frege G., 1970, SENSE REFERENCE Gajewski J., 2005, THESIS MIT George B., 2008, P SALT, P358 George B., 2008, PREDICTION PRE UNPUB George BR, 2008, THESIS UCLA Heim I., 1983, P WCCFL, P114 Karttunen L, 1979, SYNTAX SEMANTICS Krifka Manfred, 1996, SEMANTICS LINGUISTIC, V6, P136 Kriz M., 2015, THEORY HOMOGEN UNPUB Lasersohn P, 1999, LANGUAGE, V75, P522, DOI 10.2307/417059 Lobner S., 1987, P 87 DEBR S LOG LANG, P81 Lobner S, 2000, LINGUIST PHILOS, V23, P213, DOI 10.1023/A:1005571202592 Magri Giorgio, 2014, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, P99 Magri G, 2009, NAT LANG SEMANT, V17, P245, DOI 10.1007/s11050-009-9042-x Malamud Sophia A., 2012, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V5, P1 Marty P., 2014, PHANTOM READIN UNPUB R Core Team, 2014, R LANG ENV STAT COMP Ripley D., 2011, VAGUENESS COMMUNICAT, V6517, P169, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-18446-8_10 Sauerland U., 2011, UNDERSTANDING VAGUEN, P185 Schwarz F., 2013, FALSE SLOW REJ UNPUB Schwarz Florian, 2013, P SUB, V17, P509 Schwarzschild Roger, 1994, NAT LANG SEMANT, V2, P201, DOI [10.1007/BF01256743, DOI 10.1007/BF01256743] Serchuk P, 2011, MIND LANG, V26, P540, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01430.x Spector B., 2013, SINN BED 18 U BASQ C Spector B, 2016, TOPOI-INT REV PHILOS, V35, P45, DOI 10.1007/s11245-014-9292-1 [Anonymous], 2012, TAKING SCOPE Tarski Alfred, 1935, FUND MATH, V24, P177 Tarski A., 1956, LOGIC SEMANTICS META, V2, P152 WICKHAM H, 2011, J STAT SOFTW, V40, P1 Wickham H, 2009, USE R, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3_1 Wickham H, 2007, J STAT SOFTW, V21, P1 Zehr J, 2014, THESIS ECOLE NORMALE Zehr J., 2014, EXP PHIL GROUP I J N NR 48 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 1 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0925-854X EI 1572-865X J9 NAT LANG SEMANT JI Nat. Lang. Semant. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 23 IS 3 BP 205 EP 248 DI 10.1007/s11050-015-9114-z PG 44 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ4FF UT WOS:000360559000002 ER PT J AU De Mulder, H AF De Mulder, Hannah TI Developing communicative competence: a longitudinal study of the acquisition of mental state terms and indirect requests SO JOURNAL OF CHILD LANGUAGE LA English DT Article ID APPEARANCE-REALITY DISTINCTION; FALSE-BELIEF; CHILDRENS COMPREHENSION; PERSPECTIVE-TAKING; MIND DEVELOPMENT; VERB KNOW; LANGUAGE; IMPAIRMENT; PRAGMATICS; DIRECTIVES AB This longitudinal study involving 101 Dutch four- and five-year-olds charts indirect request (IR) and mental state term (MST) understanding and investigates the role that Theory of Mind (ToM) and general linguistic ability (vocabulary, syntax, and spatial language) play in this development. The results showed basic understanding of IR and MST in four-year-olds, but full understanding had not been reached even at five years old. Furthermore, although ToM predicted both IR and MST when linguistic ability was not taken into account, this relationship was no longer significant once the language measures were added. Linguistic ability thus seems to play an important role in the development of both IR and MST. Additional analyses revealed that whereas syntactic ability was the primary predictor of IR, spatial language was the best predictor of MST, suggesting that IR relies primarily on general linguistic skills, but that more specific aspects of language may bootstrap MST. C1 Univ Utrecht, Utrecht Inst Linguist OTS, NL-3508 TC Utrecht, Netherlands. RP De Mulder, H (reprint author), Univ Utrecht, Utrecht Inst Linguist OTS, NL-3508 TC Utrecht, Netherlands. CR Astington J. W., 2005, WHY LANGUAGE MATTERS Astington JW, 1999, DEV PSYCHOL, V35, P1311, DOI 10.1037//0012-1649.35.5.1311 BARONCOHEN S, 1985, COGNITION, V21, P37, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8 Bascelli E, 2002, J CHILD LANG, V29, P87, DOI 10.1017/S0305000901004925 BERNICOT J, 1987, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V43, P346, DOI 10.1016/0022-0965(87)90012-9 Bernicot J, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P2115, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.009 Booth JR, 1997, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V26, P581, DOI 10.1023/A:1025093906884 Booth JR, 1995, COGNITIVE DEV, V10, P529, DOI 10.1016/0885-2014(95)90025-X BYRNES JP, 1989, COGNITIVE DEV, V4, P369, DOI 10.1016/S0885-2014(89)90049-X Cheung H, 2009, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V104, P141, DOI 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.05.004 Creem-Regehr S. H., 2013, FRONT HUM NEUROSCI, V7, P1 de Villiers JG, 2002, COGNITIVE DEV, V17, P1037, DOI 10.1016/S0885-2014(02)00073-4 de Villiers J, 2007, LINGUA, V117, P1858, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.006 de Villiers J. G., 2005, WHY LANGUAGE MATTERS, P186 ELROD MM, 1987, J GENET PSYCHOL, V148, P63 ERVINTRIPP S, 1976, LANG SOC, V5, P25 FLAVELL JH, 1983, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V15, P95, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(83)90005-1 Gola AAH, 2012, COGNITIVE DEV, V27, P64, DOI 10.1016/j.cogdev.2011.10.003 GOPNIK A, 1988, CHILD DEV, V59, P26, DOI 10.2307/1130386 HALL WS, 1987, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V16, P289, DOI 10.1007/BF01069284 HIRST W, 1982, J CHILD LANG, V9, P659 LEONARD LB, 1978, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V21, P528 Levinson SC, 1996, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V25, P353, DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.353 Loukusa S, 2009, RES AUTISM SPECT DIS, V3, P890, DOI 10.1016/j.rasd.2009.05.002 MCALPINE LM, 1995, J VISUAL IMPAIR BLIN, V89, P349 Milligan K, 2007, CHILD DEV, V78, P622, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01018.x Minter M, 1998, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V16, P183 Moll H, 2006, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V24, P603, DOI 10.1348/026151005X55370 Moll H, 2011, CHILD DEV, V82, P661, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01571.x MOORE C, 1990, CHILD DEV, V61, P722, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02815.x MOORE C, 1989, J CHILD LANG, V16, P633 MOORE C, 1989, CHILD DEV, V60, P167, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1989.tb02706.x Noveck IA, 1996, J CHILD LANG, V23, P621 PERNER J, 1987, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V5, P125 Piaget J, 1956, CHILDS CONCEPTION SP Schlichting L., 2005, PEABODY PICTURE VOCA SHATZ M, 1983, COGNITION, V14, P301, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90008-2 SPEKMAN NJ, 1985, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V14, P331, DOI 10.1007/BF01068090 Van Eldik M. C. M., 1995, REYNELL TEST TAALBEG Vinden PG, 1996, CHILD DEV, V67, P1707, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01822.x WIMMER H, 1983, COGNITION, V13, P103, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5 Ziatas K, 1998, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V39, P755, DOI 10.1017/S0021963098002510 NR 42 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 10 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI NEW YORK PA 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY 10013-2473 USA SN 0305-0009 EI 1469-7602 J9 J CHILD LANG JI J. Child Lang. PD SEP PY 2015 VL 42 IS 5 BP 969 EP 1005 DI 10.1017/S0305000914000543 PG 37 WC Psychology, Developmental; Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Psychology; Linguistics GA CN6XI UT WOS:000358577400002 PM 25262752 ER PT J AU Adams, M AF Adams, Michael TI NICKNAME plus -ing: A Perlocutionary Evaluation SO NAMES-A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS LA English DT Article DE nicknames; naming; politeness; pragmatics; speech acts AB A character in a short story titled "The Referees," by Joseph O'Neill, proposes the form of a term for any unwanted hypocoristic nicknaming, such as Mike for Michael, simply the nickname in question verbed and suffixed with -ing, so, in this example, Miking. The unwanted nickname reflects a speaker's verdictive illocutionary meaning, but, as a perlocutionary response to the presumptuous nicknaming act, nickname + -ing resists that meaning or its legitimacy. At least, it identifies the act, for which previously there was no handy term. C1 [Adams, Michael] Indiana Univ, English, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. RP Adams, M (reprint author), Indiana Univ, Dept English, Ballantine Hall 442,1020 E Kirkwood Ave, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. EM adamsmp@indiana.edu CR Adams Michael, 2009, SLANG PEOPLES POETRY Adams Michael, 2008, NAMES, V56, P206, DOI 10.1179/175622708X381442 Adams M, 2009, NAMES, V57, P81, DOI 10.1179/175622709X436369 Anderson John M., 2007, THE GRAMMAR OF NAMES CLARK EV, 1979, LANGUAGE, V55, P767, DOI 10.2307/412745 Cleese John, 2014, SO ANYWAY O'Neill Joseph, 2014, NEW YORKER, P64 NR 7 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 2 PU MANEY PUBLISHING PI LEEDS PA STE 1C, JOSEPHS WELL, HANOVER WALK, LEEDS LS3 1AB, W YORKS, ENGLAND SN 0027-7738 EI 1756-2279 J9 NAMES JI Names PD SEP PY 2015 VL 63 IS 3 BP 183 EP 186 DI 10.1179/0027773815Z.000000000118 PG 4 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CK7VB UT WOS:000356441300006 ER PT J AU Politzer-Ahles, S Gwilliams, L AF Politzer-Ahles, Stephen Gwilliams, Laura TI Involvement of prefrontal cortex in scalar implicatures: evidence from magnetoencephalography SO LANGUAGE COGNITION AND NEUROSCIENCE LA English DT Article DE scalar implicature; pragmatics; magnetoencephalography; prefrontal cortex; quantifiers ID PICTURE-SENTENCE VERIFICATION; FALSE DISCOVERY RATE; PRAGMATIC INFERENCES; AMBIGUOUS WORDS; TIME-COURSE; COMPREHENSION; KNOWLEDGE; LANGUAGE; MEMORY; LOAD AB The present study investigated the neural correlates of the realisation of scalar inferences, i.e., the interpretation of some as meaning some but not all. We used magnetoencephalography, which has high temporal resolution, to measure neural activity while participants heard stories that included the scalar inference trigger some in contexts that either provide strong cues for a scalar inference or provide weaker cues. The middle portion of the lateral prefrontal cortex (Brodmann area 46) showed an increased response to some in contexts with fewer cues to the inference, suggesting that this condition elicited greater effort. While the results are not predicted by traditional all-or-nothing accounts of scalar inferencing that assume the process is always automatic or always effortful, they are consistent with more recent gradient accounts which predict that the speed and effort of scalar inferences is strongly modulated by numerous contextual factors. C1 [Politzer-Ahles, Stephen; Gwilliams, Laura] New York Univ Abu Dhabi, NYUAD Inst, Abu Dhabi, U Arab Emirates. RP Politzer-Ahles, S (reprint author), New York Univ Abu Dhabi, NYUAD Inst, Abu Dhabi, U Arab Emirates. EM spa268@nyu.edu FU NYUAD Institute, New York University Abu Dhabi [G1001] FX This research was funded by the NYUAD Institute, New York University Abu Dhabi [grant number G1001]. CR Barbey AK, 2013, CORTEX, V49, P1195, DOI 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.05.022 Barr DJ, 2013, J MEM LANG, V68, P255, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 Bemis DK, 2011, J NEUROSCI, V31, P2801, DOI 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5003-10.2011 Benjamini Y, 2001, ANN STAT, V29, P1165 Bergen L, 2012, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V38, P1450, DOI 10.1037/a0027850 Bilenko NY, 2009, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V21, P960, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2009.21073 Boersma P, 2014, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC Bott L, 2004, J MEM LANG, V51, P437, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006 Bott L, 2012, J MEM LANG, V66, P123, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.005 Breheny R, 2013, COGNITION, V126, P423, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.11.012 Breheny R, 2006, COGNITION, V100, P434, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.003 Breheny R, 2013, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V28, P443, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2011.649040 Caplan D, 2006, CORTEX, V42, P469, DOI 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70379-4 Chee MWL, 2002, NEUROIMAGE, V16, P259, DOI 10.1006/nimg.2002.1061 Chemla Emmanuel, 2014, LANGUAGE LINGUISTI 1, V8, P373, DOI DOI 10.1111/LNC3.12081 Chemla E, 2011, J SEMANT, V28, P359, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffq023 Chevallier C, 2010, ITALIAN J LINGUISTIC, V22, P125 Chevallier C, 2008, Q J EXP PSYCHOL, V61, P1741, DOI 10.1080/17470210701712960 Chierchia G., 2012, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V33, P2297 Chierchia G., 2004, STRUCTURES, P39 Copland DA, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1131, P163, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.11.016 De Neys W, 2007, EXP PSYCHOL, V54, P128, DOI 10.1027/1618-3169.54.2.128 Degen J., 2014, COGNITIVE SCI, DOI [10.1111/cogs.12171, DOI 10.1111/C0GS.12171] Degen J., SEMANTICS P IN PRESS Dieussaert K, 2011, Q J EXP PSYCHOL, V64, P2352, DOI 10.1080/17470218.2011.588799 Egorova N, 2013, FRONT HUM NEUROSCI, V7, DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00086 Feeney A., 2004, CAN J EXP PSYCHOL, V54, P128, DOI 10.1037/h0085792 Fiebach CJ, 2004, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V16, P1562, DOI 10.1162/0898929042568479 Geurts Bart, 2009, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V2, P1 Geurts B., 2010, QUANTITY IMPLICATURE Goodman ND, 2013, TOP COGN SCI, V5, P173, DOI 10.1111/tops.12007 Russell B., 2013, 26 CUNY C HUM SENT P Grodner DJ, 2010, COGNITION, V116, P42, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.014 Hartshorne J., 2014, SPEED INFERENC UNPUB Hartshorne JK, 2015, LANG COGN NEUROSCI, V30, P620, DOI 10.1080/23273798.2014.981195 Hashimoto R, 2002, NEURON, V35, P589, DOI 10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00788-2 Horn L., 1972, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Huang YT, 2009, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V58, P376, DOI 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001 Huang YT, 2011, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V26, P1161, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2010.508641 Hunt L, 2013, NEUROSCI LETT, V534, P246, DOI 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.11.044 Katsos Napolean, 2010, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V4, P282, DOI [DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2010.00203.X, 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00203.x] Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Lewis Shevaun, 2013, THESIS U MARYLAND CO Maris E, 2007, J NEUROSCI METH, V164, P177, DOI 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024 Marty P, 2013, LINGUA, V133, P152, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.03.006 Marty PP, 2013, FRONT PSYCHOL, V4, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00403 Minai U, 2010, LANG ACQUIS, V17, P183, DOI 10.1080/10489223.2010.497399 Nieuwland MS, 2010, J MEM LANG, V63, P324, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005 Noveck I. A., 2007, ADV PRAGMATICS, P184 Noveck IA, 2003, BRAIN LANG, V85, P203, DOI 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00053-1 Noveck IA, 2008, TRENDS COGN SCI, V12, P425, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.009 OLDFIELD RC, 1971, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V9, P97, DOI 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 Panizza D., 2014, 27 CUNY C HUM SENT P Politzer-Ahles S, 2013, BRAIN RES, V1490, P134, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.10.042 Politzer-Ahles S, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0063943 Politzer-Ahles S., 2014, 27 CUNY C HUM SENT P Sauerland Uli, 2012, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V6, P36, DOI DOI 10.1002/LNC3.321 Shetreet E, 2014, HUM BRAIN MAPP, V35, P1503, DOI 10.1002/hbm.22269 Sikos L., 2013, 26 CUNMY C HUM SENT Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Yekutieli D, 1999, J STAT PLAN INFER, V82, P171, DOI 10.1016/S0378-3758(99)00041-5 Zhao M, 2015, BRAIN RES, V1599, P137, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2014.11.049 NR 62 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 1 U2 4 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 2327-3798 EI 2327-3801 J9 LANG COGN NEUROSCI JI Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. PD AUG 9 PY 2015 VL 30 IS 7 BP 853 EP 866 DI 10.1080/23273798.2015.1027235 PG 14 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Behavioral Sciences; Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Behavioral Sciences; Linguistics; Psychology GA CL0CT UT WOS:000356607400005 ER PT J AU Hasty, JD AF Hasty, J. Daniel TI WELL, HE MAY COULD HAVE SOUNDED NICER: PERCEPTIONS OF THE DOUBLE MODAL IN DOCTOR-PATIENT INTERACTIONS SO AMERICAN SPEECH LA English DT Article DE sociolinguistics; language attitudes; southern united states English ID EVALUATIONAL REACTIONS; LANGUAGE ATTITUDES; SPEECH AB In light of Mishoe and Montgomery's 1994 analysis of the double modal's pragmatic function in mitigating face-threatening situations this article assesses the perception of the double modal in the context of a medical consultation. In an experiment using a modified matched-guise technique and a between-subjects design, a group of respondents listened to a recording of a doctor using a naturally occurring double modal in consultation with a patient, while a control group heard the same recording with one of the modals removed. Attitudes of the respondents were measured indirectly though responses to a semantic differential test, and the ratings of the two groups were compared. While previous language attitude studies of nonprestige varieties show the usage of nonstandard features has a downgrading effect on the perception of a speaker's competence, this study found no downgrading effects. Instead, double modal guises were rated significantly higher for adjectives measuring solidarity, particularly the single adjective POLITE. That is, a doctor heard using a double modal was perceived as being more polite than the same doctor when the double modal was removed with no downgrading of the competence of the doctor, indicating that the double modal perceived at least in doctor-patient consultations as a good faith means to negotiate an imbalanced and face-threatening situation. C1 Coastal Carolina Univ, Dept English, Linguist, Conway, SC 29528 USA. RP Hasty, JD (reprint author), Coastal Carolina Univ, Dept English, Linguist, Conway, SC 29528 USA. EM jhasty@coastal.edu CR Ball Peter, 1983, LANG SCI, V5, P163, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(83)80021-7 Battistella E., 1995, LINGUISTICA ATLANTIC, V17, P19 Battistella E., 1991, LINGUISTIC ANAL, V21, P49 Bender EM, 2005, LINGUA, V115, P1579, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.005 Bender Emily M., 2001, THESIS Boersma P., 2010, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC Boertien Harmon, 1986, LANGUAGE VARIETY S P, P294 Bradac J. J., 2001, NEW HDB LANGUAGE SOC, P137 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Buchstaller Isabelle, 2003, U PHILADELPHIA WORKI, V10, P61 Campbell-Kibler K., 2005, THESIS CARGILE AC, 1994, LANG COMMUN, V14, P211, DOI 10.1016/0271-5309(94)90001-9 Cargile AC, 1997, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V16, P434 Carr Joseph, 1905, DIALECT NOTES, V3, P68 Hasty J., 2012, LINGUA, V122, P1716, DOI [10.1016/j.lingu. a.2012.09.005, DOI 10.1016/J.LINGU.A.2012.09.005] Hasty J. Daniel, 2011, U PENNSYLVANIA WORKI, V17, P91 Di Paolo Marianna, 1979, TEXAS LINGUISTIC FOR, V13, P40 DIPAOLO M, 1989, AM SPEECH, V64, P195 Feagin Crawford, 1979, VARIATION CHANGE ALA Franke David, 2009, J COMMUNICATION HEAL, V2.3, P274, DOI [10.1179/cih.2009.2.3.274, DOI 10.1179/CIH.2009.2.3.274] Kreuz Roger, 2004, LANG VAR CHANGE, V16, P1, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0954394504161012 Fridland V, 2005, AM SPEECH, V80, P366, DOI 10.1215/00031283-80-4-366 Garrett P., 2003, INVESTIGATING LANGUA Garrett Peter, 2001, J SOCIOLING, V5, P626, DOI DOI 10.1111/1467-9481.00171 Haddock G, 2004, CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATTITUDES, P35 Hasty J. Daniel, 2012, U PENNSYLVANIA WORKI, V18, P41 Hasty J. Daniel, 2014, MICROSYNTACTIC VARIA, P269 Hasty J. Daniel, 2008, TRIBUTARIES J ALABAM, V10, P163 Labov William, 1966, SOCIAL STRATIFICATIO Labov W, 2011, J SOCIOLING, V15, P431, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00504.x LAMBERT WE, 1960, J ABNORM SOC PSYCH, V60, P44, DOI 10.1037/h0044430 LAMBERT WE, 1967, J SOC ISSUES, V23, P91 LAMBERT WE, 1965, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V2, P84, DOI 10.1037/h0022088 Lippi-Green R., 2012, ENGLISH ACCENT LANGU LUHMAN R, 1990, LANG SOC, V19, P331 MISHOE M, 1994, AM SPEECH, V69, P3, DOI 10.2307/455947 MONTGOMERY MB, 1993, FOLIA LINGUIST HIST, V14, P91, DOI 10.1515/flih.1993.14.1-2.91 Montgomery Michael B., 1998, GULF STATES LEGACY L, P90 Nagle S., 1994, DIACHRONICA, V11, P199, DOI DOI 10.1075/DIA.11.20.4NAG Nagle Stephen J., 2003, MODALITY CONT ENGLIS, P349, DOI 10.1515/9783110895339.349 Niedzielski N. A., 2000, FOLK LINGUISTICS Ochs Elinor, 1992, RETHINKING CONTEXT L, P335 Giles Howard, 1984, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V90, P71 Preston Dennis, 1989, PERCEPTUAL DIALECTOL Preston Dennis R., 1997, LANGUAGE VARIETY S R, P311 Rickford John R., 1985, LANGUAGE INEQUALITY, P145, DOI 10.1515/9783110857320.145 Ryan E. B., 1979, LANGUAGE SOCIAL PSYC, P145 Ryan E. B., 1982, ATTITUDES LANGUAGE V, P1 Shields Jr Kenneth, 1979, USF LANGUAGE Q, V18, P2 Shuy R., 1973, LANGUAGE ATTITUDES C Silverstein Michael, 1976, MEANING ANTHR Soukup Barbara, 2001, VIENNA ENGLISH WORKI, V10, P56 Thomas ER, 2002, AM SPEECH, V77, P115, DOI 10.1215/00031283-77-2-115 Trudgill P., 1972, LANG SOC, V1, P179, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0047404500000488 TUCKER GR, 1969, SOC FORCES, V47, P463, DOI 10.2307/2574535 Wolfram W., 1976, APPALACHIAN SPEECH Wolfram Walt, 1999, PUBLICATION AM DIALE, V81 NR 57 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU DUKE UNIV PRESS PI DURHAM PA 905 W MAIN ST, STE 18-B, DURHAM, NC 27701 USA SN 0003-1283 EI 1527-2133 J9 AM SPEECH JI Am. Speech PD AUG PY 2015 VL 90 IS 3 BP 347 EP 368 DI 10.1215/00031283-3324509 PG 22 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CV7FU UT WOS:000364438600004 ER PT J AU Farese, GM AF Farese, Gian Marco TI Hi vs. Ciao: NSM as a tool for cross-linguistic pragmatics SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE NSM; Interactional meaning; Cross-linguistic pragmatics; Greetings AB This paper presents the results of the semantic analysis of two salutations, Hi (English) and Ciao (Italian), made adopting the methodology of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage. The analysis is aimed at making two points: first, that "greetings" have a proper semantic content consisting of expressed attitudes and feelings which can be described in simple, cross-translatable words; second, that salutations are not only performed differently, but also conceived differently across languages and this can create potential cases of miscommunication in cross-cultural interactions. To show this, the interactional meaning of Hi is compared with that of Ciao; two different semantic explications are proposed in order to capture various aspects of their meaning emerging from linguistic evidence. The implications for cross-linguistic pragmatics are also discussed. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Australian Natl Univ, Coll Arts & Social Sci, Sch Literatures Languages & Linguist, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. RP Farese, GM (reprint author), Australian Natl Univ, Coll Arts & Social Sci, Sch Literatures Languages & Linguist, 110 Ellery Crescent, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. EM gian.farese@anu.edu.au CR Barnes J., 2011, PULSE Bates Elizabeth, 1975, LANG SOC, V4, P271 Braun Friederike, 1988, TERMS OF ADDRESS Brown Roger, 1960, STYLE LANG, V435-449, P253 Duranti A., 1997, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V7, P63, DOI DOI 10.1525/JLIN.1997.7.1.63 Duranti Alessandro, 1986, LAB COMP HUM COGN, V8, P20 Eisteinstein Ebsworth Miriam, 1995, SPEECH ACTS CULTURES, P89 Farese Gian Marco, 2015, THESIS AUSTR NATL U Goddard C., 1994, SEMANTIC LEXICAL UNI [Anonymous], 2007, APPL CULTURAL LINGUI Goddard Cliff, 2014, WORDS MEANINGS LEXIC Goddard Cliff, 2004, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V1, P153, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2004.1.2.153 Goddard Cliff, 2006, ETHNOPRAGMATICS UNDE Goddard Cliff, 2002, MEANING UNIVERSAL GR Goddard Cliff, 2014, SPECIAL ISSUE INT J, V1, P2 Goddard Cliff, 2010, STUDIES PRAGMATICS J, V3, P105 Goddard C, 2008, STUD LANG C, V102, P1 Grieve A, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P1323, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.005 Gualdo Riccardo, 2011, LINGUAGGI SPECIALIST HOOPER J, 2015, THE ITALIANS, P56109 Kachru B. B, 1985, ENGLISH WORLD TEACHI, P11 Kesckes Istvan, 2014, INTERCULTURAL PRAGMA Mandolini Virginia, 2013, LA MASCHERA NERA MUSUMECI D, 1991, ITALICA, V68, P434, DOI 10.2307/479338 Peeters Bert, 2006, SEMANTIC PRIMES UNIV Scollon Ron, 2012, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Searle John R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH Severgnini Beppe, 2007, LA BELLA FIGURA Specer-Oatey Helen, 2009, INTERCULTURAL INTERA Stefanowitsch A., 2004, LANGUAGE CULTURE MIN, P137 Anna Wierzbicka, 1992, SEMANTICS CULTURE CO Wierzbicka A, 1997, UNDERSTANDING CULTUR Anna Wierzbicka, 2006, ENGLISH MEANING CULT Wierzbicka A., 1999, EMOTIONS LANGUAGES C Wierzbicka Anna, 2015, J PRAGMAT IN PRESS Wierzbicka A, 2003, MOUTON TXB, P1 Williamson David, 1997, MONEY AND FRIENDS Yoon Kyung-joo, 2004, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V1, P189, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2004.1.2.189 [Anonymous], 2011, CIAO KAROL 1500 LETT NR 39 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 0 U2 3 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 85 BP 1 EP 17 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.020 PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ4SX UT WOS:000360596000001 ER PT J AU Skalicky, S Berger, CM Bell, ND AF Skalicky, Stephen Berger, Cynthia M. Bell, Nancy D. TI The functions of "just kidding" in American English SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Humor; Rapport management; Corpus-assisted analysis; Formulaic language ID HUMOR; PRAGMATICS; WORKPLACE; IRONY; LAUGH; JOKE AB This study is a corpus-assisted investigation concerning the functions of the formulaic sequence just kidding and its variants (e.g., only kidding, just joking, A) in spoken and written American English. We identified 1200 instances of this phrase from multiple corpora representing a range of modalities (Contemporary Corpus of American English, Global Web-Based English corpus, The Santa Barbara Corpus, CallFriend, and MICASE) and utilized a recursive qualitative coding process that identified four different functions of the phrase (inoculation, repair of failed humor, return to serious, and set-up-new-joke). After the initial identification, we analyzed the four functions of just kidding through the lens of rapport management (Spencer-Oatey, 2005), which assumes the ongoing maintenance of relationships between interlocutors, arguing that just kidding and its variants can serve as an important element of rapport management amongst interlocutors. Our results suggest that just kidding is pragmatically dynamic and not solely a marker of failed humor, as initially expected. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Skalicky, Stephen; Berger, Cynthia M.] Georgia State Univ, Dept Appl Linguist, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA. [Skalicky, Stephen; Berger, Cynthia M.] Georgia State Univ, ESL, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA. [Bell, Nancy D.] Washington State Univ, Dept English, Pullman, WA 99164 USA. RP Skalicky, S (reprint author), Georgia State Univ, Dept Appl Linguist, 25 Pk Pl,15th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA. EM scskalicky@gmail.com; cmurphy20@student.gsu.edu; nbell@wsu.edu CR Aijmer K., 2002, ENGLISH DISCOURSE PA, V10 Bardovi-Harlig K, 2012, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V32, P206, DOI 10.1017/S0267190512000086 Bell A., 2001, STYLE SOCIOLINGUISTI, P139, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511613258.010 BELL A, 1984, LANG SOC, V13, P145 Bell Nancy, 2015, WE ARE NOT AMUSED FA Bell N, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P423, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.019 Bell ND, 2011, TESOL QUART, V45, P134, DOI 10.5054/tq.2011.240857 Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Boxer D, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V27, P275, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00031-8 Brown Penelope, 1987, POLITENESS Bryant Jim, 2004, US TODAY Carter R., 1997, EXPLORING SPOKEN ENG Davies M., 2013, CORPUS GLOBAL WEB BA Davies M, 2008, CORPUS CONT AM ENGLI DEWS S, 1995, METAPHOR SYMB ACT, V10, P3, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms1001_2 Chafe Wallace L, 2000, SANTA BARBARA CORPUS Fehely Devin, 2014, 11 ALIVE 0614 Grant LE, 2011, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V10, P183, DOI 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.006 Haugh M, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2106, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018 Holmes Janet, 2002, US OTHERS SOCIAL IDE, P377, DOI 10.1075/pbns.98.23hol Holmes Janet, 2002, HUMOR INT J HUMOR RE, V15, P63, DOI DOI 10.1515/HUMR.2002.006 Holmes J, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1683, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00032-2 Holmes Janet, 2000, DISCOURSE STUDIES, V2, P159, DOI DOI 10.1177/1461445600002002002 Holmes J, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P26, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.007 Holmes Janet, 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P121, DOI 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.121 Jorgensen J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V26, P613, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00067-4 Jucker Andreas H., 2009, LANGUAGE COMPUTERS S, V68, P3 Lindemann Stephanie, 2001, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V20, P459 Linguistic Data Consortium, 1992, CALLFRIEND AM ENGL N MacWhinney B, 2007, CREATING AND DIGITIZING LANGUAGE CORPORA VOLUME 1: SYNCHRONIC DATABASES, P163 Martin RA, 2007, PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR: AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH, P1, DOI 10.1016/B978-012372564-6/50020-4 McDonald Zach, 2011, INCREASING DOMESTIC Mead Chris, 2014, ATLANTA CONTROLLER J Oring Elliott, 2003, ENGAGING HUMOR Romero-Trillo J, 2008, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V2, P1 Schegloff EA, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1947, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00073-4 Schmitt N., 2004, FORMULAIC SEQUENCES, P1, DOI DOI 10.1075/LLLT.9.02SCH Simpson R. C., 2002, MICHIGAN CORPUS ACAD Sinkeviciute V, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V60, P121, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.004 Spencer-Oatey H, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P529, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00039-X Spencer-Oatey Helen, 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P95, DOI 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95 Wray A., 2002, FORMULAIC LANGUAGE L NR 42 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 1 U2 5 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 85 BP 18 EP 31 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.024 PG 14 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ4SX UT WOS:000360596000002 ER PT J AU Perera, K Strauss, S AF Perera, Kaushalya Strauss, Susan TI High-focus and time-immediate indexicals: A study of Sinhala discourse markers me: 'this' and daen 'now' SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Face threat; Hesitation markers; Immediacy; Online cognitive processing; Prospective indexical ID LINGUISTIC MARKERS; UM; EXPLORATION; DIGLOSSIA; ENGLISH; UH AB This article is an investigation of Sinhala demonstrative me:(2) and temporal adverb daen, in their functions as discourse markers. We analyze a corpus of approximately 400 min of naturally occurring, entirely unscripted spoken discourse. The data for this study are taken from televised interviews and political debates, involving a total of 16 speakers (11 male and 5 female). The data were transcribed and Romanized (adapted from Gair, 1998a) to facilitate morpho-syntactic-pragmatic analysis, and allowing for both interlineal glossing and the marking of relevant prosodic features. We identified all instances of the target forms me: and daen and coded them for their functions as demonstrative/temporal reference markers in addition to their functions as discourse markers. We illustrate the functions of me: 'this' as a filler and as a clarification marker, and the functions of daen 'now' as a contrastive marker, a discursive strategy building marker, and a marker of defensiveness to deflect designedly direct face threatening accusations. Our findings indicate that me: 'this' and daen 'now' function as discourse management markers, exhibiting remarkable patterns of online interactional and cognitive processes of focus, repair, hesitation, and contrast across the majority of speakers and across all interactional settings in our database. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Perera, Kaushalya] Univ Kelaniya, English Language Teaching Unit, Dalugama, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. [Strauss, Susan] Penn State Univ, Dept Appl Linguist, University Pk, PA 16802 USA. RP Strauss, S (reprint author), Penn State Univ, Dept Appl Linguist, 304 Sparks Bldg, University Pk, PA 16802 USA. EM kperera@kln.ac.lk; sgs9@psu.edu CR Acton Eric K., 2011, U PENNSYLVANIA WORKI, V17, P1 Aijmer K., 2002, ENGLISH DISCOURSE PA Aijmer K, 2006, STUD PRAGMAT, V1, P101 Arciuli J, 2010, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V31, P397, DOI 10.1017/S0142716410000044 Blakemore Diane, 2008, HDB DISCOURSE ANAL, P100 Bolyanatz Mariska, 2012, MESTER, V41, P79 Brinton L. J., 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN, V19 BUTLER CS, 2014, EXPLORING FUNCTIONAL Chandralal D, 2010, LOND ORIENT AFR LANG, V15, P1 Chandralal Dileep, 2007, KOBE PAPERS LINGUIST, V5, P1 Clark HH, 2002, COGNITION, V84, P73, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3 Cook Haruko Minegishi, 1993, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V3, P19 Culpeper J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P349, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 Delbecque N, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P73, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.004 Fischer K, 2006, STUD PRAGMAT, V1, P1 Fraser Bruce, 1996, PRAGMATICS, V6, P167 Fraser Bruce, 2009, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V1, P293 Fraser B, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P892, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.006 Gair James W., 1991, EXPERIENCER SUBJECTS, p[65, 13] Gair J. W., 1997, SINHALA Gair James W., 1999, LEXICAL ANAPHORS PRO, P715 Gair James W., 1967, INDIAN LINGUISTICS, V27, P32 Gair James W., 1976, INT J DRAVID LINGUIS, V10, P259 Gair James W., 1970, COLLOQUIAL SINHALESE Gair James W., 1998, STUDIES S ASIAN LING Gair James W., 1998, STUDIES S ASIAN LING, P111 Gair James W., 1976, SUBJECT S ASIAN LANG, P39 GAIR JW, 1968, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V10, P1 Garland Jennifer, 2005, SANTA BARBARA PAPERS, V17 Gibbs RW, 2008, COGNITION, V106, P345, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.008 Goodwin C., 1996, INTERACTION GRAMMAR, P370, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09780511620874.008 Mosegaard Hansen Maj-Britt, 1998, FUNCTION DISCOURSE P, V53 Hayashi Makoto, 2010, FILLERS PAUSES PLACE, P33 Hayashi M, 2006, STUD LANG, V30, P485, DOI 10.1075/sl.30.3.02hay Jucker AH, 1998, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V57, P1 Kano Mitsuru, 2000, B LANG SCI HUMANIT, V14, P57 Kano Mitsuru, 1996, GENGO TANKYUU RYOUIK, P127 Keevallik Leelo, 2010, FILLERS PAUSES PLACE, P139 Kim Kyu-Hyun, 2002, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V10, P192 Kitano Hiroaki, 1999, PRAGMATICS, V9, P383 Knott A, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V30, P135, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00023-X Koike DA, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P267, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)00095-6 Langacker Ronald, 2008, COGNITIVE GRAMMAR Lopes Ana C.M., 2006, BELG J LINGUIST, V20, P3 Naruoka Keiko, 2006, PRAGMATICS, V16, P475 Premawardhena Ch Neelakshi, 2007, DIALOGUE AND CULTURE, P213 Norrick NR, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P849, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80032-1 Oh Sun-Young, 2001, J ENGL LINGUIST, V29, P124, DOI 10.1177/00754240122005260 Paolillo JC, 1997, LANG SOC, V26, P269 Paolillo JC, 2000, J LINGUIST, V36, P215, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700008148 Polanyi Livia, 1983, TEXT, V3, P261, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1983.3.3.261 Ch Premawardhena Neelakshi, 2002, PRONOUNS GRAMMAR REP, P63 Rendle-Short Johanna, 2004, PRAGMATICS, V14, P479 SCHEGLOFF EA, 1977, LANGUAGE, V53, P361, DOI 10.2307/413107 Schegloff E.A., 1982, ANAL DISCOURSE TEXT, P71 Schiffrin Deborah, 1988, DISCOURSE MARKERS Schourup L, 1999, LINGUA, V107, P227, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 Senaratne Chamindi D, 2009, SINHALA ENGLISH CODE Strauss S, 2002, LANG SCI, V24, P131, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(01)00012-2 Strauss Susan, 1993, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V29, P403 Tottie G, 2011, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V16, P173, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.16.2.02tot Vrij Aldert, 1999, PSYCHOL CRIME LAW, V4, P401 Zeevat H, 2006, STUD PRAGMAT, V1, P133 NR 63 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 3 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 85 BP 32 EP 46 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.022 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ4SX UT WOS:000360596000003 ER PT J AU McKeown, J Zhang, QL AF McKeown, Jamie Zhang, Qilin TI Socio-pragmatic influence on opening salutation and closing valediction of British workplace email SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Socio-pragmatic influence; Email; Opening; Salutation; Closing; Valediction ID THANK-YOU; E-MAILS; COMMUNICATION; ENGLISH; STYLE; POLITENESS; APOLOGY; FRIENDS AB This paper reports the findings from a study into the variation of (in)formality of opening salutation and closing valediction in the emails of a group of British professionals. Drawing on both the literature and data used in this research, a number of socio-pragmatic factors were identified for exploration in terms of their influence on the (in)formality of opening and closing formulae. With the use of multivariate regression analysis, 387 emails were examined, 2 discrete models built, and 24 independent variables investigated. Results revealed 13 of the independent variables as significant in terms of their impact upon the (in)formality of opening and closing forms. Greater formality of both opening salutation and closing valediction was driven by external communication, and the social distance between parties. Preference for informality of opening salutation was driven by conversational progression, and the use of politeness markers. Preference for informality of closing valediction was driven by conversational progression, and time elapsed between successive email turns. Contrary to the idea that closing and opening forms constitute optional elements of email composition, the results indicated that such devices were not used as mere skeuomorphs of earlier epistolary communication but served deeper socio-pragmatic concerns. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [McKeown, Jamie] Hong Kong Polytech Univ, Dept English, Kowloon, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. [Zhang, Qilin] Univ Hong Kong, Sch Econ & Finance, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. RP McKeown, J (reprint author), Hong Kong Polytech Univ, Dept English, Kowloon, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. EM Jamie.mckeown@gmail.com; Zhangqilin2013@gmail.com CR Adams Susan, 2013, FORBES Androutsopoulos J, 2006, J SOCIOLING, V10, P419, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00286.x Argenti PA, 2006, J BUS TECH COMMUN, V20, P357, DOI 10.1177/1050651906287260 Baron N., 2000, ALPHABET EMAIL WRITT BIBER D, 1989, LANGUAGE, V65, P487, DOI 10.2307/415220 Bjorge A. K., 2007, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V17, P60, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1473-4192.2007.00133.X Bou-Franch P, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1772, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.002 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Bunz Ulla, 2002, ASS INT RES 3 ANN C Chejnova P, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V60, P175, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.10.003 Colley A, 2002, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V21, P380, DOI 10.1177/026192702237955 Colley A, 2004, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V23, P369, DOI 10.1177/0261927x04266812 Crystal David, 2001, LANGUAGE INTERNET [Anonymous], 2008, IMPOLITENESS LANGUAG Davies BL, 2011, SITUATED POLITENESS Eckert Penelope, 2003, LANGUAGE GENDER Evans S, 2012, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V31, P202, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2012.03.001 Fox Kate, 2004, WATCHING ENGLISH HID Gimenez J., 2000, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V19, P237, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00030-1 Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES Herring Susan C., 1996, COMPUTER MEDIATED CO, P81 Herring Susan C., 2000, CPSR NEWSLETTER, V18 Herring S. C., 2003, HDB LANGUAGE GENDER, P202, DOI 10.1002/9780470756942.ch9 Holmes J., 1995, WOMEN MEN POLITENESS Hymes Dell, 1974, FDN SOCIOLINGUISTICS Verschueren SF Jef, 1999, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMA Jenkins H., 2008, CONVERGENCE CULTURE Kahneman D., 1973, ATTENTION EFFORT Kankaanranta Anne, 2005, THESIS U JYVASKYLA Kendall Shari, 1997, GENDER DISCOURSE, P81 Knupsky AC, 2011, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V30, P103, DOI 10.1177/0261927X10387104 Kong Kenneth, 2006, J ASIAN PACIFIC COMM, V16, P77, DOI 10.1075/japc.16.1.05kon Lee HE, 2011, HUM COMMUN RES, V37, P125, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01396.x Lee HE, 2012, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V31, P263, DOI 10.1177/0261927X12446595 Li L., 2000, ENGL TODAY, V16, P23 Locher Miriam A., 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P9, DOI DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2005.1.1.9 Lorenzo-Dus N, 2013, PRAGMAT SOC, V4, P1, DOI 10.1075/ps.4.1.01lor Maynor N., 1994, CENTENNIAL USAGE STU, P48 Mills Sara, 2003, GENDER POLITENESS Milne Esther, 2010, LETT POSTCARDS EMAIL Morgan James, 2011, BBC Negroponte N., 1995, BEING DIGITAL Nickerson C., 1999, WRITING BUSINESS GEN, P35 Sabater CP, 2008, IBERICA, P71 Samuelson William, 1988, J RISK UNCERTAINTY, V1, P7, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF00055564 Sarangi Srikant, 1999, TALK WORK I ORDER DI, P2 Scheyder Elizabeth C., 2003, WORKING PAPERS ED LI, V19, P27 Scollon S. Ron, 1995, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Searcey Dionne, 2011, WSJ Searle John. R., 1984, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH Sherblom John, 1988, J BUS COMMUN, V25, P39, DOI DOI 10.1177/002194368802500403 Spencer-Oatey Helen, 2000, CULTURALLY SPEAKING Sperber D, 1995, RELEVANCE Robles J. S., 2013, EVERYDAY TALK BUILDI Tracy K., 1990, HDB LANGUAGE SOCIAL, P209 Traum D. R., 2000, J SEMANT, V17, P7, DOI DOI 10.1093/JOS/17.1.7 Waldvogel Joan, 2002, NZ ENGLISH J, V16, P42 Waldvogel J, 2007, J COMPUT-MEDIAT COMM, V12 Watts R., 2003, POLITENESS YATES Simeon J., 2000, LETT WRITING SOCIAL, P233 NR 60 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 8 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 85 BP 92 EP 107 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.012 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ4SX UT WOS:000360596000007 ER PT J AU O'Neal, G AF O'Neal, George TI Segmental repair and interactional intelligibility: The relationship between consonant deletion, consonant insertion, and pronunciation intelligibility in English as a Lingua Franca in Japan SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Conversation analysis; Intelligibility; ELF; Consonant deletion; Consonant insertion; Segmental repair ID MUTUAL INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH; COMPREHENSIBILITY; STRATEGIES AB This is a qualitative study of the relationship between consonant deletion, consonant insertion, and the pragmatic strategies that maintain mutual intelligibility in English as a Lingua Franca (hereafter, ELF) interactions among university and exchange students at a Japanese university (Jenkins, 2000; Matsumoto, 2011; O'Neal, 2015). Some ELF research claims that consonant deletion attenuates mutual intelligibility in ELF interactions, especially if the consonant deletion occurs in word-initial and word-medial consonant clusters or in consonant clusters in syllable onsets and codas (Jenkins, 2000, 2007; Deterding, 2013). This study assesses the effect of consonant deletion and consonant insertion on the mutual intelligibility of pronunciation in ELF interactions in Japan. Using conversation analytic methodology to examine a corpus of miscommunications among ELF speakers at a Japanese university, within which miscommunications are defined as repair sequences, this study claims that consonant deletion can attenuate mutual intelligibility, and that the insertion of a deleted consonant into a word can help restore mutual intelligibility. Furthermore, this is true regardless of deviance from or approximation to a native speaker pronunciation standard. This study concludes that segmental repair is an effective strategy with which English speakers can maintain mutual intelligibility. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [O'Neal, George] Niigata Univ, Ctr Educ Support, Niigata, Niigata 9502111, Japan. RP O'Neal, G (reprint author), Niigata Univ, Ikarashi Campus 8065-16,Daigakuminami 2-Chome, Niigata, Niigata 9502111, Japan. EM cerebralabstraction@gmail.com CR BRODKEY D, 1972, LANG LEARN, V22, P203, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1972.tb00083.x Canagarajah S., 2013, TRANSLINGUAL PRACTIC Cook G., 2012, J ENGLISH LINGUA FRA, V1/2, P241 Derwing T., 1997, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V19, P1, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263197001010 Deterding D., 2013, MISUNDERSTANDINGS EN, DOI Berlin Fauzi Wan Jumani, 2014, 6 INT PRAGM COMM C V Fukuda Kazuo, 2013, TAIJIN KANKEI GENGOG GASS S, 1984, LANG LEARN, V34, P65, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00996.x HUDSON R, 1981, J LINGUIST, V17, P333, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700007052 Isaacs T, 2012, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V34, P475, DOI 10.1017/S0272263112000150 Jenkins J, 2002, APPL LINGUIST, V23, P83, DOI 10.1093/applin/23.1.83 Jenkins J., 2007, ENGLISH LINGUA FRANC Jenkins J., 2000, PHONOLOGY ENGLISH IN Jenkins J, 2011, LANG TEACHING, V44, P281, DOI 10.1017/S0261444811000115 Jenks CJ, 2012, APPL LINGUIST, V33, P386, DOI 10.1093/applin/ams014 Kerzel D, 2000, J EXP PSYCHOL HUMAN, V26, P634, DOI 10.1037//0096-1523.26.2.634 Kitzinger Celia, 2013, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P499 Matsumoto Y, 2011, MOD LANG J, V95, P97, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01172.x Mortensen J., 2013, J ENGLISH LINGUA FRA, V2, P25, DOI DOI 10.1515/JELF-2013-0002 Munro MJ, 2006, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V28, P111, DOI 10.1017/S0272263106060049 Nelson CL, 2011, ESL APPL LINGUIST, P1 Nemeth Z, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P2022, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.015 O'Neal George, 2015, ASIAN ENGLISHES, V17, P1 O'Neal George, 2015, PRAGMAT SOC IN PRESS Otake Yoshio, 2003, SHINSHU DAIGAKU KYOU, V109, P13 Rajadurai J., 2007, WORLD ENGLISH, V26, P87, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00490.x Schegloff, 2000, APPL LINGUIST, V21, P205 SCHEGLOFF EA, 1992, AM J SOCIOL, V97, P1295, DOI 10.1086/229903 Schegloff EA, 2007, SEQUENCE ORGANIZATION IN INTERACTION: A PRIMER IN CONVERSATION ANALYSIS I, P1, DOI 10.2277/ 0521532795 Seidlhofer B., 2011, UNDERSTANDING ENGLIS Suenobu Mineo, 2010, NIHONEIGO HA SEKAI T Walker R., 2010, TEACHING PRONUNCIATI NR 32 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 6 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 85 BP 122 EP 134 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.013 PG 13 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ4SX UT WOS:000360596000009 ER PT J AU Estelles-Arguedas, M AF Estelles-Arguedas, Maria TI Expressing evidentiality through prosody? Prosodic voicing in reported speech in Spanish colloquial conversations SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Evidentiality; Spanish; Prosody; Direct reported speech; Conversation ID VOICES; STANCE AB The present paper attempts to establish the evidential character of the special prosodic configuration associated with direct reported discourse (DRD). A variety of expressive meanings have been commonly attributed to this marked prosodic configuration of DRD (such as expression of stance, emotion, mimicking, alignment). However, the concurrence of pragmatic/expressive meanings together with evidentiality is very frequent in 'non-evidential' languages like Spanish. Therefore, we argue that the prosody in DRD also signals 'reported' or 'quoted' discourse and, therefore, the presence of evidentiality. To provide evidence for this latter claim, 449 instances of DRD have been extracted from a corpus of (Iberian) Spanish colloquial conversations containing c. 150,000 words, and their prosodic behaviour has been observed. The data reveals a marked prosody in the majority of DRD instances in our corpus. Especial attention has been paid to the examples of DRD with no explicit introductory marks (e.g. verba dicendi), since 100% of them are prosodically marked. Here, the marked prosody is the only indicator of the source of information. Consequently, it stops being a redundant trait (concomitant to the presence of introductory verbs or marks): it becomes prominent and its use is not optional. (C) 2015 Elsevier BA/. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Valencia, Dept Spanish Literature & Linguist, E-46100 Valencia, Spain. RP Estelles-Arguedas, M (reprint author), Univ Valencia, Dept Spanish Literature & Linguist, Blasco Ibanez 32,3rd Floor, E-46100 Valencia, Spain. EM maria.estelles@uv.es RI Estelles Arguedas, Maria/G-8140-2015 OI Estelles Arguedas, Maria/0000-0001-9134-0251 FU Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness - MINECO [FFI2013-40905-P]; University of Valencia [UV-INV-PRECOMP13-115551] FX This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness - MINECO (project FFI2013-40905-P, La atenuacion pragmatica en el espahol hablado: su variacion diafasica y diatopica), as well as by the University of Valencia (project UV-INV-PRECOMP13-115551, Marcadores discursivos en textos de especialidad: analisis contrastivo y aplicacion a la ensenanza de la traduccion). CR Aikhenvald Alexandra, 2007, RIV LINGUISTICA, V19-1, P209 Aikhenvald Alexandra, 2004, EVIDENTIALITY Benavent Elise, 2000, THESIS U VALENCIA VA Bermudez Fernando, 2005, THESIS STOCKHOLMS U Besnier Niko, 1992, RESPONSIBILITY EVIDE, P161 Boye Kasper, 2010, STUF, V63, P290 Pons Salvador, 2012, CORPUS VAL ES CO 2 0 Cabedo Adrian, 2007, ESTUD LINGUIST U ALL, V21, P1 Caldiz Adriana, 2011, 12 INT PRAGM ASS C J Caldiz Adriana, 2007, ACTAS DEL III COLOQU, P108 Chafe W.L, 1986, EVIDENTIALITY LINGUI, P261 Clift R, 2006, J SOCIOLING, V10, P569, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00296.x Couper-Kui-Ilen Elizabeth, 1996, PROSODY CONVERSATION, V366, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.011 Couper-Kuhlen E., 2004, SOUND PATTERNS INTER, P335 Cruschina Silvio, 2008, RIV GRAMMATICA GENER, V33, P99 Diewald Gabriele, 2010, LINGUISTIC REALIZATI Ducrot O., 1986, DECIR DICHO POLIFONI Estelles Maria, 2014, J POLIT RES, V10, P29 Frawley W., 1992, LINGUISTIC SEMANTICS Ganthner Susanne, 1997, SPRECH GESPRACHSSTIL, P94 Gunthner S, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P685, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00093-9 Gunthner S, 1997, LANGUAGE OF EMOTIONS, P247 Gunthner Susanne, 2002, VERBALEN INTERACT, V3, P59 Gutierrez Salvador, 1997, PRINCIPIOS SINTAXIS Hagler G., 2002, REPORTED DISCOURSE M, P143, DOI 10.1075/ts1.52.11has Hidalgo Antonio, 2012, VOZ LENGUAJE FONETIC Hidalgo Antonio, 2009, BOLETIN DE FILOLOGIA, VXLIV, P161 Ingrids H, 2014, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V47, P69, DOI 10.1080/08351813.2014.871806 Jager A., 2007, U QUEENSLAND WORKING, V1, P1 Jakobson Roman, 1957, SHIFTERS VERBAL CATE, P130 Klewitz G., 1999, PRAGMATICS, V9, P459 Lampert G, 2010, STUF LANGUAGE TYPOLO, V63, P308, DOI DOI 10.1524/STUF.201 Maldonado Concepcion, 1999, GRAMATICA DESCRIPTIV, V3, P3549 Mora Elsa, 2009, ESTUD FON EXP, V18, P237 Mora Elsa, 2003, P 15 INT C PHON SCI, P571 RAE (Real Academia Espanola), 2011, NUEV GRAM LENG ESP Reyes Graciela, 1993, PROCEDIMIENTOS CITA Sherer Klaus R., 2003, HDB AFFECTIVE SCI, P433 Sicoli MA, 2010, LANG SOC, V39, P521, DOI 10.1017/S0047404510000436 Squartini M, 2001, STUD LANG, V25, P297, DOI 10.1075/sl.25.2.05squ Tainio L, 2012, TEXT TALK, V32, P547, DOI 10.1515/text-2012-0026 Talmy Leonard, 2007, OXFORD HDB COGNITIVE, P264 Tannen D, 2007, TALKING VOICES REPET Whorl Benjamin L., 1938, SOME VERBAL CATEGORI WILLETT T, 1988, STUD LANG, V12, P51, DOI 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil NR 45 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 5 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 85 BP 138 EP 154 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.012 PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ4SX UT WOS:000360596000011 ER PT J AU De la Mora, J Maldonado, R AF De la Mora, Juliana Maldonado, Ricardo TI Dizque: Epistemics blurring evidentials in Mexican Spanish SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Evidentials; Reportatives; Epistemic markers; Pragmatic markers; Discourse markers AB In contrast with previous approaches that analyze dizque 'supposedly, allegedly' as a purely evidential marker encoding reported speech and implying epistemic modality (Travis, 2006; Olbertz, 2007), this paper proposes, from a Cognitive Grammar perspective, that the core meaning of dizque corresponds to a schematic representation where the veracity of events is called into question. New extensions develop to disqualify events as either false or inadequate since they lack some nuclear property of their category. It is proposed that the core meaning of dizque has changed from reportative to a pragmatic marker encoding epistemic and evaluative readings. As a nominal modifier dizque undertakes evaluative meanings, as a clause modifier it undertakes epistemic readings. Further extensions from epistemic readings imply intentions of bragging, pretending and deceiving as seen from the speaker's perspective. Evaluative and epistemic meanings have taken over the old reportative function of dizque to such extent that the complementizer que must be introduced to create a new evidential-epistemic marker que dizque, where que attests that what is being questioned was expressed by some unidentified source and dizque questions the veracity of the clause. Finally, the emergence of an even newer epistemic marker quesque emerging in Mexican informal speech is accounted for in terms of weakened evidentiality and increased epistemicity. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. C1 [De la Mora, Juliana; Maldonado, Ricardo] Univ Autonoma Queretaro, Fac Lenguas & Letras, Ctr Estudios Linguist & Literarios, Mexico City 76140, DF, Mexico. [Maldonado, Ricardo] Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Inst Invest Filol, Mexico City 04510, DF, Mexico. RP De la Mora, J (reprint author), Univ Autonoma Queretaro, Fac Lenguas & Letras, Ctr Estudios Linguist & Literarios, Campus Aeropuerto,Circuito Fray Juniper Serra Km, Mexico City 76140, DF, Mexico. EM juliana.delamora@uaq.edu.mx CR Aikhenvald Alexandra, 2004, EVIDENTIALITY Aikhenvald Alexandra Y., 2006, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, V4, P320 Aikhenvald Alexandra Y., 2007, ITAL J LINGUIST, V19, P207 Rodriguez Alfano Lidia, 2012, CORPUS MONTERREY PRE Babel AM, 2009, LANG SOC, V38, P487, DOI 10.1017/S0047404509990236 Bermudez F, 2005, ESTUD FILOL, V40, P165 Wachtmeister Bermudez Fernando, 2004, B LINGUIST, V22, P3 Martin Butragueno Pedro, 2011, CORPUS SOCIOLINGUIST Cornillie Bert, 2007, ITAL J LINGUIST, V19, P109 Company Concepcion, 2004, REV FLLOLOGIA ESPANO, VLXXXIV, P29 deHaan Ferdinand, 2005, ENCODING SPEAKER PER DeLancey Scott, 1997, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V1, P33, DOI DOI 10.1515/LITY.1997.1.1.33 DeLancey S, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P369, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 DeLancey Scott, 2012, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V12, P529 Demonte Violeta, 2013, REV ESTUDOS LINGUIST Etxepare R, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P604, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.009 Gonzalez Ramos Elisa, 2005, INTERLINGUISTICA, V15, P665 Rojas EH, 2011, RLA-REV LINGUIST TEO, V49, P143, DOI 10.4067/S0718-48832011000100007 Kany C. E., 1944, HISPANIC REV, V12, P168, DOI 10.2307/469712 Langacker Ronald, 1985, ICONICITY SYNTAX Langacker R. W., 1990, Cognitive Linguistics, V1, P5, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 Lopez Izquierdo Marta, 2006, CAHIERS ETUDESHISPAN, P483 Magana Elizabeth, 2005, CONSTRIBUCIONES DESD, V8, P59 Maldonado Ricardo, 2010, ADJETIVOS DISCURSO E, V3, P61 Miglio VG, 2010, LANG COMPUT, V71, P7 Olbertz H., 2005, ENCUENTROS CONFLICTO, P77 Olbertz H., 2007, RIV LINGUISTICA, V19, P151 Schwenter Scott A., 1999, ESTUDIOS VARIACION S Sweetser Eve, 1991, ETYMOLOGY PRAGMATICS, V54 Travis CE, 2006, LINGUISTICS, V44, P1269, DOI 10.1515/LING.2006.041 Trevino Esthela, 2008, QUE MARCA EVID UNPUB Gonzalez Vergara Carlos, 2011, ALPHA, V32, P149 Vidal Escandell, 2010, ANUARIO LINGUISTICA, VXXVI, P9 NR 33 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 2 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 85 BP 168 EP 180 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.019 PG 13 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ4SX UT WOS:000360596000013 ER PT J AU Schendl, H AF Schendl, Herbert TI Code-switching in early English literature SO LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE LA English DT Article DE Code-switching; drama; English; French; functions; Latin; medieval literature; multilingualism; poetry; syntactic patterns AB Code-switching has been a frequent feature of literary texts from the beginning of English literary tradition to the present time. The medieval period, in particular, with its complex multilingual situation, has provided a fruitful background for multilingual texts, and will be the focus of the present article. After looking at the linguistic background of the period and some specifics of medieval literature and of historical code-switching, the article discusses the main functions of code-switching in medieval poetry and drama, especially in regard to the different but changing status of the three main languages of literacy: Latin, French and English. This functional-pragmatic approach is complemented by a section on syntactic aspects of medieval literary code-switching, which also contains a brief comparison with modern spoken code-switching and shows some important similarities and differences between the two sets of data. C1 [Schendl, Herbert] Univ Vienna, English Hist Linguist, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. RP Schendl, H (reprint author), Univ Vienna, Inst Anglist & Amerikanist, Dept English, English Linguist, Campus Univ Wien,Spitalgasse 2-4-Hof 8-3, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. EM herbert.schendl@univie.ac.at CR Alford J, 1992, PIERS PLOWMAN GUIDE Archibald E, 2010, COMPANION MEDIEVAL P, P277, DOI 10.1002/9781444319095.ch15 Backus AD, 2003, LINGUISTICS, V41, P83, DOI 10.1515/ling.2003.005 Baugh AC, 1967, LIT HIST ENGLAND, V2nd Clanchy M., 1993, MEMORY WRITTEN RECOR Davidson MC, 2001, THESIS U TORONTO CAN Diller HJ, 1997, COMP DRAMA, V31, P500 Erman B., 2000, TEXT, V20, P29, DOI DOI 10.1515/TEXT.1.2000.20.1.29 Fitzmaurice S, 2007, TOP ENGL LINGUIST, V52, P1 Forster L, 1970, POETS TONGUE MULTILI Gullberg M, 2009, CAMB HB LANG LINGUIS, P21 Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES Halmari Helena, 2011, CODE SWITCHING EARLY, P115 Hamers J. F., 2000, BILINGUALITY BILINGU Hunt T, 2011, MEHRSPRACHIGKEIT MIT, P59 Ingham R, 2011, CODE SWITCHING EARLY, P95 Jefferson Judith Anne, 2013, MULTILINGUALISM MEDI Jefferson JA, 2013, MULTILIGUALISM MEDIE, P195 Latham R. E., 1975, DICT MEDIEVAL LATIN Lazzerini L, 1982, REV LANGUES ROMANES, V86, P11 Lusignan S, 2009, LANGUAGE CULTURE MED, P19 Machan TW, 2006, STUD PHILOL, V103, P1, DOI 10.1353/sip.2006.0003 Machan Tim William, 2011, CODE SWITCHING EARLY, P303 MACHAN TW, 1994, SPECULUM, V69, P359, DOI 10.2307/2865087 Morgan JA, 1872, MACARONIC POETRY Muysken P., 1995, ONE SPEAKER 2 LANGUA, P177 POPLACK S, 1980, LINGUISTICS, V18, P581, DOI 10.1515/ling.1980.18.7-8.581 Putter Ad, 2011, CODE SWITCHING EARLY, P281 Putter A, 2009, LANGUAGE CULTURE MED, P397 Putz M, 1994, SPRACHOKOLOGIE SPRAC ROTHWELL WILLIAM, 1994, STUDIES AGE CHAUCER, V16, P45 Schendl Herbert, 2011, CODE SWITCHING EARLY Schendl Herbert, 2000, MULTILINGUALISM LATE, P77 Schendl H, 2001, LANGUAGE CONTACT HIS, P305 Schendl H, APPROACHES IN PRESS Schendl Herbert, 1997, VIENNA ENGLISH WORKI, V6, P52 Schendl H, 2000, PLACING MIDDLE ENGLI, P67 Sebba Mark, 2012, LANGUAGE MIXING CODE, P1 Sullivan C, 1932, THESIS CATHOLIC U AM Tiller T, 1999, LANGLAND PIERS PLOWM Trotter D. A., 2000, MULTILINGUALISM LATE Wehrle WO, 1933, THESIS CATHOLIC U AM Wenzel S, 1994, MARCARONIC SERMONS B [Anonymous], 2009, LANGUAGE CULTURE MED Wogan-Browne J, 2009, LANGUAGE CULTURE MED, P1 Wright Laura, 2011, CODE SWITCHING EARLY, P191 NR 46 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 2 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 0963-9470 EI 1461-7293 J9 LANG LIT JI Lang. Lit. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 24 IS 3 SU SI BP 233 EP 248 DI 10.1177/0963947015585245 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CP5FS UT WOS:000359907300005 ER PT J AU Montes-Alcala, C AF Montes-Alcala, Cecilia TI Code-switching in US Latino literature: The role of biculturalism SO LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE LA English DT Article DE Biculturalism; bilingualism; language mixing; literature; Spanish-English ID UNITED-STATES; LANGUAGE; ENGLISH; SPANISH AB While mixing languages in natural speech production has often been inaccurately ascribed to illiteracy or lack of linguistic competence, doing so in writing is a long-standing practice in bilingual literature. This practice may fulfill stylistic or aesthetic purposes, be a source of credibility and/or communicate biculturalism, humor, criticism, and ethnicity, among other functions. Here, I analyze a selection of contemporary Spanish-English bilingual literature (poetry, drama, and fiction) written by Mexican American, Nuyorican, and Cuban American authors focusing on the types, and significance, of code-switching (CS) in their works. The aim of the study is to determine to what extent the socio-pragmatic functions that have been attested in natural bilingual discourse are present in literary CS, whether it is mimetic rather than rhetorical, and what differences exist both across literary genres and among the three US Latino groups. I also emphasize the cultural aspect of CS, a crucial element that has often been overlooked in the search for grammatical constraints. C1 [Montes-Alcala, Cecilia] Georgia Inst Technol, Atlanta, GA 30332 USA. RP Montes-Alcala, C (reprint author), Georgia Inst Technol, Sch Modern Languages, 613 Cherry St, Atlanta, GA 30332 USA. EM cecilia@gatech.edu CR Acosta-Belen E, 2013, OXFORD BIBLIO ONLINE Algarin M, 1989, NUEVOS PASOS CHICANO, P151 Alurista, 1971, FLORICANTO EN AZTLAN Anderson SL, 2004, THESIS TEXAS A M U Aparicio F, 1993, HDB HISPANIC CULTURE, P19 APARICIO FR, 1994, AM LIT, V66, P795, DOI 10.2307/2927701 Aparicio F, 1988, EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE, P147 Alvarez Borland I, 1998, CUBAN AM LIT EXILE P Braschi G, 1998, YO YO BOING Callahan L, 2001, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Callahan L, 2003, BILINGUAL REV, V27, P12 Callahan L, 2004, SPANISH ENGLISH CODE Casielles-Suarez E, 2013, B HISPANIC STUD, V90, P475, DOI 10.3828/bhs.2013.30 Cintron ZA, 1997, THESIS NW U EVANSTON Clyne Michael, 1967, TRANSFERENCE TRIGGER Huerta J, 1973, TEATRO ESPERANZA ANT, P39 Ervin S., 1954, J ABNORMAL SOCIAL S, V49, P139 Fernandez R, 1981, VIDA SPECIAL FLORES J, 1981, DAEDALUS, V110, P193 Gonzales-Berry E, 1989, DICT LIT BIOGRAPHY C, P304 Gumperz J, 1976, 46 U CAL LANG BEH RE Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES Hatcher DL, 1994, THESIS NO ILLINOIS U Haugen Einar, 1973, CURR TRENDS LINGUIST, P505 Hinojosa R, 1981, MI QUERIDO RAFA Jacobson Rodolfo, 1978, J LINGUISTICS ASS SW, V3, P20 Jonsson C, 2005, THESIS UMEA U SWEDEN Keller G, 1993, HDB HISPANIC CULTURE, P163 Keller Gary, 1976, ANAL HISPANIC TEXTS, P130 Keller G, 1984, CHICANO STUDIES MULT, P171 Laviera T, 1988, MAINSTREAM ETHICS Laviera Tato, 1985, AMERICAN Lipski J, 2004, LAVIS 3 C U AL 16 AP Lipski John M, 2005, SEL P 2 WORKSH SPAN, P1 LIPSKI JM, 1982, BILINGUAL REV, V9, P191 Mahootian Shahrzad, 2005, INT J BILINGUAL, V9, P361 McClure Erica, 1981, LATINO LANGUAGE COMM, P69 Medina P, 1995, HISPANIC AM LIT BRIE, P234 Montes-Alcala C, 2012, LANGUAGE MIXING CODE, P68 Myers-Scotton C, SHORT SUMMARIES UNIF Myers-Scotton C., 1993, DUELLING LANGUAGES Otheguy Ricardo, 2008, ENCICLOPEDIA ESPANOL, P222 Perez-Firmat G, 1995, BILINGUAL BLUES Perez-Firmat G, 2013, OXFORD BIBLIO ONLINE Perez-Firmat G., 1987, TRIPLE CROWN CHICANO Pfaff C, 1986, MISSIONS CONFLICT ES, P229 Poplack S., 1981, LATINO LANGUAGE COMM, P169 Prida Dolores, 1991, BEAUTIFUL SENORITAS Rudin Ernst, 1996, TENDER ACCENTS SOUND Sanchez M, 1994, CONT CHICANA POETRY Sebba Mark, 2012, LANGUAGE MIXING CODE Torres L, 2002, LANG SOC, V31, P65, DOI 10.1017/S004740450101003X Torres Lourdes, 2007, MELUS, V32, P75 Valdes-Fallis Guadalupe, 1976, BILINGUALISM BICENTE, P86 Valdes-Fallis Guadalupe, 1977, POINT CONTACT, V1, P30 Valdez L, 1971, EL TEATRO CAMPESINO Weinreich V, 1953, LANGUAGES CONTACT Zentella A. C., 1997, GROWING BILINGUAL PU NR 58 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 5 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 0963-9470 EI 1461-7293 J9 LANG LIT JI Lang. Lit. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 24 IS 3 SU SI BP 264 EP 281 DI 10.1177/0963947015585224 PG 18 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CP5FS UT WOS:000359907300007 ER PT J AU Rapp, I AF Rapp, Irene TI On the Temporal Interpretation of Present Participles in German SO JOURNAL OF SEMANTICS LA English DT Article AB The goal of this article is to investigate the temporal properties of German present participles, occurring prenominally and in secondary predication, in an event semantic approach. Empirically, the study relies in part on the corpus-based descriptions of prenominal participles presented in Lubbe & Rapp (2011). I will argue that-according to Keshet's (2008) Intersective Predicate Generalization-present participles are always temporally dependent on their sister constituent. If they occur in secondary predication, this sister constituent is the main clause VP; if they occur prenominally, it is the modified noun. The temporal relation with the noun / the main clause predicate is simultaneity (cf. Kusumoto 1999, 2005), but this simultaneity relation can be altered by temporal adverbials like gestern 'yesterday' and fruher 'formerly'. The article will also consider whether there is a grammatically determined temporal relation between a prenominal present participle and the main clause. I will argue that prenominal present participles are dependent on the main clause predicate only if the participle is embedded in a DP with a non-presuppositional (= indefinite) determiner. Non-presuppositional determiners create intersective temporal interpretations: they lexically fix the interpretation of their NP complement (including attributes) as being simultaneous with the main clause predicate. Presuppositional determiners, in contrast, do not fix such a relation, that is the temporal interpretation of the NP complement (including attributes) is semantically free and guided by pragmatic principles (cf. Musan 1997, 1999, Tonhauser 2012). There are, however, some apparent counterexamples to the temporal dependency of (syntactically or lexically given) intersective structures (cf. Kusumoto 1999; Tonhauser 2012). I will show that the intersective interpretation can be maintained if we assume that these examples involve a specific kind of noun, label nouns. These are personal nouns referring to situations that can be used to characterize an individual even when the situation is already over (Morder 'murderer', Fluchtling 'fugitive'). The article is structured as follows: I begin by presenting the relevant data in section 1. Then, in section 2, I present an event semantic account of present participle phrases in different positions. Section 3 examines the role the determiner plays in the interpretation of prenominal participles, and section 4 focuses on cases with a definite determiner. Section 5 looks at some examples which seem to be problematic for the interpretation of intersective structures and introduces the concept of label nouns. Finally, section 6 examines the combination of temporal adverbials with present participles. C1 Univ Tubingen, Deutsch Seminar, D-72074 Tubingen, Germany. RP Rapp, I (reprint author), Univ Tubingen, Deutsch Seminar, Wilhelmstr 50, D-72074 Tubingen, Germany. EM rapp.irene@googlemail.com FU DFG [SFB 833] FX This article has been written in a DFG-supported project on the constitution of meaning in non-finite verb forms (SFB 833). I would like to thank Sigrid Beck, Stefan Engelberg, Christian Fortmann, Patrick Grosz, Vera Hohaus, Anja Lubbe, Alexander Pfaff, Maribel Romero and Arnim von Stechow for helpful discussions. I am also grateful to two anonymous reviewers for useful suggestions and comments. CR Abusch D, 1997, LINGUIST PHILOS, V20, P1, DOI 10.1023/A:1005331423820 Bauerle Rainer, 1979, TEMPORALE DEIXIS TEM Beck Sigrid, 2014, FORTMANN CH IN PRESS Beck Sigrid, 2014, EVENTS TIMES WORLDS Buring D., 2004, Natural Language Semantics, V12, P23, DOI 10.1023/B:NALS.0000011144.81075.a8 Dowty D., 1979, WORD MEANING MONTAGU Elbourne PD, 2005, CURR STUD LINGUIST, P1 ENC M, 1986, LINGUIST PHILOS, V9, P405, DOI 10.1007/BF00603217 Engelberg Stefan, 2002, P 2001 C AUSTR LING Fortmann Christian, 2014, PRESENT PARTICIPLE D Givon T., 1984, SYNTAX FUNCTIONAL TY Givon Talmy, 1984, BENJAMINS AMSTERDAM Hohaus Vera, 2013, FRUHER FORMER TEMPOR Keshet Ezra, 2008, THESIS MIT Klein W, 1994, TIME LANGUAGE Kusumoto Kiyomi, 1999, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Kusumoto K., 2005, Natural Language Semantics, V13, P317, DOI 10.1007/s11050-005-4537-6 Landman Fred, 1992, NAT LANG SEMANT, V1, P1, DOI 10.1007/BF02342615 Lehmann Christian, 1992, DTSCH SYNTAX ANSICHT, P155 Lubbe Anja, 2013, DTSCH SPRACHE, V2, P97 Lubbe A, 2011, Z SPRACHWISS, V30, P259 Maienborn Claudia, 2003, STUDIA GRAMMATICA, V56 Maienborn C, 2005, THEOR LINGUIST, V31, P275, DOI 10.1515/thli.2005.31.3.275 Maienborn C, 2007, Z GER LINGUISTIK, V35, P83, DOI 10.1515/ZGL.2007.005 Milsark Gary, 1977, LINGUISTIC ANAL, V3, P1 Musan Renate, 1995, THESIS MIT Musan R, 1999, LINGUIST PHILOS, V22, P621, DOI 10.1023/A:1005435423259 Musan R, 1997, TEMPORAL INTERPRETAT Partee B., 1973, J PHILOS, V70, P601, DOI DOI 10.2307/2025024 Pfaff Alexander, 2014, FORTMANN CH IN PRESS Rapp Irene, 2014, FORTMANN CH IN PRESS Rapp Irene, 1996, ZUSTAND PASSIV UBERL Rapp Irene, 2006, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V208, P405 Rapp Irene, 2002, FOLIA LINGUIST, VXXXV, P243 Rapp Irene, 1996, Z SPRACHWISS, V15, P231, DOI DOI 10.1515/ZFSW.1996.15.2.231 Reichenbach Hans, 1947, ELEMENTS SYMBOLIC LO Romero Maribel, 2005, SALT 16, P208 Schpak-Dolt Nikolaus, 1977, THESIS U KONSTANZ Stowell Tim, 1995, PHRASE STRUCTURE LEX, P277 Toman Jindrich, 1986, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V105, P367 Tonhauser Judith, 2012, TEMPORAL ANAPHORA NO NR 41 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 5 PU OXFORD UNIV PRESS PI OXFORD PA GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND SN 0167-5133 EI 1477-4593 J9 J SEMANT JI J. Semant. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 32 IS 3 BP 477 EP 523 DI 10.1093/jos/ffu005 PG 47 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CP1KT UT WOS:000359635400004 ER PT J AU Syrett, K Koev, T AF Syrett, Kristen Koev, Todor TI Experimental Evidence for the Truth Conditional Contribution and Shifting Information Status of Appositives SO JOURNAL OF SEMANTICS LA English DT Article ID RELATIVES; PRESUPPOSITIONS; PARENTHETICALS; EXPRESSIVES AB Appositive constructions (My friend Sophie, (who is) a classical violinist, performed a piece by Mozart) have stood at the center of debates concerning the range of possible meanings, and more specifically the status of not-at-issue entailments. However, it remains an open question what precisely their semantic and pragmatic contribution is to the sentence in which they appear. Here, we address this question head-on experimentally. We first investigate the information status of appositives and find that while nominal appositives (e.g. a classical violinist) and sentence-medial appositive relative clauses (e.g. who is a classical violinist) are largely not at issue, sentence-final appositive relative clauses can become at issue, as witnessed in their becoming the target of a direct rejection and being associated with subsequent questions. We then investigate the truth conditional contribution of appositives to sentences in which they appear, and find that whenever an appositive is false, participants judge the entire sentence False. Reaction times complement truth value ratings to demonstrate that this decision is largely automatic. We discuss possible reasons for the difference among appositive types and sentential positions, and propose that the pattern of results we observe and the strong similarity with conjunction can best be accounted for in a unidimensional semantics which treats appositives as dynamic conjuncts but which also relates linguistic form to the timing of making assertions in discourse. C1 [Syrett, Kristen] Rutgers State Univ, Dept Linguist, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA. [Koev, Todor] Univ Stuttgart, Inst Linguist, D-70174 Stuttgart, Germany. RP Syrett, K (reprint author), Rutgers State Univ, Dept Linguist, 18 Seminary Pl, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA. EM kristen.syrett@rutgers.edu; tkoev@scarletmail.rutgers.edu OI Syrett, Kristen/0000-0002-3773-3035 FU Rutgers University; Aresty Research Center at Rutgers University FX We are incredibly grateful to three anonymous reviewers and to Managing Editor Rick Nouwen for their keen observations and detailed, insightful comments, which helped to transform this paper into its final version. We also thank the audiences at MACSIM 2012, the University of Delaware, and the University of Tubingen for their feedback, as well as David Beaver and Roger Schwarzschild for helpful discussions. The experimental research presented in this paper benefited immensely from the tireless contributions of two undergraduate research assistants, Nicholas Angelides and Maxwell Kramer, and from the involvement of the members of the Laboratory for Developmental Language Studies at Rutgers. This work was supported by a startup grant from Rutgers University awarded to the first author and funding from the Aresty Research Center at Rutgers University. CR Amaral P, 2007, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P707, DOI 10.1007/s10988-008-9025-2 AnderBois S., 2010, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, V20, P328 Arnold D, 2007, J LINGUIST, V43, P271, DOI 10.1017/S0022226707004586 Bach K, 1999, LINGUIST PHILOS, V22, P327, DOI 10.1023/A:1005466020243 Beaver D., 2009, INVESTIGATING UNPUB Berckmans P., 1994, COMMUN COGNITION, V27, P499 Boer Steven, 1976, MYTH SEMANTIC PRESUP Buring D, 2003, LINGUIST PHILOS, V26, P511 Chemla E, 2013, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V28, P241, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2011.615221 Chierchia G., 2000, MEANING GRAMMAR INTR Cinque Guglielmo, 2008, EMPIRICAL ISSUES SYN, V7, P99 Cornilescu A., 1981, REV ROUM LINGUIST, VXXVI, P41 Amaral Patricia, 2012, HUMANA MENTE, V23, P1 de Vries M, 2006, LINGUIST INQ, V37, P229 Dehe N, 2009, J LINGUIST, V45, P569, DOI 10.1017/S002222670999003X Del Gobbo F., 2003, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Demirdache Hamida, 1991, THESIS MIT Dever J, 2001, LINGUIST PHILOS, V24, P271, DOI 10.1023/A:1010730709736 EMONDS J, 1979, LINGUIST INQ, V10, P211 Farkas DF, 2010, J SEMANT, V27, P81, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffp010 Frazier Lyn, 2005, Syntax, V8, P121, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00077.x Frege G., 1892, Z PHILOS PHILOS KRIT, V100, P25 Gauker C, 1998, PHILOS STUD, V91, P149, DOI 10.1023/A:1004247202476 Ginzburg J., 1996, HDB CONT SEMANTIC TH, P385 Grice H. P., 1975, STUDIES WAY WORDS, P22 Harris J, 2009, LINGUIST PHILOS, V32, P523, DOI 10.1007/s10988-010-9070-5 HORN LAURENCE R., 2005, SEMANTICS MEETS PRAG, P21 Jackendoff Ray, 1977, X BAR SYNTAX STUDY P Kamp H, 1993, DISCOURSE LOGIC Karttunen L., 1973, LINGUIST INQ, V4, P169 Karttunen L., 1979, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P1 Kayne R, 1994, ANTISYMMETRY SYNTAX Kiparsky P., 1970, PROGR LINGUISTICS, P143 Koev T., 2013, THESIS RUTGERS U NEW LASCARIDES A, 1993, LINGUIST PHILOS, V16, P437, DOI 10.1007/BF00986208 Lawler J, 1971, 7 REG M CHIC LING SO, P163 MCCAWLEY JD, 1982, LINGUIST INQ, V13, P91 McCawley J. D., 1988, SYNTACTIC PHENOMENA, V2 Murray S, 2010, THESIS RUTGERS U NEW Nespor Marina, 1986, PROSODIC PHONOLOGY NOUWEN RICK, 2007, RES LANGUAGE COMPUTA, V5, P87, DOI 10.1007/s11168-006-9019-6 Noveck I., 2009, CURRENT RES SEMANTIC, V20 Noveck IA, 2002, PROC ANN BUCLD, P453 Pearson H., 2010, SNIPPETS, V22, P7 Potts C., 2008, WAIT MINUTE WH UNPUB Potts C., 2009, DYNAMICS APPOSITION POTTS C., 2012, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V3, P2516 Potts C., 2005, LOGIC CONVENTIONAL I Potts C, 2007, THEOR LINGUIST, V33, P165, DOI 10.1515/TL.2007.011 Roberts C., 1996, OSU WORKING PAPERS L, V49 Roberts C., ONLY PRESUPPOSITION Rodman R., 1976, MONTAGUE GRAMMAR, P165 Ross John R., 1967, THESIS MIT Russell Bertrand, 1905, MIND, V14, P479, DOI DOI 10.1093/MIND/XIV.4.479 SAFIR K, 1986, LINGUIST INQ, V17, P663 Schlenker P., 2010, LOGIC LANGUAGE MEANI, P74 Schlenker P., 2013, P 40 ANN M N E LING, V2, P167 Selkirk E, 2005, PHONOL PHONET, V9, P11, DOI 10.1515/9783110197587.1.11 Selkirk E. O., 1984, PHONOLOGY SYNTAX REL Sells P., 1985, RESTRICTIVE NONRESTR SHANON B, 1976, FOUND LANG, V14, P247 Simons M, 2003, PHILOS STUD, V112, P251, DOI 10.1023/A:1023004203043 Simons Mandy, 2010, P SALT 20, P309 Smith E. A., 2011, P ESSLLI 2011 WORKSH Stockwell Robert P., 1973, MAJOR SYNTACTIC STRU Strawson P.F., 1952, INTRO LOGICAL THEORY Strawson PF, 1950, MIND, V59, P320 Strawson P. F., 1964, THEORIA-SPAIN, V30, P96, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1755-2567.1964.TB00404.X Thorne J. P., 1972, LINGUIST INQ, V3, P552 Tomioka S, 2009, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V18, P253, DOI 10.1007/s10831-009-9053-0 Tonhauser J, 2012, P 6 M SEM UND REPR L, P239 Tonhauser J, 2013, LANGUAGE, V89, P66 von Fintel K., 2000, WHAT IS PRESUP UNPUB von Fintel K., 2004, DESCRIPTIONS, P315 Xue J, 2011, P ESSLLI 2011 WORKSH NR 75 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 3 PU OXFORD UNIV PRESS PI OXFORD PA GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND SN 0167-5133 EI 1477-4593 J9 J SEMANT JI J. Semant. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 32 IS 3 BP 525 EP 577 DI 10.1093/jos/ffu007 PG 53 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CP1KT UT WOS:000359635400005 ER PT J AU Davies, CE AF Davies, Catherine Evans TI Humor in intercultural interaction as both content and process in the classroom SO HUMOR-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMOR RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE humor; pedagogy; ethnography; intercultural interaction; discourse analysis ID 2ND-LANGUAGE CLASSROOM; LANGUAGE; COMPETENCE; DISCOURSE; ENGLISH; PLAYFUL AB This article uses interactional sociolinguistic methodology to examine humor as both content and process in the classroom. It contributes to our increasing understanding not only of the ways that humor is perceived and constructed in intercultural discourse, but also the ways that it may have pedagogical benefits of increasing L2 pragmatic and interactional competence. The topic of humor in the classroom is typically treated either in relation to the teacher's behavior, or in relation to course content. The former focuses on strategies for the use of humor in the service of effective classroom control and relationships with students (e.g., Loomans 1993; Shade 1996), with the assumption that more effective learning can take place in the atmosphere created. The latter focuses on the use of humor genres as the basis for language exercises (Megdyes 2002), but with little analysis of the nature of the humor. Within the field of second language learning and teaching, there has been a recent interest in humor as subsumed under the general rubric of language play (Cook 2000; Bushnell 2008; Evaldsson and Cekaite 2010; Jaspers 2011; Waring 2013), with a focus on the cognitive and the pedagogical possibilities at all levels of language (phonological, morphosyntactic, semantic, and pragmatic). In addition, there is a growing body of literature that focuses on student-initiated joking in L2 classrooms, some of which explicitly uses humor as the construct (Garland 2010; Pomerantz and Bell 2011; Matsumoto 2014; Moalla 2014), as well as literature that is concerned with the ways in which joking interaction intersects with learning processes (Tocalli-Beller and Swain 2007; Waring 2011; Bell 2012; Kim 2014). A key idea that has emerged is the importance of student agency. This article uses an example of joking that was brought to the classroom by a student as part of an ethnographic pedagogy, and it analyses students' use of joking within a discussion of the critical incident facilitated by the teacher. It is a multi-layered analysis of the use of a critical incident involving cross-cultural joking as part of course content, presenting a discourse analysis of a key class discussion in an adult class on cross-cultural interaction in which student joking interaction coincided with an insight point. C1 Univ Alabama, Dept English, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA. RP Davies, CE (reprint author), Univ Alabama, Dept English, Box 870244, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA. EM cdavies@ua.edu CR Alexander R. J., 1997, ASPECTS VERBAL HUMOU Attardo Salvatore, 2001, HUMOROUS TEXTS SEMAN Attardo S., 1994, LINGUISTIC THEORIES Bell N, 2012, LANG LEARN, V62, P236, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00630.x Bell ND, 2009, LANG TEACH RES, V13, P241, DOI 10.1177/1362168809104697 Bushnell C., 2008, APPL LINGUIST, V30, P49, DOI DOI 10.1093/APPLIN/AMN033 CelceMurcia M, 1995, GEORGET U R, P699 Cook G., 2000, LANGUAGE PLAY LANGUA Davies Catherine E., 1989, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V8, P139, DOI 10.1016/0889-4906(89)90026-4 Davies Catherine, 1994, DISCOURSE PERFORMANC, P201 Davies CE, 2005, SEC LANG ACQ RES, P133 Davies CE, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P96, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.006 Davies Catherine Evans, 1984, P 10 ANN M BERK LING, P360 Davies Catherine Evans, 1998, TALKING TESTING DISC, P271 Davies C. E., 2004, MULTILINGUA, V23, P207, DOI 10.1515/mult.2004.010 Davies Catherine Evans, 2005, LANGUAGE USE COGNITI, P85 Davies CE, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1361, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00181-9 Evaldsson AC, 2010, PRAGMATICS, V20, P587 Freud Sigmund, 1905, JOKE ITS RELATION UN Garland Jennifer, 2010, SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUD, V4, P27 Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES Gumperz J.J., 1979, CROSSTALK STUDY CROS Gumperz John J., 1980, 12 SEAMEO REG LANG C Hall J. K., 1995, ISSUES APPL LINGUIST, V6, P37 Hymes Dell H., 1962, ANTHR HUMAN BEHAV, P13 Jaspers J, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1264, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.012 Kim J, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V60, P193, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.016 KRAMSCH C, 1986, MOD LANG J, V70, P366, DOI 10.2307/326815 Kramsch C., 1993, CONTEXT CULTURE LANG Labov William, 1967, ESSAYS VERBAL VISUAL, P12 Liao Chao-chih, 2003, JOKES HUMOR CHINESE Loomans Diana, 1993, LAUGHING CLASSROOM E Matsumoto Yumi, 2014, J ENGLISH LINGUA FRA, V3, P81 Medgyes Peter, 2002, LAUGHING MATTERS HUM Moalla A, 2015, INT J APPL LINGUIST, V25, P366, DOI 10.1111/ijal.12074 Norrick Neal R., 1993, CONVERSATIONAL JOKIN Pomerantz A, 2011, MOD LANG J, V95, P148, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01274.x [Anonymous], 2005, PRAGMATICS Raskin V., 1985, SEMANTIC MECH HUMOR Saville-Troike Muriel, 1989, ETHNOGRAPHY COMMUNIC SCHMIDT RW, 1990, APPL LINGUIST, V11, P129, DOI 10.1093/applin/11.2.129 Scollon R., 2001, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Shade Richard A., 1996, LICENSE LAUGH HUMOR Tocalli-Beller A., 2007, CONVERSATIONAL INTER, P143 Tyler A., 1990, TEXT, V10, P385, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1990.10.4.385 Ur P, 1988, GRAMMAR PRACTICE ACT Waring HZ, 2013, APPL LINGUIST, V34, P191, DOI 10.1093/applin/ams047 Waring H. Z., 2011, CLASSROOM DISCOURSE, V2, P201, DOI DOI 10.1080/19463014.2011.614053 NR 48 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 7 U2 18 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0933-1719 EI 1613-3722 J9 HUMOR JI Humor-Int. J. Humor Res. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 28 IS 3 BP 375 EP 395 DI 10.1515/humor-2015-0065 PG 21 WC Language & Linguistics; Psychology, Multidisciplinary SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CO4VR UT WOS:000359159400003 ER PT J AU Cruz, MP AF Padilla Cruz, Manuel TI On the role of vigilance in the interpretation of puns SO HUMOR-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMOR RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE Puns; relevance theory; epistemic vigilance; hermeneutical vigilance; sophisticated understanding ID EPISTEMIC VIGILANCE; PRAGMATIC FAILURE; COMMUNICATION; COMPREHENSION; TRUST; TESTIMONY; SPEAKERS; CHILDREN; HEARERS; JOKES AB Humans are vigilant against deception and misinterpretation thanks to a set of cognitive mechanisms that monitor their interlocutors' benevolence, credibility, competence and preferences, as well as the plausibility and acceptability of the interpretative hypotheses constructed. This paper explores the role of these mechanisms in the comprehension of puns. Through purposeful ambiguity, these bias the audience to an interpretation which, despite initially receiving some credibility, must be dismissed in order for the audience to arrive at a less salient interpretation. In doing so, this paper suggests an approach to their comprehension that differs from previous relevance-theoretic ones, which regard optimal relevance as the criterion determining the acceptability of interpretative hypotheses. Vigilance mechanisms are here argued to be essential for the audience to consider additional interpretative hypotheses, as these mechanisms alert the audience to the punster's jocular intention, which surfaces in the production of a text amenable to reinterpretation. They also trigger a sophisticated processing strategy that encourages the audience to backtrack in order to detect the reinterpretable part of the text. This involves metarepresentation, as the audience need to attribute to the communicator the intention to transmit a different message. C1 Univ Seville, English Language, Seville 41004, Spain. RP Cruz, MP (reprint author), Univ Seville, English Language, C Palos de la Frontera S-N, Seville 41004, Spain. EM mpadillacruz@us.es CR Apperly I, 2011, MINDREADERS: THE COGNITIVE BASIS OF THEORY OF MIND, P1 Attardo Salvatore, 1990, P 16 ANN M BERK LING, P355 Attardo S., 1994, LINGUISTIC THEORIES ATTARDO S, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P537, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90111-2 Biegajlo Magdalena, 2014, INT STUDIES HUMOUR, V3, P2 Bucaria C, 2004, HUMOR, V17, P279, DOI 10.1515/humr.2004.013 Bussman Hadumod, 1996, ROUTLEDGE DICT LANGU Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Chovanec Jan, 2005, THEORY PRACTICE ENGL, V3, P61 Clement F, 2004, MIND LANG, V19, P360, DOI 10.1111/j.0268-1064.2004.00263.x Garces Conejos Pilar, 2003, INTERACTION COGNITIO, P135 Corriveau K, 2009, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V12, P188, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00763.x Padilla Cruz M., 2012, RES LANGUAGE, V10, P365 Crystal D., 1995, CAMBRIDGE ENCY ENGLI DYNEL Marta, 2010, RELEVANCE STUDIES PO, V3, P105 Giora R, 1997, COGN LINGUIST, V8, P183, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183 Guiraud Pierre, 1976, LES JEUX DES MOTS HAPPE FGE, 1994, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V24, P129, DOI 10.1007/BF02172093 Hartmann R., 1972, DICT LANGUAGE LINGUI Heyman GD, 2008, CURR DIR PSYCHOL SCI, V17, P344, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00603.x Jodlowiec Maria, 2008, RELEVANT WORLDS CURR, P67 KASPER G, 1984, LANG LEARN, V34, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00349.x Koenig MA, 2007, EPISTEME-J INDIV SOC, V4, P264, DOI 10.3366/E1742360007000081 KOSINSKA Katarzyna, 2005, RELEVANCE STUDIES PO, V2, P75 Leekam S. R., 1991, NATURAL THEORIES MIN, P159 Mascaro O, 2009, COGNITION, V112, P367, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012 Mazzarella Diana, 2013, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V35, P20 Mazzone M, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2148, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.009 Mazzone M, 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P106, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.01.001 McArthur T., 1992, OXFORD COMPANION ENG McGhee P. E., 1972, PSYCHOL HUMOR, P61 Michaelian K, 2013, EPISTEME-J INDIV SOC, V10, P37 Vega Moreno R. E., 2007, CREATIVITY CONVENTIO NORRICK NR, 1984, J PRAGMATICS, V8, P195, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(84)90049-3 Origgi G, 2012, SOC EPISTEMOL, V26, P221, DOI 10.1080/02691728.2011.652213 Cruz MP, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V59, P117, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.005 Cruz MP, 2014, LANG COMMUN, V39, P34, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2014.08.002 Cruz MP, 2013, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V51, P23, DOI 10.1515/iral-2013-0002 Diaz Perez Javier, 2012, ESTUDIOS INGLESES U, V201, P11 Yus Ramos F., 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1295 Yus Ramos Francisco, 2008, LODZ PAPERS PRAGMATI, V4, P131 Raskin V., 1985, SEMANTIC MECH HUMOR Solska Agnieszka, 2012, RELEVANCE THEORY MOR, P167 Solska Agnieszka, 2012, 2 MEAN CONT COGN INT Solska Agnieszka, 2012, RES LANGUAGE, V10, P387 Solska Agnieszka, 2012, 6 INT REL DISC TRANS Solska Agnieszka, 2008, RELEVANT WORLDS CURR, P22 Sperber Dan, 1997, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V9, P107 Sperber D, 1996, EXPLAINING CULTURE N Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber Dan, 1994, WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE, P179 Sperber D, 2010, MIND LANG, V25, P359 Sperber D, 2013, EPISTEME-J INDIV SOC, V10, P61 SULLIVAN K, 1995, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V13, P191 Sullivan K, 2003, DEV NEUROPSYCHOL, V23, P85, DOI 10.1207/S15326942DN231&2_5 TANAKA K, 1992, LINGUA, V87, P91, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(92)90027-G Tanaka Keiko, 1994, ADVERTISING LANGUAGE Unger Christoph, 2001, THESIS U LONDON LOND Wilson D., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P607 Wilson Deirdre, 1999, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V11, P127 WILSON D, 1993, LINGUA, V90, P1, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 Wilson Deirdre, 1997, 16 INT C LING U PAR Wilson Deirdre, 1993, PRAGMALINGUISTICA, V1, P335 Wilson Deirdre, 2011, REL ROUND TABL M 3 U Wilson D, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V59, P40, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.016 YAMAGUCHI H, 1988, J PRAGMATICS, V12, P323, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90036-7 NR 66 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 3 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0933-1719 EI 1613-3722 J9 HUMOR JI Humor-Int. J. Humor Res. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 28 IS 3 BP 469 EP 490 DI 10.1515/humor-2015-0068 PG 22 WC Language & Linguistics; Psychology, Multidisciplinary SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CO4VR UT WOS:000359159400007 ER PT J AU Chen, YS AF Chen, Yuan-shan TI Chinese learners' cognitive processes in writing email requests to faculty SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE Request; Email; Concurrent verbal report; Retrospective verbal report ID SLA RESEARCH METHODOLOGY; PAIR WORK; VERBAL REPORTS; EFL LEARNERS; NONNATIVE SPEAKERS; REACTIVITY; ENGLISH; INTERLANGUAGE; ACQUISITION; LITERACY AB For the past decades, cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics have focused on native and non-native speech act descriptions, and only a small number of studies have investigated the cognitive processes involved in speech act productions. To bridge the gap, the present study examined the cognitive processes of L2 learners engaged in an email task involving two requests to faculty. Concurrent and retrospective verbal reports were collected from 15 pairs of intermediate-level Chinese EFL learners and were analyzed in terms of intention, cognition, planning and evaluation. The analysis identified that when responding to the email task, the learners adopted various politeness strategies to express their requestive intentions, and focused their attention on lexical, grammatical and situational features of the task. In addition, the learners planned their emails systematically in the order of Greeting, Message and Closing, and evaluated their performances in terms of degree of politeness and the persuasiveness of their reasons. This study concludes with suggestions for future research and pedagogy. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Natl Chin Yi Univ Technol, Dept Appl English, Taichung 41170, Taiwan. RP Chen, YS (reprint author), Natl Chin Yi Univ Technol, Dept Appl English, 57,Sec 2 Zhongshan Rd, Taichung 41170, Taiwan. EM yuanshan@ncut.edu.tw CR Baleghizadeh S, 2010, ELT J, V64, P405, DOI 10.1093/elt/ccp097 Biesenbach-Lucas S, 2007, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V11, P59 Biesenbach-Lucas S., 2009, LITTLE WORDS THEIR H, P183 Biesenbach-Lucas Sigrun, 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P81 BLUMKULKA S, 1984, APPL LINGUIST, V5, P196, DOI 10.1093/applin/5.3.196 Bou-Franch P, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1772, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.002 Bowles MA, 2005, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V27, P415, DOI 10.1017/S0272263105050187 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Camps Joaquim, 2003, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V13, P201, DOI 10.1111/1473-4192.00044 Chang Yu-Ying, 1998, RELC J, V29, P121, DOI DOI 10.1177/003368829802900206 Chen CFE, 2006, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V10, P35 Chen M. H., 2008, THESIS NATL TAIWAN U Chen YS, 2011, LANG LINGUIST-TAIWAN, V12, P917 Chen YS, 2015, J PRAGMATICS, V75, P131, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.009 Cohen A. D, 2004, STUDYING SPEAKING IN, P302 COHEN AD, 1993, TESOL QUART, V27, P33, DOI 10.2307/3586950 Cohen A. D., 1996, APPL LANGUAGE LEARNI, V7, P5 Crystal David, 2001, LANGUAGE INTERNET Economidou-Kogetsidis M, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3193, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006 Egi T., 2004, LANG AWARE, V13, P243, DOI DOI 10.1080/09658410408668810 Egi T, 2008, LANG AWARE, V17, P212, DOI 10.2167/la451.0 Eisenstein Miriam, 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P64 Ellis R, 2006, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V28, P339, DOI 10.1017/S0272263106060141 Ericsson K. A., 1993, PROTOCOL ANAL VERBAL ERICSSON KA, 1980, PSYCHOL REV, V87, P215, DOI 10.1037//0033-295X.87.3.215 Felix-Brasdefer C., 2008, LANG AWARE, V17, P195 Gass S. M., 2000, STIMULATED RECALL ME Hartford B.S., 1996, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P55 Hassall T, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P72 Hofstede G., 2001, CULTURES CONSEQUENCE Holmes Janet, 1988, PRAGMATICS, V12, P445, DOI [10.1016/0378-2166(88)90005-7, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90005-7] Kasper G, 1998, TESOL QUART, V32, P358, DOI 10.2307/3587591 Kirkpatrick A., 1993, TEXT, V13, P422 Kirkpatrick A., 1991, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V33, P1 Kormos J, 1998, TESOL QUART, V32, P353, DOI 10.2307/3587590 Krashen S., 1987, PRINCIPLES PRACTICE Leow RP, 2004, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V26, P35, DOI 10.1017/S0272263104261022 Li YHA, 1999, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V8, P75, DOI 10.1023/A:1008306431442 Liddicoat A.J., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P125 Lin Jo-Wang, 2006, J SEMANT, V23, P1 Long M. H., 1996, HDB LANGUAGE ACQUISI, P413, DOI DOI 10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3 LONG MH, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P126, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.126 McDonough K., 2004, SYSTEM, V32, P207, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2004.01.003 Ren W, 2014, APPL LINGUIST, V35, P575, DOI 10.1093/applin/amt019 Robinson Mary Ann, 1992, PRAGMATICS JAPANESE, P27 SELINKER L, 1972, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V10, P209, DOI 10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209 Storch N, 2002, LANG LEARN, V52, P119, DOI 10.1111/1467-9922.00179 Storch N., 2001, LANG TEACH RES, V5, P29, DOI DOI 10.1177/136216880100500103 Storch N., 1999, SYSTEM, V27, P363, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00031-7 Storch N, 2007, LANG TEACH RES, V11, P143, DOI 10.1177/1362168807074600 Storch N, 2008, LANG AWARE, V17, P95, DOI 10.2167/la431.0 Swain M., 2000, SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY, P97 Takahashi S., 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P189, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014881 Takahashi S., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P437, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.006 Tannen D., 1994, GENDER DISCOURSE Waldvogel J., 2007, J COMPUT-MEDIAT COMM, V12, P456, DOI [10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00333.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1083-6101.2007.00333.X] Woodfield H., 2012, PRAGMATIC VARIATION, P209 Woodfield H, 2010, MULTILINGUA, V29, P1, DOI 10.1515/mult.2010.001 Storch N., 2005, J SECOND LANG WRIT, V14, P153, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.JSLW.2005.05.002 Dobao A., 2012, J SECOND LANG WRIT, V21, P40 Yang YL, 2010, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V32, P235, DOI 10.1017/S0272263109990519 Zhang Y. Y., 1995, PRAGMATICS CHINESE N, P23 NR 62 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 18 PU ELSEVIER SCI LTD PI OXFORD PA THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, OXON, ENGLAND SN 0346-251X EI 1879-3282 J9 SYSTEM JI System PD AUG PY 2015 VL 52 BP 51 EP 62 DI 10.1016/j.system.2015.04.020 PG 12 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CN9ZC UT WOS:000358808700005 ER PT J AU Cheung, LYL AF Cheung, Lawrence Y. -L. TI Uttering the unutterable with wh-placeholders SO JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE Placeholder; Wh-word; Demonstrative; Metalinguistic Analysis; Chinese ID ECHO QUESTIONS; CHINESE; PHRASES AB Mandarin Chinese has the special placeholder use of wh-words to substitute phrases, words or syllables that the speaker cannot utter for some pragmatic reason(s). Wh-placeholders are rather common in spoken Mandarin. Typical contexts include failure to recall somebody's name and avoidance of taboo words. The speaker generally presupposes that the intended meaning is salient enough for the hearer(s) to infer from the context. Morphologically, a wh-placeholder usually consists of na-ge (demonstrative-classifier) and a wh-word. Syntactically, a wh-placeholder can correspond to elements of different categories and positions that are not possible with interrogative, indefinite and universally quantified wh-words, e.g. verbs, adjectives, syllables, etc. This paper proposes that a wh-placeholder is a metalinguistic demonstrative expression that refers to the intended linguistic expression, as opposed to a regular demonstrative that refers to a real world object. It can flexibly shift to the required semantic type via a silent type-shifting function, resulting in the flexibility of syntactic distribution. The demonstrative na-ge is a definite operator that provides the quantification force for the wh-word, which gives rise to the definite reference to linguistic objects. C1 Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Dept Linguist & Modern Languages, Shatin, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. RP Cheung, LYL (reprint author), Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Dept Linguist & Modern Languages, Shatin, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. EM yllcheung@cuhk.edu.hk CR Artstein Ron, 2002, THESIS RUTGERS U Chafe W. L., 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC, P25 Channell J., 1994, VAGUE LANGUAGE CHENG LLS, 1995, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V4, P197, DOI 10.1007/BF01731509 Cheng L. L.-S., 1996, NAT LANG SEMANT, V4, P121, DOI 10.1007/BF00355411 Cheng Lisa Lai-Shen, 1991, THESIS MIT Comorovski Ileana, 1996, INTERROGATIVE PHRASE De Brabanter P, 2010, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V194, P141 Dimock Laura, 2010, FILLERS PAUSES PLACE, P119 Ding Shengshu, 1961, XIANDAI HANYU YUFA J Enfield NJ, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P101, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00066-8 Fiengo Robert, 2007, ASKING QUESTIONS USI Maisak Timur, 2010, FILLERS PAUSES PLACE, P95 Givon T., 1984, SYNTAX FUNCTIONAL TY HAMBLIN CL, 1973, FOUND LANG, V10, P41 Heim Irene, 1982, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Heim I., 1998, SEMANTICS GENERATIVE Heim Irene, 2000, NOTES INTERROGATIVES Heim Irene, 1983, MEANING USE INTERPRE, P164 Hua Yuming, 1994, SHAOYANG SHIZHUAN XU, V6, P87 Huang James, 1982, THESIS MIT Iwata S, 2003, LINGUIST PHILOS, V26, P185, DOI 10.1023/A:1022851819941 Janda Richard, 1985, CLS, V21, P171 KADMON N, 1990, LINGUIST PHILOS, V13, P273, DOI 10.1007/BF00627710 Kamp Hans, 1981, MATH CTR TRACTS, P277 Karttunen Lauri, 1974, LINGUIST PHILOS, V1, P3 Karttunen Lauri, 1976, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V7, P363 Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS LI YHA, 1992, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V1, P125, DOI 10.1007/BF00130234 Liao WWR, 2011, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V20, P145, DOI 10.1007/s10831-011-9072-5 Lin JW, 1998, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V7, P219, DOI 10.1023/A:1008284513325 Lin JW, 2004, LINGUIST PHILOS, V27, P451, DOI 10.1023/B:LING.0000024407.76999.f7 Lu Shuxiang, 1984, XIANDAI HANYU ZHIDAI Lyons J., 1977, SEMANTICS McCawley James D., 1988, SYNTACTIC PHENOMENA Nishigauchi Taisuke, 1990, QUANTIFICATION THEOR Noh EJ, 1998, LINGUIST PHILOS, V21, P603, DOI 10.1023/A:1005361528891 Potts C., 2007, DIRECT COMPOSITIONAL, P405 READ AW, 1964, LANGUAGE, V40, P162, DOI 10.2307/411575 Roberts C., 2002, INFORM SHARING REFER, P89 Russell Bertrand, 1905, MIND, V14, P479, DOI DOI 10.1093/MIND/XIV.4.479 Sag Ivan, 1976, THESIS MIT Shao Jingmin, 1989, YUYAN JIAOXUE YU YAN, V1, P26 Shao Jingmin, 1996, XIANDAI HANYU YIWENJ Sudo Yasutada, 2008, P SINN BED 12 SUB 12, P613 Tsai WTD, 2008, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V17, P83, DOI 10.1007/s10831-008-9021-0 von Fintel Kai, 1994, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Webber Bonnie, 1990, TECHNICAL REPORTS CI Xu Mofan, 2010, YUYAN JIAOXU YU YANJ, V4, P56 Yu Xiliang, 1964, ZHONGGUO YUWEN, P4 NR 50 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 3 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0925-8558 EI 1572-8560 J9 J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS JI J. East Asian Linguist. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 24 IS 3 BP 271 EP 308 DI 10.1007/s10831-014-9130-x PG 38 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CN7ZT UT WOS:000358656100002 ER PT J AU Eckhoff, HM AF Eckhoff, Hanne Martine TI Animacy and differential object marking in Old Church Slavonic SO RUSSIAN LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article AB This article explores the synchronic variation between the nominative-accusative (NA) and genitive-accusative (GA) in the oldest layer of canonical Old Church Slavonic (OCS), using parallel Greek and OCS data with principled information status annotation. Firstly, the data are used to clarify the claims made about the pragmatic properties of the alternation in the previous literature. There is a good case for claiming that OCS GA marking functions as a limited type of definiteness marking, i.e. that GA objects will nearly always be previously mentioned or contextually accessible. Secondly, the data are used to examine whether the GA-NA variation correlates with any other discourse properties known to be important in differential object marking systems. The NA is found to be a marker of referential persistence: a new referent will typically be NA-marked if it is an important participant in the further narrative. Third, the focus is shifted to the relationship between subject and object properties. There are indications that the GA is preferred even with new object referents if the subject has low prominence. Thus, the variation is best understood as a situation of differential object marking conditioned by several discourse properties: definiteness, referential persistence and perhaps subject-object asymmetry. C1 [Eckhoff, Hanne Martine] Univ Tromso, Tromso, Norway. RP Eckhoff, HM (reprint author), Univ Tromso, Tromso, Norway. EM m.eckhoff@uit.no CR Aissen J, 2003, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V21, P435, DOI 10.1023/A:1024109008573 Chiriacescu S., 2009, WORKING PAPERS SFB, P1 Corbett G. G., 1991, GENDER Nikolaeva Irina, 2011, OBJECTS INFORM STRUC Haug D. T. T., 2014, INFORM STRUCTURE SYN Haug Dag Trygve Truslew, 2009, TRAITEMENT AUTOMATIQ, V50, P17 Huntley D., 1993, SLAVONIC LANGUAGES, P125 Karttunen L., 1969, P INT C COMP LING CO, P1, DOI 10.3115/990403.990490 Klenin Emily, 1983, ANIMACY RUSSIAN NEW Krysko V. B., 1994, RAZVITIE KATEGORII O Lambrecht K., 1996, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Lunt Horace Gray, 2001, OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC Malchukov A., 2009, OXFORD HDB CASE, P339 Meillet Antoine, 1897, RECHERCHES EMPLOI GE Norgard-Sorensen J, 2006, AMST STUD THEORY HIS, V279, P289 Prince E., 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P223 Riester A., 2010, P 7 INT C LANG RES E, P717 Timberlake A, 1997, RUSS LINGUIST, V21, P49, DOI 10.1023/A:1006827716912 Zaenen A., 2004, P 2004 ACL WORKSH DI, P118, DOI 10.3115/1608938.1608954 NR 19 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 3 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0304-3487 EI 1572-8714 J9 RUSS LINGUIST JI Russ. Linguist. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 39 IS 2 BP 233 EP 254 DI 10.1007/s11185-015-9148-3 PG 22 WC Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CM4YJ UT WOS:000357692300004 ER PT J AU Teodorczuk, A Mukaetova-Ladinska, E Corbett, S Welfare, M AF Teodorczuk, Andrew Mukaetova-Ladinska, Elizabeta Corbett, Sally Welfare, Mark TI Deconstructing dementia and delirium hospital practice: using cultural historical activity theory to inform education approaches SO ADVANCES IN HEALTH SCIENCES EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE Dementia; Delirium; Hospital practice; Liaison psychiatry; Training; Education; Cultural historical activity theory ID CONFUSED OLDER PATIENT; MEDICAL-EDUCATION; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; COLLABORATION; PERSPECTIVE; FRAMEWORK; MORTALITY; TEAMS; STAFF; CARE AB Older patients with dementia and delirium receive suboptimal hospital care. Policy calls for more effective education to address this though there is little consensus on what this entails. The purpose of this clarification study is to explore how practice gaps are constructed in relation to managing the confused hospitalised older patient. The intent is to inform educational processes in the work-place beyond traditional approaches such as training. Adopting grounded theory as a research method and working within a social constructionist paradigm we explored the practice gaps of 15 healthcare professionals by interview and conducted five focus groups with patients, carers and Liaison mental health professionals. Data were thematically analysed by constant comparison and theoretical sampling was undertaken until saturation reached. Categories were identified and pragmatic concepts developed grounded within the data. Findings were then further analysed using cultural historical activity theory as a deductive lens. Practice gaps in relation to managing the confused older patient are determined by factors operating at individual (knowledge and skill gaps, personal philosophy, task based practice), team (leadership, time and ward environmental factors) and organisational (power relationships, dominance of medical model, fragmentation of care services) levels. Conceptually, practice appeared to be influenced by socio-cultural ward factors and compounded by a failure to join up existing "patient" knowledge amongst professionals. Applying cultural historical activity theory to further illuminate the findings, the central object is defined as learning about the patient and the mediating artifacts are the care relationships. The overarching medical dominance emerges as an important cultural historical factor at play and staff rules and divisions of labour are exposed. Lastly key contradictions and tensions in the system that work against learning about the patient are identified. Cultural historical activity theory can be used to advance understanding of practice gaps in order to develop a broader transformative approach to dementia and delirium practice and education. Structural changes at an individual, team and systems level resulting from this novel understanding of practice complexity are proposed. Contradictions can be used as foci for expansive learning. Lastly, interprofessional education (formal and informal) is advocated to further knotwork and improve the care of the older confused patient. C1 [Teodorczuk, Andrew] Newcastle Univ, Sch Med Educ, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4HH, Tyne & Wear, England. [Teodorczuk, Andrew; Mukaetova-Ladinska, Elizabeta] Newcastle Univ, Inst Ageing & Hlth, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4HH, Tyne & Wear, England. [Teodorczuk, Andrew; Mukaetova-Ladinska, Elizabeta] Northumberland Tyne & Wear NHS Fdn Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, England. [Corbett, Sally; Welfare, Mark] Northumbria Healthcare NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Educ, North Tyneside Hosp, North Shields, Northd, England. RP Teodorczuk, A (reprint author), Newcastle Univ, Sch Med Educ, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4HH, Tyne & Wear, England. EM Andrew.Teodorczuk@ncl.ac.uk FU Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust FX We would like to thank the research steering group, Mrs Barbara Dowd, Mr Harvey Thomson, Mr Garth Miller and the late Mr John Dowswell. We are also most grateful to Professor Jan Illing and Dr Bryan Burford for comments with earlier drafts of the manuscript. Funded by Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. CR Alzheimer's Society, 2009, COUNTING THE COST Bamford C., 2002, PERSPECITV Berwick Donald M, 2010, Acad Med, V85, pS56, DOI 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ead779 Biggs J., 2007, TEACHIGN QUALITY Billett S., 2008, EMERGING Bleakley A., 2011, MED ED FUTURE IDENTI Bleakley A., 2014, PATIENT Bleakley A, 2006, MED EDUC, V40, P150, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02371.x Bleakley A, 2013, J INTERPROF CARE, V27, P24, DOI 10.3109/13561820.2013.791672 Bleakley A, 2013, J INTERPROF CARE, V27, P18, DOI 10.3109/13561820.2012.699479 Braun V., 2006, QUALITATIVE RES PSYC, V3, P77, DOI DOI 10.1191/1478088706QP063OA Carter SM, 2007, QUAL HEALTH RES, V17, P1316, DOI 10.1177/1049732307306927 Charmaz K., 2006, CONST Chen FM, 2004, ACAD MED, V79, P955, DOI 10.1097/00001888-200410000-00010 Cook DA, 2008, MED EDUC, V42, P128, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02974.x de Feijter JM, 2011, ADV HEALTH SCI EDUC, V16, P347, DOI 10.1007/s10459-010-9266-z Department of Health, 2007, NAT AUD SERV PAT DEM Department of Health, 2009, LIV WELL DEM NAT DEM Department of Health, 2013, PRIME Edwards A., 2010, ACTIVITY THEORY PRAC, P126 ENGESTROM Y, 1995, ARTIF INTELL MED, V7, P395, DOI 10.1016/0933-3657(95)00012-U Engestrom Y, 2000, ERGONOMICS, V43, P960, DOI 10.1080/001401300409143 Engestrom Y., 2009, CONT THEORIES LEARNI, P53 Engestrom Y., 2001, J ED WORK, V14, P133, DOI DOI 10.1080/13639080020028747 Eva KW, 2009, MED EDUC, V43, P294, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03342.x Francis R., 2013, REPORT Freire P., 1970, PEDAGOGY OPPRESSED Holmes J., 2002, BETWEEN Holton III E.F., 1996, HUMAN RESOURCE DEV Q, V7, P5, DOI DOI 10.1002/HRDQ.3920070103 Illing J., 2007, THINKING Jenny J, 1992, J NURS SCHOLARSHIP, V24, P254, DOI 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1992.tb00730.x Kirkpatrick D. L., 1994, EVALUA Birchall D., 2006, INT J TRAINING DEV, V10, P252 Knowles M. S., 1984, ANDRAGOGY IN ACTION Lave J., 1991, SITUA Lincoln Y. S., 1985, NATU Lingard L, 2012, MED EDUC, V46, P869, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04339.x Lockyer J, 1998, J CONTIN EDUC HEALTH, V18, P190, DOI 10.1002/chp.1340180310 Ludmerer KM, 2000, ANN INTERN MED, V132, P25 Marshall M, 2001, BRIT MED J, V323, P410, DOI 10.1136/bmj.323.7310.410 Morris C., 2009, DEV PEDAGOGY DOCTORS Morris C., 2010, UNDERSTANDING MED ED, P69 National Audit Office, 2010, IMPROV National Institute of Clinical Excellence, 2006, DEMENTIAL Prideaux D, 2002, MED EDUC, V36, P1114, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01411.x Prystowsky JB, 2001, MED EDUC, V35, P331, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00910.x RCPsych, 2005, WHO CARES Regehr G, 2010, MED EDUC, V44, P31, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03418.x Sampson EL, 2009, BRIT J PSYCHIAT, V195, P61, DOI 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.055335 Schon D., 1991, REFLECTIVE Swanwick T, 2005, MED EDUC, V39, P859, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02224.x Teodorczuk A., 2009, J DEMENTIA CARE, V17, P37 Teodorczuk A., 2014, CLIN TEACHER Teodorczuk A, 2009, AGE AGEING, V38, P252, DOI 10.1093/ageing/afp007 Teodorczuk A, 2013, INT PSYCHOGERIATR, V25, P645, DOI 10.1017/S1041610212002074 Teodorczuk A, 2010, INT PSYCHOGERIATR, V22, P874, DOI 10.1017/S1041610209991475 Whitcomb ME, 2002, ACAD MED, V77, P1067, DOI 10.1097/00001888-200211000-00001 Witlox J, 2010, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V304, P443, DOI 10.1001/jama.2010.1013 NR 58 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 3 U2 18 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 1382-4996 EI 1573-1677 J9 ADV HEALTH SCI EDUC JI Adv. Health Sci. Educ. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 20 IS 3 BP 745 EP 764 DI 10.1007/s10459-014-9562-0 PG 20 WC Education & Educational Research; Education, Scientific Disciplines; Health Care Sciences & Services SC Education & Educational Research; Health Care Sciences & Services GA CM4HI UT WOS:000357644900013 PM 25354660 ER PT J AU Haas, MH Chance, SA Cram, DF Crow, TJ Luc, A Hage, S AF Haas, Marc H. Chance, Steven A. Cram, David F. Crow, Tim J. Luc, Aslan Hage, Sarah TI Evidence of Pragmatic Impairments in Speech and Proverb Interpretation in Schizophrenia SO JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE Schizophrenia; Pragmatics; Linguistics; Relevance theory; Discourse; Proverbs ID CATEGORY FLUENCY; MIND; METAANALYSIS; SYMPTOMATOLOGY; PEOPLE AB Schizophrenia has been suggested to involve linguistic pragmatic deficits. In this study, two aspects of pragmatic ability were assessed; comprehension and production. Drawing on relevance theory and Gricean implicatures to assess shared attention and interpretation in a linguistic context, discourse samples and proverb interpretation were transcribed from recorded interviews with patients with schizophrenia and control subjects. The productive aspect of implicatures was assessed by quantifying the use of 'connectors' in discourse. Receptive aspects were assessed by scoring interpretations of four common proverbs. Statistically significant effects were found: patients with schizophrenia used connectors less than controls as well as performing worse in proverb comprehension. Positive correlations between connectors and proverb interpretation in all subjects suggested an underlying pragmatic root for both productive and receptive aspects. The relative number of connectors (as a percentage of words used) provided a better index of pragmatic ability than total number because total output appeared to be influenced by additional factors such as IQ. Deficits were found in the use of connectors and in proverb interpretation even when controlling for verbal IQ, suggesting that pragmatic aspects of language are particularly vulnerable in schizophrenia compared with other verbal abilities. C1 [Haas, Marc H.; Cram, David F.] Univ Oxford, Dept Linguist, Oxford, England. [Chance, Steven A.; Hage, Sarah] Univ Oxford, John Radcliffe Hosp, Nuffield Dept Clin Neurosci, Oxford OX3 9DU, England. [Crow, Tim J.; Luc, Aslan] Warneford Hosp, Univ Dept Psychiat, Oxford OX3 7JX, England. [Haas, Marc H.] ETH, Dept Philosophy, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland. RP Haas, MH (reprint author), ETH, Dept Philosophy, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland. EM mahaas@student.ethz.ch CR Abu-Akel A, 2003, BRAIN RES REV, V43, P29, DOI 10.1016/S0165-0173(03)00190-5 Abu-Akel A., 1999, PRAGMAT COGN, V7, P247, DOI 10.1075/pc.7.2.02abu ANDREASEN NC, 1977, COMPR PSYCHIAT, V18, P465, DOI 10.1016/0010-440X(77)90046-3 Anselmetti S, 2009, SCHIZOPHR RES, V115, P278, DOI 10.1016/j.schres.2009.09.018 Barth A, 2001, NERVENARZT, V72, P853, DOI 10.1007/s001150170019 Bokat CE, 2003, SCHIZOPHR RES, V64, P73, DOI 10.1016/S0920-9964(02)00282-7 Bora E, 2009, SCHIZOPHR RES, V109, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.schres.2008.12.020 Brune M, 2005, SCHIZOPHRENIA BULL, V31, P21, DOI 10.1093/schbul/sbi002 Brune M, 2005, SCHIZOPHR RES, V75, P233, DOI 10.1016/j.schres.2004.11.006 CORCORAN R, 1995, SCHIZOPHR RES, V17, P5, DOI 10.1016/0920-9964(95)00024-G Corcoran R, 2003, PSYCHOL MED, V33, P897, DOI 10.1017/S0033291703007529 Corcoran R., 2000, UNDERSTANDING OTHER, P391 Cram D., 2005, OXFORD WORKING PAPER, V10, P187 Cummings L, 2009, CLINICAL PRAGMATICS, P1 Frith CD, 1996, PSYCHOL MED, V26, P521 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 HAPPE FGE, 1993, COGNITION, V48, P101, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90026-R Harrington Leigh, 2005, Cogn Neuropsychiatry, V10, P249, DOI 10.1080/13546800444000056 Holm-Hadulla R., 1991, SCHIZOPHRENIE SPRACH, P61 HOPPER R, 1981, J COMMUN, V31, P23, DOI 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb01201.x Huang Yan, 2006, PRAGMATICS Langdon R, 2002, PSYCHOL MED, V32, P1273, DOI 10.1017/S0033291702006396 Mitchley N.J., 1998, COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCH, V3, P127 Paulsen JS, 1996, PSYCHIAT RES, V63, P109, DOI 10.1016/0165-1781(96)02901-0 Pickup GJ, 2001, PSYCHOL MED, V31, P207 Rossell SL, 2006, SCHIZOPHR RES, V82, P135, DOI 10.1016/j.schres.2005.10.013 Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber D, 2002, MIND LANG, V17, P3, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00186 Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sprong M, 2007, BRIT J PSYCHIAT, V191, P5, DOI 10.1192/bjp.bp.107.035899 Zar J. H., 1999, BIOSTATISTICAL ANAL NR 31 TC 4 Z9 4 U1 1 U2 6 PU SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS PI NEW YORK PA 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA SN 0090-6905 EI 1573-6555 J9 J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES JI J. Psycholinguist. Res. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 44 IS 4 BP 469 EP 483 DI 10.1007/s10936-014-9298-2 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CK7AC UT WOS:000356380400006 PM 24756919 ER PT J AU Urbach, TP DeLong, KA Kutas, M AF Urbach, Thomas P. DeLong, Katherine A. Kutas, Marta TI Quantifiers are incrementally interpreted in context, more than less SO JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE Quantifier; Incremental, shallow, partial, interpretation; Brain potential; ERP; N400; Language comprehension ID ONLINE SENTENCE COMPREHENSION; LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION; BRAIN POTENTIALS; BARE QUANTIFIERS; WORLD KNOWLEDGE; EYE-MOVEMENTS; DISCOURSE; ANOMALIES; P600; ERP AB Language interpretation is often assumed to be incremental. However, our studies of quantifier expressions in isolated sentences found N400 event-related brain potential (ERP) evidence for partial but not full immediate quantifier interpretation (Urbach & Kutas, 2010). Here we tested similar quantifier expressions in pragmatically supporting discourse contexts (Alex was an unusual toddler. Most/Few kids prefer sweets/vegetables...) while participants made plausibility judgments (Experiment 1) or read for comprehension (Experiment 2). Control Experiments 3A (plausibility) and 3B (comprehension) removed the discourse contexts. Quantifiers always modulated typical and/or atypical word N400 amplitudes. However, the real-time N400 effects only in Experiment 2 mirrored offline quantifier and typicality crossover interaction effects for plausibility ratings and doze probabilities. We conclude that quantifier expressions can be interpreted fully and immediately, though pragmatic and task variables appear to impact the speed and/or depth of quantifier interpretation, (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. C1 [Urbach, Thomas P.; DeLong, Katherine A.; Kutas, Marta] Univ Calif San Diego, Dept Cognit Sci, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA. [Kutas, Marta] Univ Calif San Diego, Dept Neurosci, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA. RP Urbach, TP (reprint author), Univ Calif San Diego, Dept Cognit Sci, Mail Code 0515, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA. EM turbach@ucsd.edu FU NIH [HD-22614, AG-08313] FX This research was supported by NIH grants HD-22614 and AG-08313 to Marta Kutas. CR Altmann GTM, 2009, COGNITIVE SCI, V33, P583, DOI 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01022.x Bah T., 2007, INKSCAPE GUIDE VECTO BAKER L, 1987, MEM COGNITION, V15, P247, DOI 10.3758/BF03197723 BARTON SB, 1993, MEM COGNITION, V21, P477, DOI 10.3758/BF03197179 Bates E., 1989, CROSSLINGUISTIC STUD Bornkessel I, 2006, PSYCHOL REV, V113, P787, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.787 Breheny R, 2006, COGNITION, V100, P434, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.003 Brouwer H, 2012, BRAIN RES, V1446, P127, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.055 Daneman M, 2007, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V22, P83, DOI 10.1080/01690960500372725 Dwivedi V. D., 2013, PLOS ONE, V8 ERICKSON TD, 1981, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V20, P540, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90165-1 Ferreira F, 2003, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V47, P164, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7 Filik R, 2004, PSYCHON B REV, V11, P953, DOI 10.3758/BF03196727 FISCHLER I, 1983, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, V20, P400, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1983.tb00920.x Francis W. N., 1979, BROWN CORPUS MANUAL Frazier L, 2005, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V34, P201, DOI 10.1007/s10936-005-3638-1 Coltheart M., 1987, ATTENTION PERFORM, P559 Friederici AD, 2002, TRENDS COGN SCI, V6, P78, DOI 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8 Frisson S., 2009, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V3, P111, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2008.00104.X Ganis G, 1996, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V8, P89, DOI 10.1162/jocn.1996.8.2.89 Gouvea AC, 2010, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V25, P149, DOI 10.1080/01690960902965951 GREENHOUSE SW, 1959, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V24, P95, DOI 10.1007/BF02289823 Hackl M, 2012, J SEMANT, V29, P145, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffr009 Hagoort P, 2004, SCIENCE, V304, P438, DOI 10.1126/science.1095455 Hagoort P, 2007, PHILOS T R SOC B, V362, P801, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2007.2089 Hald LA, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1146, P210, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.054 Huang YT, 2009, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V58, P376, DOI 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001 JUST MA, 1980, PSYCHOL REV, V87, P329, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329 Kaan E, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1146, P199, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.060 Kim A, 2005, J MEM LANG, V52, P205, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002 Kolk H, 2007, BRAIN LANG, V100, P257, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.07.006 KOS M., 2010, FRONT PSYCHOL, V1, P1 Hagoort P., 2012, FRONT PSYCHOL, V3, P1 KOUNIOS J, 1992, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V121, P459, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.459 Kuperberg GR, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1146, P23, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063 KURTZMAN HS, 1993, COGNITION, V48, P243, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90042-T Lewis RL, 2005, COGNITIVE SCI, V29, P375, DOI 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25 MACDONALD MC, 1994, PSYCHOL REV, V101, P676, DOI 10.1037//0033-295X.101.4.676 MARSLENWILSON W, 1975, NATURE, V257, P784, DOI 10.1038/257784a0 McRae K, 1998, J MEM LANG, V38, P283, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1997.2543 Morey R. D., 2008, TUTORIALS QUANTITATI, V4, P61 Nieuwland MS, 2006, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V18, P1098, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098 Nieuwland MS, 2008, PSYCHOL SCI, V19, P1213, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02226.x Paterson K., 2009, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V3, P1390 Politzer-Ahles S, 2013, BRAIN RES, V1490, P134, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.10.042 R Development Core Team, 2014, R LANG ENV STAT COMP Rayner K, 2009, BIOL PSYCHOL, V80, P4, DOI 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.05.002 REDER LM, 1991, J MEM LANG, V30, P385, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90013-A Sanford AJ, 2006, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V42, P99, DOI 10.1207/s15326950dp4202_1 Sanford AJ, 2011, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V23, P514, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2009.21370 Sanford AJ, 2007, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V44, P1 Staab J., 2007, NEGATION CONTEXT ELE Taylor WL, 1953, JOURNALISM QUART, V30, P415 Tune S, 2014, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V56, P147, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.01.007 Urbach TP, 2010, J MEM LANG, V63, P158, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2010.03.008 van Herten M, 2005, COGNITIVE BRAIN RES, V22, P241, DOI 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.002 Van Petten C, 2012, INT J PSYCHOPHYSIOL, V83, P176, DOI 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.015 Hagoort P., 1999, SEMANTIC INTEGRATION WASON PC, 1965, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V4, P7, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(65)80060-3 WELCH BL, 1947, BIOMETRIKA, V34, P28, DOI 10.2307/2332510 Wickham H, 2009, USE R, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3_1 Wijnen F, 2006, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V21, P684, DOI 10.1080/01690960500199870 [Anonymous], 2006, DISCOURSE PROCESSES, V42 NR 63 TC 6 Z9 6 U1 1 U2 4 PU ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE PI SAN DIEGO PA 525 B ST, STE 1900, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4495 USA SN 0749-596X EI 1096-0821 J9 J MEM LANG JI J. Mem. Lang. PD AUG PY 2015 VL 83 BP 79 EP 96 DI 10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.010 PG 18 WC Linguistics; Psychology; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CK4JS UT WOS:000356190700005 PM 26005285 ER PT J AU Andrews, P Diego-Mantecon, J AF Andrews, Paul Diego-Mantecon, Jose TI Instrument adaptation in cross-cultural studies of students' mathematics-related beliefs: learning from healthcare research SO COMPARE-A JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE students' mathematics-related beliefs; survey research; instrument adaptation; cross-cultural research; Spain; England ID COGNITIVE INTERVIEWS; TRANSLATION; VALIDATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; ACHIEVEMENT; RELIABILITY; VALIDITY AB Much comparative research into education-related beliefs has exploited questionnaires developed in one culture for use in another. This has been particularly the case in mathematics education, the focus of this paper. In so doing, researchers have tended to assume that translation alone is sufficient to warrant a reliable and valid instrument for cross-cultural research, prompting concerns that a number of necessary equivalences are unlikely to have been addressed. In this paper, we consider the nature of these equivalences before examining the literature of a different field, healthcare research, to synthesise an approach to instrument adaptation that is pragmatic but rigorous. Finally, we demonstrate how this pragmatic approach, incorporating extensive cognitive interviews, enabled us to adapt and refine a mathematics-related beliefs questionnaire, developed in Flanders, for use with students aged 14-15 in England and Spain. Analyses indicate that the instrument so developed is multidimensional, reliable and cross-culturally valid. Some implications are discussed. C1 [Andrews, Paul] Stockholm Univ, Dept Math & Sci Educ, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden. [Diego-Mantecon, Jose] Univ Cantabria, Dept Math Stat & Computat, E-39005 Santander, Spain. RP Andrews, P (reprint author), Stockholm Univ, Dept Math & Sci Educ, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden. EM paul.andrews@mnd.su.se OI Andrews, Paul/0000-0003-3679-9187 FU Fundacion Marcelino Botin FX The involvement of Jose Diego-Mantecon in this work was supported by a generous grant from the Fundacion Marcelino Botin, to whom grateful thanks is extended. CR Alexander R., 2000, CULTURE PEDAGOGY INT Allexsaht-Snider M, 2001, THEOR PRACT, V40, P93, DOI 10.1207/s15430421tip4002_3 Andrews P., 2011, ACTA DIDACTICA U COM, V11, P1 Andrews P., 2013, ZDM, V45, P133, DOI [10.1007/s11858-012-0481-3, DOI 10.1007/S11858-012-0481-3] Andrews P, 2007, J CURRICULUM STUD, V39, P317, DOI 10.1080/00220270600773082 Baars Rolanda M, 2005, Health Qual Life Outcomes, V3, P70, DOI 10.1186/1477-7525-3-70 Beatty PC, 2007, PUBLIC OPIN QUART, V71, P287, DOI 10.1093/poq/nfm006 Berry J., 1996, LEARN INSTR, V6, P19, DOI 10.1016/S0959-4752(96)80002-8 Blunch NJ, 2008, INTRO STRUCTURAL EQU Byrne B., 2001, STRUCTURAL EQUATION Cai J., 2010, J MATH TEACHER ED, V13, P265, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10857-009-9132-1 [Anonymous], 2004, ED PSYCHOL, DOI DOI 10.1080/0144341032000160100 Chen P, 2007, J EXP EDUC, V75, P221, DOI 10.3200/JEXE.75.3.221-244 Clarke D., 2013, ZDM INT J MATH ED, V45, P21, DOI DOI 10.1007/S11858-012-0452-8 Conrad FG, 2009, PUBLIC OPIN QUART, V73, P32, DOI 10.1093/poq/nfp013 Corless IB, 2001, J NURS SCHOLARSHIP, V33, P15, DOI 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00015.x Costa Filipa A, 2007, Pharm Pract (Granada), V5, P115, DOI 10.4321/s1886-36552007000300004 De Silva MJ, 2006, SOC SCI MED, V62, P941, DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.050 DeBellis V. A., 2006, EDUC STUD MATH, V63, P131, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10649-006-9026-4 Diego-Mantecon J., 2007, P 5 C EUR SOC RES MA, P229 Op't Eynde P., 2006, INT J ED RES, V45, P57 Fowler F. J., 2008, INT HDB SURVEY METHO, P136 Frost MH, 2007, VALUE HEALTH, V10, pS94, DOI 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00272.x Gallasch CH, 2007, J OCCUP REHABIL, V17, P701, DOI 10.1007/s10926-007-9103-2 Geisinger K. F., 1994, PSYCHOL ASSESSMENT, V6, P304, DOI [10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304, DOI 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304] Ginsburg H, 1997, ENTERING CHILDS MIND, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511527777, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511527777] Goerman P, 2005, ZUMA NACHRICHTEN SPE, P67 GUILLEMIN F, 1993, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V46, P1417, DOI 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N Gutierrez R, 2008, J RES MATH EDUC, V39, P357 Hanna L, 2006, J EPIDEMIOL COMMUN H, V60, P1034, DOI 10.1136/jech.2005.043877 Hannula M., 2011, P 35 C INT GROUP PSY, V3, P9 Hannula M. S., 2006, EDUC STUD MATH, V63, P165, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10649-005-9019-8 Hannula M., 2006, P 4 C EUR SOC RES MA, P205 Harkness J. A., 2010, SURVEY METHODS MULTI, P115, DOI 10.1002/9780470609927.ch7 Kenny DA, 2003, STRUCT EQU MODELING, V10, P333, DOI 10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1 Kloosterman P., 1992, SCH SCI MATH, V92, P109 Kvale S, 2006, QUAL INQ, V12, P480, DOI 10.1177/1077800406286235 Lau AKL, 2002, BONE MARROW TRANSPL, V29, P41, DOI 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703313 Lysyk Mary, 2002, Occup Ther Int, V9, P76, DOI 10.1002/oti.157 Ma X, 1997, J RES MATH EDUC, V28, P26, DOI 10.2307/749662 Maillefert JF, 2009, OSTEOARTHR CARTILAGE, V17, P1293, DOI 10.1016/j.joca.2009.04.003 Mason L., 2003, ED PSYCHOL, V23, P73, DOI 10.1080/01443410303216 Miller K, 2003, AM J HEALTH BEHAV, V27, pS264 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2004, LEARN TOM WORLD 1 RE Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2005, PISA 2003 TECHN REP Osborn M, 2004, OXFORD REV EDUC, V30, P265, DOI 10.1080/0305498042000215566 Pehkonen E., 1994, INT J MATH ED SCI TE, V25, P229, DOI DOI 10.1080/0020739940250209 Pehkonen E., 1994, MATH ED, V5, P3 Pekmezovic T, 2007, QUAL LIFE RES, V16, P1383, DOI 10.1007/s11136-007-9234-0 Pena ED, 2007, CHILD DEV, V78, P1255, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01064.x PINTRICH PR, 1990, J EDUC PSYCHOL, V82, P33, DOI 10.1037//0022-0663.82.1.33 Presser S, 2004, PUBLIC OPIN QUART, V68, P109, DOI 10.1093/poq/nfh008 Quittner AL, 2000, J PEDIATR PSYCHOL, V25, P403, DOI 10.1093/jpepsy/25.6.403 Rogler LH, 1999, AM PSYCHOL, V54, P424, DOI 10.1037//0003-066X.54.6.424 Schommer-Aikins M, 2004, EDUC PSYCHOL-US, V39, P19, DOI 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_3 Smith T. W., 2004, METHODS TESTING EVAL, P431, DOI 10.1002/0471654728.ch21 Op t Eynde p., 2002, BELIEFS HIDDEN VARIA, P13 Tuohilampi L., 2013, P 8 C EUR SOC RES MA VALLERAND RJ, 1989, CAN PSYCHOL, V30, P662, DOI 10.1037/h0079856 van Widenfelt BM, 2005, CLIN CHILD FAM PSYCH, V8, P135, DOI 10.1007/s10567-005-4752-1 Waddington P., 2007, SOCIAL RES UPDATE, V50 Warwick D., 1973, COMP RES METHODS OVE WHANG PA, 1994, CONTEMP EDUC PSYCHOL, V19, P302, DOI 10.1006/ceps.1994.1023 NR 63 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 4 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0305-7925 EI 1469-3623 J9 COMPARE JI Compare PD JUL 4 PY 2015 VL 45 IS 4 BP 545 EP 567 DI 10.1080/03057925.2014.884346 PG 23 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CP3GW UT WOS:000359767000004 ER PT J AU Dvir, N Aloni, N Harari, D AF Dvir, Nurit Aloni, Nimrod Harari, Dor TI The dialectics of assimilation and multiculturalism: the case of children of refugees and migrant workers in the Bialik-Rogozin School, Tel Aviv SO COMPARE-A JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE migration; multiculturalism; education; migrant workers; refugees; humanistic education ID EDUCATION; CITIZENSHIP AB This paper focuses on children of refugees and migrant workers from 48 countries who study together in one multicultural school in the city of Tel Aviv, Israel. The context of our study is the current ethos of globalisation and within it the phenomenon of vast migrations and creation of intercultural social realities. The aims of the study were to illustrate the principles, practices and dilemmas that form the very basis of the school culture, to let the special or foreign' voices of the children and the teaching staff be heard, and to identify the educational qualities that are responsible for the school's success. In our research we employed both the method of qualitative case study and the philosophical interpretive discourse. On the basis of our observations, interviews and text analyses of the school's educational manifesto, we suggested the following pedagogical virtues as the key factors responsible for the school's extraordinary achievements: (1) a firm commitment to a humanist and multicultural stance; (2) a progressive and pragmatic dialectic approach regarding students' empowerment, via social integration and academic success as well as via multicultural pedagogy; and (3) a dialectic pedagogical approach that stresses therapeutic-individualised teaching as well as challenging students to attain high academic standards. C1 [Dvir, Nurit; Aloni, Nimrod; Harari, Dor] Kibbutzim Coll Educ, Tel Aviv, Israel. RP Aloni, N (reprint author), Kibbutzim Coll Educ, Tel Aviv, Israel. EM aloni.nimrod@gmail.com CR Aloni N., 2011, ED PHILOS THEORY Aloni N., 2011, ED HUMANISM LINKING, P35 Aloni N., 2002, ENHANCING HUMANITY P Appiah KA, 2008, YEARB NATL SOC STUD, V107, P83, DOI 10.1002/9781444307214.ch6 Banks J., 1995, HDB RES MULTICULTURA, P3 Bar Shalom Y., 2004, ED ISRAEL ED ISRAELS Brighouse H., 2006, ON ED Brighouse H, 2008, YEARB NATL SOC STUD, V107, P58, DOI 10.1002/9781444307214.ch4 Clarke J., 2004, MIGRATION POLICIES T Crul M, 2009, TEACH COLL REC, V111, P1476 Dewey J., 1966, DEMOCRACY ED Enslin P, 2009, J PHILOS EDUC, V43, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2009.00664.x Freire P., 1970, PEDAGOGY OPPRESSED Giroux H., 1988, EDUC THEORY, V38, P61, DOI 10.1111/j.1741-5446.1988.00061.x Halsema Annemie, 2002, EMPOWERING HUMANITY HARPER R, 2010, POLICY SOC, V29, P371, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.POLSOC.2010.09.002 Higgins C, 2010, J PHILOS EDUC, V44, P189, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2010.00763.x Hytten K., 2009, PHILOS ED 2008, P333, DOI Urbana, IL Kemp A, 2010, OECD SOCIAL EMPLOYME, V103, DOI DOI 10.1787/5KMJNR8PBP6F-EN Kemp A., 2008, MIGRANTS WORKERS POL Reid C., 2006, COMPARE, V36, P57, DOI 10.1080/03057920500382325 Maslow A. M., 1971, FARTHER REACHES HUMA Ministry of Education, 2010, MIN ED REP Moree D, 2008, TEACHERS COPE SOCIAL Nathan G., 2009, MIGRANT WORKERS VICT, P1 Noddings N., 1984, CARING FEMININE APPR Noddings N, 2010, EDUC PHILOS THEORY, V42, P390, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00487.x Nussbaum M., 2003, QUALITY LIFE Nussbaum M., 2000, WOMEN HUMAN DEV CAPA, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511841286, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511841286] Patton M, 2002, QUALITATIVE RES EVAL Pickett A., 2011, PHILOS ED, P68 Raijman R, 2004, ETHNIC RACIAL STUD, V27, P780, DOI 10.1080/0141987042000246345 Ramaekers S., 2010, ETHICS ED, V1, P55, DOI [10.1080/17449641003665951, DOI 10.1080/17449641003665951] Sabar G., 2008, WE DID NOT COME STAY Sang-Hwan S., 2011, SYNERGIES COREE, V2, P123 Scheffer P., 2011, IMMIGRANT NATIONS Simon R., 1989, ED AM DREAM CONSERVA, P134 Sopova J, 2011, HUMANISM NEW IDEA UN Taylor C., 1992, MULTICULTURALISM POL Tzairi K., 2009, NOT ALL TEL AVIVIANS Veugelers W, 2011, ED HUMANISM Waks L.J., 2009, EDUC THEORY, V59, P589, DOI DOI 10.1111/EDTH.2009.59.ISSUE-5 WALZER M, 1995, J PHILOS EDUC, V29, P181, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9752.1995.tb00352.x Weiler-Pollak D., 2009, HAARETZ, V19 Weissblau A., 2009, OFFICIAL HANDLING MI, P1 Yin R., 2003, APPL SOCIAL RES METH, V34 Zembylas Michalinos, 2010, ETHICS ED, V5, P233, DOI DOI 10.1080/17449642.2010.516636 [Anonymous], 2009, MESILA ANN REPORT [Anonymous], 2010, BIALIC ROGOZIN PEDAG [Anonymous], 2012, MESILA ANN REPORT [Anonymous], 2010, MESILA ANN REPORT [Anonymous], 2011, MESILA ANN REPORT NR 52 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 3 U2 11 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0305-7925 EI 1469-3623 J9 COMPARE JI Compare PD JUL 4 PY 2015 VL 45 IS 4 BP 568 EP 588 DI 10.1080/03057925.2014.884335 PG 21 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CP3GW UT WOS:000359767000005 ER PT J AU Owens, C Sotoudehnia, M Erickson-McGee, P AF Owens, Cameron Sotoudehnia, Maral Erickson-McGee, Paige TI Reflections on teaching and learning for sustainability from the Cascadia Sustainability Field School SO JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHY IN HIGHER EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE sustainability; field school; transformative learning; Cascadia; learning outcomes; experiential education ID DIRECT EXPERIENCE; GEOGRAPHY; EDUCATION; PRAGMATISM; CRITIQUE AB A complex and contested concept, sustainability presents a great challenge to teachers and learners. Field study is a potentially promising venue to unpack the problematics of sustainability in practice. This paper reflects on the Cascadia Sustainability Field School, offered through the University of Victoria, Canada, providing an overview of the critical pragmatic philosophy underscoring it, drawing on student voices to highlight its transformative potential and detailing our approach for assessing learning. We conclude that field school can provide a rich transformative and social learning experience that integrates the hatchet of critical reflection and the seed of practical action. C1 [Owens, Cameron; Sotoudehnia, Maral; Erickson-McGee, Paige] Univ Victoria, Dept Geog, Victoria, BC V8W 3R4, Canada. RP Owens, C (reprint author), Univ Victoria, Dept Geog, POB 3060 Stn CSC, Victoria, BC V8W 3R4, Canada. EM camo@uvic.ca FU Teaching and Learning Centre at University of Victoria through Learning Without Borders grant; Jamie Cassels Undergraduate Research Award FX The authors acknowledge the Teaching and Learning Centre at the University of Victoria for generous support through the Learning Without Borders grant. Paige Erickson-McGee is a grateful recipient of the Jamie Cassels Undergraduate Research Award. CR Barnes TJ, 2008, GEOFORUM, V39, P1542, DOI 10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.02.013 Bernstein R. J, 2010, THE PRAGMATIC TURN Brookfield S., 1987, DEV CRITICAL THINKER Caminotti E., 2012, J WORKPLACE LEARNING, V24, P430, DOI [10.1108/13665621211250333, DOI 10.1108/13665621211250333] Capra F., 2007, SOCIAL LEARNING SUST, P331 Castleden H, 2013, J GEOGR HIGHER EDUC, V37, P487, DOI 10.1080/03098265.2013.796352 Clegg S., 1999, INT J INCLUSIVE EDUC, V3, P167, DOI 10.1080/136031199285101 Dewey J., 1917, CREATIVE INTELLIGENC Dewey J., 1933, WE THINK RESTATEMENT Fisher W. R., 1987, HUMAN COMMUNICATION Fuller I, 2006, J GEOGR HIGHER EDUC, V30, P89, DOI 10.1080/03098260500499667 Gibson R.B., 2005, SUSTAINABILITY ASSES Giddens A., 1987, SOCIAL THEORY MODERN Giles D. E., 1994, MICHIGAN J COMMUNITY, V1, P77 Gruenewald DA, 2003, AM EDUC RES J, V40, P619, DOI 10.3102/00028312040003619 Gunder M, 2006, J PLAN EDUC RES, V26, P208, DOI 10.1177/0739456X06289359 Hawken P., 2009, COMMUNICATION Herrick C, 2010, AREA, V42, P108, DOI 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00892.x Holden M., 2015, SOC ADV AM PHIL GRAN Holden M, 2013, CONTEMP PRAGMAT, V10, P1 Hope M, 2009, J GEOGR HIGHER EDUC, V33, P169, DOI 10.1080/03098260802276698 Kadlec A., 2007, PRAGMATISM PLURALISM Latour B, 2004, CRIT INQUIRY, V30, P225, DOI 10.1086/421123 Maniates M., 2013, STATE WORLD, P255 Marcus J., CURRENT OPI IN PRESS Mezirow J., 2000, LEARNING TRANSFORMAT Mezirow J., 1991, TRANSFORMATIVE DIMEN Mezirow J., 1997, NEW DIRECTIONS ADULT, V1997, P5, DOI DOI 10.1002/ACE.7401 Mitussis D., 2013, ENHANCING LEARNING S, V5, P41, DOI 10.11120/elss.2013.00013 Moore J., 2005, J TRANSFORMATIVE ED, V3, P76, DOI DOI 10.1177/1541344604270862 Nairn K, 2005, J GEOGR HIGHER EDUC, V29, P293, DOI 10.1080/03098260500130635 Nietzsche F., 1968, WILL TO POWER Reed M. S., 2010, ECOL SOC, V15, pr1 Robbins P., 2004, POLITICAL ECOLOGY CR Rose G., 1992, ESSAYS HIST GEOGRAPH, V28, P8 SAUER CO, 1956, ANN ASSOC AM GEOGR, V46, P287, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1956.tb01510.x Shurmer-Smith L., 2002, DOING CULTURAL GEOGR, P165 Smith E, 2011, TEACH HIGH EDUC, V16, P211, DOI 10.1080/13562517.2010.515022 NR 38 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 2 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0309-8265 EI 1466-1845 J9 J GEOGR HIGHER EDUC JI J. Geogr. High. Educ. PD JUL 3 PY 2015 VL 39 IS 3 BP 313 EP 327 DI 10.1080/03098265.2015.1038701 PG 15 WC Education & Educational Research; Geography SC Education & Educational Research; Geography GA CW2LI UT WOS:000364823400002 ER PT J AU Cahill, J Bowyer, J Rendell, C Hammond, A Korek, S AF Cahill, Jo Bowyer, Jan Rendell, Catherine Hammond, Angela Korek, Sharon TI An exploration of how programme leaders in higher education can be prepared and supported to discharge their roles and responsibilities effectively SO EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE programme leader; induction; training; support; academic and administrative duties ID MANAGERIALISM AB Background: Within Higher Education in the United Kingdom (UK), programme leaders are under increased pressure to be more productive and are expected to undertake a complex range of demanding activities. However, perceptions of the role through the lens of the programme leader have not been explored sufficiently. Clearly, a university's ability to enhance and sustain improvement in programme delivery depends largely upon its ability to nurture and foster professional learning, most notably at a programme level. The need for a review of programme leader training and support was reinforced through the experience of facilitators at programme leader workshops at one Higher Education Institution in the UK. Critically, these workshops highlighted a need to review and enhance the preparation and on-going training and support available to programme leaders.Aim: The overall aim of this study was to explore the role of the programme leader, in order to gain an in-depth understanding of what the role involves and a detailed appreciation of the knowledge and skills required to discharge the role effectively and efficiently. Such insight would inform the review of the provision of initial and on-going training and support workshops for new and experienced programme leaders. Indeed, the ultimate aim was to drive improvements in programme leader performance.Method: A qualitative design was selected to allow the complexity of the programme leader role to be explored and captured. A purposeful sample (n=25) was recruited from a range of newly appointed and experienced undergraduate and postgraduate programme leaders and associate deans with academic quality assurance and learning and teaching expertise across seven schools in one post-1992 university in England. In total, four semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted. A modified version of the data analysis method advocated by Chenitz and Swanson was employed to examine the data.Findings: Four dynamic, interrelated conceptual categories form the basis of the emergent findings. These are Operational Diversity, which addresses the different duties carried out by participants, highlighting certain tensions in their ability to meet the demands placed upon them; Interaction with Others, which identifies the diverse range of stakeholders that shape and impact on the multifaceted programme leader role and highlights the importance of collaborative working; Mechanisms of Support, which describes the training and personal development experience of the participants and the extent to which it matches their needs; and Required Knowledge and Skills, which considers the need for initial and on-going training to enable programme leaders to meet the demands of this role.Conclusion: Examination has revealed that within an ever-changing Higher Education sector in the UK, the role of a programme leader is not without challenge as most have to deal with complex academic, pastoral, moral, administrative and pragmatic decisions on a daily basis. Moving forward must involve bespoke preparation and on-going training and support. Specific emphasis should be placed on opportunities for self-reflection, debriefing and the sharing of experiences with peers. At the heart of on-going training and support should be the strategic engagement of students, professional staff and other key personnel from services offered across a university. C1 [Cahill, Jo; Bowyer, Jan; Rendell, Catherine] Univ Hertfordshire, Ctr Acad Qual Assurance, Hatfield AL10 9AB, Herts, England. [Hammond, Angela] Univ Hertfordshire, Learning & Teaching Innovat Ctr, Hatfield AL10 9AB, Herts, England. [Korek, Sharon] Univ Hertfordshire, Learning & Teaching Inst, Hatfield AL10 9AB, Herts, England. RP Cahill, J (reprint author), Univ Hertfordshire, Ctr Acad Qual Assurance, Hatfield AL10 9AB, Herts, England. EM j.cahill@herts.ac.uk CR [Anonymous], 2011, RES POSTCOMPULSORY E Bolden R., 2012, ACAD LEADERSHIP CHAN [Anonymous], 2012, LEADERSHIP FDN HIG 3 Bolden R., 2008, DEV COLLECTIVE LEADE Briggs A., 2005, MANAGEMENT ED, V15, P12 Bryman A., 2007, RES DEV SERIES LEADE Bulpitt G., 2012, LEADERSHIP FDN HIGH, V3, P5 Cahill J, 2010, EDUC RES-UK, V52, P283, DOI 10.1080/00131881.2010.504063 Chenitz W., 1986, PRACTICE GROUNDED TH Crossley D., 2010, LEARN TRANSFORM DEV DBIS (Department for Business Innovation and Skills), 2011, HIGH ED STUD HEART S Deem R, 2005, OXFORD REV EDUC, V31, P217, DOI 10.1080/03054980500117827 [Anonymous], 2008, J CHANGE MANAGEMENT Flinn K., 2014, COMPLEXITY APPROACH Gleeson D, 1999, SOCIOL REV, V47, P461, DOI 10.1111/1467-954X.00181 Harris A., 2005, J CURRICULUM STUD, V37, P315 Henkel M., 1997, HIGHER ED Q, V51, P134, DOI DOI 10.1111/1468-2273.00031 Johnson R, 2002, HIGHER ED Q, V56, P33, DOI DOI 10.1111/1468-2273.00201 Johnston V., 2007, ACAD LEADERSHIP DEV Ladyshewsky RK, 2012, EDUC MANAG ADM LEAD, V40, P127, DOI 10.1177/1741143211420615 Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, 2006, ENG LEAD HIGH ED GUI Macfarlane B., 2011, HIGHER ED Q, V65, P59, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1468-2273.2010.00467.X McLeod C., 2010, DEV SUPPORTING PROGR Mercer J., 2009, INT J ED MANAGEMENT, V23, P348 Mitchell R., 2014, J FURTHER HIGHER ED Muijs D, 2003, ED MANAGEMENT ADM, V31, P437, DOI DOI 10.1177/0263211X030314007 Parkes S., 2014, LEADING STUDENT EXPE QAA (Quality Assurance Agency), 2014, UK QUAL COD HIGH ED Ramsden P., 1998, LEARNING LEAD HIGHER, DOI [10.4324/9780203278116, DOI 10.4324/9780203278116] Salas E, 2012, PSYCHOL SCI PUBL INT, V13, P74, DOI 10.1177/1529100612436661 Thomas L., 2012, BUILDING STUDENT ENG Thompson C., 2013, J FURTHER HIGHER ED, V38, P399 Tough A., 1977, MAJOR LEARNING EFFEC Whitchurch C, 2013, RECONSTRUCTING IDENT Winter R., 2009, J HIGHER ED POLICY M, V31, P121, DOI DOI 10.1080/13600800902825835 [Anonymous], 2014, MASS I TECHN STRAT P NR 36 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 11 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0013-1881 EI 1469-5847 J9 EDUC RES-UK JI Educ. Res. PD JUL 3 PY 2015 VL 57 IS 3 BP 272 EP 286 DI 10.1080/00131881.2015.1056640 PG 15 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CM8FU UT WOS:000357934500004 ER PT J AU Xiang, M Kuperberg, G AF Xiang, Ming Kuperberg, Gina TI Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension SO LANGUAGE COGNITION AND NEUROSCIENCE LA English DT Article DE concessive connectives; ERP; discourse processing; P600; prediction; N400; late negativity; event structures ID EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS; SPOKEN LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION; PROPOSITIONAL TRUTH-VALUE; LATENT SEMANTIC ANALYSIS; BRAIN POTENTIALS; SENTENCE COMPREHENSION; EYE-MOVEMENTS; COUNTERFACTUAL WORLDS; CONTINUOUS SPEECH; WORD RECOGNITION AB In two event-related potential experiments, we asked whether comprehenders used the concessive connective, even so, to predict upcoming events. Participants read coherent and incoherent scenarios, with and without even so, e.g. 'Elizabeth had a history exam on Monday. She took the test and aced/failed it. (Even so), she went home and celebrated wildly', as they rated coherence (Experiment 1) or simply answered intermittent comprehension questions (Experiment 2). The semantic function of even so was used to reverse real-world knowledge predictions, leading to an attenuated N400 to coherent versus incoherent target words ('celebrated'). Moreover, its pragmatic communicative function enhanced predictive processing, leading to more N400 attenuation to coherent targets in scenarios with than without even so. This benefit however, did not come for free: the detection of failed event predictions triggered a later posterior positivity and/or an anterior negativity effect, and costs of maintaining alternative likelihood relations manifest as a sustained negativity effect on sentence-final words. C1 [Xiang, Ming] Univ Chicago, Dept Linguist, Language & Proc Lab, Chicago, IL 60615 USA. [Kuperberg, Gina] Tufts Univ, Dept Psychol, Neurocognit Lab, Medford, MA 02155 USA. [Kuperberg, Gina] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Psychiat, Charlestown, MA 02129 USA. RP Xiang, M (reprint author), Univ Chicago, Dept Linguist, Language & Proc Lab, Chicago, IL 60615 USA. EM mxiang@uchicago.edu FU National Institute of Mental Health [R01MH071635] FX This work was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH071635 to G.R.K.). CR ALTMANN G, 1988, COGNITION, V30, P191, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90020-0 Baggio G, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P36, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.005 BECKER CA, 1980, MEM COGNITION, V8, P493, DOI 10.3758/BF03213769 Becker C. A., 1985, READING RES ADV THEO, V5, P125 Blakemore D., 2002, RELEVANCE LINGUISTIC Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I, 2008, BRAIN RES REV, V59, P55, DOI 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.05.003 Bott O, 2010, LING AKT, V162, P1 Clark A, 2013, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V36, P181, DOI [10.1017/S0140525X12000477, 10.1017/S0140525X12002440] Corley M, 2007, COGNITION, V105, P658, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.10.010 Coulson S, 2001, NEUROSCI LETT, V316, P71, DOI 10.1016/S0304-3940(01)02387-4 Coulson S, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1146, P128, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.008 Courville AC, 2006, TRENDS COGN SCI, V10, P294, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.004 De Grauwe S, 2010, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V48, P1965, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.03.017 Delong KA, 2011, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, V48, P1203, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01199.x Ditman T, 2007, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, V44, P927, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00593.x Farmer TA, 2013, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V36, P211, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X12002312 Federmeier KD, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1146, P75, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.101 Federmeier KD, 1999, J MEM LANG, V41, P469, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1999.2660 Feldman NH, 2009, PSYCHOL REV, V116, P752, DOI 10.1037/a0017196 Ferguson HJ, 2008, BRAIN RES, V1236, P113, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.07.099 Ferguson HJ, 2011, COGNITION, V119, P179, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.005 Ferguson HJ, 2008, J MEM LANG, V58, P609, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.007 Ferretti TR, 2007, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V33, P182, DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.182 Fillmore CJ, 2006, COGN LINGUIST RES, V34, P373, DOI 10.1515/9783110199901.373 Fine AB, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0077661 FORSTER KI, 1981, Q J EXP PSYCHOL-A, V33, P465 Friston KJ, 2005, PHILOS T R SOC B, V360, P815, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2005.1622 GREENHOUSE SW, 1959, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V24, P95, DOI 10.1007/BF02289823 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Griffiths TL, 2008, CAMB HANDB PSYCHOL, P59 Hagoort P, 2003, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V15, P883, DOI 10.1162/089892903322370807 Hagoort P, 2000, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V38, P1518, DOI 10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00052-X HAGOORT P, 1993, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V8, P439, DOI 10.1080/01690969308407585 Hald LA, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1146, P210, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.054 Hoeks JCJ, 2004, COGNITIVE BRAIN RES, V19, P59, DOI 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.022 Jackendoff R., 2002, FDN LANGUAGE BRAIN M Jacobs RA, 2011, WIRES COGN SCI, V2, P8, DOI 10.1002/wcs.80 Karttunen L., 1979, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P1 KEENAN JM, 1984, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V23, P115, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90082-3 KING JW, 1995, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V7, P376, DOI 10.1162/jocn.1995.7.3.376 Kleinschmidt D., PSYCHOL REV IN PRESS KLUENDER R, 1993, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V5, P196, DOI 10.1162/jocn.1993.5.2.196 Kolk HHJ, 2003, BRAIN LANG, V85, P1, DOI 10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00548-5 Kuperberg GR, 2010, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V22, P2685, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2009.21333 Kuperberg GR, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1146, P23, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063 Kuperberg GR, 2006, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V21, P489, DOI 10.1080/01690960500094279 Kuperberg GR, 2011, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V23, P1230, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2010.21452 Kuperberg GR, 2003, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V15, P272, DOI 10.1162/089892903321208204 Kuperberg G. R., 2014, WHAT EVENT REL UNPUB Kuperberg G.R., 2013, UNRAVELING BEHAV NEU, P176 KUTAS M, 1980, SCIENCE, V207, P203, DOI 10.1126/science.7350657 KUTAS M, 1984, NATURE, V307, P161, DOI 10.1038/307161a0 Kutas M, 2011, ANNU REV PSYCHOL, V62, P621, DOI 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123 Lagerwerf L., 1998, THESIS CATHOLIC U BR Lakoff G., 1971, SEMANTICS INTERDISCI, P232 Landauer TK, 1998, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V25, P259 Landauer TK, 1997, PSYCHOL REV, V104, P211, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211 Lau EF, 2013, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V25, P484, DOI 10.1162/jocn_a_00328 Lau EF, 2008, NAT REV NEUROSCI, V9, P920, DOI 10.1038/nrn2532 Lee CL, 2009, J MEM LANG, V61, P538, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2009.08.003 Lee CL, 2006, BRAIN RES, V1081, P191, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.01.058 Levy R, 2008, COGNITION, V106, P1126, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006 MACDONALD MC, 1994, PSYCHOL REV, V101, P676, DOI 10.1037//0033-295X.101.4.676 Marslen-Wilson W., 1988, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V3, P1, DOI 10.1080/01690968808402079 McRae K, 1997, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V12, P137 Munte TF, 1998, NATURE, V395, P71, DOI 10.1038/25731 Murray J. D., 1994, SOURCES COHESION TEX, P107 Murray JD, 1997, MEM COGNITION, V25, P227, DOI 10.3758/BF03201114 Nieuwand MS, 2005, COGNITIVE BRAIN RES, V24, P691, DOI 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.04.003 Nieuwland MS, 2013, J MEM LANG, V68, P54, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2012.08.003 Nieuwland MS, 2006, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V18, P1098, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098 Nieuwland MS, 2012, COGNITION, V122, P102, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.09.001 Nieuwland MS, 2010, J MEM LANG, V63, P324, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005 Nieuwland M. S., 2008, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V2, P603, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2008.00070.X Norris D, 2006, PSYCHOL REV, V113, P327, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.327 Norris D, 2008, PSYCHOL REV, V115, P357, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.357 Noveck I.A., 2013, BREVITY, P280 OLDFIELD RC, 1971, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V9, P97, DOI 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 OSTERHOUT L, 1993, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V8, P413, DOI 10.1080/01690969308407584 OSTERHOUT L, 1992, J MEM LANG, V31, P785, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z Otten M, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1153, P166, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.058 Paczynski M, 2012, J MEM LANG, V67, P426, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.003 Paczynski M, 2014, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V26, P1905, DOI 10.1162/jocn_a_00638 Paczynski M, 2011, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V26, P1402, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2011.580143 Qian T, 2012, FRONT PSYCHOL, V3, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00228 Rabovsky M, 2014, COGNITION, V132, P68, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.010 Rao RPN, 1999, NAT NEUROSCI, V2, P79, DOI 10.1038/4580 Sanford AJ, 2011, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V23, P514, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2009.21370 Schank R. C., 1977, SCRIPTS PLANS GOALS Singer M, 1996, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V30, P1, DOI 10.1006/cogp.1996.0001 Sitnikova T., 2008, UNDERSTANDING EVENTS, P639 St George M, 1997, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V9, P776, DOI 10.1162/jocn.1997.9.6.776 TANENHAUS MK, 1995, SCIENCE, V268, P1632, DOI 10.1126/science.7777863 Traxler MJ, 1997, Q J EXP PSYCHOL-A, V50, P481 van Berkum JJA, 2003, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, V40, P235, DOI 10.1111/1469-8986.00025 Van Petten C, 2012, INT J PSYCHOPHYSIOL, V83, P176, DOI 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.015 Van Berkum J. J. A., 2009, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, P276 van Dijk T. A., 1983, STRATEGIES DISCOURSE VANPETTEN C, 1990, MEM COGNITION, V18, P380 Wacongne C, 2011, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V108, P20754, DOI 10.1073/pnas.1117807108 Wacongne C, 2012, J NEUROSCI, V32, P3665, DOI 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5003-11.2012 Warren T, 2007, PSYCHON B REV, V14, P770, DOI 10.3758/BF03196835 WILSON D, 1993, LINGUA, V90, P1, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 Wittenberg E, 2014, J MEM LANG, V73, P31, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.002 Wlotko EW, 2012, NEUROIMAGE, V62, P356, DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.054 Yang CL, 2007, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V33, P55, DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.55 Yu AJ, 2005, NEURON, V46, P681, DOI 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.04.026 Yu AJ, 2007, CURR BIOL, V17, pR977, DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2007.09.007 Zwaan RA, 1998, PSYCHOL BULL, V123, P162, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 NR 109 TC 5 Z9 5 U1 6 U2 26 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 2327-3798 EI 2327-3801 J9 LANG COGN NEUROSCI JI Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. PD JUL 3 PY 2015 VL 30 IS 6 BP 648 EP 672 DI 10.1080/23273798.2014.995679 PG 25 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Behavioral Sciences; Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Behavioral Sciences; Linguistics; Psychology GA CG6OE UT WOS:000353420700002 PM 25914891 ER PT J AU Xu, XD Jiang, XM Zhou, XL AF Xu, Xiaodong Jiang, Xiaoming Zhou, Xiaolin TI When a causal assumption is not satisfied by reality: differential brain responses to concessive and causal relations during sentence comprehension SO Language Cognition and Neuroscience LA English DT Article DE world knowledge; P600; N400; causal conjunction; concessive conjunction ID LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION; WORLD-KNOWLEDGE; ERP RESPONSES; EYE-TRACKING; DISCOURSE; INTEGRATION; N400; CONNECTIVES; INFORMATION; PRONOUN AB A concessive construction like Grandma moved from Southern to Northern China although she likes the South, where the winter is warm implies a causal assumption that is based on one's real world knowledge but is inconsistent with the asserted fact. This study investigated to what extent the processing of a concessive construction differs from the processing of a causal construction with an explicit marker because, in which a causal assumption is stated and approved by the fact. The critical word in the subordinate clause was congruent or incongruent with the discourse context. The incongruent word elicited a larger N400 followed by a larger P600 for the causal construction but a larger N400 followed by a larger late negativity for the concessive construction, suggesting that the re-establishment of the conjunctive relations and the underlying brain responses are differentially affected by the conjunction type and by the viability of pragmatic meaning enrichment. C1 [Xu, Xiaodong] Nanjing Normal Univ, Sch Foreign Languages & Cultures, Nanjing 210097, Jiangsu, Peoples R China. [Jiang, Xiaoming; Zhou, Xiaolin] Peking Univ, Dept Psychol, Ctr Brain & Cognit Sci, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China. [Zhou, Xiaolin] Peking Univ, Key Lab Machine Percept, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China. [Zhou, Xiaolin] Peking Univ, Minist Educ, Key Lab Computat Linguist, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China. [Zhou, Xiaolin] Jiangsu Normal Univ, Collaborat Innovat Ctr Language Competence, Xuzhou 221009, Peoples R China. [Zhou, Xiaolin] Peking Univ, PKU IDG McGovern Inst Brain Res, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China. RP Zhou, XL (reprint author), Peking Univ, Dept Psychol, Ctr Brain & Cognit Sci, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China. EM xz104@pku.edu.cn FU Natural Science Foundation of China [31300929, 31470976]; Natural Science Foundation of the Higher Education Institutions of Jiangsu Province [12KJB180007]; Social Science Foundation of China [12ZD119]; Academic Development Priority Program of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions [20110101] FX This study was supported by grants from the Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 31300929] and the Natural Science Foundation of the Higher Education Institutions of Jiangsu Province [grant number 12KJB180007] to Xiaodong Xu, and by grants from the Social Science Foundation of China [grant number 12&ZD119] and Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 31470976] to Xiaolin Zhou. It was also supported by the Academic Development Priority Program of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions [grant number 20110101] awarded to Jie Zhang, School of Foreign Languages and Cultures, Nanjing Normal University. CR Baggio G, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P36, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.005 Brouwer H, 2012, BRAIN RES, V1446, P127, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.055 Burkhardt P, 2007, NEUROREPORT, V18, P1851 Burkhardt P, 2006, BRAIN LANG, V98, P159, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.005 CARON J, 1988, J MEM LANG, V27, P309, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90057-5 Chu Z., 2008, STUDIES CHINESE LANG, V326, P410 Cozijn R, 2011, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V48, P475, DOI 10.1080/0163853X.2011.594421 Hagoort P, 2004, SCIENCE, V304, P438, DOI 10.1126/science.1095455 Hald LA, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1146, P210, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.054 Hammer A, 2008, BRAIN RES, V1230, P177, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.07.004 Iten C., 1998, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V10, P81 Izutsu MN, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P646, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.001 Jiang XM, 2013, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V51, P1857, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.06.009 Jiang XM, 2013, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V51, P2210, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.07.021 Kohne J., 2012, 25 ANN CUNY C HUM SE Konig Ekkehard, 2000, CAUSE CONDITION CONC, P341 Koornneef AW, 2006, J MEM LANG, V54, P445, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003 Kuperberg GR, 2011, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V23, P1230, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2010.21452 Li F., 2009, THESIS UTRECHT U UTR Li XQ, 2010, BRAIN RES, V1331, P96, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.03.050 MILLIS KK, 1994, J MEM LANG, V33, P128, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1994.1007 Nieuwland MS, 2006, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V18, P1098, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098 Otten M, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1153, P166, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.058 Oudega M. H., 2011, THESIS UTRECHT U UTR Qiu LJ, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0036156 Sanders T, 2005, P 1 INT S EXPL MOD M, P105 Sanders TJM, 2000, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V29, P37, DOI 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3 Taboada M., 2012, LINGUISTICS HUMAN SC, V6, P17, DOI [10.1558/lhs.v6i1-3.17, DOI 10.1558/LHS.V6I1-3.17] TOWNSEND DJ, 1983, COGNITION, V13, P223, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90023-9 Traxler MJ, 1997, Q J EXP PSYCHOL-A, V50, P481 Van Berkum JJA, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1146, P158, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.091 Verhagen A., 2000, CAUSE CONDITION CONC, P361 Yang CL, 2007, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V33, P55, DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.55 Zhang Y., 2012, J FOREIGN LANGUAGES, V35, P42 NR 34 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 2 U2 7 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 2327-3798 EI 2327-3801 J9 LANG COGN NEUROSCI JI Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. PD JUL 3 PY 2015 VL 30 IS 6 BP 704 EP 715 DI 10.1080/23273798.2015.1005636 PG 12 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Behavioral Sciences; Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Behavioral Sciences; Linguistics; Psychology GA CG6OE UT WOS:000353420700006 ER PT J AU Hartshorne, JK O'Donnell, TJ Tenenbaum, JB AF Hartshorne, Joshua K. O'Donnell, Timothy J. Tenenbaum, Joshua B. TI The causes and consequences explicit in verbs SO Language Cognition and Neuroscience LA English DT Article DE pragmatics; implicit consequentiality; implicit causality; pronouns ID PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSALITY IMPLICIT; SPOKEN LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION; THEMATIC ROLES; SENTENCE COMPREHENSION; INTERPERSONAL EVENTS; PRONOUN RESOLUTION; DISCOURSE; CONSEQUENTIALITY; PRESCHOOLERS; ATTRIBUTIONS AB Interpretation of a pronoun in one clause can be systematically affected by the verb in the previous clause. Compare Archibald angered Bartholomew because he horizontal ellipsis (he = Archibald) with Archibald criticised Bartholomew because he horizontal ellipsis (he = Bartholomew). While it is clear that meaning plays a critical role, it is unclear whether that meaning is directly encoded in the verb or, alternatively, inferred from world knowledge. We report evidence favouring the former account. We elicited pronoun biases for 502 verbs from seven Levin verb classes in two discourse contexts (implicit causality and implicit consequentiality), showing that in both contexts, verb class reliably predicts pronoun bias. These results confirm and extend recent findings about implicit causality and represent the first such study for implicit consequentiality. We discuss these findings in the context of recent work in semantics, and also develop a new, probabilistic generative account of pronoun interpretation. C1 [Hartshorne, Joshua K.; O'Donnell, Timothy J.; Tenenbaum, Joshua B.] MIT, Dept Brain & Cognit Sci, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA. RP Hartshorne, JK (reprint author), MIT, Dept Brain & Cognit Sci, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA. EM jkhartshorne@gmail.com FU NIH Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award [5F32HD072748]; NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program award FX The first author was supported by an NIH Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award [grant number 5F32HD072748] and by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program award. CR Altmann GTM, 1999, COGNITION, V73, P247, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1 Ambridge B, 2009, COGNITIVE SCI, V33, P1301, DOI 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01055.x Arnold J. E., 1998, DISS ABSTR INT, V59, P2950 Arnold JE, 2001, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V31, P137, DOI 10.1207/S15326950DP3102_02 Arnold JE, 2007, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V22, P527, DOI 10.1080/01690960600845950 AU TKF, 1986, J MEM LANG, V25, P104, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90024-0 Bittner D., 2014, INT ASS STUD CHILD L Bott O, 2014, STUD THEOR PSYCHOLIN, V44, P213, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05675-3_9 Brown R., 1983, ARCH PSYCHOL, V51, P145 BROWN R, 1983, COGNITION, V14, P237, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90006-9 CARAMAZZA A, 1977, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V16, P601, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80022-4 Corrigan R, 2002, EUR J SOC PSYCHOL, V32, P363, DOI 10.1002/ejsp.96 Corrigan R, 2003, INFANT CHILD DEV, V12, P305, DOI 10.1002/icd.291 Corrigan R, 2001, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V20, P285, DOI 10.1177/0261927X01020003002 Cozijn R, 2011, J MEM LANG, V64, P381, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2011.01.001 CRAWLEY RA, 1990, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V19, P245, DOI 10.1007/BF01077259 Crinean M, 2006, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V21, P636, DOI 10.1080/01690960500199763 Croft W., 2012, VERBS ASPECT ARGUMEN EHRLICH K, 1980, Q J EXP PSYCHOL, V32, P247, DOI 10.1080/14640748008401161 EVANS G, 1980, LINGUIST INQ, V11, P337 Featherstone CR, 2010, Q J EXP PSYCHOL, V63, P3, DOI 10.1080/17470210903134344 Ferstl EC, 2011, BEHAV RES METHODS, V43, P124, DOI 10.3758/s13428-010-0023-2 FLETCHER CR, 1984, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V23, P487, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90309-8 Frank MC, 2012, SCIENCE, V336, P998, DOI 10.1126/science.1218633 Garnham A, 1996, J MEM LANG, V35, P517, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1996.0028 Garnsey SM, 1997, J MEM LANG, V37, P58, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1997.2512 GARVEY C, 1975, COGNITION, V3, P227, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(74)90010-9 Caramazza A., 1974, LINGUIST INQ, V5, P459 Goikoetxea E, 2008, BEHAV RES METHODS, V40, P760, DOI 10.3758/BRM.40.3.760 Goldberg A. E., 2006, CONSTRUCTIONS WORK Goodman ND, 2013, TOP COGN SCI, V5, P173, DOI 10.1111/tops.12007 Grice Paul H., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS GUNDEL JK, 1993, LANGUAGE, V69, P274, DOI 10.2307/416535 HALDANE JBS, 1956, ANN HUM GENET, V20, P309 Hartshorne J. K., 2015, MOST PROBABLE UNPUB Hartshorne JK, 2013, EXP PSYCHOL, V60, P179, DOI 10.1027/1618-3169/a000187 Hartshorne JK, 2014, LANG COGN NEUROSCI, V29, P804, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2013.796396 Hart J, 2012, LIVING MOMENT: MODERNISM IN A BROKEN WORLD, P1, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2012.689305 HOBBS JR, 1993, ARTIF INTELL, V63, P69, DOI 10.1016/0004-3702(93)90015-4 Huang YT, 2011, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V26, P1161, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2010.508641 Jackendoff R., 1990, SEMANTIC STRUCTURES Jaeger TF, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P434, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 Kehler Andrew, 2002, COHERENCE REFERENCE Kehler A, 2008, J SEMANT, V25, P1, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffm018 Kipper K., 2006, P 5 INT C LANG RES E Koornneef AW, 2013, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V28, P1169, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2012.699076 Koornneef AW, 2006, J MEM LANG, V54, P445, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003 Kutas M., 2011, PREDICTIONS BRAIN US, P190 Levin B., 2005, ARGUMENT REALIZATION Levin B., 1993, ENGLISH VERB CLASSES Levy R, 2008, COGNITION, V106, P1126, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006 Lombrozo T, 2010, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V61, P303, DOI 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.002 MANNETTI L, 1991, EUR J SOC PSYCHOL, V21, P429, DOI 10.1002/ejsp.2420210506 MCDONALD JL, 1995, J MEM LANG, V34, P543, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1995.1025 MCKOON G, 1993, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V19, P1040, DOI 10.1037//0278-7393.19.5.1040 McRae K, 1998, J MEM LANG, V38, P283, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1997.2543 Pickering MJ, 2007, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V22, P780, DOI 10.1080/01690960601119876 Pinker S., 1989, LEARNABILITY COGNITI Pyykkonen P, 2010, EXP PSYCHOL, V57, P5, DOI 10.1027/1618-3169/a000002 Rigalleau F, 2014, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V43, P465, DOI 10.1007/s10936-013-9265-3 Rudolph U, 1997, PSYCHOL BULL, V121, P192, DOI 10.1037//0033-2909.121.2.192 Saffran JR, 1996, SCIENCE, V274, P1926, DOI 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926 Sagi E., TOPICS COGN IN PRESS Schuler K.K., 2005, VERBNET BROAD COVERA Semin G. R., 1991, EUROPEAN REV SOCIAL, V2, P1, DOI 10.1080/14792779143000006 Snedeker Jesse, 2009, HDB CHILD LANGUAGE, P331, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511576164 Song HJ, 2005, J MEM LANG, V52, P29, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.012 Song HJ, 2007, LINGUA, V117, P1959, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.011 Stevenson R, 2000, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V15, P225 STEVENSON RJ, 1994, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V9, P519, DOI 10.1080/01690969408402130 Stewart A. J., 1998, P 20 ANN C COGN SCI, P1 TANENHAUS MK, 1995, SCIENCE, V268, P1632, DOI 10.1126/science.7777863 Tenenbaum JB, 2011, SCIENCE, V331, P1279, DOI 10.1126/science.1192788 Tenny C., 2000, EVENTS GRAMMATICAL O, P3 Van Berkum JJA, 2008, CURR DIR PSYCHOL SCI, V17, P376, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00609.x van Rij J, 2013, TOP COGN SCI, V5, P564, DOI 10.1111/tops.12029 van Dijk T. A., 1983, STRATEGIES DISCOURSE WHITE PA, 1989, BRIT J PSYCHOL, V80, P431 NR 78 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 0 U2 9 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 2327-3798 EI 2327-3801 J9 LANG COGN NEUROSCI JI Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. PD JUL 3 PY 2015 VL 30 IS 6 BP 716 EP 734 DI 10.1080/23273798.2015.1008524 PG 19 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Behavioral Sciences; Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Behavioral Sciences; Linguistics; Psychology GA CG6OE UT WOS:000353420700007 PM 26052518 ER PT J AU Lee, CK Sidhu, MS AF Lee, Chen Kang Sidhu, Manjit Singh TI Engineering Students Learning Preferences in UNITEN: Comparative Study and Patterns of Learning Styles SO EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY LA English DT Article DE Engineering education; Learning styles; Learning preferences; Educational technology ID TEACHING STYLES AB Engineering educators have been increasingly taking the learning style theories into serious consideration as part of their efforts to enhance the teaching and learning in engineering. This paper presents a research study to investigate the learning style preference of the mechanical engineering students in Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), Malaysia by means of the Personality and Learning Styles instruments. Descriptive statistical method was used to analyze the collected samples (n = 122). The findings of this study revealed that the preference style for engineering students are more towards spontaneous, pragmatic and concrete style of learning. This is consistent with the previous research findings on the learning preference for engineering students in UNITEN using Honey and Mumford Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) and Felder and Silverman Index of Learning Style (ILS) instruments. Therefore, it is important for the engineering educators to be aware of the students learning preferences by adjusting the teaching and learning strategies to unleash the learning potential of the students. Multi-approaches in teaching and learning are recommended to accommodate different students learning preferences while widening the students learning capabilities in engineering education. C1 [Lee, Chen Kang; Sidhu, Manjit Singh] Univ Tenaga Nas, Coll Informat Technol, Dept Graph & Multimedia, Selangor, Malaysia. RP Lee, CK (reprint author), Univ Tenaga Nas, Coll Informat Technol, Dept Graph & Multimedia, Selangor, Malaysia. EM leeck82@gmail.com; manjit@uniten.edu.my RI Yap, Boon Kar/D-6236-2015; Engineering, EE/O-1179-2016 OI Yap, Boon Kar/0000-0002-3010-5087; CR Armstrong V, 2005, EDUC REV, V57, P457, DOI 10.1080/00131910500279551 Ault Holly K, 2010, Engineering Design Graphics Journal, V74 Baldwin L, 2003, INNOV EDUC TEACH INT, V40, P325, DOI 10.1080/1470329032000128369 Buxeda RJ, 1999, J COLL SCI TEACH, V29, P159 Buxeda R. J., 2001, P 2001 INT C ENG ED Cagiltay Nergiz Ercil, 2008, European Journal of Engineering Education, V33, DOI 10.1080/03043790802253541 Campbell L. C., 2003, TEACHING LEARNING MU, V3rd Martinez Cartas M. L., 2012, EUROPEAN J ENG ED, V37, P229, DOI [10.1080/03043797.2012.678985, DOI 10.1080/03043797.2012.678985] Cassidy S., 2004, ED PSYCHOL, V24, P419, DOI DOI 10.1080/0144341042000228834 CAVANAGH SJ, 1994, NURS EDUC TODAY, V14, P106, DOI 10.1016/0260-6917(94)90112-0 Chen BH, 2014, INTERACT LEARN ENVIR, V22, P485, DOI 10.1080/10494820.2012.680971 Chua K. J., 2014, EUROPEAN J ENG ED, V39, P556, DOI [10.1080/03043797.2014.895704, DOI 10.1080/03043797.2014.895704] Coffield F., 2004, STYLES PEDAGOGY POST, P1 Coffield F., 2004, LEARN SKILLS RES CTR, P1 Constant K. P., 1997, J MATER EDUC, V19, P1 CORNWELL JM, 1994, EDUC PSYCHOL MEAS, V54, P317, DOI 10.1177/0013164494054002006 Deborah LJ, 2014, ARTIF INTELL REV, V42, P801, DOI 10.1007/s10462-012-9344-0 Dee K. C., 2003, P 2003 ASEE WFEO INT Pedrosa de Jesus H., 2004, ED PSYCHOL, V24, P531, DOI 10.1080/0144341042000228889 Duderstadt J. J., 2008, ENG CHANGING WORLD R DUNN RS, 1979, EDUC LEADERSHIP, V36, P238 Fang N., 2013, P 2013 IEEE FRONT ED, P1704, DOI [10.1109/FIE.2013.6685128, DOI 10.1109/FIE.2013.6685128] Felder RM, 2005, INT J ENG EDUC, V21, P103 Felder R. M., 1993, J COLL SCI TEACH, V23, P286 Felder RM, 2005, J ENG EDUC, V94, P57 Felder RM, 1996, ASEE PRISM, V6, P18 FELDER RM, 1988, ENG EDUC, V78, P674 Fernandez V., 2011, INT J ENG EDUC, V27, P1 Fleming N. D., 2005, TEACHING LEARNING ST, V2nd Fleming ND, 1995, RES DEV HIGHER ED, V18, P308 Franzoni AL, 2009, EDUC TECHNOL SOC, V12, P15 Froyd JE, 2012, P IEEE, V100, P1344, DOI 10.1109/JPROC.2012.2190167 Graf Sabine, 2007, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, V40, P79 Graf S., 2007, THESIS VIENNA U TECH Gregorc A. F., 1985, INSIDE STYLES BASICS, P284 Hawk Thomas F., 2007, DECISION SCI J INNOV, V5, p[1, 1], DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1540-4609.2007.00125.X Holvikivi J., 2007, European Journal of Engineering Education, V32, DOI 10.1080/03043790701332909 Honey P, 2000, LEARNING STYLES HELP Honey P., 1986, USING YOUR LEARNING Honey P., 1992, MANUAL LEARNING STYL Jackson C., 2002, J MANAGERIAL PSYCHOL, V17, P6, DOI 10.1108/02683940210415898 Keefe J. W., 1991, LEARNING STYLE COGNI Kolb DA., 1983, EXPERIENTIAL LEARNIN Kolb DA, 2001, EDUC PSYCHO, P227 Kuri N. P., 2002, P 2002 INT C ENGL ED Larkin-Hein T, 2001, IEEE T EDUC, V44, P276, DOI 10.1109/13.941000 Lee C. K., 2013, 2 COIT TECHNICAL PAP, V2, P8 Lee CM, 2013, EVID-BASED COMPL ALT, V2013, P9 Livesay G. A., 2002, P 2002 ANN C AM SOC Lopez W. M., 2002, THESIS U FEDERAL SAN McCaulley MH, 2000, CONSULTING PSYCHOL J, V52, P117, DOI DOI 10.1037/1061-4087.52.2.117 Pedrosa CM, 2014, EDUC TECHNOL SOC, V17, P142 Miskioglu E. E., 2013, P 2013 IEEE FRONT ED, P979, DOI [10.1109/FIE.2013.6684973, DOI 10.1109/FIE.2013.6684973] Mistree F., 2014, CURRICULUM MODELS 21, P91, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-7366-4_6 [Anonymous], 1998, CRLT OCCASIONAL PAPE Montgomery S. M., 1995, P FRONT ED 1995 25 A, V1, p3a213, DOI [10.1109/FIE.1995.483093, DOI 10.1109/FIE.1995.483093] National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine, 2007, RIS GATH STORM EN EM National Science Board, 2007, NSB07122 Noguera J. S., 2011, NORDIC J ENGLISH STU, V10, P77 Ogden R., 2007, STUDY SUCCESS PERSON Ogot M, 2006, INT J ENG EDUC, V22, P566 Palou E., 2006, J FOOD SCI ED, V5, P51, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1541-4329.2006.00006.X Paterson K. G., 1999, J ENG EDUC, V88, P295, DOI [10.1002/j.2168-9830.1999.tb00450.x, DOI 10.1002/4.2168-9830.1999.TB00450.X] Patterson D. A., 2011, ED CHEM ENG, V6, pe10, DOI [10.1016/j.ece.2010.10.001, DOI 10.1016/J.ECE.2010.10.001] Pittenger D., 2005, CONSULTING PSYCHOL J, V57, P210, DOI DOI 10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210 Prados J. W., 1998, P C REAL NEW PAR ENG, P1 Rajala SA, 2012, P IEEE, V100, P1376, DOI 10.1109/JPROC.2012.2190169 Riding R., 1998, COGNITIVE STYLES LEA Rosati P., 1999, P FRONT ED FIE 99 29, V2, p12C1/17, DOI [10.1109/FIE.1999.841625, DOI 10.1109/FIE.1999.841625] ROSATI P, 1988, IEEE T EDUC, V31, P208, DOI 10.1109/13.2313 Rosati PA, 1996, PROC FRONT EDUC CONF, P1441, DOI 10.1109/FIE.1996.568536 Rosen M. A., 2007, INNOVATIONS 2007 WOR, P1 Sadler-Smith E., 1997, EDUC PSYCHOL, V17, P51, DOI DOI 10.1080/0144341970170103 Seery N., 2003, P 2003 ANN ASEE C Self B. P., 2009, P 2009 39 IEEE FRONT, P1, DOI [10.1109/FIE.2009.5350822, DOI 10.1109/FIE.2009.5350822] Manjit Sidhu S., 2006, THESIS U MALAYA MALA Manjit Sidhu S., 2009, TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED, P1, DOI [10.4018/978-1-60566-764-5, DOI 10.4018/978-1-60566-764-5] Smith N. G., 2002, P UNESCO INT CTR ENG Sternberg RJ, 1997, AM PSYCHOL, V52, P700, DOI 10.1037//0003-066X.52.7.700 STICE JE, 1987, ENG EDUC, V77, P291 Tendy S. M., 1997, NATL FORUM TEACHER E, V9, P3 Vita G.D., 2001, INNOV EDUC TEACH INT, V38, P165, DOI DOI 10.1080/14703290110035437 Wince-Smith D., 2005, P GLOB INN EC 2007 S Yueh HP, 2014, EDUC TECHNOL SOC, V17, P158 Zywno M. S., 2003, THESIS GLASGOW CALED Zywno M. S., 2002, P 2002 AM SOC ENG ED Zywno M. S., 2001, P 2001 AM SOC ENG ED NR 87 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 12 PU IEEE COMPUTER SOC, LEARNING TECHNOLOGY TASK FORCE PI PALMERSTON NORTH PA BAG 11-222, MASSEY UNIVERSITY, PALMERSTON NORTH, NEW ZEALAND SN 1436-4522 J9 EDUC TECHNOL SOC JI Educ. Technol. Soc. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 18 IS 3 BP 266 EP 281 PG 16 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CO2NX UT WOS:000358994600021 ER PT J AU Mitchell, N Haugh, M AF Mitchell, Nathaniel Haugh, Michael TI Agency, accountability and evaluations of impoliteness SO JOURNAL OF POLITENESS RESEARCH-LANGUAGE BEHAVIOUR CULTURE LA English DT Article DE impoliteness; social action; evaluation; intention; social norm; agency; interactional pragmatics ID TALK-IN-INTERACTION; SOCIAL-ORGANIZATION; POLITENESS RESEARCH; CONVERSATION; IM/POLITENESS; FACE; PREFERENCE; LAUGHTER; LANGUAGE; SEQUENCE AB It is now well recognized that the recipients' evaluations need to be given serious consideration when theorizing impoliteness. Yet despite the importance placed on evaluations by recipients, the role of the recipient in interaction has been reduced through theorizing within the field to the ascribing of (perceived) intentions or interpreting of (perceived) social norms and expectations. We suggest, in this paper, that this under-theorizes the role of the recipient vis-a-vis evaluations of impoliteness. Building on an account of (im)politeness as social practice (Haugh 2013b, 2015; Kadar and Haugh 2013), we argue that evaluations of impoliteness inevitably involve those recipients construing the speaker's action as a particular kind of social action, and holding them accountable for that particular kind of social action with respect to particular dimension(s) of the moral order (Haugh 2013a, 2015). The accountability of social action is underpinned, in part, by the presumed agency of participants. Agency involves the socially mediated capacity to act that is afforded through 1. knowing one has the ability to act, 2. knowing that these actions may affect others (and self), and 3. knowing that one will thus be held accountable for those actions (Ahearn 2001; Duranti 2004; Mitchell forthcoming). We argue that a focus on agency in theorizing impoliteness allows for the ways in which recipients do not just simply invoke social norms or (in some cases at least) perceived speaker intentions in evaluating talk or conduct as impolite, but may also exercise their own agency in construing the speaker's actions as a particular kind of action, and thus as offensive or not. It is concluded that the agency exercised by recipients with respect to the degree to which they hold speakers accountable for impolite or offensive stances needs to be examined more carefully in theorizing about (im) politeness more generally. C1 [Mitchell, Nathaniel; Haugh, Michael] Griffith Univ, Sch Languages & Linguist, Brisbane, Qld 4111, Australia. [Haugh, Michael] Griffith Univ, Sch Languages & Linguist, Linguist & Int English, Brisbane, Qld 4111, Australia. RP Mitchell, N (reprint author), Griffith Univ, Sch Languages & Linguist, Brisbane, Qld 4111, Australia. EM nathaniel.mitchell@griffithuni.edu.au; m.haugh@griffith.edu.au RI Haugh, Michael/H-4783-2016 OI Haugh, Michael/0000-0003-4870-0850 FU Australian Research Council [DP120100516] FX We would like to thank Lara Weinglass for her assistance in making the recordings of the initial interactions, and also in conducting follow-up interviews. We would like to thank Rod Gardner for the analytical insights he shared on the data, as well as Alessandro Duranti for reviewing an earlier draft of this paper; your insights were extremely helpful in informing our discussions. Finally, the second author would also like to acknowledge the support of a Discovery grant from the Australian Research Council (DP120100516) that has enabled part of the dataset examined in this paper to be collected. CR Ahearn LM, 2001, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V30, P109, DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109 Archer DE, 2008, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V21, P181 Arundale Robert, DOING RELAT IN PRESS Arundale Robert B., 2006, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V2, P193, DOI DOI 10.1515/PR.2006.011 Arundale RB, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2078, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 BEACH WA, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P325, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4 Blitvich PGC, 2009, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V5, P273, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2009.014 Heller M, 2008, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V21, P1 Bousfield D, 2008, IMPOLITENESS INTERAC Bousfield D., 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P101 Bousfield D, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P2185, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.005 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV BURRIDGE K, 2002, AUSTR J LINGUISTICS, V22, P149, DOI DOI 10.1080/0726860022000013166 Chang WLM, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P411, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.019 Clayman S, 2014, REQUESTING SOCIAL IN, P51 Couper-Kuhlen E, 2007, STUD INTERACT SOCIO, P81 Culpeper Jonathan, 2015, INTERDISCIPLINARY ST, P421 Culpeper Jonathan, 2011, PRAGMATICS SOC, P393 Culpeper J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P349, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 CULPEPER J, 2014, PRAGMATICS ENGLISH L Jonathan Culpeper, 2011, IMPOLITENESS USING L Culpeper Jonathan, 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P35, DOI DOI 10.1515/JP1R.2005.1.1.35 Culpeper J, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1545, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2 Culpeper J, 2008, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V21, P17 Dobs AM, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V53, P112, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.002 Drew P, 2013, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P131, DOI DOI 10.1002/9781118325001.CH7 Drew Paul, 2011, 12 INT PRAGM ASS C U Du Bois JW, 2012, TEXT TALK, V32, P433, DOI 10.1515/text-2012-0021 Du Bois John, 2007, STANCETAKING DISCOUR, V164, P139, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.164 Duranti A., 2004, COMPANION LINGUISTIC, P451 Dynel Marta, 2013, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V5, P163 Edwards D, 2006, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V39, P343, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_1 Eelen Gino, 2001, CRITIQUE POLITENESS Gagne NO, 2010, LANG COMMUN, V30, P123, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2009.12.001 Gardner R, 1997, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V30, P131, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_2 Gardner R., 2001, WHEN LISTENERS TALK Gardner Rod, 2005, P 2004 C AUSTR LING, P1 Garfinkel H., 1967, STUDIES ETHNOMETHODO Glenn P. J., 2003, LAUGHTER INTERACTION Glenn P., 1995, SITUATED ORDER STUDI, P43 Goffman Erving, 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL GOFFMAN E, 1956, AM J SOCIOL, V62, P264, DOI 10.1086/222003 Grainger Karen, 2011, DISCURSIVE APPROACHE, P167 Grainger K, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P27, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.008 GREER T, 2005, KOBE DAIGAKUI KOKUSA, V2, P27 Haugh M., 2012, CAMBRIDGE HDB PRAGMA, P251 Haugh M., 2015, IMPOLITENESS IMPLICA Haugh Michael, HDB COMMUNI IN PRESS Haugh M., 2011, SALIENCE DEFAULTS UT, P189 Haugh Michael, 2010, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGES, P139 Haugh M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1099, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003 Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.009 Haugh M, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P7, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.002 Haugh M, 2015, MULTILINGUA, V34, P461, DOI 10.1515/multi-2014-0104 Haugh M, 2007, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V3, P295, DOI 10.1515/PR.2007.013 Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P52, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003 Haugh M, 2012, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V8, P111, DOI 10.1515/pr-2012-0007 Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V48, P41, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009 Haugh M, 2008, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V5, P201, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2008.011 Haugh M, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2106, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018 Heritage J., 1984, GARFINKEL ETHNOMETHO Heritage J., 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P299, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09780511665868 Heritage J., 2012, QUESTIONS FORMAL FUN, P179 Heritage J, 1998, LANG SOC, V27, P291 Heritage J, 2012, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V45, P1, DOI 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 Heritage J, 2013, DISCOURSE STUD, V15, P551, DOI 10.1177/1461445613501449 Holt Elizabeth, 2012, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V45, P430 Holt E, 2011, PRAGMATICS, V21, P393 Hutchby I, 2008, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V4, P221, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2008.011 Jefferson G, 2004, DISCOURSE STUD, V6, P117, DOI 10.1177/1461445604039445 Jefferson G., 2004, CONVERSATION ANAL ST, V125, P13, DOI 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef Jefferson Gail, 1972, STUDIES SOCIAL INTER, P294 Kadar DZ, 2015, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V11, P239, DOI 10.1515/pr-2015-0010 Kadar DZ, 2013, UNDERSTANDING POLITENESS, P1 Karkkainen E, 2003, EPISTEMIC STANCE ENG Koshik I., 2005, RHETORICAL QUESTIONS Lerner G., 2013, CONVERSATIONAL REPAI, P95 Locher MA, 2008, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V21, P1 MAYNARD DW, 1984, SOC PSYCHOL QUART, V47, P301, DOI 10.2307/3033633 Sara Mills, 2011, DISCURSIVE APPROACHE, P19 Mills Sara, 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P263, DOI 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.263 Mills Sara, 2003, GENDER POLITENESS Mitchell Nathaniel, THESIS GRIFFITH U BR Pillet-Shore D, 2015, J COMMUN, V65, P373, DOI 10.1111/jcom.12146 Pomerantz A., 2005, CONVERSATION COGNITI, P93, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511489990.005 POMERANTZ A, 1988, COMMUN MONOGR, V55, P360 Pomerantz Anita, 2013, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P210 Pomerantz A, 2012, DISCOURSE STUD, V14, P499, DOI 10.1177/1461445611434229 Potter J, 2005, QUALITATIVE RES PSYC, V2, P281, DOI DOI 10.1191/1478088705QP045OA Potter J., 1998, EUROPEAN REV SOCIAL, V9, P233, DOI DOI 10.1080/14792779843000090 Potter J, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1543, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.003 Raclaw Joshua, 2013, THESIS U COLORADO CO Robinson J, 2013, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P257 Robinson JD, 2010, DISCOURSE STUD, V12, P501, DOI 10.1177/1461445610371051 Sacks H., 1972, STUDIES SOCIAL INTER, P31 SACKS H, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P696, DOI 10.2307/412243 Schegloff EA, 2007, SEQUENCE ORGANIZATION IN INTERACTION: A PRIMER IN CONVERSATION ANALYSIS I, P1, DOI 10.2277/ 0521532795 Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS Schneider K. P., 1988, SMALL TALK ANAL PHAT Sert O, 2015, J PRAGMATICS, V77, P97, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.001 Shaw C., 2013, STUDIES LAUGHTER INT, P91 Sifianou M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1554, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009 McElhinny Bonnie, 1998, SOCIOLOGY ANN, V42, P164 Perakyla Anssi, 2012, EMOTION INTERACTION, P3 Spencer-Oatey H, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P639, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004 Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Stevanovic M, 2014, LANG SOC, V43, P185, DOI 10.1017/S0047404514000037 Stevanovic M, 2012, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V45, P297, DOI 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 Stivers T, 2006, LANG SOC, V35, P367, DOI 10.1017/S0047404506060179 Stivers T., 2013, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P191 Stivers T, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2772, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 Svennevig J., 1999, GETTING ACQUAINTED C Terkourafi M., 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P237, DOI DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2005.1.2.237 Terkourafi M, 2008, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V21, P45 Terkourafi M, 2011, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V7, P159, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2011.009 Walker G, 2012, LANG SPEECH, V55, P141, DOI 10.1177/0023830911428858 Waring HZ, 2012, DISCOURSE STUD, V14, P477, DOI 10.1177/1461445611433787 Watts R., 2003, POLITENESS Wilkinson S, 2006, SOC PSYCHOL QUART, V69, P150 Zimmerman D., 1993, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V26, P179, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2602_4 NR 120 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 1 U2 3 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1612-5681 EI 1613-4877 J9 J POLITENESS RES-LAN JI J. Politeness Res.-Lang. Beh. Cult. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 11 IS 2 SI SI BP 207 EP 238 DI 10.1515/pr-2015-0009 PG 32 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CN3KZ UT WOS:000358326400003 ER PT J AU Kadar, DZ Marquez-Reiter, R AF Kadar, Daniel Z. Marquez-Reiter, Rosina TI (Im)politeness and (im)morality: Insights from intervention SO JOURNAL OF POLITENESS RESEARCH-LANGUAGE BEHAVIOUR CULTURE LA English DT Article DE (im)morality; bystander intervention; metacommunication; rituals; aggression ID FACE; CONVERSATION; EMERGENCIES; BYSTANDER AB In this study we offer a socio-pragmatic examination of instances of what is generally known in social psychology as "bystander intervention," i.e., the social action by which a bystander steps in and attempts to prevent a wrongdoer from abusing a victim. We explore the relationship between (im)politeness and participants' perceptions and understandings of moral principles as evidenced by their metacommunicative voicing. Our analysis concentrates on cases of bystander intervention in the US by analyzing data drawn from a reality show. Bystander intervention is a noteworthy phenomenon to examine for, at least, two reasons. First, it is a type of aggressive social action as it poses an uninvited and open challenge to the wrongdoer in public. Second, bystander intervention challenges conventional behavioural norms. It aims to reinstate what the intervener regards as morally appropriate behaviour. This study aims to contribute to current research on (im)politeness by offering a yet unexplored dimension: that of the interface between metapragmatics, (im)politeness and (im)morality in the interactional arena of bystander intervention. C1 [Kadar, Daniel Z.] Univ Huddersfield, Ctr Intercultural Politeness Res, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, W Yorkshire, England. [Marquez-Reiter, Rosina] Univ Surrey, Guildford GU2 5XH, Surrey, England. RP Kadar, DZ (reprint author), Univ Huddersfield, Ctr Intercultural Politeness Res, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, W Yorkshire, England. EM d.z.kadar@hud.ac.uk; r.marquez-reiter@surrey.ac.uk OI Marquez Reiter, Rosina/0000-0001-6627-1813 CR Arundale RB, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P108, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.013 Bargiela-Chiappini F, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1453, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00173-X BAUMAN Z, 1991, THEOR CULT SOC, V8, P137, DOI 10.1177/026327691008001007 BICCHIERI C., 2006, GRAMMAR SOC NATURE D Boltanski L., 2000, PHILOS EXPLORATIONS, V3, P208, DOI DOI 10.1080/13869790008523332 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Colby Ann, 1987, MEASUREMENT MORAL JU, V2 Jonathan Culpeper, 2011, IMPOLITENESS USING L DARLEY JM, 1968, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V8, P377, DOI 10.1037/h0025589 Drummond Kent, 1989, W J SPEECH COMMUNICA, V53, P150, DOI 10.1080/10570318909374297 Duck Steve, 1996, HDB PERSONAL RELATIO Duck Steve, 1994, SAGE SERIES CLOSE RE Eelen Gino, 2001, CRITIQUE POLITENESS Feinberg M, 2013, PSYCHOL SCI, V24, P56, DOI 10.1177/0956797612449177 Fischer P, 2006, EUR J SOC PSYCHOL, V36, P267, DOI 10.1002/ejsp.297 Goffman Erving, 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL E, P5 Goffman Erving, 1979, SEMIOTICA, V25, P1, DOI DOI 10.1515/SEMI.1979 Goffman E., 1974, FRAME ANAL ESSAY ORG Graham J, 2010, PERS SOC PSYCHOL REV, V14, P140, DOI 10.1177/1088868309353415 Haidt J, 1996, EUR J SOC PSYCHOL, V26, P201, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199603)26:2<201::AID-EJSP745>3.0.CO;2-J Haugh Michael, 2016, METAPRAGMAT IN PRESS Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P52, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003 Holtgraves T., 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P73, DOI DOI 10.1515/JP1R.2005.1.1.73 Ide Sachiko, 1989, MULTILINGUA, V8, P223 Jaworski A., 1993, POWER SILENCE SOCIAL Kadar DZ, 2013, UNDERSTANDING POLITENESS, P1 Kadar Daniel Z., PRAGMATICS IN PRESS Kadar Daniel Z., INTERVENTIO IN PRESS Kadar DZ, 2013, RELATIONAL RITUALS AND COMMUNICATION: RITUAL INTERACTION IN GROUPS, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230393059 Kaplan D, 2005, SYMB INTERACT, V28, P571, DOI 10.1525/si.2005.28.4.571 Kent Valerie, 2011, ENCY APPL PSYCHOL, DOI [10.1002/9780470672532.wbepp01, DOI 10.1002/9780470672532.WBEPP01] Knobloch LK, 2003, HUM COMMUN RES, V29, P482, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00853.x Koster Jan, 2003, J HIST PRAGMAT, V4, P211, DOI 10.1075/jhp.4.2.05kos Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Linguistic Politeness Research Group, 2011, DISC APPR POL Livingstone S., 2007, MEDIA STUDIES KEY IS, P302 Livingstone Sonia, 1999, NEW MEDIA SOC, V1, P59, DOI 10.1177/1461444899001001010 Lucy John A, 2004, REFLEXIVE LANGUAGE R Mills Sara, 2003, GENDER POLITENESS NAGEL T, 1995, PHILOS PUBLIC AFF, V24, P83, DOI 10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00024.x Nelson D., 2002, PURSUING PRIVACY COL Piaget Jean, 1997, MORAL JUDGEMENT CHIL Pizziconi Barbara, 2012, REGULATION NORMATIVE Pomerantz A, 2005, LEA COMMUN SER, P149 Marquez Reiter Rosina, 2004, CURRENT TRENDS PRAGM, P121 Spencer-Oatey H, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P639, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004 Thomson Judith, 1990, REALM RIGHTS Ting-Toomey Stella, 2012, COMMUNICATING CULTUR VISHER CA, 1983, CRIMINOLOGY, V21, P5, DOI 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1983.tb00248.x Watts R., 2003, POLITENESS Whutnow Robert, 1989, MEANING MORAL ORDER Zimmerman D. H., 1998, IDENTITIES TALK, P87 NR 52 TC 4 Z9 4 U1 2 U2 6 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1612-5681 EI 1613-4877 J9 J POLITENESS RES-LAN JI J. Politeness Res.-Lang. Beh. Cult. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 11 IS 2 SI SI BP 239 EP 260 DI 10.1515/pr-2015-0010 PG 22 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CN3KZ UT WOS:000358326400004 ER PT J AU Fukushima, S AF Fukushima, Saeko TI In search of another understanding of politeness: From the perspective of attentiveness SO JOURNAL OF POLITENESS RESEARCH-LANGUAGE BEHAVIOUR CULTURE LA English DT Article DE politeness; attentiveness; evaluation; heart ID JAPANESE; FACE; EMPATHY; IDENTITY; (IM)POLITENESS; IMPOLITENESS; CHINESE; IM/POLITENESS; SYMPATHY; CULTURE AB While politeness has been researched mainly from the perspectives of face and identity, this conceptual paper explores another understanding of politeness through the consideration of attentiveness, namely, a demonstrator's pre-emptive responses to a recipient's verbal or non-verbal cues or situations surrounding a recipient and a demonstrator, which takes the form of offering. In this paper, it is suggested that politeness can be construed in relation to the heart; and that behavioral (non-linguistic) politeness, an understudied area in the field, should be taken into account in politeness research. With the development of interpersonal pragmatics, there has been a growing need to investigate interpersonal relationships, and great importance is placed on evaluation in the discursive approach. As attentiveness is an interpersonal notion, which involves evaluation, the consideration of attentiveness meets these demands. In the present paper, the concept of attentiveness is clarified and it is shown how attentiveness works by presenting the process of demonstration and evaluation of attentiveness. C1 Tsuru Univ, Dept English, Yamanashi, Japan. RP Fukushima, S (reprint author), Tsuru Univ, Dept English, Yamanashi, Japan. EM saeko@tsuru.ac.jp CR Arundale Robert B., 2013, SOCIOCULTURAL PRAGMA, V1, P282 Batson Daniel C., 2008, IN HERZL S IN PRESS Blitvich PGC, 2009, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V5, P273, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2009.014 Brown P., 1978, QUESTIONS POLITENESS, P56 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Burdelski M, 2013, PRAGMAT SOC, V4, P54, DOI 10.1075/ps.4.1.03bur Clancy Patricia, 1986, LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATI, P213 Eelen Gino, 2001, CRITIQUE POLITENESS Fukada A, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P1991, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.11.0060 Fukushima Saeko, CONCEPTUALIZATION PO Fukushima Saeko, 2004, MULTILINGUA, V23, P365, DOI 10.1515/mult.2004.23.4.365 Fukushima S., 2000, REQUESTS CULTURE POL Fukushima Saeko, 2014, 8 INT S POL U HUDD [Anonymous], 2013, TSURU U GRADUATE SCH Fukushima S, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V74, P165, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.004 Fukushima S, 2011, PRAGMATICS, V21, P549 Fukushima S, 2013, PRAGMATICS, V23, P275 Fukushima S, 2009, PRAGMATICS, V19, P501 Blitvich PGC, 2013, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V9, P97, DOI 10.1515/pr-2013-0005 Gladkova A, 2010, CULT PSYCHOL, V16, P267, DOI 10.1177/1354067X10361396 Goffman E, 1955, PSYCHIATR, V18, P213 Grainger Karen, 2014, 8 INT S POL U HUDD 9 GU YG, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P237, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O HAMANO K, 1987, PSYCHOLOGIA, V30, P101 Hara Kazuya, 2006, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN, V15, P24 Hara Kazuya, 2014, COMMUNICATION Haugh Michael, 2014, IMPOLITENESS IMPLICA Haugh Michael, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P41, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.1.41 Haugh M, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2073, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.013 Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.009 Haugh M, 2007, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V3, P295, DOI 10.1515/PR.2007.013 Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P52, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003 Haugh M, 2009, FACE, COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL INTERACTION, P1 Hermanns Fritz, 1993, SPRACHLICHE AUFMERKS, P81 Hinze CG, 2012, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V8, P11, DOI 10.1515/pr-2012-0002 Holmes Janet, 2006, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, P684 Horike Kazuya, 1991, GENDAI NO ESUPURI, V291, P150 Ide S., 1989, MULTILINGUA, V2, P223, DOI 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223 Intachakra S, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P619, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.016 Isik-Guler Hale, 2008, THESIS MIDDLE E TU Kadar DZ, 2011, POLITENESS ACROSS CULTURES, P1 Kadar DZ, 2013, UNDERSTANDING POLITENESS, P1 Kupetz M, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V61, P4, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.006 Lakoff Robin T., 1973, 9 REG M CHIC LING SO, P292 Lakoff Robin, 1977, P TEX C PERF PRES IM, P79 Lakoff Robin T., 2005, BROADENING HORIZON L, P1 Lebra T. S., 2004, JAPANESE SELF CULTUR Lebra T. S, 1993, COMMUNICATION JAPAN, P51 Lebra T. S., 1976, JAPANESE PATTERNS BE Leech G., 2014, PRAGMATICS POLITENES Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Linguistic Politeness Research Group, 2011, DISC APPR POL Locher Miriam A., 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P9, DOI DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2005.1.1.9 Graham Sage L., 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, V6, P1 MAO LR, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V21, P451, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6 Marui Ichiro, 1996, CONTRASTIVE SOCIOLIN, P385 MATSUMOTO Y, 1988, J PRAGMATICS, V12, P403, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3 Matsumoto Yoshiko, 1989, MULTILINGUA, V8, P207, DOI 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.207 Sara Mills, 2011, DISCURSIVE APPROACHE, P19 Mills Sara, 2003, GENDER POLITENESS Miyahara A, 2004, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN, P279 NWOYE OG, 1992, J PRAGMATICS, V18, P309, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90092-P O'Driscoll J, 2011, POLITENESS ACROSS CULTURES, P17 Ogiermann E, 2011, POLITENESS ACROSS CULTURES, P194 Pizziconi Barbara, 2006, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, P679 Pizziconi B, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1471, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00200-X Pudlinski C, 2005, DISCOURSE STUD, V7, P267, DOI 10.1177/1461445605052177 Riley P., 2007, LANGUAGE CULTURE IDE Ruhi S, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P681, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.013 Sato Ayako, 2007, OMOIYARI NO NIHONJIN Shinmura I., 2008, KOJIEN Sifianou Maria, 1993, MULTILINGUA, V12, P69, DOI 10.1515/mult.1993.12.1.69 Sifianou Maria, 1997, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V126, P163 Sifianou M, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P661, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.029 Spencer-Oatey H, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P639, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004 Spencer-Oatey H, 2009, FACE, COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL INTERACTION, P137 Spencer-Oatey H, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P635, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.003 Takada A, 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P420, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.03.012 Thompson Geoff, 2000, EVALUATION TEXT AUTH, P1 Travis C, 1998, COG LIN RES, V10, P55 Tsujimura Akira, 1987, COMMUN THEORY, P115 [Anonymous], 2001, JAPANESE J PSYCHOL Unchida Yukiko, 2011, KAGAKU, V81, P51 Watts R., 2003, POLITENESS Wierzbicka Anna, 2014, IMPRISONED ENGLISH H Wierzbicka A, 1997, UNDERSTANDING CULTUR Xie C., 2008, PRAGMAT COGN, V16, P151, DOI 10.1075/p&c.16.1.10xie Yuuki Toshiya, 1991, GENDAI NO ESUPURI, V291, P161 Zegarac V, 2013, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V10, P433, DOI 10.1515/ip-2013-0019 NR 89 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 7 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1612-5681 EI 1613-4877 J9 J POLITENESS RES-LAN JI J. Politeness Res.-Lang. Beh. Cult. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 11 IS 2 SI SI BP 261 EP 287 DI 10.1515/pr-2015-0011 PG 27 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CN3KZ UT WOS:000358326400005 ER PT J AU Christie, C AF Christie, Christine TI Epilogue. Politeness research: Sociolinguistics as applied pragmatics SO JOURNAL OF POLITENESS RESEARCH-LANGUAGE BEHAVIOUR CULTURE LA English DT Article ID ORDER C1 Univ Loughborough, Loughborough, Leics, England. RP Christie, C (reprint author), Univ Loughborough, Loughborough, Leics, England. EM C.Christie@lboro.ac.uk RI Christie, christine/R-6091-2016 OI Christie, christine/0000-0001-9307-8189 CR BLUMKULKA S, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P259, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90083-P Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Christie Christine, 2007, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V3, P263 Eckert P, 2012, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V41, P87, DOI 10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145828 Eckert P, 2008, J SOCIOLING, V12, P453, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P52, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003 Labov William, 1972, SOCIOLINGUISTIC PATT Silverstein M, 2003, LANG COMMUN, V23, P193, DOI 10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2 TRUDGILL P., 1974, SOCIOLINGUISTICS INT NR 9 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 4 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1612-5681 EI 1613-4877 J9 J POLITENESS RES-LAN JI J. Politeness Res.-Lang. Beh. Cult. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 11 IS 2 SI SI BP 355 EP 364 DI 10.1515/pr-2015-0014 PG 10 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CN3KZ UT WOS:000358326400008 ER PT J AU Sense, A AF Sense, Andrew TI Work-based researchers and Communities of Practice: Conceptual and gestational dilemmas SO AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ADULT LEARNING LA English DT Article DE Work-based researchers; Communities of Practice; Social learning ID DOCTORATE; KNOWLEDGE AB Drawing on a presumption that a Community of Practice (COP) can add significant value to the situated learning development of adults in any context, this paper exposes and analyses the challenges faced in facilitating the development of a COP involving part-time work-based researchers. Using an empirical case example involving a collaborative research network of five industry organisations and a university, the specific purpose (and outcomes) of this paper are to (a) conceptualise a researcher COP involving part-time work-based PhD and Masters of Philosophy candidates (b) examine the pragmatic dilemmas these part-time researchers face in seeking to develop such a supportive social learning construct in respect to their research activities (c) tentatively indicate some challenges that higher education institutions and industry organisations confront in facilitating and nurturing such learning structures which span industry and academia contexts. Through its analysis, this paper draws attention towards the complex issues involved in developing a functioning rather than the often idealised COP in the part-time work-based researcher space. C1 [Sense, Andrew] Univ Wollongong, Fac Business, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. RP Sense, A (reprint author), Univ Wollongong, Northfields Ave, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. EM asense@uow.edu.au CR Brown JS, 1991, ORGAN SCI, V2, P40, DOI 10.1287/orsc.2.1.40 Bruni A., 2007, MIND CULT ACT, V14, P83 Yanow D., 1993, J MANAGEMENT INQUIRY, V2, P373, DOI 10.1177/105649269324010 [Anonymous], 2013, QUALITY HIGHER ED Costley C, 2012, STUD HIGH EDUC, V37, P257, DOI 10.1080/03075079.2010.503344 Dixon N.M., 1999, ORG LEARNING CYCLE W Doncaster K, 2002, STUD HIGH EDUC, V27, P91, DOI 10.1080/03075070120099395 [Anonymous], 2010, REFLECTIVE PRACTICE Fox S, 2000, J MANAGE STUD, V37, P853, DOI 10.1111/1467-6486.00207 Gardner SK, 2007, HIGH EDUC, V54, P723, DOI 10.1007/s10734-006-9020-x Gherardi S., 2009, LEARNING ORG, V16, P352, DOI DOI 10.1108/09696470910974144 Gherardi S., 2006, ORG KNOWLEDGE TEXTUR Gherardi S, 2000, ORGANIZATION, V7, P329, DOI 10.1177/135050840072008 Gherardi S, 1999, ORGAN STUD, V20, P101, DOI 10.1177/0170840699201005 [Anonymous], 2006, INT J PEDAGOGIES LEA Klenowski V, 2011, TEACH HIGH EDUC, V16, P681, DOI 10.1080/13562517.2011.570431 Lave J., 1991, SITUATED LEARNING LE Leshem S, 2007, INNOV EDUC TEACH INT, V44, P287, DOI 10.1080/14703290701486696 Lester S, 2004, STUD HIGH EDUC, V29, P757, DOI 10.1080/0307507042000287249 Maxwell T, 2003, STUD HIGH EDUC, V28, P279, DOI 10.1080/03075070310000113405 Ng LL, 2013, STUD HIGH EDUC, V38, P1522, DOI 10.1080/03075079.2011.642348 Park P, 1999, MANAGE LEARN, V30, P141, DOI 10.1177/1350507699302003 Richter I, 1998, MANAGE LEARN, V29, P299, DOI 10.1177/1350507698293003 Sanderson I, 2001, LOCAL GOV STUD, V27, P59 Senge P, 2001, HDB ACTION RES PARTI, P238 Sense A. J., 2015, STUDIES HIG IN PRESS Sense A. J., 2012, AUSTR J REGIONAL STU, V18, P83 Sense A. J., 2007, CULTIVATING LEARNING Shacham M, 2009, INNOV EDUC TEACH INT, V46, P279, DOI 10.1080/14703290903069019 Stewart Rodney, 2009, European Journal of Engineering Education, V34, DOI 10.1080/03043790902833325 Tynjala P, 2008, EDUC RES REV-NETH, V3, P130, DOI 10.1016/j.edurev.2007.12.001 [Anonymous], 2011, HIGHER ED SKILLS WOR, DOI 10.1108/20423891111085384 Weidman J. C., 2001, SOCIALIZATION GRADUA Wellington J., 2012, STUDIES HIGHER ED, P1 Wenger E, 2002, CULTIVATING COMMUNIT Wenger E., 1998, COMMUNITIES PRACTICE Wenger E, 2000, ORGANIZATION, V7, P225, DOI 10.1177/135050840072002 Wenger EC, 2000, HARVARD BUS REV, V78, P139 Wisker G, 2007, INNOV EDUC TEACH INT, V44, P301, DOI 10.1080/14703290701486720 Yin RK, 1994, CASE STUDY RES DESIG NR 40 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 4 PU ADULT LEARNING AUSTRALIA INC PI CANBERRA CITY PA GPO BOX 260, CANBERRA CITY, ACT 2601, AUSTRALIA SN 1443-1394 J9 AUST J ADULT LEARN JI Aust. J. Adult Learn. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 55 IS 2 BP 281 EP 306 PG 26 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CM9KW UT WOS:000358028300007 ER PT J AU Limberg, H AF Limberg, Holger TI Principles for pragmatics teaching: Apologies in the EFL classroom SO ELT JOURNAL LA English DT Article AB Intercultural Communicative Competence is a paramount goal of modern foreign language teaching. It is the ability to communicate in culturally sensitive and contextually appropriate ways with speakers from other cultures. Being able to apologize is one component of this competence. Uttering apologies allows learners to rectify breaches of social norms in order to restore social harmony and maintain rapport with others. This pragmatic competence is gradually acquired in one's foreign language education, alongside the building blocks of the foreign language, viz. grammar and lexis. Even though the teaching of pragmatics is a complex undertaking and often challenging to plan in a systematic way, teachers can follow certain principles when designing tasks and preparing lessons in which learners' apology competence is targeted. This article provides a synthesis of relevant research findings on apologies and suggests principles for tasks and activities in the classroom that help to attain pragmatic teaching goals. RP Limberg, H (reprint author), European Univ Flensburg, TEFL, Flensburg, Germany. EM holger.limberg@uni-flensburg.de CR Aijmer K., 1996, CONVERSATIONAL ROUTI Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN BORKIN A, 1978, TESOL QUART, V12, P57, DOI 10.2307/3585791 Fox Kate, 2004, WATCHING ENGLISH HID HOLMES J, 1990, LANG SOC, V19, P155 Houck N., 2011, PRAGMATICS TEACHING House J., 1996, CONTRASTIVE SOCIOLIN House J., 1989, ENGLISCH ALS ZWEITSP Ishihara Noriko, 2010, TEACHING LEARNING PR Uso-Juan E., 2006, APPL LANGUAGE LEARNI, V16, P39 Ogiermann Eva, 2009, APOLOGISING NEGATIVE Cohen A., 1983, SOCIOLINGUISTICS LAN Owen M., 1983, APOLOGIES REMEDIAL I Rose K. R., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P385, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.003 NR 14 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 22 PU OXFORD UNIV PRESS PI OXFORD PA GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND SN 0951-0893 EI 1477-4526 J9 ELT J JI ELT J. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 69 IS 3 BP 275 EP 285 DI 10.1093/elt/ccv012 PG 11 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CM7LS UT WOS:000357875000007 ER PT J AU Fitzmaurice, S AF Fitzmaurice, Susan TI Ideology, race and place in historical constructions of belonging: the case of Zimbabwe SO ENGLISH LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID REFORM AB This article explores the ways in which constructions of identities of place are embedded in the ideology of race and social orientation in Zimbabwe. Using newspaper reports, memoirs, speeches, advertisements, fiction, interviews and ephemera produced around key discursive thresholds, it examines the production of multiple meanings of key terms within competing discourses to generate co-existing parallel lexicons. Crucially, labels like 'settler', 'African' and 'Zimbabwean', labels that are inextricably linked to access to and association with the land in colonial and postcolonial Zimbabwe, shift their reference and connotations for different speakers in different settings and periods. For example, the term 'settler', used to refer to white colonists of British origin who occupied vast agricultural lands in colonial Zimbabwe, is appropriated in post-independent Zimbabwe to designate blacks settled on the land in the Fast Track Land Reform Programme. The analysis of semantic pragmatic change in relation to key discursive thresholds yields a complex story of changing identities conditioned by different experiences of a raced national biography. C1 Univ Sheffield, Sch English, Sheffield S3 7RA, S Yorkshire, England. RP Fitzmaurice, S (reprint author), Univ Sheffield, Sch English, 1 Upper Hanover St, Sheffield S3 7RA, S Yorkshire, England. EM S.Fitzmaurice@sheffield.ac.uk CR Alexandra Fuller, 2001, DONT LETS GO DOGS TO Amanda Hammar, 2003, ZIMBABWES UNFINISHED Andrew Thompson, 2009, MUGADE WHITE AFRICAN Bernard Rutley C., 1952, COLIN PATRICIA S AFR Bleek W., 1862, COMP GRAMMAR S AFRIC Bold J. D., 1983, FANAGALO PHARASE BOO, V12th Brian Raftopoulos, 2004, ZIMBABWE INJUSTICE P Brian Raftopoulos, 2009, BECOMING ZIMBABWE HI Chaumba J, 2003, J MOD AFR STUD, V41, P533, DOI 10.1017/S0022278X03004397 Courtney Selous F., 1968, SUNSHINE STORM RHODE David Caute, 1983, SKIN DEATH WHITE RHO Diana Auret, 1992, REACHING JUSTICE Doris Lessing, 1994, MY SKIN Douglas Rogers, 2009, LAST RESORT ZIMBABWE Dumisani Gandhi, 2002, NATL AGENDA ZBC VISI Edgar Whitehead, 1960, INT AFFFAIRS ROYAL I, V36, P188 Elizabeth Traugott, 2002, REGULATION SEMANTIC FERRAZ L, 1980, AFR STUD, V39, P209 Gillian Whitlock, 2000, INTIMATE EMPIRE READ Ibbo Mandaza, 1986, CODESRIE BOOKS SERIE James Muzondidya, 2005, WALKING TIGHTROPE SO Jocelyn Alexander, 2006, UNSETTLED STATE MAKI St John Lauren, 2007, RAINBOWS END MEMOIR Peter Godwin, 1993, RHODESIANS NEVER DIE Pilossof R, 2012, J S AFR STUD, V38, P1007, DOI 10.1080/03057070.2012.749091 Robert Muponde, 2005, VERSION ZIMBABWE NEW Robert Mugabe, 2001, INSIDE 3 CHIMURENGA Rory Pilossof, 2012, UNBEARABLE WHITENESS Sam Moyo, 2013, LAND AGRARIAN REFORM SIMON A, 1988, AFR AFFAIRS, V87, P53 Susan Fitzmaurice, 2014, DEV ENGLISH EXPANDIN, P200 Susan Fitzmaurice, 2010, LESSER KNOWN VARIETI, P263, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511676529 Tsitsi Dangarembga, 1988, NERVOUS CONDITIONS Van der Wal Marijke, 2013, TOUCHING STUDIES HIS, P1 Worby E., 2001, J AGRAR CHANGE, V1, P475, DOI 10.1111/1471-0366.00015 NR 35 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 3 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI CAMBRIDGE PA EDINBURGH BLDG, SHAFTESBURY RD, CB2 8RU CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND SN 1360-6743 EI 1469-4379 J9 ENGL LANG LINGUIST JI Engl. Lang. Linguist. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 19 IS 2 SI SI BP 327 EP 354 DI 10.1017/S1360674315000106 PG 28 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CL9RO UT WOS:000357316000008 ER PT J AU Vergaro, C AF Vergaro, Carla TI Ways of asserting. English assertive nouns between linguistics and the philosophy of language SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Assertive nouns; Illocutionary shell nouns; Behavioral profile; Meta-representation; Prototype ID COMPLEMENTS AB This paper focuses on the relationship between illocutions and the lexicon, in particular, illocutions and illocutionary nouns in their function of shell nouns. Theoretical insights from cognitive linguistics, supplemented by an empirical conceptual approach to verbal communication, are used as a frame of reference. They share the idea that, though conceptualization does not lend itself to direct observation, it can be studied indirectly via language as there is a close relationship between linguistic and conceptual structure. In this vein, the semantics pragmatics of illocutionary shell nouns is relevant to an understanding of illocutions and their categorization. This study singles out one type of illocutionary noun: assertive nouns, i.e. nouns that name assertive speech acts (e.g., assertion, allegation, argument, claim, etc.), and presents a corpus-based study of them. It approaches assertive nouns by analyzing their behavioral profile, i.e. the complementation patterns they occurwith, as they emerge in their occurrence in reporting or denoting and, in so doing, in characterizing specific discourse situation speakers' utterance acts as acts of F-ing. The methodology used involves descriptive as well as exploratory statistics. As for descriptive statistics, reliance scores are calculated and a chi-square test added. As for exploratory statistics, a hierarchical cluster analysis is applied to the data. Results show that (i) constructional possibilities are part of the semantic pragmatic meaning of the noun, and (ii) there is a correlation between semantic pragmatic similarity and distributional similarity. At the same time they lend argument from linguistic patterns to what philosophy states about the commitment to belief, truth, and knowledge that define assertive speech acts, thus showing the potential that descriptive English research has for application across disciplinary boundaries. (C) 2015 Elsevier BM. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Perugia, Dept Humanities Arts & Languages, I-06123 Perugia, Italy. RP Vergaro, C (reprint author), Univ Perugia, Dept Humanities Arts & Languages, Via Offici 14, I-06123 Perugia, Italy. EM carla.vergaro@unipg.it CR Aktas Nur Rahime, 2008, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V7, P3 Austin J. L, 1975, DO THINGS WORDS Bach K., 1979, LINGUISTIC COMMUNICA Bierwisch Manfred, 1990, ACTA LINGUIST HUNGAR, V40, P19 Caffi C, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P881, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8 CAFFI C, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V22, P325, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90115-5 Caldwell C., 2009, LEXICAL VAGUENESS ST [Anonymous], 1996, BELG J LING, DOI 10.1075/bjl.10.02con Croft W., 2004, COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC Davies M, 2008, CORPUS CONT AM ENGLI Dik Simon C., 1997, THEORY FUNCTIONAL GR Divjak D., 2010, STRUCTURING LEXICON [Anonymous], 1999, CONSTRUCTING LEXICON Flowerdew John, 2006, LEXICAL COHESION COR, P345 Flowerdew John, 2014, SIGNALLIG NOUNS ENGL Flowerdew J, 2003, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V22, P329, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00017-0 FRAJZYNGIER Z, 1991, LINGUA, V83, P133, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(91)90025-Z Francis Gill, 1986, ANAPHORIC NOUNS Gaeta Livio, 2002, QUANDO VERBI COMPAIO Givon Talmy, 1990, SYNTAX FUNCTIONAL TY, VII Green Mitchell, 2013, PRAGMATICS SPEECH AC, P387 Hinkel Eli, 2001, APPL LANG LEARN, V12, P111 Hinkel E., 2004, TEACHING ACAD ESL WR Hopper Paul J., 1985, ICONICITY SYNTAX, P151, DOI 10.1075/tsl.6.08hop Ivanic Roz, 1991, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V2, P93, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.1991.29.2.93 Kiparsky P., 1970, PROGR LINGUISTICS, P143 Kissine Mikhail, 2008, BELGIAN J LINGUISTIC, V22, P155 Kissine M, 2010, FOLIA LINGUIST, V44, P339, DOI 10.1515/FLIN.2010.013 Langacker Ronald, 1991, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA Langacker Ronald W., 2008, COGNITIVE GRAMMAR BA Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Lo Piparo F., 2003, ARISTOTELE LINGUAGGI Noh Eun-Ju, 2000, METAREPRESENTATION R Proost Kristel, 2007, CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA ROSCH EH, 1973, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V4, P328, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 Sbisa Marina, 2013, PRAGMATICS SPEECH AC, P25 Schmid HJ, 2007, Z ANGLIST AM, V55, P313 Schmid HJ, 2013, COGN LINGUIST, V24, P531, DOI 10.1515/cog-2013-0018 Schmid Hans-Jorg, 1997, P 16 INT C LING, P20 Schmid H. J, 2000, ENGLISH ABSTRACT NOU Schmid HJ, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1529, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00027-3 Vanderveken Daniel, 1985, FDN ILLOCUTIONARY LO Searle John R, 1979, EXPRESSION MEANING Taylor J., 2003, LINGUISTIC CATEGORIZ Vanparys Johan, 1996, CATEGORIES COMPLEMEN Vendler Z., 1968, ADJECTIVES NOMINALIZ Vendler Z., 1967, LINGUISTICS PHILOS Verschueren J., 1985, WHAT PEOPLE SAY THEY Verschueren Jef, 1987, LINGUISTIC ACTION EM, P1 Verschueren J., 1980, ON SPEECH ACT VERBS Walton Douglas, 1993, PRAGMAT COGN, V1, P125, DOI 10.1075/pc.1.1.08wal Wierzbicka A., 1988, SEMANTICS GRAMMAR Wierzbicka A., 1987, ENGLISH SPEECH ACT V Wilson Deirdre, 2000, METAREPRESENTATIONS, P411 Winter Eugene O., 1992, DISCOURSE DESCRIPTIO NR 56 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 10 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 84 BP 1 EP 17 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.006 PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CM5YC UT WOS:000357763900001 ER PT J AU Sidiropoulou, M AF Sidiropoulou, Maria TI Reflections on the relational in translation as mediated interaction SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Im/politeness; Translation; Relational dynamics; Meta-theory; Collective analytic frame; Interactional achievement ID INTERPERSONAL PRAGMATICS; FACE; POLITENESS; DISCOURSE; LANGUAGE; IDENTITY; WORK AB The study attempts to broaden the conceptualization of the relational to include stage translation situations. It uses translator trainees' evaluations (as the hearers' view) to assess rendition of im/polite exchanges in three retranslations of a twentieth century English play. Findings showthat translator trainees' evaluations of the way intimacy and offensiveness values are rendered in the three target versions of the play are a function of trainees' level of awareness with respect to the relational dynamics between characters in the play. Translator trainees seem to increasingly prefer heightened intimacy (connectedness) and offensiveness (separateness), as they become aware of the relational dynamics in the play. Translator trainees (native speakers of the target language) seem to appreciate instances manifesting the politeness orientation attributed to the target language (Sifianou, 1992), while awareness of the relational dynamics in the play seems to override the importance of polarity orientation concerns. Translation is claimed to be able to provide settings where the relational and the cognitive may be fruitfully researched. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Athens, Fac English Language & Literature, Sch Philosophy, Athens, Greece. RP Sidiropoulou, M (reprint author), Univ Athens, Fac English Language & Literature, Sch Philosophy, Athens, Greece. EM msidirop@enl.uoa.gr FU Special Account Research Fund (ELKE) of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens FX I would like to thank the Special Account Research Fund (ELKE) of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens for funding this research. CR Angouri J, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1549, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.011 Arundale RB, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P12, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.009 Arundale RB, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2078, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 Blitvich PGC, 2013, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V9, P1, DOI 10.1515/pr-2013-0001 Carbaugh D, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P142, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.013 Culpeper J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P349, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 Culpeper J, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1128, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.011 Economidou-Kogetsidis M., 2003, THESIS U NOTTINGHAM Eelen Gino, 2001, CRITIQUE POLITENESS Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.009 Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P52, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003 Kakava C, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1537, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00075-9 KRIPPENDORFF K, 1970, J COMMUN, V20, P241, DOI 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1970.tb00883.x Locher Miriam A., 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA Locher MA, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P145, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.014 Makri-Tsilipakou Maria, 2001, LINGUISTIC POLITENES, P137 Mills Sara, 2003, GENDER POLITENESS O'Driscoll J, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P170, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.008 PAVLIDOU T, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V21, P487, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90026-4 Sidiropoulou M, 1998, PERSPECT STUD TRANSL, V6, P183 Sidiropoulou Maria, 2012, TRANSLATING IDENTITI Sidiropoulou M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V53, P96, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.018 Sifianou Maria, 1992, POLITENESS PHENOMENA Sifianou M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1554, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009 Spencer-Oatey H, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1633, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00025-0 Spencer-Oatey H, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P639, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004 Spencer-Oatey H, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P121, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.010 Tzanne Angeliki, 2001, LINGUISTIC POLITENES, P271 Watts R., 2003, POLITENESS NR 29 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 84 BP 18 EP 32 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.020 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CM5YC UT WOS:000357763900002 ER PT J AU Sternau, M Ariel, M Giora, R Fein, O AF Sternau, Marit Ariel, Mira Giora, Rachel Fein, Ofer TI Levels of interpretation: New tools for characterizing intended meanings SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Privileged Interactional Interpretation; Explicature; Strong/weak implicature; Relevance; Cancelability ID SAID; DISTINCTION; PRAGMATICS; RELEVANCE AB This study investigates the pragmatic status and psychological reality of four levels of interpretation: linguistic meaning, explicature, strong implicature, and weak implicature. We test their potential to constitute the Privileged Interactional Interpretation, which is the primary interpretation of an utterance as intended by the speaker and understood by the addressee Ariel, 2002, 2008; Jaszczolt, 2010). Maximalists, such as Recanati (2001, 2004, 2010) and Carston (2001, 2002, 2004a,b, 2005, 2012) see no discourse role for the bare linguistic meaning. However, Maximalist Ariel (2002 and onwards) alongside Minimalists, such as Bach (1994) and Borg (2009) do. So, our first goal is to demonstrate that linguistic meanings, explicatures, and implicatures can all be taken as Privileged Interactional Interpretations. But our hypothesis takes the concept of the Privileged Interactional Interpretation a step further. We propose a scale of interpretation strength: Bare linguistic meaning > explicature > implicature([strong]) > implicature([weak].) We here claim that the stronger (i.e., left) the representation on the scale, the more likely it is to count as the Privileged Interactional Interpretation. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Sternau, Marit] Levinsky Coll Educ, IL-61481 Tel Aviv, Israel. [Ariel, Mira; Giora, Rachel] Tel Aviv Univ, Dept Linguist, IL-69978 Tel Aviv, Israel. [Fein, Ofer] Acad Coll Tel Aviv Yaffo, Sch Behav Sci, Tel Aviv, Israel. RP Sternau, M (reprint author), 12 Zichron Yaakov St, IL-62999 Tel Aviv, Israel. EM sternau.merit36@gmail.com OI Fein, Ofer/0000-0003-3877-4143 FU Israel Science Foundation [436/12] FX This research was supported by a grant (no. 436/12) to Rachel Giora by The Israel Science Foundation. We also would like to thank D.O. for his invaluable work on programming the tests. CR Ariel Mira, 2015, REVISITING TYP UNPUB Ariel M, 2010, RES SURV LINGUIST, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511777912 Ariel M, 2004, LANGUAGE, V80, P658, DOI 10.1353/lan.2004.0162 Ariel M, 2008, CAMB TEXTBK LINGUIST, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511791314 Ariel M, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1003, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00061-3 Bach Kent, 2001, PERSPECTIVES SEMANTI, P147 Tsohatzidis S. L., 1994, FDN SPEECH ACT THEOR, P267 Bezuidenhout A, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P433, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00042-X Borg Emma, 2009, INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, V1, P1 Burton-Roberts Noel, 2006, NEWCASTLE WORKING PA, V12-13, P1 Burton-Roberts Noel, 2010, EXPLICIT COMMUNICATI, P138 Camp Elisabeth, 2013, INSINUATION INEXPLIC Capone A, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P55, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.003 Carston Robyn, 2012, COMMUNICATION Carston Robyn, 2001, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V13, P1 Bianchi C., 2004, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, P65 Carston Robyn, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P303, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.303 Carston Robyn, 2004, SEMANTICS A READER, V156, p[817, 156] Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES CARSTON R, 1993, LINGUA, V90, P27, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(93)90059-6 Carston R, 2008, SYNTHESE, V165, P321, DOI 10.1007/s11229-007-9191-8 Gibbs RW, 1997, COGNITION, V62, P51, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00724-X Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Grice H. P., 1968, FDN LANGUAGE, V4, P225 Grice H. P., 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P183 Hamblin JL, 2003, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V35, P59, DOI 10.1207/S15326950DP3501_3 Jaszczolt KM, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P259, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.015 Jaszczolt Kasia M., 2010, OXFORD HDB LINGUISTI, P193 Jaszczolt Katarzyna M., 2015, MEANING LIN IN PRESS Jaszczolt K.M., 1999, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, P199 Jaszczolt Kasia M., 2005, REV LINGUISTIC THOUG, P107 Larson M., 2009, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, P74 Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS LOFTUS GR, 1994, PSYCHON B REV, V1, P476, DOI 10.3758/BF03210951 Lotan Saul, 1990, TRANSCRIPT CONVERSAT Maschler Yael, 2011, HAIFA CORPUS SPOKEN Nicolle S, 1999, COGNITION, V69, P337 Recanati F, 2001, SYNTHESE, V128, P75, DOI 10.1023/A:1010383405105 Recanati Francois, 2010, EXPLICIT COMMUNICATI, P25 Recanati F, 2004, LITERAL MEANING Sperber D., 1986, RELEVANCE Sperber D, 2008, CAMB HANDB PSYCHOL, P84 Sternau Marit, DENIABILITY TE UNPUB Wilson D, 2002, MIND, V111, P583, DOI 10.1093/mind/111.443.583 NR 45 TC 1 Z9 2 U1 0 U2 3 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 84 BP 86 EP 101 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.002 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CM5YC UT WOS:000357763900007 ER PT J AU Norrby, C Wide, C Lindstrom, J Nilsson, J AF Norrby, Catrin Wide, Camilla Lindstrom, Jan Nilsson, Jenny TI Interpersonal relationships in medical consultations. Comparing Sweden Swedish and Finland Swedish address practices SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Address; Medical consultations; Sweden Swedish; Finland Swedish; Pluricentric languages; Variational pragmatics AB This article investigates how interpersonal relationships are expressed in medical consultations. In particular, we focus on how modes of address are used in the two national varieties of Swedish: Sweden Swedish and Finland Swedish, with the aim to compare the pragmatic routines in the two varieties. Thus the study contributes to the field of variational pragmatics, where national varieties of pluricentric languages are recognised as important research objects. Address practices are analysed in two comparable corpora of video recordings from Sweden and Finland using both a quantitative and a qualitative CA-inspired method. There are several differences between the data sets: the Sweden-Swedish data are characterised by exclusive use of the informal T pronoun (du 'you') and an overall higher frequency of direct address compared to the Finland-Swedish data. In some medical consultations in the Finland-Swedish data the formal V pronoun (ni) is used. The qualitative analysis confirms these differences and the tendency is that the Sweden-Swedish medical consultations are more informal than the Finland-Swedish ones, which are characterised by more formality and maintenance of social distance between the interlocutors. The different pragmatic orientations at the micro level of communication can also be related to sociocultural preferences at the macro level in society - the development towards greater informality and intimate language is more pronounced in Sweden than in Finland. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. C1 [Norrby, Catrin] Stockholm Univ, Dept Swedish Language & Multilingualism, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden. [Wide, Camilla] 20014 Univ Turku, Scandinavian Languages, Turku, Finland. [Lindstrom, Jan] Univ Helsinki, Dept Finnish Finnougrian & Scandinavian Studies, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland. [Nilsson, Jenny] Inst Language & Folklore, SE-41116 Gothenburg, Sweden. RP Norrby, C (reprint author), Stockholm Univ, Dept Swedish Language & Multilingualism, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden. EM catrin.norrby@su.se; camilla.wide@utu.fi; jan.k.lindstrom@helsinki.fi; jenny.nilsson@sprakochfolkminnen.se OI Lindstrom, Jan/0000-0002-7849-3816 FU Riksbankens jubileumsfond [M12-0137:1] FX We are grateful for the generous financial support from Riksbankens jubileumsfond (grant ID: M12-0137:1) which has enabled this research. We thank Camilla Lindholm and Ulla Melander Marttala for permission to use their data, and Martin Mirko for providing English language advice and for proofreading the article. Furthermore, we thank our research assistants collectively for help with collating the data and formatting of the article. Finally, we thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier version of the article. CR Ahlgren P., 1978, TILLTALSORDET NI DES Aronsson K, 2011, HANDB APPL LINGUIST, V3, P121 Auer P, 2014, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V24, P19 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Brown Roger, 1960, STYLE LANG, P253 Clark H. H., 1996, USING LANGUAGE Clyne M, 2009, LANGUAGE AND HUMAN RELATIONS: STYLES OF ADDRESS IN CONTEMPORARY LANGUAGE, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511576690 Clyne M., 2011, LINGUAS PLURICENTRIC, P147 Clyne Michael, 1992, PLURICENTRIC LANGUAG, P1 Drew P., 1992, TALK WORK INTERACTIO Fremer Maria, 1996, THESIS U HELSINKI HE Hakulinen Auli, 1987, PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIV, P141 Laury Ritva, 2013, COMPARING CONTRASTIN, P231 Liebkind Karmela, 2007, INT J SOCIOLOGY LANG, V187/188 Lindholm Camilla, 2003, FRAGOR PRAKTIKEN FLE Linell P., 1998, APPROACHING DIALOGUE Linell Per, 2011, SAMTALSKULTURER KOMM Linell Per, 2004, TEXT WORK ESSAYS HON, P115 Mara Johanna, 2000, HALSNINGSVANOR TILLT, V2 Martensson E., 1988, HEJ AR FRAN FORSAKRI, P105 Martensson Eva, 1986, DET NYA NIANDET, V10, P35 Melander Marttala Ulla, 1995, THESIS UPPSALA U UPP Muhr Rudolf, 2008, VARIATIONAL PRAGMATI, P211 Norrby Catrin, 2012, NONDOMINANT VARIETIE, P47 Norrby Catrin, 2007, TILLTALANDE TILLTAL, V17, P5 Norrby Catrin, 2015, ADDRESS PRA IN PRESS Norrby Catrin, 2012, LANG LINGUIST COMPAS, V6, P225 Norrby C, 2014, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V24, P243 PAULSTON CB, 1976, LANG SOC, V5, P359 Pettersson Thorleif, 2007, OLIKA SATT ATT MOTA Reuter Mikael, 1992, PLURICENTRIC LANGUAG, P111 Saari Mine, 1995, FOLKMALSSTUDIER, V36, P75 Saari Mirja, 2012, STANDARD LANGUAGES M, P179 Schneider K. P., 2008, VARIATIONAL PRAGMATI, P1 Sidnell J., 2010, CONVERSATION ANAL IN Sorjonen Marja-Leena, 2001, KESKUSTELU LAAKARIN Statistics Sweden, 2015, POP STAT Svennevig J., 1999, GETTING ACQUAINTED C Svensson Jan, 1993, SPRAK OFFENTLIGHET S Wide Camilla, 2014, STUDIA HUMANIORA OUL, P9 Wide Camilla, 2009, KONSTRUKTIONER FINLA Yli-Vakkuri Valma, 2005, POLITENESS EUROPE, P189 NR 42 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 4 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 84 BP 121 EP 138 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.006 PG 18 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CM5YC UT WOS:000357763900009 ER PT J AU Ran, YP AF Ran, Yongping TI Metapragmatic negation as a rapport-oriented mitigating device SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Bushi plus (S) plus V plus (NP); Metapragmatic negation; Rapport orientation; Mitigating device ID ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE AB This study focuses on the metapragmatic negation expression bushi + (S) + V + (NP) as a rapport-oriented mitigating device in Chinese interpersonal interaction. After a review of the literature on metapragmatics and Searle's (1969, 1976) categories for speech acts, a classification is made about this construction in terms of verb force. Some features are found and contextual functions are explored at both explicit and implicit levels. Interpersonal constraints or pragmatic motivations are then discussed to explain why the construction is considered a rapport-oriented mitigating device, helping to reduce or lessen the negative illocutionary forces or unwelcome effects of what follows in interpersonal interaction. Negation has been found to be sentential in a standard way and metapragmatic in a nonstandard way. This study is about the latter, which cannot be treated as negation per se, although there is a negation marker bushi 'not', which pragmatically implies "it is not S that V (NP), but (because) ..." as a conventionalized speaker meaning. On the meta level, the speaker is making an explicit statement of "I'm not performing the speech act of V or "it's not I/we/he who V (you/him)". However, it cannot be treated as standard negation in terms of its performative force. The initiated speech act of this construction expresses the speaker's intent of doing V or V-ing, such as "blaming", "criticizing", "abusing" or "threatening". What follows or precedes the construction is quite offensive or face-threatening for the hearer in context, so interpersonal purposes are implied. Thus, I call this a metapragmatic construction, which is a non-denial of speaker intention, and I consider it a rapport-oriented mitigating device in terms of its interpersonal purposes because it helps to manage interpersonal relationships in interaction. It is a literal violation of the Gricean Maxim of Quality because it demonstrates at an explicit level that 'saying is doing its opposite'. However, the flouting or violation does not create implicatures, in the Gricean sense (Grice, 1975), that have any important communicative functions. To some degree, then, this challenges the 'saying-is-doing' claim made by Austin (1975). (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Guangdong Univ Foreign Studies, Ctr Linguist & Appl Linguist, Guangzhou 510420, Guangdong, Peoples R China. RP Ran, YP (reprint author), Guangdong Univ Foreign Studies, Ctr Linguist & Appl Linguist, Guangzhou 510420, Guangdong, Peoples R China. EM ranyongping@hotmail.com FU project GDUPS; National Key Research Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, P.R. China FX This study was supported by the project GDUPS (2011) and the National Key Research Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, P.R. China. I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions for revision. I would also like to express my gratitude to Professor Istvan Kecskes for his enlightening comments on the manuscript, and I am grateful to Professor Gang He for his suggestions regarding this research. CR Austin J. L, 1975, DO THINGS WORDS Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Brown G., 1983, DISCOURSE ANAL Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Bublitz W., 2007, METAPRAGMATICS USE Caffi C, 2007, STUD PRAGMAT, V4, P1 Caffi C, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P881, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8 Caffi Claudia, 1994, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, P2461 FRASER B, 1980, J PRAGMATICS, V4, P341, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6 Giora R, 2005, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V39, P81, DOI 10.1207/s15326950dp3901_3 Grice P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P41 Grimshaw Allen, 1990, CONFLICT TALK Hao Lin, 2009, CHINESE LANGUAGE LEA, V30, P39 HEWITT JP, 1975, AM SOCIOL REV, V40, P1, DOI 10.2307/2094442 HOLMES J, 1984, J PRAGMATICS, V8, P345, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6 Hongladaraom K., 2007, METAPRAGMATICS USE, P30 Kadar Daniel Z., 2007, TERMS IMPOLITENESS Kecskes I., 2007, EXPLORATIONS PRAGMAT, P191 Keller E., 1981, CONVERSATIONAL ROUTI, P93 Lakoff Robin T., 1973, 9 REG M CHIC LING SO, P292 Lee Polun, 2001, LINGUISTICS, V39, P703 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Lin JW, 2003, LINGUISTICS, V41, P425, DOI 10.1515/ling.2003.015 Liu Yanli, 2005, LANG TEACH RES, V27, P23 Locher MA, 2004, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V12, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110926552 Lucy John A, 1993, REFLEXIVE LANGUAGE R MIESTAMO MATTI, 2000, NORD J LINGUIST, V23, P65, DOI 10.1080/033258600750045787 Overstreet M, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P785, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00036-4 Pan Yuling, 2000, POLITENESS CHINESE F Parvaresh Vahid, 2010, REV LINGUAGEM DISCOU, V10, P133 Recanati Francois, 1987, MEANING FORCE PRAGMA Robinson Douglas, 2006, INTRO PERFORMATIVE P Searle JR, 1969, SPEECH ACTS SEARLE JR, 1976, LANG SOC, V5, P1 Spencer-Oatey H., 2008, FACE POLITENESS RAPP, P11 Spencer-Oatey Helen, 2000, CULTURALLY SPEAKING Teng S.H., 1975, J CHINESE LINGUISTIC, V2, P125 Thaler V, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P907, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.001 Thomas Ernst, 1995, NATURAL LANGUAGE LIN, V13, P665 Tottie G., 1991, NEGATION ENGLISH SPE Verschueren J., 1999, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMA Vuchinich S, 1990, CONFLICT TALK SOCIOL, P118 Wang YF, 2008, LANG SCI, V30, P679, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2006.08.001 Yue Yao, 2006, J COLL CHINESE LANGU, V39, P52 NR 44 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 7 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 84 BP 190 EP 203 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.004 PG 14 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CM5YC UT WOS:000357763900014 ER PT J AU Rhee, S AF Rhee, Seongha TI On the emergence of Korean markers of agreement SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Discourse marker; Agreement; Grammaticalization; Ellipsis; Intersubjectification ID DISCOURSE MARKERS; GRAMMATICALIZATION; WELL AB This paper discusses the emergence of some of the discourse markers of agreement (DMAs) in Korean. This paper shows the processes that DMAs have historically undergone en route to their grammaticalization into discourse markers. The DMAs under discussion originated from three different sources: conditionals, quotations, and causals. The development of these DMAs involves the strategic use of ellipsis. By way of strategically withholding the main clause, the speaker indicates that the situation is so obvious that the elided part does not require explicit utterance. This is a common strategy in Korean utilized in the development of connectives into sentence-final particles that acquired diverse meanings through conventionalization of pragmatic inferences. These DMAs also recruited the anaphoric kule-'be so' that makes reference to the speakers prior utterance and becomes a part of a conditional or causal protasis or a subordinated quotative clause. This paper also shows that the development of these DMAs crucially makes use of intersubjectification through which the elided parts are pragmatically reconstructed and the residual 'defective' (i.e. partially elided and phonologically reduced) discourse segments become full-fledged DMAs. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Hankuk Univ Foreign Studies, Dept English Linguist, Seoul 130791, South Korea. RP Rhee, S (reprint author), Hankuk Univ Foreign Studies, Dept English Linguist, 107 Imun Ro, Seoul 130791, South Korea. EM srhee@hufs.ac.kr OI Rhee, Seongha/0000-0003-0312-0975 FU Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund FX An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 4th Conference on Language, Discourse and Cognition at National Taiwan University, April 30 - May 2, 2010. The author wishes to thank the two anonymous reviewers of the Journal and the members of the stance research group, Foong Ha Yap, Shoichi Iwasaki, and Sung-Ock Sohn, in particular, for their valuable comments and suggestions. My special thanks also go to Hyun Jung Koo for kindly reading and commenting on earlier versions of the manuscript and to Anthony Shin for proofreading for content and stylistic improvement. All remaining errors, however, are mine. It is also acknowledged with gratitude that this research was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund. CR Ahn M, 2014, DIACHRONICA, V31, P299, DOI 10.1075/dia.31.3.01ahn Brinton Laurel, 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN Choi Jane Boyun, 2007, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Evans Nicholas, 2009, METH DET MORPH CHANG Evans Nicholas, 2007, FINITENESS THEORETIC, P366 FRASER B, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P383, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V Fraser B, 2006, STUD PRAGMAT, V1, P189 Haiman John, 1988, CLAUSE COMBINING GRA, P49 Heine Bernd, 1984, GRAMMATICALIZATION R Higashiizumi Yuko, 2006, SUBORDINATE CLAUSE I Hopper Paul J., 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, V1, P17 Jakobson R., 1960, STYLE LANG, P350 JUCKER AH, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P435, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9 Kim Tae-Youb, 2000, URIMALGEUL, V19, P1 Koo Hyun Jung, 2001, DISCOURSE COGN, V8, P1 Koo H. J., 1987, KONKUK EMWUNHAK, V11-12, P167 Koo HJ, 2013, LANG SCI, V37, P70, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.07.002 Lee Han-gyu, 1996, DISCOURSE COGNITION, V3, P1 Lee Yong, 2003, YENKYEL EMIUY HYENGS Christian Lehmann, 1995, THOUGHTS GRAMMATICAL LICHTENBERK F, 1991, LANGUAGE, V67, P475, DOI 10.2307/415035 Ohori Toshio, 1995, ESSAYS SEMANTICS PRA, P201, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.32.11OHO Ostman J.-O., 1982, IMPROMPTU SPEECH S, P147 Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Rhee Seongha, 2002, NEW REFL GRAMM 2 C A Rhee S, 2012, LANG SCI, V34, P284, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.10.004 Schourup L. C., 1985, COMMON DISCOURSE PAR Sohn Sung-Ock S., 2003, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V12, P52 STENSTROM AB, 1987, COSTERUS ES, V59, P87 Sweetser E. Eve, 1990, ETYMOLOGY PRAGMATICS WATTS RJ, 1989, J PRAGMATICS, V13, P203, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(89)90092-1 Yngve Victor H., 1970, 6 REG M CHIC LING SO, P567 NR 32 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 1 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 83 SI SI BP 10 EP 26 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.005 PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CL5EL UT WOS:000356982500002 ER PT J AU Wu, HP AF Wu, Haiping TI Encoding subjectivity with totality: A corpus-based study of [zhengge yi (CL) plus X] in Mandarin SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Totality; Stance; Grammaticalization; Subjectivity; Corpus ID NUMERAL-CLASSIFIERS; NEGATIVITY BIAS; ADJECTIVES; CHINESE AB Using three corpora of written discourse, this paper investigates the historical trajectory of the totality quantifier zheng 'whole, entire' and its later fusion with the general classifier ge in Mandarin Chinese. The results show that zhengge as a compound has evolved from a prenominal quantifier to a degree intensifier. As zhengge gradually lost its lexical meaning of 'whole, entire,' it became a degree intensifier that pushes properties up an imaginary scale from a reference point, arguably through conceptual metonymic shifts, i.e., the semanticization of an earlier pragmatic implicature or invited inference (Traugott, 2010). The degree-intensifying use enables zhengge to fuse with other linguistic elements, such as a numeral yi 'one' plus an optional classifier (CL). Together, they form a formulaic expression zhengge yi (CL) deployed by Mandarin speakers/writers to encode their evaluative stances, as in zhengge yige xiao bawang 'completely a little lord.' About two-thirds of comments introduced by zhengge yi (CL) are found to have negative implications. General principles of human cognition, particularly negativity biases of humans, are proposed to account for this negative tendency. (C) 2015 Elsevier BM. All rights reserved. C1 [Wu, Haiping] Univ Mississippi, Dept Modern Languages, University, MS 38677 USA. RP Wu, HP (reprint author), 128 Private Rd 3089, Oxford, MS 38655 USA. EM haiping.wu@gmail.com CR Aldridge Edith, 2013, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V7, P58 Jihansson Stig, 1991, ENGLISH COMPUTER COR, P127 Biber D, 1989, TEXT, V9, P93, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 Big Yung-O., 2002, LANG LINGUIST-TAIWAN, V3, P521 Buchstaller I, 2006, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V10, P345, DOI 10.1017/S136067430600195X Bybee J., 1985, MORPHOLOGY STUDY REL Ghesquiere Lobke, 2010, SUBJECTIFICATION INT, P277 Gouro Takuya, 2000, SOPHIA LINGUISTICA, V46, P89 Harris A. C., 1995, HIST SYNTAX CROSS LI Haspelmath M, 1999, LINGUISTICS, V37, P1043, DOI 10.1515/ling.37.6.1043 Heine B., 2007, GENESIS GRAMMAR RECO HOPPER PJ, 1984, LANGUAGE, V60, P703, DOI 10.2307/413797 Hopper Paul J., 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, V1, P17 Jespersen O., 1968, PHILOS GRAMMAR Jing-Schmidt Z, 2007, COGN LINGUIST, V18, P417, DOI 10.1515/COG.2007.023 LEWICKA M, 1992, EUR J SOC PSYCHOL, V22, P425, DOI 10.1002/ejsp.2420220502 Li WD, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P1113, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00086-7 Li WD, 2000, J CHINESE LINGUIST, V28, P337 Lin Hsiuhsu, 2011, CHAOYANG J HUM SOC S, V9, P141 Liu Meichun, 2010, FORMAL EVIDENCE GRAM, P275 Louw B., 2000, WORDS CONTEXT TRIBUT, P48 McGregor William, 1997, SEMIOTIC GRAMMAR Paradis Carita, 1997, DEGREE MODIFIERS ADJ Paradis C, 2001, COGN LINGUIST, V12, P47, DOI 10.1515/cogl.12.1.47 Paradis C., 2000, GENERATIVE THEORY CO, V31, P233 Paradis C, 2008, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V12, P317, DOI 10.1017/S1360674308002645 Peeters G., 1990, EUROPEAN REV SOCIAL, V1, P33, DOI DOI 10.1080/14792779108401856 Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Rozin P, 2001, PERS SOC PSYCHOL REV, V5, P296, DOI 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2 Shibatani Masayoshi, 2009, ENDANGERED LANGUAGES Traugott Elisabeth, 2002, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Traugott Elizabeth C., 2006, HDB HIST ENGLISH, P335, DOI 10.1002/9780470757048.ch14 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2010, SUBJECTIFICATION INT, P29, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 Traugott Elizabeth C., 1989, P 14 ANN M BERK LING, P406 Vandelanotte L, 2002, FOLIA LINGUIST, V36, P219, DOI 10.1515/flin.2002.36.3-4.219 Yap Foong Ha, 2010, LANG LINGUIST COMPAS, V4, P1154, DOI 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00250.x HaYap F, 2011, TYPOL ST L, V96, P1 Yap FH, 2011, TYPOL ST L, V96, P1 NR 38 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 9 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 83 SI SI BP 27 EP 40 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.009 PG 14 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CL5EL UT WOS:000356982500003 ER PT J AU Yang, Y Yap, FH AF Yang, Ying Yap, Foong Ha TI "I am sure but I hedge": Fear expression kongpa as an interactive rhetorical strategy in Mandarin broadcast talk SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Kongpa; Fear; Hedge; Mandarin conversation ID GAZE AB Drawing upon an 80-h Mandarin broadcast talk database, this study investigates how the fear expression kongpa is used from a discourse pragmatic perspective, in particular framed within the theory of hedging. We specifically analyze the use of keingpa in a broader context beyond the sentence level, and examine its discourse pragmatic functions in terms of interpersonal relations. Findings from this study further demonstrate that some apparently neutral or even positive propositions following kongpa can still have negative interactional effect, either for the speaker or the hearer. Contextual analysis reveals that this negative nuance, which does not lie in the propositional content of the utterance itself, emerges from the illocutionary act of the utterance in a larger context. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Yang, Ying] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA. [Yap, Foong Ha] Hong Kong Polytech Univ, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. RP Yang, Y (reprint author), UCLA Appl Linguist, 3300 Rolfe Hall,Box 951531, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA. EM yingyang@ucla.edu FU Research Grants Council of Hong Kong [PolyU 5513/10H] FX We gratefully acknowledge generous research funding support from the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (General Research Fund, PolyU 5513/10H) to the second author for the project "Stance Marking in Asian Languages: Linguistic and Cultural Perspectives". An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Workshop on Stance and Discourse: Typological, Functional and Discourse Perspectives, May 7-9, 2012 at Hong Kong Polytechnic University. We wish to thank Prof. Hongyin Tao, Dr. Wei Zhang and other participants for their insightful comments and suggestions. We also wish to express our thanks to the anonymous reviewers and editors for their valuable feedback, and to Ariel Chan, Winnie Chor, Brian Wai and Tak-Sum Wong for inspiring discussions. CR Becker E., 1973, DENIAL DEATH Brain James Lewton, 1979, LAST TABOO SEX FEAR Brown P., 1978, QUESTIONS POLITENESS, P56 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Darwin C., 1873, EXPRESSION EMOTIONS Dixon Robert M. W., 1977, A GRAMMAR OF YIDIN Dixon RMW, 1988, GRAMMAR BOUMAA FIJIA Ekman P., 1994, NATURE EMOTION FUNDA, P56 Ekman P., 1984, APPROACHES EMOTION, P319 Endo Tomoko, 2004, LANGUAGE INFORM SCI, V2, P29 Endo Tomoko, 2013, CHINESE DISCOURSE IN, P12 Endo Tomoko, 2010, THESIS DEP ASIAN LAN Endo Tomoko, 2006, P 6 ANN M JAP COGN L, P75 Fraser Bruce, 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P187 [Anonymous], 2010, NEW APPROACHES HEDGI Fraser Bruce, 2009, 2 INT C POL DIS WARS, P201 Givon Talmy, 2001, SYNTAX, V1 Givon Talmy, 1990, SYNTAX FUNCTIONAL TY, VII Goffman E, 1981, FORMS TALK Goffman E., 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL E Haddington P, 2006, TEXT TALK, V26, P281, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2006.011 Heritage John, 2008, J STUDIES CONT SOCIO, V2, P14 Hui Min, 2009, THESIS HENAN U HENAN Hutchby Ian, 2006, MEDIA TALK CONVERSAT Ilie C, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P209, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00133-2 Jing-Schmidt Z, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P346, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.009 Kaltenbock Gunther, 2010, STUDIES PRAGMATICS, V9 Keltner D, 1999, COGNITION EMOTION, V13, P467 Kidwell M, 2006, DISCOURSE STUD, V8, P745, DOI 10.1177/1461445606069328 Kubler-Ross E., 1970, DEATH DYING Lakoff G., 1973, J PHILOS LOGIC, V2, P458 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Lichtenberk F, 1995, TYPOL ST L, V32, P293 Lim Ni-Eng, 2011, CURRENT ISSUES CHINE, P265 Palmer F., 2001, MOOD MODALITY Schenkein J., 1978, STUDIES ORG CONVERSA, P79 Scherer K. R., 1994, NATURE EMOTION FUNDA, P127 Tsai MH, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1350, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.012 von Wright G., 1951, ESSAY MODAL LOGIC Wierzbicka A., 1999, EMOTIONS LANGUAGES C Wu RJR, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3152, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.016 Yap F. H., 2012, COVERT PATTERNS MODA, P312 NR 42 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 6 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 83 SI SI BP 41 EP 56 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.013 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CL5EL UT WOS:000356982500004 ER PT J AU Kim, MS AF Kim, Mary Shin TI Stancetaking in the face of incongruity in Korean conversation SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Disparity; Humor; Incongruity; Nominalized negation; Reversed polarity assertion; Stancetaking ID PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS AB This paper investigates the stances that Korean speakers routinely take in conversation when facing incongruities in reality, facts, and expectations, and it identifies the roles these stances play in everyday social interaction. The paper focuses on the use of the nominalized negation construction -nun ke ani- ('It is not the case/fact') as a stance marker. A conversation analysis of this construction shows that it does more than simply acting as a negation device. It frequently acts as a reversed polarity assertion ('It is the case/The fact is/The thing is'), and depending on its interactional and sequential environment, it accomplishes different interactional outcomes in stancetaking activity. In disagreement sequences, speakers actively employ nun ke ani as a device to contradict a claim by evoking a fact or truth that counters an assumption on which the claim is based. In other contexts, speakers may also use it to interject humor by highlighting a fact or reality that goes against expectation. The study illustrates how a language form can function in the service of stancetaking, and at the same time how stancetaking activity shapes the language form itself. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Hawaii Manoa, Dept East Asian Languages & Literatures, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA. RP Kim, MS (reprint author), Univ Hawaii Manoa, Dept East Asian Languages & Literatures, 1890 East West Rd, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA. EM maryskim@hawaii.edu CR Ahn M, 2015, STUD LANG, V39, P46, DOI 10.1075/sl.39.1.03ahn Ahn M, 2014, DIACHRONICA, V31, P299, DOI 10.1075/dia.31.3.01ahn Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Bolinger D, 1957, INTERROGATIVE STRUCT Chang Suk-jin, 1996, KOREAN Contini-Morava Ellen, 1995, MEANING EXPLANATION Diver W., 1995, MEANING EXPLANATION, P43 Du Bois John, 2007, STANCETAKING DISCOUR, V164, P139, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.164 Englebretson Robert, 2007, STANCETAKING DISCOUR, P69 Heritage J, 2005, SOC PSYCHOL QUART, V68, P15 Heritage J, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1427, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3 Hong Jong-Seon, 1990, KUKE CHEON HWA KUMUN Horie K, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P663, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.020 Im Hong-Bin, 1973, SEOUL TAE KYOYANG KW, V5, P115 Jefferson Gail, 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, pIX Karkkainen E, 2003, EPISTEMIC STANCE ENG Kawanishi Yumiko, 1993, 5 HARV INT S KOR LIN, P552 Keisanen T., 2007, STANCETAKING DISCOUR, P253 Kim MS, 2015, J PRAGMATICS, V79, P60, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.014 Ko Eon-Suk, 2003, KOREAN TELEPHONE CON Koo Hyun Jung, 2008, [Discourse and Cognition, 담화와 인지], V15, P1 Koshik Irene, 2002, J PRAGMAT, V34, P1852 Lee HS, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P243, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00066-6 Lee Hyo-sang, 1991, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Lee HK, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P595, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.004 Lee Kee-Dong, 1993, KOREAN GRAMMAR SEMAN Martin S. E., 1992, REFERENCE GRAMMAR KO MIO JS, 1991, METAPHOR SYMB ACT, V6, P87, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms0602_2 Morreall John, 1987, PHILOS LAUGHTER HUMO Noh Jini, 2009, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V16, P304 Ochs E., 1996, RETHINKING LINGUISTI, P407 POMERANTZ A, 1986, HUM STUD, V9, P219, DOI 10.1007/BF00148128 Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Sacks Harvey, 1974, EXPLORATIONS ETHNOGR, P337 SACKS H, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P696, DOI 10.2307/412243 Schegloff EA, 2007, SEQUENCE ORGANIZATION IN INTERACTION: A PRIMER IN CONVERSATION ANALYSIS I, P1, DOI 10.2277/ 0521532795 Sohn Ho-Min, 1999, KOREAN LANGUAGE Sohn Sung-Ock, 2011, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V18, P126 STUBBS M, 1986, APPL LINGUIST, V7, P1, DOI 10.1093/applin/7.1.1 Suh Cheong-Soo, 1996, KUKO MUNPOP Wu R.-J., 2004, STANCE TALK CONVERSA NR 41 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-2166 EI 1879-1387 J9 J PRAGMATICS JI J. Pragmat. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 83 SI SI BP 57 EP 72 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.003 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CL5EL UT WOS:000356982500005 ER PT J AU Barron, A AF Barron, Anne TI Explorations in regional variation: A variational pragmatic perspective SO MULTILINGUA-JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL AND INTERLANGUAGE COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE variational pragmatics; regional variation; pragmatic variation ID ENGLISH; BEHAVIOR AB The present article introduces the Special Issue entitled "A Variational Pragmatic Approach to Regional Variation in Language", a collection of papers which celebrates the work of Klaus P. Schneider (Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat Bonn, Germany) on the occasion of his 60th birthday. C1 Univ Luneburg, Inst English Studies, D-21335 Luneburg, Germany. RP Barron, A (reprint author), Univ Luneburg, Inst English Studies, Scharnhorststr 1, D-21335 Luneburg, Germany. EM barron@leuphana.de CR Aijmer Karin, 2011, PRAGMATICS SOC, P1 Aijmer K, 2013, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMATIC MARKERS: A VARIATIONAL PRAGMATIC APPROACH, P1 Barron Anne, ROUTLEDGE HDB PRAGMA Barron Anne, 2014, ENCY APPL LINGUISTIC Barron Anne, 2009, INTERCULTURAL PRAGMA, V6 Barron Anne, 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P519, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.009 Barron Anne, 2005, TRENDS LINGUISTICS S, V164 Barron A, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P425, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.023 Bublitz Wolfram, 2014, HDB PRAGMATICS, V1-9 CHEN R, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V20, P49, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90106-Y Foolen Ad, 2011, PRAGMATICS SOC, P217 Haugh M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1017, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.010 Jautz Sabine, 2013, PRAGMATICS NEW SERIE, V230 Jucker Andreas H., 2012, HDB HIST SOCIOLINGUI, P293 Jucker Andreas H., 2008, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V2, P894, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2008.00087.X Placencia Maria Elena, 2011, HDB PRAGMATICS, V5, P79 Schneider KP, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1022, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.015 Schneider KP, 2012, REV COGN LINGUIST, V10, P346, DOI 10.1075/rcl.10.2.05sch Schneider KP, 2007, ANGLIA-Z ENGL PHILOL, V125, P59 Schneider Klaus P., 1999, LANGUAGE THEORY PRAC, V1, P162 Schneider Klaus P., 2009, ANGL 2009 KLAG P P 3, P79 Schneider Klaus P., 1988, LINGUISTIC SERIES, V1 Schneider Klaus P., 1987, MULTILINGUA, V6, P247, DOI 10.1515/mult.1987.6.3.247 Schneider Klaus P., 2005, TRENDS LINGUISTICS S, V164, P101 Schneider Klaus P., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS HIGHL, V6, P239 Schneider Klaus P., 2008, PRAGMATICS NEW SERIE, V178, P1 Schneider Klaus P., 2008, PRAGMATICS NEW SERIE, V178 Schneider Klaus P., 2011, SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUD, V5, P15 Schneider Klaus P., 2014, HDB PRAGMATICS, V3 Schneider Klaus P., 2000, VAASAN YLIOPISTON JU, V237, P65 Schneider Klaus P., 2013, SKASE J THEORETICAL, V10, P137 Schneider Klaus P., 2008, PRAGMATICS NEW SERIE, P99 Schneider Klaus P, 2003, LINGUISTISCHE ARBEIT, V479 Zimmermann Rudiger, 1987, MULTILINGUA, V6, P113, DOI 10.1515/mult.1987.6.2.113 NR 34 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 0 U2 3 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0167-8507 EI 1613-3684 J9 MULTILINGUA JI Multilingua PD JUL PY 2015 VL 34 IS 4 SI SI BP 449 EP 459 DI 10.1515/multi-2014-0102 PG 11 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CL0FO UT WOS:000356615800001 ER PT J AU Haugh, M Carbaugh, D AF Haugh, Michael Carbaugh, Donal TI Self-disclosure in initial interactions amongst speakers of American and Australian English SO MULTILINGUA-JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL AND INTERLANGUAGE COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE self-presentation; superlatives; Australian English; American English; getting acquainted ID CULTURAL SCRIPTS AB Getting acquainted with others is one of the most basic interpersonal communication events. Yet there has only been a limited number of studies that have examined variation in the interactional practices through which unacquainted persons become acquainted and establish relationships across speakers of the same language. The current study focuses on self-disclosure practices in initial interactions between first language speakers of English from Australia and the United States. It was found that while both American and Australian participants volunteered self-disclosures in the context of presentation-eliciting questions, there was a noticeable tendency for the American participants to self-disclose without being prompted by questions from the other participant. We also found that there was a tendency for the Australians to use positive assessments in response to self-disclosures less often and with a lesser degree of intensity than the American participants. These tendencies in self-disclosure practices are argued to reflect the ways in which underlying cultural premises are used by participants. However, given that a significant degree of interspeaker and same-speaker variability was also observed, it is concluded that the study of pragmatic variation be situated on the level of interactional routines, relational dyads, and upwards that are engaged in particular social activities. C1 [Haugh, Michael] Griffith Univ, Sch Languages & Linguist, Brisbane, Qld 4111, Australia. [Carbaugh, Donal] Univ Massachusetts, Dept Commun, Amherst, MA 01003 USA. RP Haugh, M (reprint author), Griffith Univ, Sch Languages & Linguist, Brisbane, Qld 4111, Australia. EM m.haugh@griffith.edu.au; carbaugh@comm.umass.edu RI Haugh, Michael/H-4783-2016 OI Haugh, Michael/0000-0003-4870-0850 CR Arundale R. B., 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P137 Arundale Robert B., 2006, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V2, P193, DOI DOI 10.1515/PR.2006.011 Arundale RB, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2078, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 Barron Anne, 2005, PRAGMATICS IRISH ENG Berry M, 2009, LANG INTERCULT COMM, V9, P230, DOI 10.1080/14708470903203058 Brezina V, 2014, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V19, P1, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.19.1.01bre Brown Penelope, 1987, POLITENESS Button G., 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P167 BUTTON G, 1985, HUM STUD, V8, P3, DOI 10.1007/BF00143022 Carbaugh D, 2012, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN, P69 Carbaugh D, 2005, LEA COMMUN SER, P1 Carbaugh D., 2007, J INTERCULTURAL COMM, V36, P167, DOI DOI 10.1080/17475750701737090 Carbaugh Donal, 2002, CHANGING CONVERSATIO, P61 Carbaugh Donal, 2012, INT COMMUNICATION AS, P44 Carbaugh Donal, 1997, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN, P221 CULPEPER J, 2014, PRAGMATICS ENGLISH L Derlega V. J., 1993, SELF DISCLOSURE Dindia Kathryn, 2000, COMMUNICATION PERSON, P147 Fuchs S, 2001, ESSENTIALISM THEORY Garfinkel H., 1967, STUDIES ETHNOMETHODO Glenn P. J., 2003, LAUGHTER INTERACTION Goddard Cliff, 2012, INTERCULTURAL MISCOM, P101 Goddard Cliff, 2006, ETHNOPRAGMATICS UNDE, P65 Goddard C, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P29, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.002 Goddard C, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1038, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.010 Haugh M., 2012, CAMBRIDGE HDB PRAGMA, P251 Haugh M., 2011, SITUATED POLITENESS, P165 Haugh M., 2015, IMPOLITENESS IMPLICA Haugh M, 2014, AUST J LINGUIST, V34, P76, DOI 10.1080/07268602.2014.875456 Haugh M, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2106, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018 Hepburn A., 2013, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P57, DOI DOI 10.1002/9781118325001 Holliday A, 1999, APPL LINGUIST, V20, P237, DOI 10.1093/applin/20.2.237 Holt E., 2013, STUDIES LAUGHTER INT, P69 Jefferson G., 1979, EVERYDAY LANGUAGE ST, P79 Jefferson Gail, 2004, CONVERSATION ANAL ST, P13 Jefferson G., 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P191 MAYNARD DW, 1984, SOC PSYCHOL QUART, V47, P301, DOI 10.2307/3033633 PEARCE WB, 1973, J COMMUN, V23, P409, DOI 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1973.tb00958.x Petronio S., 2002, BOUNDARIES PRIVACY D Pillet-Shore D, 2012, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V45, P375, DOI 10.1080/08351813.2012.724994 Pillet-Shore D, 2011, COMMUN MONOGR, V78, P73, DOI 10.1080/03637751.2010.542767 Pillet-Shore D, 2010, SOC PSYCHOL QUART, V73, P152, DOI 10.1177/0190272510369668 POMERANTZ A, 1988, COMMUN MONOGR, V55, P360 Potter J, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1543, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.003 Rayson P., 2008, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V13, P519, DOI DOI 10.1075/IJCL.13.4.06RAY Schegloff EA, 2007, SEQUENCE ORGANIZATION IN INTERACTION: A PRIMER IN CONVERSATION ANALYSIS I, P1, DOI 10.2277/ 0521532795 Schegloff EA, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1947, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00073-4 Schneider KP, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1022, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.015 Schneider K. P., 2008, VARIATIONAL PRAGMATI Schneider Klaus P., 1987, MULTILINGUA, V6, P247, DOI 10.1515/mult.1987.6.3.247 Schneider Klaus P., 2010, VARIATION CHANGE PRA, P239 Schneider K. P., 1988, SMALL TALK ANAL PHAT Schneider Klaus P., 2008, VARIATIONAL PRAGMATI, P99 Scollo M., 2011, J MULTICULTURAL DISC, V6, P1, DOI DOI 10.1080/17447143.2010.536550 Silverstein M., 1984, MEANING FORM USE CON, P181 Stewart E. C., 1991, AM CULTURAL PATTERNS Stivers T., 2013, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P191 Stokoe E, 2010, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V43, P260, DOI 10.1080/08351813.2010.497988 Svennevig J., 1999, GETTING ACQUAINTED C Svennevig J, 2014, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V33, P302, DOI 10.1177/0261927X13512307 Tottie G., 2002, INTRO AM ENGLISH Usami M., 2002, DISCOURSE POLITENESS NR 62 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 5 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0167-8507 EI 1613-3684 J9 MULTILINGUA JI Multilingua PD JUL PY 2015 VL 34 IS 4 SI SI BP 461 EP 493 DI 10.1515/multi-2014-0104 PG 33 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CL0FO UT WOS:000356615800002 ER PT J AU Barron, A Pandarova, I Muderack, K AF Barron, Anne Pandarova, Irina Muderack, Karoline TI Tag questions across Irish English and British English: A corpus analysis of form and function SO MULTILINGUA-JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL AND INTERLANGUAGE COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE tag questions; Irish English; British English; variational pragmatics; regional pragmatic variation ID VARIETIES; SPEECH AB The present study, situated in the area of variational pragmatics, contrasts tag question (TQ) use in Ireland and Great Britain using spoken data from the Irish and British components of the International Corpus of English (ICE). Analysis is on the formal and functional level and also investigates form-functional relationships. Findings reveal many similarities in the use of TQs across the varieties. They also point, however, to a lower use of TQs in Irish English and in a range of variety-preferential features on both the formal and functional levels. The paper shows how an in-depth analysis of form-function relations together with a fine-tuned investigation of sub-functions gives an insight into formal preferences. C1 [Barron, Anne; Pandarova, Irina; Muderack, Karoline] Univ Luneburg, Inst English Studies, D-21335 Luneburg, Lower Saxony, Germany. RP Barron, A (reprint author), Univ Luneburg, Inst English Studies, Scharnhorststr 1, D-21335 Luneburg, Lower Saxony, Germany. EM barron@leuphana.de; pandarova@leuphana.de; muderackkaro@gmx.net FU Fund for Scientific Research (Kleinforschungsprojekt) - Leuphana University Luneburg FX The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Fund for Scientific Research (Kleinforschungsprojekt) awarded by the Leuphana University Luneburg which enabled the research reported in this paper to be undertaken. Special thanks also to two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments, to Martin Schweinberger, who offered advice on statistical measures, and to Kerstin Single for formatting assistance. CR Aarts Bas, 2006, BRIT COMPONENT INT C Algeo John, 1988, ENGL WORLD-WIDE, V9, P171, DOI DOI 10.1075/EWW.9.2.03ALG Algeo J., 2006, BRIT AM ENGLISH HDB Algeo J, 1990, STATE LANGUAGE, P443 Allerton DJ, 2009, STUD ENGL LANG, P306, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511551970.017 Andersen Gisele, 2001, PRAGMATIC MARKERS SO Andersen Gisle, 1998, 19 ICAME C BELF Asian Anna, 1998, LINKS LETT, V5, P37 Axelsson Karin, 2011, THESIS U GOTHENBURG Barron Anne, MULTILINGUA Barron Anne, ROUTLEDGE HDB PRAGMA Barron Anne, PRAGMATIC MARKERS IR Barron Anne, SOCIOLINGUI IN PRESS Barron A, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P425, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.023 Beal J., 1993, REAL ENGLISH GRAMMAR, P187, DOI Harlow Borlongan Ariane M., 2008, PHILIPPINE J LINGUIS, V39, P1 Cameron D., 1989, WOMEN THEIR SPEECH C, P74 Cattell Ray, 1973, LANGUAGE SOC, V49, P312 Coates Jennifer, 1989, YORK PAPERS LINGUIST, V13, P65 Collins COBUILD, 2001, ENGLISH DICT ADV LEA Columbus G, 2010, ENGL WORLD-WIDE, V31, P288, DOI 10.1075/eww.31.3.03col Drew P, 2012, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V45, P61, DOI 10.1080/08351813.2012.646688 Hickey Raymond, 2005, PRAGMATICS IRISH ENG, P17 Hickey R, 2007, STUD ENGL LANG, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511551048 Hickey Raymond, 2007, CELTIC LANGUAGES CON, P235 Hoffmann Sebastian, 2006, ANGLISTIK, V17, P35 Holmes J., 1995, WOMEN MEN POLITENESS Holmes Janet, 1982, ENGLISH LANGUAGE RES, V3, P40 Kirk J. M., 2008, ICE IRELAND USERS GU Kirk J. M., 2012, SPICE IRELAND USERS Kimps D, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P270, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.08.003 Kimps D, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V66, P64, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.013 Labov W, 1977, THERAPEUTIC DISCOURS LEVELT WJM, 1983, COGNITION, V14, P41, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4 Lucek Stephen, 2011, TRINITY COLL DUBLIN, V10, P95 McGregor William, 1995, SUBJECT THEME DISCOU, P91 Norrick NR, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1333, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00180-7 Pandarova Irina, SEMANTICS PRAG UNPUB Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA SACKS H, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P696, DOI 10.2307/412243 Schneider KP, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1022, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.015 Schneider KP, 2012, REV COGN LINGUIST, V10, P346, DOI 10.1075/rcl.10.2.05sch Schneider Klaus P., 2014, ANGL 2013 KONST P, P361 Schneider K. P., 2008, VARIATIONAL PRAGMATI, P1 Schneider Klaus P., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS HIGHL, V6, P239 Schweinberger Martin, 2014, COMBINING WORD SPEEC Scott M., 2012, WORDSMITH TOOLS Tottie Gunnel, 2006, J ENGL LINGUIST, V34, P283, DOI 10.1177/0075424206294369 Tottie Gunnel, 2009, J ENGL LINGUIST, V37, P103 Tottie G, 2009, STUD ENGL LANG, P341, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511551970.019 Wong May L.-Y., 2007, ASIAN ENGLISHES, V10, P44 NR 51 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 4 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0167-8507 EI 1613-3684 J9 MULTILINGUA JI Multilingua PD JUL PY 2015 VL 34 IS 4 SI SI BP 495 EP 525 DI 10.1515/multi-2014-0099 PG 31 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CL0FO UT WOS:000356615800003 ER PT J AU Bieswanger, M AF Bieswanger, Markus TI Variational pragmatics and responding to thanks - revisited SO MULTILINGUA-JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL AND INTERLANGUAGE COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE responding to thanks; imbalance reducer after thanks (IRAT); naturally occurring vs. experimental data; variational pragmatics ID CORPORA; ENGLISH; ACTS AB In 2005, Klaus P. Schneider published a fascinating article with the title "'No problem, you're welcome, anytime': Responding to thanks in Ireland, England, and the U.S.A.". Adopting the then emerging and now established framework of variational pragmatics, Schneider's pioneering paper presents the results of a study on differences between responses to thanks across different varieties of English using experimental discourse completion tasks (DCTs). The paper at hand revisits this cross-varietal analysis and presents the results of an empirical investigation of this same speech act based on natural data collected with the help of Labovian-style fieldwork methodology common in variationist sociolinguistics. The results reveal fundamental differences between the two data types and underline the fact that these different datasets address different research questions. The findings also highlight the existence of regional variation in the use of this speech act in spontaneous real-life interaction. Finally, the paper also puts forward the term imbalance reducer after thanks (IRAT) as a more appropriate term for the speech act of responding to thanks. C1 Univ Bayreuth, D-95447 Bayreuth, Germany. RP Bieswanger, M (reprint author), Univ Bayreuth, Univ Str 30, D-95447 Bayreuth, Germany. EM bieswanger@uni-bayreuth.de CR Aijmer K., 1996, CONVERSATIONAL ROUTI Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN Barron Anne, 2014, ENCY APPL LINGUISTIC Barron Anne, 2009, INTERCULTURAL PRAGMA, V6 Barron A, 2015, MULTILINGUA, V34, P449, DOI 10.1515/multi-2014-0102 Beebe LM, 2006, STUD LANG ACQUIS, V11, P65, DOI 10.1515/9783110219289.1.65 Beisswenger M, 2008, HANDB SPRACH KOMMUN, V29, P292 Bieswanger Markus, 2010, INTRO ENGLISH LINGUI Chambers Janice E., 2002, VVolume 1, P3 CLARK HH, 1979, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V11, P430, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(79)90020-3 Economic and Social Research Council, 2012, FRAM RES ETH Edmondson Willis J., 1981, LETS TALK TALK IT Mulo Farenkia Bernard, 2012, INT J ENGL LINGUIST, V2, P1 Mulo Farenkia Bernard, 2013, SINO US ENGLISH TEAC, V10, P707 Goffman Erving, 1971, RELATIONS PUBLIC MIC Jucker AH, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1611, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.004 Kachru B. B, 1985, ENGLISH WORLD TEACHI, P11 Kasper Gabriele, 1998, Z FREMDSPRACHENFORSC, V9, P85 Kasper G., 2008, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P279 Bernd Kortmann, 2004, HDB VARIETIES ENGLIS, V2 Labov W., 2006, SOCIAL STRATIFICATIO Labov William, 1966, SOCIAL STRATIFICATIO Labov William, 1972, SOCIOLINGUISTIC PATT Labov William, 1972, LANG SOC, VI, P97, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0047404500006576 Leech Geoffrey, 1975, COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMA Leech Geoffrey, 1994, COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMA Leech G.N., 2002, COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMA Ouafeu YTS, 2009, WORLD ENGLISH, V28, P544 Ruegg L, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V71, P17, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.005 Schneider KP, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1022, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.015 Schneider K. P., 2008, VARIATIONAL PRAGMATI, P1 Schneider K. P., 2008, VARIATIONAL PRAGMATI Schneider Klaus P., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS HIGHL, V6, P239 Schneider Klaus P., 2005, PRAGMATICS IRISH ENG, P101 SEARLE JR, 1976, LANG SOC, V5, P1 Skill, 2014, CAMBRIDGE ADV LEARNE Wolfram W., 2006, AM ENGLISH DIALECTS Xiao R, 2008, HANDB SPRACH KOMMUN, V29, P383 [Anonymous], 2014, ICE INT CORPUS ENGLI NR 39 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 5 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0167-8507 EI 1613-3684 J9 MULTILINGUA JI Multilingua PD JUL PY 2015 VL 34 IS 4 SI SI BP 527 EP 546 DI 10.1515/multi-2014-0106 PG 20 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CL0FO UT WOS:000356615800004 ER PT J AU Placencia, ME Rodriguez, CF Palma-Fahey, M AF Placencia, Maria Elena Fuentes Rodriguez, Catalina Palma-Fahey, Maria TI Nominal address and rapport management in informal interactions among university students in Quito (Ecuador), Santiago (Chile) and Seville (Spain) SO MULTILINGUA-JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL AND INTERLANGUAGE COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE nominal address forms; variational pragmatics; rapport management; Chilean Spanish; Peninsular Spanish; Ecuadorian Spanish ID COMPLAINTS; LANGUAGE AB Nominal and pronominal address forms, which play a central role in the construction of interpersonal relations (cf. Bargiela et al. 2002; Clyne et al. 2009), have been the focus of attention in different linguistics subfields for several decades now. Less attention, however, has been paid to these forms from a variational pragmatics (Schneider and Barron 2008) perspective, particularly in Spanish. Using a corpus of role play interactions, we examine the impact of region and gender on nominal address usage among male and female university students from Quito (Ecuador), Santiago (Chile) and Seville (Spain). We look at how these forms are employed in rapport management (Spencer-Oatey 2008 [2000]) in two situations: giving advice and making a direct complaint (Boxer 1993). Building on work on nominal forms (cf. Leech 1999; McCarthy and O'Keeffe 2003), we examine similarities and differences in their use across the three varieties of Spanish. Among the findings recorded was a larger repertoire of nominal forms in the Santiago and Quito data sets relative to the Seville corpus, with the highest frequency of use in Santiago. We suggest that address usage in the dyadic contexts examined is connected to the expression of affect and involvement, with Chileans (Santiago) and Ecuadorians (Quito) displaying more affect than Spaniards (Seville). Contrary to early research suggesting that women employ more affiliative language than men (cf. Lakoff 1975), overall, males in the present study were found to use address forms more frequently than females across the three locations. C1 [Placencia, Maria Elena] Univ London, Sch Arts, Cultures & Languages, London WC1H OPD, England. [Fuentes Rodriguez, Catalina] Univ Seville, Linguist & Teoria Literatura, Seville, Spain. [Palma-Fahey, Maria] Shannon Coll Hotel Management, Shannon, Clare, Ireland. RP Placencia, ME (reprint author), Univ London, Sch Arts, Cultures & Languages, 43 Gordon Sq, London WC1H OPD, England. EM m.placencia@bbk.ac.uk; cfuentes@us.es; mariapalmafahey@shannoncollege.com CR Alonso-Cortes Angel, 1999, GRAMATICA DESCRIPTIV, P3993 Banon Antonio Miguel, 1993, VOCATIVO PROPUESTAS Bargiela Francesca, 2002, WORKING PAPERS WEB Barron Anne, 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P519, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.009 Barron A, 2015, MULTILINGUA, V34, P449, DOI 10.1515/multi-2014-0102 Barron A, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P425, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.023 Barron A, 2008, STUD LANG ACQUIS, V31, P355 BOXER D, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P103, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90084-3 Braun Friederike, 1988, TERMS ADDRESS PROBLE Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Cameron D., 1992, FEMINISM LINGUISTIC Chen YS, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P253, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.012 Clayman SE, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1853, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.001 Clyne M, 2009, LANGUAGE AND HUMAN RELATIONS: STYLES OF ADDRESS IN CONTEMPORARY LANGUAGE, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511576690 Cortés Saide, 2009, Boletín de Filología, V44, P243, DOI 10.4067/S0718-93032009000100009 Garcia Dini Encarnacion, 1998, ACT 17 C ASS ISP IT, P57 Eisenchlas SA, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P335, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.001 Enajas Raquel, 2004, TONOS DIGITAL, V7 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2003, THEORY PRACTICE ACQU, P239 Fishman Pamela, 1997, SOCIOLINGUISTICS REA, P416 Fitch Kristine Louise, 1998, SPEAKING RELATIONALL HERNANDEZ FLORES Nieves, 1999, PRAGMATICS, P37 Florez Luis, 1975, ESPANOL HABLADO COLO ESTRADA A., 2003, ANUARIO ESTUDIOS FIL, V26, P335 Goldsmith DJ, 1997, HUM COMMUN RES, V23, P454, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00406.x Briz Gomez Antonio, 1995, CONVERSACION C MAT E Hickey Leo, 2005, POLITENESS EUROPE, P317 Holmes J., 1995, WOMEN MEN POLITENESS Hua Zhu, 2011, LANG INTERCULT COMM, P389 Hummel Martin, 2010, FORMAS FORMULAS TRAT JEFFERSON G., 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, pix Jorgensen Annette Myre, 2011, ESTUDIOS VARIACION P, P141 Kasper G., 2008, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P279 Dahl M., 1991, STUDIES 2ND LANGUAGE, V13, P215, DOI [10.1017/S0272263100009955, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100009955] Lakoff Robin, 1975, LANGUAGE WOMANS PLAC Lara Martinez, 2009, LINGUA AM, V25, P100 Puga Larrain Juana, 1997, ATENUACION CASTELLAN Laver John, 1975, ORG BEHAV FACE TO FA, P215 Leech G., 1999, OUT CORPORA STUDIES, P107 LEVINSON SC, 1979, LINGUISTICS, V17, P365, DOI 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 Locher MA, 2006, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V149, P1 Humberto Toscano Mateus, 1953, REV FILOLOGIA ESPANO McCarthy MJ, 2003, LANG COMPUT, P153 Morrow PR, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V221, P255 Edeso Natalias Veronica, 2005, ESPANOL ACTUAL, V84, P123 Palma-Fahey Maria, 2011, SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUD, V5, P103 Placencia Maria Elena, 2011, HDB PRAGMATICS, V5, P79 Placencia ME, 2005, HISPANIA-J DEV INTER, V88, P583 Placencia Maria Elena, DIMENSION I IN PRESS Placencia Maria Elena, 1997, HISPANIC LINGUISTICS, V9, P165 Rampton Ben, 2009, NEW SOCIOLINGUISTICS, P287 Fuentes Rodriguez Catalina, GENDER BASED APPROAC ROJAS Dario, 2012, REV HUMANIDADES, V25, P145 SAEZ-GODOY Leopoldo, 1983, ESTUDIOS LINGUISTICO, P133 Carrasco Santana Antonio, 2002, TRATAMIENTOS ESPANOL Schegloff Emanuel A., 1974, ETHNOMETHODOLOGY, P233 Schneider K. P., 2008, VARIATIONAL PRAGMATI, P1 Schneider Klaus P., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS HIGHL, V6, P239 Spencer-Oatey Helen, 2008, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P11 Tannen D., 1991, YOU JUST DONT UNDERS Terkourafi Marina, 2012, PRAGMATIC VARIATION, P295 Thuren Britt-Marie, 1988, LEFT HAND LEFT CHANG Torrejon Alfredo, 2010, FORMAS FORMULAS TRAT, P413 Travis C. E., 2006, ETHNOPRAGMATICS UNDE, P199 Zimmermann Klaus, 2002, LENGUAJE JOVENES, P137 NR 65 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 6 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0167-8507 EI 1613-3684 J9 MULTILINGUA JI Multilingua PD JUL PY 2015 VL 34 IS 4 SI SI BP 547 EP 575 DI 10.1515/multi-2014-0107 PG 29 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CL0FO UT WOS:000356615800005 ER PT J AU Farenkia, BM AF Farenkia, Bernard Mulo TI Invitation refusals in Cameroon French and Hexagonal French SO MULTILINGUA-JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL AND INTERLANGUAGE COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE invitation refusals; mitigation; regional pragmatic variation; Cameroon French; Hexagonal French ID PRAGMATICS AB Descriptions of regional pragmatic variation in French are lacking to date the focus has been on a limited range of speech acts, including apologies, requests, compliments and responses to compliments. The present paper, a systematic analysis of invitation refusals across regional varieties of French, is designed to add to the research on intralingual regional pragmatic variation in French. Using questionnaire data collected in France and Cameroon, this paper examines the strategies employed by French speakers in Cameroon and in France to decline an invitation to a friend's birthday party, an invitation by a classmate to have a drink and an invitation to attend a talk given by a professor's colleague. The findings reveal some parallels in both varieties of French with respect to the preference for face-saving refusal strategies (indirect refusal and adjuncts to refusals and internal modification devices). However, many differences emerged with respect to the choices of indirect refusals. Also, the Cameroonian participants tend to produce more complex utterances and to use more relational address forms than the French. C1 Cape Breton Univ, Languages & Letters, Sydney, NS B1P6L2, Canada. RP Farenkia, BM (reprint author), Cape Breton Univ, Languages & Letters, 1250 Grand Lake Rd, Sydney, NS B1P6L2, Canada. EM bernard_farenkia@cbu.ca CR Anchimbe Eric, 2011, ANGL 2010 SAARBR P, P421 Anchimbe EA, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1451, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.027 Anchimbe EA, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1472, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.013 Barron Anne, 2014, ENCY APPL LINGUISTIC Barron Anne, 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P519, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.009 Barron A, 2015, MULTILINGUA, V34, P449, DOI 10.1515/multi-2014-0102 Barron A, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P425, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.023 Beebe Leslie M, 1990, DEV COMMUNICATIVE CO, P55 Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Chen Xing, 1995, PRAGMATICS CHINESE N, P119 Clyne Michael, 1992, PLURICENTRIC LANGUAG Trinh Duc Thai, 1999, U LUMIERE LYON 2 MEM FARENKIA BM, 2014, SPEECH ACTS POLITENE Mulo Farenkia Bernard, 2007, SUDLANGUES, V8, P13 Felix-Brasdefer J. Cesar, 2008, POLITENESS MEXICO US Hofstede G., 2001, CULTURES CONSEQUENCE Janney Richard, 2009, ANN FACULTY ARTS SOC, P101 KERBRATORECCHIO.C, 1992, INTERACTIONS VERBALE, V2 KERBRAT-ORECCHIONI Catherine, 1996, LA CONVERSATION Kwon Jihyun, 2004, MULTILINGUA, V23, P339, DOI 10.1515/mult.2004.23.4.339 Manno Giuseppe, 1999, J FRENCH LANGUAGE ST, V9, P39, DOI 10.1017/S0959269500004440 Mbow Fallou, 2011, LIENS, V14, P181 Nelson GL, 2002, APPL LINGUIST, V23, P163, DOI 10.1093/applin/23.2.163 Peeters Bert, 2006, Z ROMAN PHILOL, V122, P221 Placencia ME, 2015, MULTILINGUA, V34, P547, DOI 10.1515/multi-2014-0107 Schneider K. P., 2008, VARIATIONAL PRAGMATI, P1 Schneider Klaus P., 2010, VARIATION CHANGE PRA, P239 Schneider Klaus P., 2005, PRAGMATICS IRISH ENG, P101 Trosborg A., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA van Compernolle Remi, 2008, CANADIAN J APPL LING, V11, P85 Wierzbicka A, 2003, MOUTON TXB, P1 NR 31 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 6 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0167-8507 EI 1613-3684 J9 MULTILINGUA JI Multilingua PD JUL PY 2015 VL 34 IS 4 SI SI BP 577 EP 603 DI 10.1515/multi-2014-0108 PG 27 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CL0FO UT WOS:000356615800006 ER PT J AU Yow, WQ Markman, EM AF Yow, W. Quin Markman, Ellen M. TI A bilingual advantage in how children integrate multiple cues to understand a speaker's referential intent SO BILINGUALISM-LANGUAGE AND COGNITION LA English DT Article DE pragmatics; theory of mind; communicative cues ID SOCIOECONOMIC-STATUS; YOUNG-CHILDREN; SPEECH; WORDS; COMPREHENSION; UTTERANCES; OUTCOMES; EMOTION; ABILITY; IRONY AB In everyday communication, speakers make use of a variety of contextual and gestural cues to modulate the meaning of an utterance. Young children have difficulty in integrating multiple communicative cues when some of them have to be interpreted differently depending on other co-occurring cues. However, bilingual children, who regularly experience communicative challenges that demand greater attention and flexibility, may be more adept in integrating multiple cues to understand a speaker's communicative intent. We replicated Nurmsoo and Bloom's (2008) procedure with three-year-old monolingual and bilingual children using a procedure in which they saw two novel objects while the experimenter could see only one. The experimenter looked at the object she could see and said either "There's the [novel-word!]" or "Where's the [novel-word]?". Compared to monolinguals, bilingual preschoolers were better able to integrate the semantics of "where", perceptual access of the experimenter, and the nonlinguistic context of the game to successfully differentiate the speaker's communicative intent. C1 [Yow, W. Quin] Singapore Univ Technol & Design, Singapore 138682, Singapore. [Markman, Ellen M.] Stanford Univ, Stanford, CA 94305 USA. RP Yow, WQ (reprint author), Singapore Univ Technol & Design, Humanities Arts & Social Sci, 20 Dover Dr, Singapore 138682, Singapore. EM quin@sutd.edu.sg FU Tan Kah Kee Postgraduate Scholarship FX We are grateful to the children and parents who participated and to the teachers and staff of Bing Nursery School. We thank Adrienne Sussman, Suejung Shin, and Hannah Jaycox for their help in this study. Portions of this work were previously presented at the Society for Research in Child Development in Denver (March 2009) and the Cognitive Development Society Conference in San Antonio (October 2009). This work was partially supported by the Tan Kah Kee Postgraduate Scholarship to the first author. We are also grateful to the reviewers for their comments and suggestions. CR Ackerman B., 1986, CHILD DEV, V57, P458 ACKERMAN BP, 1982, CHILD DEV, V53, P1075 Andrade S. D., 2005, REV SAUDE PUBL, V39, P1 ARCHER D, 1977, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V35, P443, DOI 10.1037//0022-3514.35.6.443 BALDWIN DA, 1993, DEV PSYCHOL, V29, P832, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.29.5.832 BARON RM, 1986, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V51, P1173, DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Behne T, 2005, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V8, P492, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00440.x Ben-Zeev S., 1977, WORKING PAPERS BILIN, V14, P83 Bialystok E, 2009, BILING-LANG COGN, V12, P3, DOI 10.1017/S1366728908003477 Bloom P, 1997, TRENDS COGN SCI, V1, P9, DOI 10.1016/S1364-6613(97)01006-1 Buck GM, 2000, PAEDIATR PERINAT EP, V14, P324, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-3016.2000.00276.x Burleson B. R., 2006, EXPLAINING COMMUNICA, P113 Carlson SM, 2008, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V11, P282, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00675.x Chen M. J., 1994, B HONG KONG PSYCHOL, V32, P34 Clark H. H., 1996, USING LANGUAGE CLARK HH, 1984, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V113, P121, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 Comeau L., 2003, INT J BILINGUAL, V7, P113, DOI [10.1177/13670069030070020101, DOI 10.1177/13670069030070020101] Cummins J., 1978, CHILD DEV, V49, P479, DOI 10.2307/1128769 Cutler Anne, 1974, 10 REG M CHIC LING S, P117 DEGROOT A, 1995, METAPHOR SYMB ACT, V10, P255, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms1004_2 Diesendruck G, 2006, CHILD DEV, V77, P16, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00853.x Dunn L. M., 2007, PEABODY PICTURE VOCA Echols C., 2004, WEAVING LEXICON, P41 Echols C. H., 1998, INT C INF STUD ATL G FERNALD A, 1993, CHILD DEV, V64, P657, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02934.x Freire A., 2002, DEV PSYCHOL, V40, P1093 Furth SL, 2000, PEDIATRICS, V106, P756, DOI 10.1542/peds.106.4.756 GENESEE F, 1975, CHILD DEV, V46, P1010 Genesee F., 2010, YOUNG ENGLISH LANGUA, P59 Genesee F, 1996, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V17, P427, DOI 10.1017/S0142716400008183 Genessee F, 1995, J CHILD LANG, V22, P611 GERSTADT CL, 1994, COGNITION, V53, P129, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90068-X GOODZ NS, 1989, INF MENTAL HLTH J, V10, P25, DOI 10.1002/1097-0355(198921)10:1<25::AID-IMHJ2280100104>3.0.CO;2-R Hackman DA, 2009, TRENDS COGN SCI, V13, P65, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.003 Hancock JT, 2000, J COGN DEV, V1, P227, DOI 10.1207/S15327647JCD010204 Hoff E, 2003, CHILD DEV, V74, P1368, DOI 10.1111/1467-8624.00612 Hoff E, 2002, CHILD DEV, V73, P418, DOI 10.1111/1467-8624.00415 Jaswal VK, 2006, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V9, P158, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00475.x Kreuz Roger J., 1996, METAPHOR IMPLICATION, P23 Li P, 1996, J MEM LANG, V35, P757, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1996.0039 Martin-Rhee MM, 2008, BILING-LANG COGN, V11, P81, DOI 10.1017/S1366728907003227 Milosky LM, 1997, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V23, P47 MOORE C, 1993, J CHILD LANG, V20, P153 Morton JB, 2001, CHILD DEV, V72, P834, DOI 10.1111/1467-8624.00318 NAIGLES L, 1990, J CHILD LANG, V17, P357 Nicoladis E, 1996, PROC ANN BUCLD, P518 Nurmsoo E, 2008, PSYCHOL SCI, V19, P211, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02069.x Adelina A., 2003, LINGUISTICS ED, V1, P879, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0898-5898(03)00033-0 Pexman PA, 2005, FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION: SOCIAL AND CULTURAL INFLUENCES, P209 Poplack S., 2000, BILINGUALISM READER, P205 Poulin-Dubois D, 2011, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V108, P567, DOI 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.10.009 Povinelli D. J., 1997, COGNITIVE DEV, V12, P423, DOI [10.1016/S0885-2014(97)90017-4, DOI 10.1016/S0885-2014(97)90017-4] Rathore SS, 2006, AM HEART J, V152, P371, DOI 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.12.002 Siegal M, 2009, COGNITION, V110, P115, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.002 Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Vinden PG, 1996, CHILD DEV, V67, P1707, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01822.x Ward MM, 2008, AM J KIDNEY DIS, V51, P563, DOI 10.1053/j.ajkd.2007.11.023 Wechsler D, 1997, WECHSLER ADULT INTEL Westenberg PM, 1999, J AM ACAD CHILD PSY, V38, P1000, DOI 10.1097/00004583-199908000-00016 Yow WQ, 2011, J COGN DEV, V12, P12, DOI 10.1080/15248372.2011.539524 Yow WQ, 2011, BILING-LANG COGN, V14, P562, DOI 10.1017/S1366728910000404 NR 61 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 5 U2 15 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI NEW YORK PA 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY 10013-2473 USA SN 1366-7289 EI 1469-1841 J9 BILING-LANG COGN JI Biling.-Lang. Cogn. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 18 IS 3 BP 391 EP 399 DI 10.1017/S1366728914000133 PG 9 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CJ8LT UT WOS:000355753200003 ER PT J AU Tryzna, MM AF Tryzna, Marta Maria TI Acquisition of object clitics in child Polish: Evidence for three developmental stages SO LINGUA LA English DT Article; Proceedings Paper CT CYCL1A Workshop on the Acquisition of Clitics CY MAY 25-26, 2012 CL Nicosia, CYPRUS DE Object clitic acquisition; L1 acquisition; Developmental stages; Clitic omission; Clitic comprehension ID UNIQUE CHECKING CONSTRAINT AB Cross linguistic variation in L1 clitic acquisition is limited and well-governed, and has been attributed to an underlying syntactic mechanism, such as the Unique Checking Constraint (UCC) in connection with clitic-past participle agreement (Wexler et al., 2003), or a pragmatic constraint, such as Failed Referentiality (Schaeffer, 2000). The present study seeks to validate the claims following from the above theories by looking at the clitic acquisition facts in child Polish in two experiments: clitic production and clitic comprehension. The paper argues that claims following from the two acquisition theories are not supported by Polish L1 data due to an initially high clitic omission rate (60%) and the evidence of early clitic comprehension which precedes clitic production. By comparing clitic production and clitic comprehension results, three developmental stages are identified. A maturational account is adopted attributing non-adult-like structures in child grammar to a discourse-linking mechanism (Borer and Rohrbacher, 2002). (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Tryzna, Marta Maria] Gulf Univ Sci & Technol, Kuwait, Kuwait. RP Tryzna, MM (reprint author), Dept English, W1-149 West Concourse, West Mishref, Kuwait. EM Tryzna.m@gust.edu.kw CR Belletti A., 2000, HDB SYNTACTIC THEORY Borer Hagit, 2002, LANG ACQUIS, V10, P123, DOI 10.1207/S15327817LA1002_02 Borer H., 1997, P 23 BOST U C LANG D Chomsky Noam, 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM, P219 Costa J., 2007, ROMANCE LANGUAGES LI, P59 Costa J, 2009, PROBUS, V21, P143, DOI 10.1515/prbs.2009.005 Thornton Rosalind, 2000, INVESTIGATIONS UNIVE Franks Steven, 2000, HDB SLAVIC CLITICS Gueron J., 1989, CONSTITUENT STRUCTUR, P35 Hoekstra T, 1998, LINGUA, V106, P81, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00030-8 Hoekstra T., 1995, P W COAST C FORM LIN Ivanov I, 2008, PROC ANN BUCLD, P189 Kowaluk A., 2001, THESIS CAMBRIDGE UK Mykhaylyk R., 2013, SESS GALA SEPT 3 201 Neokleous T., 2013, THESIS U CAMBRIDGE Radeva-Bork T., 2012, SINGLE DOUBLE CLITIC Raposo Eduardo, 1986, STUDIES ROMANCE LING, P373 Schaeffer J., 2000, ACQUISTION DIRECT OB Sportiche D, 1996, PHRASE STRUCTURE LEX Tryzna M., 2006, P 31 BOST U C LANG D Tsakali V., 2004, P GALA 2003, VII, P493 Tsakali V., 2014, DEV ACQUSITION CLITI Wexler K., 1998, C SLI PAR UN CHECK C Wexler K, 1998, LINGUA, V106, P23, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00029-1 Wexler K., 2003, ROMANCE LANGUAGES LI Witkos Jacek, 1998, SYNTAX CLITICS STEPS NR 26 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0024-3841 EI 1872-6135 J9 LINGUA JI Lingua PD JUL PY 2015 VL 161 SI SI BP 67 EP 81 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.10.009 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CK4PP UT WOS:000356206000005 ER PT J AU Brunetto, V AF Brunetto, Valentina TI The Pronoun Interpretation Problem in romance complex predicates SO LINGUA LA English DT Article; Proceedings Paper CT CYCL1A Workshop on the Acquisition of Clitics CY MAY 25-26, 2012 CL Nicosia, CYPRUS DE Clitic climbing; Binding; Coreference; Romance causatives; Language acquisition ID PRINCIPLE-B; BINDING; COREFERENCE; DELAY AB This article argues that the Pronoun Interpretation Problem in child Romance is limited to syntactic constructions in which clitics are not interpreted as bound variables. Reporting experimental data from an Act Out task administered to Italian children aged 3-6, it is shown that not only Exceptional Case Marking but also causative Faire Par constructions trigger PIP. Based on the syntactic properties of the embedded vPs in these two constructions, I argue that coreference is an option for clitic pronouns in these complex predicates. I propose that the cross-linguistic distribution of the phenomenon in light of these findings supports a unitary pragmatic account of the PIP as evidence for the modularity of binding and coreference. The account defended in this paper holds that children's early difficulty with local coreference resides in the syntax/pragmatic interface, involving mastery of a scalar opposition between pronouns and reflexives which interfaces with the syntactic knowledge of the local domain. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Brunetto, Valentina] Univ Leeds, Sch Modern Languages & Cultures, Leeds LS2 9JT, W Yorkshire, England. RP Brunetto, V (reprint author), 6 Thornville Pl, Leeds LS6 1JW, W Yorkshire, England. EM vale_b85@hotmail.it CR Avrutin Sergey, 2006, BROCAS REGION, P49, DOI DOI 10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780195177640.001.0001 AVRUTIN S, 1994, LINGUIST INQ, V25, P709 Avrutin Sergey, 1992, LANG ACQUIS, V2, P259, DOI 10.1207/s15327817la0204_2 AVRUTIN S, 1994, LINGUIST INQ, V25, P165 Baauw S., 1999, UIL OTS YB 1998 1999 Baauw S., 2000, THESIS UTRECHT U UTR Baauw S., 1997, GALA 1997, P16 Baauw S., 2003, LANG ACQUIS, V11, P219, DOI 10.1207/s15327817la1104_2 Baauw S., 2011, PRODUCTION COMPREHEN Badecker W, 2002, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V28, P748, DOI 10.1037//0278-7393.28.4.748 Belletti Adriana, 1999, CLITICS LANGUAGES EU, P543 Borer H., 1987, PARAMETER SETTING, P23 Boster C., 1991, THESIS U CONNECTICUT Burzio Luigi, 1986, ITALIAN SYNTAX Wexler Kenneth, 1990, LANG ACQUIS, V1, P225, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327817LA0103_2 Chierchia G., 1989, LANGUAGE IN CONTEXT Chomsky Noam, 1981, LECT GOVT BINDING Chomsky N., 1986, BARRIERS Chomsky Noam, 2001, K HALE LIFE LANGUAGE, P1 Chomsky N, 2008, CURR STUD LINGUIST, P133 Conroy A, 2009, LINGUIST INQ, V40, P446, DOI 10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.446 Crain Stephen, 1998, INVESTIGATIONS UNIVE Delfitto D., 2002, CATALAN J LINGUIST, V1, P41 Di Sciullo AM, 2008, LANG SPEECH, V51, P77 Elbourne P, 2005, LINGUIST INQ, V36, P333, DOI 10.1162/0024389054396908 Folli R, 2007, LINGUIST INQ, V38, P197, DOI 10.1162/ling.2007.38.2.197 Fox D., 2000, SCOPE SEMANTIC INTER Fox D, 1998, LINGUIST INQ, V29, P311, DOI 10.1162/002438998553761 Gallego AJ, 2009, PROBUS, V21, P163, DOI 10.1515/prbs.2009.006 GRODZINSKY Y, 1993, LINGUIST INQ, V24, P69 Guasti M. T., 2005, BLACKWELL COMPANION, P142 Guasti MT, 2005, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V20, P667, DOI 10.1080/01690960444000250 Hamann C., 2009, 2 NWLK N W LING C BR Hamann C., 2002, SYNTAX DISCOURSE Hamann C., 1997, BUCLD P 21 SOM MA, P205 Hamann C, 2011, STUD THEOR PSYCHOLIN, V41, P247, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1688-9_7 Hartman J., 2012, GEN APPR LANG ACQ N Heim I., 1998, SEMANTICS GENERATIVE HEIM IRENE, 1998, MIT WORKING PAPERS L, V25, P205 HESTVIK A, 1992, LINGUIST INQ, V23, P557 Hestvik A., 1999, LANG ACQUIS, V8, P171 Hicks G, 2009, LINGUISTIK AKTUELL Horn L.R., 1984, MEANING FORM USE CON, P11 Jakubowicz C., 1989, KNOWL LANG GRON MAY Kayne Richard S., 1975, FRENCH SYNTAX Kennison SM, 2003, J MEM LANG, V49, P335, DOI 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00071-8 Lasnik H., 2005, COURSE MINIMALIST SY Levinson S., 1985, INT PRAGM C VIAR IT Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS McGinnis M., 1999, MIT WORKING PAPERS L, P137 McKee C., 1992, LANG ACQUIS, V2, P21, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327817LA0201_2 Padilla J. A., 1990, DIFINITION BINDING D Philip W, 1996, PROC ANN BUCLD, P576 Pica P., 1997, PROJECTIONS INTERFAC Reinhart T., 1988, COGN C TEXT CONT JUL REINHART T, 1983, LINGUIST PHILOS, V6, P47, DOI 10.1007/BF00868090 Reinhart T, 2006, LINGUIST INQ MONOGR, V45, P1 REINHART T, 1993, LINGUIST INQ, V24, P657 Reuland E, 2001, LINGUIST INQ, V32, P439, DOI 10.1162/002438901750372522 Roberts Ian, 2010, AGREEMENT HEAD MOVEM Ruigendijk E., 2008, P GALA 2007, P370 Sigurjonsdottir S., 1992, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Terzi A., 2002, NELS, V32, P519 Thornton R., 1990, THESIS U CONNECTICUT Thornton R., 1999, PRINCIPLE B VP ELLIP van Koert M.J.H., 2014, LINGUA Verbuk A, 2010, LANG ACQUIS, V17, P51, DOI 10.1080/10489221003620987 Vikner S., 1985, WORKING PAPERS SCAND, V23 Wexler K., 2004, MIT WORKING PAPERS L, P159 Wexler K, 1998, LINGUA, V106, P23, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00029-1 Wexler Kenneth, 1985, PAPERS REPORTS CHILD, V24, P138 Wurmbrand S, 2004, LINGUA, V114, P991, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00102-5 NR 72 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0024-3841 EI 1872-6135 J9 LINGUA JI Lingua PD JUL PY 2015 VL 161 SI SI BP 82 EP 100 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.09.001 PG 19 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CK4PP UT WOS:000356206000006 ER PT J AU Weiser, ME AF Weiser, M. Elizabeth TI National Identity Within the National Museum: Subjectification Within Socialization SO STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY AND EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE Kenneth Burke; Rhetoric; Museums; National identity; Epistemology; Subjectification ID RHETORIC-OF-MOTIVES; EDUCATION AB Rhetorician Kenneth Burke's theory of identification usefully demonstrates how (and where) communities are able to engage with difficult, opposing viewpoints as they develop or maintain a sense of shared identity. Identification, "establishing a shared sense of values, attitudes, and interests with [an audience]," is promoted dialogically in the modern national museum in a way that it is difficult for classrooms to emulate. This article examines dialogic national identification particularly through the focus in museums on certain key objects that serve as what Burke termed "mythic images" that ambiguously unify multiple perspectives and translate their debates from the abstract to the concrete. By promoting the reflective identification of one's personal memories with the collective memory of nationhood, national museums provide an aesthetic/pragmatic space for the dialogical embrace of a public identity that is not merely reflected in its exhibits but also continually reshaped by its visiting individuals. I end with the possibilities, or cautions, these mythic images suggest for varying types of communal identification-a tension inherent as well in Gert Biesta's arguments for the meaning of a "good" education. C1 Ohio State Univ, Dept English, Newark, OH 43055 USA. RP Weiser, ME (reprint author), Ohio State Univ, Dept English, 1179 Univ Dr, Newark, OH 43055 USA. EM Weiser.23@osu.edu CR Aronsson P., 2012, EUROPEAN NATL MUSEUM Biesta G, 2009, EDUC ASSESS EVAL ACC, V21, P33, DOI 10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9 Blair C., 1999, RHETORICAL BODIES, P6 Blair C., 2005, COMMUNICATIONS PERSP, P51 Bounia A., 2012, VOICES MUSEUM SURVEY BURKE Kenneth, 1945, GRAMMAR MOTIVES Burke Kenneth, 1950, RHETORIC MOTIVES Burke K., 1943, CHIMERA, V1, P37 Burke K., 1943, CHIMERA, V1, P21 Burke K., 1967, NATION 0717, P46 Clark G, 2004, RHETORICAL LANDSCAPE Crable B, 2009, RHETOR SOC Q, V39, P213, DOI 10.1080/02773940902991445 Dickinson G., 2010, PLACES PUBLIC MEMORY Fornas J, 2012, SIGNIFYING EUROPE, P1 George A., 2007, K BURKE IN THE 1930S Kastely JL, 2013, RHETORICA, V31, P172, DOI 10.1525/RH.2013.31.2.172 Keith M., 2010, TE PAPA YOUR ESSENTI Knell S., 2010, NATL MUSEUMS NEW STU, P3 Perelman C., 1991, NEW RHETORIC Rutten K, 2010, J CURRICULUM STUD, V42, P775, DOI 10.1080/00220270903494303 Smithsonian: National Museum of American History, 2013, NMAH SYMB NEW NAT Smithsonian: National Museum of American History, 2013, NMAH FLAG 60S [Anonymous], 2008, STAR SPANGL BANN NAT Weiser ME, 2009, PHILOS RHETORIC, V42, P134 Weiser M. E., 2008, BURKE WAR WORDS RHET Winter P., 2011, STUDIES PHILOS ED NR 26 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 7 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0039-3746 EI 1573-191X J9 STUD PHILOS EDUC JI Stud. Philos. Educ. PD JUL PY 2015 VL 34 IS 4 SI SI BP 385 EP 402 DI 10.1007/s11217-014-9433-4 PG 18 WC Education & Educational Research; Philosophy SC Education & Educational Research; Philosophy GA CK2OO UT WOS:000356050500005 ER PT J AU Kuo, NC AF Kuo, Nai-Cheng TI Understanding the Philosophical Foundations of Disabilities to Maximize the Potential of Response to Intervention SO EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY LA English DT Article DE disability studies; response to intervention; philosophy of disability; special education ID SPECIAL-EDUCATION; LEARNING-DISABILITY; INCLUSION; DIVIDE; SCHOOL AB In the United States and elsewhere in the world, disabilities are being studied by two different schools of thought: special education and disability studies. In the field of special education, analyses are often pragmatic and instrumental. In contrast, analyses in the field of disability studies are often historical and cultural, explaining disabilities as constructed by social value. This lack of agreement about disabilities leads us to ask: How can practitioners and researchers begin to address the issue of which students might need intensive interventions for their disabilities through the response to intervention (RTI) approach when disabilities are viewed so differently by scholars in the field? In this article I compare and contrast the philosophical foundations of disabilities in special education and disability studies and conclude that the dimensions of pragmatic, instrumental, historical, and cultural factors must be taken into account in order to achieve both the macro and micro levels of RTI implementation. C1 Georgia Regents Univ, Teacher Educ, Augusta, GA 30912 USA. RP Kuo, NC (reprint author), Georgia Regents Univ, Teacher Educ, Augusta, GA 30912 USA. CR Anastasiou D, 2011, EXCEPT CHILDREN, V77, P367 Andrews JE, 2000, REM SPEC EDUC, V21, P258, DOI 10.1177/074193250002100501 Baglieri S, 2004, J LEARN DISABIL-US, V37, P525, DOI 10.1177/00222194040370060701 Baglieri S., 2012, DISABILITY STUDIES I Baglieri S, 2011, REM SPEC EDUC, V32, P267, DOI 10.1177/0741932510362200 Brown-Chidsey R., 2011, RESPONSE INTERVENTIO, V2nd Cochran-Smith M, 2012, J TEACH EDUC, V63, P237, DOI 10.1177/0022487112446512 Connor DJ, 2007, DISABIL SOC, V22, P63, DOI 10.1080/09687590601056717 Connor DJ, 2008, INT J INCLUSIVE EDUC, V12, P441, DOI 10.1080/13603110802377482 Danforth S., 2006, VITAL QUESTIONS DISA Edwards S. D., 2009, ARGUING DISABILITY P, P30 ENGLERT CS, 1995, LEARN DISABILITY Q, V18, P253, DOI 10.2307/1511233 European Graduate School, 2001, THER IS PERS HER INT Ferri B. A., 2011, J LEARNING DISABILIT, V37, P509 Ferri B. A., 2011, REFORM REFORMULATION Ferri BA, 2005, TEACH COLL REC, V107, P453, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00483.x Ferri BA, 2012, INT J INCLUSIVE EDUC, V16, P863, DOI 10.1080/13603116.2010.538862 Fletcher JM, 2004, ANN DYSLEXIA, V54, P304, DOI 10.1007/s11881-004-0015-y Friend M., 2011, SPECIAL ED CONT PERS Fuchs D., 2007, LEARNING DISABILITIE, V22, P129, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1540-5826.2007.00237.X Fuchs D., 2006, READING RES Q, V41, P92 Harry B., 2006, WHY ARE SO MANY MINO Hollenbeck A., 2007, LEARNING DISABILITIE, V22, P86 Kalyanpur M., 1999, CULTURE SPECIAL ED B Kauffman J. M., 2006, EXCEPTIONALITY, V14, P65, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327035EX1402_2 Kauffman J. M., 2002, ED DEFORM BRIGHT PEO Kauffman J. M., 2005, SPECIAL ED WHAT IT I Kauffman JM, 1999, J SPEC EDUC, V32, P244, DOI 10.1177/002246699903200405 Kavale KA, 2005, J LEARN DISABIL-US, V38, P553, DOI 10.1177/00222194050380061201 Kermit P., 2009, ARGUING DISABILITY P, P137 National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), 2006, MYTHS RESP INT RTI I National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI), 2013, RTI STAT DAT Odom SL, 2005, EXCEPT CHILDREN, V71, P137 Okolo C. M., 2008, TECHNOLOGY EXCEPTION, P325 Peters S. J., 2004, INCLUSIVE ED ERA STR Reeve D., 2009, ARGUING DISABILITY P, P203 Reid DK, 2004, J LEARN DISABIL-US, V37, P466, DOI 10.1177/00222194040370060101 Rimland B., 1995, ILLUSION FULL INCLUS, P289 Shakespeare T., 2001, EXPLORING THEORIES E, V2, P9, DOI DOI 10.1016/S1479-3547(01)80018-X Siebers T., 2010, DISABILITY AESTHETIC Smith SJ, 2010, LEARN DISABILITY Q, V33, P257 Smith S. R., 2009, ARGUING DISABILITY P, P15 Solberg B, 2009, ARGUING DISABILITY P, P185 Taylor SJ, 2012, ACAD PROGRAMS DISABI Tomlinson CA, 2004, J LEARN DISABIL-US, V37, P516, DOI 10.1177/00222194040370060601 U. S. Department of Education, 2013, BUILD LEG IDEA 2004 Vaughn S., 2003, LEARNING DISABILITIE, V18, P137, DOI DOI 10.1111/1540-5826.00070 Vehmas S., 2009, ARGUING DISABILITY P, P1 Ware L., 2011, LEARNING DISABILITY, V34, P28 Ware L., 2010, HDB RES SOCIAL FDN E, P244 Ware L., 2010, 19 URBAN QUESTIONS T, P113 Wehmeyer ML, 2003, EDUC TRAIN DEV DISAB, V38, P131 NR 52 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 6 PU TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXON, ENGLAND SN 0013-1857 EI 1469-5812 J9 EDUC PHILOS THEORY JI Educ. Philos. Theory PD JUN 7 PY 2015 VL 47 IS 7 BP 647 EP 660 DI 10.1080/00131857.2014.905763 PG 14 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CI5EL UT WOS:000354776100002 ER PT J AU Al-Ali, MN Alliheibi, FM AF Al-Ali, Mohammed Nahar Alliheibi, Fahad M. TI STRUGGLING TO RETAIN THE FUNCTIONS OF PASSIVE WHEN TRANSLATING ENGLISH THESIS ABSTRACTS SO PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Passive voice; Pragmatic functions; Genre; Translation; Arabic; English ID RESEARCH ARTICLE ABSTRACTS; PATTERNS; SPANISH; GENRE AB The thesis abstract, as a genre has a set of communicative functions mutually-understood by established members of the academic community. A vast majority of translation studies of source language (SL) and target language (TL) equivalence seems to have overlooked the inherent relationship between form and function when translating. The purpose of this study was to find out whether the Arab students would translate the English passive structures into their corresponding Arabic passive in order to maintain the pragma-generic functions associated with these constructions or would employ other translation replacements when translating English passives into Arabic. A further purpose was to find out what grammatical factors constrain the choice of these translation options. To fulfill these purposes, we investigated the voice choice in 90 MA thesis abstracts and their 90 Arabic translated versions written in English by the same MA students, drawn from the field of Linguistics. The data analysis revealed that when the Arab student-translators come across the English passive sentence, they resort to either of the following options: Transposing English passives into verbal nouns (masdar), or into pseudo-active verbs or active sentence structures, or into vowel melody passives, or omitting these passive structures. C1 [Al-Ali, Mohammed Nahar] Jordan Univ Sci & Technol, Dept English Language & Linguist, Irbid, Jordan. [Alliheibi, Fahad M.] King Abdulaziz Univ, Arab Linguist, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. RP Al-Ali, MN (reprint author), Jordan Univ Sci & Technol, Dept English Language & Linguist, Irbid, Jordan. EM alali@just.edu.jo; fallaheebi@kau.edu.sa CR Agameya A., 2008, ENCY ARABIC LANGUAGE, V3 Al-Ali MN, 2010, PRAGMATICS, V20, P1 Al-Ali Mohammed, 2011, SKY J LINGUISTICS, V24, P7 Al-Ali MN, 2006, INT J BILING EDUC BI, V9, P119 Anderson K, 1997, EDINBURGH WORKING PA, V8, P1 Baker M., 1992, OTHER WORDS Baratta AM, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1406, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.010 Beekman John, 1974, TRANSLATING WORD GOD Bhatia Vijay K., 1993, ANAL GENRE LANGUAGE Bloor M., 1995, FUNCTIONAL ANAL ENGL Bonn S., 2007, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V6, P93 BUSCHLAUER IA, 1995, INFORM PROCESS MANAG, V31, P769, DOI 10.1016/0306-4573(95)00024-B Chomsky N., 1965, ASPECTS THEORY SYNTA Dahl T., 2004, AKAD PROSA, V2, P49 El-yasin Mohammed K., 1996, BABEL, V42, P18, DOI DOI 10.1075/BABEL.42.1.03ELY Farghal Mohammed, 1996, TARGET, V8, P97, DOI 10.1075/target.8.1.06far Givon T., 1994, VOICE INVERSION, P3 Graetz N, 1985, READING PROFESSIONAL, P123 Hanania E. A. S., 1985, ESP J, V4, P49, DOI [10.1016/0272-2380(85)90006-X, DOI 10.1016/0272-2380(85)90006-X] Hyland K., 2000, DISCIPLINARY DISCOUR Jordan R. R., 1997, ENGLISH ACAD PURPOSE Karoly A, 2012, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V31, P36, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2011.05.005 Keenan E. L., 1985, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SY, V1, P325 Khalill Aziz, 1993, PAPERS STUDIES CONTR, V27, P169 Khalill Aziz, 1999, CONTRASTIVE GRAMMAR Khfaji Rasoul, 1996, PAPERS STUDIES CONTR, V31, P19 KRESS G, 1989, J PRAGMATICS, V13, P445, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(89)90065-9 Lackstrom J., 1973, TESOL Q, V7, P127, DOI 10.2307/3585556 Lin J., 2006, P HLT NAACL 2006 WOR, P65 Lores R, 2004, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V23, P280, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2003.06.001 Martin PM, 2003, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V22, P25, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00033-3 Martin-Martin P, 2004, TEXT, V24, P171, DOI 10.1515/text.2004.007 Matthews R., 2000, SUCCESSFUL SCI WRITI Melander B., 1997, CULTURE STYLES ACAD, P251 Mihailovic L., 1967, ENGL STUD, V48, P316, DOI 10.1080/00138386708597279 Mouakket Ahmed, 1986, THESIS GEORGETOWN U Najjar H., 1990, THESIS U MICHIGAN AN Paltridge B, 2002, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V21, P125, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00025-9 Perales-Escudero M, 2011, IBERICA, P49 Pho PD, 2008, DISCOURSE STUD, V10, P231, DOI 10.1177/1461445607087010 Radford Andrew, 1981, TRANSFORMATIONAL SYN Rosenhouse J., 1988, BABEL, V34, P90, DOI 10.1075/babel.34.2.04ros Salager-Meyer F., 1992, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V11, P93, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(05)80002-X Salager-Meyer F., 1990, TEXT, V10, P365, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1990.10.4.365 Santos M. B., 1996, TEXT, V16, P481 Schramm Andreas, 1996, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V15, P141, DOI 10.1016/0889-4906(95)00017-8 Swales J., 1990, GENRE ANAL ENGLISH A Tarone E., 1981, ESP J, V1/2, P123, DOI 10.1016/0272-2380(81)90004-4 Van Dijk T. A, 1980, MACROSTRUCTURES Weissberg R., 1990, WRITING UP RES NR 50 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 7 PU INT PRAGMATICS ASSOC- IPRA PI ANTWERP PA UNIV ANTWERP, STADSCAMPUS (S D 222)PRINSSTRAAT 13, ANTWERP, B-2000, BELGIUM SN 1018-2101 J9 PRAGMATICS JI Pragmatics PD JUN PY 2015 VL 25 IS 2 BP 129 EP 148 PG 20 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DF0IM UT WOS:000371022400001 ER PT J AU Hirsch, G AF Hirsch, Galia TI WHOSE SIDE ARE WE ON? VIEWERS' REACTIONS TO THE USE OF IRONY IN NEWS INTERVIEWS SO PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Media; Political news interviews; Irony; Hostility ID POLITICAL INTERVIEWS; PRETENSE THEORY; VERBAL IRONY; DISCOURSE; HUMOR; JOURNALISM; SPEECH; MEDIA; MODEL; TEXT AB This research seeks to identify and analyze the reaction to irony in Israeli political news interviews, in view of the specific nature of this genre, which has been known to allow a certain level of adversarialness (Liebes et al. 2008; Blum-Kulka 1983; Weizman 2008; Clayman & Heritage 2002a and 2002b). Our intention was to examine whether the audience regards the use of irony as over-aggressive, and whether they believe interviewees regard it as such, in order to shed light on the potential consequences the use of indirect discourse patterns has for the interviewer. Based on Goffman's (1981) notion of footing, and on the concept of positioning as defined by Weizman (2008: 16), we focused on the audience's capacity to grasp the positioning and repositioning in the interaction as a possible influential factor in their reaction to the employment of irony. The research is based on two conceptual paradigms: Media studies and pragmatic studies of irony. The findings indicate that Israeli audiences tend to regard interviewers' employment of irony in political interviews as slightly hostile, and as such it is viewed as a possible threat to interviewees' face (Goffman 1967), but also as a legitimate and comprehensible tool, especially when the irony is accompanied by humor or mitigating non-verbal signs. Hence, the risk for the interviewer is not as great as we assumed. Accordingly, viewers also tended to judge interviewees' conception of the employment of irony as only slightly adversarial, perhaps because they have assumed the interviewees' attitude towards the interaction, identified with them and chosen their side. C1 [Hirsch, Galia] Bar Ilan Univ, Dept Translat & Interpreting Studies, IL-52900 Ramat Gan, Israel. RP Hirsch, G (reprint author), Bar Ilan Univ, Dept Translat & Interpreting Studies, IL-52900 Ramat Gan, Israel. EM galiahirsch@gmail.com CR Alexander J. Richard, 1997, ASPECTS VERBAL HUMOU Attardo S, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P793, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3 Attardo S, 1997, HUMOR, V10, P395, DOI 10.1515/humr.1997.10.4.395 Attardo S., 1994, LINGUISTIC THEORIES Bavelas J., 1990, EQUIVOCAL COMMUNICAT Blum-Kulka S, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1569, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00076-0 Blum-Kulka S., 2004, ROSS PRIOR BROAD TAL Blum-Kulka S., 2003, MISUNDERSTANDING SOC, P107 Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 2002, SCRIPT, V3, P75 Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 1983, TEXT, V3, P131, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1983.3.2.131 Blum-Kulka S., 1997, DISCOURSE SOCIAL INT, P38 Blum-Kulka S., 2003, LAMED LE ILASH Blum-Kulka Shoshana, 2005, SOCIOLINGUISTICS NAR, P149, DOI 10.1075/sin.6.08blu Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Bull P, 1996, BRIT J SOC PSYCHOL, V35, P267 Burton Deirdre, 1980, DIALOGUE DISCOURSE CLARK HH, 1984, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V113, P121, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 Clayman S, 2002, NEWS INTERVIEW JOURN Clayman SE, 2002, J COMMUN, V52, P749, DOI 10.1093/joc/52.4.749 Clift R, 1999, LANG SOC, V28, P523 Colston L. Herbert, 2000, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V19, P46 Colston L. Herbert, 1997, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V23, P25 Colston L. Herbert, 2000, PRAGMAT COGN, V8, P277 Dascal M., 1987, PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIV, P31, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBCS.5.08DAS DEWS S, 1995, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V19, P347 ETTEMA JS, 1994, J COMMUN, V44, P5, DOI 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1994.tb00674.x Fetzer A, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P143, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.014 Garmendia J, 2010, PRAGMAT COGN, V18, P397, DOI 10.1075/pc.18.2.07gar Gibbs Jr W. Raymond, 1986, J EXPT PSYCHOL GEN, V115, P3 Gibbs Jr W. Raymond, 1984, COGNITIVE SCI, V8, P275 GIORA R, 1995, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V19, P239 GLASS TL, 1993, CRIT STUD MASS COMM, V10, P322 Goffman E, 1981, FORMS TALK Goffman E., 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL E Goffman E., 1974, FRAME ANAL Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Grice H. Paul, 1978, PRAGMATICS, V9, P113 Hamo M, 2010, MEDIA CULT SOC, V32, P247, DOI 10.1177/016344709355609 HAVERKATE H, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P77, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90065-L Hirsch G, 2011, LANG SCI, V33, P316, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.11.002 Hirsch G, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V70, P31, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.002 Hirsch G, 2011, TARGET-NETH, V23, P178, DOI 10.1075/target.23.2.03hir Hirsch G, 2011, PRAGMAT COGN, V19, P530, DOI 10.1075/pc.19.3.07hir Hymes Dell, 1989, DIRECTIONS IN SOCIOL, P35 JEFFERS J, 1995, J NARRATIVE TECH, V25, P47 Jorgensen J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V26, P613, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00067-4 Jucker H Andreas, 1986, NEWS INTERVIEWS PRAG Kampf Z, 2011, DIS APPL POL SOC CUL, V42, P177 Kampf Z, 2013, JOURNALISM, V14, P522, DOI 10.1177/1464884912448902 Kotthoff Helga, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1387 Kroon L. A., 2010, JOURNALISM STUD, V11, P20 KUMONNAKAMURA S, 1995, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V124, P3, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.3 Labov W, 1977, THERAPEUTIC DISCOURS Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Liebes T, 2008, POLIT COMMUN, V25, P311, DOI 10.1080/10584600802197590 Montgomery Martin, 2007, DISCOURSE BROADCST N Norrick R. Neil, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V22, P409 Oring Ervin, 1989, HUMOR INT J HUMOR RE, V2, P349, DOI 10.1515/humr.1989.2.4.349 Raskin V., 1985, SEMANTIC MECH HUMOR Raskin Victor, 1994, PRAGMAT COGN, V2, P31, DOI DOI 10.1075/PC.2.1.02RAS Reich Zvi, 2011, PARTICIPATORY JOURNA Scannell Paddy, 1991, BROADCAST TALK Sperber Dan, 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P295 Vaisman C. L., 2011, HEBREW ONLINE WEIZMAN E, 1991, J LITERARY SEMANTICS, V20, P18, DOI 10.1515/jlse.1991.20.1.18 Weizman E., 2005, DIALOGUE ANAL, P61 Weizman E, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P154, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.018 Weizman Elda, 2003, DIALOGUE ANAL, P384 Weizman E, 2008, DIALOGUE STUD, V3, P1 Weizman E, 2001, AMST STUD THEORY HIS, V214, P125 Weizman Elda, 2013, ENCY HEBREW LANGUAGE, V2, P825 WILSON D, 1992, LINGUA, V87, P53, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(92)90025-E Wilson D, 2006, LINGUA, V116, P1722, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001 NR 74 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU INT PRAGMATICS ASSOC- IPRA PI ANTWERP PA UNIV ANTWERP, STADSCAMPUS (S D 222)PRINSSTRAAT 13, ANTWERP, B-2000, BELGIUM SN 1018-2101 J9 PRAGMATICS JI Pragmatics PD JUN PY 2015 VL 25 IS 2 BP 149 EP 178 PG 30 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DF0IM UT WOS:000371022400002 ER PT J AU Nilep, C AF Nilep, Chad TI IDEOLOGIES OF LANGUAGE AT HIPPO FAMILY CLUB SO PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Language ideologies; Second language acquisition; Japan; Education AB Ethnographic study of Hippo Family Club, a foreign language learning club in Japan with chapters elsewhere, reveals a critique of foreign language teaching in Japanese schools and in the commercial English conversation industry. Club members contrast their own learning methods, which they view as "natural language acquisition", with the formal study of grammar, which they see as uninteresting and ineffective. Rather than evaluating either the Hippo approach to learning or the teaching methods they criticize, however, this paper considers the ways of thinking about language that club members come to share. Members view the club as a transnational organization that transcends the boundaries of the nation-state. Language learning connects the club members to a cosmopolitan world beyond the club, even before they interact with speakers of the languages they are learning. The analysis of club members' ideologies of language and language learning illuminates not only the pragmatics of language use, but practices and outcomes of socialization and shared social structures. C1 [Nilep, Chad] Nagoya Univ, Inst Liberal Arts & Sci, Chikusa Ku, Furo Cho, Nagoya, Aichi 4648601, Japan. RP Nilep, C (reprint author), Nagoya Univ, Inst Liberal Arts & Sci, Chikusa Ku, Furo Cho, Nagoya, Aichi 4648601, Japan. EM nilep@ilas.nagoya-u.ac.jp RI Nilep, Chad/A-6447-2014 OI Nilep, Chad/0000-0001-9310-2265 CR BOURDIEU P, 1977, SOC SCI INFORM, V16, P645, DOI 10.1177/053901847701600601 Bucholtz M, 2012, ANTHROPOL EDUC QUART, V43, P157, DOI 10.1111/j.1548-1492.2012.01167.x Bull D, 1996, JPN QUART, V43, P67 Butler Y. G., 2005, LANGUAGE POLICY, V4, P25, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10993-004-6563-5 Chomsky Noam, 1972, LANGUAGE MIND Davis CP, 2012, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V22, pE61, DOI 10.1111/j.1548-1395.2012.01148.x Doi T., 1973, ANATOMY DEPENDENCE Downes S., 2001, INT J BILING EDUC BI, V4, P165, DOI [10.1080/13670050108667726, DOI 10.1080/13670050108667726] Ellis R., 2002, NEW PERSPECTIVES GRA, P17 Gottlieb N., 2005, LANGUAGE SOC JAPAN Gudykunst W. B., 1994, BRIDGING JAPANESE N Omaggio Hadley A, 2001, TEACHING LANGUAGE CO Heath Shirley Brice, 1977, BILINGUAL ED CURRENT, P53 HILL JH, 1985, AM ETHNOL, V12, P725, DOI 10.1525/ae.1985.12.4.02a00080 Hippo Family Club, 1997, AN CAN SPEAK 7 LANG Hippo Family Club, 1985, HIPP GOES OV Hymes Dell, 2001, LINGUISTIC ANTHR REA, P53 Inoue M, 2006, ASIA-LOCAL STUD GLOB, V11, P1 Irvine Judith T., 2000, REGIMES LANGUAGE IDE, P35 Krashen S. D., 1982, PRINCIPLES PRACTICE Lenneberg Eric H., 2004, 1 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P103 LEX Institute, 2007, SPEAK 7 LANG ITS NAT Lincicome M. E., 2009, IMPERIAL SUBJECTS GL Maher John C., 2001, STUDIES JAPANESE BIL, pvii McVeigh B, 1998, ANTHROPOL QUART, V71, P125, DOI 10.2307/3318082 Miller RA, 1982, JAPANS MODERN MYTH L Nakane Chie, 1970, JAPANESE SOC [Anonymous], 1984, CULTURE THEORY ESSAY Piller I., 2006, BILINGUAL MINDS EMOT, P59 Seargeant Philip, 2006, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V15, P326 Silverstein Michael, 1979, ELEMENTS PARASESSION, P193 Sugimoto Y., 1999, THESIS 11, V57, P81, DOI 10.1177/0725513699057000007 Tomaselo Michael, 2003, CONSTRUCTING LANGUAG Woolard Kathryn, 1998, LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES Yamada Haru, 1997, DIFFERNT GAMES DIFFE NR 35 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 2 PU INT PRAGMATICS ASSOC- IPRA PI ANTWERP PA UNIV ANTWERP, STADSCAMPUS (S D 222)PRINSSTRAAT 13, ANTWERP, B-2000, BELGIUM SN 1018-2101 J9 PRAGMATICS JI Pragmatics PD JUN PY 2015 VL 25 IS 2 BP 205 EP 227 PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DF0IM UT WOS:000371022400004 ER PT J AU Chew, TM AF Chew, Teo Ming TI HOW LANGUAGE USE SHAPES MEANING: A CASE STUDY OF SINGAPORE SOUTHERN MIN LOANWORD BALU SO JOURNAL OF CHINESE LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE Language Contact; Lexical Borrowing; Language Use; Semantic Change; Semantic Field AB In contact linguistics, an overlooked area that has immense research potential is regular semantic change exhibited by loanwords. Due to the relatively shorter histories of contact languages as compared to 'normal' languages, semantic changes in contact languages are far better understood, thereby presenting us with case studies of polysemous words where contact-induced change and regular semantic change can be better demarcated. Studying such phenomena will thus shed light on the cognitive processes behind semantic change. This paper looks at how language use shapes the semantic pathway of Singapore Southern Min loanword balu and suggests that the findings in this paper can be applied cross-linguistically to other cases of regular semantic change.(1) Singapore Colloquial Malay adverb baru 'recently' was borrowed into Singapore Southern MM as balu 'recently'. Although Southern Min balu and Malay baru both share a common function, they exhibit disparate semantic pathways. Data gathered shows that loanword balu 'recently' has no tendency to develop a conjunctive function similar to that of Singapore Colloquial Malay and baru 'recently' has no tendency to develop another adverbial function like that of balu 'recently' in Singapore Southern Min. Initial findings of this paper suggest that the contrasting semantic pathways for Southern MM balu 'recently' and Malay baru 'recently' are due to differences in semantic fields a particular word is most strongly associated. Nevertheless, the overarching mechanism behind both semantic changes is still pragmatic inferencing, or in other words, a reanalysis of contextually ambiguous sentences. C1 Stanford Univ, Dept East Asian Languages & Cultures, Stanford, CA 94305 USA. RP Chew, TM (reprint author), Stanford Univ, Dept East Asian Languages & Cultures, 521 Mem Way,Knight Bldg, Stanford, CA 94305 USA. EM mcteo@stanford.edu CR Goldberg Adele E, 2006, CONSTRUCTIONS WORK N Aitchison J., 1987, WORDS MIND INTRO MEN Ansaldo Umberto, 2009, CONTACT LANGUAGES EC AYE Khin Khin, 2006, THESIS NATL U SINGAP BACKUS Ad, 2010, WORKING PAPERS CORPU, V5, P225 Changji, 2002, XINJIAPO MINNAH HUA Chew PGL, 2013, SOCIOLINGUISTIC HISTORY OF EARLY IDENTITIES IN SINGAPORE: FROM COLONIALISM TO NATIONALISM, P1 CIESLICKA-RATAJCZAK Anna, 1995, STUDIA ANGLICA POSNA, V29, P105 David CRYSTAL, 1995, ENGL TODAY, V11, P8 Diewald G., 2002, TYPOLOGICAL STUDIES, V49, P103 Eckert P, 2008, J SOCIOLING, V12, P453, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x Ellis N. C, 2002, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V24, P143, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263102002024 Ellis NC, 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P370 EVANS V, 2009, NEW DIRECTIONS COGNI, V24, P27, DOI DOI 10.1075/HCP.24.06EVA GAO Shunquan, 2012, DUOYI FUCI DE YUFAHU Francois Grosjean, 2001, ONE MIND 2 LANGUAGES, P1 Heine Bernd, 2002, TYPOLOGICAL STUDIES, V49, P83, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.49.08HEI Contact, 2010, HDB LANGUAGE CONTACT, P170 Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION HU Jiangnag, 2007, SHIJIE HANYU JIAOXUE, V1, P72 Bybee Joan L., 2010, LANGUAGE USAGE COGNI Kiss KE, 1998, LANGUAGE, V74, P245, DOI 10.2307/417867 YANG Kui Y, 1976, KAMUS DEWASA BAHASA LEE Mae-En Gwyneth Adele, 1999, DESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR Leonard Bloomfield, 1933, LANGUAGE LIM Lisa, 2007, WORLD ENGLISH, V16, P446 Matras Yaron, 2009, LANGUAGE CONTACT BAI Meili, 1987, ZHONGGUO YUWEN, V5, P390 MOLINA Clara, 2012, INT J ENGLISH STUDIE, V12, P17 ELLIS Nick C, 2006, APPL LINGUIST, V27, P1 SHAO Jingmin, 1997, HANYU XUEXI, V3, P3 Thomason Sarah G., 1988, LANGUAGE CONTACT CRE Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2012, ENGLISH CORPUS LINGU, V76, P221 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2010, GRADIENCE GRADUALNES, P19, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.90.04TRA Vyvyan Evans, 2009, WORDS MEAN LEXICAL C EVANS Vyvyan, 2005, J LINGUIST, V41, P33 Weinreich U., 1953, LANGUAGES CONTACT FI Winford D., 2003, INTRO CONTACT LINGUI YANG Xiufang, 1991, TAIWAN MINNAN YU YUF YUE Zhongqi, 2000, YUWEN YANJIU, V13, P19 ZHOU Changji, 1993, XIAMEN FANG YAN CI D Zhou Changji, 1998, XIAMEN FANGYAN YANJI ZHOU Changji, 2000, XINJIAPO MINNAN HUA ZHOU Changji, 2006, MINNAN FANGYAN DA CI NR 44 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 2 PU JOURNAL CHINESE LINGUISTICS PI NEW TERRITORIES PA CHINESE UNIV HONG KONG, SHATIN, NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG 00000, PEOPLES R CHINA SN 0091-3723 J9 J CHINESE LINGUIST JI J. Chin. Linguist. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 43 IS 2 BP 548 EP 585 PG 38 WC Asian Studies; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Asian Studies; Linguistics GA CQ0XG UT WOS:000360321200002 ER PT J AU Sah, WH Torng, PC AF Sah, Wen-hui Torng, Pao-chuan TI Narrative coherence of Mandarin-speaking children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder: An investigation into causal relations SO FIRST LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE Autism spectrum disorder; causal network; causal relation; Mandarin-speaking children; narrative coherence ID LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT; ASPERGERS-SYNDROME; STORY; ADULTS; INDIVIDUALS; ABILITIES; COHESION; EVENTS AB Previous research has shown that individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) had difficulty integrating narrative information coherently. The majority of these studies focused on people narrating in English; however, little is known about the narrative abilities of Mandarin-speaking individuals with ASD. This study investigates the ability of Mandarin-speaking children with ASD to achieve narrative coherence. The data consist of narratives from 18 children with high-functioning ASD (M-age: 8.23) and 18 typically developing children (M-age: 7.03), matched on language and cognitive abilities. The narratives were elicited using Frog, where are you? Narrative coherence was assessed in terms of causal statements and causal networks. The results reveal no group differences in basic narrative measures or in overtly marked causal statements. The two groups of children were equally sensitive to the relative causal importance of story events. However, the narratives of children with ASD were less causally connected and less coherent. These findings are discussed with regard to their relationship to pragmatic deficits and the cognitive preference of children with ASD. C1 [Sah, Wen-hui] Natl Chengchi Univ, Taipei 11605, Taiwan. [Torng, Pao-chuan] Natl Taipei Univ Nursing & Hlth Sci, Taipei, Taiwan. RP Sah, WH (reprint author), Natl Chengchi Univ, Dept English, 64,Sect 2,Zhi Nan Rd, Taipei 11605, Taiwan. EM whsah@nccu.edu.tw FU Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan [NSC 99-2410-H-004-200] FX This study has received funding from the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan (NSC 99-2410-H-004-200). CR American Psychological Association, 1994, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT American Psychiatric Association, 2013, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT Barnes JL, 2012, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V42, P1557, DOI 10.1007/s10803-011-1388-5 Bartolucci G., 1977, BRIT J DISORDERS COM, V12, P134 Begeer S, 2010, EUR J DEV PSYCHOL, V7, P104, DOI 10.1080/17405620903024263 Berman R. A., 1994, RELATING EVENTS NARR [Anonymous], 2000, J ABNORMAL CHILD PSY Chang MH, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1743, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.007 Chen C. T., 2007, THESIS NATL YANG MIN Chen J. H., 1997, MANUAL WECHSLER INTE Chen K. H., 2005, B SPECIAL ED REHABIL, V13, P209 Colle L, 2008, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V38, P28, DOI 10.1007/s10803-007-0357-5 Colozzo P, 2014, FIRST LANG, V34, P155, DOI 10.1177/0142723714522164 Davis GA, 1997, BRAIN LANG, V56, P183 Diehl JJ, 2006, J ABNORM CHILD PSYCH, V34, P87, DOI 10.1007/s10802-005-9003-x Fernandez C, 2013, FIRST LANG, V33, P20, DOI 10.1177/0142723711422633 Frith U, 1989, EXPLAINING ENIGMA Gamannossi BA, 2014, FIRST LANG, V34, P262, DOI 10.1177/0142723714535875 Goldman S, 2008, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V38, P1982, DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0588-0 Habermas T, 2000, PSYCHOL BULL, V126, P748, DOI 10.1037//0033-2909.126.5.748 Hart H. L. A., 1959, CAUSATION LAW Hsu S. C., 2009, THESIS NATL TAIPEI U Huang C. -C., 2003, FIRST LANG, V23, P147, DOI 10.1177/01427237030232001 Jolliffe T, 2000, PSYCHOL MED, V30, P1169, DOI 10.1017/S003329179900241X Kanner L, 1943, NERV CHILD, V2, P217 Kjelgaard MM, 2001, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V16, P287 Kupersmitt JR, 2014, NARRAT INQ, V24, P40, DOI 10.1075/ni.24.1.03kup Landa R., 2000, ASPERGER SYNDROME, P125 Lin B. G., 2009, LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT LORD C, 1994, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V24, P659, DOI 10.1007/BF02172145 Losh M, 2003, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V33, P239, DOI 10.1023/A:1024446215446 Loveland K., 1993, UNDERSTANDING OTHER, P247 Mackie J. L., 1980, CEMENT UNIVERSE STUD Makinen L, 2014, FIRST LANG, V34, P24, DOI 10.1177/0142723713511000 Manolitsi M, 2011, CHILD LANG TEACH THE, V27, P39, DOI 10.1177/0265659010369991 Mayer M., 1969, FROG ARE YOU McCabe A., 2003, PATTERNS NARRATIVE D MCCABE A, 1985, J CHILD LANG, V12, P145 McCabe A, 2013, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V43, P733, DOI 10.1007/s10803-012-1585-x Norbury CF, 2003, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V38, P287, DOI 10.1080/136820310000108133 Norbury CF, 2014, J CHILD LANG, V41, P485, DOI 10.1017/S030500091300007X Nuske HJ, 2011, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V46, P108, DOI 10.3109/13682822.2010.484847 Peterson C., 1988, 1 LANGUAGE, V8, P19, DOI 10.1177/014272378800802202 PIERCE S, 1977, J AUTISM CHILD SCHIZ, V7, P121, DOI 10.1007/BF01537724 Renner P, 2000, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V30, P3, DOI 10.1023/A:1005487009889 Sah W. H., 2015, TAIWAN J LINGUISTICS, V13, P51 Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS Shulman C, 2007, J CHILD LANG, V34, P411, DOI 10.1017/S0305000906007963 Stein N. L., 1979, NEW DIRECTIONS DISCO, VII, P53 Stirling L., 2014, COMMUNICATION AUTISM, P169 Stromqvist Sven, 2004, RELATING EVENTS NARR Tager-Flusberg H, 2001, INT REV RES MENT RET, V23, P185 TAGERFLUSBERG H, 1995, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V13, P45 TAGERFLUSBERG H, 1995, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V16, P241, DOI 10.1017/S0142716400007281 TRABASSO T, 1985, J MEM LANG, V24, P595, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(85)90048-8 TRABASSO T, 1989, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V12, P1 TRABASSO T, 1992, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V15, P249 Trabasso T., 1984, LEARNING COMPREHENSI, P83 Tsou C. Z., 2007, B SPECIAL ED, V32, P87 WINSKEL H, 2007, 1 LANGUAGE, V0027 NR 60 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 1 U2 8 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 0142-7237 EI 1740-2344 J9 FIRST LANG JI First Lang. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 35 IS 3 BP 189 EP 212 DI 10.1177/0142723715584227 PG 24 WC Psychology, Developmental; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Psychology; Linguistics GA CO6JH UT WOS:000359262500001 ER PT J AU Vander Klok, J Matthewson, L AF Vander Klok, Jozina Matthewson, Lisa TI Distinguishing already from Perfect Aspect: A Case Study of Javanese wis SO OCEANIC LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID TEMPORAL SEMANTICS; GERMAN SCHON; PRAGMATICS; LANGUAGE; STATE; STILL; NOCH AB English already and the perfect aspect are both acceptable in many of the same environments. For example, both can express the recent past, an experiential reading, or a result. In investigating the semantics of a marker with these properties in an understudied language, it is easy to categorize such a marker as either notion. The auxiliary wis in Javanese (Western Malayo-Polynesian) is a case in point: different grammars, typological studies, dissertations, and journal articles on Javanese have glossed wis as expressing already, a (present) perfect, a past tense, or a perfective. However, the semantics of Javanese wis has not been formally studied. In this paper, we first identify several cross-linguistic properties that distinguish already from the perfect aspect. Using these diagnostics, we then propose that Javanese wis cannot be analyzed as a perfect aspect. Instead, wis is a focus operator that presupposes that the focus is a maximal element among a set of ordered alternatives, following Krifka's recent analysis of English already. C1 [Vander Klok, Jozina; Matthewson, Lisa] Univ British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada. RP Vander Klok, J (reprint author), Univ British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada. EM jozina.vander@ubc.ca; lisa.matthewson@ubc.ca CR Chomsky N., 1970, STUDIES GEN ORIENTAL, P52 Cohn Abigail, 2013, LOCAL LANGUAGES INDO Cole F, 2012, COMMUN ACM, V55, P107, DOI 10.1145/2063176.2063202 Cole P, 2008, J LINGUIST, V44, P1, DOI 10.1017/S002222670700494X Comrie B., 1976, ASPECT Conners Tom J., 2008, THESIS YALE U Dahl O., 2013, WORLD ATLAS LANGUAGE Dahl Osten, 1985, TENSE ASPECT SYSTEMS Davies William D., 2010, GRAMMAR MADURESE Dietrich G., 1955, ERWEITERTE FORM PRAT Errington Joseph, 1985, LANGUAGE SOCIAL CHAN Errington J. Joseph, 1988, STRUCTURE STYLE JAVA Ewing Michael, 2005, GRAMMAR INFERENCE CO Favre L'Abbe P., 1866, GRAMMAIRE JAVANAISE Fong Vivienne, 2005, PERSPECTIVES ASPECT, P251 Giorgi Alessandra, 1997, OXFORD STUDIES COMP Goebel Z., 2002, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V158, P69 Goebel Z., 2010, LANGUAGE MIGRATION I Goebel Z., 2005, AUSTR J LINGUISTICS, V25, P85, DOI 10.1080/07268600500113674 Grange Philippe, 2010, WACANA, V12, P243 Hatley Ron, 1984, OTHER JAVAS AWAY KRA, P1 Hoepelman Jaap, 1981, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P103 Hoogervorst Tom Gunnar, 2010, THESIS LEIDEN U Horne Elinor C., 1961, YALE LINGUISTIC SERI, V3 Kader Mashudi, 1981, SYNTAX MALAY INTERRO Koh Ann Sweesun, 1990, THESIS U MELBOURNE Konig Ekkerhard, 1977, LINGUIST PHILOS, V1, P173 Konig E., 1991, MEANING FOCUS PARTIC Koontz-Garboden A, 2007, J LINGUIST, V43, P115, DOI 10.1017/S0022226706004464 Kramer SP, 2012, FOREIGN AFF, V91, P2 Krifka Manfred, 2000, P 26 ANN M BERK LING, V26, P401 Kurniasih Yacinta, 2006, 2005 C AUSTR LING SO LOBNER S, 1989, LINGUIST PHILOS, V12, P167, DOI 10.1007/BF00627659 Lobner S, 1999, LINGUIST PHILOS, V22, P45, DOI 10.1023/A:1005432806111 Matthewson Lisa, 2014, THESIS U BRIT COLUMB Matthewson Lisa, 2012, UCLA WORKING PAPERS, V17, P222 Matthewson Lisa, 2004, INT J AM LINGUIST, V70, P369, DOI [10.1086/429207, DOI 10.1086/429207] Matthewson L, 2013, WORKSH SEM VAR U CHI Matthewson L, 2006, LINGUIST PHILOS, V29, P673, DOI 10.1007/s10988-006-9010-6 McCauwley J., 1971, STUDIES LINGUISTIC S, P96 McCoard R. W., 1978, ENGLISH PERFECT TENS Michaelis LA, 1996, LINGUIST PHILOS, V19, P477, DOI 10.1007/BF00632778 MICHAELIS LA, 1992, LINGUA, V87, P321, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(92)90015-B Mittwoch A., 1993, NAT LANG SEMANT, V2, P71, DOI 10.1007/BF01255432 Olsson Bruno, 2013, THESIS STOCKHOLM U Omar Asmah, 1970, BAHASA MALAYSIA KINI Pickbourn James, 1789, DISSERTATION ENGLISH Poedjosoedarmo G., 2006, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V177, P111 Portner P, 2003, LINGUIST PHILOS, V26, P459, DOI 10.1023/A:1024697112760 Kaswanti Purwo Bambang, 1984, DEIKSIS DALAM BAHASA Kaswanti Purwo Bambang, 2011, 15 INT S MAL IND LIN Robson Stuart, 2002, JAVANESE GRAMMAR STU Robson S. O., 2002, JAVANESE ENGLISH DIC Salleh Ramli, 1989, FRONTED CONSTITUENTS Smith Carlota S., 1997, PARAMETER ASPECT Smith-Hefner NJ, 2009, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V19, P57, DOI 10.1111/j.1548-1395.2009.01019.x Sneddon J. N., 2010, INDONESIAN COMPREHEN Soh Hooi Ling, 2012, 19 AUSTR FORM LING A Soh Hooi Ling, 2008, EVENT STRUCTURES LIN, P447 Soh Hooi Ling, 2011, 15 INT S MAL IND LIN Soh Hooi Ling, 1994, THESIS U CALGARY Soh Hooi Ling, 2008, THEORETICAL CROSS LI, P387 Soh HL, 2009, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V27, P623, DOI 10.1007/s11049-009-9074-4 Steube Anita, 1980, STUDIA GRAMMATICA, V20 Suwadji, 1981, STRUKTUR DIALEK BAHA Tonhauser J, 2011, LINGUIST PHILOS, V34, P257, DOI 10.1007/s10988-011-9097-2 VANDERAUWERA J, 1993, LINGUIST PHILOS, V16, P613 Vander Klok Jozina, 2012, THESIS MCGILL U Vandeweghe Willy, 1983, THESIS STATE U GHENT Von Stechow A., 1991, DISCOURSE PARTICLES, V11, P37 Wedhawati Wiwin Erni Siti Nurlina, 2006, TATA BAHASA JAWA MUT Zentz L., 2012, THESIS U ARIZONA NR 72 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 0 PU UNIV HAWAII PRESS PI HONOLULU PA 2840 KOLOWALU ST, HONOLULU, HI 96822 USA SN 0029-8115 EI 1527-9421 J9 OCEAN LINGUIST JI Ocean Linguist. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 54 IS 1 BP 172 EP 205 PG 34 WC Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CO0DF UT WOS:000358819600006 ER PT J AU Aikhenvald, AY AF Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. TI Differential Case in Yalaku SO OCEANIC LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID MARKING AB Yalaku, a previously undescribed Ndu language from the East Sepik Province of Papua New Guinea, has two core cases (nominative and accusative) and four oblique clausal cases (locative-instrumental, allative, dative, and specific locative). The comitative case is used for marking an oblique within a clause, or as a marker of linkage within a noun phrase. In addition. to Differential Object Marking, the choice of every core case and most oblique cases has pragmatic overtones. A further additional case-marking system is used if a core argument or an oblique argument is in focus (termed Highlighted Participant case). This principle, similar to that of differential object and subject marking in other languages, extends to the expression of possessor in possessive constructions. The coexistence of two independent systems of Differential Case Marking (based on different parameters) makes Yalaku typologically unusual. The appendix shows how language contact between Yalaku and the neighboring (and unrelated) Kwoma may have played a role in the development of Highlighted Participant case in Yalaku. C1 James Cook Univ, Townsville, Qld, Australia. RP Aikhenvald, AY (reprint author), James Cook Univ, Townsville, Qld, Australia. EM alexandra.aikhenvald@jcu.edu.au CR Aikhenvald Alexandra Y, 2012, POSSESSION OWNERSHIP, P107 Aikhenvald Alexandra Y., 2014, ART GRAMMAR PRACTICA Aikhenvald Alexandra Y., 2006, GRAMMARS CONTACT CRO, P237 Aikhenvald Alexandra Y, GRAMMAR YALAKU UNPUB Aikhenvald Alexandra Y., 2002, WORD CROSS LINGUISTI, P42 AIKHENVALD AY, 2009, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V50, P1 Aikhenvald A.Y., 2008, MANAMBU LANGUAGE E S Aissen J, 2003, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V21, P435, DOI 10.1023/A:1024109008573 Aiton Grant, 2014, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V32, P1 Aristar AR, 1997, STUD LANG, V21, P313, DOI 10.1075/sl.21.2.04ari Blake Barry J., 2001, CASE Bolanos Katherine, 2014, SEM J COOK U OCT Bossong Georg, 1985, EMPIRISCHE UNIVERSAL Bossong G., 1991, NEW ANAL ROMANCE LIN, V69, P143 Bowden Ross, 1997, DICT KWOMA PAPUAN LA Bruil Martine, 2014, CLAUSE TYPING EVIDEN Cruse Alan, 2006, GLOSSARY SEMANTICS P Dixon R. M. W., 1994, ERGATIVITY Dixon R M W, 2002, AUSTR LANGUAGES THEI Donaldson Tamsin, 1980, NGIYAMBAA LANGUAGE W DURANTI A, 1990, AM ETHNOL, V17, P646, DOI 10.1525/ae.1990.17.4.02a00030 Foreman Velma M., 1974, ASIA PACIFIC SERIES, V4 Freudenburg A., 1979, THESIS UKARUMPA Fretheim Thorstein, 2004, HDB PRAGMATIC THEORY, P174 Iggesen Oliver, 2011, OXFORD HDB CASE, P246 Jendraschek Gerd, 2012, THESIS U REGENSBURG KLAVANS JL, 1985, LANGUAGE, V61, P95, DOI 10.2307/413422 Kooyers O., 1974, WORKING PAPERS NEW G, V6, P5 Lambert-Bretiere Renee, 2008, 2 SYDN PAP WORKSH U Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Laycock Donald, 1965, NDU LANGUAGE FAMILY Malchukov Andrej, 2011, OXFORD HDB CASE, P339 McGregor WB, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P1610, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010 Nayau Ken, THESIS UKARUMPA Parker S, 1999, LANGUAGE, V75, P552, DOI 10.2307/417060 Patz Elizabeth, 2002, GRAMMAR KUKU YALANJI Pennington Ryan M, 2013, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V31, P1 Roberts John R, 1997, PAPERS PAPUAN LINGUI, V3, P101 Sarvasy Hannah, 2014, THESIS J COOK U Shain C, 2010, LANG VAR CHANGE, V22, P321, DOI 10.1017/S0954394510000153 Staalsen Philip, 1965, THESIS SIL UKARUMPA Staalsen Philip, 1965, MAN, V65, P184, DOI 10.2307/2797732 Stenzel Kristine, 2008, AMERINDIA, V32, P1 Wendel Thomas D, 1993, THESIS U TEXAS ARLIN Wilson P. R., 1980, AMBULAS GRAMMAR Wojtylak Katarzyna I, THESIS Zhang Sihong, 2013, THESIS J COOK U NR 47 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU UNIV HAWAII PRESS PI HONOLULU PA 2840 KOLOWALU ST, HONOLULU, HI 96822 USA SN 0029-8115 EI 1527-9421 J9 OCEAN LINGUIST JI Ocean Linguist. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 54 IS 1 BP 240 EP 269 PG 30 WC Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CO0DF UT WOS:000358819600008 ER PT J AU Naess, A AF Naess, Ashild TI Voice at the Crossroads: Symmetrical Clause Alternations in Aiwoo, Reef Islands, Solomon Islands SO OCEANIC LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID OCEANIC LANGUAGES; TRANSITIVITY; DISCOURSE AB This paper argues that the Aiwoo language of the Reef Islands shows what. could be characterized as a symmetrical voice system with three voices: an actor voice, an undergoer voice, and a circumstantial voice. Although it differs from better-described symmetrical voice systems in lacking a syntactic pivot, the overall pattern of morphosyntactic alternations, as well as the discourse-pragmatic function, is essentially that of a symmetrical voice system. Moreover, the Aiwoo system combines the syntactic characteristics of a "Philippine-type" symmetrical voice system with the morphological characteristics of an "Indonesian-type" system in a way that appears to be unusual. This analysis, while confirming the status of the Reefs-Santa Cruz language group to which Aiwoo belongs as Austronesian, raises doubts about their current classification as Oceanic, since the symmetrical voice system of Proto-Austronesian is usually assumed to have been lost by the time of Proto-Oceanic. Alternatively, the analysis may be taken to imply that current reconstructions of Proto-Oceanic morphosyntax must be revised. Overall, it adds to the complex picture of voice and transitivity-related systems in Austronesian languages, and to the challenges involved in understanding their historical relationships. C1 Univ Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. RP Naess, A (reprint author), Univ Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. EM Aashild.Naess@newcastle.edu.au CR Anceaux J. C., 1988, WOLIO LANGUAGE OUTLI Arka I Wayan, 2008, VOICE GRAMMATICAL RE, P183 Arka I Wayan, 2005, MANY FACES AUSTRONES, P1 Arka I. W., 2003, BALINESE MORPHOSYNTA Ashley Karen, 2012, THESIS GRADUATE I AP Bowden John, 2001, TABA DESCRIPTION S H Chiarcos Christian, 2009, THESIS U POTSDAM Cooreman Anne M., 1987, TRANSITIVITY DISCOUR Crowley Terry, 1998, ERROMANGAN SYE GRAMM Dixon R. M. W., 1994, ERGATIVITY Evans B, 2003, STUDY VALENCY CHANGI Falk YN, 2006, CAMB STUD LINGUIST, V113, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511486265 Foley William A., 2007, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SY, V1, P362 Francois Alexandre, 2009, PAPERS M ROSS, P103 Francois Alexandre, 2013, 9 INT C OC LING U NE Givon T., 1983, VOICE AND INVERSION, P1 [Anonymous], 2001, SYNTAX Himmelmann NP, 2013, OCEAN LINGUIST, V52, P396 Himmelmann N. P., 2005, AUSTRONESIAN LANGUAG, P350 Himmelmann Nikolaus P., 2005, AUSTRONESIAN LANGUAG, P110 Himmelmann Nikolaus P., 2002, HIST TYPOLOGY W AUST, P7 HOPPER PJ, 1980, LANGUAGE, V56, P251, DOI 10.2307/413757 Huang SF, 2011, OCEAN LINGUIST, V50, P93 Hyslop Catriona, 2001, LOLOVOLI DIALECT N E Kroeger Paul, 1993, PHRASE STRUCTURE GRA Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Lemarechal Alain, 2010, COMP GRAMMAR TYPOLOG Lynch John, 2002, OCEANIC LANGUAGES Margetts A, 2008, OCEAN LINGUIST, V47, P30 Margetts A, 2007, OCEAN LINGUIST, V46, P71, DOI 10.1353/ol.2007.0021 Massam Diane, 1988, OCEAN LINGUIST, V37, P12 Musgrave Simon, 2008, VOICE GRAMMATICAL RE, P1 Naess A, 2006, OCEAN LINGUIST, V45, P269 Naess A, 2008, OCEAN LINGUIST, V47, P185 Naess A, 2015, J LINGUIST, V51, P75, DOI 10.1017/S0022226714000048 Naess A, 2013, OCEAN LINGUIST, V52, P106 Naylor Paz B., 1986, FOCAL, VI, P43 Pawley Andrew, 2011, EVOLUTION TRANSITIVE Payne Doris L., 1992, PRAGMATICS WORD ORDE, P1 Peterson David A., 2006, APPL CONSTRUCTIONS Ray SH, 1926, COMP STUDY MELANESIA Ross Malcolm, 2002, HIST TYPOLOGY W AUST, P17 Ross Malcolm, 2009, AUSTRONESIAN HIST LI, P295 Ross Malcolm, 2012, 12 INT C AUSTR LING Ross M, 2007, OCEAN LINGUIST, V46, P456 Ross Malcolm, 2002, HIST TYPOLOGY W AUST, P451 Schachter Paul, 1977, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V8, P279 Li Charles, 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC, P491 Schlie Virginia, 1983, THESIS SUMMER I LING Tomlin Russell, 1995, WORD ORDER DISCOURSE, P517 Hackman B. D., 1983, SOLOMON ISLANDS LANG Tryon Darrell T, 1994, LANGUAGE CONTACT CHA, P611 Vaa Anders, 2013, THESIS U OSLO Vaa Anders, 2006, THESIS U OSLO Boerger Brenda H., OCEANIC LINGUISTICS, V50, P221 WOUK F, 1996, STUD LANG, V20, P361, DOI 10.1075/sl.20.2.05wou Wurm S. A., 1991, PAPERS AUSTRONESIAN, P551 Wurm S. A., 1981, STUDIES HONOR RS PIT, P123 Wurm S. A., 1978, 2 INT C AUSTR LING P, P969 NR 59 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU UNIV HAWAII PRESS PI HONOLULU PA 2840 KOLOWALU ST, HONOLULU, HI 96822 USA SN 0029-8115 EI 1527-9421 J9 OCEAN LINGUIST JI Ocean Linguist. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 54 IS 1 BP 270 EP 307 PG 38 WC Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CO0DF UT WOS:000358819600009 ER PT J AU Antaki, C Richardson, E Stokoe, E Willott, S AF Antaki, Charles Richardson, Emma Stokoe, Elizabeth Willott, Sara TI Police interviews with vulnerable people alleging sexual assault: Probing inconsistency and questioning conduct SO JOURNAL OF SOCIOLINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE Police; interviews; intellectual disability; sexual assault; questions ID CONVERSATION; DISABILITIES; ACCOUNTS; ABUSE AB Reporting sexual assault to the authorities is fraught with difficulties, and these are compounded when the complainant is hindered by an intellectual disability (ID). In a study of 19 U.K. police interviews with complainants with ID alleging sexual assault and rape, we found that most interviewing officers on occasion pursued lines of questioning which not only probed inconsistencies (which is mandated by their guidelines), but implicitly questioned complainants' conduct (which is not). We detail two main conversational practices which imply disbelief and disapproval of the complainants' accounts and behaviour, and whose pragmatic entailments may pose problems for complainants with ID. Such practices probably emerge from interviewers' foreshadowing of the challenges likely to be made in court by defence counsel. As a policy recommendation, we suggest providing early explanation for the motivation for such questioning, and avoiding certain question formats (especially how come you did X? and why didn't you do Y?). C1 [Antaki, Charles; Richardson, Emma; Stokoe, Elizabeth] Univ Loughborough, Loughborough LE11 3TU, Leics, England. [Willott, Sara] Birmingham Community HealthCare NHS Trust, Birmingham, W Midlands, England. RP Antaki, C (reprint author), Univ Loughborough, Dept Social Sci, Epinal Way, Loughborough LE11 3TU, Leics, England. EM c.antaki@Lboro.ac.uk OI Stokoe, Elizabeth/0000-0002-7353-4121 CR Antaki Charles, 2015, DISCOURSE STUDIES, V17, P1 Bolden GB, 2011, J COMMUN, V61, P94, DOI 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01528.x Collins Chris, 1991, MIT WORKING PAPERS L, V15, P31 Ehrlich S. L., 2001, REPRESENTING RAPE LA Fitzpatrick Justin, 2005, P 24 W COAST C FORM, P138 Fraser B, 1998, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V57, P301 FROHMANN L, 1991, SOC PROBL, V38, P213, DOI 10.1525/sp.1991.38.2.03a00070 [Anonymous], 2012, RES LANG SOC INTERAC Jaszczolt Kasia M., 2012, CAMBRIDGE HDB PRAGMA, P1 Koshik I., 2005, RHETORICAL QUESTIONS Lea SJ, 2003, BRIT J CRIMINOL, V43, P583, DOI 10.1093/bjc/43.3.583 MacLeod Nicola J, 2010, THESIS ASTON U BIRMI McEachern AG, 2012, J CHILD SEX ABUS, V21, P386, DOI 10.1080/10538712.2012.675425 Perkins Michael R., 2010, HDB LANGUAGE SPEECH, P227, DOI 10.1002/9781444318975.ch10 Robinson E. J., 2000, CHILDRENS REASONING, P101 Robinson JD, 2014, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V47, P201, DOI 10.1080/08351813.2014.925658 Rowsell AC, 2013, J APPL RES INTELLECT, V26, P257, DOI 10.1111/jar.12016 Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2014, FOR CAR PATHW AD INT Schegloff EA, 1988, E GOFFMAN EXPLORING, P89 Sidnell J., 2010, CONVERSATION ANAL IN Spohn Cassia, 2014, POLICING PROSECUTING Svennevig J, 2013, INT J BILINGUAL, V17, P189, DOI 10.1177/1367006912441419 Ministry of Justice UK, 2011, ACH BEST EV CRIM P G U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014, CRIM PERS DIS 2009 2 NR 24 TC 4 Z9 4 U1 1 U2 4 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 1360-6441 EI 1467-9841 J9 J SOCIOLING JI J. Socioling. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 19 IS 3 BP 328 EP 350 DI 10.1111/josl.12124 PG 23 WC Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CN4XF UT WOS:000358433100003 ER PT J AU Pares, JB AF Baron Pares, Julia TI "Can I Make a Party, Mum?" The Development of Requests from Childhood to Adolescence SO ATLANTIS-JOURNAL OF THE SPANISH ASSOCIATION OF ANGLO-AMERICAN STUDIES LA English DT Article DE interlanguage pragmatics; requests; pragmatic development; longitudinal study; EFL ID AWARENESS; LEARNERS; FACULTY; L2 AB This study presents how requests are acquired and developed over an eight-year period by an EFL learner in a foreign language setting, where target language pragmatics is not an issue dealt with in the classroom. In order to assess pragmatic development, a role-play requiring requests was used. This study has been triggered by the fact that longitudinal studies have commonly been considered very valuable, since development of the same participants can be traced over a long period of time. The development of requests has been followed by, first, examining what types of requests were produced by the learner at the different stages of pragmatic development; second, by analyzing the use of request modification; and, finally, by placing the learner's requests at different stages of development. The results seem to show that little development can be traced at very early stages of acquisition, and that it is not until Grade 11 that a development toward more pragmatically appropriate productions can be found. C1 Univ Barcelona, English & German Dept, E-08007 Barcelona, Spain. RP Pares, JB (reprint author), Univ Barcelona, English & German Dept, E-08007 Barcelona, Spain. EM juliabaron@ub.edu CR Achiba M., 2003, LEARNING REQUEST 2 L Alcon Eva, 2008, INVESTIGATING PRAGMA Alcon Eva, 2013, RESLA, V26, P25 Alcon Eva, 2002, AUSTR REV APPL LINGU, V16, P135 Safont-Jorda Pilar, 2005, RAEL REV ELECT LINGU, V4, P1 Alcon Eva, 2013, MULTILINGUA, V32, P779 Alcon Eva, 2012, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V9, P511 Bardovi-Harlig K, 1998, TESOL QUART, V32, P233, DOI 10.2307/3587583 Bardovi-Harlig K, 2012, SYSTEM, V40, P77, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2012.01.004 Baron Julia, 2010, EUROSLA YB, V10, P38, DOI DOI 10.1075/EUROSLA.10.05BAR Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN BLUMKULKA S, 1984, APPL LINGUIST, V5, P196, DOI 10.1093/applin/5.3.196 Celaya Maria Luz, 2015, J APPL LINGUISTICS, DOI [10.1515/eujal-2014-0027, DOI 10.1515/EUJAL-2014-0027] CLARK HH, 1979, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V11, P430, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(79)90020-3 Economidou-Kogetsidis M, 2009, MULTILINGUA, V28, P79, DOI 10.1515/mult.2009.004 Economidou-Kogetsidis M, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3193, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006 Ellis R., 1992, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V14, P1, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100010445 Eslami-Rasekh Abbas, 2010, J SOC CULTURE, V30, P96 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P253, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.013 Gonzalez-Cruz MI, 2014, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V11, P547, DOI 10.1515/ip-2014-0024 Hassall T, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1903, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00115-2 Hill T., 1997, THESIS TEMPLE U JAPA Kasper G., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P3 Kasper Gabriele, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P149, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014868 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Koike D. A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P481, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.008 Martinez-Flor Alicia, 2004, THESIS U JAUME I SPA Martinez-Flor A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P463, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.007 Matsumura Shoichi, 2000, THESIS U BRIT COLUMB Matsumura S, 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P465, DOI 10.1093/applin/24.4.465 Munoz C., 2006, AGE RATE FOREIGN LAN, P1 Ortega L., 2005, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V25, P26, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0267190505000024 Roever C, 2011, LANG TEST, V28, P463, DOI 10.1177/0265532210394633 Rose K., 2000, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V22, P27, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100001029 Scarcella R., 1979, TESOL 79, P275 SCHAUER GA, 2010, SPEECH ACT PERFORMAN, V26, P91 Schauer GA, 2006, LANG LEARN, V56, P269, DOI 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00348.x Schauer G., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P193, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.011 Schmidt R., 1983, SOCIOLINGUISTICS LAN, P137 Schmidt R., 1986, TALKING LEARN CONVER, P237 Searle John R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH Sifianou Maria, 2006, POLITENESS PHENOMENA Takahashi S., 2012, LANGUAGE CULTURE COM, V4, P103 Takahashi S., 1989, CROSS LINGUIST UNPUB Tran Q. Giao, 2004, ITL REV APPL LINGUIS, V143-44, P109 Trosborg A., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Woodfield H, 2010, MULTILINGUA, V29, P77, DOI 10.1515/mult.2010.004 Wootton A. J, 1997, INTERACTION DEV MIND NR 48 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU ASOC ESPANOLA ESTUDIOS ANGLO-NORTEAMERICANOS-AEDEAN PI MADRID PA C/O DEPT FILOLOFIA INGLESA I, UNIV COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID, FAC FILOLOGIA, MADRID, 28040, SPAIN SN 0210-6124 EI 1989-6840 J9 ATLANTIS-SPAIN JI Atlantis-Spain PD JUN PY 2015 VL 37 IS 1 BP 179 EP 198 PG 20 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics; Literature SC Linguistics; Literature GA CL3AN UT WOS:000356820800010 ER PT J AU Fleming, L AF Fleming, Luke TI Research Note: Speaker-referent gender indexicality SO LANGUAGE IN SOCIETY LA English DT Article DE Gender; indexicality; deixis AB Haas's (1944) typology of nonreferential gender indexicality attested three basic varieties: speaker indexing, addressee indexing, and mixed' (or relational) speaker-addressee gender indexing. In an earlier publication in Language in Society this author adopted the same framework for the treatment of a large sample of cases of categorical gender indexicality. However, subsequent review of cases where gender indexicality seemingly interacts with sex-based semantic gender suggests that Haas' typology is incomplete. A relational speaker-referent indexing type is proposed. Focusing on gender indexicality in Chiquitano (Bolivia) and Yanyuwa (Australia), the author argues that these cases have been erroneously treated as systems in which speaker gender is indexed in the denotation of referent gender. It is shown that a more parsimonious analysis can account for these cases by means of a single purely pragmatic gender feature distributed over a relational speaker-referent indexical focus. C1 Univ Montreal, Dept Anthropol, Montreal, PQ H3T 1N8, Canada. RP Fleming, L (reprint author), Univ Montreal, Dept Anthropol, Pavillon Lionel Groulx,3150 Jean Brillant, Montreal, PQ H3T 1N8, Canada. EM luke.fleming@umontreal.ca CR Agha A., 1996, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V38, P643 Asif Agha, 2007, LANGUAGE SOCIAL RELA Edward Sapir, 1929, SELECTED WRITINGS E, P206 Fleming L, 2012, LANG SOC, V41, P295, DOI 10.1017/S0047404512000267 Francis Ekka, 1972, LINGUISTICS, V81, P25 Greville Corbett, 1991, GENDER Haas MR, 1944, LANGUAGE, V20, P142, DOI 10.2307/410153 Jean Kirton, 1971, PAPERS AUSTR LINGUIS, V5, P15 Jesus Galeote Tormo, 1993, MANITYANA AUKI BESIR John Bradley, 1988, ABORIGINAL LINGUISTI, V1, P126 John Bradley, 1992, YANYUWA WUKA LANGUAG Joseph Errington J., 1988, STRUCTURE STYLE JAVA Lucien Adam, 1880, ARTE VOCABULARIO LEN Mary Linn, 1997, FLORIDA ANTHR, V50, P189 Michael Silverstein, 1985, SEMIOTIC MEDIATION S, P219 Michael Silverstein, 1979, ELEMENTS PARASESSION, P193 Paul Kiparsky, 1968, UNIVERSALS LINGUIST, P170 Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS NR 18 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI NEW YORK PA 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY 10013-2473 USA SN 0047-4045 EI 1469-8013 J9 LANG SOC JI Lang. Soc. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 44 IS 3 BP 425 EP 434 DI 10.1017/S0047404515000251 PG 10 WC Linguistics; Sociology SC Linguistics; Sociology GA CL4LW UT WOS:000356925400006 ER PT J AU Lin, HF AF Lin, Huifen TI A META-SYNTHESIS OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) IN SLA SO LANGUAGE LEARNING & TECHNOLOGY LA English DT Article DE Meta-Analysis; Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC); Second Language Acquisition; ESL; EFL ID FACE-TO-FACE; L2 INSTRUCTION; METAANALYSIS; LANGUAGE; 2ND-LANGUAGE; ACQUISITION; PROFICIENCY; TEXT; PERFORMANCE; TECHNOLOGY AB This meta-analysis reports the results of a systematic synthesis of primary studies on the effectiveness of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in second language acquisition (SLA) for the period 2000-2012. By extracting information on 21 features from each primary study, this meta-analysis intends to summarize the CMC research literature for the past decade by calculating an average effect size and performing a series of moderator analyses to factor out elements that might mediate the effect of such media in SLA. In total, 59 studies were identified as eligible after excluding three outlier studies, covering both published and unpublished studies. All studies were coded for learner characteristics (5 features), methodological characteristics (14 features) and publication characteristics (2 features), six of which were further analyzed as moderator variables. The results show that (a) there was a positive and medium overall effect for CMC used for instructional/learning purposes in SLA, (b) among the four language skills which CMC was intended to facilitate, writing skills produced the largest effect size, as did pragmatic competence, among the three language components, i.e. pragmatics, vocabulary and pronunciation explored in this meta-analysis; however this result should be interpreted as tentative since only one study measured pragmatic competence in the current meta-analysis, and (c) smaller group studies produced a larger effect size than those using larger groups or no grouping. C1 Natl Tsing Hua Univ, Hsinchu, Taiwan. RP Lin, HF (reprint author), Natl Tsing Hua Univ, Hsinchu, Taiwan. FU National Science Council of Taiwan [NSC99-2410-H-007-082-MY2] FX This study reported part of the data collected from a two-year grant research project supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan, grant number NSC99-2410-H-007-082-MY2. The remaining data was presented in an earlier study published in the same journal, titled, "Establishing an Empirical Link Between Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and SLA: A Meta-Analysis of the Research" in 2014. The author would also like to express her immense gratitude to the anonymous reviewers who offered many suggestions and comments on how to improve this paper. CR Abraham LB, 2008, COMPUT ASSIST LANG L, V21, P199, DOI 10.1080/09588220802090246 Abrams ZI, 2003, MOD LANG J, V87, P157, DOI 10.1111/1540-4781.00184 AbuSeileek Ali Farhan, 2007, Computer Assisted Language Learning, V20, P493, DOI 10.1080/09588220701746054 Ahn H., 2006, THESIS U ARIZONA ARI Alastuey M. C. B., 2010, CALICO J, V28, P1, DOI DOI 10.11139/CJ.28.1.1-20 Arslan RS, 2010, COMPUT ASSIST LANG L, V23, P183, DOI 10.1080/09588221.2010.486575 Aytug ZG, 2012, ORGAN RES METHODS, V15, P103, DOI 10.1177/1094428111403495 Bangert-Drowns RL, 2004, REV EDUC RES, V74, P29, DOI 10.3102/00346543074001029 Bennui P., 2008, MALAYSIAN J ELT RES, V4, P72 Berlin JA, 2005, PUBLICATION BIAS IN META-ANALYSIS: PREVENTION, ASSESSMENT AND ADJUSTMENTS, P35, DOI 10.1002/0470870168.ch3 Blake C, 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P227, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00858.x Blake R, 2008, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V12, P114 Borenstein M., 2009, INTRO METAANALYSIS, P215 Alastuey MCB, 2011, COMPUT ASSIST LANG L, V24, P419, DOI 10.1080/09588221.2011.574639 Camacho R., 2008, THESIS B YOUNG U UTA Chang Y. C., 2008, P 2 TAMK INT C 2 LAN, P26 Chang Y.-Y., 2008, THESIS TAMKANG U TAI Chang Y.-Y., 2007, ISSUES INFORM SYSTEM, V8, P355 Chen F., 2008, THESIS NATL TAIWAN N Chenoweth N. A., 2006, CALICO Journal, V24, P115 Chiang M. H., 2007, ENGLISH TEACHING LEA, V31, P1 Chun D. M., 2007, CALICO Journal, V24, P239 Chung M.-C., 2004, THESIS NATL KAOHSIUN Cohen J., 1988, STAT POWER ANAL BEHA Coniam D., 2004, SYSTEM, V32, P321, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2004.03.001 Cooper H, 2003, PSYCHOL BULL, V129, P3, DOI 10.1037//0033-2909.129.1.3 Creswell J. W., 2008, RES DESIGN QUANTITAT, V3rd Fagan E. R., 1987, RELC J LANGUAGE TEAC, V18, P19, DOI 10.1177/003368828701800102 Felix Uschi, 2008, ReCALL, V20, P141, DOI 10.1017/S0958344008000323 Felix U., 2005, ReCALL, P269, DOI 10.1017/S0958344005000923 Fellner T., 2006, JALT CALL J, V2, P15 Fitze M, 2006, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V10, P67 Fuente M. J., 2003, COMPUTER ASSISTED LA, V16, P47, DOI 10.1076/call.16.1.47.15526 Gass S. M., 1994, STUDIES 2ND LANGUAGE, V16, P283, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100013097 Glass G. V., 1976, ANN M AM ED RES ASS Gonzalez-Bueno M, 2000, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V33, P189 Grgurovic M, 2013, RECALL, V25, P165, DOI 10.1017/S0958344013000013 Herring S. C., 1999, J COMPUT-MEDIAT COMM, V4 Herring S. C., 1996, COMPUTER MEDIATED CO Hoffler TN, 2007, LEARN INSTR, V17, P722, DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013 Huang H.-T. D., 2010, ASIAN EFL J, V12, P192 Huang H.-T. D., 2008, P WORLD C E LEARNING, P1638 Chang Y., 2009, P WORLD C ED MULT HY, P2588 Hung P.-Y., 2007, THESIS KENT STATE U JACKSON GB, 1980, REV EDUC RES, V50, P438, DOI 10.2307/1170440 Jenks CJ, 2009, COMPUT ASSIST LANG L, V22, P19, DOI 10.1080/09588220802613781 Jeon EH, 2006, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V13, P165 Jian Q. W., 2005, THESIS NATL TSING HU Jou Y-A. E., 2008, THESIS ALLIANT INT U Keck CM, 2006, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V13, P91 Kern R, 2006, TESOL QUART, V40, P183 Kost C. R., 2004, THESIS U ARIZONA ARI Lee JY, 2009, THESIS IOWA STATE U Lee S. L., 2009, P 27 INT C ENGL TEAC, P28 Li L. J., 2008, THESIS NATL CHENG KU Li SF, 2010, LANG LEARN, V60, P309, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x Li W.-L., 2009, THESIS NATL TAIWAN N Liang M-Y., 2006, THESIS INDIANA U IND Lin S. M., 2009, THESIS OKLAHOMA U OK Lin WC, 2013, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V17, P123 Liu C. N., 2007, THESIS TEXAS A M U T Loewen S., 2006, Computer Assisted Language Learning, V19, P1, DOI 10.1080/09588220600803311 Long M. H., 1996, HDB LANGUAGE ACQUISI, P413, DOI DOI 10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3 Lord G., 2008, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V41, P374, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2010.10.005 Lu K. Y., 2004, ENGLISH TEACHING LEA, V28, P95 Nguyen L. V., 2008, INT J INSTRUCTIONAL, V5 Norris JM, 2000, LANG LEARN, V50, P417, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00136 NORRIS JM, 2006, SYNTHESIZING RES LAN, V13, P3 Ortega L., 2010, CONTINUUM COMPANION, P111 Oswald FL, 2010, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V30, P85, DOI 10.1017/S0267190510000115 Payne J. S., 2002, CALICO Journal, V20, P7 Peng C. Y., 2006, CHAOYANG J HUMANITIE, V4, P1 Perez L. C., 2000, CINCINNATI ROMANCE R, V19, P138 Pyun O. C., 2003, THESIS OHIO STATE U Sanders RF, 2005, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V38, P523 Satar HM, 2008, MOD LANG J, V92, P595, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00789.x Sauro S., 2011, CALICO J, V28, P369, DOI DOI 10.11139/CJ.28.2.369-391 Sequeira C. A., 2009, THESIS U OREGON OREG Shang H., 2007, COMPUTER ASSISTED LA, V20, P79, DOI DOI 10.1080/09588220601118479 Simsek O, 2010, PROCD SOC BEHV, V2, P953, DOI 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.133 Smith B, 2004, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V26, P365, DOI 10.1017/S0272263104043013 Usaha S., 2009, SURANAREE J SCI TECH, V16, P263 Sun Y.-C., 2012, CALICO J, V29, P494 Sun YC, 2010, INNOV EDUC TEACH INT, V47, P327, DOI 10.1080/14703297.2010.498184 Taylor A., 2006, CALICO Journal, V23, P309 Taylor A.M., 2009, CALICO J, V27, P147 THOMAS M, 1994, LANG LEARN, V44, P307, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01104.x Thorne S., 2008, ENCY LANGUAGE ED, P1415, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_108 Thurston A, 2009, COMPUT EDUC, V53, P462, DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.005 Tsai Z. Y., 2007, THESIS NATL KAOHSIUN Volle LM, 2005, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V9, P146 Wang C. Y., 2010, THESIS NATL TSING HU Warschauer M, 1997, MOD LANG J, V81, P470, DOI 10.2307/328890 Xiao M., 2007, THESIS OHIO U OHIO Yang M. L., 2006, THESIS U TEXAS AUSTI Yang YF, 2011, COMPUT ASSIST LANG L, V24, P181, DOI 10.1080/09588221.2010.538700 Yanguas I., 2012, CALICO J, V29, P507 Yun JW, 2011, COMPUT ASSIST LANG L, V24, P39, DOI 10.1080/09588221.2010.523285 Zhao Y., 2003, CALICO J, V21, P7 Zheng S. N., 2010, THESIS NATL TSING HU Zhou H. J., 2009, THESIS NATL KAOHSIUN NR 101 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 1 U2 9 PU UNIV HAWAII, NATL FOREIGN LANGUAGE RESOURCE CENTER PI HONOLULU PA 1859 EAST WEST RD, 106, HONOLULU, HI 96822 USA SN 1094-3501 J9 LANG LEARN TECHNOL JI Lang. Learn. Technol. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 19 IS 2 BP 85 EP 117 PG 33 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CK9ZI UT WOS:000356597700008 ER PT J AU Siepmann, D AF Siepmann, Dirk TI DICTIONARIES AND SPOKEN LANGUAGE: A CORPUS-BASED REVIEW OF FRENCH DICTIONARIES SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEXICOGRAPHY LA English DT Article ID COLLOCATIONS AB Starting from the observation that traditional lexicography has tended to rely on corpora of written text, the present article argues that this might be to the detriment of covering the commonest colloquial lexical units which carry the main burden of everyday conversation. Using a new reference corpus of French ( Corpus de reference du francais contemporain or CRFC), it presents a number of case studies of highly common informal words and expressions, each of which sets out with a corpus-based dictionary entry and then goes on to compare this with the treatment accorded the entry word or phrase in ten major monolingual and bilingual dictionaries. The general findings are that colloquial words, far from being stylistically 'inferior' substitutes of more formal words, are imbued with their own specific shades of meaning, phraseology, and pragmatics, and that medium-sized spoken corpora like the CRFC shed light on lexical patterns and collocations about which the dictionaries under survey and large written corpora are largely uninformative. This leads to the conclusion that there may well be a second corpus revolution ahead which will apply Sinclair's famous dictum that 'the language looks rather different when you look at a lot of it at once' to the investigation and documentation of intimate and colloquial language use. C1 Univ Osnabruck, Sch Languages Literatures & Cultures, D-49069 Osnabruck, Germany. RP Siepmann, D (reprint author), Univ Osnabruck, Sch Languages Literatures & Cultures, D-49069 Osnabruck, Germany. EM dsiepmann@t-online.de CR Atkins B. T., 2010, COLLINS ROBERT FRENC Blanche-Benveniste C., 1997, APPROCHES LANGUE PAR Blanche-Benveniste Claire, 2010, APPROCHES LANGUE PAR Blanche-Benveniste C., 1991, LINGUISTISCHE INTERA, P1 Cappeau P., 2005, CORPUS ORAUX FRANCAI Cappeau P, 2007, REV FR LING APPL, V12, P129 Carroll J. B., 1971, AM HERITAGE WORD FRE Cresti Emanuela, 2005, C ORAL ROM INTEGRATE Debaisieux J.-M., 2010, CORPUS ORAUX PROBLEM Duhamel Claude-Alain, 1993, GROS DICO TOUT PETIT Gadet F, 2012, REV FR LING APPL, V17, P39 Hanks P., 2012, ELECT LEXICOGRAPHY, P57 Hanks Patrick, 2013, LEXICAL ANAL NORMS E Hanks P, 2012, INT J LEXICOGR, V25, P398, DOI 10.1093/ijl/ecs026 Hausmann F. J., 2005, LAXICOGRAPHICA SERIE, V128, P283 Kennedy Graeme, 1998, INTRO CORPUS LINGUIS Koch Peter, 2011, ROMANISTISCHE ARBEIT, V31 Langenscheidt-Redaktion, 2010, LANG HANDW DTSCH FRA Meissner F.-J., 2006, FEANZOSISCH HEUTE, V37, P240 Meissner F. J., 1992, LANGENSCHEIDTS WORTE Merle Pierre, 1989, DICT FRANCAIS BRANCH Nicholson K., 2012, HARRAPS SLANG DICT A Pierrel J.-M., 2004, ACT EURALEX 2004 LOR, P165 PONS Grossworterbuch Franzosisch, DTSCH FRANZ FRANZ DT Rey-Debove J., 1999, DICTIONNAIRE FRANCAI Robert Paul, 2008, NOUVEAU PETIT ROBERT Siepmann D., 2015, GRAMMATIKOGRAPHIE DI Siepmann D, 2007, Z ANGLIST AM, V55, P235 Stevenson A., 2007, HARRAPS UNABRIDGED P Steyer K., 2009, UWV ANALYSEMODELL KO Steyer K., 2013, STUDIEN DTSCH SPRACH, V65 [Anonymous], 1971, DICT LANG 19 20 SIEC Van Peteghem M., 1994, THEORIES DONNEES PRA, P95 Verlinde S, 2006, LANGUE FRANCAISE, P84 Verlinde S., DICT APPRENTISSAGE F NR 35 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 4 PU OXFORD UNIV PRESS PI OXFORD PA GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND SN 0950-3846 EI 1477-4577 J9 INT J LEXICOGR JI Int. J. Lexicogr. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 28 IS 2 BP 139 EP 168 DI 10.1093/ijl/ecv006 PG 30 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CK0XI UT WOS:000355928600001 ER PT J AU Nykiel, J AF Nykiel, Jerzy TI The Reduced Definite Article th' in Late Middle English and Beyond: An Insight from the Definiteness Cycle SO JOURNAL OF GERMANIC LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article AB I first show that the reduced form of the definite article th' is present throughout Middle English and Early Modern English. Then I highlight the differences in the pragmatic functions of the reduced form and full form of the article in three prose texts taken from the late 15th century and the 16th century. Given the differences, late Middle English and the first century of Early Modern English are closer to having two definite articles rather than one. The development of the reduced form th' is part of the DP cycle in that th' emerges as the function of the weakens. Finally, I tentatively argue that th' is reanalyzed as the head of DP around 1500, after being initially base-generated in nP, at which point th' is closer to a nominal marker than to a definite article. C1 Univ Bergen, Dept Foreign Languages, N-5020 Bergen, Norway. RP Nykiel, J (reprint author), Univ Bergen, Dept Foreign Languages, Postboks 7805, N-5020 Bergen, Norway. EM jerzy.nykiel@if.uib.no FU Polish-U.S. Fulbright Commission FX This study has been greatly supported by a Senior Advanced Research Award from the Polish-U.S. Fulbright Commission. I would like to thank Elly van Gelderen, who took the trouble to read an earlier draft of this paper, and the members of the Syntax Reading group at Arizona State University for their comments and suggestions. I also thank two anonymous reviewers who helped me present many points more clearly. Remaining errors are entirely mine. CR Abney S., 1987, THESIS MIT Anderson Stephen R., 2005, ASPECTS THEORY CLITI Ariel Mira, 1990, ACCESSING NOUN PHRAS Ashby W. J., 1977, CLITIC INFLECTION FR Chaucer Geoffrey, 1997, CANTERBURY TALES NEW Chomsky Noam, 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM Chomsky N., 2000, NEW HORIZONS STUDY L Chomsky N., 2004, STRUCTURES CARTOGRAP, P104 Dahl O, 2003, TRENDS LINGUIST-STUD, V153, P147 Fraurud K., 1990, Journal of Semantics, V7, P395, DOI 10.1093/jos/7.4.395 Givon T., 1979, UNDERSTANDING GRAMMA Heine Bernd, 1984, GRAMMATICALIZATION R Hoeksma Jack, 2009, JESPERSEN RECYCLED, V2009, P15 Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Jagger Philip John, 1985, FACTORS GOVERNING MO Jones Mark J., 2002, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V6, P325 Jones Mark J., 1999, LEEDS STUDIES ENGLIS, V30, P103 Julien M, 2005, LING AKT, V87, P1 Lyons Cristopher, 1999, DEFINITENESS Malory Thomas, 1976, WINCHESTER MALORY Malory Thomas, 1976, MORTHE ARTHUR McColl Millar Robert, 2000, SYSTEM COLLAPSE SYST Needham Paul, 1976, MORTE ARTHUR, P1 OUHALLA J, 1990, LINGUIST REV, V7, P183, DOI 10.1515/tlir.1990.7.2.183 Pearsall Derek, 1977, AUCHINLECK UNPUB, pvi Petyt Keith M., 1985, DIALECT ACCENT IND W POLLOCK JY, 1989, LINGUIST INQ, V20, P365 Prince E., 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P223 Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA ROBERTS I., 2003, SYNTACTIC CHANGE Rupp Laura, 2005, ENGL WORLD-WIDE, V26, P325, DOI 10.1075/eww.26.3.05rup Rupp L, 2007, FOLIA LINGUIST HIST, V28, P215 Schoorlemmer E, 2012, J COMP GER LINGUIST, V15, P107, DOI 10.1007/s10828-012-9048-5 Spencer A.J., 1991, MORPHOLOGICAL THEORY STRAWSON PF, 1964, PHILOS REV, V73, P439, DOI 10.2307/2183301 Tagliamonte SA, 2009, J SOCIOLING, V13, P435 Tiersma Pieter M., 1985, FRISIAN REFERENCE GR van Gelderen E, 2009, T PHILOL SOC, V107, P131 [Anonymous], 2009, THE JESPERSEN CYCLES Gelderen Elly van, 2008, WORKING PAPERS SCAND, V82, P1 Van Gelderen E., 2004, GRAMMATICALIZATION E van Gelderen Elly, 2007, J GER LINGUIST, V19, P275 van Gelderen E., 2008, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V12, P195, DOI 10.1515/LITY.2008.037 Van Gelderen Elly, 2011, LINGUISTIC CYCLE LAN Van Gelderen E., 2009, CYCLICAL CHANGE Viereck Wolfgang, 1995, MEDIEVAL DIALECTOLOG, P295 Vinaver Eugene, 1947, WORKS T MALORY Whitelock Dorothy, 1954, BODLEIAN MANUSCRIPT, V636 Zwicky Arnold M., 1994, CLITICS COMPREHENSIV, pxii Zwicky A.M., 1977, CLITICS [Anonymous], 1979, BODLEIAN LIB MS FAIR Pearsall Derek, 1977, AUCHINLECK UNPUB NR 52 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI CAMBRIDGE PA EDINBURGH BLDG, SHAFTESBURY RD, CB2 8RU CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND SN 1470-5427 EI 1475-3014 J9 J GER LINGUIST JI J. Ger. Linguist. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 27 IS 2 BP 105 EP 144 DI 10.1017/S1470542714000221 PG 40 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CK1DL UT WOS:000355945800001 ER PT J AU Laskurain-Ibarluzea, P AF Laskurain-Ibarluzea, Patxi TI Quantification and Mood Distribution in Spanish Complements: On the Negative Features of poco/a/s in Spanish SO HISPANIA-A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE TEACHING OF SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE LA English DT Article DE assertive matrices; discourse old; information structure; poco/a/s; pragmatic presupposition; Spanish complements; subjunctive mood ID LANGUAGE AB This paper studies mood distribution in the complement of Spanish assertive matrices when the matrix subject is modified by the quantifier poco/a/s. The focus of this study is solely complement clauses, and adjectival and adverbial clauses are not considered. Following Mejias-Bikandi's (1994, 1998) account that the distribution of mood in these complements is determined by the "discourse-old" information status of the propositional content of the complement, the main goal is to determine why this quantifier will in fact elicit "discourse-old" propositional contents in the complement. The hypothesis put forward in this study is that poco/a/s has inherent negative features as part of its semantics, negative features that turn assertive matrices into negation matrices. The analysis proposed here accounts for mood distribution in the complement of negation and doubt matrices in Spanish following Lambrecht's (1994, 2001) theory of information structure. Based on the relation between negation and presupposition (Givon 1979; Horn 1989), the claim is that negation and doubt matrices take complements in subjunctive not because their propositional content expresses a proposition known to be false, but rather a proposition treated by the speaker as present or active in the consciousness of both speaker and audience (or a consciousness-presupposed proposition). C1 Illinois State Univ, Normal, IL 61761 USA. RP Laskurain-Ibarluzea, P (reprint author), Illinois State Univ, Normal, IL 61761 USA. CR Alcaide Jesus, 2008, EL MUNDO 0806 Amestoy Ignacio, 2008, EL MUNDO 0624 BARWISE J, 1981, LINGUIST PHILOS, V4, P159, DOI 10.1007/BF00350139 Becker Martin, 2010, MODALITY MOOD ROMANC, P163 Campodonico Matilde, 2009, PERIODICO INT 1021 Chafe Wallace L., 1987, COHERENCE GROUNDING, P21 Chafe W. L., 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC, P25 [Anonymous], 2014, CINCO DIAS 1115 Mir de Francia Ricardo, 2013, PERIODICO INT 0216 Lopez de Guererio Milagros, 2013, HOY ES 0219 de Hoop H., 1992, THESIS U GRONINGEN Diesing Molly, 1992, INDEFINITES [Anonymous], 2005, EL MUNDO 0506 Fauconnier Gilles, 1985, MENTAL SPACES Ferguson Vazquez de Parga Andy, 2013, PAIS Giannakidou A., 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA Giannakidou A., 1995, SEMANTICS LINGUISTIC, VV, P132 Giannakidou Anastasia, 1998, POLARITY SENSITIVITY Giannakidou A., 1994, LANGUAGE COGNITION, V4, P55 Gilbert Albert, 2013, PERIODICO CATAL 0310 Givon T., 1979, UNDERSTANDING GRAMMA Guitart Jorge M, 1991, DISCOURSE PRAGMATICS, P179 Horn L. R., 1989, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Horn Laurence R., 1986, PARASESSION PRAGMATI, P168 Kearns K., 2000, SEMANTICS Klein Flora, 1975, 11 REG M CHIC LING S, P353 Lambrecht K, 2001, LINGUISTICS, V39, P463, DOI 10.1515/ling.2001.021 Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Lavandera Beatriz, 1983, DISCOURSE PERSPECTIV, P209 LEWIS D, 1979, J PHILOS LOGIC, V8, P339 Lunn Patricia, 1989, STUDIES ROMAN LINGUI, P250 Mejias-Bikandi E, 1998, HISPANIA-J DEV INTER, V81, P941, DOI 10.2307/345807 Mejias-Bikandi Errapel, 1994, HISPANIA, V77, P529 Merino Antonio, 2010, PERIODICO EXTRE 0510 Milsark Gary, 1977, LINGUISTIC ANAL, V3, P1 Milsark Gary, 1974, THESIS MIT Partee Barbara, 1989, P 5 E STAT C LING, P383 Prince E., 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P223 Prince Ellen, 1992, DISCOURSE DESCRIPTIO, P295, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.16.12PRI Quer J., 2001, PROBUS, V13, P81, DOI 10.1515/prbs.13.1.81 Reinoso Jose, 2013, PAIS RIVERO ML, 1970, LANGUAGE, V46, P640, DOI 10.2307/412311 Spenader J., 2003, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, V12, DOI 10.1023/A:1024191513816 Stalnaker Robert C., 1974, SEMANTICS PHILOS, P197 Terrell Tracy, 1974, HISPANIA, V57, P484, DOI DOI 10.2307/339187 Hernandez Velasco Irene, 2013, EL MUNDO 0227 Zeevat Henk, 1997, MUN WORKSH FORM SEM, P195 [Anonymous], 2012, CINCO DIAS 1101 [Anonymous], 2004, CINCO DIAS 0610 [Anonymous], 2013, LA VOZ DE CADIZ 0331 [Anonymous], 2012, PERIODICO INT 0604 NR 51 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 1 PU AMER ASSOC TEACHERS SPANISH PORTUGUESE, INC PI WALLED LAKE PA 900 LADD RD, WALLED LAKE, MI 48390 USA SN 0018-2133 EI 2153-6414 J9 HISPANIA-J DEV INTER JI Hispania-J. Devoted Teach. Span. Port. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 98 IS 2 BP 285 EP 299 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics; Literature, Romance SC Linguistics; Literature GA CJ7ZP UT WOS:000355719200013 ER PT J AU Kuriscak, L AF Kuriscak, Lisa TI Examination of Learner and Situation Level Variables: Choice of Speech Act and Request Strategy by Spanish L2 Learners SO HISPANIA-A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE TEACHING OF SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE LA English DT Article DE complaints; pragmatics; requests; second-language speech acts; Spanish ID INTERLANGUAGE; ACQUISITION; PROFICIENCY; COMPETENCE; POLITENESS; SPEAKERS C1 Ball State Univ, Muncie, IN 47306 USA. RP Kuriscak, L (reprint author), Ball State Univ, Muncie, IN 47306 USA. CR Al-Gahtani Saad, 2011, APPL LINGUIST, V33, P42 Bardovi-Harlig K, 1999, LANG LEARN, V49, P677, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00105 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 1999, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V9, P237 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P13 Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN Biesenbach-Lucas S, 2007, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V11, P59 Billmyer K, 2000, APPL LINGUIST, V21, P517, DOI 10.1093/applin/21.4.517 Blum-Kulka Shoshana, 1986, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V8, P165, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100006069 Blum-Kulka Shoshana, 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P273 Bresnahan Mary Jiang, 2001, J ASIAN PACIFIC COMM, V11.2, P135 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Cohen Andrew, 1994, RES METHODOLOGY 2 LA, P143 Cohen A. D., 1998, STRATEGIES LEARNING Cohen AD, 2007, MOD LANG J, V91, P189, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00540.x DeCapua Andrea, 1989, ANAL PRAGMATIC TRANS Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2004, LANG LEARN, V54, P587, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00281.x Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2003, MULTILINGUA, V22, P225, DOI 10.1515/mult.2003.012 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P253, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.013 Forgas JP, 1999, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V76, P928, DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.928 Forges JP, 1999, PERS SOC PSYCHOL B, V25, P850, DOI 10.1177/0146167299025007007 Fraser B., 1980, DISCOURSE ANAL 2 LAN, P75 Garcia Carmen, 1989, LINGUISTICS ED, V1, P299, DOI 10.1016/S0898-5898(89)80004-X GARCIA C, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P127, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90085-4 Garcia Carmen, 1992, MULTILINGUA, V11, P387, DOI 10.1515/mult.1992.11.4.387 Gardner R. C., 1985, ATTITUDE MOTIVATION Geluykens Ronald, 2005, 16 INT C PRAGM LANG Geluykens Ronald, 2003, MEANING LANGUAGE CON, V2, P251 Golato A, 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/24.1.90 Goldschmidt Myra, 1996, SPEECH ACTS CULTURES, P241 HARLOW LL, 1990, MOD LANG J, V74, P328, DOI 10.2307/327628 Hartford B. S., 1992, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V3, P33 Hinkel Eli, 1994, APPL LANGUAGE LEARNI, V5, P73 House J., 1987, PERSPECTIVES LANGUAG, P1250 Hudson Thom, 2001, FOCUS LANGUAGE TEST, P57 Kasper G., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P3 Kasper Gabriele, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P149, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014868 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kasper G., 2000, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P316 Kobayashi H., 2003, PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE, P161 KOIKE DA, 1989, MOD LANG J, V73, P279, DOI 10.2307/327002 Lafford B. A., 1995, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P97 Le Pair Rob, 1996, LANG SCI, V18, P651, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00040-X Matsumura S, 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P465, DOI 10.1093/applin/24.4.465 dan Neu J., 1996, SPEECH ACTS CULTURES, P191 Olshtain E., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P108 Pinto D., 2005, SPAN CONTEXT, V2, P1, DOI 10.1075/sic.2.1.01pin Rachel Shively, 2008, IKALA, V13, P57 Marquez Reiter Rosina, 2000, LINGUISTIC POLITENES Rintell E., 1981, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V27, P11 Rintell E. M., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P248 Rodriguez Silvia, 2001, THESIS INDIANA U ANN Rose K., 2000, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V22, P27, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100001029 Ross-Feldman Lauren, 2006, ANN ARBOR Shively RL, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1818, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030 Taguchi Naoko, 2011, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V49, P265 Taguchi N, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P113, DOI 10.1093/applin/aml051 Takahashi S, 2005, APPL LINGUIST, V26, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/amh040 Takahashi Satomi, 1989, CROSS LINGUISTIC INF Tannen D., 1991, YOU JUST DONT UNDERS Trosborg A., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA NR 60 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 3 PU AMER ASSOC TEACHERS SPANISH PORTUGUESE, INC PI WALLED LAKE PA 900 LADD RD, WALLED LAKE, MI 48390 USA SN 0018-2133 EI 2153-6414 J9 HISPANIA-J DEV INTER JI Hispania-J. Devoted Teach. Span. Port. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 98 IS 2 BP 300 EP 318 PG 19 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics; Literature, Romance SC Linguistics; Literature GA CJ7ZP UT WOS:000355719200014 ER PT J AU Hinzen, W AF Hinzen, Wolfram TI Nothing is Hidden: Contextualism and the Grammar-Meaning Interface SO MIND & LANGUAGE LA English DT Article ID UNARTICULATED CONSTITUENTS; LOGICAL FORM; SYNTAX; LANGUAGE AB A defining assumption in the debate on contextual influences on truth-conditional content is that such content is often incompletely determined by what is specified in linguistic form. The debate then turns on whether this is evidence for positing a more richly articulated logical form or else a pragmatic process of free enrichment that posits truly unarticulated constituents that are unspecified in linguistic form. Questioning this focus on semantics and pragmatics, this article focuses on the independent grammatical dimensions of the problem. Against the background of a principled account of the different ways in which the lexicon and the grammar, respectively, determine aspects of propositional meaning, and an uncontentious notion of content, nothing turns out to be missing' in grammatical expressions in order for them to encode complete propositional thoughts. As this predicts, when putatively hidden constituents are made overt or are otherwise added, propositions result that are systematically different from the thoughts originally expressed. Context, while potentially affecting lexically specified aspects of meaning, never affects grammar-determined ones, suggesting a specific role for grammar in the normal cognitive mode. C1 [Hinzen, Wolfram] Univ Barcelona, ICREA Catalan Inst Adv Studies & Res, Dept Linguist, E-08007 Barcelona, Spain. [Hinzen, Wolfram] Univ Durham, Dept Philosophy, Durham DH1 3HP, England. RP Hinzen, W (reprint author), Univ Barcelona, ICREA Catalan Inst Adv Studies & Res, Dept Linguist, Gran Via Corts Catalanes 585, E-08007 Barcelona, Spain. EM wolfram.hinzen@gmail.com FU Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) [AH/H50009X/1] FX I am extremely grateful to Francois Recanati for comments on an earlier version of this paper, as well as to three anonymous referees, and especially to the editor. Partial funding for this research was obtained from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), grant AH/H50009X/1: 'Un-Cartesian Linguistics'. CR Bezuidenhout A, 1997, MIND, V106, P375, DOI 10.1093/mind/106.423.375 Buhler Karl, 1934, SPRACHTHEORIE DARSTE Cappelen Herman, 2007, SITUATING SEMANTICS, P199 Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Casasanto D, 2010, COGNITIVE SCI, V34, P387, DOI 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01094.x Chomsky N, 2004, GENERATIVE ENTERPRISE REVISITED, pIX Clark E. V., 1992, LEXICON ACQUISITION Collins J, 2007, MIND, V116, P805, DOI 10.1093/mind/fzm805 Fitch T., 2005, BIOL PHILOS, V20, P193, DOI [10.1007/s10539-005-5597-1), DOI 10.1007/S10539-005-5597-1)] Fodor JA, 2001, MIND LANG, V16, P1, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00153 Gross S., 2001, ESSAYS LINGUISTIC CO Hale K., 2002, PROLEGOMENA THEORY A Hall A, 2008, MIND LANG, V23, P426, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.00350.x Hinzen W., 2012, J COGNITIVE PROCESSE, V26, P1297 Hinzen W., 2013, PHILOS UNIVERSAL GRA Hinzen W, 2013, PHILOS PSYCHOL, V26, P1, DOI 10.1080/09515089.2011.627537 Hornstein Norbert, 2001, MOVE MINIMALIST THEO Huang J. T, 1995, GOVERNMENT AND BINDI, P125 King J.C., 2005, SEMANTICS VS PRAGMAT King Jeffrey C., 2007, NATURE STRUCTURE CON Kneer M., 2009, MEAN TRUTH C 2 3 C U Kuperberg GR, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1146, P23, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063 Larson Richard K., 1995, KNOWLEDGE OF MEANING Lasnik H., 2000, SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES LONGOBARDI G, 1994, LINGUIST INQ, V25, P609 Longobardi Giuseppe, 2005, Z SPRACHWISS, V24, P5, DOI 10.1515/zfsw.2005.24.1.5 Marti L, 2006, LINGUIST PHILOS, V29, P135, DOI 10.1007/s10988-005-4740-4 Merchant J, 2004, LINGUIST PHILOS, V27, P661 Mukherji Nirmalangshu, 2010, PRIMACY GRAMMAR Neale Stephen, 2007, SITUATING SEMANTICS, P251 Perry J., 1998, P 1995 CSLI AMST LOG Potts C., 2006, SYNTAX NONSENTENTIAL Pylkkanen L, 2011, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V26, P1317, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2010.527490 Recanati F, 2007, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P123, DOI 10.1007/s10988-006-9007-1 Recanati F, 2004, LITERAL MEANING Recanati F, 2002, LINGUIST PHILOS, V25, P299, DOI 10.1023/A:1015267930510 Reinhart T, 2006, LINGUIST INQ MONOGR, V45, P1 Reuland E., 2011, OXFORD HDB LINGUISTI, P377 Sennet A, 2011, MIND LANG, V26, P412, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01423.x Sheehan M., 2011, LINGUIST ANAL, V37, P405 Sperber D., 1986, RELEVANCE Stainton Robert, 2006, WORDS AND THOUGHTS Stanley J, 2002, MIND LANG, V17, P149, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00193 Stanley J, 2000, MIND LANG, V15, P219, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00130 Stanley J, 2005, CONTEXTUALISM PHILOS Stanley J, 2000, LINGUIST PHILOS, V23, P391, DOI 10.1023/A:1005599312747 Tomasello M, 2008, ORIGINS HUMAN COMMUN NR 47 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 5 U2 6 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0268-1064 EI 1468-0017 J9 MIND LANG JI Mind Lang. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 30 IS 3 BP 259 EP 291 DI 10.1111/mila.12080 PG 33 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CJ8FO UT WOS:000355735800002 ER PT J AU Goddard, C AF Goddard, Cliff TI "Swear words" and "curse words" in Australian (and American) English. At the crossroads of pragmatics, semantics and sociolinguistics SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article ID CULTURAL SCRIPTS; INTERJECTIONS; SLURS AB This study seeks to show that Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) analytical techniques allow an integrated semantic-pragmatic approach to the use of "swear words" and "curse (cuss) words". The paper begins with a semantic exegesis of the lexical items swear word and curse word. This is helpful to delimit and conceptualize the phenomena being studied, and it also hints at some interesting differences between the speech cultures of Australian English and American English. Subsequent sections propose semantic explications for a string of swear/curse words and expressions as used in Australian English, including: exclamations (Shit! Fuck! Damn! Christ! Jesus!), abuse formulas (Fuck you!, Damn you!), interrogative and imperative formulas (e.g. Who the fuck do you think you are?; Get the hell out of here!), and the free use of expressive adjectives, such as fucking and goddamn, in angry swearing. A novel aspect, with interesting implications for the relationship between semantics and pragmatics, is that the explications incorporate a metalexical awareness section, modelling speaker awareness of the ethnometapragmatic status of the word in the community of discourse. The study goes on to address so-called "social/conversational" swearing. I propose cultural scripts to capture some Anglo ethnopragmatic assumptions about how the use of swear/curse words can be affected by perceptions of familiarity, solidarity, and mutuality. Differences between Australian English and American English are discussed at various points. C1 Griffith Univ, Linguist, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia. RP Goddard, C (reprint author), Griffith Univ, Linguist, 170 Kessels Rd, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia. EM c.goddard@griffith.edu.au CR Allan K, 2006, FORBIDDEN WORDS: TABOO AND THE CENSORING OF LANGUAGE, P1, DOI 10.2277/ 0521819601 Allan K., 1991, EUPHEMISM DYSPHEMISM Allan K, 2009, VAR ENGL AR WORLD GS, VG39, P361 AMEKA F, 1992, J PRAGMATICS, V18, P101, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90048-G Baker Sidney J, 1960, AUSTR LANGUAGE Blakemore Diane, 2014, LANGUAGE SCI Bromhead H, 2009, TOP ENGL LINGUIST, V62, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110216028 Cameron Deborah, 2003, HDB LANGUAGE GENDER Coates J., 2003, MEN TALK STORIES MAK Croom AM, 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P177, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.03.008 Croom AM, 2011, LANG SCI, V33, P343, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.11.005 Croom AM, 2014, LANG SCI, V41, P227, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.07.003 Croom A. M., 2014, LANGUAGE SCI Jonathan Culpeper, 2011, IMPOLITENESS USING L Cunningham Valentine, 2007, RUDE BRITANNIA, P35 Beers Fagersten K., 2012, WHOS SWEARING NOW SO Goddard Cliff, 2014, YB CORPUS LINGUISTIC, P55 Goddard Cliff, 2014, ROUTLEDGE HDB LANGUA, P66 Goddard Cliff, 2014, WORDS MEANINGS LEXIC Goddard Cliff, 2006, ETHNOPRAGMATICS UNDE Goddard Cliff, 2002, MEANING UNIVERSAL GR Goddard Cliff, 2004, INTERCULTURAL PRAGMA, V1 Goddard Cliff, 2011, SEMANTIC ANAL PRACTI Goddard C, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P29, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.002 Goddard C, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1038, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.010 Goddard C, 2011, LANG SCI, V33, P40, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.03.003 Goddard C, 2010, REV COGN LINGUIST, V8, P123, DOI 10.1075/ml.8.1.05god Goddard C, 2013, AUST J LINGUIST, V33, P245 Goddard C, 2014, EMOT REV, V6, P53, DOI 10.1177/1754073913491843 Gustafson Sandra M., 2011, IMAGINING DELIBERATI Habib S., 2011, THESIS U NEW ENGLAND HILL D, 1992, J PRAGMATICS, V18, P209, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90052-D Holmes J., 2003, POWER POLITENESS WOR Hughes G., 1998, SWEARING SOCIAL HIST Jay Timothy, 2000, WHY WE CURSE NEUROPS Jay T., 1992, CURSING AM PSYCHOLIN Jay T, 2008, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V4, P267, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2008.013 Kidman Angus, 1993, THESIS U NEW ENGLAND Levisen C., 2012, CULTURAL SEMANTICS S Ljung M, 2011, SWEARING: A CROSS-CULTURAL LINGUISTIC STUDY, P1 Malouf David, 2004, Q ESSAY, V12, P1 McEnery Anthony, 2004, LANG LIT, V13, P235, DOI DOI 10.1177/0963947004044873 McEnery T., 2006, SWEARING ENGLISH BAD Mohr M., 2013, HOLY SH T BRIEF HIST Moore Bruce, 2010, WHATS THEIR STORY HI Musgrave Simon, 2014, WRESTLING WORDS MEAN, P3 Niedzielski N. A., 2007, HDB PRAGMATICS, V146-155 Norrick NR, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P866, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.005 Peeters Bert, 2006, SEMANTIC PRIMES UNIV Rowen Roslyn, 2012, THESIS GRIFFITH U Silverstein Michael, 2003, TALKING POLITICS SUB Stapleton Karyn, 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V9, P289 Stapleton Karyn, 2003, WOMEN LANGUAGE, V26, P22 Stollznow Karenina, 2002, THESIS U NEW ENGLAND Taylor B. A., 1975, LINGUISTICS, V16, P17 Van Lancker D, 1999, BRAIN RES REV, V31, P83, DOI 10.1016/S0165-0173(99)00060-0 Wajnryb R., 2005, EXPLETIVE DELETED GO Wierzbicka A., 1996, SEMANTICS PRIMES UNI Wierzbicka A, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1167, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00023-6 Wierzbicka Anna, 2014, IMPRISONED ENGLISH H Wierzbicka A, 2011, PROBL INFORM TRANSM+, V47, P378, DOI 10.1134/S0032946011040065 Wierzbicka A, 1997, UNDERSTANDING CULTUR Wierzbicka A., 1987, ENGLISH SPEECH ACT V Wierzbicka A, 1991, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Wierzbicka Anna, 2014, ROUTLEDGE HDB LANGUA Wierzbicka Anna, 1992, MOT MOTS BONS MOTS W, P21 Wong JO, 2014, STUD ENGL LANG, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139519519 Ye Z., 2007, LANGUAGE MEMORY CROS, P127 Ye Zhengdao, 2004, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V1, P211, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2004.1.2.211 Ye Zhengdao, SEMANTICS N IN PRESS NR 70 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 22 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1612-295X EI 1613-365X J9 INTERCULT PRAGMAT JI Intercult. Pragmat. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 12 IS 2 BP 189 EP 218 DI 10.1515/ip-2015-0010 PG 30 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CI7JY UT WOS:000354940700003 ER PT J AU Nemesi, AL AF Nemesi, Attila L. TI Levels and types of breaking the maxims: A neo-Gricean account of humor SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE humor; Grice; Leech; Cooperative Principle; maxim; violation; flouting; implicature; politeness ID VERBAL IRONY; COMMUNICATION; COOPERATION; VIOLATIONS; PRAGMATICS; LANGUAGE; WORDS; JOKES AB On the basis of examples drawn from seven classic Hungarian film comedies, I argue in this article that the place of humor within the Gricean-Leechian model needs to be revisited and extended towards social psychological pragmatics to account for a wider range of humorous material. Scrutinizing the relevant controversial details of Grice's conceptual framework, my concern is to find a practical way of fitting the various forms of humor into an adequate (and not an idealistic) pragmatic theory. I propose to differentiate between two levels and five types of breaking the maxims, introducing the Self-interest Principle (SiP) supposed to be in constant tension with, and as rational as, Grice's Cooperative Principle. Politeness and self-presentational phenomena are subsumed under the operation of the SiP which embraces and coordinates the speaker's own personal and interpersonal purposes. C1 Pazmany Peter Catholic Univ, Dept Hungarian Linguist, Piliscsaba, Hungary. RP Nemesi, AL (reprint author), Pazmany Peter Catholic Univ, Dept Hungarian Linguist, Piliscsaba, Hungary. EM nemesi.attila@btk.ppke.hu CR Alexander R. J., 1997, ASPECTS VERBAL HUMOU Attardo S, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P793, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3 Attardo Salvatore, 2008, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V2, P1203, DOI 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00107.x Attardo S., 1994, LINGUISTIC THEORIES ATTARDO S, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P537, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90111-2 Austin J. L., 1962, DO THINGS WORDS Bezuidenhout A, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V48, P4, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.007 Brock A, 2011, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V211, P263 Cialdini R. B., 1993, INFLUENCE PSYCHOL PE Clark H. H., 1996, USING LANGUAGE CLARK HH, 1984, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V113, P121, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 Hidalgo Downing Raquel, 2008, DIME COMO IRONIZAS D, P423 Dynel Marta, 2013, EUROPEAN J HUMOR RES, V1, P22 Dynel Marta, 2009, HUMOROUS GARDEN PATH Dynel Marta, 2008, LODZ PAPERS PRAGMATI, V4, P159, DOI DOI 10.2478/V10016-008-0011-5 Dynel M, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1628, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.016 Dynel M, 2014, HUMOR, V27, P537, DOI 10.1515/humor-2014-0097 Dynel M, 2014, HUMOR, V27, P619, DOI 10.1515/humor-2014-0096 Dynel M, 2013, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V10, P403, DOI 10.1515/ip-2013-0018 Epley N., 2008, SOCIAL PERSONALITY P, V2, P1455, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1751-9004.2008.00115.X Garmendia J, 2014, HUMOR, V27, P641, DOI 10.1515/humor-2014-0094 Gibbs RW, 2014, HUMOR, V27, P575, DOI 10.1515/humor-2014-0106 Goatly A., 2012, MEANING AND HUMOUR Goffman E, 1955, PSYCHIATR, V18, P213 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Grice H. P., 1978, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V9, P113 Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS GU YG, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V20, P405, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90038-Q Gu Yueguo, 1994, PRETENDING COMMUNICA, P173 Ortega M. Belen Alvarado, 2013, IRONY HUMOR PRAGMATI HANCHER M, 1980, J LITERARY SEMANTICS, V9, P20 Hunter Lynne, 1983, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V19, P195 Kasher Asa, 1976, LANGUAGE FOCUS FDN M, P197 KEENAN EO, 1976, LANG SOC, V5, P67 Kiefer F., 1979, LINGUISTICAE INVESTI, V3, P57, DOI 10.1075/li.3.1.04kie Kotthoff H, 2006, HUMOR, V19, P271, DOI 10.1515/HUMOR.2006.015 Leary M. R., 1995, SELF PRESENTATION IM Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Liu YM, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3403, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.010 MARTINICH AP, 1981, J LITERARY SEMANTICS, V10, P20, DOI 10.1515/jlse.1981.10.1.20 Mooney A, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P899, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.006 Morreall J., 1983, TAKING LAUGHTER SERI Morreall J, 2004, HUMOR, V17, P393, DOI 10.1515/humr.2004.17.4.393 Nash Walter, 1985, LANGUAGE HUMOUR Nemesi Attila L., 2012, HUNGARIAN HUMOUR, P13 Nemesi AL, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V50, P129, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.004 Nemeth T. Eniko, 2014, ARGUMENTUM, V10, P472 Oring Elliott, 2003, ENGAGING HUMOR Raskin V., 2009, J LIT THEORY, V3, P285, DOI 10.1515/JLT.2009.016 Raskin V., 1985, SEMANTIC MECH HUMOR Raskin Victor, 1994, PRAGMAT COGN, V2, P31, DOI DOI 10.1075/PC.2.1.02RAS ROBERTS RM, 1994, PSYCHOL SCI, V5, P159, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00653.x SADOCK J. M., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P53 Searle John R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH Attardo Salvatore, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V27, P753 Spencer-Oatey Helen, 2000, CULTURALLY SPEAKING Jenny Thomas, 1995, MEANING INTERACTION Verschueren J., 1999, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMA YAMAGUCHI H, 1988, J PRAGMATICS, V12, P323, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90036-7 NR 59 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 7 U2 16 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1612-295X EI 1613-365X J9 INTERCULT PRAGMAT JI Intercult. Pragmat. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 12 IS 2 BP 249 EP 276 DI 10.1515/ip-2015-0012 PG 28 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CI7JY UT WOS:000354940700005 ER PT J AU Minai, U Isobe, M Okabe, R AF Minai, Utako Isobe, Miwa Okabe, Reiko TI Acquisition and Use of Linguistic Knowledge: Scrambling in Child Japanese as a Test Case SO JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE Scrambling; Prosody; Child Japanese ID COMPREHENSION; STRESS AB The current study investigates preschool-age children's comprehension of scrambled sentences in Japanese. While scrambling has been known to be challenging for children, biasing them to exhibit non-adult-like interpretations (e.g., Hayashibe in Descr Appl Linguist 8:1-18, 1975; Sano in Descr Appl Linguist 10:213-233, 1977; Suzuki in Jpn J Educ Psychol 25(3):56-61, 1977), children are able to interpret scrambled sentences in an adult-like way when the pragmatics is enriched in the experiments (Otsu in Acquisition studies in generative grammar, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 253-264, 1994). These findings suggest that children's difficulty in comprehending scrambling may be due to processing difficulties (Suzuki in J Psycholinguist Res 42(2), 119-137, 2013), such as the Lexical-ordering Strategy bias (Bever in Cognition and language development, Wiley, New York, pp 279-352, 1970), rather than their lack of the linguistic knowledge of scrambling. The current study revealed that children are indeed able to utilize prosodic information to interpret scrambled sentences in an adult-like way. Our findings provide converging evidence in favor of the proposal that children's grammatical knowledge of scrambling is intact, although they are more vulnerable than adults to processing difficulties that hinder their ability to successfully interpret scrambled sentences. C1 [Minai, Utako] Univ Kansas, Dept Linguist, Lawrence, KS 66045 USA. [Isobe, Miwa] Tokyo Univ Arts, Training Ctr Foreign Languages & Dict, Taito Ku, Tokyo, Japan. [Okabe, Reiko] Nihon Univ, Coll Law, Chiyoda Ku, Tokyo, Japan. RP Minai, U (reprint author), Univ Kansas, Dept Linguist, 1541 Lilac Lane,Blake Hall Room 427, Lawrence, KS 66045 USA. EM minai@ku.edu CR Aoshima S, 2004, J MEM LANG, V51, P23, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.001 Bever Thomas G., 1970, COGNITION DEV LANGUA, P279 Boersma P, 2014, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC CHUJO K, 1983, JPN J PSYCHOL, V54, P250 CUTLER A, 1987, J CHILD LANG, V14, P145 Dahan D, 1996, LANG SPEECH, V39, P341 Grassmann S, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P3098, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.019 Gualmini A, 2003, P 25 PENN LING C, P87 Hale Kenneth, 1980, MIT WORKING PAPERS L, V2, P185 Hayashibe H., 1975, DESCRIPTIVE APPLIED, V8, P1 Hoji Hajime, 1985, THESIS U WASHINGTON Ito K, 2012, J MEM LANG, V66, P265, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.002 Kuroda S.-Y., 1980, NICHI EI HIKAKU KOZA, P23 Lidz J., 2011, P 12 TOK C PSYCH TOK, P17 MARATSOS MP, 1973, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V2, P1, DOI 10.1007/BF01067108 Masunaga K., 1983, P 13 INT C LING, P455 MATSUMOTO Y, 1993, LINGUISTICS, V31, P667, DOI 10.1515/ling.1993.31.4.667 Mazuka R., 2002, SENTENCE PROCESSING, P131 Mazuka R., 2009, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V3, P59, DOI [10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00102.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2008.00102.X] Miller K., 2005, BOST U C LANG DEV BU, P389 Minai U, 2012, J CHILD LANG, V39, P919, DOI 10.1017/S0305000911000316 Miyagawa S., 1980, THESIS U ARIZONA Miyamoto E. T., 2004, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V5, P153 Murasugi K, 2005, STUD GENERAT GRAMM, V69, P221 Otsu Y., 1994, ACQUISITION STUDIES, P253 Pierrehumbert Janet, 1988, JAPANESE TONE STRUCT Saito M., 1985, THESIS MIT Sano K., 1977, DESCRIPTIVE APPL LIN, V10, P213 Sano T., 2007, BUCLD 31 ONL P SUPPL SLOBIN DI, 1982, COGNITION, V12, P229, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(82)90033-6 SOLAN L, 1980, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V23, P688 Ito K., 2009, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V3, P90 Suzuki S., 1977, JAPANESE J ED PSYCHO, V25, P56 Suzuki T, 2013, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V42, P119, DOI 10.1007/s10936-012-9201-y Tamaoka K, 2005, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V34, P281, DOI 10.1007/s10936-005-3641-6 NR 35 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 2 PU SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS PI NEW YORK PA 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA SN 0090-6905 EI 1573-6555 J9 J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES JI J. Psycholinguist. Res. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 44 IS 3 SI SI BP 287 EP 307 DI 10.1007/s10936-014-9347-x PG 21 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CI3FY UT WOS:000354634300006 PM 25636488 ER PT J AU Reetzke, R Zou, XB Sheng, L Katsos, N AF Reetzke, Rachel Zou, Xiaobing Sheng, Li Katsos, Napoleon TI Communicative Development in Bilingually Exposed Chinese Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders SO JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH LA English DT Article ID SOCIAL RESPONSIVENESS SCALE; SCHOOL-AGE-CHILDREN; LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT; PRAGMATIC LANGUAGE; WILLIAMS-SYNDROME; YOUNG-CHILDREN; 2ND-LANGUAGE ACQUISITION; DIAGNOSTIC INTERVIEW; CHECKLIST; VALIDATION AB Purpose: We examined the association of bilingual exposure with structural and pragmatic language development in Chinese children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). Method: The parents of 54 children with ASD exposed to 1 (n = 31) or 2 (n = 23) Chinese languages completed (a) a questionnaire to evaluate their child's competence in structural language and pragmatic ability in their dominant language (Children's Communication Checklist-Second Edition; Bishop, 2006), and (b) a questionnaire to assess their child's social functioning (Social Responsiveness Scale; Constantino & Gruber, 2005; Wang, Lee, Chen, & Hsu, 2012). In addition, parents completed thorough interviews regarding the linguistic environment of their children (Language Environment Interview; Hambly & Fombonne, 2011). Results: Multivariate analyses of variance revealed that bilingually exposed children with ASD did not demonstrate significantly different performance on any standard measure relative to their monolingual peers. Conclusions: The findings suggest that bilingual language exposure is not associated with additional challenges for the development of the dominant language in children with ASD. The lack of negative associations in our sample is not likely to be due to the comparatively early diagnosis and/or intervention that are available in other countries. We discuss implications for decisions regarding the linguistic environment of children with ASD. C1 [Reetzke, Rachel; Sheng, Li] Univ Texas Austin, Austin, TX 78712 USA. [Reetzke, Rachel; Katsos, Napoleon] Univ Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, England. [Zou, Xiaobing] Sun Yat Sen Univ, Affiliated Hosp 3, Child Dev Behav Ctr, Guangzhou, Guangdong, Peoples R China. RP Katsos, N (reprint author), Univ Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, England. EM nk248@cam.ac.uk FU Rotary Ambassadorial Scholarship program; Fulbright U.S. student research grant program; British Academy/Leverhulme Research Grant [SG-090676]; ESRC [RES-810-21-0069] FX Rachel Reetzke would like to thank the Rotary Ambassadorial Scholarship program for a visiting student grant to the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, and the Fulbright U.S. student research grant program for supporting her research in Guangzhou, China. Napoleon Katsos was partially supported by British Academy/Leverhulme Research Grant SG-090676 and the ESRC funded network on Experimental Pragmatics in the UK (XPrag-UK; RES-810-21-0069). The coauthors would like to thank Deng Wenlin, Lynn Cai, Ruei-An Shen, Fu Ming, Jiang Weiliang, Ji Yue, and Katie Keith for their assistance with data collection and review of early versions of the manuscript. We would also like to thank Bonnie Chow for assisting us with the choice of measuring instruments and Catherine Hambly for providing extensive guidance for the use of the Language Environment Interview (Hambly & Fombonne, 2011). We also benefited from helpful comments and suggestions made at the presentation of an earlier version of this work at the Child Language Seminar 2013, in Newcastle, United Kingdom. Most of all, we would like to thank the children and parents of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University and Guangzhou Cana School, who were willing to give their time to participate in this study and help us to further our knowledge of autism spectrum disorders. CR American Psychiatric Association, 2000, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT Antoniou K., 2013, BOST U C LANG DEV, V37 Baio Jon, 2012, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, V61, P1 Bialystok E., 2001, BILINGUALISM DEV LAN Bishop D., 2006, CHILDRENS COMMUNICAT Bishop DV, 2000, SPEECH LANGUAGE IMPA, P99 Bishop D.V.M., 2003, CHILDRENS COMMUNICAT Chen X, 2008, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V37, P405, DOI 10.1007/s10936-008-9085-z Chinese Society of Psychiatry, 2001, CHIN CLASS DIAGN CRI Chuthapisith J, 2014, PEDIATR INT, V56, P31, DOI 10.1111/ped.12216 Constantino J, 2005, SOCIAL RESPONSIVENES Constantino JN, 2003, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V33, P427, DOI 10.1023/A:1025014929212 Constantino JN, 2007, J AM ACAD CHILD PSY, V46, P1668, DOI 10.1097/chi.0b013e318157cb23 Crystal D., 1997, ENGLISH GLOBAL LANGU Espinosa L. M., 2013, EARLY ED DUAL LANGUA Feltmate K., 2008, CANADIAN J SPEECH LA, V32, P6 Fenson L., 1993, MACARTHUR COMMUNICAT Fernandez y Garcia E., 2012, J MED SPEECH-LANG PA, V20, P10 Gau SSF, 2011, RES AUTISM SPECT DIS, V5, P809, DOI 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.09.010 Geurts HM, 2004, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V45, P1437, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00326.x Gutierrez-Clellen VF, 2008, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V29, P3, DOI 10.1017/S0142716408080016 Hambly C, 2012, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V42, P1342, DOI 10.1007/s10803-011-1365-z HAPPE FGE, 1993, COGNITION, V48, P101, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90026-R Helland WA, 2009, SCAND J PSYCHOL, V50, P287, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00718.x Hoffmann A, 2013, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V22, P198, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0131) Hollingshead AB, 2011, YJS, V8, P21 Huang AX, 2013, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V43, P1991, DOI 10.1007/s10803-012-1722-6 Jolliffe T, 1999, COGNITION, V71, P149, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00022-0 Kay-Raining Bird E., 2005, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V14, P187, DOI DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2005/019) Kay-Raining Bird E., 2012, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V47, P52, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1460 Ketelaars MP, 2009, RES DEV DISABIL, V30, P952, DOI 10.1016/j.ridd.2009.01.006 Kremer-Sadlik T., 2005, P 4 INT S BIL, P1225 Lam K.-H., 2014, ASIA PACIFIC J DEV D, V1, P4 LORD C, 1994, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V24, P659, DOI 10.1007/BF02172145 McCabe A., 2013, SOCIAL POLICY REPORT, V27 Mullen E. M., 1995, MULLEN SCALES EARLY Nicoladis E, 1999, DEV PSYCHOL, V35, P514 Norbury CF, 2004, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V39, P345, DOI 10.1080/13682820410001654883 Norris M, 2010, AUTISM, V14, P263, DOI 10.1177/1362361309348071 Ohashi JK, 2012, RES AUTISM SPECT DIS, V6, P890, DOI 10.1016/j.rasd.2011.12.002 Orgassa A, 2008, SECOND LANG RES, V24, P333, DOI 10.1177/0267658308090184 Paradis J, 2003, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V46, P113, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2003/009) Paradis J., 2011, DUAL LANGUAGE DEV D Paradis J, 2010, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V31, P227, DOI 10.1017/S0142716409990373 Paradis J, 2011, LINGUIST APPROACH BI, V1, P213, DOI 10.1075/lab.1.3.01par PEARSON BZ, 1993, LANG LEARN, V43, P93, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00174.x Petersen JM, 2012, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V42, P1499, DOI 10.1007/s10803-011-1366-y Philofsky A, 2007, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V16, P368, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2007/040) Pika S, 2006, BILING-LANG COGN, V9, P319, DOI 10.1017/S1366728906002665 Rice ML, 2005, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V26, P7, DOI 10.1017/S0142716405050034 Rossetti L., 1990, ROSSETTI INFANT TODD Royal College of Speech-Language Therapists, 2006, COMM QUAL Rutter M., 2003, MANUAL SOCIAL COMMUN Schopler E., 2003, PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL PR Siegal M, 2009, COGNITION, V110, P115, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.002 Siegal M, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0009004 Sparrow S., 2005, VINELAND ADAPTIVE BE Steenge J., 2006, BILINGUAL CHILDREN S Sun X, 2013, MOL AUTISM, V4, DOI 10.1186/2040-2392-4-7 Sun X, 2013, RES DEV DISABIL, V34, P440, DOI 10.1016/j.ridd.2012.08.010 Surian L, 1996, Cogn Neuropsychiatry, V1, P55, DOI 10.1080/135468096396703 Tardif T, 2009, J CHILD LANG, V36, P1115, DOI 10.1017/S0305000908009185 Timler GR, 2014, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V23, P73, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2013/12-0164) To CKS, 2012, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V47, P208, DOI 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00105.x Valicenti-McDermott M, 2013, J CHILD NEUROL, V28, P945, DOI 10.1177/0883073812453204 Volden J, 2010, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V19, P204, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0011) Wang J, 2012, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V42, P2450, DOI 10.1007/s10803-012-1499-7 Wharton R. H., 2000, INTERDISCIPLINARY CO, P141 World Health Organization, 1993, ICD 10 CLASS MENT BE Yliherva A, 2009, CHILD LANG TEACH THE, V25, P235, DOI 10.1177/0265659009102978 Yu B, 2013, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V22, P10, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2012/10-0078) Zimmerman I. L., 2002, PRESCHOOL LANGUAGE S NR 72 TC 4 Z9 4 U1 2 U2 8 PU AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC PI ROCKVILLE PA 2200 RESEARCH BLVD, #271, ROCKVILLE, MD 20850-3289 USA SN 1092-4388 EI 1558-9102 J9 J SPEECH LANG HEAR R JI J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 58 IS 3 BP 813 EP 825 DI 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-13-0258 PG 13 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA DX6XE UT WOS:000384528400021 PM 25679338 ER PT J AU Tsai, YR Tsou, WL AF Tsai, Yi-Rung Tsou, Wenli TI Accommodation Strategies Employed by Non-native English-Mediated Instruction (EMI) Teachers SO ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER LA English DT Article DE English-mediated instruction; English as a Lingua Franca; Accommodation strategies; Language cluster; Higher education ID LINGUA FRANCA; CORPUS; DISCOURSE AB The goal of this study was to explore English instructors' application of accommodation strategies under English-Mediated Instruction (EMI) in English as a lingua franca context of higher education in Taiwan. English instructors' verbal discourses with regard to various types of strategies during instruction were documented and examined. The presented results were triangulated in terms of quantitative and qualitative analyses. Data were gathered from a university in southern Taiwan, which included approximately 627 min of audio-recordings of five courses by five non-native teachers in its IMBA program. The collected data were analyzed through the use of frequency, pragmatic functions, display of lexicon and syntax, and the most common clusters. Corpora and interviews were chosen to be the primary analytic tools. Six effective accommodation strategies were identified via quantitative analysis, including introducing, defining, listing, eliciting, giving examples, and emphasizing. The selection of the accommodation strategies was influenced by the following situations: (1) level of content difficulty, (2) students' language proficiency, (3) student feedback, and (4) finding appropriate language. Finally, top-ten language clusters frequently produced by the EMI instructors were found to serve the purposes of eliciting and defining concepts. Possible pedagogical implications are also discussed in the last section. C1 [Tsai, Yi-Rung; Tsou, Wenli] Natl Cheng Kung Univ, Tainan 70101, Taiwan. RP Tsou, WL (reprint author), Natl Cheng Kung Univ, Tainan 70101, Taiwan. EM wtsou@mail.ncku.edu.tw CR Baker P, 2008, DISCOURSE SOC, V19, P273, DOI 10.1177/0957926508088962 BJORKMAN B., 2010, SPOKEN LINGUA FRANCA Bjorkman B, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P950, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.033 Cogo A., 2009, ENGLISH LINGUA FRANC, P254 Cogo A, 2010, POZ STUD CONTEMP LIN, V46, P295, DOI 10.2478/v10010-010-0013-7 Csomay E, 2013, APPL LINGUIST, V34, P369, DOI 10.1093/applin/ams045 GILES H, 1973, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V15, P87 Giles H., 1979, LANGUAGE SOCIAL PSYC Guido M. G., 2012, J ENGLISH LINGUA FRA, V1, P219 He DY, 2009, WORLD ENGLISH, V28, P70 House J., 2002, LINGUA FRANCA COMMUN, P246 Hyland K., 2008, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V18, P41, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1473-4192.2008.00178.X Jenkins J., 2000, PHONOLOGY ENGLISH IN Kirkpatrick A., 2002, WORLD ENGLISH, V21, P269, DOI DOI 10.1111/1467-971X.00247 Knapp A, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P978, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.008 Kubota R., 2000, ENGL J, V89, P80, DOI 10.2307/821267 Leech Geoffrey, 1975, COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMA Mauranen Anna, 2006, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V177, P123 Mauranen A., 2007, LANGUAGE DISCIPLINE, P244 Mauranen A., 2010, HELSINKI ENGLISH STU, V6, P6 Mauranen A, 2003, TESOL QUART, V37, P513 Mauranen A., 2010, NORDIC J ENGLISH STU, V9, P13 Mauranen A, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P217, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.012 Dafouz Milne E., 2013, LANGUAGE VALUE, V5, P129 Ministry of Education (MOE) Taiwan, 2001, WHIT PAP HIGH ED Nesi H., 2006, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V11, P283, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.11.3.04nes Nickerson C., 2005, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V24, P267 O'Donnell M., 2008, UAM CORPUSTOOL SOFTW Qiong H. X., 2004, ENGL TODAY, V20, P26, DOI 10.1017/S0266078404002056 Scott M. R., 2008, WORDSMITH TOOLS VERS Seidlhofer B., 2001, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V11, P133, DOI DOI 10.1111/1473-4192.00011 Smit U., 2010, STELLENBOSCH PAPERS, V39, P59, DOI DOI 10.5774/39-0-4 Yorkey R. C., 1982, STUDY SKILLS STUDENT NR 33 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 4 PU SPRINGER HEIDELBERG PI HEIDELBERG PA TIERGARTENSTRASSE 17, D-69121 HEIDELBERG, GERMANY SN 0119-5646 EI 2243-7908 J9 ASIA-PAC EDUC RES JI Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. PD JUN PY 2015 VL 24 IS 2 BP 399 EP 407 DI 10.1007/s40299-014-0192-3 PG 9 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CI0BT UT WOS:000354401400012 ER PT J AU Hartshorne, JK Snedeker, J Azar, SYML Kim, AE AF Hartshorne, Joshua K. Snedeker, Jesse Azar, Stephanie Yen-Mun Liem Kim, Albert E. TI The neural computation of scalar implicature SO LANGUAGE COGNITION AND NEUROSCIENCE LA English DT Article DE scalar implicature; ERP; pragmatics ID CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES; PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE; PRAGMATIC INFERENCES; SOCIAL COGNITION; TIME-COURSE; LANGUAGE; SEMANTICS; ERP; COMPREHENSION; POTENTIALS AB Language comprehension involves not only constructing the literal meaning of a sentence but also going beyond the literal meaning to infer what was meant but not said. One widely studied test case is scalar implicature: The inference that, e.g., Sally ate some of the cookies implies she did not eat all of them. Research is mixed on whether this is due to a rote, grammaticalised procedure or instead a complex, contextualised inference. We find that in sentences like If Sally ate some of the cookies, then the rest are on the counter, that the rest triggers a late, sustained positivity relative to Sally ate some of the cookies, and the rest are on the counter. This is consistent with behavioural results and linguistic theory suggesting that the former sentence does not trigger a scalar implicature. This motivates a view on which scalar implicature is contextualised but dependent on grammatical structure. C1 [Hartshorne, Joshua K.] MIT, Dept Brain & Cognit Sci, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA. [Hartshorne, Joshua K.; Snedeker, Jesse; Azar, Stephanie Yen-Mun Liem] Harvard Univ, Dept Psychol, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA. [Kim, Albert E.] Univ Colorado, Inst Cognit Sci, Boulder, CO 80390 USA. [Kim, Albert E.] Univ Colorado, Dept Psychol Neurosci, Boulder, CO 80390 USA. RP Hartshorne, JK (reprint author), MIT, Dept Brain & Cognit Sci, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA. EM jkhartshorne@gmail.com FU NDSEG; NSF GRFP; NIH NRSA [HD072748]; NICHD [R03HD071094-01A1]; NSF-BCS [0921012] FX This work was supported by NDSEG, NSF GRFP and NIH NRSA HD072748 fellowships to JKH, NICHD R03HD071094-01A1 to AK, and NSF-BCS 0921012 to JS. CR Alexander A, 2012, PERSPECT PSYCHOL SCI, V7, P657, DOI 10.1177/1745691612462588 Bach Kent, 1999, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, P65 Barner D, 2010, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V60, P40, DOI 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.06.002 Barner D, 2011, COGNITION, V118, P84, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.010 Bergen L, 2012, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V38, P1450, DOI 10.1037/a0027850 Bonnefon JF, 2009, COGNITION, V112, P249, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.005 Bott L, 2004, J MEM LANG, V51, P437, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006 Bott L, 2012, J MEM LANG, V66, P123, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.005 Breheny R, 2013, COGNITION, V126, P423, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.11.012 Breheny R, 2006, COGNITION, V100, P434, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.003 Breheny R, 2013, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V28, P443, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2011.649040 Breheny R, 2008, J SEMANT, V25, P93, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffm016 Chemla E, 2011, J SEMANT, V28, P359, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffq023 Chevallier C, 2008, Q J EXP PSYCHOL, V61, P1741, DOI 10.1080/17470210701712960 Chevallier C, 2010, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V40, P1104, DOI 10.1007/s10803-010-0960-8 Chierchia G., 2012, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V33, P2297 Chierchia G, 2001, PROC ANN BUCLD, P157 Chierchia G, 2006, LINGUIST INQ, V37, P535, DOI 10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535 De Neys W, 2007, EXP PSYCHOL, V54, P128, DOI 10.1027/1618-3169.54.2.128 Degen Judith, 2013, THESIS U ROCHESTER R Delong KA, 2011, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, V48, P1203, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01199.x Dieussaert K, 2011, Q J EXP PSYCHOL, V64, P2352, DOI 10.1080/17470218.2011.588799 Federmeier KD, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1146, P75, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.101 Feeney A, 2004, CAN J EXP PSYCHOL, V58, P121, DOI 10.1037/h0085792 Foppolo F., 2012, LANGUAGE LEARNING DE, V8, P365, DOI DOI 10.1080/15475441.2011.626386 Gazdar Gerald, 1979, PRAGMATICS IMPLICATU Geurts Bart, 2009, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V2, P1 Geurts B., 2010, QUANTITY IMPLICATURE Geurts B, 2009, MIND LANG, V24, P51, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01353.x Goodman ND, 2013, TOP COGN SCI, V5, P173, DOI 10.1111/tops.12007 Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Grodner DJ, 2010, COGNITION, V116, P42, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.014 Hartshorne J., 2014, SPEED INFERENC UNPUB Hartshorne JK, 2012, FRONT COMPUT NEUROSC, V6, DOI 10.3389/fncom.2012.00008 Hirschberg Julia Bell, 1991, THEORY SCALAR IMPLIC Horn L., 1972, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Horn Laurence, 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS Horn L. R., 1989, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Huang YT, 2009, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V58, P376, DOI 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001 Huang Yi Ting, 2013, Lang Learn Dev, V9, P105 Huang YT, 2011, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V26, P1161, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2010.508641 Huang YT, 2009, DEV PSYCHOL, V45, P1723, DOI 10.1037/a0016704 Katsos N, 2008, SYNTHESE, V165, P385, DOI 10.1007/s11229-007-9187-4 KOUNIOS J, 1992, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V121, P459, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.459 Kutas M, 2011, ANNU REV PSYCHOL, V62, P621, DOI 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123 Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Maris E, 2007, J NEUROSCI METH, V164, P177, DOI 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024 Marty P, 2013, LINGUA, V133, P152, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.03.006 Mathworks, 2012, SIGN PROC TOOLB US G Moreno EM, 2002, BRAIN LANG, V80, P188, DOI 10.1006/brln.2001.2588 Morris C.W., 1938, INT ENCY UNIFIED SCI, V1 Nieuwland MS, 2010, J MEM LANG, V63, P324, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005 Noveck I. A., 2002, Thinking & Reasoning, V8, P297, DOI 10.1080/13546780244000079 Noveck IA, 2003, BRAIN LANG, V85, P203, DOI 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00053-1 Noveck IA, 2001, COGNITION, V78, P165, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1 Noveck IA, 2008, TRENDS COGN SCI, V12, P425, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.009 Nuwer MR, 1998, ELECTROEN CLIN NEURO, V106, P259, DOI 10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00106-5 Panizza D, 2009, J MEM LANG, V61, P503, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.005 Papafragou Anna, 2004, LANG ACQUIS, V12, P71, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327817LA1201_3 Papafragou A, 2003, COGNITION, V86, P253, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00179-8 Papafragou A, 2006, J CHILD LANG, V33, P721, DOI 10.1017/S0305000906007550 Pashler H, 2012, PERSPECT PSYCHOL SCI, V7, P528, DOI 10.1177/1745691612465253 Politzer-Ahles S, 2013, BRAIN RES, V1490, P134, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.10.042 Pouscoulous Nausicaa, 2007, LANG ACQUIS, V14, P347, DOI DOI 10.1080/10489220701600457 Russell Benjamin, 2006, J SEMANT, V23, P361, DOI DOI 10.1093/JOS/FFL008 Sauerland U, 2004, LINGUIST PHILOS, V27, P367, DOI 10.1023/B:LING.0000023378.71748.db Sauerland Uli, 2012, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V6, P36, DOI DOI 10.1002/LNC3.321 SEMLITSCH HV, 1986, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, V23, P695, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1986.tb00696.x Vul E, 2009, PERSPECT PSYCHOL SCI, V4, P274, DOI 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01125.x Zevakhina N., 2014, SCALAR DIVERSI UNPUB NR 70 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 1 U2 5 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 2327-3798 EI 2327-3801 J9 LANG COGN NEUROSCI JI Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. PD MAY 28 PY 2015 VL 30 IS 5 BP 620 EP 634 DI 10.1080/23273798.2014.981195 PG 15 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Behavioral Sciences; Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Behavioral Sciences; Linguistics; Psychology GA CD1CI UT WOS:000350811000009 PM 25914890 ER PT J AU Yemini, M Bar-Netz, N AF Yemini, Miri Bar-Netz, Natali TI Between Arabic and French in the Israeli Education System: Acquisition of Cosmopolitan Capital in a Conflict-Ridden Society SO JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE IDENTITY AND EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE French language; Arabic language; Israel; schools; cosmopolitan capital ID LANGUAGE; JEWISH; ATTITUDES; STUDENTS; SCHOOLS AB In the era of globalization, educational systems are forced to react and globalize through schools' content and context. Among other 21st-century capabilities such as information technology use, team work, and entrepreneurship, multilingual competence has been placed among the objectives of education systems in many developed and developing countries (e.g., UK, Singapore, China, and Israel). We analyzed the pattern of students' choice for advanced studies in English, Arabic, and French languages in Israeli schools over the last 20 years (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Throughout the study period, advanced studies in English and French correlated highly with the mother's education (hence are associated with a certain social perceived status), while Arabic studies became increasingly correlated with the mother's education over the years. In addition, we performed semistructured, in-depth interviews with 20 parents of children studying either French or Arabic in junior high schools. All interviewed parents were selected from schools at which pupils can choose between French and Arabic, and parents were asked about the motivation for choosing either French or Arabic. We found that parents mostly see foreign languages as part of cultural and cosmopolitan capital that their children need to acquire in order to benefit from it later in their career. While French was found to be perceived in terms of pragmatic and instrumental cosmopolitan capital, Arabic was perceived as a pragmatic but also as an ideological asset. In addition, interviewed parents used certain stereotypes, usually to describe the unchosen language to rationalize their choice. We discuss our findings in the context of Israeli society and the conflict-ridden situation that its education system is functioning within. C1 [Yemini, Miri; Bar-Netz, Natali] Tel Aviv Univ, IL-69978 Tel Aviv, Israel. RP Yemini, M (reprint author), Tel Aviv Univ, Sch Educ, IL-69978 Tel Aviv, Israel. EM miriye@post.tau.ac.il RI Yemini, Miri/B-2426-2016 OI Yemini, Miri/0000-0002-5633-6473 CR Addi-Raccah A, 2008, EDUC EVAL POLICY AN, V30, P31, DOI 10.3102/0162373707313775 Altbach Philip G., 2007, J STUD INT EDUC, V11, P290, DOI DOI 10.1177/1028315307303542 Amara Muhammand, 2002, LANGUAGE ED POLICY A Appiah Kwame, 2006, COSMOPOLITANISM ETHI AU SY, 1988, LANG LEARN, V38, P75, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1988.tb00402.x BarTal D, 1996, INT J INTERCULT REL, V20, P341, DOI 10.1016/0147-1767(96)00023-5 Bekerman Z, 2004, J SOC ISSUES, V60, P389, DOI 10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00120.x [Anonymous], 1991, LANG PROBL LANG PLAN, DOI DOI 10.1075/LPLP.15.1.01BEN Corbin J., 1998, BASICS QUALITATIVE R Council of Europe, 2001, COMM EUR FRAM REF LA Creswell JW, 2000, THEOR PRACT, V39, P124, DOI 10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 Davis-Kean PE, 2005, J FAM PSYCHOL, V19, P294, DOI 10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.294 Department for Education and Employment/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 1999, NAT CURR ENGL Dolby N, 2008, REV EDUC RES, V78, P676, DOI 10.3102/0034654308320291 Donitsa-Schmidt S, 2004, MOD LANG J, V88, P217, DOI 10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00226.x Gardner RC, 1999, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V18, P419, DOI 10.1177/0261927X99018004004 Gardner R.C., 1972, ATTITUDES MOTIVATION Guardado M, 2010, J LANG IDENTITY EDUC, V9, P329, DOI 10.1080/15348458.2010.517699 Guilherme M., 2007, LANG INTERCULT COMM, V7, P72, DOI DOI 10.2167/LAIC184.0 Hannerz U., 1996, TRANSNATIONAL CONNEC HELD D, 2002, CONTEMP POLIT THEORY, V1, P59, DOI DOI 10.1057/PALGRAVE.CPT.9300001 Inbar O., 2001, MOTIVATION 2 LANGUAG, P395 Lee TS, 2009, J LANG IDENTITY EDUC, V8, P307, DOI 10.1080/15348450903305106 Marshall C., 1995, DESIGNING QUALITATIV Merriam S. B., 2002, QUALITATIVE RES PRAC Mikes M., 1986, LANGUAGE ED MULTILIN, P16 Ministry of Education, 1996, POL LANG ED ISR Osler Audrey, 2005, CHANGING CITIZENSHIP Pattanayak D. P., 1986, LANGUAGE ED MULTILIN, P5 Patton M. Q., 1990, QUALITATIVE EVALUATI Resnik J, 2007, J EDUC POLICY, V22, P215, DOI 10.1080/02680930601158901 Shohamy E., 2006, LANGUAGE POLICY HIDD Shohamy E, 2003, MOD LANG J, V87, P278 Spolsky B., 1999, LANGUAGES ISRAEL POL Starkey H., 2007, LANG INTERCULT COMM, V7, P56, DOI [10.2167/laic197.0, DOI 10.2167/LAIC197.0] Tannenbaum M, 2008, LEARN INSTR, V18, P283, DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.06.002 Urry J, 2000, BRIT J SOCIOL, V51, P185, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00185.x Uys LR, 2011, INT NURS REV, V58, P115, DOI 10.1111/j.1466-7657.2010.00854.x Weenink D, 2009, J EDUC POLICY, V24, P495, DOI 10.1080/02680930902774620 Yemini M., 2012, J RES INT ED, V11, P152 NR 40 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 10 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 1534-8458 EI 1532-7701 J9 J LANG IDENTITY EDUC JI J. Lang. Identity Educ. PD MAY 27 PY 2015 VL 14 IS 3 BP 179 EP 190 DI 10.1080/15348458.2015.1041343 PG 12 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CN0UQ UT WOS:000358129700003 ER PT J AU Harrison, GM Seraphin, KD Philippoff, J Vallin, LM Brandon, PR AF Harrison, George M. Seraphin, Kanesa Duncan Philippoff, Joanna Vallin, Lisa M. Brandon, Paul R. TI Comparing Models of Nature of Science Dimensionality Based on the Next Generation Science Standards SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE Item response modeling; Nature of science; Next Generation Science Standards; Science assessment ID VIEWS; STUDENTS; UNDERSTANDINGS; QUESTIONNAIRE; INSTRUMENT; ATTITUDES; EDUCATION AB Instruments measuring understanding of the nature of science (NOS) are required if educational institutions intend to use benchmarks or examine the effects of interventions targeting students' NOS development. Compared to other constructs, NOS understanding is complex, having been the subject of debate among scholars in both its substance and its dimensionality. This complexity invites challenges in defining what is to be measured. Drawing from the perspective that policy reform documents provide pragmatic consensus-based definitions of NOS, this study investigated how well the dimensionality described in the NOS component of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) framework matched the empirical structure of data collected from a set of secondary-school students' responses to an NOS instrument comprising multiple-choice and Likert-scale items. Using multidimensional item response modeling to compare structures of NOS dimensionality, we found that treating NOS as comprising multiple dimensions-as defined by the themes in the NGSS NOS framework-resulted in a better fitting model than when treating NOS as a single dimension. The multidimensional model also had fewer poorly functioning items and revealed NOS profiles that otherwise would have been masked in a model treating NOS as a single dimension. These results provide support for the NOS NGSS framework and contribute to the ongoing discussion about the dimensionality of NOS. C1 [Harrison, George M.; Seraphin, Kanesa Duncan; Philippoff, Joanna; Vallin, Lisa M.; Brandon, Paul R.] Univ Hawaii Manoa, Curriculum Res & Dev Grp, Coll Educ, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA. RP Harrison, GM (reprint author), Univ Hawaii Manoa, Curriculum Res & Dev Grp, Coll Educ, 1776 Univ Ave, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA. EM georgeha@hawaii.edu FU Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education [R305A100091]; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) FX The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education [grant number R305A100091] and by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) grants to the University of Hawai'i (UH) at Manoa. CR Abd-El-Khalick F, 2005, INT J SCI EDUC, V27, P15, DOI 10.1080/09500690410001673810 Abd-El-Khalick F, 2012, INT J SCI EDUC, V34, P353, DOI 10.1080/09500693.2011.629013 Abd-El-Khalick F, 2012, 2 INT HDB SCI ED, V2, P1041, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7 Adams RJ, 2007, STAT SOC BEHAV SC, P57, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-49839-3_4 Adams RJ, 1997, APPL PSYCH MEAS, V21, P1, DOI 10.1177/0146621697211001 Adams R. J., 2005, STUDIES ED EVALUATIO, V31, P162, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.STUEDUC.2005.05.008 Allchin D, 2011, SCI EDUC, V95, P518, DOI 10.1002/sce.20432 Alters BJ, 1997, J RES SCI TEACH, V34, P39 American Educational Research Association American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014, STANDARDS FOR EDUCAT Bao H., 2006, APPLICATIONS OF RASC, P188 Bayir E, 2014, INT J SCI EDUC, V36, P1286, DOI 10.1080/09500693.2013.860496 Bell P, 2000, INT J SCI EDUC, V22, P797, DOI 10.1080/095006900412284 Blalock CL, 2008, INT J SCI EDUC, V30, P961, DOI 10.1080/09500690701344578 Bond TG, 2007, APPLYING THE RASCH M Boone WJ, 2011, SCI EDUC, V95, P258, DOI 10.1002/sce.20413 Briggs Derek C, 2003, J Appl Meas, V4, P87 Chen SF, 2006, SCI EDUC, V90, P803, DOI 10.1002/sce.20147 Chen SF, 2013, J RES SCI TEACH, V50, P408, DOI 10.1002/tea.21079 de Ayala R. J., 2009, THE THEORY AND PRACT Deng F, 2011, SCI EDUC, V95, P961, DOI 10.1002/sce.20460 Edwards MC, 2012, HDB STRUCTURAL EQUAT, P195 Duschl R. A, 2007, SCI ED, V16, P141, DOI 10.1007/s11191-005-2865-z Huang CM, 2005, ADOLESCENCE, V40, P645 Kamata A, 2008, STRUCT EQU MODELING, V15, P136, DOI 10.1080/10705510701758406 Kelley T., 2004, RASCH MEASUREMENT TR, V16, P883 Lederman NG, 2002, J RES SCI TEACH, V39, P497, DOI 10.1002/tea.10034 Lederman N. G., 1998, THE NATURE OF SCIENC, P331 Lederman N. G., 2007, HDB RES SCI ED, P831 Linacre J. M., 2004, RASCH MEASUREMENT TR, V18, P990 Linacre J. M., 2003, RASCH MEASUREMENT T, V17, P918 Lombrozo T., 2008, EVOLUTION ED OUTREAC, V1, P290, DOI DOI 10.1007/S12052-008-0061-8 MASTERS GN, 1982, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V47, P149, DOI 10.1007/BF02296272 Muthen L. K., 2010, MPLUS USERS GUIDE ST National Research Council, 2012, FRAM K 12 SCI ED PRA Neumann I, 2011, INT J SCI EDUC, V33, P1373, DOI 10.1080/09500693.2010.511297 NGSS Lead States, 2013, NEXT GENERATION SCIE Schwartz RS, 2012, SCI EDUC, V96, P685, DOI 10.1002/sce.21013 Sjaastad J, 2013, INT J SCI EDUC, V35, P192, DOI 10.1080/09500693.2012.672775 Smith R. M., 2004, INTRO RASCH MEASUREM, P73 Tsai CC, 1999, INT J SCI EDUC, V21, P1201, DOI 10.1080/095006999290156 Wei SL, 2014, INT J SCI MATH EDUC, V12, P1067, DOI 10.1007/s10763-013-9459-z Wenning C. J., 2006, J PHYS TEACHER ED ON, V3, P3 Wilson M., 2011, RASCH MEASUREMENT T, V25:3, P1331 Wilson M., 2004, INTRODUCTION TO RASC, P123 Wright BD, 1979, BEST TEST DESIGN Wu M. L., 2007, ACER CONQUEST GENERA NR 46 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 6 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0950-0693 EI 1464-5289 J9 INT J SCI EDUC JI Int. J. Sci. Educ. PD MAY 24 PY 2015 VL 37 IS 8 BP 1321 EP 1342 DI 10.1080/09500693.2015.1035357 PG 22 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CI7GQ UT WOS:000354931500008 ER PT J AU Conradie, M AF Conradie, Marthinus TI WINNING THE AUDIENCE: A RELEVANCE THEORETIC ANALYSIS OF US-THEM RELATIONSHIPS IN A TEXT ON HIV/AIDS SO LANGUAGE MATTERS LA English DT Article DE AIDS; distanciation; HIV; media; metadiscourse; polarisation; proximisation; pragmatics; relevance theory; sexuality ID METADISCOURSE; PERSUASION; DISCOURSE; CONSTRUCTION; PRAGMATICS; SEXUALITY; AIDS; RISK AB South Africa faces the greatest HIV infection rate among adolescents on the globe. Most university students are part of this age cohort, and are treated as an essential audience for campaigns aimed at curbing the infection rate. This investigation departs from the observation that the texts disseminated among students may benefit from critical reflection on the discourse through which the sexuality of target audiences is constructed. A pragmatic and metadiscursive analysis is conducted of the devices used in a particular text. This text was selected because in working to directly address the sexuality of the target audience, and by explicitly expounding the communicators' stance toward it, the text assumes a unique approach among those currently designed specifically for the student population. Analysing its construction of the audience's sexuality may therefore yield insights into the way specific pragmatic and metadiscursive devices are used to enhance the relevance of their HIV/AIDS messages. C1 Univ Orange Free State, Dept English, ZA-9301 Bloemfontein, South Africa. RP Conradie, M (reprint author), Univ Orange Free State, Dept English, ZA-9301 Bloemfontein, South Africa. EM conradiems@ufs.ac.za CR Airhihenbuwa O. C., 2000, J HEALTH COMMUN, V5, P5 Attardo S, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P793, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3 Aulette-Root E., 2010, Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, V9, P173 Bator RJ, 2000, J SOC ISSUES, V56, P527, DOI 10.1111/0022-4537.00182 BEAUVAIS PJ, 1989, WRIT COMMUN, V6, P11, DOI 10.1177/0741088389006001002 Bekalu MA, 2006, DISCOURSE SOC, V17, P147, DOI 10.1177/0957926506060248 Brokensha S. I., 2011, PER LINGUAM, V27, P56 Brouard P., 2009, KAMA SUTRA BOOKLET Brown T, 2000, SOC SCI MED, V50, P1273, DOI 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00370-6 Bucholtz M, 2004, LANG SOC, V33, P469, DOI 10.1017/S004740450044021 Bujra J., 2000, AGENDA EMPOWERING WO, V16, P6 Cap P, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P17, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.002 Chilton P., 2004, ANAL POLITICAL DISCO Dafouz-Milne E, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P95, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003 Dilger Hansjorg, 2003, Med Anthropol, V22, P23, DOI 10.1080/01459740306768 Fuertes-Olivera PA, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1291, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80026-6 Gupta GR, 2000, 13 INT AIDS C 12 JUL Heald S., 2005, J BIOSOC SCI, V38, P29, DOI 10.1017/S0021932005000933 Hjorland B, 2001, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V52, P774, DOI 10.1002/asi.1131 Hoeken H, 2009, COMMUN THEOR, V19, P49, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01332.x Hyland K, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V30, P437, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5 Hyland K., 2005, METADISCOURSE EXPLOR Johnson-Laird PN, 2002, PSYCHOL REV, V109, P646, DOI 10.1037//0033-295X.109.4.646 LoveLife, 2012, OUR STRAT Maritz J., 2012, E COMMUNICATION 0415 Nzioka C, 1996, AIDS CARE, V8, P565, DOI 10.1080/09540129650125524 Parker R, 2001, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V30, P163, DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.163 Robins S, 2004, J S AFR STUD, V30, P651, DOI 10.1080/0305707042000254146 Staheim J., 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1412 Treichler P. A., 2006, HAVE THEORY EPIDEMIC Wilson D., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P607 Yus F, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1295, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00179-0 NR 32 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 2 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 1022-8195 EI 1753-5395 J9 LANG MATTERS JI Lang. Matters PD MAY 4 PY 2015 VL 46 IS 2 BP 159 EP 179 DI 10.1080/10228195.2014.966854 PG 21 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ5AC UT WOS:000360614700002 ER PT J AU Gimode, J Barnes, L AF Gimode, Jescah Barnes, Lawrie TI A SOCIO-PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF CODE-SWITCHING IN THE LOGOLI SPEECH COMMUNITY OF KANGEMI SO LANGUAGE MATTERS LA English DT Article DE Code-switching; Kangemi; Kiswahili; Logoli; Markedness Model AB The article examines code-switching in the Logoli speech community in the cosmopolitan Kangemi informal settlement area on the outskirts of the city of Nairobi. The aim of the study is to investigate the sociolinguistic developments that result from the urban language contact settings of Kangemi and to identify and illustrate motivations that influence the tendency of the Logoli speakers to alternate codes between Lulogoli, Kiswahili and English. Extracts from the corpus gathered by tape recordings and participant observation are analysed within a theoretical framework based on the Markedness Model developed by Carol Myers-Scotton. The study identifies and interprets the key social variables that determine code-switching behaviour in the Logoli speech community. These include age, education, status and the various social domains of interaction. This supports the view that code-switching is not a random phenomenon but a strategy and a negotiation process that aims at maximising benefits from interaction. C1 [Gimode, Jescah; Barnes, Lawrie] Univ S Africa, Dept Linguist & Modern Languages, ZA-0001 Pretoria, South Africa. RP Gimode, J (reprint author), Univ S Africa, Dept Linguist & Modern Languages, ZA-0001 Pretoria, South Africa. EM jgimode@gmail.com; barnela47@gmail.com CR Blom J. P., 1972, DIRECTION SOCIOLINGU, P402 Fasold R, 1984, SOCIOLINGUISTICS SOC Fischer S. R., 1999, HIST LANGUAGE Gafaranga J., 2007, HDB MULTILINGUALISM, P270 Githiora Chege, 2002, J AFRICAN CULTURAL S, V15, P159, DOI DOI 10.1080/1369681022000042637 Cole P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41 Gumperz J., 1972, DIRECTIONS SOCIOLING, P1 Gumperz J. J, 1970, 33 U CAL LANG BEH RE Hymes D. H., 1972, SOCIOLINGUISTICS, P269 Matsuda M., 1984, AFRICAN STUDY MONOGR, V5, P1 Mesthrie R., 2000, INTRO SOCIOLINGUISTI Myers-Scotton C, 2001, LANG SOC, V30, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0047404501001014 Myers-Scotton Carol, 1993, SOCIAL MOTIVATIONS C Were G. S., 1967, HIST ABALUYIA W KENY NR 14 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 1022-8195 EI 1753-5395 J9 LANG MATTERS JI Lang. Matters PD MAY 4 PY 2015 VL 46 IS 2 BP 249 EP 274 DI 10.1080/10228195.2015.1047893 PG 26 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ5AC UT WOS:000360614700006 ER PT J AU Liyanage, I Walker, T Bartlett, B Guo, XH AF Liyanage, Indika Walker, Tony Bartlett, Brendan Guo, Xuhong TI Accommodating taboo language in English language teaching: issues of appropriacy and authenticity SO LANGUAGE CULTURE AND CURRICULUM LA English DT Article DE English language teaching; appropriate use; swearing; English as an additional language (EAL); taboo language; authentic use ID PRAGMATICS; LEARNERS AB Culturally specific language practices related to vernacular uses of taboo language such as swearing represent a socially communicative minefield for learners of English. The role of classroom learning experiences to prepare learners for negotiation of taboo language use in social interactions is correspondingly complicated and ignored in much of the language teaching research literature. English language teachers confront not only obstacles to effective development of sociolinguistic and cultural knowledge in classroom instruction, and failure of course-books to address taboo language, but also uncertainties they themselves have about addressing such obstacles and omissions. In this paper, we draw on interview data from three experienced teachers of English as an additional language, to explore their perceptions and classroom practices in relation to taboo language. In particular, we explore the situational appropriateness of mild taboo swearing using the lexical item, bloody, which has a strong positioning in Australian language culture. Dilemmas surrounding this potentially troublesome item of Australian English are foregrounded in relation to the extent to which often neglected, but widely used taboo language is actually 'taboo' in the classroom. C1 [Liyanage, Indika] Deakin Univ, Fac Arts & Educ, Burwood, Vic, Australia. [Walker, Tony] Griffith Univ, Griffith Inst Educ Res, Mt Gravatt, Qld 4122, Australia. [Bartlett, Brendan] Australian Catholic Univ, Inst Learning Sci, Banyo, Qld, Australia. [Guo, Xuhong] Inner Mongolia Normal Univ, Int Exchange Coll, Hohhot, Peoples R China. RP Liyanage, I (reprint author), Deakin Univ, Fac Arts & Educ, Burwood, Vic, Australia. EM indika.liyanage@deakin.edu.au CR Alptekin C, 2013, LANG CULT CURRIC, V26, P197, DOI 10.1080/07908318.2013.810224 Ardington A., 2011, SITUATED POLITENESS, P253 Bou-Franch P., 2003, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V41, P1, DOI 10.1515/iral.2003.001 Boxer Diana, 2002, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V22, P150, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0267190502000089 Brown L, 2013, LANG CULT CURRIC, V26, P1, DOI 10.1080/07908318.2012.745551 Brown L, 2010, LANG CULT CURRIC, V23, P35, DOI 10.1080/07908310903474246 Burke D., 1993, BLEEP GUIDE POPULAR Canale M., 1983, LANG COMMUN, P2 Canai'e M., 1980, APPLIED LINGUISTICS, V1, P1, DOI DOI 10.1093/APPLIN/1.1.1 Celce-Murcia M, 2007, INTERCULTURAL LANGUAGE USE AND LANGUAGE LEARNING, P41, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-5639-0_3 Claire E., 2000, DANGEROUS ENGLISH 20 Clark L., 2006, LANGUAGE HEARING, V8, P124 Courtney N., 1996, ENGL TODAY, V12, P23, DOI [10.1017/S0266078400008981, DOI 10.1017/S0266078400008981] Dewaele JM, 2002, LANG LEARN, V52, P263, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00185 Dewaele J.-M., 2008, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V46, P245, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2008.011 Dewaele J-M., 2004, ESTUDIOS SOCIOLINGUI, V5, P83 El-Okda M., 2011, ASIAN EFL J Q, V13, P169 Gregg N., 2006, COURIER MAIL 0225, P5 Holster D., 2005, THESIS AUKLAND U TEC Horan G, 2013, LANG INTERCULT COMM, V13, P283, DOI 10.1080/14708477.2013.804533 Hymes D. H., 1972, SOCIOLINGUISTICS, P269 Jay T, 2008, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V4, P267, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2008.013 LITTLEWOOD WT, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P200, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.3.200 Mercury R.-E., 1995, TESL CANADA J, V13, P28 Mugford G., 2008, ELT J, V62, P375, DOI [10.1093/elt/ccm066, DOI 10.1093/ELT/CCM066] Ramson W. S., 1988, AUSTR NATL DICT Register N. A., 1996, ENGL TODAY, V12, P44, DOI [10.1017/S0266078400009160, DOI 10.1017/S0266078400009160] Alcon Soler E, 2008, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V46, P173, DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2008.008 Wajnryb R., 2004, LANGUAGE MOST FOUL Wierzbicka A, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1167, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00023-6 WILDNERBASSETT ME, 1990, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V28, P27, DOI 10.1515/iral.1990.28.1.27 Winter C, 2008, CURR ISSUES TOUR, V11, P301, DOI 10.2167/cit364.0 NR 32 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 13 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0790-8318 EI 1747-7573 J9 LANG CULT CURRIC JI Lang. Cult. Curric. PD MAY 4 PY 2015 VL 28 IS 2 BP 113 EP 125 DI 10.1080/07908318.2015.1031675 PG 13 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CI5FK UT WOS:000354779000002 ER PT J AU Antonov, A AF Antonov, Anton TI Verbal allocutivity in a crosslinguistic perspective SO LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY LA English DT Article DE addressee; allocutive; argument structure; Basque; ethical dative; grammaticalization; honorific; inflection; pragmatics; syntax; verb; 2nd person AB Allocutivity is a term coined to describe a phenomenon in Basque whereby, in certain pragmatic (and syntactic) circumstances, an addressee who is not an argument of the verb is systematically encoded in all declarative main clause conjugated verb forms. Although the term has been exclusively applied to Basque, similar phenomena are found in other languages as well. Indeed, despite certain differences in the degree of grammaticalization and usage, allocutive verb forms are attested in at least Pume (isolate; Venezuela), Nambikwara (isolate; Brazil), Mandan (Siouan; North America), and Beja (Cushitic; Northeast Africa). The aim of this article is to propose a typology of verbal allocutivity in a crosslinguistic perspective, taking into consideration the locus of encoding, the manner in which it is encoded, the information concerning the addressee which is encoded, and the syntactic environments in which it can appear. C1 [Antonov, Anton] Inst Natl Langues & Civilisat Orientale INALCO, CRLAO, F-75007 Paris, France. RP Antonov, A (reprint author), Inst Natl Langues & Civilisat Orientale INALCO, CRLAO, 2 Rue Lille, F-75007 Paris, France. EM anton.antonov@inalco.fr CR Adaskina Julija V., 2010, SINTAKSIS ALLOKUTIVN Adaskina Yulia, 2009, MORPH WORLDS LANG 11 Aikhenvald A. Y., 2010, IMPERATIVES COMMANDS Alberdi Jabier, 1995, HIST BASQUE LANGUAGE, P275 Alberdi Jabier, 1996, EUSKARAREN TRATAMEND Al-Zahre N., 2010, BRILLS ANN AFROASIAT, V2, P248, DOI DOI 10.1163/187666310X12688137960588 Amorrortu Estibaliz, 2003, BASQUE SOCIOLINGUIST Antonov Anton, 2013, SHARED GRAMMATICALIZ, P317 Appleyard David, 2004, EGYPTIAN SEMITO HAMI, P175 Appleyard D., 2007, MORPHOLOGIES ASIA AF, V1, P447 Bickel B, 1999, LINGUISTICS, V37, P481, DOI 10.1515/ling.37.3.481 Bonaparte Louis-Lucien, 1862, LANGUE BASQUE LANGUE Bosse S, 2012, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V30, P1185, DOI 10.1007/s11049-012-9177-1 Carballo Calero Ricardo, 1979, GRAMATICA ELEMENTAL Camilleri Maris, 2012, P LFG12, P118 Carter Richard T., 1991, ALGONQUIAN IROQUOIAN, V8, P27 Coyos Jean-Baptiste, 1999, PARLER BASQUE SOULET Cysouw Michael, 2010, RETHINKING UNIVERSAL, P1 de Rijk Rudolf P. G., 1991, RIEV, V36, P373 DeRijk RPG, 2007, CURR STUD LINGUIST, P1 Diller Anthony, 2008, TAI KADAI LANGUAGES, P31 Fleming L, 2012, LANG SOC, V41, P295, DOI 10.1017/S0047404512000267 Geertz Clifford, 1976, RELIG JAVA Gonzalez Camilo Fernandez, 2006, DICIONARIO ESENCIAL Heine Bernd, 2002, WORLD LEXICON GRAMMA Hollow Robert C., 1970, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Hollow Robert C, 2010, RC HOLLOW MAT MANDAN Hualde J. I., 2003, GRAMMAR BASQUE Jacques Guillaume, 2014, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V8, P301 Kabatek Johannes, 2004, LINGUA GALEGA HIST A, V2, P379 Kennard E, 1936, INT J AM LINGUIST, V9, P1, DOI 10.1086/463817 Kroeker Menno H., 2001, INT J AM LINGUIST, V67, P1, DOI 10.1086/466446 Mithun M., 1999, LANGUAGES NATIVE N A Molochieva Zarina, 2010, TENSE ASPECT MOOD CH Mosonyi Esteban Emilio, 1966, MORFOLOGIA VERBO YAR Mosonyi Jorge Carlos, 2000, MANUAL LENGUAS INDIG, V2, P544 Nichols J., 2011, INGUSH GRAMMAR Panfilov Valerij S., 1993, GRAMMATICESKIJ STROJ Poedjosoedarmo Soepomo, 1968, INDONESIA, V6, P54, DOI 10.2307/3350711 Poedjosoedarmo Soepomo, 1969, INDONESIA, V7, P165, DOI 10.2307/3350808 Sohl DG, 1981, PONAPEAN REFERENCE G Reinisch Leo, 1993, SITZUNGSBERICHTE PHI, V128 Roper E. M., 1928, TU BEDAWIE ELEMENTAR Rose Francoise, MALE FEMALE SP UNPUB ROSE FRANCOISE, 2013, B SOC LINGUISTIQUE P, V108, P381 Sohn Ho-Min, 1999, KOREAN LANGUAGE STEVENS AM, 1965, LANGUAGE, V41, P294, DOI 10.2307/411879 Thompson L.C., 1987, VIETNAMESE REFERENCE Tournadre Nicolas, 1998, MANUEL TIBETAIN STAN Trechter Sara, 1995, PRAGMATIC FUNCTIONS Vanhove Martine, 2012, ANR CORPAFROAS CORPU Wheatley Julian K., 2003, SINO TIBETAN LANGUAG, P195 Wolff John U., 1982, COMMUNICATIVE CODES NR 53 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 0 PU WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, D-10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1430-0532 EI 1613-415X J9 LINGUIST TYPOL JI Linguist Typol. PD MAY PY 2015 VL 19 IS 1 BP 55 EP 85 DI 10.1515/lingty-2015-0002 PG 31 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CZ5RR UT WOS:000367160200002 ER PT J AU Lowenadler, J AF Lowenadler, John TI Relative clause extraction: Pragmatic dominance, processing complexity and the nature of crosslinguistic variation SO NORDIC JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE Construction Grammar; extraction; filler-gap constructions; island constraints; pragmatic dominance; processing effects ID WORKING-MEMORY CAPACITY; ISLAND AB This paper concerns crosslinguistic differences in the acceptability of so-called relative clause extraction constructions, exemplified by the unacceptable English sentence *This boat I know the guy that owns (associated with the acceptable canonical sentence I know the guy that owns this boat). It has sometimes been argued, since Ross ( 1967), that such extractions are universally blocked by a syntactic constraint. However, following observations of such structures in English and other languages, some linguists have argued that such sentences have varying degrees of acceptability and that the degree of acceptability depends on attention limits and pragmatic foregroundedness/backgroundedness. Another view which appears to have gained ground in recent years is one where the degree of acceptability is directly related to processing difficulty. The analysis presented in this paper is based on a comparison between English and Swedish, and includes authentic data, examples previously discussed in the literature, as well as acceptability-tested invented sentences. In the end it will be argued that, while the dominance- and processing-based proposals are on the right track, there is a more plausible and straightforward way of explaining the observed crosslinguistic variation using the theoretical framework of Construction Grammar. Thus, an alternative account will be presented drawing on general principles which are well established within cognitive- and construction-based theories. C1 Univ Gothenburg, Dept Educ & Special Educ, SE-40530 Gothenburg, Sweden. RP Lowenadler, J (reprint author), Univ Gothenburg, Dept Educ & Special Educ, Box 300, SE-40530 Gothenburg, Sweden. EM john.lowenadler@ped.gu.se FU Swedish Research Council FX I would especially like to thank two anonymous reviewers for very valuable and stimulating comments which forced me to sharpen several aspects of the arguments presented here. Thanks also to Elisabet Engdahl for comments on an early draft of the paper. Part of this research was funded by the Swedish Research Council and carried out at the University of Manchester, while the remaining part was carried out at the University of Gothenburg. CR Bybee J., 1985, MORPHOLOGY STUDY REL Chomsky Noam, 1977, FORMAL SYNTAX, P71 Chomsky Noam, 1981, LECT GOVT BINDING Chomsky N., 1986, BARRIERS Christensen KR, 2014, NORD J LINGUIST, V37, P29, DOI 10.1017/S0332586514000055 Christensen KR, 2013, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V42, P51, DOI 10.1007/s10936-012-9210-x Croft William, 2001, RADICAL CONSTRUCTION Croft William, 2003, MOTIVATION LANGUAGE, P49 Culicover Peter, 1998, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V29 ENGDAHL E, 1985, LINGUISTICS, V23, P3, DOI 10.1515/ling.1985.23.1.3 Engdahl Elisabet, 1982, READINGS UNBOUNDED D, P151 Engdahl Elisabet, 1982, READINGS UNBOUNDED D Engdahl E., 1997, WORKING PAPERS SCAND, V60, P51 Erteschik-Shir Nomi, 1979, THEOR LINGUIST, V6, P41, DOI 10.1515/thli.1979.6.1-3.41 Erteschik-Shir Nomi, 1973, THESIS MIT Fodor Janet Dean, 1992, ISLANDS LEARNABILITY, P109 Goldberg Adele E., 2006, CONSTRUCTIONS WORK N Goldberg A. E., 1995, CONSTRUCTIONS CONSTR John Hawkins, 2004, EFFICIENCY COMPLEXIT Hofmeister P, 2010, LANGUAGE, V86, P366 Hovav MR, 2008, J LINGUIST, V44, P129, DOI 10.1017/S0022226707004975 Jackendoff R., 2002, FDN LANGUAGE BRAIN M Kush Dave, 2011, LING SOC AM LSA 2011 Langacker R. W., 1987, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA, V1 Levin B., 2008, LINGVISTICAE INVESTI, V31, P285 Levin B., 1993, ENGLISH VERB CLASSES Levine RD, 2006, UNITY UNBOUNDED DEPE Lindahl Filippa, 2010, SPETSSTALLDA R UNPUB Lowenadler J, 2008, STUD LANG C, V105, P359 Lowenadler John, 2012, CONSTRUCTIONS FRAMES, V4, P186 Lowenadler John, 2013, LANGUAGE FOOTBALL AL, P249 Ross John R., 1967, THESIS MIT Sprouse J, 2012, LANGUAGE, V88, P82 Sprouse J, 2012, LANGUAGE, V88, P401 Van Valin R. D., 2005, EXPLORING SYNTAX SEM Verhagen A, 2009, CONSTRUCTIONS FRAMES, V1, P119 NR 36 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI CAMBRIDGE PA EDINBURGH BLDG, SHAFTESBURY RD, CB2 8RU CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND SN 0332-5865 EI 1502-4717 J9 NORD J LINGUIST JI Nord. J. Linguist. PD MAY PY 2015 VL 38 IS 1 BP 37 EP 65 DI 10.1017/S0332586515000050 PG 29 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CT0OD UT WOS:000362495000002 ER PT J AU Hesson, A Shellgren, M AF Hesson, Ashley Shellgren, Madeline TI DISCOURSE MARKER LIKE IN REAL TIME: CHARACTERIZING THE TIME-COURSE OF SOCIOLINGUISTIC IMPRESSION FORMATION SO AMERICAN SPEECH LA English DT Article DE perception; pragmatics; methodology; individual differences ID AUTISM PHENOTYPE; ATTITUDES; PERCEPTION; FREQUENCY; TRACKING AB Discourse marker like (DML) is recognized as a highly stigmatized feature of American English, one with strong ideological ties to inarticulate, "Valley Girl" speech. Previous work suggests that individual listeners form impressions that both reference and perpetuate DML's status, as DML-containing speech is judged as friendlier and less intelligent than controls. Though informative, such studies cannot speak to the magnitude and/or stability of DML-based impressions nor to the potential interactions between said effects and individual processing styles. The current study continuously measures real-time listener evaluations of speech samples differing only by a single use of DML using a dynamic motion-capture interface. It also integrates a measure of participants' social interaction preferences and cognitive flexibility, thus assessing the influence of individual differences on participants' moment-by-moment impression formation. Our results indicate that DML has an initial negative effect on both FRIENDLINESS and INTELLIGENCE ratings. While the "unfriendly" perception is relatively transient, the "unintelligent" evaluation persists and intensifies over time. Individuals with relatively high levels of social aptitude and/or cognitive flexibility are largely responsible for these trends. Collectively, these results offer a preliminary characterization of the sociocognitive interplay between individual, interpersonal, and societal influences on attitude formation. C1 [Hesson, Ashley; Shellgren, Madeline] Michigan State Univ, Linguist, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA. RP Hesson, A (reprint author), Michigan State Univ, Linguist, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA. EM bartell6@msu.edu; shellgre@msu.edu FU Spectrum Health; Michigan State University graduate school FX We gratefully acknowledge the generous financial assistance of Spectrum Health and the Michigan State University graduate school. An earlier version of this article was presented at NWAV 43 and DiPVaC 2. We appreciate the audience members' insightful comments and questions. Finally, we would like to thank Suzanne Evans Wagner for her encouragement and support. CR Bartlett SC, 2005, CLIN LINGUIST PHONET, V19, P203, DOI 10.1080/02699200410001698634 Brinton Laurel, 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN Buchstaller I, 2006, J SOCIOLING, V10, P362, DOI 10.1111/j.1360-6441.2006.00332.x Campbell-Kibler K, 2007, AM SPEECH, V82, P32, DOI 10.1215/00031283-2007-002 Campbell-Kibler K, 2012, LINGUA, V122, P753, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.01.002 Campbell-Kibler K, 2010, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V29, P214, DOI 10.1177/0261927X09359527 Campbell-Kibler K., 2010, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V4, P377, DOI [10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00201.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2010.00201.X] D'Arcy A, 2006, AM SPEECH, V81, P339, DOI 10.1215/00031283-2006-024 D'Arcy A, 2007, AM SPEECH, V82, P386, DOI 10.1215/00031283-2007-025 Dailey-O'Cain Jennifer, 2000, J SOCIOLING, V4, P60, DOI DOI 10.1111/1467-9481.00103 Drager Katie, 2010, LAB PHONOLOGY, V1, P93, DOI 10.1515/LABPHON.2010.006 Eckert P, 2008, J SOCIOLING, V12, P453, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x Freeman JB, 2010, BEHAV RES METHODS, V42, P226, DOI 10.3758/BRM.42.1.226 Giles H., 2004, HDB APPL LINGUISTICS, P187, DOI DOI 10.1002/9780470757000.CH7 Hay J, 2010, LINGUISTICS, V48, P865, DOI 10.1515/LING.2010.027 Hurley RSE, 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P1679, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0299-3 Kanai R, 2011, NAT REV NEUROSCI, V12, P231, DOI 10.1038/nrn3000 Kang O, 2009, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V28, P441, DOI 10.1177/0261927X09341950 Labov William, 1972, SOCIOLINGUISTIC PATT Labov W, 2011, J SOCIOLING, V15, P431, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00504.x LAMBERT WE, 1960, J ABNORM SOC PSYCH, V60, P44, DOI 10.1037/h0044430 Levey Stephen, 2006, MULTILINGUA, V25, P413, DOI [10.1515/MULTI.2006.022, DOI 10.1515/MULTI.2006.022] Lord C, 1997, HDB ASD PERVASIVE DE, V2, P195 Maegaard M, 2010, MULTILING MATTER, V142, P189 Margolyes Miriam, 2012, BBC ONE 0625, P11 Odato CV, 2013, AM SPEECH, V88, P117, DOI 10.1215/00031283-2346825 Pexman PM, 2011, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V41, P1097, DOI 10.1007/s10803-010-1131-7 Preston Dennis R, 2010, READER SOCIOPHONETIC, P241 R Development Core Team, 2012, R LANG ENV STAT COMP Sasson NJ, 2013, AUTISM RES, V6, P134, DOI 10.1002/aur.1272 Squires Lauren M, 2011, THESIS U MICHIGAN Staum Laura, 2008, THESIS STANFORD U Tagliamonte SA, 2007, LANG VAR CHANGE, V19, P199, DOI 10.1017/S095439450707007X UNDERHILL R, 1988, AM SPEECH, V63, P234, DOI 10.2307/454820 Wagner SE, 2014, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V33, P651, DOI 10.1177/0261927X14528713 Wainer AL, 2011, J PSYCHOPATHOL BEHAV, V33, P459, DOI 10.1007/s10862-011-9259-0 [Anonymous], TALK VALL GIRL Winterman Denise, 2010, BBC NEWS MAGAZI 0928 Woodbury-Smith MR, 2008, EUROPEAN CHILD ADOLE, V18, P2, DOI DOI 10.1007/S00787-008-0701-0 Young Scott H, 2008, SH YOUNG 0318 Yu ACL, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0011950 NR 41 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 7 PU DUKE UNIV PRESS PI DURHAM PA 905 W MAIN ST, STE 18-B, DURHAM, NC 27701 USA SN 0003-1283 EI 1527-2133 J9 AM SPEECH JI Am. Speech PD MAY PY 2015 VL 90 IS 2 BP 154 EP 186 DI 10.1215/00031283-3130313 PG 33 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CL0LF UT WOS:000356633500002 ER PT J AU Freed, J McBean, K Adams, C Lockton, E Nash, M Law, J AF Freed, Jenny McBean, Kirsty Adams, Catherine Lockton, Elaine Nash, Marysia Law, James TI Performance of children with social communication disorder on the Happe Strange Stories: Physical and mental state responses and relationship to language ability SO JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION DISORDERS LA English DT Article DE Social communication disorder; Pragmatic language impairment; Happe Strange Stories ID CONVERSATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS; PRAGMATIC DIFFICULTIES; AUTISM SPECTRUM; IMPAIRMENT; COMPREHENSION; MIND; PREVALENCE; COGNITION; PROJECT AB This study investigated whether a modified scoring method was useful for examining the ability of children with social communication disorder (CwSCD) to understand non-literal language and use mental state responses on the Happe Strange Stories (HSS) task. CwSCD and a control group of children with typical language development (CwTLD) completed 10 of the original HSS. CwSCD scored significantly lower on the HSS task than did CwTLD and were much less likely to produce mental state responses. There was a high level of inter-rater reliability (Weighted Kappa = 0.907) across data from both groups. HSS performance and language ability correlated significantly for CwSCD. A regression model with age, nonverbal intelligence, receptive and expressive language as predictors explained 55.2% of the variance in HSS ability for CwSCD. The results suggest that the HSS have potential to be used as a clinical assessment to investigate high-level language and ability to infer intent in CwSCD. Learning outcomes: Readers will be able to describe a modified scoring method for the Happe Strange Stories task. Readers will be able to identify areas of impairment for children with social communication disorder. Readers will identify how these areas of impairment have an effect on ability to understand non-literal language and produce mental state responses on the Happe Strange Stories task. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. C1 [Freed, Jenny; McBean, Kirsty; Adams, Catherine; Lockton, Elaine] Univ Manchester, Sch Psychol Sci, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. [Nash, Marysia] Royal Hosp Sick Children, Speech & Language Therapy Dept, Edinburgh EH9 1LF, Midlothian, Scotland. [Law, James] Newcastle Univ, Inst Hlth & Soc, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, Tyne & Wear, England. RP Freed, J (reprint author), Univ Manchester, Sch Psychol Sci, Ellen Wilkinson Bldg,Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. EM Jenny.Freed@Manchester.ac.uk OI Freed, Jenny/0000-0003-1093-1186 FU Nuffield Foundation [EDU/32953] FX This research was supported by a grant to Adams and Lockton by the Nuffield Foundation (Grant Reference: EDU/32953). We would like to acknowledge children, families and all schools involved in the Social Communication Intervention Project for their generous participation and Gillian Earl and Vivienne McKenzie for additional testing and supplementary scoring/analysis. Many thanks to Anne O'Hare and her colleagues who generously allowed us access to the TLD data. CR ADAMS C, 1989, BRIT J DISORD COMMUN, V24, P211 Adams C, 2002, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V43, P973, DOI 10.1111/1469-7610.00226 Adams C, 2001, ASSESSMENT COMPREHEN Adams C, 2012, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V47, P233, DOI 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00146.x Adams C, 2009, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V44, P301, DOI 10.1080/13682820802051788 American Psychiatric Association, 2013, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT Baird G, 2006, LANCET, V368, P210, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69041-7 Bishop D., 2004, EXPRESSION RECEPTION Bishop D., 2003, TEST RECEPTION GRAMM Bishop DVM, 2000, DEV PSYCHOPATHOL, V12, P177, DOI 10.1017/S0954579400002042 Bishop DV, 2000, SPEECH LANGUAGE IMPA, P99 Bishop DVM, 1998, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V39, P879, DOI 10.1017/S0021963098002832 Bishop DVM, 2002, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V43, P917, DOI 10.1111/1469-7610.00114 BISHOP DVM, 1989, BRIT J DISORD COMMUN, V24, P241 Bishop D.V.M., 2003, CHILDRENS COMMUNICAT Botting N, 2002, CHILD LANG TEACH THE, V18, P1, DOI DOI 10.1191/0265659002CT224OA Botting N, 2005, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V40, P49, DOI 10.1080/13682820410001723390 ContiRamsd