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 ContiRamsden G, 1997, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V40, P765 Farmer M, 2000, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V41, P627, DOI 10.1017/S0021963099005788 Happe F., 1995, SOC RES CHILD DEV, V66, P843, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1467-8624.1995.TB00909.X HAPPE FGE, 1994, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V24, P129, DOI 10.1007/BF02172093 Heavey L, 2000, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V30, P225, DOI 10.1023/A:1005544518785 Jenkins JM, 1996, DEV PSYCHOL, V32, P70, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.32.1.70 Joliffe J., 1999, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V29, P395 Kaland N, 2005, EUR CHILD ADOLES PSY, V14, P73, DOI 10.1007/s00787-005-0434-2 Kerbel D, 1998, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V33, P23 Landa R., 2000, ASPERGER SYNDROME, P125 LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159, DOI 10.2307/2529310 Leinonen E, 1997, EUR J DISORDER COMM, V32, P35 Leyfer OT, 2008, AUTISM RES, V1, P284, DOI 10.1002/aur.43 Lord C., 1985, COMMUNICATION PROBLE Norbury CF, 2003, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V38, P287, DOI 10.1080/136820310000108133 Norbury CF, 2005, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V90, P142, DOI 10.1016/j.jecp.2004.11.003 O'Hare AE, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P916, DOI 10.1007/s10803-009-0699-2 Rapin I, 1983, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY LANG, P155 Raven J. C., 1979, COLOURED PROGR MATRI Rutter M., 2003, SOCIAL COMMUNICATION SEMEL E., 2006, CLIN EVALUATION LANG Shields J, 1996, DEV MED CHILD NEUROL, V38, P487 Tager-Flusberg H, 2005, WHY LANGUAGE MATTERS Tomblin JB, 1997, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V40, P1245 VOLDEN J, 1991, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V21, P109, DOI 10.1007/BF02284755 NR 42 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 11 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 MAY-JUN PY 2015 VL 55 BP 1 EP 14 DI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2015.03.002 PG 14 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA CJ2YB UT WOS:000355349500001 PM 25935076 ER PT J AU Blackwell, NL Perlman, M Tree, JEF AF Blackwell, Natalia L. Perlman, Marcus Tree, Jean E. Fox TI Quotation as a multimodal construction SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Quotation; Quotatives; Demonstration; Gesture; Body; Prosody ID PRAGMATIC MARKER LIKE; SPEECH; GESTURE AB Quotations are a means to report a broad range of events in addition to speech, and often involve both vocal and bodily demonstration. The present study examined the use of quotation to report a variety of multisensory events (i.e., containing salient visible and audible elements) as participants watched and then described a set of video clips including human speech and animal vocalizations. We examined the relationship between demonstrations conveyed through the vocal versus bodily modality, comparing them across four common quotation devices (be like, go, say, and zero quotatives), as well as across direct and non-direct quotations and retellings. We found that direct quotations involved high levels of both vocal and bodily demonstration, while non-direct quotations involved lower levels in both these channels. In addition, there was a strong positive correlation between vocal and bodily demonstration for direct quotation. This result supports a Multimodal Hypothesis where information from the two channels arises from one central concept. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Blackwell, Natalia L.; Tree, Jean E. Fox] Univ Calif Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA. [Perlman, Marcus] Univ Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 USA. RP Tree, JEF (reprint author), Univ Calif Santa Cruz, Dept Psychol, Social Sci 2, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA. EM nblackwe@ucsc.edu; mperlman@wisc.edu; foxtree@ucsc.edu FU faculty research funds - University of Califomia Santa Cruz FX This research was supported by faculty research funds granted by the University of Califomia Santa Cruz. We thank our many research assistants who aided in data collection and coding, with a special thanks to Annecy Majoros, Jordan Martin, Sarit Fassazadeh,, Carly Johnson, and Aza Tetelman. CR Andersen G, 1998, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V57, P147 Andersen G, 2000, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V79, P17 Bangerter A, 2004, PSYCHOL SCI, V15, P415, DOI 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00694.x Blackwell N, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1150, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.001 BLYTH C, 1990, AM SPEECH, V65, P215, DOI 10.2307/455910 Buchstaller Isabelle, 2001, HE GOES IM NEW QUOTA, V30 BUTTERS RR, 1980, AM SPEECH, V55, P304, DOI 10.2307/454573 CLARK HH, 1990, LANGUAGE, V66, P764, DOI 10.2307/414729 Coulmas F., 1986, DIRECT INDIRECT SPEE, P1 de Ruiter JP, 2012, TOP COGN SCI, V4, P232, DOI 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01183.x de Ruiter J. P., 2006, ADV SPEECH LANGUAGE, V8, P124, DOI DOI 10.1080/14417040600667285 Emmorey K., 2003, PERSPECTIVES CLASSIF Goodwin C, 2007, STUD INTERACT SOCIO, P16 HUDSON R, 1985, LINGUIST ANAL, V15, P233 Kendon A, 2014, PHILOS T R SOC B, V369, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2013.0293 Levinson SC, 2014, PHILOS T R SOC B, V369, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2013.0302 Coulmas F., 1986, DIRECT INDIRECT SPEE, P29 Liddell Scott K., 2003, GRAMMAR GESTURE MEAN MATHIS T, 1994, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V18, P63 McNeill D, 1992, HAND MIND Pascual Esther, 2014, FICTIVE INTERACTION ROMAINE S, 1991, AM SPEECH, V66, P227, DOI 10.2307/455799 SCHIFFRIN D, 1981, LANGUAGE, V57, P45, DOI 10.2307/414286 So WC, 2009, COGNITIVE SCI, V33, P115, DOI 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2008.01006.x Tannen D, 1989, TALKING VOICES REPET Tolins Jackson, 2013, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V46 Tree JEF, 2008, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V45, P85, DOI 10.1080/01638530701739280 Fox Tree Jean E., 2006, DISCOURSE STUDIES, V8, P749 van der Sluis I, 2007, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V44, P145 WADE E, 1993, J MEM LANG, V32, P805, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1993.1040 Waksler R, 2001, AM SPEECH, V76, P128, DOI 10.1215/00031283-76-2-128 Yao B, 2011, COGNITION, V121, P447, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.007 Yao B, 2011, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V23, P3146, DOI 10.1162/jocn_a_00022 NR 33 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 MAY PY 2015 VL 81 BP 1 EP 7 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.004 PG 7 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CJ3EM UT WOS:000355366200001 ER PT J AU Scott, K AF Scott, Kate TI The pragmatics of hashtags: Inference and conversational style on Twitter SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Relevance theory; Hashtags; Computer-mediated communication; Stylistics ID RELEVANCE; AUDIENCE AB This paper considers the pragmatic contribution of hashtags on the social networking site Twitter. Taking a relevance-theoretic perspective, I argue that hashtags contribute to relevance by adding a layer of activation to certain contextual assumptions and thus guiding the reader's inferential processes. The information contained in a hashtag may guide the hearer in the derivation of both explicitly and implicitly communicated meaning, and may also have stylistic consequences. Twitter facilities one-to-many, asynchronous communication, and so tweeters are unlikely to be able to assume that they share contextual assumptions with all or any of their audience. By allowing tweeters to make their intended contextual assumptions accessible to a wide range of readers, hashtags facilitate the use of an informal, casual style, even in the unpredictable and largely anonymous discourse context of Twitter. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Kingston, Dept Linguist & Languages, Kingston Upon Thames KT1 2EE, Surrey, England. RP Scott, K (reprint author), Univ Kingston, Dept Linguist & Languages, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston Upon Thames KT1 2EE, Surrey, England. EM kate.scott@kingston.ac.uk CR Androutsopoulos J, 2013, PRAGMATICS COMPUTER, P667 Baron Naomi, 2009, ELECT EMOTION MEDIAT, P107 Baym N. K., 2010, PERSONAL CONNECTIONS Blakemore Diane, 2002, RELEVANCE LINGUISTIC Blakemore D., 1987, SEMANTIC CONSTRAINTS Blakemore D., 2007, PRAGMATICS, P45 Boyd Danah, 2010, TWEET TWEET RETWEET boyd d, 2010, NETWORKED SELF IDENT, P39 Brake DR, 2012, INT J COMMUN-US, V6, P1056 Carston Robyn, 2005, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V17, P271 Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Clark B, 2013, CAMB TEXTBK LINGUIST, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139034104 Crystal D., 2008, TXTING THE GR8 DB8 FERRARA K, 1991, WRIT COMMUN, V8, P8, DOI 10.1177/0741088391008001002 Georgakopoulou Alexandra, 1997, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V7, P141, DOI 10.1111/j.1473-4192.1997.tb00112.x Hall Alison, 2007, LINGUA, V111, P149 Honeycutt Courtenay, 2009, MICROBLOGGING CONSER Huang Jeff, 2010, P ACM C HYP HYP TOR Iten C, 2005, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230503236 Litt E, 2012, J BROADCAST ELECTRON, V56, P330, DOI 10.1080/08838151.2012.705195 MacArthur Amanda, HIST HASHTAGS SHEEDI Marwick Alice E., 2010, NEW MEDIA SOC, V13, P96 Messina C., 2007, GROUPS TWITTER PROPO Page R, 2011, STORIES SOCIAL MEDIA Page R, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V62, P30, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.12.003 Page R, 2012, DISCOURSE COMMUN, V6, P181, DOI 10.1177/1750481312437441 Pilkington Adrian, 2000, POETIC EFFECTS RELEV PILKINGTON A, 1992, LINGUA, V87, P29, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(92)90024-D Scott Kate, 2010, THESIS U COLL LONDON Scott K, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V53, P68, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.04.001 Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT [Anonymous], 2010, ACM C COMP SUPP COOP Tagg C., 2014, LANGUAGE SOCIAL MEDI, P161 Thurlow C., 2003, DISCOURSE ANAL ONLIN, V1 Twitter Inc, US HASHT TWITT Wesch Michael, 2009, EXPLORATIONS MEDIA E, V8, P19 Wharton Tim, 2009, PRAGMATICS NONVERBAL Wilson D., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P607 Wilson D., 2012, MEANING RELEVANCE Wilson D, 2011, CURR RES SEMANT PRAG, V25, P3 Wilson D, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P1559, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012 Yus Francisco, 2011, CYBERPRAGMATICS INTE Zappavigna M, 2012, DISCOURSE TWITTER SO NR 43 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 11 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 MAY PY 2015 VL 81 BP 8 EP 20 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.015 PG 13 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CJ3EM UT WOS:000355366200002 ER PT J AU Croom, AM AF Croom, Adam M. TI Slurs and stereotypes for Italian Americans: A context-sensitive account of derogation and appropriation SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Slurs; Semantics; Pragmatics; Appropriation; Stereotypes; Italian ID STIGMATIZING LABELS; WORDS; REAPPROPRIATION; EXPRESSIVISM; EPITHETS; IDENTITY; SYSTEMS; OBJECTS; SPEECH AB Recent research on the semantics and pragmatics of slurs has offered insight into several important facts concerning their meaning and use. However, prior work has unfortunately been restricted primarily to considerations of slurs that typically target females, homosexuals, and African Americans. This is problematic because such a narrowly focused attention to slurs in prior work has left theorizing of how slurs generally function relatively uninformed by facts of actual language use. As a result, theoretical accounts of slurs that have so far been proposed have largely failed to accurately reflect actual usage, account for the empirical findings about slurs and general pejoratives from the social sciences, and offer any informative predictions to help guide future research. At this time more empirically oriented homework on the variety of ways that different slurs have been used in different cases would be helpful for theorists to consider so that they can proceed to develop more nuanced and empirically informed theories about slurs, their usage, and their effects. Accordingly, since no account of slurs for Italian Americans has so far been offered, this article provides a systematic and empirically informed analysis of slurs for Italian Americans that accounts for both their derogatory and appropriative use. Further, this article demonstrates that the family resemblance account of slurs maintained here has major advantages over previous accounts insofar as it is flexible yet robust enough to accommodate both the derogatory and appropriative use of slurs, can explain many of the psychological effects that slurs actually have on both their users and targets, and is more in accord with the real rather than ideal nature of our organic human psychology. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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 croom@sas.upenn.edu CR Adler Steven H., 2008, JUSTICE DEFEATATED V Alba Richard D., 2009, BLURRING COLOR LINE Aldridge Kevin, 2001, SLURS OFTEN ADOPTED Alim HS, 2010, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V20, P116, DOI 10.1111/j.1548-1395.2010.01052.x The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2000, AM HERITAGE DICT ENG Anderson Elijah, 1999, CODE STREET DECENCY, DOI New York Anderson Luvell, 2013, ANALYTIC PHILOS, V54, P350 Anderson L, 2013, NOUS, V47, P25, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00820.x Asim J., 2007, THE N WORD Barone Michael, 2001, NEW AM MELTING POT C Barsalou LW, 2008, ANNU REV PSYCHOL, V59, P617, DOI 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 Barsalou LW, 2009, PHILOS T R SOC B, V364, P1281, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2008.0319 Barsalou Lawrence W, 2007, Cogn Process, V8, P79, DOI 10.1007/s10339-007-0163-1 Barsalou LW, 2003, TRENDS COGN SCI, V7, P84, DOI 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00029-3 Barsalou LW, 1999, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V22, P577 Bartlett Jamie, 2014, ANTISOCIAL MEDIA DEM, P1 Washington N. B., 2014, LANG SCI Beswick Aaron, 2014, FORGIVENES DOMINION Bianchi C, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V66, P35, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.009 Blakemore D., 2014, LANG SCI Borghi AM, 2004, ACTA PSYCHOL, V115, P69, DOI 10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.11.004 Borghi AM, 2009, BRAIN RES, V1253, P117, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.11.064 Borghi AM, 2013, FRONT PSYCHOL, V4, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00214 Bozzone Daniella N., 2004, THESIS, P3425 Brooks Caryn, 2009, TIME Brown P., 1978, QUESTIONS POLITENESS, P56 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Camp Elisabeth, 2013, ANAL PHILOS, V54, P330, DOI DOI 10.1111/PHIB.12022 Camp E, 2012, NOUS, V46, P587, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00822.x Cass Connie, 2011, HUFFINGTON POST Cepollaro Bianca, 2015, LANG SCI, P1 Cohen Patricia, 2010, TIME Cohen Stephanie, 2009, NEW YORK POST Conley T., 2010, RHETORIC INSULT Culpeper J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P349, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 Cupkovic Gordana, 2014, LANG SCI Curti Roberto, 2013, ITALIAN CRIME FILMOG Davis Simon, 2001, TELEGRAPH De Seno Tommy, 2010, FOX NEWS de Stefano George, 2008, GUIDOSL I ITALY ITAL Dinnerstein Leonard, 2013, FRONT PSYCHOL Dove Guy, 2014, TOP COGN SCI, P1 Dove Guy, 2010, Front Psychol, V1, P242, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00242 Duey Stevon, 2014, THE BG NEWS 0409 Embrick DG, 2013, SYMB INTERACT, V36, P197, DOI 10.1002/symb.51 Embrick David G., 2015, LANG SCI Enger John, 2014, DAILY GAZETTE Fitten R. K., 1993, SEATTLE TIMES FODOR JA, 1980, COGNITION, V8, P263, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(80)90008-6 Fredrickson G. M., 1971, BLACK IMAGE WHITE MI Galinsky AD, 2003, RES MANAG GROUP TEAM, V5, P221 Galinsky AD, 2013, PSYCHOL SCI, V24, P2020, DOI 10.1177/0956797613482943 Gardaphe Fred, 2010, GUIDO ITALIAN AM YOU Garrett PB, 2002, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V31, P339, DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085352 Goffman E., 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL E Gratereaux Alexandra, 2012, FOX NEWS LATINO Greene R., 2011, ECONOMIST Croom Adam M., 2014, LANG SCI Croom Adam M., 2014, LANG SCI, V41, P227 Croom Adam M, 2015, AMPERSAND, V2, P1 Croom Adam M., 2010, 4 N AM SUMM SCH LOG Croom Adam M., 2015, PRAGMATIC SOC, V6, P1 Groom Adam M., 2008, DIALOGUE, V51, P34 Croom A. M., 2014, SOCIOCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P145 Croom Adam M, 2011, SLURS LANG SCI, V33, P343 Croom Adam M., 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P177 Mey J. L., 2015, INTERDISCIPLINARY ST Guerriero Alfonso, 2013, LITALO AM Hall D, 2006, EIRE-IRELAND, V41, P122, DOI 10.1353/eir.2006.0005 Hedger JA, 2013, LANG COMMUN, V33, P205, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.04.004 Hoover E., 2007, CHRONICLE HIGHER ED Hom Ch, 2010, PHILOS COMPASS, V5, P164 Horn Christopher, 2008, J PHILOS, V105, P416 Horn Christopher, 2013, ANAL PHILOS, V54, P293 Hom Christopher, 2012, PHILOS STUD, V159, P383 Jackson Jennifer, 2014, LANG SCI Jay Kristin L., 2015, LANG SCI, P1 Jay T, 2009, PERSPECT PSYCHOL SCI, V4, P153, DOI 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01115.x Jersey Shore, 2009, A NEW FAMILY Jeshion Robin, 2013, ANAL PHILOS, V54, P314, DOI DOI 10.1111/PHIB.12021 Jeshion R, 2013, PHILOS PERSPECT, V27, P231, DOI 10.1111/phpe.12027 Johnson Akilah, 2009, SUN SENTINEL Jones Roxanne, 2013, CNN LaGumina Salvatore J., 1973, WOPL DOCUMENTARY HIS LEWIS M. W., 2011, GEO CURRENTS Luconi Stefano, 2001, PAESANI WHITE ETHIBS McCready Eric S, 2010, SEMANT PRAGME, V3, P8 McKay Hollie, 2011, SLIP TONGUE DANILE Miscevic N, 2011, CROAT J PHILOS, V11, P159 Monteiro George, 2014, PORT AM J Nappi Rebecca, 2010, THE SPOKESMAN REV [Anonymous], 1984, CULTURE THEORY ESSAY O'Dea Conor J., 2014, LANG SCI, P1 Pfister J, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1266, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.001 Pinker Steven, 1996, COMMUN COGNITION, V29, P307 Potts C, 2009, LINGUIST INQ, V40, P356, DOI 10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.356 Rahman J, 2012, J ENGL LINGUIST, V40, P137, DOI 10.1177/0075424211414807 Richard M., 2008, WHEN TRUTH GIVES OUT Roach Eleanor, 1975, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V7, P573 Roediger David R, 2005, WORKING WHITNESS AM ROSCH E, 1976, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V8, P382, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X Sally D, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1223, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00170-4 Samra-Fredericks D, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2147, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.019 Saucier Donald A., 2014, LANG SCI, P1 Seiler Casey, 2014, TIMES UNION Serafini Dom, 2010, ITALIAN AM BEING DOE Shattuck Ryan, 2009, EDGE Sifianou M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1554, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009 Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sweetland J., 2002, J SOCIOLING, V6, P514, DOI DOI 10.1111/1467-9481.00199 Tamburri Julian, 2010, GUIDO ITALIAN AM YOU Teetor Paul, 2013, LA WEEKLY Thompson Nicole A., 2013, LATIN POST Tricarico Donald, 2010, GUIDOS MTV TANGLED F Troyani Sara, 2013, CALIF ITAL STUD, V4, P2 Viscusi Robert, 2010, GUIDO ITALIAN AM YOU Weissbrod Rachel, 2014, LANG SCI WENNERBERG H, 1967, THEORIA, V33, P107 Whiting D., 2013, ANAL PHILOS, V54, P364 Wilson D., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P607 WITTGENSTEIN L., 1953, PHILOS INVESTIGATION NR 121 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 MAY PY 2015 VL 81 BP 36 EP 51 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.014 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CJ3EM UT WOS:000355366200004 ER PT J AU Veletsianos, G Collier, A Schneider, E AF Veletsianos, George Collier, Amy Schneider, Emily TI Digging deeper into learners' experiences in MOOCs: Participation in social networks outside of MOOCs, notetaking and contexts surrounding content consumption SO BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY LA English DT Article ID OPEN ONLINE COURSES; BIG DATA; EDUCATION; SUPPORT; LIMITS AB Researchers describe with increasing confidence what they observe participants doing in massive open online courses (MOOCs). However, our understanding of learner activities in open courses is limited by researchers' extensive dependence on log file analyses and clickstream data to make inferences about learner behaviors. Further, the field lacks an empirical understanding of how people experience MOOCs and why they engage in particular activities in the ways that they do. In this paper, we report three findings derived by interviewing 13 individuals about their experiences in MOOCs. We report on learner interactions in social networks outside of MOOC platforms, notetaking, and the contexts that surround content consumption. The examination and analysis of these practices contribute to a greater understanding of the MOOC phenomenon and to the limitations of clickstream-based research methods. Based on these findings, we conclude by making pragmatic suggestions for pedagogical and technological refinements to enhance open teaching and learning. C1 [Veletsianos, George] Royal Roads Univ, Innovat Learning & Technol, Victoria, BC V9B 5Y2, Canada. [Veletsianos, George] Royal Roads Univ, Sch Educ & Technol, Victoria, BC V9B 5Y2, Canada. [Collier, Amy] Middlebury Coll, Middlebury, VT 05753 USA. [Schneider, Emily] Stanford Univ, Grad Sch Educ, Stanford, CA 94305 USA. RP Veletsianos, G (reprint author), Royal Roads Univ, Sch Educ & Technol, 2005 Sooke Rd, Victoria, BC V9B 5Y2, Canada. EM veletsianos@gmail.com CR Adams C, 2014, DISTANCE EDUC, V35, P202, DOI 10.1080/01587919.2014.917701 Anderson T., 2003, INT REV RES OPEN DIS, V4, P1 Baker S.E., 2012, MANY QUALITATIVE INT Boyd D, 2012, INFORM COMMUN SOC, V15, P662, DOI 10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878 Bransford John D., 1999, PEOPLE LEARN BRAIN M Breslow L. B., 2013, RES PRACTICE ASSESSM, V8, P13 Brinton CG, 2014, IEEE T LEARN TECHNOL, V7, P346, DOI 10.1109/TLT.2014.2337900 Seeley J., 1989, EDUC RES, V18, P32, DOI DOI 10.3102/0013189X018001032 Buck T., 2014, EDTECH MAGAZINE Carr N., 2014, LIMITS SOCIAL ENG Chambliss D. F., 2014, HOW COLL WORKS Chu J., 2013, MIT NEWS Conner-Simons A, 2014, MIT NEWS Crotty M, 1998, FDN SOCIAL RES MEANI Ebben M, 2014, LEARN MEDIA TECHNOL, V39, P328, DOI 10.1080/17439884.2013.878352 Eynon R, 2013, LEARN MEDIA TECHNOL, V38, P237, DOI 10.1080/17439884.2013.771783 Galusha J. M., 1997, INTERPERSONAL COMPUT, V5, P6 Gasevic D, 2014, INT REV RES OPEN DIS, V15, P134 Glaser B., 1967, DISCOVERY GROUNDED T Guo P. J., 2014, P 1 ACM C LEARN SCAL, P41, DOI DOI 10.1145/2556325.2566239 Huang J., 2014, L S 14, P117 Jordan K., 2014, INT REV RES OPEN DIS, V15, P133 Kam M., 2005, P SIGCHI C HUM FACT, P531, DOI 10.1145/1054972.1055046 Kay J, 2013, IEEE INTELL SYST, V28, P70, DOI 10.1109/MIS.2013.66 Kizilcec RF, 2015, ACM T COMPUT-HUM INT, V22, DOI 10.1145/2699735 Kizilcec R. F., 2013, P 3 INT C LEARN AN K, P170, DOI DOI 10.1145/2460296.2460330 Kobayashi K, 2005, CONTEMP EDUC PSYCHOL, V30, P242, DOI 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.10.001 Koller D., 2013, EDUCAUSE REV, V48, P3 Kop R, 2011, INT REV RES OPEN DIS, V12, P19 Kop R, 2011, INT REV RES OPEN DIS, V12, P74 Lave J., 1991, SITUATED LEARNING LE Leahy C., 2013, CRITICAL ED, V4, P1 Lee SJ, 2011, INTERNET HIGH EDUC, V14, P158, DOI 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.04.001 Liyanagunawardena TR, 2013, INT REV RES OPEN DIS, V14, P202 Mackness J, 2010, P 7 INT C NETW LEARN Mackness J, 2015, OPEN PRAX, V7, P25, DOI 10.5944/openpraxis.7.1.173 Mandernach B. J., 2006, J EDUCATORS ONLINE, V3, P1 Matthews A., 1998, BRIGHT COLL YEARS IN May K. T., 2012, COMPLETELY FREE ONLI Means B., 2013, TEACH COLL REC, V115, P1 Merriam S. B., 2002, QUALITATIVE RES PRAC Merriam S. B., 1995, PAACE J LIFELONG LEA, V4, P51 MILLER GA, 1956, PSYCHOL REV, V63, P81, DOI 10.1037//0033-295X.101.2.343 Milligan C., 2013, MERLOT J ONLINE LEAR, V9, P149 MIYAKE N, 2013, P 4 INT C LEARN SCI, P41 Moe R., 2014, DISSERT ABSTR, V75, P10 Paechter M, 2010, COMPUT EDUC, V54, P222, DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.005 Peters O., 1992, DISTANCE EDUC, V13, P234, DOI 10.1080/0158791920130206 Reich J., 2014, HARVARDX WORKING PAP, V2 Rodriguez C., 2012, EUROPEAN J OPEN DIST, V15, P2 Rosenbaum J. E., 2007, ADMISSION COLL ACCES Salmon G, 2015, BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL, V46, P542, DOI 10.1111/bjet.12256 Schneider E., 2014, P LEARN INN SCAL WOR Seaton DT, 2014, COMMUN ACM, V57, P58, DOI 10.1145/2500876 Selwyn N, 2015, LEARN MEDIA TECHNOL, V40, P64, DOI 10.1080/17439884.2014.921628 Simonson M, 2011, J COMPUT HIGH EDUC, V23, P124, DOI 10.1007/s12528-011-9045-8 Song L., 2004, Internet and Higher Education, V7, P59, DOI 10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003 Steimle J, 2008, 8TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCED LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES, PROCEEDINGS, P306, DOI 10.1109/ICALT.2008.39 Veletsianos G., 2013, LEARNER EXPERIENCES Vonderwell S., 2003, Internet and Higher Education, V6, P77, DOI 10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00164-1 Vygotsky L, 1978, MIND SOC DEV HIGHER Waite M., 2013, MERLOT J ONLINE LEAR, V9, P200 Zhao Y, 2005, TEACH COLL REC, V107, P1836, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00544.x Okada A, 2008, ADV INFORM KNOWL PRO, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-1-84800-149-7 NR 64 TC 7 Z9 7 U1 14 U2 57 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0007-1013 EI 1467-8535 J9 BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL JI Br. J. Educ. Technol. PD MAY PY 2015 VL 46 IS 3 SI SI BP 570 EP 587 DI 10.1111/bjet.12297 PG 18 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CI8DT UT WOS:000354999900016 ER PT J AU Rambe, P Nel, L AF Rambe, Patient Nel, Liezel TI Technological utopia, dystopia and ambivalence: Teaching with social media at a South African university SO BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY LA English DT Article ID EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES; HIGHER-EDUCATION; SCHOLARSHIP; NETWORKS; SOFTWARE AB The discourse of social media adoption in higher education has often been funnelled through utopian and dystopian perspectives, which are polarised but determinist theorisations of human engagement with educational technologies. Consequently, these determinist approaches have obscured a broadened grasp of the situated, socially constructed nature of human interaction with educational technologies and failed to explain ambivalent positions of technology adoption. To contest the innate determinism embodied in the aforementioned technological views, this paper draws on technological ambivalence to unravel the complex, multiple possibilities in pragmatic use of technologyincluding the double-bound relationship between human agency and educational technology. A phenomenological approach that draws on self-narratives of the use of social media by Computer Science and Informatics educators at a South African university is employed to unravel how their perceptions of social media shaped and informed their pragmatic instructional uses of these technologies. Findings suggest that the sharp contrasting experiences of collaborative engagement, enactment of decentralised power and democratic expression in social media coexist recursively with the disempowering, dependence-ridden and distractive effects of these technologies. This technological divergence is further compounded by ambivalent views that neither celebrate the unrealistic hopes of social media nor grossly protest against the debilitating effects of these technologies. This view foregrounds the social embeddedness of technology and its potentially multiple, contradictory effects. The implications of these findings include the need for educators to consider social conditions of technology use, the alignment of such conditions with innovative social media-enhanced pedagogical models and the use of proven models to demonstrate the educational potential of social media technologies. C1 [Rambe, Patient] Univ Orange Free State, Dept Business Support Studies, ZA-9300 Bloemfontein, South Africa. [Nel, Liezel] UFS, Dept Comp Sci & Informat, Bloemfontein, South Africa. RP Rambe, P (reprint author), Univ Orange Free State, Dept Business Support Studies, Private Bag 20539, ZA-9300 Bloemfontein, South Africa. EM pjoerambe@gmail.com OI Nel, Liezel/0000-0002-6739-9285 CR Albrechtslund A., 2008, 1 MONDAY, V13 Anderson T., 2005, ODLAA 2005 C Bosch T. E., 2009, COMMUNICATION, V35, P185, DOI DOI 10.1080/02500160903250648 Botha A., 2010, 6 ANN INT C COMP ICT, P3 Boyd D, 2007, KNOWLEDGE TREE, V13, P1 Boyd DM, 2007, J COMPUT-MEDIAT COMM, V13, P210, DOI 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x Bozalek V, 2013, BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL, V44, P629, DOI 10.1111/bjet.12046 Cao YX, 2013, BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL, V44, P581, DOI 10.1111/bjet.12066 Cohen L, 2007, RES METHODS ED Brown C., 2009, ALT J, V17, P75 Czerniewicz L, 2009, EDUC DES TECH KNOW, P57 Dahlstrom E., 2012, RES REPORT Dalsgaard C., 2008, EUR U INF SYST ORG U Davis Jenny L., 2012, Future Internet, V4, P955, DOI 10.3390/fi4040955 Dima-Laza S., 2012, 2012 INT C HUM HIST, V34, P12 English H. B., 1958, COMPREHENSIVE DICT P Evans MJ, 2013, BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL, V44, P144, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01280.x Feenberg A., 2003, LECT KOM UND JUN 200 Fisher D., 2001, J COMPUT-MEDIAT COMM, V6, P1 Garrison D. R., 2005, American Journal of Distance Education, V19, P133, DOI 10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2 Gay S., 1997, THESIS U NEBRASKA LI Gorder L. M., 2008, THE DELTA PI EPSILON, V50, P63 Heidegger Martin, 1977, QUESTION TECHNOLOGY Herrington J, 2013, BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL, V44, P607, DOI 10.1111/bjet.12048 Hodgldnson-Williams C., 2009, CASE STUDY 5 MOBILE Isaacs Shafika, 2012, TURNING MOBILE LEARN Ivala E., 2012, SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNA, V26, P152 Johnson L., 2011, TECHNOLOGY OUTLOOK U Johnson L., 2011, 2011 HORIZON REPORT Junker N, 2012, DO YOU KNOW IDENTITY Kirkwood A, 2013, BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL, V44, P536, DOI 10.1111/bjet.12049 Leslie S., 2008, SOCIAL SOFTWARE LEAR LYON D, 1993, SOCIOL REV, V41, P653 Makoe M., 2010, OPEN LEARNING, V25, P251 McCarthy J, 2012, AUSTRALAS J EDUC TEC, V28, P755 McLoughlin C, 2010, AUSTRALAS J EDUC TEC, V26, P28 Minocha Shailey, 2009, Education + Training, V51, P353, DOI 10.1108/00400910910987174 Moran M., 2012, BLOGS WIKIS PODCASTS Mpofu N., 2012, COMMUNICATIO, V38, P103 Ng'ambi D, 2013, BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL, V44, P652, DOI 10.1111/bjet.12053 Osborne N., 2011, USING SOCIAL MEDIA 1 Rambe Patient, 2012, International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, V4, DOI 10.4018/jmbl.2012040104 Rambe P., 2008, POSTAMBLE J, V4, P58 Rheingold H., 1993, GLOBAL NETWORKS COMP, P57 Rosenberger R., 2008, JANUS HEAD, V10, P640 Sahay S., 2004, J ASSOC INF SYST, V5, P282 Sandvig C., 2009, DHIBBAR2S BLOG 0513 Scott KM, 2013, BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL, V44, P571, DOI 10.1111/bjet.12072 Seitz C., 2011, INT J ED INTEGRITY, V7, P57 [Anonymous], 2007, OECD KERIS EXP M SES Selwyn N, 2009, LEARN MEDIA TECHNOL, V34, P79, DOI 10.1080/17439880902921907 Servaes J. E., 2004, INT C INT COMM INT S, P1 Shelley-Egan C., 2010, NANOETHICS, V4, P183 Shirky C., 2003, SOCIAL SOFTWARE POLI, P1 Siemens G., 2009, HDB EMERGING TECHNOL Starke-Meyerring D., 2009, HDB WRITING DEV State of Victoria Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2010, TEACH LEARN WEB 2 0 Strydom H., 2011, RES GRASS ROOTS SOCI, P376 Surry D.W., 1997, ANN C ASS ED COMM TE Szabo A., 2004, ACTIVE LEARNING HIGH, V5, P180, DOI DOI 10.1177/1469787404043815 Thompson J., 2007, INNOVATE, V3, P1 Van Heerden M., 2008, MEDIA STUDIES POLICY, P73 Veletsianos G., 2012, INTERNET AND HIGHER, V16, P43 Veletsianos G, 2012, COMPUT EDUC, V58, P766, DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.001 Veletsianos G, 2012, INT REV RES OPEN DIS, V13, P144 Veletsianos G, 2013, BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL, V44, P639, DOI 10.1111/bjet.12052 Verbeek P., 2002, TECHNE, V6, P69 Wang QY, 2012, BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL, V43, P428, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01195.x Willcocks L, 2006, WORKING PAPER SERIES, V138 Yang YTC, 2012, BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL, V43, P448, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01204.x Veletsianos G, 2010, ISS ONLINE EDUC, P1 NR 71 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 4 U2 11 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0007-1013 EI 1467-8535 J9 BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL JI Br. J. Educ. Technol. PD MAY PY 2015 VL 46 IS 3 SI SI BP 629 EP 648 DI 10.1111/bjet.12159 PG 20 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CI8DT UT WOS:000354999900021 ER PT J AU Fleming, L AF Fleming, Luke TI Taxonomy and Taboo: The (Meta)Pragmatic Sources of Semantic Abstraction in Avoidance Registers SO JOURNAL OF LINGUISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY LA English DT Article DE taboo; semantics; pragmatics; performativity; ideology ID LANGUAGE AB The mother-in-law speech registers of Aboriginal Australia are notable for both pragmatic and semantic peculiarities of their organization. In their sociopragmatics, mother-in-law registers represent a rare recipient-focal type of social indexicality. In the mere copresence of certain categories of affinal relations everyday lexical forms are tabooed, with speakers instead using an alternative avoidance vocabulary. In their lexical semantics, these registers are notable for the taxonomic relationships that adhere between avoidance vocabularies and associated everyday speech forms. Avoidance repertoire items are more generic than the everyday forms for which they substitute, with one avoidance form standing in for many everyday wordsthe so-called one-to-many correspondence between avoidance and everyday lexemes first noted in Dixon (1971). Far from unique to mother-in-law registers, a range of other speech registersfrom male-initiate registers to specialized speech styles used in the highlands of Papua New Guinea while harvesting pandanus nutsare shown to exhibit these linked properties of lexical tabooing and one-to-many lexical correspondences between registers. Drawing on these data the article shows how the pragmatic particularities of context-bound lexical tabooing give rise to lexicon asymmetries, and how these lexicon asymmetries, in turn, become the basis for dialectical structure-ideology relationships that further reshape register repertoires. C1 Univ Montreal, Dept Anthropol, Montreal, PQ H3C 3J7, Canada. RP Fleming, L (reprint author), Univ Montreal, Dept Anthropol, Montreal, PQ H3C 3J7, Canada. EM luke.fleming@umontreal.ca CR Agha A, 2007, STUD SOC CULT FOUND, V24, P1, DOI 10.2277/ 0521576857 Agha A, 1998, LANG SOC, V27, P151 Allan K., 1991, EUPHEMISM DYSPHEMISM Alpher Barry, 1991, YIR YORONT LEXICON S Beidelman Thomas O., 1997, COOL KNIFE IMAGERY G Bellman B. L., 1984, LANGUAGE SECRECY SYM Berlin B, 1992, ETHNOBIOLOGICAL CLAS Boyer Pascal, 1980, J AFRICANISTES, V50, P31, DOI 10.3406/jafr.1980.2002 Brown P., 1978, QUESTIONS POLITENESS, P56 Brown Roger, 1960, STYLE LANG, P253 BULMER R, 1967, MAN, V2, P5, DOI 10.2307/2798651 Crowley T., 1983, HDB AUSTRALIAN LANGU, V3, P306 [Anonymous], 1881, AUSTR ABORIGINES LAN Diller T, 2006, TRENDS LINGUIST-STUD, V167, P565 Dixon Robert M. W., 1971, SEMANTICS, P436 Dixon R. M. W., 1990, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V33, P1 Douglas Mary, 1966, PURITY DANGER ANAL C Errington Joseph, 1982, INDONESIA, V34, P89, DOI 10.2307/3350951 Errington J. Joseph, 1988, STRUCTURE STYLE JAVA Fleming Luke, GESTURE IN PRESS, V14 Fleming Luke, 2014, TEXAS LINGUISTICS FO, V57, P55 Fleming Luke, 2014, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V56, P1 Fleming L, 2011, ANTHROPOL QUART, V84, P5, DOI 10.1353/anq.2011.0008 Flom George T., 1925, J AM FOLKLORE, V38, P400, DOI 10.2307/535238 Foley William, 1986, PAPUAN LANGUAGES NEW Franklin Karl J., 1972, OCEANIA, V43, P66 Franklin Karl J., 1992, CULTURE CHANGE LANGU, p[1, C] Goddard Cliff, 1985, GRAMMAR YANKUNYTJATJ Grimes Charles L., 1994, LANGUAGE CONTACT CHA, P275 Hale Kenneth L., 1971, SEMANTICS INTERDISCI, P472 Hale Kenneth, 1997, BOUNDARY RIDER ESSAY, P247 Hale Kenneth, 1982, LANGUAGES KINSHIP AB, V24, P31 HAVILAND JB, 1979, LANG SOC, V8, P365 Haviland John B., 1979, LANGUAGES THEIR SPEA, P161 Hoenigman Darja, 2012, MELANESIAN LANGUAGES, P191 Irvine Judith T., 1990, LANGUAGE POLITICS EM, P126 IRVINE JT, 1978, LANG SOC, V7, P37 Irvine Judith T., 2000, REGIMES LANGUAGE IDE, P35 Keating E., 1998, POWER SHARING LANGUA Kendon A., 1988, SIGN LANGUAGES ABORI Khiba Z. K., 1980, BEDI KARTHLISA, VXXXVIII, P269 Knight C, 2008, ASIAN ETHNOL, V67, P79 Lomas Gabriel C. J., 1989, THESIS MACQUARIE U MCGREGOR W, 1989, FOUND COMM, P630 McKnight David, 1999, PEOPLE COUNTRIES RAI Merlan Francesca, 1997, SCHOLAR SCEPTIC AUST, P95 Moinino Yves, 1977, LANGAGE CULTURES AFR, P115 Fawley Andrew, 1992, THE LANGUAGE GAME, P313 Philips SU, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P317, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.005 Poedjosoedarmo Soepomo, 1968, INDONESIA, V6, P54, DOI 10.2307/3350711 RUMSEY A, 1990, AM ANTHROPOL, V92, P346, DOI 10.1525/aa.1990.92.2.02a00060 Rumsey Alan, 1982, LANGUAGES KINSHIP AB, V24, P160 Silverstein Michael, 1979, ELEMENTS PARASESSION, P193 Silverstein Michael, 1981, 84 SW ED DEV LAB Silverstein Michael, 1995, LANG CULT SOC, P187 Silverstein M, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P337, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.003 Skeat Walter William, 1906, PAGAN RACES MALAY PE, V2 Slotta James, 2012, THESIS U CHICAGO Sommer Bruce A., 2006, SPEAKING KUNJEN ETHN Stasch R, 2003, J ROY ANTHROPOL INST, V9, P317, DOI 10.1111/1467-9655.00152 Sutton Peter, 1978, THESIS U QUEENSLAND Thomson DF, 1935, AM ANTHROPOL, V37, P460, DOI 10.1525/aa.1935.37.3.02a00100 Trubetzkoy N.S., 1969, PRINCIPLES PHONOLOGY Valeri V, 2000, FOREST TABOOS MORALI Vidal Pierre, 1976, GARCONS FILLES PASSA Whitehouse H, 1996, J ROY ANTHROPOL INST, V2, P703, DOI 10.2307/3034304 Whorf Benjamin Lee, 2000, LANGUAGE THOUGHT REA, P87 NR 67 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 3 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 MAY PY 2015 VL 25 IS 1 BP 43 EP 65 DI 10.1111/jola.12073 PG 23 WC Anthropology; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Anthropology; Linguistics GA CI4ND UT WOS:000354725800003 ER PT J AU Junge, B Theakston, AL Lieven, EVM AF Junge, Bianca Theakston, Anna L. Lieven, Elena V. M. TI Given-new/new-given? Children's sensitivity to the ordering of information in complex sentences SO APPLIED PSYCHOLINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID ADVERBIAL CLAUSES; WORD-ORDER; REFERRING EXPRESSIONS; ARGUMENT STRUCTURE; DISCOURSE; ENGLISH; COMPREHENSION; AVAILABILITY; ACQUISITION; LANGUAGE AB English and many other languages allow flexible ordering of main and subordinate clauses in complex sentences. Processing, discourse-pragmatics, and semantics have an impact on the ordering of information. Three-year-olds, 5-year-olds, and adults heard complex sentences containing main and subordinate clauses with differing informational status. Using an act-out method, we analyzed participants' sensitivity to the ordering of new/given information and its interaction with clause order. All age groups changed the order of information to given-new when exposed to a new-given structure, whereas only adults changed the clause order to subordinate-main when exposed to the reverse. We suggest that children are sensitive to information structure but not clause order in complex sentences. The results are discussed in the context of possible limited processing capacities or understanding of clause order function in complex sentences. C1 [Junge, Bianca; Theakston, Anna L.; Lieven, Elena V. M.] Univ Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. [Lieven, Elena V. M.] Max Planck Inst Evolutionare Anthropol, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany. RP Theakston, AL (reprint author), Univ Manchester, Sch Psychol Sci, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. EM anna.theakston@manchester.ac.uk OI Theakston, Anna/0000-0002-9483-7893 FU Max Planck PhD studentship FX This study was funded by a Max Planck PhD studentship (to B.J.). We thank Paul Ibbotson, Grzegorz Krajewski, Eileen Graf, Claire Noble, and Anne-Kristin Siebenborn for their comments on earlier versions of the manuscript and/or study design. Special thanks go to Mickie Glover and Anna Coates for helping with the recruitment of participants. We also thank all of the families who took part in the study. CR Allen SEM, 2000, LINGUISTICS, V38, P483, DOI 10.1515/ling.38.3.483 Allen S, 2008, TRENDS LANG ACQUIS R, V6, P99 ARIEL M, 1988, J LINGUIST, V24, P65, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700011567 ARIEL M, 1994, J LINGUIST, V30, P3, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700016170 Arnold JE, 2000, LANGUAGE, V76, P28, DOI 10.2307/417392 Baker N. D., 1988, LANG SCI, V10, P3, DOI 10.1016/0388-0001(88)90003-4 Birner Betty J., 1998, INFORM STATUS NONCAN Bittner D., 2007, NOMINAL DETERMINATIO, P213 BOCK JK, 1980, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V19, P467 Bresnan J., 2007, COGNITIVE FDN INTERP, P60 Brown M, 2012, J MEM LANG, V66, P194, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2011.08.006 Chafe W., 1984, P ANN M BERK LING SO, V10, P437 Chafe W. L., 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC, P25 Chafe Wallace L., 1970, MEANING STRUCTURE LA CLARK EV, 1979, LANGUAGE, V55, P767, DOI 10.2307/412745 Clark E., 1973, STUDIES CHILD LANGUA, P585 CLARK HH, 1979, MEM COGNITION, V7, P35, DOI 10.3758/BF03196932 Clark S. E., 1974, EXPLAINING LINGUISTI Clifton C, 2004, MEM COGNITION, V32, P886, DOI 10.3758/BF03196867 De Cat C, 2011, J CHILD LANG, V38, P828, DOI 10.1017/S030500091000036X Diessel H., 2001, LANGUAGE, V77, P345 Diessel H, 2005, LINGUISTICS, V43, P449, DOI 10.1515/ling.2005.43.3.449 Diessel H., 2004, ACQUISITION COMPLEX Diessel H, 2008, COGN LINGUIST, V19, P465, DOI 10.1515/COGL.2008.018 Bois Du, 1985, ICONICITY SYNTAX, P343 DUBOIS JW, 1987, LANGUAGE, V63, P805 Ferreira VS, 2000, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V40, P296, DOI 10.1006/cogp.1999.0730 Ferreira VS, 2003, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V32, P669, DOI 10.1023/A:1026146332132 Ford Cecilia E., 1993, GRAMMAR INTERACTION FOSS DJ, 1969, PERCEPT PSYCHOPHYS, V5, P145, DOI 10.3758/BF03209545 GARROD S, 1977, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V16, P77, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80009-1 Givon Talmy, 1990, SYNTAX FUNCTIONAL TY Givon Talmy, 1983, TOPIC CONTINUITY DIS Graf E., 2010, THESIS U MANCHESTER Greenfield P., 1979, DEV PRAGMATICS, P159 GREENFIELD PM, 1973, LANG SPEECH, V16, P34 Grunloh T., 2013, YOUNG CHILDRENS NATL Guerriero S., 2006, J CHILD LANG, V33, P823 Gundel J., 2001, SOC RES CHILD DEV AN Gundel J., 1999, CHILD LANG RES FOR S GUNDEL JK, 1993, LANGUAGE, V69, P274, DOI 10.2307/416535 Gundel J. K., 1988, OUTSTANDING DISSERTA Halliday MAK, 1967, J LINGUIST, V3, P199, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700016613 HAVILAND SE, 1974, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V13, P512, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80003-4 John Hawkins, 2004, EFFICIENCY COMPLEXIT Hawkins John A., 1994, PERFORMANCE THEORY O Hickmann M, 1999, J CHILD LANG, V26, P419, DOI 10.1017/S0305000999003785 Hughes M, 2006, PROC ANN BUCLD, P293 Kaiser E, 2004, COGNITION, V94, P113, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.002 Kidd E, 2007, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V22, P860, DOI 10.1080/01690960601155284 Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Lehmann Christian, 1988, CLAUSE COMBINING GRA, P181 LEMPERT H, 1985, PSYCHOL BULL, V97, P62 Leonard L., 1977, J CHILD LANG, V5, P151 Leveli W. J., 1989, SPEAKING INTENTION A Lieven E, 2009, COGN LINGUIST, V20, P481, DOI 10.1515/COGL.2009.022 MacWhinney B., 2000, CHILDES PROJECT TOOL, V1 MACWHINNEY B, 1978, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V17, P539, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90326-2 MacWhinney B., 2000, CHILDES PROJECT TOOL, V2 Matthews D, 2006, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V27, P403, DOI 10.1017/S0142716406060334 Mishina-Mori S, 2007, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 31ST ANNUAL BOSTON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT VOLS 1 AND 2, P441 MUIR D, 1979, CHILD DEV, V50, P431, DOI 10.2307/1129419 Narasimhan B, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P461, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.005 Narasimhan B, 2008, COGNITION, V107, P317, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.010 Nelson K., 1973, MONOGRAPHS SOC RES C, V38 Prince E., 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P223 Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Ramsay Violetta, 1987, COHERENCE GROUNDING, P383 Rowland C. F., 2011, LANGUAGE LEARNING DE, V7, P55, DOI DOI 10.1080/15475441003769411 Rozendaal MI, 2008, J CHILD LANG, V35, P773, DOI 10.1017/S0305000908008702 Salomo D, 2010, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V31, P101, DOI 10.1017/S014271640999018X Serratrice L., 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P1058 Serratrice L, 2005, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V26, P437, DOI 10.1017/S0142716405050241 SIEWIERSKA A, 1993, J LINGUIST, V29, P233, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700000323 SILVA MN, 1991, J CHILD LANG, V18, P641 Skarabela B., 2006, THESIS BOSTON U Tanenhaus M.K., 1975, PAPERS PARASESSION F, P499 Theakston AL, 2001, J CHILD LANG, V28, P127, DOI 10.1017/S0305000900004608 Theakston AL, 2012, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V33, P691, DOI 10.1017/S0142716411000531 Thompson Sandra A, 1987, COHERENCE GROUNDING, P435 Verstraete JC, 2004, LINGUISTICS, V42, P819, DOI 10.1515/ling.2004.027 Wasow T, 1997, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V26, P347, DOI 10.1023/A:1025080709112 Wasow Thomas, 1997, LANG VAR CHANGE, V9, P81, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0954394500001800 WIEMAN LA, 1976, J CHILD LANG, V3, P283 NR 84 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 6 U2 11 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 MAY PY 2015 VL 36 IS 3 BP 589 EP 612 DI 10.1017/S0142716413000350 PG 24 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CH4UF UT WOS:000354027700004 ER PT J AU Slabakova, R AF Slabakova, Roumyana TI The effect of construction frequency and native transfer on second language knowledge of the syntax-discourse interface SO APPLIED PSYCHOLINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID LEFT-DISLOCATION; LANGUAGE-ACQUISITION; L2 ACQUISITION; FOCUS; PRAGMATICS; RESOLUTION; SPEECH; FRENCH AB This article investigates knowledge of discourse-conditioned left dislocations in the interlanguage competence in Spanish and English second language learners. Although Spanish clitic left dislocation (CLLD) and English topicalization are functionally very similar, they differ in that the former but not the latter requires the dislocated phrase to be clitic doubled. In contrast, the fronted focus (FF) construction is functionally and syntactically similar in the two languages. Two experimental studies investigated knowledge of the syntactic form and discourse appropriateness of CLLD and topicalization, using knowledge of FF as a baseline. English-native learners of Spanish were successful in acquiring CLLD as well as FF. However, Spanish-native learners of English demonstrated no knowledge of English topicalization even at near-native levels of proficiency, whereas they did well on the transferable FF. These results are examined in the light of the interface hypothesis. It is argued that construction frequency in the input and transfer from the native language, but only those two factors together, can explain the experimental results. C1 [Slabakova, Roumyana] Univ Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA. [Slabakova, Roumyana] Univ Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BF, Hants, England. RP Slabakova, R (reprint author), Univ Southampton, Dept Modern Languages, Bldg 65,Ave Campus, Southampton SO17 1BF, Hants, England. EM r.slabakova@soton.ac.uk CR Anagnostopoulou E., 1997, MAT LEFT DISLOCATION, P151 Belletti A, 2007, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V25, P657, DOI 10.1007/s11049-007-9026-9 Bialystok Ellen, 2009, Psychol Sci Public Interest, V10, P89, DOI 10.1177/1529100610387084 Birner Betty J., 1998, INFORM STATUS NONCAN Boeckx C., 2003, ISLANDS CHAINS RESUM Bohnacker U, 2010, NORD J LINGUIST, V33, P105, DOI 10.1017/S033258651000017X Brunetti L., 2009, FOCUS BACKGROUND ROM, P43 Brunetti L., 2011, GRAMM CORP 2009 C Buring D, 2003, LINGUIST PHILOS, V26, P511 Chafe Wallace, 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC Chomsky Noam, 2001, K HALE LIFE LANGUAGE, P1 Cinque Guglielmo, 1983, CONNECTEDNESS SENTEN, P93 Cinque G., 1990, TYPES A DEPENDENCIES Collins C., 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P336 Crain S, 2002, LINGUIST REV, V19, P163, DOI 10.1515/tlir.19.1-2.163 Demirdache Hamida, 1991, THESIS MIT Donaldson B, 2011, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V33, P399, DOI 10.1017/S0272263111000039 Donaldson B, 2012, LANG LEARN, V62, P902, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00701.x Ellis N. C, 2002, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V24, P143, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263102002024 Ellis NC, 2006, APPL LINGUIST, V27, P1, DOI 10.1093/applin/ami038 Gass S., 1993, LANGUAGE TRANSFER LA Gass S.M., 2002, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V24, P249, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263102002097 Green D. W., 1998, BILING-LANG COGN, V1, P67, DOI [10.1017/S1366728998000133, DOI 10.1017/S1366728998000133] GREEN DW, 1986, BRAIN LANG, V27, P210, DOI 10.1016/0093-934X(86)90016-7 Gregory ML, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1665, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00063-1 Grewendorf G., 2002, GEORGETOWN U WORKING, V2, P31 Grohmann Kleanthes K., 2003, PROLIFIC DOMAINS Gundel J. K., 1998, FOCUS LINGUISTIC CON, P293 Gundel J. K., 1988, STUDIES SYNTACTIC TY, V17, P209 Halliday MAK, 1967, J LINGUIST, V3, P199, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700016613 Hopp H, 2009, BILING-LANG COGN, V12, P463, DOI 10.1017/S1366728909990253 Horvath J, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P1346, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011 Ivanov I., 2009, THESIS U IOWA Ivanov IP, 2012, SECOND LANG RES, V28, P345, DOI 10.1177/0267658312452066 Iverson M, 2008, EUROSLA YB, V8, P135, DOI DOI 10.1075/EUR0SLA.8.09IVE Jackendoff R., 1972, SEMANTIC INTERPRETAT Kempchinsky P., 2008, LING S ROM LANG 38 U Kiss KE, 1998, LANGUAGE, V74, P245, DOI 10.2307/417867 Kroch A., 2001, HDB CONT SYNTACTIC T, P698, DOI 10.1002/9780470756416.ch22 Kroll JF, 2008, ACTA PSYCHOL, V128, P416, DOI 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.02.001 Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Luis Lopez, 2009, DERIVATIONAL SYNTAX Marian V., 2003, BILING-LANG COGN, V6, P97, DOI DOI 10.1017/S1366728903001068 Montrul S, 2011, LINGUA, V121, P591, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.006 Neeleman A, 2009, STUD GENERAT GRAMM, V100, P15, DOI 10.1515/9783110217124.15 Neeleman A, 2008, J COMP GER LINGUIST, V11, P137, DOI 10.1007/s10828-008-9018-0 O'Grady W, 2009, NEW HANDBOOK OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, 2ND EDITION, P69 Postolache O., 2005, IGK C Prince Ellen, 1992, DISCOURSE DESCRIPTIO, P295, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.16.12PRI Reinhart T., 1981, PHILOSOPHICA, V27, P53 Reinhart T, 2006, LINGUIST INQ MONOGR, V45, P1 Rizzi Luigi, 1997, KLUWER INT HDB LINGU, V1, P281, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8 Roberts L, 2008, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V30, P333, DOI 10.1017/S0272263108080480 Roeper T, 1999, BILING-LANG COGN, V2, P169, DOI 10.1017/S1366728999000310 Rothman J, 2011, LINGUA, V121, P568, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.003 Rothman J, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P951, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.007 Schwartz B, 1996, SECOND LANG RES, V12, P40, DOI DOI 10.1177/026765839601200103 Slabakova R., 2012, S 3 LANG L3 ACQ FOC Slabakova Roumyana, 2011, EUROSLA YB, V11, P218 Slabakova R, 2012, SECOND LANG RES, V28, P319, DOI 10.1177/0267658312447612 Slabakova R, 2006, SECOND LANG RES, V22, P302, DOI 10.1191/0267658306sr270oa Slabakova R, 2011, LINGUA, V121, P637, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.003 Sorace A, 2005, SYNTAX VARIATION REC, P55 Sorace A., 2003, HDB 2 LANGUAGE ACQUI, P130, DOI 10.1002/9780470756492.ch6 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 Tsimpli I., 2006, P ANN BOSTON U C LAN, V30, P653 Young-Scholten Martha, 1996, SECOND LANG RES, V12, P7, DOI 10.1177/026765839601200102 Valenzuela E., 2005, THESIS MCGRILL U MON Valenzuela E., 2006, INQUIRIES LINGUISTIC, P283 Vallduvi E, 1998, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V29, P79 Vallduvi Enric, 1992, INFORM COMPONENT van Haaften T., 1983, CONNECTEDNESS SENTEN Ward G. L., 1988, THESIS U PENNSYLVANI White L, 2009, NEW HANDBOOK OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, 2ND EDITION, P49 Yang CD, 2004, TRENDS COGN SCI, V8, P451, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.006 Yang Charles D., 2002, KNOWLEDGE LEARNING N Yang C, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P1160, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.015 Zubuzarreta M.-L., 1998, PROSODY FOCUS WORD O NR 79 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 9 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 MAY PY 2015 VL 36 IS 3 BP 671 EP 699 DI 10.1017/S0142716413000386 PG 29 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CH4UF UT WOS:000354027700007 ER PT J AU Graf, E Theakston, A Lieven, E Tomasello, M AF Graf, Eileen Theakston, Anna Lieven, Elena Tomasello, Michael TI Subject and object omission in children's early transitive constructions: A discourse-pragmatic approach SO APPLIED PSYCHOLINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID PROCESSING LIMITATIONS; REFERRING EXPRESSIONS; NULL SUBJECTS; YOUNG; COMPLEXITY; INUKTITUT; IMITATION; LANGUAGE; SYNTAX; CHOICE AB This paper investigates discourse effects on the provision of both subjects and objects and investigates whether pragmatic discourse features govern the realization/omission of both constituents alike. In an elicitation study, we examined how the discourse-pragmatic feature contrast, as applied to the subject, verb, or object of a transitive utterance affected the provision of elements in the remainder of the sentence when all elements were previously introduced. The results showed that 3.5-year-old children were more likely to realize a contrasted argument with a lexical noun but more likely to omit the argument when it was not part of a contrast, regardless of its subject or object status. This suggests that contrast presents a unifying discourse feature for argument omission in language development. C1 [Graf, Eileen] Max Planck Child Study Ctr, Manchester, Lancs, England. [Graf, Eileen; Theakston, Anna; Lieven, Elena] Univ Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. [Lieven, Elena; Tomasello, Michael] Max Planck Inst Evolutionare Anthropol, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany. RP Theakston, A (reprint author), Univ Manchester, Sch Psychol Sci, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. EM anna.theakston@manchester.ac.uk OI Theakston, Anna/0000-0002-9483-7893 CR Allen SEM, 2000, LINGUISTICS, V38, P483, DOI 10.1515/ling.38.3.483 Allen S., 1997, P GALA, P10 Allen S, 2008, TRENDS LANG ACQUIS R, V6, P99 Ariel Mira, 2001, TEXT REPRESENTATION, V8, P29 ARIEL M, 1988, J LINGUIST, V24, P65, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700011567 Arnold JE, 2000, LANGUAGE, V76, P28, DOI 10.2307/417392 Arnold JE, 2007, J MEM LANG, V56, P521, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.007 Chomsky N., 1993, SYNTAX INT HDB CONT, P505 Clancy P., 1993, P 25 ANN CHILD LANG, P307 Donaldson ML, 2009, J CHILD LANG, V36, P449, DOI 10.1017/S0305000908008957 DUBOIS JW, 1987, LANGUAGE, V63, P805 Freudenthal D, 2007, J CHILD LANG, V34, P83, DOI 10.1017/S0305000906007719 Goldberg A., 2001, LANG SCI, V23, P503, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00034-6 [Anonymous], 1976, STRUCTURE COMMUNICAT GUNDEL JK, 1993, LANGUAGE, V69, P274, DOI 10.2307/416535 [Anonymous], 1992, STAT METHODS PSYCHOL Huang Cheng-Teh James, 1989, NULL SUBJECT PARAMET, P185 HUANG CTJ, 1984, LINGUIST INQ, V15, P531 HYAMS N, 1993, LINGUIST INQ, V24, P421 Hyams Nina, 1992, THEORETICAL ISSUES L, P249 Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Matthews D, 2006, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V27, P403, DOI 10.1017/S0142716406060334 Navarro Samuel, 2003, J CHILD LANG, V30, P1 Perez-Leroux AT, 2008, LINGUA, V118, P370, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.07.002 Salomo D, 2011, J CHILD LANG, V38, P918, DOI 10.1017/S0305000910000395 Salomo D, 2010, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V31, P101, DOI 10.1017/S014271640999018X Serratrice L, 2003, PROC ANN BUCLD, P739 SERRATRICE L, 2004, BILINGUALISM LANGUAG, V0007 Serratrice Ludovica, 2008, LANGUAGE LEARNING DE, V4, P309, DOI 10.1080/15475440802333619 Skarabela B, 2007, LINGUA, V117, P1837, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.010 Theakston AL, 2012, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V33, P691, DOI 10.1017/S0142716411000531 VALIAN V, 1991, COGNITION, V40, P21, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90046-7 Valian V, 1996, DEV PSYCHOL, V32, P153 Valian V, 2006, J CHILD LANG, V33, P247, DOI 10.1017/S030500906007392 Yang CD, 2004, TRENDS COGN SCI, V8, P451, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.006 NR 35 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 3 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 MAY PY 2015 VL 36 IS 3 BP 701 EP 727 DI 10.1017/S0142716413000477 PG 27 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CH4UF UT WOS:000354027700008 ER PT J AU De Cesare, AM Garassino, D AF De Cesare, Anna-Maria Garassino, Davide TI On the status of exhaustiveness in cleft sentences: An empirical and cross-linguistic study of English also-/only-clefts and Italian anche-/solo-clefts SO FOLIA LINGUISTICA LA English DT Article DE cleft sentences; exhaustiveness; conversational implicature; contrastive analysis; English-Italian; corpus study ID IT-CLEFTS; DISCOURSE AB The goal of the paper is to shed new light on the semantics and pragmatics of cleft sentences by discussing the exhaustive interpretation typically associated with these complex syntactic structures. Based on a fine-grained analysis of the contexts in which "exhaustiveness" can be cancelled as well as reinforced by English also and only and Italian anche and solo, we claim that this meaning component associated with clefts in English and Italian is best accounted for in terms of a conventionalized conversational implicature. Our analysis is based on a corpus of authentic cleft occurrences collected from different written sources. C1 [De Cesare, Anna-Maria; Garassino, Davide] Univ Basel, Italian Linguist, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland. RP De Cesare, AM (reprint author), Univ Basel, Italian Linguist, Maiengasse 51, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland. EM anna-maria.decesare@unibas.ch; davide.garassino@unibas.ch FU Swiss National Science Foundation (Italian Constituent Order in a Contrastive Perspective) [PP00P1-133716/1] FX This paper has been written with the financial support of the Swiss National Science Foundation (Project PP00P1-133716/1, Italian Constituent Order in a Contrastive Perspective), to which we express our gratitude. We would like to thank Daniel Jacob for having invited us to present our first observations on the subject at the Linguistisches Forschungskolloquium of the Romanisches Seminar of the Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat (Freiburg im Breisgau) in May 2012. The discussion following the paper has been a very valuable one. We would also like to thank our colleague Carlo Enrico Roggia for handing us his collection of clefts extracted from the LISUL corpus (a private corpus assembled at the University of Lausanne). Finally, we are indebted to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions, as well as to the editor of Folia Linguistica, Hubert Cuyckens, for his careful editing of the manuscript. CR Amsili Pascal, 2002, P WORKSH INF STRUCT, P86 Andorno Cecilia, 2000, FOCALIZZATORI CONNES Atlas Jay, 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P1 Beaver D., 2011, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS Beaver David, 2008, SENSE SENSITIVITY FO Beaver David I., 2007, OXFORD HDB LINGUISTI, P503 Beaver David I., 2011, P 21 SEM LING THEOR, P197 Beaver David I., 2012, EMPIRICAL ISSUES SYN, P59 Berretta Monica, 1996, ITALIANO OLTRE, VXI, P116 Bouma Gerlof, 2010, P 7 INT C LANG RES E, P3585 Buring D., 2013, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V6, P1 Cabrera Moreno, 1999, GRAMATICA DESCRIPTIV, V3, P4245 Charnavel Isabelle, 2011, P SINN BEDEUTUNG, P133 Clech-Darbon Anne, 1999, GRAMMAR FOCUS, P83 Collins P. C., 1991, CLEFT PSEUDO CLEFT C D'Achille Paolo, 2005, TIPOLOGIA LINGUISTIC, P249 Davis Wayne A., 2011, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS De Cesare AM, 2014, TRENDS LINGUIST-STUD, V281, P49 De Cesare Anna-Maria, 2012, CUADERNOS FILOLOGIA, V19, P11 De Cesare Anna-Maria, 2004, ITALIAN J LINGUISTIC, V16, P3 De Cesare Anna-Maria, LINGUISTIK IN PRESS, V71 Declerck Renaat, 1988, STUDIES COPULAR SENT Delin Judi, 2005, CLEFT CONSTRUCTIONS DELIN J, 1995, LINGUISTICS, V33, P465, DOI 10.1515/ling.1995.33.3.465 Destruel Emilie, 2012, EMPIRICAL ISSUES SYN, V9, P95 Drenhaus H, 2011, J NEUROLINGUIST, V24, P320, DOI 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.004 Dufter A, 2009, FOCUS BACKGROUND ROM, P83 Foolen A., 1983, PARTIKELN INTERAKTIO, P188 Fornaciari R., 1881, SINTASSI ITALIANA US Frison Lorenza, 1988, GRANDE GRAMMATICA IT, VI, P194 Garassino Davide, 2014, ATT 12 CONV SILF HEL, P631 Garassino D, 2014, TRENDS LINGUIST-STUD, V281, P101 Geurts B, 1999, PRESUPPOSITIONS PRON Gil Alberto, 2003, AUFGABEN PERSPEKTIVE, P195 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Gundel Jeanette K., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P175 [Anonymous], 2007, TOPIC FOCUS, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-4796-1_5 Halvorsen Per-Kristian, 1978, TEXAS LINGUISTIC FOR, V11 Hedberg Nancy, 2007, GRAMMAR PRAGMATICS I, P49, DOI 10.1075/pbns.155.05hed Hedberg N, 2000, LANGUAGE, V76, P891, DOI 10.2307/417203 Hedberg Nancy, 1990, THESIS U MINNESOTA M Hedberg N., 2013, CLEFT STRUCTURES, P227 Horn Laurence, 1969, PAPERS 5 REGIONAL M, P98 Horn Laurence R., 1981, 11 ANN M NELS, P124 Kiss KE, 1998, LANGUAGE, V74, P245, DOI 10.2307/417867 Konig Ekkehard, 1993, SYNTAX INT HDB ZEITG, P978 Konig E., 1991, MEANING FOCUS PARTIC Krifka Manfred, 1999, P SALT, P111 Manfred K., 2007, INTERDISCIPLINARY ST, V6, P13 Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Molnar V, 2002, LANG COMPUT, P147 Onea E., 2009, WORKING PAPERS SFB, V732, P53 Patten Amanda, 2012, ENGLISH IT CLEFT CON Percus Oren, 1997, 27 ANN M N E LING SO, V28, P337 PERRINNAFFAKH AM, 1996, FRANCAIS MODERN, V64, P136 Potts C., 2007, PHILOS COMPASS, V4, P665 PRINCE EF, 1978, LANGUAGE, V54, P883, DOI 10.2307/413238 Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Quirk Randolph, 1972, GRAMMAR CONT ENGLISH Roggia C. E., 2009, FRASI SCISSE ITALIAN Bosch Peter, 1999, FOCUS LINGUISTIC COG, P232 Salvi Giampaolo, 1991, GRANDE GRAMMATICA IT, V2, P163 Schulz K, 2006, LINGUIST PHILOS, V29, P205, DOI 10.1007/s10988-005-3760-4 Sudhoff Stefan, 2010, LING AKT Szabolci A., 1981, FORMAL METHODS STUDY, P513 Taglicht Josef, 1984, MESSAGE EMPHASIS FOC Tovena Lucia M., 1996, P CONSOLE 3, P231 Vegnaduzzo Milena, 2000, LINGUISTICS POTSDAM, V6, P177 Washburn Mary Byram, 2011, EXHAUSTIVITY IT CLEF Zeevat H., 2009, SPRACHE DATENVERARBE, V33, P179 NR 71 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 4 PU WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, D-10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0165-4004 EI 1614-7308 J9 FOLIA LINGUIST JI Folia Linguist. PD MAY PY 2015 VL 49 IS 1 BP 1 EP 56 DI 10.1515/flin-2015-0001 PG 56 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CG9MH UT WOS:000353639200001 ER PT J AU Heyer-Caput, M AF Heyer-Caput, Margherita TI Between enlightened pragmatism and censorship resistance: Memorie della vita e delle peregrinazioni del fiorentino Filippo Mazzei SO FORUM ITALICUM LA English DT Article DE Dilthey; Erlebnis; Inquisition; Mazzei; narrative strategy of resistance AB A multi-faceted personality of the European Enlightenment and American Independence, Filippo Mazzei (1730-1816) retraces his wanderings between the Old and the New Worlds in his Memorie, written from 1810 to 1813. This paper argues that the apparent lack of theoretical depth and rhetorical strength of Mazzei's Memorie represents rather the narrator's ironic, pragmatic strategy of resistance to various forms of censorship, which he experienced in particular through his interactions with the Tribunal of the Inquisition. We will examine two specific episodes of the Memorie through the lens of Wilhelm Dilthey's philosophical notion of Erlebnis or lived experience.' From the perspective of Erlebnis and the inherent interrelation between lived experience, understanding and expression articulated in Dilthey's The Formation of the Historical World in the Human Sciences of 1910, Mazzei's autobiographical narrative emerges as a hermeneutic strategy of resistance that weaves together History and histories, universality and individuality. C1 [Heyer-Caput, Margherita] Univ Calif Davis, Davis, CA 95616 USA. RP Heyer-Caput, M (reprint author), Univ Calif Davis, Dept French & Italian, 510 Sproul Hall, Davis, CA 95616 USA. EM mheyercaput@ucdavis.edu CR Aquarone A, 1970, MEMORIE DELLA VITA E, V1, P5 Barbierato F, 2002, LIBRO E CENSURE Behdad A., 1994, BELATED TRAVELERS OR Bernari C, 1965, LETTERATURA, V32, P3 Black C, 2009, THE ITALIAN INQUISIT Bonora E, 1961, LETTERATI MEMORIALIS Branca V, 1996, BOCCACCIO MEDIEVALE Buccini S, 1997, THE AMERICAS IN ITAL Ciampini R, 1934, UN OSSERVATORE ITALI Croce B, 1954, ANEDDOTI DI VARIA LE, V3 Croce B, 1927, LA CRITICA, V25, P329 Delpiano P, 2007, IL GOVERNO DELLA LET Devoto G, 2001, DIZIONARIO DELLA LIN Dilthey W, 1957, IDEEN FUR EINE BESCH, V5 Dilthey W, 2002, THE FORMATION OF THE Dilthey W, 1958, DER AUFBAU DER GESCH, V7 Duden K, 1989, DAS GROSSE WORTERBUC Frajese V, 2006, NASCITA DELLINDICE L Garlick RC, 1933, PHILIP MAZZEI FRIEND Gelli S, 2011, LETTERE DI FILIPPO M, pxv Gelli S, 2011, LETTERE DI FILIPPO M, pxxiii Gerbi A, 1955, LA DISPUTA DEL NUOVO, P290 Goldoni C, 1936, IL CAVALIERE E LA DA, V2 Infelise M, 1999, I LIBRI PROIBITI DA Koopman H, 2001, AUTOBIOGRAPHIEN ALS, P117 Lejeune P, 2005, SIGNES DE VIE LE PAC, V2 Lejeune P, 1975, LE PACTE AUTOBIOGRAP Makkreel R, 2012, THE STANFORD ENCYCLO Mangione J, 1992, LA STORIA FIVE CENTU Marchione M., 1994, PHILIP MAZZEI WORLD Marchione M, 1995, THE ADVENTUROUS LIFE Marchione M, 2000, THE ITALIAN AMERICAN, P361 Marchione M, 1975, PHILIP MAZZEI JEFFER Marraro HR, 1935, PHILIP MAZZEI VIRGIN Marraro HR, 1942, MEMOIRS OF THE LIFE, px Mazzei F, 1980, MY LIFE AND WANDERIN Mazzei F, 1970, MEMORIE DELLA VITA E Misch G, 1955, GESCHICHTE DER AUTOB, V2-4 Misch G, 1949, GESCHICHTE DER AUTOB, V1 Natali G, 1964, IL SETTECENTO Olney James, 1980, AUTOBIOGRAPHY ESSAYS PACE A, 1946, Proc Am Philos Soc, V90, P387 Pasta R, 2011, LETTERE DI FILIPPO M, pxi Pasta R, 2007, LA MASSONERIA A FIRE, P17 Prosperi A, 1996, TRIBUNALI DELLA COSC Prosperi A, 2010, DIZIONARIO STORICO D, V2 Rickman HP, 1961, PATTERN MEANING HIST, P11 Schiavo G, 1951, PHILIP MAZZEI ONE OF Spackman B, 2009, MLN, V124, P158 Tortarolo E, 1986, ILLUMINISMO E RIVOLU Yegenoglu Meyda, 1998, COLONIAL FANTASIES T NR 51 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC PI THOUSAND OAKS PA 2455 TELLER RD, THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91320 USA SN 0014-5858 EI 2168-989X J9 FORUM ITALICUM JI Forum Ital. PD MAY PY 2015 VL 49 IS 1 BP 3 EP 23 DI 10.1177/0014585814567455 PG 21 WC Language & Linguistics; Literature, Romance SC Linguistics; Literature GA CG3YL UT WOS:000353215800001 ER PT J AU Salmon, W AF Salmon, William TI Conversational implicatures, reference point constructions, and that noun thing SO LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE conversational implicature; reference point; cognitive grammar; speaker distance AB This paper offers the first empirical and theoretical account of an NP construction referred to as that noun thing (TNT) in English. I argue that the construction is a Langackerian reference point construction, with the basic use of referring in situations in which speakers find it difficult to characterize the referent in question. I also show that speakers systematically rely on this relational means of referring in specific contexts to convey a range of Gricean conversational implicatures such as speaker disapproval, which are above and beyond the conventional meaning of the construction. The TNT thus offers a clear space from which to view the interplay of conventional meaning in cognitive and construction grammars with classic Gricean pragmatics. C1 Univ Minnesota, Dept Writing Studies, Duluth, MN 55812 USA. RP Salmon, W (reprint author), Univ Minnesota, Dept Writing Studies, 1201 Ordean Ct,HUM 435, Duluth, MN 55812 USA. EM wnsalmon@d.umn.edu CR Abbott B., 2010, REFERENCE Abbott B., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P122 Bach K., 1979, LINGUISTIC COMMUNICA Biber D., 2010, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Birner Betty J., 2013, INTRO PRAGMATICS Bloomfield L., 1933, LANGUAGE Borg Emma, 2002, MEANING TRUTH INVEST, P214 Breal M., 1900, SEMANTICS STUDIES SC Carston R., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P633 Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Chafe W. L., 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC, P25 Chierchia G., 2004, STRUCTURES, P39 Croft W., 2004, COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC de Saussure F., 1916, COURS LINGUISTIQUE G Evans V, 2006, COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS: AN INTRODUCTION, P1 FILLMORE CJ, 1988, LANGUAGE, V64, P501, DOI 10.2307/414531 FRONEK J, 1982, LINGUISTICS, V20, P633, DOI 10.1515/ling.1982.20.9-10.633 Geurts B., 2010, QUANTITY IMPLICATURE Geurts B, 2009, MIND LANG, V24, P51, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01353.x Ghomeshi J, 2004, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V22, P307, DOI 10.1023/B:NALA.0000015789.98638.f9 Gleason Henry, 1956, INTRO DESCRIPTIVE LI Goldberg Adele, 2005, CONSTRUCTIONS WORK N Goldberg A. E., 1995, CONSTRUCTIONS CONSTR Grice Paul H., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS GUNDEL JK, 1993, LANGUAGE, V69, P274, DOI 10.2307/416535 Hockett C. F., 1958, COURSE MODERN LINGUI Horn L., 1984, MEANING FORM USE CON, P11 Horn Laurence, 1981, J PRAGMATICS, V15, P313 Horn L., 1972, SEMANTIC PROPERTIES Horn LR, 2012, TOPICS CONTEMP PHIL, P325 Horn L. R., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P3 Horn Laurence R., 2009, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V1, P3 HORN LR, 1984, LINGUIST PHILOS, V7, P397, DOI 10.1007/BF00631074 Huang Y., 2007, PRAGMATICS Jackendoff Ray, 2010, MEANING LEXICON PARA Kay Paul, 2012, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V3, P2271 King J. C., 2005, SEMANTICS VERSUS PRA, P111 Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Langacker R. W., 1993, Cognitive Linguistics, V4, P1, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 Langacker RW, 2009, COGN LINGUIST RES, V42, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110214369 Langacker Ronald W., 2008, COGNITIVE GRAMMAR BA Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Levinson S. C., 1987, PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIV, P61 Ludlow Peter, 2011, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS Lyons Cristopher, 1999, DEFINITENESS McCawley James D., 1978, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V9, P245 Michaelis LA, 1996, LANGUAGE, V72, P215, DOI 10.2307/416650 Peter C., 1978, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V9, P261 NUNBERG G, 1993, LINGUIST PHILOS, V16, P1, DOI 10.1007/BF00984721 Park C, 2013, LINGUISTICS, V51, P1361, DOI 10.1515/ling-2013-0052 Prince Ellen, 1981, ELEMENTS DISCOURSE U, P231 Gunter Radden, 2007, COGNITIVE ENGLISH GR SADOCK J. M., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P53 Sadock Jerrold M., 1978, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V9, P281 Salmon W, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3416, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.011 Salmon W, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P3431, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.029 Searle John R., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P59 Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Stanley J, 2005, MIND LANG, V20, P364, DOI 10.1111/j.0268-1064.2005.00291.x Taylor John R., 1996, POSSESSIVES ENGLISH NR 62 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 4 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0024-3949 EI 1613-396X J9 LINGUISTICS JI Linguistics PD MAY PY 2015 VL 53 IS 3 BP 443 EP 477 DI 10.1515/ling-2015-0009 PG 35 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CG9PT UT WOS:000353649600002 ER PT J AU Ariel, M AF Ariel, Mira TI Doubling up: Two upper bounds for scalars SO LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE scalar quantifiers; discourse; circumbounded analysis; the availability principle ID IMPLICATURES; PRAGMATICS; ALTERNATIVES; INFERENCES; SEMANTICS; MEMORY AB Most theories of scalar quantifiers, of whatever persuasion, assume a lexical lower-bound-only, 'at least' meaning for scalar quantifiers, offering pragmatic or grammatical mechanisms for deriving the upper bound (Carston 1990; Chierchia 2004; Horn 1972 and onwards). I have challenged the lower-bound analysis in Ariel (2004), proposing instead a circumbounded analysis for quantifier most, where the upper bound too is lexically specified. I here extend the analysis to some. The most important feature of the circumbounded analysis is that it splits into two what are commonly considered one and the same interpretation of 'less than all'. The first is a lexeme-level upper bound which asserts the speaker's commitment to the existence of some proper subset, the reference set, for which the predicate holds. The second is pragmatic, an exclusion of the complement set from the predication. Based on new questionnaire data, my main argument here is that even in contexts which clearly militate against a 'not all' interpretation, a nonmaximal upper bound is understood. More generally (and tentatively), I will cast doubt on the whole Gricean idea that linguistic semantics should be reduced to logic. C1 Tel Aviv Univ, Dept Linguist, Cognit Studies Language Use, IL-69978 Tel Aviv, Israel. RP Ariel, M (reprint author), Tel Aviv Univ, Dept Linguist, Cognit Studies Language Use, IL-69978 Tel Aviv, Israel. EM mariel@post.tau.ac.il FU Israel Science Foundation [161-09] FX The research here reported was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant 161-09). I am also grateful to my three anonymous reviewers, as well as to Johan van der Auwera both for their criticisms and for their valuable advice, which I hope served me well. CR Anscombre J. C., 1976, LANGUAGES, V42, P5 Ariel M, 2004, LANGUAGE, V80, P658, DOI 10.1353/lan.2004.0162 Ariel Mira, 2014, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V6, P181 Ariel M, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1003, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00061-3 Ariel M, 2006, CUR RES SEM PRAG INT, V16, P49 Bach K, 1999, LINGUIST PHILOS, V22, P327, DOI 10.1023/A:1005466020243 Bagassi M, 2009, THINK REASONING, V15, P211, DOI 10.1080/13546780902864306 Barner D, 2011, COGNITION, V118, P84, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.010 Bott L, 2004, J MEM LANG, V51, P437, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006 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 Brown Cecil H., 2005, WORLD ATLAS LANGUAGE, P526 Bultinck B, 2005, CURR RES SEMANT PRAG, V15, P1 Carston R, 2002, MIND LANG, V17, P127, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00192 Carston Robyn, 1990, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V2, P1 Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Chemla Emmanuel, 2014, LANGUAGE LINGUISTI 1, V8, P373, DOI DOI 10.1111/LNC3.12081 Chemla Emmanuel, 2014, LANGUAGE LINGUISTI 2, V8, P387, DOI DOI 10.1111/LNC3.12080 Chierchia G., 2012, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V33, P2297 Chierchia G., 2004, STRUCTURES, P39 Chierchia G, 2006, LINGUIST INQ, V37, P535, DOI 10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535 Cremers Alexandre, 2014, DIRECT INDIREC UNPUB Degen Judith, 2014, CORPUS BASED S UNPUB Degen Judith, COGNITIVE S IN PRESS Degen Judith, 2009, 3 BIENN M EXP PRAGM Hoop de Helen, 1995, QUANTIFICATION NATUR, P421 Doran Ryan, 2009, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V1, P211 Bois Du, 1998, TEL AV U C 29 DEC Chafe Wallace L, 2000, SANTA BARBARA CORPUS Duffley Patrick J., 2014, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V19, P526 FAUCONNIER G, 1975, LINGUIST INQ, V6, P353 Geurts Bart, 2009, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V2, P1 Geurts Bart, 2010, QUANTITY IMPLICATION Geurts B, 2009, MIND LANG, V24, P51, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01353.x Gigerenzer G., 2008, RATIONALITY MORTALS Gigerenzer G., 2007, GUT FEELINGS INTELLI Giora R., 2003, OUR MIND SALIENCE CO Giora R., 1997, COGN LINGUIST, V7, P183, DOI [10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183, DOI 10.1515/COGL.1997.8.3.183] Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Grodner DJ, 2010, COGNITION, V116, P42, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.014 Hirschberg Julia Bell, 1991, THEORY SCALAR IMPLIC Horn LR, 2006, CUR RES SEM PRAG INT, V16, P21 Horn Laurence R., 2009, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V1, P3 Horn Laurence R., 1972, SEMANTIC PROPE UNPUB Huang YT, 2009, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V58, P376, DOI 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001 Kadmon N., 2001, FORMAL PRAGMATICS Katsos N, 2011, COGNITION, V120, P67, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015 Katzir R, 2007, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P669, DOI 10.1007/s10988-008-9029-y Kuperschmidt Itai, 2012, LOWER BOUND RO UNPUB Labov William, 1985, P 11 ANN M BERK LING, P175 LAKOFF GEORGE, 1971, SEMANTICS INTERDISCI, P329 Landman F, 1998, STUD LINGUIST PHILOS, V70, P237 Langacker R. W., 1987, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA, V1 Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS 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 Matthewson Lisa, 2009, QUANTIFICATION DEFIN, P23 Moxey LM, 1993, COMMUNICATING QUANTI Noveck Ira A, 2007, PRAGMATICS, P184 Noveck IA, 2001, COGNITION, V78, P165, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1 Papafragou A, 2003, COGNITION, V86, P253, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00179-8 Pijnacker J, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P607, DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0661-8 Sadock Jerrold M., 1998, PRAGMATICS CRITICAL, VIV, P315 Searle John, 1980, SPEECH ACT THEORY PR, P221 Shetreet E, 2014, HUM BRAIN MAPP, V35, P1503, DOI 10.1002/hbm.22269 Tomlinson JM, 2013, J MEM LANG, V69, P18, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2013.02.003 van der Auwera Johan, 1985, LANGUAGE AND LOGIC von Fintel K., 2004, DESCRIPTIONS, P315 Yildirim Ilker, 2013, 35 ANN C COGN SCI SO NR 70 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 0 U2 1 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0024-3949 EI 1613-396X J9 LINGUISTICS JI Linguistics PD MAY PY 2015 VL 53 IS 3 BP 561 EP 610 DI 10.1515/ling-2015-0013 PG 50 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CG9PT UT WOS:000353649600005 ER PT J AU Carragher, M Sage, K Conroy, P AF Carragher, Marcella Sage, Karen Conroy, Paul TI Outcomes of treatment targeting syntax production in people with Broca's-type aphasia: evidence from psycholinguistic assessment tasks and everyday conversation SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE & COMMUNICATION DISORDERS LA English DT Article DE Broca's aphasia; syntax treatment; mapping; reduced syntax; outcome measures; assessment tasks; conversation ID SENTENCE PRODUCTION; VERB RETRIEVAL; ARGUMENT STRUCTURE; NONFLUENT APHASIA; MAPPING THERAPY; AGRAMMATISM; DEFICITS; SPEECH AB BackgroundCapturing evidence of the effects of therapy within everyday communication is the holy grail of aphasia treatment design and evaluation. Whilst impaired sentence production is a predominant symptom of Broca's-type aphasia, the effects of sentence production therapy on everyday conversation have not been investigated. Given the context-sensitive nature of spoken production by people with aphasia, it is difficult to extrapolate implications for everyday conversation based on results from task-based assessment (such as picture description, story retell or interview). Thus, there are strong theoretical and clinical motivations to investigate generalization from sentence production treatment to everyday conversation. AimsTo evaluate a theoretically driven treatment focused on the language production skills of participants with post-stroke Broca's aphasia and to track outcomes from psycholinguistic assessment tasks to everyday conversation. Methods & ProceduresA case series design was utilized with pragmatic selection of participants with chronic aphasia undergoing the same assessment and treatment procedures. Nine participants with Broca's aphasia and their main conversation partners took part in the study. Treatment was implemented once weekly over 8 weeks and targeted production of basic syntaxtwo, three and four constituent constructionsthrough principles of mapping and reduced syntax treatment. Use of different possible exemplars for nouns, particularly pronouns, was trained together with use of both light and heavy verbs. Participants had the opportunity to top-up' therapy practise by completely a homework task that mirrored the therapy task. Outcomes & ResultsSyntactic well-formedness was assessed in samples of constrained sentence production, narrative retell and naturally occurring conversations at baseline, 1 week post-treatment, and 1 month post-treatment. Treatment showed strong direct effects in trained and untrained sentence construction tasks, with some generalization to narrative retell tasks. There was little evidence of change in everyday conversation. Conclusions & ImplicationsImprovement in language production in constrained assessment tasks may not impact on everyday conversations. Implications for further research are discussed, e.g. the need for bridging interventions between constrained and unconstrained contexts of language production. Clinical implications include the potential to streamline therapy planning and delivery by making use of rich, hybrid therapies to treat individuals with similar symptom profiles but with a range of underlying deficits. C1 [Carragher, Marcella] La Trobe Univ, Dept Community & Clin Allied Hlth, Bundoora, Vic 3086, Australia. [Sage, Karen] Univ W England, Bristol Speech & Language Therapy Res Unit, Bristol BS16 1QY, Avon, England. [Conroy, Paul] Univ Manchester, Neurosci & Aphasia Res Unit, Manchester, Lancs, England. RP Carragher, M (reprint author), La Trobe Univ, Dept Community & Clin Allied Hlth, Bundoora, Vic 3086, Australia. EM m.carragher@latrobe.edu.au OI Conroy, Paul/0000-0003-2189-4149; Sage, Karen/0000-0002-7365-5177 FU Stroke Association [TSA JRTF 2009/01] FX This study was funded by a research bursary from the Stroke Association (Grant Number TSA JRTF 2009/01). The authors would like to thank the participants and their families who generously gave their time to take part in this study. They also thank the speech and language therapists in North West England for referring potential participants to the study. Without the support of both of these groups, this research would not have been possible. CR Bastiaanse R, 1998, APHASIOLOGY, V12, P951, DOI 10.1080/02687039808249463 Bates E., 2000, CTR RES LANGUAGE NEW, V12 Beeke S, 2011, J NEUROLINGUIST, V24, P222, DOI 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.03.002 Carragher M, 2013, NEUROPSYCHOL REHABIL, V23, P846, DOI 10.1080/09602011.2013.832335 Davidson B, 2003, APHASIOLOGY, V17, P243, DOI 10.1080/02687030244000653 DesRoo E., 2003, BRAIN LANG, V86, P99 Druks J., 2000, OBJECT ACTION NAMING Edmonds LA, 2009, APHASIOLOGY, V23, P402, DOI 10.1080/02687030802291339 Faroqi-Shah Y, 2008, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V46, P3088, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.06.018 Garrett M. F., 1988, LINGUISTICS CAMBRIDG, V3, P69 Goodglass H, 2001, BOSTON DIAGNOSTIC AP Huber W, 1984, Adv Neurol, V42, P291 JONES EV, 1986, BRIT J DISORD COMMUN, V21, P63 KOLK H, 1995, BRAIN LANG, V50, P282, DOI 10.1006/brln.1995.1049 Lee M, 2004, J NEUROLINGUIST, V17, P315, DOI 10.1016/S0911-6044(03)00062-9 Links P, 2010, APHASIOLOGY, V24, P1303, DOI 10.1080/02687030903437666 Marshall J., 2002, HDB ADULT LANGUAGE D, P351 Marshall J, 2009, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V44, P1, DOI 10.1080/13682820802683507 Mayer JF, 2003, APHASIOLOGY, V17, P481, DOI 10.1080/02687030344000148 McNeil M. R., 2008, CLIN MANAGEMENT SENS, P311 Mitchum C. C., 2001, LANGUAGE INTERVENTIO, P551 Mitchum CC, 2000, NEUROPSYCHOL REHABIL, V10, P311 MITCHUM CC, 1993, APHASIOLOGY, V7, P71, DOI 10.1080/02687039308249500 Rochon E, 2005, NEUROPSYCHOL REHABIL, V15, P1, DOI 10.1080/09602010343000327 Ruiter MB, 2010, NEUROPSYCHOL REHABIL, V20, P423, DOI 10.1080/09602010903399287 SAFFRAN EM, 1980, BRAIN LANG, V10, P263, DOI 10.1016/0093-934X(80)90056-5 Schlenck K., 1995, BEHANDLUNG SCHWEREN SCHWARTZ MF, 1994, APHASIOLOGY, V8, P19, DOI 10.1080/02687039408248639 Simmons-Mackie NN, 2005, APHASIOLOGY, V19, P583, DOI 10.1080/02687030444000408 Springer L, 2000, NEUROPSYCHOL REHABIL, V10, P279 Thompson CK, 1995, CLIN APHASIOL, V23, P121 Thompson CK, 2007, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V16, P30, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2007/005) Webster J, 2005, APHASIOLOGY, V19, P748, DOI 10.1080/02687030500166957 Webster J, 2009, APHASIOLOGY, V23, P1231, DOI 10.1080/02687030802246291 NR 34 TC 3 Z9 4 U1 3 U2 25 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 MAY-JUN PY 2015 VL 50 IS 3 BP 322 EP 336 DI 10.1111/1460-6984.12135 PG 15 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA CG6NH UT WOS:000353418200004 PM 25727236 ER PT J AU Hwane, J Brennan, SE Huffman, MK AF Hwane, Jiwon Brennan, Susan E. Huffman, Marie K. TI Phonetic adaptation in non-native spoken dialogue: Effects of priming and audience design SO JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE Phonetic adaptation; Audience design; Priming; Pragmatic disambiguation; Korean; Non-native spoken dialogue ID FINAL ENGLISH STOPS; REFERRING EXPRESSIONS; CONCEPTUAL PACTS; VOWEL PERCEPTION; AMERICAN ENGLISH; NATIVE LANGUAGE; SPEAKERS; COMPREHENSION; DURATION; CONTRASTS AB To be understood, non-native speakers must adapt their speech in order to produce contrasts in their second language (L2) that are not present in their first language (L1). Here we examine mechanisms hypothesized to facilitate such adaptation within spoken dialogue: priming, affiliation, and audience design. In two experiments, Korean non-native speakers of English interacted in a referential communication task with a Korean English-speaking confederate (Experiment 1) and a monolingual American English-speaking confederate (Experiments 1 and 2). The task required them to spontaneously produce labels containing segments from English that do not exist in Korean (/ae/ and coda /b/), which, when spoken with a Korean accent, can result in ambiguous homophones (e.g., pat pronounced like pet, or mob pronounced like mop). The Koreans produced more English-like phonetic segments not only immediately after hearing similar segments primed by the American partner, but also when the task required the partner to distinguish two potentially ambiguous items. The first time the Koreans referred to potentially ambiguous objects, utterances took longer to initiate; once they were aware of the potential for ambiguity, initiating contrasting labels took no more time than initiating labels primed by the partner. Findings suggest that priming effects in dialogue are not obligatory but may be motivated, and that phonetic adaptation is shaped by awareness of a partner's pragmatic needs. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. C1 [Hwane, Jiwon; Huffman, Marie K.] SUNY Stony Brook, Dept Linguist, Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA. [Brennan, Susan E.] SUNY Stony Brook, Dept Psychol, Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA. RP Hwane, J (reprint author), SUNY Stony Brook, Dept Linguist, Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA. EM jiwon.hwang@stonybrook.edu FU NSF [ITR-0325188]; Leverhulme Trust FX This material is based upon work supported by NSF under Grant ITR-0325188. We thank our colleagues from the Adaptive Spoken Dialogue Project, the Dialogue Matters Network (funded by Leverhulme Trust), the Gesture Focus Group, and Arthur Samuel and Nancy Franklin for helpful discussions. We are especially grateful to Elizabeth Cohen Fanning for her assistance in running the experiments and to our English-speaking Korean volunteers. CR Babel M., 2011, ACOUSTICS TODAY, V7, P16 Babel M, 2010, LANG SOC, V39, P437, DOI 10.1017/S0047404510000400 Babel M, 2012, J PHONETICS, V40, P177, DOI 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.09.001 Baese-Berk M, 2009, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V24, P527, DOI 10.1080/01690960802299378 Bard E. G., 2000, P GOT 2000 4 WORKSH Bard EG, 2000, J MEM LANG, V42, P1, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1999.2667 Barr DJ, 2002, J MEM LANG, V46, P391, DOI 10.1006/jmla.2001.2815 Beebe Leslie, 1984, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V46, P5, DOI 10.1515/ijsl.1984.46.5 Beebe L, 1981, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V32, P139 BELL A, 1984, LANG SOC, V13, P145 Best CT, 2001, J ACOUST SOC AM, V109, P775, DOI 10.1121/1.1332378 Bly B., 1993, THESIS STANFORD U ST Bock J. Kathryn, 1996, PSYCHONOMIC B REV, V3, P395 Boersma P., 2007, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC BOHN OS, 1990, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V11, P303, DOI 10.1017/S0142716400008912 Bortfeld H, 1997, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V23, P119 Bourhis R. Y., 1977, LANGUAGE ETHNICITY I, P119 Branigan Holly, 2000, COGNITION, V75, P813 Brannen K, 2002, CAN J LING/REV CAN L, V47, P1 Brennan SE, 1996, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V22, P1482, DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1482 BROWN PM, 1987, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V19, P441, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(87)90015-6 Chang W., 2001, HARVARD STUDIES KORE, VIX, P117 Cho TH, 2006, J ACOUST SOC AM, V119, P3085, DOI 10.1121/1.2188917 CLARK HH, 1986, COGNITION, V22, P1, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7 Clements G., 2001, DISTINCTIVE FEATURE, P71, DOI [10.1515/9783110886672.71, DOI 10.1515/9783110886672] Costa A, 2008, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V23, P528, DOI 10.1080/01690960801920545 Dell G. S., 1991, BRIDGES PSYCHOL LING, P105 Eckman F, 2013, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V35, P67, DOI 10.1017/S027226311200068X FLEGE JE, 1987, J PHONETICS, V15, P67 Flege JE, 1997, J PHONETICS, V25, P437, DOI 10.1006/jpho.1997.0052 FLEGE JE, 1988, J ACOUST SOC AM, V84, P1639, DOI 10.1121/1.397179 FLEGE JE, 1987, J ACOUST SOC AM, V82, P433, DOI 10.1121/1.395444 Galati A, 2010, J MEM LANG, V62, P35, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002 GARROD S, 1987, COGNITION, V27, P181, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(87)90018-7 Giles Howard, 1975, SPEECH STYLE SOCIAL Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES Hancin-Bhatt B. J., 1994, SECOND LANG RES, V10, P241, DOI 10.1177/026765839401000304 Hanna JE, 2004, COGNITIVE SCI, V28, P105, DOI 10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.10.002 Hanna JE, 2003, J MEM LANG, V49, P43, DOI 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00022-6 Hayes-Harb R, 2008, J PHONETICS, V36, P664, DOI 10.1016/j.wocn.2008.04.002 HOGAN JT, 1980, J ACOUST SOC AM, V67, P1764, DOI 10.1121/1.384304 Horton WS, 1996, COGNITION, V59, P91, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1 Horton WS, 2002, J MEM LANG, V47, P589, DOI 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00019-0 Hwang J., 2011, THESIS STONY BROOK U Ingram JCL, 1997, J PHONETICS, V25, P343, DOI 10.1006/jpho.1997.0048 Jones C., 2003, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Kim M., 2012, THESIS NW U CHICAGO Kim Midam, 2011, Lab Phonol, V2, P125 Kraljic T, 2005, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V50, P194, DOI 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.08.002 Kuhlen AK, 2013, PSYCHON B REV, V20, P54, DOI 10.3758/s13423-012-0341-8 LISKER L, 1957, LANGUAGE, V33, P42, DOI 10.2307/410949 Major R. C., 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P69, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014686 Matthews D, 2010, DEV PSYCHOL, V46, P749, DOI 10.1037/a0019657 Metzing C, 2003, J MEM LANG, V49, P201, DOI 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00028-7 Munson B, 2004, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V47, P1048, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/078) Nittrouer S, 2004, J ACOUST SOC AM, V115, P1777, DOI 10.1121/1.1651192 Oh G., 2011, THESIS U OREGON Pardo JS, 2010, ATTEN PERCEPT PSYCHO, V72, P2254, DOI 10.3758/APP.72.8.2254 Pardo JS, 2012, J PHONETICS, V40, P190, DOI 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.10.001 PETERSON GE, 1960, J ACOUST SOC AM, V32, P693, DOI 10.1121/1.1908183 Pickering MJ, 2013, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V36, P329, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X12001495 Pickering M. J., 2004, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V27, P167 RAPHAEL LJ, 1972, J ACOUST SOC AM, V51, P1296, DOI 10.1121/1.1912974 Sirsa H, 2013, J PHONETICS, V41, P393, DOI 10.1016/j.wocn.2013.07.004 Sohn Ho-Min, 1999, KOREAN LANGUAGE Stent AJ, 2008, SPEECH COMMUN, V50, P163, DOI 10.1016/j.specom.2007.07.005 TRAUNMULLER H, 1990, J ACOUST SOC AM, V88, P97 White L, 2007, J PHONETICS, V35, P501, DOI 10.1016/j.wocn.2007.02.003 Willemyns M, 1997, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V16, P3 Yang BG, 1996, J PHONETICS, V24, P245, DOI 10.1006/jpho.1996.0013 NR 70 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 6 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 MAY PY 2015 VL 81 BP 72 EP 90 DI 10.1016/j.jml.2015.01.001 PG 19 WC Linguistics; Psychology; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CG1YS UT WOS:000353072700005 ER PT J AU Bardovi-Harlig, K Mossman, S Vellenga, HE AF Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen Mossman, Sabrina Vellenga, Heidi E. TI The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion SO Language Teaching Research LA English DT Article DE Corpus-based materials; formulaic sequences; instructional effects; oral production; pragmatic routines; pragmatics; speech acts ID PROFICIENCY; LEARNERS AB This study investigates the effect of instruction on the acquisition of pragmatic routines used in academic discussion, specifically expressions of agreement, disagreement, and clarification. Thirty-seven learners, including an experimental group of 26 students and a control group of 11 students, participated in the study. Five intact classes received instruction across four 50-minute lessons. Input consisted of authentic language samples extracted from the MICASE corpus; instruction included noticing and production activities. Evaluation in the form of a pretest/posttest was administered through a computer-delivered oral-production test, which allowed for free production in a researcher-controlled context. The task included 30 items, including 10 agreement, 10 disagreement, and 10 clarification scenarios. Two-tailed paired-sample t-tests revealed that production of both speech acts and targeted expressions increased significantly in the experimental condition, whereas the control group did not show significant change. The results show that instruction has a significant positive effect on the use of expressions as measured by oral production in conversation simulations. We attribute this positive outcome to two components, instruction and means of evaluation. C1 [Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen; Mossman, Sabrina] Indiana Univ, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. RP Bardovi-Harlig, K (reprint author), Indiana Univ, Dept Language Studies 2, Mem Hall 315,1021 E Third St, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. EM bardovi@indiana.edu CR Alali F. A., 2012, TESOL J, V3, P153 Bardovi-Harlig K, 2009, LANG LEARN, V59, P755 Bardovi-Harlig K., 2012, SYSTEM, V40, P1 Bardovi-Harlig K., 2004, STUDYING SPEAKING IN, P199 Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Biber D, 2004, APPL LINGUIST, V25, P371, DOI 10.1093/applin/25.3.371 House Juliane, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P225, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014893 Huth T, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P2025, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.010 Ishihara Noriko, 2010, TEACHING LEARNING PR Jones M., 2004, FORMULAIC SEQUENCES, P269 LoCastro V, 1997, APPL LANGUAGE LEARNI, V8, P75 Nemeth N., 2001, LANG TEACH RES, V5, P213, DOI 10.1191/136216801680223425 Nickels E. L., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P253 Olshtain E., 1990, TESL CANADA J REV TE, V7, P46 Pomerantz Anita, 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P57, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511665868 Porter P. A., 1998, COMMUNICATING EFECTI Revier RL, 2009, RESEARCHING COLLOCATIONS IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE: MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS, P125 Roever C, 2012, ELT J, V66, P10, DOI 10.1093/elt/ccq090 Schauer G., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P193, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.011 Schmitt N., 2004, FORMULAIC SEQUENCES, P55 Simpson R. C., 2002, MICHIGAN CORPUS ACAD Skillman P., 1996, SPRINGBOARD SUCCESS Takimoto M, 2006, LANG TEACH RES, V10, P393, DOI 10.1191/1362168806Ir198oa WILDNERBASSETT ME, 1994, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V32, P3, DOI 10.1515/iral.1994.32.1.3 WILLIAMS M, 1988, APPL LINGUIST, V9, P45, DOI 10.1177/109821408800900405 Yorio C. A., 1989, BILINGUALISM LIFESPA, P55 NR 26 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 5 U2 9 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 1362-1688 EI 1477-0954 J9 LANG TEACH RES JI Lang. Teach Res. PD MAY PY 2015 VL 19 IS 3 BP 324 EP 350 DI 10.1177/1362168814541739 PG 27 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CG6MX UT WOS:000353416700005 ER PT J AU van Compernolle, RA Henery, A AF van Compernolle, Remi A. Henery, Ashlie TI Learning to do concept-based pragmatics instruction: Teacher development and L2 pedagogical content knowledge SO LANGUAGE TEACHING RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE Concept-based instruction; pedagogical content knowledge; second language pragmatics; sociocultural theory; teacher education ID CLASSROOM AB This article explores the development of pedagogical content knowledge in relation to one teacher's experience in learning to engage in a Vygotskian approach to teaching second language (L2) pragmatics known as concept-based pragmatics instruction' (CBPI). The teacher, Mrs. Hanks, was a PhD candidate in second language acquisition at the time of the study, and she was a co-investigator for a larger project that investigated the integration of CBPI into an intact L2 French class that she was teaching. We focus on three aspects of Mrs. Hanks' development: (1) mediation she received during mentoring meetings' with a more expert collaborator (her co-investigator), (2) changes in her classroom practices during the study, and (3) metacognitive reflections on her progress at the end of the study. Drawing on Vygotskian theory, we examine Mrs. Hanks' development in terms of her internalization and transformation of relevant pedagogical content knowledge. In this way, we are contributing to the very small amount of empirical work examining teacher education/development in the context of learning to do' concept-based instruction (e.g. Williams, Abraham, & Negueruela, 2013), with specific focus on CBPI. C1 [van Compernolle, Remi A.; Henery, Ashlie] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA. RP van Compernolle, RA (reprint author), Carnegie Mellon Univ, Dept Modern Languages, Baker Hall 160,5000 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA. EM vancomp@cmu.edu FU Berkman Faculty Development Grant from the Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University, USA FX This research was supported by a Berkman Faculty Development Grant from the Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University, USA. CR [Anonymous], 2009, PHOTOSYNTHESIS Davydov V. V., 2004, PROBLEMS DEV INSTRUC Ferreira M., 2005, THESIS PENNSYLVANIA Gal'perin P. I., 1989, SOV PSYCHOL, V27, P65, DOI DOI 10.2753/RP01061-0405270365 Galperin P. I., 1992, J RUSSIAN E EUROPEAN, V30, P60 Hill HC, 2005, AM EDUC RES J, V42, P371, DOI 10.3102/00028312042002371 Johnson KE, 2009, ESL APPL LING PROF, P1 Lantolf J., 2006, SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY Lantolf JP, 2007, MOD LANG J, V91, P877, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00675.x Negueruela E., 2006, ART TEACHING SPANISH, P79 Negueruela E., 2003, THESIS PENNSYLVANIA Negueruela-Azarola E, 2011, SYSTEM, V39, P359, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2011.07.008 SHULMAN LS, 1987, HARVARD EDUC REV, V57, P1 Stetsenko A., 2010, SOCIOCULTURAL TURN P, P231 Swain M, 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P5, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00825.x VanCompernolle RA, 2014, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V74, P1 van Compernolle R. A., LANGUAGE LE IN PRESS Vygotsky L, 1978, MIND SOC DEV HIGHER Vygotsky L. S., 1986, THOUGHT LANGUAGE Wertsch JV, 2007, CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO VYGOTSKY, P178 Williams L, 2013, LANG TEACH RES, V17, P363, DOI 10.1177/1362168813482950 NR 21 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 7 U2 19 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 1362-1688 EI 1477-0954 J9 LANG TEACH RES JI Lang. Teach Res. PD MAY PY 2015 VL 19 IS 3 BP 351 EP 372 DI 10.1177/1362168814541719 PG 22 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CG6MX UT WOS:000353416700006 ER PT J AU Borik, O Espinal, MT AF Borik, Olga Teresa Espinal, M. TI Reference to kinds and to other generic expressions in Spanish: definiteness and number SO LINGUISTIC REVIEW LA English DT Article DE kind reference; definiteness; number; Spanish ID BARE NOMINALS; PRAGMATICS; SEMANTICS; NOUNS AB This paper is devoted to the study of definite kinds and other generic expressions, such as subkinds and definite plurals in argument position in Romance, namely Spanish. We support the claim that definite kinds denote the kind itself and are the expression of D-genericity in this type of languages. We argue that at the syntax-semantics interface definite kinds are numberless DPs composed by applying a iota operator (the meaning encoded by the definite article) to the meaning of nouns, thus constraining a generic interpretation for the sentence in which they appear. Subkinds and generic definite plurals, on the other hand, are the expression of V-driven genericity, since the generic meaning of these expressions is constrained by the type of predicate (kind and individual level predicates) they combine with. Subkinds are argued to differ from kinds in that they require Number (conceived as a realization operator). Generic definite plurals are argued to be syntactically and semantically different from both English bare plurals and definite kinds, and derived by applying an intensionalizing operator over the iota operator (Chierchia 1998). C1 [Borik, Olga; Teresa Espinal, M.] Univ Autonoma Barcelona, E-08193 Barcelona, Spain. RP Espinal, MT (reprint author), Univ Autonoma Barcelona, E-08193 Barcelona, Spain. EM Teresa.Espinal@uab.cat RI Espinal, M.Teresa/K-2862-2014 OI Espinal, M.Teresa/0000-0002-8079-7253 FU Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [FFI2011-23356]; Generalitat de Catalunya [2014SGR-1013] FX This research has been funded by the following research grant awarded by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (FFI2011-23356), and by a grant awarded by the Generalitat de Catalunya to the Centre de Linguistica Teorica (2014SGR-1013). The first author also acknowledges a Ramon y Cajal award (RyC-2008-02856), and the second author an ICREA Academia award. CR Beyssade Claire, 2007, C HONN AL LEC PAUILL Beyssade Claire, 2005, NOMS NUS GENERICITE, P33 Borik Olga, 2012, RECHERCHES LINGUISTI, V41, P123 Burton-Roberts N., 1977, STUD LANG, V1, P155, DOI 10.1075/sl.1.2.02bur BURTONROBERTS N, 1976, LANGUAGE, V52, P427, DOI 10.2307/412569 Carlson Gregory, 2010, KINDS THINGS STUFF M, P16 Carlson Greg, 1977, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Carlson Greg, 2011, SEMATANCIS INT HDB N, VHSK 33.2, P1153 Carlson G. M., 1995, GENERIC BOOK Chierchia Gennaro, 1998, NAT LANG SEMANT, V6, P339, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1008324218506 Chierchia G., 1984, TOPICS SYNTAX SEMANT CHIERCHIA GENNARO, 1995, GENERIC BOOK, P176 Cohen Ariel, 2001, J SEMANT, V18, P183, DOI 10.1093/jos/18.3.183 Condoravdi Cleo, 1992, OHIO STATE U WORKING, V10, P17 Condoravdi Cleo, 1994, DESCRIPTIONS CONTEXT Cyrino S, 2015, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V33, P471, DOI 10.1007/s11049-014-9264-6 Dayal V, 2004, LINGUIST PHILOS, V27, P393, DOI 10.1023/B:LING.0000024420.80324.67 Dayal V., 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V33.2, P1088 Dayal Veneeta, 1992, OHIO STATE U WORKING, V10, P39 De Swart H, 1998, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V16, P347, DOI 10.1023/A:1005916004600 de Swart H, 2007, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V25, P195, DOI 10.1007/s11049-006-9007-4 Deprez V, 2005, LINGUA, V115, P857, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.006 de Swart Henriette, 2006, NONDEFINITENESS PLUR, P161 Dobrovie-Sorin Carmen, 1996, GENERIC BARE NPS Dobrovie-Sorin Carmen, 2007, SINN BED 12 U OSL 20 Dobrovie-Sorin Carmen, 2003, LANGUES ROMANES PROB, P235 Dobrovie-Sorin Carmen, 2012, NATURAL LANGUAGE LIN, V85 Doron Edit, 2003, P SALT 13 SEATTL U W, P73 ENC M, 1991, LINGUIST INQ, V22, P1 Espinal M. Teresa, 2007, WORKSH BAR NOUNS NOM Espinal M. Teresa, 2004, CATALAN J LINGUISTIC, V3, P7 Farkas Donka, 2010, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V3, P1, DOI DOI 10.3765/SP.3.6 Gehrke Berit, 2012, FREQUENCY ADJECTIVES Gerstner Claudia, 1993, SYNTAX INT HDB CONT, P966 Greenberg Y., 2003, MANIFESTATIONS GENER Heim Irene, 1982, SEMANTICS DEFINITE I Ionin T, 2011, LINGUA, V121, P963, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.12.008 Jespersen Otto, 1927, MODERN ENGLISH GRAMM Kamp Hans, 1984, FORMAL SEMANTICS ESS, P1 Kratzer Angelika, 1995, GENERIC BOOK, P125 Krifka M., 1995, GENERIC BOOK, P1 Krifka Manfred, 2012, GENERICITY, P372 LACA B, 1990, LINGUA, V81, P25, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(90)90003-4 Laca B., 1999, GRAMATICA DESCRIPTIV, VI, P891 Lawler J., 1973, U MICHIGAN PAPERS LI, V1 Lobner Sebastian, 2011, J SEMANT, V28, P279 Link Godehard, 1983, MEANING USE INTERPRE, P303 LONGOBARDI G, 1994, LINGUIST INQ, V25, P609 Longobardi Giuseppe, 1999, RIV GRAMMATICA GENER, V24, P45 Longobardi Giuseppe, 2001, NAT LANG SEMANT, V9, P335, DOI 10.1023/A:1014861111123 Longobardi Giuseppe, 1991, U VENICE WORKING PAP, V9, P1 Longobardi Giuseppe, 2005, Z SPRACHWISS, V24, P5, DOI 10.1515/zfsw.2005.24.1.5 Matushansky O, 2008, LINGUIST PHILOS, V31, P573, DOI 10.1007/s10988-008-9050-1 McNally Louise, 2004, EMPIRICAL ISSUES FOR, V5, P179 Montague R., 1974, FORMAL PHILOS SELECT, P188 Partee B., 1987, STUDIES DISCOURSE RE, V8, P115 Partee Barbara, 1983, MEANING USE INTERPRE, P361, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110852820.361 Prasada S, 2006, COGNITION, V99, P73, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.003 Rothstein S, 2010, J SEMANT, V27, P343, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffq007 Rullmann H, 2006, CURR RES SEMANT PRAG, V16, P175 Sauerland U., 2005, LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE, P413, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110197549.413 SHARVY R, 1980, PHILOS REV, V89, P607, DOI 10.2307/2184738 Spector B, 2007, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P243 Espinal MT, 2011, J LINGUIST, V47, P87, DOI 10.1017/S0022226710000228 Espinal MT, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P984, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.002 ter Meulen Alice, 1980, SUBSTANCES QUANTITIE Tsoulas George, 2009, MIT WORKING PAPERS L, V57, P131 VERGNAUD JR, 1992, LINGUIST INQ, V23, P595 von Heusinger Klaus, 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V33.2, P1024 Zamparelli Roberto, 1995, THESIS U ROCHESTER R Zamparelli Roberto, 2002, ROMANCE LANGUAGES LI, p[305, 311] Zamparelli R, 2008, STUD LANG C, V99, P101 NR 72 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 1 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0167-6318 EI 1613-3676 J9 LINGUIST REV JI Linguist. Rev. PD MAY PY 2015 VL 32 IS 2 BP 167 EP 225 DI 10.1515/tlr-2014-0023 PG 59 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CG9MC UT WOS:000353638600001 ER PT J AU Roever, C Al-Gahtani, S AF Roever, Carsten Al-Gahtani, Saad TI Multiple Requests in Arabic as a Second Language SO MULTILINGUA-JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL AND INTERLANGUAGE COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE pragmatics; second language; Arabic; Conversation Analysis ID AMERICAN ENGLISH; L2 REQUESTS; CONVERSATION; ORGANIZATION; PROFICIENCY; REPAIR; COMPLIMENTS; PREFERENCE; RESPONSES AB Research in second language pragmatics is increasingly investigating the sequential organization of interaction and how it might be affected by second language learners' developing proficiency. In this paper, we are focusing on a specific aspect of request organization, namely multiple requests. Through data from natural interaction and role plays, we found that multiple requests occurred in a single turn, either as an original request and its same-format reiteration bracketing accounts and explanations or as repetitions with a more complex and polite format. Multiple requests across turns served a repair function. We argue that same-turn multiple requests are recipient designed to increase the likelihood of acceptance. Higher-level learners of Arabic were more likely to produce multiple requests in the same turn than low-level learners whereas the latter exhibited more multiple requests across turns. The data collection method did not have a discernible effect on findings. C1 [Roever, Carsten] Univ Melbourne, Linguist & Appl Linguist, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia. [Al-Gahtani, Saad] King Saud Univ, Arab Linguist Inst, Dept Appl Linguist, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. RP Roever, C (reprint author), Univ Melbourne, Linguist & 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 Achiba Machiko, 2003, LEARNING TO REQUEST Al-Gahtani S, 2013, ELT J, V67, P413, DOI 10.1093/elt/cct036 Al-Gahtani S, 2014, SYSTEM, V42, P189, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2013.10.018 Al-Gahtani S, 2012, APPL LINGUIST, V33, P42, DOI 10.1093/applin/amr031 Al-Gahtani Saad, 2007, THESIS Al-Khatib Mahmoud A, 1994, LANGUAGE CULTURE CUR, V7, P161 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P171, DOI DOI 10.1017/S027226310001487X Bardovi-Harlig K., 1993, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V15, P279, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100012122 Bataineh RF, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P792, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.01.003 Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Bodman Jean W., 1988, CROSS CURRENTS, V15, P1 Breiner-Sanders KE, 2000, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V33, P13 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Curl TS, 2008, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V41, P129, DOI 10.1080/08351810802028613 Simona Pekarek Doehler, 2011, L2 INTERACTIONAL COM, P206 El-Jawad Hassan R.S. Abd, 2000, LANGUAGE CULTURE AND, V13, P217 Ellis R., 1992, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V14, P1, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100010445 Emery Peter, 2000, LANGUAGE CULTURE CUR, V13, P196 Farghal M, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1485, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00006-6 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P253, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.013 Ferguson Charles A., 1967, LINGUISTIC STUDIES, P37 Ferguson Charles A., 1983, MEDITERRANEAN LANGUA, V1, P65 Gardner Rod, 2004, SECOND LANGUAGE CONV, P246 Gass S., 1999, INTERLANGUAGE REFUSA Halleck Gene B., 2005, LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT, V2, P315, DOI 10.1207/s15434311laq0204_5 HASSANAIN KSA, 1994, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V32, P68 Heinemann T, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P1081, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013 Heritage J., 1984, GARFINKEL AND ETHNOM Hill T, 1997, THESIS Hutchby Ian, 2008, CONVERSATION ANALYSI Ishida Midori, 2009, TALK IN INTERACTION, P317 JACOBY S, 1995, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V28, P171, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_1 Johnson Marysia, 2001, THE ART OF NON CONVE Kasper Gabriele, 2002, PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMEN Kasper Gabriele, 2006, MULTILINGUA, V25, P323, DOI 10.1515/MULTI.2006.018 Kasper Gabriele, 2008, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P316 Kasper G., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P281 Kasper G, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P2045, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.011 Kasper G, 2006, AILA REV, V19, P83, DOI 10.1075/aila.19.07kas Kim Younhee, 2009, TALK IN INTERACTION, P317 Kitzinger Celia, 2012, THE HANDBOOK OF CONV, P229 Lazaraton A., 2002, QUALITATIVE APPROACH Lee SH, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1248, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.013 Mackey A, 2005, SECOND LANGUAGE RESEARCH: METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN, P1 NELSON GL, 1993, INT J INTERCULT REL, V17, P293, DOI 10.1016/0147-1767(93)90036-8 Nelson GL, 2002, APPL LINGUIST, V23, P163, DOI 10.1093/applin/23.2.163 Nelson GL, 2002, INT J INTERCULT REL, V26, P39, DOI 10.1016/S0147-1767(01)00037-2 Nelson G. L., 1996, SPEECH ACTS CULTURES, P109 Nelson GL, 1996, APPL LINGUIST, V17, P411, DOI 10.1093/applin/17.4.411 Nguyen HT, 2008, TEXT TALK, V28, P501, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2008.025 Pomerantz Anita, 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P57, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511665868 Roever Carsten, 2010, PRAGMATICS AND LANGU, P187 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 Schegloff E. A., 1973, SEMIOTICA, V8, P289, DOI DOI 10.1515/SEMI.1973.8.4.289 SCHEGLOFF EA, 1968, AM ANTHROPOL, V70, P1075, DOI 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 SCHEGLOFF EA, 1977, LANGUAGE, V53, P361, DOI 10.2307/413107 SCHEGLOFF EA, 1980, SOCIOL INQ, V50, P104, DOI 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.x 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 Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS Searle John R., 1979, EXPRESSION AND MEANI Sidnell Jack, 2010, CONVERSATION ANALYSI Stivers Tanya, 2012, THE HANDBOOK OF CONV, P191 Taguchi N., 2006, PRAGMATICS, V16, P513 Taleghani-Nikazm C, 2010, MULTILINGUA, V29, P185, DOI 10.1515/mult.2010.008 Taleghani-Nikazm Carmen, 2006, REQUEST SEQUENCES TH Taylor-Hamilton Carrie, 2004, STUDYING SPEAKING IN, P149 Trosborg A., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Wagner Johannes, 2004, SECOND LANGUAGE CONV, P1 Young Richard, 1998, TALKING AND TESTING Zimmerman DH, 1999, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V32, P195, DOI 10.1207/S15327973RLSI321&2_23 NR 73 TC 0 Z9 0 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 MAY PY 2015 VL 34 IS 3 BP 405 EP 432 DI 10.1515/multi-2014-0056 PG 28 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CG2XF UT WOS:000353138300005 ER PT J AU Skorczynska, H Ahrens, K AF Skorczynska, Hanna Ahrens, Kathleen TI A corpus-based study of metaphor signaling variations in three genres SO TEXT & TALK LA English DT Article DE metaphor; signaling; corpora; genre; communication ID DISCOURSE; SPEECHES AB This study examines the use of words and phrases that signal metaphors in three genres in order to further examine the corpus-based evidence for signaling variation mentioned in previous research. While previous studies have focused on pragmatic functions, discourse functions, and the level of conventionalization, this study demonstrates that the communicative goals within each genre underlie the reasons for the metaphor signaling. Three corpora of approximately 600,000 words were created for this research, and they were made up of US presidential addresses, popular science articles, and business periodical articles. The corpora were electronically queried for the use of sixteen previously identified metaphor signals in order to obtain comparable quantitative data. The study was complemented by a qualitative analysis of the identified instances of signaled metaphors. We found that three metaphor signal categories - copular similes, verbal processes, and modals/conditionals - accounted for the large majority of the signals analyzed in the genres. Furthermore, we found that while copular similes and verbal processes signals were used for different rhetorical purposes, depending on the communicative goals of each genre, the conditional signal was always used to foreshadow metaphorically expressed possibilities, regardless of the genre in which it was used. C1 [Skorczynska, Hanna] Univ Politecn Valencia, Dept Appl Linguist, E-46022 Valencia, Spain. [Ahrens, Kathleen] Hong Kong Baptist Univ, Language Ctr, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. RP Skorczynska, H (reprint author), Univ Politecn Valencia, Dept Appl Linguist, E-46022 Valencia, Spain. EM hskorczy@idm.upv.es; Ahrens@hkbu.edu.hk RI Skorczynska, Hanna/H-5935-2015; OI Skorczynska, Hanna/0000-0001-5640-8900; Ahrens, Kathleen Virginia/0000-0002-7863-3655 FU Generalitat Valenciana (Spain) [BEST/2009/243]; Hong Kong Baptist University [FRG/08-09/II-27] FX The first author would like to thank Generalitat Valenciana (Spain) for the grant (BEST/2009/243) supporting this research. The second author would like to thank Hong Kong Baptist University for a Faculty Research Grant which supported a portion of this research (FRG/08-09/II-27). Special thanks also go to the second author's project assistant, Ivy Chan Wing Shan, for her assistance with the data analysis in this paper. We are grateful for comments and suggestions received from two anonymous reviewers. All errors are our own responsibility. CR Battersby S, 2006, NEW SCI, V192, P34, DOI 10.1016/S0262-4079(06)61336-5 Beacco Jean-Claudel, 2002, DISCOURSE STUDIES, V4, P277, DOI 10.1177/1461445602004003663 Calsamiglia H, 2004, DISCOURSE SOC, V15, P369, DOI 10.1177/0957926504043705 Calsamiglia Helena, 2001, LENG DISC TEXT 1 S I CAMERON L, 2004, EUROPEAN J ENGLISH S, V8, P355, DOI 10.1080/1382557042000277430 Cameron L., 2003, METAPHOR ED DISCOURS Cameron L, 2003, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V18, P149, DOI 10.1207/S15327868MS1803_02 CharterisBlack J, 2004, CORPUS APPROACHES TO CRITICAL METAPHOR ANALYSIS, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230000612 Chown Marcus, 2009, NEW SCI, V2722, P33 Davies Paul, 2007, SCI AM, V297, P40 Glucksberg S., 1993, METAPHOR THOUGHT, P401, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139173865.020, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.020] Goatly A., 1997, LANGUAGE METAPHORS Holmes Bob, 2009, NEW SCI, V2728, P12 Knowles M., 2006, INTRO METAPHOR Lane Nick, 2009, NEW SCI, V2730, P18 Low G, 2008, APPL LINGUIST, V29, P428, DOI 10.1093/applin/amn008 Lu LWL, 2008, DISCOURSE SOC, V19, P383, DOI 10.1177/0957926508088966 Macknik Stephen L., 2008, SCI AM, V298, P5 Ortony A., 1993, METAPHOR THOUGHT, P357, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.019 Moirand S, 2003, DISCOURSE STUD, V5, P175, DOI 10.1177/1461445603005002003 Ortony Andrew, 1993, METAPHOR THOUGHT, P342 [Anonymous], 2006, CORPUS BASED APPROAC, DOI 10.1515/9783110199895.267 Pramling N, 2006, EUR J PSYCHOL EDUC, V21, P453 Reed Stanley, 2002, BUS WEEK 0408, V3777, P56 Reisigl M, 2008, HANDB APPL LINGUIST, V4, P243 Rundell M., 2007, MACMILLAN ENGLISH DI Scott Michael, 2008, WORDSMITH TOOLS 5 Skorczynska Hanna, 2005, METAPHORIK, P9 Skorczynska H, 2006, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V21, P87, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms2102_2 Skorczynska Hanna, 2010, RESEARCHING APPLYING, P309 Steen Gerard, 2005, LITERAL NONLITERAL D, P299 Steen Gerard, 2008, SELECTED PAPERS 2008 Steen GJ, 2007, CONV EVI LANG COMMUN, V10, P1 Steen GJ, 2010, CONV EVI LANG COMMUN, V14, P1 Stix Gary, 2007, SCI AM, V297, P28 Swales J., 1990, GENRE ANAL ENGLISH A Tarduno John, 2008, SCI AM, V298, P15 Taylor Alex, 2000, FORTUNE The Economist, 2001, ECONOMIST Tully S, 2002, FORTUNE, V146, P58 Wallington A. M., 2003, COGNITIVE SCI RES PA Wang Zhong Lin, 2008, SCI AM, V298, P4 [Anonymous], 2007, ECONOMIST [Anonymous], 1999, BUSINESS WEEK [Anonymous], 1999, ECONOMIST NR 45 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 15 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 MAY PY 2015 VL 35 IS 3 BP 359 EP 381 DI 10.1515/text-2015-0007 PG 23 WC Communication; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Communication; Linguistics GA CG6ZK UT WOS:000353451500004 ER PT J AU Janssens, L Drooghmans, S Schaeken, W AF Janssens, Leen Drooghmans, Stephanie Schaeken, Walter TI But: Do age and working memory influence conventional implicature processing? SO JOURNAL OF CHILD LANGUAGE LA English DT Article ID SCALAR IMPLICATURES; TIME-COURSE AB Conventional implicatures are omnipresent in daily life communication but experimental research on this topic is sparse, especially research with children. The aim of this study was to investigate if eight- to twelve-year-old children spontaneously make the conventional implicature induced by but, so, and nevertheless in 'p but q' sentences. Additionally, the study aimed to shed light on the cognitive effort required for these inferences by measuring working memory (WM) capacity. Our results show that children do make these inferences to a certain extent, but are sensitive to the content of the arguments. We found a significant effect of sentence type, but did not observe any developmental effect, nor any effect of WM: a higher age or WM capacity does not result in more pragmatic inferences. C1 [Janssens, Leen; Drooghmans, Stephanie; Schaeken, Walter] KU Leuven Univ Leuven, Expt Psychol Lab, Leuven, Belgium. RP Janssens, L (reprint author), Tiensestr 102 Postbox 3711, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. EM Janssens@ppw.kuleuven.be FU National Council for Scientific Research - Flanders, Belgium (FWO) [G.0634.09] FX This research was carried out with the financial support of the National Council for Scientific Research - Flanders, Belgium (FWO grant G.0634.09). CR ANSCOMBRE JC, 1977, LINGUA, V43, P23, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(77)90046-8 Baayen RH, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P390, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 Bates D, 2011, LME4 LINEAR MIXED EF Blakemore D., 2002, RELEVANCE LINGUISTIC Bott L, 2004, J MEM LANG, V51, P437, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006 BRAINE MDS, 1981, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V31, P46, DOI 10.1016/0022-0965(81)90003-5 DANEMAN M, 1980, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V19, P450, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6 De Neys W, 2007, EXP PSYCHOL, V54, P128, DOI 10.1027/1618-3169.54.2.128 Dieussaert K, 2011, Q J EXP PSYCHOL, V64, P2352, DOI 10.1080/17470218.2011.588799 Gathercole SE, 1999, TRENDS COGN SCI, V3, P410, DOI 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01388-1 Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Haeseryn Walter, 1997, ALGEMENE NEDERLANDSE Hall A., 2004, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V16, P199 Horn L. R., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P3 Jaeger TF, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P434, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 Janssens L., 2012, P ANN C COGN SCI SOC, P509 Janssens L, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V57, P194, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.021 Lepere J., 2008, THESIS CATHOLIC U LE 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 A, 2003, COGNITION, V86, P253, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00179-8 Schaeken W., 2011, P ANN C COGN SCI SOC, P1170 Van Belle W., 1992, 143 CATH U LEUV FAC Van Belle W., 2003, ZWIJGEN IS NIET ALTI NR 24 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 5 U2 6 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 MAY PY 2015 VL 42 IS 3 BP 695 EP 708 DI 10.1017/S0305000914000312 PG 14 WC Psychology, Developmental; Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Psychology; Linguistics GA CF8KJ UT WOS:000352807700009 PM 25036851 ER PT J AU Cruschina, S AF Cruschina, Silvio TI The expression of evidentiality and epistemicity: Cases of grammaticalization in Italian and Sicilian SO PROBUS LA English DT Article DE grammaticalization; evidentiality; epistemic modality; sentence adverbs; functional projections; Italian; Sicilian ID PRAGMATIC FIELD; ADVERBS AB The main aim of this article is to provide a detailed analysis of particular structures found in Italian, especially as spoken in central and southern Italy, and in Sicilian. These structures are very similar in the two languages, in that they involve the grammaticalization of the same verb of saying or epistemic adjective followed by the complementizer (cf. Italian dice che, capace che, and Sicilian dicica, capacica), but in fact they display different properties. I investigate the function and the syntactic behaviour of these constructions, which seem to instantiate two types, stages or degrees of grammaticalization. More specifically, I show that in Italian these predicates are functional heads followed by the complementizer che, while in Sicilian the resulting units are now sentence adverbs. The present work therefore deals with grammaticalization and language change, but also with the two categories with which these structures are associated, namely, evidentiality and epistemic modality. A broader theoretical question lies in the background of the discussion, which challenges the 'morphocentric' perspective on the grammatical expression of certain categories such as evidentiality (cf. Aikhenvald 2004). Following Cinque (1999, 2004), I claim that adverbs can also be seen as the overt manifestation of functional distinctions, similarly to particles, auxiliaries and overt morphology. Under this view, sentential adverbs are functional in nature, and have the same meaning and function as the corresponding grammatical elements occurring as the head of the corresponding functional projection. C1 Univ Manchester, Linguist & English Language, Sch Arts Languages & Cultures, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. RP Cruschina, S (reprint author), Univ Manchester, Linguist & English Language, Sch Arts Languages & Cultures, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. EM silvio.cruschina@manchester.ac.uk CR Aikhenvald Alexandra, 2004, EVIDENTIALITY Alexiadou Artemis, 1997, ADVERB PLACEMENT CAS [Anonymous], 1986, EVIDENTIALITY LINGUI BELLERT I, 1977, LINGUIST INQ, V8, P337 Beninca Paola, 1995, ITALIA SETTENTRIONAL, P131 Beninca Paola, 2004, STRUCTURE CP IP CART, P52 Beninca Paola, 2001, CURRENT STUDIES ITAL, P39 Beninca Paola, 1994, PATHS UNIVERSAL GRAM, P35 Boye K, 2009, FUNCT LANG, V16, P9, DOI 10.1075/fol.16.1.03boy Brinton Laurel, 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN Brinton Laurel J., 2005, LEXICALIZATION LANGU Bybee Joan L., 1994, EVOLUTION GRAMMAR TE Campbell L., 2001, LANG SCI, V23, P113 Cardinaletti Anna, 1999, CLITICS LANGUAGES EU, P145 Cinque G., 1990, TYPES A DEPENDENCIES Cinque G., 1999, ADVERBS FUNCTIONAL H Cinque G, 2004, LINGUA, V114, P683, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00048-2 Collins Chris, 1998, LOCAL EC Cruschina Silvio, 2010, STUDI DIALETTI SICIL, V11, P21 Cruschina Silvio, 2010, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY UN, V63, P345, DOI 10.1524/stuf.2010.0027 Cruschina S., 2012, DISCOURSE RELATED FE Cruschina Silvio, 2006, RIV ITALIANA DIALETT, V30, P75 Cruschina S., 2008, RIV GRAMMATICA GENER, V33, P95 Haan Ferdinand de, 2005, WORLD ATLAS LANGUAGE, P314 Ernst Thomas, 2002, SYNTAX ADJUNCTS Faller Martina, 2002, THESIS STANFORD U ST FALLER MARTINA, 2006, EVIDENTIALITY UNPUB Fortescue M, 2003, STUDIES EVIDENTIALIT, P291 Garzonio Jacopo, 2009, STUDI DIALETTI CALAB, V9, P85 Giacalone-Ramat Anna, 2000, HIST LINGUISTICS, P125 Giacalone-Ramat Anna, 1998, LIMITS GRAMMATICALIZ, P107, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.37.05GIA Giorgi A., 2010, SPEAKER SYNTAX INDEX Giorgi Alessandra, 2004, STRUCTURE CP IP CART, V2, P190 Giorgi Alessandra, 2005, U VENICE WORKING PAP, V15, P105 Givon T., 1979, UNDERSTANDING GRAMMA Harris A. C., 1995, HIST SYNTAX CROSS LI Bernd Heine, 1993, AUXILIARIES Hill V, 2011, DIACHRONICA, V28, P25, DOI 10.1075/dia.28.1.02hil Hill V, 2007, LINGUIST REV, V24, P61, DOI 10.1515/TLR.2007.003 Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Jackendoff R., 1972, SEMANTIC INTERPRETAT Janda Richard D, 2001, LANG SCI, V23, P265 Jendraschek Gerd, 2003, MODALITE EPISTEMIQUE Lehmann Christian, 2002, NEW REFLECTIONS GRAM, P1, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.49.03LEH LEHMANN C, 1985, LINGUA STILE, V20, P303 Lyons J., 1977, SEMANTICS Matthewson Lisa, 2008, LINGUISTIC VARIATION, V2007, P201 McCready E, 2007, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P147, DOI 10.1007/s10988-007-9017-7 Norde Muriel, 2009, DEGRAMMATICALIZATION Nuyts Jan, 2001, EPISTEMIC MODALITY L Olbertz Hella, 2007, ITALIAN J LINGUISTIC, V19, P151 PICCITTO GIORGIO, 1977, VOCABOLARIO SICILIAN Pietrandrea P, 2005, STUD LANG C, V74, P1 Poletto Cecilia, 2001, CURRENT STUDIES ITAL, P265 Poletto C., 2000, HIGHER FUNCTIONAL FI Poletto Cecilia, 2009, STUDI DIALETTI CALAB, V9, P25 Poletto C, 2009, LING AKT, V146, P185 RAMAT P., 1998, ADVERBIAL CONSTRUCTI, P187 Rizzi L., 2004, CARTOGRAPHY SYNTACTI, V3, P223 Rizzi L., 1990, RELATIVIZED MINIMALI Rizzi Luigi, 1997, ELEMENTS GRAMMAR, V1, P281, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 Roberts I., 2010, GRADIENCE GRADUALNES, P45 Rohlfs Gerhardt, 1968, GRAMMATICA STORICA L, V2 ROHLFS GERHARD, 1969, GRAMMATICA STORICA L, V3 Rooryck J., 1994, PROBUS, V6, P207, DOI 10.1515/prbs.1994.6.2-3.207 Rooryck Johan, 2001, GLOT INT, V5, P125 Scorretti Mauro, 1991, THESIS U AMSTERDAM A Speas Peggy, 2003, ASYMMETRY GRAMMAR, V1, P315, DOI [10.1075/la.57.15spe, DOI 10.1075/LA.57.15SPE] Traugott E, 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1982, PERSPECTIVES HIST LI, V24, P245 Traugott Elizabeth C., 2010, GRADIENCE GRADUALNES Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1995, SUBJECTIVITY SUBJECT, P37 Travis CE, 2006, LINGUISTICS, V44, P1269, DOI 10.1515/LING.2006.041 Van Gelderen E., 2004, GRAMMATICALIZATION E Gelderen Elly van, 2009, CUCLICAL CHANGE Van Gelderen Elly, 2011, LINGUISTIC CYCLE LAN WILLETT T, 1988, STUD LANG, V12, P51, DOI 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil Zimmermann Malte, 2004, ZAS PAPERS LINGUISTI, V35, P543 NR 78 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 4 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0921-4771 EI 1613-4079 J9 PROBUS JI Probus PD MAY PY 2015 VL 27 IS 1 BP 1 EP 31 DI 10.1515/probus-2013-0006 PG 31 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CG0TY UT WOS:000352985600001 ER PT J AU Thorson, J Borras-Comes, J Crespo-Sendra, V Vanrell, MD Prieto, P AF Thorson, Jill Borras-Comes, Joan Crespo-Sendra, Veronica del Mar Vanrell, Maria Prieto, Pilar TI The acquisition of melodic form and meaning in yes-no interrogatives by Catalan and Spanish speaking children SO PROBUS LA English DT Article DE pragmatics; intonation; intonational development; L1 acquisition ID INTONATION AB This study investigates the link between interrogative intonation and meaning in child-directed speech (henceforth CDS) and how this is reflected in the early development of yes-no-interrogatives of Catalan- and Spanish-speaking children. Previous research found that children before the two-word period produce several types of interrogatives and that their productions generally reflect the adult inventory pattern (Lleo & Rakow 2011; Prieto et al. 2012). Yet prior studies have not included an analysis of the pragmatic meanings that are encoded intonationally. This investigation takes an integrated approach to the study of intonational development within the domain of yes-no questions, exploring further the correspondence between intonational form and meaning in early interrogative production and relating it to the pragmatics of interrogative intonation in child-directed speech. A set of 723 interrogative utterances produced by 3 Catalan- and 2 Spanish-acquiring children between the onset of interrogative production and 2; 4 were pragmatically and then prosodically analyzed, as well as a set of 867 utterances from Catalan and Spanish CDS. The data were extracted from the Serra-Sole Catalan Corpus and the Ojea and Lopez-Ornat Spanish Corpora in CHILDES. Production results show that all children perform some instance of questioning before the two-word period and that their productions generally reflect the adult inventory patterns. Moreover, the results show a preference relationship between the different types of nuclear pitch configurations and the pragmatic meanings that underlie the yes-no-interrogative forms. Finally, these results highlight the importance of the assessment of form-meaning relationships for the understanding of intonational development. C1 [Thorson, Jill] Brown Univ, Dept Cognit Linguist & Psychol Sci, Providence, RI 02912 USA. [Borras-Comes, Joan; Crespo-Sendra, Veronica] Univ Pompeu Fabra, Dept Traduccio 1, Ciencies Del Llenguatge, Spain. [del Mar Vanrell, Maria] Free Univ Berlin, Inst Roman Philol, Berlin, Germany. [Prieto, Pilar] ICREA, Barcelona, Spain. RP Thorson, J (reprint author), Brown Univ, Dept Cognit Linguist & Psychol Sci, Providence, RI 02912 USA. EM jill_thorson@brown.edu RI Prieto, Pilar/E-7390-2013; Borras-Comes, Joan/D-7827-2013 OI Prieto, Pilar/0000-0001-8175-1081; Borras-Comes, Joan/0000-0002-2855-7340 FU Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [FFI2009-07648/FILO, BFU2012-31995, CSD2007-00012]; Generalitat de Catalunya [2009 SGR 701] FX The work reported in this article was presented at the Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia 2009 conference, held at Las Palmas de Gran Canaria in June 2009. The authors would like to thank the audience of this conference for their helpful comments. We also gratefully acknowledge the two anonymous reviewers for their critiques and suggestions that helped improve this paper. Additional thanks to M. Armstrong, Ll. Astruc, A. Chen, L. D'Odorico, P. Fikkert, S. Frota, C. Lleo, and K. Demuth for their feedback. A special thanks goes to Miquel Serra, Ana Ojea and Maria Lopez-Ornat for letting us use the original recordings, and to the parents and children who participated in the longitudinal studies. The project was funded by grants FFI2009-07648/FILO, BFU2012-31995, and CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 'Bilinguismo y Neurociencia Cognitiva CSD2007-00012' awarded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and by project 2009 SGR 701 awarded by the Generalitat de Catalunya. CR ANDERSON AH, 1991, LANG SPEECH, V34, P351 Armstrong Meghan, 2012, DEV YES NO QUESTION Astruc L, 2013, LANG SPEECH, V56, P229, DOI 10.1177/0023830912460494 Beckman M. E., 1986, PHONOLOGY YB, V3, P255, DOI [10.1017/S095267570000066X, DOI 10.1017/S095267570000066X] Boersma Paul, 2009, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC Bolinger D., 1989, INTONATION ITS USES Bonet Eulalia, 1986, ELS MARGES, V33, P103 Carletta Jean, 1995, 20 WORKSH LANG TECHN Chen Aoju, 2007, 16 INT C PHON SCI IC, P315 Cruttenden Alan, 1982, PAPERS REPORTS CHILD, V21, P112 Vanrell MD, 2013, LANG SPEECH, V56, P163, DOI 10.1177/0023830912443942 Escandell-Vidal Maria Victoria, 1998, CURRENT ISSUES RELEV, P169 Estebas-Vilaplana E, 2010, TRANSCRIPTION INTONA, P17 Frota Sonia, 2008, 3 C TON INT TIE 3 15 Gordon M., 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH, P301 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Grice H. Paul, 1957, PHILOS REV, V66, P337 Grice Martine, 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH, P362, DOI DOI 10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199249633.003.0013 Gussenhoven C., 2002, SPEECH PROSODY 2002, P47 Hirschberg Julia, 2002, SPEECH PROSODY 2002, P65 HOLZMAN M, 1972, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V1, P311, DOI 10.1007/BF01067786 House D., 2002, 7 INT C SPOK LANG PR, P1957 House David, 2003, PHONUM REPORTS PHONE, V9, P185 Hualde Jose Ignacio, 2015, INTONATIONAL VARIATI Jun S. A., 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH Ladd DR, 2008, CAMB STUD LINGUIST, V79, P1 Lleo Conxita, 2011, HAMBURGER STUDIES MU, V11, P213 MacWhinney Brian, 1992, THE CHILDES DATABASE MARCOS H, 1987, J CHILD LANG, V14, P255 Pierrehumbert J, 1980, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE PIERREHUMBERT J, 1990, SYS DEV FDN, P271 Prieto Pilar, 2014, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY, P43, DOI DOI 10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199567300.003.0003 Thorson Jill, 2011, ORALIA, V14, P227 Prieto Pilar, 2007, 16 INT C PHON SCI IC, P309 Prieto Pilar, 2002, GRAMATICA CATALA CON, V1, P395 Prieto P, 2012, J CHILD LANG, V39, P221, DOI 10.1017/S030500091100002X Quilis Antonio, 1993, TRATADO FONOLOGIA FO Quilis Antonio, 1985, LINGUISTICA ESPANOLA, V7, P145 Fernandez Ramirez S., 1957, B REAL ACAD ESPANOLA, V39, P243 ROSE Y, 2006, 30 ANN BOST U C LANG, P489 MacWhinney B., 2014, HDB CORPUS PHONOLOGY Santos Ana Lucia, 2008, 3 TIE C TON INT TIE SAVINO M, 2011, PROSODIC CATEOGRIES, V82, P187 Searle John R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH Sosa J. M., 1999, ENTONACION ESPANOL E Navarro Tomas Tomas, 1968, MANUAL ENTONACION ES Venditti JJ, 2006, INTERSPEECH 2006 AND 9TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SPOKEN LANGUAGE PROCESSING, VOLS 1-5, P549 Venditti Jennifer J., 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH, P172 Frota Sonia, 2003, J PORTUGUESE LINGUIS, V2, P115 WARD G, 1985, LANGUAGE, V61, P747, DOI 10.2307/414489 WILSON D, 1993, LINGUA, V90, P1, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 Beckman Mary E., 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH, P271 NR 52 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 4 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0921-4771 EI 1613-4079 J9 PROBUS JI Probus PD MAY PY 2015 VL 27 IS 1 BP 73 EP 99 DI 10.1515/probus-2013-0019 PG 27 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CG0TY UT WOS:000352985600003 ER PT J AU Cruz, MP AF Padilla Cruz, Manuel TI Fostering EF/SL learners' meta-pragmatic awareness of complaints and their interactive effects SO LANGUAGE AWARENESS LA English DT Article DE direct/indirect complaints; meta-pragmatic awareness; meta-psychological awareness; teaching pragmatics; relevance theory AB This paper suggests a series of steps for teaching complaint behaviour in English. The production of complaints requires a meta-pragmatic awareness of their interactive value and functions, their different types and realisations, pragmalinguistic formulae frequently employed or the socio-pragmatic factors affecting them, among others, which many didactic materials do not address holistically. Integrating relevant findings about complaint behaviour from pragmatics and various neighbouring disciplines, these pedagogical steps combine distinct teaching approaches and include production tasks and guidelines for assessment. Moreover, these steps also comprise an account of some communicative effects of complaints from the cognitive framework of relevance theory with a view to fostering learners' meta-psychological awareness. C1 Univ Seville, Dept English Language, Seville, Spain. RP Cruz, MP (reprint author), Univ Seville, Dept English Language, Seville, Spain. EM mpadillacruz@us.es CR Azarmi A., 2012, ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEA, V5, P78 Bardovi-Harlig K., 1991, ELT J, V45, P4, DOI 10.1093/elt/45.1.4 Garces-Conejos Blitvich P., 2006, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V3, P213 BOXER D, 1993, TESOL QUART, V27, P277, DOI 10.2307/3587147 BOXER D, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P103, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90084-3 Boxer D., 1995, ELT J, V49, P44, DOI DOI 10.1093/ELT/49.1.44 Boxer D, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P163 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Chen Y. S., 2010, TAIWAN J TESOL, V7, P29 Chen YS, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P253, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.012 Clennell Charles, 1999, ELT J, V53, P83, DOI 10.1093/elt/53.2.83 Cohen A. D, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P275, DOI DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2005.2.3.275 Cohen A. D., 2006, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V3, P359, DOI 10.1515/IP.2006.021 Padilla Cruz M., 2012, RELEVANCE STUDIES PO, V4, P75 Maia de Paiva B. M., 2004, 2 LANGUAGE LEARNING, V20, P281 Dersley I, 2000, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V33, P375, DOI 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_02 Di Pietro R. J., 1987, STRATEGIC INTERACTIO Drew P, 1998, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V31, P295, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3103&4_2 Edmondson Willis J., 1981, LETS TALK TALK IT Edwards D, 2005, DISCOURSE STUD, V7, P5, DOI 10.1177/146144560504S765 Eslami-Rasekh Z., 2004, J ASIAN PACIFIC COMM, V14, P181 Acuna Ferreira V., 2002, ESTUDIOS SOCIOLINGUI, V3-4, P139 Martinez Flor A., 2006, APPL LANGUAGE LEARNI, V16, P39 Gershenson O., 2003, MULTILINGUA, V22, P275, DOI 10.1515/mult.2003.014 Gunthner S., 1997, COMMUNICATING GENDER, P179 Hartford B., 2004, WORLD ENGLISH, V23, P585, DOI 10.1111/j.0083-2919.2004.00378.x Ifantidou E, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P327, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.016 Ishihara N., 2010, TEACHING LEARNING PR, P244 Ishihara Noriko, 2010, TEACHING LEARNING PR Jodowiec M., 2010, COGNITIVE PROCESSING, P49 Safont Jorda M. P., 2005, 3 LANGUAGE LEARNERS Kasper G., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P1 Kasper G., 1997, CAN PRAGMATIC COMPET Kasper Gabriele, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P149, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014868 Kasper G., 1993, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE Kondo S, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P153 Kunschak C., 2000, MIT WORKING PAPERS L, V38, P143 Laforest M, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1595, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00077-2 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Marquez-Reiter R., 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P481 dan Neu J., 1996, SPEECH ACTS CULTURES, P191 Olshtain E., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P108 Cruz MP, 2013, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V10, P131, DOI 10.1515/ip-2013-0005 Padilla Cruz M., 2010, ESTUDIOS METODOLOGIA, V5, P23 Rubino A., 2006, STUDI ITALIANI LINGU, V35, P339 Schmidt R., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P21 Schneider K. P., 1988, SMALL TALK ANAL PHAT Scollon R., 1995, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Searle John R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH Sell Roger D., 1991, LIT PRAGMATICS, P208 Soler E., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P417, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.005 Spencer-Oatey H., 2008, CULTURALLY SPEAKING Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber D., 1997, MULTILINGUA, V16, P145, DOI 10.1515/mult.1997.16.2-3.145 Takimoto M, 2006, LANG TEACH RES, V10, P393, DOI 10.1191/1362168806Ir198oa Tomlinson B., 1994, LANG AWARE, V3, P119 Trosborg A., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Anna Trosborg, 2003, PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE, P247 Anna Trosborg, 1998, HERMES J LINGUISTICS, V21, P67 Tzanne A., 2009, INT J LEARNING, V16, P297 Wilson D., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P607 Wilson Deirdre, 1999, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V11, P127 Zegarac V, 1999, J LINGUIST, V35, P321, DOI 10.1017/S0022226799007628 NR 63 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 0965-8416 EI 1747-7565 J9 LANG AWARE JI Lang. Aware. PD APR 3 PY 2015 VL 24 IS 2 BP 123 EP 137 DI 10.1080/09658416.2014.996159 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CI0WW UT WOS:000354461300002 ER PT J AU Nguyen, TTM Do, TTH Nguyen, AT Pham, TTT AF Thi Thuy Minh Nguyen Thi Thanh Ha Do Anh Tuan Nguyen Thi Thanh Thuy Pham TI Teaching email requests in the academic context: a focus on the role of corrective feedback SO LANGUAGE AWARENESS LA English DT Article DE pragmatic awareness; direct feedback; meta-pragmatic feedback; meta-pragmatic instruction; pragmatic production; email requests ID PRAGMATIC COMPREHENSION; NONNATIVE SPEAKERS; ENGLISH; LANGUAGE; SLA; POLITENESS; ACCURACY; 2ND-LANGUAGE; STUDENTS; CULTURES AB As email requests from students to professors have become increasingly common in academic settings, research has also shown second-language (L2) students' unfamiliarity with email etiquette in L2 has adversely affected their communication with their professors. The present study examines whether giving corrective feedback on students' performance during pragmatics-focused activities leads to their subsequent improvement in producing and recognising pragmatically appropriate email requests in the above context. Two intact classes of Vietnamese EFL (English as a foreign language) intermediate level students were randomly assigned to either direct-feedback condition or meta-pragmatic feedback condition, but received similar explicit pragmatic pre-instruction. Another intact class was randomly selected as a control group. Students' pragmatic performance was measured by means of a pre-test, an immediate and delayed post-tests, which consisted of a production and a recognition task. The results indicate that the treatment groups performed significantly better than the control group in the production task, but there was no significant difference between the two treatment groups. On the other hand, students who received meta-pragmatic feedback significantly outperformed those receiving direct feedback and the control group in the recognition task. These findings indicate the varying effects of the two types of written corrective feedback on different areas of L2 pragmatic competence. C1 [Thi Thuy Minh Nguyen] Nanyang Technol Univ, English Language & Literature Acad Grp, Natl Inst Educ, Singapore 637616, Singapore. [Thi Thanh Ha Do; Thi Thanh Thuy Pham] Vietnam Natl Univ, Fac Linguist & Cultures English Speaking Countrie, Univ Languages & Int Studies, Hanoi, Vietnam. [Anh Tuan Nguyen] Vietnam Natl Univ, Fac English Language Teacher Educ, Univ Languages & Int Studies, Hanoi, Vietnam. RP Nguyen, TTM (reprint author), Nanyang Technol Univ, English Language & Literature Acad Grp, Natl Inst Educ, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore. EM thithuyminh.nguyen@nie.edu.sg RI Nguyen, Minh/R-2129-2016 OI Nguyen, Minh/0000-0001-7820-751X CR Akikawa K., 2010, PRAGMATICS TEACHING, P47 Alcon-Soler E, 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P417, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.005 Alcon-Soler E., 2007, INVESTIGATING TASKS, P221 Bardovi-Harlig K., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7, P219 Barron A, 2008, STUD LANG ACQUIS, V31, P355 Basturkmen H., ROUTLEDGE H IN PRESS Beebe L., 1985, TESOL CONV 5 14 APR Biesenbach-Lucas S, 2007, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V11, P59 Biesenbach-Lucas Sigrun, 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P81 Bitchener J, 2008, LANG TEACH RES, V12, P409, DOI 10.1177/1362168808089924 Bloom BS, 1956, TAXONOMY ED OBJECTIV Blum-Kulka Shoshana, 1986, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V8, P165, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100006069 BLUMKULKA S, 1984, APPL LINGUIST, V5, P196, DOI 10.1093/applin/5.3.196 BONIKOWSKA MP, 1988, APPL LINGUIST, V9, P169, DOI 10.1093/applin/9.2.169 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Chandler J, 2003, J SECOND LANG WRIT, V12, P267, DOI 10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 Chen CFE, 2006, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V10, P35 Chen C.-F. E., 2001, ANN M AM ASS APPL LI Cohen J., 1988, STAT POWER ANAL BEHA DeKeyser R. M., 2007, THEORIES 2 LANGUAGE, P97 Economidou-Kogetsidis M, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3193, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006 Ellis R, 2008, SYSTEM, V36, P353, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 Ferris DR, 2010, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V32, P181, DOI 10.1017/S0272263109990490 Ford S., 2006, STUDIES LANGUAGE SCI, V5, P143 Hartshorn KJ, 2010, TESOL QUART, V44, P84, DOI 10.5054/tq.2010.213781 Harvey K., 2013, INVESTIGATING ADOLES Hendriks B, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P221, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.011 House J., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7, P363 Hyland K., 2006, FEEDBACK 2 LANGUAGE Ishihara Noriko, 2010, NONNATIVE SPEAKERS E, P35 Jeon EH, 2006, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V13, P165 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Koike D. A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P481, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.008 Li S., 2011, LANG LEARN, V62, P403, DOI [10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00629.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1467-9922.2011.00629.X] Li SF, 2010, LANG LEARN, V60, P309, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x Lyster R, 2013, LANG TEACHING, V46, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0261444812000365 Lyster R, 2010, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V32, P265, DOI 10.1017/S0272263109990520 Martinez-Flor Alicia, 2008, LEARNING REQUEST INS, P191 McKay S. L, 2002, TEACHING ENGLISH INT McKay S., 2003, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V13, P1, DOI DOI 10.1111/1473-4192.00035 Nguyen TTM, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P768, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.008 Nguyen T.T.M., 2014, J SE ASIAN LINGUISTI, V7, P31 Pham M. Y., 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P416 Nipaspong P., 2010, U SYDNEY PAPERS TESO, V5, P101 Ogiermann E, 2009, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V5, P189, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2009.011 Rose K., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE Rose Kenneth R., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P145 Rose K. R., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P385, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.003 Rover C., 2009, HDB LANGUAGE TEACHIN, P560 Spada N., 2006, SYNTHESIZING RES LAN, P131 Safont-Jorda M. P., 2003, PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE, P211 Salazar-Campillo P., 2003, PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE, P233 Schmidt R., 2010, P CLASIC 2010 SING D, P721 Searle John R., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P59 SHARWOOD S. M., 1993, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V15, P165, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100011943 Sheen Y, 2010, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V32, P169, DOI 10.1017/S0272263109990489 Sheen Y, 2007, TESOL QUART, V41, P255 Shintani N, 2014, LANG LEARN, V64, P103, DOI 10.1111/lang.12029 Swain M., 1995, PRINCIPLE PRACTICE A, P125 Taguchi N, 2007, TESOL QUART, V41, P313 Taguchi N, 2008, LANG LEARN, V58, P33, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00434.x Taguchi N, 2011, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V31, P289, DOI 10.1017/S0267190511000018 Takahashi S., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P171 Takahashi S., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P437, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.006 Takahashi S, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P127 Takimoto M, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1029, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.001 Takimoto M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1240, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.007 Takimoto M, 2006, LANG TEACH RES, V10, P393, DOI 10.1191/1362168806Ir198oa Nguyen TTM, 2013, PRAGMATICS, V23, P685 Nguyen TTM, 2013, MULTILINGUA, V32, P103 THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Vu T.T.H., 1999, NGON NGUR, V1, P34 Vu T.T.H., 1997, THESIS U TORONTO TOR WIERZBICKA A, 1985, J PRAGMATICS, V9, P145, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(85)90023-2 Woodfield H, 2008, STUD LANG ACQUIS, V31, P231 Yuan Y, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P271, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00031-X NR 76 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 12 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 APR 3 PY 2015 VL 24 IS 2 BP 169 EP 195 DI 10.1080/09658416.2015.1010543 PG 27 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CI0WW UT WOS:000354461300005 ER PT J AU Mukhopadhyay, S Das, S Roychoudhury, R AF Mukhopadhyay, Sibansu Das, Sreerupa Roychoudhury, Rajkumar TI Relational Model of Conceptual Distance between Bangla Words SO JOURNAL OF QUANTITATIVE LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID SIMILARITY; ACTIVATION AB Words in a language are related to each other. This relation is based on their conceptual properties. (This paper avoids using the term "semantic property", generally used by the contemporary NLP workers for measuring distance between words, the reason being that we employ different orientations behind the measurement of relatedness). Essentially, this work considers the psycho-sociological facts in the experiments, where a number of native speakers of Bangla manually suggests distance measurement between any two words. This work presents a statistical approach with a psycho-analytical elaboration for measuring the conceptual distance between words in terms of Bangla language. To be precise it calculates co-relations of the assessments collected through a survey among different individuals. A conceptual distance is used to suggest the implicit pragmatic nature of the Bangla words and it also implies an elementary taxonomy for Bangla words. As a result, the conceptual distance between Bangla words in the semantic field can very usefully be quantified and thus can be a crucial factor for a computational application like Bangla word net. Incidentally we find that there is a very high correlation (r=0.95) between two different sets of human judgments and at the same time an assuringly high correlation (r=0.95 being the upper limit) is observed when the respondents duplicated the same task with the same pairs of words at different points of times. This is a pioneering study in Bangla. C1 [Mukhopadhyay, Sibansu] Govt WB, Dept IT&E, Soc Nat Language Technol Res, Kolkata, India. [Das, Sreerupa; Roychoudhury, Rajkumar] Indian Stat Inst, Kolkata, India. RP Roychoudhury, R (reprint author), Indian Stat Inst, Kolkata, India. EM rajdaju@rediffmail.com CR Bollegala D., 2009, P 2009 C EMP METH NA, P803 COLLINS AM, 1975, PSYCHOL REV, V82, P407, DOI 10.1037//0033-295X.82.6.407 Dasgupta T., 2010, INT C NAT LANG PROC, P58 de Saussure F., 1916, COURSE GEN LINGUISTI GOLDSTONE RL, 1994, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V20, P3, DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.20.1.3 Lin D., 1998, COLING ACL98 MONTR C Quillian M. R., 1968, SEMANTIC INFORMATION, P216 Richardson R., 1995, CA0395 DUBL CIT U SC Sanchez-Casas R, 2006, EUR J COGN PSYCHOL, V18, P161, DOI 10.1080/09541440500183830 Thompson-Schill SL, 1998, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V95, P15855, DOI 10.1073/pnas.95.26.15855 NR 10 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0929-6174 EI 1744-5035 J9 J QUANT LINGUIST JI J. Quant. Linguist. PD APR 3 PY 2015 VL 22 IS 2 BP 157 EP 176 DI 10.1080/09296174.2014.1001638 PG 20 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CE0PN UT WOS:000351506600005 ER PT J AU Fuller, M Henderson, S Bustamante, R AF Fuller, Matthew Henderson, Susan Bustamante, Rebecca TI Assessment leaders' perspectives of institutional cultures of assessment: a Delphi study SO ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE Delphi; culture of assessment; assessment leadership; assessment culture ID DESIGN; TOOL AB Institutional cultures of assessment are praised as beneficial to student learning. Yet, extant studies have not explored the theoretical foundations and pragmatic approaches to shaping cultures of assessment. The researchers used the Delphi method to explore 10 higher education assessment leaders' attitudes and theoretical perspectives regarding cultures of assessment. These expert assessment leaders were iteratively surveyed until a reasonable threshold of consensus was reached. Study participants viewed buy-in as a necessary component of a positive campus culture of assessment, and advice on reshaping negative cultures was offered. Assessment leaders' guiding theoretical frameworks were implied and loosely defined with metaphors. Finally, advice is offered for improving cultures of assessment by symbolically connecting assessment to student learning through dialogue. C1 [Fuller, Matthew; Henderson, Susan; Bustamante, Rebecca] Sam Houston State Univ, Huntsville, TX 77340 USA. RP Fuller, M (reprint author), Sam Houston State Univ, Huntsville, TX 77340 USA. EM mfuller@shsu.edu CR Anderson G., 2006, QUALITY HIGHER ED, V12, P161, DOI [10.1080/13538320600916767, DOI 10.1080/13538320600916767] Astin A.W., 1991, ASSESSMENT EXCELLENC Banta T. W., 1996, ASSESSMENT PRACTICE Banta T. W., 2002, BUILDING SCHOLARSHIP Blimling G.S., 1999, GOOD PRACTICE STUDEN Boulkedid R., 2011, PLOS ONE, V6, P1, DOI [10. 1371/journal. phone. 0020476, DOI 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0020476] Boyer E, 1990, SCHOLARSHIP RECONSID Bresciani M. J., 2009, DEMONSTRATING STUDEN Bresciani M. J., 2004, ASSESSING STUDENT LE Burt RS, 1999, ANN AM ACAD POLIT SS, V566, P37, DOI 10.1177/0002716299566001004 Bustamante RM, 2009, EDUC ADMIN QUART, V45, P793, DOI 10.1177/0013161X09347277 Bustamante R. M., 2009, CULTURE AUDIT LEADER Clark A. C., 2003, ENG DES GRAPHICS J, V67, P21 McInerny K. H., 1993, ASSESSMENT HIGHER ED DALKEY N, 1963, MANAGE SCI, V9, P458, DOI 10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458 Delbecq AL, 1975, GROUP TECHNIQUES PRO DILLMAN DA, 1991, ANNU REV SOCIOL, V17, P225, DOI 10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.001301 Driscoll A., 2006, TAKING OWNERSHIP ACC ERFFMEYER RC, 1986, GROUP ORGAN STUD, V11, P120, DOI 10.1177/105960118601100110 Fazio L. S., 1985, ASSESS EVAL HIGH EDU, V10, P147, DOI 10. 1080/0260293850100205 Fendrich L., 2007, CHRON HIGHER EDUC, pB6 Fuller M, 2012, EVIL MEDIA, P47 Fuller MB, 2014, INT J EDUC RES, V65, P9, DOI 10.1016/j.ijer.2014.01.001 Fuller M. B., 2012, REALIZING HIGHER ED Fuller M. B., 2013, ED LEADERSHIP REV, V14, P47 Ochoa E., 2013, HIGHER ED ACCREDITAT Gunzenhauser MG, 2003, THEOR PRACT, V42, P51, DOI 10.1207/s15430421tip4201_7 Hasson F, 2000, J ADV NURS, V32, P1008, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01567.x Hsu C.-C., 2007, PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT, V12 Kuh G. D., 2014, KNOWING WHAT STUDENT Lakoff George, 2003, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Lakos A, 2004, PORTAL-LIBR ACAD, V4, P345, DOI 10.1353/pla.2004.0052 Linstone HA, 2002, DELPHI METHOD TECHNI Maki P.L., 2010, ASSESSING LEARNING B Merton R. K., 1949, SOCIAL THEORY SOCIAL Morley L., 2003, QUALITY POWER HIGHER Murphy MK, 1998, HEALTH TECHNOL ASSES, V2, P1 Ndoye A., 2010, PLANNING HIGHER ED, V38, P28 Okoli C, 2004, INFORM MANAGE-AMSTER, V42, P15, DOI 10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 PETTIGREW AM, 1979, ADMIN SCI QUART, V24, P570, DOI 10.2307/2392363 Rowe G, 1999, INT J FORECASTING, V15, P353, DOI 10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00018-7 Schmitz C., 2012, LIMESURVEY OPEN SOUR Shelton K., 2011, DISS ABSTR INT A, V71 Skolnik M. L., 2010, HIGHER ED MANAGEMENT, V22, P1, DOI DOI 10.1787/HEMP-22-5KMLH5GS3ZR0 Suskie L, 2009, ASSESSMENT, LEARNING AND JUDGEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION, P133, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-8905-3_8 Tonni I., 2012, EUROPEAN J DENT ED, V17, pe173 TUCKMAN BW, 1965, PSYCHOL BULL, V63, P384, DOI 10.1037/h0022100 Walvoord B. E., 2010, ASSESSMENT CLEAR SIM Whitehurst G. J., 2002, EVIDENCE BASED ED Wright B., 2002, BUILDING SCHOLARSHIP, P240 NR 50 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 4 U2 11 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0260-2938 EI 1469-297X J9 ASSESS EVAL HIGH EDU JI Assess. Eval. High. Educ. PD APR 3 PY 2015 VL 40 IS 3 BP 331 EP 351 DI 10.1080/02602938.2014.917369 PG 21 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CD0FR UT WOS:000350746500001 ER PT J AU Ng, SW Yuen, WKG AF Ng, Shun-wing Yuen, Wai Kwan Gail TI The micro-politics of parental involvement in school education in Hong Kong: ethnocentrism, utilitarianism or policy rhetoric! SO EDUCATIONAL REVIEW LA English DT Article DE Hong Kong; ethnocentrism; micro-politics; utilitarianism; parental involvement ID ROLES; ACHIEVEMENT; PARTNERSHIP; EMPOWERMENT; GOVERNANCE; TEACHERS; TENSIONS AB The impact of parental involvement on school management has been recognized by many education professionals and policy-makers. Thus parental involvement in school education becomes one of the prime focuses in the current education reform movement in Hong Kong. Particularly, specific guidelines and policies for involving parents at various levels of children's education have been spelled out in many governmental policy documents. This article reports on an interpretive study that explores the micro-politics of parental involvement in school education in two primary schools in Hong Kong. By analyzing the interviews with 14 parents, eight teachers and two principals, together with the field-notes of participant observations in two case study schools, three propositions of power relations between parents and teaching professionals emerge. The findings indicate that in the process of encouraging parents' participation in school education, teaching professionals demonstrated ethnocentric attitudes towards parents; the notion of "parents as resources" were for pragmatic purposes; and the conception of "parents-as-school-governors" was of policy rhetoric in the process of implementation of home-school cooperation. C1 [Ng, Shun-wing; Yuen, Wai Kwan Gail] Hong Kong Inst Educ, Tai Po, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. RP Ng, SW (reprint author), Hong Kong Inst Educ, Tai Po, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. EM swng@ied.edu.hk CR Addi-Raccah A, 2009, TEACH TEACH EDUC, V25, P805, DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2009.01.006 Amatea E. S., 2007, BUILDING CULTURALLY Ball S., 2012, MICROPOLITICS SCH TH Bastiani J., 1989, WORKING PARENTS WHOL Berns R. M., 2007, CHILD FAMILY SCH COM Bjork LG, 2009, EDUC ASSESS EVAL ACC, V21, P195, DOI 10.1007/s11092-009-9078-y BLACKLEDGE A, 1995, EDUC REV, V47, P309, DOI 10.1080/0013191950470307 Blase J, 1991, POLITICS LIFE SCH PO Blase J., 1995, MICROPOLITICS ED LEA Blase J, 2002, EDUC ADMIN QUART, V38, P6, DOI 10.1177/0013161X02381002 BLASE JJ, 1989, EDUC ADMIN QUART, V25, P377, DOI 10.1177/0013161X89025004005 Brown B.A., 2008, INT J LIFELONG LEARN, V27, P413, DOI 10.1080/02601370802051322 Caldwell B. J., 2004, REIMAGINING SELF MAN Cheng Y. C., 2007, ED RES POLICY PRACTI, V6, P71, DOI 10.1007/s10671-007-9031-0 Chikoko V., 2008, INT REV EDUC, V54, P243, DOI 10.1007/s11159-007-9080-x Chrispeels J, 1996, SCH EFF SCH IMPROV, V7, P297, DOI 10.1080/0924345960070402 Cowburn W., 1986, CLASS IDEOLOGY COMMU Creswell JW., 1998, QUALITATIVE INQUIRY Crow GM, 2010, EDUC POLICY, V24, P137, DOI 10.1177/0895904809354495 Crozier G, 1997, BRIT J SOCIOL EDUC, V18, P187, DOI 10.1080/0142569970180203 Cunningham C., 1985, WORKING PARENTS FRAM Davies D., 1996, FORUM ED, V51, P83 Deem R., 1995, ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP G Dehli K., 1994, PARENT ACTIVISM SCH Denzin N., 1998, COLLECTING INTERPRET Duke D, 2004, CHALLENGES ED CHANGE Edward J., 1995, J JUST CARING ED, V1, P80 El Nokali NE, 2010, CHILD DEV, V81, P988, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01447.x Epstein J. L., 2001, SCH FAMILY COMMUNITY EPSTEIN JL, 1995, PHI DELTA KAPPAN, V76, P701 Fan XT, 2001, EDUC PSYCHOL REV, V13, P1, DOI 10.1023/A:1009048817385 Fitz J., 1993, GRANT MAINTAINED SCH Gascoigne E., 1995, WORKING PARTNERS SEN Gore J.M., 1993, STRUGGLE PEDAGOGIES Graves SL, 2011, SCHOOL PSYCHOL INT, V32, P35, DOI 10.1177/0143034310396611 Heystek J, 2006, ED MANAGEMENT ADM LE, V34, P473, DOI DOI 10.1177/1741143206068212 Hornby G, 2011, EDUC REV, V63, P37, DOI 10.1080/00131911.2010.488049 Huber SG, 2011, EDUC MANAG ADM LEAD, V39, P469, DOI 10.1177/1741143211405349 Jowett S., 1991, BUILDING BRIDGES PAR Lareau A, 2000, HOME ADVANTAGE SOCIA Lincoln Y. S., 1985, NATURALISTIC INQUIRY Lyons P. R., 1982, INVOLVING PARENTS HD MacBeth A., 1988, PARENTS TEACHERS 2 P, P254 Ng SW, 2007, ASIA PAC EDUC REV, V8, P487 Ng SW, 1999, SCH EFF SCH IMPROV, V10, P551, DOI 10.1076/sesi.10.4.551.3488 Ng S. W., 2013, INT J ED MANAGEMENT, V27, P667, DOI DOI 10.1080/00131911.2013.868786 Nir A. E., 2005, LEADERSHIP POLICY SC, V4, P55, DOI 10.1080/15700760590924627 Pang I. W., 2008, ED RES POLICY PRACTI, V7, P17, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10671-007-9041-Y Radnor H., 2001, RES YOUR PROFESSIONA Sherman R., 1988, QUALITATIVE RES ED F Simon R., 1983, GRAMSCIS POLITICAL T Siu W. S., 2000, POLICY NEWSLETTER SO, V2, P6 Skerrett A, 2008, AM EDUC RES J, V45, P913, DOI 10.3102/0002831208320243 SMYLIE MA, 1990, EDUC ADMIN QUART, V26, P235, DOI 10.1177/0013161X90026003003 Strauss A., 1998, BASICS QUALITATIVE R Strauss A., 1987, QUALITATIVE ANAL SOC Swap S., 1993, DEV HOME SCH PARTNER The Telegraph, 2009, TELEGRAPH Thomas R, 2005, ORGAN STUD, V26, P683, DOI 10.1177/0170840605051821 Vincent C., 1993, THESIS WARWICK U Vincent C., 2000, INCLUDING PARENTS Vincent C., 2000, SOCIOL EDUC, P2038 Vincent C., 1996, PARENT TEACHERS POWE NR 63 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 6 U2 22 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0013-1911 EI 1465-3397 J9 EDUC REV JI Educ. Rev. PD APR 3 PY 2015 VL 67 IS 2 BP 253 EP 271 DI 10.1080/00131911.2013.868786 PG 19 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CB3RN UT WOS:000349546100007 ER PT J AU Corr, A AF Corr, Alice TI OVERT EXPLETIVES IN IBERO-ROMANCE: A DIACHRONIC AND DIATOPIC PERSPECTIVE SO REVUE ROUMAINE DE LINGUISTIQUE-ROMANIAN REVIEW OF LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article; Proceedings Paper CT 14th International Conference of the Department of Linguistics - Current Issues in Linguistic Variation/Workshop on Syntactic Variation CY NOV 28-29, 2014 CL Bucharest, ROMANIA SP Univ Bucharest, Dept Linguist DE overt expletives; syntax-pragmatics interface; null subject parameter; dialect syntax; pragmaticisation; Ibero-Romance varieties AB This paper examines the present-day characterisation and historical development of non-referential uses of the pronoun ello/ele/ell (ELLO) in certain Ibero-Romance varieties. Since overt expletives are predicted to be incompatible with referential null subjects, the appearance of ELLO in an apparently expletive position and function is typologically anomalous with respect to the null subject parameter as traditionally conceived. Recent treatment in the literature places ELLO in the C-domain, and exceptionally in SpecTP. However, existing accounts tend to assume a unified characterisation across varieties for what we claim is actually a heterogeneous phenomenon. Novel empirical data show that ELLO displays both expletive-like and discourse-oriented properties even within the same variety, targeting different structural positions cross-dialectally. Today's variation is argued to be an effect of ELLO reaching different stages of grammaticalisation across varieties, originating from its usage in impersonal epistemic contexts. We may therefore wish to revise our typology of expletives so as to encompass a more nuanced range of parametric values. C1 Univ Cambridge, Magdalene Coll, Cambridge CB2 1TN, England. RP Corr, A (reprint author), Univ Cambridge, Magdalene Coll, Cambridge CB2 1TN, England. EM avc25@cam.ac.uk CR Aelbrecht L, 2012, LING AKT, V190, P1 Ambar M., 2003, ASYMMETRY GRAMMAR, V1, P209 Bartra-Kaufmann A, 2011, CATALAN J LINGUISTIC, V10, P185 Beninca Paola, 2004, STRUCTURE CP IP CART, P52 Biberauer T., 2010, PARAMETRIC VARIATION Cognola F., 2014, FOR GERM LANG STUD U, V11 CAMACHO J., 2013, NULL SUBJECTS Camacho J., 2013, LEFT PERIPHERA UNPUB Carrilho E., 2005, THESIS U LISBON Carrilho E, 2008, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V36, P301, DOI 10.1016/S0092-4563(08)36010-3 Chomsky N., 1982, SOME CONCEPTS CONSEQ, V6 Cinque G., 2006, RESTRUCTURING FUNCTI, V4, P11 Cinque G., 1999, OXFORD STUDIES COMP Coniglio M, 2012, LING AKT, V190, P229 Davies M., 2002, CORPUS ESPANOL 100 M Giorgi A., 2010, SPEAKER SYNTAX INDEX Lowman S., 2013, P 16 HISP LING S, P338 Haegeman L, 2003, MIND LANG, V18, P317, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00230 Harris A. C., 1995, HIST SYNTAX CROSS LI, V74 Hinzelin M. O., 2006, GRAMATICA PRONOMINAL, P46 Hinzelin M. O., 2006, 116 U KOST FACHB SPR Hooper Joan B., 1973, LINGUIST INQ, V4, P465 Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Kayne Richard, 2008, LIMITS SYNTACTIC VAR, V132, P175 Krifka Manfred, 2014, RECURSION COMPLEXITY, P59 Langacker R. W., 2006, SUBJECTIFICATON VARI, V31, P17 Martinez-Sanz C., 2011, THESIS U OTTAWA Martins A. M., 2000, CORDIAL SIN CORPUS D Munaro N., 2010, MAPPING LEFT PERIPHE, V5, P125 Narrog H., 2011, OXFORD HDB GRAMMATIC Nicolle S., 2011, OXFORD HDB GRAMMATIC, P142 Nikolaeva Irina, 2007, FINITENESS THEORETIC Perez C. M., 2014, BOREALIS INT J HISP, V3, P155 Ribeiro M., 1927, A PLANICIE HEROICA Rizzi L., 2006, PHASES INTERPRETATIO, P341 Rizzi Luigi, 1997, ELEMENTS GRAMMAR, P281, DOI [10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7, DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7] Rizzi L., 2004, CARTOGRAPHY SYNTACTI, V3, P223 RIZZI L, 1986, LINGUIST INQ, V17, P501 Rizzi L., 1982, ISSUES ITALIAN SYNTA, V11 Roberts I, 2003, SYNTACTIC CHANGE MIN, V100 Sigurosson H, 2004, ITALIAN J LINGUISTIC, V16, P219 Sigurosson HA, 2010, STUD LINGUISTICA, V64, P159 Silva-Villar L., 1998, ROM LING THEOR PERSP, V160, P247 Speas Peggy, 2003, ASYMMETRY GRAMMAR, V1, P315, DOI [10.1075/la.57.15spe, DOI 10.1075/LA.57.15SPE] Traugott E. C., 1995, ICHL 12 MANCH, P1 Henriquez Urena Pedro, 1939, REV FILOLOGIA HISPAN, V1, P209 Uriagereka J, 2005, IBERIAN PLEONA UNPUB Veny Joan, 1989, ELS PARLARS CATALANS NR 48 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU EDITURA ACAD ROMANE PI BUCURESTI PA CALEA 13 SEPTEMBRIE NR 13, SECTOR 5, BUCURESTI 050711, ROMANIA SN 0035-3957 J9 REV ROUM LINGUIST JI Rev. Roum. Linguist. PD APR-SEP PY 2015 VL 60 IS 2-3 BP 205 EP 222 PG 18 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CV4YG UT WOS:000364271800007 ER PT J AU Kim, M AF Kim, Minju TI From choice to counter-expectation: Semantic pragmatic connections of the Korean disjunctive, concessive, and scalar focus Particle -na SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Disjunctive; Concessive; Free-choice; Focus particle; Counter-expectation AB This study proposes semantic pragmatic connections from Choice (disjunctive "or"; two given choices) to Free-choice ("regardless", "whatever"; regardless of choices), and then to Counter-expectation (scalarfocus particle "even" and concessive "even though"; beyond expectation), drawing on the case of Korean -na, on additional evidence from Hausa and Korean, and on Konig's studies on the emergence of concessive markers (1985, 1986, 1988, 1991a). Starting with 5th century pre-alphabet texts, the study uses diachronic corpus data to investigate the history of Korean -na. The versatile -na expresses nine functions (mostly markers of choice, free-choice, and counter-expectation) including two opposite scalar focus particles, additive "as many as" and restrictive "just". The study proposes that after starting out as a disjunctive with NPs in the 8th century, -na subsequently became disjunctive with VPs and then engendered "even" in the nominal and "even though" in the verbal domain through the mediation of "free-choice". The study presents an integrated analysis of the historical development of these seemingly remote nine functions of -na, and on that basis, demonstrates the importance of pragmatic inference and local context in the emergence of new polysemies. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Kim, Minju] Claremont Mckenna Coll, Korean, Claremont, CA 91711 USA. RP Kim, M (reprint author), Claremont Mckenna Coll, Dept Modern Languages, 850 Columbia Ave, Claremont, CA 91711 USA. EM mkim@cmc.edu CR Bae Dae-on, 2002, ITWU MWUNPEPSO UY TH Brinton Laurel J., 1988, DEV ENGLISH ASPECTUA Bybee Joan L., 1994, EVOLUTION GRAMMAR TE Cho Young-Mee, 2000, INTEGRATED KOREAN BE, V2 Choe Hyun-Bae, 1961, WULIMALPON KOREAN GR Chung Daeho, 2002, [LANGUAGE RESEARCH, 어학연구], V38, P319 Craig Colette, 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, V2, P455 Genetti Carol, 1986, P 12 ANN M BERK LING, P387 Genetti Carol, 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, V2, P227 Greenberg Joseph H., 1985, SOME ICONIC RELATION, V6, P271, DOI 10.1075/tsl.6.13gre HASPELMATH M, 1990, STUD LANG, V14, P25, DOI 10.1075/sl.14.1.03has Heine Bernd, 1991, GRAMMATICALIZATION C Hong Sa-man, 1983, EMWUNHAK, V43, P207 Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Huh Ung, 1995, 20 SEYKI WULIMAL UY Kim Min-soo, 1979, INMWUNKYEY KOTUNGHAK Kim Suk-deuk, 1992, WULIMAL HYENGTHAYLON Konig E., 1988, EXPLAINING LANGUAGE, P145 Knig Ekkehard, 1985, LINGUA, V66, P363 Konig E., 1986, CONDITIONALS, P229, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.013 Konig E., 1991, SEMANTIC UNIVERSALS, P190 Konig Ekkehard, 1989, SPRECHEN PARTIKELN, P318 Konig E., 1991, MEANING FOCUS PARTIC Lee Chungmin, 2000, LANG INFORM, V4, P1 Lee Hyeon-Hie, 1982, THESIS SEOUL NATL U Lee Hyo-Sang, 2003, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V11, P149 Lee Kee-Dong, 1993, KOREAN GRAMMAR SEMAN Lee Young-joo, 1999, THESIS SEOUL NATL U Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS LICHTENBERK F, 1991, LANGUAGE, V67, P475, DOI 10.2307/415035 lm Hong-Pin, 2007, KWUKEHAK, V49, P69 Martin S. E., 1992, REFERENCE GRAMMAR KO Nam Kyung Ran, 1999, EMWUNHAK, V66, P63 Nam Pung-Hyun, 2009, KOTAY HANKWUKE YENKW Nam Pung-Hyun, 1999, KWUKESALUL WIHAN KWU Nam Pung-Hyun, 2000, ITWU YENKWU Nevalainen Terttu, 1991, ONLY JUST FOCUSING A Paek Doo-Hyun, 2005, SEKTOK KWUKYELUY MWU Reesink Ger, 1988, S GRAMM EUG OR Rhee Seongha, 1996, SEMANTICS VERBS GRAM Ryu Byung-Ryul, 2013, THESIS SEOUL NATL U Sweetser E. Eve, 1990, ETYMOLOGY PRAGMATICS Thurgood Graham, 1986, P 2 ANN M PAC LING C, P449 Traugott Elisabeth, 2002, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1982, PERSPECTIVES HIST LI, V24, P245 Traugott Elizabeth C., 2006, HDB HIST ENGLISH, P335, DOI 10.1002/9780470757048.ch14 TRAUGOTT EC, 1989, LANGUAGE, V65, P31, DOI 10.2307/414841 TRAUGOTT EC, 1985, J LITERARY SEMANTICS, V14, P155 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1995, SUBJECTIVITY SUBJECT, P37 Yang I.-S., 1973, LANGUAGE RES, V9, P84 Yoon Jae-Hak, 2000, LANG INFORM, V4, P41 NR 51 TC 1 Z9 1 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 APR PY 2015 VL 80 BP 1 EP 21 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.012 PG 21 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CG8XU UT WOS:000353599800001 ER PT J AU Tseng, MY AF Tseng, Ming-Yu TI Describing creative products in an intercultural context: Toward a pragmatic and empirical account SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Cooperative Principle; Creative product descriptions; Creative communications; Intercultural business communication; Interest Principle; Moderate Principle ID COMMUNICATION; ENGLISH; STRATEGIES; DISCOURSE AB This study examines a neglected type of intercultural business communication: English descriptions of creative products designed and made in Asia where English is a foreign language. This type of discourse may be called creative product description (CPD) due to its creative use of language and its being used in the creative industries. Based on data collected from Taiwan's creative industries, it investigates what kind of product description would receive positive feedback and whether there exist general pragmatic principles for such descriptions. The data comprised 10 sets of CPDs, each set containing three versions featuring one and the same product: the original version collected online and two alternative versions written by the author based on each of the collected examples. Ten native English speakers (NESs) living in the UK were invited to comment on the 10 sets and choose their favorite in each set and explain why. This research design is aimed at investigating what discourse elements in CPDs contribute to generating positive effects and what factors other than a lack of English fluency could cause negative feedback in global business communication. The analysis shows that appropriate uses of length, information content, manner of presentation, and cultural empathy are key elements. Together with these crucial elements, three types of pragmatic principles are utilized to elucidate why some descriptions were favored and some were rejected: Cooperative Principle, Interest Principle, and Moderate Principle. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Natl Sun Yat Sen Univ, Dept Foreign Languages & Literature, Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan. RP Tseng, MY (reprint author), Natl Sun Yat Sen Univ, Dept Foreign Languages & Literature, Lien Hai Rd, Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan. EM mytseng_2000@yahoo.com.tw FU Ministry of Science & Technology, Taiwan [MOST 103-2410-H-110-028-MY2] FX I wish to thank the Ministry of Science & Technology, Taiwan, for its support (MOST 103-2410-H-110-028-MY2), which has facilitated the preparation of this work. I am also grateful to the Editor-in-Chief Jonathan Culpeper and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this article. Thanks are also due to the participants of the survey conducted for this study, and to Stephen Browning and Fiona Proctor-Jones for their help with proofreading. CR Baker W, 2011, LANG INTERCULT COMM, V11, P197, DOI 10.1080/14708477.2011.577779 Chafe Wallace L., 1982, SPOKEN WRITTEN LANGU, P35 Cheung M, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1061, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.010 Gao Yongchen, 2003, FOREIGN LANG TEACH, V8, P29 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Haneda Saburo, 1982, J BUS COMMUN, V19, P19, DOI 10.1177/002194368201900103 Horn L., 1984, GEORGETOWN ROUND TAB, P11 Labrador B, 2014, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V34, P38, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2013.10.002 lamer Iris I., 2000, J BUS COMMUN, V37, P39 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Leininger C, 1997, J BUS TECH COMMUN, V11, P261, DOI 10.1177/1050651997011003002 Niemeier Susanne, 1998, CULTURAL CONTEXT BUS Norlyk Birgifte, 1999, HERMES J LINGUIST, V23, P77 Tannen Deborah, 1989, TALKING VOICES REPET Tseng MY, 2010, TEXT TALK, V30, P571, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2010.028 Tseng Ming-Yu, 2015, NARRAT INQ IN PRESS, V25 Tseng Ming-Yu, 2010, SEMIOTICA, V180, P111 Van Nus M., 1999, WRITING BUSINESS GEN, P181 Vergaro C, 2004, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V23, P181, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00003-6 Weiss T, 1997, J BUS TECH COMMUN, V11, P321, DOI 10.1177/1050651997011003005 White R., 2001, ELT J, V55, P62, DOI 10.1093/elt/55.1.62 Zhang ZC, 2013, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V32, P144, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2013.01.002 Zhu Y., 2000, J BUS COMMUN, V37, P156, DOI DOI 10.1177/002194360003700202 Zhu Yunxia, 2000, DISCOURSE STUD, V2, P4473 NR 25 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 3 U2 17 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 APR PY 2015 VL 80 BP 52 EP 69 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.02.004 PG 18 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CG8XU UT WOS:000353599800005 ER PT J AU Cappelle, B Dugas, E Tobin, V AF Cappelle, Bert Dugas, Edwige Tobin, Vera TI An afterthought on let alone SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE let alone construction; Construction Grammar; Gricean maxims; Scalarity; Apophasis ID PRESUPPOSITION AB We here revisit the let alone construction, which was first described in a 1980s paper that put Construction Grammar on the map. Our focus is on a seemingly aberrant use where the first conjunct does not entail the restored second conjunct, as in I don't have ten children, let alone one. We argue that this use should not be considered as a highly exceptional speech error or as evidence that some speakers wrongly assume that the first proposition is the entailed one. First, a systematic examination of let alone examples extracted from the BNC and COCA shows that it is not exceedingly rare, as does a growing collection of authentic examples we have collected over the years. Second, it constitutes a usage type in its own right, whereby the first proposition has most contextual relevance and the second conjunct is represented by the speaker as an apophasis-like afterthought. There are transitional cases between the two types (canonical and afterthought), where both conjuncts have considerable relevance. For contemporary speakers, the afterthought use may require extraction of a general pattern with bleached semantics and pragmatics, possibly re-filled in with specific information. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Cappelle, Bert; Dugas, Edwige] Univ Lille 3, Joint Res Unit UMR Savoirs, Textes, Langage STL, F-59653 Villeneuve Dascq, France. [Tobin, Vera] Case Western Reserve Univ, Dept Cognit Sci, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA. RP Cappelle, B (reprint author), Robrecht Vlaanderenlaan 59, B-8200 Sint Andries, Belgium. EM bert.cappelle@univ-lille3.fr; edwige.dugas@univ-lille3.fr; vera.tobin@case.edu CR Cappelle Bert, 2013, TAAL, V52, P38 FAUCONNIER GILLES, 1978, FORMAL SEMANTICS PRA, P289 Fauconnier Gilles, 1980, THESIS U PARIS, P7 FAUCONNIER G, 1975, LINGUIST INQ, V6, P353 FILLMORE CJ, 1988, LANGUAGE, V64, P501, DOI 10.2307/414531 Giannakidou A, 2007, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V25, P39, DOI 10.1007/s11049-006-9006-5 Goldberg Adele E., 2006, CONSTRUCTIONS WORK N Goldberg A. E., 1995, CONSTRUCTIONS CONSTR Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Heine Bernd, 1991, GRAMMATICALIZATION C Hirschberg Julia Bell, 1991, THEORY SCALAR IMPLIC Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Horn L., 1972, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Horn Laurence R., 2002, CLS, V38, P55 Horn Laurence R., 2000, NEGATION POLARITY SY, P147 Horn L. R., 1989, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Israel Michael, 1998, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Israel M, 1996, LINGUIST PHILOS, V19, P619, DOI 10.1007/BF00632710 Janssen Theo A. J. M., 2010, DISTINCTIONS ENGLISH, P312 Kay Paul, 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P675 Klima Edward, 1964, STRUCTURE LANGUAGE, P246 Lakoff George, 1987, WOMEN FIRE DANGEROUS Lakoff G, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Mayor Michael, LONGMAN DICT CONT EN, V5th Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Lewis David, 1979, SEMANTICS DIFFERENT, P172, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-67458-7_12 OED, 1989, OXFORD ENGLISH DICT Pullum Geoffrey K., 2013, LANGUAGE LOG Sawada Osamu, 2003, J PAN PACIF ASS APPL, V7, P135 SCHWENTER S, 1999, PRAGMATICS CONDITION Stalnaker R, 2002, LINGUIST PHILOS, V25, P701, DOI 10.1023/A:1020867916902 Toosarvandani M., 2010, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Toosarvandani Maziar, 2008, P ANN M CHICAGO LING, V44, P51 Toosarvandani Maziar, 2009, UMOP 39, V39, P105 Toosarvandani Maziar, 2008, P SEM LING THEOR 18, P729 Verhagen Arie, 1994, NAUWE BETREKKINGEN, P273 von Fintel K, 2008, PHILOS PERSPECT, V22, P137, DOI 10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00144.x NR 37 TC 1 Z9 1 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 APR PY 2015 VL 80 BP 70 EP 85 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.02.005 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CG8XU UT WOS:000353599800006 ER PT J AU McGregor, WB AF McGregor, William B. TI Four counter-presumption constructions in Shua (Khoe-Kwadi, Botswana) SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Shua; Interpersonal grammar; Presumptions; Semantics; Pragmatics; Repetition AB This paper is concerned with four unusual grammatical structures in Shua ("Khoisan", Botswana). Three of these presume the exceptionality of a salient discourse entity as a thing of its type and contradict this with an assertion of non-exceptionality; the fourth presumes the typicality of the salient entity, contrasting this with a claim to exceptionality. The paper describes the formal properties and meanings of these structures, distinguishing between their coded and inferred meanings, It is argued that the coded meaning of each is of the interpersonal type. The paper further suggests that the structures represent four distinct constructions that are partly motivated, and that crucial to each is repetition of key lexical components. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Aarhus Univ, Dept Aesthet & Commun Linguist, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. RP McGregor, WB (reprint author), Aarhus Univ, Dept Aesthet & Commun Linguist, Jens Chr Skous Vej 2,Off 1485-617, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. EM linwmg@dac.au.dk FU Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation through the EuroBABEL Program of the European Science Foundation [902313] FX The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation (project number 902313) through the EuroBABEL Program of the European Science Foundation. Thanks to all the speakers of Shua who generously shared their language with me, most especially to: Blesswell Kure, Jerryson, Pono Zuka, Ketebualemang Zuka, Ketshepilemang Kure, Elder Masoko, Margaret Rock, Kakabe Rasethora, Boithaganelo Riitsana, and Dikanelang Hashe. Without their assistance and involvement in the project, this paper would have been impossible. Two anonymous referees provided very useful comments on a previous draft, which caused me to think more carefully about a number of points. Previous versions of this paper were presented at the Final Kalahari Basin Area Conference at Aarhus University, 8th April 2013 and at School of Culture, History & Language, Australian National University, 8th August 2014. Thanks to the audiences at these presentations for lively and informative discussion. For information on other languages I am grateful to Andy Chebanne (Setswana), Haicun Liu (Mandarin Chinese), and Jeffrey Wills (Kalanga). CR Brown P., 1978, QUESTIONS POLITENESS, P56 BYBEE J., 2003, HDB HIST LINGUISTICS, P602, DOI 10.1002/9780470756393.ch19 Bybee J., 2010, LANGUAGE USAGE COGNI Croft William, 2001, RADICAL CONSTRUCTION Cuenca M. J., 2007, Z KATALANISTIK, V20, P189 Desagulier G., 2005, ANN REV COGN LINGUIS, V3, P22, DOI 10.1075/arcl.3.03des Bois Du, 1985, ICONICITY SYNTAX, P343 DUBOIS JW, 1987, LANGUAGE, V63, P805 FILLMORE CJ, 1988, LANGUAGE, V64, P501, DOI 10.2307/414531 Givon T, 1995, FUNCTIONALISM GRAMMA Givon T, 1984, SYNTAX FUNCTIONAL TY, VI Goldberg A. E., 1995, CONSTRUCTIONS CONSTR Goldemann T., 2004, DIACHRONICA, V21, P251, DOI 10.1075/dia.21.2.02gul Guldemann T., 2010, KHOISAN LANGUAGES AN, V24, P15 Haiman J, 1997, LINGUA, V100, P57, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(93)00027-6 Halliday Michael A. K., 1994, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Ishikawa M., 1991, TEXT, V11, P553, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.553 Israel M., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P701 Johnstone B., 1994, REPETITION DISCOURSE, V47 Johnstone B., 1994, REPETITION DISCOURSE, V1 Johnstone B., 1994, REPETITION DISCOURSE, V2 Johnstone B., 1994, REPETITION DISCOURSE, V48 Kilian-Hatz C., 1998, LANGUAGE IDENTITY CO, P65 Kurylowicz Jerzy, 1975, ESQUISSES LINGUISTIQ, V2, P38 Lehmann Ch, 2002, THOUGHTS GRAMMATICAL Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Lilja N, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V71, P98, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.011 Lyons J., 1982, SPEECH PLACE ACTION, P101 Makkai A., 1972, IDIOM STRUCTURE ENGL McGregor William, 1997, SEMIOTIC GRAMMAR McGregor W. B., 2015, SEM PRES LING DEP KU McGregor W. B., 2006, 2 EUR WORKSH AUSTR L McGregor WB, 2013, FOLIA LINGUIST, V47, P139, DOI 10.1515/flin.2013.007 McGregor WB, 2014, J AFR LANG LINGUIST, V35, P45, DOI 10.1515/jall-2014-0002 McKay G., 1988, COMPLEX SENTENCE CON, P7 Miestamo M., 2003, CLAUSE NEGATION TYPO Narrog Heiko, 2011, OXFORD HDB GRAMMATIC, P1 Persson G., 1974, REPETITION ENGLISH 1 Strawson P.F., 1952, INTRO LOGICAL THEORY Tannen Deborah, 1987, J LINGUISTICS SOC AM, V63, P574 Tannen D, 1989, TALKING VOICES REPET Tomasello M., 2003, CONSTRUCTING LANGUAG Tomasello M., 2014, NATURAL HIST HUMAN T Bever T. G., 1977, MAIN SUBORDINATE CLA Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2010, SUBJECTIFICATION INT, P29, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 Valenzuela Javier, 2005, ANN REV COGNITIVE LI, V3, P201, DOI 10.1075/arcl.3.11val Van de Velde F, 2013, STUD LANG, V37, P473, DOI 10.1075/sl.37.3.01int Verstraete Jean Christophe, 2007, RETHINKING COORDINAT Vossen R., 1997, KHOE SPRACHEN BEITRA Vossen R., 2013, KHOESAN LANGUAGES RO Vygotsky L. S., 1986, THOUGHT LANGUAGE WIERZBICKA A, 1987, LANGUAGE, V63, P95, DOI 10.2307/415385 Wohlgemuth J., 2010, RARA RARISSIMA DOCUM, V46 Wohlgemuth Jan, 2010, EMPIRICAL APPROACHES, V45 NR 56 TC 0 Z9 0 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 APR PY 2015 VL 158 BP 54 EP 75 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.005 PG 22 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CG5FE UT WOS:000353315700005 ER PT J AU Falkum, IL AF Falkum, Ingrid Lossius TI The how and why of polysemy: A pragmatic account SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Polysemy; Pragmatics; Rule-based accounts; Lexical underdeterminacy; Relevance theory ID REPRESENTATION; DISTINCTION; COERCION; CHILDREN; SENSES; MIND AB A large number of word forms in natural language are polysemous, that is, associated with several related senses (e.g., line, run, tight, etc.). While such polysemy appears to cause little difficulty in verbal communication, it poses a range of theoretical and descriptive problems. One concerns its very existence: What is it about our language systems that make them so susceptible to polysemy? In this paper I discuss two approaches to polysemy with different answers to this question: (i) A code-based approach that treats polysemy in terms of the operation of lexicon-internal generative rules, and (ii) an inference-based approach that takes polysemy to be governed by pragmatic inferential processes applying at the level of individual words. After evaluating how each of these accounts fares with respect to some empirical data, I look more broadly at their implications for the emergence and development of polysemy. I conclude that, overall, the pragmatic approach provides the most promising basis for a unified account of the role of polysemy in several domains, and for explaining what motivates its proliferation natural language. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Falkum, Ingrid Lossius] Univ Oslo, N-0315 Oslo, Norway. RP Falkum, IL (reprint author), Univ Oslo, Ctr Study Mind Nat, POB 1020 Blindern, N-0315 Oslo, Norway. EM i.l.falkum@ifikk.ulo.no OI Falkum, Ingrid Lossius/0000-0002-1203-8036 FU Research Council of Norway [205513] FX This research was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Research Council of Norway (project no. 205513). I would like to thank Robyn Carston for many valuable and inspiring discussions of polysemy, and three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments which helped improve the paper. CR Akhtar N, 1996, CHILD DEV, V67, P635, DOI 10.2307/1131837 ALLAN K, 1980, LANGUAGE, V56, P541, DOI 10.2307/414449 Apresjan J.D., 1974, LINGUISTICS, V14, P5 Asher N., 2003, LOGICS CONVERSATION Asher N., 2011, LEXICAL MEANING CONT Baillargeon R, 2010, TRENDS COGN SCI, V14, P110, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.006 Bale AC, 2009, J SEMANT, V26, P217, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffp003 Barner D, 2011, COGNITION, V118, P84, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.010 Baron-Cohen S., 1995, MINDBLINDNESS ESSAY BaronCohen S, 1997, CHILD DEV, V68, P48 Berner D., 2005, COGNITION, V97, P41 Bloom P., 2000, CHILDREN LEARN MEANI Blutner R., 2002, SEMANTICS, V10, P27 Borer Hagit, 2005, IN NAME ONLY Bosch P., 2007, P 6 INT TBL S LANG L Breal M., 1924, ESSAI SEMANTIQUE SCI Briscoe T., 1991, P IJCAI WORKSH COMP, P12 Brugman Claudia, 1988, LEXICAL AMBIGUITY RE, P477 Brugman Claudia, 1988, STORY POLYSEMY SEMAN BUNT HC, 1985, MASS TERMS MODEL THE BUSHNELL EW, 1984, CHILD DEV, V55, P893, DOI 10.2307/1130140 Caramazza A., 1976, SEMANTICS THEORY APP, P181 Carston R., 2013, WHAT IS SAID WHAT IS, P175 Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Carston R, 2012, LINGUIST REV, V29, P607, DOI 10.1515/tlr-2012-0022 Clark EV, 1997, COGNITION, V64, P1, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00010-3 Clark E. V., 1982, LANG ACQUIS, P390 COPESTAKE A, 1992, LECT NOTES ARTIF INT, V627, P101 Copestake A., 1995, J SEMANT, V12, P15, DOI 10.1093/jos/12.1.15 de Almeida RG, 2004, BRAIN LANG, V90, P249, DOI 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00438-3 de Almeida Roberto G., 2008, CANADIAN J LINGUISTI, V53, P301 Deamer F., 2013, THESIS U COLL LONDON SAUSSURE Ferdinand, 1974, COURSE GEN LINGUISTI Doherty MJ, 2000, J CHILD LANG, V27, P367, DOI 10.1017/S0305000900004153 Falkum I.L., 2014, MOUSTACHE SITS UNPUB Falkum I.L., 2007, UCL WORK PAP LINGUIS, V19, P205 Fodor Jerry A., 2002, COMPOSITIONALITY PAP Fodor J. A., 1975, LANGUAGE THOUGHT Fodor J.A., 2008, LOT2 LANGUAGE THOUGH Geeraerts Dirk, 1993, COGN LINGUIST, V4, P223, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223 Gibbs Raymond, 1994, THE POETICS OF MIND Glucksberg S., 2001, UNDERSTANDING FIGURA Goddard C., 2000, POLYSEMY THEORETICAL, P129 Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Hopper Paul J., 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, V1, P17 Katz Jerrold J., 1972, SEMANTIC THEORY KATZ JJ, 1964, J PHILOS, V61, P739, DOI 10.2307/2023019 Kempson R., 1977, SEMANTIC THEORY Klein DE, 2001, J MEM LANG, V45, P259, DOI 10.1006/jmla.2001.2779 Klepousniotou E., 2007, COGNITIVE BASIS POLY, P17 Klepousniotou E, 2008, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V34, P1534, DOI 10.1037/a0013012 Lakoff George, 1987, WOMEN FIRE DANGEROUS Lakoff G, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Langacker Ronald W., 1984, P ANN M BERK LING SO, V10, P172 Lascarides A, 1998, J LINGUIST, V34, P387, DOI 10.1017/S0022226798007087 McElree B., 2001, COGNITION, V78, P17 McElree B, 2006, COGNITIVE SCI, V30, P181, DOI 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_49 Noveck IA, 2001, COGNITION, V78, P165, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1 NUNBERG G, 1979, LINGUIST PHILOS, V3, P143, DOI 10.1007/BF00126509 OSTLER N, 1992, LECT NOTES ARTIF INT, V627, P87 Ozcaliskan Seyda, 2005, J Child Lang, V32, P291, DOI 10.1017/S0305000905006884 Papafragou Anna, 2004, LANG ACQUIS, V12, P71, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327817LA1201_3 Peirce C. S., 1955, PHILOS WRITINGS PEIR, P98 Pelletier Francis Jeffry, 2012, COUNT MASS LANGUAGES, P9 PELLETIER FJ, 1975, PHILOSOPHIA, V5, P451, DOI 10.1007/BF02379268 Pickering MJ, 2005, BRAIN LANG, V93, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.07.005 Pouscoulous A., 2007, LANG ACQUIS, V14, P347 PREMACK D, 1978, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V1, P515 Pustejovsky J., 1995, GENERATIVE LEXICON Pustejovsky J, 1998, LINGUIST INQ, V29, P289, DOI 10.1162/002438998553752 Pustejovsky J., 1991, Computational Linguistics, V17, P409 Pylkkanen L, 2006, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V18, P97, DOI 10.1162/089892906775250003 Quine W. V. O., 1960, WORD OBJECT Rabagliati H, 2011, J SEMANT, V28, P485, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffr005 Rabagliati H, 2010, COGNITION, V117, P17, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.06.007 Ravin Yael, 2000, POLYSEMY THEORETICAL, P1 Ruhl Charles, 1989, MONOSEMY STUDY LINGU Shannon CE, 1949, MATH THEORY COMMUNIC 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, 2008, CAMB HANDB PSYCHOL, P84 Taylor JR, 2003, LANG SCI, V25, P637, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(03)00031-7 Traugott Elisabeth, 2002, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Traxler MJ, 2002, J MEM LANG, V47, P530, DOI 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00021-9 Tyler Andrea, 2003, SEMANTICS ENGLISH PR Vega-Moreno R., 2007, CREATIVITY CONVENTIO Vygotsky L. S., 1986, THOUGHT LANGUAGE Wharton Tim, 2009, PRAGMATICS NONVERBAL Wilson D., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P607 Wilson D., 2009, STUDIES PRAGMATICS, V11, P42 Carston Robyn, 2007, PRAGMATICS, P230 Wilson D., 2012, MEANING RELEVANCE Wilson D, 2006, MIND LANG, V21, P404, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x WIMMER H, 1983, COGNITION, V13, P103, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5 Wisniewski EJ, 1996, COGNITION, V60, P269, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(96)00707-X Wisniewski EJ, 2003, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V18, P583, DOI 10.1080/01690960344000044 NR 97 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 6 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 APR PY 2015 VL 157 SI SI BP 83 EP 99 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.004 PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CG3LF UT WOS:000353181000006 ER PT J AU Srinivasan, M Rabagliati, H AF Srinivasan, Mahesh Rabagliati, Hugh TI How concepts and conventions structure the lexicon: Cross-linguistic evidence from polysemy SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Polysemy; Pragmatics; Lexical semantics; Cross-linguistic variation; Conceptual development; Theory theory ID ARTIFACT CONCEPTS; LANGUAGE; REPRESENTATION; ACQUISITION; CHILDREN; WORD; KNOWLEDGE; MEANINGS; OBJECT; SENSES AB Words often have multiple distinct but related senses, a phenomenon called polysemy. For instance, in English, words like chicken and Iamb can label animals and their meats while words like glass and tin can label materials and artifacts derived from those materials. In this paper, we ask why words have some senses but not others, and thus what constrains the structure of polysemy. Previous work has pointed to two different sources of constraints. First, polysemy could reflect conceptual structure: Word senses could be derived based on how ideas are associated in the mind. Second, polysemy could reflect a set of arbitrary, language-specific conventions: word senses could be difficult to derive and might have to be memorized and stored. We used a large-scale cross-linguistic survey to elucidate the relative contributions of concepts and conventions to the structure of polysemy. We explored whether 27 distinct patterns of polysemy found in English are also present in 14 other languages. Consistent with the idea that polysemy is constrained by conceptual structure, we found that almost all surveyed patterns of polysemy (e.g., animal for meat, material for artifact) were present across languages. However, consistent with the idea that polysemy reflects language-specific conventions, we also found variation across languages in how patterns are instantiated in specific senses (e.g., the word for glass material is used to label different glass artifacts across languages). We argue that these results are best explained by a "conventions-constrained-by-concepts" model, in which the different senses of words are learned conventions, but conceptual structure makes some types of relations between senses easier to grasp than others, such that the same patterns of polysemy evolve across languages. This opens a new view of lexical structure, in which polysemy is a linguistic adaptation that makes it easier for children to learn word meanings and build a lexicon. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Srinivasan, Mahesh] Univ Calif Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA. [Rabagliati, Hugh] Harvard Univ, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA. [Rabagliati, Hugh] Univ Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH1 3NS, Midlothian, Scotland. RP Srinivasan, M (reprint author), Univ Calif Berkeley, Dept Psychol, 3210 Tolman Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA. EM srinivasan@berkeley.edu; hugh.rabagliati@ed.ac.uk FU Harvard University; Harvard University's Mind, Brain, Behavior Initiative FX We would like to thank all of the respondents who endured our exceptionally long linguistic survey, and in particular Eva Wittenberg for her considerable help during pilot testing. Gregory L. Murphy and our anonymous reviewers provided exceptionally detailed comments that greatly improved the manuscript. Jesse Snedeker not only provided helpful discussion, but also generously supported the work via funding from Harvard University. Hugh Rabagliati was supported in part by a grant from Harvard University's Mind, Brain, Behavior Initiative. CR Apresjan Juri D., 1974, LINGUISTICS, V142, P5 Baker C.L., 1968, THESIS U ILLINOIS Berman R. A., 1999, METHODS STUDYING LAN, P69 BIALYSTOK E, 1986, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V15, P13, DOI 10.1007/BF01067389 BICKERTON D, 1984, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V7, P173 Bloom P, 1996, COGNITION, V60, P1, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00699-0 Bowerman M., 1983, ACQUISITION SYMBOLIC, P445 Boyeldieu P, 2008, STUD LANG C, V106, P303 Breal M., 1897, ESSAI SEMANTIQUE SCI Carey S., 1985, CONCEPTUAL CHANGE CH Carlson Greg, 1977, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Casson R.W., 1994, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V4, P5, DOI 10.1525/jlin.1994.4.1.5 CLARK EV, 1979, LANGUAGE, V55, P767, DOI 10.2307/412745 CLARK EV, 1988, J CHILD LANG, V15, P317 Clark E. V., 1982, LANG ACQUIS, P390 Copestake A., 1995, J SEMANT, V12, P15, DOI 10.1093/jos/12.1.15 Velazquez de la Cadena M., 2003, VELAZQUEZ SPANISH EN Falkum I. L., 2011, THESIS U COLL LONDON Fauconnier Gilles, 1985, MENTAL SPACES Foer Jonathan Safran, 2010, EATING ANIMALS Gelman SA, 2000, COGNITION, V76, P91, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00071-8 GELMAN SA, 1991, COGNITION, V38, P213, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90007-Q Gelman Susan A., 2003, ESSENTIAL CHILD ORIG GOLDINMEADOW S, 1990, LANGUAGE, V66, P323, DOI 10.2307/414890 Gombert J. E., 1992, METALINGUISTIC DEV Gopnik A., 1997, WORDS THOUGHTS THEOR Greenberg J.H., 1983, CURRENT APPROACHES A, V1, P3 Harrap's, 2001, HARR UN FRENCH ENGL lackendoff Ray S., 1997, ARCHITECTURE LANGUAG Galimberti Jarman B., 2008, OXFORD SPANISH DICT, V4th Johnson S, 1998, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V1, P233, DOI 10.1111/1467-7687.00036 Kamei S.-I., 1992, P 30 ANN M ASS COMP KEIL FC, 1994, LINGUA, V92, P169, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(94)90341-7 Keil Frank C., 1989, CONCEPTS KINDS COGNI Kiparsky P., 1997, COMPLEX PREDICATES, P473 Klein DE, 2002, J MEM LANG, V47, P548, DOI 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00020-7 Klein DE, 2001, J MEM LANG, V45, P259, DOI 10.1006/jmla.2001.2779 Krifka M., 2001, LECT NOTES POLYSEMY Lakoff George, 1987, WOMEN FIRE DANGEROUS Lakoff G, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Lakusta L, 2005, COGNITION, V96, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.009 Lakusta L., 2007, LANGUAGE LEARNING DE, V3, P179, DOI DOI 10.1080/15475440701360168 Lehrer A., 1990, COGN LINGUIST, V1, P207, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.2.207 Leslie A. M., 1994, MAPPING MIND DOMAIN Iz F., 1992, OXFORD TURKISH DICT Malt BC, 2010, PSYCHOL LEARN MOTIV, V52, P1, DOI 10.1016/S0079-7421(10)52001-2 MALT BC, 1992, J MEM LANG, V31, P195, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90011-L Marcus G.F., 1992, MONOGRAPHS SOC RES C, V57 Martin S. E., 1967, KOREAN ENGLISH DICT MORAVCSIK JME, 1981, J PHILOS, V78, P5, DOI 10.2307/2025394 Moravscik J.M.E., 1990, THOUGHT LANGUAGE MURPHY GL, 1985, PSYCHOL REV, V92, P289, DOI 10.1037//0033-295X.92.3.289 Murphy Gregory L., 2007, COGNITIVE BASIS POLY Murphy G.L., 1997, CREATIVE THOUGHT INV, P235, DOI 10.1037/10227-010 NUNBERG G, 1979, LINGUIST PHILOS, V3, P143, DOI 10.1007/BF00126509 Nunberg Geoffrey, 1995, J SEMANT, V12, P109, DOI DOI 10.1093/J0S/12.2.109 O'Donnell T. J., 2011, P 33 ANN C COGN SCI Orszargh L., 1998, MAGYAR ANGOL NAGYASZ OSTLER N, 1992, LECT NOTES ARTIF INT, V627, P87 Papafragou A, 1996, LINGUA, V99, P169, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(96)00016-2 Papafragou A, 2010, COGNITIVE SCI, V34, P1064, DOI 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01107.x Peters W., 2003, P ACL 2003 WORKSH LE, P1 Pinker S., 2007, STUFF THOUGHT LANGUA PINKER S, 1991, SCIENCE, V253, P530, DOI 10.1126/science.1857983 Prasada S, 2000, TRENDS COGN SCI, V4, P66, DOI 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01429-1 Pustejovsky J., 1995, GENERATIVE LEXICON Pylkkanen L., 2006, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V18, P1 R Development Core Team, 2014, R LANG ENV STAT COMP Rabagliati H, 2013, DEV PSYCHOL, V49, P1076, DOI 10.1037/a0026918 Rabagliati H, 2011, J SEMANT, V28, P485, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffr005 Rabagliati H, 2010, COGNITION, V117, P17, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.06.007 Regier T., 1997, PSYCHOL LEARN MOTIV, V36, P171, DOI 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60284-4 Reynolds B., 1981, CAMBRIDGE ITALIAN DI Ruhl Charles, 1989, MONOSEMY STUDY LINGU Saussure Ferdinand d., 1959, COURSE GEN LINGUISTI Senghas A, 2001, PSYCHOL SCI, V12, P323, DOI 10.1111/1467-9280.00359 Silvey C., 2014, COGNIT SCI Smith K, 2004, J THEOR BIOL, V228, P127, DOI 10.1016/j.jtbi.2003.12.016 SOJA NN, 1991, COGNITION, V38, P179, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90051-5 Srinivasan M., 2014, LANG LEARN DEV, V10, P97 Srinivasan M., 2013, BLENN M SOC RES CHIL Srinivasan M, 2011, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V62, P245, DOI 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.03.002 Srinivasan M, 2013, COGNITION, V128, P431, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.05.005 Stevens A.M., 2004, COMPREHENSIVE INDONE Strigin A., 1998, J SEMANT, V15, P163, DOI 10.1093/jos/15.2.163 United States Joint Publications Research Service, 1966, VIETN ENGL DICT Viberg Ake, 1984, LINGUISTICS, V21, P123 Vossen P., 1998, EUROWORDNET MULTILIN Carston Robyn, 2007, PRAGMATICS, P230 Wilson Deirdre, 2003, ITALIAN J LINGUISTIC, V15, P273 Zhu H., 2014, P 36 ANN C COGN SCI, P934 NR 91 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 5 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 APR PY 2015 VL 157 SI SI BP 124 EP 152 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.004 PG 29 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CG3LF UT WOS:000353181000008 ER PT J AU Sheridan, CL AF Sheridan, Cheryl L. TI National Journals and Centering Institutions: A historiography of an English language teaching journal in Taiwan SO ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES LA English DT Article DE Scholarly publishing; Taiwan; Globalization of higher education; National journals; Historiography; Centering institutions ID HIGHER-EDUCATION; GLOBALIZATION; UNIVERSITIES; POLICY; INTERNATIONALIZATION; PUBLICATION; IDEOLOGY; SCIENCE; PUBLISH; IMPACT AB This article presents a historiography of the longest-running English language studies journal in Taiwan within the socio-political environment of higher education since reforms beginning in 1994 led to the particular 'publish or perish' paradigm currently faced by Taiwan-based researchers. Utilizing textual analysis and in-depth interviews, the study traces the journal's development from 1995 to 2010. Data collected included: (a) journal front and back covers and tables of contents; (b) editorial and advisory board member lists and editorial communication; (c) first one to two pages of all articles; and (d) transcripts from in-depth interviews with five individuals who have been contributors, reviewers, and/or editors. Findings show ways the journal changed from a local Chinese magazine to a respected English-dominant national journal publishing original research articles and included in a national citation index. Its development coincided with policies established by the government and institutions under market pressures and globalization leading to competition for higher education funding, which have urged scholars to publish research in journals listed in international bibliometric indices. The concept of centering institutions informs the analysis of the multiple influences on the journal's development, and a critical-pragmatic perspective situates recommendations for national journals to succeed in non-center contexts. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Sheridan, Cheryl L.] Natl Chengchi Univ, Taipei 116, Taiwan. [Sheridan, Cheryl L.] Indiana Univ Penn, Grad Program Composit, Indiana, PA 15705 USA. [Sheridan, Cheryl L.] Indiana Univ Penn, TESOL, Indiana, PA 15705 USA. RP Sheridan, CL (reprint author), Natl Chengchi Univ, Foreign Language Ctr, Coll Foreign Languages, 64 Zhinan Rd Sect 2, Taipei 116, Taiwan. EM sheridan@nccu.edu.tw FU Indiana University of Pennsylvania School of Graduate Studies Research FX A portion of this research was supported by a Graduate Student Research Grant from Indiana University of Pennsylvania School of Graduate Studies & Research. CR Altbach P.G., 2004, TERTIARY ED MANAGEME, V10, P3, DOI [DOI 10.1080/13583883.2004.9967114, DOI 10.1023/B:TEAM.0000012239.55136.4B] Belcher DD, 2007, J SECOND LANG WRIT, V16, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001 Berkenkotter C., 1995, EV SCHOL FOR READ 19, P79 Blommaert J., 2005, WORKING PAPERS URBAN Burns A., 2012, PEDAGOGY PRACTICE 2 Canagarajah A. S., 2003, WRITING SCHOLARLY PU, P197 Canagarajah AS, 1996, WRIT COMMUN, V13, P435, DOI 10.1177/0741088396013004001 Center For Humanities Research, 2010, THCI CORE J ADDED 20 Chang DF, 2009, ASIA PAC EDUC REV, V10, P47, DOI 10.1007/s12564-009-9010-7 Chao C-C., 2006, ENGLISH TEACHING LEA, P111 Chen KH, 2004, ONLINE INFORM REV, V28, P410, DOI 10.1108/14684520410570535 Chen L. -C., 1995, ENGLISH TEACHING LEA, V19, P71 Chen S. -M., 1997, ENGLISH TEACHING LEA, V21, P5 Chern C. L, 2002, ASIA PACIFIC J ED, V22, P97, DOI DOI 10.1080/0218879020220209 Chou CP, 2008, INT PERSP EDUC SOC, V9, P297, DOI 10.1016/S1479-3679(08)00010-8 Delgado J. E., 2011, THESIS U PITTSBURGH Donovan S. K, 2011, J SCHOLARLY PUBL, V42, P534 English Teaching and Learning, 2001, ENGLISH TEACHING LEA, V26 Englander K, 2013, LANG POLICY-NETH, V12, P231, DOI 10.1007/s10993-012-9268-1 Executive Yuan R. o. C., 2014, REPUBL CHIN YB 2012 Feng HY, 2013, LANG POLICY-NETH, V12, P251, DOI 10.1007/s10993-013-9285-8 Flowerdew J, 2000, TESOL QUART, V34, P127, DOI 10.2307/3588099 Flowerdew John, 2007, AILA REV, V20, P14, DOI DOI 10.1075/AILA.20.04FL Flowerdew J, 2009, J SECOND LANG WRIT, V18, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.09.005 Hanauer D.I., 2013, SCI WRITING 2 LANGUA Harwood N, 2004, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V23, P355, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2003.08.001 Hedge T., 2000, TEACHING LEARNING LA Huang AHM, 2009, INTER-ASIA CULT STUD, V10, P282, DOI 10.1080/14649370902823413 Huang J., 2003, TAIPEI TIMES, P2 Guo Ke Hui. [National Science Council], 2011, TAIW HUM CIT IND COR Guo Ke Hui [National Science Council], 2009, TAIW HUM CIT IND COR Information for Contributors, 2001, ENGLISH TEACHING LEA, V26 Kachru, 2001, CONCISE ENCY SOCIOLI, P519 Kachru B. B., 2006, WORLD ENGLISHES CRIT, V3, P241 Kvale S., 2007, DOING INTERVIEWS Labassi T., 2009, CHANGING ENGLISH, V16, P247 Lawrick E. P. Z., 2011, THESIS PROQUEST PURD Lee H, 2013, LANG POLICY-NETH, V12, P215, DOI 10.1007/s10993-012-9267-2 Lillis Theresa, 2012, JAC, V34, P695 Lillis T., 2010, ACAD WRITING GLOBAL Lin C. -Y., 2003, TAIPEI TIMES, P3 Liu Y. -C., 2014, SSCI SYNDROME HIGHER Lundin RA, 2010, SCAND J MANAG, V26, P309, DOI 10.1016/j.scaman.2010.06.007 Luo Y. -X., 1998, ENGLISH TEACHING LEA, V23, P76 Matsuda PK, 2003, J SECOND LANG WRIT, V12, P151, DOI 10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00016-X Matsuda P. K., 2013, ENCY APPL LINGUISTIC, P1 Matsuda PK, 1998, WRIT COMMUN, V15, P99, DOI 10.1177/0741088398015001004 Ministry of Education, 2007, ED TAIW 2007 Mok K. H., 2008, HIGH EDUC POLICY, V21, P429, DOI DOI 10.1057/HEP.2008.23 Mok KH, 2000, J EDUC POLICY, V15, P637, DOI 10.1080/02680930010000236 Mok K. -H., 2003, GLOBALIZATION SOC ED, V1, P201, DOI 10.1080/14767720303910 National Chengchi University, 2001, REG TIM LTD PROM NEW National Science Board, 2012, R D NAT TRENDS INT C Salager-Meyer F., 2008, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V7, P121, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.JEAP.2008.03.009 Shi L., 2005, TESOL Q, V39, P765 Shi L, 2002, TESOL QUART, V36, P625, DOI 10.2307/3588245 Silverstein M, 1998, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V27, P401, DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.27.1.401 Song MM, 2007, ASIA PAC J EDUC, V27, P323, DOI 10.1080/02188790701594067 Swales J. M., 2004, CAMBRIDGE APPL LINGU Truscott J., 1996, ENGLISH TEACHING LEA, V20, P5 Ur P., 2012, COURSE ENGLISH LANGU Uzuner Sedef, 2008, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V7, P250, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.JEAP.2008.10.007 Wang FN, 2006, J SCHOLARLY PUBL, V38, P41, DOI 10.1353/scp.2007.0001 Wang FN, 2008, J SCHOLARLY PUBL, V39, P410, DOI 10.3138/jsp.39.4.410 Xu Y. -Z., 1995, ENGLISH TEACHING LEA, V19, P22 Zhang FL, 2003, J SCHOLARLY PUBL, V34, P101 Zhenggao Shuoming [Information about Contributions], 1995, ENGLISH TEACHING LEA, V20, P3 Zhenggao Shuoming [Information about Contributions], 1995, ENGLISH TEACHING LEA, V19, P3 Zhengqiu Lunwen [Call for Papers], 2001, ENGLISH TEACHING LEA, V26 Zhou Y. -X., 2010, REPUBLIC CHINA U LAW Zuexin Shaoxi [Latest News], 2002, ENGLISH TEACHING LEA, V27 [Anonymous], 2010, NATL TAIWAN NORMAL U NR 72 TC 0 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 12 PU PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD PI OXFORD PA THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND SN 0889-4906 EI 1873-1937 J9 ENGL SPECIF PURP JI Engl. Specif. Purp. PD APR PY 2015 VL 38 BP 70 EP 84 DI 10.1016/j.esp.2014.12.001 PG 15 WC Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CF6JY UT WOS:000352664200007 ER PT J AU Lai, HL AF Lai, Huei-ling TI Profiling Hakka Bun(1) Causative Constructions SO LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE causation; cause-act; cause-result; figure-ground; Hakka bun(1); purpose AB This paper proposes that a family of four related constructions is needed to provide a more complete account for the syntactic and semantic generalizations and idiosyncrasies of the bun(1) causative constructions in Hakka by examining the features of CAUSER, CAUSEE, and EFFECT. The traditional claim of semantic entailment as a crucial feature of causation is argued to be too restrictive; pragmatic strengthening is argued to capture the dominant distribution of cause-act functions. In addition, in contrast to what is expected by the prototypical iconic sequencing of the participants in a causal chain, the sequence of a causing event and a resulting event from authentic data is shown to reveal a ground-figure asymmetry. The highlighting of the resulting event for information management is done by linguistic strategies such as topicalization or left-dislocation of CAUSEE and suppression of CAUSER. Such linguistic arrangements are speculated to prepare causative bun(1) for undergoing further grammaticalization into the passive function. C1 Natl Chengchi Univ, Dept English, Taipei 116, Taiwan. RP Lai, HL (reprint author), Natl Chengchi Univ, Dept English, 64,Sec 2,ZhiNan Rd, Taipei 116, Taiwan. EM hllai@nccu.edu.tw FU [NSC 100-2410-H-004-185-MY2] FX This study is based partly on research project NSC 100-2410-H-004-185-MY2. Thanks go to Shih-min Li for collecting some of the data and references on the earlier drafts of the study. My thanks are also extended to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. I am, of course, responsible for possible remaining errors. CR Goldberg Adele E, 1995, CONSTRUCTIONS CONSTR Goldberg Adele E, 2006, CONSTRUCTIONS WORK N Goldberg Adele E., 2004, LANGUAGE, V80. 3, P523 Anna Wierzbicka, 1998, NEW PSYCHOL LANGUAGE, P113 Bernard Comrie, 1981, LANGUAGE UNIVERSALS Bernd Heine, 2002, WORLD LEXICON GRAMMA Chang Li-li, 2006, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V7. 1, P139 Chiang Min-hua, 2006, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V7. 2, P339 da Silva AS, 2007, TRENDS LINGUIST-STUD, V198, P171 Gaetanelle Gilquin, 2010, CORPUS COGNITION CAU Gaetanelle Gilquin, 2007, CORPORA COGNITIVE LI, P159 George Lakoff, 1987, WOMEN FIRE DANGEROUS Ha Yap Foong, 2003, COGN LINGUIST, P419 Hilary Chappell, 2007, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V11. 1, P187 Hilary Chappell, 2006, LINGUISTIC STUDIES C, P973 Huang Han-chun, 2005, 2005 NAT C LING JUL Jerry Norman, 1982, TSING HUA J CHINESE, V14, P243 John Newman, 1998, LINGUISTICS GIVING John Newman, 1996, GIVE COGNITIVE LINGU Karsten Schmidtke-Bode, 2009, TYPOLOGY PRUPOSE CLA Lai Huei-ling, 2001, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V2. 2, P137 Leonard Talmy, 2000, COGNITIVE SEMANTICS, VI-II Ying-chin Lin, 1990, CAHIERS LINGUISTIQUE, V19, P61, DOI 10.3406/clao.1990.1311 Masayoshi Shibatani, 2002, GRAMMAR CAUSATION IN, P85 Newman J, 2005, LANG SCI, V27, P145, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2003.12.003 Paul Kroeger, 2004, ANAL SYNTAX LEXICAL Langacker Ronald W., 1991, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA, V2 Jung Song Jae, 1998, LINGUISTICS GIVING, P327 Song Jae Jong, 1996, CAUSATIVES CAUSATION Sun Chaofen, 1996, WORD ORDER CHANGE GR Talmy Givon, 1993, ENGLISH GRAMMAR FUNC Ting-chi Tang, 2000, SEL PAP 5 INT C CHIN, P87 XU DAN, 1994, J CHINESE LINGUIST, V22, P363 Yeh Jui-chuan, 2012, TSING HUA J CHINESE, V42, P527 NR 34 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 1606-822X J9 LANG LINGUIST-TAIWAN JI Lang. Linguist. PD APR PY 2015 VL 16 IS 3 BP 369 EP 395 DI 10.1177/1606822X15569164 PG 27 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CF4VE UT WOS:000352549800003 ER PT J AU Youn, SJ AF Youn, Soo Jung TI Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods SO LANGUAGE TESTING LA English DT Article DE Conversation analysis; interactional competence; pragmatic competence; rating criteria; validity argument ID PAIRED SPEAKING TEST; RATING-SCALES; ORAL ASSESSMENT; PROFICIENCY; RATERS; CONVERSATION; ORGANIZATION; PERFORMANCE; SCORES; TESTS AB This study investigates the validity of assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods, focusing on the evaluation inference. Open role-plays that are meaningful and relevant to the stakeholders in an English for Academic Purposes context were developed for classroom assessment. For meaningful score interpretations and accurate evaluations of interaction-involved pragmatic performances, interaction-sensitive data-driven rating criteria were developed, based on the qualitative analyses of examinees' role-play performances. The conversation analysis performed on the data revealed various pragmatic and interactional features indicative of differing levels of pragmatic competence in interaction. The FACETS analysis indicated that the role-plays stably differentiated between the varying degrees of the 102 examinees' pragmatic abilities. The raters showed internal consistency despite their differing degrees of severity. Stable fit statistics and distinct difficulties were reported within each of the interaction-sensitive rating criteria.The findings served as backing for the evaluation inference in the validity argument. Finally, implications of the findings in operationalizing interaction-involved language performances and developing rating criteria are discussed. C1 [Youn, Soo Jung] No Arizona Univ, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA. RP Youn, SJ (reprint author), No Arizona Univ, Dept English, 700 S Humphreys Cdr, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA. EM Soo-Jung.Youn@nau.edu FU TOEFL FX This research was funded by TOEFL Small Grants for Doctoral Research in Second or Foreign Language Assessment Award and Language Learning Dissertation Grant. CR Al-Gahtani S, 2012, APPL LINGUIST, V33, P42, DOI 10.1093/applin/amr031 Atkinson J. Maxwell, 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC Barkaoui K, 2010, LANG ASSESS Q, V7, P54, DOI 10.1080/15434300903464418 Bond T. G., 2007, APPL RASCH MODEL Brennan RL, 2013, J EDUC MEAS, V50, P74, DOI 10.1111/jedm.12001 Brown A., 2003, LANG TEST, V20, P1, DOI 10.1191/0265532203lt242oa Brown JD, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P198, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.026 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Celce-Murcia M, 2007, INTERCULTURAL LANGUAGE USE AND LANGUAGE LEARNING, P41, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-5639-0_3 Celce-Murcia M.A., 1995, ISSUES APPL LINGUIST, V6, P5 Chapelle C. A., 2010, ED MEASUREMENT ISSUE, V29, P3, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1745-3992.2009.00165.X Chapelle CA, 2012, LANG TEST, V29, P19, DOI 10.1177/0265532211417211 Davis L, 2009, LANG TEST, V26, P367, DOI 10.1177/0265532209104667 Drew P., 1992, TALK WORK INTERACTIO Eckes T., 2011, INTRO MANY FACET RAS Wigglesworth G., 2011, LANG TEST, V29, P345, DOI DOI 10.1177/0265532211424479 Fulcher G., 1996, LANG TEST, V13, P208, DOI DOI 10.1177/026553229601300205 Fulcher G, 2011, LANG TEST, V28, P5, DOI 10.1177/0265532209359514 Galaczi ED, 2008, LANG ASSESS Q, V5, P89, DOI 10.1080/15434300801934702 Gan ZD, 2010, LANG TEST, V27, P585, DOI 10.1177/0265532210364049 Golato A, 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/24.1.90 Grabowski K. C., 2009, THESIS COLUMBIA U US Heritage J., 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P299, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09780511665868 Hudson T., 1992, 2 U HAW 2 LANG TEACH Hudson Thom, 1995, 7 U HAW 2 LANG TEACH Kane MT, 2013, J EDUC MEAS, V50, P1, DOI 10.1111/jedm.12000 KANE MT, 1992, PSYCHOL BULL, V112, P527, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.527 Kane Michael, 2006, ED MEASUREMENT, P17 Kasper G., 2013, ASSESSING 2 LANGUAGE Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kasper G., 2013, ASSESSING 2 LANGUAGE, P1 Kasper G., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P281 Kasper G, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P2045, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.011 Knoch U, 2009, LANG TEST, V26, P275, DOI 10.1177/0265532208101008 Kuiken F, 2014, LANG TEST, V31, P279, DOI 10.1177/0265532214526179 Lazaraton A., 2002, QUALITATIVE APPROACH Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Linacre J.M., 2002, J APPL MEASUREMENT, V3, P484 Linacre J. M., 2012, MANY FACET RASCH MEA Linacre J. M., 2006, FACETS RASCH MEASURE Liu J., 2007, LANG TEST, V24, P391 Lunz M., 1990, APPLIED MEASUREMENT, V3, P331, DOI 10.1207/s15324818ame0304_3 May L, 2011, LANG ASSESS Q, V8, P127, DOI 10.1080/15434303.2011.565845 May L, 2009, LANG TEST, V26, P397, DOI 10.1177/0265532209104668 McNamara T., 1996, MEASURING 2 LANGUAGE McNamara TF, 1997, APPL LINGUIST, V18, P446 Okada Y, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1647, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.002 Pomerantz Anita, 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P57, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511665868 Pomerantz Anita, 2013, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P210 Roever C., 2006, LANG TEST, V23, P229, DOI 10.1191/0265532206lt329oa Roever C, 2011, LANG TEST, V28, P463, DOI 10.1177/0265532210394633 Sacks H., 1992, LECT CONVERSATION 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 Schumacker R E, 1999, J Outcome Meas, V3, P323 Searle John R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH Searle John R., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P59 Seedhouse P., 2004, INTERACTIONAL ARCHIT Taylor L, 2009, LANG TEST, V26, P325, DOI 10.1177/0265532209104665 Teddlie C., 2006, RES SCH, V13, P12 THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Timpe V., 2014, ASSESSING INTERCULTU Turner CE, 2002, TESOL QUART, V36, P49, DOI 10.2307/3588360 Upshur J. A., 1999, LANG TEST, V16, P82, DOI DOI 10.1177/026553229901600105 Walters FS, 2009, TESOL QUART, V43, P29 Walters F. S., 2007, LANG TEST, V24, P155, DOI DOI 10.1177/0265532207076362 Xi XM, 2011, LANG LEARN, V61, P1222, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00667.x Youn S. J., 2010, NEEDS ANAL ASSESSMEN Young R., 2008, LANGUAGE INTERACTION Young Richard, 1998, TALKING TESTING DISC Chapelle CA, 2008, ESL APPL LING PROF, P1 NR 71 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 3 U2 10 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 0265-5322 EI 1477-0946 J9 LANG TEST JI Lang. Test. PD APR PY 2015 VL 32 IS 2 BP 199 EP 225 DI 10.1177/0265532214557113 PG 27 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CE5CO UT WOS:000351848000004 ER PT J AU Jucker, AH Landert, D AF Jucker, Andreas H. Landert, Daniela TI Historical pragmatics and early speech recordings Diachronic developments in turn-taking and narrative structure in radio talk shows SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Historical pragmatics; Early speech recordings; Diachrony of spoken language; Turn-taking; Radio; Desert Island Discs AB In this study we analyse diachronic developments in some of the details of the turn-taking system (turn length, question intonation, hesitation markers) and the role they play in the narrative structures of conversations. Our investigation is based on audio recordings of a popular BBC Radio 4 talk show programme "Desert Island Discs". These recordings have recently become available as a collection of podcasts reaching back to the 1950s. The early recordings are styled as interviews in a question answer format. In more recent years, however, the presenter and the celebrity are more likely to cooperate in their different roles to jointly produce a narrative. The presenter brings in a larger amount of background knowledge on the details of the celebrity's life, which the audience may or may not share, and encourages the celebrity to pick up the narrative and continue the story. This overall change from an interview format to the format of a shared narrative is reflected in the minute details of the turn-taking system with differences in turn length and the use of question intonation and hesitation markers. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Jucker, Andreas H.] Univ Zurich, English Linguist, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland. [Jucker, Andreas H.] Univ Zurich, Fac Arts & Social Sci, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland. [Landert, Daniela] Univ Zurich, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland. RP Jucker, AH (reprint author), Univ Zurich, Dept English, Plattenstr 47, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland. EM ahjucker@es.uzh.ch; daniela.landert@es.uzh.ch OI Jucker, Andreas H./0000-0003-3495-2213 CR Clark HH, 2002, COGNITION, V84, P73, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3 Du Bois J. W., 1991, PRAGMATICS, V1, P71 Fairclough Norman, 1995, MEDIA DISCOURSE Fairclough N., 1992, DISCOURSE SOCIAL CHA Hayano K., 2013, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P395 Hundt Marianne, 1999, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V4, P221, DOI [10.1075/ijc1.4.2.02hun, DOI 10.1075/IJCL.4.2.02HUN] Jucker A. H., 1986, NEWS INTERVIEWS PRAG Jucker Andreas H., 2015, DEV ENGLISH EXPANDIN Jucker Andreas H., 2013, ENGLISH HIST PRAGMAT Koch Peter, 2011, GESPROCHENE SPRACHE Koch P., 1999, HIST DIALOGUE ANAL, P399, DOI [10.1075/pbns.66.16koc, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.66.16K0C] Kyto Merja, 2010, HIST PRAGMATICS, P33 Landert D, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1422, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.016 Linke Angelika, 2000, INFORMALISIERUNG ENT, V3, P66 Magee Sean, 2012, DESERT ISLAND DISCS Mair Christian, 2008, ENGLISH ACAD CATALYS, P91 Plomley Roy, 1975, DESERT ISLAND DISCS Seppanen Eeva-Leena, 2003, DIACHRONIC PERSPECTI, V107, P375 Seppanen Eeva-Leena, 1998, TAMA TUO SE JA HAN V Stenstrom Anna-Brita, 2011, PRAGMATICS SOC, V5, P537 Stenstrom A.-B., 1984, QUESTIONS RESPONSES Stivers T, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2772, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 [Anonymous], 2007, METHODS HIST PRAGMAT, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110197822.11 Young Kirsty, 2012, DESERT ISLAND DISCS, pvi NR 24 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 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 APR PY 2015 VL 79 BP 22 EP 39 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.010 PG 18 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CE2KP UT WOS:000351644800002 ER PT J AU Mazzarella, D AF Mazzarella, Diana TI Politeness, relevance and scalar inferences SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Scalar inference; Face threat; Politeness; Relevance Theory ID IMPLICATURES AB Recent behavioural studies in experimental pragmatics investigate the effect of contextual manipulations on the derivation of scalar inferences (e.g. Not all X-ed inferred from an utterance of 'Some X-ed'). Among these, Bonnefon et al. (2009) and Feeney and Bonnefon (2012) suggest that scalar inferences are less likely to be derived in face-threatening contexts. Indeed, they even suggest that a face-threatening utterance of the form 'Some X-ed' can be interpreted as communicating that All X-ed. This paper argues that the experimental evidence provided so far is compatible with two alternative explanations of the empirical data: (i) face-threatening contexts block the derivation of scalar inferences, or (ii) in face-threatening contexts the scalar inference is in fact derived as part of the intended interpretation but is less likely to be accepted (as true). Drawing on the theoretical distinction between 'comprehension' and 'acceptance' of the communicated content (Sperber et al., 2010), the paper,proposes an analysis of the results in light of Relevance Theory. In line with (ii), Relevance Theory predicts that in face-threatening contexts the scalar inference Not all X-ed may be derived as part of the interpretation of the utterance but consideration of the communicator's 'preferences' (e.g. her concern to be polite/kind) may lead the hearer to judge the scalar inference to be probably false and so to reject it. In such a case, the hearer may go on to infer that the reality is that All X-ed but not attribute this to the speaker as part of the intended meaning of the utterance. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 UCL, Div Psychol & Language Sci, Dept Linguist, London WC1N 1PF, England. RP Mazzarella, D (reprint author), UCL, Div Psychol & Language Sci, Dept Linguist, Chandler House,Room 102,2 Wakefield St, London WC1N 1PF, England. EM diana.mazzarella.11@ucl.ac.uk FU Leverhulme Trust [F/07 134/DP] FX I am grateful to Robyn Carston for her valuable guidance and insightful discussions about the content of this paper. Thanks also to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. This work is supported by the Leverhulme Trust (Ref: F/07 134/DP). CR Austin J. L., 1962, DO THINGS WORDS Bonnefon JF, 2009, COGNITION, V112, P249, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.005 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 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Carston Robyn, 1998, RELEVANCE THEORY APP, P179 Carston Robyn, 1990, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V2, P1 Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Chierchia Gennaro, 2012, HDB SEMANTICS, V3, P2297 Chierchia Gennaro, 2004, CARTOGRAPHY SYNTACTI, V3, P39 Cummins Chris, 2012, LINGUA, V132, P103 Feeney Aidan, 2012, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V32, P181 Geurts Bart, 2011, QUANTITY IMPLICATURE Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS GRICE HP, 1957, PHILOS REV, V66, P377, DOI 10.2307/2182440 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3 Hirschberg Julia, 1985, THESIS U PENNSYLVANI Horn L., 1972, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Horn L.R., 1984, MEANING FORM USE CON, P11 Jackendoff R., 1972, SEMANTIC INTERPRETAT Katsos Napoleon, 2008, SYNTHESE, V165, P358 Katsos N., 2005, P 27 ANN C COGN SCI, P1108 Lee JJ, 2010, PSYCHOL REV, V117, P785, DOI 10.1037/a0019688 Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Mazzarella D., 2013, UCL WORK PAP LINGUIS, V25, P20 Noveck I. A., 2007, ADV PRAGMATICS, P184 Robbins JM, 2005, PERS SOC PSYCHOL REV, V9, P32, DOI 10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_3 Sauerland U, 2004, LINGUIST PHILOS, V27, P367, DOI 10.1023/B:LING.0000023378.71748.db Saul Jennifer M., 2012, LYING MISLEADING WHA Sperber Dan, 1987, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber D, 2010, MIND LANG, V25, P359 Wilson D., 2004, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V16, P343 NR 32 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 4 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 APR PY 2015 VL 79 BP 93 EP 106 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.016 PG 14 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CE2KP UT WOS:000351644800007 ER PT J AU Durst-Andersen, P Lorentzen, E AF Durst-Andersen, Per Lorentzen, Elena TI Russian sentence adverbials: classification, orientation and representation SO RUSSIAN LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID SPEECH ACTS AB In this article sentence adverbials (SA) in Russian are analyzed in their totality, i.e. from a lexical, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic point of view. They are classified according to Hare's three utterance components, which yields (1) neustic, (2) tropic and (3) phrastic SAs. These components are used to represent semantic paraphrases of Russian SAs in utterances from various types of discourse in order to show their exact contribution to the meaning conveyed by the entire utterance. They are further subdivided according to their function: (1) into connectives and non-connectives; (2) into attitudinal and modal SAs; and (3) into temporal and areal SAs. It is demonstrated that many adverbials consist of micro-groups involving three and only three members, in which one is first person oriented, the other is second person oriented and the last one is third person oriented. This indicates that when making utterances Russians have to base them on the previous discourse in one way or the other. This paper focusses on a specificity of the Russian language-the system of modal adverbials that reflect a division between external and internal reality. We end the examination by discussing the function of word order in connection with more than one SA in an utterance. C1 [Durst-Andersen, Per] Copenhagen Business Sch, Copenhagen, Denmark. [Lorentzen, Elena] Univ Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. RP Durst-Andersen, P (reprint author), Copenhagen Business Sch, Copenhagen, Denmark. EM pd.ibc@cbs.dk; elena.lorentzen@hum.ku.dk CR Anikin A. I., 1956, RUSSKIJ JAZYK SKOLE, V4, P22 Apresjan Jurij D., 1995, IZBRANNYE T Apresjan Ju. D., 2004, NOVYJ OB JASNITELNYJ, V60 Apresjan V. Ju., 1999, VOPROSY YAZYKOZNANIY, V5, P24 Arutjunova N. D., 1990, REV ETUDES SLAVES, V62, P15 Arutjunova N. D., 2000, JAZYK JAZYKE, P437 Austin J. L., 1965, DO THINGS WORDS W JA Banfield Ann, 1982, UNSPEAKABLE SENTENCE Baranov A. N., 1994, VOPROSY JAZYKOZNANIJ, V4, P114 Barnetova V., 1979, RUSSKAJA GRAMMATIKA, V1-2 Belova V. M., 2011, THESIS VOLOGDA Boguslavskij Igor' M., 1996, SFERA DEJSTVIJA LEKS Buglak S. I., 1990, RUSSKIJ JAZYK SKOLE, V2, P82 Bulygina T. V., 1987, NAUCNO TECHNICESKAJA, V10, P23 Bulygina T. V., 1993, LOGICESKIJ ANALIZ JA, P78 Burceva V. V., 2005, SLOVAR NARECIJ SLUZE Burkhardt D., 1999, BEITRAGE EUROPAISCHE, V2, P83 Cernysev V. I., 1948, SLOVAR SOVREMENNOGO, V1-17 Daiber T, 2010, Z SLAWISTIK, V55, P69, DOI 10.1524/slaw.2010.0004 DUCROT O., 1989, LOGIQUE STRUCTURE EN Durst-Andersen P., 1995, VOPROSY JAZYKOZNANIJ, V6, P30 Durst-Andersen P., 1996, J SLAVIC LINGUISTICS, V4, P177 Durst-Andersen P., 1992, MENTAL GRAMMAR RUSSI DURSTANDERSEN P, 1995, LINGUIST PHILOS, V18, P611, DOI 10.1007/BF00983300 Durst-Andersen Per, 2005, MODALITY, P215 DurstAndersen P, 2011, SEMIOT COMMUN COGNIT, V6, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110253153 Efremova T. F., 2000, NOVYJ SLOVAR RUSSKOG, V1-2 Evgen'eva A. P., 1981, SLOVAR RUSSKOGO JAZY, V1-4 Evtjuxin V. B., 1979, THESIS LENINGRAD Filipenko Marina V., 2003, SEMANTIKA NARECIJ AD Filipenko M. V., 1998, SEMIOTIKA INFORMATIK, V36, P120 Gerd A. S., 2004, BOLSOJ AKADEMICESKIJ Sidney Greenbaum, 1969, STUDIES ENGLISH ADVE Grenoble LA, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P1953, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.02.008 Grenoble Lenore A., 1998, DEIXIS INFORM PACKAG Grigorenko M. Ju., 2011, THESIS BELGOROD Hare Richard M., 1949, MIND, V58, P21, DOI DOI 10.1093/MIND/LVIII.229.21 HARE RM, 1970, PHILOS REV, V79, P3, DOI 10.2307/2184066 Janko Tat'jana E., 2001, KOMMUNIKATIVNYE STRA Kamju R., 1992, PROBLEMY INTENSIVNOG, P52 Kiseleva K., 2003, DISKURSIVNYE SLOVA R, P27 Kjul'moja I. P., 1997, T RUSSKOJ SLAVJANSKO, P122 Kolodeznev V. M., 1969, RUSSKIJ JAZYK SKOLE, V1, P90 Kopotev M. V., 2014, RUSSKIJ JAZYK GRAMMA, VX, P712 Kozinceva N. A., 2000, PROBLEMY FUNKCIONALN, P226 Kozinceva N. A., 2007, EVIDENCIALNOST JAZYK Kuznecov S. A., 2001, BOLSOJ TOLKOVYJ SLOV Letucij A. B., 2008, LEXIKALISCHE EVIDENZ, V72, P215 Levin-Steinmann A., 1997, LINGUISTISCHE BEITRA, P207 Levontina I. B., 2011, P 5 INT C MEAN TEXT, P165 Levontina I. B., 2010, VYPUSK, V9, P284 Lopatin V. V., 1994, RUSSKIJ TOLKOVYJ SLO Lorentcen E., 2012, SCANDO SLAVICA, V58, P195 Maier I., 1994, SLOVO, V43, P39 Markasova E. V., 2009, POETS PADONKI LINGUI, P80 Mordasova T. P., 2005, THESIS LIPECK Mukovozova T. I., 2002, THESIS MOSKVA Norgard-Sorensen J., 1992, COHERENCE THEORY CAS Otin E. S., 1966, RUSSKIJ JAZYK SKOLE, V1, P51 Ovsjannikova S. A., 2000, THESIS MOSKVA Ozegov S. I., 1997, TOLKOVYJ SLOVAR RUSS Paduceva E. V., 2011, ISVESTIJA RAN SERIJA, V70 Paduceva E. V., 2010, SEMANTICESKIE ISSLED Paillard D., 1994, REV ETUDES SLAVES, V66, P627 Pajar D., 2003, DISKURSIVNYE SLOVA R, P27 Pankov F. I., 2009, THESIS MOSKVA Pen'kovskij A. B., 2004, OCERKI RUSSKOJ SEMAN Perfil'eva N. P., 1991, SEMANTICESKIJ PRAGMA, P86 Perfil'eva N. P., 1992, MODALNOST EE SVJAZJA, P121 Plungjan V. A., 2008, LEXIKALISCHE EVIDENZ, V72, P285 Rakhilina E. V., 1996, ENONCIATION MEDIATIS, P299 Rogoznikova R. P., 2003, TOLKOVYJ SLOVAR SOCE Rudnickaja E. L., 1994, VOPROSY JAZYKOZNANIJ, V1, P114 Savelova L. A., 2009, THESIS ARXANGELSK Sestuxina I. Ju., 2009, THESIS BARNAUL Sicinava D. V., 2011, MAT PROEKTA KORPUSNO Svedova N. Ju., 1980, RUSSKAJA GRAMMATIKA, V1 [Anonymous], 1989, KRATKAJA RUSSKAJA GR Svedova Natalija Ju, 1980, RUSSKAJA GRAMMATIKA, V2 Vinogradov V. V., 1952, SOVREMENNYJ RUSSKIJ Vinogradov V. V., 2001, RUSSKIJ JAZYK GRAMMA Vinokurova M. A., 2004, THESIS BARNAUL Wade T., 2011, COMPREHENSIVE RUSSIA Wiemer B., 2008, LEXIKALISCHE EVIDENZ, V72, P335 Wiemer Bjorn, 2010, LINGUISTIC REALIZATI, P59 Zolotova G. A., 1998, KOMMUNIKATIVNAJA GRA NR 86 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 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 APR PY 2015 VL 39 IS 1 BP 33 EP 62 DI 10.1007/s11185-014-9139-9 PG 30 WC Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CD7BB UT WOS:000351244100003 ER PT J AU De Carli, F Dessi, B Mariani, M Girtler, N Greco, A Rodriguez, G Salmon, L Morelli, M AF De Carli, Fabrizio Dessi, Barbara Mariani, Manuela Girtler, Nicola Greco, Alberto Rodriguez, Guido Salmon, Laura Morelli, Mara TI Language use affects proficiency in Italian-Spanish bilinguals irrespective of age of second language acquisition SO BILINGUALISM-LANGUAGE AND COGNITION LA English DT Article DE bilingualism; language control; Critical Period Hypothesis; language use; pragmatics ID PARKINSONS-DISEASE; LEXICAL DECISION; NATIVE-LANGUAGE; BRAIN; REPRESENTATION; CONSTRAINTS; TASK; FMRI; 1ST; VARIABILITY AB The role of age of acquisition (AoA) in reaching native-like proficiency in second language is controversial. The existence of a critical period and the effect of AoA have been questioned by studies testing lexical and/or morphosyntactic skills, and by functional brain exploration. The aim of this study was to verify the effect of AoA and language practice on proficiency in a bilingual pragmatic task and its relationship with cognitive skills. The study involved a group of Italian-Spanish bilinguals, classified according to their AoA and language use. All participants performed a pragmatic bilingual test and a battery of cognitive tests. A multivariate analysis showed significant effects of language use and cognitive skills and a non-significant effect of AoA. These results indicate that continued language practice is a major factor influencing high bilingual proficiency, irrespective of AoA, suggesting that proficiency may be weakened when bilingual experience becomes occasional or ceases. C1 [De Carli, Fabrizio] CNR, Inst Mol Bioimaging & Physiol, Genoa, Italy. [Dessi, Barbara; Mariani, Manuela; Girtler, Nicola; Rodriguez, Guido] Univ Genoa, Dept Neurosci Rehabil Ophthalmol Genet Maternal &, I-16126 Genoa, Italy. [Mariani, Manuela; Salmon, Laura; Morelli, Mara] Univ Genoa, Dept Modern Languages & Cultures, I-16126 Genoa, Italy. [Girtler, Nicola] IRCCS AUO San Martino IST, Clin Psychol & Psychotherapy Unit, Genoa, Italy. [Greco, Alberto] Univ Genoa, Dept Educ Sci, Lab Psychol & Cognit Sci, I-16126 Genoa, Italy. RP De Carli, F (reprint author), CNR, Inst Mol Bioimaging & Physiol, Via Toni 5, I-16132 Genoa, Italy. EM f.decarli@ibfm.cnr.it RI De Carli, Fabrizio/F-8208-2013 OI De Carli, Fabrizio/0000-0002-1841-5146 FU Genoa University FX The study reported in this paper was funded by a grant from Genoa University (projects selection 2007). The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions which helped to improve the manuscript. They also thank Frances I. Evans Mariani and Jennifer Accardo for their valuable assistance with manuscript editing. CR Abrahamsson N, 2009, LANG LEARN, V59, P249, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00507.x Abutalebi J, 2009, BRAIN LANG, V109, P51, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2009.04.001 Abutalebi J, 2008, ACTA PSYCHOL, V128, P466, DOI 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.03.014 Albert MS, 2011, NEUROBIOL AGING, V32, pS58, DOI 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2011.09.010 ANNETT M, 1970, BRIT J PSYCHOL, V61, P303 BANKS MS, 1975, SCIENCE, V190, P675, DOI 10.1126/science.1188363 Barbarotto R, 1998, ITAL J NEUROL SCI, V19, P161, DOI 10.1007/BF00831566 Beck AT, 1996, J PERS ASSESS, V67, P588, DOI 10.1207/s15327752jpa6703_13 Bialystok E., 1999, BILING-LANG COGN, V2, P127, DOI 10.1017/S1366728999000231 Birdsong D, 2001, J MEM LANG, V44, P235, DOI 10.1006/jmla.2000.2750 Birdsong D, 2006, LANG LEARN, V56, P9, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00353.x Consonni M, 2013, CORTEX, V49, P1252, DOI 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.04.009 Costa A, 1999, J MEM LANG, V41, P365, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1999.2651 Craik FIM, 2010, NEUROLOGY, V75, P1726, DOI 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181fc2a1c Daw NW, 2009, J PHYSIOL-LONDON, V587, P2769, DOI 10.1113/jphysiol.2009.170001 Dehaene S, 1997, NEUROREPORT, V8, P3809, DOI 10.1097/00001756-199712010-00030 Fabbro F, 2001, BRAIN LANG, V79, P211, DOI 10.1006/brln.2001.2481 Fabbro F, 2000, J NEUROL NEUROSUR PS, V68, P650, DOI 10.1136/jnnp.68.5.650 Festman J., 2010, BEHAV BRAIN FUNCT, V6, P1, DOI DOI 10.1186/1744-9081-6-5 Flege JE, 1999, J MEM LANG, V41, P78, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1999.2638 FrenckMestre C, 1997, J MEM LANG, V37, P481, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1997.2526 Fusco M. A., 1995, INTERPRETERS NEWSLET, V6, P93 Geyer A, 2011, J NEUROLINGUIST, V24, P338, DOI 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.005 Green DW, 2003, LEXICON SYNTAX INTER, P197 Green D. W., 1998, BILING-LANG COGN, V1, P67, DOI [10.1017/S1366728998000133, DOI 10.1017/S1366728998000133] Grosjean F., 1998, BILING-LANG COGN, V1, P131, DOI DOI 10.1017/S136672899800025X Gurd JM, 2003, NEUROIMAGE, V20, pS50, DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.022 Hartsuiker RJ, 2008, ACTA PSYCHOL, V128, P413, DOI 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.05.001 Hernandez AE, 2007, PSYCHOL BULL, V133, P638, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.638 Hervais-Adelman A. G., 2011, FRONT PSYCHOL, V2, P1, DOI [DOI 10.3389/FPSYG.2011.00234, 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00234] Hilchey MD, 2011, PSYCHON B REV, V18, P625, DOI 10.3758/s13423-011-0116-7 HYLTENSTAM K, 1993, PROGRESSION & REGRESSION IN LANGUAGE, P222 Johari K, 2013, J NEUROLINGUIST, V26, P22, DOI 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.02.004 Johnson JJ, 1989, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V1, P60, DOI DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0 Klein D, 1999, NEUROREPORT, V10, P2841, DOI 10.1097/00001756-199909090-00026 Kotz SA, 2009, BRAIN LANG, V109, P68, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.06.002 Kroll J. F., HDB BILINGUALISM PSY Lenneberg E. H., 1967, BIOL FDN LANGUAGE Litvan I, 2011, MOVEMENT DISORD, V26, P1814, DOI 10.1002/mds.23823 Long M. H., 2005, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V43, P287, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2005.43.4.287 Lorenzen B, 2008, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V17, P299, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2008/026) Marian V, 2003, BRAIN LANG, V86, P70, DOI 10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00535-7 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 Meguro K., 2003, PSYCHOGERIATRICS, V3, P63, DOI 10.1046/j.1479-8301.2003.00011.x Miyashita Y, 2004, SCIENCE, V306, P435, DOI 10.1126/science.1101864 Morgan-Short K, 2012, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V24, P933, DOI 10.1162/jocn_a_00119 Morrison CM, 2000, BRIT J PSYCHOL, V91, P167, DOI 10.1348/000712600161763 Nelson PT, 2012, J NEUROPATH EXP NEUR, V71, P362, DOI 10.1097/NEN.0b013e31825018f7 NISSEN MJ, 1987, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V19, P1, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(87)90002-8 NOVELLI G, 1986, Archivio di Psicologia Neurologia e Psichiatria, V47, P477 Pakulak E, 2011, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V23, P2752, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2010.21586 Paradis M, 2009, STUD BILINGUAL, V40, P1 Paradis M, 2004, NEUROLINGUISTIC THEO Park HRP, 2012, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V50, P688, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.01.005 Penfield W., 1959, SPEECH BRAIN MECH Perani D, 1998, BRAIN, V121, P1841, DOI 10.1093/brain/121.10.1841 Perani D, 2003, HUM BRAIN MAPP, V19, P170, DOI 10.1002/hbm.10110 Phillips NA, 2004, J NEUROLINGUIST, V17, P237, DOI 10.1016/S0911-6044(03)00055-1 Picconi B, 2012, ADV EXP MED BIOL, V970, P553, DOI 10.1007/978-3-7091-0932-8_24 POTTER MC, 1984, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V23, P23, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90489-4 Prior A, 2010, BILING-LANG COGN, V13, P253, DOI 10.1017/S1366728909990526 Proverbio AM, 2002, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V14, P994, DOI 10.1162/089892902320474463 Riehl CM, 2010, WIRES COGN SCI, V1, P750, DOI 10.1002/wcs.74 Rossi S, 2006, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V18, P2030, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.2030 Segalowitz N., 2011, ROUTLEDGE HDB 2 LANG, P179 Setton R., 1999, SIMULTANEOUS INTERPR Singleton D., 2005, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V43, P269, DOI 10.1515/iral.2005.43.4.269 Ullman MT, 2001, NAT REV NEUROSCI, V2, P717, DOI 10.1038/35094573 Van Assche E, 2009, PSYCHOL SCI, V20, P923, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02389.x WHITE L, 1996, 2 LANGUAGE RES, V0012 Zanini S, 2004, J NEUROL NEUROSUR PS, V75, P1678, DOI 10.1136/jnnp.2003.018507 Zanini S, 2010, BRAIN LANG, V113, P84, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.01.005 Zanini S, 2011, CLIN LINGUIST PHONET, V25, P553, DOI 10.3109/02699206.2011.566464 Zied KM, 2004, BRAIN COGNITION, V54, P254, DOI 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.02.036 NR 75 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 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 APR PY 2015 VL 18 IS 2 SI SI BP 324 EP 339 DI 10.1017/S1366728914000054 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CD4MQ UT WOS:000351057500015 ER PT J AU Muller, S AF Mueller, Sonja TI DERIVING ISLAND CONSTRAINTS WITH SEARLE AND GRICE. A PRAGMATIC ACCOUNT OF BRIDGE VERBS SO STUDIA LINGUISTICA LA English DT Article ID PRESUPPOSITION; QUESTIONS; ENGLISH AB This paper proposes a pragmatic account of restrictions on extractions from that-complement clauses. For that-complements, it is well known that their transparancy for extraction gets influenced by the matrix verb selecting them: So-called bridge verbs allow extraction from their complement, non-bridge verbs do not. Analysing the different context changes induced by the extraction constructions, an account is developed which proves a violation of very basic pragmatic principles (Searle's 1969 felicity conditions for questions and Grice's 1975 Cooperative Principle (plus Conversational Maxims)) under the occurrence of the negatively influencing factive, implicative and manner-of-speaking verbs. Evidence for an account of this nature in general as well as the particular one proposed in this paper comes from the observation that manipulating contextual factors in the shape of subtypes of the illocutionary force, the questions' intentions and intonational patterns has an impact on the structures' acceptability. C1 Univ Bielefeld, Fac Linguist & Literary Studies, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany. RP Muller, S (reprint author), Univ Bielefeld, Fac Linguist & Literary Studies, Box 10 01 31, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany. EM sonja.mueller@uni-bielefeld.de CR ABRUSAN M., NATURAL LAN IN PRESS ABRUSAN M., 2008, THESIS MIT Adli A., 2004, GRAMMATISCHE VARIATI Bartels C., 1999, INTONATION ENGLISH S Bartsch Renate, 1973, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V27, P1 Basse Galen, 2008, P 27 W COAST C FORM, P54 Buring Daniel, 1997, MEANING TOPIC FOCUS Buring D, 2003, LINGUIST PHILOS, V26, P511 CAPONIGRO I., 2007, P SINN BEDEUTUNG, V11, P121 CATTELL R, 1978, LANGUAGE, V54, P61, DOI 10.2307/412999 Chomsky Noam, 1977, FORMAL SYNTAX, P71 Cinque G., 1990, TYPES A DEPENDENCIES Comorovski Ileana, 1996, INTERROGATIVE PHRASE Dayal Veneeta, 1996, LOCALITY WH QUANTIFI De Cuba Carlos, 2006, P 25 W COAST C FORM, P123 Erteschik-Shir Nomi, 2007, INFORM STRUCTURE SYN Erteschik-Shir Nomi, 1979, THEOR LINGUIST, V6, P41, DOI 10.1515/thli.1979.6.1-3.41 ERTESCHIK-SHIR N., 2006, BLACKWELL COMPANION, V1, P284 Erteschik-Shir Nomi, 1997, DYNAMICS FOCUS STRUC Erteschik-Shir Nomi, 1973, THESIS MIT Fanselow Gisbert, 1987, KONFIGURATIONALITAT Farkas Donka, 2009, J SEMANTICS IN PRESS FARKAS D., 1992, 20 LING S ROM LANG, P69 Farkas Donka, 2003, ESSLLI COND UNC MOD Fery Caroline, 1993, GERMAN INTONATIONAL Franck D., 1980, GRAMMATIK KONVERSATI Fukui N., 1986, THESIS MIT Gajewski Jon, 2008, L TRIVIALITY GRAMMAR GAJEWSKI J., 2002, ANAL NATURAL L UNPUB Giannakidou Anastasia, 1998, POLARITY SENSITIVITY Grewendorf Gunther, 1988, ASPEKTE DTSCH SYNTAX Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 GROENENDIJK J, 1982, LINGUIST PHILOS, V5, P175 Groenendijk J., 1984, VARIETIES FORMAL SEM, P143 Groenendijk J., 1997, HDB LOGIC LANGUAGE, P1055, DOI 10.1016/B978-044481714-3/50024-2 Gunlogson C, 2003, TRUE FORM RISING FAL HAMBLIN CL, 1973, FOUND LANG, V10, P41 Hamblin C. L, 1958, AUSTRALAS J PHILOS, V36, P159, DOI 10.1080/00048405885200211 HEGARTY M., 1990, PAPERS WH MOVEMENT M, P101 Heim Irene, 1994, P 9 ANN C WORKSH DIS, P128 Heim Irene, 1992, J SEMANT, V9, P183, DOI DOI 10.1093/JOS/9.3.183 Higginbotham James, 1996, HDB CONT SEMANTIC TH, P361 HIGGINBOTHAM J., 1991, MIT WORKING PAPERS L, V14, P47 HIGGINBOTHAM J., 1993, FORMAL SEMANTICS ESS, P687 Higginbotham James, 1981, LINGUISTIC REV, V1, P41, DOI 10.1515/tlir.1981.1.1.41 HORN L., 1975, CLS, V11, P279 Jackendoff R., 1972, SEMANTIC INTERPRETAT Kadmon N., 2001, FORMAL PRAGMATICS SE KARTTUNEN L, 1971, LANGUAGE, V47, P340, DOI 10.2307/412084 Karttunen L, 1977, LINGUIST PHILOS, V1, P3, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF00351935 Kluender Robert, 1991, ISLAND CONSTRAINTS T, P223 Krifka M., 2001, AUDIATUR VOX SAPIENT, P287 KWON M.-J., 2005, THESIS MUNCHEN LEWIS D, 1979, J PHILOS LOGIC, V8, P339 Lohnstein H., 2000, SATZMODUS KOMPOSITIO LUUKKO-VINCHENZO L., 1988, FORMEN FRAGEN FUNKTI Mehlhorn G., 2001, LINGUISTISCHE ARBEIT, V77, P31 Muller S, 2012, TRENDS LINGUIST-STUD, V243, P147 MULLER S., 2011, UN INFORM GRAMMATIK MULLER S, 2011, EXTRAKTIONSINSELN IH Oshima DY, 2007, LECT NOTES COMPUT SC, V4384, P147 Pesetsky David, 1987, REPRESENTATION INDEF, P98 Portner P., 2005, P SEM LING THEOR, V14, P235 PUTZ H., 1975, UBER SYNTAX PRONOMIN Reich Ingo, 2003, FRAGE ANTWORT FOKUS REIS M, 1992, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V10, P79, DOI 10.1007/BF00135359 Rizzi Luigi, 2004, STRUCTURES CARTOGRAP, P223 Rizzi L., 1990, RELATIVIZED MINIMALI Roberts C, 1996, OSU WORKING PAPERS L, V49, P91 Ross John R., 1967, THESIS MIT Searle John R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH Simons M, 2007, LINGUA, V117, P1034, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.006 Stalnaker R, 2002, LINGUIST PHILOS, V25, P701, DOI 10.1023/A:1020867916902 Stalnaker Robert C., 1974, SEMANTICS PHILOS, P197 Stalnaker R., 1978, PRAGMATICS, P315 Stowell Tim, 1986, P NELS, V16, P476 Szabolcsi A., 1993, NAT LANG SEMANT, V1, P235, DOI 10.1007/BF00263545 Thurmair Maria, 1989, MODALPARTIKELN IHRE TRUCKENBRODT H., 2004, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V199, P313 Truswell Robert, 2007, THESIS U COLL LONDON Uhmann S., 1991, FOKUSPHONOLOGIE ANAL WINKLER E., 1992, Z PHONETIK SPRACHWIS, V45, P30 NR 82 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 2 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0039-3193 EI 1467-9582 J9 STUD LINGUISTICA JI Studia Linguist. PD APR PY 2015 VL 69 IS 1 BP 1 EP 57 DI 10.1111/stul.12028 PG 57 WC Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CC6SJ UT WOS:000350498100001 ER PT J AU Curtin, ML AF Curtin, Melissa L. TI Creativity in polyscriptal typographies in the linguistic landscape of Taipei SO SOCIAL SEMIOTICS LA English DT Article DE visual vernacular literacy; linguistic landscape; polyscriptal creativity AB The creative employment of language scripts and (typo)graphic design in the commercial linguistic landscape (LL) of Taipei often serves as a key social semiotic resource in indexing various frames of identity in Taiwan - including sociocultural, ethnolinguistic, and political identities. As argued by Tam, typography is a visual metalanguage that encodes verbal language and is thus "already bilingual". Multilingual and polyscriptal typographies, therefore, amplify this interaction between the verbal and the visual. Borrowing from Thurlow's research on "the three P's of creativity" in new media studies, I observe that polyscriptal typographies in Taipei's LL involve a visual "vernacular literacy" that is "often poetic, usually playful and always pragmatic" (Thurlow). Moreover, these practices are ideologically informed by social, economic, and geopolitical hierarchies which have been shaped by Taiwan's long history of migration, colonization, and globalization. Accordingly, the local vernacular literacy of polyscriptal/typographic creativity in Taipei's LL frequently entails "a fourth P," the negotiating of power relations in Taiwan's ongoing efforts to carve out spaces of identity in the interstices of Asian-Pacific and global geopolitics. C1 Univ Calif Santa Barbara, Dept Linguist, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA. RP Curtin, ML (reprint author), Univ Calif Santa Barbara, Dept Linguist, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA. EM mlcurtin@linguistics.ucsb.edu CR Belz Julie, 2002, J LANG IDENTITY EDUC, V1, P13, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327701JLIE0101_3 Blommaert J., 2005, DISCOURSE CRITICAL I COOK G, 1994, EVALUATING LANGUAGE, P102 Coupland Nikolas, 2010, SEMIOTIC LANDSCAPES, P77 Crystal D., 1998, LANGUAGE PLAY Elliman P., 1998, EYE INT REV GRAPHIC, V27, P58 Huebner T., 2006, INT J MULTILINGUALIS, V3, P31, DOI [10.1080/14790710608668384, DOI 10.1080/14790710608668384] Lamarre P., 2014, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V228, P131 Maybin J, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P497, DOI 10.1093/applin/amm036 Rao P. V., 1997, BORROWED POWER ESSAY Seargeant P., 2014, LANGUAGE SOCIAL MEDI Sherzer J., 2002, SPEECH PLAY VERBAL A Su H. -Y., 2009, J ASIAN PACIFIC COMM, V19, P313, DOI [10.1075/japc.19.2.08su, DOI 10.1075/JAPC.19.2.08SU] Tam K. C. -H., 2012, TYPOGRAPHISCHE MONAT, V4, P37 Thurlow C, 2012, DISCOURSE CREATIVITY, P169 NR 15 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 12 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 MAR 15 PY 2015 VL 25 IS 2 SI SI BP 236 EP 243 DI 10.1080/10350330.2015.1010315 PG 8 WC Humanities, Multidisciplinary; Communication; Linguistics SC Arts & Humanities - Other Topics; Communication; Linguistics GA CD3JZ UT WOS:000350975900009 ER PT J AU Ginns, P Loughland, A Tierney, RJ Fryer, L Amazan, R McCormick, A AF Ginns, Paul Loughland, Anthony Tierney, Robert J. Fryer, Luke Amazan, Rose McCormick, Alexandra TI Evaluation of the Learning to Teach for Social Justice-Beliefs Scale in an Australian context SO HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LA English DT Article DE equity; student experience; quantitative research; course evaluation ID COURSE EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE; HIGHER-EDUCATION; QUALITY; PERCEPTIONS; STUDENTS AB A concern for social justice pervades the espoused curriculum of many pre-service teaching programmes, but the extent to which that curriculum influences the beliefs students hold is an open question. With the goal of developing an instrument suitable for evaluating such beliefs at the degree programme level, the present study analysed responses to the Learning to Teach for Social Justice-Beliefs (LTSJ-B) Scale (Enterline, S., Cochran-Smith, M., Ludlow, J.H., & Mitescu, E. (2008). Learning to teach for social justice: Measuring change in the beliefs of teacher candidates. The New Educator, 4, 267-290. doi:10.1080/15476880802430361) from 304 Australian pre-service teachers. Exploratory factor analysis and Rasch analysis both indicated a two-factor structure, driven by a methodological artefact of item valence. We conclude from these findings that a short, five-item version of the LTSJ-B Scale would suitably balance psychometric and pragmatic considerations, in the broader context of working within an institutionally aligned system of teaching evaluation with multiple levels. C1 [Ginns, Paul; Loughland, Anthony; Tierney, Robert J.; Amazan, Rose; McCormick, Alexandra] Univ Sydney, Fac Educ & Social Work, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. [Fryer, Luke] Kyushu Sangyo Univ, LERC, Fukuoka, Japan. RP Ginns, P (reprint author), Univ Sydney, Fac Educ & Social Work, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. EM paul.ginns@sydney.edu.au RI Fryer, Luke K./K-4333-2016 OI Fryer, Luke K./0000-0001-6250-5950 FU University of Sydney FX The paper reports an initiative exploring social justice in teacher education the Faculty of Education and Social Work of the University under the direction of Anthony Loughland, Robert J. Tierney and Paul Ginns, with funds provided to Robert J. Tierney by the University of Sydney. It is a project growing out of a collaboration with Marilyn Cochran-Smith who was generous in her support of the project and the material that she shared. We are grateful to Professor John Richardson and Professor Keith Trigwell for feedback on an earlier version of this article, and to the two anonymous reviewers. CR Adams M., 2007, TEACHING DIVERSITY S Banks J., 1995, HDB RES MULTICULTURA, P3 Barnette JJ, 2000, EDUC PSYCHOL MEAS, V60, P361, DOI 10.1177/00131640021970592 Barrie S., 2005, ASSESS EVAL HIGH EDU, V30, P641, DOI 10.1080/02602930500260761 Ludlow Larry, 2012, EUROPEAN J ED RES, V1, P171 Connell R., 2009, CRITICAL STUDIES ED, V50, P213, DOI [10.1080/17508480902998421, DOI 10.1080/17508480902998421] CRONBACH LJ, 1951, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V16, P297, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF02310555 Dewey J., 1916, DEMOCRACY ED Dover A. G., 2013, MULTICULTURAL PERSPE, V15, P3, DOI DOI 10.1080/15210960.2013.754285 Enterline S., 2008, NEW ED, V4, P267, DOI [10.1080/15476880802430361, DOI 10.1080/15476880802430361] Freire P., 1972, PEDAGOGY OPPRESSED Ginns P, 2004, PSYCHOL REP, V95, P1023, DOI 10.2466/pr0.95.3.1023-1030 Ginns P, 2007, STUD HIGH EDUC, V32, P603, DOI 10.1080/03075070701573773 LADSONBILLINGS G, 1995, AM EDUC RES J, V32, P465, DOI 10.3102/00028312032003465 Linacre J. M., 2012, WINSTEPS RASCH MEASU Ludlow LH, 2008, MEAS EVAL COUNS DEV, V40, P194 Mislevy RJ, 1990, BILOG 3 ITEM ANAL TE Nunnally J.C., 1978, PSYCHOMETRIC THEORY Barrie S. C., 2003, STRATEGIC STAFF DEV, P191 Prosser M., 1999, UNDERSTANDING LEARNI Ramsden P., 2003, LEARNING TEACH HIGHE RAMSDEN P, 1991, STUD HIGH EDUC, V16, P129, DOI 10.1080/03075079112331382944 Richardson JTE, 2012, BRIT EDUC RES J, V38, P399, DOI 10.1080/01411926.2010.548857 Tabachnick BG, 1989, USING MULTIVARIATE S Teese R., 2003, UNDEMOCRATIC SCH EQU Thomson P., 2002, SCH RUSTBELT KIDS VELICER WF, 1976, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V41, P321, DOI 10.1007/BF02293557 Watkins M. W., 2007, SESCREE COMPUTER SOF Wilson KL, 1997, STUD HIGH EDUC, V22, P33, DOI 10.1080/03075079712331381121 Zoski KW, 1996, EDUC PSYCHOL MEAS, V56, P443, DOI 10.1177/0013164496056003006 NR 30 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 5 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0729-4360 EI 1469-8366 J9 HIGH EDUC RES DEV JI High. Educ. Res. Dev. PD MAR 4 PY 2015 VL 34 IS 2 BP 311 EP 323 DI 10.1080/07294360.2014.956701 PG 13 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CC9EO UT WOS:000350671100004 ER PT J AU Wozniak, AM AF Wozniak, Audrey M. TI River-Crabbed Shitizens and Missing Knives: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Trends in Chinese Language Use Online as a Result of Censorship SO APPLIED LINGUISTICS REVIEW LA English DT Article DE sociolinguistics; censorship; the Internet; China; pragmatics AB In today's digital age, the online public domain, particularly social networking websites, is the new frontier for the battle between censors and dissidents. This paper examines linguistic trends in the ways in which Chinese web users exploit Chinese phonology, morphology, and orthography to avoid notice by online censors through the lenses of pragmatics and critical discourse analysis. The linguistic transformations can be divided into 1) phonologically derived transformations, e.g. the well known "river crab" (hexie) in place of the word "harmony" (hexie) character suggestion (phono-orthographical) e.g. referring to former Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (Wen Jiabao) as "Teletubby" (tianxian baobao) because of the two names' shared character (bao); and 2b) character suggestion (morpho-orthographical) e.g. the made-up word (mu tian, "eye field") being substituted for (ziyou, "freedom"). Consequently, introducing multiple linguistic transformations, in particular introducing elements of foreign languages and ideograms, drastically increases the level of encoding. This paper presents examples of combination methods, including Chinese-English compound words that connote disparate yet interdependent meanings in multiple languages meanings, as well as the youth culture phenomenon of Martian language, or (huoxing wen). In characterizing the ways in which web users manipulate Chinese language, this paper aims to demonstrate that these transformation techniques are inherent to the Chinese language as well as a byproduct of the relationship between web users and censors, reflected in the encoded subversive messages heavy reliance on political and cultural references. Thus, interpreting the output strings of subversive messages requires both linguistic knowledge and social context. C1 Wellesley Coll, Wellesley, MA 02481 USA. RP Wozniak, AM (reprint author), Wellesley Coll, 106 Cent St, Wellesley, MA 02481 USA. EM audreywoz@gmail.com CR Branigan Tania, 2012, GUARDIAN China Internet Network Information Center, 2014, STAT REP INT DEV CHI Gao Jing, 2012, BEIJINGS PARANOIA CO He Jianwei, 2007, CHINA DAILY King Gary, 2013, AM POLIT SCI REV, V107, P1, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0003055413000014 MacKinnon Rebecca, 2007, RCONVERSATION Mair Victor, 2012, LANGUAGE LOG Ong Josh, 2012, TNW Sun Christine, 2006, TAIWAN COM AU 0306 Tsai Ni-Yen, 2007, THESIS U EDINBURGH VanDijk TA, 2014, DISCOURSE AND KNOWLEDGE: A SOCIOCOGNITIVE APPROACH, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781107775404 Wines M., 2010, NY TIMES Wong Edward, 2011, NY TIMES Xu Beina, 2014, MEDIA CENSORSHIP HIN Yuxia Jiang, 2008, XINHUA NEWS [Anonymous], 2013, BEIJING NEWS 1003 [Anonymous], 2014, CAIJING [Anonymous], WIKTIONARY [Anonymous], 2014, REPORTERS BORDERS 20 [Anonymous], 2012, CHINA DIGITAL TIMES [Anonymous], 2012, SINOQUEBEC COM [Anonymous], 2014, XINHUA NEWS 0807 NR 22 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 1 PU WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, D-10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1868-6311 J9 APPL LINGUIST REV JI Appl. Linguist. Rev. PD MAR PY 2015 VL 6 IS 1 BP 97 EP 120 DI 10.1515/applirev-2015-0005 PG 24 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CM6EQ UT WOS:000357781200006 ER PT J AU Ritter, S Grice, M AF Ritter, Simon Grice, Martine TI The Role of Tonal Onglides in German Nuclear Pitch Accents SO LANGUAGE AND SPEECH LA English DT Article DE Intonation; leading tone; off-ramp; on-ramp; perception; pitch accent; pragmatic meaning trailing tone AB A perception experiment with native German listeners provided evidence for the relevance of the tonal onglide in nuclear accents - the pitch movement leading towards the target on the accented syllable. Listeners were able to distinguish between two pragmatic meanings of a short phrase (given/non-contrastive and new/contrastive) using the tonal onglide as the sole acoustic cue. On the basis of these findings, we argue that the onglide merits a phonological status in an intonation model of German and should not be regarded as merely phonetic detail. C1 [Ritter, Simon; Grice, Martine] Univ Cologne, D-50931 Cologne, Germany. RP Grice, M (reprint author), Univ Cologne, Herbert Lewin Str 6, D-50931 Cologne, Germany. EM martine.grice@uni-koeln.de FU German Research Foundation [GR 1610/5] FX This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (Grant GR 1610/5 awarded to Martine Grice). CR Bates D., 2012, LME4 LINEAR MIXED EF Beckman M. E., 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH, P9 Beckman M.E., 1986, STRESS NONSTRESS ACC, V7 Boersma P., 2001, GLOT INT, V5, P341 Buring D., 2007, OXFORD HDB LINGUISTI Chen A., 2011, P 17 INT C PHON SCI, P448 Couper-Kuhlen E., 1986, INTRO ENGLISH PROSOD Cruttenden A., 1997, INTONATION Crystal D., 1969, PROSODIC SYSTEMS INT Fery Caroline, 1993, GERMAN INTONATIONAL Grabe E., 2001, IVIE LABELLING GUIDE Grice M., 2002, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V191, P267 Grice M., 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH, P55 Grice M., 1995, P INT C PHON SCI STO, P658 Grice M, 2009, LINGUA, V119, P881, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.11.013 Gussenhoven C., 2008, P 4 C SPEECH PROS CA, P609 Gussenhoven C., 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH, P118 Gussenhoven C., 2004, PHONOLOGY TONE INTON Ladd DR, 1997, J PHONETICS, V25, P313, DOI 10.1006/jpho.1997.0046 Ladd DR, 2003, J PHONETICS, V31, P81, DOI 10.1016/S0095-4470(02)00073-6 Ladd DR, 2008, CAMB STUD LINGUIST, V79, P1 Mayer Jorg, 1995, TRANSCRIPTION GERMAN Niebuhr Oliver, 2011, P 17 ICPHS HONG KONG, P120 Peirce JW, 2007, J NEUROSCI METH, V162, P8, DOI 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017 Perkell JS, 2004, J ACOUST SOC AM, V116, P2338, DOI 10.1121/1.1787524 Peters J., 2014, INTONATION Pheby J., 1975, INTONATION GRAMMATIK Pierrehumbert Janet, 1988, JAPANESE TONE STRUCT Pike Kenneth L., 1945, INTONATION AM ENGLIS R CoreTeam, 2012, R LANG ENV STAT COMP Ritter S., 2012, FIN S DFG PRIOR PROG Rohr C., 2010, P SPEECH PROS 2010, P1 Baumann Stefan, 2011, P 17 ICPHS, P1706 Schepman A, 2006, J PHONETICS, V34, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.01.004 von Essen O., 1964, GRUNDZUGE HOCHDEUTSC NR 35 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 0 U2 0 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 MAR PY 2015 VL 58 IS 1 SI SI BP 114 EP 128 DI 10.1177/0023830914565688 PG 15 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Psychology GA CI6JN UT WOS:000354865200007 PM 25935940 ER PT J AU Locher, MA Bolander, B Hohn, N AF Locher, Miriam A. Bolander, Brook Hoehn, Nicole TI INTRODUCING RELATIONAL WORK IN FACEBOOK AND DISCUSSION BOARDS SO PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Computer-mediated communication; Interpersonal pragmatics; Relational work; Politeness; Impoliteness; Linguistic identity construction; Facebook; Discussion fora ID COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION; IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION; VIRTUAL COMMUNITY; IMPOLITENESS; POLITENESS; ONLINE; DISAGREEMENTS; (IM)POLITENESS; AGREEMENTS; LANGUAGE AB This paper functions as the introduction to the special issue on 'relational work in Facebook and discussion boards'. We position our research endeavors within interpersonal pragmatics (see Locher and Graham 2010), by reviewing literature on politeness, impoliteness and relational work in the context of computer-mediated communication. Foregrounding the relational aspect of language, we are particularly interested in establishing the connections between politeness, face and linguistic identity construction. We then position the four papers that form this special issue within this field of research. Two papers contribute to the study of relational work on discussion boards (Kleinke and Boes; Haugh, Chang and Kadar) and two deal with practices on Facebook (Theodoropoulou; Bolander and Locher). C1 [Bolander, Brook] Univ Zurich, Dept English, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland. [Hoehn, Nicole] Univ Munster, Dept English, D-48143 Munster, Germany. [Locher, Miriam A.] Univ Basel, Dept English, CH-4051 Basel, Switzerland. RP Locher, MA (reprint author), Univ Basel, Dept English, Nadelberg 6, CH-4051 Basel, Switzerland. EM miriam.locher@unibas.ch; brook.bolander@es.uzh.ch; nicole.hoehn@uni-muenster.de CR Aarsand PA, 2008, TEXT TALK, V28, P147, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2008.007 Androutsopoulos J., 2008, LANGUAGE INTERNET, V5, P8 Androutsopoulos J., 2007, STYLE SOCIAL IDENTIT, P279 Androutsopoulos Jannis, 2011, DIGITAL DISCOURSE LA, P277 Androutsopoulos J, 2006, J SOCIOLING, V10, P520, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00291.x Androutsopoulos J, 2006, J SOCIOLING, V10, P419, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00286.x Angouri J, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P57, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.004 Arundale R. B., 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P137 Baym N. K., 1998, CYBER SOC, P35 Baym N. K., 1995, J COMPUTER MEDIATED, V1 Baym NK, 1996, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V29, P315, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2904_2 Bolander B., 2010, PERFORMING THE SELF, P165 Bolander Brook, 2013, LANGUAGE POWER BLOGS Bolander B, 2014, DISCOURSE CONTEXT ME, V3, P14, DOI 10.1016/j.dcm.2013.10.004 Bolander B, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1607, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.008 Heller M, 2008, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V21, P1 Bousfield D, 2008, IMPOLITENESS INTERAC Bousfield D., 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P101 boyd danah, 2007, J COMPUTER MEDIATED, V13 Brown P., 1978, QUESTIONS POLITENESS, P56 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Mary Bucholtz, 2005, DISCOURSE STUDIES, V7, P584, DOI DOI 10.1177/1461445605054407 Clarke M, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P2333, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.04.001 Cotrau Diana R., 2005, STUD U BABES BOLYAI, V3, P109 Culpeper J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P349, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 Jonathan Culpeper, 2011, IMPOLITENESS USING L Culpeper J, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P3232, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007 Danet B., 2007, MULTILINGUAL INTERNE Danet B., 1998, CYBERSOCIETY 2 0 REV, P129 Darics E, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P129, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.007 DAVIES B, 1990, J THEOR SOC BEHAV, V20, P43, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x De Fina Anna, 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P205 del-Teso-Craviotto M, 2006, J SOCIOLING, V10, P460, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00288.x DuVal Smith Anna, 1999, COMMUNITIES CYBERSPA, P134 ECKERT Penelope, 1992, LOCATING POWER, P89 Eelen Gino, 2001, CRITIQUE POLITENESS Fayard AL, 2005, J COMPUT-MEDIAT COMM, V10 FRASER B, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P219, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N Georgakopoulou Alexandra, 2011, LANGUAGE INTERNET, V8 Georgakopoulou A, 2006, J SOCIOLING, V10, P548, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00292.x Goffman Erving, 1967, INTERACTIONAL RITUAL Goffman E, 1955, PSYCHIATR, V18, P213 Goutsos Dionysis, 2005, LANGUAGE INTERNET, V2 Graham SL, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P742, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017 [Anonymous], 2008, IMPOLITENESS LANGUAG Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Halliday M., 1978, LANGUAGE SOCIAL SEMI Hardaker C, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P215, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.011 Harrison Sandra, 2000, WORDS WEB COMPUTER M, P69 Haugh M, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P7, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.002 Herring S, 1994, CULTURAL PERFORMANCES, P278 Herring S., 2000, COMPUTER PROFESSIONA, V18 Herring Susan C., 1993, ELECT J COMMUNICATIO, V3, P1 Herring S. C., 2003, HDB LANGUAGE GENDER, P202, DOI 10.1002/9780470756942.ch9 Herring S. C., 2007, LANGUAGE INTERNET, V4, P1 Herring Susan C., 2004, DESIGNING VIRTUAL CO, P338, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511805080.016 Hongladarom K., 2005, BROADENING HORIZON L, P145 Hubler M. T., 2003, Computer and Composition, V20, DOI 10.1016/S8755-4615(03)00036-7 Hymes Dell, 1974, FDN SOCIOLINGUISTICS Ifukor P, 2011, PRAGMAT SOC, V2, P109, DOI 10.1075/ps.2.1.06ifu Jones Graham, 2009, J COMPUTER MEDIATED, V14 Jones Graham M., 2011, DIGITAL DISCOURSE LA, P26 Jucker Andreas H., 2012, HDB HIST SOCIOLINGUI, P293 KIENPOINTNER Manfred, 1997, FUNCT LANG, P251, DOI 10.1075/fol.4.2.05kie KIESLER S, 1984, AM PSYCHOL, V39, P1123, DOI 10.1037//0003-066X.39.10.1123 Kleinke Sonja, 2010, DISCOURSES INTERACTI, P195 Kollock P, 1996, COMPUTER MEDIATED CO, P109 Kollock Peter, 1999, COMMUNITIES CYBERSPA Korenman J., 1996, COMPUTER MEDIATED CO, P225 Kouper I., 2010, LANGUAGE INTERNET, V7 Lachenicht LG, 1980, PAPERS LINGUISTICS I, V13, P607 Lakoff R., 1973, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V9, P292 Langlotz A, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1591, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.002 Lee C., 2011, DIGITAL DISCOURSE LA, P110 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Locher M. A., 2006, MULTILINGUA, V25, P249, DOI 10.1515/MULTI.2006.015 Bolander Brook, 2014, FACEWORK SOCIAL MEDI, P157 Locher Miriam A., 2011, SITUATED POLITENESS, P187 Locher Miriam A, 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P1 Locher Miriam A., 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P9, DOI DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2005.1.1.9 [Anonymous], 2008, IMPOLITENESS LANGUAG Locher Miriam A., 2012, ENCY APPL LINGUISTIC Locher Miriam A., 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA Locher Miriam A., 2006, TEXT TALK, V26, P67 Bolander Brook, 2015, PARTICIPATION PUBLIC, P135 Locher MA, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P1, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.001 Locher MA, 2008, HANDB APPL LINGUIST, V2, P509 Luchjenbroers J, 2011, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V7, P21, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2011.002 Maricic Ibolya, 2005, FACE CYBERSPACE FACE Mendoza-Denton N., 2002, HDB LANGUAGE VARIATI, P475 Neurater-Kessels Manuela, 2013, THESIS U ZURICH SWIT Nishimura Y, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P33, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.003 Okamoto Shigeko, 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P71 Page R, 2011, STORIES SOCIAL MEDIA Papacharissi Zizi, 2011, NETWORKED SELF IDENT Planchenault G, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P83, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.005 Rasulo M., 2008, VERBAL VISUAL NARRAT, P203 Reid E.M., 1999, COMMUNITIES CYBERSPA, P107 Rheingold Howard, 1993, VIRTUAL COMMUNITY Schiffrin D., 1994, APPROACHES DISCOURSE Schneider K. P., 2008, VARIATIONAL PRAGMATI, P1 Sifianou Maria, 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P17 Simmons Thomas L., 1994, THESIS ASHTON U BIRM Smith Christine B., 1997, J COMPUTERMEDIATED C, V2, P1 Spencer-Oatey H, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P639, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004 Spencer-Oatey H, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P635, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.003 Spencer-Oatey Helen, 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P95, DOI 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95 Stommel W., 2008, LANGUAGE INTERNET, V5 Stommel W, 2010, DISCOURSE STUD, V12, P357, DOI 10.1177/1461445609358518 Sweetser Eve E., 1987, CULTURAL MODELS LANG, P43 Tannen D., 2013, DISCOURSE 2 0 LANGUA Thurlow C., 2011, DIGITAL DISCOURSE LA Turkle S., 1995, LIFE SCREEN Upadhyay SR, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P105, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.006 Verschueren J., 1999, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMA Walther JB, 1996, COMMUN RES, V23, P3, DOI 10.1177/009365096023001001 WALTHER JB, 1992, COMMUN RES, V19, P52, DOI 10.1177/009365092019001003 Watts R., 2003, POLITENESS Watts Richard J., 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, V6, P43 Watzlawick P, 1967, PRAGMATICS HUMAN COM Weber H. L., 2011, LANGUAGE INTERNET, V8 Wenger E., 1998, COMMUNITIES PRACTICE Yus Francisco, 2011, CYBERPRAGMATICS INTE Zappavigna M, 2012, DISCOURSE TWITTER SO Zhao SY, 2008, COMPUT HUM BEHAV, V24, P1816, DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012 NR 125 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 5 U2 9 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 MAR PY 2015 VL 25 IS 1 SI SI BP 1 EP 21 PG 21 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CI7SA UT WOS:000354963500001 ER PT J AU Haugh, M Chang, WLM Kadar, DZ AF Haugh, Michael Chang, Wei-Lin Melody Kadar, Daniel Z. TI "DOING DEFERENCE": IDENTITIES AND RELATIONAL PRACTICES IN CHINESE ONLINE DISCUSSION BOARDS SO PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Deference; Face; Politeness; Impoliteness; Computer-mediated communication; Conversation analysis; Chinese; Fora ID COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION; SEQUENTIAL ORGANIZATION; HIGHER-EDUCATION; POLITENESS; (IM)POLITENESS; IMPOLITENESS; FACE; CONVERSATION; CONSTRUCTION; COMMUNITIES AB In this paper we examine a key relational practice found in interactions in online discussion boards in Mainland China and Taiwan: 'doing deference'. In drawing attention to a relational practice that has received attention in quite different research traditions, namely, linguistic pragmatics and conversation analysis (CA), we mean to highlight the possible advantages of an approach to analysis that draws from both in analysing relational work in CMC. We claim in the course of our analysis that the participants are orienting not only to relationships but also to identities through this practice. In this way, we suggest that online discussion boards afford both meaningful interaction and relational work. We further claim that this analysis provides support for the theoretical position that while relational practices may intersect with the emergence of identities, they remain distinct analytical concerns. C1 [Haugh, Michael; Chang, Wei-Lin Melody] Griffith Univ, Sch Languages & Linguist, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia. [Kadar, Daniel Z.] Univ Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, W Yorkshire, England. RP Haugh, M (reprint author), Griffith Univ, Sch Languages & Linguist, Patience Thoms N06-1-28, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia. EM m.haugh@griffith.edu.au; m.chang@griffith.edu.au; d.z.kadar@hud.ac.uk RI Haugh, Michael/H-4783-2016 OI Haugh, Michael/0000-0003-4870-0850 CR Androutsopoulos J, 2006, J SOCIOLING, V10, P419, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00286.x Antaki C., 1998, IDENTITIES TALK, P1 Arundale R. B., 1999, PRAGMATICS, V9, P119 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, 2005, LEA COMMUN SER, P41 Arundale RB, 2009, FACE, COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL INTERACTION, P33 Arundale RB, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2078, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 Brown P., 1978, QUESTIONS POLITENESS, P56 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Bunz U., 2004, COMMUNICATION RES RE, V21, P11, DOI [10.1080/08824090409359963, DOI 10.1080/08824090409359963] Chang WLM, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2948, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.009 Chang Wei-Lin M., 2013, CHINESE DISCOURSE IN, P127 Zhao Yun, 2010, CHINESE LANGUAGE DIS, V1.2, P264 Cook Haruko, 2006, MULTILINGUA, V25.3, P269, DOI 10.1515/MULTI.2006.016 DAFT RL, 1984, RES ORGAN BEHAV, V6, P191 DAFT RL, 1986, MANAGE SCI, V32, P554, DOI 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 Herring Susan C., 2003, J COMPUTER MEDIATED, V9 Danet B., 2007, MULTILINGUAL INTERNE Davies BL, 2007, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V3, P39, DOI 10.1515/PR.2007.003 de Oliveira Sandi M., 2003, J COMPUTER MEDIATED, V9.1 Dresner E, 2010, COMMUN THEOR, V20, P249, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01362.x Drew P, 1998, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V31, P295, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3103&4_2 Drew Paul, 1995, RETHINKING METHODS P, P64 Eelen Gino, 2001, CRITIQUE POLITENESS Ess Charles, 2001, ETHICAL DECISION MAK Eysenbach G, 2001, BRIT MED J, V323, P1103, DOI 10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103 Foucault Michel, 1972, ARCHAEOLOGY KNOWLEDG Georgakopoulou A, 2006, J SOCIOLING, V10, P548, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00292.x Graham SL, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P742, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017 [Anonymous], 2008, IMPOLITENESS LANGUAG GU YG, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P237, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O Harrison Sandra, 2000, WORDS WEB COMPUTER M, P69 Harrison S, 2007, INTERNET RES ANN, V4, P105 Hatipoglu C, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P760, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.014 Haugh M., 2012, CAMBRIDGE HDB PRAGMA, P251 Haugh Michael, 2014, IMPOLITENESS IMPLICA Haugh M., 2011, SITUATED POLITENESS, P165 Haugh Michael, 2015, PARTICIPATION PUBLIC, P99 Haugh Michael, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2107 Haugh Michael, 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P271 Haugh M., 2008, DISCOURSE STUDIES CU, V29, P207, DOI 10.1080/01596300801966849 Haugh M, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P7, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.002 Haugh M, 2007, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V3, P295, DOI 10.1515/PR.2007.013 Haugh M, 2009, FACE, COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL INTERACTION, P1 Haugh M, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P657, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.005 Herring S, 1994, CULTURAL PERFORMANCES, P278 Herring S., 2000, COMPUTER PROFESSIONA, V18 Herring S, 1993, ELECT J COMMUNICATIO, V3 Herring SC, 1999, INFORM SOC, V15, P151, DOI 10.1080/019722499128466 Herring Susan C., 2010, LANGUAGE INTERNET, V7 Herring S. C., 2003, HDB LANGUAGE GENDER, P202, DOI 10.1002/9780470756942.ch9 Herring S. C., 2007, LANGUAGE INTERNET, V4, P1 Herring Susan C., 2004, LANGUAGE WOMANS PLAC, P216 Herring Susan C., 2004, DESIGNING VIRTUAL CO, P338, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511805080.016 Herring SC, 2006, J SOCIOLING, V10, P439, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00287.x Holmes Janet, 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P121, DOI 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.121 Hongladarom K., 2005, BROADENING HORIZON L, P145 JEFFERSON G, 1988, SOC PROBL, V35, P418, DOI 10.1525/sp.1988.35.4.03a00070 Jones Steve, 1997, VIRTUAL CULTURE IDEN Kadar DZ, 2011, POLITENESS ACROSS CULTURES, P1 Kadar DZ, 2013, UNDERSTANDING POLITENESS, P1 Kadar Daniel Z, 2007, TERMS IMPOLITENESS S Kadar Daniel Z, 2010, HIST IMPOLITENESS, P117 KIESLER S, 1984, AM PSYCHOL, V39, P1123, DOI 10.1037//0003-066X.39.10.1123 Lakoff R., 1973, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V9, P292 Lamerichs J, 2003, NEW MEDIA SOC, V5, P451, DOI 10.1177/146144480354001 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Sorjonen Marja-Leena, 2012, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P350 Locher Miriam A., 2011, SITUATED POLITENESS, P187 Locher Miriam A., 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P9, DOI DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2005.1.1.9 Locher MA, 2006, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V149, P1 Locher MA, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P1, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.001 Locher MA, 2008, HANDB APPL LINGUIST, V2, P509 Merrison AJ, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1077, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.009 Mills Sara, 2011, POLITENESS E ASIA, P21 Mills S, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1047, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.014 Mullany Louise, 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P225 Nishimura Yukiko, 2008, LANGUAGE INTERNET, V5 Nishimura Y, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P33, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.003 Owen M., 1983, APOLOGIES REMEDIAL I Pan Y, 2011, POLITENESS HIST CONT PIIRAINEN-MARSH Arja, 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P193, DOI 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.193 Planchenault G, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P83, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.005 Pomerantz A., 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P152 Pudlinski C, 2005, DISCOURSE STUD, V7, P267, DOI 10.1177/1461445605052177 Radcliffe-Brown A.R., 1952, STRUCTURE FUNCTION P Robinson JD, 2004, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V37, P291, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_2 Schegloff EA, 2005, SOC PROBL, V52, P449, DOI 10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.449 Schegloff EA, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P462, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007 Shils E., 1982, CONSTITUTION SOC 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 Stommel W., 2008, LANGUAGE INTERNET, V5 Stubbe M, 2003, DISCOURSE STUD, V5, P351, DOI 10.1177/14614456030053004 Su His-Yao, 2003, J COMPUTER MEDIATED, V9 Su His-Yao, 2007, MULTILINGUAL INTERNE, P64 Su H. -Y., 2009, J ASIAN PACIFIC COMM, V19, P313, DOI [10.1075/japc.19.2.08su, DOI 10.1075/JAPC.19.2.08SU] Thimm C, 2008, HANDB APPL LINGUIST, V2, P331 Tsai I.-Ting, 2007, THESIS NATL SUN YAT Vandergriff I, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V51, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.008 Vinagre M, 2008, COMPUT EDUC, V50, P1022, DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.10.002 Wang YH, 2009, COMMUNICATIVE APPROA, P179 Watts R., 2003, POLITENESS Weber H. L., 2011, LANGUAGE INTERNET, V8 Wu R.-J., 2004, STANCE TALK CONVERSA [Anonymous], 2008, OXFORD ENGLISH DICT [Anonymous], BAIDU TEIBA NR 108 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 9 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 MAR PY 2015 VL 25 IS 1 SI SI BP 73 EP 98 PG 26 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CI7SA UT WOS:000354963500004 ER PT J AU Whyte, EM Nelson, KE AF Whyte, Elisabeth M. Nelson, Keith E. TI Trajectories of pragmatic and nonliteral language development in children with autism spectrum disorders SO JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION DISORDERS LA English DT Article DE Language development; Autism spectrum disorder; Pragmatic language; Theory of mind ID HIGH-FUNCTIONING AUTISM; METONYMY COMPREHENSION; RECEPTIVE VOCABULARY; ASPERGER-SYNDROME; METAPHOR; ABILITY; MIND; CONTEXT; COMMUNICATION; DIAGNOSIS AB Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often have difficulties with understanding pragmatic language and also nonliteral language. However, little is understood about the development of these two language domains. The current study examines pragmatic and nonliteral language development in 69 typically developing (TD) children and 27 children with ASD, ages 5-12 years. For both groups, performance on pragmatic language and nonliteral language scores on the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language increased significantly with chronological age, vocabulary, syntax, and theory of mind abilities both for children with ASD and TD children. Based on a cross-sectional trajectory analysis, the children with ASD showed slower rates of development with chronological age relative to TD children for both the pragmatic language and nonliteral language subtests. However, the groups did not show significant differences in the rate of development for either pragmatic language or nonliteral language abilities with regard to their vocabulary abilities or TOM abilities. It appears that children with ASD may reach levels of pragmatic language that are in line with their current levels of basic language abilities. Both basic language abilities and theory of mind abilities may aid in the development of pragmatic language and nonliteral language abilities. Learning outcomes: After reading this article, the reader will understand: (1) the relation between basic language abilities (vocabulary and syntax) and advanced language abilities (pragmatic and nonliteral language), (2) how the cross-sectional trajectory analysis differs from traditional group matching studies, and (3) how pragmatic and nonliteral language development for children with autism shows both similarities and differences compared to typically developing children. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. C1 [Whyte, Elisabeth M.; Nelson, Keith E.] Penn State Univ, University Pk, PA 16802 USA. RP Whyte, EM (reprint author), Penn State Univ, Dept Psychol, 141 Moore Bldg, University Pk, PA 16802 USA. EM emv131@psu.edu OI Whyte, Elisabeth/0000-0003-0615-0459 FU Penn State FX A liberal arts dissertation improvement award from Penn State provided funding for this research. CR American Psychological Association, 1994, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT Annaz D., 2008, CHILD NEUROPSYCHOL, P7 Annaz D, 2009, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V102, P456, DOI 10.1016/j.jecp.2008.11.005 Baron-Cohen S., 2001, J DEV LEARNING DISOR, V5, P47 Bernicot J, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P2115, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.009 Carrow-Woolfolk E., 1999, COMPREHENSIVE ASSESS Constantino J. N., 2002, SOCIAL RESPONSIVENES Dennis M, 2001, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V31, P47, DOI 10.1023/A:1005661613288 Eigsti IM, 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P1007, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0239-2 EISENMAJER R, 1991, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V9, P351 Gernsbacher MA, 2012, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V27, P93, DOI 10.1080/10926488.2012.656255 Glenwright M, 2010, J CHILD LANG, V37, P429, DOI 10.1017/S0305000909009520 HAPPE FGE, 1993, COGNITION, V48, P101, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90026-R Jarrold C, 2004, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V34, P81, DOI 10.1023/B:JADD.0000018078.82542.ab JOHNSON J, 1991, J EDUC PSYCHOL, V83, P470, DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.470 Kaufman A., 2004, KAUFMAN BRIEF INTELL Klin A., 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P748, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10803-006-0229-4 Kover ST, 2013, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V43, P2696, DOI 10.1007/s10803-013-1823-x Lam YG, 2012, RES AUTISM SPECT DIS, V6, P792, DOI 10.1016/j.rasd.2011.08.004 Le Sourn-Bissaoui S, 2011, RES AUTISM SPECT DIS, V5, P648, DOI 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.07.012 Le Sourn-Bissaoui S, 2012, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V112, P437, DOI 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.02.003 Ledbetter P. J., 1988, 1 LANGUAGE, V8, P227, DOI 10.1177/014272378800802402 Lord C., 1999, AUTISM DIAGNOSTIC OB Lord C, 2012, ARCH GEN PSYCHIAT, V69, P306, DOI 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.148 Loukusa S., 2007, FIRST LANG, V27, P296 Loukusa S, 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P1049, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0247-2 Loukusa S, 2009, RES AUTISM SPECT DIS, V3, P890, DOI 10.1016/j.rasd.2009.05.002 MacKay G., 2004, CHILD LANG TEACH THE, V20, P13, DOI 10.1191/0265659004ct261oa Mahjouri S, 2012, CURR PSYCHIAT REP, V14, P739, DOI 10.1007/s11920-012-0327-2 Martin I, 2004, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V34, P311, DOI 10.1023/B:JADD.0000029553.52889.15 McTear M. F., 1992, PRAGMATIC DISABILITY Nelson K. E., 2001, CHILDRENS LANGUAGE, V11 Nelson K. E., 2001, UNDERSTANDING THEORE Nikolaenko N. N., 2004, HUMAN PHYSL, V30, P532, DOI 10.1023/B:HUMP.0000042608.36581.3b Nippold MA, 2000, TOP LANG DISORD, V20, P15 Noens ILJ, 2005, J COMMUN DISORD, V38, P123, DOI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2004.06.002 Norbury CF, 2005, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V23, P383, DOI 10.1348/026151005X26732 Norbury CF, 2004, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V47, P1179, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/87) Reichow Brian, 2008, Commun Disord Q, V29, P169, DOI 10.1177/1525740108318697 Rundblad G, 2010, AUTISM, V14, P29, DOI 10.1177/1362361309340667 Rundblad G, 2010, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V28, P547, DOI 10.1348/026151009X454373 Ryder N, 2003, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V32, P397, DOI 10.1023/A:1024847529077 Ryder N, 2014, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V43, P45, DOI 10.1007/s10936-013-9238-6 Tager-Flusberg H, 2004, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V34, P75, DOI 10.1023/B:JADD.0000018077.64617.5a TAGERFLUSBERG H, 1991, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V32, P1123, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1991.tb00353.x Tek S, 2014, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V44, P75, DOI 10.1007/s10803-013-1853-4 Thomas MSC, 2009, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V52, P336, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0144) Volden J, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P388, DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0618-y Ortony A., 1983, CHILD DEV, V54, P154 VOSNIADOU S, 1987, METAPHOR SYMB ACT, V2, P1, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms0201_1 Whyte EM, 2014, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V57, P120, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0308) Whyte EM, 2013, AUTISM, V17, P449, DOI 10.1177/1362361311422530 WINNER E, 1976, DEV PSYCHOL, V12, P289, DOI 10.1037//0012-1649.12.4.289 Young EC, 2005, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V36, P62, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2005/006) NR 54 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 26 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 MAR-APR PY 2015 VL 54 BP 2 EP 14 DI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2015.01.001 PG 13 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA CG9WD UT WOS:000353669900002 PM 25638464 ER PT J AU Flowerdew, J AF Flowerdew, John TI Revisiting metadiscourse: Conceptual and methodological issues concerning signalling nouns SO IBERICA LA English DT Article DE metadiscourse; academic discourse; signalling nouns; corpus linguistics; genre; genre-based pedagogy ID DISCOURSE AB The concept of metadiscourse - the ways in which writers and speakers interact through their use of language with readers and listeners (also referred to as metalanguage and metaprag,matics) - has received considerable attention in applied linguistics in recent years, particularly in the study of academic discourse. Conceptualised within the applied linguistics context of developing optimal descriptions of genres as a basis for a genre-based pedagogy, this article first reviews some of the different approaches to metadiscourse, highlighting how the concept is construed in different ways by different researchers. The article then discusses a number of problematic issues in metadiscourse research: metadiscourse as textual or interpersonal; the size of the linguistic unit in metadiscourse research; the multi-functionality of metadiscourse items; and the issue of representativeness in corpus research on metadiscourse. The second part of the article focuses on the concept of signalling nouns (SNs) (abstract nouns which carry particular pragmatic meanings in discourse), a feature of discourse not usually included under the rubric of metadiscourse. It is argued, however, that SNs represent an important resource for making writers' (or speakers') intended meanings clear. In this second part of the article, a first section introduces the notion of SN and a second section discusses how SNs might be incorporated into a model of metadiscourse. A final section of the paper concludes with a summary and some comments on pedagogic application. C1 City Univ Hong Kong, Dept English, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. RP Flowerdew, J (reprint author), City Univ Hong Kong, Dept English, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. EM enjohnf@cityu.edu.hk OI flowerdew, john/0000-0003-2072-9125; Flowerdew, John/0000-0001-8745-7393 CR Adel Annelie, 2010, NORDIC J ENGLISH STU, V9, P1 Adel A., 2006, METADISCOURSE IN L1 AUSTIN JL, 1962, HOW TO DO THINGS WIT BEAUVAIS PJ, 1989, WRIT COMMUN, V6, P11, DOI 10.1177/0741088389006001002 Biber D., 1988, VARIATION ACROSS SPE Crismore A., 1989, TALKING WITH READERS CRISMORE A, 1993, WRIT COMMUN, V10, P39, DOI 10.1177/0741088393010001002 Flowerdew J, 2003, LANG COMPUT, P35 Flowerdew J., 2015, STUD ENGL LANG Flowerdew J, 2011, LANG TEACHING, V44, P516, DOI 10.1017/S026144481000042X Francis G., 1986, DISCOURSE ANALYSIS M, V11 Francis G., 1994, ADV WRITTEN TEXT ANA, P83 HARRIS ZS, 1959, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V1, P27 Hyland K., 2005, METADISCOURSE EXPLOR IVANIC R, 1991, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V29, P93, DOI 10.1515/iral.1991.29.2.93 Jacobson R., 1960, STYLE LANG, P350 Noble W., 2010, NORDIC JOURNAL OF EN, V9, P145 Perez-Llantada C., 2006, ENGLISH GLOCALIZATIO, P59 Schmid H. J, 2000, ENGLISH ABSTRACT NOU Searle JR, 1969, SPEECH ACTS Swales J.M., 2002, ACAD DISCOURSE, P150 Tognini-Bonelli E., 2001, CORPUS LINGUISTICS A Vande Kopple W. J, 2002, DISCOURSE STUDIES CO, P91 VANDEKOPPLE WJ, 1985, COLL COMPOS COMMUN, V36, P82 Verschueren Jef, 2004, METALANGUAGE SOCIAL, P53, DOI 10.1515/9783110907377.53 Williams J., 1981, STYLE TEN LESSONS IN NR 26 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 5 PU AELFE PI CASTELLO PA UNIV JAUME I, FAC CIENCIES HUMANAS & SOCIALS, DEPT ESTUDIS ANGLESOS, CAMPUS RIU SEC, S-N, CASTELLO, 12071, SPAIN SN 1139-7241 J9 IBERICA JI Iberica PD SPR PY 2015 IS 29 BP 15 EP 34 PG 20 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CG5VL UT WOS:000353363900002 ER PT J AU Charitonidis, C AF Charitonidis, Chariton TI THE MORPHOLOGY-PRAGMATICS INTERFACE IN MODERN GREEK COMPOUNDING SO POZNAN STUDIES IN CONTEMPORARY LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE Lexical semantics; morphology-pragmatics interface; socio-expressive (pragmatic) heads; evaluative compounding; Modern Greek AB This study deals with the morphology-pragmatics interface in Modern Greek compounding. The object of investigation are 64 compounds explicitly marked for stance. It is shown that the linking of denotational (semantic and/or categorial) and socio-expressive (pragmatic) heads defines the different classes of compounds in a highly restrictive manner. The threefold negative socio-expressive structure of the verbal derivatives in - (i) az(o) shows up in the compounds as well. It is concluded that, in both verbal derivation and compounding, the morphology-pragmatics interface recruits specific denotational structures for its expression. C1 [Charitonidis, Chariton] Univ Cologne, D-50923 Cologne, Germany. RP Charitonidis, C (reprint author), Univ Cologne, Engl Seminar, Albertus Magnus Pl, D-50923 Cologne, Germany. EM charitonidis@uni-koeln.de CR Allen Margaret Reece, 1978, THESIS U CONNECTICUT Anastassiadis-Simeonidis A., 1996, STUDIES MODERN GREEK, P97 Anastassiadis-Simeonidis A., 2002, REVERSE INDEX MODERN Berlin B., 1969, BASIC COLOR TERMS TH Booij G., 1992, RIV LINGUISTICA, V4, P37 Charitonidis C., 2012, 10 INT C GREEK LING, P202 Charitonidis C., 2014, RIV LINGUISTICA, V26, P9 Charitonidis C., 2013, BUCHAREST WORKING PA, V15, P79 Charitonidis C., 2014, WORD STRUCTURE, V7, P125 Charitonidis C., 2011, LANGUAGES WORLD, V43 Charitonidis C., 2012, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V231, P299 Efthymiou A., 2010, WORKSH MEAN LEX 14 I Efthymiou A., 2013, SKASE J THEORETICAL, V10, P152 Efthymiou A, 2013, SEMANTICS OF WORD FORMATION AND LEXICALIZATION, P225 Guevera Emiliano, 2009, UNIVERSALS LANG, P101 [Anonymous], 1999, DICT COMM MOD GREEK Lieber R., 2007, MORPHOLOGY, V16, P247, DOI 10.1007/s11525-006-9106-2 Lieber R., 2009, OXFORD HDB COMPOUNDI, P78 Lieber Rochelle, 2004, MORPHOLOGY LEXICAL S Martin J. R., 2005, LANGUAGE EVALUATION Melissaropoulou D., 2010, MORPHOLOGY, V20, P343, DOI DOI 10.1007/S11525-010-9183-0 Plag I., 2000, ANGLISTENTAG 1999 MA, P63 Plag Ingo, 1999, MORPHOLOGICAL PRODUC Pustejovsky J., 1995, GENERATIVE LEXICON Ralli Angela, 2013, COMPOUNDING MODERN G Ralli A., 2007, COMPOUNDING Recanati F., 1993, DIRECT REFERENCE LAN Recanati F, 2004, LITERAL MEANING Scalise S., 2009, GENGO KENKYU, V135, P49 Scalise S, 2010, AMST STUD THEORY HIS, V311, P109 Weiskopf DA, 2007, SYNTHESE, V156, P161, DOI 10.1007/s11229-005-3489-1 NR 31 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1897-7499 J9 POZ STUD CONTEMP LIN JI Poznan Stud. Contemp. Linguist. PD MAR PY 2015 VL 51 IS 1 BP 27 EP 73 DI 10.1515/psicl-2015-0002 PG 47 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CF8LA UT WOS:000352809700002 ER PT J AU Alonso-Almeida, F AF Alonso-Almeida, Francisco TI On the mitigating function of modality and evidentiality. Evidence from English and Spanish medical research papers SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE mitigation; evidentiality; epistemic modality; commitment; involvement; pragmatics; semantics ID BULGARIAN; ARTICLES AB Scientific writing presents a set of rhetorical strategies to effectively express mitigation of claims. Critical analysis includes epistemic modality and evidentiality within these attenuating devices. In my view, the basis for these inclusions lies in a truth-value interpretation of the data. In the present article, my main objective is to show that, while epistemic modality can indeed convey mitigation of a proposition, evidentiality does not behave in a similar way. My intention is also to demonstrate following Cornillie and Delbecque (2008) that the use of evidentiality is to show the authors' construal of information rather than to imply authorial commitment to or indecision regarding the information presented. To this end, I will produce two different analyzes of the same data when coming to the description of evidentials, one that concerns a pragmatic interpretation. The study is conducted on a corpus of English and Spanish medical research articles from which instances of epistemic and evidential devices with a scope over a proposition are excerpted. The use of a contrastive analysis is twofold: first I want to detect preferences for any of these devices in two different languages, and second I also aim to discover whether these devices report a similar behavior in both cultures. C1 Univ Las Palmas Gran Canaria, Palma De Mallorca, Spain. RP Alonso-Almeida, F (reprint author), Univ Las Palmas Gran Canaria, Palma De Mallorca, Spain. EM francisco.alonso@ulpgc.es RI Alonso Almeida, Francisco/M-2876-2013 OI Alonso Almeida, Francisco/0000-0003-4676-3831 FU [MODEVIG FFI2009-25755] FX Dr. Francisco Alonso-Almeida collaborates with research project MODEVIG FFI2009-25755. Thanks are also due to Dr. M.-Luisa Carrio and Dr. Maureen Mulligan for reading earlier drafts of this paper. CR Abdolrezapour P, 2012, DISCOURSE STUD, V14, P145, DOI 10.1177/1461445611433789 Aikhenvald Alexandra, 2004, EVIDENTIALITY Alhaisoni Eid, 2012, INT J LINGUISTICS, V4, P260 Ariel M, 2008, CAMB TEXTBK LINGUIST, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511791314 Banks David, 2005, FUNCT LANG, V12, P65, DOI 10.1075/fol.12.1.04ban Boye Kasper, 2009, FUNCT LANG, V12, P65 Brown L., 2011, KOREAN HONORIFICS PO Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Caffi C, 2007, STUD PRAGMAT, V4, P1 Caffi C, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P881, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8 Chafe W.L, 1986, EVIDENTIALITY LINGUI, P261 Chafe W. L., 1986, EVIDENTIALITY LINGUI Collins P, 2009, LANG COMPUT, V67, P1 Cornillie B, 2008, BELGIAN J LINGUISTIC, V22, P37, DOI DOI 10.1075/BJL.22.03COR Cornillie B, 2009, FUNCT LANG, V16, P44, DOI 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor Dendale Patrick, 2008, BELGIAN J LINGUISTIC, V22, P1 DeCapua A, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V221, P73 Dendale P, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P339, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00005-9 Diewald G, 2009, STUD PRAGMAT, V7, P189 Dixon R. M. W., 2005, SEMANTIC APPROACH EN Mur Duenas Pilar, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3068 Dunning T., 1993, Computational Linguistics, V19, P61 Fitneva SA, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P401, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00010-2 Fraser Bruce, 2010, PERSPECTIVES POLITIC, P201 Hasan R, 1985, LINGUISTICS LANGUAGE Hu GW, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2795, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007 Hyland K., 1998, HEDGING SCI RES ARTI Kecskes I., 2013, INTERCULTURAL PRAGMA Kranich Svenja, 2009, TRANS KOM, V2, P26 Li LJ, 2009, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V28, P93, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2008.12.004 Lim JMH, 2006, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V25, P282, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2005.07.001 Arrese JIM, 2011, DIS APPL POL SOC CUL, V43, P193 Martin James R., 1984, CHILDREN WRITING REA Mushin I., 2001, EVIDENTIALITY EPISTE Ngozi-Nwogu Kevin, 1997, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V16, P119 Nuyts J, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P383, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00009-6 Palmer Frank, 2001, MODALITY ENGLISH MOD Palmer Frank R., 1986, MOOD MODALITY Pietrandrea P, 2010, STUF SPRACHTYPOLOGIE, V63-64, P333 Plungian Vladimir, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V18, P245 Rooryck Johan, 2001, GLOT INT, V5, P125 Lores Sanz Rosa, 2011, CORPORA, V6, P1, DOI DOI 10.3366/COR.2011.0002 Sbisa M, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1791, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00060-6 Schneider S., 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P253 Schneider S., 2007, REDUCED PARENTHETICA [Anonymous], 2007, PARENTHETICALS Stukker Ninke, 2009, CAUSAL CATEGORIES DI, P119 Swales J., 1990, GENRE ANAL ENGLISH A TRAUGOTT EC, 1989, LANGUAGE, V65, P31, DOI 10.2307/414841 van der Auwera Johan, 1998, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V2, P79, DOI 10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79 Vassileva I, 2001, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V20, P83, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0 Vold Eva Thue, 2006, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V16, P61, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1473-4192.2006.00106.X Wiemer B, 2010, STUF SPRACHTYPOLOGIE, V63, P275 WILLETT T, 1988, STUD LANG, V12, P51, DOI 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil Yang RY, 2004, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V23, P264, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(03)0005-X NR 55 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 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 MAR PY 2015 VL 12 IS 1 BP 33 EP 57 DI 10.1515/ip-2015-0002 PG 25 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CE8CB UT WOS:000352067600002 ER PT J AU Buysse, L AF Buysse, Lieven TI 'Well it's not very ideal ... ' The pragmatic marker well in learner English SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE pragmatic markers; well; learner English; learner corpora; Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis ID DISCOURSE MARKERS; NONNATIVE SPEAKERS; PARTICLES; CORPUS; EQUIVALENTS; LANGUAGE; SPEECH; DUTCH AB The pragmatic marker well has received a lot of attention in studies on native speaker discourse and has served as an interesting testing ground for theories accounting for the multifunctionality of pragmatic markers. In the rapidly expanding body of research on pragmatic markers in learner English well has also claimed a prominent position, but so far no comparison has been made of how learners of varying mother tongue backgrounds use well. This article offers a Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (cf. Granger 1996) in scrutinizing well as a pragmatic marker in the Dutch, French, German, Spanish and Chinese components of the Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage (LINDSEI) and comparing these results with Aijmer's (2011) findings for the Swedish component of LINDSEI and a comparable native speaker corpus. Well is shown to be more prevalent overall in each of the learner corpora than in the native corpus, except for the Chinese (in which well displays a marginal incidence). This overall discrepancy between the learners and native speakers only holds for the speech management functions of well; its attitudinal functions are significantly less common in the learners' discourse than in the native speakers'. The observed differences are attributed to a complex interplay of factors, involving, among others, the learners' limited inventory of pragmatic markers, their extensive exposure to well, L1 interference, and the speech context. C1 Univ Leuven, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium. RP Buysse, L (reprint author), Univ Leuven, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium. EM lieven.buysse@kuleuven.be CR Aijmer K., 2002, ENGLISH DISCOURSE PA Aijmer K, 2003, LINGUISTICS, V41, P1123, DOI 10.1515/ling.2003.036 Aijmer K, 2013, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMATIC MARKERS: A VARIATIONAL PRAGMATIC APPROACH, P1 Aijmer K, 2011, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V16, P231, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.16.2.04aij Allwood Jens, 1990, NORD J LINGUIST, V13, P3, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0332586500002092 Beeching K., 2002, GENDER POLITENESS PR Buysse Lieven, 2010, PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIV, V1, P461 Buysse L, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1764, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.012 Cuenca MJ, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P1373, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.013 Cuenca MJ, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P899, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.010 de Klerk V, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1183, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.001 [Anonymous], 2006, APPROACHES DISCOURSE Belles Fortuno Begona, 2006, THESIS U JAUME I CAS Fuller Janet M., 2003, MULTILINGUA, V22, P185, DOI DOI 10.1515/MULT.2003.010 Fung L, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P410, DOI 10.1093/applin/amm030 Gilquin Gaetanelle, 2010, LOUVAIN INT DATABASE Gilquin G, 2008, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V2, P119 Granger Sylviane, 1996, LANGUAGES CONTRAST, P37 Hays P. R., 1992, P 12 2 LANG RES FOR, P24 Hellermann J, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P157, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.008 Hoffmann Sebastian, 2008, CORPUS LINGUISTICS B Hogeweg L, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P519, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.012 Jackson C, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V47, P28, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.013 Johansson Stig, 2006, PRAGMATIC MARKERS CO JUCKER AH, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P435, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9 Kasper G., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P3 Lam PWY, 2010, APPL LINGUIST, V31, P260, DOI 10.1093/applin/amp026 Lam PWY, 2010, TEXT TALK, V30, P657, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2010.032 Lenk Uta, 1998, MARKING DISCOURSE CO Liao S, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1313, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.026 Liu BM, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V45, P149, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.002 Mukherjee Joybrato, 2006, PLANING GLUING PAINT, P205 Mukherjee Joybrato, 2009, CORPORA LANGUAGE TEA, P203 Muller Simone, 2005, DISCOURSE MARKERS NA Muller S, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P1157, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.008 Niemegeers S, 2009, TRANSL INTERPRET STU, V4, P47, DOI 10.1075/tis.4.1.03nie Norrick NR, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P849, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80032-1 O'Keeffe A., 2007, CORPUS CLASSROOM LAN Polat B, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3745, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.009 Pulcini Virginia, 2004, CORPORA DISCOURSE, P107 Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS Schourup L, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1025, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00053-9 Schourup L. C., 1985, COMMON DISCOURSE PAR Smith SW, 2000, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V79, P207 Smith SW, 2002, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V103, P151 Trillo JR, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P769 Vizcaino Garcia, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P69, DOI DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2005.2.1.69 WATTS RJ, 1989, J PRAGMATICS, V13, P203, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(89)90092-1 Wei M, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3455, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.014 NR 49 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 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 MAR PY 2015 VL 12 IS 1 BP 59 EP 89 DI 10.1515/ip-2015-0003 PG 31 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CE8CB UT WOS:000352067600003 ER PT J AU Hlavac, J Xu, ZC Yong, DX AF Hlavac, Jim Xu, Zhichang Yong, David Xiong TI Intercultural pragmatics at work: (Self-)perceptions of intercultural behavior of Chinese and English speakers and interpreters in healthcare interactions SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE intercultural communication; Chinese speakers; English speakers; interpreters; paralinguistic features; healthcare interactions ID PERSONAL-SPACE; COMMUNICATION; INDIVIDUALISM; CONVERSATIONS; COLLECTIVISM; CULTURES; STYLES; TALK AB Interpreters are expected to have an advanced command of not only the vocabulary and grammar of their working languages, but also the pragmatic norms that speakers of their working languages employ in communicative interactions. The aim of this paper is to explore the perceptions and practices of interpreters in relation to intercultural pragmatics at work in healthcare interactions. The paper employs two theoretical frameworks: the first is based on interpretations of behavior according to speakers' discourse-pragmatic features as representative of "high" or "low" context cultures (cf. Hall 1976); the second applies Celce-Murcia's (2007) more refined notion of "communicative competence." The data sample of this paper focuses on cultural-pragmatic features of two linguistic and cultural groups - 25 Chinese speakers and 24 English speakers - and contrasts their selected responses to five features of Chinese-English interpreted healthcare interactions. Responses from 33 Chinese-English interpreters are matched against those from speakers of the two groups to examine the degree of congruence that interpreters have with the self-reported (para-) linguistic behavior of the two groups of speakers, for whom they interpret. This study shows that the self-reported (para-) linguistic behavior of both groups is determined by their adoption of a particular approach (doctor-vs. patient-centered approach) and other micro-level features (perceived time constraints, different notions of "small talk") that limit elaborate pragmatic enactments. Over-arching cultural-pragmatic models based on "high" (or "low") context communication, or "vertical" (vs. "horizontal") hierarchical perceptions of role and status appear to have limited application to the data. Instead, local features specific to the healthcare situation co-determine both English and Chinese speakers' responses to questions about their use of pragmatics. Findings indicate that interpreters attend to each group's enactment of pragmatic features and, as expert language users, are able to recognize features and components of interactions and their functions to a greater degree than the Chinese and English speakers. C1 [Hlavac, Jim; Xu, Zhichang] Monash Univ, Clayton, Vic 3800, Australia. [Yong, David Xiong] Wenzhou Univ, Wenzhou, Peoples R China. RP Hlavac, J (reprint author), Monash Univ, Clayton, Vic 3800, Australia. EM jim.hlavac@monash.edu CR Angelelli Claudia V, 2004, MED INTERPRETING CRO AUSIT [Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators], 2012, AUS COD ETH Beaulieu CMJ, 2004, J APPL SOC PSYCHOL, V34, P794, DOI 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02571.x Bischoff A, 2012, INTERPRETING, V14, P1, DOI 10.1075/intp.14.1.01bis Blommaert Jan, 2010, SOCIOLINGUISTICS GLO Brick Jean, 2004, CHINA HDB INTERCULTU Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Celce-Murcia M, 2007, INTERCULTURAL LANGUAGE USE AND LANGUAGE LEARNING, P41, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-5639-0_3 Chen G. M., 1996, COMMUNICATION YB, V19, P353 Chesher Terry, 2003, CRITICAL LINK, P273 Clyne Michael, 1994, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Cordella M., 2004, DYNAMIC CONSULTATION Coupland J., 2000, SMALL TALK, P1 Swartz L., 1999, INTERPRETING, V4, P169, DOI 10.1075/intp.4.2.03dre Furnham A, 1986, CULTURE SHOCK PSYCHO Gadit AAM, 2010, J PAK MED ASSOC, V60, P321 Garrett P., 2010, HDB LANGUAGE GLOBALI, P447, DOI [10.1002/9781444324068.ch20, DOI 10.1002/9781444324068.CH20] Gentile A., 1996, LIAISON INTERPRETING Grice P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P41 Grundy Peter, 2007, EXPLORATIONS PRAGMAT, P219 Gu Yueguo, 1996, J ASIAN PACIFIC COMM, V7, P156 GU YG, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P237, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O Gudykunst WB, 1996, HUM COMMUN RES, V22, P510, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00377.x Gudykunst W. B., 1988, CULTURE INTERPERSONA Hall E. T., 1976, CULTURE HARTFORD BS, 1992, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V15, P93 Hofstede G., 2001, CULTURES CONSEQUENCE House J, 2007, INTERCULTURAL LANGUAGE USE AND LANGUAGE LEARNING, P7, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-5639-0_1 Hymes D., 1972, SOCIOLINGUISTICS SEL JONES SE, 1971, J SOC PSYCHOL, V84, P35 Kachru B. B., 1982, OTHER TONGUE ENGLISH Kecskes Istvan, 2011, SALIENCE DEFAULTS UT, P81 Kecskes Istvan, 2011, PRAGMATICS READER, P371 Kecskes I., 2004, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V1, P1, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2004.005 Kecskes I, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V48, P71, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.010 Kecskes I, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2889, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008 Kelly Nataly, 2010, LANGUAGE SERVICES MA Kim MS, 1996, COMMUN MONOGR, V63, P29 Kirkpatrick A., 2010, ENGLISH LINGUA FRANC Knapp-Potthoff Annelie, 1986, INTERLINGUAL INTERCU, P151 Leung ESM, 2008, MULTILINGUA, V27, P177, DOI 10.1515/MULTI.2008.010 Li HZ, 1999, INT J INTERCULT REL, V23, P387, DOI 10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00003-6 Mason I, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P359, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.022 MAZUR A, 1977, J SOC PSYCHOL, V101, P53 Moser-Mercer Barbara, 2002, INTERPRETING STUDIES, P149 Niska H., 2005, TRAINING NEW MILLENN, P35 Penn C, 2012, PATIENT EDUC COUNS, V88, P391, DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.016 POCHHACKER Franz, 2004, INTRODUCING INTERPRE Rehbein Jochen, 2012, INT J BILINGUAL, V16, P265 Ribeiro Branca Telles, 2005, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, P658 Richardson RM, 2007, INT J INTERCULT REL, V31, P479, DOI 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.01.002 Robinson JD, 1998, HUM COMMUN RES, V25, P97, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1998.tb00438.x Roy Cynthia, 2002, INTERPRETING STUDIES, P344 Rudvin M, 2011, INTERPRETING IN THE COMMUNITY AND WORKPLACE, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230307469 Sarangi Srikant, 1999, TALK WORK I ORDER DI Schneider K. P., 1988, SMALL TALK ANAL PHAT Seidlhofer B., 2011, UNDERSTANDING ENGLIS Setton R, 2009, TRANSL INTERPRET STU, V4, P210, DOI 10.1075/tis.4.2.05set Sharifian F, 2011, COGN LINGUIST STUD S, V1, P1, DOI 10.1075/clscc.1 Sharifian F, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P227, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.011 Smith DH, 1999, HEALTH COMMUN, V11, P285, DOI 10.1207/S15327027HC110309 Spencer-Oatey Helen, 2004, MULTILINGUAL COMMUNI, P197 Street RL, 2001, HEALTH COMMUN, V13, P61, DOI 10.1207/S15327027HC1301_06 Sun H, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P1429, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.007 Swaffar J, 1997, MOD LANG J, V81, P175, DOI 10.2307/328785 Timarova S, 2008, INTERPRET TRANSL TRA, V2, P29 Ting-Toomey S., 2005, UNDERSTANDING INTERC Ting-Toomey S., 1994, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN, P360 Tsai Mei-Hui, 2005, Commun Med, V2, P53, DOI 10.1515/come.2005.2.1.53 Watson O. M., 1970, PROXEMIC BEHAV CROSS Xu Zhichang, 2013, J ENGLISH LINGUA FRA, V2, P365 Zhang Zuocheng, 2002, RES PRACTICE PROFESS, P338 NR 72 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 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 MAR PY 2015 VL 12 IS 1 BP 91 EP 118 DI 10.1515/ip-2015-0004 PG 28 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CE8CB UT WOS:000352067600004 ER PT J AU Naess, A AF Naess, Ashild TI The Aiwoo verb phrase: Syntactic ergativity without pivots SO JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID LANGUAGE; ISLANDS; REEFS AB Formal models of syntax typically accord the structural position external to the verb's domain a privileged status in the overall syntactic makeup of a language, either by assuming that external arguments are always S or A, or by linking external argument position to syntactic pivothood. This paper demonstrates that the Oceanic language Aiwoo has an ergative verb phrase-i.e. A as the VP-internal argument and S/O as external arguments-but no corresponding S/O pivot. That is, the ergative structure of the verb phrase in Aiwoo does not entail any syntactically privileged status of the VP-external arguments; rather, it is simply a by-product of various diachronic developments. This situation shows that what has traditionally been perceived as fundamental differences in grammatical organisation-the difference between an accusative and an ergative pattern of VP structure-need not in fact be associated with any broader differences in syntactic or pragmatic structure. More importantly, it goes against the assumption that it is possible to assign universal functions to syntactic configurations. Instead, it can be seen as providing support for the view argued for by Evans & Levinson (2009: 444) that most linguistic diversity is the product of historical cultural evolution operating on relatively independent traits'. C1 Univ Newcastle, Sch Humanities & Social Sci, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. RP Naess, A (reprint author), Univ Newcastle, Sch Humanities & Social Sci, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. EM Aashild.Naess@newcastle.edu.au CR Anderson Stephen R., 2005, ASPECTS THEORY CLITI Arka I Wayan, 2005, MANY FACES AUSTRONES, P1 Bittner M, 1996, LINGUIST INQ, V27, P531 BRESNAN J, 1982, LINGUIST INQ, V13, P343 Bybee J., 2001, FREQUENCY EMERGENCE, P1 Croft William, 2003, TYPOLOGY UNIVERSALS Crowley Terry, 2002, SERIAL VERBS OCEANIC DIESING M, 1990, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V8, P41 Dixon R. M. W., 1994, ERGATIVITY Bois Du, 1985, ICONICITY SYNTAX, P343 DUBOIS JW, 1987, LANGUAGE, V63, P805 Evans N, 2009, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V32, P429, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X Falk YN, 2006, CAMB STUD LINGUIST, V113, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511486265 Alexandre Francois, 2004, COMPLEX PREDICATES O, P107 Harley Heidi, 2011, OXFORD HDB LINGUISTI, P427 Haspelmath Martin, 2011, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V15, P535, DOI DOI 10.1515/LITY.2011.035 Himmelmann Nikolaus P., 2005, AUSTRONESIAN LANGUAG, P110 Kroeger Paul, 1993, PHRASE STRUCTURE GRA Kuno Susumu, 1973, STRUCTURE JAPANESE L Levinson Stephen C., LINGUISTIC IN PRESS Li C., 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC Lincoln Peter C., 1976, 2 INT C AUSTR PROC C, P929 Lynch John, 2002, OCEANIC LANGUAGES Manning Christopher, 1996, ERGATIVITY ARGUMENT MYHILL J, 1988, J LINGUIST, V24, P111, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700011580 Naess A, 2006, OCEAN LINGUIST, V45, P269 Naess A, 2008, OCEAN LINGUIST, V47, P185 Naess A, 2013, OCEAN LINGUIST, V52, P106 Olstad John, 2013, SYMMETRICAL VOICE PR Pawley Andrew, 2011, EVOLUTION TRANSITIVE Polinsky Maria, 2013, 9 INT C OC LANG U NE Ross Malcolm, 2004, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V5, P491 Ross Malcolm, 2012, 12 INT C AUSTR LING Ross M, 2007, OCEAN LINGUIST, V46, P456 Schachter P., 1977, GRAMMATICAL RELATION, P279 Sheppard PJ, 2006, J POLYNESIAN SOC, V115, P47 Spriggs M., 1997, ISLAND MELANESIANS Vaa Anders, 2006, THESIS U OSLO LaPolla Randy, 1997, SYNTAX STRUCTURE MEA Van Valin R. D., 2005, EXPLORING SYNTAX SEM Wechsler S, 1998, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V16, P387, DOI 10.1023/A:1005920831550 Ross Malcolm, 2002, HIST TYPOLOGY W AUST Wurm Stephen A., 1992, LANGUAGE GAME PAPERS, V110, P527 Wurm Stephen A., 1976, NEW GUINEA AREA LANG, V39, P637 Wurm Stephen A., 1981, LINGUISTICS CONTINEN, P123 Wurm S. A., 1978, 2 INT C AUSTR LING P, P969 NR 46 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 1 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI NEW YORK PA 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY 10013-2473 USA SN 0022-2267 EI 1469-7742 J9 J LINGUIST JI J. Linguist. PD MAR PY 2015 VL 51 IS 1 BP 75 EP 106 DI 10.1017/S0022226714000048 PG 32 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CE2HL UT WOS:000351636100004 ER PT J AU Ryan, NP Catroppa, C Beare, R Coleman, L Ditchfield, M Crossley, L Beauchamp, MH Anderson, VA AF Ryan, Nicholas P. Catroppa, Cathy Beare, Richard Coleman, Lee Ditchfield, Michael Crossley, Louise Beauchamp, Miriam H. Anderson, Vicki A. TI Predictors of longitudinal outcome and recovery of pragmatic language and its relation to externalizing behaviour after pediatric traumatic brain injury SO BRAIN AND LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE Child; Brain injuries; Magnetic resonance imaging; Pragmatic language; Neurobiology ID WEIGHTED IMAGING SWI; CLOSED-HEAD-INJURY; CORPUS-CALLOSUM; SOCIAL BRAIN; COGNITIVE-DEVELOPMENT; ATYPICAL DEVELOPMENT; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; YOUNG-CHILDREN; CHILDHOOD; ADOLESCENCE AB The purpose of the present investigation was to evaluate the contribution of age-at-insult and brain pathology on longitudinal outcome and recovery of pragmatic language in a sample of children and adolescents with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Children and adolescents with mild to severe TBI (n = 112) were categorized according to timing of brain insult: (i) Middle Childhood (5-9 years; n = 41); (ii) Late Childhood (10-11 years; n = 39); and (iii) Adolescence (12-15 years; n = 32) and group-matched for age, gender and socio-economic status (SES) to a typically developing (TD) control group (n = 43). Participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including a susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) sequence 2-8 weeks after injury and were assessed on measures of pragmatic language and behavioural functioning at 6- and 24-months after injury. Children and adolescents with TBI of all severity levels demonstrated impairments in these domains at 6-months injury before returning to age-expected levels at 2-years post-TBI. However, while adolescent TBI was associated with post-acute disruption to skills that preceded recovery to age-expected levels by 2-years post injury, the middle childhood TBI group demonstrated impairments at 6-months post-injury that we're maintained at 2-year follow up. Reduced pragmatic communication was associated with frontal, temporal and corpus callosum lesions, as well as more frequent externalizing behaviour at 24-months post injury. Findings show that persisting pragmatic language impairment after pediatric TBI is related to younger age at brain insult, as well as microhemorrhagic pathology in brain regions that contribute to the anatomically distributed social brain network. Relationships between reduced pragmatic communication and more frequent externalizing behavior underscore the need for context-sensitive rehabilitation programs that aim to increase interpersonal effectiveness and reduce risk for maladaptive behavior trajectories into the long-term post injury. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. C1 [Ryan, Nicholas P.; Catroppa, Cathy; Ditchfield, Michael; Crossley, Louise; Anderson, Vicki A.] Murdoch Childrens Res Inst, Australian Ctr Child Neuropsychol Studies, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. [Catroppa, Cathy; Anderson, Vicki A.] Royal Childrens Hosp, Dept Psychol, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. [Ryan, Nicholas P.; Catroppa, Cathy; Anderson, Vicki A.] Univ Melbourne, Melbourne Sch Psychol Sci, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. [Beare, Richard] Murdoch Childrens Res Inst, Dev Imaging, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. [Coleman, Lee] Royal Childrens Hosp, Dept Radiol, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. [Catroppa, Cathy; Anderson, Vicki A.] Univ Melbourne, Dept Pediat, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. [Beauchamp, Miriam H.] Univ Montreal, Dept Psychol, Montreal, PQ H3C 3J7, Canada. [Beauchamp, Miriam H.] Ste Justine Res Ctr, Montreal, PQ, Canada. RP Ryan, NP (reprint author), Murdoch Childrens Res Inst, Child Neuropsychol, Flemington Rd, Parkville, Vic 3052, Australia. EM nicholas.ryan@mcri.edu.au; cathy.catroppa@mcri.edu.au; richard.beare@mcri.edu.au; lee.coleman@rch.org.au; michael.ditchfield@southernhealth.org.au; louise.crossley@mcri.edu.au; Miriam.beauchamp@umontreal.ca; vicki.anderson@rch.org.au OI Ryan, Nicholas/0000-0002-0878-8889 CR Achenbach T. M., 2001, ASEBA SCH AGE FORMS Alderman N, 2003, NEUROPSYCHOL REHABIL, V13, P211, DOI 10.1080/09602010244000327 Anderson V., 2011, BRAIN Anderson V, 1995, CHILD NEUROPSYCHOL, V1, P187, DOI 10.1080/09297049508400224 Anderson V, 2013, J INT NEUROPSYCH SOC, V19, P539, DOI 10.1017/S1355617712001543 Anderson V, 2009, BRAIN, V132, P45, DOI 10.1093/brain/awn293 Babikian T, 2005, PEDIATR NEUROL, V33, P184, DOI 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2005.03.015 Badre D, 2006, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V103, P7186, DOI 10.1073/pnas.0509550103 Barbey A. K., 2012, BRAIN Barbey A. K., 2013, BRAIN Barnes MA, 2001, BRAIN LANG, V76, P253, DOI 10.1006/brln.2000.2385 Bates E, 1997, DEV NEUROPSYCHOL, V13, P275 Beauchamp MH, 2010, PSYCHOL BULL, V136, P39, DOI 10.1037/a0017768 Beauchamp MH, 2013, CORTEX, V49, P591, DOI 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.08.015 Beauchamp MH, 2011, J NEUROTRAUM, V28, P915, DOI 10.1089/neu.2010.1712 Beauchamp MH, 2011, BRAIN INJURY, V25, P950, DOI 10.3109/02699052.2011.589791 Beauchamp MH, 2009, J NEUROTRAUM, V26, P1645, DOI 10.1089/neu.2009-0916 Blakemore SJ, 2008, NAT REV NEUROSCI, V9, P267, DOI 10.1038/nrn2353 Catroppa C, 2004, BRAIN LANG, V88, P68, DOI 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00159-7 Cattelani R, 1998, BRAIN INJURY, V12, P283, DOI 10.1080/026990598122584 Chapman SB, 2004, DEV NEUROPSYCHOL, V25, P37, DOI 10.1207/s15326942dn2501&2_4 Chapman SB, 1998, BRAIN LANG, V61, P420, DOI 10.1006/brln.1997.1885 Choudhury S, 2006, SOC COGN AFFECT NEUR, V1, P165, DOI 10.1093/scan/nsl024 COFFEY CE, 1991, AM PSYCHOP, P243 Cohen J., 1988, STAT POWER ANAL BEHA Colbert CA, 2010, RADIOLOGY, V256, P898, DOI 10.1148/radiol.10091842 Crowe LM, 2012, J PEDIATR PSYCHOL, V37, P745, DOI 10.1093/jpepsy/jss070 Dennis M., 2014, NEUROPSYCHOL REV, P1 DENNIS M, 1990, BRAIN LANG, V39, P428, DOI 10.1016/0093-934X(90)90149-B Dennis M., 1988, LANGUAGE YOUNG DAMAG Dennis M., 1989, CLIN NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, P85 Didus E, 1999, Pediatr Rehabil, V3, P177 Donders J, 2007, J HEAD TRAUMA REHAB, V22, P296 Dumontheil I, 2010, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V13, P331, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00888.x Ewing-Cobbs L, 1997, J Int Neuropsychol Soc, V3, P581 Ewing-Cobbs L, 2012, INT J DEV NEUROSCI, V30, P247, DOI 10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2011.07.004 Factor P. I., 2013, J ATTENTION DISORDER Farina E., 2007, PSYCHOL LANGUAGE COM, V11, P3 Ferstl EC, 2008, HUM BRAIN MAPP, V29, P581, DOI 10.1002/hbm.20422 Geraci A, 2010, BRAIN INJURY, V24, P978, DOI 10.3109/02699052.2010.487477 Gerrard-Morris A, 2010, J INT NEUROPSYCH SOC, V16, P157, DOI 10.1017/S1355617709991135 Giedd J N, 1996, Brain Res Dev Brain Res, V91, P274 Giedd JN, 1999, NAT NEUROSCI, V2, P861, DOI 10.1038/13158 Giza CC, 2006, DEV NEUROSCI-BASEL, V28, P364, DOI 10.1159/000094163 Glascher J, 2010, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V107, P4705, DOI 10.1073/pnas.0910397107 Haacke EM, 2009, AM J NEURORADIOL, V30, P19, DOI 10.3174/ajnr.A1400 Haacke EM, 2004, MAGNET RESON MED, V52, P612, DOI 10.1002/mrm.20198 Hallett T. L, 1997, DEV NEUROREHABIL, V1, P219 Hart T, 2009, NEUROPSYCHOL REHABIL, V19, P161, DOI 10.1080/09602010802188393 Hattier MA, 2011, DEV NEUROREHABIL, V14, P221, DOI 10.3109/17518423.2011.573836 HEBB D. O., 1942, PROC AMER PHIL SOC, V85, P275 Jacobs R, 2007, CORTEX, V43, P792, DOI 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70507-0 Johnson MH, 2005, DEV PSYCHOPATHOL, V17, P599, DOI 10.1017/S0954579405050297 Kennedy DP, 2012, TRENDS COGN SCI, V16, P559, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2012.09.006 Kolb B, 2004, BRAIN COGNITION, V55, P104, DOI 10.1016/s0278-2626(03)00278-1 Kraus MF, 2007, BRAIN, V130, P2508, DOI 10.1093/brain/awm216 Levin HS, 2000, NEUROLOGY, V54, P647 Li L, 2013, DEV MED CHILD NEUROL, V55, P37, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2012.04414.x Luders E, 2010, J NEUROSCI, V30, P10985, DOI 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5122-09.2010 Manly T, 1999, TEA CH TEST EVERYDAY Masten AS, 2010, DEV PSYCHOPATHOL, V22, P491, DOI 10.1017/S0954579410000222 McMillan J, 2009, J SOCIOL, V45, P123, DOI 10.1177/1440783309103342 Muller F, 2010, CORTEX, V46, P1088, DOI 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.08.014 Muscara F, 2008, J NEUROPSYCHOL, V2, P445, DOI 10.1348/174866407X250820 Reichenbach JR, 1997, RADIOLOGY, V204, P272 Rosema S, 2012, J NEUROTRAUM, V29, P1277, DOI 10.1089/neu.2011.2144 Ryan NP, 2013, INT J DEV NEUROSCI, V31, P811, DOI 10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2013.10.002 Ryan NP, 2015, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V66, P32, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.10.040 Ryan NP, 2014, J NEUROTRAUM, V31, P649, DOI 10.1089/neu.2013.3153 Satz P., 1981, SEX DIFFERENCES DYSL Saxe R, 2006, CURR OPIN NEUROBIOL, V16, P235, DOI 10.1016/j.conb.2006.03.001 Sehgal V, 2005, J MAGN RESON IMAGING, V22, P439, DOI 10.1002/jmri.20404 Shaw P, 2008, J NEUROSCI, V28, P3586, DOI 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5309-07.2008 Spitz G, 2013, J NEUROTRAUM, V30, P2038, DOI 10.1089/neu.2013.3021 Stowe LA, 1998, NEUROREPORT, V9, P2995, DOI 10.1097/00001756-199809140-00014 Sullivan JR, 2010, APPL NEUROPSYCHOL, V17, P93, DOI 10.1080/09084281003708852 Tabachnick BG, 2001, USING MULTIVARIATE S Tasker RC, 2006, DEV NEUROSCI-BASEL, V28, P302, DOI 10.1159/000094156 Taylor MJ, 2014, AM J MED GENET B, V165, P587, DOI 10.1002/ajmg.b.32262 Tong KA, 2004, ANN NEUROL, V56, P36, DOI 10.1002/ana.20123 van Praag H, 2000, NAT REV NEUROSCI, V1, P191, DOI 10.1038/35044558 Watts AJ, 2006, APHASIOLOGY, V20, P707, DOI 10.1080/02687030500489953 Wechsler D., 1999, WASI WECHSLER ABBREV Wechsler D., 2003, WECHSLER INTELLIGENC Wigg E. H., 1989, TEST LANGUAGE COMPET Yeates KO, 2007, PSYCHOL BULL, V133, P535, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.133.1535 Yeates KO, 2004, J INT NEUROPSYCH SOC, V10, P412, DOI 10.1017/S1355617704103093 Ylvisaker M., 2005, SEM SPEECH LANG Yushkevich PA, 2006, NEUROIMAGE, V31, P1116, DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015 NR 89 TC 4 Z9 4 U1 3 U2 13 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 MAR PY 2015 VL 142 BP 86 EP 95 DI 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.01.007 PG 10 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Neurosciences; Psychology, Experimental SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Neurosciences & Neurology; Psychology GA CD0QU UT WOS:000350779800010 PM 25677376 ER PT J AU Sidtis, DV Wolf, R AF Sidtis, Diana Van Lancker Wolf, Rachel TI Pragmatic verbal repetition: review and application of a new method of quantification SO TEXT & TALK LA English DT Article DE repetition; pragmatics; pragmatic repetition; discourse; conversation; formulaic language ID OTHER-INITIATED REPAIR; LANGUAGE-DEVELOPMENT; NEONATAL IMITATION; FORMULAIC LANGUAGE; CHILD LANGUAGE; CONVERSATION; STRATEGIES; NARRATIVES; SAYINGS; ENGLISH AB The use of "pragmatic repetition," the iteration of one's own speech or the speech of a co-participant, while known to occur in conversation, has been overlooked in the language sciences. This study presents a method for establishing incidence, characteristics, and functions of pragmatic repetition during conversational exchanges. The method is applied to three discourse samples: a screenplay, a television reality show, and an unscripted telephone conversation. The analysis characterizes each repetition in terms of localness (immediate, delayed, or distant in the discourse); degree of preservation (identical or altered); source (self or other); the linguistic unit (word, phrase, clause, or sentence); and type of phrase (formulaic or novel). Three functional categories were identified: maintaining conversational form, enhancing content, and fostering social purposes. Results indicated that 22% of the telephone conversation and 19% of the reality show conversations constituted repeated material as compared to 9% in the screenplay. Analysis of characteristics and functions of pragmatic repetition revealed significant differences between samples. Findings from this study verify the newly developed quantification methodology, solidify the role of repetition in the pragmatics of language, and lead to better understanding of normal discourse. C1 [Sidtis, Diana Van Lancker] NYU, Dept Communicat Sci & Disorders, New York, NY 10012 USA. [Wolf, Rachel] East Stroudsburg Univ, Dept Speech Language Pathol, East Stroudsburg, PA USA. RP Sidtis, DV (reprint author), NYU, Dept Communicat Sci & Disorders, New York, NY 10012 USA. EM diana.sidtis@nyu.edu; rew218@nyu.edu CR Bean Martha S., 1994, REPETITION DISCOURSE, V1, P207 BELL RA, 1992, HUM COMMUN RES, V18, P307, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00555.x Blonder Lee X., 1994, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V4, P50, DOI 10.1525/jlin.1994.4.1.50 BLOOM L, 1974, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V6, P380, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(74)90018-8 BLYTH C, 1990, AM SPEECH, V65, P215, DOI 10.2307/455910 Brody Jill, 1994, REPETITION DISCOURSE, V2, P3 CALLHOME, 2000, AM ENGL TRANSCR LING Carey Lucy, 2001, DEV AUTISM PERSPECTI, P147 CASBY MW, 1986, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V15, P127, DOI 10.1007/BF01067518 Cook G., 1994, ELT J, V48, P133, DOI DOI 10.1093/ELT/48.2.133 Curl TS, 2005, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V39, P1, DOI 10.1207/s15326950dp3901_1 Dobbinson S, 2003, CLIN LINGUIST PHONET, V17, P299, DOI 10.1080/0269920031000080046 ELY R, 1993, J CHILD LANG, V20, P671 Fasold R. W, 1990, SOCIOLINGUISTICS LAN Fillmore C., 1979, INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENC, P85 FONTAINE R, 1984, INFANT BEHAV DEV, V7, P323, DOI 10.1016/S0163-6383(84)80047-8 FREDERIC M., 1985, REPETITION ETUDE LIN Goldman A, 2005, PERSPECTIVES IMITATI, VII, P80 Guendouzi J, 2006, J SOCIOLING, V10, P702, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00302_8.x Hamilton H. E., 1994, CONVERSATIONS ALZHEI HEIMANN M, 1989, INFANT BEHAV DEV, V12, P495, DOI 10.1016/0163-6383(89)90029-5 Johnstone B., 2002, DISCOURSE ANAL Johnstone B., 1994, REPETITION DISCOURSE, V1, P1 Koven M, 2001, LANG SOC, V30, P513 Kuo Sai-hua, 2001, DISCOURSE STUDIES, V3, P181, DOI 10.1177/1461445601003002002 Labov William, 1972, LANGUAGE INNER CITY Locke J. L., 1995, CHILDS PATH SPOKEN L Marcus G., 2004, BIRTH MIND Marsh Philip N., 1997, STUDY TEENLECT CONVE Mazur Elise F., 2002, MERRILL PALMER Q, V48, P405 MELTZOFF AN, 1977, SCIENCE, V198, P75, DOI 10.1126/science.198.4312.75 Merritt Marilyn, 1994, REPETITION DISCOURSE, V1, P23 Moon Rosamund E., 1988, FIXED EXPRESSIONS TE Murata Kumiko, 1995, WORLD ENGLISH, V14, P343, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.1995.tb00078.x Myers PS, 1999, RIGHT HEMISPHERE DAM Norrick Neal R., 1987, TEXT, V7, P245, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1987.7.3.245 Norrick Neal R., 1994, REPETITION DISCOURSE, V2, P15 Ochs Elinor, 1975, P BERKELEY LINGUISTI, V1, P279 OCHS E., 1979, DISCOURSE SYNTAX, P51 Ochs E., 1996, INTERACTION GRAMMAR Ochs E., 1983, ACQUIRING CONVERSATI Oelschlaeger ML, 1998, APHASIOLOGY, V12, P971, DOI 10.1080/02687039808249464 Oomen CCE, 2001, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V44, P997, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2001/078) PARKER F, 1985, AM SPEECH, V60, P337, DOI 10.2307/454911 Pawley Andrew, 1985, LENGUAS MODERNAS, V12, P80 Perkins Michael R., 1999, ISSUES NORMAL DISORD, P51 Pinker S., 1995, LANGUAGE INSTINCT Plamondon George, 2004, A BLACK WHITE AFFAIR Plamondon George, 2004, THE BONFIRE Ramanathan V., 1997, ALZHEIMER DISCOURSE RAMER ALH, 1976, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V19, P700 REES NS, 1975, J SPEECH HEAR DISORD, V40, P339 REISSLAND N, 1988, DEV PSYCHOL, V24, P464, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.464 Rieger CL, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P47, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00060-1 Romaine Suzanne, 1991, AM SPEECH, V57, P45 Schegloff EA, 1997, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V23, P499 Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS Sidtis D, 2009, CLIN LINGUIST PHONET, V23, P270, DOI 10.1080/02699200802673242 Sidtis DV, 2012, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V32, P62, DOI 10.1017/S0267190512000104 Van Lancker Sidtis Diana, 2008, FORMULAIC LANGUAGE, V2, P151 Van Lancker Sidtis Diana, 2011, HDB PSYCHOLINGUISTIC, P249 Van Lancker Sidtis D., 2012, ADV NEURAL SUBSTRATE, P342 Van Lancker Sidtis Diana, 2004, LANG COMMUN, V24, P207, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.LANGCOM.2004.02.003 Van Lancker Sidtis Diana, 2011, TEACHING LINGUISTICS Sidtis DVL, 2004, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V39, P1, DOI 10.1080/13682820310001601080 Snow Catherine, 1978, RECENT ADV PSYCHOL A, V4a, P253 Speidel Gisela E., 1989, MANY FACES IMITATION Stivers T, 2004, HUM COMMUN RES, V30, P260, DOI 10.1093/hcr/30.2.260 Tagliamonte Sali, 1999, J SOCIOLING, V3.2, P147, DOI 10.1111/1467-9481.00070 TANNEN D, 1982, LANGUAGE, V58, P1, DOI 10.2307/413530 Tannen Deborah, 1981, CONVERSATIONAL ROUTI, P37 Tannen D., 1987, TEXT, V7, P215, DOI DOI 10.1515/TEXT.1.1987.7.3.215 Tannen D, 2007, TALKING VOICES REPET TANNEN D, 1987, LANGUAGE, V63, P574, DOI 10.2307/415006 TANNEN D, 1990, ANN NY ACAD SCI, V583, P15, DOI 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1990.tb12183.x Tannen D, 1989, TALKING VOICES REPET Ulatowska HK, 2000, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V30, P265, DOI 10.1207/S15326950dp3003_3 UNDERHILL R, 1988, AM SPEECH, V63, P234, DOI 10.2307/454820 WHITEHURST GJ, 1975, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V4, P37, DOI 10.1007/BF01066989 Wilder Billy, 1990, BEST AM SCREENPLAYS, V2, P80 Wolf R, 2014, APHASIOLOGY, V28, P596, DOI 10.1080/02687038.2014.886324 Wong J, 2000, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V33, P407, DOI 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_03 Wray A., 2002, FORMULAIC LANGUAGE L NR 83 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 4 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 MAR PY 2015 VL 35 IS 2 BP 263 EP 287 DI 10.1515/text-2014-0037 PG 25 WC Communication; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Communication; Linguistics GA CD0OA UT WOS:000350772600006 ER PT J AU Andone, C AF Andone, Corina TI Pragmatic Argumentation in European Practices of Political Accountability SO ARGUMENTATION LA English DT Article DE Pragmatic argumentation; Political accountability; Acceptability criteria AB In this paper, the author examines the use of pragmatic argumentation in European practices of political accountability in which the politicians explain and justify a future course of action which they plan to undertake in order to solve an existing problem. The author explains some vital institutional characteristics of the practices under discussion and demonstrates how these institutional characteristics constrain the use of pragmatic argumentation. In addition, the author shows which criteria arguers commonly invoke in practices of political accountability to make their pragmatic arguments acceptable to critics. C1 Univ Amsterdam, Dept Speech Commun Argumentat Theory & Rhetor, NL-1012 VB Amsterdam, Netherlands. RP Andone, C (reprint author), Univ Amsterdam, Dept Speech Commun Argumentat Theory & Rhetor, Spuistr 134, NL-1012 VB Amsterdam, Netherlands. EM C.Andone@uva.nl CR Andone C., 2013, ARGUMENTATION POLITI Andone C, 2014, STUDIES LOGIC GRAMMA, V36, P59 Ball W.J, 1995, POLICY STUDIES REV, V14, P3 Bovens M, 2007, EUR LAW J, V13, P447, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x Curtin D, 2007, NETH YEARB INT LAW S, V36, P3, DOI 10.1017/S0167676805000036 Curtin D, 2007, EUR LAW J, V13, P523, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00382.x Feteris E, 2002, ADV PRAGMA DIALECTIC, P423 HAMBRICK RS, 1974, POLICY SCI, V5, P469, DOI 10.1007/BF00147231 Ihnen Jory C., 2012, PRAGMATIC ARGUMENTAT Majone G, 1989, EVIDENCE ARGUMENT PE March J., 1995, DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANC MAY PJ, 1986, POLIT SCI QUART, V101, P109, DOI 10.2307/2151446 Mulgan R, 2003, HOLDING POWER TO ACCOUNT: ACCOUNTABILITY IN MODERN DEMOCRACIES, pIX Oliver D., 2009, POLITICAL ACCOUNTABI, P9 PERELMAN C, 1959, PHILOSOPHY, V34, P18 Schellens P.J., 1987, ARGUMENTATION ANAL P, P34 Strom K, 2000, EUR J POLIT RES, V37, P261, DOI 10.1023/A:1007064803327 Syrier C., 2013, INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTI VanEemeren FH, 2010, ARGUMENT CONTEXT, V2, P1 van Eemeren F.H., 2014, VIRTUES ARGUMENTATIO, P1 Van Eemeren F.H., 1984, SPEECH ACTS ARGUMENT Van Eemeren F.H., 1992, ARGUMENTATION COMMUN van Poppel L., 2013, THESIS U AMSTERDAM Verhey L., 2008, POLITICAL ACCOUNTABI, P3 Verhey L., 2009, POLITICAL ACCOUNTABI, P55 Webber D.J., 1986, POLICY STUD J, V1, P545 NR 26 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 6 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0920-427X EI 1572-8374 J9 ARGUMENTATION JI Argumentation PD MAR PY 2015 VL 29 IS 1 BP 1 EP 18 DI 10.1007/s10503-014-9334-2 PG 18 WC Communication; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics; Philosophy SC Communication; Linguistics; Philosophy GA CC3EJ UT WOS:000350227900001 ER PT J AU Jornet, A Roth, WM AF Jornet, Alfredo Roth, Wolff-Michael TI The Joint Work of Connecting Multiple (Re)presentations in Science Classrooms SO SCIENCE EDUCATION LA English DT Article ID EXTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS; SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS; COHERENCE FORMATION; EMERGENCE; PERSPECTIVE; ENVIRONMENT; DIAGRAMS; LANGUAGE; PHYSICS; DEIXIS AB The aim of this study is to advance current understanding of the transactional processes that characterize students' sense-making practices when they are confronted with multiple representations of scientific phenomena. Data for the study are derived from a design experiment that involves a technology-rich, inquiry-based sequence of activities. We draw on interaction analysis to examine the work by means of which a group of upper secondary school students make sense of a number of different ways in which a physical phenomenona phase transitionis presented to them. Our analytical perspective, grounded in a cultural-historical framework, involves scrutinizing how the different materials emerge and evolve as signifiers for something other than themselves during teacher-student and student-student transactions. This approach allows us to trace the emergence of students' interpretations of the relations between phenomena and their diverse presentations without committing to any preconceived notion of what these presentations stand for. We describe how students' bodily and pragmatic actions become reified in conceptual terms and how these relate to lived-in experiences rather than to formal underlying concepts. Findings are discussed with regard to the central role of body and praxis in research on learning science with multiple representations. C1 [Jornet, Alfredo] Univ Oslo, Dept Educ, N-0317 Oslo, Norway. [Roth, Wolff-Michael] Univ Victoria, Fac Educ, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada. RP Jornet, A (reprint author), Univ Oslo, Dept Educ, N-0317 Oslo, Norway. EM a.g.jornet@iped.uio.no FU Research Council of Norway as part of the Core Competence and Value Creation in ICT (VERDKIT) funding program FX The research reported in this paper was supported by The Research Council of Norway as part of the Core Competence and Value Creation in ICT (VERDKIT) funding program. We thank our research community at Intermedia (University of Oslo) for input to previous versions of this paper. A special thank you to Ingeborg Krange for her support and detailed comments throughout the development of this work. CR Adadan E, 2013, RES SCI EDUC, V43, P1079, DOI 10.1007/s11165-012-9299-9 Ainsworth S, 2008, MODEL MODEL SCI EDUC, V3, P191 Bakhtin M, 1986, SPEECH GENRES OTHER Bartholome T, 2009, J EDUC PSYCHOL, V101, P282, DOI 10.1037/a0014312 Bodemer D, 2004, LEARN INSTR, V14, P325, DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.006 Brown A. L., 1992, J LEARN SCI, V2, P141, DOI [DOI 10.1207/S15327809JLS0202_2, DOI 10.1207/S15327809JLS0202_] Chittleborough G, 2008, RES SCI EDUC, V38, P463, DOI 10.1007/s11165-007-9059-4 Dewey J., 1938, LOGIC THEORY INQUIRY Donmoyer R., 1990, QUALITATIVE INQUIRY, P175 Durkheim E., 1919, REGLES METHODE SOCIO Eco U., 1984, SEMIOTICS PHILOS LAN Flyvbjerg B, 2006, QUAL INQ, V12, P219, DOI 10.1177/1077800405284363 Furberg A, 2013, INT J COMP-SUPP COLL, V8, P41, DOI 10.1007/s11412-013-9165-4 Goodwin C, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P1489, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X Goodwin C, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V46, P8, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003 Han JY, 2006, SCI EDUC, V90, P173, DOI 10.1002/sce.20091 [Anonymous], 1998, P 6 INT C IADA INT A Hindmarsh J, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P1855, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00122-8 Jordan B, 1995, J LEARN SCI, V4, P39, DOI 10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2 Jornet A., 2013, UNDERSTANDING LEARNI, P41 Kaput J. J., 1998, J MATH BEHAV, V17, P265, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0364-0213(99)80062-7 Kaput J. J., 1988, ANN M N AM CHAPT INT Karlsson G, 2010, INT J COMP-SUPP COLL, V5, P167, DOI 10.1007/s11412-010-9085-5 Klein PD, 2006, INT J SCI EDUC, V28, P143, DOI 10.1080/09500690500336627 Klein PD, 2010, RES SCI EDUC, V40, P87, DOI 10.1007/s11165-009-9159-4 Kozma R, 2003, LEARN INSTR, V13, P205, DOI 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X Krange I, 2009, J COMPUT ASSIST LEAR, V25, P268, DOI [10.1111/J.1365-2729.2008.00307.x, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00307.x] Krange I, 2008, INT J COMP-SUPP COLL, V3, P25, DOI 10.1007/s11412-007-9030-4 Lakoff G, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Latour B., 1993, CLEF BERLIN AUTRES L Lave J., 1988, COGNITION PRACTICE M Linell P, 2009, ADV CULT PSYCHOL CON, pXXI Lobato J, 2012, EDUC PSYCHOL-US, V47, P232, DOI 10.1080/00461520.2012.693353 Makitalo, 2002, TEXT, V22, P57 Mayer RE, 2003, LEARN INSTR, V13, P125, DOI 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00016-6 Mayer RE, 2002, LEARN INSTR, V12, P107, DOI 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00018-4 Mehan H., 1979, LEARNING LESSONS SOC Middleton D., 2005, SOCIAL PSYCHOL EXPER Niebert K., 2013, SCI ED, V96, P849 Nivala M, 2012, INT J COMP-SUPP COLL, V7, P499, DOI 10.1007/s11412-012-9153-0 Roth W. -M., 2009, SEMIOTICS ED EXPERIE Roth W-M., 2012, COGNITIVE SCI INTERD, P182 Roth WM, 2005, SCI TECHNOL EDUC LIB, V26, P1 Roth WM, 2002, SCI EDUC, V86, P368, DOI 10.1002/sce.10008 Roth WM, 2003, J RES SCI TEACH, V40, P869, DOI 10.1002/tea.10114 Roth W.-M., 2008, SEMIOTICS MATH ED, P83 Roth W. -M., 2003, PRAGMAT COGN, V11, P139 Roth W. -M., 2012, ED DIDACTIQUE, V6, P131 Roth WM, 2002, LEARN INSTR, V12, P285, DOI 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00023-8 Roth WM, 2001, J RES MATH EDUC, V32, P159, DOI 10.2307/749672 Roth WM, 2002, SEMIOTICA, V138, P95 Roth WM, 1997, J RES SCI TEACH, V34, P509, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199705)34:5<509::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-U Roth W. -M., 2004, J MATH BEHAV, V23, P75, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.JMATHB.2003.12.005 Roth WM, 2013, SCI EDUC, V97, P80, DOI 10.1002/sce.21044 Roth WM, 2014, SCI EDUC, V98, P106, DOI 10.1002/sce.21085 Roth WM, 2013, WIRES COGN SCI, V4, P463, DOI 10.1002/wcs.1242 SCHEGLOFF EA, 1968, AM ANTHROPOL, V70, P1075, DOI 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 SCHEGLOFF EA, 1992, AM J SOCIOL, V97, P1295, DOI 10.1086/229903 Schnotz W, 2003, LEARN INSTR, V13, P141, DOI 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8 Seufert T, 2003, LEARN INSTR, V13, P227, DOI 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00022-1 Suthers D, 2003, COM S COLL LEARN, V2, P173 Tsui CY, 2003, RES SCI EDUC, V33, P111, DOI 10.1023/A:1023685706290 van der Meij J, 2011, J COMPUT ASSIST LEAR, V27, P411, DOI [10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00411x, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00411.x] van der Meij J, 2006, LEARN INSTR, V16, P199, DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.007 Vygotskij L. S., 2001, LEKCII PO PEDOLOGII Vygotskij L. S., 2005, PSYXHOLOGIJA RAZVITI Vygotsky L, 1978, MIND SOC DEV HIGHER Vygotsky L. S., 1994, VYGOTSKY READER, P338 Waldrip B, 2010, RES SCI EDUC, V40, P65, DOI 10.1007/s11165-009-9157-6 Wertsch JV, 2011, EXPLOR LEARN SCI, P153, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7582-9_9 Wittgenstein L., 1997, PHILOS INVESTIGATION NR 71 TC 3 Z9 4 U1 4 U2 15 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0036-8326 EI 1098-237X J9 SCI EDUC JI Sci. Educ. PD MAR PY 2015 VL 99 IS 2 BP 378 EP 403 DI 10.1002/sce.21150 PG 26 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CB9TV UT WOS:000349976900007 ER PT J AU Borgonovo, C de Garavito, JB Prevost, P AF Borgonovo, Claudia de Garavito, Joyce Bruhn Prevost, Philippe TI MOOD SELECTION IN RELATIVE CLAUSES Interfaces and Variability SO STUDIES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION LA English DT Article ID CROSS-LINGUISTIC INFLUENCE; BILINGUAL-CHILDREN; L2 SPANISH; ACQUISITION; SYNTAX; SPECIFICITY; REALIZATION; SEMANTICS; LEARNERS; ENGLISH AB There is presently a lively debate in second language (L2) acquisition research as to whether (adult) learners can acquire linguistic phenomena located at the interface between syntax and other modules, such as semantics, pragmatics, and lexical semantics, in contrast to phenomena that are purely syntactic in nature. For some researchers, the interface is precisely the place where fossilization occurs and the source of nonconvergence in L2 speakers. In this article we focus on the acquisition of the morphosyntax-semantics interface by examining the acquisition of mood in Spanish relative clauses by native speakers (NSs) of English. In particular, we focus on the contrast illustrated by Busco unas tijeras que corten I am looking for scissors that cut-subj versus Busco unas tijeras que cortan I am looking for scissors that cut-ind. When the indicative is used, there is a specific pair of scissors that the speaker is looking for. With the subjunctive, any pair of scissors will do, as long as it satisfies the condition expressed by the relative clause; the determiner phrase is nonspecific. In other words, we are dealing not with ungrammaticality, as both moods are possible in these contexts, but rather with differences in interpretation. General results showed that the learners could appropriately select the expected mood. We also saw that performance was not uniform across the various conditions tested. However, variability is not solely a product of L2 acquisition; we show it can be found in NSs as well. C1 [Borgonovo, Claudia] Univ Laval, Quebec City, PQ G1K 7P4, Canada. [de Garavito, Joyce Bruhn] Univ Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada. [Prevost, Philippe] Univ Tours, Tours, France. RP de Garavito, JB (reprint author), Univ Western Ontario, Dept Modern Languages & Literatures, Fac Arts, Univ Coll, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada. EM joycebg@uwo.ca FU Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSRHC) [410-2004-1226] FX We would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSRHC) for their generous support for this project (Grant # 410-2004-1226). CR Leonetti M., 2002, CURRENT TRENDS PRAGM, P35 Arregui A., 2005, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Belletti A, 2007, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V25, P657, DOI 10.1007/s11049-007-9026-9 Berk L. M., 1999, ENGLISH SYNTAX WORD Blanco J. A., 2005, VISTAS INTRO LENGUA Borgonovo C, 2003, PROC ANN BUCLD, P150 Borgonovo C., 2012, HISP LING S U FLOR G Borgonovo C, 2007, LING AKT, V111, P1 BRUGGER G, 1995, FOLIA LINGUIST, V29, P195, DOI 10.1515/flin.1995.29.3-4.195 Choi M.-H., 2006, LANG ACQUIS, P123 Chomsky Noam, 2001, K HALE LIFE LANGUAGE COLLENTINE J, 1995, HISPANIA-J DEV INTER, V78, P122, DOI 10.2307/345232 Collentine Joseph, 2003, STUDIES SPANISH 2 LA, P74 Cuza A, 2013, INT J BILINGUAL, V17, P634, DOI 10.1177/1367006911435594 Dekydtspotter L, 2001, LANG ACQUIS, V9, P175, DOI 10.1207/S15327817LA0903_1 Dekydtspotter L., 1999, LANG ACQUIS, V8, P265 ENC M, 1991, LINGUIST INQ, V22, P1 Farkas D, 2000, REFERENCE ANAPHORIC, P79 Farkas D, 2002, J SEMANT, V19, P1 Farkas Donka, 2001, LOGICAL PERSPECTIVES, P41 Farkas D, 1982, INTENSIONALITY ROMAN Geurts B, 2001, PRESUPPOSITIONS DISC, P125 Giannakidou Anastasia, 2011, TENSE LANGUAGES, P59 Goad H, 2003, CAN J LING/REV CAN L, V48, P243, DOI 10.1353/cjl.2004.0027 Hacohen A, 2007, BILING-LANG COGN, V10, P333, DOI 10.1017/s1366728907003100 Haznedar B., 1997, P 21 ANN BOST U C LA, P257 Horn L, 1995, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Ionin Tania, 2002, SECOND LANG RES, V18, P95 Wexler Kenneth, 2004, LANG ACQUIS, V12, P3, DOI 10.1207/s15327817la1201_2 Ionin T, 2009, BILING-LANG COGN, V12, P337, DOI 10.1017/S1366728909990149 Ionin T, 2013, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V34, P483, DOI 10.1017/S0142716411000841 Iverson M, 2008, EUROSLA YB, V8, P135, DOI DOI 10.1075/EUR0SLA.8.09IVE Jespersen O., 1965, MODERN ENGLISH GRAMM Kaiser G., 2003, P WORKSH SEM SYNT AS, V113, P67 Bosque I., 1999, GRAMATICA DESCRIPTIV, P787 Lardiere D., 1998, SECOND LANG RES, V14, P359 Lardiere D., 2000, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P102 Lardiere D., 2007, ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT Perez Leroux A.-T., 2011, LINGUISTIC APPROACHE, V1, P71 Lozano C., 2006, SECOND LANG RES, V22, P145, DOI 10.1191/0267658306sr264oa McCarthy C, 2008, SECOND LANG RES, V24, P459, DOI 10.1177/0267658308095737 Meisel J. M., 1997, SECOND LANG RES, V13, P227, DOI DOI 10.1191/026765897666180760 Montrul S., 2006, ACQUISITION SYNTAX R, P401 Montrul S, 2003, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V25, P351 Montrul S, 2004, BILING-LANG COGN, V7, P125, DOI DOI 10.1017/S1366728904001464 Navarro Samuel, 2003, J CHILD LANG, V30, P1 Prevost P, 2000, SECOND LANG RES, V16, P103, DOI DOI 10.1191/026765800677556046 Prevost P, 2011, LINGUIST APPROACH BI, V1, P79, DOI 10.1075/lab.1.1.12pre Quer Josep, 1998, MOOD INTERFACE Quer J., 2002, P GALA LISB, P189 RIVERO ML, 1975, LANGUAGE, V51, P32, DOI 10.2307/413149 RIVERO ML, 1977, LANGUAGE, V53, P70, DOI 10.2307/413056 Rothman J, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P951, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.007 Schwartz B., 2011, LINGUISTIC APPROACHE, V1, P74 Serratrice L, 2007, BILING-LANG COGN, V10, P225 Slabakova Roumyana, 2009, P 10 GEN APPR 2 LANG, P280 Slabakova R, 2008, STUD LANG ACQUIS, V34, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110211511 Slabakova Roumyana, 2011, EUROSLA YB, V11, P218 Slabakova R, 2012, SECOND LANG RES, V28, P319, DOI 10.1177/0267658312447612 Sorace A., 2004, BILING-LANG COGN, V7, P143, DOI [10.1017/S1366728904001543, DOI 10.1017/S1366728904001543] 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 Stowell Tim, 1993, SYNTAX TENSE UNPUB Torrego E., 1998, DEPENDENCIES OBJECTS Filiaci F., 2004, INT J BILINGUAL, V8, P257, DOI DOI 10.1177/13670069040080030601 Tsimpli Ianthi Maria, 2006, P 30 ANN BOST U C LA, P653 Umeda M., 2008, THESIS MCGILL U MONT Uribe-Etxebarria M., 1994, THESIS U CONNECTICUT WHITE L, 2003, BILINGUALISM LANGUAG, V0006 White L, 2011, LINGUA, V121, P577, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.005 White L, 2011, LINGUIST APPROACH BI, V1, P108, DOI 10.1075/lab.1.1.19whi White L, 2009, NEW HANDBOOK OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, 2ND EDITION, P49 Yuan B., 2008, P 9 GEN APPR 2 LANG, P272 NR 74 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 11 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI NEW YORK PA 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY 10013-2473 USA SN 0272-2631 EI 1470-1545 J9 STUD SECOND LANG ACQ JI Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. PD MAR PY 2015 VL 37 IS 1 BP 33 EP 69 DI 10.1017/S0272263114000321 PG 37 WC Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CB9SQ UT WOS:000349973100002 ER PT J AU Stringer, D AF Stringer, David TI EMBEDDED WH-QUESTIONS IN L2 ENGLISH IN INDIA Inversion as a main clause phenomenon SO STUDIES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION LA English DT Article ID 2ND-LANGUAGE ACQUISITION; INTERLANGUAGE; LANGUAGE; SLA AB This corpus study brings a second language (L2) research perspective, insights from generative grammar, and new empirical evidence to bear on a long-accepted claim in the World Englishes literaturenamely, that inversion with wh-movement in colloquial Indian English is obligatory in embedded clauses and impossible in main clauses. It is argued that this register of Indian English is a L2 variety, functioning as part of a multilingual code repertoire, but that syntactic universals apply to first and second languages alike. Despite recent attempts at formalization, this distribution should be unattested, as such a grammar would fall outside the constraints of Universal Grammar and would contradict proposed discourse-pragmatic principles of natural language. A Perl program was created to search the Indian subcorpus of the International Corpus of English (Greenbaum, 1996) for relevant distributional patterns. Results reveal that wh-inversion in Indian English operates in the same way as in other varieties: It is robustly attested in main clauses and appears only occasionally in embedded clauses where syntactic and pragmatic conditions allow; it is obligatory only with interrogative complementizer deletion. Thus, contrary to the standard account but commensurate with recent corpus studies, users of English in India exhibit knowledge of universal constraints in this domain. C1 [Stringer, David] Indiana Univ, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. RP Stringer, D (reprint author), Indiana Univ, Dept Language Studies 2, Mem Hall 310,1021 E Third St, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. EM ds6@indiana.edu CR Abrahamsson N, 2009, LANG LEARN, V59, P249, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00507.x ADJEMIAN C, 1976, LANG LEARN, V26, P297, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00279.x Aelbrecht L, 2012, LING AKT, V190, P1 Agnihotri R. K., 1999, YB S ASIAN LANGUAGE, P161 Balasubramanian C, 2009, STUD CORPUS LINGUIST, V37, P1 Bhatt RM, 2008, VARIETIES OF ENGLISH 4: AFRICA, SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA, P546 Bhatt Rakesh M, 2000, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V4, P69, DOI 10.1017/S1360674300000149 Bley-Vroman R., 1997, 2 LANG RES FOR MICH Borer H, 1996, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V19, P718 [Anonymous], 2007, BRIT NAT CORP VERS 3 Bybee Joan L., 2002, COMPLEX SENTENCES GR, P1 Clahsen H., 1989, SECOND LANG RES, V5, P1, DOI 10.1177/026765838900500101 Cohen J., 1992, CURRENT DIRECTIONS P, V1, P98, DOI [10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783, DOI 10.1111/1467-8721.EP10768783] Cohen J., 1988, STAT POWER ANAL BEHA Cook V., 2003, EFFECTS 2 LANGUAGE 1 Cook V., 1991, SECOND LANG RES, V7, P103, DOI DOI 10.1177/026765839100700203 Cook V., 2002, PORTRAITS L2 USER Crystal D, 2006, HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, P420, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511791154.010 Davies M, 2008, CORPUS CONT AM ENGLI Dekydtspotter L, 2009, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V31, P291, DOI 10.1017/S0272263109090317 ECKMAN FR, 1989, LANG LEARN, V39, P173, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1989.tb00421.x ECKMAN FR, 1981, LANG LEARN, V31, P195, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01379.x Emonds Joseph, 2004, PERIPHERIES, P75 Emonds Joseph, 1976, TRANSFORMATIONAL APP Emonds J., 1970, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE Emonds Joseph E, 2012, MAIN CLAUSE PHENOMEN, P21 Escutia M, 2002, CIRC LING APL COM CL Finegan E., 1999, LANGUAGE ITS STRUCTU, V3rd Garside R., 1987, COMPUTATIONAL ANAL E, P30 Gass S., 2013, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI Goodluck H., 1991, LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Green Georgia M., 1996, PRAGMATICS NATURAL L Green Lisa J., 2002, AFRICAN AM ENGLISH L Greenbaum S., 1996, COMPARING ENGLISH WO Grimshaw J, 1997, LINGUIST INQ, V28, P373 Gupta R. S., 2001, WHO IS CENTRIC NOW P, P148 Gueron Jacqueline, 1999, ENGLISH GRAMMAR GENE HAEGEMAN L., 2012, ADVERBIAL CLAUSES MA Hamilton R., 1998, SECOND LANG RES, V14, P292 Hawkins R, 1997, SECOND LANG RES, V13, P187 Hawkins R, 2008, LINGUA, V118, P595, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.009 Henry Allison, 1995, BELFAST ENGLISH STAN Hilbert Michaela, 2011, EXPLORING 2 LANGUAGE, P125, DOI [10.1075/scl.44.07hil, DOI 10.1075/SCL.44.07HIL] Hilbert M., 2008, LANGUAGE CONTACT CON Hooper Joan B., 1973, LINGUIST INQ, V4, P465 Institute of International Education, 2012, INT STUD BY FIELD ST Wexler Kenneth, 2004, LANG ACQUIS, V12, P3, DOI 10.1207/s15327817la1201_2 JOHNSON JS, 1989, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V21, P60, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0 Johnston M., 1985, SYNTACTIC MORPHOLOGI Kachru B. B., 1985, ENGL TODAY, V16, P3 Kachru Braj B., 1990, ALCHEMY ENGLISH SPRE Kachru Braj B., 2006, HDB WORLD ENGLISHES, P446 KACHRU Y, 1994, TESOL QUART, V28, P795, DOI 10.2307/3587564 Kanno K., 1996, LANG ACQUIS, V5, P317, DOI 10.1207/s15327817la0504_3 Labov W., 1968, PHONOLOGICAL GRAMMAT, V1 Lightfoot D, 2012, LING AKT, V190, P159 Long M., 2003, HDB 2 LANGUAGE ACQUI, P487, DOI DOI 10.1002/9780470756492.CH16 Mair C., 2003, AUSGRENZUNG HYBRIDIS, P79 Marcus G., 1992, MONOGRAPHS SOC RES C, V57 McCloskey J, 2006, GEORGET U R, P87 Meisel JM, 2009, Z SPRACHWISS, V28, P5, DOI 10.1515/ZFSW.2009.002 Mesthrie R, 2008, KEY T SOCIOLINGUIST, P1 Montrul Silvina A., 2004, ACQUISITION SPANISH Hundt Marianne, 2011, EXPLORING 2 LANGUAGE Nagle T, 2010, LANGUAGE MAINT UNPUB Newport E. L., 1990, CRITICAL PERIOD EFFE Ortega L, 2005, MOD LANG J, V89, P427, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00315.x Ortega L, 2013, LANG LEARN, V63, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00735.x Platt J., 1984, NEW ENGLISHES Pozzan L, 2014, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V35, P1055, DOI 10.1017/S0142716412000690 Prevost P, 2000, SECOND LANG RES, V16, P103, DOI DOI 10.1191/026765800677556046 Alan PRINCE, 1993, OPTIMALITY THE UNPUB Rizzi Luigi, 1997, ELEMENTS GRAMMAR, P281, DOI [10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7, DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7] Rizzi L, 2006, CURR STUD LINGUIST, V42, P97 Ross John R., 1973, YOU TAKE HIGH NODE I, P397 Schachter J., 1989, LINGUISTIC PERSPECTI, P73 Schneider EW, 2007, CAMB APPROACH LANG, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511618901 Schwartz B, 1996, SECOND LANG RES, V12, P40, DOI DOI 10.1177/026765839601200103 Scott M., 2004, WORDSMITH TOOLS VERS Sedlatschek Andreas, 2009, CONT INDIAN ENGLISH SELINKER L, 1972, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V10, P209, DOI 10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209 Singh Rajendra, 1998, NATIVE SPEAKER MULTI Slabakova R, 2008, STUD LANG ACQUIS, V34, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110211511 Sharwood Smith M, 1988, LINGUISTIC THEORY 2N, P173 Sridhar Kamal K., 1986, WORLD ENGLISH, V5, P3, DOI [10.1111/j.1467-971X.1986.tb00636.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1467-971X.1986.TB00636.X] Stromswold Karin, 1990, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE Szmrecsanyi B, 2009, ROUTL STUD GER LING, V14, P33 Thomas M., 1991, POINT COUNTERPOINT, P375 Trudgill P., 2008, INT ENGLISH GUIDE VA Tsimpli IM, 2007, SECOND LANG RES, V23, P215, DOI 10.1177/0267658307076546 Unsworth S., 2005, LOT DISSERTATION SER Verma S. K., 1980, INDIAN LINGUISTICS, V41, P73 White L., 2003, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI Whitworth G. C., 2007, ASIAN ENGLISHES, P1 Wilson A., 1993, CORPUS BASED COMPUTA, P215 NR 95 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 10 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI NEW YORK PA 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY 10013-2473 USA SN 0272-2631 EI 1470-1545 J9 STUD SECOND LANG ACQ JI Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. PD MAR PY 2015 VL 37 IS 1 BP 101 EP 133 DI 10.1017/S0272263114000357 PG 33 WC Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CB9SQ UT WOS:000349973100004 ER PT J AU Sridhar, SN Sridhar, KK AF Sridhar, S. N. Sridhar, Kamal K. TI English as a plural language: The significance of Yamuna Kachru SO WORLD ENGLISHES LA English DT Article AB In a distinguished career spanning five decades Professor Yamuna Kachru enriched several areas of linguistics and applied language studies. This initial appreciation attempts to show how her family background, education, and experience on three continents shaped her interests and perspectives. The evolution of her research is structured as a series of concentric circles, each informed by the previous ones. The inner circle is her monumental work on Hindi grammar and sociolinguistics. The second circle concerns contrastive analysis, second language acquisition and teaching, and multilingualism. The third circle involves pragmatics, discourse structure, and world Englishes. The salient features of her scholarship are outlined, along with her vital role in bringing about world-wide recognition of the new paradigm of world Englishes through original research, teaching, and building the academic infrastructure for the field through texts, reference works, the journal World Englishes, and the professional society IAWE. C1 [Sridhar, S. N.; Sridhar, Kamal K.] SUNY Stony Brook, Dept Asian & Asian Amer Studies, Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA. [Sridhar, S. N.; Sridhar, Kamal K.] SUNY Stony Brook, Ctr India Studies, Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA. RP Sridhar, SN (reprint author), SUNY Stony Brook, Dept Asian & Asian Amer Studies, Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA. EM s.sridhar@stonybrook.edu; kamal.sridhar@stonybrook.edu CR Chomsky N., 1957, SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES D'Souza Jean, 1987, INDIA AS A SOCIOLING Eliot T. S, 1932, SELECTED PROSE EMENEAU MB, 1956, LANGUAGE, V32, P3, DOI 10.2307/410649 Halliday Michael, 1965, THE LINGUISTIC SCIEN Iyer Subramania K. A., 1966, VAKYAPADIYA OF BHART Kachru Braj B., 1969, CURR TRENDS LINGUIST, V5, P627 KACHRU BB, 1965, WORD, V21, P391 Kaplan Robert B., 1980, READINGS ENGLISH 2 L, P399 Masica Colin P., 1976, DEFINING A LINGUISTI May Stephen, 2013, THE MULTILINGUAL TUR NADKARNI MV, 1975, LANGUAGE, V51, P672, DOI 10.2307/412892 Popper K., 1959, THE LOGIC OF SCIENTI Shivaprakash H. S., 2010, I KEEP VIGIL OF RUDR Singh Khushwant, 1959, I SHALL NOT HEAR THE Smith Larry E, 2000, WORLD ENGLISHES 2000 Sridhar S. N., 1992, WORLD ENGLISH, V11, P85, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.1992.tb00052.x Larry E Smith, 1987, DISCOURSE ACROSS CUL Sridhar S. N., 1974, INT J DRAVIDIAN LING, V3, P1 Sridhar S. N., 2014, LECTURE DELIVERED AT Sridhar S. N., 2012, KACHRU ENDOWMENT LEC Sridhar S. N., 2013, KEYNOTE ADDRESS THE Sridhar S. N., 2013, PLENARY LECTURE INTE Sridhar S. N., 2013, PLENARY LECTURE 19TH NR 24 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 8 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 MAR PY 2015 VL 34 IS 1 SI SI BP 136 EP 148 DI 10.1111/weng.12125 PG 13 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CB9NJ UT WOS:000349958100015 ER PT J AU Sarilar, A Matthews, D Kuntay, AC AF Sarilar, Ayse Matthews, Danielle Kuntay, Aylin C. TI Hearing relative clauses boosts relative clause usage (and referential clarity) in young Turkish language learners SO APPLIED PSYCHOLINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID 2-YEAR-OLD CHILDRENS SENSITIVITY; PERSPECTIVE-TAKING; ABSTRACT SYNTAX; FALSE BELIEF; ACQUISITION; COMMUNICATION; COMPREHENSION; PRESCHOOLERS; CONSTRAINTS; INFORMATION AB On account of both their functional and their morphosyntactic characteristics, relative clauses are often viewed as indicators of complexity in child language. Morphosyntactic properties of Turkish make use of particularly arduous relative clauses in spontaneous early discourse. A matching sticker selection task was used to determine whether Turkish-learning 3- and 4-year-olds can be trained to use subject relative clauses and uniquely identifying constructions. Upon their selection of the accurate sticker, the children were exposed to relative clause constructions (relative clause condition), sentences with demonstrative pronouns (demonstrative noun phrase condition), or a general approval (positive feedback condition). The number of relative clauses increased from pretest to posttest only in the relative clause condition; the rate of using adequately discriminating forms increased in all the three conditions, albeit with a steeper increase in the relative clause condition. The results are discussed in the framework of both structural and pragmatic priming. C1 [Sarilar, Ayse; Kuntay, Aylin C.] Koc Univ, TR-34450 Istanbul, Turkey. [Matthews, Danielle] Univ Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, S Yorkshire, England. RP Kuntay, AC (reprint author), Koc Univ, Rumeli Feneri Yolu, TR-34450 Istanbul, Turkey. EM akuntay@ku.edu.tr RI Matthews, Danielle/L-2938-2015 OI Matthews, Danielle/0000-0003-3562-9549 CR ARIEL M, 1988, J LINGUIST, V24, P65, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700011567 Arnon I, 2005, P 29 BOST U C LANG D Arnon I, 2010, J CHILD LANG, V37, P27, DOI 10.1017/S030500090900943X ASHER SR, 1981, J EDUC PSYCHOL, V73, P232, DOI 10.1037//0022-0663.73.2.232 Baayen R. H, 2008, ANAL LINGUISTIC DATA Bahtiyar S, 2009, J CHILD LANG, V36, P529, DOI 10.1017/S0305000908009094 Berman R. A., 1994, RELATING EVENTS NARR Birch SAJ, 2003, PSYCHOL SCI, V14, P283, DOI 10.1111/1467-9280.03436 BLOOM L, 1989, J CHILD LANG, V16, P101 Bloom P, 2000, COGNITION, V77, P25 BOCK JK, 1986, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V18, P355, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 Bock K, 2000, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V129, P177, DOI 10.1037//0096-3445.129.2.177 Brandt S., 2011, ACQUISITION RELATIVE, P61, DOI [10.1075/tilar.8, DOI 10.1075/TILAR.8] Brandt S, 2009, COGN LINGUIST, V20, P539, DOI 10.1515/COGL.2009.024 Branigan HP, 2005, PROC ANN BUCLD, P109 Bybee Joan, 2001, FREQUENCY EMERGENCE Car I. M., 2009, LINGUA, V119, P359, DOI [10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.019, DOI 10.1016/J.LINGUA.2007.10.019] Chang F, 2006, PSYCHOL REV, V113, P234, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.234 Clancy P. M, 2009, CROSSLINGUISTIC APPR, P105 Clark H. H., 1981, ATTENTION PERFORM, V9, P313 Clark H. H., 1996, USING LANGUAGE Cleland AA, 2003, J MEM LANG, V49, P214, DOI 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00060-3 CORREA LMS, 1995, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V24, P183, DOI 10.1007/BF02145355 Dasinger Lisa, 1994, RELATING EVENTS NARR, P457 Diessel H, 2000, COGN LINGUIST, V11, P131 Diessel H, 2005, LANGUAGE, V81, P882, DOI 10.1353/lan.2005.0169 Epley N, 2004, J EXP SOC PSYCHOL, V40, P760, DOI 10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.002 Ervin-Tripp S. M., 1964, ACQUISITION LANGUAGE, P9 Fragman C., 1997, P 21 BOST U C LANG D Friedmann N, 2004, J CHILD LANG, V31, P661, DOI 10.1017/S0305000904006269 Gamez PB, 2009, J CHILD LANG, V36, P269, DOI 10.1017/S0305000908008945 Goldberg AE, 2003, TRENDS COGN SCI, V7, P219, DOI 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 Hale CM, 2003, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V6, P346, DOI 10.1111/1467-7687.00289 Crain S., 1982, LANGUAGE DEV, VII, P245 Hankamer J., 1976, N E LINGUISTICS SOC, V6, P123 Hartsuiker RJ, 2000, COGNITION, V75, pB27, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00080-3 Hermon G., 2010, 6 WORKSH ALT FORM LI Hisao F., 2003, COGNITION, V90, P3, DOI [10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00124-014597268, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00124-0] Jaeger TF, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P434, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 Keenan E, 1977, CHILD DISCOURSE, P125 Kidd E, 2003, J CHILD LANG, V30, P671, DOI 10.1017/S0305000903005683 Kidd E, 2007, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V22, P860, DOI 10.1080/01690960601155284 Kidd E, 2012, DEV PSYCHOL, V48, P171, DOI 10.1037/a0025405 Kidd E, 2012, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V33, P393, DOI 10.1017/S0142716411000415 Kloo D, 2003, CHILD DEV, V74, P1823, DOI 10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00640.x Kornfilt Jaklin, 1984, THESIS HARVARD U Koymen S. B., 2009, P 35 ANN M BERK LING, P202 Kuntay AC, 2006, J CHILD LANG, V33, P303, DOI 10.1017/S0305000906007380 Langacker Ronald W., 2008, COGNITIVE GRAMMAR BA LEFEBVREPINARD M, 1980, CHILD DEV, V51, P179, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1980.tb02524.x Matthews D, 2012, TOP COGN SCI, V4, P184, DOI 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01181.x Matthews D, 2007, CHILD DEV, V78, P1744, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01098.x Mitchell P, 1996, COGNITION, V59, P1, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00683-4 MOSES LJ, 1993, COGNITIVE DEV, V8, P1, DOI 10.1016/0885-2014(93)90002-M Nadig AS, 2002, PSYCHOL SCI, V13, P329, DOI 10.1111/1467-9280.00460 Nilsen ES, 2008, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V11, P556, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00701.x O'Neill DK, 2001, J CHILD LANG, V28, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0305000900004566 ONeill DK, 1996, CHILD DEV, V67, P659, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01758.x Ozeki H, 2010, J CHILD LANG, V37, P197, DOI 10.1017/S0305000909009489 Ozge D., 2010, P 34 BOST U C LANG D Ozsoy A. S, 1998, MAINZ M P 7 INT C TU, P362 Piaget J, 1930, CHILDS CONCEPTION PH Pickering MJ, 2008, PSYCHOL BULL, V134, P427, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427 ROBINSON EJ, 1985, INT J BEHAV DEV, V8, P285 Ekmekci F. o., 2001, CURRENT ISSUES TURKI, P33 ROTH FP, 1984, J CHILD LANG, V11, P89 Rowland CF, 2012, COGNITION, V125, P49, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.008 Salomo D, 2010, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V31, P101, DOI 10.1017/S014271640999018X Sarlar A., 2011, PUZZLES LANGUAGE ESS Sarlar A., 2010, THESIS KOC U ISTANBU Shimpi PM, 2007, DEV PSYCHOL, V43, P1334, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1334 Slobin D.I, 1982, LANG ACQUIS, P128 Slobin Dan I., 1986, STUDIES TURKISH LING, P273, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.8.16SLO SODIAN B, 1988, CHILD DEV, V59, P378, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1988.tb01473.x Thothathiri M., 2008, COGNITION, V108, P5 Underhill R., 1972, LINGUIST INQ, V3, P87 Vasilyeva M., 2012, RES METHODS CHILD LA Vasilyeva M, 2006, DEV PSYCHOL, V42, P164, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.164 WHITEHURST GJ, 1981, CHILD DEV, V52, P507, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1981.tb03074.x Yumruta N., 2009, THESIS BOGAZICI U IS NR 80 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 6 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 MAR PY 2015 VL 36 IS 2 BP 175 EP 202 DI 10.1017/S0142716413000192 PG 28 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CB3TZ UT WOS:000349553100002 ER PT J AU Arnold, JE Watson, DG AF Arnold, Jennifer E. Watson, Duane G. TI Synthesising meaning and processing approaches to prosody: performance matters SO LANGUAGE COGNITION AND NEUROSCIENCE LA English DT Article DE prosody; reference; acoustic prominence; audience design; language production ID SPOKEN-LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION; NARRATIVE COMPREHENSION; REFERRING EXPRESSIONS; SPEECH PRODUCTION; LEXICAL REPRESENTATION; INFORMATION-STRUCTURE; REFERENCE RESOLUTION; SENTENCE PRODUCTION; SITUATION MODELS; THEMATIC ROLES AB Words vary in acoustic prominence; for example, repeated words tend to be reduced, while focused elements tend to be acoustically prominent. We discuss two approaches to this phenomenon. On the message-based view, acoustic choices signal the speaker's meaning or pragmatics, or are guided by syntactic structure. On the facilitation-based view, reduced forms reflect facilitation of production-processing mechanisms. We argue that message-based constraints correlate systematically with production facilitation. Moreover, we argue that discourse effects on acoustic reduction may be at least partially mediated by processing facilitation. Thus, research needs to simultaneously consider both competence (message) and performance (processing) constraints on prosody, specifically in terms of the psychological mechanisms underlying acoustic reduction. To facilitate this goal, we present preliminary processing models of message- and facilitation-based approaches and outline directions for future research. C1 [Arnold, Jennifer E.] Univ N Carolina, Dept Psychol, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA. [Watson, Duane G.] Univ Illinois, Dept Psychol, Champaign, IL USA. RP Arnold, JE (reprint author), Univ N Carolina, Dept Psychol, Davie Hall,CB 3270, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA. EM jarnold@email.unc.edu FU NSF [BCS-0745627]; NIH [R01 DC008774]; James S. McDonnell foundation FX This research was partially supported by NSF [grant number BCS-0745627] to J. Arnold. D. Watson is supported by NIH [grant number R01 DC008774] and the James S. McDonnell foundation. CR Anderson J. R., 2007, CAN HUMAN MIND OCCUR Ariel M., 2001, TEXT REPRESENTATION, P29, DOI DOI 10.1075/HCP.8.04ARI Ariel Mira, 1990, ACCESSING NOUN PHRAS Arnold JE, 2004, PSYCHOL SCI, V15, P578, DOI 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00723.x Arnold J. E., 1998, THESIS STANFORD U ST Arnold JE, 2001, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V31, P137, DOI 10.1207/S15326950DP3102_02 Arnold J. E., 2012, PROCESSING ACQUISITI 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 Arnold JE, 2007, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V33, P914, DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.914 Arnold JE, 2007, J MEM LANG, V56, P521, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.007 Arnold JE, 2008, COGNITION, V108, P69, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.01.001 Arnold JE, 2012, PSYCHON B REV, V19, P505, DOI 10.3758/s13423-012-0233-y Aylett M, 2004, LANG SPEECH, V47, P31 BALOTA DA, 1989, J MEM LANG, V28, P14, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(89)90026-0 Bard E. G., 2004, APPROACHES STUDYING, P173 Bard EG, 2000, J MEM LANG, V42, P1, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1999.2667 Baumann S., 2006, P SPEECH PROS 2006, P301 Baumann S., 2003, P 15 INT C PHON SCI Baumann S, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P1636, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.017 Bell A, 2003, J ACOUST SOC AM, V113, P1001, DOI 10.1121/1.1534836 Bell A, 2009, J MEM LANG, V60, P92, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003 BOCK JK, 1983, MEM COGNITION, V11, P64, DOI 10.3758/BF03197663 Bock J. K., 1994, HDB PSYCHOLINGUISTIC, P945 BOCK JK, 1986, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V12, P575, DOI 10.1037//0278-7393.12.4.575 BOWER GH, 1990, SCIENCE, V247, P44, DOI 10.1126/science.2403694 BRANSFORD JD, 1972, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V3, P193, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(72)90003-5 Breen M, 2010, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V25, P1044, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2010.504378 BRENNAN SE, 1995, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V10, P137, DOI 10.1080/01690969508407091 Brennan Susan, 1987, P 25 ANN M ASS COMP, P155, DOI DOI 10.3115/981175 Brennan SE, 2009, TOP COGN SCI, V1, P274, DOI 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01019.x Brown G., 1983, PROSODY MODELS MEASU, P67 Brown-Schmidt S, 2005, J MEM LANG, V53, P292, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2005.03.003 Burki A, 2011, J MEM LANG, V64, P424, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2011.01.002 Burki A, 2012, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V38, P617, DOI 10.1037/a0026167 Burki A, 2010, J MEM LANG, V62, P421, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2010.01.002 Bybee J., 2001, CAMBRIDGE STUDIES LI, V94 Chafe Wallace, 1987, COHERENCE GROUNDING, V11, P21 Chafe W., 1994, DISCOURSE CONSCIOUSN Chomsky N., 1965, ASPECTS THEORY SYNTA Christodoulou A., 2009, THESIS U N CAROLINA Christodoulou A., 2012, THESIS U N CAROLINA Clark Herbert, 1981, ELEMENTS DISCOURSE U, P10 Clark HH, 2002, COGNITION, V84, P73, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3 Clifton C, 2006, PSYCHON B REV, V13, P854, DOI 10.3758/BF03194009 Cote M.-H., 2007, J FRENCH LANGUAGE ST, V17, P159, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0959269507002827 Dahan D, 2002, J MEM LANG, V47, P292, DOI 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00001-3 Damian MF, 2003, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V29, P416, DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.416 Dell F., 1985, REGLES LESSONS DELL GS, 1986, PSYCHOL REV, V93, P283, DOI 10.1037//0033-295X.93.3.283 EBERHARD KM, 1995, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V24, P409, DOI 10.1007/BF02143160 Ferreira F., 2006, HDB PSYCHOLINGUISTIC, P61, DOI DOI 10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50004-3 Ferreira F, 2002, J MEM LANG, V46, P57, DOI 10.1006/jmla.2001.2797 Ferreira F, 2007, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V22, P1151, DOI 10.1080/01690960701461293 FOWLER CA, 1988, LANG SPEECH, V31, P307 FOWLER CA, 1987, J MEM LANG, V26, P489, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(87)90136-7 Fukumura K, 2010, Q J EXP PSYCHOL, V63, P1700, DOI 10.1080/17470210903490969 Gahl S, 2004, LANGUAGE, V80, P748, DOI 10.1353/lan.2004.0185 Gahl S, 2012, J MEM LANG, V66, P789, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.006 Gahl S, 2008, LANGUAGE, V84, P474 Galati A, 2010, J MEM LANG, V62, P35, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002 Bower Gordon H., 1975, PSYCHOL LEARN MOTIV, P133, DOI 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60270-4 Garrett M. F., 1988, LINGUISTICS CAMBRIDG, V3, P69 Butterworth B., 1980, LANGUAGE PRODUCTION, V1, P177 Gillespie M., 2011, THESIS NE U BOSTON Givon Talmy, 1983, TOPIC CONTINUITY DIS Goldrick M, 2011, COGNITION, V121, P58, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.006 Gordon PC, 1998, COGNITIVE SCI, V22, P389, DOI 10.1207/s15516709cog2204_1 Gregory M. L., 1999, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V35, P151 GROSZ BJ, 1995, COMPUT LINGUIST, V21, P203 GUNDEL JK, 1993, LANGUAGE, V69, P274, DOI 10.2307/416535 Gussenhoven C, 1983, SEMANTIC ANAL NUCL T Halliday M. A. K., 1967, INTONATION GRAMMAR B Jaeger TF, 2010, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V61, P23, DOI 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002 Jaeger TF, 2006, THESIS STANFORD U ST Johnson-Laird P., 1983, MENTAL MODELS COGNIT Jurafsky D., 2001, FREQUENCY EMERGENCE, V45, P229, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.45.13JUR Kahn JM, 2012, J MEM LANG, V67, P311, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.002 Kamp H, 1993, DISCOURSE LOGIC Kehler A, 2008, J SEMANT, V25, P1, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffm018 Krahmer E, 2001, SPEECH COMMUN, V34, P391, DOI 10.1016/S0167-6393(00)00058-3 Ladd R. R., 1996, INTONATIONAL PHONOLO Lam TQ, 2010, MEM COGNITION, V38, P1137, DOI 10.3758/MC.38.8.1137 Leveli W. J., 1989, SPEAKING INTENTION A Levelt WJM, 1999, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V22, P1 Levy R., 2007, P 20 ANN C NEUR INF MEYER AS, 1991, J MEM LANG, V30, P69, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90011-8 Moreton E, 2008, PHONOLOGY, V25, P83, DOI 10.1017/S0952675708001413 MORROW DG, 1987, J MEM LANG, V26, P165, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(87)90122-7 MORROW DG, 1989, J MEM LANG, V28, P292, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(89)90035-1 O'Seaghdha PG, 2000, J EXP PSYCHOL HUMAN, V26, P57, DOI 10.1037//0096-1523.26.1.57 Pickering MJ, 2004, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V27, P169 PIERREHUMBERT J, 1990, SYS DEV FDN, P271 Prince E., 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P223 Prince Ellen, 1992, DISCOURSE DESCRIPTIO, P295, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.16.12PRI Ranbom LJ, 2007, J MEM LANG, V57, P273, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.001 Raymond W. D., 2006, LANG VAR CHANGE, V18, P55, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0954394506060042 Rooth Mats, 1992, NAT LANG SEMANT, V1, P75, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF02342617 Rosa E. C., 2011, P PRECOGSCI BRIDG GA Schmitt BM, 1999, COGNITION, V69, P313, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00073-0 Schwarzschild Roger, 1999, NAT LANG SEMANT, V7, P141, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1008370902407 Selkirk E. O., 1996, HDB PHONOLOGICAL THE, P138 SEVALD CA, 1994, COGNITION, V53, P91, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90067-1 SHRIBERG E, 1992, SPEECH AND NATURAL LANGUAGE, P419 Steedman M, 2000, LINGUIST INQ, V31, P649, DOI 10.1162/002438900554505 STEVENSON RJ, 1994, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V9, P519, DOI 10.1080/01690969408402130 TERKEN J, 1994, LANG SPEECH, V37, P125 Tily H., 2009, LANGUAGE COGNITION, V1, P147, DOI DOI 10.1515/LANGC0G.2009.008 Tranel B., 1981, CONCRETENESS GENERAT Vallduvi E., 1993, INFORM PACKAGING SUR van Dijk T. A., 1983, STRATEGIES DISCOURSE van Rij J., 2011, P PRECOGSCI 2011 WOR Hendriks P., 2011, P 2 WORKSH COGN MOD, P67 Walters M. A., 2007, THESIS MIT Watson D., 2005, 2005 CUNY HUM SENT P Watson DG, 2010, PSYCHOL LEARN MOTIV, V52, P163, DOI 10.1016/S0079-7421(10)52004-8 Watson DG, 2008, COGNITION, V106, P1548, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.009 NR 117 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 0 U2 1 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 FEB 7 PY 2015 VL 30 IS 1-2 SI SI BP 88 EP 102 DI 10.1080/01690965.2013.840733 PG 15 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Behavioral Sciences; Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Behavioral Sciences; Linguistics; Psychology GA CC4QU UT WOS:000350338900006 PM 26393234 ER PT J AU Blom, E Vasic, N Baker, A AF Blom, Elma Vasic, Nada Baker, Anne TI The pragmatics of articles in Dutch children with specific language impairment SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE SLI; definiteness; elicited production; articles; pragmatics; determiners ID ENGLISH-SPEAKING CHILDREN; WORKING-MEMORY; INDEFINITE ARTICLES; ACQUISITION; DEFINITE; OMISSION AB Previous studies have found that the morpho-syntactic aspects of grammatical morphemes, including articles, pose problems for Dutch-speaking children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI). In the present study it is demonstrated that article errors in Dutch children with SLI appear to be modulated by the pragmatic context to some extent. This study examines the pragmatic aspects of articles in 19 6- to 8-year-old children with SL1, comparing the results with those of 26 monolingual typically developing age-matched (TD-AM) and 17 language-matched (TD-LM) children. An elicitation task was used to test the specific discourse-new context (definite articles) and nonspecific context (indefinite articles). In both contexts, the SLI group omitted articles more often than the TD-AM group, thus behaving similarly to the younger TD-LM group. The SLI group substituted articles more often than children in both control groups. Many children in the SLI group displayed variable behaviour and relatively many children with SLI used definite articles in non-specific contexts. We conclude that processing limitations in SLI may lead to less stable lexical knowledge of articles and hinder the successful integration of lexical, syntactic and pragmatic information that is required for target-like use of articles. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Blom, Elma] Univ Utrecht, NL-3508 TC Utrecht, Netherlands. [Vasic, Nada; Baker, Anne] Univ Amsterdam, NL-1012 WX Amsterdam, Netherlands. RP Blom, E (reprint author), Univ Utrecht, NL-3508 TC Utrecht, Netherlands. EM W.B.T.Blom@uu.nl FU Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) FX This research is part of the project 'Cross-linguistic study on the production and processing of grammatical morphemes in L2 children compared to children with Specific Language Impairment' funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). We would like to thank the Anne Frank school Bunnik, Achtbaan, Polygoon and Pionier schools Almere, Auris Taalfontein Rotterdam, Auris Taalplein Gouda, Auris College Utrecht for their collaboration, and our research assistants Nienke Verhoog, Marleen Dorlandt, Iske Bakker, and Stephanie Leijs. CR Archibald LMD, 2006, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V41, P675, DOI 10.1080/13682820500442602 Baauw S, 2002, PROC ANN BUCLD, P24 Bishop DV, 2000, SPEECH LANGUAGE IMPA, P99 Brown R., 1973, 1 LANGUAGE EARLY STA Chatterjee C., 2006, REGRESSION ANAL EXAM Chierchia Gennaro, 2001, NOUNS ARTICLES UNPUB CLAHSEN H, 1989, LINGUISTICS, V27, P897, DOI 10.1515/ling.1989.27.5.897 Clark H. H., 1975, THEORETICAL ISSUES N, P169 Colle L., 2008, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V38, P28 Damhuis R., 1992, WOORDENLIJST VOOR 4 De Jong J, 1999, THESIS GRONINGEN U De Lange J., 2008, THESIS UTRECHT U UTR Eisenbeiss S., 2000, ACQUISITION SYNTAX I, P27 EMSLIE HC, 1981, J CHILD LANG, V8, P313 Farrant BM, 2006, CHILD DEV, V77, P1842, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00977.x GERKEN LA, 1994, J MEM LANG, V33, P19, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1994.1002 Geurts H, 2010, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V45, P436, DOI 10.3109/13682820903165685 Givon T, 1995, TYPOL ST L, V31, P59 Nettelbladt U., 2003, FIRST LANG, V23, P343, DOI 10.1177/01427237030233005 Hansson K, 2000, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V43, P848 Haspelmath Martin, 1997, INDEFINITE PRONOUNS HAWKINS JA, 1991, J LINGUIST, V27, P405, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700012731 Hsieh L, 1999, J CHILD LANG, V26, P531, DOI 10.1017/S030500099900392X Ionin T., 2003, MIT WORKING PAPERS L Kort W., 2002, WISC 3 NL HANDLEIDIN Leonard L., 2009, HDB CHILD LANGUAGE D, P308 Leonard LB, 2007, ADV CHILD DEV BEHAV, V35, P139 Leonard LB, 2007, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V50, P408, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/029) Leonard LB, 1997, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V40, P741 LEONARD LB, 1995, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V38, P1270 Lyons Cristopher, 1999, DEFINITENESS Maratsos M. P., 1976, USE DEFINITE INDEFIN MARATSOS MP, 1974, CHILD DEV, V45, P446 Marinis T, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V27, P139 Orgassa A., 2009, THESIS U AMSTERDAM U Parigger E. M., 2012, THESIS U AMSTERDAM Polisenska D., 2010, THESIS U AMSTERDAM U Polite EJ, 2011, INT J SPEECH-LANG PA, V13, P291, DOI [10.3109/17549507.2011.558116, 10.1080/17549507.2011.558116] Rice ML, 2006, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V49, P793, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/056) Rice ML, 1996, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V39, P1239 Roelofs M., 1998, THESIS U AMSTERDAM H Rozendaal M., 2008, THESIS U AMSTERDAM U Rozendaal MI, 2008, J CHILD LANG, V35, P773, DOI 10.1017/S0305000908008702 Ruffman T, 2005, TRENDS COGN SCI, V9, P462, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.001 Schaeffer J., 2000, ACQUISITION DIRECT O Schafer RJ, 2000, PROC ANN BUCLD, P609 Schlichting L., 2002, LEXILIJST NL Schwartz R. G., 2009, HDB CHILD LANGUAGE D Seymour H. N., 2005, DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATIO Snijders J., 1989, 5517 SONR STARK RE, 1981, J SPEECH HEAR DISORD, V46, P114 van Ewijk L, 2010, ENTROPY-SWITZ, V12, P798, DOI 10.3390/e12040798 van Hout A, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P1973, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.006 Hoekstra J.G., 1982, TAALTOETS KINDEREN van Hout A, 2008, P GALA 2007, P279 van den Dungen L, 2007, SPONTANE TAAL ANAL P Verhoeven R., 2002, TAALTOETS KINDEREN T Verhoeven R., 2006, VERANTWOORDING TAALT Weismer SE, 1999, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V42, P1249 WEXLER K, 2004, SYNTAX, V0007 WIJNEN F, 1994, J CHILD LANG, V21, P59 ZEHLER AM, 1982, CHILD DEV, V53, P1268, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1982.tb04165.x NR 62 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 5 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 155 SI SI BP 29 EP 42 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.12.002 PG 14 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CE2PA UT WOS:000351656300003 ER PT J AU Hughes, ME Allen, SEM AF Hughes, Mary E. Allen, Shanley E. M. TI The incremental effect of discourse-pragmatic sensitivity on referential choice in the acquisition of a first language SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Argument realization; Referential choice; Discourse-pragmatics; Subject omission; Acquisition of reference ID YOUNG CHILDRENS USE; REFERRING EXPRESSIONS; SUBJECTLESS SENTENCES; ARGUMENT REALIZATION; PERCEPTUAL CONTEXT; JOINT ATTENTION; NULL SUBJECTS; KNOWLEDGE; ENGLISH; INUKTITUT AB Previous research has demonstrated that children as young as 2;0 are sensitive to discourse-pragmatic context when selecting referring expressions. If a referent is present in the discourse context and/or jointly attended to by the listener, a child will be more likely to omit a referring expression or use a pronominal form. To date, most research has examined the effect of individual features in the discourse, whereas in reality the various features occur and work together. In this study, we explore children's sensitivity to the incremental effect of six discourse-pragmatic features. This stepwise approach is a more nuanced approach to measure the cumulative effect of accessibility on argument realization in order to reveal the predictive patterns of accessibility. Videotaped data from four monolingual English-speaking children in spontaneous interaction with their caregivers are analyzed at two ages: 2;0-2;7 and 3;0-3;1. Caregivers and children at both ages are sensitive to incremental effects of accessibility. Their selection of linguistic forms follows a dine such that low information forms are utilized for accessible referents. As referents become increasingly inaccessible, they are more likely to be realized as high information forms. These results indicate another important dimension of children's sensitivity to discourse-pragmatics and have implications for assumptions about children's theory of mind. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Hughes, Mary E.] Boston Univ, Boston, MA 02215 USA. [Allen, Shanley E. M.] Univ Kaiserslautern, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany. RP Hughes, ME (reprint author), Boston Univ, Boston, MA 02215 USA. EM mhughs@bu.edu; allen@sowi.uni-kl.de OI Allen, Shanley/0000-0002-5421-6750 FU National Science Foundation [BCS-0346841] FX We thank Elena Lieven and Jeannine Goh of the Max Planck Child Study Center in Manchester, UK, for providing access to the transcripts and videotapes of the data. This study was funded by National Science Foundation grant BCS-0346841 to Shanley Allen. CR ALLEN S, 2008, CORPORA LANGUAGE ACQ, V6, P99 Allen SEM, 2000, LINGUISTICS, V38, P483, DOI 10.1515/ling.38.3.483 Allen S., 2003, PREFERRED ARGUMENT S, P301 Allen S. E. M., 2007, CROSSLINGUISTIC PERS, P191 Allen S., 1997, P GALA, P10 Ariel M., 2001, TEXT REPRESENTATION, P29, DOI DOI 10.1075/HCP.8.04ARI Ariel Mira, 1990, ACCESSING NOUN PHRAS ARIEL M, 1994, J LINGUIST, V30, P3, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700016170 Baron-Cohen S., 1995, MINDBLINDEDNESS ESSA BLOOM P, 1990, LINGUIST INQ, V21, P491 BOCK JK, 1985, COGNITION, V21, P47 Campbell AL, 2000, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V43, P1337 Chafe Wallace, 1987, COHERENCE GROUNDING, V11, P21 Clancy P., 1993, P 25 ANN CHILD LANG, P307 Clancy P. M., 1997, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V6, P639 Clark E. V., 2009, 1 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI Clark E. V., 2010, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V4, P445, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2010.00214.X Clark EV, 2008, J CHILD LANG, V35, P349, DOI 10.1017/S0305000907008537 Clark H. H., 1996, USING LANGUAGE CLEMENTS WA, 1994, COGNITIVE DEV, V9, P377, DOI 10.1016/0885-2014(94)90012-4 De Cat C, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V56, P58, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.002 De Cat C, 2004, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V42, P111 Demir OE, 2012, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V27, P844, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2011.589273 DEUTSCH W, 1982, COGNITION, V11, P159, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(82)90024-5 DUBOIS JW, 1987, LANGUAGE, V63, P805 GERKEN LA, 1991, J MEM LANG, V30, P431, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90015-C Givon Talmy, 1983, TOPIC CONTINUITY DIS Goldfield B. A., 1997, DEV LANGUAGE, P317 Graf E., 2010, THESIS U MANCHESTER Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Guerriero S., 2006, J CHILD LANG, V33, P823 Gundel JK, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V56, P43, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.04.003 GUNDEL JK, 1993, LANGUAGE, V69, P274, DOI 10.2307/416535 Gundel J. K., 2007, ZAS PAPERS LINGUISTI, V48, P1 Gurcanli O., 2007, P 31 ANN BOST U C LA, P267 Hamann C, 1998, COGNITION, V69, P35, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00059-6 Huang CC, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2057, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.007 Hughes M, 2006, PROC ANN BUCLD, P293 Hughes ME, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V56, P15, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.005 Hughes M. E., 2011, THESIS BOSTON U BOST HYAMS N, 1993, LINGUIST INQ, V24, P421 Hyams N., 2008, ENTERPRISE COGNITIVE, P1 Hyams N., 2011, HDB GENERATIVE APPRO Hyams N., 1986, LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Kuntay AC, 2006, J CHILD LANG, V33, P303, DOI 10.1017/S0305000906007380 Lieven E, 2003, J CHILD LANG, V30, P333, DOI 10.1017/S0305000903005592 Lieven E, 2009, COGN LINGUIST, V20, P481, DOI 10.1515/COGL.2009.022 Matthews D, 2006, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V27, P403, DOI 10.1017/S0142716406060334 Mishina-Mori S, 2007, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 31ST ANNUAL BOSTON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT VOLS 1 AND 2, P441 Narasimhan B, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P461, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.005 O'Neill D. K., 2005, WHY LANGUAGE MATTERS, P84 ONeill DK, 1996, CHILD DEV, V67, P659, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01758.x Orfitelli R, 2012, LINGUIST INQ, V43, P563 Orvig AS, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1842, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.020 Paradis J, 2003, J CHILD LANG, V30, P371, DOI 10.1017/S0305000903005609 PRINCE EF, 1985, J PRAGMATICS, V9, P65, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(85)90048-7 Repacholi BM, 1997, DEV PSYCHOL, V33, P12, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.33.1.12 Robinson EJ, 2003, CHILD DEV, V74, P48, DOI 10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00520 Rozendaal M, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1866, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.013 Salazar Orvig A., 2010, FIRST LANG, V30, P375 Schaeffer J., 2000, ACQUISITION DIRECT O Schmitz K., 2007, AILE, V25, P9 Serratrice L, 2005, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V26, P437, DOI 10.1017/S0142716405050241 SERRATRICE L, 2004, BILINGUALISM LANGUAG, V0007 Shin NL, 2012, LANG ACQUIS, V19, P3, DOI 10.1080/10489223.2012.633846 Silverstein Michael, 1976, GRAMMATICAL CATEGORI, P112 Skarabela B., 2003, GEORG U ROUNDT LING Skarabela B., 2007, THESIS BOSTON U Skarabela B, 2002, PROC ANN BUCLD, P620 Skarabela B, 2007, LINGUA, V117, P1837, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.010 Skarabela B, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V56, P5, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.003 So WC, 2010, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V31, P209, DOI 10.1017/S0142716409990221 Tomasello M., 2003, CONSTRUCTING LANGUAG Tomasello M, 2003, DEV PSYCHOL, V39, P906, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.39.5.906 van Hout A, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P1973, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.006 Walker MA, 1996, LANG SPEECH, V39, P265 Wexler K, 1998, LINGUA, V106, P23, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00029-1 Wittek A, 2005, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V26, P541, DOI 10.1017/S0142716405050290 NR 78 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 0 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 155 SI SI BP 43 EP 61 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.03.001 PG 19 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CE2PA UT WOS:000351656300004 ER PT J AU Arapinis, A AF Arapinis, Alexandra TI Whole-for-part metonymy, classification, and grounding SO LINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPHY LA English DT Article DE Metonymy; Whole-part; Classification; Pragmatics; Cognitive linguistics; Lexical semantics; Ontology; Grounding AB Since the early 1980s, metonymy has progressively gained central stage in linguistic investigations. The advent of cognitive linguistics marked a new turn in the study of this trope conceived, not as a deviation from semantic conventions (contra classical rhetorical theories), but as a phenomenon rooted in non-language-specific mechanisms of conceptualization of the world. Acknowledging that metonymy is ultimately cognitive in nature, this paper proposes to consider metonymy from its multiple levels of manifestation, integrating cognitive, pragmatic, semantic, but also ontological angles of approach. Taking whole-for-part (WP) metonymies as a case study, I aim to show how recent developments within these respective disciplines can enrich our understanding of such metonymic mechanisms, sometimes without even identifying them as such. This paper proposes to establish a dialog between these disciplines on the topic of WP-metonymy. So, after a presentation of the most standard cognitive and pragmatic approaches to WP-metonymy, I will argue for the relevance of recent semantic investigations on quantity gradability, and for the theoretical importance of keeping these two kinds of part-reference clearly apart. I will show that the literature on gradability provides strong semantic arguments for doing so. Finally, connecting the debate on WP-metonymy with the ontological debate on property inherence will open the way for a formal treatment of WP-metonymy within ground logic. C1 [Arapinis, Alexandra] CNR, Inst Cognit Sci & Technol, Lab Appl Ontol, I-38123 Povo, Trento, Italy. [Arapinis, Alexandra] ENS, Paris 1, CNRS, IHPST, F-75006 Paris, France. RP Arapinis, A (reprint author), CNR, Inst Cognit Sci & Technol, Lab Appl Ontol, Via Cascata 56-C, I-38123 Povo, Trento, Italy. EM aarapinis@gmail.com FU ODASP FP7-people-IEF project [331196] FX I would like to thank Friederike Moltmann, Benjamin Schnieder and Nathaniel Hansen for their suggestions on previous versions of this paper, as well as the reviewers for their insightful comments. Part of the work has been financed by the ODASP FP7-people-2013-IEF project (331196). CR Barcelona A., 2008, SELECTED PAPERS STOC, P1 Croft W., 2004, COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC Cruse D. A., 1986, LEXICAL SEMANTICS CUMMINS R, 1975, J PHILOS, V72, P741, DOI 10.2307/2024640 Egg Marcus, 2003, J SEMANT, V20, P163, DOI 10.1093/jos/20.2.163 Fine K., 2012, REV SYMB LOGIC, V25, P161 Fine K, 2012, METAPHYSICAL GROUNDING: UNDERSTANDING THE STRUCTURE OF REALITY, P37 Hansen N, 2011, LINGUIST PHILOS, V34, P201, DOI 10.1007/s10988-011-9099-0 Kennedy C, 2005, LANGUAGE, V81, P345, DOI 10.1353/lan.2005.0071 Kennedy C., 1999, PROJECTING ADJECTIVE Kennedy C, 2010, SYNTHESE, V174, P79, DOI 10.1007/s11229-009-9685-7 Kleiber G., 1999, PROBLEMES SEMANTIQUE Lakoff G, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Langacker R. W., 1999, MOUTON DE GRUYTER, V116, P75 Langacker Ronald W., 1984, P ANN M BERK LING SO, V10, P172 Langacker Ronald W., 1987, THEORETICAL PREREQUI, VI McNally L., 2011, VAGUENESS COMMUNICAT, P151 Nunberg G., 2008, HDB PRAGMATICS Nunberg Geoffrey, 1995, J SEMANT, V12, P109, DOI DOI 10.1093/J0S/12.2.109 Panther K.-U., 2004, METAPHORIK, V6, P91 PRANDI M., 2004, BUILDING BLOCKS MEAN Pustejovsky J., 1995, GENERATIVE LEXICON Recanati F, 2004, LITERAL MEANING ROTSTEIN CARMEN, 2004, NAT LANG SEMANT, V12, P259, DOI DOI 10.1023/B:NALS.0000034517.56898.9A Schnieder B, 2004, RATIO, V17, P218, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9329.2004.00249.x Seto KI, 1999, METONYMY LANGUAGE TH, P91 Stallard D., 1993, P 31 ANN M ASS COMP, P87, DOI 10.3115/981574.981586 Sweep J., 2009, LINGUISTICS NETHERLA, P103 Toledo A., 2011, P SALT, V21, P135 WINSTON ME, 1987, COGNITIVE SCI, V11, P417, DOI 10.1207/s15516709cog1104_2 Yoon Y., 1996, NAT LANG SEMANT, V4, P217, DOI 10.1007/BF00372820 NR 31 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 13 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 38 IS 1 BP 1 EP 29 DI 10.1007/s10988-014-9164-6 PG 29 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CD5PG UT WOS:000351139700001 ER PT J AU Taguchi, N AF Taguchi, Naoko TI "Contextually" speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class, and online SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE Pragmatics; Context; Study abroad; Classroom; Technology ID LANGUAGE LEARNERS; TEACHING PRAGMATICS; L2 LEARNERS; VIDEO GAME; JAPANESE; CHAT; COMPREHENSION; ENGLISH; EFL; SOCIALIZATION AB In order to acquire pragmatic competence, learners must have access to the target language input and opportunities for pragmatic practice. Over the last three decades, research has emerged to specify this fundamental condition of pragmatic learning. Existing studies fall primarily into three main categories: study abroad literature that focuses on students' learning pragmatics in the target language community, formal classroom environment where pragmatics is not the target of instruction, and digitally-mediated contexts in which communication takes place in virtual environments. This paper synthesizes key findings in these three contexts, and compares and contrasts the opportunities and challenges involved in each context, with the overall aim of revealing how each context supports pragmatic learning and development. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Taguchi, Naoko] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA. RP Taguchi, N (reprint author), Carnegie Mellon Univ, Dept Modern Languages, 5000 Forbes, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA. EM taguchi@andrew.cmu.edu CR Alcon-Soler E., 2013, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V9, P511 Alcon-Soler E., 2008, INVESTIGATING PRAGMA Allott N, 2010, KEY TERMS PRAGMATICS Ally M, 2009, ISS ONLINE EDUC, P1 Baggetun R., 2006, EUROPEAN J ED, V41, P453, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1465-3435.2006.00276.X Bardovi-Harlig K, 1998, TESOL QUART, V32, P233, DOI 10.2307/3587583 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P13 Bardovi-Harlig K., 1993, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V15, P279, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100012122 Barron Anne, 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P129, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.009 Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN Barron A., 2006, LANGUAGE LEARNERS ST, P59 Bataller R., 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V43, P160 Belz J. A., 2007, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V27, P45 Belz JA, 2003, LANG LEARN, V53, P591, DOI 10.1046/j.1467-9922.2003.00238.x Belz J. A., 2006, COMPUTER MEDIATED IN Blake RJ, 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P519, DOI 10.1093/applin/24.4.519 Bloch J, 2007, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V11, P128 Blyth C., 2008, RES PERSPECTIVE ONLI Bouton L. F., 1994, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V5, P88 Bouton L., 1992, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V3, P66 Brown L., 2013, SOCIAL CULTURAL ASPE, P269 Campbell A. P., 2003, INTERNET TESL J Chapelle C., 2003, ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEA Chapelle C. A., 2007, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V27, P98, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0267190508070050 Chapelle CA, 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P741, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00970.x Churchill E., 2003, KANAGAWA U STUDIES L, V25, P185 CLEAR, 2007, MULT INT MOD ED ASS Cohen A. D, 2008, LANG TEACHING, V41, P213 Cohen AF, 2011, BRIT J CLIN PHARMACO, V71, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03861.x Cole S., 2001, LANGUAGE TEACHER, V25, P7 Collentine J., 2004, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V26 Cook H., 2008, SOCIALIZING IDENTITI Crystal D., 2003, DICT LINGUISTICS PHO Cutting J., 2008, PRAGMATICS DISCOURSE De Bot K, 2008, MOD LANG J, V92, P166, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00712.x deHaan J, 2010, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V14, P74 Diepenbroek Lori G., 2013, TESL CANADA, V30, P1 Duff P. A., 2007, LANG TEACHING, V40, P309, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0261444807004508 DuFon M. A., 2006, LANGUAGE LEARNERS ST Egbert JL, 2005, ESL APPL LING PROF, P1 Ellis NC, 2006, APPL LINGUIST, V27, P558, DOI 10.1093/applin/aml028 Ellis R., 1992, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V14, P1, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100010445 ESA, 2010, 2008 SAL DEM US DAT Forman R, 2011, APPL LINGUIST, V32, P541, DOI 10.1093/applin/amr022 Garrett N, 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P719, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00969.x Gee JP, 2003, WHAT VIDEO GAMES HAVE TO TEACH US ABOUT LEARNING AND LITERACY, P1 Gonzalez A., 2013, TECHNOLOGY INTERLANG, P101 Gonzalez-Lloret M, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P114 Hellermann J., 2009, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V47, P95, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2009.005 Holden C., 2013, TECHNOLOGY INTERLANG, P155 House J., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7, P363 Ishida M., 2011, L2 LEARNING SOCIAL P, P355 Ishita M., 2009, TALK IN INTERACTION, P351 Ishihara N., 2007, LANG AWARE, V16, P21 Iwasaki N., 2011, JAPANESE LANGUAGE LI, V45, P67 Iwasaki N, 2010, APPL LINGUIST, V31, P45, DOI 10.1093/applin/amn047 Jenks CJ, 2012, APPL LINGUIST, V33, P386, DOI 10.1093/applin/ams014 Jeon EH, 2006, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V13, P165 Kakegawa T, 2009, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V5, P301 Kanagy R, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P1467, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00113-1 Kasper G., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P33 Kasper G., 1999, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V19, P81 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kasper G., 2005, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P317 Kern R, 2006, TESOL QUART, V40, P183 Kinginger Celeste, 2008, MODERN LANGUAGE J MO, V92 Kinginger C., 2013, SOCIAL CULTURAL ASPE Kinginger C., 2004, FRONTIERS INTERDISCI, V10, P19 Kinginger C., 2008, LONGITUDINAL STUDY A, P223 Klopfer E., 2008, AUGMENTED LEARNING R Knight SM, 2002, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V35, P190 Kukulska-Hulme A., 2005, MOBILE LEARNING HDB Lafford BA, 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P673, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00966.x Lai C, 2006, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V10, P102 Lam WSE, 2000, TESOL QUART, V34, P457, DOI 10.2307/3587739 Larsen-Freeman D., 2009, COMPLEX SYSTEMS APPL Larsen-Freeman D., 2012, ROUTLEDGE HDB 2 LANG, P73 Lee L, 2008, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V12, P53 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Li S., 2013, TECHNOLOGY INTERLANG, P43 lino M., 1996, THESIS U PENNSYLVANI LoCastro V., 2003, INTRO PRAGMATICS SOC Lomicka L., 2006, NEXT GENERATION SOCI Louw KJ, 2010, CAN MOD LANG REV, V66, P739, DOI 10.3138/cmlr.66.5.739 Martin A, 2005, PRES VES P, V7, P33 Martinez-Flor A., 2003, PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE Masuda K, 2011, MOD LANG J, V95, P519, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01256.x Matsumura S., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P167, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.010 Matsumura S, 2001, LANG LEARN, V51, P635, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00170 Taguchi N., 2005, POWER CONTEXT LANGUA, P211 McMeekin A.L., 2011, M AM ASS APPL LING C Nguyen H. T., 2011, L2 LEARNING SOCIAL P, P17 Niezgoda Kimberly, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P63 Nikula T, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P94 Ohta A. S., 2001, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI Olshtain E., 1985, INPUT 2 LANGUAGE ACQ, P303 Payne S., 2002, CALICO J, V20, P7 Pellettieri J., 2000, NETWORK BASED LANGUA, P59 Piirainen-Marsh A, 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P153, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00853.x Polanyi Livia, 1995, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P271 Prensky M., 2001, HORIZON, V9, P1, DOI DOI 10.1108/10748120110424816 Regan V., 1995, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P245 Richardson W., 2006, BLOGS WIKIS PODCASTS Riddiford N, 2010, TESOL QUART, V44, P195, DOI 10.5054/tq.2010.215252 Rose K., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE Rose K. R., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P385, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.003 Rover C., 2005, TESTING EFL PRAGMATI Rover C., 2009, HDB LANGUAGE TEACHIN, P560 Russell V., 2011, IALLT J, V41, P27 Salsbury T, 2000, SOCIAL AND COGNITIVE FACTORS IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, P57 Sauro S, 2010, APPL LINGUIST, V31, P554, DOI 10.1093/applin/amq007 Sawyer M., 1992, PRAGMATICS JAPANESE, P83 Saywer B., 2008, SERIOUS GAMES TAXONO Schauer Gila A., 2009, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Schauer GA, 2006, LANG LEARN, V56, P269, DOI 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00348.x Schieffelin B. B., 1986, LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATI Shimizu T, 2009, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V5, P167 Shively R., 2013, MOD LANG J, V97, P939 Shively RL, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1818, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030 Siegal Meryl, 1994, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Simpson J, 2005, DISCOURSE STUD, V7, P337, DOI 10.1177/1461445605052190 Smith B, 2008, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V12, P85 Squire K., 2011, VIDEO GAMES LEARNING Stockwell G, 2010, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V14, P95 Sun YC, 2009, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V13, P88 Sykes J. M., 2013, TECHNOLOGY INTERLANG, P71 Sykes J.M., 2005, COMPUTER ASSISTED LA, V19, P399 Sykes J. M., 2009, CALICO MONOGRAPH, P199 Sykes J. M., 2006, DANCING WORDS STRATE Taguchi N., 2013, TECHNOLOGY INTERLANG Naoko Taguchi, 2013, TECHNOLOGY INTERLANG, P19 Taguchi N., 2012, ENCY APPL LINGUISTIC Taguchi N., 2012, CONTEXT INDIVIDUAL D Taguchi N., 2014, LANGUAGE TE IN PRESS, V48 Taguchi N, 2008, LANG LEARN, V58, P33, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00434.x Taguchi N, 2008, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V30, P423, DOI 10.1017/S0272263108080716 Taguchi N, 2013, SYSTEM, V41, P109, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2013.01.003 Taguchi N, 2011, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V31, P289, DOI 10.1017/S0267190511000018 Taguchi N, 2011, LANG LEARN, V61, P904, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00633.x Takahashi S., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7, P391 Takahashi S, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P127 Takamiya Y., 2013, TECHNOLOGY INTERLANG, P185 Talburt S, 1999, MOD LANG J, V83, P163, DOI 10.1111/0026-7902.00013 Tateyama Y, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P45 THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Thorne S. L., 2005, CALICO J, V22 Thorne SL, 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P802, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00974.x Tsuo-Lin Chiu, 2007, Computer Assisted Language Learning, V20, P209, DOI 10.1080/09588220701489374 Tudini V, 2007, MOD LANG J, V91, P577, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00624.x Utashiro T, 2009, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V5, P275 Uzum B., 2010, CALICO J, V28, P135 Valdes G, 2005, MOD LANG J, V89, P410, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00314.x Vellenga H., 2004, TESOL EJ, V8 Verschueren J., 2009, KEY NOTIONS PRAGMATI, V1, P1 Verspoor Marjolijn, 2011, DYNAMIC APPROACH 2 L Viyatkina N., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P293 Ward Nigel G, 2007, Computer Assisted Language Learning, V20, DOI 10.1080/09588220701745825 Warga M., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P221, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.012 Wik P, 2009, SPEECH COMMUN, V51, P1024, DOI 10.1016/j.specom.2009.05.006 Wishnoff J. R., 2000, 2 LANGUAGE STUDIES, V19, P127 Yanguas I, 2010, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V14, P72 Yi YJ, 2008, J ADOLESC ADULT LIT, V51, P670, DOI 10.1598/JAAL.51.8.6 Yilmaz Y, 2011, MOD LANG J, V95, P115, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01143.x Zheng DP, 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P489 NR 164 TC 5 Z9 5 U1 8 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 48 SI SI BP 3 EP 20 DI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.001 PG 18 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CC6YV UT WOS:000350515800002 ER PT J AU Bardovi-Harlig, K AF Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen TI Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE Pragmatics; Instructional effects; Conversation; Input; DCT; Role play ID EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION; TEACHING PRAGMATICS; LEARNERS; COMPETENCE; LANGUAGE; AWARENESS; GERMAN; ACQUISITION; PROFICIENCY; KNOWLEDGE AB This paper examines how conversation is operationalized in studies that investigate the effect of instruction on L2 pragmatics. This survey of 81 instructional effect studies published from 2000 to 2013 considers the operationalization of conversation at three points in the design of such studies: the task(s) used for evaluation, the input used as models, and the activities used for practice. The findings suggest that how conversation is operationalized is a variable that should be taken into account to better understand the range of outcomes reported by studies of how instruction affects development of 12 pragmatics. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Indiana Univ, Dept Language Studies 2, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. RP Bardovi-Harlig, K (reprint author), Indiana Univ, Dept Language Studies 2, 1021 E 3rd St,Mem Hall 315, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. EM bardovi@indiana.edu CR Bardovi-Harlig K, 2012, SYSTEM, V40, P77, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2012.01.004 Bardovi-Harlig K., 2005, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P7 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P13 Bardovi-Harlig K., 2014, LANGUAGE TEACHING RE, V19 Bardovi-Harlig K., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7, P219 Bardovi-Harlig K., 2012, HDB 2 LANGUAGE ACQUI, P147 Barekat B., 2013, INT J LINGUISTICS, V5, P197 Barraja-Rohan A., 1997, BEYOND TALK Bataller R., 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V43, P160 Beal Christine, 1992, AUSTR REV APPL LINGU, V15, P23 Beebe Leslie M, 1990, DEV COMMUNICATIVE CO, P55 Belz JA, 2005, CAN MOD LANG REV, V62, P17, DOI 10.1353/cml.2005.0038 Belz JA, 2003, LANG LEARN, V53, P591, DOI 10.1046/j.1467-9922.2003.00238.x Byram M., 2008, FOREIGN LANGUAGE ED Salazar Campillo P., 2003, PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE, P233 Codina-Espurz V., 2008, LEARNING REQUEST INS, P227 Cohen A. D., 2010, APPL LINGUISTICS FOR, V30 Cohen A. D., 2005, WEB BASED APPROACH S Cohen A. D., 2012, LINGUISTICS INTERCUL, P87 Cohen AD, 2007, MOD LANG J, V91, P189, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00540.x Doughty C., 1991, STUDIES 2ND LANGUAGE, V13, P431, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100010287 Eslami Z., 2013, IRANIAN J SCI CULTUR, V1, P52 Eslami ZR, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P178 Eslami-Rasekh A., 2004, TESL EJ Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2008, ISSUES APPL LINGUIST, V16, P49 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2008, HISPANIA, V91, P477 Fernandez-Guerra A., 2006, PORTA LINGUARUM, V5, P91 Fordyce K, 2014, APPL LINGUIST, V35, P6, DOI 10.1093/applin/ams076 Fukuya Y. J., 2002, 2 LANGUAGE STUDIES, V21, P1 Fukuya Y. J., 2006, ISSUES APPL LINGUIST, V15, P59 Fukuya Yoshinori J., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V10, P111 Fukuya YJ, 2008, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V41, P478 Ghobadi A, 2009, SYSTEM, V37, P526, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2009.02.010 Gilmore A, 2011, LANG LEARN, V61, P786, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00634.x Golato A, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P547, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00040-6 Halenko N, 2011, SYSTEM, V39, P240, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2011.05.003 Holmes J., 2010, ELT J, V65, P376 Huth T, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P2025, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.010 Ifantidou E, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V59, P93, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.008 Jeon EH, 2006, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V13, P165 Jernigan J., 2012, ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEA, V5, P2 Dahl M., 1991, STUDIES 2ND LANGUAGE, V13, P215, DOI [10.1017/S0272263100009955, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100009955] Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kinginger C., 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P369, DOI DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2005.2A369 Koike D. A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P481, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.008 Kondo S, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P153 Li QP, 2012, TESOL QUART, V46, P30, DOI 10.1002/tesq.2 Li S., 2011, LANG LEARN, V62, P403, DOI [10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00629.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1467-9922.2011.00629.X] Liddicoat A.J., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P125 Louw KJ, 2010, CAN MOD LANG REV, V66, P739, DOI 10.3138/cmlr.66.5.739 Martinez-Flor Alicia, 2008, LEARNING REQUEST INS, P191 Martinez-Flor A, 2007, CANADIAN J APPL LING, V10, P47 Martinez-Flor A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P463, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.007 Mirzaei A., 2013, IRANIAN J SOC CULTUR, V1, P89 Narita R, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.016 Nemeth N., 2001, LANG TEACH RES, V5, P213, DOI 10.1191/136216801680223425 Nguyen T. T. M., 2013, LANG AWARE, V22, P76 Nguyen T. T. M., 2010, PRAGMATICS TEACHING, P125 Nguyen T. T. M., 2013, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V13, P213 Pham M. Y., 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P416 Pearson L., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P109 Schenkein J., 1978, STUDIES ORG CONVERSA, P79 Riddiford N., 2007, TESOLANZ J, V15, P88 Riddiford N., 2010, WORKPLACE TALK ACTIO Riddiford N, 2010, TESOL QUART, V44, P195, DOI 10.5054/tq.2010.215252 Rose Kenneth R., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P145 Rose K. R., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P385, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.003 Safont-Jorda M. P., 2003, PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE, P211 Safont-Jorda MP, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V217, P275 Sardegna VG, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P279, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.013 Silva A., 2003, 2 LANGUAGE STUDIES, V22, P55 Simpson R. C., 2002, MICHIGAN CORPUS ACAD Soler E., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P417, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.005 Akan Soler E., 2010, INT J ENGLISH STUDIE, V10, P65 Alcon Soler E., 2002, INT J ED RES, V37, P359, DOI 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00010-7 Alcon Soler Eva, 2007, INVESTIGATING TASKS, P221 Soler EA, 2012, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V9, P511, DOI 10.1515/ip-2012-0028 SWAIN M, 1995, APPL LINGUIST, V16, P371, DOI 10.1093/applin/16.3.371 Sykes J., 2009, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, P99 Sykes J.M., 2005, COMPUTER ASSISTED LA, V19, P399 Taguchi N, 2011, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V31, P289, DOI 10.1017/S0267190511000018 Takahashi S., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P171 Takahashi S., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7, P391 Takahashi S, 2005, APPL LINGUIST, V26, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/amh040 Takahashi S., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P437, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.006 Takahashi S, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P127 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, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1029, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.001 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 Takimoto M, 2006, LANG TEACH RES, V10, P393, DOI 10.1191/1362168806Ir198oa [Anonymous], 2008, APPL LINGUIST, V30, P1 Tateyama Y., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P200 Tateyama Y., 2007, JALT 2006 C P TOK JA, P1189 Taylor G, 2002, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V35, P171 Teng C., 2013, J TECHNOLOGY CHINESE, V4, P50 Trosborg A., 2008, LINCOM STUDIES PRAGM, P193 Trosborg A., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7 van Compernolle RA, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3267, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.009 van Compernolle RA, 2013, SYSTEM, V41, P298, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2013.02.001 Vyatkina N., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P293 Winke PM, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P363, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.016 Wishnoff J. R., 2000, WORKING PAPERS 2 LAN, V19, P119 Witten C., 2000, TEXAS PAPERS FOREIGN, V5, P143 Yoshida K., 2000, HEART HEART OVERCOMI Yoshimi D., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P223 NR 107 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 6 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 48 SI SI BP 21 EP 34 DI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002 PG 14 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CC6YV UT WOS:000350515800003 ER PT J AU Mullan, K AF Mullan, Kerry TI Taking French interactional style into the classroom SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE French; Interactional style; L2 classroom; Pragmatic awareness; Intercultural competence AB It is well known that different interactional styles can lead to pragmatic failure between speakers of different languages, often resulting in negative stereotyping. Even for highly competent second language speakers, misunderstandings can occur, since pragmatic values are so culturally embedded that speakers are generally unaware of them. In order to communicate effectively in the L2 therefore, pragmatic competence and interactional style must figure explicitly as part of second language learning and teaching. This article illustrates how authentic data can be exploited in the French language classroom to raise awareness of and teach aspects of French interactional style such as rencherir, interruptions, overlaps and disagreements, and encourage discussion of the cultural values behind them. Using the frameworks of Conversational Analysis and interactional sociolinguistics and the approaches outlined in Barraja-Rohan (2000) and Liddicoat (2008), this article provides ideas for using extracts of authentic conversations in classroom activities and assessment to promote pragmatic awareness, and interactional and intercultural competence. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 RMIT Univ, Sch Global Urban & Social Studies, Melbourne, Vic 3001, Australia. RP Mullan, K (reprint author), RMIT Univ, Sch Global Urban & Social Studies, RMIT Bldg 37,GPO Box 2476, Melbourne, Vic 3001, Australia. EM kerry.mullan@rmit.edu.au OI Mullan, Kerry/0000-0002-9078-0383 CR Barraja-Rohan A.-M., 2003, TEACHING INVISIBLE C, P101 Barraja-Rohan A.-M., 2000, TEACHING LANGUAGES T, P65 Beal Christine, 1992, AUSTR REV APPL LINGU, V15, P23 Beal C., 1998, MULTILINGUALISM VARI, V1, P5 Beal C., 2010, INTERACTIONS QUOTIDI Bennett Milton J., 1993, ED INTERCULTURAL EXP, P21 BESEMERES M, 2007, TRANSLATING LIVES LI Byram M., 2008, FOREIGN LANGUAGE ED Carroll Raymond, 1988, CULTURAL MISUNDERSTA Crozet C., 1999, STRIVING 3 PLACE INT, P113 Crozet C., 1999, STRIVING 3 PLACE INT, P1 Crozet C., 2003, TEACHING INVISIBLE C, P119 Davies C. E., 2004, MULTILINGUA, V23, P207, DOI 10.1515/mult.2004.010 Dervin F., 2010, NEW APPROACHES ASSES, P157 Dervin F., 2009, SYNERGIES ROUMANIE, P165 [Anonymous], 2013, LINGUISTICS INTERCUL Diaz A. R., 2013, DEV CRITICAL LANGUAC Gardner R., 1994, AUSTR REV APPL LIN S, V11, P97 Goddard C., 1997, DISCOURSE SOCIAL INT, P231 Huth T., 2005, THESIS U KANSAS KANS Kerbrat-Orecchioni C., 1990, INTERACTIONS VERBALE, VI-III Kramsch C., 1993, CONTEXT CULTURE LANG Liddicoat A. J., 2000, TEACHING LANGUAGES T, P51 Liddicoat A. J., 2008, JAPANESE STUDIES, V28, P277, DOI DOI 10.1080/10371390802446844 Liddicoat A.J., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P125 Lo Bianco J., 2003, TEACHING INVISIBLE C Lo Bianco J., 1999, STRIVING 3 PLACE INT Mullan K., 2012, INTERACTION INTERCUL, P319 Mullan K., 2010, EXPRESSING OPINIONS Mullan K., 2011, EXPLORATIONS J FRENC, V50, P16 Papademetre L., 2000, INTEGRATING CULTURE Peeters B, 2000, AMST STUD THEORY HIS, V198, P193 Peeters B., 1999, J FRENCH LANGUAGE ST, V9, P239, DOI 10.1017/S0959269500004701 Pomerantz Anita, 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P57, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511665868 Sayer P., 2005, ELT J, V59, P14, DOI 10.1093/elt/cci002 Scarino A., 2009, TEACHING LEARNING LA Stadler S., 2011, SPECIALISED LANGUAGE, P261 Tannen D, 1989, TALKING VOICES REPET THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Wierzbicka A, 1991, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Witte A., 2011, INTERCULTURAL COMPET YATES Lynda, 2010, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGES, P287 Paran A, 2010, NEW PERSP LANG EDUC, P1 NR 43 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 3 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 48 SI SI BP 35 EP 47 DI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.003 PG 13 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CC6YV UT WOS:000350515800004 ER PT J AU Takahashi, S AF Takahashi, Satomi TI The effects of learner profiles on pragmalinguistic awareness and learning SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE Learner profile; Individual differences; Motivation; Listening proficiency; Pragmalinguistic awareness; Pragmatic intervention; Requests ID PRAGMATIC PROFICIENCY; RESEARCH AGENDA; MOTIVATION; ATTENTION; INTERLANGUAGE; INSTRUCTION; FEEDBACK; MEMORY; TASKS AB By focusing on motivation and proficiency, this study examined the effects of Japanese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' "learner profiles" on their awareness of biclausal request forms and their learning of these forms in the context of implicit intervention. The study involved 154 Japanese EFL learners. The concept of awareness was operationalized as the summation of learners' "interest" in the target forms and their "detection capacity" of these forms; data relevant to the awareness session were obtained through video dictation tasks. Learners' pragmalinguistic development was assessed through oral discourse completion tasks in the pre- and post-test sessions. Cluster analysis was performed on the two motivation subscales and listening proficiency, yielding three learner groups constituting the independent variable. The results of a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance revealed that the learner profiles constrained awareness of target bi-clausal request forms, although these profiles did not affect their learning of biclausal forms. Qualitative data obtained from learners' awareness journals and follow-up data on their post-test performance supported the findings from the quantitative analysis. The study suggests that pragmalinguistic learning requires learners' deep processing of instructional input, which may be greatly constrained by listening proficiency and grammatical knowledge. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Rikkyo Univ, Coll Intercultural Commun, Toshima Ku, Tokyo 1718501, Japan. RP Takahashi, S (reprint author), Rikkyo Univ, Coll Intercultural Commun, Toshima Ku, 3-34-1 Nishi Ikebukuro, Tokyo 1718501, Japan. EM satomit@rikkyo.ac.jp FU Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [19520518] FX This study was funded by a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 19520518 (2007-2009)). CR Alcon Eva, 2012, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V9, P511 Bardovi-Harlig K, 1999, LANG LEARN, V49, P677, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00105 Bialystok E., 1994, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V16, P157, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100012857 Bialystok Ellen, 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P43 Cheng YC, 2009, BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL, V40, P597, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00857.x CRAIK FIM, 1972, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V11, P671, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X CROOKES G, 1991, LANG LEARN, V41, P469, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00690.x Csizer K, 2005, LANG LEARN, V55, P613, DOI 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00319.x DeKeyser R., 2006, PRACTICING 2 LANGUAG DeKeyser R., 2003, HDB 2 LANGUAGE ACQUI, P313, DOI DOI 10.1002/9780470756492 Doughty C. J., 2003, HDB 2 LANGUAGE ACQUI, P256, DOI 10.1002/9780470756492.ch10 Ellis N. C., 2007, THEORIES 2 LANGUAGE, P77 Eslami ZR, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P178 Fukuya YJ, 2008, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V41, P478 Gass S, 2003, LANG LEARN, V53, P497, DOI 10.1111/1467-9922.00233 Gonzalez-Lloret M, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P114 Hama M, 2010, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V32, P465, DOI 10.1017/S0272263110000045 Hassall T., 1997, THESIS AUSTR NATL U Hassall T, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P72 Jeon EH, 2006, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V13, P165 Kasper Gabriele, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P149, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014868 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Keller JM, 1983, INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN, P386 Keller J. M., 1994, INT ENCY ED, V7, P3943 Kuriscak LM, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P23 Kuriscak L. M., 2006, THESIS INDIANA U US Leow R. P., 2000, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V22, P557, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100004046 Liddicoat A.J., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P125 lzumi S., 2002, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V24, P541 Mackey A., 2002, INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENC, P181 Mackey A, 2006, APPL LINGUIST, V27, P405, DOI 10.1093/applin/ami051 Maehr M. L., 1987, CURRENT TOPICS EARLY, P85 Martinez-Flor A, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V217, P243 Martinez-Flor A., 2010, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGES, V7, P423 Martinez-Flor A., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P199 MartinezFlor A, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P1 Martinez-Flor A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P463, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.007 Nguyen T. T. M., 2013, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V13, P213 Nikula T, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P94 Philp J., 2003, STUDIES SECOND LANGU, V25, P99, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263103000044 Pintrich P. R., 1989, ADV MOTIVATION ACHIE, V6, P117 ROBINSON P, 1995, LANG LEARN, V45, P283, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x Robinson P., 2003, HDB 2 LANGUAGE ACQUI, P631, DOI 10.1002/9780470756492.ch19 Rosa EM, 2004, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V25, P269 Safont-Jorda MP, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V217, P275 Schmidt R., 1996, TECHNICAL REPORT, P9 Schmidt R., 2001, TECHNICAL REPORT, P313 Schmidt R., 1995, TECHNICAL REPORT, P1 Schmidt R., 1994, AILA REV, V11, P11 Schmidt R., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P21 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 Schunk D.H., 2014, MOTIVATION ED THEORY Simard D., 2001, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V23, P103, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263101001048 Taguchi N., 2012, CONTEXT INDIVIDUAL D Takahashi S., 1995, THESIS U HAWAII MANO Takahashi S., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P171 Takahashi S., 2012, LANGUAGE CULTURE COM, V4, P103 Takahashi S., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7, P391 Takahashi S., 1998, STUDIES LANGUAGES CU, V9, P135 Takahashi S, 2005, APPL LINGUIST, V26, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/amh040 Takahashi S., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P437, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.006 Takahashi S., 2013, LANGUAGE CULTURE COM, V5, P53 Takahashi S, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P127 Takimoto M, 2006, SYSTEM, V34, P601, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2006.09.003 Takimoto M, 2009, APPL LINGUIST, V30, P1, DOI 10.1093/applin/amm049 Takimoto M, 2006, LANG TEACH RES, V10, P393, DOI 10.1191/1362168806Ir198oa Tomlin R. S., 1994, STUDIES 2ND LANGUAGE, V16, P183, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100012870 Williams J, 1999, LANG LEARN, V49, P583, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00103 NR 69 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 3 U2 4 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 48 SI SI BP 48 EP 61 DI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.004 PG 14 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CC6YV UT WOS:000350515800005 ER PT J AU Alcon-Soler, E AF Alcon-Soler, Eva TI Pragmatic learning and study abroad: Effects of instruction and length of stay SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE e.mail request; Pragmatic instruction and study abroad ID PRAGMALINGUISTIC AWARENESS; SOCIOPRAGMATIC SKILLS; REQUEST MODIFICATION; NONNATIVE SPEAKERS; L2 PRAGMATICS; PROFICIENCY; LEARNERS; ACQUISITION; FACULTY; ENGLISH AB The study explores to what extent pragmatic instruction and length of study abroad (SA) influence learners ability to mitigate requests in e-mail communication. Sixty Spanish students, who were all enrolled for one academic year in six international language schools in the South of England, participated in the study. Whether participants were instructed on e-mail requests or not was the criteria used to create two groups: 30 in the experimental group, and 30 in the control group. Student initiated emails addressed to their teachers were collected at four different times, and analyzed with regard to the presence of lexical and syntactical request mitigators. In addition, learners' reports on the information learned since they arrived in England were used to observe the impact of instruction and length of SA on gains in the performance of request mitigators. A quantitative analysis of the data shows that instruction has an immediate effect on the production of e-mail request mitigators, but this effect is not sustained during the SA period, which may suggest that length of stay interacts with instruction. The qualitative analysis illustrates this interaction. It seems that knowledge gained from instruction is used and reconstructed through exposure to the target language to make informed decisions to choose when and how to use request mitigators according to the level of imposition of the e-mail request. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Alcon-Soler, Eva] Univ Jaume 1, Castellon de La Plana 12071, Spain. RP Alcon-Soler, E (reprint author), Univ Jaume 1, Dept English Studies, Av Vicent Sos Baynat S-N, Castellon de La Plana 12071, Spain. EM alcon@uji.es FU Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [FFI2012-38145] FX This paper is part of a research project funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (FFI2012-38145) CR Achiba M., 2003, LEARNING REQUEST 2 L 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, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P347, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.017 Bardovi-Harlig K, 2013, LANG LEARN, V63, P68, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN Bataller R., 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V43, P160 Bella S, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1718, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.005 Biesenbach-Lucas S, 2007, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V11, P59 Biesenbach-Lucas Sigrun, 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P81 Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Codina-Espurz V., 2008, LEARNING REQUEST INS, P227 Cohen AD, 2007, MOD LANG J, V91, P189, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00540.x Coleman J. A., 2013, SOCIAL CULTURAL ASPE, P17 Collentine J., 2009, HDB LANGUAGE TEACHIN, P218, DOI 10.1002/9781444315783.ch13 Economidou-Kogetsidis M, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V217, P163 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 Economidou-Kogetsidis M, 2008, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V4, P111, DOI 10.1515/PR.2008.005 Ellis R., 1992, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V14, P1, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100010445 Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V217, P87 Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2004, LANG LEARN, V54, P587, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00281.x Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2013, REFUSALS INSTRUCTION, P147 Goy E, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V217, P51 Hartford B.S., 1996, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P55 Hassall T, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V217, P203 House J., 1987, PERSPECTIVES LANGUAG, V2, P1250 Ife A., 2000, LANGUAGE LEARNING J, V22, P30 Iwasaki N, 2010, APPL LINGUIST, V31, P45, DOI 10.1093/applin/amn047 Jeon EH, 2006, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V13, P165 Kinginger C., 2013, SOCIAL CULTURAL ASPE Kinginger C, 2011, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V31, P58, DOI 10.1017/S0267190511000031 Kinginger C, 2008, MOD LANG J, V92, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00821.x Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Li QP, 2012, TESOL QUART, V46, P30, DOI 10.1002/tesq.2 Li S, 2012, LANG LEARN, V62, P403, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00629.x Llanes A., 2011, INT J MULTILINGUALIS, V3, P189, DOI DOI 10.1080/14790718.2010.550297 Marti-Arnandiz O., 2008, LEARNING REQUEST INS, P163 Martinez-Flor A, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V217, P243 Matsumura S, 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P465, DOI 10.1093/applin/24.4.465 Norris JM, 2001, LANG LEARN, V51, P157, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00017.x Ogden A.C., 2006, FRONT INTERDISCIPL J, V8, P87 Perez-Vidal C., 2014, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI 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 Rose K. R., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P385, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.003 Safont-Jorda MP, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V217, P275 Salazar-Campillo P., 2003, PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE, P233 Schauer Gila A., 2009, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Shively RL, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1818, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030 Shively R. L., 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V45, P105 Taguchi N., 2014, LANGUAGE TEACHING Taguchi N, 2013, SYSTEM, V41, P109, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2013.01.003 Taguchi N, 2011, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V31, P289, DOI 10.1017/S0267190511000018 Taguchi N, 2011, LANG LEARN, V61, P904, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00633.x Takahashi S., 2012, LANGUAGE CULTURE COM, V4, P103 Takahashi S., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7, P391 Takahashi S, 2005, APPL LINGUIST, V26, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/amh040 Takahashi S, 2015, SYSTEM, V48, P48, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.004 Takimoto M, 2006, SYSTEM, V34, P601, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2006.09.003 Takimoto M, 2009, APPL LINGUIST, V30, P1, DOI 10.1093/applin/amm049 Takimoto M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1240, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.007 Takimoto M, 2006, LANG TEACH RES, V10, P393, DOI 10.1191/1362168806Ir198oa Jenny Thomas, 1995, MEANING INTERACTION Trosborg A., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA UCLES (University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate), 2001, QUICK PLAC TEST Uso-Juan E., 2013, REFUSALS INSTRUCTION, P65 Vilar-Beltran E., 2014, INT J ENGLISH STUDIE, V14, P79 Winke PM, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P363, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.016 Woodfield H, 2010, MULTILINGUA, V29, P77, DOI 10.1515/mult.2010.004 Woodfield H, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V217, P9 NR 72 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 5 U2 19 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 48 SI SI BP 62 EP 74 DI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.005 PG 13 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CC6YV UT WOS:000350515800006 ER PT J AU Felix-Brasdefer, JC Hasler-Barker, M AF Felix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar Hasler-Barker, Maria TI Complimenting in Spanish in a short-term study abroad context SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE Inter language pragmatics; Pragmatic ability; Study abroad; Speech acts; Compliments; Spanish; Individual variation ID LENGTH-OF-STAY; 2ND-LANGUAGE; ACQUISITION; PROFICIENCY; PRAGMATICS; RESPONSES; LEARNERS AB This study examines the effects of learning context on the production of compliments among Study Abroad (SA) learners of Spanish during an eight-week summer program in Mexico, and a group of learners in an At Home (AH) context. Baseline data from Native Speakers (NS) of Mexican Spanish and US English were analyzed and compared to the learner data. A subset of the SA group provided data for a delayed posttest, four months after learners returned to their home country. Learner data were collected in a pretest-posttest design, using a modified oral Discourse Completion Task (DCT). All participants produced compliments in four situations with equal status but differing levels of social distance. Results indicate that, while evidence of change toward the NS norm was observed in the SA learners, there was also evidence of change that reflected deviation from NS pragmatic norms. This study addresses the issue of individual learner variation, quality and intensity of the input, and the effects of the SA context. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Felix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar; Hasler-Barker, Maria] Indiana Univ, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. [Hasler-Barker, Maria] Sam Houston State Univ, Huntsville, TX USA. RP Felix-Brasdefer, JC (reprint author), Indiana Univ, Dept Spanish & Portuguese, 1020 E Kirkwood,Ballantine 844, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. EM cfelixbr@indiana.edu; mhb015@shsu.edu CR Alcon-Soler E, 2015, SYSTEM, V48, P62, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.005 ANDERSEN RW, 1984, LANG LEARN, V34, P77, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00353.x Bardovi-Harlig K, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P347, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.017 Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN Barron A., 2006, LANGUAGE LEARNERS ST, P59 Bataller R., 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V43, P160 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2012, HISPANIA-J DEV INTER, V95, P650 Cohen A. D., 2013, PRAGMATIC VARIATION, P271 Cohen AD, 2007, MOD LANG J, V91, P189, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00540.x Collentine J., 2009, HDB LANGUAGE TEACHIN, P218, DOI 10.1002/9781444315783.ch13 DuFon M. A., 2006, LANGUAGE LEARNERS ST Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P41 Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2004, LANG LEARN, V54, P587, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00281.x Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2012, SPEECH ACTS POLITENE, P241 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2013, REFUSALS INSTRUCTION, P147 Freed B. F., 1995, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI Freed BF, 2004, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V26, P349, DOI 10.1017/S0272263104062096 Golato A, 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/24.1.90 Hasler-Barker M., 2013, THESIS INDIANA U BLO Hoffman-Hicks S., 1999, THESIS INDIANA U BLO Kasper G., 2000, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P316 Kinginger C., 2013, SOCIAL CULTURAL ASPE Kinginger C, 2011, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V31, P58, DOI 10.1017/S0267190511000031 Lafford BA, 2004, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V26, P201, DOI 10.1017/S0272263104062035 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Llanes A., 2011, INT J MULTILINGUALIS, V3, P189, DOI DOI 10.1080/14790718.2010.550297 Lepez-Serrano S., 2010, PORTA LINGUARUM, V13, P149 Magnan S., 2006, INSIGHTS STUDY ABROA, P22 Martinsen R. A., 2008, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V43, P504 Matsumura S, 2001, LANG LEARN, V51, P635, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00170 Nelson G. L., 1999, SPANISH APPL LINGUIS, V3, P91 Placencia M. E., 1999, LENGUA, V9, P83 Ren W, 2014, APPL LINGUIST, V35, P575, DOI 10.1093/applin/amt019 Rodriguez S., 2001, THESIS INDIANA U BLO Schauer G. A., 2004, EUROSLA YB, V4, P253, DOI 10.1075/eurosla.4.12sch Schauer G., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P193, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.011 Shively RL, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1818, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030 Shively R. L., 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V45, P105 Taguchi N, 2013, SYSTEM, V41, P109, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2013.01.003 THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 VALDES G, 1981, LANG SOC, V10, P53 VonCanon A. L., 2006, THESIS U IOWA Wolfson N., 1983, SOCIOLINGUISTICS LAN NR 44 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 6 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 48 SI SI BP 75 EP 85 DI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.006 PG 11 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CC6YV UT WOS:000350515800007 ER PT J AU Shively, RL AF Shively, Rachel L. TI Developing interactional competence during study abroad: Listener responses in L2 Spanish SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE Interactional competence; Listener responses; Backchannels; Spanish; Study abroad; Second language pragmatics; Pragmatic development ID JAPANESE; CONVERSATION; ENGLISH; BACK; BACKCHANNELS; LEARNERS; TOKENS AB Although many listener responses are minimal (e.g., yeah, mhm), the listener plays an important role in shaping discourse and creating intersubjectivity in everyday conversation. Listener responses are considered to be universal (e.g., Heinz, 2003), but their form, frequency, and placement vary cross-culturally. How L2 learners use and acquire listener response behavior in the L2 is an understudied area of L2 pragmatic development. This issue is taken up by the present study, which examines the L2 development of listener responses in Spanish by six study abroad students who spent one semester in Spain. Over the course of the semester abroad, participants made naturalistic audio-recordings of everyday conversations between themselves and native Spanish-speaking host families and age peers, in addition to completing journals and interviews. The results suggest that through participation and observation in everyday L2 conversation during study abroad learners were able to develop their interactional competence by shifting their listener behavior towards less frequent use of the minimal token si ('yeah') and increased use of other acknowledgment and agreement expressions, assessments (e.g., 'that's great'), and repetition. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Illinois State Univ, Dept Languages Literatures & Cultures, Normal, IL 61790 USA. RP Shively, RL (reprint author), Illinois State Univ, Dept Languages Literatures & Cultures, Campus Box 4300, Normal, IL 61790 USA. EM rshivel@ilstu.edu CR Alcon E., 2008, INVESTIGATING PRAGMA, P3 Ardila JAG, 2004, MOD LANG REV, V99, P635, DOI 10.2307/3738992 Freites Barros Francisco, 2006, VERBA, V33, P261 Bublitz W., 1988, SUPPORTIVE FELLOW SP Chinen K., 2000, THESIS CALIFORNIA ST Cladera NB, 2010, DIALOGUE STUD, V7, P137 Clancy PM, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V26, P355, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00036-4 Coates J., 1986, WOMEN MEN LANGUAGE S Dings A., 2007, THESIS U TEXAS AUSTI DITTMANN AT, 1968, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V9, P79, DOI 10.1037/h0025722 Drummond K., 1993, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V26, P157, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327973RLSI2602_ Dumitrescu D, 2008, PRAGMATICS, V18, P659 Duncan S., 1985, TURN SYSTEM, P43 Duncan S., 1974, LANG SOC, V3, P161, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0047404500004322 Duranti A., 1986, TEXT, V6, P239, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1986.6.3.239 Fries Ch. C., 1952, STRUCTURE ENGLISH Fujii K., 2001, J INT STUDENT CTR YO, V8, P79 Furo H, 2000, SOCIAL AND COGNITIVE FACTORS IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, P445 Rios Garcia C., 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P183 Gardner R., 2001, LISTENERS TALK RESPO Gardner R, 1998, APPL LINGUIST, V19, P204, DOI 10.1093/applin/19.2.204 Geeslin K. L., 2005, STUDIES ACQUISITION, P66 GOODWIN C, 1986, HUM STUD, V9, P205, DOI 10.1007/BF00148127 Goodwin Charles, 1987, IPRA PAPERS PRAGMATI, V1, P1, DOI DOI 10.1075/IPRAPIP.1.1.01GOO Guthrie A., 1997, PRAGMATICS, V7, P397 Haverkate Henk, 1994, CORTESIA VERBAL ESTU He A. W., 1998, TALKING TESTING DISC, P1 Heinz B, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1113, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00190-X HESS LJ, 1988, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V11, P319 Ishita M., 2009, TALK IN INTERACTION, P351 Ishida M., 2010, THESIS U HAWAII MANO Jefferson G., 1984, PAP LINGUIST, V17, P197 Jefferson Gail, 1993, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V26, P1, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_1 Kasper G, 2006, AILA REV, V19, P83, DOI 10.1075/aila.19.07kas LoCastro V., 1987, DISCOURSE CULTURES, P101 Uso-Juan E., 2006, APPL LANGUAGE LEARNI, V16, P39 Masuda K, 2011, MOD LANG J, V95, P519, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01256.x MAYNARD SK, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P397, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90097-W MAYNARD SK, 1986, LINGUISTICS, V24, P1079, DOI 10.1515/ling.1986.24.6.1079 McCarthy M, 2003, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V36, P33, DOI 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3 McGregor G., 1990, RECEPTION RESPONSE H Nofsinger R.E., 1991, EVERYDAY CONVERSATIO Ocampo A., 2008, THESIS U SO CALIFORN Ohta A., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P103 Ohta AS, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P1493, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00115-5 Roebuck R. F., 2004, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V14, P70, DOI 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2004.00054.x Scarcella R., 1993, LANGUAGE TRANSFER LA Schegloff E.A., 1982, ANAL DISCOURSE TEXT, P71 Lopez Serena Araceli, 2010, ESTUDIOS MARCADORES, P415 Shively R. L., 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V45, P105 Stubbe M, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V29, P257, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00042-8 Tannen D., 1984, CONVERSATIONAL STYLE Thonus T., 2007, CATESTOL J, V19, P132 Vazquez Veiga N., 2003, MARCADORES DISCURSIV WHITE S, 1989, LANG SOC, V18, P59 Yngve Victor H., 1970, 6 REG M CHIC LING SO, P567 Young R., 2008, LANGUAGE INTERACTION NR 57 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 4 U2 13 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 48 SI SI BP 86 EP 98 DI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.007 PG 13 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CC6YV UT WOS:000350515800008 ER PT J AU Eslami, ZR Mirzaei, A Dini, S AF Eslami, Zohreh R. Mirzaei, Azizullah Dini, Shadi TI The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication in the instruction and development of EFL learners' pragmatic competence SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE Asynchronous computer mediated communication; Pragmatic development; Explicit/implicit pragmatic instruction; English as a foreign language ID NATIVE SPEAKERS; EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION; NONNATIVE SPEAKERS; L2 INSTRUCTION; REQUESTS; PROFICIENCY; ENGLISH; GERMAN; METAANALYSIS; PARTICLES AB This study investigates two types of form-focused instruction on the acquisition of requests by Iranian EFL learners to determine the effectiveness of pragmatic instruction through asynchronous computer mediated communication (ACMC). Three groups of EFL learners, a control (n = 27) and two intervention groups, are included in this study. The intervention groups were matched with US-based graduate ESL Education students (as telecollaborative tutors) to undertake either an explicit or an implicit instructional treatment through ACMC for one semester. The explicit group (n = 23) participated in consciousness-raising activities, received explicit metapragmatic explanations and corrections of errors of forms and meanings. The implicit group (n = 24) received enhanced input and implicit feedback. A discourse completion task (DCT) was used to compare control and intervention groups. Furthermore, students' email communications with the graduate students were used to track their language development. Quantitative and qualitative analysis were used to determine the impact of instructional methods on EFL learners' pragmatic competence. Both treatment groups significantly improved, outperforming the control group. However, the explicit group performed significantly better than the implicit group on both the DCT and email communication measures. These findings are discussed with implications for using technology to teach and learn pragmatics. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Eslami, Zohreh R.; Dini, Shadi] Texas A&M Univ, Coll Educ & Human Resource Dev, Dept Teaching Learning & Culture, College Stn, TX 77843 USA. [Mirzaei, Azizullah] Shahrekord Univ, Fac Letters & Humanities, Dept English, Shahrekord, Iran. RP Eslami, ZR (reprint author), Texas A&M Univ, Coll Educ & Human Resource Dev, Dept Teaching Learning & Culture, College Stn, TX 77843 USA. EM zeslami@tamu.edu; mirzaei-a@lit.sku.ac.ir; shadi.dini@tamu.edu CR Abrams ZI, 2003, MOD LANG J, V87, P157, DOI 10.1111/1540-4781.00184 Baar D., 2003, RECALL, V15, P68 Bachman L., 1990, FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDER Bardovi-Harlig K, 2013, LANG LEARN, V63, P68, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x Bardovi-Harlig K, 2012, SYSTEM, V40, P77, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2012.01.004 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P13 Bardovi-Harlig K., 2003, TEACHING PRAGMATICS Belz JA, 2005, CAN MOD LANG REV, V62, P17, DOI 10.1353/cml.2005.0038 Belz J. A., 2007, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V27, P45 Belz JA, 2003, LANG LEARN, V53, P591, DOI 10.1046/j.1467-9922.2003.00238.x Belz J. A., 2002, LANGUAGE LEARNING TE, V6, P60 Biesenbach-Lucas S, 2007, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V11, P59 Biesenbach-Lucas S., 2001, LANGUAGE LEARNING TE, V5, P133 Blake R., 2000, LANGUAGE LEARNING TE, V4, P120 Bloch J, 2002, J SECOND LANG WRIT, V11, P117, DOI 10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00064-4 Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Chalak A., 2010, INT J LANGUAGE STUDI, V4, P129 Chapman D., 1997, ON CALL, V11, P31 Chen C.-F. E., 2001, ANN M AM ASS APPL LI Chen WC, 2013, EDUC TECHNOL SOC, V16, P147 Cunningham J., 2012, CANADIAN MODERN LANG, V68, P422 DeKeyser R., 2003, HDB 2 LANGUAGE ACQUI, P313, DOI DOI 10.1002/9780470756492 Economidou-Kogetsidis M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V53, P21, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.014 Economidou-Kogetsidis M, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3193, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006 Eisenchlas SA, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P51, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.013 Ellis R, 2004, LANG LEARN, V54, P227, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x Ellis R, 2006, APPL LINGUIST, V27, P431, DOI 10.1093/applin/aml022 Ellis R, 2006, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V28, P575, DOI 10.1017/S027226310606027X Eslami Z., 2013, IRANIAN J SCI CULTUR, V1, P52 Eslami ZR, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P178 Eslami Z. R., 2013, LODZ PAPERS PRAGMATI, V9, P71 Eslami Z. R., 2014, IRANIAN J LANGUAGE T, V4, P137 Eslami-Rasekh Z., 2005, ELT J, V59, P199, DOI 10.1093/elt/cci039 Fordyce K., 2013, APPL LINGUIST, V35, P6 Fukuya Y. J., 2002, 2 LANGUAGE STUDIES, V21, P1 Fukuya YJ, 2008, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V41, P478 Fulk J., 2001, NEW HDB ORG COMMUNIC, P624 Gonzalez-Lloret M, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P114 Halenko N, 2011, SYSTEM, V39, P240, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2011.05.003 Hartford B.S., 1996, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P55 Houck N., 2011, PRAGMATICS RES PRACT Huth T, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P2025, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.010 Ifantidou E, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V59, P93, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.008 Ishihara Noriko, 2010, TEACHING LEARNING PR Iwasaki I., 2008, CYBERSPACE CLASSROOM Jeon EH, 2006, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V13, P165 Johnson Neil H., 2013, International Journal of Strategic Information Technology and Applications, V4, DOI 10.4018/jsita.2013010104 Kakegawa T, 2009, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V5, P301 Kasper Gabriele, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P149, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014868 Dahl M., 1991, STUDIES 2ND LANGUAGE, V13, P215, DOI [10.1017/S0272263100009955, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100009955] Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kinginger C., 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P369, DOI DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2005.2A369 Koike D. A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P481, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.008 Kosunen R, 2009, RECALL, V21, P337, DOI 10.1017/S0958344009990073 Lapp S., 2000, AUSTR J LANGUAGE LIT, V23, P50 Lee L, 2004, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V8, P83 Li S, 2012, LANG LEARN, V62, P403, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00629.x Li Y., 2000, SYSTEM, V28, P229, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00009-9 Liaw M.-L., 1998, SYSTEM, V26, P335, DOI 10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00025-6 Lin WC, 2013, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V17, P123 Loewen S., 2006, Computer Assisted Language Learning, V19, P1, DOI 10.1080/09588220600803311 Lundell FF, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P756, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.010 Motallebzadeh K., 2014, PROCEDIA SOCIAL BEHA, V98, P1263 Pham M. Y., 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P416 Norris JM, 2000, LANG LEARN, V50, P417, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00136 Norris JM, 2001, LANG LEARN, V51, P157, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00017.x Rose K., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE Rose K. R., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P385, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.003 Rose K., 2000, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V22, P27, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100001029 Satar HM, 2008, MOD LANG J, V92, P595, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00789.x Schmidt R., 1994, AILA REV, V11, P11 Schmidt R., 2001, COGNITION 2 LANGUAGE, P3, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09781139524780.003 Soler E., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P417, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.005 Alcon Soler E., 2008, ENCY LANGUAGE ED, V6, P193 Sykes J.M., 2005, COMPUTER ASSISTED LA, V19, P399 Taguchi N., 2013, TECHNOLOGY INTERLANG Taguchi N., 2012, CONTEXT INDIVIDUAL D Taguchi N., 2015, LANGUAGE TE IN PRESS Taguchi N, 2011, LANG LEARN, V61, P904, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00633.x Takamiya Y., 2012, TECHNOLOGY INTERLANG, P193 Takimoto M, 2009, APPL LINGUIST, V30, P1, DOI 10.1093/applin/amm049 Tateyama Y., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P200 Tatsuki D., 2010, SPEECH ACTS NEW DIRE Trosborg A., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA van der Zwaard R, 2014, SYSTEM, V44, P137, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2014.03.007 Xiao-le G., 2011, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN, V20, P104 Yus Francisco, 2011, CYBERPRAGMATICS INTE Zhu W., 2012, RELC J, V43, P217 NR 88 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 11 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 48 SI SI BP 99 EP 111 DI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.008 PG 13 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CC6YV UT WOS:000350515800009 ER PT J AU Barron, A Black, E AF Barron, Anne Black, Emily TI Constructing small talk in learner-native speaker voice-based telecollaboration: A focus on topic management and backchanneling SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE Telecollaboration; Backchannel; Topic selection; Topic development; Small talk; Computer mediated communication; German; Irish English; Interactional competence; Pragmatic competence ID INTERACTIONAL COMPETENCE; PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE; REACTIVE TOKENS; RESPONSE TOKENS; CONVERSATION; JAPANESE; LANGUAGE; ENGLISH; CLASSROOM; GERMAN AB Developments in technology, including the use of synchronous telecollaborative tools, promise to address the challenge of providing opportunities for interaction in the foreign language classroom. The present study investigates how learners and native speakers (NS) of English co-construct small talk in the opening phase of a voice-based Skype telecollaboration. Specifically, learner and NS self-oriented and other-oriented topic shifts, topic replies and verbal listenership behaviour are analysed. The focus is on the English interactions of two learner-NS dyads, each made up of a German NS and an Irish English NS. One dyad includes a learner who exhibits a high level of interactional competence while in the other dyad the learner shows no active participation. Specifically, she reveals a low use of topic shifts, a high use of equivocal short-form topic replies, few long-form replies and a very limited use of backchannels/backchannel forms, leaving the interactional burden on the Irish English NS. The analysis illuminates small talk construction in the voice-based telecollaborative context and highlights the possibilities it offers for developing interactive competencies. It also sheds light on the roles played by NS and learners in topic management and adds to our understanding of individual differences in small talk construction in the foreign language. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Barron, Anne; Black, Emily] 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 FU Leuphana University Luneburg [73000780] FX We wish to acknowledge the financial support offered for this project by the Fund for Scientific Research (73000780) (Kleinforschungsprojekt) of the Leuphana University Luneburg. Many thanks also to the editors of this Special Issue and to two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments. Thanks also to Lynette Kirschner for her generous support in the data collection process, to Trista Freier for her invaluable aid in the transcription process and finally to Kerstin Single for her competent support in the formatting of this article. CR Abrams Z. I., 2008, CALICO J, V26, P1 Bachman L., 1990, FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDER Barraja-Rohan AM, 2011, LANG TEACH RES, V15, P479, DOI 10.1177/1362168811412878 Barron A, 2012, LANG TEACHING, V45, P44, DOI 10.1017/S0261444811000462 Belz JA, 2005, CAN MOD LANG REV, V62, P17, DOI 10.1353/cml.2005.0038 Belz JA, 2003, LANG LEARN, V53, P591, DOI 10.1046/j.1467-9922.2003.00238.x Belz JA, 2003, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V7, P68 Belz J. A., 2005, 2004 NFLRC S DIST ED Blyth C., 2012, IMPACT STUDIES LANGU, V31, P49 Bublitz W., 1988, SUPPORTIVE FELLOW SP Tecedor Cabrero M., 2013, THESIS U IOWA IOWA C Canai'e M., 1980, APPLIED LINGUISTICS, V1, P1, DOI DOI 10.1093/APPLIN/1.1.1 Clancy PM, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V26, P355, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00036-4 Coates J., 1986, WOMEN MEN LANGUAGE S Coupland J, 2003, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V36, P1, DOI 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_1 Cunningham DJ, 2012, CAN MOD LANG REV, V68, P422, DOI 10.3138/cmlr.1279 Cutrone P., 2005, MULTILINGUA, V24, P237, DOI DOI 10.1515/MULT.2005.24.3.237 Cutrone P., 2010, LANGUAGE STUDIES WOR, V2, P28 Darhower M., 2002, CALICO Journal, V19, P249 Darhower M., 2008, CALICO J, V26, P48 Davies C. E., 2004, MULTILINGUA, V23, P207, DOI 10.1515/mult.2004.010 DITTMANN AT, 1968, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V9, P79, DOI 10.1037/h0025722 DITTMANN AT, 1967, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V6, P341, DOI 10.1037/h0024739 Drummond K., 1993, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V26, P157, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327973RLSI2602_ DUNCAN S, 1974, J EXP SOC PSYCHOL, V10, P234, DOI 10.1016/0022-1031(74)90070-5 Ellis R., 2012, LANGUAGE TEACHING RE FELLEGY AM, 1995, AM SPEECH, V70, P186, DOI 10.2307/455815 Fishman P. M., 1983, SOC PROBL, V25, P397 Freed BF, 2004, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V26, P349, DOI 10.1017/S0272263104062096 Gardner R., 2001, LISTENERS TALK RESPO Gonzales A., 2013, LANGUAGE LEARNING LA, V36, P101 Gonzalez-Lloret M, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P114 Guth S, 2012, ELT J, V66, P42, DOI 10.1093/elt/ccr027 HALL JK, 1993, APPL LINGUIST, V14, P145, DOI 10.1093/applin/14.2.145 He A. W., 1998, TALKING TESTING DISC, P1 Hecht M. L., 1978, HUMAN COMMUNICATION, V4, P253, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00614.x Heinz B, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1113, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00190-X Holmes J., 1997, GENDER DISCOURSE, P263 Holmes J., 1995, WOMEN MEN POLITENESS Itakura H., 2010, LANGUAGE CULTURE CUR, V15, P161 Iwata Y., 2010, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN, VXIX, P145 Jefferson G, 1989, INTERCOMMUNICATION S, V3, P166 Kakegawa T, 2009, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V5, P301 Kasper G, 2004, MOD LANG J, V88, P551 Kasper G., 2013, ASSESSING 2 LANGUAGE, P1 Kasper G., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P281 KENDON A, 1967, ACTA PSYCHOL, V26, P22, DOI 10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4 Kinginger C., 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P369, DOI DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2005.2A369 Koester AJ, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P1405, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.003 KRAMSCH C, 1986, MOD LANG J, V70, P366, DOI 10.2307/326815 Lambertz K., 2011, GRIFFITH WORKING PAP, V4, P11 Laver J., 1975, WORLD ANTHR ORG BEHA, P215 Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Liddicoat A. J., 2001, CAMBRIDGE APPL LINGU, P125 LONG MH, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P126, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.126 Malinowski B., 1923, COMMUNICATION FACE F, P146 Marques-Schafer G., 2013, GIESSENER BEITRAGE F MAYNARD DW, 1984, SOC PSYCHOL QUART, V47, P301, DOI 10.2307/3033633 MAYNARD SK, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P397, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90097-W MAYNARD SK, 1986, LINGUISTICS, V24, P1079, DOI 10.1515/ling.1986.24.6.1079 McCarthy M, 2003, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V36, P33, DOI 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3 Meierkord Christiane, 1996, ENGLISCH ALS MEDIUM Morris-Adams M, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V62, P151, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.008 Murphy B, 2012, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V17, P325, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.17.3.02mur Nguyen L. V., 2008, INT J INSTRUCTIONAL, V5, P23 O'Dowd R, 2009, COMPUT ASSIST LANG L, V22, P173, DOI 10.1080/09588220902778369 O'Rourke B., 2005, CALICO Journal, V22, P433 O'Halloran K. L., 2014, PRAGMATICS DISCOURSE, P239 OKeeffe A, 2011, INTRODUCING PRAGMATICS IN USE, P1 O'Keeffe A., 2008, PRAGMATICS BEYOND, V178, P69 Olsher David, 2011, PRAGMATICS TEACHING, P171 Olsher D., 2011, PRAGMATICS TEACHING, P153 O'Reilly C., 2003, CROSS CULTURAL COMMU, V11 O'Sullivan H., 2011, INTERCULTURAL STUDIE, V10, P393 Cruz MP, 2013, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V10, P131, DOI 10.1515/ip-2013-0005 Sacks H., 1992, LECT CONVERSATION SACKS H, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P696, DOI 10.2307/412243 Saftoiu R, 2012, DIALOGUE STUD, V17, P213 Sardegna VG, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P279, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.013 Saunders P. A., 1999, LANG COMMUN, P267 Sauro S., 2011, CALICO J, V28, P369, DOI DOI 10.11139/CJ.28.2.369-391 Schegloff E.A., 2007, SEQUENCE ORG INTERAC, V1 Schegloff E.A., 1982, ANAL DISCOURSE TEXT, P71 Schmidt R., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P21 Schneider Klaus P., 1987, MULTILINGUA, V6, P247, DOI 10.1515/mult.1987.6.3.247 Schneider K. P., 1988, SMALL TALK ANAL PHAT, V1 Schneider K. R, 2008, PRAGMATICS NEW SERIE, V178, P99 Smith B, 2003, MOD LANG J, V87, P38, DOI 10.1111/1540-4781.00177 Alcon Soler E., 2012, ROUTLEDGE ENCY 2 LAN, P178 Sotillo S. M., 2000, LANGUAGE LEARNING TE, V4, P82 Sykes J.M., 2005, COMPUTER ASSISTED LA, V19, P399 Taguchi N, 2011, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V31, P289, DOI 10.1017/S0267190511000018 Takamiya Y., 2013, LANGUAGE LEARNING LA, V36, P185 Tannen D., 1994, GENDER DISCOURSE Tottie G., 1991, ENGLISH CORPUS LINGU Tudini V, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V50, P187, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.005 Utashiro T, 2009, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V5, P275 van der Zwaard R, 2014, SYSTEM, V44, P137, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2014.03.007 van Compernolle R. A., 2013, ASSESSING 2 LANGUAGE, P327 Vyatkina N., 2007, THESIS PENNSYLVANIA Vyatkina N., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P315 Ward Nigel G, 2007, Computer Assisted Language Learning, V20, DOI 10.1080/09588220701745825 WHITE S, 1989, LANG SOC, V18, P59 Wilkinson S, 2002, MOD LANG J, V86, P157, DOI 10.1111/1540-4781.00142 Wishnoff J., 2000, 2 LANGUAGE STUDIES, V19, P119 Wong D., 2007, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V12, P479, DOI DOI 10.1075/IJC1.12.4.03W0N Wong J., 2010, CONVERSATION ANAL 2 Yngve Victor H., 1970, 6 REG M CHIC LING SO, P567 Young RF, 2013, IBERICA, P15 NR 109 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 0346-251X EI 1879-3282 J9 SYSTEM JI System PD FEB PY 2015 VL 48 SI SI BP 112 EP 128 DI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.009 PG 17 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CC6YV UT WOS:000350515800010 ER PT J AU Yates, L Major, G AF Yates, Lynda Major, George TI "Quick-chatting", "smart dogs", and how to "say without saying": Small talk and pragmatic learning in the community SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE Interlanguage pragmatics; TESOL; Small talk; Adult language learning; Migration; ESL ID INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMATICS; LANGUAGE; ENGLISH; REQUESTS; 2ND-LANGUAGE; POLITENESS; WORKPLACE; WORK; SOCIALIZATION; COMPLIMENTS AB In this paper we focus on the perspectives and practical needs of a group of adult immigrants from language backgrounds other than English as they encounter the pragmatic demands of communicating in the workplace and in the community. Drawing on a subset of data from a large-scale longitudinal study of recent adult immigrants with low levels of English, we explore what they notice about the pragmatics of communication in Australia and the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic skills they need to 'fit in' and function successfully through English. The pragmatic issues they identify encompass a range of sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic issues not normally addressed in interlanguage research, including the importance of small talk and how to participate in it, the role and interpretation of informality and indirectness, different perceptions of sociability and the 'need to be nice', recognition of the need to be pragmatically flexible, and differences between the language taught in the classroom and that used every day in the community. We consider the implications for language classes in an ESL setting and suggest some activities designed to help immigrants prepare for the transition from classroom language learner to competent language user in the community. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Yates, Lynda; Major, George] Macquarie Univ, Dept Linguist, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. RP Yates, L (reprint author), Macquarie Univ, Dept Linguist, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. EM Lynda.yates@mq.edu.au CR Alcon Eva, 2012, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V9, P511 Alcon-Soler E., 2015, SYSTEM, V48 BARDOVIHARLIG K, 1990, LANG LEARN, V40, P467, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00603.x Bardovi-Harlig K., 2003, TEACHING PRAGMATICS Bardovi-Harlig K., 2005, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Bardovi-Harlig K., 2015, SYSTEM, V48 Barraja-Rohan A.-M., 1997, TALK COURSE COMMUNIC Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN Barron A, 2012, LANG TEACHING, V45, P44, DOI 10.1017/S0261444811000462 Block D., 2003, SOCIAL TURN 2 LANGUA Burns A, 2010, TESOL QUART, V44, P409, DOI 10.5054/tq.2010.232478 CARLA Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, PRAGM SPEECH ACTS CHEN R, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V20, P49, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90106-Y Chen Rong, 2010, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGES, P167 Chen R, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1951, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.006 Clyne Michael, 1994, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Coupland J, 2003, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V36, P1, DOI 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_1 Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks, 2012, CLB SUPP KIT Dahm M., 2013, TESOL CANADA J, V30, P21 Daly N, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P945, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.12.004 Derwing T. M., 2012, IRPP STUDY Diepenbroek Lori G., 2013, TESL CANADA, V30, P1 Duff PA, 2000, CAN MOD LANG REV, V57, P9 Dufon M. A., 2006, LANGUAGE LEARNERS ST, P91 Economidou-Kogetsidis M, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2262, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.001 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2003, MULTILINGUA, V22, P225, DOI 10.1515/mult.2003.012 Gass S., 1999, INTERLANGUAGE REFUSA Gassner D., 2013, THESIS MACQUARIE U S Han S., 2005, THESIS U PENNSYLVANI Hofstede G., 1994, VALUES SURVEY MODULE Holmes J., 2000, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V10, P125, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1473-4192.2000.TB00143.X Holmes J, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1683, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00032-2 Holmes J, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P518, DOI 10.1093/applin/amm048 Holmes J, 2011, ELT J, V65, P376, DOI 10.1093/elt/ccq071 Ishihara Noriko, 2010, TEACHING LEARNING PR JAWORSKI A, 1994, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V32, P41, DOI 10.1515/iral.1994.32.1.41 Jeon EH, 2006, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V13, P165 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kuriscak LM, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P23 Language in the Workplace Project Victoria University of Wellington, RES MAT MIGR EMPL EM Li DD, 2000, CAN MOD LANG REV, V57, P58 Lundell FF, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P756, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.010 Major G., 2015, AUSTR REV APPL LINGU, V48 Malthus C., 2005, NZ STUDIES APPL LING, V11, P65 MartinezFlor A, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P1 MATSUMOTO Y, 1988, J PRAGMATICS, V12, P403, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3 McCarthy M, 2001, TESOL QUART, V35, P337, DOI 10.2307/3587654 Meier Ardith J., 2010, SPEECH ACT PERFORMAN, P109 Newton Jonathan, 2004, PROSPECT, V19, P47 NORTON B, 2000, IDENTITY LANGUAGE LE Norton B, 2011, ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, P73 Ortega L, 2011, ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, P167 Riddiford N., 2015, SYSTEM, V48 Riddiford N., 2010, WORKPLACE TALK ACTIO Riddiford N, 2010, TESOL QUART, V44, P195, DOI 10.5054/tq.2010.215252 Rose K., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE 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 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., 1995, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P225 Su IR, 2010, MOD LANG J, V94, P87 Suh JS, 1999, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V37, P195, DOI 10.1515/iral.1999.37.3.195 Swain M, 2007, MOD LANG J, V91, P820, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00671.x Taguchi N, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P113, DOI 10.1093/applin/aml051 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., 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P189, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014881 Takimoto M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1240, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.007 Tatsuki D., 2010, PRAGMATICS RES PRACT Tatsuki D., 2011, PRAGMATICS TEACHING THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Wierzbicka A, 1997, UNDERSTANDING CULTUR Wierzbicka A, 1991, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Wigglesworth G, 2007, TESOL QUART, V41, P791 Woodfield H., 2010, MULTILINGUA, V29, P791 Yates, 2015, LANGUAGE TEACHING, V48 Yates L, 2005, SEC LANG ACQ RES, P67 Yates L., 2010, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V12, P113 Yates L., 2010, LANGUAGE TRAINING SE Yates L., 2013, TESL CANADA J, V30 Yates Lynda, 2008, NOT SO GENERIC SKILL Yates L., 2004, PROSPECT, V19, P3 Yates L., 2000, THESIS LA TROBE U ME Yates L., 2014, AMEP LONGITUDI UNPUB [Anonymous], 2010, PRAGMATICS RES PRACT Yates L, 2011, INT J BILING EDUC BI, V14, P457, DOI 10.1080/13670050.2011.573068 Zamborlin C., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P21, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.002 Atkinson D, 2011, ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, P1 Gass SM, 2006, STUD LANG ACQUIS, V11, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110219289 NR 90 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 3 U2 11 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 48 SI SI BP 141 EP 152 DI 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.011 PG 12 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CC6YV UT WOS:000350515800012 ER PT J AU Kadar, DZ Ran, YP AF Kadar, Daniel Z. Ran, Yongping TI Ritual in intercultural contact: A metapragmatic case study of heckling SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Ritual(isation); Appropriation; Intercultural pragmatics; Metapragmatics; Stances; Attitudes ID DISCOURSE; FACE AB The present paper examines how interpersonal ritual notions are appropriated in intercultural contact, hence filling a knowledge gap in intercultural and cross-cultural pragmatics. As a case study, we examine how the English metal exeme 'heckling' has been appropriated in Chinese and Japanese cultures. We argue that the history and pragmatic features of native heckling metalexemes in Chinese and Japanese strongly influence the way in which English 'heckling' has been incorporated into these cultures. By studying the relationship between intercultural appropriation and metalexical history, we aim to draw attention to the importance of examining culture-specific metalexemes in intercultural research on rituals and other interpersonal pragmatic phenomena. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Kadar, Daniel Z.] Univ Huddersfield, Ctr Intercultural Politeness Res, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, W Yorkshire, England. [Ran, Yongping] Guangdong Univ Foreign Studies, Ctr Linguist & Appl Linguist, Guangzhou, Guangdong, Peoples R China. RP Kadar, DZ (reprint author), Univ Huddersfield, Ctr Intercultural Politeness Res, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, W Yorkshire, England. CR Anderson Joseph L., 2011, ENTER SAMURAI KAWAKA Anderson J. L., 1982, JAPANESE FILM ART IN Bax Marcel, 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V8, P483 Baxter J, 2002, DISCOURSE SOC, V13, P827, DOI 10.1177/0957926502013006760 Bednarek M, 2008, EMOTION TALK ACROSS CORPORA, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230285712 BEFU H, 1974, ARCTIC ANTHROPOL, V11, P196 Bell Catherine, 1992, RITUAL PRACTICE BELL C., 1997, RITUAL PERSPECTIVES Bull P, 2010, REV INT PSYCHOL SOC, V23, P155 [Anonymous], 1997, BUNGEI SHUNSHYUU, V37 Griffith Paul, 2004, GUIDE JAPANESE STAGE Chapman Dennis, 1948, SCOT HIST REV, V27, P156 Collins R., 2004, INTERACTION RITUAL C Coupland Nikolas, 2009, MULTILINGUA, V16, P233 Drew P., 1990, LANGUAGE JUDICIAL PR, P39 Fitts R. K, 2005, REMEMBERING JAPANESE Fukuyama Francis, 1995, J DEMOCR, V6, P20, DOI 10.1353/jod.1995.0029 Goffman E., 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL E Goffman E., 1974, FRAME ANAL Goldberg CE, 1997, WASH LAW REV, V72, P1003 Guthrie-Shimizu S, 2012, TRANSPACIFIC FIELD D Haddington Pentti, 2012, PRAGMATICS STANCE EN HARDING S, 1991, SOC RES, V58, P373 Haugh M, 2012, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V8, P111, DOI 10.1515/pr-2012-0007 Haugh M, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2106, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018 He B, 2006, SEARCH FOR DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY IN CHINA, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780312376154 Andreas Jacobs, 1995, HIST PRAGMATICS PRAG, P3 Jacobs Scott, 1982, THESIS U ILLINOIS UR Jacobs Scott, 1993, RECONSTRUCTING ARGUM, P140 Jordan Mel, 2011, ARTS PUBLIC SPHERE, V1, P117 Jucker Andreas H., 2012, DEV CORPUS METHODOLO, V11 Kadar DZ, 2013, UNDERSTANDING POLITENESS, P1 Kadar Daniel Z., 2015, RITUAL IMPO IN PRESS Kadar Daniel Z., 2016, J HIST PRAGMAT UNPUB Kadar Daniel Z., 2012, HDB PRAGMATICS, V1-48 Kadar DZ, 2013, RELATIONAL RITUALS AND COMMUNICATION: RITUAL INTERACTION IN GROUPS, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230393059 Kadar Daniel Z., 2014, J LANGUAGE AGGRESSIO, V2, P1, DOI [10.1075/jlac.2.1.01kad, DOI 10.1075/JLAC.2.1.01KAD] Kecskes I., 2013, INTERCULTURAL PRAGMA Kelly William, 2004, FANNING FLAMES FANS Li C., 1981, MANDARIN CHINESE FUN MAKRITSILIPAKOU M, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V21, P401, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90012-4 Maurial M., 1999, WHAT IS INDIGENOUS K, P59 McIlvenny P, 1996, LANG SOC, V25, P27 Muir Edward, 2005, RITUAL EARLY MODERN Mulcock Jane, 2001, SOC APPL ANTHR, V23, P38 Nihon sumoo kyookai (Japanese Sumo Association), 1995, OO SUM Osaki Yooji, 2003, DENSHOO BUNKA KENKYU, V2, P43 Rogers RA, 2006, COMMUN THEOR, V16, P474, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00277.x Schechner R, 1993, FUTURE RITUAL WRITIN Schechner R., 1990, MEANS PERFORMANCE IN Schegloff E. A., 1999, DISCOURSE STUDIES, V1, P405, DOI 10.1177/1461445699001004002 Schreyner Rudiger, 1976, WORKING PAPERS LANGU, V7, P8 Scollon Ron, 2012, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN SECHREST L, 1972, J CROSS CULT PSYCHOL, V3, P41, DOI 10.1177/002202217200300103 [Anonymous], 2009, J PRAGMAT Turner V., 1969, RITUAL PROCESS STRUC Turner Victor W., 1982, RITUAL THEATRE HUMAN WEINREICH Uriel, 1968, DIRECTIONS HIST LING, P97 Yamakawa Shizuo, 2009, OOMUKOO NO HITOBITO Yanagida Ryogo, 2014, 8 INT C POL HOST CTR Yoshitake Masaki, 2008, THESIS U OKLAHOMA NR 61 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 14 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 77 BP 41 EP 55 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.011 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CC1GP UT WOS:000350089500004 ER PT J AU Lucking, A Pfeiffer, T Rieser, H AF Luecking, Andy Pfeiffer, Thies Rieser, Hannes TI Pointing and reference reconsidered SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Pointing; Reference; Semantics-pragmatics interface; Computer simulation; Pointing cone; Motion capturing ID AGREEMENT; DEMONSTRATIVES; GESTURE; KAPPA AB Current semantic theory on indexical expressions claims that demonstratively used indexicals such as this lack a referent-determining meaning but instead rely on an accompanying demonstration act like a pointing gesture. While this view allows to set up a sound logic of demonstratives, the direct-referential role assigned to pointing gestures has never been scrutinized thoroughly in semantics or pragmatics. We investigate the semantics and pragmatics of co-verbal pointing from a foundational perspective combining experiments, statistical investigation, computer simulation and theoretical modeling techniques in a novel manner. We evaluate various referential hypotheses with a corpus of object identification games set up in experiments in which body movement tracking techniques have been extensively used to generate precise pointing measurements. Statistical investigation and computer simulations show that especially distal areas in the pointing domain falsify the semantic direct-referential hypotheses concerning pointing gestures. As an alternative, we propose that reference involving pointing rests on a default inference which we specify using the empirical data. These results raise numerous problems for classical semantics pragmatics interfaces: we argue for pre-semantic pragmatics in order to account for inferential reference in addition to classical post-semantic Gricean pragmatics. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). C1 [Luecking, Andy] Goethe Univ Frankfurt, Dept Comp Sci & Math, Text Technol Lab, D-60054 Frankfurt, Germany. [Pfeiffer, Thies] Univ Bielefeld, Fac Technol, Excellence Ctr Cognit Interact Technol, Bielefeld, Germany. [Rieser, Hannes] Univ Bielefeld, Fac Linguist & Literary Studies, Collaborat Res Ctr 673, Bielefeld, Germany. RP Lucking, A (reprint author), Goethe Univ Frankfurt, Dept Comp Sci & Math, Text Technol Lab, D-60054 Frankfurt, Germany. EM luecking@em.uni-frankfurt.de; thies.pfeiffer@uni-bielefeld.de; hannes.rieser@uni-bielefeld.de OI Pfeiffer, Thies/0000-0001-6619-749X FU German Research Foundation [CRC 360] FX Work on this paper has been supported by the German Research Foundation, in the CRC 360, Situated Artificial Communicators, and in the CRC 673, Alignment in Communication, both at Bielefeld University. The authors also want to thank the anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Pragmatics for their valuable comments. They helped to make the argument more stringent and to present the results in a more accessible way. CR Anscombe Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret, 1969, LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN Austin J. L., 1950, P ARISTOTELIAN SOC S, V24, P111 Bangerter A., 2006, GESTURE, V6, P85, DOI 10.1075/gest.6.1.05ban Bangerter A, 2004, PSYCHOL SCI, V15, P415, DOI 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00694.x Barwise J, 1989, SITUATION LOGIC Barwise Jon, 1983, SITUATIONS ATTITUDES BRAUN D, 1996, NOUS, V30, P145, DOI 10.2307/2216291 BRAUN D, 1994, PHILOS STUD, V74, P193, DOI 10.1007/BF00989803 Butterworth G, 2003, POINTING: WHERE LANGAUAGE, CULTURE, AND COGNITON MEET, P9 Butterworth G, 2000, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V18, P25, DOI 10.1348/026151000165553 Carletta J, 1996, COMPUT LINGUIST, V22, P249 Carston Robyn, 2006, OXFORD HDB PHILOS LA, P341 Carston Robyn, 1998, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V10, P53 Chierchia G., 2000, MEANING GRAMMAR INTR Clark HH, 2004, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P25 Clark H. H., 1996, USING LANGUAGE Clark HH, 2003, POINTING: WHERE LANGAUAGE, CULTURE, AND COGNITON MEET, P243 COHEN J, 1960, EDUC PSYCHOL MEAS, V20, P37, DOI 10.1177/001316446002000104 Cooperrider K, 2012, GESTURE, V12, P103, DOI 10.1075/gest.12.2.01coo DAVIDSON D, 1967, SYNTHESE, V17, P304, DOI 10.1007/BF00485035 de Ruiter J. P., 2000, LANGUAGE GESTURE, P284, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620850.018 Devlin K., 1991, LOGIC INFORM Enfield N. J., 2001, GESTURE, V1, P185, DOI DOI 10.1075/GEST.1.2.06ENF FEINSTEIN AR, 1990, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V43, P543, DOI 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-L Geurts B., 1997, J SEMANT, V14, P319, DOI 10.1093/jos/14.4.319 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Gwet K., 2001, HDB INTERRATER RELIA Hamish Robert, 1991, PRAGMATICS READER Haviland John, 2000, LANGUAGE GESTURE, P13, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620850.003 Kaplan David, 1978, J PHILOS LOGIC, V8, P81 Kaplan David, 1978, PRAGMATICS, P221 Kaplan David, 1989, THEMES KAPLAN, P565 KAPLAN D., 1989, THEMES KAPLAN, P481 Kendon A, 2003, POINTING: WHERE LANGAUAGE, CULTURE, AND COGNITON MEET, P109 Kendon A, 2004, GESTURE VISIBLE ACTI Kendon A., 1980, RELATIONSHIP VERBAL, V25, P207 Kendon A, 1997, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V26, P109, DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.109 KENDON A., 2000, LANGUAGE GESTURE, P47, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620850.004 Kita S., 2003, POINTING LANGUAGE CU Kjmrsgaard-Andersen Per, 1988, STAT MED, V7, P639 [Anonymous], 2006, SITUATED COMMUNICATI, DOI 10.1515/9783110197747.155 Kranstedt Alfred, 2006, P BRAN DIAL 2006 10, P82 Kranstedt Alfred, 2007, 3 INT C INT SOC GEST Kranstedt A, 2006, LECT NOTES ARTIF INT, V3881, P300 Gottesman R. F., 2000, LANGUAGE GESTURE, P261, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620850.017 Kripke Saul, 1980, NAMING NECESSITY Kuhnlein Peter, 2003, 360 SFB U BIEL Lepore Ernest, 2007, D DAVIDSONS TRUTH TH Leveli W. J., 1989, SPEAKING INTENTION A Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Levinson Stephen C., 2008, HDB PRAGMATICS, P97 Locking Andy, 2004, P 8 WORKSH SEM PRAGM, P56 Lucking Andy, 2005, 360 SFB U BIEL Lyons J, 1977, SEMANTICS, V2 MCGINN C, 1981, SYNTHESE, V49, P157, DOI 10.1007/BF01064297 McNeill D., 1992, HAND MIND WHAT GESTU McNeill D., 2000, LANGUAGE GESTURE PECHMANN T, 1982, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V34, P330, DOI 10.1016/0022-0965(82)90050-9 Peirce Charles Sanders, 1867, P AM ACAD ARTS SCI, V7, P287 Peirce C.S., 1965, COLLECTED PAPERS CS Perry J., 2009, PHILOS D KAPLAN, P187 Perry John, 1986, SUPPLEMENTARY P ARIS, V60, P263 Pfeiffer Thies, 2006, 3 WORKSH VIRT ERW RE, P61 Pfeiffer Thies, 2012, GESTURES SIGN LANGUA, P238 Pfeiffer Thies, 2011, THESIS BIELEFELD U A Poesio Massimo, 2009, P 13 WORKSH SEM PRAG, P35 Powell George, 2001, PRAGMAT COGN, V9, P69, DOI 10.1075/pc.9.1.04pow Powell George, 2001, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V13, P43 Quine W. V. O., 1960, WORD OBJECT Recanati F, 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P442 Recanati F, 2004, LITERAL MEANING Roberts Lawrence D, 1993, REFERENCE WORKS EXPL Russell Bertrand, 1905, MIND, V14, P479, DOI DOI 10.1093/MIND/XIV.4.479 Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Stegmann Jens, 2005, 360 SFB U BIEL Tarski Alfred, 1935, STUDIA PHILOS, VI, P261 Tarski A, 1944, PHILOS PHENOMENOLOGI, V4, P341, DOI 10.2307/2102968 van der Sluis I, 2007, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V44, P145 Vanderveken Daniel, 1990, INTENTIONS COMMUNICA, P195 Zeevat Henk, 1999, J SEMANT, V16, P279, DOI DOI 10.1093/J0S/16.4.279 NR 80 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 77 BP 56 EP 79 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.013 PG 24 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CC1GP UT WOS:000350089500005 ER PT J AU Sorlin, S AF Sorlin, Sandrine TI Person deixis and impersonation in Iain Banks's Complicity SO LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE LA English DT Article DE Iain Banks; Complicity; deictic shifts; mental representations; mindstyle; persona; person deixis; personal pronouns; pragmatic paradox; pronominal imposture; psycholinguistics; scenario-mapping; self-address "you'; stylistic impersonation AB The article focuses on the specific use of the second-person pronoun in Iain Banks's Complicity and the complex relationship it entertains with its first-person counterpart as the novel alternates between first- and second-person narratives. The personal pronouns construct two completely opposed mindstyles: the highly personal narrative of the first-person protagonist contrasts with the depersonalized style of the you' protagonist-narrator. Not only is the second-person pronoun a grammatical imposter' (Collins and Postal, 2012) - it actually hides an I' - but it is a psychological one as the narrator seems to hide his real self behind a convenient you persona'. In addition, the article brings to light the pragmatic paradox that self-address you' embodies in the peculiar position it assigns to the readers. If it tends to encroach upon' their territory, forcing them into complicity, it is also guilty of manipulating their emotions. Lastly, the linguistic and stylistic analysis of Banks's novel will here be coupled with cognitive and psycholinguistic approaches in order to understand how the reader switches from one frame' of mind to the other. Particularly helpful is the Rhetorical Processing Framework' discussed by Sanford and Emmott (2012) in order to grasp how readers construct mental representations to process the writer's sometimes misleading style. C1 [Sorlin, Sandrine] Univ Aix Marseille 3, F-13621 Aix En Provence, France. RP Sorlin, S (reprint author), Univ Aix Marseille 3, 29 Ave Robert Schuman, F-13621 Aix En Provence, France. EM sandrine.sorlin@univ-amu.fr FU Institut Universitaire de France (IUF) FX This research has been supported by funding from the Institut Universitaire de France (IUF). CR ALLBRITTON DW, 1991, J MEM LANG, V30, P603, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90028-I Banks Iain, 1984, THE WASP FACTORY Banks I, 1993, COMPLICITY Benveniste E., 1974, PROBLEMES LINGUISTIQ Benveniste E., 1966, PROBLEMES LINGUISTIQ Bonheim H, 1982, SPRACHTHEORIE ANGEWA, V195, P77 Burgess A, 1972, CLOCKWORK ORANGE 196 Cohn Dorrit, 1978, TRANSPARENT MINDS NA Collins C, 2012, IMPOSTERS: A STUDY OF PRONOMINAL AGREEMENT, P1 De Mattia-Vivies Monique, 2006, DISCOURS INDIRECT LI DUJARDIN E., 2001, LAURIERS SONT COUPES Emmott C, 2003, COGNITIVE POETICS PR, P145 Emmott Catherine, 1997, NARRATIVE COMPREHENS FLUDERNIK M, 1994, STYLE, V28, P281 Fludernik M, 1996, NATURAL NARRATOLOGY FLUDERNIK M, 1993, AAA-ARB ANGLIST AM, V18, P217 Fowler R., 1977, LINGUISTICS NOVEL Gardelle L, PRAGMATICS IN PRESS Gavins J, 2007, TEXT WORLD THEORY IN GENETTE Gerard, 1972, FIGURES 3 Genette G, 1988, NARRATIVE DISCOURSE Goffman E, 1981, GOFFMAN E FORMS TALK, P124 HERMAN D, 1994, STYLE, V28, P378 Jeffries L, 2013, HONOUR G LEECH M SHO, P175 Jobert M, BLOOMSBURY IN PRESS Joly Andre, 1990, GRAMMAIRE SYSTEMATIQ Joyce J, 1998, ULYSSES 1922 LePage R. B., 1985, ACTS OF IDENTITY Margolin U, 1986, TEXTE, V5, P181 McCracken S., 1998, PULP READING POPULAR McIlvanney W, 1977, LAIDLAW McInerney J, 2007, BRIGHT LIGHTS BIG CI Richardson Brian, 2006, UNNATURAL VOICES EXT Ricoeur Paul, 1975, METAPHORE VIVE Sanford Anthony J., 1981, UNDERSTANDING WRITTE Sanford AJ, 2012, MIND BRAIN NARRATIVE Sanford AJ, 1998, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V26, P159 Simpson P, 1993, LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY PO Sorlin S, 2014, STAT ANGLAISE THEORI Sorlin S, ETUDES STYL IN PRESS, V7 Wales Katie, 1996, PERSONAL PRONOUNS PR Werth P., 1999, TEXT WORLDS REPRESEN NR 42 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 24 IS 1 BP 40 EP 53 DI 10.1177/0963947014568754 PG 14 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CB4VI UT WOS:000349626000003 ER PT J AU Mousavian, SN AF Mousavian, Seyed N. TI Pragmatics of No Reference SO MIND & LANGUAGE LA English DT Article ID EMPTY NAMES; CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES; GAPPY PROPOSITIONS; FICTIONAL NAMES; CANCELLABILITY AB According to Millianism, the semantic content of a proper name is its semantic referent. Many names, however, lack semantic referent; hence, so-called empty' names. Empty names raise various problems for Millianism. T.C. Ryckman, Fred Adams, Garry Fuller, Robert Stecker, Kenneth Taylor, and Nicole Wyatt, among others, have defended Millianism against these problems by appeal to pragmatics (Pragmatic Millianism). I introduce Millianism and the problems raised by empty names for the view, then examine Pragmatic Millianism (PM), its strength, its varieties, and why the previous arguments against PM do not succeed. I then provide my argument against PM: the view oversimplifies the complex phenomenon of association between names and descriptions. I discuss an objection to my argument and rebut that. Finally, I try to draw an outline of a positive view. C1 [Mousavian, Seyed N.] Inst Res Fundamental Sci IPM, Sch Philosophy, Tehran, Iran. [Mousavian, Seyed N.] Iranian Inst Philosophy, Dept Log, Tehran, Iran. RP Mousavian, SN (reprint author), Inst Res Fundamental Sci IPM, Sch Philosophy, POB 19395-5746, Tehran, Iran. EM seyed.mousavian@ualberta.ca CR Adams F, 1997, PAC PHILOS QUART, V78, P128, DOI 10.1111/1468-0114.00032 ADAMS F, 1994, MIND LANG, V9, P387, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00314.x Adams F, 2004, PAC PHILOS QUART, V85, P125, DOI 10.1111/j.0279-0750.2004.00191.x Adams F, 2007, CAN J PHILOS, V37, P449, DOI 10.1353/cjp.2007.0024 Bach K., 2002, MEANING TRUTH, P21 Blome-Tillmann M, 2008, ANALYSIS, V68, P156, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8284.2007.00731.x Borge S, 2009, ACTA ANAL, V24, P149, DOI 10.1007/s12136-009-0049-1 BRAUN D, 1993, NOUS, V27, P449, DOI 10.2307/2215787 Braun D, 2005, NOUS, V39, P596, DOI 10.1111/j.0029-4624.2005.00541.x Salmon N., 1990, PROPOSITIONAL ATTITU Everett A, 2003, PHILOS STUD, V116, P1, DOI 10.1023/B:PHIL.0000005533.25543.36 Green MS, 2007, CAN J PHILOS, V37, P419, DOI 10.1353/cjp.2007.0021 Korta K, 2006, MIND LANG, V21, P166, DOI 10.1111/j.0268-1064.2006.00310.x Korta Kepa, 2011, CRITICAL PRAGMATICS Mousavian SN, 2011, CAN J PHILOS, V41, P125 Mousavian SN, 2010, PAC PHILOS QUART, V91, P229 Mousavian S. N., 2014, THOUGHT J PHILOS, V3, P49 Perry John, 2001, REFERENCE REFLEXIVIT Piccinini G, 2010, CAN J PHILOS, V40, P239 Predelli S, 2002, DIALECTICA, V56, P261 Recanati F., 1993, DIRECT REFERENCE LAN Reimer M, 2001, AM PHILOS QUART, V38, P233 Ryckman T. C., 1988, PHILOS ANAL DEFENSE Salmon, 2005, EXISTENCE, P9 Salmon N, 1998, NOUS, V32, P277, DOI 10.1111/0029-4624.00101 Soames Scott, 2002, BEYOND RIGIDITY SOAMES S, 1995, CAN J PHILOS, V25, P515 Soames S, 2005, REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION: THE CASE AGAINST TWO-DIMENSIONALISM, P1 Taylor Kenneth, 2000, EMPTY NAMES FICTION, P17 Weiner M, 2006, ANALYSIS, V66, P127, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8284.2006.00599.x Wyatt N, 2007, DIALOGUE-CAN PHILOS, V46, P663 NR 31 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 3 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 30 IS 1 BP 95 EP 116 DI 10.1111/mila.12073 PG 22 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA CB0EN UT WOS:000349298300005 ER PT J AU Bouchara, A AF Bouchara, Abdelaziz TI The role of religion in shaping politeness in Moroccan Arabic: The case of the speech act of greeting and its place in intercultural understanding and misunderstanding SO JOURNAL OF POLITENESS RESEARCH-LANGUAGE BEHAVIOUR CULTURE LA English DT Article DE Speech act; greeting; invitation; religious expressions as strategies of politeness; pragmatic functions AB This paper investigates, from a cross-cultural pragmatics framework, the motivations and reasons which induce Moroccans in particular, and Arabs in general, to invoke Qur'anic verses and religious lexicons in their daily politeness discourse. By focusing on the speech act of greeting, this study attempts to show that greetings are ordinary day-to-day events, which often encapsulate a lot of different cultural values that may cause misunderstandings. Based on data collected from natural interaction between Arabs and Germans, Arabs seem inclined to show politeness when greeting one another by using religious vocabulary and giving religious praises. In addition, the use of religion as a politeness strategy appears to function as a way of protecting the self-image of both the speaker and the hearer. Furthermore, the findings of this study also reveal that by resorting to the use of this politeness strategy, Moroccans seem to reflect their firm belief and the importance they attach to the Qur'an and, more especially, to the question of fate and destiny in Islam. As a result, it is not the linguistic expression itself but rather the pragmatic function of the utterance that seems to determine the use and interpretation of politeness strategies in (Moroccan) Arabic. C1 Univ Casablanca Hassan II, Fac Human Sci, Dept German Language & Literature studies, Casablanca, Morocco. RP Bouchara, A (reprint author), Univ Casablanca Hassan II, Fac Human Sci, Dept German Language & Literature studies, Casablanca, Morocco. EM hanaae2001@yahoo.fr CR Abdurahman Hamza A., 2013, J SEBHA U, V12 Ahlawat Kapur, 2010, MARRIAGE FAM REV, V14, P251 Al-Kahtani Saad Ali W., 2005, J KING SAUD U, V18, P35 Austin J. L., 1962, DO THINGS WORDS Bouchara Abdelaziz, 2002, HOFLICHKEITSFORMEN I, V235 Brown P., 1978, QUESTIONS POLITENESS, P56 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Davies E. Eirlys, 2000, APPL LINGUIST, V8, P75 Eva Ogierman, 2009, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V5, P189 Eva Ogierman, 2009, APOLOGIZING NEGATIVE Gudykunst William B., 1996, COMMUNICATING PERSON Gudykunst William B., 1998, CULTURE INTERPERSONA Gumperz John, 1982, LANGUAGE SOCIAL IDEN Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES Hamady S., 1960, TEMPERAMENT CHARACTE Harrell S. Richard, 2003, BASIC COURSE MOROCCA Hofstede H. Geert, 1980, CULTURES CONSEQUENCE Ide S., 1989, MULTILINGUA, V2, P223, DOI 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223 Imaillah Lajna, 1996, PATHWAY PARADISE GUI Laffin John, 1975, ARAB MIND NEED UNDER Lord Richard, 1996, CULTURE SHOCK Masliyah Sadok, 1999, DIALOG LANGUAGE INST, V13, P97 MATSUMOTO Y, 1988, J PRAGMATICS, V12, P403, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3 Morrow A. John, 2007, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN, V15, P202 Anssari Naim Saida, 2011, THESIS U VALENCIA Nazzal Ayman, 2005, PRAGMATICS, V15, P251 Nwoye G. Onuigbo, 1992, J PRAGMATICS, V18, P309 Ritter M. Robert, 2005, NEW OXFORD DICT WRIT Searle R. John, 1969, SPEECH ACTS Shammas Nafez Antonius, 1995, THESIS U LOUGHBOROUG THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Triandis C. Harry, 1990, NEBRASKA S MOTIVATIO, V37, P41 Umar Al-Tayib, 2004, UMM AL QURA U J ED S, V16, P42 Vilkki Liisa, 2006, J LINGUIST, V19, P322 Watts J. Richard, 2003, POLITENESS NR 35 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 1 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 11 IS 1 SI SI BP 71 EP 98 DI 10.1515/pr-2015-0004 PG 28 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CA7LI UT WOS:000349098400004 ER PT J AU Hampel, E AF Hampel, Elisabeth TI "Mama Zimbi, pls help me!" - Gender differences in (im)politeness in Ghanaian English advice-giving on Facebook SO JOURNAL OF POLITENESS RESEARCH-LANGUAGE BEHAVIOUR CULTURE LA English DT Article DE advice-giving; (im)politeness; gender; Ghanaian English; postcolonial pragmatics; computer-mediated communication ID COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION; POLITENESS; LANGUAGE; IMPOLITENESS; INDIRECTNESS; COMMUNITY; REQUESTS; FEATURES; ONLINE AB This paper explores (im)politeness and gender in a specific advicegiving practice of young Ghanaians online. The data is collected from the Facebook fan page of Mama Zimbi, a radio and TV personality from Ghana, and consists of a sample of 400 messages in response to two male and two female advice-seekers' problem messages. The messages are analyzed according to form-and content-based categories, focussing on the directness and content of advice, the content of discursive moves other than advice, and address terms. The results indicate that very direct forms (i.e., imperatives) are the preferred way by both males and females to give advice. Directness, however, cannot be equated with impoliteness or politeness, which rather depends on a combination of the content of advice, further discursive moves and additional elements such as politeness markers. Although there are trends towards more cooperative advice by females and more negative responses directed at males, there are many exceptions to this and no clear gender differences are found. The high number of rude or sarcastic comments most probably serves the function of entertaining readers, while other users try to maintain politeness on the page by giving sincere advice and/or scolding those who insult advice-seekers. C1 Univ Bonn, Inst Anglist Amerikanist & Keltol, D-53113 Bonn, Germany. RP Hampel, E (reprint author), Univ Bonn, Inst Anglist Amerikanist & Keltol, Regina Pacis Weg 5, D-53113 Bonn, Germany. EM ehampel@uni-bonn.de CR Afful Joseph, 2007, NORDIC J AFRICAN STU, V16, P179 Anchimbe Eric, 2008, POLITESSE LINGUISTIQ, P109 Anchimbe EA, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1451, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.027 Ellece Sibonile, 2012, GENDER LANGUAGE, V6 ATANGA LL, 2013, GENDER LANGUAGE SUBS Avorgbedor Daniel, 1994, ORAL TRADITION, V9, P83 Barnes Susan B., 2003, COMPUTER MEDIATED CO Beebe L. M., 1996, SPEECH ACTS CULTURES, P65 BELL A, 1984, LANG SOC, V13, P145 Blum-Kulka Shoshana, 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P273 BLUMKULKA S, 1987, J PRAGMATICS, V11, P131, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5 Bodomo A., 1996, NORDIC J AFRICAN STU, V5, P31 Bousfield D, 2008, IMPOLITENESS INTERAC Boyd DM, 2007, J COMPUT-MEDIAT COMM, V13, P210, DOI 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Butler Judith, 1993, BODIES MATTER DISCUR Coates J, 1998, LANGUAGE GENDER READ Crystal D, 2006, LANGUAGE AND THE INTERNET, 2ND EDITION, P1, DOI 10.2277/ 0521868599 Culpeper J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P349, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 Jonathan Culpeper, 2011, IMPOLITENESS USING L Culpeper Jonathan, 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P35, DOI DOI 10.1515/JP1R.2005.1.1.35 DeCapua Andrea, 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P319, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.016 Drewal HJ, 2008, AFR ARTS, V41, P60, DOI 10.1162/afar.2008.41.2.60 ECKERT P, 1992, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V21, P461, DOI 10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333 Eisenchlas SA, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P335, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.001 ELLECE SE, 2011, AGENDA EMPOWERING WO, V25, P43 Facebook, AM ZIMB LIK PEOPL TA FRASER B, 1981, TESOL QUART, V15, P435, DOI 10.2307/3586484 Goeritz Sarah, 2011, THESIS U BONN Graham SL, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P742, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017 GU YG, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P237, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O Hampel Elisabeth, 2013, THESIS U BONN Hardaker C, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P215, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.011 Herring S., 2000, COMPUTER PROFESSIONA, V18 Herring Susan, 2007, LANGUAGE INTERNET, V1 Herring Susan C., 2004, LANGUAGE WOMANS PLAC, P216 Herring Susan C., 2004, DESIGNING VIRTUAL CO, P338, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511805080.016 Holmes J., 1995, WOMEN MEN POLITENESS Huber Magnus, 2013, MOUTON WORLD ATLAS V, P382 Huffaker D. A., 2005, J COMPUTER MEDIATED, V10 Ide Sachiko, 1992, POLITENESS LANGUAGE, P281 Jay T., 1992, CURSING AM PSYCHOLIN Jay T., 1999, WHY WE CURSE NEUROPS Jucker AH, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1611, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.004 Kasanga Luanga, 2006, WORLD ENGLISH, V25, P65, DOI 10.1111/j.0083-2919.2006.00447.x Kouper Inna, 2010, LANGUAGE INTERNET, V7 Lakoff Robin, 1975, LANGUAGE WOMANS PLAC Locher Miriam A., 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P9, DOI DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2005.1.1.9 Locher MA, 2006, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V149, P1 Locher MA, 2010, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V6, P1, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.001 Locher MA, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V221, P1 Martinez-Flor A., 2005, REV ALICANTINA ESTUD, V18, P167 Mills Sara, 2003, GENDER POLITENESS Mo PKH, 2009, PATIENT EDUC COUNS, V75, P16, DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2008.08.029 Morrow PR, 2006, DISCOURSE STUD, V8, P531, DOI 10.1177/1461445606061876 Morrow PR, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V221, P255 Mutongi K, 2000, INT J AFR HIST STUD, V33, P1, DOI 10.2307/220256 NWOYE OG, 1992, J PRAGMATICS, V18, P309, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90092-P Obeng Samuel, 1999, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V41, P230 Placencia Maria Elena, 2012, ADVICE IN DISCOURSE, P280 Rodino M., 1997, J COMPUTER MEDIATED, V3 Searle John R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH SEARLE JR, 1976, LANG SOC, V5, P1 Soffer O, 2010, COMMUN THEOR, V20, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01368.x SPEARS R, 1994, COMMUN RES, V21, P427, DOI 10.1177/009365094021004001 Tagliamonte SA, 2008, AM SPEECH, V83, P3, DOI 10.1215/00031283-2008-001 Watts R., 2003, POLITENESS Yirenkyi K, 1999, RES SOC SCI, V10, P171 Yu KA, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P385, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.018 NR 69 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 3 U2 8 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 11 IS 1 SI SI BP 99 EP 130 DI 10.1515/pr-2015-0005 PG 32 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CA7LI UT WOS:000349098400005 ER PT J AU Johns, A Felix-Brasdefer, JC AF Johns, Andrew Felix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar TI Linguistic politeness and pragmatic variation in request production in Dakar French SO JOURNAL OF POLITENESS RESEARCH-LANGUAGE BEHAVIOUR CULTURE LA English DT Article DE Dakar French; requests; pragmatic variation; politeness; Senegal AB This article examines linguistic politeness and pragmatic variation in the production of requests among Senegalese speakers of French in Dakar. Drawing on a framework of pragmatic variation (Schneider and Barron 2008; Barron and Schneider 2009) and a model of intercultural communication and politeness systems (Scollon and Scollon 2001), we analyze variation of request variants, internal modification, and variation in the selection of the T/V forms in formal and informal contexts, including solidarity politeness (-P, -D), deference politeness (-P, + D), and hierarchical politeness (+ P, + D). The Senegalese French requests were compared to requests from French speakers from France in comparable situations. The realization of politeness and request performance in Senegalese French is influenced by the fact that use of French is normally limited to formal contexts, such as schools and government establishments, with Wolof serving as a lingua franca in informal settings for speakers of many national languages. The results are discussed in light of pragmalinguistic variation, including variation of address forms, request variants, and internal modification. C1 [Johns, Andrew; Felix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar] Indiana Univ, Dept Spanish & Portuguese, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. RP Johns, A (reprint author), Indiana Univ, Dept Spanish & Portuguese, Ballantine Hall 844,1020 E Kirkwood Ave, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. EM johnsac@indiana.edu; cfelixbr@indiana.edu CR Ameka Felix, 2004, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V1, P167, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2004.1.2.167 Bardovi-Harlig K, 2013, LANG LEARN, V63, P68, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x Bargiela-Chiappini F, 2009, FACE, COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL INTERACTION, P307 Barron A, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P425, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.023 Blonde Jaques, 1975, FRANCAIS SENEGAL ENQ, V1, P2 Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Bordal Guri, 2012, VARIATIONS REALIZATI Brown P., 1978, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Coburn Holtman Kris, 2005, THESIS INDIANA U IND Cohen Andrew, 2012, PRAGMATIC VARIATION, P271 Jonathan Culpeper, 2011, IMPOLITENESS USING L Drescher Martina, 2009, FRANCAIS CANADA FRAN, P177, DOI 10.1515/9783110231045.177 Eelen Gino, 2001, CRITIQUE POLITENESS Faerch Claus, 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P221 Farenkia Bernard M., 2008, LINGUISTIC POLITENES Farenkia Bernard M., 2012, PHILOLOGIE NETZ, V60, P48 Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P41 FELIXBRASDEFER JC, 2012, PRAGMATIC VARIATION Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2012, SPEECH ACTS POLITENE, P241 Gellar Sheldon, 2003, MIN C WORKSH POL THE Irvine Judith T., 1980, PAPERS LINGUISTICS I, V13, P3 Juillard Carline, 1995, SAVOIR FAIRE COMMUNI, P31 KA O, 1993, FR REV, V67, P276 Kadar DZ, 2013, UNDERSTANDING POLITENESS, P1 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kasper G., 2000, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P316 Kecskes I., 2013, INTERCULTURAL PRAGMA Leclerc J., 2010, SENEGAL Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Legendre Geraldine, 2010, REVEL Locher Miriam A., 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P9, DOI DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2005.1.1.9 Martiny Thierry, 1996, LANG SCI, V18, P765, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00046-0 Ngom Fallou, 2002, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V158, P37, DOI DOI 10.1515/IJSL.2002.050 NWOYE OG, 1992, J PRAGMATICS, V18, P309, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90092-P Obeng Samuel, 1999, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V41, P230 Puustinen M, 2011, LEARN INSTR, V21, P281, DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.005 Marquez Reiter Rosina, 2002, PRAGMATICS, V12, P135 Rohrbacher Andrea, 2010, SPRECHAKT BITTE FRAN Sall Adjaratou O., 2009, J MULTICULTURAL DISC, V4, P313 Schneider Klaus, 2008, VARATIONAL PRAGMATIC Schneider Klaus P., 2010, VARIATION CHANGE PRA, P239 Scollon R., 2001, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Searle John R., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P59 SEARLE JR, 1976, LANG SOC, V5, P1 Sosseh Hayib N., 1987, THESIS GEORGETOWN U THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Mulken Margot van, 1996, LANG SCI, V18, P689, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00042-3 Vold Lexander Kristin, 2011, MED ANTHR NETW E SEM Warga M., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P221, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.012 Watts R., 2003, POLITENESS NR 50 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 11 IS 1 SI SI BP 131 EP 164 DI 10.1515/pr-2015-0006 PG 34 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CA7LI UT WOS:000349098400006 ER PT J AU Chan, BHS AF Chan, Brian Hok-Shing TI A diachronic-functional approach to explaining grammatical patterns in code-switching: Postmodification in Cantonese-English noun phrases SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM LA English DT Article DE Code-switching; Matrix Language Frame Model; Bilingual Speech Model; Null Theory; reinsertion; schematization; noun phrases; postmodification ID DISTINCTION; SYNTAX AB One major controversy in the study of code-switching (CS) has been the treatment of structural regularities or patterns. Formal approaches attribute these patterns to syntactic constraints or models that are independent of socio-pragmatic or discourse factors, and hence they fall short of accounting for the variation and diachrony of CS constructions. Functional approaches call for due consideration of inter- and intra-speaker variation and discourse or processing factors, but they do not seem to go very far in pinpointing precisely what factors motivate a particular structural pattern. This paper attempts to integrate these two approaches in examining an emergent pattern in Cantonese-English CS in which postmodifying phrases are attested with English prepositions. The form of the construction may well be captured by some version of the Null Theory, but nonetheless it has little to say about why it is a new and variant pattern in Cantonese-English CS. This paper suggests that the construction is prompted by discourse factors such as salience, information status (i.e. given versus new) and heaviness (of the modifying noun phrase); typological differences (i.e. word order difference between Cantonese and English) and syntactic properties of words (such as prepositions) also have a role to play. Diachronically, this paper suggests that the construction evolves from a continuous English noun phrase with a further switch, which this paper terms reinsertion, within this noun phrase. Variants and possible changes of this postmodifier construction are also discussed in the light of reinsertion and schematization. C1 Univ Macau, Dept English, Sj Taipa, Peoples R China. RP Chan, BHS (reprint author), Univ Macau, Dept English, Ave Padre Tomas Pereira, Sj Taipa, Peoples R China. EM bhschan@umac.mo CR BELAZI HM, 1994, LINGUIST INQ, V25, P221 BENTAHILA A, 1983, LINGUA, V59, P301, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(83)90007-4 Berk-Seligson Susan, 1986, LANGUAGE IN SOCIETY, V5, P313 Bybee J., 2010, LANGUAGE USAGE COGNI Chan B. H.-S., 2004, LINGUISTICS TODAY FA Pennington Martha, 1998, LANGUAGE HONG KONG C, P191 Chan B. H.-S., SINGLE ENGLISH UNPUB Chan B. H.-S., 1992, THESIS CHINESE U HON Chan B. H.-S., 2005, INT S BIL 5 ISB5 U P Chan B. H.-S., 2003, ASPECTS SYNTAX PRAGM Chan BHS, 2009, CAMB HB LANG LINGUIS, P182 Chan BHS, 2008, LINGUA, V118, P777, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.05.004 Chen H.-Y., 2008, THESIS U MICHIGAN Chomsky N., 1965, ASPECTS THEORY SYNTA Chomsky Noam, 1986, KNOWLEDGE LANGUAGE Clyne M., 2003, DYNAMICS LANGUAGE CO Croft W., 2000, EXPLAINING LANGUAGE Croft William, 2001, RADICAL CONSTRUCTION DISCIULLO AM, 1986, J LINGUIST, V22, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700010537 Francis EJ, 2006, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V24, P751, DOI 10.1007/11049-006-0005-3 Francis G., 1998, COLLINS COBUILD GRAM Gibbons J., 1979, HONG KONG LANGUAGE P, P3 Gibbons John, 1987, CODE MIXING CODE CHO John Hawkins, 2004, EFFICIENCY COMPLEXIT Huang J., 2009, SYNTAX CHINESE Keizer Evelien, 2007, ENGLISH NOUN PHRASE Langacker Ronald W., 2008, COGNITIVE GRAMMAR BA Leung K.-W., 2010, THESIS U HONG KONG Leung T.-C., 2001, THESIS U HONG KONG Leung Y.-B., 1987, THESIS U HONG KONG H Li C., 1981, MANDARIN CHINESE FUN Pennington Martha, 1998, LANGUAGE HONG KONG C, P161 Luke K.-K., 1998, FANGYAN DIALECTS, V1, P48 MacSwan Jeff, 2004, HDB BILINGUALISM, P283 MacSwan J., 1999, THESIS GARLAND NEW Y MacSwan J., 2000, BILING-LANG COGN, V3, P37, DOI DOI 10.1017/S1366728900000122 Mahootian S., 1993, THESIS NW U Mahootian S, 1996, LINGUIST INQ, V27, P464 Matthews S., 2011, CANTONESE COMPREHENS MATTHEWS Stephen, 2006, GRAMMARS CONTACT CRO, P220 Muysken Pieter, 2000, BILINGUAL SPEECH Myers-Scotton C, 2009, CAMB HB LANG LINGUIS, P336 Myers-Scotton Carol, 2002, CONTACT LINGUISTICS Myers-Scotton Carol, 1993, DUELLING LANGUAGES G Myers-Scotton Carol, 2006, MULTIPLE VOICES INTR Owens J, 2005, BILING-LANG COGN, V8, P23, DOI 10.1017/S1366728904002056 Pennington M., 1996, HONG KONG RADIO CHAN POPLACK S, 1980, LINGUISTICS, V18, P581, DOI 10.1515/ling.1980.18.7-8.581 Reynolds S., 1985, THESIS U HONG KONG H SANKOFF DAVID, 1981, PAP LINGUIST, V14, P3, DOI DOI 10.1080/08351818109370523 SANTORINI B, 1995, LINGUA, V96, P1, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(94)00026-I SRIDHAR SN, 1980, CAN J PSYCHOL, V34, P407, DOI 10.1037/h0081105 Taylor John R., 1996, POSSESSIVES ENGLISH Taylor J. R., 2002, COGNITIVE GRAMMAR NR 54 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 4 U2 12 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 FEB PY 2015 VL 19 IS 1 BP 17 EP 39 DI 10.1177/1367006913477921 PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CA2KG UT WOS:000348736800002 ER PT J AU Pelatti, CY AF Pelatti, Christina Yeager TI Enhancing Oral and Written Language for Adolescents and Young Adults with Down Syndrome SO SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE Down syndrome; adolescents; young adults; oral language; written language ID FRAGILE-X-SYNDROME; EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE; PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS; MENTAL-RETARDATION; PHONEMIC AWARENESS; SAMPLING CONTEXT; CHILDREN; INDIVIDUALS; COMPREHENSION; LITERACY AB Oral and written language development for adolescents and young adults with Down syndrome (Ds) are particularly challenging. Yet, research supports a syndrome-specific profile highlighting strengths and particular areas of difficulty for this group of individuals. For example, adolescents and young adults with Ds tend to understand more than they produce. In terms of oral language development, the domains of semantics and pragmatics are relative strengths whereas morphosyntax is particularly difficult. Much less is known about written language development because most adolescents and young adults with Ds are at the emergent literacy or word identification (i.e., ability to recognize and name single words) stages; however, relative strengths emerge in the area of word identification. The purpose of this article is to explore the research findings on oral and written language strengths and weaknesses and intervention strategies and techniques that facilitate development in these two interrelated domains. In addition, a case study example is provided to further enhance the clinical skills of speech-language pathologists who work with this population. C1 Towson Univ, Dept Audiol Speech Language Pathol & Deaf Studies, Towson, MD 21252 USA. RP Pelatti, CY (reprint author), Towson Univ, Dept Audiol Speech Language Pathol & Deaf Studies, 8000 York Rd, Towson, MD 21252 USA. EM cpelatti@towson.edu CR ABBEDUTO L, 1995, MENT RETARD, V33, P279 Abbeduto L, 2003, AM J MENT RETARD, V108, P149, DOI 10.1352/0895-8017(2003)108<0149:RLSOAA>2.0.CO;2 Abbeduto L, 2006, AM J MENT RETARD, V111, P170, DOI 10.1352/0895-8017(2006)111[170:CIRCCO]2.0.CO;2 Abbeduto L, 2007, MENT RETARD DEV D R, V13, P247, DOI 10.1002/mrdd.20159 Al Otaiba S, 2002, REM SPEC EDUC, V23, P300, DOI 10.1177/07419325020230050501 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2002, AM SPEECH LANG HEAR American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2010, ROL RESP SPEECH LANG American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2001, ROL RESP SPEECH LANG Belser RC, 2001, AM J MENT RETARD, V106, P28, DOI 10.1352/0895-8017(2001)106<0028:CCOCWF>2.0.CO;2 Bennetts Lee K, 2002, Downs Syndr Res Pract, V8, P19, DOI 10.3104/reports.124 Bird EKR, 2008, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V51, P436, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/032) Bird G, 2001, READING WRITING DEV Boudreau D., 2002, READING WRITING INTE, V15, P497, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1016389317827 Boudreau DM, 2000, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V43, P1146 Browder DM, 2006, EXCEPT CHILDREN, V72, P392 BYRNE B, 1993, COGNITION, V48, P285, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90044-V Byrne B., 1993, COGNITION, P297 Chapman RS, 2000, MENT RETARD DEV D R, V6, P84, DOI 10.1002/1098-2779(2000)6:2<84::AID-MRDD2>3.0.CO;2-P Chapman R, 2003, INT REV RES MENT RET, P1 Chapman RS, 2002, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V45, P902, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/073) Chapman RS, 1999, IMPROVING THE COMMUNICATION OF PEOPLE WITH DOWN SYNDROME, P41 Chapman RS, 1998, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V41, P861 Cleave P, 2011, CANADIAN J SPEECH LA, V35, P332 Conners FA, 2003, INT REV RES MENT RET, V27, P191 COSSU G, 1993, COGNITION, V46, P129, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90016-O Cupples L, 2000, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V43, P595 Doyle J., 1998, PRACTICAL AUDIOLOGY Eadie PA, 2002, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V45, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/058) Fawcett S, 2009, PERSPECTIVES LANGUAG, V16, P109 Fidler Deborah J, 2006, Downs Syndr Res Pract, V10, P53, DOI 10.3104/reprints.305 Finestack LH, 2012, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V21, P29, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0095) Finestack LH, 2010, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V53, P1334, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0125) Fowler A. E., 1995, SYNDROME LIVING LEAR, P182 Gardill MC, 1999, J SPEC EDUC, V33, P2, DOI 10.1177/002246699903300101 Hesketh LJ, 1998, AM J MENT RETARD, V103, P288, DOI 10.1352/0895-8017(1998)103<0288:VUBIWD>2.0.CO;2 Kasari C, 1998, HDB MENTAL RETARDATI, P411 Kumin L, 2001, DOWN SYNDROME Q, V6, P1 Laws G, 2004, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V45, P1085, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.t01-1-00301.x Lemons CJ, 2010, RES DEV DISABIL, V31, P316, DOI 10.1016/j.ridd.2009.11.002 Lim L, 2013, SCI STUD READ, V00, P1 Martin GE, 2009, TOP LANG DISORD, V29, P112 Miles S, 2006, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V49, P325, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/026) Miller JF, 1999, IMPROVING THE COMMUNICATION OF PEOPLE WITH DOWN SYNDROME, P81 Miolo G, 2005, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V48, P172, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/013) Morgan M., 2004, SYNDROME RES PRACTIC, V9, P37 Morton J, 1993, COGNITION, V48, P297 MORTON J, 1993, COGNITION, V48, P289, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90045-W Parker SE, 2010, BIRTH DEFECTS RES A, V88, P1008, DOI 10.1002/bdra.20735 Paul R., 2013, LANGUAGE DISORDERS I Price J, 1999, SPEECH LANGUAGE DEV Roberts JE, 2007, MENT RETARD DEV D R, V13, P26, DOI 10.1002/mrdd.20136 Roizen N. J., 2002, CHILDREN DISABILITIE, P361 ROIZEN NJ, 1993, J PEDIATR-US, V123, pS9, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3476(05)81588-4 Snowling M., 2002, READING WRITING INTE, V15, P471, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1016333021708 Treiman R, 1996, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V63, P141, DOI 10.1006/jecp.1996.0045 Zelazo PD, 1996, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V37, P479, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01429.x NR 56 TC 1 Z9 2 U1 6 U2 16 PU THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC PI NEW YORK PA 333 SEVENTH AVE, NEW YORK, NY 10001 USA SN 0734-0478 EI 1098-9056 J9 SEMIN SPEECH LANG JI Semin. Speech Lang. PD FEB PY 2015 VL 36 IS 1 BP 50 EP 59 DI 10.1055/s-0034-1396446 PG 10 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA CA3HR UT WOS:000348797800007 PM 25633144 ER PT J AU Lilley, R AF Lilley, Rozanna TI Rumour has it: the impact of maternal talk on primary school choice for children diagnosed with autism SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE inclusive education; disability; autism; rumour; mothers; school choice ID GOSSIP; RESISTANCE AB This article explores the pivotal role of rumour in shaping primary school choice decisions for parents of children diagnosed with autism. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 22 mothers conducted in Sydney, Australia, this study points to the varied functions of grapevine knowledge about schools gleaned in diverse contexts, including early intervention settings, support groups and neighbourhood communities. Parents, especially mothers, provide one another with pragmatic information about schools as well as advice on how the education 'system' works. They also repeat 'horror' stories of bullying incidents and social exclusion that have a powerful affective force. Educational sociologists have referred to this as 'hot' knowledge. These data demonstrate the need for more detailed analyses of hot knowledge in understanding how families of children diagnosed with autism make choices between segregated and mainstream education options, as well as deciding on particular schools or classrooms within the various sectors of the education market. In studying these processes, we gain a better understanding of how mothers negotiate multiple forms of knowledge during periods of school transition and of the importance of this process in forging maternal identity. The qualitative research presented helps us to conceptualise broader processes of social inclusion and exclusion experienced by these families. C1 Macquarie Univ, Inst Early Childhood, Children & Families Res Ctr, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. RP Lilley, R (reprint author), Macquarie Univ, Inst Early Childhood, Children & Families Res Ctr, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. EM roselilley@fastmail.fm OI Lilley, Rozanna/0000-0001-6143-8805 CR Bagley C, 1998, DISABIL SOC, V13, P763 Ball SJ, 1998, BRIT J SOCIOL EDUC, V19, P377, DOI 10.1080/0142569980190307 Ball S., 1997, INT J INCLUSIVE EDUC, V1, P1, DOI [10.1080/1360311970010102, DOI 10.1080/1360311970010102] BELL L, 1994, SOCIOL REV, V42, P227 Campbell C., 2009, SCH CHOICE PARENTS N Carpenter L, 2008, INT J INCLUSIVE EDUC, V12, P35, DOI 10.1080/13603110701683170 Carrington S. B., 2012, TEACHING INCLUSIVE S Coady David, 2012, WHAT BELIEVE NOW APP COLOGON K., 2013, INCLUSION ED EQUALIT Dockett S, 2007, TRANSITIONS SCH PERC Everingham Christine C., 1994, MOTHERHOOD MODERNITY Eyal G., 2010, AUTISM MATRIX SOCIAL Feldman-Savelsberg P, 2000, MED ANTHROPOL Q, V14, P159, DOI 10.1525/maq.2000.14.2.159 Finch J., 1993, SOCIAL RES PHILOS PO, P166 GLUCKMAN M, 1963, CURR ANTHROPOL, V4, P307, DOI 10.1086/200378 Graham LJ, 2011, INT J INCLUSIVE EDUC, V15, P941, DOI 10.1080/13603110903470046 Gray DE, 2001, SOC SCI MED, V53, P1247, DOI 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00424-X Grinker R., 2008, UNSTRANGE MINDS FATH Jordan R, 2008, BRIT J SPECIAL ED, V35, P11, DOI [10.1111/j.1467-8578.2008.00364.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1467-8578.2008.00364.X] Lilley R., 2012, CHILDREN CHILDHOOD 1, P58 Lilley R., 2011, SOCIAL ANAL, V55, P134, DOI [10.3167/sa.2011.550107, DOI 10.3167/SA.2011.550107] Lilley R., 2013, STUDIES MATERNAL, V5, P1 Lilley R, 2011, AUST FEMINIST STUD, V26, P207, DOI 10.1080/08164649.2011.574600 Lilley R, 2013, DISABIL SOC, V28, P514, DOI 10.1080/09687599.2012.717882 Lilley R, 2014, DISCOURSE-ABINGDON, V35, P513, DOI 10.1080/01596306.2013.871226 Litt JS, 2000, MED MOTHERHOOD PERSP Liu KY, 2010, AM J SOCIOL, V115, P1387 Miller T., 2005, MAKING SENSE MOTHERH Miller T., 1998, FEMINIST DILEMMAS QU, P58 PAINE R, 1967, MAN, V2, P278, DOI 10.2307/2799493 Voysey Paun M., 2006, CONSTANT BURDEN RECO Ravet J, 2011, INT J INCLUSIVE EDUC, V15, P667, DOI 10.1080/13603110903294347 Riessman C. K., 2008, NARRATIVE METHODS HU Samper D, 2002, J FOLKLORE RES, V39, P1 Scheper-Hughes N., 1996, ANTHR TODAY, V12, P3, DOI 10.2307/2783143 Shibutani Tamotsu, 1966, IMPROVISED NEWS SOCI Smith S., 2008, DISABIL SOC, V23, P17, DOI [10.1080/09687590701725542, DOI 10.1080/09687590701725542] Solomon O, 2013, SOC SCI MED, V94, P106, DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.034 Urwin C., 1985, LANGUAGE GENDER CHIL, P164 Vincent C, 2010, BRIT J SOCIOL EDUC, V31, P123, DOI 10.1080/01425690903538976 Wearing Betsy, 1984, IDEOLOGY MOTHERHOOD WHITE L, 1994, SOC DYNAMICS, V20, P75 Wilkinson H., 1996, DISCOURSE STUDIES CU, V17, P315, DOI DOI 10.1080/0159630960170302 NR 43 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 27 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 1360-3116 EI 1464-5173 J9 INT J INCLUSIVE EDUC JI Int. J. Incl. Educ. PD FEB 1 PY 2015 VL 19 IS 2 BP 183 EP 198 DI 10.1080/13603116.2014.913717 PG 16 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA AW6BF UT WOS:000346353800005 ER PT J AU Geschwind, L Brostrom, A AF Geschwind, Lars Brostrom, Anders TI Managing the teaching-research nexus: ideals and practice in research-oriented universities SO HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LA English DT Article DE teaching-research nexus; leadership; higher education policy; academic work; academic career ID EDUCATION; POLICY AB This paper demonstrates that while ideals of close linkages between research and teaching are widely embraced in research-oriented universities, a practice of division of labour between teaching-oriented and research-oriented staff persists. In an investigation of how the research-teaching nexus is managed at three Swedish universities, we identify a perceived misalignment between institutional incentives for individual academic staff and the needs of teaching. Under pressure from such tensions, managers are forced to deploy pragmatic strategies for the staffing of undergraduate education tasks. This includes allowing research needs and agendas to take priority over teaching needs. While managers seek to secure the participation of senior researchers in education, they often actively prefer to delegate the bulk of teaching activities to less research-active staff. Such strategies seem to reinforce existing patterns of division of labour among academic staff. C1 [Geschwind, Lars] KTH Royal Inst Technol, Dept Learning, Stockholm, Sweden. [Brostrom, Anders] KTH Royal Inst Technol, Dept Ind Econ & Management, Stockholm, Sweden. RP Geschwind, L (reprint author), KTH Royal Inst Technol, Dept Learning, Stockholm, Sweden. EM larsges@kth.se RI Brostrom, Anders/K-5109-2012 OI Brostrom, Anders/0000-0003-0820-2769 CR Ash Mitchell G., 2006, EUROPEAN J ED, V41, P245, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1465-3435.2006.00258.X Askling B, 2001, HIGH EDUC, V41, P157, DOI 10.1023/A:1026779132478 Astin A. W., 1994, WHAT MATTERS COLL 4 Barnett R., 2005, ESHAPING U NEW RELAT Bauer M., 1999, TRANSFORMING U CHANG Bleiklie I., 2003, EUROPEAN J ED, V38, P341, DOI 10.1111/j.0141-8211.2003.00153.x Bok D., 2008, OUR UNDERACHIEVING C Boyer Commission, 1998, BOYER COMM ED UND RE Brew A., 2003, HIGHER ED RES DEV, V22, P3, DOI DOI 10.1080/0729436032000056571 Clark BR, 1993, RES FDN GRADUATE ED Clark B., 1991, U SOC ESSAYS SOCIAL, P101 Colbeck CL, 1998, J HIGH EDUC, V69, P647, DOI 10.2307/2649212 Cole J. R., 2009, GREAT AM U ITS RISE Deem R, 2007, HIGH EDUC, V54, P115, DOI 10.1007/s10734-006-9010-z Clement M., 2007, INT J ACAD DEV, V12, P123, DOI DOI 10.1080/13601440701604948 Enders J, 2009, ISSUES HIGH EDUC-PAL, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230242166 Hattie J, 1996, REV EDUC RES, V66, P507, DOI 10.3102/00346543066004507 Hedmo T, 2008, EUROPEAN UNIVERSITIES IN TRANSITION: ISSUES, MODELS AND CASES, P113 Henkel M., 2004, HIGHER ED MANAGEMENT, V16, P19, DOI [10.1787/hemp-v16-art14-en, DOI 10.1787/HEMP-V16-ART14-EN] Jenkins Alan, 2005, I STRATEGIES LINK TE Leisyte L, 2012, HIGHER ED HDB THEORY, V27, P123, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2950-6_3 Marsh HW, 2002, J HIGH EDUC, V73, P603, DOI 10.1353/jhe.2002.0047 Mayson S, 2012, HIGH EDUC, V64, P473, DOI 10.1007/s10734-012-9505-8 Nybom T, 2003, WENN GR INT, V82, P17 Olsen JP, 2007, HIGH EDUC DYNAM, V19, P25 Palfreyman D., 2009, STRUCTURING MASS HIG Prosser M, 2008, INSTR SCI, V36, P3, DOI 10.1007/s11251-007-9019-4 Ramirez FO, 2010, INT DEV EDUC, P43 Robertson J., 2001, HIGHER ED RES DEV, V20, P5, DOI 10.1080/07924360120043612 Slaughter S., 1997, ACAD CAPITALISM POLI Smith E, 2012, HIGH EDUC, V63, P455, DOI 10.1007/s10734-011-9452-9 Stensaker B., 2011, ACCOUNTABILITY HIGHE Taylor J, 2007, HIGH EDUC, V54, P867, DOI 10.1007/s10734-006-9029-1 van Vught Frans, 2008, HIGH EDUC POLICY, V21, P151, DOI DOI 10.1057/HEP.2008.5 NR 34 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 14 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0729-4360 EI 1469-8366 J9 HIGH EDUC RES DEV JI High. Educ. Res. Dev. PD JAN 2 PY 2015 VL 34 IS 1 BP 60 EP 73 DI 10.1080/07294360.2014.934332 PG 14 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CB3NH UT WOS:000349534600005 ER PT J AU Dervin, F Hahl, K AF Dervin, Fred Hahl, Kaisa TI Developing a Portfolio of Intercultural Competences in Teacher Education: The Case of a Finnish International Programme SO SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE intercultural competence; teacher education; formative assessment; portfolio of intercultural competences (PIC) AB The concept of intercultural competences is contested, although it is omnipresent in varied fields of research and practice. Its assessment is also questioned: how can it be done? By whom? When? Should assessment be summative or formative-or both? In order to be able to assess anything, learning and teaching objectives must be clear, coherent, and consistent. Yet intercultural competences are often polysemic and rely heavily on problematic concepts such as (national) culture and identity. Here we revisit the concept and reflect on its use for formative assessment within international teacher education. Having developed a Portfolio of Intercultural Competences (PIC) to be used by student teachers in an English-medium teacher education programme in Finland, we explain how the portfolio came to life (theory, methods) and how it can help develop students' intercultural competences. We report on three components of the portfolio: the students' reflexive and critical essays on five stories of meaningful and/or memorable intercultural encounters written during a course on multicultural education, and focus group discussions amongst the students. We analyze the data with discursive pragmatics, a linguistic method which looks deeper into participants' discourses. C1 [Dervin, Fred; Hahl, Kaisa] Univ Helsinki, Dept Teacher Educ, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland. RP Dervin, F (reprint author), Univ Helsinki, Fac Behav Sci, Dept Teacher Educ, Siltavuorenpenger 5A, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland. EM fred.dervin@helsinki.fi CR Abdallah-Pretceille M., 1986, VERS PEDAGOGIE INTER Aikman S, 2012, COMPARE, V42, P235, DOI 10.1080/03057925.2012.647465 Anderson Benedict, 1991, IMAGINED COMMUNITIES Bayart J. -F., 2003, ILLUSION CULTURAL ID Briedenbach J., 2009, SEEING CULTURE EVERY Deardorff Darla K., 2006, J STUD INT EDUC, V10, P241, DOI DOI 10.1177/1028315306287002 Dervin F., 2012, IMPOSTURES INTERCULT [Anonymous], 2013, JOHDANTO UUTEEN KULT Dervin F., 2013, J INTERCULTURAL STUD, V34, P356, DOI DOI 10.1080/07256868.2013.807229 Dervin F., 2012, INT J MULTICULTURAL, V14, P1 de Singly F., 2003, LIBRES ENSEMBLE Eriksen Thomas Hylland, 2001, CULTURE RIGHTS ANTHR, P127, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511804687 Gallagher S., 2011, HDB DIALOGICAL SELF, P488 Gillespie A, 2012, CULT PSYCHOL, V18, P391, DOI 10.1177/1354067X12446236 Holliday A., 2010, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Hoskins B, 2011, LANG INTERCULT COMM, V11, P113, DOI 10.1080/14708477.2011.556739 Jahoda G, 2012, CULT PSYCHOL, V18, P289, DOI 10.1177/1354067X12446229 Johansson M., 2000, ANN U TURKUENSIS B, V237 Kerbrat-Orecchioni C., 2002, ENONCIATION SUBJECTI Lakoff Robin, 1990, TALKING POWER Laplantine F., 1977, METISSAGE Linell P, 2009, ADV CULT PSYCHOL CON, pXXI [Anonymous], 2013, INTERSECTING IDENTIT Markova I., 2007, DIALOGUE FOCUS GROUP Pieterse Jan Nederveen, 2004, GLOBALIZATION CULTUR Poutiainen S., 2013, THEORETICAL TURBULEN Prashad Vijay, 2001, EVERYBODY WAS KUNG F Puwar N, 2004, SPACE INVADERS RACE Shi-xu, 2001, J INTERCULTURAL STUD, V22, P279, DOI DOI 10.1080/07256860120094000 Spitzberg B., 2009, SAGE HDB INTERCULTUR, P2 Wikan U., 2002, GENEROUS BETRAYAL PO Zarate G., 2004, RECONNAISSANCE COMPE Zienkowski J., 2011, DISCURSIVE PRAGMATIC NR 33 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 4 U2 41 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 JAN 2 PY 2015 VL 59 IS 1 BP 95 EP 109 DI 10.1080/00313831.2014.904413 PG 15 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA AW3OE UT WOS:000346195400006 ER PT J AU Powell, D AF Powell, Darren TI Assembling the privatisation of physical education and the 'inexpert' teacher SO SPORT EDUCATION AND SOCIETY LA English DT Article DE Assemblage; Experts; Government; Physical education; Neoliberalism; Professional development; Outsourcing; Privatisation ID GOVERNMENT; HEALTH; POLICY AB In this article, I examine the practice of outsourcing physical education (PE) lessons to external sports organisations. I draw from ethnographic research conducted with two primary schools in New Zealand to illuminate how outsourcing interconnects with the privatisation of education. Using Foucault's notion of government, I demonstrate how schools' employment of four outside providers worked to govern teachers towards certain ends. In addition, I drew on the analytical framework of the assemblage to examine how the dual notions of the inexpert classroom teacher and the expert outside provider converged with the discourse of 'PE as sport', neoliberalism, Kiwisport, National Standards, professional development and multi-sector partnerships to form a privatisation assemblage. I argue that the privatisation assemblage worked to restrict and constrain teachers' possible thoughts and actions, making teachers' 'choice' to outsource PE one that they understood as both pragmatic, in terms of time investment, and educationally valuable, in so far as they perceived themselves as lacking the requisite expertise. I also argue that outsourcing and the privatisation of PE is problematic as it did not necessarily work in the best interests of teachers or students. I suggest further research is necessary to interrogate and make visible how the disparate elements of the privatisation assemblage are made to hold together, as well as how the fragile connections between these elements may be placed under pressure. The notion that outside providers are expert PE teachers and classroom teachers are inexpert is a critical aspect of the assemblage that should be challenged and resisted. C1 [Powell, Darren] Charles Sturt Univ, Fac Educ, Sch Human Movement Studies, Bathurst, NSW 2795, Australia. RP Powell, D (reprint author), 42A Rodney St, Auckland, New Zealand. EM dpowell@csu.edu.au CR Athletics New Zealand, 2014, GET SET GO Athletics New Zealand, 2012, GET SET GO TEACHERS Ball S. J., 2007, PRELIMINARY REPORT Ball SJ, 2012, GLOBAL EDUCATION INC: NEW POLICY NETWORKS AND THE NEO-LIBERAL IMAGINARY, P1 Brady M., 2011, CRITICAL POLICY STUD, V5, P264, DOI [10.1080/19460171.2011.606300, DOI 10.1080/19460171.2011.606300] Dean M., 2010, GOVERNMENTALITY POWE Evans J, 2014, SPORT EDUC SOC, V19, P869, DOI 10.1080/13573322.2013.850072 Football New Zealand, ASB FOOTBALL IN SCHO Foucault Michel, 1980, POWER KNOWLEDGE SELE, P194 FOUCAULT MICHEL, 1991, FOUCAULT EFFECT STUD, P87 FOUCAULT M, 1982, CRIT INQUIRY, V8, P777, DOI 10.1086/448181 Gordon Colin, 1991, FOUCAULT EFFECT STUD, P1 GymSports New Zealand, EDUCATORS GUIDE GymSports New Zealand, 2006, MOVEMPROVE Hockey New Zealand, ACTIVEPOST SMALL STI Inda JX, 2005, ANTHROPOLOGIES OF MODERNITY: FOUCAULT, GOVERNMENTALITY, AND LIFE POLITICS, P1, DOI 10.1002/9780470775875.ch Key J., 2009, KIWISPORT INITIATIVE Leahy D., 2012, THESIS Li TM, 2007, ECON SOC, V36, P263, DOI 10.1080/03085140701254308 Li T. M., 2007, THE WILL TO IMPROVE Macdonald D., 2008, NZ PHYS ED, V41, P6 Macdonald D, 2011, QUEST, V63, P36 Mckee K, 2009, CRIT SOC POLICY, V29, P465, DOI 10.1177/0261018309105180 Miller P, 2008, GOVERNING THE PRESEN Ministry of Education, 2010, ABOUT NATIONAL STAND New Zealand Football, ASB FOOTBALL IN SCHO New Zealand Post, 2012, SMALL STICKS O'Neill J, 2011, J EDUC POLICY, V26, P17, DOI 10.1080/02680939.2010.493227 Petrie K., 2014, ASIA PACIFIC J HLTH, V5, P19, DOI [10.1080/18377122.2014.867791, DOI 10.1080/18377122.2014.867791] Powell D, 2015, DISCOURSE-ABINGDON, V36, P854, DOI 10.1080/01596306.2014.905045 Powell D, 2015, SPORT EDUC SOC, V20, P463, DOI 10.1080/13573322.2013.777661 Powell D, 2014, CRIT PUBLIC HEALTH, V24, P226, DOI 10.1080/09581596.2013.846465 Rose N, 2000, BRIT J CRIMINOL, V40, P321, DOI 10.1093/bjc/40.2.321 Sockett H. T., 1984, IRISH EDUC STUD, V4, P1, DOI [10.1080/0332331840040204, DOI 10.1080/0332331840040204] Stenson K, 2005, THEOR CRIMINOL, V9, P265, DOI 10.1177/1362480605054811 Thornton R., 2011, WEEKEND HERALD, pB24 Weidner J. R., 2010, THESIS Williams BJ, 2015, SPORT EDUC SOC, V20, P57, DOI 10.1080/13573322.2014.914902 Williams BJ, 2011, PHYS EDUC SPORT PEDA, V16, P399, DOI 10.1080/17408989.2011.582492 NR 39 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 1 U2 7 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 JAN 2 PY 2015 VL 20 IS 1 SI SI BP 73 EP 88 DI 10.1080/13573322.2014.941796 PG 16 WC Education & Educational Research; Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism; Sport Sciences SC Education & Educational Research; Social Sciences - Other Topics; Sport Sciences GA AU1FM UT WOS:000345366500006 ER PT J AU Zienkowski, J AF Zienkowski, Jan TI Marking a sense of self and politics in interviews on political engagement Interpretive logics and the metapragmatics of identity SO JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND POLITICS LA English DT Article DE linguistic pragmatics; poststructuralism; logics; metapragmatics; metapragmatic markers; self; subjectivity; politics; political engagement; discourse theory; discourse analysis; ideology; hegemony; reflexivity; critique; interpretive logics AB This paper explores the relationship between notions of self and politics in discourse on political engagement. By means of a heuristic inspired by the poststructuralist notion of logic and the pragmatic concept of metapragmatic awareness, the author argues that metapragmatic markers play an important role in communicating interpretive processes that inform preferred and disavowed modes of subjectivity. He relies on an interview conducted with an activist involved in Flemish minority politics in order to show how activists distinguish between preferred and disavowed modes of politics. In dealing with the multiplicity of identities and issues that constitute political debates, activists need to establish and communicate some degree of coherence. Metapragmatic awareness allows interlocutors to establish patterns of coherence that can be described in terms of interpretive logics. The author presents a strong case for taking the reflexive awareness of language users into account when studying society-wide debates. C1 [Zienkowski, Jan] Univ Navarra, Inst Culture & Soc, Campus Univ S-N, Pamplona 31009, Navarra, Spain. RP Zienkowski, J (reprint author), Univ Navarra, Inst Culture & Soc, Campus Univ S-N, Pamplona 31009, Navarra, Spain. EM jzienkowski@unav.es CR Aggarwal Neil, 2008, INTERVENTIONS, V10, P222, DOI [10.1080/13698010802145150, DOI 10.1080/13698010802145150] BAUMAN R, 1990, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V19, P59, DOI 10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.000423 Bednarek MA, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P685, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.007 Benford RD, 2000, ANNU REV SOCIOL, V26, P611, DOI 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611 Blommaert Jan, 2005, DISCOURSE, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511610295, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511610295] Verschueren J., 1998, DEBATING DIVERSITY A Blommaert J, 2010, ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELDWO Borah P, 2011, J COMMUN, V61, P246, DOI 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01539.x Bouzarmat Imane, 2010, SPEECH 10 JAAR SAMV Boyer D, 2005, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V34, P105, DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143937 Bublitz Wolfram, 2007, METAPRAGMATICS USE, DOI [10.1075/pbns.165, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.165] Caffi C., 1998, CONCISE ENCY PRAGMAT, P581 Carpentier Nico, 2001, DISCURSIEVE ARTICULA Carpentier N, 2007, J LANG POLIT, V6, P265 Elliott Anthony, 2009, CONCEPTS SELF Fairclough Norman, 1999, DISCOURSE LATE MODER Glynos J, 2007, ROUTL INNOV POLIT TH, V26, P1 Gramsci Antonio, 2005, SELECTIONS PRISON NO, P5 Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511611834, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511611834] Hall Donald E, 2004, SUBJECTIVITY NEW CRI Harre R, 1994, DISCURSIVE MIND Harre R., 1995, DISCURSIVE PSYCHOL P Harre R, 2009, THEOR PSYCHOL, V19, P5, DOI 10.1177/0959354308101417 Heritage John, 2010, TALK ACTION INTERACT, DOI [10.1002/9781444318135, DOI 10.1002/9781444318135] Hesters Delphine, 2011, IDENTITY CULTURE TAL Holstein J.A., 2000, SELF WE LIVE NARRATI HOWARTH D, 2000, DISCOURSE Howarth David, 2000, DISCOURSE THEORY POL Hubler A, 2007, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V165, P1 Jacobs D., 2009, SOCIALE LIFT BLIJFT Jacobs Dirk, 2006, CONSTRUCTION IMPORT, P29 Jaworski Adam, 2004, METALANGUAGE SOCIAL, DOI [10.1515/9783110907377, DOI 10.1515/9783110907377] Kanmaz Meryem, 2007, MOSKEEEN GENT TUSSEN Krzyzanowski Michal, 2007, UNDOING EUROPE DISCO Laclau Ernesto, 1994, MAKING POLITICAL IDE Laclau Ernesto, 2000, DISCOURSE THEORY POL, px Laclau Ernesto, 1994, EMANCIPATIONS, P36 Laclau Ernesto, 2000, CONTINGENCY HEGEMONY, P44 Laclau E., 1985, HEGEMONY SOCIALIST S Mey Jacob L, 1999, PRAGMATICS INTRO Montessano Montessori Nicolina, 2011, CRITICAL DISCOURSE S, V8, P169, DOI [10.1080/17405904.2011.586221, DOI 10.1080/17405904.2011.586221] Nabers D, 2009, FOREIGN POL ANAL-US, V5, P191 Nerlich Brigitte, 1996, LANGUAGE ACTION CONT, DOI [10.1075/sihols.80, DOI 10.1075/SIHOLS.80] Nikander Pirjo, 2008, QUALITATIVE RES PSYC, V5, P225 Ostman JO, 2009, HANDB PRAGMAT HIGHL, V4, pXI Rea Andrea, 2006, IMMIGRATIE INTEGRATI, P171 Torfing J., 1999, NEW THEORIES DISCOUR Torfing Jacob, 2005, DISCOURSE THEORY EUR, p[1, 23] Verschueren Jef, 2004, METALANGUAGE SOCIAL, P53, DOI 10.1515/9783110907377.53 Verschueren Jef, 2003, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMA Verschueren Jef, 2009, KEY NOTIONS PRAGMATI, P1, DOI DOI 10.1075/HOPH.1.01VAR Verschueren Jef, 2011, IDEOLOGY LANGUAGE US, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139026277, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139026277] Wetherell M, 1998, DISCOURSE SOC, V9, P387, DOI 10.1177/0957926598009003005 Wetherell Maragaret, 1988, ANAL EVERYDAY EXPLAN, P99 Yanow D, 2013, J INT RELAT DEV, V16, P227, DOI 10.1057/jird.2012.13 Zienkowski Jan, 2011, DISCURSIVE PRAGMATIC, P296, DOI [10.1075/hoph.8.01zie, DOI 10.1075/HOPH.8.01ZIE] Zienkowski Jan, 2013, WAS MACHEN MARKER LO, P85, DOI 10.14361/transcript.9783839422441.85 Zienkowski Jan, 2011, ANAL POLITICAL ENGAG Zienkowski J, 2012, PRAGMATICS, V22, P501 NR 59 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 2 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1569-2159 EI 1569-9862 J9 J LANG POLIT JI J. Lang. Polit. PY 2015 VL 14 IS 5 BP 665 EP 688 DI 10.1075/jlp.14.5.03zie PG 24 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DL5XM UT WOS:000375710400003 ER PT J AU Costantino, L AF Costantino, Lorenzo TI Translation theories in "the other Europe" The Polish tradition SO TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETING STUDIES LA English DT Article DE Eurocentrism; translation theories; Polish approaches to translation; structuralism; cognitive studies AB Since the mid-1950s much research has been carried out in the field of translation theories in Poland. Although the results that emerged were often of considerable interest, Polish translation theories are often ignored by experts in the West. This article investigates the Polish contribution to theoretical discussions of translation. Early contributions to the debate, in 1955, characterized by a "linguistic" approach, warned against theories limiting the "unit of translation" to single words, thus neglecting the "text." Linguist O. A. Wojtasiewicz stressed the semiotic, psychological, and cultural nature of translation. Around the mid-1960s a group of scholars from the "Poznan School" focused on literary translation. They saw literary translation as a semiotic process and produced a theoretical and descriptive research that could be defined as "target-oriented." Their methods are typified by the particular attention given to diachronic and reception perspectives. Since the mid-1970s, in marked opposition to the "predominant role of literary texts" in Polish translation studies, F. Grucza and scholars from Warsaw University ("Warsaw School") favored other areas of research, such as oral translation and specialized translation and interpreting. From the research carried out in Warsaw, a new perspective opened up within the linguistic approach, resulting in a new definition of the equivalence based on cognitive and pragmatic factors. This line of research also involved cognitive linguistics, as of the 1990s the most noteworthy innovation in Polish translation studies. Since 1990 the research field has become more varied: there are now more translation study centers (Cracow, Lodz, Lublin, Gdansk.), and the field of investigation has broadened, now following on the heels of Western debate, with which there is now more contact. C1 [Costantino, Lorenzo] Univ Bologna, Alma Mater Studiorum, Dept Modern Languages Literatures & Cultures LILE, Via Cartoleria 5, I-40124 Bologna, Italy. RP Costantino, L (reprint author), Univ Bologna, Alma Mater Studiorum, Dept Modern Languages Literatures & Cultures LILE, Via Cartoleria 5, I-40124 Bologna, Italy. EM lorenzo.costantino2@unibo.it CR Baer Brian James, 2011, CONTEXTS SUBTEXTS PR, DOI [10.1075/btl.89, DOI 10.1075/BTL.89] Saldanha Gabriela, 2009, ENCY TRANSLATION STU Balcerzan Edward, 1968, Z ZAGADNIEN TEORII P Balcerzan E., 2007, PISARZE POLSCY SZTUC Baranczak Stanislaw, 1990, TEKSTY DRUGIE, V3, P7 Baluch Jacek, 1974, Z TEORII HIST PRZEKL, P47 Bobran M., 1976, PROBLEMY JEZYKOZNAWS, P41 Boguslawski Andrzej, 1978, PRZEGLAD HUMANISTYCZ, V2, P39 Ceccherelli Andrea, 2015, TRANSLATION THEORIES Cheung Martha, 2006, ANTHOLOGY CHINESE DI Doroszewski Witold, 1968, PRAC FIL 19 POSW 6 M, P5 Dabska-Prokop U., 2000, MALA ENCYKLOPEDIA PR, P182 Larin B. A., 1962, TEORIYA KRITIKA PERE, P104 Finkel Oleksandr, 1929, TEORIIA PRAKTYKA PER Gentzler E, 2001, CONT TRANSLATION THE Grucza Franciszek, 1985, LINGWISTYKA GLOTTODY Grucza Franciszek, 1981, GLOTTODYDAKTYKA TRAN, P9 Grucza Franciszek, 1986, PROBLEMY TRANSLATORY Grucza Franciszek, 1992, 13 S ZORG PRZEZ I LI Grucza Franciszek, 1979, SPRAWOZDANIA POZNANS, V95, P68 Hejwowski Krzysztof, 2004, TRANSLATION COGNITIV Hermans Theo, 2006, TRANSLATING OTHERS Holmes James, 1970, NATURE TRANSLATION E Hung Eva, 2005, ASIAN TRANSLATION TR Ingarden Roman, 1931, LIT KUNSTWERK UNTERS Rusinek Michal, 1955, O SZTUCE TLUMACZENIA, P127 Meintjes Libby, 2009, TRANSLATION STUDIES Jarniewicz Jerzy, 2012, GOSCINNOSC SLOWA SZK Jettmarova Zuzana, 2008, TRADITION VERSUS MOD, P15 Jettmarova Zuzana, 2011, THE ART OF TRANSLATI, pix, DOI [10.1075/btl.97, DOI 10.1075/BTL.97] Karcz Andrzej, 2002, THE POLISH FORMALIST Karpowicz Tomasz, 2006, HUMANISTYKA POLSKA W, P183 Kielar Barbara Zofia, 1977, LANGUAGE LAW ASPECT Kielar Barbara Zofia, 1988, TLUMACZENIE KONCEPCJ Kittel Harald, 2011, INT ENCY TRANSLATION, VIII Rusinek Michal, 1955, O SZTUCE TLUMACZENIA, P85 KOPCZYNSKI A., 1980, C INTERPRETING SOME Kothari R, 2009, BENJAMIN TRANSL LIB, V86, P1 Kraskowska E., 1989, TWORCZOSC STEFANA TH Kraskowska Ewa, 1985, MIEJSCA WSPOLNE SZKI, P182 Kittel Harald, 2011, INT ENCY TRANSLATION, P2127 Grucza Franciszek, 1981, GLOTTODYDAKTYKA TRAN, P31 Legezynska Anna, 1986, TLUMACZ JEGO KOMPETE Levy Jiri, 2011, ART TRANSLATION, DOI [10.1075/btl.97, DOI 10.1075/BTL.97] Lewicki Roman, 1993, KONOTACJA OBCOSCI PR Lukszyn Jurij, 1993, TEZAURUS TERMINOLOGI Grucza Franciszek, 1985, LINGWISTYKA GLOTTODY, P263 Rusinek Michal, 1955, O SZTUCE TLUMACZENIA Sadkowski W., 2002, ODPOWIEDNIE DAC SLOW Fast Piotr, 1991, PRZEKLAD ARTYSTYCZNY, P7 Steiner George, 1976, BABEL ASPECTS LANGUA Swiech Jerzy, 1976, PROBLEMY METODOLOGIC, P360 Lewicki Roman, 2002, PRZEKLAD JEZYK KULTU, P25 Tabakowska E., 1993, COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC Tabakowska Elzbieta, 1991, JEZYK A KOMUNIKACJA, V4, P7 Tabakowska Elzbieta, 2009, ENCY TRANSLATION STU, P501 Tabakowska Elzbieta, 1990, TEKSTY DRUGIE, V3, P97 Tomkowski, 2006, HUMANISTYKA POLSKA L, P156 Tymoczko M, 1999, TRANSLATION POSTCOLO Flynn Peter, 2011, TRANSLATION INTERPRE, V6, P113, DOI [10.1075/tis.6.2.07doo, DOI 10.1075/TIS.6.2.07D00] Wawrzyniak Zdzislaw, 1991, PRAKTYCZNE ASPEKTY T WIERZBICKA A., 1972, SEMANTIC PRIMITIVES Wilczek Piotr, 2005, MISTRANSLATION MISIN Wojtasiewicz Olgierd Adrian, 1957, WSTEP TEORII TLUMACZ Ziomek Jerzy, 1975, TEKSTY, V6, P44 Ziomek Jerzy, 1965, STAFF KOCHANOWSKI PR Zlateva Palma, 1993, TRANSLATION SOCIAL A NR 67 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1932-2798 EI 1876-2700 J9 TRANSL INTERPRET STU JI Trans. Interpret. Stud. PY 2015 VL 10 IS 2 BP 243 EP 262 DI 10.1075/tis.10.2.05cos PG 20 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DG6HY UT WOS:000372186100005 ER PT J AU Al-Kufaishi, A AF Al-Kufaishi, Adil TI A model of conference interpretation SO BABEL-REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE LA TRADUCTION-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSLATION LA English DT Article DE corpus analysis; rhetorical devices; collocation patterns; inappropriate rendering; structural aspects; parallelism AB The objective of this research is to develop a model of consecutive interpretation that can cope with a number of linguistic, pragmatic, stylistic, thematic, discourse and communicative problems a conference interpreter encounters while interpreting from English into Arabic or vice versa. A linguistic corpus of one hundred page English speeches delivered at the United Nation General Assembly sessions and interpreted into Arabic is analysed. The proposed model caters for both the SL and TL communicative contexts and views the conference interpreter as a mediator who decodes the original message and encodes it appropriately. The model is tested against the collected sample of linguistic data. It has proved to be capable of identifying inconsistencies and inaccuracies in five major areas: textual, stylistic, lexical, collocation and structural; the percentage of each is statistically calculated. The stylistic aspects constitute 39.3% of the inconsistencies; these cover the deviant forms that are not acceptable in Arabic: the stylistic variants, the modes of request, and the language forms that need to be reformulated in order to be consistent with the Arabic rhetorical patterns. The inappropriate rendering of lexical items makes up 26.1% of the inconsistencies; this comprises the inappropriately rendered collocation patterns, cliches and idiomatic expressions. The structural aspects constitute 18% of the incorrectly interpreted language forms; these are the inappropriately rendered passive and modification constructions. The textual aspects constitute 10.9% of the inconsistencies; these are the parallel constructions that are not properly handled in Arabic. Translation inaccuracies, items missed or incorrectly interpreted, constitute 5.1% of the inconsistencies. C1 [Al-Kufaishi, Adil] Al Mustansyriah Univ, Baghdad, Iraq. RP Al-Kufaishi, A (reprint author), Nymose Huse 79, DK-2820 Copenhagen, Denmark. EM kuadil@hotmail.com CR Al-Kufaishi A, 2011, BABEL-AMSTERDAM, V57, P144, DOI 10.1075/babel.57.2.02kuf Al-Kufaishi Adil, 2005, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V15, P83 Al-Kufaishi Adil, 2006, BABEL, V52, P1, DOI [10.1075/babel.52.1.01alk, DOI 10.1075/BABEL.52.1.01ALK] Al-Kufaishi Adil, 2007, TRANSLATION WATCH, V3, P20 Darwish A, 2004, TRANSLATION WATCH, V1, P49 De Beaugrande R., 1981, INTRO TEXT LINGUISTI Leech G., 1981, SEMANTICS NR 7 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 3 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0521-9744 EI 1569-9668 J9 BABEL-AMSTERDAM JI Babel PY 2015 VL 61 IS 4 BP 552 EP 572 DI 10.1075/babel.61.4.06alk PG 21 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DF1AV UT WOS:000371071700006 ER PT J AU Kallergi, H AF Kallergi, Haritini TI Total Reduplication as a category of expressives (Counter) evidence from Modern Greek SO STUDIES IN LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE total reduplication; morphosyntax; expressive meaning; pragmatic effect; constraints ID MORPHOLOGY AB Total Reduplication (henceforth TR) of the type exemplified by Modern Greek aspros aspros 'white white' "very white" and vima vima 'step step' "step by step" has an expressive dimension, mainly in that it is an optional strategy and it almost always has pragmatic connotations and effects (e.g. making a narration more vivid) (see, e.g., Zwicky & Pullum 1987; Beard & Volpe 2005). This paper poses the question whether TR can be viewed as a category of constructions that exclusively serve as expressive markers in Modern Greek (MG). I discuss the arguments and counterarguments to the idea that TR in MG can be described as a process of "expressive morphosyntax", in parallel to Zwicky & Pullum's (1987) notion of "expressive morphology" (which mainly refers to processes such as play languages, ideophones, and schm-reduplication). I also refer to a wide range of criteria of expressivity (involving functional as well as formal characteristics of expressives) in the relevant literature. The discussion points to an incomplete overlap between typical categories of expressives and TR. It also clarifies the senses in which TR is "expressive" and touches on issues of the status of TR in the grammar. C1 [Kallergi, Haritini] Aristotle Univ Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. RP Kallergi, H (reprint author), Aristotle Univ Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. EM harakallergi@yahoo.gr CR Achilleas Tzartzanos A., 1946, MODERN GREEK SYNTAX Arvaniti Amalia, 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH, P84 Babiniotis Giorgos, 1998, DICT MODERN GREEK LA Bakker Peter, 2005, STUDIES REDUPLICATIO, P511 Barnson Emeneau Murray, 1969, LANGUAGE, V45-2, P294 Beard Robert, 2005, HDB WORD FORMATION Blakemore Diane, 2001, RELEVANCE LINGUISTIC Blakemore D, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3537, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.003 Botha Rudolph P, 1988, FORM MEANING WORD FO, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511659447, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511659447] Brown Roger W., 1955, LANGUAGE, V31, P543, DOI [10.2307/411370, DOI 10.2307/411370] Cruse D. A., 1986, LEXICAL SEMANTICS Daltas Periklis, 1985, GLOSSOLOGIA, V4, P63 Dressler Wolfgang, 2005, HDB WORD FORMATION, P267, DOI DOI 10.1007/1-4020-3596-9_11 Dressler W. U., 1994, MORPHOPRAGMATICS DIM, DOI [10.1515/9783110877052, DOI 10.1515/9783110877052] Forza Franscesca, 2011, THESIS U VERONA VERO Frederic Madeleine, 1985, Z ROMANISCHE PHILO S, V199, DOI [10.1515/9783111590196, DOI 10.1515/9783111590196] Ghomeshi J, 2004, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V22, P307, DOI 10.1023/B:NALA.0000015789.98638.f9 Haspelmath M, 2011, FOLIA LINGUIST, V45, P31, DOI 10.1515/FLIN.2011.002 Inkelas Sharon, 2005, REDUPLICATION DOUBLI, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511627712, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511627712] Jakobson R., 1960, STYLE LANG, P350 Johnson Marion R., 1976, OHIO STATE U WORKING, V21, P240 Joseph Brian D., 1987, DIACHRONICA, VIV, P1, DOI 10.1075/dia.4.1-2.02jos Kakridi-Ferrari Maria, 1998, THESIS Kallergi Haritini, 2015, STUDIA TYPOLOGICA, V17, DOI [10.1515/9783110365597, DOI 10.1515/9783110365597] Kallergi Haritini, 2012, STUDIES GREEK LINGUI, P128 Kallergi Haritini, 2012, ARCH GLOTTOLOGICO, V97, P78 Kallergi Haritini, 2013, 20 INT S THEOR APPL Kallergi Haritini, 2009, 18 INT S THEOR APPL, P177 Kimper Wendell, 2008, SYNTACTIC REDUPLICAT Kirchner Jesse Saba, 2010, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Kouwenberg Silvia, 2005, STUDIES REDUPLICATIO, P533 Ladd R. R., 1996, INTONATIONAL PHONOLO LOBNER S, 2013, UNDERSTANDING SEMANT Lyons George, 1977, SEMANTICS Mattes V, 2014, STUD TYPOL, V16, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110363128 McCarthy John J., 1995, U MASSACHUSETTS OCCA, V18, P249 MEIBAUER J, 2013, WORD STRUCTURE, V6, P21 Mirambel Andre, 1978, MODERN GREEK LANGUAG Montaut Annie, 2009, ANN REV S ASIAN LANG, P21 Nakas Thanasis, 1996, LEKSIKOGRAFIKON DELT, V20, P221 Nunes Jairo, 1995, THESIS U MARYLAND CO Nunes J, 2001, LINGUIST INQ, V32, P303, DOI 10.1162/00243890152001780 Schieffelin B., 1989, TEXT, V9, P7, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.7 Potts C, 2007, THEOR LINGUIST, V33, P165, DOI 10.1515/TL.2007.011 Raimy Eric, 2000, STUDIES GENERATIVE G, V52, DOI [10.1515/9783110825831, DOI 10.1515/9783110825831] Ramat Paolo, 2006, ITALIANO COME LINGUA Rubino C., 2005, STUDIES REDUPLICATIO, P11 Scalise Sergio, 1986, GEN MORPHOLOGY, DOI [10.1515/9783110877328, DOI 10.1515/9783110877328] Sherzer Joel, 1976, SPEECH PLAY, P19 Southern Mark R. V., 2005, CONTAGIOUS COUPLINGS Stankiewicz Edward, 1960, STYLE IN LANGUAGE, P96 Steriade Donca, 1988, PHONOLOGY, V5, P73, DOI 10.1017/S0952675700002190 Stolz Thomas, 2004, MEDITERRANEAN LANGUA, V15, P1 Stolz Thomas, 2011, STUDIA TYPOLOGICA, V8, DOI [10.1524/9783050050973, DOI 10.1524/9783050050973] STUMP GT, 1993, J LINGUIST, V29, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700000037 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1981, WRITING NATURE DEV T, VI, P111 Triantafyllidis Manolis, 1941, NEOELLINIKI GRAMMATI Walchli Bernhard, 2005, COCOMPOUNDS NATURAL, DOI [10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276219.001.0001, DOI 10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199276219.001.0001] WIERZBICKA A, 1986, LINGUISTICS, V24, P287, DOI 10.1515/ling.1986.24.2.287 Zwicky A.M., 1987, P 13 ANN M BERK LING, P330 NR 60 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-4177 J9 STUD LANG JI Stud. Lang. PY 2015 VL 39 IS 4 BP 873 EP 904 DI 10.1075/sl.39.4.04kal PG 32 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DF0ZO UT WOS:000371068400004 ER PT J AU Dingemanse, M AF Dingemanse, Mark TI Ideophones and reduplication Depiction, description, and the interpretation of repeated talk in discourse SO STUDIES IN LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE ideophones; reduplication; repetition; depiction; iconicity; semantics; pragmatics ID LANGUAGE; SPEECH AB Repetition is one of the most basic operations on talk, often discussed for its iconic meanings. Ideophones are marked words that depict sensory imagery, often identified by their reduplicated forms. Yet not all reduplication is iconic, and not all ideophones are reduplicated. This paper discusses the semantics and pragmatics of repeated talk with special reference to ideophones. To understand these phenomena, it is useful to distinguish two modes of representation in language - description and depiction - along with cues like prosodic foregrounding that help steer listener's interpretations from one to the other. Reduplication can partake in both modes, which is why it is common in ideophones and other areas of grammar. Using evidence from a range of languages, this paper shows how the study of ideophones sheds light on the interpretation of repeated talk, and argues that both description and depiction are fundamental to understanding how language works. C1 [Dingemanse, Mark] Max Planck Inst Psycholinguist, PB 301, NL-6500 AH Nijmegen, Netherlands. RP Dingemanse, M (reprint author), Max Planck Inst Psycholinguist, PB 301, NL-6500 AH Nijmegen, Netherlands. EM mark.dingemanse@mpi.nl FU European Research Council [240853]; NWO Veni grant FX This paper has benefited from comments and questions by Kimi Akita, Daniela Rossi, Philippe de Brabanter, Herb Clark, Simeon Floyd, and three anonymous reviewers for Studies in Language. Portions of this work were adapted and extensively revised from an unpublished PhD thesis, and the arguments have been refined thanks to audiences at the workshops on Total Reduplication (Brussels 2012), Quotation and Depiction in Interaction (Nijmegen 2013), and Structuring Sensory Imagery (Rochester 2014). The research was funded by the European Research Council Grant 240853 and by an NWO Veni grant. CR Akita K, 2009, THESIS KOBE U KOBE Ameka Felix K., 2001, IDEOPHONES, P25, DOI 10.1075/tsl.44.04ame Bateson G, 1955, PSYCHIATRIC RES REPO, V2, P39 Beck D, 2008, INT J AM LINGUIST, V74, P1, DOI 10.1086/529462 Bergman Brita, 1994, TENSE ASPECT ACTION, P397 Bolinger D., 1968, ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE Bolinger D. L., 1961, GEN GRADIENCE ALL OR Casati R, 2006, TRENDS COGN SCI, V10, P54, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.008 Childs GT, 2014, PRAGMAT SOC, V5, P341, DOI 10.1075/ps.5.3.02chi Childs G. T. L., 1994, SOUND SYMBOLISM, P178 Childs G. Tucker, 1988, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Childs G. Tucker, 1989, STUDIES LINGUISTIC S, V19, P55 Clark H. H., 1996, USING LANGUAGE, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511620539, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620539, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539] CLARK HH, 1990, LANGUAGE, V66, P764, DOI 10.2307/414729 Croft William, 2012, THEORETICAL LINGUIST, V38 Derbyshire Desmond C., 1979, HIXKARYANA Dhoorre Cabdulqaadir Salaad, 1998, J AFRICAN CULTURAL S, V11, P125, DOI [10.1080/13696819808717831, DOI 10.1080/13696819808717831] Diffloth Gerard, 1980, STUDIES MON KHMER TH, P49 Diffloth Gerard, 1976, OCEAN LINGUIST, V13, P249 Dingemanse M., 2012, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V6, P654, DOI [10.1002/Inc3.361, DOI 10.1002/LNC3.361] Dingemanse M, 2014, PRAGMAT SOC, V5, P384, DOI 10.1075/ps.5.3.04din Dingemanse M, 2013, GESTURE, V13, P143, DOI 10.1075/gest.13.2.02din Dryer Matthew S., 1997, ESSAYS LANGUAGE FUNC, P115 Egbokhare Francis O., 2001, IDEOPHONES, P87, DOI [10.1075/tsl.44.08egb, DOI 10.1075/TSL.44.08EGB] Floyd Simeon, 2012, REDUPLICATION S AM I Gil David, 2005, STUDIES REDUPLICATIO Gombrich E. H., 2002, ART ILLUSION STUDY P Gomez Gale Goodwin, 2009, GRAZER LINGUISTISCHE, V71, P21 Goodman N, 1968, LANGUAGES ART APPROA Goodwin C., 1981, CONVERSATIONAL ORG I Gussenhoven Carlos, 2004, PHONOLOGY TONE INTON, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511616983, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511616983] Hamano S., 1998, SOUND SYMBOLIC SYSTE Havranek B, 1964, PRAGUE SCH READER ES, P3 Hodge Gabrielle, 2014, 44 C AUSTR LING SOC, P372 Hodge G, 2014, AUST J LINGUIST, V34, P262, DOI 10.1080/07268602.2014.887408 Hurch B., 2008, OTHER REDUPLICATION Hutchinson JMC, 2005, BEHAV PROCESS, V69, P97, DOI 10.1016/j.beproc.2005.02.019 Inkelas Sharon, 2005, REDUPLICATION DOUBLI, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511627712, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511627712] Inkelas S, 2008, LINGUISTICS, V46, P351, DOI 10.1515/LING.2008.013 Jacques Guillaume, 2013, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V55, P256, DOI [10.1353/anl.2013.0014, DOI 10.1353/ANL.2013.0014] Jakobson R., 1960, STYLE LANG, P350 Kadooka K., 2007, NIHONGO ONOMATOPE GO Kendon A., 1980, RELATIONSHIP VERBAL, P207 Kosslyn Stephen Michael, 1980, IMAGE MIND Kouwenberg Silvia, 2001, EUROPEAN J ENGLISH S, V5, P59, DOI DOI 10.1076/EJES.5.1.59.4783 Kunene Daniel P., 1965, J AFRICAN LANGUAGES, V4, P19 Kunene Daniel P., 2001, IDEOPHONES, P183, DOI 10.1075/tsl.44.15kun Lee Jin-Seong, 1992, THESIS INDIANA U Levinson S., 1995, SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE, P221, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511621710.014 Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Magritte Rene, 1929, REVOLUTION SURREALIS, V12, P32 Martin Samuel E., 1962, AM STUDIES ALTAIC LI, P177 Matisoff James A., 2003, MONKHMER STUDIES, P1 McGregor William, 2001, IDEOPHONES, P205, DOI [10.1075/tsl.44.17mcg, DOI 10.1075/TSL.44.17MCG] Mihas EI, 2012, STUD LANG, V36, P300, DOI 10.1075/sl.36.2.04mih Newman Paul, 2001, IDEOPHONES, P251, DOI 10.1075/tsl.44.20new Newman Paul, 1989, P ANN M BERK LING SO, V15, P248 NEWMEYER FJ, 1992, LANGUAGE, V68, P756, DOI 10.2307/416852 Nuckolls J., 1996, SOUNDS LIFE SOUND SY NUCKOLLS JB, 1995, SEMIOTICA, V103, P145, DOI 10.1515/semi.1995.103.1-2.145 Pott August Friedrich, 1862, DOPPELUNG REDUPLIKAT Rai Novel Kishore, 2005, CONT ISSUES NEPALESE, P205 SAMARIN WJ, 1965, AFR STUD, V24, P117 Schwaiger Thomas, 2013, MORPHOLOGY TOULOUSE, V7, P211 Shintel H, 2006, J MEM LANG, V55, P167, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.002 Sien Nam-Cheol, 1997, THESIS U WASHINGTON SLAMA-CAZACU TATIANA, 1976, LANGUAGE MAN ANTHR I, P217 Sonesson Goran, 1997, SEMIOTICS WORLD SYNT, P739 Stolz Thomas, 2011, TOTAL REDUPLICATION, DOI [10.1524/9783050050973, DOI 10.1524/9783050050973] Stolz T, 2007, STUD LANG C, V88, P317 Thun N., 1963, REDUPLICATIVE WORDS Tufvesson S, 2011, SENSES SOC, V6, P86, DOI 10.2752/174589311X12893982233876 WALTON KL, 1973, PHILOS REV, V82, P283, DOI 10.2307/2183897 Wang SP, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P505, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.08.002 Westermann Diedrich Hermann, 1927, FESTSCHRIFT MEINHOF, P315 Whitney William Dwight, 1874, T AM PHILOLOGICAL AS, V6, P95, DOI [10.2307/2935821, DOI 10.2307/2935821] Zwicky Arnold M., 1987, P 13 ANN M BERK LING, V7, P330 NR 77 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 1 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-4177 J9 STUD LANG JI Stud. Lang. PY 2015 VL 39 IS 4 BP 946 EP 970 DI 10.1075/sl.39.4.05din PG 25 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DF0ZO UT WOS:000371068400006 ER PT J AU Donaldson, B AF Donaldson, Bryan TI Discourse functions of subject left dislocation in Old Occitan SO JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE discourse; dislocation; information structure; Occitan; syntax; word order ID FRENCH; PRAGMATICS; PRONOUNS; ROMANCE; PRO; V2 AB This paper reports an empirical study of the discourse-pragmatic functions of subject left dislocation (LD) in Old Occitan. Data come from the complete troubadour biographies, in which the most common manifestation of subject LD is a nominal subject + sentence adverb si + verb, as in "Bertrans de Born si fo uns castellans" [Bertran de Born was a nobleman]. Whereas previous accounts fail to integrate syntax with discourse-pragmatic function, these results reveal the importance of both in explaining the occurrence of subject LD. Using recent approaches to the clausal left periphery (e.g., Beninca 2006), I distinguish LD subjects from conventional (i.e., non-dislocated) pre-verbal subjects. Next, following Fleischman's (1991) analysis of si in Old French, I illustrate how subject LD structures the flow of information in discourse. In particular, subject LD marks a constituent as a discourse topic and can also introduce a new referent into the discourse and thereby mark it as topical. C1 [Donaldson, Bryan] Univ Calif Santa Cruz, Languages & Appl Linguist, Humanities & Acad Serv, 1156 High St, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA. RP Donaldson, B (reprint author), Univ Calif Santa Cruz, Languages & Appl Linguist, Humanities & Acad Serv, 1156 High St, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA. EM bryandonaldson@ucsc.edu CR ADAMS M, 1987, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V5, P1, DOI 10.1007/BF00161866 Alibert Lois, 2000, GRAMATICA OCCITANA S Anagnostopoulou E., 1997, MAT LEFT DISLOCATION, P151 Anglade Joseph, 1963, GRAMMAIRE ANCIEN PRO ASHBY WJ, 1988, LINGUA, V75, P203, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(88)90032-0 Barnes Betsy K., 1985, LEFT DETACHMENT SPOK, DOI [10.1075/pb.vi.3, DOI 10.1075/PB.VI.3] Bec Pierre, 1995, LA LANGUE OCCITANE Beninca P., 1995, CLAUSE STRUCTURE LAN, P325 Beninca P, 2006, GEORGET U R, P53 Bocchi Andrea, 2004, STORIA LINGUA FILOLO, P121 Buridant Claude, 2000, GRAMMAIRE NOUVELLE A Cardinaletti Anna, 2004, STRUCTURE CP IP, P115 Combettes Bernard, 1971, ACT 6 C INT LANG LIT, P293 De Cat Cecile, 2007, FRENCH DISLOCATION I Raynaud de Lage Guy, 1962, INTRO ANCIEN FRANCAI Den Besten H., 1983, FORMAL SYNTAX WESTGE, P47 Donaldson B, 2012, LINGUA, V122, P1021, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.04.003 Donaldson B, 2016, J LINGUIST, V52, P37, DOI 10.1017/S0022226714000619 Egan Margarita, 1984, VIDAS TROUBADOURS Ferraresi Gisella, 2002, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V189, P2 FLEISCHMAN S, 1991, ROMANCE PHILOL, V44, P251 Fleischman S., 1990, TENSE NARRATIVITY ME Fontana Josep M., 1993, THESIS U PENNSYLVANI Foulet L., 1928, PETITE SYNTAXE ANCIE Frascarelli M, 2007, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V25, P691, DOI 10.1007/s11049-007-9025-x Geluykens Ronald, 1992, DISCOURSE PROCESS GR, DOI [10.1075/sidag.1, DOI 10.1075/SIDAG.1] Givon Talmy, 1983, TOPIC CONTINUITY DIS, DOI [10.1075/tsl.3, DOI 10.1075/TSL.3] Hamlin Frank R., 1967, INTRO ETUDE ANCIEN P Harma Juhani, 1990, ANAPHORE SES DOMAINE, P159 Herman Josef, 1954, ACTA LINGUISTICA ACA, V4, P351 Herman Josef, 1954, ACTA LINGUISTICA ACA, V4, P69 Hinzelin Marc-Olivier, 2007, STELLUNG KLITISCHEN Holmberg Anders, 2014, SYNTAX INT HDB CONT, P343 Jensen Frede, 1994, SYNTAXE ANCIEN OCCIT, DOI [10.1515/9783110936148, DOI 10.1515/9783110936148] Jensen Frede, 1983, PROVENCAL PHILOLOGY Jensen Frede, 1972, VULGAR LATIN OLD PRO Jensen Frede, 1986, SYNTAX MEDIEVAL OCCI Ochs Keenan Elinor, 1976, P 2 ANN M BERK LING, P240 Kunert HP, 2003, ROMAN FORSCH, V115, P194 Labelle M, 2007, LINGUA, V117, P289, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.01.004 Lambrecht Knud, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511620607, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620607] Lambrecht K., 2001, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY LA, P1050, DOI 10.1515/9783110171549.2 Ledgeway A, 2008, J LINGUIST, V44, P437, DOI 10.1017/S0022226708005173 Marchello-Nizia Christiane, 1985, DIRE VRAI ADVERBE SI Marchello-Nizia Christiane, 1998, CAHIERS PRAXEMATIQUE, V30, P161 Mathieu Eric, 2013, RES OLD FRENCH STATE, P327 Melander Johan, 1943, STUDIA NEOPHILOLOGIC, V16, P195, DOI 10.1080/00393274308586945 Menard Ph., 1994, SYNTAXE ANCIEN FRANC Paden William D., 1998, INTRO OLD OCCITAN Poletto Cecilia, 2005, GRAMMATICALIZATION P, P206, DOI DOI 10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199272129.003.0013 Poole Geoffrey, 2006, NEWCASTLE WORKING PA, V12-13, P188 Posner Rebecca, 1996, ROMANCE LANGUAGES Priestley Leonard, 1955, ARCH LINGUIST, V7, P1 Priestley Leonard, 1950, ARCH LINGUIST, V2, P144 Prince Ellen F., 1997, DIRECTIONS FUNCTIONA, P117, DOI DOI 10.1075/SLCS.36.08PRI Reenen Pieter van, 1992, VOX ROMANICA, V51, P101 Reinhart T., 1981, PHILOSOPHICA, V27, P53 Ribeiro Ilza, 1995, CLAUSE STRUCTURE LAN, P110 Rizzi Luigi, 1997, ELEMENTS GRAMMAR, P281, DOI [10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7, DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7] Roberts Ian, 2010, AGREEEMENT HEAD MOVE, DOI [10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001, DOI 10.7551/MITPRESS/9780262014304.001.0001] Roberts I., 1993, VERBS DIACHRONIC SYN Rohlfs Gerhard, 1970, VULGAR LATIN OLD FRE Romieu Maurice, 2002, INICIACION OCCITAN A Salvesen CM, 2013, LING AKT, V202, P131 Salvi G, 2000, LINGUA STILE, V35, P665 Sauzet Patrick, 1989, REV LANGUES ROMANES, V43, P235 Schutz Alexander H, 1938, MOD PHILOLOGY, V35, P225, DOI DOI 10.1086/388313 Schutz Alexander H., 1939, STUD PHILOL, V36, P565 Sitaridou Ioanna, 2005, ROMANCE CORPUS LINGU, P359 Skarup Povl, 1975, ETUDES ROMANES REV R, V6 Smith N, 1984, OLD PROVENCAL PRIMER Traugott EC, 2007, FOLIA LINGUIST, V41, P405, DOI 10.1515/flin.41.3-4.405 Vance Barbara, 1997, SYNTACTIC CHANGE MED, DOI [10.1007/978-94-015-8843-0, DOI 10.1007/978-94-015-8843-0] Vanelli Laura, 1985, ACT 17 C INT LING PH, V3, P161 Wheeler Max, 1988, ROMANCE LANGUAGES, P246 NR 75 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1566-5852 EI 1569-9854 J9 J HIST PRAGMAT JI J. Hist. Pragmat. PY 2015 VL 16 IS 2 BP 159 EP 186 DI 10.1075/jhp.16.2.01don PG 28 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DD1PC UT WOS:000369692600001 ER PT J AU Soltic, J AF Soltic, Jorie TI Parenthetical "I say (you)" in Late Medieval Greek vernacular A message-structuring discourse marker rather than a message-conveying verb SO JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE discourse marker; filled pause; interpersonal function; Late Medieval Greek; political verse AB In this paper, I argue that the first-person singular of the "ordinary" verb lambda epsilon gamma omega/lambda alpha lambda(omega) over tilde ('I say') in the thirteenth-to fourteenth-century political verse narratives Chronicle of Morea and War of Troy does not always carry its "normal", representational content ('I inform/assure [you]'). Frequently, lambda epsilon gamma omega/lambda alpha lambda(omega) over tilde structures the discourse rather than conveying conceptual meaning and, thus, has procedural meaning. In this respect, the verb can be compared to modern discourse markers (i.e., semantically reduced items which abound in spoken language). An important-yet not decisive-criterion to distinguish the conceptual from the procedural use is the position of lambda epsilon gamma omega/lambda alpha lambda(omega) over tilde: all "DM-like" examples are parenthetical. As for their precise pragmatic function, these forms are used, in particular, to signal a clarification towards the listener ("I mean") or, more generally, to grab the attention of the audience. Applied to the modern binary distinction between interpersonal and textual discourse markers, they thus belong to the former category. Finally, I tentatively relate the observation that the procedural parenthetical examples show a marked preference for pre-caesural position to the concept of "filled pauses", which makes sense given the adopted oral style of the Late Medieval Greek political verse narratives. C1 [Soltic, Jorie] Univ Ghent, Dept Greek Linguist, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. RP Soltic, J (reprint author), Blandijnberg 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. EM jorie.soltic@ugent.be FU Research Foundation of Flanders (FWO) [B/13006/01] FX My work was funded by the Research Foundation of Flanders (FWO; grant number B/13006/01). I would like to give special thanks to Professor Peter Mackridge for his stimulating critical remarks on the first draft of this paper. CR Aerts Willem, 2005, APPROACHES TEXTS EAR, P141 Aijmer K., 1997, MODALITY GERMANIC LA, P1 Anaxagorou Nadia, 1998, NARRATIVE STYLISTIC Apostolopoulos Photis, 1984, LANGUE ROMAN BYZANTI Astruc Lluisa, 2005, CAMBRIDGE OCCASIONAL, V2, P100 BAKKER EJ, 1990, T AM PHILOL ASSOC, V120, P1, DOI 10.2307/283975 Beaton Roderick, 1980, FOLK POETRY MODERN G, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511554131, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511554131] Blakemore D., 1987, SEMANTIC CONSTRAINTS Brinton LJ, 2007, TOP ENGL LINGUIST, V52, P37 Brinton L., 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN, DOI [10.1515/9783110907582, DOI 10.1515/9783110907582] Brinton Laurel J., 2008, COMMENT CLAUSE ENGLI, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511551789, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511551789] Browning Robert, 1999, MEDIEVAL MODERN GREE Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES, DOI [10.1002/9780470754603, DOI 10.1002/9780470754603] Chafe W., 1988, CLAUSE COMBINING GRA, P1 Chila-Markopoulou Despina, 2004, J GREEK LINGUISTICS, V5, P199, DOI 10.1075/jgl.5.13chi Dehe Nicole, 2007, PARENTHETICALS, DOI [10.1075/la.106, DOI 10.1075/LA.106] Dehe N, 2010, FUNCT LANG, V17, P1, DOI 10.1075/fol.17.1.01deh Egea Jose Maria, 1993, ORIGINI LETT NEOGREC, P109 Eideneier Hans, 1999, RHAPSODIE RAP ASPEKT Erman B, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1337, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00066-7 Fischer K., 2006, APPROACHES DISCOURSE, P1 Forchini Pierfranca, 2010, ANAL LINGUISTICA LET, V17, P323 FRASER B, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P383, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V Fraser B, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P931, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 [Anonymous], 1999, J COMPUTATIONAL LING Horrocks Geoffrey, 2010, GREEK HIST LANGUAGE, DOI [10.1002/9781444318913, DOI 10.1002/9781444318913] Jeffreys Elizabeth, 2013, RENAISSANCE ENCOUNTE, P217 Jeffreys Elizabeth, 2011, MEDIEVAL ORAL LIT, P459 Jeffreys Michael, 1973, DUMBARTON OAK PAPERS, V27, P163, DOI [10.2307/1291339, DOI 10.2307/1291339] Jeffreys Michael, 1975, ACT 14 C INT ET BYZ, P153 Jucker AH, 1998, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V57, P1 Lauxtermann M. D., 1999, SPRING RHYTHM ESSAY Lee Chun-Hee, 2003, SNU WORKING PAPERS E, V2, P133 Lewis DM, 2006, STUD PRAGMAT, V1, P43 Loudova Katerina, 2009, STUDIES GREEK LINGUI, V29, P296 Lurier Harold, 1964, CRUSADERS CONQUERORS Lyavdansky Alexey, 2010, J LANGUAGE RELATIONS, V3, P79 Mackridge Peter, 1993, ORIGINI LIT NEOGRECI, V1, P325 MACKRIDGE P, 1990, BYZANTINE MOD GREEK, V14, P200 Manolessou I., 2002, J GREEK LINGUISTICS, V2, P119, DOI [10.1075/jgl.2.05man, DOI 10.1075/JGL.2.05MAN] Matisoff James, 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, P383, DOI [10.1075/tsl.19.2.19mat, DOI 10.1075/TSL.19.2.19MAT] Ostman Jan-Ola, 1981, YOU KNOW DISCOURSE F, DOI [10.1075/pb.ii.7, DOI 10.1075/PB.II.7] Pappas PA, 2004, VARIATION AND MORPHOSYNTACTIC CHANGE IN GREEK: FROM CLITICS TO AFFIXES, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230504714 Petukhova V, 2009, P 8 INT C COMP SEM T, P157, DOI 10.3115/1693756.1693773 Plank Frans, 1981, SPRACHE PRAGMATIK LU, P57 Rouchota V, 1998, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V57, P97 Scheppers Frank, 2011, COLON HYPOTHESIS WOR Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511611841, DOI 10.1017/CB09780511611841] Schneider Stefan, 2007, REDUCED PARENTHETICA, DOI [10.1075/scl.27, DOI 10.1075/SCL.27] Schourup L, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2110, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.005 Shawcross Teresa, 2009, OXFORD STUDIES BYZAN Sifakis Grigoris, 2001, J HELLENIC DIASPORA, V27, P61 Soltic J, 2013, GREEK ROMAN BYZANTIN, V53, P390 Soltic J, 2012, GREEK ROMAN BYZANTIN, V52, P240 Stenstrom Anna-Brita, 1990, LONDON LUND CORPUS S, P211 Thoma Chrystalla, 2007, CONNECTIVITY GRAMMAR, P139, DOI 10.1075/hsm.5.09tho Tree JEF, 1999, J MEM LANG, V40, P280 Wahlgren Stephan, 2003, PARTICULAR REASONS S, P333 WATTS RJ, 1989, J PRAGMATICS, V13, P203, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(89)90092-1 WILSON D, 1993, LINGUA, V90, P1, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 NR 60 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1566-5852 EI 1569-9854 J9 J HIST PRAGMAT JI J. Hist. Pragmat. PY 2015 VL 16 IS 2 BP 187 EP 217 DI 10.1075/jhp.16.2.02sol PG 31 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DD1PC UT WOS:000369692600002 ER PT J AU Gille, J AF Gille, Johan TI On the development of the Chilean Spanish discourse marker cachai SO REVUE ROMANE LA English DT Article DE discourse markers; Chilean Spanish; historical pragmatics; grammaticalization; spoken interaction AB The discourse marker cachai ('y'see?') has in a rather short time span become one of the most frequently used in colloquial Chilean Spanish, especially in the talk of young speakers. Being a recent addition to the language, it is not surprising that the history and use of the marker remain in large part to be described. The etymology which is commonly presented (Real Academia Espanola, 2014, s.v. cachar), according to which cachar is a loan of the English verb catch, is problematic as it fails to account for the uses attested for cachai in modern Chilean Spanish. The present study adopts a historical pragmatic perspective to track the development of the verb, proposing an alternative origin, namely in the verb catar ('look (for)', 'see'). By contrasting this explanation with authentic, situated, uses of cachai, the study argues that such an origin can account for the uses we see today more adequately and convincingly. C1 [Gille, Johan] Uppsala Univ, Inst Moderna Sprak, Box 636, SE-75126 Uppsala, Sweden. RP Gille, J (reprint author), Uppsala Univ, Inst Moderna Sprak, Box 636, SE-75126 Uppsala, Sweden. EM johan.gille@moderna.uu.se CR Academia Chilena de la Lengua, 2010, DICC US ESP CHIL Cano Aguilar R., 2005, ESPANOL TRAVES TIEMP Allwood J., 1992, Journal of Semantics, V9, P1, DOI 10.1093/jos/9.1.1 Alonso M., 1958, ENCICLOPEDIA IDIOMA Alonso Martin, 1986, DICCIONARIO MEDIEVAL Alonso A., 1930, BIBLIOTECA DIALECTOL, VI, P315 Asociacion de Academias de la Lengua Espanola, 2010, DICC AM Battisti E., 2009, PHONETICS PHONOLOGY, V306, P235, DOI [10.1075/cilt.306.11bat, DOI 10.1075/CILT.306.11BAT] Bhat D. N. S., 1978, UNIVERSALS HUMAN LAN, V2, P47 Bisol L, 1991, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V89, P107, DOI DOI 10.1515/IJSL.1991.89.107 Boyd-Bowman P., 1955, COMO OBRA FONETICA I Calabrese A., 1993, LINGUISTIC PERSPECTI, P65, DOI 10.1075/cilt.103.11cal Carvalho Ana Maria, 2004, LANG VAR CHANGE, V16, P127 Casas J. S., 1991, ESTUDIOS LINGUISTICA, V7, P27 Cavada F. J., 1914, CHILOE CHILOTES ESTU Company Concepcion, 2004, RFE, V84, P1 Corominas Juan, 1944, REV FILOL HISPANICA, VVI, P1 Coromines J., 1980, DICCIONARIO CRITICO Davies M., 2008, CORPUS ESPANOL 100 M Drange EM, 2009, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V184, P161 Fant Lars, 2008, ORALIA, V11, P307 Camarero MG, 2008, REV FILOL ESPAN, V88, P7 Gille J., 2006, DISCURSO INTERACCION, P65 Gille J., 2015, STOCKHOLM STUDIES RO, P239 Gille J., 2013, ESTUDIOS DISCURSO AM, P465 Gille J, 2006, MOD SPRAK, V100, P157 Gille J., 2012, ONOMAZEIN, V25, P261 Gille J., 2010, ORALIA, V13, P127 Briz Gomez A., 1998, ESPANOL COLOQUIAL CO Maldonado Gonzalez C., 2010, CLAVE DICCIONARIO US Gormaz V., 1860, CORRECIONES LEXIGRAF, V64+VII Harvey A., 2006, DISCURSO INTERACCION, P137 Hopper Paul J., 1993, GRAMMATICALIZATION Jucker A. H., 2010, HIST PRAGMATICS, DOI [10.1515/9783110214284, DOI 10.1515/9783110214284] Kany C. E., 1960, AM SPANISH EUPHEMISM Kochetov A., 2011, BLACKWELL COMPANION, V3, P1666 Lapesa R., 1988, HIST LENGUA ESPANOLA Lenz R., 1905, DICCIONARIO ETIMOLOG Lenz R., 1940, BIBLIOTECA DIALECTOL, VVI, P85 Lerner I., 1974, ARCAISMOS LEXICOS ES Lindstrom J., 2005, J HIST PRAGMAT, V6, P211, DOI 10.1075/jhp.6.2.04lin Linell P, 2009, ADV CULT PSYCHOL CON, pXXI Lipski John M., 1994, LATIN AM SPANISH Medina J. T., 1928, CHILENISMOS APUNTES Moliner M., 1998, DICCIONARIO USO ESPA, V1 Montecino L. A., 2004, ONOMAZEIN, V10, P9 Nebrija A. d., 1492, DICT EXHISPANIENSE L Nehama J., 1977, DICCTIONNAIRE JUDEO San Martin Nunez A., 2011, B FILOLOGIA, VXLVI, P135, DOI [10.4067/S0718-93032011000200006, DOI 10.4067/S0718-93032011000200006] Ortega Olivares J., 1985, ESTUDIOS ROMANICOS D, P239 Ortega Olivares J., 1986, VERBA, V13, P269 Penny R., 1993, GRAMATICA HIST ESPAN Morales Pettorino F., 1984, DICCIONARIO EJEMPLIF Morales Pettorino F., 1969, VERBOS EAR ESPANOL C Menendez Pidal Ramon, 1982, MANUAL GRAMATICA HIS Real Academia Espanola, 1984, DICCIONARIO LENGUA E Real Academia Espanola, 2001, DICCIONARIO LENGUA E [Anonymous], 1992, DICCIONARIO LENGUA E Real Academia Espanola, 2015, DICCIONARIO LENGUA E Real Academia Espanola, 2005, CORP DIACR ESP CORDE REDEKER G, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P367, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90095-U Redeker G, 2006, STUD PRAGMAT, V1, P339 Roberts Edward, 1996, DICCIONARIO ETIMOLOG Fuentes Rodriguez C., 1990, SOCIOLINGUISTICA AND, V5, P171 Zorobabel Rodriguez, 1875, DICCIONARIO CHILENIS Roman M. A., 1908, DICCIONARIO CHILENIS, VII Sala M., 1982, ESPANOL AM Oroz Scheibe R., 1966, LENGUA CASTELLANA CH Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511611841, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511611841] Schwenter SA, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P855, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00023-2 Sweetser E., 1990, ETYMOLOGY PRAGMATICS, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511620904, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620904] Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2010, HIST PRAGMATICS, P97 Traugott EC, 2006, EXPR COGN CATEG, V1, P107 Unzua-Carmona P., 2006, ONOMAZEIN, V13, P97 Enguita Utrilla J. M., 2010, LENGUA ESPANOLA AM N, P261 Valdes J., 1969, DIALOGO DE LA LENGUA Rivadeneira Valenzuela M., 2009, THESIS U POMPEU FABR Poblete Vallejos M., 1999, ONOMAZEIN, V4, P181 NR 78 TC 0 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 0 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0035-3906 J9 REV ROMANE JI Rev. Rom. PY 2015 VL 50 IS 1 BP 3 EP 29 DI 10.1075/rro.50.1.01gil PG 27 WC Language & Linguistics; Literature, Romance SC Linguistics; Literature GA DD2HR UT WOS:000369743800002 ER PT J AU Winkler, P AF Winkler, Pierre TI The Chamorro verb according to Diego Luis de Sanvitores (1627-1672) SO HISTORIOGRAPHIA LINGUISTICA LA English DT Article ID LANGUAGE; GUAM AB In 1668, enroute from Mexico to the Mariana islands, Father Diego Luis de Sanvitores, S.J. (1627-1672) wrote a description of Chamorro, assisted by a Filipino who had lived on the islands for 17 years. This 'grammar' has never been studied, primarily because it was written in Latin in a complicated style and because it has received unjustified criticism for applying Latin case names to a language without case. However, a thorough analysis of this treatise is of great historical interest, for several reasons. In the paper the author, after offering a sketch of the origin of Sanvitores' mission and some details about the manuscript, places the text in its historical context and discusses its reception. After a description of the general structure the focus is on the main part of the grammar, the section treating the verb. It is shown that Sanvitores has, overall, an accurate understanding of the Chamorro verb, including its tense-less structure, the central role of the root, the pragmatic effect of affixes, and antipassive and ergative constructions. Sanvitores also takes a clear stand with regard to the current debate about word classes in Chamorro. The analysis demonstrates that Sanvitores did not stick to Nebrija's grammatical template, but rather tapped concepts and terminology from contemporary sources known as the Grammaticae Proverbiandi. Furthermore, the article attends to changes in forms and meanings of Chamorro words and closely analyzes Sanvitores' dissection of the roots and affixes for clues to help us understand the language's complex system of affixation, which even today is still not fully understood. C1 [Winkler, Pierre] Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam Ctr Language & Commun, Spuistr 134, NL-1012 VB Amsterdam, Netherlands. RP Winkler, P (reprint author), Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam Ctr Language & Commun, Spuistr 134, NL-1012 VB Amsterdam, Netherlands. EM soracte@xs4all.nl CR Baerman M., 2015, OXFORD HDB INFLECTIO Barrett Ward, 1975, MISSION MARIANAS ANA Blancas Francisco de S. Joseph, 1997, ARTE REGLAS LENGUA T Bloomfield L., 1933, LANGUAGE Burrus EJ, 1954, ANTHROPOS, V49, P934 Chamorro P, 2012, CAHIER CHRONOS SELEC, V25, P91 CHUNG S, 1994, LINGUIST INQ, V25, P1 Chung Sandra, 1998, DESIGN AGREEMENT EVI Coomans P., 2000, OCCASIONAL HIST PAPE, V4 Cooreman Anne M., 1987, TRANSITIVITY DISCOUR Croft W, 2012, THEOR LINGUIST, V38, P57, DOI 10.1515/tl-2012-0002 Degert A., 1910, CATHOLIC ENCY Nebrija Elio Antonio de, 1996, INTRO LATINAS CONTRA Sanvitores Diego Luis de, 1668, LINGUA MARIANA UNPUB Sanvitores Diego Luis de., 1954, MICROBIBLIOTHECA ANT, V14 Viana Augusto V. de, 2011, PHILIPPINIANA SACRA, V46, p[136, 85] Viana Augusto V. de, 2004, MICRONESIAN J HUMANI, V3, P19 Dik Simon C., 1981, THEORY FUNCTIONAL 1 Emout Alfred, 1953, SYNTAXE LATINE Fallon Paul D., 2013, SYNCHRONIC DIACHRONI Calvo Fernandez Vicente, 1999, ROMANISTIK GESCH GEG, V5, P35 Calvo Fernandez Vicente, 1992, ESTUDIOS LATINOS, V2, P249 Calvo Fernandez Vicente, 1993, REV FILOLOGIA ROMANI, V10, P267 Fischer Steven Roger, 2013, KOLONIALE POSTKOLONI, V4 Fogen Torsten, 2005, ANTIKE FACHTEXTE Garcia Francisco, 2005, MARC MONOGRAPH SERIE, V3 Hymes Dell H., 1974, STUDIES HIST LINGUIS Kerr Alexander M., 2009, 127 U GUAM MARINE LA Koerner E. F. K., 2001, STUDIES HIST LANGUAG, VII Krifka Manfred, 2012, THEORETICAL LINGUIST, V38 Li C., 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC Matras Y, 2003, TRENDS LINGUIST-STUD, V153, P277 Niederehe Hans-Josef, 1990, STUDIES HIST LANGUAG, V51 Palmer L. R, 1954, THE LATIN LANGUAGE Perottus Nicolaus, 1541, RUDIMENTA GRAMMATICE Priscianus, 1855, I GRAMMATICAE Quilis Antonio, 2005, FILOLOGIA LINGUISTIC, VII Quintilianus Marcus Fabius, 1980, I ORATORIA Reid Lawrence, 2011, PHILIPPINE CHAMORRO, V2 Safford WE, 1904, AM ANTHROPOL, V6, P501, DOI 10.1525/aa.1904.6.4.02a00100 Safford WE, 1905, AM ANTHROPOL, V7, P305, DOI 10.1525/aa.1905.7.2.02a00100 Safford WE, 1904, AM ANTHROPOL, V6, P95, DOI 10.1525/aa.1904.6.1.02a00070 Safford WE, 1903, AM ANTHROPOL, V5, P289, DOI 10.1525/aa.1903.5.2.02a00040 Safford WE, 1903, AM ANTHROPOL, V5, P508, DOI 10.1525/aa.1903.5.3.02a00060 Schachter Paul, 1972, TAGALOG REFERENCE GR Smalwood Carolyn, 1999, U TORONTO WORKING PA Swiggers Pierre, 2002, ORBIS S, V19 Swiggers Pierre, 2003, ORBIS S, V23 Topping Donald, 1973, CHAMORRO REFERENCE G Topping Donald M, 1969, SPOKEN CHAMORRO Topping Donald M., 1975, CHAMORRO ENGLISH DIC Esparza Torres Miguel Angel, 1993, ESTUDIOS LATINOS, V5, P149 vonPreissig Edward Ritter, 1918, DICT GRAMMAR CHAMORR Winkler Pierre, 1985, TIJDSCHRIFT TAAL TEK, V5, P65 Zimmermann Klaus, 2015, KOLONIALE POSTKOLONI, V5 Zwartjes Otto, 2010, MELCHOR OYANGUREN SA Zwartjes Otto, 2005, STUDIES HIST LANGUAG, V109 Otto Zwartjes, 2000, PORTADA HISPANICA, V7 Zwartjes Otto, 2004, STUDIES HIST LANGUAG, V106 Zwartjes Otto, 2009, STUDIES HIST LANGUAG, V114 Zwartjes Otto, 2007, STUDIES HIST LANGUAG, V111 NR 61 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0302-5160 EI 1569-9781 J9 HIST LING JI Historiogr. Linguist. PY 2015 VL 42 IS 2-3 BP 261 EP 313 DI 10.1075/hl.42.2/3.03win PG 53 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DC9JC UT WOS:000369536600003 ER PT J AU Dom, S Bostoen, K AF Dom, Sebastian Bostoen, Koen TI Examining variation in the expression of tense/aspect to classify the Kikongo Language Cluster SO AFRICANA LINGUISTICA LA English DT Article DE Kikongo Language Cluster; tense/aspect; language classification; language contact; Comparative Method ID PREDICATION FOCUS; BANTU; PRAGMATICS; SEMANTICS AB In this article we examine variation in the expression of tense and aspect (TA) in 23 modem and two historical Bantu language varieties belonging to Guthrie's B40, H10 and H30 groups in order to shed light on the internal classification of the Kikongo Language Cluster (KLC). We apply the Comparative Method to this specific set of morphological data to test a recent phylogenetic classification of the KLC. We identify eight widespread TA markers as shared retentions dating back to the period before the internal fragmentation of the KLC. Six of these are inherited from Proto-Bantu. Two other markers go back to Proto-Kikongoid and Proto-Kikongo. They confirm that the KLC constitutes a discrete Glade within West-Coastal Bantu. We furthermore distinguish fourteen shared innovations that took place after the break-up of the last common ancestor of the KLC. These innovations provide corroborating evidence for three phylogenetic subgroups within the KLC, namely East, South and West, and for the fact that the latter subgroup falls apart in two discrete genealogical subunits. They furthermore testify to the horizontal transmission of TA features between subgroups. Such language convergence often correlates with relatively recent historical developments within the Lower Congo region and contributed to the multilayered constitution of the KLC. C1 [Dom, Sebastian; Bostoen, Koen] Univ Ghent, KongoKing Res Grp, Dept Languages & Cultures Africa, Rozier 44, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. RP Dom, S (reprint author), Univ Ghent, KongoKing Res Grp, Dept Languages & Cultures Africa, Rozier 44, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. EM sebastian.dom@UGent.be; koen.bostoen@UGent.be CR Atkins G, 1954, GARCIA ORTA, V2, P145 Baka J, 1992, THESIS U BRUXELLES B Bastin Y, 1983, FINALE VERBALE IDE I Bastin Yvonne, 1989, ESTUDIOS AFRICANOS, V4, P35 Bastin Y, 2006, AFR LINGUIST, V12, P25 Bastin Y., 2002, BANTU LEXICAL RECONS Bastin Yvonne, 1989, ESTUDIOS AFRICANOS, V4, P61 Bentley William, 1887, DICT GRAMMAR KONGO L Bittremieux L, 1927, CONGO BIBLIOTHEEK Bonneau J, 1956, GRAMMAIRE POUNOUE LE Bostoen K, 2015, DIACHRONICA, V32, P139, DOI 10.1075/dia.32.2.01bos Bostoen K, 2013, AFR LINGUIST, V19, P53 Bostoen K, 2008, DIACHRONICA, V25, P299 Botne R, 2014, NORDIC J AFRICAN STU, V23, P16 Botne R, 2006, STUDIES AFRICAN LING, V35, P127 Botne R, 2008, COGN LINGUIST, V19, P145, DOI 10.1515/COG.2008.008 Bouka L.Y., 1989, THESIS U LIBRE BRUXE Brisard F, 2009, J AFR LANG LINGUIST, V30, P21, DOI 10.1515/JALL.2009.003 Butaye S.J., 1910, GRAMMAIRE CONGOLAISE Bybee Joan L., 1994, EVOLUTION GRAMMAR TE Cardoso M., 1624, DOUTRINA CHRISTAA CO Carrie, 1888, GRAMMAIRE LANGUE FIO Carter H., 1987, KONGO LANGUAGE COURS Comrie B., 1985, TENSE Cuenot, 1776, ESSAI GRAMMAIRE CONG Cysouw M, 2013, LANGUAGE DOCUMENTATI, V7, P331 Daeleman J., 1966, THESIS KATHOLIEKE U Dahl Osten, 1985, TENSE ASPECT SYSTEMS De Kind J, 2015, FOLIA LINGUIST HIST, V36, P113, DOI 10.1515/flih-2015-0005 De Clercq L., 1921, GRAMMAIRE DU KIYOMBE De Kind J., 2012, 6 S GHENT AFR PLATF de Schryver G.-M., 2013, 43 C AFR LANG LING L Dom S, 2013, THESIS GHENT U GHENT Gamille L.G., 2013, THESIS U SORBONNE NO Guinness H.G., 1882, GRAMMAR CONGO LANGUA Guldemann T, 2003, STUD LANG, V27, P323, DOI 10.1075/sl.27.2.05gul Guthrie M., 1971, COMP BANTU 2 Hadermann Pascale, 1996, STUDIES AFRICAN LING, V25, P155 Haspelmath M., 1998, DIACHRONICA, V15, P29, DOI 10.1075/dia.15.1.03has Herbert Robert K., 1986, LANGUAGE UNIVERSALS Hilton A., 1985, THE KINGDOM OF KONGO Hyman L, 2003, BANTU LANGUAGES, P42 Hyman L.M., 1999, CSLI LECT NOTES, V99, P235 Idiata D.F., 2006, PARLONS ISANGU LANGU Jacquot A, 1982, THESIS U LILLE LILLE Kerremans R., 1980, AFR LINGUIST, V8, P159 Kipacha A., 2006, ZAS PAPERS LINGUISTI, V43, P81 Kitambika N., 1994, MEMOIRE LICENCE SPEC Kouarata G.N., 2015, GRAMMAIRE BEEMBE LAN Laman K.E., 1928, Z EINGEBORENEN SPRAC, V19, P12 Laman K.E., 1912, GRAMMAR KONGO LANGUA Simons Gary F., 2014, ETHNOLOGUE LANGUAGES Lumwamu F, 1973, ESSAI MORPHOSYNTAXE Mabiala J.-N., 1999, THESIS U LUMIERE LYO Maho JF, 2009, NUGL ONLINE ONLINE V Martin Phyllis M, 1972, EXTERNAL TRADE LOANG Meeussen A.E., 1967, AFR LINGUIST, V3, P79 Meeussen A.E., 1962, AFRICAN LANGUAGE STU, V3, P25 Kisilu Meso J.S., 2001, MEMOIRE LICENCIEE I Ndonga Mfuwa M., 1995, THESIS U RENE DESCAR Mingas A.A., 1994, THESIS U RENE DESCAR Mpanzu L., 1994, MEMOIRE LICENCE SPEC Mulinda H.B., 1993, CIVILISATIONS, V41, P165 Makokila Nanzanza A., 2012, MEMOIRE DEA Nsayi B., 1984, THESIS U RENE DESCAR Nurse D., 2006, J AFRICAN LANGUAGES, V27, P155, DOI 10.1515/JALL.2006.009 [Anonymous], 2008, TENSE ASPECT BANTU Ntunda Nzeza W., 2007, THESIS U KINSHASA KI Ondo-Mebiame P, 2000, ESSAI DESCRIPTION MO Proyart L.B., 1776, HIST LOANGO KAKONGO Schadeberg Thilo, 1995, BELGIAN J LINGUISTIC, V9, P71 Sebasoni S, 1967, AFR LINGUIST, V3, P123 Seidel F, 2009, SPRACHE GESCH AFRIKA, V20, P231 Tucker A.N, 1974, LANGUES SANS TRADITI, P49 Van Den Eynde K, 1968, THESIS U LOVANIUM KI Van Gheel J, 1896, VOCABULARIUM L UNPUB VANSINA J, 1962, J AFR HIST, V3, P375 Van Wing J, 1921, ETUDES BAKONGO HIST Volavka Z, 1998, CROWN RITUAL ROYAL I NR 79 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU ROYAL MUSEUM CENTRAL AFRICA-BELGIUM PI TERVUREN PA 13 LEUVENSESTEENWEG, TERVUREN, 3080, BELGIUM SN 0065-4124 J9 AFR LINGUIST JI Afr. Linguist. PY 2015 VL 21 BP 163 EP 211 PG 49 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DB6UC UT WOS:000368650200004 ER PT J AU Verdonik, D AF Verdonik, Darinka TI Internal variety in the use of Slovene general extenders in different spoken discourse settings SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CORPUS LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE general extenders; speech variability; vague expression; spoken genre ID STUFF LIKE; MARKERS; ENGLISH; LANGUAGE; GERMAN AB In the present paper, we investigate a group of markers in spoken interaction, commonly termed general extenders (GEs). We compare their usage in different discourse settings within the reference speech corpus of the Slovene language GOS. The results show that there is a high variability of GE form, but that most forms are rarely used. GEs are generally less frequent in public and formal settings, such as classes and radio and television informative broadcasts, and more frequent in private settings. Substantial differences are found not only between the two groups of GEs, adjunctive and disjunctive, but also between particular GE expressions. We argue that mere qualitative analysis of pragmatic expressions such as GEs is not sufficient for reliable conclusions, and that quantitative corpus analysis can provide additional insights into GE functions, especially considering the differences between the two groups of GEs, adjunctives and disjunctives, and between particular GE expressions. C1 [Verdonik, Darinka] Univ Maribor, Fac Elect Engn & Comp Sci, Smetanova 17, SLO-2000 Maribor, Slovenia. RP Verdonik, D (reprint author), Univ Maribor, Fac Elect Engn & Comp Sci, Smetanova 17, SLO-2000 Maribor, Slovenia. EM darinka.verdonik@um.si CR Aijmer K., 2002, ENGLISH DISCOURSE PA, DOI [10.1075/scl.10, DOI 10.1075/SCL.10] Aijmer K., 1985, 8 SCAND C LING, P117 Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Biber D, 2002, TESOL QUART, V36, P9, DOI 10.2307/3588359 Schlamberger Brezar M., 2007, JEZIK SLOVSTVO, V52, P21 Channell J., 1994, VAGUE LANGUAGE Cheshire J, 2007, J SOCIOLING, V11, P155, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00317.x DINES ER, 1980, LANG SOC, V9, P13 Dubois Sylvie, 1992, LANG VAR CHANGE, V4, P179, DOI 10.1017/S0954394500000740 Erjavec T., 2013, NATURAL LANGUAGE PRO, P51 Erjavec T., 2014, LANGUAGE TECHNOLOGIE, P19 Fernandez J, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2610, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.012 Weiss P., 2002, SLAVISTICNA REV, V50, P159 Koester AJ, 2000, BRIT S AP L, V15, P169 Kosem I., 2012, LINGUISTICA LJUBLJAN, V52, P309 Lee JJ, 2009, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V28, P42, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2008.11.001 Louwerse Max M., 2008, LINGUISTICS ED, V19, P56, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.LINGED.2008.01.001 Nesi H., 2001, LANGUAGE BOUNDARIES, P201 Norrby Catrin, 2002, P 2001 C AUSTR LING Norrick NR, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P863, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.008 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 Maryann Overstreet, 1999, WHALES CANDLELIGHT S Martinez IMP, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2452, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.011 Tavangar M., 2010, CROSSCULTURAL COMMUN, V6, P18 Peterlin AP, 2005, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V24, P307, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2004.11.001 Levey Stephen, 2010, LANGUAGE STUDIES WOR, V2, P17 Cortes Rodriguez Luis, 2006, B LINGUIST, V18.26, P102 Schourup L, 1999, LINGUA, V107, P227, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 Simpson R., 2004, DISCOURSE PROFESSION, P37 Smolej M., 2010, VLOGE SREDISCA KONVE, P91 Swales J., 1990, GENRE ANAL ENGLISH A Tagliamonte SA, 2010, J ENGL LINGUIST, V38, P335, DOI 10.1177/0075424210367484 ten Have P., 1990, B METHODOLOGIE SOCIO, V27, P23, DOI 10.1177/075910639002700102 Terraschke A, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P449, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.020 Verdonik D., 2010, SLOVENSKE KORPUSNE R, P88 Verdonik D, 2013, LANG RESOUR EVAL, V47, P1031, DOI 10.1007/s10579-013-9216-5 Verdonik D, 2012, SLAVISTICNA REV, V60, P79 Verdonik D, 2007, LANG RESOUR EVAL, V41, P147, DOI 10.1007/s10579-007-9035-7 Verdonik D, 2008, DISCOURSE STUD, V10, P759, DOI 10.1177/1461445608096572 NR 40 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1384-6655 EI 1569-9811 J9 INT J CORPUS LINGUIS JI Int. J. Corpus Linguist. PY 2015 VL 20 IS 4 BP 445 EP 468 DI 10.1075/ijcl.20.4.02ver PG 24 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DB4ZF UT WOS:000368521500003 ER PT J AU Sanders, RE AF Sanders, Robert E. TI A tale of two intentions Intending what an utterance means and intending what an utterance achieves SO PRAGMATICS AND SOCIETY LA English DT Article DE activity; cognition; composition; discursive influence; speaker intention; interaction goals; pragmatic meaning ID SPEECH ACT THEORY; CONVERSATION; WORDS AB Speaker intention is conceptualized as a property of utterances in context, not speakers; it is based on communally shared knowledge of discursive means to ends. The article's main theoretical claim is that utterances, in addition to being produced with an intention about their pragmatic meaning, are also produced with an intention to bring about some post-interactional end result. Both types of intention bear on the utterance's pragmatic meaning. Empirical aspects of the theoretical difference between these two types of speaker intention are shown through analysis of naturally occurring interactions; here, the analytical focus is on the scope, interdependence, recognizability, and fulfillment of each type of intention, with special attention to the functionality of an utterance's content, composition, and sequential placement as a means of getting a response from the interlocutor(s) that goes along with what the speaker intends as regards the end result of the interaction. C1 [Sanders, Robert E.] SUNY Albany, Commun, Albany, NY 12222 USA. RP Sanders, RE (reprint author), SUNY Albany, Dept Commun, Albany, NY 12222 USA. EM rsanders@albany.edu CR Bello Janet, 2001, WORLD ENGLISH, V20, P89, DOI 10.1111/1467-971X.00198 Austin J. L., 1962, DO THINGS WORDS AUSTIN JL, 1966, PHILOS REV, V75, P427, DOI 10.2307/2183222 Bach Kent, 2006, IMPLICITURE VS EXPLI Bakhtin M, 1986, SPEECH GENRES OTHER Bauman R., 1974, EXPLORATIONS ETHNOGR BIANCHI C., 2004, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS Capone A, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1355, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.013 CICOUREL AV, 1987, J PRAGMATICS, V11, P641, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(87)90184-6 Clark H. H., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P365, DOI DOI 10.1111/B.9780631225485.2005.00018.X Drew Paul, 1992, COMMUNICATION, P470 Drew Paul, 2000, SMALL TALK, P137 Goffman E., 1959, PRESENTATION SELF EV Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS GRICE HP, 1957, PHILOS REV, V66, P377, DOI 10.2307/2182440 Gumperz John J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511611834, DOI 10.1017/CB09780511611834] Haugh Michael, 2008, INTERCULTURAL PRAGMA, V5 Haugh M., 2012, CAMBRIDGE HDB PRAGMA, P87, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139022453.006, DOI 10.1017/CB09781139022453.006] Clayman Steven, 2010, TALK ACTION INTERACT, P69 Horn Laurence R., 2001, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Hymes Dell, 1974, FDN SOCIOLINGUISTICS Jaszczolt Kasia, 2005, DEFAULT SEMANTICS FD Kecskes I, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P605, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00063-6 Levinson Stephen C, 2012, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P103 Levinson S.C., 1992, TALK WORK INTERACTIO, P66 Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Mey J. L., 2001, PRAGMATICS INTRO PHILIPSEN G, 1975, Q J SPEECH, V61, P13 Pomerantz A., 2012, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P210, DOI DOI 10.1002/9781118325001.CH11 ROSALDO MZ, 1982, LANG SOC, V11, P203 Sanders RE, 2001, COMMUN THEOR, V11, P263, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00243.x [Anonymous], 2003, STUDIES LANGUAGE SOC Sanders Robert E., 1987, COGNITIVE FDN CALCUL Greene John O., 1997, ADV COMMUNICATION TH, P245 Sanders RE, 2013, PRAGMAT COGN, V21, P1, DOI 10.1075/pc.21.1.01san Sanders RE, 2012, DIALOGUE STUD, V15, P11 Sanders RE, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V48, P112, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.020 Schank R. C., 1977, SCRIPTS PLANS GOALS SCHEGLOFF EA, 1995, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V28, P185, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_2 SCHEGLOFF EA, 1988, J PRAGMATICS, V12, P55, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90019-7 Schegloff EA, 2009, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V42, P91, DOI 10.1080/08351810902864511 Scollon R., 1981, NARRATIVE LITERACY F Searle John R., 1983, INTENTIONALITY ESSAY, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139173452, DOI 10.1017/CB09781139173452, 10.1017/CB097S1139173452] Searle J. R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139173438, DOI 10.1017/CB09781139173438] SEARLE JR, 1976, LANG SOC, V5, P1 TAYLOR CE, 1995, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V28, P283, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_6 VARONIS EM, 1985, LANG SOC, V14, P327 Turner Ken, 2006, SEMANTICS MEETS PRAG WHALEN J, 1988, SOC PROBL, V35, P335, DOI 10.1525/sp.1988.35.4.03a00030 WITTGENSTEIN L., 1953, PHILOS INVESTIGATION NR 51 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 2 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1878-9714 EI 1878-9722 J9 PRAGMAT SOC JI Pragmat. Soc. PY 2015 VL 6 IS 4 BP 475 EP 501 DI 10.1075/ps.6.4.01san PG 27 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DB6DX UT WOS:000368604700001 ER PT J AU Issa, S AF Issa, Sadam TI A socio-pragmatic investigation of the persuasive strategies in "al-ittijah al-mu'akis" "The Opposite Direction" on Al-Jazeera TV SO PRAGMATICS AND SOCIETY LA English DT Article DE socio-pragmatics; religious appeal; politeness; rhetoric; proverbs; persuasion; deferential modes of address; Al-Jazeera AB This study is a socio-pragmatic analysis of persuasive strategies used by the participants in "al-ittijah al-mu'akis", "The Opposite Direction", on the Al-Jazeera TV channel. An ethnographic approach was adopted in the research; the analysis focused on the use of politeness strategies and face-saving and face-threatening interactions in order to find out their persuasive factors. I observe that religious citations, prophetic sayings, proverbs, and metaphor are used predominantly by the participants in communicating various political issues. I argue that the persuasiveness of these rhetorical strategies stems from their aesthetic influence in establishing moral credibility and in evoking emotional responses. I also argue that these rhetorical strategies are speech acts that indirectly provoke responses and/or aim at saving the speakers' and/or addressees' face. The study concludes that persuasiveness is facilitated in part by transferring socio-pragmatic meanings through the use of some politeness and figurative devices such as honorific modes, metaphors and proverbs. C1 [Issa, Sadam] Michigan State Univ, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA. RP Issa, S (reprint author), 2732 Trappers Cove Trail,Apt 3C, Lansing, MI 48910 USA. EM saddam_just2005@yahoo.com CR Abdulati Hammudah, 1975, ISLAM IN FOCUS Al-Khatib Mahmoud A, 1994, LANGUAGE CULTURE CUR, V7, P161 Austin J. L., 1962, DO THINGS WORDS Benjamin James, 1997, PRINCIPLES ELEMENTS Blom Jan-Petter, 1972, DIRECTIONS SOCIOLING, P407 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Brown Roger, 1978, WORDS THINGS INTRO L Caballero R, 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P145, DOI 10.1093/applin/24.2.145 Charteris-Black Jonathan, 1995, J MULTILING MULTICUL, V16, P259, DOI [10.1080/01434632.1995.9994606, DOI 10.1080/01434632.1995.9994606] Charteris-Black Jonathan, 2011, POLITICIANS RHETORIC, DOI [10.1057/9780230319899, DOI 10.1057/9780230319899] Gilbert M, 1997, COALESCENT ARGUMENTA Goffman Erving, 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL [Anonymous], 1964, LANGUAGE CULTURE SOC Ide Sachiko, 1972, DIRECTIONS SOCIOLING, P35 Ide S., 1989, MULTILINGUA, V2, P223, DOI 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223 Abuhakema Ghazi, 2012, AL ARABIYYA, V44-45, P65 Lakoff George, 1990, METAPHOR WAR METAPHO Lakoff G, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Lakoff R., 1982, ANAL DISCOURSE TEXT, P25 Lin Huey Hannah, 2005, THESIS OHIO STATE U Maingueneau D., 1991, ANAL DISCOURS INTRO Manolescu Beth Innocenti, 2006, ARGUMENTATION, V20, P327, DOI 10.1007/s10503-006-9016-9 May James M., 2002, BRILLS COMPANION CIC, P49, DOI [10.1163/9789047400936_004, DOI 10.1163/9789047400936_] MILLER GR, 1989, COMMUNIC, P45 Mio J. S., 1997, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V12, P113, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms1202_2 [Anonymous], 1997, TEXT Paulhan Jean, 1938, LES HAIN TENYS Richards I. A., 1936, PHILOS RHETORIC Roberts Rhys, RHETORIC 1, V2 SEARLE J., 1979, EXPRESSION MEANING S Searle J. R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139173438, DOI 10.1017/CB09781139173438] Walton D. N., 1992, PLACE EMOTION ARGUME Weigand Edda, 1998, DIALOGUE ANAL, V6, P36 Wolfson N, 1983, SOCIOLINGUISTICS LAN, P82 NR 34 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 2 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1878-9714 EI 1878-9722 J9 PRAGMAT SOC JI Pragmat. Soc. PY 2015 VL 6 IS 4 BP 517 EP 537 DI 10.1075/ps.6.4.03iss PG 21 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DB6DX UT WOS:000368604700003 ER PT J AU House, J AF House, Juliane TI Global English, discourse and translation Linking constructions in English and German popular science texts SO TARGET-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSLATION STUDIES LA English DT Article DE diachronic corpus study; parallel and comparative corpora; contrastive pragmatics; English-German contrastive discourse analysis; global English; linking constructions; impact of English on German discourse norms AB This paper first briefly discusses the relationship between comparative discourse analyses of original and translated texts as the basis for revealing the behavior of a particular linguistic phenomenon in context and use. Concretely, the paper examines how global English impacts on translations from English into German with regard to so-called `linking constructions,' a hitherto rather neglected area of connectivity in discourse. The analysis focusses on the forms, functions, distribution, and the translation equivalents in parallel and comparable corpora. Results indicate that the use of linking constructions differs substantially in English and German discourse, and these differences may well block English influence on German discourse norms via translation. C1 [House, Juliane] Univ Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. [House, Juliane] Hellenic Amer Univ, Athens, Greece. RP House, J (reprint author), Lagerlofstr 25, D-22391 Hamburg, Germany. EM jhouse@fastmail.fm CR Aijmer Karin, 1989, NORD J LINGUIST, V12, P137, DOI 10.1017/S033258650000202X Bateson G., 1972, STEPS ECOLOGY MIND Baumgarten Nicole, 2004, MULTILINGUAL COMMUNI, P63, DOI [10.1075/hsm.3.05bau, DOI 10.1075/HSM.3.05BAU] Becher Viktor, 2011, THESIS Becher Victor, 2009, CONVERGENCE DIVERGEN, P125, DOI DOI 10.1075/HSM.8.06BEC Bell DM, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P915, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.007 Buhrig Kristin, 2007, CONNECTIVITY GRAMMAR, P345, DOI DOI 10.1075/HSM.5.20BUH Buhrig Kristin, 2004, MULTILINGUAL COMMUNI, P87, DOI DOI 10.1075/HSM.3.06BUH Chafe W. L., 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC, P25 Doherty Monika, 2003, LANGUAGES CONTRAST, V3, P223, DOI [10.1075/lic.3.2.05doh, DOI 10.1075/LIC.3.2.05DOH] Ehlich K., 1982, SPEECH PLACE ACTION, P315 Frey W, 2005, LINGUISTICS, V43, P89, DOI 10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.89 Goffman E., 1974, FRAME ANAL Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511611834, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511611834] Haegeman L, 2009, ROUT STUD GERMAN LIN, V12, P331 Halliday M. A. K., 1970, NEW HORIZON LINGUIST, P140 Hawkins John A, 1986, COMP TYPOLOGY ENGLIS House Juliane, 2011, MULTILINGUAL DISCOUR, P163, DOI DOI 10.1075/HSM.12.08HOU House Juliane, 2014, TRANSLATIONSWISSENSC, P155 House Juliane, 2012, HDB TRANSLATION STUD, V3, P178, DOI [10.1075/hts.3.tex1, DOI 10.1075/HTS.3.TEX1] House J., 1997, TRANSLATION QUALITY House J., 2003, MISUNDERSTANDING SOC, P22 House J., 2009, TRANSLATION House J., 1977, MODEL TRANSLATION QU House J., 1996, CONTRASTIVE SOCIOLIN, P345 House J., 2006, EUROPEAN J ENGLISH S, V10, P249, DOI 10.1080/13825570600967721 House Juliane, 2014, TRANSLATION QUALITY House J, 2003, J SOCIOLING, V7, P556, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2003.00242.x House J, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P338, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.021 House Juliane, 2010, GLOBALIZATION DISCOU, P61 Kranich Svenja, 2010, C NEW CHALL MULT EUR Kranich Svenja, 2011, LANGAGE SOC, V137, P115, DOI [10.3917/ls.137.0115, DOI 10.3917/LS.137.0115] Kranich S, 2012, HAMB STUD MULTILING, V13, P315 Kuppers Anne, 2008, ARBEITEN MEHRSPRACHI, V87 PRINCE EF, 1985, J PRAGMATICS, V9, P65, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(85)90048-7 Probst Julia, 2009, THESIS Probst Julia, 2001, COMUNICARE AMBIENTE, P263 Rehbein Jochen, 1995, WEGE ARGUMENTATIONSF, P166 Schmid Monika, 1999, TRANSLATING ELUSIVE, DOI [10.1075/btl.36, DOI 10.1075/BTL.36] Shaer B, 2009, ROUT STUD GERMAN LIN, V12, P366 Siepmann D., 2005, DISCOURSE MARKERS LA Tannen Deborah, 1993, FRAMING DISCOURSE Widdowson H. G., 2007, DISCOURSE ANAL ZIV Y, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V22, P629, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90033-7 NR 44 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 1 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0924-1884 EI 1569-9986 J9 TARGET-NETH JI Target PY 2015 VL 27 IS 3 BP 370 EP 386 DI 10.1075/target.27.3.03hou PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DB1FI UT WOS:000368253100004 ER PT J AU Siemund, P AF Siemund, Peter TI Exclamative clauses in English and their relevance for theories of clause types SO STUDIES IN LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE exclamative clauses; clause types; clause type systems; English; corpus analysis; usage AB In the present study, I investigate the grammar and usage of English exclamative clauses of the type What a wonderful journey this is! and How wonderful this journey is! Building on existing research, I argue that the exclamative clause type can be motivated both syntactically and semantically/pragmatically. In the main part of my study, I offer a usage-based analysis of English exclamative clauses drawing on data from the British National Corpus and the International Corpus of English, British Component. I consider 703 tokens of what-exclamatives and 645 tokens of how-exclamatives. My analysis reveals that English exclamatives typically occur in reduced form lacking an overt verbal predicate, i.e. What a wonderful journey! or How wonderful! I provide an explanation for the predominance of reduced forms based on the semantico-pragmatic properties of exclamations. Moreover, I argue that the usage properties of exclamatives render it a marginal clause type, as it is highly infrequent and predominantly appears in non-clausal forms. Usage data point to a cline of clause types as the more appropriate approximation of reality instead of the familiar distinction between major and minor clause types. C1 [Siemund, Peter] Univ Hamburg, Dept English & Amer Studies, D-22587 Hamburg, Germany. [Siemund, Peter] Univ Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada. RP Siemund, P (reprint author), Univ Hamburg, Dept English & Amer Studies, Von Melle Pk 6, D-22587 Hamburg, Germany. EM peter.siemund@uni-hamburg.de CR AKMAJIAN A, 1984, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V2, P1 Allan, 2006, LANG SCI, V28, P1, DOI [10.1016/j.langsci.2004.12.001, DOI 10.1016/J.LANGSCI.2004.12.001] Alston William, 2000, ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS S Bolinger D, 1957, PUBLICATIONS AM DIAL, V28 Bolinger Dwight L., 1972, DEGREE WORDS, DOI [10.1515/9783110877786, DOI 10.1515/9783110877786] Bolinger D., 1989, INTONATION ITS USES Collins P, 2005, WORD, V56, P1 Croft W., 1994, FDN SPEECH ACT THEOR, P460 David FJ, 2002, THEOR LINGUIST, V28, P5, DOI 10.1515/thli.2002.28.1.5 ELLIOTT DE, 1974, FOUND LANG, V11, P231 Evans Nicholas, 2007, FINITENESS THEORETIC, P366 Gerald Gazdar, 1981, ELEMENTS DISCOURSE U, P64 Goldberg Adele E., 2006, CONSTRUCTIONS WORK N Gordon David, 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P83 GRIMSHAW J, 1979, LINGUIST INQ, V10, P279 Harnish Robert M., 1994, FDN SPEECH ACT THEOR, P407 HUDDLESTON R, 1993, LINGUA, V90, P259, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(93)90025-R HUDDLESTON R, 1993, LINGUA, V91, P175, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(93)90012-L Huddleston Rodney, 2002, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Konig Ekkehard, 2007, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SY, P276 Konig Ekkehard, 2013, SATZTYPEN DTSCH, P846 Levinson Stephen, 2012, HDB CONVERSATION ANA Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS McCawley Noriko, 1973, BOY IS SYNTAX EASY, V9, P369 Meibauer Jorg, 2013, SATZTYPEN DTSCH, P712, DOI [10.1515/9783110224832, DOI 10.1515/9783110224832] Merchant J., 2001, SYNTAX SILENCE SLUIC Michaelis Laura A, 2001, LANGUAGE UNIVERSALS, P1038 Michaelis Laura A., 1996, CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE, P375 Ono Hajime, 2006, INVESTIGATION EXCLAM Panther Klaus-Uwe, 2008, ANN REV COGNITIVE LI, V6, P83, DOI [10.1075/arcl.6.05pan, DOI 10.1075/ARCL.6.05PAN] Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA RECANATI E, 1987, MEANING AND FORCE Reis M., 1999, INTERDISCIPLINARY J, V4, P195 Rosengren Inger, 1992, SATZ UND ILLOKUTION, DOI [10.1515/9783111353210, DOI 10.1515/9783111353210] [Anonymous], 1992, SATZ ILLOKUTION Sadock J. M., 1985, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SY, P155 van Craenenbroeck J, 2013, CAMBRIDGE HANDBOOK OF GENERATIVE SYNTAX, P701 Van der Auwera Johan, OXFORD HDB MODALITY Verstraete Jean-Christophe, 2007, RETHINKING COORDINAT, DOI [10.1515/9783110918199, DOI 10.1515/9783110918199] Zanuttini R, 2003, LANGUAGE, V79, P39, DOI 10.1353/lan.2003.0105 NR 40 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-4177 J9 STUD LANG JI Stud. Lang. PY 2015 VL 39 IS 3 BP 697 EP 727 DI 10.1075/sl.39.3.06sie PG 31 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DB2IK UT WOS:000368331300007 ER PT J AU Iwasaki, S AF Iwasaki, Shoichi TI Animacy and differential subject marking in the Ikema dialect of Miyako SO STUDIES IN LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE animacy hierarchy; differential subject marking; genitive/associative; case marking; addressability ID ERGATIVITY AB Ikema is a dialect of the Miyako language of Ryukyu, Japan and is endangered. It is remotely related to Japanese, but unlike Japanese it shows a differential-subject marking based on the animacy feature of the subject noun. The pronoun and personal names are invariably marked by ga, while inanimate nouns are marked by nu. All human common nouns are also marked by nu, but a subset of this category can be marked by ga. In this paper, I propose to employ the socio-pragmatic notion of addressability, or the noun's potential to be used as an address term, to classify human nouns into two subtypes for case marking, "Dad, can you help me?". C1 [Iwasaki, Shoichi] Univ Hawaii Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA. [Iwasaki, Shoichi] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Asian Languages & Cultures, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA. RP Iwasaki, S (reprint author), Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Asian Languages & Cultures, 290 Royce Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA. EM iwasaki@humnet.ucla.edu CR Aoki Reiko, 1952, KOKUGO KOKUBUNGAKU, V29, P49 Bernard Comrie, 1981, LANGUAGE UNIVERSALS Croft William, 2003, TYPOLOGY UNIVERSALS DELANCEY S, 1981, LANGUAGE, V57, P626, DOI 10.2307/414343 Dixon R M W, 1976, GRAMMATICAL CATEGORI DUBOIS JW, 1987, LANGUAGE, V63, P805 Ichiro Handa, 1999, RYUKYUGO JITEN NAHA Hayashi Yuka, 2013, MINAMI RYUKYU MIYAKO Heinrich Patrick, 2015, HDB RYUKYUAN LANGUAG Hirasawa Yoichi, 1985, OKINAWA BUNKA KENKYU, V11, P245 Ikei Fumio, 2005, SHIMA NI IKITE KISEK Silverstein Michael, 1976, GRAMMATICAL CATEGORI, P112 Iwasaki Shoichi, 2015, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V22, P165 Shoichi Iwasaki, 2011, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V19, P351 Jenny M, 2013, STUD LANG, V37, P693, DOI 10.1075/sl.37.4.01jen Karimata Shigehisa, 2011, NIHONGO KENKYUU, V7, P69 Malchukov AL, 2008, LINGUA, V118, P203, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005 Mallinson G., 1981, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY CR Mithun Marianne, 1999, LANGUAGES NATIVE AM Mohanan Tara, 1994, ARGUMENT STRUCTURE H Niinaga Yuto, 2014, THESIS U TOKYO TOKYO Ono T., 2000, DISCOURSE STUDIES, V2, P55, DOI DOI 10.1177/1461445600002001003 Serafim Leon, 2003, PERSPECTIVES ORIGINS, P463 Shibata Takeshi, 1976, OKINAWA KEN HIRARA S Shimoji Michinori, 2010, INTRO RYUKYUAN LANGU Shimoji Michinori, 2008, GRAMMAR IRABU SO RYU Shinzato Rumiko, 2013, SYNCHRONY DIACHRONY Strom Clay, 1992, RETUARA SYNTAX Suzuki Takao, 1978, WORDS IN CONTEXT Yoshio Togo, 1968, KOKUGOGAKU, V75 Sadayoshi Tomihama, 2013, MIYAKO IRABU HOGEN J Chokujin Uchima, 1985, OKINAWA BUNKA KENKYU, V11, P223 Yoshio Yamada, 1954, NARACHOO BUNPOOSHI NR 33 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-4177 J9 STUD LANG JI Stud. Lang. PY 2015 VL 39 IS 3 BP 753 EP 777 DI 10.1075/sl.39.3.08iwa PG 25 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA DB2IK UT WOS:000368331300009 ER PT J AU Cheng, J AF Cheng, Jie TI On syntactic intervention in Chinese denominal verbs A diachronic perspective SO DIACHRONICA LA English DT Article DE Chinese; denominal verb; zero category; morphology; syntax ID IMPOSSIBLE WORDS AB The derivation of Chinese denominal verbs has undergone a diachronic shift from freedom in Archaic Chinese to restriction in Post-Archaic Chinese. While denominal verbs in Archaic Chinese can be conveniently accommodated in a pragmatic account, those in Post-Archaic Chinese only yield to a syntactic account. The diachronic shift has arguably resulted from syntactic intervention: only those denominal verbs in Archaic Chinese that can possibly be derived in syntax have survived into Post-Archaic Chinese. In support of this hypothesis is the fact that the prefix *s- and qu sheng bie yi ("falling tone for sense distinction"), responsible for verbalization of nouns in Archaic Chinese, have ceased to operate and given way to zero categories in Post-Archaic Chinese, and the denominal verbs in Post-Archaic Chinese exhibit transparent semantic structures. These findings support the general view about the lexicon-syntax interface that word formation should not be reduced to either the lexicon or syntax alone. C1 [Cheng, Jie] S China Normal Univ, Guangzhou 510631, Guangdong, Peoples R China. RP Cheng, J (reprint author), S China Normal Univ, Sch Foreign Studies, 55 Zhongshan Dadao West, Guangzhou 510631, Guangdong, Peoples R China. EM chengjie@m.scnu.edu.cn FU Chinese National Philosophy and Social Sciences Foundation [12BYY006]; China Scholarship Council [201308440003] FX The research reported here has been supported by the Chinese National Philosophy and Social Sciences Foundation under grant 12BYY006 and by the China Scholarship Council under grant 201308440003. CR Arad Maya, 2003, RECHERCHES LINGUISTI, V32, P83, DOI [10.4000/rlv.467, DOI 10.4000/RLV.467] Arad M, 2003, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V21, P737, DOI 10.1023/A:1025533719905 Baker M., 1997, ELEMENTS GRAMMAR, P73 Mark Baker, 1988, INCORPORATION Baxter W.H., 1998, NEW APPROACHES CHINE, P35 Borer Hagit, 2005, STRUCTURING SENSE, VII, DOI [10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001, DOI 10.1093/ACPR0F:0S0/9780199263929.001.0001] Borer Hagit, 2005, STRUCTURING SENSE Tai James H-Y., 1995, NACCL N AM C CHIN LI, V6, P49 Lasnik Howard, PARAMETRIC VAR UNPUB Chomsky Noam, 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM Chomsky Noam, 1981, LECT GOVT BINDING PI Chomsky Noam, 1970, READINGS ENGLISH TRA, P184 CLARK EV, 1979, LANGUAGE, V55, P767, DOI 10.2307/412745 Deng Ming, 2011, YUWEN YANJIU, V2, P35 Williams Edwin, 1987, DEFINITION WORD Don Jan, 2005, MORPHOLOGY LINGUISTI, V4, P91 Dong Xiufang, 2002, CIHUIHUA HANYU SHUAN Dowty David R., 1979, WORD MEANING MONTAGU, DOI [10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7, DOI 10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7] Feng Shengli, 2005, YUYAN KEXUE, V1, P3 Feng Shengli, 2014, HDB CHINESE LINGUIST, P537 Packard Jerome L., 1998, NEW APPROACHES CHINE, P197 Fodor J, 1999, LINGUIST INQ, V30, P445, DOI 10.1162/002438999554138 Folli R, 2006, STUD LINGUISTICA, V60, P121, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2006.00135.x Givon Talmy, 1984, SYNTAX FUNCTIONAL TY, DOI [10.1075/z.17, DOI 10.1075/Z.17] Hale K, 1999, LINGUIST INQ, V30, P453, DOI 10.1162/002438999554147 Hale Kenneth, 1997, COMPLEX PREDICATES, P29 Hale Ken, 2002, PROLEGOMENON THEORY Hale K., 1993, VIEW BUILDING, P53 Harley H., 2009, OXFORD HDB COMPOUNDI, P129 Harley Heidi, 2005, SYNTAX ASPECT, P42 Huang C-T.J., 1997, CHINESE LANGUAGES LI, V3, P45 Jackendoff R., 1972, SEMANTIC INTERPRETAT Jin Haiqiang, 2011, GU JIN HANYU MINGCI Jin Wen, 2011, NACCL N AM C CHIN LI, V23, P35 Lapointe Steve, 1980, THESIS U MASSACHUSET LARSON RK, 1988, LINGUIST INQ, V19, P335 Levin B., 2005, ARGUMENT REALIZATION, P154, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09780511610479.007 Li Zuofeng, 2005, GUDAI HANYU YUFA XUE Lieber R., 1992, DECONSTRUCTING MORPH Lin T. -H. J., 2001, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Marantz Alec, 1997, U PENNSYLVANIA WORKI, V4, P201 Mateu J., 2002, THEORETICAL APPROACH, P211 Mei T., 1989, P 2 INT C SIN SECT L, P33 Mei Tsu-Lin, 2008, MINZU YUWEN, P3 Mei T., 1980, ZHONGGUO YUWEN, V6, P427 Mei TL, 2012, LANG LINGUIST-TAIWAN, V13, P1 Pesetsky D., 1995, ZERO SYNTAX EXPERIEN Peyraube Alain, 1996, NEW HORIZONS CHINESE, P161, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-94-009-1608-1_6 Reinhart T, 2005, LINGUIST INQ, V36, P389, DOI 10.1162/0024389054396881 Rothstein S., 2004, STRUCTURING EVENTS S Sagart Laurent, 1999, ROOTS OLD CHINESE, DOI [10.1075/cilt.184, DOI 10.1075/CILT.184] Baxter William H., 2012, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V1, P29 Sanders Gerald, 1988, THEORETICAL MORPHOLO, P155 Schuessler Axel, 2007, ABC ETYMOLOGICAL DIC Selkirk E., 1982, SYNTAX WORDS Shen Jiaxuan, 2010, DANGDAI XIUCI XUE, V1, P1 Shen L, 2004, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V13, P141, DOI 10.1023/B:JEAL.0000019115.71381.48 Shi Yuzhi, 2002, ESTABLISHMENT MODERN, DOI [10.1075/slcs.59, DOI 10.1075/SLCS.59] Shu Zhiwu, 2002, YUYAN YANJIU, V4, P54 Song Yuwen, 1992, HUBEI DAXUE XUEBAO, V6, P75 Speas Margaret J., 1990, PHRASE STRUCTURE NAT, DOI [10.1007/978-94-009-2045-3, DOI 10.1007/978-94-009-2045-3] Tai James H-Y., 1983, ANN M LING SOC AM MI Tai James H-Y., 1997, CHINESE LANGUAGES LI, V3, P435 Travis Lisa, 1984, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE Vendler Z., 1967, LINGUISTICS PHILOS Wang Kezhong, 1989, GU HANYU CILEI HUOYO Wang Li, 1981, GUDAI HANYU He Daan, 2003, GUJIN TONG SE HANYU, P75 Zhao Zongyi, 1995, BEIFANG LUNCONG, V5, P82 NR 69 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 5 U2 6 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0176-4225 EI 1569-9714 J9 DIACHRONICA JI Diachronica PY 2015 VL 32 IS 3 BP 293 EP 330 DI 10.1075/dia.32.3.01che PG 38 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CY1OH UT WOS:000366176400001 ER PT J AU Lee, J AF Lee, Jieun TI Evaluation of court interpreting A case study of metadiscourse in interpreter-mediated expert witness examinations SO INTERPRETING LA English DT Article DE court interpreting; expert witness; evaluation; metadiscourse; stance ID PARTICIPANT ROLES; STANCE; DISCOURSE; TRANSLATION; IDENTITY; PRAGMATICS; LANGUAGE; ARGUMENT; TEXTS; ICTY AB The present paper examines the metadiscourse of court interpreting, with a focus on the evaluative language used in relation to interpreting of expert witness testimony. The study explores interactional resources such as hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers, employed by participants in the interpreter-mediated South Korean courtroom examinations of three English-speaking expert witnesses. Extracts analysed for this paper, involving a total of four interpreters, are taken from two court cases (four extracts each from a civil case, featuring experienced conference interpreters, and a criminal case, with unskilled interpreters). In courtroom settings, where the interpretation of expert testimony is frequently contested, this study demonstrates metadiscursive representation of stance management during professional communication, which is closely linked with facework and rapport management. The analysis indicates that hedging is far more frequently used than boosters, and that various attitude markers and engagement markers are used in evaluating interpretations and ensuring their accuracy. Legal professionals and interpreters alike display their evaluative, affective and epistemic orientation in the interdisciplinary professional discourse, and personal interaction, of the courtroom examinations analysed here. C1 [Lee, Jieun] Ewha Womans Univ, Grad Sch Translat & Interpretat, Seoul 120750, South Korea. RP Lee, J (reprint author), Ewha Womans Univ, Grad Sch Translat & Interpretat, 52 Ewhayeodaegil Seodaemungu, Seoul 120750, South Korea. EM jieun.lee@ewha.ac.kr CR Ahn J., 2009, HANKWUK SACENHAK, V14, P199 An Yoon Mi, 2013, [Korean Semantics, 한국어 의미학], V41, P79 Angermeyer P., 2005, TARGET, V17, P203, DOI 10.1075/target.17.2.02ang Angermeyer PS, 2009, J SOCIOLING, V13, P3, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00394.x Biber D, 1989, TEXT, V9, P93, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 Bondi M., 2003, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V2, P269, DOI [10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00045-6, DOI 10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00045-6] Bucholtz M, 2005, DISCOURSE STUD, V7, P585, DOI 10.1177/1461445605054407 CRISMORE A, 1993, WRIT COMMUN, V10, P39, DOI 10.1177/0741088393010001002 de Jongh E., 2012, CLASSROOM COURTROOM, DOI [10.1075/ata.xvii, DOI 10.1075/ATA.XVII] Diriker E., 2009, HERMES, V42, P71 Diriker E., 2004, DER C INT INT IV TOW, DOI [10.1075/btl.53, DOI 10.1075/BTL.53] Elias-Bursac E, 2012, TRANSL INTERPRET STU, V7, P34, DOI 10.1075/tis.7.1.03eli Englebretson R., 2007, STANCETAKING DISCOUR, P1, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.164.02ENG Goffman E., 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL E Gonzalez R. D., 2012, FUNDAMENTALS COURT I Hale Sandra, 2004, DISCOURSE COURT INTE, DOI [10.1075/btl.52, DOI 10.1075/BTL.52] Halliday Michael A. K., 1994, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA Hepburn P, 2012, TRANSL INTERPRET STU, V7, P54, DOI 10.1075/tis.7.1.04hep Hlavac J, 2010, INTERPRETING, V12, P186, DOI 10.1075/intp.12.2.04hla Hobbs Pamela, 2002, INT J SEMIOTICS LAW, V15, P411, DOI 10.1023/A:1021211730968 Klaus Holker, 1991, LEXIKON ROMANISTISCH, V1, P77 Hyland K., 1998, J BUS COMMUN, V35, P224, DOI 10.1177/002194369803500203 Hyland K, 2005, DISCOURSE STUD, V7, P173, DOI 10.1177/146144560505050365 Hyland K, 2004, APPL LINGUIST, V25, P156, DOI 10.1093/applin/25.2.156 Ifantidou E, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1325, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.006 Jacobsen B, 2008, INTERPRETING, V10, P128, DOI 10.1075/intp.10.1.08jac Joo K., 2000, KWUKEKWUMWUNHAK, V126, P75 Luzon MJ, 2012, TEXT TALK, V32, P145, DOI 10.1515/text-2012-0008 JUCKER AH, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P435, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9 Karkkainen Elise, 2003, EPISTEMIC STANCE ENG, DOI [10.1075/pbns.115, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.115] Karkkainen Elise, 2007, STANCETAKING DISCOUR, P183, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.164.08KAR Karkkainen E, 2006, TEXT TALK, V26, P699, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2006.029 Kim H., 2011, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V52, P25 Lee H., 1999, TAMWHAWA INCI, V6, P137 Lee J., 2015, INT J SEMIOTICS LAW, V28, P189, DOI [10.1007/s11196-013-9346-5, DOI 10.1007/S11196-013-9346-5] Lee J., 2011, PENYEKHAKYENKWU, V12, P197 Lee J, 2014, J REFUG STUD, V27, P62, DOI 10.1093/jrs/fet007 Lee J, 2013, PERSPECT STUD TRANSL, V21, P82, DOI 10.1080/0907676X.2011.629729 Lee J, 2009, APPL LINGUIST, V30, P93, DOI 10.1093/applin/amn050 Leung ESM, 2008, MULTILINGUA, V27, P177, DOI 10.1515/MULTI.2008.010 Locher Miriam A., 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P9, DOI DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2005.1.1.9 Luuka M. R., 1994, TEXT TALK PROFESSION, P77 Lyons J, 1977, SEMANTICS, V2 Maley Y., 2000, DISCOURSE SOCIAL LIF, P246 Martin J. R., 2005, LANGUAGE EVALUATION Martinsen B, 2010, INTERPRETING, V12, P21, DOI 10.1075/intp.12.1.02mar Matoesian GM, 1999, LANG SOC, V28, P491 Matoesian G, 2008, SEMIOTICA, V171, P15, DOI 10.1515/SEMI.2008.066 Mauranen A., 2003, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V2, P269, DOI DOI 10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00045-6 McEntee-Atalianis LJ, 2013, DISCOURSE COMMUN, V7, P319, DOI 10.1177/1750481313494498 Miguelez C, 2001, TRIADIC EXCHANGES: STUDIES IN DIALOGUE INTERPRETING, P3 Monacelli C., 2009, SELF PRESERVATION SI, DOI [10.1075/btl.84, DOI 10.1075/BTL.84] Moreno AI, 2008, TEXT TALK, V28, P749, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2008.038 [Anonymous], 1999, TRANSLATOR Querol-Julian M, 2012, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V31, P271, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2012.06.001 Shuy R., 2006, LINGUISTICS COURTROO SpencerOatey H, 2009, RES PRACT APPL LINGU, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230244511 Spencer-Oatey Helen, 2008, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P11 Stern P. J., LOST TRANSLATION DEA Stygall G., 2001, DISCOURSE STUDIES, V3, P327, DOI DOI 10.1177/1461445601003003004 Thompson Geoff, 2000, EVALUATION TEXT AUTH, P1 Tracy K, 2011, DISCOURSE COMMUN, V5, P65, DOI 10.1177/1750481310390167 VANDEKOPPLE WJ, 1985, COLL COMPOS COMMUN, V36, P82 Wadensjo C., 1998, INTERPRETING INTERAC Wharton S, 2012, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V31, P261, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2012.05.005 Winiecki D, 2008, DISCOURSE SOC, V19, P765, DOI 10.1177/0957926508095892 Yu K., 2008, TAMHWAWA INCI, V15, P89 NR 67 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 3 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1384-6647 EI 1569-982X J9 INTERPRETING JI Interpreting PY 2015 VL 17 IS 2 BP 167 EP 194 DI 10.1075/intp.17.2.02lee PG 28 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CW6LM UT WOS:000365109000002 ER PT J AU Ozerov, P AF Ozerov, Pavel TI Information structure without topic and focus Differential Object Marking in Burmese SO STUDIES IN LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE Information structure; pragmatics; Differential Case Marking; Differential Object Marking; Burmese; Myanmar language; focus; topic ID ENGLISH AB Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Burmese is usually analysed as directly related to the expression of information structure. Yet, this corpus-based study of DOM and the associated prosody finds that DOM is not based on information structure alone, but is also additionally motivated by discourse structure and content management. The suggested analysis proposes that DOM in Burmese provides a grammatical structure of information packaging: a system of separating information into units (packages) and establishing relations between them. Different configurations of packaging are employed to create an array of context-dependent interpretive effects related to information structure, discourse structure, and other factors. Hence, it is argued that information structure is not directly expressed in the language. Instead, it stems from an interpretation of the interplay between information packaging and various pragmatic-semantic factors, and is but one of the possible effects created by packaging. C1 [Ozerov, Pavel] La Trobe Univ, Bundoora, Vic 3086, Australia. RP Ozerov, P (reprint author), La Trobe Univ, Dept Linguist, RCLD, Bldg NR6, Bundoora, Vic 3086, Australia. EM pavel.ozerov1@gmail.com FU La Trobe University FX This study forms a part of a larger body of research on Information Packaging in Burmese, carried out for a PhD dissertation and supported by a scholarship from La Trobe University. I am grateful to David Bradley for his supervision of the research and to Birgit Hellwig, Stefan Schnell, Linda Konnerth, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on the earlier drafts of this paper. Thanks also go to Alice Vittrant for sharing her data with me, Myo Tha Htet for allowing me to use his personal blog for the study, and to Sabai Hlaing for her help and contributions to the corpus. CR Allott Anna J., 1965, LINGUA, V15, P283, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(65)90016-1 Beckman M. E., 1986, PHONOLOGY YB, V3, P255, DOI [10.1017/S095267570000066X, DOI 10.1017/S095267570000066X] Weenink David, 2013, PRAART VERSION 5 3 5 BOLINGER D, 1972, LANGUAGE, V48, P633, DOI 10.2307/412039 Chafe W., 1994, DISCOURSE CONSCIOUSN HEUSINGER KLAUS VON, 2010, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V2, P298, DOI DOI 10.1163/187731010X528377 Dalrymple Mary, 2011, OBJECTS INFORM STRUC, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511993473, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511993473] DELIN J, 1995, LINGUISTICS, V33, P465, DOI 10.1515/ling.1995.33.3.465 Downing L., 2008, ZAS PAPERS LINGUISTI, V49, P47 Erteschik-Shir Nomi, 2007, INFORM STRUCTURE SYN Gundel Jeanette, 1988, STUDIES SYNTACTIC TY, P209, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.17.16GUN Heim Irene, 1983, MEANING USE INTERPRE, P303 Di Cristo A., 1998, INTONATION SYSTEMS S Jacobs J, 2001, LINGUISTICS, V39, P641, DOI 10.1515/ling.2001.027 Jacobs Joachim, 1999, FOCUS LINGUISTIC COG, P56 Jenny Mathias, 2009, WORKSH CAS LANG U HE Jenny M, 2013, STUD LANG, V37, P693, DOI 10.1075/sl.37.4.01jen Kadmon Nirit, 2010, BALTIC INT YB COGNIT, V6, DOI [10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1585, DOI 10.4148/BIYCLC.V6I0.1585] Kanerva J. M., 1990, FOCUS PHRASING CHICH Katz J, 2011, LANGUAGE, V87, P771 Kiss KE, 1998, LANGUAGE, V74, P245, DOI 10.2307/417867 Krifka Manfred, 2008, C CONTR INF STRUCT A Lambrecht Knud, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511620607, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620607] Malchukov AL, 2008, LINGUA, V118, P203, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005 Matic D, 2013, J LINGUIST, V49, P127, DOI 10.1017/S0022226712000345 Prince E., 1981, SYNTAX SEMANTICS RAD, V14, P223 Reinhart T., 1981, PHILOSOPHICA, V27, P53 Roberts C, 1996, PAPERS SEMANTICS, V49, P91 Rooth Mats, 1992, NAT LANG SEMANT, V1, P75, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF02342617 Sawada Hideo, 1995, SENRI ETHNOLOGICAL S, V41, P153 Schnell Stefan, P INT WORKSH INF STR Selkirk E, 2005, PHONOL PHONET, V9, P11, DOI 10.1515/9783110197587.1.11 Simpson Andrew, 2006, PACIFIC LINGUISTICS, V570, P27 Skopeteas S, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P1370, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.012 Soe Myint, 1999, A GRAMMAR OF BURMESE Tao Hongyin, 1996, UNITS MANDARIN CONVE, DOI [10.1075/sidag.5, DOI 10.1075/SIDAG.5] Thurgood Graham, 1978, P 4 ANN M BERK LING, P254 VALLDUVI E, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V22, P573, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90031-0 Vallduvi E, 1996, LINGUISTICS, V34, P459, DOI 10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.459 Velleman D., 2012, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, V22, P441 Vittrant Alice, 2004, THESIS Wheatley Julian K., 1982, BURMESE GRAMMATICAL NR 42 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 3 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-4177 J9 STUD LANG JI Stud. Lang. PY 2015 VL 39 IS 2 BP 386 EP 423 DI 10.1075/sl.39.2.04oze PG 38 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CW9ME UT WOS:000365322000004 ER PT J AU De Kind, J Dom, S de Schryver, GM Bostoen, K AF De Kind, Jasper Dom, Sebastian de Schryver, Gilles-Maurice Bostoen, Koen TI Event-centrality and the pragmatics-semantics interface in Kikongo: From predication focus to progressive aspect and vice versa SO FOLIA LINGUISTICA HISTORICA LA English DT Article DE event-centrality; predication focus; progressive aspect; fronted-infinitive construction; locative-infinitive construction; Kikongo; Bantu ID LANGUAGES AB Across Bantu, several polysemic markers expressing progressive aspect and so-called predication focus have been reported (Guldemann 2003; Hyman and Watters 1984). In this article, we examine two such markers in Kikongo (Bantu, H16), i.e. the fronted-infinitive and the locative-infinitive constructions. We provide an in-depth synchronic description of the pragmatic and syntactic behaviour of both verbal constructions and suggest a historical evolution for each of them. We evoke the term 'event-centrality' to cover the different uses of both constructions and suggest that the fronted-infinitive construction's progressive meaning evolved from its use as predication focus marker, and vice versa, that the locative-infinitive construction's predication focus meaning evolved from its use as a progressive marker. C1 [De Kind, Jasper; Dom, Sebastian; de Schryver, Gilles-Maurice; Bostoen, Koen] Univ Ghent, KongoKing Res Grp, Dept Languages & Cultures, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. [de Schryver, Gilles-Maurice] Univ Pretoria, ZA-0002 Pretoria, South Africa. [Bostoen, Koen] Univ Libre Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. RP De Kind, J (reprint author), Univ Ghent, KongoKing Res Grp, Dept Languages & Cultures, Rozier 44, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. EM jasper.dekind@ugent.be RI de Schryver, Gilles-Maurice/D-4740-2011 FU FWO fellowship; European Research Council through a Starting Grant (KongoKing) [284126]; Special Research Fund of Ghent University FX The PhD research of the first two authors is funded through an FWO fellowship. The research of the last two authors is funded by the European Research Council through a Starting Grant (KongoKing, Grant No. 284126) and by the Special Research Fund of Ghent University. CR Antonio Diogo, PROVERBIOS KIKONGO Baka Jean, 1992, ESSAI DESCRIPTION TS Baptist Missionary Society, 1916, LUW LUANK NKAND MIA Bastin Yvonne, 1989, ESTUDIOS AFRICANOS, V4, P35 Bastin Yvonne, 1989, ESTUDIOS AFRICANOS, V4, P61 Bearth Thomas, 2003, BANTU LANGUAGES, P121 Bentley William, 1887, DICT GRAMMAR KONGO L Bittremieux Leo, 1923, MAYOMBSCH IDIOTICON Bontinck Francois, 1978, CATECHISME KIKONGO 1 Bostoen K, 2015, DIACHRONICA, V32, P139, DOI 10.1075/dia.32.2.01bos Bostoen K, 2012, SO AFR LINGUIST APPL, V30, P139, DOI 10.2989/16073614.2012.737588 Bouka Leonce Yembi, 1989, ELEMENTS DESCRIPTION Bowern C, 2007, LINGUISTIC FIELDWORK: A PRACTICAL GUIDE, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230590168 Bybee Joan L., 1994, EVOLUTION GRAMMAR TE BYBEE JL, 1989, STUD LANG, V13, P51, DOI 10.1075/sl.13.1.03byb Cardoso Mattheus, 1624, DOVTRINA CHRISTAA SI Coene Alfons, 1960, KIKONGO NOTIONS GRAM Cuenot F., 1776, ESSAI GRAMMAIR UNPUB Cysouw M, 2013, LANGUAGE DOCUMENTATI, V7, P331 De Clercq Louis, 1920, EVANZELI ISANTU PFUM De Clercq L., 1921, GRAMMAIRE DU KIYOMBE De Kind Jasper, 2014, ZAS PAPERS LINGUISTI, V57, P95 Grollemund Rebecca, 2015, AFRICANA LINGUISTICA, P21 Dik Simon C., 1997, THEORY FUNCTIONAL 1 Dom Sebastian, 2015, AFRICANA LINGUISTICA, P21 Evans N, 2003, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V32, P13, DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093137 Geeraerts Dirk, 1997, DIACHRONIC PROTOTYPE Gottschligg Peter, 1992, KOMP AFRIKANISTIK, P151 Gregoire Claire, 1975, LOCATIFS BANTU Guldemann Tom, 2003, STUD LANG, V27, P323 Guldemann Tom, 2010, INT C SFB 632 INF ST Guthrie Malcolm, 1971, COMP BANTU INTRO COM, V2 Hadermann Pascale, 1996, STUDIES AFRICAN LING, V25, P155 Hopper Paul J., 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, V1, P17 Horn L. R., 1989, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Hyman Larry M., 1984, STUDIES AFRICAN LING, V15, P233 Kiefer Ferenc, 1994, TENSE ASPECT ACTION, P185 Kiss KE, 1998, LANGUAGE, V74, P245, DOI 10.2307/417867 Kitambika N'landu, 1994, ELEMENTS DESCRIPTION Laman K.E., 1912, GRAMMAR KONGO LANGUA Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Le Ussel P, 1888, PETITE GRAMMAIRE LAN MacGaffey Wyatt, 2000, KONGO POLITICAL CULT Marchal-Nasse Colette, 1989, THESIS Matuka Yeno Mansoni, 1991, THESIS Mbambu Ignace, 1956, NSANGU ZIMBOTE ZI SA Meeussen A.E., 1967, AFR LINGUIST, V3, P79 Mingas Amelia Arleta, 1994, THESIS, P5 Morimoto Yukiko, 2014, INT WORKSH BANT LANG Mpanzu Luzayamo, 1994, ELEMENTS DESCRIPTION Ndouli Guy, 2012, 42 C AFR LANG LING L [Anonymous], 2008, TENSE ASPECT BANTU SASSE HJ, 1987, LINGUISTICS, V25, P511, DOI 10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511 Sasse Hans-Jurgen, 1996, THETICITY, V27 Schadeberg Thilo C., 2003, BANTU LANGUAGES, P143 Skopeteas Stavros, 2006, ISIS WORKING PAPERS Van Den Eynde Karel, 1968, ELEMENTS GRAMMAIRE Y LaPolla Randy, 1997, SYNTAX STRUCTURE MEA Vuylsteke Pierre, 1923, EVANGELIA ZIYA NSANG [Anonymous], 1929, LUWAWANU LUAMONA [Anonymous], 1926, LUWAWANU LUAMPA NR 61 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 3 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0168-647X J9 FOLIA LINGUIST HIST JI Folia Linguist. Hist. PY 2015 VL 36 IS 1 BP 113 EP 163 DI 10.1515/flih-2015-0005 PG 51 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CW4LQ UT WOS:000364963400004 ER PT J AU Kopotev, M AF Kopotev, Mihail TI Reconstruction and idiomaticity: The origin of Russian verbless clauses reconsidered SO FOLIA LINGUISTICA HISTORICA LA English DT Article DE language change; language contacts; non-verbal predication; syntactic zero; Russian language; Uralic languages ID CONSTRUCTIONS AB There are three types of Russian verbless clauses, which emerged through the ellipsis of the copula and other (full) verbs. This paper provides arguments against the hypothesis that they owe their existence to contact with Uralic languages. It argues that Finnic verbless clauses developed in parallel or even later than their Russian counterparts, and that the verbless clauses in Samoyedic languages, which preserve ancient Proto-Uralic features and use predicate nominal suffixes, differ structurally too much from those in Russian to represent likely models. It is argued that verbless clauses can naturally emerge when the meaning expressed by a frequent and semantically bleached verb is also included in the meaning of the phrase dependent on it. Other factors (contact-induced change, pragmatic and contextual factors) can support the emergence of - usually highly idiomatic - verbless clause constructions. C1 [Kopotev, Mihail] Univ Helsinki, Dept Modern Languages, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland. RP Kopotev, M (reprint author), Univ Helsinki, Dept Modern Languages, POB 24 Unioninkatu 40 B, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland. EM mihail.kopotev@helsinki.fi CR Adamou E, 2010, LINGUISTIQUE, V46, P43 Apresjan Jurij D., 1995, IZBRANNYE T, V2 Arutjunova Nina D., 1983, RUSSKOE PREDLOZENIE Babby Leonard, 1980, EXISTENTIAL SENTENCE Balanovskaya Elena V., 2011, VESTNIK MOSKOVSKOGO, VXXIII, P7 Barddal Johana, 2013, OXFORD HDB CONSTRUCT, P438 Bender Emily M., 2000, SYNTACTIC VARIATION Benveniste Emile, 1950, B SOC LINGUISTIQUE P, V46, P19 Bezdeneznyx E. L., 1972, DVUSOSTAVNYE BEZGLAG Birnbaum Henrik, 1984, HIST SYNTAX, P25 Borkovskij V. I., 1968, SRAVNITELNO ISTORICE Borkovsky Viktor, 1983, STRUKTURA PREDLOZENI Campbell Lily, 1990, HIST LINGUISTICS 198, P51 Chvany Kathrine, 1975, SYNTAX BE CLAUSES RU Collinder Bjorn, 1960, COMP GRAMMAR URALIC Decsy Gyula, 1988, URALIC LANGUAGES DES, P618 Decsy Gyula, 1967, ORBIS, V16, P150 Ferguson C., 1971, PIDGINIZATION CREOLI, P141 Gauthiot Robert, 1908, MSL, V15, P201 Hajdu Peter, 1970, ABHANDLUNGEN AKAD WI, P61 Hakulinen Lauri, 1946, SUOMEN KIELEN RAKE 2 Hengeveld Kees, 1992, NONVERBAL PREDICATIO HETZRON R, 1970, LANGUAGE, V46, P899, DOI 10.2307/412261 Honti Laszlo, 1992, LINGUIST URAL, V28, P262 Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Isacenko Alexander V, 1976, OPERA SELECTA, P12 Kay P, 1999, LANGUAGE, V75, P1, DOI 10.2307/417472 Kemmer Susane, 2000, USAGE BASED CONCEPTI, V295 Kettunen Lauri, 1943, VEPSAN MURTEIDEN LAU, V86 Kiparsky Valentin, 1969, ANN ACAD SCIENTIAR B, V153, P1 Klemm Antal, 1928, MAGYAR TORTENETI MON, V1 Kopotev Mikhail, 1999, BEZGLAGOLNYE PREDLOZ Kopotev Mikhail, 2006, COLLOCATIONS IDIOMS, P177 Koptjevskaja-Tamm Maria, 2001, CIRCUM BALTIC LANGUA, V2, P615 Korhonen Mikko, 1981, JOHDATUS LAPIN KIELE Kunnap Arne, 1997, LINGUIST URAL, V33, P253 Laakso Johanna, TYPOLOGIE NEGATION O Lakoff George, 1987, WOMEN FIRE DANGEROUS Letuchiy Alexander, 2015, LINGUE LINGUAGGIO, V2015 Letuchiy Alexander, 2014, 1 WORKSH COP U BOL 2, P1 L'Hermitte Rene, 1978, PHRASE NOMINALE RUSS Lyashevskaya O. N., 2009, CHASTOTNYI SLOVAR SO Maisak Timur A., 2005, TIPOLOGIJA GRAMMATIK McShane MJ, 2000, SLAVIC E EUR J, V44, P195, DOI 10.2307/309950 Meillet Antoine, 1906, MEMOIRES SOC LINGUIS, VXIV, P1 Evereart M., 1995, IDIOMS STRUCTURAL PS, P167 Mrazek Roman, 1990, SRAVNITELNYJ SINTAKS Perlmutter David M., 1983, STUDIES RELATIONAL G, V1, P81 Petruxin Pavel. V., 2007, RUSSKIJ JAZYK NAUCNO, V2, P268 Ravila Paavo, 1943, VIRITTAJA, V47, P247 Redei Karoly, 1970, ABHANDLUNGEN AKAD WI, P62 Savelyeva Lidia V, 1989, RAZVITIE SINTAKSICHE Serebrennikov Boris A, 1987, SOVETSKOE FINNO UGRO, V2, P81 Stassen Leo, 1994, NORD J LINGUIST, V17, P105 Leo Stassen, 2001, CIRCUM BALTIC LANGUA, V2, P569 Tereschenko Nikolay M, 1973, SINTAKSIS SAMODIISKI Testelec J. G., 2008, DINAMICESKIE MODELI, P773 Thomason Sarah G., 1988, LANGUAGE CONTACT CRE Timberlake Alan, 1974, NOMINATIVE OBJECT SL Tkacenko Orest. V., 1979, SOPOSTAVITELNO ISTOR Turunen Rigina, 2010, TYPOLOGY VERBLESS PR Vasti Katja, 2012, ACTA U OULUENSIS B, V107 Veenker Wolfgang, 1967, FRAGE FINNOUGRISCHEN Wagner-Nagy Beata, 2011, TYPOLOGY NEGATION OB Daniel Weiss, 2012, GRAMMATICAL REPLICAT, P611 Zaliznjak A. A., 2008, DREVNERUSSKIE ENKLIT Zlatanova Rumyana, 1973, SLAVISTICHEN SBORNIK, P73 Zlobina Vieno E, 1971, PRIBALTIISKO FINSKOE, P33 NR 68 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0168-647X J9 FOLIA LINGUIST HIST JI Folia Linguist. Hist. PY 2015 VL 36 IS 1 BP 219 EP 243 DI 10.1515/flih-2015-0007 PG 25 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CW4LQ UT WOS:000364963400007 ER PT J AU Triebl, E AF Triebl, Eva TI ... or not to be. The Strategic and Non-Strategic Use of Negative Identifiers in Online Forums SO AAA-ARBEITEN AUS ANGLISTIK UND AMERIKANISTIK LA English DT Article ID DISCOURSE MARKERS; PRAGMATIC MARKERS; RELEVANCE; ENGLISH AB Negative identifiers, that is, expressions of the type [I + copula + not + indefinite NP], serve to defeat explicit or implicit identity claims present in the immediate co-text, the situational context or the wider cultural context of the utterance. This means that on the one hand they can serve as situational strategic moves in a conversation, supposed to guide the interpretation of the speaker's utterance, and that on the other hand they might have implications for identity construction that go beyond the immediate conversational situation and can thus be related to the wider, socio-cultural context of self-reflexive identity construction and individualization characterizing late modern society. In this paper, I will set up a formal-functional framework of negative identifiers, arguing that they are functionally similar and can thus be approached like discourse markers. Based on a pilot study of a derived corpus of 85 negative identifiers in context, I will then demonstrate how such a framework could be operationalized in a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis of negative identification. C1 Graz Univ, Dept English, A-8010 Graz, Austria. RP Triebl, E (reprint author), Graz Univ, Dept English, A-8010 Graz, Austria. CR Adolphs S, 2008, STUD CORPUS LINGUIST, V30, P1 Aijmer K., 2002, ENGLISH DISCOURSE PA Aijmer K, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P1781, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.005 Aijmer K, 2013, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMATIC MARKERS: A VARIATIONAL PRAGMATIC APPROACH, P1 Aijmer K., 1996, CONVERSATIONAL ROUTI Aniett Jeffrey Jensen, 2002, AM PSYCHOL, V57, P774 Beck U, 1986, RISIKOGESELLSCHAFT W Blakemore Diane, 1992, RELEVANCE LINGUISTIC Brinton Laurel, 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN Brown Peter, 1977, QUESTIONS POLITENESS Carretero M., 2014, YB CORPUS LINGUISTIC, P261 Conrad S., 2002, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V22, P75 COULMAS F, 1979, J PRAGMATICS, V3, P239, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(79)90033-X Crystal D., 1975, ADV CONVERSATIONAL E Cuenca MJ, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P899, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.010 Erman Britt, 1986, PRAGMATIC EXPRESSION, P131 Erman B, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1337, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00066-7 Fairclough N, 1989, LANGUAGE POWER Fraser Bruce, 1996, PRAGMATICS, V6, P167 Fung L, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P410, DOI 10.1093/applin/amm030 Giddens A, 1991, MODERNITY SELF IDENT Givon T., 1993, ENGLISH GRAMMAR FUNC Grisot C., 2014, YB CORPUS LINGUISTIC, P7 Gumperz J.J., 1996, RETHINKING LINGUISTI, P374 Halliday Michael A. K., 1994, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA Derewianka B., 2001, CAMBRIDGE GUIDE TEAC Harris Dave, 2014, MODERNITY SELF IDENT Hasan Ruqaiya, 1985, LANGUAGE CONTEXT TEX Hodkinson P, 2007, NEW MEDIA SOC, V9, P625, DOI 10.1177/1461444807076972 Hymes D. H., 1972, SOCIOLINGUISTICS, P269 Jordan MP, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V29, P705, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00086-6 Schreier Daniel, 2009, LANGUAGE COMPUTERS S, V68 Jucker AH, 1998, DISCOURSE MARKERS DE Kim Mira, 2010, APPL LINGUISTICS MET Landone E, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1799, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.001 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Lenk Uta, 1998, MARKING DISCOURSE CO Louw B., 1993, TEXT TECHNOLOGY HONO, P157 Marko Georg, 2008, PENETRATING LANGUAGE Noveck IA, 2004, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230524125 Ochs E., 1996, RETHINKING LINGUISTI Ostman J.-O., 1995, ORG DISCOURSE, P95 Schiffrin Deborah, 2007, DISCOURSE MARKERS Schourup L. C., 1985, COMMON DISCOURSE PAR Sealey A, 2012, CRIT DISCOURSE STUD, V9, P195, DOI 10.1080/17405904.2012.688295 Sinclair J, 1991, CORPUS CONCORDANCE C Stubbs M., 1983, DISCOURSE ANAL SOCIO Swales J.M., 2004, RES GENRES EXPLORATI Verschueren J., 1999, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMA Wierzbicka A., 1976, INT REV SLAVIC LINGU, V1, P327 NR 50 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU GUNTER NARR VERLAG PI TUBINGEN PA DISCHINGERWEG 5, D 72070 TUBINGEN, GERMANY SN 0171-5410 J9 AAA-ARB ANGLIST AM JI AAA-Arb. Angl. Am. PY 2015 VL 40 IS 1-2 BP 247 EP 270 PG 24 WC Language & Linguistics; Literature SC Linguistics; Literature GA CV2RU UT WOS:000364105700013 ER PT J AU Green, C AF Green, Clarence TI An analysis of the relationship between cohesion and clause combination in English discourse employing NLP and data mining approaches SO DIGITAL SCHOLARSHIP IN THE HUMANITIES LA English DT Article AB This study examines the relationship between the frequencies of clause combination and the distribution of discourse-pragmatic markers of cohesion in a sub-sample of the Susanne corpus. It addresses the theory that clause grammar constitutes a form of grammar-cued discourse coherence which functions as an integrated system with other methods of managing coherence in language. Evidence is sought for whether increased clause density in a corpus correlates with a reduction in explicit cohesive devices. To address this, a computational approach is outlined for the coding of cohesion in a corpus, using a semi-automated data mining procedure. To validate this approach, it is compared with cohesion measures on the same data using the NLP tool Coh-Metrix 3.0. The two approaches are shown to positively correlate on a series of measures, suggesting they significantly overlap in quantifying the cohesion construct. The final analysis of the tagged corpus indicates that as frequencies of clause combination increase in a text, the use of explicit lexical cohesive devices decrease. Also, higher frequencies of clause combination positively correlate with an increased use of grammatical cohesive devices. Findings are interpreted as generally aligning with the expectations of the theoretical framework known as the Adaptive Approach to Grammar. C1 Univ Melbourne, Sch Languages & Linguist, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia. RP Green, C (reprint author), Univ Melbourne, Sch Languages & Linguist, Bld 139 Parkville, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia. EM c.green4@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au CR Arnold JE, 2008, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V23, P495, DOI 10.1080/01690960801920099 Beaugrande Robert, 1981, INTRO TEXT LINGUISTI Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Bollegala Danushka, 2010, P 19 INT C WORLD WID, P151, DOI 10.1145/1772690.1772707 Christiansen Thomas, 2011, COHESION DISCOURSE P Crossley SA, 2009, J SECOND LANG WRIT, V18, P119, DOI 10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002 KUMPF LORRAINE E., 2003, PREFERRED ARGUMENT S Givon T, 1995, COHERENCE SPONTANEOU, P51 Givon T, 2007, FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTI, P1, DOI DOI 10.1075/SLCS.85.04GIV Givon T., 2012, OXFORD HDB LINGUISTI, P27 Givon T., 1979, UNDERSTANDING GRAMMA Givon T, 2001, SYNTAX INTRO Givon T, 2009, TYPOL ST L, V85, P1 Halliday M.A.K., 1976, COHESION ENGLISH Knoch U., 2009, DIAGNOSTIC WRITING A Kroch Anthony, 2010, PENN PARSED CORPUS M MATTHIESSEN Christian, 2002, COMPLEX SENTENCES GR, P235, DOI DOI 10.1075/Z.110.13MAT McNamara D., 2012, COH METRIX VERSION 3 McNamara DS, 2010, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V47, P292, DOI 10.1080/01638530902959943 McNamara D., 2011, APPL NATURAL LANGUAG, P188 Perfetti CA, 2008, HANDBOOK OF THE NEUROSCIENCE OF LANGUAGE, P165, DOI 10.1016/B978-0-08-045352-1.00016-1 Provalis, 2011, QDA DAT MIN VERS 4 Sampson G., 2001, EMPIRICAL LINGUISTIC Sampson G., 2000, SUSANNE CORPUS RELEA Scott M., 2010, WORDSMITH TOOLS SOFT Taboada M. T., 2004, BUILDING COHERENCE C Taylor A., 2006, PCEEC YORK HELSINKI Thornbury S., 2005, SENTENCE INTRO DISCO Van Valin R., 2003, HDB LINGUISTICS, P319, DOI 10.1002/9780470756409.ch13 NR 29 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 2 PU OXFORD UNIV PRESS PI OXFORD PA GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND SN 2055-7671 EI 2055-768X J9 DIGIT SCHOLARSH HUM JI Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. PY 2015 VL 30 IS 3 BP 326 EP 343 DI 10.1093/llc/fqu012 PG 18 WC Humanities, Multidisciplinary; Linguistics SC Arts & Humanities - Other Topics; Linguistics GA CV1KN UT WOS:000364015200003 ER PT J AU Petre, P AF Petre, Peter TI What grammar reveals about sex and death: interdisciplinary applications of corpus-based linguistics SO DIGITAL SCHOLARSHIP IN THE HUMANITIES LA English DT Article AB In this article, I present two case studies that show how biographical and intellectual history can benefit from corpus-based linguistics and how databases from different disciplines can cross-pollinate. (i) Combining information from the PASE.ac.uk prosopography and syntactically annotated corpora, I show that the choice of auxiliary with ofslaegen 'killed' in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is related to how the killing occurred, with weard ofslaegen consistently signalling death in battle. This finding sheds new light on the deaths of people like king Osred (716) and the earls Burghelm and Muca (822). (ii) The syntactic choice between it happened that X Y-ed or X happened to Y in late Middle English texts appears to determine whether the scribe/author believes X to be in control of what happens, providing novel evidence on medieval views of accountability levels with regard to adultery, sinning, and casualties. Particular attention is paid to the language use of the scribe of the late medieval Alphabet of Tales and how it reveals his pragmatic attitude towards sex outside marriage. C1 [Petre, Peter] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Res Unit Linguist, BE-3000 Leuven, Belgium. [Petre, Peter] Res Fdn Flanders, BE-3000 Leuven, Belgium. RP Petre, P (reprint author), Katholieke Univ Leuven, Res Unit Linguist, Blijde Inkomststr 21-3308, BE-3000 Leuven, Belgium. EM peter.petre@arts.kuleuven.be RI Petre, Peter/J-4134-2012 OI Petre, Peter/0000-0002-6503-1380 CR ALLEN CL, 1986, J LINGUIST, V22, P375, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700010847 Allen J. R., 1974, COMPUT HUMANITIES, P65 Banks M., 1905, ALPHABET TALES ENGLI, V126 Bately J. M., 1986, THE PARKER CHRONICLE, V3 Brinton Laurel, 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN Cubbin G. P., 1996, ANGLOSAXON CHRONICLE, V6 Frary L. G., 1929, LANGUAGE DISSERTATIO, V5 Fulk R. D., 2008, KLAEBERS BEOWULF Goldberg Adele E., 2006, CONSTRUCTIONS WORK N Goldberg A. E., 1995, CONSTRUCTIONS CONSTR Haiman J., 1985, IC SYNT P S IC SYNT Higham N. J., 1993, KINGDOM NORTHUMBRIA Hopper Paul J., 1979, DISCOURSE SYNTAX, P213 Irvine S., 2004, ANGLOSAXON CHRONICLE, V7 Karras R. M., 2006, SEXUALITY MEDIEVAL E Klaeber F., 1923, ENGLISCHE STUDIEN, V57, P187 Kucera H., 1967, COMPUTATIONAL ANAL P LIPS EJG, 1989, TIJDSCHR GESCHIEDEN, V102, P1 Los Bettelou, 2012, INFORM STRUCTURE SYN, P21 Mitchell Bruce, 1985, OLD ENGLISH SYNTAX, V1 O'BrienO'Keeffe K., 2001, ANGLOSAXON CHRONICLE, V5 Petre P., 2014, OXFORD STUDIES HIST, V4 Petre P., 2013, STUDIES LANGUAGE COM, V138, P71 Petre P., 2013, INT C HIST LING 21 I Petre Peter, 2013, LEON LEUVEN ENGLISH Saarinen, 1994, WEAKNESS WILL MEDIEV SKEHAN P, 1998, COGNITIVE APPROACH L Spitzbart G., 1997, BEDA EHRWURDIGE KIRC Strang Barbara, 1970, HIST ENGLISH Taylor A., 2003, YORK TOR HELS PARS C Tomasello Michael, 2009, CONSTRUCTING LANGUAG van Kemenade A, 2002, TOP ENGL LINGUIST, V39, P355 Vergauwen D., 2004, SCHREEF MIDDELEEUWSE Wattie J. M., 1930, ENGL STUD, V16, P121 NR 34 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 4 PU OXFORD UNIV PRESS PI OXFORD PA GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND SN 2055-7671 EI 2055-768X J9 DIGIT SCHOLARSH HUM JI Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. PY 2015 VL 30 IS 3 BP 371 EP 387 DI 10.1093/llc/fqu011 PG 17 WC Humanities, Multidisciplinary; Linguistics SC Arts & Humanities - Other Topics; Linguistics GA CV1KN UT WOS:000364015200006 ER PT J AU Torreira, F Valtersson, E AF Torreira, Francisco Valtersson, Emma TI Phonetic and Visual Cues to Questionhood in French Conversation SO PHONETICA LA English DT Article ID TURN-TAKING; SPEECH; INTONATION; PROSODY; INTERROGATIVITY; PERSPECTIVE; DISCOURSE; VOICE; DUTCH; F0 AB We investigate the extent to which French polar questions and continuation statements, two types of utterances with similar morphosyntactic and intonational forms but different pragmatic functions, can be distinguished in conversational data based on phonetic and visual bodily information. We show that the two utterance types can be distinguished well over chance level by automatic classification models including several phonetic and visual cues. We also show that a considerable amount of relevant phonetic and visual information is present before the last portion of the utterances, potentially assisting early speech act recognition by addressees. These findings indicate that bottom-up phonetic and visual cues may play an important role during the production and recognition of speech acts alongside top-down contextual information. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel C1 [Torreira, Francisco; Valtersson, Emma] Max Planck Inst Psycholinguist, NL-6525 XD Nijmegen, Netherlands. RP Torreira, F (reprint author), Max Planck Inst Psycholinguist, Language & Cognit Dept, Wundtlaan 1, NL-6525 XD Nijmegen, Netherlands. EM Francisco.Torreira@mpi.nl FU Language and Cognition Department at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics; Max-Planck-Gesellschaft; European Research Council [269484] FX This work was made possible thanks to the financial support of the Language and Cognition Department at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, and a European Research Council's Advanced Grant (269484 'INTERACT') to Stephen C. Levinson. We would like to thank Marisa Casillas, Binyam Gebrekidan, Sean Roberts, Giovanni Rossi, and the members of the Language and Cognition Department at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics for useful comments and discussion. CR Andruski J. E., 2004, J INT PHON ASSOC, V34, P125, DOI 10.1017/S0025100304001690 BAVELAS JB, 1992, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V15, P469 Boersma P, 2014, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC Bolinger D., 1989, INTONATION ITS USES Borras-Comes J, 2014, J NONVERBAL BEHAV, V38, P53, DOI 10.1007/s10919-013-0162-0 Cangemi Francesco, 2011, P 17 INT C PHON SCI, P392 Delais-Roussarie E, INTONATION IN PRESS DELA-FIRE P., 1966, FRENCH REV, V40, P1 Di Cristo A., 1998, INTONATION SYSTEMS S, P195 Edlund J, 2012, P SLTC 2012 Ekman P, 1979, HUMAN ETHOLOGY CLAIM, P169 Enfield N. J., 2009, ANATOMY MEANING Flecha-Garcia ML, 2010, SPEECH COMMUN, V52, P542, DOI 10.1016/j.specom.2009.12.003 GELUYKENS R, 1987, J PRAGMATICS, V11, P483, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(87)90091-9 Griffin ZM, 2000, PSYCHOL SCI, V11, P274, DOI 10.1111/1467-9280.00255 Grundstrom A, 1973, STUDIA PHONETICA, V8, P19 Gussenhoven C, 2002, P SPEECH PROSODY 200 Gussenhoven C, 2000, P INT 2000 Haan J, 2002, THESIS UTRECHT U Heritage J, 2012, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V45, P1, DOI 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 Indefrey P, 2004, COGNITION, V92, P101, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001 Jescheniak JD, 2003, J EXP PSYCHOL HUMAN, V29, P441, DOI 10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.441 Jun SA, 2000, TEXT SPEECH LANG TEC, V15, P209 LADD DR, 1985, J ACOUST SOC AM, V78, P435, DOI 10.1121/1.392466 Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Levinson S, 2013, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P103, DOI DOI 10.1002/HBM.20785 McNeill D, 1992, HAND MIND OHALA JJ, 1984, PHONETICA, V41, P1 Post B, 2002, P SPEECH PROS 2002 A Purson A, 1999, P EUR C SPEECH COMM Rialland A, 2007, PHONOL PHONET, V12-1, P35 Rossano F., 2009, CONVERSATION ANAL CO, P187, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.008 Rossi M, 1981, INTONATION ACOUSTIQU, P149 SACKS H, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P696, DOI 10.2307/412243 Shriberg E, 2000, SPEECH COMMUN, V32, P127, DOI 10.1016/S0167-6393(00)00028-5 Sloetjes H., 2008, P 6 INT C LANG RES E Smith CL, 2002, LANG SPEECH, V45, P141 Stivers T, 2009, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V106, P10587, DOI 10.1073/pnas.0903616106 Stivers T, 2010, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V43, P3, DOI 10.1080/08351810903471258 SWERTS M, 1994, LANG SPEECH, V37, P21 Swerts M, 1997, J ACOUST SOC AM, V101, P514, DOI 10.1121/1.418114 Torreira F, 2007, P ICPHS 16 SAARBR, P6 Torreira F, 2010, SPEECH COMMUN, V52, P201, DOI 10.1016/j.specom.2009.10.004 Torreira F, 2010, 11TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPEECH COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION 2010 (INTERSPEECH 2010), VOLS 3 AND 4, P2006 Valtersson E, 2014, 7 INT C SPEECH PROS, V7, P785 van Heuven VJ, 2005, SPEECH COMMUN, V47, P87, DOI 10.1016/j.specom.2005.05.010 van Heuven VJ, 2002, PHONOL PHONET, V4-1, P61 Yuan J, 2006, P INT 2006 NR 48 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 0 PU KARGER PI BASEL PA ALLSCHWILERSTRASSE 10, CH-4009 BASEL, SWITZERLAND SN 0031-8388 EI 1423-0321 J9 PHONETICA JI Phonetica PY 2015 VL 72 IS 1 BP 20 EP 42 DI 10.1159/000381723 PG 23 WC Acoustics; Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Acoustics; Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics GA CT1FO UT WOS:000362543200002 PM 26065922 ER PT J AU Silva, DN Facina, A Lopes, AC AF Silva, Daniel N. Facina, Adriana Lopes, Adriana Carvalho TI Complex territories, complex circulations The 'pacification' of the Complexo do Alemao in Rio de Janeiro SO PRAGMATICS AND SOCIETY LA English DT Article DE circulation; entextualization; communicability; violence; police; pragmatics; metapragmatics AB The Complexo do Alemao, a group of 12 favelas in Rio de Janeiro, attracted the attention of Brazilian and International corporate media when the police and the army 'pacified' the favelas in 2010. Part of a broader political and economic project to make Rio de Janeiro 'safe' for large-scale events, pacification consists of seizing back territories from the control of drug dealers by installing permanent police units. This paper focuses on how different discourses on the 'pacification' of the Alemao simultaneously entextualized and projected trajectories of reception, interpellation and agency. It also delineates different and competing communicable maps (Briggs 2007) of these trajectories of signs. While looking at ethnographic evidence from local reception of mediatized signs and people's own communicable maps, it draws attention to major gaps in communicable constructions of pacification, thus attempting to accentuate some complexities of Rio's mainstream pragmatics of circulation. C1 [Silva, Daniel N.] Univ Rio de Janeiro UNIRIO, Linguist, Rio De Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. [Facina, Adriana] Univ Fed Rio de Janeiro, Museu Nacl, Anthropol, BR-21941 Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. [Lopes, Adriana Carvalho] UFRRJ, Multidisciplinary Ctr Educ, Linguist, Seropedica, RJ, Brazil. RP Silva, DN (reprint author), Escola Letras, Ave Pasteur,436 Urca, BR-22290255 Rio De Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. EM dnsfortal@gmail.com; adriana.facina2@gmail.com; adrianaclopes14@gmail.com FU Rio de Janeiro Research Foundation (FAPERJ) FX We would like to thank Elizabeth Lewis, Juliana Barbassa, and Viviane Veras for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Any remaining mistakes are our own. This study was partially funded by a Rio de Janeiro Research Foundation (FAPERJ) grant for human sciences research. CR Agha A, 2011, LANG COMMUN, V31, P163, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2011.03.006 Austin J. L., 1962, DO THINGS WORDS Bakhtin M. M., 1986, SPEECH GENRES OTHER, P60 Barbassa Juliana, 2010, ASS PRESS ARCH 1129 Barcellos Caco, 2013, PROFISSAO REPOR 0404 Bauman Richard, 2003, VOICES OF MODERNITY Blommaert Jan, 2005, DISCOURSE CRITICAL I, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511610295, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511610295] Briggs CL, 2007, CULT ANTHROPOL, V22, P315, DOI 10.1525/can.2007.22.3.315 Briggs CL, 2007, CURR ANTHROPOL, V48, P551, DOI 10.1086/518300 Butler J., 1997, EXCITABLE SPEECH POL da Silva Lula, 2008, CAFE COM PRESIDENTE Derrida J., 2001, WRITING DIFFERENCE Derrida J., 1977, GLYPH, V1, P172 Duarte Mario, 2012, LIBERDADE ALEMAO Farah Tatiana, 2010, O GLOBO 1207 Foucault Michel, 1978, SECURITY TERRITORY P Greg Urban, 1996, NATURAL HIST DISCOUR, P21 Grice Paul H., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Herszenhut Debora, 2012, DEPOIS ROLA MOCOTO IBGE, 2010, 2010 BRAZ CENS Malaguti Vera, 2011, 17 SEM CRIM SCI SAO Malkes Renata, 2010, O GLOBO 1130 Oliveira Bruno Coutinho, 2011, POLITICAS PUBLICAS P Otavio Jr, 2011, O LIVREIRO DO ALEMAO Peirce C., 1932, COLLECTED PAPERS CS, V1-6 Phillips T., 2010, GUARDIAN Holston James, 2008, INSURGENT CITIZENSHI Rodrigues Andre, 2012, COMUNICACOES ISER, V67, P9 Santos Carlos, 1981, MOVIMENTOS URBANOS R Woolard Kathryn Ann, 1998, LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES Silverstein Michael, 1979, ELEMENTS PARASESSION, P193 Silverstein M., 1993, REFLEXIVE LANGUAGE R, P33, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004 Debra Spitulnik, 1996, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V6, P161, DOI 10.1525/jlin.1996.6.2.161 UPP, 2011, UN POL PAC [Anonymous], 2010, REDE GLOBO 1127 NR 35 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 3 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1878-9714 EI 1878-9722 J9 PRAGMAT SOC JI Pragmat. Soc. PY 2015 VL 6 IS 2 BP 175 EP 196 DI 10.1075/ps.6.2.02sil PG 22 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CS9PE UT WOS:000362422400002 ER PT J AU Reinhardt, B AF Reinhardt, Bruno TI Flowing and framing Language ideology, circulation, and authority in a Pentecostal Bible school SO PRAGMATICS AND SOCIETY LA English DT Article DE Pentecostalism; Ghana; circulation; language ideology; meta-pragmatics; authority; pedagogy ID CHRISTIANITY; GHANA; ANTHROPOLOGY; SPIRIT; BODY AB Experiential and mediatized, Pentecostal Christianity is one of the most successful cases of contemporary religious globalization. However, it has often grown and expanded transnationally without clear authoritative contours. That is the case in contemporary Ghana, where Pentecostal claims about charismatic empowerment have fed public anxieties concerning the fake and the occult. This article examines how Pentecostalism's dysfunctional circulation is countered within seminaries, or Bible schools, by specific strategies of pastoral training. First, I revisit recent debates on Protestant language ideology in the anthropology of Christianity, and stress Pentecostalism's affinity with notions of flow and saturation of speech by divine presence. Second, I move to data collected in the Anagkazo Bible and Ministry Training Center, and investigate this institution's pedagogical framing of Pentecostalism's otherwise erratic flow of speech and power according to two normative operations: Biblical figuration and the emic notion of transmission as 'impartation'. I conclude by stressing how the metapragmatics of figuration and impartation in Anagkazo requires an understanding of religious circulation that exceeds the dominant scholarly focus on religion-as-mediation. C1 Univ Utrecht, Dept Philosophy & Religious Studies, NL-3512 BL Utrecht, Netherlands. RP Reinhardt, B (reprint author), Univ Utrecht, Dept Philosophy & Religious Studies, Janskerkhof 13, NL-3512 BL Utrecht, Netherlands. EM bmnreinhardt@gmail.com FU CAPES-Fulbright multi-year fellowship; A. Richard Diebold Jr. Fellowship Endowment in Anthropology; Charlotte W. Newcombe Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship FX I would like to thank Charles Hirschkind and the anonymous reviewers of Pragmatics and Society for their critical input. Funding for this research was provided by a CAPES-Fulbright multi-year fellowship, an A. Richard Diebold Jr. Fellowship Endowment in Anthropology, and a Charlotte W. Newcombe Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship. CR Abreu Maria Jose de, 2009, AESTHETIC FORMATIONS, P161 Agha A, 2011, LANG COMMUN, V31, P163, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2011.03.006 Anderson A, 2010, ANTHROPOL CHRISTIAN, V10, P13 Apter Andrew H., 2005, PAN AFRICAN NATION O, DOI [10.7208/chicago/9780226023564.001.0001, DOI 10.7208/CHICAGO/9780226023564.001.0001] Asad T, 2001, HIST RELIGIONS, V40, P205, DOI 10.1086/463633 Asad Talal, 2006, POWERS SECULAR MODER, P210 ASAD TALAL, 1993, GENEALOGIES RELIG DI Asamoah-Gyadu K, 2005, AFRICAN CHARISMATICS Auerbach Erich, 2003, MIMESIS REPRESENTATI Bakhtin Mikhail, 1981, DIALOGIC IMAGINATION Bateson Gregory, 1987, ANGELS FEAR EPISTEMO, P36 Bauman Richard, 2003, VOICES MODERNITY LAN Bialecki J, 2011, ANTHROPOL QUART, V84, P575 Bialecki J, 2011, ANTHROPOL QUART, V84, P679 Brahinsky J, 2012, CULT ANTHROPOL, V27, P215, DOI 10.1111/j.1548-1360.2012.01141.x Brahinsky J, 2013, ANTHROPOL EDUC QUART, V44, P399, DOI 10.1111/aeq.12039 Briggs Charles, 1998, LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES, P229 Coleman Simon, 2006, ANTHR CHRISTIANITY, P163, DOI DOI 10.1215/9780822388159-006 Coleman S, 2009, CRIT INQUIRY, V35, P417 Comaroff J, 2000, PUBLIC CULTURE, V12, P291, DOI 10.1215/08992363-12-2-291 Csordas T, 2001, LANGUAGE CHARISMA CR Daswani G, 2013, AM ETHNOL, V40, P467, DOI 10.1111/amet.12033 Dawson John, 2001, CHRISTIAN FIGURAL RE, DOI [10.1525/california/9780520226302.001.0001, DOI 10.1525/CALIFORNIA/9780520226302.001.0001] De Certeau Michel, 1996, REPRESENTATIONS, V56, P29 Derrida Jacques, 1988, SIGNATURE EVENT CONT, P1 de Vries Hent, 2001, RELIG MEDIA, P4 Duranti A, 2003, CURR ANTHROPOL, V44, P323, DOI 10.1086/368118 Engelke M. E., 2007, PROBLEM PRESENCE SCR Faubion James, 2011, ANTHR ETHICS, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511792557, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511792557] Frei Hans W., 1974, ECLIPSE BIBLICAL NAR GAL S, 1993, LANG SOC, V22, P337 Gifford P., 2004, GHANAS NEW CHRISTIAN Goffman E, 1981, FORMS TALK Goodwin C., 1992, RETHINKING CONTEXT L Hanks William F., 1996, NATURAL HIST DISCOUR, P160 HANKS WF, 1987, AM ETHNOL, V14, P668, DOI 10.1525/ae.1987.14.4.02a00050 Harding Susan, 2000, BOOK J FALWELL FUNDA HARDING SF, 1987, AM ETHNOL, V14, P167, DOI 10.1525/ae.1987.14.1.02a00100 Hirschkind Charles, 2011, SOCIAL ANTHR, V19, P90, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8676.2010.00140_1.x Hirschkind Charles, 2006, ETHICAL SOUNDSCAPE C Keane W, 1997, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V26, P47, DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.47 Keane W, 2007, ANTHROPOL CHRISTIAN, V1, P1 Latour Bruno, 1993, WE HAVE NEVER BEEN M Lauterbach Karen, 2008, THESIS ROSKILDE U DE Lave J, 2011, APPRENTICESHIP CRITI, DOI [10.7208/chicago/9780226470733.001.0001, DOI 10.7208/CHICAGO/9780226470733.001.0001] Lucy J. A, 1993, REFLEXIVE LANGUAGE R, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511621031, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511621031] Luhrmann T. M., 2012, GOD TALKS BACK UNDER MacIntyre Alasdair, 1984, VIRTUE STUDY MORAL T MacIntyre Alasdair, 1999, DEPENDENT RATIONAL A Mahmood S, 2005, POLITICS OF PIETY: THE ISLAMIC REVIVAL AND THE FEMINIST SUBJECT, P1 Marshall Ruth, 2009, POLITICAL SPIRITUALI, DOI [10.7208/chicago/9780226507149.001.0001, DOI 10.7208/CHICAGO/9780226507149.001.0001] MAUSS M, 1973, ECON SOC, V2, P70, DOI 10.1080/03085147300000003 Mbembe A., 2001, POSTCOLONY McLuhan Marshall, 1967, UNDERSTANDING MEDIA Mertz Elizabeth, 1998, LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES, P149 Meyer, 2004, AMERICAN ETHNOLOGIST, V16, P92, DOI DOI 10.1525/AE.2004.31.1.92 Meyer B, 2004, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V33, P447, DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143835 Meyer Birgit, 2011, SOCIAL ANTHR, V19, P23, DOI [10.1111/j.1469-8676.2010.00137.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1469-8676.2010.00137.X] Meyer B, 2010, COMP STUD SOC HIST, V52, P100, DOI 10.1017/S001041750999034X Peirce C. S., 1955, PHILOS WRITINGS PEIR Reinhardt B, 2013, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Reinhardt B, 2014, J ROY ANTHROPOL INST, V20, P315, DOI 10.1111/1467-9655.12106 Robbins J, 2004, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V33, P117, DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.061002.093421 RUMSEY A, 1990, AM ANTHROPOL, V92, P346, DOI 10.1525/aa.1990.92.2.02a00060 Santo Diana Espírito, 2014, Mana, V20, P63, DOI 10.1590/S0104-93132014000100003 Woolard Kathryn Ann, 1998, LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES Sharf Robert H., 1998, CRITICAL TERMS RELIG, P94 Shipley JW, 2009, CULT ANTHROPOL, V24, P523, DOI 10.1111/j.1548-1360.2009.01039.x Silverstein Michael, 1996, NATURAL HIST DISCOUR Silverstein Michael, 1979, ELEMENTS PARASESSION, P193 Silverstein M., 1993, REFLEXIVE LANGUAGE R, P33, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004 Silverstein M., 1985, SEMIOTIC MEDIATION S, P219 Urban G., 1996, NATURAL HIST DISCOUR, P21 Voloshinov [or Volosinov] V. N., 1973, MARXISM PHILOS LANGU Warner M., 1990, LETT REPUBLIC PUBLIC Williams R., 1977, MARXISM LIT Woolard Kathryn, 1998, LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES, P2 Wortham S, 2008, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V37, P37, DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094401 NR 78 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 1 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1878-9714 EI 1878-9722 J9 PRAGMAT SOC JI Pragmat. Soc. PY 2015 VL 6 IS 2 BP 261 EP 287 DI 10.1075/ps.6.2.06rei PG 27 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CS9PE UT WOS:000362422400006 ER PT J AU Cornillie, B De Cock, B AF Cornillie, Bert De Cock, Barbara TI Ways of encoding attention to the interlocutor in contemporary spoken Spanish SO SPANISH IN CONTEXT LA English DT Article DE intersubjectivity; pragmatics; discourse ID INTERSUBJECTIVITY AB The papers in this volume examine how Spanish speakers express attention to their interlocutors (or co-participants) verbally. It is now generally accepted that subjective expressions have interactional functions, encouraging the flow of discussion and creating cohesive discourse and that there are several ways of dealing with the intersubjective or dialogic nature of language: (i) studying heteroglossia or dialoguing voices in monologic texts, (ii) focusing on how in talk-in-interaction speakers refer to information held by the co-participant, (iii) examining intersubjective markers that encode the speaker's assumptions about the co-participant. Concepts such as politeness, argumentation structure, attenuation and hedging are being used to account for the interactional dynamics examined. Moreover, several papers analyze the difference between spoken and written registers and some offer new evidence for functional paths of linguistic change. In doing so, they enrich previous accounts of modality, discourse markers, person referencing, spatial deixis and connectives in Spanish and beyond. C1 [Cornillie, Bert] Univ Leuven, Dept Linguist, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. [De Cock, Barbara] Catholic Univ Louvain, Fac Philosophie Arts & Lettres, B-1348 Louvain La Neuve, Belgium. RP Cornillie, B (reprint author), Univ Leuven, Dept Linguist, Blijde Inkomststr 21,Box 3308, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. EM bert.cornillie@arts.kuleuven.be; barbara.decock@uclouvain.be FU Research Foundation - Flanders; Consejeria Cultural de la Embajada de Espana in Belgium; Faculty of Arts of KU Leuven; Doctoral School in Humanities of KU Leuven FX We are grateful to the following sponsors for their generous support: the Research Foundation - Flanders, the Consejeria Cultural de la Embajada de Espana in Belgium, the Faculty of Arts and the Doctoral School in Humanities of KU Leuven. We also would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the journal editors for their valuable comments and their efficient collaboration. CR Aikhenvald Y. Alexandra, 2004, EVIDENTIALITY Athanasiadou Angeliki, 2006, COGN LINGUIST, V31, DOI [10.1515/9783110892970, DOI 10.1515/9783110892970] Bakhtin Mikhail, 1987, PROBLEMS DOSTOEVSKIS Benveniste E., 1966, PROBLEMES LINGUISTIQ, P258 Bergqvist Henrik, 2012, 45 ANN M SOC LING EU Pons Borderia Salvador, 1998, CUADERNOS FILOLOGIA, VXXVII Lieselotte Brems, 2012, ENGLISH TEXT CONSTRU, V5, P1, DOI 10.1075/etc.5.1.01int Briz Antonio, 1993, CONTEXTOS, V11, P145 COATES J, 1987, T PHILOL SOC, P110 Cornillie Bert, 2012, J PRAGMATICS Cornillie B, 2007, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V5, P1 De Smet H, 2006, COGN LINGUIST, V17, P365, DOI 10.1515/COG.2006.011 Du Bois John, 2007, STANCETAKING DISCOUR, V164, P139, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.164 Montolio Duran E., 2001, CONECTORES LENGUA ES Enfield Nick J., 2007, PERSON REFERENCE INT, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511486746, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511486746] Englebretson Robert, 2007, STANCETAKING DISCOUR, DOI [10.1075/pbns.164, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.164] Evans Nicholas, 2007, BERKELEY LINGUISTICS, V31, P93 Dominguez Garcia Noemi, 2007, CONECTORES ARGUMENTA Givon Talmy, 1984, SYNTAX FUNCTIONAL TY, DOI [10.1017/s0022226700010434, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700010434] Goffman E, 1981, FORMS TALK Goffman Erving, 1979, SEMIOTICA, V25, P1, DOI DOI 10.1515/SEMI.1979 Heritage J., 2005, CONVERSATION COGNITI, P184, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511489990.009 Heritage J, 2012, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V45, P1, DOI 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 Heritage J, 2007, LANG CULT COGN, P255 Jefferson G., 1987, TALK SOCIAL ORG, P86 Karkkainen Elise, 2003, EPISTEMIC STANCE ENG, DOI [10.1075/pbns.115, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.115] Konig E., 2007, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SY, VI, P276, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.005 Langacker R. W., 1990, Cognitive Linguistics, V1, P5, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 Levinson Stephen C., 2006, ROOTS HUMAN SOCIALIT Lyons J, 1977, SEMANTICS, V2 Nuyts J., 2001, EPISTEMIC MODALITY L, DOI [10.1075/hcp.5, DOI 10.1075/HCP.5] PORTOLES J, 1995, B REAL ACAD ESPAN, V75, P231 Reiter RM, 2011, MEDIATED BUSINESS INTERACTIONS: INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SPEAKERS OF SPANISH, P1 Marquez Reiter Rosina, 2004, CURRENT TRENDS PRAGM, DOI [10.1075/pbns.123, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.123] Fuentes Rodriguez Catalina, 2011, APROXIMACIONES CORTE Fuentes Rodriguez Catalina, 2007, ARGUMENTACION LINGUI, P88 SCHEGLOFF EA, 1992, AM J SOCIOL, V97, P1295, DOI 10.1086/229903 Scheibman Joanne, 2002, POINT VIEW GRAMMAR S, DOI [10.1075/sidag.11, DOI 10.1075/SIDAG.11] Searle John, 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139173438, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139173438] Searle John R., 1979, MEANING EXPRESSION, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511609213, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511609213] Selting M, 2010, PRAGMATICS, V20, P229 SimonVandenbergen AM, 2007, TOP ENGL LINGUIST, V56, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110198928 Stivers Tanya, 2011, MORALITY KNOWLEDGE C, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511921674, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511921674] Tovar Bustos, 2000, LENGUA DISCURSO TEXT Traugott Elisabeth, 2002, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1989, LANGUAGE, V57, P33, DOI DOI 10.2307/414841 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2003, MOTIVES LANGUAGE CHA, P124, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 Carranza AV, 2013, SPAN CONTEXT, V10, P284, DOI 10.1075/sic.10.2.05vaz Verhagen Arie, 2008, SHARED MIND PERSPECT, P307 Verhagen Arie, 2005, CONSTRUCTIONS INTERS Racine Timothy, 2008, SHARED MIND PERSPECT, DOI [10.1075/celcr.12, DOI 10.1075/CELCR.12] Martin Zorraquino Maria, 1988, MARCADORES DISCURSO NR 52 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1571-0718 EI 1571-0726 J9 SPAN CONTEXT JI Span. Context PY 2015 VL 12 IS 1 BP 1 EP 9 DI 10.1075/sic.12.1.01cor PG 9 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CS8EB UT WOS:000362317400001 ER PT J AU Vardi, R AF Vardi, Ruti TI 'I'm dying on you' Constructions of intensification in Hebrew expression of love/desire/adoration SO REVIEW OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE intensification; construction grammar; metaphor; metonymy; emotion; negativity bias; embodiment; Hebrew ID GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTIONS; NEGATIVITY BIAS; TRANSITIVITY; DISCOURSE; LANGUAGE AB A specific type of intensification in the domain of LOVE/DESIRE/ADORATION is conveyed in Hebrew through the use of the idiomatic construction [X PRD al Y] ['X die/crazy/ill/devastated on Y'] which deviates from the basic patterns of the grammar at both the morphosyntactic and the semantic levels. The present paper examines both the process of emergence and the accessibility of the construction: it explains how pragmatic needs drive a metonymy-based metaphorical mapping between dissociative conceptual domains, and how the mechanisms of negativity bias and embodiment are involved in this mapping. Subsequently the present paper shows how these pragmatic-driven processes are realised within a grammatical construction with a fixed, accessible idiomatic meaning. The paper additionally argues that emotive intensification is not limited to (adverbial) modification, but instead can be expressed by more complex constructions. C1 Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Fac Philosophy Theol & Relig Sci, NL-6500 HD Nijmegen, Netherlands. RP Vardi, R (reprint author), Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Fac Philosophy Theol & Relig Sci, PB 9103, NL-6500 HD Nijmegen, Netherlands. EM r.vardi@ftr.ru.nl CR Afek E., 1985, LESHONEINU LA AM, V36, P84 Afek E., 1985, LESHONEINU LA AM, V36, P205 Afek E., 1985, LESHONEINU LA AM, V36, P41 Afek E., 1982, D GROSS BOOK COLLECT, P231 Ameka F. K., 2008, CROSSLINGUISTIC PERS, P231 Borochovsky Bar-Aba E., 2003, HEBREW LIVING LANGUA, P31 Barcelona Antonio, 2002, COGN LINGUIST, V20, P207 Baumeister R. F., 2001, REV GEN PSYCHOL, V5, P323, DOI DOI 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 Blenki I., 2003, THESIS TEL AVIV Blenki I., 2006, HED HAULPAN HA XADAS, V89, P114 Bolinger Dwight L., 1972, DEGREE WORDS, DOI [10.1515/9783110877786, DOI 10.1515/9783110877786] Boroditsky L, 2001, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V43, P1, DOI 10.1006/cogp.2001.0748 Cacchiani S., 2005, PRAGMATICS TODAY, P401 William Croft, 2002, METAPHOR METONYMY CO, P161 de Swart P., 2007, THESIS RADBOUD U Evans V., 2006, COGNITIVE GRAMMAR IN FILLMORE CJ, 1988, LANGUAGE, V64, P501, DOI 10.2307/414531 Foolen Ad., 2012, MOVING OURSELVES MOV, P349, DOI DOI 10.1075/CEB.6 Gafni I., 2009, SEMANTIC PROCESSES P Geeraerts Dirk, 2002, METAPHOR METONYMY CO, P435 Gibbs R. W., 2005, EMBODIMENT COGNITIVE, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511805844, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511805844] Givon T., 2001, SYNTAX, VI, DOI [10.1017/s0022226700015322, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700015322] Goldberg Adele E., 2006, CONSTRUCTIONS WORK N Goldberg A. E., 1995, CONSTRUCTIONS CONSTR Goossens Louis, 1990, COGN LINGUIST, V1-3, P323, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 Halevy R, 2007, TRENDS LINGUIST-STUD, V198, P61 Hampe B, 2006, TRENDS LINGUIST-STUD, V172, P127 Hoeksema J, 2008, J LINGUIST, V44, P347, DOI 10.1017/S002222670800515X HOPPER PJ, 1980, LANGUAGE, V56, P251, DOI 10.2307/413757 Jing-Schmidt Z, 2007, COGN LINGUIST, V18, P417, DOI 10.1515/COG.2007.023 Johnson M., 1987, BODY MIND Kay P, 1999, LANGUAGE, V75, P1, DOI 10.2307/417472 Kovecses Z., 2000, METAPHOR EMOTION LAN Kovecses Z., 2005, METAPHOR CULTURE UNI, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511614408, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511614408] Kurzon D., 2002, PREPOSITION FUNCTOR, P1231, DOI [10.1075/tsl.50.12kur, DOI 10.1075/TSL.50.12KUR] Labov W., 1984, MEANING FORM USE CON, P43 Lakoff G, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Lakoff G., 1999, PHILOS FLESH Langacker Ronald W., 1991, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA Langacker R.W., 1987, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA Lorenz Gunther, 2002, NEW REFLECTIONS GRAM, P143, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.49.11LOR Majid A, 2012, EMOT REV, V4, P432, DOI 10.1177/1754073912445827 MALCHUKOV A. L., 2005, COMPETITION VARIATIO, P73, DOI DOI 10.1016/B978-008044651-6/50006-9 McNabb Y., 2012, THESIS U CHICAGO Napoli DJ, 2009, STUD LANG, V33, P612, DOI 10.1075/sl.33.3.04nap Radden G., 2007, COGNITIVE ENGLISH GR, DOI [10.1075/clip.2, DOI 10.1075/CLIP.2] Radden G, 1998, COG LIN RES, V10, P273 Radden Gunter, 2002, METAPHOR METONYMY CO, P407 Rosenblum A., 2007, SPEECHLESS CONT ISRA Rozin P, 2001, PERS SOC PSYCHOL REV, V5, P296, DOI 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2 Shatil N., 2001, HEBREW HER SISTERS M, V1, P141 SMITH W, 1996, STUD LANG, V20, P163 Taylor John R., 1989, LINGUISTIC CATEGORIZ TAYLOR SE, 1991, PSYCHOL BULL, V110, P67, DOI 10.1037//0033-2909.110.1.67 TSUNDA T., 1981, LINGUISTICS, V19, P389 TSUNODA T, 1985, J LINGUIST, V21, P385, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700010318 NR 56 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1877-9751 EI 1877-976X J9 REV COGN LINGUIST JI Rev. Cogn. Linguist. PY 2015 VL 13 IS 1 BP 28 EP 58 DI 10.1075/rcl.13.1.02var PG 31 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CR6RB UT WOS:000361473900002 ER PT J AU Martin, GAR AF Rodriguez Martin, Gustavo A. TI The Simpsons Visual phraseological units and translation SO BABEL-REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE LA TRADUCTION-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSLATION LA English DT Article DE audiovisual translation; multimodality; phraseology; visual representation; phraseological units; The Simpsons AB Phraseological Units rank high among the most complex linguistic segments for translators, whether because of their figurative nature, their culturally specific meaning or their pragmatic peculiarities. Such difficulties increase exponentially when PUs are expressed in a multimodal fictional environment, especially if the situated meaning of the unit relies on visual elements for its correct interpretation: the so-called visual phraseological units (PUs). In these cases, the literal wording of a PU is portrayed physically, thus making both the phraseological and literal meanings overlap. These visual PUs have progressively become a common device in TV programs such as sitcoms and cartoon series-this paper, in particular, uses the case-study of the well-known American cartoon series The Simpsons. However, their ubiquity has not triggered a comparable scholarly response, either from the field of phraseology or from that of translation studies, with some notable exceptions. The combination of a limited theoretical framework and the inherent traductological obstacles these units pose accounts for the poor or, at times, nonexistent solutions when it comes to rendering them in other languages. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the felicity of the Spanish translations of visual PUs appearing in The Simpsons. Some tentative traductological solutions will also be provided alongside the inevitable shortcomings of the target language versions, in an attempt to provide practical ground with which to foster further research on the question. C1 Univ Extremadura, Fac Filosofia & Letras, Caceres 10071, Spain. RP Martin, GAR (reprint author), Univ Extremadura, Fac Filosofia & Letras, Campus Univ S-N, Caceres 10071, Spain. EM garoma@unex.es CR Alberti J., 2004, LEAVING SPRINGFIELD Ross Altarac Shari, 2007, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Ammer Christine, 1997, AM HERITAGE DICT IDI Rogers Margaret, 2003, TRANSLATION TODAY TR, DOI [10.1075/target.17.1.12che, DOI 10.1075/TARGET.17.1.12CHE] [Anonymous], 2009, SPORTING RHETORIC PE Brenner Gail, 2003, WEBSTERS NEW WORLD A Burns J. Stewart, 2005, THERES SOMETHING MAR, VGABF04 Chiaro Delia, 2010, TRANSLATION HUMOUR M, DOI [10.1093/applin/ams036, DOI 10.1093/APPLIN/AMS036] Coffey S, 2009, INT FORSCH ALLG VGL, V122, P47 Collier Jonathan, 1996, LISA TEH ICONOCLAST, V3F13 Corominas Joan, 1954, DICCIONARIO CRITICO, DOI [10.2307/410770, DOI 10.2307/410770] Crittenden Jennifer, 1995, MAGGIE MAKES 3, V2F10 Dale TM, 2010, HOMER SIMPSON MARCHES ON WASHINGTON: DISSENT THROUGH AMERICAN POPULAR CULTURE, P21 Fernando C., 1996, IDIOMS IDIOMATICITY Gambier Yves, 2001, MULTIMEDIA TRANSLATI, DOI [10.1075/btl.34, DOI 10.1075/BTL.34] Munoz Gil Marta, 2010, NEW TRENDS AUDIOVISU, P142 Gillis Stephanie, 2007, MIDNIGHT TOWBOY, VJABF21 Glaser Rosemarie, 1986, PHRASEOLOGIE ENGLISC, DOI [10.1515/9783111562827, DOI 10.1515/9783111562827] Gray Jonathan, 2006, WATCHING SIMPSONS TE Hauge Ron, 1997, HOMERS PHOBIA, V4F11 Heacock Paul, 2006, CAMBRIGE DICT AM IDI Irwin William, 2001, SIMPSONS PHILOS DOH Lorenzo E., 1996, ANGLICISMOS HISPANIC Martinez Oncins, 2005, PHRASEOLOGY 2005 MAN, P311 Melcuk I., 1998, PHRASEOLOGY THEORY A, P23 Moon R., 1998, FIXED EXPRESSIONS ID Naciscione Anita, 2001, PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS Naciscione Anita, 2010, YB PHRASEOLOGY, VI, P19, DOI [10.1515/9783110222623.1.19, DOI 10.1515/9783110222623.1.19] Norrick Neal R., 1985, PROVERBS MEAN SEMANT, DOI [10.1017/s0047404500013026, DOI 10.1017/S0047404500013026] Orero Pilar, 2004, TOPICS AUDIOVISUAL T, DOI [10.1075/btl.56, DOI 10.1075/BTL.56] Corpas Pastor Gloria, 2003, DIEZ ANOS INVESTIGAT Corpas Pastor Gloria, 1996, MANUAL FRASEOLOGIA E Pinsky M. I., 2007, GOSPEL ACCORDING SIM Potter Elizabeth, 1995, COLLINS COBUILD DICT Real Academia Espanola, 2001, DICCIONARIO LENGUA E Russell C. A., 1999, MARKET LETT, V10, P393, DOI 10.1023/A:1008170406363 Seco Manuel, 2004, DICCIONARIO FRASEOLO, DOI [10.1093/ijl/eci048, DOI 10.1093/IJL/ECI048] Siefring J., 2004, OXFORD DICT IDIOMS Simon Sam, 1990, 2 CARS EVERY GARAGE, V7F01 Spears Richard A., 2007, MCGRAW HILLS DICT AM, DOI [10.1108/09504120710728798, DOI 10.1108/09504120710728798] Strassler J., 1982, IDIOMS ENGLISH PRAGM Swartzwelder John, 1998, KINGS OF THE HILL, V5F16 Swartzwelder John, 2002, THE FRYING GAME, VDABF16 Kubarth Hugo, 1996, DICCIONARIO FRASEOLO Vitti Jon, 1990, BART THE GENIUS, V7G02 Vitti Jon, 2002, WEEKEND AT BURNSIES, VDABF11 Waltonen Karma, 2010, SIMPSONS CLASSROOM E Warburton Matt, 2003, 3 GAYS CONDO, VEABF12 NR 48 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 8 U2 11 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0521-9744 EI 1569-9668 J9 BABEL-AMSTERDAM JI Babel PY 2015 VL 61 IS 1 BP 1 EP 21 DI 10.1075/babel.61.1.01rod PG 21 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ2ML UT WOS:000360434400003 ER PT J AU Hlavac, J AF Hlavac, Jim TI Pre- and post-conflict language designations and language policies Re-configuration of professional norms amongst translators of the Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian languages SO TARGET-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSLATION STUDIES LA English DT Article DE norms; language designations; post-conflict situations; Bosnian; Croatian; Serbian; translator roles AB This paper examines the reported actions and strategies of translators working in three closely related languages, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, which have recently undergone re-codification in countries that have greatly changed their language planning and language policy regulations. The legacy of former and unofficial designations such as 'Serbo-Croatian' or 'Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian' within the post-conflict situation is contextualised and translators' decision-making processes and reported strategies in relation to language form and designation are examined. The paper seeks to demonstrate the explanatory power of Toury's notion of norms as a framework to account for new regularities of practice. Texts identified to be different from their nominal code, or market requests to work from or into unofficial designations are now problematised and re-negotiated as secondary practices or a less commonly reported behaviour. The paper extends and applies the notion of norms to the social and occupational, macro-pragmatic role that translators occupy. C1 Monash Univ, Translat & Interpreting Studies Program, Sch Languages Literatures Cultures & Linguist, Caulfield, Vic 3145, Australia. RP Hlavac, J (reprint author), Monash Univ, Translat & Interpreting Studies Program, Sch Languages Literatures Cultures & Linguist, POB 197, Caulfield, Vic 3145, Australia. EM jim.hlavac@monash.edu CR Apter E, 2001, PUBLIC CULTURE, V13, P65, DOI 10.1215/08992363-13-1-65 Askew Louise, 2011, TRANSLATION STUDIES, V4, P103, DOI [10.1080/14781700.2011.528685, DOI 10.1080/14781700.2011.528685] Baibikov E, 2010, TRANSL INTERPRET STU, V5, P59, DOI 10.1075/tis.5.1.04bai Brboric Branislav, 1999, HDB SUDOSTEUROPA LIN, P339 Brozovic Dalibor, 1969, RJECNIK JEZIKA ILI J Brozovic Dalibor, 1991, PLURICENTRIC LANGUAG, P347 Bugarski Ranko, 1995, JEZIK MIRA RATA Bugarski Ranko, 2004, LANGUAGE FORMER YUGO Bugarski R, 2012, J MULTILING MULTICUL, V33, P219, DOI 10.1080/01434632.2012.663376 CHESTERMAN A., 1993, TARGET, V5, P1, DOI DOI 10.1075/TARGET.5.1.02CHE Clyne Michael, 1997, UNDOING REDOING CORP ColicPeisker V, 2008, STUD WOR MIGR, P1 Cvetkovic-Sander Ksenija, 2011, SPRACHPOLITIK NATL I Even-Zohar I, 1978, TRANSLATION STUDIES, P199 Even-Zohar I., 1990, POETICS TODAY, V11 Fleming KE, 2000, AM HIST REV, V105, P1218, DOI 10.2307/2651410 Greenberg R. D., 2004, LANGUAGE IDENTITY BA HLAVAC Jim, 2013, INT J TRANSLATION IN, V5, P76 Hornberger N. H., 2006, INTRO LANGUAGE POLIC, P24 Jahn JE, 1999, LANG COMMUN, V19, P329, DOI 10.1016/S0271-5309(99)00009-9 Jones Francis R., 2005, IATIS YB 2005, P68 Jones FR, 2010, TRANSLATOR, V16, P223 Kapovic Mate, 2009, KOLO, V9, P24 Katan D, 2009, TRANSL INTERPRET STU, V4, P187, DOI 10.1075/tis.4.2.04kat Klaic B., 1982, RJECNIK STRANIH RIJE Kloss Heinz, 1976, THEORIE DIALEKTS AUF, P301 Kloss Heinz, 1974, I DTSCH SPRACHE FORS, V20, P7 KORDIC S., 2010, JEZIK I NACL Kovacevic Milos, 1999, DEFENCE SERBIAN LANG Kuhiwczak Piotr, 1999, WORD TEXT TRANSLATIO, P217 Lefevere Andre, 1992, TRANSLATION REWRITIN Levinger Jasna, 1993, ZBORNIK FILOLOGIJU L, V36, P93 Longinovic TZ, 2011, TRANSL EUROPE, V4, P283 Magner Thomas, 1992, LANGUAGE PLANNING YU, P189 Neweklowsky G, 2000, WELT SLAVEN, V45, P1 Nikcevic Vojislav, 2009, JEZICNI VARIJETETI N, P147 Okuka Milos, 1985, JUGOSLAVENSKI SEMINA, V35, P53 Okuka Milos, 1998, SPRACHE VIELE ERBEN Pavlicevic Dragutin, 1994, RADOVI ZAVODA HRVATS, V27, P389 Pongrasic Zoran, 2009, HI FI FOTELJA Pym A, 2010, EXPLORING TRANSLATION THEORIES, 2ND EDITION, P1 Radanovic-Kocic Vesna, 1986, STUDIES LINGUISTIC S, V16, P123 Radovanovic Milorad, 2000, MULTILINGUA, V19, P21, DOI DOI 10.1515/MULT.2000.19.1-2.21 Radovanovic Milorad, 1996, SRPSKI JEZIK Rundle Christopher, 2010, TRANSLATION FASCISM, DOI [10.1057/9780230292444, DOI 10.1057/9780230292444] Samardzija Marko, 1993, HRVATSKI JEZIK NEZAV Skvorc Boris, 2005, AUSTRALSKI HRVATI MI Sojat Antun, 1983, RASPRAVE ZAVODA JEZI, V8-9, P253 Spivak Gayatri Chakravorty, 2005, NATION LANGUAGE ETHI, P93 Stahuljak Z, 2010, TRANSLATOR, V16, P255 Thomas Paul-Louis, 1998, ZBORNIK FILOLOGIJU L, V38, P185 Thomson-Wohlgemuth Gaby, 2007, MODES CENSORSHIP TRA, P93 Todorova Maria N., 1997, IMAGINING BALKANS Tolimir-Holzl Natasa, 2009, BOSNIEN HERZEGOWINA TOURY G., 1978, LIT TRANSLATION NEW, pp117 Toury Gideon, 2004, TRANSLATION STUDIES, P205 Toury Gideon, 2012, DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLAT, DOI [10.1075/btl.100, DOI 10.1075/BTL.100] Turk Marija, 2008, SUVREMENA LINGVISTIK, V65, P73 Tymoczko Maria, 2003, APROPOS IDEOLOGY TRA, P181 UNESCO, IND TRANSL Venuti L., 2005, NATION LANGUAGE ETHI, P177 Vinay Jean-Paul, 1972, STYLISTIQUE COMP FRA Wachtel Andrew Baruch, 1998, MAKING NATION BREAKI WOLF Michaela, 2002, CROSSCULTURAL TRANSG, P180 Zanic Ivo, 2009, JEZICNI VARIJETETI N, P457 Zauberga Ieva, 2000, LANGUAGES CULTURES, V1, P49 NR 66 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 1 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0924-1884 EI 1569-9986 J9 TARGET-NETH JI Target PY 2015 VL 27 IS 2 BP 238 EP 272 DI 10.1075/target.27.2.04hla PG 35 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CQ0UV UT WOS:000360313900004 ER PT J AU Hopp, H Putnam, MT AF Hopp, Holger Putnam, Michael T. TI Syntactic restructuring in heritage grammars Word order variation in Moundridge Schweitzer German SO LINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO BILINGUALISM LA English DT Article DE heritage German; incomplete acquisition; reanalysis; syntactic change; word order variation ID DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING; 2ND-LANGUAGE ACQUISITION; VERB 2ND; SPEAKERS; ATTRITION; KNOWLEDGE; LANGUAGES; FEATURES AB In order to elucidate the structure of heritage grammars, this paper presents an analysis of word order variation in Moundridge Schweitzer German (MSG), a moribund heritage variety of German spoken in South Central Kansas. Based on elicited production data and an acceptability judgment task, we show that the current state of the MSG grammar maintains the asymmetric German verb-second (V2) and verb-final (V-final) word-ordering closely tied to specific pragmatic information associated with clause-types and complementizers. Extensive contact with English does not lead to adoption of English word order; rather, it occasions restructuring of German word order within the constraints of German syntax. We model these findings in a syntactic analysis following recent proposals by Putnam & Sanchez (2013) and Polinsky (2011) that challenge the notion of 'incomplete acquisition' as a way to conceptualize heritage language acquisition. C1 [Hopp, Holger] Univ Mannheim, English Linguist, D-68131 Mannheim, Germany. [Putnam, Michael T.] Penn State Univ, University Pk, PA 16802 USA. RP Hopp, H (reprint author), Univ Mannheim, English Linguist, Schloss EW 266, D-68131 Mannheim, Germany. EM hhopp@rumms.uni-mannheim.de CR Amaral L, 2014, SECOND LANG RES, V30, P3, DOI 10.1177/0267658313519017 Antomo M., 2012, PROCEEDINGS OF CONSO, P27 Antomo M, 2010, Z SPRACHWISS, V29, P1 Benmamoun E, 2013, THEOR LINGUIST, V39, P129, DOI 10.1515/tl-2013-0009 Besch W., 1977, ALEMANNISCH Chomsky Noam, 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM Clahsen H., 1982, SPRACHERWERB KINDHEI Clyne M., 2003, DYNAMICS LANGUAGES C, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511606526, DOI 10.1017/CB09780511606526] Cain H., 2000, KULTUREN SPRACHEN UB, P135 Clyne Michael, 1994, SPRACHINSELN, P105 Abraham Werner, 1983, LINGUISTIK AKTUELL, V3, P47 Dubenion-Smith SA, 2010, J GER LINGUIST, V22, P99, DOI 10.1017/S1470542709990249 Fitch GW, 2011, STUD LANG C, V123, P371 Freywald U, 2008, DEUT SPRACHE, V36, P246 Fuller J., 1997, THESIS U S CAROLINA Gawlitzek-Maiwald I., 1992, ACQUISITION VERB PLA, P139 GawlitzekMaiwald I, 1996, LINGUISTICS, V34, P901, DOI 10.1515/ling.1996.34.5.901 Grewendorf G, 2011, STUD LANG C, V123, P301 Francois Grosjean, 2008, STUDYING BILINGUALS Gross S., 2005, 2 INT C 1 LANG ATTR Hakansson G, 1995, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V5, P153, DOI 10.1111/j.1473-4192.1995.tb00078.x Kaufman M., 1975, CHALLENGING FAITH Lardiere D, 2009, SECOND LANG RES, V25, P173, DOI 10.1177/0267658308100283 Lightfoot D., 2006, NEW LANGUAGES EMERGE, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511616204, DOI 10.1017/CB09780511616204] Louden ML, 2011, STUD LANG C, V123, P165 Louden Mark L., 1988, THESIS CORNELL U Louden M. L., 2006, SPRACHINSELWELTEN WO, P89 Mohring A., 2003, VULNERABLE DOMAINS M, P295, DOI DOI 10.1075/HSM.1.11M0H Montrul S, 2008, INCOMPLETE ACQUISITI, DOI [10.1075/sibil.39, DOI 10.1075/SIBIL.39] Montrul S, 2009, INT J BILINGUAL, V13, P239, DOI 10.1177/1367006909339316 Montrul S, 2013, LANG ACQUIS, V20, P109, DOI 10.1080/10489223.2013.766741 Montrul S, 2009, BILING-LANG COGN, V12, P363, DOI 10.1017/S1366728909990071 Muller Natascha, 2006, EINFUHRUNG MEHRSPRAC Nordstrom J., 2010, MODALITY SUBORDINATO, DOI [10.1075/slcs.116, DOI 10.1075/SLCS.116] Obler LK, 2008, HANDBOOK OF THE NEUROSCIENCE OF LANGUAGE, P351 O'Grady W., 2001, J KOREAN LANGUAGE ED, V12, P283 Pascual y Cabo D., 2012, APPL LINGUIST, V33, P450, DOI [10.1093/applin/ams037, DOI 10.1093/APPLIN/AMS037] Pires A, 2009, INT J BILINGUAL, V13, P211, DOI 10.1177/1367006909339806 POEPPEL D, 1993, LANGUAGE, V69, P1, DOI 10.2307/416414 Polinsky Maria, 2006, J SLAVIC LINGUISTICS, V14, P191 Polinsky M., 2009, CUNY SENT PROC C UC Polinsky M., 2008, HERITAGE LANGUAGE ED, P149 Polinsky Maria, 2007, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V1.5, P368, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2007.00022.X Polinsky M, 2011, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V33, P305, DOI 10.1017/S027226311000077X Post R., 1992, PFALZISCH EINFUHRUNG Putnam M., 2012, Z DIALEKTOL LINGUIST, V79, P41 Putnam MT, 2013, LINGUIST APPROACH BI, V3, P233, DOI 10.1075/lab.3.2.05put Putnam MT, 2013, LINGUIST APPROACH BI, V3, P478, DOI 10.1075/lab.3.4.04put Rein K., 1977, Z DIALEKTOLOGIE S15, V15 Reis M, 2013, Z SPRACHWISS, V32, P221 Riehl C., BILINGUALIS IN PRESS RIEHL Claudia Maria, 2004, SPRACHKONTAKTFORSCHU Rizzi Luigi, 1996, PARAMETERS FUNCTIONA, P63 Rizzi Luigi, 1997, KLUWER INT HDB LINGU, V1, P281, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8 Rothman J, 2009, INT J BILINGUAL, V13, P155, DOI 10.1177/1367006909339814 Schmid MS, 2010, LANG LEARN, V60, P753, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00575.x Schmid MS, 2013, LINGUIST APPROACH BI, V3, P94, DOI 10.1075/lab.3.1.05sch Schmid M., 2002, 1 LANGUAGE ATTRITION, DOI [10.1075/sibil.24, DOI 10.1075/SIBIL.24] Schneider W., 2002, E PRIME USERS GUIDE Schonenberger M., 2001, EMBEDDED V TO C CHIL, DOI [10.1007/978-94-010-0798-6, DOI 10.1007/978-94-010-0798-6] Slabakova R., 2009, SECOND LANG RES, V25, P313, DOI DOI 10.1177/0267658308100291 Sorace A., 2004, BILING-LANG COGN, V7, P143, DOI [10.1017/S1366728904001543, DOI 10.1017/S1366728904001543] Sorace A, 2011, LINGUIST APPROACH BI, V1, P2, DOI 10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor Stolberg D., 2014, STUDIA LINGUISTICA G Truckenbrodt H., 2006, THEOR LINGUIST, V22, P257 Truscott J, 2004, BILING-LANG COGN, V7, P1, DOI DOI 10.1017/S13667289040 Valdes G., 2000, AATSP PROFESSIONAL D, V1, P1 van Gelderen E., 2004, GRAMMATICALIZATION E, DOI [10.1075/la.71, DOI 10.1075/LA.71] Vikner Sten, 1995, VERB MOVEMENT EXPLET Westergaard M, 2008, LINGUA, V118, P1841, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.003 Wild K., 1994, SYNTAX EINGELEITETEN Muysken P., 2014, PIDGINS CREOLES AFRI, P101, DOI [10.1075/cll.47.06yak, DOI 10.1075/CLL.47.06YAK] NR 72 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1879-9264 EI 1879-9272 J9 LINGUIST APPROACHES JI Linguist. Approaches Biling. PY 2015 VL 5 IS 2 BP 180 EP 214 DI 10.1075/lab.5.2.02hop PG 35 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CP7DX UT WOS:000360048500003 ER PT J AU Ahn, M Yap, FH AF Ahn, Mikyung Yap, Foong Ha TI Evidentiality in interaction A pragmatic analysis of Korean hearsay evidential markers SO STUDIES IN LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE hearsay evidential marker; attributive evidential; conclusive evidential; epistemic stance; solidarity-enhancing effect; impersonal and distancing effect; main-clause ellipsis; insubordination ID JAPANESE CONVERSATION; INFORMATION; TTE; SAY AB This paper examines how hearsay evidential markers in Korean are used within the pragmatic domain to serve a wide range of epistemic and politeness functions. In particular, we focus on a new paradigm of hearsay evidential markers - more specifically, the V-ta ha-X > V-ta-X type, among them -tako, -tamye, -tamyense, -tanun, and -tanta (see Ahn & Yap 2014) - and using data from the Sejong Contemporary Spoken Corpus, we examine the extended uses of these hearsay evidential markers in natural conversations, and show how these 'say'-derived evidential markers contribute to the expression of different shades of speaker stance. Special attention is also given to their distinctive roles in modulating the strength - as well as pragmatic nuance - of an epistemic claim. This study also examines the role of main-clause ellipsis, in particular its contribution to the reanalysis of the (quoted) complement clause as a stand-alone 'new main clause', and the concomitant reinterpretation of the erstwhile ha 'say' complement-taking matrix clause as a sentence final particle that often retains an evidential reading but also captures the pragmatic nuance of its discourse context. The findings of this study contribute to a fuller understanding of how 'say'-derived evidential constructions in Korean (and potentially also in other languages) extend their semantic scope to develop into markers of speakers' subjective and intersubjective/interpersonal stance. C1 [Ahn, Mikyung] Hankuk Univ Foreign Studies, Seoul 130791, South Korea. Hong Kong Polytech Univ, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. RP Ahn, M (reprint author), Hankuk Univ Foreign Studies, 408 Fac Bldg 1,107 Imun Ro, Seoul 130791, South Korea. EM amk7136@hotmail.com FU Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund; Hong Kong Polytechnic University Dean's Reserve for Research, Scholarly and Other Endeavors (Faculty of Humanities) FX We wish to gratefully acknowledge support from Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund awarded to the first author and from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University Dean's Reserve for Research, Scholarly and Other Endeavors (Faculty of Humanities) awarded to the second author. The Hong Kong-based research project is entitled "Insubordination of 'Say' Constructions: Implications for the Relationship between Evidentiality and Finiteness" (HKPU 1-ZVAY). An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2nd American Pragmatics Conference (AMPRA-2), UCLA, October 17-19. We wish to thank the following for their valuable insights and for extensive discussions: Weirong Chen, Winnie Chor, Changmin Jeon, Mary Shin Kim, Chungmin Lee, Stephen Matthews, Jinho Park, Seongha Rhee, Sung-Ock Sohn, Satoshi Tomioka, Tak-Sum Wong, and Vivien Ying Yang. CR [Anonymous], 2006, STUDIES MODERN GRAMM Ahn M, 2014, DIACHRONICA, V31, P299, DOI 10.1075/dia.31.3.01ahn Aikhenvald Alexandra, 2004, EVIDENTIALITY Aikhenvald Alexandra Y., 1998, LANG SCI, V20, P241, DOI 10.1016/So388-0001(98)00002-3 Aikhenvald Alexandra Y., 2007, LINGUISTICS TIBETO B, V30, P1 Aikhenvald A. Y., 2003, STUDIES EVIDENTIALIT, DOI [10.1075/tsl.54, DOI 10.1075/TSL.54] Aksu-Koc A., 1988, ACQUISITION ASPECT M, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511554353, DOI 10.1017/CB09780511554353] Ball J. D., 1888, CANTONESE MADE EASY BISANG W, 2007, FINITENESS THEORETIC, V1, P115 Brown P., 1987, QUESTIONS POLITENESS, P256 Chafe W. L., 1986, EVIDENTIALITY LINGUI Chang M., 1998, 2 INT S LANG TAIW TA, P111 Chao Y.-R., 1947, CANTONESE PRIMER Chappell Hilary, 2008, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V12, P45, DOI [10.1515/LITY.2008.032, DOI 10.1515/LITY.2008.032] Chui Kawai, 1994, SANTA BARBARA PAPERS, V5, P1 Chung K., 2012, SPACE TENSE INTERACT, DOI [10.1075/la.189, DOI 10.1075/LA.189] Chung K.-S., 2007, NAT LANG SEMANT, V15, P187, DOI DOI 10.1007/S11050-007-9017-8 Chung KS, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P932, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.006 DeLancey S, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P369, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 DeLancey Scott, 1985, BERKELEY LINGUISTICS, V11, P65 DeLancey S, 2011, TYPOL ST L, V96, P343 Englebretson Robert, 2007, STANCETAKING DISCOUR, DOI [10.1075/pbns.164, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.164] Englebretson R., 2003, SEARCHING STRUCTURE, DOI [10.1075/sidag.13, DOI 10.1075/SIDAG.13] Evans Nicholas, 2007, FINITENESS THEORETIC, P366 Everett DL, 2008, STUD LANG C, V105, P381 FALLER MARTINA, 2003, P SEM UND REPR LANG, V2, P19 Fox Barbara A., 2001, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V11, P167, DOI DOI 10.1525/JLIN.2001.11.2.167 Gipper S., 2011, EVIDENTIALITY INTERS Goldberg L. R., 1981, REV PERSONALITY SOCI, V2, P141 GOPNIK A, 1988, CHILD DEV, V59, P26, DOI 10.2307/1130386 Grunow-Harsta K, 2011, TYPOL ST L, V96, P215 Guldemann T, 2008, EMPIR APPROACH LANG, V34, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110211450 Han W., 2013, 20 INT C COGN LING U HAN Weifeng, 2012, 16 ANN C CHIN LING S Heine Bernd, 2002, WORLD LEXICON GRAMMA, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511613463, DOI 10.1017/CB09780511613463] Hengeveld K., 4 TYPES EVI IN PRESS Higashiizumi Yuko, 2006, SUBORDINATE CLAUSE I Hill J., 1993, RESPONSIBILITY EVIDE, P1 Hopper Paul J., 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139165525, DOI 10.1017/CB09781139165525] Horie K., 2012, WORKSH STANC DISC DI Hsieh FH, 2012, OCEAN LINGUIST, V51, P464 Iwasaki S., 1993, JAPANESE KOREAN LING Jang GyeongHyeon, 2012, [Korean Semantics, 한국어 의미학], V38, P109 Jeong Jin, 2013, [Discourse and Cognition, 담화와 인지], V20, P183 Johanson L., 2000, EVIDENTIALS TURKIC I, DOI [10.1515/9783110805284, DOI 10.1515/9783110805284] Kamio A., 1997, DIRECTIONS FUNCTIONA, P145, DOI 10.1075/slcs.36.09kam Kamio A., 1990, THESIS U TSUKUBA KAMIO A, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V21, P67, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90047-7 Kamio A., 1997, TERRITORY OF INFORM, DOI [10.1075/pbns.48, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.48] Kim Minju, 2011, GRAMMATICALIZATION K Kim MS, 2011, DISCOURSE STUD, V13, P435, DOI 10.1177/1461445611403259 Kim MS, 2005, DISCOURSE STUD, V7, P87, DOI 10.1177/146144560504S76S Kim M. S., 2006, EVIDENTIAL STRATEGIE Kim N., 2001, J INT CIRCLE KOREAN, V10, P105 Konoshima M., 1973, KOKUGO JOSHO NO KENK Kwon I, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P958, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.007 LaPolla RJ, 2000, LINGUA, V110, P299, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00037-6 Lee Jungmee, 2010, EMPIRICAL ISSUES SYN, V8, P287 Lee S., 2011, STUDY KOREAN LANGUAG, V39, P209 Leung W-M, 2006, THESIS U HONG KONG H [Anonymous], 2009, INT J LINGUISTICS, DOI DOI 10.5296/IJL.V1I1.204 Lim D., 2012, PROCEEDS SALT, V22, P26 Lim Dongsik, 2010, THESIS U SO CALIFORN Loughnane R., 2005, MAT GOLIN GRAMMAR TE, P131 Matthews S., 1998, P 6 INT S CHIN LANG, P325 McGregor W. B., 1994, AUSTR J LINGUISTICS, V14, P63, DOI 10.1080/07268609408599502 Miura A., 1974, NIHONGO KYOOIKU, V24, P23 Morrison R., 2001, VOCABULARY CANTON DI Mushin I., 2001, EVIDENTIALITY EPISTE, DOI [10.1075/pbns.87, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.87] [Anonymous], 2010, HANMALYENKU [Anonymous], 2010, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2010.00253.X Nuyts J, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P383, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00009-6 Ohori Toshio, 1995, ESSAYS SEMANTICS PRA, P201, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.32.11OHO Palmer Frank R., 1986, MOOD MODALITY Park N., 2013, BILINGUAL RES, V51, P45 [Anonymous], 2004, BILING-LANG COGN Rhee S, 2012, LANG SCI, V34, P284, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.10.004 Rudolph D., 1993, THESIS U SO CALIFORN [Anonymous], 1997, LANGUAGE CULTURE Saxena A., 1988, BERKELEY LINGUISTICS, P375 Shinzato R, 2015, SENTENCE FINAL PARTI, P157 Sohn Ho-Min, 1994, KOREAN Sohn Ho-Min, 1999, THE KOREAN LANGUAGE Sohn Sung-Ock, 2011, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V18, P126 Song J. M., 1998, KWUKEHAK, V32, P135 Song Jae-mog, 2002, 12 INT C KOR LING, P457 [Anonymous], 2004, CONCENTRIC STUDIES L [Anonymous], 1993, B I HIST PHILOLOGY A Suzuki R, 2007, J HIST PRAGMAT, V8, P207, DOI 10.1075/jhp.8.2.04suz Suzuki S, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V29, P429, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00050-7 [Anonymous], 1999, J ASS TEACHERS JAPAN, DOI DOI 10.2307/489630 Tamaji M, 2013, 10 BIENN M ASS LING Tamaji M., 2013, 15 ANN INT C JAP SOC Trent N, 1997, THESIS U TEXAS AUSTI van der Voort H, 2002, CURRENT STUDIES S AM, V3, P307 Wang YF, 2003, LANG SCI, V25, P457, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(03)00020-2 WILLETT T, 1988, STUD LANG, V12, P51, DOI 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil WIMMER H, 1983, COGNITION, V13, P103, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5 Yap FH, 2011, TYPOL ST L, V96, P1 Yap FH, 2014, STUD PRAGMAT, V12, P179, DOI 10.1163/9789004274822_009 Yeung Kawai, 2006, TAIWAN J LINGUISTICS, V4, P1 Yuzawa K, 1954, EDOKOTOBA NO KENKYUU NR 102 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 0 U2 2 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0378-4177 J9 STUD LANG JI Stud. Lang. PY 2015 VL 39 IS 1 BP 46 EP 84 DI 10.1075/sl.39.1.03ahn PG 39 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CN2TV UT WOS:000358275700003 ER PT J AU Cramer, J AF Cramer, Jennifer TI An Optimality-Theoretic approach to dialect code-switching SO ENGLISH WORLD-WIDE LA English DT Article DE code-switching; optimality; bidialectalism; socio-pragmatics; American English ID GENDER RESEARCH; LANGUAGE; STYLE AB Despite the numerous frameworks for analyzing patterns of code-switching (CS) in multilingual communities, previous analyses have lacked a thorough treatment of the universality of the functions of CS. A recent model (Bhatt and Bolonyai 2011) addresses this gap by presenting a framework that incorporates principles of Optimality Theory (OT) and offers a precise model in which the countless functions of CS are reduced to five meta-constraints, the interaction and satisfaction of which account for the different grammars of bilingual language use. This framework's applicability to situations of dialectal CS must be tested in order to show the breadth and depth of the model. This paper presents a reanalysis of the data in Mishoe (1995), which utilized the Markedness Model (Myers-Scotton 1993), within Bhatt and Bolonyai's (2011) OT framework, demonstrating that data previously analyzed using another model of CS receives a better account under Bhatt and Bolonyai's OT approach. C1 Univ Kentucky, Dept English, Lexington, KY 40506 USA. RP Cramer, J (reprint author), Univ Kentucky, Dept English, 1243 Patterson Off Tower, Lexington, KY 40506 USA. EM jennifer.cramer@uky.edu CR Adger D, 2007, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V11, P261, DOI 10.1017/S1360674307002250 Auer P., 1998, CODE SWITCHING CONVE Bell A., 2001, STYLE SOCIOLINGUISTI, P139, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511613258.010 BELL A, 1984, LANG SOC, V13, P145 Bhatt RM, 2011, BILING-LANG COGN, V14, P522, DOI 10.1017/S1366728910000295 Bhatt Rakesh M, 2000, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V4, P69, DOI 10.1017/S1360674300000149 Bolonyai A, 2005, J SOCIOLING, V9, P3, DOI 10.1111/j.1360-6441.2005.00279.x Britt E, 2011, LANG SOC, V40, P211, DOI 10.1017/S0047404511000042 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Childs Becky, 2004, ENGL WORLD-WIDE, V25, P27, DOI 10.1075/eww.25.1.03chi Eckert P, 1999, LANG SOC, V28, P185 GAL S, 1987, AM ETHNOL, V14, P637, DOI 10.1525/ae.1987.14.4.02a00030 Goffman Erving, 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL Greene Deric M., 2004, J NEGRO EDUC, V73, P435, DOI 10.2307/4129627 Gumperz John J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511611834, DOI 10.1017/CB09780511611834] Hayes Bruce, 2000, OPTIMALITY THEORY PH, P88 Heller Monica, 1995, ONE SPEAKER 2 LANGUA, P158 Henry Allison, 1995, BELFAST ENGLISH STAN Holmes J, 1999, LANG SOC, V28, P173, DOI 10.1017/S004740459900202X Kovacs Timea, 2010, THESIS U SCI PECS HU Labov William, 1966, SOCIAL STRATIFICATIO Lee Young Sun, 2009, ANN M AM ASS APPL LI Wei LI, 1994, 3 GENERATIONS 2 LANG Mishoe Margaret., 1995, THESIS U S CAROLINA Myers-Scotton C, 2001, LANG SOC, V30, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0047404501001014 Myers-Scotton C., 1998, CODES CONSEQUENCES C Myers-Scotton Carol, 1993, SOCIAL MOTIVATIONS C Pederson Lee, 1986, LINGUISTIC ATLAS GUL Prince Alan, 2004, OPTIMALITY THEORY CO Smitherman Geneva, 2004, J ENGL LINGUIST, V32, P186, DOI 10.1177/0075424204268223 Soukup B, 2011, J SOCIOLING, V15, P347 Wheeler RS, 2008, EDUC LEADERSHIP, V65, P54 Wolfram Walt, 1974, STUDY SOCIAL DIALECT Woolard K., 1988, CODESWITCHING ANTHR, P53 NR 34 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 2 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0172-8865 EI 1569-9730 J9 ENGL WORLD-WIDE JI Engl. World-Wide PY 2015 VL 36 IS 2 BP 170 EP 197 DI 10.1075/eww.36.2.02cra PG 28 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CN1JU UT WOS:000358176600002 ER PT J AU Schroter, M Storjohann, P AF Schroeter, Melani Storjohann, Petra TI Patterns of discourse semantics A corpus-assisted study of financial crisis in British newspaper discourse in 2009 SO PRAGMATICS AND SOCIETY LA English DT Article DE discourse keywords (DKW); discourse semantics; semantic presence/absence; frame-based contrastive analysis; corpus linguistics; public/political discourse AB Corpus-assisted analyses of public discourse often focus on the level of the lexicon. This article argues in favour of corpus-assisted analyses of discourse, but also in favour of conceptualising salient lexical items in public discourse in a more determined way. It draws partly on non-Anglophone academic traditions in order to promote a conceptualisation of discourse keywords, thereby highlighting how their meaning is determined by their use in discourse contexts. It also argues in favour of emphasising the cognitive and epistemic dimensions of discourse-determined semantic structures. These points will be exemplified by means of a corpus-assisted, as well as a frame-based analysis of the discourse keyword financial crisis in British newspaper articles from 2009. Collocations of financial crisis are assigned to a generic matrix frame for 'event' which contains slots that specify possible statements about events. By looking at which slots are more, respectively less filled with collocates of financial crisis, we will trace semantic presence as well as absence, and thereby highlight the pragmatic dimensions of lexical semantics in public discourse. The article also advocates the suitability of discourse keyword analyses for systematic contrastive analyses of public/political discourse and for lexicographical projects that could serve to extend the insights drawn from corpus-guided approaches to discourse analysis. C1 [Schroeter, Melani] Univ Reading, German Linguist, Reading RG6 6AA, Berks, England. [Storjohann, Petra] Inst Deutsch Sprache Mannheim, Lex Div, D-68161 Mannheim, Germany. RP Schroter, M (reprint author), Univ Reading, Modern Languages & European Studies, German, Whiteknights Box 218, Reading RG6 6AA, Berks, England. EM m.schroeter@reading.ac.uk; storjohann@ids-mannheim.de CR Anthony Laurence, 2011, ANTCONC COMPUTER SOF Ayto J, 1999, 20 CENTURY WORDS Baker P., 2005, J LANG POLIT, V4, P197, DOI 10.1075/jlp.4.2.04bak Baker Paul, 2010, USING CORPORA DISCOU Baker P., 2004, J ENGL LINGUIST, V32, P346, DOI DOI 10.1177/0075424204269894 Baker P, 2008, DISCOURSE SOC, V19, P273, DOI 10.1177/0957926508088962 Bassi Erica, 2010, KEYNESS IN TEXTS, P207, DOI [10.1075/scl.41.15bas, DOI 10.1075/SCL.41.15BAS] Belica Cyril, 1995, STAT KOLLOKATIONSANA Bondi M., 2010, KEYNESS IN TEXTS, DOI [10.1075/scl.41, DOI 10.1075/SCL.41] Brunner Otto, 1972, GESCHICHTLICHE GRUND Bubenhofer Noah, 2013, PERSPEKTIVEN ANGEW D, P103 Busse D, 2008, LINGUIST-IMPULSE TEN, V31, P57 Cruse Alan, 2000, POLYSEMY THEORETICAL, P30 Dewey J., 1958, EXPERIENCE NATURE, DOI [10.1037/13377-000, DOI 10.1037/13377-000] Felbick Dieter, 2003, SCHLAGWORTER NACHKRI FILLMORE CJ, 1976, ANN NY ACAD SCI, V280, P20, DOI 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x Hart Christopher, 2010, CRITICAL DISCOURSE A, DOI [10.1057/9780230299009, DOI 10.1057/9780230299009] Hoey M., 2007, TEXT DISCOURSE CORPO, P7 Konerding Klaus-Peter, 1993, FRAMES LEXIKALISCHES, DOI [10.1515/9783111674926, DOI 10.1515/9783111674926] Langacker Ronald, 2008, COGNITIVE GRAMMAR BA, DOI [10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001, DOI 10.1093/ACPROF:0S0/9780195331967.001.0001] Louw Eric, 2010, MEDIA POLITICAL PROC Mahlberg M., 2007, TEXT DISCOURSE CORPO, P191 Mautner Gerlinde, 2012, KORPUSPRAGMATIK THEM, P79 Mautner G., 2009, METHODS CRITICAL DIS, P122 McKenzie Kevin, 2005, J LANG POLIT, V4, P443, DOI [10.1075/jlp.4.3.06mck, DOI 10.1075/JLP.4.3.06MCK] NEE E., 2012, LANGAGE SOC, V140, P15, DOI DOI 10.3917/LS.140.0015 Nier Thomas, 1993, SCHLAGWORTER POLITIS Posch Claudia, 2010, Z SPRACHKRITIK SPRAC, V2, P121 Reisigl M, 2011, DIS APPL POL SOC CUL, V43, P7 Schmitz-Berning Cornelia, 2000, VOKABULAR NATIONALSO Schroter Melani, 2013, POLITIK ALS SPRACHLI, P91 Stephenson Angus, 2010, OXFORD ENGLISH DICT Storjohann Petra, 2011, Z SPRACHKRITIK SPRAC, V1, P32 Storjohann Petra, 2007, Z SPRACHKRITIK SPRAC, V2, P139 Stotzel Georg, 2002, ZEITGESCHICHTLICHES StrauB Gerhard, 1989, BRISANTE WORTER AGIT, DOI [10.1515/9783110848885, DOI 10.1515/9783110848885] Stubbs M., 2010, KEYNESS IN TEXTS, P21, DOI DOI 10.1075/SCL.41.03STU Stubbs M., 2001, WORDS AND PHRASES Cermakova A., 2004, LEXICOLOGY CORPUS LI, P113 Teubert Wolfgang, 2007, TEXT DISCOURSE CORPO, P57 Teubert Wolfgang, 2010, DISCOURSE SOC, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511770852, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511770852] Wengeler Martin, 2009, Z SPRACHKRITIK SPRAC, V2, P138 Wierzbicka Anna, 2010, EXPERIENCE EVIDENCE, DOI [10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195368000.001.0001, DOI 10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780195368000.001.0001] Wierzbicka A, 1997, UNDERSTANDING CULTUR Anna Wierzbicka, 2006, ENGLISH MEANING CULT Wierzbicka Anna, 2001, EMOTIONS CROSSLINGUI Ziem Alexander, 2008, SPRACHE WISSEN, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110209419 Ziem Alexander, 2013, OBEN SPRACHE WAHLEN, P69 Ziem A, 2008, LINGUIST-IMPULSE TEN, V31, P89 NR 49 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 4 U2 9 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1878-9714 EI 1878-9722 J9 PRAGMAT SOC JI Pragmat. Soc. PY 2015 VL 6 IS 1 BP 43 EP 66 DI 10.1075/ps.6.1.03sch PG 24 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CM3OT UT WOS:000357592600003 ER PT J AU Finkbeiner, R AF Finkbeiner, Rita TI The grammar and pragmatics of N hin, N her ('N thither, N hither') in German SO PRAGMATICS AND SOCIETY LA English DT Article DE construction; coherence; deictic adverbs; discourse; grammar; interaction; mock repeat; pragmatic enrichment; reduplication; stance ID CONVERSATION AB In this paper, I investigate the German N hin, N her ('N thither, N hither') construction. I first provide a close description of its syntactic and semantic properties, arguing that N hin, N her is a grammatical construction. I then show that this construction is not entirely idiosyncratic, as there are specific pragmatic aspects contributing to its meaning and functional potential. These are the deictic adverbs hin and her, restrictions on the choice of nouns, and effects of syntactic disintegration. I argue that a purely semantic analysis of the construction as concessive or concessive conditional is insufficient, as it neglects pragmatic processes of contextual enrichment and implicature. Based on these assumptions, I provide a detailed analysis of the discursive and interactional functions of the construction, showing that it is a prime candidate for construing textual coherence and for subjectification and stance taking. Evidence comes from a corpus of newspaper examples. C1 Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, German Dept, D-55099 Mainz, Germany. RP Finkbeiner, R (reprint author), Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, German Dept, FB 05,Jakob Welder Weg 18, D-55099 Mainz, Germany. EM finkbein@uni-mainz.de CR Auer Peter, 2007, GESPRACH PROZESS LIN, P95 Bamford Julia, 2000, YOU CAN SAY AGAIN RE Bazzanella C, 2011, LANG SCI, V33, P243, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.10.002 Bierwisch Manfred, 1980, SPEECH ACT THEORY PR, P1 Borg E, 2005, STUD LINGUIST PHILOS, V81, P237 Brandt Margarethe, 1996, EBENEN TEXTSTRUKTUR, P211 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Bublitz Wolfram, 1998, HDB PRAGMATICS, P1, DOI [10.1075/hop.4, DOI 10.1075/HOP.4] Carston Robyn, 1988, MENTAL REPRESENTATIO, P155 Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES, DOI [10.1002/9780470754603, DOI 10.1002/9780470754603] Duden, 2009, GRAMMATIK UNENTBEHRL Fetzer Anita, 2012, HDB PRAGMATICS, P447, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139022453.024, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.024] Fetzer Anita, 2012, WHAT IS CONTEXT LING, P106, DOI [10.1075/la.196.08fet, DOI 10.1075/LA.196.08FET] FILLMORE CJ, 1988, LANGUAGE, V64, P501, DOI 10.2307/414531 Finegan E, 1995, SUBJECTIVITY SUBJECT, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.001 Finkbeiner Rita, 2014, ZWISCHEN KERN PERIPH, P69 Finkbeiner R, 2012, Z SPRACHWISS, V31, P1, DOI 10.1515/zfs-2012-0001 Finkbeiner R, 2012, PRAGMAT COGN, V20, P107, DOI 10.1075/pc.20.1.05fin Fleischer Wolfgang, 1982, PHRASEOLOGIE DTSCH G Goldberg Adele E., 2006, CONSTRUCTIONS WORK N Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Gunthner S, 2009, LINGUIST-IMPULSE TEN, V33, P149 Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511611834, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511611834] Haspelmath Martin, 1998, ADVERBIAL CONSTRUCTI, V20-3, P563 Hoffmann Ludger, 2002, GRAMMATIK GRAMMATIKV, P9 Inkelas Sharon, 2005, REDUPLICATION DOUBLI, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511627712, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511627712] Israeli A, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V27, P587, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00028-8 Jacquemet Marco, 2001, KEY TERMS LANGUAGE C, P37 Karkkainen E, 2006, TEXT TALK, V26, P699, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2006.029 Keevallik L, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P800, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.006 Kobele Gregory, 2008, ARGUMENT ANOTHER LOO Konig E., 1986, ON CONDITIONALS, P229, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.013 Lang Ewald, 1984, SEMANTICS COORDINATI, DOI [10.1075/slcs.9, DOI 10.1075/SLCS.9] Langacker R. W., 1987, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA, V1 Leuschner T., 2006, HYPOTAXIS BUILDING S Leuschner T., 2005, GRAMMATIKALISIERUNG, P279, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110925364.279 Manaster-Ramer Alexis, 1986, P 24 ANN M ASS COMP, P85, DOI [10.3115/981131.981145, DOI 10.3115/981131.981145] Meibauer Jorg, 2008, PRAGMAT COGN, V16, P439, DOI DOI 10.1075/PC.16.3.02MEI Moravcsik Edith, 1978, UNIVERSALS HUMAN LAN, V3, P297 Perrin L, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1843, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00117-6 Perry J., 1986, P ARISTOTELIAN SOC S, VLX, P263 Pullum GK, 2007, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P277, DOI 10.1007/s10988-007-9013-y Recanati F., 2010, TRUTH CONDITIONAL PR, DOI [10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001, DOI 10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199226993.001.0001] Rossdeutscher Antje, 2009, P SINN BED 13, P439 Tannen D, 1989, TALKING VOICES REPET Thompson Geoff, 2000, EVALUATION TEXT AUTH, P1 WIERZBICKA A, 1987, LANGUAGE, V63, P95, DOI 10.2307/415385 Zaefferer D., 1987, SATZMODUS ZWISCHEN G, P259 Zifonun Gisela, 1997, GRAMMATIK DTSCH SPRA, V3 Zwarts J, 2013, LINGUIST PHILOS, V36, P65, DOI 10.1007/s10988-013-9131-7 NR 50 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 1 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1878-9714 EI 1878-9722 J9 PRAGMAT SOC JI Pragmat. Soc. PY 2015 VL 6 IS 1 BP 89 EP 116 DI 10.1075/ps.6.1.05fin PG 28 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CM3OT UT WOS:000357592600005 ER PT J AU Romero-Trillo, J AF Romero-Trillo, Jesus TI 'It is a truth universally acknowledged'..., you know? The role of adaptive management and prosody to start a turn in conversation SO PRAGMATICS AND SOCIETY LA English DT Article DE pragmatic markers; prosody; Dynamic Model of Meaning; Adaptive management ID EPISTEMIC VIGILANCE; DISCOURSE MARKER AB This article describes the prosodic features of the most frequent pragmatic markers in English conversations that contribute to the management of context in interaction. Often, turn-taking has been analyzed either from a structural perspective, in which the participants are treated as subjects that pursue rules, accommodating to pre-established patterns, or (more recently) from a pragmatic perspective with a focus on the intentionality of the speaker in the use of pragmatic markers. It is my contention in this article that pragmatic markers are ancillary to context within the Dynamic Model of Meaning theory, and that prosody plays an essential role in adaptive management as the fourth element of context. C1 Univ Autonoma Madrid, Dept Filol Inglesa, E-28049 Madrid, Spain. RP Romero-Trillo, J (reprint author), Univ Autonoma Madrid, Dept Filol Inglesa, E-28049 Madrid, Spain. EM jesus.romero@uam.es CR Aijmer K., 2006, PRAGMATIC MARKERS CO Aijmer K, 2013, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMATIC MARKERS: A VARIATIONAL PRAGMATIC APPROACH, P1 Balog Heather, 2012, PRAGMATICS PROSODY E, P133, DOI [10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_9, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_9] Blakemore D, 2002, RELEVANCE LINGUISTIC, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511486456, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511486456] Bolinger D. L., 1958, WORD, V14, P109 Brazil D., 1975, DISCOURSE INTONATION Brinton L., 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN, DOI [10.1515/9783110907582, DOI 10.1515/9783110907582] Brown G., 1983, DISCOURSE ANAL, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511805226, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511805226] Buysse L, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1764, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.012 Cruttenden Alan, 1997, INTONATION, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139166973, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139166973] Cuenca Maria J., 2007, CATALAN J LINGUISTIC, V6, P1 Dascal M, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P753, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00059-9 De Klerk Vivian, 2010, CORPUS LINGUISTICS W Fauconnier G., 1997, MAPPINGS THOUGHT LAN, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139174220, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139174220] Fischer K, 2006, STUD PRAGMAT, V1, P1 Giora R., 2003, OUR MIND SALIENCE CO, DOI [10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001, DOI 10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780195136166.001.0001] Gladkova Anna, 2014, J PRAGMATICS Gussenhoven Carlos, 1984, GRAMMAR SEMANTICS SE, DOI [10.1515/9783110859263, DOI 10.1515/9783110859263] Halliday M.A.K, 1970, COURSE SPOKEN ENGLIS Halliday M. A. K., 1967, INTONATION GRAMMAR B Heritage J, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V57, P331, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025 Hopper Paul J., 1993, GRAMMATICALIZATION Innes B, 2010, LANG SOC, V39, P95, DOI 10.1017/S0047404509990662 Jenkins J., 2004, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V24, P109, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0267190504000054 Kecskes Istvan, 2003, SITUATION BOUND UTTE, DOI [10.1515/9783110894035, DOI 10.1515/9783110894035] [Anonymous], 2006, SECOND LANG RES, DOI DOI 10.1191/0267658306SR266RA Kecskes I., 2004, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V1, P1, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2004.005 Kecskes I, 2009, PRAGMAT COGN, V17, P331, DOI 10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec Keeskes I, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P385, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004 Kim HRS, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V57, P267, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.026 KNOTT A, 1994, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V18, P35 Ladd D. R., 1996, INTONATIONAL PHONOLO Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Maguire Laura, 2013, RES TRENDS INTERCULT, P145 Mascaro O, 2009, COGNITION, V112, P367, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012 Mey J. L., 2001, PRAGMATICS INTRO Muller S., 2005, DISCOURSE MARKERS NA, DOI [10.1075/pbns.138, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.138] Norrick Neal R., 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41 Ochs E., 1996, RETHINKING LINGUISTI, P407 Ostman J.-O., 1995, ORG DISCOURSE, P95 Cruz MP, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V59, P117, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.005 Pickering Lucy, 2012, PRAGMATICS PROSODY E, P199, DOI [10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_12, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_12] Romero-Trillo J., 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P769, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00022-X Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2011, J ENGLISH STUDIES, V9, P209 Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2002, REV COMPLUTENSE ESTU, V10, P87 Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2007, CATALAN J LINGUISTIC, V6, P81 Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2012, ENCY APPL LINGUISTIC, P4522 Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2011, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V3, P228, DOI [10.1163/187731011X597523, DOI 10.1163/187731011X597523] Romero-Trillo Jesus, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V22, P495, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90080-9 Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2013, YB CORPUS LINGUISTIC, V1, DOI [10.1007/978-94-007-6250-3, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-6250-3] Romero-Trillo Jesus, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V28, P205, DOI [10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00083-5, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00083-5] Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2012, PRAGMATICS PROSODY E, P117, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_8 Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2006, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, P639 Romero-Trillo J., 2008, PRAGMATICS CORPUS LI, DOI [10.1515/9783110199024, DOI 10.1515/9783110199024] Romero-Trillo Jesus, 2001, J LINGUIST, V37, P527, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226701001050 SACKS H, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P696, DOI 10.2307/412243 Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511611841, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511611841] Searle J. R., 1983, INTENTIONALITY ESSAY, DOI [10.1017/cbo9781139173452, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139173452] Sperber D, 2010, MIND LANG, V25, P359 Svartvik Jan, 1980, CORPUS ENGLISH CONVE Szczepek-Reed Beatrice, 2012, PRAGMATICS PROSODY E, P147, DOI [10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_10, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_10] Romero Trillo Jesus, 2014, FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTI, P293 NR 62 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 0 U2 1 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1878-9714 EI 1878-9722 J9 PRAGMAT SOC JI Pragmat. Soc. PY 2015 VL 6 IS 1 BP 117 EP 145 DI 10.1075/ps.6.1.06rom PG 29 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CM3OT UT WOS:000357592600006 ER PT J AU Taavitsainen, I Jucker, AH AF Taavitsainen, Irma Jucker, Andreas H. TI Twenty years of historical pragmatics Origins, developments and changing thought styles SO JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE future of historical pragmatics; history of historical pragmatics; interfaces; thought styles ID POLITENESS; ENGLISH; UH; UM AB This paper provides an outline of the changes in linguistics that gave rise to historical pragmatics in the 1990s and that have shaped its development over the twenty years of its existence. These changes have affected virtually all aspects of linguistic analyses: the nature of the data, the research questions, the methods and tools that are being used for the analysis, as well as the nature of the generalizations and findings that result from these investigations. We deal with the changes in terms of shifts in thought styles and discuss seven different turns: the pragmatic turn, the socio-cultural turn, the dispersive turn, the empirical turn, the digital turn, the discursive turn and the diachronic turn. We also deal with some long-standing, recent or emerging interfaces where historical pragmatics interacts with other disciplines and we discuss some future challenges, such as the multimodality and fluidity of communication and the problem of combining big data with pragmatic micro analyses. C1 [Taavitsainen, Irma] Univ Helsinki, Dept Modern Languages, FIN-0014 Helsinki, Finland. [Jucker, Andreas H.] Univ Zurich, Fac Arts & Social Sci, CH-8006 Zurich, Switzerland. [Jucker, Andreas H.] Univ Zurich, English Linguist, CH-8006 Zurich, Switzerland. RP Taavitsainen, I (reprint author), Univ Helsinki, Dept Modern Languages, POB 24,Unioninkatu 40 B, FIN-0014 Helsinki, Finland. EM taavitsa@mappi.helsinki.fi; ahjucker@es.uzh.ch CR Aarts Bas, 2007, SYNTACTIC GRADIENCE Aiden E, 2013, UNCHARTED BIG DATA L Bar-Hillel Y., 1971, LINGUIST INQ, V2, P401 Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Biber Douglas, 1992, HIST ENGLISHES NEW M, P688 Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Brinton LJ, 2012, LANG COMPUT, P101 Brinton L., 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN, DOI [10.1515/9783110907582, DOI 10.1515/9783110907582] Brown Gillian, 1983, DISCOURSE ANAL, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511805226, DOI 10.1017/CB09780511805226] Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV [Anonymous], 1989, SOC LANGUAGE, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0047404500013464 Chomsky Noam, 1980, WOODBRIDGE LECT Clark HH, 2002, COGNITION, V84, P73, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3 Conde-Silvestre J. Camilo, 2012, HDB HIST SOCIOLINGUI, P1 Culpeper Jonathan, 2001, LANGUAGE CHARACTERIS Culpeper Jonathan, 2010, EARLY MODERN ENGLISH Denison David, 2001, HIST LINGUISTICS 199, P119, DOI 10.1075/cilt.215.10den De Smet Hendrik, CORPUS LATE MODERN E Hans-Jurgen Diller, 2010, EUROPEAN ENGLISH MES, V19, P29 [Anonymous], 18 CENT COLL ONL EEC Erard M., 2007, UM SLIPS STUMBLES VE Finkenstaedt Thomas, 1963, YOU THOUG STUDIEN AN Fludernik Monika, 1996, NATURAL NARRATOLOGY, DOI [10.4324/9780203432501, DOI 10.4324/9780203432501] Fludernik Monika, 1993, FICTION LANGUAGE LAN Fowler A, 1982, KINDS LIT INTRO THEO Green Georgia, 1989, PRAGMATICS NATURAL L Hubler Axel, 2007, NONVERBAL SHIFT EARL, DOI [10.1075/pbns.154, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.154] Andreas Jacobs, 1995, HIST PRAGMATICS PRAG, P3 Jucker Andreas H., 2013, ENGLISH HIST PRAGMAT Jucker Andreas H., 2012, HDB HIST SOCIOLINGUI, P293 Jucker Andreas H., 2012, HIST PERSPECTIVES FO, P40 Jucker Andreas H., 2014, DIACHRONIC CORPUS PR, P3, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.243.03JUC Jucker Andreas H., 2012, STUDIES VARIATION CO, V11 Jucker Andreas H., 2008, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V2, P894, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2008.00087.X Jucker Andreas H., 2012, HDB PRAGMATICS, P495, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139022453.027, DOI 10.1017/CB09781139022453.027] Jucker Andreas H., 2011, COMMUNICATING EARLY, P3 Jucker Andreas H., 2015, DEV ENGLISH EXPANDIN, P162, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09781139833882.013 [Anonymous], 2008, DYNAMICS LINGUSTIC V, DOI DOI 10.1075/SILV.2.06KJE Koch Peter, 1985, ROMANISTISCHES JB, V36, P15, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110244922.15 Roman Kopytko, 1995, HIST PRAGMATICS PRAG, P515, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.35.27K0P Kyto M, 2014, STUD NEOPHILOL, V86, P1, DOI 10.1080/00393274.2014.880224 Labov William, 1994, PRINICIPLES LINGUIST, V1 Lass Roger, 1997, HIST LINGUISTICS LAN, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511620928, DOI 10.1017/CB09780511620928] Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Locher Miriam A., 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P9, DOI DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2005.1.1.9 Marttila Ville, 2014, THESIS U HELSINKI Meurman-Solin Anneli, 2013, PRINCIPLES PRACTICES Meurman-Solin A, 1993, VARIATION CHANGE EAR Mey Jacob L., 2009, CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA, P786 Mey J. L., 2001, PRAGMATICS INTRO Michel J., 2010, SCIENCE Sara Mills, 2011, DISCURSIVE APPROACHE, P19 Mulholland Joan, 1967, ENGL STUD, V48, P34 Nathan N., 1959, MEDIAEVAL STUD, Vxxi, P193 Nevalainen Terttu, 1995, HIST PRAGMATICS PRAG, P541, DOI 10.1075/pbns.35.28nev Ninio A., 1996, PRAGMATIC DEV ESSAYS Oleksy Wieslaw, 1989, CONTRASTIVE PRAGMATI, DOI [10.1177/026765839000600210, DOI 10.1177/026765839000600210] Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Rissanen M, 1986, DIVERSITY DIACHRONY, P97, DOI DOI 10.1075/CILT.53.11RIS Romaine Suzanne, 1982, SOCIOHISTORICAL LING, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511720130, DOI 10.1017/CB09780511720130] Romero-Trillo J., 2008, PRAGMATICS CORPUS LI, DOI [10.1515/9783110199024, DOI 10.1515/9783110199024] Ruhlemann Christoph, 2015, HDB CORPUS PRAGMATIC, P1 SACKS H, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P696, DOI 10.2307/412243 Schegloff EA, 2010, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V47, P130, DOI 10.1080/01638530903223380 Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511611841, DOI 10.1017/CB09780511611841] Schneider KP, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1022, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.015 Schwenter Scott, 1995, HIST PRAGMATICS PRAG, P243, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.35.16SCH Sell R, 1991, LIT PRAGMATICS SELL RD, 1985, STUD NEOPHILOL, V57, P175, DOI 10.1080/00393278508587918 SELL RD, 1985, ENGL STUD, V66, P496, DOI 10.1080/00138388508598414 Smith Jeremy, 2011, COMMUNICATING EARLY, P212 Stidston Russell O., 1917, USE YE FUNCTION THOU Stubbs M., 1983, DISCOURSE ANAL SOCIO Suhr Carla, 2012, STUDIES VARIATION CO, V11 Taavitsainen Irma, CAMBRIDGE HDB HIST L Taavitsainen Irma, 2000, CHAUCER COMPANION, P378 Taavitsainen Irma, 1993, EARLY ENGLISH COMPUT, P171 Taavitsainen I., 2002, SOUNDS WORDS TEXTS C, P201, DOI DOI 10.1075/CILT.224.14TAA Taavitsainen Irma, 2010, EARLY MODERN ENGLISH, P29, DOI [10.1075/z.160.03taa, DOI 10.1075/Z.160.03TAA] [Anonymous], 2007, METHODS HIST PRAGMAT, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110197822.11 Taavitsainen Irma, 2015, DEV ENGLISH EXPANDIN, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139833882, DOI 10.1017/CB09781139833882] Taavitsainen I, 2009, LANG COMPUT, P37 Todorov T., 1990, GENRES IN DISCOURSE Toolan M, 2001, NARRATIVE CRITICAL L Toolan Michael, 1996, TOTAL SPEECH INTEGRA Tottie G, 2011, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V16, P173, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.16.2.02tot Traugott Elizabeth, 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P538 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2010, GRADIENCE GRADUALNES, P19, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.90.04TRA Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2008, ENGLISH NOW, P199 [Anonymous], 2014, HIST THES ENGL VERS Verschueren J., 1999, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMA Watts Richard, 2003, POLITENESS, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511615184, DOI 10.1017/CB09780511615184] Herzog Marvin, 1968, DIRECTIONS HIST LING, P95 Wharton T, 2010, PRAGMATICS ENCY, P74 Williams Graham T., 2013, WOMENS EPISTOLARY UT, P1575, DOI [10.1075/pbns.233, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.233] NR 96 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 6 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1566-5852 EI 1569-9854 J9 J HIST PRAGMAT JI J. Hist. Pragmat. PY 2015 VL 16 IS 1 BP 1 EP 24 DI 10.1075/jhp.16.1.01taa PG 24 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CJ0AW UT WOS:000355134800001 ER PT J AU Dominguez-Rodriguez, MV Rodriguez-Alvarez, A AF Victoria Dominguez-Rodriguez, M. Rodriguez-Alvarez, Alicia TI "The reader is desired to observe ..." Metacomments in the prefaces to English school grammars of the eighteenth century SO JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE eighteenth-century school grammar; metacomment; preface; textual and interpersonal functions ID METADISCOURSE; PRAGMATICS AB The prefaces to English school grammars of the eighteenth century may be conceptualised as a frame of reference for the authorial voice behind them. To promote and boost the sales of their works, grammarians generally wrote sound, meaningful prefaces that combined propositional content with metadiscursive comments. Therefore, this kind of prefatory material falls within the scope of what Genette (1997: 1-2) calls the "paratextual apparatus" of a work, which aims to provide the reader with essential information for the correct reception, understanding and perusal of the book. This paper focuses on grammarians' textual and interpersonal metacomments as thoughtful strategies to guide the reader carefully through the text, as well as to shape the contents and message of the book at various levels (Hyland 2000; Lores-Sanz 2006: 92). To this end, a study corpus of fifteen English school grammars has been retrieved from the ECEG Database (2010) by restricting two search parameters: target audience and authors' place of birth. C1 [Victoria Dominguez-Rodriguez, M.] Univ Las Palmas Gran Canaria, Inst Univ Anal & Aplicac Textuales IATEXT, Estruct Teleformac, Las Palmas De Gc 35001, Spain. [Rodriguez-Alvarez, Alicia] Univ Las Palmas Gran Canaria, Inst Univ Anal & Aplicac Textuales IATEXT, Fac Filol, Las Palmas De Gc 35001, Spain. RP Dominguez-Rodriguez, MV (reprint author), Univ Las Palmas Gran Canaria, Inst Univ Anal & Aplicac Textuales IATEXT, Estruct Teleformac, C Perez Toro 1,Despacho 21, Las Palmas De Gc 35001, Spain. EM victoria.dominguez@ulpgc.es; alicia.rodriguez@ulpgc.es FU Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competition; State Secretariat for Research, Development and Innovation [FFI2011-25683] FX This paper is supported by a research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competition; State Secretariat for Research, Development and Innovation (FFI2011-25683). CR Adel A., 2010, NORDIC J ENGLISH STU, V9, P69 Aguilar M, 2008, METADISCOURSE ACAD S ARRINGTON P, 1987, COLL COMPOS COMMUN, V38, P306, DOI 10.2307/357750 Atkinson D., 1999, SCI DISCOURSE SOCIOH Baker M., 2009, ROUTLEDGE ENCY TRANS Bamford Julia, 2005, DIALOGUE DISCOURSE C, DOI [10.1515/9783110933222, DOI 10.1515/9783110933222] BEAUVAIS PJ, 1989, WRIT COMMUN, V6, P11, DOI 10.1177/0741088389006001002 Boggel S., 2009, METADISCOURSE MIDDLE Bondi Marina, 2008, INVESTIGATING ENGLIS, P293 [Anonymous], 2003, ELT J, DOI DOI 10.1093/ELT/57.4.398 Cajka Karen, 2003, THESIS U CONNECTICUT Camiociottoli Belinda, 2005, DIALOGUE DISCOURSE C, P87 Cheng XG, 1996, RES TEACH ENGL, V30, P149 Craig RT, 2008, DIALOGUE STUD, V2, P55 Crismore A., 1983, METADISCOURSE WHAT I Crismore A., 1990, WRITING SCHOLAR STUD, P118 Dahl T, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P1807, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004 Fisher Ann, 1750, NEW GRAMMAR EXERCISE Genette Gerard, 1997, PARATEXTS THRESHOLDS, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511549373, DOI 10.1017/CB09780511549373] GENETTE G, 1991, NEW LITERARY HIST, V22, P261, DOI 10.2307/469037 Halliday M. A. K., 1970, NEW HORIZON LINGUIST, P140 Hodson Jane, 2008, GRAMMARS GRAMMARIANS, P177 [Anonymous], 2007, METAPRAGMATICS USE, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.165.02HUB Hubler Axel, 2012, INVESTIGATIONS METAC, P179, DOI [10.1075/pbns.220.02hub, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.220.02HUB] Hyland K, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V30, P437, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5 Hyland K., 2000, DISCIPLINARY DISCOUR Hyland K., 2005, METADISCOURSE EXPLOR Hyland K., 2011, CONTINUUM COMPANION, P171 Hyland K, 2004, APPL LINGUIST, V25, P156, DOI 10.1093/applin/25.2.156 Ifantidou E, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1325, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.006 Ilie C., 2003, J LANG POLIT, V2, P71, DOI DOI 10.1075/JLP.2.1.05ILI Johns Ann M., 1997, TEXT ROLE CONTEXT DE, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139524650, DOI 10.1017/CB09781139524650] Lores-Sanz Rosa, 2006, CORPUS LINGUISTICS A, P315 Lowth Robert, 1762, INTRO ENGLISH GRAMMA Martinez-Guillem Susana, 2009, DISCOURSE SOC, V20, P727, DOI 10.1177/0957926509342368 Michael Ian, 1991, ENGLISH TRADITIONAL, P11 Nash Walter, 1992, WRITING SCHOLAR STUD, P8 Paltridge B., 2006, DISCOURSE ANAL INTRO Percy Carol, 2008, GRAMMARS GRAMMARIANS, P125 Rahman Mujib, 2004, NOTTINGHAM LINGUISTI, V18, P29 Raven J., 2001, BOOKS THEIR READERS, P1 Renkema Jan, 2004, INTRO DISCOURSE STUD, DOI [10.1075/z.124, DOI 10.1075/Z.124] Ron Scollon, 2001, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Sanderson Tamsin, 2008, CORPUS CULTURE DISCO SCHIFFRIN D, 1980, SOCIOL INQ, V50, P199, DOI 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00021.x Searle J. R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139173438, DOI 10.1017/CB09781139173438] Swales J., 1990, GENRE ANAL ENGLISH A Taavitsainen Irma, 1999, HIST DIALOGUE ANAL, P243 [Anonymous], 2007, METHODS HIST PRAGMAT, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110197822.11 Taavitsainen Irma, 2012, INVESTIGATIONS META, P179, DOI [10.1075/pbns.220.14taa, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.220.14TAA] Taavitsainen Irma, 2008, ADV MED DISCOURSE AN, P431 Thompson S. E., 2003, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V2, P5, DOI 10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00036-X Vande Kopple William J., 1985, COLL COMPOS COMMUN, V36, P83 van Ostade Ingrid Tieken-Boon, 2008, GRAMMARS GRAMMARIANS, P1 Watts Richard J., 2008, GRAMMARS GRAMMARIANS, P37 Watts Richard J., 1999, STANDARD ENGLISH WID, P40 Watts Richard J., 1995, HIST PRAGMATICS, P145, DOI [10.1075/pbns.35.11wat, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.35.11WAT] Wilson L, 2011, RENAISSANCE PARATEXT, P121, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09780511842429.008 NR 58 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 0 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1566-5852 EI 1569-9854 J9 J HIST PRAGMAT JI J. Hist. Pragmat. PY 2015 VL 16 IS 1 BP 86 EP 108 DI 10.1075/jhp.16.1.04dom PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CJ0AW UT WOS:000355134800004 ER PT J AU Danckaert, L AF Danckaert, Lieven TI Spelling out the obvious Latin quidem and the expression of presuppositional polarity SO JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE conventional implicatures; discourse markers; grounding; Latin; presuppositional polarity ID NEGATION AB In Danckaert (2014), the Latin particle quidem was analysed as a marker of emphatic affirmative polarity. Building on this proposal, this paper elaborates on the pragmatic properties of this element. I argue that quidem is not a neutral but a so-called "presuppositional" polarity marker, which confirms a proposition which (i) is already part of the common ground but (ii) was not overtly spelled out in the (immediately) preceding context. In more formal terms, I propose that quidem gives rise to the conventional implicature that the speaker assumes that the content of his message might already be known to the addressee, or that it conveys information that the latter expects to hear or read. Quidem can be regarded as a "lexical marker of common ground", in the sense of Fetzer and Fischer (2007). C1 Univ Ghent, Dept Linguist, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. RP Danckaert, L (reprint author), Univ Ghent, Dept Linguist, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. EM Lieven.Danckaert@UGent.be CR Adams James, 1994, WACKERNAGELS LAW PLA Ariel Mira, 1990, ACCESSING NOUN PHRAS Bassarak Armin, 1987, SATZ TEXT SPRACHLICH, P163 Birner Betty, 1998, INFORM STATUS NONCAN, DOI [10.1075/slcs.40, DOI 10.1075/SLCS.40] Birner BJ, 1997, LANG COMMUN, V17, P133, DOI 10.1016/S0271-5309(97)00005-0 Birner Betty, 2006, ACTA LINGUIST HAF, V38, P14, DOI 10.1080/03740463.2006.10412201 BIRNER BJ, 2006, DRAWING BOUNDARIES M, V80, P31 Bolkestein Machtelt, 1991, NEW STUDIES LATIN LI, P427, DOI 10.1075/slcs.21.32bol [Anonymous], 1991, TEORIA LINGUISTICA S Danckaert Lieven, 2012, LATIN EMBEDDED CLAUS, DOI [10.1075/la.184, DOI 10.1075/LA.184] Danckaert Lieven, QUIDEM CONTRAS UNPUB Danckaert L, 2014, T PHILOL SOC, V112, P97, DOI 10.1111/1467-968X.12009 Declerck R., 2001, CONDITIONALS COMPREH, DOI [10.1515/9783110851748, DOI 10.1515/9783110851748] Dehe Nicole, 2007, PARENTHETICALS, DOI [10.1075/la.106, DOI 10.1075/LA.106] Dryer MS, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V26, P475, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00059-3 Ducrot Oswald, 1973, PREUVE DIRE Fetzer A, 2007, STUD PRAGMAT, V3, P1 Fugier Huguette, 1989, SUBORDINATION OTHER, P91, DOI 10.1075/slcs.17.07fug Givon Talmy, 1978, PRAGMATICS, P69 Glare Peter G. W., 1968, OXFORD LATIN DICT Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Haegeman L, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P628, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.007 Halliday M.A.K., 1976, COHESION ENGLISH Hernanz ML, 2007, LING AKT, V111, P133 Hernanz M. Lluisa, 2011, MAPPING LEFT PERIPHE, P19, DOI [10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740376.003.0002, DOI 10.1093/ACPR0F:0S0/9780199740376.003.0002] Horn Laurence R., 2001, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Jacobs Joachim, 1997, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V168, P91 Johnston Michael, 1994, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Kaiser E, 2006, LINGUA, V116, P314, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.08.008 Kratzer A., 1999, CORN C THEOR CONT DE Kroon Caroline, 2004, WORDS THEIR PLACES F, P199 Kroon Caroline, 2009, PRAGMATISCHE KATEGOR, P143 KROON C., 2011, COMPANION LATIN LANG, P176 KROON Caroline, 1995, DISCOURSE PARTICLES Kroon Caroline, 2005, PAPERS ON GRAMMAR, VIX, P577 Mellet S., 1995, USU ETUDES SYNTAXE L, P211 Merchant J., 2003, REMARKS ON STRIPPING Pasch Renate, 1987, SATZ TEXT SPRACHLICH, P119 Pinkster Harm, 2009, FONS VERBORUM FEESTB, P313 Pinkster H., 1990, LATIN SYNTAX SEMANTI Pinkster Harm, 1972, ON LATIN ADVERBS PINKSTER H, 2010, STUDIES CLASSICAL LI, V17, P81 Potts C., 2005, LOGIC CONVENTIONAL I Potts Christopher, 2002, SYNTAX, V5, P55, DOI [10.1111/1467-9612.00047, DOI 10.1111/1467-9612.00047] Prince Ellen, 1986, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V22, P208 Prince E., 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P223 Prince Ellen, 1992, DISCOURSE DESCRIPTIO, P295, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.16.12PRI Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Rosen Hannah, 2008, PAPERS ON GRAMMAR, VX, P205 Schwenter SA, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P999, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00057-2 Schwenter SA, 2005, LINGUA, V115, P1427, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.06.006 Solodow Joseph, 1978, LATIN PARTICLE QUIDE Spevak Olga, 2010, CONSTITUENT ORDER CL, DOI [10.1075/slcs.117, DOI 10.1075/SLCS.117] Thim-Mabrey Christiane, 1982, SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT, V7, P197 Verstraete Jean-Christophe, 2007, RETHINKING COORDINAT, DOI [10.1515/9783110918199, DOI 10.1515/9783110918199] Winkler S., 2005, ELLIPSIS FOCUS GENER, DOI [10.1515/9783110890426, DOI 10.1515/9783110890426] Zanuttini R., 1997, NEGATION CLAUSAL STR Zimmerman Malte, 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V2, P2012 NR 58 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 3 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1566-5852 EI 1569-9854 J9 J HIST PRAGMAT JI J. Hist. Pragmat. PY 2015 VL 16 IS 1 BP 109 EP 141 DI 10.1075/jhp.16.1.05dan PG 33 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CJ0AW UT WOS:000355134800005 ER PT J AU Gilquin, G AF Gilquin, Gaetanelle TI At the interface of contact linguistics and second language acquisition research New Englishes and Learner Englishes compared SO ENGLISH WORLD-WIDE LA English DT Article DE New Englishes; Learner Englishes; contact linguistics; second language acquisition; paradigm gap; embedded inversion; phrasal verbs; word clusters; discourse markers ID DISCOURSE MARKER USE; PHRASAL VERBS; CORPUS; CONSTRUCTION; PARTICLES; LANGUAGE AB This paper examines the possible interface between contact linguistics and second language acquisition research by comparing the institutionalized second-language varieties of English known as "New Englishes" and the foreign varieties of English called "Learner Englishes". On the basis of corpus data representing several populations of various origins, it investigates four linguistic phenomena, ranging from syntax (embedded inversion) to lexis (phrasal verbs with up), through phraseology (word clusters) and pragmatics (discourse markers), with a view to identifying similarities and differences between the two types of varieties at several levels of the language. The paper also explores avenues for going beyond a descriptive account towards a more explanatory one, in an attempt to build the foundations of a theoretical rapprochement between contact linguistics and second language acquisition research. C1 [Gilquin, Gaetanelle] Catholic Univ Louvain, FNRS, B-1348 Louvain La Neuve, Belgium. RP Gilquin, G (reprint author), Catholic Univ Louvain, Coll Erasme, SSH ILC, Ctr English Corpus Linguist, Pl Blaise Pascal 1,Bte L3-03-33, B-1348 Louvain La Neuve, Belgium. EM gaetanelle.gilquin@uclouvain.be CR Aceto Michael, 2006, HDB WORLD ENGLISHES, P203, DOI 10.1002/9780470757598.ch13 Aijmer K, 2011, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V16, P231, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.16.2.04aij Altenberg B., 1998, LEARNER ENGLISH COMP, P80 Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Boas Hans C., 2007, P TEX LING SOC 9 C M, P33 Bolton Kingsley, 2006, HDB WORLD ENGLISHES, P240, DOI DOI 10.1002/9780470757598.CH15 Baker Paul, 2010, LANGUAGE LEARNING TE, V14, P30 Chen Hsin-I., 2010, ARIZONA WORKING PAPE, V17, P27 Chuang Fei-Yu, 2006, CORPORA, V1, P251, DOI 10.3366/cor.2006.1.2.251 Coulmas F., 1981, FESTSCHRIFT NATIVE S Dagneaux Estelle, 1998, SYSTEM, V26, P163, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00001-3 Laufer B., 1985, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V7, P73, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100005167 Davydova J, 2012, WORLD ENGLISH, V31, P366, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2012.01763.x Davydova J, 2011, TRENDS LINGUIST-STUD, V231, P291 De Cock Sylvie, 2011, LEARN CORP RES 2011 Ellis R., 2008, STUDY 2 LANGUAGE ACQ Fuller JM, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P23, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00065-6 Gardner D, 2007, TESOL QUART, V41, P339 Gilquin G., 2007, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V6, P319, DOI [10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.007, DOI 10.1016/J.JEAP.2007.09.007] Gilquin G., 2008, ENGLISH TEXT CONSTRU, V1, P41, DOI [10.1075/etc.1.1.05gil, DOI 10.1075/ETC.1.1.05GIL] Gilquin Gaetanelle, 2007, MACMILLAN ENGLISH DI, pIW1 Gilquin Gaetanelle, 2010, HDB AND CD ROM Gilquin Gaetanelle, CAMBRIDGE HDB ENGLIS Gilquin Gaetanelle, 2011, COMUNICACION SOCIAL, VII, P638 Gilquin Gaetanelle, 2012, 22 ANN C EUR 2 LANG Granger S., 2011, EXPLORING 2 LANGUAGE, P55, DOI DOI 10.1075/SCL.44.04GRA Gilquin G, 2008, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V2, P119 Gold E, 2006, CAN J LING/REV CAN L, V51, P247 Gorlach Manfred, 2002, STILL MORE ENGLISHES, DOI [10.1075/veaw.g28, DOI 10.1075/VEAW.G28] Gotz S., 2011, EXPLORING 2 LANGUAGE, P79, DOI DOI 10.1075/SCL.44.05SCH Granger S., 2009, INT CORPUS LEARNER E Hellermann J, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P157, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.008 Hilbert Michaela, 2011, EXPLORING 2 LANGUAGE, P125, DOI [10.1075/scl.44.07hil, DOI 10.1075/SCL.44.07HIL] Honna Nobuyuki, 2006, HDB WORLD ENGLISHES, P114, DOI [10.1002/9780470757598.ch7, DOI 10.1002/9780470757598.CH7] Howarth P. A., 1996, PHRASEOLOGY ENGLISH, DOI [10.1515/9783110937923, DOI 10.1515/9783110937923] Hulstijn Jan H, 1989, STUDIES 2ND LANGUAGE, V11, P241, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100008123 Hundt M., 2011, EXPLORING 2 LANGUAGE, P145, DOI DOI 10.1075/SCL.44.08VOG Hundt Marianne, 2011, EXPLORING 2 LANGUAGE, P1, DOI [10.1075/scl.44.01muk, DOI 10.1075/SCL.44.01MUK] Hundt Marianne, 1999, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V4, P221, DOI [10.1075/ijc1.4.2.02hun, DOI 10.1075/IJCL.4.2.02HUN] Kachru B. B, 1985, ENGLISH WORLD TEACHI, P11 Kieweg Werner, 2000, FREMDSPRACHLICHE UNT, V34, P4 Sand Andrea, 2010, LINGUACULTURE, V1, P25 Kortmann Bernd, 2011, ELECT WORLD ATLAS VA Lange Claudia, 2009, WORLD ENGLISHES PROB, P207, DOI [10.1075/veaw.g40.14lan, DOI 10.1075/YEAW.G40.14LAN] Laporte Samantha, 2012, ENGLISH TEXT CONSTRU, V5, P264, DOI [10.1075/etc.5.2.05lap, DOI 10.1075/ETC.5.2.05LAP] Liao Y, 2004, LANG LEARN, V54, P193, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00254.x Mair Christian, 2003, ZWISCHEN AUSGRENZUNG, P79 Mendis Dushyanthi, 2010, ROUTLEDGE HDB WORLD, P181 Merilainen Lea, 2010, THESIS U E FINLAND J, V9 Merilainen Lea, OXFORD HDB WORLD ENG Mesthrie Rajend, 2006, HDB WORLD ENGLISHES, P273 Meyler Michael, 2007, DICT SRI LANKAN ENGL Milton John, 1998, LEARNER ENGLISH COMP, P186 Milton John, 1993, STUDIES LEXIS, P215 Mukherjee J, 2009, ENGL WORLD-WIDE, V30, P27, DOI 10.1075/eww.30.1.03muk Muller S., 2005, DISCOURSE MARKERS NA, DOI [10.1075/pbns.138, DOI 10.1075/PBNS.138] Nayar PB, 1997, TESOL QUART, V31, P9, DOI 10.2307/3587973 Herbst Thomas, 2011, PHRASEOLOGICAL VIEW, P159 Nesselhauf N., 2009, ENGL WORLD-WIDE, V30, P1, DOI DOI 10.1075/EWW.30.1.02NES Petch-Tyson S., 1998, LEARNER ENGLISH COMP, P107 Platt John, 1989, LANG SCI, V11, P395, DOI [10.1016/0388-0001(89)90028-4, DOI 10.1016/0388-0001(89)90028-4] Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Schneider E. W., 2012, J ENGLISH LINGUA FRA, V1, P57, DOI DOI 10.1515/JELF-2012-0004 Schneider EW, 2003, LANGUAGE, V79, P233, DOI 10.1353/lan.2003.0136 Schneider Edgar, 2004, WORLD ENGLISH, V23, P227, DOI [10.1111/j.0883-2919.2004.00348.x, DOI 10.1111/J.0883-2919.2004.00348.X] Schneider E., 2007, POSTCOLONIAL ENGLISH, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511618901, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511618901] Scott M. R., 2008, WORDSMITH TOOLS VERS Sharma Devyani, 2001, LANG VAR CHANGE, V13, P343, DOI 10.1017/S095439450113303X Siegel Jeff, 2010, HDB LANGUAGE CONTACT, P814, DOI [10.1002/9781444318159.ch40, DOI 10.1002/9781444318159.CH40] Schmitt Norbert, 2007, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V45, P119, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2007.005 Sridhar Kamal K., 1986, WORLD ENGLISH, V5, P3, DOI [10.1111/j.1467-971X.1986.tb00636.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1467-971X.1986.TB00636.X] Szmrecsanyi B., 2011, EXPLORING 2 LANGUAGE, P167, DOI [10.1075/scl.44.09kor, DOI 10.1075/SCL.44.09KOR] Thewissen J, 2013, MOD LANG J, V97, P77, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01422.x Valentine Tamara M., 1991, WORLD ENGLISH, V10, P325, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.1991.tb00167.x Winford D, 2009, ROUTL STUD GER LING, V14, P206 Wong J, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P739, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00070-5 Zipp Lena, 2012, MAPPING UNITY DIVERS, P167, DOI DOI 10.1075/VEAW.G43.07ZIP [Anonymous], 2010, ICE AGE 2 ICE CORPOR, V34, P5 NR 78 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 0 U2 3 PU JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING CO PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 36224, 1020 ME AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 0172-8865 EI 1569-9730 J9 ENGL WORLD-WIDE JI Engl. World-Wide PY 2015 VL 36 IS 1 BP 91 EP 124 DI 10.1075/eww.36.1.05gil PG 34 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CF2DZ UT WOS:000352359000008 ER PT J AU Talandis, G Stout, M AF Talandis, Gerald, Jr. Stout, Michael TI Getting EFL students to speak: an action research approach SO ELT JOURNAL LA English DT Article ID SILENCE AB This article exemplifies an action research-based approach for addressing conversation skills in an EFL setting. In many EFL contexts, especially those where English is a required subject, getting students to speak can be a challenge. In 2011, at a private Japanese university, a year-long action research project was conducted to help 160 first-year students taking mandatory English classes speak more fluently. The intervention was a new syllabus featuring personalized topics, more L1 support, direct instruction of pragmatic strategies, and frequent assessment of spoken English. Questionnaires, class notes, and recorded data from three iterative cycles of research were collected and analysed to evaluate the intervention from student and teacher perspectives. Results indicate that by the end of the year, student conversations appeared more fluent and accurate. Implications applicable to teachers working in other contexts are discussed. C1 [Talandis, Gerald, Jr.] Toyama Univ, Toyama, Toyama, Japan. [Stout, Michael] Univ Tsukuba, Foreign Language Ctr, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan. RP Talandis, G (reprint author), Toyama Univ, Toyama, Toyama, Japan. EM talandis@hmt.u-toyama.ac.jp; stout.michael.ga@u.tsukuba.ac.jp CR Ikezawa M., 2005, JALT2004 C P BROWN I, 1978, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V36, P900, DOI 10.1037//0022-3514.36.8.900 Council of Europe, 2001, COMM EUR FRAM REF LA Dornyei Z., 1994, ELT J, V48, P40, DOI 10.1093/elt/48.1.40 Farrell T., 2007, ESSENTIAL TEACHER, V4, P14 Ford K, 2009, JALT J, V31, P63 Harumi S, 2001, PAC3 JALT2001 C P Harumi S, 2011, ELT J, V65, P260, DOI 10.1093/elt/ccq046 Housen A, 2009, APPL LINGUIST, V30, P461, DOI 10.1093/applin/amp048 King J, 2013, APPL LINGUIST, V34, P325, DOI 10.1093/applin/ams043 Nakatani Y, 2005, MOD LANG J, V89, P76, DOI 10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00266.x Richmond S., 2009, CONVERSATIONS CLASS Yoshida K, 2003, MOD LANG J, V87, P290 NR 13 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 11 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 JAN PY 2015 VL 69 IS 1 BP 11 EP 25 DI 10.1093/elt/ccu037 PG 15 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CE7ED UT WOS:000351999500002 ER PT J AU Sullivan, A AF Sullivan, Arthur TI The future of the proposition SO LANGUAGE & COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE Semantics; Pragmatics; Proposition AB A primary aim of this research is to show that the foundational term 'proposition' tends to be used in different ways by different factions, in recent debates surrounding the semantics/pragmatics interface. First, I give a brief sketch of some relevant background terrain. Next, I investigate the extent to which different senses of the term 'proposition' are associated with differing theoretical orientations toward the S/P interface. I close by bringing these lessons to bear toward the end of disentangling terminological from substantive differences, in the case of certain ongoing disputes. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Mem Univ Newfoundland, Dept Philosophy, St John, NF A1C 5S7, Canada. RP Sullivan, A (reprint author), Mem Univ Newfoundland, Dept Philosophy, Arts Adminn Bldg, St John, NF A1C 5S7, Canada. EM arthurs@mun.ca FU Standard Research Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada FX This research was supported by a Standard Research Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, whose support I gratefully acknowledge. CR Bach K., 1999, LINGUIST PHILOS, V22, P367 Bach K., 2011, EPISTEMIC MODALITY, P19 Bach K., 2007, J LINGUIST, V42, P490 Bach K., 2005, SEMANTICS VERSUS PRA, P15 Bach K, 2006, PHILOS PHENOMEN RES, V73, P435, DOI 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2006.tb00626.x Borg Emma, 2012, PURSUING MEANING BORG E., 2004, MINIMAL SEMANTICS Cappelen H, 2005, INSENSITIVE SEMANTIC Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Carston R., 2009, SYNTHESE, V165, P321 Chalmers David J, 2006, OXFORD HDB PHILOS LA, P574 Collins J, 2014, PHILOS STUD, V169, P143, DOI 10.1007/s11098-013-0163-1 Collins J, 2007, MIND, V116, P805, DOI 10.1093/mind/fzm805 Fine K, 2007, BLACKW BROWN LECT PH, P1, DOI 10.1002/9780470690826 Frege G., 1918, PROPOSITIONS ATTITUD, P21 Frege Gottlob, 1980, PHILOS MATH CORRES Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANT, V8, P22 Hawthorne J, 2006, PHILOS PHENOMEN RES, V73, P443, DOI 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2006.tb00627.x Kaplan D., 1989, THEMES KAPLAN King J. C., 2005, SEMANTICS VERSUS PRA, P111 King Jeffrey C., 2007, NATURE STRUCTURE CON King JC, 2013, PHILOS STUD, V163, P763, DOI 10.1007/s11098-011-9844-9 Kolbel M., 2003, ARISTOT SOC, V104, P53 Kolbel M., 2012, CONTINUUM COMPANION, P251 Kolbel M., 2008, RELATIVE TRUTH, P1 Korta Kepa, 2011, CRITICAL PRAGMATICS Kripke S., 1980, PREFACE Kripke Saul, 1979, MEANING USE, P239 Lewis D., 1979, PHILOS REV, V88, P133 Lewis David, 1986, PLURALITY WORLDS MacFarlane J., 2008, SYNTHESE, V166, P231 MacFarlane J., 2012, ROUTLEDGE COMPANION, P331 MacFarlane J., 2005, ARISTOTELIAN SOC, V105, P321 Neale S., 2001, CONSENZA, P138 Neale S., 2007, EUROPEAN J ANAL PHIL, V3, P77 Perry John, 2001, REFERENCE REFLEXIVIT Pietroski P., 2005, CONTEXTUALISM PHILOS, P115 Potts C., 2005, LOGIC CONVENTIONAL I Quine W. V. O., 1960, WORD OBJECT Recanati F, 2004, LITERAL MEANING RECANATI F., 2010, TRUTH CONDITIONAL PR Russell B., 1918, LOGIC KNOWLEDGE, P175 Salmon Nathan, 1989, THEMES KAPLAN, P331 Searle John, 1978, ERKENNTNIS, V13, P207, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF00160894 Sider T, 2006, PHILOS STUD, V128, P669, DOI 10.1007/s11098-005-2983-0 Soames S., 2008, PHILOS PAPERS, V1 Soames S., 2005, NAMING ASSERTING SZA, P356 Soames S, 2010, PRINC FOUND CONT PH, P1 Stalnaker R., 2001, CONTENT CONTEXT Stanley J., 2007, LANGUAGE CONTEXT Stanley J, 2000, MIND LANG, V15, P219, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00130 Stanley J, 2000, LINGUIST PHILOS, V23, P391, DOI 10.1023/A:1005599312747 Stojanovic I., 2008, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V2, P1171, DOI 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00086.x Taylor K., 2007, CONTEXT SENSITIVITY, P23 Travis C., 1989, USES SENSE NR 55 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD PI OXFORD PA THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND SN 0271-5309 J9 LANG COMMUN JI Lang. Commun. PD JAN PY 2015 VL 40 BP 14 EP 23 DI 10.1016/j.langcom.2014.10.012 PG 10 WC Communication; Linguistics SC Communication; Linguistics GA CC7AR UT WOS:000350520600002 ER PT S AU D'Arcy, A AF D'Arcy, Alexandra BE Liberman, M Partee, BH TI Quotation and Advances in Understanding Syntactic Systems SO ANNUAL REVIEW OF LINGUISTICS, VOL 1 SE Annual Review of Linguistics LA English DT Article; Book Chapter DE grammaticalization; lexicalization; complementizer; reconstructed dialogue; diachronic change ID REPORTED SPEECH; DISCOURSE; GRAMMATICALIZATION; GRAMMAR; CONSTRUCTION; INTRODUCERS; PRAGMATICS; EMERGENCE; MARKERS; ENGLISH AB At first glance, the syntax of quotation appears to be a rather straightforward matter of transitivity and complementation. However, quotation raises a number of intriguing and perplexing questions for the functioning, structure, and development of syntactic systems, and for their interactions with the semantic-interpretative interface. The purpose of this review is to articulate and exemplify these challenges as raised in the literature of various linguistic domains, and to highlight the ways in which quotation evokes a range of empirical and theoretical implications. This article begins by discussing the issues faced by traditional syntactic analyses of quotation, then examines the types of changes implicated by this sector: grammaticalization, lexicalization, and systemic change and variation. The view that emerges is that approaches that privilege the syntax as the sole structure-building component of the grammar are insufficient for accounting for the linguistic and discourse-pragmatic facts; advances in understanding this linguistic system necessarily require a more holistic approach that incorporates both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. C1 Univ Victoria, Dept Linguist, Victoria, BC V8V 3P4, Canada. RP D'Arcy, A (reprint author), Univ Victoria, Dept Linguist, Victoria, BC V8V 3P4, Canada. EM adarcy@uvic.ca CR Baghdikian S, 1977, STUDIA NEOPHILOLOGIC, V49, P3, DOI 10.1080/00393277708587666 BLYTH C, 1990, AM SPEECH, V65, P215, DOI 10.2307/455910 Bonami O., 2008, P 15 INT C HEAD DRIV, P358 Brinton Laurel, 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN Brinton LJ, 2008, STUD ENGL LANG, P1 Brinton Laurel J., 2005, LEXICALIZATION LANGU Isabelle Buchstaller, 2014, QUOTATIVES NEW TREND Buchstaller I, 2004, THESIS EDINBURGH U Buchstaller I, 2010, LANG VAR CHANGE, V22, P191, DOI 10.1017/S0954394510000098 Buchstaller I, 2011, CORPUS LINGUIST LING, V7, P59, DOI 10.1515/CLLT.2011.004 Buchstaller I, 2012, CONV EVI LANG COMMUN, V15, pXI Buttny R, 1998, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V31, P45, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3101_3 Cacoullos RT, 2012, STUD LANG, V36, P73, DOI 10.1075/sl.36.1.03tor Cameron R., 1998, LANG VAR CHANGE, V10, P43, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0954394500001216 Campbell L, 2001, LANG SCI, V23, P1 Carr TL, 2000, THESIS U N ENGL PORT Chappell Hilary, 2008, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V12, P45, DOI [10.1515/LITY.2008.032, DOI 10.1515/LITY.2008.032] Cheshire J, 2011, J SOCIOLING, V15, P151 CLARK HH, 1990, LANGUAGE, V66, P764, DOI 10.2307/414729 Cohen David, 2002, REPORTED DISCOURSE M, P227 Collins Daniel E., 2001, REANIMATED VOICES SP Coulmas F., 1986, REPORTED SPEECH SOME Coulmas Florian, 1986, DIRECT INDIRECT SPEE Crowley T., 1989, J PIDGIN CREOLE LANG, V4, P185, DOI 10.1075/jpcl.4.2.03cro D'Arcy A, 2012, LANG VAR CHANGE, V24, P343, DOI 10.1017/S0954394512000166 D'Arcy A, 2007, AM SPEECH, V82, P386, DOI 10.1215/00031283-2007-025 D'Arcy Alexandra, 2008, ANGLISTIK INT J ENGL, V19, P125 D'Arcy A., 2013, HDB SOCIOLINGUISTICS, P484 D'Arcy A., 2014, ROUTLEDGE HDB HIST L, P410 Davidson D., 1968, SYNTHESE, V19, P130, DOI 10.1007/BF00568054 Dimmendaal Gerrit J., 2001, AUSTR J LINGUISTICS, V21, P131, DOI 10.1080/07268600120042499 Domotor A., 2001, ACTA LINGUIST HUNGAR, V48, P337, DOI 10.1023/A:1014016026706 Durham M, 2012, J ENGL LINGUIST, V40, P316, DOI 10.1177/0075424211431266 Etxepare R, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P604, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.009 FERRARA K, 1995, AM SPEECH, V70, P265, DOI 10.2307/455900 Fitzmaurice S, 2004, DISCOURSE STUD, V6, P427, DOI 10.1177/1461445604046585 GEURTS B., 2005, BELGIAN J LINGUISTIC, V17, P109 Golato A, 2012, CONV EVI LANG COMMUN, V15, P3 Planas FGI, 2014, LINGUA, V146, P39, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.007 Goossens L., 1982, SCENE LINGUISTIC ACT, P85 Fisiak J, 1985, 6 INT C HIST LING AM, P149 Greenbaum S., 1996, COMP ENGLISH WORLDWI Guldemann T, 2012, CONV EVI LANG COMMUN, V15, P117 Guldemann T, 2008, EMPIR APPROACH LANG, V34, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110211450 Haddican W, 2012, LINGUIST VAR, V12, P1 Haspelmath Martin, 2004, DOWN CLINE NATURE GR, V59, P17 Heine Bernd, 2002, WORLD LEXICON GRAMMA Herlyn A, 1999, HIST DIALOGUE ANAL, P313 Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION HOPPER PJ, 1980, LANGUAGE, V56, P251, DOI 10.2307/413757 Hsieh FH, 2012, OCEAN LINGUIST, V51, P464 [Anonymous], 1986, LINGUISTICS Klamer M, 2000, LINGUA, V110, P69, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00032-7 Klewitz G., 1999, PRAGMATICS, V9, P459 Kroch Anthony, 1989, LANG VAR CHANGE, V1, P199, DOI [10.1017/S0954394500000168, DOI 10.1017/S0954394500000168] Labov W., 1972, SOCIOLINGUISTICS PAT Labov W., 1994, INTERNAL FACTORS, V1 Langacker RW, 1987, THEORETICAL PERSPECT, V1 Leech G., 1974, SEMANTICS Lehmann C., 2005, Z GERMANISTISCHE LIN, V32, P152 LEHRER A, 1989, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V12, P105 Li C., 1986, DIRECT INDIRECT SPEE Longacre RE., 2007, SENTENCES COMBINATIO Lord Carol, 1976, PAPERS PARASESSION D, P179 Rodriguez Louro C, 2014, ANN M AM LING ASS 88 MATHIS T, 1994, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V18, P63 McGregor William, 1997, SEMIOTIC GRAMMAR McGregor WB., 2013, DIACHRONIC TYPOLOGIC, P107 McGregor WB., 2014, TOPICS SEMANTICS VER, P301 McGregor W. B., 2007, LANGUAGE DESCRIPTION, P27, DOI 10.1075/cll. 30.08mcg Meehan T., 1991, KANSAS WORKING PAPER, V16, P37 MEILLET A, 1912, LINGUISTIQUE HIST LI MOORE C, 2011, QUOTING SPEECH EARLY Moore C, 2002, STUDIES HIST ENGLISH, P339 Munro Pamela, 1982, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V15, P301 Newmeyer Frederick J., 1998, LANGUAGE FORM LANGUA Noel D, 2007, FUNCT LANG, V14, P177 Noonan M, 2007, COMPLEMENTATION Partee B., 1973, FESTSCHRIFT M HALLE, P410 Pascual E, 2006, COGN LINGUIST, V17, P245, DOI 10.1515/COG.2006.006 Poplack Shana, 2011, HDB GRAMMATICALIZATI, P209 Poplack S, 2007, PROBUS, V19, P121, DOI 10.1515/PROBUS.2007.005 Potts C., 2007, DIRECT COMPOSITIONAL, P405 Ransom E.N., 1986, COMPLEMENTATION ITS Recanati F, 2001, MIND, V110, P637, DOI 10.1093/mind/110.439.637 Roberts I., 2003, SYNTACTIC CHANGE MIN ROMAINE S, 1991, AM SPEECH, V66, P227, DOI 10.2307/455799 Ross John Robert, 1973, FORMAL ANAL NATURAL, P133 Rumsey A, 1982, INTRA SENTENCE GRAMM Sams J, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P3147, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.024 SCHIFFRIN D, 1981, LANGUAGE, V57, P45, DOI 10.2307/414286 Shinzato R, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P861, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00002-X Shopen T, 2007, COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION, V2 Tagliamonte S, 2004, J SOCIOLING, V8, P493, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00271.x Tagliamonte Sali, 2007, LANG VAR CHANGE, V19, P119, DOI [10.1017/S095439450707007X, DOI 10.1017/S095439450707007X] Tagliamonte Sali, 1999, J SOCIOLING, V3.2, P147, DOI 10.1111/1467-9481.00070 Tannen D, 1986, INTRO CONSTRUCTED DI Tannen D, 2007, TALKING VOICES REPET Thompson Sandra A., 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, V2, P313, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.19.2.16TH0 TRAUGOTT E, 2005, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Traugott Elizabeth, 1982, PERSPECTIVES HIST LI, P245 Vandelanotte L, 2009, COGN LINGUIST, V20, P777, DOI 10.1515/COGL.2009.032 Vandelotte L, 2009, SPEECH THOUGHT REPRE Vandelotte L, 2012, QUOTATIVE GO BE GRAM Vincent Diane, 1996, SOCIOLINGUISTIC VARI, P361 Volosinov Valentin N, 1930, MARXISM PHILOS LANGU Herzog Marvin, 1968, DIRECTIONS HIST LING, P95 Wierzbicka Anna, 1974, PAP LINGUIST, V7, P267, DOI DOI 10.1080/08351817409370375 Woidich M, 2007, APPROACHES ARABIC LI, P675, DOI 10.1163/ej.9789004160156.i-762.189 NR 109 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 2 PU ANNUAL REVIEWS PI PALO ALTO PA 4139 EL CAMINO WAY, PO BOX 10139, PALO ALTO, CA 94303-0897 USA SN 2333-9691 BN 978-0-8243-4201-2 J9 ANNU REV LINGUIST PY 2015 VL 1 BP 43 EP 61 DI 10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125220 PG 19 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA BC2JF UT WOS:000350994000004 ER PT S AU Levin, B AF Levin, Beth BE Liberman, M Partee, BH TI Semantics and Pragmatics of Argument Alternations SO ANNUAL REVIEW OF LINGUISTICS, VOL 1 SE Annual Review of Linguistics LA English DT Article; Book Chapter DE argument realization; causative alternation; dative alternation ID ENGLISH DATIVE ALTERNATION; DOUBLE OBJECT CONSTRUCTION; ACQUISITION; CAUSATION; FREQUENCY; CONTEXT; LEXICON; RULES; ROLES; VERBS AB After setting out the challenges posed by argument alternations for linguistic theory, this article reviews the development of accounts of argument alternations over the past 50 years, documenting a shift from accounts that are primarily syntactic in nature to accounts with semantic and pragmatic components. The remainder of this review consists of case studies of the developing understanding of the semantics and pragmatics of the dative alternation and the causative alternation. Each case study stresses the interplay of semantic and contextual factors in characterizing the relation between the two variants that make up the alternation and in determining the choice of variant in a given context. C1 Stanford Univ, Dept Linguist, Stanford, CA 94305 USA. RP Levin, B (reprint author), Stanford Univ, Dept Linguist, Stanford, CA 94305 USA. EM beth.levin@stanford.edu CR ALEXIADOU A., 2004, UNACCUSATIVITY PUZZL, P114 Frascarelli Mara, 2006, PHASES INTERPRETATIO, V91, P187, DOI 10.1515/9783110197723.4.187 Allerton DJ, 2006, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, P301 Anttila A, 2010, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V25, P946, DOI 10.1080/01690960903525481 Everaert M, 2004, BLACKWELL COMPANION, V4, P466 Arnold JE, 2000, LANGUAGE, V76, P28, DOI 10.2307/417392 Baker M., 1997, ELEMENTS GRAMMAR, P73 BARSS A, 1986, LINGUIST INQ, V17, P347 Beavers J, 2011, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V29, P335, DOI 10.1007/s11049-011-9124-6 Billings LA, 2007, PIAKANDATU AMI DR HO, P30 Yoshinaga N, 1992, U HAWAII WORKING PAP, V11, P157 Boas H., 2003, CONSTRUCTIONAL APPRO Boas HC, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P22, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.008 Borer H., 2005, STRUCTURING SENSE Borer H., 2003, NATURE EXPLANATION L, P31 Borer Hagit, 2005, STRUCTURING SENSE Bowerman Melissa, 1996, P BERKELEY LINGUISTI, V22, P454 Croft W, 2007, CROSSLINGUISTIC PERS, P279 Bresnan J, 1982, MENTAL REPRESENTATIO, V1, P3 Bresnan J., 2007, COGNITIVE FDN INTERP, P60 Nikitina T., 2009, REALITY EXPLORATION, P161 Bresnan J, 2010, LANGUAGE, V86, P168 Bruening B, 2010, LINGUIST INQ, V41, P287, DOI 10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.287 Bruening B, 2010, LINGUIST INQ, V41, P519, DOI 10.1162/LING_a_00012 Burzio L., 1986, ITALIAN SYNTAX GOVT Campbell AL, 2001, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V22, P253, DOI 10.1017/S0142716401002065 Chomsky Noam, 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM Colleman T, 2011, COGN LINGUIST, V22, P183, DOI 10.1515/COGL.2011.008 COLLINS P, 1995, LINGUISTICS, V33, P35, DOI 10.1515/ling.1995.33.1.35 Croft W, 1994, SUBJECTHOOD SUBJECTI, P29 Cuervo MC, 2012, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V38, P1, DOI 10.1108/S0092-4563(2012)0000038003 Davidse K, 1996, DATIVE, V1, P289 De Clerck B, 2011, FUNCT LANG, V18, P57, DOI 10.1075/fol.18.1.03dec DELANCEY S, 1984, STUD LANG, V8, P181, DOI 10.1075/sl.8.2.05del Doron Edit, 2003, NAT LANG SEMANT, V11, P1, DOI 10.1023/A:1023021423453 Dowty D., 1979, WORD MEANING MONTAGU DOWTY D, 1991, LANGUAGE, V67, P547, DOI 10.2307/415037 DOWTY DR, 1978, LINGUIST INQ, V9, P393 DRYER MS, 1986, LANGUAGE, V62, P808, DOI 10.2307/415173 EMONDS J, 1972, FOUND LANG, V8, P546 Emonds J, 2004, BLACKWELL COMPANION, V2, P73 Erteschik-Shir N., 1979, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P441 FIENGO R, 1980, SURFACE STRUCTURE Fillmore C, 1965, INDIRECT OBJECT CONS Fillmore Charles J., 1968, UNIVERSALS LINGUIST, P1 FODOR JA, 1970, LINGUIST INQ, V1, P429 Gawron JM., 2008, LEXICAL SEMANTICS EX Ghomeshi Jila, 1994, LINGUISTIC ANAL, V24, P175 Goldberg Adele E., 1992, COGN LINGUIST, V3, P37, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37 Goldberg A. E., 1995, CONSTRUCTIONS CONSTR Goldberg AE, 2002, COGN LINGUIST, V13, P327, DOI 10.1515/cogl.2002.022 Goldsmith J., 1980, HARVARD STUDIES SYNT, P423 Green G. M., 1974, SEMANTICS SYNTACTIC Gries Stefan Th., 2003, COGN LINGUIST, V1, P1 Gundel J. K., 1988, STUDIES SYNTACTIC TY, V17, P209 Hale Ken, 2002, PROLEGOMENON THEORY Hale KL, 1986, 7 MIT CENT COGN SCI Hall B., 1965, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE Harley H., 2003, LINGUISTIC VARIATION, V2, P31 Comrie Bernard, 1993, CAUSATIVES TRANSITIV, V23, P87, DOI DOI 10.1075/SLCS.23.05HAS Haspelmath M, 2014, J LINGUIST, V50, P587, DOI 10.1017/S0022226714000255 Haspelmath M, 2015, ANNU REV LINGUIST, V1, P19, DOI 10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125204 Hovav MR, 2014, LINGUA, V141, P8, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.09.006 Hovav MR, 2008, J LINGUIST, V44, P129, DOI 10.1017/S0022226707004975 Levin Beth, 1998, PROJECTION ARGUMENTS, P97 Levin B, 2012, THETA SYSTEM ARGUMEN, P150 Inagaki S, 1997, LANG LEARN, V47, P637, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00024 Seizi Iwata, 2008, LOCATIVE ALTERNATION Iwata S, 2005, COGN LINGUIST, V16, P355, DOI 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.2.355 JACKENDOFF R, 1975, LANGUAGE, V51, P639, DOI 10.2307/412891 Jackendoff R., 1990, SEMANTIC STRUCTURES Juffs A., 2000, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P187 Kahtouni P., 2010, OTTAWA CITIZEN, pC7 Katz Jerrold, 1964, INTEGRATED THEORY LI Kemmer Suzanne, 1993, MIDDLE VOICE Kim M., 1999, THESIS U DEL NEWARK Koontz-Garboden A, 2010, LINGUIST PHILOS, V33, P285, DOI 10.1007/s10988-011-9082-9 Koontz-Garboden A, 2009, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V27, P77, DOI 10.1007/s11049-008-9058-9 Koontz-Garboden A, 2012, TELICITY CHANGE STAT, P139 Koontz-Garboden A, 2007, THESIS STANDORD U ST Krifka Manfred, 1999, P 18 W COAST C FORM, P260 Krifka Manfred, 2004, [Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 영어학], V4, P1 Kulikov Leonid, 2011, OXFORD HDB LINGUISTI, P368 Lakoff G, 1968, MATH LINGUISTICS AUT LARSON RK, 1990, LINGUIST INQ, V21, P589 LARSON RK, 1988, LINGUIST INQ, V19, P335 Levin B., 2005, ARGUMENT REALIZATION Aronoff M, 2013, OXFORD BIBLIO LINGUI Levin B., 1995, UNACCUSATIVITY SYNTA Levin B., 1993, ENGLISH VERB CLASSES Malchukov Andrej, 2010, STUDIES DITRANSITIVE, P1 Mannion A. M., 1991, GLOBAL ENV CHANGE McCawley James D., 1978, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V9, P245 McKoon G, 2000, LANGUAGE, V76, P833, DOI 10.2307/417201 Muller S, 2014, THEOR LINGUIST, V40, P1, DOI 10.1515/tl-2014-0001 Nedjalkov Vladimir P., 1969, JAZYKOVYE UNIVERSALI, P106 Nedyalkov V. P., 1973, TRENDS SOVIET THEORE, P1 NEMOTO N, 2005, GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUC, V4, P119 Nichols Johanna, 2004, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V8, P149, DOI DOI 10.1515/LITY.2004.005 OEHRLE RT, 1977, LANGUAGE, V53, P198, DOI 10.2307/413064 Oehrle R. T., 1976, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE Ormazabal J, 2010, LING AKT, V158, P203 Ormazabal J, 2012, LINGUIST INQ, V43, P455 Pesetsky David, 1995, ZERO SYNTAX Pinker S., 1989, LEARNABILITY COGNITI Pinon Christopher, 2001, LINGUISTISCHE ARBEIT, V76, P273 Hastings Rachel, 2001, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, V11, P346 Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Ramchand G., 2014, CAMBRIDGE ENCY GENER, P265 Ransom E. N., 1979, GLOSSA, V13, P215 RAPPAPORT M, 1988, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V21, P7 Reinhart T, 2002, THEOR LINGUIST, V28, P229 Reinhart T, 2005, LINGUIST INQ, V36, P389, DOI 10.1162/0024389054396881 Schafer Florian, 2009, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V3, P641, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2009.00127.X Schafer Florian, 2008, SYNTAX ANTICAUSATIVE Schmidt WE, 1986, NEW YORK TIMES, pA1 Shibatani Masayoshi, 1976, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V6, P1 Siewierska A., 1998, LANGUAGES CONTRAST, V1, P173, DOI DOI 10.1075/LIC.1.2.05SIE Smith C. S., 1970, LINGUISTIC LIT STUDI, V2, P101 SMYTH RH, 1979, LINGUA, V47, P27, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(79)90065-2 Snyder Kieran, 2003, RELATIONSHIP FORM FU Speas Margaret J., 1990, PHRASE STRUCTURE NAT Thompson S. A., 1995, SYNTACTIC ICONICITY, P155 Wasow Thomas, 1977, FORMAL SYNTAX, P327 Wasow Thomas, 1997, LANG VAR CHANGE, V9, P81, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0954394500001800 Wasow Tom, 2002, POSTVERBAL BEHAV White L., 1991, FRENCH LANGUAGE STUD, V1, P189, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0959269500000983 Whong-Barr M., 2002, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V24, P579 Wolff P, 2003, COGNITION, V88, P1, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00004-0 Wright Saundra, 2002, P 28 ANN M BERK LING, V28, P339 Wright SK, 2001, THESIS NW U EVANSTON Year J, 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P399 NR 132 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 4 PU ANNUAL REVIEWS PI PALO ALTO PA 4139 EL CAMINO WAY, PO BOX 10139, PALO ALTO, CA 94303-0897 USA SN 2333-9691 BN 978-0-8243-4201-2 J9 ANNU REV LINGUIST PY 2015 VL 1 BP 63 EP 83 DI 10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125141 PG 21 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA BC2JF UT WOS:000350994000005 ER PT S AU Solt, S AF Solt, Stephanie BE Liberman, M Partee, BH TI Vagueness and Imprecision: Empirical Foundations SO ANNUAL REVIEW OF LINGUISTICS, VOL 1 SE Annual Review of Linguistics LA English DT Article; Book Chapter DE approximation; adjective; semantics; pragmatics; logic; experimental linguistics ID PERSONAL TASTE; SEMANTICS; CONTEXT; ADJECTIVES; LANGUAGE; UTILITY; COMPOSITIONALITY; SIMILARITY; PSYCHOLOGY; DEPENDENCE AB Vagueness is a pervasive feature of natural language, which has been studied from a range of perspectives. This review focuses on recent empirical insights into vagueness that have come out of the field of linguistic semantics, as well as the theoretical developments that these have prompted. Topics covered include the distinction between vagueness and imprecision, or what I refer to as Type 1 and Type 2 vagueness; the complex manifestations of vagueness in the adjectival domain; and recent experimental findings regarding "ordinary" speakers' use and interpretation of vague language. Also briefly discussed is the broader question of why language is vague. C1 ZAS Ctr Gen Linguist, D-10117 Berlin, Germany. RP Solt, S (reprint author), ZAS Ctr Gen Linguist, D-10117 Berlin, Germany. EM solt@zas.gwz-berlin.de CR Alxatib S, 2010, WORKSH VAG SIM PAR M Alxatib S, 2011, MIND LANG, V26, P287, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01419.x Alxatib S, 2013, J PHILOS LOGIC, V42, P619, DOI 10.1007/s10992-012-9241-7 Barker C, 2002, LINGUIST PHILOS, V25, P1, DOI 10.1023/A:1014346114955 Barker C, 2006, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, P294 Barner D, 2008, CHILD DEV, V79, P594, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01145.x BARTSCH RENATE, 1973, SEMANTIC STRUCTURES Bogal-Allbritten E, 2012, P 48 M CHIC LING SOC, P77 Bonini N, 1999, MIND LANG, V14, P377, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00117 Bosch P, 1983, APPROACHING VAGUENES, P189 Burnett H, 2014, LINGUIST PHILOS, V37, P1, DOI 10.1007/s10988-014-9145-9 Bylinina L, 2012, P SINN BEDEUTUNG 16, V1, P141 Bylinina Lisa, 2014, THESIS UTRECHT U Carlson G., 1977, THESIS U MASS AMHERS Chierchia G, 2010, SYNTHESE, V174, P99, DOI 10.1007/s11229-009-9686-6 Cintula P, 2011, UNDERSTANDING VAGUEN Cobreros P, 2012, J PHILOS LOGIC, V41, P347, DOI 10.1007/s10992-010-9165-z Cresswell Max J., 1977, MONTAGUE GRAMMAR, P261 De Jaegher K, 2003, LINGUIST PHILOS, V26, P637, DOI 10.1023/A:1025853728992 Dehaene S., 1997, NUMBER SENSE MIND CR DEHAENE S, 1992, COGNITION, V43, P1, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90030-L Douven I, 2013, J PHILOS LOGIC, V42, P137, DOI 10.1007/s10992-011-9216-0 Edgington Dorothy, 1997, VAGUENESS READER, P294 Egre P, 2011, PERCEPTUAL AMBIGUITY Egre P, 2011, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P1 Egre P, 2013, J LOG LANG INF, V22, P391, DOI 10.1007/s10849-013-9183-7 Endicott T. A. O., 2001, VAGUENESS IN LAW Fara Delia Graff, 2000, PHILOS TOPICS, V28, P45 Fine K., 1975, SYNTHESE, V54, P235 Frank MC, 2012, SCIENCE, V336, P998, DOI 10.1126/science.1218633 Fults S., 2006, THESIS U MD COLL PAR Fults S, 2011, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P25 Gardenfors Peter, 2004, CONCEPTUAL SPACES GE Hahn U, 1998, COGNITION, V65, P197, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00044-9 Hampton JA, 2007, COGNITIVE SCI, V31, P355, DOI 10.1080/15326900701326402 Heim Irene, 2000, P SALT, V10, P40 Hobbs J. R., 1985, P 9 INT JOINT C ART, P432 Hyde D, 1997, MIND, V106, P641, DOI 10.1093/mind/106.424.641 Hyde D, 2014, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS Jansen Carel, 2001, J QUANT LINGUIST, V8, P187, DOI 10.1076/jqul.8.3.187.4095 Kagan Olga, 2011, P SINN BEDEUTUNG, V15, P321 Kamp Hans, 1981, ASPECTS PHILOS LOGIC, P225 Kamp Hans, 1975, FORMAL SEMANTICS NAT, P123 KAMP H, 1995, COGNITION, V57, P129, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(94)00659-9 Keefe R., 1997, VAGUENESS READER, P1 Keefe Rosanna, 2000, THEORIES VAGUENESS Kennedy C, 2005, LANGUAGE, V81, P345, DOI 10.1353/lan.2005.0071 Kennedy C, 2012, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V1, P507 Kennedy C, 2007, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P1, DOI 10.1007/s10988-006-9008-0 Kennedy C, 2011, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P73 KLEIN E, 1980, LINGUIST PHILOS, V4, P1, DOI 10.1007/BF00351812 Krifka Manfred, 2007, COGNITIVE FDN INTERP, P111 Krifka Manfred, 2002, SOUNDS SYSTEMS STUDI, P439 Kyburg A, 2000, LINGUIST PHILOS, V23, P577, DOI 10.1023/A:1005625125110 Lakoff G., 1973, J PHILOS LOGIC, V2, P458 Lasersohn P, 2005, LINGUIST PHILOS, V28, P643, DOI 10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x Lasersohn P, 1999, LANGUAGE, V75, P522, DOI 10.2307/417059 Lassiter D., 2013, P 23 SEM LING THEOR, V23, P587 Lauer S, 2012, P SINN BEDEUTUNG 16, V2, P389 Lewis D., 1970, SYNTHESE, V22, P18, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF00413598 Lipman BL, 2009, WHY IS LANGUAGE VAGU LUCE RD, 1956, ECONOMETRICA, V24, P178, DOI 10.2307/1905751 LUDLOW P, 1989, LINGUIST PHILOS, V12, P519, DOI 10.1007/BF00632474 McConnell-Ginet Sally, 1973, THESIS U ROCHESTER McNabb Y., 2012, THESIS U CHICAGO McNally L, 2011, RELATIVE ROLE PROPER Morzycki M, 2011, NAT LANG SEMANT, V19, P39, DOI 10.1007/s11050-010-9063-5 Nouwen Rick, 2011, VAGUENESS COMMUNICAT PARIKH R, 1994, LINGUIST PHILOS, V17, P521, DOI 10.1007/BF00985317 Pinkal M, 1995, LOGIC LEXICON SEMANT [Anonymous], 2012, OXFORD HDB LANGUAGE PRIEST G, 1979, J PHILOS LOGIC, V8, P219 Raffman Diana, 2014, UNRULY WORDS STUDY V RAFFMAN D, 1996, PHILOS STUD, V81, P175, DOI 10.1007/BF00372781 Ripley D, 2011, CONTRADICTIONS BORDE ROSCH E, 1975, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V104, P192, DOI 10.1037//0096-3445.104.3.192 ROSCH EH, 1973, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V4, P328, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 ROTSTEIN CARMEN, 2004, NAT LANG SEMANT, V12, P259, DOI DOI 10.1023/B:NALS.0000034517.56898.9A Sadock Jerry M, 1977, P 3 ANN M BERK LING, P430 Sapir E., 1944, PHILOS SCI, V11, P93, DOI 10.1086/286828 Sassoon GW, 2013, J SEMANT, V30, P335, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffs012 Sassoon GW, 2012, P 27 M ISR ASS THEOR, P163 Sassoon Galit W., 2007, THESIS TEL AVIV U Sassoon Galit, 2012, P 22 SEM LING THEOR, P226 Sauerland Uli, 2007, P 17 SEM LING THEOR, P228 Sauerland U, 2011, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P121 Schmidt LA, 2009, P 31 ANN C COGN SCI, P3151 Seising R, 2006, ARTIF INTELL MED, V38, P237, DOI 10.1016/j.artmed.2006.06.004 Serchuk P, 2011, MIND LANG, V26, P540, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01430.x Solt S, 2011, NOTES COMPARISON CLA Solt S, LANGUAGE FORTHCOMING Solt S, 2010, SZK POR WORKSH 11 SZ Solt S, 2012, P SINN BEDEUTUNG 16, V2, P557 Chereches A, 2012, P 22 SEM LING THEOR, P166 Sorensen R, 2013, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS Stephenson T, 2007, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P487, DOI 10.1007/s10988-008-9023-4 Syrett K, 2010, J SEMANT, V27, P1, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffp011 Toledo Assaf, 2011, P SEM LING THEOR SAL, P135 Tribushinina E, 2011, LINGUISTICS, V49, P525, DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.016 TVERSKY A, 1983, PSYCHOL REV, V90, P293, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293 TVERSKY A, 1977, PSYCHOL REV, V84, P327, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327 Tye M, 1994, PHILOS PERSPECTIVES, V8, P189, DOI 10.2307/2214170 van Deemter K, 2009, J PHILOS LOGIC, V38, P607, DOI 10.1007/s10992-009-9114-x Van der Henst JB, 2002, MIND LANG, V17, P457, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00207 van Rooij R, 2011, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P51 van Rooij R, 2011, LOGIC EPISTEMOL UNIT, V19, P123, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-0375-9_6 Van Deemter Kees, 2010, NOT EXACTLY PRAISE V Varzi A., 2001, PHILOS GEOGRAPHY, V4, P49, DOI 10.1080/10903770124125 VON STECHOW ARNIM, 1984, J SEMANT, V3, P1, DOI DOI 10.1093/J0S/3.1-2.1 von Stechow Arnim, 2009, QUANTIFICATION DEFIN, P214 Williamson T., 1994, VAGUENESS WITTGENSTEIN L., 1953, PHILOS INVESTIGATION Wright Crispin, 1975, SYNTHESE, V30, P325, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF00485049 ZADEH LA, 1975, INFORM SCIENCES, V8, P199, DOI 10.1016/0020-0255(75)90036-5 NR 114 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 6 PU ANNUAL REVIEWS PI PALO ALTO PA 4139 EL CAMINO WAY, PO BOX 10139, PALO ALTO, CA 94303-0897 USA SN 2333-9691 BN 978-0-8243-4201-2 J9 ANNU REV LINGUIST PY 2015 VL 1 BP 107 EP 127 DI 10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125150 PG 21 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA BC2JF UT WOS:000350994000007 ER PT S AU Tonhauser, J AF Tonhauser, Judith BE Liberman, M Partee, BH TI Cross-Linguistic Temporal Reference SO ANNUAL REVIEW OF LINGUISTICS, VOL 1 SE Annual Review of Linguistics LA English DT Article; Book Chapter DE temporal reference; tenseless languages; tense ID TENSELESS LANGUAGE; MANDARIN CHINESE; NOMINAL TENSE; SEMANTICS; ANAPHORA; COORDINATION; UNIVERSALS; PRAGMATICS; TIME AB Tense, the grammaticalized marking of location in time, has played a central role in analyses of temporal reference even since before the inception of the formal study of meaning. However, research on a wide range of typologically diverse languages over the past 40 years has revealed that many languages do not have tenses and that there are a variety of other means, both linguistic and contextual, that affect temporal reference besides tense. These empirical findings refute the universality of tense and have significant implications for the role of tense in theoretical analyses of temporal reference. This review catalogues the means that affect temporal reference across tensed and tenseless languages, and offers a theoretical perspective on temporal reference that deemphasizes the centrality of tense. C1 Ohio State Univ, Dept Linguist, Columbus, OH 43210 USA. RP Tonhauser, J (reprint author), Ohio State Univ, Dept Linguist, Columbus, OH 43210 USA. CR Abangma SN, 1985, J W AFR LANG, V15, P110 Amritavalli R, 2014, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V32, P283, DOI 10.1007/s11049-013-9219-3 Jayalaseelan K. A., 2005, OXFORD HDB COMP SYNT, P178 Avolonto Aime, 1992, J W AFR LANG, V22, P97 BACH E, 1986, LINGUIST PHILOS, V9, P5 Baker Mark, 1997, NAT LANG SEMANT, V5, P213, DOI 10.1023/A:1008262802401 Bergman B, 1983, LANGUAGE SIGN INT PE, P3 Bertinetto PM, 2013, QUAD LAB LINGUIST, V12, P1 Binnick R, 1991, TIME VERB Bittner M, 2014, EXPLOR SEMANT, P1, DOI 10.1002/9781118584002 Bittner Maria, 2007, DIRECT COMPOSITIONAL, P363 Bittner Maria, 2005, J SEMANT, V22, P339, DOI DOI 10.1093/JOS/FFH029 Bittner Maria, 2008, THEORETICAL CROSSLIN, P349 Bohnemeyer J, 1998, COGN LINGUIST, V9, P239, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.3.239 Bohnemeyer J, 1998, THESIS CATHOL U BRAB Bohnemeyer J, 2004, LINGUIST PHILOS, V27, P263, DOI 10.1023/B:LING.0000023371.15460.43 Bohnemeyer J, 2002, GRAMMAR TIME REFEREN Bohnemeyer J, 2009, EXPR COGN CATEG, V3, P83 Brennan M., 1983, LANGUAGE SIGN INT PE, P10 Bybee Joan L., 1994, EVOLUTION GRAMMAR TE Cable S, 2013, NAT LANG SEMANT, V21, P219, DOI 10.1007/s11050-012-9092-3 Chamorro P, 2012, CAHIER CHRONOS SELEC, V25, P91 Chomsky Noam, 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM Chung S., 1985, TENSE ASPECT MOOD LA, V3, P202 Cohen David, 1989, ASPECT VERBAL Comrie B., 1976, ASPECT Comrie B., 1985, TENSE Condoravdi C., 1996, QUANTIFIERS DEDUCTIO, P1 Cover R, 2014, METHODOLOGIES SEMANT Dahl O, 2001, ARB SEM ALLG SPRACHW, P159 Dahl Osten, 1985, TENSE ASPECT SYSTEMS Danielsen S, 2007, THESIS RADBOUD U NIJ Deal A, 2014, METHODOLOGIES SEMANT DeCaen V, 1996, TORONTO WORK PAP LIN, V14, P41 Deo A, 2012, J S ASIAN LINGUIST, V5, P3 Deo A, 2006, THESIS STANFORD U Deo A, 2009, LINGUIST PHILOS, V32, P475, DOI 10.1007/s10988-010-9068-z Chamorro E, 2005, MITAMI Dessaint M, 1996, MODELES LINGUISTIQUE, V33, P9 Dol P, 1999, THESIS U LEIDEN NETH DOWTY DR, 1986, LINGUIST PHILOS, V9, P37 Faller Martina, 2007, J SEMANT, V24, P255, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffm004 Fukushima K, 1999, J LINGUIST, V35, P297, DOI 10.1017/S002222679900763X Goodwin Gomez G, 1990, THESIS COLUMBIA U NE Grice P. H., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P64 Hayashi Midori, 2011, THESIS U TORONTO Hayashi M, 2005, P 2005 ANN C CAN LIN Hinrichs E, 1981, TEMPORALE ANAPHORA E HINRICHS E, 1986, LINGUIST PHILOS, V9, P63 Hornstein Norbert, 1995, LOGICAL FORM GB MINI Iwara A, 1991, AFR ARB, V27, P169 Iwasaki S., 2005, REFERENCE GRAMMAR TH Jespersen O., 1933, ESSENTIALS ENGLISH G Johannsdottir K, 2007, P 37 ANN M N E LING, P299 Kamp H, 1993, DISCOURSE LOGIC KAMP HANS, 1979, SEMANTICS DIFFERENT, P376, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-67458-7_24 Klein W, 1994, TIME LANGUAGE Lee J, 2010, J SEMANT, V27, P307, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffq005 Lin JW, 2010, LINGUIST INQ, V41, P305, DOI 10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.305 Lin J.-W., 2012, OXFORD HDB TENSE ASP, P669 Lin JW, 2003, LINGUA, V113, P271, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00089-X Lin JW, 2003, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V12, P259, DOI 10.1023/A:1023665301095 Lin Jo-Wang, 2006, J SEMANT, V23, P1 Liuzzi S, 1987, THESIS U PARIS IV SO LIUZZI S, 1989, AMERINDIA, V14, P9 Agbayani B, 2003, P 14 W C LING, P161 Gillon C, 2002, P 37 INT C SAL NEIGH, V9, P233 Matthewson Lisa, 2004, INT J AM LINGUIST, V70, P369, DOI [10.1086/429207, DOI 10.1086/429207] Matthewson L, 2006, LINGUIST PHILOS, V29, P673, DOI 10.1007/s10988-006-9010-6 May Robert, 1991, CHOMSKYAN TURN, P334 Minist. Educ. Cult, 2004, ED BIL REF ED PAR Mitchell JE, 1986, THESIS U MASS AMHERS Montague Richard, 1973, APPROACHES NATURAL L, P221, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-94-010-2506-5_10 Morton DC, 2014, AFR UBERSEE IN PRESS Mucha A., 2012, P 22 SEM LING THEORY, P188 Mucha A, 2013, LINGUIST PHILOS, V36, P371, DOI 10.1007/s10988-013-9140-6 Muller NJ, 2013, THESIS RADBOUD U NET Murray SE, 2008, SINN BEDEUTUNG, P455 Nowak E, 1994, TENSE SYSTEMS EUROPE, P295 Ogihara Toshiyuki, 1996, TENSE ATTITUDES SCOP Partee B., 1973, J PHILOS, V70, P601, DOI DOI 10.2307/2025024 Partee BH, 1992, COMPUTATIONAL LINGUI, P97 Partee Barbara Hall, 1989, PAPERS CHICAGO LINGU, V25, P342 PARTEE BH, 1984, LINGUIST PHILOS, V7, P243, DOI 10.1007/BF00627707 Prior A, 1967, PAST PRESENT FUTURE Rathmann CG, 2005, THESIS U TEX AUSTIN Reichenbach Hans, 1947, ELEMENTS SYMBOLIC LO Ritter Elizabeth, 2004, WORKING PAPERS LINGU, V14, P341 Ritter Elizabeth, 2005, P WCCFL, V24, P343 Rothstein S., 2004, STRUCTURING EVENTS S ROUVERET A, 1980, LINGUIST INQ, V11, P97 Rullmann H, 2008, NAT LANG SEMANT, V16, P317, DOI 10.1007/s11050-008-9036-0 Ruppe EL, 2013, THESIS OHIO STATE U Shaer B, 1997, P 33 ANN M CHIC LING, P271 Shaer B, 2003, P SULA 2, P139 Reis Silva Amelia, 2007, P 4 C SEM REPR LANG, V35, P197 Singler J. V., 1990, PIDGIN ANDCREOLE TEN, V6, P203, DOI DOI 10.1075/CLL.6.09SIN Smith CS, 2004, CURR STUD LINGUIST, V37, P597 Smith CS, 2008, ST NAT LANG, V75, P227 Fernald Theodore B., 2007, INT J AM LINGUIST, V73, P40, DOI DOI 10.1086/518334 Smith Carlota S., 1997, PARAMETER ASPECT Stowell Timothy A., 1996, PHRASE STRUCTURE LEX, P277 Swift MD, 2004, STUD LANG ACQUIS, V24, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110197419 Sybesma R, 2007, LINGUIST INQ, V38, P580, DOI 10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.580 Thomas Guillaume, 2012, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE Tonhauser Judith, 2006, THESIS STANFORD U Tonhauser J, 2011, TENSE LANGUAGES, P207 Tonhauser J, 2007, LANGUAGE, V83, P831 Tonhauser J, 2008, LANGUAGE, V84, P332 Tonhauser J, 2011, LINGUIST PHILOS, V34, P257, DOI 10.1007/s10988-011-9097-2 Velazquez-Castillo M, 2004, ORPHOLOGY INT HDB IN, V2, P1421 Verkuyl Henk, 1993, THEORY ASPECTUALITY Vidal A, 2001, THESIS U EUGENE Vieira M, 1995, QUANTIFICATION NATUR, P701 von Fintel K, 2008, LINGUIST REV, V25, P139, DOI 10.1515/TLR.2008.004 Webber B. L., 1988, Computational Linguistics, V14, P61 Wiltschko M, 2003, LINGUA, V113, P659, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00116-X Wu JS, 2003, THESIS U TEX AUSTIN Yoon James Hye-Suk, 1994, MIT WORKING PAPERS L, V22, P251 Zagona K, 1990, TIMES TEMPORAL ARGUM Zucchi S, 2009, NAT LANG SEMANT, V17, P99, DOI 10.1007/s11050-008-9032-4 Zvelebil KV, 1982, IJDL, V11, P184 NR 122 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 2 PU ANNUAL REVIEWS PI PALO ALTO PA 4139 EL CAMINO WAY, PO BOX 10139, PALO ALTO, CA 94303-0897 USA SN 2333-9691 BN 978-0-8243-4201-2 J9 ANNU REV LINGUIST PY 2015 VL 1 BP 129 EP 154 DI 10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124923 PG 26 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA BC2JF UT WOS:000350994000008 ER PT S AU Deo, A AF Deo, Ashwini BE Liberman, M Partee, BH TI Diachronic Semantics SO ANNUAL REVIEW OF LINGUISTICS, VOL 1 SE Annual Review of Linguistics LA English DT Article; Book Chapter DE semantics; pragmatics; language change; grammaticalization; typology ID RESOLVING QUESTIONS; EVOLUTION; LANGUAGE; ENGLISH; EMERGENCE; LOGIC AB It is well established that meanings associated with linguistic expressions evolve in systematic ways across time. We have little precise understanding, though, of why and how this happens. We know even less about its implications for our models of grammar, communication, and cognition. This article reviews developments and results from grammaticalization, typology, and formal semantics/pragmatics that can be brought to bear on addressing the problem of semantic change. It deconstructs the notion of grammaticalization paths and offers a set of questions for systematic investigation, following which I contextualize the small body of literature at the intersection of formal semantics/pragmatics and language change. The approach I take is programmatic rather than survey oriented, given the emergent nature of the domain of investigation and the limited body of existing literature that pertains directly to the questions raised here. C1 Yale Univ, Dept Linguist, New Haven, CT 06520 USA. RP Deo, A (reprint author), Yale Univ, Dept Linguist, New Haven, CT 06520 USA. EM ashwini.deo@yale.edu CR Andersen H, 2001, AMST STUD THEORY HIS, V219, P225 Aristar A.R., 1996, DIACHRONICA, V13, P207, DOI 10.1075/dia.13.2.02ari Beck S, 2009, SYNTAX-UK, V12, P193, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00124.x Blutner R., 2000, J SEMANT, V17, P189, DOI 10.1093/jos/17.3.189 Blutner Reinhard, 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P488 Brinton Laurel J., 2005, LEXICALIZATION LANGU Bybee J., 2010, LANGUAGE USAGE COGNI Bybee Joan L, 1994, PERSPECTIVES GRAMMAT, P235 Bybee J., 2003, NEW PSYCHOL LANGUAGE, P145 Bybee Joan L., 1994, EVOLUTION GRAMMAR TE BYBEE JL, 1989, STUD LANG, V13, P51, DOI 10.1075/sl.13.1.03byb Bybee J, 2006, LANGUAGE, V82, P711, DOI 10.1353/lan.2006.0186 Clark Eve V, 1978, UNIVERSALS HUMAN LAN, V4, P85 Comrie Bernard, 1976, ASPECT INTRO STUDY V Condoravdi C, 2014, LANGUAGE CHANGE SYNT Condoravdi C, 2009, 3 INT C MOD GREEK DI Croft William, 2001, RADICAL CONSTRUCTION Dahl Osten, 2000, TENSE ASPECT LANGUAG Dahl O., 2001, FREQUENCY EMERGENCE, V2, P471 Dahl Osten, 1985, TENSE ASPECT SYSTEMS Deo A., SEMANT PRAG IN PRESS Deo A., 2014, ROUTLEDGE HDB HIST L Deo A, 2009, LINGUIST PHILOS, V32, P475, DOI 10.1007/s10988-010-9068-z Devos M, 2013, J AFR LANG LINGUIST, V34, P205, DOI 10.1515/jall-2013-0008 Eckardt Regine, 2001, NAT LANG SEMANT, V9, P371, DOI 10.1023/A:1014875209883 Eckardt Regine, 2006, MEANING CHANGE GRAMM Franke M., 2009, THESIS U AMSTERDAM GINZBURG J, 1995, LINGUIST PHILOS, V18, P459, DOI 10.1007/BF00985365 GINZBURG J, 1995, LINGUIST PHILOS, V18, P567, DOI 10.1007/BF00983299 Givon T., 1971, P 7 REG M CHIC LING, P394 Givon T., 1979, UNDERSTANDING GRAMMA GOLDSMITH J, 1982, LINGUIST INQ, V13, P79 Groenendijk Jeroen, 1984, THESIS U AMSTERDAM Harris A. C., 1995, HIST SYNTAX CROSS LI Haspelmath M, 1999, LINGUISTICS, V37, P1043, DOI 10.1515/ling.37.6.1043 Heine Bernd, 2003, HDB HIST LINGUISTICS, P575 Heine Bernd, 1993, AUXILIARIES COGNITIV Heine Bernd, 1991, GRAMMATICALIZATION C Heine Bernd, 1997, POSSESSION COGNITIVE Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Hopper Paul J., 1998, NEW PSYCHOL LANGUAGE, V1, P155 Horn L, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P191, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.2.191 Horn LR, 2012, TOPICS CONTEMP PHIL, P325 Horn L. R., 1989, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Horn L.R., 1984, MEANING FORM USE CON, P11 Jager G, 2007, LANGUAGE, V83, P74, DOI 10.1353/lan.2007.0020 Jager G, 2008, THEOR LINGUIST, V34, P85, DOI 10.1515/THLI.2008.008 Janda Richard D, 2001, LANG SCI, V23, P265 Jespersen Otto, 1917, NEGATION ENGLISH OTH Joseph Brian D., 2001, LANG SCI, V23, P163 Keenan EL, 2002, TOP ENGL LINGUIST, V39, P325 Keenan EL, 2002, NATURE EXPLANATION L, P152 KELLER R, 1989, LINGUA, V77, P113, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(89)90011-9 Keller Rudi, 1994, LANGUAGE CHANGE INVI Kiparsky Paul, 2006, P 2 INT C MOD GREEK Kiparsky P, 2006, THEOR LINGUIST, V32, P217, DOI 10.1515/TL.2006.015 Kirby Simon, 1999, FUNCTION SELECTION I Kirby S, 2001, IEEE T EVOLUT COMPUT, V5, P102, DOI 10.1109/4235.918430 Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Lewis D., 1969, CONVENTION Martinet A., 1962, FUNCTIONAL VIEW LANG Mattausch Jason, 2004, THESIS HUMBOLDT U BE Merin A, 1996, FORMAL SEMANTIC THEO Mosse F, 1938, LANG SCI Ohala John, 1993, HIST LINGUISTICS PRO, P237 Ohala J. J., 1989, LANGUAGE CHANGE CONT, P173 PARIKH Prashant, 2001, USE LANGUAGE Strong H. A., 1888, PRINCIPLES HIST LANG Portner P, 2003, LINGUIST PHILOS, V26, P459, DOI 10.1023/A:1024697112760 RAMAT P, 1992, LINGUISTICS, V30, P549, DOI 10.1515/ling.1992.30.3.549 Roberts C, 1996, OSU WORKING PAPERS L, V49, P91 Schaden G, 2012, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V4, P261 Shepherd SC, 1982, PAPERS 5TH INT C HIS, P316 SMITH JM, 1973, NATURE, V246, P15, DOI 10.1038/246015a0 Smith K, 2003, ARTIF LIFE, V9, P371, DOI 10.1162/106454603322694825 Stalnaker R, 1974, SEMANTICS PHILOS, P47 Stalnaker Robert, 1978, PRAGMATICS, V9, P315 Stassen Leon, 2009, PREDICATIVE POSSESSI Traugott Elisabeth, 2002, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Traugott E, 2001, U FRIEB OCT 17 Traugott E, 1999, PRAGMATICS 1998, V2, P93 Traugott EC, 2011, OXFORD HDB GRAMMATIC, P401 Traugott E, 1980, LANG SCI, V2, P44, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(80)80004-0 Traugott Elizabeth, 1982, PERSPECTIVES HIST LI, P245 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, P189 TRAUGOTT EC, 1989, LANGUAGE, V65, P31, DOI 10.2307/414841 Trivers R., 2011, FOLLY FOOLS LOGIC DE Van Rooy R, 2004, SYNTHESE, V139, P331, DOI 10.1023/B:SYNT.0000024904.37199.6c Van Rooy R, 2004, LINGUIST PHILOS, V27, P493, DOI 10.1023/B:LING.0000024403.88733.3f von Fintel K., 1995, P 25 ANN M N E LING, V2, P175 Vossen Frens, 2014, DIACHRONY NEGATION, P47 Weinreich U., 1968, EMPIRICAL FDN THEORY Yanovich I, 2013, THESIS U MIT CAMBRID Yu ACL, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0011950 Zipf G. K., 1949, HUMAN BEHAV PRINCIPL NR 95 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 2 U2 5 PU ANNUAL REVIEWS PI PALO ALTO PA 4139 EL CAMINO WAY, PO BOX 10139, PALO ALTO, CA 94303-0897 USA SN 2333-9691 BN 978-0-8243-4201-2 J9 ANNU REV LINGUIST PY 2015 VL 1 BP 179 EP 197 DI 10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125100 PG 19 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA BC2JF UT WOS:000350994000010 ER PT J AU Kim, I AF Kim, Ilkyu TI Is Korean -(n)un a topic marker? On the nature of -(n)un and its relation to information structure SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Information structure; Topic; Contrast; Discourse salience; Korean -(n)un ID DISCOURSE; PRONOUNS; MEANINGS; FOCUS AB Basic categories of information structure (e.g. topic, focus, contrast) are known to be crosslinguistically expressed by various linguistic devices such as special intonation contours, syntactic mechanisms, and morphological markers, However, the nature of the relation between the categories and their linguistic "markers" has been rarely discussed. To be more specific, despite the rich literature on information structure, whether the categories are directly or indirectly related to their markers has not been of much interest to linguists until quite recently. The main purpose of this paper is to unveil the nature of the relation between Korean -(n)un and the information-structural notions related to it, namely, topic and contrast. Based on a corpus study, it will be claimed that -(n)un is not a topic/contrast marker per se but its function is to impose salience on a discourse referent. Topicality and contrast, widely assumed to be directly marked by -(n)un, will be claimed to be only derived from the interaction of the proposed meaning of -(n)un and various syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors. Consequently, this paper provides a strong support for recent attempts to show that the information-structural categories are merely pragmatic effects rather than stable and discrete universal primitives. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Kim, Ilkyu] Kangwon Natl Univ, Samcheok Si 245711, Gangwon Do, South Korea. RP Kim, I (reprint author), Kangwon Natl Univ, Dept English, Joongang Ro 346, Samcheok Si 245711, Gangwon Do, South Korea. EM 81ilkyu@gmail.com CR Asher N, 2004, THEOR LINGUIST, V30, P163, DOI 10.1515/thli.2004.30.2-3.163 Bosch P., 2003, P 2003 EACL WORKSH C Bosch P, 2007, STUD LANG C, V86, P145 Buring D, 2003, LINGUIST PHILOS, V26, P511 Biking D., 2010, INFORM STRUCTURE THE, P177 Chae Hee Rahk, 2008, [Korean Journal of Linguistics, 언어], V33, P869 Chafe W., 1994, DISCOURSE CONSCIOUSN Chafe W. L., 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC, P25 Chiarcos Christian, 2009, THESIS U POTSDAM Choe H, 1995, DISCOURSE CONFIGURAT, P269 Choi H.-W., 1996, THESIS STANFORD U Choi H.-W., 1997, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V6, P545 Choi K.-S., 2004, WULIMALYENKWU, V15, P149 Choi S., 2000, THESIS YALE U Clark H.H., 1992, ARENAS LANGUAGE USE CLARK HH, 1989, COGNITIVE SCI, V13, P259, DOI 10.1016/0364-0213(89)90008-6 Clemons C. R., 1993, J PRAGMAT, V19, P519 Constant N, 2012, LINGUIST PHILOS, V35, P407, DOI 10.1007/s10988-012-9121-1 Cook P., 2013, DIALOGUE DISCOURSE, V42, P118 Erteschik-Shir Nomi, 2007, INFORM STRUCTURE SYN Farkas D., 2009, J SEMANT, V27, P81 Fillmore Charles J., 1977, CURRENT ISSUES LINGU, P76 Ginzburg J., 1996, HDB CONT SEMANTIC TH, P359 Ginzburg J., 2012, INTERACTIVE STANCE Gordon PC, 1998, COGNITIVE SCI, V22, P389, DOI 10.1207/s15516709cog2204_1 Grice H. P., 1978, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V9, P113 GROSZ BJ, 1995, COMPUT LINGUIST, V21, P203 Gundel Jeanette, 1974, THESIS U TEXAS AUSTI Gundel J. K., 1993, LANGUAGE, V69, P247 Gundel Jeanette K., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P175 van der Sandt R, 1999, FOCUS LINGUISTIC COG, P293 Gundel J. K., 1988, STUDIES SYNTACTIC TY, V17, P209 Han C.-h., 1998, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V7, P1 Haspelmath M, 2010, LANGUAGE, V86, P663 Hedberg N., 2006, ARCHITECTURE FOCUS Hockett C. F., 1958, COURSE MODERN LINGUI Hong Yong-Tcheol, 2005, [Studies in Generative Grammar, 생성문법연구], V15, P397 Jacobs J, 2001, LINGUISTICS, V39, P641, DOI 10.1515/ling.2001.027 Jo J.-M., 2006, LINGUISTIC ASS KOREA, V14, P167 Jun Youngchul, 2006, [HAN-GEUL, 한글], V274, P171 Jun Youngchul, 2005, [EONEOHAG, 언어학], V43, P215 Jung Y.-J., 2001, STUD GENER GRAMM, V11, P303 Kaiser E., 2006, P SINN BED 10 BERL, V44, p[10, 139] Kaiser E., 2006, ZAS WORKING PAPERS L, V44, p[10, 139] Kaiser E., 2010, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V2, P266, DOI 10.1163/187731010X528368 Kaiser E., 2004, P C SUB8 SINN BED KO, V177, P137 Kaiser E, 2008, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V23, P709, DOI 10.1080/01690960701771220 Kaiser E, 2010, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V47, P480, DOI 10.1080/01638530903347643 Kaiser E, 2011, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V26, P1587, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2010.522915 Kaiser E, 2011, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V26, P1625, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2010.523082 Kidwai Ayesha, 1999, THE GRAMMAR FOCUS, P213 Kim I., 2013, LINGUIST RES, V30, P539 Kim Ji-Eun, 2010, THESIS UCLA Kim Jieun, 2011, [LANGUAGE RESEARCH, 어학연구], V47, P71 Kim J.-R, 2005, KOREAN J ENGL LANG L, V5, P195 Kim Kwang-sup, 1990, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V1, P395 Kim S.-U, 1983, THESIS U FLORIDA Manfred K., 2007, NOTIONS INFORM STRUC, V6, P13 Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Lee C., 2002, ASYMMETRY GRAMMAR SY, V1, P345 Lee C., 1999, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V1, P142 Lee C., 2000, J COGN SCI, V1, P21 Lee C., 2003, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V12 Lee CM, 2006, CUR RES SEM PRAG INT, V16, P381 Lee C, 2007, STUD LINGUIST PHILOS, V82, P151 Lee Hyunoo, 2004, [EONEOHAG, 언어학], V39, P81 Lee I., 1999, LECT KOREAN GRAMMAR Lee I.-S., 1983, THEORIES KOREAN GRAM Leveli W. J., 1989, SPEAKING INTENTION A Lewis David, 1979, SEMANTICS DIFFERENT, P172, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-67458-7_12 Li C., 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC, P457 Lim D.-H., 2012, KWUKEHAK, V64, P217 Masharov M., 2008, THESIS U ROCHESTER Matic D., 2009, CURRENT ISSUES UNITY, V18, P176 Matic D, 2013, J LINGUIST, V49, P127, DOI 10.1017/S0022226712000345 Mulkern A., 2003, THESIS U MINNESOTA Mulkern Ann, 2007, GRAMMAR PRAGMATICS I, P113 Nam Yun-Jin, 2005, WULIMAL YENKWU, P157 Oh Chisung, 2007, THESIS U TEXAS AUSTI Oh M., 2008, UMSENGKWAHAK, V15, P7 Park C., 1999, LANG RES, V19, P75 Park Hogwan, 2007, [Urimalgeul: The Korean Language and Literature, 우리말글], V39, P91 Partner P., 2007, INFORM STRUCTURE MEA, P407 Prince E., 1999, TEX LING FOR U TEX A Prince Ellen F, 1986, PAPERS PARASESSION P, V22, P208 Pustet R., 1997, DISKURSPROMINENZ ROL Reinhart T., 1981, PHILOSOPHICA, V27, P53 Repp S, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P1333, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.006 Rizzi Luigi, 1997, ELEMENTS GRAMMAR, P281, DOI [10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7, DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7] Roberts C., 2011, SEMANTICS, V2, P1908 Roberts C., 2012, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V5, P1 Rooth Mats, 1992, NAT LANG SEMANT, V1, P75, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF02342617 Rooth Mats, 1985, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Sgall P., 1986, MEANING SENTENCE ITS Strawson P. F., 1964, THEORIA-SPAIN, V30, P96, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1755-2567.1964.TB00404.X Vallduvi E, 1998, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V29, P79 Vallduvi E., 1990, THESIS U PENNSYLVANI Vallduvi E, 1996, LINGUISTICS, V34, P459, DOI 10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.459 von Fintel Kai, 1994, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Wedgwood D., 2009, WORKING PAPERS SFB, V3, P101 NR 100 TC 1 Z9 1 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 JAN PY 2015 VL 154 BP 87 EP 109 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.010 PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CB5GN UT WOS:000349655600005 ER PT J AU Witek, M AF Witek, Maciej TI Linguistic underdeterminacy: A view from speech act theory SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Linguistic underdeterminacy; Speech acts; Austin; Contextualism; Meaning eliminativism ID SEMANTICS/PRAGMATICS DISTINCTION AB The aim of this paper is to reformulate the Linguistic Underdeterminacy Thesis by making use of Austin's theory of speech acts. Viewed from the post-Gricean perspective, linguistic underdeterminacy consists in there being a gap between the encoded meaning of a sentence uttered by a speaker and the proposition that she communicates. According to the Austinian model offered in this paper, linguistic underdeterminacy should be analysed in terms of semantic and force potentials conventionally associated with the lexical and syntactic properties of the pheme uttered by the speaker; in short, it is claimed that the conventionally specified phatic meaning of an utterance underdeterminesits content and force. This Austinian version of the Linguistic Underdeterminacy Thesis plays a central role in a contextualist model of verbal communication. The model is eliminativist with respect to rhetic content and illocutionary force; it takes contents and forces to be one-off constructions whose function is to classify individual utterances in terms of their representational and institutional effects, respectively. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Szczecin, Inst Philosophy, PL-71017 Szczecin, Poland. RP Witek, M (reprint author), Univ Szczecin, Inst Philosophy, Ul Krakowska 71-79, PL-71017 Szczecin, Poland. EM witek@whus.pl FU Polish National Science Centre [2011/03/B/HS1/00917] FX I gratefully acknowledge the support of the Polish National Science Centre through research grant No. 2011/03/B/HS1/00917 for the preparation of this paper. I would also like to thank Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka and Brian Ball for the valuable comments and discussion on an earlier version of this work. I am also very grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful remarks that significantly improved this paper. CR Austin John L., 1950, TRUTH P ARISTOTELI S, V24, P111 Austin J. L, 1975, DO THINGS WORDS Bach Kent, 1987, THOUGHT REFERENCE Bach K., 2004, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, P27 Bach K, 2001, SYNTHESE, V128, P15, DOI 10.1023/A:1010353722852 Bach K., 1994, MIND LANG, V9, P124, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1468-0017.1994.TB00220.X Budzynska K, 2014, ARGUMENTATION, V28, P301, DOI 10.1007/s10503-014-9322-6 Bianchi C., 2004, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, P65 Carston Robyn, 1999, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, P85 Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Forguson L. W., 1973, ESSAYS JL AUSTIN, P160 Garcia-Carpintero M, 2001, SYNTHESE, V128, P93, DOI 10.1023/A:1010301706013 Garcia-Carpintero M, 1998, MIND, V107, P529, DOI 10.1093/mind/107.427.529 Garcia-Carpintero M, 2006, CRITICA, V38, P35 Grice Paul H., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Harnish R. M., 2005, PHILOSOPHICA, V75, P11 Horwich P., 1998, MEANING Kissine M, 2013, FROM UTTERANCES TO SPEECH ACTS, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511842191 Kissine M, 2009, MIND LANG, V24, P122, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01356.x Korta K, 2006, MIND LANG, V21, P166, DOI 10.1111/j.0268-1064.2006.00310.x Korta Kepa, 2011, CRITICAL PRAGMATICS Korta K, 2007, JOHN SEARLE'S PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE: FORCE, MEANING, AND MIND, P169 Millikan R., 2005, LANGUAGE BIOL MODEL Millikan RG, 1998, J PHILOS, V95, P161, DOI 10.2307/2564683 Origgi G, 2000, EVOLUTION HUMAN MIND, P140, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511611926.008 Perry John, 2001, REFERENCE REFLEXIVIT Recanati Francois, 1987, MEANING FORCE PRAGMA Recanati F, 2004, LITERAL MEANING Recanati Francois, 1980, SPEECH ACT THEORY PR, P205 Recanati Francois, 2001, MIDWEST STUD PHILOS, V25, P264, DOI 10.1111/1475-4975.00048 Recanati F, 2007, JOHN SEARLE'S PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE: FORCE, MEANING, AND MIND, P49 Sbisa Marina, 2007, PRAGMATICS, V17, P461 Sbisa Marina, 2013, PRAGMATICS SPEECH AC, P25 Sbisa M, 2002, LANG COMMUN, V22, P421, DOI 10.1016/S0271-5309(02)00018-6 Searle J., 2010, MAKING SOCIAL WORLD Searle John R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH SEARLE JR, 1968, PHILOS REV, V77, P405, DOI 10.2307/2183008 Sperber D, 2002, MIND LANG, V17, P3, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00186 Witek Maciej, 2013, DIALOGUE U, V1, P129 Witek Maciej, 2013, METHODOLOGY PHILOS S, V7, P145 Witek M, 2015, LANG SCI, V47, P43, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.08.003 NR 41 TC 1 Z9 1 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 JAN PY 2015 VL 76 BP 15 EP 29 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.003 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CA9TY UT WOS:000349268900002 ER PT J AU Flores-Ferran, N Lovejoy, K AF Flores-Ferran, Nydia Lovejoy, Kelly TI An examination of mitigating devices in the argument interactions of L2 Spanish learners SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Mitigation; Argument discourse; L2 Spanish; Institutional talk ID FOREIGN-LANGUAGE; DISCOURSE; DISAGREEMENT; STRATEGIES; PRAGMATICS; FACEWORK; ME AB The present study investigates the use of mitigation and indirectness in argument discourse produced in an institutional setting by Spanish learners (L2). For the study, advanced-level L2 Spanish learners and native Spanish speakers completed a conversational protocol that was designed to elicit arguments as the participants discussed problems and concerns related to the university they attended. Among the mitigating devices examined are the use of parenthetical verbs, hedges, pauses, tag questions, challenge questions, and discourse markers. Results obtained from the analysis reveal differences between the learners and the native speakers in the repertoire of mitigating devices and indirect speech strategies employed by each group. Overall, the learners exhibited redundant uses of devices while native speakers employed a variety of devices which in many instances co-occurred with other strategies. Nonetheless, pragmatic violations in the use of mitigation and indirect speech that adversely affected learners' arguments were not detected. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Flores-Ferran, Nydia] Rutgers State Univ, Grad Sch Educ, Dept Learning & Teaching, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA. [Flores-Ferran, Nydia; Lovejoy, Kelly] Rutgers State Univ, Sch Arts & Sci, Spanish & Portuguese Dept, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA. RP Flores-Ferran, N (reprint author), Rutgers State Univ, Grad Sch Educ, Dept Learning & Teaching, 10 Seminary Pl,CAC Off 223, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA. EM nydia.flores@gse.rutgers.edu; klovejoy@rci.rutgers.edu CR Antaki C, 1994, EXPLAINING ARGUING S Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P171, DOI DOI 10.1017/S027226310001487X Bardovi-Harlig K., 1993, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V15, P279, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100012122 Beebe L., 1989, DYNAMIC INTERLANGUAG, P199 Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Bravo D., 1999, ORALIA, V2, P155 Bravo D., 2004, PRAGMATICA SOCIOCULT BRENNEIS D, 1988, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V17, P221 Briz A., 2004, PRAGMATICA SOCIOCULT, P67 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Caffi C, 2007, STUD PRAGMAT, V4, P1 Caffi C, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P881, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8 Chodorowska M, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V28, P355, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00004-0 Chodorowska-Pilch Marianna, 2004, CURRENT TRENDS PRAGM, P57 Cordella Marisa, 1996, LANGUAGE CULTURE CUR, V9, P148 Czerwionka L, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1163, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.002 Dings A, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1503, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.015 Dippold Doris, 2007, J APPL LINGUIST, V4, P285 Dippold D, 2011, MOD LANG J, V95, P171, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01175.x Edstrom A, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P1499, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.02.002 Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2008, LANG AWARE, V17, P195, DOI 10.2167/la430.0 Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2992, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.015 Felix-Brasdeter JC, 2008, HISPANIA-J DEV INTER, V91, P479 Fellx-Brasdefer J. Cesar, 2006, P 8 HISP LING S CASC, P191 Felix-Brasdefer J. Cesar, 2009, APPL LANG LEARN, V19, P1 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P253, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.013 Flores-Ferran N, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1810, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.024 Flores-Ferran N, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1964, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.005 Flores-Ferran Nydia, 2010, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V203, P61 Flores-Ferran Nydia, 2012, IMPACT STUDIES LANGU, P81 [Anonymous], 2010, NEW APPROACHES HEDGI FRASER B, 1980, J PRAGMATICS, V4, P341, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6 Garcia Carmen, 1989, LINGUISTICS ED, V1, P299, DOI 10.1016/S0898-5898(89)80004-X Georgakopoulou A, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1881, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00034-5 Grimshaw Allen, 1990, CONFLICT TALK, P1 Haverkate Henk, 1994, CORTESIA VERBAL ESTU Heritage J., 2010, TALK ACTION INTERACT Hernandez-Flores Nieves, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V9, P37 Houck Noel, 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P29 Hubler A., 1983, UNDERSTATEMENTS HEDG Jefferson G., 2004, CONVERSATION ANAL ST, P43, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.125.05JEF Jefferson G., 1989, CONVERSATION INTERDI, P166 Kakava C, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1537, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00075-9 Kasper G., 2009, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V47, P11, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2009.002 KOIKE DA, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V21, P513, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90027-2 Kreutel Karen, 2007, TESL EJ, V11, P1 Labov W, 1977, THERAPEUTIC DISCOURS Lakoff G., 1972, 8 REG M CHIC LING SO, P183 Murillo Medrano Jorge, 2002, KANINA, VXXVI, P109 Montrul S, 2003, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V25, P351 Muntigl P, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V29, P225, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00048-9 Placencia M. E., 1996, MULTILINGUA, V15, P13, DOI 10.1515/mult.1996.15.1.13 Placencia Maria E., 1994, DONAIRE, V2, P65 Pomerantz Anita, 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P57, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511665868 Rees-Miller J, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P1087, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00088-0 Rothman J, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P951, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.007 Salsbury Tom, 2000, COGNITIVE FACTORS 2, P57 Salsbury Tom, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P131 Sbisa M, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1791, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00060-6 Schiffrin Deborah, 1985, HDB DISCOURSE ANAL, P35 Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS Schwenter SA, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P855, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00023-2 Sifanou Maria, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1554 Simmel G., 1908, CONFLICT CONFLICT WE Takahashi Tomoko, 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P38 Tannen D, 1993, FRAMING DISCOURSE, P14 ten Have P., 2007, DOING CONVERSATION A Toulmin S. E, 1979, INTRO REASONING Travis CE, 2005, COGN LINGUIST RES, V27, P1 Urrnson James, 1952, MIND, V61, P489 Vickers CH, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P116, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.010 Vizcaino Garcia, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, P69 Williams J, 2005, SEC LANG ACQ RES, P37 NR 73 TC 1 Z9 1 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 JAN PY 2015 VL 76 BP 67 EP 86 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.005 PG 20 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CA9TY UT WOS:000349268900005 ER PT J AU Siebold, K Busch, H AF Siebold, Kathrin Busch, Hannah TI (No) need for clarity - Facework in Spanish and German refusals SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Refusals; Politeness; Face threat; Facework strategies; Spanish; German ID POLITENESS AB Given the linguistic complexity and the great impact a refusal can produce on the speaker's and hearer's face, this speech act has been the object of numerous comparative works on cross-cultural communication studies. This article compares the culture-specific realisation of different types of refusals in Spanish and German, a language pair that has not yet received much attention in the field of intercultural pragmatics. It presents a brief review of published works on the expression of refusals in different languages and describes in detail the threat that a refusal poses for the positive and negative face of both interlocutors. The analysis of the culture-specific means to manage this face threat reveals a high tendency for indirect refusal strategies and for vague answers without a clear final outcome by Spanish speakers, whereas German speakers place a higher value on more direct refusal strategies and explicit answers with a great level of pragmatic clarity, especially with regard to the final outcome of the conversation. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Siebold, Kathrin] Univ Pablo de Olavide, Dept Filol & Traducc, Seville 41013, Spain. [Busch, Hannah] St Georges Sch, Sanlucar La Mayor 41800, Spain. RP Siebold, K (reprint author), Univ Pablo de Olavide, Dept Filol & Traducc, Carretera Utrera,Km 1, Seville 41013, Spain. EM ksiex@upo.es; buschh@stgeorge.es CR Al-Issa A, 2003, INT J INTERCULT REL, V27, P581, DOI 10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00055-5 Al-Kahtani Ali Saad W., 2005, LANG TRANSL, V18, P35 Al-Shboul Y., 2012, SE ASIAN J ENGL LANG, V18, P29 Barron Anne, 2003, PRAGMATICS NEW SERIE Beebe L. M., 1990, DEV COMMUNICATIVE CO BLUMKULKA S, 1984, APPL LINGUIST, V5, P196, DOI 10.1093/applin/5.3.196 Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Salazar Campillo Patricia, 2009, REV ELECT LINGUIST A, V8, P139 Cho Y, 2007, DIALOGUE STUD, V1, P191 Drew P., 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P129 [Anonymous], 2010, SPEECH ACT PERFORMAN Gass S., 1999, INTERLANGUAGE REFUSA Ghazanfari Mohammad, 2013, INT J RES STUD LANG, V2, P49 Grein Marion, 2007, KOMMUNIKATIVE GRAMMA Haverkate Henk, 1994, CORTESIA VERBAL ESTU Kwon Jihyun, 2004, MULTILINGUA, V23, P339, DOI 10.1515/mult.2004.23.4.339 Leech G, 2007, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V3, P167, DOI 10.1515/PR.2007.009 Levinson Stephen, 1983, PRAGMATIK Liao Chao-chih, 1996, LANG SCI, V18, P703, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00043-5 MARTIARNANDIZ O, 2013, REFUSALS INSTRUCTION Nixdorf Nina, 2002, HOFLICHKEIT ENGLISCH Qadoury-Abed Ahmed, 2011, INT J ENGL LINGUIST, V1, P166 Schroll-Machl Silvia, 2013, DOING BUSINESS GERMA Selting Margret, 2009, GESPRACHSFORSCHUNG O, V10, P353 Siebold Kathrin, 2008, ACTOS HABLA CORTESIA Wannaruk Anchalee, 2008, RELC J, V39, P318, DOI DOI 10.1177/0033688208096844.RETRIEVED Widjaja C. S., 1997, WORKING PAPERS ESL, V15, P1 NR 28 TC 0 Z9 0 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 JAN PY 2015 VL 75 BP 53 EP 68 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.006 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA CA4NU UT WOS:000348882300005 ER PT J AU Block, BA Tietjen-Smith, T Estes, SG AF Block, Betty Ann Tietjen-Smith, Tara Estes, Steven G. TI Thinking Pluralistically: Dynamic Decision Making in Kinesiology SO QUEST LA English DT Article DE Philosophy; kinesiology; higher education; administration; decision making; pluralism ID ETHICS; EDUCATION; PEDAGOGY; VALUES; CODES; PETE; SELF AB In this age of postmodern supercomplexity, universities face increased demands from many precincts in our society to respond to such issues as broader access, graduation rates, costs, and relevance, to name just a few. The cultivation of professional conditions that will help higher education and its kinesiology professoriate to not only to survive, but flourish, in an age of supercomplexity is a necessary adaptation for the future. No obvious single, coherent moral framework exists to use as a guide for today's (and tomorrow's) faculty. This article argues, then, for a pluralistic way of thinking by applying reason to the diverse moral frameworks in kinesiology in higher education. The purpose of this article is to explicate a moral positioning in kinesiology based on this pluralistic approach so that decision making can extend beyond the current boundaries of pragmatic thought, now prevalent in higher education. Specific examples of this approach and some accompanying strategies are offered. C1 [Block, Betty Ann; Tietjen-Smith, Tara] Texas A&M Univ Commerce, Commerce, TX 75429 USA. [Estes, Steven G.] Middle Tennessee State Univ, Murfreesboro, TN 37130 USA. RP Block, BA (reprint author), Texas A&M Univ Commerce, POB 3011, Commerce, TX 75429 USA. EM bettyannie@me.com CR BAIN LL, 1993, QUEST, V45, P69 Barnett R., 2005, EDUC PHILOS THEORY, V37, P785, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1469-5812.2005.00158.X Barnett R., 2000, REALIZING U AGE SUPE Barnett R., 2004, LONDON REV ED, V2, P61, DOI DOI 10.1080/1474846042000177483 Block B. A., 2008, 19 INT C COLL TEACH, V19, P1 Block BA, 2011, QUEST, V63, P179 Chicharro-Saito G., 2008, CHINA PERSPECTIVES, V1, P29 Connolly W., 2005, PLURALISM Crowder G, 2008, SOCIETY, V45, P247, DOI 10.1007/s12115-008-9089-1 Dewey J, 2008, LATER WORKS, V14, P224 Dewey J., 1966, MAN MAN SOCIAL PHILO DROWATZKY JN, 1993, QUEST, V45, P22 Ellis M., 1987, TRENDS FUTURE PHYS E, P69 Fengyan W., 2004, JOURNAL OF MORAL EDU, V33, P429, DOI DOI 10.1080/0305724042000327984 Fernandez-Balboa JM, 2009, SPORT EDUC SOC, V14, P147, DOI 10.1080/13573320902808981 FRALEIGH WP, 1993, QUEST, V45, P13 Fraser D, 2004, J MORAL EDUC, V33, P87, DOI 10.1080/0305724042000199996 Gill MB, 2008, NOUS, P143 Gowans Christopher W., 1987, MORAL DILEMMAS Healea C. D., 2006, J EDUC, V186, P65 Hickman L. A., 1998, THE ESSENTIAL DEWEY, V2 Hosta M, 2008, KINESIOLOGY, V40, P89 Hsu L, 2004, SPORT EDUC SOC, V9, P143, DOI 10.1080/1357332042000175854 Jones C, 2008, SPORT EDUC SOC, V13, P337, DOI 10.1080/13573320802200719 Kane R., 1996, MORAL MAZE SEARCHING Kant Immanuel, 1993, GROUNDING METAPHYSIC Kekes J., 2000, PLURALISM PHILOS CHA Kekes J., 1993, MORALITY PLURALISM KRETCHMAR RS, 1993, QUEST, V45, P3 Lund J, 2010, QUEST, V62, P268 Lynch S, 2009, J MORAL PHILOS, V6, P70, DOI 10.1163/174552409X365937 Lyotard Francois, 1984, POSTMODERN CONDITION MacIntyre Alasdair, 1984, AFTER VIRTUE Mason E, 2011, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS Massengale J, 1987, TRENDS FUTURE PHYS E, P7 Nikiforova B., 2008, LIMES, V1, P139, DOI [10.3846/2029-0187.2008.1.139-147, DOI 10.3846/2029-0187.2008.1.139-147] Paul R., 2006, THINKERS GUIDE UNDER Peer KS, 2009, ATHLET THER TODAY, V14, P35 Power F. C., 1992, CHALLENGE PLURALISM Coleman D., 2003, CAMB J EDUC, V33, P123, DOI 10.1080/0305764032000047522 Rogers M., 2009, UNDISCOVERED DEWEY R Sabini J., 1998, EMOTION CHARACTER RE Sicilia-Camacho A, 2009, SPORT EDUC SOC, V14, P443, DOI 10.1080/13573320903217166 Stocker M, 2004, PLURAL CONFLICTING V Van Bouwel J, 2008, HIST THEORY, V47, P168, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2303.2008.00445.x White J., 2008, BRIT J PSYCHOTHERAPY, V24, P138, DOI [10.1111/j.1752-0118.2008.00073.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1752-0118.2008.00073.X] Wiggins D., 2006, ETHICS 12 LECT PHILO Wiggins D, 1980, ESSAYS ARISTOTLES ET, P239 Wilkins K., 2010, EDUCATION, V130, P540 NR 49 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 2 U2 8 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0033-6297 EI 1543-2750 J9 QUEST JI Quest PD JAN PY 2015 VL 67 IS 1 BP 93 EP 105 DI 10.1080/00336297.2014.984732 PG 13 WC Education & Educational Research; Sport Sciences SC Education & Educational Research; Sport Sciences GA CA6GO UT WOS:000349008900007 ER PT J AU Hyter, YD Rivers, KO DeJarnette, G AF Hyter, Yvette D. Rivers, Kenyatta O. DeJarnette, Glenda TI Pragmatic Language of African American Children and Adolescents A Systematic Synthesis of the Literature SO TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS LA English DT Article DE African American; communication functions; discourse; pragmatic language; presupposition; speech acts; systematic review and synthesis; theory of mind ID SCHOOL-AGE-CHILDREN; NARRATIVE SKILLS; PERSONAL NARRATIVES; ENGLISH; ABILITIES; COMMUNICATION; PRESCHOOLERS; DISCOURSE; STUDENTS; DIALECT AB Purpose: A systematic review and synthesis was performed on published articles and dissertations produced between 1970 and 2013 that focused on selected pragmatic language behaviors of African American children and adolescents. Methods: Electronic databases and hand searches of articles located in the databases were used to identify the published articles and dissertations. Each article or dissertation was reviewed by at least 2 of the authors to determine whether it met the criteria for inclusion in this study. Selected observations of the documents that met criteria for inclusion were recorded on the Primary Research Appraisal Tool (PRAT; DeJarnette, Hyter, & Rivers, 2012), a data gathering and analysis framework developed by the authors specifically for this systematic synthesis. Results: The literature search resulted in 92 research articles and dissertations, 37 of which were eliminated because they did not meet all of the inclusion criteria. The documents that met our inclusion criteria focused primarily on the structure and/or content of narrative discourse rather than speech acts, other forms of discourse (e.g., conversation, expository), and presupposition/perspective taking skills. Six major themes identified in the major findings are used to summarize studies reviewed for this systematic synthesis. Conclusions: We (a) explain the current state of knowledge about African American pragmatic language behaviors, (b) explain major findings and implications of the extant literature in this topical area and how it may inform speech-language pathology practice, and (c) identify directions for future research on pragmatic language of African American children and adolescents. C1 [Hyter, Yvette D.] Western Michigan Univ, Dept Speech Pathol & Audiol, Kalamazoo, MI 49008 USA. [Rivers, Kenyatta O.] Univ Cent Florida, Dept Commun Sci & Disorders, Orlando, FL 32816 USA. [DeJarnette, Glenda] So Connecticut State Univ, Dept Commun Disorders, New Haven, CT 06515 USA. RP Hyter, YD (reprint author), Western Michigan Univ, 1903 W Michigan Ave, Kalamazoo, MI 49008 USA. EM yvette.hyter@wmich.edu CR Adams C., 2005, CHILD LANG TEACH THE, V21, P227, DOI DOI 10.1191/0265659005CT2900A Archer D., 2012, PRAGMATICS AN ADVANC Atlas J. D., 2004, THE HANDBOOK OF PRAG, P29 AUSTIN JL, 1962, HOW TO DO THINGS WIT Baker E, 2011, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V42, P102, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2010/09-0075) Ball A. F., 2002, REV RES EDUC, V26, P71, DOI DOI 10.3102/0091732X026001071 BALL AF, 1992, WRIT COMMUN, V9, P501, DOI 10.1177/0741088392009004003 Ball A. F., 1996, THE ENGLISH JOURNAL, V85, P27 Bara B. G., 2010, COGNITIVE PRAGMATICS BARNITZ JG, 1994, J READING, V37, P586 Bates E, 1976, LANGUAGE DEFICIENCY, P411 Bates E., 1976, LANGUAGE AND CONTEXT Battle DE, 1996, TOP LANG DISORD, V16, P22 Biemiller A., 2006, HDB EARLY LITERACY R, P41 Blake I. J. K., 1984, THESIS Bliss L. S., 1999, CONT ISSUES COMMUNIC, V26, P160 Bliss L. S., 2006, CONT ISSUES COMMUNIC, V33, P126 Bliss LS, 2008, TOP LANG DISORD, V28, P162 Bloome D., 2003, READ WRIT Q, V19, P205, DOI [10.1080/10573560308216, DOI 10.1080/10573560308216] Botting N, 2002, CHILD LANG TEACH THE, V18, P1, DOI DOI 10.1191/0265659002CT224OA Boudreau D, 2008, TOP LANG DISORD, V28, P99 Braun V., 2006, QUALITATIVE RES PSYC, V3, P77, DOI DOI 10.1191/1478088706QP063OA Bridgeforth C. D., 1988, THESIS Brinton B, 2004, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V35, P283, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2004/026) Burns F. A., 2004, THESIS Celinska D. K., 2009, INTERNATIONAL JOURNA, V24, P150 Champion T., 1995, THESIS CHAMPION T, 1995, J NARRAT LIFE HIST, V5, P333 Champion T. B., 1998, LINGUISTICS ED, V9, P251, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0898-5898(97)90002-4 Clarke V, 2013, PSYCHOLOGIST, V26, P120 Coggins TE, 2007, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V38, P117, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2007/012) Collins J., 1985, J EDUC, V167, P57 Connor CM, 2006, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V49, P771, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/055) Craig H. K., 1994, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V25, P181 CRAIG HK, 1986, J PRAGMATICS, V10, P173, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(86)90086-X Washington J., 1995, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V26, P87 Craig HK, 2002, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V11, P59, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2002/007) Craig HK, 2004, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V47, P450, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/036) Craig HK, 2009, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V52, P839, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0056) Curenton S. M., 2004, EARLY EDUC DEV, V15, P121, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15566935EED1502 Curenton SM, 2004, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V35, P240, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2004/023) Curenton SM, 2008, EARLY EDUC DEV, V19, P161, DOI 10.1080/10409280701839296 Dandy E. B., 1991, BLACK COMMUNICATIONS de Villiers Peter, 2004, Seminars in Speech and Language, V25, P57 DeJarnette G., 2015, TOPICS IN LANGUAGE D, V35, P59 DeJarnette G., 2012, UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENT Dey I., 1993, QUALITATIVE DATA ANA Donahue M., 1985, SCH DISCOURSE PROBLE, P97 Duchan J., 2011, THE PRAGMATICS REVOL Eder D., 1982, COMMUNICATING CLASSR, P164 Elo S, 2008, J ADV NURS, V62, P107, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x Epley N., 2009, HDB IMAGINATION MENT, P295 Etter-Lewis G., 1985, THESIS Finger M. Y., 2007, THESIS Ford JA, 2008, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V51, P367, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/027) Fuste-Hermann B., 2006, LEARNING DISABILITIE, V21, P44, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1540-5826.2006.00206.X Garrett D. M., 1996, THESIS Gee J., 1989, J EDUC, V171, P97 Gee J. P., 1989, J EDUC, V171, P75 Gidney C. L., 1995, THESIS Goldin-Meadow S, 1999, TRENDS COGN SCI, V3, P419, DOI 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01397-2 GOODWIN MH, 1980, AM ETHNOL, V7, P674, DOI 10.1525/ae.1980.7.4.02a00050 Gorman BK, 2011, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V42, P167, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2010/10-0052) Green L., 2003, TEXAS LINGUISTIC FOR, V47, P55 Green L., 2002, AFRICAN AMERICAN ENG Guajardo NR, 2002, J GENET PSYCHOL, V163, P305 Gutierrez-Clellen V. F., 1993, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V24, P2 Hammer CS, 1999, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V42, P1219 Harwood T, 2003, MARKETING REV, V3, P479, DOI 10.1362/146934703771910080 HEATH SB, 1982, LANG SOC, V11, P49 Heilmann J, 2010, LANG TEST, V27, P603, DOI 10.1177/0265532209355669 Hester E. J., 1997, THESIS Hester E. J., 2008, POSTER PRESENTATION Hill J., 2005, COMMUNICATION DISORD, V27, P33, DOI 10.1177/15257401050270010401 Hoffman P. R., 1996, NATL STUDENT SPEECH, V23, P5 Horton-Ikard R, 2009, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V40, P393, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/07-0070) Howes C, 2008, SOC DEV, V17, P922, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00472.x Huang Y., 2012, OXFORD DICTIONARY OF Huang Y., 2007, PRAGMATICS Hwa-Froelich D, 2007, COMMUNICATION DISORD, V28, P77, DOI 10.1177/15257401070280020901 Hyon S., 1994, LINGUISTICS ED, V6, P121, DOI 10.1016/0898-5898(94)90009-4 Hyter Y. D., 2013, UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENT Hyter Y.D., 2001, COMMUNICATION DISORD, V23, P4, DOI 10.1177/152574010102300103 Hyter Y. D., 2012, SEMINAR PRESENTED AT Hyter Y. D., 1994, THESIS Hyter YD, 2003, BEHAV DISORDERS, V29, P65 Hyter Y. D., 2013, SEMINAR PRESENTED AT Hyter Y. D., 2010, SHORT COURSE PRESENT Hyter Y. D., 2012, AM SPEECH LANGUAGE H, V13, P32 Hyter YD, 2014, TOP LANG DISORD, V34, P103, DOI 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000015 Hyter YD, 2007, TOP LANG DISORD, V27, P128 JOHNSON CJ, 1995, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V26, P326 Justice LM, 2006, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V15, P177, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2006/017) Ezell H. K., 2001, COMMUNICATION DISORD, V22, P123, DOI 10.1177/152574010102200302 Kasambira D. C. F., 2008, THESIS Kelly SD, 2001, J CHILD LANG, V28, P325 Kraemer R. J., 2000, THE NEGRO EDUCATIONA, V51, P139 Labov W, 1967, P 1966 ANN SPR M AM, P12 Leaper D., 1999, CHILD DEV, V70, P1489 Lee C. D., 2006, INT J QUALITATIVE ST, V19, P305, DOI DOI 10.1080/09518390600696729 Leedy P. D., 2013, PRACTICAL RESEARCH P Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Lustig M. W., 2012, INTERCULTURAL COMPET, V7th Mainess K. J., 2002, LINGUISTICS ED, V13, P151, DOI 10.1016/S0898-5898(01)00060-2 Malinowski B., 1959, THE MEANING OF MEANI, P296 Maxwell D. L., 2006, RESEARCH AND STATIST Mayer M., 1969, FROG WHERE ARE YOU A Mayer M., 1985, FROGS GOES TO DINNER McCabe A., 1994, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V3, P45, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360.0301.45 McCabe A, 1997, ELEM SCHOOL J, V97, P453, DOI 10.1086/461876 McGregor KK, 2000, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V9, P55 McNeill D., 1996, HAND AND MIND WHAT G McNeill D., 2005, GESTURE THOUGHT MICHAELS S, 1981, LANG SOC, V10, P423 Middleton L. D., 1992, THESIS Mills MT, 2013, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V44, P211, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2012/12-0021) Morris C., 1938, FOUNDATIONS OF THE T Myers H., 1979, BLACK CHILD DEVELOPM NAGY WE, 1985, READ RES QUART, V20, P233, DOI 10.2307/747758 Nelson NW, 2010, TOP LANG DISORD, V30, P223, DOI 10.1097/TLD.0b013e3181efc358 Neuman W. L, 2006, SOCIAL RESEARCH METH Newkirk-Turner BL, 2014, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V57, P1383, DOI 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-13-0063 NICHOLS PC, 1989, ANTHROPOL EDUC QUART, V20, P232, DOI 10.1525/aeq.1989.20.3.04x0661k NORMENT N, 1995, J BLACK STUD, V25, P558, DOI 10.1177/002193479502500503 Oetting JB, 2010, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V41, P328, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0077) Olswang LB, 2001, TOP LANG DISORD, V22, P50 O'Neill D. K., 2014, PRAGMATIC DEVELOPING, P363 PAUL R, 1993, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V36, P592 Pena ED, 2006, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V49, P1037, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/074) Perkins M, 2007, PRAGMATIC IMPAIRMENT Peters C., 1983, THESIS McCabe A., 1992, 1ST LANGUAGE, V12, P299, DOI 10.1177/014272379201203606 Price JR, 2006, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V37, P178, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2006/020) Kirchner D., 1983, PRAGMATIC ASSESSMENT, P29 PRUTTING CA, 1987, J SPEECH HEAR DISORD, V52, P105 Punch K. F., 2014, INTRODUCTION TO SOCI Reilly J, 2004, BRAIN LANG, V88, P229, DOI 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00101-9 Renfrew C., 1992, THE BUS STORY LANGUA Renn J., 2010, THESIS Renn J., 2007, THESIS Renn J, 2009, AM SPEECH, V84, P367, DOI 10.1215/00031283-2009-030 Rivers A. N., 2001, THESIS Rivers K.O., 2012, ASHA LEADER, V17, P14 Hedrick D. L., 2004, THE NEGRO EDUCATIONA, V55, P117 Robinson T. L., 1992, THESIS Ross SH, 2004, AM SPEECH, V79, P167, DOI 10.1215/00031283-79-2-167 ROTH FP, 1984, J SPEECH HEAR DISORD, V49, P2 ROTH FP, 1984, J SPEECH HEAR DISORD, V49, P12 Roy J, 2013, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V56, P933, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0099) Schachter RE, 2013, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V44, P227, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2013/12-0034) Schiffman H. F., 1996, LINGUISTIC CULTURE A Schmid H-J., 2012, COGNITIVE PRAGMATICS, P3 Searle J. R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS AN ESSAY SEYMOUR HN, 1999, LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Smitherman G., 1994, BLACK TALK WORDS AND Sperber D, 2002, MIND LANG, V17, P3, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00186 Sperber D, 2005, OXFORD HDB CONT PHIL, P468 Sperry L. L., 1991, THESIS Sperry LL, 1996, COGNITIVE DEV, V11, P443, DOI 10.1016/S0885-2014(96)90013-1 Ripich D. N., 1985, SCHOOL DISCOURSE PRO, P3 Stadler M. A., 2005, EARLY CHILDHOOD ED J, V33, P73, DOI [10.1007/s10643-005-0024-4, DOI 10.1007/S10643-005-0024-4] Stockman IJ, 2008, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V39, P461, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2008/07-0095) Stockman IJ, 2010, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V41, P23, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0086) Stockman IJ, 2013, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V22, P40, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0124) STOCKMAN IJ, 1992, CHILD DEV, V63, P1104, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01683.x Stockman IJ, 1996, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V27, P355 Wylie C. E., 2007, APPLIED LINGUISTICS, V29, P244, DOI 10.1093/applin/amm003 Tabors P. O., 2001, BEGINNING LITERACY L, P313 Terry NP, 2010, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V53, P126, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0058) Terry NP, 2013, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V44, P291, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2013/12-0037) Thompson CA, 2004, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V35, P269, DOI 10.1044/0161-12461(2004/025) Timler G. R., 2008, ASHA LEADER, V13, P10 Timler GR, 2005, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V36, P73, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2005/007) Ting-Toomey S., 1999, COMMUNICATING ACROSS Tough J., 1982, TALK FOR TEACHING AN Troia GA, 2011, TOP LANG DISORD, V31, P40, DOI 10.1097/TLD.0b013e31820a0b71 Van Hofwegen J, 2010, J SOCIOLING, V14, P427 van Kleeck A, 2008, PSYCHOL SCHOOLS, V45, P627, DOI 10.1002/pits.20314 Besthorn F. H., 2010, HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND T Wallace IF, 1998, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V41, P900 Washington J. A., 2001, LEARNING DISABILITIE, V16, P213, DOI DOI 10.1111/0938-8982.00021 Weiner J., 2004, LEARNING DISABILITY, V27, P21 Schneider B., 2002, J ABNORMAL CHILD PSY, V30, P127 Westby C, 2010, TOP LANG DISORD, V30, P275, DOI 10.1097/TLD.0b013e3181ff5a88 Westby C, 2014, TOP LANG DISORD, V34, P362, DOI 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000035 Westby C, 2010, TOP LANG DISORD, V30, P272, DOI 10.1097/TLD.0b013e318205c19c WETHERBY AM, 1984, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V27, P364 Wyatt T. A., 1995, LINGUISTICS ED, V7, P7, DOI 10.1016/0898-5898(95)90017-9 Xie CQ, 2009, PRAGMAT COGN, V17, P421, DOI 10.1075/pc.17.2.10xie Zevenbergen A. A., 1996, THESIS NR 190 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 9 PU LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS PI PHILADELPHIA PA TWO COMMERCE SQ, 2001 MARKET ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 USA SN 0271-8294 EI 1550-3259 J9 TOP LANG DISORD JI Top. Lang. Disord. PD JAN-MAR PY 2015 VL 35 IS 1 BP 8 EP 45 DI 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000043 PG 38 WC Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA CA6DQ UT WOS:000348999300004 ER PT J AU Curenton, SM AF Curenton, Stephanie M. TI African American Preschoolers' Emotion Explanations Can Provide Evidence of Their Pragmatic Skills SO TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS LA English DT Article DE African American; emotions; language; narrative discourse; pragmatics; social-cognition ID LANGUAGE; RESPONSIVITY; ADJUSTMENT; CHILDREN; IMPACT AB This study provides qualitative and quantitative evidence of how an emotion explanation task can reflect African American preschoolers' pragmatic skills. We used an emotion explanation task to assess pragmatic skills among 19 children (aged 3-5 years) related to (1) engaging in conversational turn-taking, (2) answering Wh-questions, (3) engaging in communicative perspective-taking, (4) producing coherent discourse for exposition, and (5) demonstrating an understanding that emotions can be attributed to interpersonal interactions and situational events. The majority of children were capable of demonstrating their pragmatic skills during this task. Children's responses to the task were independent of their performance on standardized receptive vocabulary or expressive language assessments but not their performance on assessments of prosocial skills. There was a strong, positive significant association between children's ability to explain a puppet's happiness and their prosocial skills, even after controlling for age. Practical and clinical implications of this work are discussed. C1 Rutgers State Univ, Edward J Bloustein Sch Planning & Publ Policy, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA. RP Curenton, SM (reprint author), Rutgers State Univ, Edward J Bloustein Sch Planning & Publ Policy, 33 Livingston Ave, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA. EM curenton@rutgers.edu CR Arsenio WF, 2000, DEV PSYCHOL, V36, P438, DOI 10.1037//0012-1649.36.4.438 Bartsch K., 1995, CHILDREN TALK MIND BORKE H, 1971, DEV PSYCHOL, V5, P263, DOI 10.1037/h0031267 Cabell SQ, 2011, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V20, P315, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0104) Coplan RJ, 2009, INFANT CHILD DEV, V18, P238, DOI 10.1002/icd.622 Curenton S. M., 2014, ROUTLEDGE INT HDB YO, P294 Curenton S. M., 2003, EARLY EDUC DEV, V14, P199, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15566935EED1402_4 de Villiers Peter, 2004, Seminars in Speech and Language, V25, P57 Denbam S. A., 1998, EMOTIONAL DEV YOUNG DENHAM SA, 1990, CHILD STUDY J, V20, P171 Dunn L. M., 1997, PEABODY PICTURE VOCA Elias MJ, 2009, EDUC POLICY, V23, P831, DOI 10.1177/0895904808330167 Gabalda MK, 2010, J FAM ISSUES, V31, P423, DOI 10.1177/0192513X09348488 Gallagher TM, 1999, TOP LANG DISORD, V19, P1 Garner Pamela W, 2006, Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol, V12, P179, DOI 10.1037/1099-9809.12.2.179 Gresham Frank M., 1990, SOCIAL SKILLS RATING Hresko W., 1999, TEST EARLY LANGUAGE Humphries ML, 2013, EARLY EDUC DEV, V24, P212, DOI 10.1080/10409289.2011.647610 Hyter Y.D., 2001, COMMUNICATION DISORD, V23, P4, DOI 10.1177/152574010102300103 Hyter Y. D., 2012, ASSESSMENT PRA UNPUB Hyter YD, 2007, TOP LANG DISORD, V27, P128 Ketelaars MP, 2009, RES DEV DISABIL, V30, P952, DOI 10.1016/j.ridd.2009.01.006 Lagattuta KH, 1997, CHILD DEV, V68, P1081, DOI 10.2307/1132293 MacWhinney B., 2000, COMPUTATIONAL LINGUI, V26, P657, DOI 10.1162/coli.2000.26.4.657 Martin I, 2003, BRAIN LANG, V85, P451, DOI 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00070-1 Nsamenang A. B., 1994, CROSS CULTURAL ROOTS, P133 Peskin J, 2004, COGNITIVE DEV, V19, P253, DOI 10.1016/j.cogdev.2004.01.003 Piasta SB, 2012, EARLY CHILD RES Q, V27, P387, DOI 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.01.001 St Clair MC, 2011, J COMMUN DISORD, V44, P186, DOI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.09.004 NR 29 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 0 U2 3 PU LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS PI PHILADELPHIA PA TWO COMMERCE SQ, 2001 MARKET ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 USA SN 0271-8294 EI 1550-3259 J9 TOP LANG DISORD JI Top. Lang. Disord. PD JAN-MAR PY 2015 VL 35 IS 1 BP 46 EP 60 DI 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000045 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA CA6DQ UT WOS:000348999300005 ER PT J AU DeJarnette, G Rivers, KO Hyter, YD AF DeJarnette, Glenda Rivers, Kenyatta O. Hyter, Yvette D. TI Ways of Examining Speech Acts in Young African American Children Considering Inside-out and Outside-in Approaches SO TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS LA English DT Article DE communicative functions; English speakers; language behavior; pragmatic behavior; speech acts; young African American ID INTELLIGENCE HYPOTHESIS; LANGUAGE RESEARCH; ENGLISH; PRESCHOOLERS; DIALECT; DISCOURSE; COGNITION; SYNTAX; AGE AB To develop a framework for further study of pragmatic behavior in young children from African American English (AAE) speaking backgrounds, one aspect of pragmatic behavior is explored in this article, specifically, speech acts. The aims of this article are to (1) examine examples of how external taxonomies (i.e., an "etic" or "outside-in" approach) have been applied to the speech act behavior of AAE child speakers and to note that etic approaches alone do not identify cultural characteristics that influence the presentation of speech acts in this population; (2) conceptualize a culture-sensitive framework where components of AAE speech act behaviors can be identified as gleaned from existing linguistic research; and (3) explain the utility of analyses of speech act behavior using taxonomies that have emerged from the cultural language style of AAE speakers, that is, an "emic" or "inside-out" approach. C1 [DeJarnette, Glenda] So Connecticut State Univ, Dept Commun Disorders, New Haven, CT 06515 USA. [Rivers, Kenyatta O.] Univ Cent Florida, Dept Commun Sci & Disorders, Orlando, FL 32816 USA. [Hyter, Yvette D.] Western Michigan Univ, Dept Speech Pathol & Audiol, Kalamazoo, MI 49008 USA. RP DeJarnette, G (reprint author), So Connecticut State Univ, Dept Commun Disorders, 501 Crescent St, New Haven, CT 06515 USA. EM dejarnetteg1@southernct.edu CR Austin J.L., 1975, HOW TO DO THINGS WIT AUSTIN JL, 1962, HOW TO DO THINGS WIT Bates E., 1976, LANGUAGE AND CONTEXT Battle DE, 1996, TOP LANG DISORD, V16, P22 Blake I., 1994, CROSS CULTURAL ROOTS, P167 Carston R., 2002, THOUGHTS AND UTTERAN Carston R., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P633 Clark E., 2004, THE HANDBOOK OF PRAG, P562 Craig HK, 2002, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V11, P59, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2002/007) Craig HK, 2004, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V47, P450, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/036) Cummings L., 2005, PRAGMATICS A MULTIDI Davis G., 1987, I GOT THE WORD IN ME DeJarnette G., 2009, PRESENTATION GIVEN A DeJarnette G., 2006, PRESENTATION GIVEN A DeJarnette G., 2013, THE DONN F BAILEY LE DeJarnette G., 2008, PRESENTATION GIVEN A DeJarnette G., 2012, PRESENTATION GIVEN A Dore J., 1974, J PSYCHOLINGUISTIC R, V4, P343, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF01068169 Dore J., 1978, CHILDRENS LANGUAGE, V1, P397 Dore J., 1975, J CHILD LANG, V2, P21 Dore J., 1977, CHILD DISCOURSE, P139 Garrity AW, 2010, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V53, P1307, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0016) Garvey C., 1984, THE DEVELOPING CHILD Goodwin Marjorie Harness, 1991, HE SAID SHE SAID TAL Green L., 2002, AFRICAN AMERICAN ENG Halliday M. A. K., 1975, LEARNING HOW TO MEAN Herrmann E, 2007, SCIENCE, V317, P1360, DOI 10.1126/science.1146282 Hinson G., 2000, FIRE IN MY BONES TRA Holtgraves T. M., 2002, LANGUAGE AS SOCIAL A Horn L. R., 2004, THE HANDBOOK OF PRAG, P3 Hwa-Froelich D, 2007, COMMUNICATION DISORD, V28, P77, DOI 10.1177/15257401070280020901 Hyter Y. D., 2014, TOPICS IN LANGUAGE D, V35, P6 Hyter Y. D., 2000, UNPUBLISHED RAW DATA Hyter YD, 2007, TOP LANG DISORD, V27, P128 Jackson SC, 2001, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V44, P1083, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2001/086) Kendall T, 2009, J ENGL LINGUIST, V37, P305, DOI 10.1177/0075424209339281 Kochman T., 1981, BLACK AND WHITE STYL Kochman T., 1972, RAPPIN AND STYLIN OU Lahey M., 1988, LANGUAGE DISORDERS A LeVine R., 1974, CULTURE AND PERSONAL Levinson S. C., 2004, THE HANDBOOK OF PRAG, P97 MacWhinney B., 2000, THE CHILDES PROJECT Matsumoto D, 2006, PERSPECT PSYCHOL SCI, V1, P234, DOI 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00014.x Miller J. F., 2008, SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS Miller J.F., 1981, ASSESSING LANGUAGE P Mitchell H., 1975, BLACK BELIEF Mitchell H., 1970, BLACK PREACHING Claudia Mitchell-Kernan, 1973, MOTHER WIT LAUGHING, P310 Mitchell-Kernan C., 1989, DIRECTION SOCIOLINGU, P161 Mitchell-Kernan Claudia, 1972, RAPPIN STYLIN OUT CO, P315 MOERK EL, 1975, DEV PSYCHOL, V11, P788, DOI 10.1037//0012-1649.11.6.788 Moll H, 2007, PHILOS T R SOC B, V362, P639, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2006.2000 Morgan M., 2002, LANGUAGE DISCOURSE A Morgan Marcyliena, 1996, INTERACTION GRAMMAR, P405, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.009 Morgan M., 1998, AFRICAN AM ENGLISH S, P251 Morris MW, 1999, ACAD MANAGE REV, V24, P781, DOI 10.2307/259354 Newkirk-Turner BL, 2014, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V57, P1383, DOI 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-13-0063 NINIO A, 1994, J COMMUN DISORD, V27, P157, DOI 10.1016/0021-9924(94)90039-6 Ochs E., 1991, ISSUES APPL LINGUIST, V2, P143 Oetting JB, 2010, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V41, P328, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0077) Oetting JB, 2002, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V45, P505, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/040) Percelay J., 1994, SNAPS Pike K. L., 1996, THE MYSTERY OF CULTU, P39 Pike Kenneth Lee, 1967, LANGUAGE THOUGHT END, P32 Pike K. L., 1954, LANGUAGE IN RELATION Reeder K., 1981, CHILD LANGUAGE AN IN, P135 Renn J, 2009, AM SPEECH, V84, P367, DOI 10.1215/00031283-2009-030 Retherford K., 2007, GUIDE TO ANALYSIS OF Rickford J., 1976, J AM FOLKLORE, V89, P194 Rickford J. R., 2000, SPOKEN SOUL Rivers K.O., 2012, ASHA LEADER, V17, P14 Roberts C., 2004, THE HANDBOOK OF PRAG, P197 Roy J, 2013, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V56, P933, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0099) Sadock J., 2004, THE HANDBOOK OF PRAG, P53 SEARLE JR, 1976, LANG SOC, V5, P1 SEYMOUR HN, 1999, LANGUAGE ACQUISITION SEYMOUR HN, 1981, J SPEECH HEAR DISORD, V46, P274 Smitherman G., 1994, BLACK TALK WORDS AND Smitherman G., 1977, TALKIN AND TESTIFYIN Smitherman G., 1975, BLACK LANGUAGE AND C Smitherman G., 2000, TALKIN THAT TALK Stockman IJ, 2008, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V39, P461, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2008/07-0095) Stockman IJ, 2010, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V41, P23, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0086) Stockman IJ, 2013, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V22, P40, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0124) Stockman IJ, 1996, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V27, P355 Tough J., 1977, THE DEVELOPMENT OF M Van Hofwegen J, 2010, J SOCIOLING, V14, P427 van Rooij R, 2010, SYNTHESE, V174, P1, DOI 10.1007/s11229-009-9682-x Van Keulen J. E., 1998, SPEECH LANGUAGE LEAR WASHINGTON JA, 1994, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V37, P816 Weiten W., 2011, PSYCHOLOGY THEMES AN Wharry C, 2003, LANG SOC, V32, P203, DOI 10.1017/S0047404503322031 Wyatt T. A., 1995, LINGUISTICS ED, V7, P7, DOI 10.1016/0898-5898(95)90017-9 NR 93 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 1 U2 2 PU LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS PI PHILADELPHIA PA TWO COMMERCE SQ, 2001 MARKET ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 USA SN 0271-8294 EI 1550-3259 J9 TOP LANG DISORD JI Top. Lang. Disord. PD JAN-MAR PY 2015 VL 35 IS 1 BP 61 EP 75 DI 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000042 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA CA6DQ UT WOS:000348999300006 ER PT J AU Kersting, JM Anderson, MA Newkirk-Turner, BL Nelson, NW AF Kersting, Jessica M. Anderson, Michele A. Newkirk-Turner, Brandi L. Nelson, Nickola W. TI Pragmatic Features in Original Narratives Written by African American Students at Three Grade Levels SO TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS LA English DT Article DE African American; pragmatic features; school-age; written language AB African American English has a rich oral tradition, with identifiable features across all 5 systems of language-phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. This is an investigation of the extent to which pragmatic features of African American oral storytelling traditions are apparent in the written stories of African American students (n = 30) at fourth-, sixth-, and ninth-grade levels in an urban school district in the Midwest compared with stories written by 61 European American students in the same urban (n = 20) and a nearby rural school district (n = 41). Results showed that African American students use significantly more pragmatic features characteristic of the African American oral tradition than European American students. In particular, differences were found for the use of cultural references and parallelism. Grade level was significant for simple frequency counts of oral tradition features, but when the pragmatic codes were normalized for story length, the grade-level effect disappeared. These results add to prior research on cultural-linguistic influences on story writing that go beyond counts of morphosyntactic variation. C1 [Kersting, Jessica M.; Anderson, Michele A.] Western Michigan Univ, Dept Speech Pathol & Audiol, Kalamazoo, MI 49008 USA. [Nelson, Nickola W.] Western Michigan Univ, PhD Program Interdisciplinary Hlth Sci, Kalamazoo, MI 49008 USA. [Newkirk-Turner, Brandi L.] Jackson State Univ, Dept Communicat Disorders, Jackson, MS USA. RP Kersting, JM (reprint author), Western Michigan Univ, Dept Speech Pathol & Audiol, 1903 W Michigan, Kalamazoo, MI 49008 USA. EM jessicakersting@yahoo.com CR BALL AF, 1992, WRIT COMMUN, V9, P501, DOI 10.1177/0741088392009004003 Campbell K. E, 1983, THESIS Champion T., 2003, UNDERSTANDING STORYT Chaplin M., 1988, ANAL WRITING F UNPUB Cooper G, 1977, ANN M NAT COUNC TEAC CRONNELL B, 1984, J EDUC RES, V77, P233 Delpit L, 2006, J TEACH EDUC, V57, P220, DOI 10.1177/0022487105285966 FLEISS JL, 1973, EDUC PSYCHOL MEAS, V33, P613, DOI 10.1177/001316447303300309 Gorman BK, 2011, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V42, P167, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2010/10-0052) Green Lisa J., 2002, AFRICAN AM ENGLISH L Horton-Ikard R, 2010, TOP LANG DISORD, V30, P189, DOI 10.1097/TLD.0b013e3181efc3bd Hunt K. W., 1977, EVALUATING WRITING D, P91 LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159, DOI 10.2307/2529310 Miller J., 2012, SYSTEMATIC ANAL LANG Nelson NW, 2010, TOP LANG DISORD, V30, P223, DOI 10.1097/TLD.0b013e3181efc358 Nelson N. W., 2004, WRITING LAB APPROACH Noonan-Wagner D. A., 1981, THESIS U HOUSTON HOU Oetting JB, 2006, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V49, P16, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/002) Oetting JB, 2001, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V44, P207, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2001/018) Richardson Elaine, 2003, AFRICAN AM LITERACIE Rickford J. R, 1999, AFRICAN AM ENGLISH V Smitherman Geneva, 1977, TALKIN TESTIFYIN LAN Smitherman G, 2000, TALKIN TALK LANGUAGE Fosheim R. M., 1983, LIT LIFE DEMAND READ, P79 Tatum B. D., 1997, WHY ARE ALL BLACK KI Troutman-Robinson D., 1987, THESIS MICHIGAN STAT Visor J. N., 1987, THESIS Wolfram W., 2005, AM ENGLISH DIALECTS NR 28 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 0 U2 0 PU LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS PI PHILADELPHIA PA TWO COMMERCE SQ, 2001 MARKET ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 USA SN 0271-8294 EI 1550-3259 J9 TOP LANG DISORD JI Top. Lang. Disord. PD JAN-MAR PY 2015 VL 35 IS 1 BP 90 EP 108 DI 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000044 PG 19 WC Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA CA6DQ UT WOS:000348999300008 ER PT J AU Koonce, NM AF Koonce, Nicole M. TI When It Comes to Explaining A Preliminary Investigation of the Expository Language Skills of African American School-Age Children SO TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS LA English DT Article DE African American children; assessment; expository discourse; language development; language sample analysis; pragmatics; syntax ID LEARNING DISABILITIES; VARIABLE USE; DISCOURSE; ENGLISH; ADOLESCENTS; LITERACY; CONTEXTS; SAMPLES; SPOKEN; FORMS AB This research investigated the expository language of school-age speakers of African American English. Specifically, the study describes the language productivity, syntax, and pragmatic features present in expository language samples produced by African American children and compares their performance with White children in the extant literature. The study also explores relationships between the various language measures. Twenty-one children, aged 8 years 2 months to 9 years 11 months, produced expository language samples using the favorite game or sport elicitation task. The samples were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for the total number of T-units, mean length of T-unit, clausal density, topic maintenance, informativeness, and fluency. The children in the study produced expository discourse that was commensurate with their White peers in the research literature in the areas of language productivity and syntactic complexity. Unique to this study was the analysis of pragmatic aspects of expository discourse. The African American children in the study displayed good ability to produce on-topic and fluent language samples, whereas their explanations revealed emerging skills in the area of informativeness. Syntactic measures were strongly correlated with each other, and the pragmatic measures of topic maintenance and informativeness were correlated with each other; however, no relationship was found between the syntactic and pragmatic measures. The findings suggest that typically developing African American children who are also speakers of African American English perform similarly to their peers on several measures of expository discourse competence and that the evaluation of expository language may serve as a valuable tool in assessing the language skills of this population of children. C1 Governors State Univ, Dept Commun Disorders, University Pk, IL 60484 USA. RP Koonce, NM (reprint author), Governors State Univ, Dept Commun Disorders, University Pk, IL 60484 USA. EM nkoonce@govst.edu CR BERMAN RA, 2002, WRITTEN LANGUAGE LIT, V0005 Berman RA, 2007, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V43, P79, DOI 10.1207/s15326950dp4302_1 Bliss L. S., 2008, IMAGINATION COGNITIO, V28, P137 Bliss L. S., 2006, CONT ISSUES COMMUNIC, V33, P136 Burns FA, 2012, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V43, P132, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0101) CHAMPION T, 1995, J NARRAT LIFE HIST, V5, P333 Champion T. B., 1998, LINGUISTICS ED, V9, P251, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0898-5898(97)90002-4 Craig H. K., 1994, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V25, P181 Craig HK, 2003, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V34, P31, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2003/004) Craig H. K., 2006, MALIK GOES SCH EXAMI Craig HK, 2005, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V14, P119, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2005/013) Craig HK, 2004, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V47, P450, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/036) Dunn L. M., 2007, PEABODY PICTURE VOCA EVANS MA, 1983, CHILD DEV, V54, P1559, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1983.tb00072.x Gardner-Neblett N, 2012, CHILD DEV PERSPECT, V6, P218, DOI 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00225.x Gillam RB, 1999, TOP LANG DISORD, V20, P33 Hadley PA, 1998, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V29, P132, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461.2903.132 Hay E, 2005, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V14, P324, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2005/031) Heilmann J, 2014, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V45, P277, DOI 10.1044/2014_LSHSS-13-0050 Heilmann JJ, 2010, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V41, P84, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0075) Hester E. J., 2010, CONT ISSUES COMMUNIC, V37, P73 Horton-Ikard R, 2004, J COMMUN DISORD, V37, P467, DOI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2004.02.001 Horton-Ikard R, 2009, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V40, P393, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/07-0070) Hunt K., 1970, MONOGRAPHS SOC RES C, V35 Hyon S., 1994, LINGUISTICS ED, V6, P121, DOI 10.1016/0898-5898(94)90009-4 Hyter YD, 2007, TOP LANG DISORD, V27, P128 Jackson JE, 2010, TOP LANG DISORD, V30, P135, DOI 10.1097/TLD.0b013e3181e03ff6 Kelly G. J., 2007, HDB RES SCI ED, P443 Koonce N. K, 2012, THESIS U ILLINOIS CH Laing SP, 2003, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V34, P44, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2003/005) Miller J., 2010, SYSTEMATIC ANAL LANG Moran C., 2010, EXPOSITORY DISCOURSE, P275 MOSENTHAL PB, 1985, POETICS, V14, P387, DOI 10.1016/0304-422X(85)90035-X National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010, COMM COR STAT STAND Nippold M. A., 2010, EXPOSITORY DISCOURSE, P1 Nippold M. A., 2010, EXPOSITORY DISCOURSE, P41 Nippold MA, 2005, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V48, P1048, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/073) Nippold MA, 2009, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V52, P856, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0094) NORRIS J, 1995, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V26, P342 Oetting JB, 2011, CLIN LINGUIST PHONET, V25, P725, DOI 10.3109/02699206.2011.553700 Oetting J. B., 2005, J MULTILINGUAL COMMU, V3, P136, DOI 10.1080/14769670400027324 Pinnell G., 2002, LANGUAGE DEV READER, P110 O'Hanlon L., 2005, COMMUNICATION DISORD, V26, P178, DOI 10.1177/15257401050260030601 Schleppegrell M. J., 2004, LANGUAGE SCH FUNCTIO Scott C. M., 2013, HDB LANGUAGE LITERAC, P283 Scott CM, 2000, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V43, P324 Smith H., 2011, ILLINOIS INTERACTIVE Smith T. T., 2001, COMMUNICATION DISORD, V22, P148, DOI 10.1177/152574010102200304 Thompson CA, 2004, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V35, P269, DOI 10.1044/0161-12461(2004/025) van Kleeck A, 2011, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V54, P1546, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0079) Ward-Lonergan JM, 1999, J LEARN DISABIL, V32, P213, DOI 10.1177/002221949903200303 Ward-Lonergan J. M., 2010, EXPOSITORY DISCOURSE, P155 Washington JA, 1998, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V41, P1115 WASHINGTON JA, 1994, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V37, P816 Westerveld MF, 2011, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V42, P182, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2010/10-0044) Westerveld MF, 2013, CLIN LINGUIST PHONET, V27, P720, DOI 10.3109/02699206.2013.802016 Zwiers J., 2008, BUILDING ACAD LANGUA NR 57 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 3 U2 5 PU LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS PI PHILADELPHIA PA TWO COMMERCE SQ, 2001 MARKET ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 USA SN 0271-8294 EI 1550-3259 J9 TOP LANG DISORD JI Top. Lang. Disord. PD JAN-MAR PY 2015 VL 35 IS 1 BP 76 EP 89 DI 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000048 PG 14 WC Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA CA6DQ UT WOS:000348999300007 ER PT J AU Bosco, FM Angeleri, R Sacco, K Bara, BG AF Bosco, Francesca M. Angeleri, Romina Sacco, Katiuscia Bara, Bruno G. TI Explaining pragmatic performance in traumatic brain injury: a process perspective on communicative errors SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE & COMMUNICATION DISORDERS LA English DT Article ID CLOSED-HEAD INJURY; COMPREHENSION; DISCOURSE; INFORMATION; IMPAIRMENT; CHILDREN; REQUESTS; ADULTS; EXPRESSION; FAILURES AB BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to investigate the pragmatic abilities of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Several studies in the literature have previously reported communicative deficits in individuals with TBI, however such research has focused principally on communicative deficits in general, without providing an analysis of the errors committed in understanding and expressing communicative acts. Within the theoretical framework of Cognitive Pragmatics theory and Cooperative principle we focused on intermediate communicative errors that occur in both the comprehension and the production of various pragmatic phenomena, expressed through both linguistic and extralinguistic communicative modalities. AimsTo investigate the pragmatic abilities of individuals with TBI. Methods & ProceduresA group of 30 individuals with TBI and a matched control group took part in the experiment. They were presented with a series of videotaped vignettes depicting everyday communicative exchanges, and were tested on the comprehension and production of various kinds of communicative acts (standard communicative act, deceit and irony). The participants' answers were evaluated as correct or incorrect. Incorrect answers were then further evaluated with regard to the presence of different intermediate errors. Outcomes & ResultsIndividuals with TBI performed worse than control participants on all the tasks investigated when considering correct versus incorrect answers. Furthermore, a series of logistic regression analyses showed that group membership (TBI versus controls) significantly predicted the occurrence of intermediate errors. This result holds in both the comprehension and production tasks, and in both linguistic and extralinguistic modalities. Conclusions & ImplicationsParticipants with TBI tend to have difficulty in managing different types of communicative acts, and they make more intermediate errors than the control participants. Intermediate errors concern the comprehension and production of the expression act, the comprehension of the actors' meaning, as well as the respect of the Cooperative principle. C1 [Bosco, Francesca M.; Angeleri, Romina; Sacco, Katiuscia; Bara, Bruno G.] Univ Turin, Dept Psychol, Ctr Cognit Sci, I-10123 Turin, Italy. [Bosco, Francesca M.; Sacco, Katiuscia; Bara, Bruno G.] Neurosci Inst Turin, Turin, Italy. [Sacco, Katiuscia] Koelliker Hosp, CCS fMRI Neuroradiol, Turin, Italy. RP Bosco, FM (reprint author), Univ Turin, Dept Psychol, Via Po 14, I-10123 Turin, Italy. EM francesca.bosco@unito.it RI BOSCO, Francesca Marina/B-6746-2013 OI BOSCO, Francesca Marina/0000-0001-6101-8587 FU Regione Piemonte under IIINBEMA FX This research was supported by Regione Piemonte, under project title 'Institutions, Behaviour and Markets in Local and Global Settings' (Project IIINBEMA). The authors would like to thank Lorena Fonte, Viviana Leveratto and Elena Scarsoglio for their contribution to data collection, and Alessandra Ruzzini for assistance with selecting participants. They thank Marco Del Giudice for help with the revision of the manuscript. Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. CR AIRENTI G, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V20, P303, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90055-T Angeleri R, 2008, BRAIN LANG, V107, P229, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.01.002 Angeleri R, 2012, BEHAV RES METHODS, V44, P845, DOI 10.3758/s13428-011-0174-9 Bara B. G., 2010, LINGUISTIC PHILOS IN, V9, P182 Bara BG, 1997, BRAIN LANG, V59, P7, DOI 10.1006/brln.1997.1812 Bara B. G., 2010, COGNITIVE PRAGMATICS Body R, 2004, BRAIN INJURY, V18, P707, DOI 10.1080/02699050310001596914 Bogart E, 2012, BRAIN INJURY, V26, P221, DOI 10.3109/02699052.2011.648711 Bosco FM, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P467, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00055-9 Bosco FM, 2009, CONSCIOUS COGN, V18, P306, DOI 10.1016/j.concog.2008.06.006 Bosco FM, 2012, J COMMUN DISORD, V45, P290, DOI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2012.03.002 Bosco FM, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P583, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.004 Bosco FM, 2013, J CHILD LANG, V40, P741, DOI 10.1017/S0305000913000081 Bosco FM, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P1398, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.011 Brooks N, 1987, Brain Inj, V1, P5, DOI 10.3109/02699058709034439 Bruns John Jr., 2003, Epilepsia, V44, P2, DOI 10.1046/j.1528-1157.44.s10.3.x Bucciarelli M, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P207, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00099-1 Carlomagno S, 2011, BRAIN INJURY, V25, P1010, DOI 10.3109/02699052.2011.605097 Channon S, 2005, BRAIN LANG, V93, P123, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.09.002 Coelho C. A., 2002, APHASIOLOGY, V16, P659, DOI 10.1080/02687030244000275 Colle L, 2013, J COMMUN DISORD, V46, P294, DOI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2013.01.003 Cummings L., 2014, PRAGMATIC DISORDERS Dahlberg CA, 2007, ARCH PHYS MED REHAB, V88, P1561, DOI 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.07.033 Dardier V, 2011, J COMMUN DISORD, V44, P359, DOI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2011.02.001 Dascal M., 1985, DIALOGUE INTERDISCIP, P441 Dennis M, 2001, J HEAD TRAUMA REHAB, V16, P456, DOI 10.1097/00001199-200110000-00005 DERENZI E, 1962, BRAIN, V85, P665, DOI 10.1093/brain/85.4.665 Docking K, 2000, BRAIN INJURY, V14, P89, DOI 10.1080/026990500120952 Evans K, 2011, BRAIN INJURY, V25, P767, DOI 10.3109/02699052.2011.576307 FOLSTEIN MF, 1975, J PSYCHIAT RES, V12, P189, DOI 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 Galski T, 1998, BRAIN INJURY, V12, P769, DOI 10.1080/026990598122160 Green REA, 2004, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V42, P133, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.07.005 Grice Paul H., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Hein A., 2002, ADV SPEECH LANGUAGE, V4, P1 Hopkins MJ, 2002, BRAIN INJURY, V16, P245, DOI 10.1080/02699050110103346 Huber W., 1983, AACHENER APHASIE TES KREUZ RJ, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P239, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90030-S LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159, DOI 10.2307/2529310 Luzzatti C, 1996, AACHENER APHASIE TES Marini A, 2011, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V49, P2904, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.06.017 Marquardt TP, 2001, APHASIOLOGY, V15, P1091 MCDONALD S, 1993, COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCH, V10, P297, DOI 10.1080/02643299308253466 McDonald S, 1998, BRAIN LANG, V61, P88, DOI 10.1006/brln.1997.1846 Milders M, 2003, J CLIN EXP NEUROPSYC, V25, P157, DOI 10.1076/jcen.25.2.157.13642 Mondini S., 2004, ESAME NEUROPSICOLOGI Pearce S, 1998, BRAIN COGNITION, V38, P150, DOI 10.1006/brcg.1998.1018 REITER R, 1980, ARTIF INTELL, V13, P81, DOI 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4 Sacco K., 2008, J COGNITIVE SCI, V9, P111, DOI DOI 10.17791/JCS.2008.9.2.111 Struchen MA, 2008, NEUROREHABILITATION, V23, P185 TEASDALE G, 1974, LANCET, V2, P81 THOMSEN IV, 1984, J NEUROL NEUROSUR PS, V47, P260, DOI 10.1136/jnnp.47.3.260 Tirassa M, 2006, CONSCIOUS COGN, V15, P197, DOI 10.1016/j.concog.2005.06.005 Tirassa M, 2008, EMERG COMMUN-STUD NE, V10, P81 Tirassa M, 2006, COGN SYST RES, V7, P128, DOI 10.1016/j.cogsys.2006.01.002 Togher L, 1996, DISABIL REHABIL, V18, P559 Togher L, 1997, BRAIN INJURY, V11, P169, DOI 10.1080/026990597123629 Turkstra L. S., 2006, BRAIN IMPAIR, V7, P234, DOI [10.1375/brim.7.3.234, DOI 10.1375/BRIM.7.3.234] Volden J, 2004, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V39, P171, DOI 10.1080/13682820410001663252 Weigand E, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P763, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00068-X WINNER E, 1977, BRAIN, V100, P717, DOI 10.1093/brain/100.4.717 NR 60 TC 4 Z9 4 U1 1 U2 7 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 JAN-FEB PY 2015 VL 50 IS 1 BP 63 EP 83 DI 10.1111/1460-6984.12114 PG 21 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA CA4AJ UT WOS:000348846400005 PM 25039503 ER PT J AU Taguchi, N AF Taguchi, Naoko TI Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going SO LANGUAGE TEACHING LA English DT Article ID TEACHING PRAGMATICS; LEARNERS; EXPLICIT; STUDENTS; JAPANESE; ACQUISITION; COMPETENCE; INPUT; PROFICIENCY; PARTICLES AB This paper brings together the research and developments of instructed pragmatics over the past three decades by reporting the synthesis findings of instructional intervention studies in interlanguage pragmatics. Two questions have guided this investigation; (1) is instruction effective in learning pragmatics?; and (2) what methods are most effective in learning pragmatics? Exhaustive electronic bibliographical searches yielded a body of 58 instructional intervention studies for the review. Findings across these studies are compared and explored for common patterns and inconsistencies that emerge among them. The paper concludes with implications for future research based On the survey of the existing practice. C1 Carnegie Mellon Univ, Dept Modern Languages, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA. RP Taguchi, N (reprint author), Carnegie Mellon Univ, Dept Modern Languages, Baker Hall 160,5000 Forbes, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA. EM taguchi@andrew.cmu.edu CR Alcon-Soler E, 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P417, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.005 Alcon-Soler E., 2013, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V9, P511 Alcon-Soler E., 2013, REFUSALS INSTRUCTION, P41 Alcon-Soler E., 2007, INVESTIGATING TASKS, P221 Alcon-Soler E., 2008, INVESTIGATING PRAGMA Anderson J. R., 1993, RULES MIND Bardovi-Harlig K, 2013, LANG LEARN, V63, P68, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x Bardovi-Harlig K., 2003, TEACHING PRAGMATICS Belz JA, 2005, CAN MOD LANG REV, V62, P17, DOI 10.1353/cml.2005.0038 Bialystok Ellen, 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P43 Bouton L. F., 1994, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V5, P88 Candlin C. N., 1987, LANCASTER PRACTICAL, V7, P5 Cohen A. D, 2008, LANG TEACHING, V41, P213 Cohen A. D, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P275, DOI DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2005.2.3.275 Cohen A. D., 2013, APPL LINGUISTICS MAT, P113 Cohen A. D., 1994, MINNETESOL J, V12, P39 Cunningham J., 2012, CANADIAN MODERN LANG, V68, P422 da Silva A. J. B., 2003, 2 LANGUAGE STUDIES, V22, P55 DeKeyser R., 2007, THEORIES 2 LANGUAGE, P94 Di Pietro R. J., 1987, STRATEGIC INTERACTIO Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2008, ISSUES APPL LINGUIST, V16, P49 Ellis N, 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P329 Ellis R, 2004, LANG LEARN, V54, P227, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x Ellis R., 2005, SYSTEM, V33.2, P209, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2004.12.006 Eslami ZR, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P178 Eslami Z. R., 2013, IRANIAN J SOC CULTUR, P52 Eslami Zohreh, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P453, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.453 Eslami-Rasekh Z., 2004, TESL EJ, V8, pA2 Eslami-Rasekh Z., 2004, TESL EJ, V8, P1 Fordyce K, 2014, APPL LINGUIST, V35, P6, DOI 10.1093/applin/ams076 Fukuya Y. J., 2002, 2 LANGUAGE STUDIES, V21, P1 Fukuya YJ, 2008, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V41, P478 Fulcher G., 2003, LANG TEST, V20, P321, DOI DOI 10.1191/0265532203LT2590A Ghobadi A, 2009, SYSTEM, V37, P526, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2009.02.010 Halenko N, 2011, SYSTEM, V39, P240, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2011.05.003 HOLMES J, 1987, TESOL QUART, V21, P523, DOI 10.2307/3586501 Houck N., 2011, PRAGMATICS RES PRACT House Juliane, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P225, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014893 Ishida K., 2007, C PRAGM CJK CLASSR S, P181 Ishihara Noriko, 2010, TEACHING LEARNING PR Iwai T., 2013, NEW PERSPECTIVES JAP, P27 Jeon EH, 2006, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V13, P165 Johnson Neil H., 2013, International Journal of Strategic Information Technology and Applications, V4, DOI 10.4018/jsita.2013010104 Kakegawa T, 2009, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V5, P301 Kasper Gabriele, 1995, PRAGMATICS CHINESE N Kasper G., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P33 Kasper G., 1999, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V19, P81 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kasper G., 2005, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P317 Kim Y, 2012, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V34, P627, DOI 10.1017/S0272263112000368 Koike D. A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P481, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.008 Kondo S, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P153 Kubota Mikio, 1995, I RES LANGUAGE TEACH, V9, P35 Li QP, 2012, TESOL QUART, V46, P30, DOI 10.1002/tesq.2 Li S., 2013, TECHNOLOGY INTERLANG, P43 Li S, 2012, LANG LEARN, V62, P403, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00629.x Li X., 2011, LANG LEARN, V60, P366 Liddicoat A.J., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P125 LoCastro V., 2003, INTRO PRAGMATICS SOC Louw KJ, 2010, CAN MOD LANG REV, V66, P739, DOI 10.3138/cmlr.66.5.739 LYSTER R, 1994, APPL LINGUIST, V15, P263, DOI 10.1093/applin/15.3.263 Marquez-Reiter R., 2004, CURRENT TRENDS PRAGM Martinez-Flor Alicia, 2008, LEARNING REQUEST INS, P191 Martinez-Flor A., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P199 Uso-Juan E., 2006, APPL LANGUAGE LEARNI, V16, P39 Martinez-Flor A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33 Martinez-Flor A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P463, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.007 Mey J. L., 2001, PRAGMATICS INTRO Narita R, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.016 Nguyen T. T. M., 2013, LANG AWARE, V22, P76 Pham M. Y., 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P416 Pearson L, 2006, MOD LANG J, V90, P473, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00427.x Riddiford N, 2010, TESOL QUART, V44, P195, DOI 10.5054/tq.2010.215252 Robinson P, 2011, LANG LEARN, V61, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00641.x Roever C., 2013, PRAGMATICS VIETNAMES Roever C, 2009, HDB LANGUAGE TEACHIN, P560, DOI 10.1002/9781444315783.ch29 Rose K., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE Rose Kenneth R., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P145 Rose K. R., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P385, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.003 Safont-Jorda M.P., 2004, IBERICA, V8, P23 Sardegna VG, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P279, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.013 Schmidt R., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P43 Schmidt R., 2001, COGNITION 2 LANGUAGE, P3, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09781139524780.003 Shively RL, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1818, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030 Shively R. L., 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V45, P105 Simin S., 2014, INT J RES STUDIES LA, V3, P71 SKEHAN P, 2003, LANGUAGE TEACHING, V0036 SKEHAN P, 1998, COGNITIVE APPROACH L Swain M., 1995, APPL LINGUIST, V16, P370 Swain M., 2013, ENCY APPL LINGUISTIC SWAIN M, 1993, CAN MOD LANG REV, V50, P158 Sykes J., 2009, 2 GENERATION ONLINE, P199 Sykes J. M., 2013, TECHNOLOGY INTERLANG, P71 Sykes J. M., 2006, DANCING WORDS STRATE Taguchi N., 2013, TECHNOLOGY INTERLANG Taguchi N, 2009, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V5, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110218558 Taguchi N., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7, P333 Taguchi N, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P113, DOI 10.1093/applin/aml051 Taguchi N, 2011, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V31, P289, DOI 10.1017/S0267190511000018 Takahashi S., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P177 Takahashi S., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7, P391 Takahashi S., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P437, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.006 Takahashi S, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P127 Takimoto M., 2007, NZ STUDIES APPL LING, V13, P46 Takimoto M, 2009, APPL LINGUIST, V30, P1, DOI 10.1093/applin/amm049 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 Takimoto M, 2006, LANG TEACH RES, V10, P393, DOI 10.1191/1362168806Ir198oa Tan K. H., 2012, ASIAN SOCIAL SCI, V8, P189 Tateyama Y., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P200 Tateyama Y., 2007, JALT 2006 C P TOK JA, P1189 Tateyama Y, 2009, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V5, P129 Taylor G, 2002, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V35, P171 Uso-Juan E., 2013, REFUSALS INSTRUCTION, P65 Utashiro T, 2009, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V5, P275 van Compernolle RA, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3267, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.009 VanPatten B., 2012, ROUTLEDGE HDB 2 LANG, P268 Vygotsky L, 1978, MIND SOC DEV HIGHER Willis D., 2007, DOING TASK BASED TEA Winke PM, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P363, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.016 Wishnoff J. R., 2000, 2 LANGUAGE STUDIES, V19, P127 Wolfson N., 1989, PERSPECTIVES SOCIOLI Yoshimi D., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P223 NR 123 TC 8 Z9 8 U1 0 U2 4 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI CAMBRIDGE PA EDINBURGH BLDG, SHAFTESBURY RD, CB2 8RU CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND SN 0261-4448 EI 1475-3049 J9 LANG TEACHING JI Lang. Teach. PD JAN PY 2015 VL 48 IS 1 BP 1 EP 50 DI 10.1017/S0261444814000263 PG 50 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA AY7AO UT WOS:000347713900001 ER PT J AU Martin, GS AF Martin, Gillian S. TI "Sorry Can You Speak It in English with Me?" Managing Routines in Lingua Franca Doctor-Patient Consultations in a Diabetes Clinic SO MULTILINGUA-JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL AND INTERLANGUAGE COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE doctor-patient communication; lingua franca communication; diabetes; pragmatics; interactional sociolinguistics; conversation analysis ID SELF-MANAGEMENT; CARE CONSULTATIONS; AMERICAN PATIENTS; BARRIERS; LANGUAGE; COMMUNICATION; CONVERSATION; ORGANIZATION; PHYSICIANS; SENTENCE AB Research on the routines of doctor-patient consultations has been conducted in language and culture concordant dyads and in dyads where either doctor or patient uses a foreign language; yet there is an absence of scholarly engagement with consultations where both participants are using a foreign language. In seeking to address this gap, this article reports on four doctor-patient consultations involving the use of English as a lingua franca. The data form part of a larger empirical study of communication in an Irish diabetes clinic. Microanalysis, informed by Interactional Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics and Conversation Analysis, reveals a range of interactive challenges rooted in language and cultural assumptions which impact on the management of the consultation routines. The findings emphasize the strength of the doctors' professional socialization and the challenges this poses for non-native-speaker patients. C1 Univ Dublin Trinity Coll, Dept German Studies, Dublin 2, Ireland. RP Martin, GS (reprint author), Univ Dublin Trinity Coll, Dept German Studies, Dublin 2, Ireland. EM gsmartin@tcd.ie CR Agar M, 1996, PROFESSIONAL STRANGE Satterlund-Larsson U., 1987, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V6, P1 Barry CA, 2001, SOC SCI MED, V53, P487, DOI 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00351-8 Byrne P, 1976, DOCTORS TALKING PATI Cameron R, 1997, APPL LINGUIST, V18, P415, DOI 10.1093/applin/18.4.415 Cha E, 2012, DIABETES EDUCATOR, V38, P835, DOI 10.1177/0145721712460283 De Maesschalck S, 2011, PATIENT EDUC COUNS, V84, P406, DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2011.04.021 Drew P., 1991, ASYMMETRIES DIALOGUE, P21 Drew P., 1992, TALK WORK INTERACTIO, P3 ERICKSON F, 1987, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V10, P401 Fiscella K, 1997, FAM PRACT, V14, P112, DOI 10.1093/fampra/14.2.112 Fisher L, 2000, DIABETES CARE, V23, P267, DOI 10.2337/diacare.23.3.267 Frank RA, 2000, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V19, P31, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00012-X FRANKEL RM, 1984, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V7, P135 Teas Gill Virginia, 2001, TEXT, V21, P55, DOI 10.1515/text.1.21.1-2.55 Heritage John, 2006, COMMUNICATION MED CA, V20, P114 Glasgow RE, 1997, DIABETES CARE, V20, P556, DOI 10.2337/diacare.20.4.556 Greenhalgh T, 2005, BRIT MED J, V330, P628, DOI 10.1136/bmj.330.7492.628 Gumperz J., 1999, TALK WORK I ORDER DI, P453, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110208375.4.453 Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES HABERLAND H, 1981, J PRAGMATICS, V5, P103, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(81)90001-1 Hays D., 2012, QUALITATIVE INQUIRY von Raffler-Engel Walburga, 1989, DOCTOR PATIENT INTER, V4, P77 Heritage J., 2010, WHY DO YOU ASK FUNCT, P42 Heritage J, 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P1 Heritage J, 2006, STUD INTERACT SOCIO, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511607172.003 Hoekje BJ, 2007, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V26, P327, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2006.09.002 Hsu WC, 2006, DIABETES CARE, V29, P415, DOI 10.2337/diacare.29.02.06.dc05-1915 Hudak PL, 2010, SOCIOL HEALTH ILL, V32, P777, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01248.x Jain P, 2011, PATIENT EDUC COUNS, V84, P98, DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.022 Jowsey Tanisha, 2011, Chronic Illn, V7, P6, DOI 10.1177/1742395310387835 Kokanovic R, 2007, J GEN INTERN MED, V22, P459, DOI 10.1007/s11606-007-0143-2 Goodman Janet E., 2007, CULTURAL APPROACH IN, P128 Lanting LC, 2008, PATIENT EDUC COUNS, V72, P146, DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2008.03.008 Lawton J, 2006, HEALTH EDUC RES, V21, P43, DOI 10.1093/her/cyh042 Berbyuk Lindstrom Nataliya, 2008, THESIS U GOTHENBURG Loewe R, 1998, SOC SCI MED, V47, P1267, DOI 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00192-0 MacFarlane A, 2008, BMC FAM PRACT, V9, DOI 10.1186/1471-2296-9-68 Barron Anne, 2014, PRAGMATICS DISCOURSE, P491 MASEIDE P, 1981, J PRAGMATICS, V5, P145, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(81)90003-5 Meeuwesen L, 2007, PATIENT EDUC COUNS, V67, P183, DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.013 Meeuwis Michael, 1994, MULTILINGUA, V13, P59, DOI 10.1515/mult.1994.13.1-2.59 Meierkord C., 2000, LINGUISTIK ONLINE, V5 Mintz David, 1992, J Med Humanit, V13, P223, DOI 10.1007/BF01137420 Mishler E., 1984, DISCOURSE MED DIALEC Mudiwa Lloyd, 2012, IRISH MED TIMES 0210 Mukhopadhyay B, 2006, DIABETIC MED, V23, P94, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01735.x Perez-Stable EJ, 1997, MED CARE, V35, P1212, DOI 10.1097/00005650-199712000-00005 Pilotto LS, 2007, MED J AUSTRALIA, V187, P225 Pollock Kristian, 2005, CONCORDANCE MED CONS Popova S, 2007, ALCOHOL ALCOHOLISM, V42, P465, DOI 10.1093/alcalc/agl124 Raymond G, 2003, AM SOCIOL REV, V68, P939, DOI 10.2307/1519752 Rees C., 1981, MED WORK REALITIES R, P55 Rhodes P, 2008, QUAL HEALTH RES, V18, P1247, DOI 10.1177/1049732308321743 Apeltauer Ernst, 2002, INTERKULTURELLE KOMM, P67 Roberts C, 2005, MED EDUC, V39, P465, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02121.x Roberts C., 2006, ADV MED DISCOURSE AN, P177 Roberts Celia, 2004, Commun Med, V1, P159, DOI 10.1515/come.2004.1.2.159 Roter DL, 1992, DOCTORS TALKING PATI Sacks Harvey, 1992, LECT CONVERSATION 19, VI Sacks H., 1978, STUDIES ORG CONVERSA, P7, DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2 SACKS H, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P696, DOI 10.2307/412243 Schegloff E.A., 2007, SEQUENCE ORG INTERAC, V1 Schon Almut, 2012, ARZT PATIENTEN GESPR Suurmond J, 2006, PATIENT EDUC COUNS, V60, P253, DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2005.01.012 tenHave P., 2001, TEXT, V21, P251 ten Have P, 1989, TEXT TALK SOCIAL PRA, P115 Trinity Immigration Initiative, 2010, ADDR CURR FUT REAL I Valero-Garces Carmen, 2002, PRAGMATICS, V12, P469 Grant M., 1985, ALCOHOL POLICIES, P109 Carter Robert T., 2000, ADDRESSING CULTURAL, P147 Whittemore R, 2007, J TRANSCULT NURS, V18, P157, DOI 10.1177/1043659606298615 WHO, 2013, 10 FACTS DIAB NR 73 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 8 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0167-8507 EI 1613-3684 J9 MULTILINGUA JI Multilingua PD JAN PY 2015 VL 34 IS 1 BP 1 EP 32 DI 10.1515/multi-2013-0053 PG 32 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AZ0EH UT WOS:000347918600001 ER PT J AU Hassall, T AF Hassall, Timothy TI Individual Variation in L2 Study-Abroad Outcomes: A Case Study from Indonesian Pragmatics SO MULTILINGUA-JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL AND INTERLANGUAGE COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE L2 pragmatics; individual variation; study abroad; address terms; Indonesian AB This is a study of two Australian learners of Indonesian during a short stay abroad. It examines their contrasting success in acquiring L2 address terms, in tandem with their contrasting experiences of the L2 culture setting. It thereby helps explain the persistent finding of great individual variation in L2 gains - and in particular pragmatic gains - during study abroad. The study shows that the contrasting success of these two learners is linked to their L2 identity development. At the same time, it dispels a simplistic view of the relationship between identity development and pragmatic development, by showing that their language outcomes emerge through a highly contingent process. The study also helps us understand how certain specific factors can influence learning of L2 pragmatics during study abroad, such as low initial proficiency, prior foreign language learning experience, timing of formal instruction, and the presence of peer L2 learners during naturalistic interactions. C1 Australian Natl Univ, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. RP Hassall, T (reprint author), Australian Natl Univ, GPO Box 4, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. EM timothy.hassall@anu.edu.au CR Bardovi-Harlig K, 2013, LANG LEARN, V63, P68, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x Block D., 2003, SOCIAL TURN 2 LANGUA Churchill Eton, 2005, ASS INT LING APPL MA DuFon Margaret A., 2000, DISS ABSTR INT A, V60, P3985 Ginsburg R. B., 2000, LANGUAGE POLICY PEDA, P237 Chapelle Carol, 2012, ENCY APPL LINGUISTIC, V8, P4516 Hassall T, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V55, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.003 Baldauf Jr Richard, 2012, FUTURE DIRECTIONS AP, P218 Hoffman-Hicks Sheila D., 2000, DISS ABSTR INT A, V61, P591 Jenson Kenneth, 1988, ITL REV APPL LINGUIS, V81, P113 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, 2008, MOD LANG J, V92, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00821.x Lafford B., 2006, SPANISH 2 LANGUAGE A, P103 Magnan SS, 2007, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V40, P43 Marriott Helen, 1995, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P197 Miller Laura, 1995, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P293 Murphy-Lejeune E., 2002, STUDENT MOBILITY NAR Niezgoda Kimberly, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P63 Norton B, 2011, ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, P73 Pavlenko A., 2002, PORTRAITS L2 USER, P277 Shively RL, 2013, MOD LANG J, V97, P930, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12043.x Shively RL, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1818, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030 Shively R. L., 2008, THESIS U MINNESOTA M NR 24 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 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 JAN PY 2015 VL 34 IS 1 BP 33 EP 59 DI 10.1515/multi-2013-0050 PG 27 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AZ0EH UT WOS:000347918600002 ER PT J AU Drerup, J AF Drerup, Johannes TI Autonomy, Perfectionism and the Justification of Education SO STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY AND EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE Autonomy; Perfectionism; Paternalism; Education; Moral pragmatics ID PATERNALISM; CHILDREN; ETHICS; LIFE AB This paper is concerned with the practical importance of different forms of paternalism for educational theory and practice. Contrary to the traditional treatment of paternalism as a sometimes necessary and rather messy aspect of educational practices, I demonstrate that paternalism is to be regarded as an "indigenous concept" (Herbart) of educational theory and as the 'indigenous model of justification' that underlies the structure of educational practices. Based on an analysis of the intricate nexus between autonomy-oriented forms of paternalism and educational forms of autonomy-based perfectionism I furthermore argue that a perfectionistically structured conception of autonomy provides a more adequate evaluative framework for justifying autonomy as an educational aim than alternative educational regimes of autonomy can deliver. Finally, I discuss some major theoretical problems of bridging the gap between general ethical principles and their application in practical fields. C1 WWU Munster, Inst Erziehungswissensch, D-48143 Munster, Germany. RP Drerup, J (reprint author), WWU Munster, Inst Erziehungswissensch, Georgskommende 33,C 218, D-48143 Munster, Germany. EM johannes.drerup@uni-muenster.de CR Ach J., 2012, SELBSTVERTRAUEN SELB Anderen, PLURALISMUS UNAUSWEI, P129 Anderson J., 2009, AUTONOMY CHALLENGES, P127 Anderson J., 2013, REGIMES OF AUTONOMY Anderson J, 2008, SATS NORDIC J PHILOS, V9, P7 Banerjee A., 2012, POOR EC Beauchamp TL, 2009, PRINCIPLES BIOMEDICA Bellmann J., 2014, MAKING DIFFERENCE TH, P65 Bellmann J., 2011, WISSEN WAS WIRKT KRI, P197 Benner D., 1987, ALLGEMEINE PADAGOGIK Benporath SR, 2003, J PHILOS EDUC, V37, P127, DOI 10.1111/1467-9752.3701009 BenPorath SR, 2010, TOUGH CHOICES: STRUCTURED PATERNALISM AND THE LANDSCAPE OF CHOICE, P1 Berlin Isaiah, 1979, 4 ESSAYS LIBERTY Biesta G., 2011, PEDAGOGY CULTURE SOC, V19, P175, DOI [10.1080/14681366.2011.582255., DOI 10.1080/14681366.2011.582255] Biesta GJJ, 2010, STUD PHILOS EDUC, V29, P491, DOI 10.1007/s11217-010-9191-x Bilstein J., 2008, ERZIEHUNGSDISKURSE, P51 Blumenberg Hans, 1997, SHIPWRECK SPECTATOR Blumenthal J.A., 2013, PATERNALISM THEORY P, P197 Brighouse Harry, 2006, ON EDUCATION Brockling U, 2007, UNTERNEHMERISCHE SEL Budde J, 2010, Z PADAGOGIK, V56, P384 Chan J, 2000, PHILOS PUBLIC AFF, V29, P5, DOI 10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00005.x Christman J., 2011, POLITICS PERSONS IND Colburn B, 2008, PHILOS QUART, V58, P618, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.531.x Conly S, 2013, AUTONOMY JUSTIFYING Cuypers S. E., 2012, ETHICS ED, V7, P3 Daniels N., 1996, JUSTICE JUSTIFICATIO De Vries R, 2009, BIOETHICS, V23, P193, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01710.x Drerup J., 2013, PATERNALISMUS PERFEK Dworkin G., 2013, REV S CONLY AUTONOMY Dworkin G., 1988, THEORY PRACTICE AUTO Dworkin G., 2010, PATERNALISM REVISED DWORKIN R, 1989, CALIF LAW REV, V77, P479, DOI 10.2307/3480555 Ehrenberg A., 2011, UNBEHAGEN GESELLSCHA Fateh-Moghadam B., 2013, GOVERNING AUTONOMY M Fateh-Moghadam B, 2010, RW, V2, P115 Feinberg J., 1986, HARM SELF Forst R., 2012, TOLERATION Garren D., 2006, PHILOS BOOKS, V47, P334, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0149.2006.00411.x Giesinger J., 2005, THESIS FAKULTAT U ZU Giesinger Johannes, 2012, BILDUNG LIBERALEN ST Giesinger J., 2011, RESPECT IN ED Grill K., 2011, PATERNALISM Hand M, 2006, OXFORD REV EDUC, V32, P535, DOI 10.1080/03054980600884250 Henning C., 2009, WAS BLEIBT K MARX HE, P175 Henning C, 2010, DEUT Z PHILOS, V58, P696, DOI 10.1524/dzph.2010.0054 Herzog Lisa, 2013, INVENTING MARKET SMI Honneth Axel, 1996, STRUGGLE RECOGNITION Honneth Axel, 2004, EUR J SOC THEORY, V7, P463, DOI DOI 10.1177/1368431004046703 Honneth A., 2012, ERZIEHUNG DEMOKRATIS Honneth A, 2014, FREEDOMS RIGHT SOCIA Husak Douglas, 2003, OXFORD HDB PRACTICAL, P387 Kahneman D., 2012, THINKING FAST SLOW Kataria M., 2012, PATERNALISM HINDSIGH Kitcher P., 2009, OXFORD HDB PHILOS ED Kruger O., 2012, WARUM PERFEKTIONISMU KULTGEN J, 1992, SOUTHERN J PHILOS, V30, P89 Kurth-Buchholz E., 2011, Z ERZIEHWISS, V103, P65 Lakoff George, 2003, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY LAKOFF George, 1999, PHILOS FLESH EMBODIE Lakoff G, 2006, WHOSE FREEDOM BATTLE Langewand A., 2008, PADAGOG RUNDSCH, V62, P25 Lotter M.-S., 2012, SCHAM SCHULD VERANTW Luhmann N, 1973, ZWECKBEGRIFF SYSTEMR MACCALLUM GC, 1967, PHILOS REV, V76, P312, DOI 10.2307/2183622 Mackenzie C, 2008, J SOC PHILOS, V39, P512, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9833.2008.00440.x Macleod C, 2010, EDUC PHILOS THEORY, V42, P9, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00493.x Marks Jonathan, 2005, PERFECTION DISHARMON McAvoy P., 2012, EDUC THEORY, V62, P535 Mecheril P., 2003, PLURALISMUS UNAUSWEI, P129 Meyer-Drawe K., 1998, FRAGEN NACH MENSCHEN, P31 Mullin A., 2013, CHILDREN PATERNALISM Nussbaum MC, 2011, PHILOS PUBLIC AFF, V39, P3, DOI 10.1111/j.1088-4963.2011.01200.x Oelkers J, 2001, EINFUHRUNG THEORIE E Oelkers J., 1992, PADAGOGISCHE ETHIK E Ogus A., 2010, ERASMUS LAW REV, V3, P1 Oshana Marina, 1998, J SOCIAL PHILOS, V29, P81, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9833.1998.tb00098.x Quante M., 2009, JB WISSENSCHAFT ETHI, V14, P73 Quante M., 2012, AUTONOMOUS DEFAULT A Quong Jonathan, 2011, LIBERALISM PERFECTIO Rawls J., 2003, POLITISCHER LIBERALI Raz J., 1986, MORALITY FREEDOM Reichenbach R., 2002, PSYCHOL PADAGOGIK UB, P173 Reichenbach R., 2010, BILDUNG DEMOKRATIE, P145 Reichenbach R., 2011, PADAGOGISCHE AUTORIT Ricken N., 1999, SUBJEKTIVITAT KONTIN Rieger-Ladich M., 2002, VIERTELJAHRSSCHRIFT, V78, P153 Saito N., 2005, GLEAM LIGHT MORAL PE Salloch S, 2012, DEUT Z PHILOS, V60, P251 Sandel M., 2012, WHAT MONEY CANT BUY Schapiro T, 1999, ETHICS, V109, P715, DOI 10.1086/233943 Schefczyk M, 2010, DEUT Z PHILOS, V58, P741, DOI 10.1524/dzph.2010.0057 Scheuerl H., 1959, Z PADAGOGIK, V5, P211 Schickhardt C, 2012, KINDERETHIK MORALISC Schmidt T, 2012, Z PHILOS FORSCH, V66, P513 Schramme T., 2009, JAHR WISS ETHIK, V14, P147 Schramme T, 2012, MENSCHENWURDE MED QU, P147 Schroth J, 2009, Z PHILOS FORSCH, V63, P55 Seel M., 1999, VERSUCH FORMEN GLUCK Shiffrin SV, 2000, PHILOS PUBLIC AFF, V29, P205, DOI 10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00205.x Smeyers P, 2012, J PHILOS EDUC, V46, P177, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2012.00845.x Smeyers P, 2012, J PHILOS EDUC, V46, P315, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2012.00864.x Stojanov K., 2011, BILDUNGSGERECHTIGKEI Swaine L., 2012, EDUC THEORY, V62, P107 Taylor J. S., 2005, PERSONAL AUTONOMY NE Thaler RH, 2008, NUDGE IMPROVING DECI Trout JD, 2005, LAW PHILOS, V24, P393, DOI 10.1007/s10982-004-8197-3 Vanderstraeten R, 2006, BRIT J EDUC STUD, V54, P160, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2006.00338.x Velleman J. David, 2009, HOW WE GET ALONG Wall S., 2006, LIBERALISM PERFECTIO Wall S., 2013, PATERNALISM THEORY P, P93 Steven Wall, 2012, PERFECTIONISM MORAL Wall S, 2010, ETHICS, V120, P232 Warnick B. R., 2012, EDUC THEORY, V62, P411 Wilson J, 2005, BIOETHICS, V19, P492, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00460.x Winch C., 1999, KEY CONCEPTS PHILOS, P169 Winkler M., 2006, KRITIK PADAGOGIK SIN Yuracko Kimberly, 2003, PERFECTIONISM CONT F NR 118 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 6 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 JAN PY 2015 VL 34 IS 1 BP 63 EP 87 DI 10.1007/s11217-014-9426-3 PG 25 WC Education & Educational Research; Philosophy SC Education & Educational Research; Philosophy GA AY0PD UT WOS:000347297900006 ER PT J AU Lin, CY AF Lin, Chia-Yen TI An exploratory comparison of the use of modifiers by native speakers of English and Mandarin Chinese in academic lectures SO TEXT & TALK LA English DT Article DE modifiers; functions; academic lectures; academic cultures; cross-cultural pragmatics; corpus-based analysis ID METADISCOURSE; DISCOURSE; MARKERS; PERSUASION; ARTICLES AB This study investigates pragmatic force modifiers (PFMs) (Nikula 1996; Lin 2010) in English-medium university lectures given by Mandarin Chinese speakers and compares the distribution and functions of the markers with those of their native English counterparts. The quantitative results reveal a narrower repertoire of PFMs, especially the intensifying and colloquial modifiers used by Chinese-speaking lecturers, who seem to prefer particular softeners with Chinese equivalents, a phenomenon possibly ascribable to first language interference. The distinct patterning between the two groups implies a higher degree of personal involvement, interactivity, and informality in lectures delivered by native speakers of English. Several important functions of PFMs associated with lectures are shared; functional homogeneity can be attributed to the generic properties that seem to transcend academic contexts and exhibit certain uniformity across languages. However, noteworthy functional discrepancies suggest that Chinese-speaking lecturers draw strategically on the same linguistic devices for different pragmatic purposes in an attempt to overcome language-related insecurity and achieve communicative effectiveness in the situated context in which English is used as an academic lingua franca. C1 Yuan Ze Univ, Dept Foreign Languages & Appl Linguist, Chungli, Taiwan. RP Lin, CY (reprint author), Yuan Ze Univ, Dept Foreign Languages & Appl Linguist, 135 Yuan Tung Rd, Chungli, Taiwan. EM cylin@saturn.yzu.edu.tw CR Aijmer K., 2002, ENGLISH DISCOURSE PA Biber D., 2006, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V5, P97, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.JEAP.2006.05.001 Bloor Meriel, 1993, EC LANGUAGE, P153 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV CRISMORE A, 1993, WRIT COMMUN, V10, P39, DOI 10.1177/0741088393010001002 Dafouz E., 2007, INT J BILING EDUC BI, V10, P647 Dafouz-Milne E, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P95, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003 Donohue JP, 2006, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V25, P200, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.009 Erman B, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1337, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00066-7 Fortanet I, 2004, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V23, P45, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00018-8 Fuertes-Olivera PA, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1291, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80026-6 Fung L, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P410, DOI 10.1093/applin/amm030 Halliday Michael A. K., 1994, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA HOLMES J, 1990, LANG COMMUN, V10, P185, DOI 10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S Hu GW, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2795, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007 Hyland K., 2005, METADISCOURSE EXPLOR Hyland K., 1998, HEDGING SCI RES ARTI Jucker AH, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1737, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00188-1 Lessard-Clouston M, 2010, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V9, P308, DOI 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.09.001 Lewin Beverly A., 2005, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V4.2, P163, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.JEAP.2004.08.001 Liao S, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1313, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.026 Lin CY, 2012, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V31, P117, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.003 Lin CY, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1173, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.001 Martin-Martin P., 2008, INT J ENGLISH STUDIE, V8, P133 Masuda T, 2006, COGNITIVE SCI, V30, P381, DOI 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_63 Millan Enrique, 2008, ENGLISH ADDITIONAL L, P65 Muller Simone, 2005, DISCOURSE MARKERS NA Myers G., 1992, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V11, P3, DOI DOI 10.1016/0889-4906(92)90003-S MYERS G, 1989, APPL LINGUIST, V10, P1, DOI 10.1093/applin/10.1.1 Nikula T., 1996, PRAGMATIC FORCE MODI Rayson P., 2000, P WORKSH COMP CORP 3, P1, DOI 10.3115/1604683.1604686 Salager-Meyer F, 2003, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V22, P223, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00019-4 Salager-Meyer F., 1994, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V13, P149, DOI DOI 10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2 Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS Scollon R., 1995, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Swales JM, 2003, LANG COMPUT, P1 Thompson S. E., 2003, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V2, P5, DOI 10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00036-X Vassileva I, 2001, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V20, P83, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0 Vold Eva Thue, 2006, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V16, P61, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1473-4192.2006.00106.X NR 39 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 12 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 JAN PY 2015 VL 35 IS 1 BP 77 EP 100 DI 10.1515/text-2014-0027 PG 24 WC Communication; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Communication; Linguistics GA AY3GR UT WOS:000347473000004 ER PT J AU Schwebel, DC Pennefather, J Marquez, B Marquez, J AF Schwebel, David C. Pennefather, Jordan Marquez, Brion Marquez, Jessie TI Internet-based training to improve preschool playground safety: Evaluation of the Stamp-in-Safety Programme SO HEALTH EDUCATION JOURNAL LA English DT Article DE Injury; safety; playground; supervision; Stamp-in-Safety; USA ID INJURY; INTERVENTION; SUPERVISION AB Objective: Playground injuries result in over 200,000 US paediatric emergency department visits annually. One strategy to reduce injuries is improved adult supervision. The Stamp-in-Safety programme, which involves supervisors stamping rewards for children playing safely, has been demonstrated in preliminary classroom-based work to reduce child risk-taking and increase the quality of adult supervision. This study evaluated the efficacy of delivering Stamp-in-Safety to playground supervisors via the Internet. Design: Pre-post design following a pragmatic trials approach. Setting: Twenty-four preschools in the USA. Method: Guidance for implementing the Stamp-in-Safety programme was delivered to preschool supervisors via the Internet. Supervisors and preschool directors completed online surveys concerning self-efficacy to keep children safe, playground supervision behaviour, perceptions about playground safety, and knowledge about playground supervision/Stamp-in-Safety both prior to and after the intervention was implemented. They completed a usability survey after using the online intervention. Results: Ratings of usability and satisfaction with the programme were high, indicating feasibility. Paired-samples t-tests showed some improvement in supervisors' self-efficacy, and improvement in most aspects of supervisory behaviours, perception of playground safety, and knowledge about playground supervision/Stamp-in-Safety. Conclusion: Results suggest the Stamp-in-Safety programme can be delivered successfully via Internet. A public health challenge is translating effective interventions to broad dissemination. Internet delivery of Stamp-in-Safety holds the promise to overcome this challenge and improve playground supervision practices. C1 [Schwebel, David C.] Univ Alabama Birmingham, Dept Psychol, Birmingham, AL 35294 USA. [Pennefather, Jordan; Marquez, Brion; Marquez, Jessie] IRIS Educ Media, Washington, DC USA. RP Schwebel, DC (reprint author), Univ Alabama Birmingham, Dept Psychol, 1300 Univ Blvd,CH 415, Birmingham, AL 35294 USA. EM schwebel@uab.edu CR Andrews G, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0013196 Bandura A, 1998, PSYCHOL HEALTH, V13, P623, DOI 10.1080/08870449808407422 Cartreine JA, 2010, HARVARD REV PSYCHIAT, V18, P80, DOI 10.3109/10673221003707702 Chelvakumar G, 2010, INJURY PREV, V16, P352, DOI 10.1136/ip.2009.025056 Copple C, 1990, QUALITY MATTERS IMPR Costley JB, 1996, ASSEMBLING PIECES EA Hudson SD, 2008, J SCH NURS, V24, P138, DOI 10.1622/1059-8405(2008)024[0138:AIOSPS]2.0.CO;2 Kazdin A. E., 2013, CLIN PSYCHOL SCI, V1, P170, DOI [10.1177/2167702612463566, DOI 10.1177/2167702612463566] Mack MG, 1999, MMWR-MORBID MORTAL W, V48, P329 Marshall SW, 2012, INJURY PREVENTION CH, P261 Morgan GG, 1991, CAREER PROGRESSION E PLUMERT JM, 1995, DEV PSYCHOL, V31, P866, DOI 10.1037//0012-1649.31.5.866 Schwebel DC, 2006, J PEDIATR PSYCHOL, V31, P152, DOI 10.1093/jpepsy/jsj001 Schwebel DC, 2006, J CLIN PSYCHOL MED S, V13, P141, DOI 10.1007/s10880-006-9018-7 Schwebel DC, 2003, J PEDIATR PSYCHOL, V28, P505, DOI 10.1093/jpepsy/jsg041 Sogolow E. D., 2007, Handbook of injury and violence prevention, P493, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-29457-5_28 Thompson D, 2007, SAFE PLAY AREAS CREA Tunis SR, 2003, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V290, P1624, DOI 10.1001/jama.290.12.1624 NR 18 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 7 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 0017-8969 EI 1748-8176 J9 HEALTH EDUC J JI Health Educ. J. PD JAN PY 2015 VL 74 IS 1 BP 37 EP 45 DI 10.1177/0017896914522030 PG 9 WC Education & Educational Research; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health SC Education & Educational Research; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health GA AX4MU UT WOS:000346907400004 ER PT J AU Bisang, W AF Bisang, Walter TI Problems with primary vs. secondary grammaticalization: the case of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages SO LANGUAGE SCIENCES LA English DT Article; Proceedings Paper CT International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 21) CY AUG 05-09, 2013 CL Oslo, NORWAY DE Classifiers; Coevolution of meaning and form Constructionalization; Obligatoriness; Pragmatic inference; Subjectification ID CLASSIFIERS; NOUNS; THAI AB The present paper aims at testing four criteria for the distinction between primary vs. secondary grammaticalization in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. These languages are of special interest for research on grammaticalization because they show limitations in the coevolution of meaning and form and because pragmatic inference is very prominent (lack of obligatory grammatical markers, multifunctionality). If the four criteria work in these languages, this can be taken as a good indicator for their cross-linguistic, maybe universal relevance. The criteria are tested with three markers that stand for three different types of multifunctionality: (i) the Khmer verb bean 'come to have' as a marker of various tense-aspect-modality functions, (ii) the Khmer verb ?cloy 'give' in its functions of an adposition (coverb), causative marker, adverbial subordinator and complementizer and (iii) numeral classifiers as markers of definiteness as well as indefiniteness. As will be shown, the four criteria offer a mixed picture and even yield some contradictory results as far as the distinction of primary vs. secondary grammaticalization is concerned. This will lead to the final question of whether one has to reckon with areal differences in the properties of grammaticalization. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, Dept English & Linguist FB 05, D-55099 Mainz, Germany. RP Bisang, W (reprint author), Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, Dept English & Linguist FB 05, Jakob Welder Weg 18, D-55099 Mainz, Germany. EM wbisang@uni-mainz.de CR Aikhenvald Alexandra, 2000, CLASSIFIERS TYPOLOGY Ansaldo Umberto, 2004, CLINE NATURE GRAMMAT, P345, DOI 10.1075/tsl.59.18ans Arcodia GF, 2013, LANG SCI, V40, P148, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.05.002 Bisang Walter, 2011, HDB GRAMMATICALIZATI, P105 Bisang W, 1999, TREND LIN S, V118, P113 Bisang W, 1996, STUD LANG, V20, P519, DOI 10.1075/sl.20.3.03bis [Anonymous], 2004, WHAT MAKES GRAMMATIC, DOI 10.1515/9783110197440.2.109 Bisang Walter, 2009, LANGUAGE COMPLEXITY, P34 Bisang Walter, 1992, LANGUAGE UNIVERSALS, V7 Bybee J., 1985, MORPHOLOGY STUDY REL Bybee Joan L., 1994, EVOLUTION GRAMMAR TE Cheng LLS, 1999, LINGUIST INQ, V30, P509, DOI 10.1162/002438999554192 Enfield Nick J., 2003, LINGUISTIC EPIDEMIOL Enfield NJ, 2005, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V34, P181, DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120406 Erbaugh M. S., 1986, NOUN CLASSES CATEGOR, P399 Gao Xingjian, 1999, ONE MANS BIBLE Gerner M, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P719, DOI [10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.004, 10.1016/j.pragina.2007.11.004] Givon Talmy, 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, VII, P257, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.19.2.14GIV Givon T., 1979, UNDERSTANDING GRAMMA [Anonymous], 1974, P 11 INT C LING BOL Haiman John, 2011, CAMBODIAN KHMER Haiman J, 1999, STUD LANG, V23, P149, DOI 10.1075/sl.23.1.06hai HIMMELMANN NP, 2004, WHAT MAKES GRAMMATIC, V158, P21, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110197440.1.21 Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Hopper Paul J., 1993, GRAMMATICALIZATION Huffman Franklin E., 1970, MODERN SPOKEN CAMBOD Jacob Judith M., 1968, INTRO CAMBODIAN Kranich S., 2010, GRAMMATICALIZATION C, P101 Kranich S, 2010, LANG COMPUT, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-01325-6_1 Kuryflowicz Jerzy, 1965, DIOGENES, P55 Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Christian Lehmann, 1995, THOUGHTS GRAMMATICAL Li XuPing, 2013, NUMERICAL CLASSIFIER Li XP, 2012, LINGUA, V122, P335, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.12.002 Lord Carol, 2002, NEW REFLECTIONS GRAM, P217 Lyons Cristopher, 1999, DEFINITENESS Matthews S., 1994, CANTONESE COMPREHENS Mottin J., 1980, CONTES LEGENDES HMON Neeleman A, 2007, LINGUIST INQ, V38, P671, DOI 10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.671 Newmeyer FJ, 2001, LANG SCI, V23, P187, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00021-8 Ngai Sing Sing, 2013, 10 M ASS LING TYP AL Norde Muriel, 2009, DEGRAMMATICALIZATION Hopper Paul J., 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, P17 Rangkupan S, 2007, LANG LINGUIST, V8, P193 Roberts I., 2003, SYNTACTIC CHANGE MIN Smirnova Elena, 2014, DIACHRONIC CONSTRUCT Song Jae Jung, 1997, LINGUISTICS GIVING, P327 Thepkanjana K, 2008, LANG SCI, V30, P621, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.04.001 Traugott Elisabeth, 2002, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2010, SUBJECTIFICATION INT, P29, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 Wang Jian, 2013, LANG SCI, V12, P383 Xu LJ, 2004, LINGUA, V114, P277, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00031-7 Yang-Drocourt Zhitang, 2004, EVOLUTION SYNTAXIQUE Yap Foong Ha, 2007, SEALS 8, P193 Zhang NN, 2013, TRENDS LINGUIST-STUD, V263, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110304992 NR 55 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 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 JAN PY 2015 VL 47 SI SI BP 132 EP 147 DI 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.05.007 PN B PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AW7OC UT WOS:000346452200002 ER PT J AU Breban, T AF Breban, Tine TI Refining secondary grarnmaticalization by looking at subprocesses of change SO LANGUAGE SCIENCES LA English DT Article; Proceedings Paper CT International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 21) CY AUG 05-09, 2013 CL Oslo, NORWAY DE Grammaticalization; Secondary grammaticalization; Subprocesses of grammaticalization; Processes of change ID GRAMMATICALIZATION AB Secondary grammaticalization is often intuitively defined as grammaticalization with an already grammatical item as input This paper investigates the question whether secondary grammaticalization is also characterized by different subprocesses of change, with the aim of refining our understanding of the notion. Based on a survey of case studies of secondary grammaticalization from the literature, it is proposed that there are in fact two types of changes that have a grammatical input: one in which the development of a new grammatical function goes together with morphosyntactic reconfiguration, which is true secondary grammaticalization in the sense of Givon (1991), and one in which there is a semantico-functional change in which the grammatical input item sheds earlier pragmatic and subjective connotations and becomes an obligatory grammatical marker. The latter development is more appropriately analysed as an extension within the original grammaticalization process. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. C1 Univ Manchester, Sch Arts Languages & Cultures, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. RP Breban, T (reprint author), Univ Manchester, Sch Arts Languages & Cultures, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. EM tine.breban@manchester.ac.uk OI Breban, Tine/0000-0001-9313-2632 CR Breban Tine, 2010, ENGLISH ADJECTIVES C Breban Tine, 2014, FOLIA LINGU IN PRESS, V48 Breban Tine, 2012, INFORM STRUCTURE SYN, P271 Breban T, 2008, FOLIA LINGUIST, V42, P259, DOI 10.1515/FLIN.2008.259 Breban T, 2010, T PHILOL SOC, V108, P68 Davidse Kristin, 2004, LANGUAGE CULTURE MIN, P507 De Smet H, 2012, LANGUAGE, V88, P601 Denison David, 2006, HDB HIST ENGLISH, P279, DOI 10.1002/9780470757048 De Smet Hendrik, 2013, SPREADING PATTERNS D Detges Ulrich, 2004, CLINE NATURE GRAMMAT, P211 Detges Ulrich, 2002, Z SPRACHWISS, V21, P151 Detges U, 2009, STUD PRAGMAT, V7, P43 Diessel Holger, 2012, NEW REFLECTIONS GRAM, P37 Diessel Holger, 1999, DEMONSTRATIVES FORM [Anonymous], 2010, EVIDENTIALITY GERMAN Diewald Gabriele, 2010, GRAMMATICALIZATION C, P17, DOI 10.1075/slcs.119.04die DIEWALD Gabriele, 2012, GRAMMATICALIZATION L, P111 Epstein R, 2011, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V15, P113, DOI 10.1017/S1360674310000304 Ghesquiere Lobke, 2012, ENGLISH TEXT CONSTR, V5, P128, DOI DOI 10.1075/ETC.5.1.07GHE Givon Talmy, 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, VII, P257, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.19.2.14GIV Givon T., 1979, UNDERSTANDING GRAMMA Halliday Michael A. K., 1994, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA Himmelmann Nikolaus, 1997, DEIKTIKON ARTIKEL NO HIMMELMANN NP, 2004, WHAT MAKES GRAMMATIC, V158, P21, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110197440.1.21 Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Horde Muriel, 2009, DEGRAMMATICALIZATION Kranich Svenja, 2008, ENGLISH HIST LINGUIS, VI, P241 Kranich S., 2010, GRAMMATICALIZATION C, P101 Kranich S, 2010, LANG COMPUT, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-01325-6_1 Kurath Hans, MIDDLE ENGLISH DICT Kurylowicz J., 1965, DIOGENES, V13, P55, DOI DOI 10.1177/039219216501305105 Langacker R. W., 1991, DESCRIPTIVE APPL, V2 LEHMANN C, 1985, LINGUA STILE, V20, P303 Lehmann Christian, 2002, ARB SEM FILR SPRACHW McColl Millar Robert, 2000, PATHWAYS CHANGE GRAM, P275 Murray James A. H., OXFORD ENGLISH DICT Narrog Heiko, 2012, ENGLISH TEXT CONSTRU, V5, P29 Nevalainen Terttu, 1997, GRAMMATICALIZATION W, P145, DOI 10.1515/9783110810745.145 Norde Muriel, 2012, GRAMMATICALIZATION L, P73 Norde Muriel, 2011, OXFORD HDB GRAMMATIC, P475 Traugott Elisabeth, 2002, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1995, SUBJECTIVITY SUBJECT, P31, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2003, MOTIVES LANGUAGE CHA, P124, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2010, SUBJECTIFICATION INT, P29, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 Traugott EC, 1992, CAMBRIDGE HIST ENGLI, V1, P168, DOI DOI 10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.005 [Anonymous], 2002, STUDIES HIST ENGLISH Vennemann Theo, 1974, HIST LING, P339 Waltereit Richard, 2011, OXFORD HDB GRAMMATIC, P413 Waltereit Richard, 2012, GRAMMATICALIZATION L, P51 Waltereit Richard, 2007, CATALAN J LINGUISTIC, V6, P61 NR 50 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 4 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 JAN PY 2015 VL 47 SI SI BP 161 EP 171 DI 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.07.002 PN B PG 11 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AW7OC UT WOS:000346452200004 ER PT J AU Kranich, S AF Kranich, Svenja TI The impact of input and output domains: towards a function-based categorization of types of grammaticalization SO LANGUAGE SCIENCES LA English DT Article; Proceedings Paper CT International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 21) CY AUG 05-09, 2013 CL Oslo, NORWAY DE Subjectification; Modality; Aspect; Negation; Pragmatic markers; Pragmaticalization ID ENGLISH; FRENCH AB A wide variety of semantic-pragmatic processes have been linked to grammaticalization, such as pragmatic enrichment (Hopper and Traugott, 2003) and the loss of pragmatic meaning (Heine and Reh, 1984). As this example shows, not all of these subprocesses are compatible with each other. It therefore makes sense to assume that different subprocesses may be linked to different stages, different input or different output types of grammaticalization processes. In the present paper, various types of changes will be analyzed with respect to the semantic and pragmatic changes that typically accompany them, using mostly examples from English, German and the Romance languages. On this basis, a classification will be proposed, which will support the view that it is fruitful to make a distinction between primary and secondary grammaticalization (i.e. grammaticalization from lexical as opposed to from grammatical sources). Furthermore, the present approach provides further evidence that pragmaticalization should best be seen as its own type of change, rather than as a subtype of grammaticalization. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, Dept English Linguist, D-55128 Mainz, Germany. RP Kranich, S (reprint author), Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, Dept English Linguist, Jakob Welder Weg 18, D-55128 Mainz, Germany. EM kranich@uni-mainz.de CR Aijmer K., 1997, MODALITY GERMANIC LA, P1 Subprocesses Formal, 2012, WORKSH REF GRAMM 24 Breban Tine, 2014, FOLIA LINGU IN PRESS, P48 Breban Tine, 2012, GRAMMATICALIZATION L, P1 Brinton Laurel, 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN Bybee Joan L., 1994, EVOLUTION GRAMMAR TE BYBEE JL, 1989, STUD LANG, V13, P51, DOI 10.1075/sl.13.1.03byb Coates J., 1983, SEMANTICS MODAL AUXI Dahl Osten, 1987, TENSE ASPECT SYSTEMS Defour Tine, 2010, SUBJECTIFICATION INT, P155 Denison David, 1993, ENGLISH HIST SYNTAX Detges Ulrich, 2004, CLINE NATURE GRAMMAT, P211 Detges Ulrich, 2002, Z SPRACHWISS, V21, P151 Detges U, 2009, STUD PRAGMAT, V7, P43 Diewald Gabriele, 2010, GRAMMATICALIZATION C, P17, DOI 10.1075/slcs.119.04die Diewald Gabriele, 2002, NEW REFLECTIONS GRAM, P103 Diewald, 2012, GRAMMATICALIZATION L, P111 FINELL A, 1989, J PRAGMATICS, V13, P653, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(89)90054-4 Fitzmaurice Susan, 1998, PAPERS MEMORY T FRAN, P21 Fraser B, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P931, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 Gast Volker, 2008, MODALVERBEN GRAMMATI, P153 Givon Talmy, 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, VII, P257, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.19.2.14GIV Goosens Louis, 2003, METAPHOR METONYMY CR, P149 Guldemann T, 2003, STUD LANG, V27, P323, DOI 10.1075/sl.27.2.05gul GUNTHNER S, 2004, WHAT MAKES GRAMMATIC, V158, P77, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110197440 Hansen MBM, 2009, STUD PRAGMAT, V5, P137 Hansen MBM, 2009, STUD PRAGMAT, V7, P227 Bernd Heine, 2002, NEW REFLECTIONS GRAM, P83, DOI [10.1075/tsl.49, DOI 10.1075/TSL.49.08HEI] Heine Bernd, 1984, GRAMMATICALIZATION R HEINE B, 1992, STUD LANG, V16, P335, DOI 10.1075/sl.16.2.05hei Heine Bernd, 2002, WORLD LEXICON GRAMMA Heine Bernd, 1994, PERSPECTIVES GRAMMAT, P255 Heine B, 2013, LINGUISTICS, V51, P1205, DOI 10.1515/ling-2013-0048 HIMMELMANN NP, 2004, WHAT MAKES GRAMMATIC, V158, P21, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110197440.1.21 Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Hiibler Axel, 1998, EXPRESSIVITY GRAMMAR Jucker Andreas H., 1997, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V1, P91, DOI 10.1017/S136067430000037X Killie Kristin, 2008, ENGLISH HIST LINGUIS, VI, P69 Konig Ekkehard, 1994, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, P679 Kranich Svenja, 2008, ENGLISH HIST LINGUIS, VI, P241 Kranich S., 2010, GRAMMATICALIZATION C, P101 Kranich S, 2011, TEXT TALK, V31, P77, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2011.004 Kranich S, 2010, LANG COMPUT, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-01325-6_1 Kranich S, 2013, LINGUISTICS, V51, P1, DOI 10.1515/ling-2013-0001 Kurylowicz J., 1965, DIOGENES, V13, P55, DOI DOI 10.1177/039219216501305105 LEHMANN C, 1985, LINGUA STILE, V20, P303 Christian Lehmann, 1995, THOUGHTS GRAMMATICAL Meisnitzer Benjamin, 2013, COMMUNICATION Narrog Heiko, 2012, ENGLISH TEXT CONSTRU, V5, P29 Narrog Heiko, 2010, SUBJECTIFICATION INT, P385, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110226102.4.385 Nickel G., 1966, EXPANDED FORM ALTENG Norde Muriel, 2012, GRAMMATICALIZATION L, P73 Norde Muriel, 2009, DEGRAMMATICALIZATION Ronan Patricia, 2003, CELTIC ENGLISHES, VIII, P129 Sanada Keisuke, 2013, HIST LINGUISTICS 201, P67 Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS Serpollet N, 2002, LANG COMPUT, P345 Serpollet Noelle, 2001, TECHNICAL PAPERS UCR, V13, P531 Traugott Elisabeth, 2002, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1995, SUBJECTIVITY SUBJECT, P31, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 Traugott Elizabeth Class, 2004, MOTIVES LANGUAGE CHA, P124 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1990, 5 INT C ENGL HIST LI, P496 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2010, SUBJECTIFICATION INT, P29, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 Traugott Elizabeth, 1982, PERSPECTIVES HIST LI, P245 Traugott EC, 1992, CAMBRIDGE HIST ENGLI, V1, P168, DOI DOI 10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.005 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, P189 TRAUGOTT EC, 1989, LANGUAGE, V65, P31, DOI 10.2307/414841 [Anonymous], 2002, STUDIES HIST ENGLISH Verstraete JC, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1505, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00029-7 Vezzosi Letizia, 1996, STUDI SAGGI LINGUIST, V36, P157 Visconti J, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P937, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.012 Waltereit Richard, 2012, GRAMMATICALIZATION L, P51 Waltereit Richard, 2007, CATALAN J LINGUISTIC, V6, P61 Willems D, 2006, STUD PRAGMAT, V2, P215 NR 74 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 6 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 JAN PY 2015 VL 47 SI SI BP 172 EP 187 DI 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.07.008 PN B PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AW7OC UT WOS:000346452200005 ER PT J AU Wallace, CS Brooks, L AF Wallace, Carolyn S. Brooks, Lori TI Learning to Teach Elementary Science in an Experiential, Informal Context: Culture, Learning, and Identity SO SCIENCE EDUCATION LA English DT Article ID PRESERVICE TEACHERS; EDUCATION; PEDAGOGY AB Lack of time for teaching science in traditional classroom placements in the United States has led some science teacher educators to provide practice teaching time for elementary education students in informal science settings. The purposes of this study were to describe the culture of one science methods course taught in conjunction with a K-7 summer science camp and explore how the science teaching identities of three case-study students developed in this culture. Theoretical frameworks included situated learning (J. S. Brown, A. Collins, & P. Duguid, 1989), professional identity development (M. B. Brewer & W. Gardner, 1996), and a pragmatic approach to constructivist learning theory (P. Cobb, 1994). An ethnographic study was used to determine meaning from the participants' points of view. Results indicated that preservice teacher autonomy, peer collaboration, and close relationships with children were key features of the culture of the methods course. One case-study participant with an initial identity who favored a constructivist approach found opportunities to try out this approach and learn how it might be implemented. The second case-study student began the course with only a vague sense of her own science identity and tended to adopt identity elements similar to those of peers in her group. The third case-study student appeared to experience less dissonance between her initial science teacher identity and other possible identities, enhancing her disposition to meet the needs of all diverse children. C1 [Wallace, Carolyn S.] Kennesaw State Univ, Bagwell Coll Educ, Dept Elementary & Early Childhood Educ, Kennesaw, GA 30144 USA. [Brooks, Lori] Northview High Sch, Brazil, IN 47834 USA. RP Wallace, CS (reprint author), Kennesaw State Univ, Bagwell Coll Educ, Dept Elementary & Early Childhood Educ, Kennesaw, GA 30144 USA. EM dr.carolyn.wallace@gmail.com CR Avraamidou L, 2013, INT J SCI EDUC, V35, P1698, DOI 10.1080/09500693.2012.708945 Barton AC, 2000, J CURRICULUM STUD, V32, P797, DOI 10.1080/00220270050167189 Beijaard D, 2004, TEACH TEACH EDUC, V20, P107, DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001 Blumer H., 1969, SYMBOLIC INTERACTION Brewer MB, 1996, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V71, P83, DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83 Brown A. L., 1989, KNOWING LEARNING INS, P393 Brown J. S., 1989, ED RES, V18, P31 Butin DW, 2003, TEACH COLL REC, V105, P1674, DOI 10.1046/j.1467-9620.2003.00305.x Cobb P., 1994, EDUC RES, V23, P13, DOI DOI 10.3102/0013189X023007013 Coldron J, 1999, J CURRICULUM STUD, V31, P711, DOI 10.1080/002202799182954 Cone N., 2009, J SCI TEACHER ED, V20, P365 Crotty M., 1998, FDN SOCIAL RES Danielowich R. M., 2012, J SCI TEACHER ED, V23, P323 Erickson F., 1986, HDB RES TEACHING, P119 Glaser B., 1967, DISCOVERY GROUNDED T [Anonymous], 2012, J SCI TEACHER ED Hart SM, 2007, TEACH TEACH EDUC, V23, P323, DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.004 Jackson PA, 2013, J RES SCI TEACH, V50, P826, DOI 10.1002/tea.21088 [Anonymous], 2012, NATL GEOGR Kelly J, 2000, INT J SCI EDUC, V22, P755, DOI 10.1080/09500690050044080 Lave J., 1991, SITUATED LEARNING LE Luehmann AL, 2007, SCI EDUC, V91, P822, DOI 10.1002/sce.20209 Miles M, 1994, QUALITATIVE DATA ANA Borko H., 2000, EDUC RES, V29, P4, DOI DOI 10.3102/0013189X029001004 Resnick L., 1989, KNOWING LEARNING INS, P393 Richardson V., 1996, HDB RES TEACHER ED, V2, P102 Ryan M, 2009, TEACH TEACH EDUC, V25, P424, DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2008.11.010 Settlage J., 2009, J RES SCI TEACH, V46, P122 Shy C., 2009, THESIS CITY U NEW YO Varelas M, 2005, SCI EDUC, V89, P492, DOI 10.1002/sce.20047 Veal WR, 2004, INT J SCI EDUC, V26, P329, DOI 10.1080/0950069032000097389 Wallace C. S., 2012, ANN M NAT ASS RES SC Wasserman KB, 2009, TEACH TEACH EDUC, V25, P1043, DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2009.04.001 Wenger E., 1998, COMMUNITIES PRACTICE Windschitl M, 2002, REV EDUC RES, V72, P131, DOI 10.3102/00346543072002131 NR 35 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 19 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0036-8326 EI 1098-237X J9 SCI EDUC JI Sci. Educ. PD JAN PY 2015 VL 99 IS 1 BP 174 EP 198 DI 10.1002/sce.21138 PG 25 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA AW9NY UT WOS:000346585500007 ER PT J AU Ditchburn, G AF Ditchburn, Geraldine TI The Australian Curriculum: History - the challenges of a thin curriculum? SO DISCOURSE-STUDIES IN THE CULTURAL POLITICS OF EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE Australian education policy; neoliberalism; Australian curriculum; 'thin' and 'thick' curriculum AB The Australian Curriculum: History has emerged out of a neoliberal federal education policy landscape. This is a policy landscape where pragmatic and performative, rather than pedagogic concerns are clearly foregrounded, and this has implications for curriculum development and implementation. A useful way to conceptualise the features, assumptions and potentialities of the Australian Curriculum: History that has been produced from these policy imperatives is through a framework provided by the descriptors, 'thin' and 'thick'. A thin curriculum is one that essentially equates curriculum with a product, and where the prescribed content is central to understanding what a curriculum is. A thick curriculum, on the other hand, is one where the curriculum is understood as a verb, where the details of content are secondary to an exploration of bigger questions and concepts, and where curriculum theory is the starting point for the selection of content. The use of 'thin' and 'thick' as the ends of a continuum of curriculum provides insights into the purposes of a curriculum. Ultimately, such a dichotomy exposes assumptions about what is important knowledge and who is in control of the curriculum. This paper focuses on how the Australian Curriculum: History as an example of a 'thin' curriculum, presents a number of challenges. C1 Murdoch Univ, Sch Educ, Perth, WA, Australia. RP Ditchburn, G (reprint author), Murdoch Univ, Sch Educ, Perth, WA, Australia. EM g.ditchburn@murdoch.edu.au CR Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2009, SHAP AUSTR CURR HIST Apple M., 1990, IDEOLOGY CURRICULUM Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2010, SHAP AUSTR CURR V 2 Australian Department of Education and Workplace Relations (DEWR), 2008, QUAL ED CAS ED REV O Ball Stuart, 1993, CURRICULUM STUDIES, V1, P195 Barber B., 2004, STRONG DEMOCRACY PAR Boomer G., 1982, NEGOTIATING CURRICUL Brady L., 2003, CURRICULUM CONSTRUCT Carr P. R., 2008, INTERAMERICAN J ED D, V1, P147 Connell R., 1998, TRANSFORMATION ED, V1, P84 Council for the Australian Federation, 2007, 2 DPC COUNC AUSTR FE Ditchburn GM, 2012, CRIT STUD EDUC, V53, P347, DOI 10.1080/17508487.2012.703137 Eisner E., 1992, HDB RES CURRICULUM, P302 Elmore R., 1992, HDB RES CURRICULUM, P185 Freire P., 1970, PEDAGOGY OPPRESSED Gandin L., 2005, INT STUDIES SOCIOLOG, V12, P99, DOI 10.1080/09620210200200085 Geertz C., 1973, INTERPRETATION CULTU, P3 Giroux H., 1981, IDEOLOGY CULTURE PRO Giroux H., 2010, DEFENSE PUBLIC SCH T Gonzales N., 2005, FUNDS KNOWLEDGE THEO Greene M, 1975, CURRICULUM THEORIZIN, P299 Grundy S., 1987, CURRICULUM PRODUCT P Johnson B., 1999, CONTESTING CURRICULU Kincheloe J. L., 2008, CRITICAL CONSTRUCTIV Kincheloe J. L., 1989, GETTING FACTS TEACHI Ladson-Billings G., 1998, CURRICULUM PROBLEMS, P201 Lingard B, 2005, J EDUC POLICY, V20, P759, DOI 10.1080/02680930500238945 Lingard B, 2010, CRIT STUD EDUC, V51, P129, DOI 10.1080/17508481003731026 Weir K, 2013, CURRICULUM SYLLABUS McConney A., 2009, AUSTR J TEACHER ED, V34, P86, DOI [10.14221/ajte.2009v34n6.6, DOI 10.14221/AJTE.2009V34N6.6] Reid A., 2005, RETHINKING NATL CURR Senate Standing Committee on Employment Workplace Relations and Education, 2007, QUAL SCH ED SHANKMAN P, 1984, CURR ANTHROPOL, V25, P261, DOI 10.1086/203135 Shor I, 1992, EMPOWERING ED CRITIC Smyth J., 2009, CRITICALLY ENGAGED L Walzer M, 1994, THICK THIN MORAL ARG Wood G., 1998, CURRICULUM PROBLEMS, P177 NR 37 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 2 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0159-6306 EI 1469-3739 J9 DISCOURSE-ABINGDON JI Discourse PD JAN 1 PY 2015 VL 36 IS 1 BP 27 EP 41 DI 10.1080/01596306.2013.829657 PG 15 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA AU8FG UT WOS:000345831300003 ER PT J AU Bella, S AF Bella, Spyridoula TI A CONTRASTIVE STUDY OF APOLOGIES PERFORMED BY GREEK NATIVE SPEAKERS AND ENGLISH LEARNERS OF GREEK AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE SO PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Apology; Discourse completion test; Greek; Interlanguage; Politeness ID POLITENESS; INTERLANGUAGE; STRATEGIES; REQUESTS AB This paper investigates apologies produced by Greek native speakers and English learners of Greek as a foreign language in two informal (-P, -D) and two formal situations (+ P, + D). Drawing on data elicited by means of an assessment questionnaire, a DCT and the participants' verbal reports, the study attempts to explore the extent to which the two groups differ in their contextual assessments of the apology situations under examination and in strategy use. The results indicated that the learners of the study differed significantly from the native speakers in regard to their assessments of the contextual parameters (power, distance, severity of offence) involved in each apology situation. Furthermore, significant quantitative and qualitative differences were attested in relation of the two groups' preferences in strategy use when performing apologies in Greek. On the basis of these results it is argued, that these learners interlanguage apology behavior is influenced both by their native cultural values and (negative) politeness orientation, as well as from lack of adequate socio-pragmatic development resulting mainly from their foreign language learner status. C1 Univ Athens, Dept Linguist, Aghia Paraskevi 15341, Greece. RP Bella, S (reprint author), Univ Athens, Dept Linguist, 28is Oktovriou 12, Aghia Paraskevi 15341, Greece. EM sbella@phil.uoa.gr CR Angouri Jo, 2010, HDB TEACHING MAT, P373 Antonopoulou E, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P741, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00150-9 Bardovi-Harlig K, 1999, LANG LEARN, V49, P677, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00105 Bardovi-Harlig K, 1998, TESOL QUART, V32, P233, DOI 10.2307/3587583 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 1999, LANG LEARN, V49, P677 Bargiela Francesca, 2002, WORKING PAPERS ON TH, V3 Bataineh Rula Fahmi, 2006, JOURNAL OF PRAGMATIC, V38, P1901 Bella S, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1917, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.014 Bella S, 2009, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V5, P243, DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2009.013 Bella S, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1718, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.005 Bergman M. L., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P82 Blum-Kulka Shoshana, 1986, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V8, P165, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100006069 Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Bousfield Derek, 2008, IMPOLITENESS IN INTE Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Christie Chris, 2005, JOURNAL OF POLITENES, V1, P1 Cohen Andrew, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P253, DOI 10.1017/S027226310001490X COHEN AD, 1981, LANG LEARN, V31, P113, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01375.x Cordella Marisa, 1990, ARAL SERIES, V5, P66 Edmondson Willis, 1991, LETS TALK AND TALK A Ericsson Anders, 1993, PROTOCOL ANALYSIS Uso-Juan Esther, 2008, ELT JOURNAL, V62, P349 Uso-Juan Esther, 2010, SPEECH ACT PERFORMAN, P237 Farashayian Atieh, 2011, ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEA, V4, P224 Felix-Brasdefer Cesar, 2003, MULTILINGUA, V22, P225 Felix-Brasdefer Cesar, 2010, SPEECH ACT PERFORMAN, P41 Fraser B., 1981, CONVERSATIONAL ROUTI, P259 Garcia Carmen, 1989, MULTILINGUA, V8, P3, DOI 10.1515/mult.1989.8.1.3 Gass S., 1999, INTERLANGUAGE REFUSA Goffman Erving, 1971, RELATIONS IN PUBLIC HIRSCHON R, 1992, J MOD GREEK STUD, V10, P35 House J., 1989, ENGLISCH ZWEITSPRACH, P303 Robinson P., 2001, COGNITION 2 LANGUAGE, P354 Jucker AH, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1611, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.004 Kasper Gabriele, 1997, BEYOND METHODS, P113 Kasper G., 2000, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P316 Kasper G, 2005, HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH IN SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING, P317 Leech G., 1983, PRINCIPLES OF PRAGMA Locher M. A., 2006, MULTILINGUA, V25, P249, DOI 10.1515/MULTI.2006.015 MACKRIDGE P, 1992, J MOD GREEK STUD, V10, P111 Maeshiba N., 1996, SPEECH ACTS CULTURES, P155 Makri-Tsilipakou Maria, 2001, LINGUISTIC POLITENES, P137 Martinez-Flor A., 2006, IBERICA, V12, P23 Ogiermann Eva, 2009, ON APOLOGISING IN NE Olshtain E, 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P155 Owen Marion, 1983, APOLOGIES AND REMEDI PAVLIDOU T, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V21, P487, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90026-4 Marquez Reiter R., 2000, LINGUISTIC POLITENES Flores Salgado Elizabeth, 2011, THE PRAGMATICS OF RE Shardakova Maria, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P423, DOI DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2005.2.4.423 Sifianou Maria, 1992, POLITENESS PHENOMENA Suszczynska M, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P1053, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00047-8 Symeon Despina, 2000, THESIS Takahashi Tomoko, 1987, JALT J, V8, P131 Terkourafi M, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P218, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.024 THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 TROSBORG A, 1987, J PRAGMATICS, V11, P147, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(87)90193-7 Trosborg A., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Wolfson Nessa, 1981, INT J PSYCHOLINGUIST, V25, P7 Woodfield H, 2010, MULTILINGUA, V29, P1, DOI 10.1515/mult.2010.001 NR 60 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 13 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 DEC PY 2014 VL 24 IS 4 BP 679 EP 713 PG 35 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AZ6FB UT WOS:000348313200001 ER PT J AU Bongiorno, V AF Bongiorno, Vito TI THE WAY COCA "SPEAKS". PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF ANDEAN DIVINATION SO PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Quechua; Aymara; Ritual language; Evidentiality; Intentionality AB In this paper I will describe and interpret some data from Southern Quechua and Southern Aymara spoken texts recorded during traditional divinatory sessions. This analysis is aimed to show that divination can be considered as an example of how ritual speech, often described as a phenomenon based on fixed sequences, is characterized by variable elements too, being the relationship between a particular "context of situation" and the divinatory speech event very strong. In particular, the analysis focuses on a specific kind of speech acts, which seem to be built with the help of morphological devices that are normally used to indicate the source of information in the Quechua and Aymara language families. The same devices are used with a specific performative function in the context of divination: To "officialise" the message of the oracle and to oppose this to the speech acts of the diviner. C1 Univ Bonn, D-53111 Bonn, Germany. RP Bongiorno, V (reprint author), Univ Bonn, Breitestr 51, D-53111 Bonn, Germany. EM v.bongiorno@uni-bonn.de CR Aikhenvald Alexandra, 2004, EVIDENTIALITY Allen Catherine, 1988, HOLD LIFE HAS COCA C Austin J. L., 1962, DO THINGS WORDS Bascom W., 1969, IFA DIVINATION COMMU BELL C., 1997, RITUAL PERSPECTIVES Bongiorno V., ENSAYO LENG IN PRESS Cardona R., 1988, SEI LATI MONDO LINGU Cardona R., 1976, INTRO ETNOLINGUISTIC Cardona R., 1989, PRATICA GRAMMATICA V, P31 Cerron-Palomino Rodolfo, 2000, LINGUISTICA AIMARA de Beaugrande A., 1981, EINFUHRUNG TEXTLINGU de Beaugrande A., 1981, INTRO TEXT LINGUISTI de Granda G., 1996, REV ANDINA, V2, P457 Du Bois John W., 1993, RESPONSIBILITY EVIDE, P48 Duranti Alessandro, 1992, RETHINKING CONTEXT L, P77 FINNEGAN R, 1969, MAN, V4, P537, DOI 10.2307/2798194 Floyd Rick, 1997, ESTRUCTURA CATEGORIA Gnerre M., 1986, INTRO LINGUISTICA AN, P181 GNERRE MAUIUCIO, 1986, NATIVE S AM DISCOURS, P307 Grice P, 1971, SEMANTICS INTERDISCI, P53 Hardman Martha J., 1986, EVIDENTIALITY LINGUI, P113 Hardman Martha J., 2001, AYMARA Hymes D., 1972, DIRECTIONS SOCIOLING, P35 Fernandez Juarez G., 1996, EL BANQUETE AYMARA Matthews P.H., 1997, CONCISE OXFORD DICT Park George, 1963, J ROYAL ANTHR I, V93, P195, DOI 10.2307/2844242 Rappaport R., 1998, RITUALTHEORIEN EINFU RAPPAPORT R, 1999, RITUAL RELIG MAKING Schwarz M., 2008, EINFUHRUNG KOGNITIVE Staal F., 1996, RULES MEANING RITUAL Stolz Friedrich, 1993, STORIA LINGUA LATINA NR 31 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 8 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 DEC PY 2014 VL 24 IS 4 BP 715 EP 734 PG 20 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AZ6FB UT WOS:000348313200002 ER PT J AU Halupka-Resetar, S Radic-Bojanic, B AF Halupka-Resetar, Sabina Radic-Bojanic, Biljana TI THE DISCOURSE MARKER ZNACI IN SERBIAN: AN ANALYSIS OF SEMI-FORMAL ACADEMIC DISCOURSE SO PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Znaci; Discourse marker; Serbian; Reformulational; Concluding; Interactional AB Among the rare treatments of discourse markers in South Slavic languages (Miskovic 2001, 2003; Fielder 2008; Dedaic and Miskovic-Lukovic 2010; Premilovac 2010; Miskovic-Lukovic and Dedaic 2012), the Serbian discourse marker znaci, evolved from the lexical verb znaciti ('to mean'), has so far gone unnoticed. Based on a corpus of approximately 6.5 hours of recorded semi-formal student-teacher conversations, the paper analyzes the pragmatic aspects of the discourse marker znaci. The key questions that are addressed are: (a) what discursive environments znaci occurs in; and more importantly, (b) what pragmatic effects the speakers intend to achieve by using this discourse marker. The pragmatics of znaci is explored in order to establish whether in each individual case it is used (a) as a marker of various types of reformulation, such as expansion or compression, (b) as a means of concluding, or (c) whether it serves an interactional function. C1 [Halupka-Resetar, Sabina; Radic-Bojanic, Biljana] Univ Novi Sad, Fac Philosophy, Dept English, Novi Sad 21000, Serbia. RP Halupka-Resetar, S (reprint author), Univ Novi Sad, Fac Philosophy, Dept English, Dr Zorana Dindica 2, Novi Sad 21000, Serbia. EM halupka.resetar@ff.uns.ac.rs; radic.bojanic@gmail.com CR Bezuidenhout A., 2004, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, P101 Blakemore Diane, 1992, UNDERSTANDING UTTERA Blakemore D., 1987, SEMANTIC CONSTRAINTS Brinton Laurel, 1996, PRAGMATIC MARKERS EN Brown G., 1983, DISCOURSE ANAL CharterisBlack J, 2011, POLITICIANS AND RHETORIC: THE PERSUASIVE POWER OF METAPHOR, 2ND EDITION, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230319899 Dedaic M., 2010, S SLAVIC DISCOURSE P, P107 Dedaic MN, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P667, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.002 Dedaic Mirjana N., 2010, S SLAVIC DISCOURSE P Pastor Maria Luisa Carrio, 2005, PERSPECTIVAS INTERDI, VII, P89 DuBois John W., 2006, BASIC SYMBOLS DISCOU Fielder Grace, 2008, 14 INT C SLAV, V1, P1 Fraser Bruce, 1996, PRAGMATICS, V6, P167 Halliday MAK, 1967, J LINGUIST, V3, P199, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700016613 Hansen MBM, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V28, P153, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00086-0 Kovac Mirjana Matea, 2010, LINGUA MONTENEGRINA, V3, P139 Misovic Mirjana, 2001, PRAGMATICS, V11, P17 Miskovic Mirjana, 2003, JEZIK DRUSTVO SAZNAN, P164 Miskovic-Lukovic M, 2010, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V197, P65 Miskovic-Lukovic M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1355, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.013 Nikolic Miroslav, 2007, RECNIK SRPSKOGA JEZI PIPER P, 2013, NORMATIVNA GRAMATIKA Premilovac A, 2010, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V197, P91 Del Saz Rubio Milagros, 2007, ENGLISH DISCOURSE MA FRASER B., 2003, REFORMULATION ENGLIS Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS Schourup L, 1999, LINGUA, V107, P227, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 Silic Josip, 1984, OLD RECENICE TEKSTA Velcic Mirna, 1987, UVOD LINGVISTIKU TEK [Anonymous], 2011, OXFORD ADV LEARNERS [Anonymous], 2007, MACMILLAN ENGLISH DI 2009, LONGMAN DICT CONT EN NR 32 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 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 DEC PY 2014 VL 24 IS 4 BP 785 EP 798 PG 14 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AZ6FB UT WOS:000348313200005 ER PT J AU Hirata, Y Kelly, SD Huang, J Manansala, M AF Hirata, Yukari Kelly, Spencer D. Huang, Jessica Manansala, Michael TI Effects of Hand Gestures on Auditory Learning of Second-Language Vowel Length Contrasts SO JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH LA English DT Article ID TRAINING JAPANESE LISTENERS; NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS; MIRROR-NEURON SYSTEM; FOREIGN-LANGUAGE; SPEAKING RATE; SPEECH; WORD; COMPREHENSION; PERCEPTION; DISTINCTION AB Purpose: Research has shown that hand gestures affect comprehension and production of speech at semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic levels for both native language and second language (L2). This study investigated a relatively less explored question: Do hand gestures influence auditory learning of an L2 at the segmental phonology level? Method: To examine auditory learning of phonemic vowel length contrasts in Japanese, 88 native English-speaking participants took an auditory test before and after one of the following 4 types of training in which they (a) observed an instructor in a video speaking Japanese words while she made syllabic-rhythm hand gesture, (b) produced this gesture with the instructor, (c) observed the instructor speaking those words and her moraic-rhythm hand gesture, or (d) produced the moraic-rhythm gesture with the instructor. Results: All of the training types yielded similar auditory improvement in identifying vowel length contrast. However, observing the syllabic-rhythm hand gesture yielded the most balanced improvement between word-initial and word-final vowels and between slow and fast speaking rates. Conclusions: The overall effect of hand gesture on learning of segmental phonology is limited. Implications for theories of hand gesture are discussed in terms of the role it plays at different linguistic levels. C1 [Hirata, Yukari; Kelly, Spencer D.; Huang, Jessica; Manansala, Michael] Colgate Univ, Ctr Language & Brain, Hamilton, NY 13346 USA. RP Hirata, Y (reprint author), Colgate Univ, Ctr Language & Brain, Hamilton, NY 13346 USA. EM yhirata@colgate.edu FU National Science Foundation [1052765] FX Portions of this study have been presented at the Fifth Conference of the International Society for Gesture Studies, Lund, Sweden, July 2012; the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Berlin, Germany, August 2013; and the 167th Annual Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Providence, Rhode Island, May 2014. This study was supported by National Science Foundation Grant 1052765 awarded to Yukari Hirata and Spencer D. Kelly. We thank Carmen Lin, Zach Zhao, April Bailey, and Kristen Weiner for being an integral part of designing stimuli and collecting data. CR ASHER JJ, 1969, MOD LANG J, V53, P3, DOI 10.2307/322091 Baddeley A, 1998, PSYCHOL REV, V105, P158, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.158 Barsalou LW, 1999, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V22, P577 Biau E, 2013, BRAIN LANG, V124, P143, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.10.008 Bradlow AR, 1997, J ACOUST SOC AM, V101, P2299, DOI 10.1121/1.418276 Brady M. C., 2007, P 16 ICPHS SAARBR, P337 Cook SW, 2008, COGNITION, V106, P1047, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.010 Decety J, 2006, BRAIN RES, V1079, P4, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.115 Engelkamp J, 2000, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V26, P671, DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.26.3.671 Fischer MH, 2008, Q J EXP PSYCHOL, V61, P825, DOI 10.1080/17470210701623605 Gary J. O., 1978, 2ND LANGUAGE ACQUISI, P185 Glenberg AM, 2002, PSYCHON B REV, V9, P558, DOI 10.3758/BF03196313 Goldin-Meadow Susan, 2010, Lang Cogn, V2, P1 Goldin-Meadow S., 2003, HEARING GESTURE OUR Gullberg M., 2006, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V44, P103, DOI [10.1515/IRAL.2006.004, DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2006.004] Gullberg M, 2008, GESTURE, V8, P149, DOI 10.1075/gest.8.2.03gul HAN MS, 1994, J ACOUST SOC AM, V96, P73, DOI 10.1121/1.410376 Hirata Y, 2004, J PHONETICS, V32, P565, DOI 10.1016/j.wocn.2004.02.004 Hirata Y, 2004, J ACOUST SOC AM, V116, P2384, DOI 10.1121/1.1783351 Hirata Y, 2005, J ACOUST SOC AM, V118, P1647, DOI 10.1121/1.2000807 Hirata Y., HDB JAPANESE PHONETI Hirata Y, 2007, J ACOUST SOC AM, V121, P3837, DOI 10.1121/1.2734401 Hirata Y, 2010, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V53, P298, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0243) Hubbard A. L., 2008, HUM BRAIN MAPP, V30, P1028, DOI DOI 10.1002/HBM.20565 Iacoboni M, 2005, CURR OPIN NEUROBIOL, V15, P632, DOI 10.1016/j.conb.2005.10.010 Kelly SD, 2009, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V24, P313, DOI 10.1080/01690960802365567 Kelly SD, 2012, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V27, P793, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2011.581125 Kelly SD, 2010, PSYCHOL SCI, V21, P260, DOI 10.1177/0956797609357327 Kendon A, 2004, GESTURE VISIBLE ACTI Kidd GR, 2007, J ACOUST SOC AM, V122, P418, DOI 10.1121/1.2743154 Krahmer E, 2007, J MEM LANG, V57, P396, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.005 Ladefoged P., 1975, COURSE PHONETICS LOGAN JS, 1991, J ACOUST SOC AM, V89, P874, DOI 10.1121/1.1894649 Macedonia M, 2011, HUM BRAIN MAPP, V32, P982, DOI 10.1002/hbm.21084 McNeill D., 1992, HAND MIND WHAT GESTU McNeill D., 2005, GESTURE THOUGHT Minagawa Y., 2002, J PHONETIC SOC JAPAN, V6, P88 Montgomery KJ, 2007, SOC COGN AFFECT NEUR, V2, P114, DOI 10.1093/scan/nsm004 Piske T, 2001, J PHONETICS, V29, P191, DOI 10.1006/jpho.2001.0134 Pisoni D., 1995, SPEECH PERCEPTION LI, P433 Port R. F., 1995, P CHIC LING SOC U CH, P375 PORT RF, 1987, J ACOUST SOC AM, V81, P1574, DOI 10.1121/1.394510 Post LS, 2013, COMPUT HUM BEHAV, V29, P1450, DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.005 Quinn-Allen L, 1995, MOD LANG J, V79, P521, DOI [10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05454.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1540-4781.1995.TB05454.X] Rizzolatti G, 2004, ANNU REV NEUROSCI, V27, P169, DOI 10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230 Roberge C., 1996, NIHONGO NO HATSUON S Strange W., 1995, SPEECH PERCEPTION LI Sueyoshi A, 2005, LANG LEARN, V55, P661, DOI 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00320.x Tajima K, 2008, J ACOUST SOC AM, V123, P397, DOI 10.1121/1.2804942 Tellier M, 2008, GESTURE, V8, P219, DOI 10.1075/gest.8.2.06tel Tsukada K., 1999, THESIS MACQUARIE U M Tsukada K, 2011, J ACOUST SOC AM, V129, P989, DOI 10.1121/1.3531801 Vance T., 1987, INTRO JAPANESE PHONO Zheng A., 2013, 25 ANN CONV ASS PSYC NR 54 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 5 PU AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC PI ROCKVILLE PA 10801 ROCKVILLE PIKE, ROCKVILLE, MD 20852-3279 USA SN 1092-4388 EI 1558-9102 J9 J SPEECH LANG HEAR R JI J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. PD DEC PY 2014 VL 57 IS 6 BP 2090 EP 2101 DI 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-S-14-0049 PG 12 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA AZ4MK UT WOS:000348195300005 PM 25088127 ER PT J AU Simmons, ES Paul, R Volkmar, F AF Simmons, Elizabeth Schoen Paul, Rhea Volkmar, Fred TI Assessing Pragmatic Language in Autism Spectrum Disorder: The Yale in vivo Pragmatic Protocol SO JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH LA English DT Article ID PERVASIVE DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS; HIGH-FUNCTIONING AUTISM; DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT; CHILDREN; INTERVENTION; STABILITY AB Purpose: This study compared pragmatic language in youths (9-17 years) with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and those with typical development (TD) on the Yale in vivo Pragmatic Protocol (YiPP), a semistructured, dynamic conversational assessment. Method: Participants (n = 118) were divided into groups based on age and diagnosis. Each completed the YiPP, which included 4 pragmatic domains (discourse management, communicative functions, conversational repair, presupposition). The participant's response to each probe was scored correct or incorrect; incorrect scores elicited cues from the examiner, and level of cue required for a correction was also scored. Results: The YiPP showed high reliability and internal consistency, with moderate concurrent validity, sensitivity, and specificity. The group with ASD performed worse overall on YiPP probes compared to their TD counterparts on both error (d = 0.96) and cue (d = 0.91) scores. Item analyses revealed greater gaps between older students with ASD and their TD peers than between the 2 younger groups. Conclusions: These data suggest that a probe measure designed to assess pragmatic abilities in children with ASD within a conversational context has some validity for contributing to diagnostic classification and can identify specific areas of pragmatic vulnerabilities as part of a clinical assessment. C1 [Simmons, Elizabeth Schoen; Volkmar, Fred] Yale Univ, New Haven, CT 06520 USA. [Paul, Rhea] Sacred Heart Univ, Fairfield, CT USA. [Paul, Rhea] Haskins Labs Inc, Fairfield, CT USA. RP Simmons, ES (reprint author), Yale Univ, New Haven, CT 06520 USA. EM elizabeth.schoen@yale.edu FU Research Grant - National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)-Autism and Related Disorders: Development and Outcome [P0-HD03008] FX Preparation of this article was supported by Research Grant P0-HD03008 funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)-Autism and Related Disorders: Development and Outcome. We would like to thank the families who participated in this study, in addition to Rebecca Loomis, who assisted with the behavioral coding. CR American Psychiatric Association, 2000, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT Adams C, 2002, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V43, P679, DOI 10.1111/1469-7610.00056 Adams C, 2005, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V40, P333, DOI 10.1080/1368282040027768 Adams C, 2012, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V47, P233, DOI 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00146.x American Psychiatric Association, 2013, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2014, SOC LANG US PRAGM BARONCOHEN S, 1988, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V18, P379, DOI 10.1007/BF02212194 Bellini S., 2014, HDB AUTISM SPECTRUM, P887 Bishop D., 2006, CHILDRENS COMMUNICAT BISHOP DVM, 1989, BRIT J DISORD COMMUN, V24, P241 Brinton B, 2004, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V35, P283, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2004/026) Fujiki M., 1993, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V24, P194 Bryan T, 2004, LEARN DISABILITY Q, V27, P45, DOI 10.2307/1593631 Chapman R., 1981, ASSESSING LANGUAGE P, P111 Chuba H., 2003, NAT CONV AM SPEECH L Cohen J., 1988, STAT POWER ANAL BEHA Constantino J, 2005, SOCIAL RESPONSIVENES Constantino JN, 2003, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V33, P427, DOI 10.1023/A:1025014929212 Creaghead N., 1984, SEMINARS SPEECH LANG, V5, P241, DOI 10.1055/s-0028-1085181 Dawson M., 2008, LEARNING MEMORY COMP, P759 DEWEY M, 1974, J AUTISM CHILD SCHIZ, V4, P348, DOI 10.1007/BF02105378 Elliot C. D., 2007, DIFFERENTIAL ABILITY Feldman HM, 2005, CHILD DEV, V76, P856, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00882.x Fombonne E, 2003, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V33, P365, DOI 10.1023/A:1025054610557 Sprafkin J., 2002, CHILDHOOD ADOLESCENT, V4 George D, 2003, SPSS WINDOWS STEP ST Gillberg C., 1998, ASPERGER SYNDROME HI, P79 Gutierrez-Clellen VF, 2001, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V32, P212, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2001/019) Kim S. H., 2014, HDB AUTISM PERVASIVE, P230 Klin A, 2003, PHILOS T ROY SOC B, V358, P345, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2002.1202 Landa R., 2000, ASPERGER SYNDROME, P125 LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159, DOI 10.2307/2529310 McKinley N., 1995, LANGUAGE DISORDERS O Lidz CS, 1996, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V27, P367 Loomis R., 2011, INT M AUT RES TOR ON Lord C., 2001, AUTISM DIAGNOSTIC OB Lyons M, 2014, AUTISM RES, V7, P181, DOI 10.1002/aur.1355 Miles S., 2001, NAT CONV AM SPEECH L Norbury CF, 2014, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V55, P204, DOI 10.1111/jcpp.12154 O'Neil D., 2009, LANGUAGE USE INVENTO Paul R., 2014, ASPERGER SYNDROME AS, P103 Paul R., 2005, HDB AUTISM PERVASIVE, P799 Paul R., 2012, LANGUAGE DISORDERS I Fahim D., 2014, HDB AUTISM SPECTRUM, P673 Paul R, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P115, DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0607-1 Kirchner D., 1983, PRAGMATIC ASSESSMENT, P29 Redmond SM, 2002, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V45, P190, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/014) Reichow Brian, 2008, Commun Disord Q, V29, P169, DOI 10.1177/1525740108318697 Rice ML, 1998, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V41, P1412 RICE ML, 1992, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V35, P1040 Rutter M., 2003, SOCIAL COMMUNICATION Rutter M., 2003, AUTISM DIAGNOSTIC IN Schoen E., 2009, SOC RES CHILD DEV DE Semel E., 2003, CLIN EVALUATION LANG Siegel DJ, 1996, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V26, P389, DOI 10.1007/BF02172825 Swanson HL, 2001, REV EDUC RES, V71, P321, DOI 10.3102/00346543071002321 TAGERFLUSBERG H, 1981, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V11, P45, DOI 10.1007/BF01531340 Volkmar FR, 2004, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V45, P135, DOI 10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00317.x Volkmar F., 1987, HDB AUTISM PERVASIVE, P41 Volkmar F. R., 2005, HDB AUTISM PERVASIVE, P5 Wechsler D., 1999, WECHSLER ABBREVIATED Weiner J., 2002, SOCIAL DIMENSIONS LE, P93 Weiss A., 2006, NAT CONV AM SPEECH L Young EC, 2005, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V36, P62, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2005/006) NR 64 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 3 U2 14 PU AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC PI ROCKVILLE PA 10801 ROCKVILLE PIKE, ROCKVILLE, MD 20852-3279 USA SN 1092-4388 EI 1558-9102 J9 J SPEECH LANG HEAR R JI J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. PD DEC PY 2014 VL 57 IS 6 BP 2162 EP 2173 DI 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-14-0040 PG 12 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA AZ4MK UT WOS:000348195300011 ER PT J AU Kover, ST Davidson, MM Sindberg, HA Weismer, SE AF Kover, Sara T. Davidson, Meghan M. Sindberg, Heidi A. Weismer, Susan Ellis TI Use of the ADOS for Assessing Spontaneous Expressive Language in Young Children With ASD: A Comparison of Sampling Contexts SO JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH LA English DT Article ID FRAGILE-X-SYNDROME; AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS; PARENT VERBAL RESPONSIVENESS; DOWN-SYNDROME; NARRATIVE ABILITY; SKILLS; BOYS; TODDLERS; CONVERSATION; PRESCHOOLERS AB Purpose: The current study compared the spontaneous expressive language of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) across multiple language sampling contexts: the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS; Lord, Rutter, DiLavore, & Risi, 1999) and play with an examiner or parent. Method: Participants were children with ASD (n = 63; 55 boys) with a mean age of 45 months (SD = 3.94, range = 37-53). The number of utterances produced; percentage of intelligible utterances; number of different words; mean length of utterance; and the number of requests, comments, and instances of turn-taking were calculated for the ADOS, examiner-child play, and parent-child play. Children were categorized into Tager-Flusberg et al.' s (2009) developmental language phases for each context. Results: Effects of sampling context were identified for all variables examined. The ADOS resulted in fewer utterances and lower structural and pragmatic language performance than examiner-child play and/or parent-child play. Categorization of children into language phases differed across contexts. Conclusions: Use of the ADOS as a language sampling context may lead to underestimating the abilities of young children with ASD relative to play with an examiner or parent. Researchers and clinicians should be aware of context effects, particularly for assessments designed to observe autism symptoms. C1 [Kover, Sara T.; Davidson, Meghan M.; Sindberg, Heidi A.; Weismer, Susan Ellis] Univ Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 USA. RP Kover, ST (reprint author), Univ Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 USA. EM skover@u.washington.edu FU National Institutes of Health [R01 DC07223, T32 DC05359, P30 HD03352] FX Preliminary data were presented at the June 2013 Symposium on Research in Child Language Disorders (Madison, WI). This research was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants R01 DC07223 (Susan Ellis Weismer, Principal Investigator [PI]), T32 DC05359 (Susan Ellis Weismer, PI), and P30 HD03352 (Marsha Mailick, PI). We are grateful to the families and children who participated in this research. We offer special thanks to Madeleine Swenson, Sarah Allen, and Jane Hohman for their tireless efforts in transcription and coding. CR Barnes E, 2009, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V52, P1048, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0001) Bishop SL, 2011, AJIDD-AM J INTELLECT, V116, P331, DOI 10.1352/1944-7558-116.5.331 Cohen J., 1969, STAT POWER ANAL BEHA Condouris K, 2003, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V12, P349, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2003/080) Costanza-Smith A, 2010, PERSPECTIVES LANGUAG, V17, P9, DOI DOI 10.1044/LLE17.1.9 DOLLAGHAN CA, 1990, J SPEECH HEAR DISORD, V55, P582 Eigsti IM, 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P1007, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0239-2 Estigarribia B, 2012, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V55, P1600, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/10-0153) Estigarribia B, 2011, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V46, P216, DOI 10.3109/13682822.2010.487885 EVANS JL, 1992, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V35, P343 Gardner MF, 1990, EXPRESSIVE ONE WORD Gavin WJ, 1996, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V39, P1258 Goldman R., 2000, GOLDMAN FRISTOE TEST Gotham K, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P693, DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0674-3 Haebig E, 2013, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V43, P2218, DOI 10.1007/s10803-013-1763-5 Haebig E, 2013, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V22, P57, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0004) Hale CM, 2005, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V35, P519, DOI 10.1007/s10803-005-5065-4 Hansson K, 2000, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V35, P31 Heilmann J, 2010, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V41, P393, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/09-0023) Hogan-Brown AL, 2013, AJIDD-AM J INTELLECT, V118, P77, DOI 10.1352/1944-7558-118.2.77 Kjelgaard MM, 2001, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V16, P287 Kover ST, 2012, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V55, P1022, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0075) LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159, DOI 10.2307/2529310 Le Couteur A., 2006, TODDLER RES AUTISM D Loban W., 1976, LANGUAGE DEV KINDERG Lord C., 1999, AUTISM DIAGNOSTIC OB Lord C, 2000, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V30, P205, DOI 10.1023/A:1005592401947 Losh M, 2003, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V33, P239, DOI 10.1023/A:1024446215446 MACLACHLAN BG, 1988, J SPEECH HEAR DISORD, V53, P2 Miller J., 2008, SYSTEMATIC ANAL LANG Miller J. F., 2011, ASSESSING LANGUAGE P Morley E., 2013, 8 WORKSH INN US NAT Mullen E. M., 1995, MULLEN SCALES EARLY Mundy P., 1996, PRELIMINARY MANUAL A Norbury CF, 2003, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V38, P287, DOI 10.1080/136820310000108133 Park CJ, 2012, INT J SPEECH-LANG PA, V14, P95, DOI 10.3109/17549507.2011.645555 Paul R, 2013, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V43, P418, DOI 10.1007/s10803-012-1583-z Price JR, 2008, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V51, P3, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/001) Rapin I, 2009, DEV NEUROPSYCHOL, V34, P66, DOI 10.1080/87565640802564648 Ray-Subramanian CE, 2012, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V42, P2113, DOI 10.1007/s10803-012-1463-6 Ray-Subramanian CE, 2011, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V41, P679, DOI 10.1007/s10803-010-1083-y Roberts J, 2007, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V50, P475, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/033) Rutter M., 2003, AUTISM DIAGNOSTIC IN Southwood F, 2004, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V47, P366, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/030) Swensen LD, 2007, CHILD DEV, V78, P542, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01022.x Tager-Flusberg H, 2009, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V52, P643, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0136) TAGERFLUSBERG H, 1990, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V20, P1, DOI 10.1007/BF02206853 TAGERFLUSBERG H, 1990, J CHILD LANG, V17, P591 TAGERFLUSBERG H, 1995, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V16, P241, DOI 10.1017/S0142716400007281 Venker CE, 2013, AUTISM RES, V6, P417, DOI 10.1002/aur.1304 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 Westerveld M. F., 2004, ADV SPEECH LANGUAGE, V6, P195, DOI 10.1080/14417040400010140 Wetherby A. M., 2002, COMMUNICATION SYMBOL Zimmerman I. L., 2002, PRESCHOOL LANGUAGE S NR 55 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 3 U2 8 PU AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC PI ROCKVILLE PA 10801 ROCKVILLE PIKE, ROCKVILLE, MD 20852-3279 USA SN 1092-4388 EI 1558-9102 J9 J SPEECH LANG HEAR R JI J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. PD DEC PY 2014 VL 57 IS 6 BP 2221 EP 2233 DI 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-13-0330 PG 13 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA AZ4MK UT WOS:000348195300015 PM 25093577 ER PT J AU Tubau, S AF Tubau, Susagna TI The Syntax of the Confirmatory Pragmatic Particle Innit SO ATLANTIS-JOURNAL OF THE SPANISH ASSOCIATION OF ANGLO-AMERICAN STUDIES LA English DT Article DE innit; pragmatic particle; speech act; Force Phrase; common ground; illocutionary operator ID ENGLISH AB In the present paper a syntactic analysis is put forward for the particle innit within a cartographic approach to pragmatic particles and a theory of speech acts. I claim here that when functioning as facilitative and epistemic, innit is not a non-canonical question tag, but rather a confirmatory pragmatic particle that requires the addressee to confirm that the proposition asserted is treated as common ground. Furthermore, the fact that the confirmatory particle innit is inherently negative explains some parallelisms between the syntax of declarative clauses containing innit, the syntax of questions with question tags and the syntax of negated polar questions where negation is interpreted high (outside Tense Phrase). C1 [Tubau, Susagna] Univ Autonoma Barcelona, E-08193 Barcelona, Spain. RP Tubau, S (reprint author), Fac Filosofia & Lletres, Dept Filol Anglesa & Germanist, Edifici B, Barcelona 08193, Spain. EM susagna.tubau@uab.cat RI TUBAU, SUSAGNA/N-9103-2016 OI TUBAU, SUSAGNA/0000-0002-3677-6607 CR Andersen Gisele, 2001, PRAGMATIC MARKERS SO Anderwald Lieselotte, 2002, NEGATION NONSTANDARD Asher Nicholas, 2007, INTERDISCIPLINARY ST, V08, P1 Barros Matt, 2013, DTSCH GES SPRACHW PO Beckman M. E., 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH, P9 Bianchi V, 2004, STRUCTURE CP IP CART, V2, P76 Cardinaletti Anna, 2001, THESIS U BOLOGNA Cardinaletti A, 2002, STUD LINGUISTICA, V56, P29, DOI 10.1111/1467-9582.00086 Chomsky Noam, 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM Cinque G., 2002, FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE, V1 Rizzi Luigi, 2008, CISCL WORKING PAPERS, V2, P43 Cinque G., 1999, ADVERBS FUNCTIONAL H Guglielmo Cinque, 2006, RESTRUCTURING FUNCTI, V4 Cohen Ariel, 2011, BALTIC INT YB COGNIT, V6, P1 COLUMBUS G, 2009, CORPUS LINGUISTICS R, V69, P401 Columbus Georgie, 2009, CORPUS LINGUISTIC AP, P85 Espinal Maria Teresa, 2011, PRAGMATICS CATALAN, P49 Frascarelli Mara, 2000, SYNTAX PHONOLOGY INT Gunlogson Christine, 2002, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, P124 Hernanz M. Lluisa, 2006, ANDOLIN GOGOAN ESSAY, P435 Kortmann Bernd, 2011, ELECT WORLD ATLAS VA Krifka Manfred, CONTRASTIVENESS SCAL Krug M, 1998, AAA-ARB ANGLIST AM, V23, P145 Ladd R., 1981, PAPERS 17TH REGIONAL, P164 Laka Itziar, 1990, THESIS MIT US LARSON RK, 1988, LINGUIST INQ, V19, P335 Palacios Martinez Ignacio, 2012, 36 C INT AEDEAN MAL Palacios Martinez Ignacio, 2013, ES REV FILOLOGIA ING, V33, P211 Martinez IMP, 2011, ATLANTIS-SPAIN, V33, P105 Poletto Cecilia, 2010, QUADERNI LAVORO ASIT, V10, P39 Poletto Cecilia, 2004, STRUCTURE CP IP CART, V2, P251 POLLOCK JY, 1989, LINGUIST INQ, V20, P365 Prieto Pilar, 2007, J PORTUGUESE LINGUIS, V6, P29 Reese Brian, 2007, THESIS U TEXAS AUSTI REPP S, 2013, EXPRESSIVES EXPLORAT, V28, P231 Rizzi Luigi, 1997, ELEMENTS GRAMMAR, P281, DOI [10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7, DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7] Rizzi L., 2004, CARTOGRAPHY SYNTACTI, V3, P223 Rizzi Luigi, 2001, CURRENT STUDIES ITAL, P287 Romero M, 2004, LINGUIST PHILOS, V27, P609, DOI 10.1023/B:LING.0000033850.15705.94 van Rooij Robert, 2003, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST Sailor Craig, 2011, THESIS UCLA US Samek-Lodovici V, 2005, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V23, P687, DOI 10.1007/s11049-004-2874-7 Stenstrom A., 2002, TRENDS TEENAGE TALK Stenstrom AB, 2008, PRAGMATICS, V18, P635 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 Traugott Elizabeth C., 1994, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, VIII, P1481 WILSON D, 1993, LINGUA, V90, P1, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 Yang Dong-Whee, 2008, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE NR 49 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 2 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 DEC PY 2014 VL 36 IS 2 BP 53 EP 72 PG 20 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics; Literature SC Linguistics; Literature GA AY4JF UT WOS:000347543400003 ER PT J AU Perez, FMI AF Ivorra Perez, Francisco Miguel TI Cultural Values and their Correlation with Interactional Metadiscourse Strategies in Spanish and us Business Websites SO ATLANTIS-JOURNAL OF THE SPANISH ASSOCIATION OF ANGLO-AMERICAN STUDIES LA English DT Article DE intercultural communication; cultural dimension; digital genres; interactional metadiscourse strategies ID ENGLISH; PRAGMATICS; ARTICLES AB The present paper explores the way in which the cultural dimension of individualism is reflected in the interactional discourse of Spanish and us business websites. This cultural dimension is concerned with the way individuals from a particular culture define their own identity and their relationship with other people. Considering the scores of Spain and the us on the individualism index, the objective of this study is twofold: (a) to analyse the type of interactional metadiscourse strategies used on the presentation pages of Spanish and us toy company websites, and (b) to determine whether the individualism index scores of Spaniards and North Americans are reflected in different interactional metadiscourse strategies when companies establish a social relationship and persuade a potential customer to purchase their products. The results obtained confirm that there are important differences in the interactional discourse of this digital genre, which may be a valuable source of information for export companies that wish to introduce their products abroad by means of their business websites. C1 Univ Alicante, Dept Filol Inglesa, E-03080 Alicante, Spain. RP Perez, FMI (reprint author), Univ Alicante, Dept Filol Inglesa, Campus San Vicente Raspeig S-N, E-03080 Alicante, Spain. EM fm.ivorra@ua.es CR ALCARAZ-VARO Enrique, 2000, EL INGLES PROFESIONA Biber Douglas, 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR OF S Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Caillat Z, 1996, J ADVERTISING RES, V36, P79 CLARK Terry, 1990, JOURNAL OF MARKETING, V50, P66 Clyne Michael, 1994, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN DAFOUZ Emma, 2006, REV ESPANOLA LINGUIS, V19, P67 Dafouz-Milne E, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P95, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003 Mooij Marieke de, 2000, INTERNATIONAL ADVERT, P214 DIAZ Francisco, 2003, LA CORTESIA VERBAL E Bou Patricia, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P689, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.030 GIBSON Robert, 2000, INTERCULTURAL BUSINE Goffman Erving, 1967, INTERACTIONAL RITUAL Grice Paul, 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P45 GUILLEN Victoria, 2009, INTERCULTURAL BUSINE, P29 Hall E. T., 1976, BEYOND CULTURE HAMPDEN-TURNER Charles Trompenaars, 1993, THE SEVEN CULTURES O HICKEY Leo, 2005, POLITENESS IN EUROPE Hofstede G. H., 1991, CULTURES AND ORGANIZ House J, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P141, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.008 Ken HYLAND, 1998, HEDGING IN SCIENTIFI Hyland K., 2000, DISCIPLINARY DISCOUR Hyland K, 2004, APPL LINGUIST, V25, P156, DOI 10.1093/applin/25.2.156 Ivorra Francisco, 2012, REVISTA DE LINGUISTI, V7, P147 Ivorra Francisco, 2009, LANGUAGE FOR BUSINES, P97 KAPLAN RB, 1966, LANG LEARN, V16, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x Lewin Beverly A., 1998, GENRE STUDIES IN ENG, P89 Loukianenko Maria, 2008, CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC, P87 Marcus A., 2004, Visible Language, V38 Marquez Rosana, 2000, J ENGLISH AM STUDIES, V18, P159 Moreno A. I., 1998, TEXT, V18, P545, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1998.18.4.545 Moreno A., 1997, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V16, P161, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00023-3 Mur Pilar, 2010, INTERNATIONAL JOURNA, V20, P50 MYERS G, 1989, APPL LINGUIST, V10, P1, DOI 10.1093/applin/10.1.1 Nuyts Jan, 2004, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V1, P135, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2004.003 Salager-Meyer F., 1994, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V13, P149, DOI DOI 10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2 Scollon R., 1995, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Searle John R., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P59 Shokouhi H, 2009, POZNAN STUD CONTEMP, V45, P549, DOI 10.2478/v10010-009-0026-2 Simon John, 1999, PAPER PRESENTED AT T Singh Nitish, 2005, THE CULTURALLY CUSTO Spencer-Oatey H., 2008, CULTURALLY SPEAKING Suau Francisca, 2010, LA TRADUCCION ESPECI Trosborg A., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Tylor Edward B., 1975, EL CONCEPTO DE CULTU, P29 Usunier Jean-Claude, 2005, MARKETING ACROSS CUL Valero-Garces C, 1996, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V15, P279, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00013-0 Vazquez Ignacio, 1995, APPLIED AND INTERDIS Walker Danielle, 2003, DOING BUSINESS INTER Wang Yuling, 2010, ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEA, V3, P120 Wierzbicka A, 1991, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM WIERZBICKA A, 1985, J PRAGMATICS, V9, P145, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(85)90023-2 NR 53 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 5 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 DEC PY 2014 VL 36 IS 2 BP 73 EP 95 PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics; Literature SC Linguistics; Literature GA AY4JF UT WOS:000347543400004 ER PT J AU Sztencel, M AF Sztencel, Magdalena TI Conditionality in individual minds: An argument for a wholly pragmatic approach to utterance interpretation SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Conditionals; Material implication; Conditional perfection; Pragmatic intrusion; Multiple-trace theory of memory ID TRACE MEMORY MODEL; LANGUAGE; ABSTRACTION; PERFECTION; PHONOLOGY; SYNTAX; DESIGN AB There is a growing body of research which undermines the traditional dual-processing model of utterance interpretation, whereby pragmatic inference is preceded by the context-independent process of linguistic decoding. This body of research suggests that utterance interpretation is a wholly pragmatic inferential process. In this paper, I seek to defend a wholly pragmatic approach by investigating the role of the purported process of context-independent decoding and the process of pragmatic inference in determining when a conditional is false. I show that material conditionality, like all kinds of conditidnality, lies in pragmatically derived holistic thought, i.e. not in any putative linguistic semantics. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Sztencel, Magdalena] Newcastle Univ, Sch English, Ctr Res Linguist & Language Sci, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, Tyne & Wear, England. RP Sztencel, M (reprint author), York St John Univ, Dept Languages & Linguist, York YO31 7EX, N Yorkshire, England. EM m.sztencel@yorksj.ac.uk CR Akatsuka N., 1986, CONDITIONALS DISCOUR Barsalou LW, 2005, CARN S COGN, P389 Beller S, 2005, THINK REASONING, V11, P209, DOI 10.1080/13546780442000141 Beller S., 2002, P 24 ANN C COGN SCI, P113 Beller S., 2009, J COGN CULT, V9, P115, DOI DOI 10.1163/156853709X414674 Bilgrami Akeel, 1992, BELIEF AND MEANING BLOCK N, 1995, P ARISTOTELIAN SOC, V95, P151 Block N., 1998, ROUTLEDGE ENCLYCLOPA Burton-Roberts N, 2006, LINGUA, V116, P562, DOI 10.1016/j.lungua.2004.08.012 Burton-Roberts N, 2006, J LINGUIST, V42, P575, DOI 10.1017/S0022226706004208 Burton-Roberts N, 2011, LINGUA, V121, P2089, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.08.001 Burton-Roberts N., 2013, PERSPECTIVES LINGUIS, P1 Burton-Roberts N., 2007, PRAGMATICS, P90 Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Chevallier C, 2008, Q J EXP PSYCHOL, V61, P1741, DOI 10.1080/17470210701712960 Chomsky N, 2005, LINGUIST INQ, V36, P1, DOI 10.1162/0024389052993655 Chomsky N., 2000, NEW HORIZONS STUDY L Gernsbacher MA, 1994, HDB PSYCHOLINGUISTIC, P985 Comrie Bernhard, 1986, CONDITIONALS, P77, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.005 DeRose K, 1999, NOUS, V33, P405, DOI 10.1111/0029-4624.00161 Edgington D., 2008, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS EDGINGTON D, 1995, MIND, V104, P235, DOI 10.1093/mind/104.414.235 Fodor J., 2008, LOT2 LANGUAGE THOUGH Fodor J, 1998, CONCEPTS COGNITIVE S Fodor JA, 2001, MIND LANG, V16, P1, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00153 Geis M. L., 1971, LINGUIST INQ, V2, P561 Gerrig RJ, 2011, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V48, P161, DOI 10.1080/0163853X.2010.512721 Gibbs RW, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P457, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00046-7 Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Hintzman D., 2008, MEMORY MIND FESTSCHR, P15 HINTZMAN DL, 1986, PSYCHOL REV, V93, P411, DOI 10.1037//0033-295X.93.4.411 HINTZMAN DL, 1984, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V7, P240 HINTZMAN DL, 1988, PSYCHOL REV, V95, P528, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.528 Horn LR, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P289, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00053-3 Horton WS, 2008, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V4, P189 Horton WS, 2012, MEM COGNITION, V40, P113, DOI 10.3758/s13421-011-0135-7 Horton WS, 2005, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V40, P1, DOI 10.1207/s15326950dp4001_1 Jackendoff R., 2002, FDN LANGUAGE BRAIN M Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Mauri C., 2012, CAMBRIDGE HDB PRAGMA, P377 Noh Eun-Ju, 2000, METAREPRESENTATION R Oaksford M, 2003, MIND LANG, V18, P359, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00232 Pagin P., 2006, HDB PHILOS LANGUAGE, P213 Pateman T., 1987, LANGUAGE MIND LANGUA POLITZER G, 1981, AM J PSYCHOL, V94, P461, DOI 10.2307/1422257 Recanati F., 1998, ROUTLEDGE ENCY PHILO, V7, P620 Recanati F., 2005, CONTEXTUALISM PHILOS Searle J. R., 1971, PHILOS LANGUAGE, P39 Smith N., 1983, AUST J LINGUIST, V3, P1, DOI 10.1080/07268608308599297 Smith N., 1988, STUDIES VA FROMKIN, P322 Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber D, 2002, MIND LANG, V17, P3, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00186 STALNAKER R, 1975, PHILOSOPHIA, V5, P269, DOI 10.1007/BF02379021 TULVING E, 1984, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V7, P223 Urquiza C., 2011, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V23, P47 vanderAuwera J, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V27, P261, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00058-6 NR 57 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 4 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 DEC PY 2014 VL 152 BP 81 EP 97 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.09.012 PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AX4DK UT WOS:000346883900007 ER PT J AU Marine, SB Nicolazzo, Z AF Marine, Susan B. Nicolazzo, Z. TI Names That Matter: Exploring the Tensions of Campus LGBTQ Centers and Trans* Inclusion SO JOURNAL OF DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE critical theory; critical trans* politics; LGBTQ campus centers; transgender ID HIGHER-EDUCATION; TRANSGENDER; HETEROSEXUALITY; ACTIVISM; PROTEST; GAY AB Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans*, and Queer (LGBTQ) centers are increasingly prevalent on college and university campuses (see, e. g., Marine, 2011). However, there remain theoretical and pragmatic challenges that potentially threaten their ability to promote inclusive environments for the entire LGBTQ community. In particular, fragmentation of the contemporary movement for LGBT rights (mirrored on the college campus) has resulted in the potentiality for marginalization of trans* individuals' interests in these spaces. Findings from this study elucidate the tensions that exist regarding the efforts of LGBTQ center staff to recognize and meet the values, needs, and programmatic interests of trans* students, faculty, and staff on college campuses, and insights from Critical Trans Politics (Spade, 2011) are offered as a means to improve trans* inclusion. C1 [Marine, Susan B.] Merrimack Coll, Sch Educ & Social Policy, N Andover, MA 01845 USA. [Nicolazzo, Z.] Miami Univ, Student Affairs Higher Educ Program, Oxford, OH 45056 USA. RP Marine, SB (reprint author), Merrimack Coll, Higher Educ Program, Sch Educ & Social Policy, 315 Turnpike St, N Andover, MA 01845 USA. EM marines@merrimack.edu OI Nicolazzo, Z/0000-0002-6470-5080 CR Beemyn G., 2011, THE LIVES OF TRANSGE Bernal Delorez Delgado, 2002, QUALITATIVE INQUIRY, V8, P105, DOI 10.1177/1077800402008001007 Bilodeau B., 2005, J GAY LESBIAN ISSUES, V3, P29, DOI [10.1300/J367v03n01_05, DOI 10.1300/J367V03N01_05] Bilodeau B. L., 2009, GENDERISM TRANSGENDE Blasius M., 1997, WE ARE EVERYWHERE A Bornstein K., 1994, GENDER OUTLAW ON MEN Boykin K., 1997, ONE MORE RIVER TO CR Butler J., 2011, BODIES THAT MATTER O Butler Judith, 2006, GENDER TROUBLE FEMIN Cada C., 2000, BOSTON GLOBE, pA8 Carter D., 2004, STONEWALL THE RIOTS Cohen CJ, 1997, GLQ-J LESBIAN GAY ST, V3, P437 Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Center Professionals, 2014, ABOUT US Corson D., 2000, INT J LEADERSHIP ED, V3, P93, DOI DOI 10.1080/136031200292768 Crenshaw K., 1995, CRITICAL RACE THEORY Crenshaw K., 1995, CRITICAL RACE THEORY, P357 de Beaugrande R., 1985, HDB DISCOURSE ANAL, V1, P41 Delgado R., 1997, CRITICAL WHITE STUDI Denzin N. K., 2005, THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF Devor AH, 2004, GLQ-J LESBIAN GAY ST, V10, P179, DOI 10.1215/10642684-10-2-179 Draughn Tricia, 2002, J Lesbian Stud, V6, P9, DOI 10.1300/J155v06n03_02 Duberman Martin, 1993, STONEWALL [Anonymous], NATIONAL CENTER FOR Fairclough N, 1989, LANGUAGE POWER Gan J, 2007, CENTRO J, V19, P124 Gee J. P., 2010, AN INTRODUCTION TO D Gildersleeve RE, 2010, REV HIGH EDUC, V34, P85 Giroux HA, 2004, TAKE BACK HIGHER EDUCATION, P1, DOI 10.1057/9781403982667 Grant J. M., 2011, INJUSTICE AT EVERY T Halberstam J, 1998, GLQ-J LESBIAN GAY ST, V4, P287 Halberstam J., 1994, THE LESBIAN POSTMODE, P210 Hale CJ, 1998, GLQ-J LESBIAN GAY ST, V4, P311 Hill D. B., 2003, UNDERSTANDING DEALIN, P113, DOI DOI 10.4135/9781452231723 hooks b., 1994, TEACHING TO TRANSGRE Human Rights Campaign, 2013, TRANSGENDER DAY OF R Ibarra R., 2001, BEYOND AFFIRMATIVE A Kafer A, 2003, J WOMENS HIST, V15, P77, DOI 10.1353/jowh.2003.0071 Katz J. N., 1992, GAY AMERICAN HISTORY Keefe V., 2011, NOT TO PRAISE BARNEY Killermann S., 2012, WHAT DOES THE ASTERI Kincheloe J. L., 2011, THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF, P163 Kivel P., 2007, THE REVOLUTION WILL, P129 Komives S. R., 1996, STUDENT SERVICES A H Lather P., 2006, INT J QUALITATIVE ST, V19, P35, DOI [10.1080/09518390500450144, DOI 10.1080/09518390500450144] Lumby J, 2007, LEADERSHIP AND DIVER Marine S. B., 2011, ASHE HIGHER EDUCATIO, V37, P4 Markowitt X., 2009, CHRONICLE OF HIGHER McCormick J. P, 2013, PINK NEWS EUROPES LA McKinley J., 2012, NEW YORK TIMES McRuer R., 2006, CRIP THEORY CULTURAL Miles M, 1994, QUALITATIVE DATA ANA Minter S. P., 2000, NEW YORK LAW SCH J H, V17, P589 Morphew CC, 2006, J HIGH EDUC, V77, P456, DOI 10.1353/jhe.2006.0025 NEWMAN M, 2006, TEACHING DEFIANCE ST Patton L. D., 2010, CULTURE CENTERS IN H Patton L. D., 2011, CONTESTED ISSUES STU, P255 Pope R. L., 2004, MULTICULTURAL COMPET Quaye S. J., 2011, CONTESTED ISSUES IN, P280 Blumenfeld W., 2010, 2010 STATE OF HIGHER Renn K. A., 2011, CONTESTED ISSUES STU, P244 Renn KA, 2010, EDUC RESEARCHER, V39, P132, DOI 10.3102/0013189X10362579 Robbins R. D., 2012, THE HARVARD CRIMSON Rogers R., 2004, AN INTRODUCTION TO C Rojas F., 2012, THE ORGANIZATION OF Rosenberg R., 1984, BEFORE STONEWALL Rossman GB, 2003, LEARNING IN THE FIEL, V2nd Rubin G., 2006, TRANSGENDER STUDIES, P471 Ryan R., 2005, NEW DIRECTIONS FOR S, V111, P71 Saldana J., 2013, THE CODING MANUAL FO Sandeen A., 2006, CRITICAL ISSUES FOR Sanlo R. L., 2000, NASPA J, V37, P485, DOI 10.2202/1949-6605.1113 Schilt K, 2009, GENDER SOC, V23, P440, DOI 10.1177/0891243209340034 Serano J., 2007, WHIPPING GIRL A TRAN Spade Dean, 2010, HARV JL GENDER, V33, P71 Spade Dean, 2011, NORMAL LIFE ADMINIST Spade D., 2008, THATS REVOLTING QUEE, P47 Stein S., 2013, HUFFINGTON POST Stone AL, 2009, SEXUALITIES, V12, P334, DOI 10.1177/1363460709103894 Stryker S, 2008, RADICAL HIST REV, P145, DOI 10.1215/01636545-2007-026 Jobs & Internships, JOBS INTERNSHIPS Tannehill B., 2013, HUFFPOST GAY VOICES Tierney W. G., 1993, HIGHER ED HDB THEORY, V9, P308 Titscher S., 2000, METHODS OF TEXT AND Toy J., 2008, THE MICHIGAN DAILY Tuchman G., 2009, WANNABE U INSIDE THE, DOI [10.7208/chicago/9780226815282.001.0001, DOI 10.7208/CHICAGO/9780226815282.001.0001] Umphrey M. M., 1995, RADICAL HIST REV, V62, P8, DOI 10.1215/01636545-1995-62-9 Vaccaro A., 2012, JOURNAL OF STUDENT A, V49, P429, DOI [10.1515/jsarp-2012-6473, DOI 10.1515/JSARP-2012-6473] Valentine D., 2007, IMAGINING TRANSGENDE Van Dyke N, 2003, SOC PROBL, V50, P226, DOI 10.1525/sp.2003.50.2.226 Van Dyke N, 1998, SOC PROBL, V45, P205 van Dijk T. A., 2009, SAGE BENCHMARKS IN D, pxix Van Maanen J., 2001, EXPLORATORY RESEARCH, pv Villalpando O., 2003, INT J QUALITATIVE ST, V16, P619, DOI DOI 10.1080/0951839032000142922 Wehrwein A., 1969, THE WASHINGTON POST, pA2 Weiss J., 2011, J BISEXUALITY, V11, P498, DOI DOI 10.1080/15299716 Wertz F. J., 2011, FIVE WAYS OF DOING Q Wing Adrien Katherine, 2003, CRITICAL RACE FEMINI Wodak R., 2009, METHODS OF CRITICAL NR 98 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 21 PU EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC PI WASHINGTON PA 750 FIRST ST, NE, WASHINGTON, DC 20002-4242 USA SN 1938-8926 EI 1938-8934 J9 J DIVERS HIGH EDUC JI J. Divers. High. Educ. PD DEC PY 2014 VL 7 IS 4 BP 265 EP 281 DI 10.1037/a0037990 PG 17 WC Education & Educational Research; Psychology, Educational; Psychology, Social SC Education & Educational Research; Psychology GA AW4WB UT WOS:000346277200004 ER PT J AU Portes, C Beyssade, C Michelas, A Marandin, JM Champagne-Lavau, M AF Portes, Cristel Beyssade, Claire Michelas, Amandine Marandin, Jean-Marie Champagne-Lavau, Maud TI The dialogical dimension of intonational meaning: Evidence from French SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Intonation; Intonational meaning; Commitment; Attribution of attitudes; Dialogue; French ID FALL-RISE INTONATION; ORGANIZATION; ENGLISH; CONTOUR; MODELS AB The aim of this study was to test if the meaning of intonational contours involves speaker commitment and attitude attribution to the addressee. We examined whether the pragmatic choice of a contour signals how the speaker (S) anticipates the reaction of the addressee (A) to his utterance by attributing attitudes to him and calling for his next move. We focused on four French contours (a fall L*L%, a rise H*H%, a rise-fall H*L% and a rise-fall-rise H+1H*H%). In an original forced-choice interpretation task, participants heard sentences carrying one of the contours and had to choose among four possible reactions chosen for their hypothetical I ink to the contour meanings (I get it; I've no idea; I guess you're right; No, really, it's true). The results show that L*L% was consistently associated with "I get it", confirming that A did not know proposition p before and signaling that p was added to the common ground, H*H% with "I've no idea", which rejects S's attribution to A of knowledge about p, and H-IH*H% with "No, really, ifs true", which signals that A actually believes p while S does not. They give experimental support to the view that intonational meaning is dialogical. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Portes, Cristel; Michelas, Amandine; Champagne-Lavau, Maud] Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, LPL UMR 7309, F-13100 Aix En Provence, France. [Beyssade, Claire] Ecole Normale Super, CNRS ENS EHESS, Inst Nicod, F-75005 Paris, France. [Marandin, Jean-Marie] Univ Paris Diderot, CNRS, LLF, UMR 7110, F-75205 Paris 13, France. RP Portes, C (reprint author), Lab Parole & Langage, 5 Ave Pasteur,BP 80975, F-13604 Aix En Provence, France. EM cristel.portes@lpl-aix.fr; claire.beyssade@ehess.fr; amandine.michelas@blri.fr; marandin@linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr; maud.champagne-lavau@lpl-aix.fr CR Bagou Odile, 2001, CAHIERS LINGUISTIQUE, V23, P39 BARONCOHEN S, 1985, COGNITION, V21, P37, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8 Barr DJ, 2013, J MEM LANG, V68, P255, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 Bartels C., 1997, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Baumann Stefan, 2006, METHODS EMPIRICAL PR, V3, P153 Beyssade Claire, 2011, P C INT DISC PROS PA, P109 Beyssade C., 2007, P 2004 TEX LING SOC Beyssade Claire, 2006, EMPIRICAL ISSUES SYN, V6, P37 Beyssade C, 2009, LANGUE FRANCAISE, P89 Boersma P., 2007, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC Brazil D., 1985, HDB DISCOURSE ANAL, V2 Brazil D., 1978, DISCOURSE INTONATION Brazil D., 1975, DISCOURSE INTONATION Champagne-Lavau Maud, 2009, Cogn Neuropsychiatry, V14, P217, DOI 10.1080/13546800903004114 Champagne-Lavau M., 2006, CURRENT PSYCHIAT REV, V2, P309, DOI 10.2174/157340006778018184 Chevallier C, 2011, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V49, P507, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.11.042 Clark H.H., 1992, ARENAS LANGUAGE USE Clark Herbert, 1981, ELEMENTS DISCOURSE U, P10 CLARK HH, 1982, LANGUAGE, V58, P332, DOI 10.2307/414102 Clark H. H., 1996, USING LANGUAGE Vanrell MD, 2013, LANG SPEECH, V56, P163, DOI 10.1177/0023830912443942 Delattre Pierre, 1966, FRENCH REV, V40 Dell F., 1984, FORME SONORE LANGAGE, P65 Di Cristo Albert, 1996, 16 JOURN ETUD PAR AV, P219 DI CRISTO A., 1999, J FRENCH LANGUAGE ST, V9, P143, DOI 10.1017/S0959269500004671 Faure George, 1973, STUDIA PHONETICA, V8, P1 Fery Caroline, 2013, NATURAL LANGUAGE LIN, V31, P2 Fery C., 2001, AUDIATUR VOX SAPIENT, P153 Gazdar Gerald, 1981, ELEMENTS DISCOURSE U, P64 German James, 2010, P INT C SPEECH PROS Grammont Maurice, 1933, TRAITE PHONETIQUE Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Grice M., 1997, P WORKSH SPONS ASS C, P29 Gunlogson Christine, 2003, THESIS ROUTLEDGE Gunlogson Christine, 2008, COMMITMENT, P101 Gussenhoven Carlos, 1983, GRAMMAR SEMANTICS SE, P193 Hadfield JD, 2010, J STAT SOFTW, V33, P1 Hadfield JD, 2012, MCMCGLMM COURSE NOTE HAMBLIN CL, 1971, THEORIA, V37, P130 Hamblin Charles L., 1970, FALLACIES HIRSCHBERG J, 1995, J PRAGMATICS, V24, P407, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)00056-K Hirschberg J., 2003, HDB PRAGMATICS, P515 HIRSCHBERG J, 1992, J PHONETICS, V20, P241 Jun S. A., 2002, PROBUS, V14, P147, DOI [10.1515/prbs.2002.002, DOI 10.1515/PRBS.2002.002] Jun Sun-Ah, 2000, INTONATION ANAL MODE Krifka Manfred, 2014, CONTRASTIVENESS SCAL Robert Ladd, 2008, INTONATIONAL PHONOLO Ladd R. R., 1996, INTONATIONAL PHONOLO Leon Pierre, 1992, PHONETISME PRONONCIA Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Liberman Mark, 1974, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V10, P416 Marandin Jean-Marie, 2011, BELGIAN J LINGUISTIC, V25, P30 Martin Philippe, 1975, LINGUISTICS, V146, P35 McCann J, 2003, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V38, P325, DOI 10.1080/1368282031000154204 Merin Arthur, 1997, DECISION THEOR UNPUB Mertens Piet, 1990, LE FRANCAIS PARLE, P159 Mertens Piet, 2008, TRAVAUX LINGUIST, V56, P87 Michelas Amandine, 2014, LANGUAGE SP IN PRESS Michelas A, 2014, FRONT PSYCHOL, V5, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00755 O'Connor J. D., 1973, INTONATION COLLOQUIA Persson R, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V57, P19, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.004 PIERREHUMBERT J, 1990, SYS DEV FDN, P271 Portes Cristel, 2014, P SPEECH PROS 2014 D Portes C., 2004, THESIS AIX MARSEILLE Portes Cristel, 2015, VERBUM IN PRESS Post Brechtje, 2000, THESIS HOLLAND ACAD Premack D., 1978, BEHAVIORAL BRAIN SCI, V4, P515, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0140525X00076512 R Development Core Team, 2005, R LANG ENV STAT COMP Raftery AE, 1995, SOCIOL METHODOL, V25, P111, DOI 10.2307/271063 Rossi Mario, 1980, DIDIER MONTREAL STUD, V15, P13 Rossi Mario, 1999, INTONATION SYSTEME F Rossi M., 1981, INTONATION ACOUSTIQU SACKS H, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P696, DOI 10.2307/412243 Stalnaker Robert, 1978, PRAGMATICS SYNTAX SE, V9 STEEDMAN M, 2007, TOPIC FOCUS CROSS LI, V82, P245, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-4796-1_13 Truckenbrodt Hubert, 2004, SENTENCE TYPE MEANIN Vaissiere Jacqueline, 1980, ANN SCUOLA NORMALE S, P530 Vaissiere J., 1983, PROSODY MODELS MEASU, P53 WARD G, 1985, LANGUAGE, V61, P747, DOI 10.2307/414489 NR 79 TC 4 Z9 4 U1 0 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 DEC PY 2014 VL 74 BP 15 EP 29 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.013 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AW3WL UT WOS:000346213900002 ER PT J AU Stukenbrock, A AF Stukenbrock, Anja TI Pointing to an 'empty' space: Deixis am Phantasma in face-to-face interaction SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Deixis; Phantasma; Pointing; Multimodality; Enactment; Laminated spaces ID GESTURE; GAZE; ACHIEVEMENT; WORDS; TALK AB This paper is concerned with a key phenomenon in pragmatics: deixis. It starts from a multimodal conceptualization of deixis and argues that based on our interactive practices in demonstratio ad oculos (pointing to visible entities), we likewise accomplish a shared, albeit imagined orientation in cases of Deixis am Phantasma (deixis in the imagination) (Buhler, 1965 [1934]). Based on video recordings from different settings, the paper analyzes in detail the way in which verbal deictics and visible bodily resources work together in shifting the indexical ground or origo away from the participants' actual space of perception to an imagined space within which the speaker can orient the interlocutors' attention to physically absent entities. The empirical investigation shows that speakers freely choose between selective deictic displacements along one or two dimensions (place, time, person) and in toto transfers of the origo from the immediate space of perception to an imagined space. The paper proposes that deictic displacements have to be conceived of as operating on a continuum ranging from very subtle origo-shiftings to entire displacements on all dimensions. In face-to-face interaction, they are instantiated both by verbal and kinesic resources and undergo continual metamorphoses in the online construction of talk-in-interaction. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. C1 Univ Jena, Inst Germanist Sprachwissensch, D-07743 Jena, Germany. RP Stukenbrock, A (reprint author), Univ Jena, Inst Germanist Sprachwissensch, Furstengraben 30, D-07743 Jena, Germany. EM anja.stukenbrock@uni-jena.de CR AUER P, 1988, FOLIA LINGUIST, V22, P263, DOI 10.1515/flin.1988.22.3-4.263 Bailer Karl, 1965, SPRACHTHEORIE DARSTE Bakhtin M. M., 1986, SPEECH GENRES OTHER, P60 Bamberg Michael, 2005, NARRATOLOGY LIT CRIT, P213 Barske T, 2010, TEXT TALK, V30, P245, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2010.013 Bourdieu Pierre, 1984, FEINEN UNTERSCHIEDE Buhler Karl, 1990, THEORY LANGUAGE REPR Buhler K, 2011, THEORY OF LANGUAGE: THE REPRESENTATIONAL FUNCTION OF LANGUAGE, P1 CLARK HH, 1983, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V22, P245, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90189-5 Clark H. H., 1996, USING LANGUAGE Couper-Kuhlen E., 2011, GESPRACHSFORSCHUNG O, V12, P1 Deppermann A., 2007, STYLE SOCIAL IDENTIT, P325 Duchan JF, 1995, DEIXIS NARRATIVE COG Ehlich Konrad, 1979, VERWENDUNG DEIXIS BE, V2 Eriksson M, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P240, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.011 Fiehler Reinhard, 2004, EIGENSCHAFTEN GESPRO Fillmore Ch, 1997, LECT DEIXIS Fricke Ellen, 2002, GESTURE, V2, P207, DOI 10.1075/gest.2.2.05fri Fricke Ellen, 2007, ORIGO GESTE RAUM Goffman E, 1981, FORMS TALK Goffman E., 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL E Goffman E, 1963, BEHAV PUBLIC PLACES Goffman E., 1974, FRAME ANAL ESSAY ORG GOODWIN C, 1980, SOCIOL INQ, V50, P272, DOI 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x Goodwin C, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P1489, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X Goodwin C, 2003, POINTING: WHERE LANGAUAGE, CULTURE, AND COGNITON MEET, P217 Goodwin C, 2007, STUD INTERACT SOCIO, P16 Gunthner Susanne, 2007, ZUGANGE GRAMMATIK GE, P73 GUNTHNER S., 2007, STYLE SOCIAL IDENTIT, P419 Gunthner Susanne, 2002, GESPRACHSFORSCHUNG O, V3, P59 Halliday M.A.K., 1976, COHESION ENGLISH Hanks William F., 1990, REFERENTIAL PRACTICE Hanks WF, 2005, CURR ANTHROPOL, V46, P191, DOI 10.1086/427120 Hanks WF, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P10, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.003 Lenz F., 2003, DEICTIC CONCEPTUALIS, P249 Haviland J., 2004, COMPANION LINGUISTIC, P197 Haviland J. B., 2013, SPACE LANGUAGE LINGU, P334 Haviland JB, 2003, POINTING: WHERE LANGAUAGE, CULTURE, AND COGNITON MEET, P139 Haviland John, 2000, LANGUAGE GESTURE, P13, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620850.003 Heath C, 2002, J COMMUN, V52, P597, DOI 10.1093/joc/52.3.597 Heath C., 1986, BODY MOVEMENT SPEECH Heath C., 2012, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P283 Hepburn A., 2012, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P57 Kendon A., 1990, CONDUCTING INTERACTI Kendon A, 2003, POINTING: WHERE LANGAUAGE, CULTURE, AND COGNITON MEET, P109 Kendon A, 2004, GESTURE VISIBLE ACTI Kendon A, 2008, GESTURE, V8, P348, DOI 10.1075/gest.8.3.05ken Kita S., 2003, POINTING LANGUAGE CU Levinson Stephen, 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P97 Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Liddell Scott K., 2000, LANGUAGE GESTURE, P331, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620850.021 Linell P, 2005, WRITTEN LANGUAGE BIA Luhmann N, 1984, SOZIALE SYSTEME GRUN Lyons J., 1982, SPEECH PLACE ACTION, P101 McNeill D., 1992, HAND MIND WHAT GESTU MCNEILL D, 1993, SEMIOTICA, V95, P5, DOI 10.1515/semi.1993.95.1-2.5 McNeill D., 2000, LANGUAGE GESTURE McNeill D., 2005, GESTURE THOUGHT Mondada Lorenza, 2010, SITUATIONSEROFFNUNGE Mondada Lorenza, 2002, Z LITERATURWISSENSCH, V125/32, P79 Mondada Lorenza, 2005, INTELLECTICA, V41-42, P75 Mondada L, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P542, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019 Mondada L, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1977, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019 Muller Cornelia, 2013, INT HDB MULTIMODALIT, V1 Muller Comelia, 1996, OSNABRUCKER BEITRAGE, V52, P196 Murphy KM, 2005, SEMIOTICA, V156, P113 Sacks H, 1972, DIRECTIONS SOCIOLING, P325 Schegloff E. A., 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P266 Schegloff EA, 1998, SOC RES, V65, P535 Schmitt Reinhold, 2007, KOORDINATION ANAL MU Reinhold Schmitt, 2010, SPRACHE INTERMEDIAL, P199 Selting Margret, 1998, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V173, P91 Selting Margret, 2009, GESPRACHSFORSCHUNG O, V10, P353 Sidnell J., 2012, HDB CONVERSATION ANA Sidnell J, 2006, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V39, P377, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2 Sifta Georg, 1991, DEIXIS PHANTASMA VER Stivers T, 2005, SEMIOTICA, V156, P1 Enfield NJ, 2007, LANG CULT COGN, P1 STREECK J, 1993, COMMUN MONOGR, V60, P275 Streeck J, 2002, J COMMUN, V52, P581, DOI 10.1093/joc/52.3.581 Streeck J., 2009, GESTURECRAFT MANU FA STUKENBROCK A., 2010, BESCHREIBUNGEN GESPR, P165 Stukenbrock Anja, 2015, DEIXIS FACE TO FACE Stukenbrock A, 2008, GESPRACHSFORSCHUNG O, V9, P1 Stukenbrock Anja, 2012, B SUISSE LINGUISTIQU, V96, P141 Stukenbrock Anja, 2012, FIGURENWISSEN FUNKTI, P345 Stukenbrock A, 2009, DEUT SPRACHE, V37, P289 Stukenbrock A, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V65, P80, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.017 NR 88 TC 5 Z9 5 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 2014 VL 74 BP 70 EP 93 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.001 PG 24 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AW3WL UT WOS:000346213900006 ER PT J AU Fernandez, J Tapia, AG Lu, XF AF Fernandez, Julieta Tapia, Anna Gates Lu, Xiaofei TI Oral proficiency and pragmatic marker use in L2 spoken Spanish: The case of pues and bueno SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Pragmatic markers; Spanish as a foreign language; Spoken Spanish; Oral proficiency AB This paper presents a corpus-based examination of pragmatic marker use in Spanish as a foreign language. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, it examines the frequency and seven functional differences in the use of pues and bueno in the oral examination of 46 participants using the Computer Assisted Screening Tool (CAST) online test. The participants were adult (average age 22) non-native speaking examinees at two levels of language proficiency. The study investigated whether examinees' proficiency level would influence the pragmatic markers' rate of occurrence and variety of functions. Frequency measures of pragmatic markers were obtained from examinees rated at two levels of proficiency: 'full' or 'fail'.1 A discourse analytic approach was then employed to examine the discursive functions of pragmatic markers. The quantitative results showed that proficiency level was significantly related to the overall frequency of use of the focal markers, with the 'full' group tending to use them more frequently than the 'fail' group. Qualitatively, the study found that higher proficiency speakers used both pragmatic markers for a wider range of functions than their lower proficiency counterparts. The discussion considers the implications for raising learner awareness of pragmatic marker contributions to perceived oral fluency and pragmatic capacity. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Fernandez, Julieta; Tapia, Anna Gates] No Arizona Univ, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA. [Lu, Xiaofei] Penn State Univ, University Pk, PA 16802 USA. RP Fernandez, J (reprint author), No Arizona Univ, 700 S Humphreys Cdr,Bldg 18,Rm 104, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA. EM julieta.fernandez@nau.edu; anna.gates-tapia@nau.edu; xxl13@psu.edu OI Lu, Xiaofei/0000-0003-2365-2581 CR Aijmer K., 2002, ENGLISH DISCOURSE PA Aijmer Karin, 2004, NORDIC J ENGLISH STU, V3, P173 Aijmer K., 1996, CONVERSATIONAL ROUTI Aijmer K, 2011, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V16, P231, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.16.2.04aij Porroche Ballesteros Margarita, 1996, ESPANOL HABLADO CULT, P71 Bauhr Gerhard, 1994, LINGUISTICA ESPANOLA, V16, P79 Belles-Fortuno Begona, 2009, PRAGMATICS APPL LANG, P280 Biber Douglas, 2009, CORPUS LINGUISTICS I, V2, P1287 Briz Antonio, 2001, ESPANOL COLOQUIAL CO BUTLER CS, 2008, PRAGMATICS CORPUS LI, V2, P37, DOI 10.1515/9783110199024.37 Celce-Murcia M.A., 1995, ISSUES APPL LINGUIST, V6, P5 Kotschi Thomas, 1996, ESPANOL HABLADO CULT, P117 Erman B, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1337, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00066-7 Fuller Janet M., 2003, MULTILINGUA, V22, P185, DOI DOI 10.1515/MULT.2003.010 Fung L, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P410, DOI 10.1093/applin/amm030 Gaatanelle Gilquin, 2008, PRAGMATICS CORPUS LI, P119 Martinez Garcia Hortensia, 1990, ACT C SOC ESP LING 2, P599 Gill Gaya Samuel, 1961, CURSO SUPERIOR SINTA Gomez Garces, 1992, ROMANTISTISCHES JAHR, V43, P229 Gozalo Gomez Paula, 2013, SIGNOS ELE, V7 Hasselgren A., 2002, COMPUTER LEARNER COR, P143 Tyler A., 1998, TALKING TESTING DISC, P27 Lindqvist Helena, 2006, ACT 5 C ROM ESC COP McCarthy M., 2005, LANGUAGE TEACHER, V29, P26 Moliner Maria, 1984, DICCIONARIO USO ESPA Moreno Iglesias, 2001, ESTUDIOS LINGUISTICA, V2, P129 Muller Simone, 2005, DISCOURSE MARKERS NA Neary-Sundquist Colleen, 2013, L2 J, V5, P1 Portoles Jose, 1989, DICENDA, V8, P117 Fuentes Rodriguez Catalina, 1993, ESTUDIOS LINGUISTICA, V9, P205 Serrano Maria Jose, 1999, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V140, P115 Stenstrom AB, 2006, LANG COMPUT, P263 STENSTROM AB, 2009, YOUNGSPEAK MULTILING, V184, P137 STENSTROM AB, 2006, PRAGMATIC MARKERS CO, V2, P155 Svartvik Jan, 1980, STUDIES ENGLISH LING, P167 Tabachnick BG, 2007, USING MULTIVARIATE S Travis CE, 2005, COGN LINGUIST RES, V27, P1 Trenchs-Parera M, 2009, CAN MOD LANG REV, V65, P365, DOI 10.3138/cmlr.65.3.365 VANLIER L, 1989, TESOL QUART, V23, P489, DOI 10.2307/3586922 Vazquez Carranza Ariel, 2013, SPAN CONTEXT, V10, P284 Vizcaino Garcia, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P69, DOI DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2005.2.1.69 WEI M, 2011, PRAGMATICS, V43, P3455 Young Richard, 1998, TALKING TESTING DISC Martin Zorraquino Maria Antonia, 1991, CURSO GEOGRAFIA LING, P253 NR 44 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 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 DEC PY 2014 VL 74 BP 150 EP 164 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.09.005 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AW3WL UT WOS:000346213900011 ER PT J AU Bateman, JA Wildfeuer, J AF Bateman, John A. Wildfeuer, Janina TI A multimodal discourse theory of visual narrative SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Narrative; Discourse; Semantics; Visuals; Comics; Multimodality ID MOTION; COMPREHENSION; PICTURES; SCIENCE; IMAGE AB There have been many attempts to provide accounts of visually expressed narratives by drawing on our understandings of linguistic discourse. Such approaches have however generally proceeded piecemeal particular phenomena appearing similar to phenomena in verbal discourse are selected for discussion with insufficient consideration of just what it means to treat visual communication as discourse at all. This has limited discussions in several ways. Most importantly, analysis is deprived of effective methodologies for approaching visual artefacts so that it remains unclear what units of analysis should be selected and how they can be combined. In this paper, we articulate a model of discourse pragmatics that is sufficiently general to apply to the specifics of visually communicated information and show this at work with respect to several central aspects of visual narrative. We suggest that the framework provides an effective and general foundation for reengaging with visual communicative artefacts in a manner compatible with methods developed for verbal linguistic artefacts. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Bateman, John A.; Wildfeuer, Janina] Univ Bremen, Fac Linguist & Literary Sci, D-28334 Bremen, Germany. RP Bateman, JA (reprint author), Univ Bremen, Fac Linguist & Literary Sci, D-28334 Bremen, Germany. EM bateman@uni-bremen.de; wildfeuer@uni-bremen.de CR Abusch Dorit, 2013, P SINN BEDEUTUNG, P9 Asher N, 2005, LINGUA, V115, P591, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.017 Asher N., 2003, LOGICS CONVERSATION Bakhtin Mikhail, 1981, DIALOGIC IMAGINATION Barthes R., 1977, IMAGE MUSIC TEXT, P32 Barthes R., 1977, IMAGE MUSIC TEXT Bateman John A., 2001, VERBUM, V23, P31 Bateman JA, 2014, TEXT AND IMAGE: A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE VISUAL/VERBAL DIVIDE, P1 Bateman J.A., 2012, MULTIMODAL FILM ANAL Bateman John, 2011, MULTIMODAL STUDIES M, P17 Bateman JA, 2007, SEMIOTICA, V167, P13, DOI 10.1515/SEM.2007.070 Bateman JA, 2010, ARTIF INTELL, V174, P1027, DOI 10.1016/j.artint.2010.05.008 Bertin J., 1983, SEMIOLOGY GRAPHICS Boeriis M, 2012, VISUAL COMMUN-US, V11, P259, DOI 10.1177/1470357212446408 Bordwell David, 1982, ENCLITIC, V6, P125 Bredekamp Horst, 2010, THEORIE DES BILDAKTS BRUNER JS, 1949, J PERS, V18, P206, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01241.x Bryson N., 1981, WORD IMAGE FRENCH PA Bucher HJ, 2012, VISUAL COMMUN-US, V11, P283, DOI 10.1177/1470357212446409 Bucher Hans-Jurgen, 2011, BILDLINGUISTIK THEOR, P123 COEGNARTS M, 2012, IMAGE NARRATIVE, V13, P85 Cohn N., 2013, VISUAL LANGUAGE COMI Cohn N., 2010, STUDIES COMICS, V1, P127, DOI [10.1386/stic.1.1.127/1, DOI 10.1386/STIC.1.1.127/] Cohn N, 2013, COGNITIVE SCI, V37, P413, DOI 10.1111/cogs.12016 Cohn N, 2012, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V65, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.01.003 Currie G., 1995, IMAGE MIND FILM PHIL Cutting JE, 2002, PERCEPTION, V31, P1165, DOI 10.1068/p3318 Cytowic R. E., 2011, WEDNESDAY IS INDIGO DANLOS L, 2008, CONSTRAINTS DISCOURS, V172, P69 Davidson D., 1967, LOGIC DECISION ACTIO, P81, DOI DOI 10.1093/0199246270.003.0006 DEBEAUGRANDE R, 1982, J PRAGMATICS, V6, P383, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(82)90014-5 De Beaugrande R., 1981, INTRO TEXT LINGUISTI de Saussure Ferdinand, 1959, COURSE GEN LINGUISTI Eco U., 1976, THEORY SEMIOTICS Eisner Will, 1992, COMICS SEQUENTIAL AR Evans J., 2009, TALKING PAGE READING Feng DZ, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P2067, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.003 Ferstl E. C., 2007, HIGHER LEVEL LANGUAG, P53 Forceville C, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P875, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.014 Forceville Charles J., 2014, MULTIMODAL COMMUNICA, P51 Gibson J. J., 1977, PERCEIVING ACTING KN, P62 Givon Talmy, 2005, GRAMMAR ADAPTIVE EVO, P91 Gombrich E. H., 1959, ART ILLUSION STUDY P Groensteen Thierry, 2007, STUDIES POPULAR CULT Groupe, 1992, TRAIT SIGN VIS RHET Hague I, 2014, ROUTL RES CULT MEDIA, V57, P1 Hall S., 1980, CULTURE MEDIA LANGUA, P128 Hatt Michael, 2006, ART HIST CRITICAL IN Hjelmslev L., 1953, PROLEGOMENA THEORY L Holsanova Jana, 2010, INTERAKTIVE SCHRIFTE, V10, P81 Jackendoff R., 1977, 10 SYNTAX STUDY PHRA Jackendoff R, 2007, BRAIN RES, V1146, P2, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.111 Johnson-Laird P., 1983, MENTAL MODELS COGNIT Kamp Hans, 1981, FORMAL METHODS STUDY, V135, P277 Kamp Hans, 1993, STUDIES LINGUISTICS, V42 KENNEDY JM, 1982, PERCEPTION, V11, P589, DOI 10.1068/p110589 Kluss T, 2012, SEEING PERCEIVING, V25, P45, DOI 10.1163/187847611X620919 Kostelnick C., 2003, SHAPING INFORM RHETO Kress Gunther, 2010, MULTIMODALITY SOCIAL Kress G, 2006, READING IMAGES GRAMM Kress G, 2000, MULTIMODAL TEACHING Levin DT, 2000, MEDIA PSYCHOL, V2, P357, DOI 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0204_03 Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Lim F. V., 2007, NEW DIRECTIONS ANAL, P195 Liu Y., 2009, SOCIAL SEMIOTICS, V19, P367, DOI DOI 10.1080/10350330903361059 Iser Wolfgang, 1978, ACT READING THEORY A Martin J. R., 1992, ENGLISH TEXT SYSTEMS Martinet A., 1960, ELEMENTS GEN LINGUIS McCloud Scott, 1994, UNDERSTANDING COMICS MCGURK H, 1976, NATURE, V264, P746, DOI 10.1038/264746a0 Meibauer J., 2009, CONCISE ENCY PRAGMAT, P365 Metz Christian, 1964, COMMUNICATIONS, V4, P52 Metz Christian, 1974, FILM LANGUAGE SEMIOT Miodrag H, 2013, COMICS AND LANGUAGE: REIMAGINING CRITICAL DISCOURSE ON THE FORM, P1 Mitchell WJT, 2005, J VIS CULT, V4, P257, DOI 10.1177/1470412905054673 Moller-Nass Karl-Dietmar, 1986, FILMSPRACHE KRITISCH Moriarty SE, 1996, COMMUN THEOR, V6, P167, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00125.x Painter C., 2013, READING VISUAL NARRA Parsons T., 1990, EVENTS SEMANTICS ENG POLANYI L, 1988, J PRAGMATICS, V12, P601, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90050-1 Royce Terry, 1998, JASFL OCCASIONAL PAP, V1, P25 Ryan Marie-Laure, 2003, NARRATIVE THEORY COG, P214 Sachs-Hombach Klaus, 2011, BILDLINGUISTIK THEOR, P97 Sachs-Hombach Klaus, 2001, REIHE BILDWISSENSCHA, V3 Saint-Martin F., 1990, SEMIOTICS VISUAL LAN Saraceni M., 2001, THE GRAPHIC NOVEL, P167 Schill K, 2001, J ELECTRON IMAGING, V10, P152, DOI 10.1117/1.1329627 Schirra Jorg R. J., 2007, STUD COMMUN SCI, V7, P35 Schumacher Peter, 2013, Information Design Journal, V20, DOI 10.1075/idj.20.2.03sch Seeley William P., 2012, ESSAYS PHILOS, V13, P498 Simons DJ, 2005, TRENDS COGN SCI, V9, P16, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.006 Sobchack Vivian, 2004, WHAT MY FINGERS KNEW, P53 Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Stockl Hartmut, 2004, SPRACHE BILD BILD SP van Dijk T. A., 1983, STRATEGIES DISCOURSE Wildfeuer Janina, 2014, ROUTLEDGE STUDIES MU Wildfeuer Janina, 2012, MULTIMODAL COMMUNICA, V1, P233 Wildfeuer Janina, 2014, MULTIMODAL EPISTEMOL, P260 Wirth U, 2005, SEMIOTICA, V153, P199 Wolf F, 2005, COMPUT LINGUIST, V31, P249, DOI 10.1162/0891201054223977 Yarbus Alfred L., 1967, EYE MOVEMENTS VISION Zacks Jeffrey M., 2011, ART SENSES, P435 Zwaan RA, 1998, PSYCHOL BULL, V123, P162, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 NR 103 TC 6 Z9 6 U1 2 U2 20 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 2014 VL 74 BP 180 EP 208 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.001 PG 29 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AW3WL UT WOS:000346213900013 ER PT J AU Filippova, E AF Filippova, Eva TI Developing appreciation of irony in Canadian and Czech discourse SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Critical irony; Praise irony; Social reasoning; Pragmatic function; Development; Culture ID VERBAL IRONY; CHILDRENS PERCEPTIONS; PRETENSE THEORY; MIND; UTTERANCES; MODULARITY; SARCASM; GENDER; BELIEF; HUMOR AB This empirical study investigates the development of children's understanding of an ironic speaker's mind and their appreciation of the pragmatic function of counterfactual irony in discourse. Canadian 7- and 9-year-old children and adults (N = 72) and Czech respondents matched on age (N=72) reasoned about the mental states of an ironic speaker and evaluated the function of both critical and praise irony in short stories ending with statements expressing the meaning opposite to the speaker's intended meaning. Pronounced age differences were detected in children's representation of the mind of the speaker across the conditions and cultures. Evaluating the pragmatic function of irony, however, failed to show stable patterns in how nice, mean, and funny children and adults judged the given statements to be. While the maturation in the ability to represent a speaker's mind is argued to represent universal features of human ontogeny, an evaluation of the pragmatic impact of irony is argued to be largely influenced by the social and cultural milieu of language socialization. Ironic criticism shows stable traits in the development of its understanding and in the assessment of its function across the two cultures, whereas ironic praise displays substantial differences ascribed to the degree of conventionality of its usage in the context of the individuals' socialization. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. C1 [Filippova, Eva] Charles Univ Prague, Fac Arts, Prague 11638 1, Czech Republic. RP Filippova, E (reprint author), Charles Univ Prague, Fac Arts, Inst Czech Language & Theory Commun, Namesti Jana Palacha 2, Prague 11638 1, Czech Republic. EM eva.filippova@ff.cuni.cz CR ACKERMAN BP, 1983, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V35, P487, DOI 10.1016/0022-0965(83)90023-1 ANDREWS J, 1986, COMMUN COGNITION, V19, P281 [Anonymous], 2008, PRIMER HUMOR RES, DOI 10.1515/9783110198492.101 AVIS J, 1991, CHILD DEV, V62, P460, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01544.x Booth Wayne, 1974, RHETORIC IRONY Brown Penelope, 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Callaghan T, 2005, PSYCHOL SCI, V16, P378, DOI 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01544.x CLARK HH, 1984, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V113, P121, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 Colebrook Claire, 2004, IRONY Colston HL, 2004, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V19, P289, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms1904_3 Creusere M., 2000, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V15, P29, DOI [10.1080/10926488.2000.9678863, DOI 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678863] DEMOREST A, 1984, CHILD DEV, V55, P1527, DOI 10.2307/1130022 Demorest Amy, 1983, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V1, P121 Dews S, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P1579, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00005-3 DEWS S, 1995, METAPHOR SYMB ACT, V10, P3, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms1001_2 Dews S, 1996, CHILD DEV, V67, P3071, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01903.x Dress ML, 2008, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V27, P71, DOI 10.1177/0261927X07309512 Filippova Eva, 2010, CHILD DEV, V81, P913 Filippova Eva, 2008, CHILD DEV, V79, P126 Filippova Eva, CZECHS PERCEPT UNPUB Filippova Eva, 2010, 21 BIENN M INT SOC S Filippova Eva, 2014, PRAGMATIC DEV 1 LANG, P261 Gibbs RW, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P104, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.001 Gibbs Jr R. W., 2000, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V15, P5, DOI DOI 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862 Giora Rachel, 1999, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V14, P241, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327868MS1404_ Glenwright M, 2010, J CHILD LANG, V37, P429, DOI 10.1017/S0305000909009520 Grice P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P41 Gurillo Ruiz, 2013, IRONY HUMOR PRAGMATI Hancock JT, 2000, J COGN DEV, V1, P227, DOI 10.1207/S15327647JCD010204 Harris M, 2003, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V36, P147, DOI 10.1207/S15326950DP3603_1 HOLTGRAVES T, 1992, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V62, P246, DOI 10.1037//0022-3514.62.2.246 Hutcheon Linda, 1994, IRONYS EDGE THEORY P Kreuz Roger, 1989, J EXPT PSYCHOL GEN, V118, P347 [Anonymous], 1996, EMPIRICAL APPROACHES KREUZ RJ, 1995, METAPHOR SYMB ACT, V10, P21, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms1001_3 KUMONNAKAMURA S, 1995, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V124, P3, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.3 Lillard AS, 1997, PSYCHOL SCI, V8, P268, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00437.x Link Kristen E., 2004, FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE, P153 Matthews JK, 2006, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V41, P3, DOI 10.1207/s15326950dp4101_2 MUECKE DC, 1969, COMPASS IRONY Peterson CC, 2012, CHILD DEV, V83, P469, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01728.x Pexman PM, 2005, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V40, P259, DOI 10.1207/s15326950dp4003_5 ROBERTS RM, 1994, PSYCHOL SCI, V5, P159, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00653.x Schieffelin B. B., 1990, GIVE TAKE EVERYDAY L Scholl BJ, 1999, MIND LANG, V14, P131, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00106 Schwoebel J., 2000, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V15, P47, DOI [10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864, DOI 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864] Sperber D, 2002, MIND LANG, V17, P3, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00186 SULLIVAN K, 1995, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V13, P191 VINDEN PG, 2002, J INT BEHAV DEV, V26, P445 Wellman HM, 2001, CHILD DEV, V72, P655, DOI 10.1111/1467-8624.00304 Wilson D., 2012, MEANING RELEVANCE WINNER E, 1991, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V9, P257 NR 52 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 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 DEC PY 2014 VL 74 BP 209 EP 223 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.09.003 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AW3WL UT WOS:000346213900014 ER PT J AU Ren, W AF Ren, Wei TI A Longitudinal Investigation into L2 Learners' Cognitive Processes during Study Abroad SO APPLIED LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID VERBAL REPORTS; REQUESTS; REFUSALS AB The present study longitudinally investigates the cognitive processes of advanced L2 learners engaged in a multimedia task that elicited status-equal and status-unequal refusals in English during their study abroad. Data were collected three times by retrospective verbal report from 20 Chinese learners who were studying abroad over the course of one academic year. The results revealed that the learners reported paying increasingly more attention to socio-pragmatics in context when they responded to each situation of the task. Furthermore, the study showed the effect of study abroad on the learners' perceptions of the factors affecting their pragmatic productions across the three phases. These effects were reflected by the decrease in pragmatic difficulties and the increase in pragmatic knowledge reported by the learners. This article demonstrates that using the retrospective verbal report at different points during learners' study abroad allows the examination of the changes in the cognitive processes involved in L2 pragmatic production. C1 [Ren, Wei] Guangdong Univ Foreign Studies, Ctr Linguist & Appl Linguist, Guangzhou, Guangdong, Peoples R China. [Ren, Wei] Univ Chinese Acad Sci, Beijing, Peoples R China. RP Ren, W (reprint author), Guangdong Univ Foreign Studies, Ctr Linguist & Appl Linguist, Guangzhou, Guangdong, Peoples R China. EM renweixz@yahoo.com CR Bardovi-Harlig K, 2005, SEC LANG ACQ RES, P7 Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN Barron A., 2006, LANGUAGE LEARNERS ST, P59 Barron A., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P113, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.008 Bialystok Ellen, 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P43 Blum-Kulka Shoshana, 1987, STUDIES 2ND LANGUAGE, V9, P155, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100000450 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Camps Joaquim, 2003, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V13, P201, DOI 10.1111/1473-4192.00044 Chen X., 1995, PRAGMATICS CHINESE N, P121 COHEN AD, 1993, TESOL QUART, V27, P33, DOI 10.2307/3586950 Cohen A. D., 1998, STRATEGIES LEARNING Cohen A. D., 1996, APPL LANGUAGE LEARNI, V7, P5 Cohen Andrew, 2012, PRAGMATIC VARIATION, P271 Dewaele J. -M., 2007, LANGUAGE LEARNING TE, P162 DuFon M. A., 1999, THESIS U HAWAII MANO Ericsson A. K., 1993, PROTOCOL ANAL VERBAL Faerch Claus, 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P221 Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2008, LANG AWARE, V17, P195, DOI 10.2167/la430.0 Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2004, LANG LEARN, V54, P587, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00281.x FELIXBRASDEFER JC, 2010, SPEECH ACT PERFORMAN, V26, P41 Felix-Brasdefer J. Cesar, 2008, POLITENESS MEXICO US Gass S. M., 2000, STIMULATED RECALL ME Hassall T., 2001, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V39, P259, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2001.005 Hassall T., 2006, LANGUAGE LEARNERS ST, P31 Hassall T, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1903, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00115-2 Hassall T, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P72 Robinson P., 2001, COGNITION 2 LANGUAGE, P354 Kasper G., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P1 Kasper G., 2008, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P279 Kasper G., 1989, VARIATION 2 LANGUAGE, P37 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kinginger C, 2008, MOD LANG J, V92, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00821.x Koike D. A., 1989, MOD LANG J, V73, P278 Kormos J, 1998, TESOL QUART, V32, P353, DOI 10.2307/3587590 Kuriscak LM, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P23 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC NISBETT RE, 1977, PSYCHOL REV, V84, P231, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231 Ren W., 2012, EUROSLA YB, V12, P63 Ren W., 2011, THESIS U BRISTOL Robinson Mary Ann, 1992, PRAGMATICS JAPANESE, P27 RUSSO JE, 1989, MEM COGNITION, V17, P759, DOI 10.3758/BF03202637 Schauer G. A., 2004, EUROSLA YB, V4, P253, DOI 10.1075/eurosla.4.12sch Schauer Gila A., 2009, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Schmidt R., 1995, ATTENTION AWARENESS, P1 Schmidt R., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P21 Schmidt R., 2001, COGNITION 2 LANGUAGE, P3, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09781139524780.003 Schmidt R., 1986, TALKING LEARN CONVER, P237 SELIGER HW, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P179, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.3.179 Siegal M, 1996, APPL LINGUIST, V17, P356, DOI 10.1093/applin/17.3.356 Taguchi N., 2012, CONTEXT INDIVIDUAL D Takahashi S, 2005, APPL LINGUIST, V26, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/amh040 THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Widjaja C. S., 1997, U HAWAII WORKING PAP, V15, P1 Woodfield H., 2012, PRAGMATIC VARIATION, P209 Woodfield H, 2010, MULTILINGUA, V29, P1, DOI 10.1515/mult.2010.001 NR 55 TC 5 Z9 5 U1 3 U2 25 PU OXFORD UNIV PRESS PI OXFORD PA GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND SN 0142-6001 EI 1477-450X J9 APPL LINGUIST JI Appl. Lingusit PD DEC PY 2014 VL 35 IS 5 BP 575 EP 594 DI 10.1093/applin/amt019 PG 20 WC Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AU7ZC UT WOS:000345815700003 ER PT J AU Mejias-Bikandi, E AF Mejias-Bikandi, Errapel TI A Cognitive Account of Mood in Complements of Causative Predicates in Spanish SO HISPANIA-A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE TEACHING OF SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE LA English DT Article DE cognitive semantics/semantica cognitiva; pragmatics/pragmatica; semantics/semantica; Spanish/espanol; subjunctive/subjuntivo AB Complements of causative predicates such as hacer in Spanish present a problem for analyses of mood that are based on semantic or pragmatic notions of assertion. The problem results from the fact that information expressed by these complements is presented both as true and new, and yet the complement verb appears in the subjunctive mood. This makes these clauses a counterexample to analyses that claim that asserted propositions appear in the indicative. This study proposes an account of the use of mood in these complements that combines the Cognitive Grammar notion of clausal grounding (Langacker 1987, 1991, 2009) with Cristofaro's study of subordination (2003). It will be argued that the complement of causative predicates in Spanish is not independently grounded; that is, its temporal relation to the speech situation is established via the matrix predicate. Not being independently grounded, it does not have an autonomous profile (Langacker 1991, 2009). Following Langacker (1991) and Cristofaro (2003), the current study claims that for a clause to be asserted, it must have an autonomous profile. This necessary condition is not met in complements of causative predicates and consequently they cannot be asserted. C1 Univ Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583 USA. RP Mejias-Bikandi, E (reprint author), Univ Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583 USA. CR Achard M, 2002, COG LIN RES, V21, P197 Achard Michel, 2000, REV ESPANOLA LINGUIS, P153 Bull William, 1965, TIME TENSE VERB Comrie B., 1985, TENSE Cristofaro Sonia, 2003, SUBORDINATION Dunlap Carolyn, 2006, LANG VAR CHANGE, V18, P35 Farley Robert, 1965, HISPANIA, V48, P549, DOI 10.2307/336482 Farley Robert, 1970, HISPANIA, V53, P466, DOI 10.2307/337971 Fauconnier Gilles, 1985, MENTAL SPACES Gregory A.E., 2001, PRAGMAT COGN, V9, P99, DOI [10.1075/pc.9.1.05gre, DOI 10.1075/PC.9.1.05GRE] Guitart Jorge M, 1991, DISCOURSE PRAGMATICS, P179 Haverkate Henk, 2002, SYNTAX SEMANTICS PRA HORNSTEIN N, 1977, LINGUIST INQ, V8, P521 Jary Mark, 2002, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V14, P157 Langacker Ronald, 1991, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA Langacker R. W., 1987, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA, V1 Langacker RW, 2009, COGN LINGUIST RES, V42, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110214369 Laskurain Patxi, 2010, INFORM STRUCTURE MOO Lavandera Beatriz, 1983, DISCOURSE PERSPECTIV, P209 LUNN PV, 1989, LINGUISTICS, V27, P687, DOI 10.1515/ling.1989.27.4.687 Maldonado Ricardo, 1994, STUDIES LANGUAGE LEA, P399 Mejias-Bikandi E, 1998, HISPANIA-J DEV INTER, V81, P941, DOI 10.2307/345807 Mejias-Bikandi Errapel, 1996, SPACES WORLDS GRAMMA, P157 MEJIASBIKANDI E, 1994, HISPANIA-J DEV INTER, V77, P892 Quer Josep, 2010, MODALITY MOOD ROMANC, P162 RAE [Real Academia Espanola y Asociacion de Academias de la Lengua Espanola], 2010, NUEV GRAM LENG ESP Reichenbach Hans, 1948, ELEMENTS SYMBOLIC LO Schwenter Scott A., 2011, HDB SPANISH SOCIOLIG Searle J., 1965, PHILOS AM, P221 Silva-Corvalan Carmen, 2001, SOCIOLINGUISTICA PRA Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Suner Margarita, 1990, TIEMPO ASPECTO ESPAN SUNER M, 1987, HISPANIA-J DEV INTER, V70, P634, DOI 10.2307/343448 Terrell Tracy, 1974, HISPANIA, V57, P484, DOI DOI 10.2307/339187 Terrell Tracy, 1976, CURRENT STUDIES ROMA, P221 Villalta E, 2008, LINGUIST PHILOS, V31, P467, DOI 10.1007/s10988-008-9046-x WIERZBICKA A, 1975, FOUND LANG, V13, P491 NR 37 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 4 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 2014 VL 97 IS 4 BP 651 EP 665 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics; Literature, Romance SC Linguistics; Literature GA AU3DZ UT WOS:000345494100011 ER PT J AU Kawahara, S Braver, A AF Kawahara, Shigeto Braver, Aaron TI Durational properties of emphatically lengthened consonants in Japanese SO JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL PHONETIC ASSOCIATION LA English DT Article ID GEMINATE STOPS; SPEAKING RATE; CONTRAST; MORA; SINGLE; WORDS; ACCEPTABILITY; PERCEPTION; DISPERSION; QUANTITY AB Languages can make use of phonetic duration to signal two kinds of meanings. The first is a lexical, phonological contrast. For example, in Japanese [kata] with a short [t] means frame' and [katta] with a long [tt] means bought'. This sort of contrast is usually limited to a binary distinction, and its phonetic properties have been well studied for many diverse languages. The other use of phonetic duration is to express pragmatic emphasis. Speakers of some languages can use lengthening to express emphasis, as in the English example Thank you sooooooo much. This lengthening can employ multiple degrees of duration, beyond the more standard binary contrast. This second use of duration has been understudied, and this paper attempts to fill that gap. To that end, this paper reports the first experimental documentation of the consonant lengthening pattern in Japanese, which expresses pragmatic emphasis. The results show that at least some speakers show six levels of durational distinctions, while other speakers show less clear-cut distinctions among different levels of emphatically lengthened consonants. Nevertheless, all but one speaker showed a linear correlation between duration and level of emphasis. C1 [Braver, Aaron] Texas Tech Univ, Dept English, Lubbock, TX 79409 USA. EM kawahara@icl.keio.ac.jp; aaron.braver@ttu.edu OI Braver, Aaron/0000-0001-8532-0473 CR ABEL SM, 1972, J ACOUST SOC AM, V52, P519, DOI 10.1121/1.1913139 Abramson Arthur S., 1987, HASKINS LAB STATUS R, VSR-91, P143 Aizawa Yoshiko, 1985, STUDY SOUNDS, V21, P313 Amano S, 2010, J ACOUST SOC AM, V128, P2049, DOI 10.1121/1.3458847 Aoyama Katsura, 2006, J INT PHON ASSOC, V36, P145, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0025100306002520 Baal Bals, 2012, PHONOLOGY, V29, P165 BECKMAN M, 1982, PHONETICA, V39, P113 Bellem Alex, 2007, COMP TYPOLOGY EMPHAT Boersma Paul, 1999, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC Boersma P., 2001, GLOT INT, V5, P341 Campbell Nick, 1999, J PHONETIC SOC JAPAN, V3, P29 Cedrus Corporation, 2010, SUP V 4 0 SOFTW Chomsky N., 1968, SOUND PATTERN ENGLIS Cohn A. C., 1999, P 14 INT C PHON SCI, P587 Davis Stuart, 2011, BLACKWELL COMPANION, P873 DiCanio CT, 2012, INT J AM LINGUIST, V78, P239, DOI 10.1086/664481 Diehl Randy, 2004, 15 INT C PHON SCI IC, P1381 Dresher Natalie, 2013, P RUTG U AR S ENGSTRAND O, 1994, PHONETICA, V51, P80 ENGSTRAND O, 1987, PHONETICA, V44, P103 Esposito A, 1999, J ACOUST SOC AM, V106, P2051, DOI 10.1121/1.428056 Flemming E., 1995, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Fujisaki H., 1975, AUDITORY ANAL PERCEP, P197 Fukui Seiji, 1978, PHONETIC SOCIETY REP, V159, P9 Garnes Sara, 1976, QUANTITY ICELANDIC P Gordon M., 2000, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V42, P366 Ham W., 2001, PHONETIC PHONOLOGICA Han Mieko, 1962, STUDY SOUNDS, V10, P65 HAN MS, 1994, J ACOUST SOC AM, V96, P73, DOI 10.1121/1.410376 HAN MS, 1992, PHONETICA, V49, P102 Hansen Benjamin B., 2004, 2003 TEX LING SOC C, P86 HAYES B, 1989, LINGUIST INQ, V20, P253 Hirata Yukari, 2007, J PHON SOC JAPAN, V11, P9 Hirata Y, 2005, J ACOUST SOC AM, V118, P1647, DOI 10.1121/1.2000807 Hirata Y, 2012, J ACOUST SOC AM, V132, P1614, DOI 10.1121/1.4730975 Hirato Nobuo, 1987, STUDIES PHONETICS SP, VII, P99 Hirose Aki, 2007, 16 INT C PHON SCI IC, P909 HOMMA Y, 1981, J PHONETICS, V9, P273 Idemaru K, 2010, PHONETICA, V67, P25, DOI 10.1159/000319377 Idemaru K, 2008, J INT PHON ASSOC, V38, P167, DOI 10.1017/S0025100308003459 JAEGER JJ, 1983, J PHONETICS, V11, P177 KAHN M, 1975, PHONETICA, V31, P38 Kato H, 2002, J ACOUST SOC AM, V111, P387, DOI 10.1121/1.1428543 Kato H, 1997, J ACOUST SOC AM, V101, P2311, DOI 10.1121/1.418210 Kato H., 1994, Journal of the Acoustical Society of Japan (E), V15 Kawahara Shigeto, HDB JAPANESE LANGUAG Kawahara Shigeto, 2012, IEICE TECHNICAL REPO, V112, P67 Kawahara Shigeto, 2001, THESIS INT CHRISTIAN Kawahara Shigeto, 2013, OPEN J MODERN LINGUI, V3, P141 Kawahara S, 2013, LANG SCI, V40, P24, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.02.002 Kawahara S, 2006, LANGUAGE, V82, P536, DOI 10.1353/lan.2006.0146 KRAEHENMANN ASTRID, 2003, QUANTITY PROSODIC AS Kraehenmann A, 2008, J ACOUST SOC AM, V123, P4446, DOI 10.1121/1.2916699 Kuroda SigeYuki, 1967, YAWELMANI PHONOLOGY Ladefoged Peter, 1996, SOUNDS WORLDS LANGUA LAHIRI A, 1988, J PHONETICS, V16, P327 LAUFER A, 1988, LANG SPEECH, V31, P181 Lehtonen J., 1970, ASPECTS QUANTITY STA, VVI LILJENCRANTS J, 1972, LANGUAGE, V48, P839, DOI 10.2307/411991 Lindblom Bjorn, 1986, EXPT PHONOLOGY, P13 Lisker L., 1958, INDIAN LINGUISTICS T, V1, P294 Local J., 1999, P 14 INT C PHON SCI, P595 Maddieson I., 1997, HDB PHONETIC SCI, P619 McCarthy J. J., 1994, PAPERS LAB PHONOLOGY, P191 McCarthy J. J., 1979, THESIS MIT MCKAY GR, 1980, J PHONETICS, V8, P343 Nasu Akio, 1999, JAPAN JAPANESE CULTU, V9, P13 Norlin Kjell, 1987, LUND U DEPARTMENT LI, V30 Ofuka Etsuko, 2005, J PHONETIC SOC JAPAN, V9, P59 Ofuka Etsuko, 2003, J PHONETIC SOC JAPAN, V7, P70 Ohala John J., 14 INT C PHON SCI IC Ohala M., 2007, EXPT APPROACHES PHON, P351 Padgett J, 2003, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V21, P39, DOI 10.1023/A:1021879906505 Payne Elinor, 2005, J INT PHON ASSOC, V35, P153, DOI 10.1017/S0025100305002240 Pickett ER, 1999, PHONETICA, V56, P135, DOI 10.1159/000028448 PORT RF, 1987, J ACOUST SOC AM, V81, P1574, DOI 10.1121/1.394510 PRINCE AS, 1980, LINGUIST INQ, V11, P511 R Development Core Team, 1993, R LANG ENV STAT COMP Ridouane Rachid, 2010, PAPERS LAB PHONOLOGY, VX, P61 Schwartz JL, 1997, J PHONETICS, V25, P255, DOI 10.1006/jpho.1997.0043 Schwartz JL, 1997, J PHONETICS, V25, P233, DOI 10.1006/jpho.1997.0044 Selkirk Elisabeth, 1990, PAPERS PHONOLOGY, V14, P123 Shrotriya Nisheeth, 1995, 13 INT C PHON SCI IC, P132 Takeyasu Hajime, 2012, PHONOLOGICAL STUDIES, V15, P67 Tserdanelis Georgios, 2001, 4 INT C GREEK LING, P29 Warner N, 2001, PHONETICA, V58, P1, DOI 10.1159/000028486 NR 86 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 3 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI CAMBRIDGE PA EDINBURGH BLDG, SHAFTESBURY RD, CB2 8RU CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND SN 0025-1003 EI 1475-3502 J9 J INT PHON ASSOC JI J. Int. Phon. Assoc. PD DEC PY 2014 VL 44 IS 3 BP 237 EP 260 DI 10.1017/S0025100314000085 PG 24 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AU4JK UT WOS:000345576800001 ER PT J AU O'Boyle, A AF O'Boyle, Aisling TI 'You' and 'I' in university seminars and spoken learner discourse SO JOURNAL OF ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES LA English DT Article DE Pronouns; You; I; Clusters; University classroom; Spoken academic learner discourse ID ENGLISH; PERSPECTIVE; INFORMATION; PRONOUNS; LECTURES; SPEAKERS; SPEAKING; SPEECH AB You and I may be little words but they do a great deal. In spoken discourse they reference shared knowledge and mark stance. In pedagogical contexts, they maintain relations in teacher-student discourse. However, language classrooms may rarely explore this array of pragmatic meanings. A lack of awareness of the variety of these functions may be problematic for learners when seeking to construct interpersonal relations and operate successfully in particular spoken contexts. This paper presents a study of you and I in two spoken corpora: a corpus of English language learner task talk and a corpus of university seminar talk. Findings illustrate different patterns of I and you between the two corpora: I and you have a higher rate of occurrence in learner discourse, and pronoun repetition is more frequent in learner discourse, though it does not account for the higher rate of you and I. These findings suggest that language learner task talk displays more features tied to speech production and self-regulation and fewer features associated with attempting to point to the informational space of others, a key feature of university classroom talk. This paper concludes by outlining pedagogical applications to overcome features perceived as disfluent. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Queens Univ Belfast, Sch Educ, Belfast BT7 1HL, Antrim, North Ireland. RP O'Boyle, A (reprint author), Queens Univ Belfast, Sch Educ, 69-71 Univ St, Belfast BT7 1HL, Antrim, North Ireland. EM a.oboyle@qub.ac.uk CR Knight D., 2010, ROUTLEDGE HDB CORPUS Aijmer K., 1996, MODALITY GERMANIC LA Aijmer K, 2011, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V16, P231, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.16.2.04aij Altenberg B., 1990, LUND STUDIES ENGLISH, V82 Basturkmen H., 2002, TESOL J, V11, P26, DOI DOI 10.1002/J.1949-3533.2002.TB00080.X Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Biber D, 2004, APPL LINGUIST, V25, P371, DOI 10.1093/applin/25.3.371 Biber D, 2002, TESOL QUART, V36, P9, DOI 10.2307/3588359 Brown A., 2007, IELTS COLLECTED PAPE Camiciottoli BC, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P1216, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.08.007 Carter R., 2006, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Chafe W., 1994, DISCOURSE CONSCIOUSN Clark HH, 2002, COGNITION, V84, P73, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3 Clark HH, 1998, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V37, P201, DOI 10.1006/cogp.1998.0693 Conrad S., 2002, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V22, P75 Council of Europe, 2001, COMM EUR FRAM REF LA Csomay E., 2007, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V6, P336, DOI 10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.004 DiCamilla FJ, 1997, CAN MOD LANG REV, V53, P609 DuBois J., 2007, STANCETAKING DISCOUR EVISON J., 2010, ROUTLEDGE HDB CORPUS Farr F., 2002, USING CORPORA EXPLOR Fortanet I, 2004, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V23, P45, DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00018-8 Frawley W., 1997, VYGOTSKY COGNITIVE S FRAWLEY W, 1985, APPL LINGUIST, V6, P19, DOI 10.1093/applin/6.1.19 Fung L, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P410, DOI 10.1093/applin/amm030 Gilquin G., 2007, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V6, P319, DOI [10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.007, DOI 10.1016/J.JEAP.2007.09.007] Gilquin G., 2007, P 4 CORP LING C U BI Gilquin G, 2008, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V2, P119 Hung J., 2002, COMPUTER LEARNER COR Griffiths S., 2009, HDB TEACHING LEARNIN Groom N., 2005, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V4, P257, DOI 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.002 Harwood N, 2005, APPL LINGUIST, V26, P343, DOI 10.1093/applin/ami012 Hinkel E., 2004, TEACHING ACAD ESL WR Hyland K., 1997, J SECOND LANG WRIT, V6, P183, DOI DOI 10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3 Hyland K, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1091, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8 Hyland K, 2005, DISCOURSE STUD, V7, P173, DOI 10.1177/146144560505050365 Kamio A, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1111, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00052-7 Kamio Akio, 1997, TERRITORY INFORM Karkkainen E, 2003, EPISTEMIC STANCE ENG Kesckes I., 2007, EXPLORATIONS PRAGMAT Kilgarriff A, 2001, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V6, P1 Kim S, 2006, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V25, P479, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2005.10.001 Koester A., 2006, INVESTIGATING WORKPL Adolphs S., 2009, COLLOCATING ANOTHER Luzon M. J., 2009, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V8, P192 Martinez IA, 2005, J SECOND LANG WRIT, V14, P174, DOI 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.06.001 MCCAFFERTY SG, 1992, MOD LANG J, V76, P179, DOI 10.2307/329771 McCarthy M., 2010, ENGLISH PROFILE JOUR, V1, P1 Munoz C., 1991, REV ESPANOLA LINGUST, V7, P129 Nesi H., 2011, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V11, P69 O'Connell DC, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P185, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.06.001 O'Boyle A., 2010, THESIS QUEENS U BELL Pennycook Alastair, 1994, ELT J, V48, P173, DOI 10.1093/elt/48.2.173 Pilcher N., 2009, P DIFF APPR EAP WORK Rayson P., 2000, P WORKSH COMP CORP W, V9, P1, DOI DOI 10.3115/1117729.1117730 Rowley-Jolivet E, 2005, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V24, P41, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2003.09.003 Ruhlemann C., 2007, CONVERSATION CONTEXT Scott M. R., 2008, WORDSMITH TOOLS VERS Seidlhofer B., 2005, ELT J, V59, P339, DOI DOI 10.1093/ELT/CCI064 Simpson R. C., 2002, MICHIGAN CORPUS ACAD Sinclair J, 1991, CORPUS CONCORDANCE C Svalberg A. M-L., 2007, LANG TEACHING, V40, P287, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0261444807004491 Tang R., 1999, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V18, P23 Thompson P., 2001, LANG TEACH RES, V5, P263, DOI 10.1191/136216801680223443 Thornbury S., 2001, UNCOVERING GRAMMAR Tree JEF, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P727 Vaughan E, 2008, STUD CORPUS LINGUIST, V31, P95 Wortham SEF, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P331, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)00100-6 NR 68 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 7 PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PI AMSTERDAM PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS SN 1475-1585 EI 1878-1497 J9 J ENGL ACAD PURP JI J. Engl. Acad. Purp. PD DEC PY 2014 VL 16 BP 40 EP 56 DI 10.1016/j.jeap.2014.08.003 PG 17 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA AU2EG UT WOS:000345428400005 ER PT J AU Hlavac, J AF Hlavac, Jim TI RECEPTIVE MULTILINGUALISM AND ITS RELEVANCE TO TRANSLATION STUDIES WITH DATA FROM INTERPRETERS OF THE BOSNIAN, CROATIAN AND SERBIAN LANGUAGES SO ACROSS LANGUAGES AND CULTURES LA English DT Article DE receptive multilingualism; intercomprehension; closely-related languages; accommodation; interpreter protocols; Bosnian; Croatian; Serbian AB This paper examines the phenomenon of receptive multilingualism where speakers of two different languages communicate through each speaking his/her own language and understanding the other's. Comprehension in such an interaction is aided by the speaker and the listener employing linguistic, discourse-pragmatic and other features which represent strategies of accommodation (i.e. reduction of linguistics dissimilarities). This phenomenon is not presented as an alternative to interpreting, but in the context of interpreters who work from or into a language which is closely related, but not identical to the language spoken by one of the participating clients. Background information is provided from language pairs with a high level of mutual intelligibility and the experiences of interpreters, while the focus of the data sample is on 23 interpreters who have accreditation in one, two or three of the following closely-related languages: Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. Responses are elicited on the following: self-reported incidence of accommodation in non-interpreted interactions; linguistic and ethical protocols when a different, but closely-related language is used by a client; comments from clients about interpreters' proficiency and ethnicity; attitudes on the distinctiveness of the three languages and future intelligibility. Informants' linguistic behaviour is analysed according to the number of accreditations held and, in general, those with three accreditations report the highest levels of accommodation. C1 Monash Univ, Sch Languages Cultures & Linguist, Caulfield, Vic 3145, Australia. RP Hlavac, J (reprint author), Monash Univ, Sch Languages Cultures & Linguist, POB 197, Caulfield, Vic 3145, Australia. EM jim.hlavac@monash.edu CR Arikan O., 2007, AZERBAIJANI EVER ATT Auburger Leopold, 1999, KROATISCHE SPRACHE S Silic Josip, 2009, JEZICNI VARIJETETI N Beerkens R, 2010, RECEPTIVE MULTILINGU Berger T., 2000, SPRACHWANDEL SLAVIA, P665 Bo I., 1978, UNGDOM NABOLAND UNDE Braunmuller K, 2007, HAMB STUD MULTILING, V6, P25 Bugarski Ranko, 1995, JEZIK MIRA RATA Bugarski Ranko, 2002, NOVA LICA JEZIKA Bugarski Ranko, 2004, LANGUAGE FORMER YUGO Casad E, 2005, SOZIOLINGUISTIK, PART 2, P1261 Davies A., 2003, NATIVE SPEAKER MYTH De Angelis G., 2007, 3 ADDITIONAL LANGUAG Drazenovic-Carrieri Maja, 2002, LEXICAL NORM NATL LA, P49 European Commission, 2012, INT EXPL ITS US EUR Gafaranga J, 2007, TALK IN TWO LANGUAGES, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230593282 Gentile A., 1996, LIAISON INTERPRETING Giles H., 1991, CONTEXTS ACCOMMODATI, P1, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511663673 Gooskens C., 2010, SVENSKANS BESKRIVNIN, P82 Greenberg R. D., 2004, LANGUAGE IDENTITY BA Grin Francois, 2008, SENTENDRE ENTRE LANG, P79 Halilovic Senahid, 1998, BOSANSKI JEZIK Haugen E., 1962, EXPLORATIONS SOCIOLI, P152 Haugen Einar, 1987, BLESSINGS BABEL BILI, P77 Hlavac J, 2010, INTERPRETING, V12, P186, DOI 10.1075/intp.12.2.04hla The Interpreter Diaries, 2012, POSTC NO EUR Kapovic Mate, 2011, CIJI JE JEZIK Karam F., 2000, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V146, P119 Kellerman E, 1995, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V15, P125, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0267190500002658 Kirchner M., 2006, TURKIC IRANIAN CONTA, P158 Love N, 2010, LANG SCI, V32, P589, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.09.003 Maurud O., 1976, NORDISK UTREDNINGSSE, V13 Nabelkova M., 2007, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V183, P53, DOI 10.1515/IJSL.2007.004 Neweklowsky G., 2003, BOSANSKI HRVATSKI SR Neweklowsky G, 2000, WELT SLAVEN, V45, P1 Nikcevic Vojislav, 2009, JEZICNI VARIJETETI N, P147 Okuka Milos, 1998, SPRACHE VIELE ERBEN Haji Omar A., 1992, PLURICENTRIC LANGUAG, P401 Oztopcu K., 1993, AZERBAIJAN INT, V3 Rehbein Jochen, 2012, INT J BILINGUAL, V16, P265 Roberts J., 2012, M CARROLL SLAMSCCOUR Sagin-Simsek C, 2012, INT J BILINGUAL, V16, P315, DOI 10.1177/1367006911426449 Samardzija M., 1993, HRVATSKI JEZIK NDH Schober MF, 2003, HANDBOOK OF DISCOURSE PROCESSES, P123 Schuppert Anja, 2011, INT J BILINGUAL, V16, P332 Searle John R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH Sloboda M., 2004, CESTINA DOMA SVETE, V12, P208 TenThije JD, 2007, HAMB STUD MULTILING, V6, P1 Van Berkum JJA, 2005, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V31, P443, DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443 van Gompel R. P. G., 2007, OXFORD HDB PSYCHOLIN, P289 Verschik A, 2012, INT J BILINGUAL, V16, P265, DOI 10.1177/1367006911426465 Votruba M., 2009, OSCE LAW STATE LANGU Zeevaert L, 2007, HAMB STUD MULTILING, V6, P103 NR 53 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 1 PU AKADEMIAI KIADO RT PI BUDAPEST PA PRIELLE K U 19, PO BOX 245,, H-1117 BUDAPEST, HUNGARY SN 1585-1923 EI 1588-2519 J9 ACROSS LANG CULT JI Across Lang. Cult. PD DEC PY 2014 VL 15 IS 2 BP 279 EP 301 DI 10.1556/Acr.15.2014.2.6 PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AT2IJ UT WOS:000344757600007 ER PT J AU Thomas, G AF Thomas, Guillaume TI Nominal tense and temporal implicatures: evidence from Mbya SO NATURAL LANGUAGE SEMANTICS LA English DT Article DE Nominal tense; Relative tense; Implicatures; Semantic fieldwork AB In this paper, I discuss the distribution and the interpretation of the temporal suffix -kue in Mbya, a Guarani language that is closely related to Paraguayan Guarani. This suffix is attested both inside noun phrases and inside clauses. Interestingly, its nominal uses give rise to inferences that are unattested in its clausal uses. These inferences were first identified in Paraguayan Guarani by Tonhauser (PhD thesis, 2006; Language 83:831-869, 2007), who called them the existence property and the change of state property. Tonhauser further argued that these properties are built into the lexical entry of the nominal temporal marker -kue. By contrast, I argue that -kue denotes a relative past tense both in its nominal and clausal uses, and that the existence and change of state properties are pragmatic inferences that arise from the interaction of the literal meaning of -kue with general constraints on the interpretation of noun phrases, notably constraints on the topicality of the time of evaluation of noun phrases. This allows me to maintain a uniform analysis of -kue across its nominal uses and its clausal uses. The analysis of -kue in Mbya is relevant to a number of current debates on the expression of tense crosslinguistically. Firstly, the existence of relative tenses has sometimes been called into question. Klein (Time in language, 1994) notably argues that relative tenses are actually combinations of tense with the perfect aspect. Others have argued that there exist true relative tenses in certain languages (see e.g. Bohnemeyer, NLLT 1-38, 2013). I argue that facts of Mbya support the latter view. Secondly, Klein (1994) famously defined tenses as relations between topic times and the time of utterance. I argue, on the other hand, that relative tenses only denote relations between times, and that the topicality or non-topicality of their temporal arguments depends on their context of use, including their syntactic environment. Thirdly, this paper contributes to debates on the nature and reality of nominal tenses (see Nordlinger and Sadler, Language 80:776-806, 2004; Lecarme, In: Binnick (ed) The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 2012), by arguing that tense in Mbya is a genuinely nominal category, in the sense that temporal functional projections are part of the extended projection of the noun phrase. C1 Univ Dusseldorf, Inst Sprache & Informat, Abt Allgemeine Sprachwissensch, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. RP Thomas, G (reprint author), Univ Dusseldorf, Inst Sprache & Informat, Abt Allgemeine Sprachwissensch, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. EM gpythomas@gmail.com CR Altshuler D., 2012, P SINN BED, V17, P45 Altshuler D, 2014, NAT LANG SEMANT, V22, P55, DOI 10.1007/s11050-013-9100-2 BAKER M, 1985, LINGUIST INQ, V16, P373 Bohnemeyer J., 2003, SULA 2 SEM UND REPR Bohnemeyer J, 2014, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V32, P917, DOI 10.1007/s11049-013-9210-z Brennan V., 1993, THESIS GLSA UMASS AM Chang H., 2012, UCLA WORKING PAPERS, V17, P43 Chierchia G., 2009, PRESUPPOSITIONS IMPL, P47 Chierchia G., 2004, STRUCTURES, P39 Chomsky Noam, 1995, GOVT BINDING THEORY, P383 Coppock Elizabeth, 2012, Logic, Language and Meaning. 18th Amsterdam Colloquium. Revised Selected Papers, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_30 Coppock E., 2011, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2, V21, P197 Dooley R., 2006, EXICO GUARANI DIALET Enc Murvet, 1981, THESIS U WISCONSIN M Florentino N., 1977, MBYA GUARANI COLLECT Fox D, 2007, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P71 Grimshaw J., 2005, WORDS STRUCTURE Groenendijk Jeroen, 1984, THESIS U AMSTERDAM Heim I., 1998, SEMANTICS GENERATIVE Katz Graham, 1995, THESIS U ROCHESTER Katzir R., 2008, THESIS MIT Katzir R, 2007, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P669, DOI 10.1007/s10988-008-9029-y Klein W, 1994, TIME LANGUAGE Kratzer Angelika, 1995, GENERIC BOOK, P125 Kratzer A., 1998, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, P92 Krifka M, 2008, ACTA LINGUIST HUNGAR, V55, P243, DOI 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2 Ladeira M. I., 2003, GUARANI MBYA Lecarme J., 1996, STUDIES AFROASIATIC, P159 Lecarme J., 2012, OXFORD HDB TENSE ASP, P696 LEWIS D, 1979, PHILOS REV, V88, P513, DOI 10.2307/2184843 Magri G., 2009, THESIS MIT Matthewson L, 2005, LINGUA, V115, P1697, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.08.001 Musan Renate, 1995, THESIS MIT Musan Renate, 1997, NAT LANG SEMANT, V5, P271, DOI 10.1023/A:1008281017969 Nordlinger R, 2004, LANGUAGE, V80, P776, DOI 10.1353/lan.2004.0219 Reichenbach Hans, 1947, ELEMENTS SYMBOLIC LO Reinhart T., 1981, PHILOSOPHICA, V27, P53 Roberts C., 1996, WORKING PAPERS LINGU, V49 Spector B., 2005, THESIS U PARIS, P7 Thomas G., 2012, THESIS MIT Tonhauser Judith, 2006, THESIS STANFORD U Tonhauser J, 2007, LANGUAGE, V83, P831 Tonhauser J, 2008, LANGUAGE, V84, P332 Tonhauser J, 2011, LINGUIST PHILOS, V34, P257, DOI 10.1007/s10988-011-9097-2 von Stechow A, 2009, EXPR COGN CATEG, V3, P129 von Stechow A., 2001, LINGUIST PHILOS, V25, P25 Landman F., 1984, VARIETIES FORMAL SEM, P385 Wiltschko M, 2003, LINGUA, V113, P659, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00116-X NR 48 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 3 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 DEC PY 2014 VL 22 IS 4 BP 357 EP 412 DI 10.1007/s11050-014-9108-2 PG 56 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AT2YW UT WOS:000344801600002 ER PT J AU Zhang, D AF Zhang, De TI More than "Hello" and "Bye-bye": opening and closing the online chats in Mandarin Chinese SO COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING LA English DT Article DE conversational opening and closing; telecollaboration; Chinese as a foreign language ID TELEPHONE AB Reporting on a descriptive study on the first semester Chinese language learners' openings and closings in online chats with age-peer native speakers of Chinese, this paper demonstrates the great promise that telecollaboration holds for foreign language education, and argues for an increasing role of pragmatics in Chinese language instruction, and at the same time points out the limitations of the textbooks in providing ample examples of openings and closings in the dialogues to the learners. This paper is an initial attempt to address interlanguage pragmatic in Chinese which has been virtually not studied in the literature. C1 Bethel Univ, Dept Modern World Languages MWL, St Paul, MN 55112 USA. RP Zhang, D (reprint author), Bethel Univ, Dept Modern World Languages MWL, St Paul, MN 55112 USA. EM dzhang@bethel.edu CR Abrams Z. I., 2008, CALICO J, V26, P1 ASTON G, 1995, APPL LINGUIST, V16, P57, DOI 10.1093/applin/16.1.57 Bardovi-Harlig, 1991, ELT J, V45, P4 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P13 Belz J. A., 2007, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V27, P45 Belz J. A., 2004, SYSTEM, V32, P577, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2004.09.013 Blum-Kulka Shoshana, 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P196 Boxer D., 1995, ELT J, V49, P44, DOI DOI 10.1093/ELT/49.1.44 Burns A., 1998, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V18, P102 Button G., 1987, TALK SOCIAL ORG, P101 Button G., 1990, STUD ETHNOMETHODOL, P93 CARTER R, 1995, APPL LINGUIST, V16, P141, DOI 10.1093/applin/16.2.141 Christensen M. B., 2009, TEACHING CHINESE FOR, P19 Chun D., 1994, SYSTEM, V22, P17, DOI DOI 10.1016/0346-251X(94)90037-X Coronel-Molina S. M., 1998, WORKING PAPERS ED LI Darhower M., 2002, CALICO Journal, V19, P249 DIMMICK JW, 1994, COMMUN RES, V21, P643, DOI 10.1177/009365094021005005 FERGUSON CA, 1976, LANG SOC, V5, P137 Goffman Erving, 1971, RELATIONS PUBLIC Grant L., 2001, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V39, P39, DOI 10.1515/iral.39.1.39 Kasper G., 1997, CAN PRAGMATIC COMPET Kern R, 2006, TESOL QUART, V40, P183 Laver John D.M.H., 1981, CONVERSATIONAL ROUTI, P289 Laver John, 1975, ORG BEHAV FACE TO FA, P215 Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Linnell J. D., 2001, LANG TEACH RES, V5, P54, DOI 10.1177/136216880100500104 MOYAL A, 1992, MEDIA CULT SOC, V14, P51, DOI 10.1177/016344392014001004 O'Dowd R., 2010, LANG TEACHING, V44, P368 PERSE EM, 1993, HUM COMMUN RES, V19, P485, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00310.x Pojanapunya P, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3591, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.010 Rintel ES, 1997, HUM COMMUN RES, V23, P507, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00408.x Rintel E. S., 2001, J COMPUTER MEDIATED, V6 Safont-Jorda M. P., 2003, PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE, P211 Schegloff E. A., 1973, SEMIOTICA, V8, P289, DOI DOI 10.1515/SEMI.1973.8.4.289 SCOTTON CM, 1988, APPL LINGUIST, V9, P372, DOI 10.1093/applin/9.4.372 Sykes J. M., 2006, DANCING WORDS STRATE Tateyama Y., 1997, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V8, P163 Tateyama Y., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P200 Thorne S., 2006, INTERNET MEDIATED IN, P2 Walther J. B., 1995, 45 ANN M INT COMM AS WALTHER JB, 1992, COMMUN RES, V19, P52, DOI 10.1177/009365092019001003 Winke PM, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P363, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.016 Wong J., 2002, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V40, P37, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2002.003 NR 43 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 4 U2 8 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0958-8221 EI 1744-3210 J9 COMPUT ASSIST LANG L JI Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. PD NOV 2 PY 2014 VL 27 IS 6 BP 528 EP 544 DI 10.1080/09588221.2013.776966 PG 17 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA AQ9YU UT WOS:000343217200004 ER PT J AU Gergen, KJ Dixon-Roman, EJ AF Gergen, Keneth J. Dixon-Roman, Ezekiel J. TI Social Epistemology and the Pragmatics of Assessment SO TEACHERS COLLEGE RECORD LA English DT Article AB Background/Context: The assessment of students, along with teachers and school systems, has largely taken place within a context of positivist science. An enormous range of scholarship now challenges the positivist paradigm, offering a social espistemological alternative. This alternative invites a reexamination of assessment processes and their policy implications. Purpose/Objective: After sketching out the social constructionist alternative to positivist epistemology, the research centered on the pragmatics of existing assessment practices, including an analysis of who is helped or harmed but such practices. Setting: The research included extended across a wide range of contemporary educational settings. Research Design: The research was primarily analytic, drawing from wide-ranging sources in education and allied disciplines. Conclusions/Recommendations: Among the general outcomes of current assessment practices are the fostering of social division and distrust, the creation of hierarchies of worth, and the diminution of pluralism. Within educational systems we find a sacrifice of curriculum and pedagogy for the production of higher test scores, and the diminution of teacher motivation and engagement. Within communities, there is a disregard for local needs and values, a loss in student motivation, and an increase in family tensions. Possible alternatives to current testing practices, along with recommendations for future policies, are considered. C1 [Gergen, Keneth J.] Swarthmore Coll, Swarthmore, PA 19081 USA. [Dixon-Roman, Ezekiel J.] Univ Penn, Sch Social Policy & Practice, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA. RP Gergen, KJ (reprint author), Swarthmore Coll, Swarthmore, PA 19081 USA. CR Bandura A., 1994, ENCY HUMAN BEHAV, V4, P71 Bellah RN, 1985, HABITS HEART INDIVID Coghlan A. T., 2003, NEW DIRECTIONS EVALU, V100 Cousins J. B., 1998, UNDERSTANDING PRACTI Center on Education Policy, 2005, CAP CLASSR YEAR 3 NO Dahler-Larsen P, 2011, EVALUATION SOC Derrida J., 1976, GRAMMATOLOGY Dinesen M. S., 2009, AI PRACTITIONER, V11, P49 Dixon-Roman E., 2010, ED COMPREHENSIVELY V Gergen K., 2013, EPISTEMOLOGY MEASURE Duhem P., 1954, AIM STRUCTURE PHYS T Fetterman D., 2004, EMPOWERMENT EVALUATI Fetterman D, 2007, AM J EVAL, V28, P179, DOI 10.1177/1098214007301350 [Anonymous], 2000, FDN EMPOWERMENT EVAL Fishman S. M., 2000, UNPLAYED TAPES PERSO Fleck Ludwik, 1979, GENESIS DEV SCI FACT Foucault M., 1980, POWER KNOWLEDGE Foucault M., 1978, HIST SEXUALITY, VI Genette G, 1980, NARRATIVE DISCOURSE GERGEN KJ, 1973, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V26, P309, DOI 10.1037/h0034436 Gergen K. J., 2009, RELATIONAL BEING SEL Greene J. C., 2001, EVALUATION, V7, P181, DOI 10.1177/13563890122209612 Gross A., 1996, RHETORIC SCI Gurvitch G., 1966, SOCIAL FRAMEWORKS KN Gutierrez R, 2011, MAPPING EQUITY AND QUALITY IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION, P21, DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-9803-0_2 Habermas J., 1971, KNOWLEDGE HUMAN INTE Kuhn T. S., 1970, STRUCTURE SCI REVOLU Landau Misia, 1993, NARRATIVES HUMAN EVO Leary D. E., 1990, METAPHORS HIST PSYCH Martin E., 1987, WOMAN BODY CULTURAL McNamara T. F., 2006, LANGUAGE TESTING SOC Mislevy R. J., 1997, TRANSITIONS WORK LEA, P280 Moss PA, 2008, ASSESSMENT, EQUITY, AND OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511802157 Myford C. M., 1996, 402 CSE CRESST Noffke S., 2009, SAGE HDB ED ACTION R Nussbaum Martha C., 2011, CREATING CAPABILITIE Popper K., 1959, LOGIC SCI DISCOVERY Porter T. M., 1996, TRUST NUMBERS Preskill H, 2006, REFRAMING EVALUATION Quine W. V. O., 1960, WORD OBJECT Ravitch D., 2010, DEATH LIFE GREAT AM Zurawsky C., 2005, AM ED SPR, P1 Ryan K. E., 2000, EVALUATION DEMOCRATI, V85 Schwandt T. A., 2005, EDUC THEORY, V55, P285 Scott J. C., 1999, SEEING STATE CERTAIN Stymne B., 2007, HDB COLLABORATIVE MA Winch P., 1946, IDEA SOCIAL SCI NR 47 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 4 U2 6 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 NOV PY 2014 VL 116 IS 11 AR 110304 PG 22 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CA7VS UT WOS:000349126100003 ER PT J AU Varenne, H AF Varenne, Herve TI Everyday Constitutional Assessments and Their Relevance to Formal Assessments SO TEACHERS COLLEGE RECORD LA English DT Article AB Background: In anthropology and related disciplines, the term "assessment" refers to the everyday activities of ordinary people as they figure out what to do next given what others have just done. The assessments, in turn, constitute what is happening, whether in encounters between policeman and person in the street, or classroom lesson, or joking about a teacher, or giving birth in a hospital, blogging, etc. Findings: This review article briefly summarizes the major findings in such research and its roots in American pragmatic thought. Conclusion: The article then suggest how to apply this form of analysis to long historical conversations about the foundations of democracy, the assessment of what building a democracy must entail, particularly as it relates to an educated citizenry, and then to the ongoing assessments of whether goals are being met and what reforms may be needed (e.g., "No Child Left Behind") continuing with further assessments that constitute new realities that will be subjected to further assessments in the political sphere. C1 Columbia Univ, Teachers Coll, New York, NY 10027 USA. RP Varenne, H (reprint author), Columbia Univ, Teachers Coll, New York, NY 10027 USA. CR Dewey J., 1966, DEMOCRACY ED Dumont Louis, 1980, HOMO HIERARCHICUS Erickson F., 1982, COUNSELOR GATEKEEPER Kennedy E., 2007, WASHINGTON POST Mann H., 1957, REPUBLIC SCH ED FREE McDermott R., 1976, REV ANTHR, V3, P160 MCDERMOTT RP, 1978, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V7, P321, DOI 10.1146/annurev.an.07.100178.001541 Mehan H., 1979, LEARNING LESSONS SOC Varenne H., 2006, CLASSROOM AUTHORITY Mullooly J., 2003, THESIS COLUMBIA U NE Peirce C., 1909, COMMUNICATION Sacks H., 1972, STUDIES SOCIAL INTER, P280 Varenne H., 1983, AM SCH LANGUAGE RHET Varenne H, 2007, TEACH COLL REC, V109, P1559 NR 14 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 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 NOV PY 2014 VL 116 IS 11 AR 110306 PG 8 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CA7VS UT WOS:000349126100005 ER PT J AU Roever, C Wang, S Brophy, S AF Roever, Carsten Wang, Stanley Brophy, Stephanie TI Learner background factors and learning of second language pragmatics SO IRAL-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING LA English DT Article DE interlanguage pragmatics; individual differences; proficiency; exposure; assessment ID CONVENTIONAL EXPRESSIONS; FOREIGN-LANGUAGE; L2 PRAGMATICS; PROFICIENCY; ACQUISITION; AWARENESS; REQUESTS; ESL; COMPREHENSION; COMPETENCE AB Learner background factors have been shown to affect learning of L2 pragmatics, which has been demonstrated especially for proficiency and length of residence. However, these factors have generally been investigated individually, not allowing conclusions as to their relative contributions. In this study, we use Poisson regression to investigate the effect of proficiency, length of residence, gender and multilingualism on learners' comprehension of implicature, recognition of routine formulae and production of speech acts in English. 229 ESL and EFL learners completed a web-based pragmatics test with 12 items per section. We found that only proficiency significantly affected implicature comprehension, length of residence and proficiency were significant factors in the recognition of routine formulae, and proficiency and gender significantly impacted speech act production. Although the effect of proficiency in our study is far greater than for any other background factor, we caution against overemphasizing its importance to learning of pragmatics overall. C1 [Roever, Carsten; Wang, Stanley; Brophy, Stephanie] Univ Melbourne, Sch Languages & Linguist, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia. RP Roever, C (reprint author), Univ Melbourne, Sch Languages & Linguist, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia. EM carsten@unimelb.edu.au CR Achiba Machik, 2002, LEARNING REQUEST 2 L Al-Gahtani S, 2012, APPL LINGUIST, V33, P42, DOI 10.1093/applin/amr031 Arabski J, 2011, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, pXV Austin J. L., 1962, DO THINGS WORDS Bardovi-Harlig K, 1998, TESOL QUART, V32, P233, DOI 10.2307/3587583 Bardovi-Harlig K, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P347, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.017 Bardovi-Harlig K, 2009, LANG LEARN, V59, P755 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P171, DOI DOI 10.1017/S027226310001487X Bardovi-Harlig K., 1993, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V15, P279, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100012122 Baron Julia, 2010, EUROSLA YB, V10, P38, DOI DOI 10.1075/EUROSLA.10.05BAR Barron Anne, 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P129, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.009 Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN Bouton Lawrence, 1988, WORLD ENGLISH, V17, P183 Hinkel Eli, 1999, CULTURE 2 LANGUAGE T, P47 Breland H, 2007, APPL MEAS EDUC, V20, P377 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Cohen AD, 2007, MOD LANG J, V91, P189, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00540.x Coulmas F., 1981, CONVERSATIONAL ROUTI Dewaele J. M., 2010, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V48, P105, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2010.006 Doehler SP, 2011, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, P206 Ellis R., 1992, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V14, P1, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100010445 Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P41 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P253, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.013 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Grieve Averil, 2011, THESIS U MELBOURNE A Hassall T., 2006, LANGUAGE LEARNERS ST, P31 Hassall T, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1903, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00115-2 Hilbe J. M., 2011, NEGATIVE BINOMIAL RE Hilbe JM, 2010, STATA J, V10, P104 House Juliane, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P225, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014893 Huang Y., 2007, PRAGMATICS Hulstijn Jan H., 2011, LANG TEST, V29, P203 Kanagy R, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P1467, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00113-1 Kasper G., 2008, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P279 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kerekes J, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P1942, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.008 Kinginger C., 2004, FRONTIERS INTERDISCI, V10, P19 Kinginger C., 2008, LONGITUDINAL STUDY A, P223 Kobayashi H., 2003, PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE, P161 Labov William, 1990, LANG VAR CHANGE, V2, P205, DOI [10. 1017/S09543945 00000338, DOI 10.1017/S0954394500000338] Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Long MH, 2012, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V34, P99, DOI 10.1017/S0272263111000519 Matsumura S, 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P465, DOI 10.1093/applin/24.4.465 Matsumura S, 2001, LANG LEARN, V51, P635, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00170 Niezgoda Kimberly, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P63 Roever C., 2006, LANG TEST, V23, P229, DOI 10.1191/0265532206lt329oa Roever C., 2005, TESTING ESL PRAGMATI Roever Carsten, 2007, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V12, P187 Roever Carsten, HDB 2 LANGUAGE TEACH, P560 Roever C, 2012, ELT J, V66, P10, DOI 10.1093/elt/ccq090 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 Safont-Jorda Maria Pilar, 2005, INT J MULTILINGUALIS, V2, P84 Safont-Jorda Maria Pilar, 2003, INT J BILINGUAL, V7, P43 Salsbury Tom, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V9, P131 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 Schieffelin B. B., 1986, LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATI Searle John R., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P59 Searle JR, 1969, SPEECH ACTS 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 Stankov L, 2008, J EDUC PSYCHOL, V100, P961, DOI 10.1037/a0012546 Su IR, 2010, MOD LANG J, V94, P87 Tagashira Kazuhito, 2011, JALT J, V33, P5 Taguchi Naoko, 2011, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V49, P265 Taguchi N, 2005, MOD LANG J, V89, P543, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00329.x Taguchi N, 2008, LANG LEARN, V58, P33, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00434.x Taguchi N, 2008, MOD LANG J, V92, P558, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00787.x Taguchi N, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P113, DOI 10.1093/applin/aml051 Takahashi S, 2005, APPL LINGUIST, V26, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/amh040 Trosborg A., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Xu W, 2009, SYSTEM, V37, P205, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2008.09.007 NR 74 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 5 U2 17 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 2014 VL 52 IS 4 BP 377 EP 401 DI 10.1515/iral-2014-0016 PG 25 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA CA0DZ UT WOS:000348587100003 ER PT J AU Guinjoan, MF AF Forcadell Guinjoan, Montserrat TI The translation into Catalan of marked structures in King Lear SO ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ROMANISCHE PHILOLOGIE LA English DT Article DE Marked structures; dislocation; clitic binding; discourse; theme-rheme King Lear AB Different languages have different means (or structures) to either foreground or background the informational (thematic-rhematic) import of the constituents involved in their sentences. English and Catalan differ substantially, since these two languages resort to two different types of strategies to encode such pragmatic information. Whereas in English thematic (old) information may be left deaccented inside the clause, in Catalan it must be moved to a peripheral (dislocated) position in the structure. This might trigger the binding of a clitic in the clause to satisfy the requirements of the verb. Hence, in order to maintain the quality of the original text, translators should be aware of the equivalences that marked structures have in the target language so as to avoid the weakening of the quality of the target text. If the choice of marked structures is relevant in the original text, that choice should be reflected in (quality) target texts as well. To approach how marked structures are treated in translations, four strategies (which are either contrastive and/or involve clitic binding in Catalan) will be analysed in a fragment of Shakespeare's King Lear. C1 Univ Barcelona, Fac Filol, E-08007 Barcelona, Spain. RP Guinjoan, MF (reprint author), Univ Barcelona, Fac Filol, Gran Via Corts Catalanes 585, E-08007 Barcelona, Spain. EM forcadell@ub.edu RI Forcadell, Montserrat/K-4166-2016 OI Forcadell, Montserrat/0000-0003-1364-8781 CR ASHBY WJ, 1988, LINGUA, V75, P203, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(88)90032-0 Astruc-Aguilera Lluisa, 2005, THESIS U CAMBRIDGE Chafe Wallace, 1976, GIVENNESS CONTRASTIV, P25 Cowper Elizabeth A., 1979, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V15, P70 Erteschik-Shir Nomi, 2007, INFORM STRUCTURE SYN Espunya Anna, 2008, ORALIDAD FINGIDA OBR FABRA Pompeu, 1954, CONVERSES FILOLOGIQU Fabra Pompeu, 1908, DIFERENTS PROBLEMES, V1908, P352 Fabregas Xavier, 1979, ESTUDIS LLENGUA LIT, V1, P181 Ferrater Gabriel, 1981, SOBRE EL LLENGUATGE Forcadell Montserrat, 2012, TRANSLATION FICTIVE, P185 Forcadell Montserrat, 2000, ACT 16 C NAC AS ESP, V1, P679 Forcadell Montserrat, 2013, ESTUDIS ROMANICS, V35, P401 Forcadell Montserrat, 2007, THESIS U P FABRA BAR Forcadell M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V53, P39, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.017 Fuchs Anna, 1984, STUDIES DISCOURSE PH, P134 Geluykens Ronald, 1994, PRAGMATICS DISCOURSE GUNDEL JK, 1985, J PRAGMATICS, V9, P83, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(85)90049-9 Hirschberg J., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P515 Jackendoff R., 1972, SEMANTIC INTERPRETAT Ladd D. Robert, 1980, STRUCTURE INTONATION Lambrecht K., 1981, TOPIC ANTITOPIC VERB Li C., 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC Lott Bernard, 1974, W SHAKESPEARE KING L Mayol Laia, 2007, LANGUAGES CONTRAST, V7, P203, DOI DOI 10.1075/LIC.7.2.07MAY Oliva Salvador, 1988, W SHAKESPEARE REI LE Oliva Salvador, 2003, W SHAKESPEARE REI LE Par Anfos, 1912, REI LEAR TRAGEDIA G Pilar Prieto, 2002, ENTONACIO MODELS TEO Prince E., 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P223 Pujol Didac, 2007, TRADUIR SHAKESPEARE Rochemont M., 1986, FOCUS GENERATIVE GRA Selkirk E. O., 1984, PHONOLOGY SYNTAX REL Sellent Joan, 2008, W SHAKESPEARE REI LE Saldanya Manuel Perez, 2002, GRAMATICA CATALA CON, V2 Sola Joan, 1977, CATALA INCORRECTE CA, V62 Sola Joan, 1987, QUESTIONS CONTROVERT, V62 Sola Joan, 1972, ESTUDIS SINTAXI CATA, V62, P1972 Sola Joan, 1977, ENTORN LLENGUA Sola J., 1994, SINTAXI NORMATIVA ES Sola Joan, 1990, LINGUISTICA NORMATIV Soler Lluis, 2008, W SHAKESPEARE TRAGED Tenenbaum Sarah, 1977, HAYA GRAMMATICAL STR, P161 Torrelas A. Albert, 1908, W SHAKESPEARE REI LE Vallduvi Enric, 1992, INFORM COMPONENT VALLDUVI E, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V22, P573, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90031-0 Vallduvi E, 1996, LINGUISTICS, V34, P459, DOI 10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.459 Vallduvi Enric, 1994, P 9 AMST C, P683 Villalba Xavier, 1996, LLENGUA LIT, V7, P209 Villalba Xavier, 2009, SYNTAX SEMANTICS DIS Zimmermann Malte, 2010, INFORM STRUCTURE THE Ziv Yael, 1994, P 9 ANN C WORKSH DIS, P184 Zubizarreta Maria L., 1998, PROSODY FOCUS WORD O NR 53 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 4 PU WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, D-10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0049-8661 EI 1865-9063 J9 Z ROMAN PHILOL JI Z. Romanische Philol. PD NOV PY 2014 VL 130 IS 4 BP 956 EP 987 DI 10.1515/zrp-2014-0084 PG 32 WC Language & Linguistics; Literature, Romance SC Linguistics; Literature GA AY5XC UT WOS:000347641400003 ER PT J AU Cortes-Pascual, PA Cano-Escoriaza, J Orejudo, S AF Cortes-Pascual, P. A. Cano-Escoriaza, J. Orejudo, S. TI The work values of first year Spanish university students SO HIGHER EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE First-year university students; Work values; Individual differences; Cluster analysis ID COLLECTIVISM; MOTIVATION AB This study analyzes the work values of 2,951 first-year university students in Spain enrolled in degree programs within the five major areas of university studies. For our research, participants were asked to respond to a Scale of Work Values in which intrinsic, social, and pragmatic extrinsic values as well as extrinsic values related to geographic mobility are differentiated. Our findings show these students to have high levels of intrinsic and pragmatic extrinsic values as well as differences that vary according to their gender, major area of study and their chosen study program. By means of cluster analysis, we have also identified seven distinct types of students aligned with the work values under study. This paper explores the implications of this study for the development of work values and the education of students at the university level as well as the study's possible utility as a means of providing orientation to students that will prepare them better for their entry into the labor market. C1 [Cortes-Pascual, P. A.; Cano-Escoriaza, J.; Orejudo, S.] Univ Zaragoza, Fac Educ, E-50009 Zaragoza, Spain. RP Orejudo, S (reprint author), Univ Zaragoza, Fac Educ, C San Juan Bosco 7, E-50009 Zaragoza, Spain. EM alcortes@unizar.es; jcano@unizar.es; sorejudo@unizar.es OI Orejudo Hernandez, Santos/0000-0001-6492-2248 CR Anthony G, 2008, ASIA-PAC J TEACH EDU, V36, P359, DOI 10.1080/13598660802395865 Balsamo M., 2012, LEARN INDIVID DIFFER, V24, P110 Berings D, 2004, PERS INDIV DIFFER, V36, P349, DOI 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00101-6 Brown T., 2006, CONFIRMATORY FACTOR Cano J., 2012, REV ELECT INTERUNIVE, V15, P121 Claes R., 1987, SOCIALIZACION LABORA, P81 Conchado A., 2012, REV EDUC, V359, P274 Cortes P. A., 2009, EUROPEAN J ED, V44, P441 Daehlen M., 2007, J ED WORK, V20, P107, DOI 10.1080/13639080701314647 Daehlen M., 2005, J ED WORK, V18, P385 Duffy RD, 2007, CAREER DEV Q, V55, P359 Jiliang S., 2008, CHINESE EDUC SOC, V40, P86 Ghorpade J., 2001, EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBIL, V13, P191, DOI 10.1023/A:1014923119472 Hansstrom T., 2007, SCAND J PSYCHOL, V48, P143 Hattrup K, 2007, CROSS-CULT RES, V41, P236 Huang YR, 1997, RES HIGH EDUC, V38, P455, DOI 10.1023/A:1024914610562 Jensen K, 2002, HIGH EDUC, V44, P361, DOI 10.1023/A:1019817601131 Jin J, 2012, J VOCAT BEHAV, V80, P326, DOI 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.10.007 Johnson MK, 2001, WORK OCCUPATION, V28, P315, DOI 10.1177/0730888401028003004 Kirkpatrick-Johnson M, 2012, ADV LIFE COURSE RES, V17, P45 Leong T. L., 2005, J VOCAT BEHAV, V67, P69 LYONS ST, 2006, ADM REV JUL, V66, P605 Mora JG, 2007, HIGH EDUC, V53, P29, DOI 10.1007/s10734-005-2377-4 MOW International Research Team, 1987, MEAN WORK Mukherfee S., 2006, WORD VALUES BEHAV, P46 Pantic N, 2010, TEACH TEACH EDUC, V26, P694, DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.005 Roe R. A., 1999, APPL PSYCHOL-INT REV, V48, P49 Roksa J, 2006, REV HIGH EDUC, V29, P499, DOI 10.1353/rhe.2006.0038 Schwartz SH, 1999, APPL PSYCHOL-INT REV, V48, P23, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00047.x SCHWARTZ SH, 1990, J CROSS CULT PSYCHOL, V21, P139, DOI 10.1177/0022022190212001 SCHWARTZ SH, 1992, ADV EXP SOC PSYCHOL, V25, P1, DOI 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6 Shi-Rui Song, 2008, Journal of Management Development, V27, DOI 10.1108/02621710810877811 Super D. E., 1866, VALUES SCALE Xenikou A, 2005, EUR J WORK ORGAN PSY, V14, P43, DOI 10.1080/13594320444000218 NR 34 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 9 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0018-1560 EI 1573-174X J9 HIGH EDUC JI High. Educ. PD NOV PY 2014 VL 68 IS 5 BP 733 EP 747 DI 10.1007/s10734-014-9741-1 PG 15 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA AX5JZ UT WOS:000346963400007 ER PT J AU Rollins, PR AF Rollins, Pamela Rosenthal TI Narrative Skills in Young Adults With High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorders SO COMMUNICATION DISORDERS QUARTERLY LA English DT Article DE high-functioning; Autism Spectrum Disorders; pragmatics; narrative ID LANGUAGE; CHILDREN; IMPAIRMENTS; DISCOURSE; STORY AB In this study, the author investigated narrative performances of 10 high-functioning young adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) across personal and storybook narratives. Narratives were elicited with genre-specific procedures and then transcribed and scored using the narrative scoring scheme (NSS). One-tailed paired-sample t tests were conducted on four variables, for which the standard mean difference between the genres (NSS Total Score, Introduction, Conclusion, and Mental States) was large. To avoid inflating Type I error, an alpha of .012 was set. Results indicated that, on average, high-functioning adults with ASD had poorer quality personal narratives for NSS Total Score, Mental States, and Conclusion. This suggests that many high-functioning adults with ASD have difficulty in expressing how they feel and often neglect to conclude and make sense of their experiences in a social context. Telling personal narratives is an important skill for high-functioning adults with ASD because narratives support social interaction and relationships. C1 [Rollins, Pamela Rosenthal] Univ Texas Dallas, Dallas, TX 75235 USA. RP Rollins, PR (reprint author), Univ Texas Dallas, Callier Ctr Commun Disorders, 1966 Inwood Rd, Dallas, TX 75235 USA. EM rollins@utdallas.edu CR American Psychiatric Association, 2013, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT BAMBERG M, 1991, J CHILD LANG, V18, P689 Bamberg M. G., 1987, ACQUISITION NARRATIV, V49 Bavin E. L., 2009, CROSSLINGUISTIC APPR, P127 Berman R. A., 2009, CAMBRIDGE HDB CHILD, P354, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09780511576164CB09780511576164 Botting N, 2002, CHILD LANG TEACH THE, V18, P1, DOI DOI 10.1191/0265659002CT224OA Bruner J., 1986, ACTUAL MINDS POSSIBL Bruner J. S., 1994, UNDERSTANDING OTHER, P267 Cohen J., 1988, STAT POWER ANAL BEHA Colle L, 2008, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V38, P28, DOI 10.1007/s10803-007-0357-5 Curenton SM, 2004, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V35, P240, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2004/023) De Leon L., 2009, CROSSLINGUISTIC APPR, P175 De Villiers J., 2005, LINGUISTICS HUMAN SC, V1, P245 DIEHL JJ, 2006, J ABNORMAL CHILD PSY, V0034 Field A., 2013, DISCOVERING STAT USI Finestack LH, 2012, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V21, P29, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0095) Goldman S, 2008, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V38, P1982, DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0588-0 Halliday M.A.K., 1976, COHESION ENGLISH Heilmann J, 2010, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V19, P154, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0024) Jaarsma P, 2012, HEALTH CARE ANAL, V20, P20, DOI 10.1007/s10728-011-0169-9 Justice LM, 2006, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V15, P177, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2006/017) 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 Kuntay A. C., 2009, CROSSLINGUISTIC APPR, P81 Labov William, 1972, LANGUAGE INNER CITY Landa R., 2000, ASPERGER SYNDROME, P125 Lord C., 1993, COMPREHENSIVE HDB PS, P791 Lord C., 2002, AUTISM DIAGNOSTIC OB Losh M, 2006, DEV PSYCHOL, V42, P809, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.809 Mayer M., 1969, FROG ARE YOU MCCABE A, 1984, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V13, P457, DOI 10.1007/BF01068179 McCabe A., 1996, CHAMELEON READERS TE McCabe A., 2003, PATTERNS NARRATIVE D McCabe A., 2012, STRUCTURE PERS UNPUB McCabe A., 1991, DEV NARRATIVE STRUCT, P217 McCabe A., 1994, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V3, P45, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360.0301.45 McCabe A, 2008, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V17, P194, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2008/019) Miller J., 2010, SYSTEMATIC ANAL LANG National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010, COMM COR STAT STAND Nelson KD, 2004, PSYCHOL REV, V111, P486, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.486 Norbury CF, 2003, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V38, P287, DOI 10.1080/136820310000108133 Ochs E., 2004, COMPANION LINGUISTIC, P269 Paul R, 2009, ASSESSMENT AUTISM SP, P171 Petersen DB, 2010, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V53, P961, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/09-0001) Peterson C., 1983, DEV PSYCHOLINGUISTIC Reese E., 2013, OXFORD HDB DEV IMAGI, P196 Rollins P. R., 2014, FACILITATING EARLY S SALT Software, FROG STOR Snow C. E., 1998, PREVENTING READING D Stein N. L., 1979, NEW DIRECTIONS DISCO, VII, P53 Tager-Flusberg H., 2005, LANGUAGE COMMUNICATI van Dijk Teun, 2011, DISCOURSE STUDIES A, P1 Walsh P, 2011, NAT REV NEUROSCI, V12, P603, DOI 10.1038/nrn3113 Wechsler D., 1999, WECHSLER ABBREVIATED Wolf L, 2009, STUDENTS ASPERGER SY Young EC, 2005, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V36, P62, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2005/006) NR 56 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 1 U2 7 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC PI THOUSAND OAKS PA 2455 TELLER RD, THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91320 USA SN 1525-7401 EI 1538-4837 J9 COMMUN DISORD Q JI Comm. Disord. Q. PD NOV PY 2014 VL 36 IS 1 BP 21 EP 28 DI 10.1177/1525740114520962 PG 8 WC Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA AW8WK UT WOS:000346539400003 ER PT J AU Pieroni, S AF Pieroni, Silvia TI A note on the functional distribution of ille in Late Latin SO INDOGERMANISCHE FORSCHUNGEN LA English DT Article DE adnominal ille; argument; article; demonstrative; diathesis; existential structures; informational structure; presentative structures; propositional structure AB This paper deals with the distribution of adnominal ille in Late Latin. While the literature on the topic is substantial, the aim of the paper is not to seek attestations of ille which foreshadow its article or article-like function, but simply to look for some functional properties that allow for its future development as a marker of definiteness. Moreover, this paper aims at considering the distribution of ille in the context of the propositional structure taken as a whole. The Peregrinatio Aetheriae is first analysed, as a privileged text for looking at a redundant use of adnominal ille. In this text, the frequency of occurrences of adnominal ille appears to be linked to the frequency of presentative structures: in particular, ille is often found within post-verbal noun phrases which, even while fulfilling the subject function, combine a predicative and/or rhematic function with the argumental one, precisely as in existential and presentative structures. The hypothesis may thus be suggested that ille occurs as a marker of nominative nominals which occur in "atypical" combinations of syntactic and pragmatic functions and in correlation with a marked linear order. In a second step, this analysis is checked against a further corpus, drawn from St. Augustine's Confessiones where, again, ille is found either as a marker of nominals which, in addition to functioning as arguments, have a predicative and rhematic value, or as a marker of nominals which occur in propositional structures where other nominal (or adjectival) elements are involved as predicates as well. C1 Univ Siena, I-53100 Siena, Italy. RP Pieroni, S (reprint author), Univ Siena, I-53100 Siena, Italy. EM silvia.pleroni@unistrasi.it CR Adams JN, 2013, SOCIAL VARIATION AND THE LATIN LANGUAGE, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511843433 Ambrosini Riccardo, 1984, AION, V6, P239 Ambrosini Riccardo, 1988, TIPOLOGIE DELLA CONV, P125 Ambrosini Riccardo, 1986, STUDI E SAGGI LINGUI, V26, P59 Bolkestein Alide M., 1995, VERB SUBJECT ORDER A, P32 Cennamo Michela, 2001, DE LINGUA LATINA NOV, P51 Cennamo M, 1999, Z ROMAN PHILOL, V115, P300, DOI 10.1515/zrph.1999.115.2.300 Cennamo M, 1998, AMST STUD THEORY HIS, V164, P77 Chadwick H., 1991, SAINT AUGUSTINE CONF Coseriu Eugenio, 1971, ESSAI DUNE NOUVELLE DAVIES W, 1988, LANGUAGE, V64, P52, DOI 10.2307/414785 Fruyt Michele, 2003, LATIN VULGAIRE LATIN, P99 Gamillscheg Ernst, 1937, AUSGEWAHLTE AUFSATZE, V1, P43 Gerola Berengario, 1950, ATTI IST VENETO SCI, V108, P207 Giusti Giuliana, 1993, LA SINTASSI DEI DETE Giusti G., 1998, UNIVERSITY OF VENICE, V8, P53 Himmelmann Nikolaus, 2001, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY LA, V1, P831 KROON Caroline, 1995, DISCOURSE PARTICLES La Fauci Nunzio, 2000, THESIS, P21 LA FAUCI N., 2006, ATTI DELLA GIORNATA, P101 La Fauci Nunzio, 1997, PER UNA TEORIA GRAMM La Fauci Nunzio, 1988, OGGETTI E SOGGETTI N Loporcaro Michele, 1997, STUDI ITALIANI LINGU, V26.1, P5 LONGOBARDI G, 1994, LINGUIST INQ, V25, P609 Loporcaro Michele, 1997, SINTASSI COMPARATA D McClure M. L., 1919, THE PILGRIMAGE OF ET Meyer-Lubke Wilhelm, 1899, GRAMMATIK DER ROMANI, V3 Moro Andrea, 1997, THE RAISING OF PREDI Nocentini Alberto, 1990, NEL CENTENARIO DELLA, P137 Orlandini Anna, 1981, INDOGERMANISCHE FORS, V86, P223 Orlandini Anna, 1995, IL RIFERIMENTO DEL N Parenti Alessandro, 2004, SULLA NOZIONE DI GEL, P147 Pieroni Silvia, 2010, NEW PERSPECTIVES HIS, V3, P389 Pinkster Harm, 1996, MITTELLATEINISCHES J, V31, P43 Plank Frans, 1985, RELATIONAL TYPOLOGY Ramat Paolo, 1984, LINGUISTICA TIPOLOGI, P117 Renzi Lorenzo, 1987, ACTES DU COLLOQUE DE, P297 Renzi Lorenzo, 1997, FESTSCHRIFT FUR MAX, V65, P7 ROSEN C, 1987, ITALICA, V64, P443, DOI 10.2307/478500 Rosen Carol, 1997, COMPLEX PREDICATES, P175 Rosen Hannah, 1994, LINGUISTIC STUDIES O, P130 Sasse Hans-Jurgen, 1995, VERB SUBJECT ORDER T, P3 Selig Maria, 1992, DIE ENTWICKLUNG DER Sornicola Rosanna, 2009, TRAVAUX LINGUIST, V59, P25 Spevak O, 2005, MNEMOSYNE, V58, P235, DOI 10.1163/156852505774249550 Vangsnes OA, 2001, STUD LINGUISTICA, V55, P249, DOI 10.1111/1467-9582.00081 Vincent Nigel, 1998, SINTASSI STORICA ATT, P411 von Wartburg Walther, 1963, PROBLEMES ET METHODE Wackernagel Jacob, 1928, VORLESUNGEN UBER SYN NR 49 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 2 PU WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, D-10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0019-7262 EI 1613-0405 J9 INDOGER FORSCH JI Indoger. Forsch. PD NOV PY 2014 VL 119 IS 1 BP 1 EP 20 DI 10.1515/if-2014-0003 PG 20 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AW7IP UT WOS:000346438100001 ER PT J AU Collins, A Lockton, E Adams, C AF Collins, Anna Lockton, Elaine Adams, Catherine TI Metapragmatic explicitation ability in children with typical language development: Development and validation of a novel clinical assessment SO JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION DISORDERS LA English DT Article DE Metapragmatic awareness; Assessment; Reliability; Social Communication Disorder; Specific language impairment; Children ID COMMUNICATION INTERVENTION PROJECT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER; PRAGMATIC DIFFICULTIES; COMPREHENSION; IMPAIRMENT; KNOWLEDGE; SKILLS AB Purpose: Speech-language practitioners recognise the importance of metapragmatic (MP) ability (the ability to explicitly reflect on pragmatic rules) in therapy for children with pragmatic and social communication difficulties. There is inconclusive evidence in the literature regarding both the development of metapragmatic ability in children with typical language and the expected levels of explicitation (reflection on. pragmatic behaviours) in children's metapragmatic descriptions. The main purposes of this study were to investigate the reliability of a novel task of metapragmatic awareness (the Assessment of Metapragmatics or AMP) and to investigate typical developmental trends of metapragmatic ability and metapragmatic explicitation using the AMP task. Main results: Analysis of pooled data from 40 children with typical language development aged between six and eleven years and 48 children with communication impairments indicated that the AMP task had satisfactory internal consistency and inter-rater reliability. For children with typical language development, there was no relationship between gender and metapragmatic ability as measured by AMP. There was a linear relationship between age and AMP task scores and between age and explicitation. The scoring system used in the AMP task was sensitive to age-related changes in metapragmatic ability in a normative sample. The sophistication of metapragmatic awareness (explicitation) also increased with age. At age six years, children demonstrated metapragmatic awareness in their responses to 74% of AMP stimuli items; this increased to 95% of AMP items at ages 10-11 years. Conclusions: The AMP is a reliable measure of development in MP explicitation for children with satisfactory face validity in terms of acceptability to communication professionals and to child participants. From age six, children have some awareness of pragmatic acts and can identify and relate linguistic cues or pragmatic rules in atypical interactions of the type depicted in the AMP. The AMP task solicited significantly increased frequency of use of higher levels of MP explication beyond seven years of age in children with typical language development. Learning outcomes: Readers will explain the development, reliability and structure of a novel task that measures the ability of a child to understand and explain pragmatic rules. Readers will also identify age related changes in this ability in a sample of typically developing child participants. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. C1 [Collins, Anna; Lockton, Elaine; Adams, Catherine] Univ Manchester, Sch Psychol Sci, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. RP Lockton, E (reprint author), Univ Manchester, Sch Psychol Sci, Ellen Wilkinson Bldg,Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England. EM elaine.lockton@manchester.ac.uk FU ESRC [RES-00022-2223, RES-000-22-2223] FX The original research was supported by ESRC Grant (RES-00022-2223) to Adams and Lockton (reference number: RES-000-22-2223). The authors have no nonfinancial relationships to disclose. CR Adams C., 2013, ENCY AUTISM SPECTRUM Adams C., 2011, SPEECH LANGUAGE THER, P7 Adams C, 2001, ASSESSMENT COMPREHEN 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 Catherine, 2005, Seminars in Speech and Language, V26, P181, DOI 10.1055/s-2005-917123 American Psychiatric Association, 2013, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT Anderson-Wood L., 1997, WORKING PRAGMATICS P AXIA G, 1985, CHILD DEV, V56, P918, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1985.tb00165.x Baroni M. R., 1989, 1 LANGUAGE, V9, P285, DOI 10.1177/014272378900902703 BECKER JA, 1988, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V11, P457 BERNICOT J, 1991, INT J BEHAV DEV, V14, P285 Bernicot J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P101, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)00075-5 Bernicot J, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P2115, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.009 Bishop D., 2003, TEST RECEPTION GRAMM Bishop DVM, 2000, DEV PSYCHOPATHOL, V12, P177, DOI 10.1017/S0954579400002042 BISHOP DVM, 1992, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V35, P119 Bishop DVM, 2000, SPEECH LANGUAGE IMPA BISHOP DVM, 1989, BRIT J DISORD COMMUN, V24, P241 Ford JA, 2008, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V51, P367, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/027) KARMILOFFSMITH A, 1986, COGNITION, V23, P95, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90040-5 Kerbel D, 1998, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V33, P1 Kline P., 1999, HDB PSYCHOL TESTING LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159, DOI 10.2307/2529310 Laval V., 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P723, DOI [10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00137-6, 10.1016/s0378 2166(02)00137 6] Leinonen E, 1997, EUR J DISORDER COMM, V32, P53 Mackay T, 2007, J INTELLECT DEV DIS, V32, P279, DOI 10.1080/13668250701689280 Perkins M, 2007, PRAGMATIC IMPAIRMENT Pratt C., 1984, METALINGUISTIC AWARE, P105 Raven J. C., 1979, COLOURED PROGR MATRI Reed VA, 1999, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V30, P32, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461.3001.32 Rinaldi W., 2001, SOCIAL USE LANGUAGE ROBINSON EJ, 1977, DEV PSYCHOL, V13, P156, DOI 10.1037//0012-1649.13.2.156 ROBINSON EJ, 1976, DEV PSYCHOL, V12, P328, DOI 10.1037//0012-1649.12.4.328 SACHS J, 1991, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V14, P357 Skarakis-Doyle E, 2002, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V33, P175, DOI 10.1207/S15326950DP3302_04 Skarakis-Doyle E, 2008, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V51, P1227, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0136) Tager-Flusberg H., 2005, HDB AUTISM PERVASIVE, V1, P335 White SW, 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P1858, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0320-x WILKINSON LC, 1987, TOP LANG DISORD, V7, P61 NR 40 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 14 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 2014 VL 52 BP 31 EP 43 DI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.07.001 PG 13 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA AW3WA UT WOS:000346212800003 PM 25173072 ER PT J AU Heller, D Wolter, L AF Heller, Daphna Wolter, Lynsey TI Beyond Demonstratives: Direct Reference in Perceptually Grounded Descriptions SO JOURNAL OF SEMANTICS LA English DT Article ID QUESTIONS AB This article discusses two puzzles regarding identity questions: (i) certain definites cannot occur in the post-copular position of identity questions; and (ii) the same definites are the only possible answers to identity questions with post-copular names. We demonstrate that the range of these definites crucially depends on interlocutors' shared assumptions about how entities in the physical surroundings are perceived and categorized. We propose that these definites are directly referential in the sense of Kaplan (1989a,b), and only contribute the referent itself to the semantic composition. To explain the asymmetry between perceptually grounded descriptions and proper names, we draw on Gupta's (1980) framework of relative identity. This analysis suggests that direct reference is not always determined lexically, but is-at least in part-a pragmatic phenomenon. More generally, this phenomenon shows that natural language is sensitive to the source of information in the common ground. C1 [Heller, Daphna] Univ Toronto, Dept Linguist, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada. [Wolter, Lynsey] UW Eau Claire, Dept English, Eau Claire, WI 54702 USA. RP Heller, D (reprint author), Univ Toronto, Dept Linguist, Sidney Smith Hall,Room 4088 100 St George St, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada. EM daphna.heller@utoronto.ca; wolterlk@uwec.edu CR Aloni Maria, 2001, THESIS U AMSTERDAM BERG J, 1988, LINGUIST PHILOS, V11, P355, DOI 10.1007/BF00632908 Borer Hagit, 2005, NAME ONLY STRUCTURIN, VI BRAUN D, 1995, J PHILOS LOGIC, V24, P227, DOI 10.1007/BF01344202 Braun D, 2008, LINGUIST PHILOS, V31, P57, DOI 10.1007/s10988-008-9032-3 Dayal V., 2005, BLACKWELL COMPANION, V3, P275 Dayal Veneeta, 1996, LOCALITY WH QUANTIFI Devitt M., 1981, MIDW STUDIES PHILOS, V6, P511, DOI 10.1111/j.1475-4975.1981.tb00456.x Devitt M., 2004, DESCRIPTIONS, P280 DONNELLAN KS, 1966, PHILOS REV, V75, P281, DOI 10.2307/2183143 Elbourne P, 2008, LINGUIST PHILOS, V31, P409, DOI 10.1007/s10988-008-9043-0 Fine K, 2003, MIND, V112, P195, DOI 10.1093/mind/112.446.195 Geach Peter, 1962, REFERENCE GEN GEACH P. T., 1972, LOGIC MATTERS Ghomeshi J., 2005, P 2005 CANADIAN LING Ghomeshi J, 2009, LING AKT, V147, P67 GROENENDIJK JEROEN, 1984, STUDIES SEMANTICS QU Groenendijk J., 1997, HDB LOGIC LANGUAGE, P1055, DOI 10.1016/B978-044481714-3/50024-2 Gupta A., 1980, LOGIC COMMON NOUNS I HAMBLIN CL, 1973, FOUND LANG, V10, P41 Heller D., 1999, THESIS TEL AVIV U Heller D., 2008, P SINN BEDEUTUNG 12, P226 Heller D., 2010, P 46 ANN M CHIC LING Heller D, 2011, LINGUIST PHILOS, V34, P169, DOI 10.1007/s10988-011-9095-4 Heycock C, 1999, LINGUIST INQ, V30, P365, DOI 10.1162/002438999554110 Higgins F. R., 1973, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE Hunter J, 2013, J SEMANT, V30, P381, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffs013 Kamp H., 2010, WORKING PAPERS SFB Kaplan David, 1989, THEMES KAPLAN, P565 King Jeffrey C., 2001, COMPLEX DEMONSTRATIV Kripke Saul, 1980, NAMING NECESSITY Kroch Anthony, 1989, AMOUNT QUANTIF UNPUB LONGOBARDI G, 1994, LINGUIST INQ, V25, P609 Lyons Cristopher, 1999, DEFINITENESS Matushansky O., 2006, EMPIRICAL ISSUES SYN, V6, P285 Mikkelsen Line, 2004, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Mikkelsen L., 2008, P BLS IN PRESS Nunberg G., 2004, DESCRIPTIONS, P261 Partee Barbara, 1987, STUDIES DISCOURSE RE Partee B. H., 1986, P 16 ANN M N E LING, P354 Pelletier FJ, 2002, LINGUIST PHILOS, V25, P507, DOI 10.1023/A:1020885317387 Percus O, 2003, LECT NOTES ARTIF INT, V2680, P259 Pesetsky David, 1987, REPRESENTATION INDEF, P98 QUINE WV, 1956, J PHILOS, V53, P177, DOI 10.2307/2022451 Roberts C., 2002, INFORM SHARING Sharvit Yael, 1999, NAT LANG SEMANT, V7, P299, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1008390623435 Strawson P. F., 1959, INDIVIDUALS ESSAY DE WILLIAMS E, 1983, LINGUIST PHILOS, V6, P423 Wolter Lynsey Kay, 2006, THESIS U CALIFORNIA NR 49 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 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 2014 VL 31 IS 4 BP 555 EP 595 DI 10.1093/jos/fft012 PG 41 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AU8LJ UT WOS:000345847700003 ER PT J AU Cruz, MP AF Padilla Cruz, Manuel TI Pragmatic failure, epistemic injustice and epistemic vigilance SO LANGUAGE & COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE Pragmatic failure; Relevance theory; Epistemic vigilance; Epistemic injustice; Hermeneutical injustice ID NATIVE SPEAKER; COMMUNICATION; POLITENESS; ACCURACY; ENGLISH; TRUST; COMPREHENSION; STRATEGIES; ARGUMENTS; EVOLUTION AB Stemming from real or seeming incompetence, the pragmatic failures L2 learners and LF speakers often commit may lead to stereotyping and negative labelling as a consequence of hearers' mindreading abilities and relevance-driven interpretation of communicative behaviour. Pragmatic incompetence may incite hearers to erroneously attribute beliefs, intentions or feelings to speakers because of lowered epistemic vigilance and to sustain a specific type of epistemic injustice, which, borrowing from social epistemology, is here labelled pragmatic-hermeneutical injustice. Pragmatic-hermeneutical injustices could be avoided or overcome if hearers' vigilance triggered a shift of processing strategy from naive optimism to cautious optimism. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Seville, Dept Filol Inglesa Lengua Inglesa, Fac Filol, Seville 41004, Spain. RP Cruz, MP (reprint author), Univ Seville, Dept Filol Inglesa Lengua Inglesa, Fac Filol, C Palos de la Frontera S-N, Seville 41004, Spain. EM mpadillacruz@us.es CR Bachman L., 1990, FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDER Barkow J. H., 1992, ADAPTED MIND Baumard N, 2013, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V36, P59, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X11002202 Beebe Leslie M, 1990, DEV COMMUNICATIVE CO, P55 Takahashi Tomoko, 1989, VARIATION 2 LANGUAGE, V1, P103 Bialystok Ellen, 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P43 Blum-Kulka Shoshana, 1986, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V8, P165, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100006069 Blyth A, 2012, ELT J, V66, P236, DOI 10.1093/elt/ccs001 Boxer Diana, 2002, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V22, P150, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0267190502000089 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Canale M., 1983, LANG COMMUN, P2 Canai'e M., 1980, APPLIED LINGUISTICS, V1, P1, DOI DOI 10.1093/APPLIN/1.1.1 Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Celce-Murcia M., 1995, ISSUES APPL LINGUIST, V5, P5 CHEN R, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V20, P49, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90106-Y Clement F, 2004, MIND LANG, V19, P360, DOI 10.1111/j.0268-1064.2004.00263.x Coady D, 2010, EPISTEME-J INDIV SOC, V7, P101, DOI 10.3366/E1742360010000845 Garces Conejos P., 2002, REV ALICANTINA ESTUD, V15, P81 Cook V, 1999, TESOL QUART, V33, P185, DOI 10.2307/3587717 COOK VJ, 1992, LANG LEARN, V42, P557, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01044.x Corriveau K, 2009, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V12, P188, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00763.x Figueras Costa B., 2001, J DEAF STUD DEAF EDU, V6, P92 Padilla Cruz M., 2012, RELEVANCE THEORY MOR, P279 Padilla Cruz M., 2004, APROXIMACION PRAGMAT Padilla Cruz M., 2012, RES LANGUAGE, V10, P365 Deterding D., 2013, MISUNDERSTANDINGS EN, DOI Berlin Ehrman M., 1999, AFFECT LANGUAGE LEAR, P68 Field J, 2010, ELT J, V64, P331, DOI 10.1093/elt/ccq026 Field RW, 2007, J PHILOS RES, V32, P133 Fricker M, 2003, METAPHILOSOPHY, V34, P154, DOI 10.1111/1467-9973.00266 Fricker Miranda, 1998, P ARISTOTELIAN SOC, V98, P159, DOI 10.1111/1467-9264.00030 Fricker M., 2007, EPISTEMIC INJUSTICE Fricker M, 2006, EPISTEME-J INDIV SOC, V3, P96, DOI 10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.96 Furnham A, 1995, CURR PSYCHOL, V14, P179, DOI 10.1007/BF02686907 Garfield JL, 2001, MIND LANG, V16, P494, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00180 GOLDMAN A., 1999, KNOWLEDGE SOCIAL WOR Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Hale Sandra, 1996, AUSTR REV APPL LINGU, V19, P61 Hale Sandra, 1997, CRITICAL LINK INTERP, P201 Han Chung-hye, 1992, WORKING PAPERS ED LI, V8, P17 Hartmans E., 1991, BOUNDARIES MIND NEW Heyman GD, 2008, CURR DIR PSYCHOL SCI, V17, P344, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00603.x Hong W., 1997, J CHINESE LANGUAGE T, V32, P95 House J., 2000, KOGNITIVE ASPEKTE LE, P101 House J., 1990, UBERSETZUNGSWISSENCH, P315 Hurley D. S., 1992, APPLIED LINGUISTICS, V13, P259, DOI 10.1093/applin/13.3.259 Jackendoff R., 1992, LANGUAGES MIND Jaworski A., 1995, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V5, P63, DOI 10.1111/j.1473-4192.1995.tb00073.x Kakava C., 1993, GEORGETOWN U ROUND T, P402 Kasanga Luanga A, 2001, SO AFRICAN LINGUISTI, V19, P253, DOI 10.2989/16073610109486291 Kasanga LA, 2007, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V3, P65, DOI 10.1515/PR.2007.004 Kasper G, 1992, SECOND LANG RES, V8, P203, DOI 10.1177/026765839200800303 Kasper G., 1997, CAN PRAGMATIC COMPET KASPER G, 1984, LANG LEARN, V34, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00349.x Kasper G., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kecskes I., 2000, FOREIGN LANGUAGE MOT Koenig MA, 2007, EPISTEME-J INDIV SOC, V4, P264, DOI 10.3366/E1742360007000081 Laver John, 1975, ORG BEHAV FACE TO FA, P215 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Levine TR, 2006, COMMUN MONOGR, V73, P243, DOI 10.1080/03637750600873736 Levine TR, 2010, NEW AGENDAS COMMUN, P16 Hamela L. M., 2010, COMMUNICATION RES RE, V4, P271, DOI DOI 10.1080/08824096.2010.496334 Levine TR, 1999, COMMUN MONOGR, V66, P125 Levine T. R., 2010, COMMUNICATION YB, V34, P41 Mascaro O, 2009, COGNITION, V112, P367, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012 MCGUIRE WJ, 1964, ADV EXP SOC PSYCHOL, V1, P191, DOI 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60052-0 Medina J., 2011, SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY, V25, P15, DOI 10.1080/02691728.2010.534568 Mercier H, 2011, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V34, P57, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X10000968 Michaelian K, 2013, EPISTEME-J INDIV SOC, V10, P37 Mustajoki A., 2012, LANG DIALOGUE, V2, P216 Nelson G. L., 1996, SPEECH ACTS CULTURES, P109 Nelson GL, 1996, APPL LINGUIST, V17, P411, DOI 10.1093/applin/17.4.411 Nickerson Raymond S., 1998, REV GEN PSYCHOL, V2, P175, DOI DOI 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 Nine-Curt C.J., 1977, NONVERBAL COMMUNICAT Olshtain E., 1990, TESL CANADA J, V7, P45 Olshtain E., 1989, TRANSFER LANGUAGE PR, P53 Origgi G., 2013, SOC EPISTEMOL J KNOW, V26, P221 Oswald S, 2011, DISCOURSE STUD, V13, P806 Cruz MP, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V59, P117, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.005 Cruz MP, 2013, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V51, P23, DOI 10.1515/iral-2013-0002 PAVLIDOU T, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V21, P487, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90026-4 Pavlidou T.S., 1998, PRAGMATICS, V8, P79 Yus Ramos F., 2013, IRONY HUMOR HIGHLIGH, P59 Yus Ramos F., 1999, REV CANARIA ESTUDIOS, V38, P217 Yus Ramos F., 1999, PRAGMATICS, V9, P487 Riley P., 1989, CONTRASTIVE PRAGMATI, P231 Riley Philip, 2006, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V16, P295, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1473-4192.2006.00120.X Roberts MJ, 2001, Q J EXP PSYCHOL-A, V54, P1031, DOI 10.1080/02724980143000082 Scarcella R., 1979, TESOL 79, P275 Spencer-Oatey Helen, 2000, CULTURALLY SPEAKING Sperber D, 1997, MIND LANG, V12, P67, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00036 Sperber D, 1996, EXPLAINING CULTURE N Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber Dan, 1994, WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE, P179 Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber D, 2012, MIND LANG, V27, P495, DOI 10.1111/mila.12000 Sperber D, 2010, MIND LANG, V25, P359 Sperber D, 2012, COLLECTIVE WISDOM: PRINCIPLES AND MECHANISMS, P368 Sperber D, 2013, EPISTEME-J INDIV SOC, V10, P61 Takahashi Tomoko, 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P138 Takahashi Tomoko, 1987, JALT J, V8, P131 Tannen Deborah, 1984, APPL LINGUIST, V5, P188 Taylor T, 1992, MUTUAL MISUNDERSTAND THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 THOMAS J, 1984, APPL LINGUIST, V5, P226, DOI 10.1093/applin/5.3.226 Jenny Thomas, 1995, MEANING INTERACTION Tran G.Q., 2006, NATURE CONDITIONS PR Vandergrift L., 1999, ELT J, V53, P168, DOI DOI 10.1093/ELT/53.3 Vandergrift L, 2010, LANG LEARN, V60, P470, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x Escandell-Vidal Victoria, 2004, CURRENT TRENDS PRAGM, P347 Escandell Vidal V., 1998, REV ALICANTINA ESTUD, V11, P45 Escandell Vidal V., 1996, LANG SCI, V18, P629 Weigand E, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P763, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00068-X Wharton Tim, 2009, PRAGMATICS NONVERBAL Wierzbicka A., 1996, CONTRASTIVE SOCIOLIN, P313 Wilson D., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P607 Wilson Deirdre, 1999, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V11, P127 Wilson Deirde, 2002, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V14, P249 Wolfson N., 1989, PERSPECTIVES SOCIOLI Zamborlin C., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P21, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.002 Zegarac V., 2009, INTERCULTURAL INTERA, P31 NR 122 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 1 U2 10 PU PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD PI OXFORD PA THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND SN 0271-5309 J9 LANG COMMUN JI Lang. Commun. PD NOV PY 2014 VL 39 BP 34 EP 50 DI 10.1016/j.langcom.2014.08.002 PG 17 WC Communication; Linguistics SC Communication; Linguistics GA AU6OA UT WOS:000345720900004 ER PT J AU Nikiforidou, K Marmaridou, S Mikros, GK AF Nikiforidou, Kiki Marmaridou, Sophia Mikros, George K. TI What's in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge SO COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE (dialogic) constructions; construction grammar; polysemy; (speech act of) challenge; exclamations; particles; Modern Greek; discourse ID LANGUAGE AB In this paper we address lexical polysemy in a constructional perspective, arguing that each of the conversational meanings we identify for Modern Greek ela (2nd person singular imperative of the verb erxome 'come') is appropriately modeled as a conceptual gestalt of formal (including prosodic) and semantic-pragmatic properties. In turn-initial position, ela is used to challenge a preceding utterance; we show that the variations in the kind of challenge expressed are systematically tied to the word that follows ela, the speech act force and the sentence type of the preceding utterance, and finally prosodic and textual cues. To the extent that these varieties of conversational challenge are conditioned by particular contextual features, we treat them as a family of related constructions whose common features can be captured in the form of a generalized ela construction abstracted from the different sub-patterns. Our analysis thus demonstrates the appropriateness of a constructional framework for dealing with the different kinds of parameters involved in dialogic meaning and strongly suggests that at least some of the variation inherent in discourse is amenable to a grammatical description, so that sentence-level and supra-clause patterns can be analyzed in a uniform way. C1 [Nikiforidou, Kiki; Marmaridou, Sophia] Univ Athens, Dept Language & Linguist, Fac English Language & Literature, GR-10679 Athens, Greece. [Mikros, George K.] Univ Athens, Fac Italian Language & Literature, GR-10679 Athens, Greece. RP Nikiforidou, K (reprint author), Univ Athens, Dept Language & Linguist, Fac English Language & Literature, GR-10679 Athens, Greece. EM vnikifor@enl.uoa.gr; smarmari@enl.uoa.gr; gmikros@isll.uoa.gr CR Aikhenvald A., 2006, SERIAL VERB CONSTRUC, P1 Antonopoulou E, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P741, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00150-9 Antonopoulou Eleni, 2002, PRAGMATICS, V12, P273 Antonopoulou E, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2594, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013 Ariel M, 2010, RES SURV LINGUIST, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511777912 Babiniotis Georgios, 2002, DICT MODERN GREEK LA Bates D., 2013, LME4 LINEAR MIXED EF Bergs A, 2009, CONSTR APPROACH LANG, V9, P1 Boogaart R, 2009, CONSTR APPROACH LANG, V9, P213 Borras-Comes J, 2014, J INT PHON ASSOC, V44, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0025100313000303 Brone Geert, 2014, COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC, V25 Bybee J., 2010, LANGUAGE USAGE COGNI Bybee Joan, 1985, TYPOLOGICAL STUDIES, V9 Bybee J, 2006, LANGUAGE, V82, P711, DOI 10.1353/lan.2006.0186 Torres Cacoullos Rena, 2009, LANGUAGE, V85, P321 Chen Aoju, 2003, P EUR 2003 GEN, P97 Christidis A. P., 1981, STUDIES GREEK LINGUI, V2, P113 Christidis Anastasios F., 1986, STUDIES GREEK LANGUA, V7, P135 Colleman Timothy, 2009, CONSTRUCTIONS FRAMES, V1, P190 Cuyckens Hubert, 2003, COGNITIVE APPROACHES Dancygier Barbara, 2005, MENTAL SPACES GRAMMA Du Bois John W., 2014, COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC, V25 Face Timothy L., 2011, PERCEPTION CASTILIAN Fillmore C., 1997, CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR Fillmore C., 1982, SPEECH PLACE ACTION, P31 Fillmore C, 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P143 Fischer Kerstin, 2010, CONSTRUCTIONS FRAMES, V2, P185, DOI DOI 10.1075/CF.2.2.03FIS Freese J, 1998, LANG SOC, V27, P195 Fried M, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1752, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 Fried Mirjam, 2004, CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR, P11, DOI DOI 10.1075/CAL.2 Geeraerts Dirk, 2010, COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC, V45 Geeraerts Dirk, 2005, COGN LINGUIST, P163 Goddard Cliff, 1997, PRAGMATICS, V7, P147 Grondelaers Stefan, 2002, P 6 INT C STAT AN TE, P335 Heine L, 2011, COGN LINGUIST, V22, P55, DOI 10.1515/COGL.2011.003 Hoffmann T, 2011, COGN LINGUIST, V22, P1, DOI 10.1515/COGL.2011.001 Huddleston Rodney, 2002, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Kay P, 1999, LANGUAGE, V75, P1, DOI 10.2307/417472 Robert Ladd, 2008, INTONATIONAL PHONOLO Ladd Robert, 1994, PHONOLOGICAL STRUCTU, VIII, P43 Langacker Ronald, 1991, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA Lindstrom J, 2008, CONSTR APPROACH LANG, V5, P105 Linell P, 2009, CONSTR APPROACH LANG, V9, P97 Marmaridou Sophia, 2000, PRAGMATIC MEANING CO Marmaridou Sophia, 2012, CONSTRUCTIONS FRAMES, V4, P155 Michaelis LA, 1996, LANGUAGE, V72, P215, DOI 10.2307/416650 Nicholas Nick, 1999, THESIS U MELBOURNE Nikiforidou Kiki, 2006, SUBJECTIFICATION VAR, P347 Nikiforidou K., 2010, CONSTRUCTIONS FRAMES, V2, P90 Ostman JO, 2005, CONSTR APPROACH LANG, V3, P121 Pavlidou Theodosia, 1995, STUDIES GREEK LANGUA, V15, P710 Quirk Randolph, 1972, GRAMMAR CONT ENGLISH Sadock J. M., 1985, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SY, P155 Sankoff D., 1988, LINGUISTICS CAMBRIDG, P140, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620577.009 SAVINO M, 2011, PROSODIC CATEOGRIES, V82, P187 Setatos Michalis, 1993, ELLINIKA, V43, P389 Sweetser Eve, 1990, CAMBRIDGE STUDIES LI Terkourafi Marina, 2010, CONSTRUCTIONS FRAMES, V2, P208 Terkourafi Marina, 2012, CAMBRIDGE HDB PRAGMA, P617 Traugott Elisabeth, 2002, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2010, SUBJECTIFICATION INT, P29, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 Triantafillidis Manolis, 1979, MODERN GREEK GRAMMAR Triantafillidis Manolis, 1998, DICT MODERN GREEK Tzartzanos Achilleas, 1963, SYNTAX MODERN GREEK, VB Vanrell Maria del Mar, 2006, J PORTUGUESE LINGUIS, V6, P147 Watts RJ, 2005, MOUTON TXB, P1 Wells John, 2006, ENGLISH INTONATION I Wide C, 2009, CONSTR APPROACH LANG, V9, P111 WILKINS DP, 1992, J PRAGMATICS, V18, P119, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90049-H NR 69 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 5 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0936-5907 EI 1613-3641 J9 COGN LINGUIST JI Cogn. Linguist PD NOV PY 2014 VL 25 IS 4 BP 655 EP 699 DI 10.1515/cog-2014-0060 PG 45 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AT7EC UT WOS:000345098700004 ER PT J AU Nordmeyer, AE Frank, MC AF Nordmeyer, Ann E. Frank, Michael C. TI The role of context in young children's comprehension of negation SO JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE Negation; Language development; Pragmatics ID RELATIVE CLAUSES; EYE-MOVEMENTS; VERIFICATION; INFORMATION; SENTENCES AB Negation is an important concept in human language, yet little is known about children's ability to comprehend negative sentences. In this paper, we explore how 2-5-year-old children's comprehension of negation changes depending on the context in which a negative sentence occurs. We collected eye-tracking data while children watched a video in which they heard positive and negative sentences. Negative sentences, such as "look at the boy with no apples," referred to a boy with nothing (Experiment 1) or a boy with an alternative object (Experiment 2). All children showed greater difficulty in resolving the referent when negative sentences referred to the boy with nothing, despite suggestions that nonexistence negations of this type are produced early in development. In addition, 3- and 4-year-old children showed an initial tendency to look away from the target and towards the named noun when the referent of the negative utterance was an alternative object. We argue that the processing of negation in young children is influenced by the cognitive demands of the pragmatic context in which the negative utterance occurs. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. C1 [Nordmeyer, Ann E.; Frank, Michael C.] Stanford Univ, Stanford, CA 94305 USA. RP Nordmeyer, AE (reprint author), Stanford Univ, Dept Psychol, Jordan Hall,450 Serra Mall Bldg 420, Stanford, CA 94305 USA. EM anordmey@stanford.edu FU NSF Graduate Research Fellowship; John Merck Scholars Fellowship FX Thanks especially to the staff and families at the San Jose Children's Discovery Museum. This work was supported by an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship to AEN and a John Merck Scholars Fellowship to MCF. An earlier version of this work was presented to the Cognitive Science Society in Nordmeyer and Frank (2013). CR Allopenna PD, 1998, J MEM LANG, V38, P419, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1997.2558 Barr DJ, 2013, J MEM LANG, V68, P255, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 Bloom L., 1970, MIT RES MONOGRAPH, V59 Bloom L., 1993, LANGUAGE DEV 2 3 Brandt S, 2009, COGN LINGUIST, V20, P539, DOI 10.1515/COGL.2009.024 Cameron-Faulkner T, 2007, J CHILD LANG, V34, P251, DOI 10.1017/S0305000906007884 CARPENTER PA, 1975, PSYCHOL REV, V82, P45, DOI 10.1037/h0076248 CHOI S, 1988, J CHILD LANG, V15, P517 CLARK HH, 1972, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V3, P472, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(72)90019-9 Dale R., 2011, COGNITIVE SCI, P1 de Villiers J., 1975, J CHILD LANG, V2, P279 DONALDSON M, 1968, BRIT J PSYCHOL, V59, P461 Drozd KF, 1995, J CHILD LANG, V22, P583 Fernald A, 1998, PSYCHOL SCI, V9, P228, DOI 10.1111/1467-9280.00044 Fernald A., 2008, DEV PSYCHOLINGUISTIC, P98 Fischler I., 1983, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, V20, P400 Frank MC, 2012, SCIENCE, V336, P998, DOI 10.1126/science.1218633 Gilkerson J., 2002, THESIS U MARYLAND CO GLENBERG AM, 1999, J COGNITIVE SYSTEMS, V1, P19, DOI DOI 10.1016/S1389-0417(99)00004-2 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Grodner DJ, 2010, COGNITION, V116, P42, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.014 Haith M. M., 1993, ADV INFANCY RES Hasson U, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P1015, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.12.005 JUST MA, 1976, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V8, P441, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3 JUST MA, 1971, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V10, P244, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80051-8 Kaup B, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P1033, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.012 Kaup B, 2003, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V29, P439, DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.439 Kidd E, 2007, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V22, P860, DOI 10.1080/01690960601155284 KLATZKY RL, 1973, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V16, P32, DOI 10.1016/0022-0965(73)90060-X [Anonymous], 1966, PSYCHOLINGUISTIC PAP Loder L., 2006, THESIS U MARYLAND CO Ludtke J., 2006, P 28 ANN C COGN SCI, P1735 Ludtke J, 2008, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V20, P1355, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2008.20093 McNeill D., 1968, QUESTION SEMANTIC DE Nieuwland MS, 2008, PSYCHOL SCI, V19, P1213, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02226.x Nordmeyer A. E., 2013, P 35 ANN C COGN SCI Nordmeyer A. E., 2014, P 36 ANN C COGN SCI PEA RD, 1982, J CHILD LANG, V9, P597 Pea R. D., 1980, SOCIAL FDN LANGUAGE, P156 Rayner K, 1998, PSYCHOL BULL, V124, P372, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 Snedeker J., 2012, 37 M BOST U C LANG D Trueswell JC, 1999, COGNITION, V73, P89, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00032-3 WASON PC, 1965, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V4, P7, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(65)80060-3 NR 43 TC 5 Z9 5 U1 2 U2 21 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 NOV PY 2014 VL 77 BP 25 EP 39 DI 10.1016/j.jml.2014.08.002 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Psychology; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA AT7HM UT WOS:000345107300002 ER PT J AU Le Bruyn, B de Swart, H AF Le Bruyn, Bert de Swart, Henriette TI Bare coordination: the semantic shift SO NATURAL LANGUAGE & LINGUISTIC THEORY LA English DT Article DE Coordination; Bare nominal; Type shift; Definite/indefinite; Agreement ID AGREEMENT; SYNTAX; NOUNS AB This paper develops an analysis of the syntax-semantics interface of two types of split coordination structures. In the first type, two bare singular count nouns appear as arguments in a coordinated structure, as in bride and groom were happy. We call this the N&N construction. In the second type, the determiner shows agreement with the first conjunct, while the second conjunct is bare, as in the Spanish example el hornero y hornera cobraban en panes ('the(sg.m) baker(sg.m) and baker(sg.f) were(pl) paid in bread loaves'). We call this the DN&N construction. Both N&N and DN&N constructions are common in languages that otherwise require an article or determiner on singular count nouns in regular argument position, and give rise to 'split' readings that cannot be accounted for by the standard semantics of conjunction in terms of set intersection. Furthermore, they are restricted to instances of 'natural' coordination. We formalize the semantics of split conjunction in terms of intersection between sets of matching pairs, which correlates with the lexical semantics and pragmatics of natural coordination. We maintain that an N&N construction gets either a definite or an indefinite interpretation by covert type-shifting, because projection of an article ranging over the coordination as a whole is blocked in languages like English and Spanish. For DN&N structures, we propose a syntactic structure in which D is in construction with the first conjunct. Coordination with a second, bare conjunct requires a covert type-shift that is licensed only under the special matchmaking semantics of conjunction. The analysis addresses a range of issues these coordinate structures raise about syntactic and semantic agreement, in particular with respect to number. Next to English and Spanish we will look into Dutch and French in detail. C1 [Le Bruyn, Bert; de Swart, Henriette] Utrecht Inst Linguist OTS, NL-3512 JK Utrecht, Netherlands. RP Le Bruyn, B (reprint author), Utrecht Inst Linguist OTS, Trans 10, NL-3512 JK Utrecht, Netherlands. EM b.s.w.lebruyn@uu.nl; h.deswart@uu.nl CR Arnold Doug, 2006, ROOTS LINGUISTICS SE, V96, P9 BARWISE J, 1981, LINGUIST PHILOS, V4, P159, DOI 10.1007/BF00350139 Borer Hagit, 2005, STRUCTURING SENSE Borsley RD, 2005, LINGUA, V115, P461, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.011 Boskovic Zeljko, 2008, N E LINGUISTIC SOC N, P101 Camacho Jose, 2003, STRUCTURE COORDINATI Chaves RP, 2008, LINGUIST PHILOS, V31, P261, DOI 10.1007/s10988-008-9040-3 Chierchia Gennaro, 1998, NAT LANG SEMANT, V6, P339, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1008324218506 Condoravdi Cleo, 1994, THESIS YALE U Cooper Robin, 1979, MODEL THEORY F UNPUB Dalrymple M, 2006, LANGUAGE, V82, P824, DOI 10.1353/lan.2006.0189 Dayal V., 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V33.2, P1088 De Swart H, 2001, LINGUIST REV, V18, P69, DOI 10.1515/tlir.18.1.69 de Swart H, 2009, LINGUA, V119, P280, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.015 de Swart H, 2007, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V25, P195, DOI 10.1007/s11049-006-9007-4 Scha Remko, 1988, ASS COMPUTATIONAL LI, P25 de Hoop Helen, 1996, CASE CONFIGURATION N Delfitto Denis, 1991, PROBUS, V3, P155, DOI 10.1515/prbs.1991.3.2.155 Demonte Violeta, 2011, ROMANCE LINGUISTICS, P177 Demonte V, 2012, FOLIA LINGUIST, V46, P21, DOI 10.1515/FLIN.2012.2 de Swart Henriette, 2010, HDB LINGUISTIC ANAL, P555 de Swart Henriette, 2008, SINN BEDUTUNG SUB12, V12, P628 Farkas Donka, 2003, SEMANTICS INCORPORAT HAIMAN J, 1983, LANGUAGE, V59, P781, DOI 10.2307/413373 Halle Morris, 1993, VIEW BUILDING, P111 Haspelmath Martin, 2007, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY LI Hendriks P., 2010, CONFLICTS INTERPRETA Heycock C, 2003, LINGUIST INQ, V34, P443, DOI 10.1162/002438903322247551 Heycock C., 2005, NAT LANG SEMANT, V13, P201, DOI 10.1007/s11050-004-2442-z KAGER Rene, 1999, OPTIMALITY THEORY Kamp H, 1993, DISCOURSE LOGIC Keenan E., 1987, REPRESENTATION INDEF, P286 King TH, 2004, J LINGUIST, V40, P69, DOI 10.1017/S0022226703002330 Kiparsky P, 1973, FESTSCHRIFT M HALLE Kuo JYC, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P1082, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.004 Laca B., 1999, GRAMATICA DESCRIPTIV, P891 LAMBRECHT K, 1984, LANGUAGE, V60, P753, DOI 10.2307/413798 Le Bruyn B., 2010, INDEFINITE ARTICLES Le Bruyn B., 2011, MASS COUNT DIS UNPUB Lombardi L, 1999, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V17, P267, DOI 10.1023/A:1006182130229 LONGOBARDI G, 1994, LINGUIST INQ, V25, P609 Marzhauser Christina, 2013, NEW PERSPECTIVES BAR, P283 McNally L, 1998, LINGUIST PHILOS, V21, P353, DOI 10.1023/A:1005389330615 McNally Louise, 2004, EMPIRICAL ISSUES FOR, V5, P179 McNally Louise, 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, P1829 Milsark Gary, 1979, THESIS MIT Partee Barbara H., 1987, STUDIES DISCOURSE RE, P115 Partee Barbara, 1983, MEANING USE INTERPRE, P361, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110852820.361 Postma Gertjan, 1995, THESIS LEIDEN U Roodenburg Jasper, 2005, C STUD ORG LING EUR Roodenburg J, 2004, LINGUIST INQ, V35, P301, DOI 10.1162/002438904323019093 Staroverov Peter, 2007, SEMANTICS LINGUISTIC, V17, P300 Stowell Tim, 1981, NELS, V11, P345 Espinal MT, 2011, J LINGUIST, V47, P87, DOI 10.1017/S0022226710000228 de Almeida Torres Artur, 1981, MODERNA GRAMATICA EX van der Sandt R. A., 1992, J SEMANT, V9, P333, DOI DOI 10.1093/JOS/9.4.333 VANDERSANDT RA, 1991, LECT NOTES ARTIF INT, V546, P259 von Fintel Kai, 1999, J SEMANT, V16, P97, DOI DOI 10.1093/JOS/16.2.97 Walchli B., 2005, COCOMPOUNDS NATURAL Winter Yoad, 2001, FLEXIBLE PRINCIPLES Zamparelli R, 2005, LINGUA, V115, P915, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.004 Zamparelli Roberto, 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, VII Zwarts Joost, 2009, BARE CONSTRUCT UNPUB NR 63 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 1 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0167-806X EI 1573-0859 J9 NAT LANG LINGUIST TH JI Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory PD NOV PY 2014 VL 32 IS 4 BP 1205 EP 1246 DI 10.1007/s11049-014-9237-9 PG 42 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AT7UY UT WOS:000345143800005 ER PT J AU Ikeo, R AF Ikeo, Reiko TI Connectives 'but' and 'for' in viewpoint shifting in Woolf's To the Lighthouse SO LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE LA English DT Article DE But; connectives; corpus stylistics; for; free indirect discourse; speech presentation; thought presentation; To the Lighthouse; viewpoint shifting; Woolf AB The narrative world of Woolf's To the Lighthouse (1992 [1927]) is primarily composed of its characters' thought and speech presentation. One character's flow of thoughts is connected with another character's thoughts, and viewpoint shifts occur very quickly and frequently. This article analyses how the two connectives but' and for' contribute to viewpoint shifting by comparing their stylistic, pragmatic functions in contexts where similar types of viewpoint shifting occur. Adopting a corpus-assisted approach, sentences and clauses before and after but' and for' are compared when these sentences and clauses are identified as being in similar discourse presentation categories such as free direct thought and direct speech. But' emphasizes the distinction between the narration and a character's discourse or between two characters' discourse, whereas for' helps viewpoint shifting to take place more implicitly, as a result of which the boundary between the different voices tends to be blurred. C1 [Ikeo, Reiko] Senshu Univ, Sch Commerce, Kawasaki, Kanagawa 2148580, Japan. RP Ikeo, R (reprint author), Senshu Univ, Sch Commerce, Tama Ku, 2-1-1 Higashimita, Kawasaki, Kanagawa 2148580, Japan. EM rikeo0919@gmail.com CR Auerbach E., 1953, MIMESIS REPRESENTATI Daiches D, 1963, V WOOLF Ehrlich S, 1990, POINT VIEW LINGUISTI Leaska Mitchell, 1970, VIRGINIA WOOLFS LIGH Leech G., 1981, STYLE IN FICTION MATRO TG, 1984, PMLA, V99, P212, DOI 10.2307/462162 Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Semino E., 2004, CORPUS STYLISTICS SP Sotirova V, 2013, CONSCIOUSNESS IN MODERNIST FICTION: A STYLISTIC STUDY, P1, DOI 10.1057/9781137307255 Sotirova V., 2004, LANG LIT, V13, P216, DOI 10.1177/0963947004044872 Sotirova Violeta, 2011, DH LAWRENCE NARRATIV van Dijk T., 1977, TEXT CONTEXT EXPLORA Woolf Virginia, 1992, LIGHTHOUSE NR 13 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 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 NOV PY 2014 VL 23 IS 4 BP 331 EP 346 DI 10.1177/0963947014534125 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AT1KN UT WOS:000344692400003 ER PT J AU Saldert, C Ferm, U Bloch, S AF Saldert, Charlotta Ferm, Ulrika Bloch, Steven TI Semantic trouble sources and their repair in conversations affected by Parkinson's disease SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE & COMMUNICATION DISORDERS LA English DT Article DE conversational interaction; Parkinson's disease; communication partners; anomia; repair; pragmatics ID UNDERSTANDABILITY PROBLEMS; APHASIC CONVERSATION; ACQUIRED DYSARTHRIA; STRATEGIES; SPEAKERS; TALK AB BackgroundIt is known that dysarthria arising from Parkinson's disease may affect intelligibility in conversational interaction. Research has also shown that Parkinson's disease may affect cognition and cause word-retrieval difficulties and pragmatic problems in the use of language. However, it is not known whether or how these problems become manifest in everyday conversations or how conversation partners handle such problems. AimsTo describe the pragmatic problems related to the use of words that occur in everyday conversational interaction in dyads including an individual with Parkinson's disease, and to explore how interactants in conversation handle the problems to re-establish mutual understanding. Methods & ProceduresTwelve video-recorded everyday conversations involving three couples where one of the individuals had Parkinson's disease were included in the study. All instances of other-initiated repair following a contribution from the people with Parkinson's disease were analysed. Those instances involving a trouble source relating to the use of words were analysed with a qualitative interaction analysis based on the principles of conversation analysis. Outcomes & ResultsIn 70% of the instances of other-initiated repair the trouble source could be related to the semantic content produced by the individual with Parkinson's disease. The problematic contributions were typically characterized by more or less explicit symptoms of word search or use of atypical wording. The conversation partners completed the repair work collaboratively, but typically the non-impaired individual made a rephrasing or provided a suggestion for what the intended meaning had been. Conclusions & ImplicationsIn clinical work with people with Parkinson's disease and their conversation partners it is important to establish what type of trouble sources occur in conversations in a specific dyad. It may often be necessary to look beyond intelligibility and into aspects of pragmatics to understand more fully the impact of Parkinson's disease on everyday conversational interaction. C1 [Saldert, Charlotta] Univ Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska Acad, Div Speech Language Pathol, Inst Neurosci & Physiol, SE-40530 Gothenburg, Sweden. [Saldert, Charlotta] Univ Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska Acad, Univ Gothenburg Ctr Person Ctr Care GPCC, SE-40530 Gothenburg, Sweden. [Ferm, Ulrika] Sahlgrens Univ Hosp, Queen Silvia Childrens Hosp, DART Ctr AAC & AT, Gothenburg, Sweden. [Bloch, Steven] UCL, London, England. RP Saldert, C (reprint author), Univ Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska Acad, Div Speech Language Pathol, Inst Neurosci & Physiol, Box 452, SE-40530 Gothenburg, Sweden. EM charlotta.saldert@neuro.gu.se FU Department of Health [PDF/01/2008/003] CR Altmann L.J., 2011, PARKINSONS DIS, V2011 BAREFOOT S., 1993, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V2, P31 Barnes S, 2015, APHASIOLOGY, V29, P315, DOI 10.1080/02687038.2013.874547 Berg E, 2003, CLIN LINGUIST PHONET, V17, P63, DOI 10.1080/0269920021000055540 Bloch S., 2005, APPL CONVERSATION AN, P38 Bloch S., 2014, PROBLEMATIC TO UNPUB Bloch S, 2004, AUGMENTATIVE ALTERNA, V20, P272, DOI 10.1080/07434610400005614 Bloch S, 2009, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V44, P769, DOI 10.1080/13682820802546969 Bloch S, 2008, CLIN LINGUIST PHONET, V22, P974, DOI 10.1080/02699200802394831 Bloch S, 2011, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V46, P510, DOI 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00076.x Carlsson E, 2014, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V49, P722, DOI 10.1111/1460-6984.12106 DERENZI E, 1962, BRAIN, V85, P665, DOI 10.1093/brain/85.4.665 Drew P, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V28, P69, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7 FERGUSON A, 1993, CLIN APHASIOLOGY, V21, P299 Goffman E, 1955, PSYCHIATR, V18, P213 Goodglass H., 1997, ANOMIA NEUROANATOMIC Goodwin C., 2003, CONVERSATION BRAIN D Griffiths S., 2013, AT INT CONV AN COMM Griffiths S., 2011, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V46, P397 Griffiths S, 2012, SEMIN SPEECH LANG, V33, P27, DOI 10.1055/s-0031-1301161 Guendouzi J., 2006, APPROACHES DISCOURSE HARTELIUS L, 1994, FOLIA PHONIATR LOGO, V46, P9 Hartelius L, 2011, ISRN NEUROLOGY, V2011 Heritage J., 1984, GARFINKEL ETHNOMETHO HOEHN MM, 1967, NEUROLOGY, V17, P427 Holtgraves T., 2013, ADV PARKINSONS DIS, V2, P31 Huppert FA, 1994, DEMENTIA NORMAL AGIN Hustad KC, 2008, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V51, P562, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/040) JEFFERSON G., 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, pix Jefferson G., 1987, TALK SOCIAL ORG, P86 Kegl JA, 1998, J NEUROLINGUIST, V11, P137, DOI 10.1016/S0911-6044(98)00010-4 Laakso M, 1999, APHASIOLOGY, V13, P345 Lubinski R., 1980, CLIN APHASIOLOGY C P, P111 McNamara P, 2003, BRAIN LANG, V84, P414, DOI 10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00558-8 Miller N, 2006, AGE AGEING, V35, P235, DOI 10.1093/ageing/afj053 MILROY L, 1992, CLIN LINGUIST PHONET, V6, P27, DOI 10.3109/02699209208985517 Oelschlaeger ML, 2000, J COMMUN DISORD, V33, P205, DOI 10.1016/S0021-9924(00)00019-8 Pell M., 2008, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V2, P739, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2008 Perkins M, 2007, PRAGMATIC IMPAIRMENT SCHEGLOFF EA, 1977, LANGUAGE, V53, P361, DOI 10.2307/413107 Schiavetti N., 1992, INTELLIGIBILITY SPEE, P11 Sidnell J., 2010, CONVERSATION ANAL IN Silverman D., 2001, INTERPRETING QUALITA Tallberg IM, 2008, SCAND J PSYCHOL, V49, P479, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00653.x ten Have P., 2007, DOING CONVERSATION A Wilkinson R, 1999, APHASIOLOGY, V13, P327, DOI 10.1080/026870399402127 Wilkinson R., 2003, CONVERSATION BRAIN D, P59 Yorkston K. M., 1996, J SPEECH LANGUAGE PA, V5, P55 NR 48 TC 4 Z9 4 U1 2 U2 14 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 NOV PY 2014 VL 49 IS 6 BP 710 EP 721 DI 10.1111/1460-6984.12105 PG 12 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA AS6KH UT WOS:000344372000006 PM 24934292 ER PT J AU Camiciottoli, BC AF Camiciottoli, Belinda Crawford TI Pragmatic uses of person pro-forms in intercultural financial discourse: A contrastive case study of earnings calls SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE financial discourse; intercultural communication; pro-forms; interpersonal pragmatics; professional communication; corpus linguistics ID HONG-KONG; BUSINESS; PRESENTATIONS; DISCLOSURE; ENGLISH AB The important role of person pro-forms in establishing interpersonal relations has long been recognized. During interaction, person pro-forms act as indexicals whose referents are determined by the context in which they are used. This study focuses on the pragmatic functions of first and second-person proforms in earnings calls, now the primary channel for oral financial reporting in the corporate world. Earnings calls consist of presentations by company executives followed by question-and-answer sessions with financial analysts who participate via teleconferencing. A contrastive case study based on the earnings call of an Italian company and a US company was undertaken to provide insights into how person pro-forms are used in ICT-mediated financial discourse when English is used as a common language. Text analysis software was used to descriptively analyze person pro-forms. In addition, the two datasets were manually examined to identify pragmatic functions that could shed light on interpersonal relations and participant roles. Overall, person pro-form usage was closely aligned with the distinct objectives of the participants as either "information seekers" or "information providers." However, some interesting differences suggest that the Italian executives had a more interpersonal approach to the interaction compared to the American executives. This could be influenced by the importance of relationships in the Italian culture, but could also reflect strategic choices to achieve professional goals. The findings can be used to help both corporate professionals and students of management and finance acquire a better understanding of the pragmatics of person pro-forms, and thus become more effective communicators in intercultural contexts. C1 Univ Pisa, I-56100 Pisa, Italy. RP Camiciottoli, BC (reprint author), Univ Pisa, I-56100 Pisa, Italy. EM b.crawford@angl.unipi.it OI Crawford Camiciottoli, Belinda/0000-0001-8616-1785 CR Aijmer K., 1997, MODALITY GERMANIC LA, P1 Bargiela-Chiappini Francesca, 1997, MANAGING LANGUAGE DI Bhatia VK, 2010, DISCOURSE COMMUN, V4, P32, DOI 10.1177/1750481309351208 Bhatia Vijay K., 2005, BUSINESS DISCOURSE T, P17 Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Camiciottoli BC, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P650, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.007 Camiciottoli BC, 2009, TEXT TALK, V29, P661, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2009.034 Cho H, 2013, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V32, P170, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2013.03.001 Evans S, 2013, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V32, P195, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2013.05.003 Fairclough Norman, 1992, LINGUISTICS ED, V4, P269, DOI DOI 10.1016/0898-5898(92)90004-G GIBBINS M, 1990, J ACCOUNTING RES, V28, P121, DOI 10.2307/2491219 Harwood N, 2005, APPL LINGUIST, V26, P343, DOI 10.1093/applin/ami012 Held Gudrun, 2005, POLITENESS EUROPE, P292 Hofstede G., 2010, CULTURES ORG SOFTWAR Hyland K., 1998, HEDGING SCI RES ARTI Karkkainen E, 2003, EPISTEMIC STANCE ENG KAWAGUCHI Y, 2007, CORPUS BASED PERSPEC, V6, P265 Kecskes I., 2004, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V1, P1, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2004.005 Kecskes I, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P2889, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008 Kress G., 2001, MULTIMODAL DISCOURSE Ladegaard HJ, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P197, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.010 Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Locher Miriam A, 2010, INTERPERSONAL PRAGMA, P1 Lyons J, 1977, SEMANTICS, V2 Mey J. L., 2001, PRAGMATICS INTRO Myers G, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1206, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.005 Pennycook Alastair, 1994, ELT J, V48, P173, DOI 10.1093/elt/48.2.173 Poncini G., 2004, DISCURSIVE STRATEGIE Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Rogers P. S., 2000, MANAGEMENT COMMUNICA, V13, P426, DOI 10.1177/0893318900133003 Rogerson-Revell P, 2007, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V26, P103, DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.004 Rounds Patricia L., 1987, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V6, P13, DOI 10.1016/0889-4906(87)90072-X Ryan T., 2005, USING INVESTOR RELAT Sarfo Emmanuel, 2012, LANGUAGE DISCOURSE S, V2, P52 Scollon R., 2001, INTERCULTURAL COMMUN Scott Michael, 2008, WORDSMITH TOOLS 5 0 Searle John, 1975, LANGUAGE SOC, V5, P1 Sheehan Brendan, 2005, GLOBAL FINANCE, V19, P18 Sokol Malgorzata, 2005, IDENTITY COMMUNITY D, P321 Tasker Sarah C., 1998, J FINANCIAL STATEMEN, V4, P6 Trompenaars F., 1993, RIDING WAVES CULTURE Vladimirou Dimitra, 2007, LANC U POSTGR C LING Wales Katie, 1996, PERSONAL PRONOUNS PR Warren Martin, 2004, DISCOURSE PROFESSION, P115 Zegarac V, 2013, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V10, P433, DOI 10.1515/ip-2013-0019 ZUPNIK YJ, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V21, P339, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90010-8 NR 47 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 8 U2 20 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 2014 VL 11 IS 4 BP 521 EP 545 DI 10.1515/ip-2014-0023 PG 25 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AR8FO UT WOS:000343811400002 ER PT J AU Gonzalez-Cruz, MI AF Gonzalez-Cruz, Maria-Isabel TI Request patterns by EFL Canarian Spanish students: Contrasting data by languages and research methods SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE speech act theory; variational pragmatics; interlanguage pragmatics; request strategies; modification devices; elicited vs. natural data ID SPEECH-ACT REALIZATION; ENGLISH; STRATEGIES; APOLOGIES AB This paper reports on empirical research, the purpose of which is fourfold. Firstly, we provide data regarding the realization patterns of requests made by Canarian Spanish students, both orally and in writing, in their mother tongue, a variety of Spanish. Secondly, since these undergraduates study English as a Foreign Language, we also examine the requests they make as non-native speakers of English. Two different methods were adopted for data elicitation, namely, open tape-recorded role-plays and Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs). Thirdly, we obtained a corpus of natural data through field notes taken from an array of real interactional situations in which different people spontaneously formulated requests. Finally, we try to determine to what extent the results in each phase differ depending on the method and the language used, thus contributing to the debate on the validity of research methods. C1 Univ Las Palmas Gran Canaria, Las Palmas Gran Canaria, Spain. RP Gonzalez-Cruz, MI (reprint author), Univ Las Palmas Gran Canaria, Las Palmas Gran Canaria, Spain. EM migonzalez@dfm.ulpgc.es CR Achiva Machiko, 2003, LEARNING REQUEST 2 L Safont-Jorda Pilar, 2005, RAEL REV ELECT LINGU, V4, P1 Alvar Manuel, 1968, ESTUDIOS CANARIOS 1 Ardila John A. G., 2005, SOCIOPRAGMATICA RETO Ballesteros Francisco J., 2001, ESTUDIOS INGLESES U, V9, P171 Beebe L. M., 1996, SPEECH ACTS CULTURES, P65 Blum-Kulka Shoshana, 1991, FOREIGN 2 LANGUAGE P, P255 BLUMKULKA S, 1984, APPL LINGUIST, V5, P196, DOI 10.1093/applin/5.3.196 Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Boretti Susana H., 2009, APORTES PRAGMATICOS, P231 Bravo D., 1999, ORALIA, V2, P155 Bravo D., 2004, PRAGMATICA SOCIOCULT Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Corrales Cristobal, 2007, ESPANOL CANARIAS GUI Saunders D., 1989, COMMUNICATION SIMULA Cummings Louise, 2010, PRAGMATICS ENCY Davies BL, 2007, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V3, P39, DOI 10.1515/PR.2007.003 Delgado Vilma, 1994, POLITENESS LANGUAGE Diaz-Perez F.J., 2003, CORTESIA VERBAL INGL Dumitrescu Domnita, 2011, ASPECTS SPANISH PRAG Duranti Alessandro, 1992, RETHINKING CONTEXT L, P77 Ellis R., 1994, STUDY 2 LANGUAGE ACQ Esther Uso-Juan, 2002, ELIA ESTUDIOS LINGUI, V3, P103 Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P473, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.025 Felix-Brasdefer J. Cesar, 2005, ACT 2 COL INT PROG E, P221 Felix-Brasdefer J. Cesar, 2007, SPAN CONTEXT, V4, P159 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2003, THEORY PRACTICE ACQU, P239 Fernandez-Amaya Lucia, 2009, APORTES PRAGMATICOS, P109 Franch PB, 2008, SPAN CONTEXT, V5, P246, DOI 10.1075/sic.5.2.06lor 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 Gonzalez-Cruz MI, 2012, PRAGMATICS, V22, P543 Gonzalez-Cruz M. Isabel, 2002, NOTAS BIBLIO INGLESA Haverkate Henk, 1994, CORTESIA VERBAL ESTU Hickey Leo, 2005, POLITENESS EUROPE, P317 Hill T., 1997, DEV PRAGMATIC COMPET Holmes J., 1995, WOMEN MEN POLITENESS House Juliane, 2005, POLITENESS EUROPE, P13 House J., 1981, CONVERSATIONAL ROUTI, P157 Labov William, 1966, SOCIAL STRATIFICATIO Lorenzo-Dus N., 2003, GENERO LENGUAJE TRAD, P187 Marquez-Reiter R., 2000, LINGUISTIC POLITENES Marquez-Reiter Rosina, 1997, CULTURAL CONTEXT FOR, P143 Marquez-Reiter Rosina, 1997, MISCELDNEA, V18, P159 Marquez-Reiter Rosina, 2008, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V4, P1 Marquez-Reiter Rosina, 2002, PRAGMATICS, V12, P135 McKay S., 1996, SOCIOLINGUISTICS LAN MEIER AJ, 1995, J PRAGMATICS, V24, P381, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)00053-H Morgenthaler Laura, 2008, IDENTIDAD PLURICENTR Pinto D., 2005, SPAN CONTEXT, V2, P1, DOI 10.1075/sic.2.1.01pin Placencia Maria E., 2002, ACTOS HABLA CORTESIA Iglesias Recuero Silvia, 2001, ORALIA, V4, P245 Rintell E. M., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P248 Rohatgi V. K., 1976, INTRO PROBABILITY TH Ruzickova Elena, 2007, RES POLITENESS SPANI, P213 Samper-Padilla Jose-Antonio, 2008, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V193-194, P161 Sifianou M., 1999, POLITENESS PHENOMENA Trosborg A., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Tucker Gordon, 1988, NEGOTIATING SERVICE, P153 Vazquez-Orta Ignacio, 1995, CONTRASTIVE STUDY PO Vilar-Beltran Elina, 2008, 25 ANOS LINGUISTICA, P199 WALTERS J, 1979, LANG LEARN, V29, P277, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01069.x WIERZBICKA A, 1985, J PRAGMATICS, V9, P145, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(85)90023-2 Yuan Y, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P271, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00031-X NR 64 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 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 NOV PY 2014 VL 11 IS 4 BP 547 EP 573 DI 10.1515/ip-2014-0024 PG 27 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AR8FO UT WOS:000343811400003 ER PT J AU Al-Gahtani, S Roever, C AF Al-Gahtani, Saad Roever, Carsten TI Preference structure in L2 Arabic requests SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Arabic as a second language; conversation analysis; interlanguage pragmatics; preference; request ID TALK-IN-INTERACTION; CONVERSATION ANALYSIS; PROFICIENCY AB Preference structure is a fundamental organizational principle of talk, and research has shown that preferred actions tend to be done immediately and without mitigation whereas dispreference is indicated by delays, elaboration, hesitation, and mitigation. However, little research exists on how second language learners do preference and dispreference. In this study, we investigate how 67 learners of Arabic at four proficiency levels managed preference structure in requests and how their management of preference changed over a five-month period. We found a strong increase in the use of preliminary moves with proficiency level, and also greater occurrence of preliminary moves over the five-month period among lower-level learners. Absence of clear dispreference marking with lower-proficiency learners led to repair sequences, and only high-proficiency learners used multiple preliminary moves. Offers by the interlocutor were rare and limited to interactions with high-proficiency learners. We conclude that interactions involving second language learners can be affected by the learners' developing L2 proficiency, which limits their ability to carry out social actions in a conventional way in the target language. C1 [Roever, Carsten] Univ Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia. [Roever, Carsten] King Saud Univ, TASOL Res Chair, Arab Linguist Inst, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia. RP Roever, C (reprint author), Univ Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia. EM carsten@unimelb.edu.au CR Achiba M., 2003, LEARNING REQUEST 2 L Al-Gahtani S, 2012, APPL LINGUIST, V33, P42, DOI 10.1093/applin/amr031 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Curl TS, 2008, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V41, P129, DOI 10.1080/08351810802028613 Doehler SP, 2011, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, P206 Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P41 Gonzalez-Lloret M, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P57 GOODWIN C, 1990, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V19, P283, DOI 10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.001435 Heinemann T, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P1081, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013 Heritage J., 1984, GARFINKEL ETHNOMETHO Huth T, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P2025, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.010 Kasper Gabriele, 2006, MULTILINGUA, V25, P323, DOI 10.1515/MULTI.2006.018 Kasper Gabriele, 2008, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P316 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kasper G., 2009, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V47, P11, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2009.002 Kasper G., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P281 Kasper G, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P2045, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.011 Kasper G, 2006, AILA REV, V19, P83, DOI 10.1075/aila.19.07kas Kasper G, 2011, ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, P117 Lee SH, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1248, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.013 Maynard Douglas, 2011, APPL CONVERSATION AN, P54 Pomerantz Anita, 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P57, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511665868 Pomerantz Anita, 2013, HDB CONVERSATION ANA, P210 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., 1992, LECT CONVERSATION Schegloff EA, 2007, SEQUENCE ORGANIZATION IN INTERACTION: A PRIMER IN CONVERSATION ANALYSIS I, P1, DOI 10.2277/ 0521532795 Taleghani-Nikazm C, 2010, MULTILINGUA, V29, P185, DOI 10.1515/mult.2010.008 Taleghani-Nikazm Carmen, 2006, REQUEST SEQUENCES IN Wagner J., 2004, 2 LANGUAGE CONVERSAT, P1 Zimmerman DH, 1999, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V32, P195, DOI 10.1207/S15327973RLSI321&2_23 NR 31 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 2 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 2014 VL 11 IS 4 BP 619 EP 643 DI 10.1515/ip-2014-0027 PG 25 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AR8FO UT WOS:000343811400006 ER PT J AU Veselinova, L AF Veselinova, Ljuba TI The negative existential cycle revisited SO LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE negation; cycles; lexicalization; Slavonic; Polynesian; negative existential AB Based on crosslinguistic data and the postulation of six language types, the Negative Existential Cycle was proposed by Croft (1991) as a way of modeling the evolution of standard negation markers from existential negators. The current investigation tests this model by applying it to two language families, Slavonic and Polynesian, checking which cycle types are instantiated in these families and outlining pathways of transition between different types. In Slavonic, we observe one type without variation and two types with internal variation. All cycle types are instantiated in Polynesian, which is correlated with characteristics specific to this family. Three pathways are outlined for the partial or complete transfer of negative existentials into the verbal domain. The first is contingent on negative existentials being used in specific constructions and the direct inheritance or expansion of use of these constructions; the second involves negative existentials being used as emphatic negators external to the proposition and their subsequent reanalysis as clause internal negators without any additional pragmatic content. The third pathway, observed in Polynesian only, is through subordination processes leading to the re-interpretation of negative existentials as general markers of negation. Additionally, a time dimension needs to be added when modeling this cycle, as its completion, i.e., the negative existential turning into a full-fledged marker of standard negation, appears to take longer than 2,000 years. C1 Stockholm Univ, Dept Linguist, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden. RP Veselinova, L (reprint author), Stockholm Univ, Dept Linguist, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden. EM ljuba@ling.su.se CR De Alexander William Witt, 1864, SHORT SYNOPSIS MOST Barddal Johanna, 2012, SIGN BASED CONSTRUCT Bataillon Mgr Pierre, 1932, LANGUE UVEA WALLIS Bauer Winifred, 1993, MAORI [Anonymous], 1996, NEGATIVE SENTENCES L Besnier Niko, 1992, INT ENCY LINGUISTICS, P245 Besnier Niko, 1986, FOCAL 1 4 INT C AUST, P245 Besnier Niko, 2000, TUVALUAN Broschart Jurgen, 1999, NEGATION OCEANIC LAN, P96 Bybee Joan L., 1994, EVOLUTION GRAMMAR CHUNG S, 1980, LANGUAGE, V56, P622, DOI 10.2307/414453 Chung Sandra, 1973, OCEAN LINGUIST, V12, P641, DOI 10.2307/3622869 Churchward C. Maxwell, 1953, TONGAN GRAMMAR Clark Ross, 1976, ASPECTS PROTO POLYNE Comrie Bernard, 1976, ASPECT INTRO STUDY V Comrie Bernard, 1985, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SY, P348 Cook Kenneth William, 2000, SPRACHTYPOLOGIE UNIV, V53, P345 CROFT W, 1991, J LINGUIST, V27, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700012391 Croft William, 2001, RADICAL CONSTRUCTION Cysouw Michael, 2007, 7 BIENN C ASS LING T DAHL O, 1979, LINGUISTICS, V17, P79, DOI 10.1515/ling.1979.17.1-2.79 Dahl O., 2010, EXPRESSION NEGATION, P9 Dahl Osten, 1985, TENSE ASPECT SYSTEMS Disterheft Dorothy, 2010, CONTINUUM COMPANION, P230 Dordic Petar, 1975, STAROSLOVENSKI JEZIK DURANTI A, 1990, STUD LANG, V14, P1, DOI 10.1075/sl.14.1.02dur Duridanov Ivan, 1991, GRAMATIKA STAROBULGA Pukui MK, 1979, HAWAIIAN GRAMMAR Elbert Samuel H., 1948, 3 CIMA PAC SCI BOARD Fischer Steven R., 2000, POSSESSIVE MARKERS C Georgiev V. I., 1995, BULGARSKI ETIMOLOGIC, VIV Greenhill SJ, 2008, EVOL BIOINFORM, V4, P271 Hansen Maj-Britt Mosegaard, 2011, OXFORD HDB GRAMMATIC, P570 Harlow R, 2007, MAORI: A LINGUISTIC INTRODUCTION, P1 Herd Jonathan, 2004, CAN LING ASS ANN C M Hilpert Martin, 2011, CURRENT METHODS HIST, P133 Hock HH, 2009, INTRO HIST COMP LING Horn Laurence R., 2001, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Hovdhaugen Even, 1999, NEGATION OCEANIC LAN Humesky Assya, 1980, MODERN UKRAINIAN Jespersen Otto, 1917, NEGATION ENGLISH OTH Kahananui Dorothy M., 1970, LETS SPEAK HAWAIIAN Kahananui Dorothy M., 1975, LETS SPEAK HAWAIIAN Kahrel Peter, 1994, TYPOLOGICAL STUDIES, V29 Kaulima Aiao, 2000, LEARNING NIUAN, V2 Koptjevskaja-Tamm Maria, 1993, NOMINALIZATIONS Lazard Gilbert, 1999, NEGATION OCEANIC LAN, P141 Lazard Gilbert, 2000, STRUCTURE LANGUE TAH Lehmann C, 2008, TYPOL ST L, V77, P207 Lieber Michael D., 1974, KAPINGAMARANGI LEXIC Lynch John, 1998, PACIFIC LANGUAGES IN Lynch J, 1997, OCEAN LINGUIST, V36, P227, DOI 10.2307/3622986 Marck J, 2000, TOPICS POLYNESIAN LA Miestamo M, 2005, EMPIR APPROACH LANG, V31, P1 Mosel Ulrike, 1994, REFERENCE GRAMMAR SA Mosel Ulrike, 1999, NEGATION OCEANIC LAN, P1 Moyse-Faurie C, 1997, GRAMMAIRE FUTUNIEN Moyse-Faurie Claire, 1999, NEGATION OCEANIC LAN, P115 Otsuka Yuko, 2005, HIST POLYNESIAN LANG Payne John R., 1985, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SY, V1, P197 Polinskaja Maria, 1995, JAZYK NIUE Pugh Stefan M., 1999, UKRAINIAN Rensch Karl, 1982, LEA FAKAUVEA INTRO L Schenker Alexander, 1993, SLAVONIC LANGUAGES, P60 Schutz Albert J., 2005, POCKET HAWAIIAN GRAM Schwegler Armin, 1988, DIACHRONICA, V5, P21, DOI 10.1075/dia.5.1-2.03sch Spriggs Matthew, 1995, AUSTRONESIANS HIST C, P112 Stassen Leon, 2009, PREDICATIVE POSSESSI Stern D, 2002, WELT SLAVEN, V47, P1 Traugott Elizabeth C., 2010, GRADIENCE GRADUALNES Van der Auwera J., 2010, EXPRESSION NEGATION, P73 van der Auwera Johan, 2013, WORLD ATLAS LANGUAGE Veselinova Ljuba, 2010, DIACHRONIC SYNTAX SL, P197 Veselinova Ljuba, NAGATION URALIC LANG Veselinova Ljuba, 2013, ITALIAN J LINGUISTIC, V25, P107 Williams HW, 1938, J POLYNESIAN SOC, V47, P1 Wilson William H., 1976, OCEAN LINGUIST, V15, P39, DOI 10.2307/3622775 NR 77 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 2 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 2014 VL 52 IS 6 BP 1327 EP 1389 DI 10.1515/ling-2014-0021 PG 63 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AR9QM UT WOS:000343909700001 ER PT J AU Shield, A AF Shield, Aaron TI Preliminary Finaings of Similarities and Differences in the Signed and Spoken Language of Children with Autism SO SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE Sign language; autism; language acquisition; echolalia; pronouns ID VISUAL PERSPECTIVE-TAKING; HIGH-FUNCTIONING AUTISM; SPECTRUM DISORDERS; PERSONAL PRONOUNS; DEAF-CHILDREN; COMMUNICATION; GESTURE; RECOGNITION; INFORMATION; EMOTIONS AB Approximately 30% of hearing children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) do not acquire expressive language, and those who do often show impairments related to their social deficits, using language instrumentally rather than socially, with a poor understanding of pragmatics and a tendency toward repetitive content. Linguistic abnormalities can be clinically useful as diagnostic markers of ASD and as targets for intervention. Studies have begun to document how ASD manifests in children who are deaf for whom signed languages are the primary means of communication. Though the underlying disorder is presumed to be the same in children who are deaf and children who hear, the structures of signed and spoken languages differ in key ways. This article describes similarities and differences between the signed and spoken language acquisition of children on the spectrum. Similarities include echolalia, pronoun avoidance, neologisms, and the existence of minimally verbal children. Possible areas of divergence include pronoun reversal, palm reversal, and facial grammar. C1 Boston Univ, Dept Psychol, Boston, MA 02215 USA. RP Shield, A (reprint author), Boston Univ, Dept Psychol, 64 Cummington Mall, Boston, MA 02215 USA. EM ashield@bu.edu FU National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [1F32 DC0011219]; Autism Science Foundation FX The author wishes to thank Lisa Wisman Well and Christine Yoshinaga-Itano for comments on an earlier version of this article. Support for this research was provided by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (Postdoctoral Fellowship 1F32 DC0011219) and the Autism Science Foundation. CR American Psychiatric Association, 2013, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT Anderson D, 1998, SIGN LANGUAGE LINGUI, V2, P117 Baker CL, 1983, UNDERSTANDING LANGUA, P27 BARONCOHEN S, 1993, COGNITION EMOTION, V7, P507, DOI 10.1080/02699939308409202 BARTAK L, 1974, J AUTISM CHILD SCHIZ, V4, P217, DOI 10.1007/BF02115227 Bogdashina O., 2005, COMMUNICATION ISSUES Bondy A. S., 1994, FOCUS AUTISTIC BEHAV, V9, P1, DOI DOI 10.1177/108835769400900301 Bonvillian J. D., 1991, THEORETICAL ISSUES S, V2, P255 Bonyillian JD, 1981, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V11, P125 Boucher J, 2003, INT J PEDIATR OTORHI, V67, pS159, DOI 10.1016/j.ijporl.2003.08.016 Brown L., 2010, TEST NONVERBAL INTEL CAPPS L, 1992, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V33, P1169, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1992.tb00936.x Carmody DP, 2012, CHILD PSYCHIAT HUM D, V43, P227, DOI 10.1007/s10578-011-0261-2 CARR EG, 1979, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V9, P345, DOI 10.1007/BF01531444 CHARNEY R, 1980, BRIT J DISORD COMMUN, V15, P39 Coulter GR, 1980, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Denmark T, 2014, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, P1 Denmark T., 2011, THESIS U COLL LONDON Emmorey K., 2002, LANGUAGE COGNITION B Enns C. J., 2013, AM SIGN LANGUAGE REC Goldstein H, 2002, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V32, P373, DOI 10.1023/A:1020589821992 Grossman RB, 2008, RES AUTISM SPECT DIS, V2, P681, DOI 10.1016/j.rasd.2008.02.004 Hamilton AFD, 2009, COGNITION, V113, P37, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.07.007 Higashida N, 2013, REASON 1 JUMP JORDAN RR, 1989, BRIT J DISORD COMMUN, V24, P169 Joseph RM, 2003, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V44, P529, DOI 10.1111/1469-7610.00142 JURE R, 1991, DEV MED CHILD NEUROL, V33, P1062 Kanner L, 1943, NERV CHILD, V2, P217 KONSTANTAREAS MM, 1977, J COMMUN DISORD, V10, P267, DOI 10.1016/0021-9924(77)90006-5 Lacroix A, 2009, RES DEV DISABIL, V30, P976, DOI 10.1016/j.ridd.2009.02.002 LEE A, 1994, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V24, P155, DOI 10.1007/BF02172094 Liddell S. K., 1978, UNDERSTANDING LANGUA, P59 Liddell S. K, 1980, AM SIGN LANGUAGE SYN Liddell S.K., 1986, SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIE, V52, P243 Lord C., 2012, AUTISM DIAGNOSTIC OB Malandraki G. A, 2007, FOCUS AUTISM OTHER D, V22, P23, DOI [10.1177/10883576070220010301, DOI 10.1177/10883576070220010301] Meinzen-Derr J, 2014, INT J PEDIATR OTORHI, V78, P112, DOI 10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.10.065 Mitchell Ross, 2004, SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIE, V4, P138, DOI DOI 10.1353/SLS.2004.0005 Mood D, 2014, SEMIN SPEECH LANG, V35, P288, DOI 10.1055/s-0034-1389101 Muller E, 2006, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V36, P1089, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0146-6 OHTA M, 1987, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V17, P45, DOI 10.1007/BF01487259 Orman W, 2013, BUCLD 38 P 38 ANN BO Padden C., 2006, ADV SIGN LANGUAGE DE, P189 Padden C., 1985, SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIE, V14, P161 Padden C.A., 1991, THEORETICAL ISSUES S, V2, P191 PETITTO LA, 1987, COGNITION, V27, P1, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(87)90034-5 Poizner H., 1990, WHAT HANDS REVEAL BR PRIZANT BM, 1981, J SPEECH HEAR DISORD, V46, P241 Reed T, 2002, J DEV PHYS DISABIL, V14, P63, DOI 10.1023/A:1013515829985 Rogers S. J., 1991, DEV PSYCHOPATHOL, V3, P137, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0954579400000043 Roper L, 2003, AUTISM, V7, P245, DOI 10.1177/1362361303007003002 Rump KM, 2009, CHILD DEV, V80, P1434, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01343.x Rutter M., 2003, SOCIAL COMMUNICATION Sandler W, 2009, SEMIOTICA, V174, P241, DOI 10.1515/semi.2009.035 Schick B, 2007, CHILD DEV, V78, P376, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01004.x Shield A., 2010, THESIS U TEXAS AUSTI Shield A, 2012, J COMMUN DISORD, V45, P439, DOI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2012.08.004 Jordan R, 1985, COMMUNICATION, V19, P19 Smith IM, 1998, COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCH, V15, P747, DOI 10.1080/026432998381087 Spezio ML, 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P929, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0232-9 Stone WL, 1997, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V27, P677, DOI 10.1023/A:1025854816091 Szymanski CA, 2012, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V42, P2027, DOI 10.1007/s10803-012-1452-9 Tager-Flusberg H, 2013, AUTISM RES, V6, P468, DOI 10.1002/aur.1329 Tager-Flusberg H., 2005, HDB AUTISM PERVASIVE, V1, P335 TAGERFLUSBERG H, 1994, CONSTRAINTS LANGUAGE VOLDEN J, 1991, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V21, P109, DOI 10.1007/BF02284755 Warreyn P, 2005, J DEV PHYS DISABIL, V17, P55, DOI 10.1007/s10882-005-2201-1 Whiten A., 1998, INTERSUBJECTIVE COMM, P260 Wilbur R, 2000, SIGNS LANGUAGE REVIS, P213 NR 69 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 4 U2 30 PU THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC PI NEW YORK PA 333 SEVENTH AVE, NEW YORK, NY 10001 USA SN 0734-0478 EI 1098-9056 J9 SEMIN SPEECH LANG JI Semin. Speech Lang. PD NOV PY 2014 VL 35 IS 4 BP 309 EP 320 DI 10.1055/s-0034-1389103 PG 12 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA AR1WO UT WOS:000343375500007 PM 25321855 ER PT J AU Macagno, F Zavatta, B AF Macagno, Fabrizio Zavatta, Benedetta TI Reconstructing Metaphorical Meaning SO ARGUMENTATION LA English DT Article DE Metaphor; Relevance; Interpretation; Pragmatics; Argumentation; Argumentation schemes ID RELEVANCE; PRESUMPTIONS; SEMANTICS; CONTEXT AB Metaphorical meaning can be analyzed as triggered by an apparent communicative breach, an incongruity that leads to a default of the presumptive interpretation of a vehicle. This breach can be solved through contextual renegotiations of meaning guided by the communicative intention, or rather the presumed purpose of the metaphorical utterance. This paper addresses the problem of analyzing the complex process of reasoning underlying the reconstruction of metaphorical meaning. This process will be described as a type of abductive argument, aimed at explaining how the vehicle can best contribute to the purpose of the utterance. This type of reasoning involves the analysis of the possible predicates that can be and usually are attributed to the vehicle, and the selection of the one (or ones) that can support the implicit conclusion constituting the communicative goal of the metaphorical utterance. Metaphorical meaning, in this perspective, becomes the outcome of a complex process of meaning reconstruction aimed at providing the best explanation of the function of the vehicle within a discourse move. C1 [Macagno, Fabrizio; Zavatta, Benedetta] Univ Nova Lisboa, Inst Philosophy Language IFL, P-1069061 Lisbon, Portugal. RP Macagno, F (reprint author), Univ Nova Lisboa, Inst Philosophy Language IFL, Edificio I&D,4 Andar,Ave Berna 26, P-1069061 Lisbon, Portugal. EM fabriziomacagno@hotmail.com; benedetta.zavatta@fcsh.unl.pt RI Macagno, Fabrizio/M-3458-2013 OI Macagno, Fabrizio/0000-0003-0712-421X CR ANTLEY K, 1974, FOUND LANG, V11, P257 Aristotle, 1991, TOPICS, VI Aristotle, 1991, RHETORIC, VII Aristotle, 1991, POSTERIOR ANAL, VI Aristotle, 1991, POETICS, VII Asher N., 2003, LOGICS CONVERSATION Atlas Jay D., 2005, LOGIC MEANING CONVER Atlas Jay, 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P1 Austin J. L., 1962, DO THINGS WORDS Bach K., 2003, BLACKWELL GUIDE PHIL, P147 Bergmann Merrie, 1991, PRAGMATICS, P485 Black M., 1962, MODELS METAPHORS Black M., 1954, P ARISTOTELIAN SOC, V55, P273 Boethius Severinus, 1978, TOPICS DIFFERENTIES Buridanus Johannes, 2001, SUMMULAE DIALECTICA Burton-Roberts Noel, 1989, LIMITS DEBATE REVISE Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Chaiken Shelly, 1999, DUAL PROCESS THEORIE, V1999, P73 Chomsky N., 1971, SEMANTICS INTERDISCI, P183 Crothers E., 1979, PARAGRAPH STRUCTURE DUCROT O., 1972, DIRE PAS DIRE Ducrot Oswald, 1966, ETUDES LINGUISTIQUE, V4, P39 Ducrot O., 1986, METAPHYSIQUE REHETOR, P79 Ducrot Oswald, 1972, ACTES LANGAGE, P7 Fauconnier G., 2002, WAY WE THINK CONCEPT Freeman James B., 2005, ACCEPTABLE PREMISES Gibbs R. W., 1994, POETICS MIND FIGURAT GLUCKSBERG S, 1990, PSYCHOL REV, V97, P3, DOI 10.1037//0033-295X.97.1.3 Glucksberg S, 2008, CAMB HANDB PSYCHOL, P67 Grice Paul, 1975, LOGIC GRAMMAR, P64 Grimes Joseph, 1975, THREAD DISOCURSE Grosz B. J., 1986, Computational Linguistics, V12, P175 Hamblin Charles L., 1970, FALLACIES HARMAN GH, 1965, PHILOS REV, V74, P88, DOI 10.2307/2183532 Hobbs Jerry, 1979, COGNITIVE SCI, V3, P67, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15516709C0G0301_4 Hobbs J. R., 1985, CSLI8537 STANF U Hopper Robert, 1981, COMMUNICATION Q, V29, P228 Indurkhya B., 1992, METAPHOR COGNITION I Kahneman D, 2003, AM PSYCHOL, V58, P697, DOI 10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697 KATZ JJ, 1963, LANGUAGE, V39, P170, DOI 10.2307/411200 Kauffeld Fred, 2003, ANYONE WHO HAS VIEW, P136 Kauffeld Fred, 1995, P 9 SCA AFA C ARG, P509 Kempson R., 1973, T PHILOL SOC, V72, P29, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-968X.1973.tb01013.x Kempson Ruth M., 1975, PRESUPPOSITION DELIM Kienpointner Manfred, 1992, ALLTAGSLOGIK STRUCKT Kretzmann Normann, 1982, CAMBRIDGE HIST LATER Lakoff G, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Levin Samuel, 1977, SEMANTICS METAPHOR Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Macagno Fabrizio, 2007, ANTHR PHILOS, V8, P101 Macagno F, 2014, EMOTIVE LANGUAGE IN ARGUMENTATION, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139565776 Macagno F, 2011, INFORMAL LOG, V31, P367 Macagno F, 2009, PHILOS RHETORIC, V42, P154 Macagno F, 2012, ARGUMENTATION, V26, P233, DOI 10.1007/s10503-011-9232-9 Macagno F, 2008, INFORMAL LOG, V28, P102 Martinich Aloysius, 1991, PRAGMATICS, P507 MCCAWLEY JD, 1971, FOUND LANG, V7, P285 Pascal Blaise, 1966, CHRISTIANITY MODERN Patterson Dennis, 2004, DIRITTO QUESTIONI PU, V4, P241 Petty R. E., 2005, PERSUASION PSYCHOL I, P81 Petty Richard E, 1986, ADV EXPT SOCIAL PSYC, V19, P123, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2 Rescher N., 1977, DIALECTICS CONTROVER Rescher N, 2006, PRESUMPTION AND THE PRACTICES OF TENTATIVE COGNITION, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511498848 Richards I. A., 1936, PHILOS RHETORIC Rigotti E., 2004, COMUNICAZIONE VERBAL Rigotti Eddo, 2005, STUDIES COMMUNICATIO, P75 Rigotti Eddo, 2006, SYNDESMOI CONNETTIVI, P3 Rigotti Eddo, 2001, STUDIES COMMUNICATIO, V2, P45 Rigotti E., 2009, PONDERING PROBLEMS A, P157, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0-12 Rigotti Eddo, 2006, ARGUMENTATION, V20, P519, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10503-007-9034-2 Rigotti E, 2010, ARGUMENTATION, V24, P489, DOI 10.1007/s10503-010-9190-7 Rocci Andrea, 2008, ANAL LINGUISTIQUE DI, P247 Rocci Andrea, 2005, STUDIES COMMUNICATIO, P97 Searle J., 1981, PHILOS PERSPECTIVES, P248 Seuren PAM, 2000, J LINGUIST, V36, P261, DOI 10.1017/S002222670000815X Shakespeare W., 2000, ROMEO JULIET SOAMES S, 1982, LINGUIST INQ, V13, P483 Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber D, 2008, CAMB HANDB PSYCHOL, P84 Stalnaker R., 1998, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, V7, P3, DOI 10.1023/A:1008254815298 Stalnaker Robert C., 1974, SEMANTICS PHILOS, P197 Stern J., 2000, METAPHOR CONTEXT Stern J, 2008, CAMB HANDB PSYCHOL, P262 Stern J, 2006, MIND LANG, V21, P243 Tendahl M, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P1823, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001 Tindale C.W., 2004, RHETORICAL ARGUMENTA Vanderveken Daniel, 1985, FDN ILLOCUTIONARY LO Vanderveken D., 2002, ESSAYS SPEECH ACT TH, P25 van Eemeren Frans, 1984, SPEECH ACTA ARGUMENT van Eemeren F, 2004, SYSTEMATIC THEORY AR Van Eemeren F.H., 1992, ARGUMENTATION COMMUN Vega Moreno R. E., 2004, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V16, P297 Walton D, 2008, ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511802034 Walton Douglas, 2003, MICHIGAN STATE LAW R, V4, P1305 Walton Douglas, 1993, PRAGMAT COGN, V1, P125, DOI 10.1075/pc.1.1.08wal Walton Douglas, 2002, LEGAL ARGUMENTATION Walton D., 1989, INFORMAL LOGIC Walton D., 2004, ABDUCTIVE REASONING Walton D. N., 2004, RELEVANCE ARGUMENTAT Walton D.N., 1996, ARGUMENTATION SCHEME Walton D, 2009, ARGUMENTATION, V23, P81, DOI 10.1007/s10503-008-9110-2 Wilson D, 2006, MIND LANG, V21, P404, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x Zavatta Benedetta, 2014, DICT BIBLE TRANSLATI NR 103 TC 6 Z9 6 U1 0 U2 10 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 2014 VL 28 IS 4 BP 453 EP 488 DI 10.1007/s10503-014-9329-z PG 36 WC Communication; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics; Philosophy SC Communication; Linguistics; Philosophy GA AQ9UC UT WOS:000343200900004 ER PT J AU Harlin, EM AF Harlin, Eva-Marie TI Watching oneself teach - long-term effects of teachers' reflections on their video-recorded teaching SO TECHNOLOGY PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION LA English DT Article DE pragmatic philosophy; video; changed habits; reflection; teacher ID VIDEOPAPERS AB This study examines changes in teaching habits reported by teachers when they see themselves on video. It is a longitudinal study in which 43 student teachers participated in the first step during their teacher education. When the teachers saw themselves teaching, they were surprised by certain habits and wrote that they wanted to change them. Two years later, eight of these teachers video recorded their teaching again. The interpretation is based on pragmatic philosophy and Mead's concepts of 'I' and 'me'. In the interviews, it becomes clear that the majority of the teachers in different ways had changed their habits. It is not only a question of new habits but also of the refinement of previous habits. Four categories of changed habits are presented: shift in the opportunity to speak in favour of the participants, reduced service orientation, reduced control, and building relationships. C1 Linkoping Univ, IBL, S-58183 Linkoping, Sweden. RP Harlin, EM (reprint author), Linkoping Univ, IBL, S-58183 Linkoping, Sweden. EM eva-marie.harlin@liu.se CR Beardsley L., 2007, VIDEO RES LEARNING S, P479 Biesta G., 2003, PRAGMATISM ED RES Bryan L. A., 2006, J COMPUTING TEACHER, V23, P31 Calandra Brendan, 2008, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, V16, P137 Calandra B., 2006, J COMPUTING TEACHER, V22, P137, DOI DOI 10.1080/10402454.2006.10784549 Calandra Brendan, 2009, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, V42, P73 Dewey J., 1933, WE THINK Dewey J., 1922, HUMAN NATURE CONDUCT Harlin E.-M., 2010, OVERRASKNING REFLEKT Hauge TE, 2009, TECHNOL PEDAGOG EDUC, V18, P279, DOI 10.1080/14759390903255551 Korthagen F., 2005, TEACH TEACH, V11, P47, DOI DOI 10.1080/1354060042000337093 Kvale S., 1997, KVALITATIVA FORSKNIN Larsson S., 2009, INT J RES METHOD ED, V32, P25 Larsson S., 2005, NORDISK PEDAGOGIK, V25, P16 Lazarus E, 2009, TECHNOL PEDAGOG EDUC, V18, P255, DOI 10.1080/14759390903255528 Olivero F., 2004, CAMB J EDUC, V34, P179, DOI DOI 10.1080/03057640410001700552 Rock P., 2001, HDB ETHNOGRAPHY, P26 Rosaen CL, 2008, J TEACH EDUC, V59, P347, DOI 10.1177/0022487108322128 Saljo R, 2009, TECHNOL PEDAGOG EDUC, V18, P315, DOI 10.1080/14759390903255593 [Anonymous], 2006, SYMBOLS SELVES SOCIA Schon D., 1987, ED REFLECTIVE PRACTI Schon D. A., 1983, REFLECTIVE PRACTITIO Sherin M. G., 2005, J TECHNOLOGY TEACHER, V13, P475 NR 23 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 1 U2 2 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 1475-939X EI 1747-5139 J9 TECHNOL PEDAGOG EDUC JI Technol. Pedagag. Educ. PD OCT 2 PY 2014 VL 23 IS 4 BP 507 EP 521 DI 10.1080/1475939X.2013.822413 PG 15 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA AU4GU UT WOS:000345569300007 ER PT J AU Meyers, B Fisher, TR Alicea, M Bloxson, KM AF Meyers, Barbara Fisher, Teresa R. Alicea, Monica Bloxson, Kolt M. TI Unfinishedness: Striving for a Viable Partnership Between TFA and Its University Partner SO TEACHERS COLLEGE RECORD LA English DT Article ID CONSULTATION; TEACHERS; MATTERS; AMERICA AB Background/Context: Teach For America (TFA) affiliates with universities in most of its 40 regions nationally; however, few researchers intentionally study the content and processes of a partnership between TFA and a college of education. Purpose/Research Question/Focus of Study: To ensure that investments both organizations were making had a direct and positive relationship with the constituents, leaders from TFA and Georgia State University began a joint study of our partnership. Researchers believed that participatory collaborative research, utilizing the emic insights, could illuminate needed modifications to best serve novice teachers. Research conducted by only one of the partners is less likely to promote mutuality of respect, reveal salient cultural reference points, honor all stakeholder voices, and enhance a common understanding. The driving question for this strand of this comprehensive 5-year inquiry: What happens when two seemingly disparate institutions with the same mission for educational equity come together to develop urban educators? Participants: Thirty-three purposefully selected stakeholders were individually interviewed and included (a) university and TFA leadership (e.g., executive director, deans, department chairs) who were involved in the initiation of this partnership (n = 16); and (b) university coaches, faculty, and TFA Program Directors (PDs) who worked as supervisors and mentors in the field and/or instructors in coursework (n = 17). Additionally, 45 TFA Corps Members' written reflections about their participation in their degree program provided feedback and analysis of their program and the partnership. Research Design: University faculty and TFA personnel codesigned a multiyear qualitative examination of their joint enterprise of developing urban teachers to promote equitable educative opportunities for all children. A contribution of this study is the empirical and coconstructed nature of its design. Data Collection/Analysis: The team analyzed data from transcribed verbatim interviews conducted with university and TFA participants, and documents/publications such as Web sites, Memoranda of Understanding, mission statements, emails, meeting memos, program handbook, course syllabi, and TFA Corps Member reflections. Findings/Results: An examination of this partnership revealed struggles with: (a) contract negotiation, (b) communication, (c) procedural and pragmatic congruence, (d) response to constituent needs, and (e) creation of an authentic and sustainable partnership. Conclusions/Recommendations: Our partnership fluctuated between an instrumental process focused on survival of complexities and triaging crises and self-focused explorations of organizational priorities and possibilities. Stakeholders collaborated to move beyond institutional paradigms for practices toward more mutually constructed engagements. Recommendations are offered to guide other university/TFA partners as they collaborate for the purpose of urban teacher development. C1 [Meyers, Barbara; Fisher, Teresa R.; Alicea, Monica; Bloxson, Kolt M.] Georgia State Univ, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA. RP Meyers, B (reprint author), Georgia State Univ, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA. CR Ballou D, 2000, TEACH COLL REC, V102, P5, DOI 10.1111/0161-4681.00046 Collay M., 1995, PROFESSIONALIZATION, P145 Costelloe S., 2008, THESIS Creswell J, 2007, QUALITATIVE INQUIRY Darling-Hammond L, 2000, J TEACH EDUC, V51, P166, DOI 10.1177/0022487100051003002 Darling-Hammond L, 2003, EDUC LEADERSHIP, V60, P6 Feiman-Nemser S, 2001, TEACH COLL REC, V103, P1013, DOI 10.1111/0161-4681.00141 Fisher T., 2009, THESIS GEORGIA STATE Many J. E., SCH U PARTN IN PRESS, V7, P49 Freire P., 1998, PEDAGOGY FREEDOM ETH Fullan M, 2001, LEADING CULTURE CHAN Fullan M., 1991, MEANING ED CHANGE Georgia State University, 2012, EARL CHILDH ED MAT P Heineke A. J., 2010, TEACHER ED Q, V37, P123 Hill CE, 2005, J COUNS PSYCHOL, V52, P196, DOI 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196 Koerner M, 2008, PHI DELTA KAPPAN, V89, P726 Kopp W., 2003, ONE DAY ALL CHILDREN Labaree D, 2010, J TEACH EDUC, V61, P48, DOI 10.1177/0022487109347317 Reagan E. M., 2011, TEACHER ED Q, V38, P7 Lincoln Y. S., 1985, NATURALISTIC INQUIRY Lortie D., 1975, SCHOOLTEACHER SOCIOL Bohan CH, 2011, READ EDUC THOUGHT, P1 Many J., 2012, ISSUES TEACHER ED, V21, P83 Merriam S. B., 2009, QUALITATIVE RES GUID Meyers B, 2002, J EDUC PSYCHOL CONS, V13, P151, DOI 10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1303_02 Miller P, 2008, INT J LEADERSHIP ED, V11, P353 Nastasi BK, 2000, SCHOOL PSYCHOL REV, V29, P401 Nastasi B. K., 2004, SCH BASED MENTAL HLT Finan E., 1990, J TEACH EDUC, V49, P13 Sarason S., 1971, CULTURE SCH PROBLEM Sarason S. B., 1996, CULTURE SCH PROBLEM Schensul S. L., 1999, ESSENTIAL ETHNOGRAPH Senge P., 1990, 5 DISCIPLINE ART PRA Stevens DD, 1999, TEACH TEACH EDUC, V15, P287, DOI 10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00017-1 Strauss A., 1998, BASICS QUALITATIVE R Swars SL, 2009, J TEACH EDUC, V60, P168, DOI 10.1177/0022487108329116 United States Department of Education, 2010, INV INN FUND SCAL GR Veltri BT, 2010, LEARNING ON OTHER PEOPLES KIDS: BECOMING A TEACH FOR AMERICA TEACHER, P1 Veltri B. T., 2008, ED URBAN SOC, V40 Wilson K. G., 1994, REDESIGNING ED Yin R, 2009, CASE STUDY RES DESIG NR 41 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 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 OCT PY 2014 VL 116 IS 10 AR 100304 PG 32 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA CA7VC UT WOS:000349124500004 ER PT J AU Klusek, J Martin, GE Losh, M AF Klusek, Jessica Martin, Gary E. Losh, Molly TI A Comparison of Pragmatic Language in Boys With Autism and Fragile X Syndrome SO JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE pragmatic language; social communication; autism; fragile X syndrome; discourse; endophenotype ID PERVASIVE DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS; DIAGNOSTIC-OBSERVATION-SCHEDULE; HIGH-FUNCTIONING AUTISM; DOWN-SYNDROME; SPECTRUM DISORDERS; ASPERGER-SYNDROME; CONVERSATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS; BEHAVIORAL-PHENOTYPE; EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE; MENTAL-RETARDATION AB Purpose: Impaired pragmatic language (i.e., language use for social interaction) is a hallmark feature of both autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and fragile X syndrome (FXS), the most common known monogenic disorder associated with ASD. However, few cross-population comparisons of ASD and FXS have been conducted, and it is unclear whether pragmatic language profiles in these conditions overlap. Method: The authors used seminaturalistic and standardized assessment methods to characterize pragmatic language abilities of 29 school-aged boys with idiopathic ASD, 38 with FXS and comorbid ASD, 16 with FXS without ASD, 20 with Down syndrome, and 20 with typical development. Results: Similar severity of pragmatic language deficits was observed in both of the groups with ASD (idiopathic and fragile X-associated). ASD comorbidity had a detrimental effect on the pragmatic language skills of the boys with FXS. Some different patterns emerged across the two pragmatic assessment tools, with more robust group differences observed in pragmatics assessed in a seminaturalistic conversational context. Conclusion: These findings have implications for pragmatic language assessment and intervention, as well as for understanding the potential role of the fragile X gene, Fragile X Mental Retardation-1, in the pragmatic language phenotype of ASD. C1 [Klusek, Jessica; Martin, Gary E.] Univ N Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Dev Inst, Chapel Hill, NC USA. [Losh, Molly] Northwestern Univ, Evanston, IL 60201 USA. RP Losh, M (reprint author), Northwestern Univ, Evanston, IL 60201 USA. EM m-losh@northwestern.edu FU James J. Gallagher Dissertation Award of Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [R01HD0388190-62A, R01HD038819-09S1, R01HD044935-06A]; National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [1R01DC010191-01A1, R03DC010880]; National Institute of Mental Health [R01MH091131-01A1]; National Fragile X Foundation; Ireland Family Foundation; Research Participant Registry Core of the Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities Grant [P30HD03110]; original National Institute of Child Health and Human Development FX This article was completed as part of the first author's doctoral dissertation, which was supported in part by the James J. Gallagher Dissertation Award of Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. This work was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Grants R01HD0388190-62A, R01HD038819-09S1, and R01HD044935-06A; the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grants 1R01DC010191-01A1 and R03DC010880; the National Institute of Mental Health Grant R01MH091131-01A1; the National Fragile X Foundation; the Ireland Family Foundation; and the Research Participant Registry Core of the Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities Grant P30HD03110. We would like to thank Linda Watson, Heather Cody Hazlett, and Jane Roberts for their comments on an earlier version of this article, Abigail Hogan-Brown for her assistance with the pragmatic language coding, Christine Rothermel for her help with the tables, and John Sideris for his guidance on the statistical analyses. We also thank Rebecca Landa for permitting our use of the Pragmatic Rating Scale-School Age in this project and for providing training and guidance on its implementation. We gratefully acknowledge the late Joanne Roberts, who was awarded the original National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grants that supported the initial phases of this research, and the children and families who participated. CR Abbecluto L, 2008, AM J MENT RETARD, V113, P214, DOI 10.1352/0895-8017(2008)113[214:SNOLAC]2.0.CO;2 Abrahams BS, 2010, ARCH NEUROL-CHICAGO, V67, P395, DOI 10.1001/archneurol.2010.47 Adams C, 2002, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V43, P973, DOI 10.1111/1469-7610.00226 Adams C, 2002, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V43, P679, DOI 10.1111/1469-7610.00056 American Psychiatric Association, 2013, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT Bailey DB, 1998, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V28, P499 BARONCOHEN S, 1988, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V18, P379, DOI 10.1007/BF02212194 Bassell GJ, 2008, NEURON, V60, P201, DOI 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.004 Bates E., 1976, LANGUAGE IN CONTEXT Belmonte MK, 2006, NAT NEUROSCI, V9, P1221, DOI 10.1038/nn1765 Belser RC, 2001, AM J MENT RETARD, V106, P28, DOI 10.1352/0895-8017(2001)106<0028:CCOCWF>2.0.CO;2 BENJAMINI Y, 1995, J ROY STAT SOC B MET, V57, P289 Bishop D., 2006, CHILDRENS COMMUNICAT Hunter A., 2006, FDN MULTIMETHOD RES Brown R., 1973, 1 LANGUAGE EARLY STA [Anonymous], 2000, J ABNORMAL CHILD PSY Capps L., 1998, AUTISM, V2, P325, DOI DOI 10.1177/1362361398024002 Carrow-Woolfolk E., 1999, CASL COMPREHENSIVE A Chapman RS, 2000, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V41, P33, DOI 10.1017/S0021963099004953 CLARK P, 1981, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V11, P201, DOI 10.1007/BF01531685 Clifford S, 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P738, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0205-z Cohen D, 2005, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V35, P103, DOI 10.1007/s10803-004-1038-2 COHEN IL, 1989, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V30, P845, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1989.tb00286.x Cohen I. L., 1995, MENT RETARD DEV D R, V1, P286, DOI 10.1002/mrdd.1410010410 DEVENNY DA, 1990, J MENT DEFIC RES, V34, P253 Devlin B, 2012, CURR OPIN GENET DEV, V22, P229, DOI 10.1016/j.gde.2012.03.002 Dickinson D, 1991, LANGUAGE CONTINUUM I, V13, P1 DIEHL JJ, 2006, J ABNORMAL CHILD PSY, V0034 Dissanayake C, 2009, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V50, P290, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01988.x Dunn L. M., 1997, PEABODY PICTURE VOCA Estigarribia B, 2011, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V32, P359, DOI 10.1017/S0142716410000445 Fernandez-Carvajal I, 2009, J MOL DIAGN, V11, P324, DOI 10.2353/jmoldx.2009.080173 FINE J, 1994, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V24, P315, DOI 10.1007/BF02172230 Fleiss J. L., 2004, STAT METHODS RATES P, DOI [10.1002/0471445428.ch18, DOI 10.1002/0471445428.CH18] Fogel A., 1993, DEV RELATIONSHIPS OR Garcia-Perez RM, 2008, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V38, P156, DOI 10.1007/s10803-007-0379-z Geller E, 1998, BRIT J DEV DISABIL, V44, P71 Geschwind DH, 2011, TRENDS COGN SCI, V15, P409, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2011.07.003 Ghaziuddin M, 1996, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V26, P585, DOI 10.1007/BF02172348 Gotham K, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P693, DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0674-3 Gotham K, 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P613, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0280-1 Gotham K, 2008, J AM ACAD CHILD PSY, V47, P642, DOI 10.1097/CHI.0b013e31816bffb7 Grant CM, 2007, J ABNORM CHILD PSYCH, V35, P17, DOI 10.1007/s10802-006-9077-0 Hagerman PJ, 2008, J MED GENET, V45, P498, DOI 10.1136/jmg.2008.059055 Hagerman R., 2010, MOL AUTISM, V1, P1, DOI DOI 10.1186/2040-2392-1-12 Hagerman R, 2011, J NEURODEV DISORD, V3, P211, DOI 10.1007/s11689-011-9084-5 HAGERMAN RJ, 1986, AM J MED GENET, V23, P359, DOI 10.1002/ajmg.1320230128 Hagerman R. J., 2011, AUTISM SPECTRUM DISO, P801 Hagerman RJ, 2002, FRAGILE X SYNDROME D Hagerman R. J., 2002, FRAGILE X SYNDROME D, P3 Hall SS, 2008, AM J MENT RETARD, V113, P44, DOI 10.1352/0895-8017(2008)113[44:CSAABI]2.0.CO;2 Hall SS, 2010, J AM ACAD CHILD PSY, V49, P921, DOI 10.1016/j.jaac.2010.07.001 HANSON DM, 1986, AM J MED GENET, V23, P195, DOI 10.1002/ajmg.1320230114 Henley SJ, 2014, MMWR-MORBID MORTAL W, V63, P1 Hewitt LE, 1998, J COMMUN DISORD, V31, P87 Hyter YD, 2007, TOP LANG DISORD, V27, P128 Irwin S. A., 2002, FRAGILE X SYNDROME D, P191 JORESKOG KG, 1994, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V59, P381, DOI 10.1007/BF02296131 Keysor CS, 2002, MICROSC RES TECHNIQ, V57, P179, DOI 10.1002/jemt.10070 KUMIN L, 1994, PERCEPT MOTOR SKILL, V78, P307 LANDA R, 1992, PSYCHOL MED, V22, P245 Landa R., 2000, ASPERGER SYNDROME, P403 Landa R., 2011, PRAGMATIC RATI UNPUB LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159, DOI 10.2307/2529310 Lewis P, 2006, J INTELL DISABIL RES, V50, P532, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00803.x Loesch DZ, 2007, NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV R, V31, P315, DOI 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.09.007 LORD C, 1994, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V24, P659, DOI 10.1007/BF02172145 Lord C., 2001, AUTISM DIAGNOSTIC OB Losh M., 2012, FRONTIERS PSYCHOL DE, V3, P1 Losh M, 2003, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V33, P239, DOI 10.1023/A:1024446215446 Losh M, 2012, AM J MED GENET B, V159B, P660, DOI 10.1002/ajmg.b.32070 Losh M, 2008, AM J MED GENET B, V147B, P424, DOI 10.1002/ajmg.b.30612 Loukusa S, 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P1049, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0247-2 LOVELAND KA, 1990, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V8, P9 Martin GE, 2012, AJIDD-AM J INTELLECT, V117, P384, DOI 10.1352/1944-7558-117.5.384 Martin GE, 2009, TOP LANG DISORD, V29, P112 McDuffie A, 2010, AJIDD-AM J INTELLECT, V115, P307, DOI 10.1352/1944-7558-115.4.307 McTear M. F., 1992, PRAGMATIC DISABILITY Miles JH, 2011, GENET MED, V13, P278, DOI 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181ff67ba Miller J., 2008, SYSTEMATIC ANAL LANG Muthen L. K., 2006, MPLUS USERS GUIDE VE Norbury CF, 2003, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V38, P287, DOI 10.1080/136820310000108133 Ozonoff S, 1996, BRAIN LANG, V52, P411, DOI 10.1006/brln.1996.0022 PASW Statistics, 2009, PASW STAT 18 VERS RE PAUL R, 1987, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V17, P457, DOI 10.1007/BF01486963 Paul R, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P115, DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0607-1 Piven J, 1997, AM J MED GENET, V74, P398, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19970725)74:4<398::AID-AJMG11>3.0.CO;2-D PRUTTING CA, 1982, J SPEECH HEAR DISORD, V47, P123 PRUTTING CA, 1987, J SPEECH HEAR DISORD, V52, P105 Roberts J, 2007, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V50, P475, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/033) Roberts JE, 2007, AM J MENT RETARD, V112, P1, DOI 10.1352/0895-8017(2007)112[1:ELDCSI]2.0.CO;2 Rogers SJ, 2001, J DEV BEHAV PEDIATR, V22, P409 Roid G., 1997, LEITER INT PERFORMAN Ronald A, 2011, AM J MED GENET B, V156B, P255, DOI 10.1002/ajmg.b.31159 Ross DE, 2002, EDUC TRAIN MENT RET, V37, P343 ROTH FP, 1984, J SPEECH HEAR DISORD, V49, P12 Siegal M, 1996, BRAIN LANG, V53, P40, DOI 10.1006/brln.1996.0035 Simon JA, 2001, COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCH, V18, P1, DOI 10.1080/02643290126042 Spaulding TJ, 2006, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V37, P61, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2006/007) SUDHALTER V, 1990, AM J MENT RETARD, V94, P431 Sudhalter V, 2001, AM J MENT RETARD, V106, P389, DOI 10.1352/0895-8017(2001)106<0389:CCOCWF>2.0.CO;2 Tager-Flusberg H, 2009, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V52, P643, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0136) TAGERFLUSBERG H, 1995, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V13, P45 Tager-Flusberg H., 2005, HDB AUTISM PERVASIVE, V1, P335 TAGERFLUSBERG H, 1991, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V32, P1123, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1991.tb00353.x Van Borsel J, 2008, FOLIA PHONIATR LOGO, V60, P312, DOI 10.1159/000170081 Volden J, 2004, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V39, P171, DOI 10.1080/13682820410001663252 Weiler IJ, 1999, AM J MED GENET, V83, P248, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19990402)83:4<248::AID-AJMG3>3.0.CO;2-1 Williams DL, 2006, CHILD NEUROPSYCHOL, V12, P279, DOI 10.1080/09297040600681190 Williams K., 1997, EXPRESSIVE VOCABULAR Wolf-Schein E G, 1987, ASHA, V29, P35 Wolff JJ, 2012, J AM ACAD CHILD PSY, V51, P1324, DOI 10.1016/j.jaac.2012.09.001 Yirmiya N, 1998, PSYCHOL BULL, V124, P283, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.283 Yoder P. J, 1993, ENHANCING CHILDRENS, P35 Zajac DJ, 2009, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V52, P1370, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0208) NR 115 TC 6 Z9 6 U1 1 U2 11 PU AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC PI ROCKVILLE PA 10801 ROCKVILLE PIKE, ROCKVILLE, MD 20852-3279 USA SN 1092-4388 EI 1558-9102 J9 J SPEECH LANG HEAR R JI J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. PD OCT PY 2014 VL 57 IS 5 BP 1692 EP 1707 DI 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-13-0064 PG 16 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA AZ4NZ UT WOS:000348200500009 PM 24686468 ER PT J AU Dynel, M AF Dynel, Marta TI Linguistic approaches to (non)humorous irony SO HUMOR-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMOR RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE evaluation; irony; linguistics; meaning inversion; sarcasm ID VERBAL IRONY; RELEVANT INAPPROPRIATENESS; FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE; SITUATIONAL IRONY; SOCIAL COGNITION; SARCASTIC IRONY; PRETENSE THEORY; DISCOURSE; PRAGMATICS; CRITICISM 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 Attardo S, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P793, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3 BALL DW, 1965, CAN REV SOC ANTHROP, V2, P190, DOI 10.1111/j.1755-618X.1965.tb01337.x Barbe K., 1995, IRONY IN CONTEXT Berger A. A., 1993, AN ANATOMY OF HUMOR Bowes A, 2011, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V48, P215, DOI 10.1080/0163853X.2010.532757 Brown R. L., 1980, LANGUAGE USE USES LA, P111 Camp E, 2012, NOUS, V46, P587, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00822.x Camp E, 2008, PHILOS PERSPECT, V22, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00140.x Caucci GM, 2012, HUMOR, V25, P1, DOI 10.1515/humor-2012-0001 Channon S, 2005, BRAIN LANG, V93, P123, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.09.002 CLARK HH, 1984, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V113, P121, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 Colebrook Claire, 2004, IRONY Colson HL, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P111, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)80008-X Colston H.L., 2007, IRONY LANGUAGE THOUG, P3 Colston HL, 1997, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V23, P25 Colston HL, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P1557, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00110-1 Colston H. L., 2000, PRAGMAT COGN, V8, P277, DOI DOI 10.1075/PC.8.2.02C0L Creusere M., 2000, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V15, P29, DOI [10.1080/10926488.2000.9678863, DOI 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678863] Nichols S., 2006, ARCHITECTURE IMAGINA, P111, DOI 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275731.003.0007 Dews Shelly, 1995, METAPHOR SYMBOLIC AC, V10, P39 DEWS S, 1995, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V19, P347 Dynel M., 2013, DEV LINGUISTIC HUMOU, P289, DOI 10.1075/thr.1.14dyn Dynel M, 2013, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V10, P403, DOI 10.1515/ip-2013-0018 Fowler Henry Watson, 1965, FOWLERS MODERN ENGLI Garmendia J, 2010, PRAGMAT COGN, V18, P397, DOI 10.1075/pc.18.2.07gar Garmendia J, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P41, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.002 Gibbs RW, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P104, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.001 Gibbs Raymond W., 2001, SAY NOT SAY NEW PERS, P188 Gibbs Jr R. W., 2000, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V15, P5, DOI DOI 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862 Gibbs R. W., 1994, HDB PSYCHOLINGUISTIC, P411 GIBBS RW, 1991, J PRAGMATICS, V16, P523, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(91)90101-3 Gibbs RW, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P457, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00046-7 GIBBS RW, 1986, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V115, P3, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.3 Giora Rachel, 1998, HDB PRAGMATICS, P1 Giora Rachel, 2001, PSYCHOL SOCIOLOGY LI, P163 Giora Rachel, 1998, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V13, P83, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327868MS1302_1 GIORA R, 1995, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V19, P239 Giora R, 2011, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V210, P19 GLUCKSBERG S, 1995, METAPHOR SYMB ACT, V10, P47, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms1001_5 Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS, P22 Grice Herbert Paul, 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS, P41 Hamamoto Hideki, 1998, RELEVANCE THEORY APP, P257 Hancock JT, 2000, J COGN DEV, V1, P227, DOI 10.1207/S15327647JCD010204 Harris M, 2003, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V36, P147, DOI 10.1207/S15326950DP3603_1 Hartung Martin, 1998, IRONIE GESPROCHENEN HAVERKATE H, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P77, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90065-L Hirsch G, 2011, PRAGMAT COGN, V19, P530, DOI 10.1075/pc.19.3.07hir HOLDCROFT D, 1983, POETICS TODAY, V4, P493, DOI 10.2307/1772029 Hutcheon Linda, 1994, IRONYS EDGE THEORY P Jorgensen J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V26, P613, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00067-4 Kapogianni E, 2011, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V210, P51 KAUFER DS, 1983, POETICS TODAY, V4, P451, DOI 10.2307/1772026 Kotthoff H, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1387, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00182-0 KREUZ RJ, 1991, METAPHOR SYMB ACT, V6, P149, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms0603_1 KREUZ RJ, 1989, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V118, P374 Kreuz Roger J., 1996, METAPHOR IMPLICATION, P23 Kreuz RJ, 2002, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V21, P127, DOI 10.1177/02627X02021002002 KREUZ RJ, 1993, METAPHOR SYMB ACT, V8, P97, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms0802_2 KUMONNAKAMURA S, 1995, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V124, P3, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.3 Lagerwerf L, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P1702, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.002 Lee Christopher J., 1998, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V13, P1, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327868MS1301_1 LITTMAN DC, 1991, J PRAGMATICS, V15, P131, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(91)90057-5 LONG DL, 1988, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V11, P35 LUCARIELLO J, 1994, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V123, P129, DOI 10.1037//0096-3445.123.2.129 Mayerhofer Bastian, 2013, DEV LINGUISTIC HUMOU, P211 MUECKE DC, 1969, COMPASS IRONY Norrick Neal R., 1993, CONVERSATIONAL JOKIN Norrick NR, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1333, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00180-7 Nuolijarvi Pirkko, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P572 Partington A, 2006, ROUTL STUD LINGUIST, V5, P1 Partington A, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P1547, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.009 Pexman PM, 2002, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V33, P199, DOI 10.1207/S15326950DP3303_1 Recanati Francois, 2007, PRAGMATICS, P213 Recanati F, 2004, LITERAL MEANING ROBERTS RM, 1994, PSYCHOL SCI, V5, P159, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00653.x Leonor Ruiz-Gurillo, 2013, IRONY HUMOR PRAGMATI Schwoebel J., 2000, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V15, P47, DOI [10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864, DOI 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864] SECKMAN MA, 1989, J CONTEMP ETHNOGR, V18, P327, DOI 10.1177/089124189018003004 Shamay-Tsoory SG, 2005, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, V19, P288, DOI 10.1037/08947-4105.19.3.288 Shelley C, 2001, COGNITIVE SCI, V25, P775, DOI 10.1016/S0364-0213(01)00053-2 Simpson P, 2011, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V210, P33 Sperber Dan, 1998, RELEVANCE THEORY APP, P283, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.37.16SPE Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber Dan, 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P295 SPERBER D, 1984, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V113, P130, DOI 10.1037//0096-3445.113.1.130 Toplak M, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P1467, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00101-0 Utsumi A, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P1777, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00116-2 Veale T., 2013, DEV LINGUISTIC HUMOU, P321 Wilson D., 2009, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V21, P183 WILSON D, 1992, LINGUA, V87, P53, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(92)90025-E Wilson D., 2012, MEANING RELEVANCE, P123, DOI [DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008, 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008] Wilson D, 2006, LINGUA, V116, P1722, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001 NR 92 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 U2 13 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 OCT PY 2014 VL 27 IS 4 BP 537 EP 550 DI 10.1515/humor-2014-0097 PG 14 WC Language & Linguistics; Psychology, Multidisciplinary SC Linguistics; Psychology GA AW2TZ UT WOS:000346143200001 ER PT J AU Dynel, M AF Dynel, Marta TI Isn't it ironic? Defining the scope of humorous irony SO HUMOR-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMOR RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE evaluative implicature; flouting the first maxim of Quality; humorous irony; pretence; untruthfulness ID VERBAL IRONY; PRETENSE THEORY; PRAGMATICS; DISCOURSE; CRITICISM; DISPLAY; SARCASM; JOKING AB This paper takes as its bedrock a neo-Gricean definition of the trope of irony, championing two essential conditions for diagnosing its presence: overt untruthfulness (or pretence) arising from flouting the first maxim of Quality, together with evaluative implicature, i.e., implied (negative) evaluation. The paramount aim here is to delineate the boundaries of humorous irony, a term frequently overused both in everyday discourse and in academic research, vis-a-vis a range of distinct humor forms. Arguing in favour of a need for terminological and conceptual rigidity, the author indicates a few types of humor (teasing, absurdity, parody, and sarcasm) and potentially humorous phenomena (bald-faced lying, as well as metaphor, hyperbole and metonymy) which appear to meet at least one of the two conditions and, as a result, tend to be mistakenly labeled as (humorous) irony. The theoretical discussion is illustrated with humorous examples taken from the television series House. 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 Attardo S, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P793, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3 BALL DW, 1965, CAN REV SOC ANTHROP, V2, P190, DOI 10.1111/j.1755-618X.1965.tb01337.x Berger Arthur, 1993, AN ANATOMY OF HUMOR Boxer D, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V27, P275, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00031-8 Brown R. L., 1980, LANGUAGE USE USES LA, P111 Burgers C, 2011, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V26, P186, DOI 10.1080/10926488.2011.583194 Carson Thomas, 2010, LYING DECEPTION THEO Carson TL, 2006, NOUS, V40, P284, DOI 10.1111/j.0029-4624.2006.00610.x CLARK HH, 1984, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V113, P121, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 Colston HL, 1997, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V23, P25 Colston H. L., 2000, PRAGMAT COGN, V8, P277, DOI DOI 10.1075/PC.8.2.02C0L DEWS S, 1995, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V19, P347 Dynel Marta, 2013, DEV LINGUISTIC HUMOU, P298 Dynel Marta, 2013, EUROPEAN J HUMOR RES, V1, P22 Dynel Marta, 2013, DEV LINGUISTIC HUMOU, P105, DOI DOI 10.1075/THR.1.07DYN Dynel Marta, 2009, HUMOROUS GARDEN PATH Dynel Marta, 2011, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V3, P137, DOI DOI 10.1163/187731011X610996 Dynel M, 2011, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V210, P311 Dynel M, 2011, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V210, P217 Dynel M, 2013, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V10, P403, DOI 10.1515/ip-2013-0018 Fallis Don, 2010, PHILOS IMPRINT, V10, P1 Fowler Henry Watson, 1965, FOWLERS MODERN ENGLI Garmendia J, 2010, PRAGMAT COGN, V18, P397, DOI 10.1075/pc.18.2.07gar Garmendia J, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P41, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.002 Gibbs Raymond, 2007, IRONY LANGUAGE THOUG, P581 Gibbs RW, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P104, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.001 Gibbs Jr R. W., 2000, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V15, P5, DOI DOI 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862 GLUCKSBERG S, 1995, METAPHOR SYMB ACT, V10, P47, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms1001_5 Goossens Louis, 1990, COGN LINGUIST, V1-3, P323, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS, P22 Grice Herbert Paul, 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS, P41 HAVERKATE H, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P77, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90065-L Hay J, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P709, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00069-7 HOLDCROFT D, 1983, POETICS TODAY, V4, P493, DOI 10.2307/1772029 Kapogianni E, 2011, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V210, P51 KAUFER DS, 1981, J PRAGMATICS, V5, P495, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(81)90015-1 KAUFER DS, 1983, POETICS TODAY, V4, P451, DOI 10.2307/1772026 Kotthoff H, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1387, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00182-0 KUMONNAKAMURA S, 1995, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V124, P3, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.3 Lampert MD, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P51, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.004 LITTMAN DC, 1991, J PRAGMATICS, V15, P131, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(91)90057-5 Mahon James, 2008, INT J APPL PHILOS, V22, P211, DOI DOI 10.5840/IJAP200822216 Norrick Neal R., 1993, CONVERSATIONAL JOKIN Norrick Neal R., 1989, HUMOR, V2, P117, DOI 10.1515/humr.1989.2.2.117 Partington A, 2006, ROUTL STUD LINGUIST, V5, P1 Partington A, 2008, TEXT TALK, V28, P771, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2008.039 Partington A, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P1547, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.009 Recanati Francois, 2007, PRAGMATICS, P213 Recanati F, 2004, LITERAL MEANING RossenKnill DF, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V27, P719, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00054-9 SECKMAN MA, 1989, J CONTEMP ETHNOGR, V18, P327, DOI 10.1177/089124189018003004 Sinkeviciute Valeria, 2013, DEV LINGUISTIC HUMOU, P263 Sorensen R, 2007, PAC PHILOS QUART, V88, P251, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2007.00290.x Sperber Dan, 1998, RELEVANCE THEORY APP, P283, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.37.16SPE Sperber Dan, 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P295 Utsumi A, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P1777, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00116-2 Wilson D., 2012, MEANING RELEVANCE 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 59 TC 8 Z9 8 U1 2 U2 13 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 OCT PY 2014 VL 27 IS 4 BP 619 EP 639 DI 10.1515/humor-2014-0096 PG 21 WC Language & Linguistics; Psychology, Multidisciplinary SC Linguistics; Psychology GA AW2TZ UT WOS:000346143200005 ER PT J AU Garmendia, J AF Garmendia, Joana TI The Clash: Humor and critical attitude in verbal irony SO HUMOR-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMOR RESEARCH LA English DT Article ID PRETENSE THEORY; PRAGMATICS; SARCASM AB Many pragmatic accounts of irony were proposed over the last decades. The best known may be the Gricean approach (Grice 1989a, 1989b), the echoic account (Sperber and Wilson 1981, 1995 [1986]; Wilson 2006, 2009) and the pretense theory (Clark and Gerrig 1984). These approaches state that irony consists in communicating the opposite, echoing or pretending, respectively. My aim here is to show that what defines verbal irony is something subtler: an overt clash between contents is the only thing that we shall find in every ironic utterance. On a different level, the relationships between irony and criticism on the one hand, and irony and humor on the other, have also been of great interest to authors working in the field. Different positions are defended regarding these two issues: here I will claim that criticism is an essential condition for ironic utterances, whereas humor is a consequence of some basic characteristics of irony. C1 [Garmendia, Joana] Univ Basque Country, ILCLI, San Sebastian, Spain. [Garmendia, Joana] Univ Basque Country, Dept Basque Language & Commun, San Sebastian, Spain. RP Garmendia, J (reprint author), Univ Basque Country, ILCLI, San Sebastian, Spain. EM joana.garmendia@gmail.com RI Garmendia, Joana/F-8463-2011 OI Garmendia, Joana/0000-0002-5743-6396 CR Attardo S, 2003, HUMOR, V16, P243, DOI 10.1515/humr.2003.012 Attardo S, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P793, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3 ATTARDO S., 1991, HUMOR, V4, P293, DOI DOI 10.1515/HUMR.1991.4.3-4.293 BERGER AA, 1987, AM BEHAV SCI, V30, P6, DOI 10.1177/000276487030003002 Bryant GA, 2005, LANG SPEECH, V48, P257 CLARK HH, 1984, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V113, P121, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 Colston HL, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P1557, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00110-1 DEWS S, 1995, METAPHOR SYMB ACT, V10, P3, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms1001_2 Dynel M., 2011, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V3, P59, DOI 10.1163/187731011X561009 Dynel M., 2013, DEV LINGUISTIC HUMOU, P289, DOI 10.1075/thr.1.14dyn Garmendia Joana, 2007, LANGUAGE REPRESENTAT, P189 Garmendia Joana, INT REV PRA IN PRESS Garmendia Joana, 2013, LINGUISTIC ASPECTS I, P85 Garmendia J, 2010, PRAGMAT COGN, V18, P397, DOI 10.1075/pc.18.2.07gar Garmendia J, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P41, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.002 Gibbs Raymond W., 2001, SAY NOT SAY NEW PERS, P187 Grice P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS, P22 Grice P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS, P41 HAVERKATE H, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P77, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90065-L Hay J, 2001, HUMOR, V14, P55, DOI 10.1515/humr.14.1.55 KAUFER DS, 1983, POETICS TODAY, V4, P451, DOI 10.2307/1772026 Korta Kepa, 2006, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS Korta Kepa, 2011, CRITICAL PRAGMATICS KREUZ RJ, 1989, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V118, P374 KUMONNAKAMURA S, 1995, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V124, P3, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.3 Perry John, 2001, REFERENCE REFLEXIVIT Rockwell P, 2000, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V29, P483, DOI 10.1023/A:1005120109296 Ryle Gilbert, 1950, PHILOS ANAL, P302 Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber Dan, 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P295 Suls J. M, 1972, PSYCHOL HUMOR, P81 WALTON K., 1990, MIMESIS MAKE BELIEVE Wilson D., 2009, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V21, P183 Wilson D., 2012, MEANING RELEVANCE 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 Winner E., 1988, POINT WORDS CHILDREN NR 37 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 5 U2 10 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 OCT PY 2014 VL 27 IS 4 BP 641 EP 659 DI 10.1515/humor-2014-0094 PG 19 WC Language & Linguistics; Psychology, Multidisciplinary SC Linguistics; Psychology GA AW2TZ UT WOS:000346143200006 ER PT J AU Piskorska, A AF Piskorska, Agnieszka TI A relevance-theoretic perspective on humorous irony and its failure SO HUMOR-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMOR RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE irony comprehension; irony failure; echoic irony; attributed thought ID VERBAL IRONY; PRETENSE THEORY; COMPREHENSION; PRAGMATICS; QUESTIONS; VIGILANCE; LANGUAGE; NEGATION; CONTRAST; ACCOUNT AB This paper adopts the relevance-theoretic account of irony to describe the features of humorous irony and to elucidate the nuances of its failure. In connection to the humorous potential of irony, a number of properties it shares with some types of humor are discussed, such as exploiting incongruity, being targeted at a victim, being creative, carrying an element of surprise, involving metarepresentational abilities, and establishing a bond between the speaker and hearer. It is further observed that ironic utterances produced for the purpose of generating humor and increasing rapport between interlocutors may fail to achieve this aim to various degrees and due to a number of causes. Analyses of several examples indicate that the various causes of ironic misfires can be traced to failures of the inferential processes postulated by Relevance Theory as responsible for communicating irony: identifying a dissociative propositional attitude, representing the content of the proposition echoed, and attributing it to a source. Besides, it is claimed that humorous irony is used not only to communicate an attitude but also to have it accepted by the hearer, which is why the latter's rejection of the speaker-envisaged ironic attitude counts as another type of irony failure. C1 Univ Warsaw, Inst English Studies, PL-00325 Warsaw, Poland. RP Piskorska, A (reprint author), Univ Warsaw, Inst English Studies, PL-00325 Warsaw, Poland. EM a.piskorska@uw.edu.pl CR Attardo S, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P793, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3 ATTARDO S., 1991, HUMOR, V4, P293, DOI DOI 10.1515/HUMR.1991.4.3-4.293 Bazzanella C, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P817, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00058-7 Bergson Henri, 1924, RIRE ESSAI SIGNIFICA BLAKEMORE D, 1994, LINGUA, V94, P197, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(94)90009-4 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Cappelen Herman, 2007, ADV IN PRAGMATICS, P115 Carston Robyn, 1988, MENTAL REPRESENTATIO, P155 Carston R, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P309, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)00109-X Carston Robyn, 1998, PRAGMATICS CRITICAL, P464 Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Carston R., 1997, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V8, P103 CLARK HH, 1984, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V113, P121, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 Colson HL, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P111, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)80008-X Colston HL, 1998, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V27, P499, DOI 10.1023/A:1023229304509 Colston HL, 1997, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V23, P25 Colston HL, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P1557, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00110-1 Colston H. L., 2000, PRAGMAT COGN, V8, P277, DOI DOI 10.1075/PC.8.2.02C0L Padilla Cruz Manuel, 2007, CURRENT TRENDS PRAGM, P110 Padilla Cruz Manuel, 2005, REV ALICANTINA ESTUD, V18, P227 Padilla Cruz M., 2012, RES LANGUAGE, V10, P365 Padilla Cruz Manuel, 2013, 3 C MEAN CONT COGN U Padilla Cruz Manuel, 2010, MIND MINDS RELEVANCE, P167 Padilla Cruz Manuel, 2007, P 30 INT AEDEAN C CURCO Carmen, 1995, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V7, P27 Dascal M, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P753, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00059-9 DEWS S, 1995, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V19, P347 Dynel Marta, 2009, HUMOROUS GARDEN PATH Dynel M., 2013, DEV LINGUISTIC HUMOU, P289, DOI 10.1075/thr.1.14dyn Dynel M, 2013, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V10, P403, DOI 10.1515/ip-2013-0018 Forabosco Giovannantonio, 1992, HUMOR INT J HUMOR RE, V5, P9 Forabosco Giovannantonio, 2008, LODZ PAPERS PRAGMATI, V4, P45, DOI DOI 10.2478/V10016-008-0003-5 Gibbs Raymond W., 2001, SAY NOT SAY NEW PERS, P188 Gibbs Jr R. W., 2000, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V15, P5, DOI DOI 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862 GIBBS RW, 1991, J PRAGMATICS, V16, P523, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(91)90101-3 Gibbs RW, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P457, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00046-7 GIBBS RW, 1986, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V115, P3, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.3 GIORA R, 1995, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V19, P239 Grice H. P., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS, P22 Grice Herbert Paul, 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS, P41 Hamamoto Hideki, 1998, RELEVANCE THEORY APP, P257 HAPPE FGE, 1993, COGNITION, V48, P101, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90026-R Hay J, 2001, HUMOR, V14, P55, DOI 10.1515/humr.14.1.55 House Juliane, 2003, MISUNDERSTANDING SOC Jodlowiec Maria, 2012, RELEVANCE STUDIES PO, V4, P64 KUMONNAKAMURA S, 1995, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V124, P3, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.3 Mascaro O, 2009, COGNITION, V112, P367, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012 Mazzarella Diana, 2013, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V35, P20 Morreall John, 1989, HUMOR INT J HUMOR RE, V2, P1, DOI DOI 10.1515/HUMR.1989.2.1.1 Noh Eun-Ju, 2000, METAREPRESENTATION R Norrick NR, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1333, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00180-7 Cruz MP, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V59, P117, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.005 Pexman PM, 2004, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V19, P143, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms1902_3 Recanati Francois, 2007, PRAGMATICS, P213 Recanati F, 2004, LITERAL MEANING Ritchie Graeme, 2004, LINGUISTIC ANAL JOKE Sayer IM, 2013, PROCD SOC BEHV, V70, P738, DOI 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.118 SCHEGLOFF EA, 1987, LINGUISTICS, V25, P201, DOI 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201 Seto Ken-ichi, 1998, RELEVANCE THEORY APP, P239 Sperber Dan, 1998, RELEVANCE THEORY APP, P283, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.37.16SPE Sperber D, 1996, EXPLAINING CULTURE N Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber Dan, 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P295 SPERBER D, 1984, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V113, P130, DOI 10.1037//0096-3445.113.1.130 Sperber Dan, 1994, WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE, P179 Sperber D, 2008, CAMB HANDB PSYCHOL, P84 Suls J. M, 1972, PSYCHOL HUMOR, P81 Suls Jerry, 1983, HDB HUMOR RES, V1, P39, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-1-4612-5572-7 Verdonik D, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1364, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.007 Weigand E, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P763, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00068-X Weizman Elda, 1991, CURRENT ADV SEMANTIC, P417 Wilson D., 2009, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V21, P183 WILSON D, 1993, LINGUA, V90, P1, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 WILSON D, 1992, LINGUA, V87, P53, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(92)90025-E Wilson Deirdre, 2000, METAREPRESENTATIONS, P411 Wilson Deirdre, 2002, P 3 TOK C PSYCH HIT, P45 Wilson Deirdre, 2003, ITALIAN J LINGUISTIC, V15, P273 Wilson Deirdre, 1994, LANGUAGE UNDERSTANDI, P25 Wilson D., 2012, MEANING RELEVANCE, P123, DOI [DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008, 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008] Wilson D, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V59, P40, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.016 Wilson D, 2006, LINGUA, V116, P1722, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001 Yus Francisco, 1999, PRAGMATICS, V9, P487 Yus F., 2000, INT J COMMUNICATION, V10, P27 Yus Francisco, 2013, IRONY HUMOR HIGHLIGH, P59 Yus Francisco, 2012, EPICS 5 PABL OL U SE Yus F, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1295, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00179-0 Yus Francisco, 2009, DIME COMO IRONIZAS D, P309 NR 87 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 11 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 OCT PY 2014 VL 27 IS 4 BP 661 EP 685 DI 10.1515/humor-2014-0095 PG 25 WC Language & Linguistics; Psychology, Multidisciplinary SC Linguistics; Psychology GA AW2TZ UT WOS:000346143200007 ER PT J AU Winter-Froemel, E AF Winter-Froemel, Esme TI Re(de)fining grammaticalization from a usage-based perspective Discursive ambiguity in innovation scenarios SO FOLIA LINGUISTICA LA English DT Article DE ambiguity; innovation scenarios; indefinite pronouns; reanalysis; indirectness ID DISCOURSE MARKERS; ENGLISH; GRAMMAR; CONVERSATION; COMPLEMENT; RISE AB The article explores the possibilities of re(de)fining grammaticalization from a usage-based perspective. Since definitions of grammaticalization remain controversial and current approaches differ in various important respects, some terminological clarification seems necessary. I will show that in spite of their close relation to usage-based approaches to language and language change, current approaches to grammaticalization and related phenomena do not consistently follow a usage-based perspective when defining the basic theoretical concepts and analyzing individual changes. I argue that a usage-based approach may propose new answers to controversial issues in grammaticalization research and suggest new pathways of analysis, focusing on the micro-steps of evolution. Finally, I present a case study of the French indefinite pronoun on which shows that innovations may occur and be diffused in distinct pragmatic settings. The notion of discursive ambiguity provides a detailed description of these potential innovation scenarios. In this sense, the study illustrates the potential of fine-grained analyses of the micro-events within grammaticalization from a usage-based perspective. C1 Univ Tubingen, Roman Seminar, D-72074 Tubingen, Germany. RP Winter-Froemel, E (reprint author), Univ Tubingen, Roman Seminar, Wilhelmstr 50, D-72074 Tubingen, Germany. EM esme.winter-froemel@uni-tuebingen.de CR Adrados Francisco R., 1962, ESTRUCTURALISMO HIST, V3, P5 Andersen Henning, 1989, LANGUAGE CHANGE CONT, P5 [Anonymous], 2008, GRAMMATICAL CHANGE L, DOI DOI 10.1075/LA.113.02AND Ayres-Bennett W., 2004, SOCIOLINGUISTIC VARI Backus Ad, 2013, ICLC12 U ALB EDM 23 Bauer Matthias, 2010, Z LINGUISTIK LITERAT, V158, P7 Bauer Matthias, 2009, DIMENSIONEN ZWEIT SP, P253 Boller Fred, 2000, ACT 22 C INT LING PH, VVII, P49 Boller Fred, 1999, INT TENDENZEN SYNTAK, P49 Bybee Joan L., 2005, LSA ANN M 2005 Bybee J, 2006, LANGUAGE, V82, P711, DOI 10.1353/lan.2006.0186 Callies M, 2012, LANG COMPUT, P5 Campbell L., 2001, LANG SCI, V23, P113 Hilka Alfons, 1966, PERCEVALROMAN LI CON CORDE, CORP DIACR ESP Coseriu Eugenio, 1983, LINGUISTICA NUOVA AN, V1, P51 Coseriu Eugenio, 1958, SINCRONIA DIACRONIA Manninen S., PASSIVES IMPERSONALS Croft William, 2006, HDB LINGUISTICS, P337 Croft W., 2000, EXPLAINING LANGUAGE De Smet H, 2006, COGN LINGUIST, V17, P365, DOI 10.1515/COG.2006.011 Degand L, 2011, LINGUISTICS, V49, P287, DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.008 De Saussure Ferdinand, 1969, COURS LINGUISTIQUE G, V16th De Smet Hendrik, USAGE BASED APPROACH, P23 Detges Ulrich, 2001, THESIS U TUBINGEN Detges Ulrich, 2012, WORKSH REF GRAMM FRE Detges Ulrich, 2002, Z SPRACHWISS, V21, P151 Detges U., 2003, KOGNITIVE ROMANISCHE, P213 Diewald G., 2011, OXFORD HDB GRAMMATIC, P450 Diewald G, 2011, LINGUISTICS, V49, P365, DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.011 Ernst Gerhard, 1985, GESPROCHENES FRANZOS Evans N, 2000, LANGUAGE, V76, P546, DOI 10.2307/417135 FILLMORE CJ, 1988, LANGUAGE, V64, P501, DOI 10.2307/414531 FRAJZYNGIER Z, 2008, RETHINKING GRAMMATIC, V76, P61 Fries Norbert, 2006, ONLINE LEXIKON LINGU FUCHS Catherine, 1996, AMBIGUITES FRANCAIS Giacalone-Ramat Anna, 2007, EUROPE AND THE MEDIT, P95 Giacalone A., 2007, ARCH GLOTTOLOGICO IT, VXCII, P65 Givon T., 1979, UNDERSTANDING GRAMMA Goldberg A. E., 1995, CONSTRUCTIONS CONSTR Grafstrom A., 1969, REV LINGUIST ROMAN, V33, P270 Hansen MBM, 2009, STUD PRAGMAT, V5, P137 Hansen Maj-Britt Mosegaard, 2011, OXFORD HDB GRAMMATIC, P570 Hansen Maj-Britt Mosegaard, 2013, HIST NEGATION LANGUA, P51 Haspelmath Martin, 2004, CLINE NATURE GRAMMAT, P17 Haspelmath Martin, 1997, INDEFINITE PRONOUNS Heger Klaus, 1969, Z ROMAN PHILOL, V85, P144 Heine Bernd, 2002, NEW REFLECTIONS GRAM, V49, P83, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.49.08HEI Heine Bernd, 2002, WORLD LEXICON GRAMMA Cabredo Hofherr P., 2008, MODELES LINGUISTIQUE, V57, P35 Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Hopper Paul J., 1988, LINGUISTICS CONTEXT, P117 Janda R. D., 2003, HDB HIST LINGUISTICS, P2 Joseph B.D., 2004, CLINE NATURE GRAMMAT, P45, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.59.04J0S Joseph Brian, 2005, LOGOS LANGUAGE, V6, P1 Joseph Brian D., 2001, LANG SCI, V23, P163 Keller R., 1994, SPRACHWANDEL UNSICHT KELLER R, 1984, Z GER LINGUISTIK, V12, P63 Kennedy Chris, 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V1, P507 Kerbrat-Orecchioni Catherine, 2005, JEUX RUSES AMBIGUITE, P13 Klare Johannes, 1998, FRANZOSISCHE SPRACHG Kluge Bettina, 2010, WENN DEIKTIKA NICHT, P245 Kluge Bettina, 2011, COMP DELECTAT AKTEN, P713 Koch P., 2011, CURRENT METHODS HIST, P259 Kurylowicz Jerzy, 1975, ESQUISSES LINGUISTIQ, V2, P38 Langacker R. W., 1990, Cognitive Linguistics, V1, P5, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 Langacker R. W., 1987, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA, V1 Langacker Ronald W., 2007, OXFORD HDB COGNITIVE, P421 Langacker Ronald W., 1985, ICONICITY SYNTAX, P109 Langacker Ronald W., 2000, USAGE BASED MODELS L, P1 Langacker RW, 2001, COGN LINGUIST, V12, P143, DOI 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 Langacker R., 1988, TOPICS COGNITIVE LIN, P3 Langacker R. W., 1999, HIST SEMANTICS COGNI, P147 Lehmann Christian, 2002, THOUGHTS GRAMMATICAL, V9 Lehmann C, 2004, Z GER LINGUISTIK, V32, P152, DOI 10.1515/zfgl.2004.32.2.152 LEHMANN C, 1985, LINGUA STILE, V20, P303 Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Lewis DM, 2011, LINGUISTICS, V49, P415, DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.013 Lopes Celia Regina dos Santos, 1998, DELTA, V14, P405 Pozas Loyo Julia, 2008, ACT 7 C INT HIST LEN, V1, P981 Loyo Julia Pozas, 2009, SINTAXIS HIST LENGUA, P1075 Pozas Loyo J., 2010, THESIS U LONDON Marchello-Nizia Christiane, 2006, GRAMMATICALISATION C Matthews P. H., 1997, CONCISE DICT LINGUIS Meillet Antoine, 1958, LINGUISTIQUE HIST LI, V1, P130 Muller Charles, 1979, LANGUE FRANCAISE LIN, P65 Newmeyer Frederick J., 1999, FUNCTIONALISM FORMAL, V1, P469 Newmeyer FJ, 2003, LANGUAGE, V79, P682, DOI 10.1353/lan.2003.0260 Newmeyer FJ, 2001, LANG SCI, V23, P187, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00021-8 Norde Muriel, 2012, GRAMMATICALIZATION L, P73 Norde Muriel, 2009, DEGRAMMATICALIZATION Petre P, 2010, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V14, P457, DOI 10.1017/S1360674310000158 Prevost Sophie, 2006, CAHIERS PRAXEMATIQUE, V46, P121 Prevost S, 2011, LINGUISTICS, V49, P391, DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.012 Rey Alain, 1998, DICT HIST LANGUE FRA Scheibman J, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P105, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00032-6 Schmitz John R., 1973, HISPANIA, V56, P639, DOI 10.2307/339257 Soll Ludwig, 1980, GESPROCHENES GESCHRI Stenstrom Anna-Brita, 1996, SYNCHRONIC CORPUS LI, P177 Stenstrom AB, 1998, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V57, P127 Traugott Elisabeth, 2002, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2013, CONSTRUCTIONALIZATIO Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1995, SUBJECTIVITY SUBJECT, P31, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2001, COMMUNICATION 1017 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1997, ICHL 12 MANCH 1995 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1996, CONCISE ENCY SYNTACT Traugott E., 2003, HDB HIST LINGUISTICS, P624, DOI 10.1002/9780470756393.ch20 Traugott Elizabeth C., 2010, CONTINUUM COMPANION, P269 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2012, ENGLISH CORPUS LINGU, V76, P221 TRAUGOTT EC, 1989, LANGUAGE, V65, P31, DOI 10.2307/414841 [Anonymous], 2002, STUDIES HIST ENGLISH Van Bogaert J, 2011, LINGUISTICS, V49, P295, DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.009 Vianna Juliana Barbosa de Segadas, 2003, AN 5 ENC CIRC EST LI, P671 Vianna Juliana Barbosa de Segadas, 2002, REV ALUNOS GRADUACAO, P4 Vianna Juliana Barbosa de Segadas, 2011, THESIS U FEDERAL RIO von der Gabelentz Georg, 1972, SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT I von Humboldt Wilhelm, 1994, REDEN AKAD, P52 von Humboldt Wilhelm, 1946, VERGLEICHENDE SPRACH Simon Horst, 2012, REFINING GRAMMATICAL Waltereit R, 2002, LINGUISTICS, V40, P987, DOI 10.1515/ling.2002.041 Welton-Lair Lisa Kay, 1999, THESIS CORNELL U COR Winter-Froemel E, 2013, Z FR SPRACHE LIT, V123, P130 Winter-Froemel E., 2008, PARADOX GRAMMATICAL, P215 Winter-Froemel Esme, 2010, Z LINGUISTIK LITERAT, V158, P76 Winter-Froemel Esme, 2012, CAHIERS LEXICOLOGIE, V100, P55 Winter-Froemel Esme, AMBIGUITAT IN PRESS Winter-Froemel Esme, 2012, ROMANISTISCHES JB, V63, P139 WINTER-FROEMEL Esme, 2011, ENTLEHNUNG KOMMUNIKA Zilles Ana M. S., 2005, LANG VAR CHANGE, V17, P19 [Anonymous], 2007, OED OXFORD ENGLISH D NR 130 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 2 PU WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, D-10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0165-4004 EI 1614-7308 J9 FOLIA LINGUIST JI Folia Linguist. PD OCT PY 2014 VL 48 IS 2 BP 503 EP 556 DI 10.1515/FLIN.2014.017 PG 54 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AT7NS UT WOS:000345125100006 ER PT J AU Matic, D Nikolaeva, I AF Matic, Dejan Nikolaeva, Irina TI Realis mood, focus, and existential closure in Tundra Yukaghir SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Notional mood; Realis; Irrealis; Focus; Information structure; Event semantics; Tundra Yukaghir ID INFORMATION-STRUCTURE; INTERPRETING FOCUS; IRREALIS; LANGUAGE; CATEGORIES; INTERFACE; MEANINGS; NOTIONS; PIRAHA AB The nature and the typological validity of the categories 'realis' and 'irrealis' has been a matter of intensive debate. In this paper we analyse the realis/irrealis dichotomy in Tundra Yukaghir (isolate, north-eastern Siberia), and show that in this language realis is associated with a meaningful contribution, namely, existential quantification over events. This contribution must be expressed overtly by a combination of syntactic and prosodic means. Irrealis is the default category: the clause is interpreted as irrealis in the absence of the marker of realis. This implies that the relevant typological question may turn out to be the semantics of realis, rather than irrealis. We further argue that the Tundra Yukaghir realis is a hybrid category composed of elements from different domains (information structure, lexical semantics, and quantification) unified at the level of interpretation via pragmatic enrichment. The concept of notional mood must therefore be expanded to include moods which come about in interpretation and do not constitute a discrete denotation. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Matic, Dejan] Max Planck Inst Psycholinguist, Syntax Typol & Informat Struct Grp, NL-6525 XD Nijmegen, Netherlands. [Nikolaeva, Irina] Univ London Sch Oriental & African Studies, Dept Linguist, London WC1H 0XG, England. RP Matic, D (reprint author), Max Planck Inst Psycholinguist, Syntax Typol & Informat Struct Grp, Wundtlaan 1, NL-6525 XD Nijmegen, Netherlands. EM dejan.matic@mpi.nl; in3@soas.ac.uk CR Abusch D, 2010, J SEMANT, V27, P37, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffp009 Alboiu G., 2010, ANN M CAN LING ASS C Austin J.L., 1950, P ARISTOTELIAN SOC S, VXXIV, P117 Baker M., 2012, THESIS RUTGERS U Bar-el L., 2008, P 11 ANN WORKSH AM I, P3 Beck S., 2006, THESIS U TUBINGEN Buring D, 2012, CONTRASTS AND POSITIONS IN INFORMATION STRUCTURE, P27 Buring D., 2006, ARCHITECTURE FOCUS, P321 Butt M., 1996, ONL P LFG96 C Bybee Joan, 1998, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V40, P257 Bybee Joan L., 1994, EVOLUTION GRAMMAR Chafe W, 1995, TYPOL ST L, V32, P349 Comrie B., 1992, NONSLAVIC LANGUAGES, P55 Cristofaro S, 2012, LANG SCI, V34, P131, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.08.001 Davidson D., 1967, LOGIC DECISION ACTIO, P81, DOI DOI 10.1093/0199246270.003.0006 de Haan F, 2012, LANG SCI, V34, P107, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.016 Dryer MS, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V26, P475, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00059-3 Eckardt R., 2003, GRAMMAR ADJUNCTS, P61 Elliott Jennifer, 2000, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V4, P55, DOI 10.1515/lity.2000.4.1.55 Erguvanli E. E., 1984, FUNCTION WORD ORDER Evans Nicholas, 2003, BININJ GUN WOK PANDI Evans N, 2009, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V32, P429, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X Everett DL, 2005, CURR ANTHROPOL, V46, P621, DOI 10.1086/431525 Fanselow G, 2011, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V29, P169, DOI 10.1007/s11049-010-9109-x Fleishchman S, 1995, TYPOL ST L, V32, P519 Foley William, 1984, FUNCTIONAL SYNTAX UN Fortescue Michael, 1998, LANGUAGE RELATIONS B Fortescue M., 1996, CONTENT EXPRESSION S, P17 Fried M, 1999, J LINGUIST, V35, P43, DOI 10.1017/S0022226798007300 Gartner H.-M., 2009, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V13, P1, DOI 10.1515/LITY.2009.001 Gawron JM, 2004, THEOR LINGUIST, V30, P87, DOI 10.1515/thli.2004.009 Geurts B, 2004, THEOR LINGUIST, V30, P1, DOI 10.1515/thli.2004.005 Giannakidou A., 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, Vii, P1660 Giannakidou Anastasia, 1998, POLARITY SENSITIVITY GIVON T, 1994, STUD LANG, V18, P265, DOI 10.1075/sl.18.2.02giv Grice P.H., 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P183 HAMBLIN CL, 1973, FOUND LANG, V10, P41 Haspelmath M, 2010, LANGUAGE, V86, P663 Hauser MD, 2002, SCIENCE, V298, P1569, DOI 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 Heim Irene, 1992, J SEMANT, V9, P183, DOI DOI 10.1093/JOS/9.3.183 Hepner M., 1995, LANG LINGUIST MELANE, V26, P1 Issever S, 2003, LINGUA, V113, P1025, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00012-3 Jacobs Joachim, 1999, FOCUS LINGUISTIC COG, P56 JAMES D, 1982, STUD LANG, V6, P375, DOI 10.1075/sl.6.3.04jam Jary M, 2010, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230274617 Kashaeva G., 2012, GENER GRAMM GENEVA, V8, P77 Kim Alan Hyun-Oak, 1988, STUDIES SYNTACTIC TY, P147 Kiss E. Katalin, 2006, ARCHITECTURE FOCUS, P169 E Kiss Katalin, 2002, SYNTAX HUNGARIAN Klamer M, 2012, LANG SCI, V34, P216, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.08.006 Klein W, 1994, TIME LANGUAGE Koopman Hilda, 2000, VERBAL COMPLEXES Kratzer A, 2004, THEOR LINGUIST, V30, P123, DOI 10.1515/thli.2004.002 Kratzer A., 1991, SEMANTICS INT HDB CO, P639 Kratzer A, 2012, MODALS CONDITIONALS Kratzer Angelika, 2002, P 3 TOK C PSYCH, P1 Kratzer A., 1998, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, P92 Krejnovic E.A., 1958, JUKAGIRSKIJ JAZYK Krejnovic E.A., 1982, ISSLEDOVANIJA MAT JU Krifka Manfred, 2011, P 18 M AUSTR FORM LI, P46 Krifka Manfred, 1989, SEMANTICS CONTEXTUAL, P75 Krifka M, 2008, ACTA LINGUIST HUNGAR, V55, P243, DOI 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2 Kristensen LB, 2013, CEREB CORTEX, V23, P1836, DOI 10.1093/cercor/bhs164 Kucerova I., 2012, CONTRASTS POSITIONS, P2 Kurilov G.N., 2006, SOVREMENNYJ JUKAGIRS Kurilov G.N., 2005, FOLKLOR JUKAGIROV Lecarme J., 1999, GRAMMAR FOCUS, P275 Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Lichtenberk Frantisek, 1983, A GRAMMAR OF MANAM Louie M., 2008, THESIS U TORONTO Maienbom C., 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V2, P1390 Maienbom C., 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V1, P802 Marques R, 2009, LING AKT, V148, P179 Maslova E., 2001, YUKAGHIR TEXTS Maslova E., 2003, TUNDRA YUKAGHIR Maslova E., 2005, LANGUES OURALIENNES, P599 Maslova E., 2006, VOICE GRAMMATICAL RE, P175 Matic D., 2008, PRED FOC WORKSH U PO Matfic D., ACTA LINGUI IN PRESS Matic D, 2013, J LINGUIST, V49, P127, DOI 10.1017/S0022226712000345 Matthewson L., 2006, P NELS, V37, P63 Matthewson Lisa, 1998, DETERMINER SYSTEMS Q Mauri C., 2012, LANG SCI, V34, P96 Mauri C., 2012, LANG SCI McGregor WB, 2006, OCEAN LINGUIST, V45, P339, DOI 10.1353/ol.2007.0005 Melnar L.R., 2004, CADDO VERB MORPHOLOG MITHUN M, 1984, LANGUAGE, V60, P847, DOI 10.2307/413800 Mithun M, 1995, TYPOL ST L, V32, P367 Nevins A, 2009, LANGUAGE, V85, P355 Nikolaeva I., 2000, CHRESTOMATHIA YUKAGI Nikolaeva I., 2006, HIST DICT YUKAGHIR NUNBERG G, 1994, LANGUAGE, V70, P491, DOI 10.2307/416483 Palmer F., 2001, MOOD MODALITY Portner P., 1997, NAT LANG SEMANT, V5, P167, DOI 10.1023/A:1008280630142 Partner P., 1999, GLOT INT, V4, P3 Partner P., 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V2, P1262 Portner P., 2012, SP SALT 22 CLC PUBL, P461 Portner P, 2009, MODALITY Quer J., 2009, SPECIAL ISSUE LINGUA, V119 Reinhart T., 1995, OTS WORKING PAPERS Rooth Mats, 1992, NAT LANG SEMANT, V1, P75, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF02342617 Bosch Peter, 1999, FOCUS LINGUISTIC COG, P232 Saeed J. I., 1999, SOMALI Saeed JI, 1984, SYNTAX FOCUS TOPIC S Schlenker P, 2005, AMST STUD THEORY HIS, V270, P269 Selkirk E., 1995, HDB PHONOLOGICAL THE, P550 Shimoyama J., 2006, Natural Language Semantics, V14, DOI 10.1007/s11050-006-0001-5 Smith Carlota S., 1997, PARAMETER ASPECT Stalnaker Robert C., 1974, SEMANTICS PHILOS, P197 Timberlake A, 2007, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY AND SYNTACTIC DESCRIPTION, VOL III: GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES AND THE LEXICON, 2ND EDITION, P280 van Gijn R, 2009, LING AKT, V148, P155 LaPolla Randy, 1997, SYNTAX STRUCTURE MEA Verstraete J.-Ch., 2005, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V9, P223, DOI 10.1515/lity.2005.9.2.223 Villalta E, 2008, LINGUIST PHILOS, V31, P467, DOI 10.1007/s10988-008-9046-x Wedgwood D, 2005, CURR RES SEMANT PRAG, V14, P1 Wierzbicka A., 1980, LINGUA MENTALIS SEMA Winter Y., 2011, MATH LANGUAGE, V12, P174 Zimmermann M., 2007, SALT 17, P333 Zubizaretta Maria-Luisa, 1998, PROSODY FOCUS WORD O NR 119 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 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 2014 VL 150 BP 202 EP 231 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.0.16 PG 30 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AT5IA UT WOS:000344975900010 ER PT J AU Westby, C Robinson, L AF Westby, Carol Robinson, Lee TI A Developmental Perspective for Promoting Theory of Mind SO TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS LA English DT Article DE intersubjectivity; intervention; joint attention; mental state vocabulary; metacognition; self-regulation; sentential complements; theory of mind ID MOTHER-CHILD DISCOURSE; JOINT ATTENTION; AUTISM SPECTRUM; AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL MEMORY; LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT; TEACHING THEORY; YOUNG-CHILDREN; PRETEND PLAY; EMPATHY; INTERVENTION AB Social neuroscience research has resulted in changing views of the theory of mind (ToM) construct. Theory of mind is no longer viewed as a unitary construct, but rather as a multidimensional construct comprising cognitive and affective ToM and interpersonal and intrapersonal ToM, each of which has differing neurophysiological/neuroanatomical foundations and behavioral manifestations. Clinicians working with persons with social communication/pragmatic communication disorders should consider evaluating these dimensions of ToM and the cognitive, social-emotional, and language components underlying them. Then they might use this information to develop a ToM profile for each client so they are better able to implement specific intervention strategies to target the linguistic and cognitive/affective foundations for ToM development. In this article, we describe the characteristics of developmental stages of affective and cognitive and interpersonal and intrapersonal ToM and how to match intervention goals and strategies to those stages. Some activities and strategies have empirical support; others are based on what is known about typical development and patterns of impairment. C1 [Westby, Carol] Bilingual Multicultural Serv, Albuquerque, NM USA. [Westby, Carol; Robinson, Lee] Brigham Young Univ, Provo, UT 84602 USA. RP Westby, C (reprint author), CCC SLP, 1808 Princeton NE, Albuquerque, NM 87106 USA. EM carol_westby@att.net CR Abu-Akel A, 2011, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V49, P2971, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.07.012 Adrian J., 2007, CHILD DEV, V78, P1037 Allen JR, 2013, EARLY EDUC DEV, V24, P865, DOI 10.1080/10409289.2013.745182 Astington J. W., 2005, WHY LANGUAGE MATTERS Atance CM, 2005, LEARN MOTIV, V36, P126, DOI 10.1016/j.lmot.2005.02.003 Baron-Cohen S., 1995, MINDBLINDNESS ESSAY Baron-Cohen S., 2004, MIND READING INTERAC Baron-Cohen S., 2011, SCI EVIL Beck I., 2006, IMPROVING COMPREHENS Begeer S, 2011, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V41, P997, DOI 10.1007/s10803-010-1121-9 Brinton B., 2010, HDB LANGUAGE SPEECH, P131, DOI 10.1002/9781444318975.ch6 Brinton B, 2004, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V35, P283, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2004/026) Charman T, 1997, DEV PSYCHOL, V33, P781, DOI 10.1037//0012-1649.33.5.781 Conti-Ramsden G, 2012, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V55, P1716, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/10-0182) Doherty M. J., 2009, THEORY MIND CHILDREN Dvash J, 2014, TOP LANG DISORD, V34, P282, DOI 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000040 Fivush R, 2011, ANNU REV PSYCHOL, V62, P559, DOI 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131702 Ford JA, 2003, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V46, P21, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2003/002) Martin-Rodriguez JF, 2010, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V48, P1181, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.02.009 Freedman M, 2011, J NEUROL SCI, V310, P225, DOI 10.1016/j.jns.2011.06.004 Frith U., 1989, AUTISM EXPLAINING EN Frith U, 2003, PHILOS T R SOC B, V358, P459, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2002.1218 Gallagher S., 2008, SHARED MIND PERSPECT, P17, DOI DOI 10.1075/CELCR.12.04GAL Gerber S., 2007, VISUAL REALITY Golan O, 2006, DEV PSYCHOPATHOL, V18, P591, DOI 10.1017/S0954579406060305 Golan Ofer, 2010, J Autism Dev Disord, V40, P269, DOI 10.1007/s10803-009-0862-9 Goldstein TR, 2012, J COGN DEV, V13, P19, DOI 10.1080/15248372.2011.573514 Goods KS, 2013, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V43, P1050, DOI 10.1007/s10803-012-1644-3 GOPNIK A, 1988, CHILD DEV, V59, P26, DOI 10.2307/1130386 Greenspan S. I., 2009, ENGAGING AUTISM USIN Gross J. J., 2008, HDB EMOTIONS, P497 Gutstein S. E., 2009, RDI BOOK Hadwin J, 1997, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V27, P519, DOI 10.1023/A:1025826009731 Hale CM, 2003, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V6, P346, DOI 10.1111/1467-7687.00289 HARRIS PL, 1987, INT J BEHAV DEV, V10, P319 Howard A. A., 2008, FIRST LANG, V28, P375, DOI [10.1177/0142723708091044, DOI 10.1177/0142723708091044] Prelock P., THEORY MIND IN PRESS Ingersoll B, 2006, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V36, P487, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0089-y Kasari C., 2012, TREATMENT AUTISM SPE, P139 Keysers C., 2011, EMPATHETIC BRAIN Kimhi Y, 2014, TOP LANG DISORD, V34, P329, DOI 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000033 Laible D, 2004, DEV PSYCHOL, V40, P979, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.979 Laible DJ, 2004, MERRILL PALMER QUART, V50, P159, DOI 10.1353/mpq.2004.0013 Lawton K, 2012, J CONSULT CLIN PSYCH, V80, P687, DOI 10.1037/a0028506 Lewis M., 2014, RISE CONSCIOUSNESS D Nettle D., 2006, J CULTURAL EVOLUTION, V4, P231, DOI [10.1556/JCEP.4.2006.3-4.3, DOI 10.1556/JCEP.4.2006.3-4.3] Louie A.-L., 1996, YEH SHEN CHINESE CIN Lucariello JM, 2007, J APPL DEV PSYCHOL, V28, P285, DOI 10.1016/j.appdev.2007.04.001 Madrigal S., 2008, SUPERFLEX SUPERHERO McPartland JC, 2012, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V42, P1256, DOI 10.1007/s10803-012-1514-z Meindl JN, 2011, RES DEV DISABIL, V32, P1441, DOI 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.02.013 Michelson L., 1985, SOCIALIZATION EMOTIO, P117, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-1-4613-2421-8_6 Mundy P., 2003, EARLY SOCIAL COMMUNI Mundy P, 2007, CURR DIR PSYCHOL SCI, V16, P269, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00518.x Nikolajeva M, 2013, READ TEACH, V67, P249, DOI 10.1002/trtr.1229 Northoff G, 2006, NEUROIMAGE, V31, P440, DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.002 O'Hare AE, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P916, DOI 10.1007/s10803-009-0699-2 Perner J., 1993, UNDERSTANDING REPRES de Rosnay M., 2004, EUROPEAN J DEV PSYCH, V1, P127 Prebble SC, 2013, PSYCHOL BULL, V139, P815, DOI 10.1037/a0030146 PREMACK D, 1978, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V1, P515 Prizant B., 2006, SCERTS MODEL COMPREH, VII Scarpa A, 2012, EXPLORING FEELINGS Y Sebastian CL, 2012, SOC COGN AFFECT NEUR, V7, P53, DOI 10.1093/scan/nsr023 Selznick B., 2011, WONDERSTRUCK Selznick B., 2007, INVENTION HUGO CABRE Shamay-Tsoory Simone G, 2011, Neuroscientist, V17, P18, DOI 10.1177/1073858410379268 Slaughter V, 2007, CHILD DEV, V78, P839, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01036.x Southam-Gerow M. A., 2013, EMOTION REGULATION C Stanzione C, 2014, TOP LANG DISORD, V34, P296, DOI 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000038 Sussman F., 2012, MORE WORDS Tanaka JW, 2010, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V51, P944, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02258.x Thomas J., 2008, THE DOGHOUSE Thompson RA, 2013, INFANCY, V18, P120, DOI 10.1111/j.1532-7078.2012.00139.x Tine M., 2012, AUTISM RES TREATMENT, V2012, P1 Vermeulen P., 2012, AUTISM CONTEXT BLIND Wellman HM, 2004, CHILD DEV, V75, P523, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00691.x Westby C., 2000, PLAY DIAGNOSIS ASSES, P15 Wilson M. S., 2012, LANGUAGE FDN DEV THE Zimmerman B. J., 2009, HDB METACOGNITION ED, P297 NR 80 TC 10 Z9 10 U1 8 U2 46 PU LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS PI PHILADELPHIA PA TWO COMMERCE SQ, 2001 MARKET ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 USA SN 0271-8294 EI 1550-3259 J9 TOP LANG DISORD JI Top. Lang. Disord. PD OCT-DEC PY 2014 VL 34 IS 4 BP 362 EP 382 DI 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000035 PG 21 WC Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA AT6CZ UT WOS:000345027900008 ER PT J AU Hutchby, I AF Hutchby, Ian TI Communicative affordances and participation frameworks in mediated interaction SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Affordances; Conversation analysis; Mediated interaction; Participation framework; Communications technology ID MOBILE PHONE CONVERSATION; SEQUENTIAL ORGANIZATION AB This contribution presents a discussion piece on the theme of this Special Issue, which itself arose from a panel organised by the editors at the 2011 International Pragmatics Association conference in Manchester, England, at which I was kindly invited to act as the discussant. My aim is not to discuss or review the content of each individual article, but rather to provide some background context against which the arguments and findings of the contributions collectively can be highlighted. I will therefore make some comments on the thematic relationship between the analysis of language use and members' participation in technologically mediated communicative environments. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved, C1 Univ Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, Leics, England. RP Hutchby, I (reprint author), Univ Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, Leics, England. EM iph2@le.ac.uk OI Hutchby, Ian/0000-0002-8469-1667 CR Arminen I, 2005, DISCOURSE STUD, V7, P649, DOI 10.1177/1461445605055421 Arminen I, 2006, DISCOURSE STUD, V8, P339, DOI 10.1177/1461445606061791 Baym NK, 1996, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V29, P315, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2904_2 Garcia AC, 1999, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V32, P337, DOI 10.1207/S15327973rls3204_2 Gibson James J., 1982, REASONS REALISM SELE Goffman E, 1981, FORMS TALK Goffman E, 1963, BEHAV PUBLIC PLACES Grint Keith, 1997, MACHINE WORK Hopper R., 1992, TELEPHONE CONVERSATI Hutchby Ian, 2006, MEDIA TALK Hutchby I, 2005, DISCOURSE STUD, V7, P147, DOI 10.1177/1461445605050364 Hutchby Ian, 2001, CONVERSATION TECHNOL Hutchby I, 2005, DISCOURSE STUD, V7, P663, DOI 10.1177/1461445605057863 Hutchby I, 2008, DISCOURSE COMMUN, V2, P143, DOI 10.1177/1750481307088481 Katz J. E., 2002, PERPETUAL CONTACT Laursen D, 2005, KIS CO SUP COOP WORK, V4, P53 Reid E., 1991, ELECTROPOLIS COMMUNI Sacks H., 1992, LECT CONVERSATION Scannell P, 2013, TELEVISION MEANING L SCHEGLOFF EA, 1986, HUM STUD, V9, P111, DOI 10.1007/BF00148124 Turkle Sherry, 1995, LIFE SCREEN IDENTITY Weilenmann A, 2003, ENVIRON PLANN A, V35, P1589, DOI 10.1068/a34234 NR 22 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 OCT PY 2014 VL 72 SI SI BP 86 EP 89 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.012 PG 4 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AS8QS UT WOS:000344514000008 ER PT J AU Ebert, C Ebert, C Hinterwimmer, S AF Ebert, Christian Ebert, Cornelia Hinterwimmer, Stefan TI A unified analysis of conditionals as topics SO LINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPHY LA English DT Article DE Conditionals; Topicality; Counterfactuals; Speech acts ID BISCUIT CONDITIONALS; SYNTAX; SEMANTICS AB We bring out syntactic and semantic similarities of two types of conditionals with fronted antecedents [normal indicative conditionals (NCs) and biscuit conditionals (BCs)] and two types of left dislocation constructions in German (German left dislocation and hanging topic left dislocation), which mark two types of topicality (aboutness topicality and relevance topicality). On the basis of these similarities we argue that (the antecedent if-clauses of) NCs and BCs are aboutness topics and relevance topics, respectively. Our analysis extends the approach to aboutness topicality of Endriss (Quantificational topics. A scopal treatment of exceptional wide scope phenomena, 2009) to relevance topics to derive the semantic and pragmatic contribution of left-dislocated DPs and applies it to an analysis of conditionals as (maximal) pluralities of possible worlds. We show how this uniform approach to the interpretation of topicality accounts for the nominal left dislocation constructions as well as for the semantic and pragmatic effects observed in connection with the two types of conditionals. We furthermore discuss the potential of our proposal to deal with subjunctive biscuit conditionals, if-clauses modifying speech acts different from assertions, conditionals with right-dislocated if-clauses, and nested conditionals. C1 [Ebert, Christian] Univ Tubingen, Seminar Sprachwissensch, D-72074 Tubingen, Germany. [Ebert, Cornelia] Univ Stuttgart, Inst Linguist Germanist, D-70049 Stuttgart, Germany. [Hinterwimmer, Stefan] Univ Cologne, Inst Deutsch Sprache & Literatur 1, Sprachwissenschaft Deutsch, D-50923 Cologne, Germany. RP Ebert, C (reprint author), Univ Tubingen, Seminar Sprachwissensch, Wilhelmstr 19, D-72074 Tubingen, Germany. EM christian.ebert@uni-tuebingen.de; cornelia.ebert@ling.uni-stuttgart.de; shinterw@uni-koeln.de CR Alonso-Ovalle L, 2009, LINGUIST PHILOS, V32, P207, DOI 10.1007/s10988-009-9059-0 Altmann H., 1981, FORMEN HERAUSSTELLUN Austin John L, 1961, PHILOS PAPERS, P153 Averintseva-Klisch M., 2006, P SINN BEDEUTUNG, V44, P15 Bennett J., 2003, PHILOS GUIDE CONDITI Bhatt Rajesh, 2006, BLACKWELL COMPANION, VI, P638 Bittner Maria, 2001, P SALT 11, P36 Comrie Bernhard, 1986, CONDITIONALS, P77, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.005 DAVISON A, 1983, LINGUIST PHILOS, V6, P499, DOI 10.1007/BF00636288 Declerck Renaat, 2001, CONDITIONALS COMPREH DeRose K, 1999, NOUS, V33, P405, DOI 10.1111/0029-4624.00161 Ebert Ch., 2010, LANGUAGE LOGOS Ebert Ch., 2007, P SINN BEDEUTUNG 11, P194 Ebert C, 2010, J SEMANT, V27, P139, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffq003 Endriss C., 2010, INFORM STRUCTURE, P89 Endriss Cornelia, 2009, STUDIES LINGUISTICS Franke M., 2007, P 16 AMST C Franke M., 2009, THESIS U AMSTERDAM Frey W, 2005, LINGUISTICS, V43, P89, DOI 10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.89 FREY W, 2004, SYNTAX SEMANTICS LEF, V9, P203 Gartner Hans-Martin, 2001, J COMP GER LINGUIST, V3, P97 Gillies A.S., 2010, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V3, P1, DOI [10.3765/sp.3.4, DOI 10.3765/SP.3.4] Groenendijk Jeroen, 1984, THESIS U AMSTERDAM A Haegeman L, 2003, MIND LANG, V18, P317, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00230 Haiman J., 1978, LANGUAGE, V54, P565 Hale Kenneth, 1976, GRAMMATICAL CATEGORI, P78 Hinterwimmer S., P WORKSH PRON SEM NE, P61 Iatridou S., 1991, THESIS MASSACHUSETTS Iatridou S., 1994, NAT LANG SEMANT, V2, P171 Isaacs J, 2008, J SEMANT, V25, P269, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffn003 Izvorsky Roumyana, 1996, P NELS, V26, P133 Jacobs Joachim, 1984, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V91, P25 Jacobson P, 1999, LINGUIST PHILOS, V22, P117, DOI 10.1023/A:1005464228727 Johnston M., 1994, WCCFL 13 P 13 W COAS Karttunen L, 1977, LINGUIST PHILOS, V1, P3, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF00351935 Klinedinst Nathan, 2007, THESIS UCLA Kratzer A., 1986, CHICAGO LINGUISTICS, V22, P1 Krifka M., 1992, INFORM GRAMMATIK LIN Krifka M., 2014, RECURSION COMPLEXITY, V43, P59 KURODA SY, 1972, FOUND LANG, V9, P153 Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN LANDMAN F, 1989, LINGUIST PHILOS, V12, P559, DOI 10.1007/BF00627774 Lewis D., 1973, J PHILOS LOGIC, V2, P418 Lewis D, 1975, FORMAL SEMANTICS NAT, P3 Link Godehard, 1983, MEANING USE INTERPRE, P302 Nolan D, 2003, PHILOS STUD, V116, P215, DOI 10.1023/B:PHIL.0000007243.60727.d4 Predelli S, 2009, PHILOS STUD, V142, P293, DOI 10.1007/s11098-007-9187-8 Prince EF, 1998, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V29, P281 Rawlins K, 2013, NAT LANG SEMANT, V21, P111, DOI 10.1007/s11050-012-9087-0 Reinhart T., 1981, PHILOSOPHICA, V27, P53 Repp S., 2011, P SNN BEDEUTUNG 15 Roberts C., 2012, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V6, P1 Roberts C., 2004, DESCRIPTION PAPERS S Roberts C., 2012, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA Ross John Robert, 1967, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE Schein B., 2001, P SALT 11 ITH, P404 Schlenker Philippe, 2004, RES LANGUAGE COMPUTA, V2, P417, DOI 10.1007/s11168-004-0908-2 Schwager M., 2006, P SALT 16 ITH Searle John R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH Siegel MEA, 2006, LINGUIST PHILOS, V29, P167, DOI 10.1007/s10988-006-0003-2 Stalnaker R., 1980, STUDIES LOGICAL THEO, V2 Strawson P., 1964, THEORIA, V30 Swanson E., 2013, PHILOS STUD, V163, P637 von Fintel Kai, 1994, THESIS U MASSACHUSET von Stechow A., 1989, FOCUSING BACKGROUNDI Wechsler Stephen, 1991, VIEWS PHRASE STRUCTU, P177 NR 66 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 1 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 OCT PY 2014 VL 37 IS 5 BP 353 EP 408 DI 10.1007/s10988-014-9158-4 PG 56 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AS9CC UT WOS:000344539900001 ER PT J AU Abrams, ZI AF Abrams, Zsuzsanna Ittzes TI Using film to provide a context for teaching L2 pragmatics SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE Films and 12 learning; L2 pragmatics instruction; Pragmalinguistics; Sociopragmatics; Local context; Politeness ID 2ND-LANGUAGE ACQUISITION; AWARENESS; INSTRUCTION; LANGUAGE; RESOURCE; LEARNERS; ESL AB This qualitative study examines the pragmatic tools that first-year learners of German from two intact classes have at their disposal at the beginning and at the end of an eight-week period. The control (n = 15) and treatment groups (n = 22) watched a feature film, The Edukators, as part of the study. The control group answered comprehension questions based on the film, while the treatment group completed tasks focused on pragmatics, using the film as context-rich scaffolding for analyzing authentic, discourse-length language. The pre- and post-tests were administered eight weeks apart and elicited dialogs based on interactions in the film. Learners' metapragmatic reflections were also analyzed. The data suggests that participants in the treatment group were better able to vary their responses to reflect relationships between interactants or the purpose of the exchange, utilizing the social context portrayed in the film and explicit pragmatic instruction. Their ability to express pragmatic variability, albeit with limited linguistic tools, has implications for understanding beginning language learners' pragmatic abilities and for the possibilities of using films for teaching pragmatics in foreign language contexts, where other types of authentic input may be scarce. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Calif Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA. RP Abrams, ZI (reprint author), Univ Calif Santa Cruz, 1156 High St, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA. EM zabrams1@ucsc.edu CR Atkinson D, 2007, MOD LANG J, V91, P169, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00539.x Bachman L., 1990, FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDER Bardovi-Harlig K, 2009, LANG LEARN, V59, P755 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P13 Barron Anne, 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P519, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.009 Bella S, 2012, MULTILINGUA, V31, P1, DOI 10.1515/mult.2012.001 Canai'e M., 1980, APPLIED LINGUISTICS, V1, P1, DOI DOI 10.1093/APPLIN/1.1.1 Cenoz J, 2007, INTERCULTURAL LANGUAGE USE AND LANGUAGE LEARNING, P123, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-5639-0_7 Chang YF, 2010, LANG SCI, V32, P408, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2009.07.002 Clark Jodie, 2011, DISCURSIVE APPROACHE, P109 Cohen A. D, 2008, LANG TEACHING, V41, P213 Cohen A. D, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P275, DOI DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2005.2.3.275 Cook G., 2000, LANGUAGE PLAY LANGUA CROOKES G, 1990, APPL LINGUIST, V11, P183, DOI 10.1093/applin/11.2.183 Culpeper J, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P597, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.027 Davies C. E., 2004, MULTILINGUA, V23, P207, DOI 10.1515/mult.2004.010 de Pablos-Ortega C, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P2411, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.016 Dewaele J.-M., 2008, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V46, P245, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2008.011 D'Souza Jean, 1991, WORLD ENGLISH, V10, P307, DOI [10.1111/j.1467-971X.1991.tb00165.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1467-971X.1991.TB00165.X] Eisenchlas SA, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P51, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.013 Ellis RW, 2009, HUM VACCINES, V5, P1 Eslami-Rasekh Z., 2005, ELT J, V59, P199, DOI 10.1093/elt/cci039 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P253, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.013 Fernandez-Guerra A., 2008, LEARNING REQUEST INS, P11 Garcia P., 2004, TEACHING ENGLISH 2 F, V8, P1 Goldstein D. S., 2010, PEDAGOGY CRITICAL AP, V10, P562 Goodwin J., 2004, POWER CONTEXT LANGUA, P225 Grant L., 2001, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V39, P39, DOI 10.1515/iral.39.1.39 Halenko N, 2011, SYSTEM, V39, P240, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2011.05.003 Hymes D. H., 1972, SOCIOLINGUISTICS, P269 Jeon EH, 2006, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V13, P165 Stehle M., 2011, UNTERRICHTSPRAXIS, V44, P116 Kaiser M., 2009, TEACHING FILM CLIPS Kallia Alexandria, 2005, BROADENING HORIZON L, P217 Kasper G., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P1 Kasper G., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P33 Kasper Gabriele, 2004, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V1, P125, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2004.002 Kasper G., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V11, P281 Koike D. A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P481, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.008 Larsen-Freeman D, 2007, MOD LANG J, V91, P773, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00668.x Lay T., 2009, EIN LIED LIEBE TOD G Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Liddicoat A.J., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P125 LoCastro V., 2011, HDB RES 2 LANGUAGE T, V2, P319 LoCastro V., 2003, INTRO PRAGMATICS SOC Locher Miriam A., 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P9, DOI DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2005.1.1.9 Sara Mills, 2011, DISCURSIVE APPROACHE, P19 Mills S, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1047, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.014 Nadasdi T, 2005, CAN MOD LANG REV, V61, P543, DOI 10.1353/cml.2005.0035 Nation I. S. P., 2001, LEARNING VOCABULARY Nelson Cecil, 1991, WORLD ENGLISH, V10, P317, DOI [10.1111/j.1467-971X.1991.tb00166.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1467-971X.1991.TB00166.X] Schieffelin B., 2010, ENCY LANGUAGE ED, P3 Ohta A. S., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P503, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.001 Rose K., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE Rose Kenneth R., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P145 Rose Kenneth, 2001, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V39, P309, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2001.007 Rose K. R., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P385, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.003 Rose K., 2000, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V22, P27, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100001029 Savignon S, 1997, COMMUNICATIVE COMPET Saville-Troike M., 2002, ETHNOGRAPHY COMMUNIC Schauer GA, 2006, LANG LEARN, V56, P269, DOI 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00348.x Snel-Hornby M., 1984, MULTILINGUA, V3, P203, DOI 10.1515/mult.1984.3.4.203 Alcon Soler E, 2008, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V46, P173, DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2008.008 Spencer-Oatey H, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P529, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00039-X Sundquist J., 2010, UNTERRICHTSPRAXIS, V43, P123 Takahashi S., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P171 Takahashi S, 2005, APPL LINGUIST, V26, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/amh040 Taleghani-Nikazm C., 2010, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V38, P159 Tateyama Y., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P171 Nishizawa M., 2005, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P87 Tognozzi E., 2010, ITALICA, V87, P69 Washburn G. N., 2001, TESOL J, V10, P21 Young RF, 2004, MOD LANG J, V88, P519 Zuengler J, 2006, TESOL QUART, V40, P35 NR 74 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 0 U2 7 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 OCT PY 2014 VL 46 BP 55 EP 64 DI 10.1016/j.system.2014.06.005 PG 10 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA AR5IW UT WOS:000343619600005 ER PT J AU Karimi, MN Alibakhshi, G AF Karimi, Mohammad Nabi Alibakhshi, Goudarz TI EFL learners' text processing strategies across comprehension vs. integration reading task conditions SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE Reading tasks; Single-text comprehension; Multiple-texts integration; Text-processing strategies ID INFERENCE GENERATION; MULTIPLE-DOCUMENTS; EXPOSITORY TEXT; TOPIC KNOWLEDGE; STUDENTS; PURPOSE; READERS; MEMORY; L1 AB The present study investigated the reading strategies 12 readers used as they read multiple texts across two reading tasks: single-text comprehension vs. multiple-texts integration. Twenty-two advanced EFL learners participated in the study; they were randomly assigned to one of the two reading tasks mentioned above. The two groups were required to read three texts. While the single-text-comprehension reading task required the participants to read the texts and provide answers to intra-textual post-reading questions, readers in the multiple-texts-integration task were required to develop an essay by integrating the content across the multiple texts. As they read the texts, the two groups were involved in reporting their thought processes. The thought reports of the two groups were then analyzed and compared. The comparisons revealed significant differences in the strategic processing of the texts by the readers across the two reading tasks. Specifically, the results showed that the multiple-texts-integration reading task gave rise to a higher number of metacognitive reading strategies than the single-text-comprehension reading task both in total and in each of the "analytic cognitions" and "pragmatic behaviors" categories of processing strategies. However, no significant difference was found between the two tasks in the "language-oriented" category of strategies. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Karimi, Mohammad Nabi] Kharazmi Univ, Dept Foreign Languages, Tehran, Iran. [Alibakhshi, Goudarz] Allameh Tabatabai Univ, Dept English Language & Literature, Fac Persian Literature & Foreign Languages, Tehran, Iran. RP Karimi, MN (reprint author), Kharazmi Univ, Dept Foreign Languages, 43 Mofatteh St, Tehran, Iran. EM karimi_mn@yahoo.com CR ANDERSON NJ, 1991, MOD LANG J, V75, P460, DOI 10.2307/329495 Anmarkrud O, 2014, LEARN INDIVID DIFFER, V30, P64, DOI 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.007 BLOCK EL, 1992, TESOL QUART, V26, P319, DOI 10.2307/3587008 Brantmeier C, 2005, MOD LANG J, V89, P37, DOI 10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00264.x Braten I., 2003, READING WRITING INTE, V16, P195, DOI [10.1023/A:1022895207490, DOI 10.1023/A:1022895207490] Braten I, 2004, J EDUC PSYCHOL, V96, P324, DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.324 Braten Ivar, 2006, READING PSYCHOL, V27, P457, DOI [10.1080/02702710600848031, DOI 10.1080/02702710600848031] Braten I, 2010, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V47, P1, DOI 10.1080/01638530902959646 Braten I, 2011, METACOGN LEARN, V6, P111, DOI 10.1007/s11409-011-9075-7 Britt M. A., 2004, READING PSYCHOL, V25, P313, DOI DOI 10.1080/02702710490522658 Cerdan R, 2008, J EDUC PSYCHOL, V100, P209, DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.209 Coro J, 2007, READ RES QUART, V42, P214, DOI 10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2 Ediger AM, 2006, STUD LANG ACQUIS, V29, P303 Goldman S. R., 2004, USES INTERTEXTUALITY, P317 Hirvela A., 2004, CONNECTING READING W Ikeda M., 2006, SYSTEM, V34, P384, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2006.04.007 Kintsch W., 1998, COMPREHENSION PARADI Kobayashi K., 2010, READING PSYCHOL, V31, P121, DOI DOI 10.1080/02702710902754192 Kobayashi K, 2007, EDUC PSYCHOL-UK, V27, P363, DOI 10.1080/01443410601104171 Kobayashi K, 2009, LEARN INDIVID DIFFER, V19, P130, DOI 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.06.001 Linderholm T, 2002, J EDUC PSYCHOL, V94, P778, DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.778 Mason L, 2006, CONTEMP EDUC PSYCHOL, V31, P411, DOI 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.12.001 McCrudden MT, 2011, INSTR SCI, V39, P865, DOI 10.1007/s11251-010-9158-x McCulloch S, 2013, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V12, P136, DOI 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.009 McNeil L, 2011, READ WRIT, V24, P883, DOI 10.1007/s11145-010-9230-6 Narvaez D, 1999, J EDUC PSYCHOL, V91, P488, DOI 10.1037//0022-0663.91.3.488 Nassaji H., 2007, LANG LEARN, V57, P79, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1467-9922.2007.00413.X Oxford R. L., 2004, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V42, P1, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2004.001 Phakiti A, 2003, LANG LEARN, V53, P649, DOI 10.1046/j.1467-9922.2003.00239.x Plakans L., 2009, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V8, P252, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.JEAP.2009.05.001 Plakans L., 2012, ASSESS WRIT, V17.1, P18, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.ASW.2011.09.00 Salataci R., 2002, READING FOREIGN LANG, V14, P1 Sheorey R., 2001, SYSTEM, V29, P431, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2 Stadtler M, 2008, COMPUT HUM BEHAV, V24, P716, DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.023 Taraban R., 2004, READING PSYCHOL, V25, P67, DOI 10.1080/02702710490435547 van den Broek P, 2001, MEM COGNITION, V29, P1081 van Dijk T. A., 1983, STRATEGIES DISCOURSE Zhang L. J., 2009, READING FOREIGN LANG, V21, P37 NR 38 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 16 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 OCT PY 2014 VL 46 BP 96 EP 104 DI 10.1016/j.system.2014.07.013 PG 9 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA AR5IW UT WOS:000343619600008 ER PT J AU Carney, T AF Carney, Terrence TI Being (im)polite: A forensic linguistic approach to interpreting a hate speech case SO LANGUAGE MATTERS LA English DT Article DE Equality Act; speech acts; Herselman v Geleba; hate speech; forensic linguistics; baboon; politeness; face ID POLITENESS; PERSPECTIVES AB In a hate speech case a court might have to determine whether a person's words were hurtful or harmful. Would it be possible to determine whether words are hurtful or harmful by using linguistics? This article offers a linguistic perspective on a court's interpretation of the Equality Act in a hate speech case and focuses on speech acts and politeness. If the speech acts of a verbal exchange are studied and the levels of politeness are gauged, a court would be able to affirm the hurtfulness or harmfulness of the speaker's words. The article begins with a brief discussion on the potential role of the linguist in a courtroom; this is followed by a summary of the facts of the case. Then the court case is analysed and discussed in terms of speech acts and politeness. By employing principles in pragmatics the author reaches the same conclusion as the court. C1 Univ S Africa, Dept Afrikaans & Theory Literature, ZA-0001 Pretoria, South Africa. RP Carney, T (reprint author), Univ S Africa, Dept Afrikaans & Theory Literature, ZA-0001 Pretoria, South Africa. EM carnetr@unisa.ac.za CR Austin J. L., 1962, DO THINGS WORDS [Anonymous], 1998, WETSUITLEG INLEIDING Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Carney TR, 2012, SO AFR LINGUIST APPL, V30, P487, DOI 10.2989/16073614.2012.750822 Christensen R., 2011, WORTLAUTGRENZE WORTE, V2 Clark H. H., 1991, PRAGMATICS READER, P199 Jonathan Culpeper, 2011, IMPOLITENESS USING L CUNNINGHAM CD, 1994, YALE LAW J, V103, P1561, DOI 10.2307/797094 Cunningham C. D., 1995, WASH U LQ, V73, P1159 Fraser Bruce, 1981, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V27, P93 FRASER B, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P219, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N Goffman E., 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL E Grice H. P., 1996, READINGS LANGUAGE MI, P121 Mehan H., 1981, CONVERSATIONAL ROUTI, P187 Hubbard E. H., 1995, SA J LINGUISTICS S, V26, P55 Hubbard E. H., 1994, SA J LINGUISTICS S, V20, P3 [Anonymous], 2009, LANGUAGE MEANING LAW Janney RW, 2005, MOUTON TXB, P21 Kotze E. F., 2007, SO AFRICAN LINGUISTI, V25, P385, DOI 10.2989/16073610709486470 Kotze EF, 2010, SO AFR LINGUIST APPL, V28, P185, DOI 10.2989/16073614.2010.519111 Lakoff Robin T., 1973, 9 REG M CHIC LING SO, P292 Langford I., 2000, FORENSIC LINGUIST, V7, P72, DOI 10.1558/sll.2000.7.1.72 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC [Anonymous], 2010, BRIGHAM YOUNG U LAW Pearce D. C., 1974, STATUTORY INTERPRETA Prinsloo A. F., 2004, SPREEKWOORDE WAAR HU Saeed J., 2009, SEMANTICS Sanderson P, 2007, LANG MATTERS, V38, P132, DOI 10.1080/10228190701640108 Searle J. R., 1991, PRAGMATICS READER, P265 Shuy W. R., 2008, FIGHTING WORDS Solan L. M., 1993, LANGUAGE JUDGES Spencer-Oatey H, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P529, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00039-X Thumma SA, 1999, BUFFALO LAW REV, V47, P227 Watts RJ, 2005, MOUTON TXB, P43 Werkhofer KT, 2005, MOUTON TXB, P155 NR 35 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 21 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 SEP 2 PY 2014 VL 45 IS 3 SI SI BP 325 EP 341 DI 10.1080/10228195.2014.959545 PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AX3MN UT WOS:000346843700004 ER PT J AU Laury, R Ono, T AF Laury, Ritva Ono, Tsuyoshi TI THE LIMITS OF GRAMMAR: CLAUSE COMBINING IN FINNISH AND JAPANESE CONVERSATION SO PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Clause combining; Japanese; Finnish; Morphosyntax; Prosody; Non-verbal behavior; Prefabs ID PROJECTION AB Our paper concerns the grammar of clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation. We consider the patterns of clause combining in our data and focus on the verbal and non-verbal cues which allow participants to determine whether, after the end of a clause-sized unit, the turn will end or continue with another clause-sized unit, resulting in a clause combination. We conclude that morphosyntax alone cannot account for the patterns found in our data, but that the participants orient to, at least, prosodic and nonverbal cues in determining the boundaries of clauses and projecting continuation in the form of another clause. Also important for projection are fixed expressions or 'prefabs'. In addition, semantic and pragmatic factors play a role. In that sense, we explore the question of where the limits of grammar for interaction, understood as the knowledge which speakers share and which forms the basis for the creation and processing of novel utterances, should be drawn, and whether grammar should include, beyond morphosyntax, not only prosodic, pragmatic and semantic features but also bodily behavior. C1 [Laury, Ritva] Univ Helsinki, Dept Finnish Finnougr & Scandinavian Studies, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland. [Ono, Tsuyoshi] Univ Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H8, Canada. RP Laury, R (reprint author), Univ Helsinki, Dept Finnish Finnougr & Scandinavian Studies, PL 3 Fabianinkatu 33, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland. EM ritva.laury@helsinki.fi; tono@ualberta.ca CR Aho E., 2010, THESIS Auer P, 2005, TEXT, V25, P7, DOI 10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7 Auer Peter, 1992, STUDIES SPOKEN LANGU, P41 Auer Peter, 2011, LINGUAE LIT, V6, P1 Auer P, 2009, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V46, P180, DOI 10.1080/01638530902728934 Bybee J., 2001, FREQUENCY AND THE EM Bybee Joan, 2010, LANGUAGE USAGE AND C Chafe Wallace, 1987, COHERENCE GROUNDING, V11, P21 Chafe W., 1994, DISCOURSE CONSCIOUSN Chafe W., 1980, THE PEAR STORIES COG, P9 Clancy P. M., 1980, THESIS Clancy P. M., 1980, PEAR STORIES COGNITI, P127 Cook Haruko M., 1992, TEXT, V12, P507, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1992.12.4.507 Couper-Kuhlen E, 2008, DISCOURSE STUD, V10, P443, DOI 10.1177/1461445608091882 Couper-Kuhlen E, 2012, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V49, P273, DOI 10.1080/0163853X.2012.664111 Couper-Kuhlen E., 2009, VIRITTAJA, P3 Couper-Kuhlen E., 2007, SPECIAL ISSUE OF PRA, V17.4 Pekarek Doehler Simona, 2011, SUBORDINATION CONVER, P103 Du Bois J. W., 1993, TALKING DATA TRANSCR, P45 DUBOIS JW, 1987, LANGUAGE, V63, P805 Duvallon O., 2005, SYNTAX LEXIS CONVERS, P45 Evans Nicholas, 2007, FINITENESS THEORETIC, P366 Ford CE, 2004, DISCOURSE STUD, V6, P27, DOI 10.1177/1461445604039438 Fromkin V., 1993, AN INTRODUCTION TO L Goffman E, 1981, FORMS TALK Goodwin C., 2003, DISCOURSE BODY IDENT, P19 Haddington P., 2013, INTERACTION AND MOBI Hakulinen A., 2004, ISO SUOMEN KIELIOPPI Hauser MD, 2002, SCIENCE, V298, P1569, DOI 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 Helasvuo M-L, 2001, STUDIES INTERACTIONA, P25 Hinds J., 1982, ELLIPSIS IN JAPANESE Hopper P., 1987, P 13 ANN M BERK LING, V13, P139 Hopper PJ, 2008, TYPOL ST L, V80, P99 Iwasaki S., 1993, SUBJECTIVITY IN GRAM Iwasaki Shoichi, 2002, JAPANESE Iwasaki Shoichi, 2013, JAPANESE Iwasaki S., 1993, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V3, P39 Iwasaki S., 2002, COMPLEX SENTENCES GR, P175 Jefferson Gail, 1972, STUDIES SOCIAL INTER, P294 Karkkainen E., I THOUGHT IT WAS VER Karkkainen E., 2003, EPISTEMIC STANCE IN KEENAN EL, 1977, LINGUIST INQ, V8, P63 Keevallik L., 2003, FROM INTERACTION TO Kirkkomaki E., 2012, THESIS Koivisto A., COMBINING CLAUSES AN Koivisto A., 2011, SUBORDINATION CONVER, P69 Koivisto A., 2011, THESIS Kuno Susumu, 1973, THE STRUCTURE OF THE Kuroda Sige-Yuki, 1965, THESIS Laury R., 2013, PAPER GIVEN IN THE W Ono T., 2010, RECURSION HUMAN LANG, V140, P69 Laury R, 2008, TYPOL ST L, V80, P153 Laver J., 1994, PRINCIPLES OF PHONET LOCAL J, 1986, HUM STUD, V9, P185, DOI 10.1007/BF00148126 Mazeland H, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P1816, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.005 Nariyama S., 2003, ELLIPSIS AND REFEREN Newmeyer FJ, 2003, LANGUAGE, V79, P682, DOI 10.1353/lan.2003.0260 Ogden R., 2004, SOUND PATTERNS INTER, P29 Ohori T., 1992, THESIS Okamoto S., 1990, POTENTIAL COMPLEMENT Suzuki R., 2011, PAPER GIVEN IN THE P Ono T., 1997, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2, P481 Ono T., 2011, EXPERIMENTAL AND EMP, P180 ONO T, 1990, STUD LANG, V14, P73, DOI 10.1075/sl.14.1.04ono Payne T. E., 1997, DESCRIBING MORPHOSYN Sadler M., 2001, SOUTHWEST JOURNAL OF, V22, P143 Scheibman J., 2001, FREQUENCY EMERGENCE, P61 Shibatani Masayoshi, 1990, THE LANGUAGES OF JAP Vaillette N., 2001, LANGUAGE FILES MATER Suzuki R., 1991, KOTOBA NO MOZAIKU OK, P124 Tanaka H, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P1135, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00087-9 Thompson SA, 2005, DISCOURSE STUD, V7, P481, DOI 10.1177/1461445605054403 Thompson SA, 2002, STUD LANG, V26, P125, DOI 10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho Tsujimura N., 1996, AN INTRODUCTION TO J Vatanen A., THESIS NR 75 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 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 SEP PY 2014 VL 24 IS 3 SI SI BP 561 EP 592 PG 32 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AZ6EY UT WOS:000348312900006 ER PT J AU Ruegg, L AF Rueegg, Larssyn TI Thanks responses in three socio-economic settings: A variational pragmatics approach SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Variational pragmatics; Thanks responses; Socio-economic variation; Speech-acts; Adjacency pairs ID DISCOURSE; ENGLISH; ACTS AB In this paper I investigate thanks responses from a variationist perspective. Although both their form and frequency have been said to differ according to both the variety of English and the formality. of the situation (cf. Farenkia, 2012; Schneider, 2005; Aijmer, 1996; Leech and Svartvik, 1994; Edmondson and House, 1981), this variation has yet to be quantified through the analysis of naturally occurring speech. I analyze variation along the socio-economic scale in Los Angeles, California in both the form and frequency of verbal thanks responses and whether the type of favor affects the form or frequency of thanks responses. In order to do this, I take a function-to-form perspective to analyze discourse from restaurant service encounters in nine restaurants of three different price ranges. The results of this study show that there is variation in the frequency and use of thanks responses. Forms of you're welcome are only used in the more formal and expensive restaurants, never in the informal and inexpensive ones. Additionally, verbal thanks responses are found 50 percent more frequently in the expensive restaurants than in the inexpensive ones. Finally the type of favor that most frequently receives a verbal thanks response does differ among the three price ranges of restaurants. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Zurich, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland. RP Ruegg, L (reprint author), Univ Zurich, Plattenstr 47, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland. EM Larssyn.rueegg@uzh.ch OI Ruegg, Larssyn/0000-0002-9306-821X CR Aijmer K., 1996, CONVERSATIONAL ROUTI Barron Anne, 2005, PRAGMATICS IRISH ENG, P141 Barron A, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P425, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.023 BELL A, 1984, LANG SOC, V13, P145 Blum- Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Buchstaller Isabelle, 2009, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V3, P1010, DOI 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00142.x Cheshire J, 2005, J SOCIOLING, V9, P479, DOI 10.1111/j.1360-6441.2005.00303.x DINES ER, 1980, LANG SOC, V9, P13 Du Bois J. W., 1991, PRAGMATICS, V1, P71 Edmondson Willis, 1981, LETS TALK TALK IT PE Eisenstein Miriam, 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P64 Mulo Farenkia Bernard, 2012, INT J ENGL LINGUIST, V2, P1 [Anonymous], 2008, VARIATIONAL PRAGMATI Jautz Sabine, 2013, THANKING FORMULAE EN, P1 Jucker AH, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1611, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.004 Kasper Gabriele, 2008, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P316 Labov W., 2006, SOCIAL STRATIFICATIO Labov William, 1996, PAPERS PARASESSION T, P77 Labov William, 1972, SOCIOLINGUISTIC PATT Leech Geoffrey, 1994, COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMA Pichler Heike, 2013, STRUCTURE DISCOURSE Pichler H, 2010, J SOCIOLING, V14, P581, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.00455.x Placencia Maria E., 2008, VARIATIONAL PRAGMATI, P307 Schneider KP, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1022, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.015 Schneider K. P., 2008, VARIATIONAL PRAGMATI, P1 Schneider Klaus P., 2010, VARIATION CHANGE PRA, P239 Schneider Klaus P., 2005, PRAGMATICS IRISH ENG, P101 SEARLE JR, 1976, LANG SOC, V5, P1 Terkourafi M, 2011, LANG SOC, V40, P343, DOI 10.1017/S0047404511000212 WIERZBICKA A, 1985, J PRAGMATICS, V9, P145, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(85)90023-2 Wolfram Walt, 2006, AM ENGLISH DIALECTS, P93 NR 32 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 0 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 2014 VL 71 BP 17 EP 30 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.005 PG 14 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AS7LN UT WOS:000344437700002 ER PT J AU Kucirkova, N Messer, D Sheehy, K AF Kucirkova, Natalia Messer, David Sheehy, Kieron TI The effects of personalisation on young children's spontaneous speech during shared book reading SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Shared book reading; Personalisation; Language; Pragmatics; Self-referencing ID SELF-REFERENCE; COMPREHENSION; STUDENTS; TALK AB This paper is concemed with a so far little explored situational context: sharing books which have been personalised for individual children in a pre-school. Thirty-five children (mean age 36.94 months) were read a book with a personalised and non-personalised part. Their spontaneous verbal responses were video recorded and later transcribed. The analysis focused on the difference between the personalised and non-personalised context in terms of the amount of children's utterances and the pragmatic intent of their speech, which included self-referencing, use of questions and corrections. The findings are interpreted from both developmental and socio-cultural Vygotskian perspectives, and evaluated in light of their implications for the understanding of pragmatic aspects of sharing personalised books with children. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Kucirkova, Natalia; Messer, David; Sheehy, Kieron] Open Univ, Fac Educ, Milton Keynes MK6 7AA, Bucks, England. RP Kucirkova, N (reprint author), Open Univ, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK6 7AA, Bucks, England. EM n.kucirkova@open.ac.uk CR ANDERSONYOCKEL J, 1994, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V37, P583 Becker Cynthia Ann, 2010, THESIS U MARYLAND Bernhard Judith, 2008, J ED STUDENTS PLACED, V13, P76, DOI 10.1080/10824660701860458 Blum-Kulka S., 1997, DINNER TALK CULTURAL BRACKEN BA, 1982, CONTEMP EDUC PSYCHOL, V7, P320, DOI 10.1016/0361-476X(82)90015-7 Bullowa M., 1979, SPEECH BEGINNING INT Bus AG, 2003, CEN IM E R, P3 Caimey Trevor, 1997, EARLY CHILD DEV CARE, V127, P61, DOI 10.1080/0300443971270106 CHERRY L, 1975, CHILD DEV, V46, P532 Chouinard MM, 2007, MONOGR SOC RES CHILD, V72, P1 Clark Eve V., 1978, AWARENESS LANGUAGE S, P17 Curenton SM, 2008, EARLY EDUC DEV, V19, P161, DOI 10.1080/10409280701839296 Demoulin Donald, 2001, READING IMPROVEMENT, V38, P116 Dickinson D. K., 1994, READING RES Q, V29, P105, DOI DOI 10.2307/747807 Ditman T, 2010, COGNITION, V115, P172, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.014 Dunn L. M., 1997, BRIT PICTURE VOCABUL Ervin-Tripp Susan M., 1997, TYPOL STUD LANG, V34, P133 Fletcher Kathryn, 1998, EARLY CHILDHOOD DEV, V146, P53, DOI 10.1080/0300443981460106 FLOOD JE, 1977, READ TEACH, V30, P864 Gopnik A., 1997, WORDS THOUGHTS THEOR Graesser Arthur C., 1994, AM EDUC RES J, V31, P104 Gutnick A. L., 2011, JG COONEY CTR SES WO Harter S, 1999, CONSTRUCTION SELF DE Hartlep KL, 2000, TEACH PSYCHOL, V27, P269, DOI 10.1207/S15328023TOP2704_05 Hartley D, 2007, OXFORD REV EDUC, V33, P629, DOI 10.1080/03054980701476311 Haugh M, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.009 Healey J. F, 2009, ESSENTIALS STAT TOOL Janes H, 2001, J ADOLESC ADULT LIT, V44, P458 Jordan GE, 2000, READ RES QUART, V35, P524, DOI 10.1598/RRQ.35.4.5 Becker Judith A., 1988, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V11, P457 Kim Y. S., 2011, J EARLY CHILD LIT, V11, P402, DOI DOI 10.1177/14687984114 Kucirkova Natalia, 2014, FRONT ED PSYCHOL, V5, P1 Kucirkova Natalia, 2014, 1 LANG Kucirkova Natalia, 2013, INFANT CHILD DEV Kucirkova Natalia, J EARLY CHI IN PRESS, V13, P445, DOI DOI 10.1177/1468798412438068 Kucirkova Natalia, 2013, FRONT PSYCHOL DEV PS, V4, P1 Kucirkova Natalia, 2010, LITERACY INFORM COMP, V1, P263 Kucirkova N, 2013, LITERACY, V47, P115, DOI 10.1111/lit.12003 McNaughton Stuart, 1981, ED PSYCHOL, V1, P57, DOI 10.1080/0144341810010106 Moreno R, 2000, J EDUC PSYCHOL, V92, P724, DOI 10.1037//0022-0663.92.4.724 Moschovaki Eleni, 2005, EARLY CHILD DEV CARE, V7 Moschovaki Eleni, 1999, EARLY CHILD DEV CARE, V158, P11, DOI 10.1080/0300443991580102 O'Driscoll J, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P170, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.008 Oulasvirta A, 2008, INTERACT COMPUT, V20, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.intcom.2007.06.002 Kaderavek J., 2004, COMMUN DISORD Q, V25, P179, DOI 10.1177/15257401040250040301 Parish-Morris J, 2013, MIND BRAIN EDUC, V7, P200, DOI 10.1111/mbe.12028 Pellegrini Anthony D., 1991, LANG ARTS, V68, P380 Planas Maria Rosa, 1995, PRAGMATICS, V5, P33 Pramling-Samuelsson Ingrid, 2008, PLAY LEARN EARLY CHI, P135 PREECE A, 1987, J CHILD LANG, V14, P353 Priebe SJ, 2012, READ WRIT, V25, P131, DOI 10.1007/s11145-010-9260-0 Recchia HE, 2008, SOC DEV, V17, P776, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00451.x ROGERS TB, 1977, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V35, P677, DOI 10.1037//0022-3514.35.9.677 Rowe Debbie, 2012, AFFORDANCES MULTIMOD Sheehy K., 2001, WESTMINSTER STUDIES, V24, P61 Vrij A, 2012, J APPL RES MEM COGN, V1, P41, DOI 10.1016/j.jarmac.2011.12.002 Vygotsky L, 1978, MIND SOC DEV HIGHER Yont KM, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P435, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00144-3 Daniels H, 2007, CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO VYGOTSKY, P1 NR 59 TC 1 Z9 1 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 SEP PY 2014 VL 71 BP 45 EP 55 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.007 PG 11 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AS7LN UT WOS:000344437700004 ER PT J AU Patard, A AF Patard, Adeline TI When tense and aspect convey modality. Reflections on the modal uses of past tenses in Romance and Germanic languages SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Past tense; Aspect; Modality; Reichenbach theory; Conventionalisation of inference; Scalar implicatures AB This paper investigates the connection between past tense and modality in six Romance and Germanic languages (French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, English and German). I first argue for an aspecto-temporal definition of imperfects and preterits based on the notion of 'reference point' (R) and I suggest that the different interpretations of past tenses (including the modal ones) reflect specific instantiations of R as 'topic time', 'aspectual vantage point' or 'epistemic evaluation', Second, I offer a classification and analysis of the modal uses of the imperfects and preterits observed in the languages under investigation. Finally, I expand on the idea that the modal interpretations of past tenses correspond to pragmatic inferences that are being conventionalised and mirror the stages of 'bridging contexts' and 'switch contexts' described in Heine's (2002) model for semantic change. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Caen, Lab CRISCO, F-14032 Caen, France. RP Patard, A (reprint author), Univ Caen, Lab CRISCO, Campus 1, F-14032 Caen, France. EM adeline.patard@unicaen.fr CR Adam Jean-Michel, 1992, APPROCHE LINGUISTIQU, V25, P147 Aksu-Koc Ayhan, 1988, ACQUISITION ASPECT M Anderson Alan Ross, 1951, ANALYSIS, V12, P35, DOI 10.2307/3327037 ANTINUCCI F, 1976, J CHILD LANG, V3, P167 Arregui Ana Cristina, 2007, NAT LANG SEMANT, V15, P221, DOI DOI 10.1007/S11050-007-9019-6 Arregui A., 2005, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Arregui A, 2009, LINGUIST PHILOS, V32, P245, DOI 10.1007/s10988-009-9060-7 BARCELO Gerard Joan, 2006, TEMPS INDICATIF FRAN Bazanella Carla, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P439 Berthonneau Anne-Marie, 2003, CAHIERS CHRONOS, V11, P1 Berthonneau Anne-Marie, 1994, TRAVAUX LINGUIST, V29, P59 Berthonneau Anne-Marie, 2006, TRAVAUX LINGUIST, V53, P7 Bertinetto Pier Marco, 1986, TEMPO ASPETTO AZIONE Doiz Bienzobas Aintzane, 2002, GROUNDING EPISTEMIC, P299 Boogaart Ronny, 2011, COGNITIVE APPROACHES, P217 Bras Jacques, 2006, CAH PRAXEM, V47, P149 Bres Jacques, 2009, SYNTAX SEMANT, V10, P33 Brisard F, 2010, LINGUISTICS, V48, P487, DOI 10.1515/LING.2010.015 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Caudal Patrick, 2003, LANGUE FRANCAISE MAY, V138, P61, DOI 10.3406/lfr.2003.6482 Caudal Patrick, 2011, CAHIERS CHRONOS, V22, P179 Comrie B., 1985, TENSE Cutrer M., 1994, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Dahl O, 1997, CONDITIONALS AGAIN, P97 Damourette Jacques, 1911, MOTS PENSEE, V5 Dancygier Barbara, 2005, MENTAL SPACES GRAMMA De Mulder Walter, 2006, CAHIERS PRAXEMATIQUE, V47, P97 De Mulder Walter, 2004, LANGUAGE REVOLUTION, P195 De Wit Astrid, 2013, LANGUAGES CONTRAST, V13, P113, DOI DOI 10.1075/LIC.13.1.06WIT Dowty D., 1979, WORD MEANING MONTAGU FAUCONNIER G., 1994, MENTAL SPACES Fayol Michel, 1985, B PSYCHOL, VXXXVIII, P683 Garcia Fernandez Luis, 2004, PRETERITO IMPERFECTO, P14 Ferraro Marta Iglesis, 2002, P 2 C BRAS HISP SAN FLEISCHMAN S, 1989, STUD LANG, V13, P1, DOI 10.1075/sl.13.1.02fle Fleishchman S, 1995, TYPOL ST L, V32, P519 GIVON T, 1994, STUD LANG, V18, P265, DOI 10.1075/sl.18.2.02giv Gomez Briz, 2004, ESTUD LINGUIST, V2, P43 Gosselin Laurent, 1996, SEMANTIQUE TEMPORALI Gosselin L., 2010, MODALITES FRANCAIS V Gosselin Laurent, 1999, CAHIERS CHRONOS, V4, P29 Grice Paul, 1975, SPEECH ACTS, P41 Bernd Heine, 2002, NEW REFLECTIONS GRAM, P83, DOI [10.1075/tsl.49, DOI 10.1075/TSL.49.08HEI] Hopper Paul J., 1979, STUD LANG, V6, P375 Imbs Paul, 1960, EMPLOI TEMPS VERBAUX IPPOLITO M, 2004, SYNTAX TIME, V37, P359 Ippolito Michela, 2003, NAT LANG SEMANT, V11, P145, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1024411924818 JAMES D, 1982, STUD LANG, V6, P375, DOI 10.1075/sl.6.3.04jam Janssen Theo A. J. M., 1994, TENSE ASPECT DISCOUR, P115 Jaszczolt Katarzyna, 2011, COGNITIVE APPROACHES, P249 Klein W, 1994, TIME LANGUAGE LANGACKER RW, 1978, LANGUAGE, V54, P853, DOI 10.2307/413237 Langacker Ronald W., 1991, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA, V2, P240 Langacker R.W., 1987, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA Iatridou Sabine, 2000, LINGUIST INQ, V31, P231 Le Goffic Pierre, 1986, POINTS VUE IMPARFAIT, P55 Le Goffic Pierre, 1995, MODELES LINGUISTIQUE, V16, P133 Leonetti Manuel, 2003, CUADERNOS LINGUISTIC, VX, P135 Lyons J., 1977, SEMANTICS Martin Robert, 1991, TRAV LINGUIST PHILOL, V22, P87 Mellet Sylvie, 1990, B SOC LINGUISTIQUE P, VLXXXV, P161, DOI 10.2143/BSL.85.1.2013434 Mellet Sylvie, 1988, TEMPS ASPECT MODALIT Palmer Frank R., 1986, MOOD MODALITY Patard Adeline, 2011, CAH CHRONOS, V22, P179 PATARD A., 2007, THESIS U PAUL VALERY, P3 Patard Adeline, 2011, COGNITIVE APPROACHES, P279 Patard Adeline, 2014, LANGAGES, V193, P33 Reichenbach Hans, 1947, ELEMENTS SYMBOLIC LO Dessi Schmid Sarah, 2010, MODALITY MOOD ROMANC, P39 Squartini M, 2001, STUD LANG, V25, P297, DOI 10.1075/sl.25.2.05squ Squartini Mario, 1995, TENSE SYSTEMS EUROPE, VII, P117 Stalnaker Robert, 1975, LANGUAGE FOCUS FDN M, P179 Tedeschi Philip J., 1981, TENSE ASPECT, V14, P239 Thieroff Rolf, 1999, TENSE ASPECT TRANSIT, P141 Thieroff Rolf, 1994, TENSE SYSTEMS EUROPE, P3 Thieroff Rolf, 1995, TENSE SYSTEMS EUROPE, VII, P1 TOURATIER Christian, 1996, SYSTEME VERBAL FRANC Traugott Elisabeth, 2002, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Traugott Elizabeth C., 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, V2 Vairel Helene, 1982, INFORMATION GRAMMATI, V14, P5 Van Linden A, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P1865, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.008 van der Auwera Johan, 1998, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V2, P79, DOI 10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79 Verstraete J., 2006, AUSTR J LINGUISTICS, V26, P59, DOI 10.1080/07268600500531636 Wunderlich Dieter, 1970, TEMPUS ZEITREFERENZ Ziegeler Debra, 2000, HYPOTHETICAL MODALIT NR 85 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 SEP PY 2014 VL 71 BP 69 EP 97 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.009 PG 29 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AS7LN UT WOS:000344437700006 ER PT J AU Depraetere, I AF Depraetere, Ilse TI Modals and lexically-regulated saturation SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Saturation; Free pragmatic enrichment; Modal meaning; Polysemy/monosemy of modals ID AMBIGUITY; AUXILIARIES; VAGUENESS; ENGLISH AB This paper presents a framework for the analysis of the meaning of modals which builds on key concepts from recent research on the semantics/pragmatics interface, in particular saturation, and on insights from lexical semantics; it is based on extensive data analysis, may and must serving as a test case. It is argued that a layered account in terms of context-independent semantics, context-dependent semantics (resulting from lexically-regulated saturation) and pragmatic meaning is needed to capture all the meaning distinctions communicated by modal verbs. While embedded in insights from Contextualism and compatible with approaches in formal semantics, the paper argues that the context-dependent semantic layer needs to be defined in a more explicit and more rigorous fashion and it shows how this aim can be achieved. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Lille 3, UMR STL 8163, F-59653 Villeneuve Dascq, France. RP Depraetere, I (reprint author), Univ Lille 3, UMR STL 8163, BP 60149, F-59653 Villeneuve Dascq, France. EM Ilse.depraetere@univ-lille3.fr CR Aarts Bas, 2007, SYNTACTIC GRADIENCE Bach K., 1994, FDN SPEECH ACT THEOR, P268 Bach K., 1994, MIND LANG, V9, P124, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1468-0017.1994.TB00220.X Bach Kent, 2007, PRAGMATICS, P24 Bach Kent, 2013, ODDS ENDS Boogaart Ronny, 2008, CONTEXTS CONSTRUCTIO, P213 Carretero Marta, 2004, ENGLISH MODALITY PER, P205 Carston R., 2010, EXPLICIT COMMUNICATI, P217 Carston Robyn, 1999, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, P85 Carston R., 2009, INT REV PRAGMATICS, V1, P35 Coates J., 1983, SEMANTICS MODAL AUXI Collins P, 2009, LANG COMPUT, V67, P1 Cruse Alan D., 2002, POLYSEMY THEORETICAL, P30 Declerck Renaat, 1991, COMPREHENSIVE DESCRI Depraetere Ilse, 2010, DISTINCTIONS ENGLISH, P72 Depraetere Ilse, 2012, ADV ENGLISH GRAMMAR Depraetere Ilse, 2006, HDB ENGLISH LINGUIST, P269, DOI 10.1002/9780470753002.ch12 Depraetere I, 2011, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V15, P1, DOI 10.1017/S1360674310000262 Depraetere I, 2008, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V12, P1, DOI 10.1017/S1360674307002481 Dunbar G, 2001, COGN LINGUIST, V12, P1, DOI 10.1515/cogl.12.1.1 Ehrman M. E., 1966, MEANINGS MODALS PRES Facchinetti R, 2002, LANG COMPUT, P229 Gardon Berbeira, 1996, VERBOS MODALES INGLE Gardon Berbeira, 1998, REV ALICANTINA ESTUD, V11, P3 Geeraerts Dirk, 1993, COGN LINGUIST, V4, P223, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223 GILLON BS, 1990, SYNTHESE, V85, P391, DOI 10.1007/BF00484835 Gisborne N., 2007, SKASE J THEORETICAL, V4, P44 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 GROEFSEMA M, 1992, LINGUA, V87, P103, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(92)90028-H GROEFSEMA M, 1995, J LINGUIST, V31, P53, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700000566 Huddleston Rodney, 2002, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Keck Casey Mari, 2004, ENGLISH MODALITY PER, P3 KLINGE A, 1993, J LINGUIST, V29, P315, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700000359 Kratzer A., 1991, SEMANTICS INT HDB CO, P639 Kratzer A, 1981, WORDS WORLDS CONTEXT, P38 LAKOFF G, 1970, LINGUIST INQ, V1, P357 Leech Geoffrey, 2009, CHANGE CONT ENGLISH Leech Geoffrey, 1979, STUDIES ENGLISH LING, P79 Leech Geoffrey, 2006, HDB ENGLISH LINGUIST, P318 Lyons J., 1977, SEMANTICS Nordlinger Rachel, 1997, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V1, P295 Nuyts Jan, 2001, EPISTEMIC MODALITY L Palmer F., 2001, MOOD MODALITY Palmer F. R, 1990, MODALITY ENGLISH MOD Papafragou A, 1998, LINGUA, V105, P1, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00029-6 Papafragou Anna, 2000, MODALITY SEMANTICS P Portner P, 2009, MODALITY Quine W. V. O., 1960, WORD OBJECT Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Ravin Yael, 2002, POLYSEMY THEORETICAL, P1 Recanati F, 2004, LITERAL MEANING RECANATI F., 2010, TRUTH CONDITIONAL PR Riemer N., 2010, INTRO SEMANTICS Riemer N, 2005, COGN LINGUIST RES, V30, P1 Salkie R, 2002, J LINGUIST, V38, P716 Salkie Raphael, 2014, MODES MODALITY MODAL, P319 Sperber Dan, 2012, RELEVANCE MEANING Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Stefanowitsch Anatol, 2003, METONYMY PRAGMATIC I, P105 Timotijevic Jelena, 2009, THESIS U BRIGHTON Timotijevic Jelena, 2008, STRUCTURES CULTURES, P85 Traugott EC, 2003, LANG SCI, V25, P657, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(03)00017-2 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1989, LANGUAGE, V57, P33, DOI DOI 10.2307/414841 TREGIDGO PS, 1982, LINGUA, V56, P75, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(82)90051-1 Tuggy D., 1993, COGN LINGUIST, V4, P273, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273 van der Auwera Johan, 1998, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V2, P79, DOI 10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79 Verhulst An, 2012, THESIS Verstraete JC, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1401, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.003 von Fintel K, 2006, ENCY PHILOS Walton Alan L., 1988, THESIS U LONDON LOND Westney Paul, 1995, MODALS PERIPHRASTICS Ziegeler D, 2006, LANG SCI, V28, P76, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2004.10.003 Zwicky A. M., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P1 NR 73 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 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 SEP PY 2014 VL 71 BP 160 EP 177 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.003 PG 18 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AS7LN UT WOS:000344437700012 ER PT J AU Arroyo, MD AF Diez Arroyo, Marisa TI 'Ageing youthfully' or the rhetoric of medical English in advertising SO IBERICA LA English DT Article DE medical English; cosmetics; web advertising; rhetoric; persuasion AB This study examines how cosmetics brands adopt characteristics of medical English in their web sites as a rhetorical strategy to persuade consumers. From the joint perspective of rhetoric, understood as persuasive stylistic choices, and a relevance-theoretic approach to pragmatics, the present paper explains how social assumptions about "ageing youthfully" are successfully strengthened in this type of advertising thanks to the alliance with medicine. This work explores various rhetorical devices, specified through both lexical and syntactic features. The analysis suggested here urges to reconsider research conclusions drawn on the use of science in advertising along truth-seeking premises, as well as previous classifications of this type of goods based on purely informative grounds. C1 Univ Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain. RP Arroyo, MD (reprint author), Univ Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain. EM arroyo@uniovi.es CR Aaker JL, 1997, J MARKETING RES, V34, P347, DOI 10.2307/3151897 Abernethy AM, 1996, J ADVERTISING, V25, P1 Adegoju A., 2008, LINGUISTIK ONLINE, V33, P3 Diez Arroyo M., 1998, RETORICA MENSAJE PUB Campanario J.M., 2001, ENSEN CIENC, V19, P45 Madrid Canovas S., 2005, SEMIOTICA DISCURSO P Mendez Cendon B., 2004, PANACE, V17-18, P229 Dolan Jill, 2011, PASADO PRESENTE FUTU, P1 Gotti M., 2006, ADV MED DISCOURSE AN Guthrie Michelle, 2008, Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, V12, P164, DOI 10.1108/13612020810874863 Haase C., 2007, TOPICS LINGUISTICS, V1, P45 Hughes Bill, 2000, BODY CULTURE SOC, P12 Janoschka Anja, 2004, WEB ADVERTISING Khan Uzma, 2005, INSIDE CONSUMPTION F, P144 LaTour KA, 2009, J ADVERTISING, V38, P127, DOI 10.2753/JOA0091-3367380309 Malhotra N., 1981, J MARKETING RES, V23, P456 Mauranen A., 1993, CULTURAL DIFFERENCES McConchie R. W., 1997, LEXICOGRAPHY PHYS RE McQuarrie E. F., 2008, GO FIGURE NEW DIRECT, P3 McQuarrie EF, 1996, J CONSUM RES, V22, P424, DOI 10.1086/209459 MUNGRA P, 2013, LBERICA, P39 Santamaria Perez I., 2011, ESPANOL ACTUAL, V95, P85 Perez-Llantada C., 2012, SCI DISCOURSE RHETOR Diaz Rojo J.A., 2001, CONTEXTOS, V37-40, P109 Salager-Meyer F., 2004, READING MED ENGLISH Schiappa E., 2007, COMPANION GREEK RHET, P3 Schmied J., 2008, TOPICS LINGUISTICS, V2, P12 Shmerling R., 2011, WHAT YOUR DOCTOR IS Sirgy M., 1982, J CONSUM RES, V17, P412 Wilson D, 2012, MEANING RELEVANCE, P1 Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Swinyard E., 1975, PHARMACOL BASIS THER, P1601 Tanaka K, 1999, ADVERTISING LANGUAGE Tulle- Winton E., 2000, BODY CULTURE SOC INT, P64 Wolf N., 1992, BEAUTY MYTH Xu Z., 2013, THEORY PRACTICE LANG, V3, P492 Zhao X., 2002, PERSUASION HDB DEV T, P495 NR 37 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 7 PU AELFE PI CASTELLO PA UNIV JAUME I, FAC CIENCIES HUMANAS & SOCIALS, DEPT ESTUDIS ANGLESOS, CAMPUS RIU SEC, S-N, CASTELLO, 12071, SPAIN SN 1139-7241 J9 IBERICA JI Iberica PD FAL PY 2014 IS 28 BP 83 EP 105 PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AS2TP UT WOS:000344132600005 ER PT J AU Kwon, I AF Kwon, Iksoo TI Categorization and its embodiment: Korean tautological constructions in mental spaces theory SO LANGUAGE SCIENCES LA English DT Article DE Nominal tautology; Korean; Categorization; Specificity; Mental spaces theory ID BOYS WILL; PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS AB Nominal tautological constructions have been the subject of much controversy with regard to whether the processes by which they are construed belong to the domain of semantics or the realm of pragmatics. Rather than discussing them within the all-or-nothing frames that radical semanticists and radical pragmaticists have created, this nonradical paper argues that the construal of nominal tautologies relies on two major cognitive abilities: the ability to discern whether a nominal expression refers to a specific entity or to a generic one in the given context, and the ability to assess the referent of a nominal with respect to its relation to its category and to bind it to a prototype relation, or a stereotype relation, or a peripheral relation, or to the category as a whole. I use Korean nominal tautologies as a case study to explore the functions of these critical abilities, and use mental-spaces theory to model the covert semantic bindings evoked by the constructions. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Kwon, Iksoo] Hankuk Univ Foreign Studies, Dept English Linguist, Seoul 130791, South Korea. RP Kwon, I (reprint author), 164-6 Poscourt,Gangnam Gu 101-1402, Seoul, South Korea. EM kwoniks@hufs.ac.kr CR Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Bulhof Johannes, 2001, PRAGMAT COGN, V9, P279, DOI 10.1075/pc.9.2.06bul Escandell-Vidal Victoria, 1990, 1990 INT C PRAGM SPA FARGHAL M, 1992, J PRAGMATICS, V17, P223, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90003-T Faucinnier Gilles, 1996, SPACES WORLDS GRAMMA Fauconnier G., 2002, WAY WE THINK CONCEPT Fauconnier G., 1997, MAPPINGS THOUGHT LAN Feldman Jerome, 2006, MOL METAPHOR FRASER B, 1988, J PRAGMATICS, V12, P215, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90080-X GIBBS RW, 1990, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V19, P125, DOI 10.1007/BF01068094 Gibbs Raymond W., 1994, POETICS MIND FIGURAT, P345 Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Lakoff George, 1987, WOMEN FIRE DANGEROUS Lee HS, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P243, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00066-6 Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS OKAMOTO S, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V20, P433, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90039-R Okamoto Shigeko, 1991, P 17 ANN M BERK LING, P218 ROSCH E, 1975, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V7, P532, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90021-3 WARD GL, 1991, J PRAGMATICS, V15, P507, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(91)90109-B WIERZBICKA A, 1987, LANGUAGE, V63, P95, DOI 10.2307/415385 WIERZBICKA A, 1988, J PRAGMATICS, V12, P221, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90081-1 NR 21 TC 0 Z9 0 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 SEP PY 2014 VL 45 BP 44 EP 55 DI 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.05.005 PG 12 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AP7IP UT WOS:000342251300003 ER PT J AU Park, K AF Park, KangHun TI A contrastive study of Japanese and Korean negative sensitive items: a grammaticalization approach SO LANGUAGE SCIENCES LA English DT Article DE Dialect contact; Synonymic collision; Degrammaticalization; Specialization; Postpositional particles AB Negative Sensitive Items (NSIs) in Japanese and Korean are words (or expressions) used only in negative contexts. Negative Sensitivity in Japanese and Korean, as in many other languages, is an intricate phenomenon which involves syntactic, semantic and even pragmatic dimensions. Recently there has been a growing interest in the nature of sika-nai (sika) 'only' in Japanese and pakkey-anhta (pakkey) 'only' in Korean whose meanings are similar to each other. In relation to this point, this paper treats another similar NSI, hoka-nai (hoka) 'only' in Japanese, which the previous relevant studies have comparatively neglected. What makes the NSIs in Japanese and Korean further intriguing as an object of inquiry are (i) their synchrony and diachrony, in particular their grammaticalization processes into the NSIs and (ii) their typological and areal linguistic properties. This paper has two goals. The first is to examine how sika/hoka in Japanese and pakkey in Korean are different. In addition, this paper explores how hoka is different from sika and pakkey. In fact, most previous studies treat sika and pakkey as the same expressions. So are sika and hoka. The second goal is to explain what makes the discrepancies between sika, hoka and pakkey. In other words, this study clarifies what theoretical issues bring about these discrepancies. In pursuit of those goals, this paper employs panchronic and cross-linguistic approaches. In particular, this study focuses on the grammaticalization processes into NSIs/postpositional particles of sika, hoka and pakkey. For this reason, this study is entirely different from the past ones, in that it explains the linguistic differences between sika, hoka and pakkey by the grammaticalization approach. Furthermore, this paper proposes innovative conclusions related to the NSIs in Japanese and Korean, which the previous studies have never pointed out. Additionally, this study holds that the framework of grammaticzalization can be another good approach which carries out a cross-linguistic study for examining the nature of the NSIs Japanese and Korean. Focusing on some theoretical issues such as dialect contact, synonymic collision, unidirectionality, decategorization, metaphor, specialization, degrammaticalization and frequency, this paper argues that the NSIs in Japanese and Korean show differences in the patterns of grammaticalization processes into NSIs/postpositional particles. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Jeonju Univ, Dept Japanese Language & Culture, Jeonju 560759, South Korea. RP Park, K (reprint author), Jeonju Univ, Dept Japanese Language & Culture, 303 Cheonjam Ro, Jeonju 560759, South Korea. EM hun0531@naver.com CR Aoyagi H., 1994, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, P295 Bak S.Y., 1997, ENE, V22-1, P57 BYBEE J., 2003, HDB HIST LINGUISTICS, P602, DOI 10.1002/9780470756393.ch19 Bybee Joan, 2001, PHONOLOGY AND LANGUA Pagliuca W., 1994, THE EVOLUTION OF GRA CLAUDI U, 1986, STUD LANG, V10, P297, DOI 10.1075/sl.10.2.03cla Dauzat A., 1922, LA GEOGRAPHIE LINGUI Eguchi T., 2000, AIRIKENRITU DAIGAKU, V32, P291 FLEISCHMAN S, 1989, STUD LANG, V13, P1, DOI 10.1075/sl.13.1.02fle Fukushima C., 2008, DIALECTOLOGIA, V1, P135 Han C.H., 1996, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1, P177 Hasegawa A., 2011, THE PROCEEDINGS OF T, P81 Heine Bernd, 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, V1, P149, DOI 10.1075/tsl.19.1.09hei Heine Bernd, 1991, GRAMMATICALIZATION A Heo J.Y., 2002, PWUCENGMWUNUY TONGSI Hoeksema J., 1996, QUANTIFIERS LOGIC LA, P145 Hong S. M., 2002, HANILE TAYCOPWUNSEK Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Hopper Paul J., 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, V1, P17 Iwata R., 2010, DIALECTOLOGIA, P97 Kataoka K., 2011, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1, P170 Kataoka K., 2006, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V14, P221 Kato Y., 1985, SOPHIA LINGUISTICA 1, V19 Kim A. H.-O., 1997, HARVARD STUDIES IN K, V6, P323 Kim A. H.-O., 2001, COGNITIVE FUNCTIONAL, P207 Kim Y. H., 1998, HANGUL, V240-241, P263 Kinsui S., 2003, VATYARU NIHONGO YAKU Konomi K., 2000, SYNTACTIC AND FUNCTI, P51 Konosima M., 1966, KOKUGOJOSI NO KENKYI Kuno S., 1999, HARVARD STUDIES IN K, V8, P436 Kuno S., 1999, HARVARD WORKING PAPE, V7, P144 Kuno S., 2004, KUNO IN KOREAN LINGU, P207 Lakoff G, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Lee C. M., 2002, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, P481 LINEBARGER MC, 1987, LINGUIST PHILOS, V10, P325, DOI 10.1007/BF00584131 Martin Samuel E., 1975, REFERENCE GRAMMAR JA Miyachi A., 2007, NIHONGOZYOSI SIKA NI Miyagawa S., 1989, STRUCTURE AND CASE M NAM SEUNGHO, 1994, DYNAMICS POLARITY QU, P3 Nishioka N., 2000, SYNTACTIC AND FUNCTI, P159 Obata M., 2012, PAPER PRESENTED AT T Oda M., 2008, NIHONGOSI YOKO Park K. H., JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V22 Park K. H., 2012, PAPER PRESENTED AT T Rhee S. H., 2004, J LING SCI, V31, P169 Sells P., 2001, LINGUISTICS, V9, P3 Shi C. K., 1997, KWUEHAK, V30, P171 Sweetser E., 1982, BERKELEY LINGUISTIC, V8, P484 Sweetser E., 1987, BLS, V13, P446 Teshigawara M., 2011, SOCIOLINGUIST STUD, V5, P37 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2003, MOTIVES LANGUAGE CHA, P124, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 von Fintel Kai, 1993, NAT LANG SEMANT, V1, P123 Watanabe A., 2009, SESEBUNPO Yamada Y., 1922, NIHONGO KOGOHO KOGI Yamaguchi G., 1991, GOGENKENKYU, V3, P34 NR 55 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 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 2014 VL 45 BP 152 EP 172 DI 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.020 PG 21 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AP7IP UT WOS:000342251300009 ER PT J AU Cap, P AF Cap, Piotr TI Applying cognitive pragmatics to Critical Discourse Studies: A proximization analysis of three public space discourses SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Critical Discourse Studies (CDS); Cognitive pragmatics; Proximization theory; Public space discourses; Policy legitimization AB The goal of this paper is to show how proximization theory, a recent cognitive-pragmatic model of crisis and threat construction, can be applied in Critical Discourse Studies (CDS). It is argued that the rapidly growing, intergeneric field of CDS is in need of new, interdisciplinary methodologies that will allow it to account for an increasingly broader spectrum of discourses, genres and thematic domains. Thus, proximization theory is used as a candidate methodological tool to handle three sample discourses health, environment, modern technology with a view to further applications. The results seem promising: the theory elucidates well the key features of public discourses within the CDS scope, especially the legitimization patterns in policy communication. The analysis of the three discourses demonstrates a consistent reliance of policy legitimization on discursively construed framework of fear and threat, both material and ideological. Equally promising are the prospects for proximization theory itself to continue to draw empirically from the expanding CDS territory. The most fruitful seem those of CDS domains whose discourses (ranging from war discourse to cancer treatment discourse) force a direct and growing conflict between symbolically demarcated "home" and "external" entities, thus sanctioning urgent preventive actions against the latter. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Lodz, Dept Pragmat, PL-90131 Lodz, Poland. RP Cap, P (reprint author), Univ Lodz, Dept Pragmat, PL-90131 Lodz, Poland. EM strus_pl@yahoo.com CR Bacevich Andrew, 2010, WASHINGTON RULES AM Baldwin David A., 1987, REV INT STUD, V23, P5 Bednarek M, 2006, TEXT TALK, V26, P635, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2006.027 Bell A., 1991, LANGUAGE NEWS MEDIA Bell A., 1998, APPROACHES MEDIA DIS Berglez Peter, 2010, C COMM CLIM CHANG 2 Boykoff MT, 2008, POLIT GEOGR, V27, P549, DOI 10.1016/j.polgeo.2008.05.002 Cap P., 2006, LEGITIMIZATION POLIT Cap Piotr, 2013, PROXIMIZATION PRAGMA Cap P, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P392, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.008 Cap P, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P17, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.002 [Anonymous], 2005, NEW AGENDA CRITICAL Chilton P., 2004, ANAL POLITICAL DISCO Chilton P., 2010, LANGUAGE COGNITION S, P640 Chilton P., 2005, ANN REV COGNITIVE LI, V3, P78, DOI 10.1075/arcl.3.06chi Chilton P, 2011, DISCOURSE STUD, V13, P769 Chovanec J., 2010, PERSPECTIVES POLITIC, P61 Cienki Alan, 2010, RAAM 8 C VRIJ U AMST Dewey John, 1939, THEORY VALUATION Dirven Rene, 2007, OXFORD HDB COGNITIVE, P1222 Druckman JN, 2001, POLIT BEHAV, V23, P225, DOI 10.1023/A:1015006907312 Dunmire P, 2011, PROJECTING FUTURE PO ENSINK T, 2003, FRAMING PERSPECTIVIS Fairclough Norman, 1995, MEDIA DISCOURSE Fauconnier G., 2002, WAY WE THINK CONCEPT Fowler R., 1991, LANGUAGE NEWS DISCOU Gavins J, 2007, TEXT WORLD THEORY IN Van Rijn-van Tongeren Geraldine, 1997, METAPHORS MED TEXTS Goffman E., 1974, FRAME ANAL ESSAY ORG Graham Stephen, 2004, C URB VULN NETW FAIL Grice P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P41 Hart C, 2010, CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE: NEW PERSPECTIVES ON IMMIGRATION DISCOURSE, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230299009 Hartman R., 2002, KNOWLEDGE GOOD CRITI Herman David, 2003, NARRATIVE THEORY COG Heywood A., 2007, POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES Huntington S. P., 2004, WHO ARE WE CHALLENGE Jowett G. S., 1992, PROPAGANDA PERSUASIO [Anonymous], 2003, WAR IRAQ SADDAMS TYR Keyes Cassandra, 2005, DEFINING JUST PREEMP Koller V, 2008, ROUTL STUD LINGUIST, V9, P1 Krzyzanowski M, 2009, JOURNALISM STUD, V10, P18, DOI 10.1080/14616700802560468 Lakoff G, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Leveli W. J., 1989, SPEAKING INTENTION A Levinson S. C., 2003, SPACE LANGUAGE COGNI Levinson Stephen, 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P97 Litosseliti Lia, 2002, GENDER IDENTITY DISC Filardo Llamas Laura, 2010, POLITICAL DISCOURSE, P62 Martin J, 2003, RE READING CRITICAL Montgomery Martin, 2007, DISCOURSE BROADCAST Morrish L, 2007, NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND SEXUAL IDENTITY, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230599406 Okulska U., 2010, PERSPECTIVES POLITIC Reese S. D., 2001, FRAMING PUBLIC LIFE Reisigl M., 2001, DISCOURSE DISCRIMINA Richardson John E, 2007, ANAL NEWSPAPERS APPR Sandig Barbara, 1996, Z LITERATURWISSENSCH, V102, P36 Sandywell B., 2006, INFORM COMMUNICATION, V9, P39, DOI 10.1080/13691180500519407 Searle J., 2010, MAKING SOCIAL WORLD Semino E, 2008, METAPHOR IN DISCOURSE, P1 Silberstein Sandra, 2004, WAR WORDS Simpson Paul, 1993, IDEOLOGY POINT VIEW Sontag S., 1978, ILLNESS METAPHOR VanDijk TA, 2005, DIS APPL POL SOC CUL, V14, P1 Van Dijk Teun A., 1987, COMMUNICATING RACISM van Eemeren F, 2004, SYSTEMATIC THEORY AR Verhagen Arie, 2007, OXFORD HDB COGNITIVE, P48 Verton D., 2003, BLACK ICE INVISIBLE Werth P., 1999, TEXT WORLDS REPRESEN Wieczorek Anna E., 2013, CLUSIVITY NEW APPROA Wilson J., 1990, POLITICALLY SPEAKING Wodak R, 2012, CRITICAL DISCOURSE A Wodak Ruth, 1999, DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCT Wodak Ruth, 1996, DISORDERS DISCOURSE NR 72 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 4 U2 16 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 2014 VL 70 BP 16 EP 30 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.008 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AO9LG UT WOS:000341676600002 ER PT J AU Hirsch, G Blum-Kulka, S AF Hirsch, Galia Blum-Kulka, Shoshana TI Identifying irony in news interviews SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Media; Political news interviews; Detection of irony ID POLITICAL INTERVIEWS; PRETENSE THEORY; CONVERSATION; DISCOURSE; TRANSLATION; JOURNALISM; IDENTITIES; NEGATION; MODEL; HUMOR AB This contribution investigates the detection of irony in Israeli political news interviews exploring the viewers' perception of the interaction. Our aim was to discover whether viewers tend to detect irony employed by interviewers and directed toward interviewees and whether they believe the latter have interpreted it. Our approach to the analysis and interpretation of irony builds on two conceptual paradigms: media studies and pragmatic studies of irony, focusing on the audience's sensitivity to keying as a possible aid to the role it plays in its identification. For this purpose, an experiment was conducted in which sixty Israeli students were presented with three interviews, selected through a method devised for the purpose of this article, relying on the assumption that an interview that employs irony will lead to contradictory and inconsistent feedbacks from viewers. The findings indicate that as a whole, audiences tend to detect irony in political interviews and to attribute irony detection to the interviewees unless they lack the relevant contextual knowledge. However, the identification of irony depends on the audiences' interpretation of the specific keying assigned to the discursive turns in question. It may be suggested that the influential factor for irony identification is assigning a non-serious keying to the situation. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Hirsch, Galia] Bar Ilan Univ, Dept Translat & Interpreting Studies, IL-52900 Ramat Gan, Israel. [Blum-Kulka, Shoshana] Hebrew Univ Jerusalem, Dept Commun & Journalism, Sch Educ, IL-91905 Jerusalem, Israel. RP Hirsch, G (reprint author), 3817 Magnolia Dr, Palo Alto, CA 94306 USA. EM galiahirsch@gmail.com CR Salvatore Allard, 2000, J PRAGMAT, V32, P793 Salvatore Allard, 1997, HUMOR, V10, P395 Bavelas J., 1990, EQUIVOCAL COMMUNICAT Blum-Kulka S., 2003, MISUNDERSTANDING SOC, P107 Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 2002, SCRIPT, V3, P75 Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 1983, TEXT, V3, P131, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1983.3.2.131 Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 2004, PAPER PRESENTED AT T Blum-Kulka S., 2003, LAMED LE ILASH Blum-Kulka Shoshana, 2005, SOCIOLINGUISTICS NAR, P149, DOI 10.1075/sin.6.08blu Bull P, 1996, BRIT J SOC PSYCHOL, V35, P267 CLARK HH, 1984, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V113, P121, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 Clayman S., 2002, THE NEWS INTERVIEW J Clayman SE, 2002, J COMMUN, V52, P749, DOI 10.1093/joc/52.4.749 Clift R, 1999, LANG SOC, V28, P523 Colston HL, 2000, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V19, P46, DOI 10.1177/0261927X00019001003 Colston HL, 1997, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V23, P25 Colston H. L., 2000, PRAGMAT COGN, V8, P277, DOI DOI 10.1075/PC.8.2.02C0L Curco C, 2000, LINGUA, V110, P257, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00041-8 Dascal M., 1987, PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIV, P31, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBCS.5.08DAS DEWS S, 1995, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V19, P347 Eriksson G, 2011, JOURNALISM, V12, P51, DOI 10.1177/1464884910367588 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 Fetzer A, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P180, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.017 Garmendia J, 2010, PRAGMAT COGN, V18, P397, DOI 10.1075/pc.18.2.07gar GIBBS RW, 1984, COGNITIVE SCI, V8, P275, DOI 10.1207/s15516709cog0803_4 GIBBS RW, 1986, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V115, P3, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.3 GIORA R, 1995, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V19, P239 GLASS TL, 1993, CRIT STUD MASS COMM, V10, P322 Goffman E, 1981, FORMS TALK Goffman Erving, 1974, FRAME ANALYSIS Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Paul Grice Herbert, 1978, J PRAGMAT, P113 van Dijk T. A., 1985, HDB DISCOURSE ANAL, V3, P95 Hirsch G, 2011, LANG SCI, V33, P316, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.11.002 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 Ian Hutchby, 1992, TEXT, V12, P343, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1992.12.3.343 Hutchby I, 2011, DISCOURSE STUD, V13, P349, DOI 10.1177/1461445611400665 Hymes Dell, 1989, DIRECTIONS IN SOCIOL, P35 JEFFERS J, 1995, J NARRATIVE TECH, V25, P47 Kampf Z, 2011, DIS APPL POL SOC CUL, V42, P177 Kampf Z, 2013, JOURNALISM, V14, P522, DOI 10.1177/1464884912448902 Kotthoff H, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1387, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00182-0 KUMONNAKAMURA S, 1995, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V124, P3, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.3 Lauerbach G, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P196, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.015 Zohar Livnat, 2013, THE PRAGMATICS OF PO, P192 MATEO M, 1995, META, V40, P171 Martin Montgomery, 2007, THE DISCOURSE OF BRO NORRICK NR, 1994, J PRAGMATICS, V22, P409, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90117-1 Raskin Victor, 1985, SEMANTIC MECHANISMS Reich Zvi, 2011, USER COMMENTS THE TR Patrick Scannell, 1991, INTRODUCTION THE REL Scannell P., 1998, APPROACHES MEDIA DIS, P251 Sperber Dan, 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P295 Joanna Thomborrow, 2010, DISCOURSE COMMUN, V4, P105 Tolson A, 2006, MEDIA TALK: SPOKEN DISCOURSE ON TV AND RADIO, P1 Vaisman C. L., 2011, HEBREW ONLINE WEIZMAN E, 1991, J LITERARY SEMANTICS, V20, P18, DOI 10.1515/jlse.1991.20.1.18 Elda Weizman, 2012, PROCEEDINGS OF THE E Weizman E, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P154, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.018 Weizman E, 2001, AMST STUD THEORY HIS, V214, P125 Elda Weizman, 2008, POSITIONING IN MEDIA WILSON D, 1992, LINGUA, V87, P53, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(92)90025-E Winner E., 1988, THE POINT OF WORDS NR 65 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 0 U2 17 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 2014 VL 70 BP 31 EP 51 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.002 PG 21 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AO9LG UT WOS:000341676600003 ER PT J AU Diaz-Perez, FJ AF Javier Diaz-Perez, Francisco TI Relevance Theory and translation: Translating puns in Spanish film titles into English SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Relevance Theory; Translation; Puns; Film titles; Spanish; English ID HUMOR AB The present paper aims to analyse the translation of puns from a Relevance-Theory perspective. Relevance Theory is a cognitive-pragmatic approach to communication proposed by Sperber and Wilson in the mid-1980s (Sperber and Wilson, 1986). According to such theoretical framework, the relation between a translation and its source text is considered to be based on interpretive resemblance, rather than on equivalence (see Gutt, 1998, 2000). The translator would try to seek optimal relevance, in such a way that s/he would use different strategies to try to recreate the cognitive effects intended by the source communicator with the lowest possible processing effort on the part of the target addressee. The analysis carried out in this study is based on one hundred and ninety titles of Spanish and Latin American film titles containing puns and their translations for the Anglo-Saxon or international market. The strategies used by the translators to render puns in the translated titles have been analysed. The selection of strategy is determined, among other factors, by the principle of relevance. In those cases in which there is a coincidence in the relation between the levels of signifier and signified across source and target language, translators normally opt to translate literally and reproduce a pun based on the same linguistic phenomenon as the source pun and semantically equivalent to it. In the rest of the cases, the translator will have to assess what is more relevant, either content or the effect produced by the pun. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Jaen, Dept English Studies, Jaen 23071, Spain. RP Diaz-Perez, FJ (reprint author), Univ Jaen, Dept English Studies, Campus Las Lagunillas S-N, Jaen 23071, Spain. EM fjdiaz@ujaen.es OI Diaz Perez, Francisco Javier/0000-0001-6772-0852 CR Adamczyk M, 2011, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V210, P105 Alves Fabio, 2010, HDB TRANSLATION STUD, V1, P279 Alves F., 2007, TRANSLATION STUDIES, P41, DOI DOI 10.1075/BTL.72.07ALV Alves Fabio, 2003, TRIANGULATING TRANSL, P3, DOI DOI 10.1075/BTL.45.04ALV Asimakoulas D, 2004, META, V49, P822 Attardo Salvatore, 2011, DISCURSIVE PRAGMATIC, P167 Attardo S., 1994, LINGUISTIC THEORIES Baker M, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P321, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.010 Bentley Bernard P. E., 2008, COMPANION SPANISH CI Blake BJ, 2007, PLAYING WITH WORDS: HUMOUR IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, P1 Blakemore D, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V60, P106, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.003 BORAU Jose Luis, 1998, DICCIONARIO CINE ESP Carston R, 2002, MIND LANG, V17, P127, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00192 Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Davies MG, 2005, META, V50, P160 Gonzalez Davies M., 2004, MULTIPLE VOICES TRAN Delabastita Dirk, 1994, TARGET, V6, P223, DOI 10.1075/target.6.2.07del Delabastita D., 1993, THERES DOUBLE TONGUE Diaz-Cintas Jorge, 2007, AUDIOVISUAL TRANSLAT Diaz-Cintas Jorge, 2003, TEORIA PRACTICA SUBT Diaz-Perez Francisco Javier, 1999, TRANSLATION RELOCATI, P357 DIAZ-PEREZ Francisco Javier, 2010, MULTICULTURAL SHAKES, V7, P21 Diaz-Perez Francisco Javier, 1999, ANOVAR ANOSAR ESTUDI DIAZ-PEREZ Francisco Javier, 2008, BABEL, V54, P36 DYNEL Marta, 2010, RELEVANCE STUDIES PO, V3, P105 Dynel Marta, 2010, PERSPECTIVES AUDIOVI, P189 Gutt Ernst-August, 2004, TAG LICTRA, P77 Gutt Ernst-August, 2000, TRANSLATION RELEVANC Gutt Ernst-August, 1990, TARGET, V2, P135, DOI 10.1075/target.2.2.02gut Gutt E. A., 1998, PRAGMATICS TRANSLATI, P41 Gutt E. A., 1991, TRANSLATION RELEVANC Gutt EA, 2005, TRANSLATOR, V11, P25 Hatim B., 1990, DISCOURSE TRANSLATOR Hatim B., 1997, TRANSLATOR COMMUNICA Haywood Louise M., 2009, THINKING SPANISH TRA Higashimori Isac, 2011, LACUS FORUM 36 MECH, P139 Jakobson Roman, 1959, TRANSLATION STUDIES, P126 Jaskanen Susanna, 1999, THESIS U HELSINKI Jing He, 2010, J SPECIAL TRANSL, V13, P81 Kosinska Katarzyna, 2005, REIEVANCE STUDIES PO, V2, P75 KUSSMAUL P, 1995, TRAINING TRANSLATOR Labanyi Jo, 2012, COMPANION SPANISH CI LEVY Jiri, 1969, LIT UBERSETZUNG THEO MARCO Josep, 2004, QUADERNS REV TRADUCC, V11, P129 MARCO Josep, 2007, TARGET, V19, P255 Marco J, 2010, TARGET-NETH, V22, P264, DOI 10.1075/target.22.2.05mar Martinez-Sierra J. J., 2008, HUMOR TRADUCCION SIM Martinez-Sierra Juan Jose, 2010, CAMINOS LENGUA ESTUD, P189 Nord C., 1997, TEXT TYPOLOGY TRANSL, P43 NORD Christiane, 1995, TARGET, V7, P261, DOI DOI 10.1075/TARGET.7.2.05N0R Nord C., 1991, TEXT ANAL TRANSLATIO Nord Christiane, 1997, TRANSLATING PURPOSEF Ritchie Graeme, 2004, LINGUISTIC ANAL JOKE Sanderson JD, 2009, TOP TRANSL, P123 Seewoester S, 2011, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V210, P71 Rosales Sequeiros X., 2005, EFFECTS PRAGMATIC IN Sequeiros XR, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1069 Solska Agnieszka, 2012, RELEVANCE THEORY MOR, P167 Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT TANAKA K, 1992, LINGUA, V87, P91, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(92)90027-G Tanaka Keiko, 1994, ADVERTISING LANGUAGE Toury G., 1995, DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLAT van Mulken M, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P707, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.008 Lawrence Venuti, 1995, TRANSLATORS INVISIBI Wilson D., 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P607 Wilson D., 2007, PRAGMATICS, V1, P230 Wilson D., 2012, MEANING RELEVANCE, P230 Wilson D, 2006, MIND LANG, V21, P404, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x Yus Francisco, 2012, RELEVANCE THEORY MOR, P117 YUS Francisco, 2008, LODZ PAPERS PRAGMATI, V4, P131, DOI DOI 10.2478/V10016-008-0004-4 Yus F, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1295, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00179-0 Zabalbeascoa P., 2004, CLAIMS CHANGES CHALL, P99 ZABALBEASCOA P, 2005, HUMOR, V18, P185 ZHONGGANG S., 2006, J TRANSL, V2, P43 NR 75 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 3 U2 27 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 2014 VL 70 BP 108 EP 129 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.007 PG 22 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AO9LG UT WOS:000341676600007 ER PT J AU Li, S Taguchi, N AF Li, Shuai Taguchi, Naoko TI The Effects of Practice Modality on Pragmatic Development in L2 Chinese SO MODERN LANGUAGE JOURNAL LA English DT Article DE interlanguage pragmatics; L2 instruction; Chinese; requests; speech acts; input-based and output-based practice ID PROCESSING INSTRUCTION; LEARNERS; 2ND-LANGUAGE; ACQUISITION; COMPREHENSION; LANGUAGE; ENGLISH; PROFICIENCY; OUTPUT; TASKS AB This study investigated the effects of input-based and output-based practice on the development of accuracy and speed in recognizing and producing request-making forms in L2 Chinese. Fifty American learners of Chinese with intermediate level proficiency were randomly assigned to an input-based training group, an output-based training group, or a control group. The input and output groups practiced the target forms over four consecutive days. The control group did not practice the forms. The effects of practice were measured by a Listening Judgment Test (LJT) and an Oral Discourse Completion Test (ODCT). The results showed that the effects of input-based and output-based practice were shared across task modalities on measures of performance accuracy (i.e., accuracy in the LJT and ODCT) but not on measures of performance speed (i.e., LJT response times, ODCT planning times, and speech rates). C1 [Li, Shuai] Georgia State Univ, Dept Modern & Class Languages, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA. [Taguchi, Naoko] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Dept Modern Languages, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA. RP Li, S (reprint author), Georgia State Univ, Dept Modern & Class Languages, 38 Peachtree Ctr Ave, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA. EM sli12@gsu.edu; taguchi@andrew.cmu.edu CR Alcon-Soler E, 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P417, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.005 Anderson J. R., 1993, RULES MIND Bialystok Ellen, 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P43 Billmyer K., 1990, PENN WORKING PAPERS, V6, P31 Byun J., 2009, LINGUISTICS ASS KORE, V17, P57 DeKeyser R., 2001, COGNITION 2 LANGUAGE, P125 DeKeyser R. M., 1997, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V19, P195, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263197002040 DeKeyser R., 2007, THEORIES 2 LANGUAGE, P94 DeKeyser R. M., 2009, HDB 2 LANGUAGE TEACH, P119, DOI 10.1002/9781444315783.ch8 DeKeyser RM, 1996, TESOL QUART, V30, P349, DOI 10.2307/3588151 DeKeyser RM, 1996, LANG LEARN, V46, P613, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01354.x DeKeyser RM, 2007, CAM APPL L, P1 DeKeyser RM, 2007, CAM APPL L, P287 Erlam R., 2003, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V25, P559, DOI DOI 10.1017/S027226310300024X Eslami ZR, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P178 Eslami-Rasekh Z., 2004, TESL EJ, V8, P1 FAERCH C, 1984, APPL LINGUIST, V5, P214, DOI 10.1093/applin/5.3.214 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2008, ISSUES APPL LINGUIST, V16, P49 Ghobadi A, 2009, SYSTEM, V37, P526, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2009.02.010 House Juliane, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P225, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014893 HSK Center of BLCU, 2009, C TEST COLL AUTH TES Jeon EH, 2006, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V13, P165 Kasper G, 2001, APPL LINGUIST, V22, P502, DOI 10.1093/applin/22.4.502 Kasper G, 2005, HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH IN SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING, P317 Koike D. A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P481, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.008 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Li S, 2012, LANG LEARN, V62, P403, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00629.x Martinez-Flor A, 2007, CANADIAN J APPL LING, V10, P47 Martinez-Flor A., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P463, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.007 Morgan-Short K, 2006, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V28, P31, DOI 10.1017/S0272263106060025 Pham M. Y., 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P416 Pearson L, 2006, MOD LANG J, V90, P473, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00427.x Qin JJ, 2008, LANG TEACH RES, V12, P61, DOI 10.1177/1362168807084494 Rose Kenneth R., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P145 Rose K. R., 2005, SYSTEM, V33, P385, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2005.06.003 Schmidt R., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P43 Schmidt R., 2001, COGNITION 2 LANGUAGE, P3, DOI DOI 10.1017/CB09781139524780.003 Schmidt R., 1986, TALKING LEARN CONVER, P237 SCHMIDT RW, 1990, APPL LINGUIST, V11, P129, DOI 10.1093/applin/11.2.129 Shintani N, 2011, LANG TEACH RES, V15, P137, DOI 10.1177/1362168810388692 Swain M., 1985, INPUT 2 LANGUAGE ACQ, P235 Swain M., 1995, PRINCIPLE PRACTICE A, P125 Taguchi N., 2012, CONTEXT INDIVIDUAL D Taguchi N, 2005, MOD LANG J, V89, P543, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00329.x Taguchi N, 2007, TESOL QUART, V41, P313 Taguchi N, 2008, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V30, P423, DOI 10.1017/S0272263108080716 Taguchi N, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P113, DOI 10.1093/applin/aml051 Takahashi S., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P171 Takahashi S., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7, P391 Takahashi S, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P127 Takimoto M, 2006, SYSTEM, V34, P601, DOI 10.1016/j.system.2006.09.003 Takimoto M, 2009, APPL LINGUIST, V30, P1, DOI 10.1093/applin/amm049 Takimoto M, 2012, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V9, P71, DOI 10.1515/ip-2012-0004 Takimoto M, 2008, MOD LANG J, V92, P369, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00752.x Takimoto M, 2006, LANG TEACH RES, V10, P393, DOI 10.1191/1362168806Ir198oa Tateyama Y., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P200 THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Toth PD, 2006, LANG LEARN, V56, P319, DOI 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00349.x NR 58 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 11 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0026-7902 EI 1540-4781 J9 MOD LANG J JI Mod. Lang. J. PD FAL PY 2014 VL 98 IS 3 BP 794 EP 812 DI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12123.x PG 19 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA AP1HR UT WOS:000341819600007 ER PT J AU Beninca, P AF Beninca, Paola TI "Subject" clitics and particles in Provencal SO PROBUS LA English DT Article DE clitics; particles; complementisers; pro-drop; pragmatic functions; 'speaker' features AB Several Occitan dialects spoken in Western Piedmont exhibit no 1sg subject clitic form (a situation widely attested in Northern Italian dialects), although interrogative clauses with a 1sg subject feature an enclitic particle ke, identical to the complementiser. Many attempts have been made to interpret this ke as a reflex of Lat. E(G) O 'I' or originating from the reanalysis of the analogical -k displayed by verbs such as dik 'I say'. Rather, I claim that ke is what it seems, namely the complementiser, and entertain the hypothesis that in these varieties the complementiser ended up satisfying EPP-like features. To support this analysis, I examine data from a wider area including Provencal, Gascon and Ibero-Romance dialects in which the complementiser is used as a proclitic particle in assertive clauses (Etxepare 2010 a.o.). On the theoretical side, I submit the hypothesis that the peculiar behaviour of the complementiser ke in that area has to do with the checking of a 'speaker' feature in the left periphery of the clause. C1 Univ Padua, Dept Linguist & Literary Studies, I-35100 Padua, Italy. RP Beninca, P (reprint author), Univ Padua, Dept Linguist & Literary Studies, I-35100 Padua, Italy. EM paola.beninca@unipd.it CR Adami Ilaria, 2008, LADINOMETRIA FESTSCH, VI, P47 Edmont Edmond, 1902, ATL LING FRANC Bec Pierre, 1963, LANGUE OCCITANE Bec Pierre, 1973, MANUEL PRATIQUE DOCC Beninca P., 1995, CLAUSE STRUCTURE LAN, P325 BENINCA P, 1999, BOUNDARIES MORPHOLOG, V180, P11 Beninca P., 1986, RAETIA ANTIQUA MODER, P457 Beninca Paola, 2005, OXFORD HDB COMP SYNT, P221 Beninca P, 1993, OMAGGIO GIANFRANCO F, P2313 Beninca Paola, 2014, INTRO LINGUISTICA MO, P65 Beninca Paola, 1994, PATHS UNIVERSAL GRAM, P35 Beninca Paola, 2006, NEGATION TENSE CLAUS, P53 Burzio L., 1986, ITALIAN SYNTAX GOVT Repetti Lori, 2004, VENICE WORKING PAPER, V14, P7 Cardinaletti Anna, 2010, SYNTACTIC VARIATION, P119 Cerutti Massimo, 2007, DIALECTOL GEOLINGUIS, V15, P23 Cinque G., 1999, ADVERBS FUNCTIONAL H Cognola F, 2013, LING AKT, V201, P1 Damonte Federico, 2010, MAPPING LEFT PERIPHE, V5, P228 Demonte Violeta, 2013, 43 LING S ROM LANG C Etxepare Ricardo, INT J BASQU IN PRESS Etxepare R, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P604, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.009 Gartner Th., 1883, RATOROMANISCHE GRAMM Garzonio Jacopo, 2012, STUDI DIALETTI PIEMO Genre Arturo, 1997, DIZIONARIO DIALETTO, VXXIX-LXXV Genre Arturo, 2007, OCCITANO ALTA PELLIC Giorgi A., 2010, SPEAKER SYNTAX INDEX Giupponi Elena, 1988, THESIS U VIENNA LAUR Hyman John, 1992, RHAETO ROMANCE LANGU Kamprath Christine, 1986, THESIS U TEXAS AUSTI Kayne R. S., 1972, GENERATIVE STUDIES R, P70 Kayne Richard, 2010, COMP CONTRASTS, P190 Kayne Richard S., 1975, FRENCH SYNTAX Lafont Robert, 1967, PHRASE OCCITANE ESSA Lafont Robert, 1991, LEXIKON ROMANISTISCH, V5, P1 Ledgeway A, 2005, T PHILOL SOC, V103, P339, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-968X.2005.00157.x Marantz Alec, 1984, NATURE GRAMMATICAL R Marcus Nicole E., 2010, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Martinet A., 1949, TRAVAUX CERCLE LINGU, V5, P30 Meyer-Lubke Wilhelm, 1900, GRAMMAIRE LANGUES RO OBENAUER HG, 2004, SYNTAX SEMANTICS LEF, V9, P343 Paoli Sandra, 2009, RIVISTA ITALIANA DIA, V33, P59 Paoli S, 2014, J LINGUIST, V50, P143, DOI 10.1017/S0022226713000273 Poletto C., 2000, HIGHER FUNCTIONAL FI Poletto Cecilia, 1993, ITALIA SETTENTRIONAL, P145 Prosdocimi Aldo Luigi, 2000, PREISTORIA ITALIANO, P93 Gasca Queirazza Giuliano, 1966, DOCUMENTI ANTICO VOL Regis Riccardo, 2006, LINGUE IDIOMI ITALIA, V1, P55 Renzi Lorenzo, 1983, DIALETTI ITALIANI SE RIZZI L., 1997, HDB GENERATIVE SYNTA, P281 Rizzi L., 1986, STUDIES ROMANCE LING, P391 Rizzi Luigi, 2001, CURRENT STUDIES ITAL, P286 Roberts I, 1993, SYNTACTIC THEORY DIA, P319 Rohlfs Gerhard, 1970, GASCON ETUDES PHILOL Ronjat Jules, 1937, GRAMMAIRE ISTORIQUE, VIII Savoia Leonardo M., 2010, SYNTACTIC VARIATION, P102 Sibille J, 2012, REV LINGUIST ROMAN, V76, P401 Sportiche Dominique, 2008, INWARD BOUND SPLITTI Tortora Christina, 2014, COMMUNICATION 0620 Vanelli Laura, 1985, ACTES 17 C INT LINGU, V3, P163 Willis David, 1998, SYNTACTIC CHANGE WEL Zorner Lotte, 2008, DIALETTI OCCITANI AL Gillieron J., 1887, REV PATOIS GALLO ROM NR 63 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0921-4771 EI 1613-4079 J9 PROBUS JI Probus PD SEP PY 2014 VL 26 IS 2 SI SI BP 183 EP 215 DI 10.1515/probus-2014-0007 PG 33 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AO8XH UT WOS:000341638600002 ER PT J AU Goodwin, DM Peerbhoy, D Murphy, R Stratton, G AF Goodwin, Denise May Peerbhoy, Denise Murphy, Rebecca Stratton, Gareth TI From design to interpretation: Lessons from a public health campaign promoting physical activity SO HEALTH EDUCATION JOURNAL LA English DT Article DE Behaviour change; formative evaluation; health promotion; obesity; physical activity ID MASS-MEDIA CAMPAIGNS AB Objective: Rising inactivity has led to an increase in health promotion campaigns aimed at encouraging healthy behaviour change. While this has become common place, often practices advised by social marketing to maximise effectiveness are overlooked. This study investigates the development and effectiveness of one particular physical activity public health campaign implemented in Liverpool, United Kingdom (UK). A formative evaluation feedback session was included to communicate findings back to key stakeholders to reflect on the experience and identify learning points for future campaigns. Design: Based on a pragmatic paradigm the study was conducted in three parts: (1) campaign designer interview; (2) public on-street survey; and (3) stakeholder formative evaluation feedback session. Setting: The context of this study was Liverpool, UK. Method: Deductive content analysis was guided by key themes of the campaign design, including the poster image, tagline, main text, and overall layout. Results: The design team had aimed for a 'tongue in cheek' image and message on which to base the campaign. However, the public survey suggests that the campaign largely failed to translate the proposed message and reach the intended Liverpool population. Formative evaluation feedback highlighted a lack of application of social marketing principles in campaign development, in particular audience targeting and pilot assessment. Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of the inclusion of social marketing principles in the development of health promotion campaigns in an attempt to aid audience understanding and adoption of the desired health behaviour. C1 [Goodwin, Denise May] Univ London London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Fac Publ Hlth & Policy, London WC1H 9SH, England. [Peerbhoy, Denise] Berkshire Hlth Fdn Trust, Bracknell, Berks, England. [Murphy, Rebecca] Liverpool John Moores Univ, Liverpool L3 5UX, Merseyside, England. [Stratton, Gareth] Swansea Univ, Swansea, W Glam, Wales. RP Goodwin, DM (reprint author), Univ London London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Fac Publ Hlth & Policy, 15-17 Tavistock Pl, London WC1H 9SH, England. EM denise.goodwin@lshtm.ac.uk CR Ajzen I., 1988, ATTITUDES PERSONALIT BAGOZZI RP, 1978, AM BEHAV SCI, V21, P535 Bauman A, 2006, EVAL PROGRAM PLANN, V29, P312, DOI 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2005.12.004 Bull F., 2004, COMP QUANTIFICATION, P729 Burke Johnson R, 2004, ED RES J, V33, P14, DOI DOI 10.3102/0013 Cavill N, 2004, J SPORT SCI, V22, P771, DOI 10.1080/02640410410001712467 Chief Medical Officer, 2010, 2009 ANN REP CHIEF M Craig R., 2009, HLTH SURVEY ENGLAND Denzin N. K., 2006, SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS Donovan R., 2003, SOCIAL MARKETING PRI Elo S, 2008, J ADV NURS, V62, P107, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x Greene J.C., 2010, SAGE HDB MIXED METHO, P119 Grier S, 2005, ANNU REV PUBL HEALTH, V26, P319, DOI 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144610 Hall R., MIXED METHODS SEARCH Hornik R. C., 2002, PUBLIC HLTH COMMUNIC, P1 Kotler P., 2002, SOCIAL MARKETING IMP Liverpool Active City, 2005, 2005 2010 ACT PLAN Livingstone S, 2003, CHANGING NATURE USES Marcus BH, 1998, AM J PREV MED, V15, P362, DOI 10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00079-8 Morgan DL, 2007, J MIX METHOD RES, V1, P48, DOI 10.1177/2345678906292462 Puhl RM, 2009, OBESITY, V17, P941, DOI 10.1038/oby.2008.636 Randolph W, 2004, ANNU REV PUBL HEALTH, V25, P419, DOI 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.101802.123046 Rothschild ML, 1999, J MARKETING, V63, P24, DOI 10.2307/1251972 Sport England, 2009, ACT PEOPL SURV 3 Thurmond AV, 2001, J NURS SCHOLARSHIP, V33, P253 Wakefield MA, 2010, LANCET, V376, P1261, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60809-4 NR 26 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 4 U2 20 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 0017-8969 EI 1748-8176 J9 HEALTH EDUC J JI Health Educ. J. PD SEP PY 2014 VL 73 IS 5 BP 554 EP 565 DI 10.1177/0017896913508275 PG 12 WC Education & Educational Research; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health SC Education & Educational Research; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health GA AO7AI UT WOS:000341503900005 ER PT J AU Sung, CCM AF Sung, Chit Cheung Matthew TI Accent and identity: exploring the perceptions among bilingual speakers of English as a lingua franca in Hong Kong SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM LA English DT Article DE accent; identity; perceptions; bilingual speakers; Hong Kong; English as a lingua franca ID LANGUAGE AB This paper reports on a study that investigated the perceptions of a group of bilingual speakers of English and Chinese in Hong Kong concerning issues surrounding accent, identity and English as a lingua franca (ELF). Data were primarily collected via in-depth interviews with 28 university students in Hong Kong who are also regular users of English in lingua franca contexts. The analysis shows that the participants' perceptions of their preferred identities as speakers of English in ELF settings in relation to accent were varied and complex. Among the participants who preferred to use a local accent of English, their preference was not necessarily motivated by the need for expressing their lingua-cultural identity, but primarily by pragmatic considerations. It was also found that some participants' desire to speak English with anative-like accent was associated with their wish to present a positive identity or self-image as bilingual speakers of English. The paper calls for the need to recognize the role of individual variations in accent preferences for identity construction in ELF. C1 Lingnan Univ, Dept English, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. RP Sung, CCM (reprint author), Lingnan Univ, Dept English, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. EM matthewsung@ln.edu.hk CR Baker W., 2011, LATEST TRENDS ELF RE, P32 Canagarajah A.S., 1999, RESISTING LINGUISTIC Census and Statistics Department, 2012, 2011 POP CENS SUMM R Cohen L, 2007, RES METHODS ED Cook V, 1999, TESOL QUART, V33, P185, DOI 10.2307/3587717 Creswell JW, 2000, THEOR PRACT, V39, P124, DOI 10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 Dalton C., 1994, PRONUNCIATION Derwing TM, 2009, LANG TEACH, V42, P476, DOI 10.1017/S026144480800551X Edwards J., 2009, LANGUAGE IDENTITY IN, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511809842, DOI 10.1017/CB09780511809842] Evans S, 2011, WORLD ENGLISH, V30, P293, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2011.01655.x Grosjean F., 2010, BILINGUAL LIFE REALI Jenkins J, 2002, APPL LINGUIST, V23, P83, DOI 10.1093/applin/23.1.83 Jenkins J., 2007, ENGLISH LINGUA FRANC Jenkins J., 2003, WORLD ENGLISHES RESO Jenkins J., 2000, PHONOLOGY ENGLISH IN Jenkins J, 2011, LANG TEACHING, V44, P281, DOI 10.1017/S0261444811000115 Kachru B. B, 1985, ENGLISH WORLD TEACHI, P11 Kirkpatrick A., 2007, WORLD ENGLISHES IMPL Kuo V., 2006, ELT J, V60, P213, DOI 10.1093/elt/ccl001 Kvale S., 1996, INTERVIEWS INTRO QUA Li D. C. S., 2009, ENGLISH INT LANGUAGE, P81 Lippi-Green Rosina, 1997, ENGLISH ACCENT LANGU Luk JCM, 2006, SPOKEN ENGLISH, TESOL AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS: CHALLENGES FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE, P3 McKay S. L, 2002, TEACHING ENGLISH INT Modiano M., 2009, LANGUAGE LEARNING MU Norton B, 1997, TESOL QUART, V31, P409, DOI 10.2307/3587831 Patton M. Q., 1990, QUALITATIVE EVALUATI Seidlhofer B., 2001, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V11, P133, DOI DOI 10.1111/1473-4192.00011 Seidlhofer B., 2005, ELT J, V59, P339, DOI DOI 10.1093/ELT/CCI064 Seidlhofer B., 2011, UNDERSTANDING ENGLIS Sewell A., 2009, ENGL TODAY, V25, P37, DOI [10.1017/S0266078409000066, DOI 10.1017/S0266078409000066] Smit U., 2000, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V38, P229, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2000.38.3-4.229 Sobkowiak W., 2005, ENGLISH PRONUNCIATIO, P131 Strauss A., 1994, HDB QUALITATIVE RES, P273 Sung C. C. M., 2010, CHANGING ENGLISH, V17, P411, DOI [10.1080/1358684X.2010.528875, DOI 10.1080/1358684X.2010.528875] Sung C. C. M., 2013, JALT J, V35, P177 Sung CCM, 2013, ENGL TODAY, V29, P17, DOI 10.1017/S0266078413000102 Sung CCM, 2011, ENGL TODAY, V27, P25, DOI 10.1017/S0266078411000344 Sung CCM, 2013, ELT J, V67, P350, DOI 10.1093/elt/cct015 Timmis I., 2002, ELT J, V56, P240, DOI DOI 10.1093/ELT/56.3.240 Virkkula T., 2010, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V20, P251, DOI [10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00248.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1473-4192.2009.00248.X] Walker R., 2010, TEACHING PRONUNCIATI NR 42 TC 5 Z9 5 U1 3 U2 22 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 1367-0050 EI 1747-7522 J9 INT J BILING EDUC BI JI Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling. PD SEP PY 2014 VL 17 IS 5 BP 544 EP 557 DI 10.1080/13670050.2013.837861 PG 14 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA AN8VO UT WOS:000340883700003 ER PT J AU Crosthwaite, PR AF Crosthwaite, Peter Robert TI Definite Discourse-New Reference in L1 and L2: A Study of Bridging in Mandarin, Korean, and English SO LANGUAGE LEARNING LA English DT Article DE bridging; inferability; narratives; second language acquisition; Mandarin; Korean; L2 English; crosslinguistic influence ID 2ND-LANGUAGE; ACQUISITION; ARTICLES; CHINESE AB Definite expressions may be used to introduce a referent into discourse when their familiarity between speaker and listener can be inferred, a strategy known as bridging. However, for a number of reasons, bridging may be difficult to acquire compared to the acquisition of indefinite introductions for noninferable referent types, with the native language of the second language (L2) learners suggested to be a major factor influencing L2 acquisition. Two experiments were conducted into the use of bridging, using a controlled picture sequence where neutral, weakly, or strongly inferable referents were to be introduced. The first study investigated native speaker data from English, Mandarin Chinese, and Korean, and the second study focused on a cross-section of learner data from Mandarin and Korean L2 English learners from six proficiency levels ranging from A1 (Basic user) to C2 (Proficient user) of the Common European Framework. The native results show that the three languages introduce inferable referents in markedly different ways: definite articles for English, omission of numeral + classifiers before the noun for Mandarin, and with Korean making no apparent distinction for inferability in terms of noun-phrase form. The L2 results show that the acquisition of the definite article + noun construction to introduce inferable referents in L2 English occurs at lower Common European Framework levels for the Mandarin group than the Korean group. Therefore, it is claimed that Mandarin L2 English learners may have less difficulty mapping L2 syntactic form to pragmatic function in their L2 narrative production than their Korean counterparts, as a possible consequence of positive transfer from their native language. C1 [Crosthwaite, Peter Robert] Univ Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, England. RP Crosthwaite, PR (reprint author), Univ Hong Kong, Ctr Appl English Studies, Room 6-60,6-F,Run Run Shaw Tower, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, Peoples R China. EM drprc80@gmail.com RI Crosthwaite, Peter/G-7821-2016 OI Crosthwaite, Peter/0000-0002-1482-8381 CR Aiping M., 2003, THESIS GUANGDONG U F ANDERSEN RW, 1984, LANG LEARN, V34, P77, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00353.x ARIEL M, 1991, J PRAGMATICS, V16, P443, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(91)90136-L Ariel M, 2010, RES SURV LINGUIST, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511777912 ARIEL M, 1996, REFERENCE REFERENT A, P13 Ariel M, 2008, CAMB TEXTBK LINGUIST, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511791314 Arnold JE, 2007, J MEM LANG, V56, P521, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.007 Brown L., 2011, KOREAN HONORIFICS PO Brown R., 1973, 1 LANGUAGE Chafe W. L., 1980, PEAR STORIES COGNITI Chen P, 2004, LINGUISTICS, V42, P1129, DOI 10.1515/ling.2004.42.6.1129 Clark H. H., 1975, THEORETICAL ISSUES N, P169 Clark H, 1977, DISCOURSE PRODUCTION, P1 Council of Europe, 2001, COMM EUR FRAM REF LA Crosthwaite P., 2011, ASIAN EFL J, V13, P135 Crosthwaite P., 2014, THESIS U CAMBRIDGE U Crosthwaite Peter, 2013, [Linguistic Research, 언어연구], V30, P163 Ekiert M., 2007, TEACHERS COLL COLUMB, V7 Ekiert M, 2010, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, P125 ELLIS NC, 1994, IMPLICIT EXPLICIT LE Filipovic L, 2013, LINGUISTICS, V51, P145, DOI 10.1515/ling-2013-0005 Gardent C., 2003, P EACL 2003 WORKSH L, P69 GUNDEL JK, 1993, LANGUAGE, V69, P274, DOI 10.2307/416535 Gundel J. K., 1996, REFERENCE REFERENT A, P155 Hawkins John A., 1978, DEFINITENESS INDEFIN Hedberg N., 1996, REFERENCE REFERENT A, P179 Hellman C., 1996, REFERENCE REFERENT A, P193 Hickmann M, 1996, J CHILD LANG, V23, P591 Huang Y., 2000, ANAPHORA CROSS LINGU Huebner T, 1983, LONGITUDINAL ANAL AC Wexler Kenneth, 2004, LANG ACQUIS, V12, P3, DOI 10.1207/s15327817la1201_2 Ionin T, 2012, SECOND LANG RES, V28, P69, DOI 10.1177/0267658311432200 Jarvis S., 2002, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V24, P387, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263102003029 Klein Wolfgang, 1992, UTTERANCE STRUCTURE Klein Wolfgang, 1997, SECOND LANG RES, V13, P301, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0267190500002658 Krashen S., 1977, TESOL 77, P144 [Anonymous], 2006, P 25 W COAST C FORM Leung YI, 2001, PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SECOND LANGUAGE RESEARCH, PROCEEDINGS, P55 Li C., 1989, MANDARIN CHINESE FUN LI Charles N, 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC, P475 Liu Meichun, 2010, FORMAL EVIDENCE GRAM, P275 Luk ZPS, 2009, LANG LEARN, V59, P721 Master P., 1987, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Matsui Tomoko, 2000, BRIDGING RELEVANCE Nakahama Y, 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P241, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00859.x Poesio M, 1998, COMPUT LINGUIST, V24, P183 Prince E., 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P223 Robertson D, 2000, SECOND LANG RES, V16, P135, DOI 10.1191/026765800672262975 Sanford Anthony J., 1981, UNDERSTANDING WRITTE Sasaki M., 1987, CHUGOKU SHIKOKU ACAD, V32, P170 Sleeman P., 2004, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V42, P129, DOI 10.1515/iral.2004.006 Slobin D.I., 1975, PAPERS REPORTS CHILD, V10, P1 Sperber D., 1995, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Stalnaker Robert C., 1974, SEMANTICS PHILOS, P197 Stein N. L., 1979, NEW DIRECTIONS DISCO, VII, P53 VANDIJK TA, 1976, PTL-J DESCRIPT POET, V1, P547 Vieira R, 2000, COMPUT LINGUIST, V26, P539, DOI 10.1162/089120100750105948 Vieira R., 1998, THESIS U EDINBURGH Wilson D, 1998, MACH DES, V70, P10 Young R., 1996, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P135 NR 60 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 10 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 SEP PY 2014 VL 64 IS 3 BP 456 EP 492 DI 10.1111/lang.12062 PG 37 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA AN4KV UT WOS:000340557600002 ER PT J AU van Compernolle, RA Henery, A AF van Compernolle, Remi A. Henery, Ashlie TI Instructed Concept Appropriation and L2 Pragmatic Development in the Classroom SO LANGUAGE LEARNING LA English DT Article DE sociocultural theory; concept-based instruction; pragmatic awareness; pragmatic development; second language pedagogy ID SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCE; FRENCH AB In this article, we investigate the integration of concept-based pragmatics instruction, grounded in Vygotskian sociocultural psychology, in an intact second-semester French class (n = 13) over the course of an academic term. Our focus is on learners' appropriation of the concepts of self-presentation, social distance, and power with respect to the French second-person pronoun system (i.e., tu versus vous) as revealed through language awareness questionnaires, appropriateness judgment tasks, and computer-mediated strategic interaction scenario performances. Following this three-tiered approach to analysis, our findings show that learners developed a deeper and more systematic understanding of tu and vous, that they were able to apply the concepts in planning language use, and that their use of tu and vous became more sensitive to maintaining symmetrical social relationships. C1 [van Compernolle, Remi A.; Henery, Ashlie] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA. RP van Compernolle, RA (reprint author), Carnegie Mellon Univ, Dept Modern Languages, Baker Hall 160,5000 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA. EM vancomp@cmu.edu CR Belz JA, 2002, CAN MOD LANG REV, V59, P189 Brown Roger, 1960, STYLE LANG, P253 Coveney A, 2010, J FR LANG STUD, V20, P127, DOI 10.1017/S0959269509990366 Davydov V. V., 2004, PROBLEMS DEV INSTRUC Dewaele Jean-Marc, 2004, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V42, P383, DOI 10.1515/iral.2004.42.4.383 Dewaele J. - M., 2006, CLASSE LANGUE THEORI, P153 Di Pietro R. J., 1987, STRATEGIC INTERACTIO Gal'perin P. I., 1989, SOV PSYCHOL, V27, P65, DOI DOI 10.2753/RP01061-0405270365 Galperin P. I., 1992, J RUSSIAN E EUROPEAN, V30, P60 Ilyenkov E. V., 1982, DIALECTICS ABSTRACT Kinginger C, 2008, MOD LANG J, V92, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00821.x Lantolf J., 2006, SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY Liddicoat Anthony J., 2006, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P55 LYSTER R, 1994, APPL LINGUIST, V15, P263, DOI 10.1093/applin/15.3.263 Morford Janet, 1997, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V7, P3, DOI 10.1525/jlin.1997.7.1.3 Negueruela E., 2003, THESIS PENNSYLVANIA Negueruela E., 2008, SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY, P189 Silverstein M, 2003, LANG COMMUN, V23, P193, DOI 10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2 Stetsenko A., 2010, SOCIOCULTURAL TURN P, P231 Swain M, 2009, MOD LANG J, V93, P5, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00825.x Taguchi N, 2011, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V31, P289, DOI 10.1017/S0267190511000018 van Compernolle RA, 2011, LANG COMMUN, V31, P86, DOI 10.1016/j.langcom.2010.11.002 van Compernolle RA, 2010, CAN MOD LANG REV, V66, P445, DOI 10.3138/cmlr.66.3.445 Van Compernolle RA, 2012, APPL LINGUIST, V33, P184, DOI 10.1093/applin/amr048 VanCompernolle RA, 2014, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V74, P1 van Compernolle R. A., 2014, J FRENCH LANGUAGE ST, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0959269513000471.PUBLISHED Vygotsky L, 1978, MIND SOC DEV HIGHER Vygotsky L. S., 1986, THOUGHT LANGUAGE NR 28 TC 5 Z9 5 U1 3 U2 8 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 SEP PY 2014 VL 64 IS 3 BP 549 EP 578 DI 10.1111/lang.12054 PG 30 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA AN4KV UT WOS:000340557600005 ER PT J AU Andersson, M Spenader, J AF Andersson, Marta Spenader, Jennifer TI RESULT and PURPOSE relations with and without 'so' SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Coherence relations; PURPOSE; RESULT; Marking; Implicit relations; (Non)veridicality ID AMAZON MECHANICAL TURK; COHERENCE RELATIONS; DISCOURSE STRUCTURE; EXPOSITORY TEXTS; CONNECTIVES; MARKERS AB Coherence relations differ in their tendency to be explicitly marked. How such relations are recognized and what determines their tendency to be marked is a matter of debate. The connective so represents a special case: it can be used to signal RESULT coherence relations and the more specific cause-effect relation of PURPOSE, but overt marking has been claimed to be required for PURPOSE and optional for RESULT. We present written corpus and experimental results on the use of so that show that RESULT and PURPOSE with this connective can be reliably distinguished from each other, and that the modal auxiliaries can/could and will/would are strongly associated with PURPOSE. In the corpus study, PURPOSE always occurs with explicit so, while RESULT is often left unmarked. These results are in line with recent claims based on annotated corpus data that implicit (unmarked) and explicit (marked) coherence relations can be qualitatively different (e.g. Sporleder and Lascarides, 2008; Webber, 2009). However, in our experiments using strongly purposive event pairs, 35-40% of examples were identified as PURPOSE without a connective or a modal verb cue. We argue that the difference between the corpus results and the experimental results can be explained as a difference between the tasks of speakers and hearers, and we outline an explanation for how marking can be obligatory for PURPOSE relations and yet optional for RESULT. We also propose that nonveridicality seems to play a key role in a marking requirement for PURPOSE, and explain why the unusual marking pattern found makes it difficult to give a pragmatic account similar to more well-known language asymmetries. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Andersson, Marta] Stockholm Univ, Dept English, S-10654 Stockholm, Sweden. [Spenader, Jennifer] Univ Groningen, Dept Artificial Intelligence, NL-9700 AK Groningen, Netherlands. RP Andersson, M (reprint author), Stockholm Univ, Dept English, S-10654 Stockholm, Sweden. EM marta.andersson@english.su.se; j.spenader@ai.rug.nl CR Al-Saif A., 2011, P C EMP METH NAT LAN Asher N., 2003, LOGICS CONVERSATION Asher N, 1993, REFERENCE ABSTRACT O, V50 Asher N, 2013, LINGUA, V132, P13, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.001 Baayen R. H, 2008, ANAL LINGUISTIC DATA Beaver D., 2004, OPTIMALITY THEORY PR Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Blakemore D, 2005, LINGUA, V115, P569, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.016 Blakemore D., 1999, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V11, P1 Blutner R., 2000, J SEMANT, V17, P189, DOI 10.1093/jos/17.3.189 Bratman M. E., 1987, INTENTIONS PLANS PRA BRENNAN RL, 1981, EDUC PSYCHOL MEAS, V41, P687, DOI 10.1177/001316448104100307 BRITTON BK, 1982, J EDUC PSYCHOL, V74, P51, DOI 10.1037//0022-0663.74.1.51 Coates J., 1983, SEMANTICS MODAL AUXI Croft W, 2010, LINGUISTICS, V48, P1, DOI 10.1515/LING.2010.001 Culicover P. W., 2005, SIMPLER SYNTAX de Hoop H, 2004, LINGUA, V114, P1071, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.001 Deaton J. A., 1997, CAUSAL CONJUNC UNPUB Degand L., 1999, INT WORKSH TEXT REPR, P3 Fabricious-Hansen C., 2004, ZAS C 18 11 2004 Fort K, 2011, COMPUT LINGUIST, V37, P413, DOI 10.1162/COLI_a_00057 Gaertner H., 2004, LINGUA, V114, P1235 Giannakidou A., MODALITY PRESE UNPUB Giannakidou A, 2009, LINGUA, V119, P1883, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.007 Grice P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P41 Grimes Joseph E., 1975, THREAD DISCOURSE Haberlandt K, 1982, LANGUAGE COMPREHENSI, P239 Hendriks P., 2014, ASYMMETRIES LANGUAGE, V42 Hoffman S., 2008, CORPUS LINGUISTICS B Horn L.R., 1984, MEANING FORM USE CON, P11 Huddleston Rodney, 2002, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Hyland K., 1999, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V18, P3, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2 Jackendoff R., 1995, EVOLUTION REVOLUTION, P198 Jasinskaja K., 2007, THESIS U TUBINGEN Jasinskaja K, 2013, LINGUA, V132, P51, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.010 Jaszczolt K. M., 2003, P 14 AMST COLL ILLC, P43 Jaszczolt KM, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P657, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00147-9 Lakoff G, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159, DOI 10.2307/2529310 MacDonald S. P., 1994, PROFESSIONAL ACAD WR Mann W, 1988, TEXT, V8, P243 Marcu D., 2002, P 40 ANN M ASS COMP Martin James R., 1992, ENGLISH TEXT SYSTEM MILLIS KK, 1994, J MEM LANG, V33, P128, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1994.1007 MILLIS KK, 1993, APPL COGNITIVE PSYCH, V7, P317, DOI 10.1002/acp.2350070406 NOORDMAN LGM, 1992, J MEM LANG, V31, P573, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90029-W Paolacci G, 2010, JUDGM DECIS MAK, V5, P411 Pitler Emily, 2008, EASILY IDENTIFIABLE Prasad R., 2007, P 6 INT C LANG RES E Prasad R., 2010, COLING, P1023 Prasad R, 2011, BMC BIOINFORMATICS, V12, DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-12-188 Reese B., 2007, TECHNICAL REPORT Renkema Jan, 2004, INTRO DISCOURSE STUD Robaldo L., 2008, P S SEM TEXT PROC ST Roze C., 2012, LEXCONN FRENCH LEXIC, DOI DOI 10.4000/DISC0URS.8645 SANDERS TJM, 1992, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V15, P1 Sanders TJM, 2000, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V29, P37, DOI 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3 SchmidtkeBode K, 2009, TYPOL ST L, V88, P1 Searle J., 1983, INTENTIONALITY ESSAY Sinclair John, 1990, COLLINS COBUILD ENGL Spooren W, 2010, CORPUS LINGUIST LING, V6, P241, DOI 10.1515/CLLT.2010.009 Sporleder C., 2008, NAT LANG ENG, V14, P369 Sweetser E., 1990, ETYMOLOGY PRAGMATIC Taboada M, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P567, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010 Taboada M., 2009, DISCOURSE COURSE OVE, P125 Thor M., 1990, AUST J LINGUIST, V10, P1 Trnavac R, 2012, LANG SCI, V34, P301, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.10.005 Verstraete JC, 2008, LINGUISTICS, V46, P757, DOI 10.1515/LING.2008.025 Webber B., 2009, P JOINT C 47 M ACL 4 Webber B, 2012, NAT LANG ENG, V18, P437, DOI 10.1017/S1351324911000337 Wierzbicka A., 1998, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V2, P141, DOI 10.1515/lity.1998.2.2.141 Wolf F, 2005, COMPUT LINGUIST, V31, P249, DOI 10.1162/0891201054223977 Wolf F., 2003, PROCEDURE COLL UNPUB Yu H., 2008, 16 ANN INT C INT SYS Zeevat H., 2000, J SEMANT, V17, P243, DOI 10.1093/jos/17.3.243 ZEEVAT Henk, 2006, P WORKSH CONSTR DISC, P155 NR 76 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 6 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 SEP PY 2014 VL 148 BP 1 EP 27 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.001 PG 27 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AO1MD UT WOS:000341075300001 ER PT J AU Martin, T Hinzen, W AF Martin, Txuss Hinzen, Wolfram TI The grammar of the essential indexical SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Pronoun; Reference; Indexical; Phase; Topology; Romance ID PRONOUNS; SPECIFICITY; CONSTRAINT; AGREEMENT; LANGUAGE; NOMINALS; CLITICS AB Like proper names, demonstratives, and definite descriptions, pronouns have referential uses. These can be 'essentially indexical' in the sense that they cannot be replaced by non-pronominal forms of reference. Here we show that the grammar of pronouns in such occurrences is systematically different from that of other referential expressions, in a way that illuminates the differences in reference in question. We specifically illustrate, in the domain of Romance clitics and pronouns, a hierarchy of referentiality, as related to the topology of the grammatical phase. Our explanation is based on extending the 'Topological Mapping Hypotheses' of Longobardi (2005) and Sheehan and Hinzen (2011). The extended topology covers the full range of interpretations, from purely predicative to quantificational (scope-bearing), to referential and deictic. Along this scale, grammatical complexity increases, and none of these forms of reference is lexical. This provides evidence for the foundational conclusion that the source of essential indexicality is grammatical rather than lexical, semantic or pragmatic. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). C1 [Martin, Txuss; Hinzen, Wolfram] Univ Barcelona, Dept Linguist Gen, Grammar Mind & Reference Lab, E-08007 Barcelona, Spain. [Hinzen, Wolfram] ICREA, Barcelona 08010, Spain. RP Martin, T (reprint author), Univ Barcelona, Dept Linguist Gen, Grammar Mind & Reference Lab, Gran Via Corts Catalanes 585, E-08007 Barcelona, Spain. EM txussmartin@gmail.com; hinzen@ub.edu CR Adger David, 2007, SYNTAX, V10, P2, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1467-9612.2007.00095.X Anagnostopoulou E, 2005, LING AKT, V74, P199 Baker Mark, 2003, LEXICAL CATEGORIES BARTOLUCCI G, 1974, J AUTISM CHILD SCHIZ, V4, P131, DOI 10.1007/BF02105366 Bartos H., 2001, MINIMALIST PARAMETER, P311 Boeckx, 2014, ELEMENTARY SYNTACTIC Boeckx C., 2013, DATIVE CLITIC IS MOR Bonet Eulalia, 1991, THESIS MIT BONET E, 1995, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V13, P607, DOI 10.1007/BF00992853 Bonet E, 2008, INTERFACE EXPLOR, V15, P103 Borer H., 1984, PARAMETRIC SYNTAX CA Borer Hagit, 2005, NAME ONLY STRUCTURIN, VI Butterworth G, 2003, POINTING: WHERE LANGAUAGE, CULTURE, AND COGNITON MEET, P9 CAHA Pavel, 2009, THESIS U TROMSO CAMPOS H, 1992, LINGUISTICS, V30, P911, DOI 10.1515/ling.1992.30.5.911 Cardinaletti Anna, 1999, CLITICS LANGUAGES EU, P145 Carlson Greg, 1977, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Cheng LLS, 1999, LINGUIST INQ, V30, P509, DOI 10.1162/002438999554192 Chomsky Noam, 2001, K HALE LIFE LANGUAGE, P1 Cuervo C., 2003, THESIS MIT Danon G, 2006, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V24, P977, DOI 10.1007/s11049-006-9005-6 Dechaine RM, 2002, LINGUIST INQ, V33, P409, DOI 10.1162/002438902760168554 de Hoop Helen, 1996, CASE CONFIGURATION N Demonte V., 1995, PROBUS, V7, P5, DOI 10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5 Den Dikken M., 2010, MAPPING SPATIAL PPS, P74 Diesing Molly, 1992, INDEFINITES Elbourne P, 2008, LINGUIST PHILOS, V31, P409, DOI 10.1007/s10988-008-9043-0 ENC M, 1991, LINGUIST INQ, V22, P1 Ernout A., 1932, DICT ETYMOLOGIQUE LA Fernandez-Soriano O., 1993, PRONOMBRES ATONOS Fernandez-Soriano O, 1989, MIT WORKING PAPERS L, V11, P228 Fitch WT, 2005, BIOL PHILOS, V20, P193, DOI 10.1007/s10539-005-5597-1 Furuya K., 2012, STUDIES LINGUISTIC S, P32 Harley H, 2002, LANGUAGE, V78, P482, DOI 10.1353/lan.2002.0158 Hinzen W, 2007, ESSAY NAMING TRUTH Hobson RP, 2010, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V40, P403, DOI 10.1007/s10803-009-0882-5 Jayaseelan K. A., 2001, LINGUISTIC ANAL, V31, P132 Jones M. A., 1993, SARDINIAN SYNTAX KAPLAN D., 1989, THEMES KAPLAN, P481 Kayne R, 1994, ANTISYMMETRY SYNTAX Kayne Richard, 2008, LIMITS SYNTACTIC VAR, P175 Kayne R., 1991, LINGUIST INQ, V22, P646 Kayne R, 2005, MOVEMENT SILENCE Kayne Richard S., 1989, DIALECT VARIATION TH, P85, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00162-6 Kayne Richard S., 2000, PARAMETERS UNIVERSAL Kayne R. S., 1975, FRENCH SYNTAX TRANSF Kripke Saul, 1980, NAMING NECESSITY Leu T., 2008, THESIS NEW YORK U Lidz J, 2006, LANGUAGE, V82, P10, DOI 10.1353/lan.2006.0054 Longa VM, 1998, J LINGUIST, V34, P125, DOI 10.1017/S0022226797006853 LONGOBARDI G, 1994, LINGUIST INQ, V25, P609 Longobardi Giuseppe, 2005, Z SPRACHWISS, V24, P5, DOI 10.1515/zfsw.2005.24.1.5 Lycan W. G., 2009, PHILOS LANGUAGE MAHAJAN A, 1992, LINGUIST INQ, V23, P510 Marantz A., 2008, PHASES THEORY GRAMMA, P191 Martin T., 2012, THESIS NEW YORK U Martin Tx., 2009, CASE INTERPRETATION Masullo Pascual, 1992, THESIS U WASHINGTON Ndayiragije, 2011, FORM LING C GUANGD C Ormazabal J., 2010, OBJECT CLITICS AGREE Ormazabal J, 2007, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V25, P315, DOI 10.1007/s11049-006-9010-9 Panhuis, 2006, LATIN GRAMMAR Pereltsvaig A, 2006, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V24, P433, DOI 10.1007/s11049-005-3820-z Perlmutter David, 1971, DEEP SURFACE STRUCTU Perry John, 1993, PROBLEM ESSENTIAL IN Picallo C., 2007, LINGUE LINGUAGGIO Pietroski Paul, 2011, OXFORD HDB LINGUISTI, P472 Postal Paul, 1966, MOD STUD ENGL, P201 Quine W. V. O., 1960, WORD OBJECT Reinhart T, 1997, LINGUIST PHILOS, V20, P335, DOI 10.1023/A:1005349801431 Roca F., 1992, THESIS U AUTONOMA BA Roca F., 1996, VERBA, V23, P83 Russell Bertrand, 1905, MIND, V14, P479, DOI DOI 10.1093/MIND/XIV.4.479 Sheehan M., 2011, LINGUIST ANAL, V37, P405 Sportiche D., 1996, PHRASE STRUCTURE LEX, P213 Starke M., 2010, NORDLYD, V36, P1 SUNER M, 1988, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V6, P391, DOI 10.1007/BF00133904 Torrego E., 1998, DEPENDENCIES OBJECTS Uriagereka J., 1995, LINGUIST INQ, V26, P1 Watson AR, 2012, BRIT J PSYCHIAT, V200, P342, DOI 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.095448 Winter Yoad, 2000, NAT LANG SEMANT, V8, P27, DOI 10.1023/A:1008313715103 Wu YC, 2009, LINGUIST INQ, V40, P487, DOI 10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.487 Zamparelli R., 2000, THESIS U ROCHESTER Zribi-Hertz A., 1997, PRONOMS MORPHOLOGIE, P231 NR 84 TC 5 Z9 5 U1 0 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 SEP PY 2014 VL 148 BP 95 EP 117 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.016 PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AO1MD UT WOS:000341075300005 ER PT J AU Reichle, RV Birdsong, D AF Reichle, Robert V. Birdsong, David TI PROCESSING FOCUS STRUCTURE IN L1 AND L2 FRENCH L2 Proficiency Effects on ERPs SO STUDIES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION LA English DT Article ID EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS; LATE 2ND-LANGUAGE LEARNERS; BRAIN POTENTIALS; LANGUAGE; PROFICIENCY; ERP; ACQUISITION; INTEGRATION; EXPECTANCY; ANOMALIES AB This study examined the event-related potentials (ERPs) elicited by focus processing among first language (L1) speakers and second language (L2) learners of French. Participants read wh-questions containing explicit focus marking, followed by responses instantiating contrastive and informational focus. We hypothesized that L2 proficiency would modulate nativelikeness in L2 processing. For the L1 and L2 groups, widespread word-long positive shifts reflected the processing of nouns receiving informational and contrastive focus. Nouns receiving contrastive focus showed an increased anterior negativity compared to informational focus for both groups. Second language proficiency modulated the amplitude of this negativity effect, and subgroup analyses of low- and high-proficiency L2 learners showed no significant effect of focus condition among low-proficiency learners. This modulatory relationship between L2 proficiency and nativelikeness of processing is consistent with the dynamic sequence of L2 ERPs observed for morphosyntactic processing and extends those findings to the syntax-pragmatics interface phenomenon of focus processing. C1 [Reichle, Robert V.] No Illinois Univ, De Kalb, IL 60115 USA. [Birdsong, David] Univ Texas Austin, Austin, TX 78712 USA. RP Reichle, RV (reprint author), No Illinois Univ, Dept Foreign Languages & Literatures, 111 Watson Hall, De Kalb, IL 60115 USA. EM rreichle@niu.edu CR Birdsong D, 2006, LANG LEARN, V56, P9, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00353.x Blood E., 2004, INSTRUCTORS RESOURCE Bornkessel I, 2003, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V29, P871, DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.871 Carter-Thomas Shirley, 2009, LINGUISTIQUE SYSTEMI, P127 Cowles HW, 2007, BRAIN LANG, V102, P228, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.04.004 Cowles H. Wind., 2003, THESIS U CALIFORNIA de Nerval G., 1853, SYLVIE Foucart A, 2011, BILING-LANG COGN, V14, P379, DOI 10.1017/S136672891000012X Dowens MG, 2010, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V22, P1870, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2009.21304 Havik E, 2009, LANG LEARN, V59, P73, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00501.x Hopp H, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P901, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.004 Hruska C, 2004, INFORM STRUCTURE THE, P211 Hruska C., 2000, 13 ANN CUNY C HUM SE HUPET M, 1986, J MEM LANG, V25, P419, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90035-5 Katz S, 2000, CAN J LING/REV CAN L, V45, P253 KUTAS M, 1980, SCIENCE, V207, P203, DOI 10.1126/science.7350657 Kutas M., 2006, HDB PSYCHOLINGUISTIC, P659, DOI DOI 10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50018-3 KUTAS M, 1984, NATURE, V307, P161, DOI 10.1038/307161a0 Lambrecht K., 2010, COMP CONTRASTIVE STU, P77 Lambrecht K., 2001, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY LA, P1050, DOI 10.1515/9783110171549.2 Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Magne C, 2005, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V17, P740, DOI 10.1162/0898929053747667 Marion V, 2007, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V50, P940, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067) McDonald JL, 2006, J MEM LANG, V55, P381, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.006 McLaughlin J, 2004, NAT NEUROSCI, V7, P703, DOI 10.1038/nn1264 McLaughlin J, 2010, LANG LEARN, V60, P123, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00604.x Mueller JL, 2005, SECOND LANG RES, V21, P152, DOI 10.1191/0267658305sr256oa Myers L. L., 2007, THESIS NEVILLE H, 1991, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V3, P151, DOI 10.1162/jocn.1991.3.2.151 OSTERHOUT L, 1992, J MEM LANG, V31, P785, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z Osterhout L, 1999, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V14, P283 Osterhout L, 2006, LANG LEARN, V56, P199, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00361.x Osterhout L, 1997, TRENDS COGN SCI, V1, P203, DOI 10.1016/S1364-6613(97)01073-5 Osterhout L, 2008, J NEUROLINGUIST, V21, P509, DOI 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.01.001 Pakulak E, 2010, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V22, P2728, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2009.21393 Reichle RV, 2014, LANG COGN NEUROSCI, V29, P107, DOI 10.1080/01690965.2012.746464 Reichle RV, 2009, PROC ANN BUCLD, P420 Reichle R. V., 2013, WORKING MEMORY UNPUB Reichle Robert V, 2010, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V48, p48 53, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2010.003 Reichle Robert V, 2010, RES 2 LANGUAGE PROCE, V321-344 Rossi S, 2006, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V18, P2030, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.2030 Sorace A, 2000, SECOND LANG RES, V16, P93, DOI DOI 10.1191/026765800670666032 Sorace A, 2009, INT J BILINGUAL, V13, P195, DOI 10.1177/1367006909339810 Steinhauer K., 2006, J COGNITIVE NEUROS S, V99 Steinhauer K, 2009, SECOND LANG RES, V25, P13, DOI 10.1177/0267658308098995 Steinhauer K, 2008, HANDBOOK OF THE NEUROSCIENCE OF LANGUAGE, P91, DOI 10.1016/B978-0-08-045352-1.00009-4 Stolterfoht B., 2004, INFORM STRUCTURE THE, P259 Stolterfoht B, 2007, COGNITION, V104, P565, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.08.001 SUTTON S, 1965, SCIENCE, V150, P1187, DOI 10.1126/science.150.3700.1187 Tanner D, 2009, PROC ANN BUCLD, P528 van Berkum JJA, 1999, J MEM LANG, V41, P147, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1999.2641 WeberFox CM, 1996, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V8, P231, DOI 10.1162/jocn.1996.8.3.231 White EJ, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0052318 Wicha NYY, 2004, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V16, P1272, DOI 10.1162/0898929041920487 NR 54 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 4 U2 12 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI NEW YORK PA 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY 10013-2473 USA SN 0272-2631 EI 1470-1545 J9 STUD SECOND LANG ACQ JI Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. PD SEP PY 2014 VL 36 IS 3 BP 535 EP 564 DI 10.1017/S0272263113000594 PG 30 WC Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AN7HM UT WOS:000340770100005 ER PT J AU Tajeddin, Z Alemi, M AF Tajeddin, Zia Alemi, Minoo TI Criteria and Bias in Native English Teachers' Assessment of L2 Pragmatic Appropriacy: Content and FACETS Analyses SO ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER LA English DT Article DE Pragmatic assessment; Rating criteria; Speech act; Apology; Rater bias; FACETS; Content analysis ID SPEECH ACTS; RATER; PROFICIENCY AB Although there are studies on the pragmatic assessment, to date no research has been done on native English raters' criteria for the assessment of EFL learners' pragmatic competence. Focusing on this topic, this study pursued two purposes. The first one was to find the criteria for rating the speech act of apology in L2 by native English teachers. The second was to investigate whether there was rater bias in native English teachers' rating of apology. To this end, 51 native English teachers rated six different pragmatic situations for an apology discourse completion task (DCT) which were accompanied by an L2 learner's response to each situation. Besides rating, the raters were asked to describe the way they rated the response to each DCT situation. The content analysis of raters' descriptions revealed five criteria they mostly applied in their rating: expression of apology, situation explanation, repair offer, promise for future, and politeness. FACETS was used to find the rater bias. Results indicated that raters showed different degrees of severity and leniency in their ratings, which contradicts the myth of native speakers being a benchmark in language assessment, including pragmatic assessment. C1 [Tajeddin, Zia] Allameh Tabatabai Univ, Tehran, Iran. [Alemi, Minoo] Sharif Univ Technol, Tehran, Iran. RP Alemi, M (reprint author), Sharif Univ Technol, Tehran, Iran. EM alemi@sharif.ir CR Ang-Aw H. T., 2011, RELC J, V42, P31, DOI DOI 10.1177/0033688210390226 Barnwell D., 1989, LANG TEST, V6, P152, DOI 10.1177/026553228900600203 Brown A., 1995, LANG TEST, V12, P1, DOI DOI 10.1177/026553229501200101 Brown Penelope, 1987, POLITENESS Brown S., 2000, UNDERSTANDING LANGUA Dalmau S. M., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P287 Du Y., 1996, ANN M AM ED RES ASS Eckes T., 2005, LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT, V2, P197, DOI DOI 10.1207/S154343111AQ0203_2 Eckes T, 2008, LANG TEST, V25, P155, DOI 10.1177/0265532207086780 Elder C., 2007, LANG TEST, V24, P37, DOI 10.1177/0265532207071511 Englehard G., 1994, J EDUC MEAS, V31, P93 Fraser B., 1981, CONVERSATIONAL ROUTI, P259 GALLOWAY VB, 1980, MOD LANG J, V64, P428, DOI 10.2307/325864 HOLMES J, 1990, LANG SOC, V19, P155 Hyland K., 2006, SYSTEM, V34, P509, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2006.09.001 Johnson JS, 2009, LANG TEST, V26, P485, DOI 10.1177/0265532209340186 Kim HS, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P257, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.003 Kondo S., 1997, P SOPHIA U LINGUISTI, V12, P35 Kondo S., 1997, THESIS SOPHIA U Kondo-Brown K., 2002, LANG TEST, V19, P3, DOI DOI 10.1191/0265532202LT2180A Lee HK, 2009, ASIA PAC EDUC REV, V10, P387, DOI 10.1007/s12564-009-9030-3 Lim GS, 2011, LANG TEST, V28, P543, DOI 10.1177/0265532211406422 Linacre J. M., 1996, FACETS Liu J., 2006, REFLECTIONS ENGLISH, V5, P1 Lumley T., 2002, LANG TEST, V19, P246, DOI 10.1191/0265532202lt230oa Lumley T., 2005, ASSESSING 2 LANGUAGE Lumley T., 1995, LANG TEST, V12, P54, DOI DOI 10.1177/026553229501200104 Maeshiba N., 1996, SPEECH ACTS CULTURES, P155 McIntyre P. N., 1993, THESIS U MELBOURNE McNamara T., 1996, MEASURING 2 LANGUAGE Nonaka K., 2000, J HOKKAIDO U KUSHIRO, V32, P155 Olshtain E., 1983, SOCIOLINGUISTICS LAN, P18 Orr M., 2002, SYSTEM, V30, P143, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00002-7 Plough IC, 2010, LANG TEST, V27, P235, DOI 10.1177/0265532209349469 Roch SG, 2007, ORGAN BEHAV HUM DEC, V104, P14, DOI 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.08.003 Roever C., 2001, THESIS U HAWAI Schaefer E, 2008, LANG TEST, V25, P465, DOI 10.1177/0265532208094273 SHOHAMY E, 1992, MOD LANG J, V76, P27, DOI 10.2307/329895 Son M., 2010, EXAMINING RATER BIAS Song B., 1996, J SECOND LANG WRIT, V5, P163, DOI DOI 10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90023-5 Sugimoto N, 1997, COMMUN RES, V24, P349, DOI 10.1177/009365097024004002 Taguchi N., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7, P333 Taguchi N, 2011, PRAGMATICS, V21, P453 Weigle S. C., 1994, LANG TEST, V11, P197, DOI DOI 10.1177/026553229401100206 Weigle S. C., 1998, LANG TEST, V15, P263, DOI DOI 10.1177/026553229801500205 Weigle S.C., 1994, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Wigglesworth G., 1993, LANG TEST, V10, P305, DOI DOI 10.1177/026553229301000306 Wigglesworth G., 1994, AUSTR REV APPL LINGU, V17, P77 Yamashita S, 2008, SECOND LANG ACQUIS, V30, P201 Youn S. J., 2007, 2 LANGUAGE STUDIES, V26, P85 Zhang Y, 2011, LANG TEST, V28, P31, DOI 10.1177/0265532209360671 NR 51 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 5 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 SEP PY 2014 VL 23 IS 3 BP 425 EP 434 DI 10.1007/s40299-013-0118-5 PG 10 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA AN2DD UT WOS:000340392800009 ER PT J AU van Benthem, J AF van Benthem, Johan TI Natural Language and Logic of Agency SO JOURNAL OF LOGIC LANGUAGE AND INFORMATION LA English DT Article DE Natural language; General agency; Information; Evaluation; Belief revision; Dynamic-epistemic logic AB This light piece reflects on analogies between two often disjoint streams of research: the logical semantics and pragmatics of natural language and dynamic logics of general information-driven agency. The two areas show significant overlap in themes and tools, and yet, the focus seems subtly different in each, defying a simple comparison. We discuss some unusual questions that emerge when the two are put side by side, without any pretense at covering the whole literature or at reaching definitive conclusions. C1 [van Benthem, Johan] ILLC, Amsterdam, Netherlands. [van Benthem, Johan] Stanford Univ, Dept Philosophy, Stanford, CA 94305 USA. RP van Benthem, J (reprint author), ILLC, Amsterdam, Netherlands. EM johan.vanbenthem@uva.nl CR Anand P., 2013, SEMANTICS AND PRAGMA, V6, P1, DOI [10.3765/sp.6.8, DOI 10.3765/SP.6.8] Baltag A., 2012, P ESSLLI WORKSH STRA Barwise Jon, 1983, SITUATIONS ATTITUDES Beaver D., 1997, HDB LOGIC LANGUAGE, P939, DOI 10.1016/B978-044481714-3/50022-9 Bovens L, 2010, ANALYSIS-UK, V70, P473, DOI 10.1093/analys/anq020 Cai S., 2013, LOGIC U FDN IN PRESS Ciardelli I., 2013, WORKING PAPER Ciardelli I., 2012, LANGUAGE LI IN PRESS Clark R, 2012, MEANINGFUL GAMES: EXPLORING LANGUAGE WITH GAME THEORY, P1 Cobreros P, 2012, J PHILOS LOGIC, V41, P347, DOI 10.1007/s10992-010-9165-z Fagin R., 1995, REASONING KNOWLEDGE Feinberg Y., 2008, NEW PERSPECTIVES GAM, P105 Gardenfors P, 2006, LECT NOTES ARTIF INT, V4211, P16 Goodman N., 2013, PROBABILISTIC SEMANT GROENENDIJK J, 1991, LINGUIST PHILOS, V14, P39, DOI 10.1007/BF00628304 Halpern J. Y., 2003, REASONING UNCERTAINT Hintikka J., 1997, HDB LOGIC LANGUAGE, P340 HOBBS JR, 1993, ARTIF INTELL, V63, P69, DOI 10.1016/0004-3702(93)90015-4 Holliday W., 2013, LOGIC PROBABILITY EP Hoshi T., 2009, ILLCDS200908 STANF U Icard Th., 2013, THESIS STANFORD U Jager G, 2007, SYNTHESE, V159, P99, DOI 10.1007/s11229-006-9073-5 Jager G., 2005, GAME THEORY PRAGMATI Kameyama M., 1995, INDEFEASIBLE SEMANTI Kamp H, 1993, DISCOURSE LOGIC Kamp Hans, 1981, TRUTH REPRESENTATION, P277 Klaus G., 1959, EINFUHRUNG FORMALE L Lenzen W., 1980, GLAUBEN WISSEN WAHRS LEWIS D, 1979, J PHILOS LOGIC, V8, P339 Lewis D., 1969, CONVENTION Liu F., 2012, DYNAMICS PREFERENCE Liu F., 2012, MIND MACH, V23, P123 Montague R., 1976, FORMAL PHILOS Moss L., 2010, LECT NOTES COMPUTER, V6042, P84, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_9 Papafragou A, 2007, COGNITION, V103, P253, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.04.001 Piattelli-Palmarini M., 1980, LANGUAGE LEARNING DE Schlenker P, 2008, THEOR LINGUIST, V34, P157, DOI 10.1515/THLI.2008.013 Shoham Y., 2008, MULTIAGENT SYSTEMS A Stalnaker R, 1973, J PHILOS LOGIC, V2, P447, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF00262951 Stalnaker R, 2002, LINGUIST PHILOS, V25, P701, DOI 10.1023/A:1020867916902 Stalnaker Robert, 1970, SYNTHESE, V22, P272, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF00413603 Stojanovic I, 2008, SYNTHESE, V165, P317, DOI 10.1007/s11229-007-9190-9 Stokhof M, 2007, J INDIAN PHILOS, V35, P597, DOI 10.1007/s10781-007-9023-7 van Benthem J, 2014, LOGIC IN GAMES, pXV van Benthem J, 2009, J PHILOS LOGIC, V38, P491, DOI 10.1007/s10992-008-9099-x Van Rooy R, 2003, LINGUIST PHILOS, V26, P727, DOI 10.1023/B:LING.0000004548.98658.8f van Benthem J, 1996, EXPLORING LOGICAL DY van Benthem J, 2011, LOGICAL DYNAMICS INF van Benthem J., 2008, P KNAW C GAM INT LOG, P197 van Benthem J, 2013, PP201302 U AMST I LO van Benthem J., 1986, ESSAYS LOGICAL SEMAN VELTMAN F, 1996, J PHILOS LOGIC, V25, P221 Wenzel Ch., 2010, 33 INT WITTG S KIRCH, P323 Wooldridge M. J., 2001, INTRO MULTIAGENT SYS Yalcin S, 2007, MIND, V116, P983, DOI 10.1093/mind/fzm983 NR 55 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0925-8531 EI 1572-9583 J9 J LOGIC LANG INFORM JI J. Log. Lang. Inf. PD SEP PY 2014 VL 23 IS 3 SI SI BP 367 EP 382 DI 10.1007/s10849-014-9188-x PG 16 WC Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence; Computer Science, Theory & Methods; Language & Linguistics; Logic; Philosophy SC Computer Science; Linguistics; Science & Technology - Other Topics; Philosophy GA V42VK UT WOS:000209641100008 ER PT J AU Reber, E AF Reber, Elisabeth TI Constructing evidence at Prime Minister's Question Time: An analysis of the grammar, semantics and pragmatics of the verb see SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE parliamentary interaction; see; perception; evidentiality; epistemic modality ID EVIDENTIALITY; DISCOURSE AB Constructing evidence constitutes a practice to establish the speaker's authority at Prime Minister's Question Time (PMQT), a weekly half-hour session in the British House of Commons. Here the verb see constitutes a resource for both the questioning Leader of the Opposition (LO) and Members of Parliament (MP) as well as for the responding Prime Minister (PM) to claim first-hand perceptual experience. This paper takes an integrated approach, offering a combined analysis of the grammatical formatting, semantics and pragmatics of the verb see in the context of evidential moves at PMQT. It shows how the verb see is functional in referring to the perceptual basis of a claim made and how its grammatical formatting is reflective of the contingencies of the local interactional context. The analysis is grounded in 32 sessions of PMQT (ca. 16 hrs of video-recordings). The results can be summarised as follows: 1) The evidential function of the verb is achieved through its context-specific grammatical formatting and semantics. 2) The reference to the perceptual basis of a claim evoked by see may co-occur with epistemic qualification and evaluative expressions. 3) The formatting of the verb may be indexical of the political relationship between the questioner and the responding PM. C1 Univ Wurzburg, Wurzburg, Germany. RP Reber, E (reprint author), Univ Wurzburg, Wurzburg, Germany. EM elisabeth.reber@uni-wuerzburg.de CR Aijmer Karin, 2004, TRADTERM, V10, P249 Aikhenvald Alexandra Y., 2006, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, V4, P320 [Anonymous], 1986, EVIDENTIALITY LINGUI Anderson Sandra, 2006, COLLINS ENGLISH DICT Antaki C., 2001, TEXT, V21, P467, DOI 10.1515/text.2001.008 Bates S, 2012, PARLIAMENT AFF, P1, DOI 10.11120/stem.hea.2012.071. Bednarek M, 2006, TEXT TALK, V26, P635, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2006.027 BOAS FRANZ, 1911, HDB AM INDIAN LANG 1, P423 Bull P, 2012, J LANG SOC PSYCHOL, V31, P30, DOI 10.1177/0261927X11425034 Chafe W.L, 1986, EVIDENTIALITY LINGUI, P261 Alm-Arvius Christina, 1993, ENGLISH VERB SEE STU CLAYMAN SE, 1993, AM SOCIOL REV, V58, P110, DOI 10.2307/2096221 Cornillie B, 2009, FUNCT LANG, V16, P44, DOI 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor de Haan Ferdinand, 1999, SW J LINGUISTICS, V18, P83 [Anonymous], 2010, EVIDENTIALITY GERMAN Bois Du, 1986, EVIDENTIALITY LINGUI, P313 Du Bois J. W., 2007, STANCETAKING DISCOUR, P139, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.164.07DU Couper-Kuhlen Elizabeth, 2011, GESPRACHSFORSCHUNG O, V12, P1 Couper-Kuhlen Elizabeth, 2006, KONSTRUKTIONEN INTER, P23 Fetzer Anita, INTERCULTURAL PRAGMA, V11, P321 Fox Barbara A., 2001, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V11, P167, DOI DOI 10.1525/JLIN.2001.11.2.167 Hanks WF, 2012, PRAGMAT SOC, V3, P169, DOI 10.1075/ps.3.2.02for Harris S, 2001, DISCOURSE SOC, V12, P451, DOI 10.1177/0957926501012004003 Heritage J, 2005, SOC PSYCHOL QUART, V68, P15 Ilie Cornelia, 2004, CROSS CULTURAL PERSP, P45 Ilie Cornelia, 2001, LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY, VII, P235 ILIE C, 2010, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTS, V38, P57 Jakobson R., 1990, LANGUAGE, P386 Leech Geoffrey, 2004, MEANING ENGLISH VERB Mann W, 1988, TEXT, V8, P243 Nuyts Jan, 2001, EPISTEMIC MODALITY L POMERANTZ A, 1986, HUM STUD, V9, P219, DOI 10.1007/BF00148128 Reber Elisabeth, 2012, P EFS STRAT WORKSH F, P205 Reber Elisabeth, FOLLOW UPS MEDIATED Steensig J., 2011, MORALITY KNOWLEDGE C, P82, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO780511921674.005 Whitt Richard J., 2010, EVIDENTIALITY PERCEP Willett Thomas, 1988, STUD LANG, V12, P51 NR 37 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 2014 VL 11 IS 3 SI SI BP 357 EP 387 DI 10.1515/ip-2014-0017 PG 31 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AL8LP UT WOS:000339390600003 ER PT J AU Berlin, LN Prieto-Mendoza, A AF Berlin, Lawrence N. Prieto-Mendoza, Alejandra TI Evidential embellishment in political debates during US campaigns SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE evidentiality; evidential markers; pragmatics; language manipulation; political debate AB In politics, one area where both incumbents and challengers can be seen exhibiting similar verbal behavior is during debates. In their attempts to depict an opponent as unqualified for the job, politicians must respond to claims they make against their opponents by providing evidence through the means of first-or secondhand knowledge about the claim; the encoding of this evidence and the degree to which they distance themselves from that knowledge is known as evidentiality. This paper explores evidentiality as exhibited by politicians in the 2010 US Midterm Congressional Elections debates. Starting with Chafe's (1986) work on evidential analysis, the features investigated are observed through the lens of critical discourse analysis using the Multilayered Model of Context (Berlin 2007, 2011). Evidential markers (i.e., evidentials) were coded for type and analyzed in their pragmatic functions. Findings suggest that politicians, as a group, tend to use those forms of evidentials that attenuate claims less frequently while they tend to use those forms that boost claims more frequently. Furthermore, face-to-face debates inhibit the use of more reliable evidential encoding as politicians being verbally attacked are available to counter opponents' claims and the attackers are called on to respond to their accusations. C1 [Berlin, Lawrence N.] NE Illinois Univ, Chicago, IL 60625 USA. [Prieto-Mendoza, Alejandra] Univ Illinois, Chicago, IL USA. RP Berlin, LN (reprint author), NE Illinois Univ, Chicago, IL 60625 USA. EM L-Berlin@neiu.edu; pmendoza@uic.edu CR Berlin Lawrence N., 2007, CONTEXT APPROPRIATEN, P176 Berlin Lawrence N., 2011, DISCURSO SOC, V5, P9 Chafe W.L, 1986, EVIDENTIALITY LINGUI, P261 DeLancey S, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P369, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 Fox Barbara A., 2001, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V11, P167, DOI DOI 10.1525/JLIN.2001.11.2.167 Gonzalez M, 2008, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V4, P127 McCarthy K., 2010, ABC NEWS BLOGS 1006 [Anonymous], 2010, UPTAKE 1026 Simon-Vandenbergen A.M., 2007, SEMANTIC FIELD MODAL van Dijk Teun A., 2001, HDB DISCOURSE ANAL, P352 [Anonymous], 2010, LAS VEGAS SUN 1015 NR 11 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 10 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 2014 VL 11 IS 3 SI SI BP 389 EP 409 DI 10.1515/ip-2014-0018 PG 21 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AL8LP UT WOS:000339390600004 ER PT J AU Gonzalez, M AF Gonzalez, Montserrat TI Evidentiality, intersubjectivity and salience in Spanish and Catalan markers claro/clar and la verdad/veritat SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE evidentiality; intersubjectivity; salience; Catalan; Spanish ID DISCOURSE; STRATEGIES; SUBJECTIVITY; CONVERSATION; PERSPECTIVE; MODALITY; CONTEXT AB From an interactional perspective, this paper explores the evidential and salient meanings of Spanish and Catalan pragmatic markers claro/clar and la verdad/veritat, focusing on their intersubjective nature. Salience is the prominence that speakers give to certain meanings of lexemes based on prior experience, familiarity or convention (Giora, 2003; Kecskes 2013). Intersubjectivity involves the sharing of responsibility and commitment to the validity of the information provided (Nuyts 2001). The working hypothesis is that these markers adopt a twofold cognitive-functional role depending on: (i) the nature of the interactional communicative context; (ii) the newness or givenness of the information. In a monologic segment, the speaker makes use of the evidentials to argue and share with the interlocutor his/her epistemological stance and perspective through an inferential reasoning process; the aim is persuasive and evaluative. In a dialogic segment, their role is that of truth-attesting and the negotiation of salient meaning. C1 Univ Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. RP Gonzalez, M (reprint author), Univ Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. EM montserrat.gonzalez@upf.edu CR Aijmer K, 2006, STUD PRAGMAT, V1, P101 Aikhenvald Alexandra, 2004, EVIDENTIALITY Albelda Marta, 2007, LA INTENSIFICACION C Albelda M, 2014, EMOTIONEN EXPRESSIVI, P79 Bednarek M, 2006, TEXT TALK, V26, P635, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2006.027 Blakemore D., 1987, SEMANTIC CONSTRAINTS Chafe Wallace, 1986, EVIDENTIALITY THE LI Chafe W. L., 1976, SUBJECT TOPIC, P25 Cornillie B, 2010, LINGUISTIC REALIZATI, P309 Cornillie B, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P2109, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.004 Cuenca MJ, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P2211, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.006 de Haan Ferdinand, 1999, SW J LINGUISTICS, V18, P83 De Hann Ferdinand, 2005, LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY, P379 Fraser Bruce, 1996, LANG SCI, V18, P863, DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00052-6 Fuentes Catalina, 1993, SOCIOLINGUISTICA AND, V8, P99 Fuentes Catalina, 2009, DICCIONARIO DE OPERA Galue D, 2002, B LINGUIST, V18, P27 GIORA R, 2003, ON OUR MIND SALIENCE Giora R., 1997, COGN LINGUIST, V7, P183, DOI [10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183, DOI 10.1515/COGL.1997.8.3.183] GIVON T, 1992, LINGUISTICS, V30, P5, DOI 10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.5 Gonzalez Montserrat, 2004, PRAGMATICS BEYOND NS, V122 Gonzalez Montserrat, 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V2, P515, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.515 Gonzalez M, 2011, MOUTON SERIES IN PRA, V10, P145 Gonzalez M, 2008, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V4, P127 Hanks WF, 2012, PRAGMAT SOC, V3, P169, DOI 10.1075/ps.3.2.02for Haverkate Henk, 1994, LA CORTESIA VERBAL E Hoye LF, 2008, MOUTON SER PRAGMAT, V2, P151 Jucker Andreas, 1998, PRAGMATICS AND BEYON, V57 Kecskes I, 2006, SECOND LANG RES, V22, P219, DOI 10.1191/0267658306sr266ra Kecskes I, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V48, P71, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.010 Langacker Ronald, 1987, FOUNDATIONS OF COGNI Maldonado Ricardo, 2010, ADJETIVOS DISCURSO E, P61 Marin-Arrese JI, 2011, DISCOURSE STUD, V13, P789 Marin-Arrese J, 2004, PERSPECTIVES EVIDENT, P153 Martin-Zorraquino Ma Antonia, 1999, NUEVA GRAMATICA DESC, V3, P4051 Mushin I, 2012, PRAGMAT SOC, V3, P270, DOI 10.1075/ps.3.2.07mus Nuckolls J, 2012, PRAGMAT SOC, V3, P181, DOI 10.1075/ps.3.2.03int Nuyts J, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P383, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00009-6 Paradis Carita, 2003, MODALITY CONT ENGLIS, P191 Pons Salvador, 2003, PARTIKELN HOFLICHKEI, P219 REDEKER G, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P367, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90095-U Sanders Jose, 1996, COGN LINGUIST, V7, P241, DOI DOI 10.1515/COGL.1996.7.3.241 Sanders J, 1999, COG LIN RES, V12, P471 Sanders J., 1997, DISCOURSE PERSPECTIV, P85 Serrano Maria Jose, 1995, ESPANOL ACTUAL, P1 Sidnell J, 2012, PRAGMAT SOC, V3, P294, DOI 10.1075/ps.3.2.08sid Smith Carlota, 2003, CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN Speas Margaret, 2008, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V2, P940 Torrent A, 2011, MARCADORES DEL DISCU, P213 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1995, SUBJECTIVITY SUBJECT, P31, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 van der Auwera Johan, 1998, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V2, P79, DOI 10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79 NR 51 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 5 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 2014 VL 11 IS 3 SI SI BP 411 EP 436 DI 10.1515/ip-2014-0019 PG 26 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AL8LP UT WOS:000339390600005 ER PT J AU Kronmuller, E Morisseau, T Noveck, IA AF Kronmueller, Edmundo Morisseau, Tiffany Noveck, Ira A. TI Show me the pragmatic contribution: a developmental investigation of contrastive inference SO JOURNAL OF CHILD LANGUAGE LA English DT Article ID SCALAR IMPLICATURE; CHILDREN; COMMUNICATION; COMPREHENSION; INFORMATION; LANGUAGE; ADULTS AB An utterance such as 'Show me the large rabbit' potentially generates a CONTRASTIVE INFERENCE, i. e., the article the and the adjective large allow listeners to pragmatically infer the existence of other entities having the same noun (e. g. a small rabbit). The primary way to measure children's ability to carry out this pragmatic inference has been through tasks that measure infelicity detection. We argue that such studies are not as revealing as one might assume because they force children to adopt a metalinguistic stance and they consider infelicity detection as tantamount to contrastive inference-making. To address these concerns, we develop a game-like situation in which all utterances remain felicitous. Moreover, we make a distinction between responses that are revealing of a pragmatic interpretation and responses that are revealing of a reliance on the utterance's LINGUISTICALLY ENCODED meaning (i. e., a lack of contrastive inference). Three experiments with seven-year-olds, ten-year-olds, and adults show that pragmatic interpretations do not emerge among seven-year-olds, that ten-year-olds do not show adult-like performance, and that adults are not at ceiling. We conclude that contrastive inference-making is an effortful process and that the ability to detect such gains-in-information through language increases with age. C1 [Kronmueller, Edmundo] Pontificia Univ Catolica Chile, Escuela Psicol, Santiago, Chile. [Morisseau, Tiffany; Noveck, Ira A.] CRFJ, Lab Langage Cerveau & Cognit L2C2, UMR5230, Jerusalem, Israel. RP Kronmuller, E (reprint author), Pontificia Univ Catolica Chile, Escuela Psicol, Santiago, Chile. EM ekr@uc.cl CR ACKERMAN BP, 1981, CHILD DEV, V52, P1224, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1981.tb03170.x ACKERMAN BP, 1990, DEV PSYCHOL, V26, P234, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.26.2.234 Barr DJ, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P457, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.09.002 Bates D., 2005, R NEWS, V5, P27, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1523-1739.2005.00280.X Birner Betty, 1994, P 20 ANN M BERK LING, P93 BREDART S, 1984, J CHILD LANG, V11, P665 Davies C, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P1956, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.005 De Neys W, 2007, EXP PSYCHOL, V54, P128, DOI 10.1027/1618-3169.54.2.128 Engelhardt PE, 2006, J MEM LANG, V54, P554, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.009 FLAVELL JH, 1981, MONOGR SOC RES CHILD, V46, P1, DOI 10.2307/1165875 GRICE HP, 1957, PHILOS REV, V66, P377, DOI 10.2307/2182440 Grice H. P., 1975, PRAGMATICS READER, P305 Guasti MT, 2005, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V20, P667, DOI 10.1080/01690960444000250 Huang YT, 2009, DEV PSYCHOL, V45, P1723, DOI 10.1037/a0016704 IRONSMITH M, 1978, CHILD DEV, V49, P348, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1978.tb02322.x Jaeger F. T., 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P434, DOI [DOI 10.1016/J.JML.2007.11.007, 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007] KAHNEMAN D, 1973, PSYCHOL REV, V80, P237, DOI 10.1037/h0034747 Katsos N., 2008, 11 C INT ASS STUD CH Keenan TR, 1999, BRIT J DEV PSYCHOL, V17, P83, DOI 10.1348/026151099165168 Cacciari C., 2004, BRAIN LANG, V91, P303 MOORE C, 1993, J CHILD LANG, V20, P153 Davies C., DO 3 5 YEAR OLDS RES Nadig AS, 2002, PSYCHOL SCI, V13, P329, DOI 10.1111/1467-9280.00460 Noveck I., 2007, ADV PRAGMATICS Castry A., 2001, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V16, P109, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327868MS1601& Noveck IA, 2001, COGNITION, V78, P165, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1 Noveck I. A., BREVITY IN PRESS Noveck IA, 2008, TRENDS COGN SCI, V12, P425, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.009 Papafragou A, 2003, COGNITION, V86, P253, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00179-8 Pexman PM, 2007, J NEUROLINGUIST, V20, P178, DOI 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.06.001 Pouscoulous Nausicaa, 2007, LANG ACQUIS, V14, P347, DOI DOI 10.1080/10489220701600457 Sedivy JC, 2003, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V32, P3, DOI 10.1023/A:1021928914454 Sedivy JC, 1999, COGNITION, V71, P109, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00025-6 SIMONSON I, 1992, J MARKETING RES, V29, P281, DOI 10.2307/3172740 Southgate V, 2010, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V13, P907, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00946.x Tversky A, 1982, JUDGMENT UNCERTAINTY, P153 WHITEHURST GJ, 1976, CHILD DEV, V47, P473, DOI 10.2307/1128804 NR 37 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 13 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 2014 VL 41 IS 5 BP 985 EP 1014 DI 10.1017/S0305000913000263 PG 30 WC Psychology, Developmental; Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Psychology; Linguistics GA AM0PR UT WOS:000339548200002 PM 23866693 ER PT J AU Baxter, RN AF Neal Baxter, Robert TI A simplified multi-model approach to preparatory training in simultaneous interpreting SO PERSPECTIVES-STUDIES IN TRANSLATOLOGY LA English DT Article DE preparatory training; listening-speaking; synchronicity; sight translation; integrated exercises; teaching methodology ID TRANSLATION; STRATEGIES AB Preparatory training provides the essential basis for undergraduate interpreter teaching. Based on almost 20 years of teaching experience, this paper offers an overview of the approach used for basic training in simultaneous interpreting, designed to provide a solid grounding for would-be interpreters before moving on to more advanced, professional-standard training. The approach described, part of a wider framework covering both consecutive and simultaneous interpreting, draws on several theoretical models in order to provide students with an elementary two-tier strategy based on shallow linear translation combined with deeper semantic and pragmatic analyses. While not rejecting clozing and shadowing as complementary exercises for specific purposes, the integrated methodology is centred almost exclusively on synchronized sight translation with audio input in order to allow students to acquire the basic technique of listening and speaking gradually and in as natural away as possible. The teaching procedure is described in step-by-step detail, with examples of the strategies applied to extracts taken from a corpus of authentic speeches. C1 Univ Vigo, Vigo 36310, Spain. RP Baxter, RN (reprint author), Univ Vigo, Vigo 36310, Spain. CR Abney S. P., 1991, PRINCIPLE BASED PARS, P257 Agrifoglio M., 2004, INTERPRETING, V6, P43, DOI DOI 10.1075/INTP.6.1.05AGR Ahrens B., 2005, INTERPRETERS NEWSLET, V13, P1 Alexieva B., 1988, TRANSL OUR FUT P 11, P484 Bacigalupe LA, 1999, PERSPECT STUD TRANSL, V7, P253 Alonso Bacigalupe L., 2007, THESIS U VIGO VIGO Alonso Bacigalupe L., 2009, PROCESAMIENTO INFORM Balfourier J.-M., 2002, P 19 INT C COMP LING, V1, P1, DOI 10.3115/1072228.1072332 Chernov Gelly, 1994, BRIDGING GAP EMPIRIC, P139, DOI DOI 10.1075/BTL.3.13CHE Chernov Ghelly V., 2004, INFERENCE ANTICIPATI Curvers P., 1986, CUADERNOS TRADUCCION, V7, P97 DARCAIS GBF, 1985, PSYCHOL RES-PSYCH FO, V47, P39 De Groot A.M.B., 2000, TAPPING MAPPING PROC, DOI DOI 10.1075/BTL.37.06GRO Dragsted B, 2009, META, V54, P588 Gerver David, 1976, TRANSLATION APPL RES, P165 Gile D., 2009, BASIC CONCEPTS MODEL Gile D., 2003, FORUM, V1, P47 Gile D., 1995, BASIC CONCEPTS MODEL Isham William, 1994, BRIDGING GAP EMPIRIC, P191 Jimenez Ivars M. A., 1999, THESIS U JAUME I CAS Kade O, 1963, FREMDSPRACHEN, V7, P12 [Anonymous], 2000, INTERPRETERS NEWSLET Kalina Sylvia, 1992, TEACHING TRANSLATION, P251, DOI [10.1075/z.56.38kal, DOI 10.1075/Z.56.38KAL] Kalina S, 1994, BENJAMIN TRANSL LIB, V2, P219 KURZ I, 1992, COPEN S TR, P245 Lambert S., 1992, INTERPRETERS NEWSLET, V4, P15 Lambert S., 1992, TARGET, V4, P223, DOI 10.1075/target.4.2.06lam Levy J., 1967, HONOR R JAKOBSON, V2, P1171 MacWhinney B., 1997, COGNITIVE PROCESS, P215 Martin A., 1993, TRANSLATION VITAL LI, V1, P398 Moser B., 1978, LANGUAGE INTERPRETAT, P353 Mossop B., 1987, TEXTCONTEXT, V2, P1 Baxter RN, 2012, INTERPRET TRANSL TRA, V6, P21 PYM A, 2009, EFFORTS MODELS INTER, V80, P83 Arumi Ribas M., 2010, REDIT REV ELECT DIDA, V4, P42 Riccardi A, 1996, BENJAMIN TRANSL LIB, V16, P213 Riccardi A, 2005, META, V50, P753 Sawyer D. B., 2004, FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS Schaefer U., 2007, INTEGRATING DEEP SHA SCHREUDER R, 1984, PSYCHOL RES-PSYCH FO, V45, P339, DOI 10.1007/BF00309710 Seeber K. G., 2001, CAHIERS LINGUISTIQUE, V23, P1 Seleskovitch D., 1981, ENSEIGNEMENT INTERPR, P23 Lederer Marianne, 1989, PEDAGOGIE RAISONNEE Setton R., 1994, TEACHING TRANSLATION, P183 Setton R., 1998, INTERPRETING, V3, P163, DOI 10.1075/intp.3.2.03set Setton R., 1999, SIMULTANEOUS INTERPR Shlesinger M., 2003, INTERPRETERS NEWSLET, V12, P37 Shlesinger M., 1994, BRIDGING GAP EMPIRIC, P225 Taylor WL, 1953, JOURNALISM QUART, V30, P415 Van Besien F, 1999, META, V44, P250 Vandepitte S., 2001, REV ALICANTINA ESTUD, V14, P323 Viaggio S., 1992, INTERPRETERS NEWSLET, V4, P40 Weber W. K., 2008, INTERPRETING YESTERD, P44 NR 53 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 16 PU ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD PI ABINGDON PA 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND SN 0907-676X EI 1747-6623 J9 PERSPECT STUD TRANSL JI Perspect.-Stud. Transl. PD SEP PY 2014 VL 22 IS 3 BP 349 EP 372 DI 10.1080/0907676X.2012.758751 PG 24 WC Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AJ3SB UT WOS:000337586500005 ER PT J AU Murza, KA Nye, C Schwartz, JB Ehren, BJ Hahs-Vaughn, DL AF Murza, Kimberly A. Nye, Chad Schwartz, Jamie B. Ehren, Barbara J. Hahs-Vaughn, Debbie L. TI A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Inference Generation Strategy Intervention for Adults With High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder SO AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY LA English DT Article DE autism; intervention; language; reading; pragmatics; adults ID ASPERGER-SYNDROME; READING-COMPREHENSION; SOCIAL-PERCEPTION; YOUNG-ADULTS; CHILDREN; STUDENTS; DISABILITIES; ADOLESCENTS; SKILLS; MIND AB Purpose: The present intervention study investigated the efficacy of the ACT & Check Strategy intervention to improve inference generation when reading, metacognitive ability, general reading comprehension, and social inference ability in adults with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (HF-ASD). Method: Twenty-five adults with HF-ASD were randomly assigned to either a treatment or a control group. Treatment sessions were conducted in 1-hr sessions, twice a week, for a total of 6 weeks. Treatment focused on explicit instruction of components of inference generation, categories of inferences, and increasingly independent strategy use. Results: The treatment group demonstrated significantly superior performance on 1 of 2 measures of inference generation in reading and 1 measure of metacognitive ability compared with the control group. Significant differences between groups were not found on measures of reading comprehension or social inference ability. Conclusion: These findings suggest that the ACT & Check Strategy was effective in improving participants' ability to generate inferences in reading and certain metacognitive abilities, but the skills do not appear to generalize to other social communication contexts, such as social inference generation. This research provides a measure of support for explicitly teaching inference generation to address a reading inference deficit in adults with HF-ASD. C1 [Murza, Kimberly A.] Univ No Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639 USA. [Nye, Chad; Schwartz, Jamie B.; Ehren, Barbara J.; Hahs-Vaughn, Debbie L.] Univ Cent Florida, Orlando, FL 32816 USA. RP Murza, KA (reprint author), Univ No Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639 USA. EM kimberly.murza@unco.edu CR American Psychiatric Association, 2013, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT Anderson R. C., 1984, HDB READING RES, P255 Applegate AJ, 2009, READ TEACH, V62, P372, DOI 10.1598/RT.62.5.1 BARONCOHEN S, 1985, COGNITION, V21, P37, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8 Bellini S, 2007, REM SPEC EDUC, V28, P153, DOI 10.1177/07419325070280030401 Bowyer-Crane C, 2005, BRIT J EDUC PSYCHOL, V75, P189, DOI 10.1348/000709904X22674 Bui Y. N., 2006, LEARNING DISABILITIE, V21, P244, DOI [10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00221.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1540-5826.2006.00221.X] CARNINE DW, 1982, J READING BEHAV, V14, P335 CARR EM, 1983, J READING BEHAV, V15, P1 Casner-Lotto J., 2006, ARE THEY REALLY READ David N, 2010, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V40, P290, DOI 10.1007/s10803-009-0867-4 DEWITZ P, 1987, READ RES QUART, V22, P99, DOI 10.2307/747723 Dotson WH, 2010, RES AUTISM SPECT DIS, V4, P199, DOI 10.1016/j.rasd.2009.09.005 Dziobek I, 2008, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V38, P464, DOI 10.1007/s10803-007-0486-x Ehren B. J., 2010, PERSPECTIVES LANGUAG, V19, P93 Ehren B. J., 2008, STRUCTURE YOUR READI ELLIS ES, 1991, FOCUS EXCEPT CHILD, V23, P1 Fisher J. B., 2002, COMPREHENSION INSTRU, P351 Flores MM, 2009, EDUC TRAIN DEV DISAB, V44, P39 Flores M. M., 2007, FOCUS AUTISM OTHER D, V22, P244, DOI [10.1177/ 10883576070220040601, DOI 10.1177/10883576070220040601] Frith U., 1989, AUTISM EXPLAINING EN Fritschmann N. S., 2006, THESIS Goode S., 1994, 13 BIENN M INT SOC S Graham JW, 2009, ANNU REV PSYCHOL, V60, P549, DOI 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530 Gresham FM, 2001, EXCEPT CHILDREN, V67, P331 Hall G., 2006, IMPLEMENTING CHANGE Happe F, 2006, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V36, P5, DOI 10.1007/s10803-005-0039-0 HAPPE FGE, 1994, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V24, P129, DOI 10.1007/BF02172093 Hedges LV, 1985, STAT METHODS METAANA Hendrickx S., 2008, LOVE SEX LONG TERM R Hollis S, 1999, BRIT MED J, V319, P670 Howlin P, 1997, AUTISM PREPARING ADU Howlin P., 1996, EVALUATION PILOT 2 Y Howlin P., 1998, AUTISM PERVASIVE DEV, P209 Huemer S. V., 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V40, P485, DOI [10. 1007/ s10803- 009- 0892- 3, DOI 10.1007/S10803-009-0892-3] Hughes C. A., 2002, LEARNING DISABILITIE, V17, P1, DOI 10.1111/1540-5826.00028 Karen Hurlbutt, 2004, FOCUS AUTISM OTHER D, V19, P215, DOI DOI 10.1177/10883576040190040301 Jarbrink K, 2007, RES DEV DISABIL, V28, P94, DOI 10.1016/j.ridd.2005.11.002 Kaland N, 2005, EUR CHILD ADOLES PSY, V14, P73, DOI 10.1007/s00787-005-0434-2 Kaland N, 2002, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V43, P517, DOI 10.1111/1469-7610.00042 Bryson S. E., 2000, AUTISM, V4, P117, DOI DOI 10.1177/1362361300004002002 Lancaster PE, 2009, LEARN DISABILITY Q, V32, P165 Langer JA, 2001, AM EDUC RES J, V38, P837, DOI 10.3102/00028312038004837 LENZ BK, 1990, J LEARN DISABIL, V23, P149 Loukusa S, 2009, RES AUTISM SPECT DIS, V3, P890, DOI 10.1016/j.rasd.2009.05.002 MAGLIANO JP, 1996, ADV DISC PROCESS, V52, P201 McDonald S, 2004, NEUROPSYCHOL REHABIL, V14, P285, DOI 10.1080/09602010343000237 McDonald S, 2002, AWARENESS SOCIAL INF McDonald S, 2006, DISABIL REHABIL, V28, P1529, DOI 10.1080/09638280600646185 Mesibov G. B., 1997, AUTISM UNDERSTANDING Murza K. A., 2011, INFERENCE GENERATION Myles B. S., 2002, FOCUS AUTISM OTHER D, V17, P44, DOI [DOI 10.1177/108835760201700104, 10.1177/10883576] Nation K, 1999, PSYCHOL BULL, V125, P338, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.338 Nation K, 2006, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V36, P911, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0130-1 Nesbitt S., 2000, AUTISM, V4, P357, DOI [10. 1177/ 1362361300004004002, DOI 10.1177/1362361300004004002] O'Connor IM, 2004, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V34, P115, DOI 10.1023/B:JADD.0000022603.44077.6b Palmen A, 2008, AUTISM, V12, P83, DOI 10.1177/1362361307085265 Palmen A, 2012, RES AUTISM SPECT DIS, V6, P602, DOI 10.1016/j.rasd.2011.10.001 Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2010, PRINC REC 21 CENT RE Paul R, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P115, DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0607-1 Puma M. J., 2009, WHAT DO WHEN DATA AR Randi J, 2010, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V40, P890, DOI 10.1007/s10803-010-0938-6 Reichow B, 2012, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD008511.pub2 REUTZEL DR, 1988, READ RES QUART, V23, P358, DOI 10.2307/748047 Schumaker J. B., 1992, CONT INTERVENTION RE, P22 Schumaker J. B., 1982, COMING AGE, V3, P170 Seybert L., 1998, THESIS Snow C.E., 2002, READING UNDERSTANDIN Spargo E., 1989, TIMED READINGS LIT B Stichter JP, 2010, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V40, P1067, DOI [10.1007/s10803-010-0959-1, 10.1007/s10803-010-0968-0] Streiner D. L., 2002, CAN J PSYCHIAT, V47, P70 Tager-Flusberg H., 2005, HDB AUTISM PERVASIVE, V1, P335 Lounds Taylor J., 2012, AHRQ PUBLICATION Torgerson DJ, 2008, DESIGNING RANDOMISED TRIALS IN HEALTH, EDUCATION AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES: AN INTRODUCTION, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230583993 Turner-Brown LM, 2008, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V38, P1777, DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0545-y Valenti M., 2010, CHILD ADOL PSYCH CL, V4, P1 Wahlberg T, 2004, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V38, P119, DOI 10.1207/s15326950dp3801_5 Watson G, 1964, WATSON GLASER CRITIC Westbrook J. D., 2012, CAMPBELL SYSTEMATIC, V5, DOI [10.4073/csr.2012.5, DOI 10.4073/CSR.2012.5] Westby C, 2004, CHALLENGES LANG LITE, P398 Williams K., 2001, GRADE GROUP READING Woodbury-Smith MR, 2009, EUR CHILD ADOLES PSY, V18, P2, DOI 10.1007/s00787-008-0701-0 NR 82 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 4 U2 14 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 AUG PY 2014 VL 23 IS 3 BP 461 EP 473 DI 10.1044/2014_AJSLP-13-0012 PG 13 WC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology; Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA AU5ZQ UT WOS:000345682300008 PM 24687182 ER PT J AU Flamenbaum, R AF Flamenbaum, Rachel TI The pragmatics of codeswitching on Ghanaian talk radio SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM LA English DT Article DE Language attitudes; media; pragmatics; information structure; codeswitching; Twi ID LANGUAGE AB Radio, in particular, the popular Asante Twi talk-radio format that emerged in the mid-1990s, provides a unique forum for analyzing the linguistic tensions of contemporary Ghana. Radio is a context where talk and debate are central; since language is foregrounded, anxieties and beliefs about what the use of a particular language indexes socially are thrown into stark relief. This paper draws on conversation analysis, information structure, and ethnography to make sense of the prevalence of intrasentential codeswitching into English in the context of predominantly Twi talk-radio debates. It proposes that switches into English mark new or salient information, and as such function as a pragmatic tool in radio discourse, allowing speakers to negotiate the conversational floor and metapragmatically frame the speech event. It is argued that English's pragmatic force in this context is drawn from its ability to index a multivalent prestige born of contradictory sites of authority within contemporary Ghanaian life. C1 [Flamenbaum, Rachel] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA. RP Flamenbaum, R (reprint author), Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Anthropol, 375 Portola Plaza,341 Haines Hall,Box 951553, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA. EM rnflame@ucla.edu CR Ameka F. K., 2009, TOPICS KWA SYNTAX, P141 Amfo NAA, 2010, LINGUISTICS, V48, P195, DOI 10.1515/LING.2010.006 Auer Peter, 1999, INT J BILINGUAL, V3, P309, DOI DOI 10.1177/13670069990030040101 CHAFE WL, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P111, DOI 10.2307/412014 Clayman S, 2002, NEWS INTERVIEW JOURN Dakubu M. E. Kropp, 1997, KORLE MEETS SEA SOCI Dik Simon C., 1997, THEORY FUNCTIONAL 1 Dolphyne Florence Abena, 1988, AKAN TWI FANTE LANGU Downing A., 2006, ENGLISH GRAMMAR Erteschik-Shir Nomi, 2007, INFORM STRUCTURE SYN Fiedler I., 2006, INT C INF STRUCT U P Flamenbaum R., 2007, SPEAK YOUR KASA BROA Forson B., 1979, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Goodwin M. H., 1990, HE SAID SHE SAID TAL Greene S., 1998, AFRICA NOTES FEB, P1 Halliday MAK, 1967, J LINGUIST, V3, P199, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700016613 Heller Monica, 1995, ONE SPEAKER 2 LANGUA, P158 Huber M., 1999, GHANAIAN PIDGIN W AF [Anonymous], 1996, CONFRONTATION TALK A IRVINE JT, 1989, AM ETHNOL, V16, P248, DOI 10.1525/ae.1989.16.2.02a00040 Karrebaek Martha, 2003, INT J BILINGUAL, V7, P407, DOI 10.1177/13670069030070040401 Kimble D., 1963, POLITICAL HIST GHANA Torrence Harold, 2006, ZAS PAPERS LINGUISTI, V46, P161 Kugler F., 2009, INTERACTION TO UNPUB Labov William, 1972, SOCIOLINGUISTIC PATT Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Lewis M. P., 2009, ETHNOLOGUE LANGUAGES Meyer B., 1998, J RELIG AFR, V28, P316, DOI DOI 10.2307/1581573 Milroy L., 1995, ONE SPEAKER 2 LANGUA Obeng S. G., 2003, LANGUAGE SOCIAL INTE, P133 Schieffelin B., 1989, TEXT, V9, P7, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.7 Okoampa-Ahoofe K., 2005, GHANAWEB ONLINE 0706 SAAH KK, 1986, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V28, P367 SCHIFFRIN D, 1984, LANG SOC, V13, P311 Shipley J., 2002, ANTHR Q, V82, P631 SINGLER JV, 1988, STUD LANG, V12, P123, DOI 10.1075/sl.12.1.06sin Spitulnik Debra, 2002, MEDIA WORLDS ANTHR N, P337 Wei L., 1994, 3 GENERATIONS 2 LANG Woolard Kathryn A., 1999, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V8, P3 Yankah Kwesi, 1995, SPEAKING CHIEF OKYEA Zerbian S., 2010, P SPEECH PROS 2010 C, P1 [Anonymous], 2005, DAILY GRAPHIC ONLINE NR 42 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 0 U2 2 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 AUG PY 2014 VL 18 IS 4 SI SI BP 346 EP 362 DI 10.1177/1367006913481136 PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AP8XF UT WOS:000342362000002 ER PT J AU Guerini, F AF Guerini, Federica TI Language contact, language mixing and identity: The Akan spoken by Ghanaian immigrants in northern Italy SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM LA English DT Article DE Akan-English language contact; immigrant communities; language mixing AB In this paper, it will be argued that the Akan spoken within the Ghanaian immigrant community in Bergamo is currently going through a transitional process that leads from code-switching to language mixing, as illustrated in Auer ((1999) From codeswitching via language mixing to fused lects: Towards a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. International Journal of Bilingualism, 3, 309332). Analysis of excerpts drawn from a sample of face-to-face interactions, as well as formal interviews (comprising 27 hours of recordings in total), involving a selected group of Ghanaian immigrants in northern Italy will provide a useful starting point for discussing a distinguishing feature of the variety of Akan spoken by the above-mentioned immigrants - that is, the systematic insertion of English 'chunks' (e.g. single words or phrases) which do not appear to fulfil any pragmatic or discursive function. It will be argued that this 'mixed' variety of Akan is an expressive device of considerable importance within the community's repertoire, which is regularly employed in informal spontaneous interactions not only by those community members who speak Akan as a lingua franca, but by Akan native speakers as well. C1 [Guerini, Federica] Univ Bergamo, Ctr Linguist & Philol, I-24121 Bergamo, Italy. RP Guerini, F (reprint author), Univ Bergamo, Dipartimento Lingue Letterature Straniere & Comun, Via Pignolo 123, I-24121 Bergamo, Italy. EM federica.guerini@unibg.it CR Abdulaziz Mohamed H, 1997, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V125, P43 Amuda A. A., 1994, AFRICAN LANGUAGES CU, V7, P121 Amuzu E. K., 2005, LEGON J HUMANITIES, V16, P27 Amuzu EK, 2014, INT J BILINGUAL, V18, P384, DOI 10.1177/1367006913481139 Ansre Gilbert, 1971, ENGLISH LANGUAGE W A, P145 Auer P., 1984, BILINGUAL CONVERSATI Auer Peter, 1998, CODE SWITCHING CONVE, P1 Auer P., 1988, CODESWITCHING ANTHR, P187 Auer Peter, 1999, INT J BILINGUAL, V3, P309, DOI DOI 10.1177/13670069990030040101 Auer P., 2000, ESTUDIOS SOCIOLINGUI, V1, P129 Blommaert J., 1992, J MULTILING MULTICUL, V13, P57 Dakubu M. E. Kropp, 1997, KORLE MEETS SEA SOCI Dakubu M. E. K., 2000, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V141, P9 Dakubu M. E. K., 1997, ENGLISH GHANA Dakubu M. E. K., 1988, LANGUAGES GHANA Forson B., 1979, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Franceschini Rita, 1998, CODE SWITCHING CONVE, P51 Guerini Federica, 2006, LANGUAGE ALTERNATION Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES Huber Magnus, 1999, GHANAIAN PIDGIN ENGL LAITIN DD, 1994, AM POLIT SCI REV, V88, P622, DOI 10.2307/2944799 McLaughlin Fiona, 2001, J AFRICAN CULTURAL S, V14, P153, DOI 10.1080/13696810120107104 Mc Laughlin Fiona, 2008, GLOBALIZATION LANGUA, P142 McLaughlin F., 2009, LANGUAGES URBAN AFRI, P71 Moyer M., 1998, CODE SWITCHING CONVE, P215 Myers-Scotton C., 1993, SOCIAL MOTIVATION CO NARTEY JNA, 1982, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V24, P183 POPLACK S, 1984, LINGUISTICS, V22, P99, DOI 10.1515/ling.1984.22.1.99 Simpson Andrew, 2008, LANGUAGE NATL IDENTI Spencer John, 1971, ENGLISH LANGUAGE W A NR 30 TC 1 Z9 1 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 AUG PY 2014 VL 18 IS 4 SI SI BP 363 EP 383 DI 10.1177/1367006913481138 PG 21 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AP8XF UT WOS:000342362000003 ER PT J AU Koszowy, M Araszkiewicz, M AF Koszowy, Marcin Araszkiewicz, Michal TI The Lvov-Warsaw School as a Source of Inspiration for Argumentation Theory SO ARGUMENTATION LA English DT Article DE Roots of the Polish School of Argumentation; Logical culture; Formal and pragmatic force of argument; Uncertain reasoning; Fallacies; Argumentation schemes; Legal argumentation; Legal constructivism AB The thesis of the paper holds that some future developments of argumentation theory may be inspired by the rich logico-methodological legacy of the Lvov-Warsaw School (LWS), the Polish research movement that was most active from 1895 to 1939. As a selection of ideas of the LWS which exploit both formal and pragmatic aspects of the force of argument, we present: Ajdukiewicz's account of reasoning and inference, BocheA"ski's analyses of superstitions or dogmas, and Frydman's constructive approach to legal interpretation. This paper does not aim at exhaustive elaboration of any of these topics or their usefulness in current discussions within argumentation theory. Rather, we intend to indicate chosen directions of a potentially fruitful research program for the emerging Polish School of Argumentation which would consist in application of methods and conceptions elaborated by the LWS to selected open problems of contemporary research on argumentation. C1 [Koszowy, Marcin] Univ Bialystok, Dept Log Informat & Philosophy Sci, PL-15420 Bialystok, Poland. [Araszkiewicz, Michal] Jagiellonian Univ, Dept Legal Theory, Fac Law & Adm, PL-31005 Krakow, Poland. RP Koszowy, M (reprint author), Univ Bialystok, Dept Log Informat & Philosophy Sci, Plac Uniwersytecki 1, PL-15420 Bialystok, Poland. EM koszowy@uwb.edu.pl; michal.araszkiewicz@uj.edu.pl RI Koszowy, Marcin/I-4119-2016 OI Koszowy, Marcin/0000-0001-5553-7428 CR Ajdukiewicz K., 1974, PRAGMATIC LOGIC Ajdukiewicz K., 1955, STUDIA LOGICA, V2, P278, DOI 10.1007/BF02124783 Araszkiewicz M., 2011, ICAIL 11 P 13 INT C, P101 Ashley K.D., 1990, MODELING LEGAL ARGUM Barth E. M., 1982, AXIOM DIALOGUE PHILO Bench-Capon T, 2003, ARTIF INTELL, V150, P97, DOI 10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00108-5 Bochenski J, 1994, STO ZABOBONOW Bochenski J. M., 1974, AUTHORITY, P58 Budzynska K, 2010, FRONT ARTIF INTEL AP, V216, P135, DOI 10.3233/978-1-60750-619-5-135 Czezowski T., 2000, KNOWLEDGE SCI VALUES, P68 Dambska Izydora, 1962, DWA STUDIA TEORII NA Debowska K., 2010, FORUM ARTIS RHETORIC, V20-21, P96 Federowicz M., 2010, SOC ROAD KNOWLEDGE R Frydman S., 1936, OGOLNA NAUKA PRAWIE, P141 Griffin N., 2013, VIRTUES ARGUMENTATIO, P1 Hage J., 2013, LEGAL ARGUMENTATION Hamblin Charles L., 1970, FALLACIES Hitchcock D., 2009, STUDIES LOGIC GRAMMA, V16, P137 Jadacki Jacek, 2009, POLISH ANAL PHILOS S Jaskowski S., 1948, STUDIA SOC SCI TOR A, V1, P55 Johnson R, 2000, MANIFEST RATIONALITY Kacprzak M., 2014, J ARGUMENTA IN PRESS, V3 Kaminski S., 1962, ROCZNIKI FILOZOFICZN, V10, P5 Kneale WC, 1962, DEV LOGIC Kokoszynska M., 1957, STUDIA LOGICA, V5, P43, DOI 10.1007/BF02548925 Koszowy M., 2013, VIRTUES ARGUMENTATIO, P1 Koszowy M., 2010, STUDIES LOGIC GRAMMA, V22, P29 Kotarbinski T., 1961, ELEMENTY TEORII POZN Kotarbinski T., 1966, STUD FILOZ, V2, P53 Kotarbinski T., 1961, KURS LOGIKI DLA PRAW Lapointe S., 2009, GOLDEN AGE POLISH PH Luszczewska-Romahnowa S., 1962, STUDIA LOGICA, V13, P203, DOI 10.1007/BF02317279 McCarty L. T., 1997, INT C ART INT LAW P, P215 Mos U., 1991, RATIO JURIS, V4, P72, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9337.1991.tb00086.x Mos U., 1987, PANSTWO PRAWO, V9, P75 Pleszka K., 2005, PANSTWO PRAWO, V5, P3 Pleszka K., 2010, WYKLADNIA ROZSZERZAJ Pollock J. L., 1995, COGNITIVE CARPENTRY Prakken H, 2002, SPRINGER HEIDELBERG, V4, P219 Sartor G., 2005, LEGAL REASONING COGN, V5 Simons P., 2014, STUDIES LOGIC GRAMMA, V36, P101, DOI [10.2478/slgr-2014-0005, DOI 10.2478/SLGR-2014-0005] Simons P., 2002, GOLDEN AGE SCI LETT Smith B., 2006, LVOV WARSAW SCH NEW, V89, P19 Szaniawski K., 1962, STUDIA LOGICA, V13, P219, DOI 10.1007/BF02317288 Tarski A., 1995, INTRO LOGIC METHODOL Twardowski K., 1999, ACTIONS PRODUCTS OTH, P261 van Eemeren FH, 2012, ARGUMENTATION, V26, P439, DOI 10.1007/s10503-012-9274-7 van Eemeren F, 2004, SYSTEMATIC THEORY AR 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., 1995, INFORMAL LOGIC, V17, P144 Visser J., 2011, STUDIES LOGIC GRAMMA, V23, P189 Walton D, 2008, ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511802034 Walton D, 2008, INFORMAL LOGIC PRAGM Walton D., 1997, APPEAL EXPERT OPINIO Walton D., 2013, VIRTUES ARGUMENTATIO, P1 Wolenski J., 2007, LAW LEGAL CULTURES 2, P37 Wolenski J., 1988, EDUKACJA FILOZOFICZN, V5, P23 Wolenski Jan, 1980, ZAGADNIEN ANALITYCZN Wolenski Jan, 1995, MODERN LOGIC, V5, P363 Wolenski J., 2010, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS Wolenski J., 1985, FILOZOFICZNA SZKOLA Woleriski Jan, 1972, LOGICZNE PROBLEMY WY Wolenski J., 1989, LOGIC PHILOS LVOV WA Wolenski J, 2010, LOGIC EPISTEMOL UNIT, V20, P73, DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-9588-6_4 Wroblewski J., 1992, JUDICIAL APPL LAW Yaskorska O, 2013, FUND INFORM, V128, P239, DOI 10.3233/FI-2013-944 Zielinski M., 2002, WYKLADNIA PRAWA ZASA Ziembinski Z., 2011, LOGIKA PRAKTYCZNA Rahwan I, 2009, ARGUMENTATION IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0 NR 71 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 7 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0920-427X EI 1572-8374 J9 ARGUMENTATION JI Argumentation PD AUG PY 2014 VL 28 IS 3 SI SI BP 283 EP 300 DI 10.1007/s10503-014-9321-7 PG 18 WC Communication; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics; Philosophy SC Communication; Linguistics; Philosophy GA AN4VF UT WOS:000340586000003 ER PT J AU Budzynska, K Witek, M AF Budzynska, Katarzyna Witek, Maciej TI Non-Inferential Aspects of Ad Hominem and Ad Baculum SO ARGUMENTATION LA English DT Article DE Communicative and cognitive structures; Ethos; Trust; Speech acts; Pragmatic force of argument ID SPEECH ACTS AB The aim of the paper is to explore the interrelation between persuasion tactics and properties of speech acts. We investigate two types of arguments ad: ad hominem and ad baculum. We show that with both of these tactics, the structures that play a key role are not inferential, but rather ethotic, i.e., related to the speaker's character and trust. We use the concepts of illocutionary force and constitutive conditions related to the character or status of the speaker in order to explain the dynamics of these two techniques. In keeping with the research focus of the Polish School of Argumentation, we examine how the pragmatic and rhetorical aspects of the force of ad hominem and ad baculum arguments exploit trust in the speaker's status to influence the audience's cognition. C1 [Budzynska, Katarzyna] Polish Acad Sci, Inst Philosophy & Sociol, PL-00330 Warsaw, Poland. [Budzynska, Katarzyna] Univ Dundee, Sch Comp, Dundee DD1 4HN, Scotland. [Witek, Maciej] Univ Szczecin, Inst Philosophy, PL-71017 Szczecin, Poland. RP Budzynska, K (reprint author), Polish Acad Sci, Inst Philosophy & Sociol, Ul Nowy Swiat 72,P 225, PL-00330 Warsaw, Poland. EM budzynska.argdiap@gmail.com; maciej.witek@univ.szczecin.pl CR Aristotle, 1991, RHETORIC Austin J. L, 1975, DO THINGS WORDS Braet A., 1992, ARGUMENTATION, V6, P307, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF00154696 Budzynska K., 2011, WHENCE INFERENCE Budzynska K, 2010, FRONT ARTIF INTEL AP, V216, P135, DOI 10.3233/978-1-60750-619-5-135 Budzynska K, 2012, FRONT ARTIF INTEL AP, V245, P410, DOI 10.3233/978-1-61499-111-3-410 Budzynska K, 2013, SYNTHESE, V190, P3185, DOI 10.1007/s11229-012-0135-6 Cap Piotr, 2013, PROXIMIZATION PRAGMA Debowska K., 2007, P 6 C INT SOC STUD A, P307 Debowska-Kozlowska K., 2014, ARGUMENTATION POLISH, V3, DOI [10.1007/s10503-014-9323-5, DOI 10.1007/S10503-014-9323-5] Gazdar G., 1981, SPEECH ACT ASSIGNMEN Goodwin J., 2014, STUDIES LOGIC GRAMMA, V36 Koszowy M., 2014, ARGUMENTATION POLISH, V3, DOI [10.1007/s10503-014-9321-7, DOI 10.1007/S10503-014-9321-7] LEWIS D, 1979, J PHILOS LOGIC, V8, P339 Reed C., 2011, STUDIES LOGIC GRAMMA, V23, P15 Sbisa M, 2002, LANG COMMUN, V22, P421, DOI 10.1016/S0271-5309(02)00018-6 Searle J., 2010, MAKING SOCIAL WORLD SEARLE J., 1979, EXPRESSION MEANING S Searle John R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH Snoeck-Henkemans A. F., 2014, STUDIES LOGIC GRAMMA, V36 STRAWSON PF, 1964, PHILOS REV, V73, P439, DOI 10.2307/2183301 van Eemeren F., 1989, ARGUMENTATION, V3, P367 Walton D, 2008, INFORMAL LOGIC PRAGM Walton Douglas, 2000, SCARE TACTICS ARGUME Walton D. N., 1998, AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS Witek M., 2013, THEORY IMPERATIVES D, V2, P145 Witek M., 2013, DIALOGUE UNIVERSALIS, V23, P129 Zaleska M., 2011, P 7 C INT SOC STUD A, P2047 NR 28 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 0 U2 9 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0920-427X EI 1572-8374 J9 ARGUMENTATION JI Argumentation PD AUG PY 2014 VL 28 IS 3 SI SI BP 301 EP 315 DI 10.1007/s10503-014-9322-6 PG 15 WC Communication; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics; Philosophy SC Communication; Linguistics; Philosophy GA AN4VF UT WOS:000340586000004 ER PT J AU Debowska-Kozlowska, K AF Debowska-Kozlowska, Kamila TI Processing Topics from the Beneficial Cognitive Model in Partially and Over-Successful Persuasion Dialogues SO ARGUMENTATION LA English DT Article DE Persuasion; Persuasive force of argument; Success; Goal; Relevance theory; Mental topic; Cognition AB A persuasion dialogue is a dialogue in which a conflict between agents with respect to their points of view arises at the beginning of the talk and the agents have the shared, global goal of resolving the conflict and at least one agent has the persuasive aim to convince the other party to accept an opposing point of view. I argue that the persuasive force of argument may have not only extreme values but also intermediate strength. That is, I wish to introduce two additional types of the effects of persuasion in addition to successful and unsuccessful ones (cf. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser in Argumentation 14(3):293-305, 2000; Advances in pragma-dialectics. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, 2002; Walton in A pragmatic theory of fallacy. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 1995; Walton and Krabbe in Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, 1995). I propose a model which provides for modified versions of the standpoint of an agent needed in order to bring about two possible outcomes of a persuasion dialogue. These two outcomes I label partially-successful and over-successful. I call the potential, not yet verbalised, standpoint of an agent here the original topic t. Based on some aspects of relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson in Relevance: communication and cognition. Blackwell, Oxford, 1986; Wilson and Sperber in The handbook of pragmatics. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, 2006), I explain that the modified version of the original topic t is an implicature created from the original topic t and from a specific mental topic which belongs to, what I call the beneficial cognitive model (hence BCM). I define BCMi,t as a set of topics which are within the area of agent i's interest of persuasion with respect to t. C1 Adam Mickiewicz Univ, Dept Pragmat English, Fac English, PL-61874 Poznan, Poland. RP Debowska-Kozlowska, K (reprint author), Adam Mickiewicz Univ, Dept Pragmat English, Fac English, Al Niepodleglosci 4, PL-61874 Poznan, Poland. EM kamila@wa.amu.edu.pl CR Aristotle, 1959, ART RHETORIC Aristotle, 1955, ORGANON, V1 Budzynska K., 2010, ASPECTS SEMANTICS PR, P59 Budzynska Katarzyna, 2011, STUDIES LOGIC GRAMMA, V23, P99 Budzynska Katarzyna, 2014, ARGUMENTATION SPECIA, V3, DOI [10.1007/s10503-014-9322-6, DOI 10.1007/S10503-014-9322-6] Budzynska K, 2008, FUND INFORM, V85, P51 Cap Piotr, 2010, LODZ PAPERS PRAGMATI, V6, P195, DOI 10.2478/v10016-010-0011-0 Carston Robyn, 2002, THOUGHTS UTTERANCES Castelfranchi C, 2007, SYNTHESE, V155, P237, DOI 10.1007/s11229-006-9156-3 Debowska K., 2009, STUDIES LOGIC GRAMMA, V16, P95 Garssen B., 2001, CRUCIAL CONCEPTS ARG, P81 Grice P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P41 Grice Paul H., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Hamblin Charles L., 1970, FALLACIES Houtlosser Peter, 2001, CRUCIAL CONCEPTS ARG, P27 Kacprzak M., 2014, ARGUMENTATION SPECIA, V3, DOI [10.1007/s10503-014-9324-4, DOI 10.1007/S10503-014-9324-4] Katriel Tamar, 1989, SIGN TEXT SEMIOTIC V, P275 Kopytko Roman, 2002, MENTAL ASPECTS PRAGM Lakoff George, 1987, WOMEN FIRE DANGEROUS O'keefe Daniel J., 2002, PERSUASION THEORY RE Paglieri F., 2010, ARGUMENT COMPUTATION, V1, P71, DOI DOI 10.1080/19462160903494584 Perelman C., 1969, NEW RHETORIC TREATIS [Anonymous], 2007, P 6 C INT SOC STUD A Rigotti E, 2010, ARGUMENTATION, V24, P489, DOI 10.1007/s10503-010-9190-7 Searle J. R., 1970, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT van Eemeren F, 2004, SYSTEMATIC THEORY AR Grootendorst R., 1993, RECONSTRUCTING ARGUM van Eemeren Frans H., 2000, ARGUMENTATION, V14, P293, DOI 10.1023/A:1007857114100 van Eemeren Frans H., 2001, CRITICAL CONCEPTS AR, P11 Van Eemeren F.H., 1984, SPEECH ACTS ARGUMENT van Eemeren Frans H., 2004, PRAGMA DIALECT UNPUB Van Eemeren F.H., 1992, ARGUMENTATION COMMUN van Eemeren F. H., 2002, ADV PRAGMA DIALECTIC, P13 van Eemeren Frans H., 2009, STUDIES LOGIC GRAMMA, V16, P69 Walaszewska Ewa, 2012, RELEVANCE THEORY MOR Walton D, 1995, COMMITMENT DIALOGUE Walton Douglas, 1995, PRAGMATIC THEORY FAL Wilson D., 2006, HDB PRAGMATICS, P607 Wilson Deirdre, 2000, METAREPRESENTATIONS, P411 Wilson Deirdre, 1994, LANGUAGE UNDERSTANDI, P35 Yus Francisco, 2006, ENCY LANGUAGE LINGUI, P512 NR 42 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 5 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0920-427X EI 1572-8374 J9 ARGUMENTATION JI Argumentation PD AUG PY 2014 VL 28 IS 3 SI SI BP 325 EP 339 DI 10.1007/s10503-014-9323-5 PG 15 WC Communication; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics; Philosophy SC Communication; Linguistics; Philosophy GA AN4VF UT WOS:000340586000006 ER PT J AU Naruoka, K AF Naruoka, Keiko TI Toward meanings of expressive indexicals: The case of Japanese demonstratives konna/sonna/anna SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Japanese demonstratives; Expressive function; Practice approach; Interaction; Context ID GRAMMAR AB Demonstratives have been studied extensively in the field of pragmatics. This paper first identifies the methodological problems of the previous demonstrative studies, pointing out that they (1) pay too much attention to the referential function, (2) employ constructed examples to build abstract theories, and (3) examine only the distinctive uses and meanings of demonstrative types. For an understanding of demonstrative forms used in human interaction and as a practice among native speakers, a practice approach is introduced: studies applying this approach need to (1) employ token-level analysis, (2) view context as dynamic, and (3) focus on expressive meanings of demonstratives. As a case study, the analysis of this paper examines Japanese demonstrative konna/sonna/anna in naturally occurring discourse, and illustrates that the target forms have a powerful expressive function, expressing the speaker's various negative emotions, surprise, or humility. Then, I argue that the forms konnalsonna/anna index the expressive meaning as they avoid specifying the referent, which indicates the speaker's non-committal attitude in the same manner as other Japanese indirect expressions. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. C1 Toyo Univ, Fac Law, Bunkyo Ku, Tokyo 1128606, Japan. RP Naruoka, K (reprint author), Toyo Univ, Fac Law, Bunkyo Ku, 5-28-20 Hakusan, Tokyo 1128606, Japan. EM naruoka@toyo.jp CR Anderson S.R., 1985, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SY, V3, P259 Ando Sadao, 1986, EIGO KYOOIKU, V34, P70 Ando Sadao, 1986, NICHI EIGO DAIKUSHIS, V1, P70 Benveniste E., 1971, PROBLEMS GEN LINGUIS BESNIER N, 1990, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V19, P419, DOI 10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.002223 Brown G., 1983, DISCOURSE ANAL Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Buhler Karl, 1990, THEORY LANGUAGE REPR Chafe Wallace L., 1982, SPOKEN WRITTEN LANGU, P35 Chafe Wallace L., 1987, COHERENCE GROUNDING, P21 Cook Haruko Minegishi, 1993, JAPANESE KOREAN LING, V3, P19 Cornish Francis, 2001, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V5, P297 Diessel Holger, 1999, DEMONSTRATIVES FORM Du Bois J. W., 1993, TALKING DATA TRANSCR, P45 Duranti Alessandro, 1997, LINGUISTIC ANTHR Enfield NJ, 2003, LANGUAGE, V79, P82, DOI 10.1353/lan.2003.0075 Fillmore Charles J., 1971, PCCLLU PAPERS, V3, P219 Fillmore C., 1982, SPEECH PLACE ACTION, P31 Goodwin C., 1992, RETHINKING CONTEXT L, P1 Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES Halliday M. A. K., 1973, EXPLORATIONS FUNCTIO Hamaguchi Toshiko, 2001, THESIS GEORGETOWN U Hanks William F., 1990, REFERENTIAL PRACTICE Hanks William F., 1992, RETHINKING CONTEXT L, P43 Hanks WF, 2005, CURR ANTHROPOL, V46, P191, DOI 10.1086/427120 Hanks William, 1996, RETHINKING LINGUISTI, P232 Hanks WF, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.014 Hattori Shiro, 1968, EIGO KISO GOI KENKYU Hayashi M, 2004, J PRAGMATICS, V36, P1337, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.006 Hopper Paul J., 1993, GRAMMATICALIZATION Horiguchi Kazuyoshi, 1978, NIHONGO NIHON BUNKA, V8, P23 Hudson Richard A., 1996, SOCIOLINGUISTICS Hymes Dell, 1974, FDN SOCIOLINGUISTICS Ikegami Yoshihiko, 1981, SURU NARU GENGGAKU Ikegami Yoshihiko, 1991, EMPIRE SIGNS SEMIOTI, P285, DOI DOI 10.1075/FOS.8.14IKE Ikegami Yoshihiko, 1982, NICHI EI GO HIKAKU K, P67 Iwasaki Shoichi, 1993, SUBJECIVITY GRAMMAR Jakobson R., 1960, STYLE LANG, P350 Kamio Akio, 1997, TERRITORY INFORM Kamio Akio, 1990, JOOHOO NAWABARI RIRI Kinsui Satoshi, 1990, NINTI KAGAKU HATTEN, V3, P85 Kitagawa Chisato, 1979, EXPLORATIONS LINGUIS, P232 Kitano Hiroaki, 1999, PRAGMATICS, V9, P383 Koyama W, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P79, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.002 Kuno Susumu, 1973, STRUCTURE JAPANESE L Kuroda S. Y., 1979, EIGO TO NIHONGO TO, P41 Lakoff Robin, 1974, P CHICAGO LINGUISTIC, V10, P345 LAKOFF Robin. T., 1990, TALKING POWER POLITI Langacker Ronald W., 1985, ICONICITY SYNTAX, P109 Laury Ritva, 1997, DEMONSTRATIVES INTER Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Lyons J., 1977, SEMANTICS Mayes Patricia, 1991, SANTA BARBARA PAPERS, V3, P84 Maynard Senko K., 2007, LINGUISTIC CREATICIT Mikanni Akira, 1970, BUNPOO SHOORON SHUU, P145 Mizutani Nobuko, 1985, NICHEIGO HIKAKU HANA Naruoka Keiko, 2006, PRAGMATICS, V16, P475 Nihongo Iwanami Kooza, 1976, BUNPOO 1 Ochs E., 1990, CULTURAL PSYCHOL ESS, P287 Schieffelin B., 1989, TEXT, V9, P7, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.7 Ochs Elinor, 1988, CULTURE LANGUAGE DEV, V6 Ono Kiyoharu, 1994, J ASS TEACHERS JAPAN, V28, P131, DOI 10.2307/489288 Ono Tsuyoshi, 1992, TEXT, V12, P429, DOI DOI 10.1515/TEXT.1.1992.12.3.429 Maryann Overstreet, 1999, WHALES CANDLELIGHT S Sakuma Kanae, 1951, GEIDAI NIHONGO HYOOG Shibatani M., 1990, LANGUAGES JAPAN Silverstein Michael, 1976, MEANING ANTHR, P11 Strauss Susan, 1993, PAPERS REGIONAL M, V29, P403 Suzuki Satoko, 2001, LINGUISTICS, V40, P163 Suzuki S, 1998, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V57, P261 Tannen D, 1989, TALKING VOICES REPET van Dijk T., 1977, TEXT CONTEXT EXPLORA Yule George, 1996, PRAGMATICS [Anonymous], 2001, NIHONGO BUNPOO DAIJI [Anonymous], 2001, NIHON KOKUGO DAIJITE NR 75 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 AUG PY 2014 VL 69 SI SI BP 4 EP 21 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.016 PG 18 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AO0EP UT WOS:000340982200002 ER PT J AU Beeman, WO AF Beeman, William O. TI Emotion and instantaneous choice in interactional linguistic pragmatics: Cross-cultural perspectives SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Instantaneous choice; Emotion; Politeness; Japanese; Persian; Javanese; Thin slicing ID VERBAL REPORTS; BEHAVIOR AB It is axiomatic in the study of pragmatics that speakers must make choices from a myriad of variants in phonology, morphology and syntax "on the fly" during the course of interaction. However, the specific psychological and neurophysiological mechanisms that both prompt these choices have largely been taken for granted. Theoretical approaches to this problem in the past have focused on linguistic mechanisms such as "metapragmatics" or cultural approaches such as the analysis of "habitus." While acknowledging the importance of these approaches, in this paper I extend this view by suggesting that these instantaneous choices are largely governed by the same cognitive mechanisms that govern emotional response. Drawing on the work of contemporary neurophysiology, pragmatic philosophy and phenomenology, I draw on examples from Japanese, Persian and Javanese. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Minnesota Minneapolis, Dept Anthropol, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA. RP Beeman, WO (reprint author), Univ Minnesota Minneapolis, Dept Anthropol, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA. EM wbeeman@umn.edu RI Beeman, William/O-6975-2015 OI Beeman, William/0000-0001-6058-0519 CR AMBADY N, 1992, PSYCHOL BULL, V111, P256, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.256 Ambady N, 1996, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V70, P996, DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.996 Beeman William O., 1986, LANGUAGE STATUS POWE Bourdieu P., 1977, OUTLINE THEORY PRACT Brown Robert, 1960, STYLE LANGUAGE Damasio A. R., 1999, FEELING WHAT HAPPENS DAMASIO AR, 1994, DESCARTES ERROR EMOT Damasio AR, 2000, NAT NEUROSCI, V3, P1049, DOI 10.1038/79871 EKMAN P, 1983, SCIENCE, V221, P1208, DOI 10.1126/science.6612338 EKMAN P, 1992, PSYCHOL SCI, V3, P34, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00253.x Errington J, 2008, LINGUISTICS IN A COLONIAL WORLD: A STORY OF LANGUAGE, MEANING, AND POWER, P1 Errington Joseph, 1982, INDONESIA, V34, P89, DOI 10.2307/3350951 Errington J. Joseph, 1988, STRUCTURE STYLE JAVA Ervin-Tripp S. M., 1972, DIRECTIONS SOCIOLING, P218 FRIEDRICH PAUL, 1966, SOCIOLINGUISTICS, P214 Friedrich Paul, 1972, DIRECTIONS SOCIOLING, P270 Garfinkel Harold, 1967, STUD ETHNOMETHODOL, P186 Gigerenzer G., 2007, GUT FEELINGS INTELLI Gladwell M, 2005, BLINK POWER THINKING Henry J, 1936, AM ANTHROPOL, V38, P250, DOI 10.1525/aa.1936.38.2.02a00070 Hillman Michael, 1981, MODERN IRAN DIALECTI, P327 Inoue M, 2006, ASIA-LOCAL STUD GLOB, V11, P1 Irvine Judith, 1974, EXPLORATIONS ETHNOGR, P167 Irvine Judith T., 1990, LANGUAGE POLITICS EM, P126 James W., 1884, MIND, V19, P188, DOI DOI 10.1093/MIND/OS-IX.34.188 Jenkins Richard, 1992, P BOURDIEU Le Doux J., 1998, EMOTIONAL BRAIN Loeb Edward M, 1944, J AM ORIENTAL SOC, V64, P113, DOI 10.2307/594238 Miller R. A., 1967, JAPANESE LANGUAGE Mitzutani Osamu, 1981, JAPANESE SPOKEN LANG NISBETT RE, 1977, PSYCHOL REV, V84, P231, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231 Passin Herbert, 1980, JAPANESE JAPANESE LA Poedjosoedarmo Soepomo, 1968, INDONESIA, V6, P54, DOI 10.2307/3350711 Seward Jack, 1968, JAPANESE ACTION Silverstein M, 2004, CURR ANTHROPOL, V45, P621, DOI 10.1086/423971 Sprachman Paul, 2002, LANGUAGE CULTURE PER Suzuki Takao, 1978, JAPANESE JAPANESE WO Szatrowski Polly, 1987, P 13 ANN M BERK LING, P270 Szatrowski Polly, 2003, CONFLICT HARMONIOUS Szatrowski Polly, 1993, NIHONGO NO DANWA NO Szatrowski Polly, 2002, BERKELEY LINGUISTICS, V28, P315 Wilson T. D., 2002, STRANGERS OURSELVES WILSON TDC, 1978, SOC PSYCHOL, V41, P118 NR 43 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 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 AUG PY 2014 VL 69 SI SI BP 52 EP 62 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.007 PG 11 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AO0EP UT WOS:000340982200005 ER PT J AU Sunakawa, C AF Sunakawa, Chiho TI Virtual ie: A three-generational household mediated by webcam interactions SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Mediated communication; Embodied interaction; Japanese family; Ethnography; Socialization; Uchi AB This paper investigates how the use of a webcam creates an opportunity for dispersed Japanese families to construct a "virtual ie (stem-family system')." The ie is a culturally specific model of stem families traditionally realized in the multigenerational household. My analyses of videotaped webcam interactions, ethnographic observations and interviews show that the use of a webcam does not simply allow a visuo-spatial convergence of two distinctive households, but it offers another context in which various social roles within an ie structure are negotiated. From this perspective, the emergence of virtual ie is an interactional achievement. Following approaches from Emancipatory Pragmatics, which encourage using local terms to describe participants' perspectives, I argue that participants in the virtual ie strategically use "communicative affordances" (Hutchby, 2001) of a webcam for representing the degree of "in-groupness" or uchi. Even though an ie is inherently an in-group, members within it constantly manage and negotiate their boundaries of in-groupness through interactions as they position themselves in relation to other members of the family. The limited visual access of a webcam is an opportunity to negotiate the degree of such "in-groupness." (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Texas Austin, Dept Anthropol, Austin, TX 78712 USA. RP Sunakawa, C (reprint author), Univ Texas Austin, Dept Anthropol, 2201 Speedway C3200, Austin, TX 78712 USA. EM sunakawa@utexas.edu CR Aarsand PA, 2008, TEXT TALK, V28, P147, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2008.007 Bachnik Jane, 1992, JAPANESE SENSE SELF, P153 Bachnik J. M., 1994, SITUATED MEANING INS, P3 Benedict Ruth, 1946, CHRYSANTHEMUM SWORD Burrell J, 2008, NEW MEDIA SOC, V10, P203, DOI 10.1177/1461444807086472 Clark Scott, 1999, LIVES MOTION COMPOSI, P41 Doi Takeo, 1971, AMAE KOZO Doi Takeo, 1986, ANATOMY SELF Duranti A., 1992, RETHINKING CONTEXT L DURANTI A, 1992, AM ANTHROPOL, V94, P657, DOI 10.1525/aa.1992.94.3.02a00070 Embree John, 1945, JAPANESE NATION Evaristo Roberto, 2003, J GLOB INF MANAG, V11, P58, DOI DOI 10.4018/JGIM.2003100104 GOFFMAN E, 1964, AM ANTHROPOL, V66, P133, DOI 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00090 Goffman E, 1963, BEHAV PUBLIC PLACES Goffman Erving, 1967, FACE WORK INTERACTIO, P5 GOODWIN C, 1994, AM ANTHROPOL, V96, P606, DOI 10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100 GOODWIN MH, 1980, SOCIOL INQ, V50, P303, DOI 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00024.x Hamabata Matthews Masayuki, 1990, CRESTED KIMONO Hanks WF, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.014 Hannerz U, 1998, HDB METHODS CULTURAL, P235 Hardin AM, 2007, SMALL GR RES, V38, P130, DOI 10.1177/1046496406297041 Hashimoto Akiko, 2008, IMAGINED FAMILIED LI, P15 Hashimoto Akiko, 2004, MANGA NI MIRU NIHON, V444, P213 Hashimoto A., 2008, IMAGINED FAMILIES LI Heath C., 2010, VIDEO QUALITATIVE RE Heath C., 1992, Human-Computer Interaction, V7, P315, DOI 10.1207/s15327051hci0703_3 Hutchby Ian, 2001, CONVERSATION TECHNOL Ide Sachiko, 2002, BUNKA INTERACTION GE Jones Rodney, 2004, DISCOURSE TECHNOLOGY, P184 Kondo D., 1990, CRAFTING SELVES POWE Lebra T. S., 2004, JAPANESE SELF CULTUR Lebra T. S., 1984, JAPANESE WOMEN CONST Makin Seiichi, 1998, LANGUAGE SPACE Monteiro M, 2009, SCI COMMUN, V31, P6, DOI 10.1177/1075547008330922 MORIOKA K, 1967, J MARRIAGE FAM, V29, P595, DOI 10.2307/349607 Nakane Chie, 1970, JAPANESE SOC Ochs E., 2001, LIVING NARRATIVE CRE Ochs E, 2006, NEW DIR CHILD ADOLES, V111, P35, DOI 10.1002/cad.153 Ohnuki-Tierney E., 1984, ILLNESS CULTURE CONT Peak L., 1991, LEARNING GO SCH JAPA Rogoff B., 1990, APPRENTICESHIP THINK SCHEGLOFF EA, 1968, AM ANTHROPOL, V70, P1075, DOI 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 Spielvogel L., 2003, WORKING OUT JAPAN SH Streeck J., 2011, EMBODIED INTERACTION Tobin J., 1989, PRESCHOOL 3 CULTURES Tobin J., 1992, JAPANESE SENSE SELF, P21 Traphagan John, 2004, PRACTICE CONCERN Wasson Christina, 2006, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V16, P103, DOI 10.1525/jlin.2006.16.1.103 Wetzel Patricia, 1994, SITUATED MEANING INS, P73 NR 49 TC 0 Z9 0 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 2014 VL 69 SI SI BP 63 EP 81 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.012 PG 19 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AO0EP UT WOS:000340982200006 ER PT J AU Panpothong, N Phakdeephasook, S AF Panpothong, Natthaporn Phakdeephasook, Siriporn TI The wide use of mai-pen-rai 'Its not substantial' in Thai interactions and its relationship to the Buddhist concept of Tri Laksana SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE mai-pen-rai; Thai interactions; Buddhist ideology; Emancipatory pragmatics ID CONFLICT AB For those who are studying Thai as a foreign language, the wide use of the expression mai-pen-rai 'Its not substantial' is difficult to analyze and to understand (Siwasariyanon, 1994). The present study aims at examining as to why this single expression is used in such a wide range of contexts. The paper first examines the actual uses of mai-pen-rai and classifies them into four functional categories that include a response to apologizing and thanking, a refusal strategy in the face of an offer, a remark of consolation, and a strategy to terminate verbal conflict. Then, the paper reveals that in spite of the different interactional functions, the core meaning of the expression is that whatever the speaker or the hearer has encountered, be it an offense, a favor, a misfortune or a disputed issue, is not substantial. As noted by Podhisita (1999), the meaning of mai-pen-rai is closely related to the Buddhist concept of the three characteristics of existence, namely Tri Laksana. According to Tri Laksana, everything is impermanent and so nothing is truly substantial. The uses of mai-pen-rai in the four interaction contexts share one thing in common. That is, they are involved with the attempt to detach the hearer from her/his concern by referring to the Buddhist ideology. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Panpothong, Natthaporn; Phakdeephasook, Siriporn] Chulalongkorn Univ, Fac Arts, Dept Thai, Bangkok 10330, Thailand. RP Panpothong, N (reprint author), Chulalongkorn Univ, Fac Arts, Dept Thai, Bangkok 10330, Thailand. EM ntp1142@hotmail.com; spr1141@hotmail.com CR Bowker J., 1997, CONCISE OXFORD DICT Brown P., 1978, QUESTIONS POLITENESS Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Charoenngam Nongluck, 1999, J BUS COMMUN, V36, P382 Conze Edward, 1961, BOUDDHISME SON ESSEN Goffman E., 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL E Goffman Erving, 1971, RELATIONS PUBLIC MIC Hanks WF, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.014 Honda A, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P573, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00053-4 Ide R, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V29, P509, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)80006-4 Intachakra Songthama, 2009, 11 INT PRAGM C MELB Keyes C F, 1987, THAILAND BUDDHIST KI Klausner William J., 1981, REFLECTIONS THAI CUL Komin S., 1990, PSYCHOL THAI PEOPLE Kusalasaya Karuna, 2009, BUDDHISM THAILAND IT Mulder N., 1996, INSIDE THAI SOC INTE Nguyen Toung Hung, 2008, THAILAND CULTURAL BA Norrick NR, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P1661, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.001 Pewporchai Passapong, 2002, THESIS CHULALONGKORN Podhisita Chai, 1999, KHAM RONGROY KHWAMKH, P329 Rabibadhana Akin, 1999, KAM RONGROI KUAMKID, P299 Anuman Rajadhon Phya, 1986, POPULAR BUDDHISM SIA Sairoon Thanapat, 1999, THESIS CHULALONGKORN Siwasariyanon Witt, 1994, PASA ANGKRIT NAROO Ratthawiset B., 2005, NANGSUERIAN SARA KAN, V3, P1 Vongvipanond Peansiri, 1994, WORKSH TEACH SOC SCI Vuchinich S, 1990, CONFLICT TALK SOCIOL, P118 Young Stephen B., 2010, NATION NR 28 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 AUG PY 2014 VL 69 SI SI BP 99 EP 107 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.006 PG 9 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AO0EP UT WOS:000340982200008 ER PT J AU Saft, S AF Saft, Scott TI Rethinking Western individualism from the perspective of social interaction and from the concept of ba SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Emancipatory pragmatics; Self; Social interaction; Conversation analysis; Individualism; Collectivism ID CULTURE; SELF; JAPANESE; LANGUAGE AB Inspired by the emerging perspective of emancipatory pragmatics, this study reconsiders the assumption of a Western self that is "individualistic" and at the same time brings into question the "individualism collectivism" dichotomy. Employing first of all the ideas of conversation analysts such as Charles Goodwin and Gene Lerner, it is suggested that speakers of American English often approach interaction in a way that appears to be more "collective". In addition, the analysis focuses on the usage of pronouns in a collaborative story-construction task to highlight not only the collective side of American interaction but also the dynamic relationship of pronouns to the self in interaction. Finally, the study puts forth the Japanese notion of ba (most often translated into English as "field") as an alternative to the individualism collectivism dichotomy. It is argued that ba offers an opportunity to understand the positioning of the self when people engage in interaction without necessarily imposing polarized categories on groups of people based on perceived styles of interaction. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Saft, Scott] Univ Hawaii, Ka Haka Ula O Keelikolani Coll Hawaiian Language, Hilo, HI 96720 USA. RP Saft, S (reprint author), Univ Hawaii, Coll Hawaiian Language, Linguist Program, 200 W Kawili St, Hilo, HI 96720 USA. EM saft@hawaii.edu CR Bateson G., 1972, STEPS ECOLOGY MIND Cavell Marcia, 1987, PSYCHO ANAL CONT THO, V10, P3 De Mooij Marieke, 2004, TRANSLATOR, V10, P179 Erikson E. H., 1968, IDENTITY YOUTH CRISI Foley W, 1997, ANTHR LINGUISTICS IN Fortes Meyer, 1973, NOTION PERSONNE AFRI, P273 Fujii Y, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P636, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.007 Geertz Clifford, 1984, CULTURE THEORY ESSAY, P123 Goodwin Charles, 2004, J LINGUIST ANTHROPOL, V14, P151, DOI DOI 10.1525/JLIN.2004.14.2.151 Goodwin Charles, 1992, RETHINKING CONTEXT L, P151 Goodwin C., 2003, CONVERSATION BRAIN D, P90 Goodwin C., 1992, RETHINKING CONTEXT L Hallowell A. I., 1955, CULTURE EXPERIENCE Hanks WF, 2005, CURR ANTHROPOL, V46, P191, DOI 10.1086/427120 Hanks WF, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P563, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.011 Hanks WF, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.014 Hasegawa Yoko, 2005, AUSTR J LINGUISTICS, V25, P210 HOLLAND D, 1994, ETHOS, V22, P316, DOI 10.1525/eth.1994.22.3.02a00030 Horie K, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P663, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.020 Ide Sachiko, 2011, PRAGMATICS SOC, P439 Ide Sachiko, 2011, PRES LECT 12 INT PRA Ide S., 1989, MULTILINGUA, V2, P223, DOI 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223 Ide Sachiko, 2006, WAKIME GOYORON JAMES W., 1981, PRINCIPLES PSYCHOL Kashima Emiko, 1999, SOCIAL PSYCHOL CULTU, P189 Kashima ES, 1998, J CROSS CULT PSYCHOL, V29, P461, DOI 10.1177/0022022198293005 Kashima Y, 2003, J CROSS CULT PSYCHOL, V34, P125, DOI 10.1177/0022022102239159 Kashima Y, 2000, J CROSS CULT PSYCHOL, V31, P14, DOI 10.1177/0022022100031001003 Kondo D., 1990, CRAFTING SELVES POWE Kusserow AS, 1999, ETHOS, V27, P210, DOI 10.1525/eth.1999.27.2.210 Lee Dorothy, 1959, CONCEPTION SELF WINT, P131 Lerner Gene, 1992, QUALITATIVE SOCIOLOG, V15, P247, DOI 10.1007/BF00990328 Lerner Gene, 1987, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Lerner G.H., 2002, LANGUAGE TURN SEQUEN, P225 Lerner G., 1996, INTERACTION GRAMMAR, P238, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005 MARKUS HR, 1991, PSYCHOL REV, V98, P224, DOI 10.1037//0033-295X.98.2.224 Marsella Anthony, 1985, CULTURE SELF ASIAN W, P281 Matsurana Humberto, 1992, TREE KNOWLEDGE BIOL Maynard S.K., 1997, JAPANESE COMMUNICATI Mead G. H., 1934, MIND SELF SOC Ono T, 2003, COGN LINGUIST, V14, P321, DOI 10.1515/cogl.2003.013 Otsuka Masayoshi, 2011, LECT BA THEOR 2011 T Proulx J, 2008, COMPLICITY INT J COM, V5, P11 SACKS H, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P696, DOI 10.2307/412243 Saft Scott, 2007, 10 IPRA C GOT SWED Sapir Edward, 1949, SELECTED WRITINGS E, P544 Schegloff Emanuel A., 1973, SEMIOTICA, V8, P289, DOI DOI 10.1515/SEMI.1973.8.4.289 Shimizu Hiroshi, 2008, PTOLEMAIC COPERNICAN Shimizu Hiroshi, 2000, BBA COCREATION, P23 Shweder R. A., 1985, CULTURE DEPRESSION S, P182 Smith RJ, 1983, JAPANESE SOC TRADITI SPIRO ME, 1993, ETHOS, V21, P107, DOI 10.1525/eth.1993.21.2.02a00010 Varela F., 1999, ETHICAL KNOW HOW ACT Yamada H., 1997, DIFFERENT GAMES DIFF NR 54 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 AUG PY 2014 VL 69 SI SI BP 108 EP 120 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.005 PG 13 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AO0EP UT WOS:000340982200009 ER PT J AU Fusco, M AF Fusco, Melissa TI Free choice permission and the counterfactuals of pragmatics SO LINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPHY LA English DT Article DE Pragmatics; Semantics; Counterfactuals; Permission; Neo-Gricean pragmatics ID IMPLICATURES; LANGUAGE AB This paper addresses a little puzzle with a surprisingly long pedigree and a surprisingly large wake: the puzzle of Free Choice Permission. I begin by presenting a popular sketch of a pragmatic solution to the puzzle, due to Kratzer and Shimoyama (Proceedings of the third Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, 2002), which has received a good deal of discussion, endorsement and elaboration in recent work (Aloni and van Rooij, Proccedings of the KNAW Academy Colloquium: Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 2004; Alonso-Ovalle, Ph.D. thesis, 2006; Chierchia, Linguist Inq 37(4):535-590, 2006; Fox, in: Sauerland and Stateva (eds.) Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, 2007; Geurts, Mind Lang 24:51-79, 2009; von Fintel, Central APA session on Deontic Modals, 2012). I then explain why the general form of the Kratzer and Shimoyama explanation is not extensionally adequate. This leaves us with two possibilities with regard to the original solution-sketch; either the suggested pragmatic route fails, or it succeeds in a particularly strange way: Free Choice permission is rendered a kind pragmatic illusion on the part of both speakers and hearers. Finally, I discuss some ramifications. C1 Univ Calif Berkeley, Dept Philosophy, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA. RP Fusco, M (reprint author), Univ Calif Berkeley, Dept Philosophy, 314 Moses Hall 2390, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA. EM msfusco@berkeley.edu CR Aloni M., 2007, LOGIC LANGUAGE COMPU Aloni Maria, 2004, P KNAW AC C COGN FDN, P5 Aloni M., 2007, NAT LANG SEMANT, V15, P65, DOI [10.1007/s11050-007-9010-2, DOI 10.1007/S11050-007-9010-2] Ussery C., 2005, P N E LINGUISTICS SO, V35 Alonso-Ovalle L., 2006, THESIS U MASSCHUSETT Barker C., 2010, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V3, P1, DOI DOI 10.3765/SP.3.10.321 Cariani F, 2013, NOUS, V47, P534, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2011.00839.x Chemla E., 2014, COGNITION, V3, P380 Chemla Emmanuel, 2009, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V2, P1, DOI DOI 10.3765/SP.2.2 Belletti A., 2004, STRUCTURES Chierchia G, 2006, LINGUIST INQ, V37, P535, DOI 10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535 FINE K, 1975, MIND, V84, P451 Fox D, 2007, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P71 Franke Michael, 2011, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V4, P1, DOI [10.3765/sp.4.1, DOI 10.3765/SP.4.1] Franke M., 2013, PHILOS COMPASS, V8, P269 Gamut L. T. F, 1991, LOGIC LANGUAGE MEANI, V1 Geurts B., 2010, QUANTITY IMPLICATURE Geurts B, 2009, MIND LANG, V24, P51, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01353.x Glick E, 2012, NOUS, V46, P386, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00823.x Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3 Grice Paul H., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Jager G., 2008, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V2, P406 Kahneman D, 1982, JUDGMENT UNCERTAINTY Kamp H, 1973, P ARISTOTELIAN SOC, V74, P57 Klinedinst N., 2006, THESIS UCLA Kratzer A., 1991, SEMANTICS INT HDB CO Kratzer Angelika, 2002, P 3 TOK C PSYCH Kratzer A, 1977, LINGUIST PHILOS, V3, P337, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF00353453 Kratzer A, 1981, WORDS WORLDS CONTEXT, P38 LEWIS D, 1979, J PHILOS LOGIC, V8, P339 Lewis D., 1969, CONVENTION PHILOS ST Lewis D, 1973, COUNTERFACTUALS LEWIS D, 1981, AUSTRALAS J PHILOS, V59, P5, DOI 10.1080/00048408112340011 LEWIS D, 1979, NOUS, V13, P455, DOI 10.2307/2215339 Parikh P, 1992, TARK 92, P85 PARIKH P, 1991, LINGUIST PHILOS, V14, P473, DOI 10.1007/BF00632595 PARIKH Prashant, 2001, USE LANGUAGE Roberts Craige, 1996, OSUWPL, V49 Ross A., 1941, THEORIA-SPAIN, V7, P53, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1755-2567.1941.TB00034.X Rothschild D., 2011, GAME THEORY SCALAR I Sauerland U, 2004, LINGUIST PHILOS, V27, P367, DOI 10.1023/B:LING.0000023378.71748.db Simons M., 2005, NAT LANG SEMANT, V13, P271, DOI DOI 10.1007/S11050-004-2900-7 Stalnaker Robert, 1999, CONTEXT CONTENT TICHY P, 1976, PHILOS STUD, V29, P271, DOI 10.1007/BF00411887 von Fintel Kai, 2012, CENTR APA SESS DEONT Wright Georg H. von, 1969, ESSAY DEONTIC LOGIC Zimmerman T. E., 2000, NAT LANG SEMANT, V8, P255, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1011255819284 Benz A, 2006, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230285897 NR 48 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 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 AUG PY 2014 VL 37 IS 4 BP 275 EP 290 DI 10.1007/s10988-014-9154-8 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AN5FQ UT WOS:000340616500001 ER PT J AU Gauker, C AF Gauker, Christopher TI How many bare demonstratives are there in English? SO LINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPHY LA English DT Article DE Bare demonstratives; Context-relativity; Logical validity; David Kaplan ID PRAGMATICS AB In order to capture our intuitions about the logical consistency of sentences and the logical validity of arguments, a semantics for a natural language has to allow for the fact that different occurrences of a single bare demonstrative, such as "this", may refer to different objects. But it is not obvious how to formulate a semantic theory in order to achieve this result. This paper first criticizes several proposals: that we should formulate our semantics as a semantics for tokens, not expressions, Kaplan's idea that syntax associates a demonstration with each occurrence of a demonstrative, Braun's idea that a context may specify shifts in context across the evaluation of the expressions in a sentence; and Predelli's idea that we should countenance different classes of contexts. Finally, a solution is proposed that allows that a natural language persists across the addition of basic lexical items but defines logical properties in terms of language stages. A surprising result is that we do not need to think of demonstratives as taking different referents in different situations. C1 Salzburg Univ, Dept Philosophy, Fac Cultural & Social Sci, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria. RP Gauker, C (reprint author), Salzburg Univ, Dept Philosophy, Fac Cultural & Social Sci, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria. EM christopher.gauker@uc.edu CR BRAUN D, 1996, NOUS, V30, P145, DOI 10.2307/2216291 Caplan B, 2003, PHILOS REV, V112, P191, DOI 10.1215/00318108-112-2-191 Clapp L, 2012, MIND LANG, V27, P435, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2012.01451.x Dunn J. M., 1968, NOUS, V2, P177, DOI 10.2307/2214704 Gauker C, 2012, NOUS, V46, P61, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00782.x Gauker C, 2008, SYNTHESE, V165, P359, DOI 10.1007/s11229-007-9189-2 Kaplan D., 1978, PRAGMATICS, P221 KAPLAN D., 1989, THEMES KAPLAN, P481 Larson G., 1995, KNOWLEDGE MEANING IN Lepore E, 2000, MIND, V109, P199, DOI 10.1093/mind/109.434.199 Predelli S, 2012, J PHILOS LOGIC, V41, P547, DOI 10.1007/s10992-011-9183-5 Salmon N, 2002, PHILOS REV, V111, P497, DOI 10.1215/00318108-111-4-497 Weinstein S., 1974, NOUS, V8, P179, DOI 10.2307/2214785 Wolter L., 2009, PHILOS COMPASS, V4, P451 NR 14 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 3 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 AUG PY 2014 VL 37 IS 4 BP 291 EP 314 DI 10.1007/s10988-014-9156-6 PG 24 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AN5FQ UT WOS:000340616500002 ER PT J AU Greer, KA AF Greer, Kristen A. TI Extensionality in natural language quantification: the case of many and few SO LINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPHY LA English DT Article DE Semantics; Quantification; Proportional quantifiers; Extensionality; Generalized quantifier theory; Logical form; Pragmatic presupposition; Many; Few ID SEMANTICS; DETERMINERS; QUANTIFIERS; FOCUS AB This paper presents an extensional account of manyand few that explains data that have previously motivated intensional analyses of these quantifiers (cf. Fernando and Kamp, Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory, 1996; Lappin, Linguist Philos, 23(6):599-620, 2000). The key insight is that their semantic arguments are themselves set intersections: the restrictor is the intersection of the predicates denoted by the N' or the V' and the restricted universe, U, and the scope is the intersection of the N' and V'. Following Cohen (J Semant, 16:43-65, 1999 ; Nat Lang Semant, 9:41-67, 2001), I assume that the universe consists of the union of alternatives to the nominal and verbal predicates, where an alternative to a property psi is one that shares a pragmatic presupposition with psi, and a pragmatic presupposition is one that is selected by context from a set of potential presuppositions associated with the sentence. A many/few-quantified sentence is then true iff the proportion of the scope to the restrictor is greater/less than some threshold, n. In addition to explaining various problematic cases from the literature, the analysis shows how the readings of a many/few-quantified sentence (proportional, reverse, focus-affected, and cardinal) can be derived from the same syntactico-semantic structure, it being unnecessary to claim lexical or structural ambiguity. The analysis also provides strong support for the idea that natural language quantification is always purely extensional. C1 Univ Calif Davis, Davis, CA 95616 USA. RP Greer, KA (reprint author), Univ Calif Davis, Davis, CA 95616 USA. EM kaware@ucdavis.edu CR BARWISE J, 1981, LINGUIST PHILOS, V4, P159, DOI 10.1007/BF00350139 Cohen A., 2001, NAT LANG SEMANT, V9, P41, DOI 10.1023/A:1017913406219 Cohen Ariel, 1999, J SEMANT, V16, P43, DOI 10.1093/jos/16.1.43 Comrie B., 1985, TENSE Dekker P, 2012, ROUTL PHILOS COMPAN, P42 de Swart Henriette, 1993, ADVERBS QUANTIFICATI Diesing Molly, 1992, INDEFINITES Fernando T., 1996, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, V1, P53 Frege G., 1892, Z PHILOS PHILOS KRIT, V100, P25 Gagnon M., 2013, P SALT, V23, P316 Gazdar Gerald, 1979, PRAGMATICS IMPLICATU Geurts B, 2004, THEOR LINGUIST, V30, P1, DOI 10.1515/thli.2004.005 Goddard Cliff, 2002, MEANING UNIVERSAL GR Greer K., GENERAL THEORY UNPUB Hendriks P, 2001, LINGUIST PHILOS, V24, P1, DOI 10.1023/A:1005607111810 Herburger Elena, 2000, WHAT COUNTS FOCUS QU Hoeksema J., 1983, STUDIES MODEL THEORE, V1 KEENAN EL, 1986, LINGUIST PHILOS, V9, P253, DOI 10.1007/BF00630273 Kennedy C, 2007, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P1, DOI 10.1007/s10988-006-9008-0 Kibble R., 1997, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, V7, P258 Kotek H., 2008, P 2 WORKSH AN RES, P41 Lappin S, 2000, LINGUIST PHILOS, V23, P599, DOI 10.1023/A:1005638918877 Levinson Stephen C., 1983, PRAGMATICS Matthewson L., 2001, NAT LANG SEMANT, V9, P145, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1012492911285 May Robert, 1985, LOGICAL FORM ITS STR Milsark Gary, 1977, LINGUISTIC ANAL, V3, P1 Moltmann F., 2006, SYNTHESE, V149, P176 [Anonymous], 1987, J SEMANT, DOI DOI 10.1093/J0S/5.3.139 Moxey LM, 1993, COMMUNICATING QUANTI Moxey LM, 2000, APPL COGNITIVE PSYCH, V14, P237, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(200005/06)14:3<237::AID-ACP641>3.0.CO;2-R Moxey LM, 2001, J MEM LANG, V44, P427, DOI 10.1006/jmla.2000.2736 Nouwen R., 2010, LINGUISTICS ENTERPRI, V150, P235 Nouwen Rick, 2003, J SEMANT, V20, P73, DOI 10.1093/jos/20.1.73 NUNES J., 2011, OXFORD HDB LINGUISTI, P143 Partee B., 1988, P ESCOL, V5, P383 Paterson K., 2009, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V3, P1390 Rooth Mats, 1992, NAT LANG SEMANT, V1, P75, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF02342617 Russell Bertrand, 1905, MIND, V14, P479, DOI DOI 10.1093/MIND/XIV.4.479 Rutkowski P., 2007, U PENN WORKING PAPER, V13, P337 Sanford AJ, 2007, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V44, P1 Solt S., 2009, THESIS CITY U NY Stalnaker P., 1974, SEMANTICS PHILOS, P197 Stanley J, 2000, MIND LANG, V15, P219, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00130 Stanley J, 2000, LINGUIST PHILOS, V23, P391, DOI 10.1023/A:1005599312747 Stickney Helen, 2013, P 37 ANN M BERK LING, P330 Strawson F. P., 1950, MIND, V59, P320 VANBENTHEM J, 1983, LINGUIST PHILOS, V6, P447 von Stechow A., 1989, 6 U KONST GERM WESTERSTAHL D, 1985, LINGUIST PHILOS, V8, P387, DOI 10.1007/BF00637410 Wierzbicka A., 1996, SEMANTICS PRIMES UNI Wilson D., 1979, PRESUPPOSITION, P229 NR 51 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 0 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 AUG PY 2014 VL 37 IS 4 BP 315 EP 351 DI 10.1007/s10988-014-9157-5 PG 37 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AN5FQ UT WOS:000340616500003 ER PT J AU Kim, HY AF Kim, Hye Yeong TI Learner investment, identity, and resistance to second language pragmatic norms SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE Second language learning; Pragmatics; Learner investment; Identity; Learner resistance ID JAPANESE AB This study examined how the investment in identity of English as a second language (ESL) learner guides pragmatic choices. Findings show that the participants in this study often made pragmatic choices in hopes of a better return for their social identity. Aspects of individual learners' backgrounds, such as age and length of stay in the target country as well as interlocutors' age and power were found to closely relate to learners' pragmatic decisions. However, learners' own evaluations of these factors did not lead to certain fixed pragmatic choices. Rather, more significant for pragmatic choice were learners' decisions about investment based on constant negotiations between conflicting identities and pragmatic norms in relationships with others. These findings call for greater sensitivity toward learner subjectivity by both researchers and educators to understand learner's pragmatic decisions and their performance. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Sungkyunkwan Univ, Dept English Language & Literature, Seoul, South Korea. RP Kim, HY (reprint author), Sungkyunkwan Univ, Dept English Language & Literature, Seoul, South Korea. EM hyeyeongkim@gmail.com RI Kim, Hye Yeong/F-9174-2013 CR Aston G., 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P224 Bardovi-Harlig K, 1993, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, V4, P143 Bardovi-Harling K., 2003, TEACHING PRAGMATICS Cohen Andrew D., 1996, SOCIOLINGUISTICS LAN, P383 Cook H., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P80 Ehrlich Susan, 1997, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V19, P421 Golato A, 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/24.1.90 Herbert R. K., 1989, CONTRASTIVE PRAGMATI, P3 Ishihara N., 2006, THESIS U MINNESOTA M Johnston B, 1998, APPL LINGUIST, V19, P157, DOI 10.1093/applin/19.2.157 Kasper G., 2000, CULTURALLY SPEAKING Kasper G, 1992, SECOND LANG RES, V8, P203, DOI 10.1177/026765839200800303 Kasper Gabriele, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P149, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014868 Dahl M., 1991, STUDIES 2ND LANGUAGE, V13, P215, DOI [10.1017/S0272263100009955, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100009955] Kim I. O., 2000, THESIS NEW YORK U NE LoCastro V., 2001, SYSTEM, V29, P69, DOI 10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00046-4 Merriam S. B., 1998, QUALITATIVE RES CASE Norton B, 1997, TESOL QUART, V31, P409, DOI 10.2307/3587831 Norton-Pierce B., 1995, TESOL Q, V29, P9, DOI DOI 10.2307/3587803 NORTON B, 2000, IDENTITY LANGUAGE LE Ochs E., 1993, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V26, P287, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327973RLSI2603_3 Odlin T., 1989, LANGUAGE TRANSFER Rose K., 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE Saito H, 1997, MOD LANG J, V81, P363, DOI 10.2307/329311 Siegal M, 1996, APPL LINGUIST, V17, P356, DOI 10.1093/applin/17.3.356 Takahashi S, 2005, APPL LINGUIST, V26, P90, DOI 10.1093/applin/amh040 THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Weedon Chris, 1987, FEMINIST PRACTICE PO WOLFSON N, 1981, TESOL QUART, V15, P117, DOI 10.2307/3586403 NR 29 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 U2 7 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 2014 VL 45 BP 92 EP 102 DI 10.1016/j.system.2014.05.002 PG 11 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA AN6GN UT WOS:000340693100008 ER PT J AU Li, S AF Li, Shuai TI The effects of different levels of linguistic proficiency on the development of L2 Chinese request production during study abroad SO SYSTEM LA English DT Article DE Linguistic proficiency; Request; Study abroad; L2 Chinese; Pragmatics ID PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT; LANGUAGE GAIN; LEARNERS; DIFFICULTY; JAPANESE; FLUENCY AB This study examined the effects of different levels of linguistic proficiency on the development of pragmatically appropriate requests in L2 Chinese in a study abroad context. The participants were 31 American learners of Chinese studying in China. Fifteen learners came from intermediate level classes (Intermediate group) and the remaining 16 from advanced level classes (Advanced group). The participants completed a Computerized Oral Discourse Completion Test (CODCT) at the beginning and toward the end of their sojourn. The participants' oral request production was analyzed in terms of appropriateness rating, planning time, and speech rate. The results showed that the Intermediate and Advanced groups made comparable gains in appropriateness rating, that neither group reduced planning time, and that only the Advanced group gained in speech rate. The Intermediate and Advanced groups showed similar patterns of change in their production of alerters, head act forms (i.e., request strategies), internal modification, and external modification. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 Georgia State Univ, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA. RP Li, S (reprint author), Georgia State Univ, Langdale Hall 871, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA. EM sli12@gsu.edu CR Al-Gahtani S, 2012, APPL LINGUIST, V33, P42, DOI 10.1093/applin/amr031 Bardovi-Harlig K, 2009, LANG LEARN, V59, P755 Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P13 Bardovi-Harlig K., 1993, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V15, P279, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100012122 Bardovi-Harlig K., 2008, UNDERSTANDING 2 LANG, P205 Barron A., 2006, LANGUAGE LEARNERS ST, P59 Bataller R., 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V43, P160 Bialystok Ellen, 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P43 Blum-Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P37 Blum-Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P1 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Cole S., 2001, LANGUAGE TEACHER, V25, P7 Davidson D. E., 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V43, P6, DOI [10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01057.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1944-9720.2010.01057.X] DeKeyser R., 2010, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V43.1, P80, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1944-9720.2010.01061.X DeKeyser R., 2007, THEORIES 2 LANGUAGE, P94 DeKeyser RM, 2007, CAM APPL L, P208 Economidou-Kogetsidis M, 2009, MULTILINGUA, V28, P79, DOI 10.1515/mult.2009.004 Ellis R, 2004, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V26, P59, DOI 10.1017/S0272263104261034 Ellis R., 1992, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V14, P1, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100010445 Faerch Claus, 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P221 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P253, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.013 Freed B. F., 1995, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P123 Gao H., 1999, WORKING PAPERS LUND, V47, P73 Hassall T., 1997, THESIS AUSTR NATL U Hassall T., 2001, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V39, P259, DOI DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2001.005 Hassall T, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V217, P203 Hill T., 1997, THESIS TEMPLE U Hudson Thom, 1995, 7 U HAW 2 LANG TEACH Ishita M., 2009, TALK IN INTERACTION, P351 Ishida M., 2011, L2 LEARNING SOCIAL P, P45 Iwasaki N, 2010, APPL LINGUIST, V31, P45, DOI 10.1093/applin/amn047 Juffs A., 2001, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V21, P207 Kasper G, 2001, APPL LINGUIST, V22, P502, DOI 10.1093/applin/22.4.502 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Kasper G, 2005, HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH IN SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING, P317 Klapper J., 2003, LANG TEACH RES, V7, P285, DOI DOI 10.1191/1362168803LR128OA Koike D, 1996, SPEECH ACTS CULTURES, P257 Lapkin S., 1995, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P67, DOI 10.1075/sibil.9.06lap Lee H, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V50, P168, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.002 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Lee-Wong Song Mei, 2000, POLITENESS FACE CHIN Leveli W. J., 1989, SPEAKING INTENTION A Li S., 2014, MODERN LANGUAGE J, V98 Li S, 2012, LANG LEARN, V62, P403, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00629.x Masuda K, 2011, MOD LANG J, V95, P519, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01256.x Niezgoda Kimberly, 2001, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P63 Pinto D., 2005, SPAN CONTEXT, V2, P1, DOI 10.1075/sic.2.1.01pin Regan V., 1995, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P245 Rivers WP, 1998, FOREIGN LANG ANN, V31, P492 Schauer G. A., 2004, EUROSLA YB, V4, P253, DOI 10.1075/eurosla.4.12sch Schauer Gila A., 2009, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Schauer G. A., 2008, DEV CONTRASTIVE PRAG, P399 Schauer G.A., 2006, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGE, P135 Schauer G., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P193, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.011 Segalowitz N., 2010, COGNITIVE BASES 2 LA Segalowitz N., 2003, HDB 2 LANGUAGE ACQUI, P382, DOI 10.1002/9780470756492.ch13 Taguchi N., 2012, CONTEXT INDIVIDUAL D Taguchi N., 2006, PRAGMATICS, V16, P513 Taguchi N., 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS, V7, P333 Taguchi N, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P113, DOI 10.1093/applin/aml051 Teichler U., 1997, ERASMUS EXPERIENCE M THOMAS J, 1983, APPL LINGUIST, V4, P91, DOI 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Trosborg A., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA Warga M., 2007, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V4, P221, DOI 10.1515/IP.2007.012 Wen X., 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI Wendel J., 1997, THESIS TEMPLE U JAPA Woodfield H., 2008, DEV CONTRASTIVE PRAG, P227 Woodfield H, 2010, MULTILINGUA, V29, P77, DOI 10.1515/mult.2010.004 Woodfield H, 2012, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V217, P9 Yager K, 1998, HISPANIA-J DEV INTER, V81, P898, DOI 10.2307/345798 Yuan Y., 2003, APPL LINGUIST, V24, P1 Zhang Y. Y., 1995, PRAGMATICS CHINESE N, P23 NR 72 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 0 U2 4 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 2014 VL 45 BP 103 EP 116 DI 10.1016/j.system.2014.05.001 PG 14 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA AN6GN UT WOS:000340693100009 ER PT J AU Arregui, A AF Arregui, Ana TI Aspectual operators across languages: a commentary on the paper by Daniel Altshuler SO NATURAL LANGUAGE & LINGUISTIC THEORY LA English DT Article DE Aspect; Cross-linguistic semantics; Event ontology; Spanish aspectual operators AB This paper investigates the case of Spanish Perfecto simple and Imperfecto from the perspective of the cross-linguistic proposal in Altshuler's (2014) "A typology of partitive aspectual operators", pointing to ways in which the Spanish data suggests refinements for Altshuler's proposal. In particular: (i) the paper provides evidence from Spanish that sheds doubts on Altshuler's proposal that temporal asymmetry should be built into the semantics of Landman-style partitive operators in a manner that guarantees that the worlds quantified over match the actual world in the past; (ii) following Altshuler's observations regarding differences between events being 'completed' vs. events 'not continuing', the paper provides a comparison between examples from Spanish and Russian to argue that more than one notion of 'complete-event' is actually needed; (iii) expanding on Altshuler's proposal to link habitual readings to plural events, the paper examines the case of Spanish Perfecto vs. Imperfecto, showing that both modality and plurality play a crucial role in generating habitual readings. The paper also discusses the relative role of semantics and pragmatics in the interpretation of aspectual operators, comparing some aspects of Altshuler's proposal to Arregui et al. (2014). Together, the various examples strengthen the case for a semantics of aspect grounded on a fine-grained ontology that brings together both temporal and modal dimensions. EM aarregui@uOttawa.ca CR Altshuler D, 2014, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V32, P735, DOI 10.1007/s11049-014-9232-1 Arregui A, 2014, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V32, P307, DOI 10.1007/s11049-013-9226-4 Cipria Alicia, 2000, NAT LANG SEMANT, V8, P297, DOI 10.1023/A:1011202000582 Ferreira Marcelo, 2005, THESIS CAMBRIDGE Goodman N., 1947, J PHILOS, V44, P113, DOI 10.2307/2019988 Gronn Atle, 2003, THESIS OSLO U Jayez Jacques, 1999, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, V9, P145 Landman Fred, 1992, NAT LANG SEMANT, V1, P1, DOI 10.1007/BF02342615 Menendez-Benito Paula, 2002, P 32 M N E LING SOC, P365 Menendez-Benito Paula, 2005, THESIS U MA AMHERST Menendez-Benito Paula, 2012, OXFORD STUDIES THEOR, V276-292 Portner P, 1998, LANGUAGE, V74, P760, DOI 10.2307/417002 REYES G, 1990, REV FILOL ESPAN, V70, P45 Singh Mona, 1998, NAT LANG SEMANT, V6, P171, DOI 10.1023/A:1008208311200 NR 14 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 1 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0167-806X EI 1573-0859 J9 NAT LANG LINGUIST TH JI Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory PD AUG PY 2014 VL 32 IS 3 BP 777 EP 789 DI 10.1007/s11049-014-9235-y PG 13 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AN4EV UT WOS:000340541300003 ER PT J AU Apresjan, V AF Apresjan, Valentina TI Syntactic idioms across languages: corpus evidence from Russian and English SO RUSSIAN LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID CONSTRUCTIONS AB This paper considers the issues of compositionality, concessive meaning, negative polarity, scalarity, linguistic anthropocentricity, and semantics-syntax interaction in a corpus study of the concessive syntactic idiom pri vsem X-e 'with all X' in Russian and its non-idiomatic counterpart with all X in English. The study demonstrates (a) both compositional and non-compositional components in the Russian idiom on both syntactic and semantic levels; (b) strong correlation between the semantic and syntactic properties of the idiom; (c) semantic properties typical of other syntactic idioms (such as negative polarization); (d) pragmatic properties that are typical of other syntactic idioms (such as entailments incorporating implicit scales and anthropocentric evaluation); (e) language-specific idiomatic status, which cannot be predicted compositionally and needs to be established on an individual basis, even when a seemingly identical item is present in the two languages under comparison. C1 Natl Res Univ, Higher Sch Econ, Moscow 101000, Russia. RP Apresjan, V (reprint author), Natl Res Univ, Higher Sch Econ, Ul Myasnitskaya 20, Moscow 101000, Russia. EM vapresyan@hse.ru RI Apresyan, Valentina/J-3532-2015 OI Apresyan, Valentina/0000-0002-5140-3745 CR Apresjan V., 2009, P 4 INT C MEAN TEXT Chomsky Noam, 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM de Vries M, 2007, LING AKT, V106, P203 FILLMORE CJ, 1988, LANGUAGE, V64, P501, DOI 10.2307/414531 Iomdin L., 2010, TEORETICESKIE PROBLE, P141 Iordanskaja L. N., 2007, SMYSL SOCETAEMOSI SL Jackendoff R, 1997, LANGUAGE, V73, P534, DOI 10.2307/415883 Konig E., 1991, SEMANTIC UNIVERSALS, P190 Lubensky S., 1995, RANDOM HOUSE RUSSIAN Makkai A., 1972, IDIOM STRUCTURE ENGL Mateu J, 2007, LINGUIST REV, V24, P33, DOI 10.1515/TLR.2007.002 McGinnis M, 2002, LINGUIST INQ, V33, P665, DOI 10.1162/ling.2002.33.4.665 Evereart M., 1995, IDIOMS STRUCTURAL PS, P167 NUNBERG G, 1994, LANGUAGE, V70, P491, DOI 10.2307/416483 Sannikov V., 2010, TEORETICESKIE PROBLE, P113 NR 15 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 10 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 2014 VL 38 IS 2 BP 187 EP 203 DI 10.1007/s11185-014-9127-0 PG 17 WC Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AL8LR UT WOS:000339390800002 ER PT J AU Timler, GR Boone, WJ Bergmann, AA AF Timler, Geralyn R. Boone, William J. Bergmann, Amelia A. TI Development of the Conversation Participation Rating Scale Intervention Planning Implications for Two School-Age Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders SO TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS LA English DT Article DE autism spectrum disorders; conversation participation; school-age children; social (pragmatic) communication disorders; WHO-ICF ID SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY; HIGH-FUNCTIONING AUTISM; PRAGMATIC LANGUAGE; SOCIAL-SKILLS; CONTROLLED-TRIAL; SELF; ADOLESCENTS; PERCEPTIONS; QUALITY; ANXIETY AB Purpose: School-age children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) have pervasive challenges in social interactions with peers. This study examined the feasibility of eliciting children's perceptions of their conversation participation with peers for the purposes of assessment and intervention planning. Methods: Two school-age children with ASD completed a newly developed self-report measure, the Conversation Participation Rating Scale (CPRS), designed for children and adolescents between the ages of 7 and 16 years, with social communication and peer interaction difficulties. Descriptive analyses examined agreement and discrepancy among child self-report, parent report, and standardized social language tests. Results: Both children provided a range of responses on the CPRS, revealing participation strengths as well as awareness of specific activity limitations and participation restrictions. Both children scored within the normal range on a social language test, even though parent report measures revealed significant concerns with pragmatic language and social skills. Discussion: The CPRS results contributed unique information to the assessment process. These results provide preliminary support for the feasibility of using a self-report conversation participation measure as a method for obtaining children's unique perspective of social communication activities and challenges in school settings. C1 [Timler, Geralyn R.; Bergmann, Amelia A.] Miami Univ, Dept Speech Pathol & Audiol, Oxford, OH 45056 USA. [Boone, William J.] Miami Univ, Dept Educ Psychol, Oxford, OH 45056 USA. RP Timler, GR (reprint author), Miami Univ, Dept Speech Pathol & Audiol, 2 Bachelor Hall, Oxford, OH 45056 USA. EM timlergr@miamioh.edu CR Adams C, 2002, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V43, P973, DOI 10.1111/1469-7610.00226 American Psychiatric Association, 2013, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2004, PREF PRACT PATT PROF Bauminger N, 2004, J DEV PHYS DISABIL, V16, P193, DOI 10.1023/B:JODD.0000026616.24896.c8 Baylor C, 2011, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V20, P243, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0079) Baylor C, 2014, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V57, P90, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0414) Baylor CR, 2009, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V52, P1302, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0275) Bishop D., 2006, CHILDRENS COMMUNICAT Bond T.G., 2007, APPL RASCH MODEL FUN Boone W. J., 2014, RASCH ANAL HUMAN SCI Boone WJ, 2006, SCI EDUC, V90, P253, DOI 10.1002/sce.20106 Bowers L., 2008, SOCIAL LANGUAGE DEV Burgess S, 2010, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V41, P474, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2010/09-0007) Chalfant AM, 2007, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V37, P1842, DOI 10.1007/s10803-006-0318-4 Crick NR, 2002, CURR DIR PSYCHOL SCI, V11, P98, DOI 10.1111/1467-8721.00177 Dempsey L, 2010, J COMMUN DISORD, V43, P424, DOI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.05.004 Dotson WH, 2010, RES AUTISM SPECT DIS, V4, P199, DOI 10.1016/j.rasd.2009.09.005 Dowell KA, 2008, J CHILD FAM STUD, V17, P291, DOI 10.1007/s10826-007-9137-2 Eadie TL, 2006, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V15, P307, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2006/030) Eiser C, 2001, QUAL LIFE RES, V10, P347, DOI 10.1023/A:1012253723272 Gresham FM, 2008, SOCIAL SKILLS IMPROV Gresham FM, 2011, SCHOOL PSYCHOL QUART, V26, P27, DOI 10.1037/a0022662 Hewitt L., 2014, SIG 1 PERSPECTIVES L, V21, P5, DOI [10.1044/lle21.1.5, DOI 10.1044/LLE21.1.5] Johnson SA, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P1706, DOI 10.1007/s10803-009-0809-1 Kalyva E, 2010, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V40, P1202, DOI 10.1007/s10803-010-0978-y Kasari C, 2012, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V53, P431, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02493.x Kaufman A., 2004, KAUFMAN BRIEF INTELL KOLKO DJ, 1993, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V34, P991, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1993.tb01103.x Li H., 2009, INT J PSYCHOL STUDIE, V1, P2 Linacre J. M., 2011, WINSTEPS VERSION 3 7 Nicpon MF, 2010, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V40, P1028, DOI 10.1007/s10803-010-0952-8 Norbury CF, 2013, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V54, P705, DOI 10.1111/jcpp.12110 Phelps-Gunn T., 2007, TEST PRAGMATIC LANGU Rasch G., 1960, PROBABILISTIC MODELS Sainato D. M., 2008, SOCIAL COMPETENCE YO, P99 SPENCE SH, 1990, BEHAV ASSESS, V12, P317 Threats TT, 2008, INT J SPEECH-LANG PA, V10, P50, DOI 10.1080/14417040701768693 Timler G., 2012, INT M AUT RES TOR ON Volden J, 2010, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V19, P204, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0011) Volden J, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P388, DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0618-y Washington K. N., 2007, INT J SPEECH LANGUAG, V9, P242 White SW, 2009, J AUTISM DEV DISORD, V39, P1006, DOI 10.1007/s10803-009-0713-8 World Health Organization, 2001, INT CLASS FUNCT DIS WHO, 2013, US ICF PRACT MAN US Winner M., 2006, INSIDE OUT WHAT MAKE Wright BD, 1996, RASCH MEASUREMENT T, V9, P468 Wright BD, 1979, BEST TEST DESIGN Young EC, 2005, LANG SPEECH HEAR SER, V36, P62, DOI 10.1044/0161-1461(2005/006) NR 48 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 1 U2 15 PU LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS PI PHILADELPHIA PA 530 WALNUT ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3621 USA SN 0271-8294 EI 1550-3259 J9 TOP LANG DISORD JI Top. Lang. Disord. PD JUL-SEP PY 2014 VL 34 IS 3 BP 252 EP 267 DI 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000021 PG 16 WC Linguistics; Rehabilitation SC Linguistics; Rehabilitation GA AT6CX UT WOS:000345027700007 ER PT J AU Brandtler, J Hakansson, D AF Brandtler, Johan Hakansson, David TI Not on the edge The syntax and pragmatics of clause-initial negation in Swedish SO JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE GERMANIC LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE Old Swedish; Modern Swedish; Topicalization; Negation; Diachronic change; Spec, CP; Germanic languages AB The possibility of topicalizing sentential negation is severely restricted in the Germanic V2-languages. In this paper, we show that negative preposing was more frequent and less restricted in earlier stages of Swedish: approx. 8 % of all occurrences of negation are clause initial in Old Swedish, compared to less than 0.5 % in present day Swedish. We propose that this change in frequency can be traced to the syntactic status of the negative element. More specifically, we argue that Old Swedish eigh 'not' may function as a syntactic head and cliticize to the finite verb in [C-0]. This possibility is not open to the XP inte 'not' in Modern Swedish. In Modern Swedish, we argue that the restrictions on negative preposing instead are related to more general pragmatic restrictions on the information expressed in [Spec,CP]: according to our hypothesis, negative preposing is licensed by contrast. C1 [Brandtler, Johan] Lund Univ, SE-22100 Lund, Sweden. [Brandtler, Johan] Univ Ghent, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. [Hakansson, David] Uppsala Univ, S-75105 Uppsala, Sweden. RP Brandtler, J (reprint author), Lund Univ, Box 117, SE-22100 Lund, Sweden. EM johan.brandtler@nordlund.lu.se; david.hakansson@nordiska.uu.se CR Agren Per-Uno, 1980, OVRE NORRLANDS BYGDE Ahlback Olav, 2000, ORDBOK FINLANDS SVEO, V3 Bergman Gosta, 1952, ARK NORDISK FILOLOGI, V66, P131 Braate Erik, 1887, ANTIKVARISK TIDSKRIF, V10 Christensen Ken Ramshoj, 2003, WORKING PAPERS SCAND, V72, P1 CROFT W, 1991, J LINGUIST, V27, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700012391 Delsing Lars-Olof, 1999, ARKIV NORDISK FILOLO, V114, P151 Eythorsson T., 1995, THESIS CORNELL U ITH Eythorsson T., 2002, J LINGUIST, V25, P190 Faarlund Jan Terje, 1997, NORSK REFERANSEGRAMM FILLMORE CJ, 1988, LANGUAGE, V64, P501, DOI 10.2307/414531 Frey Werner, 2006, STUDIES GENERATIVE G, V82, P235 Givon Talmy, 1978, PRAGMATICS, P69 Hakansson David, 2013, LANGUAGE VARIATION E, P129 Hakansson David, 2013, SVENSK BESKR 33 MAY Haska Inger, 1976, NORDISKA STUDIER LIN, P173 Hirvonen Ilkka, 1987, STUDIER NORDISK FILO, V69 Platzack C., 1995, ROLE INFLECTION SCAN Horn Laurence R., 2001, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Ivars A.-M., 2010, SYDOSTERBOTTNISK SYN Jager A., 2008, HIST GERMAN NEGATION Jespersen Otto, 1917, NEGATION ENGLISH OTH Jorgensen Nils, 1976, MENINGSBYGGNADEN T C, V10 Jorgensen Nils, 1987, STUDIER SYNTAX TEXTS Klockars Birgit, 1967, NY ILLUSTRERAD SVENS, P125 Kusmenko Jurij, 2002, STROVTAG NORDISK SPR, P102 Lehti-Eklund Hanna, 1984, TOPIKALISERINGEN FUN Lindstrom Jan, 2007, MODERNA GENOMBROTTER, P148 Lindstrom Jan, 2009, KONSTRUKTIONER FINLA, P163 Lundstrom Gudrun, 1939, SVENSKA LANDSMAL SVE, V38 Molnar Valeria, 2009, LINGUA, V120, P1392 Molnar V., 2006, ARCHITECTURE FOCUS, V82, P197 Molnar Valeria, 2003, GRAMMAR FOCUS, V2, P235 Neckel Gustav, 1913, Z VERGLEICHENDE SPRA, V45, P1 Neckel Gustav, 1983, EDDA LIEDER CODEX RE Norden Arthur, 1943, KUNGL VITTERHETS HIS, P143 Petersson David, 2008, SYNTAX GRANSSNITTET, P111 Platzack Christer, 1980, LUNDASTUDIER NORDISK, V13 Fakete D. Laubnitz, 1988, MCGILL WORKING PAPER, P215 Platzack Christer, 1987, WORKING PAPERS SCAND Platzack Christer, 1998, SVENSKANS INRE GRAMM PRINCE EF, 1978, LANGUAGE, V54, P883, DOI 10.2307/413238 Rowlett Paul, 1998, SENTENTIAL NEGATION Saari Mirja, 1987, STUDIER ALDRE NYSVEN SAOB, 1898, ORDB SVENSK SPRAK UT Soderberg Sven, 1900, SVERIGES RUNINSKRIFT, V1 Soderwall Knut Fredrik, 1884, ORDBOK OFVER SVENSKA, VI-III Stahle Carl Ivar, 1967, NY ILLUSTRERAD SVENS, P37 Teleman Ulf, 1999, SVENSKA AKAD GRAMMAT Thrainsson Hoskuldur, 2007, SYNTAX ICELANDIC Tiedemann J., 2009, RECENT ADV NATURAL L, VV, P237 Ulvestad Bjarne, 1975, SPRACHSYSTEM SPRACHG, V2, P373 van Gelderen E., 2008, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V12, P195, DOI 10.1515/LITY.2008.037 Van Kemenade Ans, 1997, NEGATION HIST ENGLIS, P147 Westman Margareta, 1974, BRUKSPROSA FUNKTIONE Zeijlstra Hedde, 2004, THESIS U AMSTERDAM A Zeijlstra H, 2013, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V31, P865, DOI 10.1007/s11049-013-9199-3 NR 57 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 9 PU SPRINGER PI NEW YORK PA 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA SN 1383-4924 EI 1572-8552 J9 J COMP GER LINGUIST JI J. Comp. Ger. Linguist. PD JUL PY 2014 VL 17 IS 2 BP 97 EP 128 DI 10.1007/s10828-014-9068-4 PG 32 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AP4XP UT WOS:000342083700001 ER PT J AU Bisang, W AF Bisang, Walter TI OVERT AND HIDDEN COMPLEXITY - TWO TYPES OF COMPLEXITY AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS SO POZNAN STUDIES IN CONTEMPORARY LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE Hidden complexity; competing motivations; economy vs. explicitness; pragmatics; languages of East and mainland Southeast Asia ID PRO-DROP; CLASSIFIERS; LANGUAGES AB Linguistic complexity is the result of the two motivations of explicitness and economy. Most approaches focus on the exlpicitness side of complexity (overt complexity) but there is also an explicitness-oriented side to complexity (hidden complexity). The aim of the paper is to introduce hidden complexity as the neglected side of complexity and to discuss the issues of trade-offs, global complexity and equal complexity from a more encompassing perspective that integrates overt and hidden complexity. C1 [Bisang, Walter] Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, D-55127 Mainz, Germany. RP Bisang, W (reprint author), Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, Dept English & Linguist, Jakob Welder Weg 18, D-55127 Mainz, Germany. EM wbisang@uni-mainz.de CR ALLAN K, 1977, LANGUAGE, V53, P285, DOI 10.2307/413103 Bakker P, 2011, J PIDGIN CREOLE LANG, V26, P5, DOI 10.1075/jpcl.26.1.02bak Bisang Walter, 2011, HDB GRAMMATICALIZATI, P105 Bisang W, 1999, TREND LIN S, V118, P113 Bisang Walter, 2009, LANGUAGE COMPLEXITY, P34 Bisang W., 2013, LINGUISTIC PERSPECTI, P61 Bisang W, 2006, TRENDS LINGUIST-STUD, V165, P191 Cheng LLS, 1999, LINGUIST INQ, V30, P509, DOI 10.1162/002438999554192 Cysouw Michael, 2003, PARADIGMATIC STRUCTU Dahl O., 2004, GROWTH MAINTENANCE L DeGraff M., 2007, COMP CREOLE SYNTAX P, P101 DeGraff M, 1993, ATLANTIC MEETS PACIF, P71 DEPREZ V, 1994, J PIDGIN CREOLE LANG, V9, P1, DOI 10.1075/jpcl.9.1.02dep Deutscher G., 2009, LANGUAGE COMPLEXITY, P243 Gil D., 2005, CATEGORIZATION COGNI, P347 Gil D, 2005, VERB 1 SYNTAX VERB I, P243 Givon T, 2009, TYPOL ST L, V85, P1 Haiman J., 2011, OXFORD HDB LINGUISTI, P148 Haspelmath M., 2005, WORLD ATLAS LANGUAGE Hauser MD, 2002, SCIENCE, V298, P1569, DOI 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 Hockett C. F., 1958, COURSE MODERN LINGUI Jaeger F, 2010, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V61, P23 Juola Patrick, 2008, LANGUAGE COMPLEXITY, P89 KAGER Rene, 1999, OPTIMALITY THEORY LaPolla R.J., 2005, LANG ACQUIS, P465 Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Li XP, 2012, LINGUA, V122, P335, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.12.002 Lobel E., 2000, GENDER GRAMMAR COGNI, P259 McWhorter J., 2001, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, V5, P125, DOI DOI 10.1515/LITY.2001.001) McWhorter J. H., 2005, DEFINING CREOLE Miestamo Matti, 2008, LANGUAGE COMPLEXITY, P23 Neeleman A, 2007, LINGUIST INQ, V38, P671, DOI 10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.671 Parkvall Mikael, 2008, LANGUAGE COMPLEXITY, P265 PREMACK D, 1978, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V1, P515 Rescher N, 1998, COMPLEXITY PHILOS OV Searle John R., 1969, SPEECH ACTS ESSAY PH SHANNON CE, 1948, AT&T TECH J, V27, P623 Sinnemaki K., 2011, LANGUAGE UNIVERSALS TOMASELLO Michael, 1999, CULTURAL ORIGINS HUM Trudgill Peter, 2011, SOCIOLINGUISTIC TYPO Gabelentz G. von der, 1891, SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT I Wang J.-L., 2003, RELATIVKONSTRUKTIONE NR 42 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 2 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 1897-7499 J9 POZ STUD CONTEMP LIN JI Poznan Stud. Contemp. Linguist. PD JUL PY 2014 VL 50 IS 2 BP 127 EP 143 DI 10.1515/psicl-2014-0009 PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AP4SQ UT WOS:000342069400002 ER PT J AU Martin, TL AF Martin, Travis L. TI 'ALL THINGS SWIM AND GLIMMER': PRAGMATIC CONCEPTIONS OF SELF AND 'THE OLD LIE' IN THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON'S 'A NIGHT IN THE WATER' SO FORUM FOR MODERN LANGUAGE STUDIES LA English DT Article DE Thomas Wentworth Higginson; Ralph Waldo Emerson; pragmatism; American Civil War; masculinity; irony; Cornel West; Wilfred Owen AB Thomas Wentworth Higginson, renowned as an author, abolitionist and women's rights crusader, commanded his nation's first African American regiment, the First South Carolina Volunteers, during the American Civil War. This essay examines one night of that command as told in 'A Night in the Water', the story of a reconnaissance mission in which Higginson swims across a channel controlled on one side by his troops and on the other by Confederates. The narrative reveals much about the author's project of self-creation. Specifically, this essay examines Higginson's adoption of Emersonian precepts within the context of war, concluding that his performance of masculinity is directly tied to pragmatism and informed by what Wilfred Owen would refer to later as 'The old Lie'. As a result, a certain irony exists within the pages of ` A Night in the Water', one found in Higginson's later rivalry with Walt Whitman and tinged by the type of absurdity found in war. C1 Univ Kentucky, Dept English, Lexington, KY 40502 USA. RP Martin, TL (reprint author), Univ Kentucky, Dept English, 1306 Patterson Off Tower, Lexington, KY 40502 USA. EM Travis.Martin@uky.edu CR Emerson Ralph Waldo, 2002, RALPH WALDO EMERSON, p[58, 61] Faust Drew Gilpin, 2008, THIS REPUBLIC SUFFER, pxiii Fussell Paul, 1996, DOING BATTLE MAKING, P37 Fussell Paul, 1975, GREAT WAR MODERN MEM, P34 Hedges Chris, 2002, WAR IS FORCE GIVES U, P85 Higginson Thomas Wentworth, 1997, ARMY LIFE BLACK REGI Hobbs Charles A., 2011, T CS PEIRCE SOC Q J, V47, P184 Hobbs CA, 2011, T C S PEIRCE SOC, V47, P182 Hunter Adrian, 2002, WAR LIT ARTS INT J H, V14, p[280, 280] Menand Louis, 2001, METAPHYSICAL CLUB, pxi Nelson RK, 2001, AM LIT, V73, P497, DOI 10.1215/00029831-73-3-497 Owen Wilfred, 2006, NORTON ANTHOLOGY ENG, P141 Parrish Tim, 2001, WALKING BLUES MAKING, P9 Vernon A, 2005, ARMS SELF WAR MILITA, P1 West Cornel, 1989, AM EVASION PHILOS GE, P274 NR 15 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 2 PU OXFORD UNIV PRESS PI OXFORD PA GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND SN 0015-8518 EI 1471-6860 J9 FORUM MOD LANG STUD JI Forum Mod. Lang. Stud. PD JUL PY 2014 VL 50 IS 3 BP 247 EP 255 DI 10.1093/fmls/cqu021 PG 9 WC Language & Linguistics; Literature SC Linguistics; Literature GA AM7TL UT WOS:000340071500002 ER PT J AU Lien, CF AF Lien, Chinfa TI The Development of Southern Min Demonstratives plus Type Classifier/Quantifier Construction in Late Ming and Early Qing Texts: From Demonstratives to Intensifiers SO LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE demonstrative; fusion; Jespersen's Cycle; type classifier AB This paper explores the change in constructions featuring proximal/distal demonstratives + type classifier/quantifier attested in Southern Min playscripts published in the late Ming and early Qing. Hur(2) /tsi(2) and iunn(7) form particular constructions that have a range of features in syntax, semantics, phonology, and pragmatics. The sense of type is depleted when fusional words hiunn(3) and tsiunn(3) are formed. The missing sense of type can be refurbished by new type classifiers such as puann(1), sinn(1), and ni(5). The newly emerging hiunn(3) puann(1)/sinn(1)/ni(5) or tsiunn(3) puann(1)/sinn(1)/ni(5) reflects the phenomenon of Jespersen's Cycle. The new function of the fusional words led to the change of determiner + classifier to intensifier as a modifier of scalar adjectives or anaphors with discourse function. Another fusional word, tsuah(4), results from the fusion of tsi(2) and ua(7), denoting 'many' tsuah(4), and takes on the function of intensifier when its quantity sense is depleted. This is also a reflection of Jespersen's Cycle. This paper concludes that the demonstrative + type classifier/quantifier construction exhibits chronological strata and subdialectal variation. C1 Natl Tsing Hua Univ, Grad Inst Linguist, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan. RP Lien, CF (reprint author), Natl Tsing Hua Univ, Grad Inst Linguist, 101,Sec 2,Kuang Fu Rd, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan. EM cflien@mx.nthu.edu.tw CR Chen Li-hsueh, 2009, CHINESE STUDIES, V27, P179 Chen Yanling, 2008, J QUANZHOU NORMAL U, V2008, P19 Chou Fa-kao, 1972, ZHONGGUO GUDAI YUFA Chou Fa-kao, 1952, CONTINENT MAGAZINE, V4, P6 Dai Zhaoming, 2004, HANYU XUEBAO, V2004, P26 Douglas Rev. C., 1873, CHINESE ENGLISH DICT Eckardt Regine, 2006, MEANING CHANGE GRAMM Huang Dinghua, 1961, ZHONGGUO YUWEN, V1961, P23 HUANG HC, 2007, TSING HUA J CHINESE, V37, P561 Jespersen Otto, 1917, NEGATION ENGLISH OTH Li Fang-kuei, 1998, SHANGGUYIN YANJIU Liu Jian, 1992, JINDAI HANYU XUCI YA Lucas C, 2007, T PHILOL SOC, V105, P398, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-968X.2007.00189.x Mei Tsu-Lin, 2002, 3 INT C SIN LING SEC, P1 Ota T., 1981, CHUGOKUGO REKISHI BU Ota T., 1987, ZHONGGUOYU LISHI WEN SCHWEGLER A, 1983, LINGUA, V61, P297, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(83)90001-3 Shi Qisheng, 1995, FANGYAN, V1995, P201 SHIMURA Ryoji, 1995, ZHONGGUO ZHONGSHI YU SHIMURA Ryoji, 1984, CHUGOKU CHUSEI GOHOS van der Loon Piet, 1992, MING KAN MINNAN XIQU Wu Shouli, 2002, TAIP TSUNG 1 WORKSH Wu Shouli, 2001, TAIP TSUNG 1 WORKSH Wu Shouli, 2003, TAIP TSUNG 1 WORKSH Wu Shouli, 2002, TAIP TSUNG 1 WORKSH Yang Lien-sheng, 1982, TSING HUA J CHINESE, V14, P299 Zhang Xiang, 2009, SHI CI QU YUCI HUISH Zhengzhang Shangfang, 1995, ZHONGGUO YUYAN XUEBA, V5, P172 NR 28 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 2 PU INST LINGUISTICS ACAD SINICA PI NANKANG, TAIPEI PA NO 130, SEC 2, ACADEMIA RD, NANKANG, TAIPEI, 11529, TAIWAN SN 1606-822X EI 2309-5067 J9 LANG LINGUIST-TAIWAN JI Lang. Linguist. PD JUL PY 2014 VL 15 IS 4 BP 495 EP 512 DI 10.1177/1606822X14531900 PG 18 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AM3GW UT WOS:000339741800003 ER PT J AU Xie, ZG AF Xie, Zhiguo TI Where is the Standard? An Analysis of Size Adjectives as Degree Modifiers at the Semantic-Pragmatic Interface SO LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE gradable nouns; polarity; size adjectives; standard; zone of indifference ID SCALE AB Size adjectives in languages such as English or Mandarin Chinese can have degree readings when they modify gradable nouns. The determiner phrase 'big idiot,' for example, can characterize an individual with a high degree of idiocy. It has been argued in the literature that this degree use of size adjectives is available only for positive size adjectives (e.g. "big" and "huge"), not for negative size adjectives (e.g. "small" and "tiny"). Although this generalization holds in most cases, in this paper, I identify several "exceptional" cases where negative size adjectives indeed can felicitously modify gradable nouns. I propose an analysis at the interface between the semantics and pragmatics of gradability that can account for both the general applicability of the "Bigness Generalization" and the exceptional cases to it. A negative size adjective can serve as a degree modifier, except in those contexts where the standard for the negative size adjective falls below the standard for the gradable noun that is modified. Such exceptional contexts have a very wide distribution, leading to the perception of general applicability of the Bigness Generalization. C1 Ohio State Univ, Dept East Asian Languages & Literatures, Columbus, OH 43210 USA. RP Xie, ZG (reprint author), Ohio State Univ, Dept East Asian Languages & Literatures, 360 Hagerty Hall,1775 Coll Rd, Columbus, OH 43210 USA. EM xie.251@osu.edu CR Abusch D, 2010, J SEMANT, V27, P37, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffp009 Bale Alan Clinton, 2006, UNIVERSAL SCALE SEMA Bale AC, 2008, LINGUIST PHILOS, V31, P1, DOI 10.1007/s10988-008-9028-z Bierwisch M, 1989, DIMENSIONAL ADJECTIV, P71 Bolinger Dwight, 1972, DEGREE WORDS Breheny R, 2008, J SEMANT, V25, P93, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffm016 Constantinescu C., 2011, GRADABILITY NOMINAL Cresswell Max, 1976, MONTAGUE GRAMMAR, P261 GAWRON JM, 1995, LINGUIST PHILOS, V18, P333, DOI 10.1007/BF00984929 Geurts B., 2006, NONDEFINITENESS PLUR, P311 Guerzoni E., 2007, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, V17, P112 Hendriks Petra, 2002, EITHER FOCUS P UNPUB Horn L. R., 1989, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Horn Laurence R., 1972, SEMANTICS LOGICAL OP Kennedy C, 2005, LANGUAGE, V81, P345, DOI 10.1353/lan.2005.0071 Kennedy C, 2001, LINGUIST PHILOS, V24, P33, DOI 10.1023/A:1005668525906 Kennedy C., 1999, PROJECTING ADJECTIVE Kennedy C, 2007, LINGUIST PHILOS, V30, P1, DOI 10.1007/s10988-006-9008-0 KLEIN E, 1980, LINGUIST PHILOS, V4, P1, DOI 10.1007/BF00351812 Konig Jean-Pierre, 1991, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V27.2, P140 Krifka M, 2007, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P163 Morzycki Marcin, 2005, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, V15, P116 Morzycki M, 2009, NAT LANG SEMANT, V17, P175, DOI 10.1007/s11050-009-9045-7 Rett Jessica, 2008, DEGREE MODIFICATION Rooth M., 1985, ASS FOCUS Sapir E., 1944, PHILOS SCI, V11, P93, DOI 10.1086/286828 Sassoon Galit, 2011, P SINN BED 15, V15, P531 Sassoon Galit, 2007, VAGUENESS GRADABILIT Sassoon Galit, 2010, ADJECTIVAL VER UNPUB Schulz K, 2006, LINGUIST PHILOS, V29, P205, DOI 10.1007/s10988-005-3760-4 Schwarzschild Roger, 2008, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V2, P308, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2007.00049.X Schwarzschild Roger, 2002, NAT LANG SEMANT, V10.1, P1, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1015545424775 Seuren Pieter A., 1984, J SEMANT, V3.1-2, P109, DOI 10.1093/jos/3.1-2.109 Svenonius Peter, 2006, PHASES INTERPRETATIO, P133 Winter Y, 2005, LINGUIST PHILOS, V28, P233, DOI 10.1007/s10988-004-1469-4 Xie Zhiguo, 2010, 6 INT WORKSH THEOR E Xie Zhiguo, 2010, 12 INT S CHIN LANG L Xie Zhiguo, 2011, RELEVANCE GRADABILIT NR 38 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 1 PU SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD PI LONDON PA 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND SN 1606-822X J9 LANG LINGUIST-TAIWAN JI Lang. Linguist. PD JUL PY 2014 VL 15 IS 4 BP 513 EP 538 DI 10.1177/1606822X14531901 PG 26 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AM3GW UT WOS:000339741800004 ER PT J AU Sawada, O AF Sawada, Osamu TI An utterance situation-based comparison SO LINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPHY LA English DT Article DE Intensified comparison; Utterance situation; Expressives; Conventional implicature; Semantics-pragmatics interface ID PRESUPPOSITIONS; IMPLICATURE; DISCOURSE; SEMANTICS; LANGUAGE AB The Japanese comparative adverb motto has two different uses. In the degree use, motto (typically) compares two individuals and denotes that there is a large gap between the target and a given standard with a norm-related presupposition. On the other hand, in the so-called 'negative use' it conveys the speaker's attitude (often negative) toward the utterance situation. I argue that similarly to the degree motto, the negative motto is a comparative morpheme, but unlike the degree motto it compares a current situation and an expected situation at the level of conventional implicature (CI)/expressive. I argue that the speaker's negative evaluation of the utterance situation in question comes from the large gap between the expected degree and the current degree. The theoretical implications of this paper are that there is a natural extension from semantic comparison to expressive comparison and that there is a type in natural language that can be called an 'indirect expressive', as opposed to 'direct expressives' like bastard and man (Potts, The logic of conventional implicatures, 2005, 2007a; McCready, Linguist Philos 31:671-724, 2009; 35:243-283, 2012). C1 Mie Univ, Dept Humanities, Tsu, Mie 5148507, Japan. RP Sawada, O (reprint author), Mie Univ, Dept Humanities, 1577 Kurimamachiya Cho, Tsu, Mie 5148507, Japan. EM sawadao@human.mie-u.ac.jp CR Alfonso A, 1966, JAPANESE SENTENCE PA Arnett N., 2012, P 30 W COAST C LING, P32 Beck Sigrid, 2009, LINGUISTIC VARIATION, V8, P1 Beck S, 2004, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V13, P289, DOI 10.1007/s10831-004-1289-0 Bhatt R, 2011, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V29, P581, DOI 10.1007/s11049-011-9137-1 Bochnak M. R., 2013, THESIS U CHICAGO Bogal-Allbritten E, 2013, NAT LANG SEMANT, V21, P219 Bonami O., 2008, ADJECTIVES ADVERBS S, P274 Cresswell Max J., 1977, MONTAGUE GRAMMAR, P261 Cruse D. A., 1986, LEXICAL SEMANTICS Diewald G, 2011, LINGUISTICS, V49, P365, DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.011 Giannakidou A, 2011, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V29, P621, DOI 10.1007/s11049-011-9133-5 Grano T, 2012, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V21, P219, DOI 10.1007/s10831-012-9090-Y Grice P, 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P43 Pinion C., 2013, EMPIRICAL ISSUES SYN, V9, P149 Daniel Gutzmann, 2012, THESIS U FRANKFURT Gutzmann Daniel, 2013, WORKSH SYST SEM CHAN Gutzmann D., 2011, EMPIRICAL ISSUES SYN, V8, P123 Hacquard Valentine, 2006, THESIS MIT Hara Y., 2006, P 2004 TEX LING SOC, P35 Heim Irene, 1992, J SEMANT, V9, P183, DOI DOI 10.1093/JOS/9.3.183 Heim I., 1985, THESIS U TEXAS AUSTI Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION Horn L., 2007, EXPLORATIONS PRAGMAT, P39 Horn LR, 2013, CURR RES SEMANT PRAG, V28, P151 Kaplan David, 1999, MEANING OUCH OOPS EX Karttunen Lauri, 1979, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V11, P1 Kawabata M., 2002, NIHONGOKAGAKU, V12, P29 Kennedy C., 2007, C SYNT SEM PAR Kennedy C, 2005, LANGUAGE, V81, P345, DOI 10.1353/lan.2005.0071 Elliot M., 2009, 43 REG M CHIC LING S, P141 Kinoshita K., 2001, KOKUGOGAKU, V52, P16 Klein Ewan, 1991, SEMANTICS INT HDB CO, P673 Kratzer A, 1981, WORDS WORLDS CONTEXT, P38 Matsui A., 2010, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, V20, P57 Kuno Susumu, 1973, STRUCTURE JAPANESE L Lee CM, 2006, CUR RES SEM PRAG INT, V16, P381 Liu CSL, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P1579, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.09.005 Matsui A., 2012, P FORMAL APPROACHES, V5, P126 Matsumoto Y., 1985, J ASIAN CULTURE, VIX, P143 Mayol L, 2013, LANGUAGE, V89, P195 Schwager M., 2009, WORKSH EXPR OTH KIND McCready E., 2010, SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS, V3, P1, DOI DOI 10.3765/SP.3.8 McCready E, 2012, LINGUIST PHILOS, V35, P243, DOI 10.1007/s10988-012-9118-9 McCready E, 2008, LINGUIST PHILOS, V31, P671, DOI 10.1007/s10988-009-9052-7 Merchant J., 2009, J GREEK LINGUISTICS, V9, P134, DOI [10.1163/156658409X12500896406005, DOI 10.1163/156658409X12500896406005] Morzycki M, 2011, NAT LANG SEMANT, V19, P39, DOI 10.1007/s11050-010-9063-5 Musan Renate, 1997, NAT LANG SEMANT, V5, P271, DOI 10.1023/A:1008281017969 Nakanishi K, 2007, INTERFACE EXPLOR, V12, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110198485 Narrog Heiko, 2012, MODALITY SUBJECTIVIT Okumura T., 1995, NIHONGO KYOIKU, V87, P91 Oshima D., 2008, 41 M CHIC LING SOC, P371 Percus O., 2000, NAT LANG SEMANT, V8, P173, DOI 10.1023/A:1011298526791 Potts C., 2007, PHILOS COMPASS, V4, P665 Fox C., 2013, HDB CONT SE IN PRESS Potts C., 2005, LOGIC CONVENTIONAL I Potts C, 2007, THEOR LINGUIST, V33, P165, DOI 10.1515/TL.2007.011 Salmon W, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3416, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.011 Sano Y., 1998, KOKUGOGAKU, V195, P1 Sano Y., 2004, NIHONGO KAGAKU, V15, P5 Sawada O., 2013, VARIETIES POSI UNPUB Sawada O., 2009, P 11 C PRAGM SOC JAP, P175 Sawada O., 2012, P 33 ANN M BERK LING Sawada O., 2010, THESIS U CHICAGO Sawada O, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1079, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.004 Sawada O, 2011, NAT LANG SEMANT, V19, P191, DOI 10.1007/s11050-011-9070-1 Sawada O, 2013, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V22, P217, DOI 10.1007/s10831-013-9104-4 Dekker P., 2012, CAMBRIDGE H IN PRESS Schlenker P, 2007, THEOR LINGUIST, V33, P237, DOI 10.1515/TL.2007.017 Schlenker P, 2006, MIND LANG, V21, P504, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00288.x Erlewine M., P MIT WORKSH COMP Seuren Pieter, 1973, GENERATIVE GRAMMAR E, P528, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-94-010-2503-4_22 SHANON B, 1976, FOUND LANG, V14, P247 Shimoyama J, 2012, NAT LANG SEMANT, V20, P83, DOI 10.1007/s11050-011-9076-8 Sudo Y, J E ASIAN L IN PRESS Tanomura T., 2002, GENDAI NIHONGO NO BU Tomioka S., 2010, INFORM STRUCTURE THE, P115 Tonhauser J, 2013, LANGUAGE, V89, P66 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 1995, SUBJECTIVITY SUBJECT, P31, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 von Fintel K., 2004, DESCRIPTIONS, P315 VON STECHOW ARNIM, 1984, J SEMANT, V3, P1, DOI DOI 10.1093/J0S/3.1-2.1 Watanabe M., 1985, B LANGUAGE I GAKUSHU, V8, P65 Yabushita K., 2008, P SEM LING THEOR SAL, V18, P747 Maienborn C., 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V2, P2011 NR 84 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 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 JUL PY 2014 VL 37 IS 3 BP 205 EP 248 DI 10.1007/s10988-014-9150-z PG 44 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AM5FQ UT WOS:000339882400002 ER PT J AU Clark, EV AF Clark, Eve V. TI Pragmatics in acquisition SO JOURNAL OF CHILD LANGUAGE LA English DT Article ID YOUNG-CHILDREN; INFANTS; OBJECTS; SENSITIVITY; INFORMATION; DIRECTIONS; ATTENTION; PARENTS; SPEECH; ADULT AB Recent research has highlighted several areas where pragmatics plays a central role in the process of acquiring a first language. In talking with their children, adults display their uses of language in each context, and offer extensive feedback on form, meaning, and usage, within their conversational exchanges. These interactions depend critically on joint attention, physical co-presence, and conversational co-presence - essential factors that help children assign meanings, establish reference, and add to common ground. For young children, getting their meaning across also depends on realizing language is conventional, that words contrast in meaning, and that they need to observe Grice's cooperative principle in conversation. Adults make use of the same pragmatic principles as they solicit repairs to what children say, and thereby offer feedback on both what the language is and how to use it. C1 [Clark, Eve V.] Stanford Univ, Stanford, CA 94305 USA. RP Clark, EV (reprint author), Stanford Univ, Dept Linguist, Margaret Jacks Hall,Bldg 460, Stanford, CA 94305 USA. EM eclark@stanford.edu CR BALDWIN DA, 1991, CHILD DEV, V62, P875, DOI 10.2307/1131140 Baldwin DA, 2001, TRENDS COGN SCI, V5, P171, DOI 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01615-6 Bavelas J. B., 2006, HDB NONVERBAL COMMUN, P97 Bloom L, 1996, CHILD DEV, V67, P3154, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01907.x Carey S., 1985, CONCEPTUAL CHANGE CH Casillas M. A., 2014, TURN TAKING TA UNPUB Childers JB, 2007, J CHILD LANG, V34, P199, DOI 10.1017/S0305000906007835 Chouinard MM, 2003, J CHILD LANG, V30, P637, DOI 10.1017/S0305000903005701 Clark EV, 1998, J CHILD LANG, V25, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0305000997003309 Clark Eve V., 2013, BREVITY, P233 Clark E. V., 1982, ADV DEV PSYCHOL, V2, P171 MacWhinney B., 1987, MECH LANGUAGE ACQUIS, P1 Clark E. V., 1998, 34 M CHIC LING SOC 1, P437 Clark EV, 1997, COGNITION, V64, P1, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00010-3 Clark E. V., HDB CONT SE IN PRESS CLARK EV, 1995, HDB PERCEPTION COGNI, V0011 Clark EV, 2002, LANG SOC, V31, P181, DOI 10.1017/S0047404501020152 Clark EV, 2010, FIRST LANG, V30, P250, DOI DOI 10.1177/0142723710370537 Clark E. V., 2012, MORPHOLOGY, V22, P89, DOI DOI 10.1007/S11525-011-9193-6 CLARK EV, 1990, J CHILD LANG, V17, P417 Clark E. V., 2014, HDB LANGUAGE EMERGEN Clark EV, 2008, J CHILD LANG, V35, P349, DOI 10.1017/S0305000907008537 Clark EV, 2011, GESTURE, V11, P1, DOI 10.1075/gest.11.1.01cla Corrin J., 2010, FIRST LANG, V30, P312, DOI 10.1177/0142723710370526 Csibra G., 2010, MIND LANG, V25, P141, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1468-0017.2009.01384.X Estigarribia B, 2007, J CHILD LANG, V34, P799, DOI 10.1017/S0305000907008161 Ferrier L., 1978, DEV COMMUNICATION, P301 FISHER C, 1995, J MEM LANG, V34, P287, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1995.1013 Richards B. J., 1994, INPUT INTERACTION LA Gelman S. A., 1998, MONOGRAPHS SOC RES C, V63 Gergely G, 2002, NATURE, V415, P755 Goldin-Meadow S, 2007, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V10, P778, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00636.x HAVILAND SE, 1974, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V13, P512, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80003-4 Hills TT, 2009, PSYCHOL SCI, V20, P729, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02365.x Iverson J. M., 2005, PSYCHOL SCI, V16, P368, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.0956-7976.2005.01542.X Kelly Barbara F., 2011, EXPERIENCE VARIATION, P73, DOI [10.1075/tilar.7.05kel, DOI 10.1075/TILAR.7.05KEL] Kemler-Nelson D., 1995, COGNITIVE DEV, V10, P347, DOI 10.1016/0885-2014(95)90002-0 Kobayashi H, 1998, COGNITION, V68, pB41, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00044-4 Landau B, 1998, J MEM LANG, V38, P1, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1997.2533 Masur EF, 1997, J CHILD LANG, V24, P427, DOI 10.1017/S0305000997003115 Matthews D, 2010, DEV PSYCHOL, V46, P749, DOI 10.1037/a0019657 Olson J, 2011, J CHILD LANG, V38, P1028, DOI 10.1017/S0305000910000565 ONeill DK, 1996, CHILD DEV, V67, P659, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01758.x Rader N., 2010, GESTURE, V10, P203 Roy B. C., 2012, P 34 ANN M COGN SCI, P935 SAXTON M, 2000, 1 LANGUAGE, V0020 SHATZ M, 1978, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V10, P271, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(78)90001-4 Snow C. E., 1977, TALKING CHILDREN LAN Stivers T, 2009, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V106, P10587, DOI 10.1073/pnas.0903616106 Tomasello M., 1995, JOINT ATTENTION ITS, P103 NR 50 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 3 U2 18 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 JUL PY 2014 VL 41 SU 1 BP 105 EP 116 DI 10.1017/S0305000914000117 PG 12 WC Psychology, Developmental; Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Psychology; Linguistics GA AM0OY UT WOS:000339546100011 PM 25023500 ER PT J AU Mcgee, L AF McGee, Lain TI The pragmatics of paragraphing English argumentative text SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Paragraphing; Lexical cohesion; Argumentative text; Textual colligation; Foregrounding; Discourse signaling; Rhetorical devices; Computational Linguistics AB Computational linguistic work into the paragraph and paragraphing has highlighted the significant role that intra-paragraph lexical cohesion plays in 'marking off' one paragraph unit from another. The goal of the research reported on in this paper is to consider, in some detail, the relationship that exists between the lexical repetition patterns in an argumentative text (as identified by a computational procedure), the genre moves within it, the actual paragraphing of the texts, and the textual colligation features of the paragraphs. The Link Set Median procedure (Berber-Sardinha, 1997, 2001, 2002) is used to document exact, inflectional and derivational lexical repetition usage across 10 short English argumentative texts, and to predict where segmentations originally occurred in the texts. The resulting data are then analyzed in the light of diverse research interests into the paragraph, and classified accordingly. A comparison of these results is made with data where there is either a marginal or no difference in the link set medians of adjacent sentences across paragraph junctures within the same texts. It is suggested that this novel approach of analyzing computational data from multiple paragraph-specific research interests results in a clearer picture of paragraphing practice emerging. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Nizwa, Dept Foreign Languages, Nizwa, Oman. RP Mcgee, L (reprint author), Univ Nizwa, Dept Foreign Languages, POB 33,Birkat Al Mawz,PC 616, Nizwa, Oman. EM iain@unizwa.edu.om CR Berber-Sardinha Anthony, 1997, THESIS U LIVERPOOL L Berber-Sardinha Anthony, 2001, PATTERNS TEXT HONOUR, P213 Berber-Sardinha Anthony, 2002, DELTA DOCUMENTAOCA E, V18, P273 Bestgen Y, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V29, P753, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00082-9 Bolshakov Igor, 2001, LECT NOTES ARTIF INT, V2166, P158 BOND SJ, 1984, RES TEACH ENGL, V18, P147 Butler Shane, 2000, THESIS Cao F, 2014, J PRAGMATICS, V66, P15, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007 Christensen Francis, 1965, COLLEGE COMPOSITION, V16, P144, DOI 10.2307/355728 Crompton P, 2006, TEXT TALK, V26, P245, DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2006.010 Crossley Scott, 2011, J WRITING RES, V3, P119 Crothers Edward, 1979, PARAGRACH STRUCTRE I De Beaugrande R., 1981, INTRO TEXT LINGUISTI Ferret Olivier, 2002, P 19 INT C COMP LING, V1, P1, DOI 10.3115/1072228.1072261 Filippova Katja, 2006, ASS COMPUTATIONAL LI, P267 Genzel D, 2003, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2003 CONFERENCE ON EMPIRICAL METHODS IN NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING, P65 Giora Rachel, 1990, HEBREW LINGUIST, V28-30, pXXIII Giora Rachel, 1983, MICRO MACRO CONNEXIT, P153 Goldman SR, 1995, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V20, P273 Goutsos D., 1997, MODELING DISCOURSE T, V59 Halliday M. A. K., 1973, EXPLORATIONS FUNCTIO Halliday M.A.K., 1976, COHESION ENGLISH Hasan Ruqaiya, 1984, UNDERSTANDING READIN, P181 Hearst MA, 1997, COMPUT LINGUIST, V23, P33 Hearst M. A., 1994, P 32 ANN M ASS COMP, P9, DOI 10.3115/981732.981734 Hempel S, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P676, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.001 Heurley Laurent, 1997, STUDIES PRODUCTION C, P179 Hirst G, 2002, COMPUT LINGUIST, V28, P560 Ho-Dac Lydia-Mai, 2010, MAD 2010 MUTLIDISCIP, P94 [Anonymous], 2005, LEXICAL PRIMING Hoey Michael, 2007, SELECTED PAPERS 16 I Hoey M., 1991, PATTERNS LEXIS TEXT Homing Alice, 1993, PSYCHOLINGUISTICS RE Hyland Ken, 1990, RELC J, V21, P66, DOI 10.1177/003368829002100105 Ji SJ, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P1719, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.010 Johnstone Barbara, 1987, TEXT, V7, P205, DOI 10.1515/text.1.1987.7.3.205 Karoly Krisztina, 2002, METALINGUISTICA, V15 Kaufmann Stefan, 1999, P 37 ANN M ASS COMP, P591, DOI 10.3115/1034678.1034686 KOEN F, 1969, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V8, P49, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80010-1 Longacre RE, 1996, GRAMMAR DISCOURSE Marcu D., 2000, THEORY PRACTICE DISC Marcu Daniel, 1997, P ACL, V97, P82 Mcgee I, 2009, ELT J, V63, P212, DOI 10.1093/elt/ccn040 Morris J., 1991, Computational Linguistics, V17, P21 National Council of Teachers, 1966, ART RHET AN COLL COM Pitkin Jr Willis, 1969, COLL COMPOS COMMUN, V20, P138, DOI 10.2307/354181 Marcus M. P., 1998, THESIS Rodgers Jr Paul, 1967, COLLEGE COMPOSITION, V18, P178, DOI 10.2307/355692 Rodgers Jr Paul, 1966, COLL COMPOS COMMUN, V17, P2, DOI 10.2307/354051 Schmid Hans-Jorg, 2000, ENGLSIH ASTRACT OUNS Scott Fred, 1893, PARAGRAPH WRITING Sporleder Caroline, 2004, P 2004 C EMP METH NA, P72 Sporleder Caroline, 2006, ACM T SPEECH LANGUAG, V3, P1, DOI 10.1145/1149290.1151098 STARK HA, 1988, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V11, P275 Teich Elke, 2005, INFERDISCIPLINARY ST, V02, P129 Toulmin S. E., 1958, USES ARGUMENT Witte Stephen, 1981, COLLEGE COMPOSITION, V32, P189, DOI 10.2307/356693 YOUMANS G, 1990, STYLE, V24, P584 YOUMANS G, 1991, LANGUAGE, V67, P763, DOI 10.2307/415076 NR 59 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 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 2014 VL 68 BP 40 EP 72 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.002 PG 33 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AL5AP UT WOS:000339146200003 ER PT J AU Hassall, T AF Hassall, Tim TI Knowledge or control? A comment on Lundell and Erman (2012) SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Requests; L2 acquisition; Downgrading modifiers; Processing control AB This discussion note concerns a key finding in a recent paper [Lundell and Erman (2012). High-level requests: A study of long residency L2 users of English and French and native speakers]. That paper examines how highly advanced Swedish long-stay L2 speakers of English and of French perform L2 requests, and finds that they used downgrading internal modifiers a good deal less often than did native speakers. The authors seek to explain that finding solely in terms of the learners' states of knowledge, or willingness to use that knowledge. However, an equally important cause is probably that the learners were unable to access much of their knowledge during real-time task performance. This highlights the difficulty of explaining spoken interactive pragmatic performance solely from performance data. It also highlights the value of a well-known two-dimensional model of pragmatic acquisition as a tool for analyzing L2 behavior. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Australian Natl Univ, Coll Asia & Pacific, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. RP Hassall, T (reprint author), Australian Natl Univ, Coll Asia & Pacific, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. EM timothy.hassall@anu.edu.au CR Bardovi-Harlig Kathleen, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P171, DOI DOI 10.1017/S027226310001487X Bialystok E., 1991, FOREIGN 2 LANGUAGE P, P63 Bialystok Ellen, 1993, INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMA, P43 House Juliane, 1996, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V18, P225, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0272263100014893 Kasper G., 2002, PRAGMATIC DEV 2 LANG Lundell FF, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P756, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.010 NR 6 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 2014 VL 68 BP 73 EP 76 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.002 PG 4 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AL5AP UT WOS:000339146200004 ER PT J AU Wang, Y AF Wang, Yu TI Humor in British academic lectures and Chinese students' perceptions of it SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Humor; Face acts; Stance; Chinese students in the UK; Classroom discourse; Internationalization of UK higher education ID LANGUAGE; CREATIVITY; SPEAKERS; PLAY AB This paper explores humor in British academic lectures and Chinese students' perceptions of it. Britain is one of the most popular destinations for international students, but there are hardly any investigations into humor in academic contexts or international students' understanding of it. In my study, instances of humor were identified and analyzed in a large number of lectures recorded in the British Academic Spoken English corpus and 13-hour academic lectures recorded by me. Some Chinese students, non-Chinese students and all of the lecturers from the lectures I recorded commented on selected instances of humor. Informed by pragmatic theories, the analysis showed that the lecturers used humor to enhance self-image, tackle potential face loss, mitigate face-threatening acts, and increase solidarity with students. Humor also draws attention to stance of language. Understanding of the stance entails the speaker's and listeners' shared awareness of the implied meaning and associated sociocultural values. However, the Chinese students had evident problems comprehending their lecturers' humor, and some expressed a feeling of alienation at having to laugh with other classmates without understanding the cause. The lecturers were either unaware of the Chinese students' problems, or were aware of the problems but insensitive to their students' needs. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Coventry Univ, Fac Business Environm & Soc, Dept Econ Finance & Accounting, Coventry CV1 5FB, W Midlands, England. RP Wang, Y (reprint author), Coventry Univ, Fac Business Environm & Soc, Dept Econ Finance & Accounting, Coventry CV1 5FB, W Midlands, England. EM torrisky@gmail.com CR Adolphs Svenja, 2007, EUROPEAN J ENGLISH S, V11, P133, DOI 10.1080/13825570701452698 Alsop Sian, 2013, ESP ACROSS CULT, V10 Attardo Salvatore, 2005, HDB PRAGMATICS ONLIN Attardo Salvatore, 2008, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V2, P1203, DOI 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00107.x Attardo S, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1287, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00178-9 Bakhtin Mikhail, 1981, DIALOGIC IMAGINATION Bateson G., 1953, CYBERNETICS, P1 BAXTER LA, 1992, HUM COMMUN RES, V18, P336, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00556.x Bell ND, 2007, HUMOR, V20, P367, DOI 10.1515/HUMOR.2007.018 Bell ND, 2007, HUMOR, V20, P27, DOI 10.1515/HUMOR.2007.002 Bell ND, 2005, APPL LINGUIST, V26, P192, DOI 10.1093/applin/amh043 Boxer D, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V27, P275, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00031-8 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV BRYANT J, 1980, J EDUC PSYCHOL, V72, P511, DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.72.4.511 Cortazzi Martin, 1997, OVERSEAS STUDENTS HI, P76 Davies CE, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1361, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00181-9 Edwards Viv, 2007, RACE ETHNIC EDUC-UK, V10, P387, DOI 10.1080/13613320701658431 Edwards V., 2006, M NEEDS CHINESE STUD Eggins Suzanne, 1997, ANAL CASUAL CONVERSA Eisenberg AR, 1986, LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATI, P182 Flowerdew J., 1996, ENGL SPECIF PURP, V15, P121, DOI 10.1016/0889-4906(96)00001-4 FLOWERDEW J, 1995, TESOL QUART, V29, P345, DOI 10.2307/3587628 Freud Sigmund, 1960, JOKES THEIR REALTION Freud S, 1928, IMAGO, V14, P1 Frymier Ann Bainbridge, 2008, COMMUN EDUC, V57, P266, DOI 10.1080/03634520701687183 Glenn P. J., 2003, LAUGHTER INTERACTION Grice P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P41 Gu Q, 2009, EUR J EDUC, V44, P37, DOI 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2008.01369.x Hay Jennifer, 1995, THESIS U VICTORIA Hunston S., 2000, EVALUATION TEXT AUTH, P1 Jefferson G., 1987, TALK SOCIAL ORG, P152 Jefferson G., 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P346 Keltner D, 2001, PSYCHOL BULL, V127, P229, DOI 10.1037//0033-2909.127.2.229 Kotthoff Helga, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1387 Labov William, 1972, LANGUAGE INNER CITY Lee D, 2006, IEE REVIEW, V52, P8 Liu Jie, 2009, INT J MANAGE ED, V7, P33 Martin J. R., 2005, LANGUAGE EVALUATION Maybin J, 2007, APPL LINGUIST, V28, P497, DOI 10.1093/applin/amm036 Nesi H, 2012, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V11, P79, DOI 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.12.003 Norrick Neal R., 1993, CONVERSATIONAL JOKIN Park JSY, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V53, P84, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.04.004 Partington A, 2006, ROUTL STUD LINGUIST, V5, P1 Raskin V., 1985, SEMANTIC MECH HUMOR Robson S, 2007, TEACH HIGH EDUC, V12, P41, DOI 10.1080/13562510601102115 Spencer-Oatey H., 2006, LANGUAGE CULTURE CUR, V19, P37, DOI DOI 10.1080/07908310608668753 Tannen D, 2007, TALKING VOICES REPET Thompson Geoff, 2013, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA Tian M., 2009, COMPARE, V39, P659, DOI DOI 10.1080/03057920903125693 Toyoshima Mihoko, 2007, LONDON REV ED, V5, P265, DOI 10.1080/14748460701661328 Volosinov V. N., 1973, MARXISM PHILOS LANGU Wanzer M., 2006, COMMUN EDUC, V55, P178, DOI [10.1080/03634520600566132, DOI 10.1080/03634520600566132] Wanzer MB, 1999, COMMUN EDUC, V48, P48 Widdowson HG, 2008, APPL LINGUIST, V29, P503, DOI 10.1093/applin/amn027 NR 54 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 6 U2 15 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 2014 VL 68 BP 80 EP 93 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.003 PG 14 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AL5AP UT WOS:000339146200006 ER PT J AU Van Rompaey, T AF Van Rompaey, Tinne TI A COMPARISON OF PROGRESSIVE BE V-ING WITH BE IN THE MIDDLE, MIDST, PROCESS OR ACT OF V-ING: THE INTERACTION OF LEXICAL AND GRAMMATICAL PROGRESSIVE ASPECT SO TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY LA English DT Article AB This article presents a semantic-pragmatic analysis and comparison of the be V-ing construction and the emergent progressive aspect markers (PAM) be in the middle, midst, process or act of V-ing. On the basis of data from the Corpus of Contemporary American English, I first argue that the PAMs be in the middle, midst, process or act of V-ing show striking similarities with semi-auxiliary be V-ing. Both progressive constructions pattern with the same range of predicate classes, namely predominantly atelic actions and telic accomplishments. Not only is there overlap in their lexical-collocational preferences, the emergent PAMs and be V-ing also impose the same grammatical reading on the sentence: they represent or "actualize" the situations expressed by the following V-ing as unbounded and durative, regardless of whether these aspectual properties are already inherent in the predicates or not. Second, I address the question in which respect the emergence of the be in NP of V-ing aspectualizer construction causes reorganization within the paradigm of progressive aspect. The difference between be V-ing and the PAMs lies in the expanded uses of the former and the specialization of the latter into expressions of continuousness, with the exception of be in the process of V-ing. This particular construction seems to have developed into an aspectual marker of imminence, meaning that it refers to the preparatory phase leading up to the action. In most instances of be in the middle, midst and act of V-ing, however, the PAMs indicate that a situation is taking place without interruption at the temporal zero point. Be V-ing does not really display this preference for continuousness, as it takes on as often other shades of progressivity, for instance implied iterativity or habituality, and non-aspectual functions such as prospectivity and subjective meanings. I claim that it is exactly this functional indeterminacy of the be V-ing form that probably triggered the development of the PAM as a construction reinforcing one specific feature of progressivity, namely pure continuousness. C1 Univ Leuven, Dept Linguist, B-3000 Louvain, Belgium. RP Van Rompaey, T (reprint author), Univ Leuven, Dept Linguist, Blijde Inkomststr 21, B-3000 Louvain, Belgium. EM tinne.vanrompaey@arts.kuleuven.be CR Aarts Bas, 2010, DISTINCTIONS ENGLISH, P148 Anderson John, 2000, MORPHOLOGIE, P808 [Anonymous], 1998, LANG VAR CHANGE, V10, P123, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0954394500001265 Brinton Laurel J., 1988, DEV ENGLISH ASPECTUA Christophersen P., 1969, ADV ENGLISH GRAMMAR Comrie B., 1976, ASPECT Davies Mark, 2008, CORPUS CONTEMPORARY Declerck Renaat, 1991, COMPREHENSIVE DESCRI Declerck R, 2006, TOP ENGL LINGUIST, V60, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110199888 Dowty David, 1979, STUDIES LOGIC VERB A Fitzmaurice Susan, 2004, STUDIES HIST ENGLISH, VII, P131 Huddleston Rodney, 2002, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Halliday Michael A. K., 1994, INTRO FUNCTIONAL GRA Heine Bernd, 1994, P 20 ANN M BERK LING, P35 Jens Holt, 1943, ETUDES ASPECT Hundt Marianne, 2004, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V8, P47, DOI DOI 10.1017/S1360674304001248 Killie Kristin, 2004, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V8, P25, DOI 10.1017/S1360674304001236 Konig Christa, 1993, AMO AFRIKANISTISCHE, V3 Christian Koops, 2001, EMERGENT PROGR ASPEC Kranich Svenja, 2007, YORK PAPERS LINGUI 2, V8, P120 Kranich Svenja, 2008, NRG 4 NEW REFL GRAMM Langacker Ronald, 1991, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA Langacker Ronald W., 1999, GRAMMAR CONCEPTUALIZ Michaelis LA, 2004, COGN LINGUIST, V15, P1, DOI 10.1515/cogl.2004.001 Moens M., 1988, Computational Linguistics, V14, P15 Navalpatro-Gomez A., 2000, DUSSELDORF WORKING P, VII, P33 Nesselhauf N, 2007, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V11, P191, DOI 10.1017/S1360674306002152 Onions Charles Talbut, 1904, ADV ENGLISH SYNTAX Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Ryden Mats, 1997, MEMORIES SOC NEOPHIL, V52, P419 Schopf Alfred, 1974, ENGLISCHE ASPEKT Smitterberg Erik, 2000, GENERATIVE THEORY CO Smitterberg Erik, 2004, STUDIES HIST ENGLISH, P175 van Rompaey Tinne, 2012, INT C GRAMM THEOR DA Vendler Z., 1967, LINGUISTICS PHILOS Wright Susan, 1995, SUBJECTIVITY SUBJECT, P151, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.008 Wright Susan, 1994, STUDIES EARLY MODERN, P467 NR 37 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 0 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0079-1636 EI 1467-968X J9 T PHILOL SOC JI Trans. Philol. Soc. PD JUL PY 2014 VL 112 IS 2 BP 188 EP 208 DI 10.1111/1467-968X.12040 PG 21 WC Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AL8IR UT WOS:000339382300003 ER PT J AU Archer, D AF Archer, Dawn TI HISTORICAL PRAGMATICS: EVIDENCE FROM THE OLD BAILEY SO TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY LA English DT Article ID IMPOLITENESS; LAWYERS AB This paper demonstrates the value of The Proceedings of the Old Bailey (1674-1913) as a linguistic resource, via a discussion of pragmatic studies undertaken by Archer, Cecconi and Traugott. The field of historical pragmatics is also delineated, as practised by these linguists. The paper argues that, as well as telling us important things about Old Bailey discursive practices of old, and the language used, the studies offer a means of advancing pragmatic theory - in respect to grammaticalization and facework - and pragmatic methodology - in respect to the viability of using corpus-linguistic techniques to locate pragmatic phenomena. C1 Univ Cent Lancashire, Sch Language Literature & Int Studies, Preston PR1 2HE, Lancs, England. RP Archer, D (reprint author), Univ Cent Lancashire, Sch Language Literature & Int Studies, Preston PR1 2HE, Lancs, England. EM dearcher@uclan.ac.uk CR Archer D, 2005, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V135, P1 Archer Dawn, 2003, CORPUS LINGUIST LING, P37 Archer D., 2012, PRAGMATICS ADV RESOU Archer D, 2011, PRAGMATICS READER Archer Dawn, HIST CORPUS PRAGMATI Archer Dawn, 2012, ENGLISH HIST DIALOGU, P301 Archer D, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3216, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.007 Tsohatzidis S. L., 1994, FDN SPEECH ACT THEOR, P267 Bakhtin M., 1986, DIALOGIC IMAGINATION Baron Alistair, 2009, J ENGLISH STUDIES, V20, P41 Baron A., 2011, C NEW METH HIST CORP Bateson G., 1973, STEPS ECOLOGY MIND Beattie John, 1986, CRIME COURTS ENGLAND Blum-Kulka S, 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, V31 Blutner R., 2011, PRAGMATICS READER, P99 Brewer J, 1997, CONSUMPTION CULTURE, P341 Cairns David J. A., 1998, ADVOCACY MAKING ADVE Elisabetta Cecconi, 2012, LANGUAGE DEFENDANTS Crystal D., 1995, CAMBRIDGE ENCY ENGLI Culpeper J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P349, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Anonymous], 2008, IMPOLITENESS LANGUAG Culpeper Jonathan, 1998, EXPLORING LANGUAGE D, P83 Culpeper Jonathan, 2011, HIST SOCIOPAGMATICS, P1 Jonathan Culpeper, 2011, IMPOLITENESS USING L CULPEPER J, 2008, SPEECH ACTS HIST ENG, V176, P45 Culpeper J, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1545, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2 [Anonymous], 1991, HELS CORP ENGL TEXTS Fairclough N., 2003, ANAL DISCOURSE TEXTU Garside R., 1987, COMPUTATIONAL ANAL E, P30 Goffman E., 1967, INTERACTION RITUAL E Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 Grice H. P., 1969, WORDS OBJECTIONS, P118 Hernandez-Campoy Juan Manuel, 2012, HDB HIST SOCIOLINGUI, P63, DOI 10.1002/9781118257227.ch4 Hill Wayne F, 1995, SHAKESPEARES INSULTS Hitchcock Tim, 2012, OLD BAILEY P ONLINE Hitchcock Tim, 2007, OLD BAILEY P ONLINE Hobbs Pamela, 2002, INT J SEMIOTICS LAW, V15, P411, DOI 10.1023/A:1021211730968 Hostettler J., 2006, FIGHTING JUSTICE HIS Howell Thomas J., 1809, DOUBLE CIT, V11-21 Huber Magnus, 2007, ANNOTATING VARIATION JANNEY RW, 2007, METAPRAGMATICS USE, V165, P223 Taavitsainen Irma, 2010, HIST PRAGMATICS, P3 Jucker Andreas H., 2000, J HIST PRAGMAT, V1, P67, DOI 10.1075/jhp.1.1.07juc Jucker Andreas H, 1995, HIST PRAGMATICS PRAG Jucker Andreas H., 2008, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V2, P894, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1749-818X.2008.00087.X JAszczolt Kasia M., 2010, PRAGMATICS ENCY, P428, DOI Routledge Kasper G., 2000, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P316 Kay Christian, 2009, HIST THESAURUS OED Koch Peter, 1985, ROMANISTISCHES JB, V36, P15, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110244922.15 Merja Kyto, 2003, J ENGL LINGUIST, V31, P221, DOI DOI 10.1177/0075424203257260 Labov William, 1994, PRINCIPLES LINGUISTI LAKOFF Robin. T., 1990, TALKING POWER POLITI LANGBEIN JH, 1978, U CHICAGO LAW REV, V45, P263, DOI 10.2307/1599166 Langbein John H., 2003, ORIGINS ADVERSARY CR McArthur T., 1981, LONGMAN LEXICON CONT Penman Robyn, 1991, UNDERSTANDING FACE F, P21 Tracy Karen, 1990, MULTIPLE GOALS DISCO, P15 Rayson P, 2009, WMATRIX WEB BASED CO SAID EDWARD, 1978, ORIENTALISM W CONCEP Scott M. R., 2008, WORDSMITH TOOLS VERS Shoemaker RB, 2008, J BRIT STUD, V47, P559, DOI 10.1086/587722 SHUY RW, 1995, DISCOURSE SOC, V6, P207, DOI 10.1177/0957926595006002004 Traugott Elizabeth C., 2011, COMMUNICATING EARLY, P69 Traugott Elizabeth, 2004, HDB PRAGMATICS, P538 TRAUGOTT EC, 2012, CORPUS LINGUISTICS V, V75, P231 Verschueren J., 1999, UNDERSTANDING PRAGMA Wartenberg TE, 1990, FORMS POWER DOMINATI White P, 2003, TEXT, V23, P259, DOI 10.1515/text.2003.011 [Anonymous], 1560, COMPILED UNDER SUPER NR 69 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 U2 2 PU WILEY-BLACKWELL PI HOBOKEN PA 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA SN 0079-1636 EI 1467-968X J9 T PHILOL SOC JI Trans. Philol. Soc. PD JUL PY 2014 VL 112 IS 2 BP 259 EP 277 DI 10.1111/1467-968X.12011 PG 19 WC Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AL8IR UT WOS:000339382300006 ER PT J AU McKinnon, S Prieto, P AF McKinnon, Sean Prieto, Pilar TI The role of prosody and gesture in the perception of mock impoliteness SO JOURNAL OF POLITENESS RESEARCH-LANGUAGE BEHAVIOUR CULTURE LA English DT Article DE impoliteness; mock impoliteness; prosody; gestures; experimental pragmatics ID POLITENESS; SPEECH; JOKING AB Within the impoliteness literature, an important distinction has been made between genuine and mock (or non-genuine) impoliteness (Culpeper 1996, 2011; Bernal 2008, among others). Even though mock impoliteness has generally been analyzed within an impoliteness framework, recent proposals suggest that it is an essentially different pragmatic phenomenon that requires a continuous conversational evaluation (Haugh and Bousfield 2012). The present study had the goal of assessing the offline evaluation process of target genuine vs. mock impoliteness utterances, specifically the role the situational/discourse contexts, as well as prosodic and gestural patterns, play in their interpretation. A total of 97 participants were either asked to rate the degree of impoliteness of target genuine and mock impoliteness utterances in isolation (Experiment 1), or to rate the same utterances preceded with a set of matched and mismatched situational/discourse contexts which favored either a genuine or a mock impoliteness interpretation (Experiment 2). The results of the two experiments show that (a) evaluations of intended mock impoliteness utterances generate more uncertainty in listeners than intended genuine impolite utterances; and (b) mock impoliteness evaluations are characterized by a more active use of gestural cues. These results provide evidence that mock impoliteness triggers a more complex evaluation procedure of a phenomenon that lies on the boundary between polite and impolite behavior. C1 [McKinnon, Sean] Indiana Univ, Dept Spanish & Portuguese, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. [Prieto, Pilar] Univ Pompeu Fabra, Dept Translat & Language Sci, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain. [Prieto, Pilar] Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ USA. [Prieto, Pilar] Univ Pompeu Fabra, Grp Prosod Studies, Barcelona, Spain. RP McKinnon, S (reprint author), Indiana Univ, Dept Spanish & Portuguese, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. EM samckinn@indiana.edu; pilar.prieto@upf.edu RI Prieto, Pilar/E-7390-2013 OI Prieto, Pilar/0000-0001-8175-1081 CR Baayen RH, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P390, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 Beckman M. E., 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH, P9 Bernal M, 2008, PRAGMATICS, V18, P775 Billmyer K, 2000, APPL LINGUIST, V21, P517, DOI 10.1093/applin/21.4.517 Blum-Kulka S., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P1 Boersma P., 2008, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC Bousfield D, 2007, J PRAGMATICS, V39, P2185, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.005 Boxer D, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V27, P275, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00031-8 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Chen A, 2004, LANG SPEECH, V47, P311 Culpeper J, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P349, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 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, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P3232, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007 Felix-Brasdefer JC, 2010, LANG LEARN LANG TEAC, V26, P41 Grice H. P., 1975, SPEECH ACTS, P41 Jurgens Uwe, 2007, J VOICE, V21, P531, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.JVOICE.2006.03.002 Haugh M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1099, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003 IBM SPSS Statistics, 2011, IBM SPSS STAT 20 0 Lampert MD, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P51, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.004 Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Tse Kwock-Ping John, 2006, P ISCA TUT RES WORKS McNeill D., 1992, HAND MIND WHAT GESTU Mugford G, 2013, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V10, P101, DOI 10.1515/ip-2013-0004 MURRAY IR, 1993, J ACOUST SOC AM, V93, P1097, DOI 10.1121/1.405558 Nadeu M, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P841, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.015 Hidalgo Navarro Antonio, 2009, B FILOLOGIA, VXLIV, P161 Ofuka E, 2000, SPEECH COMMUN, V32, P199, DOI 10.1016/S0167-6393(00)00009-1 Pierrehumbert Janet B., 1980, THESIS MIT Prieto P., 2014, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY, P43 Prieto P, 2013, LINGUA, V131, P136, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.02.008 Quene H, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P413, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.002 Stenstrom AB, 2008, PRAGMATICS, V18, P635 NR 34 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 1 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 2014 VL 10 IS 2 BP 185 EP 219 DI 10.1515/pr-2014-0009 PG 35 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AL0XV UT WOS:000338851300002 ER PT J AU Peterson, E Vaattovaara, J AF Peterson, Elizabeth Vaattovaara, Johanna TI Kiitos and pliis: The relationship of native and borrowed politeness markers in Finnish SO JOURNAL OF POLITENESS RESEARCH-LANGUAGE BEHAVIOUR CULTURE LA English DT Article DE politeness markers; Finnish; borrowing; language contact; indexicality; pragmatic variation ID DISCOURSE MARKERS; ENGLISH; PLEASE AB The aim of this study was to investigate the use of the native Finnish politeness marker kiitos 'thank you/please' compared to the borrowed politeness marker pliis (from English please). Pliis in Finnish is best characterized as a marked form which is mostly relegated to informal or spoken language. Thus, this stage of our study made use of a grammatical acceptability test to try to observe social evaluation patterns. The test was presented as a web-based survey consisting of 12 grammatical acceptability questions and 6 demographic questions. It was completed by 417 respondents from throughout Finland. The hypothesis was that the function of kiitos could be changing grammatically and semantically. However, the findings indicate that the use of kiitos is more or less unchanged, whereas the use of pliis is likely to be nativizing. The MANOVA analyses indicate that pliis is associated (as a first order index) with young, urban women, and this is also the social group that is more likely to claim use of pliis. The most important finding of the study is that pliis and kiitos seem to be complementary in their distribution; grammatically, pragmatically and in terms of social distinctiveness. We claim that kiitos serves as a marker of negative politeness, whereas pliis serves as a marker of positive politeness. C1 [Peterson, Elizabeth] Univ Helsinki, Dept Modern Languages, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland. [Vaattovaara, Johanna] Univ Helsinki, Language Ctr, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland. RP Peterson, E (reprint author), Univ Helsinki, Dept Modern Languages, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland. EM elizabeth.peterson@helsinki.fi; johanna.vaattovaara@helsinki.fi CR Hakulinen Auli, 2004, ISO SUOMEN KIELIOPPI Av-kaantajat, 2013, PUBL DISC THINGS REL Beeching Kate, 2005, LANG VAR CHANGE, V17, P155 Beeching Kate, 2007, J HIST PRAGMAT, V8, P69 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Coupland N, 2007, KEY T SOCIOLINGUIST, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511755064 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 Fraser B, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P931, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 Hlavac J, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P1870, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.005 House Juliana, 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P54 Irvine J., 2001, STYLE SOCIOLINGUISTI, P21 Johnstone B, 2006, J ENGL LINGUIST, V34, P77, DOI DOI 10.1177/0075424206290692 William LABOV, 2001, PRINCIPLES LINGUISTI Labov William, 1972, LANG SOC, VI, P97, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0047404500006576 Markkanen Raija, 1985, JYVASKYLA CROSS LANG, V11, P87 Muller Simone, 2005, DISCOURSE MARKERS NA Nikula Tarju, 2007, 10 INT PRAGM C GOT S Ostman Jan-Ola, 1995, ORG DISCOURSE, V14, P95 Paunonen Heikki, 2000, DICTIONARY HELSINKI Peterson Elizabeth, 2008, DYNAMICS LANGUAGE CO, V1, P161 Peterson E, 2010, PRAGMATICS, V20, P401 Preston Dennis, 1996, LANG AWARE, V5, P40, DOI DOI 10.1080/09658416.1996.9959890 Routarinne Sara, 2003, TYTOT AANESSA PARENT Sankoff Gillian, 1997, LANG VAR CHANGE, V9, P191 Sato S, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P1249, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.09.001 Scollon Suzanne Wong, 1981, NARRATIVE LIT FACE I Silverstein M, 2003, LANG COMMUN, V23, P193, DOI 10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2 Taavitsainen Irma, 2012, JOURNEY KNOWLEDGE FE, P182 Taavitsainen Irma, 2003, ENGL TODAY, V76, P3, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0266078403004024 Terkourafi M, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P218, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.024 Torvikoski Maiju, 2012, THESIS U HELSINKI D Vaattovaara Johanna, 2013, VARIATION LANGUAGE L, P134 WHEELER MW, 1994, FOLIA LINGUIST HIST, V15, P149, DOI 10.1515/flih.1994.15.1-2.149 Yli-Vakkuri Valma, 2005, POLITENESS EUROPE, P189 NR 35 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 0 U2 5 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 2014 VL 10 IS 2 BP 247 EP 269 DI 10.1515/pr-2014-0011 PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AL0XV UT WOS:000338851300004 ER PT J AU Ferretti, F Adornetti, I AF Ferretti, Francesco Adornetti, Ines TI Against linguistic Cartesianism: Toward a naturalistic model of human language origins and functioning SO LANGUAGE & COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE Cartesian linguistic; Descartes's problem; Embodied cognition; Grasping; Grounding; Origin of language; Pragmatics ID MENTAL TIME-TRAVEL; BROCAS AREA; TOOL USE; ACTION RECOGNITION; PAN-TROGLODYTES; HUMAN-EVOLUTION; MIRROR NEURONS; HUMAN-BEHAVIOR; COMMUNICATION; BRAIN AB In spite of the fact that most models of language in cognitive science are naturalistic, many authors are skeptical of Darwinism, especially the idea that language may be an evolutionary adaptation. There is a conceptual obstacle at the basis of this skepticism: the connection with Cartesian tradition. To propose a genuinely naturalistic perspective, the models of language inspired by Cartesianism must give way to those tied to the Darwinian perspective. Hence, we propose a model of language origins and functioning based on two hypotheses: (a) the origin of human language is interpretable in reference to the grounding of language in context; (b) the capacities that ensure this grounding are connected to the motor foundation of human communication. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Ferretti, Francesco; Adornetti, Ines] Roma Tre Univ, Dept Philosophy Commun & Visual Arts, I-00146 Rome, Italy. [Adornetti, Ines] Univ Aquila, Dept Human Sci, I-67100 Laquila, Italy. RP Ferretti, F (reprint author), Roma Tre Univ, Dept Philosophy Commun & Visual Arts, Via Ostiense 234-236, I-00146 Rome, Italy. EM francesco.ferretti@uniroma3.it; ines.adornetti@uniroma3.it CR Ambrose SH, 2010, CURR ANTHROPOL, V51, pS135, DOI 10.1086/650296 Arbib M., 2012, BRAIN GOT LANGUAGE M Arbib MA, 2005, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V28, P105, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X05000038 ARBIB MA, 2002, COM ADAP SY, P229 Arbib MA, 2006, CORTEX, V42, P507, DOI 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70388-5 Arbib MA, 2008, CURR ANTHROPOL, V49, P1052, DOI 10.1086/593015 Arbib MA, 2011, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V40, P257, DOI 10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145722 Armstrong D., 1995, GESTURE NATURE LANGU Barsalou LW, 2008, ANNU REV PSYCHOL, V59, P617, DOI 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 Barsalou LW, 1999, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V22, P577 Coello Y, 2013, CONT TOP COGN NEUROS, P1 Berwick RC, 2013, TRENDS COGN SCI, V17, P89, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2012.12.002 Binkofski F, 2004, BRAIN LANG, V89, P362, DOI 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00358-4 Boccia M., 2014, NEUROPSYCHOL REV, P1 Broca Paul, 1861, B SOC ANTHROPOL PAR, V2, P235 BROOKS RA, 1991, ARTIF INTELL, V47, P139, DOI 10.1016/0004-3702(91)90053-M Buckner RL, 2007, TRENDS COGN SCI, V11, P49, DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.004 Call J, 2007, GESTURAL COMMUNICATI Carruthers P, 2002, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V25, P657, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X02000122 Carstairs-McCarthy A., 2000, EVOLUTIONARY EMERGEN, P248, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511606441.016 Carstairs-McCarthy Andrew, 1999, ORIGINS COMPLEX LANG [Anonymous], 2010, EVOLUTION MORPHOLOGY Cheney DL, 2010, MIND THE GAP: TRACING THE ORIGINS OF HUMAN UNIVERSALS, P283, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-02725-3_13 Chomsky Noam, 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM Chomsky N., 1966, CARTESIAN LINGUISTIC Chomsky N., 2011, LANG LEARN DEV, V7, P263, DOI DOI 10.1080/15475441.2011.584041 Chomsky N., 2006, LANGUAGE MIND Chomsky Noam, 1988, LANGUAGE PROBLEMS KN Chomsky Noam, 1964, CURRENT ISSUES LINGU Christiansen MH, 2008, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V31, P489, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X08004998 Ciaramelli E, 2010, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V36, P619, DOI 10.1037/a0019181 Clark A., 1997, BEING THERE PUTTING Corballis M. C., 2002, HAND MOUTH ORIGINS L Corballis M.C., 2013, FRONT PSYCHOL, V4 Corballis MC, 2011, RECURSIVE MIND: THE ORIGINS OF HUMAN LANGUAGE, THOUGHT, AND CIVILIZATION, P1 Corballis MC, 2009, ANN NY ACAD SCI, V1156, P19, DOI 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04423.x Corballis MC, 2010, BRAIN LANG, V112, P25, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2009.02.002 Cosentino E, 2014, TOPOI-INT REV PHILOS, V33, P263, DOI 10.1007/s11245-013-9166-y Descartes R., 1637, DISCOURSE METHOD MED De Waal F.B., 1981, BEHAVIOUR, P164 DIPELLEGRINO G, 1992, EXP BRAIN RES, V91, P176 Dretske Fred, 1981, KNOWLEDGE FLOW INFOR Dreyfus HL, 1972, WHAT COMPUTERS CANT Eberl EM, 2010, HBK BEHAV NEUROSCI, V19, P469, DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-374593-4.00042-5 Embick D, 2000, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V97, P6150, DOI 10.1073/pnas.100098897 Engel A.K., 2013, TRENDS COGN SCI Fedorenko E, 2012, CURR BIOL, V22, P2059, DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.011 Ferretti F, 2013, BRAIN EVOLUTION LANG, P22 Ferretti F, 2013, PHILOS PSYCHOL, V26, P24, DOI 10.1080/09515089.2011.625119 Ferretti F, 2013, J NEUROLINGUIST, V26, P327, DOI 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.11.001 FODOR Jerry, 1987, PSYCHOSEMANTICS Fodor J., 2011, WHAT DARWIN GOT WRON Fodor J., 1983, MODULARITY MIND ESSA FODOR JA, 1980, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V3, P63 Fodor J. A., 1975, LANGUAGE THOUGHT FODOR JA, 1988, COGNITION, V28, P3, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90031-5 Fodor J, 2008, MIND LANG, V23, P1 Fogassi L, 2007, CURR DIR PSYCHOL SCI, V16, P136, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00491.x Friederici AD, 2000, BRAIN LANG, V74, P289, DOI 10.1006/brln.2000.2313 Frith U., 1989, AUTISM EXPLAINING EN Gallese V, 1996, BRAIN, V119, P593, DOI 10.1093/brain/119.2.593 Gallese V, 2007, PHILOS T R SOC B, V362, P659, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2006.2002 Gardenfors P, 2004, VIENNA S THEOR BIOL, P237 Gentilucci M, 2006, NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV R, V30, P949, DOI 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.02.004 Gibson JJ, 1986, ECOLOGICAL APPROACH Goldman Alvin I., 2006, SIMULATING MIND PHIL GOODALL Jane, 1986, CHIMPANZEES GOMBE PA Grafton ST, 1996, EXP BRAIN RES, V112, P103 GREENFIELD PM, 1991, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V14, P531 Grice H. P., 1968, FDN LANGUAGE, V4, P225 Hammerschmidt K, 2008, EVOLUTION COMMUNICAT, P93 Hauser MD, 2014, FRONT PSYCHOL, V5, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00401 Hauser MD, 2002, SCIENCE, V298, P1569, DOI 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 HEWES GW, 1973, CURR ANTHROPOL, V14, P5, DOI 10.1086/201401 Higuchi S, 2009, NEUROREPORT, V20, P1376, DOI 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3283315570 Iacoboni M, 2005, PLOS BIOL, V3, P529, DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030079 INGOLD T, 1993, TOOLS, LANGUAGE AND COGNITION IN HUMAN EVOLUTION, P429 Koechlin E, 2006, NEURON, V50, P963, DOI 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.05.017 Krause MA, 1997, J COMP PSYCHOL, V111, P330, DOI 10.1037/0735-7036.111.4.330 Leavens DA, 2005, CHILD DEV, V76, P291, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00845.x Leavens DA, 1998, DEV PSYCHOL, V34, P813, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.813 Millikan Ruth Garrett, 1984, LANGUAGE THOUGHT OTH Mithen S., 1996, PREHISTORY MIND SEAR Mukamel R, 2010, CURR BIOL, V20, P750, DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2010.02.045 Noveck IA, 2004, PALG STUD PRAGM LANG, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230524125 Pastra K, 2012, PHILOS T R SOC B, V367, P103, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2011.0123 Pinker S, 2005, COGNITION, V95, P201, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004 PINKER S, 1990, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V13, P707 Ploog Detlev, 2002, VVolume 106, P121 Pollick AS, 2007, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V104, P8184, DOI 10.1073/pnas.0702624104 PREUSS TM, 1991, J COMP NEUROL, V310, P429, DOI 10.1002/cne.903100402 Pulvermuller F, 2010, BRAIN LANG, V112, P167, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2009.08.002 Pulvermuller F, 2010, NAT REV NEUROSCI, V11, P351, DOI 10.1038/nrn2811 Rizzolatti G., 2008, MIRRORS BRAIN OUR MI Rizzolatti G, 1998, TRENDS NEUROSCI, V21, P188, DOI 10.1016/S0166-2236(98)01260-0 Rizzolatti G, 2004, ANNU REV NEUROSCI, V27, P169, DOI 10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230 RIZZOLATTI G., 2000, NEW COGNITIVE NEUROS, P539 Rizzolatti G, 2010, NAT REV NEUROSCI, V11, P264, DOI 10.1038/nrn2805 Rizzolatti R., 2001, NATURE REV NEUROSCI, V2, P661 Roy A.C., 2005, GESTURE, V5, P1 Seyfarth RM, 2010, BRAIN LANG, V115, P92, DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2009.10.003 Seyfarth Robert M., 2010, P84 Shannon CE, 1949, MATH THEORY COMMUNIC Snowdon CT, 1997, SOCIAL INFLUENCES VO Sperber D, 2010, EVOLUTION HUMAN LANG, P124 Sperber D, 2002, MIND LANG, V17, P3, DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00186 Sperber Dan, 1986, RELEVANCE COMMUNICAT Spreng RN, 2009, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V21, P489, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2008.21029 Steele J, 2012, PHILOS T R SOC B, V367, P4, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2011.0295 Sterelny K, 2012, PHILOS T R SOC B, V367, P2141, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2012.0116 Stout D, 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V45, P1091, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.09.014 Stout D, 2012, PHILOS T R SOC B, V367, P75, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2011.0099 Stout D, 2010, TOP COGN SCI, V2, P614, DOI 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01078.x Stout D, 2008, PHILOS T R SOC B, V363, P1939, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2008.0001 Suddendorf T, 2007, BEHAV BRAIN SCI, V30, P299, DOI 10.1017/S0140525X07001975 Tanner J.E., 2004, GESTURE, V4, P25 Tattersall I., 2008, WORLD BEGINNINGS 400 Tettamanti M, 2012, CORTEX, V48, P923, DOI 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.05.020 Tomasello M, 2008, ORIGINS HUMAN COMMUN TOMASELLO M, 1994, PRIMATES, V35, P137, DOI 10.1007/BF02382050 Tooby J., 1992, ADAPTED MIND EVOLUTI, P19 Uomini NT, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0072693 Varela F. J., 1991, EMBODIED MIND COGNIT WYNN T, 1993, TOOLS, LANGUAGE AND COGNITION IN HUMAN EVOLUTION, P389 Zlatev J, 2008, J PHYSIOL-PARIS, V102, P137, DOI 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.016 NR 125 TC 4 Z9 4 U1 1 U2 19 PU PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD PI OXFORD PA THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND SN 0271-5309 J9 LANG COMMUN JI Lang. Commun. PD JUL PY 2014 VL 37 BP 29 EP 39 DI 10.1016/j.langcom.2014.04.003 PG 11 WC Communication; Linguistics SC Communication; Linguistics GA AK7LE UT WOS:000338609000003 ER PT J AU Wang, YF Chen, JG Treanor, D Hsu, HM AF Wang, Yu-Fang Chen, Jyun-gwang Treanor, David Hsu, Hsun-Ming TI Exclusivity, contingency, exceptionality and (un)desirability: A corpus-based study of Chinese chufei ('unless') in spoken and written discourse SO LANGUAGE & COMMUNICATION LA English DT Article DE Predictive conditional; (Un)desirability; Exclusivity; Contingency; Exceptionality ID CONVERSATION; CONDITIONALS AB The present study investigates Mandarin Chinese chufei ('only if' or 'unless') constructions in both spoken and written discourse. The results show that most chufei instances fall into the type q, chufei p in the spoken data, whereas the written data indicate the most common pattern to be chufei p, fouze ('otherwise') similar to q. In the data, chufei can be viewed as a kind of predictive conditional, which predicts that if a desired action is/is not carried out or a desired condition is/is not fulfilled, the desired/undesired consequence would occur. In particular, chufei clauses have a recapitulative function in that they summarize what has come before. We demonstrate that speakers/writers express a particular stance of desirability versus undesirability toward a particular event through chufei constructions, based on their subjective evaluation of reality. As a marker of hypotheticality, chufei constructions are used to perform several discourse-pragmatic functions such as suggesting possibilities, giving supplementary information for emphasis or clarification, and conveying effects in expressing attitudes and opinions. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. C1 [Wang, Yu-Fang] Natl Kaohsiung Normal Univ, Grad Inst Teaching Chinese Foreign Language 2, Kaohsiung 802, Taiwan. [Chen, Jyun-gwang] Natl Taiwan Normal Univ, Dept Chinese Language 2, Taipei 10610, Taiwan. [Treanor, David] Taiwan Shofu Univ, Tainan, Taiwan. [Treanor, David; Hsu, Hsun-Ming] Natl Kaohsiung Normal Univ, Dept English, Kaohsiung 802, Taiwan. [Hsu, Hsun-Ming] Zhong Shan Senior High Sch, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan. RP Wang, YF (reprint author), Natl Kaohsiung Normal Univ, Grad Inst Teaching Chinese Foreign Language 2, 116 Heping 1st Rd, Kaohsiung 802, Taiwan. EM yfwang@nknucc.nknu.edu.tw; fredchen@ntnu.edu.tw; djtreanor@yahoo.com; franklin.4321@yahoo.com.tw CR Akatsuko N, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V28, P781, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00074-X Athanasiadou A., 1997, CONDITIONALS AGAIN, P61 Biber D., 1988, VARIATION SPEECH WRI Brown G., 1983, DISCOURSE ANAL Chao Y., 1968, GRAMMAR SPOKEN CHINE Chen Fanfan, 2009, YUYAN YINGYONG YANJI, V4, P49 Comrie Bernhard, 1986, CONDITIONALS, P77, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.005 Craig D., 2006, ETHICS STORY USING N Cruttenden Alan, 1989, INTONATION Dancygier Barbara, 2005, MENTAL SPACES GRAMMA DANCYGIER B, 1998, CONDITIONALS PREDICT Dancygier Barbara, 2000, CAUSE CONDITION CONC, P111 DANCYGIER B, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P403, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90003-8 Dancygier Barbara, 1985, PAP STUD CONTRAST LI, V20, P64 Dancygier Barbara, 2002, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V6, P347, DOI DOI 10.1017/S1360674302000278 Du Bois J. W., 1993, TALKING DATA TRANSCR, P45 Ducrot Oswald, 1973, PREUVE DIRE Eifring Halvor, 1993, CAHIERS LINGUISTIQUE, V22, P159, DOI 10.3406/clao.1993.1439 Evans V, 2006, COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS: AN INTRODUCTION, P1 Fauconnier Gilles, 1985, MENTAL SPACES ROLES FAUCONNIER G, 1975, LINGUIST INQ, V6, P353 Fauconnier Gilles, 1994, MENTAL SPACES ASPECT Meulen A., 1986, CONDITIONALS, P179, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.010 FILLENBAUM S, 1976, PSYCHOL RES-PSYCH FO, V38, P231, DOI 10.1007/BF00309774 FILLMORE CJ, 1988, LANGUAGE, V64, P501, DOI 10.2307/414531 Ford Cecilia E., 1993, GRAMMAR INTERACTION Ford Cecilia E., 1986, CONDITIONALS, P353, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.019 Fujita Takao, 1987, ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, V4, P342 Geis M. L., 1971, LINGUIST INQ, V2, P561 Geis M. L., 1973, ISSUES LINGUISTICS, P231 Goldberg A. E., 1995, CONSTRUCTIONS CONSTR Grice H. P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226700005296 HAIMAN J, 1978, LANGUAGE, V54, P564, DOI 10.2307/412787 Haiman John, 1985, ICONICITY SYNTAX Hu Lizhen, 2007, J CENTRAL S U SOC SC, V13, P234 Hu Wenze, 1995, THESIS OHIO STATE U Hyland K, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V30, P437, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5 Hyland K, 2009, ACADEMIC EVALUATION - REVIEW GENRES IN UNIVERSITY SETTINGS, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230244290 Israel Michael, 2001, J SEMANT, V18, P297, DOI 10.1093/jos/18.4.297 KAY P, 1990, LINGUIST PHILOS, V13, P59, DOI 10.1007/BF00630517 Konig E., 1986, CONDITIONALS, P229, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.013 Kuo Chi-hsien, 2006, THESIS GEORGETOWN U Lehmann Christian, 1974, LINGUISTIC WORKSHOP, P69 Li C., 1981, MANDARIN CHINESE FUN Limberg H, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1376, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.003 Liu Fei, 2011, J TEACHERS COLL QING, V28, P117 Lorenz G, 1999, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V63, P55 Lu Fulin, 1999, SHAOYANG TEACHER ADV, V21, P59 Ozyurek A, 1997, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V23, P305 Quine W. V., 1972, METHODS LOGIC Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Ran YP, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V48, P98, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.012 SACKS H, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P696, DOI 10.2307/412243 Schiffrin D., 1994, APPROACHES DISCOURSE SCHWENTER S, 1999, PRAGMATICS CONDITION Shuxiang, 2004, XIANDAI HANYU BABAI Su I-wen, 2005, LANG LINGUIST-TAIWAN, V6, P655 Sweetser E. Eve, 1990, ETYMOLOGY PRAGMATICS Taub Sarah, 1991, CONSTRUCTION U UNPUB Traugott E., 1997, CONDITIONALS AGAIN, P145 Tsao F., 1990, SENTENCE CLAUSE STRU Ferguson Charles, 1986, CONDITIONALS, P197, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.011 Dijk van, 1989, TEXT CONTEXT EXPLORA Wang YF, 1999, J CHINESE LINGUIST, V27, P45 Wang Yu-Fang, 2006, TAIWAN J LINGUIST, V4, P49 Wang Yu-Fang, 2002, TEXT, V22, P141, DOI 10.1515/text.2002.002 Xi Jia, 2010, STUD LANG LINGUIST, V30, P80 Yang Fan-Pei, 2007, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Zhan Yunfen, 2008, J JIANGXI FINANCE CO, V21, P259 Zhang Bin, 2003, XIANDAI HANYU XUCI C Zhang Hong-qian, 2010, J YIBIN U, V10, P56 Zhang Yisheng, 2004, XIANDAI HANYU FUCI T Zhao Xin, 2006, YUYAN YANJIU, V26, P17 NR 73 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 8 PU PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD PI OXFORD PA THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND SN 0271-5309 J9 LANG COMMUN JI Lang. Commun. PD JUL PY 2014 VL 37 BP 40 EP 59 DI 10.1016/j.langcom.2014.04.002 PG 20 WC Communication; Linguistics SC Communication; Linguistics GA AK7LE UT WOS:000338609000004 ER PT J AU Sitaridou, I Kaltsa, M AF Sitaridou, Ioanna Kaltsa, Maria TI Contrastivity in Pontic Greek SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Focus; Contrast; Particles; Pontic Greek; Standard Modem Greek ID INFORMATION-STRUCTURE; SYNTAX; FOCUS AB Efforts to impose linguistic uniformity have resulted in significant loss of dialectal variation in Greece thus rendering Greek dialectal syntax difficult to study. The present article aims to shed light on an understudied area of Greek dialectal syntax, namely the organization of information structure in Pontic Greek. Through empirical work, it is argued that [contrast] is an autonomous structural notion (in line with Vallduvi and Vilkuna, 1998; Molnar, 2002) in Pontic Greek rather than a sub-feature of Focus, as traditionally held for Standard Modern Greek. In particular, is claimed that Pontic Greek (i) employs a rich particle system to express contrast; (b) CLLD does not have the same pragmatic import as in Standard Modern Greek, and; (c) "pa"-phrases are almost exclusively associated with a non-exhaustive reading, whereas focus movement is always associated with an exhaustive one; (d) information focus is obligatorily in the left periphery. On the basis of our findings we argue that there is evidence in favour of a Contrast projection in the CP domain. Crown Copyright (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Sitaridou, Ioanna] Univ Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, England. [Sitaridou, Ioanna] Univ Cambridge Queens Coll, Cambridge CB3 9ET, England. [Kaltsa, Maria] Aristotle Univ Thessaloniki, Sch English, Dept Theoret & Appl Linguist, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece. RP Sitaridou, I (reprint author), Univ Cambridge Queens Coll, Silver St, Cambridge CB3 9ET, England. EM is269@cam.ac.uk; mkaltsa@enl.auth.gr CR Agouraki G., 1990, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V2, P182 Agouraki G., 1993, THESIS U COLLEGE LON Agouraki G., 2010, LINGUA, V120, P459 Alexiadou A., 1999, STUDIES GREEK SYNTAX, P45 Alexopoulou T., 1996, P ED LING DEP C, V96, P52 Alexopoulou T., 1999, THESIS U EDINBURGH Alexopoulou T, 2002, J LINGUIST, V38, P193 Anagnostopoulou E., 1994, THESIS U SALZBURG Baltazani Mary, 2002, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V38, P63 Baltazani M., 1998, THESIS UCLA Baltazani M., 1999, P 14 INT C PHON SCI, V2, P1305 Belletti A., 2004, STRUCTURE CP IP CART, VII, P16 Belletti A, 2009, ROUTL LEAD LINGUISTS, P1 Beninca Paola, 2004, STRUCTURE CP IP CART, P52 Chatzikyriakidis S., 2012, EMP CLASH MOD DAY OU Chatzikyriakidis S., 2010, THESIS KINGS COLL LO Chomsky Noam, 1972, STUDIES SEMANTICS GE Cormack Annabel, 2000, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V12, P387 Cruschina S., 2008, THESIS U CAMBRIDGE Dawkins Richard M., 1916, MODERN GREEK ASIA MI Stephens Lawrence D., 2000, DISCONTINUOUS SYNTAX Dezso L., 1974, LINGUISTICA GEN STUD, P191 Diesing Molly, 1992, INDEFINITES Drettas Georges, 1997, ASPECTS PONTIQUES Drettas G., 2000, P 21 ANN M DEP LING, P122 Eide Kristine Gunn, 2014, INFORM STRUCTURE SYN, P377 Frascarelli M., 2007, INFORM STRUCTURE MEA, P87 Gryllia S., 2008, LOT DISSERTATION SER, V200 Haidou K., 2006, SOAS WORKING PAPERS, V14, P283 Haidou K., 2012, THESIS SOAS U LONDON Hajicova E., 1998, TOPIC FOCUS ARTICULA Hajrdova E., 1988, TEXT DISCOURSE CONST, P70 Jackendoff R., 1972, SEMANTIC INTERPRETAT Jones M. A., 1993, SARDINIAN SYNTAX Kaltsa M., 2007, THESIS U CAMBRIDGE U Keller F, 2001, COGNITION, V79, P301, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00131-1 Kisilier M., 2007, P 3 INT C MOD GREEK Kiss K. E., 1995, DISCOURSE CONFIGURAT, P3 Kiss KE, 1998, LANGUAGE, V74, P245, DOI 10.2307/417867 Krifka M, 1998, LINGUIST INQ, V29, P75, DOI 10.1162/002438998553662 Krifka Manfred, 2007, INTERDISCIPLINARY ST Kuno Susumu, 1972, LINGUIST INQ, V3, P269 Kuroda S.-Y., 1965, THESIS MIT Kuroda Sige-Yuki, 1988, LINGVISTICAE INVESTI, V12, P1, DOI 10.1075/li.12.1.02kur Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN latridou S., 1995, UPENN WORKING PAPERS, V2 MATHIEU ERIC, 2005, GRAMMATICALIZATION P, P236 MENSCHING GUIDO, 2010, SYNTACTIC VARIATION, P261 Michelioudakis D., 2012, DATIVES VARIATION MI, P212 Michelioudakis D.I., 2013, P 5 INT C MOD GREEK, P353 Molnar V., 2006, STUDIES GEN GRAMMAR, V82, P197 Molnar V, 2002, LANG COMPUT, P147 Molnar V, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P1392, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.010 Paoli S., 2011, RIV GRAMMATICA GENER, V34, P137 Pappou-Zuravliova E., 1999, DIALECT ENCLAVES GRE, P129 Pinto Manuela, 1997, THESIS UTRECHT U Prince E., 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P223 Reinhart T., 1981, PHILOSOPHICA, V27, P53 Reinhart T., 1995, OTS WORKING PAPERS L Repp S, 2010, LINGUA, V120, P1333, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.006 RIVERO ML, 1993, LINGUA, V89, P217, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(93)90053-Y Rizzi Luigi, 1997, ELEMENTS GRAMMAR, P281, DOI [10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7, DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7] Roberts Ian, 2001, HDB CONT SYNTACTIC T, P113 Rooth Mats, 1992, NAT LANG SEMANT, V1, P75, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF02342617 Roussou Anna, 2000, J GREEK LINGUISTICS, V1, P65, DOI 10.1075/jgl.1.05rou Sifaki E., 2013, J GREEK LINGUISTICS, V13, P147 Silva-Corvalan C., 2003, LINGUISTIC THEORY LA, P375 Sinopoulou O., 2008, P CONSOLE 15, P223 Sitaridou I., 2011, CATALAN J LINGUISTIC, P159 Sitaridou Ioanna, 2013, KEEPING LANGUAGES AL, P98 Sitaridou I, 2012, FOLIA LINGUIST, V46, P553, DOI 10.1515/FLIN.2012.019 Sitaridou I, 2014, DIACHRONICA, V31, P23, DOI 10.1075/dia.31.1.02sit Skopeteas S., 2009, INFORM STRUCTURE DIF Steedman M, 2000, LINGUIST INQ, V31, P649, DOI 10.1162/002438900554505 Szendroi K, 2004, LINGUA, V114, P229, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00025-1 Szendroi K., 2001, THESIS UCL Tomioka S., 2007, CONTRASTIVE TOPICS O Filiaci F., 2004, INT J BILINGUAL, V8, P257, DOI DOI 10.1177/13670069040080030601 Tsimpli I. M., 1990, UCL WORKING PAPERS L, V2, P220 Tsimpli I.M., 1998, THEMES GREEK LINGUIS, P197 TSIMPLI IANTHI-MARIA, 1995, DISCOURSE CONFIGURAT, P176 Tsiplakou S., 1998, THESIS U LONDON SCH Vallduvi E, 1998, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V29, P79 Vallduvi E., 1993, INFORM PACKAGING SUR VANDIJK TA, 1977, J PRAGMATICS, V1, P211, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(77)90035-2 Vermeulen R., 2008, TOPICS JAPANESE UNIF Vermeulen R., 2009, MIT WORKING PAPERS L, V58, P361 Vilkuna M., 1995, DISCOURSE CONFIGURAT, P244 Zimmermann M., 2007, NOTIONS INFORM STRUC Zubizarreta Maria L., 1998, PROSODY FOCUS WORD O NR 90 TC 1 Z9 1 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 2014 VL 146 BP 1 EP 27 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.005 PG 27 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AK4RC UT WOS:000338410800001 ER PT J AU Planas, FGI AF Gonzalez i Planas, Francesc TI On quotative recomplementation: Between pragmatics and morphosyntax SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Indirect speech; de re/de dicto distinction; Complementizer doubling; Phases; Catalan; Spanish ID INDIRECT QUESTIONS; LEFT PERIPHERY; SPANISH; MOVEMENT; LANGUAGE; ACCOUNT; SYNTAX AB In Catalan and Spanish quotative recomplementation (QRC) constructions, the second complementizer (que(2)) is used to set boundaries between the reproduced discourse and the clausal elements that were implicit in the original discourse, which must be reintroduced in the new communicative situation, since they are not shared by the interlocutor (e.g., Estan sentados en la mesa -> Ha dicho que(1) los invitados#(que(2))) estan sentados en la mesa). QRC is evidence of the existence of two types of complements of quotative verbs: QUOTATIVE COMPLEMENTS (with a de dicto interpretation) and REPORTATIVE COMPLEMENTS (with a de reinterpretation; e.g., Estan sentados en la mesa -> Ha dicho que(1) los invitados (#que(2)) ya estan colocados). Quotative complements have the same propositional structure as the original sentence and can include some elements such as speech-act adverbs-which are oriented to the original speaker-, as for topics, or HTLDs. On the contrary, reportative complements may be a,summary of the original discourse and they lack such elements oriented to the original speaker or the previous discourse. Besides, reportative complements allow long-distance movement from the embedded CP to the matrix CP. We conclude that quotative CP is a phase and reportative CP is not. (C) 2014 Elsevier BM. All rights reserved. C1 [Gonzalez i Planas, Francesc] Univ Girona, Fac Lletres, Grp Recerca LIDIAGC, E-17071 Girona, Catalonia, Spain. RP Planas, FGI (reprint author), Carrer Alau,19,1r 2a, E-17460 Girona, Catalonia, Spain. EM fgonzpl@gmail.com CR Beninca Paola, 2004, STRUCTURE CP IP CART, P52 Beninca Paola, 2001, CURRENT STUDIES ITAL, P39 Bianchi V., 2009, PERSON FEATURE UNPUB Bianchi V., 2010, IBERIA, V2, P43 Boeckx C., 2008, BARE SYNTAX Boskovic Zeljko, 2008, SOUNDS SILENCE EMPTY, P195 Bowles J., 2010, SOME SYNTAX IN PRESS Brucart Josep M, 1993, SINTAXI TEORIA PERSP, P59 Torner Castells Sergi, 2005, THESIS U POMPEU FABR Chomsky Noam, 2000, STEP STEP ESSAYS MIN, P89 Chomsky Noam, 2001, K HALE LIFE LANGUAGE, P1 Cinque Guglielmo, 1983, CONNECTEDNESS SENTEN, P7 Cinque Guglielmo, 2010, OXFORD HDB LINGUISTI, P51 Cinque G., 1990, TYPES A DEPENDENCIES, P56 Cinque Guglielmo, 2008, EMPIRICAL ISSUES SYN, V7, P99 Cinque G., 1999, ADVERBS FUNCTIONAL H CINQUE G, 1977, LINGUIST INQ, V8, P397 Cinque G, 2004, LINGUA, V114, P683, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00048-2 Garcia Cornejo R, 2006, MORFOLOGIA SINTAXIS Dagnac A., 2012, EMPIRICAL ISSUES SYN, V9, P77 de Vries M, 2008, STUD LINGUISTICA, V62, P39, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00142.x De Cat Cecile, 2007, FRENCH DISLOCATION I de Cat Cecile, 2004, ZAS PAPERS LINGUISTI, V35, P77 de Cuba Carlos, 2007, THESIS STONY BROOK U Delais-Roussarie E., 2004, HDB FRENCH SEMANTICS, P501 Delfitto D., 2011, LOST LING GUID CURR Demonte Violeta, 2007, VERNETZUNGEN KOGNITI, P133 Fernandez-Soriano Olga, 2013, AUTOUR QUE, P47 Demonte V, 2009, PROBUS, V21, P23, DOI 10.1515/prbs.2009.002 Etxepare R., 2007, ANUARIO SEMINARIO FI, V41, P25 Etxepare R., 2010, LINGUA, V120, P604 Etxepare R., 1996, ANUARIO SEMINARIO FI, V30, P469 Faure R., 2010, VERBS SPEAKING UNPUB Fontana Josep M., 1993, THESIS U PENNSYLVANI Frascarelli M., 2007, INFORM STRUCTURE MEA, P87 Frascarelli M., 2011, DISCOURSE FEATURES I Frascarelli M, 2007, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V25, P691, DOI 10.1007/s11049-007-9025-x Gallego A, 2010, PHASE THEORY Gallego A. J., 2009, VERBA, V36, P109 Giorgi A., 2010, SPEAKER SYNTAX INDEX GIVON TALMY, 1983, TOPIC CONTINUITY DIS, P5 Goodall G, 2001, ST NAT LANG, V52, P193 De la Mota Gorriz C., 1995, THESIS U AUTONOMA BA Grohmann K. K., 2003, PROBUS, V15, P201, DOI 10.1515/prbs.2003.008 Grohmann KK, 2000, WCCFL 19: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 19TH WEST COAST CONFERENCE ON FORMAL LINGUISTICS, P139 Gupton T., 2010, THESIS U IOWA IOWA C Gutierrez-Bravo R., 2011, REPRESENTING LANGUAG, P105 Haegeman L., 2004, ZAS PAPERS LINGUISTI, V35, P157 Haegeman L, 2012, LING AKT, V190, P113 Haegeman L, 2006, LINGUA, V116, P1651, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.03.014 Haegeman L, 2010, THEOR LINGUIST, V36, P111, DOI 10.1515/THLI.2010.008 Harley Heidi, 1999, GLOT INT, V4, P3 Higgins R., 1988, OLD ENGLISH SE UNPUB Montero Jimenez Jose Antonio, 2006, THESIS U COMPLUTENSE Jimenez-Fernandez Angel L, 2013, FEATURE INHERI UNPUB Keniston Hayward, 1937, SYNTAX CASTILIAN PRO Khomitsevich Olga, 2007, DEPENDENCIES PHASES Krapova Iliyana, 2008, CLITIC DOUBLING BALK, P257, DOI 10.1075/la.130.15kra Krifka M., EMBEDDING SPEE UNPUB Krivochen D., 2010, ALGUNAS NOTAS UNPUB Lahiri Utpal, 2002, QUESTIONS ANSWERS EM Kroch Anthony, 1992, WORKING PAPERS SCAND, V50, P1 Legate Julie Anne, 2003, LINGUISTIC VARIATION, V1, P61 Luis Lopez, 2009, DERIVATIONAL SYNTAX Martin-Gonzalez J., 2002, THESIS HARVARD U Martin-Gonzalez J., 1999, ACT 1 6 S INT COM SO, P155 Mascarenhas Salvador, 2007, COMPLEMENTIZER UNPUB McCloskey J, 2006, GEORGET U R, P87 McKay T., 2010, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS Mizuno E, 2010, GENGO KENKYU, V137, P1 Munaro Nicola, 2005, UG EXTERNAL SYSTEMS, P73 Paoli S., 2005, CONTRIBUTIONS 30 INC, P185 Paoli S., 2004, ANTWERP PAP LINGUIST, V107, P193 Paoli S., 2003, THESIS U MANCHESTER Paoli S, 2007, LINGUA, V117, P1057, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.007 Menendez Pidal Ramon, 1908, CANTAR MIO CID TEXTO Gonzalez i Planas F., 2011, DUPLICACIO COM UNPUB Gonzalez i Planas F., 2010, THESIS U GIRONA PLANN S, 1982, LINGUIST INQ, V13, P297 Posio P., 2013, J PRAGM Pusch CD, 2000, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V79, P189 Quer J., 2002, SEMANTICA SIGNIFICAT, P297 QUINE WV, 1956, J PHILOS, V53, P177, DOI 10.2307/2022451 Ramalle Rodriguez, 2005, MANUAL SINTAXIS ESPA Rodriguez Ramalle T. M, 2003, GRAMATICA ADVERBIOS Rathmann L., 2012, RECOMPLEMENTAT UNPUB Ribeiro I., 2009, 11 DIACHR GEN SYNT C Ribeiro I., 2010, ESTUDOS LINGUA GEM, V8, P15 RIVERO ML, 1994, LINGUIST INQ, V25, P547 Rizzi Luigi, 1997, ELEMENTS GRAMMAR, P281, DOI [10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7, DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7] Rizzi L., 2004, CARTOGRAPHY SYNTACTI, V3, P223 Rizzi Luigi, 2001, CURRENT STUDIES ITAL, P286 ROCHEMONT M, 1989, CAN J LING/REV CAN L, V34, P145 Roehrs D., 2003, ROMANCE LANGUAGES LI, P279 Fernandez Rubiera F. J., 2009, THESIS GEORGETOWN U Fernandez Rubiera F. J., 2010, REV FILOLOXIA AUSTUR, V6, P289 Fernandez Rubiera F. J., 2011, ROOT PHENOMENA ASSER Shaer B., 2005, ZAS PAP LINGUIST, V35, P465 Sigurosson H., 2004, RIV LINGUISTICA, V16, P219 Sigurosson H., 2013, SPLIT T ANAL UNPUB Sigurosson H., 2008, SYNTAX, V81, P1 Speas P, 2003, ASYMMETRY GRAMMAR, P315 Sturgeon A., 2006, THESIS UC SANTA CRUZ SUNER M, 1993, LINGUIST PHILOS, V16, P45, DOI 10.1007/BF00984722 Campos H., 1991, CURRENT STUDIES SPAN, P283 Beek J., 2008, RESTRUCTURING INFINI Tomioka S, 2001, INFORM STRUCTURE THE, P115 Uriagereka Juan, 1988, THESIS U CONNECTICUT VanGelderen E, 2013, CLAUSE STRUCTURE, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139084628 van Gelderen E., 2001, SW J LINGUISTICS, V20, P107 Mata i Vigara M., 2005, THESIS U AUTONOMA BA Villa-Garcia J, 2012, PROBUS, V24, P257, DOI 10.1515/probus-2012-0011 Villalba X., 2002, GRAMATICA CATALA CON, V3, p[17, 2247] Villa-Garcia Julio, 2012, THESIS U CONNECTICUT Villa-Garcia J., 2012, CURRENT FORMAL ASPEC, P198 Villalba Xavier, 2000, THESIS U AUTONOMA BA Villalba X, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1946, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.002 Wagner M., 2012, SHAKESPEARE THEATRE, V5 Ruffin G., 1998, 21 C INT LING FIL RO, P421 Yoon S., 2011, 42 ANN M N E LING SO NR 120 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 2 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 JUL PY 2014 VL 146 BP 39 EP 74 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.007 PG 36 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AK4RC UT WOS:000338410800003 ER PT J AU Myers-Scotton, C Jake, JL AF Myers-Scotton, Carol Jake, Janice L. TI Nonfinite verbs and negotiating bilingualism in codeswitching: Implications for a language production model SO BILINGUALISM-LANGUAGE AND COGNITION LA English DT Article DE codeswitching; language production model; Matrix Language Frame model; nonfinite verbs ID CODE; ENGLISH; SYNTAX AB This paper argues that a set of codeswitching data has implications for the nature of cognitive control in bilingualism and for models of language production in general. The data discussed are Embedded Language (EL) nonfinite verbs that occur in Matrix Language (ML) frames with appropriate ML inflectional morphology in some codeswitching (CS) corpora. Notably EL infinitives are involved, as in wo mu concevoir be nude... "they don't imagine that something... " (from Ewe-French CS). The main argument is that such nonfinite forms are selected because they only need checking at the lexical-conceptual level of abstract structure with the speaker's intended semantic-pragmatic meaning. That is, they do not project information about syntactic and argument structure that is included in the abstract structure of finite verbs. Nonfinite EL verbs occur because they better satisfy the speaker's intentions regarding semantic and pragmatic meaning than NL finite verbs. The employment of nonfinite EL verbs instead of EL finite verbs partially explains why codeswitching in general and such verb phrases in particular is perceived as fast and effortless. How one lexical entry (the EL nonfinite verb) can take on the morphosyntactic role of another one (the ML finite verb) implies flexibility in cognitive control at an abstract level. It also implies a certain malleability at an abstract level in the ML morphosyntactic frame that makes it possible to take in a nonfinite verb in a slot for a finite verb. C1 [Myers-Scotton, Carol] Michigan State Univ, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA. [Jake, Janice L.] Midlands Tech Coll, Columbia, SC USA. RP Myers-Scotton, C (reprint author), Michigan State Univ, Dept Linguist German Slav Asian & African Languag, 619 Red Cedar Rd,Room B331Wells Hall, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA. EM myerssc3@msu.edu CR Abutalebi J, 2007, J NEUROLINGUIST, V20, P242, DOI 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.10.003 Amuzu E., 2010, COMPOSTIE CODESWITCH Amuzu E., 2011, EWE CONTACT DA UNPUB Amuzu E., 2013, INT J BILINGUALISM Annamalai E., 1989, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V75, P47 Auer P., 1998, CODE SWITCHING CONVE Backus A., 1996, 2 ONE BILINGUAL SPEE Backus A., 1992, PATTERNS LANGUAGE MI Davies E. E., 1992, COGNITIVE PROCESSING, P443 BENTAHILA A, 1983, LINGUA, V59, P301, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(83)90007-4 Bickmore L. S., 1985, THESIS UCLA Bolonyai A, 2005, P 4 INT S BIL, P317 Boumans L., 1998, SYNTAX CODESWITCHING Bullock BE, 2009, CAMB HB LANG LINGUIS, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511576331 Bwenge C. M., 2010, TONGUE SWAHILI ENGLI Carroll S. B., 2013, NY TIMES, P3 Chomsky Noam, 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM Costa A, 2004, J MEM LANG, V50, P491, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.002 Dijkstra T., 2005, BILINGUAL VISUAL WOR, P178 Dussias P, 2003, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V25, P529 Fredsted E, 2008, LINGUISTICS, V46, P949, DOI 10.1515/LING.2008.031 Fuller J., 2012, GERMAN ENGLISH UNPUB GardnerChloros P, 2009, CODE-SWITCHING, P1 Goffman E, 1981, FORMS TALK Green D. W., 1998, BILING-LANG COGN, V1, P67, DOI [10.1017/S1366728998000133, DOI 10.1017/S1366728998000133] GROSJEAN F, 1989, BRAIN LANG, V36, P3, DOI 10.1016/0093-934X(89)90048-5 Gullberg M., 2009, RES TECHNIQUES STUDY, P21 Gullifer J. W., 2013, FRONT PSYCHOL, V4, P1, DOI [10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00278, DOI 10.3389/FPSYG.2013.00278] Haig G., 2002, SPRACHTYPOLOGIE UNIV, V55, P15 Jake JL, 2002, BILING-LANG COGN, V5, P69 Kamwangamalu N. M., 1987, 23 AN M CHIC LIN S 1, P166 Kamwangamalu N. M., 1994, S AFRICAN J AFRICAN, V14, P70 King R., 2001, LEXICAL BASIS GRAMMA Kroll J. F., 2005, HDB BILINGUALISM PSY Kroll JF, 2012, PSYCHOL LEARN MOTIV, V56, P229, DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-394393-4.00007-8 Kutas M, 2009, CAMB HB LANG LINGUIS, P289 Langacker Ronald W., 2008, COGNITIVE GRAMMAR BA Leveli W. J., 1989, SPEAKING INTENTION A Matras Yaron, 2009, LANGUAGE CONTACT Meuter RFI, 1999, J MEM LANG, V40, P25, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1998.2602 Moreno EM, 2002, BRAIN LANG, V80, P188, DOI 10.1006/brln.2001.2588 Myers-Scotton Carol, 2002, CONTACT LINGUISTICS Myers-Scotton C., 1993, SOCIAL MOTIVATION CO Myers-Scotton Carol, 1993, DUELLING LANGUAGES G Myers-Scotton C. M., 2002, INT J BILINGUAL, V6, P205 MYERSSCOTTON C, 1995, LINGUISTICS, V33, P981, DOI 10.1515/ling.1995.33.5.981 Myers-Scotton C. M., 1995, ACHOLI ENGLISH UNPUB Myers-Scotton C. M., 2005, LANG MATTERS, V36, P2 Myers-Scotton C. M., 1988, NAIROBI SWAHIL UNPUB Myers-Scotton C. M., 2009, UNIVERSAL STRUCTURE, P336 Myers-Scotton C. M., 2013, NEW NAIROBI SA UNPUB Okasha M., 1999, THESIS U S CAROLIN A PFAFF CW, 1979, LANGUAGE, V55, P291, DOI 10.2307/412586 POPLACK S, 1980, LINGUISTICS, V18, P581, DOI 10.1515/ling.1980.18.7-8.581 Sakel J, 2004, MOUTON GRAMM LIBR, V33, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110915280 Simango SR, 2011, SO AFR LINGUIST APPL, V29, P127, DOI 10.2989/16073614.2011.633361 Simango S. R., 1995, CHICHEW ENGLIS UNPUB SRIDHAR SN, 1980, CAN J PSYCHOL, V34, P407, DOI 10.1037/h0081105 Swigart L., 1994, AFRICA, V64, P180 Talmy L., 2000, COGNITIVE SEMANTICS Treffers-Daller J., 1994, MIXING 2 LANGUAGES F Treffers-Daller J., 2006, FRENCH BRUSSEL UNPUB Vincente A., 2008, ATLANTIC INDIAN OCEA, V4, P457 NR 63 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 5 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 2014 VL 17 IS 3 BP 511 EP 525 DI 10.1017/S1366728913000758 PG 15 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA AJ5NK UT WOS:000337730600005 ER PT J AU Shport, IA Redford, MA AF Shport, Irina A. Redford, Melissa A. TI Lexical and phrasal prominence patterns in school-aged children's speech SO JOURNAL OF CHILD LANGUAGE LA English DT Article ID CONTRASTIVE STRESS; ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS; WORD STRESS; ENGLISH; RHYTHM; ACCENT; INTENSITY; PHONOLOGY; DURATION; CATALAN AB This study investigated the integration of word- and phrase-level prominences in speech produced by twenty-five school-aged children (6; 2 to 7; 3) and twenty-five adults. Participants produced disyllabic number words in a straight count condition and in two phrasal conditions, namely, a stress clash and non-clash phrasal context. Duration and amplitude measures of syllable rhymes were used to assess the realization of lexical stress, and fundamental frequency (Fo) measures were used to assess the realization of phrasal pitch accents across conditions. Results showed that the duration and Fo correlates varied independently of each other as a function of condition in child speech, but much less so in adult speech. The group differences were taken to indicate that six-year-old children have yet to develop prosodic structures with integrated prominence. Structural and pragmatic interpretations of the results are discussed. C1 [Shport, Irina A.; Redford, Melissa A.] Univ Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 USA. RP Shport, IA (reprint author), Univ Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 USA. FU NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD061458, R01HD061458] CR Allen G. D., 1980, CHILD PHONOLOGY, P227 Arvaniti A, 2009, PHONETICA, V66, P46, DOI 10.1159/000208930 Astruc L, 2013, LANG SPEECH, V56, P229, DOI 10.1177/0023830912460494 Atkinson-King K., 1970, SPEECH COMMUN, V9, P113 Beckman M. E., 2005, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH, P9 Beckman M., 1994, PHONOLOGICAL STRUCTU, VIII, P7 Beckman M. E., 1986, STRESS NONSTRESS ACC Boersma P., 2011, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC BOLINGER D, 1985, J LINGUIST, V21, P79, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700010033 Bolinger D., 1986, INTONATION ITS PARTS BOLINGER DL, 1961, LANGUAGE, V37, P83, DOI 10.2307/411252 Cho T, 2009, J PHONETICS, V37, P466, DOI 10.1016/j.wocn.2009.08.001 COOPER WE, 1986, J MEM LANG, V25, P369, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90007-0 COOPER WE, 1985, J ACOUST SOC AM, V77, P2142, DOI 10.1121/1.392372 Cruttenden A., 1986, INTONATION Cummins F, 1998, J PHONETICS, V26, P145, DOI 10.1006/jpho.1998.0070 Dunn L. M., 2007, PPVT 4 PEABODY PITCU FRY DB, 1955, J ACOUST SOC AM, V27, P765, DOI 10.1121/1.1908022 FRY DB, 1958, LANG SPEECH, V1, P126 GERKEN LA, 1991, J MEM LANG, V30, P431, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90015-C Goffman L, 2004, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V47, P1088, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/081) Goffman L, 1999, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V42, P1003 Goffman L, 2006, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V21, P25, DOI 10.1080/01690960400001820 Grabe E., 1995, PAPERS LAB PHONOLOGY, V4, P95 Grabe E., 1999, P 14 INT C PHON SCI, P1201 Gussenhoven C., 1991, PHONOLOGY, V8, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0952675700001263 HAYES B, 1984, LINGUIST INQ, V15, P33 Hayes Bruce, 1995, METRICAL STRESS THEO HORNE M, 1990, LINGUISTICS, V28, P959, DOI 10.1515/ling.1990.28.5.959 HUSS V, 1978, PHONETICA, V35, P86 KEHOE M, 1995, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V38, P338 Kochanski G, 2005, J ACOUST SOC AM, V118, P1038, DOI 10.1121/1.1923349 Lehiste I., 1990, J ACOUST SOC AM, V87, pS72, DOI 10.1121/1.2028347 LIBERMAN M, 1977, LINGUIST INQ, V8, P249 Mo Y., 2008, 34 M BERK LING SOC Mo Y., 2009, 35 ANN M BERK LING S Patel R, 2006, SPEECH COMMUN, V48, P1308, DOI 10.1016/j.specom.2006.06.007 Payne E, 2012, LANG SPEECH, V55, P203, DOI 10.1177/0023830911417687 Pierrehumbert Janet, 1980, PHONOLOGY PHONETICS PIERREHUMBERT J, 1990, SYS DEV FDN, P271 POLLOCK KE, 1993, J PHONETICS, V21, P183 Prieto P, 2012, SPEECH COMMUN, V54, P681, DOI 10.1016/j.specom.2011.12.001 Quene H., 2002, 38 M CHIC LING SOC M Schwartz RG, 1996, J ACOUST SOC AM, V99, P3192, DOI 10.1121/1.414803 Shattuck-Hufnagel S., 1992, J ACOUST SOC AM, V92, P2443, DOI 10.1121/1.404582 SHATTUCKHUFNAGEL S, 1994, J PHONETICS, V22, P357 Snow D, 2007, J CHILD LANG, V34, P765, DOI 10.1017/S030500090700815X Turk AE, 1996, J ACOUST SOC AM, V99, P3782, DOI 10.1121/1.414995 VANDERSLICE R, 1972, LANGUAGE, V48, P819, DOI 10.2307/411990 Hoskins S., 1995, PAPERS LAB PHONOLOGY, V4, P111 Vogel I, 2002, J CHILD LANG, V29, P225, DOI 10.1017/S0305000902005020 Wells B, 2004, J CHILD LANG, V31, P749, DOI 10.1017/S030500090400652X NR 52 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 2 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 JUL PY 2014 VL 41 IS 4 BP 890 EP 912 DI 10.1017/S030500091300024X PG 23 WC Psychology, Developmental; Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Psychology; Linguistics GA AJ5VL UT WOS:000337758000007 PM 24020889 ER PT J AU Alousque, IN AF Negro Alousque, Isabel TI Verbo-pictorial metaphor in French advertising SO JOURNAL OF FRENCH LANGUAGE STUDIES LA English DT Article ID MULTIMODAL METAPHOR; CARTOONS; ADVERTISEMENTS; METONYMY; PICTURES; AUDIENCE; COMICS AB In the last thirty years the development of the Cognitive Metaphor Theory (e. g. Lakoff, 1987, 2006; Lakoff and Johnson, 1999) has led to vast research into metaphor. The study of linguistic metaphor was followed by a body of work into pictorial metaphor (Forceville, 1994, 1996) and multimodal metaphor (Forceville, 2007, 2008, 2009). In the present contribution we explore the use of verbo-pictorial metaphors in advertising through a corpus of French print ads. Starting from the claim that adverts serve a persuasive purpose, it will be argued that multimodal metaphor contributes to that purpose. The paper addresses three issues: a) how multimodal metaphors are manifested in the French advertisements; b) how image and text interact in a concrete type of multimodal metaphor in French print advertisements, namely verbo-pictorial metaphor; c) how verbo-pictorial-metaphor performs a pragmatic function in advertising. C1 Univ Complutense Madrid, Fac Econ & Empresariales, Secc Dept Filol Inglesa 1, Madrid 28223, Spain. RP Alousque, IN (reprint author), Univ Complutense Madrid, Fac Econ & Empresariales, Secc Dept Filol Inglesa 1, Campus Somosaguas, Madrid 28223, Spain. EM inegro@ccee.ucm.es CR ADAM J.-M., 2000, ANAL DISCOURS PUBLIC Adam J.-M., 2003, ARGUMENTATION PUBLIC Amoraritei L., 2002, METAPHORE OENOLOGIE Baldry A., 2006, MULTIMODAL TRANSCRIP Bariety A.-S, 2008, ANAL PUBLICITAIRE Barthes R., 1977, IMAGE MUSIC TEXT Barcelona Antonio, 2011, DEFINING METONYMY CO Bonhomme M., 2008, STUDIES COMMUNICATIO, V8, P237 Borchers T. A., 2005, PERSUASION MEDIA AGE Caballero R, 2009, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V11, P73 Caballero R, 2010, HUM COGN PROCESS, V26, P265 Carroll Noel, 1994, ASPECTS METAPHOR, P189 CharterisBlack J, 2004, CORPUS APPROACHES TO CRITICAL METAPHOR ANALYSIS, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230000612 Cienki A, 1998, DISCOURSE AND COGNITION: BRIDGING THE GAP, P189 Cienki Alan, 2008, METAPHOR GESTURE Cienki A, 2008, CAMB HANDB PSYCHOL, P483 Coutier M., 1994, META, VIX, P662 Deignan A., 2005, METAPHOR CORPUS LING Deignan A, 2008, PRAG BEYOND NEW SER, V173, P149 Cortes de los Rios Ma.E., 2001, NUEVAS PERSPECTIVAS Ruiz de Mendoza F. J., 1997, ATLANTIS, V19, P201 Ruiz de Mendoza F. J., 2011, METAPHOR SYMBOL, V26, P1 Lopez Diaz M., 2006, LANGAGE SOC, V116, P129 Dirven R., 2003, METAPHOR METONYMY CO Durand J., 1978, HUMANISME ENTREPRISE, V110, P25 Eerden B, 2009, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V11, P243 El Refaie E, 2009, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V11, P173 El Refaie Elisabeth, 2003, VISUAL COMMUNICATION, V2, P75, DOI [10.1177/1470357203002001755, DOI 10.1177/1470357203002001755] Evans V, 2006, COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS: AN INTRODUCTION, P1 McQuarrie Edward, 2008, GO FIGURE NEW DIRECT, P272 Forceville C., 2002, C SOC COGN VERB COMM Forceville Charles, 1996, PICTORIAL METAPHOR A Forceville CJ, 2009, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V11, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110215366 Forceville C, 2005, HUMOR, V18, P247, DOI 10.1515/humr.2005.18.3.247 Forceville C., 2007, PUBLIC J SEMIOTICS, V1, P19 FORCEVILLE C, 1994, METAPHOR SYMB ACT, V9, P1, DOI 10.1207/s15327868ms0901_1 Forceville C, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00007-8 Forceville C, 2009, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V11, P19 Forceville C, 2008, CAMB HANDB PSYCHOL, P462 Geeraerts Dirk, 2006, COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC Genette Gdrard, 1982, PALIMPSESTES Gibbs R., 1989, FIGURATIVE THOUGHT L Gibbs RW, 2008, CAMB HANDB PSYCHOL, P1 Gonzalvez F., 2011, REV COGN LINGUIST, V9, P11 Joannis H., 1988, PROCESSO CRIACAO PUB Johnson Mark, 1987, BODY MIND BODILY BAS Kennedy JM, 2008, CAMB HANDB PSYCHOL, P447 Koller V, 2009, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V11, P45 Kovecses Z., 2002, METAPHOR PRACTICAL I Kovecses Z, 1998, COGN LINGUIST, V9, P37, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 Kovecses Z., 2000, METAPHOR EMOTION LAN Kovecses Z., 1986, METAPHORS ANGER PRID Kress G., 2001, MULTIMODAL DISCOURSE Kress G, 2006, READING IMAGES GRAMM Krzeszowski T, 1990, ANGELS DEVILS HELL E LAKOFF George, 1989, MORE COOL REASON FIE Lakoff George, 1987, WOMEN FIRE DANGEROUS LAKOFF George, 1999, PHILOS FLESH EMBODIE Lakoff G, 1980, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY Lim EAC, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P1778, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.034 Lugrin G., 2006, GENERICITE INTERTEXT Ma L., 2008, CHINA MEDIA RES, V4, P9 Marillaud P., 2004, ACT 24 C ALB LANG SI McNeill D., 1992, HAND MIND WHAT GESTU McNeill D., 2005, GESTURE THOUGHT McQuarrie EF, 2005, J ADVERTISING, V34, P7 O'Toole Michael, 2011, LANGUAGE DISPLAYED A Pahud S., 2009, VARIATIONS PUBLICITA Panther K.-U., 2006, METONYMY METAPHOR GR Phillips BJ, 2003, ADVERT CONS, P297 Rocamora R., 2004, LINGUAGEM CULTURA CO, V2, P245 Rojo A. M., 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P3300 Sanz Inmaculada, 2004, NUEVAS TENDENCIAS LE Schilperoord J, 2009, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V11, P213 Batra R., 2003, PERSUASIVE IMAGERY C Semino E, 2008, METAPHOR IN DISCOURSE, P1 Shinohara K, 2009, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V11, P265 Teng NY, 2009, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V11, P197 Turner M., 1996, LIT MIND Ungerer Friedrich, 2000, METAPHOR METONYMY CR, P321 Urios-Aparisi E, 2009, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V11, P95 van Mulken M, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P707, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.008 Velasco M., 2009, REV ALICANTINA ESTUD, V22, P239 Velasco M., 2009, J ENGLISH STUDIES, V7, P11 Diez Velasco O., 2001, J ENGLISH STUDIES, V3, P47 Velasco-Sacristan M, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P1982, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.07.002 Velasco-Sacristan Marisol, 2006, ANN REV COGNITIVE LI, V4, P217, DOI 10.1075/arcl.4.09vel Ventola E, 2009, WORLD TOLD AND THE WORLD SHOWN: MULTISEMIOTIC ISSUES, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230245341 Ventola E., 2004, PERSPECTIVES MULTIMO Wiggin AA, 2003, ADVERT CONS, P267 Yu N, 2009, APPL COGN LINGUIST, V11, P119 Zbikowski LM, 2008, CAMB HANDB PSYCHOL, P502 NR 92 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 3 U2 5 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI CAMBRIDGE PA EDINBURGH BLDG, SHAFTESBURY RD, CB2 8RU CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND SN 0959-2695 EI 1474-0079 J9 J FR LANG STUD JI J. Fr. Lang. Stud. PD JUL PY 2014 VL 24 IS 2 BP 155 EP 180 DI 10.1017/S0959269513000045 PG 26 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AJ5PL UT WOS:000337737200001 ER PT J AU Secova, M AF Secova, Maria TI 'Je sais et tout mais ... ' might the general extenders in European French be changing? SO JOURNAL OF FRENCH LANGUAGE STUDIES LA English DT Article ID DISCOURSE MARKERS; MONTREAL FRENCH; GRAMMATICALIZATION; STUFF; TORONTO; CANADA AB This paper addresses contemporary trends in the use of general extenders in two recent corpora of spontaneous French stratified by age. In these corpora, certain variants (e. g. et tout) are highly prevalent in the speech of young people compared to older speakers, while others are not. Other studies have shown that general extenders' form as well as frequency tends to vary with respect to speakers' age, while some extenders may also undergo grammaticalisation. The present study includes a comparison with a late 20th-century corpus of spoken French, and finds that not only age grading but also generational change might be occurring. This conclusion is supported by qualitative and quantitative analysis of the contemporary data, showing that the forms most frequent among young people appear to have acquired new pragmatic functions. C1 [Secova, Maria] Univ London, London E1 4NS, England. RP Secova, M (reprint author), Univ London, Dept Linguist, Sch Languages Linguist & Film, Mile End Rd, London E1 4NS, England. EM m.secova@bbk.ac.uk CR Aijmer K., 2002, ENGLISH DISCOURSE PA AIJMER Karin, 1985, 8 SCAND C LING, P366 ANDREWS BJ, 1989, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V27, P193, DOI 10.1515/iral.1989.27.3.193 Beeching K., 1980, CORPUS ENTRETIENS SP Billiez J., 2007, FRANCAIS EMERGENCE, P95 Blakemore D., 1987, SEMANTIC CONSTRAINTS Branca- Rosoff S., 2007, DISCOURS VILLE CORPU Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV BYBEE J., 2003, HDB HIST LINGUISTICS, P602, DOI 10.1002/9780470756393.ch19 Bybee J, 2006, LANGUAGE, V82, P711, DOI 10.1353/lan.2006.0186 Channell J., 1994, VAGUE LANGUAGE Cheshire J., 2005, SOCIOLINGUISTICS INT, P760 Cheshire J, 2007, J SOCIOLING, V11, P155, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00317.x DINES ER, 1980, LANG SOC, V9, P13 Dubois Sylvie, 1992, LANG VAR CHANGE, V4, P179, DOI 10.1017/S0954394500000740 Dubois S., 1993, REV QUEBECOISE LINGU, V11, P21 Eckert Penelope, 1997, HDB SOCIOLINGUISTICS, P151 Ferre G., 2011, P IDP INT DISC PROS, P157 FERRARA K, 1995, AM SPEECH, V70, P265, DOI 10.2307/455900 Gadet Francoise, 2003, VARIATION SOCIALE FR Guy G, 1993, AM DIALECT RES, P223 Hansen MBM, 1998, LINGUA, V104, P235, DOI 10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00003-5 Holmes J., 2008, INTRO SOCIOLINGUISTI Hopper Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION JORGENSEN AM, 2009, YOUNGSPEAK MULTILING, V184, P95 Jucker AH, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1737, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00188-1 Labov William, 1994, PRINCIPLES LINGUISTI, V1 Labov W., 1984, MEANING FORM USE CON, P43 Labov William, 1980, LOCATING LANGUAGE TI Labov William, 1967, ESSAYS VERBAL VISUAL, P12 William LABOV, 2001, PRINCIPLES LINGUISTI Labov William, 1990, LANG VAR CHANGE, V2, P205, DOI [10. 1017/S09543945 00000338, DOI 10.1017/S0954394500000338] Labov William, 1972, SOCIOLINGUISTIC PATT Lemieux M., 1987, DIVERSITY DIACHRONY, P381 Levey S., 2012, APPL LINGUIST, V2012, P1 Macaulay R. K. S., 2006, LANG VAR CHANGE, V18, P267, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0954394506060133 Milroy Lesley, 1980, LANGUAGE SOCIAL NETW Overstreet M., 1999, WHALES CANDELIGHT ST Overstreet M, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P785, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00036-4 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 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 Rodriguez F., 2002, LENGUAJE JOVENES ROMAINE S, 1991, AM SPEECH, V66, P227, DOI 10.2307/455799 SANKOFF D, 2005, GOLDVARB X VARIABLE Sankoff G, 2007, LANGUAGE, V83, P560, DOI 10.1353/lan.2007.0106 Secova M., 2011, THESIS U LONDON QUEE Stenstrom A., 2002, TRENDS TEENAGE TALK Stenstrom Anna-Brita, 1999, OUT CORPORA STUDIES, P69 Stenstrom Anna-Brita, 2000, CORPORA GALORE ANAL, P177 Tagliamonte S, 2004, J SOCIOLING, V8, P493, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00271.x Tagliamonte S. A., 2012, VARIATIONIST SOCIOLI Tagliamonte SA, 2008, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V12, P361, DOI 10.1017/S1360674308002669 Tagliamonte SA, 2010, J ENGL LINGUIST, V38, P335, DOI 10.1177/0075424210367484 Traverso V., 2007, ANAL CONVERSATIONS Vincent D., 1992, LANG VAR CHANGE, V4, P205, DOI 10.1017/S0954394500000752 Wagner Suzanne Evans, 2008, THESIS U PENNSYLVANI Wagner SE, 2011, LANG VAR CHANGE, V23, P275, DOI 10.1017/S0954394511000111 WARD G, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P205, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90028-N Winter Joanne, 2000, P 1999 C AUSTR LING Winter J., 2001, P 2001 C AUSTR LING NR 62 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 0 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI CAMBRIDGE PA EDINBURGH BLDG, SHAFTESBURY RD, CB2 8RU CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND SN 0959-2695 EI 1474-0079 J9 J FR LANG STUD JI J. Fr. Lang. Stud. PD JUL PY 2014 VL 24 IS 2 BP 281 EP 304 DI 10.1017/S0959269513000021 PG 24 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AJ5PL UT WOS:000337737200006 ER PT J AU Guasti, MT Papagno, C Vernice, M Cecchetto, C Giuliani, A Burdo, S AF Guasti, Maria Teresa Papagno, Costanza Vernice, Mirta Cecchetto, Carlo Giuliani, Anna Burdo, Sandro TI The effect of language structure on linguistic strengths and weaknesses in children with cochlear implants: Evidence from Italian SO APPLIED PSYCHOLINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID CONGENITALLY DEAF-CHILDREN; AMERICAN SIGN-LANGUAGE; NON-WORD REPETITION; NONWORD REPETITION; SPEECH-PERCEPTION; 2ND-LANGUAGE ACQUISITION; 1ST-LANGUAGE ACQUISITION; CLINICAL MARKERS; CRITICAL PERIOD; WORKING-MEMORY AB Previous studies have found that the early fitting of cochlear implants in children has beneficial effects on their expressive and receptive language. However, different ages are identified in different studies, and some studies present contradictory results. Starting from these observations, our study suggests that at least two additional factors play an important role in determining linguistic outcomes. The first is the area of language under investigation: lexicon, phonology, morphosyntax, semantics, and pragmatics. The second factor is the typological features of the child's target language. Our study, which involved 33 Italian-speaking children who received a cochlear implant and 33 age and gender matched controls, reveals that lexical, semantic, pragmatic, and phonological knowledge are not particularly vulnerable in these children. By contrast, one area of morphosyntax (production of clitic pronouns) is especially challenging. In addition, an effect of age of implantation was found only in this morphosyntactic area. This is the first study on language development in Italian-speaking children with cochlear implants. C1 [Guasti, Maria Teresa; Papagno, Costanza; Vernice, Mirta; Cecchetto, Carlo] Univ Milano Bicocca, I-20123 Milan, Italy. [Giuliani, Anna; Burdo, Sandro] Osped Circolo Varese, Varese, Italy. RP Guasti, MT (reprint author), Univ Milano Bicocca, Dipartimento Psicol, Piazza Ateneo Nuovo, I-20123 Milan, Italy. EM mariateresa.guasti@unimib.it RI VERNICE, MIRTA/G-1554-2013 OI VERNICE, MIRTA/0000-0001-9911-2755 CR Abercrombie D., 1967, ELEMENTS OF GENERAL Anderson I, 2004, INT J PEDIATR OTORHI, V68, P425, DOI 10.1016/j.ijporl.2003.11.013 Antelmi D., 1997, LA PRIMA GRAMMATICA Arosio F., 2010, THE PROCEEDINGS OF T Baddeley A, 1998, PSYCHOL REV, V105, P158, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.158 Bates E., 1995, HDB CHILD LANGUAGE, P96 Berrettini S, 2008, INT J AUDIOL, V47, P199, DOI 10.1080/14992020701870197 Bortolini U, 2000, J COMMUN DISORD, V33, P131, DOI 10.1016/S0021-9924(99)00028-3 Bortolini U, 2006, INT J LANG COMM DIS, V41, P695, DOI 10.1080/13682820600570831 Boudreault P, 2006, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V21, P608, DOI 10.1080/01690960500139363 Burkholder RA, 2003, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V85, P63, DOI 10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00033-X Burkholder-Juhasz RA, 2007, J DEAF STUD DEAF EDU, V12, P472, DOI 10.1093/deafed/enm031 Chilosi A. M., 1996, TCGB TEST DI COMPREN Cipriani P., 1993, LACQUISIZIONE DELLA Cleary M., 2002, VOLTA REV, V102, P259 Cornoldi C., 1995, PRCR2 PROVE DI PRERE DAWSON PW, 1992, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V35, P401 Dillon CM, 2006, VOLTA REV, V106, P121 Dillon CM, 2004, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V47, P1103, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/082) Dixon P, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P447, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.004 Flege JE, 1999, SEC LANG ACQ RES, P101 Flege JE, 1999, J MEM LANG, V41, P78, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1999.2638 FryaufBertschy H, 1997, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V40, P183 Gallon N, 2007, CLIN LINGUIST PHONET, V21, P435, DOI 10.1080/02699200701299982 GATHERCOLE SE, 1992, DEV PSYCHOL, V28, P887, DOI 10.1037//0012-1649.28.5.887 Geers AE, 2004, ARCH OTOLARYNGOL, V130, P634, DOI 10.1001/archotol.130.5.634 Geers Ann E, 2003, Ear Hear, V24, p46S Geers AE, 2009, J DEAF STUD DEAF EDU, V14, P371, DOI 10.1093/deafed/enn046 Gillis S, 2006, J CHILD LANG, V33, P621, DOI 10.1017/S0305000906007434 Guasti Maria-Teresa, 2002, LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Hammer A., 2010, THE ACQUISITION OF V Harrison RV, 2005, DEV PSYCHOBIOL, V46, P252, DOI 10.1002/dev.20052 Herzberg O., 2010, PAPER PRESENTED AT T Jaeger TF, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P434, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 JOHNSON JS, 1989, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V21, P60, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0 Ladefoged P., 1975, COURSE PHONETICS Leonard L. B., 1992, LANG ACQUIS, V2, P151, DOI 10.1207/s15327817la0202_2 Leonard L. B., 1998, CHILDREN WITH SPECIF Leonini C., 2003, LOT OCCASIONAL SERIE Manrique M, 2004, ACTA OTO-LARYNGOL, V552, P55 Manrique M, 2004, LARYNGOSCOPE, V114, P1462, DOI 10.1097/00005537-200408000-00027 Marshall CR, 2009, LANGUAGE, V85, P39 MAYBERRY RI, 1993, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V36, P1258 Mayberry RI, 2002, NATURE, V417, P38, DOI 10.1038/417038a MCKEE C, 1992, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V10, P415, DOI 10.1007/BF00133369 Mehler J., 2004, STRUCTURES AND BEYON, V3, P213 MEYER V, 1995, ADV OTO-RHINO-LARYNG, V50, P129 Miyamoto RT, 2008, ACTA OTO-LARYNGOL, V128, P373, DOI 10.1080/00016480701785012 MONTGOMERY JW, 1995, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V38, P187 Moscati V., 2009, THE DELAY OF ITALIAN Nikolopoulos TP, 2004, ARCH OTOLARYNGOL, V130, P629, DOI 10.1001/archotol.130.5.629 Oetting JB, 2006, CLIN LINGUIST PHONET, V20, P553, DOI 10.1080/02699200500266455 Pallier C, 1997, COGNITION, V64, pB9, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00030-9 PAPAGNO C, 1991, J MEM LANG, V30, P331, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90040-Q Perry G. M. J., 2001, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2 Petitto LA, 2001, NATURE, V413, P35, DOI 10.1038/35092613 Pisoni D. B., 2005, THE HANDBOOK OF SPEE Pizzuto E., 1993, OTHER CHILDREN OTHER R Development Core Team, 2011, R LANG ENV STAT COMP Ramus F, 1999, COGNITION, V73, P265, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00058-X Reynell J. K., 1977, THE REYNELL DEVELOPM Robbins AM, 1997, OTOLARYNG HEAD NECK, V117, P155, DOI 10.1016/S0194-5998(97)70168-2 Robbins A. M., 2009, COCHLEAR IMPLANTS PR, P267 SCARBOROUGH HS, 1990, APPL PSYCHOLINGUIST, V11, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0142716400008262 Schaeffer J. C., 2000, THE ACQUISITION OF D Schein J. D., 1974, THE DEAF POPULATION Siegal M, 2009, COGNITION, V110, P115, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.002 Stella G., 2000, IL PEABODY TEST TEST Stokes SF, 2006, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V49, P219, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/019) Svirsky MA, 2002, ANN OTO RHINOL LARYN, V111, P109 Szagun G, 2000, AUDIOL NEURO-OTOL, V5, P39, DOI 10.1159/000013864 Szagun G, 2004, J CHILD LANG, V31, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0305000903005889 Tedeschi R., 2009, ACQUISITION AT THE I Tomblin JB, 2007, INT J AUDIOL, V46, P512, DOI 10.1080/14992020701383043 Tomblin JB, 2005, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V48, P853, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/059) Tomblin JB, 1999, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V42, P497 TYEMURRAY N, 1995, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V38, P327 Vlastarakos PV, 2010, INT J PEDIATR OTORHI, V74, P127, DOI 10.1016/j.ijporl.2009.10.023 Wie OB, 2007, INT J AUDIOL, V46, P232, DOI 10.1080/14992020601182891 NR 79 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 U2 11 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 JUL PY 2014 VL 35 IS 4 BP 739 EP 764 DI 10.1017/S0142716412000562 PG 26 WC Linguistics; Psychology, Experimental SC Linguistics; Psychology GA AJ5OQ UT WOS:000337734800004 ER PT J AU Syrett, K Simon, G Nisula, K AF Syrett, Kristen Simon, Georgia Nisula, Kirsten TI Prosodic disambiguation of scopally ambiguous quantificational sentences in a discourse context SO JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article ID SCOPE INVERSION; YOUNG-CHILDREN; 4-YEAR-OLDS; INTONATION; ENGLISH; STRESS; GERMAN AB Researchers have long sought to determine the strength of the relation between prosody and the interpretation of scopally ambiguous sentences in English involving quantification and negation (e.g. All the men didn't go). While Jackendoff (1972) proposed a one-to-one mapping between sentence-final contour and the scope of negation (falling contour: narrow scope, fall-rise contour: wide scope), in subsequent work, researchers (e.g. Ladd 1980; Ward & Hirschberg 1985; Kadmon & Roberts 1986) disentangled the link between prosody and scope. Even though these pragmatic accounts predict variability in production, they still allow for some correlation between scope and prosody. To date, we lack systematic evidence to bear on this discussion. Here, we present findings from two perception experiments aimed at investigating whether prosodic information-including, but not limited to, sentence-final contour-can successfully disambiguate such sentences. We show that when speakers provide consistent auditory cues to sentential interpretation, hearers can successfully recruit these cues to arrive at the correct interpretation as intended by the speaker. In light of these results, we argue that psycholinguistic studies (including language acquisition studies) investigating participants' ability to access multiple interpretations of scopally ambiguous sentences-quantificational and otherwise-should carefully control for prosody. C1 [Syrett, Kristen] Rutgers State Univ, Dept Linguist, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA. [Simon, Georgia] Rutgers State Univ, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA. [Nisula, Kirsten] Ohio State Univ, Columbus, OH 43210 USA. RP Syrett, K (reprint author), Rutgers State Univ, Dept Linguist, 18 Seminary Pl, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA. EM k-syrett@ruccs.rutgers.edu OI Syrett, Kristen/0000-0002-3773-3035 CR AKMAJIAN A, 1970, LINGUIST INQ, V1, P124 Albritton David W., 1996, J EXPT PSYCHOL LEARN, V22.3, P714 Baltazani Mary, 2002, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V38, P63 Baltazani Mary, 2003, THESIS U CALIFORNIA BEACH CM, 1991, J MEM LANG, V30, P644, DOI 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90030-N Beach CM, 1996, J ACOUST SOC AM, V99, P1148, DOI 10.1121/1.414599 Bel Bernard, 2002, SPEECH PROSODY 2002 Boersma P., 2001, GLOT INT, V5, P341 Bolinger Dwight, 1965, FORMS ENGLISH ACCENT Braun B, 2006, LANG SPEECH, V49, P451 Braun B, 2010, J PHONETICS, V38, P431, DOI 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.04.002 Buring D, 2003, LINGUIST PHILOS, V26, P511 Buring D, 1997, LINGUIST PHILOS, V20, P175, DOI 10.1023/A:1005397026866 Cedrus Corporation, 2012, SUP 4 5 STIM PRES SO Cooper W., 1980, SYNTAX SPEECH Fodor Janet Dean, 2002, CONSTRUAL, P83 Fodor Janet Dean, 2002, N E LINGUISTIC SOC N, V32, P113 Gualmini A, 2008, NAT LANG SEMANT, V16, P205, DOI 10.1007/s11050-008-9029-z Avesani Cinzia, 1997, INTONATION THEORY MO, P189 Hirschberg J, 2000, TEXT SPEECH LANG TEC, V15, P87 Hirschberg Julia, 1985, THESIS U PENNSYLVANI Jackendoff R., 1972, SEMANTIC INTERPRETAT Jackson Scott, 2006, PRES 19 ANN CUNY C H Jacobs Joachim, 1984, LINGUISTISCHE BERICH, V91, P25 Kadmon Nirit, 1986, PARASESSION PRAGMA 2, V22, P16 Kitagawa Y., 2006, GRADIENCE GRAMMAR GE, P336 Koizumi Yukiko, 2009, THESIS CITY U NEW YO Krifka M, 1998, LINGUIST INQ, V29, P75, DOI 10.1162/002438998553662 Ladd D.R., 1986, INTONATIONAL PHONOLO Ladd D. Robert, 1980, STRUCTURE INTONATION Lehiste I., 1973, GLOSSA, V7, P107 LEHISTE I, 1976, J ACOUST SOC AM, V60, P1199, DOI 10.1121/1.381180 Liberman Mark, 1974, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V10, P416 Lidz Jeffrey, 2005, LANG ACQUIS, V13.2, P73 Lidz J, 2002, COGNITION, V84, P113, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00013-6 Macmillan N. A., 2005, DETECTION THEORY USE MARATSOS MP, 1973, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V2, P1, DOI 10.1007/BF01067108 Marti L, 2001, P W COAST C, V20, P372 McMahon Erin, 2004, PRES 17 CUNY SENT PR Miller K, 2005, PROC ANN BUCLD, P389 Musolino J., 1998, THESIS U MARYLAND Musolino J, 2006, LINGUISTICS, V44, P817, DOI 10.1515/LING.2006.026 Musolino J, 2011, STUD THEOR PSYCHOLIN, V41, P319, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1688-9_9 Nagel HN, 1996, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V25, P319, DOI 10.1007/BF01708576 NAGEL HN, 1994, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V23, P473 PRICE PJ, 1991, J ACOUST SOC AM, V90, P2956, DOI 10.1121/1.401770 Roberts Craige, 1996, PAPERS SEMANTICS, V49, P91 Roland D, 2012, COGNITION, V122, P267, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.011 Schafer Martin, 2004, GRAMMATIK KONTEXT IN, V81, P33 Snedeker J, 2008, J MEM LANG, V58, P574, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.08.001 SPEER SR, 1993, J MEM LANG, V32, P336, DOI 10.1006/jmla.1993.1018 Syrett Kristen, N E LINGUISTIC SOC N, P43 Syrett K, 2014, J CHILD LANG, V41, P1373, DOI 10.1017/S0305000913000482 Syrett K, 2010, PROC ANN BUCLD, P421 Viau J, 2010, LANG ACQUIS, V17, P26, DOI 10.1080/10489221003620946 WARD G, 1985, LANGUAGE, V61, P747, DOI 10.2307/414489 NR 56 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 1 PU CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS PI NEW YORK PA 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY 10013-2473 USA SN 0022-2267 EI 1469-7742 J9 J LINGUIST JI J. Linguist. PD JUL PY 2014 VL 50 IS 2 BP 453 EP 493 DI 10.1017/S0022226714000012 PG 41 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AJ5NQ UT WOS:000337731400006 ER PT J AU Dugan, JE AF Dugan, James E. TI Second language acquisition and schizophrenia SO SECOND LANGUAGE RESEARCH LA English DT Article DE differential symptoms; schizophrenia; second language acquisition; thought disorder ID LANGUAGE; BILINGUALISM; IMPAIRMENTS; DISORDERS AB Schizophrenia is a complex mental disorder that results in language-related symptoms at various discourse levels, ranging from semantics (e.g. inventing words and producing nonsensical strands of similar-sounding words) to pragmatics and higher-level functioning (e.g. too little or too much information given to interlocutors, and tangential discourse). Most of the literature concerning people with schizophrenia who acquire a second or foreign language suggests that these linguistic deficits are not as prominent (in some instances, altogether absent) when patients use their non-dominant language, a phenomenon that has been used to support different claims posited by psychologists and linguists about schizophrenia and second language learning alike. This review explores the relationship between second language acquisition and schizophrenia, and discusses how empirical findings regarding multilingual individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia inform current notions regarding second language acquisition. C1 [Dugan, James E.] No Arizona Univ, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA. RP Dugan, JE (reprint author), No Arizona Univ, Dept English, 700 S Humphreys Cdr,Bldg 18, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA. EM jed42@nau.edu CR Andreou C, 2009, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V47, P1079, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.12.031 APA, 2013, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT Badcock JC, 2011, SCHIZOPHR RES, V126, P138, DOI 10.1016/j.schres.2010.11.004 Bersudsky Y, 2005, PROG NEURO-PSYCHOPH, V29, P535, DOI 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2005.01.004 Bruce LC, 1895, BRAIN, V18, P54, DOI 10.1093/brain/18.1.54 Colle L, 2013, J COMMUN DISORD, V46, P294, DOI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2013.01.003 CORDER SP, 1967, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V5, P161, DOI 10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161 Covington MA, 2005, SCHIZOPHR RES, V77, P85, DOI 10.1016/j.schres.2005.01.016 De Zulueta FIS, 2001, BRIT J MED PSYCHOL, V74, P277 De Houwer A, 1995, HDB CHILD LANGUAGE, P219 Del Castillo JC, 1970, AM J PSYCHIAT, V127, P160 Quay S., 2000, BILINGUAL ACQUISITIO DEZULUETA FIS, 1984, PSYCHOL MED, V14, P541 Ditman T, 2010, J NEUROLINGUIST, V23, P254, DOI 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.03.003 Ellis R, 2005, STUD SECOND LANG ACQ, V27, P141, DOI 10.1017/S0272263105050096 Foster RP, 2001, AM J ORTHOPSYCHIAT, V71, P153, DOI 10.1037//0002-9432.71.2.153 France J, 1997, COMMUNICATION MENTAL Frances A, 2013, WORLD PSYCHIATRY, V12, P111, DOI 10.1002/wps.20027 Gass S., 2013, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI Gass S., 2001, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI GELFAND R, 1978, COMPR PSYCHIAT, V19, P551, DOI 10.1016/0010-440X(78)90087-1 HEMPHILL R E, 1971, South African Medical Journal, V45, P1391 Kay SR, 1994, STRUCTURED CLIN INTE KENDELL RE, 1971, ARCH GEN PSYCHIAT, V25, P123 Kuperberg Gina R, 2010, Lang Linguist Compass, V4, P576 Li SF, 2010, LANG LEARN, V60, P309, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x MATULIS AC, 1977, DYNAM PSYCHIAT, V10, P459 Morley J., 2001, TEACHING ENGLISH 2 F, P69 Paradis M, 2004, NEUROLINGUISTIC THEO Paradis M, 2008, J NEUROLINGUIST, V21, P199, DOI 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2007.09.002 Plonsky L, 2011, LANG LEARN, V61, P993, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00663.x Rushe TM, 2007, J INT NEUROPSYCH SOC, V13, P893, DOI 10.1017/S1355617707071123 Smit M, 2011, SO AFR LINGUIST APPL, V29, P505, DOI 10.2989/16073614.2011.651946 Southwood F, 2009, SOUTH AFR LINGUIST A, V27, P163, DOI 10.2989/SALALS.2009.27.2.4.867 Stephane M, 2007, J PSYCHIATR NEUROSCI, V32, P250 Theron J, 2011, SO AFR LINGUIST APPL, V29, P515, DOI 10.2989/16073614.2011.651948 Titone D, 2000, J ABNORM PSYCHOL, V109, P761, DOI 10.1037//0021-843X.109.4.761 Titone D, 2010, J NEUROLINGUIST, V23, P173, DOI 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.01.003 Whitford V, 2013, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V142, P57, DOI 10.1037/a0028062 NR 39 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 12 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 JUL PY 2014 VL 30 IS 3 BP 307 EP 321 DI 10.1177/0267658314525776 PG 15 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA AJ4NX UT WOS:000337654200002 ER PT J AU Brown, SA AF Brown, Stacy A. TI On skepticism and its role in the development of proof in the classroom SO EDUCATIONAL STUDIES IN MATHEMATICS LA English DT Article DE Skepticism; Uncertainty; Mathematical proof; Empiricism ID MATHEMATICS; ARGUMENTS AB The purpose of this paper is to examine students' development of a capacity to maintain doubt, against a backdrop of empirical evidence. Specifically, drawing on data from clinical interviews and a series of teaching experiments, this paper describes two pathways, the Experiential Pathway and the Cultural Non-Experiential Pathway, for the development of the mathematical disposition of engaging in skepticism towards empirical validations. Issues related to current ways of framing students' views of empirical evidence and the role of pragmatic forms of doubt are considered. C1 Calif State Polytech Univ Pomona, Pomona, CA 91768 USA. RP Brown, SA (reprint author), Calif State Polytech Univ Pomona, Pomona, CA 91768 USA. EM brown@csupomona.edu CR Mariotti M. A., 2008, ZENTRALBLATT DIDAKTI, V40, P401, DOI 10.1007/s11858-008-0091-2 Borwein J. M., 2005, NOT AM MATH SOC, V52, P502 van Dormolen J., 1991, MATH KNOWLEDGE ITS G Balacheff N., 1988, MATH TEACHERS CHILDR, P216 Hoyles C., 2002, INT C MATH BEIJ CHIN, VIII, p[1, 907] Boero P, 2010, PME CONFERENCE PROCE, P179 Bourdieu P., 1998, PRACTICAL REASON Bourdieu Pierre, 1990, LOGIC PRACTICE Brousseau G., 1997, THEORY DIDACTICAL SI Brown Shana Julia, 2003, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Chazan D., 1993, EDUC STUD MATH, V24, P359, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF01273371 Ruthven K., 1994, BRIT EDUC RES J, V20, P41, DOI DOI 10.1080/0141192940200105 DAVIS PJ, 1981, AM MATH MON, V88, P311, DOI 10.2307/2320105 de Villiers M., 1990, PYTHAGORAS, V24, P17 Dewey John, 1910, WE THINK Fischbein E., 1982, LEARNING MATH, V3, P9 Fischbein E., 1982, LEARNING MATH, V3, P24 Goetting M., 1995, THESIS U MARYLAND HAIMO DT, 1995, AM MATH MON, V102, P102, DOI 10.2307/2975344 Hanna G., 1995, LEARNING MATH, V15, P42 HANNA G, 1990, INTERCHANGE, V21, P6, DOI 10.1007/BF01809605 Hanna G., 2008, ZDM, V40, P345, DOI 10.1007/s11858-008-0080-5 Harel G, 1998, AM MATH MON, V105, P497, DOI 10.2307/2589401 Campbell S. R., 2001, MONOGRAPH SERIES J M, V2, P185 Harel G., 1998, RES COLLEGIATE MATH, P234 Harel G, 2008, MAA NOTES, V73, P111 Healy L, 2000, J RES MATH EDUC, V31, P396, DOI 10.2307/749651 Chazan D., 2011, MATH ENTHUSIAST, V8, P405 Hoyles C., 1997, LEARNING MATH, V17, P7 Brown S., 2010, P 13 ANN C RES UND M Inglis M, 2009, COGNITION INSTRUCT, V27, P25, DOI 10.1080/07370000802584513 Jahnke H. N., 2005, CERME4 SANT FEL GUIX Jahnke H. N., 2007, ZDM INT J MATH ED, V39, P79, DOI 10.1007/s11858-006-0006-z Kirshner D., 2004, P 26 C INT GROUP PSY, V2, P765 Knuth E. J., 2002, J MATH TEACHER ED, V5, P61, DOI 10.1023/A:1013838713648 Knuth EJ, 2009, STUD MATH THINK LEAR, P153 Maher CA, 2009, STUD MATH THINK LEAR, P120 Mariotti M. A., 2006, HDB RES PSYCHOL MATH, P173 Martin G., 1989, J RES MATH EDUC, V12, P41 Mason J., 1985, THINKING MATH Mason J. H., 1999, LEARNING DOING MATH Mason J, 2006, STUD MATH TH LEARN, P41 Menary R., 2003, CONTRIBUTIONS ALWS, VXI, P230 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000, PRINC STAND SCH MATH Orton A., 1999, PATTERN TEACHING LEA, P104 Polya G., 1957, SOLVE IT Recio A. M., 2001, EDUC STUD MATH, V48, P83, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1015553100103 Segal J., 2000, J MATH BEHAV, V18, P191, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0732-3123(99)00028-0 Blume G. W., 1996, J MATH BEHAV, V15, P3, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0732-3123(96)90036-X Stylianides A., 2008, J MATH TEACHER ED, V11, P307, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10857-008-9077-9 Stylianides A., 2007, EDUC STUD MATH, V65, P1, DOI 10.1007/s10649-006-9038-0 Stylianides AJ, 2009, EDUC STUD MATH, V72, P237, DOI 10.1007/s10649-009-9191-3 Stylianides GJ, 2009, J RES MATH EDUC, V40, P314 Grenier D., 2010, LEARNING MATH, V30, P36 Vinner S., 1997, EDUC STUD MATH, V34, P97, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1002998529016 Orton A., 1999, PATTERN TEACHING LEA, P104 Brown S., 2012, P 15 ANN C RES UND M, P495 Weber K., 2009, EL P 12 ANN C RES UN Weber K, 2010, MATH THINK LEARN, V12, P306, DOI 10.1080/10986065.2010.495468 Wittgenstein Ludwig, 1969, CERTAINTY Yackel E., 2003, RES COMPANION PRINCI, P227 Zaslaysky O., 2005, EDUC STUD MATH, V60, P297, DOI 10.1007/s10649-005-0606-5 Zazkis R., 2008, EDUC STUD MATH, V68, P131 Chernoff E., 2008, EDUC STUD MATH, V68, P195, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10649-007-9110-4 NR 64 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 0 U2 1 PU SPRINGER PI DORDRECHT PA VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS SN 0013-1954 EI 1573-0816 J9 EDUC STUD MATH JI Educ. Stud. Math. PD JUL PY 2014 VL 86 IS 3 BP 311 EP 335 DI 10.1007/s10649-014-9544-4 PG 25 WC Education & Educational Research SC Education & Educational Research GA AI7QS UT WOS:000337090800001 ER PT J AU Velasco, DG AF Garcia Velasco, Daniel TI ACTIVATION AND THE RELATION BETWEEN CONTEXT AND GRAMMAR SO PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Functional Discourse Grammar; Activation; Givenness; Context AB Functional Discourse Grammar is characterized as the grammatical component of a wider theory of verbal interaction and is linked to two adjacent components: The Conceptual and the Contextual Components. One general property of these components is that they are not open-ended, but are said to contain only that extra-linguistic information which is relevant for the construction and interpretation of the immediate linguistic expression. In this contribution I explore the relation between context and grammar and I conclude that the FDG's requirement that the Contextual Component should only contain those features which have a systematic impact on grammar is too strict. In particular, I claim that the Contextual Component is relevant in linguistic usage through speakers' mental representation of its contents, which could be captured in the Conceptual Component. I further argue that the notions of 'activation' and 'sharedness' are relevant to understanding the motivation of two syntactic processes, subject raising and extraction from NPs, and should therefore find a place in the model even if they do not always lead to systematic effects. It is finally proposed that these pragmatic dimensions could find their way into the grammar by means of unmarked pragmatic configurations or content frames. C1 Univ Oviedo, Dept Filol Anglogerman & Francesa, Oviedo 33011, Spain. RP Velasco, DG (reprint author), Univ Oviedo, Dept Filol Anglogerman & Francesa, Teniente Alfonso Martinez S-N, Oviedo 33011, Spain. EM danielg@uniovi.es CR Bolkestein A. Machtelt, 1998, FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR V, P193 BUTLER CS, 2008, NOUN PHRASE FUNCTION, V195, P221, DOI 10.1515/9783110205374.221 Butler C. S., 2013, REV CANARIA ESTUDIOS, V67, P13 Chafe W., 1994, DISCOURSE CONSCIOUSN Connolly John H., 2007, ALFA, V51, P11 Cornish Francis, 2009, LONDON PAPERS, P97 DAVISON A, 1984, LANGUAGE, V60, P797, DOI 10.2307/413799 Dik Simon C., 1997, THEORY FUNCTIONAL 1 Dik S.C., 1997, THEORY FUNCTIONAL 2 Erteschik-Shir Nomi, 2007, INFORM STRUCTURE Givon Talmy, 1984, SYNTAX FUNCTIONAL TY, VII Goldberg A. E., 2006, CONSTRUCTIONS WORK Hengeveld Kees, 2008, FUNCTIONAL DISCOURSE Hengeveld K, 2004, FUNCT GRAMMAR, V24, P365 Mackenzie JL, 2012, LANG SCI, V34, P421, DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.02.006 Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Mackenzie J. Lachlan, 1991, PRAGMATICS, V1, P169 Christian Mair, 1990, INFINITIVAL COMPLEME Noel Dirk, 1997, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V1, P271 Postal Paul M., 1974, RAISING ONE RULE ENG Prince E., 1981, RADICAL PRAGMATICS, P223 Ross John R., 1986, THESIS MIT Smit Niels, 2007, ALFA-SAO PAULO, V51, P91 Vallduvi Enric, 1993, INFORM COMPONENT Olbertz Hella, 2013, CASEBOOK FUNCTIONAL, P249 VELASCO DG, 2008, NOUN PHRASE FUNCTION, V195, P321 NR 26 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 2 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 2014 VL 24 IS 2 SI SI BP 297 EP 316 PG 20 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AZ6EH UT WOS:000348310900006 ER PT J AU Keizer, E AF Keizer, Evelien TI CONTEXT AND COGNITION IN FUNCTIONAL DISCOURSE GRAMMAR: WHAT, WHERE AND WHY? SO PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Active-passive alternation; Context; Cognition; Perspective; Functional Discourse Grammar AB This paper discusses a recurring problem in the development and application of models of grammar: That of deciding which linguistically relevant contextual information forms part of (i.e. enters) the grammar, and which contextual information interacts with the grammar without being part of it. More specifically it considers the active-passive alternation in English within the framework of Functional Discourse Grammar. First, the possible factors recorded in the literature as determining the choice between an active and a passive construction are discussed. On the basis of an in-depth discussion of authentic examples it is concluded that the major determinant triggering the use of one of the two variants is not a single factor, but rather the composite notion of Speaker's perspective, a systematically encoded cognitive notion covering a number of communicatively relevant (pragmatic and semantic) factors. Subsequently, it is argued that since the Speaker's choice of perspective is the result of a cognitive process it is plausible to assume that this process takes place at a preverbal level, i.e. within the Conceptual Component. Since, however, in choosing the perspective the Speaker clearly draws on contextual information, stored in the Contextual Component, it can be concluded that information from the Contextual Component enters the Grammatical Component through the Conceptual Component), thereby indirectly influencing the choice of a particular grammatical construction. C1 Univ Vienna, Dept English, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. RP Keizer, E (reprint author), Univ Vienna, Dept English, Spitalgasse 2-4 Hof 8-3, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. EM evelien.keizer@univie.ac.at CR Abb Bernd, 1993, P 6 C EUR CHAPT ASS Beedham Christopher, 1982, PASSIVE ASPECT ENGLI Biber D., 1999, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Leech G, 2002, LONGMAN STUDENT GRAM BOCK JK, 1986, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V18, P355, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 Bolkestein A. Machteld, 1987, PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIV, P497 Bolkestein A. Machteld, 1985, SYNTAXE LATIN, P191 Bresnan J, 1982, MENTAL REPRESENTATIO, V1, P3 BUTLER CS, 2008, NOUN PHRASE FUNCTION, V195, P221, DOI 10.1515/9783110205374.221 Chomsky N., 1957, SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES Chomsky N., 1965, ASPECTS THEORY SYNTA Chomsky Noam, 1970, READINGS ENGLISH TRA, P184 Comrie Bernard, 1988, PASSIVE VOICE, P9 Connolly John H., 2010, WEB PAPERS IN FUNCTI, V83, P1 CONNOLLY JH, 2008, NOUN PHRASE FUNCTION, V195, P263, DOI 10.1515/9783110205374.263 Connolly John H., 2007, ALFA, V51, P11 CONNOLLY JH, 2004, NEW ARCHITECTURE FUN, V24, P89, DOI 10.1515/9783110197112.89 Cornish F., 2009, WEB PAPERS FUNCTIONA, V82, P97 Dik Simon C., 1997, THEORY FUNCTIONAL 1 DOWTY D, 1991, LANGUAGE, V67, P547, DOI 10.2307/415037 FREIDIN R, 1975, LANGUAGE, V51, P384, DOI 10.2307/412862 Gries ST, 2005, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V34, P365, DOI 10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3 Halliday MAK, 1967, J LINGUIST, V3, P199, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700016613 Hawkins John A., 1994, PERFORMANCE THEORY O Hengeveld Kees, 2008, FUNCTIONAL DISCOURSE Hinrichs L, 2007, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V11, P437, DOI 10.1017/S1360674307002341 HOPPER PJ, 1980, LANGUAGE, V56, P251, DOI 10.2307/413757 Huddleston Rodney, 2002, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Jespersen O., 1933, ESSENTIALS ENGLISH G Katz Jerrold, 1964, INTEGRATED THEORY LI Keizer Evelien, TRILHAS LIN IN PRESS KEIZER E, 2008, NOUN PHRASE FUNCTION, V195, P181, DOI 10.1515/9783110205374.181 Lambrecht K, 1994, INFORM STRUCTURE SEN Langacker R. W., 1987, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA, V1 Langacker R. W., 2002, CONCEPT IMAGE SYMBOL LANGACKER RW, 1982, LANGUAGE, V58, P22, DOI 10.2307/413531 Levelt Willem J.M., 1989, SPEAKING Liberman M., 2006, LANGUAGE LOG Mallinson G., 1981, LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY CR Pickering MJ, 2008, PSYCHOL BULL, V134, P427, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427 Pickering M, 2006, RES LANGUAGE COMPUTA, V4, P203, DOI DOI 10.1007/S11168-006-9004-0 Poutsma H, 1926, GRAMMAR LATE MODER 2 Poutsma H., 1928, GRAMMAR LATE MODER 1 Pullum Geoffrey K, 2011, LANGUAGE LOG Pullum G. K., 2009, CHRONICLE HIGHER ED Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Rijkhoff J, 2008, TREND LIN S, V195, P63 Shibatani Masayoshi, 1988, PASSIVE VOICE, P1 Svartvik Jan, 1966, VOICE ENGLISH VERB TANNENBAUM PH, 1968, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V7, P246, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(68)80197-5 Thompson Sandra, 1987, HONOR I LEHISTE, P497 Toyota J, 2009, ENGL STUD, V90, P476, DOI 10.1080/00138380902990283 VELASCO DG, 2008, NOUN PHRASE FUNCTION, V195, P321 Wanner A, 2009, TOP ENGL LINGUIST, V41, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110199215 Zwicky A., 2006, LANGUAGE LOG NR 55 TC 3 Z9 3 U1 3 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 JUN PY 2014 VL 24 IS 2 SI SI BP 399 EP 423 PG 25 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AZ6EH UT WOS:000348310900010 ER PT J AU Taguchi, N AF Taguchi, Naoko TI Pragmatic socialization in an English-medium university in Japan SO IRAL-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING LA English DT Article DE pragmatic competence; politeness; English-medium instruction; immersion AB This study examines the development of pragmatic competence among 48 first-year students in an English-medium college in Japan. The students were assessed on their ability to express opinions appropriately in formal and informal situations on three occasions during one academic year. Qualitative data on their sociocultural experiences were collected through interviews, class observation, and journals. Results revealed that although production of informal opinions showed strong progress, ability to express opinions in formal situations did not develop. This was explained by the students' lack of attention to sociocultural language use. Because classroom teachers encouraged direct modes of communication, disregarding politeness considerations, students developed a wrong assessment of target form-function-context mappings that constrained their progress. Findings revealed that academic English proficiency and pragmatic competence did not develop at the same rates. C1 Carnegie Mellon Univ, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA. RP Taguchi, N (reprint author), Carnegie Mellon Univ, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA. EM taguchi@andrew.cmu.edu CR Bardovi-Harlig K., 1993, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V15, P279, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100012122 Barron Anne, 2003, ACQUISITION INTERLAN Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Cook H., 2008, SOCIALIZING IDENTITI Duff P. A., 2007, LANG TEACHING, V40, P309, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0261444807004508 Iino Masakazu, 1996, THESIS U PENNSYLVANI Iwasaki N., 2011, JAPANESE LANGUAGE LI, V45, P67 LoCastro V., 2003, INTRO PRAGMATICS SOC McMeekin A.L., 2011, M AM ASS APPL LING C Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science and Technology (MEXT), 2009, PRIOR FIN ASS INT U MEXT (Japanese Ministry of Education Sports Science and Technology), 2011, 5 PROP SPEC MEAS DEV Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science and Technology, 2003, REG EST ACT PLAN CUL Nakajima M., 2010, KOKUSAI KYOYO DAIDE Nguyen H. T., 2011, L2 LEARNING SOCIAL P Schieffelin B. B., 1986, LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATI Shively RL, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1818, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030 Siegal M., 1995, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI, P225 Siegal Meryl, 1994, THESIS U CALIFORNIA Taguchi N., 2012, CONTEXT INDIVIDUAL D Taguchi N, 2011, PRAGMATICS, V21, P453 NR 20 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 1 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 JUN PY 2014 VL 52 IS 2 BP 157 EP 181 DI 10.1515/iral-2014-0007 PG 25 WC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Education & Educational Research; Linguistics GA AR6CY UT WOS:000343671900004 ER PT J AU Peng, R AF Peng, Rui TI THE DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF ZAISHUO IN CHINESE: A CASE OF POLYGRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS SO JOURNAL OF CHINESE LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE Polygrammaticalization chains; Grammaticalization path; Pragmatic inference; Fusion; Demotivation AB In modern Mandarin, zaishuo is used as either a modal particle (zaishuoi) or a conjunction (zaishuo(2)). Zaishuoi and zaishuo2 can be traced back to the same historical source, i.e., the verbal phrase zai+shuo, formed by the adverb zai 'again' and verb shuo 'to say.' The zai+shuo string has developed along two paths, characteristic of polygrammaticalization chains, with four stages each. One path leads to the emergence of zaishuoi, which occurs sentence-finally to indicate speaker/writer's subjective prioritization of the ordering of handling different matters, whereas the other path leads to the emergence of zaishuo2, which occurs sentence-initially and is a discourse connector signaling further argument for a previously stated opinion, roughly equivalent to "besides" or "moreover" in English. The basis for the justification of the emergence of both uses of zaishuo is pragmatic inferring. C1 Natl Univ Singapore, Dept Chinese Studies, Fac Arts & Social Sci, Singapore 117570, Singapore. RP Peng, R (reprint author), Natl Univ Singapore, Dept Chinese Studies, Fac Arts & Social Sci, Blk AS7 03-10,Shaw Fdn Bldg,5 Arts Link, Singapore 117570, Singapore. CR BRINTON Laurel J., 2005, LEXICALIZATIONAND LA Craig Colette, 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, V2, P455 Diewald Gabriele, 2002, MODEL RELEVANT TYPES, P103, DOI 10.1075/tsl.49.09die Evans N, 2000, LANGUAGE, V76, P546, DOI 10.2307/417135 HEINE B, 1992, STUD LANG, V16, P335, DOI 10.1075/sl.16.2.05hei HEINE Bernd, 1999, RECONSTRUCING GRAMMA, P177 Heine Bernd, 2002, ROLE CONTEXT GRAMMAT, P83, DOI [10.1075/tsl.49.08hei, DOI 10.1075/TSL.49.08HEI] Heine Bernd, 1991, GRAMMATICALIZATION C HOPPER J. Paul, 2003, GRAMMATICALIZATION HOPPER J. Paul, 1991, APPROACHES GRANUMMUL, V1, P17 HU Binbin, 2010, XIHUA SHIFAN DAXUE X, V2, P28 Kovecses Z., 2002, METAPHOR PRACTICAL I Kovecses Z, 1998, COGN LINGUIST, V9, P37, DOI 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 LUO Yaohua, 2009, YUYAN JIAOXUE YU YAN, V1, P73 Nerlich Brigitte, 1992, DIACHRONY SYNCHRONY, P125 PENG Rui, 2012, STUD LANG, V36, P346 Sweetser E. Eve, 1990, ETYMOLOGY PRAGMATICS TRAUGOTT C. Elizabeth, 2002, REGULARITY SEMANTIC WEI Huiping, 2010, HEBEI DAXUE XUEBAO Z, V154, P10 WILKINS P. Daivid, 1996, COMP METHOD, P264 WISCHER Ilse, 2002, P INT S GRAMM 17 19, V49 YI Zhengzhong, 2011, YUNMENG XUEKAN, V32, P132 YU Shijuan, 2006, HUBEI JIAOYU XUEYUAN, V23, P27 ZHANG Jinquan, 2011, QILU XUEKAN, V220, P135 NR 24 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 4 U2 10 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 2014 VL 42 IS 2 BP 351 EP 387 PG 37 WC Asian Studies; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Asian Studies; Linguistics GA AN6UV UT WOS:000340734800004 ER PT J AU Tsuji, H Doherty, MJ AF Tsuji, Hiromi Doherty, Martin J. TI Early development of metalinguistic awareness in Japanese: Evidence from pragmatic and phonological aspects of language SO FIRST LANGUAGE LA English DT Article DE False-belief understanding; metalinguistic awareness; language acquisition; linguistic politeness; phonological awareness ID FALSE-BELIEF; YOUNG-CHILDREN; MASU FORM; MIND; POLITENESS; SEGMENTATION; ACQUISITION; LISTENER; SPEECH; AGE AB The development of metalinguistic awareness for linguistic politeness was examined in 68 Japanese-speaking children aged between three and five years old. A politeness judgement task was administered together with several phonological judgement tasks and false-belief tasks. Four-and five-year old Japanese children, but not three-year-olds, made correct judgements for polite and impolite linguistic expressions by matching the expressions to appropriate social attitudes on the part of the protagonists. Developmental transitions across the age groups were similar for politeness and phonological judgements, with the exception of onset detection. Politeness and phonological judgement performances correlated with each other and were independent of the children's age and receptive vocabulary. However, neither of the aspects correlated with false-belief understanding once age and vocabulary were accounted for. The findings suggest that pragmatic awareness of politeness register develops as early as four years old, in synchrony with phonological aspects at the syllable level. C1 [Tsuji, Hiromi] Osaka Shoin Womens Univ, Kashiba, Nara 6390298, Japan. [Doherty, Martin J.] Univ Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland. RP Tsuji, H (reprint author), Osaka Shoin Womens Univ, Dept Psychol, 958 Sekiya, Kashiba, Nara 6390298, Japan. EM tsuji.hiromi@osaka-shoin.ac.jp OI Doherty, Martin/0000-0002-4314-7892 CR Akita K., 1999, LEARNING READ WRITE, P214 Amano K., 1986, ANNRE PORT ED PSYCHO, V27, P142 Andersen ES, 1999, J PRAGMATICS, V31, P1339, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00108-8 Andersen E., 1977, PAPERS REPORTS CHILD, V13, P83 AXIA G, 1985, CHILD DEV, V56, P918, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1985.tb00165.x Baroni M. R., 1989, 1 LANGUAGE, V9, P285, DOI 10.1177/014272378900902703 BIALYSTOK E, 1988, DEV PSYCHOL, V24, P560, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.560 Bloom P, 2000, COGNITION, V77, pB25, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00096-2 Burdelski M, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1606, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.007 Clancy Patricia, 1986, LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATI, P213 Clancy Patricia, 1985, CROSSLINGUISTIC STUD, V1, P373 Cook HM, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V28, P695, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00071-4 de Villiers P A, 1972, J Psycholinguist Res, V1, P299, DOI 10.1007/BF01067785 De Villiers J. G., 1974, J CHILD LANG, V1, P11, DOI [DOI 10.1017/S0305000900000052, 10.1017/S0305000900000052] Doherty M, 1998, COGNITIVE DEV, V13, P279, DOI 10.1016/S0885-2014(98)90012-0 Dunn L. M., 1981, PEABODY PICTURE VOCA Edwards HT, 1999, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V28, P313, DOI 10.1023/A:1023275214000 Farrar MJ, 2012, COGNITIVE DEV, V27, P77, DOI 10.1016/j.cogdev.2011.08.002 Farrar M. J., 2005, 1 LANGUAGE, V25, P157, DOI 10.1177/014272370505198025 Fernandez C, 2013, FIRST LANG, V33, P20, DOI 10.1177/0142723711422633 Fukuda C, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P1037, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.12.005 Garton A. F., 1990, 1 LANGUAGE, V10, P51, DOI 10.1177/014272379001002804 Gombert J. E., 1992, METALINGUISTIC DEV Hakes D., 1980, DEV METALINGUISTIC A Hollos Marida, 1977, CHILD DISCOURSE, P211 Inagaki K, 2000, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V75, P70, DOI 10.1006/jecp.1999.2523 JAMES SL, 1978, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V7, P307, DOI 10.1007/BF01068112 LIBERMAN IY, 1974, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V18, P201, DOI 10.1016/0022-0965(74)90101-5 MANN VA, 1986, COGNITION, V24, P65, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90005-3 Moriguchi Yusuke, 2008, First Lang, V28, P431, DOI 10.1177/0142723708092413 Naito M, 2006, INT J BEHAV DEV, V30, P290, DOI 10.1177/0165025406063622 Nakamura K., 2002, STUDIES LANGUAGE SCI, V2, P175 Nakamura K, 2006, HANDBOOK OF EAST ASIAN PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, VOL II: JAPANESE, P110 National Language Research Institute, 1981, TABL VOC OBT JAP CHI, V69, P1 Perner J., 1991, UNDERSTANDING REPRES SHATZ M, 1973, MONOGR SOC RES CHILD, V38, P1, DOI 10.2307/1165783 Shu H, 2008, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V11, P171, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00654.x Slobin D. I., 1978, CHILDS CONCEPTION LA, P45 SMITH CL, 1982, J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, V34, P449, DOI 10.1016/0022-0965(82)90071-6 SNOW CE, 1990, J PRAGMATICS, V14, P289, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90084-Q Spagnoletti C., 1989, READ WRIT, V1, P221, DOI [10.1007/bf00377644, DOI 10.1007/BF00377644] TUNMER WE, 1988, READ RES QUART, V23, P134, DOI 10.2307/747799 Tunmer W. E., 1984, METALINGUISTIC AWARE, P12 Ueno K., 1991, PICTURE VOCABULARY T Wellman HM, 2001, CHILD DEV, V72, P655, DOI 10.1111/1467-8624.00304 WIMMER H, 1983, COGNITION, V13, P103, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5 NR 46 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 0 U2 3 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 2014 VL 34 IS 3 BP 273 EP 290 DI 10.1177/0142723714538003 PG 18 WC Psychology, Developmental; Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Psychology; Linguistics GA AN4IW UT WOS:000340552200005 ER PT J AU Hesson, A AF Hesson, Ashley TI Medically speaking: Mandative adjective extraposition in physician speech SO JOURNAL OF SOCIOLINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE Modality; age-grading; pragmatic; recommendation; medicine; physician ID COMMUNICATION; ATTITUDES AB Clinical recommendations are central features of physician-patient interaction. Mandative adjective extraposition (MAE; e.g. it's important to ...) is one of many linguistic forms used by physicians in providing recommendations. This study decomposes MAE, a relatively unexplored sociolinguistic variable, into features that contribute to its deontic interpretation. It establishes that MAE's component features convey different degrees of illocutionary force, whereby some forms are perceived to be more compelling (i.e. stronger) than others. It further suggests that said forms index confidence in physician speech. Utilizing a large U. S.-wide corpus of medical consultations, it demonstrates that physicians use stronger MAE forms as they gain professional experience. Within specific practice settings, physicians' use of strong MAE forms is additionally constrained by patients' medical severity. Collectively, this evidence points to socialization into medical practice as the major social force impacting MAE variation across physicians' professional lifespans, pushing physicians towards authoritative-sounding variants despite interactional pressures favoring indirectness. C1 [Hesson, Ashley] Michigan State Univ, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA. RP Hesson, A (reprint author), Michigan State Univ, Dept Linguist & Languages, 619 Red Cedar Rd, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA. EM bartell6@msu.edu CR AINSWORTHVAUGHN N, 1998, CLAIMING POWER DOCTO Ashton CM, 2003, J GEN INTERN MED, V18, P146, DOI 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20532.x Bombeke K, 2011, PATIENT EDUC COUNS, V84, P310, DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2011.03.007 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV ECKERT P, 1992, ANNU REV ANTHROPOL, V21, P461, DOI 10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333 Eckert Penelope, 1994, WORKING PAPERS LEARN, V1 ERVINTRIPP S, 1976, LANG SOC, V5, P25 Gaglia MA, 2010, JACC-CARDIOVASC INTE, V3, P773, DOI 10.1016/j.jcin.2010.04.011 GOODWIN C, 1994, AM ANTHROPOL, V96, P606, DOI 10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100 Gordon GH, 2000, PATIENT EDUC COUNS, V40, P59, DOI 10.1016/S0738-3991(99)00069-5 Hasty Daniel J., 2012, U PENNSYLVANIA WORKI, V18 Hebdige D., 1979, SUBCULTURE MEANING S Hirschberg Julia, 1985, THESIS U PENNSYLVANI Hojat M, 2009, ACAD MED, V84, P1182, DOI 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b17e55 Hoye Leo, 1997, ADVERBS MODALITY ENG 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] Johnson RL, 2004, AM J PUBLIC HEALTH, V94, P2084, DOI 10.2105/AJPH.94.12.2084 Kaltenbock Gunther, 2003, ENGL LANG LINGUIST, V7, P235, DOI 10.1017/S1360674303001096 Kozloff J., 2006, VERILOGUE CORPUS PAT Kratzer A, 1977, LINGUIST PHILOS, V3, P337, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF00353453 Labov W, 1977, THERAPEUTIC DISCOURS Labov William, 1972, SOCIOLINGUISTIC PATT LASSITER DAN, 2011, THESIS NEW YORK U NE Meyerhoff Miriam, 1992, WORKING PAPERS LANGU, V2.1, P59 Meyerhoff M., 2002, HDB LANGUAGE VARIATI, P526 Pilnick A, 2011, SOC SCI MED, V72, P1374, DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.033 Podesva Robert J., 2008, TEXAS LINGUISTIC FOR, V51, P134 ROBINS LS, 1988, SOC SCI MED, V27, P217, DOI 10.1016/0277-9536(88)90124-4 Sankoff Gillian, 2013, OXFORD HDB SOCIOLING, P261 Schneider K. P., 2008, VARIATIONAL PRAGMATI, P1 SMITH RC, 1995, ACAD MED, V70, P729, DOI 10.1097/00001888-199508000-00019 Smith RC, 2002, PATIENT CTR INTERVIE STEWART MA, 1995, CAN MED ASSOC J, V152, P1423 Street RL, 2007, SOC SCI MED, V65, P586, DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.036 Tagliamonte Sali, 2006, DIACHRONICA, V23, P341, DOI DOI 10.1075/DIA.23.2.06TAG Tagliamonte SA, 2006, KEY T SOCIOLINGUIST, P1, DOI 10.2277/ 0521778182 ten Have P, 1991, TALK SOCIAL STRUCTUR, P138 Terkourafi M, 2011, LANG SOC, V40, P343, DOI 10.1017/S0047404511000212 Tsimtsiou Z, 2007, MED EDUC, V41, P146, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02668.x Van Linden A, 2009, FOLIA LINGUIST, V43, P171, DOI 10.1515/FLIN.2009.005 Van linden An, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P150 Wagner Suzanne Evans, 2012, LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, V6, P371, DOI DOI 10.1002/LNC3.343 Wagner SE, 2011, LANG VAR CHANGE, V23, P275, DOI 10.1017/S0954394511000111 Wenger E., 1998, COMMUNITIES PRACTICE West Candace, 1990, DISCOURSE SOC, V1, P85, DOI 10.1177/0957926590001001005 NR 45 TC 2 Z9 2 U1 0 U2 1 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 2014 VL 18 IS 3 BP 289 EP 318 DI 10.1111/josl.12084 PG 30 WC Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AL9QY UT WOS:000339477000001 ER PT J AU Andersen, G AF Andersen, Gisle TI Pragmatic borrowing SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Language contact; Anglicism; Discourse marker; Interjection; Corpus; Collostruction ID DISCOURSE; GERMAN; WELL AB Previous research on linguistic borrowing has predominantly been concerned with lexis and terminology. This paper explores the notion of pragmatic borrowing, that is, the incorporation of pragmatic and discourse features of a source language into a recipient language. It is argued that a comprehensive account of pragmatic borrowing requires a careful inspection of individual forms through comparative studies of their discourse-pragmatic functions in both the source and recipient language. Although the primary focus of interest is the influence of English on Norwegian pragmatics, the paper fleshes out pragmatic borrowing in more general terms with reference to previous studies of other language pairs. It proposes a functional taxonomy that includes the direct and indirect borrowing of interjections, discourse markers, expletives, vocatives, general extenders, tags, focus constructions, intonation and paralinguistic phenomena. The study illustrates how pragmatic functions are transferred cross-linguistically, through notions such as functional stability, adaptation, narrowing, broadening and shift. It also illustrates the degree to which fixed phrases and collostructions are borrowed, focussing especially on English-based expletives, interjections and discourse markers that have recently emerged in Norwegian. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Andersen, Gisle] NHH Norwegian Sch Econ, NO-5045 Bergen, Norway. RP Andersen, G (reprint author), NHH Norwegian Sch Econ, Dept Profess & Intercultural Commun, Helleveien 30, NO-5045 Bergen, Norway. EM gisle.andersen@nhh.no CR Aijmer Karin, 2006, PRAGMATIC MARKETS CO Aijmer K, 2011, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V16, P231, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.16.2.04aij Andersen Gisle, 2001, PRAGMATIC MARKETS SO Andersen Gisle, 2012, NATURLIG YEAH RIGHT Andersen Gisle, CORPUS PRAG IN PRESS ANDERSEN G, 2010, NEW APPROCHES HEDGIN, V9, P35 Andersen Gisle, PSEUDO BORROWING CAS Andersen G, 2012, STUD CORPUS LINGUIST, V49, P157 Appel Rene, 1987, LANGUAGE CONTACT BIL BAILEY LA, 1976, ANTHROPOL LINGUIST, V18, P438 Bazzanella C., 2000, ARGOMENTI LINGUISTIC, P149 Bloomfield Leonard, 1933, LANGUAGE HOLT Buchstaller Isabelle, 2008, ENGL WORLD-WIDE, V29, P15, DOI DOI 10.1075/EWW.29.1.03BUC Buchstaller I, 2012, CONV EVI LANG COMMUN, V15, pXI Carstensen Broder, 1993, ANGLIZISMEN WORTERBU Christian Donna, 1983, S E C LINGUISTICS RE, V7, P27 CLYNE MICHAEL G, 1972, PERSPECTIVES LANGUAG Colantoni Laura, 2004, BILING-LANG COGN, V7, P107, DOI DOI 10.1017/S1366728904001488 Davies M, 2009, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V14, P159, DOI 10.1075/ijcl.14.2.02dav Fischer K., 2000, COGNITIVE SEMANTICS Fischer Roswitha, 2008, ANGLICISMS EUROPE LI Fleischmann Suzanne, 2004, DISCOURSE LANGUAGES Warren P., 2004, PROSODIC TYPOLOGY PH Fuller JM, 2001, LINGUISTICS, V39, P351, DOI 10.1515/ling.2001.014 Furiassi Cristiano, 2012, RODRIGUEZ GONZALEZ F Furiassi Cristiano, 2010, FALSE ANGLICISMS ITA Galinsky H., 1967, AMERIKANISMEN DTSCH, P35 Gardner-Chloros Penelope, 1991, LANGUAGE SELECTION S GOrlach Manfred, 2001, DICT EUROPEAN ANGLIC, VXXV, P351 Goss Emily L., 2000, INT J BILINGUAL, V4, P469 Greedier Anne-Line, 1997, ANGLISISMEORDBOKA EN Greedier Anne-Line, 1998, MORPHOLOGICAL SEMANT Gumperz J. J., 1982, DISCOURSE STRATEGIES Guy G., 1989, AUSTR ENGLISH LANGUA, P21 Haspelmath M, 2009, LOANWORDS IN THE WORLD'S LANGUAGES, P35, DOI 10.1515/9783110218442.35 Haugen E., 1953, NORWEGIAN LANGUAGE A Haugen E, 1950, LANGUAGE, V26, P210, DOI 10.2307/410058 Hennecke Inge, 2012, DIPVAC Hewitt R., 1986, WHITE TALK BLACK TAL JOHANSSON S, 2006, PRAGMATIC MARKERS CO, V2, P115 Johansson Stig, 2002, ROCKA HIPT SNACKSY E JUCKER AH, 1993, J PRAGMATICS, V19, P435, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9 Kotsinas U. B., 1994, UNGDOMSSPRAK Kristiansen Tore, 2010, INT J SOCIOL LANG, V204, P59 Lipski John M, 2005, SEL P 2 WORKSH SPAN, P1 Matras Y, 1998, LINGUISTICS, V36, P281, DOI 10.1515/ling.1998.36.2.281 Murphy Brona, 2009, CORPORA, V4, P85, DOI DOI 10.3366/E1749503209000239 Onysko Alexander, 2009, ENGL TODAY, V25, P25 Onysko A., 2007, ANGLICISMS GERMAN BO Onysko A, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P1550, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.004 Opsahl Torii, 2002, JEG BARE HAE HVA SKJ Opsahl Toril, 2007, NORSK LINGVISTISK TI, V1, P29 Peterson Elizabeth, 2011, POSITIONING PLIIS GR Peterson Elizabeth, 2012, DIPVAC, V1 Peterson Elizabeth, 2008, DYNAMICS LANGUAGE CO, P161 Pfitzner Jurgen, 1978, ANGLIZISMUS DTSCH BE POPLACK S, 1980, LINGUISTICS, V18, P581, DOI 10.1515/ling.1980.18.7-8.581 POPLACK S, 1988, LINGUISTICS, V26, P47, DOI 10.1515/ling.1988.26.1.47 PRINCE EF, 1988, J PRAGMATICS, V12, P505, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90045-8 Pulcini V, 2012, ANGLICIZATION OF EUROPEAN LEXIS, P1 Watts Richard J., 1986, STUD ANGL POSNANENSI, V19, P37 Riblemann Christoph, CORPUS PRAG IN PRESS SALMONS J, 1990, LINGUISTICS, V28, P453, DOI 10.1515/ling.1990.28.3.453 Schiffrin Deborah, 1987, DISCOURSE MARKERS Schourup Lawrence, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1026 Sebba Mark, 1993, LONDON JAMAICAN Serra Cecilia Desch, 1998, CODE SWITCHING CONVE, P101 Stefanowitsch Anatol, 2003, INT J CORPUS LINGUIS, V8, P209, DOI [DOI 10.1075/IJCL.8.2.03STE, DOI 10.1075/IJC1.8.2.03STE] Stene Aasta, 1945, ENGLISH LOAN WORDS M Hilgendorf Suzanne K., 1996, ENGL TODAY, V12, P3 Svartvik Jan, 1980, STUDIES ENGLISH LING, P167 Svennevig Jan, 2012, SPRAK INTERAKTION, V3, P157 Treffers-Daller J., 1994, MIXING 2 LANGUAGES F Treffers-Daller Jeanine, 2010, HDB PRAGMATICS ONLIN Trosborg Anna, 2010, PRAGMATICS LANGUAGES Tryti Tone, 1984, NORSK SLANG Van Hout Roland, 1994, LANG VAR CHANGE, V6, P39, DOI 10.1017/S0954394500001575 Weinreich U., 1953, LANGUAGES CONTACT FI Whitney W., 1881, T AM PHILOLOGICAL AS, V12, P5, DOI 10.2307/2935666 NR 79 TC 3 Z9 3 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 JUN PY 2014 VL 67 BP 17 EP 33 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.005 PG 17 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AJ7GV UT WOS:000337866100002 ER PT J AU Czerwionka, L AF Czerwionka, Lori TI Participant perspectives on mitigated interactions: The impact of imposition and uncertainty SO JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE Participant perspective data; Playback comments; Mitigation; Emotion; Discourse; Spanish ID ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE; EMOTION; PRAGMATICS AB The present study, regarding the influence of imposition and uncertainty on mitigation, explored speakers' and listeners' perspectives on mitigation in interaction. Participants assessed the video playbacks of their own role play interactions, relating to four contexts. The four contexts, which combined imposition and certitude to manipulate mitigation, provoked interactions about: a missing car (severe imposition/uncertain), a stolen car (severe imposition/certain), a missing glass pitcher (mild imposition/uncertain), and a broken glass pitcher (mild imposition/certain). Following creation of 56 dyadic role plays, participant perspective data was collected using playback comments. The comments about the interactions, categorized initially through a grounded approach to qualitative analysis, expressed emotion words, discourse purposes, and discourse evaluations. Some of the notable findings were that too much mitigation may be detrimental and that speakers and listeners differ in the emotion words used to characterize their interactions and also their tendency to address discourse purposes or evaluations. Recommendations for future mitigation research included using both role play and naturally occurring interactions, an increased consideration of emotion in mitigation research, and further examination of the role of speaker and listener in mitigated interactions. Published by Elsevier B.V. C1 Purdue Univ, Sch Languages & Cultures, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA. RP Czerwionka, L (reprint author), Purdue Univ, Sch Languages & Cultures, 640 Oval Dr, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA. EM czerwionka@purdue.edu CR Argaman O, 2010, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V39, P89, DOI 10.1007/s10936-009-9127-1 Glaser Barney, 1967, DISCOVERY GROUNDED T Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Bucci W., 1992, SCORING REFERENTIAL Caffi C, 2007, STUD PRAGMAT, V4, P1 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 Chafe W.L, 1986, EVIDENTIALITY LINGUI, P261 Chafe Wallace, 1987, PROPERTIES SPOKEN WR Jonathan Culpeper, 2011, IMPOLITENESS USING L Culpeper J, 2010, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V7, P597, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2010.027 Czerwionka Lori, 2012, REPRESENTATIONS DIAL, P303 Czerwionka L, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1163, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.002 Damasio A. R., 1999, FEELING WHAT HAPPENS Felix-Brasdefer J. Cesar, 2003, 6 HISP LING S 5 C AC, P239 Felix-Brasdefer J. C., 2004, PRAGMATICA SOCIOCULT, P285 Flores-Ferran N, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1964, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.005 Fraser Bruce, 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, V3, P197 FRASER B, 1980, J PRAGMATICS, V4, P341, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6 Gass S. M., 2008, 2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITI Briz Gomez Antonio, 2003, ACT 1 COL ED, P17 Briz Gomez Antonio, 2002, ESTUDIOS LENGUA SOCI, P87 Gumperz J. J., 1982, LANGUAGE SOCIAL IDEN, P1 HOLMES J, 1984, J PRAGMATICS, V8, P345, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6 Hosman Lawrence, 1989, HUM COMMUN RES, V3, P383 House J., 1981, CONVERSATIONAL ROUTI, P157 Hsieh HF, 2005, QUAL HEALTH RES, V15, P1277, DOI 10.1177/1049732305276687 Hubler A., 1983, UNDERSTATEMENTS HEDG Johnstone Barbara, 2000, QUALITATIVE METHODS Lakoff G., 1972, 8 REG M CHIC LING SO, P183 Langlotz A, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V58, P87, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.014 Markkanen Raija, 1997, HEDGING DISCOURSE AP Martin Ballesteros, 2001, ESTUDIOS INGLESES U, V9, P191 Martin Ballesteros, 2002, CIRC LINGUIST APL CO, V11, P1 Martinovski Bilyana, 2005, P C COGN SCI, P1407 Martinovski B, 2006, J PRAGMATICS, V38, P2065, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.08.006 O'Barr WM, 1982, LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE Prince E. F., 1982, LINGUISTICS PROFESSI, P83 Reiter RM, 2005, SPANISH PRAGMATICS, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230505018 Rintell E. M., 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM, P248 SHAVER P, 1987, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V52, P1061, DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1061 Spencer-Oatey H, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P529, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00039-X Spencer-Oatey H, 2009, FACE, COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL INTERACTION, P137 Spencer-Oatey H, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P3565, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.009 Swain M, 2013, LANG TEACHING, V46, P195, DOI 10.1017/S0261444811000486 Thaler V, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P907, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.001 Williams L., 2011, INT J APPL LINGUISTI, V21, P26, DOI 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2010.00256.x Wiersma W., 2005, RES METHODS ED INTRO NR 48 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 JUN PY 2014 VL 67 BP 112 EP 130 DI 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.005 PG 19 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AJ7GV UT WOS:000337866100008 ER PT J AU Haddad, YA AF Haddad, Youssef A. TI Attitude datives in Lebanese Arabic and the interplay of syntax and pragmatics SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Accessibility Theory; Adjunction; Anti-locality; Binding Theory; Context-Linked Grammar; Intersubjectivity ID ENGLISH PERSONAL DATIVES; PRONOUNS; ELLIPSIS; BINDING; GOSSIP AB Lebanese Arabic licenses structures with non-argument dative pronouns that I call attitude datives (ADs). ADs may be co-referential with the subject of the sentence, with the speaker or hearer, or with a topic. ADs do not belong to the thematic grid of predicates, and they do not make truth-conditional contributions to expressions. However, they do make pragmatic contributions in the form of conventional implicatures, triggering an evaluative interpretation of events and depicting speech participants as attitude holders. The main purpose of this article is to provide details about the distribution and interpretation of ADs and to account for their choice of antecedent. I present an analysis within the framework of Accessibility Theory and Context-Linked Grammar to show that an AD is linked to its antecedent as a result of the interplay between syntax and pragmatics. I also address the issue of subject-oriented ADs and explain why they are exempt from Condition B of Binding Theory by adopting a movement approach to binding. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 Univ Florida, Dept Languages Literatures & Cultures, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA. RP Haddad, YA (reprint author), Univ Florida, Dept Languages Literatures & Cultures, 357 Pugh,POB 115565, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA. EM yah@ufl.edu OI Haddad, Youssef A./0000-0002-2522-0662 CR Adger D., 2003, CORE SYNTAX MINIMALI Al-Zahre N., 2010, BRILLS ANN AFROASIAT, V2, P248, DOI DOI 10.1163/187666310X12688137960588 Aoun Joseph, 2010, SYNTAX ARABIC Ariel M., 2001, TEXT REPRESENTATION, P29, DOI DOI 10.1075/HCP.8.04ARI ARIEL M, 1988, J LINGUIST, V24, P65, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700011567 Ariel M., 1991, ACCESSING NOUN PHRAS Baker M. C., 1988, INCORPORATION THEORY Barker C, 2012, LINGUIST INQ, V43, P614 Beck S, 2004, LINGUIST INQ, V35, P97, DOI 10.1162/002438904322793356 Bhat Darbhe N. S., 2004, PRONOUNS Boneh N., 2010, P ISR ASS THEOR LING, P25 Bosse S, 2012, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V30, P1185, DOI 10.1007/s11049-012-9177-1 Bowers J., 2007, STUDIES MORPHO SYNTA, P14 Branigan Phil, 2011, PROVOCATIVE SYNTAX Buell L., 2003, WCCFL 22 P 22 W COAS, P109 Cardinaletti A, 2002, STUD LINGUISTICA, V56, P29, DOI 10.1111/1467-9582.00086 Carminati M. N., 2002, J SEMANT, V19, P1, DOI DOI 10.1093/JOS/19.1.1 Chomsky Noam, 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM Chomsky N., 2004, STRUCTURES CARTOGRAP, P104 Collins C, 2012, IMPOSTERS: A STUDY OF PRONOMINAL AGREEMENT, P1 COMRIE B, 1983, LINGUISTICS, V21, P87, DOI 10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.87 Comrie B., 1988, P 14 ANN M BERK LING, P265 Cuervo Maria Cristina, 2003, THESIS MIT Cuervo M. C., 2010, SEL P 12 HISP LING S, P26 Dunbar RIM, 2004, REV GEN PSYCHOL, V8, P100, DOI 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.100 EVANS G, 1980, LINGUIST INQ, V11, P337 Gallego AJ, 2010, LING AKT, V158, P183 Goldberg A. E., 1995, CONSTRUCTIONS CONSTR Grice H. P., 1991, PRAGMATICS READER, P305 GRODZINSKY Y, 1993, LINGUIST INQ, V24, P69 Grohmann K., 2003, PROLIFIC DOMAINS ANT Hacquard V, 2010, NAT LANG SEMANT, V18, P79, DOI 10.1007/s11050-010-9056-4 Froud K., PERSPECTIVES ARABIC, V26 Haddad YA, 2013, J PRAGMATICS, V49, P57, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.006 Haddad YA, 2011, CAN J LING/REV CAN L, V56, P403 Halmari H., 1996, REFERENCE REFERENT A, P155 Horn L., 2008, EMPIRICAL ISSUES SYN, V7, P169 Horn Laurence, 2006, HDB PRAGMATICS, P3, DOI DOI 10.1002/9780470756959 Hornstein N, 1999, LINGUIST INQ, V30, P69, DOI 10.1162/002438999553968 Nunes Jairo, 2008, BIOLINGUISTICS, V2, P57 Hornstein Norbert, 2001, MOVE MINIMALIST THEO Huang Y., 2000, ANAPHORA CROSS LINGU Irurtzun A., 2007, ASJU, VXLI-2, P179 Jackendoff R., 1972, SEMANTIC INTERPRETAT Jouitteau M., 2007, BUCHAREST WORKING PA, VIX, P97 Lauri Karttunen, 1979, PRESUPPOSITION SYNTA, P1 Kayne R, 1994, ANTISYMMETRY SYNTAX Kayne Richard, 2002, DERIVATION EXPLANATI, P133, DOI 10.1002/9780470755662.ch7 Kehler Andrew, 2002, COHERENCE DISCOURSE Kratzer A., 1998, P SEMANTICS LINGUIST, P92 Langacker RW, 2009, COGN LINGUIST RES, V42, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110214369 Leclere Christian, 1976, METHODES GRAMMAIRE F, P73 Levinson S., 1979, P 5 ANN M BERK LING, P206 Lyons J., 1982, SPEECH PLACE ACTION, P101 McGinnis M., 2001, P NELS, P333 Merchant Jason, 2003, REMARKS STRIPP UNPUB Merchant J, 2013, LINGUIST INQ, V44, P77 Nevins A, 2011, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V29, P939, DOI 10.1007/s11049-011-9150-4 Nunes J, 2004, LINGUIST INQ MONOGR, V43, P1 O'Connor MC, 2007, LINGUISTICS, V45, P577, DOI 10.1515/LING.2007.018 Barshi Immanuel, 1999, EXTERNAL POSSESSION Potts C., 2011, SEMANTICS INT HDB NA, V3, P2516 Potts Chris, 2007, OXFORD HDB LINGUISTI, P475 Potts C., 2005, LOGIC CONVENTIONAL I Pylkkanen Liina, 2008, INTRO ARGUMENTS Rakosi G., 2008, GRAMMAR MINDS LANGUA, P413 Reichenbach Hans, 1947, ELEMENTS SYMBOLIC LO Reinhart T., 1983, ANAPHORA SEMANTIC IN Rizzi Luigi, 1997, ELEMENTS GRAMMAR, P281, DOI [10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7, DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7] Rizzi L, 2007, STUD GENERAT GRAMM, V89, P115 Roberge Y, 2009, PROBUS, V21, P249, DOI 10.1515/prbs.2009.008 Sigurosson H.A., 2010, EXPLORING CRASH PROO, P59 Sigurosson H, 2004, ITALIAN J LINGUISTIC, V16, P219 Sigurdsson H.A., 2012, LINGBUZZ 001593 Sigurdsson Halldor Armann, 2012, FUNCTIONAL HEADS, P368 Sigurosson H.A., 2013, LINGBUZZ 001684 Sinha C., 2008, SHARED MIND PERSPECT, P358 Sportiche Dominique, 1995, PHRASE STRUCTURE LEX, P213 Stepanov A., 2001, SYNTAX, V4, P94, DOI 10.1111/1467-9612.00038 Tanaka H, 2011, LINGUIST REV, V28, P79, DOI 10.1515/tlir.2011.003 Cuyckens H., 2009, SUBJECTIFICATION INT, P29 Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2003, MOTIVES LANGUAGE CHA, P124, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 Uriagereka J., 2003, PURE ADJUNCTS UNPUB Ward G., 2001, HDB DISCOURSE ANAL, P119 Webelhuth G, 2006, AM SPEECH, V81, P31, DOI 10.1215/00031283-2006-002 Wurmbrand Susi, 2014, MINIMALISM RADICALIZ, P139 NR 86 TC 3 Z9 3 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 JUN PY 2014 VL 145 BP 65 EP 103 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.03.006 PG 39 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AJ0IX UT WOS:000337335300003 ER PT J AU Huang, AJ Crain, S AF Huang, Aijun Crain, Stephen TI Acquisition of the numerical wh-pronoun ji 'how many' in Mandarin Chinese SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Wh-pronouns; Mandarin Chinese; ji 'how many'; First language acquisition; Negative polarity items ID SCALAR IMPLICATURES; NUMBER WORDS; SEMANTICS; CHILDREN; PRAGMATICS; PHRASES; ADULTS; VIEW AB Mandarin Chinese wh-pronouns are often analyzed as Negative Polarity Items (NPIs). The present study shows that Chinese wh-pronouns are not uniformly interpreted as NPIs. We focus on the interpretation of the wh-pronoun ji-ge 'how many-Classifier', which gives rise to a different interpretation in simple negative statements, which we call the 'small-amount' reading. To explain the availability of the 'small-amount' reading, we propose that ji-ge functions as both a singular existential quantifier and as a plural existential quantifier. When ji-ge is singular, it receives what we call a 'proform-N' reading. When ji-ge is plural, it either receives an 'at least two' reading or an 'a few' reading, depending on the linguistic context. On the proposed analysis, ji-ge is assigned the 'at least two' reading in simple negative statements, and the 'small-amount' reading is derived through a conversational implicature. To investigate the acquisition of these various readings of the wh-pronoun ji-ge, we conducted a comprehension study using simple negative statements. We found that children proceed through three developmental stages, each stage corresponding to different meanings of ji-ge. In two of the three stages, children assign non-adult interpretations, suggesting that children's analyses are not entirely determined by the linguistic input. This study sheds new light on the semantics of wh-pronouns in Mandarin Chinese. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Huang, Aijun] Soochow Univ, Sch Foreign Languages, Suzhou 215006, Jiangsu, Peoples R China. [Crain, Stephen] Macquarie Univ, N Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia. RP Huang, AJ (reprint author), Soochow Univ, Sch Foreign Languages, Congyuan Bldg,Main Campus,1 Shizi St, Suzhou 215006, Jiangsu, Peoples R China. EM ajhuang@suda.edu.cn; stephen.crain@mq.edu.au CR AOUN J, 1993, LINGUIST INQ, V24, P199 BAKER CL, 1970, LINGUIST INQ, V1, P169 Barner D, 2010, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V60, P40, DOI 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.06.002 Bates D, 2005, FITTING LINEAR MIXED, V5, P27 Breheny R, 2008, J SEMANT, V25, P93, DOI 10.1093/jos/ffm016 Carston Robyn, 1998, RELEVANCE THEORY APP, P179 Cheng L. L.-S., 1996, NAT LANG SEMANT, V4, P121, DOI 10.1007/BF00355411 Cheng Lisa Lai-Shen, 2013, QUANTIFICATIONAL STR, P123 Cheng L.L.-S., 1994, CHINESE LANGUAGES LI, V2, P197 Cheng Lisa Lai-Shen, 1991, THESIS MIT Belletti A., 2004, STRUCTURES Chierchia G, 2001, PROC ANN BUCLD, P157 Condry KF, 2008, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V137, P22, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.137.1.22 Crain S, 2012, CAMB STUD LINGUIST, V135, P1 Crain Stephen, 1998, INVESTIGATIONS UNIVE Crain S., 1994, PERSPECTIVES SENTENC Fan Li, 2012, TCSOL STUDIES, V45, P85 Field A. P., 2005, DISCOVERING STAT USI Foppolo F., 2012, LANGUAGE LEARNING DE, V8, P365, DOI DOI 10.1080/15475441.2011.626386 Gelman R., 1978, CHILDS UNDERSTANDING Giannakidou Anastasia, 1998, POLARITY SENSITIVITY [Anonymous], 1978, SYNTAX SEMANTICS Grice Paul H., 1989, STUDIES WAY WORDS Gualmini A, 2005, UPS DOWNS CHILD LANG Guasti MT, 2005, LANG COGNITIVE PROC, V20, P667, DOI 10.1080/01690960444000250 Halberda J., 2008, LANGUAGE LEARNING DE, V4, P99, DOI DOI 10.1080/15475440801922099 De Villiers Jill Helen T. F., 1975, J CHILD LANG, V2, P279 Horn L., 1972, THESIS INDIANA U BLO Horn L., 1992, P 2 C SEM LING THEOR, P163 Horn L. R., 1989, NATURAL HIST NEGATIO Hua D. F., 2000, THESIS CITY U HONG K Huang AJ, 2013, LANG LINGUIST-TAIWAN, V14, P1 Huang James, 1982, THESIS MIT Hurewitz Felicia, 2006, LANGUAGE LEARNING DE, V2, P77, DOI 10.1207/s15473341lld0202_1 Jaeger TF, 2008, J MEM LANG, V59, P434, DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 Kadmon N., 1987, THESIS U MASSACHUSET Klima Edward, 1964, STRUCTURE LANGUAGE, P246 LADUSAW W. A., 1980, POLARITY SENSITIVITY Le Corre M, 2007, COGNITION, V105, P395, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.10.005 Lee T. H.-T., 1989, CAHIERS LINGUIST ASI, V18, P29 Levinson Stephen C., 2000, PRESUMPTIVE MEANINGS Li A., 1992, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V1, P125 Li Y. M., 1991, HANZU ERTONG WENJU X Liao H.-C., 2011, THESIS HARVARD U Lin J.-W., 1996, THESIS UMASS Lin JW, 1998, J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS, V7, P219, DOI 10.1023/A:1008284513325 Lu S.-X., 1980, XIANDAI HANYU BABAI LU Shuxiang, 1985, JINDAI HANYU ZHIDAI Musolino J, 2004, COGNITION, V93, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.002 Musolino J, 2006, LINGUISTICS, V44, P817, DOI 10.1515/LING.2006.026 Noveck IA, 2001, COGNITION, V78, P165, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1 Papafragou A, 2003, COGNITION, V86, P253, DOI 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00179-8 Pouscoulous Nausicaa, 2007, LANG ACQUIS, V14, P347, DOI DOI 10.1080/10489220701600457 SHI DX, 1994, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V12, P301, DOI 10.1007/BF00993147 Sperber D., 1985, RELEVANT COMMUNICATI Su Y, 2012, J CHILD LANG, V39, P957, DOI 10.1017/S0305000911000389 Tsai D. W.-T., 2002, YUYANXUE LUNCONG, V26, P301 Tsai D. W.-T., 1994, THESIS CAMBRIDGE MA WASON PC, 1965, J VERB LEARN VERB BE, V4, P7, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5371(65)80060-3 Wu Z., 2009, THESIS BEIJING LANGU WYNN K, 1992, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V24, P220, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90008-P WYNN K, 1990, COGNITION, V36, P155, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(90)90003-3 Zhou P., 2011, THESIS MACQUARIE U Zhou P, 2012, J CHILD LANG, V39, P687, DOI 10.1017/S0305000911000249 Zhou P, 2011, J PSYCHOLINGUIST RES, V40, P155, DOI 10.1007/s10936-010-9161-z NR 65 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 15 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 JUN PY 2014 VL 145 BP 122 EP 140 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.03.003 PG 19 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AJ0IX UT WOS:000337335300005 ER PT J AU Dominguez, L Arche, MJ AF Dominguez, Laura Arche, Maria J. TI Subject inversion in non-native Spanish SO LINGUA LA English DT Article DE Word order; Inversion; Intransitive verbs; Unaccusatives; Interfaces; Subject; Spanish ID WORD-ORDER; 2ND-LANGUAGE ACQUISITION; LOCATIVE INVERSION; UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR; L2 ACQUISITION; ENGLISH; SYNTAX; OPTIONALITY; INTERFACE; MOVEMENT AB This study presents new empirical evidence on the L2 acquisition of Spanish SV-VS contrasts, a syntax-pragmatics interface phenomenon. Results from a context-dependant preference task involving unergative and unaccusative verbs in different focus situations (broad and narrow focus) reveal that beginner and intermediate English speakers prefer SV in all contexts. In contrast, advanced learners, who clearly know that VS is possible in Spanish, show a pattern of optionality with unergative verbs (in both broad and narrow focus contexts), whereas VS is correctly preferred with unaccusative verbs in both broad and narrowly-focused contexts. We argue that these results can be explained by a representational deficit according to which the VS order is overgeneralised to unergative verbs regardless of the discursive situation. We argue that learners' overuse of VS structures is exacerbated by the lack of clear evidence for the use of SV and VS forms in the native input. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. C1 [Dominguez, Laura] Univ Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, Hants, England. [Arche, Maria J.] Univ Greenwich, London SE18 6PF, England. RP Dominguez, L (reprint author), Univ Southampton, Dept Modern Languages, Southampton SO17 1BJ, Hants, England. EM ldo@soton.ac.uk CR Alexiadou A, 1998, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V16, P491, DOI 10.1023/A:1006090432389 Giannakidou A., 2007, QUANTIFICATION DEFIN Balcom P., 1997, SECOND LANG RES, V13, P1, DOI 10.1191/026765897670080531 Belletti A, 2007, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V25, P657, DOI 10.1007/s11049-007-9026-9 Borer Hagit, 2005, STRUCTURING SENSE, VII Borer H, 1998, MORPHOLOGY AND ITS RELATION TO PHONOLOGY AND SYNTAX, P60 Branigan P, 1997, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V15, P1 BRESNAN J, 1994, LANGUAGE, V70, P72, DOI 10.2307/416741 Broekhuis H, 2005, AVT PUBL, V22, P49 Baring D., 2001, SASC 3 SYNTAX SEMANT Burzio L., 1986, ITALIAN SYNTAX GOVT Camacho J., 1999, SECOND LANG RES, V15, P115, DOI 10.1191/026765899673532714 Chomsky N., 1971, SEMANTICS INTERDISCI, P183 Chomsky Noam, 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM Chomsky N., 1968, SOUND PATTERN ENGLIS Chomsky Noam, 2001, K HALE LIFE LANGUAGE, P1 Cinque Guglielmo, 1990, TYPES A BAR DEPENDEN CINQUE G, 1993, LINGUIST INQ, V24, P239 CONTRERAS H, 1987, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V5, P225, DOI 10.1007/BF00166585 Contreras H., 1991, PERSPECTIVES PHRASE, V25 Contreras Heles, 1978, ORDEN PALABRAS ESPAN De Miguel E., 1993, LINGUISTICA ANAL SIS, P178 Dominguez L., 2013, UNDERSTANDING INTERF Dominguez L., 2007, ACQUISITION ROMANCE, V8, P45 Dominguez L, 2008, PROC ANN BUCLD, P96 DOWTY D, 1991, LANGUAGE, V67, P547, DOI 10.2307/415037 Goodall G, 2001, ST NAT LANG, V52, P193 Carvahlo A., 2013, REF P 6 INT WORKSH S, P63 Gudmestad A, 2013, LANG LEARN, V63, P371, DOI 10.1111/lang.12006 Hale Ken, 2002, PROLEGOMENON THEORY Hale K., 1993, VIEW BUILDING, P53 Camacho J., 2006, ROMANCE LINGUISTICS, P1 Mayoral Hernandez Roberto, 2008, THESIS U SO CALIFORN Hertel TJ, 1999, PROC ANN BUCLD, P228 Hertel TJ, 2003, SECOND LANG RES, V19, P273, DOI 10.1191/0267658303sr224oa Hirakawa M., 2000, THESIS MCGILL U MONT Hirakawa M, 1995, PROC ANN BUCLD, P291 Hirakawa M., 2003, UNACCUSATIVITY 2 LAN Hirakawa M., 2001, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V23, P221, DOI [10.1017/S0272263101002054, DOI 10.1017/S0272263101002054] HOEKSTRA T, 1990, LINGUIST REV, V7, P1, DOI 10.1515/tlir.1990.7.1.1 Holmberg A, 2005, LINGUIST INQ, V36, P533, DOI 10.1162/002438905774464322 Yoon H.J., 2003, GLOW ASIA, V4, P157 Hopp H, 2005, SECOND LANG RES, V21, P34, DOI 10.1191/0267658305sr246oa Kellerman E., 1978, WORKING PAPERS BILIN, V15, P59 KOOPMAN H, 1991, LINGUA, V85, P211, DOI 10.1016/0024-3841(91)90022-W Lee M., 2004, ACQUISITION UNACCUSA, V10, P119 Levin B., 1995, UNACCUSATIVITY SYNTA Liceras J, 1999, SECOND LANG RES, V15, P1, DOI 10.1191/026765899678128123 Lozano C., 2006, SECOND LANG RES, V16, P103 Lozano C., 2009, LINGUISTICA APLICADE, P213 Lozano C., 2013, HDB SPANISH 2 LANGUA, P287 Torrents V, 2006, ACQUISITION SYNTAX R Lozano C, 2010, BILING-LANG COGN, V13, P475, DOI 10.1017/S1366728909990538 Mendikoetxea A., 2006, POINTS VUE INVERSION, V9, P133 Montrul S, 2005, LINGUISTICS, V43, P1153, DOI 10.1515/ling.2005.43.6.1153 Nava E., 2009, P 3 C GEN APPR LANG, P175 Burmeister H., 1990, VARIABILITY 2 LANGUA, P523 Ordonez F, 1998, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V16, P313, DOI 10.1023/A:1006051703562 Oshita Hiroyuki, 1997, THESIS U SO CALIFORN Oshita H., 2001, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V23, P279, DOI 10.1017/S0272263101002078 Papp S., 2000, SECOND LANG RES, V16, P173 Perez-Leroux AT, 1999, SECOND LANG RES, V15, P220 Perez-Leroux A.T., 1997, CONT PERSPECTIVES AC, P149 Perlmutter D., 1978, P 4 ANN M BERK LING, P157 POLLOCK JY, 1989, LINGUIST INQ, V20, P365 POPLACK S, 1980, LANGUAGE, V56, P371, DOI 10.2307/413761 Wilder C., 1997, ROLE EC PRINCIPLES L, P146 Reinhart T., 1995, OTS WORKING PAPERS L Reinhart T, 2006, LINGUIST INQ MONOGR, V45, P1 Ritter Elizabeth, 2000, EVENTS GRAMMATICAL O, P187 RIZZI L., 1982, ISSUES ITALIAN SYNTA RIZZI L, 1986, LINGUIST INQ, V17, P501 Roberts I., 2004, STRUCTURE CP IP CART, V2, P297 Roberts I., 2007, DIACHRONIC SYNTAX Rothman J., 2008, STUD HISP LUSOPHONE, V2, P317 Rothman J, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P951, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.007 Rutherford W., 1987, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V11, P441 Schwartz Bonnie, 1994, LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Schwartz B, 1996, SECOND LANG RES, V12, P40, DOI DOI 10.1177/026765839601200103 Sheehan M., 2006, THESIS NEWCASTLE U Shomura Y., 1996, ANN REV ENGLISH LEAR, V1, P17 Silva-Corvalan C, 1994, LANGUAGE CONTACT CHA Slabakova R., 2013, APPL PSYCHOL, P1 Sorace A., 2004, BILING-LANG COGN, V7, P143, DOI [10.1017/S1366728904001543, DOI 10.1017/S1366728904001543] Sharwood M. S, 1995, CURRENT STATE INTERL Sorace A, 2005, SYNTAX VARIATION REC, P55 Sorace A., 2006, GRADIENCE GRAMMARS G, P106, DOI 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274796.001.0001 Sorace A, 1993, SECOND LANG RES, V9, P22, DOI 10.1177/026765839300900102 Sorace A, 2009, INT J BILINGUAL, V13, P1 Sorace A, 2000, PROC ANN BUCLD, P719 Sorace A., 2003, HDB 2 LANGUAGE ACQUI, P130, DOI 10.1002/9780470756492.ch6 Sorace A., 2001, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V23, P247, DOI DOI 10.1017/S027226310 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 Suner M., 1982, SYNTAX SEMANTICS SPA SUNER M, 1992, NAT LANG LINGUIST TH, V10, P641, DOI 10.1007/BF00133332 Torrego E., 1989, MIT WORKING PAPERS L, V10, P253 Toth P., 2000, STUDIES 2 LANGUAGE A, V22, P169 Travis Lisa, 2000, EVENTS GRAMMATICAL O, P145 Dostert S., 2007, LANGUAGE ATTRITION T, P86 Filiaci F., 2004, INT J BILINGUAL, V8, P257, DOI DOI 10.1177/13670069040080030601 Tsimpli Ianthi Maria, 2006, P 30 ANN BOST U C LA, P653 Valenzuela E., 2006, SPECIAL VOLUME HONOU Valenzuela E., 2007, ROLE FORMAL FEATURES, P534 White L, 2011, LINGUA, V121, P577, DOI 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.005 Yip V., 1995, INTERLANGUAGE LEARNA Yuan B., 1996, EUROSLA 6 SELECTION, P201 Yuan BP, 1999, LINGUISTICS, V37, P275, DOI 10.1515/ling.37.2.275 Zagona Karen, 1982, THESIS U WASHINGTON Gass S, 1989, LINGUISTIC PERSPECTI Zubizarreta Maria Luisa, 1998, LINGUISTIC INQUIRY M, V33 Nava E., 2010, LINGUA NR 112 TC 1 Z9 1 U1 1 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 JUN PY 2014 VL 145 BP 243 EP 265 DI 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.004 PG 23 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AJ0IX UT WOS:000337335300010 ER PT J AU Fortuin, E AF Fortuin, Egbert TI Deconstructing a verbal illusion: The 'No X is too Y to Z' construction and the rhetoric of negation SO COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS LA English DT Article DE constructions; negation; syntax; semantics; rhetoric; pragmatics; logic; degree ID GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTIONS; FAMILY AB The sentence No head injury is too trivial to be ignored is often presented as a verbal illusion. According to the standard view, this sentence, which seems perfectly acceptable at first sight, is in fact logically incorrect. It is usually assumed that sentences such as these are produced as the result of negation overload, but get a coherent interpretation because of shallow processing, and because of pragmatic factors, which overrule semantics and syntax. In this paper it is argued that this analysis is incorrect and that No head injury is too trivial to be ignored can be seen as an instance of the negative 'No X is too Z to Y' construction, which is a sub-construction of the abstract 'No X is too Y to Z' construction. This negative construction can be seen as a conventionalized construction (form-meaning unit) that has a transparent (i.e. linguistically analyzable) syntactic structure that can be linked to and motivated by other constructions. It is shown that the occurrence of negative 'No X is too Z to Y' construction has to do with the rhetorical function of the infinitival verb in these sentences, and the need to express particular information by a form-meaning element. This study stresses the importance of the rhetorical dimension of constructions. C1 Leiden Univ, Ctr Linguist, NL-2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands. RP Fortuin, E (reprint author), Leiden Univ, Ctr Linguist, NL-2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands. EM E.Fortuin@hum.leidenuniv.nl CR Bartsch Renate, 2002, CONSCIOUSNESS EMERGI Bennett Jonathan, 1976, LINGUISTIC BEHAV Colleman Timothy, CONSTRUCTIONS ALL WA Christensen KR, 2010, BRAIN COGNITION, V73, P41, DOI 10.1016/j.bandc.2010.02.001 Clark HH, 1997, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V23, P567 Clark H. H., 1984, METHOD TACTICS COGNI, P191 Collins J, 2006, SYNTHESE, V153, P69, DOI 10.1007/s11229-005-4063-6 Constantinescu C., 2011, GRADABILITY NOMINAL Cook Paul, 2010, P ACL 2010 WORKSH NL, P61 Croft William, 2001, RADICAL CONSTRUCTION Dabrowska Ewa, 2004, LANGUAGE MIND BRIAN Ducrot Oswald, 1996, SLOVENIAN LECT C SLO Elugardo Reinaldo, 2007, CONTEXT SENSITIVITY, P278 Fahnestock J, 2011, RHETORICAL STYLE USE Fillmore Charles J., 2013, OXFORD HDB CONSTRUCI, P111 FILLMORE CJ, 1988, LANGUAGE, V64, P501, DOI 10.2307/414531 Fortuin E, 2013, LINGUIST TYPOL, V17, P31, DOI 10.1515/lingty-2013-0002 Fortuin E, 2009, COGN LINGUIST, V20, P641, DOI 10.1515/COGL.2009.028 GOLDBERG A. E., 1995, CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR Goldberg AE, 2004, LANGUAGE, V80, P532, DOI 10.1353/lan.2004.0129 Hajicova Eva, 1973, PHILOLOGICA PRAGENSI, V55, P81 Hodgson William B., 1885, ERROS USE ENGLISH Hoffmann Thomas, 2013, OXFORD HDB CONSTRUCT, P1 Horn Laurence, 2010, P 35 ANN M BERK LING, P403 Jespersen Otto, 1917, NEGATION ENGLISH OTH KARTTUNEN L, 1971, LANGUAGE, V47, P340, DOI 10.2307/412084 Kay P, 2013, OXFORD HDB CONSTRUCT, P32 Kay P, 1999, LANGUAGE, V75, P1, DOI 10.2307/417472 Langacker R. W., 1987, FDN COGNITIVE GRAMMA, V1 Liberman Mark, 2009, LANGUAGE LOG Mercier Hugo, 2010, COGNITIVE DEV, V26, P177 Natsopoulos Dimitris, 1984, J PSYCHOLINGUISTIC R, V14, P385 Zorikhina Nilsson Nadezhda, 2012, OSLO STUDIES LANGUAG, V4, P53 O'Connor Ellen, 2013, P SINN BEDEUTUNG, V17, P363 Pullum Geoffry K, 2004, TOO COMPLEX AVOID JU Purves D, 2002, AM SCI, V90, P236 Lotto R. B., 2003, WHY WE SEE WHAT WE D Ratner Nan B., 1999, METHODS STUDYING LAN, P1 ROSCH E, 1975, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL, V7, P573, DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9 Sandford Anthony, 2012, MIN BRAN NARRATIVE Sanford AJ, 2002, TRENDS COGN SCI, V6, P382, DOI 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01958-7 Sher S, 2006, COGNITION, V101, P467, DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.001 Singer Murray, 2012, COGNITIVE PRAGMATICS, P85 Sundell T, 2012, AUSTRALAS J PHILOS, V90, P743, DOI 10.1080/00048402.2011.614266 TVERSKY A, 1981, SCIENCE, V211, P453, DOI 10.1126/science.7455683 Van der Wouden Ton, 1997, ROUTLEDGE STUDIES GE van der Wouden T., 1994, DYNAMICS POLARITY QU, P17 Van Helden Andries, 2009, KEY E HAJICOVA UNPUB Verhagen Arie, 2005, CONSTRUCTIONS INTERS WASON PC, 1979, Q J EXP PSYCHOL, V31, P591, DOI 10.1080/14640747908400750 WITTGENSTEIN L., 1953, PHILOS INVESTIGATION NR 51 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 1 U2 3 PU DE GRUYTER MOUTON PI BERLIN PA GENTHINER STRASSE 13, 10785 BERLIN, GERMANY SN 0936-5907 EI 1613-3641 J9 COGN LINGUIST JI Cogn. Linguist PD JUN PY 2014 VL 25 IS 2 BP 249 EP 292 DI 10.1515/cog-2014-0014 PG 44 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AI9DF UT WOS:000337228200003 ER PT J AU Aronsson, B Fant, L AF Aronsson, Berit Fant, Lars TI Boundary tones in non-native speech: The transfer of pragmatic strategies from L1 Swedish into L2 Spanish SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE second language acquisition; pragmatics of prosody; prosodic transfer; intersubjectivity; boundary tones ID ORGANIZATION; INTONATION; DIALOGUE AB The pragmatic functions of pitch at tone unit boundaries are studied in L2 Spanish spoken by Swedish learners, as compared to L1 Swedish and L1 Spanish. The data are recordings of a task in which the subjects - 10 learners of Spanish and 13 native controls - make a restaurant booking on the phone in Spanish, and the Swedish subjects also perform this task in their L1. The tone unit boundary rises and falls produced have been analyzed with special focus on rises and their accompanying vowel duration patterns. The turn-regulating functions of signaling turn-continuation vs. transition-relevance are contrasted with intersubjectivity-regulating signals, namely (non-) prompts for information and ( non-) prompts for interpersonal acceptance. Since open-ended yes/no-questions are signaled by rises in Spanish, though not in Swedish, and since declaratives carrying a positive politeness value tend to end in rises (the "tail flick") in Swedish, though not in Spanish, various types of potential negative transfer could be predicted for Swedish learners' L2 Spanish. It is shown that L1 Spanish speakers consistently use moderate rises for turn-keeping and high rises for information-seeking, and that this pattern has no equivalence in the L2 Spanish data. Conversely, rises in L2 Spanish frequently occur where L1 Spanish speakers prefer falls. These rises, interpreted as "tail flicks,"also occur in L1 Swedish, but they are far more frequent in the L2 Spanish data. Thus, clear transfer patterns are found, which are further reinforced by - insecurity effects due to L2 speaking. C1 [Aronsson, Berit] Umea Univ, S-90187 Umea, Sweden. [Fant, Lars] Univ Stockholm, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden. RP Aronsson, B (reprint author), Umea Univ, S-90187 Umea, Sweden. EM berit.aronsson@spanska.umu.se CR Alcoba Santiago, 1998, INTONATION SYSTEMS S, P152 Alvarez A., 2003, TONIA DIMENSIONES FO, P319 Ambrazaitis Gilbert, 2009, THESIS LUND U PRESS Aronsson Berit, 2013, STUDIES HISPANIC LUS, V6, P203 Auer Peter, 1996, PROSODY CONVERSATION, P57, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004 Avila Sylvia, 2003, TONIA DIMENSIONES FO, P331 Barth-Weingarten Dagmar, 2010, PROSODY INTERACTION Riesco Bernier Silvia, 2008, J PRAGMATICS, V40, P1103 Boersma Paul, 2009, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC BOLINGER D, 1972, LANGUAGE, V48, P633, DOI 10.2307/412039 Bolinger D., 1986, INTONATION ITS PARTS Brazil D., 1997, COMMUNICATIVE VALUE Johns C., 1980, DISCOURSE INTONATION Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Bruce Gosta, 1990, WORKING PAPERS, V36, P37 CANELLADA M. J., 1987, PRONUNCIACION ESPANO Council of Europe, COMM EUR FRAM REF LE Couper-Kuhlen E., 1996, PROSODY CONVERSATION, P11, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.003 Couper-Kuhlen Elizabeth, 2012, LANGUAGE CULTURE COG, V12, P123 Couper-Kuhlen E., 1996, PROSODY CONVERSATION Roman Montes de Oca Domingo, 2008, LANGUAGE DESIGN, V2, P137 Elert Claes-Christian, 2000, ALLMAN SVENSK FONETI ENGSTRAND Olle, 2004, FONETIKENS GRUNDER Estebas-Vilaplana Eva, 2008, ESTUDIOS FONETICA EX, V17, P265 Face Timothy, 2007, ESTUDIOS FONETICA EX, V16, P185 Face Timothy, 2007, J PORTUGUESE LINGUIS, V6, P117 Fant Lars, 2005, FILOLOGIA LINGUISTIC, VI, P191 Fant Lars, 2008, ORALIA, V11, P307 Ford C., 1996, INTERACTION GRAMMAR, P134, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 GARDING Eva, 1998, INTONATION SYSTEMS, P112 Gardner R. C., 1985, SOCIAL PSYCHOL 2 LAN Goffman Erving, 1997, GOFFMAN READER, P167 Gosta Bruce, 1997, COMPUTING PROSODY, P43 Grainger Karen, 2011, MOUTON SERIES PRAGMA, P168 Gut Ulrike, 2007, NONNATIVE PROSODY PH, P3 HADDINGKOCH K, 1964, PHONETICA, V11, P175 Halliday M.A.K, 1970, COURSE SPOKEN ENGLIS Halliday M. A. K., 1967, INTONATION GRAMMAR B Henriksen Nicholas, 2012, LANG SPEECH, V55, P543 Hidalgo Antonio, 2011, ANEJO 75 QUADERNS FI House D, 2005, SPEECH COMMUN, V46, P268, DOI 10.1016/j.specom.2005.03.009 House David, 2002, P INT C SPOK LANG PR LANSTYAK I, 2005, STUDIES LANGUAGE SOC, V20, P47 LINELL P, 1988, LINGUISTICS, V26, P415, DOI 10.1515/ling.1988.26.3.415 Ortiz Lira Hector, 1994, THESIS U MANCHESTER Muller Frank-Ernst, 1996, PROSODY CONVERSATION, P131, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.006 Mushin I, 2003, DISCOURSE PROCESS, V35, P1, DOI 10.1207/S15326950DP3501_1 Nadeu M, 2011, J PRAGMATICS, V43, P841, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.015 Nibert Holly J., 2005, SEL P 6 C ACQ SPAN P, P108 Orozco Leonor, 2008, FONOLOGIA INSTRUMENT, P335 PIERREHUMBERT J, 1990, SYS DEV FDN, P271 Piske Torsten, 2012, ED LINGUISTICS, V15, P41 Raymond G, 2003, AM SOCIOL REV, V68, P939, DOI 10.2307/1519752 Rietveld Toni, 1985, J PHONETICS, V13, P299 SACKS H, 1974, LANGUAGE, V50, P696, DOI 10.2307/412243 Schegloff E. A., 1996, INTERACTION GRAMMAR, P52, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 SELINKER L, 1972, IRAL-INT REV APPL LI, V10, P209, DOI 10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209 Selting M., 1996, PROSODY CONVERSATION, P231, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008 SELTING M, 2010, PROSODY INTERACTION, V23, P3 Sosa JM, 1999, ENTONACION ESPANOL Spencer-Oatey Helen, 2005, J POLITENESS RES-LAN, V1, P95, DOI 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95 Navarro Tomas T., 1944, MANUAL ENTONACION ES Verdugo DR, 2005, J PRAGMATICS, V37, P2086, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.012 [Anonymous], 2005, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, DOI 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.2.151 Verdugo Ramirez, 2007, PROSODIA AMBITO LING, P210 Vidal Escandell, 1999, GRAMATICA DESCRIPTIV, V3, P3929 WALKER G, 2010, PROSODY INTERACTION, V23, P51 Watts R., 2003, POLITENESS NR 68 TC 0 Z9 0 U1 2 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 JUN PY 2014 VL 11 IS 2 BP 159 EP 198 DI 10.1515/ip-2014-0008 PG 40 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AI7WN UT WOS:000337112400001 ER PT J AU Maiz-Arevalo, C AF Maiz-Arevalo, Carmen TI Expressing disagreement in English as a lingua franca: Whose pragmatic rules? SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE English as lingua franca; disagreement; collaborative online writing; pragmatic competence ID DISCOURSE; CONVERSATION; AGREEMENTS; POLITENESS; CONTEXT; POWER AB Multicultural classrooms provide the intercultural pragmatist with a breeding ground to get firsthand information on intercultural communication. In such a context, if English is used as a lingua franca, these classrooms also become an ideal setting to observe the pragmatics of this relatively unknown variety. The present article aims to analyze qualitatively a sample of data produced by a multicultural group of masters students in which English is used as the lingua franca. More specifically, I intend to answer the following research question: In a multicultural class where English is the medium of instruction and students' peer to peer communication, whose pragmatic "rules" are followed? In other words, do these speakers stick to their own cultural pragmatic rules or follow nativelike ones? More specifically, I focus on the speech act of disagreement given its face-threatening nature and its disruptive potential if carried out in what interlocutors might perceive as the "wrong" way. Disagreement was also chosen given the relative paucity of studies on this speech act - as opposed, for example, others like requests or compliments. For this purpose, the 10 students -from very different cultural backgrounds -were asked to carry out a group assignment. Their negotiation and discussion process, however, was computer-mediated via the use of forums rather than face-to-face. This allowed the researcher to collect -naturally occurring, spontaneous data in a relatively easy way (without the need for transcription). It also gave the students the opportunity to interact in a more democratic way. In fact, by being an asynchronous discussion online, they did not have to fight for the conversational turn, but all of them had the chance to contribute to the discussion at their own pace. The sample so collected consists of 15,598 words. The limitation of the sample calls for a qualitative rather than a quantitative approach but is valuable insofar as it represents naturally occurring data. Disagreement expressions were classified according to two main categories: strong and mitigated disagreement (following Kreutel 2007; Pomerantz 1984 and Rees-Miller 2000). Inspection of the data reveals that students on the whole show a tendency to avoid strong disagreement whilst favoring mitigated disagreement of different sorts (e.g., use of hedges, asking for clarification, giving explanations, etc.). Moreover, students with high linguistic proficiency displayed a wider range of strategies, following a more nativelike pattern -specifically; they seemed to follow the pragmatic rules of British English. On the other hand, students whose linguistic proficiency was lower also showed a tendency to avoid strong disagreement but were much more limited with regard to their mitigating strategies, favoring the nonnative overuse of expressions of regret and hedges. Other variables, such as familiarity with their partners and their linguistic proficiency, as well as the nature of the task at hand, also played a central role in the students' choice of the common rules of a native variety. C1 Univ Complutense, Madrid, Spain. RP Maiz-Arevalo, C (reprint author), Univ Complutense, Madrid, Spain. EM cmaizare@filol.ucm.es OI Maiz-Arevalo, Carmen/0000-0002-0035-5296 CR Khatib Al, 2006, J LANGUAGE LINGUISTI, V5, P272 Angouri J., 2012, CONSTRUCTING IDENTIT, P85 Angouri J, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1549, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.011 Bardovi-Harlig K, 1999, LANG LEARN, V49, P677, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00105 Bardovi-Harlig K., 2004, STUDYING SPEAKING IN, P199 Baym NK, 1996, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V29, P315, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2904_2 Beebe L., 1989, DYNAMIC INTERLANGUAG, P199 Bell Nancy, 1998, WORKING PAPERS ED LI, V14, P25 Bolander B, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1607, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.008 Bond M. H., 2000, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, P293 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Burdine Stephanie, 2001, CORPUS LINGUISTICS N, P195 Garcia Carmen, 1989, LINGUISTICS ED, V1, P299, DOI 10.1016/S0898-5898(89)80004-X Georgakopoulou A, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1881, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00034-5 Grimshaw AD, 1990, CONFLICT TALK SOCIOL Gruber H, 2001, J PRAGMATICS, V33, P1815, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00083-7 Hayashi T, 1996, J PRAGMATICS, V25, P227, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(94)00080-8 Holmes J, 2004, LANG SOC, V33, P377, DOI 10.1017/S0047404505043035 House J, 2003, J SOCIOLING, V7, P556, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2003.00242.x House Juliane, 2002, EUROSLA YB, V2, P243 Hulmbauer Cornelia, 2008, SYNERGIES EUROPE, V3, P25 Kakava Christina, 1993, THESIS GEORGETOWN U Kakava C, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1537, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00075-9 Kecskes I., 2007, EXPLORATIONS PRAGMAT, P191 Kempf Wilhelm, 2003, CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLIC Meierkord Christiane, 2002, LINGUA FRANCA COMMUN KOTTHOFF H, 1993, LANG SOC, V22, P193 Koutsantoni D, 2005, J MOD GREEK STUD, V23, P97, DOI 10.1353/mgs.2005.0007 Kreutel Karen, 2007, TESL EJ, V11, P1 Kuo Sai-hua, 1994, RES LANG SOC INTERAC, V27, P95, DOI 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2702_1 Lakoff G., 1972, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC S, V8, P183 Langlotz A, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1591, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.002 Lawson A. J., 2009, THESIS U BIRMINGHAM Leech Geoffrey, 1983, PRINCIPLES PRAGMATIC Liang G., 2005, ASIAN EFL J, V7, P1 LoCastro V., 1986, JAP ASS LANG TEACH I Locher MA, 2004, LANG POWER SOC PROCE, V12, P1, DOI 10.1515/9783110926552 Marra M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1580, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.009 Meierkord Christiane, 2000, LINGUISTIK, V5 Muntigl P, 1998, J PRAGMATICS, V29, P225, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00048-9 Nakajima Y., 1997, WORKING PAPERS ED LI, V13, P49 Pearson Eloise, 1986, ITL REV APPL LINGUIS, V74, P47 Diaz Perez Francisco Javier, 2003, CORTESIA VERBAL INGL Pomerantz Anita, 1984, STRUCTURES SOCIAL AC, P57, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511665868 Rees-Miller J, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P1087, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00088-0 Santamaria-Garcia C., 2006, THESIS U COMPLUTENSE SCHIFFRIN D, 1984, LANG SOC, V13, P311 Seidlhofer B., 2004, ANNU REV APPL LINGUI, V24, P209, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0267190504000145 Seidlhofer B., 2005, ELT J, V59, P339, DOI DOI 10.1093/ELT/CCI064 Sifianou Maria, 1992, POLITENESS PHENOMENA Sifianou M, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P1554, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009 Tannen D, 1994, GENDER DISCOURSE, P19 TANNEN D, 1992, J MOD GREEK STUD, V10, P11 Tannen D, 2002, J PRAGMATICS, V34, P1651, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00079-6 Wolfson N., 1990, PENN WORKING PAPERS, V2, P55 NR 55 TC 4 Z9 4 U1 4 U2 25 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 2014 VL 11 IS 2 BP 199 EP 224 DI 10.1515/ip-2014-0009 PG 26 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AI7WN UT WOS:000337112400002 ER PT J AU Zhang, G AF Zhang, Grace TI The elasticity of I think: Stretching its pragmatic functions SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE I think; elasticity; stance marker; epistemic stance; modality; pragmatic functions ID ENGLISH; CONVERSATION; EXPRESSIONS; VAGUENESS; ACCOUNT AB I think (ITH) is commonly used in communication. Existing studies of its pragmatic functions focus on individual functions, but their interconnection has received little attention. This study looks into ITH functions from the refreshing perspective of language elasticity (Zhang 2011). Drawn on naturally occurring data of institutional and often tension-prone discourse involving Australian customs officers and passengers, the study shows a rare and rich insight into strategically elastic use of ITH. The local and global elasticity manifests as multi-trajectory and overlapping, with a non-linear nature. In responding to different communicative goals, the stretching trajectories move from the basic evaluative function (foregrounded in this study), upward to emphatic ITH (intensifying), downward to tentative and mitigating ITH (weakening), and sideways to discursive ITH (evolving). ITH functions are fluid, overlapping, complementary, and therefore co-exist. The implications of this study are that the elastic language warrants a non-discrete approach; we do not have to give up on "problematic" cases in identifying linguistic categories, the principle of elasticity may embrace these intriguing and exciting cases. The conceptualization of elasticity is probably an integral part of any adequate language research. C1 Curtin Univ, Perth, WA, Australia. RP Zhang, G (reprint author), Curtin Univ, Perth, WA, Australia. EM Grace.Zhang@exchange.curtin.edu.au CR Aijmer K., 1997, MODALITY GERMANIC LA, P1 Baumgarten N, 2010, J PRAGMATICS, V42, P1184, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.018 Biber D., 2010, LONGMAN GRAMMAR SPOK Blakemore Diane, 1990, P ARISTOTELIAN SOC, V91, P197 Brown P., 1980, WOMEN LANGUAGE LIT S, P111 Brown P., 1987, POLITENESS SOME UNIV Bucholtz M, 2005, DISCOURSE STUD, V7, P585, DOI 10.1177/1461445605054407 Carter R., 2006, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Chafe W.L, 1986, EVIDENTIALITY LINGUI, P261 Cheng W, 2009, J PRAGMATICS, V41, P2365, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.04.003 Collins Beverley, 1996, PHONETICS ENGLISH DU Conrad Susan, 2000, EVALUATION TEXT AUTH, P56 CRUTTENDEN A, 1981, J LINGUIST, V17, P77, DOI 10.1017/S0022226700006782 Fischer Olga, 2007, MORPHOSYNTACTIC CHAN Grice P., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P41 Holmes J., 1995, WOMEN MEN POLITENESS Holmes J., 1985, CROSS CULTURAL ENCOU, P24 HOLMES J, 1984, J PRAGMATICS, V8, P345, DOI 10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6 HOLMES J, 1990, LANG COMMUN, V10, P185, DOI 10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S Huddleston Rodney, 2002, CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR EN Ifantidou Elly, 2001, EVIDENTIALS RELEVANC Jucker AH, 2003, J PRAGMATICS, V35, P1737, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00188-1 Jucker Andreas H., 1986, NEWS INTERVIEWS KALTENBOCK G, 2010, NEW APPROACHES HEDGI, V9, P237 Kaltenbock Gunther, 2007, VIENNA ENGLISH WORKI, V16, P3 Kaltenbock G., 2013, VERB PHRASE ENGLISH, P286 Kaltenbock G, 2008, FOLIA LINGUIST, V42, P83, DOI 10.1515/FLIN.2008.83 Karkkainen Elise, 1996, IPRA C 4 9 JUL 1996 Karkkainen E, 2003, EPISTEMIC STANCE ENG KARKKAINEN E, 2010, NEW APPROACHE HEDGIN, V9, P203 Karkkainen Elise, 2007, STANCETAKING DISCOUR, P183, DOI DOI 10.1075/PBNS.164.08KAR Karkkainen E, 2012, J PRAGMATICS, V44, P2194, DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005 Macaulay R.K.S., 1995, ENGL WORLD-WIDE, V16, P37, DOI 10.1075/eww.16.1.03mac Mindt Ilka, 2003, P C GERMAN ASS U TEA, V24, P473 POWELL MJ, 1985, J LINGUIST, V21, P31, DOI 10.1017/S002222670001001X Preisler Brent, 1986, LINGUISTIC SEX ROLES Prince E. F., 1982, LINGUISTICS PROFESSI, P83 Psathas G., 1995, CONVERSATION ANAL ST Quirk R., 1985, COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMA Ruhlemann C., 2007, CONVERSATION CONTEXT Scheibman J, 2000, J PRAGMATICS, V32, P105, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00032-6 Gabriele Kasper, 1989, CROSS CULTURAL PRAGM 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] Stenstrom A.-B., 1995, VERB CONT ENGLISH, P290 STUBBE M, 1995, LANG COMMUN, V15, P63, DOI 10.1016/0271-5309(94)00016-6 Tabor Whitney, 1998, LIMITS GRAMMATICALIZ, P229, DOI [10.1075/tsl.37.11tab, DOI 10.1075/TSL.37.11TAB] Thompson Sandra A., 1991, APPROACHES GRAMMATIC, V2, P313, DOI DOI 10.1075/TSL.19.2.16TH0 Thompson SA, 2002, STUD LANG, V26, P125, DOI 10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho Tragott Elizabeth Closs, 2002, REGULARITY SEMANTIC Trappes-Lomax H, 2007, VAGUE LANGUAGE EXPLORED, P117 Turnbull W, 1997, J PRAGMATICS, V27, P145, DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00034-3 Urmson J. O, 1963, PHILOS ORDINARY LANG, P220 Urmson J. O., 1952, MIND, V61, P480, DOI DOI 10.1093/MIND/LXI.244.480 Van Bogaert Julie, 2009, THESIS U GHENT DEP E Wang Lifei, 2005, WAIYU YANJIU, V3, P42 Wu Yong, 2010, CHINESE J APPL LINGU, V33, P3 Zhang G, 2011, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V8, P571, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.026 NR 57 TC 1 Z9 1 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 JUN PY 2014 VL 11 IS 2 BP 225 EP 257 DI 10.1515/ip-2014-0010 PG 33 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AI7WN UT WOS:000337112400003 ER PT J AU Liddicoat, AJ AF Liddicoat, Anthony J. TI Pragmatics and intercultural mediation in intercultural language learning SO INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS LA English DT Article DE intercultural mediation; language acquisition; metapragmatic awareness; French; Japanese AB This paper examines the role that pragmatics plays in language - learners' practices of mediating between their own cultural understandings and those of the target culture. It will examine learners' experiences of cultural differences in language use and the ways in which learners develop insights into the culturally determined nature of language in use. It investigates the ways in which learners articulate their awareness of the meaningfulness of pragmatic differences in contexts in which language use shows cultural variation - speech acts, social deixis, politeness, etc. The paper examines ways in which language learners construct awareness of cultural variation in pragmatics both for themselves and for their interlocutors. In both mediation for self and mediation for others, there is a similar process of developing an interpretation of cultural behavior that takes into account both a culture internal perspective and a culture external perspective. The analysis details how language learners use pragmatics as a starting point for intercultural mediation and shows how analysis of language in use can provide an entry point into understandings of culture, and of the connection between language and culture. The behavior described is fundamentally an intercultural one. It is not simply the possession of knowledge about another culture as this is manifested in pragmatic differences but rather the ability to reflect on pragmatics differences as culturally meaningful to formulate positions between cultures as a mechanism to develop and express understandings of another culture. Learners demonstrate that intercultural mediation involves awareness of one's own cultural practices and expectations in relation to the aspect of language use being mediated as well as their knowledge of the target culture. C1 Univ S Australia, Res Ctr Languages & Cultures, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia. RP Liddicoat, AJ (reprint author), Univ S Australia, Res Ctr Languages & Cultures, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia. EM tony.liddicoat@unisa.edu.au RI Liddicoat, Anthony/F-3595-2013 OI Liddicoat, Anthony/0000-0002-2139-8471 CR Abdallah-Pretceille M., 2003, FORMER EDUQUER CONTE Alred Geof, 2002, J MULTILING MULTICUL, V23, P339, DOI DOI 10.1080/01434630208666473 Byram M., 1991, MEDIATING LANGUAGES Buttjes Dieter, 1991, MEDIATING LANGUAGES, P1 Buttjes D., 1991, MEDIATING LANGUAGES, P3 Byram Michael, 2002, INTERCULTURAL EXPERI, P50 Byram M., 2002, DEV INTERCULTURAL DI Egli Cuenat Mirjam, 2013, LINGUISTICS INTERCUL, P49 [Anonymous], 2013, LINGUISTICS INTERCUL Fitzgerald H., 2002, DIFFERENT ARE WE SPO Goddard C, 2009, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P29, DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.002 Gohard-Radenkovic Aline, 2004, MEDIATION CULTURELLE, P29 Gohard-Radenkovic A., 2004, MEDIATION CULTURELLE, P225 Iriskhanova K., 2004, MEDIATION CULTURELLE, P109 Kramsch C., 1999, LANGUAGE LEARNING IN, P16 Liddicoat Anthony J., 2006, INTERCULT PRAGMAT, V6, P55 Liddicoat A. J., 2002, BABEL, V36, P4 Liddicoat Anthony J., 2002, BABEL, V36, P37 Liddicoat A. J., 2013, INTERCULTURAL LANGUA Liddicoat AJ, 2009, AUST J LINGUIST, V29, P115, DOI 10.1080/07268600802516400 McConachy Troy, 2013, LINGUISTICS INTERCUL, P71 McConachy T, 2009, ELT J, V63, P116, DOI 10.1093/elt/ccn018 Meyer M., 1991, MEDIATING LANGUAGES, P136 Sacks H., 1992, LECT CONVERSATION Swain M., 2006, ADV LANGUAGE LEARNIN, P95 Wetzel Patricia J., 1985, LANGUAGE SOCIAL SITU, P141 Zarate G., 2004, MEDIATION CULTURELLE NR 27 TC 4 Z9 4 U1 0 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 JUN PY 2014 VL 11 IS 2 BP 259 EP 277 DI 10.1515/ip-2014-0011 PG 19 WC Linguistics; Language & Linguistics SC Linguistics GA AI7WN UT WOS:000337112400004 ER EF