Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:22:43.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Say, be like, quote (unquote), and the air-quotes: interactive quotatives and their multimodal implications

The ‘new’ quotatives remind us of the vocal, verbal, and gestural dimensions of speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2013

Martina Lampert
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper, a spin-off from a larger-scale research project, advances a novel perspective on recent introducers to quotations in interactive communicative settings, with the (current reporting) speaker and addressee(s) co-present: be like, quote, quote unquote, and the air-quotes are all ‘newcomers’ to the quotative system in English; they are constrained in usage to face-to-face contexts, and they foreground through animating the quote, resorting to the various modalities available in such situations: verbal, vocal, and gestural.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 45 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Buchstaller, I. 2006. ‘Diagnostics of age-graded linguistic behaviour: The case of the quotative system.’ Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(1), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, I. 2011. ‘Quotations across the generations: A multivariate analysis of speech and thought introducers across 5 decades of Tyneside speech.’ Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7(1), 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. 2012. ‘Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 41, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Arcy, A. 2007. ‘Like and language ideology: Disentangling fact from fiction.’ American Speech 82(4), 386–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durham, M., Haddican, E., Zweig, E., Johnson, D. E., Baker, Z., Cockeram, D., Danks, E. & Tyler, L. 2012. ‘Constant linguistic effects in the diffusion of be like.’ Journal of English Linguistics 40(4), 316–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, B. Forthcoming. ‘“100% authentic Pittsburg”: Sociolinguistic authenticity and the linguistics of particularity.’ In Breyer, T., Lacoste, V. & Leimgruber, J. (eds), Indexing Authenticity. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Kasimir, E. 2008. ‘Prosodic correlates of subclausal quotation marks.’ ZAS Papers in Linguistics 49, 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lampert, M. 2011. ‘Attention to style of delivery: Linking up cognitive and register perspectives on quotatives.’ Stylistics Across Disciplines Leiden 2011, Conference Proceedings, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Lampert, M. In press. ‘Cognitive Semantics goes multimodal: Looking at quot(ativ)es in face-to-face-settings.’ International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lampert, M. Forthcoming. A Multimodal Analysis of Interactive Quotatives in English. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Lawler, J. M. 2013. ‘A query about quotes.’ Online at <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/quote.html> (Accessed January 13, 2013).+(Accessed+January+13,+2013).>Google Scholar
McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Louro, C. 2013. ‘Be like in cross-generational Australian English speech.’ English World-Wide 34(1), 48–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 2007. ‘Attention phenomena.’ In Geerarts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 264–93.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. Forthcoming. The Attention System in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [draft-version from 2010]Google Scholar
Yu, Ch. 2013. ‘Two interactional functions of self-mockery in everyday English conversations: A multimodal analysis.’ Journal of Pragmatics 50, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar