Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:05:39.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical and prosodic routinization in conceptional orality: conversational self-reformulation in French

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2017

JOHANNA STAHNKE
JOHANNA STAHNKE*
Affiliation:
University of Wuppertal
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Johanna Stahnke Gaußstr. 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigates the functions and forms of conversational self-reformulation in spoken French. (Self-)Reformulations in general are a typical feature of unplanned and spontaneous conceptional orality (as opposed to conceptional distance; Koch and Oesterreicher, 1985). They exhibit retrospective modification of a reference expression, which is semantically equivalent in paraphrases and semantically different in corrections. The latter are therefore communicatively more problematic with regard to discourse intervention and turn-taking. As for the linguistic marking of self-reformulation, paraphrases are preferably introduced by lexically polyfunctional markers and prosodic deaccentuation, while corrections are marked by lexically monofunctional and prosodically overaccented structures. Since the accessibility to context-dependent forms is specifically related to conceptional orality, a more important linguistic marking of self-reformulation is hypothesized to occur in conceptional orality when compared to conceptional distance. The results of an empirical study contrasting two conceptionally different corpora suggest a generalization of paraphrastic markers in conceptional orality. This tendency is attributed to speaker-strategic routinization in which corrections are re-marked as paraphrases in order to avoid conversational intervention and, as a consequence, turn-taking. When taken over by other speakers, this routine may cause variation and, eventually, linguistic change.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , November 2018 , pp. 301 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

* I would like to thank Christoph Gabriel and Natascha Müller, who commented on an earlier version of this article. All remaining errors are mine.

References

REFERENCES

Ágel, V. and Hennig, M. (2006). Theorie des Nähe- und Distanzsprechens. In: Ágel, V. and Hennig, M. (eds), Grammatik aus Nähe und Distanz. Theorie und Praxis am Beispiel von Nähetexten 1650–2000. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 3–31.Google Scholar
Ágel, V. and Hennig, M. (2007). Überlegungen zur Theorie und Praxis des Nähe- und Distanzsprechens. In: Ágel, V. and Hennig, M. (eds), Zugänge zur Grammatik der gesprochenen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 179–214.Google Scholar
Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A. (eds) (1992). The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bergmann, P. (2012). The Prosodic Design of Parentheses in Spontaneous Speech. In: Bergmann, P., Brenning, J., Pfeiffer, M., M. and Reber, E. (eds), Prosody and Embodiment in Interactional Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 103–41.Google Scholar
Bergmann, P., Brenning, J., Pfeiffer, M. and Reber, E. (eds) (2012), Prosody and Embodiment in Interactional Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berrendonner, A. (1993). Périodes. In: Parret, H. (ed.), Temps et discours. Leuven: Leuven University Press, pp. 47–61.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. and Weenink, D. (2017). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.29, retrieved 24 May 2017 from http://www.praat.org/Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1989). Intonation and its Uses. Melody in Grammar and Discourse. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Carton, F., Hirst, D., Marchal, A. and Seguinot, A. (1976). L'Accent d'insistance. Montreal: Didier.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E. (1955/56). Determinación y entorno. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 7: 29–54.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1992). Contextualizing Discourse: The Prosody of Interactive Repair. In: Auer, P. and Luzio, A. Di (eds), The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 337–364.Google Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, E., Post, B., Avanzi, M., Buthke, C., Di Cristo, A., Feldhausen, I., Jun, S.-A., Martin, P., Meisenburg, T., Rialland, A., Sichel-Bazin, R. and Yoo, H. (2015). Intonational Phonology of French: Developing a ToBI System for French. In: Frota, S. and Prieto, P. (eds), Intonation in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 63–100.Google Scholar
Detges, U. (1999). Wie entsteht Grammatik? Kognitive und pragmatische Determinanten der Grammatikalisierung von Tempusmarkern. In: Lang, J. and Neumann-Holzschuh, I. (eds), Reanalyse und Grammatikalisierung in den romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 31–52.Google Scholar
Detges, U. (2003). La Grammaticalisation des constructions de négation dans une perspective onomasiologique, ou : la déconstruction d'une illusion d'optique. In: Blank, A. and Koch, P. (eds), Kognitive romanische Onomasiologie und Semasiologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 213–233.Google Scholar
Detges, U. and Waltereit, R. (2011). Turn-taking as a Trigger for Language Change. In: Schmid, S. Dessì, Detges, U., Gévaudan, P., Mihatsch, W. and Waltereit, R. (eds), Rahmen des Sprechens. Beiträge zu Valenztheorie, Varietätenlinguistik, Kreolistik, Kognitiver und Historischer Semantik. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 175–189.Google Scholar
Detges, U. and Waltereit, R. (2016). Grammaticalization and Pragmaticalization. In: Fischer, S. and Gabriel, C. (eds), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 635–657.Google Scholar
Di Cristo, A. and Hirst, D. (1996). Vers une typologie des unités intonatives du français. Actes des XXIèmes journées d’études sur la parole : 219–222.Google Scholar
Di Cristo, A. and Jankowski, L. (1999). Prosodic Organisation and Phrasing after Focus in French. Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2: 1565–1568.Google Scholar
Erman, B. and Kotsinas, U.-B. (1993). Pragmaticalization: the Case of “ba’” and “you know”’. Studier i modern språkvetenskap, 10: 76–93.Google Scholar
Gabriel, C. (2014). Emphase, Sprachkontakt und prosodischer Wandel: Überlegungen zum tritonalen Tonhöhenakzent des “Porteño”-Spanischen. In: Pustka, E. and Goldschmitt, S. (eds), Emotionen, Expressivität, Emphase. Berlin: Schmidt, pp. 197–214.Google Scholar
Gülich, E. and Kotschi, T. (1983a). Partikeln als Paraphrasen-Indikatoren. In: Weydt, Harald (ed.), Partikeln und Interaktion. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 249–262.Google Scholar
Gülich, E. and Kotschi, T. (1983b). Les Marqueurs de la reformulation paraphrastique. Cahiers de linguistique française, 5: 305–351.Google Scholar
Gülich, E. and Kotschi, T. (1987). Reformulierungshandlungen als Mittel der Textkonstitution. Untersuchungen zu französischen Texten aus mündlicher Kommunikation. In: Motsch, W. (ed.), Satz, Text, sprachliche Handlung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, pp. 199–261.Google Scholar
Gülich, E. and Kotschi, T. (1995). Discourse Production in Oral Communication. In: Quasthoff, U. M. (ed.), Aspects of Oral Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 30–66.Google Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. M. (2005). From Prepositional Phrase to Hesitation Marker: the Semantic and Pragmatic Evolution of French “enfin”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 6: 37–68.Google Scholar
Hölker, K. (1988). Zur Analyse von Markern. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Hölker, K. (1991). Marker. Polyfunktionalität und Transparenz. In: Dausendschön-Gay, U., Gülich, E. and Krafft, U. (eds.), Linguistische Interaktionsanalysen. Beiträge zum 20. Romanistentag 1987. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 27–50.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. (2006). Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I. (2003). Remarks on the Diachronic Reconstruction of Intonational Patterns in Romance with Special Attention to Occitan as a Bridge Language. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 2: 181–205.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I. (2004). Romance Intonation from a Comparative and Diachronic Perspective. Possibilities and Limitations. In: Auger, J., Clements, J. C. and Vance, B. (eds), Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 217–237.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side Sequences. In: Sudnow, D. (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 294–339.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. and Fougeron, C. (2000). A Phonological Model of French Intonation. In: Botinis, A. (ed.), Intonation: Analysis, Modeling and Technology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 209–242.Google Scholar
Keller, R. (1994). On Language Change: the Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koch, P. and Oesterreicher, W. (1985). Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 36: 15–43.Google Scholar
Koch, P. and Oesterreicher, W. (1996). Sprachwandel und expressive Mündlichkeit. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 102: 64–96.Google Scholar
Koch, P. and Oesterreicher, W. (2011). Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania. Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch, 2nd edn. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (2007). Basic Notions of Information Structure. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure, 6: 13–55.Google Scholar
Lampert, M. (1992). Die parenthetische Konstruktion als textuelle Strategie. Zur kognitiven und kommunikativen Basis einer grammatischen Kategorie. München: Sager.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1985). Grammaticalization. Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change. Lingua e stile, 20: 303–318.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1993). Theoretical Implications of Grammaticalization Phenomena. In: Foley, W. A. (ed.), The Role of Theory in Language Description, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 315–340.Google Scholar
Morel, M.-A. and Danon-Boileau, L. (1998). Grammaire de l'intonation. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Mroczynski, R. (2012). Grammatikalisierung und Pragmatikalisierung: zur Herausbildung der Diskursmarker “wobei”, “weil” und “ja” im gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Pešková, A., Feldhausen, I., Kireva, E. and Gabriel, C. (2012). Diachronic Prosody of a Contact Variety: Analyzing Porteño Spanish Spontaneous Speech. In: Braunmüller, K. and Gabriel, C. (eds), Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 365–389.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, M. (2015). Selbstreparaturen im Deutschen. Syntaktische und interaktionale Analysen. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1980). The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. <http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jbp/publications/Pierrehumbert_PhD.pdf> [accessed 6 March 2017].+[accessed+6+March+2017].>Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. and Hirschberg, J. (1990). The Meaning of Intonational Contours in the Interpretation of Discourse. In: Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. and Pollack, M. E. (eds), Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT, pp. 271–311.Google Scholar
Post, B. (2000). Tonal and Phrasal Structures in French Intonation. Den Haag: Thesus.Google Scholar
Post, B., Delais-Roussarie, E. and Simon, A.-C. (2006). IVTS, un système de transcription pour la variation prosodique. Bulletin PFC, 6: 51–68.Google Scholar
Prince, A, and Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Pustka, E. (2015). Expressivität. Eine kognitive Theorie angewandt auf romanische Quantitätsausdrücke. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Roulet, E. (1980). Stratégies d'interaction, modes d'implication et marqueurs illocutoires. Cahiers de linguistique française, 1: 80–103.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50: 696–735.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Selfcorrection in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language, 53: 361–382.Google Scholar
Selting, M. (1987). Reparaturen und lokale Verstehensprobleme oder: zur Binnenstruktur von Reparatursequenzen. Linguistische Berichte, 108: 128–149.Google Scholar
Selting, M. (1988). The Role of Intonation in the Organization of Repair and Problem Handling Sequences in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12: 293–322.Google Scholar
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P., Günthner, S., Hartung, M., Kern, F., Mertzlufft, C., Meyer, C., Morek, M., Oberzaucher, F., Peters, J., Quasthoff, U. M., Schütte, W., Stukenbrock, A. and Uhmann, S. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 10: 353–402.Google Scholar
Simon, A.-C. (2004). La Structuration prosodique du discours en français. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Söll, L. (1974). Gesprochenes und geschriebenes Französisch. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Stahnke, J. (to appear). The phonetic contextualization of conversational self-repair in French. Phonetik und Phonologie im deutschsprachigen Raum, 13.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2006). Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1995). The Role of the Development of Discourse Markers in a Theory of Grammaticalization. <http://web.stanford.edu/~traugott/papers/discourse.pdf> [accessed 2 December 2016].+[accessed+2+December+2016].>Google Scholar
Wennerstrom, A. (2001). The Music of Everyday Speech. Prosody and Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar