Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:38:02.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are clefts contagious in conversation?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

ANDREEA S. CALUDE  and
STEVEN MILLER
ANDREEA S. CALUDE
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Quantitative Biology and Applied Statistics, Whiteknights, PO Box 217, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 [email protected]
STEVEN MILLER
Affiliation:
Trinity College Dublin, Department of Statistics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is well known that conversationalists often imitate their own body language as a sign of closeness and empathy. This study shows that in spontaneous, unplanned conversation, speakers go as far as emulating each other's grammar. The use of a family of focusing constructions (namely, the cleft), such as it was my mother who rang the other day, or what I meant to say was that he should go Thursday, was investigated in a corpus of conversation excerpts in New Zealand English. Findings show that clefting is contagious. In other words, if one speaker uses a cleft, others will be likely to do so too.

Type
Squib
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 127 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Language has two primary functions: first, to communicate information from one person/group to another, and secondly, to form interpersonal relationships between individuals/groups, not necessarily in that order of importance. Spoken interaction may be ‘the fabric of friendship’ (Miller and Weinert Reference Miller and Weinert1998, Chafe Reference Chafe1994), but how far do speakers go to show closeness and solidarity to fellow conversationalists?

An investigation of approximately 200,000 words of conversational data from the Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English (Holmes, Vine & Johnson Reference Holmes, Vine and Johnson1998) shows that speakers may go as far as emulating each other's grammar. The usage patterns of cleft constructions were analysed in 80 informal conversations. The conversations are relatively similar in terms of participants, topic and environment, in that they are conducted in the participants’ own homes, without an interviewer present, or a given topic. In most excerpts, participants discuss day-to-day issues, such as gossip or plans for the day, and it is clear that they know each other well (they are typically living together).

Clefts such as it is just one day that I might be away for, and what he wants to do is to sell the house as soon as possible constitute a grammatical means for highlighting or advancing the most important element of a sentence. In spoken language, they often have a discourse management role (see Calude Reference Calude2008). Example (1) below illustrates a typical occurrence of clefts throughout one of the conversation excerpts analysed.Footnote 2

  1. (1) WSC#DPC066: (Four speakers: DN, BT, CH, AL)

BT: well they're about forty or fifty bucks a day to hire

CH: oh are they is that all i thought they were about that for a morning

BT: oh maybe they are that's what i saw (DEMONSTRATIVE CLEFT)

[8 minutes of conversation]

DN: thomas was crying away and she just went up and she kept going in her scottish accent and talking to him just like this and then going like this over his face and it's actually things i thought would feel terrible (IT-CLEFT)

BT: yeah i hate it

DN: and he loved it

BT: yeah

DN: she just silenced him really fast none of the rest of us could

BT: mm

DN: and i think it was partly her scottish accent (IT-CLEFT) and it was

BT: yeah sounding different

DN: yeah yeah

[9 minutes and 20 seconds of conversation]

AL: what nesting

DN: this is what you're meant to do is nest (DEMONSTRATIVE CLEFT) cleaning out your cupboard i never

[5 minutes and 15 seconds of conversation]

CH: i haven't paid them a cent and they're meant to come back <pause> well they came back when i was on holiday i left this really clear message saying do not come back till i get back from holiday <pause> it's about six weeks ago they did the job (IT-CLEFT)

[2 minutes and 10 seconds of conversation]

CH: yeah to stop it yeah that's what i think it is (DEMONSTRATIVE CLEFT) yeah but if it's not that then the drains are blocked and we'll have to get down there with a bit of wire

AL: between the <unclear word > to bring it down between <13 second pause>

DN: oh look i just can't stand chaps coming to my place to do jobs <pause> i inevitably get that <pause> sort of crap that's why (DEMONSTRATIVE CLEFT)

Each conversation was tagged for the total number of cleftsFootnote 3 uttered by each speaker. The data show significant tendencies of contagious behaviour. That is, either (almost) everyone uses clefts, or no one uses them, so that independently of personal style, conversationalists tend to mimic each other's behaviour with respect to this construction.

A correlation analysis (shown in figure 1) looking at the proportion of words that were clefts used by one speaker versus the proportion of clefts used by the other speakers in that conversation shows that one speaker's production of a cleft is positively correlated (0.229) with other speakers doing this as well, whether using the same cleft type or not. (For X = the total number of words, and Y = the total number of clefts used, the proportion is Y/X.)

Figure 1. Plot of the frequency of cleft usage per 1,000 words by a single speaker in a conversation (vertical axis) versus the average frequency of cleft usage per 1,000 words by other participants in the same conversation (horizontal axis). The linear trend is indicated.

The smoothed trend of the plot is indicated in figure 1. Pearson's correlation is 0.229, suggesting a positive association between an individual's behaviour and that of the rest of the group. A permutation test, performed by mixing up the speakers across conversations 1,000 times, shows that only 6 times was the correlation factor (i.e. 0.229) higher than that found for the original data. The results suggest that the observed pattern of cleft usage would be unlikely to occur by chance. This provides very strong evidence against the hypothesis that individuals’ cleft usage is independent of the usage of clefts by others in that conversation (p = 0.006). There are symmetries within the plot due to conversations involving only two speakers. These will not adversely affect the analysis presented.

Put another way, there is very strong evidence that there is a correlation between the proportion of clefts used in a conversation by everybody, and the proportion of clefts used by a particular speaker in that conversation. That is, the more clefts are uttered in a conversation, the more clefts a particular speaker taking part in it is likely to use.

In addition, the cleft constructions appear to be sprinkled throughout the conversation excerpts (as shown in the example included in (1)), rather than occurring sequentially in the interaction. However, a more detailed analysis (also perhaps of longer conversations) is called for in order to validate this trend.Footnote 4

The idea of contagious behaviour in conversation is a well-documented phenomenon. As observed in studies of nonlinguistic behaviour (Lakin & Chartrand Reference Lakin and Chartrand2003), humans mimic the movements, gestures and body language of others as a way of establishing rapport with them. Similarly, linguistically, there is a large body of work on Accommodation Theory (Coupland Reference Coupland, Verschueren, Ostma and Blommaert1995, Giles Reference Giles1973, Meyerhoff Reference Meyerhoff1998, Trudgill Reference Trudgill1986 inter alia) and Audience Design (Bell Reference Bell1984, Reference Bell, Eckert and Rickford2001) investigating how, when and why speakers emulate each other's behaviour in terms of phonological and lexical choices.

Claims have also been made about convergence at the syntactic level. However, convergence at this level is not all that simple to ascertain. For instance, a study by Schenkin (Reference Schenkin and Butterworth1980) claims syntactic convergence, while the data can in fact be explained by simple repetition, that is, speakers using the exact same wording, for example, A: Do you know what we are having for dinner tonight? B: I don't know what we are having for dinner tonight. Hence, this is not a case of true syntactic convergence. Priming experiments have, however, indeed shown evidence of syntactic convergence (Bock Reference Bock1986, Potter & Lombardi Reference Potter and Lombardi1998, Branigan, Pickering & Cleland Reference Branigan, Pickering and Cleland2000).

Garrod and colleagues assert that participants ‘align’ each other's semantic, syntactic and phonological usage, mimicking the same referring expressions, syntax, tone, intonation and stress (Garrod & Doherty Reference Garrod and Doherty1994, Garrod & Pickering Reference Garrod and Pickering2004). Thus, the process of ‘interactive alignment’ works across all different linguistic levels (Garrod & Pickering Reference Garrod and Pickering2004). It is this phenomenon of participants operating on common representations and reusing each other's material that makes conversation ‘easy’, according to Garrod & Doherty (Reference Garrod and Doherty1994).

Significantly, the corpus data analysed indicate that syntactic convergence appears also to be present in naturally occurring language (as opposed to elicited, experimental data). In other words, conversationalists go as far as mimicking individual constructions used by others. That is, not only do they use the same sound patterns, referring expressions and lexical items, but in fact, they use similar patterns of speech and schemas (i.e. constructions).

The contagious role of clefts in spontaneous, unplanned spoken conversation might be better understood within a larger study, where more variables can be taken into account (such as the position of the cleft within topic structure, the specific function of the cleft within the topic frame, the gender of the person uttering the cleft, and so on). However, the present analysis is indicative of the fact that, like words and body language, grammar also presents speakers with choices which reflect the communicative purposes that drive interaction.

Footnotes

2 Due to space constraints, it is impractical to include the entire conversation, so only the relevant portions containing clefts are given here. Also the various discourse annotations included in the original corpus transcripts were (mostly) eliminated in order to increase clarity and readability of the excerpt.

3 We were conservative in the types of clefts included, counting only it-clefts, wh-clefts and demonstrative clefts (and not other types, such as all-clefts, there-clefts, have-clefts, inferential clefts and so on).

4 We are grateful to one of the anonymous referees for making this suggestion.

References

Bell, A. 1984. Language style as Audience Design. Language in Society 13, 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A. 2001. Back in style: Re-working Audience Design. In Eckert, & Rickford, (eds.). 139–69.Google Scholar
Bock, J. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18, 355–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, H., Pickering, M. & Cleland, A.. 2000. Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition 75, B13–B25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterworth, B. (ed.). 1980. Language production. Vol. 1. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Calude, A. 2008. Demonstrative clefts and double cleft constructions in spoken English. Studia Linguistica 62, 78–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. 1995. Accommodation theory. In Verschueren, , Ostma, & Blommaert, (eds.). 21–6.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. & Rickford, J. R. (eds.). 2001. Style and sociolinguistic variation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garrod, S. & Doherty, G.. 1994. Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition 53, 181–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrod, S. & Pickering, M. J.. 2004. Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, 8–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giles, H. 1973. Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics 15, 87–109.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., Vine, B. & Johnson, G.. 1998. Guide to the Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English. Wellington, New Zealand: University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Lakin, J. & Chartrand, T., 2003. Using non-conscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science 14, 334–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, M. 1998. Accommodating your data: The use and misuse of accommodation theory in sociolinguistics. Language and Communication 18, 205–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. & Weinert, R.. 1998. Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, M. & Lombardi, L.. 1998. Syntactic priming in immediate recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 38, 265–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenkin, J. 1980. A taxonomy for repeating action sequences in natural conversation. In Butterworth, (ed.). 21–47.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. 1986. Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J., Ostma, J. & Blommaert, J. (eds.). 1995. Handbook of pragmatics. Manual. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Plot of the frequency of cleft usage per 1,000 words by a single speaker in a conversation (vertical axis) versus the average frequency of cleft usage per 1,000 words by other participants in the same conversation (horizontal axis). The linear trend is indicated.