schiffrin - dm theory & and
Post on 07-Jul-2018
225 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
1/66
Title: Discourse Marker Research and Theory: Revisiting and
Running head: Discourse Marker Research and Theory: Revisiting and
Author: Deborah Schiffrin
0. Introduction
The study of what Robert Longacre (1976) aptly called “mystery particles has
proliferated o!er the past twenty years" #ords such as well, and, like$ now and
y’know ha!e been studied by scholars from !irtually all branches of linguistics (e"g"
applied$ formal$ computational$ sociolinguistic$ psycholinguistic$ historical$
de!elopmental) and ha!e %ept pace with the de!elopment of new approaches for
the analysis of discourse (e"g" corpus linguistics) and new paradigms in both
semantics (e"g" cogniti!e semantics) and pragmatics (e"g" rele!ance theory)" The
range of languages in which such terms ha!e been e&amined is typologically
di!erse$ including$ for e&le$ 'hinese$ anish$ rench$ *ebrew$ +ndonesian$
Latin and ,ayan" -ttention has been focused on both synchronic patterns
(within.across speech situations and language contact situations)$ and diachronic
change (first and second language ac/uisition$ grammaticali0ation)" i!en so wide
a range of theoretical and analytical di!ersity$ perhaps it should not be surprising
that there has not yet emerged a consensus in some of the basic tenets of discourse
mar%er research or theory"
-fter introducing my approach (2"1)$ methodology (2"3)$ use of data in this study
(2"4)$ and problem to be addressed (2"5)$ + present my definition of discourse
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
2/66
mar%ers (1)$ + then use a brief analysis of and to e&plore one of the central problems
in discourse mar%er researchtheir functional spectrum (3)" ,y conclusion fits the
analysis into a more general model of discourse mar%ers (4) and lin%s both analysis
and model to broader issues in the study of language (5)"
0.1 Approach
The basic components of my approach are meaning (semantic$ pragmatic)$
discourse and function" -lthough all of these are common terms in linguistics$ each
is itself polysemous$ e!o%ing a range of meanings that are embedded in what are
sometimes !ery different approaches to$ and goals of$ linguistic in/uiry"
+n his two !olume reference boo% Semantics$ Lyons (1977) begins by illustrating
o!er a do0en meanings of the word meaning"8 nly two are usually ta%en as
falling within the scope of linguistic theory and analysis: sense and reference" The
sense of a word is rooted in linguistic %nowledge and stems from relations among
words themsel!es" ;ince sense is based on connections within language$ it is
generally assumed that we share the sense of words through our %nowledge of the
networ%s of meaning in which words are embedded and through our membership in
a speech community" or e&le$ we are assumed to share %nowledge of the
semantic relationship that lin%s fruit and pear (hyponmy) or hot and cold
(antonymy)" Reference is a relation between language and something in the world"
+n %eeping with ,orris8 (194
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
3/66
within the linguistic subfield of semantics" ,uch current wor% in semantic theory
lin%s the study of sense and reference by focusing on truth conditional meaning$ i"e"
formally specifying the conditions that would ha!e to hold for a proposition to be
true"
;ome mar%ers (e"g" and ) are homonymous with words whose semantic meaning is
based on their logical properties$ hence$ on their contributions to the conditions
under which propositions would be true" -lthough this allows a small group of
mar%ers to be incorporated as discourse operators into formal models of discourse
processing (e"g" >olanyi 3221)$ other mar%ers contribute meaning in ways other
than through truth?functions" ,ar%ers may contribute semantic meaning to
discourse through metaphorical e&tensions (e"g" now and then$ ;chiffrin 1992)"
,ar%ers of spea%er stance may de!elop through loss of literal meaning (e"g"
@rinton (3224) on I mean$ Aar%innen (in press) on I think ) and may be classified as
mar%ers of pragmatic commentary rather than discourse mar%ers per se (e"g" raser
1992)"
Bnli%e sense and reference that remain relati!ely stable across spea%er and
situation$ pragmatic meanings !ary across spea%ers and situations" This dependence
can be captured by defining pragmatics as the study of the use of conte&t to ma%e
inferences about meaning (asold 1992: 119C see Le!inson 19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
4/66
@ecause pragmatics presupposes conte&t$ it pri!ileges the study of actual samples
of language use$ rather than the study of hypothetical e&les of language use"
Thus the study of pragmatic meanings turns attention away from language as an
abstract representational system to concrete instantiations of language in utterances$
i"e" !erbali0ations.inscriptions by a spea%er.writer for a hearer.reader in a conte&t"
The entry of conte&t into the study of meaning also leads us to the analysis of
discourse: we do not produce utterances in isolation from other utterances" This
shift to a larger unit of analysis creates other challenges$ stemming primarily from
the scope and di!ersity of discourse theories$ approaches and methodologies
(;chiffrin 1995a$ ;chiffrin$ Tannen and *amilton 3221)" +t is thus helpful to
separate discourse analysis into three separate (but interrelated) foci of in/uiry:
1" Within a sentence (or other syntactic, informational andor prosodic unit!: how
parts of language based in core8 parts of grammar (including morphemes$
le&emes$ phrases$ clauses$ sentences) and marginal8 parts of grammar (e"g"
intonation$ prosody$ information structure) are related to (e"g" designed for$
constrained by) the larger te&tual units in which they occur and the conte&t that
those te&ts co?constitute"1
3" "e#ts: how se/uences of sentences (or other syntactic$ informational and.or
prosodic units) are linearly and hierarchically structuredC what ma%es them
cohesi!e and coherentC the differentiation of types of te&ts (stories$ descriptions$
lists$ arguments$ and so on) and their defining characteristics
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
5/66
4" $onte#ts: how language is part of larger systems of meaning and practice$
including those embedded in concrete situations of face?to?face interaction$
social gatherings$ societies$ ideologies$ and cultures and so onC the “wor% that
language and other semiotic systems accomplish in all areas of our li!es
The three foci are related: whereas the first focuses on sentence?le!el units (words$
phrases$ and so on)$ the second and third mo!e to larger units within which the
smaller are embedded" Thus$ beginning at any one focal point re/uires attention to
the others"
The final part of my approach is function" -lthough functions usually reflect
recurrent use$ they are not the same as use per se" #hereas there is no inherent
relationship between one use and another$ functions are related to one another: they
are located within a system or organi0ation in which they connect to one another
and to the larger system" Thus words (at the lowest le!el of discourse analysis) are
related to each other through their position in a networ% of meanings and through
their recurrence in the larger systems to which they contribute (te&ts and conte&ts)"
#hat is thus at issue is an abstract system in which utterances (or parts of
utterances) are related to one another within a spea%er.hearer?based system of
te&t.conte&t that enables the production and reception of meaning(s)"
+n my model of discourse (;chiffrin 19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
6/66
relationships to each other and to what they are saying" -ctions also relate spea%er
and hearer" *owe!er$ because they re/uire structured %nowledge about what
counts as8 a particular action and ha!e somewhat constrained se/uential
contingencies$ + separate an action structure from both information state and
participation framewor%" Li%ewise$ + consider an e#chan%e structure the
organi0ation of turns at tal%to in!ol!e interactional contingencies that are at least
partially uni/ue to the distribution of spea%ing.hearing rights" inally is an
ideational structure the most semantic structurein!ol!ing not only
propositions$ but also topic.comment and information status" Relationships within
these domains$ and between8 them$ pro!ide the system within which mar%ers
function as inde&icals (see section 5)"
The functions of mar%ers are !ery similar to their pragmatic meanings" @oth are
embedded within$ and dependent on$ te&t.conte&t as sources of their systematic
contribution to the structure$ significance and coherence of discourse" #hat differs
is that functions are relational: they relate units within domains to each other and
relate domains themsel!es to each other (;chiffrin 19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
7/66
,y analyses of discourse mar%ers re/uire$ first and foremost$ attention to actual
uses of mar%ers in discourse" -fter choosing a corpus$ + identify all occurrences of
the le&ical item that are potential appearances of the discourse mar%er (e"g" all cases
of and ) and then decide which are discourse mar%ers" nce + ha!e identified the
to%ens to be e&amined$ + analy0e the discourse se/uences in which the to%ens
appear$ as well as other occurrences of the mar%er$ in order to balance seuential
and distri)utional accounta)ility (;chiffrin 19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
8/66
mar%er$ but also for its !ariable appearance (or non?appearance) in e&pected sites"
@ecause a mar%er is typically not limited to one particular type of se/uence (let
alone to the particularities of =ust one se/uence itself)$ distributional analyses also
help us a!oid ele!ating a particular use of a mar%er to the status of a general
function" F&amining a gi!en mar%er where!er it occurs thus balances the specificity
of a se/uential analysis with generality: an e&planation of why a mar%er occurs in
one slot should be related to an e&planation for why it occurs in another slot$ and
why it does not occur in other slots"
The interdependence between distributional and se/uential analyses also flows in
the other direction" inding a distributional pattern depends on line?by?line
analyses$ and then$ on the classification of the results of such analysis$ i"e"
se/uential en!ironments$ as “slots (the sites referred to abo!e) in discourse" or
e&le$ when + was interested in the relationship between mar%ers and turn?ta%ing
(;chiffrin 19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
9/66
!aries for different mar%ers" The multiplicity of potentially rele!ant slots not only
highlights the importance of balancing se/uential and distributional accountability"
+t also suggests that a model of discourse mar%ers should always remain heuristic
(section 4): although it can point us toward the general parameters of discourse
slots$ a model must remain adaptable enough to incorporate different meaning(s)$
use(s) and function(s) that become apparent through se/uential and distributional
analyses"
0.+ *ata
'losely lin%ed to both approach and methodology is data: what are the te&ts and
conte&ts in which a mar%er is analy0edH how does the data pro!ide different slots
and se/uences in which mar%ers can occurH
ata for my analysis are inter!iews from two sources: a sociolinguistic inter!iew in
a >hiladelphia neighborhoodC an oral history inter!iew with a *olocaust sur!i!or"
The purposes of these two types of inter!iews differ" The research goals of
sociolinguistic inter!iews are to understand linguistic change and !ariation in a
speech communityC this re/uires a large body of stylistically !aried speech from
people whose social characteristics !ary (see Labo! 19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
10/66
/uestions that open a topic of tal% and prompt the respondent to e&pand on his.her
own topics"
+nter!iews contain a !ariety of te&t types: stories$ descriptions$ e&planations$
assessments$ arguments$ and so on" + chose lists as the initial data for this sample
analysis because both their meanings and their structuresboth of which are
crucial to the analysis of and $ the mar%er in which + am interestedare relati!ely
transparent" -s an operational definition of lists$ + rely upon the following
characteristics (;chiffrin 1995b)" Lists are spo%en or written te&ts in which (1) the
parts of a list are items$8 either entities or actions that are (3) members of a larger
set" Fnumeration of the members of this set (4) typically occupies an e&tended turn
at tal% (comparable to a narrati!e) from one spea%er (5) in which the main
coherence source is the semantic connection among the items as set?members" This
connection can be con!eyed through (D) the use of repetition$ ellipsis$ parallelisms
and the recurrent use of and and then" Thus$ the central coherence relation (Anott
and ;anders 199olanyi 3221)"
+ also e&amine the se/uences in which the lists appear" ;ince the lists occupy a
number of different turn spaces (e"g" they can be pro=ected so as to occupy a single
turn at tal%$ their continuity can be prompted)$ + comment upon the use of and in
turn?initiation and turn?continuation" Li%ewise$ since the lists to be e&amined from
both inter!iews pro!ide answers to /uestions$ + present obser!ations about the use
of and in the /uestions themsel!es" +n %eeping with the methodology outlined
abo!e (section 2"3)$ + draw upon se/uential analyses of and in specific lists and
distributional analyses of and within lists$ turns and /uestions"
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
11/66
0.4 Problem statement
-s e&plained in pre!ious sections$ my approach to the functional spectrum of
mar%ers depends upon analysis of the interplay among meaning$ function$ and
discourse (te&t.conte&t)" + e&plore this interplay through an analysis of one mar%er$
and $ in three discourse sites: lists$ turns at tal%$ and /uestions"
>rior research suggests that and connects structurally coordinate units" Get the
coordinating function of and appears in a range of discourse en!ironments and with
a !ariety of units$ as noted not only in my own wor% (;chiffrin 19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
12/66
>rior research also agrees that and has meaning" *owe!er$ attempts to assign
meaning or meaning s to and ha!e “been a moot point since anti/uity (i% 196osner 19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
13/66
definition of discourse mar%ersthe set of items in which and is included+ use
an analysis of and in lists$ turn?ta%ing and /uestions to address this /uestion"
1. Definition
The different labels for what + am calling “discourse mar%ers are not =ust
alternati!e words for the same thing: they reflect different ways of thin%ing about
the organi0ation of what ends up being different sets of words and e&pressions" or
some$ the underlying unity is pragmatic functionC for others$ it is role in discourse"
;ome scholars find the term mar%ers8 to presuppose a pre?e&istent meaning that is
linguistically inde&ed$ suggesting instead that the term particles8 allows for words
that create meanings to be added to the utterances" The conse/uences of different
labels are thus both practical and theoretical" n a concrete le!el$ !ery different
items can end up being accounted for within an analysis" -t a theoretical le!el$ the
inclusion of different e&pressions can represent a reliance on different unifying
principles$ some formal$ some functional"
+n my initial wor% on discourse mar%ers (;chiffrin 19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
14/66
con=unctions (e"g" and $ )ut $ or )$ inter=ections (oh)$ ad!erbs (now$ then) and
le&icali0ed phrases ( y’know$ I mean)" + also proposed a heuristic discourse model
with different domains: a participation framewor%$ information state$ ideational
structure$ action structure$ e&change structure (see section 2"1)"
-lthough + had initiated and de!eloped my analysis of mar%ers with an operational
definition$ + concluded with a more theoretical definition" irst$ + tried to specify the
conditions that would allow a word to be used as a discourse mar%er: syntactically
detachable$ initial position$ range of prosodic contours$ operate at both local and
global le!els$ operate on different planes of discourse (;chiffrin 19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
15/66
domains of discoursehelps to integrate the many different simultaneous processes
underlying the construction of discourse$ and thus$ helps to create coherence"
;ubse/uent wor% that focused specifically on then (;chiffrin 1993) e&panded upon
the inde&ical property of mar%ers by showing how the deictic meaning of then
pro!ides a template not only for meanings within discourse (successi!e$ epistemic)$
but also for grammatical (aspectual) meaning" +n section 5$ + pursue the inde&ical
properties of mar%ers more fully and suggest that mar%ers are a subclass of
inde&icals"
. Analysis of functional s!ectru"
+n this section$ illustrate how my approach$ methodology and model fit together by
analy0ing and in two lists$ two turn?ta%ing en!ironments$ and two types of
/uestions" The analysis suggests that and has one meaning (additi!e) that is
essential to interpretation of why prior and current utterances can be treated
cumulati!ely" The additi!e meaning of and combines with its structural status (as a
coordinating con=unction) to ha!e one basic function (continue a cumulati!e set8)"
This function contributes to the process of constructing discursi!e se/uences whose
smaller parts combine to form a larger structure" ifferent uses of and (e"g"
continue a list$ continue a topic from a prior answer) are grounded in the specific
sites in which and appears and is interpreted"
,y analysis begins with two lists" Lists typically ha!e a clear semantic structure$ in
which items ha!e both coordinate lin%s (e"g" between K1 and K3) and hierarchical
lin%s (e"g" between K1 and K1-)" Thus we can use lists to learn more about the
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
16/66
semantic and structural bases of and " Li%e most discourse units$ howe!er$ lists do
not appear on their own: they emerge in concert with other means of te&t.conte&t
organi0ation$ e"g" within a turn?ta%ing system and within se/uential structures
including (but not limited to) ad=acency pairs" @y attending to the emergence of
lists within turn e&changes and ad=acency pairs$ we can e&amine the role of and not
=ust in ideational structures (the semantic relationships between items (set?
members) in a list)$ but also in e&change structures (the management of turns at
tal%)$ and action structures (the as%ing and answering of /uestions)" This is
important because when and does appear at the intersection of simultaneously
emerging structures$ the constraints impacting it do not always con!erge or
complement one another" +nstead$ they may di!erge or e!en conflict with one
another"4
+ analy0e and in three different subsections" +n section 3"1$ + present a monologic
list to show the role of and with coordinate list?itemsC the use of and in turn?ta%ing
is briefly mentioned" +n section 3"3$ + turn to a more dialogic list in which an
+nter!iewer8s /uestions co?construct (and alter the structure of) the +nter!iewee8s
list and introduce additional turn?ta%ing en!ironments" +n section 3"4$ + turn to the
use of and with +nter!iewer /uestions" ;ince each subsection raises issues to be
pursued in the ne&t$ the analysis not only tells us about and $ but also illustrates
methodological and theoretical aspects of my approach to mar%ers$ especially their
close interdependency and mutual reliance on data"
2.1 And in a list of RACE TRACKS AROUND HERE
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
17/66
+n this section$ + discuss L+;T (1)$ in which Aay presents the race trac%s near her
house in response to a tag /uestion from -nne (a sociolinguistic +nter!iewer) about
the popularity of racing" i!e features of the list are rele!ant to analysis: (1) the list
co!ers a closed set of items (R-'F TR-'A; -RBE *FRF)$ (3) its linear order
matches its hierarchical semantic organi0ation$ (4) it follows a depth?before?breadth
order$ (5) it is relati!ely monologic$ and (D) it occupies an e&tended turn at tal%" The
Roman numerals and letters on the left of Aay8s list indicate the organi0ation of
items in the list" These help us see the depth before breadth structure: a
superordinate item K1M is presented and e&panded with subordinate items (K1-M$
K1@MN) before the ne&t superordinate list item is presented" + use OOOO to indicate
a list item not prefaced by and "5
#IST $1% RA&' TRA&(S AR)*+D ,'R'
- #)&A# RA&' TRA&(S -nne: (a) RacingPs big around here$ isnPt itH
Aay: (b) Geh"
-nne (c) Geh"
-1 RA&' TRA&(S I+ + Aay: (d) #ell$ you got uh$ Iersey"
-1a (e) OOOGou got""",onmouth
-1b (f) and you got arden ;tate"
-1c (g) OOOOG8got -tlantic 'ity"
-nne: (h) ,mhmm"
-/-a RA&' TRA&( I+ A Aay: (i) -nd then uh here you got Liberty
@ell"
-b (=) -nd theyPre building a new one up
in Eeshaminy"
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
18/66
-nne: (%) ThatPs right" +P!e ne!er seen that$ Q
-/-a RA&' TRA&( I+ D' Aay: (l) -nd uh""" you gotQ
-nne: Qthough"
Aay: Qelaware"
-2 RA&' TRA&( I+ +3 (m) -nd of course$ if you want to re?
be? really go at it you can go up to
Eew Gor%"
-nne: (n) ,mhmm"
-2a Aay: (o) QOOOOGou got -/uaduct
-2b (p) and you got ;aratoga
-2c (/) and you ha!e that @elmont$ yP%now"
TA4#' 1 summari0es the use of and in L+;T (1)" The subordinate column
includes the two list?items ,E,BT* K1-M (e) and -B-B'T K5-M (o)
that branch from (and se/uentially follow) their superordinate list?items IFR;FG
K1M (d) and EF# GRA K5M (m)" The coordinate column includes list?items at
the same le!el$ either upper?le!el items (K1$ K3N) or lower?le!el items (K1-$
K1@N)"
TA4#' 1. AND I+ #IST $1%
Su)ordinate $oordinate "otal
and 2 7 7
-ero’ 3 3 5
"otal 3 9 11
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
19/66
The distribution of and in L+;T (1) is largely predicted by its semantic structure"
7
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
20/66
The se/uential conte&t of the ne&t and absence illustrates the importance of
semantic structure in con=unction with turn?ta%ing$ thus bringing up the important
issue of con!ergence.di!ergence among constraints from different discourse
domains" #hen introducing -B-B'T K5-M (in (o)) after -nne8s turn?
continuer (mmhmm (n))$ Aay does not use and :
K5 R-'F TR-'A +E EG Aay: (m) -nd of course$ if you want
to re? be? really go at it you can go
up to Eew Gor%"
-nne: (n) ,mhmm"
K5a Aay: (o) QOOOOGou got -/uaduct
;ince -B-B'T is the first lower?le!el item of K5M$ it is not surprising to find that
ou %ot Auaduct is not and ?prefaced" This absence becomes more analytically
interesting$ howe!er$ when we consider its turn?ta%ing en!ironment" The turn?
continuer mmhmm (n) that preceded ou %ot Auaduct is not -nne8s only turn?
continuer$ as we see below:
K1c Aay: (g) G8got -tlantic 'ity"
-nne: (h) ,mhmm"
K3.K3a Aay: (i) -nd then uh here you got Liberty @ell
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
21/66
K3b Aay: (=) -nd theyPre building a new one up in
Eeshaminy"
-nne: (%) ThatPs right" +P!e ne!er seen that$ though
K4.K4a Aay: (l) -nd uh"""you got elaware"
K4.K4a Aay: ( l) -nd uh"""you got elaware"
-nne: (m) ,mhmm"
K5 Aay: (n) -nd of course$ if you want to re? be? really go
at it you can go up to Eew Gor%"
-nne recurrently follows a strategy common in sociolinguistic inter!iews: her
mmhmm and that’s ri%ht wor% as turn continuers that pass responsibility for the
floor bac% to Aay (cf" Iuc%er and ;mith8s (199
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
22/66
EF;*-,+EG K3@M to which FL-#-RF K4M is addedH *ow do we %now that
it is >FEE;GL-E+- K3M to which FL-#-RF K4M is addedH
-lthough world %nowledge ob!iously helps$ there are also linguistic cues that
reflect that %nowledge and indicate its rele!ance for hearer interpretation of the
correct lin%" Eotice$ for e&le$ that FL-#-RF K4M in (e) is differentiated
from the =ust?prior list?item EF;*-,+EG K3@M in (f)" FL-#-RF is introduced
by the focusing de!ice you %ot : repetition of this predicate lin%s all the items in the
list e#cept the two list items (EF;*-,+EGM$ EF# GRAM) that preceded
FL-#-RF" Thus other linguistic de!ices pro!ide indications that and connects
list itemse!en if they are not ad=acentthat are structurally compatible through
their semantic relationships"D
+ will use one more e&le from R-'F TR-'A; -RBE *FRF to support
the importance of semantic structure for and ?prefacing in lists: the absence of and
with the same?le!el list item -TL-ET+' '+TG K+'M" -lthough -TL-ET+' '+TG
is certainly a part of the subset K1M TR-'A; +E EF# IFR;FG$ it has a different
status" #hereas K1-M and K1@M are Eew Iersey race trac%s that are not named
after towns$ K1'M shares its name with the well %nown resort near which it is
located" ;o the switch from and to 0ero8 is a te&tual switch that iconically reflects
the different way that -TL-ET+' '+TG fits into the o!erall set" (;ee ;chiffrin
(1995b$ 19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
23/66
the !ery same turn?ta%ing en!ironment (after the other8s turn?continuer) only if the
list?item in that ne&t?turn is semantically coordinate with the list?item from the
prior?turn" And and 0ero8 create se/uential contrasts that differentiate typical from
atypical list members"
&.& And’ in a list of somethin% a)out yourself now
+n this section$ + discuss L+;T (3)$ from the opening of a !ideo taped oral history
inter!iew with a *olocaust sur!i!or ;usan @eer (;@)"6 L+;T (3) is longer and more
comple& than L+;T (1)" +ts topic is potentially broader and open ended: the
+nter!iewee (;@) is as%ed to tell the +nter!iewer (+er) somethin% a)out yourself
now" The +er8s first /uestion pro!ides a breadth?before?depth structure in which
lower?le!el items (K1-M$ K1@MN) that are part of one upper?le!el item K1M are
e&panded before opening the ne&t upper?le!el item (K3M)" Later /uestions continue
to build upon this structure to co?construct ;@8s list" @ecause L+;T (3) is more
dialogic$ sites of participant co?construction create mismatches between se/uential
presentation and hierarchical structure"
1. +er: LA; -T '-,FR-M +Pm r" onald reidheim"
&. LA; -T 'L+>@-R$ B> -E #EM
+. LA; -T '-,FR-M
/. This afternoon +Pm inter!iewing ,rs" ;usan @eer"
. ,rs" @eer is a sur!i!or from '0echoslo!a%ia$
. and wePre pri!ileged to hear her story today"
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
24/66
2. TBRE; T -'F ;@M *ello" *ow are yP Eice to see you
3. ;@: *i" *ow are you uh:
4. +er: OOO+Pd li%e you to tell me a li? something about yourself now"
5slow6
10. GourNfamily and7.
11. ;@: ,mhmm"
1&. Bh +P!e been li!ing in 'le!eland for the last 46 years"
1+. +er: mmhmm
1/. OOO + uh at the present time uh + am a housewife$
1. and uh uh occupy myself uh uh sometimes helping my husband$
with his office$ when needed +E @RF-T*M
1. +er: #hat does he doH
12. ;@: *ePs a podiatrist"
13. +er: uhhuh
14. And uh other times$ + pursue$ uh really uhNumNthings that + en=oy
&0. um going to the museum$
&1. and swimming$
&&. and uh !isiting ill people$
&+. and uh um spending time uh decorating my home$Q
&/. +er: mmhmm
&. ;@: Qand thatPs aboutN E;M
&. +er: OOOO,ay + as% how old you areH
&2. ;@: Ges$ +Pm si&ty years old"
&3. +er: ,mhmm" ;i&ty"
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
25/66
&4. ;@: ,mhmm"
+0. +er: #hat +Pd li%e to do first$
+1. oh? d? lemme as%? if you ha!e?you ha!e childrenH
+&. ;@: Ges$ + ha!e two children"Q
++. +er: mmhmm mmhmm
+/. ;@: Q+ ha!e a son$
+. who is thirty three"Q
!. I5er: ""h""
+2. ;@: Q And + ha!e a daughter$
+3. who is twenty se!en"
+4. ;hePs married
/0. and li!es in Eew Gor%"Q
/1. +!er: + see"
/&. ;@: Q And um she uh studied =ournalism
/+. but uh wor%s as a public relation person"
//. +er: mmhmm"
/. And what does your son doH
/. ;@: Bh he8s a?
/2. inNin #ooster
/3. and umN doesn8t do !ery much really"
/4. +er: mmhmm
0. OOOO? does he ha!e a familyH
1. ;@: Eo"
&. +er: OOOOLemme as% you to go bac% to$ the years$ before the war$Q
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
26/66
+. ;@: o%ay
/. +er: Qin the? in the 19428s$ let8s say about the mid 19428s$Q
;@: Right" o%ay
. +erC Qand um describe a little bit about your e&periences then$ what?Q
. ;@: o%ay
2. +er: where you li!e:d$
3. and something about your family"
;@8s list structure is co?constructed by her own orientation to personal information
and the o!erarching structure presented by the +er and reinstated by his /uestions"
These two participant structures create both semantic and turn?ta%ing en!ironments
for and " These participant structures create an interactional se/uence in which the
hierarchical list structure in 6I7*R' 1 is co?constructed"
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
27/66
#IST STR*&T*R': 6R)M S'8*'+&' T) ,I'RAR&,3
K tell me somethin%
K1 a)out now K3 a)out then
K1a you K1b family K3a you K3b family
K1aa where7 ab how lon% N ac 8o)N ad acti9itiesN ae a%e K 1ba hus)and K1bb two children
K1bb 8o)
37
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
28/66
K1ada K1adb K1bba K1bbb
sometimes other times son dau%hter
K1adaa K1adbb K1bbaa K1bbab K1bbac K1bbad K1bbba K1 bbbb K1bbbc K1bbbd K1 bbbe
help hus)and en8oy thin%s a%e 8o) where children a%e married where edc 8o)
K1adbba K1adbbb K1adbbc K1adbbd
%o to swim 9isit ill decorate home
museums
3
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
29/66
The +er8s initiating /uestion (presented as a re/uest$ see section 3"4) establishes
the first part of a binary distinction between E# K1M (post ##++ current life) and
T*FE K3M (earlier times$ including both pre ##++ and ##++)" 'onsistent with the
breadth?before?depth structure$ two subtopics of E# are also introduced:
GBR;FL K1-M and GBR -,+LG K1@M" ;@ spea%s about herself K1-M in lines
(13) to (16) and lines (32) to (36)" K1-M branches (K1--M to K1-M) to include
where ;@ L+F;$ *# LE$ ''B>-T+E (housewife)$ and -'T++T+F;" The latter$
-'T++T+F; K1-M$ branches further to ;,FT+,F; and T*FR T+,F;" The
;,FT+,F; acti!ity is not e&panded beyond helpin% my hus)and (which is also the
first introduction of a family member K1@M)" The T*FR T+,F; acti!ity K1-@M is
specified as T*+E; + FEIG" This list?item branches further into four subtypes:
+E T ,B;FB,;$ ;#+,,+E$ +;+T+E +LL >F>LF$ F'R-T+E *,F"
-lthough + ha!e thus far been describing the list as constructed by ;@ alone$ the
+er as%s si& /uestions during ;@8s response to his initial re/uest to tell somethin%
a)out yourself " -ll the /uestions contribute to the list by bringing up topics from
le!els in the list structure higher than the items in =ust?prior tal%" +t is for this reason
that we need to e&amine the presence.absence of and not only in ;@8s list$ but also
in the +er8s /uestions and ;@8s answers to the /uestions" The /uestions as%ed by
the +er are:
(16) #hat does he doH
(36) ,ay + as% how old you areH
(42) #hat +Pd li%e to do first$ oh?
d? lemme as%? if you ha!e? you ha!e childrenH
(55) And what does your son doH
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
30/66
(59) ? does he ha!e a familyH
(D3) Lemme as% you to go bac% to$ the years$ before the war$
in the? in the 19428s$ let8s say about the mid 19428s$
and um describe a little bit about your e&periences then$
what? where you li!e:d$ and something about your family"
-lthough some of the /uestions ((16)$ (55)$ (59)) build on what ;@ has =ust said$
they all bring up topics from le!els higher in the list structure than the ad=acent
items" This global (rather than local) orientation creates a choice for ;@: she can
either continue the +er8s more global list orientation or return to her own more
locally emergent list structure" -s we see below$ ;@ balances both global and local
le!els of the list by first answering the +er8s /uestions and then returning to her
own emergent list structure"
The +er8s first /uestion What does he do: (16) is se/uentially implicated by what
;@ has =ust said about her husband" -lthough ;@ mentions that she helps her
husband$ with his office, when needed (1D)$ she does not say what %ind of wor% he
does" The +er8s /uestion addresses this information gap" +t also brings up
information structurally rele!ant to two earlier parts of the list set up in the +er8s
/uestion: ;@8s *B;F#+F occupation K1-M and -,+LG K1@M"
-fter answering What does he do: with ;e’s a podiatrist (1
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
31/66
continuerC what inter!enes here is an embedded /uestion. answer se/uence that
briefly shifts the structural le!el of the list" Get we still find and prefacing the list
ma%ers8 return to the floor when the ne&t list?item is semantically coordinate with a
list?item prior to the list?ma%er8s brief lapse of the floor"
The ne&t two +er /uestions are not se/uentially implicated by the topics of prior
ad=acent tal%" 'ay I ask how old you are: (37) follows ;@8s self description and her
coda and that’s a)out7 5nods6 (36) about her acti!ities" ;@8s -F (li%e her
husband8s occupation) is part of a higher le!el list item (GBR;FL K1-M) and
again$ ;@8s response pro!ides the information" #hat differs$ howe!er$ is predicted
by the coda (3D)" Rather than return to the prior list$ ;@ participates with the +er in
a cycle of ac%nowledgements and turn passes ((3
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
32/66
K1@@-M + ha!e a son$ K1@---M who is thirty three
K1@@@M And + ha!e a daughter$ K1@-@-M who is twenty se!en"
ollowing the couplet$ ;@ further e&pands the -B*TFR node of her list with
mention of marital status$ residence$ education$ and =ob"
The +er8s ne&t two /uestions ( And what does you son do: (5D)$ *
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
33/66
/uestions prompted ;@ to e&pand higher nodes in the list structure$ after which she
returned to her own list e&pansion"
-lthough we ha!e noted occurrences of and in passing$ let us now e&amine how the
co?construction of L+;T (3) has a bearing on the use of and " TA4#' summari0es
the presence.absence of and in L+;T (3)"
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
34/66
43" ;@: Ges$ + ha!e two children"Q
44" +er: mmhmm mmhmm
45" ;@: QHandM + ha!e a son$
#ithout and $ we use our %nowledge of the world to correctly infer ;@8s intended
relationship between things + en=oy8 K1-@@M and museum8 K1-@@-MC
li%ewise$ for children8 K1@-@M and son8 K1@-@@M" And would disallow these
readings and pro!ide radically alternati!e$ and confusing$ readings: we would infer
that going to the museum is not something that ;@ en=oys and that the son is not
one of ;@8s children"
#hen we e&amine more closely the use of and with same le!el items from L+;T
(3)$ we find a surprisingly slim ma=ority (D6S (9.16)) in the $oordinate column" -s
we see in TA4#' $ howe!er$ the coordinate?le!el uses of and are hea!ily s%ewed
toward ;@8s list items$ with only one appearing as a preface for an +er /uestion"
TA4#' . AND I+ DI66'R'+T ARTI&IA+T SIT'S )6 #IST $%
S=’s list items I>er’s ? items "otal
and < 1 9
-ero’ 3 D 7
"otal 12 6 16
#hereas ;@ uses and to preface
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
35/66
This difference highlights the different orientations that ;@ and the +er ha!e to the
list and its role in the inter!iew" #hereas ;@ is organi0ing and pro!iding
autobiographical information to answer a /uestion$ the +er is eliciting another8s
biographical information in order to fulfill the goals of an inter!iew" Thus each
participant is wor%ing from a different information state: ;@ from the facts of her
own life$ the +er from a general inter!iew8 template" ;@ and the +er also occupy
different positions in the action and e&change structure: the +er8s turns are focused
on as%ing /uestionsC ;@8s turns$ on answering /uestions"
These intersections of the two different participant orientations create two discourse
sites for the use of and " irst is the +er8s /uestion" ;@8s list?items e!o%e two
/uestions from the +er: about husband8s =ob K1@--M$ about son8s =ob K1@@@@M" +t
is only when the /uestion builds upon ;@8s most recent list?item to see%
information that it is and ?prefaced" #e discuss this discourse site more fully in
section 3"4"
The second site created by the two different participant orientations is ;@8s return
to the floor after either an embedded /uestion.answer se/uence or the +er8s turn
continuers" Recall that and in L+;T (1) reflected semantic structure more than turn?
ta%ing: and prefaced Aay8s return to the floor only if the list?item was semantically.
structurally coordinated with a prior list?item" #e see the same dominance of
semantic structure in L+;T (3): and prefaces a ne&t?turn ;@8s list?item in her ne&t?
turn is coordinate with the list?item from her prior?turn$ hence$ not in (45)$ but in
(19)$ (47) and (53) below:
K1@- (43) two children8
K1@@- (45) (Uand) son8
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
36/66
K1-- (1D) sometimes8 acti!ity
-1AD4 $1% and ;other ti"es< activities
K1@@- (45) son8
K1@@@ (47) and daughter8
K1@@@' (52) daughter8s residence8
K1@@@.F (53) and daughter8s =ob8
+n sum$ L+;T (3) has allowed us to e&amine how two different participants in an
interaction orient to the construction of one list" #hereas the +er as%s /uestions
that elicit different parts of the list from ;@8s personal biography$ ;@ organi0es and
pro!ides autobiographical information within a framewor% partially e!o%ed by the
+er8s /uestions$ but also attendant to her own schema" These different participant
orientations stem partially from the information state from which each began$ but
also become interwo!en with the emergent semantic structures and the organi0ation
of turn?ta%ing" -lthough this creation of more comple& discourse sites complicates
the use of and $ we ha!e seen$ again$ the crucial impact of semantic structure on the
use of and in lists"
&.+ And’ with reuests for information
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
37/66
The +er8s use of /uestions to initiate and sustain L+;T (3) are only a few of his
many information?see%ing re/uests throughout the inter!iew$ all designed to elicit
information about different periods$ e!ents$ and people in ;@8s life prior to$ during$
and after the *olocaust" Get e!en within this relati!ely small set of /uestions$ we
saw important differences in function (e"g" setting the agenda$ prompting e&pected
information)$ se/uential rele!ance (local !s" global) and form (e"g" indirect re/uests
for information$ yes?no interrogati!es)"
+n this section$ + focus on the use of and in the +er8s /uestions throughout the oral
history inter!iew"9 + differentiate two types of /uestions: Local. ependent and
lobal.+ndependent" Local.ependent /uestions are connected to (i"e" dependent
on) topics of ad=acent tal%: the +er pursues a topic from ;@8s answer to a prior
/uestion$ either by e&panding ;@8s topic or creating a step?wise transition to a new
topic" lobal. +ndependent /uestions are less connected toand thus relati!ely
independent ofprior tal%" They elicit basic demographic information and
introduce themes that relate to the o!erall goals and guidelines of the inter!iew (e"g"
early signs of anti?;emitism$ feelings at liberation)$ lobal.+ndependent /uestions
pro!ide an o!erarching and higher?le!el organi0ation for the inter!iew"
TA4#' 2 shows the presence.absence of and in Local.ependent and
lobal.+ndependent /uestions"
TA4#' 2. AND I+ 8*'STI)+S I+ T,' )RA# ,IST)R3 I+T'R5I'=
Local.ependent lobal.+ndependent "otal
and
other mar%ers
1<
32
1
4
19
34
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
38/66
0ero8 69 11
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
39/66
;>FF'* -'T;
7#)4A# #)&A#
S1a: 8uestion91 S1a: 8uestion91
;3a: -nswer?1 ;3a: -nswer?1
;1b: and uestion?3 ;1b: and uestion?3 -nswer 1MM
+F- ;TRB'TBRF
I+D''+D'+T D''+D'+T
S1a: Inco"!lete ro!osition91 S1a: Inco"!lete ro!osition91
Sa: &o"!lete ro!osition91 Sa: &o"!lete ro!osition91
;1b: and +ncomplete >roposition?3 ;3b: >roposition?3
;1b: and +ncomplete >roposition?3a
Located in the ;>FF'* -'T domain are /uestions and answers" The global
connection is between two of the same speech acts: two /uestions (a$ b) from one
spea%er (;1)" The local connection is between two different speech acts: answer and
/uestion from different spea%ers" #hereas the global connection is similar to the
connection between higher?le!el coordinate list items$ the local connection is
reminiscent of a connection between two different?le!el list itemswhich does not
occur" +t is thus the local connection that seems to contradict the coordinate
structure constraint of and : two structurally different units are connected by and "
#hen we re?analy0e the se/uence in terms of idea structure$ howe!er$ the use of
and with a /uestion se/uentially implicated by a prior answer ma%es perfect sense"
+n both +ndependent and ependent se/uences$ ;1a presents an incomplete
proposition (i"e" the ideational underpinnings of a /uestion) and ;3a completes the
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
40/66
proposition (i"e" fills the proposition)" #hen ;1b then goes on to present another
incomplete proposition$ prefacing this with and $ we ha!e the ideational foundation
of a series of and ?prefaced globally connected /uestions" @ut another option is for
;3 to continue by presenting more information than needed to answer the /uestion$
i"e" continue the answer slot with >roposition?3 (;3b)" #hen ;1b then focuses on a
source of incompleteness in >roposition?3$ we ha!e the e/ui!alent of a dependent
/uestionone whose topic has followed from the (e&tended) =ust?prior answer
pro!ided by ;3b"
The separation of domains in 6I7*R' e&plains the use of and based on either
propositional or speech act relationships" +t also shows how and will reflect
propositional structure if speech act and ideational structure present conflicting
constraints for and ?prefacing" This result is consistent with the dominance of
semantic structure o!er turn?ta%ing constraints in L+;T; (1) and (3)"
-lso supporting this domain?based e&planation of and is the one e&le of an
and ?prefaced lobal.+ndependent /uestion in the oral history inter!iew" +n (5)$ ;@
has been answering the +er8s /uestion about T*FE (a continuation of L+;T (3))
by describing her hometown and family life in that town" ;he concludes with it was
a small town life (96):
$2% '-AM#' )6 7#)4A#/I+D''+D'+T 8*'STI)+
96" ;@: -nd it was a comfortable life$ itPs a? it was a small town life"
97" +er: #ho? how many did you ha!e in your familyH + m?
9
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
41/66
121"+er: -nd uh when were you born"
123";@: + was born in 1935"
-fter ;@ closes the description of her town ( And it was a comforta)le life, it@s a< it
was a small town life (96))$ the +er8s /uestion (Who< how many did you ha9e in
your family: (97)) returns to an item from an earlier agenda /uestion (descri)eN
somethin% a)out your family (D9))" ;@ answers the /uestion ( ust myself (9
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
42/66
The se/uential position of And uh when were you )orn: is reminiscent of a second
location for and ?prefaced /uestion in the clinical consultations studied by
*eritage and ;or=onon (1995)" +n addition to the basic mar%ing of agenda
/uestions was a strategic use of and to normali0e contingent /uestions or
problematic issues" #hereas the agenda?mar%ing uses of and coordinate
units within the speech act domain (connecting /uestions on the “same
le!el in the inter!iew structure)$ then$ the use of and with contingent
/uestions coordinates units within the ideational domain: information
from the prior answer e!o%es a ne&t?/uestion" The use of and to
normali0e /uestions whose rele!ance stems not from the agenda of a
speech e!ent.situation$ but from prior?turn$ is also reminiscent of
*alliday and *asan8s (1976) e&ternal (or metaphorical) meaning: rather
than being manifest in te&t$ what pro!ides the additi!e relationship is the
spea%er him.herself" oing bac% to and uh when were you )orn (12)$
then$ notice that as%ing about date of birth is not itself problematic" @ut
as%ing about it after ;@ has already been tal%ing about her later life
disturbs the usual chronological order not only of life itself$ but also of
oral history !ersions of life" Thus it is the spea%er who establishes an
additi!e connection through and to routini0e a /uestion that is potentially
problematic because it is schematically and globally out of place"
-lthough we ha!e e&plained why and does not typically preface the lobal.
+ndependent /uestions in the oral history inter!iew$ and e&plained the one case
where it does$ we still need to consider why and prefaces the Local.ependent
/uestions" +n a follow up study of the /uestions in the *eritage and ;or=onen (1995)
corpus$ ,atsumoto (1999) turned attention away from the acti!ity8 le!el of the
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
43/66
inter!iew to the informational8 le!el" ,atsumoto8s analysis of linguistic features of
the /uestions showed that and ?prefacing underscored a /uestion8s s%ewed
orientation toward affirmati!e polarity$ thus re!ealing the /uestioner8s orientation
toward a positi!e response"
To see if a s%ewed orientation8 was pertinent to and ?prefacing of the /uestions in
the oral history inter!iew$ + separated the Local.ependent /uestions into two
groups: interrogati!es and declarati!es" The interrogati!es include yes?no and #*?
/uestions: these forms grammaticali0e a choice between (or among) options" The
declarati!es are statements with optional rising /uestion8 intonation: they
grammaticali0e a selection between two optionsC confirmation is sought for the
selection" TA4#' > shows the presence.absence of and with these two forms of
Local.ependent /uestions"
"A=BC . -E WI"; "WD EDR'S DE BD$AB*CFCG*CG" ?HCS"IDGS
*eclarati9es Interro%ati9es "otal
and
other mar%ers
7
6
11
15
1<
32
0ero8 1< D1 69
Total 41 76 127
T-@LF D shows that and prefaces 33S (7.41) of the declarati!e forms and 7S
(11.76S) of the interrogati!e forms" This preference shows$ again$ that and
functions largely within the ideational domain of discourse"
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
44/66
- comparison between e&les of an and ?prefaced declarati!e and an and ?
prefaced interrogati!e suggests that the former reflects a participation framewor% in
which interlocutors inde& a shared orientation toward information" +n (D)$ ;@ is
tal%ing about liberation at the end of ##++"
(6) 99
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
45/66
331" and he says$ VGP%now$ + =ust recei!ed a newest decree$ that says
that girls$ between ages 1D and 17$ will ha!e to be ready$V
333" uh + thin%$ he? he ga!e it to us li%e a month$ ahead"
+er: 334" ,mhmm"
;@: 335" Bh this was um around uh end of ebruary"
33D" -nd he said t?
+er: 336" F? end? end of ebruary$ nineteen forty twoH
;@: 337" Eineteen forty
two"
+er: 33
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
46/66
%irls ha9e to )e rea"# for:(42)" #hat the +er is see%ing here differs from the
temporal clarity sought in the first /uestion" #hereas the year was referentially
important$ %nowing what the girls were supposed to be ready for is pi!otal to the
narrati!e action: not %nowing the goal of the newest decree (to deport girls to a
labor camp) will compromise the point of the story (the girls need to be smuggled
out of the country)" ;ince ;@ had continued her story without e&plaining the goal$
we can assume that she had presumed the +er8s ability to infer the goal" The
restarts (and wha< wha< re< ready) and contrasti!e stress on ready in the +er8s
/uestion re!eal the problematic gap in his %nowledge" The initial and $ latched onto
;@8s own and uh as she begins to return to her story$ compensates for the
problematic gap by glossing the /uestion as an un problematic continuation of the
story"
#e ha!e now seen that and ?prefacing occurs more fre/uently with Local.
ependent /uestions than with lobal.+ndependent /uestions: within the former
group$ and prefaces /uestions that anticipate a particular answer more than
/uestions that do not" This pattern recalls the participation framewor% obser!ed in
relation to the +er8s use of /uestions to co?construct L+;T (3)" espite the different
orientations toward the list defined by their participant roles in the inter!iew$ the
+er and ;@ coordinated their list contributions" ;o$ too$ they are coordinating their
different orientations toward information in the oral history as a whole: the +er
as%s a /uestion$ ;@ answers it with more information than is re/uired$ the +er
builds a cooperati!e and informed ne&t?/uestion from ;@8s answer" These
cumulati!e lin%s across turns create a flow of topics and information within the oral
history inter!iew that are consistent with its goals of eliciting the story of a pri!ate8
life for a !ariety of public8 audiences"12
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
47/66
+n sum$ understanding the use of and with the +nter!iewer8s /uestions in the oral
history inter!iew has re/uired that we separate two domains of discourse: ideational
and action" ;eparating these domains has led us to as% the same /uestions as%ed in
analyses of and in lists: how can we account for multiple constraintsH what happens
when constraints con!erge or compete with one anotherH The answer is also the
same" -lthough we ha!e added ad=acency pairs to the potential range of discourse
sites in which and can appear$ the pattern of and ?prefacing with /uestions in this
oral history inter!iew again highlights the importance of ideational structure" 'o?
construction of a list$ and /uestions about emergent topics$ complicate the
identification and analysis of discourse sties" Get again$ the crucial constraint on the
use of and is ideational structure"
&./ $onclusion
+n this section$ + analy0ed the meaning(s)$ use(s) and function(s) of and in lists$
different turn?ta%ing en!ironments$ and types of /uestions" The analysis suggests
that and has one meaning (additi!e) that combines with its structural status (as a
coordinating con=unction) to ha!e one basic function (continue a cumulati!e set8)"
The sets can !ary (ideas$ turns$ actions)$ as can the specific uses (e"g" add an upper
le!el list?item$ continue a topic from a prior answer) that are produced when
different features combine to create highly specific discourse sites" Ee!ertheless$
when the domains underlying the discourse sites create di!ergent units that pro!ide
potential “parts of a set$ it is the ideational domain that most constrains the use of
and "
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
48/66
. Model
+n this section$ + integrate the general results of the analysis into the model
re!iewed in section 2"1" Recall that the model contained different domains"
Relationships appeared at two le!els: units within each domain could be related
locally and globallyC domains themsel!es could also be related" The analysis of and
in section 3 showed that local and global relationships within one domain at a time
can be inde&ed by and " These domains can differ: and can lin% propositions at an
ideational le!el$ /uestions at a speech act le!el$ and turns at an e&change le!el"
-lthough and can occur at the intersection of different domains$ one domain was
prioriti0ed" The ideational domain was most pertinent for the use of and a fitting
outcome gi!en the co?e&istence of and as a sentential con=unction"
+n my earlier problem statement (section 2"5)$ + noted that the structural and
interpreti!e problems raised by and are actually two facets of one problem: what is
the te&tual anchor for an and ?prefaced utteranceH Resol!ing this problem re/uires
identifying units that can be added together$ presumably$ because they share some
/uality whose combination is important to the coherence of the discourse" -lthough
part of the problem has been resol!edthe default unit pro!iding a te&tual anchor
is ideationalstill not completely resol!ed is which ideational units$ out of the !ast
number of those being put forth in discourse$ combine into a cumulati!e set"
*ere + suggest that two pragmatic principles help account for which units in a
single domain can be related to one another and in what way" irst is an -d=acency
>rinciple" -lthough + base this principle on the 'on!ersation -nalytic ('-)
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
49/66
in=unction that utterances are both conte&t?reflecting and conte&t?creating$ it could
also be deri!ed from the ricean ma&im of ,anner or uantity (rice 197D)"
;ac%s (1974$ Lecture 5$ pages 11? 13) describes the importance of ne&t?position for
coherence:
There is one generic place where you need not include information as to
which utterance you8re intending to relate an utterance toNand that is if you
are in Ee&t >osition to an utterance" #hich is to say that for ad=acently
placed utterances$ where ne&t intends to relate to a last$ no other means than
positioning are necessary in order to locate which utterance you8re
intending to deal with"
The -d=acency >rinciple leads hearers to try to define a coherence relation between
ad=acent utterances" @ecause Btterance?1 immediately precedes Btterance?3$ it
creates a conte&t for Btterance?3" Btterance?1 is thus the default location from
which to define a coherence relation with Btterance?3"
-n +nformati!eness >rinciple helps define the relationship between ideational units"
This principle$ adapted from Le!inson8s (19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
50/66
And appears in the following scale of informati!eness$ in which each item to the
right in (a) pro!ides more information (specified in (b)) about how to connect two
propositions than the ones on the left:
(a)0ero8 and then so
(b)rele!ance addition succession conse/uence
The >rinciple of +nformati!eness allows an inference of succession without then$
but the then?prefacing of Btterance?3 encodes a successi!e8 meaning" Li%ewise$
going bac% in the scale$ we might infer addition8 by mere ad=acency (i"e" at the
0ero8 at the far left) through world %nowledge$ but the use of and would encode
addition"8 The >rinciple of +nformati!eness thus allows the inference of possible
relationships between propositions without discourse mar%ers" #hat mar%ers thus
do is select a meaning from among those potential relationships"
The role of pragmatic principles within the model also recalls the similarity
between pragmatics and functions noted in earlier discussion of my approach
(section 2"1)"
The pragmatic meaning of and is a%in to its function: both are based on its semantic
meaning (additi!e) in combination with its structural status (as a coordinating
con=unction) to mar% the spea%er8s communicati!e intention to continue a
cumulati!e set"8 @oth pragmatic meaning and function are embedded within$ and
dependent on$ the emergence of te&t.conte&t and the systematic ways in which parts
wherein relate to one another to form more macro?le!el structures and meanings"
>ragmatic meaning thus contributes to the inde&ing of relations within te&t.conte&t"
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
51/66
2. Relevance
-nalysis of and is rele!ant to two broader issues in discourse mar%er research and
theory: multiple functions of mar%ers and inde&icality" + ha!e suggested that and
has one semantic meaning$ many uses$ and one pragmatic meaning.function" @ut
this allocation may differ for different mar%ers whose sources are in different word
classes or whose te&t.conte&t distribution differs" Thus we must include the
possibility of input !ariance among mar%ers: the impact of meaning and discourse
can !ary across types of mar%ers and across indi!idual to%ens of those types" -nd
this means that the functional spectrum of mar%ers can itself !ary" ,ultiplicity may
appear at le&ical le!els if a single discourse mar%er has more than one meaning or
function" -lternati!ely$ if all mar%ers ha!e singlebut differentfunctions and it
is only mar%ers in toto that perform multiple functions$ multiplicity may appear
only at the word class le!el"
-lthough multiple possibilities for multiplicity may seem unnecessarily
complicated$ these functional layers ma%e sense once we pursue more seriously the
larger class within which mar%ers are situated: mar%ers are a subclass of inde&icals"
The ad!antage of !iewing discourse mar%ers as inde&icals is that many of the
features that seem so worrisomeincluding$ but not limited to multiplicityare
actually regular features of deictic e&pressions"
'onsider$ first$ that deictics pro!ide indices to different aspects of conte&t$ most
centrally to space$ time$ and person" Get this does not mean that a particular deictic
e&pression cannot e&tend its reach to another domain" ;patial indices$ for e&le$
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
52/66
commonly ac/uire temporal interpretations" +f we spea% of mo!ing up8 or mo!ing
bac%8 a meeting$ we do not literally mean that the meeting is a physical ob=ect to be
mo!ed !ertically or hori0ontally in space: it is a situation with a temporal onset that
will now shift in linear time" The inde&ical range of discourse mar%ers is similar"
,ar%ers may ha!e default conte&tual homes8 in the particular domains of
discourse to which they point" or e&le$ some mar%ers point to an information
state$ others to an action structure$ and still others to the organi0ation of ideas" @ut
this does not mean that they cannot e&tend their reach as different domains come
into simultaneous play during a discourse or as the mar%er itself is metaphorically
e&tended o!er time (;chiffrin (19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
53/66
the personal pro&imal pronoun we can inde& a small two person with8 (offman
1971) or an entire nation" ;imilarly$ the mar%er oh can inde& a change in
information state e!o%ed either by retrie!al of a momentarily forgotten word or by
the understanding of a new$ long$ and comple& algorithm" +n both physical and
te&tual worlds$ then$ the problem of fi&ing the scope is the same"
-nother similarity is that both traditional deictics and discourse mar%ers can be
treated not only as an open class that allows temporary members$ but also as a class
whose members !ary in their degree of core or peripheral membership" or
e&le$ here is always a deictic$ but he is not always a deicticC well is always a
mar%er$ but and is not always a mar%er" or some scholars$ nouns li%e neighbor8
ha!e a deictic component$ simply because it e!o%es someone who li!es close to
one8s home base" Li%ewise$ Eorth and ;outh are orthogonally fi&ed to one another$
but whether we dri!e Eorth to get to @oston or ;outh depends upon our starting
point: is this deicticH 'omparable /uestions can be as%ed about the e&pressions that
are li%e mar%ers (e"g" I think ) in some dimensions$ but not in others (Aar%%ainen (in
press))" The !ariability in terms of core and peripheral status$ then$ suggests that
both deictics and mar%ers are porous: conte&t can lea%8 into their meanings$ their
uses$ and their functions in different degrees"
inally$ !iewing mar%ers as inde&icals pro!ides a way of brea%ing down two of the
%ey barriers in the definitional di!ide between mar%ers and particles" irst is the
difference between displaying (mar%ers) and creating (particles) meaningC second is
whether mar%ers (or particles) portray spea%er stance and attitude"
The term mar%er8 often implies that a linguistic item is displaying an already
e&istent meaningC the term particle8 often implies that a meaning not otherwise
a!ailable is being added into the discourse" Get deictics ha!e a more comple&
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
54/66
relationship with conte&t than the one way path implied by either !erb (display8 or
add8) used abo!e: they select among possible coordinates and possible centers8
(points of reference) for those coordinates" +f + say$ for e&le$ I li9e here$ the
word here8 doesn8t tell you e&actly what here8 + mean: the room$ the house$ the
neighborhood$ the city$ the country" The specific here8 depends on many factors$
including what we ha!e been tal%ing about before" Ee!ertheless$ the pro&imal
meaning of here8 does fi& one coordinate: if you %now where + am physically
situated at the moment of spea%ing$ you %now that this place is located within the
physical parameters of where I li9e" Eotice$ howe!er$ that this whole set of
assumptions can be completely o!erridden if the deictic center shifts from the
utterance to a map: + may say I li9e here when pointing to a city (or street$ or
country) on a map e!en if + am not physically situated at that place when spea%ing"
Li%e deictics$ discourse mar%ers can also select conte&tual coordinates from a range
of possibilities in their worldthe te&t.conte&tual worldby shifting their center$
i"e" their domain" The distal meaning of then can con!ey temporal succession across
episodes in a narrati!e or succession of items in a list$ both between ad=acent
utterances (local) or non?ad=acent utterances (global)$ as well as between single
utterance or multiple utterances" escribing the principles by which a spea%er
chooses$ and a hearer interprets$ those te&tual coordinates raises analytical
problems parallel to the selection of a location in I li9e here.
-s noted abo!e$ mar%ersli%e deicticscan switch their center"8 or e&le$
different domains can ser!e as centers for production and interpretation of the same
mar%er: so can mar% a transition from a warrant (information state) or from a turn
(e&change structure)C okay can mar% appro!al of an idea (participation framewor%)
or agreement with a proposed acti!ity (action structure)" Rather than display or
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
55/66
create meanings$ then$ it may be more accurate to say that$ as inde&icals$ both
deictics and mar%ers select from a range of possible meanings that depend on the
domain and its point of reference" ;pea%ers use both deictics and mar%ers to
“display their selection of a meaning from a possible range of meanings" @ecause
the !erbali0ation of that deictic.mar%er ma%es e&plicit what had pre!iously been
only one possibility from a range of possibilities$ it can appear to be a newly added
or “created meaning"
-nother parameter on which mar%ers differ from particles concerns the reliance of
the former on se/uential units of discourse" *ere + want to suggest that if we
concei!e of discourse as se/uences of utterances$ i"e" te&t.conte&t pairings
(;chiffrin 1995a: 'hapter 3)$ then we can include not only relationships between
units (e"g" actions$ turns$ propositions) that typically appear in se/uences$ but also
relationships between aspects of te&t and conte&t" or e&le$ self and other are
clearly part of a conte&t: they can ha!e relationships of solidarity$ distance$ and so
on" The way a spea%er is committed to (or detached from) a belief is a relationship
between self and content of tal%" f course the self?other$ and self?content
relationships$ are not seuentially organi0ed parts of discourse"11 @ut once we
reali0e the centrality of self$ other$ and content to te&t and conte&t$ what is said to
be mar%ed by particlesspea%er.hearer alignment$ stancecan be said instead to
be mar%ed as relationships between parts of a discourse" To do so re/uires
recogni0ing self$ other$ and content as units of discoursenot utterances
themsel!es$ but certainly part of the conte&t that creates an utteranceand thus
open to the same inde&ical mar%ing as other aspects of utterances"
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
56/66
References
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
57/66
@rinton$ Laurel
3224 I mean: the rise of a pragmatic mar%er" Faper presented at HR" &00+.
'otter$ 'olleen
1996 “Fngaging the reader: The changing use of connecti!es in newspaper
discourse" +n: -rnold et al" (eds") Sociolin%uistic >ariation: *ata, "heory and
Analysis. ;tanford Bni!ersity: 'enter for the ;tudy of Language and +nformation
>ublications$ 364? 37
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
58/66
raser$ @ruce
1992 -n approach to discourse mar%ers" ournal of Fra%matics 15$ 4aul
197D “Logic and con!ersation" +n: >eter 'ole and Ierry ,organ (eds")" Speech
Acts (Synta# and Semantics, >olume +!" Eew Gor%: -cademic >ress$ 51WDress"
*alliday$ ,ichael$ and Ru/aiya *asan
1976 $ohesion in Cn%lish" London: Longman"
*an%s$ #illiam
1994 Referential Fractice" 'hicago: 'hicago Bni!ersity >ress"
*eritage$ Iohn$ and ,ar=a?Leena ;or=onen
1995 “'onstituting and maintaining acti!ities across se/uences: And prefacing"
Ban%ua%e in Society 34 (1)$ 1? 39"
Iuc%er$ -ndreas
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
59/66
1997 “The discourse mar%er well in the history of Fnglish" Cn%lish Ban%ua%e and
Bin%uistics 1: 1?112"
Iuc%er$ -ndreas$ and ;ara ;mith
199< “-nd people =ust you %now li%e XwowX: iscourse mar%ers as negotiating
strategies" +n: -ndreas Iuc%er and Gael Ji! (eds")" *iscourse 'arkersJ *escription
and "heory. -msterdam: Iohn @en=amins$ 171? 323"
-ndreas Iuc%er and Gael Ji!
199< “iscourse mar%ers: +ntroduction" +n: -ndreas Iuc%er and Gael Ji! (eds")"
*iscourse 'arkersJ *escription and "heory. -msterdam: Iohn @en=amins$1?13"
Aar%%ainen$ Flise
+n press Cpistemic Stance in Cn%lish $on9ersation" >hiladelphia: Iohn
@en=amins"
Anott$ -listair$ and Ted ;anders
199< “The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic mar%ers: -n
e&ploration of two languages" ournal of Fra%matics 42$ 14D? 17D"
Labo!$ #illiam
19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
60/66
Leech$ eoffrey
19ress"
,aschler$ Geal
199< “ Rotse lishmoa keta: Wanna hear somethin% weirdfunnyH ;egmenting
+sraeli *ebrew tal%?in?interaction" +n: -ndreas Iuc%er and Gael Ji! (eds")"
*iscourse 'arkersJ *escription and "heory. -msterdam: Iohn @en=amins$ 14? 62"
,atsumoto$ Aa0u%o
1999 “ And ?prefaced /uestions in institutional discourse" Bin%uistics 47?3$ 3D1?
375"
,ey$ Iacob
3221 Fra%maticsJ An Introduction. ,alden$ ,- : @lac%well >ublishers"
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
61/66
,orris$ 'harles
194< “oundations of the theory of signs" +n: tto Eeurath$ Rudolph 'arnap and
'harles ,orris (eds") International Cncyclopedia of Hnified Science" 'hicago:
Bni!ersity of 'hicago >ress$ 77?14eterson (eds")" *e9elopin% Garrati9e Structure" *illsdale$
Eew Iersey: Lawrence Frlbaum -ssociates"
>olanyi$ Li!ia
3221 “The linguistic structure of discourse" +n: eborah ;chiffrin$ eborah
Tannen and *eidi *amilton (eds")" "he ;and)ook of *iscourse Analysis" &ford:
@asil @lac%well$ 36D?3osner$ R"
19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
62/66
;chiffrin$ eborah
19
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
63/66
forthcoming “raming self$ other and e&perience in the first fi!e minutes" +n:
eborah ;chiffrin$ -nna eina and ,ichael @amberg (eds")" *iscourse and
Identity" 'ambridge: 'ambridge Bni!ersity >ress"
;chiffrin$ eborah$ eborah Tannen and *eidi *amilton (eds")
3221 "he ;and)ook of *iscourse Analysis. &ford: @asil @lac%well"
;egal$ Frwin$ Iudith uchan$ and >aula ;cott
1991 “The role of interclausal connecti!es in narrati!e structuring" *iscourse
Frocesses 15 (1)$ 37? D5"
;prott$ Richard
1993 “'hildren8s use of discourse mar%ers in disputes" *iscourse Frocesses 1D
(5)$ 534?549"
;weetser$ F!e
1992 Erom Ctymolo%y to Fra%maticsJ 'etaphorical and $ultural Aspects of
Semantic Structure. 'ambridge: 'ambridge Bni!ersity >ress"
#ard$ regory and @etty @irner
3221 “iscourse and information structure" +n: eborah ;chiffrin$ eborah
Tannen$ and *eidi *amilton (eds")" "he ;and)ook of *iscourse Analysis" &ford:
@asil @lac%well$ 119?147"
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
64/66
1 'ndnotes
+ use the core.marginal distinctionwhose !alidity has been rightfully challenged by Iohn umper08
(19ons
@orderYa (this !olume) who points out that the mulifunctionality of connecti!es ma%es it unli%ely that a
/ualitati!e study could capture all the different ways that !ariables might be associated with one
another" -lthough + will not pursue a statistical analysis here$ the logic of the analysis is similar"
5 Two points" irst$ the race trac%s are grouped by states (the upper le!el item): EI is Eew Iersey$ >- is
>ennsyl!ania (the location of -nne and Aay)$ F is elaware$ EG is Eew Gor%" ;econd$ + ha!e
assigned a dual status to the list?items in lines (i) and (l) because they are presented in one syntactic
unit" Fach is counted only once in T-@LF 1"
D ;chiffrin (1995a: 395? 6C 1995b) notes the interdependence between the use of mar%ers in lists and
other list?ma%ing de!ices that re!eal set membership and core !s" peripheral categories (e"g" intonation$
repetition$ presentational sentences$ syntactic parallels$ ellipsis)"
6 + am grateful to the Bnited ;tates *olocaust ,emorial ,useum (#ashington "'") for ma%ing this
oral history a!ailable to me$ as well as the Eational -lliance of Iewish #omen ('le!eland @ranch) for
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
65/66
+ am grateful to the Bnited ;tates *olocaust ,emorial ,useum (#ashington "'") for ma%ing this oral
history a!ailable to me$ as well as the Eational -lliance of Iewish #omen ('le!eland @ranch) for
inter!iewing ,rs" @eer and allowing B;*,, to act as a national repository for the oral history"
7
The importance here of occupation8 pic%s up the theme of husband8s occupation discussed earlier" +
discuss this in more detail in a comparison among different openings of oral history inter!iews
(;chiffrin$ forthcoming)"
-
8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And
66/66
top related