conversationalization in public discourse
DESCRIPTION
Conversationalization in public discourse. Tryntje Pasma Kirsten Vis. Overview. Introduction Conversationalization VU-Ster project Metaphor Subjectivity. Conversationalization. Hypothesis by Norman Fairclough (CDA) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Conversationalization in public discourse
Tryntje Pasma
Kirsten Vis
![Page 2: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Overview
• Introduction• Conversationalization• VU-Ster project
• Metaphor• Subjectivity
![Page 3: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Conversationalization
• Hypothesis by Norman Fairclough (CDA)
• “the modelling of public discourse upon the discursive practices of ordinary life, ‘conversational’ practices in a broad sense” (Fairclough, 1994: 253)
• movement towards norms of ‘casual’ conversation • in university brochures, news reports etc.
• Example:Di’s butler bows out . . . in sneakers.(headline Daily Mirror)
• Conversational vocabulary• Graphic devices
![Page 4: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Di’s butler bows out . . . in sneakers.
• description of certain stylistic markers as ‘conversational’ is problematic (Pearce (2005))• Which word is conversational?
• ‘bows out’ (vs. ‘resigns’)?• ‘sneakers’ (vs. ‘trainers’)?• ‘Di’ (vs. ‘Diana’ / ‘Princess Diana’)?
• Lexical density• Tense
Intuitively plausible but intuitive approach
![Page 5: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
VU-Ster project• Goal
• empirically test Fairclough’s conversationalization hypothesis for Dutch public discourse
• Corpus analysis• Dutch news from 1950 <-> 2002• Dutch news from 2002 <-> Dutch conversations from 2002
• News• 1950: 30,000w• 2002: 50,000w• 5 national newspapers; different sections
• Conversations• 50,000w from Corpus of Spoken Dutch• 30 complete spontaneous conversations
![Page 6: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
To metaphor…
Conversationalization includes: colloquial vocabulary; phonic, prosodic and paralinguistic
features of colloquial language; direct address (you and we); repetition; lack of subject-verb agreement
Biber’s features of involved vs informational production involved: causative subordination; wh-questions/clauses; etc.
Can same be observed for metaphor? seen as conventional, stylistic property, rhetorical effect
![Page 7: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Metaphor in conversation
Studies of metaphor in conversations Focus on certain forms and functions (Cameron 2003, 2008;
Drew & Holt 1995) in certain settings
Idiomatic expressions Delexicalised verbs (lexical density) Position in sentence
![Page 8: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Idiomatic expressions
Their role in English conversations Cheshire (2005): fixed expressions function as a means to
help speakers keep up with the demand of online speech production
Drew and Holt (1995): idiomatic expressions in naturally occurring conversations seem to be used predominantly for topic summarizing and topic termination purposes
Their role in Dutch conversations Termination and summary function; topic transition and
start of new topic
![Page 9: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Example
78: ja je gaat vanavond maar weer flink te s aan de zuip. 79: ik heb een kater vandaag gewoon. 80: ongelooflijk. 81: ik heb uh helse pijnen doorstaan. 82: ik ben nog maar net uit b uit bed. 83: net nou eigenlijk net. 84: ja dat kasteelbier van jou dat uh dat ga dat hakt erin als een
kasteel de volgende dag. 85: ja die zijn inderdaad genadeloos ja. 86: ik heb trouwens uh... 87: ben net even naar de videotheek geweest. 88: en daar lag gewoon Lars Von Trier The Idiots bij de videotheek. 89: bij in de vijfhoek. (fn000496)
![Page 10: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Idioms in news similar?
Occur more often in news than in conversation roughly 1 per 500 words
Functions are similar a lot of the examples fit within termination, summary,
transition function
Example:
Bijbelimporteur drijft wig tussen China en de VS(Vbu2)
![Page 11: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Position of metaphor
Do metaphor-related words occur at beginning, middle or end of a sentence
What is expected? Are expectations different for conversation and news?
What are the results? Are results different for conversation and news?
![Page 12: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Results conversation
![Page 13: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Results news
![Page 14: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Form, function, position
Comparison between conversations and news patterns on different levels diachronic element for conversationalization
with respect to form and position
Conceptual analysis of metaphor patterns in registers
![Page 15: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
To subjectivity• Definition:
the degree to which the presence of the speaker (/writer) is felte.g. when speaker gives opinion or shows (un-)certainty
• Why subjectivity?• Presence of speaker in conversations
• Examples:• It is a beautiful city.• Maybe your friend will come to the party.• John must be ill.
• SPEAKER subjectivity
![Page 16: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Analysis• Two levels
1. Text: coherence relations
2. Sentence / word: lexico-grammatical
![Page 17: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
1. Text level: coherence relations
• Relations between text parts like Cause-Consequence, Contrast, Evidence etc.
• Capture part of what makes a text a text (rather than a random set of sentences)
• Starting point:
Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST; Mann & Thompson, 1988)• fairly exhaustive list of 24 well-defined relations
![Page 18: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Subjective relations• 10 subjective relations
1. Antithesis2. Concession3. Concessive opposition4. Enablement5. Enumeration6. Evidence7. Evaluation8. Interpretation9. Justify10. Motivation
• Conversationalization hypothesis:• The relative amount of subjective relations has increased
over time.
![Page 19: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
![Page 20: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Subjective relations in news
1950 2002 Chi2
per 10,000 w per 10,000 w
Antithesis 7.6 6.8 0.138149
Concession 28.5 29.3 0.033829
Concessive opposition 12.8 8.2 3.431172
Enablement 0.0 1.6 ***
Enumeration 4.3 5.4 0.39456
Evaluation 10.0 6.4 2.558607
Evidence 26.1 37.8 5.966287
Interpretation 16.2 6.4 15.36982
Justify 1.9 0.2 ***
Motivation 0.0 0.0 ***
107.5 102.2 0.396887
increase
decrease
no change
![Page 21: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Conclusion coherence relations
• Overall number of subjective relations has not changed significantly, but the nature of the textual subjectivity has:
‘Old’ newspapers interpret more,
‘new’ newspapers prove / conclude more
• Explanation:• back to texts
![Page 22: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
2. Sentence/word level• Following Bekker (2006), Scheibman (2002), Wiebe (2005)
• Intensifiers• very, enormously
• Modal verbs• must
• Modal adverbs• maybe, presumably, certainly
• Verbs of cognition• think, say
• First and second person pronouns• I, you
• Direct questions• uncertainty; listener is addressed
![Page 23: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Subjective elements
1950 2002 Chi2 conversations
10,000 w 10,000 w 10,000 w
1p sg pron 8.6 32.0 32.6702 348.4
1p pl pron 21.9 22.7 0.049368 84.3
2p sg pron 4.8 15.2 13.30681 248.6
2p pl pron 0.0 0.0 *** 10.2
modal verb 36.7 42.6 1.29107 57.3
modal adverb 33.3 32.3 0.048473 57.7
particle 76.1 90.3 3.530204 196.0
verb of cognition
53.2 35.0 12.38341 66.0
intensifier 249.1 250.8 0.017301 792.4
question 13.8 8.0 5.241389 207.4
deictic 27.6 23.7 0.901491 45.5
![Page 24: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Conclusion lexico-grammatical analysis• Only marginal support for conversationalization
hypothesis• More research is needed
• Verbs of cognition• only 1st person
• Direct speech• exclude character speech• not straight-forward: e.g. Semi-Direct Speech
![Page 25: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Conclusion lexico-grammatical analysis• Only marginal support for conversationalization
hypothesis• More research is needed
• Verbs of cognition• only 1st person
• Direct speech• exclude character speech• not straight-forward: e.g. Semi-Direct Speech• De enige werkelijke oplossing is de sluiting van het terrein,
stelt Molenman. (Nbi1)
The only real solution is closing the area, says Molenman.• De Ned. marine had een zeer gunstige indruk op hem
gemaakt, zo zei hij. (TRObu2)
The Dutch navy had made a very favourable impression on him, he said.
![Page 26: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
What’s next?• Refine lexico-grammatical analysis• Automatic lexico-grammatical analysis of larger
corpus• Qualitative studies
• conversation 1950• analysis of perspective• etc.
• Reception experiment• Possibly automatic analysis of adjectives and
nouns with help from Computational Lexicology & Terminology Lab
![Page 27: Conversationalization in public discourse](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051418/56815578550346895dc340b5/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Thank you!