Pragmatic triangulation and misunderstanding
A prosodic perspective
Keywords:corpus linguistics, discourse analysis, discourse markers, pragmatic triangulation, pragmatic markers, prosody
This paper presents ‘pragmatic triangulation’ as the main tool used by speakers to avoid misunderstanding and reformulate ideas in speech, through Pragmatic Markers (PM’s), in the Spanish section of the Lindsei Corpus. The study will delve into the prosodic features used by native and non-native speakers of English in the prevention of misunderstanding to determine their functional differences in both groups of speakers. The paper will first make a theoretical account of the notion of understanding and misunderstanding and will discuss the characterization of Pragmatic Markers in the communication process. Secondly, the study will select the most frequent PM’s used by speakers for this purpose, and will describe its frequency and relevance in the corpus. And thirdly, the paper will look into the intonation and pragmatic asymmetry of the use of these elements by native and non-native speakers on the basis of statistical data. The final section will discuss the results of the analysis and will highlight the importance of invigorating this type of research for the benefit of contrastive and pedagogic studies.
Cruttenden, A. (1997) Intonation (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fele, G. (1992) La comprensione nell’interazione. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia 33 (3): 425–438.
Guilquin G. (ed.) LINDSEI Corpus. Louvain: Louvain la Neuve Press.
Gussenhoven, C. (1984) On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967) Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970) A Course in Spoken English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J. (2007) Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. In N. J. Enfield and S. Levinson (eds) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives, 255–280. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P., Dunne, S. (2011) Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprentices. Pragmatics 43 (2): 489–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.008
Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (2008) Conversation Analysis. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Kecskes, I. (2008) Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (3): 385–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004
Ladd, D. R. (1996) Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindwall, O. and Lymer, G. (2011) Uses of ‘understand’ in science education. Pragmatics 43: 452–474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.021
Macbeth, D. (2011) Understanding understanding as an instructional matter. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 438–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.006
Moeschler, J. (2004) Intercultural pragmatics: A cognitive approach. Intercultural Pragmatics 1 (1): 49–70.
Mondada, L. (2011) Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2): 542–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
Panther, K. U. and Thornburg, L. (1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30 (6): 755–769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9
Ponterotto, D. (2000) The cohesive role of cognitive metaphor in discourse and conversation. In A. Barcelona (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, a Cognitive Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Romero-Trillo, J. (2001) A mathematical model for the analysis of variation in discourse. Journal of Linguistics 37 (3): 527–550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226701001050
Romero-Trillo, J. (2007) Adaptive Management in discourse: The case of involvement discourse markers in English and Spanish conversations. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 81–94.
Romero-Trillo, J. (in press) Pragmatic markers. Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Romero-Trillo, J. and Agüero, M. F. (2010) Spanish subcorpus. In Gäetanelle Guilquin (ed.) LINDSEI Corpus. Louvain: Louvain la Neuve Press.
Romero-Trillo, J. and Maguire, L. (2011) Adaptive context, the fourth element of meaning. International Review of Pragmatics 3 (2): 228–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187731011X597523
Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on Conversation [1964–72], 2 Vols. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50 (4): 696–735. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/412243
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53 (2): 361–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/413107
Sperber, D, Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G. and Wilson, D. (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language 25 (4): 359–393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x
How to Cite
© Equinox Publishing Ltd.
For information regarding our Open Access policy, click here.