古老话语标记的新用法:以 "so "开头回答问题的兴起

IF 1.8 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Syelle Graves
{"title":"古老话语标记的新用法:以 \"so \"开头回答问题的兴起","authors":"Syelle Graves","doi":"10.1016/j.pragma.2024.01.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study investigates a previously unresearched use of the discourse marker <em>so</em>: prefacing answers to questions from an interlocutor, informally coined “backstory <em>so</em>” and found to signal that the answer necessitates background information, or more complexity or length than the asker assumes the questioner expects, a function known to be carried out by <em>well</em>. This investigation was motivated by (i) negative attitudes toward this use of <em>so</em>, describing the speakers with attributes like annoying, condescending, confusing, and wrong; (ii) layperson claims that it is new; and (iii) non-scholarly writings by linguists reporting controversy over whether answering questions with <em>so</em> is actually new or a Zwickian Recency Illusion. This paper draws on spoken data from the <em>Corpus of Contemporary American English</em> from 1990 to 2016, and presents findings of 774 target tokens by 544 unique speakers starting in 1992. Results of a logistic regression show a statistically significant increase in the rate of this form over that time. I tentatively suggest that previous constraints against the discourse marker <em>so</em> prefacing answers to mark added information seem to have undergone a rapid language shift, competing with the older use of <em>well</em>, and supporting the layperson intuitions of newness.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16899,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pragmatics","volume":"225 ","pages":"Pages 69-86"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New use of an old discourse marker: The rise of prefacing answers to questions with so\",\"authors\":\"Syelle Graves\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pragma.2024.01.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This study investigates a previously unresearched use of the discourse marker <em>so</em>: prefacing answers to questions from an interlocutor, informally coined “backstory <em>so</em>” and found to signal that the answer necessitates background information, or more complexity or length than the asker assumes the questioner expects, a function known to be carried out by <em>well</em>. This investigation was motivated by (i) negative attitudes toward this use of <em>so</em>, describing the speakers with attributes like annoying, condescending, confusing, and wrong; (ii) layperson claims that it is new; and (iii) non-scholarly writings by linguists reporting controversy over whether answering questions with <em>so</em> is actually new or a Zwickian Recency Illusion. This paper draws on spoken data from the <em>Corpus of Contemporary American English</em> from 1990 to 2016, and presents findings of 774 target tokens by 544 unique speakers starting in 1992. Results of a logistic regression show a statistically significant increase in the rate of this form over that time. I tentatively suggest that previous constraints against the discourse marker <em>so</em> prefacing answers to mark added information seem to have undergone a rapid language shift, competing with the older use of <em>well</em>, and supporting the layperson intuitions of newness.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16899,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pragmatics\",\"volume\":\"225 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 69-86\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pragmatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216624000080\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216624000080","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究调查了话语标记词 so 的一种以前未曾研究过的用法:在回答对话者提出的问题之前使用,非正式地称为 "backstory so",它表示回答需要背景信息,或者比提问者所假设的更复杂或更长,而众所周知,well 具有这种功能。这项调查的动机是:(i) 人们对 so 的使用持负面态度,用烦人、居高临下、令人困惑和错误等属性来描述说话者;(ii) 外行人声称它是一种新用法;(iii) 语言学家的非学术性著作报道了关于用 so 回答问题究竟是新用法还是兹威克再现错觉的争议。本文利用了《当代美国英语语料库》(Corpus of Contemporary American English)中 1990 年至 2016 年的口语数据,介绍了从 1992 年开始由 544 位不同说话人使用的 774 个目标词块的研究结果。逻辑回归的结果表明,在这段时间内,这种形式的出现率出现了统计学意义上的显著增长。我初步认为,以前对在回答前使用 "so "这一话语标记来标记附加信息的限制似乎经历了快速的语言转变,与较早使用的 "well "形成了竞争,并支持了外行人对 "新 "的直觉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
New use of an old discourse marker: The rise of prefacing answers to questions with so

This study investigates a previously unresearched use of the discourse marker so: prefacing answers to questions from an interlocutor, informally coined “backstory so” and found to signal that the answer necessitates background information, or more complexity or length than the asker assumes the questioner expects, a function known to be carried out by well. This investigation was motivated by (i) negative attitudes toward this use of so, describing the speakers with attributes like annoying, condescending, confusing, and wrong; (ii) layperson claims that it is new; and (iii) non-scholarly writings by linguists reporting controversy over whether answering questions with so is actually new or a Zwickian Recency Illusion. This paper draws on spoken data from the Corpus of Contemporary American English from 1990 to 2016, and presents findings of 774 target tokens by 544 unique speakers starting in 1992. Results of a logistic regression show a statistically significant increase in the rate of this form over that time. I tentatively suggest that previous constraints against the discourse marker so prefacing answers to mark added information seem to have undergone a rapid language shift, competing with the older use of well, and supporting the layperson intuitions of newness.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
18.80%
发文量
219
期刊介绍: Since 1977, the Journal of Pragmatics has provided a forum for bringing together a wide range of research in pragmatics, including cognitive pragmatics, corpus pragmatics, experimental pragmatics, historical pragmatics, interpersonal pragmatics, multimodal pragmatics, sociopragmatics, theoretical pragmatics and related fields. Our aim is to publish innovative pragmatic scholarship from all perspectives, which contributes to theories of how speakers produce and interpret language in different contexts drawing on attested data from a wide range of languages/cultures in different parts of the world. The Journal of Pragmatics also encourages work that uses attested language data to explore the relationship between pragmatics and neighbouring research areas such as semantics, discourse analysis, conversation analysis and ethnomethodology, interactional linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, media studies, psychology, sociology, and the philosophy of language. Alongside full-length articles, discussion notes and book reviews, the journal welcomes proposals for high quality special issues in all areas of pragmatics which make a significant contribution to a topical or developing area at the cutting-edge of research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信