23.4750, Review: Discourse Analysis; Pragmatics; Sociolinguistics: Reber (2012)

Tue Nov 13 23:46:59 UTC 2012

LINGUIST List: Vol-23-4750. Tue Nov 13 2012. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 23.4750, Review: Discourse Analysis; Pragmatics; Sociolinguistics: Reber (2012)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Veronika Drake, U of Wisconsin Madison
Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin Madison
       <reviews at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Rajiv Rao <rajiv at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:43:01
From: Terese Thonus [tthonus at ku.edu]
Subject: Affectivity in Interaction

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=23-4750.html&submissionid=4558092&topicid=9&msgnumber=1

Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=4558092

Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/23/23-1748.html 

AUTHOR: Elisabeth Reber
TITLE: Affectivity in Interaction
SUBTITLE: Sound Objects in English
SERIES: Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 215
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2012

Terese Thonus, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

SUMMARY

'Affectivity in Interaction: Sound Objects in English' is a study of three English 
sound objects in a small (16:22 hours) British-English corpus.  Elisabeth Reber 
finds, describes, and analyzes 'oh' [əʊ], 'ooh' [uː], and 'ah' [ɑː] in mundane 
conversation. She establishes a scheme for the analysis of sound objects that 
together reveal insights that a single analysis could not have. Each sound object 
is analyzed acoustically, rhythmically, and interactionally and compared to its 
accounts in dictionaries and other empirical studies. 

Chapter 1 introduces Interactional Linguistics, a combination of disciplines which, 
grounded in Contextualization Theory, uses linguistic tools of prosodic and 
phonetic description, as well as Conversation Analysis, to ''analyze affect-laden 
sound objects as communicative resources as they are deployed in talk-in-
interaction in order to accomplish social actions and goals" (13). These tools are 
well instantiated chapters in the volume 'Prosody in Interaction' (2010), which 
Reber co-edited with Barth-Weingarten and Selting.  

Chapter 2 reviews previous literature on interjections, discourse markers, and 
vocalizations, critiquing studies that ignore the sequential deployment of these 
sound objects in talk-in-interaction. For example, Reber rejects the analysis of 'oh' 
by discourse analysts Aijmer (2002) and Schiffrin (1987) because it assigns ''some 
kind of core meaning'' to a contextually- dependent discourse marker (35). Also, 
Reber assesses speech-act and syntactic analyses of interjections as limited 
because they are confined to written graphemic representations: ''Frameworks 
which aim to analyze interjections as objects with full semantics and regardless of 
their use in spoken discourse are not fully able to account for what they are'' (32). 
Through these critiques, she positions her research solidly within a Conversation-
Analytical framework.

Chapter 3 more positively reviews previous literature on affect in sound objects 
analyzed from Prosody-in-Conversation and Phonology-for-Conversation 
perspectives.  The author approaches affectivity in talk-in-interaction through 
previous research on prosody as a contextualization device and also previous 
research on conversational activities. She cites cross-linguistic research by 
Cooper-Kuhlen (2009), which states that affectivity in English is more likely to be 
marked prosodically than lexically. Reber argues that these ''phonetic bundles'' can 
be ascribed as affect for two reasons; they are neither lexical nor grammatical, but 
rather intricately woven into sequences of talk-in-interaction.  

Having argued that 'oh,' 'ooh,' and 'ah' can only be effectively researched in oral, 
conversational contexts, in Chapter 4, Reber surveys previous research on 
affective displays in conversational activities. She identifies five sequences in 
which affect accomplishes specific actions in troubles talk, news delivery, 
complaints, assessments, and self-initiated or other-initiated repairs (60). Reber 
acknowledges that these are not the only sequence types that instantiate 'oh,' 
'ooh,' and 'ah,' but has selected them because they are the most frequent types in 
her data. She thus expands her analysis from strictly qualitative to quantitative as 
well (see Schegloff 1993). 

Chapter 5 introduces Reber's data and transcription style. Of the more than 16 
hours of conversations, 5:50 hours (h) come from radio phone-in shows, 3:49 h 
from face-to-face interactions between family members, and 7:22 h from telephone 
interactions between friends and family. These data yield 340 instances of [əʊ], 32 
of [uː], and 55 of [ɑː], which are by far the most common affect-laden sound 
objects in the corpus. Reber describes the methodological approach of the study 
as ''a comprehensive analysis of formal (sequential, prosodic-phonetic, lexical, 
syntactic-grammatical) and functional contextual aspects (actions, activities)'' (78).  
Using Praat 5.2 .03, she performed acoustic analyses of each token, illustrating 
fundamental frequency, intensity, and time (77). Chapter 6 presents a thorough 
analysis of 'oh' in repair sequences and news tellings. The token [əʊ] 'oh', for 
example, appeared in a rhythmically-delayed sequential position as a ''news 
response'' (112): 

1	Dwa:	at the ↑mOment Donald's uh:
2		sprained a couple of uh
3		<<all, p>↓WHAT is it dOnald>?
4		(1.15)
5	Dwa:	/HAM			/
6		/strIngs;  	and in	/
7		/[stEAd  [of
8	(D):	/[pulled]
9	Mar:		/[<<h> ' ` [?əʊ:]>;
10		(-)

Chapter 7 analyzes tokens of [uː] 'ooh' in radio phone-ins and mundane complaints 
sequences/ troubles talk. Reber offers this example of [uː] in a turn-expansion 
sequence (152):

1	M1:	.hh has your ↑HUSband got a hairy chest.
2	C3:	<<breathy>oh he HAS>,
3		(.)
4	M1:	HAS he,
5	C3:	<<breathy>YE[AH>;
6	M1:			[[? uː];=
7		=↓ you are drOOling at the LIPS- .h  [hh
8	C3:						[I A[M;
9	M1:						       [he [he
10	C3:							 [hehehe [he
11	M1:								   [.hh
12		<<smile>one or two hellos to all of your friends in
13		CHEAdle>.

Chapter 8 analyzes types of [ɑː] 'ah' in troubles talk and deliveries of bad news. 
Reber presents this example of an affect-laden 'ah' in response to a delivery of 
bad news (198):

1	Sus:	[okay;
2		(.)
3		hh well that's All I wanted to KNOW;
4		(-)
5	Gor:	WHY's that.
6		(---)
7	Sus:	↑hm::::
8		(.)
9		NOTHing; h [h
10	Gor:		         [.hhhh
11		yOU're just (.) BO:RED. [hhh
12	Sus:				     [mh: NO::;
13		(-)
14	Sus:	WELL-
15		I dIdn't pass my DRIving test;
16	Gor:	`% [ɑːː] . h
17		(--)
18	Gor:	oh THAT'S a pIty;
19		(.)
20		wAs it toDAY;
21		(--)
22	Sus:	<<p>NO:>,
23		<<p>it wAs YESterday>;

Like Ruusuvuori's (2007) treatment of Finnish 'nii' (ni), Reber distinguishes 
between "different sorts of" 'ohs,' 'oohs,' and 'ahs' on both phonetic/prosodic and 
interactional grounds, which she terms ''two intersecting contextualization 
systems'' (249). Chapter 9 deals with ''more affect-laden sound objects," alveolar 
and bilabial clicks, and whistling. These were extremely rare in Reber's data. The 
last chapter of the book offers an overall summary and conclusions.  

Key findings of Reber's study include her analysis of ''extra high and pointed'' 'oh' 
as fulfilling three functions. The first is to avoid affiliation. The second is to defer 
either a positive or negative uptake on the speaker's part. The third is to give 
greater rights to the other speaker to evaluate news. Reber discovers that ''extra 
high and pointed'' 'ooh' signals positive excitement (and perhaps surprise) and 
results in turn expansion (146), while 'ooh' with ''high pitch and a flat, rising-falling 
contour'' functions as a receipt of detailed, negative information in complaint 
sequences and troubles talk (158, 161). ''Low-falling and tailed'' 'ah' appreciates 
the negativity of bad news and signals empathy while ''flat-falling and low'' 'ah' 
communicates responses to rejections and to bad news when the recipient is the 
''consequential figure'' (247).  In sum, Reber argues that affect-laden sound objects 
''constitute neither random nor absolutely spontaneous productions'' (257). 

EVALUATION

One of the strongest features of 'Affectivity in Interaction: Sound Objects in 
English' is its excellent list of references, which includes key journal articles, book 
chapters, and monographs within the four research paradigms, as well as research 
on affectivity from researchers operating within grammatical, semantic, and 
discourse analysis paradigms. Many of these sources -- particularly those written 
in or about languages other than English -- were unfamiliar to me and added to my 
understanding of Reber's analysis and argument. 

While Reber's findings are not strikingly different from those of prior researchers, 
the depth of analysis presented sets the book apart from previous publications.  
However, the greatest disappointment of the book, in my view, is the small data 
set that Reber analyzed in a small range of conversational settings. Although 
Reber presents radio phone-in shows as "semi-institutional," she also states that 
such conversations "constitute adjustments of the ones practiced in mundane 
contexts" (60). Unfortunately, therefore, the data set lacks examples of these 
sound objects in work and institutional settings, which one would have expected 
given the plethora of research on these in studies of talk-in-interaction (i.e., 
Conversation Analysis). Also, an entire chapter written about 12 clicks and 
whistles found in the data because they, like 'oh,' 'ooh,' and 'ah,' ''are deployed as 
recipient responses to affect-laden speaker actions'' (223) lacks credibility and 
does little to advance the author's argument. 

The book is both strengthened by and hampered by its status as a dissertation 
revision. One strength is its thorough treatment of "background" and 
"preliminaries," making the volume accessible to readers with little prior knowledge 
of affectivity and talk-in-interaction research. Others are its thorough literature 
review and richly detailed, predictable chapter structure. However, it is also 
hampered by its origin as a dissertation. While most researchers are susceptible to 
the temptation of avoiding critiquing those they know and admire, dissertation 
writers are in a particularly awkward position. Reber, like all scholars-in-training, is 
beholden to her academic committee members. Therefore, in her review of the 
literature, Reber neglects to provide the same critical appraisal of the work of 
those who supervised her dissertation.  In her Acknowledgments (ix), she refers to 
Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen as ''my supervisor, mentor and friend," and to Marja-
Leena Sorjonen as "my second supervisor.'' Reber also thanks Margret Selting for 
discussing data examples with her and therefore neglects to offer the same critical 
analysis of Selting's work as she does of Wierzbicka's (1992) or of Fischer's 
(2000). What is more, the author thanks Couper-Kuhlen and Elizabeth Holt for 
permission to use their data, and also acknowledges Couper-Kuhlen's ''meticulous 
proofreading of the current manuscript in the final stages of production'' (ix). 
Reber's reliance on her mentors may be a good professional move, but I, as a 
reader, would hope for critical (or at least different) input to the publication process 
from those less familiar with her work.

Reber's volume will be read with interest by linguists who work within a variety of 
research paradigms: Prosody-in Conversation, Phonology-for-Conversation, 
Discourse-Functional linguistics, and Conversation Analysis (see also Barth-
Weingarten et al. 2010).  Scholars with research interests in embodied interaction, 
communication studies, and affectivity in psychology, sociology, and medicine 
may also be interested in these findings. All that is necessary is that readers be 
willing to consider an account of certain ''response cries'' (Goffman 1978) that is 
informed by multiple paradigms and therefore highly informative and productive. It 
is this analytical constellation that makes 'Affectivity in Interaction: Sound Objects 
in English' a thorough and unique contribution to the analysis of conversation. 
More multimodal and multidisciplinary analyses of conversation are likely to result 
from studies like this. 

REFERENCES

Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. 
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Elisabeth Reber and Margret Selting (eds). 2010. 
Prosody in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cooper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2009. A sequential approach to affect: The case of 
"disappointment.'' In Haakana, Markku, Minna Laakso and Jan Lindström (eds.), 
Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions, 94-123. Helskini: Finnish Literature 
Society (SKS).

Fischer, Kerstin. 2000. From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: The 
functional polysemy of discourse particles. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Goffman, Erving. 1978. Response cries. Language 54. 787-815.

Ruusuvuori, Johanna. 2007. Managing affect: Integration of empathy and problem-
solving in health care encounters. Discourse Studies 9. 597-622.

Schegloff, Emanuel. 1993. Reflections on quantification in the study of 
conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26. 99-128.

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press.

Selting, Margret and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds). 2001. Studies in interactional 
linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in conversation: A study of response 
particles in Finnish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1992. Semantics, culture and cognition: Universal human 
concepts in culture-specific configurations. New York/Oxford: Oxford University 
Press.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER 

Terese Thonus teaches in the Department of English and directs the 
Writing Center at the University of Kansas. She researches oral discourse 
analysis and second language acquisition and writing and has published 
in 'Discourse & Society,' 'Text,' the 'Journal of Second Language 
Writing,' and 'Linguistics and Education,' among other venues. She is 
author, with Rebecca Babcock, of 'Researching the Writing Center: 
Towards an Evidence-Based Practice' (Peter Lang, 2012).

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-23-4750	
----------------------------------------------------------