25.2335, Review: Discourse Analysis; Pragmatics; Socioling: Thielemann & Kosta (2013)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-25-2335. Tue May 27 2014. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 25.2335, Review: Discourse Analysis; Pragmatics; Socioling: Thielemann & Kosta (2013)

Moderators: Damir Cavar, Eastern Michigan U <damir at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Mateja Schuck, 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: Monica Macaulay <monica at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  


Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 20:50:31
From: Dorota Lockyer [dlockyer at alumni.ubc.ca]
Subject: Approaches to Slavic Interaction

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=25-2335.html&submissionid=27337191&topicid=9&msgnumber=1
 
Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=27337191


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/24/24-3472.html

EDITOR: Nadine  Thielemann
EDITOR: Peter  Kosta
TITLE: Approaches to Slavic Interaction
SERIES TITLE: Dialogue Studies 20
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2013

REVIEWER: Dorota Lockyer, University of British Columbia

SUMMARY

This book is an edited collection of papers that broadly fall under the scope
of face-to-face interaction within discourse analysis and interactional
linguistics. It is a useful book to acquaint scholars of various linguistic
and Slavic backgrounds with “current research conducted on verbal interaction
between Slavic as well as bilingual interlocutors” (1). Accordingly, all data
discussed within this book examine one or more of the Polish, Russian and
Czech languages. The volume contains fifteen articles divided into five
sections, in addition to an introduction/overview.

The introduction, written by Nadine Thielemann and Peter Kosta, situates the
volume within its methodological and linguistic framework. They begin by
briefly describing current methodological frameworks and theories within the
broad scope of linguistic pragmatics and explaining how the papers in the
volume “analyze Slavic interaction primarily from a mostly Western
perspective” (3). In the last part of the introduction, they present an
overview of the book by briefly summarizing each paper and explaining how the
papers fit into each section of the volume.

PART I. MULTIMODAL, GRAMMATICAL AND PARALINGUISTIC RESOURCES IN
TALK-IN-INTERACTION

1. ‘Talking out of turn: (Co)-constructing Russian conversation’ (Lenore
Grenoble), pp. 17-33.

This paper discusses the use of co-constructions, defined by Grenoble as
syntactic units “created within a single turn construction unit but by
multiple speakers” (17). The study uses a Conversation Analysis framework to
analyze Russian conversation recorded in Brighton Beach, New York and from
radio interviews on Radio Echo Moscow. Grenoble shows that co-constructions
can be used to “‘fill in’ missing words” (24) or manipulate the conversation
by attempting to redirect the topic or statement made by a speaker. The marked
difference between conversation in Brighton Beach and in political interviews
is that while the co-constructions in political interviews are highly
manipulative, the co-constructions used in interviews made at Brighton Beach
serve “to enhance participation and to signal heightened involvement” (31).
The results of Grenoble’s study show the possibilities for co-constructions in
the morphologically-rich language of Russian and also reinforce the
communicative, social, collaborative and interactive nature of conversation.

2. ‘Reanimating responsibility: The weź-V2 (take-V2) double imperative in
Polish interaction’ (Jörg Zinken), pp. 36-61.

This paper discusses the functions of the Polish ‘weź-V2’ double imperative
construction from a Conversation Analysis and Interactional Sociolinguistics
approach. Using a corpus of video-taped naturally-occurring interactions that
occurred in the homes of six Polish families, Zinken examines requests of
here-and-now actions to show the two main reasons for the use of the double
imperative. First, it “is commonly selected when the request recipient carries
some co-responsibility for the relevant business, but isn’t currently
attending to it” (59). In this way, the speaker who uses the double imperative
conveys some level of criticism and expresses the speaker’s opinion regarding
the action the recipient should be performing. Second, the “double imperative
often creates a situation in which a person becomes newly enlisted for some
socially beneficial action” (59). Broadly, Zinken shows that the type of
social action performed is highly relevant to the specific grammatical
constructions that are used by the speaker.

3. ‘Eye behavior in Russian spoken interaction and its correlation with
affirmation and negation’ (Elena Grishina), pp. 62-83.

The Multimodal Russian Corpus (MURCO) provides the data for this paper’s
comprehensive analysis of eye behavior in connection with Russian words of
negation and affirmation, specifically ‘da’ and ‘net’ (‘yes’ and ‘no’).
Grishina analyzes her data in relation to three main concepts, namely that of
gaze grammar, eye closing, and blinking. First, the paper analyzes the corpus
with respect to gaze grammar at cue boundaries, ‘da’/‘net’ cues, eye closing
(EC) as full gestures, and gesture ligatures. Grishina proposes that the EC
with ‘da’ or ‘net’ are ‘embedded gestures’, which must be situated within a
context and paired with full gestures and speech to have meaning. It is argued
that the EC with ‘da’ is “the backup gesture which metonymically duplicates
the nod of agreement” (75), while ‘net’ connects the EC with disappearance and
the breaking-off of communication. Next, the paper investigates blinking with
pauses and stressed syllables, and proposes that blinking follows the same
pattern as the previous EC embedded gestures. Last, the results lead to the
conclusion that “‘da’/’net’ reactions, or affirmation and negation, are the
basic driving forces that influence eye behavior in Russian dialogue at all
possible levels” (81).

4. ‘Hesitation markers in transitions within (story)telling sequences of
Russian television shows’ (Hanna Laitinen), pp. 85-102.

Using samples from television shows, Laitinen applies Conversation Analysis,
Labov’s minimal narrative and several psycholinguistic models to locate
hesitation markers (HMs) in storytelling sequences, and specifically in each
turn-constructional unit (TCU). In her analysis, HMs are shown occur at the
beginning and end of a telling sequence (e.g. between abstract and either
orientation or evaluation). Laitinen suggests that problems may occur at these
points due to shifts in consciousness, the concept of tellability and/or
misunderstandings that may occur at the end of the telling. The paper
concludes by suggesting that HMs are a widespread phenomenon, and that “a
shift in a storytelling or telling sequence appears to be both a pragmatic and
a cognitive action that may cause hesitation” (99).

PART II. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RUSSIAN TALK-IN-INTERACTION

5. ‘Russian everyday utterances: the top lists and some statistics’ (Tatiana
Sherstinova) pp. 105-116.

Using audio data from the Russian ORD speech corpus, Sherstinova examines the
length of utterances and compiles a list of Russian everyday utterances. The
shortest utterances of one word (e.g. da ‘yes’) are shown to be most frequent
in Russian, followed in frequency by two-word (e.g. nu da ‘well yes’),
three-word (e.g. nu ne znaju ‘well I don’t know’), four-word (e.g. kak u tebe
dela? ‘how are you?’), and progressively longer utterances. Of the most
frequent utterances, those expressing evaluation or salutation were
unsurprisingly at the top, followed by the two-word utterances that begin with
particles or conjunctions. In addition, discourse particles are shown to
appear often within the most frequent utterances. Sherstinova also examines
the link between duration of utterances and syllable duration, and shows that
one- and two-syllable utterances are the most predictable by having the least
variation.

6. ‘Speech rate as reflection of speaker’s social characteristics’ (Svetlana
B. Stepanova) pp. 117-129.

Through an analysis of spontaneous Russian speech from the Speech Corpus of
Russian Everyday Communication (ORD), Stepanova’s contribution confirms many
conclusions about the influence of factors including age and gender previously
made by researchers working on other languages. Specifically, Stepanova uses
statistical analysis by way of the STATISTICA program to show that males speak
faster than females; there is no “direct influence of speaker’s age on the
speech rate” (125) except when the data is divided into two groups of above
and below age forty; then speech rate decreases with age. In addition, a high
level of verbal competence is shown to correspond with a slower speech rate,
and that the number of syllables in a spoken phrase strongly corresponds with
speech rate: “the longer the phrase, the faster the rate” (127). Other
factors, such as the emotional condition of the speakers, are left for future
studies.

PART III. DISPLAYING AND NEGOTIATING EPISTEMIC AND EVIDENTIAL STATUS AND
EVALUATION IN INTERACTION

7. ‘How evaluation is transferred in oral discourse in Russian’ (Nicole
Richter) pp. 133-145.

Richter’s paper discusses and analyzes the phenomenon of evaluation, which is
broadly defined as verbal and non-verbal emotive choices that convey a
positive or negative evaluative stance towards a referent in discourse. The
paper uses recordings by native speakers of Russian and consists of two sets
of data: read and quasi-spontaneous speech. By testing the Russian speakers to
see whether they could distinguish between prosodic and rhetorical features,
Richter points out that different speakers used different rejection and
evaluation techniques, including tonal features and lexical items. Both
prosodic attitudinal markers and attitudinal meaning were produced
concurrently; thus, from this data, Richter concludes that rhetorical
strategies can, and should be, studied within the context of spontaneous
conversation.

8. ‘“This is how I see it”: No-prefacing in Polish’ (Matylda Weidner) pp.
147-166.

Using a corpus of audiotaped doctor-patient interactions, Weidner discusses
the turn-initial Polish particle ‘no’. In the first part of the paper, Weidner
presents previous research on ‘no’, linking the particle to discourse
particles and interjections, and also the particle’s dependence “on context
and intonation” (149). Although the particle can appear in four turn
construction environments, Weidner states that her study is limited “to cases
where ‘no’ occurs TCU-initially” (149). The analysis suggests that ‘no’
indicates a “my side” epistemic evaluation of preceding information which
“works toward minimizing the potential negative implications” (158) of earlier
requests. Weidner concludes with the suggestion that although ‘no’ may have no
semantic meaning in itself, its meaningfulness becomes apparent “in and
through the detail of talk-in-interaction” (163). In a similar way to
Grenoble’s paper, Weidner’s study reinforces the collaborative nature of
interaction.

9. ‘How can I lie if I am telling the truth? The unbearable lightness of being
of strong and weak modals, modal adverbs and modal particles in discourse
between epistemic modality and evidentiality’ (Peter Kosta), pp. 167-184.

Using data from the ORD and the National corpus of Russian, Kosta revisits
particles that correspond either to ‘weak’ or ‘strong’ modals in regards to
evidential and epistemic meaning. The main part of the paper examines “how
particles that show the portmanteau effect between evidentiality and epistemic
modality interact and are used in conversations” (176), particularly the
particle ‘vrode’ and ‘vrode by’. Kosta concludes that in the view of lexical
semantics, these particles are highly ambiguous; however, their discourse
functions in conversational backgrounds can differ. Thus, the paper builds on
and adds to previous theoretical findings on modality.

PART IV. FACEWORK AND CONTEXTUALIZATION IN INTERACTION – FROM (IM)POLITENESS
TO HUMOR

10. ‘Irony in the face(s) of politeness: Strategic use of verbal irony in
Czech political TV debates’ (Jekaterina Mažara), pp. 187-212.

The central question of this paper concerns the relationship of verbal irony
to politeness management in political candidates in six cases of political
debate shows. Ironic utterances are examined in light of their intended and
actual effects, and the victim’s reaction in relation to positive and negative
face, face threatening acts (FTAs) and the protection of face. In the
analysis, Mažara gives two possible reasons for the speaker’s choice of irony.
The first “reason might be the wish to present oneself as the stronger, more
controlling participant in a debate” (209), while the second reason is to
protect one’s negative face from an opponent’s attacks. It is argued that
reactions to irony also follow similar reasoning; however, as Mažara notes,
other reasons may cause the use or lack of irony, including the attitude of
the host, the setting and also the individual politician’s personality.

11. ‘Parliamentary communication: The case of the Russian Gosduma’ (Daniel
Weiss), pp. 213-235.

Through an analysis of parliamentary debates in the Russian State Duma
(‘Gosduma’), the paper examines the Gosduma’s characteristics in turn-taking
(in particular that of the Chair), forms of address, multi-addressed and
multi-layered communication and Internet and TV coverage. In general, the
language in the Gosduma is shown to be less formal and more varied,
particularly when compared with the British Parliament. Weiss suggests that
published transcripts could be improved upon by increased grammatical editing
and the addition of substantial information including hecklings. The overall
representation of the institution of the Gosduma, it is concluded, is
“constitutionally and politically less influential, if not to say handicapped,
compared with its European counterparts” (233).

12. ‘Impoliteness and mock-impoliteness: A descriptive analysis’ (Michael
Furman), pp. 237-256.

In this paper, naturally occurring speech from the Russian reality television
show ‘Dom Dva’ is used to analyze impoliteness and mock-impoliteness, and also
impoliteness strategies. Using theory from foundational works such as by
Austin and Labov, the paper argues that “mock-impoliteness is parasitic on
impoliteness” (241), and both impoliteness and politeness stem from identical
locutions but differ on the level of illocution. Strategies identified in the
corpus include condescending scorn or ridicule, calling names, belittling,
invading another’s space and inappropriate identity markers. Mock-impoliteness
is shown to “perform a socially affiliative and inclusive function” (253) such
as bonding, which dampens conflict. The paper thus contrasts mock-impoliteness
from genuine impoliteness by examining conversational turn sequences in close
detail.

13. ‘Humor as staging an utterance’ (Nadine Thielemann), pp. 257-278.

In the paper, contextualization cues (CCs), broadly defined as ways that
speakers can interpret the semantic message in discourse, are analyzed as a
discourse modality that indicates the humorous framing of an utterance. The
paper focuses on animated speech in face-to-face conversations from the
Russian National Corpus, ORD corpus and the author’s recordings. Thielemann
begins the paper with a discussion of footing, alignments, and forms of
conversational humor, which includes parody, irony and teasing. Next,
Thielemann argues that “there is a motivational link between the CC animated
speech and its ‘meaning’” (273) since the CC does not contain meaning in
itself. Last, Thielemann concludes that playing with the words spoken by
another person (e.g. mimicking) and animating a character is not just play but
a shift in footing; furthermore, CCs convey “the meta-message ‘This is play’
or ‘I don’t mean this’” (273).

PART V. LANGUAGE ALTERNATION IN FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION OF BILINGUAL FAMILIES

14. ‘Bilingual language use in the family environment: Evidence from a
telephone conversation between members of a community of speakers of German
descent’ (Veronika Ries), pp. 281-293.

In this paper, the spontaneous language use of two families of bilingual
speakers of German descent from Russia (‘Russlanddeutsche’) is examined in
order to discover code-switching used in telephone calls and their effects on
conversation. The main question posed asks: “How do speakers use the
linguistic resources available to them (i.e. German and Russian) during a
family conversation?” (282). The observations demonstrate that language choice
is not random, but that the second language brings the conversation to a
different level. Opening and closing sequences are also examined and found to
“constitute frames of conversations [that] are highly characterized by
routines” (290) and are more likely used habitually due to their frequency.
Ries concludes that “[t]he complex use of more than one language shows that a
parallelism of the two languages arises but that, in practice, their use is
very flexible” (291).

15. ‘Russian language maintenance through bedtime story reading?: Linguistic
strategies and language negotiation in Russian-French speaking families in
Switzerland’ (Liliane Meyer Pitton), p. 295-315.

Pitton discusses the problem of language maintenance, specifically within a
minority group of Russians living in Switzerland. Language maintenance through
the interactive practice of reading bedtime stories is shown to be a joint
opportunity to teach the Russian language by the parents who can use various
techniques (e.g. role play) to evoke responses in the target language by the
child. Yet, it is shown that the activity is not a monolingual interaction
because the child can either resist and use French or adopt the language used
by the parent, a choice which leads to different outcomes. Pitton concludes
that the story-reading activity in these families is “a bilingual
Russian-French event” (311) that demonstrates the difficulty for the
Russian-speaking parent to create an exclusively Russian-speaking environment.

EVALUATION

The title of the volume can be construed as slightly misleading by the use of
the word ‘Slavic’ since the main languages discussed are Polish and Czech
(West Slavic) and Russian (East Slavic) with little or no reference to any of
the South Slavic languages (e.g. Bulgarian). Likewise, the title suggests a
broad range of approaches to ‘interaction’, from talk-in-interaction to
politeness research, all of which falls under an umbrella of discourse
analysis; yet, ‘interaction’ also suggests approaches that are not included in
the volume (e.g. cognitive approaches) but could also fit under the title.
Since the volume contains mainly empirical and descriptive case studies, the
title would have been clearer with more specific phrasing or a subtitle.

The division of the volume into five parts does seem to work and balance out
well, even though some sections have more papers than others. Also of interest
is that most of the papers cite past papers by other authors in the same
volume. These types of overlap demonstrate the coherence of the volume and
appear to work to the volume’s favor. Overall, the volume is presented well,
with each section containing an effective title that makes it immediately
obvious to the reader what types of papers to expect in the section.

This project is successful because of several qualities and strengths:

-The presentation of a collected work by contemporary scholars in the field of
discourse/interactional analysis that clearly references similar foundational
research in the field (e.g. by Goffman and Labov). Overall, the papers are
well grounded in the relevant scholarly literature and give detailed
theoretical and methodological backgrounds. Sherstinova’s paper would benefit
from a more comprehensive literature review and additional references that
would situate the valuable findings of the paper to current scholarly
research.

-The scholarly precision in the construction and proficient management of the
volume, by accepting high-quality empirical papers that are not only
interesting to discourse analysts but fit well within the relevant literature
and can be of interest to scholars in related fields (e.g. semantics,
sociolinguistics, pragmatics). Because all the Slavic examples have an English
gloss or translation equivalent, the papers are accessible to scholars with
little to no knowledge of any Slavic languages.

-This volume is a rich source of empirical case studies that should appeal to
graduate students and established scholars alike. The accessibility of corpora
and other sources of data used, combined with further directions and angles of
study that could be taken outside the scope of the papers, are an invaluable
resource for scholars to expand on these investigations in other languages or
from other perspectives.

-The volume succeeds in its goal to include “the kind of research which has
ever since the 70ies been conducted in Western style conversation analysis or
similar approaches” (2), thereby making it accessible and understandable to a
Western audience.

-The data used by the papers in the volume come from various sources, thus
allowing for an overall discussion of different types of discourse, including
formal discourse (e.g. political debates and the Gosduma), semi-formal
discourse (e.g. doctor-patient interaction and television/radio shows) and
informal discourse that comes from recorded conversations in families and
among friends/acquaintances.

In sum, this volume is a useful and interesting resource for anyone working on
or interested in various forms of interaction, particularly in the Slavic
languages under examination. This book met my expectations, and I was able to
find valuable contents and data that advance research in the field.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Dorota Lockyer is a PhD student in the Department of English at the University
of British Columbia, Canada. Current research interests: linguistic approaches
to literature, corpus linguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics and
translation studies.








----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-2335	
----------------------------------------------------------