Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:43:22.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2012

Paul Drew  and
Elizabeth Holt
Paul Drew
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of York, York YOI 5DD, England, wpdl@york.ac.uk
Elizabeth Holt
Affiliation:
School of Music and Humanities, Huddersfield University, Queensgate, Huddersfield HDI 3DH, England, smusejh@pegasus.hud.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In conversation, speakers occasionally use figurative expressions such as “had a good innings,” “take with a pinch of salt,” or “come to the end of her tether.” This article investigates WHERE in conversation such expressions are used, in terms of their sequential distribution. One clear distributional pattern is found: Figurative expressions occur regularly in topic transition sequences, and specifically in the turn where a topic is summarized, thereby initiating the closing of a topic. The paper discusses some of the distinctive features of the topic termination/transition sequences with which figurative closings are associated, particularly participants' orientation to their moving to new topics. Finally, the interactional use of figurative expressions is considered in the context of instances where their use fails to secure topical closure, manifesting some conflict (disaffiliation, etc.) between the participants. (Figurative expressions, idioms, conversation, topic)

Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 495 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abeille, Anne (1995). The flexibility of French idioms: A representation with lexicalized tree adjoining grammar. In Everaert, et al. (eds.), 15–42.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, & Heritage, John, (1984), eds. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Black, Max (1972). The labyrinth of language. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bobrow, Samuel A., & Bell, Susan M. (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory and Cognition 1:343–46.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1:1–14.Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian, & Yule, George (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Button, Graham (1990). On varieties of closings. In Psathas, George (ed.), Interaction competence, 93–148. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace (1968). Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the Chomskyan paradigm. Foundations of Language 4:109–25.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, & Heritage, John (1992), eds. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, & Holt, Elizabeth (1988). Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems 35:398–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estill, Robert B., & Kemper, Susan (1982). Interpreting idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 11:559–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everaert, Martin; Van der Linden, Erik-Jan; Schenk, André & Schreuder, Rob (1995), eds. Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles; Kay, Paul; & O'Connor, Mary C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of “let alone”. Language 64:501–38.Google Scholar
Gardner, Rod J. (1997). The conversational object Mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30:131–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory and Cognition 8:149–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, Raymond W. (1987). Linguistic factors in children's understanding of idioms. Journal of Child Language 14:569–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, Raymond W., & Kearney, Lydia R. (1994). When parting is such sweet sorrow: Comprehension and appreciation of oxymora. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23:75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., & Nayak, Nandini P. (1989). Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology 21:100–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, Georgia M. (1975). Nonsense and reference; or, the conversational use of proverbs. Chicago Linguistic Society 11:226–39.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, & Sefi, Sue (1992). Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between Health Visitors and first-time mothers. In Drew, & Heritage, (eds.), 359–417.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately nextpositioned matters. In Atkinson, & Heritage, (eds.), 191–222.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems 35:418–41.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1994). No as a response token. MS.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, & Lee, John (1992). The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of a “troubles-telling” and a “service encounter.” In Drew, & Heritage, (eds.), 521–48.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1984). Intensity. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, form and use in context, 43–70. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles (1976), ed. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Michael J. (1998). Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica 30:263–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolas, Tim (1995). Semantics of idiom modification. InEveraert, et al. (eds.), 233–52.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor; Schegloff, Emanuel A.; & Thompson, Sandra A. (1996), eds. Interaction and grammar. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1984a). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, & Heritage, (eds.), 57–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1984b). Pursuing a response. InAtkinson, & Heritage, (eds.), 152–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popiel, Stephen J., & McRae, Ken (1988). The figurative and literal senses of idioms; or, all idioms are not used equally. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 17:475–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1992). Lectures on conversation, ed. by Jefferson, Gail. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schank, Richard (1977). Rules and topics in conversation. Cognitive Science 1:421–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talkin-interaction. In Dorval, Bruce (ed.), Conversational organization and its development, 51–77. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Schenk, André (1995). The syntactic behaviour of idioms. In Everaert, et al. (eds.), 253–72.Google Scholar
Schraw, Gregory; Trathen, Woodrow; Reynolds, Ralph E.; & Lapan, Richard T. (1988). Preferences for idioms: Restrictions due to lexicalization and familiarity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 17:413–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweigert, Wendy A., & Moates, Danny R. (1988). Familiar idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 17:281–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strassler, Jurg (1982). Idioms in English: A pragmatic analysis. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, Diana (1990). The neurology of proverbs. Behavioural Neurology 3:169–87.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, Diana (1991). Personal relevance and the human right hemisphere. Brain and Cognition 17:64–92.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, Diana, & Kempler, Daniel (1987). Comprehension of familiar phrases by left- but not by right-hemisphere damaged patients. Brain and Language 32:265–77.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel (1969). Problems in the analysis of idioms. In Puhvel, Jaan (ed.), Substance and structure of language, 23–81. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar