Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:44:57.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pseudoquotation in current English communication: “Hey, she didn't really say it”*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Betty Lou Dubois
Betty Lou Dubois
Affiliation:
Department of Communication Studies, New Mexico State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To investigate discourse and interactive functions of quote formula + hey + pseudoquotation, that is, invented quotation, in current English communication, tokens were collected from public and commercial broadcasts and miscellaneous readings during a four-month period. In addition, all instances of hey with context were extracted from the Brown Corpus of American English. Only 26 possible tokens, the majority from radio and television, were located; one instance in Brown indicates existence as early as 1961. A speaker uses quote formula + hey + pseudoquotation to dramatize and thereby give emphasis to an important point (in these examples, generally in an expository discourse), a practice reported for both sophisticated and folk discourse. Instead of a rhetorical question, the device makes a rhetorical answer to an unasked question. Although pseudoquotation can be found either without discourse marker or with other discourse marker, hey is an appropriate marker for pseudoquotation, simultaneously to mark an important point in a discourse and to bind listeners to the ongoing interaction by (re)capturing their attention. (Discourse markers, conversational interaction, pragmatics, dramatization, hey, quotation)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 1989 , pp. 343 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Abeel, E. (1987, 11 1). How Sally Field grew out of Gidget … and into herself. Parade Magazine. 6–7.Google Scholar
Aicher, J. (1987, 10 30). UNM student sets golfing world record. Round-Up, 11.Google Scholar
Amory, C. (1987, 12 20). How Jonathan Winters turned pain into laughter. Parade Magazine. 4–7.Google Scholar
Auchlin, A. (1981). Mais heu, pis bon, ben alors voilà, quoi! Marqueurs de structuration de la conversation et completude. Cahiers de linquistique française, Actes du ler Colloque de Pragmatique de Geneve. 141–60.Google Scholar
Barnicle, M. (1988). All Robert Redford wants to be is Paul Newman: The kid, revealed. Esquire 109(3): 114–24.Google Scholar
Barrett, R. B., & Stenner, A. J. (1971). The myth of the exclusive “or.” Mind 80: 116–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borowski, E. J. (1976). English and truth-functions. Analysis 36: 96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, J. (1987, 10 4). In step with: Raquel Welch. Parade Magazine. 31.Google Scholar
Brockway, D. (1981). Semantic constraints on relevance. In Parrel, H., Sbisa, M., & Verschueren, J. (eds.), Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 57–78.Google Scholar
Bruxelles, S. et al. , (1980). Mais occupe-toi d'Amélie. In Ducrot, O. (ed.), Les mots du discours. Paris: Minuit. 93–130.Google Scholar
Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic-initial elicitors. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme. 167–90.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme. 102–28.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1978). Coordination. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Doty, G. G., & Ross, J. (1973). Language and life in the U. S. A. Vol. I: Communicating in English. 3rd ed.New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Draper, T. (1987). An autopsy: The Iran-Contra scandal. The New York Review of Books 34(2): 67–77.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1984). Speakers' reporting in invitation sequences. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme. 129–51.Google Scholar
Dubois, B. L. (1980). Genre and structure of biomedical speeches. Forum Linguislicum 5(2): 140–69.Google Scholar
Dubois, B. L., & Crouch, I. M. (1985). Regulatory language behavior. (Edward Sapir Monograph Series in Language, Culture, and Cognition 13, Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States.) Lake Bluff, IL: Jupiter.Google Scholar
Dunham, H. C., & Summers, C. V. (1986). English integrated. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Elbaum, S. (1986). Grammar in context. Book 2. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
English Language Services. (1963). Intensive course in English. Book 2. Washington, DC: English Language Services, Inc.Google Scholar
English Language Services. (1968). A practical English grammar. New York: Collier Macmillan International.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. R. (1980). The Little, Brown handbook. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Francis, W. N., & Kuöera, H. (1979). A manual of information to accompany the Brown corpus of standard American English. Rev. and augmented. Providence, RI: Brown University, Dept. of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Frank, M. (1972). Modern English. Part If: Sentences and complex structures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., & Pullum, G. K. (1976). Truth-functional connectives in natural language. In Mufwene, S. S. & Walker, C. A. (eds.), Papers from the Twelfth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago, Dept. of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Gefvert, C. J. (1985). The confident writer. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme. 299–345.Google Scholar
Hodges, J. C., & Whitten, M. E. (1984). Harbrace college handbook. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. R. (1974). Exclusive or inclusive disjunction. Foundations of Language 11: 409–11.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1981). “In vain I tried to tell you”: Essays in Native American ethnopoetics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
James, A. R. (1983). Compromisers in English. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 191–206.Google Scholar
James, D. (1972). Some aspects of the syntax and semantics of interjections. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N., & Phares, G. C. (eds.), Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago, Dept. of Linguistics. 162–71.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1967). Katz on analyticity. Journal of Linguistics 3: 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1969). &. Journal of Linguistics 6: 111–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroskrity, P. V. (1985). Growing with stories: Line, verse, and genre in an Arizona Tewa text. Journal of Anthropological Research 4(2): 183–99.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1971). If's, and's, and but's about conjunction. In Fillmore, C. J. & Langendoen, T. R. (eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. 115–50.Google Scholar
Larson, M. L. (1978). The functions of reported speech in discourse. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Leland, E. (1987, 09 25). City Council wants budget scrutinized. Las Cruces Sun-News. 1A, 2A.Google Scholar
Lewis, A. (1987, 09 28). The Robert Bork surprise. Las Cruces Sun-News. 4A.Google Scholar
Longacre, R. (1980). An apparatus for the identification of paragraph types. Notes on Linguistics 15: 5–22.Google Scholar
Longacre, R. (1983). The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
McKinley, A., & Potter, J. (1987). Model discourse: Interpretative repertoires in scientists' conference talk. Social Studies of Science 17(3): 443–73.Google Scholar
Merritt, M. (1984). On the use of “OK” in service encounters. In Baugh, J. & Scherzer, J. (eds.), Language in use. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 139–47.Google Scholar
Nanov-Schwehr, K. (1988). Discourse analysis: Recurrent intonation patterns in the Kennedy/ Nixon debates. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Ostman, J.-O. (1981). You know: A discourse-functional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Owen, M. L. (1983). Apologies and remedial exchanges. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of pre-ferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme. 57–101.Google Scholar
Pozner, R. (1980). Semantics and pragmatics of sentence connectives in natural language. In Searle, J. R., Kiefer, F., & Bierwisch, M. (eds.), Speech act theory and pragmatics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 169–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, W. E. (1975). Modern English. Vol. I. 2nd ed.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1984). On doing “being ordinary.” In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme. 413–29.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1985). Conversational coherence: The role of well. Language. 61(3): 640–67.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, S. (1975). Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic. 211–33.Google Scholar
Schourup, L. (1985). Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Schulze, M. (1978). Rhetorical questions in Sunwar. In Grimes, J. (ed.), Papers on discourse. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics. 349–62.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. (1977). Two discourse markes in Chipewyan narratives. International Journal of American Linguistics 43(1): 60–64.Google Scholar
Seligson, T. (1987, 09 20). The truth about Jane Pauley. Parade Magazine. 4–7.Google Scholar
Shearer, L. (1987, 12 20). Rocky's mom. Parade magazine. 14–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shearer, L. (1988, 01 10). Intelligence report. Parade Magazine. 16.Google Scholar
Sirdar-Iskandar, C. (1980). Eh bien! Le russe lui a donné cent francs. In Ducrot, O. (ed.), Les mots du discours. Paris: Minuit. 161–91.Google Scholar
Staal, J. F. (1968). And. Journal of Linguistics 4: 79–81.Google Scholar
Strahm, E. (1978). Cohesion markers in Jirel narratives. In Grimes, J. (ed.), Papers on discourse. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics. 342–49.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J. (1980). Well in conversation. Studies in English Linguistics for Randolph Quirk. London: Longman. 167–77.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984). Reported speech as constructed dialog. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. Cited in Kroskrity (1985).Google Scholar
Bob, Tomato. (1987, 10 12). The New Yorker. 36–38.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. (1977). Connectives in text grammar and text logic. In van Dijk, T. & Petofi, J. (eds.), Grammars and descriptions. New York: De Gruyter. 11–63.Google Scholar
Warner, R. (1985). Discourse connectives. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary. (1986). Springfield, MA: Merriam.Google Scholar
Woodbury, A. C. (1985). The functions of rhetorical structure: A study of Central Alaskan Yupik Eskimo discourse. Language in Society 14: 153–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1985). Clitics and particles. Language. 61(2): 283–305.Google Scholar