Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:36:43.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantifying the referential function of general extenders in North American English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2015

Suzanne Evans Wagner ,
Ashley Hesson ,
Kali Bybel  and
Heidi Little
Suzanne Evans Wagner
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and Languages, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USAwagnersu@msu.edu
Ashley Hesson
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and Languages, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USAbartell6@msu.edu
Kali Bybel
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and Languages, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USAbybelkal@msu.edu
Heidi Little
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and Languages, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USAlittlehe@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Discourse markers (like, I don't know, etc.) are known to vary in frequency across English dialects and speech settings. It is difficult to make meaningful generalizations over these differences, since quantitative discourse-pragmatic variation studies ‘lack [a] coherent set of methodological principles’ (Pichler 2010:582). This has often constrained quantitative studies to focus on the form, rather than the function of discourse-pragmatic features. The current article employs a novel method for rigorously identifying and quantifying the referential function (set-extension) of general extenders (GEs), for example, and stuff like that, or whatever. We apply this method to GEs extracted from three corpora of contemporary North American English speech. The results demonstrate that, across varieties, (i) referential GEs occur at a comparable proportional rate in vernacular speech, and (ii) referential GEs are longer than nonreferential GEs. Collectively, these findings represent a step towards comparative quantitative studies of GEs' functions in discourse. (Discourse-pragmatic variation, general extenders, methodological approaches, American English, Canadian English)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 44 , Issue 5 , November 2015 , pp. 705 - 731
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Aijmer, Karin (1985). What happens at the end of our utterances? The use of utterance final tags introduced by ‘and’ and ‘or’. In Togeby, Ole (ed.), Papers from the Eighth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 366–89. Copenhagen: Institut for Philologie.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. (Studies in corpus linguistics 10.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, Catherine, & Ariel, Mira (1978). Or something, etc. Penn Review of Linguistics 3:35–45.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. (2003). Historical discourse analysis. In Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah, & Hamilton, Heidi (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle (2008). The localization of global linguistic variants. English World-Wide 29:15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Channell, Joanna (1994). Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny (1987). Syntactic variation, the linguistic variable, and sociolinguistic theory. Linguistics 25:257–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny (2007). Discourse variation, grammaticalization, and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11:155–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny; Kerswill, Paul; Fox, Sue; & Torgersen, Eivind (2011). Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15:151–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cieri, Christopher; Graff, David; Kimball, Owen; Miller, Dave; & Walker, Kevin (2004). Fisher English training speech part 1 transcripts. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Cieri, Christopher;Graff, David; Kimball, Owen;Miller, Dave; & Walker, Kevin (2005). Fisher English training speech part 2 transcripts. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
D'Arcy, Alexandra (2006). Lexical replacement and the like(s). American Speech 81:339–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Arcy, Alexandra (2012). The diachrony of quotation: Evidence from New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 24:343–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, Derek (2011). Innovators and innovation: Tracking the innovators of ‘and stuff’ in York English. In Tamminga, Meredith (ed.), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Selected Papers from NWAV 39 17(2). Online: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol17/iss2/.Google Scholar
Denis, Derek (2015). The development of pragmatic markers in Canadian English. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
Dines, Elisabeth R. (1980). Variation in discourse and stuff like that. Language in Society 9:13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, W. J. (1950). Analysis of extreme values. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 21:488–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, Sylvie (1992). Extension particles, etc. Language Variation and Change 4:179–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, & McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:461–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin (1998). Discourse particles, turn-taking, and the semantics-pragmatics interface. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 8:111–37.Google Scholar
Gwet, Kilem L. (2012). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among multiple raters. Gaithersburg, MD: Advanced Analytics.Google Scholar
Hinneburg, Alexander; Mannila, Heikki; Kaislaniemi, Samuli; Nevalainen, Terttu; & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena (2007). How to handle small samples: Bootstrap and Bayesian methods in the analysis of linguistic change. Literary and Linguistic Computing 22:137–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1990). List-construction as a task and resource. In Psathas, George (ed.), Interaction competence, 63–92. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel Ezra (2009). Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3:359–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, Tyler (2008). On the history and future of sociolinguistic data. Language and Linguistics Compass 2:332–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, Tyler, & Van Herk, Gerard (2011). Corpus linguistics and sociolinguistic inquiry: Introduction to special issue. Special issue of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic theory 7(1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William (2006). The social stratification of English in New York City. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. Richard, & Koch, Gary G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavandera, Beatriz (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7:171–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, & Wagner, Johannes (2010). Transcribing, searching and data sharing: The CLAN software and the TalkBank data repository. Gesprächsforschung 11:154–73.Google ScholarPubMed
Martinez, Ignacio M. P. (2011). ‘I might, I might go I mean it depends on money things and stuff’: A preliminary analysis of general extenders in British teenagers’ discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 43:2452–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrby, Catrin, & Winter, Joanne (2002). Affiliation in adolescents’ use of discourse extenders. In Allen, Cynthia (ed.), Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Online: http://www.als.asn.au.Google Scholar
O'Keeffe, Anne (2004). ‘Like the wise virgins and all that jazz’: Using a corpus to examine vague categorisation and shared knowledge. Language and Computers 52:1–20.Google Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann (1999). Whales, candlelight, and stuff like that: General extenders in English discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann, & Yule, George (1997). On being inexplicit and stuff in contemporary American English. Journal of English Linguistics 25:250–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Heike (2010). Methods in discourse analysis: Reflections on the way forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14:581–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Heike, & Levey, Stephen (2010). Variability in the co-occurrence of discourse features. In O'Brien, Lynda J. & Giannoni, Davide S. (eds.), University of Reading Language Studies Working Papers 2:17–27.Google Scholar
Pichler, Heike, & Levey, Stephen (2011). In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: General extenders in north-east England. English Language and Linguistics 15:441–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian (2005). Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in sociolinguistics. In Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert, Mattheier, Klaus J., & Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik: An international handbook of the science of language and society, vol. 2, 1003–13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Singler, John V. (2001). Why you can't do a VARBRUL study of quotatives and what such a study can show us. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 7(3):257–78.Google Scholar
Stubbe, Maria, & Holmes, Janet (1995). You know, eh and other exasperating expressions: An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language and Communication 15:63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali (2003–2006). Linguistic changes in Canada entering the 21st century. Research Grant 410-2003-0005. Ottawa: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali (2005). So who? Like how? Just what? Discourse markers in the conversations of English speaking youth. Journal of Pragmatics. 37:1896–1915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali (2007–2010). Directions of change in Canadian English. Research Grant 410-070-048. Ottawa: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali (2012). Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, & Denis, Derek (2010). The stuff of change: General extenders in Toronto, Canada. Journal of English Linguistics 38:335–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans (2008). Language change and stabilization in the transition from adolescence to adulthod. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans (2012). Age grading in sociolinguistic theory. Language and Linguistics Compass 6:371–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans; Hesson, Ashley; & Little, Heidi (2016). Comparing referential general extender use across registers in American English speech. In Pichler, Heike (ed.), Discourse-pragmatic variation and change in English: New methods and insights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Walker, James (2010). Variation in linguistic systems. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, & Birner, Betty J. (1993). The semantics and pragmatics of ‘and everything’. Journal of Pragmatics 19:205–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, Etienne (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Youssef, Valerie (1993). Marking solidarity across the Trinidad speech community: The use of an ting in medical counselling to break down power differentials. Discourse & Society 4:291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar