Skažem tak: Discourse markers originating from verbs of speech in Russian

Capa

Citar

Texto integral

Acesso aberto Acesso aberto
Acesso é fechado Acesso está concedido
Acesso é fechado Somente assinantes

Resumo

Based on data from the Russian National Corpus, first and foremost, from its multimedia corpus, we address two members of the family of discourse markers developed from the finite form of the verb of speech skažem (the first person plural present tense form of the verb ‘say’): isolated skažem and its combinations with an adverb or a pronominal adverb such as skažem prjamo ‘let’s put it bluntly’, skažem tak ‘let’s put it this way’, etc. We show that these markers demonstrate a typical pragmaticalization trajectory: unlike the original speech verb, they do not refer to a speech event, their main function is to express a fuzzy nomination, or hedging, i.e., these markers are used when the speaker disclaims responsibility for the possible inaccuracy of the propositional content or of the nomination used in relation to the fixed propositional content. We demonstrate the main shifts in the distribution of these markers, which occur due to the fact that they fall out of the rigid clausal structure and acquire the status of an operator which scopes over discourse segments of various (potentially any) length. We study the main prosodic properties of these markers instrumentally and perceptually and, in addition, discuss the use of markers of this family together with other means of signaling that the speaker needs additional efforts in choosing an adequate expression. These can be other lexical markers of fuzzy nomination, lexical and prosodic indicators of an open list, self-corrections, signals of hesitation (filled pauses, non-phonological lengthening of sounds), etc. The results obtained convincingly show: (1) that even within the same family of markers, the shift from a unit with propositional meaning to a discourse marker can follow different trajectories and lead to larger or smaller shifts in meaning and form; and (2) that the study of discourse markers that uses data on prosody and such specific phenomena of oral discourse as speech disfluencies makes it possible to get more comprehensive lexicographic portraits of single units and their families.

Texto integral

Acesso é fechado

Sobre autores

Vera Podlesskaya

Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences

Autor responsável pela correspondência
Email: podlesskaya@iling-ran.ru
Rússia, Moscow

Bibliografia

  1. Баранов, Добровольский 1996 — Баранов А. Н., Добровольский Д. О. Англо-русский словарь по лингвистике и семиотике. М.: Помовский и партнеры, 1996. [Baranov A. N., Dobrovol’skii D. O. Anglo-russkii slovar’ po lingvistike i semiotike [English-Russian dictionary of linguistics and semiotics]. Moscow: Pomovskii i partnery, 1996.]
  2. Богданова-Бегларян 2012 — Богданова-Бегларян Н. В. Конструкция (…) скажем (…) в повседневной русской речи. Вестник Калмыцкого института гуманитарных исследований РАН, 2012, 2: 153–157. [Bogdanova-Beglaryan N. V. The (…) skazhem (…) construction in everyday Russian speech. Vestnik Kalmytskogo instituta gumanitarnykh issledovanii RAN, 2012, 2: 153–157.]
  3. Богданова-Бегларян и др. 2019 — Богданова-Бегларян Н. В., Блинова О. В., Зайдес К. Д., Шерстинова Т. Ю. Корпус «Сбалансированная аннотированная текстотека» (САТ): изучение специфики русской монологической речи. Труды Института русского языка им. В. В. Виноградова, 2019, 3(21): 110–126. [Bogdanova-Beglaryan N. V., Blinova O. V., Zaides K. D., Sherstinova T. Yu. Corpus “Balanced annotated text collection (Textotec)” (SAT): Studying the specificity of Russian monological speech. Proceedings of the V. V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute, 2019, 3(21): 110–126.]
  4. Брызгунова 1980 — Брызгунова Е. А. Интонация. Русская грамматика. Т. 1: Фонетика, фонология. Ударение. Интонация. Словообразование. Морфология. Шведова Н. Ю. (ред.). М.: Наука, 1980, 103–118. [Bryzgunova E. A. Intonation. Russkaya grammatika. Vol. 1: Fonetika, fonologiya. Udarenie. Intonatsiya. Slovoobrazovanie. Morfologiya. Shvedova N. Yu. (ed.). Moscow: Nauka, 1980, 103–118.]
  5. Кибрик, Подлесская (ред.) 2009 — Кибрик А. А., Подлесская В. И. (ред.). Рассказы о сновидениях: Корпусное исследование устного русского дискурса. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2009. [Kibrik A. A., Podlesskaya V. I. (eds.). Rasskazy o snovideniyakh: Korpusnoe issledovanie ustnogo russkogo diskursa. [Night Dream Stories: A corpus study of spoken Russian discourse]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh Kul’tur, 2009.]
  6. Копотев 2014 — Копотев М. В. Эволюция русских маркеров ренарратива: синтаксис или лексика Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 2014, X(2): 712–740. [Kopotev M. V. The ways to re-narrate: development of the reported speech markers in Russian. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 2014, X(2): 712–740.]
  7. НКРЯ — Национальный корпус русского языка [Russian National Corpus]. http://www.ruscorpora.ru.
  8. Подлесская, Пожилов 2021 — Подлесская В. И., Пожилов Ю. М. Семантика, грамматика и просодия вводно-союзных конструкций по данным мультимедийного подкорпуса НКРЯ. Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии: по материалам международной конференции «Диалог 2021», 2021, 20(27): 546–559. [Podlesskaya V. I., Pozhilov Yu. M. Semantics, grammar and prosody of parentheticals introduced by the subordinator kak ‘as’. Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii: po materialam mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog 2021», 2021, 20(27): 546–559.]
  9. Рахилина и др. 2021 — Рахилина Е. В., Бычкова П. А., Жукова С. Ю. Речевые акты как лингвистическая категория: дискурсивные формулы. Вопросы языкознания, 2021, 2: 7–27. [Rakhilina E. V., Bychkova P. A., Zhukova S. Yu. Speech acts as a linguistic category: The case of discourse formulae. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2021, 2: 7–27.]
  10. Сай 2010 — Сай С. С. Динамика развития обстоятельств времени со значением предшествования на интервал в русском языке. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 2010, VI(2): 131–183. [Sai S. S. Development of temporal adverbials with the meaning of “preceding interval” in Russian. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 2010, VI(2): 131–183.]
  11. Сатюкова, Воейкова 2010 — Сатюкова Д. Н., Воейкова М. Д. Особенности функционирования местоимения такой в устной разговорной речи. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 2010, VI(2): 184–224. [Satyukova D. N., Voeikova M. D. Specific functions of the pronoun takoj ‘such’ in spoken Russian. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 2010, VI(2): 184–224.]
  12. Янко 2008 — Янко Т. Е. Интонационные стратегии русской речи в сопоставительном аспекте. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2008. [Yanko T. E. Intonatsionnye strategii russkoi rechi v sopostavitel’nom aspekte [Intonation strategies of Russian speech in a comparative aspect]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, 2008.]
  13. Янко 2021 — Янко Т. Е. Коммуникативная структура как отражение точки зрения говорящего. Проблемы функциональной грамматики. Отношение к говорящему в семантике грамматических категорий. Казаковская В. В., Воейкова М. Д. (ред.). 2-е изд. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2021, 191–222. [Yanko T. E. Communicative structure as a reflection of the speaker’s point of view. Problemy funktsional’noi grammatiki. Otnoshenie k govoryashchemu v semantike grammaticheskikh kategorii. Kazakovskaya V. V., Voeikova M. D. (eds.). 2nd edn. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, 2021, 191–222.]
  14. Boersma, Weenink 2021 — Boersma P., Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.1.38, 2021. http://www.praat.org/.
  15. Chafe 1994 — Chafe W. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994.
  16. Dehé 2007 — Dehé N. The relation between syntactic and prosodic parenthesis. Parentheticals. Dehé N., Kavalova Y. (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007, 261–284.
  17. Haselow 2015 — Haselow A. Left vs. right periphery in grammaticalization: The case of anyway. New directions in grammaticalization research. Smith A. D. M., Trousdale G., Waltereit R. (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2015, 157–186.
  18. Heine et al. 2021 — Heine B., Kaltenböck G., Kuteva T., Long H. The rise of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021.
  19. Kaltenböck 2008 — Kaltenböck G. Prosody and function of English comment clauses. Folia Linguistica, 2008, 42(1): 83–134.
  20. Kaltenböck 2009 — Kaltenböck G. English comment clauses: Positions, prosody, and scope. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 2009, 34(1): 51–77.
  21. Kaltenböck et al. 2010 — Kaltenböck G., Mihatsch W., Schneider S. (eds.). New approaches to hedging. Bingley: Emerald, 2010.
  22. Kaltenböck et al. 2011 — Kaltenböck G., Heine B., Kuteva T. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language, 2011, 35(4): 852–897.
  23. Lakoff 1972 — Lakoff G. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, 1972, 8: 183–228.
  24. Markkanen, Schröder 1997 — Markkanen R., Schröder R. (eds.). Hedging and discourse approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997.
  25. Peters 2006 — Peters J. Syntactic and prosodic parenthesis. Proc. of the International Conf. on Speech Prosody. 2–5 May 2006, Dresden. 2006. http://www.isca-speech.org/archive.
  26. Prince et al. 1982 — Prince E. F., Frader J., Bosk C. On hedging in physician-physician discourse. Linguistics and the professions. Proc. of the Second Annual Delaware Symposium on Language Studies. Pietro R. J. (ed.). Norwood (NJ): Ablex, 1982, 83–97.
  27. Russian Constructicon 2021 — Bast R., Endresen A., Janda L. A., Lund M., Lyashevskaya O., Mordashova D., Nesset T., Rakhilina E., Tyers F. M., Zhukova V. The Russian Constructicon. An electronic database of the Russian grammatical constructions. 2021. https://constructicon.github.io/russian/.
  28. Wichmann 2001 — Wichmann A. Spoken parentheticals. A wealth of English. Studies in honour of Göran Kjellmer. Aijmer K. (ed.). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgiensis, 2001, 177–193.

Arquivos suplementares

Arquivos suplementares
Ação
1. JATS XML
Baixar
2. Fig. 1. Query {say, bcomma & acomma}. Distribution by year (frequency per million word forms) in the main corpus from 1766 to 2021 with smoothing

Baixar (64KB)
Metadados
3. Fig. 2. Query {say, acomma so, bcomma, at a distance from 1 to 1}. Distribution by year (frequency per million word forms) in the main corpus from 1766 to 2021 with smoothing

Baixar (61KB)
Metadados
4. Fig. 3. Intonogram for example (14)

Baixar (52KB)
Metadados
5. Fig. 4. Intonogram for example (15)

Baixar (72KB)
Metadados
6. Fig. 5. Intonogram for example (16)

Baixar (65KB)
Metadados
7. Fig. 6. Intonogram for example (17)

Baixar (70KB)
Metadados
8. Fig. 7. Intonogram for example (18)

Baixar (61KB)
Metadados
9. Fig. 8. Intonogram for example (19)

Baixar (54KB)
Metadados
10. Fig. 9. Intonogram for example (20)

Baixar (70KB)
Metadados
11. Fig. 10. Intonogram for example (21)

Baixar (61KB)
Metadados
12. Fig. 11. Intonogram for example (22)

Baixar (67KB)
Metadados
13. Fig. 12. Intonogram for example (23)

Baixar (73KB)
Metadados
14. Fig. 13. Intonogram for example (27)

Baixar (65KB)
Metadados
15. Fig. 14. Intonogram for example (28)

Baixar (69KB)
Metadados
16. Fig. 15. Intonogram for example (29)

Baixar (69KB)
Metadados
17. Fig. 16. Intonogram for example (30)

Baixar (53KB)
Metadados
18. Fig. 17. Intonogram for example (31)

Baixar (76KB)
Metadados
19. Fig. 18. Intonogram for example (32)

Baixar (61KB)
Metadados
20. Fig. 19. Intonogram for example (33)

Baixar (79KB)
Metadados
21. Fig. 20. Intonogram for example (34)

Baixar (71KB)
Metadados
22. Fig. 21. Intonogram for example (35)

Baixar (78KB)
Metadados

Declaração de direitos autorais © Russian Academy of Sciences, 2024