To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter first describes certain innovations found in computer mediated communication in Spanish at the levels of discourse and morphosyntax, such as the creation of new discursive traditions (clickbait headlines) and the innovative patterns displayed by a number of morphemes (-i) and lexemes (fuerte, ojalá). It then offers a qualitative analysis of these phenomena, working with data mostly taken from Twitter, and compares them to similar uses described for English (such as the Because X construction). The chapter ends with an explanation of the high frequency of these uses in computer mediated communication in terms of indexicality.
In Chapter 10, we examine how cross-cultural pragmatics – in particular, cross-cultural research on expressions – can be applied to applied linguistics. More specifically, we explore how the study of expressions can provide insight into in-depth problems in language learning and language use, by examining cross-cultural pragmatic differences between the ways in which British learners of Chinese and Chinese learners of English evaluate a set of pragmatically important expressions in their target language. Chapter 10 reveals that the use of seemingly ‘simple’ pragmatically salient expressions such as sorry in English can cause significant difficulties for foreign language learners. In methodological terms, the present chapter first conducts an ancillary research, i.e. questionnaires, followed by a contrastive pragmatic exploration, i.e. interviews conducted with language learners.
This chapter examines the relationship between English as a pluricentric language with multiple varieties and the instruments of codification that stabilize the variation within their individual lexica. It compares the different types of dictionaries published for settler Englishes (Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, US) with those published for indigenized Englishes (South Africa, India, Singapore, the Philippines), finding that the former have several types of dictionaries (historical and contemporary, with partial or comprehensive coverage of the lexicon), whereas the indigenized varieties have few with limited coverage of the varietal lexicon. Other codificatory instruments, e.g. style manuals, are found with settler varieties but not indigenized ones. The range of such instruments for settler varieties thus correlates with their advanced stage of evolution (beyond endonormativity). The research shows that only those dictionaries which are produced by regionally based lexicographers are indicators of endonormativity. Dictionaries compiled by foreign/international publishers are associated with varieties that have yet to attain their endonormativity.
Chapter 5 examines how reporting clauses with the quotative verb SAY are emergent constructions, and offers a comparative analysis of such reporting clauses in the 1978–1988 and 2003–2013 data sets from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. The analytic dimensions studied include the forms, and the semantics of (1) the subject which gives the evidential source, (2) the verb which conveys the act of saying and serves as a quotative, and (3) the optional indirect object and (4) circumstance adverbials. In addition, some of the uses and functions of reporting clauses are discussed. Based on further frequency counts, the conventionalisation and grammaticalisation of two specific clausal patterns are explored in a detailed interactional study.
Chapter 3 characterises the interaction at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) as an institutionalised, parliamentary activity in change, in which members of the House of Commons have engaged since the institutionalisation of PMQs in 1961. It is shown that – due to various extralinguistic factors –PMQs has undergone rapid change during the span of 36 years covered by the study. However, it is argued that the institutional backbone of the activity, i.e. the physical set-up of the Chamber, the mediated question–answer sequences as well as the third-person address system, has remained largely the same, which warrants a comparative perspective on the 1978–1988 and 2003–2013 data sets as representatives of the same activity in different times.
Chapter 6 is concerned with the different multimodal formats of reported clauses in the 1978–1988 and 2003–2013 data sets: direct, indirect and 'in between' speech. It is discussed how these formats have changed with respect to their forms and distribution over turn types and speaker roles, and shown that speakers from both periods are strikingly conservative in the contextualisation of the quotations, with indirect and ‘literalised’ direct speech representing the two dominating practices. While indirect speech is most frequent in both data sets, the 2003–2013 sample shows a rise of ‘literalised’ direct speech across turn types and speaker roles. It is argued that this development is indicative of a general tendency to authentication and authorisation in reported speech, which is achieved through the visual manipulation of (original) documents, and the use of the verbal formula (AND) I QUOTE. The latter also serves to perform mixed quotations, a practice not found in 1978–1988. It is concluded that the comparison between the 1978–1988 and 2003–2013 points to a general tendency towards greater credibility enhancement, and a more interpersonal style in quotations.
Chapter 7 offers an analysis of the organisation of reported speech in rhetorical structures characteristic to political oratory. Lists and contrast relations are found in the 1978–1988 and 2003–2013 data sets to deliver reported speech, while combined structures (list, contrast, and puzzle–solution) are only performed in the 2003–2013 sample in this context. The use of these rhetorical structures constitutes a speaker’s resource to accomplish a denser packaging of incisive messages presented as reported speech, and the findings show that this rhetorical effect has even been increased through a tighter chunking of 2003–2013 reported speech in list constructions, and the overall use of combined structures. Crucially, these rhetorical devices are functional in forming hostile actions in an engaging way, which the speakers from 2003–2013 deploy to rally their audiences behind them, leading to an audible (and visible) opposition and polarisation in the House which communicates in a more accessible, i.e., popularised, style to mediated audiences.
Chapter 9 offers a summary of findings and general conclusions with regard to (1) evidentiality in English, (2) constructions, interactions, and change, (3) the House of Commons as a community of practice in change (and Prime Minister’s Questions as an activity in change), and (4) the potential for a new research strand, Diachronic Interactional (Socio-)Linguistics.
Chapter 2 offers an extensive literature review of reported speech and evidentiality, and introduces the relevant terms and concepts of the study. It describes reported speech as the object of study and positions the study in the field of evidentiality. In keeping with the diachronic, usage-based nature of the monograph, the chapter makes a case for viewing reported speech as a construction and briefly discusses its potential for entering processes of grammaticalisation. Revisiting the debate whether quotations represent constructed or reconstructed utterances, the chapter examines the notions of 'literalised' direct speech (Rumsey 1992) and 'constructed dialogue' (Tannen 2007) as relevant descriptive labels for reported speech in political speech. Due to the analytic interest of the study, a focus is placed on accounts made for English.
Chapter 8 is concerned with the question of how a sharp increase in the use of reported speech, and the heightened prominence of the interaction between the LO and the PM in the 2003–2013 sample are related to the constitution of recurrent, patterned courses of action. The small sample of reported speech from 1978–1988 did not yield such courses of action where reported speech with SAY is relevant. This contrasts with the 2003–2013 sample, where two recurrent adversarial courses of action with a patterned use of reported speech were identified: enticing sequences and trading-quotes sequences. Here enticing sequences seem to be a more recent development. By contrast, there is early evidence for a precursor of trading-quotes sequences in the 1978–1988 sample
Chapter 4 describes the composition of the self-compiled data base for the study, which consists of two comparable data sets of authentic recordings of Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) from 1978–1988 (audio) and 2003–2013 (video) as well of the respective Hansard files. It outlines how the language-external processes which have changed the interaction at PMQs between 1978–2013 provide the backdrop against which the evolution of reported speech is analysed. Specifically, it is argued that the composition of participation in the activity at PMQs has changed in correlation with the more prominent role of the Leader of the Opposition, and fostered a sharp increase of reported speech. It is demonstrated how the calculation of frequencies is conducted in relation to turn types and speaker roles. The chapter finally presents the transcription conventions and procedure, and discusses the basic methodological assumptions of the study.
Chapter 1 provides an introduction to this study, which analyses the recent change of quoting as an evidential practice based on data taken from authentic recordings of Prime Minister’s Questions during 1978–1988 and 2003–2013. The chapter presents the previous research background, and an outline of the subsequent chapters. Chapters 2–3 prepare the ground for the analysis, presenting a literature review of past relevant research. Chapters 4–8 comprise the analytic study. Chapter 9 summarises and concludes the findings.
Why do recordings of speakers engaging in reported speech at British Prime Minister's Questions from the 1970s–80s sound so distant to us? This cutting-edge study explores how the practices of quoting have changed at parliamentary question time in light of changing conventions and an evolving media landscape. Comparing data from authentic audio and video recordings from 1978 to 1988 and from 2003 to 2013, it provides evidence for qualitative and quantitative changes at the micro level (e.g., grammaticalisation processes in the reporting clause) and in more global structures (e.g., rhetorical patterns, and activities). These analytic findings contribute to the theoretical modelling of evidentiality in English, our understanding of constructions, interaction, and change, and of PMQs as an evolving community of practice. One of the first large-scale studies of recent change in an interactional genre of English, this ground-breaking monograph offers a framework for a diachronic interactional (socio-) linguistic research programme.
This chapter analyses the connections between quantity expressions, which, in English, include expressions such as three, several, a few, much, and many, and the mass/count distinction. Based on cross-linguistic evidence from Brazilian Portuguese, English, Mandarin, and Yudja, amongst others, Doetjes argues that quantity expressions can be exhaustively subdivided into two classes: count quantity expressions, which presuppose the availability of units that can be counted, and non-count quantity expressions, which do not presuppose the availability of units that can be counted. Anti-count quantity expressions, which presuppose the absence of units that can be counted, are subsumed under the class of non-count quantity expressions. On the basis of this distinction, Doetjes argues that while we may expect to find languages in which all nouns have a count denotation (Yudja being a good candidate), it is not predicted to be possible for there to be languages in which all nouns have a mass denotation.
In this chapter, the framework proposed in Chapter 2 is applied to the history of English. The discourse markers studied are after all, anyway, I mean, if you like, if you will, instead, like, no doubt, right, so to say/so to speak, well, and what else. The findings presented are in support of the hypothesis proposed in Section 1.5, according to which discourse markers are the joint product of two separate mechanisms, with each of the mechanisms accounting for specific properties of discourse markers.
Discourse markers constitute an important part of linguistic communication, and research on this phenomenon has been a thriving field of study over the past three decades. However, a problem that has plagued this research is that these markers exhibit a number of structural characteristics that are hard to interpret based on existing methodologies, such as grammaticalization. This study argues that it is possible to explain such characteristics in a meaningful way. It presents a cross-linguistic survey of the development of discourse markers, their important role in communication, and their relation to the wider context of sociocultural behaviour, with the goal of explaining their similarities and differences across a typologically wide range of languages. By giving a clear definition of discourse markers, it aims to provide a guide for future research, making it essential reading for students and researchers in linguistics, and anyone interested in exploring this fascinating linguistic phenomenon.
In response to negative yes–no questions (e.g., Doesn’t she like cats?), typical English answers (Yes, she does/No, she doesn’t) peculiarly vary from those in Mandarin (No, she does/Yes, she doesn’t). What are the processing consequences of these markedly different conventionalized linguistic responses to achieve the same communicative goals? And if English and Mandarin speakers process negative questions differently, to what extent does processing change in Mandarin–English sequential bilinguals? Two experiments addressed these questions. Mandarin–English bilinguals, English and Mandarin monolinguals (N = 40/group) were tested in a production experiment (Expt. 1). The task was to formulate answers to positive/negative yes–no questions. The same participants were also tested in a comprehension experiment (Expt. 2), in which they had to answer positive/negative questions with time-measured yes/no button presses. In both Expt. 1 and Expt. 2, English and Mandarin speakers showed language-specific yes/no answers to negative questions. Also, in both experiments, English speakers showed a reaction-time advantage over Mandarin speakers in negation conditions. Bilingual’s performance was in-between that of the L1 and L2 baseline. These findings are suggestive of language-specific processing of negative questions. They also signal that the ways in which bilinguals process negative questions are susceptible to restructuring driven by the second language.
Within the holdings of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library at the University of Toronto there is a curious, rarely examined handwritten book entitled Opera Evangelica, containing translations of several apocryphal works in English. It opens with a lengthy Preface that provides an antiquarian account of Christian apocrypha along with a justification for translating the texts. Unfortunately, the book's title page gives little indication of its authorship or date of composition, apart from an oblique reference to the translator as ‘I. B.’ But citations in the Preface to contemporary scholarship place the volume around the turn of the eighteenth century, predating the first published English-language compendium of Christian apocrypha in print by Jeremiah Jones (1726). A second copy of the book has been found in the Cambridge University Library, though its selection of texts and material form diverges from the Toronto volume in some notable respects. This article presents Opera Evangelica to a modern audience for the first time. It examines various aspects of the work: the material features and history of the two manuscripts; the editions of apocryphal texts that lie behind its translations; the views expressed on Christian apocrypha by its mysterious author; and its place within manuscript publication and English scholarship around the turn of the eighteenth century. Scholars of Christian apocrypha delight in finding ‘lost gospels’ but in Opera Evangelica we have something truly unique: a long-lost collection of Christian apocrypha.
This chapter presents arguments about why, for the items addressed in the book, Spanish employs a considerably greater number of lexemes. It also explores the significance of the number of countries in which a language is spoken, as well as the regions in which these nations are located. Furthermore, it presents a novel theory regarding the evident influence of Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition on the types of lexical variety in Spanish demonstrated in the book. Finally, also bringing the previous four chapters together is a table containing seventy of the more than 500 words analyzed in said chapters, a representative sampling of the myriad etymological routes by which they entered the Spanish lexicon.
In this chapter, we explore whether perceptual adjustments for gender are equally strong for Japanese- and English-speaking listeners’ categorization of the sibilant fricatives /s/ and /ʃ/ in CV sequences. These stimuli were created by combining a set of eight fricatives with a set of natural vocalic bases produced by a variety of men. We hypothesized that Japanese listeners’ categorization would be more strongly influenced by gender typicality, given the overall heightened attention to gendered speech features in Japanese speakers and the greater role that vocalic features play in fricative categorization in Japanese compared to English. Some evidence is found that Japanese listeners’ categorization of fricatives is influenced more heavily on the gender typicality of men’s voices in the vocalic portion of the stimulus than is English listeners, but the effects are neither consistent nor in the direction predicted by previous research. Results point to the need for more research on how talker attributes affect the way that L2 listeners perceive L1 speech.