No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The impact of pragmatic markers and hedging on sentence comprehension: a case study of comme and genre
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 October 2016
Abstract
Current research on conceptual and semantic representations is mainly based on prototypical word classes, such as nouns and verbs. Hence, most models of language processing and language representation rely on experimental investigations on these word classes. Until today, only a few psycholinguistic studies centre on the processing of pragmatic markers and hedges and their effect on speech comprehension. The present article aims to give experimental evidence for the processing of semantic meaning patterns and pragmatic functions of pragmatic markers. The focus will be on the question, if pragmatic markers and hedges play a role in sentence processing. This main problem will be illustrated and discussed by means of experimental data. In a monolingual sentence verification task with lexical decision, the meaning patterns and functions of the partially equivalent pragmatic French markers comme and genre are investigated in Canadian and European French. The results of the sentence word verification task provide evidence for an impact of pragmatic functions and semantic meaning patterns of pragmatic markers on sentence processing.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016
References
REFERENCES
Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding Pragmatic Markers. A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2003).The discourse marker well and its equivalents in Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics, 41: 1123–1161.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2004). A model and a methodology for the study of pragmatic markers: the semantic field of expectation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36: 1781–1805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (eds). (2006). Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Andersen, G. (2001). Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaulieu-Masson, A., Charpentier, M., Lanciault, L. and Liu, X. (2007). Comme en français québécois. Communication, Lettres et Sciences du Langage, 1
(1): 27–47.Google Scholar
Beeching, K. (2011). The translation equivalence of bon, enfin, well and I mean
. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée, XVI
(2): 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bestgen, Y. and Vonk, W. (1995). The role of temporal segmentation markers in discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 19: 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bezuidenhout, A. (2004). Procedural meaning and the semantics/pragmatics interface. In: Bianchi, C. (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blankenship, K. L. and Holtgraves, T. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24
(1): 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, D. (1978). Computational distinctions of vocabulary type. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bradley, D., Garrett, M. and Zurif, E. (1980). Syntactic deficits in Broca's aphasics. In: Caplan, D. (ed.), Biological Studies of Mental Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 269–286.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Topics in English Linguistics: Vol. 19. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Britton, B. K. (1994). Understanding expository text: Building mental structures to induce insights. In: Gernsbacher, M. A. (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 641–674.Google Scholar
Britton, B. K. and Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83: 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caffi, C. (2001). La mitigazione. Un approccio pragmatico alla comunicazione nei contesti terapeutici. Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
Chevalier, G. (2001). Comment comme fonctionne d'une génération à l'autre. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique, 30
(2): 13–40.Google Scholar
Clark, H. and Bangerter, A. (2004). Changing ideas about reference. In: Sperber, D. and Noveck, I. (eds), Experimental Pragmatics. London: Palgrave, pp. 25–49.Google Scholar
Duyck, W., Desmet, T., Verbeke, L. and Brysbaert, M. (2004). WordGen: a tool for word selection and non-word generation in Dutch, German, English and French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36
(3): 488–499.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V.
Leonetti, M. and Ahern, A (eds) (2011). Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Vol. 25. Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Emerald.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., Forster, K., Nicol, J. and Nakamura, K. (2004). The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51: 1–22.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2000). From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics: the Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fleischman, S. and Yaguello, M. (2004). Discourse markers across languages? Evidence from English and French. In: Moder, C. L. and Martinovic-Zik, A. (eds), Discourse across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 129–147.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. (1995). Effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 34: 709–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. (2006). Placing like in telling stories. Discourse Studies, 8
(6): 749–770.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. (2010). Discourse markers across speakers and settings. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3
(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. and Schrock, J. C. (1999). Discourse markers in spontaneous speech: Oh what a difference an oh makes. Journal of Memory and Language, 40: 280–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In: Fischer, K. (ed.), Studies in Pragmatics: Vol. 1. Approaches to discourse particles. Oxford/Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1979). Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests. Discourse Processes, 2: 1–10.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2004). Psycholinguistic experiments and linguistic-pragmatics. In: Sperber, D. and Noveck, I. (eds), Experimental Pragmatics. London: Palgrave, pp. 50–71.Google Scholar
Gülich, E. (1970). Makrosyntax der Gliederungssignale im gesprochenen Französisch. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Haberlandt, K. (1982). Reader expectations in text comprehension. In: Le Ny, J. and Kintsch, W. (eds), Language and Comprehension. Amsterdam: North-Holland., pp. 239–249.Google Scholar
Haleta, L. L. (1996). Student perceptions of teachers’ use of language: The effects of powerful and powerless language on impression formation and uncertainty. Communication Education, 45
(1): 16–28.Google Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. (1998). The function of discourse particles: A study with special reference to spoken standard French. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series: Vol. 53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Google Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. (2008). Particles at The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hennecke, I. (2014). Pragmatic markers in Manitoban French – a corpus-linguistic and psycholinguistic investigation of language change. Doctoral thesis, Ruhr-University of Bochum.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T. M. (2000). Preference organization and reply comprehension. Discourse Processes, 30: 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosman, L. A. (1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifiers: Powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15: 383–406.Google Scholar
Hosman, L. A. (1997). The relationship between locus of control and the evaluative consequences of powerful and powerless speech styles. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16: 70–78.Google Scholar
Hosman, L. A. (2002). Language and persuasion. In: Dillard, J. P. and Pfau, M. (eds), The Persuasion Handbook: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 371–390.Google Scholar
Hosman, L. A. and Siltanen, S. A. (2006). Powerful and powerless language: their consequences for impression formation, attributions, forms of control of self and control of others, cognitive responses, and message memory. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25
(1): 33–46.Google Scholar
Liu, K. and Fox Tree, J. E. (2012). Hedges enhance memory but inhibit retelling. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19
(5): 892–898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maschler, Y. (2000). What can bilingual conversation tell us about discourse markers? International Journal of Bilingualism, 4
(4): 437–445.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. and Tyler, L. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8: 1–71.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. (2000). Fusion and the cognitive basis for bilingual discourse markers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4
(4): 505–528.Google Scholar
Meibauer, J. and Steinbach, M. (2011). Experimental research at the pragmatics/semantics interface. In: Meibauer, J. and Steinbach, M. (eds), Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. (1975). The Organization of Prose and its Effects on Memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Mihatsch, W. (2009). The approximators French comme, Italian come, Portuguese como and Spanish como from a grammaticalization perspective. In: Rossari, C., Cojocariu, C., Ricci, C., and Spiridon, A. (eds), Grammaticalization and Pragmatics. Facts, Approaches, Theoretical Issues. Bingley: Emerald. pp. 65–91.Google Scholar
Mihatsch, W. (2012). “Wird man von Hustensaft wie so ne art bekifft?” Approximationsmarker in romanischen Sprachen. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann (Analecta Romanica; 75).Google Scholar
Millis, K. K. and Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33: 128–147.Google Scholar
Murray, J. D. (1995). Logical connectives and local coherence. In: Lorch, R. and O'Brien, E. J. (eds), Sources of Coherence in Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 107–125.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. and Reboul, A. (2008). Experimental pragmatics: a Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12
(11): 425–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2009). Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. In: Pavlenko, A. (ed.), The Bilingual Mental Lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 125–160.Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, S. (2008). Do discourse markers exist? On the treatment of discourse markers in Relevance Theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40: 1411–1434.Google Scholar
Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I., Politzer, G. and Bastide, A. (2007). Processing costs and implicature development. Language Acquisition, 14
(3): 347–375.Google Scholar
Prince, E. and Bosk, C. F. J. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In: Di Pietro, J. (ed.), Linguistics and the Professions. Norwood: Ablex, pp. 83–97.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. and McElree, B. (2006). The syntax-semantics interface: online composition of sentence meaning. In: Traxler, M. J. and Gernsbacher, M. A. (eds), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 537–577.Google Scholar
Rodd, J., Gaskell, G. and Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46: 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossari, C. (2000). Connecteurs et relations de discours: des liens entre cognition et signification. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
Sanders, T. J. M. and Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29: 37–60.Google Scholar
Sanders, T. (1992). Discourse structure and coherence. PhD thesis, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secova, M. (2011). Discourse-pragmatic features of spoken French: analysis and pedagogical implications PhD thesis, Queen Mary University, London.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Noveck, I. (2004). Introduction. In: Sperber, D. and Noveck, I. (eds), Experimental Pragmatics. London: Palgrave, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ullmann, M. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92: 231–270.Google Scholar
Waltereit, R. (2006). Comparer la polysémie des marqueurs du discours. In: Drescher, M. and Frank-Job, B. (eds), Les marqueurs discursifs dans les langues romanes – Approches théoriques et méthodologiques. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 141–152.Google Scholar
Waltereit, R. (2007). À propos de la genèse diachronique des combinaisons de marqueurs: L'exemple de bon ben et enfin bref. In: Dostie, G. and Pusch, C. D. (eds), Langue Française: Vol. 154. Les marqueuers discursifs. Paris: Larousse/Armand Colin.Google Scholar