spatial meanings lecture 6. introduction we shall look at the ways in which we use spatial terms and...

Spatial MeaningsSpatial Meanings

Lecture 6Lecture 6

IntroductionIntroduction

We shall look at the ways in which we use We shall look at the ways in which we use spatial terms and spatial concepts to spatial terms and spatial concepts to structure non-structural meanings.structure non-structural meanings.

1a. The sun is out; The stars are out.1a. The sun is out; The stars are out. 1b. The light is out; The fire is out; He blew 1b. The light is out; The fire is out; He blew

the candles out.the candles out. 2a. He threw out a suggestion to the 2a. He threw out a suggestion to the

meeting.meeting. 2b. The threw out Bill’s suggestion.2b. The threw out Bill’s suggestion.


It seems odd that the sun or stars are ‘out’ It seems odd that the sun or stars are ‘out’ they are visible, but when lights, candles, or they are visible, but when lights, candles, or fires are ‘out’, they are invisible. fires are ‘out’, they are invisible.

3. He blew up the balloon.3. He blew up the balloon. 4. He rolled up the carpet.4. He rolled up the carpet. Up in 3 is part of an expression that refers Up in 3 is part of an expression that refers

to an object getting bigger, whereas in 4 the to an object getting bigger, whereas in 4 the object gets smaller.object gets smaller.


Prepositions that normally express opposite Prepositions that normally express opposite meanings sometimes express similar meanings sometimes express similar meanings:meanings:

She filled in the form.She filled in the form. She filled out the form.She filled out the form. Sometimes prepositions express meanings Sometimes prepositions express meanings

that seem to be quite unrelated to each that seem to be quite unrelated to each other.other.


The students dropped in.The students dropped in. The students dropped out.The students dropped out. Prepositional usage has been claimed to be Prepositional usage has been claimed to be

simply chaotic in English. A careful simply chaotic in English. A careful analysis shows that the situation is less analysis shows that the situation is less unruly than it appears at first sight.unruly than it appears at first sight.

OutOut

The core meaning of out involves an image The core meaning of out involves an image schema that an entity (TR) is located schema that an entity (TR) is located outside a container (LM). The out outside a container (LM). The out relationship is sometimes static and relationship is sometimes static and sometimes dynamic.sometimes dynamic.

The cat is out of the house.The cat is out of the house. The cat went out of the house.The cat went out of the house.

OutOut

One form of extension from the dynamic One form of extension from the dynamic situation involves situations in which an situation involves situations in which an entity expands in size or comes to occupy a entity expands in size or comes to occupy a greater area. The TR is reflexive.greater area. The TR is reflexive.

The lava spread out.The lava spread out. Roll out the carpet.Roll out the carpet.

OutOut

Another semantic extension involves a Another semantic extension involves a process whereby an entity moves away process whereby an entity moves away from a landmark without any obvious from a landmark without any obvious notion of exit.notion of exit.

She set out for Shanghai.She set out for Shanghai. He reached out to grab it.He reached out to grab it. ““The sun is out” involves applications of The sun is out” involves applications of

the basic notion of exit from location. the basic notion of exit from location.

OutOut

LM is a container that is inaccessible to an LM is a container that is inaccessible to an observer and TR is an entity that is deemed observer and TR is an entity that is deemed to have emerged from this area into the to have emerged from this area into the observer’s perceptual field.observer’s perceptual field.

““The fire is out” involves movement of an The fire is out” involves movement of an entity away from the observer into the entity away from the observer into the hidden area.hidden area.

OutOut

From unknown to knownFrom unknown to known I worked out a solution to the problem.I worked out a solution to the problem. Becoming unavailableBecoming unavailable Our supplies have run out.Our supplies have run out. The notion of ExitThe notion of Exit 1) Exit from perceptual field; 2) from 1) Exit from perceptual field; 2) from

cognitive field; 3) from area of control or cognitive field; 3) from area of control or availability; 4) from normal state.availability; 4) from normal state.

Fill in and fill out the formFill in and fill out the form

A process whereby material is inserted into A process whereby material is inserted into spaces in the formspaces in the form

A process that causes the form to increase A process that causes the form to increase in size as material is added.in size as material is added.

Speak up and speak outSpeak up and speak out

throughthrough

The image schema for through involves the The image schema for through involves the path of an entity (TR) in physical space as it path of an entity (TR) in physical space as it enters a container and then moves from the enters a container and then moves from the point of entry to a point at the opposite side point of entry to a point at the opposite side of the container.of the container.

The train (TR) rushed through the tunnel The train (TR) rushed through the tunnel (LM).(LM).

The postman pushed the letter through the The postman pushed the letter through the letterbox.letterbox.

throughthrough

John was looking through the window. (a John was looking through the window. (a virtual trajectory)virtual trajectory)

John was walking through the grass. (a John was walking through the grass. (a notional line)notional line)

One factor in the growth of semantic One factor in the growth of semantic network is the activation of elements in the network is the activation of elements in the knowledge base associated with core knowledge base associated with core meaning.meaning.

throughthrough

Another component of the knowledge frame Another component of the knowledge frame is the idea that TR traverses LM only with dis the idea that TR traverses LM only with difficulty.ifficulty.

We headached our way through peak-hour tWe headached our way through peak-hour traffic.raffic.

John sold the house to Mary through Smith’John sold the house to Mary through Smith’s. (landmark as instrument)s. (landmark as instrument)

A small child could not sit through a four-hA small child could not sit through a four-hour dinner. (landmark as ordeal)our dinner. (landmark as ordeal)

Radial CategoriesRadial Categories

A property of such networks associated with out, uA property of such networks associated with out, up and through is that they are structured around a cp and through is that they are structured around a core meaning (prototype).ore meaning (prototype).

The property of radiality is characteristic of many The property of radiality is characteristic of many types of linguistic and conceptual categories. The types of linguistic and conceptual categories. The prototype model recognizes that category memberprototype model recognizes that category membership is a gradient phenomenon, such that some meship is a gradient phenomenon, such that some members of a category are more central members thambers of a category are more central members than others.n others.

-able-able

Likeable, washable, readable, solvable (able Likeable, washable, readable, solvable (able to be verbed)to be verbed)

Payable (due to be paid)Payable (due to be paid) comparable: a part of the situation as a wholcomparable: a part of the situation as a whol

e has been semantically foregrounded at the e has been semantically foregrounded at the expenses of those aspects of the situation thexpenses of those aspects of the situation that relate to the process itself.at relate to the process itself.

-able-able

The meaning of the combined form is the The meaning of the combined form is the outcome of an interaction between the outcome of an interaction between the frames associated with the two forms.frames associated with the two forms.

The background knowledge associated with The background knowledge associated with the verb modulates the meaning of the the verb modulates the meaning of the suffix in a particular direction peculiar to suffix in a particular direction peculiar to that verb.that verb.

Drinkable (can be drunk safely)Drinkable (can be drunk safely)

Discourse analysis and linguisticsDiscourse analysis and linguistics

Discourse analysis comes from the realization that Discourse analysis comes from the realization that language, action and knowledge are in separable. language, action and knowledge are in separable. J.L Austin pointed out in his 1955 lectures at J.L Austin pointed out in his 1955 lectures at Harvard University that utterances are actions Harvard University that utterances are actions (Austin, 1962). Some actions can be performed (Austin, 1962). Some actions can be performed only through language (e.g. apologizing), whilst only through language (e.g. apologizing), whilst others can be performed either verbally or non-others can be performed either verbally or non-verbally (e.g. threatening). In addition, when we verbally (e.g. threatening). In addition, when we start to study how language is used in social start to study how language is used in social interaction, it becomes clear that communication is interaction, it becomes clear that communication is impossible without shared knowledge and impossible without shared knowledge and assumptions between speakers and hearers. assumptions between speakers and hearers.


There is a dialectic relationship between language and There is a dialectic relationship between language and situation. In certain games, ceremonies and formal rituals, situation. In certain games, ceremonies and formal rituals, actual forms of words may be laid down as part of the actual forms of words may be laid down as part of the proceedings. Of course most everyday uses of language are proceedings. Of course most everyday uses of language are more flexible. Given a social situation such as a small more flexible. Given a social situation such as a small village shop’, it is possible to predict a great deal about the village shop’, it is possible to predict a great deal about the content, functions and style of language used there. Much content, functions and style of language used there. Much of the language will be either local gossip or transactional, of the language will be either local gossip or transactional, concerned with buying and selling. We often know what concerned with buying and selling. We often know what kind of language to expect in different situations; and kind of language to expect in different situations; and conversely, given a fragment of language, we can often conversely, given a fragment of language, we can often reconstruct in some detail the social situation which reconstruct in some detail the social situation which produced it. produced it.


For example, when we turn the knob of a For example, when we turn the knob of a radio to tune in different programs. It radio to tune in different programs. It usually takes a few seconds to identify usually takes a few seconds to identify whether we are listening to a sermon, sports whether we are listening to a sermon, sports commentary, quiz program, news broadcast, commentary, quiz program, news broadcast, play, or to a program for young children or play, or to a program for young children or school pupils, or whatever. The identifying school pupils, or whatever. The identifying features include phonology, lexis, syntax features include phonology, lexis, syntax and paralinguistic features. and paralinguistic features.


Furthermore, situations can be altered or Furthermore, situations can be altered or created by using language in different ways, created by using language in different ways, for example, by selecting the speech act of for example, by selecting the speech act of whispering sweet nothings, rather than whispering sweet nothings, rather than nagging, carping, complaining or accusing. nagging, carping, complaining or accusing. It is clear enough that much language is not It is clear enough that much language is not to be taken literally, that language is used to to be taken literally, that language is used to perform actions, and that different social perform actions, and that different social situations produce different language. situations produce different language.


An implication of points about the uses of lAn implication of points about the uses of language is that much of syntactic theory has anguage is that much of syntactic theory has to be thoroughly reconsidered. An increasinto be thoroughly reconsidered. An increasing number of linguists are starting to suggest g number of linguists are starting to suggest that the analysis of sentence structure shoulthat the analysis of sentence structure should be based on an information structure of a d be based on an information structure of a given-new or theme-rheme kind. given-new or theme-rheme kind.


Much of the fascination of discourse analysis Much of the fascination of discourse analysis derives, in fact, from the realization that the derives, in fact, from the realization that the boundaries of linguistics are being redrawn. In has boundaries of linguistics are being redrawn. In has become increasingly clear that a coherent view of become increasingly clear that a coherent view of language, including syntax, must take account of language, including syntax, must take account of discourse phenomena. The grammatical, structural discourse phenomena. The grammatical, structural units of clause or sentence are not necessarily either units of clause or sentence are not necessarily either the most important nits for language study, or the the most important nits for language study, or the biggest, although the clause will probably remain biggest, although the clause will probably remain basic as a unit of syntax, or prepositional basic as a unit of syntax, or prepositional information, and as the potential realization of a information, and as the potential realization of a speech act. speech act.


It is worthwhile making explicit the implications of It is worthwhile making explicit the implications of discourse analysis for sociolinguistic theory. discourse analysis for sociolinguistic theory. Sociolinguistics will ultimately have to be based, at least Sociolinguistics will ultimately have to be based, at least partly, on analysis of how people actually talk to each partly, on analysis of how people actually talk to each other in everyday settings, such as streets, shops, other in everyday settings, such as streets, shops, restaurants, buses, trains, schools, factories and homes. restaurants, buses, trains, schools, factories and homes. Therefore, sociolinguistics will have to incorporate Therefore, sociolinguistics will have to incorporate analyses of how conversation works. It is chiefly through analyses of how conversation works. It is chiefly through conversational interaction, social ‘roles’ are recognized conversational interaction, social ‘roles’ are recognized and sustained. We can talk about intuitively recognizable and sustained. We can talk about intuitively recognizable social roles such as ‘teacher’ and ‘doctor’. There is quite social roles such as ‘teacher’ and ‘doctor’. There is quite specific conversational behavior attached to being a specific conversational behavior attached to being a teacher. teacher.


On the one hand, there is no use of On the one hand, there is no use of language which is not embedded in the language which is not embedded in the culture; on the other hand, there are no culture; on the other hand, there are no large-scale relationships between language large-scale relationships between language and society which are not realized, at least and society which are not realized, at least partly, through verbal interaction. Part of partly, through verbal interaction. Part of cultural knowledge is conversational cultural knowledge is conversational competence. competence.

Discourse organizationDiscourse organization

In his In his Discourse Analysis: a sociolinguistic analysis of Discourse Analysis: a sociolinguistic analysis of natural language, natural language, Stubbs (1983) discusses three Stubbs (1983) discusses three approaches to discourse analysis. approaches to discourse analysis. One is to take a One is to take a transcript of conversational data and to inspect it carefully transcript of conversational data and to inspect it carefully for the kinds of surface organization and patterns it shows. for the kinds of surface organization and patterns it shows. A second possibility is to take an ethnographic approach: A second possibility is to take an ethnographic approach: to collect data by recording and observation, to neglect the to collect data by recording and observation, to neglect the surface form of utterances, but to pay particular attention surface form of utterances, but to pay particular attention to their underlying functions. A third way of identifying is to their underlying functions. A third way of identifying is to pay particular attention to aspects of language which to pay particular attention to aspects of language which syntax and semantics have had difficulties in explainingsyntax and semantics have had difficulties in explaining. .


By definition, sentence grammars ignore the syntaBy definition, sentence grammars ignore the syntagmatic chaining of clauses and sentences in larger gmatic chaining of clauses and sentences in larger exchanges or sequences. Certain phenomena involexchanges or sequences. Certain phenomena involving particles, adverbs and conjunctions can only ving particles, adverbs and conjunctions can only be explained with reference to the syntagmatic chabe explained with reference to the syntagmatic chaining of linguistic units at the clause or above. Disining of linguistic units at the clause or above. Discourse is a rank above the clause and a level of lincourse is a rank above the clause and a level of linguistic description above syntax. guistic description above syntax.


Firstly, Connect discourse is not random. Firstly, Connect discourse is not random. People are quite able to distinguish between People are quite able to distinguish between a random list of sentences and a coherent a random list of sentences and a coherent text, and it is the principles which underlie text, and it is the principles which underlie this recognition of coherence which are the this recognition of coherence which are the topic of the study for discourse analysts. topic of the study for discourse analysts.


There are several ways of demonstrating informally that diThere are several ways of demonstrating informally that discourse is organized. First, conversationalists themselves frscourse is organized. First, conversationalists themselves frequently refer to discourse structure in the course of conveequently refer to discourse structure in the course of conversation, by utterances such as rsation, by utterances such as oh, by the way...., anyway, as oh, by the way...., anyway, as I was saying ....I was saying .... In everyday situations, people are aware th In everyday situations, people are aware that not anything can follow anything: some utterance requirat not anything can follow anything: some utterance require to be prefaced by such an excuse or a claim of relevance. e to be prefaced by such an excuse or a claim of relevance. This insertion of metatext, pointing to the organization of tThis insertion of metatext, pointing to the organization of the text itself, is particularly common in certain discourse sthe text itself, is particularly common in certain discourse styles, such as lecturing, and it occurs in written and spoken yles, such as lecturing, and it occurs in written and spoken discourse. discourse.


Second, there are many jokes which depend Second, there are many jokes which depend on our ability to recognize faulty discourse on our ability to recognize faulty discourse sequences. The simplest type is:sequences. The simplest type is:

(1) A: Yes, I can.(1) A: Yes, I can. B: Can you see into the future? B: Can you see into the future?


At the risk of being tedious, this joke At the risk of being tedious, this joke depends on two things: the recognition that depends on two things: the recognition that the question-answer sequence has been the question-answer sequence has been reversed; and that the grammatical cohesion reversed; and that the grammatical cohesion has been disrupted. has been disrupted. Yes, I can Yes, I can is elliptic and is elliptic and only interpretable via the following, instead only interpretable via the following, instead of the preceding, utterance. of the preceding, utterance.


One the same mode is the joke about the man who One the same mode is the joke about the man who goes into a chemist’s shop. The exchange goes:goes into a chemist’s shop. The exchange goes:

(2) Customer: Good morning. Do you have (2) Customer: Good morning. Do you have anything to treat complete lost of voice?anything to treat complete lost of voice?

Shopkeeper: Good morning, sir. And what can I Shopkeeper: Good morning, sir. And what can I do for you?do for you?

In this case, the shopkeeper’s utterance occurs in In this case, the shopkeeper’s utterance occurs in the wrong structural position. It occurs second, the wrong structural position. It occurs second, although it is strongly marked as an opening although it is strongly marked as an opening conversational move: by the greeting, the address conversational move: by the greeting, the address term, the content and form of the question. term, the content and form of the question.


Such examples demonstrate immediately our discoSuch examples demonstrate immediately our discourse competence to recognize that utterance can ocurse competence to recognize that utterance can occur in some sequences but not others. Therefore, dcur in some sequences but not others. Therefore, discourse should in principle be analyzable in terms iscourse should in principle be analyzable in terms of syntagmatic constraints on possible sequences oof syntagmatic constraints on possible sequences of utterances. Stubbs ( 1983:17) points out that sof utterances. Stubbs ( 1983:17) points out that some discourse sequences are impossible, or at least me discourse sequences are impossible, or at least highly improbable. Consider this example: highly improbable. Consider this example:


(3) I approach a stranger in the street.(3) I approach a stranger in the street. *Excuse me. My name’s Mike Stubbs. Can *Excuse me. My name’s Mike Stubbs. Can

you tell me the way to the station?you tell me the way to the station? The sequence of speech acts is ill-formed: The sequence of speech acts is ill-formed: *apology + identification + request for *apology + identification + request for

direction direction


There seem to be two ways of explaining why it is ill-formed. There seem to be two ways of explaining why it is ill-formed. Either the sequence of acts is itself ill-formed: there are co-Either the sequence of acts is itself ill-formed: there are co-occurrence restrictions on the sequence. Or alternatively the occurrence restrictions on the sequence. Or alternatively the combination of speech acts and social situation is ill-formed: combination of speech acts and social situation is ill-formed: speaker do not identify or introduce themselves to strangers in speaker do not identify or introduce themselves to strangers in the street. A plausible rule is that identification is unclear only the street. A plausible rule is that identification is unclear only if speaker predict further interaction on a later occasion. Thus if speaker predict further interaction on a later occasion. Thus speakers are likely to introduce themselves to people they meet speakers are likely to introduce themselves to people they meet at a party, but not in a railway carriage. This example shows at a party, but not in a railway carriage. This example shows (a) that although the individual sentences in (3) are well-(a) that although the individual sentences in (3) are well-formed, the whole sequence is not; (b) that traditional formed, the whole sequence is not; (b) that traditional grammatical descriptions are therefore unlikely to have any grammatical descriptions are therefore unlikely to have any useful explanation to offer, since they are restricted to within useful explanation to offer, since they are restricted to within sentence boundaries.sentence boundaries.


It is more difficult to find comparable deviance across two It is more difficult to find comparable deviance across two speaker’s utterances, for our ability to contextualize almost speaker’s utterances, for our ability to contextualize almost anything readily copes with odd sequences. But deviant anything readily copes with odd sequences. But deviant sequences do occur:sequences do occur:

(4) A: Goodbye!(4) A: Goodbye! B: Hi!B: Hi! The oddity of this particular sequence is explicable via B’s The oddity of this particular sequence is explicable via B’s

participant knowledge that the exchange occurred after A participant knowledge that the exchange occurred after A and B had approached each other down a long corridor. and B had approached each other down a long corridor. The greeting was prepared in advance of the actual The greeting was prepared in advance of the actual encounter, and split-second timing of the exchange itself encounter, and split-second timing of the exchange itself meant that A’s contribution was interpreted only after B meant that A’s contribution was interpreted only after B had spoken. had spoken.


Stubbs (1983:19) holds that spontaneous conversatStubbs (1983:19) holds that spontaneous conversation, although it may look chaotic when closely traion, although it may look chaotic when closely transcribed, is, in fact, highly ordered. It is not, howenscribed, is, in fact, highly ordered. It is not, however, ordered in the same ways written text. Converver, ordered in the same ways written text. Conversation is polysystemic: that is, its coherence depensation is polysystemic: that is, its coherence depends on several quite different types of mechanisms, ds on several quite different types of mechanisms, such as repetition of words and phrases, structural such as repetition of words and phrases, structural markers, fine synchronization in time, and an undemarkers, fine synchronization in time, and an underlying hierarchic structure relating sequences of dirlying hierarchic structure relating sequences of discourse acts. scourse acts.


Some discourse types can be usefully represented Some discourse types can be usefully represented as variations or recursive two part question-answer as variations or recursive two part question-answer (QA) exchange or three-part question-answer-feed(QA) exchange or three-part question-answer-feedback exchanges. For example, Sinclair and Coulthback exchanges. For example, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) propose that teacher-pupil talk is of ten ard (1975) propose that teacher-pupil talk is of ten characterized by an underlying exchange structure:characterized by an underlying exchange structure:

Teacher: initiation ITeacher: initiation I Pupil: response RPupil: response R Teacher: feedback F Teacher: feedback F

Consider the following case during a period Consider the following case during a period of observation in a school. At the start of of observation in a school. At the start of one English class, the teacher, after talking one English class, the teacher, after talking quietly to some pupils at the front of the quietly to some pupils at the front of the room, turned and said to the whole class:room, turned and said to the whole class:

Right! Fags out please! Right! Fags out please!

No pupils were smoking. So the teacher did not mean his No pupils were smoking. So the teacher did not mean his words to be taken literally. Perhaps the utterance is used to words to be taken literally. Perhaps the utterance is used to attract the pupils’ attention. To open the communication attract the pupils’ attention. To open the communication channels. It had a contact function of putting the teacher in channels. It had a contact function of putting the teacher in touch with the pupils. Here we have the questions: how did touch with the pupils. Here we have the questions: how did the pupils know that the teacher did not really mean that the pupils know that the teacher did not really mean that they had to extinguish their non-existent cigarettes? What they had to extinguish their non-existent cigarettes? What shared knowledge and expectations concerning appropriate shared knowledge and expectations concerning appropriate speech behavior did they draw on in order to interpret speech behavior did they draw on in order to interpret successfully what the teacher actually meant? How could successfully what the teacher actually meant? How could the teacher say one thing, yet mean another? These the teacher say one thing, yet mean another? These problems have not received much detailed consideration problems have not received much detailed consideration by linguists. by linguists.

Various social factors determine the individual speVarious social factors determine the individual speaker’s use of language. All speakers are multidialeaker’s use of language. All speakers are multidialectal or multistylistic, in the sense that they adapt thctal or multistylistic, in the sense that they adapt their style of speaking to suit the social situation in eir style of speaking to suit the social situation in which they find themselves. Such style-shifting dewhich they find themselves. Such style-shifting demands constant judgments, yet speakers are not nomands constant judgments, yet speakers are not normally conscious of making such judgments until trmally conscious of making such judgments until they find themselves in a problematic situation for hey find themselves in a problematic situation for which they do not know the conventions, or for wwhich they do not know the conventions, or for which the criteria for speaking in a certain way clashich the criteria for speaking in a certain way clash. h.

On the other hand, it is intuitively clear that a On the other hand, it is intuitively clear that a teacher, for example, does not speak in the say teacher, for example, does not speak in the say way to his wife, his mother-in-law, his colleagues, way to his wife, his mother-in-law, his colleagues, his headmaster, a student teacher, or his pupils. his headmaster, a student teacher, or his pupils. His way of talking to his pupils will also change His way of talking to his pupils will also change according to the matter to hand: teaching an according to the matter to hand: teaching an academic subject, organizing the school concert, academic subject, organizing the school concert, or handing out punishment. People therefore adapt or handing out punishment. People therefore adapt their speech according to the person they are their speech according to the person they are talking to and the point behind the talk. These are talking to and the point behind the talk. These are social, rather than purely linguistic, constraints. social, rather than purely linguistic, constraints.

Despite great development in linguistics over the Despite great development in linguistics over the past 75 years, and particularly since the mid 1950s,past 75 years, and particularly since the mid 1950s, linguistic description is still firmly based on tradit linguistic description is still firmly based on traditional parts of speech and on the view that the clausional parts of speech and on the view that the clause or sentence is the basic linguistic unit. Yet, tradite or sentence is the basic linguistic unit. Yet, traditional grammar fails to give a satisfactory account ional grammar fails to give a satisfactory account of adverbs, co-ordinating conjunctions and particlof adverbs, co-ordinating conjunctions and particles (including es (including well, now, rightwell, now, right and so on). and so on).

WellWell Syntax and semantics have little to say about such Syntax and semantics have little to say about such items as items as well, now, right, OK, anyway, you know, I see, well, now, right, OK, anyway, you know, I see, hello, bye-byehello, bye-bye. Syntax has little to say about them, since . Syntax has little to say about them, since they make no syntactic predictions. Most, if not all, have they make no syntactic predictions. Most, if not all, have uses in which they are potentially complete utterances. Nor uses in which they are potentially complete utterances. Nor does semantics have much to say about such items, since does semantics have much to say about such items, since when they are not used in their literal meanings, they have when they are not used in their literal meanings, they have no property of thesis: that is, they have no propositional no property of thesis: that is, they have no propositional content. For this reason, they are common at the closing of content. For this reason, they are common at the closing of conversations, where they can be used without introducing conversations, where they can be used without introducing new topics. This transaction-management function relates new topics. This transaction-management function relates them to summonses such as hey! or John! and to greetings them to summonses such as hey! or John! and to greetings and farewells in general. and farewells in general.

Further, such items are purely performative and havFurther, such items are purely performative and have no truth value: to say hello to someone is to greet e no truth value: to say hello to someone is to greet them. The other main fact about such items is that tthem. The other main fact about such items is that they are essentially interactive, and almost all are reshey are essentially interactive, and almost all are restricted to spoken language. When utterance-initial, ttricted to spoken language. When utterance-initial, the function of items such as well, now, and right is the function of items such as well, now, and right is to relate utterances to each other, or to mark a boundo relate utterances to each other, or to mark a boundary in the discourse. Some (e.g. ary in the discourse. Some (e.g. now, anyhownow, anyhow) may ) may be used to mark initial boundaries of units of writtebe used to mark initial boundaries of units of written or spoken language, and they are therefore immedn or spoken language, and they are therefore immediate indication that continuous discourse is analyzabiate indication that continuous discourse is analyzable into units large than the sentence. le into units large than the sentence.

Some of the main points about such items can be made in a Some of the main points about such items can be made in a discussion of well. The lexical item well has several differdiscussion of well. The lexical item well has several different functions and meanings. As an adjective, it can contrasent functions and meanings. As an adjective, it can contrast with ill. (He was ill, but is well again now.) As an adverb t with ill. (He was ill, but is well again now.) As an adverb it can modify a following item. ( He is well qualified. ) Hoit can modify a following item. ( He is well qualified. ) However, when well occurs utterance-initially, it does not genwever, when well occurs utterance-initially, it does not generally have what might be referred to as these literal interprerally have what might be referred to as these literal interpretations. In utterance-initial position, there is little agreemeetations. In utterance-initial position, there is little agreement about what part of speech it is. If we are restricted to trant about what part of speech it is. If we are restricted to traditional part of speech categories, then it is presumably as ditional part of speech categories, then it is presumably as adverb. However, it has also been labeled adverb. However, it has also been labeled interjection, filleinterjection, filler, initiatorr, initiator, or has been given ‘the suitably vague and centr, or has been given ‘the suitably vague and central term al term particleparticle’ (Svartvik, 1980:168). ’ (Svartvik, 1980:168).

In its use as an utterance-initial particle, it is almost entirely In its use as an utterance-initial particle, it is almost entirely restricted to spoken English, where it is very common. In restricted to spoken English, where it is very common. In this function, it is notoriously difficult to translate into this function, it is notoriously difficult to translate into foreign languages, and it is notoriously poorly explained in foreign languages, and it is notoriously poorly explained in dictionaries. This is because it has no propositional content, dictionaries. This is because it has no propositional content, and also because dictionaries are mainly based on written and also because dictionaries are mainly based on written data. Utterance-initially, it usually has one of two data. Utterance-initially, it usually has one of two functions. It may have a rather general introductory functions. It may have a rather general introductory function (function (Well, what shall we doWell, what shall we do?). In such positions, it ?). In such positions, it may be more or less synonymous with may be more or less synonymous with now, so OK, right, now, so OK, right, anyway,anyway, and may function as a disjunction marker and may function as a disjunction marker indicating a break with what has gone immediately before, indicating a break with what has gone immediately before, and the initial boundary of a new selection of discourse. and the initial boundary of a new selection of discourse.

Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) refer to this functioSinclair and Coulthard (1975) refer to this function as a frame. Alternatively, if well occur utterancn as a frame. Alternatively, if well occur utterance-initially after a question, it indicates an indirect ae-initially after a question, it indicates an indirect answer, claiming relevance although admitting a shnswer, claiming relevance although admitting a shift in topic. Labov and Fanshel (1977:156) call sucift in topic. Labov and Fanshel (1977:156) call such items discourse markers. In other words, well cah items discourse markers. In other words, well can indicate a break in the discourse, a shift in the ton indicate a break in the discourse, a shift in the topic, or as a preface to modifying some assumptionpic, or as a preface to modifying some assumptions in what has gone before, or as a preface to closins in what has gone before, or as a preface to closing the topic and potentially the whole conversation. g the topic and potentially the whole conversation.

spatial meanings lecture 6. introduction we shall look at the ways in which we use spatial terms and...

Documents