UTA Working Papers in Linguistics 3 (2010) - DO NOT EDIThttp://hdl.handle.net/10106/19742024-03-28T13:14:51Z2024-03-28T13:14:51ZInteractional Entanglements: A Frame Analysis of Negotiated Identities in Ethnographic Research on the Language ClassroomOuellette, Mark A.http://hdl.handle.net/10106/51932020-05-22T16:21:08Z2010-11-17T00:00:00ZInteractional Entanglements: A Frame Analysis of Negotiated Identities in Ethnographic Research on the Language Classroom
Ouellette, Mark A.
This study examines interactional entanglements that occurred during ethnographer-participant interactions in a language classroom. It draws upon Goffman's notion of framing to analyze how research participants use deixis to position the ethnographer vis-à-vis themselves within classroom speech events. The analysis shows that the teacher and students negotiated identities by appealing to the researcher's allegiances within an underlying judicial trial frame. As a marginal native, the ethnographer is particularly susceptible to others' social positioning, which raises questions concerning the very personal involvement of the ethnographer conducting research in an educational setting. This article underscores the argument that impression management is not an obstacle to overcome in managing the Observer's Paradox, but an interactional process that has to be actively managed throughout the ethnographic enterprise.
2010-11-17T00:00:00ZWe Shall Be Watching You, You're Going to Die, and Other Threats: A Corpus-Based Speech Act ApproachCarter, Natalie Raunhttp://hdl.handle.net/10106/51922020-05-21T20:15:54Z2010-11-17T00:00:00ZWe Shall Be Watching You, You're Going to Die, and Other Threats: A Corpus-Based Speech Act Approach
Carter, Natalie Raun
Using a speech act approach, this paper examines the similarities and differences between English-language threats made by terrorists and those made by non-terrorists, with a focus on pronoun use and sentence-type. Both groups employ a variety of sentence-types in their threats, but use declarative statements most often. 1st person nominative pronouns occur as subjects of clauses much more frequently than 2nd person pronouns in both the terrorist and non-terrorist threat data. Non-terrorist threats, however, make significantly more use of the 1st person singular nominative pronoun, while terrorist threats use the 1st person plural nominative pronoun more frequently.
2010-11-17T00:00:00ZSpeech Act, Evidentiality, and Implicature in the Korean Topic-ConstructionSon, Jung Sunhttp://hdl.handle.net/10106/51912020-05-22T15:00:42Z2010-11-17T00:00:00ZSpeech Act, Evidentiality, and Implicature in the Korean Topic-Construction
Son, Jung Sun
Is it possible to map pragmatic or discourse-oriented features onto the syntax level? The Korean topic marker -(n)un has a contrastive reading that induces conventional implicature, and is closely associated with a modal morpheme that can be regarded as a kind of agreement with evidentials. This paper attempts to represent such pragmatic features (implicature and evidentiality) as being involved in the topic-construction at the syntax level. To accomplish this, the paper introduces a Speech Act Projection (SAP), whose head encodes illocutionary force, and an Evidentiality Projection (EvidP), which is headed by a modal morpheme or evidential marker. The conventional implicature is mapped by means of the adjunction of a null operator to the EvidP. Finally, this operator movement provides evidence for the unavailability of the marker -(n)un in some clausal types.
2010-11-17T00:00:00ZNous and On in Semi-formal French: Pragmatic Uses of Institutionality and DistancingKing, Deborahhttp://hdl.handle.net/10106/51902020-05-21T20:13:45Z2010-11-16T00:00:00ZNous and On in Semi-formal French: Pragmatic Uses of Institutionality and Distancing
King, Deborah
French linguists have long noted the substitution of the indefinite pronoun on for the 1st person plural pronoun nous, in both formal and informal situations. Studies of informal conversation have found this replacement to be nearly categorical (Laberge and Sankoff 1980; Coveney 2000). By contrast, this study found a much higher percentage of nous compared to on in interviews and speeches with political or business-related themes (roughly 60% nous to 40% on). The data suggest that many speakers use nous and on in pragmatically distinct ways: nous for institutionality, on for distancing. However, nous can underscore institutionality even in potentially face-threatening situations, while on can distance despite the institutionality of the referent. This study indicates that both style and conversational implicature play a role in pronoun choice.
2010-11-16T00:00:00Z