How Long Does it Take to Say ‘Well’? Evidence from the Audio BNC
This paper reports on an acoustic analysis of ‘well’ in conversation, building on recent attempts at examining the vocal realization of the marker (e.g., Aijmer in Understanding pragmatic markers. A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh 2013; Romero-Trillo in Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2018). ‘Well’ is a prime example of a highly multi-functional item performing a large number of distinct pragmatic and syntactic functions. The aim of the study is to test what I call, following Hoey (Lexical priming. A new theory of words and language. Routledge, London/New York, 2005), the ‘priming hypothesis’ suggesting that the syntactic and the pragmatic functions of ‘well’ are distinguishable on acoustic grounds, specifically by the duration they have in conversational speaking turns. The data examined include a subset of 9-word turns extracted from the Audio BNC (Coleman et al. in Audio BNC: the audio edition of the Spoken British National Corpus. Phonetics Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, 2012) of which the durations of more than 300 tokens of ‘well’ were measured in Praat, an acoustic analysis software (Boersma and Weenink in Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program], http://www.praat.org/, 2012). The results mostly confirm the priming hypothesis: syntactic ‘well’ has significantly longer duration than pragmatic ‘well’. In the concluding sections I discuss this result with a view to the larger question as to how discourse duration enters into the range of factors, including not only duration but also collocation and position in the turn, that hearers in conversation draw on in order to disambiguate the distinct uses of ‘well’. The study also offers intriguing implications for the theory of priming (Hoey in Lexical priming. A new theory of words and language. Routledge, London/New York, 2005), suggesting the possibility that polysemous words are not only primed for certain verbal contexts but also for certain properties pertaining to the non-verbal modalities.
KeywordsPragmatic markers Well Duration Praat Disambiguation
Companies with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The author states that there is no conflict of interest.
- Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers. A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
- Albert, S., de Ruiter, L. E., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2015). CABNC: The Jeffersonian transcription of the Spoken British National Corpus. https://saulalbert.github.io/CABNC/. Accessed Sept 2018.
- Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2012). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. http://www.praat.org/. Accessed Sept 2018.
- Brinton, L. J. (2010). Discourse markers. In A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Historical Pragmatics (handbooks of pragmatics) (Vol. 8, pp. 285–314). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
- Coleman, J., Baghai-Ravary, L., Pybus, J., & Grau, S. (2012). Audio BNC: The audio edition of the Spoken British National Corpus. Oxford: Phonetics Laboratory, University of Oxford. http://www.phon.ox.ac.uk/AudioBNC. Accessed Sept 2018.
- Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
- Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Gries, S Th. (2017). Quantitative corpus linguistics with R. A practical introduction (2nd ed.). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Gussenhoven, C., & Rietveld, T. (1992). Intonation contours, prosodic structure and preboundary lengthening. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 283–303.Google Scholar
- Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming. A new theory of words and language. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Levinson, S. C. (2004). Deixis. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 97–121). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden/MA and Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). An introduction to conversation analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
- Pomerantz, A. M. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Malden/MA and Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
- Renwick, M. E. L., Baghai-Ravary, L., Temple, R., & Coleman, J. S. (2013). Assimilation of word-final nasals to following word-initial place of articulation in UK English, INTERSPEECH-2013, 3047–3051. http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/archive_papers/interspeech_2013/i13_3047.pdf. Accessed Sept 2018.
- Rühlemann, C. (2007). Conversation in context: A corpus-driven approach. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
- Rühlemann, C., & Gee, M. (2017). Conversation analysis and the XML method. Gesprächsforschung, 18, 274–296.Google Scholar
- Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vols. I and II). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Stein, D. (1985). Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In R. Eatono, F. W. Koopman, & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Papers from the 4th international conference on English historical linguistics (pp. 283–303). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Wennerstrom, A. (2001). The music of everyday speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar