scholarly journals Interaction and feedback in a spoken language system: a theoretical framework

1995 ◽  
Vol 8 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 143-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan E. Brennan ◽  
Eric A. Hulteen
1990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Austin ◽  
Pat Peterson ◽  
Paul Placeway ◽  
Richard Schwartz ◽  
Jeff Vandergrift

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 329-356
Author(s):  
Adam Mazurkiewicz

On the possible analysis of the entertainment supersystem from the perspective of employing selected achievements of linguistics: A methodological approachCurrently linguistics treats the subject of its study not so much as a tool for social communication, but as an integral element of culture. At the same time, culture is perceived as a system of symbolic meanings. However, the same position is occupied by “entertainment supersystems” whose role is transmedia storytelling. From the perspective of semiotics they are — just as the language system — a sign. Thus, perhaps employing the descriptive instrumentarium of language mechanisms, due to its peculiar character, will allow for a more adequate consideration of cultural phenomena in this case the entertainment supersystem than applying this methodology outside humanities. What is more, a transfer of focus from an ontological perspective seeking to answer the question of what an entertainment supersystem is or is not to an epistemological one an attempt to understand how it functions in society, that is, “how it is used” seems to be compliant with the transition from linguistic structuralism to the post-structuralistic paradigm. At the same time, considering methodological implications which derive from the analysis of mechanisms regulating the functioning of entertainment supersystems by means typical for the linguistics instrumentarium, one can easily reach the conviction that text as an object of study has been reinstated in its central position.


Kybernetes ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helmut Nechansky

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show how individual acts of goal-setting of two persons or systems A and B determine, which modes of coexistence become possible in an interaction of the two. Design/methodology/approach – Some person or system A can approach another person or system B with an inclination to realize one of four goal-setting processes: first, A sets goals for B; second, A sets no own goals; third, A pursues own goals alone; and fourth, A and B develop mutual goals. And an interaction of A and B can lead to just four modes of coexistence: first, conflict – A and B fight; second, hierarchy – A submits to B; third, independence in niches – A and B do not interact; and fourth, cooperation – A and B work together. Findings – Placing the inclinations of A and B to realize one of the four goal-setting processes in a 4×4 matrix leads to the interaction matrix. It shows that individual goal-setting processes predetermine and limit the available modes of coexistence, i.e. cause certain patterns of interactions. Practical implications – The interaction matrix can be applied to all interactions between persons, groups and social units generally. Originality/value – The paper introduces a theoretical framework covering all options of goal-orientated behavior. It explains the interrelation between individual goal-setting of persons and systems and the resulting behavioral options in interactions. It is applicable to all behavioral sciences.


2005 ◽  
Vol 1278 ◽  
pp. 397-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riki Matsumoto ◽  
Dileep R. Nair ◽  
William Bingaman ◽  
Akio Ikeda ◽  
Hiroshi Shibasaki ◽  
...  

1989 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Boisen ◽  
Yen-Lu Chow ◽  
Andrew Haus ◽  
Robert Ingria ◽  
Salim Roukas ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 92-100
Author(s):  
Jolita Šliogerienė ◽  
Giedrė Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė ◽  
Vilma Asijavičiūtė

When conjunctions are employed to link sentences, they become discourse relational devices The purpose of this study is to analyse if the semantic meaning of Lithuanian contrastive conjunctions o (but/when/whereas/while) and bet (but) coincides with the pragmatic meaning and to draw some parallels with their English counterparts. A corpus-based approach is employed to make generalizations on the use of Lithuanian conjunctions and their English counterparts, whereas discourse analysis provides a theoretical framework to analyse the conjunctions in spoken language and distinguish their peculiarities typical of this social context. The research reveals that Lithuanian conjunction bet and its English counterpart but demonstrate similar pragmatic behavior. On pragmatic level both conjunctions bet and but serve to object indirectly, to deny interlocutor’s ideas by first agreeing to them and then contradicting. Lithuanian conjunction o does not have a direct English counterpart. Lithuanian conjunction o, mainly contrastive in its semantic meaning, has manifold pragmatic meanings, therefore, it can be translated to English not only by but and and but also by any other English utterance introducer depending on the context. The focus of the research is spoken discourse which naturally implies certain limitations as it is not so much organized and more open to the recipient’s intervention. Knowledge of semantic meaning and pragmatic functions provides easily identifiable advice on how conjunctions could be used and translated. The object of the research is comparatively new in Lithuania and adds to the research field related to discourse relations studies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 49-64
Author(s):  
Giovani Santos

This paper presents the process of designing and building a bilingual spoken corpus in order to pragmatically analyse oral L2-English discourse produced by a group of Brazilian university students living in Ireland. It discusses some of the decisions made, challenges faced, and considerations taken while designing a do-it-yourself corpus with a theoretical framework grounded in Corpus Pragmatics. The main objective is to share the lessons learned by examining the steps of designing and building SCoPE², a bilingual spoken corpus, including the selection of participants, gathering data, and challenges in transcribing and coding spoken language with pragmatics in mind.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document