Title: Discourse Marker Research and Theory: Revisiting and Running head: Discourse Marker Research and Theory:

Revisiting and Author: Deborah Schiffrin

0. Introduction

The study of what Robert Longacre (1976) aptly called mystery particles has proliferated o!er the past twenty years" #ords such as well, and, like$ now and yknow ha!e been studied by scholars from !irtually all branches of linguistics (e"g" applied$ formal$ computational$ sociolinguistic$ psycholinguistic$ historical$ de!elopmental) and ha!e %ept pace with the de!elopment of new approaches for the analysis of discourse (e"g" corpus linguistics) and new paradigms in both semantics (e"g" cogniti!e semantics) and pragmatics (e"g" rele!ance theory)" The range of languages in which such terms ha!e been e&amined is typologically di!erse$ including$ for e&ample$ 'hinese$ (anish$ )rench$ *ebrew$ +ndonesian$ Latin and ,ayan" -ttention has been focused on both synchronic patterns (within.across speech situations and language contact situations)$ and diachronic change (first and second language ac/uisition$ grammaticali0ation)" 1i!en so wide a range of theoretical and analytical di!ersity$ perhaps it should not be surprising that there has not yet emerged a consensus in some of the basic tenets of discourse mar%er research or theory" -fter introducing my approach (2"1)$ methodology (2"3)$ use of data in this study (2"4)$ and problem to be addressed (2"5)$ + present my definition of discourse

mar%ers (1)$ + then use a brief analysis of and to e&plore one of the central problems in discourse mar%er research6their functional spectrum (3)" ,y conclusion fits the analysis into a more general model of discourse mar%ers (4) and lin%s both analysis and model to broader issues in the study of language (5)"

0.1 Approach

The basic components of my approach are meaning (semantic$ pragmatic)$ discourse and function" -lthough all of these are common terms in linguistics$ each is itself polysemous$ e!o%ing a range of meanings that are embedded in what are sometimes !ery different approaches to$ and goals of$ linguistic in/uiry" +n his two !olume reference boo% Semantics$ Lyons (1977) begins by illustrating o!er a do0en meanings of the word 7meaning"8 9nly two are usually ta%en as falling within the scope of linguistic theory and analysis: sense and reference" The sense of a word is rooted in linguistic %nowledge and stems from relations among words themsel!es" ;ince sense is based on connections within language$ it is generally assumed that we share the sense of words through our %nowledge of the networ%s of meaning in which words are embedded and through our membership in a speech community" )or e&ample$ we are assumed to share %nowledge of the semantic relationship that lin%s fruit and pear (hyponmy) or hot and cold (antonymy)" Reference is a relation between language and something in the world" +n %eeping with ,orris8 (194<) !iew of semantics as the study of how signs are related to the ob=ects to which they are applicable$ the study of reference also falls

within the linguistic subfield of semantics" ,uch current wor% in semantic theory lin%s the study of sense and reference by focusing on truth conditional meaning$ i"e" formally specifying the conditions that would ha!e to hold for a proposition to be true" ;ome mar%ers (e"g" and) are homonymous with words whose semantic meaning is based on their logical properties$ hence$ on their contributions to the conditions under which propositions would be true" -lthough this allows a small group of mar%ers to be incorporated as discourse operators into formal models of discourse processing (e"g" >olanyi 3221)$ other mar%ers contribute meaning in ways other than through truth?functions" ,ar%ers may contribute semantic meaning to discourse through metaphorical e&tensions (e"g" now and then$ ;chiffrin 1992)" ,ar%ers of spea%er stance may de!elop through loss of literal meaning (e"g" @rinton (3224) on I mean$ Aar%innen (in press) on I think) and may be classified as mar%ers of pragmatic commentary rather than discourse mar%ers per se (e"g" )raser 1992)" Bnli%e sense and reference that remain relati!ely stable across spea%er and situation$ pragmatic meanings !ary across spea%ers and situations" This dependence can be captured by defining pragmatics as the study of the use of conte&t to ma%e inferences about meaning ()asold 1992: 119C see Le!inson 19<4: 'hapter 3$ Leech 19<4 and ,ey 3221 for other definitions)" -dded to the conte&tual dependency is an inferential component: pragmatic meanings are deri!ed from a small set of interpreti!e principles (1rice 197D) that use information from a wide and !aried range of possible conte&ts (e"g" te&t$ common %nowledge$ interpersonal relationship$ social situation) to allow hearers to draw inferences about spea%er8s communicati!e intentions (i"e" 1rice8s meaning?nn (;chiffrin 1995a: 'hapter 5))"

@ecause pragmatics presupposes conte&t$ it pri!ileges the study of actual samples of language use$ rather than the study of hypothetical e&amples of language use" Thus the study of pragmatic meanings turns attention away from language as an abstract representational system to concrete instantiations of language in utterances$ i"e" !erbali0ations.inscriptions by a spea%er.writer for a hearer.reader in a conte&t" The entry of conte&t into the study of meaning also leads us to the analysis of discourse: we do not produce utterances in isolation from other utterances" This shift to a larger unit of analysis creates other challenges$ stemming primarily from the scope and di!ersity of discourse theories$ approaches and methodologies (;chiffrin 1995a$ ;chiffrin$ Tannen and *amilton 3221)" +t is thus helpful to separate discourse analysis into three separate (but interrelated) foci of in/uiry:

1" Within a sentence (or other syntactic, informational and or prosodic unit!: how parts of language based in 7core8 parts of grammar (including morphemes$ le&emes$ phrases$ clauses$ sentences) and 7marginal8 parts of grammar (e"g" intonation$ prosody$ information structure) are related to (e"g" designed for$ constrained by) the larger te&tual units in which they occur and the conte&t that those te&ts co?constitute"1

3" "e#ts: how se/uences of sentences (or other syntactic$ informational and.or prosodic units) are linearly and hierarchically structuredC what ma%es them cohesi!e and coherentC the differentiation of types of te&ts (stories$ descriptions$ lists$ arguments$ and so on) and their defining characteristics

4" $onte#ts: how language is part of larger systems of meaning and practice$ including those embedded in concrete situations of face?to?face interaction$ social gatherings$ societies$ ideologies$ and cultures and so onC the wor% that language and other semiotic systems accomplish in all areas of our li!es

The three foci are related: whereas the first focuses on sentence?le!el units (words$ phrases$ and so on)$ the second and third mo!e to larger units within which the smaller are embedded" Thus$ beginning at any one focal point re/uires attention to the others" The final part of my approach is function" -lthough functions usually reflect recurrent use$ they are not the same as use per se" #hereas there is no inherent relationship between one use and another$ functions are related to one another: they are located within a system or organi0ation in which they connect to one another and to the larger system" Thus words (at the lowest le!el of discourse analysis) are related to each other through their position in a networ% of meanings and through their recurrence in the larger systems to which they contribute (te&ts and conte&ts)" #hat is thus at issue is an abstract system in which utterances (or parts of utterances) are related to one another within a spea%er.hearer?based system of te&t.conte&t that enables the production and reception of meaning(s)" +n my model of discourse (;chiffrin 19<7a: 'hapter 1)$ + proposed se!eral domains within such a system"3 #hat is 7within8 these domains$ as well as the relations 7between8 them$ pro!ides the system within which mar%ers function" -n information state concerns what spea%er and hearer %now: their organi0ation and management of %nowledge and meta?%nowledge" - participation framework focuses on the more social side of spea%er and hearer: their identities$ alignments$

relationships to each other and to what they are saying" -ctions also relate spea%er and hearer" *owe!er$ because they re/uire structured %nowledge about what 7counts as8 a particular action and ha!e somewhat constrained se/uential contingencies$ + separate an action structure from both information state and participation framewor%" Li%ewise$ + consider an e#chan%e structure6the organi0ation of turns at tal%6to in!ol!e interactional contingencies that are at least partially uni/ue to the distribution of spea%ing.hearing rights" )inally is an ideational structure6the most semantic structure6in!ol!ing not only propositions$ but also topic.comment and information status" Relationships within these domains$ and 7between8 them$ pro!ide the system within which mar%ers function as inde&icals (see section 5)" The functions of mar%ers are !ery similar to their pragmatic meanings" @oth are embedded within$ and dependent on$ te&t.conte&t as sources of their systematic contribution to the structure$ significance and coherence of discourse" #hat differs is that functions are relational: they relate units within domains to each other and relate domains themsel!es to each other (;chiffrin 19<7a: 'hapter 12)" >ragmatic meaning is based upon spea%ers8 recurrent use of a mar%er to con!ey a communicati!e meaning that depends upon the relational functions of mar%ers in te&t.conte&t" Eow that + ha!e described some basic features and terms of my approach$ + turn to my methodology6the more empirical side of the study of discourse mar%ers"

0.& 'ethodolo%y

,y analyses of discourse mar%ers re/uire$ first and foremost$ attention to actual uses of mar%ers in discourse" -fter choosing a corpus$ + identify all occurrences of the le&ical item that are potential appearances of the discourse mar%er (e"g" all cases of and) and then decide which are discourse mar%ers" 9nce + ha!e identified the to%ens to be e&amined$ + analy0e the discourse se/uences in which the to%ens appear$ as well as other occurrences of the mar%er$ in order to balance se(uential and distri)utional accounta)ility (;chiffrin 19<7a: 69? 71)" Se(uential accounta)ility is an attempt to account for the occurrence of a mar%er within an ongoing emergent discourse" ;e/uences (of idea units$ intonation units$ utterances$ turns$ clauses$ sentences and so on) arise from a comple& interplay among different le!els of structure and significance that come to be ta%en as ongoing discourse" -s we tal% to one another$ each contribution to a se/uence is both anaphoric and cataphoric: it reflects prior conte&t and helps create upcoming conte&t" Btterance?initial items ha!e an e!en more analytically and functionally pri!ileged position in this co?constituti!e !iew of utterance and conte&t" -s argued by a !ariety of scholars (e"g" members of the >rague school of functional grammar ()irbas)$ systemic?functional grammarians (e"g" *alliday)) the first part of a sentence often plays a critical role in con!eying (or creating) a relationship or re!ealing a dependency on prior te&t (see also #ard and @irner 3221)" Line by line analysis of the progression of a se/uence thus pro!ides a means through which to understand the mar%er8s contribution to the structure and significance of a particular discourse" *istri)utional accounta)ility is an attempt to e&plain all occurrences of a mar%er within a corpus$ or more modestly$ a set of mar%ers within a subset of sites within the corpus" +deally$ such an e&planation would account not =ust for occurrences of a

mar%er$ but also for its !ariable appearance (or non?appearance) in e&pected sites" @ecause a mar%er is typically not limited to one particular type of se/uence (let alone to the particularities of =ust one se/uence itself)$ distributional analyses also help us a!oid ele!ating a particular use of a mar%er to the status of a general function" F&amining a gi!en mar%er where!er it occurs thus balances the specificity of a se/uential analysis with generality: an e&planation of why a mar%er occurs in one slot should be related to an e&planation for why it occurs in another slot$ and why it does not occur in other slots" The interdependence between distributional and se/uential analyses also flows in the other direction" )inding a distributional pattern depends on line?by?line analyses$ and then$ on the classification of the results of such analysis$ i"e" se/uential en!ironments$ as slots (the sites referred to abo!e) in discourse" )or e&ample$ when + was interested in the relationship between mar%ers and turn?ta%ing (;chiffrin 19<7a$ in passim)$ + e&amined the presence.absence of mar%ers in two se/uentially defined slots: turn?initial and turn?final position" ,y interest narrowed to the use of mar%ers in turn?initial position$ specifically$ to the interplay between the semantic.pragmatic meaning of different mar%ers (e"g" )ut !s" well) and whether the onset of ne&t?spea%er turn transition o!erlapped with prior spea%er$ and if so$ where in prior spea%er8s turn such o!erlap began" + then refined my coding to include how turn?onset fit into prior turn?transition?spaces" +n sum$ identifying slots in which mar%ers occur (or do not occur) is crucial to my approach" Get these slots must be based on se/uential analyses of mar%ers throughout a corpus" 1i!en the di!ersity of words that ser!e as mar%ers$ and the many different le!els of structure and significance that emerge in ongoing discourse$ howe!er$ it should hardly be surprising that the identification of slots

<

!aries for different mar%ers" The multiplicity of potentially rele!ant slots not only highlights the importance of balancing se/uential and distributional accountability" +t also suggests that a model of discourse mar%ers should always remain heuristic (section 4): although it can point us toward the general parameters of discourse slots$ a model must remain adaptable enough to incorporate different meaning(s)$ use(s) and function(s) that become apparent through se/uential and distributional analyses"

0.+ *ata

'losely lin%ed to both approach and methodology is data: what are the te&ts and conte&ts in which a mar%er is analy0edH how does the data pro!ide different slots and se/uences in which mar%ers can occurH (ata for my analysis are inter!iews from two sources: a sociolinguistic inter!iew in a >hiladelphia neighborhoodC an oral history inter!iew with a *olocaust sur!i!or" The purposes of these two types of inter!iews differ" The research goals of sociolinguistic inter!iews are to understand linguistic change and !ariation in a speech communityC this re/uires a large body of stylistically !aried speech from people whose social characteristics !ary (see Labo! 19<5$ ;chiffrin 19<7a: 'hapter 3)" -lthough oral histories are also research inter!iews (they pro!ide data for historians$ sociologists$ anthropologists$ and psychologists)$ they ha!e additional goals of autobiography and public commemoration (;chiffrin 3223)" (espite their differences$ both types of inter!iews rely on relati!ely open?ended agendas in which +nter!iewers pose not only /uestions that elicit specific information$ but also

/uestions that open a topic of tal% and prompt the respondent to e&pand on his.her own topics" +nter!iews contain a !ariety of te&t types: stories$ descriptions$ e&planations$ assessments$ arguments$ and so on" + chose lists as the initial data for this sample analysis because both their meanings and their structures6both of which are crucial to the analysis of and$ the mar%er in which + am interested6are relati!ely transparent" -s an operational definition of lists$ + rely upon the following characteristics (;chiffrin 1995b)" Lists are spo%en or written te&ts in which (1) the parts of a list are 7items$8 either entities or actions that are (3) members of a larger set" Fnumeration of the members of this set (4) typically occupies an e&tended turn at tal% (comparable to a narrati!e) from one spea%er (5) in which the main coherence source is the semantic connection among the items as set?members" This connection can be con!eyed through (D) the use of repetition$ ellipsis$ parallelisms and the recurrent use of and and then" Thus$ the central coherence relation (Anott and ;anders 199<) of lists is membership in a setC the central structure is coordination of subunits as e/ual le!el branches of a larger o!erarching unit (see >olanyi 3221)" + also e&amine the se/uences in which the lists appear" ;ince the lists occupy a number of different turn spaces (e"g" they can be pro=ected so as to occupy a single turn at tal%$ their continuity can be prompted)$ + comment upon the use of and in turn?initiation and turn?continuation" Li%ewise$ since the lists to be e&amined from both inter!iews pro!ide answers to /uestions$ + present obser!ations about the use of and in the /uestions themsel!es" +n %eeping with the methodology outlined abo!e (section 2"3)$ + draw upon se/uential analyses of and in specific lists and distributional analyses of and within lists$ turns and /uestions"

12

0.4 Problem statement

-s e&plained in pre!ious sections$ my approach to the functional spectrum of mar%ers depends upon analysis of the interplay among meaning$ function$ and discourse (te&t.conte&t)" + e&plore this interplay through an analysis of one mar%er$ and$ in three discourse sites: lists$ turns at tal%$ and /uestions" >rior research suggests that and connects structurally coordinate units" Get the coordinating function of and appears in a range of discourse en!ironments and with a !ariety of units$ as noted not only in my own wor% (;chiffrin 19<7a: 13<? 1D3)$ but also in diachronic studies of and ('otter 1996$ (orgeloh (forthcoming)) and studies of language de!elopment" -ccording to the latter (e"g" ;prott 1993)$ the first site in which and appears is during e&change structures in children8s (3C7 to 4C6) disputesC added later are action$ and ideational (first local$ then global) functions" @y the time children at later stages of language de!elopment (4C6 to 9C6$ >eterson and ,c'abe 1991) tell stories$ and has gained a te&tual use that parallels adult patterns (;egal et al 1991): and lin%s narrati!e e!ents with each other more fre/uently than with information tangential to the narrati!e plot" -lthough the coordinating role of and predicts that units at the same structural le!el will be connected by and$ it does not tell us what %ind(s) of units are coordinated in what domain(s)" Thus$ one problem to be addressed is the identity of the units coordinated by and" 9ther /uestions follow: where are those coordinate parts foundH are they always ad=acentH if not$ how are they identifiedH

11

>rior research also agrees that and has meaning" *owe!er$ attempts to assign meaning or meanings to and ha!e been a moot point since anti/uity ((i% 196<: 3DC see also >osner 19<2)" The wide range of meanings that can be inferred when and connects propositions has led many to re=ect a meaning?ma&imalist !iew of and in which multiple senses are housed in one le&eme" +nstead$ what has become more pre!alent is a meaning?minimalist !iew in which a !ery simple meaning is supplemented by pragmatic inference (e"g" a ma&im of manner to pro!ide an interpretation of temporal se/uence)" The problem of meaning is e&acerbated when and connects a range of units other than propositions in units larger than sentences" +n earlier wor% (;chiffrin 19<7a)$ + adapted *alliday and *asan8s (1976) !iew that and has an additi!e meaning that wor%s li%e other cohesi!e de!ices (such as repetition and le&ical collocations) to presuppose a prior te&t" Get unli%e other cohesi!e de!ices$ and can also be used metaphorically$ to con!ey not only e&ternal relationships warranted by referential meaning$ but also internal relationships percei!ed or attributed by the spea%er (*alliday and *asan 1976)" +ncluded in the latter are relationships between units other than propositions" @ut gi!en the wide range of possibilities that can be added together$ how do we %now what earlier part of discourse is to be the first part of the sum presupposed by the and?prefaced utteranceH The structural and interpreti!e problems raised by and are actually two different facets of one problem: what is the te&tual anchor for an and?prefaced utteranceH Resol!ing this problem re/uires finding a way to identify units that can be added together$ presumably$ because they share some /uality whose combination is important to the coherence of the discourse" -fter pro!iding a more general

13

definition of discourse mar%ers6the set of items in which and is included6+ use an analysis of and in lists$ turn?ta%ing and /uestions to address this /uestion"

1. Definition

The different labels for what + am calling discourse mar%ers are not =ust alternati!e words for the same thing: they reflect different ways of thin%ing about the organi0ation of what ends up being different sets of words and e&pressions" )or some$ the underlying unity is pragmatic functionC for others$ it is role in discourse" ;ome scholars find the term 7mar%ers8 to presuppose a pre?e&istent meaning that is linguistically inde&ed$ suggesting instead that the term 7particles8 allows for words that create meanings to be added to the utterances" The conse/uences of different labels are thus both practical and theoretical" 9n a concrete le!el$ !ery different items can end up being accounted for within an analysis" -t a theoretical le!el$ the inclusion of different e&pressions can represent a reliance on different unifying principles$ some formal$ some functional" +n my initial wor% on discourse mar%ers (;chiffrin 19<7a)$ + defined discourse mar%ers in two ways: an operational definition that allowed identification and (if possible) measurement (e"g" at the relati!ely low le!el of 7present8 or 7absent) and a theoretical definition that located mar%ers in a conceptual framewor%" -t an operational le!el$ + defined discourse mar%ers as se/uentially dependent elements that brac%et units of tal%$ i"e" non?obligatory utterance initial items that function in relation to ongoing tal% and te&t (p" 41)" + proposed that discourse mar%ers comprised a set of linguistic e&pressions from word classes as !aried as

14

con=unctions (e"g" and$ )ut$ or)$ inter=ections (oh)$ ad!erbs (now$ then) and le&icali0ed phrases (yknow$ I mean)" + also proposed a heuristic discourse model with different domains: a participation framewor%$ information state$ ideational structure$ action structure$ e&change structure (see section 2"1)" -lthough + had initiated and de!eloped my analysis of mar%ers with an operational definition$ + concluded with a more theoretical definition" )irst$ + tried to specify the conditions that would allow a word to be used as a discourse mar%er: syntactically detachable$ initial position$ range of prosodic contours$ operate at both local and global le!els$ operate on different planes of discourse (;chiffrin 19<7a: 43<C see Iuc%er and Ji! 199<:1?5)" ;econd$ + suggested that discourse mar%ers !aried in terms of their propositional meanings: whereas the functions of some mar%ers (e"g. I mean, yknow) were based on their propositional meanings (some in!ol!ing metaphorical e&tension o!er time and across domains$ i"e" well (Iuc%er 1997)$ other mar%ers (e"g" oh) had no propositional meaning" )inally$ + suggested that discourse mar%ers were comparable to inde&icals (;chiffrin 19<7a: 433? 43DC cf" Le!inson8s 19<4$ 'hapter 3 notion of discourse deictics)$ or in a broader sociolinguistic framewor%$ conte&tuali0ation cues (;chiffrin 19<7b)" Li%e other inde&icals whose 7pointing8 function delimits a conte&tual realm (i"e" space$ time or person)$ + claimed that mar%ers ha!e primary domains within which they establish coordinates" ,y analyses also showed that mar%ers could connect utterances either within a single domain or across different domains" The use of mar%ers in ongoing discourse6in which there is always more than le!el of structure and significance6e&pands their domains and creates what appears to be multi?functionality$ i"e" one mar%er contributes to more than one discourse domain" + suggested that this functional range6establishing coordinates

15

in different domains of discourse6helps to integrate the many different simultaneous processes underlying the construction of discourse$ and thus$ helps to create coherence" ;ubse/uent wor% that focused specifically on then (;chiffrin 1993) e&panded upon the inde&ical property of mar%ers by showing how the deictic meaning of then pro!ides a template not only for meanings within discourse (successi!e$ epistemic)$ but also for grammatical (aspectual) meaning" +n section 5$ + pursue the inde&ical properties of mar%ers more fully and suggest that mar%ers are a subclass of inde&icals"

. Analysis of functional s!ectru"

+n this section$ illustrate how my approach$ methodology and model fit together by analy0ing and in two lists$ two turn?ta%ing en!ironments$ and two types of /uestions" The analysis suggests that and has one meaning (additi!e) that is essential to interpretation of why prior and current utterances can be treated cumulati!ely" The additi!e meaning of and combines with its structural status (as a coordinating con=unction) to ha!e one basic function (7continue a cumulati!e set8)" This function contributes to the process of constructing discursi!e se/uences whose smaller parts combine to form a larger structure" (ifferent uses of and (e"g" continue a list$ continue a topic from a prior answer) are grounded in the specific sites in which and appears and is interpreted" ,y analysis begins with two lists" Lists typically ha!e a clear semantic structure$ in which items ha!e both coordinate lin%s (e"g" between K1 and K3) and hierarchical lin%s (e"g" between K1 and K1-)" Thus we can use lists to learn more about the

1D

semantic and structural bases of and" Li%e most discourse units$ howe!er$ lists do not appear on their own: they emerge in concert with other means of te&t.conte&t organi0ation$ e"g" within a turn?ta%ing system and within se/uential structures including (but not limited to) ad=acency pairs" @y attending to the emergence of lists within turn e&changes and ad=acency pairs$ we can e&amine the role of and not =ust in ideational structures (the semantic relationships between items (set? members) in a list)$ but also in e&change structures (the management of turns at tal%)$ and action structures (the as%ing and answering of /uestions)" This is important because when and does appear at the intersection of simultaneously emerging structures$ the constraints impacting it do not always con!erge or complement one another" +nstead$ they may di!erge or e!en conflict with one another"4 + analy0e and in three different subsections" +n section 3"1$ + present a monologic list to show the role of and with coordinate list?itemsC the use of and in turn?ta%ing is briefly mentioned" +n section 3"3$ + turn to a more dialogic list in which an +nter!iewer8s /uestions co?construct (and alter the structure of) the +nter!iewee8s list and introduce additional turn?ta%ing en!ironments" +n section 3"4$ + turn to the use of and with +nter!iewer /uestions" ;ince each subsection raises issues to be pursued in the ne&t$ the analysis not only tells us about and$ but also illustrates methodological and theoretical aspects of my approach to mar%ers$ especially their close interdependency and mutual reliance on data"

2.1 And in a list of RACE TRACKS AROUND HERE

16

+n this section$ + discuss L+;T (1)$ in which Aay presents the race trac%s near her house in response to a tag /uestion from -nne (a sociolinguistic +nter!iewer) about the popularity of racing" )i!e features of the list are rele!ant to analysis: (1) the list co!ers a closed set of items (R-'F TR-'A; -R9BE( *FRF)$ (3) its linear order matches its hierarchical semantic organi0ation$ (4) it follows a depth?before?breadth order$ (5) it is relati!ely monologic$ and (D) it occupies an e&tended turn at tal%" The Roman numerals and letters on the left of Aay8s list indicate the organi0ation of items in the list" These help us see the depth before breadth structure: a superordinate item LK1M is presented and e&panded with subordinate items (LK1-M$
LK1@MN)

before the ne&t superordinate list item is presented" + use OOOO to indicate

a list item not prefaced by and"5

#IST $1% RA&' TRA&(S AR)*+D ,'R' - #)&A# RA&' TRA&(S -nne: (a) Aay: (b) RacingPs big around here$ isnPt itH Geh" Geh" #ell$ you got uh$ Iersey" OOOGou got""",onmouth and you got 1arden ;tate" OOOOG8got -tlantic 'ity" ,mhmm" -nd then uh here you got Liberty @ell" - b (=) -nd theyPre building a new one up in Eeshaminy"

-nne (c) -1 RA&' TRA&(S I+ +. -1a -1b -1c Aay: (d) (e) (f) (g) -nne: (h) - /- a RA&' TRA&( I+ 0A Aay: (i)

17

-nne: (%) -1/-1a

RA&' TRA&( I+

ThatPs right" L+P!e ne!er seen that$ Q L-nd uh""" you gotQ QLthough" QL(elaware"

D' Aay: -nne: Aay:

(l)

-2 RA&' TRA&( I+ +3

(m)

-nd of course$ if you want to re? be? really go at it you can go up to Eew Gor%"

-nne: (n) -2a -2b -2c Aay: (o) (p) (/)

,mhmm" QOOOOGou got -/uaduct and you got ;aratoga and you ha!e that @elmont$ yP%now"

TA4#' 1 summari0es the use of and in L+;T (1)" The subordinate column includes the two list?items ,9E,9BT* LK1-M (e) and -RB-(B'T LK5-M (o) that branch from (and se/uentially follow) their superordinate list?items IFR;FG LK1M (d) and EF# G9RA LK5M (m)" The coordinate column includes list?items at the same le!el$ either upper?le!el items (K1$ K3N) or lower?le!el items (K1-$ K1@N)"

TA4#' 1. AND I+ #IST $1% Su)ordinate and ,-ero "otal 2 3 3 $oordinate 7 3 9 "otal 7 5 11

1<

The distribution of and in L+;T (1) is largely predicted by its semantic structure" 7<S (7.9) of the same?le!el items are and?prefaced" Eeither of the two different? le!el list items in the Su)ordinate column is and?prefaced" -lthough the figures in TA4#' 1 pro!ide distributional e!idence of the importance of semantic structure$ we can also e&plore the importance of this domain in more se/uential terms" Let us start by considering the absence of and with the items branching from upper?le!el nodes of the list: ,9E,9BT* LK1-M$ -RB-(B'T LK5-M" Eote$ first$ that since the items in L+;T (1) are place names$ an understanding of their set relationships re/uires geographical %nowledge that may not be a!ailable to e!eryone hearing or reading the list" This means that their conceptual relationship is not as semantically or le&ically e&plicit$ as the listing of generally familiar categories (e"g" family members)" -s suggested by >ons (this !olume)$ if ran%ing between sentences is not made semantically or le&ically e&plicit$ then and indicates that both constituents ha!e the same status" Eotice$ then$ that if ,9E,9BT* were and?prefaced$ we would interpret IFR;FG as a default te&tual anchor: (d) (e) #ell$ you got uh$ Iersey" (Hand) you gotN,onmouth"

#hat and would thus con!ey is that ,9E,9BT* is a same?le!el item in the list as
IFR;FG

(i"e" another state)$ hence$ not a subordinate member of the set R-'F at all"

TR-'A; +E IFR;FG LK1M

The se/uential conte&t of the ne&t and absence illustrates the importance of semantic structure in con=unction with turn?ta%ing$ thus bringing up the important

19

issue of con!ergence.di!ergence among constraints from different discourse domains" #hen introducing -RB-(B'T LK5-M (in (o)) after -nne8s turn? continuer (mmhmm (n))$ Aay does not use and:

K5 R-'F TR-'A +E EG

Aay:

(m)

-nd of course$ if you want to re? be? really go at it you can go up to Eew Gor%"

-nne: (n) K5a Aay: (o)

,mhmm"

QOOOOGou got -/uaduct

;ince -RB-(B'T is the first lower?le!el item of LK5M$ it is not surprising to find that .ou %ot A(uaduct is not and?prefaced" This absence becomes more analytically interesting$ howe!er$ when we consider its turn?ta%ing en!ironment" The turn? continuer mmhmm (n) that preceded .ou %ot A(uaduct is not -nne8s only turn? continuer$ as we see below:

K1c

Aay: (g) -nne: (h)

G8got -tlantic 'ity" ,mhmm" -nd then uh here you got Liberty @ell

K3.K3a

Aay: (i)

K3b

Aay:

(=)

-nd theyPre building a new one up in Eeshaminy"

-nne: (%)

ThatPs right" L+P!e ne!er seen that$ though

32

K4.K4a

Aay: (l)

L-nd uh"""you got (elaware"

K4.K4a

Aay:

(l)

-nd uh"""you got (elaware" ,mhmm" -nd of course$ if you want to re? be? really go at it you can go up to Eew Gor%"

-nne: (m) K5 Aay: (n)

-nne recurrently follows a strategy common in sociolinguistic inter!iews: her mmhmm and thats ri%ht wor% as turn continuers that pass responsibility for the floor bac% to Aay (cf" Iuc%er and ;mith8s (199<) !iew of turn?continuers as reception mar%ers)" +n contrast to the lac% of and with -RB-(B'T$ howe!er$ we do find and prefacing L+@FRTG @FLL$ (FL-#-RF and EF# G9RA" +f Aay is continuing her turn in all four cases$ why does she use and only in the latter threeH This pu00le is sol!ed by returning to the semantic structure of the list" -lthough the turn space occupied by .ou %ot A(uaduct is consistent with the use of and (;chiffrin 19<7a: 154? 156)$ the ideational structure is not" +t is only when the list? items following -nne8s turn continuers are at the same structural.semantic le!el of the list (LK1M and LK3M$ LK3M and LK4M$ LK4M and LK5M) that they are and?prefaced" This solution$ howe!er$ raises still another dilemma: how do we %now that the te&tual anchor for the and?prefaced list items after -nne8s turn?continuers are not the =ust?prior list itemsH )or e&ample$ why don8t we infer that it is the =ust?prior EF;*-,+EG LK3@M to which (FL-#-RF LK4M is addedH *ow do we %now that it is >FEE;GLT-E+- LK3M to which (FL-#-RF LK4M is addedH

31

-lthough world %nowledge ob!iously helps$ there are also linguistic cues that reflect that %nowledge and indicate its rele!ance for hearer interpretation of the correct lin%" Eotice$ for e&ample$ that (FL-#-RF LK4M in (e) is differentiated from the =ust?prior list?item EF;*-,+EG LK3@M in (f)" (FL-#-RF is introduced by the focusing de!ice you %ot: repetition of this predicate lin%s all the items in the list e#cept the two list items (LEF;*-,+EGM$ LEF# G9RAM) that preceded (FL-#-RF" Thus other linguistic de!ices pro!ide indications that and connects list items6e!en if they are not ad=acent6that are structurally compatible through their semantic relationships"D + will use one more e&ample from R-'F TR-'A; -R9BE( *FRF to support the importance of semantic structure for and?prefacing in lists: the absence of and with the same?le!el list item -TL-ET+' '+TG LK+'M" -lthough -TL-ET+' '+TG is certainly a part of the subset LK1M TR-'A; +E EF# IFR;FG$ it has a different status" #hereas LK1-M and LK1@M are Eew Iersey race trac%s that are not named after towns$ LK1'M shares its name with the well %nown resort near which it is located" ;o the switch from and to 70ero8 is a te&tual switch that iconically reflects the different way that -TL-ET+' '+TG fits into the o!erall set" (;ee ;chiffrin (1995b$ 19<7a: 139? 43) for other e&amples of thisC also ,aschler (199<) on discourse structuring de!ices that mar% more difficult transitions)" +n sum$ the general distribution of and in L+;T (1) reflects its semantic structure" This distribution suggests that and?prefacing of list?items builds upon the grammatical role of and as a coordinating con=unction (;chiffrin 19<7a: 1<3? 192). (istributional and se/uential obser!ations support this conclusion" And is used in the !ery same turn?ta%ing en!ironment (after the other8s turn?continuer) only if the list?item in that ne&t?turn is semantically coordinate with the list?item from the

33

prior?turn" And and 70ero8 create se/uential contrasts that differentiate typical from atypical list members"

&.& ,And in a list of somethin% a)out yourself now

+n this section$ + discuss L+;T (3)$ from the opening of a !ideo taped oral history inter!iew with a *olocaust sur!i!or ;usan @eer (;@)"6 L+;T (3) is longer and more comple& than L+;T (1)" +ts topic is potentially broader and open ended: the +nter!iewee (;@) is as%ed to tell the +nter!iewer (+Ter) somethin% a)out yourself now" The +Ter8s first /uestion pro!ides a breadth?before?depth structure in which lower?le!el items (LK1-M$ LK1@MN) that are part of one upper?le!el item LK1M are e&panded before opening the ne&t upper?le!el item (LK3M)" Later /uestions continue to build upon this structure to co?construct ;@8s list" @ecause L+;T (3) is more dialogic$ sites of participant co?construction create mismatches between se/uential presentation and hierarchical structure"

1" +Ter: 3" 4" 5" D" 6" 7" <" ;@:

LL99A; -T '-,FR-M +Pm (r" (onald )reidheim" LL99A; -T 'L+>@9-R($ B> -E( (9#EM LL99A; -T '-,FR-M This afternoon +Pm inter!iewing ,rs" ;usan @eer" ,rs" @eer is a sur!i!or from '0echoslo!a%ia$ and wePre pri!ileged to hear her story today" LTBRE; T9 )-'F ;@M *ello" L*ow are yP Eice to see you uh:

*i" *ow Lare you

34

9" +Ter: /slow0 12" 11" ;@: 13" 14" +Ter: 15" 1D"

OOO+Pd li%e you to tell me a li? something about yourself now"

GourNfamily and1. ,mhmm" Bh +P!e been li!ing in 'le!eland for the last 46 years" mmhmm OOO + uh at the present time uh + am a housewife$ and uh uh occupy myself uh uh sometimes helping my husband$ with his office$ when needed L+E @RF-T*M

16" +Ter: 17" ;@: 1<" +Ter: 19" 32" 31" 33" 34" 35" +Ter: 3D" ;@: 36" +Ter: 37" ;@: 3<" +Ter: 39" ;@: 42" +Ter: Qand thatPs aboutN LE9(;M *ePs a podiatrist" uhhuh

L#hat does he doH

And uh other times$ + pursue$ uh really uhNumNthings that + en=oy um going to the museum$ and swimming$ and uh !isiting ill people$ and uh um spending time uh decorating my home$Q mmhmm

OOOO,ay + as% how old you areH Ges$ +Pm si&ty years old" ,mhmm" ;i&ty" ,mhmm" #hat +Pd li%e to do first$

35

41" 43" ;@: 44" +Ter: 45" ;@: 4D" 15. I6er: 47" ;@: 4<" 49" 52" 51" +!er: 53" ;@: 54" 55" +Ter: 5D" 56" ;@: 57" 5<" 59" +Ter: D2" D1" ;@: D3" +Ter: D4" ;@: D5" +Ter:

oh? d? lemme as%? if you ha!e?you ha!e childrenH Ges$ + ha!e two children"Q mmhmm Q+ ha!e a son$ who is thirty three"Q ""h"" QAnd + ha!e a daughter$ who is twenty se!en" ;hePs married and li!es in Eew Gor%"Q + see" QAnd um she uh studied =ournalism but uh wor%s as a public relation person" mmhmm" And what does your son doH Bh he8s a? inNin #ooster and umN mmhmm OOOO(? does he ha!e a familyH Eo" OOOOLemme as% you to go bac% to$ the years$ before the war$Q o%ay Qin the? in the 19428s$ let8s say Labout the mid 19428s$Q doesn8t do !ery much really" mmhmm

3D

;@: DD" +TerC D6" ;@: D7" +Ter: D<" where you li!e:d$

LRight"

o%ay

Qand um describe a little bit about your e&periences then$ Lwhat?Q oL%ay

and something about your family"

;@8s list structure is co?constructed by her own orientation to personal information and the o!erarching structure presented by the +Ter and reinstated by his /uestions" These two participant structures create both semantic and turn?ta%ing en!ironments for and" These participant structures create an interactional se/uence in which the hierarchical list structure in 7I8*R' 1 is co?constructed"

36

#IST STR*&T*R': 7R)M S'9*'+&' T) ,I'RAR&,3

K tell me somethin%

K1 a)out now

K3 a)out then

K1a you

K1b family

K3a you

K3b family

K1aa where1 ab how lon%N ac 2o)N ad acti3itiesN ae a%e

K 1ba hus)and

K1bb two children

K1bb 2o)

37

K1ada sometimes

K1adb other times

K1bba son

K1bbb dau%hter

K1adaa help hus)and

K1adbb en2oy thin%s

K1bbaa K1bbab a%e 2o)

K1bbac K1bbad where children

K1bbba K1 bbbb K1bbbc K1bbbd K1 bbbe a%e married where edc 2o)

K1adbba %o to museums

K1adbbb swim

K1adbbc 3isit ill

K1adbbd decorate home

3<

The +Ter8s initiating /uestion (presented as a re/uest$ see section 3"4) establishes the first part of a binary distinction between E9# LK1M (post ##++ current life) and
T*FE LK3M

(earlier times$ including both pre ##++ and ##++)" 'onsistent with the

breadth?before?depth structure$ two subtopics of E9# are also introduced:

G9BR;FL) LK1-M

and G9BR )-,+LG LK1@M" ;@ spea%s about herself LK1-M in lines

(13) to (16) and lines (32) to (36)" LK1-M branches (LK1--M to LK1-(M) to include where ;@ L+TF;$ *9# L9E1$ 9''B>-T+9E (housewife)$ and -'T+T+T+F;" The latter$ -'T+T+T+F; LK1-(M$ branches further to ;9,FT+,F; and 9T*FR T+,F;" The
;9,FT+,F;

acti!ity is not e&panded beyond helpin% my hus)and (which is also the

first introduction of a family member LK1@M)" The 9T*FR T+,F; acti!ity LK1-(@M is specified as T*+E1; + FEI9G" This list?item branches further into four subtypes:
19+E1 T9 ,B;FB,;$ ;#+,,+E1$ T+;+T+E1 +LL >F9>LF$ (F'9R-T+E1 *9,F"

-lthough + ha!e thus far been describing the list as constructed by ;@ alone$ the +Ter as%s si& /uestions during ;@8s response to his initial re/uest to tell somethin% a)out yourself" -ll the /uestions contribute to the list by bringing up topics from le!els in the list structure higher than the items in =ust?prior tal%" +t is for this reason that we need to e&amine the presence.absence of and not only in ;@8s list$ but also in the +Ter8s /uestions and ;@8s answers to the /uestions" The /uestions as%ed by the +Ter are:

(16) (36) (42)

#hat does he doH ,ay + as% how old you areH #hat +Pd li%e to do first$ oh? d? lemme as%? if you ha!e? you ha!e childrenH

(55)

And what does your son doH

39

(59) (D3)

(? does he ha!e a familyH Lemme as% you to go bac% to$ the years$ before the war$ in the? in the 19428s$ let8s say about the mid 19428s$ and um describe a little bit about your e&periences then$ what? where you li!e:d$ and something about your family"

-lthough some of the /uestions ((16)$ (55)$ (59)) build on what ;@ has =ust said$ they all bring up topics from le!els higher in the list structure than the ad=acent items" This global (rather than local) orientation creates a choice for ;@: she can either continue the +Ter8s more global list orientation or return to her own more locally emergent list structure" -s we see below$ ;@ balances both global and local le!els of the list by first answering the +Ter8s /uestions and then returning to her own emergent list structure" The +Ter8s first /uestion What does he do4 (16) is se/uentially implicated by what ;@ has =ust said about her husband" -lthough ;@ mentions that she helps her husband$ with his office, when needed (1D)$ she does not say what %ind of wor% he does" The +Ter8s /uestion addresses this information gap" +t also brings up information structurally rele!ant to two earlier parts of the list set up in the +Ter8s /uestion: ;@8s *9B;F#+)F occupation LK1-M and )-,+LG LK1@M" -fter answering What does he do4 with 5es a podiatrist (1<)$ ;@ returns to the distinction between ;9,FT+,F; LK1-(-Mand 9T*FR T+,F; LK1-(@M that she had been e&panding" *er return is prefaced by and: And uh other times, I pursue, uh really uh1um1thin%s that I en2oy (19)" This use of and illustrates an intersection between list structure and turn?ta%ing similar to that discussed for L+;T (1)" #hat inter!ened between same?le!el list items in L+;T (1) was -nne8s turn?

42

continuerC what inter!enes here is an embedded /uestion. answer se/uence that briefly shifts the structural le!el of the list" Get we still find and prefacing the list ma%ers8 return to the floor when the ne&t list?item is semantically coordinate with a list?item prior to the list?ma%er8s brief lapse of the floor" The ne&t two +Ter /uestions are not se/uentially implicated by the topics of prior ad=acent tal%" 'ay I ask how old you are4 (37) follows ;@8s self description and her coda and thats a)out1 /nods0 (36) about her acti!ities" ;@8s -1F (li%e her husband8s occupation) is part of a higher le!el list item (G9BR;FL) LK1-M) and again$ ;@8s response pro!ides the information" #hat differs$ howe!er$ is predicted by the coda (3D)" Rather than return to the prior list$ ;@ participates with the +Ter in a cycle of ac%nowledgements and turn passes ((3<)$ (39))$ after which the +Ter as%s another /uestion" The +Ter8s ne&t /uestion begins with a phrase what Id like to do first whose meaning depends upon two presuppositions" The first 7+ would li%e to do something8 (i"e" 7+ ha!e a goal8) is triggered by the #*?cleft" The second 7my goal is part of a set of goals8 is triggered by first" @oth presuppositions establish an upcoming topic as part of a larger agenda" The +Ter retracts from his /uestion$ howe!er$ implicating through oh his reali0ation that the initiation of the agenda goal is premature (;chiffrin 19<7a: 'hapter 5)" *e then replaces the /uestion with one that$ li%e his two prior /uestions$ returns to an earlier and slightly higher le!el of the list: it e&pands the )-,+LG LK1@M node of his initial /uestion (your 1family and1 (12)) to as% if you ha3e children4 (41)" ;@ answers this /uestion with a parallel couplet that briefly e&pands the '*+L(RFE list item:

LK1@@M

+ ha!e two children

41

LK1@@-M LK1@@@M

+ ha!e a son$ And + ha!e a daughter$

LK1@---M LK1@-@-M

who is thirty three who is twenty se!en"

)ollowing the couplet$ ;@ further e&pands the (-B1*TFR node of her list with mention of marital status$ residence$ education$ and =ob" The +Ter8s ne&t two /uestions (And what does you son do4 (5D)$ *6does he ha3e a family4 (D2)) see% informational depth for the 7son8 comparable to that =ust pro!ided for the 7daughter"8 And what does your son do4 pic%s up the last list?item of the serial information pro!ided for the daughter (martial status$ residence$ academic interest$ current occupation) and turns it into a /uestion about the son$ And what does your son do47 This /uestion thus uses the most recent item in the list as a conduit through which to pop up to the higher le!el of ;9E LK1@@@M" This is the only and6prefaced /uestion used to co?construct the list" #e ha!e seen thus far that the +Ter8s /uestions during ;@8s construction of the list build upon his own initial branching structure to mo!e ;@ to different non?ad=acent$ and slightly higher le!els$ of his anticipated list" ;@8s answers to these /uestions6 about her husband8s occupation$ her age$ and her son6thus help pro!ide breadth to the three subparts of the +Ter8s initial /uestion about G9BR;FL)$ G9BR )-,+LG$ and E9#" -fter answering the +Ter8s /uestions with information that matches his more global orientation$ ;@ returns to her own list orientation with and" (iscussion of L+;T (3) has shown that its main contrasts with L+;T (1) are the le!el of co?construction and the resulting (mis)match between te&tual se/uence and semantic structure" #hereas the linear se/uence and semantic structure con!erged in L+;T (1)$ the se/uential and list structures of L+;T (3) di!erged when the +Ter8s

43

/uestions prompted ;@ to e&pand higher nodes in the list structure$ after which she returned to her own list e&pansion" -lthough we ha!e noted occurrences of and in passing$ let us now e&amine how the co?construction of L+;T (3) has a bearing on the use of and" TA4#' summari0es

the presence.absence of and in L+;T (3)"< ;ince the +Ter8s /uestions helped co? construct L+;T (3)$ + include them with ;@8s list items in TA4#' " *owe!er$ + then separate them and discuss them on their own"

TA4#' . AND I+ &):&)+STR*&TI)+ )7 #IST $ % Su)ordinate and ,-ero 2 6 $oordinate 9 7 "otal 9 14

"otal

16

33

TA4#'

shows that the o!erall distribution of and in L+;T (3) is similar to its

distribution in L+;T (1)" The absence of and when shifting to a lower le!el item (2 cases of and in the ;ubordinate column) reflects semantic structure" 'onsider the change in interpretation were and present in two of e&amples of 70ero8 in this en!ironment:

19"

-nd uh other times$ + pursue$ uh really uhNumNthings that + en=oy LHandM um going to the museum$

44

43" 44" 45"

;@: +Ter: ;@:

Ges$ + ha!e two mmhmm QLHandM + ha!e a son$

children"Q mmhmm

#ithout and$ we use our %nowledge of the world to correctly infer ;@8s intended relationship between 7things + en=oy8 LK1-(@@M and 7museum8 LK1-(@@-MC li%ewise$ for 7children8 LK1@-@M and 7son8 LK1@-@@M" And would disallow these readings and pro!ide radically alternati!e$ and confusing$ readings: we would infer that going to the museum is not something that ;@ en=oys and that the son is not one of ;@8s children" #hen we e&amine more closely the use of and with same le!el items from L+;T (3)$ we find a surprisingly slim ma=ority (D6S (9.16)) in the $oordinate column" -s we see in TA4#' 1$ howe!er$ the coordinate?le!el uses of and are hea!ily s%ewed toward ;@8s list items$ with only one appearing as a preface for an +Ter /uestion"

TA4#' 1. AND I+ DI77'R'+T 0ARTI&I0A+T SIT'S )7 #IST $ % S8s list items and ,-ero "otal < 3 12 I9ers : items 1 D 6 "otal 9 7 16

#hereas ;@ uses and to preface <2S (<.12) of the same le!el list?items that she presents$ the +Ter uses and to preface only 17S (1.6) of the /uestions (and what does you son do4) that open a slot for list?items"

45

This difference highlights the different orientations that ;@ and the +Ter ha!e to the list and its role in the inter!iew" #hereas ;@ is organi0ing and pro!iding autobiographical information to answer a /uestion$ the +Ter is eliciting another8s biographical information in order to fulfill the goals of an inter!iew" Thus each participant is wor%ing from a different information state: ;@ from the facts of her own life$ the +Ter from a general 7inter!iew8 template" ;@ and the +Ter also occupy different positions in the action and e&change structure: the +Ter8s turns are focused on as%ing /uestionsC ;@8s turns$ on answering /uestions" These intersections of the two different participant orientations create two discourse sites for the use of and" )irst is the +Ter8s /uestion" ;@8s list?items e!o%e two /uestions from the +Ter: about husband8s =ob LK1@--M$ about son8s =ob LK1@@@@M" +t is only when the /uestion builds upon ;@8s most recent list?item to see% information that it is and?prefaced" #e discuss this discourse site more fully in section 3"4" The second site created by the two different participant orientations is ;@8s return to the floor after either an embedded /uestion.answer se/uence or the +Ter8s turn continuers" Recall that and in L+;T (1) reflected semantic structure more than turn? ta%ing: and prefaced Aay8s return to the floor only if the list?item was semantically. structurally coordinated with a prior list?item" #e see the same dominance of semantic structure in L+;T (3): and prefaces a ne&t?turn ;@8s list?item in her ne&t? turn is coordinate with the list?item from her prior?turn$ hence$ not in (45)$ but in (19)$ (47) and (53) below:

K1@K1@@-

(43) 7two children8 (45) (Uand) 7son8

4D

K1-(-1AD4

(1D) 7sometimes8 acti!ity $1;% and <other ti"es= activities

K1@@K1@@@

(45) 7son8 (47) and 7daughter8

K1@@@'
K1@@@(.F

(52) 7daughter8s residence8 (53) and 7daughter8s =ob8

+n sum$ L+;T (3) has allowed us to e&amine how two different participants in an interaction orient to the construction of one list" #hereas the +Ter as%s /uestions that elicit different parts of the list from ;@8s personal biography$ ;@ organi0es and pro!ides autobiographical information within a framewor% partially e!o%ed by the +Ter8s /uestions$ but also attendant to her own schema" These different participant orientations stem partially from the information state from which each began$ but also become interwo!en with the emergent semantic structures and the organi0ation of turn?ta%ing" -lthough this creation of more comple& discourse sites complicates the use of and$ we ha!e seen$ again$ the crucial impact of semantic structure on the use of and in lists"

&.+ ,And with re(uests for information

46

The +Ter8s use of /uestions to initiate and sustain L+;T (3) are only a few of his many information?see%ing re/uests throughout the inter!iew$ all designed to elicit information about different periods$ e!ents$ and people in ;@8s life prior to$ during$ and after the *olocaust" Get e!en within this relati!ely small set of /uestions$ we saw important differences in function (e"g" setting the agenda$ prompting e&pected information)$ se/uential rele!ance (local !s" global) and form (e"g" indirect re/uests for information$ yes?no interrogati!es)" +n this section$ + focus on the use of and in the +Ter8s /uestions throughout the oral history inter!iew"9 + differentiate two types of /uestions: Local. (ependent and 1lobal.+ndependent" Local.(ependent /uestions are connected to (i"e" dependent on) topics of ad=acent tal%: the +Ter pursues a topic from ;@8s answer to a prior /uestion$ either by e&panding ;@8s topic or creating a step?wise transition to a new topic" 1lobal. +ndependent /uestions are less connected to6and thus relati!ely independent of6prior tal%" They elicit basic demographic information and introduce themes that relate to the o!erall goals and guidelines of the inter!iew (e"g" early signs of anti?;emitism$ feelings at liberation)$ 1lobal.+ndependent /uestions pro!ide an o!erarching and higher?le!el organi0ation for the inter!iew" TA4#' 2 shows the presence.absence of and in Local.(ependent and 1lobal.+ndependent /uestions"

TA4#' 2. AND I+ 9*'STI)+S I+ T,' )RA# ,IST)R3 I+T'R6I'> Local.(ependent and other mar%ers 1< 32 1lobal.+ndependent "otal 1 4 19 34

47

70ero8 Total

69 127

11 1D

<2 133

,ost of the /uestions in the inter!iew (<<S (127.133)) were Local.(ependent /uestions" And appears slightly more with Local.(ependent /uestions (17S (1<.127)) than 1lobal.+ndependent /uestions (7S (1.1D))" This slight preference for and with Local.(ependent /uestions seems to !iolate the coordinate structure constraint$ not on the le!el of propositions (since topics are being connected)$ but on the le!el of actions (i"e" a ne&t?(uestion is connected to a prior?answer)" +t also runs counter to the findings of *eritage and ;or=onen (1995) on the preference for and with agenda /uestions (cf" 1lobal.+ndependent) in clinical consultation inter!iews" 7I8*R' teases apart the two domains6ideational and action6in the

Local.(ependent and 1lobal.+ndependent /uestion types" ;ince these domains organi0e different units into se/uential relations$ they gi!e us two /uite different pictures of what and is connecting" +n 7I8*R' $ + underline the units being lin%ed by andC ; stands for ;pea%erC 1$ 3 for change of ;pea%er identityC a$ b for order of spea%er contribution" Eotice$ also$ that the 1lobal.+ndependent /uestions appear in the left hand columnC the Local.(ependent /uestions$ in the right hand column"

7I8*R' . AND I+ T>) D)MAI+S

4<

;>FF'* -'T;
8#)4A# #)&A#

S1a: 9uestion:1 ;3a: -nswer?1 ;1b: and Ruestion?3

S1a: 9uestion:1 ;3a: -nswer?1 ;1b: and LRuestion?3 L-nswer 1MM

+(F- ;TRB'TBRF
I+D'0'+D'+T D'0'+D'+T

S1a: Inco"!lete 0ro!osition:1 S a: &o"!lete 0ro!osition:1 ;1b: and +ncomplete >roposition?3

S1a: Inco"!lete 0ro!osition:1 S a: &o"!lete 0ro!osition:1 ;3b: >roposition?3 ;1b: and +ncomplete >roposition?3a

Located in the ;>FF'* -'T domain are /uestions and answers" The global connection is between two of the same speech acts: two /uestions (a$ b) from one spea%er (;1)" The local connection is between two different speech acts: answer and /uestion from different spea%ers" #hereas the global connection is similar to the connection between higher?le!el coordinate list items$ the local connection is reminiscent of a connection between two different?le!el list items6which does not occur" +t is thus the local connection that seems to contradict the coordinate structure constraint of and: two structurally different units are connected by and" #hen we re?analy0e the se/uence in terms of idea structure$ howe!er$ the use of and with a /uestion se/uentially implicated by a prior answer ma%es perfect sense" +n both +ndependent and (ependent se/uences$ ;1a presents an incomplete proposition (i"e" the ideational underpinnings of a /uestion) and ;3a completes the

49

proposition (i"e" fills the proposition)" #hen ;1b then goes on to present another incomplete proposition$ prefacing this with and$ we ha!e the ideational foundation of a series of and?prefaced globally connected /uestions" @ut another option is for ;3 to continue by presenting more information than needed to answer the /uestion$ i"e" continue the answer slot with >roposition?3 (;3b)" #hen ;1b then focuses on a source of incompleteness in >roposition?3$ we ha!e the e/ui!alent of a dependent /uestion6one whose topic has followed from the (e&tended) =ust?prior answer pro!ided by ;3b" The separation of domains in 7I8*R' e&plains the use of and based on either

propositional or speech act relationships" +t also shows how and will reflect propositional structure if speech act and ideational structure present conflicting constraints for and?prefacing" This result is consistent with the dominance of semantic structure o!er turn?ta%ing constraints in L+;T; (1) and (3)" -lso supporting this domain?based e&planation of and is the one e&ample of an and?prefaced 1lobal.+ndependent /uestion in the oral history inter!iew" +n (5)$ ;@ has been answering the +Ter8s /uestion about T*FE (a continuation of L+;T (3)) by describing her hometown and family life in that town" ;he concludes with it was a small town life (96):

$2% '-AM0#' )7 8#)4A#/I+D'0'+D'+T 9*'STI)+ 96" ;@: 97" +Ter: 9<" ;@: 99" +Ter: 122";@: Gou were the: only$ Lchild" LGes" Geh" -nd it was a comfortable life$ itPs a? it was a small town life" #ho? how many did you ha!e in your familyH + Lm? LIust myself"

52

121"+Ter: -nd uh when were you born" 123";@: + was born in 1935"

-fter ;@ closes the description of her town (And it was a comforta)le life, it;s a6 it was a small town life (96))$ the +Ter8s /uestion (Who6 how many did you ha3e in your family4 (97)) returns to an item from an earlier agenda /uestion (descri)eN somethin% a)out your family (D9))" ;@ answers the /uestion (<ust myself (9<)) and clarifies her answer ((99)? (122))" The +Ter then as%s another basic demographic /uestion (And uh when were you )orn. (121))" +ts demographic focus and lac% of connection with prior topic define this /uestion as a 1lobal.+ndependent /uestion"

51

The se/uential position of And uh when were you )orn4 is reminiscent of a second location for and?prefaced /uestion in the clinical consultations studied by *eritage and ;or=onon (1995)" +n addition to the basic mar%ing of agenda /uestions was a strategic use of and to normali0e contingent /uestions or problematic issues" #hereas the agenda?mar%ing uses of and coordinate units within the speech act domain (connecting /uestions on the same le!el in the inter!iew structure)$ then$ the use of and with contingent /uestions coordinates units within the ideational domain: information from the prior answer e!o%es a ne&t?/uestion" The use of and to normali0e /uestions whose rele!ance stems not from the agenda of a speech e!ent.situation$ but from prior?turn$ is also reminiscent of *alliday and *asan8s (1976) e&ternal (or metaphorical) meaning: rather than being manifest in te&t$ what pro!ides the additi!e relationship is the spea%er him.herself" 1oing bac% to and uh when were you )orn (12)$ then$ notice that as%ing about date of birth is not itself problematic" @ut as%ing about it after ;@ has already been tal%ing about her later life disturbs the usual chronological order not only of life itself$ but also of oral history !ersions of life" Thus it is the spea%er who establishes an additi!e connection through and to routini0e a /uestion that is potentially problematic because it is schematically and globally out of place" -lthough we ha!e e&plained why and does not typically preface the 1lobal. +ndependent /uestions in the oral history inter!iew$ and e&plained the one case where it does$ we still need to consider why and prefaces the Local.(ependent /uestions" +n a follow up study of the /uestions in the *eritage and ;or=onen (1995) corpus$ ,atsumoto (1999) turned attention away from the 7acti!ity8 le!el of the

53

inter!iew to the 7informational8 le!el" ,atsumoto8s analysis of linguistic features of the /uestions showed that and?prefacing underscored a /uestion8s s%ewed orientation toward affirmati!e polarity$ thus re!ealing the /uestioner8s orientation toward a positi!e response" To see if a 7s%ewed orientation8 was pertinent to and?prefacing of the /uestions in the oral history inter!iew$ + separated the Local.(ependent /uestions into two groups: interrogati!es and declarati!es" The interrogati!es include yes?no and #*? /uestions: these forms grammaticali0e a choice between (or among) options" The declarati!es are statements with optional rising 7/uestion8 intonation: they grammaticali0e a selection between two optionsC confirmation is sought for the selection" TA4#' ? shows the presence.absence of and with these two forms of Local.(ependent /uestions"

"A8=> ?. -E( WI"5 "W@ A@R'S @A =@$A= *>B>C*>C" :D>S"I@CS *eclarati3es and other mar%ers 70ero8 Total 7 6 1< 41 Interro%ati3es 11 15 D1 76 "otal 1< 32 69 127

T-@LF D shows that and prefaces 33S (7.41) of the declarati!e forms and 7S (11.76S) of the interrogati!e forms" This preference shows$ again$ that and functions largely within the ideational domain of discourse"

54

- comparison between e&amples of an and?prefaced declarati!e and an and? prefaced interrogati!e suggests that the former reflects a participation framewor% in which interlocutors inde& a shared orientation toward information" +n (D)$ ;@ is tal%ing about liberation at the end of ##++"

(6)

99<" ;@: 999" 1222" +Ter: 1221" ;@:

-nd uh soon after that$ the )rench prisoners cut the wire" -nd it =ust happened li%e thatN -ndN"you %new it was o!erH +t was uh ,ay 3" #e were free"

;@ reports an e!ent (the Arench prisoners cut the wire (9<<)) that freed her and her fellow prisoners from imprisonment$ followed by the coda it 2ust happened like that1(999)" -lthough it is sometimes ;@ herself who reports an epistemological shift at ma=or turning points in her life story (;chiffrin$ forthcoming)$ here it is the +Ter who proposes this shift through his and?prefaced you knew it was o3er4 (1222)" @oth its declarati!e form$ and its initial and (replicating ;@8s own repetition of and with many of the e!ent?clauses in this narrati!e) pro!ide for the +Ter symbolic entry into the ideational structure of ;@8s story world" The /uestions in (6) are a sharp contrast with the participation structure displayed by the and?prefaced /uestion in (D)" +n (6)$ from a much earlier part of her life story$ ;@ is retelling the e!ents that led up to her father8s decision to arrange for a clandestine escape to @udapest" 9ne local.dependent /uestion (336) is not and? prefacedC the other (342) is and?prefaced"

(6) ;@:

332" -nd um he called my father to his house$

55

331" and he says$ VGP%now$ + =ust recei!ed a newest decree$ that says that girls$ between ages 1D and 17$ will ha!e to be ready$V 333" uh + thin%$ he? he ga!e it to us li%e a month$ ahead" +Ter: ;@: 334" ,mhmm" 335" Bh this was um around uh end of )ebruary" 33D" -nd he said Lt? +Ter: ;@: 336" 337" two" +Ter: ;@: +Ter: 33<" ,mhmm" 339" Geh" -nd uh 342" and wha? wha? re? ready for whatH #hat would the girls Lha!e to be ready forH ;@: 341" LBh: they? they would ha!e to go to a labor camp" LF? end? end of )ebruary$ nineteen Lforty twoH LEineteen forty

The first Local.(ependent /uestion appears after ;@ brea%s from the se/uence of e!ent?clauses to mention the time of the prior e!ent (Dh this was um around uh end of Ae)ruary (335))" -s she returns to the narrati!e se/uence (and he said t6 (33D))$ the +Ter8s /uestion builds upon repetition (>6 end6 end of Ae)ruary,) to tie uncertainty about the year (nineteen forty two4 (336)) to a display of shared %nowledge of the month" ;@8s answer (Cineteen forty two (337)) confirms the +Ter8s guess" -fter a two part ac%nowledgement.confirmation pair ((33<)$ (339))$ ;@ begins to return to her story with and uh (339)" +t is here that the +Ter as%s the and?prefaced Local.(ependent /uestion: and wha6 wha6 re6 ready for what4 What would the

5D

%irls ha3e to )e rea ! for4(42)" #hat the +Ter is see%ing here differs from the temporal clarity sought in the first /uestion" #hereas the year was referentially important$ %nowing what the girls were supposed to be ready for is pi!otal to the narrati!e action: not %nowing the goal of the newest decree (to deport girls to a labor camp) will compromise the point of the story (the girls need to be smuggled out of the country)" ;ince ;@ had continued her story without e&plaining the goal$ we can assume that she had presumed the +Ter8s ability to infer the goal" The restarts (and wha6 wha6 re6 ready) and contrasti!e stress on ready in the +Ter8s /uestion re!eal the problematic gap in his %nowledge" The initial and$ latched onto ;@8s own and uh as she begins to return to her story$ compensates for the problematic gap by glossing the /uestion as an unproblematic continuation of the story" #e ha!e now seen that and?prefacing occurs more fre/uently with Local. (ependent /uestions than with 1lobal.+ndependent /uestions: within the former group$ and prefaces /uestions that anticipate a particular answer more than /uestions that do not" This pattern recalls the participation framewor% obser!ed in relation to the +Ter8s use of /uestions to co?construct L+;T (3)" (espite the different orientations toward the list defined by their participant roles in the inter!iew$ the +Ter and ;@ coordinated their list contributions" ;o$ too$ they are coordinating their different orientations toward information in the oral history as a whole: the +Ter as%s a /uestion$ ;@ answers it with more information than is re/uired$ the +Ter builds a cooperati!e and informed ne&t?/uestion from ;@8s answer" These cumulati!e lin%s across turns create a flow of topics and information within the oral history inter!iew that are consistent with its goals of eliciting the story of a 7pri!ate8 life for a !ariety of 7public8 audiences"12

56

+n sum$ understanding the use of and with the +nter!iewer8s /uestions in the oral history inter!iew has re/uired that we separate two domains of discourse: ideational and action" ;eparating these domains has led us to as% the same /uestions as%ed in analyses of and in lists: how can we account for multiple constraintsH what happens when constraints con!erge or compete with one anotherH The answer is also the same" -lthough we ha!e added ad=acency pairs to the potential range of discourse sites in which and can appear$ the pattern of and?prefacing with /uestions in this oral history inter!iew again highlights the importance of ideational structure" 'o? construction of a list$ and /uestions about emergent topics$ complicate the identification and analysis of discourse sties" Get again$ the crucial constraint on the use of and is ideational structure"

&.E $onclusion

+n this section$ + analy0ed the meaning(s)$ use(s) and function(s) of and in lists$ different turn?ta%ing en!ironments$ and types of /uestions" The analysis suggests that and has one meaning (additi!e) that combines with its structural status (as a coordinating con=unction) to ha!e one basic function (7continue a cumulati!e set8)" The sets can !ary (ideas$ turns$ actions)$ as can the specific uses (e"g" add an upper le!el list?item$ continue a topic from a prior answer) that are produced when different features combine to create highly specific discourse sites" Ee!ertheless$ when the domains underlying the discourse sites create di!ergent units that pro!ide potential parts of a set$ it is the ideational domain that most constrains the use of and"

57

1. Model

+n this section$ + integrate the general results of the analysis into the model re!iewed in section 2"1" Recall that the model contained different domains" Relationships appeared at two le!els: units within each domain could be related locally and globallyC domains themsel!es could also be related" The analysis of and in section 3 showed that local and global relationships within one domain at a time can be inde&ed by and" These domains can differ: and can lin% propositions at an ideational le!el$ /uestions at a speech act le!el$ and turns at an e&change le!el" -lthough and can occur at the intersection of different domains$ one domain was prioriti0ed" The ideational domain was most pertinent for the use of and6a fitting outcome gi!en the co?e&istence of and as a sentential con=unction" +n my earlier problem statement (section 2"5)$ + noted that the structural and interpreti!e problems raised by and are actually two facets of one problem: what is the te&tual anchor for an and?prefaced utteranceH Resol!ing this problem re/uires identifying units that can be added together$ presumably$ because they share some /uality whose combination is important to the coherence of the discourse" -lthough part of the problem has been resol!ed6the default unit pro!iding a te&tual anchor is ideational6still not completely resol!ed is which ideational units$ out of the !ast number of those being put forth in discourse$ combine into a cumulati!e set" *ere + suggest that two pragmatic principles help account for which units in a single domain can be related to one another and in what way" )irst is an -d=acency >rinciple" -lthough + base this principle on the 'on!ersation -nalytic ('-)

5<

in=unction that utterances are both conte&t?reflecting and conte&t?creating$ it could also be deri!ed from the 1ricean ma&im of ,anner or Ruantity (1rice 197D)" ;ac%s (1974$ Lecture 5$ pages 11? 13) describes the importance of ne&t?position for coherence:

There is one generic place where you need not include information as to which utterance you8re intending to relate an utterance toNand that is if you are in Ee&t >osition to an utterance" #hich is to say that for ad=acently placed utterances$ where ne&t intends to relate to a last$ no other means than positioning are necessary in order to locate which utterance you8re intending to deal with"

The -d=acency >rinciple leads hearers to try to define a coherence relation between ad=acent utterances" @ecause Btterance?1 immediately precedes Btterance?3$ it creates a conte&t for Btterance?3" Btterance?1 is thus the default location from which to define a coherence relation with Btterance?3" -n +nformati!eness >rinciple helps define the relationship between ideational units" This principle$ adapted from Le!inson8s (19<4: 156) ma&im to read as much into an utterance as is consistent with what you %now about the world$ helps us choose among different possible coherence relations between utterances" 9ur %nowledge of the world can warrant increasingly strong relationships between propositions$ e!en if those relationships are not e&plicitly encoded" #hen these relationships are specified through words that encode increasingly informati!e relations$ the coherence relation between utterances is narrowed down from the range of possibilities opened up by our world %nowledge"

59

And appears in the following scale of informati!eness$ in which each item to the right in (a) pro!ides more information (specified in (b)) about how to connect two propositions than the ones on the left:

(a)70ero8 (b)rele!ance

and

then

so

addition succession conse/uence

The >rinciple of +nformati!eness allows an inference of succession without then$ but the then?prefacing of Btterance?3 encodes a 7successi!e8 meaning" Li%ewise$ going bac% in the scale$ we might infer 7addition8 by mere ad=acency (i"e" at the 70ero8 at the far left) through world %nowledge$ but the use of and would encode 7addition"8 The >rinciple of +nformati!eness thus allows the inference of possible relationships between propositions without discourse mar%ers" #hat mar%ers thus do is select a meaning from among those potential relationships" The role of pragmatic principles within the model also recalls the similarity between pragmatics and functions noted in earlier discussion of my approach (section 2"1)" The pragmatic meaning of and is a%in to its function: both are based on its semantic meaning (additi!e) in combination with its structural status (as a coordinating con=unction) to mar% the spea%er8s communicati!e intention to 7continue a cumulati!e set"8 @oth pragmatic meaning and function are embedded within$ and dependent on$ the emergence of te&t.conte&t and the systematic ways in which parts wherein relate to one another to form more macro?le!el structures and meanings" >ragmatic meaning thus contributes to the inde&ing of relations within te&t.conte&t"

D2

2. Relevance

-nalysis of and is rele!ant to two broader issues in discourse mar%er research and theory: multiple functions of mar%ers and inde&icality" + ha!e suggested that and has one semantic meaning$ many uses$ and one pragmatic meaning.function" @ut this allocation may differ for different mar%ers whose sources are in different word classes or whose te&t.conte&t distribution differs" Thus we must include the possibility of input !ariance among mar%ers: the impact of meaning and discourse can !ary across types of mar%ers and across indi!idual to%ens of those types" -nd this means that the functional spectrum of mar%ers can itself !ary" ,ultiplicity may appear at le&ical le!els if a single discourse mar%er has more than one meaning or function" -lternati!ely$ if all mar%ers ha!e single6but different6functions and it is only mar%ers in toto that perform multiple functions$ multiplicity may appear only at the word class le!el" -lthough multiple possibilities for multiplicity may seem unnecessarily complicated$ these functional layers ma%e sense once we pursue more seriously the larger class within which mar%ers are situated: mar%ers are a subclass of inde&icals" The ad!antage of !iewing discourse mar%ers as inde&icals is that many of the features that seem so worrisome6including$ but not limited to multiplicity6are actually regular features of deictic e&pressions" 'onsider$ first$ that deictics pro!ide indices to different aspects of conte&t$ most centrally to space$ time$ and person" Get this does not mean that a particular deictic e&pression cannot e&tend its reach to another domain" ;patial indices$ for e&ample$

D1

commonly ac/uire temporal interpretations" +f we spea% of 7mo!ing up8 or 7mo!ing bac%8 a meeting$ we do not literally mean that the meeting is a physical ob=ect to be mo!ed !ertically or hori0ontally in space: it is a situation with a temporal onset that will now shift in linear time" The inde&ical range of discourse mar%ers is similar" ,ar%ers may ha!e default conte&tual 7homes8 in the particular domains of discourse to which they point" )or e&ample$ some mar%ers point to an information state$ others to an action structure$ and still others to the organi0ation of ideas" @ut this does not mean that they cannot e&tend their reach as different domains come into simultaneous play during a discourse or as the mar%er itself is metaphorically e&tended o!er time (;chiffrin (19<7a: 'hapter 12)$ ;weetser (1992) on see)"

-nother similarity is that deictics and mar%ers both !ary along a scale of pro&imity and distance from a symbolic center (the unmar%ed !ersion is the situation of spea%ing) in which the utterance is located" The pro&imal end of the a&is for deictics is usually 7me8 in the 7here8 and 7now8 of a physical worldC the distal is 7you.they$8 7there8 and 7then"8 >ro&imity and distance can also be located in a te&tual world" The common opposition between local and global scope of mar%ers (local includes ad=acent utterances$ global$ distant utterances) mirrors the pro&imal.distal a&is" +t is /uite possible that there are some default understandings of what counts as 7close to8 or 7distant from8 a 7me8 in the 7here8 and 7now8 of a physical world (despite great cross cultural !ariation (*an%s 1994$ Le!inson 19<4$ etc"))$ as well as comparable default parameters in a te&tual world" Get spea%ers and hearers can ne!ertheless manipulate what they ta%e to be pro&imal or distal in order to bring a broad range of entities into6or mo!e them out of6their perspecti!e" )or e&ample$

D3

the personal pro&imal pronoun we can inde& a small two person 7with8 (1offman 1971) or an entire nation" ;imilarly$ the mar%er oh can inde& a change in information state e!o%ed either by retrie!al of a momentarily forgotten word or by the understanding of a new$ long$ and comple& algorithm" +n both physical and te&tual worlds$ then$ the problem of fi&ing the scope is the same" -nother similarity is that both traditional deictics and discourse mar%ers can be treated not only as an open class that allows temporary members$ but also as a class whose members !ary in their degree of core or peripheral membership" )or e&ample$ here is always a deictic$ but he is not always a deicticC well is always a mar%er$ but and is not always a mar%er" )or some scholars$ nouns li%e 7neighbor8 ha!e a deictic component$ simply because it e!o%es someone who li!es close to one8s home base" Li%ewise$ Eorth and ;outh are orthogonally fi&ed to one another$ but whether we dri!e Eorth to get to @oston or ;outh depends upon our starting point: is this deicticH 'omparable /uestions can be as%ed about the e&pressions that are li%e mar%ers (e"g" I think) in some dimensions$ but not in others (Aar%%ainen (in press))" The !ariability in terms of core and peripheral status$ then$ suggests that both deictics and mar%ers are porous: conte&t can 7lea%8 into their meanings$ their uses$ and their functions in different degrees" )inally$ !iewing mar%ers as inde&icals pro!ides a way of brea%ing down two of the %ey barriers in the definitional di!ide between mar%ers and particles" )irst is the difference between displaying (mar%ers) and creating (particles) meaningC second is whether mar%ers (or particles) portray spea%er stance and attitude" The term 7mar%er8 often implies that a linguistic item is displaying an already e&istent meaningC the term 7particle8 often implies that a meaning not otherwise a!ailable is being added into the discourse" Get deictics ha!e a more comple&

D4

relationship with conte&t than the one way path implied by either !erb (7display8 or 7add8) used abo!e: they select among possible coordinates and possible 7centers8 (points of reference) for those coordinates" +f + say$ for e&ample$ I li3e here$ the word 7here8 doesn8t tell you e&actly what 7here8 + mean: the room$ the house$ the neighborhood$ the city$ the country" The specific 7here8 depends on many factors$ including what we ha!e been tal%ing about before" Ee!ertheless$ the pro&imal meaning of 7here8 does fi& one coordinate: if you %now where + am physically situated at the moment of spea%ing$ you %now that this place is located within the physical parameters of where I li3e" Eotice$ howe!er$ that this whole set of assumptions can be completely o!erridden if the deictic center shifts from the utterance to a map: + may say I li3e here when pointing to a city (or street$ or country) on a map e!en if + am not physically situated at that place when spea%ing" Li%e deictics$ discourse mar%ers can also select conte&tual coordinates from a range of possibilities in their world6the te&t.conte&tual world6by shifting their center$ i"e" their domain" The distal meaning of then can con!ey temporal succession across episodes in a narrati!e or succession of items in a list$ both between ad=acent utterances (local) or non?ad=acent utterances (global)$ as well as between single utterance or multiple utterances" (escribing the principles by which a spea%er chooses$ and a hearer interprets$ those te&tual coordinates raises analytical problems parallel to the selection of a location in I li3e here. -s noted abo!e$ mar%ers6li%e deictics6can switch their 7center"8 )or e&ample$ different domains can ser!e as centers for production and interpretation of the same mar%er: so can mar% a transition from a warrant (information state) or from a turn (e&change structure)C okay can mar% appro!al of an idea (participation framewor%) or agreement with a proposed acti!ity (action structure)" Rather than display or

D5

create meanings$ then$ it may be more accurate to say that$ as inde&icals$ both deictics and mar%ers select from a range of possible meanings that depend on the domain and its point of reference" ;pea%ers use both deictics and mar%ers to display their selection of a meaning from a possible range of meanings" @ecause the !erbali0ation of that deictic.mar%er ma%es e&plicit what had pre!iously been only one possibility from a range of possibilities$ it can appear to be a newly added or created meaning" -nother parameter on which mar%ers differ from particles concerns the reliance of the former on se/uential units of discourse" *ere + want to suggest that if we concei!e of discourse as se/uences of utterances$ i"e" te&t.conte&t pairings (;chiffrin 1995a: 'hapter 3)$ then we can include not only relationships between units (e"g" actions$ turns$ propositions) that typically appear in se/uences$ but also relationships between aspects of te&t and conte&t" )or e&ample$ self and other are clearly part of a conte&t: they can ha!e relationships of solidarity$ distance$ and so on" The way a spea%er is committed to (or detached from) a belief is a relationship between self and content of tal%" 9f course the self?other$ and self?content relationships$ are not se(uentially organi0ed parts of discourse"11 @ut once we reali0e the centrality of self$ other$ and content to te&t and conte&t$ what is said to be mar%ed by particles6spea%er.hearer alignment$ stance6can be said instead to be mar%ed as relationships between parts of a discourse" To do so re/uires recogni0ing self$ other$ and content as units of discourse6not utterances themsel!es$ but certainly part of the conte&t that creates an utterance6and thus open to the same inde&ical mar%ing as other aspects of utterances"

DD

References

D6

@rinton$ Laurel 3224 I mean: the rise of a pragmatic mar%er" Baper presented at FDR" &00+.

'otter$ 'olleen 1996 Fngaging the reader: The changing use of connecti!es in newspaper discourse " +n: -rnold et al" (eds") Sociolin%uistic 9ariation: *ata, "heory and Analysis. ;tanford Bni!ersity: 'enter for the ;tudy of Language and +nformation >ublications$ 364? 37<"

(i%$ ;imon 1GHI $oordinationJ Its Implications for the "heory of Feneral =in%uistics" -msterdam: Eorth?*olland"

(orgeloh$ *eirdrun forthcoming 'on=unction in sentence and discourse: ;entence?initial and and discourse structure " <ournal of Bra%matics.

7asold@ Ral!h 1GG0 Sociolin%uistics of =an%ua%e. )Aford: 4lackBell.

)et0er$ -nita$ and 'hristiane ,eier%ord 3223 Rethinkin% Se(uentialityJ =in%uistics 'eets $on3ersational Interaction. -msterdam: Iohn @en=amins"

D7

)raser$ @ruce 1992 -n approach to discourse mar%ers" <ournal of Bra%matics 15$ 4<4? 49D"

1offman$ Fr!ing 1971 Tie ;igns " +n Relations in Bu)lic$ Eew Gor%: @asic @oo%s"

1rice$ *" >aul 197D Logic and con!ersation " +n: >eter 'ole and Ierry ,organ (eds")" Speech Acts (Synta# and Semantics, 9olume +!" Eew Gor%: -cademic >ress$ 51WD<"

1umper0$ Iohn 19<3 *iscourse Strate%ies" 'ambridge: 'ambridge Bni!ersity >ress"

*alliday$ ,ichael$ and Ru/aiya *asan 1976 $ohesion in >n%lish" London: Longman"

*an%s$ #illiam 1994 Referential Bractice. &hicago: &hicago *niversity 0ress.

*eritage$ Iohn$ and ,ar=a?Leena ;or=onen 1995 'onstituting and maintaining acti!ities across se/uences: And prefacing " =an%ua%e in Society 34 (1)$ 1? 39"

Iuc%er$ -ndreas

D<

1997 The discourse mar%er well in the history of Fnglish " >n%lish =an%ua%e and =in%uistics 1: 1?112"

Iuc%er$ -ndreas$ and ;ara ;mith 199< -nd people =ust you %now li%e XwowX: (iscourse mar%ers as negotiating strategies " +n: -ndreas Iuc%er and Gael Ji! (eds")" *iscourse 'arkersJ *escription and "heory. -msterdam: Iohn @en=amins$ 171? 323"

-ndreas Iuc%er and Gael Ji! 199< (iscourse mar%ers: +ntroduction " +n: -ndreas Iuc%er and Gael Ji! (eds")" *iscourse 'arkersJ *escription and "heory. -msterdam: Iohn @en=amins$1?13"

Aar%%ainen$ Flise +n press >pistemic Stance in >n%lish $on3ersation" >hiladelphia: Iohn

@en=amins"

Anott$ -listair$ and Ted ;anders 199< The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic mar%ers: -n e&ploration of two languages " <ournal of Bra%matics 42$ 14D? 17D"

Labo!$ #illiam 19<5 )ield methods of the pro=ect on linguistic change and !ariation " +n: Iohn @augh and Ioel ;her0er (eds")" =an%ua%e in Dse" Fnglewood 'liffs$ EI: >rentice *all$ 3<WD4"

D9

Leech$ 1eoffrey 19<4 Brinciples of Bra%matics" London: Longman"

Le!inson$ ;te!en 19<4 Pra"mati#s. &a"bridge: &a"bridge *niversity 0ress.

Longacre$ Robert 1976 ,ystery particles and affi&es " Bapers from the 1&th 'eetin% of the $hica%o =in%uistic Society.

Lyons$ Iohn 1977 Semanti#s. &a"bridge: &a"bridge *niversity 0ress.

,aschler$ Geal 199< Rotse lishmoa keta4 Wanna hear somethin% weird funnyH ;egmenting +sraeli *ebrew tal%?in?interaction " +n: -ndreas Iuc%er and Gael Ji! (eds")" *iscourse 'arkersJ *escription and "heory. -msterdam: Iohn @en=amins$ 14? 62"

,atsumoto$ Aa0u%o 1999 And?prefaced /uestions in institutional discourse " =in%uistics 47?3$ 3D1? 375"

,ey$ Iacob 3221 Bra%maticsJ An Introduction. ,alden$ ,- : @lac%well >ublishers"

62

,orris$ 'harles 194< )oundations of the theory of signs " +n: 9tto Eeurath$ Rudolph 'arnap and 'harles ,orris (eds") International >ncyclopedia of Dnified Science" 'hicago: Bni!ersity of 'hicago >ress$ 77?14<"

>eterson$ 'arole$ and -llyssa ,c'abe 1991 Lin%ing children8s connecti!e use and narrati!e macrostructure " +n: -llyssa ,c'abe and 'arole >eterson (eds")" *e3elopin% Carrati3e Structure" *illsdale$ Eew Iersey: Lawrence Frlbaum -ssociates"

>olanyi$ Li!ia 3221 The linguistic structure of discourse " +n: (eborah ;chiffrin$ (eborah Tannen and *eidi *amilton (eds")" "he 5and)ook of *iscourse Analysis" 9&ford: @asil @lac%well$ 36D?3<1"

>ons @orderYa$ ;al!ador this !olume - functional approach to the study of discourse mar%ers "

>osner$ R" 19<2 ;emantics and pragmatics of sentence connecti!es in natural language " +n: )erenc Aiefer$ Iohn ;earle and ,anfred @ierwisch (eds")" Bra%matics and Speech Act "heory. (ordrecht$ *olland: (" Reidel and 'o"$ <7? 133"

;ac%s$ *ar!ey 1974 =ecture Cotes" ;chool of ;ocial ;cience" Bni!ersity of 'alifornia at +r!ine"

61

;chiffrin$ (eborah 19<7a *iscourse 'arkers" 'ambridge: 'ambridge Bni!ersity >ress"

19<7b (isco!ering the conte&t of an utterance " =in%uistics 3D (1)$ 11? 43"

1992 @etween te&t and conte&t: (ei&is$ anaphora and the meaning of then " "e#t 12$ 4: 35D? 72"

1993 -naphoric then: -spectual$ te&tual and epistemic meaning " =in%uistics 42 (5)$ 7D4? 793"

1995a Approaches to *iscourse" 9&ford: @lac%well"

1995b ,a%ing a list " *iscourse Brocesses 17(4)$ 477? 52D"

3221 (iscourse mar%ers: Language$ meaning$ and conte&t " +n: (eborah ;chiffrin$ (eborah Tannen$ and *eidi *amilton (eds")" "he 5and)ook of *iscourse Analysis" 9&ford: @asil @lac%well$ D5?7D"

3223 ,other and friends in a *olocaust sur!i!or oral history " =an%ua%e in Society 41 (4): 429? 4D5"

63

forthcoming )raming self$ other and e&perience in the first fi!e minutes " +n: (eborah ;chiffrin$ -nna (e)ina and ,ichael @amberg (eds")" *iscourse and Identity" 'ambridge: 'ambridge Bni!ersity >ress"

;chiffrin$ (eborah$ (eborah Tannen and *eidi *amilton (eds") 3221 "he 5and)ook of *iscourse Analysis. 9&ford: @asil @lac%well"

;egal$ Frwin$ Iudith (uchan$ and >aula ;cott 1991 The role of interclausal connecti!es in narrati!e structuring " *iscourse Brocesses 15 (1)$ 37? D5"

;prott$ Richard 1993 'hildren8s use of discourse mar%ers in disputes " *iscourse Brocesses 1D (5)$ 534?549"

;weetser$ F!e 1992 Arom >tymolo%y to Bra%maticsJ 'etaphorical and $ultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. 'ambridge: 'ambridge Bni!ersity >ress"

#ard$ 1regory and @etty @irner 3221 (iscourse and information structure " +n: (eborah ;chiffrin$ (eborah Tannen$ and *eidi *amilton (eds")" "he 5and)ook of *iscourse Analysis" 9&ford: @asil @lac%well$ 119?147"

64

'ndnotes

+ use the core.marginal distinction6whose !alidity has been rightfully challenged by Iohn 1umper08 (19<3) construct of conte&tuali0ation cues6only in order to contrast features of language clearly tied to sentence structure from those that are not" 9f course core and marginal meanings are both central to communication and pragmatic meaning"
3

,y initial use of 7planes8 suggested to some readers different le!els arranged in a hierarchy" To a!oid

this reading$ + will spea% here of 7domains8 instead"

4

The possibilities created by di!ergent or conflicting constraints are familiar to social scientists who

use multi!ariate statistics to e!aluate the relati!e weight of different independent !ariables (e"g" age$ social class$ gender$ ethnicity) on a dependent !ariable (e"g" political affiliation)" Ruantitati!e sociolinguists ha!e relied upon similar ways of thin%ing when analy0ing phonological !ariation and the relati!e effects of factors culled from different aspects of the phonological en!ironment" ;ee >ons @orderYa (this !olume) who points out that the mulifunctionality of connecti!es ma%es it unli%ely that a /ualitati!e study could capture all the different ways that !ariables might be associated with one another" -lthough + will not pursue a statistical analysis here$ the logic of the analysis is similar"
5

Two points" )irst$ the race trac%s are grouped by states (the upper le!el item): EI is Eew Iersey$ >- is

>ennsyl!ania (the location of -nne and Aay)$ (F is (elaware$ EG is Eew Gor%" ;econd$ + ha!e assigned a dual status to the list?items in lines (i) and (l) because they are presented in one syntactic unit" Fach is counted only once in T-@LF 1"
D

;chiffrin (1995a: 395? 6C 1995b) notes the interdependence between the use of mar%ers in lists and

other list?ma%ing de!ices that re!eal set membership and core !s" peripheral categories (e"g" intonation$ repetition$ presentational sentences$ syntactic parallels$ ellipsis)"
6

+ am grateful to the Bnited ;tates *olocaust ,emorial ,useum (#ashington ("'") for ma%ing this

oral history a!ailable to me$ as well as the Eational -lliance of Iewish #omen ('le!eland @ranch) for

+ am grateful to the Bnited ;tates *olocaust ,emorial ,useum (#ashington ("'") for ma%ing this oral history a!ailable to me$ as well as the Eational -lliance of Iewish #omen ('le!eland @ranch) for inter!iewing ,rs" @eer and allowing B;*,, to act as a national repository for the oral history"
7

The importance here of 7occupation8 pic%s up the theme of husband8s occupation discussed earlier" +

discuss this in more detail in a comparison among different openings of oral history inter!iews (;chiffrin$ forthcoming)"
<

-lthough e!ery list item in L+;T (1) was a possible en!ironment for and$ this is not the case in L+;T

(3)" )or e&ample$ ;9E LK1@@-M and (-B1*TFR LK1@-@M both dominated se!eral subordinate list? items" @ut not all could be connected by and" +n I ha3e a dau%hter, who is twenty se3en ((47)$ (4<))$ for e&ample$ a dau%hter is a subcategory of two children and twenty se3en is a subcategory of dau%hter" @ut it is syntactically anomalous to con=oin a relati!e clause to its head noun phrase (Ua dau%hter and who is twenty se3en). *ad the daughter8s age been presented in an independent clause (e"g" 7she is twenty se!en8) this would ha!e been a discourse site for and$ and + would ha!e counted it as a non? occurrence of and" Thus$ + only counted list?items that were syntactically compatible with and"
9

+ will spea% interchangeably of /uestions and re/uests here$ since by the latter$ + mean re/uests for

information" ;ee ;chiffrin (1995a: 'hapter 4) for relationships between these sometimes differentiated speech acts"
12

,y ongoing research suggests that oral history inter!iews ha!e three interrelated goals

(autobiography$ public commemoration$ pro!iding data for research) that can be best met by discourse whose se/uential structure simultaneously contributes to o!erarching topics and themes"
11

)et0er and ,eier%ord (3223: 13) in their new collection on se/uentiality$ howe!er$ argue that e!en

intentions can be se/uentially ordered within discourse$ simply because intentions manifest themsel!es in the performance and interpretation of speech acts or communicati!e acts"