4.3 Article

English and Russian vague category markers in business discourse: Linguistic identity aspects

期刊

JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS
卷 135, 期 -, 页码 39-52

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.07.011

关键词

Vague category marker; VCM; Business discourse; Corpus analysis; CANBEC; Russian National Corpus

资金

  1. RUDN University Programme 5-100

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vague category markers (hereafter VCMs), also known as general extenders, are a pervasive phenomenon of spoken discourse. They include expressions such as and things like that and or whatever. They have been studied in conversational contexts and specialised contexts (e.g. courtroom discourse, radio broadcasts) but spoken business and professional communication has received relatively less attention. Using two corpora, this article addresses: (1) the forms and functions of VCMs in English business talk and in Russian business/professional talk, and (2) the comparability of VCMs across the two datasets. In both corpora, a range of VCMs similar to those found in everyday conversational contexts occur. The functions of VCMs in business/professional data replicate those illustrated in previous research into VCM use, i.e., the projection of fluid, exemplar-based categories which appeal to shared knowledge, hedging, the projection of a shared identity both within and between groups and as shorthand references to different levels of shared knowledge, from internal knowledge shared by the group to general, global knowledge and experience. The efficient functioning of VCMs is evidenced in turn-taking. VCMs in both datasets attach to a wide range of exemplar-types, regardless of syntactic configuration. Although the two datasets could not be perfectly matched, sufficient similarities enable useful comparisons to be made, albeit translatability of VCMS is often complicated by the number of internal variants any VCM may display. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据