Advanced

Combining corpus and experimental methods to gain new insights into APPRAISAL in spoken discourse

Pöldvere, Nele LU ; Fuoli, Matteo LU and Paradis, Carita LU (2016) Corpora and Discourse International Conference
Abstract

The mainobjective of this paper is to challenge the treatment of first-person epistemicand evidential complement-taking predicate (CTP) constructions in Martin andWhite’s (2005) appraisal theory,and to offer suggestions for improving the model. Based on empirical evidencefrom a corpus-based analysis and a laboratory experiment, we demonstrate that CTPconstructions do not only serve to expand the dialogic context in which theyoccur, but also to put a lid on alternative views. The paper contributes to the refinement of appraisal as a corpus annotation tool,and provides a practical illustration of the usefulness of combining corpus andexperimental methodsto gain new and robust insights into linguistic phenomena.


In appraisal,... (More)

The mainobjective of this paper is to challenge the treatment of first-person epistemicand evidential complement-taking predicate (CTP) constructions in Martin andWhite’s (2005) appraisal theory,and to offer suggestions for improving the model. Based on empirical evidencefrom a corpus-based analysis and a laboratory experiment, we demonstrate that CTPconstructions do not only serve to expand the dialogic context in which theyoccur, but also to put a lid on alternative views. The paper contributes to the refinement of appraisal as a corpus annotation tool,and provides a practical illustration of the usefulness of combining corpus andexperimental methodsto gain new and robust insights into linguistic phenomena.


In appraisal, first-person CTPs such as I think and I believe are classified as instances of dialogic expansion in that they make dialogic space for possiblesubsequent arguments (Martin & White, 2005: 98). They are set in contrast toexpressions of dialogic contraction (e.g.obviously, however, but), which areused in discourse to challenge, resist or reject alternative value positions. Inspoken discourse, however, CTP constructions do not appear to always perform anexpansive function. In (1), for example, Ithink is prosodically unaccented, serving as a starting point for theopinion expressed in the complement clause, which contains an evidential markerwith a falling accent – obviously –signalling a high degree of commitment (Cruttenden, 1997; Kärkkäinen, 2003).


(1) B: I think he was \obviously trying to steer us in that direction and


sort of


A: yes


B: dropping hints


Martinand White (2005: 103) recognize that the function of engagement expressions "may vary systematically under theinfluence of differentco-textual conditions, and across registers, genres and discourse domains."These conditions, however, are not discussed in detail by the authors, nor havethey been systematically investigated in the literature. In this study, we combinecorpus-based and experimental methods to test the effect of different contextualfactors on the dialogic function of CTP constructions.


The study is conducted in twophases. First, an exploratory analysis of CTP constructions in the London-LundCorpus (LLC) of spoken British English is carried out to identify factors thatmay play a role in determining the dialogic force of the constructions. The annotationof CTP constructions in the corpus is performed following Fuoli’s (forthcoming) step-wise method for annotatingappraisal, and is validatedthrough an inter-rater reliability test. Hypotheses derived from the corpusfindings are then tested in a controlled experimental setting. The resultsindicate that CTP constructions not only serve to expand the dialogic contextin which they occur, but may also function to inhibit dialogue. Interlocutorstatus, prosodic marking and the co-occurrence of a contractive marker are shownto have a significant effect on the function of CTP constructions.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to conference
publication status
published
subject
keywords
stance, complement-taking predicates, corpus annotation, inter-rater agreement, reliability
conference name
Corpora and Discourse International Conference
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
2a7e97e8-76d8-4a4f-966b-bb421b3fa985
date added to LUP
2016-07-13 11:18:55
date last changed
2016-09-20 15:49:04
@misc{2a7e97e8-76d8-4a4f-966b-bb421b3fa985,
  abstract     = {<p>The mainobjective of this paper is to challenge the treatment of first-person epistemicand evidential complement-taking predicate (CTP) constructions in Martin andWhite’s (2005) appraisal theory,and to offer suggestions for improving the model. Based on empirical evidencefrom a corpus-based analysis and a laboratory experiment, we demonstrate that CTPconstructions do not only serve to expand the dialogic context in which theyoccur, but also to put a lid on alternative views. The paper contributes to the refinement of appraisal as a corpus annotation tool,and provides a practical illustration of the usefulness of combining corpus andexperimental methodsto gain new and robust insights into linguistic phenomena. </p><br>
<p>In appraisal, first-person CTPs such as I think and I believe are classified as instances of dialogic expansion in that they make dialogic space for possiblesubsequent arguments (Martin &amp; White, 2005: 98). They are set in contrast toexpressions of dialogic contraction (e.g.obviously, however, but), which areused in discourse to challenge, resist or reject alternative value positions. Inspoken discourse, however, CTP constructions do not appear to always perform anexpansive function. In (1), for example, Ithink is prosodically unaccented, serving as a starting point for theopinion expressed in the complement clause, which contains an evidential markerwith a falling accent – obviously –signalling a high degree of commitment (Cruttenden, 1997; Kärkkäinen, 2003).</p><br>
<p>(1) B: I think he was \obviously trying to steer us in that direction and</p><br>
<p>sort of</p><br>
<p>A: yes</p><br>
<p>B: dropping hints</p><br>
<p>Martinand White (2005: 103) recognize that the function of engagement expressions "may vary systematically under theinfluence of differentco-textual conditions, and across registers, genres and discourse domains."These conditions, however, are not discussed in detail by the authors, nor havethey been systematically investigated in the literature. In this study, we combinecorpus-based and experimental methods to test the effect of different contextualfactors on the dialogic function of CTP constructions.</p><br>
<p>The study is conducted in twophases. First, an exploratory analysis of CTP constructions in the London-LundCorpus (LLC) of spoken British English is carried out to identify factors thatmay play a role in determining the dialogic force of the constructions. The annotationof CTP constructions in the corpus is performed following Fuoli’s (forthcoming) step-wise method for annotatingappraisal, and is validatedthrough an inter-rater reliability test. Hypotheses derived from the corpusfindings are then tested in a controlled experimental setting. The resultsindicate that CTP constructions not only serve to expand the dialogic contextin which they occur, but may also function to inhibit dialogue. Interlocutorstatus, prosodic marking and the co-occurrence of a contractive marker are shownto have a significant effect on the function of CTP constructions. </p>},
  author       = {Pöldvere, Nele and Fuoli, Matteo and Paradis, Carita},
  keyword      = {stance,complement-taking predicates,corpus annotation,inter-rater agreement,reliability},
  language     = {eng},
  title        = {Combining corpus and experimental methods to gain new insights into APPRAISAL in spoken discourse},
  year         = {2016},
}