Utterance-final tags in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal English
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Once thought of as somewhat lacking ‘the precision and complexity of the central areas of grammar and phonology’ (Labov, 2013: 5), the field of discourse-pragmatic variation has recently blossomed (see Pichler, 2016). However, this expansion has been mostly restricted to mainstream linguistic varieties, and questions remain regarding the role of discourse-pragmatic features in signposting discourse (Author details).<br/>In this paper we offer the first analysis of utterance-final tags (UFTs) in Australian Aboriginal English (AAE), a contact-based variety of English spoken by an estimated 80% of First Nations people in Australia (Author details). UFTs are discourse- pragmatic features found at the end of utterances which perform multiple functions, including marking a proposition as common ground with the hearer (Denis & Tagliamonte, 2016: 87). UFTs are generally understood as being of two types: variable tags, which agree in person and number with the statement to which they are attached (e.g. isn’t it?) and non-variable tags (e.g. right?) which do not (Kimps, Davidse & Cornillie, 2014: 64).<br/>We draw on the speech of 30 speakers of AAE (14 men and 16 females) for whom AAE is their first language. The AAE corpus was collected using a Indigenous-led, cross-cultural, participatory methodology based on yarning – an Aboriginal form of storytelling and conversation (Author details). To facilitate cross-varietal comparison, we also consider narrative and sociolinguistic interview data collected with 30 native speakers of standarised AusE (16 men and 14 females). Both corpora were gathered in Nyungar country, Southwest Western Australia.<br/>Our distributional results indicate that both AAE and AusE strongly favour non- variable tags, and that – in line with Denis and Tagliamonte’s (2016: 97) findings for mainstream Canadian English – utterance-final you know is the most widely used variant across cohorts (example 1). Despite these similarities, while AusE markedly favours utterance-final you know (87% [150/172]), AAE makes use of a suite of UFTs, including you know (51%), eh (18%), yeah (11%), and unna (7%; example 2).<br/><br/>AAE speakers also use most of their UFTs in narrative orientation (AAE: 52% [34/65]; AusE: 11% [5/47]) which provides context for the main story line, while AusE speakers use them most in the complicating action (AusE: 61% [29/47]; AAE: 23% [15/65]). This pattern interacts with the use of UFTs such as you know as ‘quotative delimiter’ (Denis & Tagliamonte, 2016): AusE speakers use UFTs to accompany quotative re-enactment in their storytelling (29% [44/150]). In AAE yarning, quotation is not delimited by UFTs to the same extent (9% [22/231]). Instead, UFTs are deployed in narrative orientation to report facts (54% [126/231]) and confirm information (43% [35/80]).<br/>Malcolm (1994: 295) has argued that AAE speakers rely on ‘confirmation-seeking devices’ because, in AAE, communication is oriented to the group. Our results suggest that a group orientation does not only determine whether or which UFTs (‘confirmation-seeking devices’) will be used but also where in the yarning these will feature: AAE speakers use UFTs in narrative orientation to signpost their way into the main storyline, which is particularly important in the presence of non-Aboriginal interlocutors. UFTs, then, are a key element in the linguistic fabric of AAE yarning.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».