CC BY
11
-►
Applied Linguistics
DOI: 10.18721/JHSS.10411 УДК: 8Г33
GRAMMATICAL AND PROSODIC MEANS OF HUMAN- AND ANIMAL-ORIENTED (PRE-) DIRECTIVES OF TALK-IN-INTERACTION1
P. Kosta
University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
This paper discusses closings considered as the most sensible parts of conversation. Closings must satisfy their major goal, namely to end up conversation, but at the same time, they should not violate any of the conversation maxims and should not cause social conflicts between the interlocutors. Closings are considered in a way 'signals of face-saving strategies'. This paper provides evidence that institutional conversations differ from natural conversations, especially with regard to their closings, an aspect of structural property, which they may share with other structural properties of openings, but in a very special form and way - ending up conversation being their crucial and major invariant. The author claims that prosody does not only play a crucial role in order to mark cognitive semantic information (topic-focus articulation) but also to mark expressivity and politeness and to switch grammatical meanings of turning them to meanings of communicative senses. In addition to the communication between humans and humans, a special case is examined.
Keywords: Conversational Analysis, Grammar, Syntax-Prosody-Interface, Colloquial Russian, Speech Act Theory, Sociolinguistics, Directives, Praat-Spectograms, Mean Formants, Pitch Accent, Mimicry
Citation: P. Kosta, Grammatical and prosodic means of human- and animal-oriented (pre-) directives of talk-in-interaction, St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Humanities and Social Sciences, 10 (4) (2019) 111-138. DOI: 10.18721/JHSS.10411
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
ГРАММАТИЧЕСКИЕ И ПРОСОДИЧЕСКИЕ СРЕДСТВА
ОФОРМЛЕНИЯ (ПРЕ-)ДИРЕКТИВОВ ВО ВЗАИМОДЕЙСТВИИ С ЛЮДЬМИ И ЖИВОТНЫМИ
П. Коста
Потсдамский университет, г. Потсдам, Германия
В этой статье обсуждаются завершающие реплики взаимодействия, которые считаются наиболее выраженной частью коммуникации. Завершающие реплики должны удовлетворять их главной цели, а именно завершать весь разговор, но в то же время они не должны нарушать ни одного из коммуникативных постулатов и вызывать социальный конфликт между собеседниками. Завершающие реплики рассматриваются как сигналы стратегий, поддерживающих социальное лицо. В этой статье приводятся доказательства того, что институциональные разговоры отличаются от естественных разговоров, особенно с точки зрения структурной роли завершающих реплик, которая аналогична структурной роли начальных реплик, но отличается специфическими формой и способом: окончание разговора
1 This article was originally a paper given at the 3rd Workshop of the DFG-sponsored Network Urban Voices (Urban Voices — Linguistic and communicative diversity in face-to-face-interaction of Russian-speaking interlocutors in Saint Petersburg and German cities Stimmen der Stadt — Sprachliche und kommunikative Vielfalt in face to face-Interaktion russischsprachiger Sprecherinnen in Sankt Petersburg und deutschen Städten Laufzeit: 2012-2015 DFG-funded network (GZ TH 1506/2-1) Project coordinator: Nadine Thielemann), entitled "Linguistics and Grammar of Talk in interaction" in Potsdam, November 6-9, 2014. My special thank go to the following participants whose questions and critical remarks contributed to a modified better version of this paper: Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Nadine Thielemann, Nicole Richter, Ludger Paschen, Bernhard Brehmer and Aleksandra Kuznetcova who helped me with the transcription of the recordings of spoken conversation of Russian heritage speakers in Berlin and Potsdam.
является их ключевым и главным инвариантом. Автор утверждает, что просодия играет решающую роль не только для обозначения когнитивной семантической информации (тематической артикуляции), но также для выражения экспрессии и вежливости, а также для переключения грамматических значений, превращая их в значения коммуникативных смыслов. Помимо общения между людьми, рассматривается особый случай.
Ключевые слова: грамматика, синтаксис-просодия-интерфейс, разговорный русский, теория речевого акта, социолингвистика, директивы, praat-спектрограммы, средние значения формант, акцент тона, мимикрия
Сссылка при цитировании: Коста П. Грамматические и просодические средства оформления (пре-)дерективов во взаимодействии с людьми и животными // Научно-технические ведомости СПбГПУ. Гуманитарные и общественные науки. 2019. Т. 10, № 4. С. 111-138. DOI: 10.18721/ JHSS.10411
Это статья открытого доступа, распространяемая по лицензии CC BY-NC 4.0 (https://crea-tivecommons.org/Hcenses/by-nc/4.0/)
State of the art and Background of this study
Language as well as the shape of discourse are influenced by and reflect social meanings. Due to the frequent turnover of communicative situations in which urban dwellers happen to find themselves in their everyday lives, they have a multitude of linguistic, paralinguistic and pragmatic resources at their disposal to display and highlight a relevant social identity, to accomplish a given task accordingly to the speech event etc. Attempts to describe linguistic and communicative variation and hence to capture the pragmatic competence of inhabitants of Russian cities have been made from different vantage points. Nevertheless, there is a lack of analyses with a necessarily wide scope of possibly relevant linguistic, paralinguistic and pragmatic phenomena and a trend to neglect specific sociolinguistic variables revealing social differentiation such as migration or ethnic background.
The first desideratum is partially due to certain preferences regarding methodology. The second desideratum is strongly connected with the lack of data from specific groups and situations. The network Urban Voices which has been sponsored by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG/ German Research Society) in the years 2012-2015 under the coordination of my former assistant and now chair of Slavic linguistic at the Economic University Vienna Nadine Thielemann has developed a framework and tried to overcome both mentioned desiderata by analyzing a wide scope of social meanings conveyed linguistically by urban speakers of Russian in Sankt Petersburg (SPb) and in German cities, and by applying different methodological approaches capturing how social meaning is encoded in spoken language and talk-in-interaction. Features stemming from all linguistic subsystems as well as pragmatic and interactional features or preferences for specific discourse genres can be involved in signaling social meaning. Approaching this wide scope of potentially relevant
phenomena, different methodologies will be applied in a triangulating fashion, which allows for capturing all potentially relevant dimension of variation and for cross-checking and validating single analyses. This enterprise crucially depends on data reflecting linguistic and communicative diversity and allowing for the application of methods rooted in pragmatics and research on prosody and, therefore, mainly relies on audio-data from authentic talk-in-interaction.
Research on Russian talk-in-interaction has so far concentrated on specific varieties and contexts of use and favored certain methodological approaches. An important point of departure has been the work on Colloquial Russian (CR, russkaja razgovornaja rec') [1-6]. CR is thereby defined by Zemskaja [1;2] as the variety of Russian used by well-educated urban inhabitants in casual and unprepared face-to-face-interactions. The data bases mainly consist of interactions within families and gatherings of friends or relatives recorded in Moscow [7] and fewer data from other cities such as e.g. Ekaterinburg [8]. It is the variety of CR that features prominently in the analysis of Russian talk-in-interaction and that has been described as the essential variety of communication in the urban space. Descriptions of this oral variety of Russian pay special attention to syntax, word order, strategies of nomination, word formation as well as to phonetic and prosodic features. Features of CR concerning all these aspects are described and explained in terms of deviation from the norm of Russian codified literary language. Zemskaja et al. conceive of CR as of a specific linguistic subsystem typical of certain extra-linguistically modeled situations which makes it extremely difficult for them to account for variation and deviation from CR frequently occurring in otherwise standard CR-situations. Deviation from as well as variation of this default variety rather provides a socially meaningful resource fulfilling specific functions (e.g. in the context of positioning oneself in opposition to an out-group or in attempts to change the framing of
the event). Interestingly, Zemskaja [2] points to instances when speakers switch to an 'inferior' as well as a 'superior' variety in default CR- talk in order to frame an utterance as humorous.
Another variety that received significant attention in Russian (and Soviet) sociolinguistics is qualified as substandard and ascribed to poorly educated urban dwellers (prostorecie). Similar to CR, this variety has also been described as a relatively stable and closed subsystem characterized by specific linguistic features which are habitually ascribed to a particular social group. This picture of social stratification in the urban space is challenged by the Perm' school of sociolinguistics [9] who advocates a variationist approach integrating different social (e.g. gender, age, social status/education) and regional parameters. In assessing phonetic features and checking their statistical relevance mainly based on elicited data from Perm', Erofeeva [10], for example, reveals the complex relationship and interaction of regional dialects, substandard, CR, and the codified literary language and argues for the formation of regiolects. Especially in times of increased mobility the urban space turns into a platform nurturing processes of convergence between standard language and dialects, dialect leveling or the emergence of new regiolects as Krause [11] assumes with regard to several larger Russian cities apart from Moscow and Sankt Petersburg. In effect the linguistic situation in Russian cities is far more complex.
Linguistic and communicative behavior is further affected by the situation in which interlocutors converse; this factor interacts with the social identity of the speakers. Analyses based on authentic face-to-face-interaction revealing variation in natural settings are still scarce [7], especially when compared to analyses conducted in Western cities [12]. As a platform which brings together people from different ethnic backgrounds the market and communication there introduces a new and largely neglected social parameter to Russian sociolinguistics — the speakers' ethnic ormigrationbackground. Kirilina [13] observed among other things the language of migrants from Middle Asia and the Caucasus on Moscow markets by linguistic landscaping. Oglezneva [14] describes the Russian- Chinese-Pidgin which originates in the communication on the markets in Blagovescensk. But we still know little about the communicative as well as linguistic competence of migrants in Russian cities in the various settings in which they happen to communicate during the day. Judging from the literature, especially concerning the early analyses of Zemskaja and her team, it is not always clear whether a social constructivist approach to variation is favored or not, although their analyses are conducted on situationally embedded, authentic data. Sappok
[29] shows how a Praat-analysis with a spectogram can contribute to detecting individual prosodic and phonetic features of voices in conversation. It is, therefore, important to discuss the relationship between linguistic features, pragmatic and communicative preferences and the social meaning constituted or indexed to by these features [29]. Only detailed analyses accurately following the interaction data reveal the socially relevant meaning potential of certain features and allow for checking whether the interlocutors themselves orient to them, for example, if there occurs variation. If we assume that variation of linguistic as well as pragmatic features is actively exploited by the speakers to convey social meaning, it follows that speakers have several linguistic and communicative styles at their disposal. Then, it is also presupposed that speakers can actively switch and, therefore, also accommodate to different situations or highlight a certain social identity respectively. We still know little about the stylistic repertoire forming the communicative competence of Russian urban dwellers [7]. Social constructivist approaches to linguistic and communicative variation in face-to-face-interaction favor a qualitative approach. Features situated on several levels of the linguistic system as well as pragmatic features are listed, but the role of a certain feature within a variety is neither assessed nor quantified [2].
So, we know little about the relevance or significance of single features and about the interaction with other features within the context of a certain style. In assessing the role of single features, it will be fruitful to combine qualitative methods e.g. from interpretive sociolinguistics and quantitative methods rather inspired by variationism. Since the phenomena that account for a style reach from features from all linguistic subsystems up to pragmatic, interactional features and preferences for certain speech genres, it is necessary to look at phenomena on all levels of discourse and language, in order to see how they interact with each other [15-16]. Such a synthesizing view of variation favors methodological triangulation and as well helps to show which speech activities and genres are connected or associated with certain styles. How is an activity accomplished by a certain social group or within a specific setting? This requires the analysis of interaction embedded in various situations. Only analyses of different private and institutional settings in which inhabitants of a city come together during their days reveal the wide range of communicative genres typical of urban communication during a day, and give insight into how they are accomplished by members of different social groups.
Since a wide spectrum of linguistic, paralinguistic as well as pragmatic and interactional features may
be involved in socially meaningful variation, the scope of potentially relevant phenomena has to be broad. This requires a more thorough look at Russian talk-in-interaction. Its distinctive linguistic shape has been described by Zemskaja and her team as resulting from the general pragmatic and communicative conditions of face-to-face-dialogue. Nevertheless, there is no systematic account of interactional properties such as turn-taking, repair or sequential organization for the specific shape of Russian talk-in-interaction that would explain e.g. syntactic features of spoken language as determined by its occurrence in turns in talk-in-interaction (cf. the program of Interactional Linguistics e.g. proposed in [15-21]. A first attempt is made by Grenoble [22] who shows how Russian interlocutors 'share' syntactic constructions by incrementally continuing the other's turn after turn-taking extending or finishing the interlocutor's syntactic construction. Research by Kibrik and his colleagues based on the analysis of dream telling monologues raises the question how units in spoken language can be defined, regarding prosody and syntax as two subsystems contributing to segmentation in oral discourse [23]. Among other things they offer a description of incremental turn-extensions in Russian monologues. It can further be assumed that the shaping of linguistic units in talk-in-interaction is influenced and affected not only by discourse genre but also by situational and social factors.
Research in this field has probably also been impeded, since there have not been sufficient data bases of recorded institutional and non-institutional talk-in-interaction of interlocutors from different social backgrounds, including the audio-recordings necessary for checking and re-evaluating especially prosodic and interactional features. This kind of data is e.g. partially included in the ORD-corpus (Odin recevoj den') [24; 25] comprising authentic face-to-face-interaction taped by several informants during one day. In choosing different informants and in taping private as well as institutional communication during one day, the ORD-data offer rich access to a variety of speech styles and discourse genres typically occurring during the speech day of an urban dweller of Sankt Petersburg. To a certain degree elicited data e.g. from sociolinguistic interviews are a viable source, too. This material has to be supplemented by recordings of Russian speakers living in Germany enabling researchers to check the impact of migration on the social and situational variation of Russian spoken abroad. So far there are no data corpora comprising natural interaction of Russian migrants from different settings. First attempts have been made by Beatrix Kress recording lessons in Russian Sunday schools in Germany offering access
to certain linguistic and discourse practices fostering language acquisition with young heritage speakers. Nevertheless, additional data have to be collected replicating the ORD-method in order to compare linguistic and pragmatic variation of migrant speakers of Russian in Germany.
Topic of this article
Closings are usually the most sensible parts of conversation because they have to be prepared in a proper way. They must satisfy their major goal, namely to end up conversation, but at the same time, they should not violate any of the conversation maxims (Paul Grice) and also they should not cause social conflicts between the interlocutors. So closings are in a way also 'signals of face-saving strategies'. A talk, which ends up in a conflict is on high risk to introduce new conflicts in future. So, the social and moral obligation of speakers in verbal interaction lies in the Pragmatic maxime of social permanence. This paper provides evidence that institutional conversations differ from natural conversations, especially with regard to their closings, an aspect of structural property, which they may share with other structural properties of openings, but in a very special form and way - ending up conversation being their crucial and major invariant.
Utilizing two examples — one from ORD (S35_01) and one from our own corpus (UVUP 1_04), I shall contrast felicitous closings by both native Russians from St Petersburg and highly proficient native speakers with a bilingual (migrant) background. By contrast, I want to show also examples with infelicitous closings by bilingual (Russian-German) speakers (with Russians of different level of social and verbal integration into the German society) and contrast them with typical closings of natives and nonnatives. I shall show that the closings of these talks-in-interaction cannot be reopened in the ways described by Schegloff and Sacks [26]. In fact, the data show that native speakers talks are not reopened at all, but are only followed by separate and highly limited post-session-conversations. Pre-directives are constituents or parts of grammar which have the function of Directive Speech acts, preparing the partners to change strategies of verbal and nonverbal behavior, breaking up conversation etc., if necessary by introducing a new frame, and thus modeling upon a new topic and/or a new situation — a new scene (cf. Frames-and-Scenes Semantics Fillmore's). Since bilinguals and nonnative speakers often do not know or follow the context-specific constraints, their conversations provide evidence for the rules and also for violating rules of such exchanges.
The UVUP Corpus: Cover page Inventory, Minimal and Basic Transcripts
I start with the Data observation of our corpus. First Criterion: Observational Adequacy: While collecting data, we proceed as follows. After the selection and taping, we decide on which data we take for the purposes of our research. This decision is based on so-called Deckblatt des Gesprächsinventars.
Second Criterion Level: Syntax and Prosody First: Since our research concentrates on the interconnection of the syntax-prosody interfaces, we need good quality recordings in wav-format, and we do not use bad or non-intelligible spoken recordings. The second criterion besides quality of intelligibility is of course the content which is information on Syntax and Prosody. We do not select data where syntax and prosody play just a minor role.
Third Criterion Editor and Transcription: Our editor Folker is fed with a mild form of ISO-transliteration (more exactly: ISO 9 (Transliteration of Cyrillic characters into Latin characters — Slavic and non-Slavic languages), but this system is enriched by our special symbols partly taken from GAT 2. The transcription system GAT 1 and GAT 2 means "conversation analytical transcription system" and was developed by a team of German colleagues from the universities of Potsdam and Freiburg i. Br. It is also used at the Institute for German Language IDS. We have an agreement with IDS Mannheim to add additional Slavic characters to the FOLKER Editor, which has resulted in the Urban Voices University Potsdam corpus under my copyright [28]. But due to the special situation of Russian phonetics, also by symbols of phonetic transcription (IPA) and prosodic symbols which Folker has taken from us for Russian conventions of transcriptions. I recall just some basic facts/conventions:
Conventions in the DFG-Project developed after GAT1 and GAT2: Minimal Transcript — Basic Transcript and Fine-grained Transcript.
Developed in 1998, revised in 2009 3 levels of detail possible.
Minimal Transcript — (working) Transcript, applicable also outside of linguistics Basistranskript — extension to the prosodic information, which is necessary to avoid semantic misunderstandings and to develop pragmatic function Feintranskript — containing detailed information about the prosody
No phonetic symbols, so fast transcribing and better readability.
(I) Minimal Transcript
KS: vot oni nikomu ne ponadobivsiesja mozno °h VA: tuda a zacem nam voobsce za^avili nas eto pecatat' esli (0.41)
KS: nu nado bylo
Starting point: standard written language Matches:
ч ^ с ш ^ s щ ^ se ж ^ z ь ^ ' ъ ^ '' ы ^ y э ^ e ё ^ ё я ^ ja ю ^ ju
(II) Basic Transcript
Transcription with Latin letters in Basic Transcript:
e.g.KS: VOT an'i n'ikamu n'e panadab'ivsyjes'a mozna °h
VA: tuda a zaC'ÈM nam vabse'e za^av'il'i nas eta p'icatat' jes'i (0.41)
KS: nu NAda byla
Starting point: spoken language (RRR/ prostorecie) Equivalents:
ч ^ с' ш ^ s щ ^ se' ж ^ z ь ^ ' ъ ^ '' ы ^ y э ^ e ё ^ ё/'o я ^ ja/'a ю ^ ju/'u Palatalized consonants: e.g. /n'/ and /t'/, нить ^ n'it'.
Russian spoken language differs from written language on the phonetic level.
Strong reduction of non-accentuated vocals /a,o/, /e.../:
♦ Strong reduction of non-accentuated vocals: молоко/moloko [мълако] ^ malako
♦ Voiceless consonants in word-final друг/drug [druk] ^ druk
♦ voiceless / voiced consonants at morpheme boundaries:
отдыхать/otdychat' [addychat'] ^ ad:ychat'
♦ Palatalization of consonants: они/oni [an'i] ^ an'i всё/vsë [vs'o] ^ vs'o
♦ Long breaks
Extra line at long intervals (> 0.05) KS: VOT an'i n'ikamu n'e panadab'ivsyjés'a mozna °h VA: tuda a zaC'ÈM nam vabse'e za^av'il'i nas eta p'icatat' jes'i (0.41)
KS: nu NAda byla
♦ Short breaks (<0.05 sec)
VA: slusaj a (.) cv'ety tam u t'eb'a n'e nac'al'i V'AT'
♦ A phonetic word (no intermission): v_akno
f_kravat'i
♦ No pause between intonation phrases: VA: n'et eta PLOcha = ja chacu uze v'isNU This plays a crucial role in my project on prosody-
syntax interface and we shall take up this idea and we believe that the information about pauses and zeros in online-syntax must be revisited because I strongly believe that syntactic constituents of types don't always (or even do only rarely) project tokens on the level of online-syntax. In this situation, the prosody-syntax interface can be detected by means of Information structure, Formant-Analysis (exact analysis of closures, vocals etc.) and Pitch, and of course intonation contours. For this reason, we have tried to implement this information into the Praat-editor. For this reason, we also have to introduce additional symbols of the Praat-system into Folker. Until now, we have included the following symbols:
Intonation:
Accentuation/prosody
KS: a mn'e pr'isla Novaya kartc'ka
Extra &rong accent
KS: n'et ETA #MA#i nask'i
Pitch movement at the end of intonational phrase
KS: sto_n'ibud 'mn'e k n'ej Nada? (.) Pr'ilagat '?
high rising, mid-ascending
- Consi&ently; medium-falling, low falling
Transcription Editor FOLKER
- It was developed for the transcriptions of the German language by IDS
- Other languages with special characters of the language: French, English, Spanish.
- Compatible with other transcription programs such as ELAN, EXMARaLDA, Praat
- User-friendly interface
- Oscillogram with Zoom function — Automatic syntax checking and time
- Three types of playback of recordings
- Transmission of the transcripts in Word and HTML
- Score view search function
- A spokesman - a line: Inter linearization and translation not possible.
The first sample includes a conversation of Russian Migrants living in Berlin. This sample belongs to a large UVUP-corpus on spoken language data developed at the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, Chair Slavic Linguistics in the course of the DFG-Network Urban voices in the years 2013-2014.
Directive Speech Acts and Russian Intonation Patterns
My major concern will be the topic, e.g. the syntactic embedding of certain lexical items, which either themselves are directives or they serve as introductory elements embedding directive speech acts. DIRECTIVES are one of classes of speech act which Searle tried to classify in the following way:
DIRECTIVES Illocutionary point S tries to bring H to completion / failure of an action orientation World-to-word — relation
The Mental State S-desire Examples request ask command
«Cover Page: Score of the conversation» Listing (1).
Conversation name and number: At home, UV_UP_01_03 Recording date and time of February 2013, in the morning Duration of the inclusion: 9 minutes 43 seconds Location: At home with Pavel and Maria
Speakers: Pavel family = Mikhail (MI), Maria = Ksenia (KS), Alexandra = Vasilisa (VA), Kristina = Marina (MA)
For more detailed information see the file subjects. Pavel = Mikhail (MI) - father, older generation, no further information
Maria = Ksenia (KS) - Mother, older generation, no further information
Alexandra = Vasilisa (VA) - elder daughter, young generation, no further information
Kristina = Marina (MA) - younger daughter, preschooler, young generation, no further information
Recording is available as audio: yes (.wav format)
Recording is available as a video: no
Short Description: selection of the school for the little daughter of Pavel and Maria, the family sitting in front of the PC
General comments: The beginning and the end are abrupt. KS speaks most and switches most
frequently into DE.
As before transcription are:
TranskribentIn: Aleksandra Kuznetcova
Control of transcription: Peter Kosta
Listing (2).
{00:29} 0019 KS M'Isa (.) atkROJ gd'e n'ibud' (.) vot zd'es' vot pa_momu ah
{00:32} 0020 (0.96)
{00:33} 0021 KS i najd'i ijo_e v nol' DVA nol' p'at'
{00:36} 0022 (0.22)
{00:36} 0023 VA mozet my mar'i pro^o isc'o asTAv'im na god pozze
{00:37} 0024 KS nol' DVA ka nol' p'at'
{00:39} 0025 °hhh nol' DVA ka nol' p'at' (.) dalzNO byt' zd'es'
In the following sequence of the UVUP transcript 1_03, the speaker KS = Ksenia asks MI = Mikhail to open a website to find a suitable school for their preschooler Marina (Listing 2).
UVUP01_03
Obviously, it goes of the numbers to the postal code to corresponding district, close to the residence to find, in order to take not a longer school way than needed. In this moment, the elder daughter VA=VASSILISA intervenes with a turn in the background and makes a counter-proposal. This is an indirect speech act, formulated as a counter offer. However, this is obviously ignored by the mother KS = Ksenia. The fact that this counter-offer has been ignored by all interlocutors, may be attributed to the concentrated and strenuous search for the right school, or there are more pragmatic factors such as age and lack of authority which play a crucial role.
In the Russian Academy grammar, the Russian Intonation and the classification according to Bryzgunova in the distinguished tradition of seven intonation-patterns is being treated. This part is not classified and analyzed according to the criterion of speech acts or illocutions, but rather following the neutral vs. marked (expressive) intonation patterns, along these lines also mixed types of prosodic patterns, different sentence types, different modal contexts etc. are classified. Interestingly, we find at least on page 114 of the first volume the following remark: In volitional contexts, IK-3 can serve as a means of (mild) request, while IK-2 usually expresses a command (using also the mode imperative as grammatical means).
The first question under consideration will be: Does our contexts of spoken Russian contain strict commands or rather mild requests? Examples are only partially known up to now, and we have to analyze them again in our project. Partly also, because the mentioned, very general and in my view incorrect generalization does require further consideration! With us, the UVUP corpus particularly does a good service, because we use, both, intonation patterns as well as other tools such as the contour of the pitch-accent in the corresponding formants (using Praat).
The first example will be the Directive in turn 0019 KS:
(3) 0019 KS M'Isa (.) atkROJ gd'e n'ibud' (.) vot zd'es' vot pa_momu ah
UVUP01_03
The Directive atkROJ has the grammatical form of the Imperative 2PsSg. The prosodic information is given in the table 1.
Besides the explicit forms of marking directives (directive speech acts with directive speech act verbs) there are many interesting examples of quasi-directive grammatical contexts, in which a particle, a lexical word or another variable can serve as an element introducing or embedding a direct speech act verb or a situation where a direct speech act could take place. These elements, I have detected in ORD and I have also compared them with our corpus data. What is the function of these elements? I take it for one possible function that the serve as preparatory elements within the appropriate turn constructional unit (TCU) to the already introduced and mentioned Opening-Closings. It is not just important to analyze such elements with respect to their syntactic positions and their grammatical functions but above all because of their pragmatic function in conversations.
Methods of Measuring Prosody and Intonation at the Prosody-Syntax Interface1
The prosody can more or less be controlled arbitrarily by speakers. We can see that the second turn in which the same person uses a directive differs from the first one significantly because the speech act
1 The present contribution took into account only literature relevant for our major hypothesis, the important role of the syntax-prosody-interface for directives. We are fully aware of the important work by the team of the phonetic corpus of spoken speech of Natalia Bogdanova-Beglarjan et al. (cf. references), and some of the data are indeed based on the phonetic corpus (cf. references Звуковой корпус как материал для анализа русской речи (2013) Коллективная монография. Часть 1. Чтение. Пересказ. Описание / Отв. ред. Н. В. Богданова-Бегларян СПб.: Филологическии" ф-т СПб-ГУ, 2013. 532 c. Звуковой корпус как материал для анализа русской речи (2014) Коллективная монография Часть 2. Теоретические и практические аспекты анализа. Том 1. О некоторых особенностях устнои" спонтаннои" речи разного типа. Звуковой корпус как материал для преподавания русского языка в иностраннои" аудитории / Отв. ред. Н. В. Богданова-Бегларян. — СПб.: Филологическии" ф-т СПбГУ, 2014. — 396 с. Звуковой корпус как материал для анализа русскойречи (2015) Коллективная монография. Часть 2. Теоретические и практические аспекты анализа. Том 2. Звуковой корпус как материал для новых лексикографических проектов / Отв. ред. Н. В. Богданова-Бегларян. — СПб.: Фил. ф-т СПбГУ, 2015. —
verb najdi is not even focussed, the pitch arrives only a mean of F0 the highest of the 306.912912287193 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) which is not only due to the fact that the formant [i:] is a front vowel and has different phonetic properties than the [a] in the first example but more important is the fact that in this context the imperative form is not the semantically salient element but rather the number word DVA 'two', cf.:
(4) {00:33} 0021 KS i najd'i ijo_e v nol' DVA nol' p'at'
UVUP01_03
I claim that prosody does not only play a crucial role in order to mark cognitive semantic information (e.g. topic-focus articulation) but also to mark expressivity and politeness and to switch grammatical meanings of turning them to meanings of communicative senses. This can be easily shown on directives which besides negation are the most violent elements of speech. Negation can be blessing but also imperatives can be invasive means of conversation. With other words: Turn down something someone can be just as pushy and rude act as if you ask someone for something. In both cases it can be overt or covert forms of intrusiveness or rudeness in Listing (5).
ORDS035_01
The older man talks to the cat Dyma in a very lovely tone like to a little child. This can be detected by analysis of the speakers' signal analysis of fundamental frequency (F0), intonational contours and pitch and also pause insertion. F0 can not only provide important information on the status of tonal behaviour of topics or focal elements in the utterance but pause insertion can also serve as means to detect evidence for prosodic phrasing in syntax and expressive (emotional) status of the speaker. I show such a structure in one example here table 3 reflecting the emotional status of the speaker. Starting with the recording at turn 062 in Listing (6), we can now analyze the prosodic structure of the F0 values.
364 c. However, since the cases we ^udied here mainly involve the prosodic marking of the pitch accent and the formants of pre-directives, and also include information-^ructural factors such as topic-comment and background information, and since more or less no pragmatic analysis of the pragmatic markers (as is the cases in the above-mentioned work by the team of Sankt Peterburg State University, cf. EorflaHOBa-Ee-rnapaH) are involved, this work is largely based on other methods of measurement and methods from viewpoint of the syntax-prosody-interface (as introduced and launched by the Potsdam group around Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Margret Selting and myself). Another comment of an anonymous reviewer is that psycholingui^ic methods should be included. This would be, in fact, contrary to the method of conversational analysis of the Potsdam Conversational analysis, which confines itself to ethnomethodological methods and formal behavior of social interactions in talk as introduced by Harvey Sacks and Emanuel Schegloff, and continued e.g., in the work e.g. of John Heritage (UCLA), Peter Auer (Freiburg i.Br.), Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Margret Selting, Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Peter Ko^a University Potsdam, Germany. Thus, psychological or mentali^ic methods are by definition excluded in the present article.
ORDS035_01
The mean value F0 in the beginning of the turn (62) lies on the semantically more or less empty syntactic pattern particle von and a verb of perception von v'id'i which serves as phatic particle with a FO-value of 143.80237321916985 Hz (mean pitch in SELECTION) (low pitch) (cf. phatic elements are introducing elements with no referential value serving as social addressors) [30]. The next element in the sentence has a rising pitch because it is a focus particle da ,even' (401.6421957630942 Hz (mean pitch in SELECTION)) and then a focused noun in accusative yVOt'ik with a pitch F0 of 484.00972566677507 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION). Both elements are the elements with the highest F0-value ranging between 401 and 484 Hz. The next salient element is the noun phrase introduced by a particle cluster sequence of vot, vot, vot dyma with a low F0. The noun phrase ty maja] U:Mn'ica; has a rather low F0 (ranging about 200Hz) but this is so because the vowel [u] differs with respect to fundamental frequencies as compared to other vowels. In German e.g., the vowels differ w.r.t. fundamental frequencies not only dependent on the factor quality (position frontal vs. middle vs. back, high, middle low) but also dependent on the gender and age (see listing 7).
Formantentabelle mit Grundfrequenz F0 und F1, F2, F3 der Vokale, gemittelt über 76 Sprecher: Männer (M), Frauen (W) und Kinder (Ch). (entnommen aus: PETERSON, BARNEY, 1952, S.183).
The following table serves as an example for how we can analyze the prosodic means at the prosody-syntax-phonetics interface. We give a simple analysis of the turn 041 at {00:58}, example:
{00:58} 041 M eto brat d'ela taKOje;
Prosodic phrasing signalizing the emotional status of the speaker will be demonstrated with help of a PRAAT-Spectogram analysis consisting in the following parts:
1) PRAAT-Spectrogram for the whole utterance (I have also segmented the PRAAT spectrogram so that every sound corresponds to a word -> there is a separate picture).
2) Mean formants for the whole utterance
3) Maximum and minimum pitches for the whole utterance
4) Maximum and minimum pitches for <taKOje>
5) Mean formants for <taKOje>
6) Spectrogram only for <taKOje>
Listing (5).
{00:52} 037 M mama n'e uM'Eit; (.) DA?
{00:54} 038 (1.29)
{00:55} 039 M my ZNA:im c'o nam nada;
{00:57} 040 (1.38)
{00:58} 041 M eto brat d'ela taKOje;
{01:00} 042 (1.79)
{01:02} 043 M DA dymac'ka;
{01:03} 044 (0.52)
{01:03} 045 M da moj chaROsyj;
{01:05} 046 (0.84)
{01:05} 047 M DA (.) moj SLATk'ij ((lacht)) °hh EJ, (.) kraSAFc'ik; °h (0.15) krasafc'ik moj MAl'en'k'ij;
{01:11} 048 (1.25)
{01:12} 049 M krasafc'ik moj SLATk'ij t;(0.23) O:J;
{01:15} 050 (1.29)
{01:17} 051 M O: kak my um'eim;
{01:18} 052 (1.57)
{01:19} 053 M a MAma n'e uM'Eit ana-
{01:21} 054 (2.16)
{01:23} 055 M O:[:J; ]
{01:24} 056 F [DA]:-
{01:24} 057 (0.22)
{01:24} 058 F pac'eMU on m'in'a tak-|
{01:25} 059 (0.21)
{01:26} 060 M my vot (.) O:T kak mozem;
{01:27} 061 (0.62)
{01:28} 062 M von v'id'is daze zyVOt'ik patflavl'ait mn'e;
{01:31} 063 (0.3)
{01:31} 064 F VO:T vot vot; [ (dyma)-| ]
{01:32} 065 M [ty maja] U:Mn'ica;
{01:33} 066 (0.11)
{01:33} 067 F UMn'ica;
{01:34} 068 (0.77)
{01:35} 069 M (Od'a);
{01:36} 070 (1.15)
{01:37} 071 M DYma dyma dyma ty n'e s'uDA zal'es; (.) nu ka daVAJ; (.) daVAJ;
{01:40} 072 (148)
{01:41} 073 M DYma- (.) paSOL- (.) paSOL ats'uda; (.) NU?
{01:42} 074 F ((hu&et))
{01:43} 075 (0.32)
{01:44} 076 M ty V'IS' pravada zar'azaju t'il'ifon;
{01:46} 077 (3.67)
{01:49} 078 M t'il'efonc'ik zar'azaju; (.) V'Id'is,
{01:52} 079 (4.89)
{01:56} 080 M TA::K;
Listing (6).
{01:28} 062 M von v'id'is daze zyVOt>ik patflavl'ait mn'e;
{01:31} 063 (0.3)
{01:31} 064 F VO:T vot vot; [ (dyma)-\ ]
{01:32} 065 M [ty maja] UMn'ica;
{01:33} 066 (0.11)
{01:33} 067 F UMn'ica;
{01:34} 068 (0.77)
{01 35} 069 M (Od'a);
{01 36} 070 (1.15)
{01 37} 071 M DYma dyma dyma ty n'e s'uDA zal'es; (.) nu ka daVAJ; (.) daVAJ;
{01 40} 072 (1.48) ^ ^
{01 41} 073 M DYma- (.) paSOL- (.) paSOL ats'uda; (.) NU?
{01 42} 074 F ((huäet))
{01 43} 075 (0.32)
{01 44} 076 M ty V'IS' pravada zar 'azaju t'il'ifon;
{01 46} 077 (3.67)
{01 49} 078 M t'il'efonc'ikzar'azaju; (.) V'Id'is,
{01 52} 079 (4.89)
{01 56} 080 M TA::K;
{01 57} 081 (8.82) ((laute Nebengeräusche, Radio im Hintergrund))
Listing (7). Fundamental Frequencies (Hz)*
[i] [I] M [œ] [a] [o] M [u] [A]
M 136 135 130 127 124 129 137 141 130
W 235 232 223 210 212 216 232 231 221
CH 272 269 260 251 256 263 276 274 261
F0
Formant Frequencies
[i] [I] M [œ] [a] [o] [Ö] [u] [A]
F1 M 270 390 530 660 730 570 440 300 640
W 310 430 610 860 850 590 470 370 760
CH 370 530 690 1010 1030 680 560 430 850
F2 M 2290 1990 1840 1720 1090 840 1020 870 1190
W 2790 2480 2330 2050 1220 920 1160 950 1440
CH 3200 2730 2610 2320 1370 1060 1410 1170 1590
F3 M 3010 2550 2480 2410 2440 2410 2240 2240 2390
W 3310 3070 2990 2850 2810 2710 2680 2670 2780
CH 3730 3600 3750 3320 3170 3180 3310 3260 3360
* Table of Formants with a mean frequency of F0,F1,F2,F3 of German Vowels of 76 analyzed speakers men (M), women (W) and children (CH) cited after Peterson and Barney 1952, 183, cf. [27].
0.053189
Table 1a. The whole utterance in PRAAT
0.053189
Table 1b. Sentence fragments on the spectrogram
0.008045 __1.597374 (0.626 / s)
Table 1c. Mean formants for the whole utterance
Mean formants:
763.5186823582743 Hz (mean F1 in SELECTION) 1883.208084528371 Hz (mean F2 in SELECTION) 2912.5912715492186 Hz (mean F3 in SELECTION) 3864.1197661493816 Hz (mean F4 in SELECTION)
Table 1d. Maximum and minimum pitch of the whole utterance (blue line indicates pitches)
3081.2414340450746 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) 131.15644398124334 Hz (minimum pitch in SELECTION)
0.986605 | 0618815
0 Visible part 1.605420 seconds_1.605
Total duration 1.605420 seconds
Table 1e. Maximum pitch i <taKOje> (selected part)
2569.5481939563183 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) -> <je>
Table 1f. Minimum pitch in <taKOje> (selected part)
131.15644398124334 Hz (minimum pitch in SELECTION)
0_Visible part 1605420 seconds_< 605420
__Total duration 1 605420 seconds_
Table 1g. Spectrogram of the whole utterance
0_Visible parti 605420 seconds_1 605420
_Taal i|i;Ni 1 605420 seconds_
Table 1h. Spectrogram for <taKOje>
Table 1i. Mean formants for <taKOje>
783.6173451927275 Hz (mean F1 in SELECTION) 1846.6718734205406 Hz (mean F2 in SELECTION) 2888.735204619077 Hz (mean F3 in SELECTION) 3796.0266385895557 Hz (mean F4 in SELECTION)
In the last example, listing (9), we can see how prosodic features that signal the completion of a call (opening closing), are only partially realized, because it is not a face-to-face communication, but a phone call, in which only one party and his/ her linguistic signals are audible. The remote has a one-sided communication channel for the listener, and thus, so far, only the interviewer is present. Therefore, other verbal and non-verbal means are needed to open the conclusion of a call, the closing. The marking is usually done via conventional adoption rituals and expressions of gratitude. Most important is what has been said in the beginnings, there is no real closing, just an opening of closing without end.
(ORD S035_01)
In turn 476, the official signal of closing is introduced: first nu ladno 'well, ok' and then in turn 478 vse 'this is all'. This can be also seen on the F0, F1, on the intensity, on the falling pitch accent of the syllable and the intonation hat-contour after the first vse, and also on the short pause which serves as closing signal of the turn. Maximum pitch of the first vse is 206.41386897677467 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION), F1 is 984.316776545103 Hz (mean F1 in SELECTION), maximum pitch of the second vse is even higher, namely 322.25850434854783 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) and the F1 is also more 1068.8981292102521 Hz (mean F1 in SELECTION).
Listing (9).
{17:21} 463 (0.41) ((Klingeln eines Handys im Hintergrund))
{17:22} 464 M vot znac'it dvatcat'
{17:23} 465 (4.11) ((Nebengeräusche, Klingeln eines Handys im Hintergrund))
{17:33} 466 M da (.) zarabotal i
{17:35} 467 (0.32) ((Stimme des Telefongesprächspartners ift zu hören))
{17:35} 468 M druguju bata (0.12) ((Stimme des Telefongesprächspartners ift zu hören))
druguju paftav'il nu (.) nu tu ze sa (.) katoruju ja pam'in'al
{17:40} 469 (0.56) ((Stimme des Telefongesprächspartners ift zu hören))
{17:40} 470 M ftaruju (0.37) v'id'ima nada batar'ejku (.) n_druguju by novuju kup'it'
{17:44} 471 (2.5) ((Stimme des Telefongesprächspartners ift zu hören))
{17:47} 472 M da e:: (.) jesl'i by zd'es' r'adam byl'i magaz'iny
{17:50} 473 (0.8) ((Stimme des Telefongesprächspartners ift zu hören))
{17:51} 474 M eta ja s'enuju ta uze prasol (.) ja na vazn'is'eenskam
{17:53} 475 (0.87) ((Stimme des Telefongesprächspartners ift zu hören))
{17:54} 476 M nu (.) nu ladna (.) ja ja znaju kak ich zaflav'it' rabotat' (.) ich pam'at' nada nemnoska (.) an'i tam
{17:59} 477 (0.47) ((Stimme des Telefongesprächspartners ift zu hören))
{17:60} 478 M fs'o
{18:00} 479 (2.56) ((Stimme des Telefongesprächspartners ift zu hören))
{18:03} 480 M fs'o
{18:03} 481 (2.7) ((Stimme des Telefongesprächspartners ift zu hören))
{18:06} 482 M e v d'ev'at'
{18:07} 483 (6.78) ((Stimme des Telefongesprächspartners und Nebengespräche sind zu hören))
{18:13} 484 M kak
{18:14} 485 (1.16) ((Stimme des Telefongesprächspartners und Nebengespräche sind zu hören))
{18:15} 486 M charaso
{18:15} 487 (0.45) ((Stimme des Telefongesprächspartners und Nebengespräche sind zu hören))
{18:16} 488 M davaj
{18:16} 489 (0.85) ((Stimme des Telefongesprächspartners und Nebengespräche sind zu hören))
{18:17} 490 M charaso
{18:17} 491 (1.35) ((Gespräche im Hintergrund))
{18:19} 492 M ja vam pazvan'u
{18:19} 493 (7.71) ((Nebengeräusche und Gespräche im Hintergrund))
{18:27} 494 M a naseva (.) n'etu u vas (.) nu vot
{18:29} 495 (0.12)
{18:29} 496 FA naseva n'et
{18:30} 497 M
{18:30} 498 (0.28)
{18:30} 499 FA nas'eva da (by[vait) ]
{18:31} 500 M [nu: ]eta daragoj kakoj= | =ja bral pa safs'em pa kap'ej pa dvatcat' (0.23) pa p'itnac pa dvac rubl'ej byl
{18:36} 501 (0.42)
{18:37} 502 M prafloj nas
{18:37} 503 (0.05)
{18:37} 504 FA t'ip'er' takoj (.) nu (.) naseva u nas n'etu at'ec'eflv'en[ava ]
{18:40} 505 M [a n'et]u [da: ]
{18:40} 506 FA [ras'ijs]kava n'etu
{18:41} 507 (0.05)
{18:41} 508 M nu eta dar[agoj ]
{18:42} 509 FA [n'etu i ](.) m ((unverfländlich))
{18:44} 510 (2.73) ((Nebengeräusche, Gespäche und Klingeln des Telefons im Hintergrund))
Prosody and the Grammar of Interaction
Our analysis of interplay between syntax and prosody would confirm our working hypothesis that prosody is an important means for closings: nevertheless, it is a necessary, but by far not a sufficient condition to end a turn successfully. Closings are like all other grammatical, lexical and suprasegmental means of conversation: they are subject of negotiation talk-in-interaction between all interlocutors. Data of spoken everyday talk clearly show that native speakers talks are not reopened at all, but are only followed by separate and highly limited post-session-conversations. Thus, the post-session consists of side-themes of the major topic which is a battery purchase. Post-sessions of this kind are typical for closings in everyday talk, especially and even more typical in distant calls: they are precluded by further side issues that only spin the main theme of the battery purchase forth. The reason for this ambiguity or even vagueness can be seen partly in the chanel, but also in the fact, that phatic function of phone calls is more important (for many reasons) than in face-to-face talks: first of all, in order to ensure that the audible voice on the other end of the line does not remain still. The trial to end up the phone call several times colapses: speaker S35 is not only in trouble because the female voice presents more and more questions and the speaker is obviously exposed to the illocutionary compulsion in the sense of a question-answer adjacency pair. Secondly, he does not want to end abruptly for reasons of politeness. On the other hand, it is also him, who introduces new topics in the post-session conversation.
Results
F0 values were extracted in all examples at three important points: (1) the first lowest, (2) the highest from the F0-peak, and (3) the final one at the end of the topic constituent (cf. tables 1-4). Directives formed with verbs in the grammatical mode of imperative (which in Standard Russian rather express direct or even categorial command - a prompt command)) are often accompanied by prosodic means by which speakers either underline the illocutionary force or they express their emotional attitude to the interlocutors or to the topic of conversation. Speakers often use little words or adhortative particles, such as davaj, davaj, vse, ladno- poexali, davaj-posel-posel and repetitions of the proper Names or other forms of address (e.g. Dyma in the cat example, ORDS35_01, is repeated more than 5 times after another). These introducing little words, I would like to call pre-directives [31]. Although at the level of intensional semantics these elements/words may be regarded as emptied
(similar to what is sometimes claimed for modal or focus particles), still they play a crucial pragmatic and conversational function on the prosodic-semantic level of discourse. In fact, these little words are very meaningful, they build a situational semantics, epressing the relational attitude between the interlocutors, be ist in human-human or human-animal oriented speech.
Therefore, at the level ofthe conversation, not the intensional meaning of the grammatical forms and their compositional sentence semantics is crucial for the interpretation (imperatives / commands), but rather the inferred illocution (in indirect speech acts) or the illocution by conversational implicature. In this way, the prosody switches the grammatical (sentence) meaning of the imperative forms to zero and causes a positive connotation, thus the compositional meaning of the utterance is positive-polite, even inviting and not forbidding. This all can not only be stated but rather it can be proven on the analysis of prosodic contours of the loci I am trying to investigate. We have found that not only the local tonal patterns of topic and focus positions are of the form of high-low-high or low-high-low-sequence patterns in all examined cases, but the data of F0 show by principle no local differences in the tonal behavior between different types of topics and foci. This is quite important also to the extent, that important information in the prosodic structure can be placed on any clause-internal position regardless of the status of the semantics (intensional or extensional, significative meaning or connotation). Exceptions are external topics, which seem, similar to parenthesis and analepsis, their own prosodic structure and their own prosodic domain. Thus, prosodic units which introduce a new information or those which repeat an information by means of external topics, seem to reset the FO-contour to a low FO-value immediately after the pause. Resetting is realized by starting at a low FO-level after the pause which is continued by an increase of FO-values. The same holds true for contexts in which a new introduced information is expressed by informational focus FO-contour (cf. 2 with the exaple of the numeral DVA focused after the first FO-contour). Table 2.
The maximum pitch of the first formant is 356.92O1693729257 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) as opposed to the minimal pitch 98.83444366771978 Hz (minimum pitch in SELECTION) which lies on the word 'ah' in the end of this prosodic unit.
In the continuous speech (sometimes even in single words) some parameters of the speech signal seem to change over longer periods continuously.
The type of utterance and also the semantics of the utterance are virtually modified and sometimes even determined by a global structure of sentential prosody. These parameters include, inter alia.
(i) The intonation, i.e. the course of the fundamental frequency in the voiced sections of the speech signal.
(ii) Pauses/breaks, that is, the absence of the speech signal.
(iii) Relative volume, i.e. local increases in energy.
The general use of these three parameters in the structure of an utterance we call prosody. As we now know, these parameters are determined not so much by the position of the articulation tract, but rather by the type of phonation.
(i) Topic-Focus-Articulation or Topic-Comment Structure (IS).
(ii) Illocutionary force / Mode (declaratives, questions, commands).
(iii) Emphasis: grammatically (defined by rules of the language, e.g. word order and topic-focus articulation in languages with fixed word order) or semantically (in languages with relative free word order) in order to call attention to certain content, so-called verum and contrastive focus.).
(iv) Resolution of syntactic, morphemic or semantic ambiguities.
(v) Feelings of the speaker.
(vi) Physical Fitness, and many more (gender, age, origin).
The following table serves as an example for how
Table 3. Directive is not focused but rather the numeral DVA.
we can analyze the means of focus particles, proper names ('vocatives' of address) and directive verbs. We give a simple analysis of the turn O71 - O73 at {O1:37} - {O1:41}, example:
{01:37} 071 M DYma dyma dyma ty n'e s'uDA zal'es; (.) nu ka daVAJ; (.) daVAJ;
{01:40} 072 (1.48)
{01:41} 073 M DYma- (.) paSOL- (.) paSOL ats'uda; (.) NU?
The analysis consists of the following parts:
1) PRAAT-spectrogram for the whole utterance (I have also segmented the PRAAT spectrogram so
that every sound corresponds to a word -> there is a separate picture).
2) Mean formants for the whole utterance
3) Maximum and minimum pitches for the whole utterance
4) Maximum and minimum pitches for <VO:T>, <UMn'ica>, <s'uDA>, <daVAJ> (1), <daVAJ> (2), <DYma->, <paSOL->, <paSOL> <NU?>
5) Mean formants for <VO:T>, <UMn'ica>, <s'uDA>, <daVAJ> (1), <daVAJ> (2), <DYma->, <paSOL->, <paSOL> <NU?>
6) Spectrogram only for <VO:T>, <UMn'ica>, <s'uDA>, <daVAJ> (1), <daVAJ> (2), <DYma->, <paSOL->, <paSOL> <NU?>
Table 4a. The whole utterance in PRAAT
Table 4b. Sentence segments on the spectrogram
7-215419 (0-139 / s)
-0.5714 104Hz
U.,1 h kiàé-i
1 1 1 ' i I ! * f : • f mlj^lim^i
Visible part 7.221746 seconds
Total duration 7.221746 seconds
Table 4c. Mean formants for the whole utterance
908.5258106324959 Hz (mean F1 in SELECTION) 1900.334775720959 Hz (mean F2 in SELECTION) 2980.4661899306006 Hz (mean F3 in SELECTION) 4002.1917089960366 Hz (mean F4 in SELECTION) 4002.1917089960366 Hz (mean F4 in SELECTION)
Table 4d. The maximum and minimum pitches of the whole utterance
5267.162162604605 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) 93.65122266810487 Hz (minimum pitch in SELECTION)
Table 4e. The detailed spectrogram of the whole utterance
Table 4f. The maximum and the minimum pitch of <VO:T> (selection)
164.88060954103395 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) 157.803949690266 Hz (minimum pitch in SELECTION)
Table 4g. The spectrogram of <VO:T> (with the maximum and minimum pitch)
Table 4h. The mean formants of <VO:T> 729.7199350989506 Hz (mean F1 in SELECTION) 1859.242066343314 Hz (mean F2 in SELECTION) 3114.2079291847735 Hz (mean F3 in SELECTION) 3956.9432015685225 Hz (mean F4 in SELECTION)
Table 4i. The maximum and the minimum pitch of <UMn'ica> (selection)
5797.437042238121 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) 177.35772359514885 Hz (minimum pitch in SELECTION)
Table 4j. The spectrogram of <UMn'ica> (with the maximum and minimum pitch)
Table 4k. The mean formants of <UMn'ica> 866.8298558292134 Hz (mean F1 in SELECTION) 2O38.OO1396226O66 Hz (mean F2 in SELECTION) 3O84.O31311159O5 Hz (mean F3 in SELECTION) 4183.46O143789422 Hz (mean F4 in SELECTION)
Table 4l. The maximum and the minimum pitch of <s'uDA> (selection)
3319.9894543060127 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) 116.99023346841285 Hz (minimum pitch in SELECTION)
Table 4m. The spectrogram of <s'uDA> (with the maximum and minimum pitch)
Table 4n. The mean formants of <s'uDA>
1129.181O784948368 Hz (mean F1 in SELECTION) 21O2.O266O8699235 Hz (mean F2 in SELECTION) 3O75.894343973545 Hz (mean F3 in SELECTION) 4O86.2455526O13127 Hz (mean F4 in SELECTION)
Table 4o. The maximum and the minimum pitch of <daVAJ> (1) (selection)
129.22860531593912 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) 115.44759183855169 Hz (minimum pitch in SELECTION)
Table 4p. The spectrogram of <daVAJ> (1) (with the maximum and minimum pitch)
Table 4q. The mean formants of <daVAJ> (1)
794.OO67199O28679 Hz (mean F1 in SELECTION) 1656.917135613166 Hz (mean F2 in SELECTION) 2686.55562187O9953 Hz (mean F3 in SELECTION) 3973.3699119O77737 Hz (mean F4 in SELECTION)
Table 4r. The maximum and the minimum pitch of <daVAJ> (2) (selection)
1718.0355203958395 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) 124.02667997735372 Hz (minimum pitch in SELECTION)
Table 4s. The spectrogram of <daVAJ> (2) (with the maximum and minimum pitch)
Table 4t. The mean formants of <daVAJ> (2) 888.947335175O596 Hz (mean F1 in SELECTION) 1646.9792341229236 Hz (mean F2 in SELECTION) 2739.2241624O53468 Hz (mean F3 in SELECTION) 389O.711819828878 Hz (mean F4 in SELECTION)
Table 4u. The maximum and minimum pitch of <DYma-> (selection)
146.69795166795683 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) 104.88468915064904 Hz (minimum pitch in SELECTION)
Table 4v. The spectrogram of <DYma-> (with the maximum and minimum pitch)
Minimum pitch for <DYma->
Table 4w. The mean formants of <DYma-> 921.9994542937324 Hz (mean F1 in SELECTION) 18O9.O2963581O97O8 Hz (mean F2 in SELECTION) 2793.3661773O65O5 Hz (mean F3 in SELECTION) 365O.47O6597617765 Hz (mean F4 in SELECTION)
Table 4x. The maximum and minimum pitch of <paSOL—> (selection)
2921.5360485135843 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) 123.67683123178263 Hz (minimum pitch in SELECTION)
Table 4y. The spectrogram of <paSOL-> (with the maximum and minimum pitch)
Table 4z. The mean formants of <paSOL—>
929.3303574195282 Hz (mean F1 in SELECTION) 1871.8950568871903 Hz (mean F2 in SELECTION) 2766.751525930685 Hz (mean F3 in SELECTION) 3773.1872087984893 Hz (mean F4 in SELECTION)
Table 4I. The maximum and minimum pitch of <paSOL> (selection)
2916.4215755766304 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) 148.29557985956743 Hz (minimum pitch in SELECTION)
0
Total duration 0 239456 SMOisds
Table 4II. The spectrogram of <paSOL> (with the maximum and minimum pitch)
Table 4III. The mean formants of <paSOL>
960.1994591497156 Hz (mean F1 in SELECTION) 1701.7114318026045 Hz (mean F2 in SELECTION) 2929.8458348142185 Hz (mean F3 in SELECTION) 4068.762680805259 Hz (mean F4 in SELECTION)
Table 4IV. The maximum and minimum pitch of <NU?> (selection)
2990.9907868451774 Hz (maximum pitch in SELECTION) 141.52417994308513 Hz (minimum pitch in SELECTION)
Table 4V. The spectrogram of <NU?> (with the maximum and minimum pitch
Table 4VI. The mean formants of <NU?> 750.4803395154528 Hz (mean F1 in SELECTION) 1523.6036674462148 Hz (mean F2 in SELECTION) 2923.5127651083344 Hz (mean F3 in SELECTION) 4012.3328827400896 Hz (mean F4 in SELECTION)
Conclusion
The present contribution builds on our past occupations with spoken Russian casual everyday speech in spontaneous unprepared dialogues. In addition to the communication between humans and humans, a special case is examined, which is not well described in the literature on interactional linguistics and conversation analysis. Too little attention has been paid to the communication between humans and pets. It is about dialogues that are done with pets, of course, these dialogues are structured so that the role of the animal interlocutor, in this case, the cat Dyma, the human Speaker (Sp1 = Sp2) takes over.
In this particular kind of dialogue, prosodic means and syntax play a dominant role, both in terms of opening and centering the conversation,
and especially at the closings, which are a pragmatically sensitive situation because there is a danger that the face of the partner be threatened, thus violating the afore mentioned maxim of social relevance. Precisely because completing a conversation raises the danger of hurting the partner by breaking off the conversation against his/her his "face", closings are often longer than one would normally expect. There are conversation types, such as the long-distance phone calls, presented here from the corpus ORD, in which even the phase of the closing is longer than the middle of the conversation. In particular, prosodic and syntactic means of information structuring help the interlocutor not to impair the social maxim of closeness and conflict-free democratic participation.
REFERENCES
1. Zemskaja E.A. Russkaja razgovornaja rec'. Lingvisticeskij analiz i problemy obucenija. Moskva, 1973.
2. Zemskaja E.A. (ed.) Russkaja razgovornaja rec'. Fonetika. Morfologija. Leksika. Zest. Moskva, 1983.
3. Lapteva O.A. Russkij razgovornyj sintaksis. Moskva, 2007.
4. Zemskaja E.A., Kitajgorodskaja M.V., Sirjaev E.N. Russkaja razgovornaja rec'. Obscie voprosy. Slovoobrazovanie. Sintaksis. Moskva, 1981.
5. Mills M. (ed.) Topics in Colloquial Russian. New York u.a. (=American University Studies; Series XII, Vol. II), 1990.
6. Borisova I.N. et al. (eds.) Russkaja razgovornaja rec' kak javlenie gorodskoj kul'tury. Ekaterinburg, 1996.
7. Kitajgorodskaja M.V., Rozanova N.N. Russkij recevoj portret. Moskva, 1994.
8. Salina I.V. (ed.) Zivaja rec' ural'skogo goroda: ustnye dialogi i epistoljarnye obrazcy. Ekaterinburg. Smelev, D.N./Zemskaja, E.A. (eds.) (1988): Raznovidnosti gorodskoj ustnoj reci. Moskva, 2011.
9. Docenko T.I., Erofeeva E.V., Erofeeva T.I. Permskaja, Skola sociolingvistiki: teoreticeskie i metodologiceskie osnovanija. Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta, rossijskaja u zarubeznaja filologija, 5 (2009) 16-28.
10. Erofeeva E.V. Verojatnostnaja struktura idiomov: sociolingvisticeskij aspekt. Perm', 2005.
11. Krause M. Zur Typologie von Sprachsituationen: Binnensprachliche Variation zwischen Standard und Dialekt im heutigen Russland. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 65 (2010) 53-81.
12. Kallmeyer W. (ed.) Kommunikation in der Stadt I-IV. Berlin u.a., 1994-1995.
13. Kirilina A.V. Russkij jazyk v megapolise kak indikator izmenenija jazykovoj situacii. In: Zdanova, V. (ed.). Russkij jazyk v uslovijach kul'turnoj i jazykovoj polifonii. Sbornik statej. München, Berlin, (2009) 75-89.
14. Oglezneva E.A. Russko-kitajskij pidzin: Opyt sociolingvisticeskogo opisanija. Blagovescensk. Patton, F. (1990): Soviet Research on Urban Substandard Speech. In: Mills (ed.), (2008) 143-165.
15. Selting M. Interaktionale Stilistik. Methodologische Aspekte der Analyse von Sprechstilen. In: Selting, M. / Sandig, B. (eds.): Sprech- und Gesprächsstile. Berlin, New York, (1997) 9-43. 16. Selting M. Communicative style. In: D'hont, S. Öflman, J.-O. Verschueren, J. (eds.): The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, (2009) 20-39.
17. Selting M., Couper-Kuhlen E. Forschungsprogramm "Interaktionale Linguistik".
Linguistische Berichte 187. (2001) 257-287.
18. Fox B. Principles shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse Studies, 9/3 (2007) 299318.
19. Ford C., Fox B., Thompson S. Social Interaction and Grammar. Tomasello, M. (ed.), The New Psychology of Language. Vol. II. Mahwah, London, (2003) 119-143.
20. Kosta P. Code-switching and Code-mixing Revisited in Urban and Ethnic Styles: A Brief Sketch on Variation and Language Shift. In: Warditz, Vladislava & Beatrix Kreß (eds.), Multilingualism and Translation. Studies on Slavonic and Non-Slavonic Languages in Contact. Frankfurt am Main, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, (2015) 111-129.
21. Kosta P. Third Position Repair, Overlaps, and Code-Switching within a Strict Turn-Taking Model. In: Nadine Thielemann / Nicole Richter (eds.) Urban Voices: The Sociolinguistics, Grammar and Pragmatics of Spoken Russian Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. Berlin Bern Bruxelles New York Oxford Warszawa Wien: Peter Lang, (2019) 183-191. (Potsdam Linguistic Investigations vol.25).
22. Grenoble L. Sintaksis i sovmestnoe postroenie repliki v russkom dialoge. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 1 (2008) 25-36.
23. Kibrik A.A. Est' li predlozenie v ustnoj reci. In: Archipov, A.V. et al. (eds.). Fonetika i nefonetika. K 70-letiju Sandro V. Kodzasova. Moskva, (2008) 104115.
24. Asinovsky A.S. et al. The ORD Speech Corpus of Russian Everyday Communication "One Speaker's Day": Creation Principles and Annotation. Matousek V., Mautner P. (eds.). Text, Speech, and Dialogue 2009. Berlin, Heidelberg (=LNAI; 5729), (2009) 250-257.
25. Sherstinova T. The Structure of the ORD Speech Corpus of Russian Everyday Communication. Matousek V., Mautner P. (eds.). Text, Speech, and Dialogue 2009. Heidelberg (=LNAI; 5729), (2009) 258-265.
26. Schegloff E.A., Sacks H. Opening Up Closings. In: Semiotica VIII, 4 (1973) 289-327.
27. Peterson G.E., Barney H.L. Control Methods used in a Study of Vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24, issue 2, (1952), pp. 175-184.
28. Selting M. et al. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). In: Gesprächsforschung - Online Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion Ausgabe 10 (2009) 353-402 (www. gespraechsforschung -ozs.de)
29. Sappok Ch. Addressing by Voice: Deixis and Design. In: Thielemann, N., Richter, N. (eds.)
Urban Voices: The Sociolinguistics, Grammar and Pragmatics of Spoken Russian, Berlin etc. Peter Lang (2019), 35-62.
30. Kosta P. Überlegungen zum «phatischen Diskurs» (und zur phatischen Partikel 'jako') in der Konversation tschechischer Intellektueller. In:
Freidhof, G. et al. (eds.), Slavische Sprachwissenschaft und Interdisziplinarität 4. Olexa Horbatsch zum Gedenken. München: Sagner 1998, 109-145.
31. Kosta P. Turn initial elements in Every Day Talk, to appear in Lexington Books, Maryland, USA Rowman & Littlefield
Sources/Data taken from UVUP = Urban Voices University of Potsdam. Authorized transcripts by Peter Kosta and Alexandra Kuznetcova, University of Potsdam. Copyright Peter Kosta.
Received 12.11.2019
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. Zemskaja E.A. Russkaja razgovornaja rec'. Lingvisticeskij analiz i problemy obucenija. [Русская разговорная речь. Лингвистический анализ и проблемы обучения]. Moskva, 1973.
2. Zemskaja E.A. (ed.) Russkaja razgovornaja rec'. Fonetika. Morfologija. Leksika. Zest. [Русская разговорная речь. Фонетика. Млрфология. Лексика. Жесты] Moskva, 1983.
3. Lapteva O.A. Russkij razgovornyj sintaksis [Русский разговорный синтаксис]. Moskva, 2007.
4. Zemskaja E.A., Kitajgorodskaja M.V., Sirjaev E.N. Russkaja razgovornaja rec'. Obscie voprosy. Slovoobrazovanie. Sintaksis. [Русская разговорная речь. Общие вопросы. Словообразование. Синтаксис]. Moskva, 1981.
5. Mills M. (ed.) Topics in Colloquial Russian. New York u.a. (=American University Studies; Series XII, Vol. II), 1990.
6. Borisova I.N. et al. (eds.) Russkaja razgovornaja rec' kak javlenie gorodskoj kul'tury [Русская разговорная речь, как явление городской культуры]. Ekaterinburg, 1996.
7. Kitajgorodskaja M.V., Rozanova N.N. Russkij recevoj portret [Русский речевой портрет]. Moskva, 1994.
8. Salina I.V. (ed.) Zivaja rec' ural'skogo goroda: ustnye dialogi i epistoljarnye obrazcy. Ekaterinburg. Smelev, D.N./Zemskaja, E.A. (eds.) (1988): Raznovidnosti gorodskoj ustnoj reci. Moskva, 2011.
9. Docenko T.I., Erofeeva E.V., Erofeeva T.I. Permskaja skola sociolingvistiki: teoreticeskie i metodologiceskie osnovanija. // Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta, rossijskaja u zarubeznaja filologija, 5 (2009) 16-28.
10. Erofeeva E.V. Verojatnostnaja struktura idiomov: sociolingvisticeskij aspekt. Perm', 2005.
11. Krause M. Zur Typologie von Sprachsituationen: Binnensprachliche Variation zwischen Standard und Dialekt im heutigen Russland. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 65 (2010) 53-81.
12. Kallmeyer W. (ed.) Kommunikation in der Stadt I-IV. Berlin u.a., 1994-1995.
13. Kirilina A.V. Russkij jazyk v megapolise kak indikator izmenenija jazykovoj situacii. In: Zdanova, V. (ed.). Russkij jazyk v uslovijach kul'turnoj i jazykovoj polifonii. Sbornik statej. München, Berlin, (2009) 75-89.
14. Oglezneva E.A. Russko-kitajskij pidzin: Opyt sociolingvisticeskogo opisanija. Blagovescensk. Patton, F. (1990): Soviet Research on Urban Substandard Speech. In: Mills (ed.), (2008) 143-165.
15. Selting M. Interaktionale Stilistik. Methodologische Aspekte der Analyse von Sprechstilen. In: Selting, M. / Sandig, B. (eds.): Sprech- und Gesprächsstile. Berlin, New York, (1997) 9-43.
16. Selting M. Communicative style. In: D'hont, S. Östman, J.-O. Verschueren J. (eds.): The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, (2009) 20-39.
17. Selting M., Couper-Kuhlen E. Forschungsprogramm 'Interaktionale Linguistik'. Linguistische Berichte 187. (2001) 257-287.
18. Fox B. Principles shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse Studies, 9/3 (2007) 299318.
19. Ford C., Fox B., Thompson S. Social Interaction and Grammar. Tomasello, M. (ed.), The New Psychology of Language. Vol. II. Mahwah, London, (2003) 119-143.
20. Kosta P. Code-switching and Code-mixing Revisited in Urban and Ethnic Styles: A Brief Sketch on Variation and Language Shift. In: Warditz, Vladislava & Beatrix Kreß (eds.), Multilingualism and Translation. Studies on Slavonic and Non-Slavonic Languages in Contact. Frankfurt am Main, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, (2015) 111-129.
21. Kosta P. Third Position Repair, Overlaps, and Code-Switching within a Strict Turn-Taking Model. In: Nadine Thielemann / Nicole Richter (eds.) Urban Voices: The Sociolinguistics, Grammar and Pragmatics of Spoken Russian Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. Berlin Bern Bruxelles New York Oxford Warszawa Wien: Peter Lang, (2019) 183-191.
(Potsdam Linguistic Investigations vol.25).
22. Grenoble L. Sintaksis i sovmestnoe postroenie repliki v russkom dialoge. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 1 (2008) 25-36.
23. Kibrik A.A. Est' li predlozenie v ustnoj reci. In: Archipov, A.V. et al. (eds.). Fonetika i nefonetika. K 70-letiju Sandro V. Kodzasova. Moskva, (2008) 104115.
24. Asinovsky A.S. et al. The ORD Speech Corpus of Russian Everyday Communication "One Speaker's Day": Creation Principles and Annotation. Matousek V., Mautner P. (eds.). Text, Speech, and Dialogue 2009. Berlin, Heidelberg (=LNAI; 5729), (2009) 250-257.
25. Sherstinova T. The Structure of the ORD Speech Corpus of Russian Everyday Communication. Matousek V., Mautner P. (eds.). Text, Speech, and Dialogue 2009. Heidelberg (=LNAI; 5729), (2009) 258-265.
26. Schegloff E.A., Sacks H. Opening Up Closings. In: Semiotica VIII, 4 (1973) 289-327.
27. Peterson G.E., Barney H.L. Control Methods
Статья поступила в редакцию 12.11.2019
used in a Study of Vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24, issue 2, (1952), pp. 175-184.
28. Selting M. et al. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). In: Gesprächsforschung - Online Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion Ausgabe 10 (2009) 353-402 (www. gespraechsforschung -ozs.de)
29. Sappok Ch. Addressing by Voice: Deixis and Design. In: Thielemann, N., Richter, N. (eds.) Urban Voices: The Sociolinguistics, Grammar and Pragmatics of Spoken Russian, Berlin etc. Peter Lang (2019), 35-62.
30. Kosta P. Überlegungen zum «phatischen Diskurs» (und zur phatischen Partikel 'jako') in der Konversation tschechischer Intellektueller. In: Freidhof, G. et al. (eds.), Slavische Sprachwissenschaft und Interdisziplinarität 4. Olexa Horbatsch zum Gedenken. München: Sagner 1998, 109-145.
31. Kosta P. Turn initial elements in Every Day Talk, to appear in Lexington Books, Maryland, USA Rowman & Littlefield
THE AUTHORS / СВЕДЕНИЯ ОБ АВТОРАХ
Kosta Peter
Full Professor and Chair of Slavic Linguistics and Head of the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, Faculty of Arts at the University of Potsdam, Germany. His major research areas are Theory of Language, Generative Syntax, Corpus Linguistics, Conversation Analysis, Speech Act Theory, Polito-Linguistics and Sociolinguistics of Endangered Languages. He is editor of the Research Oxford Encyclopedia of Slavic Languages. Oxford University Press Oxford, UK, New York, co-editor of The Slavic Languages. An International Handbook of their Structure, their History, and their Investigation. Berlin, New York, Boston: Walter de Gruyter, Mouton Volume 1: 2009, Volume 2: 2014 and the author of 7 Monographs and 300 articles. He is on the board of many linguistic journals. In 2019, he has been nominated a Professor honoris causa at the Russian-Armenian (Slavic) University in Yerevan, Armenia.
E-mail: gavanna2002@mail.ru
© Санкт-Петербургский политехнический университет Петра Великого, 2019
