CC BY
40
YffK 81'25
DO110.25513/2413-6182.2017.4.73-82
SPONTANEOUS ORAL SPEECH FROM THE PSYCHOLINGUISTIC SIDE: PRAGMATEMES IN THE SPEECH OF INFORMANTS WITH A DIFFERENT PSYCHOTYPE
D.A. Gorbunova
St. Petersburg State University (St. Petersburg, Russia)
Abstract: The paper is devoted to the research of the influence of personal psychological characteristics on everyday speech. In particular, we have considered the usage of unit eto samoe, which belongs to the class of pragmatic markers, in speech of respondents with different psychological characteristics (extroverts and introverts, people with different levels of neuroticism, etc.). The study was conducted on the basis of the "One Speaker's Day" corpus - the largest linguistic resource for studying oral discourse. Personality type and the level of neuroticism data were obtained by comparing the results of two psychological tests completed by the informants on the day of recording: a questionnaire by G. Eysenck and Freiburg multifactorial questionnaire. In our work we used descriptive, mathematical, hypothetical-deductive and comparative methods of research. As a preparatory stage for linguistic research, the paper describes the process of creating a specialized software, designed to process and organize calculation of the results of two psychological tests (EPI, FPI) filled with "One Speaker's Day" informants. The immediate material for the analysis was the speech fragments of two informants with different personality types (introverted and extraverted) which use in their everyday speech the hesitative pragmateme eto samoe in all its grammatical forms.
Key words: Russian speech corpus, "One Speaker's Day", personality type, automatic processing, oral communication, oral speech grammar, pragmalinguistics, collo-quialistics, discursive units, introversion, extraversion.
For citation:
Gorbunova, D.A. (2017), Spontaneous oral speech from the psycholinguistic side: pragmatemes in the speech of informants with a different psychotype. Communication Studies, No. 4 (14), pp. 73-82. DOI: 10.25513/2413-6182.2017.4.73-82.
About the author:
Gorbunova Darya Alexandrovna, Bachelor of Arts, Master's degree student
Corresponding author:
Postal address: 7/9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia
© fl.A. fopôyHoea, 2017
74 Раздел II. Современные дискурсивные практики
E-mail: darya.a.gorbunova@yandex.ru Received: July 16, 2017
Introduction
Linguistic analysis, the results of which are the subject of this article, was preceded by a series of preparatory actions. In particular, to obtain reliable results of psychological testing we were needed a reliable method of rapid processing of the initial data of informants. So it was decided to create software that would allow to enter data from the questionnaires quickly, would have access to all the data entered and completely eliminate errors in the calculation. There are many websites that can process this type of data, but they are intended for personal use and are not compliant with all remaining requirements. To handle psychological tests, we implemented a program created in C #. The program meets all the requirements and takes on the most difficult part of the calculation of the result. Processing of one test with this software application takes about 30 seconds.
The application has a console interface (see pic. 1, 2]. Data is provided to the application with one questionnaire answer per line. It is necessary to type the answer to the question and press <Enter> to go to the next question, so the data must be entered till the end of the list. The program analyzes the provided answers and prints out the final result as a list of psychological characteristics and primary / total score for the test.
The main advantage of the program is the focus on specific tests. There is no need to find the tables to create the result, the application will do it automatically. The program was written in C++ and can be easily ported to Linux and macOS.
47 □
48 □
49 □
50 0
51 0
52 0
53 □
54 □
55 0
56 0
57 D
Extravert iEFi 11 MeirotiHm 11
Lie ЗДля продолжения нажмите ливло клавиши -
Pic. 1. EPI test's software
tiO 0 Lii 9 112 0 L13 0 L14 0 Results :
Heurotic 1 Standard res - 1 SpAgression 2 Standard res - 3 Depression 3 Standard res - 4 Irritability 1 Standard res — 3 Sociability 8 Standard res - 4 Equilibrium 6 Standard res - 6 ReAgression 1 Standard res - 3 Shyness 3 Standard res - 6 Openess 13 Standard res - 9 Extraversión □ Standard res — 1 Enotional Lability 1 Standard res - 2 Feminism 4 Standard res - 1 ^iflnpofl^jjeHHflH^^
Pic. 2. FPI test's software
Data and Methods
ORD informants (more about ORD see: [Bogdanova-Beglaryan et al. 2017]] passed three tests: EPI, FPI and Kettel (form C). Analysis and systematization of EPI and FPI test results is finished while handling of the third test is in progress. Find below there are the results obtained by processing each of the questionnaires separately, as well as the resume of comparing their results.
Eysenk Personality Inventory (EPI) test confidently occupies one of the first places among psychodiagnostic methods [Lichnostnyi oprosnik EPI... 1995]. That is why it was chosen for research by the founders of the ORD corpus. The questionnaire is designed to diagnose extraversion / introversion and the level of neuroticism. It also includes nine questions that form the "scale of lies". Firstly, we exclude informants with the degree of falsity exceeding normal level according to the tests. They were not taken into the research. We analyzed 68 tests in total. According to the obtained results, the ORD informants were distributed by psychological type as follows (see Table 1].
Table 1
The results of EPI psych type scale
PT Number of informants Percent
Extravert 29 43,0
Introvert 10 15,0
Ambivert 5 8,0
Addiction to extraversion 14 21,0
Addiction to introversion 9 13,0
As another important factor we evaluated the level of informant neuro-tism. It is also necessary to note, this factor is isolated from the previous one. A high level of neuroticism is a property of person's individuality, so it can be inherent in a degree of both introverts and extroverts (see Table 2].
Table 2
The results of EPI neurotic scale
Neurotic level Percent
The highest 12,0
High 16,0
Medium 49,0
Low 23,0
The type of the speaker's temperament, according to G. Eysenck, is based on the information about the level of neuroticism and about the psychological type of the informants (see Table 3).
Table 3
The results of EPI personality scale
Temperament type Percent
Sanguine 54,0
Choleric 12,0
Phlegmatic 18,0
Melancholic 12,0
Mixed 4,0
Frieburg Personality Inventory (FPI) test was developed by the staff of Leningrad State University (now - St. Petersburg State University) in co-authorship with scientists from the University of Hamburg. For our research we used a modified form of questionnaire to test informants. This form was designed by A.A. Krylov and T.I. Ronginskaya. The questionnaire was created to diagnose conditions and personality traits important for the social adaptation processes and for the behavior regulation. In total, as noted in 2.1, 68 tests were analyzed. The test allows to diagnose such personality traits as: neuroticism, aggressiveness, depressiveness, irritability, sociability, equilibrium, shyness, openness, emotional lability, extraversion / introversion, masculinity / feminism. The main difference between this test and G. Eysenck's questionnaire is the syn-chronic approach to testing: the test demonstrates the emotional state of the informant at the time of recording. The only static characteristic is the value of the psychological type (see Table 4).
Table 4
The results of FPI psych type scale
PT Number of informants Percent
Extravert 20 30,0
Introvert 11 17,0
Ambivert 0 -
Addiction to extraversion 17 25,0
Addiction to introversion 9 13,0
Comparison of the two tests on the scale of introversion / extraversion revealed a coincidence in 62 % of cases. Such percentage of coincidences allows supposing that the research is relatively accurate. However, the analysis of the data revealed a lack of uniform distribution of informants on psychotypes. It is primarily because the testing was conducted after the recording and could not be the reason for refusing or inviting a particular informant to participate in the experiment. The psychological structure of the ORD corpus is not uniform. However, it cannot be an obstacle to further linguistic research considering the psychological characteristics of informants. The most representative for further linguistic analysis are the results of the tests by only 45 informants from 68. Four informants refused to fill one of the two tests, two other were skipped because of the low level of sincerity, twenty more informants had different results in their EPI and FPI tests.
Results
At the same time with the growing interest in spontaneous speech in modern science, it has also arisen a lot of terms for the designation of specific speech units. For example, non-significant vocabulary, extra words [Sirotinina 1971: 71], substitute words [Zemskaya 1979: 91], logical particles, modal particles or connectors [Discourse Words of the Russian Language... 1998, 2003], parasitic words [Daragan 2000], speech automatisms [Verkholetova 2010], discursive words [Borisova 2014: 97], verbal hezitatives [Bogdanova-Beglaryan 2013], and some others. Such an abundance of terms indicates that the lexical units for which they were created, are numerous. They have various functions in the oral discourse and are difficult to uniquely identify and classify. These units can be considered as an actual object of modern linguistic research. In addition, material of everyday speech reveals more and more new uses of words we already know. Since lexical units gradually lose their customary meanings in their usage and "begin to perform quite a large number of various functions in our speech, it gives us reasons to include them in the pragmatemes class" (my bold. - D. G.) [Bogdanova-Beglaryan 2014: 10].
Thus, the definitive pronoun samyi has, as its main dictionary definition, an ability to be used "with the demonstrative pronouns etot, tot "for their refinement in the meaning: imenno, kak raz" (discharge of authors. - D. G.) [Russian Language Dictionary 1984: 25], but in colloquial speech also can perform other functions. We can see it particularly well on the corpus material. The main material for the present research is the records of two ORD informants with different psychotypes (I 117; male, 62 years old, IT specialist, extrovert vs I 83; female; 51 years old, specialist in maintenance, introvert). The duration of the first recording is more than 3 hours and about 3 thousand words in transcripts. The duration of the second recording is more than 4 hours and about 3 thousand words in transcripts. It includes the speech of the communicants as well as all the decoding symbols.
The usage of this word was decoded (orthographic representation was performed] in the ORD corpus material according to the method described, for example, in [Bogdanova-Beglaryan 2016: 242-243].
The word samyi was used in its primary meaning 29 % of times. Examples:
• tem bolee/ chto seichas to s... norovyat (e-e) / (m-m) peredat' etot samyi signal ne (e-e) / neefirnym obrazom;
• ya prosto znayu / skol'ko u menya otnimaet () vot ta zhe samaya ope-ratsiya;
• (e-e) a (m) razmer elementov ostanetsya tot zhe samyi.
I 83 uses the word samyi only 10 times for the entire record. And the informant uses it only once in the main definition (10 %]:
• vot u menya vsyo to zhe samoe./
Among others, I 117 also included unit samyj in the speech as a component of the superlative adjective form [Russian Language Dictionary 1984: 26] (7 %). In the speech of I 83, such using was not noted:
• *V (m-m) znaete/ est' takie zadachi optimal'nogo (e-e) tam upravleniya ... nu v obshchem / *P poiska optimuma // vot samyi luchshii naiti / *V (e-e) skazhem variant;
I 117 uses the word samyi in the speech as a part of the introductory phrase v samom dele/ na samom dele (5 %; see in the dictionary: [Russian Language Dictionary 1984: 26]] and as adverbs in the meaning of 'deistvitel'no; tochno' (7 %; see in the dictionary: [Russian Language Dictionary 1984: 26]]:
• ya dolzhen garantiyu imet' / chto ya ne oshibsya v traktovke // nu / i tak dalee/ to est' vot/ dazhe s tekstom na samom dele:
• vot na samom dele/ ono mozhet byt' i ot pyati edinits do...
The most interesting in the context of our research and the most frequent in the speech of both informants was the use of the word samyj in the collocation eto samoe which is not yet fixed by explanatory dictionaries (used in that meaning 25 times in the speech of I 117 (52 %) and 9 times in the speech of I 83 (90 %)):
• na fotoapparate vy uvidite / chto eto samoe / est' punkt takoi / raspoznavanie ulybki (I 117];
• takzharen' takaya/ya by voobshche eto samoe (...) vot (I 117];
• potom nikto ne budet / eto samoe / nu / idti na obshchenie /ya tebe ob"yasnila (I 83];
• Ol'% /ponimaesh'/nado vot tak vot/nuzhno khitrit'/nuzhno naiti vot etu lazeiku/ponimaesh'/a kogda mozgi/nemnozhko/ vot/eto samoe/zad-vinuty / votzdes' (I 83].
According to Bruce Fraser from Boston University: "These expressions occur as part of a discourse segment but are not part of the propositional content of the message conveyed, and they do not contribute to the meaning of the proposition, per se. However, they do signal aspects of the message the speaker
wishes to convey" [Fraser 1990]. B. Fraser generalizes such combinations and gives them name "pragmatic markers", which invariably directs us to the term pragmatema mentioned above, and allows us to classify the construction as the pragmatema.
As we can see, there is an undoubted multi-functionality of the considered lexical unit in the speech of the ORD informants. See [Bogdanova-Beglaryan 2015b: 259-285] for more details.
Often, the speaker verbalizes the search for the right word for expressing his thoughts by using eto samoe in his speech, so the largest share of the usage comes from the implementation of this pragmatema in the function of the search marker:
• (e) znachit vot / v pyat' chasov / (e-e) mne etot samyi / (m-m) Rogozhkin% skazal/ chto / (s-s) (m-m) znachit/ u nego est'/ *P nakonets/ vse iskhodnye dannye/ i zavtra s utra on (e-e) *P/ etim zaimyotsya (I 117);
• nu ponimaesh'//est' i lishnie eti samye/ ventilyatory (I 117);
• ya ne/ eto samoe/ ne sozvanivalas' (I 83);
• nu ladno/ ty ne eto samoe/ne rasstraivaisya (I 83).
It is evident that the investigated pragmatema as a search marker, normally is aligned with the searched word in gender, number and case (e.g.: etot samyi - Rogozhkin; eti samye - ventilyatory), which once again shows that "in the generation of speech grammar (form) ahead semantics (meaning)" [Bogdanova-Beglaryan 2015: 133].
Conclusions
Thus, we can conclude that the functions of the pronoun samyj in Russian colloquial speech are not limited by the meanings fixed in explanatory dictionaries. The implementation of this unit is determined by specific contextual and extralinguistic conditions. On the example of speech of two informants from Russian everyday speech corpus known as "One Day of Speech" we considered the most part of the functions of this word. We tried to show that the most common use of this lexical unit is a polyfunctional pragmatema, primarily as a verbal search hesitativ. From the presented examples, we can see the differences between the use of the pragmatema by extroverts and introverts. Informant-extrovert used the pragmatem in different meanings and in different situations. Though the informant-introvert used the word in the 'dictionary' meaning was limited to one case, but the use as a discursive unit turned out to be much more frequent. This can be explained by the fact that the speech of extroverts is more diverse. In the future, we will try to conduct an auditory analysis of the ORD corpus material and a spectral analysis of sound recordings to test a number of hypotheses and to confirm the preliminary conclusions.
References
Bogdanova-Beglaryan, N.V. (Ed.) (2016), Russkii yazyk povsednevnogo obshcheniya:
osobennosti funktsionirovaniya v raznykh sotsial'nykh gruppakh [Everyday Rus-
sian Language in Different Social Groups], Collective Monograph, St. Petersburg, LAIKA Publ., 244 p. (in Russian) Bogdanova-Beglaryan, N.V. (2015a), Iz nablyudenii nad spontannoi rech'yu: gram-maticheskii aspekt [From Observations of Oral Spontaneous Speech: the Grammatical Aspect]. Trudy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii "Korpusnaya lingvistika -2015" [The works of International Conference "Corpus linguistics - 2015"], St. Petersburg, Philological faculty Publ., pp. 129-136. (in Russian) Bogdanova-Beglaryan, N.V. (Ed.) (2015b), Zvukovoi korpus kak material dlya analiza russkoi rechi [Speech Corpus as a Base for Analysis of Russian Speech], Collective Monograph, in 2 parts, Pt. 2. Theory and Practice of Speech Analysis, Vol. 2. Speech Corpus as a Base for New Lexicographical Projects, St. Petersburg, SPbGU Publ., 364 p. (in Russian) Bogdanova-Beglaryan, N.V. (2014), Pragmatemy v ustnoi povsednevnoi rechi: oprede-lenie ponyatiya i obshchaya tipologiya [Pragmatems in Spoken Everyday Speech: Definition and General Typology]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Rossiiskaya i zarubezhnaya filologiya [Perm University Herald. Russian and Foreign Philology], Iss. 3 (27), pp. 7-20. (in Russian) Bogdanova-Beglaryan, N.V. (2013), Kto ishchet - vsegda li naidyot? (o poiskovoi funk-tsii verbal'nykh khezitativov russkoi spontannoi rechi) [Those Who Seek, will They Find? (Search Function of Verbal Hesitations in Russian Spontaneous Speech)]. Selegei, V.P. (Ed.) Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies, Papers from the Annual International Conference "Dialogue" (2013), Iss. 12, in 2 volumes, Moscow, RSHU Publ., Vol. 1, pp. 125-136. (in Russian) Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V., Sherstinova, T.Yu., Blinova, O.V., Martynenko, G.Ya. (2017a), Korpus "Odin rechevoi den'" v issledovaniyakh sotsiolingvisticheskoi variativnosti russkoi razgovornoi rechi [Corpus "One Speaker's Day" in Studies of Sociolinguistic Variability of Russian Colloquial Speech]. Kocharov, D.A., Skrelin, P.A. (Eds.) Analiz razgovornoi rechi (AR3-2017) [Analysis of Spoken Russian Speech (AR3-2017)], Proceedings of the 7th Interdisciplinary Seminar, St. Petersburg, Polytekhnika-print Publ., pp. 14-20. (in Russian) Borisova, E.G. (2014). Diskursivnye slova i referentsiya v protsesse ponimaniya soob-shcheniya [Discourse Words and Reference in the Process of Message Transmission]. Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies, Papers from the Annual International Conference "Dialogue" (2014), Iss. 13, Moscow, RGGU Publ., pp. 96-106. (in Russian) Daragan, Yu.V. (2000), Funktsii slov-"parazitov" v russkoi spontannoi rechi [Functions of "Parasites" Words in Russian Spontaneous Speech]. Trudy Mezhdunarodnogo seminar a "Dialog-2000" [According to the materials of International Conference "Dialogue-2000"], Protvino, RGGU Publ., pp. 67-73. (in Russian) Evgenieva, A.P. (Ed.) (1984), Russian Language Dictionary, in 4 volumes, Moscow,
Russkii yazyk Publ., Vol. 4, 792 p. (in Russian) Fraser, B. (1990), An Approach to Discourse Markers. Journal of Pragmatics, No. 14 (3), pp. 383-398.
Kiseleva, K.L., Paiar, D. (Ed.) (2003), Diskursivnye slova russkogo yazyka: kontekstnoe var'irovanie i semanticheskoe edinstvo [Discourse Words of the Russian Lan-
guage: Contextual Variation and Semantic Unity], Moscow, Azbukovnik Publ., 206 p. (in Russian)
Kiseleva, K.L., Paiar, D. (Ed.) (1998), Diskursivnye slova russkogo yazyka: Opyt kon-tekstno-semanticheskogo opisaniya [Discourse Words of the Russian Language: Experience of Contextual-Semantic Description], Moscow, Metatekst Publ., 280 p. (in Russian)
(1995), Lichnostnyi oprosnik EPI (metodika G. Aizenka) [Personality Questionnaire EPI (G. Eisenk's method)]. Psychological Tests' Almanac, Moscow, pp. 217224. (in Russian)
Sirotinina, O.B. (1971), Sovremennaya russkaya razgovornaya rech' i ee osobennosti [Modern Russian Spoken Language and its Features], Moscow, Prosveshchenie Publ., 143 p. (in Russian)
Verkholetova, E.Yu. (2010), Strukturno-dinamicheskii podkhod k sotsial'noi stratifi-katsii ustnoi rechi [Structural-Dynamic Approach to Social Stratification of Speech], Author's abstract, Perm, 19 p. (in Russian)
Zemskaya, E.A. (1979), Russkaya razgovornaya rech': lingvisticheskii analiz i prob-lemy obucheniya [Russian Colloquial Speech: Linguistic Analysis and Learning Problems], Moscow, Russkii yazyk Publ., 240 p. (in Russian).
СПОНТАННАЯ УСТНАЯ РЕЧЬ С ТОЧКИ ЗРЕНИЯ ПСИХОЛИНГВИСТКИ: ПРАГМАТЕМЫ В РЕЧИ ИНФОРМАНТОВ С РАЗЛИЧНЫМ ПСИХОТИПОМ
Д.А. Горбунова
Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет (Санкт-Петербург, Россия)
Аннотация: Изучается влияние индивидуальных и общих психологических характеристик человека на его повседневную речь. В частности, рассматривается использование в речи говорящих с разными психологическими характеристиками (экстравертов и интровертов, людей с разным уровнем нейро-тизма и т. д.) единицы это самое, относящейся к классу прагматем. Исследование проведено на материале звукового корпуса «Один речевой день» (ОРД) - крупнейшего лингвистического ресурса для изучения русского устного дискурса. Данные о психотипе и уровне нейротизма говорящих были получены при сравнении результатов двух психологических тестов, которые информанты заполняли в день записи, - опросника Г. Айзенка и Фрайбургского многофакторного опросника. Использовались описательный, математический, гипотетико-дедуктивный и сравнительный методы исследования. В качестве подготовительного этапа к лингвистическому анализу описывается процесс создания специализированного программного инструментария, предназначенного для обработки и систематизации корпусных данных: подсчета результатов психологических тестов (EPI, FPI), заполненных информантами ОРД. Конкретным материалом для анализа стали речевые фрагменты двух информантов с различным психотипом (интроверсивным и экстраверсивным), включающие хезитативную прагматему это самое (во всех ее грамматических формах).
Ключевые слова: русский звуковой корпус, «Один речевой день», тип личности, автоматическая обработка информации, устная речь, грамматика устной речи, прагмалингвистика, кооллоквиалистика, дискурсивные единицы, интро-версия, экстраверсия.
Для цитирования:
Горбунова Д.А. Спонтанная устная речь с точки зрения психолингвистки: прагматемы в речи информантов с различным психотипом // Коммуникативные исследования. 2017. № 4 (14). С. 73-82. DOI: 10.25513/24136182.2017.4.73-82. (На англ. яз.).
Сведения об авторе:
Горбунова Дарья Александровна, бакалавр филологии, студентка магистратуры
Контактная информация:
Почтовый адрес: 199034, Россия, Санкт-Петербург, Университетская наб., 7/9 E-mail: darya.a.gorbunova@yandex.ru
Дата поступления статьи: 16.07.2017
