Speech Management—on the Non-written Life of Speech

Allwood, Jens; Nivre, Joakim; Ahlsén, Elisabeth

doi:10.1017/s0332586500002092

Cited by 59 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This leads to more variability in word choice and more circumlocutions (Olshtain & Barzilay, 1991). Quick and accurate access of target words is replaced by word substitutions, slower speech, an increase in pauses and hesitations and also of repairs and false starts, in other words signs of an increased need for communication self-management (for a closer description of such phenomena, see Allwood, Nivre, & Ahlsén, 1990). In bi-and multilingual persons lexical borrowing and code switching are additional strategies.…”

Section: Frequency Of Use and Automaticitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Language Attrition

Ahlsén¹

2012

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language attrition can be defi ned as a reduction, weakening or loss of a fi rst, second, third, or more language in an individual person or in a community. The focus of research in this area is on language attrition in individuals, even though the defi nition of the term also includes the attrition of a language within a community (i.e., language death, when languages with few speakers gradually disappear). From typological as well as, for example, psycholinguistic or sociolinguistic perspectives, interesting parallels can be found between attrition of a language in an individual and attrition of a language in the whole community. For theoretical and applied linguistics, both are of equal interest, but this entry focuses on attrition in the individual.Some researchers defi ne attrition in the individual more narrowly. According to Köpke and Schmid, attrition is "the non-pathological decrease in a language that had previously been acquired by an individual" (2004, p. 5). The community or research area of language attrition has its origin in the 1980 conference "Loss of Language Skills" (Lambert & Freed, 1982). By including the word "non-pathological" in the defi nition, cases of L1 loss in an L1 environment due to aphasia, dementia, and so on are excluded. Interestingly enough, cases of L1 loss by normal aging are not excluded by the inclusion of this term. They are, however, not usually studied within this area and will, therefore, also be excluded here.Even the narrow defi nition, however, retains the problem of what should be classifi ed as "attrition" of an acquired L1, L2, and so on. Given that the term "non-pathological" has excluded some attrition phenomena, with, for example, neurological causal factors, the following question arises: How should we regard "attrition"-should we regard it as "normal" or "abnormal" language deterioration? Where is it reasonable to draw the line between normal infl uence between languages in a bilingual or polyglot and a state or process that can be called attrition of one or more languages? This question has not been solved and it is perhaps reasonable not to try to draw a defi nite line, but to consider these phenomena as varying more gradually (see Schmid & Köpke, 2007).Language attrition can occur for many reasons. A monolingual person can lose his or her fi rst and only language, a bilingual person can lose one or both of his or her two languages, and a multilingual person can lose one or more of his or her languages. This can take place in an environment where one or more of these languages are used to varying degrees. The degree of attrition can vary and different parts or aspects of language can be affected.There are many possible conditions where language loss can occur. According to a taxonomy suggested by van Els (1986), L1 can be lost in an L1 environment, in cases of aphasia and dementia. This can also be studied in normal aging. The L1 can also be lost in an L2 environment (minority communities, migrants). The L2 can be lost in an L1 environment (e.g., by stude...

show abstract

Section: Frequency Of Use and Automaticitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Language Attrition

Ahlsén¹

2012

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…group of what Allwood, Nivre, and Ahlsén (1990) term "speech management phenomena" (also referred to as "disfluency" features). Another feature included under speech management is repetition of I, as in But I cert I I I I I ju I it it just sounds.…”

Section: Real-time Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conversational Grammar- Feminine Grammar? A Sociopragmatic Corpus Study

Rühlemann

2009

Journal of English Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One area in language and gender research that has so far received only little attention is the extent to which the sexes make use of what recent corpus research has termed “conversational grammar.” The author’s initial findings have suggested that the majority of features distinctive of conversational grammar may be used predominantly by female speakers. This article reports on a study designed to test the hypothesis that conversational grammar is “feminine grammar” in the sense that women’s conversational language is more adapted to the conversational situation than men’s. Based on data from the conversational subcorpus of the British National Corpus and following the situational framework for the description of conversational features elaborated in the author’s previous research, features distinctive of conversational grammar are grouped into five functional categories and their normed frequencies compared across the sexes. The functional categories distinguish features that can be seen as adaptations to constraints set by the situational factors of (1) Shared Context, (2) Co-Construction, (3) Real-Time Processing, (4) Discourse Management, and (5) Relation Management. The study’s results, described in detail in relation to the biological category of speaker sex and cultural notions of gender, suggest that the feminine grammar hypothesis is valid.

show abstract

“…ICM refers to interactive communication management in the sense of Allwood, Nivre, and Ahlsén (1990) and Allwood (2000), and concerns the management of the Fig. 1 The information state after utterance G3 in dialogue (1) interaction by dialogue participants with respect to sequencing, feedback, turn management, and the like.…”

Section: The Information Statementioning

confidence: 99%

Optimising elliptical utterances in dialogue

Ericsson

2007

Research Language Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elliptical utterances in dialogue are here investigated using Optimality Theory (OT). The focus is on generation, and the analysis as well as the examples used are based on a study of elliptical utterances in corpora of recorded dialogues. The OT analysis makes use of the information structural notions of focus and ground. Two important optimisations of elliptical utterances are investigated. One concerns the optimisation of the part of the context that the elliptical utterance is connected to, and the other concerns the determination of whether an elliptical or a non-elliptical utterance is to be produced.

show abstract

Speech Management—on the Non-written Life of Speech

Cited by 59 publications

References 5 publications

Language Attrition

Language Attrition

Conversational Grammar- Feminine Grammar? A Sociopragmatic Corpus Study

Optimising elliptical utterances in dialogue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About