The prosody of repetition: on quoting and mimicry

Couper‐Kuhlen, Elizabeth

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511597862.011

Cited by 146 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other conversation analytic studies have also examined repeats by different speakers (e.g., Couper-Kuhlen, 1996;Hellerman, 2003;Schegloff, 1996;Sorjonen, 1996;Tarplee, 1996).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

"No no no" and Other Types of Multiple Sayings in Social Interaction

Stivers¹

2004

Human Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relying on the methodology of conversation analysis, this article examines a practice in ordi-If I was told anything that was a theory, I would say, "No, no! That does not interest me."-Ludwig Wittgenstein C onversation analytic researchers across the disciplines of communication, linguistics, and sociology have, for more than 30 years, worked to describe and explicate "the competences that ordinary speakers use and rely on in participating in intelligible, socially organized interaction"

show abstract

“…Other conversation analytic studies have also examined repeats by different speakers (e.g., Couper-Kuhlen, 1996;Hellerman, 2003;Schegloff, 1996;Sorjonen, 1996;Tarplee, 1996).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

"No no no" and Other Types of Multiple Sayings in Social Interaction

Stivers¹

2004

Human Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Couper-Kuhlen (1996), two visual F0 representations are used to illustrate the acoustic analysis. Because the aim of her study is to investigate absolute vs. relative pitch register matching, the display alters the representation of F0 according to (a) the common base for both Speakers with all Hz values expressed as semitone intervals from 50 Hz and (b) the base for the individual speaker's voice ränge expressed in semitone intervals from the lowest Hz value that a given Speaker "is inclined to use" (Couper-Kuhlen, 1996, p. 374).…”

Section: Phonetic Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…) showed that, when granting a first speaker's request, one resource that second Speakers use is to match the pitch contour of the request itself, whereas when a request is declined such pitch matching is absent. Couper-Kuhlen (1996) demonstrated that F0 contour matches with relative vs. absolute F0 register perform different conversational actions: matching relatively (i.e., with respect to the individual's voice ränge) contextualizes verbal repetitions as quotation, whereas matching absolutely the F0 of the prior Speaker contextualizes the repetition as mimicry. In an analysis of continuers in Italian conversation, Müller (1996) found that two different actions can be performed by manipulating prosodic features: "Affiliating tokens respond more specifically to important details and to salient prosodic features in the talk they acknowledge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pitch Contour Matching and Interactional Alignment across Turns: An Acoustic Investigation

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A bstractIn o rd e r to ex p lo re th e influence o f c o n te x t on th e p hon etic design o f talk-in-interaction, w e investigated th e pitch characteristics o f s h o rt tu m s (in se rtio n s) th a t a re produced by on e Speaker betw een turns from a n o th e r Speaker. W e investigated th e hypothesis th a t th e Speaker o f th e insertion designs h e r tu rn as a pitch match to th e p rio r turn in o rd e r to align w ith th e previous speaker's agenda, w h ereas non-matching displays th a t th e Speaker o f th e insertion is non-aligning, fo r exam ple to initiate a n e w action. D a ta w e re taken from th e A M I m eeting corpus, focusing on th e spontaneous talk o f first-language English participants. Using sequential analysis, 177 insertions w e r e classified as e ith e r aligning o r non-aligning in acco rd an ce w ith definitions o f these term s in th e C o n versa tio n Analysis literatu re. T h e degree o f sim ilarity betw een th e pitch c o n to u r o f th e insertion and th a t o f th e p rio r speaker's tu m w as m easured, using a n e w techn iqu e th a t integrates norm alized FO and in tensity inform ation. T h e results show ed th a t aligning insertions w e r e significantly m o re sim ilar to th e im m ediately preceding tu m , in term s o f pitch co n to u r, than w e r e non-aligning insertions. This Supports th e v ie w th a t cho ice o f pitch c o n to u r is managed locally, ra th e r than by re fe ren ce to an intonational lexicon.

show abstract

“…First, and most obviously, whereas partial repeats only reproduce the most minimal portion of the claim to be understood as a redoing and to do confirmation and do so relying primarily on anaphora making them highly parasitic on the prior turn, full modified repeats reproduce the core claim. Recall the cline outlined by Couper-Kuhlen (1996) in the introduction. As she pointed out, repetition can vary along a cline toward more precise repetition both in terms of lexicon and prosody.…”

Section: Modified Repeatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Brown, 1998;Couper-Kuhlen, 1996;Jefferson, 1972;Keenan, 1977;Kim, 2002;Schegloff, 1996aSchegloff, , 1996bSchegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977;Selting, 1996;Sorjonen, 1996;Tannen, 1989). The functions of these repeats, particularly in next turn, appear to cluster around initiating repair.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights From Second Position

Stivers¹

2005

Research on Language & Social Interaction

247

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article I examine one practice speakers have for confirming when confirmation was not otherwise relevant. The practice involves a speaker repeating an assertion previously made by another speaker in modified form with stress on the copula/auxiliary. I argue that these modified repeats work to undermine the first speaker's default ownership and rights over the claim and instead assert the primacy of the second speaker's rights to make the statement. Two types of modified repeats are identified: partial and full. Although both involve competing for primacy of the claim, they occur in distinct sequential environments: The former are generally positioned after a first claim was epistemically downgraded, whereas the latter are positioned following initial claims that were offered straightforwardly, without downgrading.Researchers of interaction have observed that speakers regularly repeat utterances that were previously produced by another speaker (cf. Brown, 1998;Couper-Kuhlen, 1996;Jefferson, 1972;Keenan, 1977;Kim, 2002;Schegloff, 1996aSchegloff, , 1996bSchegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977;Selting, 1996;Sorjonen, 1996;Tannen, 1989). The functions of these repeats, particularly in next turn, appear to cluster around initiating repair. Whether and how an utterance is modified when it is produced the second time is relevant for analyzing its action import. Couper-Kuhlen pointed out

show abstract

The prosody of repetition: on quoting and mimicry

Cited by 146 publications

References 0 publications

"No no no" and Other Types of Multiple Sayings in Social Interaction

"No no no" and Other Types of Multiple Sayings in Social Interaction

Pitch Contour Matching and Interactional Alignment across Turns: An Acoustic Investigation

Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights From Second Position

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About