26.01.2013 Views

Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Between B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g and Accommodation<br />

Category Annotator 1 Annotator 2<br />

Type of NP Total Def Dem Poss Total Def Dem Poss<br />

B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g 137 78 27 32 113 67 16 30<br />

Accommodation 115 56 9 50 155 82 10 63<br />

Bridg<strong>in</strong>g (R,D) 130 92 29 10 90 60 16 14<br />

C 29 22 4 3 32 26 5 1<br />

Removed (K,E,O) 28 29 2 7 49 32 8 9<br />

Total 439 267 55 117 439 267 55 117<br />

Table 13 Tags collapsed to b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g theory categories<br />

C:[my place] was identified with B:[your place], i.e. it was considered co-referential,<br />

D:[this family] was considered new to the discourse (though it is likely to be known<br />

to the two <strong>in</strong>terviewers). E:[the last few months] is a time that must be calculated<br />

from the time of the discourse and as such was marked as calculable(C) by both<br />

annotators. B:[your place] was considered by both annotators to be related(R) to<br />

the noun phrase marked A:[a sort of housekeeper]. It is this f<strong>in</strong>al relationship that is<br />

most similar to the prototypical examples of bridg<strong>in</strong>g found <strong>in</strong> the theoretical<br />

literature.<br />

How well would the proposals discussed earlier fare <strong>in</strong> resolv<strong>in</strong>g this last<br />

example, i.e., the relationship between A:[a sort of housekeeper] and B:[your place]?<br />

The approaches that advocate us<strong>in</strong>g lexical or encyclopedic knowledge resources<br />

will have trouble identify<strong>in</strong>g this l<strong>in</strong>k, because there does not seem to be any clear<br />

lexical or encyclopedic relationship. The proposal based on def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the l<strong>in</strong>k more<br />

functionally would seem to work better. There is a clear parallelism between the<br />

<strong>in</strong>terviewer’s question <strong>in</strong> (a) and the second question <strong>in</strong> (c), where it seems as if he<br />

is ask<strong>in</strong>g for confirmation that his question was answered by Speaker A’s statement<br />

<strong>in</strong> (b). This clarify<strong>in</strong>g question is also perhaps a necessary ground<strong>in</strong>g action given<br />

the overlapp<strong>in</strong>g speech marked with underl<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g between the asterisks. We can also<br />

see that the who <strong>in</strong> (c) is not a question adverb but the who of a relative clause that<br />

cont<strong>in</strong>ues the statement <strong>in</strong> (a). As <strong>in</strong> “as a sort of housekeeper who can take your<br />

place” which is could be paraphrased as “This means that you’ve got somebody<br />

l<strong>in</strong>ed up who can take your place as a sort of housekeeper” This is an example<br />

where the utterance conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the anchor and the utterance conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the<br />

bridg<strong>in</strong>g NP are <strong>in</strong> a rhetorical relationship that could either support or be<br />

supported by the identification of the bridg<strong>in</strong>g relationship.<br />

An example where the l<strong>in</strong>k is easily determ<strong>in</strong>ed by the surface characteristics<br />

of the noun phrase is given <strong>in</strong> (12). This sequence takes place at the end of the<br />

<strong>in</strong>terview where the <strong>in</strong>terviewer gives Speaker A directions for f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g the Tutor<br />

for Women Students.<br />

167

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!