The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Current Issue

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21, No. 0, pp.678-696
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Received 01 Jun 2021 Revised 20 Jul 2021 Accepted 23 Jul 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202107.678

Buckeye 코퍼스에 나타난 영어 원어민 화자의 논평 화용 표지어 억양 연구: 증거 표지어를 중심으로
황병후 ; 이효신
건국대학교 글로컬캠퍼스
건국대학교 글로컬캠퍼스

The intonation of commentary pragmatic markers of native English speakers in the Buckeye Corpus: Focused on evidential markers
Byeonghoo Hwang ; Hyoshin Lee
(1st author) Doctor, Konkuk Univ. Glocal Campus, Tel: (043)840-3410 (khbhk99@kku.ac.kr)
(corresponding author) Professor, Konkuk Univ. Glocal Campus, Tel: (043)840-3336 (hslee2012@kku.ac.kr)

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

There are few studies on the intonation of commentary pragmatic markers, although pragmatic markers and intonation play a significant role in understanding the nature of discourse reflecting the dynamics of language. The current study aims to describe the intonation of commentary pragmatic markers of native English speakers using the Buckeye Corpus, chosen for its natural interview-spoken data. Based on the frequency of appearance, two evidential markers, definitely and obviously, were selected to be analyzed. These markers were categorized by isolated, initial, middle, and final positions within the utterance. Initially, the pitch contour, pitch range, and pitch length of these markers were analyzed to describe the intonation. Next, the patterns and aspects of intonation were analyzed in reference to the positions of these markers. Findings show that a passive attitude with a low degree of confidence toward the basic text message was observed in the isolated position of utterance. Contrarily the most active attitude with a high degree of confidence in the basic text message was observed in the initial position of utterance. It was also found that a loose intonation pattern with the most static was seen in the isolated position of utterance, whereas the most dynamic intonation pattern was seen in the initial position of utterance.


Keywords: intonation, commentary pragmatic markers, evidential markers, Buckeye Corpus

Acknowledgments

This paper was based on the doctoral thesis of Byeonghoo Hwang.


References
1. 권혁승⋅정채관(Kwon, H. and C. Jung). 2012. 『코퍼스 언어학 입문』(Introduction of Corpus Linguistics). 서울: 한국문화사(Seoul: Hangukmumhwasa).
2. 김명호(Kim, M.). 2003. 영어 억양의 발화수반 행위(The illocutionary function of English intonation). ≪현대영미어문학≫(The Journal of Modern British & American Language & Literature) 21(2), 77-98.
3. 오세풍(Oh, S.). 2009. 『영어 억양 표기 문제점과 해결 방안』(Problems and Solutions of English Intonation Representation). 서울: 한국학술정보(주)(Seoul: Korean Studies Information, Co., Ltd).
4. 오세풍⋅장영수⋅이용재(Oh, S., Y. Jang and Y. Lee). 2001. 영어의 문장부사에 나타난 한국인의 억양특성 분석: message-oriented 부사를 중심으로(A study on the intonation of Korean speakers in English sentence adverbials: focused on message-oriented adverbials). ≪음성과학≫(Speech Sciences) 8(2), 119-131.
5. Astruc-Aguilera, L. and F. Nolan. 2007. Variation in the intonation of sentential adverbs in English and Catalan. Tones and Tunes 1, 233-262.
6. Couper-Kuhlen, E. 1986. An Introduction to English Prosody. London: Edward Arnold.
7. Cruttenden, A. 1994. Gimson’s Pronunciation of English, 5th ed. London: Edward Arnold.
8. Crystal, D. 1975. The English Tone of Voice. London: Edward Arnold.
9. Féry, C. 2017. Intonation and Prosodic Structure. London: Cambridge University Press.
10. Fraser, B. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2), 167-190.
11. Kiesling, S., L. Dilley and W. D. Raymond. 2006. The variation in conversation (ViC) project: Creation of the Buckeye Corpus of conversational speech. Language Variation and Change , 55-97.
12. Komar, S. 2007. The interface between intonation and function of discourse markers in English. ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries 4(1-2), 43-55.
13. Ladefoged, P. and K. Johnson. 2015. A Course in Phonetics. CT: Cengage Learning.
14. McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. London: Cambridge University Press.
15. McCarthy, M. and R. Carter. 2004. This that and the other: Multi-word clusters in spoken English as visible patterns of interaction. TEANGA, The Journal of the Irish Association for Applied Linguistics 21, 30-52.
16. Norrick, N. R. 2009. Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5), 866-891.
17. O’Keeffe, A., B. Clancy and S. Adolphs. 2020. Introducing Pragmatics in Use, 2nd ed. NY: Routlege.
18. Prieto, P. 2015. Intonational meaning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 6(4), 371-381.
19. Roach, P. 2000. English Phonetics and Phonology: A Practical Course. London: Cambridge University Press.
20. Roca, I. and W. Johnson. 1999. A Course in Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
21. Romero-Trillo, J. 2018. Prosodic modeling and position analysis of pragmatic markers in English conversation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14(1), 169-195.
22. Romero-Trillo, J. 2019. Prosodic pragmatics and feedback in Intercultural communication. Journal of Pragmatics 151, 91-102.
23. Tench, P. 2015. The Intonation Systems of English. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
24. Wichmann, A. 2004. The intonation of please-requests: A corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics 36(9), 1521-1549.