Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 20:4 (2015) ► pp.445–468

Internal variety in the use of Slovene general extenders in different spoken discourse settings

| University of Maribor

In the present paper, we investigate a group of markers in spoken interaction, commonly termed general extenders (GEs). We compare their usage in different discourse settings within the reference speech corpus of the Slovene language GOS. The results show that there is a high variability of GE form, but that most forms are rarely used. GEs are generally less frequent in public and formal settings, such as classes and radio and television informative broadcasts, and more frequent in private settings. Substantial differences are found not only between the two groups of GEs, adjunctive and disjunctive, but also between particular GE expressions. We argue that mere qualitative analysis of pragmatic expressions such as GEs is not sufficient for reliable conclusions, and that quantitative corpus analysis can provide additional insights into GE functions, especially considering the differences between the two groups of GEs, adjunctives and disjunctives, and between particular GE expressions.

Keywords: general extenders, spoken genre, speech variability, vague expression
Published online: 21 January 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.4.02ver
References
Aijmer, K
(1985) What happens at the end of our utterances? The use of utterance-final tags introduced by and and or . In Togeby, O. (Ed.), Papers from the 8th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics (pp. 117–127). Copenhagen, Denmark: Institut for Nordisk Philologie, Kopenhaven University.Google Scholar
(1996) English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E
(1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M
(2002) Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 9–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Channell, J
(1994) Vague Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J
(2007) Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(2), 155–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corté Rodríguez, L
(2006) Los elementos de final de serie enumerativa del tipo ‘y todo eso, o cosas así, y tal etc. Perspectiva interactiva. Boletin de Linguistica, 18(26), 102–129.Google Scholar
Dines, E.R
(1980) Variation in discourse: ‘And stuff like that’. Language in Society, 9(1), 13–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, S
(1992) Extension particles, etc. Language Variation and Change, 4(2), 179–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erjavec, T
(2013) Slovene corpora for corpus linguistics and language technologies. In K. Gajdišová & A. Žáková (Eds.), Natural Language Processing, Corpus Linguistics, e-Learning: Proceedings (pp. 51–61). Lüdensheid, Germany: RAM-Verlag.Google Scholar
Erjavec, T., Javoršek, J.J., & Krek, S
(2014) Raziskovalna infrastruktura CLARIN.SI / The research infrastructure CLARIN.SI. In T. Erjavec & J. Žganec Gros (Eds.), Language Technologies: Proceedings of the 17th International Multiconference Information Society (pp. 19–24). Ljubljana, Slovenia: Institut Jožef Stefan.Google Scholar
Fernandez, J., & Yuldashev, A
(2011) Variation in the use of general extenders and stuff in instant messaging interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2610–2626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ten Have, P
(1990) Methodological issues in conversation analysis 1. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 27(1), 23–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koester, A.J
(2000) The role of idioms in negotiating workplace encounters. In H. Trappes-Lomax (Ed.), Change and Continuity in Applied Linguistics (pp. 169–183). Clevedon/NewYork: British Association for Applied Linguistics, Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
Kosem, I., & Verdonik, D
(2012) Key word analysis of discourses in Slovene speech: Differences and similarities. Linguistica (Ljubljana), 52(1), 309–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J
(2009) Size matters: An exploratory comparison of small- and large-class university lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 42–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, M., Crossley, S., & Jeuniaux, P
(2008) What if? Conditionals in educational registers. Linguistics and Education, 19(1), 56–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martinez, I.M.P
(2011) I might, I might go I mean it depends on money things and stuff: A preliminary analysis of general extenders in British teenagers’ discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(9), 2452–2470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesi, H
(2001) A corpus-based analysis of academic lectures across disciplines. In J. Cotterill & A. Ife (Eds.), Language across Boundaries (pp. 201–218). London, UK: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Norrby, C., & Winter, J
(2002) Affiliation in adolescents’ use of discourse extenders. In C. Allen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, Canberra, 27-30 September 2001. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed April 2015).Google Scholar
Norric, N.R
(2009) Pragmatic markers: Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 863–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, M
(1999) Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff Like That: General Extenders in English Discourse. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) And stuff und so: Investigating pragmatic expressions in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1845–1864. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, M., & Yule, G
(2001) Formulaic disclaimers. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(1), 45–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parvaresh, V., Tavangar, M., & Eslami Rasekh, A
(2010) General extenders in Persian discourse: Frequency and grammatical distribution. Cross-cultural Communication, 6(3), 18–35.Google Scholar
Pichler, H., & Levey, S
(2010) Variability in the co-occurrence of discourse features. Language Studies Working Papers, 2(1), 17–27.Google Scholar
Pisanski Peterlin, A
(2005) Text-organising metatext in research articles: An English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 307–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlamberger Brezar, M
(2007) Vloga povezovalcev v govorjenem diskurzu. Jezik in slovstvo, 52(3–4), 21–32.Google Scholar
Schourup, L
(1999) Discourse markers. Lingua, 107(3–4), 227–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, R.C
(2004) Stylistic features of academic speech: The role of formulaic expressions. In U. Connor & T.A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics (pp. 37–64). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolej, M
(2010) Kazalci stopnje besedilne zgradbe v govorjenih narativnih besedilih. In I. Novak Popov (Ed.), Vloge središča: konvergenca regij in kultur (pp. 91–102). Ljubljana, Slovenia: Zveza društev Slavistično društvo Slovenije.Google Scholar
Swales, J.M
(1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, UK: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S.A., & Denis, D
(2010) The stuff of change: General extenders in Toronto, Canada. Journal of English Linguistics, 38(4), 335–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terraschke, A
(2010) Or so, oder so, and stuff like that – general extenders in New Zealand English, German and in learner language. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(3), 449–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verdonik, D
(2010) Vpliv komunikacijskih žanrov na rabo diskurznih označevalcev. In Š. Vintar (Ed.), Slovenske korpusne raziskave(pp. 88–108). Ljubljana, Slovenia: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete.Google Scholar
Verdonik, D., & Kačič, Z
(2012) Označevalci odprte propozicije v govorjenem diskurzu. Slavistična revija, 60(1), 79–94.Google Scholar
Verdonik, D., Kosem, I., Zwitter Vitez, A., Krek, S., & Stabej, M
(2013) Compilation, transcription and usage of a reference speech corpus: The case of the Slovene corpus GOS. Language Resources and Evaluation Journal, 47(4), 1031–1048. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verdonik, D., Rojc, M., & Stabej, M
(2007) Annotating discourse markers in spontaneous speech corpora on an example for the Slovenian language. Language Resources and Evaluation Journal, 41(2), 147–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verdonik, D., Žgank, A., & Pisanski Peterlin, A
(2008) The impact of context on discourse marker use in two conversational genres. Discourse Studies, 10(6), 759–775. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zemljak Jontes, M., Kačič, Z., Dobrišek, S., Žganec Gros, J., & Weiss, P
(2002) Računalniški simbolni fonetični zapis slovenskega govora. Slavistična revija, 50(2), 159–169.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Dobrovoljc, Kaja
2017. Multi-word discourse markers and their corpus-driven identification. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22:4 ► pp. 551 ff. DOI logo
Hsieh, Chen-Yu Chester
2019. Linguistic typology, language modality, and stuff like that. Studies in Language 43:1 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Minju
2022. Intersubjectivity, stance, and Korean general extenders. Journal of Pragmatics 193 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Overstreet, Maryann
2020. The English general extender. English Today 36:4 ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Ruzaitė, Jūratė
2018. General extenders and discourse variation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 23:4 ► pp. 467 ff. DOI logo
Zgank, Andrej, Izidor Mlakar, Uros Berglez, Danilo Zimsek, Matej Borko, Zdravko Kacic & Matej Rojc
2021. Embodied Conversation. In Encyclopedia of Organizational Knowledge, Administration, and Technology [Advances in Logistics, Operations, and Management Science, ], ► pp. 1091 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.