Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:36:55.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Speech Management—on the Non-written Life of Speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Jens Allwood ,
Joakim Nivre  and
Elisabeth Ahlsén
Jens Allwood
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Goteborg, S-412 98 Goteborg, Sweden.
Joakim Nivre
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Goteborg, S-412 98 Goteborg, Sweden.
Elisabeth Ahlsén
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Goteborg, S-412 98 Goteborg, Sweden.
Get access

Abstract

This paper introduces the concept of speech management (SM), which refers to processes whereby a speaker manages his or her linguistic contributions to a communicative interaction, and which involves phenomena which have previously been studied under such rubrics as “planning”, “editing”, “(self-)repair”, etc. It is argued that SM phenomena exhibit considerable systematicity and regularity and must be considered part of the linguistic system. Furthermore, it is argued that SM phenomena must be related not only to such intraindividual factors as planning and memory, but also to interactional factors such as turntaking and feedback, and to informational content. Structural and functional taxonomies are presented together with a formal description of complex types of SM. The structural types are exemplified with data from a corpus of SM phenomena.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , June 1990 , pp. 3 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allwood, J. 1980. On the Analysis of Communicative Action. In Brenner, M. (ed.) The Structure of Action. Oxford: Blackwell and Mott.Google Scholar
Allwood, J. 1981. Finns det svenska kommunikationsmönster? in Vad år svensk kultur? Papers in Anthropological Linguistics 9, Forskningsgruppen Kulturkontakt och Internationell Migration. Department of Linguistics, University of Göteborg, pp. 6–50.Google Scholar
Allwood, J. 1985. Tvärkulturell kommunikation. In Allwood, J. (ed.) Tuärkulturell kommunikation. Papers in Anthropological Linguistics 12, Forskningsgruppen Kulturkontakt och Internationell Migration. Department of Linguistics, University of Göteborg, pp. 9–61.Google Scholar
Allwood, J. (ed.) 1986. Feedback. Annual Report 1986. Ecology of Adult Language Acquisition. European Science Foundation. Department of Linguistics, University of Göteborg.Google Scholar
Allwood, J. (ed.) 1988. Feedback in Adult Language Acquisition. Second Language Acquisition by Adult Immigrants. An Additional Activity of the European Science Foundation. Final Report, Volume II. Strasbourg and Göteborg.Google Scholar
Bock, K. J. 1982. Toward a Cognitive Psychology of Syntax: Information Processing Contributions of Sentence Formulation. Psychological Review 89 (1), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. 1977. Psychology and Language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Diderichsen, P. 1964. Saetningsleddene og deres stilling—tredive aar efter. In Heihed og Struktur. Copenhagen: Gads.Google Scholar
Du, Bois J. W. 1974. Syntax in Mid-Sentence. In Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. I. Berkeley, Calif.: Institute of Human Learning and Department of Linguistics, University of California, III–1.Google Scholar
Einarsson, J. 1978. Talad och skriven svenska. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. A. (ed.) 1973. Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. A. 1980. Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen and Hand. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. 1967. Where the Tongue Slips, There Slip I. In To Honor Roman Jakobson, Vol. 2. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 910–936.Google Scholar
James, D. 1972. Some Aspects of the Syntax and Semantics of Interjections. In Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 162–172.Google Scholar
James, D. 1973. Another Look at, Say, Some Grammatical Constraints on, OK, Interjections and Hesitations. In Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 242–251.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1922. Language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 1983. Monitoring and Self Repair in Speech. Cognition 14, 41–104.Google Scholar
Linell, P. 1980. Om yttraudeplaneringens syntax: några hypoteser och forskningsbehov. In Brodda, B. and Källgren, G. (eds.) Lingvistiska perspektiv. Department of Linguistics, University of Stockholm, pp. 71–102.Google Scholar
Linell, P. 1982. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics (Studies in Communication 2). Department of Communication Studies, University of Linköping.Google Scholar
Maclay, H. & Osgood, C. E. 1959. Hesitation Phenomena in Spontaneous English Speech. Word 15, 19–44.Google Scholar
Paul, H. 1886. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Saari, M. 1975. Talsvenska (Studier i nordisk filologi 60). Borgå.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. 1916. Cours de Linguistique Générale. Paris: Payot (Cinquième Edition 1955).Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. 1979. The Relevance of Repair to Syntax-for-Conversation. In Givon, T. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 12, Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Strömqvist, S. 1988. Intraindividual feedback (IFB). In Allwood, J. (ed.) 1988. Van Katwijk A. F. V, van Nes F. L., Bunt H. C., Muller H. F. & Leopold F. F. 1979. Naive Subjects Interacting with a Conversing Information System. IPO Annual Progress Report 14, 105–112.Google Scholar
Vološinov, V. N. 1932. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York: Seminar Press (1973).Google Scholar