Cover not available
Article published In:
(Inter)Cultural Dialogues
Edited by Răzvan Săftoiu
[Language and Dialogue 13:3] 2023
► pp. 427–452

Yes (Rom. Da). Usages and functions in L2 proficiency examinations

A view from Romanian

 | University of Bucharest, Romania | Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti Institute of Linguistics, Romania
The article analyses a Romanian corpus of intercultural dialogues recorded in natural settings during language proficiency examinations and discusses the usages of the frequently occurring word yes (Rom. da). The framework is provided by the Mixed Game Model (Weigand 2009, 2010, 2017, 2018, among others) intersected with the socio-cognitive approach to intercultural communication (Kecskes 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013, among others). Beyond the analysis of a single lexical unit in a limited collection of texts, the author aims to demonstrate how a particular word of the lexicon becomes a culturally-socially-cognitively-discursively-rhetorically situated utterance that acquires specific functions when it is used by interlocutors who negotiate their communicative agendas to come not only to mutual understanding but also to achieve their convergent-divergent institutional purposes.
Keywords: intercultural communication, Mixed Game Model, socio-cognitive approach, competence-in-performance, universal principles of human communication, languaculture
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The framework: The intercultural dialogic action game
  • 3.The features and functions of da (Eng. yes) as part of dialogic action games
    • 3.1The propositional level
    • 3.2The discourse level
    • 3.3The interactional level
    • 3.4The pragmatic level
      • 3.4.1
  • 4. Da/Yes as part of the intercultural mixed game
    • 4.1Characteristics of non-natives’ competence-in-performance examination interactions
      • 4.1.1Hybrid structures
      • 4.1.2Metacommunicative nature
      • 4.1.3Reconfiguration of the maxims of the cooperative principle
      • 4.1.4Face work and power work
      • 4.1.5Form-meaning pairs/matches negotiations
    • 4.2Corpus analysis and data interpretation
      • 4.2.1Da/Yes as a synchronizer
      • 4.2.2Cumulative functions
      • 4.2.3Asymmetric usages: Rapport vs cognitive stance to knowledge
      • 4.2.4Metalinguistic function
      • 4.2.5High frequency
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00160.vas
References (38)
References
Agar, Michael. 1994. Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. “Interjections in a Contrastive Perspective”. In Emotion in Dialogic Interaction, ed. by Edda Weigand, 99–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Airenti, Gabriella, Bruno G. Bara, and Marco Colombetti. 1993. “Conversation and Behavior Games in the Pragmatics of Dialogue.” Cognitive Science 17(2): 197–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avram, Mioara. 1986. Gramatica pentru toți. București: Editura Academiei.Google Scholar
Bara, Bruno. 2011. “Cognitive Pragmatics: The Mental Processes of Communication.” Intercultural Pragmatics 8(3): 443–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard and Charles F. Hockett. 1984. Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burke, Kenneth. 1969. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of CA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonagy, Ivan. 2001. Languages Within Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foss, Sonja. 2008. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, 2nd edition. Long Grove, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
GLR – Guţu-Romalo, Valeria (ed.). 2005/2008. Gramatica limbii române/ Grammar of Romanian. I – II. București: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 31: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane and Weir, Andrew. 2015. “The cartography of yes and no in West Flemish.” Discourse-oriented Syntax 2261: 175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2015. The Syntax of Yes and No. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2007. “Formulaic Language in English Lingua Franca.” Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects, ed. by Istvan Kecskes and Larry Horn, 191–219. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Dueling Contexts: A Dynamic Model of Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 40(3): 385–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “The Paradox of Communication: A Socio-Cognitive Approach.” Pragmatics and Society 1(1): 50–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different?” International Review of Pragmatics 7 (2): 171–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “A Dialogic Approach to Pragamtics”. Russian Journal of Linguistics 20 (4): 26–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “From Pragmatics to Dialogue.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 78–92. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2022. The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazziotta, Nicolas and Sylvain Kahane. 2016. “Le «mot-phrase» dans les conceptions syntaxiques de Lucien Tesnière.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 111(1): 71–107.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1978. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 7–55. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 1988. “A cooperative yes-no query system featuring discourse particles.” Coling Budapest 1988 Volume 2: International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 1988. Available at [URL]. DOI logo
Scollon, Ron, Suzane Wong Scollon. 2001. “Discourse and Intercultural Communication.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Shiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton, 537–547. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1962. “The Architecture of Complexity: Hierarchic Systems.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 1061: 467–482.Google Scholar
Squartini, Mario. 2013. “From TAM to Discourse. The Role of Information Status in North-Western Italian già ‘already’”. In Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description, ed. by Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornilie, and Paola Pietrandrea, 163–190. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1900. A New English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Vasilescu, Andra. 2016. “Towards a “Theory of Everything”.” In Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use in Human Communication, ed. by Keith Allan, Alessandro Capone, and Istvan Kecskes, 305–334. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. “Subspecificare și polifuncționalitate. Studiu de caz: frumos .” In Actele celei de a 21-a Conferințe a Departamentului de Lingvistică, ed. by Isabela Nedelcu, Irina Paraschiv, and Andra Vasilescu, 553–563. București: Editura Universității din București.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 1986. “ Generated or Degenerate?” In Linguistics Across Historical and Geographical Boundaries , ed. by Dieter Kastovsky, A. J. Szwedek, Barbara Płoczińska, and Jacek Fisiak. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2009. Language as Dialogue. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “The Mixed Game Model. A Holistic Theory.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 174–194. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Dialogue: The Key to Pragmatics.” In From Pragmatics to Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand and Istvan Kecskes, 5–27. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpus
Constantinescu, Mihaela-Viorica, Stoica, Gabriela. 2022. Româna ca limbă străină. București: Editura Universității din București.Google Scholar