Didn’t she say to you, “Oh my God! In Pafos?”: Hypothetical quotations in everyday conversation
Abstract
This study examines the linguistic and discursive format as well as the functions of hypothetical quotations in
everyday, informal conversations amongst Greek Cypriot friends. Drawing from a dataset of 270 minutes of naturally-occurring
conversations, this study documents the linguistic format of sixty-one hypothetical quotations and examines why speakers resort to
formulating such quotations to begin with. To do so, Goffman’s (1981) 1981 Forms
of Talk. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell work on footing
and participation framework is employed along with an analysis of these quotations in interaction following the work of Goodwin (2007)Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Interactive
Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in
Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
. This study shows that most instances of hypothetical quotations are
formulated as direct quotations. There can be both self- and other-quotations, and the quotative can take various forms.
Hypothetical quotations serve an array of discursive functions, such as showing the listener’s involvement in an interaction,
creating humour, supporting one’s argument or refuting the argument of the other, in line with other studies in the
literature.
Publication history
1.Introduction
Quotations are an indispensable part of oral communication: “[e]very conversation is full of transmissions and
interpretations of other people’s words” (Bakhtin 1981Bakhtin, Mikhail
M. 1981 The Dialogic Imagination: Four
Essays, ed. by Michael Holquist. Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press., 228). They can give a narration
vividness and dramatization (Archakis and Papazachariou 2008Archakis, Argiris, and Dimitris Papazachariou 2008 “Prosodic
Cues of Identity Construction: Intensity in Greek Young Women’s Conversational
Narratives”. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 12 (5): 627–647.
; Tannen 1986Tannen, Deborah 1986 “Introducing
Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary
Narratives”. In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed.
by Florian Coulmas, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
), make a story more believable (Mayes 1990Mayes, Patricia 1990 “Quotation
in Spoken English”. International Journal Studies in
Language 14 (2): 325–363.
), serve as
evaluative devices (Labov 1972Labov, William 1972 Language
in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English
Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
), evidentials (Holt
2000Holt, Elizabeth 2000 “Reporting
and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech”. Research on Language and Social
Interaction 33 (4): 425–454.
; Myers 1999Myers, Greg 1999 “Functions
of Reported Speech in Group Discussions”. Applied
Linguistics 20 (3): 376–401.
), and a way to provide assessment in advice-giving sequences
(Park 2018Park, Innhwa 2018 “Reported
Thought as (Hypothetical) Assessment”. Journal of
Pragmatics 129: 1–12.
; Sandlund 2014Sandlund, Erica 2014 “Prescribing
Conduct: Enactments of Talk or Thought in Advice-Giving Sequences”. Discourse
Studies 16 (5): 645–66.
). They also create
interpersonal involvement (Tannen 2007 2007 Talking
Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
), give access to people’s mental state (Pascual and Królak 2018Pascual, Esther, and Emilia Królak 2018 “The
‘Listen to Characters Thinking’ Novel: Fictive Interaction as Narrative Strategy in English Literary Bestsellers and their
Spanish and Polish Translations”. Review of Cognitive
Linguistics 16 (2): 399–430.
), are a way to co-construct stories (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting
the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160.
), and act as an argumentative device (Golato 2012Golato, Andrea 2012 “Impersonal
Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives:
Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid
van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
; Weiss 2020Weiss, Daniel 2020 “Analogical
Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 155: 101–110.
).
In many cases when one reports what someone else said in a past communicative event, it is presented as a
verbatim representation of what was said. However, it has been repeatedly shown that it is rarely actually verbatim. First, people
remember the meaning of what was said and not its linguistic realization (Lehner 1989Lehner, Adrienne 1989 “Remembering
and Representing Prose: Quoted Speech as a Data Source”. Discourse
Processes 12: 105–125. ,
121). Further, when recounting past events, the present – along with intentions, feelings and knowledge of events that might not have
happened at the time of the original conversation – shapes the current context (Holt 2000Holt, Elizabeth 2000 “Reporting
and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech”. Research on Language and Social
Interaction 33 (4): 425–454.
;
Tannen 2007 2007 Talking
Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
). In Pujolar’s (2001Pujolar, Joan 2001 Gender,
Heteroglossia and Power: A Sociolinguistic Study of Youth Culture. Berlin, New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
, 179)
words: “when reporting past events, people manipulate them to fit the particular expressive intention of the
present speech situation. In some cases, this adaptation can go quite far without raising issues of sincerity”.
Thus, quotations are seldom sensu stricto faithful to the original quote (Clift
2007Clift, Rebecca 2007 “Getting
There First: Non-narrative Reported Speech in
Interaction”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in
Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 120–149. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
; Haberland 1986Haberland, Hartmut 1986 “Reported
Speech in Danish”. In Direct and Indirect
Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 219–253. Berlin,
New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
; Holt 2000Holt, Elizabeth 2000 “Reporting
and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech”. Research on Language and Social
Interaction 33 (4): 425–454.
;
Tannen 1986Tannen, Deborah 1986 “Introducing
Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary
Narratives”. In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed.
by Florian Coulmas, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
, 2007 2007 Talking
Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
). Studies from the field
of codeswitching support this claim: speakers can go as far as to change the language of the original conversation
(Fotiou 2015Fotiou, Constantina 2015 “An
Empirical Study of English in Cypriot Greek Conversations and Print Media”. PhD
diss. University of Essex
; Pujolar 2001Pujolar, Joan 2001 Gender,
Heteroglossia and Power: A Sociolinguistic Study of Youth Culture. Berlin, New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
). Finally,
despite the fact that traditionally the act of quoting has been defined as one in which
[a] quoter […] takes up another person’s (or their own) source text (T1) and shifts it from its original, prior context (C1) to the present context (C2) as a target text (T2), and in doing so […] draws the recipient’s attention to T2, thus disrupting ongoing discourse,(Bublitz 2015Bublitz, Wolfram 2015 “Introducing Quoting as a Ubiquitous Meta-communicative Act”. In The Pragmatics of Quoting Now and Then, ed. by Jenny Arendholz, Wolfram Bublitz, and Monika Kirner, 1–26. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
, 4)
there are cases in which the T1 does not exist. This is when a speaker constructs speech that was not uttered in the C1 but
should have been, or when one ‘reports’ their interlocutor’s inner thoughts on a prior event (C1); in other words, what they assume
their thoughts must have been on a particular occasion (see Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting
the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. , Example [5]). There are also cases where neither the T1 nor the C1 exist. This is when a speaker explains
what they will or should say in a future situation, for example. Because of human memory limitations, the change of context, and cases
where the T1 and C1 do not exist, Tannen (2007) 2007 Talking
Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
suggests that all quotations in
conversation are in reality ‘constructed dialogue’.
This study focuses on one extreme formulation of constructed dialogue: that which is purely the creation of the current
speaker, i.e., the quoter.11.Following Fetzer (2020Fetzer, Anita 2020 “ ‘And
I Quote’: Forms and Functions of Quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions”. Journal of
Pragmatics 157: 89–100. , 90), “quoter refers to the
participant who undertakes the communicative act of quoting, quoted refers to the discursive contribution(s), or
to excerpts of a discursive contribution, which the quoter quotes, source refers to the original producer of the
quoted excerpt, and quotative refers to the verb of communication which has scope over the quoted excerpt.
Quotation is used as an umbrella term comprising the constitutive parts of the communicative act: quoter,
source, quoted and quotative”. In such cases the T1 and sometimes even the C1 do not exist, and such
formulations metarepresent “a hypothetical communicative act or even a whole dialogic exchange” (Fetzer and Weiss 2020Fetzer, Anita, and Daniel Weiss 2020 “Doing
Things with Quotes: Introduction”. Journal of
Pragmatics 157: 84–88.
, 86). For example, they manifest when speakers explain what they will say or tell their interlocutor
what they should say in a future situation or should have said on a specific past situation. Other examples include enacting
characters to suggest what someone might say on a specific occasion (Holt 2007 2007 “ ‘I’m
Eyeing Your Chop Up Mind’: Reporting and Enacting”. In Reporting
Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 47–80. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
) as well as
what a non-human entity says, said or will say (Mayes 1990Mayes, Patricia 1990 “Quotation
in Spoken English”. International Journal Studies in
Language 14 (2): 325–363.
). There are also cases of
ventriloquizing, i.e., when a “speaker animates another’s voice in the presence of that other” (Tannen 2007 2007 Talking
Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
, 22). Hence, these hypothetical quotations are a subset of what Tannen calls ‘constructed dialogue’ and differ
from other cases of constructed dialogue in that the T1 and sometimes the C1 do not exist in the first place.
While any quotation that refers to a future communicative act or a hypothetical past one is hypothetical by definition, when
it comes to real past communicative acts, there are cases of clearly constructed dialogue (i.e., where there is evidence that what is
reported was not originally uttered in the same way) that are not considered to be hypothetical quotations here. Examples are cases of
codeswitching where it is clear that the original language of the quoted is changed or cases of summarizing dialogue which represents
the gist of what was said (Tannen 2007 2007 Talking
Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. , 115). These are not hypothetical quotations because
they are not entirely novel. With hypothetical quotations, no-one has actually said what they are reported to have said to
begin with. The participants of exchanges involving such quotations are made aware of that usually because the quotative
is realized in irrealis mood or because the quoter produces a quotation that supposedly was produced when their interlocutor was
present but the quoter was not.
Some instances of inner speech (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting
the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. ) – also referred to as ‘reported
thought’ (Acuña 2020Acuña, Virginia 2020 “Staging
Mental Discursive Processes and Reactions: The Construction of Direct Reported Thought (DRT) in Conversational
Storytelling”. Language in
Society 50 (2): 235–57.
; Haakana 2007Haakana, Markku 2007 “Reported
Thought in Complaint Stories”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in
Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 150–78. Studies
in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
) – defined as
“the presentation of words or dialogues in ordinary conversation that were never spoken aloud before they were quoted, but which are
either explicitly introduced or can be contextually deduced as reporting past thoughts or constructing future/hypothetical locutions”
(Haakana 2007Haakana, Markku 2007 “Reported
Thought in Complaint Stories”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in
Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 150–78. Studies
in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
; Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting
the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160.
, cited in Acuña 2020Acuña, Virginia 2020 “Staging
Mental Discursive Processes and Reactions: The Construction of Direct Reported Thought (DRT) in Conversational
Storytelling”. Language in
Society 50 (2): 235–57.
, 235), are also included in our definition of hypothetical quotations. These are
cases when one reports past thoughts that one assumes someone else had on a previous occasion and when one reports
one’s own and other people’s hypothetical future thoughts (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting
the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160.
). However, when one
reports their own thoughts on a real past communicative event, these are not considered to be hypothetical quotations because they are
not entirely novel. They are instances of the broader category of constructed dialogue (Tannen
2007 2007 Talking
Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
, 112). To paraphrase what was noted earlier about speech, with hypothetical reported thought no-one has
actually thought what they are reported to have thought to begin with in order for a quotation to be considered
hypothetical.
This study examines hypothetical quotations in Cypriot Greek discourse. Such cases of constructed dialogue have been
labelled in various ways: hypothetical active voicing (Simmons and LeCouteur 2011Simmons, Katie, and Amanda LeCouteur 2011 “ ‘Hypothetical
Active-voicing’: Therapists ‘Modelling’ of Clients’ Future Conversations in CBT
Interactions”. Journal of
Pragmatics 43: 3177–3192. ),
impossible quotes (Mayes 1990Mayes, Patricia 1990 “Quotation
in Spoken English”. International Journal Studies in
Language 14 (2): 325–363.
), hypothetical enactments (Holt 2007 2007 “ ‘I’m
Eyeing Your Chop Up Mind’: Reporting and Enacting”. In Reporting
Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 47–80. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
), hypothetical discourse (Golato 2012Golato, Andrea 2012 “Impersonal
Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives:
Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid
van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
), hypothetical
reported speech (Koester and Handford 2018Koester, Almut, and Michael Handford 2018 “It’s
Not Good Saying: ‘Well It Might Do That or It Might Not’: Hypothetical Reported Speech in Business
Meetings”. Journal of
Pragmatics 130: 67–80.
), future and hypothetical dialogues (Acuña 2021 2021 “The
Construction of Future and Hypothetical Dialogues in Third-party Complaints as Enactments of a Subsequent Direct
Complaint”. Journal of
Pragmatics 181: 68–79.
), and quoting the unspoken or ‘fake’ quotations (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting
the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160.
). They have been examined in a range of contexts such as therapy sessions (Simmons and LeCouteur 2011Simmons, Katie, and Amanda LeCouteur 2011 “ ‘Hypothetical
Active-voicing’: Therapists ‘Modelling’ of Clients’ Future Conversations in CBT
Interactions”. Journal of
Pragmatics 43: 3177–3192.
), novels (Pascual and Królak 2018Pascual, Esther, and Emilia Królak 2018 “The
‘Listen to Characters Thinking’ Novel: Fictive Interaction as Narrative Strategy in English Literary Bestsellers and their
Spanish and Polish Translations”. Review of Cognitive
Linguistics 16 (2): 399–430.
),
legal contexts (Pascual 2014Pascual, Esther 2014 Fictive
Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language and Discourse. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
), workplace interactions (Koester and Handford 2018Koester, Almut, and Michael Handford 2018 “It’s
Not Good Saying: ‘Well It Might Do That or It Might Not’: Hypothetical Reported Speech in Business
Meetings”. Journal of
Pragmatics 130: 67–80.
), political discourse (Fetzer 2020Fetzer, Anita 2020 “ ‘And
I Quote’: Forms and Functions of Quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions”. Journal of
Pragmatics 157: 89–100.
; Weiss 2020Weiss, Daniel 2020 “Analogical
Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 155: 101–110.
), religious texts (Sandler and Pascual
2019Sandler, Sergeiy, and Esther Pacual 2019 “In
the Beginning There Was
Conversation”. Pragmatics 29 (2): 250–276.
), everyday conversations (Acuña 2021 2021 “The
Construction of Future and Hypothetical Dialogues in Third-party Complaints as Enactments of a Subsequent Direct
Complaint”. Journal of
Pragmatics 181: 68–79.
; Golato 2012Golato, Andrea 2012 “Impersonal
Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives:
Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid
van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
; Goodwin 1990aGoodwin, Marjorie
H. 1990a He-said-she-said: Talk as Social
Organization among Black Children. Indiana University
Press.
, 1990b 1990b “Retellings, Pretellings and
Hypothetical Stories”. Research on Language and Social
Interaction 24 (1–4): 263–276.
;
Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting
the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160.
), and classroom interactions (Golato
2012Golato, Andrea 2012 “Impersonal
Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives:
Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid
van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
).
In this paper, we study these constructions and illustrate their linguistic and discursive format and functions in informal conversations. Uncovering their format and discursive functions serves to answer an intriguing question: why do speakers formulate hypothetical quotations to begin with? It is shown that similarly to what has been found in other languages, hypothetical quotations in Cypriot Greek are in their majority formulated as direct quotations and they take two discursive forms: one concerning a real past situation and another a hypothetical future situation. They are used because they serve a range of discursive functions similar to those found in other languages. Perhaps with the vividness and dramatization achieved with the use of quotations, they are an effective way to achieve various interactional goals.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reports on the materials used and methods adopted, Section 3 analyses selected extracts, and Section 4 provides a discussion and a conclusion.
2.Materials and methods
The data of this paper come from recordings of 270 minutes of naturally-occurring conversations between friends and family members. The audio recordings took place in Nicosia, Cyprus between 2008 and 2018. Four men and six women aged between seventeen and thirty-three participated in five dyadic co-present interactions. The participants were not given instructions as to the topic or place of the conversations and the author was not present in their interactions. The participants recorded themselves. The conversations took place at their homes or at cafes. Informed written consent was required for all recordings.
The language of interaction is Cypriot Greek with some occasional switching into English. The Greek Cypriot community is a
diglossic setting (Fotiou and Ayiomamitou 2021Fotiou, Constantina, and Ioli Ayiomamitou 2021 ““We
Are in Cyprus, We Have to Use Our Language, Don’t We?” Pupils’ and Their Parents’ Attitudes towards Two Proximal Linguistic
Varieties”. Linguistics and
Education 63: 100931. ): Cypriot Greek is the L variety, while the
H variety is Standard Modern Greek. The latter is acquired at school, and it is one of the two official languages of Cyprus along with
Standard Turkish. English does not enjoy an official status in Cyprus, but it is the most popular and important foreign language on
the island not only because Cyprus used to be a British colony but also because it is a tourist destination, and its economy mainly
relies on the services sector (Fotiou 2015Fotiou, Constantina 2015 “An
Empirical Study of English in Cypriot Greek Conversations and Print Media”. PhD
diss. University of Essex
, 2022 2022 “English
in Cyprus: The Now and Then of English in a Former British Colony”. English
Today: 1–7.
). In many cases, Greek Cypriots use English in their everyday interactions either exclusively when talking to foreigners
or in the form of insertional codeswitching when they are conversing with one another.22.For more information on this community see Fotiou (2017a 2017a “English–Greek
Code-switching in Greek Cypriot Magazines and Newspapers – An Analysis of Its Textual Forms and
Functions”. Journal of World
Languages 4 (1): 1–27.
, 2017b 2017b “English
Discourse Markers in Cypriot Greek”. In Researchers in Progress II.
Languages in Contact: Languages with History. Proceedings of the 2nd UCY-LC International Forum of Young
Researchers, ed. by Pedro J.
Molina Muñoz, 103–116. Nicosia: Language
Centre – University of Cyprus.
, 2018 2018 “A
Linguistic Analysis of Cypriot Greek–English Compound
Verbs.” Lingua 215: 1–26.
, 2019 2019 “Debunking
a Myth: The Greek Language in Cyprus Is Not Being Destroyed. A Linguistic Analysis of Cypriot Greek–English
Codeswitching”. International Journal of
Bilingualism 23 (6): 1358–84.
, 2020 2020 ““Θέλεις huge sample για να φκάλεις valid statistical results [You want a huge sample to generate valid statistical results]”: A Conversational Analysis of
Cypriot Greek – English Codeswitching”. In Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference on Greek Linguistics, ed. by Maria Chondrogianni, Simon Courtenage, Geoffrey Horrocks, Amalia Arvaniti, and Ianthi Tsimpli. London: Westminster
Computation and Linguistics
Group, pp. 93–105.
, 2022 2022 “English
in Cyprus: The Now and Then of English in a Former British Colony”. English
Today: 1–7.
)
and Fotiou and Grohmann (2022)Fotiou, Constantina, and Kleanthes
K. Grohmann 2022 “A
Small Island with Big Differences? Folk Perceptions in the Context of Dialect Levelling and
Koineization”. Frontiers in Communication 6.
.
A total sixty-one instances of hypothetical quotations are analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. A quantitative
analysis is conducted in relation to the formatting of quotations. To uncover the discursive functions of such quotations, we use
Goffman’s (1981) 1981 Forms
of Talk. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell work on footing and participation framework and study these quotations
in interaction. As Goffman (1981 1981 Forms
of Talk. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell
, 151) argues, when we shift from what we are saying to
what someone else (or even our former or future self) said (or will say or should have said) we change our footing. In his
participation framework, Goffman (1981) 1981 Forms
of Talk. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell
deconstructs the notion of speaker and argues for
the existence of different roles: animator, author, and principal. The animator is the “talking machine” (Goffman 1981 1981 Forms
of Talk. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell
, 144), the author is “someone who has selected the sentiments that are being expressed and the
words in which they are encoded” (ibid.), and the principal is “someone whose position is established by the words that are spoken”
(ibid.).
According to Fetzer and Weiss (2020Fetzer, Anita, and Daniel Weiss 2020 “Doing
Things with Quotes: Introduction”. Journal of
Pragmatics 157: 84–88. , 86–87), when it comes to direct quotations
the quoter assumes the footing of the animator and some form of a mediated principal of the quoted–they are a
mediated principal because there is context importation–while the source is author and principal. When it comes
to indirect quotation the quoter is animator as well as the mediated author and principal whilst the source is author and principal.
This position is adopted here with some alternations: (a) the notion of embedding (Goffman 1981 1981 Forms
of Talk. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell
), (b) the distinction between real and fictitious, and (c) the idea that the quoter is usually
also a mediated author when it comes to direct quotations are taken on board.
When a speaker uses a direct quotation to portray the words of another (i.e., the source), they are the animator of the
quoted and a mediated principal as argued above, but also a mediated author in many cases. The latter addition accounts for the idea
that due to the limitations of human memory, quoters do not always report the exact words of the source in a given conversation. While
the quoter is a mediated author when it comes to direct quotations, they are not acknowledged as such since there is usually the
assumption that we witness verbatim representation of the quoted. In fact, one of the reasons why quoters are not explicitly shown to
be mediated authors when it comes to direct quotations is because the latter can be used by quoters to deflect responsibility of the
quoted. As Goffman (1974Goffman, Erving 1974 Frame
Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of
Experience. Lebanon: University Press of New
England., 512) argues, “[w]hen a speaker employs conventional brackets to
warn us that what he is saying is meant to be taken in jest, or as a mere repeating of words said by someone else, then it is clear
that he means to stand in a relation of reduced personal responsibility for what he is saying”.
In relation to the source, Goffman (1981 1981 Forms
of Talk. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 149) argues that when we tell of
something that someone else said, or even our former self, “[w]e can embed an entirely different speaker into our utterance”. That is
why in direct quotations, the source is considered here to be an embedded author and principal. The characterization
“real” is also added. The source is the one who first produced (albeit in another context) what they are reported to have said. They
are the real author and the original principal since it is their position that is being established by what they are
reported to have said. Indirect and mixed quotations differ in that the quoter is always a mediated author and one that is
acknowledged to be as such, since it is evident that the quoted has undergone alterations. Matters become more complicated when we
bring hypothetical quotations into the picture. With hypothetical quotations, the animator and the real author of
what is being reported is always the same person (i.e., the quoter) while the source can be an actual, real entity or a fictitious
one, human or non-human, but definitely not the real author of the quoted. The source, in other words, is an embedded, fictitious
author and principal. Table 1 shows how Goffman’s participation framework is adopted in this
paper.
Direct Quotations | Quoter: animator, mediated principal, and in many cases a mediated author – even though not acknowledged as such |
Source: embedded real author and embedded original principal | |
Indirect Quotations | Quoter: animator, mediated principal, and mediated author – acknowledged as such |
Source: embedded real author and embedded original principal | |
Hypothetical Direct and Indirect Quotations | Quoter: animator, mediated principal, and real author – acknowledged as such |
Source: embedded fictitious author and principal |
When one examines quotations, the deconstruction of the speaker as conducted by Goffman and adapted here can be an important
analytical tool. However, it can also be problematic (Holt 2007 2007 “ ‘I’m
Eyeing Your Chop Up Mind’: Reporting and Enacting”. In Reporting
Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 47–80. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press., 48–49) since this approach
may require the creation of new categories in order to examine quotations in interaction (Irvine
1996Irvine, Judith
Temkin 1996 “Shadow Conversations: The
Indeterminacy of Participant Roles”. In Natural Histories of
Discourse, ed. by Michael Silverstein, and Greg Urban, 131–159. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
, 133, cited in Holt 2007 2007 “ ‘I’m
Eyeing Your Chop Up Mind’: Reporting and Enacting”. In Reporting
Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 47–80. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
, 49). Hence, Goodwin’s (2007)Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Interactive
Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in
Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
work is also important, since he places an emphasis on footing not as a construction of typologies of
different kinds of participants – as Goffman (1981) 1981 Forms
of Talk. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell
does – but by focusing on its
interactive nature. Goodwin (2007Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Interactive
Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in
Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
, 12) claims that:
participation can be analysed as a temporarily unfolding process through which separate parties demonstrate to each other their ongoing understanding of the events they are engaged in by building actions that contribute to the further progression of these same events.
In other words, there is an emphasis on the sequential organization of talk (Goodwin
2007Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Interactive
Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in
Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press., 12–13). One does not only focus on what the speaker does but also on the actions the hearer performs. Goodwin (2007)Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Interactive
Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in
Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
places an emphasis on mutual reflexivity and argues that to
construct discourse the speaker alone is not enough. Rather, discourse is constructed “through the coordinated actions of different
kinds of participants” (Goodwin 2007Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Interactive
Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in
Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
, 16). Viewed in this way, “the speaker is no longer
positioned as the locus of all semiotic activity and the cognitive life of the hearer, including his or her analysis of the details of
emerging language structure, is recovered” (Goodwin 2007Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Interactive
Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in
Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
, 38). Only if we study discourse
in interaction can we uncover its functions (also Holt 2007 2007 “ ‘I’m
Eyeing Your Chop Up Mind’: Reporting and Enacting”. In Reporting
Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 47–80. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
).
3.Hypothetical quotations in informal Greek Cypriot interactions
3.1The linguistic format of hypothetical quotations
Hypothetical quotations in these data take two different formats: direct and indirect quotations. Direct quotation is
considered as “a verbatim representation of what has been said” (Fetzer and Weiss 2020Fetzer, Anita, and Daniel Weiss 2020 “Doing
Things with Quotes: Introduction”. Journal of
Pragmatics 157: 84–88. ,
86) while indirect quotation “represents what has been said before from the quoter’s perspective […something that is] reflected in
deictic and temporal shifts” (ibid.). The first example below is an instance of direct quotation while the second one is an
instance of indirect quotation.
enas alːos enːa mboruse na mu pi (0.2) “ ela lefkosia na fkume ”
Someone else could have said, “Come to Nicosia and we’ll go out”.
epiði iθela na tis po oti prepi na to ðocimasi (0.1) alːa nomizːo eθːa to travuse
Because I wanted to tell her that she has to try it, but I don’t think she could handle it.
Direct quotations are the most frequent ones (Table 2), and this is perhaps
not unexpected (see Myers 1999Myers, Greg 1999 “Functions
of Reported Speech in Group Discussions”. Applied
Linguistics 20 (3): 376–401. ; Tannen 1986Tannen, Deborah 1986 “Introducing
Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary
Narratives”. In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed.
by Florian Coulmas, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
;
Weiss 2020Weiss, Daniel 2020 “Analogical
Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 155: 101–110.
).
In order to study the linguistic format of hypothetical quotations, we also examine the quotative used and whether we are dealing with self- or other-quotation (Tables 3 and 4).
Type | Direct | Indirect |
---|---|---|
Tokens | 55 | 6 |
Percentage | 90% | 10% |
Type | Self | Other |
---|---|---|
Tokens | 32 | 29 |
Percentage | 53% | 47% |
Type | lalo (say/tell) | ime kapos (be like) | No quotative | Others |
---|---|---|---|---|
Tokens | 32 | 8 | 13 | 8 |
Percentage | 52.5% | 13% | 21.5% | 13% |
Regarding the source of the quotations, self- and other-quotations are equally frequent. Participants construct
hypothetical discourse about themselves and on behalf of others. The most common quotative is lalo (say/tell).
The choice of using no quotative comes second, followed by other quotatives such as “think” and “ask” and the “be like”
construction. Because the dataset is small and the percentages are easily influenced by outliers, future studies should examine
what the default quotative is in Cypriot Greek interactions and whether the “be like” construction is gaining ground (see Buchstaller and D’Arcy 2009Buchstaller, Isabelle, and Alexandra D’Arcy 2009 “Localized
Globalization: A Multi-local, Multivariate Investigation of Quotative Be Like”. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 13 (3): 291–331. ). In an older study on constructed dialogue in conversations
in Greece, Tannen (1986Tannen, Deborah 1986 “Introducing
Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary
Narratives”. In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed.
by Florian Coulmas, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
, 321) noted that the “be like” construction has no counterpart
in (Standard Modern) Greek. This study shows that in Cypriot Greek conversations this is no longer the case.
3.2The discursive forms and functions of hypothetical quotations
In this section the discursive forms and functions of hypothetical quotations in this dataset are examined. We start with quotations that function as an argumentative device (Section 3.2.1), followed by those used to make an assessment and/or show involvement in the conversation (Section 3.2.2) and those used to enact stereotypical characters (Section 3.2.3). Some of these functions overlap while all instances of hypothetical quotations exhibit vividness and dramatization. This relates to the fact that the majority of hypothetical quotations in this dataset are direct quotations.
3.2.1Acting as an argumentative device
The first extract illustrates the use of hypothetical quotations in relation to a past situation. Timotheos and Panos discuss a rejection letter Panos received for a job he applied for. Panos had to go do a series of tasks for this job application, one of which was an audition. Both participants of the conversation are professional musicians.
1 | Timotheos: | ipan su ʝati? |
Did they tell you why? | ||
2 | Panos: | oi ʧ estila enan imeil tu kaθiʝiti (1) ʧeː perimeno na mu apandisi |
No, and I sent an email to the professor (1) and I’m waiting for his response | ||
3 | Timotheos: | perimene estilan su ti? arnitici apandisiː= |
Wait a minute, what did they send you? A negative response | ||
4 | Panos: | =estilan mu ɣramːa re olokliro ɣramːa e spiti (1.5) estilan mu piso ta xartça pu |
5 | tus estila vasika (.) ʧe to viteo ʧe ulːa (.) ʧe aritici aftin oti (1.5) en itan epitiçis | |
6 | i eksetasi (2) enevriasa ðioti (.) katarçin = | |
They sent a letter mate, an entire letter sent to my place (1.5) they sent back the | ||
papers and the video, everything, and a negative (response) that (1.5) the | ||
examination was unsuccessful (2) I got upset because, to begin with |
7 | Timotheos: | =ipan pcon epcasan? i [ti orɣano]? |
Did they say who they hired? Or [what instrument (do they play)]? | ||
8 | Panos: | [oi] mbori na men epcasan kanena |
[No] They might not have hired anyone | ||
9 | Timotheos: | nːe |
Yes | ||
10 | Panos: | mbori na men epcasan kanena ʧe tuton pistefko ??? |
They might not have hired anyone and this is what I believe ??? | ||
11 | Timotheos: | eθːa maθume ðilaði |
In other words, we will never know | ||
12 | Panos: | oi (.) mboro na rotiso mɲa fili mu ??? |
No, (but) I can ask a friend ??? | ||
13 | Timotheos: | → θa eprepe na lalun “kseris epcasame vʝoli i epcasameːn”= |
→ They should say “You know we hired a violinist, or we hired” | ||
14 | Panos: | =eprepe na lalun apla lalun en itan epitiçis |
They should have, (instead) they simply say it was unsuccessful | ||
15 | Timotheos: | fisika na su po ʝati en lalun ðioti an ta teleftea ðeka xroɲːa epcasan vʝoli (.) meta |
16 | → enːa rtis esi na paraponeθis ʧe na pis “nda pcanete mono vʝoli?” | |
I think they don’t say anything because if for the last ten years they have hired violinists, → then you’ll complain and say, “Ok so do you only hire violinists?” | ||
17 | Panos: | siura |
Sure | ||
18 | Timotheos: | eno mbori na θelun mono vʝoʎːa |
While they may indeed only want violinists | ||
19 | Panos: | siura |
Sure |
Panos is upset because the letter stated that his audition was unsuccessful without any justification as to why this was so. Timotheos shares his friend’s frustration and shows this by using a hypothetical quotation (line 13) to construct what the people who rejected him should have said in their letter, implying some kind of moral obligation on their part. In this way, he aligns with his friend’s position and agrees that he should have been provided with more information in the rejection letter. Panos acknowledges the hypothetical quotation and agrees with its content. He shows this by repeating the quotative ‘they should have said’ (line 14) only to contrast it with what really happened: ‘(instead) they simply say it was unsuccessful’.
Yet, in lines 15–16, Timotheos provides a plausible account for why Panos did not receive further information regarding the position: these people only hire violinists and do not disclose this information in their job advertisements so as to avoid complaints. If that is the case, Timotheos believes that Panos – who is not a violinist but had to go through an audition – would find it unjust. In order to show this, he uses another hypothetical quotation to construct his friend’s reaction to such a scenario. The quotation functions as an effective argumentative device since Panos aligns with Timotheos’ position something that is shown by the fact that he repeats the word ‘sure’ twice (lines 17, 19).
The two hypothetical quotations in this extract are used so that the quoter aligns with the position of his
interlocutor (line 13) and as an argumentative device to illustrate why the hiring committee may have acted the way they did.
This type of action has been described as “claim backing” (Antaki and Leudar 1990Antaki, Charles, and Ivan Leudar 1990 “Claim-backing
and Other Explanatory Genres in Talk”. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology 9: 279–292. ).
As Koester and Handford (2018Koester, Almut, and Michael Handford 2018 “It’s
Not Good Saying: ‘Well It Might Do That or It Might Not’: Hypothetical Reported Speech in Business
Meetings”. Journal of
Pragmatics 130: 67–80.
, 70) argue, the use of direct quotations is “capable
of performing two apparently opposing functions of involving […] on the one hand, and distancing/detachment […] on the other”.
Involving refers to adopting the addressee’s viewpoint (Koester and Handford 2018Koester, Almut, and Michael Handford 2018 “It’s
Not Good Saying: ‘Well It Might Do That or It Might Not’: Hypothetical Reported Speech in Business
Meetings”. Journal of
Pragmatics 130: 67–80.
,
77) while distancing/detachment relates to showing the other point of view or critizing one’s interlocutor in an indirect,
non-offensive way. The use of a hypothetical quotation ensures that while both parties know that the real author of the
quotation is the speaker, there is also an embedded fictitious author and principal in the conversation, and this makes it
easier to construct an argument and show another point of view without causing offence or damaging interpersonal
relationships. As one reviewer remarked, it is also possible that the use of a hypothetical quotation to deliver and/or
illustrate an opposing argument may also be a face-saving mechanism (Haugh and Bargiela-Chiappini 2009) since disagreement
with one’s interlocutor is a potentially face-threatening act.
Further evidence of how hypothetical quotations can function as an argumentative device comes from Example (4). This extract shows how an exchange of a series of arguments eventually ends when a dramatic portrayal of a hypothetical future scenario and a hypothetical quotation are constructed. This time the quotation concerns a future hypothetical situation.
1 | Ioanna: | nːe ts en θaːː kami seks? |
Yes, ts won’t he have sex? | ||
2 | (.) | |
3 | Christos: | oi en θa kami pothːe seks= |
No he’ll never have sex= | ||
4 | Ioanna: | = ʝati?= |
=why?= | ||
5 | Christos: | = ʝati eɣo en to θeoro sosto na ʝenːiθun kapca mora (.) [ʧe= |
=because I don’t think it’s right for puppies to be born (.) [and= | ||
6 | Ioanna: | [ʝati??? |
[why??? | ||
7 | Christos: | =NA PREPI NA TA ðOSO ʧE NA MEN EVRO ute stus ðromus θa petaxtun= |
=TO HAVE TO GIVE THEM AWAY AND NOT BE ABLE TO FIND (a | ||
place for them) they’ll be thrown in the streets= | ||
9 | Ioanna: | =e na pcaso eɣo ena |
=eh I’ll take one | ||
10 | (.) | |
11 | Christos: | en ʝinete me pco na kami seks? |
No way, whom will he have sex with? | ||
12 | (1.9) | |
13 | Ioanna: | par ton kapu ʧe na kami seks |
Take him somewhere and he’ll have sex | ||
14 | (1) | |
15 | Christos: | eʃi scilitses etsi opos θelo eɣo alːa ta mora en mboro na ksero oti enːa ta |
16 | ðoso s ena spiti pu en θa to ɲːoθun teʎːa enoo (.) kalithːera epiði o scilos tin | |
17 | ora pu kamni seks endʒen kati apla en i stiɣmi en one night stand that’s it en | |
18 | [ʧe tuto esizːitisamen= | |
there are female dogs the way I want them but the babies; I can’t live with the | ||
fact that I’ll give them to a home that they won’t feel completely [as their own] | ||
I mean (.) It’s better (this way) because it’s not a big deal for a dog to have sex | ||
it is just a one night stand that’s it, it’s not [and we talked about this= | ||
19 | Ioanna: | [ndaksi kala e enːa me |
[Ok fine he will not | ||
20 | Christos: | =to me ti monika |
=with Monica | ||
21 | Ioanna: | enːa men eʃi tundin embiria stin zːoi tu as pume esi enːa tu to sterisis? |
Won’t he have that life experience, let’s say, will you take that away from | ||
him? | ||
22 | (0.7) | |
23 | Christos: | eːːː (0.7) para na ʝeniθi mɲa zːoi pu enːa vasanizmeni ʧe pu enːa peθani s |
24 | ena xorafi as pume ʧe pu enːa to kakometaçirizonde ʝati ti na genːiθun efta | |
25 | mora pi çi etsi? → enːa me kapos (.) “ tora ti?(.) apla ti? (0.4) na to ðoso ” | |
26 | enːoo en mboro na ðoso moraːː | |
eh (0.7) instead of having a life (being brought to this world) that will be a | ||
tortured life and (having a dog) die in a field, let’s say a dog that people will | ||
abuse, why would seven puppies be born for example in such conditions? | ||
→ I’ll be like (.) “ now what? (.) what? (0.4) will I give it away” I mean I | ||
can’t give puppies away | ||
27 | (1.1) | |
28 | Ioanna: | aresci mu polːa pu sikonːi toːː= |
I really like the fact that he lifts the= | ||
29 | Christos: | AN ITAN KAΘAROEMA enːa tan efkolo na ta ðosis enːoo na xa ena scilːo= |
=IF THEY WERE PUREBREAD it would have been easy to give them | ||
away I mean had I had a dog= | ||
30 | Ioanna: | =en polːa oreos [ʃilːos tutos ime siuri oti enːa ??? |
=this is a very beautiful [dog I am sure that it will??? | ||
31 | Christos: | [oi en kuklos enen polːa oreos .hh nːe ksero to en ðiafono (0.7) |
32 | nːe ksero to alːa en (1.2) perimene pu mbeno siɣma thːivi? oi enːe? | |
[No he is gorgeous he is not just very beautiful .hh yes I know I don’t disagree (0.7) | ||
yes I know but it’s (1.2) wait how can a change | ||
the channel to Sigma TV? Not like this, right? |
Ioanna tries to persuade her friend Christos to let his dog mate. Christos is adamant that his dog should not mate because he does not want more dogs to come to this life and suffer. Up to line 21 Ioanna is able to respond to his counterarguments. This changes when in lines 24–25 Christos constructs a scenario in which a puppy is born into a miserable life and eventually dies in a field. To make matters worse, he subsequently provides a dramatic, perhaps even hyperbolic, hypothetical future scenario according to which this is the fate of not one but seven puppies (lines 25–26).
To dramatize this extreme imaginary scenario, Christos constructs the response of his future self to such a scenario in the form of a hypothetical quotation (line 25). Ioanna is unable to respond to that, shown by the long pause in line 27 and the change of subject in line 28. In other words, when everything else failed, it was the hypothetical quotation–along with dramatic, hypothetical scenario–that contributed to Christos winning the argument. Ioanna could neither respond to such a scenario nor provide a counterargument. The quotation illustrated in a vivid and dramatic way the consequences of letting a dog mate and was an effective way to win the argument.
Another function of hypothetical quotations is to create a humorous effect as part of what Winchatz and Kozin (2008)Winchatz, Michaela
R., and Alexander Kozin 2008 “Comical
Hypothetical: Arguing for a Conversational Phenomenon”. Discourse
Studies 10 (3): 383–405. call comical hypothetical and Golato (2012)Golato, Andrea 2012 “Impersonal
Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives:
Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid
van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
calls fictitious humorous stories. In such cases, speakers “invent
imaginary situations that they take to the absurd” (Golato 2012Golato, Andrea 2012 “Impersonal
Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives:
Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid
van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
, 25). What
initiates the joke is usually an assessment, such as the one in line 1 below. One of the functions of using absurd
demonstrations to present one’s opinion or argument is that one gets to express it without being challenged by anyone. Because
it is absurd, it cannot be taken seriously; “it invites laughter, not challenge” (Antaki
2003Antaki, Charles 2003 “The
Uses of Absurdity”. In Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary
Perspectives on the Research Interview, ed. by Harry van
den Berg, Margaret Wetherell, and Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, 85–102. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
, 93). In the following exchange two friends, Ioanna and Christos, discuss the latter’s love life. Both agree
that Christos has not yet found the right partner yet.
1 | Ioanna: | prepi na vris kati iðietero |
You have to find something special | ||
2 | Christos: | akrivos → en mboro na tis [lalo “kseris as pume varkume na se |
Exactly → I can’t be saying to her: “You know I’m bored to | ||
3 | Ioanna: | [kati ??? |
[something??? | ||
4 | Christos: | ðo tora ” ʧe na to ðeçete → “ ma eɣo varkume na se ðo tora endʒ enːa su po |
5 | psemata ” (.) {ti as pume ???} | |
see you now” and expect her to accept this → “but I’m bored to see you now | ||
I can’t lie to you”. {What ???} | ||
6 | Ioanna: | → apanaʝia mu {enimboro enimboro “varkume na se ðo tora” en polːa |
traʝiko} | ||
→ Holy Mary Mother of God {I can’t, I can’t (stand this) “I’m bored to see | ||
you now” this is absurd} | ||
7 | Christos: | → {“ eh ti as pume θelo xrono ʝa ton eafto mu kopelːa mu ndaksi imaste se |
8 | sçesi alːa endʒe simeni ???”} (laughter) | |
→ {“eh what (can I say) I need time for myself my girl, ok we are in a | ||
relationship but that doesn’t mean ???”} (laughter) | ||
9 | Ioanna: | £??? Ores ores aman ??? θelo na su fero kati pas ti chːelːe£ |
£??? Sometimes when ??? I want to hit your head with something£ | ||
(Change of subject) |
Ioanna’s assessment in line 1 relates to the fact that Christos had claimed earlier in the conversation to feel pressure with the idea of being in a relationship. Ioanna believes that this is because he has not found the right partner yet: someone special. Crucially, Christos agrees with her assessment in line 2 when he says “Exactly”. In order to support it, he creates an absurd future scenario in which he says to a future girlfriend of his–who is clearly not someone special–that he is bored to see her, and she accepts it (see line 2 and the beginning of line 4). He subsequently repeats the hypothetical quotation along with the reason he is so straightforward: he would rather be honest with her (lines 4–5, see text after the arrow).
Christos does not just describe how his future relationship with this girl would be; he demonstrates it (Clark and Gerrig 1990Clark, Herbert
H., and Richard
J. Gerrig 1990 “Quotations
as
Demonstrations”. Language 66 (4): 764–805. ) through an absurd future scenario with the use of the
hypothetical quotation. The scenario is so absurd that it cannot be taken seriously. It sounds ludicrous, and it is laughable
(Antaki 2003Antaki, Charles 2003 “The
Uses of Absurdity”. In Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary
Perspectives on the Research Interview, ed. by Harry van
den Berg, Margaret Wetherell, and Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, 85–102. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
).44.
Antaki (2003)Antaki, Charles 2003 “The
Uses of Absurdity”. In Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary
Perspectives on the Research Interview, ed. by Harry van
den Berg, Margaret Wetherell, and Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, 85–102. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
distinguishes between extremity and absurdity. The former
refers to extreme case formulations (Pomerantz 1986Pomerantz, Anita 1986 “Extreme
Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims”. Human
Studies 9: 219–229.
). The latter is both extreme and
absurd to the point that it cannot be taken seriously. This is why the whole
fictitious account invites laughter: both parties of this conversation find it funny and laugh about it. Ioanna explicitly
marks the hypothetical quotation as absurd by repeating it along with the exclamation “Holy Mary Mother of God” and the phrase
“this is absurd”. Now, the fact that she finds this demonstration funny does not mean that she approves of it. The fact that
she says, “I can’t, I can’t (stand this)” and explicitly marks it as absurd most likely illustrates that she disagrees with
how Christos would treat his future partner. Note that Christos knows that such a behaviour would be unacceptable as shown in
lines 2, 4, and 5, where he says, “I can’t be saying to her: ‘You know I’m bored to see you now’ and expect her to accept
this”.
So far, the analysis of this extract has illustrated how ludicrous demonstrations can be used to convey one’s
opinion without that being taken seriously. As a result, what the embedded fictitious author and principal says through the
hypothetical quotation where Christos adopts the footing of his future self cannot be (openly) challenged because it invites
laughter.55.A reviewer disagrees with the claim that the analysis of this extract so far has shown how ludicrous demonstrations can
be used to convey one’s opinion without that being taken seriously, because Christos has explicitly stated that the behaviour he
describes would be unacceptable. However, the fact that he stated that his behaviour would be unacceptable does not mean that this
is not how he thinks he would act if he were in a relationship with someone who was not the right person. He uses this ludicrous
demonstration to illustrate how he would behave in that situation despite the fact that has stated that this is an unacceptable
behaviour. However, when Christos adopts the footing of his future self again in
lines 7–8 and continues with his illustration of how he would treat his future partner, Ioanna stops laughing out loud and
tells him jokily that she wants to hit him. It seems that this time the extension of the footing of his future self has become
separated for the frame of what he cannot say and of what he explicitly acknowledges to be unacceptable behaviour and Ioanna
finds that somewhat problematic. Thus, with line 9 she manages to close this sequence and change the subject. The way the
future fictitious account ends is an example of what Winchatz and Kozin (2008)Winchatz, Michaela
R., and Alexander Kozin 2008 “Comical
Hypothetical: Arguing for a Conversational Phenomenon”. Discourse
Studies 10 (3): 383–405. call
‘sudden death’. This happens when one of the participants find something in the account troubling and interrupt it to return
to the ‘real’ world (Winchatz and Kozin 2008Winchatz, Michaela
R., and Alexander Kozin 2008 “Comical
Hypothetical: Arguing for a Conversational Phenomenon”. Discourse
Studies 10 (3): 383–405.
, 298).
3.2.2Making an assessment and showing involvement
The following two examples involve hypothetical quotations constructed by a speaker who was absent from the
original conversation. Such quotations are not uncommon (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting
the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. ; Tannen 2007 2007 Talking
Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
). They show the listener’s involvement in the interaction (Tannen 2007 2007 Talking
Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
), making the quoter an active participant rather than a mere listener
(Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting
the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160.
). In other words, they serve as evidence of collaborative discourse.
Apart from that, Example (6) also shows how quotations can be a means through which a
quoter assesses a particular situation. Below Christos describes to Ioanna his date with Monica:
1 | Ioanna: | prot ap ola poso ʧero eʃis na ti ðis?= |
First of all, how long has it been since you last saw her? | ||
2 | Christos: | =pu ta xristuʝenːa |
Since Christmas | ||
3 | (0.6) | |
4 | Ioanna: | aː ndaksiːː en itan tipote ouao cenurʝo ksero ɣo a [??? |
Oh oːːk it wasn’t something wow, new let’s say ??? | ||
5 | Christos: | [ixa ti ði mɲa fora ta |
6 | xristuʝenːa ʧe iʃe na ti [ðo pu to strato | |
[I saw her once at Christmas | ||
and before that I hadn’t [seen her since the army | ||
7 | Ioanna: | → [“ a exases ðeka cila, exases ðeka cila”(.) en itan |
8 | kapos etsi as pume (0.4) | |
→ [“Oh you’ve lost ten kilos; you’ve lost ten kilos” it | ||
wasn’t like that let’s say (0.4) | ||
9 | Christos: | oi (1) eɣo exasa pende alːa en to ksere epiði (0.4) ts eːːː= |
No (1) I’ve lost five but she wouldn’t know that because (0.4) ts eːːː | ||
10 | Ioanna: | =ise vortos anyway |
You are obese anyway |
Ioanna wants to know the significance of the date and asks Christos how long it has been since he last saw
Monica (line 1). Christos responds in line 2 that he last saw Monica at Christmas–this was a few months before this
conversation took place. What follows this question-answer sequence is a gap (line 3) followed by an “oh” receipt sequence and
a negative assessment of the importance of the date (line 4). The gap along with “oh” function as information receipt “by
proposing a change of state of knowledge or information” (Heritage 1984Heritage, John 1984 “A
Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential
Placement”. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation
Analysis, ed. by J.
Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press., 309) while
the use of the discourse marker ‘oh’ also evaluates the information received (Schiffrin
1987Schiffrin, Deborah 1987 Discourse
Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
; Trester 2009Trester, Anna
Marie 2009 “Discourse Marker ‘Oh’ as a
Means for Realizing the Identity Potential of Constructed Dialogue in Interaction”. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 13 (2): 147–68.
) in a negative light. Ioanna expected something
entirely different: she thought that Christos and Monica had not seen each other for a long time prior to their date. However,
since they last met a few months prior to this conversation she does not think that them seeing each other again now is of
great importance. Christos makes an effort to elevate the importance of this date (lines 5–6) by explaining that while he did
see Monica at Christmas, the last time he saw her before that was a long time ago.66.Both parties of this conversation know that Christos left the army two years before this conversation took place. This
means that Christos and Monica had not seen each other for a long time – with the exception of their meeting at Christmas – since
they last saw each other when Christos was in the army.
Despite Christos’ efforts, Ioanna is convinced of the date’s insignificance and provides further negative assessment in
lines 7 and 8. The second negative assessment is again marked with “oh” and uses a hypothetical quotation to show what could
have been said during that date if Christos and Monica had indeed not seen each other for a long time prior to their date.
This is followed by the remark, “it wasn’t like that let’s say” in order to diminish the date’s significance. By offering a
second negative assessment of the date with the aid of a hypothetical quotation, Ioanna refrains from producing a second
direct assessment (the first one being the one in line 2: “Oh oːːk it wasn’t something wow, new let’s
say”), since the source of the hypothetical quotation is another person: a fictitious author and principal. In other words, it
creates a detachment from the quoter’s own speech, and it is not perceived as overly critical (Koester and Handford 2018Koester, Almut, and Michael Handford 2018 “It’s
Not Good Saying: ‘Well It Might Do That or It Might Not’: Hypothetical Reported Speech in Business
Meetings”. Journal of
Pragmatics 130: 67–80.
; Myers 1999Myers, Greg 1999 “Functions
of Reported Speech in Group Discussions”. Applied
Linguistics 20 (3): 376–401.
). Further, because
it takes the form of a quotation it is delivered in a more vivid and dramatic way (Labov
1972Labov, William 1972 Language
in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English
Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
) while the fact that the phrase “you’ve lost ten kilos” is repeated twice contributes to that.
The following extract also shows how hypothetical quotations can be used to show the quote’s involvement in the interaction. Tatiana discusses with her boyfriend, Marios, a meeting she had with Kate. Kate’s first language is English and that is why part of the dialogue is constructed in English. Now, Tatiana lives in Nicosia but commutes to Pafos every day. This is unexpected for two reasons. First, Nicosia is the capital of Cyprus and people usually commute from other places to Nicosia. Second, the distance between Nicosia and Pafos is a one hour and forty-five minute drive, which is quite long for Cypriot standards given that Cyprus is a small island.
1 | Marios: | ndo metaksi itan na se rotiso nambu su pe ʧini ʝa ti ðuʎːa |
By the way, I meant to ask you what that woman told you about the job | ||
2 | Τatiana: | parapano emilusamen ʝa pco prosopika pramata sta aŋglika enːoite |
We mostly talked about personal stuff, in English of course | ||
3 | Μarios: | → en su ipe “↑Oh my ↑God in PAFOS?” |
→Didn’t she say to you, “Oh my God! In PAFOS?” | ||
4 | Τatiana: | stin arçi nːe lei mu “you gonna be travelling ksero ɣo back and forth every day?” |
5 | “nːe” leo tis (.) “e endaksi it’s because you are coming from England I guess you | |
6 | are used to it” leo tis “nːe (.) anyway (.) I was thinking of doing” | |
At first yes, she says to me “you gonna be travelling let’s say back and forth every day?” | ||
“yes”, I say to her (.) “eh ok it’s because you are coming from England, I guess you | ||
are used to it” I say to her “yes (.) anyway (.) I was thinking of doing” |
The hypothetical quotation comes in line 3 when Kate’s hypothetical reaction to Tatiana’s everyday commute to
Pafos is constructed by Marios. Marios’ choice to construct Kate’s reaction in English – the language of the original
conversation – helps him to demonstrate it in a vivid way while the use of the exclamation “oh my God” and the use of prosodic
features (rising intonation and stress) makes it more genuine (Mayes 1990Mayes, Patricia 1990 “Quotation
in Spoken English”. International Journal Studies in
Language 14 (2): 325–363. ).
Crucially, Marios was not present at the conversation between Tatiana and Kate but assumes that this must have
been Kate’s reaction to the fact that Tatiana commutes to Pafos. Constructed dialogue created by someone who is not present at
the interaction the quoted material is taken from is not unusual (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting
the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. ; Tannen 2007 2007 Talking
Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
). Such cases show the listener’s involvement in the story (Tannen 2007 2007 Talking
Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
), making Marios an active participant rather than a mere listener (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting
the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160.
).
3.2.3Enacting stereotypical characters
In the following example, Timotheos and Panos discuss the audition Panos had to do for the position he applied
for and did not get. It illustrates how quotations can be used to enact a stereotypical character and provide evidence in
favour of one’s negative assessment of other people. Here Germans are perceived as diplomatic while Russians are perceived as
straightforward and honest people who would do a face threatening act without redressive action, i.e., “in the most direct,
clear, unambiguous and concise way possible” (Brown and Levinson 1987Brown, Penelope, and Stephen
C. Levinson 1987 Politeness:
Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. , 69).
1 | Timotheos: | o kaθiʝitis enːambu su pe? |
What did the professor say? | ||
2 | Panos: | ʧini tin imera en mu pe tipote itan etsi lːio “enːa paris” lali mu “ɣrapti ɣraptos |
3 | [ola osa” | |
He didn’t say anything that day, he was a bit “you’ll get” he says “a written | ||
(reply with) everthing” | ||
4 | Timotheos: | [en θa su pu en θa su pi |
He won’t say, he won’t say | ||
5 | Panos: | eɲːosa ton etsi lːio (.) afton ʧin din imera alːa pale ndaksi en ʝermanos endʒe |
6 | kseris endʒe ksero tus ʝermanus endalos embu eni i rosːi amesos itan na mu pi | |
7 | → “ en epies kala epies polːa kala mbravo afto ” (.) i ʝermani en en en pco | |
8 | ðiplomates en ksero en su ksekaθarizːun en tuto parapano pu me nevriase | |
9 | e opote (.) ndaksi afino toː | |
I couldn’t tell what he was thinking on that day but again he’s German, one | ||
can’t tell, I don’t know how German people are, while a Russian would say to me | ||
→ “you didn’t do well, you did very well, bravo”, Germans are more | ||
diplomatic, I don’t know, they are not straightforward. This is what really made me angry, | ||
so OK I’ll leave it at that | ||
10 | Timotheos: | o aleksei itan etsi meta tin eksetasi lali mu (imitating Russian accent) |
11 | → “Yes yes (.) sound good sound good | |
Aleksei was like that after my audition, he says to me (imitating Russian | ||
accent) → “Yes yes (.) sound good sound good | ||
12 | Panos: | (laughter) |
13 | Timotheos: | but the last part no good no good” lali aː |
but the last part no good no good” he says aː | ||
14 | Panos: | → {amesos mbam} endʒ enːa su pi ts “ timoθee mu se |
15 | ʝenikes ɣramːes ??? ʝenikes ɣramːes epies kala mbravo ʧolas” ksero ɣo | |
→ {right away, bang} he wouldn’t say ts “Dear | ||
Timotheos overall ??? overall you did well bravo” let’s say | ||
16 | Timotheos: | nːe alːa kseris ti m aresci oti ʧino pu enːa su pi oti en kalo kseris siura oti en |
17 | kalo aresci mu tuto ðioti meta erkete ʧe kamni mu | |
Yes, but I like the fact that when he does praise you, you are certain that you | ||
did well. I like that because afterwards he says to me | ||
18 | Panos: | nːe en polːa ilikrinis |
Yes, he is very honest |
Panos focuses on the behaviour of the German professor who would not tell him how he performed in the audition (see beginning of line 2). Instead, he told him that he will get written feedback (see lines 2 and 3, “You’ll get” he says “a written (reply)”). The professor’s behaviour leads to speculation as to how Germans in general communicate. Panos is annoyed and contrasts this behaviour with what he perceives to be the typical Russian behaviour. The latter is demonstrated with a hypothetical quotation in line 7: “you didn’t do well, you did very well, bravo”. The words of this embedded fictitious author and principal are constructed in the form of two short assessments: a negative and a positive one. They are seen in a favourable light since they are contrasted with what really happened: Panos received no feedback on his performance.
Timotheos agrees with the stereotypical portrayal of Russians as straightforward people and offers an example
from his experience (lines 11, 13) in the form of a quotation (not a hypothetical one). To do so, he adopts a stereotypical
Russian accent, which is not uncommon when one constructs stereotypical figures (Goffman
1974Goffman, Erving 1974 Frame
Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of
Experience. Lebanon: University Press of New
England., 536). Timotheos’ constructed dialogue serves to make a contrast between Russians and Germans. Panos agrees
with this contrast and uses onomatopoeia to parallel the directness of the Russian professor’s words with the sound of a
gunshot or an explosion (see Tannen 1986Tannen, Deborah 1986 “Introducing
Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary
Narratives”. In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed.
by Florian Coulmas, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
, 327 for a discussion on sound words in
Greek narratives). He then provides a hypothetical quotation that could have never been produced by the Russian professor
(shown by the phrase “he wouldn’t say”) in order to further highlight the differences between the two nationalities. The
hypothetical quotation (lines 14–15) involves praise and the polite form of address “Dear” (Brown and Levinson 1987Brown, Penelope, and Stephen
C. Levinson 1987 Politeness:
Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
). Such use of praise is not to be expected from the Russian professor. This
is perceived by Panos and Timotheos to be a positive personal attribute (lines 16–18) since what they both appreciate when
they require feedback is directness and honesty (see also line 18), not necessarily praise and certainly not a diplomatic
response and/or lack of immediate feedback.
This extract cannot be read separately from the previous conversation these friends had regarding the rejection
letter (Example [3]). Panos is upset because neither the letter nor the professor
explained why he was not hired. Enacting the stereotypical Russian behaviour with the help of his friend, which they both view
favourably, is his way of criticizing the way he was treated by the German professor and legitimize his negative assessment of
him. It can be seen in the context of a broader argument that he was treated unfairly. The use of hypothetical quotations to
provide evidence in favour of people’s negative assessment of absent parties in a conversation is also discussed in Mohammad and Vásquez (2015)Mohammad, Abeer, and Camilla Vásquez 2015 “ ‘Rachel’s
Not Here’: Constructed Dialogue in Gossip”. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 19 (3): 351–71. .
4.Discussion and concluding remarks
In the context of informal friendly conversations hypothetical quotations serve an array of functions similar to those that
non-hypothetical quotations serve. They show involvement in the interaction by making oneself an active listener and they are used to
enact stereotypical characters. They have also been shown to be an effective argumentative device. The fact that most hypothetical
quotations in this dataset are direct quotations contributes to achieving the desired conversational effects. Overall, this paper
shows that (Cypriot) Greek hypothetical discourse has similar functions as in other contexts and languages and contributes to the
literature on hypothetical quotations by illustrating these functions with the use of Goffman’s
(1981) 1981 Forms
of Talk. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell work on footing and participation framework. It also contributes to the literature by offering a comprehensive
definition of hypothetical quotations which includes both reported speech and reported thoughts and is viewed as a subset of what
Tannen (2007) 2007 Talking
Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
calls ‘constructed dialogue’.
As Weiss states (2020Weiss, Daniel 2020 “Analogical
Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 155: 101–110. , 106), “the myth of verbatim reproduction vanishes
automatically” when it comes to hypothetical quotations. Yet, the lack of sincerity of such quotations is not an object of talk for
the participants. On the contrary, and perhaps paradoxically, such quotations work well as an argumentative device. In fact, the data
of this study show that this is one of the main functions that hypothetical quotations have. As Weiss (2020)Weiss, Daniel 2020 “Analogical
Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 155: 101–110.
remarks, “their benefit for argumentative purposes seems less clear: they hardly enhance the credibility of
the information quoted, nor the authority of its source and/or the quoter”. In other words, using hypothetical quotations as an
argumentative device does not involve quoting an authority or a credible source. Nevertheless, both in spontaneous conversation (e.g.,
Golato 2012Golato, Andrea 2012 “Impersonal
Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives:
Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid
van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
) and serious, high-stakes settings such as court trials (e.g., Pascual 2014Pascual, Esther 2014 Fictive
Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language and Discourse. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
) and parliamentary discourse (Fetzer
2020Fetzer, Anita 2020 “ ‘And
I Quote’: Forms and Functions of Quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions”. Journal of
Pragmatics 157: 89–100.
; Weiss 2020Weiss, Daniel 2020 “Analogical
Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse”. Journal of
Pragmatics 155: 101–110.
) hypothetical quotations are used effectively as argumentative
devices.
One of the reasons why hypothetical quotations work well as argumentative devices is because their use “stresses the
detachment from the reporting speaker’s own speech” (Myers 1999Myers, Greg 1999 “Functions
of Reported Speech in Group Discussions”. Applied
Linguistics 20 (3): 376–401. , 389). Because the idea,
opinion, argument put forward in a hypothetical quotation is not presented as the current speaker’s argument–since they are the quoter
but not the source of the quotation–but as someone else’s (even if that person is the speaker’s future self) it is not as easy to
challenge. Because it is not easy to challenge, such quotations have another overall function: a bracketing function in that they
signal that an argumentative sequence is about to be terminated (see particularly Examples [3]–[5]). Further, what makes such quotations successful as argumentative devices is
the fact that they are used along with other (linguistic) strategies, namely hyperbole (Example [4]), fictitious humorous stories that participants take to the absurd (Example [5]), and enactment of stereotypical characters (Example [8]).
Finally, the fact that hypothetical quotations are attested in so many diverse settings and languages suggests that this is
a perhaps a universal construction along with instantiations of what Pascual and her collaborators call fictive
interaction (Pacual 2014Pascual, Esther 2014 Fictive
Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language and Discourse. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ; Sandler and
Pascual 2019Sandler, Sergeiy, and Esther Pacual 2019 “In
the Beginning There Was
Conversation”. Pragmatics 29 (2): 250–276.
). This contribution gives further credit to the claim that “there is a conversational basis for thought,
language, and discourse” (Pascual 2014Pascual, Esther 2014 Fictive
Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language and Discourse. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
, 1). We have seen how arguments were chosen to be
made, and in many cases won, through hypothetical quotations and by incorporating into the current discourse voices which, while
constructed by one of the participants of the current conversation, they were attributed to other fictitious authors and principals.
We have also witnessed how participants chose to show their involvement in a conversation and assess what was discussed by
constructing language in the form of direct quotations that was again attributed to others not present in the current conversation
(fictitious authors and principals). As such, constructed dialogue in general, hypothetical quotations in particular, and other
related constructions (e.g., instantiations of fictive interaction as studied in the work of Pascual and collaborators) seem to be a
universal phenomenon pervasive in many languages and a variety of discourse genres. These constructions can be argued to reflect the
interactional nature of language (Pascual and Oakley 2017Pascual, Esther, and Todd Oakley 2017 “Fictive
Interaction”. In Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive
Linguistics, ed. by Barbara Dancygier, 347–360. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
) and support a dialogical account
of language and meaning according to which interaction and dialogue are an indispensable aspect of language and meaning (Sandler 2016Sandler, Sergeiy 2016 Fictive
Interaction and the Nature of Linguistic Meaning. In The Conversation
Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction [
Human Cognitive Processing
55
], ed. by Esther Pascual, and Sergeiy Sandler, 23–41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
).
Transcript conventions
→ | sentence of interest to the analyst |
(.) | micro pause |
(0.2) | timed pause |
(words) | transcriber’s comments |
ː | elongated speech, a stretched sound |
??? | indecipherable discourse |
[ | point where overlapping speech occurs |
{ } | words uttered while laughing |
£ | words uttered while smiling, understood as a slight laughter that makes no noise |
= | latched speech |
↑ | rise in intonation |
CAPITALS | said very loudly or even shouted |
underlined | rise in volume or emphasis |
Acknowledgements
I thank the reviewers for their comments, suggestions, and corrections which greatly improved my work. All remaining errors are my own.