“No” and “net” as response tokens in English and Russian business discourse: In search of a functional equivalence

封面

如何引用文章

详细

The literature on English suggests that turn-initial no fulfils a variety of discourse-pragmatic functions beyond its use as a negative response to polar questions. We cannot assume that the same range or distribution of functions is realised by its nearest Russian equivalent, net . Hence, investigating the contrasts and similarities in the nomenclature and distribution of functions of no and net should pose an important research problem for various discourses, and especially for business discourse with its focus on goal-orientation and productive interpersonal relations requiring adequate interlingual interaction. The study examines how no and net occur in two corpora of spoken business/professional discourse in order to establish their functional comparability and reveal the differences in their use. The article draws on data from the Cambridge and Nottingham Spoken Business English Corpus and the Russian National Corpus analysed using a combination of corpus linguistics, conversation analysis and discourse analytical approaches. Study results show some overlap between the functions of the response particles in English and Russian, and some differences. The findings suggest that no / net display a number of functions connected with conversational continuity, topic management, turn-taking and hedging. The distribution and functions of no/net in the English and Russian data are similar, with the Russian data showing a preference for floor-grabbing no -initiated turns. Translation equivalence is not always fully applicable between no and net . A mixed methodology generates results which suggest that fruitful insights can be gained from English and Russian corpus data. The issues of the use of no and нет in English and Russian business discourses can be further investigated using the suggested data and conclusions.

作者简介

Elena Malyuga

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: malyuga-en@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6935-0661

Professor of Linguistics, Head of Foreign Languages Department at the Faculty of Economics, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Doctor habil. of Linguistics, Chairperson of the Business and Vocational Foreign Languages Teachers National Association (Russia), Editor-in-Chief of the journals “Issues of Applied Linguistics”, and “Training, Language and Culture”. Her research interests embrace theory and practice of intercultural professional and business communication, pragmatics, corpus studies and discourse analysis. She authored and co-authored over 300 publications.

6, Miklukho-Maklaya, Moscow, 117198, Russia

Michael McCarthy

University of Nottingham

Email: mactoft@aol.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6795-3816

Emeritus Professor of Applied Linguistics, University of Nottingham (UK), Adjunct Professor of Applied Linguistics, University of Limerick (Ireland), Visiting Professor of Applied Linguistics at Newcastle University, UK, and Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. He has (co-)authored and (co-)edited 56 books, including “Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics”, “The Cambridge Grammar of English”, “From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching”, and “The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics” and (co-)authored 120 academic papers which focus mainly on spoken language. He is co-founder (with Ronald Carter) of the “CANCODE” spoken English corpus and the “CANBEC” spoken business English corpus.

Nottingham, NG7 2RD

参考

  1. Aijmer, Karin & Bengt Altenberg. 2013. Introduction. In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds.), Advances in corpus-based contrastive linguistics: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 1-6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  2. Apresjan, Valentina Ju. 2015. Concessivity: Mechanisms of Formation and Interaction of Complex Meanings in the Language. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures
  3. Bald, Wolf-Dietrich. 1980. Some functions of “yes” and “no” in conversation. In Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds.), Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk, 179-191. London: Longman
  4. Beeching, Kate. 2013. A parallel corpus approach to investigating semantic change. In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds.), Advances in corpus-based contrastive linguistics: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 103-125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  5. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman
  6. Brasoveanu, Adrian, Donka Farkas & Floris Roelofsen. 2013. N-words and sentential negation: Evidence from polarity particles and VP ellipsis. Semantics and Pragmatics 6. 1-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.7
  7. Burridge, Kate & Margaret Florey. 2002. “Yeah-no he’s a good kid”: A discourse analysis of “yeah-no” in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 22 (2). 149-171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0726860022000013166
  8. Collins, Peter. 2012. Australian English: Its evolution and current state. International Journal of Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication 1 (1). 75-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/ijltic.11
  9. Connor, Ulla M. & Ana I. Moreno 2005. Tertium Comparationis: A vital component in contrastive research methodology. In Paul Bruthiaux, Dwight Atkinson, William G. Eggington, William Grabe & Vaidehi Ramanathan (eds.), Directions in Applied Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Robert B. Kaplan, 153-164. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
  10. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  11. Egan, Thomas. 2013. “Tertia comparationis” in multilingual corpora. In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds.), Advances in corpus-based contrastive linguistics: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 7-24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  12. Fries, Charles C. 1952. The Structure of English: An Introduction to the Construction of English Sentences. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company
  13. Gribanova, Tatiana I. & Tamara M. Gaidukova. 2019. Hedging in different types of discourse. Training, Language and Culture 3 (2). 85-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29366/2019tlc.3.2.6
  14. Handford, Michael. 2010. The language of Business Meetings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  15. Heritage, John. 2002. Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The Language of turn and sequence, 196-224. New York: Oxford University Press
  16. Heritage, John & Marja-Leena Sorjonen. (eds.). 2018. Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31
  17. Iliadi, Paraskevi-Lukeriya L. & Tatiana V. Larina. 2017. Refusal strategies in English and Russian. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics 8 (3). 531-542. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2017-8-3-531-542
  18. Jefferson, Gail. 2002. Is “no” an acknowledgment token? Comparing American and British uses of (+)/(-) tokens. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (10-11). 1345-1383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00067-X
  19. Johansson, Stig & Knut Hofland. 1994. Towards an English-Norwegian parallel corpus. In Udo Fries, Gunnel Tottie & Peter Schneider (eds.), Creating and using English language corpora, 25-37. Zürich: Rodopi
  20. Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1984. Tertium comparationis. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems, 301-312. Berlin: Mouton Publishers.
  21. Lee-Goldman, Russell. 2011. “No” as a discourse marker. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (10). 2627-2649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.011
  22. Lewis, Richard. 2019. The cultural imperative: Global trends in the 21st century. Training, Language and Culture 3 (3). 8-20. doi: 10.29366/2019tlc.3.3.1
  23. Malyuga, Elena N. & Michael McCarthy. 2018. English and Russian vague category markers in business discourse: Linguistic identity aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 135. 39-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.07.011
  24. Malyuga, Elena N., Alex Krouglov & Barry Tomalin. 2018. Linguo-cultural competence as a cornerstone of translators’ performance in the domain of intercultural business communication. XLinguae 11(2). 566-582. doi: 10.18355/XL.2018.11.02.46
  25. Malyuga, Elena N. & Barry Tomalin. 2014. English professional jargon in economic discourse. Journal of Language and Literature 5(4). 172-180. doi: 10.7813/jll.2014/ 5-4/38
  26. Malyuga, Elena N., Alexander Shvets & Ilyia Tikhomirov. 2016. Computer-based analysis of business communication language. In Proceedings of 2016 SAI Computing Conference, SAI 2016, 229-232
  27. McCarthy, Michael. 2002. Good listenership made plain: British and American non-minimal response tokens in everyday conversation. In Randi Reppen, Susan M. Fitzmaurice & Douglas Biber (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 49-71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.9.05mcc
  28. McCarthy, Michael. 2003. Talking back: “Small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36 (1). 33-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3
  29. McGee, Peter. 2018. Vague language as a means of avoiding controversy. Training, Language and Culture 2 (2). 40-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29366/2018tlc.2.2.3
  30. Mikhailov, Mikhail & Robert Cooper. 2016. Corpus Linguistics for Translation and Contrastive Studies. Abingdon/Oxon: Routledge
  31. O’Keeffe, Anne & Svenja Adolphs. 2008. Using a corpus to look at variational pragmatics: Response tokens in British and Irish discourse. In Klaus P. Schneider & Anne Barron (eds.), Variational Pragmatics, 69-98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
  32. Pope, Emily N. 1976. Questions and Answers in English. The Hague: Mouton
  33. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman
  34. Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68 (6). 939-967. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752
  35. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4). 696-735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
  36. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. Discourse as interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Analysing discourse: Text and talk, 71-93. Washington: Georgetown University Press
  37. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97 (5). 1295-1345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/229903
  38. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52-133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  39. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2001. Getting serious: Joke → serious “no”. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (12). 1947-1955. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00073-4
  40. Stivers, Tanya. 2004. “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research 30 (2). 260-293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x
  41. Tao, Hongyin. 2003. Turn initiators in spoken English: A corpus-based approach to interaction and grammar. In Pepi Leistyna & Charles F. Meyer (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 187-207. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004334410_011
  42. Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  43. Tottie, Gunnel. 1991. Conversational style in British and American English: The case of backchannels. In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds.), English corpus linguistics, 254-271. London: Longman
  44. Wong, Jock Onn. 2018. The semantics of logical connectors: Therefore, moreover and in fact. Russian Journal of Linguistics 22 (3). 581-604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-3-581-604
  45. Zalizniak, Anna A. & Elena V. Paducheva. 2018. Towards a semantic analysis of Russian discourse markers: Pozhaluj, nikak, vsjo-taki. Russian Journal of Linguistics 22 (3). 628-652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-3-628-652

版权所有 © Malyuga E., McCarthy M., 2021

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##