Mental gaze monitoring and form manipulation: distinct conceptions of language production and its management

Open access

Abstract

This study addresses the phenomenon called “spacing out” or “delay” to show that speaking and writing condition the language users to assume distinct conceptions of language production, thereby motivating significantly different (uses of) grammatical devices within as well as across languages. We demonstrate that mental gaze monitoring and linguistic form manipulation serve as language production management in the speech event and writing event conceptions, respectively.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aijmer K. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  • Aijmer K. Foolen A. & Simon-Vandenbergen A.-M. (2006). Pragmatic markers in translation: A methodological proposal. In Approaches to discourse particles. Fischer K. (ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier p. 101-114.

  • Barlow M. & Kemmer S. (2000). Usage based models of language. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

  • Biber D. Johansson S. Leech G. et al. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.

  • Bolinger D. (1977). Meaning and form. London: Longman.

  • Chafe W. & Danielewicz J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. In Comprehending oral and written language. Horowitz R. & Samuels S.J. (eds.). New York: Academic Press p. 83-113.

  • Chomsky N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature origin and use. New York: Praeger.

  • Clark H.H. (2002). Speaking in time. In Speech communication 36 p. 5-13.

  • Clark H.H. (2004). Pragmatics of language performance. In Handbook of pragmatics. Horn L.R. & Ward G. (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell p. 365-382.

  • Clark H.H. & Fox Tree J.E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. In Cognition 84 p. 73-111.

  • Clark H.H. & Krych M.A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. In Journal of memory and language 50 p. 62-81.

  • Degand L. & Fagard B. (2011). Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. In Functions of language 18 p. 29-56.

  • Erman B. (2001). Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. In Journal of pragmatics 33 p. 1337-1359.

  • Fraser B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. In Journal of pragmatics 14 p. 383-398.

  • Fraser B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. In Pragmatics 6 p.167-190.

  • Halliday M.A.K. (1987). Spoken and written modes of meaning. In Comprehending oral and written language. Horowitz R. & Samuels S.J. (eds.). New York: Academic Press p. 55-82.

  • Haselow A. (2016). A processual view on grammar: Macrogrammar and the final field in spoken syntax. In Language sciences 54 p. 77-101.

  • Heine B. Kaltenböck G. Kuteva T. & Long H. (2013). An outline of discourse grammar. In Functional approaches to language. Jany C. Bischoff S. & Gast V. (eds.). Berlin: De Gruyter p. 155-206.

  • Hopper P.J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Tomasello M. (ed.). Mahwah and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates p. 155-175.

  • Izutsu K. & Izutsu M.N. (2013). From discourse markers to modal/final particles: What the position reveals about the continuum. In Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description. Degand L. Cornillie B. & Pietrandrea P. (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins p. 217-235.

  • Izutsu M.N. & Izutsu K. (2017). Stopgap subordinators and and but: A non-canonical structure emergent from interactional needs and typological requirements. In Cognitive linguistics 28 p. 239-285.

  • Izutsu M.N. & Izutsu K. (2014). Truncation and backshift: Two pathways to sentence-final coordinating conjunctions. In Journal of historical pragmatics 15 p. 62-92.

  • Kaltenböck G. Heine B. & Kuteva T. (2011). On thetical grammar. In Studies in language 35 p. 852-897.

  • Kaltenböck G. & Heine B. (2014). Sentence grammar vs. thetical grammar: Two competing domains? In Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Macwhinney B. Malchukov A. & Moravcsik E. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press p. 348-363.

  • Lakoff G. (1987). Women fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Langacker R.W. (1997). Constituency dependency and conceptual grouping. In Cognitive linguistics 8 p.1-32.

  • Langacker R.W. (2014). Subordination in a dynamic account of grammar. In Contexts of subordination: Cognitive typological and discourse perspectives. Visapää L. Kalliokoski J. & Sorva H. (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins p. 17-72.

  • Leech G. & Svartvik J. (1975). A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman.

  • Maynard S.K. (1993). Discourse modality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Moore C. & Dunham P.J. (eds.). (1995). Joint attention: Its origins and role in development. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Schiffrin D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Swan M. (2005). Practical English usage 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Sweetser E.E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 297 130 6
PDF Downloads 95 59 4