Remarks on the current discussion on linguistic data and evidence
The twentieth century saw a series of closely related and inextricably intertwined methodological debates about the problem of the empiricalness of linguistic theories. From the second part of the nineties, the methodological debates on data and evidence were gradually extended both at an object- and at a meta-theoretical level, and were enriched with new elements. Today they affect several different research fields and branches of linguistics. The contemporary discussion no longer centres on the problem of whether linguistic theories should be empirical or not. Rather, the following questions are focused on: What types of data may be used, what data count as evidence, and what role can be attributed to them in different fields of linguistic theorising? The aim of the present paper is the systematization and the critical analysis of current answers to these questions. From the findings of the analyses conclusions will be drawn that are expected to pave the way for the future solution of the problems raised in the discussion at issue.
Self-monitoring processes in speech production
Talking is preceded by planning the thought to be conveyed on the one hand, and by assigning a grammatically, phonologically, phonetically, and pragmatically appropriate actual linguistic form to it on the other. Speech planning processes normally take place in parallel, so much so that the speaker is unaware of the individual operations. However, occasional disharmony may arise in them, leading to various types of disfluency that disrupt the natural flow of spontaneous speech. – A self-monitoring mechanism of the speech production process is available during speaking, ready to recognize and repair any faulty messages that may occur. Overt monitoring is responsible for corrections that are observable in speech production. Covert monitoring, on the other hand, takes place at the various levels of speech planning. Temporal patterns in speech help us in locating disfluencies, as well as sites of overt or covert error detection, with high probability. The length of pauses preceding corrections has a predictive function. – This paper surveys some relevant models and then demonstrates the operation of self-monitoring via an analysis of Hungarian data.
The discourse marker hogy úgy mondjam 'so to speak'
This paper discusses the Hungarian discourse marker hogy úgy mondjam 'so to speak' that has not been given a closer look so far. After an introductory survey and the formulation of some preliminary questions, the author considers the issue of this construction being a discourse marker at all. Next, she gives an amply documented overview of its two basic roles: as a marker of rephrasing and as that of usage (including cases in which the speaker wishes to distance himself from the expression he uses or to indicate that the expression that follows will be somewhat unusual). Data in which the construction has no role whatsoever that the listener might make any sense of are also listed. Concerning the history of this item, the author concludes that the source structure of its grammaticalization path cannot be attested within Hungarian. On the one hand, she tries to find the structural model – in view of the time of the construction coming into general use, the first few decades of the nineteenth century – in German (dass ich so sage); on the other hand, she traces the Hungarian equivalents of Latin ut ita dictum sit ~ ut ita dicam from the earliest Hungarian translations of the Bible. Finally, she discusses the spread, frequency, and presence in diverse varieties of Hungarian, of this discourse marker; using diagrams to illustrate the phenomena she discusses.
Linguistic devices of manipulation in written advertisements
The purpose of this study is to define manipulation and separate it theoretically from persuasion as much as possible, as well as to present linguistic realizations of manipulative psychological strategies applied in written advertisements. The corpus consists of half and one page size writte advertisements collected from various magazines. To define and separate manipulation vs. persuasion I apply the Gricean cooperative model (GRICE 1997), the face-work model elaborated by GOFFMAN (1995), and SPERBER and WILSON's (1986) ostensive-inferential communication model. The Gricean model reveals that, while persuasion is a kind of cooperative linguistic behaviour, manipulation involves violation of the cooperative principle. In the face-work model persuasion can be classified as a facethreatening act, and although manipulation seems at first sight to be face-protecting, in fact it is facethreatening as well. Persuasion and manipulation can be best separated with the help of the ostensiveinferential communication model. This model claims that while persuasion is communication, manipulation is not communication. I analyse the linguistic realizations of four different psychological strategies: the minimum-group paradigm, threatening, personal experience and uniqueness. With the help of the analysis I present the linguistic devices that can make those psychological strategies work.
Szó- és szólásmagyarázatok