A Neo-Constructional Approach to Computer-Oriented Talk
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Heidi Brøseth A neo-constructional approach to computer-oriented talk Thesis for the degree philosophiae doctor Trondheim, November 2007 Norwegian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Arts Department of Language and Communication Studies NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology Thesis for the degree philosophiae doctor Faculty of Arts Department of Language and Communication Studies © Heidi Brøseth ISBN 978-82-471-5739-8 (printed version) ISBN 978-82-471-5742-8 (electronic version) ISSN 1503-8181 Doctoral theses at NTNU, 2007:257 Printed by NTNU-trykk For my parents Inge and Eli Brøseth And My daughter Ingelin Brøseth Karlsvik Acknowledgements The process of writing a dissertation is in many ways a lonely undertaking with hours and hours of solitary work – either writing or reading. But it would have been impossible for me to finish my dissertation if it hadn't been for a number of people who have contributed in various ways. First of all, I want to thank Magne Hallstein Johnsen and Torbjørn Nordgård for believing in me in the first place. They gave me the opportunity to write this dissertation when they awarded me an appointment as a PhD student in the BRAGE project. Magne H. Johnsen has been an excellent project leader and supervisor. He has patiently answered all my questions, he has demonstrated extraordinary tolerance towards my attacks of absent- mindedness and made my stint as a PhD in BRAGE a pleasant experience. Torbjørn Nordgård encouraged me to start writing early on in my PhD career which proved to be a good advice. He has given me valuable feedback on my ideas and texts, which has pushed me further in my argumentation and writing process. This thesis would not have been possible without the help of Tor Anders Åfarli. He is the person who deserves the most credit for this dissertation actually being realized. He is an extraordinary supervisor who has inspired and guided me through my ups and downs. His expertise in linguistics is admirable, and his devotion to it is contagious. Kristin Melum Eide deserves gratitude for taking the time to read large parts of the manuscript. She has given me many helpful ideas and useful comments. She is an enormous resource for the field of linguistics at NTNU, an extremely talented person and what's more: you are fun to hang around! I also want to thank Jørn Almberg, who took on the tedious work of checking each and every one of the references in this dissertation. He also guided me in the use of Excel, which made my work much easier and thereby fun! In addition, he managed to teach me some statistics, in principle an unmanageable task. But most of all, I'm glad you quit the Ellipsis strategy, and fell into Adjacency instead. I have been so fortunate to work with very inspiring colleagues, who also have become my friends. First of all, I want to thank Kaja Borthen. She possesses a great talent for linguistics. I am honoured that she and Thorstein Fretheim have taken me under their wings, and included me in their project. In addition, Kaja has kept my spirit up in these last stressful months. Snefrid Holm, Anne Frank, Petter Haugereid, and Rein Ove Sikveland all deserve gratitude for being excellent friends. These people have supported me in both prosperity and misfortune. In short, they have made academic life more fun! 3 I also want to thank Mari Nygård for reading the chapter on ellipsis, and for taking the time to discuss this fascinating topic with me. Inghild Flaate has happily answered my questions about German syntax. Kristian Skarbø deserves an award for making the fantastic program TreeDraw. This program is a blessing for all linguists. Kristian and TreeDraw have saved me from hours of tedious fiddling trying to make tree structures. My dearest and best friend, Sølvi Rognan Karlsvik, also deserves my gratitude. We have stuck together for more than 20 years, and she saved my sanity more than once. Even though she finds my interest in linguistics a bit odd, she has always been proud of my academic achievements, and as my best friend, her support and respect mean a lot to me. You will always be my soul mate! I also want to thank my big brother, Henrik Brøseth. He has always been the one trudging in front, with me toddling behind. He is the reason I started at the university in the first place. As a successful researcher in his own field, he has inspired me to work hard, and thus achieve my goals. Luckily for me, Hanne Siri Sund, who was my fellow student and helped me through my master's at Department of Scandinavian Studies and Comparative Literature, now has a job at the Faculty of Arts. She has (once again) been my practical and administrative saviour, as well as a dear friend. But I couldn't have managed this without my parents, Eli and Inge Brøseth. They have always been there for me. During my four years as a PhD, they have just been exceptional. I cannot begin listing all the practical and personal things they have done for me because it would take a book of its own. If it wasn't for you, I would never have finished this dissertation! I have saved the best one till last; my daughter Ingelin Brøseth Karlsvik, who is the sunshine of my life. She is so full of curiosity, laughter, tears, compassion and optimism that I cannot but admire her. I am so proud of you, Ingelin. You make everything worthwhile! 4 Abbreviations: ACC = accusative ADV = adverb AP = adjective phrase AUX = auxiliary COMPL = complementizer CP = complementizer phrase DO = direct object DS = dialog system EXPL = expletive FEM = feminine F-VB = finite verb INF = infinitive INF-M = infinitival marker IO = indirect object IP = inflection phrase I-VB = infinite verb N = head noun NP = noun phrase PA = predicate adverbial PASS = passive PST-PRT = past participle SA = sentence adverbial SC-SUBJ = small clause-subject SU = subject T-ADV = temporal adverbial U = user VB = verb Ø = elided item Annotation symbols: [elli] = ellipsis < > = repetitions and corrections ** = uninterpretable word () = possible interpretation of word [sil]= silence (measured in seconds) [fil-e]= filler item (vocal) ! = emphasis on the following word * = ungrammatical ? = acceptable ?? =less acceptable but not ungrammatical # = semantically odd but grammatically acceptable 5 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THESIS ......................................................................................................................... 10 2 THE DATA MATERIAL ......................................................................................................................... 12 2.1 WIZARD OF OZ-EXPERIMENTS ............................................................................................................ 13 2.2 THE TRONDHEIM WOZ EXPERIMENTS................................................................................................ 15 2.2.1 The first Trondheim WOZ experiment........................................................................................... 16 2.2.1.1 A dialogue from the first Trondheim WOZ-experiment...................................................................... 18 2.2.2 The second Trondheim WOZ experiment ...................................................................................... 18 2.2.2.1 The different scenario types ................................................................................................................ 19 2.2.2.2 A dialogue from the second WOZ experiment.................................................................................... 21 2.2.3 The third Trondheim WOZ experiment.......................................................................................... 22 2.2.4 Summary and discussion of experimental design.......................................................................... 23 2.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MATERIAL................................................................................................. 27 2.3.1 Turn types...................................................................................................................................... 27 2.3.2 The syntactic structures are homogeneous.................................................................................... 29 2.3.2.1 Main clauses........................................................................................................................................ 30 2.3.2.2 Phrases................................................................................................................................................. 35 2.3.2.3 Subordinate clauses ............................................................................................................................. 37 2.3.2.4 Summary and discussion ..................................................................................................................... 41 2.3.3 The majority of the sentences are complete structures.................................................................. 45 2.3.3.1 Lexical density vs. grammatical intricacy ........................................................................................... 45 2.3.3.2 Elliptical structures.............................................................................................................................. 47 2.3.3.3 Repetitions, false starts and corrections..............................................................................................