Request for confirmation sequences in Hebrew
This study reports quantitative findings from a study of 205 Hebrew request for confirmation (RfC) sequences, as part of a comparative Pragmatic Typological project across ten languages. Based on video recordings of casual conversation, this is the first systematic survey of such sequences in Hebrew...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
De Gruyter
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | Open Linguistics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2024-0028 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850058798645903360 |
|---|---|
| author | Ben-Moshe Yotam M. Maschler Yael |
| author_facet | Ben-Moshe Yotam M. Maschler Yael |
| author_sort | Ben-Moshe Yotam M. |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This study reports quantitative findings from a study of 205 Hebrew request for confirmation (RfC) sequences, as part of a comparative Pragmatic Typological project across ten languages. Based on video recordings of casual conversation, this is the first systematic survey of such sequences in Hebrew. We examine linguistic and embodied resources for making an RfC (syntactic and prosodic design; polarity; use of modulation, inference marking, connectives, and tag questions) and for responding to it (response type; use, type, and position of response tokens (RTs); (non)minimal responses; repeat strategies; nodding and headshakes). We find that Hebrew RfCs lack interrogative syntax and are overwhelmingly marked by rising final intonation, frequently marked as inferences, rich in types of connectives and modulators, but infrequently feature tag questions. In responses to RfCs, Hebrew presents a comparatively high rate of disconfirmation, which is often also relatively unmitigated, corroborating Linguistic Anthropological descriptions of Hebrew conversational style. RTs are used in over half of responses, while full repeats are relatively rare. Occasionally, nods and headshakes are found unaccompanied by speech, as exclusively embodied responses. We expand on two negating RTs: the dental click (an areal feature) and the forceful ma pit'om ‘of course not’ (lit. ‘what suddenly’). |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-05646d9ac0e34f028e7d89b45f97cb73 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2300-9969 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-11-01 |
| publisher | De Gruyter |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Open Linguistics |
| spelling | doaj-art-05646d9ac0e34f028e7d89b45f97cb732025-08-20T02:51:03ZengDe GruyterOpen Linguistics2300-99692024-11-0110119723210.1515/opli-2024-0028Request for confirmation sequences in HebrewBen-Moshe Yotam M.0Maschler Yael1Department of Hebrew Language, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, 3498838, IsraelDepartment of Hebrew Language, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, 3498838, IsraelThis study reports quantitative findings from a study of 205 Hebrew request for confirmation (RfC) sequences, as part of a comparative Pragmatic Typological project across ten languages. Based on video recordings of casual conversation, this is the first systematic survey of such sequences in Hebrew. We examine linguistic and embodied resources for making an RfC (syntactic and prosodic design; polarity; use of modulation, inference marking, connectives, and tag questions) and for responding to it (response type; use, type, and position of response tokens (RTs); (non)minimal responses; repeat strategies; nodding and headshakes). We find that Hebrew RfCs lack interrogative syntax and are overwhelmingly marked by rising final intonation, frequently marked as inferences, rich in types of connectives and modulators, but infrequently feature tag questions. In responses to RfCs, Hebrew presents a comparatively high rate of disconfirmation, which is often also relatively unmitigated, corroborating Linguistic Anthropological descriptions of Hebrew conversational style. RTs are used in over half of responses, while full repeats are relatively rare. Occasionally, nods and headshakes are found unaccompanied by speech, as exclusively embodied responses. We expand on two negating RTs: the dental click (an areal feature) and the forceful ma pit'om ‘of course not’ (lit. ‘what suddenly’).https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2024-0028hebrew polar questionsrequests for confirmation(dis)confirmationresponse tokensintonationfinal pitch contourtag questionsinteractional linguisticslinguistic typology |
| spellingShingle | Ben-Moshe Yotam M. Maschler Yael Request for confirmation sequences in Hebrew Open Linguistics hebrew polar questions requests for confirmation (dis)confirmation response tokens intonation final pitch contour tag questions interactional linguistics linguistic typology |
| title | Request for confirmation sequences in Hebrew |
| title_full | Request for confirmation sequences in Hebrew |
| title_fullStr | Request for confirmation sequences in Hebrew |
| title_full_unstemmed | Request for confirmation sequences in Hebrew |
| title_short | Request for confirmation sequences in Hebrew |
| title_sort | request for confirmation sequences in hebrew |
| topic | hebrew polar questions requests for confirmation (dis)confirmation response tokens intonation final pitch contour tag questions interactional linguistics linguistic typology |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2024-0028 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT benmosheyotamm requestforconfirmationsequencesinhebrew AT maschleryael requestforconfirmationsequencesinhebrew |