Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 13:2 (2022) ► pp.250–271

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Repetition and paraphrase in contexts of concordant and discordant orientations

 | King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok
ORCiD logo with link | King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok
Published online: 23 June 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.19069.pan
Abstract
Language processing theory posits that a person chooses words based on how he/she conceptualizes the referent. Where there are two or more interlocutors, depending on the way they conceptualize the referent, their word choices may be the same or different. In an unpublished paper, Sinclair claims that when interlocutors are in concordance, they are likely to repeat the word choices of their partners; when they are in discordance, they are likely to use paraphrases. This article investigates this claim by examining whether there is a relationship between two types of reiteration of concepts (repetition and paraphrase) and interlocutors’ orientations (concordant and discordant). 100 hotel reviews and responses posted on Trip­Advisor were collected to form two corpora representing the two contexts. The data was analyzed quantitatively to obtain comparative frequencies of repetition and paraphrase in each context, and connotations of paraphrases were identified to see whether there is any association between the types of connotations and interlocutors’ orientations. The results stand in contrast to Sinclair’s claim. More specifically, paraphrase outnumbers repetition in both contexts, and repetition is more preferred in discordant contexts. Affective connotations are more common in the reviews where the hotels are rated “terrible” and the reviewers and the respondents show opposing views on the concepts.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Lexical choice and reiteration of concepts
  • 3.Corpora
  • 4.Data analysis
    • 4.1Identifying concepts
    • 4.2Identifying reiterated concepts
    • 4.3Identifying affective connotations of paraphrase
    • 4.4Interrater reliability
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
References (46)
References
Attardo, Salvatore and Steven Brown. 2011. Understanding Language Structure, Interaction, and Variation: An Introduction to Applied Linguistics and Sociolinguistics for Nonspecialists. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, Susan E., & Herbert H. Clark. 1996. “Conceptual Pacts and Lexical Choice in Conversation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22(6): 1482–1493.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 1999. “Repetition.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(1–2): 223–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 1997. “On Preservation under Negation.” Lingua 101(1–2): 65–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2000. “On the Definition of X0 and XP.” Syntax 3(2): 59–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1997. “Conceptual Perspective and Lexical Choice in Acquisition.” Cognition 64(1): 1–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cotterill, Janet. 2003. Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the OJ Simpson Trial. New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. “Collocation, Connotation, and Courtroom Semantics: Lawyers’ Control of Witness Testimony through Lexical Negotiation.” Applied Linguistics 25(4): 513–537. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danet, Brenda. 1980. “‘Baby’ or ‘Fetus’?: Language and the Construction of Reality in a Manslaughter Trial.” Semiotica 32(3–4): 187–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duff, Patricia. 2000. “Repetition in Foreign Language Classroom.” Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction:109–138.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Thinking Syntactically: A Guide to Argumentation and Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harley, Trevor A. 2008. The Psychology of Language. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinkel, Eli. (1997). “Indirectness in L1 and L2 Academic Writing.” Journal of Pragmatics 27(3): 361–386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Chiung-chih. (2010). “Other-repetition in Mandarin Child Language: A Discourse-Pragmatic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(3): 825–839. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Károly, Krisztina. 2002. Lexical Repetition in Text. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 2002. “The Form and Function of Next-turn Repetition in English Conversation.” Language Research 38(1): 51–81.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landis, Richard J. and Gary G. Koch. 1977. “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data.” Biometrics 33(1): 159–174. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M., Ardi Roelofs and Antje S. Meyer. 1999. “A Theory of Lexical Access in Speech Production.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(1): 1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lichtkoppler, Julia. 2007. ‘Male. Male.’ – ‘Male?’ – ‘The Sex Is Male.’ The Role of Repetition in English as a Lingua Franca Conversations. Vienna English Working Papers 16(1): 39–65.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marco, Maria José Luzon. 1999. “Procedural Vocabulary: Lexical Signalling of Conceptual Relations in Discourse.” Applied Linguistics 20(1): 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James R. and Peter R. R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McDonough, Kim and Alison Mackey. 2006. “Responses to Recasts: Repetitions, Primed Production, and Linguistic Development.” Language Learning 56(4): 693–720. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohamed, Ayisha H. and Majzoub R. Omer. 2000. “Texture and Culture: Cohesion as A Marker of Rhetorical Organisation in Arabic and English Narrative Texts.” RELC Journal 31(2): 45–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, Lynne M. 2003. Semantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonymy, Synonymy and Other Paradigms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal R. 1987. “Functions of Repetition in Conversation.” Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 7(3): 245–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payne, Scott, and Brenda Ross. 2005. “Synchronous CMC, Working Memory, and L2 Oral Proficiency Development.” Language Learning & Technology 9(3): 35–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perrin, Laurent, Denise Deshaies and Claude Paradis. 2003. “Pragmatic Functions of Local Diaphonic Repetitions in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 35(12): 1843–1860. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pope, Alan H. 1992. Lexical Repetition in American Poetry. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 241: 105–116.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reynolds, Dudley W. 1995. “Repetition in Nonnative Speaker Writing: More Than Quantity.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition: 185–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rydland, Veslemøy, and Vibeke Grøver Aukrust. 2005. “Lexical Repetition in Second Language Learners’ Peer Play Interaction.” Language Learning 55(2): 229–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Savignon, Sandra J. and Waltraud Roithmeier. 2004. “Computer-mediated communication: Texts and strategies.” Calico Journal: 265–290.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. “Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair.” Discourse Processes 23(3): 499–545. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 2004. Trust the text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London and New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1987. “Repetition in Conversation: Toward a Poetics of Talk.” Language 63(3): 574–605. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2001. An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walsh, Steve. 2011. Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Shih-Ping. 2005. “Corpus-based Approaches and Discourse Analysis in Relation to Reduplication and Repetition.” Journal of Pragmatics 37(4): 505–540. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watson Todd, Richard. 2016. Discourse topics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wong, Jean. 2000. “Repetition in Conversation: A Look at “First and Second Sayings””. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(4): 407–424. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Panseeta, Sayamol & Richard Watson Todd
2023. The Influence of Contexts and Orientations on Interlocutors’ Choices of Concept Reiterations. rEFLections 30:3 ► pp. 776 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue