CERESO EL HONGO II

This section examines the role of lexical items (and, to be precise, lexical words) in spoken discourse. The aim is not simply to draw attention to some differences between speech and writing, but also to explore a relatively neglected dimension in the structural analysis of two-party conversations: the rule-governed structural links which can operate between lexical words across speaking turns. In contexts such as this the meanings of words also become more negotiable. They can register distinct attitudinal shifts and can acquire evaluative force. The research reported here is, thus, parallel to that into lexical signals and lexico-structural relations across sentences in written discourse, in that examination of lexis in use in communicative settings reveals that abstract, decontextualized accounts of the lexicon and of lexical relations may offer an impoverished view of lexical meaning.

In seminal work, Cruse (1977; 1986) explores the pragmatic dimensions of what he terms ‘lexical specificity’. His data is drawn from sets of lexical items which are hierarchically related, and he concentrates particularly on the communicative effects which can result from using such items in discourse. In order to begin to capture these effects, Cruse posits the notion of INS or

‘inherently neutral specificity’. He argues that taxonomies of structurally related lexical items will have some items which are more neutral and unmarked than others, and that it is by such ‘norms’ that the more markedly affective items can be measured. Thus, in a set alsatian, dog and animal the item dog emerges in an INS category. Cruse cites the following utterances:

Context: Said by someone who is the owner of only one domestic animal – an alsatian. Hearer knows this.

1 I think I shall take the alsatian for a walk.

2 I think I shall take the dog for a walk.

3 I think I shall take the animal for a walk.

and argues that (2) is the unmarked neutral utterance because it is ‘least motivated’, that is, in most contexts it has the highest degree of generality (neutral specificity). (In the specialized context of a dog show, however, the use of the term dog would normally be too general and alsatian preferred.) Alsatian in the above examples would be overspecified; animal would be underspecified. However, Cruse cites the following example of a customs

officer speaking to someone entering the country with a dog as an unusually marked use of lexis:

I’m sorry, sir, but all dogs coming from abroad must be put in quarantine for six weeks.

and argues that the use of animal here would have maximum generality and be the less marked item. The example illustrates the fact that there is no such thing as an inherently neutral item, but that in most contexts, and in a taxonomy such as this, dog is the more usually neutral specification. This allows us to observe in a relatively systematic way that the more under- or overspecific an item, the more immediate the communication and the more marked the evaluative overtones produced by use of the item. Thus, ‘Take that animal away’ is less positive than the ‘Take that dog away’ which has a more unmarked level of specificity. And in the utterances:

1 I was chased down the road by a huge alsatian.

2 I was chased down the road by a huge dog.

1 is less positive than 2.

In question/answer sequences, further lexical values accrue to deliberate underspecifications. For example, we can note that:

(1) A: What have they got in that cage?

B: An animal.

or:

(2) A: What did you buy in the pet shop?

B: An animal.

or, in a parallel set with the option of roses, petunias, etc. in the reply slot:

(3) A: What did you buy for mother from the florists?

B: Some flowers.

may involve either expressions of forgetfulness, reluctance to give information, sarcasm, etc. But the lexical item will be attitudinally marked and communicatively expressive.

Examination of lexical semantic relations across conversational boundar-ies produces a range of distinct communicative effects which, since they mark in a discourse a speaker’s individual involvement and point of view, cannot always be precisely specified. And this applies to lexical relations of antonymy, synonymy, etc. as well as, as we have just seen, to hyponymy. For example, in the exchange:

Lexis and discourse 101

(1) A: It’s cold today.

B: Yes, freezing.

speaker B uses a lexical item which marks clear agreement with speaker A.

McCarthy (1983; 1984b) argues that such lexical marking is as normal a feature of conversational exchanges as the use of proforms (e.g. yes it is, isn’t it?) and points out how very different effects can be produced if the relational sequence is reversed; for example:

(2) A: It’s freezing today.

B: Well, it’s cold.

Here speaker B produces a response which indicates, by a combination of contrastive use of intonation, utterance-initial well (see above p. 93) and set-related lexical items cold–freezing, some measure of detachment from speaker A’s proposition.³ McCarthy argues that consideration of the functions of such lexical items can provide a framework for explaining processes of negotiation between speakers and especially expressions of convergence and divergence. Lexical norms can be proposed for particular sequences. For example, McCarthy would argue that (1) above was a less marked sequence than (3) below:

(3) A: Were you furious?

B: I was cross (I was livid/I was furious).

Here the use of core and non-core items (see Chapter 2), particularly in relation to a scale of intensity (e.g. furious–strong; livid–stronger; cross–

weaker) indicate different degrees of acceptance, contrast or even challenge to the proposition of speaker A. We can also note the marked nature of questions containing non-core items (‘were you livid?’) and the potential for transaction closing made available by lexical repetition across the boundaries of conversational turns (e.g. ‘Were you furious?/I was furious’ ), though the role of intonation cannot be ignored.

Lexical research has generally ignored the discourse functions of lexical items and, although greater predictability and fuller specification will only be possible on scrutiny of large amounts of conversational data, the kinds of negotiation conducted by speakers can be studied in terms of lexis when the structural relations of words are examined in actual use and not confined to the limits of the sentence or the decontextualized example. McCarthy (1984a) (see Section 7.13) discusses how vocabulary teaching might take account of these aspects of language performance. The discussion of marked/unmarked items might also be usefully read in conjunction with the proposal for a series of tests in Chapter 2 to help us determine coreness in vocabulary.