Pragmatic markers in the aspect of communicative alignment

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Saint Petersburg State University

Pragmatic markers in the aspect of communicative alignment

Ekaterina V. Troshchenkova

Olga V. Blinova

Saint Petersburg, Russia

Abstract

The article presents a model of communicative alignment in pragmatic markers (PM) use in Russian everyday dialogical communication. The main objectives are to check whether speakers coordinate their linguistic behavior not just with the use of lexemes or grammar forms or constructions, but also with PMs and how this actually works. We suppose that the use of PM by one of the speakers in the dialogue may increase the chances that the same PM will be used by the other speaker. In a Russian speech corpus “One Day of Speech” there were found 57 macro-episodes of communication where the PM koroche / koroche govorya was used by multiple speakers (46 episodes with 2 speakers using the PM, 11 - with 3 speakers). The analysis of PM use applying the system of quantitative parameters, worked out by the authors, has enabled them to note, that medium frequency of PM use rises when the number of speakers increases. PM used by speaker 1 is repeated by speaker 2, thus inducing speaker 3 to use the same PM, which influences the speech of the first two speakers respectively. The data analysis allows us to conclude that the original hypothesis of alignment in PMs has been proved for the marker we studied.

Key words: pragmatic markers, communication, communicative alignment, Russian everyday speech, dialogue, spontaneous dialogue, Russian language.

Аннотация

ПРАГМАТИЧЕСКИЕ МАРКЕРЫ В АСПЕКТЕ КОММУНИКАТИВНОГО ВЫРАВНИВАНИЯ

Екатерина Владимировна Трощенкова

Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет, г. Санкт-Петербург, Россия

Ольга Владимировна Блинова

Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет, г. Санкт-Петербург, Россия

В статье описана модель коммуникативной координации в употреблении прагматических маркеров в русском повседневном диалогическом общении. Цель исследования состоит в проверке гипотезы, согласно которой коммуникативные механизмы выравнивания влияют на выбор участниками диалога лексических единиц, грамматических форм, конструкцийи прагматических маркеров: использование определенного прагматического маркера первым собеседником увеличивает вероятность использования этого же маркера вторым собеседником. На материале корпуса русского повседневного общения «Один речевой день» рассмотрено употребление частотного прагматического маркера короче / короче говоря в 57 макроэпизодах коммуникации общей продолжительностью 18 ч 48 мин., в которых этот маркер используется в речи двух (46 эпизодов) или трех (11 эпизодов) участников диалога. В результате анализа употребления прагматического маркера в соответствии с разработанной авторами системой количественных параметров установлено, что средняя частота использования прагматического маркера увеличивается с увеличением количества собеседников. Прагматический маркер, используемый говорящим-1, повторяется говорящим-2, и это побуждает говорящего-3 использовать тот же прагматический маркер, что в свою очередь влияет на речь двух первых говорящих. Полученные данные предварительно подтверждают выдвинутую гипотезу.

Ключевые слова: прагматические маркеры, коммуникация, коммуникативное выравнивание, русская повседневная речь, диалог, спонтанный диалог, русский язык.

Introduction

Corpus-based research of pragmatic markers (hereafter PMs) in Russian has been so far focused on theoretical issues concerning defining PMs as a specific class of linguistic units, creating methodology for their annotation and their typology, describing different classes from a functional point of view as well as statistically in terms of the frequency of their use. This research, being grounded on the previous results in this sphere, however, introduces a slightly different view, as it is interested not in individual uses of a PM by a single speaker, but considers usages of the same PM by two or more interlocutors in a coherent dialogue.

We suppose that - similarly to other kinds of linguistic units - there can be coordination at the level of PMs use in the speech of different interlocutors. Thus, the purpose of this study is to check a hypothesis that communicative alignment mechanisms affect not only the use of notional lexemes, grammatical forms or constructions by speakers, but also the use of pragmatic markers.

The article describes a methodology for analyzing communicative alignment in PMs as applied to spontaneous Russian oral dialogical discourse. The developed methods were applied to the research of one Russian pragmatic marker, that of koroche / koroche govorya (in short / briefly speaking) and an initial quantitative analysis of the dialogues was performed, so that the general fact of alignment could be verified and the specific aspects of the phenomenon could be discussed.

1. Basic concepts of the research

1.1 Communicative alignment

Concentrating on the problem of the conversational dialogue integrity, scholars turn to the concept of speech behavior coordination that occurs among the participants in dialogical interactions [Borisova, 2009]. In the English- language research tradition it is customary to talk about communicative alignment, often with an emphasis on the embeddedness of such coordinated verbal behavior in more general activity models, where mental models of interacting participants and their bodily experience are also being gradually harmonized as the dialogue develops. The interlocutors involved in the dialogue spontaneously align their linguistic behavior to each other at various levels from prosody to syntax, thereby enhancing coordination in attention (joint attention), actions and conceptualizations; a significant role in the mechanisms of this process the researchers assign to priming effects [Fusaroli, R^czaszek- Leonardi, Tylen, 2014; Pickering, Garrod, 2004; Pickering, Ferreira, 2008].

It is emphasized that the presence of such alignment in cooperative dialogues is associated with the successful solution of the tasks faced by the interlocutors [Pickering, Garrod, 2006], “interactive alignment process greatly simplifies language processing in dialogue” [Pickering, Garrod, 2004, p. 170]. Thus, the interactive adjustment of speech behavior can go beyond the mere imitation of the interlocutor's actions and create the effect of complementarity of the joint action, leading to behavioral coupling of the interlocutors [Fusaroli, Tylen, 2016]. These views are often developed in the Maturanian tradition that suggests treating cognitive processes as distributed in our brain, bodies and, in some cases, the social and physical worlds [Clark, Chalmers, 1998; Hutchins, 1995; Cowley, Kravchenko, 2006]. Thus, alignment can be considered a manifestation of a dialogically extended mind and interpersonal synergies arising from socially shared and distributed cognition.

The phenomenon of communicative alignment was quite thoroughly studied on experimental and corpus material in relation to notional words, some grammatical categories and constructions, as well as in relation to the coordination of interlocutors' mental models and their stancetaking [Du Bois, 2007; Pickering, Garrod, 2004]. M.J. Pickering, S. Garrod claim that “alignment of situation models is largely the result of alignment at other levels of representation. In fact, interlocutors tend to produce words they have just heard, to assume that ambiguous words have meanings that they have recently given to those words, to use grammatical constructions they have recently used, and so on” [Pickering, Garrod, 2006, p. 204]. John W. Du Bois considers alignment as continuously variable, the matter of degree, achieved as a result of two opposing tendencies towards convergence and divergence in interlocutors' views and evaluation of the situation [Du Bois, 2007, p. 162]. communicative lexical grammatical

Based on Dubois's idea of stance relations as a way of building socio-cognitive intersubjective relationships [Du Bois, 2007], a study of the discursive marker “well” in American English was carried out [Sakita, 2013], where this discursive marker is considered as a resource for managing relations between positions of interlocutors (management of relationships among stances). However, it should be emphasized that, in general, discursive markers of various types have so far been studied insufficiently, especially on Russian material. Hence, it would be important to study such indispensable elements of oral communication as pragmatic markers that function as speech automatisms, quite uncontrolled by the speaker, and, though being devoid of their own meaning, have a significant influence on communication.

As it was mentioned, the alignment itself is mostly viewed as an automatic process, subject to priming effects. As put it, “alignment of situation models is achieved is by a primitive and resource- free priming mechanism” and “the same priming mechanism produces alignment at other levels of representation, such as the lexical and syntactic” [Pickering, Garrod, 2004, p. 172]. For instance, J.K. Bock, studying syntactic repetition effect, argued that “sentence formulation processes are somewhat inertial and subject to such probabilistic factors as the frequency or recency of use of particular structural form” [Bock, 1986, p. 355]. Her own experiments with the use of active / passive sentences while describing pictures showed evidence that effects of priming were specific features of sentence form, independent of sentence content. H.P. Branigan et al. found the same priming effects when the pairs of interlocutors, who were respondents in their experiment, were to describe ditransitive actions, choosing between a) the X verbing the Y to the Z and b) the X verbing the Z the Y [Branigan, Pickering, Cleland, 2000]. This leads us to the supposition that the use of a certain pragmatic marker by the first interlocutor in the dialogue should increase the chances that the same marker will be used by the second interlocutor, and that harmonious cooperative communication is thus promoted.

1.2 Pragmatic markers

By “pragmatic markers” after [Brinton, 2017, p. 9] we mean discourse units that have a number of characteristics, among which are always or often: they are short, susceptible to phonological reduction, able to form separate tone groups, have a tendency to be placed at the borders of clauses, they are optional from a grammatical point of view, able to perform important pragmatic functions, have low ability / inability to encode propositional content, multifunctional, frequent in oral discourse and are stylistically stigmatized.

The term “pragmatic marker” was introduced in [Fraser, 1996]. B. Fraser created a multidivisional classification of units by which he understands encoded hits that tell about potential intentions of the speaker [Fraser, 1996]. According to him, this functional class of linguistic units can be found in any language.

Fraser distinguishes 4 type of PMs:

1) basic markers that “represent information which signals... the force of the direct basic message of the sentence”;

2) commentary markers, “lexical expressions which have both a representational meaning specifying an entire message, and a procedural meaning signaling that this message is to function as a comment on some aspect of the basic message”;

3) parallel markers, “whose function is to signal an entire message in addition to the basic message”;

4) discourse markers, this type “signals the relationship of the basic message to the foregoing discourse” ([Fraser, 1996]).

In Fraser terminology koroche / koroche govorya should be viewed as a commentary marker.

1.3 “Koroche” as a pragmatic marker

To check the hypothesis of communicative alignment encompassing the use of PMs in oral dialogues one pragmatic marker koroche / koroche govorya was chosen for an initial step in the research.

According to [Bogdanova-Beglarian et al., 2019b] this pragmatic marker is included into class boundary markers. The class includes markers that function as starters, finalizers and navigational tools in discourse (vot, koroche, etc.). In [Bogdanova-Beglarian et al., 2018b] this marker is classified as a rhythm-forming: PMs that are used as a sort of “pacemakers” to make spoken text rhythmical (vot, tam, koroche, tak).

There are several reasons for choosing this particular marker for beginning a study of communicative coordination concerning PMs in general. The first one is the fact that it is quite frequent in Russian dialogues (Table 1).

Being relatively important in oral dialogical discourse (it is also mentioned both in separate frequency lists for both female and male speakers), koroche, at the same time, has advantages before even more frequent PMs for this study. Some of its features make it more convenient for preliminary checking of the general hypothesis. Firstly, it does not occur in multiple forms. In [Bogdanova-Beglarian et al., 2019b] in the discussion of the main structural types of PMs in spoken Russian, koroche is mentioned with only one correspondent variant koroche govorya. Compare it with some other PMs: vot (109 variants), eto (30 variants) znaesh (17 variants). Thus, it is easy to find in the corpus and the cases of notional use of koroche (comparative degree from the adjective korotkiy) can be quickly discarded.

Secondly, one has to take into account that one form of PM can be multifunctional. Concerning dialogical speech [Bogdanova-Beglarian et al., 2019], mentions the rhythm-forming class among the polyfunctional PMs. However, koroche / koroche govorya does not seem to have a wide range of functions, so this factor - that in principle should be paid attention to while studying communicative alignment - for the time being may be ignored, which would not have been possible with many other frequent PMs.

2. Study design, material and method

2.1 “One Day of Speech” corpus

The research is based on the material of a sound corpus of Russian everyday speech “One Day of Speech”. It has been created and enlarged since 2007 at the Philological Faculty of Saint Petersburg State University. Its aim is to study Russian spoken language, everyday and professional communication. The recordings of the corpus are obtained in the conditions that are maximum close to natural: the method of continuous 24-hour recording of all speech produced by the informant was used, for more detail see [Bogdanova-Beglaryan et al., 2018a]. Now the corpus contains approximately 1250 hours of sound recordings, which is more than 2800 communicative macro-episodes. It includes the speech of 128 informants (68 male, 60 female speakers whose age ranges from 18 to 83 years old) plus more than 1000 of the basic speakers they communicate to during their speech day. The amount of transcripts from the corpus is more than 1 million tokens. More information about the corpus can be found in [Bogdanova-Beglaryan et al., 2019a].

2.2 Communicative macro-episodes in the corpus

We have analyzed 182 communicative macro-episodes with a total duration of 56 h 55 min, containing a PM koroche / koroche govorya. A communicative macro-episode is considered to be a fragment of the informant's “speech day”, realized in a particular place, under certain conditions and having a particular set of participants, see [Sherstinova, 2009]. From the total number of macro-episodes, 125 contain the PM used by only one interlocutor (of which 121 episodes can indeed be considered as not containing communicative alignment, while 4 episodes are records of telephone conversations, thus, one cannot judge about the presence of communicative alignment in them).

There were identified 57 macro-episodes (with a total duration of 18 hours, 48 minutes) in which koroche / koroche govorya is used in the speech of two (46 episodes) or three (11 episodes) speakers.

The following main parameters were involved in the analysis:

- the duration of the communicative macroepisode, the total number of PMs;

- the number of PMs in the S1 contribution;

- the number of PMs in the S2 or S3 contributions (S - Speaker. - E. T., O. B.);

- the number of PM uses in the S1 speech, observed before the first appearance of the PM in the S2 speech;

- the moments of PM's appearance in speaking;

- “distance” between utterances with PM.

To model the process of communicative alignment, it was necessary to analyze the linear arrangement of interlocutors' utterances, containing PM, consider the development of the dialogue in time, calculating the distance between the utterances of the first speaker who used the PM and the utterances of the second or third speaker who used the same PM. Let us give as an example of the following short fragment of the dialogue [ordS79-13] (see Table 2).

Repetition of the PM by the second speaker (in this case - I79) we consider to be the initial evidence of the presence of communicative alignment in the dialogue. The “distance” between the utterances in which communicative alignment is observed is the time interval in ms between the end of the utterance with the first PM and the beginning of the utterance with the second PM. In this case, utterances by M1 and I79 are separated only by an absolute pause of 309 ms in length.

Table 1. The most frequent PMs in Russian dialogue speech, according to [Bogdanova-Beglarian et al., 2019b]

In a corpus study of spoken British English concerning the use of ditransitive construction alternations [Gries, 2005] is was shown that there were often many intervening sentences between the two utterances, and - what is important - priming was stronger when the sentences were closer together. We maintain, following [Reinemann, ed., 2014, p. 559], that the priming effect of the utterance containing PM can fade with time: in connection with this it is noted that most of the (psychologically oriented) priming studies involve a maximum temporal delay between the presentation of the prime and the collection of the target variable of 15 to 20 minutes. We would like to further model this fading of the priming. Accordingly, the analysis involved macroepisodes as a whole, that is, the distance between the utterances can vary within the limits of total duration of the macro-episode.

3. Results of corpus analysis

The median average duration of a macroepisode is 1178171 ms (approximately 19 minutes).

Table 2. Fragment of a macro-episode containing koroche use by two speakers with timing

Let us look separately at the macro-episodes where the PM was used by two speakers (Macro-Episodes^ and those where the PM is used by three speakers (Macro-Episodes₃)

In Macro-Episodes₂ the time distances between the utterances are as follows (Table 3).

Thus, S1 has time to say koroche / koroche govorya sometimes several times before S2 joins him / her in using the PM. There are 77 uses of the PM by S1 before S2 for 46 macro-episodes, so on average S1 uses the PM 1,7 times before S2 joins.

In Macro-Episodes₃ one has to look both at the distances in relation to S2 and S3 joining the PM use (Table 4).

In this case, compared to Macro-Episodes₂, S2 joins S1 in the PM use even later, both concerning the initial PM use and the last time S1 uses koroche / koroche govorya before S2 starts. One has to check if S1 contributions tend to be long monologous narratives in these cases.

As far as S3 is concerned, quite expectedly (s)he joins much later from the first PM use by S1. What is of interest here for further discussion is the time distance between the last PM use of S1 / S2 and the first time S3 uses the PM: not only does it happen much faster than for S2 joining in Macro-Episodes₃, it is about twice as short as 52 joining in Macro-Episodes₂.

If one looks at the number of PM uses, S1 manages to say koroche / koroche govorya on average 2,3 times before S2 joins (25 times for 11 macro-episodes). This is slightly more than in Macro-Episodes₂, which leads to idea that longer time distances here are explained by the quality of contribution by S1 - monologous narratives that go practically uninterrupted at first by the other interlocutors (see the qualificative analysis below).

If we now look at the situation with S3, we shall see that the first two speakers say koroche / koroche govorya before S3 joins 69 times for 11 macro-episodes, i.e. on average 6,3 times. Thus, 53 hears the PM used much more than S2 both in Macro-Episodes₂ and Macro-Episodes₃. If one pays attention to the abovementioned fact that the time distance from the last PM use by S1 / S2 to S3 joining is significantly shorter than the same distance for S2 joining, one can make a supposition about the influence of communicative alignment.

Table 3. Average time distances for Macro-Episodes₂

Table 4. Average time distances for Macro-Episodes₃

To check what kind of speech contributions preceed S3 use of koroche / koroche govorya we turned to qualificative analysis of the macroepisodes where S1 and S2 use the PM most often before S3 joins in: macro-episode ordS15-05 - 16 times; ordS105-18 - 13 times; ordS15-09 - 8 times; ordS105-17 - 6 times; ordS89-14 and ordS30-15 - 5 times each.

If one ranks the Macro-Episodes₃ according to the time distances between the first PM use by S1 and the first PM use by S2, episodes ordS89-14, ordS30-15, ordS105-18, ordS15-09 are also (together with ordS123-05) among those five with longest distances, which makes them interesting for the analysis from the point of view of our supposition above that it may explain relatively late onset time for the first PM use by S2 compared to Macro- Episodes₂.

In most cases S3, though present in the dialogue, is not initially as active as a contributor to it as S1 or S2. S1 / S2 in these macro-episodes would be telling stories from their own life experience, book or film plot narrations, while S3 for some time only participates by showing interest to what is being told. S3 uses other pragmatic markers and clarification questions to emphasize he pays attention to the stories of S1 / S2.

Here is example 1 from ordS15-05 S3 (M2) mentions a book and S1 elaborates upon it: and “cool” (lines with timing for pauses are deleted):

Table 5

Fig. 1. The frequency of the PM use in macro-episodes of different type

Let us also look closer at the data for Macro-Episodes₂ and Macro-Episodes₃ concerning overall use of the PM compared to the Macro-episodes where only one speaker uses koroche / koroche govorya. It is important that comparison of the relative frequencies of the PM in the three samples shows a significant difference between the values obtained. Thus, the frequency mean values, calculated relative to the total length of the episodes in seconds:

- for the sample of the episodes where the PM was used by only one speaker equals 0.0007;

- for that where the PM was used by two speakers - 0.005;

- for that where the PM was used by three speakers - 0.012 (Figure 1).

4. Discussion

The results concerning Fmean in the use of koroche / koroche govorya for the macroepisodes where it is only used by one speaker compared with those where this PM is used by two or three speakers show that the frequency increases with the number of interlocutors including it in their utterances. Theoretically, there is no reason why this should be so, unless there is a kind of triggering: the fact that the PM used by S1 was repeated by S2 encourages S3 to use it as well, which in its turn encourages the other two continue using the PM.

In our data together speakers tend to use koroche / koroche govorya more often than in Macro-Episodes_r This leads to the idea that the frequency of the PM use may be rooted not only in the individual preferences of a particular speaker or the way it suits a particular situation in speaking, fulfilling its pragmatic marker functions, but is also influenced by alignment effects with the speakers tuning their contributions with regards to PM use to each other.

Thus, on the basis of the data obtained, the assumption that communicative alignment mechanisms influence the use the PM by the interlocutors can be considered provisionally confirmed.

It should be also noted that Macro-Episodes₃ where this effect is most visible are cases when the speakers are well-familiar with each other and communicate on a regular basis. These are not occasional communications with unknown people in the services sphere, public transport and so on. Hence, they have an opportunity for coordinating their speech activity not just in the macro-episodes in question but also beyond the corpus data. How this can influence priming effect, perhaps, adding to its stability and strength, is an issue to be further studied.

What is of interest here is that one can see that the time when S3 first uses koroche / koroche govorya, having heard it much more than S2, is significantly shorter than the time the first PM use by S2 occurs. This we interpret as manifestation of alignment, the situation when already existing amount of alignment between S1 and S2 encourages S3 to more actively use the same PM in his / her utterances.

On the other hand, one should also note that out of the total of macro-episodes (excluding the four telephone talks that cannot be analyzed in terms of alignment presence), only slightly less than a half manifest the use of the PM by the two or more speakers. This means that, even if one claims that alignment is a factor in the PM use, koroche / koroche govorya is not excessively “contagious”.

Conclusions and further research

However, one needs to further study communicative alignment from the point of view of other factors that can support or interfere with priming, such as maintaining one topic, the length of the speakers' utterances, the number of previous uses of the same marker by S1, individual preferences of the speakers and their general history of previous interactions. Finally, it is important to consider the type of PM. In particular, the PM is koroche / koroche govorya in a significant number of cases is used as part of monologue passages within the dialogues, which affects the characteristics studied in research.

One of the ways to further study pragmatic marker alignment in Russian everyday speech is to look at some other types of PM, according to Fraser classification. It would be interesting to check for alignment signs with these other PMs and to compare with koroche to see if the functional type can have some influence on the degree of speakers coordination with each other or if there are any specific coordinational features. Thus, we plan to analyze kak by which can be classified as a basic marker in Fraser's terms.

Note

1. The research is supported by the Russian Science Foundation (RSF), project № 18-18-00242 “Pragmatic Markers in Russian Everyday Speech”.

References

1. Bock J.K., 1986. Syntactic Persistence in Language Production. Cognitive Psychology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 355-387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010- 0285(86)90004-6.

2. Bogdanova-Beglaryan N.V., Sherstinova TJu., Blinova, O.V., Martynenko, GJa., 2018a. Korpus «Odin rechevoj den'» v issledovanijah sociolingvisticheskoj variativnosti russkoj razgovornoj rechi [Corpus “One Speech Day” for Studying Sociolinguistic Variation of Everyday Speech]. Analiz razgovornoj russkoj rechi (AR3-2017): Trudy sed'mogo mezhdisciplinarnogo seminara [Analysis of Russian Spoken Language (AR3- 2017): Papers of the 7th International Interdisciplinary Seminar]. D. A. Kocharov, P. A. Skrelin (eds.). SPb.: Politehnika-print. pp. 14-20.

3. Bogdanova-Beglarian N., Sherstinova T., Blinova O., Martynenko G., Baeva E., 2018b. Towards a Description of Pragmatic Markers in Russian Everyday Speech. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 11096: Speech and Computer. 20th International Conference, SPECOM 2018, Leipzig, Germany, September 1822, 2018, Proceedings. Springer Publishing Company, pp. 42-48. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-99579-3_5.

4. Bogdanova-Beglaryan N. V, Sherstinova T. Yu., Blinova O.V, Martynenko GYa., 2019a. Korpus russkogo yazyka povsednevnogo obshcheniya «Odin rechevoy den'»: tekushcheye sostoyaniye i perspektivy [Russian everyday speech corpus “One Day of Speech”: current state and perspectives]. Trudy Instituta russkogo yazyka im. V.V. Vinogradova [Proceedings of the V.V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute], vol. 21, pp. 101-110.

5. Bogdanova-Beglarian N., Sherstinova T., Blinova O., Martynenko G., 2019b. Pragmatic Markers Distribution in Russian Everyday Speech: Frequency Lists and Other Statistics for Discourse Modeling. Lecture notes in computer science. 11658 LNAI. Heidelberg, SpringerVerlag GmbH, pp. 433-443. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-030-26061-3_44.

6. Borisova I.N., 2009. Russkiy razgovornyy dialog: Struktura i dinamika [Russian Spoken Dialogue: Structure and Dynamics]. Moscow, LIBROKOM Publ. 320 p.

7. Branigan H.P., Pickering M.J., Cleland A.A., 2000. Syntactic Co-ordination in Dialogue. Cognition, vol. 75, iss. 2, pp. B13-B25. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00081-5.

8. Brinton L.J., 2017. The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge University Press. 344 p. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1017/9781316416013.

9. Clark A., Chalmers D.J., 1998. The Extended Mind. Analysis, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 7-19. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7.

10. Cowley S.D., Kravchenko A.V., 2006. Dinamika kognitivnykh protsessov i nauki o yazyke [Dynamics of Cognitive Processes and Language Sciences]. Voprosyyazykoznaniya [Topics in the Study of Language], no. 6, pp. 133-140.

11. Du Bois J.W, 2007. The Stance Triangle. Englebretson R., ed. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 139-182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns. 164.07du.

12. Fraser B., 1996. Pragmatic Markers. Pragmatics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 167-190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ prag.6.2.03fra.

13. Fusaroli R., R^czaszek-Leonardi J., Tylйn K., 2014. Dialogue as interpersonal synergy. New Ideas in Psychology, vol. 32, pp. 147-157. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/j. newideapsych.2013.03.005.

14. Fusaroli R., Tylйn K., 2016. Investigating Conversational Dynamics: Interactive Alignment, Interpersonal Synergy, and Collective Task Performance. Cognitive Science, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 145-171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs. 12251.

15. Gries S.T., 2005. Syntactic Priming: A Corpus-Based Approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, no. 34, pp. 365-399. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3.

16. Hutchins E., 1995. Cognition in the Wild, MIT Press. 381 p.

17. Pickering M.J, Ferreira VS, 2008. Structural Priming: A Critical Review. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 427-459. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427.

18. Pickering M.J., Garrod S., 2004. Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, no. 27, pp. 169-225. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056.

19. Pickering M.J., Garrod S., 2006. Alignment as the Basis for Successful Communication. Research on Language and Computation, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 203-228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168- 006-9004-0.

20. Reinemann C., ed., 2014. Political Communication. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. 659 p.

21. Sakita T.I., 2013. Discourse Markers as Stance Markers: Well in Stance Alignment in Conversational Interaction. Pragmatics and Cognition, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 81-116.

22. Sherstinova T.Yu., 2009. The Structure of the ORD Speech Corpus of Russian Everyday Communication. Matousek V. and Mautner P., eds. 12^th International Conference, TSD 2009: Text, Speech and Dialogue, Pilsen, Czech Republic, September 13-17, 2009. Proceedings. Pilsen, Springer, pp. 258-265. DOI: 0https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04208-9_37.

Размещено на Allbest.ru