Discourse markers as turn-transition devices: Evidence from speech and instant 
messaging

Degand, L.; Van Bergen, Geertje

doi:10.1080/0163853X.2016.1198136

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Please note that a newer version of this item is available:
https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/item/item_2304283_5

DetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Discourse markers as turn-transition devices: Evidence from speech and instant messaging

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons136580

Van Bergen, Geertje
Neurobiology of Language Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

Degand_VanBergen_2018.pdf
(Publisher version), 2MB

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Degand, L., & Van Bergen, G. (2018). Discourse markers as turn-transition devices: Evidence from speech and instant messaging. Discourse Processes, 55, 47-71. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2016.1198136.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-002A-CBA5-D

Abstract

In this article we investigate the relation between discourse markers and turn-transition strategies in face-to-face conversations and Instant Messaging (IM), that is, unplanned, real-time, text-based, computer-mediated communication. By means of a quantitative corpus study of utterances containing a discourse marker, we show that utterance-final discourse markers are used more often in IM than in face-to-face conversations. Moreover, utterance-final discourse markers are shown to occur more often at points of turn-transition compared with points of turn-maintenance in both types of conversation. From our results we conclude that the discourse markers in utterance-final position can function as a turn-transition mechanism, signaling that the turn is over and the floor is open to the hearer. We argue that this linguistic turn-taking strategy is essentially similar in face-to-face and IM communication. Our results add to the evidence that communication in IM is more like speech than like writing.