| 1. |
- Fuoli, Matteo, et al.
(författare)
-
A model of trust-repair discourse
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Journal of Pragmatics. - : Elsevier BV. - 0378-2166. ; 74, s. 52-69
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article proposes a novel theoretical framework for examining trust-repair discourse. The model identifies two fundamental discourse strategies available to the trust-breaker when trust is at stake (i) to engage with and act upon the discourses that represent a potential source of distrust - neutralize the negative, (ii) to communicate a trustworthy discourse identity - emphasize the positive. These strategies are realized in discourse through the use of dialogic engagement and evaluative/affective language, respectively. The ultimate communicative goal of the strategies is that of promoting the addressees' positive (re-)assessment of the speaker's ability, integrity and benevolence. The model is applied to the analysis of the CEO letter published by BP one year after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The analysis has the twofold purpose of demonstrating the viability of the model and determining the discourse strategies deployed by the CEO to repair trust in the company after the accident.
|
|
| 2. |
- Fuoli, Matteo, et al.
(författare)
-
Combining corpus and experimental methods to study dialogic engagement in spoken discourse : an analysis of complement-taking predicates
- 2016
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The main objective of this paper is to challenge the treatment of first-person epistemic and evidential complement-taking predicates (CTPs) in Martin and White’s (2005) APPRAISAL theory, and to offer suggestions for improving the model. Based on the combined results of a corpus-based analysis of CTPs and of a psycholinguistic experiment, we demonstrate that several co-textual and situational factors play a significant role in speakers’ interpretation of the dialogic function of CTPs. We argue that a flexible approach is necessary to account for the multifunctional nature of CTPs in discourse, and that co-text and context need to be taken into account for an accurate analysis of these expressions.According to Martin and White (2005), CTPs such as I think and I believe are used by speakers and writers to signal that they take into consideration the possible existence of alternative viewpoints, and to make dialogic space for possible subsequent arguments. These predicates are classified as instances of dialogic expansion within the authors’ APPRAISAL framework (Martin & White, 2005: 98). They are set in contrast to expressions of dialogic contraction (e.g. obviously, however, but), which are used in discourse to challenge, resist or reject alternative value positions. In spoken discourse, however, CTPs do not appear to always perform an expanding function. In (1), for example, I think co-occurs with the dialogically contractive obviously, which seems to override the functional content of the CTP, making the turn as a whole relatively contractive.(1) B: I think he was \obviously trying to steer us in that direction [əә] and sort ofA: yesB: dropping hintsMartin and White (2005: 103) recognize that the function of ENGAGEMENT expressions “may vary systematically under the influence of different co-textualconditions, and across registers, genres and discourse domains.” These conditions, however, are not discussed in detail by the authors, nor have they been systematically investigated in the literature. In this study, we combine corpus- based and psycholinguistic methods to investigate the effect of different contextual factors on the dialogic function of CTPs.The study is conducted in two phases. First, an exploratory qualitative analysis of CTPs in the London-Lund Corpus (LLC) of spoken British English is carried out. The aim of the analysis is to identify some factors that may play a role in determining the dialogic force of CTPs, and generate hypotheses about their effects. In the second phase, a psycholinguistic experiment is conducted to test the effect of three of these factors on speakers’ interpretation of utterances containing CTPs. The results indicate that CTPs not only serve to expand the dialogic context in which they occur, but may also function to inhibit dialogue. Participant status, intonation contour and the co-occurrence of a contractive marker are shown to have a significant effect on the function of CTPs.This study contributes to our understanding of the pragmatic functions of CTPs. It also offers suggestions for the development of the APPRAISAL model and concrete guidelines for implementing the model in corpus analyses of spoken discourse. Finally, it demonstrates the usefulness of complementing corpus and experimental techniques to gain better insights into linguistic phenomena.
|
|
| 3. |
- Fuoli, Matteo, et al.
(författare)
-
Denial outperforms apology in repairing organizational trust despite strong evidence of guilt
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Public Relations Review. - : Elsevier BV. - 0363-8111. ; 43:4, s. 645-660
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Previous work in the areas of organizational trust repair and crisis communication has provided conflicting answers to the question of whether denial can be more effective than apology in repairing stakeholder trust in a company following an integrity-based violation. This article reportsthe results of an experiment designed to (i) test the effects of these two strategies on individuals’ trust in a company accused of corruption, and (ii) determine whether and how evidence of the company’s guilt influences stakeholder reactions to its trust repair message. The results demonstrate that, when evidence against the company is weak, trust is restored moresuccessfully with a denial than an apology. Contrary to our hypothesis, denial was found to outperform apology in repairing perceptions of the company’s integrity and benevolence even in the face of strong evidence, and it was as effective as apology in restoring perceived ability and trusting intentions. These results provide empirical evidence for the ‘paradoxical effect’ that anopen and honest attitude can, in the short term, be more detrimental to organizations than a defensive strategy. More research on the factors that determine the credibility and persuasiveness of corporate denial is called for.
|
|
| 4. |
- Paradis, Carita, et al.
(författare)
-
The intersubjective role of I think constructions in conversation : Combining evidence from corpus and experimental techniques
- 2016
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Combining data from spontaneous face-to-face conversations in the London-Lund Corpus (LLC) of spoken British English and a laboratory experiment, this paper analyses the dynamic nature of I think constructions in dialogue. We make use of the functional category of ENGAGEMENT in APPRAISAL theory as an analytical tool (Martin & White, 2005). More precisely, we examine whether I think constructions are used to open up the dialogic space for new ideas or counterarguments, EXPANSION, or whether they are used to fend off alternative views, CONTRACTION. We explored the conversational corpus data to identify important contextual factors for the functional use of I think in spoken dialogue. The investigation pointed to three factors that are particularly important for the interpretation of I think constructions in conversation. They are: prosodic cues, other stance markers and social factors. On the basis of this information, we were able to formulate three hypotheses for our experiment: • H1. Utterances with I think produced by equal-status speakers are perceived as more expansive than utterances produced by higher-status speakers. • H2. Utterances with I think only are perceived as more expansive than utterances with I think and an additional contractive marker. • H3. Utterances in which I think receives an accent on the verb are perceived as more expansive than utterances with accent on the pronoun, which in turn are perceived as more expansive than utterances with no accent on I think. The contributions of this study are both descriptive and theoretical in nature. It is shown that for an accurate description of ENGAGEMENT expressions in conversation, it is necessary to take the prosodic and socio-cognitive dynamic nature of meanings in language use into account (Cruttenden 1997; Du Bois, 2007; Geeraerts et al., 1994; Kärkkäinen, 2003; Paradis, 2003, 2015). We question the APPRAISAL claim that I think is always expansive and the approach itself because of its conception of meaning in language as fixed and its lack of explanatory tools for poly-functionality and meaning shifts. Our results show that I think constructions invoke both EXPANSION and CONTRACTION, and that the interpersonal force of I think constructions rely both on the meanings contributed by the predicates themselves and on contextual factors. Interactions between interlocutor status, prosodic marking and the co-occurrence of other stance markers are shown to have a significant effect on the function of I think, with interlocutor status having the strongest and most consistent effect. References Cruttenden, A. (1997). Intonation (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
|
|
| 5. |
- Pöldvere, Nele, et al.
(författare)
-
A study of dialogic expansion and contraction in spoken discourse using corpus and experimental techniques
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Corpora. - : Edinburgh University Press. - 1755-1676 .- 1749-5032. ; 11:2, s. 191-225
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study examines the dialogic functions of EXPANSION and CONTRACTION of first-person epistemic and evidential Complement-Taking Predicate (CTP) constructions, such as I think COMPLEMENT, I suppose COMPLEMENT and I know COMPLEMENT, in spoken discourse. It combines corpus and experimental methods (i) to investigate whether CTP constructions are used to open up the dialogic space for new ideas or counterarguments, or to fend off alternative views, and (ii) to identify what contextual factors play a role in determining the dialogic force of the constructions. First, an exploratory analysis of CTP constructions in the London-Lund Corpus (LLC) of spoken British English is carried out with the aim to identify important contextual factors and generate hypotheses about their dialogic effects. Then, a laboratory experiment is conducted to test the impact of the three most prominent factors for speakers' interpretations of utterances containing CTPs. The results indicate that CTP constructions do not only serve to expand the dialogic context in which they occur, but also to restrict alternative views. Interlocutor status, the co-occurrence of other stance markers and prosodic marking of first-person CTP are shown to have a significant effect on the dialogic function of the expressions. These findings call into question some claims in APPRAISAL theory about the role of CTP constructions in discourse, and highlight the need for a flexible approach to the analysis of these poly-functional stance expressions.
|
|
| 6. |
- Pöldvere, Nele, et al.
(författare)
-
Combining corpus and experimental methods to gain new insights into APPRAISAL in spoken discourse
- 2016
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The mainobjective of this paper is to challenge the treatment of first-person epistemicand evidential complement-taking predicate (CTP) constructions in Martin andWhite’s (2005) appraisal theory,and to offer suggestions for improving the model. Based on empirical evidencefrom a corpus-based analysis and a laboratory experiment, we demonstrate that CTPconstructions do not only serve to expand the dialogic context in which theyoccur, but also to put a lid on alternative views. The paper contributes to the refinement of appraisal as a corpus annotation tool,and provides a practical illustration of the usefulness of combining corpus andexperimental methodsto gain new and robust insights into linguistic phenomena. In appraisal, first-person CTPs such as I think and I believe are classified as instances of dialogic expansion in that they make dialogic space for possiblesubsequent arguments (Martin & White, 2005: 98). They are set in contrast toexpressions of dialogic contraction (e.g.obviously, however, but), which areused in discourse to challenge, resist or reject alternative value positions. Inspoken discourse, however, CTP constructions do not appear to always perform anexpansive function. In (1), for example, Ithink is prosodically unaccented, serving as a starting point for theopinion expressed in the complement clause, which contains an evidential markerwith a falling accent – obviously –signalling a high degree of commitment (Cruttenden, 1997; Kärkkäinen, 2003). (1) B: I think he was \obviously trying to steer us in that direction and sort of A: yes B: dropping hints Martinand White (2005: 103) recognize that the function of engagement expressions "may vary systematically under theinfluence of differentco-textual conditions, and across registers, genres and discourse domains."These conditions, however, are not discussed in detail by the authors, nor havethey been systematically investigated in the literature. In this study, we combinecorpus-based and experimental methods to test the effect of different contextualfactors on the dialogic function of CTP constructions. The study is conducted in twophases. First, an exploratory analysis of CTP constructions in the London-LundCorpus (LLC) of spoken British English is carried out to identify factors thatmay play a role in determining the dialogic force of the constructions. The annotationof CTP constructions in the corpus is performed following Fuoli’s (forthcoming) step-wise method for annotatingappraisal, and is validatedthrough an inter-rater reliability test. Hypotheses derived from the corpusfindings are then tested in a controlled experimental setting. The resultsindicate that CTP constructions not only serve to expand the dialogic contextin which they occur, but may also function to inhibit dialogue. Interlocutorstatus, prosodic marking and the co-occurrence of a contractive marker are shownto have a significant effect on the function of CTP constructions.
|
|
