Search

Abstract: This study outlines a corpus comparison of British and New Zealander speakers’ use of the phrases ‘I don’t know’ and ‘I dunno’, along with their use in conjunction with discourse markers. It further investigates whether the phrase appears to be used as an epistemic device or an affective device, and the variety of pragmatic or semantic functions it fulfils in the discourse. With regard to both the full and the truncated phrase, British speakers use the phrase with different frequency and for different reasons than New Zealand speakers. Both phrases are used most often as a hedge or marker of uncertainty, and used predominantly in conversations, followed by meetings and oral history interviews. In addition, the phrase often occurs alone and mostly in the initial sentence position. And while native speakers used the phrases more as politeness devices, learners used them most to express hesitation or uncertainty. Further research could add to these findings by looking at all the meanings the phrases have in conversation, their use in academic discourse, as well as use of the single variant, ‘Dunno’. Learners would benefit by having some of this included in language learning materials. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This article examines verbal humour in routine interactions within professional workplaces, using material recorded in four New Zealand government departments. The problem of defining humour is discussed, followed by a brief outline of the theoretical models which underpin the analysis of the various functions which humour serves in professional organizations. Humour can express positive affect in interaction. It can also facilitate or 'licence' more negative interpersonal communicative intent. While politeness theory can account for the former, as a means of expressing collegiality at work, or de-emphasizing power imbalances, in its standard form politeness theory does not explain barbed, competitive or confrontational humour. For this it is necessary to look to 'the dark side of politeness' (Austin, 1990). An alternative perspective thus examines the extent to which humour functions, especially in unequal encounters, as an acceptable strategy to help superiors maintain a position of power but also as a strategy used by subordinates to licence challenges to the power structures within which they operate, and as a legitimizing strategy in attempts at subverting the repressive or coercive discourse of superiors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]