The discursive potential of prosody in the process of hybridization of oral and written forms of language

Abstract

Since the 1970s, the intralinguistic specificity observed in oral and written forms of utterance has been explained by the specificity of the production channel. However, the oral-written interaction present in real-life communication situations today is characterized by such diversity that it is sometimes difficult to determine the dominant production mode in each specific case.

This article examines the discursive interaction of production channels using a hybrid form of speech production created by professionals writing and reflecting on an important and relevant issue during oral discussion.

Working in the conditions of irreversibility and progressiveness of the oral speech production process, the speaker simultaneously verbalizes substantive-factual information (SFI-attitude), including it in his discursive activity: addresses his audience (extroverted attitude) and controls the process of speech production (introverted attitude).

The role of prosody in this process, marked by a pause and a pre-pause terminal contour, ensures information processing both at the production and comprehension levels. These markers are discussed in the article within a comparison of extroverted and introverted variants of monologue speech.

References

1. Bubnova G.I. 1998. Osnovnye intonatsionnye kontury: akusticheskaya forma i funktsii, vypolnyaemye v ustnoporozhdaemoi rechi (na materiale frantsuzskogo yazyka) [Basic intonation contours: acoustic form and functions realised in oral speech production]. Coll. of scientific papers “Experimental studies of oral speech production”. Moscow. Institute of Linguistics RAS, pp. 3–28. (In Russ.)

2. Bubnova G.I. 2018. Lingvokognitivnaya specifika monologicheskoi rechi v usloviyah ozvuchivaniya i spontannogo porojdeniya na materiale francuzskoi radio-peredachi “La Danse des mots” [Linguo-cognitive Specificity of Monologue Speech under Conditions of Scripted and Spontaneous Production: A Study of the French Radio Broadcast “La Danse des mots”]. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 19. Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, no. 2, pp. 31–41. (In Russ.)

3. Bubnova G.I., Gladkikh M.V. 2018. Prosodya obrashennosti [Prosody of the addressing]. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 19. Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, no. 3, pp. 39–58. (In Russ.)

4. Bubnova G.I. 2025. Prosodiya v rechevom vzaimodeystvii ustnoy i pis’mennoy form yazyka [Prosody in the Oral and Written Language Forms Interaction]. Lomonosov Linguistics and Intercultural Communication Journal, no. 2, pp. 46–58. (In Russ.)

5. Galperin I.R. 1981. Tekst kak obekt lingvisticheskogo issledovaniya [Text as an object of linguistic research]. M.: Nauka. (In Russ.)

6. Kibrik A.A. 2008. Est li predlozhenie v ustnoj rechi? [Is there a sentence in oral speech?] In Arhipova A.V. et al. (eds.). Fonetika i nefonetika [Phonetics and non-phonetics]. M.: YaSL, pp. 104–115. (In Russ.)

7. Kibrik A.A., Podlesskaya V.I. (eds.). 2009. Rasskazy o snovideniyah. Korpusnoe issledovanie ustnogo russkogo diskursa [Dream Stories: A Corpus-Based Study of Russian Oral Discourse]. M. Yazyki slavyanskih kultur. (In Russ.)

8. Austin J.L. 1986. Slovo kak dejstvie [How to do things with words]. In Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike [New in foreign linguistics], no. XVII. M., pp. 22–129. (In Russ.)

9. Avanzi M., Martin Ph. 2007. L’intoneme conclusif: une fin (de phrase) en soi? [Th e conclusive intonation: an end (of a sentence) in itself?]. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique francaise, no. 28, pp. 247–258. URL: https://hal.science/hal-00334629/file/19_Avanzi-martin_clf.pdf (accessed: 25.09.2025). (In French)

10. Beguelin M.-J. 2002. Clause, periode ou autre? La phrase graphique et la question des niveaux d’analyse [Clause, period, or something else? Th e graphic sentence and the question of levels of analysis]. Verbum, vol. 24, no. 1–2, pр. 85–107. URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/verbu.2002.1706. (accessed: 25.09.2025). (In French)

11. Benveniste E. 1966. Probleme de linguistique generale [Problem of general linguistics]. Тome 1. Paris: Gallimard. (In French)

12. Berrendonner A. 2002. Les deux syntaxes [The two syntaxes]. Verbum, vol. 24, no. 1–2, pр. 23–36. URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/verbu.2002.1702. (accessed: 25.09.2025). (In French)

13. Blanche-Benveniste Cl. (ed.). 1990. Le francais parle [Spoken French]. Paris: Editions du CNRS. (In French)

14. Charolles M., Le Goffic P., Morel M.A. (eds.). 2002. Y a-t-il une syntaxe au-dela de la phrase? [Is there a syntax beyond the sentence?]. Verbum, vol. 24, no. 1–2. URL: https://books.openedition.org/enseditions/6866 (accessed: 25.09.2025). (In French)

15. Hazael-Massieux M.C. 1983. Le role de l’intonation dans la definition et la structuration de l’unite du discours [Th e role of intonation in defining and structuring the unit of discourse]. Bulletin de la Societe Linguistique de Paris, vol. LXXVIII/1, pр. 99–160. (In French)

16. Lacheret-Dujour A., Kahane S. 2020. Unites syntaxiques et unites intonatives majeures en francais parle : inclusion, fragmentation, chevauchement [Major syntactic and intonational units in spoken French: inclusion, fragmentation, over lap]. Congres Mondial de Linguistique Francaise — СМLF 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf /20207814005 (accessed: 25.09.2025). (In French)

17. Lacheret-Dujour А., Victorri B. 2002. La periode intonative comme unite d’analyse pour l’etude du francais parle : modelisation prosodique et enjeux linguistiques [The intonation period as a unit of analysis for the study of spoken French: prosodic modeling and linguistic issues]. Verbum, vol. 24, no. 1–2, pр. 55–72. URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/verbu.2002.1704 (accessed: 25.09.2025). (In French)

18. Morel M.A., Danon-Boileau L. 1998. Grammaire de l’intonation. L’exemple du francais [Grammar of intonation. The example of French]. Paris: Ophrys. (In French)