Repetition and paraphrase in contexts of concordant and discordant orientations

Abstract

Abstract Language processing theory posits that a person chooses words based on how he/she conceptualizes the referent. Where there are two or more interlocutors, depending on the way they conceptualize the referent, their word choices may be the same or different. In an unpublished paper, Sinclair claims that when interlocutors are in concordance, they are likely to repeat the word choices of their partners; when they are in discordance, they are likely to use paraphrases. This article investigates this claim by examining whether there is a relationship between two types of reiteration of concepts (repetition and paraphrase) and interlocutors’ orientations (concordant and discordant). 100 hotel reviews and responses posted on Trip­Advisor were collected to form two corpora representing the two contexts. The data was analyzed quantitatively to obtain comparative frequencies of repetition and paraphrase in each context, and connotations of paraphrases were identified to see whether there is any association between the types of connotations and interlocutors’ orientations. The results stand in contrast to Sinclair’s claim. More specifically, paraphrase outnumbers repetition in both contexts, and repetition is more preferred in discordant contexts. Affective connotations are more common in the reviews where the hotels are rated “terrible” and the reviewers and the respondents show opposing views on the concepts.