1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Temporality in Interaction
  4. Chapter

Temporality and the Emergence of a Construction

A Discourse Approach to Sluicing

image of Temporality and the Emergence of a Construction

A sluice (Ross 1969) is a wh-word that, in the standard syntactic view, refers to ellipted material in an antecedent clause. In the present study, based on conversational data, I view sluices from a temporal and interactional perspective in which grammatical constructions are seen as emergent in time rather than as fixed stable entities. I analyze the different timings of sluices in terms of their projective, retractive, preemptive and other functions. Pre-sluices are forward-oriented and work to block potential questions that might distract from a current or upcoming theme. Post-sluices are “retractions” (cf. Auer 2009) that close off a completed turn or a sequence of turns.

e-Book ISBN 9789027268990

References

  1. American National Corpus
    . www.americannationalcorpus.org
  2. Auer, Peter
    2000 “Online Syntax – oder was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen.” Sprache und Literatur85: 43–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text25 (1): 7–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 2009 “Online Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences31: 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2011 “‘L’idée vient en parlant’: Kleists Entwurf zur dialogischen Emergenz von Sprache und Denken.” Lecture Series Heinrich von Kleist: Zum 200. Todesjahr eines rebellischen Klassikers.Deutsches Seminar der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg in Verbindung mit der FRIAS School of Language and Literature, dem Studium Generale, der Freiburger Goethe-Gesellschaft und dem Theater Freiburg. Unpublished Manuscript.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. . this volume. “The temporality of language in interaction: projection and latency.” doi: 10.1075/slsi.27.01aue
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.01aue [Google Scholar]
  7. Auer, Peter and Stefan Pfänder
    2011 “Constructions: Emergent or Emerging?” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder , 1–21. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.1 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolinger, Dwight L
    1952 “Linear Modification.” Publications of the Modern Language Association67: 1117–1144. doi: 10.2307/459963
     https://doi.org/10.2307/459963 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brazil, David
    1995 A Grammar of Speech. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Chadwick, Henry
    1991 Saint Augustine: Confessions. Translation, Introduction, Notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Sandra A. Thompson
    2006 “‘You know, it’s funny’: Eine Neubetrachtung der Extraposition im Englischen.“InKonstruktionen in der Interaktion, ed. by Susanne Günthner and Wolfgang Imo , 23–58. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110894158.23
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894158.23 [Google Scholar]
  12. Du Bois, John W ., et al.
    2000–2005 Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1- 4.Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Franck, Dorothea
    1985 “Sentences in Conversational Turns.” InDialogue, An Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. by Marcelo Dascal , 233–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbcs.1.23fra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs.1.23fra [Google Scholar]
  14. Günthner, Susanne and Paul Hopper
    2010 “Zeitlichkeit und sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen.“Gesprächsforschung11: 1–28, URL: www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2010/ga-guenthner.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Hopper, Paul J
    1998 “Emergent Grammar.” InThe New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Linguistic Structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello , 155–75. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2001 “Grammatical Constructions and their Discourse Origins: Prototype or Family Resemblance?” InApplied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition, ed. by Martin Pütz , Susanne Niemeier , and René Dirven , 109–129. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110866247.109
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866247.109 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2008 “Die Bedeutsamkeit der mündlichen Interaktion für die Linguistik: Die Pseudocleft-Konstruktion im Englischen.“InVon der Konstruktion zur Grammatik, ed. by Anatol Stefanowitsch and Kerstin Fischer , 179–188. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson
    2008 “Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction.” InCrosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury , 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.80.06hop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.06hop [Google Scholar]
  19. Hopper, Paul J
    2011 “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder , 22–44. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.22
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2004 “The Openness of Grammatical Constructions.” Chicago Linguistic Society40: 239–256.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson
    2008 “Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction.” InCrosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining, ed. by Ritva Laury , 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.80.06hop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.06hop [Google Scholar]
  22. Kleist, Heinrich von
    1806 “Über die allmähliche Verfertigung der Gedanken beim Reden.” Unnumbered. gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/589/1
     [Google Scholar]
  23. McShane, Marjorie J
    2005 A Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Merchant, Jason
    2001 A Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 2008 “Variable Island Repair under Ellipsis.” InTopics in Ellipsis, ed. by John Kyle , 132–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Ochs, Elinor , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Sandra A. Thompson
    1996 “Introduction.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emmanuel A. Schegloff , and Sandra A. Thompson , 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.001
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ono, Tsuyoshi and Sandra A. Thompson
    1994 “Unattached NPs in English conversation.” Berkeley Linguistics Society20: 402–419. doi: 10.3765/bls.v20i1.1477
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v20i1.1477 [Google Scholar]
  28. Paul, Hermann
    1922 Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 8. Ausgabe. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Pike, Kenneth L
    1947 Phonemics: A Technique for Reducing Languages to Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: U Michigan.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Ross, John
    1969 “Guess who?” Chicago Linguistic Society5: 252–286.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Sag, Ivan and Joanna Nykiel
    2008 We Can’t Hear the Strikethroughs either: Sluicing without Deletion.Stanford, CA: Stanford U. URL: www.stanford.edu/dept/linguistics/semgroup/ellipsevent/SagNykiel.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emmanuel A. Schegloff , and Sandra A. Thompson , 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  34. Schwitalla, Johannes
    2012 Gesprochenes Deutsch: Eine Einführung. 4., neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Schmidt.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Sinclair, John and Anna Mauranen
    2006 Linear Unit Grammar. Integrating Speech and Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.25
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.25 [Google Scholar]

References

  1. American National Corpus
    . www.americannationalcorpus.org
  2. Auer, Peter
    2000 “Online Syntax – oder was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen.” Sprache und Literatur85: 43–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text25 (1): 7–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 2009 “Online Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences31: 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2011 “‘L’idée vient en parlant’: Kleists Entwurf zur dialogischen Emergenz von Sprache und Denken.” Lecture Series Heinrich von Kleist: Zum 200. Todesjahr eines rebellischen Klassikers.Deutsches Seminar der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg in Verbindung mit der FRIAS School of Language and Literature, dem Studium Generale, der Freiburger Goethe-Gesellschaft und dem Theater Freiburg. Unpublished Manuscript.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. . this volume. “The temporality of language in interaction: projection and latency.” doi: 10.1075/slsi.27.01aue
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.01aue [Google Scholar]
  7. Auer, Peter and Stefan Pfänder
    2011 “Constructions: Emergent or Emerging?” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder , 1–21. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.1 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolinger, Dwight L
    1952 “Linear Modification.” Publications of the Modern Language Association67: 1117–1144. doi: 10.2307/459963
     https://doi.org/10.2307/459963 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brazil, David
    1995 A Grammar of Speech. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Chadwick, Henry
    1991 Saint Augustine: Confessions. Translation, Introduction, Notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Sandra A. Thompson
    2006 “‘You know, it’s funny’: Eine Neubetrachtung der Extraposition im Englischen.“InKonstruktionen in der Interaktion, ed. by Susanne Günthner and Wolfgang Imo , 23–58. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110894158.23
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894158.23 [Google Scholar]
  12. Du Bois, John W ., et al.
    2000–2005 Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1- 4.Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Franck, Dorothea
    1985 “Sentences in Conversational Turns.” InDialogue, An Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. by Marcelo Dascal , 233–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbcs.1.23fra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs.1.23fra [Google Scholar]
  14. Günthner, Susanne and Paul Hopper
    2010 “Zeitlichkeit und sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen.“Gesprächsforschung11: 1–28, URL: www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2010/ga-guenthner.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Hopper, Paul J
    1998 “Emergent Grammar.” InThe New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Linguistic Structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello , 155–75. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2001 “Grammatical Constructions and their Discourse Origins: Prototype or Family Resemblance?” InApplied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition, ed. by Martin Pütz , Susanne Niemeier , and René Dirven , 109–129. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110866247.109
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866247.109 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2008 “Die Bedeutsamkeit der mündlichen Interaktion für die Linguistik: Die Pseudocleft-Konstruktion im Englischen.“InVon der Konstruktion zur Grammatik, ed. by Anatol Stefanowitsch and Kerstin Fischer , 179–188. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson
    2008 “Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction.” InCrosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury , 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.80.06hop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.06hop [Google Scholar]
  19. Hopper, Paul J
    2011 “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder , 22–44. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.22
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2004 “The Openness of Grammatical Constructions.” Chicago Linguistic Society40: 239–256.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson
    2008 “Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction.” InCrosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining, ed. by Ritva Laury , 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.80.06hop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.06hop [Google Scholar]
  22. Kleist, Heinrich von
    1806 “Über die allmähliche Verfertigung der Gedanken beim Reden.” Unnumbered. gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/589/1
     [Google Scholar]
  23. McShane, Marjorie J
    2005 A Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Merchant, Jason
    2001 A Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 2008 “Variable Island Repair under Ellipsis.” InTopics in Ellipsis, ed. by John Kyle , 132–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Ochs, Elinor , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Sandra A. Thompson
    1996 “Introduction.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emmanuel A. Schegloff , and Sandra A. Thompson , 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.001
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ono, Tsuyoshi and Sandra A. Thompson
    1994 “Unattached NPs in English conversation.” Berkeley Linguistics Society20: 402–419. doi: 10.3765/bls.v20i1.1477
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v20i1.1477 [Google Scholar]
  28. Paul, Hermann
    1922 Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 8. Ausgabe. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Pike, Kenneth L
    1947 Phonemics: A Technique for Reducing Languages to Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: U Michigan.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Ross, John
    1969 “Guess who?” Chicago Linguistic Society5: 252–286.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Sag, Ivan and Joanna Nykiel
    2008 We Can’t Hear the Strikethroughs either: Sluicing without Deletion.Stanford, CA: Stanford U. URL: www.stanford.edu/dept/linguistics/semgroup/ellipsevent/SagNykiel.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emmanuel A. Schegloff , and Sandra A. Thompson , 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  34. Schwitalla, Johannes
    2012 Gesprochenes Deutsch: Eine Einführung. 4., neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Schmidt.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Sinclair, John and Anna Mauranen
    2006 Linear Unit Grammar. Integrating Speech and Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.25
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.25 [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027268990-slsi.27.04hop
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Figure -contentType:Table -contentType:SupplementaryData
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027268990-slsi.27.04hop
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Figure -contentType:Table -contentType:SupplementaryData
10
5
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error