Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2666-4224
  • E-ISSN: 2666-4232



Anacrustic Coordination (AC) is a type of biclausal conjunction such that an initial clause or phrase sets up a state of affairs and is followed by and a strongly focused second clause, for example AC figures in a number of kinds of interaction. One is the topic/comment conditional, as in It is a possibility for enhancing certain illocutionary acts such as threats and warnings: . It is a basis for syntactic mirativity, the coding of surprise and unexpectedness (DeLancey 1997): . AC raises questions about the nature of constructions and of Construction Grammar.

This work was made publicly available by the publisher.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Aichenvald, A.
    (2012) The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology16,3:435–85. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, P.
    (2000) On-line-Syntax, oder was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der gesprochenen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur85:43–56. 10.30965/25890859‑031‑01‑90000005
    https://doi.org/10.30965/25890859-031-01-90000005 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2009) On line syntax: some thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences31:1–13. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2015) The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and Latency. InA. Deppermann and S. Günthner (Eds.), 27–56. 10.1075/slsi.27.01aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.01aue [Google Scholar]
  5. Barth-Weingarten, D.
    (2014) Dialogism and the emergence of final particles: The case of and. InS. Günthner, W. Imo & J. Bücker (Eds.), Grammar and Dialogism: Sequential, Syntactic, and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation, 335–66. Berlin: De Gruyter. (Linguistik: Impulse & Tendenzen, 61) 10.1515/9783110358612.335
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110358612.335 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barth-Weingarten, D. & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2011) Action, prosody and emergent constructions: the case of and. InP. Auer & S. Pfänder, Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 263–292. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229080.263
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.263 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolduc, M. K. & Frank, D. A.
    (2010) Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s ‘On Temporality as a Characteristic of Argumentation’: Commentary and Translation. Philosophy and Rhetoric43 (4): 308–315.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Collins, P. C.
    (1994) Cleft and Pseudocleft Constructions in English. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. DeLancey, S.
    (1997) Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology1: 33–52. 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  10. Deppermann, A., & Günthner, S.
    (2015) Introduction: Temporality in interaction. InA. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in Interaction, 1–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27 [Google Scholar]
  11. Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., Thompson, S. A., Englebretson, R., & Martey, N.
    (2000–2005) The Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1–4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Du Bois, J.
    (2014) Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics25,3: 359–410. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fielder, G. E.
    (2008) Bulgarian adversative connectives: Conjunctions or discourse particles?InR. Laury (Ed.), 79–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.80.05fie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.05fie [Google Scholar]
  14. Givón, T.
    (1993) English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction, Volume 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.engram2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.engram2 [Google Scholar]
  15. Green, M.
    (2020) Speech Acts. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts AccessedNovember 14, 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Günthner, S.
    (2011) Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions. InP. Auer and S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emergent and Emerging, 156–185. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229080.156
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.156 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2015) A temporally oriented perspective on connectors in interaction: und zwar (‘namely/in fact’) constructions in everyday German conversations. InA. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in Interaction, 237–264. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 237–64. 10.1075/slsi.27.08gun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.08gun [Google Scholar]
  18. Günthner, S., & Hopper, P. J.
    (2010) Zeitlichkeit und sprachliche Struktur: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen. Gesprächsforschung11:1–28. www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/ga-guenthner.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Haiman, J.
    (1978) Conditionals are topics. Language54:565–589. 10.1353/lan.1978.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1978.0009 [Google Scholar]
  20. Haspelmath, M.
    (Ed.) (2004) Coordinating Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language 58) 10.1075/tsl.58
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.58 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hopper, P. J.
    (1987) Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society13:139–157. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2001) Grammatical Constructions and their Discourse Origins: Prototype or Family Resemblance?InM. Pütz & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics: Theory, Acquisition, and Language Pedagogy109–30. Berlin: Mouton/De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110866247.109
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866247.109 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2002) Hendiadys and auxiliation in English. InJ. Bybee and M. Noonan (Eds.), Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse, 145–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.110.09hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.110.09hop [Google Scholar]
  24. (2004) The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society40:153–175.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2007) Emergent serialization in English: Pragmatics and typology. InJ. Good (Ed.), Language Universals and Language Change, 520–554. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2011) Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics. InP. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 22–44. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229080.22
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2012) Emergent Grammar. InJ. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 301–315. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2019) Timely Notes on Saussure and Hermann Paul after 1968. InH. Boas & M. Pierce (Eds.), New Directions in Historical Linguistics, 78–109. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004414075_005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004414075_005 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hyland, Kenneth
    (1998) Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text18,3:349–382. 10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349 [Google Scholar]
  30. Keevallik, L.
    (2020) Grammatical coordination of embodied action: The Estonian ja ‘and’ as a temporal organizer of Pilates moves. InY. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström, & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of action, 221–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.32.08kee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.08kee [Google Scholar]
  31. Kuteva, T.
    (2004) Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakoff, R.
    (1971) If’s, and’s and but’s about conjunction. InC. J. Fillmore & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, 115–149. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Laury, R.
    (Ed.) (2008) Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.80
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80 [Google Scholar]
  34. Maschler, Y.
    (2015) Word order in time: Hebrew (Ns)V/VNs syntax. InA. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), 201–36. 10.1075/slsi.27.07mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.07mas [Google Scholar]
  35. Matthiessen, C., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1988) The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. InJ. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, 275–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.18.12mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.12mat [Google Scholar]
  36. Paul, H.
    (1920) Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 5. Auflage. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Pawley, A. & Syder, F. H.
    (2000) The one clause at a time hypothesis. InH. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency, 163–199. Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Pekarek Doehler, S., De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S.
    (2015) Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.28 [Google Scholar]
  39. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
    (1958) De la temporalité comme caractère de l’argumentation. Archivio di filosofia28 (2): 115–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Prince, E.
    (1978) A comparison of WH- and IT clefts in discourse. Language54:883–906. 10.2307/413238
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413238 [Google Scholar]
  41. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Schiffrin, D.
    (1986) Functions of and in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics10:41–46. 10.1016/0378‑2166(86)90099‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(86)90099-8 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schmerling, S.
    (1974) Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts. Syntax and Semantics3:211–231. Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Thompson, S. A. & Hopper, P. J.
    (2009) Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction. InR. Laury, (Ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining99–123. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
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