1887
image of “You turn your back and there’s somebody moving in”

Abstract

Abstract

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 ( ): . AC raises questions about the nature of constructions and of Construction Grammar.

This work was made publicly available by the publisher.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.20009.hop
2021-05-06
2021-06-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/il.20009.hop/il.20009.hop.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/il.20009.hop&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/il.20009.hop
Loading
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