Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


In this paper, various interactional features of turn-constructional unit (TCU) continuation as realized in Korean conversation through post-predicate elements are analyzed from a conversation-analytic perspective. Formulated as increments, post-predicate elements serve as re-completers by expanding the host TCU after it has reached a possible point of completion, which is explicitly marked by the utterance-final verb predicate. In many contexts of TCU continuation, the host TCU tends to be allusively constructed (e.g., in the form of a verb predicate with unexpressed arguments) and saliently indexical of the speaker’s affective stance, and post-predicate elements, mostly taking the form of ‘insertables’, elaborate the host TCU. TCU continuation is often realized when the action of the allusive host TCU is ‘disjunctively’ executed, with the interactional import of being potentially interruptive of the current talk-in-progress. Such an intrusive deployment of the host TCU, which is implicated in the practice of foregrounding the speaker’s collusively motivated responsive stance (e.g., in a confirmation request), is demonstrably oriented to by the speaker, who produces a post-predicate element as a methodic way of mitigating the disjunctive initiation of the prior action. The recipient also orients himself/herself to the potentially topic-derailing import associated with such a disjunctive initiation of action by way of initiating repair and/or promptly resuming his/her talk. As such, the production of a post-predicate element itself, mostly as an insertable that is grammatically and semantically related to the host, may not be directly attributed to interactional contingencies per se; it is often sequentially occasioned by practices geared towards enlivening the sequence being wrapped up, initiating or continuing an assessment sequence by way of highlighting the speaker’s evaluative stance turn-initially, or building the current turn on the prior turn through turn-tying operations. The interactional feature of post-predicate elements ‘re-doing the completion point as a transition-relevance place’ is partially manifested in the way the prosodic contour of the final or whole component of the host TCU is repeated and matched by that of the post-predicate elements.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Button, G. , and N. Casey
    (1984) Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 167-190.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Choi, S.-J
    (1995) The development of epistemic sentence-ending modal forms and functions in Korean children. In J. Bybee and S. Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 165-204. doi: 10.1075/tsl.32.09cho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32.09cho [Google Scholar]
  3. Couper-Kuhlen, E
    (1992) Contextualizing discourse: The prosody of interactive repair. In P. Auer & A. di Luzio (eds.), The Contextualization of language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 337-364. doi: 10.1075/pbns.22
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22 [Google Scholar]
  4. (1993) English speech rhythm: Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.25
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.25 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ford, C. E
    (1993) Grammar in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554278
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554278 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ford, C.E. , B.A. Fox , and S.A. Thompson
    (1996) Practices in the construction of turns: The “TCU” revisited. Pragmatics6.3: 427-454.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2002) Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In C.E. Ford , B.A. Fox , and S.A. Thompson (eds.), The Language of turn and sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 14-38.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ford, C.E. , and S.A. Thompson
    (1996) Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs , E.A. Schegloff and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134-184. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 [Google Scholar]
  9. Givόn, T
    (1983) Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/tsl.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 [Google Scholar]
  10. Goodwin, C
    (1979) The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp. 97-121.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (1981) Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Halliday, M.A.K. , and R. Hasan
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Heritage, J
    (1984) Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2002) The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics34: 1427-1446. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00072‑3
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Jefferson, G
    (1972) Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 294-338.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kim, K.-H
    (1999) Grammar and interaction in Korean conversation: Intra-turn unit boundaries as an interactional resource. Human Studies22: 425-446. doi: 10.1023/A:1005431826151
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005431826151 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2001a) Confirming intersubjectivity through retroactive elaboration. In M. Selting and E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 345-372. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.16kim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.16kim [Google Scholar]
  18. (2001b) Turn-constructional practice in Korean conversation: Organization of turn increments. Language Research 37.4: 885-922. Seoul National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim, K.-H. , and K.-H. Suh
    (1996) Dealing with prior talk: Discourse connective in Korean conversation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 5: 83-99.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2002) Demonstratives as prospective indexicals: ku and ce in Korean conversation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 10: 192-205.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee, H.-S
    (1991) Tense, aspect, and modality: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of verbal affixes in Korean from a typological perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (1993) Cognitive constraints on expressing newly perceived information, with reference to epistemic modal suffixes in Korean. Cognitive Linguistics4-2: 135-167. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.135
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.135 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lerner, G. H
    . (2003) Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society32: 177-201.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Levinson, S
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Local, J
    (1992) Continuing and restarting. In P. Auer & A. di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 273-296. doi: 10.1075/pbns.22.18loc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.18loc [Google Scholar]
  26. Ogden, R
    (2004) Non-modal voice quality and turn-taking in Finnish. In E. Couper-Kuhlen and C.E. Ford (eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 29-62. doi: 10.1075/tsl.62.05ogd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.05ogd [Google Scholar]
  27. Sacks, H
    (1992) Lectures on conversation, Volume I. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sacks, H. , E.A. Schegloff , and G. Jefferson
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50: 696-735. doi: 10.2307/412243
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  29. Schegloff, E.A
    (1987) Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organization. In G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (eds.), Talk and social organization. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, pp. 54-69.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Schegloff. E.A
    (1996) Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs , E.A. Schegloff , and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 70-85. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  31. Schegloff, E.A
    (2001) Conversation analysis: A project in process – “Increments”. Forum Lecture in the 2001 LSA Summer Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara.
  32. Schegloff, E.A. , G. Jefferson , and H. Sacks
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53: 361-382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  33. Selting, M
    (1996) On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn-constructional units and turns in conversation. Pragmatics 6.3: 371-388.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Tanaka, H
    (1999) Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Vorreiter, S
    (2003) Turn continuations: Towards a cross-linguistic classification. InLiSt [Interaction and Linguistic Structures], No. 39, URL: www.uni-potsdam.de/u/inlist/issues/39/index.htm
    [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