Volume 28, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


This paper aims to describe different patterns of syntactic extensions of turns-at-talk in mundane conversations in Czech. Within interactional linguistics, same-speaker continuations of possibly complete syntactic structures have been described for typologically diverse languages, but have not yet been investigated for Slavic languages. Based on previously established descriptions of various types of extensions ( Vorreiter 2003 ; Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007 ), our initial description shall therefore contribute to the cross-linguistic exploration of this phenomenon. While all previously described forms for continuing a turn-constructional unit seem to exist in Czech, some grammatical features of this language (especially free word order and strong case morphology) may lead to problems in distinguishing specific types of syntactic extensions. Consequently, this type of language allows for critically evaluating the cross-linguistic validity of the different categories and underlines the necessity of analysing syntactic phenomena within their specific action contexts.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Altmann, Hans
    1981Formen der “Herausstellung” im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111635286
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111635286 [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, Peter
    1991 “Vom Ende deutscher Sätze.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik19: 139–157.10.1515/zfgl.1991.19.2.141
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgl.1991.19.2.141 [Google Scholar]
  3. 1996 “On the Prosody and Syntax of Turn-Continuations.” InProsody in Conversation. Interactional Studies, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Margret Selting , 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text25 (1): 7–36.10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2006 “Increments and More. Anmerkungen zur augenblicklichen Diskussion über die Erweiterbarkeit von Turnkonstruktionseinheiten.” InGrammatik und Interaktion. Untersuchungen zum Zusammenhang von grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprächsprozessen, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann , Reinhard Fiehler , and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy , 279–294. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2007 “Why are Increments such Elusive Objects? An Afterthought.” Pragmatics17: 647–658.10.1075/prag.17.4.03aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.03aue [Google Scholar]
  7. 2009 “On-line Syntax: 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]
  8. Auer, Peter , Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Frank E. Müller
    (eds) 1999Language in Time. The Rhythm and Tempo of Spoken Interaction. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Birkner, Karin , Sofie Henricson , Camilla Lindholm , et al.
    2010 “Retraction Patterns and Self-Repair in German and Swedish Prepositional Phrases.” InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures46: 1–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bolden, Galina B.
    2008 “Reopening Russian Conversations: The Discourse Particle -to and the Negotiation of Interpersonal Accountability in Closings.” Human Communication Research34: 99–136.10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2007.00315.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00315.x [Google Scholar]
  11. 2016 “A Simple Da?: Affirming Responses to Polar Questions in Russian Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics100: 40–58.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  12. Čechová, Marie , Miloš Dokulil , Zdeněk Hlavsa , et al.
    1996Čeština: řeč a jazyk. Prague: ISV nakladatelství.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2012 “Turn Continuation and Clause Combinations.” Discourse Processes49 (3–4): 273–299.10.1080/0163853X.2012.664111
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.664111 [Google Scholar]
  14. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Tsuyoshi Ono
    2007 “‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics17: 513–552.10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou [Google Scholar]
  15. Cvrček, Václav , Vilém Kodýtek , Marie Kopřivová , et al.
    2010Mluvnice současné češtiny. 1: Jak se píše a jak se mluví. Prague: Karolinum.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Daneš, František
    (ed) 1974Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague/The Hague/Paris: Academia/Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Daneš, František , Miroslav Grepl , and Zdeněk Hlavsa
    (eds) 1987Mluvnice češtiny3. Prague: Academia.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Field, Margaret
    2007 “Increments in Navajo Conversation.” Pragmatics17: 637–646.10.1075/prag.17.4.07fie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.07fie [Google Scholar]
  19. Firbas, Jan
    1992Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511597817
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597817 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ford, Cecilia E. , Barbara A. Fox , and Sandra A. Thompson
    (eds) 2002The Language of Turn and Sequence. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2002 “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” InThe Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford , Barbara A. Fox , and Sandra A. Thompson , 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2013 “Units and/or Action Trajectories?” InUnits of Talk – Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed , and Geoffrey Raymond , 13–55. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.25.02for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.02for [Google Scholar]
  23. Ford, Cecilia E. , Sandra A. Thompson , and Veronika Drake
    2012 “Bodily-Visual Practices and Turn Continuation.” Discourse Processes49 (3–4): 192–212.10.1080/0163853X.2012.654761
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.654761 [Google Scholar]
  24. Geluykens, Ronald
    1987 “Tails as a Repair Mechanism in English Conversations.” InGetting One’s Word into Line. On Word Order and Functional Grammar, ed. by Jan Nuyts , and George de Schutter , 119–130. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1994The Pragmatics of Discourse Anaphora in English: Evidence from Conversational Repair. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110846171
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846171 [Google Scholar]
  26. Goodwin, Charles
    1979 “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas , 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1981Conversational Organization. Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Goodwin, Marjorie H.
    1980 “Processes of Mutual Monitoring Implicated in the Production of Description Sequences.” Sociological Inquiry50: 303–317.10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00024.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00024.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Grepl, Miroslav , and Petr Karlík
    1985Skladba spisovné češtiny. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hajičová, Eva , Barbara H. Partee , and Petr Sgall
    (eds) 1998Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantics Content. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9012‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9012-9 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hakulinen, Auli , and Margret Selting
    (eds) 2005Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hausenblas, Karel
    1958 “Syntaktická závislost, způsoby a prostředky jejího vyjadřování.” Bulletin Vysoké školy ruského jazyka2: 23–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Havránek, Bohuslav , and Alois Jedlička
    1963Česká mluvnice. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hoffmannová, Jana , and Jiří Zeman
    2017 “Výzkum syntaxe mluvené češtiny: inventarizace problémů.” Slovo a slovenost78: 45–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
    2007 “La dislocation à droite comme ressource pour l’alternance des tours de parole: vers une syntaxe incrémentale.” Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique47: 117–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2015La dislocation à droite revisitée. Une approche interactionniste. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck10.3917/dbu.hcher.2015.01
    https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.hcher.2015.01 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hronek, Jiří , and Petr Sgall
    1992Čeština bez příkras. Prague: H&H.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Im, Hangyeong
    2004 “Increments and Phonetic Analysis in Korean.” The Journal of Linguistics Science1: 365–386.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Imo, Wolfgang
    2012 “Ellipsen, Inkremente und Fragmente aus interaktionaler Perspektive.” gidi Arbeitspapiere45: 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Iwasaki, Shimako
    2009 “Initiating Interactive Turn Spaces in Japanese Conversation: Local Projection and Collaborative Action.” Discourse Processes46 (2–3): 226–246.10.1080/01638530902728918
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728918 [Google Scholar]
  41. Jefferson, Gail
    1973 “A Case of Precision Timing in Ordinary Conversation: Overlapped Tag-Positioned Address Terms in Closing Sequences.” SemioticaIX (1): 47–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 1983 “Notes on Some Orderlinesses of Overlap Onset.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature28: 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis. Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner , 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  44. Kaderka, Petr , and Zdeňka Svobodová
    2006 “Jak přepisovat audiovizuální záznam rozhovoru? Manuál pro přepisovatele televizních diskusních pořadů.” Jazykovědné aktuality43 (3–4): 18–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Karlík, Petr , Marek Nekula , and Zdenka Rusínová
    (eds) 1995Příruční mluvnice češtiny. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kim, Kyu-hyun
    2001 “Turn-Constructional Practice in Korean Conversation: Organization of Turn Increments.” Language Research37 (4): 885–922.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kodýtek, Vilém
    2007 “Mluvená čeština v Praze a Brně: sonda do mluvených korpusů.” Slovo a slovesnost (1): 23–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Koike, Chisato
    2003 “An Analysis of Increments in Japanese Conversation in Terms of Syntax and Prosody.” InJapanese/Korean Linguistics11, ed. by P. M. Clancy , 67–80. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Krekoski, Ross
    2012 “Clausal Continuations in Japanese.” Discourse Processes49 (3–4): 300–313.10.1080/0163853X.2012.665988
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.665988 [Google Scholar]
  50. Laury, Ritva
    2012 “Syntactically Non-Integrated Finnish Jos ‘If’-Conditional Clauses as Directives.” Discourse Processes49 (3–4): 213–242.10.1080/0163853X.2012.664758
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.664758 [Google Scholar]
  51. Lindström, Jan
    2006 “Grammar in the Service of Interaction: Exploring Turn Organization in Swedish.” Research on Language and Social Interaction39 (1): 81–117.10.1207/s15327973rlsi3901_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3901_4 [Google Scholar]
  52. Luke, Kang-kwong
    2012 “Dislocation or Afterthought? – A Conversation Analytic Account of Incremental Sentences in Chinese.” Discourse Processes49 (3–4): 338–365.10.1080/0163853X.2012.658502
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.658502 [Google Scholar]
  53. Luke, Kang-kwong , Sandra A. Thompson , and Tsuyoshi Ono
    2012 “Turns and Increments: A Comparative Perspective.” Discourse Processes49 (3–4): 155–162.10.1080/0163853X.2012.664110
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.664110 [Google Scholar]
  54. Luke, Kang-kwong , and Wei Zhang
    2007 “Retrospective Turn Continuations in Mandarin Chinese Conversation.” Pragmatics17: 605–635.10.1075/prag.17.4.04luk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.04luk [Google Scholar]
  55. Mathesius, Vilém
    1939 “O tak zvaném aktuálním členění větném.” Slovo a slovesnost5: 171–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 1942 “Řeč a sloh.” InČtení o jazyce a poezii, ed. by Bohuslav Havránek , and Jan Mukařovský , 11–102. Prague: Družstevní práce.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Mondada, Lorenza
    2013 “Multimodal Interaction.” InBody – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, ed. by Cornelia Müller , Alan Cienki , Ellen Fricke et al. , 577–589. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 2015 “Multimodal Completions.” InTemporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann , and Susanne Günthner , 267–307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Naughton, James
    2005Czech. An Essential Grammar. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Nekvapil, Jiří
    1991 “The Syntactic Process of Parcellation and Supplementation and Their Results: Parcellated Formations and Supplemented Formations.” InNeue Fragen der Linguistik. Akten des 25. linguistischen Kolloquiums, Paderborn 1990, ed. by Elisabeth Feldbusch , Reiner Pogarell , and Cornelia Weiss , 329–333. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 1993 “On the Asymmetry between Syntactic and Elementary Textual Units.” InStudies in Functional Stylistics, ed. by J. Chloupek , and Jiri Nekvapil , 186–222. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/llsee.36.11nek
    https://doi.org/10.1075/llsee.36.11nek [Google Scholar]
  62. Ochs, Elinor , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Sandra A. Thompson
    (eds) 1996Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  63. Ogiermann, E. , and Jörg Zinken
    2011 “How to Propose an Action as Objectively Necessary: the Case of Polish Trzeba x (“one needs to x”).” Research on Language & Social Interaction44 (3): 263–287.10.1080/08351813.2011.591900
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.591900 [Google Scholar]
  64. Ono, Tsuyoshi , and Sandra Thompson
    1994 “Unattached NPs in English Conversation.” Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society20 (1): 402–419.10.3765/bls.v20i1.1477
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v20i1.1477 [Google Scholar]
  65. Panevová, Jarmila , Eva Hajičová , Václava Kettnerová , et al.
    2014Mluvnice současné češtiny. 2: Syntax češtiny na základě anotovaného korpusu. Prague: Karolinum.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50: 696–735.10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  67. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1972 “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” InStudies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow , 75–119. New York: MacMillan, The Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 1987 “Recycled Turn Beginnings: A Precise Repair Mechanism in Conversation’s Turn-taking Organization.” InTalk and Social Organization, ed. by Graham Button , and John R. E. Lee , 70–85. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Sandra A. Thompson , 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  70. 2000a “On Turns’ Possible Completion, More or Less: Increments and Trail-offs.” Paper delivered atthe 1st Euroconference on Interactional Linguistics (Spa, Belgium).
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 2000b “Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language in Society29 (1): 1–63.10.1017/S0047404500001019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500001019 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2001 “Conversation Analysis: A Project in Process – ‘Increments’.” Forum lecture delivered atthe LSA Linguistic Institute, University of California Santa Barbara: 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Selting, Margret
    1994 “Konstruktionen am Satzrand als interaktive Ressource in natürlichen Gesprächen.” InWas determiniert Wortstellungsvariation? Studien zu einem Interaktionsfeld von Grammatik, Pragmatik und Sprachtypologie, ed. by Brigitta Haftka , 229–318. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.10.1007/978‑3‑322‑90875‑9_18
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-90875-9_18 [Google Scholar]
  74. Selting, Margret , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    (eds) 2001Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  75. Selting, Margret , Peter Auer , Dagmar Barth-Weingarten , et al.
    2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung Online10: 353–402.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Seppänen, Eeva-Leena , and Ritva Laury
    2007 “Complement Clauses as Turn Continuations: The Finnish et(tä)-Clause.” Pragmatics17: 553–572.10.1075/prag.17.4.06sep
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.06sep [Google Scholar]
  77. Sgall, Petr
    1982 “Zur Typologie der Thema-Rhema-Gliederung.” InStudien zum Tschechischen, Slowakischen und Deutschen aus vergleichender Sicht, ed. by Gert Jäger , Václav Křístek , and Jozef Mistrík , 173–185. Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Sidnell, Jack
    2012 “Turn-Continuation by Self and by Other.” Discourse Processes49 (3–4): 314–337.10.1080/0163853X.2012.654760
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.654760 [Google Scholar]
  79. Tanaka, Hiroko
    2000 “Turn Projection in Japanese Talk-in-Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction33 (1): 1–38.10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1 [Google Scholar]
  80. Thielemann, Nadine , and Peter Kosta
    (eds) 2013Approaches to Slavic Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ds.20
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.20 [Google Scholar]
  81. Townsend, Charles E.
    1990A Description of Spoken Prague Czech. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Vorreiter, Susanne
    2003 “Turn Continuations: Towards a Cross-Linguistic Classification.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures39: 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Walker, Gareth
    2004 “On Some Interactional and Phonetic Properties of Increments to Turns in Talk-in-Interaction.” InSound Patterns in Interaction. Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Cecilia E. Ford , 147–169. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.62.10wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.10wal [Google Scholar]
  84. Wilson, James
    2010Moravians in Prague. A Sociolinguistic Study of Dialect Contact in the Czech Republic. Frankfurt/Berlin/Brussels: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Zhang, Wei
    2012 “Latching/Rush-Through as a Turn-Holding Device and its Functions in Retrospectively Oriented Pre-Emptive Turn Continuation: Findings from Mandarin Conversation.” Discourse Processes49 (3–4): 163–191.10.1080/0163853X.2012.658501
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.658501 [Google Scholar]
  86. Zinken, Jörg , and Eva Ogiermann
    2013 “Responsibility and Action: Invariants and Diversity in Requests for Objects in British English and Polish Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction46 (3): 256–276.10.1080/08351813.2013.810409
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.810409 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media 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