1887
Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

Our paper concerns the grammar of clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation. We consider the patterns of clause combining in our data and focus on the verbal and non-verbal cues which allow participants to determine whether, after the end of a clause-sized unit, the turn will end or continue with another clause-sized unit, resulting in a clause combination. We conclude that morphosyntax alone cannot account for the patterns found in our data, but that the participants orient to, at least, prosodic and nonverbal cues in determining the boundaries of clauses and projecting continuation in the form of another clause. Also important for projection are fixed expressions or ‘prefabs’. In addition, semantic and pragmatic factors play a role. In that sense, we explore the question of where the limits of grammar for interaction, understood as the knowledge which speakers share and which forms the basis for the creation and processing of novel utterances, should be drawn, and whether grammar should include, beyond morphosyntax, not only prosodic, pragmatic and semantic features but also bodily behavior.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.3.06lau
2015-09-01
2019-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aho, E
    (2010) Spontaanin puheen prosodinen jaksottelu. [Prosodic segmentation in spontaneous speech]. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, P
    (1992) The neverending sentence: On rightward expansion in spoken syntax. In M. Kontra , and T. Váradi (eds.), Studies in spoken Languages: English, German, Finno-Ugric. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, pp.41-60.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2005) Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text25.1: 7-36.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2009) Projection and minimalistic syntax in interaction. Discourse Processes46.2: 180-205. doi: 10.1080/01638530902728934
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728934 [Google Scholar]
  5. Auer, P. , and S. Pfänder
    (2011) Constructions: Emerging or emergent?In P. Auer , and S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.1-21. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.1 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J
    (2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, J. , and P. Hopper
    (2001) Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chafe, W.L
    (1980) The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative. In W.L. Chafe (ed.), The Pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood: Ablex, pp.9-50.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1987) Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.21-51. doi: 10.1075/tsl.11.03cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.03cha [Google Scholar]
  10. (1994) Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Clancy, P.M
    (1980a) The Acquisition of Narrative Discourse: A Study in Japanese. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (1980b) Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W.L. Chafe (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp.127-202.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cook, H.M
    (1992) Meanings of non-referential indexes: A case study of the Japanese sentence-final ne. Text 12.4: 507-539.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Couper-Kuhlen, E. , and T. Ono
    (2007) Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective. Special issue of Pragmatics 17.4.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Couper-Kuhlen, E
    (2009) On combining clauses and actions in conversation. InVirittäjä3. www.kotikielenseura.fi/virittaja/hakemistot/jutut/couper-kuhlen3_2009.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2012) Turn continuation and clause combinations. Discourse Processes49: 273-299. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2012.664111
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.664111 [Google Scholar]
  17. Couper-Kuhlen, E. , and S.A. Thompson
    (2008) On assessing situations and events in conversation: Extraposition and its relatives. Discourse Studies10.4: 443-467. doi: 10.1177/1461445608091882
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608091882 [Google Scholar]
  18. Du Bois, J.W
    (1987) The discourse basis of ergativity. Language63: 805-855. doi: 10.2307/415719
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  19. Du Bois, J.W. , S. Schuetze-Coburn , D. Paolino , and S. Cumming
    (1993) Outline of discourse transcription. In J.A. Edwards , and M.D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding methods for language research. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.45-89.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Duvallon, O. , and S. Routarinne
    (2005) Parenthesis as a resource in the grammar of conversation. In A. Hakulinen , and M. Selting (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.45-74. doi: 10.1075/sidag.17.05duv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.05duv [Google Scholar]
  21. Evans, N
    (2007) Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.366-431.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ford, C
    (2004) Contingency and units in interaction. Discourse Studies6: 27-52. doi: 10.1177/1461445604039438
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604039438 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fromkin, V. , and R. Rodman
    (1993) An Introduction to Language. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publisher.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Goffman, Erving
    (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Goodwin, Charles
    (2003) The body in action. In J. Coupland , and R. Gwyn (eds.), Discourse, the Body and Identity. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan, pp.19-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Haddington, P. , L. Mondada , and M. Nevile
    (2013) Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter. doi: 10.1515/9783110291278
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110291278 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hakulinen, A. , M. Vilkuna , R. Korhonen , V. Koivisto , T.R. Heinonen , and I. Alho
    (2004) Iso suomen kielioppi. [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Helasvuo, M.-L
    (2001) Emerging syntax for interaction: Noun phrases and clauses as a syntactic resource for interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen , and M. Selting (eds.), Studies in Interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.25-50. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.04hel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.04hel [Google Scholar]
  29. Hauser, M.D. , N. Chomsky , and W.T. Fitch
    (2002) The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?Science298: 1569-1579. doi: 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hinds, J
    (1982) Ellipsis in Japanese. Carbondale: Linguistic Research.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hopper, P
    (1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society13: 139-157.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hopper, P. , and S.A. Thompson
    (2008) Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In R. Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.99-124. doi: 10.1075/tsl.80.06hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.06hop [Google Scholar]
  33. Iwasaki, S
    (1993a) The structure of the intonation unit in Japanese. In S. Choi (ed.), Japanese and Korean linguistics, vol. 3. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp.39-53.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (1993b) Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse: Theoretical Considerations and a Case Study of Japanese Spoken Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sidag.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.2 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2002) Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1017/s0022226702281384
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022226702281384 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2013) Japanese. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/loall.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.17 [Google Scholar]
  37. Iwasaki, S. , and T. Ono
    (2002) “Sentence” in spontaneous spoken Japanese discourse. In J. Bybee , and M. Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of S.A. Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.175-202. doi: 10.1075/z.110.10iwa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.110.10iwa [Google Scholar]
  38. Jefferson, G
    (1972) Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press, pp.294-338.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Keenan, E. , and B. Comrie
    (1977) Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry8: 63-99.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Keevallik, L
    (2003) From Interaction to Grammar: Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversation. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kirkkomäki, E
    (2012) Johtoilmaukset ja referointi kertomuksissa. [Framing expressions and quotation in Stories]. MA thesis, University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Koivisto, A
    (2011) Sanomattakin selvää? Ja, mutta ja että puheenvuoron lopussa. [Goes without saying? Ja, mutta and että at the end of a turn at talk]. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. . (in prep.) Online emergence of alternative questions in Finnish with the conjunction/particle vai ‘or’. Submitted to R. Laury , M. Etelämäki and E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.) Combining Clauses and Actions in Interaction.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Koivisto, A. , R. Laury , and E-L. Seppänen
    (2011) Syntactic and actional characteristics of Finnish että-clauses. In R. Laury , and R. Suzuki (eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.69-102 doi: 10.1075/slsi.24.05koi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24.05koi [Google Scholar]
  45. Kuno, S
    (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kuroda, S-Y
    (1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kärkkäinen, E
    (2003) Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I Think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.115
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115 [Google Scholar]
  48. . (forthcoming) I Thought It Was Very Interesting: Conversational Formats for Taking a Stance. Oulu: Department of English, University of Oulu doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  49. Laury, R. , and E-L. Seppänen
    (2008) Clause combining, interaction, evidentiality, participation structure, and the conjunction-particle continuum: The Finnish että . In R. Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, TSL 80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.153-178. doi: 10.1075/tsl.80.08lau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.08lau [Google Scholar]
  50. Laury, R. , and T. Ono
    (2010) Recursion in conversation: What speakers of Finnish and Japanese know how to do. In H. van der Hulst (ed.), Recursion and Human Language. Studies in Generative Grammar 140. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: pp.69-92.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Laury, R. , R. Suzuki , and T. Ono
    (2013) Questioning the clause as a crosslinguistic unit in grammar and interaction. Paper given in theWorkshop on Linguistic and Interactional Units in Everyday Speech, International Conference on Cognitive Linguistics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, June 21–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Laver, J
    (1994) Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166621
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166621 [Google Scholar]
  53. Local, J. , and J. Kelly
    (1986) Projection and ‘silences’: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies9: 185-204. doi: 10.1007/BF00148126
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148126 [Google Scholar]
  54. Mazeland, H
    (2007) Parenthetical sequences. Journal of Pragmatics39: 1816-1869. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  55. Nariyama, S
    (2003) Ellipsis and reference tracking in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/slcs.66
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.66 [Google Scholar]
  56. Newmeyer, F.J
    (2003) Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language79: 682-707. doi: 10.1353/lan.2003.0260
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0260 [Google Scholar]
  57. 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 Publishing Company, pp.29-62. doi: 10.1075/tsl.62.05ogd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.05ogd [Google Scholar]
  58. Ohori, T
    (1992) Diachrony in Clause Linkage and Related Issues. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Okamoto, S
    (1990) Potential Complements and Complementation: The Case of Japanese. Unpublished ms., California State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Ono, T
    (1990)  te, i, and ru clauses in Japanese recipes: A quantitative study. Studies in Language14: 73-92. doi: 10.1075/sl.14.1.04ono
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.14.1.04ono [Google Scholar]
  61. (2011) The actual status of so-called particle ellipsis in Japanese: Evidence from conversation, acquisition, diachrony, and contact. In S. Rice , and J. Newman (eds.), Experimental and empirical methods. Chicago: CSLI, pp.180-189.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Ono, T. , and R. Suzuki
    (2011) Toward a new understanding of the so-called zero anaphora in Japanese everyday talk. Paper given in the panel ‘Beyond Pro-Drop: The Pragmatics of Subject Ellipsis and Expression from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective’ IPrA 12, Manchester, GB.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Ono, T. , and S.A. Thompson
    (1997) Deconstructing ‘zero anaphora’ in Japanese. Proceedings ofthe 23rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp.481-491.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Payne, T
    (1997) Describing morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Pekarek Doehler, S
    (2011) Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French conversation. In R. Laury , and R. Suzuki (eds.), Subordination in conversation: A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.103-148. doi: 10.1075/slsi.24.06doe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24.06doe [Google Scholar]
  66. Sadler, M
    (2001) Iconically motivated use of the Japanese discourse makers sorede, nde, and de in conversation. Southwest Journal of Linguistics22.2: 143-161.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Scheibman, J
    (2001) Local patterns of subjectivity in person and verb type in American English conversation. In J. Bybee , and P. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.61-89. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45.04sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.04sch [Google Scholar]
  68. Shibatani, M
    (1990) The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Stewart Jr., T.W. , and N. Vaillette
    (2001) Language Files: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics, Eighth Edition. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Suzuki, R
    (1991) A study of wake in Japanese narrative discourse. In M. Takeuchi et al. (eds.), Kotoba no mozaiku: Okuda Natsuko meiyo kyooju koki kinen ronbunshuu. [Mosaic of words: Papers in honor of Professor Emeritus Natsuko Okuda]. Tokyo: Mejiro Linguistic Society, pp.124-137.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Tanaka, H
    (2000) The particle ne as a turn-management device in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics32.8: 1135-1176. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00087‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00087-9 [Google Scholar]
  72. Thompson, S.A
    (2002) ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language26.1: 125-164. doi: 10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho [Google Scholar]
  73. Thompson, S.A. , and E. Couper-Kuhlen
    (2005) The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies7.4/5: 481-505. [Reprinted in Language and Linguistics 6.4: 807-837, 2005] doi: 10.1177/1461445605054403
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054403 [Google Scholar]
  74. Tsujimura, N
    (1996) An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics. Cambridge: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Vatanen, A
    . (forthc.) Responding in Overlap. Turn onset timing and social action in Finnish and Estonian Conversation. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugric and Scandinavian Studies, University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.3.06lau
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Clause combining , Finnish , Japanese , Morphosyntax , Non-verbal behavior , Prefabs and Prosody
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