Volume 53, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0035-3906
  • E-ISSN: 1600-0811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper aims at discussing the relationships of turn construction, interactional units and projectability with especial regard to projections triggered by TCU-initially placed items, for instance discourse markers. Supported by data taken from contemporary spoken French, the main purpose of this piece is to theorize and describe these patterns of projection and to elicit from them constructional convergences. The theoretical statement is complemented by the exemplary analysis of a French talk-show conversation in which the turn-initially placed items feature prominently in the interlocutors’ discussion. This can be demonstrated through the study of certain linguistic mechanisms of coherence on different hierarchical levels. Special focus is placed on the implicit argumentative relations that the analyzed projection patterns establish.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Atkinson, J. M. / Heritage, J.
    (eds.) (1984): Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, P.
    (1996): The Pre-front Field in Spoken German and its Relevance as a Grammaticalization Position. Pragmatics, 6, 1, pp.295–322.10.1075/prag.6.3.03aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.03aue [Google Scholar]
  3. (2000): On-line-Syntax – oder: Was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur, 85, pp.43–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2005): Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25, 1, pp.7–36.10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2007a): Syntax als Prozess, in: Hausendorf, H. (ed.): Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion. Tübingen: Narr, pp.95–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2007b): Projection and minimalistic syntax in interaction, Manuskript. Cited from Günthner S. (2011).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2009): Online-syntax: thoughts on the temporality od spoken language. Language Sciences, 31, pp.1–13.10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2010): Zum Segmentierungsproblem in der Gesprochenen Sprache. InLiSt, 49. Retrieved from: www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2014): The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. InLiSt, 54, pp.1–25. Retrieved from: www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/54/inlist54.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Auer, P. / Pfänder, S.
    (2011): Constructions: emergent or emerging?, in: Auer, P. / Pfänder, S. (eds.): Constructions: emerging and emergent. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, (= linguae & litterae 6), pp.1–21.10.1515/9783110229080.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Barden, B. / Elstermann, M. / Fiehler, R.
    (2001): Operator-Skopus-Strukturen in gesprochener Sprache, in: Liedtke, F. / Hundsnurscher, F. (eds.): Pragmatische Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp.197–233.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Barth-Weingarten, D.
    (2006): Fuzzy boundaries – Überlegungen zu einer Grammatik der gesprochenen Sprache nach konversationsanalytischen Kriterien, in: Deppermann, A. / Fiehler, R. / Spranz-Fogasy, T. (eds.): Grammatik und Interaktion. Untersuchungen zum Zusammenhang von grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprächsprozessen. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, pp.67–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2011): The fuzziness of intonation units: Some theoretical considerations and a practical solution. InLiSt, 51. Retrieved from: www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/51/InLiSt51.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Blakemore, D.
    (1987): Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Du Bois, J. W.
    (1991): Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics, 1, 1, pp.71–106.10.1075/prag.1.1.04boi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.1.1.04boi [Google Scholar]
  16. Brinton, L.
    (1996): Pragmatic markers in English. Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110907582
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chafe, W. L.
    (1994): Discourse, Consciousness and Time. The fow and displacement of Conscious experience in Speaking and writing. Chicago/London: University of Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chevalier, F. H. G. / Clift, R.
    (2008): Unfinished turns in French conversation: Projectability, syntax and action. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, pp.1731–1752.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  19. Degand, L. / Simon, A. C.
    (2009a): Mapping prosody and syntax as a strategic choice, in: Barth-Weingarten, D. / Dehé, N. / Wichmann, A. (eds.): Where Prosody Meets Pragmatics. Bangalore: Emerald, pp.79–105.10.1163/9789004253223_005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253223_005 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2009b): On identifying basic discourse units in speech: theoretical and empirical issues. Discours, 4. Retrieved from: discours.revues.org/index54.html.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Deppermann, A.
    (2013): Turn-design at turn-beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn-construction in German. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 1, pp.91–121.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fiehler, R.
    (2012): Wo fängt der Satz an? Operator-Skopus-Strukturen in gesprochener und geschriebener Sprache, in: Cortès, C. (ed.): Satzeröffnung. Formen, Funktionen, Strategien. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp.31–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fiehler, R. / Barden, B. / Elstermann, M. / Kraft, B.
    (2004): Eigenschaften gesprochener Sprache. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Fischer, K.
    (2000): Discourse Particles, Turn-taking, and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Revue Semantique et Pragmatique. 8, pp.111–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2006): Frames, constructions and invariant meanings: the functional polysemy of discourse particles, in: Fischer, K. (ed.): Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.427–447.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ford, C. / Thompson, S.
    (1996): Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns, in: Ochs, E. / Schegloff, E. A. / Thompson, S. A. (eds.): Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.134–184.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ford, C. E. / Fox, B. A. / Thompson, S.
    (1996): Practices in the construction of turns. The “TCU” revisited. Pragmatics, 6, 3, pp.427–454.10.1075/prag.6.3.07for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.07for [Google Scholar]
  28. Ford, C. E.
    (2004): Contingency and units in interaction. Discourse Studies, 6, 1, pp.27–52.10.1177/1461445604039438
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604039438 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fox, B. / Thompson, S. / Ford, C. / Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2013): Conversation Analysis in Linguistics, in: Sidnell, J. / Stivers, T. (eds.): Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Blackwell, pp.726–740.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Fraser, B.
    (1990): An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, pp.383–395.10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90096‑V
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V [Google Scholar]
  31. (1996): Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6, pp.167–190.10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra [Google Scholar]
  32. (1999): What are discourse markers?Journal of Pragmatics, 31, pp.931–953.10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00101‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2006): Towards a theory of dicourse markers, in: Fischer, K. (ed.): Approaches to Discourse Particles. Oxford: Elsevier, pp.189–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gohl, C. / Günthner, S.
    (1999): Grammatikalisierung von weil als Diskursmarker in der gesprochenen Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 18, pp.39–75.10.1515/zfsw.1999.18.1.39
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.1999.18.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  35. Günthner, S.
    (2000): Grammatik im Gespräch: Zur Verwendung von ‘wobei’ im gesprochenen Deutsch. Sprache und Literatur, 85, 31, pp.57–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2008): Projektorkonstruktionen im Gespräch: Pseudoclefts, die Sache ist-Konstruktionen und Extrapositionen mit es . Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 9, pp.86–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (2011): Between emergence and sedimentation. Projecting constructions in German interactions, in: Auer, P. / Pfänder, S. (eds.): Constructions: emerging and emergent. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, (= linguae & litterae 6), pp.156–185.10.1515/9783110229080.156
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.156 [Google Scholar]
  38. Halford, B. K.
    (1996): Talk Units: The structure of Spoken Canadian English. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hopper, P.
    (1987): Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics society, 13, pp.139–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (1998): Emergence of grammar, in: Bright, W. (ed.): International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol.I. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.364–367.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2004): The openness of grammatical constructions. 40th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp.153–175.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Imo, W.
    (2012): Wortart Diskursmarker?, in: Rothstein, B. (ed.): Nicht-flektierende Wortarten. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp.48–88.10.1515/9783110276619.48
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110276619.48 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2016): Diskursmarker: grammatischer Status – Funktionen in monologischen und dialogischen Kontexten – historische Kontinuität, in: Blühdorn, H. / Deppermann, A. (eds.): Diskursmarker. Retrieved from: arbeitspapiere.sprache-interaktion.de/arbeitspapiere/arbeitspapier65.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Kroon, C.
    (1998): A framework for the description of Latin discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, pp.205–223.10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00025‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00025-3 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lenk, U.
    (1998): Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Tübingen: Narr.
  46. Lerner, G. H.
    (1991): On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress. Language In Society, 20, pp.441–458.10.1017/S0047404500016572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  47. (1996): On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In Ochs, E. / Schegloff, E. A. / Thompson, S. (eds.): Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.238–276.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2002): Collaborative turn sequences, in: Lerner, G. H. (ed.): Conversation Analysis. Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp.225–256.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lindström, J.
    (2014): On the place of turn and sequence in grammar: Verb-first clausal constructions in Swedish talk-in-interaction. Pragmatics, 24, 3, pp.507–532.10.1075/prag.24.3.04lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.04lin [Google Scholar]
  50. Martín Zorraquino, M.ª A. / Portolés, J.
    (1999): Los marcadores del discurso, in: Bosque, I. / Demonte, V. (eds.): Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, pp.4051–4213.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Mazeland, H.
    (2013): Grammar in Conversation, in: Sidnell, J. / Stivers, T. (eds.): The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Blackwell, pp.475–491.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Mosegaard Hansen, M. -B.
    (1998): The Function of Discourse Particles. A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.53 [Google Scholar]
  53. Portolés, J.
    (1998): Marcadores del discurso. Barcelona: Ariel.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Sacks, H. / Schegloff, E. A. / Jefferson, G.
    (1974): A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 4, pp.696–735.10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sacks, H.
    (1992): Lectures on conversation, Vol.1&2. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1996): Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction, in: Ochs, E. / Schegloff, E. A. / Thompson, S. A. (eds.): Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.53–133.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  57. Schiffrin, D.
    (1987): Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  58. Selting, M. / Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2000): Argumente für die Entwicklung einer interaktionalen Linguistik. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 1, pp.76–95. Retrieved from: www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2000/ga-selting.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. (2001): Introducing Interactional Linguistics, in: Selting, M. / Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.): Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp.1–22.10.1075/sidag.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  60. Selting, M.
    (1995): Der ‘mögliche Satz’ als interaktiv relevante syntaktische Kategorie. Linguistische Berichte, 158, pp.298–325.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (1996): On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn-constructional units and turns in conversation. Pragmatics, 6, 3, pp.357–388.10.1075/prag.6.3.06sel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.06sel [Google Scholar]
  62. (1998): TCUs and TRPs: the construction of ‘units’ in conversational talk. InLiSt, 4, pp.1–48. Retrieved from: inlist.uni-konstanz.de/issues/4.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. (2000): The Construction of Units in Conversational Talk. Language in Society, 29, 4, pp.477–517.10.1017/S0047404500004012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004012 [Google Scholar]
  64. (2001): Fragments of units as deviant cases of unit-production in conversational talk, in: Selting, M. / Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.): Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp.229–258.10.1075/sidag.10.12sel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.12sel [Google Scholar]
  65. (2005): Syntax and prosody as methods for the construction and identification of turn-constructional units in conversation, in: Hakulinen, A. / Selting, M. (eds.): Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp.17–44.10.1075/sidag.17.04sel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.04sel [Google Scholar]
  66. Szczepek Reed, B. B.
    (2009): Units of interaction: “intonation phrases” or “turn constructional phrases?, Paper presented atthe Interface Discours & Prosodie Conference, September 9–11, Paris, p.351–363. Retrieved from: makino.linguist.jussieu.fr/idp09/docs/IDP_actes/Articles/szczepek-reed.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Vicher, A. / Sankoff, D.
    (1989): The emergent syntax of pre-sentential openings. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, pp.81–97.10.1016/0378‑2166(89)90110‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(89)90110-0 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): discourse markers; interactional linguistics; projection; TCU
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