Volume 43, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Linguists generally assume ‘clause’ to be a basic unit for the analysis of grammatical structure. Data from natural conversations, however, suggests that ‘clause’ may not be grammaticized to the same extent across languages. Understanding ‘clause’ as a predicate (plus any arguments, inferred or expressed), we can show that participants do indeed organize their talk around ‘clauses’. I argue that English-speaking participants in everyday interaction do indeed orient to clausal units as so defined, by building their turns around predicates, and that these turns do key interactional work. The data further reveal that these units must be understood as emergent structures, recurrent patterns in a given language that emerge from humans pursuing their ordinary interactional business of communicating information, needs, identities, attitudes, and desires.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alsina, Alex, Joan Bresnan & Peter Sells
    1997Complex predicates. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, Peter
    2009 On-Line Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language. Language Sciences31(1). 1–13. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2014 Syntactic structures and their symbiotic guests: Notes on analepsis from the perspective of on-line syntax. Pragmatics24(3). 533–560. 10.1075/prag.24.3.05aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.05aue [Google Scholar]
  4. Benjamin, Trevor
    2013 Signaling trouble: On the linguistic design of other-initiation of repair in English conversation. The Netherlands: University of GroningenPh.D. dissertation.
  5. Bybee, Joan
    2001 Frequency effects on French liaison. InJoan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 337–359. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.17byb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.17byb [Google Scholar]
  6. 2002 Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. InT. Givon & Bertram Malle (eds.), The evolution of language from pre-language, 109–132. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.53.07byb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.53.07byb [Google Scholar]
  7. 2006 From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language82(4). 529–551. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2007Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2010Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  10. Camazine, Scott, Jean-Louis Deneubourg, Nigel R. Franks, James Sneyd, Guy Theraulaz & Eric Bonabeau
    2001Self-Organization in Biological Systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2014 What does grammar tell us about action?InRitva Laury, Marja Etelämäki & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Approaches to grammar for Interactional Linguistics, Special issue of Pragmatics24(3). 623–647. 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou [Google Scholar]
  12. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting
    2018Interactional Linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Sandra A. Thompson
    . Forthcoming. Action ascription in everyday advice-giving sequences. InDepperman, Arnulf and Michael Haugh eds. Action Ascription: Interaction in context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Curl, Traci S.
    2006 Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics38. 1257–1280. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  15. Curl, Traci S. & Paul Drew
    2008 Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction41(2). 1–25. 10.1080/08351810802028613
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dingemanse, Mark & N. J. Enfield
    2015 Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics1. 98–118. 10.2478/opli‑2014‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0007 [Google Scholar]
  17. Drew, Paul & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    (eds.) 2014Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26 [Google Scholar]
  18. Du Bois, John W.
    2003 Argument structure: grammar in use. InDu Bois, John W., Lorraine E. Kumpf, and William J. Ashby, eds. 2003 Preferred argument structure: grammar as architecture for function, 10–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.14.04dub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.14.04dub [Google Scholar]
  19. Evans, Nicholas
    2007 Insubordination and its uses. InIrina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ford, Cecilia E.
    1993Grammar in interaction: adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554278
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554278 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson
    2013 Units or Action Trajectories?: Is the language of grammatical categories the language of social action?InBeatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of Talk – Units of Action, 13–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.25.02for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.02for [Google Scholar]
  22. Fox, Barbara A.
    2007 Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies9. 299–318. 10.1177/1461445607076201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076201 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson
    2002 Social Interaction and grammar. InMichael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol.2, 119–143. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A. Thompson
    2010 Responses to WH-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction43(2). 133–156. 10.1080/08351811003751680
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351811003751680 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goodwin, Charles
    1979 The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. InGeorge Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 97–121. New York: Irvington.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1981Conversational organization: interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press. [available atwww.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/publish.htm]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Goodwin, Charles & Marjorie H. Goodwin
    1987 Concurrent operations on talk: notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics1(1). 1–54. 10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo [Google Scholar]
  28. Goodwin, Marjorie H. & Charles Goodwin
    1992 Assessments and the construction of context. InAlessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context, 147–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hakulinin, Auli & Margret Selting
    (eds.) 2005Syntax and lexis in conversation319–348. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho
    2004Iso suomen kielioppi [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Haspelmath, Martin
    2010a Comparative concepts and descriptive: Categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language86(3). 663–687. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2010b The interplay between comparative concepts and descriptive categories (Reply to Newmeyer). Language86(3). 696–699. 10.1353/lan.2010.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0004 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hayashi, Makoto, Geoffrey Raymond & Jack Sidnell
    (eds.) 2013Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
    2001aSyntax in the making: The emergence of syntactic units in Finnish conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.9 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2001b Emerging syntax for interaction: Noun phrases and clauses as a syntactic resource for interaction. InMargret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics, 25–50. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10.04hel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.04hel [Google Scholar]
  36. Hepburn, Alexa & Galina B. Bolden
    2013 The conversation analytic approach to transcription. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 57–76. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Heritage, John
    1984 A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. InJ. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2012a Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1). 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2012b The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction45. 30–52. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hopper, Paul
    1987 Emergent grammar. BLS13. 139–157. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hopper, Paul J.
    1998 Emergent grammar. InMichael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hopper, Paul
    2000 Grammatical Constructions and their Discourse Origins: Prototype or Family Resemblance?InMartin Pütz & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics: Theory, Acquisition and Language Pedagogy, 109–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2004 The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society40. 239–256.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson
    1984 The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar, Language60.4: 703–752. 10.1353/lan.1984.0020
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1984.0020 [Google Scholar]
  45. Iwasaki, Shoichi & Tsuyoshi Ono
    2001 “Sentence” in spontaneous spoken Japanese discourse. InJoan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse, 175–202. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. InGene Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  47. Kärkkäinen, Elise
    2009 I thought it was pretty neat. Social action formats for taking a stance. InS. Slembrouck, M. Taverniers, and M. Van Herreweghe (eds.), From ‘Will’ to ‘Well’. Studies in Linguistics offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, 293–304. Gent: Academia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2012 I thought it was very interesting: Conversational formats for taking a stance. Journal of Pragmatics44(15). 2194–2210. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kärkkäinen, Elise and Tiina Keisanen
    2012 Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies14.5: 587–611. 10.1177/1461445612454069
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612454069 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kendrick, Kobin H.
    2015 Other-initiated repair in English. Open Linguistics1. 164–190. 10.2478/opli‑2014‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0009 [Google Scholar]
  51. Laury, Ritva, Camilla Lindholm & Jan Lindström
    2013 Syntactically non-integrated conditional clauses in spoken Finnish and Swedish. InEva Havu & Irma Hyvärinen (eds.), Comparing and Contrasting Syntactic Structures. From Dependency to Quasi-subordination. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki LXXXVI, 231–270. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2013 Action formation and ascription. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 103–130. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Mazeland, Harrie
    2013 Grammar in Conversation. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 475–491. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Nakayama, Toshihide
    2002Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) Morphosyntax. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson
    (eds.) 1996Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  56. Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson
    1997 Deconstructing ‘zero anaphora’. BLS23. 481–491. 10.3765/bls.v23i1.1259
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v23i1.1259 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pawley, Andrew
    1987 Encoding events in Kalam and English: Different logics for reporting experience. InRussell Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 329–360. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.11.15paw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.15paw [Google Scholar]
  58. 2008 Compact versus narrative serial verb constructions in Kalam. InGunter Senft (ed.), Serial verb constructions in Austronesian and Papuan languages, 171–202. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 2009 On the origins of serial verb constructions in Kalam. InT. Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 119–144. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.85.05ont
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.85.05ont [Google Scholar]
  60. 2011 Event Representation in serial verb constructions. InJürgen Bohnemeyer & Eric Pederson (eds.), Event Representation in Language and Cognition, 13–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Pawley, Andrew & Jonathan Lane
    1998 From event sequence to grammar: Serial verb constructions in Kalam. InAnna Siewierska & Jae Jung Song (eds.), Case, Typology and Grammar: In honor of Barry J. Blake, 201–228. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.38.13paw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.38.13paw [Google Scholar]
  62. Pomerantz, A.
    1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. InJ. M. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2003 Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review68. 939–967. 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  64. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson
    1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50(4). 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  65. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1989 Reflections on language, development, and the interactional character of talk-in-interaction. InMarc H. Bomstein & Jerome S. Bruner (eds.), Interaction in Human Development, 139–153. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 2007Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  67. Scollon, Ronald
    1976Conversations with a one year old: A case study of the developmental foundation of syntax. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Selting, Margret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    (eds.) 2001Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  69. Shaw, Chloe
    2013 Advice giving in telephone interactions between mothers and their young adult daughters. Loughborough, UK: Loughborough Universityunpublished PhD dissertation.
  70. Shaw, Chloe & Alexa Hepburn
    2013 Managing the Moral Implications of Advice in Informal Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction46(4). 344–362. 10.1080/08351813.2013.839095
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.839095 [Google Scholar]
  71. Stirling, Lesley
    1999 Isolated if-clauses in Australian English. InPeter Collins & David Lee (eds.), The clause in English: In honour of Rodney Huddleston, 273–294. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.45.18sti
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.45.18sti [Google Scholar]
  72. Tao, Hongyin
    1996 Units in Mandarin conversation: prosody, discourse and grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.5
  73. Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2005 The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies7(4/5). 481–505. 10.1177/1461445605054403
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054403 [Google Scholar]
  74. Thompson, Sandra A., Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Barbara A. Fox
    2015Grammar and everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  75. Thompson, Sandra A. & Paul J. Hopper
    2001 Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. InJoan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.03tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.03tho [Google Scholar]
  76. Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. La Polla
    1997Syntax: structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  77. Vatanen, Anna
    2014 Responding in overlap: Agency, epistemicity and social action in conversation. Helsinki: University of Helsinkiunpublished PhD dissertation.

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): clause; conversation; English; Japanese; predicate; social action; unit
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