1887
Volume 42, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study examines the on-line emergence of insubordinate clauses in Hebrew conversation as constrained by local interactional contingencies, questioning traditional notions of grammatical ‘subordination’ and contributing to conceptions of grammar as a locally sensitive, temporally unfolding resource for social interaction. The clauses examined are syntactically unintegrated (unembedded in any matrix clause), or loosely-integrated (cannot be viewed unambiguously as constituting a relative, complement, or adverbial clause), yet they all begin with - – the general ‘subordinating conjunction’ in traditional Modern Hebrew grammar. All 102 insubordinate - clauses found throughout a 5.5 hour audio-recorded corpus were classified according to their discourse function: modal, elaborative, or evaluative/epistemic. Leaving aside the modal type, the remaining insubordinate - clauses ( = 70, 69%) are shown to emerge on-line while speakers are busy performing a variety of tasks and responding to local interactional contingencies. In all of these cases - functions as a generic ‘wildcard’ tying back to immediately prior discourse and projecting an elaboration/evaluation of it, in either same- or other-speaker talk. The findings concerning insubordinate clauses suggest a usage-based perspective also on canonical subordinate clauses, positioning canonical and syntactically unintegrated clauses at two ends of a continuum.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17065.mas
2018-10-19
2019-12-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anward, Jan
    2004 ‘att’ [‘that’]. Språk och stil13. 65–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ariel, Mira
    1978That’s a problem in Hebrew. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Linguistics Department M.A. thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Auer, Peter
    2000 On line-syntax – oder: Was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur85. 43–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2005 Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text25. 7–36.10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2007 Why are increments such elusive objects? An afterthought. Pragmatics17(4). 647–658.10.1075/prag.17.4.03aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.03aue [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. 2014 Syntactic structures and their symbiotic guests. Notes on analepsis from the perspective of online syntax. Pragmatics24(3). 533–560.10.1075/prag.24.3.05aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.05aue [Google Scholar]
  8. Benveniste, Émile
    1966Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bergsträsser, G.
    1909 Das hebräische Präfix še. ZAW29. 40–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Berman, Ruth
    1978Modern Hebrew Structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Blau, Yehoshua
    1966yesodot hataxbir [Foundations of syntax]. Jerusalem: hamaxon ha’ivri lehaskala bixtav.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, Joan
    2003 Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. InBrian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756393.ch19
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch19 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chafe, Wallace
    1994Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Clift, Rebecca
    2007 Grammar in time: the non-restrictive ‘which’-clause as an interactional resource. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics55. 51–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Tsuyoshi Ono
    2007 ‘Incrementing’ in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German, and Japanese. Pragmatics17(4). 513–552.10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou [Google Scholar]
  16. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margaret Selting
    2017Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cristofaro, Sonia
    2016 Routes to insubordination: A cross-linguistic perspective. InNicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds.), Insubordination, 393–422. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.115.15cri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.15cri [Google Scholar]
  18. Deppermann, Arnulf & Susanne Günthner
    (eds.) 2015Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27 [Google Scholar]
  19. Deutscher, Guy
    2002 The Akkadian relative clauses in cross-linguistic perspective. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie92. 86–105.10.1515/zava.2002.92.1.86
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zava.2002.92.1.86 [Google Scholar]
  20. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 The stance triangle. InRobert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  21. forthcoming. Representing discourse. Linguistics Department, University of California at Santa Barbara (Fall 2012 version). www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/projects/transcription/representing
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Du Bois, John W., Susanna Cumming, Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, & Danae Pao-lino
    1992Discourse Transcription: Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4. Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Evans, Nicholas
    2007 Insubordination and its uses. InIrina Nicolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Evans, Nicholas & Honoré Watanabe
    (eds.) 2016Insubordination. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.115
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, & Sandra A. Thompson
    2002 Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. InCecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ford, Cecilia E. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1996 Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. InElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar, 134–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fox, Barbara, Yael Maschler & Susanne Uhmann
    2010 A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics42(10). 2487–2505.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A. Thompson
    2007 Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction. Studies in Language31. 293–326.10.1075/sl.31.2.03fox
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.2.03fox [Google Scholar]
  29. Givón, Talmy
    1979On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Günthner, Susanne
    2011 Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions. InPeter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 156–185. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110229080.156
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.156 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2014 The dynamics of dass-constructions in everyday German interactions – a dialogical perspective. InSusanne Günthner, Wolfgang Imo, and Jörg Bücker (eds.), Grammar and Dialogism, 179–205. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hendery, Rachel
    2012Relative Clauses in Time and Space: A case study in the methods of diachronic typology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.101
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.101 [Google Scholar]
  33. Holmstedt, Robert D.
    2007 The etymologies of Hebrew ašer and še. Ancient Near Eastern Studies43. 9–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hopper, Paul J.
    1979 Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. InTalmi Givón (ed.), Discourse and Semantics (Syntax and Semantics, vol. 12), 213–241. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 1987 Emergent grammar. InJon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis & Hana Filip (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society13, 139–157. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 1998 Emergent grammar. InMichael Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, 155–175. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2001 Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance?InMartin Pütz, Susanne Neimeier & René Dirven (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition, 109–129. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110866247.109
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866247.109 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2011 Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. InPeter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 22–44. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110229080.22
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson
    2008 Projectability and clause combining in interaction. InRitva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.80.06hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.06hop [Google Scholar]
  40. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    2003Grammaticalization, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  41. Huehnergard, John
    2006 On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative še-. InS. E. Fassberg & A. Hurvitz (eds.), Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, 103–125. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Keevallik, Leelo
    2008 Conjunction and sequenced action: The Estonian complementizer and evidential particle et. InRitva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, 125–152. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.80.07kee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.07kee [Google Scholar]
  43. Labov, William
    1972Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Lakoff, Robin
    1968Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Landau, Rachel
    1975 mishpat hazika umishpat levay hatoxen lesugav ba’ivrit shel yameynu [The relative clause and the attributive content clause in Modern Hebrew]. Bikoret Ufarshanut [Criticism and Interpretation] 7–8. 132–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Laury, Ritva & Tsuyoshi Ono
    2014 The limits of grammar: Clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation. Pragmatics24(3). 561–592.10.1075/prag.24.3.06lau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.06lau [Google Scholar]
  47. Laury, Ritva & Eeva-Leena Seppänen
    2008 Clause combining, interaction, evidentiality, participation structure, and the conjunction-particle continuum: The Finnish että. InRitva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, 153–178. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.80.08lau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.08lau [Google Scholar]
  48. Lehti-Eklund, Hanna
    2002Om att som diskursmarkör [About that as a discourse marker]. Språk och stil11. 81–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lerner, Gene
    1991 On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society20. 441–458.10.1017/S0047404500016572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lyons, John
    1968Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165570
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165570 [Google Scholar]
  51. Maschler, Yael
    1994 Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society23. 325–366.10.1017/S0047404500018017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500018017 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2002 On the grammaticization of ke’ilu (‘like’, lit. ‘as if’) in Hebrew talk-in-interaction. Language in Society31. 243–276.10.1017/S0047404501020176
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404501020176 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2011a On the emergence of adverbial connectives from Hebrew relative clause constructions. InPeter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 293–331. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110229080.293
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.293 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2011b 'al hithavutan shel tavniyot min hasiax: mishpaxat psukiyot hazika [On the emergence of constructions from discourse: The case of the family of relative clauses]. Leshonenu (‘Our Language’) 73. 167–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2012 Emergent Projecting constructions: The case of Hebrew yada (‘know’). Studies in Language36(4). 785–847.10.1075/sl.36.4.03mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.4.03mas [Google Scholar]
  56. 2017 The emergence of Hebrew loydea / loydat (‘I dunno masc/fem’) from interaction: Blurring the boundaries between discourse marker, pragmatic marker, and modal particle. InAndrea Sansò & Chiara Fedriani (eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives, 37–69. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.186.02mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.186.02mas [Google Scholar]
  57. Maschler, Yael & Fishman, Stav
    . Forthcoming. From multi-clausality to discourse markerhood: The Hebrew ma she- (‘what that’) construction in so-called ‘pseudo-clefts’.
  58. Maschler, Yael & Carmit Miller Shapiro
    2016 The role of prosody in the grammaticization of Hebrew naxon (‘right/true’): Synchronic and diachronic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics92. 42–73.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  59. Maschler, Yael & Bracha Nir
    2014 Complementation in linear and dialogic syntax: The case of Hebrew divergently aligned discourse. Cognitive Linguistics25(3). 523–557.10.1515/cog‑2014‑0029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0029 [Google Scholar]
  60. Maschler, Yael, Hilla Polak-Yitzhaki, Stav Fishman, Carmit Miller Shapiro, Netanel Goretsky, Gallith Aghion & Ophir Fofliger
    2017The Haifa Corpus of Spoken Hebrew. weblx2.haifa.ac.il/~corpus/corpus_website.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Mertzlufft, Christine & Camilla Wide
    2013 The on-line emergence of postmodifying att- and dass-clauses in spoken Swedish and German. InEva Havu & Irma Hyvärinen (eds.), Comparing and Contrasting Syntactic Structures. From Dependency to Quasi-subordination, 199–229. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Mithun, Marianne
    2008 The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language84. 69–119.10.1353/lan.2008.0054
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2008.0054 [Google Scholar]
  63. Olson, Michael
    1981Barai clause junctures: Toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Ornan, Uzzi
    2003 The mysteries of waw connective. Zeitschrift fuer die alttestamentlicheWissenschaft115. 241–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
    2011 Emotion and desire in independent complement clauses: A case study from German. InMario Brdar, Stefan Th. Gries & Milena Žic Fuchs (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Convergence and Expansion, (Human Cognitive Processing 32), 87–114. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.32.09pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.32.09pan [Google Scholar]
  66. Pekarek Doehler, Simona
    2011 Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction. InRitva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki (eds.), Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 103–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.24.06doe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24.06doe [Google Scholar]
  67. Polak-Yitzhaki, Hilla & Yael Maschler
    2016 Disclaiming understanding? Hebrew 'ani lo mevin/a (‘I don’t understand masc/fem’) in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics106. 163–183.10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  68. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 Pursuing a response. InMaxwell J. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 152–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Quintilian
    Quintilian. The Institutio oratoria of Quintilian, with an English translation by H. E. Butler. London: W. Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Roberts, Murat H.
    1944 The science of idiom: A method of inquiry into the cognitive design of language. Publications of the Modern Language Association59. 291–306.10.2307/458858
    https://doi.org/10.2307/458858 [Google Scholar]
  71. Rosén, Haiim
    1976A Textbook of Israeli Hebrew: With an Introduction to the Classical Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Schiffrin, Deborah
    2006 Discourse marker research and theory: Revisiting and. InKerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles, 315–338. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996 Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. InElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  74. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  75. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, & Harvey Sacks
    1977 The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53. 361–382.10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  76. Selting, Margret
    2004 The ‘upward staircase’ intonation contour in the Berlin vernacular: An example of the analysis of regionalized intonation as an interactional resource. InElizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Cecilia E. Ford (eds.), Sound Patterns in Interaction, 201–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.62.12sel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.12sel [Google Scholar]
  77. Selting, Margret & 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]
  78. Thompson, Sandra A.
    2002 “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language26. 125–163.10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho [Google Scholar]
  79. Tsadka, Yitshak
    1989taxbir veshixbur [Syntax]. Tel Aviv: Horev.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Van Valin, Robert D.
    1984 A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 542–558.10.3765/bls.v10i0.1975
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v10i0.1975 [Google Scholar]
  81. Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, Sarah D’Hertefelt & An Van Linden
    2012 A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language36. 123–153.10.1075/sl.36.1.04ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.1.04ver [Google Scholar]
  82. Weinert, Regina
    2012 Complement clauses in spoken German and English: Syntax, deixis and discourse-pragmatics. Folia Linguistica46(1). 233–265.10.1515/flin.2012.8
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2012.8 [Google Scholar]
  83. Wide, Camilla
    2014 Constructions as resources in interaction. Syntactically unintegrated att ‘that’-clauses in spoken Swedish. InR. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (eds.), Expanding the Scope of Construction Grammar, 353–388. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Zewi, Tamar
    2008 mishpetey toxen be’ivrit [Content clauses in Hebrew]. Leshonenu [Our Language] 70. 627–657.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17065.mas
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17065.mas
Loading

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