Temporality in speech – Linear Unit Grammar
Language is usually modelled through a predominantly synoptic perspective; even if the object of analysis is spoken language, we tend to look at extracts where the analysis of parts makes use of the whole. Holistic analyses can be very good for capturing realities of language in many respects, but in the case of modelling temporal aspects of processing they fall into the trap of unrealistic hindsight. The experience of speech is time-bound: a hearer will go on what he or she has heard at any given point, and will anticipate what may follow. The predictions will be either confirmed or rejected in rapid succession, as speech moves on. The time window for working memory is very brief, and processing focuses on continuously changing input. Models of this process must take into account this dynamism, and they need to take on board the fact that language must be continually processed even while utterances are still incomplete. Most models of language structure are based on completed units; this tends to lead to a hierarchical view of language, embodied in most grammars. The reality of temporally progressing speech is nevertheless fundamentally linear along the dimension of time.
References (30)
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
1999 The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson Education.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brazil, David
1995 A Grammar of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carey, Ray
2011 Interruption and uncooperativeness in academic ELF group work: An application of Linear Unit Grammar. Master’s Thesis, University of Helsinki.
[URL] (Last accessed on 18 May 2015).
Carey, Ray
2013 On the other side: Formulaic organizing chunks in spoken and written academic EFL.
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2 (2): 207–228.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carey, Ray
2015 Preliminary findings of the CLUMP project: Spontaneous chunking of incoming text: Cognitive and communal implications for the linear modeling of language. Paper presented at the
ChangE Consortium Workshop
, University of Helsinki, 8 June 2015.
Carter, Ronald & Michael McCarthy
2006 Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chafe, Wallace
1994 Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cheng, Winnie, Chris Greaves & Martin Warren
Christiansen, Morten H. & Nick Chater
2015 The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, April 14: 1–52.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clancy, Brian & Michael McCarthy
2015 Co-constructed turn-taking. In
Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook,
Karin Aijmer & Christoph Ruehlemann (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 430–453.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Giraud, Anne-Lise & David Poeppel
2012 Cortical oscillations and speech processing: Emerging computational principles and operations.
Nature Neuroscience 15 (4): 511–517.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Firth, John. R
1957 General linguistics and descriptive grammar. In
Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press, 216–228.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Firth, John. R
1968 A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. In Selected Papers of
J.R. Firth,
Frank R. Palmer (ed.). London: Longman, 168–205.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kempson, Ruth, Wilfried Meyer-Viol & Dov M. Gabbay
2001 Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. London: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mason, Oliver
2008 Stringing together a sentence: Linearity and the lexis-syntax interface. In
Language, People, Numbers: Corpus Linguistics and Society,
Andrea Gerbig &
Oliver Mason (eds). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 231–248.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mauranen, Anna
2009 Managing interaction. A linear perspective on interactive speech. In
Corpora and Discourse – and Stuff. Papers in Honour of Karin Aijmer,
Rhonwen Bowen,
Mats Mobärg &
Sölve Ohlander (eds). Göteborg: University of Gothenburg, 213–221.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mauranen, Anna
2009/2012 Chunking in ELF: Expressions for managing interaction.
Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2): 217–233. Reprinted in Corpus Linguistics, Vol. 1, Douglas Biber & Randi Reppen (eds). London: Sage, 271–286.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mauranen, Anna
2012a Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mauranen, Anna
2012b Linear Unit Grammar. In
The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics,
Carol A. Chapelle (ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 3409–3417.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mauranen, Anna, Svetlana Vetchinnikova & Ray Carey
2015 Chunking in language: Units of meaning and processing (CLUMP) project. Paper presented at the
ChangE Consortium Workshop
, University of Helsinki, 8 June 2015.
McCarthy, Michael J
2010 Spoken fluency revisited.
English Profile Journal 1 (1). (Last accessed on 19 January 2016).
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Miller, George A
1956 The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Psychological Review 631: 81–97.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Monschau, Jacqueline, Rolf Kreyer & Joybrato Mukherjee
2004 Syntax and semantics at tone unit boundaries.
Anglia – Zeitschrift für englische Philologie 121 (4): 581–609.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mukherjee, Joybrato
2001 Form and Function of Parasyntactic Presentation Structures. A Corpus-Based Study of Talk Units in Spoken English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
O’Grady, Gerard
2010 A Grammar of Spoken English Discourse: The Intonation of Increments. London: Continuum.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
O’Grady, William
2005 Syntactic Carpentry. An Emergentist Approach to Syntax. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
O’Grady, William
2008 Language without grammar. In
Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition,
Peter Robinson &
Nick C. Ellis (eds). New York: Routledge, 139–167.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sinclair, John & Anna Mauranen
Smart, Cameron
2013 The role of discourse reflexivity in a linear description of grammar and discourse: The case of IMDb message boards. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Birmingham.
Cited by (2)
Cited by 2 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.