Cover not available
Part of
Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic models of language structure and language processing
Edited by Alexander Haselow and Gunther Kaltenböck
[Human Cognitive Processing 70] 2020
► pp. 267–308

Chapter 8
Local and global structures in discourse and interaction

Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects

 | University of Münster
Based on the relatively broad evidence for the assumption that language structure and linguistic cognition are organized in a dualistic way, this chapter follows proposals for a distinction between microstructures and macrostructures in language. While the first serve the establishment of morphosyntactic and semantic relationships, the latter are responsible for structuration in terms of discourse structure, interaction management and cognitive alignment. Using “extra-clausal” constituents as an example, it will be shown that there are points in spoken discourse that are highly sensitive for the structuration of language on a macrolevel, namely the beginning and the end of turns, and that expressions serving macrostructure, which tend to cluster in these positions, have a syntax of their own.
Keywords: grammar, discourse structure, spoken language, extra-clausal constituents, turns
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Micro-and macrostructures in language
  • 3.Micro- and macrostructures in spontaneous speech: Psycholinguistic aspects
  • 4.Structural relations on the macrolevel
  • 5.Grammatical principles on the macrolevel of language structure
    • 5.1Turn-initial and -final extra-clausal constituents
    • 5.2Method
    • 5.3Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Transcription conventions
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.70.08has
References (103)
References
Ameka, F. 1992. Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 101–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. 2009. Discourse, grammar, discourse. Discourse Studies 11(1), 5–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1), 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. On-line syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31(1), 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. 1997. Human memory: Theory and practice. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 1983. Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition 11(3), 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, K., & Detges, U. (Eds.) 2014. Discourse functions at the right and left periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., Bilger, M., Rouget, C., & Van den Eynde, K. 1990. Le français parlé: Études grammaticales. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlewesky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. 2009. Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brady, M., Armstrong, L., & Mackenzie, C. 2006. An examination over time of language and abilities following discourse production right hemisphere brain damage. Journal of Neurolinguistics 19(4), 291–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caplan, R., & Dapretto, M. 2001. Making sense during conversation: An fMRI study. Neuroreport 12 (16), 3625–3632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., & Ferreira, F. 2005. Conceptual accessibility and sentence production in a free word order language (Odawa). Cognition, 98, 105–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowan, N. 2001. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, L., & Degand L. 2019. Reliability vs. granularity in discourse annotation: What is the trade off? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 15(1), 71–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, M. J., & Marín, M. J. 2009. Co-occurrence of discourse markers in Catalan and Spanish oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 899–914. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. 1996. Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 3(4), 422–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danon-Boileau, L., Meunier, A., Morel, M.-A., & Tournandre, N. 1991. Intégration discursive et intégration syntaxique. Langages, 104, 111–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M. 2007. La distinction entre dépendance grammaticale et dépendance macrosyntaxique comme moyen de résoudre les paradoxes de la subordination. Faits de Langue, 28, 119–132.Google Scholar
Degand, L., & Simon, A. C. 2009. On identifying basic discourse units in speech: Theoretical and empirical issues.” Discours, 4. URL: [URL]
Dehé, N. 2014. Parentheticals in spoken English: The syntax-prosody relation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. 2013. Turn-design at turn-beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn-construction in German. Journal of Pragmatics 46(1), 91–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dines, E. R. 1980. Variation in discourse – ‘and stuff like that’. Language in Society 9(1), 13–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dostie, G. 2013. Les associations de marqueurs discursifs. De la cooccurrence libre à la collocation. Linguistik online 62(5), 15–45Google Scholar
Ford, C., & Thompson, S. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (134–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31(7), 931–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. The sequencing of contrastive discourse markers in English. International Review of Pragmatics 1(2), 293–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. The combining of discourse markers – A beginning. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 48–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. 1990. Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. 1994. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greene, S., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. 1992. Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 266–283.Google Scholar
Gregory, M. L., Raymond, W. D., Bell, A., Fosler-Lussier, E., & Jurafsky, D. 1999. The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. CLS, 35, 151–166.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Hancil, S., Haselow, A., & Post, M. (Eds.), 2015. Final particles. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselow, A. 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3603–3623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47(2), 375–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. A processual view on grammar: Macrogrammar and the final field in spoken syntax. Language Sciences, 54, 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Spontaneous spoken English. An integrated approach to the emergent grammar of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. Discourse marker sequences: Insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn production. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51(6), 1205–1247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. Some observations on the dualistic nature of discourse processing. Folia Linguistica 53(2), 411–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H. 2017. Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Linguistics, 55, 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. 2013. Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 331–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 89–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. 2002. Language description: The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, B. 2002. Discourse analysis. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., & Smith, S. W. 1998. And people just you know like ‘wow’ – Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In A. H. Jucker, & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers. Theory and descriptions (171–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language, 35, 852–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kapatsinski, V. M. 2005. Measuring the relationship of structure to use: determinants of the extent of recycle in repetition repair.” Berkeley Linguistics Society, 30, 481–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. 1988. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction–integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koops, C., & Lohmann, A. 2015. A quantitative approach to the grammaticalization of discourse markers. Evidence from their sequencing behavior. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(2), 232–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee-Goldman, R. 2011. No as a discourse marker. Journal of Pragmatics 43(10), 2627–2649. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenk, U. 1998. Marking discourse coherence: Functions of discourse markers in spoken English. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F. 2015. Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. In J. Holler, K. Kendrick, M. Casillas, & S. Levinson (Eds.), Turn-taking in human communicative interaction (10–26). Lausanne: Frontiers Media.Google Scholar
Lohmann, A., & Koops, C. 2016. Aspects of discourse marker sequencing: Empirical challenges and theoretical implications. In G. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer, & A. Lohmann (Eds.), Outside the clause. Form and function of extra-clausal constituents (417–445). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, D., Baynes, K., & Prat, C. 2005. The propositional structure of discourse in the two cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Language 95(3), 383–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marini, A., Carlomagno, S., Caltagirone, C., & Nocentini, U. 2005. The role played by the RH in the organization of complex textual structures. Brain and Language, 93, 46–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, C., & Sansò, A. 2018. Linguistic strategies for ad hoc categorization: theoretical assessment and cross-linguistic variation. Folia Linguistica, 52, 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. 2003. Talking back: ‘small’ interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36(1), 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K., & Seidenberg, M. 1978. Sentence processing and the clause boundary. In W. J. M. Levelt, & G. B. Flores d’Arcais (Eds.), Studies in the perception of language (119–246). Chicester: J. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. 2016. Temporality in speech – Linear Unit Grammar. English Text Construction 9(1), 77–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. 1993. Short-term memory and sentence processing: Evidence from neuropsychology. Memory & Cognition 21(2), 176–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y. 2009. Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morel, M.-A. 2007. Le postrhème dans le dialogue oral en français. L’information grammaticale, 113, 40–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. 2006. A formal model of capacity limits in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 55(4), 601–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, M. 1999. Whales, candlelight, and stuff like that. General extenders in English discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pichler, H., & Levey, S. 2011. In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: General extenders in Northeast England. English Language & Linguistics 15(3), 441–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. 2006. Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(3), 105–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poeppel, E. 1997. A hierarchical model of temporal perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1(2), 56–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prat, C., Long, D., & Baynes, K. 2007. The representation of discourse in the two hemispheres: An individual differences investigation. Brain and Language 100(3), 283–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raso, T. 2014. Prosodic constraints for discourse markers. In T. Raso, & H. Mello (Eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistic studies (411–467). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Redeker, G. 2006. Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (339–358). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Roll, M., Lindgren, M., Alter, K., & Horne, M. 2012. Time-driven effects on parsing during reading. Brain and Language 121, 267–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roll, M., Gosselke, S., Lindgren, M., & Horne, M. 2013. Time-driven effects on processing grammatical agreement. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1004. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rühlemann, C. 2017. Integrating corpus-linguistic and conversation-analytic transcriptions in XML: the case of backchannels and overlap in storytelling interaction. Corpus Pragmatics, 1, 201–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sachs, J. 1974. Memory in reading and listening to discourse. Memory & Cognition 2(1), 95–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. 1984. Notes on Methodology. In J. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (2–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, L. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Schremm, A., Horne, M., & Roll, M. 2015. Brain responses to syntax constrained by time-driven implicit prosodic phrases. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 35, 68–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sherratt, S., & Bryan, K. 2012. Discourse production after right brain damage: Gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model. Journal of Neurolinguistics 25 (4), 213–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stabler, E. 1994. The finite connectivity of linguistic structure. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (303–336). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5–6), 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staub, A., & Clifton, C. 2006. Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: evidence from either…or . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1223–1237.Google Scholar
Tompkins, C. A., Fassbinder, W., Lehman-Blake, M. T., & Baumgaertner, A. 2002. The nature and implications of right hemisphere language disorders: Issues in search of answers. In A. E. Hillis (Ed.), The handbook of adult language disorders: Integrating cognitive neuropsychology, neurology, and rehabilitation (429–448). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., & Mulac, A. J. 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer ‘that’ in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 237–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tottie, G., & Hoffmann, S. 2006. Tag Questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics 34(4), 283–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Tag Questions in English – The First Century. Journal of English Linguistics, 37, 130–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1997. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the ICHL XII, Manchester, UK.
van Dijk, T. 1980. Macrostructures. An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vollrath, M., Kazenwadel, J., & Krüger, H. P. 1992. A universal constant in temporal segmentation of human speech. Naturwissenschaften 79(10), 479–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar