Cover not available
Article published In:
Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 1:1 (2021) ► pp.64–89

“You turn your back and there’s somebody moving in”

Syntactic anacrusis in spoken English

 | Carnegie Mellon University
Anacrustic Coordination (AC) is a type of biclausal conjunction such that an initial clause or phrase sets up a state of affairs and is followed by and and a strongly focused second clause, for example three years it’s been sitting here and I haven’t done it. AC figures in a number of kinds of interaction. One is the topic/comment conditional, as in call it up and there’s something that actually says your number. It is a possibility for enhancing certain illocutionary acts such as threats and warnings: I’m gonna take that and I’m gonna dig it into you. It is a basis for syntactic mirativity, the coding of surprise and unexpectedness (DeLancey 1997): you turn your back and there’s somebody moving in. AC raises questions about the nature of constructions and of Construction Grammar.
Keywords: coordination, anacrustic/anacrusis, emergent grammar, biclausal, construction, boosting, conditional, speech acts, mirativity, style
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Coordination with and
  • 2.Constructions in spoken language
    • 2.1Constructions
    • 2.2Constructions in Conversational Data
  • 3.Anacrustic Coordination
    • 3.1Syntactic Anacrusis
    • 3.2Structuration of the anacrusis
    • 3.3Co-construction of anacrustic coordination
  • 4.Semantics and pragmatics of anacrustic coordination
    • 4.1Speech acts
    • 4.2Conditional
    • 4.3Mirativity
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Symbols used in transcripts
  • References


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 6 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20009.hop
References (44)
References
Aichenvald, A. (2012). The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16,3:435–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. (2000). On-line-Syntax, oder was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der gesprochenen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur 851:43–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). On line syntax: some thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 311:1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and Latency. In A. Deppermann and S. Günthner (Eds.), 27–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2014). Dialogism and the emergence of final particles: The case of and . In S. Günthner, W. Imo & J. Bücker (Eds.), Grammar and Dialogism: Sequential, Syntactic, and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation, 335–66. Berlin: De Gruyter. (Linguistik: Impulse & Tendenzen, 61) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2011). Action, prosody and emergent constructions: the case of and . In P. Auer & S. Pfänder, Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 263–292. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolduc, M. K. & Frank, D. A. (2010). Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s ‘On Temporality as a Characteristic of Argumentation’: Commentary and Translation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 43 (4): 308–315.Google Scholar
Collins, P. C. (1994). Cleft and Pseudocleft Constructions in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 11: 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Günthner, S. (2015). Introduction: Temporality in interaction. In A. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in Interaction, 1–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., Thompson, S. A., Englebretson, R., & Martey, N. (2000–2005). The Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1–4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25,3: 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fielder, G. E. (2008). Bulgarian adversative connectives: Conjunctions or discourse particles? In R. Laury (Ed.), 79–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1993). English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction, Volume 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, M. (2020). Speech Acts. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. <[URL]> Accessed November 14, 2020.
Günthner, S. (2011). Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions. In P. Auer and S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emergent and Emerging, 156–185. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). A temporally oriented perspective on connectors in interaction: und zwar (‘namely/in fact’) constructions in everyday German conversations. In A. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in Interaction, 237–264. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 237–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S., & Hopper, P. J. (2010). Zeitlichkeit und sprachliche Struktur: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen. Gesprächsforschung 111:1–28. <[URL]>
Haiman, J. (1978). Conditionals are topics. Language 541:565–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (Ed.), (2004). Coordinating Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language 58) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1987). Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society 131:139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Grammatical Constructions and their Discourse Origins: Prototype or Family Resemblance? In M. Pütz & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics: Theory, Acquisition, and Language Pedagogy 109–30. Berlin: Mouton/De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Hendiadys and auxiliation in English. In J. Bybee and M. Noonan (Eds.), Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse, 145–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 401:153–175.Google Scholar
(2007). Emergent serialization in English: Pragmatics and typology. In J. Good (Ed.), Language Universals and Language Change, 520–554. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011). Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 22–44. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Emergent Grammar. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 301–315. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2019). Timely Notes on Saussure and Hermann Paul after 1968. In H. Boas & M. Pierce (Eds.), New Directions in Historical Linguistics, 78–109. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Kenneth. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18,3:349–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2020). Grammatical coordination of embodied action: The Estonian ja ‘and’ as a temporal organizer of Pilates moves. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström, & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of action, 221–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, T. (2004). Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1971). If’s, and’s and but’s about conjunction. In C. J. Fillmore & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, 115–149. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Laury, R. (Ed.) (2008). Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y. (2015). Word order in time: Hebrew (Ns)V/VNs syntax. In A. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), 201–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, 275–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, H. (1920). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 51. Auflage. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. & Syder, F. H. (2000). The one clause at a time hypothesis. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency, 163–199. Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). De la temporalité comme caractère de l’argumentation. Archivio di filosofia 28 (2): 115–33.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1978). A comparison of WH- and IT clefts in discourse. Language 541:883–906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1986). Functions of and in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 101:41–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, S. (1974). Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts. Syntax and Semantics 31:211–231. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. & Hopper, P. J. (2009). Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction. In R. Laury, (Ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining 99–123. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lu, Jingjia
2024. 2024 International Conference on Distributed Computing and Optimization Techniques (ICDCOT), ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.