Cover not available
Article published In:
Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 2:2 (2022) ► pp.165–189

Can temporal clauses be insubordinate?

Evidence from English conversation

ORCID logo | University of Helsinki
| University of California Santa Barbara

In this paper we aim to determine whether temporal clauses can be shown to be insubordinate in everyday American English interaction. In order to investigate grammatical insubordination in conversation, we operationalize the notion of ‘insubordination’ as a specific practice for designing a turn-at-talk and implementing a social action. That is, we treat as ‘insubordinate’ a clause with a grammatically subordinate form that (a) is freestanding, that is, forms a prosodic unit of its own, (b) implements a discrete social action in its sequential context, and (c) has an independent interpretation, that is, is interpretable and actionable in the absence of a main clause. We then examine five different types of freestanding temporal clauses in conversation which might be considered candidate insubordinate uses. Our data show that in some cases both criteria (b) and (c) are lacking, while in others it is criterion (c) that is absent. In none of these cases are all three criteria satisfied at once. We conclude that temporal clauses do not exhibit insubordination in English conversation as do other adverbial clauses such as those with ’if’.

Keywords: temporal clause, insubordination, increment, turn continuation, other repair initiation, responsive action
Article outline
  • 1.Background
  • 2.Adverbial clauses used insubordinately in talk-in-interaction: The case of if
  • 3.Data and procedure
  • 4.Candidate insubordinate temporal clauses in conversation
    • 4.1Freestanding temporal clauses
    • 4.2Freestanding temporal clauses as post-completion increments
    • 4.3Freestanding temporal clauses in turn continuation by other
    • 4.4Freestanding temporal clauses in other repair-initiation
    • 4.5Freestanding temporal clauses as responsive actions
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.22006.cou
References
Auer, P.
(2014) Syntactic structures and their symbiotic guests: Notes on analepsis from the perspective of on-line syntax. Pragmatics, 24(3), 533–560.Google Scholar
(2015) The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. In A. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in Interaction (pp. 27–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benzitoun, C.
(2006) Examen de la notion de subordination. Le cas des quand insubordonnés. Faits de langues, 281, 35–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(1988) On the temporal interpretation of postposed when-clauses in narrative discourse. In R. Matthews & J. Schmole-Rostosky (Eds.), Papers on Language and Medieval Studies (pp. 353–372). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(1996) Intonation and clause combining in discourse: The case of because . Pragmatics, 6(3), 389–426.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Barth-Weingarten, D.
(2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. English translation and adaptation of Selting, Margret et al: Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung Online, 121, 1–51.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Ono, T.
(2007) ‘Incrementing‘ in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics, 17(4), 513–552.Google Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2004) The Acquisition of Complex Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, A. M.
(2016) Ordinary insubordination as transient discourse. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds.), Insubordination (pp. 183–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N.
(2007) Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 366–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Watanabe, H.
(2016) The dynamics of insubordination. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds.), Insubordination (pp. 1–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A.
(2010) Responses to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 133–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S.
(2020) Practices of clause-combining: From complex wenn-constructions to insubordinate (‘stand-alone’) conditionals in everyday spoken German. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent Syntax for Conversation. Clausal patterns and the organization of action (pp. 185–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamann, C.
(1989) English temporal clauses in a reference frame model. In A. Schopf (Ed.), Essays on Tensing in English (pp. 31–154). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2015) Kollaborative Insubordination in gesprochenem Englisch: Konstruktion oder Umgang mit Konstruktionen? In A. Ziem & A. Lasch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IV. Konstruktionen als soziale Konventionen und kognitive Routinen (pp. 25–40). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G.
(2019) Delimiting the class: A typology of English insubordination. In K. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck & M. S. Sansinena (Eds.), Insubordination: Theoretical and empirical issues (pp. 167–198). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, A., R. Laury, & E-L. Seppanen
(2011) Syntactic and actional characteristics of Finnish etta-clauses. In R. Laury & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in Conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 69–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R.
(2012) Syntactically non-integrated Finnish ‘jos’ (if)-conditional clauses as directives. Discourse Processes, 491, 213–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H.
(1996) On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: Grammar as action in prompting a speaker to elaborate. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 151–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J., Laury, R. & Lindholm, C.
(2019) Insubordination and the contextually sensitive emergence of if-requests in Swedish and Finnish institutional talk-in-interaction. In K. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck & M. Sol Sansiñena (Eds.), Insubordination: Theoretical and empirical issues (pp. 55–78). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J., Lindholm, C. & Laury, R.
(2016) The interactional emergence of conditional clauses as directives: constructions, trajectories and sequences of action. Language Sciences, 581, 8–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J. & Kelly, J.
(1986) Projection and ‘silences’: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies, 91, 185–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y.
(2020) The insubordinate-subordinate continuum. Prosody, embodied action, and the emergence of Hebrew complex syntax. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent Syntax for Conversation. Clausal patterns and the organization of action (pp. 87–125). Amsterdam, John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, T., Thompson, S. A. & Sasaki, Y.
(2012) Japanese negotiation through emerging final particles in everyday talk. Discourse Processes, 49(3–4), 243–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W. & White, A. E. C.
(2017) Time reference in the service of social action. Social Psychology Quarterly, 80(2), 109–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022) On the recognitionality of references to time in social interaction. Language & Communication, 831, 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(1997) Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 231, 499–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Conversation Analysis: A Project in Process – “Increments”. Forum Lecture, Linguistic Society of America Linguistics Institute, University of California Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
(2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Increments. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Social Interaction (pp. 239–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, E.-L. & Laury, R.
(2007) Complement clauses as turn continuations: The Finnish et(tä)-clause. Pragmatics, 17(4), 553–572.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J.
(2012) Turn-continuation by self and by other. Discourse Processes, 49(3–4), 314–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, S.
(2016) Meaning and interaction in Spanish independent si-clauses. Language Sciences, 581, 22–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L., Peräkylä, A., Laury, R. & Lindström, J.
(2021) Intersubjectivity in action: An introduction. In J. Lindström, R. Laury, A. Peräkylä, M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in language and social interaction (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & Hayashi, M.
(2010) Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 391, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Longacre, R. & Hwang, S.
(2007) Adverbial clauses. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume II: Complex constructions, Second edition (pp. 237–300). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A. & Suzuki, R.
(2011) The grammaticalization of final particles. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 668–682). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, G.
(2004) On some interactional and phonetic properties of increments to turns in talk-in-interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation (pp. 147–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar