Cover not available

Article In: Interactional Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Insubordination in interaction

The case of Hebrew ironic ki ‘because’-clauses

ORCiD logo with link | Bar-Ilan University | University of Haifa
ORCiD logo with link | University of Haifa
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This study examines a particular type of insubordinate clause in Hebrew that comprises an ironic utterance prefaced by the Hebrew causal conjunction ki ‘because.’ Our analysis reveals that in casual face-to-face interaction, ki-prefaced ironic clauses, although formally marked as subordinate of the causal variety, may function as comments conveying a negative stance toward a prior utterance, ridiculing or challenging it by appealing to shared knowledge or common sense. We further demonstrate that the use of these ki-clauses is often accompanied by particular embodied cues that index distancing from the content and facilitate the recognition of irony. In line with recent work on insubordination, we show that these clauses resist traditional subordinate-causal categorizations and require a usage-based, interactionally grounded analysis instead. By exploring this ki-prefaced construction, our study contributes both to the typology of insubordination and to the understanding of how causal clauses are recruited for stance-taking in everyday Hebrew conversation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methodology
  • 3.Multimodal interactional analysis of ironic insubordinate ki-clauses
    • 3.1Other-ridicule
      • 3.1.1Interactional analysis of an other-ridicule sequence
      • 3.1.2Insubordination and ki-clauses in other-ridicule
    • 3.2Self-ridicule
      • 3.2.1Interactional analysis of a self-ridicule sequence: Stance intensification
      • 3.2.2Insubordination and ki-clauses in self-ridiculing stance intensification
      • 3.2.3Interactional analysis of a self-ridicule sequence: Retrospective reframing
      • 3.2.4Insubordination and ki-clauses in self-ridiculing retrospective reframing
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
References (91)
References
Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J., et al. (2003). Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor, 16(2), 243–260. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist, M. (Ed.), The dialogic Imagination (pp. 259–422). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beijering, K., Kaltenböck, G., & Sansiñena, M. S. (2019). Insubordination: Central issues and open questions. In K. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck, & M. S. Sansiñena (Eds.), Insubordination: Theoretical and Empirical Issues (pp. 1–28). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ben-Moshe, Y. M. (2022). The many faces of Hebrew way: A cognitive and affective change-of-state token. Presented at the Workshop on Interactional Linguistics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, June 8.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ben-Moshe, Y. M., & Maschler, Y. (in press). Tracing the semantic development of Hebrew clicks. Studies in Language.
Betz, E., & Gubina, A. (2025). On stance-taking with one-sided vs. two-sided shoulder lifts in German talk-in-interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 161:1509988. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blau, Y. (1966). yesodot hataxbir [Foundations of syntax]. Jerusalem: hamaxon ha’ivri lehaskala bixtav.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bliboim, R. (2003). Causal Conjunctions and Their Use as Stylistic Markers. PhD thesis, Bar Ilan University. (in Hebrew)
(2006). Causal conjunctions as stylistic markers: The written press versus the broadcast. In R. Ben Shahar & G. Toury (Eds.), Ha’ivrit safa xaya [Hebrew — a Living language, 4] (pp. 53–69). (in Hebrew)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolden, G. B., & Robinson, J. D. (2011). Soliciting accounts with ’why’-interrogatives in naturally occurring English conversation. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 94–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Laughing while talking. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 2001, Linguistics, Language, and the Real World: Discourse and Beyond (pp. 36–49). Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, B. (2022). Dog barks in different languages. Diplomatic Language Services. August 26. [URL]
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). Intonation and clause combining in discourse: The case of because. Pragmatics, 6(3), 389–426.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). When turns start with because: An exercise in interactional syntax. In A. Meurman-Solin & U. Lenker (Eds.), Connectives in Synchrony and Diachrony in European Languages (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, 8). Varieng. [URL]
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S. A. (2022). Can temporal clauses be insubordinate? Evidence from English conversation. Interactional Linguistics, 2(2), 165–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025). An evidential function of raised eyebrows in interaction: Marking a differential in expectations. In K. Nikiforidou & M. Fried (Eds.), Multimodal Communication from a Construction Grammar Perspective (Constructional Approaches to Language 38) (pp. 190–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Debras, C., & Cienki, A. (2012). Some uses of head tilts and shoulder shrugs during human interaction, and their relation to stancetaking. International proceedings of the ASE 2012 International Conference of Social Computing. Amsterdam, Netherlands, September 3–5. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, L. (2000). Causal connectives or causal prepositions? Discursive constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 321, 687–707. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2012). Representing discourse. Linguistics Department, University of California at Santa Barbara (manuscript, Fall 2012 version).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., Thompson, S. A., Englebretson, R., & Martey, N. (2000–2005). Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1–4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Cumming, S., Schuetze-Coburn, S., & Paolino, D. (1992). Discourse Transcription. Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dwyer, A. M. (2016). Ordinary insubordination as transient discourse. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds.), Insubordination [Typological Studies in Language 115] (pp. 183–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nicolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 366–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foley, W. A., & Van Valin, Jr. R. D. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). At the intersection of turn and sequence: Negation and what comes next. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 51–81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, C. E., & Fox, B. A. (2010). Multiple practices for constructing laughables. In D. Barth, E. Reber & E. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in Interaction (pp. 339–368). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. & Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 14–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, C. E., & Mori, J. (1994). Causal markers in Japanese and English conversations: A cross-linguistic study of interactional grammar. Pragmatics, 4(1), 31–62.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. & Thompson, S. A. (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 (pp. 134–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O. (2015). Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 290–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glinert, L. (1989). The Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 321, 1489–1522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018a). Co-operative action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018b). Why multimodality? Why co-operative action? Social Interaction: Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 1(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harrison, S. (2018). The Impulse to Gesture: Where Language, Minds, and Bodies Intersect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Wanders, G. (2007). Adverbial conjunctions in Functional Discourse Grammar. In M. Hannay & G. Steen (Eds.), Structural-functional studies in English grammar: In honor of Lachlan Mackenzie (pp. 211–227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (Eds.). Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1987). Emergent grammar. In J. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis & H. Filip (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 131 (pp. 139–157). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inbar, A. (2021). The expressions ve ze (lit.) ‘and this’ and o mashehu ‘or something’ in spoken Israeli Hebrew: Cognitive, social and cultural aspects. Lešonenu, 83(3), 401–424. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022a). Laughter and smiling as a politeness strategy in Hebrew discourse. Israel Studies in Language and Society, 15(1), 114–137. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inbar, A., & Maschler, Y. (2023). Shared knowledge as an account for disaffiliative moves: Hebrew ki ‘because’-clauses accompanied by the Palm Up Open Hand gesture. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 56(2), 141–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025). Teasing via the [lo, ki ‘no, because’ + ironic utterance] structure in Hebrew talk-in-interaction. Discourse Studies, 27(5), 759–786. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janssens, J., de Vries, C., & Brône, G. (2024). Interactional functions of raised eyebrows by ironists and their addressees. The European Lournal of Humor Research, 12(4), 33–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jehoul, A., Brône, G., & Feyaerts, K. (2017). The shrug as marker of obviousness: corpus evidence from Dutch face-to-face conversations. Linguistic Vanguard 31:20160082. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., & Keizer, E. (2022). Insubordinate if-clauses in FDG: Degrees of independence. Open Linguistics, 8(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2018). What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. (1997). Adverbial subordination: A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (2023). Multimodal markers of irony in televised discourse: A corpus-based approach. In A. H. Jucker, I. Hubscher, & L. Brown (Eds.), Multimodal Im/politeness: Signed, spoken, written [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 333] (pp. 251–272). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, X. (2016). Some discourse-interactional uses of yinwei ‘because’ and its multimodal production in Mandarin conversation. Language Sciences, 581, 51–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindström, J., & Londen, A-M. (2008). Constructing reasoning. The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional Reorganization [Constructional Approaches to Language 5] (pp. 105–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Livnat, Z., & Yatziv, I. (2003). Causality and justification: The causal marker ki in Spoken Hebrew. Revue de Semantique et Pragmatique, 131, 99–119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longacre, R. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1985). Adverbial clauses. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description (pp. 171–234). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marmorstein, M., & Shor, L. (2025). Orienting to knowledge as remarkable: The newsmark BE’EMET ‘in-truth’ in Hebrew conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 2381, 40–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maschler, Y. (1994). Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society, 23(3), 325–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Blurring the boundaries between discourse marker, pragmatic marker, and modal particle: The emergence of Hebrew loydea / loydat (“I dunno MASC/FEM”) from interaction. In: A. Sansò, & C. Fedriani (Eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives (pp. 37–69). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maschler, Y., & Estlein, R. (2008). Stance-taking in Hebrew casual conversation via be’emet (‘really, actually, indeed’, lit. ‘in truth’). Discourse Studies, 10(3), 283–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maschler, Y., Pekarek Doehler, S., Lindström, J., & Keevallik, L. (Eds.). (2020). Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maschler, Y., Polak-Yitzhaki, H., Aghion, G., Fofliger, O., Wildner, N., Ben-Moshe, Y. M., Lagil, R., Saar, S., Inbar, A., Geva, Y., & Kojokaro, K. (2026). The Haifa Multimodal Corpus of Spoken Hebrew.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 651, 137–156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Challenges of Multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Conventions for multimodal transcription. [URL]. 2019. [URL]
Mori, J. (1994). Functions of the connective datte in Japanese conversation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 41, 147–163.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Well I may be exaggerating but…: Self-qualifying clauses in negotiating of opinions among Japanese speakers. Human Studies, 22(2–4), 447–473. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Horlacher, A. S. (2025). An interactional grammar of insubordination: The case of French si ‘if’-clauses. In J. Steensig, M. Jørgensen, J. K. Lindström, N. Mikkelsen, K. Suomalainen & S. S. Sørensen (Eds.), Grammar in action: Building comprehensive grammars of talk-in-interaction (pp. 334–369). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., Keevallik, L., & Li, X. (2022). Editorial: The grammar-body interface in social interaction. Frontiers in Psychology 131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, J. G. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. In J. G. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 1–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rönnqvist, S. (2024). Securing sufficient uptake and sequence progression — För att (‘because’)-prefaced self-continuations and gesture in Swedish talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 2301, 41–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 54–69). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shor, L., Shukrun-Nagar, P., & Livnat, Z. (to appear). Turn-initial ki “because”-clauses as a rhetorical responsive practice in Hebrew Facebook comments. Pragmatics.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tabacaru, S. (2025). “That was really a productive segment, wasn’t it?” Nonverbal markers of humor in the American presidential debates of 2016 and 2020. Frontiers in Psychology, 151:1453168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Longacre, R. E., & Hwang, S. J. (2007). Adverbial clauses. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description (pp. 237–300). Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zima, E. (2025). Multimodal construction grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zima, E., & Bergs, A. (2017). Multimodality and construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard. 3(s1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue