Article published in:
Pragmatics
Vol. 28:3 (2018) ► pp. 361–390

An initial description of syntactic extensions in spoken Czech

| University of Oulu
| Czech Language Institute
This paper aims to describe different patterns of syntactic extensions of turns-at-talk in mundane conversations in Czech. Within interactional linguistics, same-speaker continuations of possibly complete syntactic structures have been described for typologically diverse languages, but have not yet been investigated for Slavic languages. Based on previously established descriptions of various types of extensions (Vorreiter 2003; Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007), our initial description shall therefore contribute to the cross-linguistic exploration of this phenomenon. While all previously described forms for continuing a turn-constructional unit seem to exist in Czech, some grammatical features of this language (especially free word order and strong case morphology) may lead to problems in distinguishing specific types of syntactic extensions. Consequently, this type of language allows for critically evaluating the cross-linguistic validity of the different categories and underlines the necessity of analysing syntactic phenomena within their specific action contexts.
Keywords: interactional grammar, conversation analysis, syntactic extensions, increments, spoken syntax, Czech, ordinary conversation
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 27 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17003.olo

Full-text

An initial description of syntactic extensions in spoken Czech
References

References

Altmann, Hans
1981 Formen der “Herausstellung” im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter
1991 “Vom Ende deutscher Sätze.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 19: 139–157.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 “On the Prosody and Syntax of Turn-Continuations.” In Prosody in Conversation. Interactional Studies, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “Increments and More. Anmerkungen zur augenblicklichen Diskussion über die Erweiterbarkeit von Turnkonstruktionseinheiten.” In Grammatik und Interaktion. Untersuchungen zum Zusammenhang von grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprächsprozessen, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 279–294. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
2007 “Why are Increments such Elusive Objects? An Afterthought.” Pragmatics 17: 647–658.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “On-line Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Frank E. Müller
(eds) 1999 Language in Time. The Rhythm and Tempo of Spoken Interaction. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Birkner, Karin, Sofie Henricson, Camilla Lindholm, et al.
2010 “Retraction Patterns and Self-Repair in German and Swedish Prepositional Phrases.” InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures 46: 1–32.Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B.
2008 “Reopening Russian Conversations: The Discourse Particle -to and the Negotiation of Interpersonal Accountability in Closings.” Human Communication Research 34: 99–136.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 “A Simple Da?: Affirming Responses to Polar Questions in Russian Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 100: 40–58.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Čechová, Marie, Miloš Dokulil, Zdeněk Hlavsa, et al.
1996 Čeština: řeč a jazyk. Prague: ISV nakladatelství.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2012 “Turn Continuation and Clause Combinations.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 273–299.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono
2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cvrček, Václav, Vilém Kodýtek, Marie Kopřivová, et al.
2010 Mluvnice současné češtiny. 1: Jak se píše a jak se mluví. Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar
Daneš, František
(ed) 1974 Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague/The Hague/Paris: Academia/Mouton.Google Scholar
Daneš, František, Miroslav Grepl, and Zdeněk Hlavsa
(eds) 1987 Mluvnice češtiny 3. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Field, Margaret
2007 “Increments in Navajo Conversation.” Pragmatics 17: 637–646.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Firbas, Jan
1992 Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson
(eds) 2002 The Language of Turn and Sequence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002 “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 “Units and/or Action Trajectories?” In Units of Talk – Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed, and Geoffrey Raymond, 13–55. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Sandra A. Thompson, and Veronika Drake
2012 “Bodily-Visual Practices and Turn Continuation.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 192–212.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald
1987 “Tails as a Repair Mechanism in English Conversations.” In Getting One’s Word into Line. On Word Order and Functional Grammar, ed. by Jan Nuyts, and George de Schutter, 119–130. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1994 The Pragmatics of Discourse Anaphora in English: Evidence from Conversational Repair. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1979 “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
1981 Conversational Organization. Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H.
1980 “Processes of Mutual Monitoring Implicated in the Production of Description Sequences.” Sociological Inquiry 50: 303–317.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grepl, Miroslav, and Petr Karlík
1985 Skladba spisovné češtiny. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.Google Scholar
Hajičová, Eva, Barbara H. Partee, and Petr Sgall
(eds) 1998 Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantics Content. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Margret Selting
(eds) 2005 Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hausenblas, Karel
1958 “Syntaktická závislost, způsoby a prostředky jejího vyjadřování.” Bulletin Vysoké školy ruského jazyka 2: 23–51.Google Scholar
Havránek, Bohuslav, and Alois Jedlička
1963 Česká mluvnice. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.Google Scholar
Hoffmannová, Jana, and Jiří Zeman
2017 “Výzkum syntaxe mluvené češtiny: inventarizace problémů.” Slovo a slovenost 78: 45–66.Google Scholar
Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
2007 “La dislocation à droite comme ressource pour l’alternance des tours de parole: vers une syntaxe incrémentale.” Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique 47: 117–136.Google Scholar
2015 La dislocation à droite revisitée. Une approche interactionniste. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hronek, Jiří, and Petr Sgall
1992 Čeština bez příkras. Prague: H&H.Google Scholar
Im, Hangyeong
2004 “Increments and Phonetic Analysis in Korean.” The Journal of Linguistics Science 1: 365–386.Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang
2012 “Ellipsen, Inkremente und Fragmente aus interaktionaler Perspektive.” gidi Arbeitspapiere 45: 1–28.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shimako
2009 “Initiating Interactive Turn Spaces in Japanese Conversation: Local Projection and Collaborative Action.” Discourse Processes 46 (2–3): 226–246.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1973 “A Case of Precision Timing in Ordinary Conversation: Overlapped Tag-Positioned Address Terms in Closing Sequences.” Semiotica IX (1): 47–96.Google Scholar
1983 “Notes on Some Orderlinesses of Overlap Onset.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28: 1–28.Google Scholar
2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis. Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaderka, Petr, and Zdeňka Svobodová
2006 “Jak přepisovat audiovizuální záznam rozhovoru? Manuál pro přepisovatele televizních diskusních pořadů.” Jazykovědné aktuality 43 (3–4): 18–51.Google Scholar
Karlík, Petr, Marek Nekula, and Zdenka Rusínová
(eds) 1995 Příruční mluvnice češtiny. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun
2001 “Turn-Constructional Practice in Korean Conversation: Organization of Turn Increments.” Language Research 37 (4): 885–922.Google Scholar
Kodýtek, Vilém
2007 “Mluvená čeština v Praze a Brně: sonda do mluvených korpusů.” Slovo a slovesnost (1): 23–37.Google Scholar
Koike, Chisato
2003 “An Analysis of Increments in Japanese Conversation in Terms of Syntax and Prosody.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 11, ed. by P. M. Clancy, 67–80. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Krekoski, Ross
2012 “Clausal Continuations in Japanese.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 300–313.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva
2012 “Syntactically Non-Integrated Finnish Jos ‘If’-Conditional Clauses as Directives.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 213–242.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Jan
2006 “Grammar in the Service of Interaction: Exploring Turn Organization in Swedish.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39 (1): 81–117.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luke, Kang-kwong
2012 “Dislocation or Afterthought? – A Conversation Analytic Account of Incremental Sentences in Chinese.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 338–365.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luke, Kang-kwong, Sandra A. Thompson, and Tsuyoshi Ono
2012 “Turns and Increments: A Comparative Perspective.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 155–162.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luke, Kang-kwong, and Wei Zhang
2007 “Retrospective Turn Continuations in Mandarin Chinese Conversation.” Pragmatics 17: 605–635.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mathesius, Vilém
1939 “O tak zvaném aktuálním členění větném.” Slovo a slovesnost 5: 171–174.Google Scholar
1942 “Řeč a sloh.” In Čtení o jazyce a poezii, ed. by Bohuslav Havránek, and Jan Mukařovský, 11–102. Prague: Družstevní práce.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2013 “Multimodal Interaction.” In Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, ed. by Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke et al., 577–589. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2015 “Multimodal Completions.” In Temporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Susanne Günthner, 267–307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Naughton, James
2005 Czech. An Essential Grammar. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nekvapil, Jiří
1991 “The Syntactic Process of Parcellation and Supplementation and Their Results: Parcellated Formations and Supplemented Formations.” In Neue Fragen der Linguistik. Akten des 25. linguistischen Kolloquiums, Paderborn 1990, ed. by Elisabeth Feldbusch, Reiner Pogarell, and Cornelia Weiss, 329–333. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1993 “On the Asymmetry between Syntactic and Elementary Textual Units.” In Studies in Functional Stylistics, ed. by J. Chloupek, and Jiri Nekvapil, 186–222. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson
(eds) 1996 Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ogiermann, E., and Jörg Zinken
2011 “How to Propose an Action as Objectively Necessary: the Case of Polish Trzeba x (“one needs to x”).” Research on Language & Social Interaction 44 (3): 263–287.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Sandra Thompson
1994 “Unattached NPs in English Conversation.” Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 20 (1): 402–419.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panevová, Jarmila, Eva Hajičová, Václava Kettnerová, et al.
2014 Mluvnice současné češtiny. 2: Syntax češtiny na základě anotovaného korpusu. Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1972 “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 75–119. New York: MacMillan, The Free Press.Google Scholar
1987 “Recycled Turn Beginnings: A Precise Repair Mechanism in Conversation’s Turn-taking Organization.” In Talk and Social Organization, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 70–85. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000a “On Turns’ Possible Completion, More or Less: Increments and Trail-offs.” Paper delivered at the 1st Euroconference on Interactional Linguistics (Spa, Belgium).
2000b “Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language in Society 29 (1): 1–63.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 “Conversation Analysis: A Project in Process – ‘Increments’.” Forum lecture delivered at the LSA Linguistic Institute, University of California Santa Barbara: 1–22.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret
1994 “Konstruktionen am Satzrand als interaktive Ressource in natürlichen Gesprächen.” In Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation? Studien zu einem Interaktionsfeld von Grammatik, Pragmatik und Sprachtypologie, ed. by Brigitta Haftka, 229–318. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds) 2001 Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, et al.
2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung Online 10: 353–402.Google Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena, and Ritva Laury
2007 “Complement Clauses as Turn Continuations: The Finnish et(tä)-Clause.” Pragmatics 17: 553–572.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sgall, Petr
1982 “Zur Typologie der Thema-Rhema-Gliederung.” In Studien zum Tschechischen, Slowakischen und Deutschen aus vergleichender Sicht, ed. by Gert Jäger, Václav Křístek, and Jozef Mistrík, 173–185. Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
2012 “Turn-Continuation by Self and by Other.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 314–337.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko
2000 “Turn Projection in Japanese Talk-in-Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (1): 1–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thielemann, Nadine, and Peter Kosta
(eds) 2013 Approaches to Slavic Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, Charles E.
1990 A Description of Spoken Prague Czech. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Vorreiter, Susanne
2003 “Turn Continuations: Towards a Cross-Linguistic Classification.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures 39: 1–25.Google Scholar
Walker, Gareth
2004 “On Some Interactional and Phonetic Properties of Increments to Turns in Talk-in-Interaction.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction. Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia E. Ford, 147–169. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, James
2010 Moravians in Prague. A Sociolinguistic Study of Dialect Contact in the Czech Republic. Frankfurt/Berlin/Brussels: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Zhang, Wei
2012 “Latching/Rush-Through as a Turn-Holding Device and its Functions in Retrospectively Oriented Pre-Emptive Turn Continuation: Findings from Mandarin Conversation.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 163–191.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann
2013 “Responsibility and Action: Invariants and Diversity in Requests for Objects in British English and Polish Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (3): 256–276.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Yael Maschler, Leelo Keevallik & Jan Lindström
2020.  In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 march 2021. 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.