Article published in:
Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics
Edited by Ritva Laury, Marja Etelämäki and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
[Pragmatics 24:3] 2014
► pp. 533–560

Syntactic structures and their symbiotic guests

Notes on analepsis from the perspective of online syntax

The empirical focus of this paper is on utterances that re-use syntactic structures from a preceding syntactic unit. Next utterances of this type are usually treated as (coordination) ellipsis. It is argued that from an on-line perspective on spoken syntax, they are better described as structural latency: A grammatical structure already established remains available and can therefore be made use of with one or more of its slots being filled by new material. A variety of cases of this particular kind of conversational symbiosis are discussed. It is argued that they should receive a common treatment. A number of features of the general host/guest relationship are discussed.

Keywords: Structural latency, On-line syntax, Analepsis
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 01 September 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.05aue
References
Auer, Peter
(2009) On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 311: 1-13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Stefan Pfänder
(2007) Multiple retractions in spoken French and spoken German. A contrastive study in oral performance styles. Cahiers de Praxématique 481 : 57-84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Yael Maschler
(2013) Discourse or grammar? VS patterns in spoken Hebrew and spoken German narratives. Language Sciences 37 : 147-181. Crossref
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire
(1990) Le français parlé - études grammaticales. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
(2001) Introducing Interactional Linguistics. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, and M. Selting (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.1-22. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John
(2001) Towards a dialogical syntax. University of Santa Barbara, California [manuscript].Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., and Sandra A. Thompson
(2010) Responses to WH-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43.2: 133-156. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hennig, Mathilde
(ed.) (2013) Die Ellipse. Neue Perspektiven auf ein altes Phänomen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Ludger
(1999) Ellipse und Analepse. In A. Redder, and J. Rehbein (eds.), Grammatik und mentale Prozesse. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 69-90.Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang
(2013) Ellipsen und Verstehen in der Interaktion. In M. Hennig (ed.), Die Ellipse. Neue Perspektiven auf ein altes Phänomen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 281-319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kindt, Walther
(1985) Grammatische Prinzipien sogenannter Ellipsen und ein neues Syntaxmodell. In R. Meyer-Hermann, and H. Rieser (eds.), Ellipsen und fragmentarische Ausdrücke. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 161-290.Google Scholar
(2013) Theoretische und methodische Grundlagen der Ellipsenmodellierung. Ergebnisse einer systematischen Betrachtung. In M. Hennig (ed.), Die Ellipse. Neue Perspektiven auf ein altes Phänomen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 39-106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang
(1993) Ellipse. In J. Jacobs, T. Vennemann, W. Sternefeld, and A. Stechow (eds.), Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 763-799.Google Scholar
Knobloch, Clemens
(2013) ‘Ein Teil, das fehlt, geht nie kaputt’ - Ellipsen in Grammatik und Kommunikation. In M. Hennig (ed.), Die Ellipse. Neue Perspektiven auf ein altes Phänomen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 19-38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
(1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene
(1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 201: 441-458. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lötscher, Andreas
(2013) Einsetzen - finden - erfinden - vermuten - erahnen? Ellipsenverstehen aus der Perspektive von Textverstehen und Textbedeutung. In M. Henning (ed.), Die Ellipse. Neue Perspektiven auf ein altes Phänomen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 183-226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason
(2001) The Syntax of Silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2004) Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27.6: 661-738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, Martin
(2014) Die syntaktische Struktur von Selbstreparaturen im Deutschen. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Freiburg.
Rath, Rainer
(1979) Kommunikationspraxis: Analysen zur Textbildung und Textgliederung im gesprochenen Deutsch. Göppingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Rickheit, Gert, and Lorenz Sichelschmidt
(2013) Verstehen von Ellipsen - ein holistischer Ansatz. In M. Hennig (ed.), Die Ellipse. Neue Perspektiven auf ein altes Phänomen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 159-182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rost-Roth, Martina
(2003) Fragen - Nachfragen - Echofragen. Formen und Funktionen von Interrogationen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistik online 13, 1/03 (http://​www​.linguistik​-online​.de​/13​_01​/index​.html).
Sacks, Harvey
(1992) Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel
(1996) Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52-133. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret
(1997) Sogenannte Ellipsen als interaktiv relevante Konstruktionen? Ein neuer Versuch über die Reichweite und Grenzen des Ellipsenbegriffs für die Analyse gesprochener Sprache in Interaktionen. In Peter Schlobinski (eds.), Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 117-156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Listen: Sequenzielle und prosodische Struktur einer kommunikativen Praktik – eine Untersuchung im Rahmen der Interaktionalen Linguistik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 231: 1-46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Arnulf Deppermann, Peter Gilles, Susanne Günthner, Martin Hartung, Friederike Kern, Christine Mertzlufft, Christian Meyer, Miriam Morek, Frank Oberzaucher, Jörg Peters, Uta Quasthoff, Wilfried Schütte, Anja Stukenbrock, and Susanne Uhmann
(2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: Gat 2. Gespraechsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion. 121: 1-51.Google Scholar
Wegener, Philipp
(1885) Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Full-text

Syntactic structures and their symbiotic guests
Cited by

Cited by 16 other publications

No author info given
2015.  In Time and Emergence in Grammar [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 28], Crossref logo
Auer, Peter
2015.  In Temporality in Interaction [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 27], ► pp. 27 ff. Crossref logo
Auer, Peter & Jan Lindström
2021.  In Intersubjectivity in Action [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 326], ► pp. 81 ff. Crossref logo
Dammel, Antje
2020.  In Walking on the Grammaticalization Path of the Definite Article [Studies in Language Variation, 23], ► pp. 162 ff. Crossref logo
Deppermann, Arnulf & Alexandra Gubina
2021. When the Body Belies the Words: Embodied Agency With darf/kann ich? (“May/Can I?”) in German. Frontiers in Communication 6 Crossref logo
Fabre, Alain
2019. Multifunctionality of the verbal suffix -ʧɁe ~ -kɁe and analepsis in Nivaĉle (Mataguayo family, Gran Chaco region). LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas 18:2 ► pp. 338 ff. Crossref logo
Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Gregory James Mills, Christine Howes, Arash Eshghi, Stergios Chatzikyriakidis, Matthew Purver, Ruth Kempson, Ronnie Cann & Patrick G. T. Healey
2020. Completability vs (In)completeness. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 52:2 ► pp. 260 ff. Crossref logo
Günthner, Susanne
2015.  In Temporality in Interaction [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 27], ► pp. 237 ff. Crossref logo
Helmer, Henrike
2017. Analepsen mit Topik-Drop. Zur Notwendigkeit einer diskurssemantischen Perspektive. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 45:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Laury, Ritva & Marja-Liisa Helasvuo
2016. Disclaiming epistemic access with ‘know’ and ‘remember’ in Finnish. Journal of Pragmatics 106 ► pp. 80 ff. Crossref logo
Laury, Ritva, Tsuyoshi Ono & Ryoko Suzuki
2019. Questioning the clause as a crosslinguistic unit in grammar and interaction. Studies in Language 43:2 ► pp. 364 ff. Crossref logo
Laury, Ritva, Tsuyoshi Ono & Ryoko Suzuki
2021.  In Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units [Benjamins Current Topics, 114], ► pp. 123 ff. Crossref logo
Maschler, Yael
2018. The on-line emergence of Hebrew insubordinateshe- (‘that/which/who’) clauses. Studies in Language 42:3 ► pp. 669 ff. Crossref logo
Thompson, Sandra A.
2019. Understanding ‘clause’ as an emergent ‘unit’ in everyday conversation. Studies in Language 43:2 ► pp. 254 ff. Crossref logo
Thompson, Sandra A.
2021.  In Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units [Benjamins Current Topics, 114], ► pp. 11 ff. Crossref logo
Zinken, Jörg & Uwe-A. Küttner
2022. Offering an Interpretation of Prior Talk in Everyday Interaction: A Semantic Map Approach. Discourse Processes 59:4 ► pp. 298 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 january 2023. 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.