Cover not available
Article published In:
Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics
Edited by Ritva Laury, Marja Etelämäki and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
[Pragmatics 24:3] 2014
► pp. 561–592

The limits of grammar: Clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation

Our paper concerns the grammar of clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation. We consider the patterns of clause combining in our data and focus on the verbal and non-verbal cues which allow participants to determine whether, after the end of a clause-sized unit, the turn will end or continue with another clause-sized unit, resulting in a clause combination. We conclude that morphosyntax alone cannot account for the patterns found in our data, but that the participants orient to, at least, prosodic and nonverbal cues in determining the boundaries of clauses and projecting continuation in the form of another clause. Also important for projection are fixed expressions or ‘prefabs’. In addition, semantic and pragmatic factors play a role. In that sense, we explore the question of where the limits of grammar for interaction, understood as the knowledge which speakers share and which forms the basis for the creation and processing of novel utterances, should be drawn, and whether grammar should include, beyond morphosyntax, not only prosodic, pragmatic and semantic features but also bodily behavior.

Keywords: Finnish, Japanese, Clause combining, Non-verbal behavior, Prosody, Morphosyntax, Prefabs
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 September 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.06lau
References
Aho, E
(2010) Spontaanin puheen prosodinen jaksottelu. [Prosodic segmentation in spontaneous speech]. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Auer, P
(1992) The neverending sentence: On rightward expansion in spoken syntax. In M. Kontra, and T. Váradi (eds.), Studies in spoken Languages: English, German, Finno-Ugric. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, pp. 41-60.Google Scholar
(2005) Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25.1: 7-36.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Projection and minimalistic syntax in interaction. Discourse Processes 46.2: 180-205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., and S. Pfänder
(2011) Constructions: Emerging or emergent? In P. Auer, and S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1-21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J
(2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., and P. Hopper
(2001) Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W.L
(1980) The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative. In W.L. Chafe (ed.), The Pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood: Ablex, pp. 9-50.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1987) Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 21-51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994) Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Clancy, P.M
(1980a) The Acquisition of Narrative Discourse: A Study in Japanese. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
(1980b) Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W.L. Chafe (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 127-202.Google Scholar
Cook, H.M
(1992) Meanings of non-referential indexes: A case study of the Japanese sentence-final ne. Text 12.4: 507-539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., and T. Ono
(2007) Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective. Special issue of Pragmatics 17.4. DOI logo
Couper-Kuhlen, E
(2009) On combining clauses and actions in conversation. In Virittäjä 31. [URL]Google Scholar
(2012) Turn continuation and clause combinations. Discourse Processes 491: 273-299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., and S.A. Thompson
(2008) On assessing situations and events in conversation: Extraposition and its relatives. Discourse Studies 10.4: 443-467. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J.W
(1987) The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 631: 805-855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J.W., S. Schuetze-Coburn, D. Paolino, and S. Cumming
(1993) Outline of discourse transcription. In J.A. Edwards, and M.D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding methods for language research. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 45-89.Google Scholar
Duvallon, O., and S. Routarinne
(2005) Parenthesis as a resource in the grammar of conversation. In A. Hakulinen, and M. Selting (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 45-74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N
(2007) Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 366-431.Google Scholar
Ford, C
(2004) Contingency and units in interaction. Discourse Studies 61: 27-52. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fromkin, V., and R. Rodman
(1993) An Introduction to Language. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publisher.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
(1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
(2003) The body in action. In J. Coupland, and R. Gwyn (eds.), Discourse, the Body and Identity. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan, pp. 19-42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddington, P., L. Mondada, and M. Nevile
(2013) Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, A., M. Vilkuna, R. Korhonen, V. Koivisto, T.R. Heinonen, and I. Alho
(2004) Iso suomen kielioppi. [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, M.-L
(2001) Emerging syntax for interaction: Noun phrases and clauses as a syntactic resource for interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, and M. Selting (eds.), Studies in Interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 25-50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M.D., N. Chomsky, and W.T. Fitch
(2002) The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 2981: 1569-1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinds, J
(1982) Ellipsis in Japanese. Carbondale: Linguistic Research.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P
(1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 131: 139-157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P., and S.A. Thompson
(2008) Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In R. Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 99-124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, S
(1993a) The structure of the intonation unit in Japanese. In S. Choi (ed.), Japanese and Korean linguistics, vol. 3. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 39-53.Google Scholar
(2002) Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Japanese. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, S., and T. Ono
(2002) “Sentence” in spontaneous spoken Japanese discourse. In J. Bybee, and M. Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of S.A. Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 175-202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G
(1972) Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 294-338.Google Scholar
Keenan, E., and B. Comrie
(1977) Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 81: 63-99.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L
(2003) From Interaction to Grammar: Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversation. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Kirkkomäki, E
(2012) Johtoilmaukset ja referointi kertomuksissa. [Framing expressions and quotation in Stories]. MA thesis, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Koivisto, A
(2011) Sanomattakin selvää? Ja, mutta ja että puheenvuoron lopussa. [Goes without saying? Ja, mutta and että at the end of a turn at talk]. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
in prep.) Online emergence of alternative questions in Finnish with the conjunction/particle vai ‘or’. Submitted to R. Laury, M. Etelämäki and E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.) Combining Clauses and Actions in Interaction
Koivisto, A., R. Laury, and E-L. Seppänen
(2011) Syntactic and actional characteristics of Finnish että-clauses. In R. Laury, and R. Suzuki (eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 69-102 DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S
(1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S-Y
(1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E
(2003) Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I Think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
forthcoming) I Thought It Was Very Interesting: Conversational Formats for Taking a Stance. Oulu: Department of English, University of Oulu DOI logo
Laury, R., and E-L. Seppänen
(2008) Clause combining, interaction, evidentiality, participation structure, and the conjunction-particle continuum: The Finnish että . In R. Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, TSL 80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 153-178. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Laury, R., and T. Ono
(2010) Recursion in conversation: What speakers of Finnish and Japanese know how to do. In H. van der Hulst (ed.), Recursion and Human Language. Studies in Generative Grammar 140. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: pp. 69-92.Google Scholar
Laury, R., R. Suzuki, and T. Ono
(2013) Questioning the clause as a crosslinguistic unit in grammar and interaction. Paper given in the Workshop on Linguistic and Interactional Units in Everyday Speech, International Conference on Cognitive Linguistics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, June 21–22.
Laver, J
(1994) Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J., and J. Kelly
(1986) Projection and ‘silences’: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies 91: 185-204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, H
(2007) Parenthetical sequences. Journal of Pragmatics 391: 1816-1869. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Nariyama, S
(2003) Ellipsis and reference tracking in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F.J
(2003) Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 791: 682-707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R
(2004) Non-modal voice quality and turn-taking in Finnish. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, and C.E. Ford (eds.), Sound patterns in interaction. Cross-linguistic studies from conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 29-62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohori, T
(1992) Diachrony in Clause Linkage and Related Issues. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Okamoto, S
(1990) Potential Complements and Complementation: The Case of Japanese. Unpublished ms., California State University.
Ono, T
(1990)  te, i, and ru clauses in Japanese recipes: A quantitative study. Studies in Language 141: 73-92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) The actual status of so-called particle ellipsis in Japanese: Evidence from conversation, acquisition, diachrony, and contact. In S. Rice, and J. Newman (eds.), Experimental and empirical methods. Chicago: CSLI, pp. 180-189.Google Scholar
Ono, T., and R. Suzuki
(2011) Toward a new understanding of the so-called zero anaphora in Japanese everyday talk. Paper given in the panel ‘Beyond Pro-Drop: The Pragmatics of Subject Ellipsis and Expression from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective’ IPrA 12, Manchester, GB.Google Scholar
Ono, T., and S.A. Thompson
(1997) Deconstructing ‘zero anaphora’ in Japanese. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 481-491.
Payne, T
(1997) Describing morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S
(2011) Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French conversation. In R. Laury, and R. Suzuki (eds.), Subordination in conversation: A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 103-148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadler, M
(2001) Iconically motivated use of the Japanese discourse makers sorede, nde, and de in conversation. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 22.2: 143-161.Google Scholar
Scheibman, J
(2001) Local patterns of subjectivity in person and verb type in American English conversation. In J. Bybee, and P. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 61-89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M
(1990) The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart Jr., T.W., and N. Vaillette
(2001) Language Files: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics, Eighth Edition. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Suzuki, R
(1991) A study of wake in Japanese narrative discourse. In M. Takeuchi et al.. (eds.), Kotoba no mozaiku: Okuda Natsuko meiyo kyooju koki kinen ronbunshuu. [Mosaic of words: Papers in honor of Professor Emeritus Natsuko Okuda]. Tokyo: Mejiro Linguistic Society, pp. 124-137.Google Scholar
Tanaka, H
(2000) The particle ne as a turn-management device in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 32.8: 1135-1176. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S.A
(2002) ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26.1: 125-164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S.A., and E. Couper-Kuhlen
(2005) The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7.4/5: 481-505. [Reprinted in Language and Linguistics 6.4: 807-837, 2005] DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Tsujimura, N
(1996) An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vatanen, A
forthc.) Responding in Overlap. Turn onset timing and social action in Finnish and Estonian Conversation. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugric and Scandinavian Studies, University of Helsinki.
Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

Laury, Ritva & Marja-Liisa Helasvuo
2020. Chapter 3. The emergence and routinization of complex syntactic patterns formed with ajatella ‘think’ and tietää ‘know’ in Finnish talk-in-interaction. In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 55 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
Laury, Ritva, Tsuyoshi Ono & Ryoko Suzuki
2021. Questioning the clause as a crosslinguistic unit in grammar and interaction. In Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units [Benjamins Current Topics, 114], ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Luke, K.K. & Mei Fang
2021. Special issue on joint production of conversational turns. Chinese Language and Discourse. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal 12:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Maschler, Yael
2018. The on-line emergence of Hebrew insubordinateshe- (‘that/which/who’) clauses. Studies in Language 42:3 ► pp. 669 ff. DOI logo
Ono, Tsuyoshi, Ritva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki
2019. On the notion of unit in the study of human languages. Studies in Language 43:2 ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Ono, Tsuyoshi, Ritva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki
2021. On the notion of unit in the study of human languages. In Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units [Benjamins Current Topics, 114], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Yael Maschler, Leelo Keevallik & Jan Lindström
2020. Chapter 1. Complex syntax-in-interaction. In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Raymond, Chase Wesley
2022. Suffixation and sequentiality. Interactional Linguistics 2:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Suzuki, Ryoko & Sandra A. Thompson
2016. Beyond dichotomies and continua?: an interactional approach to the grammar of clause combining in Japanese. Language Sciences 58 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 april 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.