Cover not available
Article published In:
Models of Discourse Units in Romance Languages
Edited by Margarita Borreguero Zuloaga, Vahram Atayan and Sybille Große
[Revue Romane 53:1] 2018
► pp. 159–179

Patterns of construction in spoken French

TCU-initial discourse markers and spans of projection

| Heidelberg University

This paper aims at discussing the relationships of turn construction, interactional units and projectability with especial regard to projections triggered by TCU-initially placed items, for instance discourse markers. Supported by data taken from contemporary spoken French, the main purpose of this piece is to theorize and describe these patterns of projection and to elicit from them constructional convergences. The theoretical statement is complemented by the exemplary analysis of a French talk-show conversation in which the turn-initially placed items feature prominently in the interlocutors’ discussion. This can be demonstrated through the study of certain linguistic mechanisms of coherence on different hierarchical levels. Special focus is placed on the implicit argumentative relations that the analyzed projection patterns establish.

Keywords: interactional linguistics, projection, TCU, discourse markers
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.How can we define the units that conversations are made up of?
    • 1.1Turn-constructional units as basic units of conversational speech
    • 1.2TCUs as seen from within the conversational interaction
  • 2.The TCU conceived as a span of projection
    • 2.1The role of projection in the construction of conversational talk
      • Syntactic projection
      • Prosodic projection
      • Pragmatic projection
    • 2.2Projection patterns in Interaction: TCU-initially placed elements
    • 2.3Discourse markers at a TCU-initial position
  • 3.The projective potential of emerging constructions
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.00009.mor
References
Atkinson, J. M./Heritage, J.
(eds.) (1984): Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000): On-line-Syntax – oder: Was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur, 851, pp. 43–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005): Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25, 1, pp. 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007a): Syntax als Prozess, in: Hausendorf, H. (ed.): Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 95–124.Google Scholar
(2007b): Projection and minimalistic syntax in interaction, Manuskript. Cited from Günthner S. (2011).Google Scholar
(2009): Online-syntax: thoughts on the temporality od spoken language. Language Sciences, 311, pp. 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010): Zum Segmentierungsproblem in der Gesprochenen Sprache. InLiSt, 491. Retrieved from: [URL]
(2014): The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. InLiSt, 541, pp. 1–25. Retrieved from: [URL].
Auer, P./Pfänder, S.
(2011): Constructions: emergent or emerging?, in: Auer, P./Pfänder, S. (eds.): Constructions: emerging and emergent. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, (= linguae & litterae 6), pp. 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barden, B./Elstermann, M./Fiehler, R.
(2001): Operator-Skopus-Strukturen in gesprochener Sprache, in: Liedtke, F./Hundsnurscher, F. (eds.): Pragmatische Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 197–233.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D.
(2006): Fuzzy boundaries – Überlegungen zu einer Grammatik der gesprochenen Sprache nach konversationsanalytischen Kriterien, in: Deppermann, A./Fiehler, R./Spranz-Fogasy, T. (eds.): Grammatik und Interaktion. Untersuchungen zum Zusammenhang von grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprächsprozessen. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, pp. 67–93.Google Scholar
(2011): The fuzziness of intonation units: Some theoretical considerations and a practical solution. InLiSt, 511. Retrieved from: [URL].
Blakemore, D.
(1987): Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W.
(1991): Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics, 1, 1, pp. 71–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L.
(1996): Pragmatic markers in English. Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L.
(1994): Discourse, Consciousness and Time. The fow and displacement of Conscious experience in Speaking and writing. Chicago/London: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Chevalier, F. H. G./Clift, R.
(2008): Unfinished turns in French conversation: Projectability, syntax and action. Journal of Pragmatics, 401, pp. 1731–1752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, L./Simon, A. C.
(2009a): Mapping prosody and syntax as a strategic choice, in: Barth-Weingarten, D./Dehé, N./Wichmann, A. (eds.): Where Prosody Meets Pragmatics. Bangalore: Emerald, pp. 79–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b): On identifying basic discourse units in speech: theoretical and empirical issues. Discours, 41. Retrieved from: [URL]. DOI logo
Deppermann, A.
(2013): Turn-design at turn-beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn-construction in German. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 1, pp. 91–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiehler, R.
(2012): Wo fängt der Satz an? Operator-Skopus-Strukturen in gesprochener und geschriebener Sprache, in: Cortès, C. (ed.): Satzeröffnung. Formen, Funktionen, Strategien. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 31–44.Google Scholar
Fiehler, R./Barden, B./Elstermann, M./Kraft, B.
(2004): Eigenschaften gesprochener Sprache. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Fischer, K.
(2000): Discourse Particles, Turn-taking, and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Revue Semantique et Pragmatique. 81, pp. 111–137.Google Scholar
(2006): Frames, constructions and invariant meanings: the functional polysemy of discourse particles, in: Fischer, K. (ed.): Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 427–447.Google Scholar
Ford, C./Thompson, S.
(1996): Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns, in: Ochs, E./Schegloff, E. A./Thompson, S. A. (eds.): Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E./Fox, B. A./Thompson, S.
(1996): Practices in the construction of turns. The “TCU” revisited. Pragmatics, 6, 3, pp. 427–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E.
(2004): Contingency and units in interaction. Discourse Studies, 6, 1, pp. 27–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, B./Thompson, S./Ford, C./Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2013): Conversation Analysis in Linguistics, in: Sidnell, J./Stivers, T. (eds.): Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Blackwell, pp. 726–740.Google Scholar
Fraser, B.
(1990): An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 141, pp. 383–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996): Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 61, pp. 167–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999): What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 311, pp. 931–953. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006): Towards a theory of dicourse markers, in: Fischer, K. (ed.): Approaches to Discourse Particles. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 189–204.Google Scholar
Gohl, C./Günthner, S.
(1999): Grammatikalisierung von weil als Diskursmarker in der gesprochenen Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 181, pp. 39–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S.
(2000): Grammatik im Gespräch: Zur Verwendung von ‘wobei’ im gesprochenen Deutsch. Sprache und Literatur, 85, 31, pp. 57–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008): Projektorkonstruktionen im Gespräch: Pseudoclefts, die Sache ist-Konstruktionen und Extrapositionen mit es . Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 91, pp. 86–114.Google Scholar
(2011): Between emergence and sedimentation. Projecting constructions in German interactions, in: Auer, P./Pfänder, S. (eds.): Constructions: emerging and emergent. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, (= linguae & litterae 6), pp. 156–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halford, B. K.
(1996): Talk Units: The structure of Spoken Canadian English. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.
(1987): Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics society, 131, pp. 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998): Emergence of grammar, in: Bright, W. (ed.): International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. I1. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 364–367.Google Scholar
(2004): The openness of grammatical constructions. 40th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 153–175.Google Scholar
Imo, W.
(2012): Wortart Diskursmarker?, in: Rothstein, B. (ed.): Nicht-flektierende Wortarten. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 48–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016): Diskursmarker: grammatischer Status – Funktionen in monologischen und dialogischen Kontexten – historische Kontinuität, in: Blühdorn, H./Deppermann, A. (eds.): Diskursmarker. Retrieved from: [URL].
Kroon, C.
(1998): A framework for the description of Latin discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, pp. 205–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenk, U.
(1998): Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H.
(1991): On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress. Language In Society, 201, pp. 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996): On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In Ochs, E./Schegloff, E. A./Thompson, S. (eds.): Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 238–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002): Collaborative turn sequences, in: Lerner, G. H. (ed.): Conversation Analysis. Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 225–256.Google Scholar
Martín Zorraquino, M.ª A./Portolés, J.
(1999): Los marcadores del discurso, in: Bosque, I./Demonte, V. (eds.): Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, pp. 4051–4213.Google Scholar
Mazeland, H.
(2013): Grammar in Conversation, in: Sidnell, J./Stivers, T. (eds.): The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Blackwell, pp. 475–491.Google Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, M. -B.
(1998): The Function of Discourse Particles. A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portolés, J.
(1998): Marcadores del discurso. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Sacks, H./Schegloff, E. A./Jefferson, G.
(1974): A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 4, pp. 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H.
(1992): Lectures on conversation, Vol. 1&21. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(1996): Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction, in: Ochs, E./Schegloff, E. A./Thompson, S. A. (eds.): Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 53–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
(1987): Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M./Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2000): Argumente für die Entwicklung einer interaktionalen Linguistik. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 11, pp. 76–95. Retrieved from: [URL].
(2001): Introducing Interactional Linguistics, in: Selting, M./Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.): Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M.
(1995): Der ‘mögliche Satz’ als interaktiv relevante syntaktische Kategorie. Linguistische Berichte, 1581, pp. 298–325.Google Scholar
(1998): TCUs and TRPs: the construction of ‘units’ in conversational talk. InLiSt, 41, pp. 1–48. Retrieved from: [URL].
(2000): The Construction of Units in Conversational Talk. Language in Society, 29, 4, pp. 477–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001): Fragments of units as deviant cases of unit-production in conversational talk, in: Selting, M./Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.): Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 229–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005): Syntax and prosody as methods for the construction and identification of turn-constructional units in conversation, in: Hakulinen, A./Selting, M. (eds.): Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 17–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepek Reed, B. B.
(2009): Units of interaction: “intonation phrases” or “turn constructional phrases?, Paper presented at the Interface Discours & Prosodie Conference, September 9–11, Paris, p. 351–363. Retrieved from: [URL]
Vicher, A./Sankoff, D.
(1989): The emergent syntax of pre-sentential openings. Journal of Pragmatics, 131, pp. 81–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Gao, Jie & Jian Su
2021. Research on Machine Learning-Based Error Correction Algorithm for Spoken French. Security and Communication Networks 2021 ► pp. 1 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.