Chapter published in:
In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language: A corpus-driven approach
Edited by Shlomo Izre'el, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi and Tommaso Raso
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 94] 2020
► pp. 221–256

Chapter 7. Illocution as a unit of reference for spontaneous speech

An account of insubordinated adverbial clauses in Brazilian Portuguese

| Federal University of Minas Gerais / FAPEMIG / CNPq
| Federal University of Minas Gerais / FAPEMIG / CNPq
| Federal University of Minas Gerais / FAPEMIG / CNPq

In this paper we propose a synchronic, corpus-based account of insubordination, through the analysis of adverbial clauses in Brazilian Portuguese spontaneous speech at the syntax/prosody interface. The segmentation of the speech flow through prosodic cues is crucial to analyse linguistic and, specifically, syntactic relations in spoken language. Besides, it is through prosody that illocutionary and informational values are conveyed in speech. Our claim is that insubordination can be studied without assuming the existence of a grammaticalization path or main clause ellipsis processes, given that through specific illocutionary prosodic profiles, syntactically dependent clauses are assigned pragmatic autonomy.

Keywords: speech segmentation, illocution, spontaneous speech, insubordination, adverbial clauses, syntax/prosody interface, Brazilian Portuguese
Published online: 18 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.94.07bos
References

References

Austin, J.
(1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Avanzi, M.
(2007) Regards croisés sur la notion de macro-syntaxe. Revue Tranel (Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique), 47, 39–58.Google Scholar
Aviles, A., Hale, K., & Salamanca, D.
(1987) Insubordinated complements in Miskitu. Manuscript, MIT. Retrieved from http://​web​.mit​.edu​/linguistics​/halepapers​/papers​/hale098​.pdf
Barth-Weingarten, D.
(2016) Intonation units revisited. Cesura in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., & Conrad, S.
(1999) The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., Bilger, M., Rouget, Ch., & Eynde, K. van den
(1990) Le français parlé. Etudes grammaticales. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Bossaglia, G.
(2014) Interface entre sintaxe e articulação informacional na fala espontânea: Uma comparação baseada em corpus entre português e italiano. Caligrama: Revista de Estudos Românicos, 19(2), 35–60.Google Scholar
(2015) Pragmatic orientation of syntax in spontaneous speech: A corpus-based comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and Italian adverbial clauses. CHIMERA: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies, 2, 1–34.Google Scholar
Cavalcante, F.
(2015) The topic unit in spontaneous American English: A corpus-based study (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil.Google Scholar
Cavalcante, F., & Ramos, A.
(2016) The American English spontaneous speech minicorpus. CHIMERA: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies, 3(2), 99–124.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L.
(1984) How people use adverbial clauses. Proceedings of the Tenth Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 437–449. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) Linking intonation units in spoken English. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 1–27). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(1996) Intonation and clause combining in discourse: The case of because. Pragmatics, 6(3), 389–426. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S. A.
(2000) Concessive patterns in conversation. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 381–410). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cresti, E.
(1994) Information and intonational patterning in Italian. In B. Ferguson, H. Gezundhajt, & P. Martin (Eds.), Accent, intonation et modèles phonologiques (pp. 99–140). Toronto: Mélodie.Google Scholar
(2000) Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
(2005) Notes on lexical strategy, structural strategies and surface clause indexes in the C-ORAL-ROM spoken corpora. In E. Cresti & M. Moneglia (Eds.), C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated reference corpora for spoken Romance Languages (pp. 209–256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) La Stanza: un'unità di costruzione testuale del parlato. In A. Ferrari (Ed.), Sintassi storica e sincronica dell’italiano. Subordinazione, coordinazione, giustapposizione. Atti del X Congresso della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana, vol 2 (pp. 713–732). Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) The definition of focus in Language into Act Theory (L-AcT). In H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso (Eds.), Pragmatics and prosody, illocution, modality, attitude, information patterning and speech annotation (pp. 39–82). Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
(2014) Syntactic properties of spontaneous speech in the Language into Act Theory: Data on Italian complements and relative clauses. In T. Raso & H. Mello (Eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistic studies (pp. 365–410). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) The illocution-prosody relationship and the Information Pattern in spontaneous speech according to the Language into Act Theory (L-AcT). In M. Heinz & M. C. Moroni (Eds.), Prosody: Grammar, information structure, interaction. Linguistik online, 88(1), 33–62.Google Scholar
(this volume). The pragmatic analysis of speech and its illocutionary classification according to Language into Act Theory. In S. Izre’el, H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso Eds. In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cresti, E., & Gramigni, P.
(2004) Per una linguistica corpus based dell’italiano parlato: Le unità di riferimento. In F. Albano Leoni, F. Cutugno, M. Pettorino, & R. Savy (Eds.), Atti del convegno “Il parlato italiano”, Napoli, 13-15/02/2003 CD-ROM. Napoli: M. D’Auria.Google Scholar
Cresti, E., & Moneglia, M.
(Eds.) (2005) C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated reference corpora for spoken Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cresti, E., Nascimento, F. B. do, Moreno-Sandoval, A., Veronis, J., Martin, P., & Choukri, K.
(2004) The C-ORAL-ROM CORPUS. A multilingual resource of spontaneous speech for romance languages. In LREC 2004, 575–578. Retrieved from http://​elvira​.lllf​.uam​.es​/ING​/Publicaciones​/coralrom​-lrec2004​.pdf
Cristofaro, S.
(2005) Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
(2005) Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M.
(2004) Les conjonctions de subordination: Mots de grammaire ou mots du discours? Le cas de parce que. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique, 15–16, 51–67.Google Scholar
(2013) Autour de parce que et de puisque. In J.-M. Debaisieux (Ed.), Analyses linguistiques sur corpus: Subordination et insubordination en français, (pp. 185–248). Paris: Hermès-Lavoisier.Google Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M. & Deulofeu, J.
(2004) Fonctionnement microsyntaxique de modifieur ar fonctionnement macrosyntaxique en parataxe de constructions introduites par que et parce que en français parlé, avec extension au cas de che e perché en italien parlé. In F. Albano Leoni, F. Cutugno, M. Pettorino, & R. Savy (Eds.), Atti del convegno “Il parlato italiano”, Napoli, 13-15/02/2003. Napoli: M. D’Auria. Retrieved from https://​halshs​.archives​-ouvertes​.fr​/halshs​-00149155
Debaisieux, J.-M., & Martin, Ph.
(this volume). Syntactic and Prosodic segmentation in spoken French. In S. Izre’el, H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso Eds. In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Decat, M. B. N.
(1993) “Leite com manga, morre!”: da hipotaxe adverbial no português em uso (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pontifícia Universidade Católica, São Paulo, Brazil).Google Scholar
(1999) Por uma abordagem da (in)dependência de cláusulas à luz da noção de “unidade informacional”. Scripta (Lingüística e Filologia), 2(4), 23–38.Google Scholar
(2001) Orações adjetivas explicativas no português brasileiro e no português europeu: Aposição rumo ao ‘desgarramento’. Scripta (Lingüística e Filologia), 5(9), 104–118.Google Scholar
(2004) Orações relativas apositivas: SNs ‘soltos’ como estratégia de focalização e argumentação. Veredas, 8(1–2), 79–101.Google Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2001) The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: A typological study. Language, 77(3), 433–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics, 43(3), 449–470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., & Thompson, S.
(2000–2005) Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Parts 1–4. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Evans, N.
(2007) Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness. Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 366–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Insubordination and the grammaticalisation of interactive presuppositions. Paper presented at Methodologies in determining morphosyntactic change conference, Museum of Ethnography, Osaka, March 2009. Retrieved from http://​www​.r​.minpaku​.ac​.jp​/ritsuko​/english​/symposium​/pdf​/symposium​_0903​/Evans​_handout​.pdf
Evans, N., & Watanabe, H.
(2016) Insubordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Firenzuoli, V., & Signorini, S.
(2003) L’unità informativa di topic: Correlati intonativi. In G. Marotta (Ed.), La coarticolazione (pp. 177–184). Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A., & Van Valin Jr., R. D.
(1984) Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E.
(1993) Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giani, D.
(2004) Una strategia di costruzione del testo parlato: l’Introduttore locutivo. In F. Albano Leoni, F. Cutugno, M. Pettorino, & R. Savy (Eds.), Atti del convegno “Il parlato italiano”, Napoli, 13-15/02/2003. Napoli: M. D’Auria.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
(1991) Isomorphism in grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language, 15(1), 85–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Syntax: An introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gras, P.
(2011) Gramática de construcciones en interacción. Propuesta de un modelo y aplicación al análisis de estructuras independientes con marcas de subordinación en español (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain).Google Scholar
(2013) Entre la gramática y el discurso: valores conectivos de que inicial átono en español. In D. Jacob & K. Ploog (Eds.), Autour de que. El entorno de que (pp. 81–112). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Groupe Lambda-l
(1975) Car, parce que, puisque. Revue Romane, 10, 248–280.Google Scholar
Günthner, S.
(2000) From concessive connector to discourse marker: The use of obwohl in everyday German interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 439–468). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J.
(1978) Conditionals are topics. Language, 54(3), 564–589. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1983) Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 59(4), 781–819. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
’t Hart, J., Collier, R., & Cohen, A.
(1990) A perceptual study on intonation: an experimental approach to speech melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hellbernd, N., & Sammler, D.
(2016) Prosody conveys speaker’s intentions: Acoustic cues for speech act perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 88, 70–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S.
(2008) Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp. 99–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Inbar, A.
(2016) Is subordination viable? The case of Hebrew ʃɛ ‘that’. CHIMERA: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies, 3(2), 287–310.Google Scholar
Izre’el, S.
(this volume). The basic unit of spoken language and the interface between prosody, discourse and syntax: A view from spontaneous spoken Hebrew. In S. Izre’el, H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso Eds. In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kortmann, B.
(1997) Adverbial subordination. A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, E.
(2004) Grammaticalization of syntactic incompleteness: Free conditionals in Italian and other languages. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 17, 189–215.Google Scholar
(2010) Free conditionals in discourse: The forming of a construction. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 33(1), 50–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Insubordinated conditionals in spoken and non-spoken Italian. In N. Evans, & H. Watanabe, (Eds.), Insubordination (pp. 145–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maia Rocha, B., & Raso, T.
(2011) A unidade informacional de introdutor locutivo no português do Brasil: Uma primeira descrição baseada em corpus. Domínios de Linguagem, 5(1), 327–343.Google Scholar
Martin, Ph.
(2004) Winpitch corpus, a text to speech alignment tool for multimodal corpora. In LREC 2004, 537–540. Retrieved from http://​www​.lrec​-conf​.org​/proceedings​/lrec2004​/pdf​/780​.pdf
Mello, H.
(2014) Methodological issues for spontaneous speech corpora compilation: The case of C-ORAL-BRASIL. In T. Raso & H. Mello (Eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistic studies (pp. 27–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mello, H., & Raso, T.
(2011) Illocution, modality, attitude: Different names for different categories. In H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso (Eds.), Pragmatics and prosody, illocution, modality, attitude, information patterning and speech annotation (pp. 1–18). Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J. E., & Weinert, R.
(1998) Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, M.
(2005) On the assumption of the sentence as the basic unit of syntactic structure. In Z. Frajzyngier, A. Hodges, & D. S. Rood (Eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories (pp. 169–183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language, 84(1), 264–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(this volume). Prosody and the organization of information in Central Pomo, a California indigenous language. In S. Izre’el, H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso Eds. In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mittmann, M. M.
(2012) O C-ORAL-BRASIL e o estudo da fala informal: Um novo olhar sobre o tópico no Português Brasileiro (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil).Google Scholar
Mittmann, M. M., & Barbosa, P.
(2016) An automatic speech segmentation tool based on multiple acoustic parameters. CHIMERA: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies, 3(2), 133–147.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J.
(1996) Parce que et l’enchaînement conversationnel. In C. Muller (Ed.), Dépendance et intégration syntaxique: Subordination, coordination, connexion (pp. 285–292). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Moneglia, M.
(2011) Spoken corpora and pragmatics. Revista Brasileira de Linguistica Aplicada, 11(2), 479–519. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moneglia, M., & Raso, T.
(2014) Notes on the Language into Act Theory. In T. Raso, & H. Mello (Eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistic studies (pp. 468–495). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moraes, J. A., & Rilliard, A.
(2014) Illocution, attitudes and prosody: A multimodal analysis. In T. Raso & H. Mello (Eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistic studies (pp. 233–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panunzi, A., & Gregori, L.
(2011) DB-IPIC. An XML database for the representation of information structure in spoken language. In H. Mello, A. Panunzi, & T. Raso (Eds.), Pragmatics and prosody: Illocution, modality, attitude, information patterning and speech annotation (pp. 133–150). Florence: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
Panunzi, A., & Mittmann, M.
(2014) The IPIC resource and a cross-linguistic analysis of information structure in Italian and Brazilian Portuguese. In T. Raso, & H. R. Mello, Spoken corpora and linguistic studies (pp. 129–151). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raso, T.
(2014) Prosodic constraints for discourse markers. In T. Raso, & H. Mello (Eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistic studies (pp. 412–467). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raso, T., Cavalcante, F., & Mittmann, M. M.
(2017) Prosodic forms of the topic information unit in a cross-linguistic perspective. A first survey. In A. De Meo, & F. Dovetto (Eds.), La comunicazione parlata. Proceeding of the international SLI-GSCP conference, Napoli, 13–15 June 2016 (pp. 445–468). Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
Raso, T. & Mello, H.
(Eds.) (2012) C-ORAL-BRASIL I: Corpus de referência do português brasileiro falado informal. Belo Horizonte: UFMG.Google Scholar
Raso, T., & Mittmann, M. M.
(2012) As principais medidas da fala. In T. Raso & H. Mello (Eds.), C-ORAL-BRASIL I: Corpus de referência do português brasileiro falado informal (pp. 177–221). Belo Horizonte: UFMG.Google Scholar
Raso, T., Mittmann, M. M., & Oliveira, A. C.
(2015) O papel da pausa na segmentação prosódica de corpora de fala. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 23(3), 883–922. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raso, T., & Rocha, B.
(2017) Illocution and attitude: On the complex interaction between prosody and pragmatic parameters. Journal of Speech Sciences, 5(2), 5–27.Google Scholar
Raso, T., & Vieira, M. A.
(2016) A description of dialogic units/discourse markers in spontaneous speech corpora based on phonetic parameters. CHIMERA: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies, 3(2), 221–249.Google Scholar
Rocha, B.
(2016) Uma metodologia empírica para a identificação e descrição de ilocuções e a sua aplicação para o estudo da Ordem em PB e italiano (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil).Google Scholar
Rocha, B., & Raso, T.
(2016) The interaction between illocution and attitude, and its consequences for the empirical study of illocutions. In C. Bardel & A. De Meo (Eds.), Parler les langues romanes. Proceedings of the International GSCP Conference, Stockholm, 9–12 April 2014 (pp. 69–88). Napoli: Università degli Studi L’Orientale.Google Scholar
Sansiñena, M. S., De Smet, H., & Cornillie, B.
(2015) Between subordinate and insubordinated. Paths toward complementizer-initial main clauses. Journal of Pragmatics, 77, 3–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, S. A.
(1996) Sobre la sintaxis de una construcción coloquial: Oraciones independientes con si. Anuari de Filologia, 21, 87–100.Google Scholar
Schwenter, S.
(2016a) Independent si-clauses in Spanish. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds.), Insubordination (pp. 89–11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016b) Meaning and interaction in Spanish independent si-clauses. Language Sciences, 58, 22–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simone, R.
(2009) Espaces instables entre coordination et subordination. In A. Ferrari (Ed.), Sintassi storica e sincronica dell’italiano. Subordinazione, coordinazione, giustapposizione, Atti del X Congresso della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana, Basilea, 30/06–03/07, (pp. 119–144). Firenze: Cesati.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2005) The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 481–505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tucci, I.
(2004) L’inciso: Caratteristiche morfosintattiche e intonative in un corpus di riferimento. In F. Albano Leoni, F. Cutugno, M. Pettorino, & R. Savy (Eds.), Atti del convegno “Il parlato italiano”, Napoli, 13-15/02/2003 CD-ROM. Napoli: M. D’Auria.Google Scholar
(2010) Obiter dictum. La funzione informativa delle unità parentetiche. In M. Pettorino, A. Giannini, I. Chiari, & F. Dovetto (Eds.), La comunicazione parlata. Atti del GSCP (pp. 635–654). Napoli: Università degli Studi L’Orientale.Google Scholar
Van linden, A., & Van de Velde, F.
(2014) (Semi-)autonomous subordination in Dutch: Structures and semantic-pragmatic values. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 226–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A.
(2000) Concession implies causality, though in some other space. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 361–380). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wide, C.
(2014) Constructions as resources in interactions: Syntactically unintegrated att “that” – clauses in spoken Swedish. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 353–380). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Izre'el, Shlomo
2020.  In In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 94], ► pp. 77 ff. Crossref logo
Kibrik, Andrej A., Nikolay A. Korotaev & Vera I. Podlesskaya
2020.  In In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 94], ► pp. 35 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 04 september 2020. 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.

audio