Article published in:
Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units
Edited by Tsuyoshi Ono, Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki
[Studies in Language 43:2] 2019
► pp. 254–280

Understanding ‘clause’ as an emergent ‘unit’ in everyday conversation

| University of California, Santa Barbara
Linguists generally assume ‘clause’ to be a basic unit for the analysis of grammatical structure. Data from natural conversations, however, suggests that ‘clause’ may not be grammaticized to the same extent across languages. Understanding ‘clause’ as a predicate (plus any arguments, inferred or expressed), we can show that participants do indeed organize their talk around ‘clauses’. I argue that English-speaking participants in everyday interaction do indeed orient to clausal units as so defined, by building their turns around predicates, and that these turns do key interactional work. The data further reveal that these units must be understood as emergent structures, recurrent patterns in a given language that emerge from humans pursuing their ordinary interactional business of communicating information, needs, identities, attitudes, and desires.
Keywords: clause, Japanese, English, conversation, unit, social action, predicate
Published online: 13 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16032.tho
References

References

Alsina, Alex, Joan Bresnan & Peter Sells
1997 Complex predicates. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter
2009 On-Line Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language. Language Sciences 31(1). 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Syntactic structures and their symbiotic guests: Notes on analepsis from the perspective of on-line syntax. Pragmatics 24(3). 533–560. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, Trevor
2013 Signaling trouble: On the linguistic design of other-initiation of repair in English conversation. The Netherlands: University of Groningen Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2001 Frequency effects on French liaison. In Joan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 337–359. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givon & Bertram Malle (eds.), The evolution of language from pre-language, 109–132. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 273 ]
2006 From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 529–551. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Camazine, Scott, Jean-Louis Deneubourg, Nigel R. Franks, James Sneyd, Guy Theraulaz & Eric Bonabeau
2001 Self-Organization in Biological Systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2014 What does grammar tell us about action? In Ritva Laury, Marja Etelämäki & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Approaches to grammar for Interactional Linguistics, Special issue of Pragmatics 24(3). 623–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting
2018 Interactional Linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Sandra A. Thompson
Forthcoming. Action ascription in everyday advice-giving sequences. In Depperman, Arnulf and Michael Haugh eds. Action Ascription: Interaction in context Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Curl, Traci S.
2006 Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics 38. 1257–1280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci S. & Paul Drew
2008 Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2). 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark & N. J. Enfield
2015 Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics 1. 98–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds.) 2014 Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
2003 Argument structure: grammar in use. In Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E. Kumpf, and William J. Ashby, eds. 2003 Preferred argument structure: grammar as architecture for function, 10–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
2007 Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E.
1993 Grammar in interaction: adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson
2013 Units or Action Trajectories?: Is the language of grammatical categories the language of social action? In Beatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of Talk – Units of Action, 13–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A.
2007 Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies 9. 299–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson
2002 Social Interaction and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 2, 119–143. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
[ p. 274 ]
Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A. Thompson
2010 Responses to WH-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(2). 133–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1979 The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 97–121. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
1981 Conversational organization: interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press. [available at http://​www​.sscnet​.ucla​.edu​/clic​/cgoodwin​/publish​.htm]
Goodwin, Charles & Marjorie H. Goodwin
1987 Concurrent operations on talk: notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1(1). 1–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H. & Charles Goodwin
1992 Assessments and the construction of context. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context, 147–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hakulinin, Auli & Margret Selting
(eds.) 2005 Syntax and lexis in conversation 319–348. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho
2004 Iso suomen kielioppi [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2010a Comparative concepts and descriptive: Categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b The interplay between comparative concepts and descriptive categories (Reply to Newmeyer). Language 86(3). 696–699. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto, Geoffrey Raymond & Jack Sidnell
(eds.) 2013 Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
2001a Syntax in the making: The emergence of syntactic units in Finnish conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001b Emerging syntax for interaction: Noun phrases and clauses as a syntactic resource for interaction. In Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics, 25–50. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa & Galina B. Bolden
2013 The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 57–76. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, John
1984 A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2012a Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012b The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45. 30–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul
1987 Emergent grammar. BLS 13. 139–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 275 ]
Hopper, Paul J.
1998 Emergent grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul
2000 Grammatical Constructions and their Discourse Origins: Prototype or Family Resemblance? In Martin Pütz & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics: Theory, Acquisition and Language Pedagogy, 109–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2004 The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 40. 239–256.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson
1984 The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar, Language 60.4: 703–752. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi & Tsuyoshi Ono
2001 “Sentence” in spontaneous spoken Japanese discourse. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse, 175–202. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
2004 Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise
2009 I thought it was pretty neat. Social action formats for taking a stance. In S. Slembrouck, M. Taverniers, and M. Van Herreweghe (eds.), From ‘Will’ to ‘Well’. Studies in Linguistics offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, 293–304. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
2012 I thought it was very interesting: Conversational formats for taking a stance. Journal of Pragmatics 44(15). 2194–2210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise and Tiina Keisanen
2012 Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies 14.5: 587–611. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H.
2015 Other-initiated repair in English. Open Linguistics 1. 164–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva, Camilla Lindholm & Jan Lindström
2013 Syntactically non-integrated conditional clauses in spoken Finnish and Swedish. In Eva Havu & Irma Hyvärinen (eds.), Comparing and Contrasting Syntactic Structures. From Dependency to Quasi-subordination. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki LXXXVI, 231–270. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2013 Action formation and ascription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 103–130. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie
2013 Grammar in Conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 475–491. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Toshihide
2002 Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) Morphosyntax. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson
(eds.) 1996 Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson
1997 Deconstructing ‘zero anaphora’. BLS 23. 481–491. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew
1987 Encoding events in Kalam and English: Different logics for reporting experience. In Russell Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 329–360. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 276 ]
2008 Compact versus narrative serial verb constructions in Kalam. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Serial verb constructions in Austronesian and Papuan languages, 171–202. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
2009 On the origins of serial verb constructions in Kalam. In T. Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 119–144. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Event Representation in serial verb constructions. In Jürgen Bohnemeyer & Eric Pederson (eds.), Event Representation in Language and Cognition, 13–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew & Jonathan Lane
1998 From event sequence to grammar: Serial verb constructions in Kalam. In Anna Siewierska & Jae Jung Song (eds.), Case, Typology and Grammar: In honor of Barry J. Blake, 201–228. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A.
1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
2003 Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68. 939–967. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson
1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1989 Reflections on language, development, and the interactional character of talk-in-interaction. In Marc H. Bomstein & Jerome S. Bruner (eds.), Interaction in Human Development, 139–153. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2007 Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scollon, Ronald
1976 Conversations with a one year old: A case study of the developmental foundation of syntax. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds.) 2001 Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Chloe
2013 Advice giving in telephone interactions between mothers and their young adult daughters. Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University unpublished PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Shaw, Chloe & Alexa Hepburn
2013 Managing the Moral Implications of Advice in Informal Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(4). 344–362. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stirling, Lesley
1999 Isolated if-clauses in Australian English. In Peter Collins & David Lee (eds.), The clause in English: In honour of Rodney Huddleston, 273–294. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tao, Hongyin
1996 Units in Mandarin conversation: prosody, discourse and grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2005 The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7(4/5). 481–505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 277 ]
Thompson, Sandra A., Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Barbara A. Fox
2015 Grammar and everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Paul J. Hopper
2001 Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Joan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. La Polla
1997 Syntax: structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vatanen, Anna
2014 Responding in overlap: Agency, epistemicity and social action in conversation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki unpublished PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Mushin, Ilana & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2021. Linguistic structures in social interaction. Interactional Linguistics Crossref logo
Ozerov, Pavel
2020. Information structure and intonational accent in Burmese. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43:2 ► pp. 191 ff. Crossref logo
Tao, Hongyin
2020.  In The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages [Typological Studies in Language, 128], ► pp. 272 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 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.