Cover not available
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
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Problematizing ‘social action’
  • 3.Problematizing ‘clause’: ‘Clause’ as ‘predicate-plus’
  • 4.Clauses as vehicles for social action
    • 4.1Directive-commissive actions
    • 4.2Assessments
    • 4.3Informings
    • 4.4Assertions
    • 4.5Requests for information
  • 5.Social actions not done by clauses
  • 6.Scaffolding
  • 7.Conclusion and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16032.tho
References (77)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 529–551. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 381. 1257–1280. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark & N. J. Enfield. 2015. Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics 11. 98–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). 2014. Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 2007. Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies 91. 299–318. DOI logoGoogle 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. 21, 119–143. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A. Thompson. 2010. Responses to WH-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(2). 133–156. DOI logoGoogle 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 [URL]]
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. The interplay between comparative concepts and descriptive categories (Reply to Newmeyer). Language 86(3). 696–699. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 451. 30–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent grammar. BLS 131. 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 401. 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise and Tiina Keisanen. 2012. Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies 14.5: 587–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H. 2015. Other-initiated repair in English. Open Linguistics 11. 164–190. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson. 1997. Deconstructing ‘zero anaphora’. BLS 231. 481–491. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 681. 939–967. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tao, Hongyin. 1996. Units in Mandarin conversation: prosody, discourse and grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7(4/5). 481–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Barbara A. Fox. 2015. Grammar and everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. La Polla. 1997. Syntax: structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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 (6)

Cited by six other publications

Inbar, Maya, Shir Genzer, Anat Perry, Eitan Grossman & Ayelet N. Landau
2023. Intonation Units in Spontaneous Speech Evoke a Neural Response. The Journal of Neuroscience 43:48 ► pp. 8189 ff. DOI logo
RIVAS, JAVIER
2023. The Future of Usage‐Based Approaches. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 473 ff. DOI logo
Mushin, Ilana & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2021. Linguistic structures in social interaction. Interactional Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Ozerov, Pavel
2020. Information structure and intonational accent in Burmese. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43:2 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Ozerov, Pavel
2023. From sentential syntax to syntax of interaction. Journal of Speech Sciences 12 ► pp. e023001 ff. DOI logo
Tao, Hongyin
2020. Chapter 11. NP clustering in Mandarin conversational interaction. In The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages [Typological Studies in Language, 128], ► pp. 272 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 july 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.