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. 364–401

Questioning the clause as a crosslinguistic unit in grammar and interaction

ORCID logo | University of Helsinki
| University of Alberta
| Keio University

This paper focuses on ‘clause’, a celebrated structural unit in linguistics, by comparing Finnish and Japanese, two languages which are genetically, typologically, and areally distinct from each other and from English, the language on the basis of which this structural unit has been most typically discussed. We first examine how structural units including the clause have been discussed in the literature on Finnish and Japanese. We will then examine the reality of the clause in everyday talk in these languages quantitatively and qualitatively; in our qualitative analysis, we focus in particular on what units are oriented to by conversational participants. The current study suggests that the degree of grammaticization of the clause varies cross-linguistically and questions the central theoretical status accorded to this structural unit.

Keywords: clause, unit, grammar, everyday talk, conversation, interaction, participant orientation, interactional linguistics, Finnish, Japanese, English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Understandings of similar units in standard references in Finnish and Japanese
    • 2.1Finnish
    • 2.2Japanese
  • 3.Clauses and predicates as units in interaction
    • 3.1The clause as a unit in Finnish conversation
    • 3.2The predicate as a unit in Japanese conversation
  • 4.Summary and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17032.lau
References
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1994 Discourse, Consciousness and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1957 Syntactic Structures. London: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clancy, M. Patricia
1980 Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In Wallace L. Chafe (ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2014 What does grammar tell us about action. Pragmatics 24(3). 623–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Tsuyoshi Ono
2007 Incrementing in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics 17(4). 513–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
1990 Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David
1998 A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
1987 The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language 631. 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Towards a Dialogic Syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3). 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja, Markku Haakana & Mia, Halonen
2013 Keskustelukumppanin kehuminen suomalaisessa keskustelussa. [Complimenting in Finnish conversation.] Virittäjä 1171. 461–494.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson
2002 The Language of Turn and Sequence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 Units and/or action trajectories? The language of grammatical categories and 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
Ford, Cecilia E. and Sandra A. Thompson
1996 Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, eds., Interaction and grammar, 135–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A.
2007 Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies 91. 299–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fromkin, V., R. Rodman & N. Hyams
2011 An Introduction to Language, 9th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1984 Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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 Publishers.Google Scholar
1981 Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph
(ed.) 1978 Universals of Human Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli & Fred, Karlsson
1979 Nykysuomen lauseoppia. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho
2004 Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2009 Designing utterances for action: Verb repeat responses to assessments. In Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso & Jan Lindström (eds.), Talk in Interaction. Comparative Dimensions, 124–151. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2010a Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic 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
1999 Where grammar and interaction meet: A study of co-participant completion in Japanese conversation. Human Studies 221. 475–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Joint Utterance Construction in Japanese Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
2001 Syntax in the making: The emergence of syntactic units in Finnish conversational discourse (Studies in Discourse and Grammar 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hida, Yoshifumi
2007 Bun. In Yoshihide Endo, Masanobu Kato, Takeyoshi Sato, Kiyoto Hachiya & Tomiyoshi Maeda (eds.), Nihongogaku Kenkyu Jiten (Encyclopedia of Research in Japanese Linguistics). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.Google Scholar
Hinds, John
1980 Japanese conversation, discourse structure, and ellipsis. Discourse Processes, 263–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1982 Japanese conversational structures. Lingua 57(2–4). 301–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2003 Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoye, Masako
2008 Exploration of the notion of subject in Japanese. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Ikola, Osmo, Ulla Palomäki & Anna-Kaisa Koitto
1989 Suomen murteiden lauseoppia ja tekstikielioppia. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi
1993 The structure of the Intonation Unit in Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 31. 39–53.Google Scholar
2014 Grammar of the Internal Expressive Sentences in Japanese: Observations and Explorations. In Kaori Kabata & Tsuyoshi Ono (eds.), Usage-based Approaches to Japanese Grammar, 55–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jahnsson, Adolf Waldemar
1871 Finska språkets satslära. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise & Tiina Keisanen
2012 Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies 14(5). 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinsui, Satoshi
1997 Kokubunpoo [Japanese grammar]. In Takashi Masuoka, Yoshio Nitta, Takao Gunji & Satoshi Kinsui (eds.), Bunpoo, 119–157. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1973 The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laakso, Minna & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2010 Cut-off or particle. Devices for initiating self-repair in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 421. 1151–1172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva
2018 The Finnish verb repeat response: Elliptical ‘fragment’, fixed expression, or independent unit? Journal of Pragmatics 1231. 139–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva and Tsuyoshi Ono
2014 The limits of grammar: Clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation, Pragmatics 24(3). 561–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene
1991 On the syntax of sentences in progress. Language in Society 201. 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per
2005 The Written Language Bias in Linguistics. Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically. Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
2013 The dynamics of incrementation in utterance-building: Processes and resources. In Beatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of Talk – Units of Action, 57–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Samuel Elmo
2004 (1975) A Reference Grammar of Japanese. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Masuoka, Takashi & Yukinori, Takubo
1992 Kiso Nihongo Bunpoo: Kaiteiban [Basic Japanese grammar: A revised edition]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H.
2014 (Online version) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, 3 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard, Senko K.
1989 Japanese Conversation: Self-contextualization Through Structure and Interactional Management. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
1990 Conversation Management in Contrast: Listener Response in Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics 141. 397–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minami, Fujio
1974 Gendai nihongo no koozoo [The Structure of Modern Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Toshihide
2002 Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) Morphosyntax (UC Publications in Linguistics 134). Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
2013 Emergent nature of linguistic units. Workshop ‘Linguistic and interactional units in everyday speech: Cross-linguistic perspective’, University of Alberta.
Nitta, Yoshio
2007 Ku. In Endo Yoshihide, Kato Masanobu, Sato Takeyoshi, Hachiya Kiyoto & Maeda Tomiyoshi (eds.), Nihongogaku Kenkyu Jiten [Encyclopedia of Research in Japanese Linguistics]. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.Google Scholar
Okamoto, Shigeko
1985 Ellipsis in Japanese Discourse. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Ryoko, Suzuki
2018 The use of frequent verbs as reactive tokens in Japanese everyday talk: Formulaicity, florescence, and grammaticization. Journal of Pragmatics 1231. 209–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi and Sandra A. Thompson
1995 What can conversation tell us about syntax? In Philip W. Davis (ed.), Descriptive and theoretical modes in the new linguistics, 213–271. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson
1997 Deconstructing “Zero Anaphora” in Japanese. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure, 481–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, Sandra A. Thompson & Ryoko Suzuki
2000 The Pragmatic Nature of the So-called Subject Marker ga in Japanese: Evidence from Conversation. Discourse Studies 2(1). 55–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otsuki, Fumihiko
1897 Koonihonbunten. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Hanshichi.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas
1997 Describing Morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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
Setälä, Eemil Nestor
1926 [1880] Suomen kielen lauseoppi. Helsinki: Otava.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki
2005 Argument Encoding in Japanese Conversation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shopen, Timothy
2007 Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 2nd ed., vol. I1, Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena & Minna Laakso
2005 Katko vai eiku. Itselkorjauksen aloitustavat ja vuorvaikutustehtävät. Virittäjä 1091. 244–271.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Ryoko
2016 Kaiwa ni okeru dooshi yurai no han’noo Hyogen: Aru to iru o chuushin ni [Reactive expressions of verb origin: with focus on aru and iru]. In Yoko Fujii & Hiroko Takanashi (eds.), Komyunikeeshon no dainamizumu: Shizen hatsuwa deeta kara [Dynamics of Communication: Analyses of Natural Discourse]. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.Google Scholar
Teramura, Hideo
1982 Nihongo no Shintakusu to imi [Syntax and semantics of Japanese], vol.11. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2005 The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 71. 481–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2015 Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trask, Robert L.
1997 A student’s dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Tuomikoski, Risto
1969 Lauseiden ja virkkeiden terminologiasta. [Clause and sentence terminology in Finnish Grammars] Virittäjä 73(1). 62–68.Google Scholar
Vatanen, Anna
2014 Responding in overlap. Agency, epistemicity and social action in conversation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies, PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Minoru
1953 Jojutsu to chinjutsu: Jutsugo bunsetsu no koozoo [Predication and modality: The structure of predicates]. Kokugogaku 13–141. 20–34.Google Scholar
1974 Kokugo Bunpooron [A Study of Japanese Grammar]. Tokyo: Kasama Shoin.Google Scholar
Yamada, Yoshio
1924 Nihon Bunpoo Koogi [Lectures on Japanese Grammar], 3rd ed. Tokyo: Tokyo Hobunkan.Google Scholar
1978 Ku. Published in Nihon Bunpougaku Gairon (1936). Reprinted in Shiro Hattori, Suzumu Oono, Atsuyoshi Sakakura & Akira Matsumura (eds.), Nihon no gengogaku 3 Bunpoo I (Linguistics in Japan vol. 3 Grammar I), 73–96. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 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
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Ryoko Suzuki
2020. Chapter 3. Exploration into a new understanding of ‘zero anaphora’ in Japanese everyday talk. In Fixed Expressions [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 315], ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Ozerov, Pavel
2023. From sentential syntax to syntax of interaction. Journal of Speech Sciences 12 ► pp. e023001 ff. DOI logo
Steensig, Jakob, Maria Jørgensen, Nicholas Mikkelsen, Karita Suomalainen & Søren Sandager Sørensen
2023. Toward a Grammar of Danish Talk-in-Interaction: From Action Formation to Grammatical Description. Research on Language and Social Interaction 56:2 ► pp. 116 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 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.