Article published in:
Temporality in Interaction
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Susanne Günthner
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27] 2015
► pp. 27–56

The temporality of language in interaction

projection and latency

This paper focuses on two basic principles in the dialogical emergence of self-contained linguistic units (‘sentences’) in interaction: projection and latency. Both are elementary for the synchronization of participants’ minds in what I call the online emergence of syntax. Projection enables speakers and recipients to predict – on the basis of what has been said so far – structural slots in the emer­gent syntactic gestalt. Latency, on the other hand, re­lates a new utterance to the structure of the preceding one(s). It links the struc­ture of an emergent syntactic gestalt to that of previous, already complete syn­tactic gestalts. Projection and latency can easily be observed in mundane con­versational phenomena that happen time and again in everyday interaction.
Published online: 20 March 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.01aue
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Albert, Saul, William Housley & Elizabeth Stokoe
2019.  In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces - CUI '19, ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Haselow, Alexander
2016.  In Outside the Clause [Studies in Language Companion Series, 178], ► pp. 379 ff. Crossref logo
Reich, Uli
2016.  In Austauschprozesse: Psychoanalyse und andere Humanwissenschaften, ► pp. 291 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 february 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.

References
Altmann, G.T. and Y. Kamide
1999 “Incremental Interpretation at Verbs: Restricting the Domain of Subsequent Reference.” Cognition 73 (3): 247–264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter
1992 “The Neverending Sentence: On Rightward Expansion in Spoken Syntax.” In Studies in Spoken Languages: English, German, Finno-Ugric, ed. by Miklós Kontra and Tamas Váradi, 41–60. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
2000 “Online-Syntax – oder: Was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen.” Sprache und Literatur 85: 43–56.Google Scholar
2009 “Online Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Why are Increments such Elusive Objects? An Afterthought.” Pragmatics 17 (4): 647–658. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Sentences and their Symbiotic Guests. Notes on Analepsis from the Perspective of Online Syntax.” Pragmatics 24 (3): 533–560. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Birkner, Karin
2006 “(Relativ-)Konstruktionen zur Personenattribuierung: ‘ich bin n=mensch der…’.” In Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, ed. by Susanne Günthner and Wolfgang Imo, 205–237. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire
1990 Le français parlé. Études grammaticales. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn
1986 “Syntactic Persistence in Language Production.” Cognitive Psychology 18: 355–387. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bockgård, Gustav
2004 Syntax som social resurs: En studie av samkonstruktionssekvensers form och funktion i svenska samtal [Syntax as a Social Resource: A Study of Form and Function of Co-Construction Sequences in Swedish Conversation] . Uppsala University, Skrifter utgivna av Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet.Google Scholar
Brenning, Jana
2013 Syntaktische Ko-Konstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Unpubl. PhD Thesis, U Freiburg.
Bybee, Joan
2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crocker, Matthew W.
1999 “Mechanisms for Sentence Processing.” In Language Processing, ed. by Simon Garrod and Martin J. Pickering, 191–231. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Y. Ono
(eds.) 2007 “Turn Continuation in Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” Special Issue of Pragmatics 17 (4). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2007 Grammatik und Semantik aus gesprächsanalytischer Sicht. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
2007 “The Stance Triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
forthc. “Towards a Dialogic Syntax.” To appear in a Special Issue of Cognitive Linguistics ed. by Rachel Giora and John W. Du Bois
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson
2002 “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” In The language of turn and sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 14–38. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lynn and Charles Clifton
1986 Construal. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
1997 “Construal: Overview, Motivation, and Some New Evidence.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26 (3): 277–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1979 “Footing.” Semiotica 25 (1–2): 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
2012 “ ‘Geteilte Syntax’: Kollaborativ erzeugte dass-Konstruktionen.”, URL: http://​noam​.uni​-muenster​.de​/gidi​/arbeitspapiere​/arbeitspapier43​.pdf
Hale, John
2006 “Uncertainty about the Rest of the Sentence.” Cognitive Science 30: 643–672. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Peter
1959 “Offene Form, leere Form und Struktur.” In Sprache – Schlüssel zur Welt (FS Leo Weisgerber), ed. by Helmut Gipper, 146–157. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto
2003 Joint Utterance Construction in Japanese Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang
2011 “Online Changes in Syntactic Gestalts in Spoken German.” In Constructions – Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder, 127–155. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
2008 “Construction after Construction and its Theoretical Challenges.” Language 84 (1): 8–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1983 “Notes on Some Orderlinesses of Overlap Onset.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28. Tilburg: University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
1990 “List-Construction as a Task and a Resource.” In Interaction Competence, ed. by George Psathas, 63–92. Washington, D. C.: UP America.Google Scholar
Kamide, Y., G.T. Altmann, and S. Haywood
2003 “The Time-Course of Prediction in Incremental Sentence Processing: Evidence from Anticipatory Eye Movements.” Journal of Memory and Language 49 (1): 133–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene
1991 “On the Syntax of Sentences-in-Progress.” Language in Society 20: 441–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 “On the ‘Semi-Permeable Character’ of Grammatical Units in Conversation: Conditional Entry into the Turn Space of Another Speaker.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson, 238–276. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Roger
2011 “Probabilistic Linguistic Expectations, Uncertain Input, and Implications for Eye Movements in Reading.” Studies of Psychology and Behaviour 9 (1): 53–64.Google Scholar
Linell, Per
2005 The Written Language Bias in Linguistics. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
Marschall, Matthias
1994 “Satzklammer und Textverstehen. Zur Funktion der Verbendstellung im Deutschen.” Deutsche Sprache, 310–330.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William, Lorraine K. Tyler, and Mark Seidenberg
1978 “Sentence Processing and the Clause Boundary.” In Studies in the Perception of Language, ed. by W.J.M. Levelt, & G.B. Flores d’Arcais, 119–246. Chicester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William and Lorraine Komisarjevsky Tyler
1980 “The Temporal Structure of Spoken Language Understanding.” Cognition 8: 1–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1986 “Head-Marking and Dependent-Marking Grammar.” Language 62 (1): 56–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, Bradley L.
1988 “Garden Path Phenomena and the Grammatical Basis of Language Processing.” Language 64: 539–576. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1992 Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2000 “Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language in Society 29: 1–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2000 English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schutz, Alfred and Thomas Luckmann
1973 Structures of the Life-World, Volume I. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP.Google Scholar
Szczepek, Beatrice
2000 “Functional Aspects of Collaborative Productions in English Conversation.” INLiSt (Interaction and Linguistic Structure) 21, URL: http://​www​.inlist​.uni​-bayreuth​.de​/issues​/21​/inlist21​.pdf.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel
1987 “Recycled Turn Beginnings.” In Talk and Social Organization, ed. by Graham Button and John R.E. Lee, 70–85. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2015. Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: CUP. Crossref
Uhmann, Susanne
1991 Fokusphonologie: eine Analyse deutscher Intonationskonturen im Rahmen der nicht-linearen Phonologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar