Article published in:
Temporality in Interaction
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Susanne Günthner
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27] 2015
► pp. 147–172

Temporality and syntactic structure

utterance-final intensifiers in spoken German

In German syntax, the so-called right verb brace, which is occupied either by the non-finite parts of the verb or a predicative, signals a strong syntactic boundary of a clause after which – at least from a normative perspective – only few further elements are allowed to occur. Nevertheless, in spoken German one can find many instances where words or phrases are uttered after the right verb brace which – canonically speaking – should have been placed before it. This article analyzes one class of such ‘misplaced’ items, namely post-positioned intensifiers, from a temporal and interactional perspective on language.
Published online: 20 March 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.05imo
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Haselow, Alexander
2016.  In Outside the Clause [Studies in Language Companion Series, 178], ► pp. 379 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 october 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
Ágel, Vilmos
2003 “Prinzipien der Grammatik.” In Neue historische Grammatiken, ed. by Anja Lobenstein-Reichmann and Oskar Reichmann, 1–46. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, Hans
1981 Formen der Herausstellung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter
2000 “Online-Syntax – Oder: was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen.” Sprache und Literatur 85: 43–56.Google Scholar
2006 “Increments and more. Anmerkungen zur augenblicklichen Diskussion über die Erweiterbarkeit von Turnkonstruktionseinheiten.” In Grammatik und Interaktion, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 279–294. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, URL: http://​www​.verlag​-gespraechsforschung​.de​/2006​/pdf​/grammatik​.pdf.Google Scholar
2007a “Why are Increments such Elusive Objects?” Pragmatics 17: 647–658. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007b “Syntax als Prozess.” In Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion, ed. by Heiko Hausendorf, 95–142. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2009 “Online syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
this volume. “The Temporality of Language in Interaction: Projection and Latency.” Crossref
Auer, Peter and Susanne Uhmann
1982 “Aspekte der konversationellen Organisation von Bewertungen.” Deutsche Sprache 10: 1–32.Google Scholar
Breindl, Eva
2009 “Intensitätspartikel.” In Handbuch der deutschen Wortarten, ed. by Ludger Hoffmann, 397–422. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Margret Selting
2000 “Argumente für die Entwicklung einer ‘interaktionalen Linguistik’.” Gesprächsforschung 1: 76–95, URL: http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de​/heft2000​/ga​-selting​.pdf.Google Scholar
2001a “Forschungsprogramm ‘Interaktionale Linguistik’.” Linguistische Berichte 187: 257–287.Google Scholar
eds. 2001b Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Tsuyoshi Ono
2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
2011 “A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2.” Gesprächsforschung – online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12: 1–51.Google Scholar
Duden
2009 Die Grammatik. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Fasulo, Alessandra, and Chiara Monzoni
2009 “Assessing Mutable Objects: A Multimodal Analysis.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42: 362–376. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
2008a “Projektorkonstruktionen im Gespräch: Pseudoclefts, die Sache ist-Konstruktionen und Extrapositionen mit es .” Gesprächsforschung 9: 86–114, URL: http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de​/heft2008​/ga​-guenthner​.pdf.Google Scholar
2008b “ ‘Die Sache ist…’: eine Projektorkonstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27: 39–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “ Adjektiv + dass-Satz-Konstruktionen als kommunikative Ressourcen der Positionierung.” In Grammatik im Gespräch, ed. by Susanne Günthner and Jörg Bücker, 149–184. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Between Emergence and Sedimentation: Projecting Constructions in German Interactions.” In The Emergence of Grammar, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder, 156–185. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012 “Eine interaktionale Perspektive auf Wortarten: Das Beispiel und zwar .” In Nicht-flektierende Wortarten, ed. by Björn Rothstein, 14–47. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Wolfgang Imo
2003 “Die Reanalyse von Matrixsätzen als Diskursmarker: ich mein-Konstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch.” In Jahrbuch der ungarischen Germanistik, ed. by Magdolna Orosz and Andreas Herzog, 181–216. Budapest: DAAD.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Paul J. Hopper
2010 “Zeitlichkeit und sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen.” Gesprächsforschung 11: 1–18, URL: http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de​/heft2010​/ga​-guenthner​.pdf.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2002 “Grammatikalisierung: von der Performanz zur Kompetenz ohne angeborene Grammatik.” In Gibt es eine Sprache hinter dem Sprechen?, ed. by Sybille Krämer and Ekkehard König, 262–286. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Heritage, John and Geoffrey Raymond
2012 “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” In: Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactive Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter, 179–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna and Trine Heinemann
2009 “Good Enough: Low-Grade Assessments in Caregiving Situations.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42: 309–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna and Lorenza Mondada
2009 “Assessments in Social Interaction: Introduction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42: 299–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per
1998 Approaching Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005a “Towards a Dialogical Linguistics.” In Proceedings of the XII International Bakhtin Conference, ed. by Mika Lähteenmäki, Hannele Dufva, Sirpa Leppänen et al., 157–172. Jyväskylä: University, Department of Languages.Google Scholar
2005b The Written Language Bias. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2009 “The Embodied and Negotiated Production of Assessments in Instructed Actions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42: 329–361. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Richard
2006 “Phonetics and Social Action in Agreements and Disagreements.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1752–1775. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1992 “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97: 1295–1345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stetter, Christian
2002 “Sprechen und Sprache: Überlegungen zu einem Grundlagenproblem der theoretischen Linguistik.” In Gibt es eine Sprache hinter dem Sprechen?, ed. by Sybille Krämer and Ekkehard König, 19–44. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya and Federico Rossano
2012 “Mobilising Response in Interaction: A Compositional View of Questions.” In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactive Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter, 58–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Anthony Mulac
1991 “A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticization of Epistemic Parentheticals in English.” In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Volume II. Types of grammatical markers, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine, 313–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991 “The Discourse Conditions for the Use of the Complementizer that in Conversational English.” Journal of Pragmatics 15: 137–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
1999 The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann, and Bruno Strecker
1997 Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. 3 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar