Cover not available
Part of
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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.05imo
References (41)
Ágel, Vilmos. 2003. “Prinzipien der Grammatik.” In Neue historische Grammatiken, ed. by Anja Lobenstein-Reichmann and Oskar Reichmann, 1–46. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altmann, Hans. 1981. Formen der Herausstellung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle 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: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2007a. “Why are Increments such Elusive Objects?” Pragmatics 17: 647–658. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2001a. “Forschungsprogramm ‘Interaktionale Linguistik’.” Linguistische Berichte 187: 257–287.Google Scholar
. eds. 2001b. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Tsuyoshi Ono. 2007. “‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2008a. “Projektorkonstruktionen im Gespräch: Pseudoclefts, die Sache ist-Konstruktionen und Extrapositionen mit es .” Gesprächsforschung 9: 86–114, URL: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2008b. “‘Die Sache ist…’: eine Projektorkonstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27: 39–72. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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: [URL].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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna and Trine Heinemann. 2009. “Good Enough: Low-Grade Assessments in Caregiving Situations.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42: 309–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna and Lorenza Mondada. 2009. “Assessments in Social Interaction: Introduction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42: 299–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 1998. Approaching Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2009. “The Embodied and Negotiated Production of Assessments in Instructed Actions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42: 329–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Richard. 2006. “Phonetics and Social Action in Agreements and Disagreements.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1752–1775. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. “The Discourse Conditions for the Use of the Complementizer that in Conversational English.” Journal of Pragmatics 15: 137–251. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Haselow, Alexander
2016. Intensifying adverbs ‘outside the clause’. In Outside the Clause [Studies in Language Companion Series, 178], ► pp. 379 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.