Chapter published in:
Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action
Edited by Yael Maschler, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Jan Lindström and Leelo Keevallik
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 32] 2020
► pp. 87–126

Chapter 4
The insubordinate – subordinate continuum

Prosody, embodied action, and the emergence of Hebrew complex syntax

This chapter examines the continuum stretching between Hebrew syntactically integrated and unintegrated (‘insubordinate’) she-‘that/which/who’-clauses produced following final/continuing intonation contours in naturally-occurring interaction. Leaving aside modal insubordinate she-clauses, I show that in all of these cases she- ties back to an immediately prior stretch of interaction – verbal and/or embodied – and projects an elaboration or evaluation of it, without much concern about which particular type of complex construction – relative, complement, or adverbial (if any) – is being created. The data suggest that rather than viewing insubordinate clauses as imperfect realizations of the canonical ‘subordinate’ variety resulting from the disintegration of complex syntactic patterns, canonical, syntactically integrated varieties of Hebrew relative, complement, and adverbial clauses may be regarded as grammaticizations from syntactically less integrated varieties.
Keywords: subordination, insubordination, Hebrew, grammaticization, prosody
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and overview
  • 3.Evaluative insubordinate she-clauses
  • 4.Elaborative insubordinate she-clauses
    • 4.1Elaborative insubordinate she-clauses in non-appeal intonation contours
      • 4.1.1Elaborating an NP
      • 4.1.2Elaborating a clause
      • 4.1.3Elaborating a gesture
    • 4.2Elaborative she-clauses in appeal intonation
      • 4.2.1Requesting elaboration
      • 4.2.1Requesting confirmation of candidate elaborations
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 February 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.04mas
References
Anward, Jan
(2004) ‘att’ [‘that’]. Språk och stil 13, 65–85.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter
(2005) Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25, 7–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Why are increments such elusive objects? An afterthought. Pragmatics 17(4), 647–658. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31,1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Alton L.
(1979) Text-building, epistemology, and esthetics in Javanese shadow theater. In Alton L. Becker & Aram Yengoyan (Eds.), The imagination of reality (pp.211–243). Norwood, N. J. : Ablex.Google Scholar
Bergsträsser, G.
(1909) Das hebräische Präfix še ,” ZAW, 29, 40–56.Google Scholar
Blau, Yehoshua
(1966) yesodot hataxbir [Foundations of syntax]. Jerusalem: hamaxon ha'ivri lehaskala bixtav.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David
(2019) Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.1, retrieved 13 July 2019 from http://​www​.praat​.org/Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
(2003) Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp.602–623). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
(1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca
(2007) Grammar in time: the non-restrictive ‘which’-clause as an interactional resource. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 55, 51–82.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Ono, Tsuyoshi
(2007) ‘Incrementing’ in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German, and Japanese. Pragmatics 17(4), 513–552. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margaret
(2018) Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
(2016) Routes to insubordination: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds.), Insubordination (pp.393–422). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf and Günthner, Susanne
(Eds.) (2015) Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, Guy
(2009) The Akkadian relative clauses in cross-linguistic perspective. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 92, 86–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
forthcoming). Representing discourse. Linguistics Department, University of California at Santa Barbara (Fall 2012 version). http://​www​.linguistics​.ucsb​.edu​/projects​/transcription​/representing
Du Bois, John W., Susanna Cumming, Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, and Paolino, Danae
(1992) Discourse transcription: Santa Barbara papers in linguistics, vol. 4. Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
(2007) Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nicolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations. (pp.366–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Watanabe, Honoré
(2016) Insubordination. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A., & Thompson, Sandra A.
(2002) Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, & Sandra A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp.14–38). Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. & Thompson, Sandra A.
(1996) Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp.134–184). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. & Thompson, Sandra A.
(2007) Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction. Studies in Language 31, 293–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glinert, Lewis
(1989) The grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
(2011) Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions. In Peter Auer and Stephan Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp.156–185). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) The dynamics of dass-constructions in everyday German interactions – a dialogical perspective. In Susanne Günthner, Wolfgang Imo, and Jörg Bücker (Eds.), Grammar and dialogism (pp.179–205). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
(1987) Forgetfulness as an interactive resource. Social Psychology Quarterly 50, 115–131. (Special Issue on Language and Society, edited by Douglas Maynard). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness & Goodwin, Charles
(1986) Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica 62, 51–75.Google Scholar
Hendery, Rachel
(2012) Relative clauses in time and space: A case study in the methods of diachronic typology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmstedt, Robert D.
(2007) The etymologies of Hebrew ašer and še . Ancient Near Eastern Studies 43, 9–28.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
(1987) Emergent grammar. In Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis, and Hana Filip (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13 (pp.139–157). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
(1992) Times of the sign: On temporality in recent linguistics. Time and society,1(2), 223–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance? In Martin Pütz, Susanne Neimeier, and René Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition (pp.109–129). Berlin/New York : Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Peter Auer and Stephan Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp.22–44). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.
(2008) Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Ritva Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp.99–123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
(2003) Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huehnergard, John
(2006) On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative. In Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz (Eds.), Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic setting: Typological and historical perspectives (pp.103–125). Jerusalem and Winona Lake: Indiana.Google Scholar
Inbar, Anna
(2016) Is subordination viable? The case of Hebrew ʃɛ ‘that’. Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies 3(2), 287–310.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise & Sandra A. Thompson
(2018) Language and bodily resources: ‘Response packages’ in response to polar questions in English. Journal of Pragmatics 123, 220–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
(2008) Conjunction and sequenced action: The Estonian complementizer and evidential particle et . In Ritva Laury (Ed.), crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp.125–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar? Research on Language and Social Interaction 51, 1–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam
(2004) Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
(1972) Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Seppänen, Eeva-Leena
(2008) Clause combining, interaction, evidentiality, participation structure, and the conjunction-particle continuum: The Finnish että . In Ritva Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining. The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp.153–178). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehti-Eklund, Hanna
(2002)  Om att som diskursmarkör [About that as a discourse marker]. Språk och stil 11, 81–118.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene
(1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20, 441–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per
(2013) The dynamics of incrementation in utterance-building: Processes and resources. In Beatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (Eds.), Units of talk – units of action (pp.57–91). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
(1968) Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael
(2001)  veke'ilu haragláyim sh’xa nitka'ot bifním kaze (‘and like your feet get stuck inside like’): Hebrew kaze (‘like’), ke'ilu (‘like’), and the decline of Israeli dugri (‘direct’) speech. Discourse Studies 3(3), 295–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) On the grammaticization of ke'ilu (‘like’, lit. ‘as if’) in Hebrew talk-in-interaction. Language in Society 31, 243–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) On the emergence of adverbial connectives from Hebrew relative clause constructions. In Peter Auer and Stephan Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp.293–331). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Emergent Projecting constructions: The case of Hebrew yada (‘know’). Studies in Language 36(4), 785–847. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael & Nir, Bracha
(2014) Complementation in linear and dialogic syntax: The case of Hebrew divergently aligned discourse. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3), 523–557. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael
(2015) Word order in time: Emergent Hebrew (Ns)V/VNs syntax. In Arnulf Deppermann and Susanne Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (pp.201–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2017) The emergence of Hebrew loydea/loydat (‘I dunno masc/fem’) from interaction: Blurring the boundaries between discourse marker, pragmatic marker, and modal particle. In Andrea Sansò and Chiara Fedriani (Eds.), Pragmatic markers, discourse markers and modal particles: New perspectives (pp.37–69). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) The on-line emergence of Hebrew insubordinate she- (‘that/which/who’) clauses: A usage-based perspective on so-called ‘subordination’. Studies in Language 42(3), 669–707. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael & Estlein, Roi
(2008) Stance-taking in Hebrew casual conversation via be'emet (‘really, actually, indeed’, lit. ‘in truth’). Discourse Studies 10(3), 283–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael & Fishman, Stav
forthcoming). From multi-clausality to discourse markerhood: The Hebrew ma she- (‘what that’) construction in so-called ‘pseudo-clefts’.
Maschler, Yael, Polak-Yitzhaki, Hilla, Fishman, Stav, Miller Shapiro, Carmit, Goretsky, Netanel, Aghion, Gallith, Fofliger, Ophir, Wildner, Nikolaus, & Ben Moshe, Yotam Michael
(2019) The Haifa Multimodal Corpus of Spoken Hebrew.Google Scholar
Matalon, Nadav
(2016) The Camel Humps prosodic pattern. M.A. thesis, Department of Linguistics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Mertzlufft, Christine & Wide, Camilla
(2013) The on-line emergence of postmodifying att- and dass-clauses in spoken Swedish and German. In Eva Havu and Irma Hyvärinen (Eds.), Comparing and contrasting syntactic structures: From dependency to quasi-subordination. (pp.199–229). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
(2008) The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 84, 69–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
(2016) Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics 20 (3), 336–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(1), 85–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Michael
(1981) Barai clause junctures: Toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona
(2011) Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction. In Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp.103–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, De Stefani, Elwys, & Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
(2015) Time and emergence in grammar: Left-dislocation, right-dislocation, topicalization and hanging topic in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Polak-Yitzhaki, Hilla & Maschler, Yael
(2016) Disclaiming understanding? Hebrew 'ani lo mevin/a (‘I don’t understand masc/fem’) in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 163–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. & Schegloff, Emanuel A.
(1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp.15–21). New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey & Schegloff, Emanuel A.
(2002) Home position. Gesture 2(2), 133–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand
(1959 [1916]) Course in general linguistics. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, in collaboration with Albert Reidlinger. Translated from French by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
(1996) Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp.52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Conversation Analysis: A project in progress – ‘increments’. Forum lecture delivered at the LSA Linguistic Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
(Eds.) (2001) Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen
(2002) Grammars, words, and embodied meanings: On the uses and evolution of so and like . Journal of Communication 52(3), 581–596. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Praxeology of gesture. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill, and Sedinha Teßendorf (Eds.), Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, Vol. 1. (pp.674–688). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Tao, Hongyin & McCarthy, Michael J.
(2001) Understanding non-restrictive which-clauses in spoken English, which is not an easy thing. Language Sciences 23, 651–677. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsadka, Yitshak
(1989) taxbir veshixbur [Syntax]. Tel Aviv: Horev.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D.
(1984) A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage. Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 542–558.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, D’Hertefelt, Sarah, & Van Linden, An
(2012) A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language 36,123–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weinert, Regina
(2012) Complement clauses in spoken German and English: Syntax, deixis and discourse-pragmatics. Folia Linguistica 46 (1), 233–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wide, Camilla
(2014) Constructions as resources in interaction. Syntactically unintegrated att ‘that’-clauses in spoken Swedish. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (Eds.), Expanding the scope of construction grammar (pp.353–388). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wright, Melissa
(2005) Studies of the Phonetics-Interaction Interface: Clicks and Interactional Structures in English Conversation. PhD dissertation, University of York.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Floyd, Simeon
2021. Conversation and Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 50:1 ► pp. 219 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 2022. 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.