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. 275–302

Right-dislocated complement clauses in German talk-in-interaction

(Re-)specifying propositional referents of the demonstrative pronoun das

This contribution deals with right-dislocated complement clauses with the subordinating conjunction dass (‘that’) in German talk-in-interaction. The bi-clausal construction we analyze is as follows: The first clause, in which one argument is realized by the demonstrative pronoun das (‘this/that’), is syntactically and semantically complete; the reference of the pronoun is (re-)specified by adding a dass-complement clause after a point of possible completion (e.g., aber das hab ich nich MITbekommen. (0.32) dass es da so YOUtubevideos gab. (‘But I wasn’t aware of that. That there were videos about that on YouTube.’). The first clause always performs a backward-oriented action (e.g., an assessment) and the second clause (re-)specifies the propositional reference of the demonstrative, allowing for a (strategic) perspective shift. Based on a collection of 93 cases from everyday conversations and institutional interactions, we found that the construction is used close to the turn-beginning for referring to and (re-)specifying (parts of) another speaker’s prior turn; turn-internal uses tie together parts of a speaker’s multi-unit turn. The construction thus facilitates an incremental constitution of meaning and reference.
Keywords: right-dislocation, complementizer, German, demonstrative
Published online: 17 February 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.10pro
References

References

Ahrenholz, Bernt 2007 Verweise mit Demonstrativa im gesprochenen Deutsch. Grammatik, Zweitspracherwerb und Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, Hans
1981 Formen der „Herausstellung“ im Deutschen: Rechtsversetzung, Linksversetzung, freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter
1991 Vom Ende deutscher Sätze. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 19, 139–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Margret Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation. Interactional studies. (pp.57–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1), 7–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Why are increments such elusive objects? An afterthought. Pragmatics 17(4), 647–658. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Zum Segmentierungsproblem in der Gesprochenen Sprache. InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 49. http://​www​.inlist​.uni​-bayreuth​.de​/issues​/49​/InList49​.pdfGoogle Scholar
2015 The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. In Arnulf Deppermann & Susanne Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (pp.27–56). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Averintseva-Klisch, Maria
2009 Die NP-Rechtsversetzung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar
2011 Double sayings of German JA – more observations on their phonetic form and alignment function. Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(2), 157–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects and topics. In Charles N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp.27–55). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1994 Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Consten, Manfred, & Schwarz-Friesel, Monika
2007 Anapher. In Ludger Hoffmann (Ed.), Handbuch der deutschen Wortarten (pp.265–292). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Consten, Manfred, Knees, Mareile, & Schwarz-Friesel, Monika
2007 The function of complex anaphors in texts: Evidence from corpus studies and ontological considerations. In Monika Schwarz-Friesel, Manfred Consten, & Mareile Knees (Eds.), Anaphors in text: Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference (pp.81–102). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, & Ono, Tsuyoshi
(Eds.) 2007 Turn-continuation in cross-linguistic perspective: Introductory remarks. Special Issue of Pragmatics 17(4).Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, & Thompson, Sandra A.
2006  You know, it’s funny: Eine Neubetrachtung der Extraposition im Englischen. In Susanne Günthner & Wolfgang Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion (pp.23–58). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, & Thompson, Sandra A. 2008 On assessing situations and events in conversation: ‘Extraposition’ and its relatives. Discourse Studies 10(4), 443–467. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, & Proske, Nadine
2015 Grundeinheiten der Sprache und des Sprechens. In Christa Dürscheid & Jan-Georg Schneider (Eds.), Handbuch Satz, Äußerung, Schema (pp.17–47). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. et al.
1993 Outline of Discourse Transcription. In Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research (pp.45–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia, & Thompson, Sandra A.
1996 Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, & Sandra A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp.134–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gallmann, Peter
2009 Der Satz. In Matthias Wermke, Kathrin Kunkel-Razum, & Werner Scholze-Stubenrecht (Eds.), Duden – die Grammatik. 8., überarbeitet Auflage. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald
1987 Tails (right dislocations) as a repair mechanism in English conversation. In Jan Nuyts & Georges De Schutter (Eds.), Getting one’s word into line: On word order and functional grammar (pp.119–129). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea, & Fagyal, Zsuzsanna
2008 Comparing single and double sayings of the German response token ja and the role of prosody: A Conversation Analytic perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(3), 241–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
2009 Extrapositionen mit es im gesprochenen Deutsch. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 37, 15–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Vom schriftsprachlichen Standard zur pragmatischen Vielfalt? Aspekte einer interaktional fundierten Grammatikbeschreibung am Beispiel von dass-Konstruktionen. In Jörg Hagemann, Wolf Peter Klein, & Sven Staffeldt (Eds.), Pragmatischer Standard (pp.223–243). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2015 Geteilte Syntax: Kollaborativ erzeugte dass-Konstruktionen. In Alexander Ziem & Alexander Lasch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IV. Konstruktionen als soziale Konventionen und kognitive Routinen (pp.25–40). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne, & Hopper, Paul J.
2010 Zeitlichkeit & sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 11, 1–28. http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-online​.de​/fileadmin​/dateien​/heft2010​/ga​-guenthner​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
2015 La dislocation à droite revisitée: une approche interactionniste. Louvain-la-Neuve: de boeck. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2011 Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction. Discourse Processes 48, 404–431. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, & Thompson, Sandra A.
(Eds.) 2012 A cross-linguistic, multi-modal, grammaticization perspective on turn continuation in conversation. Special issue of Discourse Processes 49(3–4).Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, De Stefani, Elwys, & Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
2015 Time and emergence in grammar. Dislocation, topicalization and hanging topic in French talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Proske, Nadine 2013 Informationsmanagement im gesprochenen Deutsch. Eine diskurspragmatische Untersuchung syntaktischer Strukturen in Alltagsgesprächen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert
1967 Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1996 Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, & Sandra A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp.52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Thomas
2014 The research and teaching corpus of spoken German – FOLK. In Proceedings of the Ninth conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14). Reykjavik, Iceland: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Selting, Margret et al.
2009 Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10, 353–402. http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de​/heft2009​/px​-gat2​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Uhmann, Susanne
1993 Das Mittelfeld im Gespräch. In Marga Reis (Ed.), Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur (pp.313–354). Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffman, Ludger, & Strecker, Bruno
(Eds.) 1997 Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter.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 26 november 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.