Cover not available
Part of
The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages: An emergent unit in interaction
Edited by Tsuyoshi Ono and Sandra A. Thompson
[Typological Studies in Language 128] 2020
► pp. 271–314

Chapter 11
NP clustering in Mandarin conversational interaction

| University of California, Los Angeles

Noun phrases (NPs) have traditionally been analyzed as a phrasal level unit with hierarchical internal structures as well as syntactic roles in larger syntactic units. In this chapter, I examine NP-related patterns at the discourse level. Using Mandarin conversation data, this chapter focuses on multiple NPs that cluster as adjacent turn constructional units. The patterns identified include: (1) deictic forms supported by gestures for mutual gaze and joint attention; (2) repeated (first person singular) pronouns for mitigation of conflicting stance and self-distancing; (3) diverse NP forms for step-wise reference identification or elaboration; (4) joint production of multiple NPs to display shared stance or mutual orientation; and (5) lists of multiple items for persuasion, exemplification, and clarification as well as for affiliative stance or mutual orientation. As these patterns go beyond the realm of clausal level syntax with demonstrable interactional effects, they are taken to show that there is discourse-level grammar, or grammar-in-interaction, to be accounted for when syntactic notions such as NPs are examined in context, and interactional discourse-based constructions, though non-conventional at times, raise important questions about the shape, formation, and dynamic nature of interaction and grammar.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Scope and data
  • 3.Patterns of clustering NPs
    • 3.1Multiple NPs for mutual gaze and joint attention
    • 3.2Repeated (first person singular) pronouns for mitigation of stance and self-distancing
    • 3.3Multiple NPs, in varying forms, for step-wise referential identification
    • 3.4Jointly produced multiple NPs for stance negotiation and mutual orientation
      • 3.4.1Referent establishment
      • 3.4.2Referent elaboration
    • 3.5Multiple NPs in list constructions
  • 4.Summary and discussion
    • 4.1Locus, process, and nature of multiple NP units
    • 4.2Multiple NP units as an interactional format
    • 4.3Are multiple NP units features of grammar in interaction?
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 15 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.128.11tao
References
Canavan, Alexandra & Zipperlen, George
1996 CALLFRIEND Mandarin Chinese-Mainland Dialect. Philadelphia PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1987 Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 11], Russel S. Tomlin (ed.), 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Chomsky, Noam
1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert & Marshall, Catherine
1981 Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Elements of Discourse Understanding, Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber & Ivan A. Sag (eds), 10–63. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna
1986 Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22(1): 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Brennan, Susan E.
1991 Grounding in communication. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, Lauren B. Resnick & John M. Levine (eds), 127–149. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2007 Intonation units and grammatical structure in Wardaman and in cross-linguistic perspective. Australian Journal of Linguistics 27(1): 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics 33(5): 839–882. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
1980 Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, Wallace Chafe (ed.), 203–274. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
1987 The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4): 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 The stance triangle. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164], Robert Englebretson (ed.), 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Cumming, Susanna & Paolino, Danae
1993 Outline of discourse transcription. In Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (eds), 45–89. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. & Fox, Barbara A.
1996 Interactional motivations for reference formulation: He had. This guy had a beautiful, thirty-two O:lds. In Studies in Anaphora [Typological Studies in Language 33], Barbara A. Fox (ed.), 145–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A.
1987 Discourse Structure and Anaphora. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies 9(3): 299–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald
1988 The interactional nature of referent-introduction. Chicago Linguistic Society (24): 141–154.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1979 The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, George Psathas (ed.), 97–121. New York NY: Irvington.Google Scholar
1980 Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. In Special double issue on Language and Social Interaction, Don H. Zimmerman & Candace West (eds). Sociological Inquiry 50(3–4): 272–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986 Gesture as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica 62(1–2): 29–49.Google Scholar
2013 The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 46(1): 8–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles & Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
1992 Assessments and the construction of context. In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Charles Goodwin & Allesandro Duranti (eds), 147–190. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1983 Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4): 781–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
1997 When Discourse Becomes Syntax: Noun Phrases and Clauses as Emergent Syntactic Units in Finnish Conversational Discourse. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
2001 Emerging syntax for interaction: Noun phrases and clauses as a syntactic resource for interaction. In Studies in Interactional Linguistics [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 10], Margaret Selting & Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds), 25–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
2007 Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places). In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, Tanya Stivers & Nicholas J. Enfield (eds), 255–280. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1987 Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society (13): 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Emergent grammar. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 155–75. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi
1993 The structure of intonation units in Japanese. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 3, Soonja Choi (ed.), 39–53. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi & Hongyin Tao
1993 A comparative study of the structure of the intonation unit in English, Japanese, and Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, Los Angeles, CA, January 9.
Izre’el, Shlomo
2005 Intonation units and the structure of spontaneous spoken language: A view from Hebrew. In Proceedings of the IDP05 International Symposium on Discourse-Prosody Interfaces, Auran Cyril, Roxanne Bertrand, Catherine Chanet, Annie Colas, Albert Di Cristo, Cristel Portes, Alain Reynier & Monique Vion (eds), 1–20. [URL]
2018 Unipartite clauses: A view from spoken Israeli Hebrew. In Afroasiatic: Data and Perspectives [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 339], Mauro Tosco (ed.), 235–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1990 List-construction as a task and a resource. In Interaction Competence, George Psathas (ed.), 63–92. Washington DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2013 The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 Multimodal “noun phrases”. In The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages: An Emergent Unit in Interaction [Typological Studies in Language 128], Sandra A. Thompson & Tsuyoshi Ono (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon
2005 Retroactive elaboration as non-error repair in English conversation. Language Research 41(4): 785–806.Google Scholar
Lantolf, Jame & Thorne, Steve L.
2007 Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In Theories in Second Language Acquisition, Bill van Patten & Jessica C. Williams (eds), 201–224. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Helasvuo, Maria-Liisa
2015 Detached NPs with relative clauses in Finnish conversation. In Information Structuring of Spoken Language from a Crosslinguistic Perspective, M. M. Jocelyn Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (eds), 149–166. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Jee Won
2010a Repetition of Personal Pronominal Forms in Mandarin and Construction of Stance in Interaction. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H.
1994 Responsive list construction: A conversational resource for accomplishing multifaceted social action. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13(1): 20–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Turn-sharing: The choral co-production of talk-in-interaction. In The Language of Turn and Sequence, Celia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 225–257. New York NY: OUP.Google Scholar
2013 On the place of hesitating in delicate formulations: A turn-constructional infrastructure for collaborative indiscretion. In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, Jack Sidnell, Makoto Hayashi & Geoffrey Raymond (eds), 95–134. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Kazuko
1997 NPs in Japanese conversation. Pragmatics 7(2): 163–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Detached NPs in Japanese conversation: Types and functions. Text 18(3): 417–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Intonation Units in Japanese Conversation: Syntactic, Informational, and Functional Structures [Studies in Language Companion Series 65]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1996 Introduction. In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 1–51. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Thompson, Sandra A.
1994 Unattached NPs in English conversation. Berkeley Linguistic Society (20): 402–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 What can conversation tell us about syntax? In Descriptive and Theoretical Modes in the Alternative Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 102], Philip W. Davis (ed.), 213–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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 [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 28] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of Social Interaction: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds), 57–101. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1992 Lectures on Conversation, Vol. II. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail
1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Ayala, Ivo
2003 Constructions as resources for interaction: Lists in English and Spanish conversation. Discourse Studies 5(3): 323–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1996 Turn organization: One direction for inquiry into grammar and interaction. In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 52–133. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne
2002 Point of View and Grammar: Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American English Conversation [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 11] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret
2007 Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics 39(3): 483–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya
2008 Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1): 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tao, Hongyin
1992 NP intonation units and referent identification. Berkeley Linguistic Society (18): 237–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 Units in Mandarin: Discourse and Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
1996 Units in Mandarin Conversation: Prosody, Discourse, and Grammar. [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Discovering the usual with corpora: The case of remember . In Corpus Linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium, Rita Simpson & John Swales (eds), 116–144. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
2003 A usage-based approach to argument structure: ‘Remember’ and ‘forget’ in spoken English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(1): 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Disputed memory and the social interactive functions of remembering/forgetting expressions in Mandarin conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 106: 184–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 List gestures in Mandarin conversation and their implications for understanding multimodal interaction. In Multimodality in Chinese Interaction, Xiaoting Li & Tsuyoshi Ono (eds), 65–98. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
2019 Understanding ‘clause’ as an emergent ‘unit’ in everyday conversation. In Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units, Tsuyoshi Ono, Ryoko Suzuki & Ritva Laury (eds). Special issue of Studies in Language 43(2): 254–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2005 The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7(4–5):481–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, Lev S.
1962 Thought and Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy J.
2002 Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Wouk, Fay
2008 The syntax of intonation units in Sasak. Studies in Language 32(1): 137–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Takanashi, Hiroko
2022. Language reproduction and coordinated agency through resonant play. East Asian Pragmatics 7:3 ► pp. 395 ff. DOI logo
Tao, Hongyin
2022. Multimodal amusement resonance as a conversation interactional device. East Asian Pragmatics 7:3 ► pp. 333 ff. DOI logo
Tao, Hongyin & Ryoko Suzuki
2022. The pragmatics of creative language use in East Asian languages. East Asian Pragmatics 7:3 ► pp. 297 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 september 2023. 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.