An initial description of syntactic extensions in spoken Czech

Florence Oloff and Martin Havlík

Abstract

This paper aims to describe different patterns of syntactic extensions of turns-at-talk in mundane conversations in Czech. Within interactional linguistics, same-speaker continuations of possibly complete syntactic structures have been described for typologically diverse languages, but have not yet been investigated for Slavic languages. Based on previously established descriptions of various types of extensions (Vorreiter 2003Vorreiter, Susanne 2003 “Turn Continuations: Towards a Cross-Linguistic Classification.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures 39: 1–25.Google Scholar; Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), our initial description shall therefore contribute to the cross-linguistic exploration of this phenomenon. While all previously described forms for continuing a turn-constructional unit seem to exist in Czech, some grammatical features of this language (especially free word order and strong case morphology) may lead to problems in distinguishing specific types of syntactic extensions. Consequently, this type of language allows for critically evaluating the cross-linguistic validity of the different categories and underlines the necessity of analysing syntactic phenomena within their specific action contexts.

Keywords
Table of contents

1.Introduction

Extensions of speaking turns beyond a point of syntactic completion by the same speaker have been of major interest to the domain of interactional linguistics for more than two decades now (Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Luke et al. 2012Luke, Kang-kwong, Sandra A. Thompson, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2012 “Turns and Increments: A Comparative Perspective.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 155–162.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Schegloff 1996 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar). As syntactic extensions have since then been described for typologically diverse languages, continuing one’s turn by adding syntactically fitted material to it can be said to be a cross-linguistic practice. However, it has been pointed out that in order to give a more general and robust description of this grammatical practice, it should be studied within a larger variety of languages (Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 549; Ford, Fox & Thompson 2002 2002 “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar, 33; Luke et al. 2012Luke, Kang-kwong, Sandra A. Thompson, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2012 “Turns and Increments: A Comparative Perspective.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 155–162.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 160). This paper shall contribute to a cross-linguistic investigation by providing a first, general introduction to the formats of turn extensions in Czech, a West Slavic language. Within interactional linguistics and conversation analysis, Czech has hardly been considered, whereas some interactional features of other Slavic languages such as Russian (Bolden 2008Bolden, Galina B. 2008 “Reopening Russian Conversations: The Discourse Particle -to and the Negotiation of Interpersonal Accountability in Closings.” Human Communication Research 34: 99–136.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 2016 2016 “A Simple Da?: Affirming Responses to Polar Questions in Russian Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 100: 40–58.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar) or Polish (Ogiermann & Zinken 2011Ogiermann, E., and Jörg Zinken 2011 “How to Propose an Action as Objectively Necessary: the Case of Polish Trzeba x (“one needs to x”).” Research on Language & Social Interaction 44 (3): 263–287.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Zinken & Ogiermann 2013Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann 2013 “Responsibility and Action: Invariants and Diversity in Requests for Objects in British English and Polish Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (3): 256–276.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar) have already been described (see also the contributions in Thielemann & Kosta 2013Thielemann, Nadine, and Peter Kosta (eds) 2013Approaches to Slavic Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar). However, with regards to turn extensions there has been no systematic account of Slavic languages up to now, though due to their complex inflectional system and the ensuing variable word order, this language family represents an interesting domain for the study of syntax-in-interaction.

The twofold aims of our study are, on the one hand, to establish a first systematic description of turn extensions in Czech, and, on the other, to contribute more generally to the description of spoken syntax in Czech, based on examples taken from naturally occurring interactions. After having established a small state of the art concerning syntactic extensions in various languages (1.1), we will introduce some basic grammatical features of Czech which are possibly relevant to the practice of syntactic extension (1.2), comment on the typology we have chosen for this initial description (1.3), and present our data (1.4). We will then describe various extension types in Czech (2), reflect on problematic or ambiguous issues (3), and conclude with some recommendations regarding further research on syntactic extensions in Czech (4).

1.1Turn extensions in various languages

Within linguistics, “non-canonical” syntactic structures such as clefts, hanging topics, apo koinu constructions, and right or left dislocations have been noticed from early on, typical examples being “inversions” or “afterthoughts” in Chinese (cf. Luke 2012Luke, Kang-kwong 2012 “Dislocation or Afterthought? – A Conversation Analytic Account of Incremental Sentences in Chinese.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 338–365.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), or left/right expansions in German (Altmann 1981Altmann, Hans 1981Formen der “Herausstellung” im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Auer 1991Auer, Peter 1991 “Vom Ende deutscher Sätze.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 19: 139–157.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar) and English (Geluykens 1987Geluykens, Ronald 1987 “Tails as a Repair Mechanism in English Conversations.” In Getting One’s Word into Line. On Word Order and Functional Grammar, ed. by Jan Nuyts, and George de Schutter, 119–130. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar, 1994 1994The Pragmatics of Discourse Anaphora in English: Evidence from Conversational Repair. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar). We will not consider previous discussions related to various data types (made-up vs. written vs. spoken), but instead we will focus on the way this phenomenon has been treated within interactional linguistics (e.g. Auer, Couper-Kuhlen & Müller 1999Auer, Peter, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Frank E. Müller (eds) 1999Language in Time. The Rhythm and Tempo of Spoken Interaction. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar; Ford, Fox & Thompson (eds.) 2002Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds) 2002The Language of Turn and Sequence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar; Hakulinen & Selting 2005Hakulinen, Auli, and Margret Selting (eds) 2005Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds) 1996Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Selting & Couper-Kuhlen 2001Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds) 2001Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar).

Syntactic continuations beyond a possible syntactic completion point in speaking turns have been given various names, such as added units or added segments (C. Goodwin 1979Goodwin, Charles 1979 “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar; M. Goodwin 1980Goodwin, Marjorie H. 1980 “Processes of Mutual Monitoring Implicated in the Production of Description Sequences.” Sociological Inquiry 50: 303–317.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), expansions (Auer 1991Auer, Peter 1991 “Vom Ende deutscher Sätze.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 19: 139–157.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 1996 1996 “On the Prosody and Syntax of Turn-Continuations.” In Prosody in Conversation. Interactional Studies, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), right dislocations (Selting 1994Selting, Margret 1994 “Konstruktionen am Satzrand als interaktive Ressource in natürlichen Gesprächen.” In Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation? Studien zu einem Interaktionsfeld von Grammatik, Pragmatik und Sprachtypologie, ed. by Brigitta Haftka, 229–318. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), supplementation or inclusion (Nekvapil 1991Nekvapil, Jiří 1991 “The Syntactic Process of Parcellation and Supplementation and Their Results: Parcellated Formations and Supplemented Formations.” In Neue Fragen der Linguistik. Akten des 25. linguistischen Kolloquiums, Paderborn 1990, ed. by Elisabeth Feldbusch, Reiner Pogarell, and Cornelia Weiss, 329–333. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar), post-predicate additions or recompleters (Tanaka 2000Tanaka, Hiroko 2000 “Turn Projection in Japanese Talk-in-Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (1): 1–38.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), or increments (Schegloff 1996 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), inter alia. The interest in and frequency of this type of phenomenon can be traced back to Sacks’, Schegloff’s, and Jefferson’s (1974)Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson 1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar seminal study on turn-taking, in which they sketched the existence of points of possible completion, and thus places of possible speaker change – so-called transition relevance places (TRP) – mostly in terms of syntax. They underlined the “inherent extendability” (see Luke et al. 2012Luke, Kang-kwong, Sandra A. Thompson, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2012 “Turns and Increments: A Comparative Perspective.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 155–162.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 158) of turn constructional units (TCU) beyond any TRP, which has also been skilfully illustrated by Jefferson’s studies on overlap onset (e.g. 1973Jefferson, Gail 1973 “A Case of Precision Timing in Ordinary Conversation: Overlapped Tag-Positioned Address Terms in Closing Sequences.” Semiotica IX (1): 47–96.Google Scholar, 1983 1983 “Notes on Some Orderlinesses of Overlap Onset.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28: 1–28.Google Scholar). Regardless of earlier accounts (see, for example, Goodwin 1979Goodwin, Charles 1979 “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar, 1981 1981Conversational Organization. Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar), the English-speaking research community has been displaying a growing interest in syntactic extensions mainly since Schegloff (1996) 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar introduced the notion of increment for the description of post-possible completions of TCUs (ibid., 83ff.).

The same speaker can continue speaking beyond a point of possible syntactic completion (i.e., a TRP) by either continuing in a syntactically fitted (i.e., an increment) or syntactically independent way (i.e., a new TCU, such as in multi-unit turns). Phenomena such as address terms, courtesy terms, tag questions (Jefferson 1973Jefferson, Gail 1973 “A Case of Precision Timing in Ordinary Conversation: Overlapped Tag-Positioned Address Terms in Closing Sequences.” Semiotica IX (1): 47–96.Google Scholar), or post-position stance markers (formulaic elements such as “I dunno”) are mostly excluded from the class of increments (Schegloff 1996 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 90). Schegloff defines increments mainly with regards to the grammatical relationship, i.e., there must be a syntactical link between the initial or host TCU and its continuation, as “[s]ome of these appear to add a new grammatical unit (often a phrase or a clause) to what preceded […]” (Schegloff 1996 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 90), or “complement […] a grammatical construction with which the prior TCU had apparently come to closure […]” (ibid.). Ford, Fox & Thompson (2002) 2002 “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar also rely on a very general syntactic criterion for defining extensions, according to them they are “nonmain-clause continuations after a possible point of turn completion” (2002 2002 “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar, 16), although for them there is no strict need to have a syntactic coherence (see the notion of the free constituent).

Today, “[s]cholars agree that there can be different ways of accomplishing turn continuation, including with or without syntactic continuation and with or without prosodic integration.” (Couper-Kuhlen 2012Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth 2012 “Turn Continuation and Clause Combinations.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 273–299.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 274). While this has given rise to different typologies of increments, most researchers do seem to agree on the fact that TCU extensions typically do not implement a new action. Instead, they extend or advance the action of the host TCU and are thus retrospective (vs. prospective / new TCUs, cf. Schegloff 1996 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Sidnell 2012Sidnell, Jack 2012 “Turn-Continuation by Self and by Other.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 314–337.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Zhang 2012Zhang, Wei 2012 “Latching/Rush-Through as a Turn-Holding Device and its Functions in Retrospectively Oriented Pre-Emptive Turn Continuation: Findings from Mandarin Conversation.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 163–191.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar). Although the exact role of different features (syntax, prosody, action / pragmatics) in TCU extension seems to be up for discussion (see Auer 2007 2007 “Why are Increments such Elusive Objects? An Afterthought.” Pragmatics 17: 647–658.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Couper-Kuhlen 2012Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth 2012 “Turn Continuation and Clause Combinations.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 273–299.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), since Schegloff’s initial description a variety of studies on more or less related phenomena in different languages has been published.

While a large number of studies have investigated English (Couper-Kuhlen 2012Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth 2012 “Turn Continuation and Clause Combinations.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 273–299.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Ford, Fox & Thompson 2002 2002 “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar; Schegloff 1996 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 2000a 2000a “On Turns’ Possible Completion, More or Less: Increments and Trail-offs.” Paper delivered at the 1st Euroconference on Interactional Linguistics (Spa, Belgium)., 2001 2001 “Conversation Analysis: A Project in Process – ‘Increments’.” Forum lecture delivered at the LSA Linguistic Institute, University of California Santa Barbara: 1–22.Google Scholar; Sidnell 2012Sidnell, Jack 2012 “Turn-Continuation by Self and by Other.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 314–337.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Walker 2004Walker, Gareth 2004 “On Some Interactional and Phonetic Properties of Increments to Turns in Talk-in-Interaction.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction. Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia E. Ford, 147–169. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar) or Japanese (Koike 2003Koike, Chisato 2003 “An Analysis of Increments in Japanese Conversation in Terms of Syntax and Prosody.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 11, ed. by P. M. Clancy, 67–80. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar, Tanaka 2000Tanaka, Hiroko 2000 “Turn Projection in Japanese Talk-in-Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (1): 1–38.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), there has also been a considerable number of studies concerning other languages, such as German (Auer 1991Auer, Peter 1991 “Vom Ende deutscher Sätze.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 19: 139–157.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 1996 1996 “On the Prosody and Syntax of Turn-Continuations.” In Prosody in Conversation. Interactional Studies, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Imo 2012Imo, Wolfgang 2012 “Ellipsen, Inkremente und Fragmente aus interaktionaler Perspektive.” gidi Arbeitspapiere 45: 1–28.Google Scholar; Selting 1994Selting, Margret 1994 “Konstruktionen am Satzrand als interaktive Ressource in natürlichen Gesprächen.” In Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation? Studien zu einem Interaktionsfeld von Grammatik, Pragmatik und Sprachtypologie, ed. by Brigitta Haftka, 229–318. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), Swedish (Lindström 2006Lindström, Jan 2006 “Grammar in the Service of Interaction: Exploring Turn Organization in Swedish.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39 (1): 81–117.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), French (Horlacher 2007Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie 2007 “La dislocation à droite comme ressource pour l’alternance des tours de parole: vers une syntaxe incrémentale.” Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique 47: 117–136.Google Scholar, 2015 2015La dislocation à droite revisitée. Une approche interactionniste. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), Finnish (Laury 2012Laury, Ritva 2012 “Syntactically Non-Integrated Finnish Jos ‘If’-Conditional Clauses as Directives.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 213–242.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Seppänen & Laury 2007Seppänen, Eeva-Leena, and Ritva Laury 2007 “Complement Clauses as Turn Continuations: The Finnish et(tä)-Clause.” Pragmatics 17: 553–572.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), Chinese (Luke & Zhang 2007Luke, Kang-kwong, and Wei Zhang 2007 “Retrospective Turn Continuations in Mandarin Chinese Conversation.” Pragmatics 17: 605–635.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Zhang 2012Zhang, Wei 2012 “Latching/Rush-Through as a Turn-Holding Device and its Functions in Retrospectively Oriented Pre-Emptive Turn Continuation: Findings from Mandarin Conversation.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 163–191.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), Korean (Im 2004Im, Hangyeong 2004 “Increments and Phonetic Analysis in Korean.” The Journal of Linguistics Science 1: 365–386.Google Scholar; Kim 2001Kim, Kyu-hyun 2001 “Turn-Constructional Practice in Korean Conversation: Organization of Turn Increments.” Language Research 37 (4): 885–922.Google Scholar), or even Navajo (Field 2007Field, Margaret 2007 “Increments in Navajo Conversation.” Pragmatics 17: 637–646.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar). A similar phenomenon has been described in Czech regarding written examples (Nekvapil 1991Nekvapil, Jiří 1991 “The Syntactic Process of Parcellation and Supplementation and Their Results: Parcellated Formations and Supplemented Formations.” In Neue Fragen der Linguistik. Akten des 25. linguistischen Kolloquiums, Paderborn 1990, ed. by Elisabeth Feldbusch, Reiner Pogarell, and Cornelia Weiss, 329–333. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar, 1993 1993 “On the Asymmetry between Syntactic and Elementary Textual Units.” In Studies in Functional Stylistics, ed. by J. Chloupek, and Jiri Nekvapil, 186–222. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), while on Czech oral discourse, some preliminary remarks on added or inserted syntactic elements have been made (cf. Hoffmannová & Zeman 2017Hoffmannová, Jana, and Jiří Zeman 2017 “Výzkum syntaxe mluvené češtiny: inventarizace problémů.” Slovo a slovenost 78: 45–66.Google Scholar, 48–50). Explicit cross-linguistic comparison of turn extensions has been carried out on English, German, and Japanese (Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Vorreiter 2003Vorreiter, Susanne 2003 “Turn Continuations: Towards a Cross-Linguistic Classification.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures 39: 1–25.Google Scholar).

Consequently, speakers of typologically different languages have the possibility to go on talking beyond a possibly complete spate of talk in a way that extends the prior unit or alternatively adds a new unit to it. However, there seems to be

[…] an apparent correlation between the authors’ interests (i.e., the kind of syntactic or prosodic features that they pay most attention to) and the structure of the languages that they are working with.(Luke et al. 2012Luke, Kang-kwong, Sandra A. Thompson, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2012 “Turns and Increments: A Comparative Perspective.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 155–162.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 159)

Some language material thus seems to be more adapted to discussing syntactic features (e.g. German), whereas in other languages, researchers struggle with less obvious syntactic features and try to approach extension from a rather actional perspective (see Krekoski 2012Krekoski, Ross 2012 “Clausal Continuations in Japanese.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 300–313.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar for a discussion related to Japanese and its grammatical features). This has led to studies being more strongly focused on syntactic or prosodic aspects, whereas others are mostly considering functional aspects. While functions cluster mainly around the domains of repair and information giving (e.g. Auer 1991Auer, Peter 1991 “Vom Ende deutscher Sätze.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 19: 139–157.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Luke 2012Luke, Kang-kwong 2012 “Dislocation or Afterthought? – A Conversation Analytic Account of Incremental Sentences in Chinese.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 338–365.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Selting 1994Selting, Margret 1994 “Konstruktionen am Satzrand als interaktive Ressource in natürlichen Gesprächen.” In Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation? Studien zu einem Interaktionsfeld von Grammatik, Pragmatik und Sprachtypologie, ed. by Brigitta Haftka, 229–318. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar) and the management of recipient response (e.g. Ford, Fox & Thompson 2002 2002 “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar; Horlacher 2015 2015La dislocation à droite revisitée. Une approche interactionniste. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Schegloff 1996 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), it seems difficult to give a clear cut, cross-linguistically valid description of how turn extensions are used in social interaction. This leads to a highly heterogeneous field of study that considers a diversity of notions, phenomena, and language-specific grammatical features. Consequently, Couper-Kuhlen’s and Ono’s initial appeal for carrying out more research in this domain (2007Field, Margaret 2007 “Increments in Navajo Conversation.” Pragmatics 17: 637–646.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 549) still seems to be a burning issue (see also Luke et al. 2012Luke, Kang-kwong, Sandra A. Thompson, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2012 “Turns and Increments: A Comparative Perspective.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 155–162.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar).

1.2Some basic grammatical features of Czech relevant for turn extension

Being part of the Indo-European language family, Czech is a highly inflected fusional language in which syntactical relations are articulated mostly through suffixes (expressing number, i.e., singular, plural, and eventually dual; gender, i.e., masculine, feminine, neutral; and case, i.e., nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative, locative, and instrumental) or through prepositional phrases. In syntactic constructions, words are connected by means of their coordination – or dependency – which is rendered by government (1.), agreement (2.), or adjunction (3.) (cf. Čechová et al. 1996Čechová, Marie, Miloš Dokulil, Zdeněk Hlavsa, et al. 1996Čeština: řeč a jazyk. Prague: ISV nakladatelství.Google Scholar, 253ff.; Grepl & Karlík 1985Grepl, Miroslav, and Petr Karlík 1985Skladba spisovné češtiny. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.Google Scholar, 202ff.; Hausenblas 1958Hausenblas, Karel 1958 “Syntaktická závislost, způsoby a prostředky jejího vyjadřování.” Bulletin Vysoké školy ruského jazyka 2: 23–51.Google Scholar; Havránek & Jedlička 1963Havránek, Bohuslav, and Alois Jedlička 1963Česká mluvnice. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.Google Scholar, 321ff.; Panevová et al. 2014Panevová, Jarmila, Eva Hajičová, Václava Kettnerová, et al. 2014Mluvnice současné češtiny. 2: Syntax češtiny na základě anotovaného korpusu. Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar, 34ff.):

  1. Syntactic subjects usually carry nominative case marking, and syntactic objects mostly carry accusative case marking (rarely dative or genitive morphemes):

    (1)
    Pracovník
    employee[nom.m.sg]
    pozdravil
    greet-pst[m.sg]
    šéfa.
    boss-acc.m.sg

    ‘The (male) employee greeted the (male) boss’

  2. The predicate must agree with the subject in gender and number, while adjectives have to be congruent in gender, case, and number with the substantives on which they depend.

    (2)
    1. Mladý
      young-nom.m.sg
      pracovník
      employee[nom.m.sg]
      pozdravil
      greet-pst[m.sg]
      svého
      poss-acc.m.sg
      šéfa.
      boss-acc.m.sg

      ‘The young (male) employee greeted his (male) boss’

    2. Mladá
      young-nom.f.sg
      pracovnice
      employee-nom.f.sg
      pozdravila
      greet-pst-f.sg
      svou
      poss-acc.f.sg
      šéfovou.
      boss-acc.f.sg

      ‘The young (female) employee greeted her (female) boss’

  3. Adjunction is mostly expressed by prepositional phrases, adverbs, or infinitives that have no stable positions in an utterance (cf. Čechová et al. 1996Čechová, Marie, Miloš Dokulil, Zdeněk Hlavsa, et al. 1996Čeština: řeč a jazyk. Prague: ISV nakladatelství.Google Scholar, 279, Hausenblas 1958Hausenblas, Karel 1958 “Syntaktická závislost, způsoby a prostředky jejího vyjadřování.” Bulletin Vysoké školy ruského jazyka 2: 23–51.Google Scholar, 90ff., Karlík et al. 1995Karlík, Petr, Marek Nekula, and Zdenka Rusínová (eds) 1995Příruční mluvnice češtiny. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.Google Scholar, 436ff.).

    (3)
    Na
    in
    chodbě
    corridor-loc.f.sg
    pozdravil
    greet-pst[m.sg]
    zdvořile
    politely
    šéfa.
    boss-acc.m.sg

    ‘In the corridor he politely greeted the (male) boss’

Due to its more intact inflectional system (especially compared to English), Czech has a high projective force (Auer 2005 2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7–36.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), e.g., adjectives might project not only a noun, but also its gender, number, and case. Though its inflectional system seems to be slowly being reduced (e.g. differences in grammatical gender are being diminished in colloquial spoken Czech, cf. Cvrček et al. 2010Cvrček, Václav, Vilém Kodýtek, Marie Kopřivová, et al. 2010Mluvnice současné češtiny. 1: Jak se píše a jak se mluví. Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar, 304), it clearly allows for a relatively free word order, with some exceptions: enclitics do have a compulsory position according to the rhythm (mostly at the end of a first phonological word, Daneš et al. 1987Daneš, František, Miroslav Grepl, and Zdeněk Hlavsa (eds) 1987Mluvnice češtiny 3. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar, 604; Naughton 2005Naughton, James 2005Czech. An Essential Grammar. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar, 217), and substantive attributes are usually located right behind their governing substantive. Whereas the basic word order of Czech is subject – verb – object (SVO), other variations such as SOV, OVS, OSV are grammatically correct, although they might differ with respect to semantics and style (Čechová et al. 1996Čechová, Marie, Miloš Dokulil, Zdeněk Hlavsa, et al. 1996Čeština: řeč a jazyk. Prague: ISV nakladatelství.Google Scholar, 305ff.; Daneš et al. 1987Daneš, František, Miroslav Grepl, and Zdeněk Hlavsa (eds) 1987Mluvnice češtiny 3. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar, 614ff.; Karlík et al. 1995Karlík, Petr, Marek Nekula, and Zdenka Rusínová (eds) 1995Příruční mluvnice češtiny. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.Google Scholar, 645ff.). Such flexibility in word order might indeed influence the possibilities of continuing a turn-at-talk post-possible syntactic completion.

In Czech, word order is also used for topicalisation. Traditionally, the utterance beginning is said to contain the theme, while the so-called focus (or rhema) of the utterance is supposed to be in the last position of an utterance (Čechová et al. 1996Čechová, Marie, Miloš Dokulil, Zdeněk Hlavsa, et al. 1996Čeština: řeč a jazyk. Prague: ISV nakladatelství.Google Scholar, 305 ff.; Daneš 1974Daneš, František (ed) 1974Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague/The Hague/Paris: Academia/Mouton.Google Scholar; Daneš et al. 1987Daneš, František, Miroslav Grepl, and Zdeněk Hlavsa (eds) 1987Mluvnice češtiny 3. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar; Mathesius 1942 1942 “Řeč a sloh.” In Čtení o jazyce a poezii, ed. by Bohuslav Havránek, and Jan Mukařovský, 11–102. Prague: Družstevní práce.Google Scholar; Naughton 2005Naughton, James 2005Czech. An Essential Grammar. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar, 215; Panevová et al. 2014Panevová, Jarmila, Eva Hajičová, Václava Kettnerová, et al. 2014Mluvnice současné češtiny. 2: Syntax češtiny na základě anotovaného korpusu. Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar, 190ff.; Sgall 1982Sgall, Petr 1982 “Zur Typologie der Thema-Rhema-Gliederung.” In Studien zum Tschechischen, Slowakischen und Deutschen aus vergleichender Sicht, ed. by Gert Jäger, Václav Křístek, and Jozef Mistrík, 173–185. Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität.Google Scholar). Consequently, a particular word or component can be accentuated by moving it to the final position. This traditional view on the theme-rheme distribution, the so-called topical sentence structure or functional sentence perspective (“aktuální větné členění”, Daneš 1974Daneš, František (ed) 1974Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague/The Hague/Paris: Academia/Mouton.Google Scholar; Firbas 1992Firbas, Jan 1992Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Hajičová et al. 1998Hajičová, Eva, Barbara H. Partee, and Petr Sgall (eds) 1998Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantics Content. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Mathesius 1939Mathesius, Vilém 1939 “O tak zvaném aktuálním členění větném.” Slovo a slovesnost 5: 171–174.Google Scholar, 1942 1942 “Řeč a sloh.” In Čtení o jazyce a poezii, ed. by Bohuslav Havránek, and Jan Mukařovský, 11–102. Prague: Družstevní práce.Google Scholar), would predict syntactic extensions in Czech to be highly rhematical. However, Luke and Zhang (2007Luke, Kang-kwong, and Wei Zhang 2007 “Retrospective Turn Continuations in Mandarin Chinese Conversation.” Pragmatics 17: 605–635.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, for Mandarin Chinese) suggest on the contrary that adding new information will lead to a new TCU, while the addition of already known material will be more likely to lead to a TCU extension or increment. More generally, Nekvapil (1993 1993 “On the Asymmetry between Syntactic and Elementary Textual Units.” In Studies in Functional Stylistics, ed. by J. Chloupek, and Jiri Nekvapil, 186–222. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 214) notes that the “producer” and “recipient” of a syntactic extension might perceive its informational content very differently, as containing a completion or, on the contrary, an emphasis. While Auer (2007 2007 “Why are Increments such Elusive Objects? An Afterthought.” Pragmatics 17: 647–658.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, for German) shows that TCU extensions may indeed contain “new” information, he also underlines the fact that informational value depends not only on syntax, but also on prosody, semantics, action structure, and even on visible components. Since, to date, there is no clear-cut correlation between syntactic and action structure in post-completion extensions (retrospective or prospective, “old” vs. “new”, Auer 2007 2007 “Why are Increments such Elusive Objects? An Afterthought.” Pragmatics 17: 647–658.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 650–1), this issue is still in need of further investigation.

1.3Different types of syntactic extensions

The previous sections have revealed that there seems to be no consensus regarding the exact structural delimitation or analytic vocabulary that one should apply to syntactic utterance extensions; moreover, no cross-linguistically valid link between interactional tasks and specific syntactic features has been established. As syntactic extensions in spoken Czech have not yet been systematically described, we will adopt a pragmatic approach in view of this heterogeneous body of research and restrict our contribution mostly to formal aspects, i.e., the presentation and discussion of various forms of turn extensions in Czech. We will therefore adopt one of the most quoted and used typologies for turn extensions, i.e., the one presented in Vorreiter (2003)Vorreiter, Susanne 2003 “Turn Continuations: Towards a Cross-Linguistic Classification.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures 39: 1–25.Google Scholar and applied by Couper-Kuhlen & Ono (2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, see also Horlacher 2015 2015La dislocation à droite revisitée. Une approche interactionniste. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 110). Compared to other descriptions of syntactic extensions (Ford, Fox & Thompson 2002 2002 “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar; Schegloff 1996 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), this classification scheme appears to be more fine-grained. By applying the same notions, we aim at supporting the cross-linguistic comparison formulated as a major endeavour in the field, although it might also reveal some analytical challenges as regards the grammatical features of Czech (cf. Section 3).

The first and most basic distinction is the one between new TCU and TCU continuation. According to Couper-Kuhlen & Ono (2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 515), while the former has minimal syntactic and semantic dependence on the prior unit of talk, the latter possesses maximum dependency. Within the different types of TCU continuation, a first distinction is that between non-add-ons and add-ons. Whereas the former are prosodically integrated, the latter are audibly additions (cf. Vorreiter 2003Vorreiter, Susanne 2003 “Turn Continuations: Towards a Cross-Linguistic Classification.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures 39: 1–25.Google Scholar, 5–6). Add-ons are thus preceded by a prosodic break after the host turn. The group of add-ons can then be further divided into replacements and increments. As their name indicates, replacements are co-referential to an item in the host turn and replace that element, i.e., present an alternative version of a part of the host. Increments can be further divided into glue-ons and insertables. Glue-ons have a “particularly tight” grammatical bond (Vorreiter 2003Vorreiter, Susanne 2003 “Turn Continuations: Towards a Cross-Linguistic Classification.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures 39: 1–25.Google Scholar, 13) to the host, i.e., host and glue-on form a syntactically coherent construction (Schegloff 1996 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 90–91). In English, glue-ons can correspond to various types of syntactic constituents, clausal as well as phrasal ones (Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 521). Insertables, on the contrary, do not form a canonically well-formed structure when put together with the host turn (Vorreiter 2003Vorreiter, Susanne 2003 “Turn Continuations: Towards a Cross-Linguistic Classification.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures 39: 1–25.Google Scholar, 16). They seem to be “out of place” as they could be more canonically positioned somewhere inside the host TCU. Finally, Vorreiter mentions the so-called free constituents (corresponding to the “unattached nominal phrases” described by Ono & Thompson 1994Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Sandra Thompson 1994 “Unattached NPs in English Conversation.” Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 20 (1): 402–419.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar). They show no syntactic – but nevertheless, a semantic and pragmatic – dependency on the prior unit. Whereas Vorreiter treats the free constituents as being a type of increment – as according to her, glue-ons and insertables, as well as free constituents, “add further material to the host” (Vorreiter 2003Vorreiter, Susanne 2003 “Turn Continuations: Towards a Cross-Linguistic Classification.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures 39: 1–25.Google Scholar, 21–22), Couper-Kuhlen & Ono (2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 515) do not treat free constituents as being increments, but as being “somewhere in between these extremes” of TCU continuation vs. new TCU. For convenience, we reproduce the scheme used by Horlacher (2015 2015La dislocation à droite revisitée. Une approche interactionniste. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 110), which contains all types of turn continuations used by Vorreiter (2003)Vorreiter, Susanne 2003 “Turn Continuations: Towards a Cross-Linguistic Classification.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures 39: 1–25.Google Scholar and Couper-Kuhlen & Ono (2007)Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, and captures as well the slight divergence regarding the classification of free constituents.

(Zoom)
Figure 1.Types of turn continuation (Horlacher 2015 2015La dislocation à droite revisitée. Une approche interactionniste. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 110)

1.4Data

The data stem from a series of video recordings of mundane conversations in Czech among friends and acquaintances, taking place at home or in public places such as bars or cafés. The data were recorded between 2013 and 2016 within the framework of a research project (SNSF Ambizione, PI F. Oloff, see acknowledgments). All participants are native speakers of Czech and have received education in the Czech Republic. Within the frame of this paper, we have chosen one hour of each of the following four recordings: (1) CAJ (2014): two women (expat) at home in Switzerland (total duration of 1 hour); (2) FOSNA (2013): three men in a bar in Prague (total 2.5 hours); (3) HAMR (2014): six men at a terrace in Prague (total 2.5 hours); and (4) SOUSED (2016): three female neighbours at home close to Ostrava (total 1 hour). Data have been recorded with one ((1), (4)) or two cameras ((2), (3)), and in all settings a supplementary audio recorder has been placed close to the participants. However, due to noisy surroundings (settings 2 and 3), detailed phonetic features are not systematically available. Excerpts have been transcribed according to Jeffersonian conventions (Jefferson 2004 2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis. Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), in addition, semicolons indicate a slightly falling intonation (Selting et al. 2009Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, et al. 2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung Online 10: 353–402.Google Scholar), thus four intonation markers are used (i.e., ? / , / ; / . ). If none of the aforementioned signs is used as final prosodic mark, this corresponds to level intonation (Jefferson 2004 2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis. Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 27). Proper names – except for publicly known celebrities or brand names – have been replaced by pseudonyms. Orthography has been adapted to correctly reproduce recurrent features of spoken Czech (Kaderka & Svobodová 2006Kaderka, Petr, and Zdeňka Svobodová 2006 “Jak přepisovat audiovizuální záznam rozhovoru? Manuál pro přepisovatele televizních diskusních pořadů.” Jazykovědné aktuality 43 (3–4): 18–51.Google Scholar), e.g., prothetic “v” in lexical items beginning with the vowel “o”, i.e., “(v)on” / “he”, “(v)okno” / “window”, or “ej” replacing the adjectival suffix “ý”, i.e., “výbornej” instead of “výborný” (see also Hronek & Sgall 1992Hronek, Jiří, and Petr Sgall 1992Čeština bez příkras. Prague: H&H.Google Scholar; Kodýtek 2007Kodýtek, Vilém 2007 “Mluvená čeština v Praze a Brně: sonda do mluvených korpusů.” Slovo a slovesnost (1): 23–37.Google Scholar; Townsend 1990Townsend, Charles E. 1990A Description of Spoken Prague Czech. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar; Wilson 2010Wilson, James 2010Moravians in Prague. A Sociolinguistic Study of Dialect Contact in the Czech Republic. Frankfurt/Berlin/Brussels: Peter Lang.Google Scholar).

2.Analysis

We will now illustrate different types of TCU continuations in Czech. Following the classification scheme (see Figure 1), we will show clear cases of non-add-ons (2.1), then of add-ons (2.2), the latter being divided into replacements (2.2.1) and different types of increments (2.2.2), i.e. insertables (2.2.2.1), glue-ons (2.2.2.2), and finally free constituents (2.2.2.3). Whereas this section will underline the similarities between Czech and other languages, we will later (3) discuss several analytical and taxonomic problems related to the grammatical and pragmatic features of spoken Czech.

2.1Non-add-ons

Non-add-ons describe extensions that show no prosodic break between the host TCU and its extension, despite the syntactic closure. Due to the relatively free word order in Czech, it seems more difficult to identify non-add-ons and they thus seem to be rather rare. One example is shown in Excerpt (4). The girl’s surname “Boudová” is appended to an otherwise already complete syntactic construction (lines 4–5, “Eva was there”, see also Example (1) in Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 517–8).

(4)

(HAMR_ evička_4052)

1 IVA pak  tam   byl     i     Radek Moravec,  že jo:;
      then there is-pst.m also ((name[nom.m]))  tag tag
      then there was also Radek Moravec huh
2     [se  Z- ] (0.2) se     Zlatanem,
       with Z-        with ((first name-ins))
      [with Z-] (0.2) with Zlatan
3 MAR [no:    ]
      [yeah   ]
4 MAR no:, a   I    TA            
                                                        Evička
      yeah and also dem-f.sg.nom ((first name-dim-nom.f))
      yeah and also Eva
5     tam   byla      Boudová.
      there is-pst-f ((last name-nom.f))
      was there Boudová
6 IVA jo.
      yeah

2.2Add-ons

In the case of add-ons, the extension is prosodically and perceptually separated from the host TCU, i.e., material is audibly added to an otherwise complete syntactic structure. In case of replacements (2.2.1), the extension replaces an element of the host TCU, establishing a kind of co-referential relationship. The other category of add-ons, increments (2.2.2), does concern the addition of new material without replacing a previous element.

2.2.1Replacements

Replacements can concern various grammatical elements: nouns or adjectives (English, Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar), but also verbs (Japanese, ibid., 540) or whole clauses (German, ibid., 529). In our data, extensions of this type frequently concern nouns or pronouns, i.e., either a full noun gets replaced by a pronoun (anaphoric relationship), or a pronoun gets replaced by a full noun (cataphoric relationship). These examples seem to have in common that the extensions are related to the precise description or identification of a specific referent – a person or object. A first set of cases concerns proper names which are replaced by a more general description (not shown). In other cases, an indefinite pronoun gets replaced by a more precise referent, such as in Example (5). Karel asks about the current situation of his and his friends’ soccer team.

(5)

(HAMR_vývoj_000053)

1 KAR hele,    a  jak ↑to         je teďka; e: teda
      look-imp and how dem-nom.n.sg is  now   er then
      listen and what’s up with that now er:
2     (1.1)
3 KAR ten      vývoj;
      dem-nom.m development[nom.m]
      the development
4     (0.4)
5 IVA .h tak necháme   to      na     nahrávky [khh] .Hh
         so leave-1.pl dem-acc.n  for    recording-acc.f.pl
      .h so let’s keep that for the recordings [khh] .Hh
6 KAR                                          [jo.]
                                               [yes]
7 MAR vývoj              fotbalu?
      development[nom.m] soccer-gen.m
      the soccer development
8 KAR no:,
      yes

Karel’s enquiry contains as referent only the neutral pronoun “to” / “it” (line 1). After more than one second, he replaces “to” by “ten vývoj” / “the development” (line 3). Marcel’s repair initiation (line 7) shows that this first replacement could need yet another precision in order to be fully understood by this recipient.

Another type of replacement concerns elements that have already been mentioned, therefore this type of replacement does seem to cope less with explicit recognition, but rather with the action type of the sequence and possible recipient answer types.

(6)

(CAJ_špaget_002717)

1 MAR  .hh zkusila     sis        někdy:,[n-
           try-pst-f.sg aux.2sg.refl some time
       .hh have you already tried        [n-
2 YVE                                    [zvážit
                                          weigh-inf
                                         [to weigh
3      (.)
4 YVE  [ne
       [no
5 MAR  [zvážit    a   nabrat    na talíř       kolik
        weigh-inf and ladle-inf on plate[acc.m] how much
       to weigh and put on a plate and see how much
6      je     sto     gramů        těsto°vin°,
       is-3sg hundred gram-gen.m.pl noodle[gen.f.pl]
       is one hundred grams of noodles
7      (.)
8 YVE   e[::;
       er[:m
9 MAR    [pro ↑↑zajímavost   jsem   včera    ↑večer, [.h;&
         for interest[acc.f] aux.1sg yesterday evening
         [out of curiosity yesterday evening I’ve    [.h&
10 YVE                                               [°no,°
                                                     [yeah
11 MAR & dětem, .h  nabírala      špagety;
         kids-dat.pl ladle-pst-f.sg spaghetti-acc.f.pl
       & given the kids spaghetti
12     
                                                            sto     gramů        špaget;
       hundred gram-gen.m.pl spaghetti[gen.f.pl]
       one hundred grams of spaghetti
13 YVE no,
       yeah
14     (0.4)
15 MAR .hhh (0.3) e::; Robin         to       sněd (0.2)
                  erm ((name[nom.m])) dem-acc.n eat.up[pst.m]
       .hhh (0.3) erm Robin ate it up (0.2)

Marta is telling Yveta about a nutritionist’s recommendation to eat portions of one hundred grams of carbohydrates per meal (“one hundred grams of noodles”, line 6). As a preliminary to a story, she asks if Yveta knows what this quantity corresponds to when put on a plate (lines 1, 5–6). Marta then starts talking about her experience, i.e., serving this precise quantity to her children for dinner. In her turn, she replaces “spaghetti” with the precise amount, “one hundred grams of spaghetti” (lines 11–12). Yveta’s response after the replacement (line 13) shows that it is perceived as an important element of Marta’s turn and story. Thus, a replacement can also be used in order to format a storytelling and emphasise possible key elements.

2.2.2Increments

When a prosodic break between the host turn and its extension occurs (i.e., add-on), speakers might also add new material. These so-called increments can be grammatically fitted to the host turn (glue-on, 2.2.2.2) or not (insertable, 2.2.2.1), i.e., the latter extensions are syntactically “out of place” compared to a more canonical position.

2.2.2.1Insertables

Insertables seem to be quite rare in Czech. One rather clear example can be seen in Example (7), in which Marcel is talking about a chain of pubs in the UK. He first describes where the type of chain (“síť”) is located – all over Great Britain. After an inbreath he then states more precisely what type of chain it is – a chain of “hospod” / “pubs” (lines 1–2).

(7)

(FOSNA_síť_011157)

1 MAR .Hh voni tam   maj      potom takovou    síť
          they there have.3pl then   such-acc.f net[acc.f]
      .Hh there they have such a chain
2     po    celý     Británii, .Hh hospo:d
      along all-loc.f Britain-loc.f  pub[gen.f.pl]
      all over Britain .Hh of pubs
3     která         je le-  jako levná,
      which-nom.f.sg is che- like cheap-nom.f
      which is somehow cheap

Here, the case marking (“hospod” being the genitive plural of “hospoda”) clearly shows that this item belongs to the noun “síť”. As the canonical position of the modifier in the form of substantive attribute in Czech compounds would be just after the head – in this case “síť hospod” – this is a clear-cut example of an insertable in this language.

In Excerpt (8), Marta and Yveta discuss various nutritional recommendations, here, how many meals one should have per day. Yveta reports what her nutritionist told her (line 1).

(8)

(CAJ_petkrat denne_001705)

1 YVE  ne; mně    říkala,  .hh .tsk e:::m;
       no  me-dat tell-pst-f.3sg      erm
       no she told me .hh .tsk er:m
2 MAR  třikrát     denně?
       three-times daily
       three times a day
3      (0.3)
4 YVE  .hh
5      (0.6)
6 YVE  
                                                                pětkrát;   (.) denně.
       five-times     daily
       five times (.) a day
7      (0.5)
8 MAR  [pětkrát   °denně.°]
        five-times daily
       [five times a day  ]
9 YVE  [°to si° nep-]       šestkrát;
        dem-acc.n.sg refl un- up to six-times
       [(this is-)        ] up to six times
10     počkej,     já ti      to-
       wait-imp.2sg I  you-dat dem-acc.n
       wait I will-
11     (0.2)

Yveta corrects Marta’s first guess, three times a day (line 2), to “five times a day” (line 6, regarding the question if “denně” here could be analysed as an extension see the discussion in Section 3.3). She then abandons a possibly new TCU in overlap with Marta and adds “(up) to six times” (line 9). The “až” / “(up) to” shows that these elements are semantically and syntactically connected to her turn in line 6, meaning “pětkrát až šestkrát denně” / “five to six times a day”. The fact that she does not repeat “a day” in line 9 (versus Marta’s repeat line 8 of “denně”) shows that these elements are formatted as an insertable.

2.2.2.2Glue-ons

In our data, glue-ons frequently correspond to prepositional phrases. After a prosodic break, they can state more precisely place, Example (9), time, Example (10), means and manners, persons (“with X”), or different types of measures or quantities, Example (11). The added information is not syntactically compulsory, but fitted to the host TCU. These glue-ons mostly occur after gaps or minimal responses that indicate that these increments might be linked to a missing or inadequate recipient response (Ford, Fox & Thompson 2002 2002 “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar).

(9)

(SOUSED_Olomouc_001104)

1 JAN tak zítra    jedu;
      so  tomorrow go-1sg
      so tomorrow I go
2     zítra    jedu   v ↑jedenáct vlakem,
      tomorrow go-1sg at eleven   train-ins.m
      tomorrow at eleven I go by train
3     (.)
4 JAN do Olomouce,
      to ((city name-gen))
      to Olomouc

(10)

(HAMR_fotbal_001820)

1 MAR a   ta       desítka         nebyla,     špatná.
      and dem-nom.f number.ten-nom.f neg-is-pst-f bad-nom.f
      and this ((beer type)) was not bad
2     (0.5)
3 MAR po    tom      fotbale;    myslim;
      after dem-loc.m soccer-loc.m think-1sg
      after this soccer match I think

(11)

(CAJ_za480euro_001141)

1 MAR já jsem   si  koupila   ten      super (.) vitamix;
      I  aux.1sg refl buy-pst-f dem-acc.m super    ((brand name[acc]))
      I have bought this super (.) vitamix
2     (0.7)
3 MAR za  štyry sta        osmdesát  euro;
      for four  hundred-acc eighty    euro
      for four hundred-eighty euros
4     to   jsem   nemohla      ani    Petrovi   říct,
      that aux.1sg neg-can-pst-f even ((name-dat)) say-inf
      this I couldn’t even tell Peter

Although non-clausal glue-ons seem to be more frequent, another important group of Czech glue-ons are clausal. These can take on the apparel of different types of finite dependent clauses, e.g. relative clauses (introduced by “což”, “which” / “that”), adverbial clauses (e.g. introduced by “než” / “than”), or noun clauses introduced by “že” / “that”.

2.2.2.3Free constituents

Free constituents do not syntactically depend on the host turn, but do so only semantically and pragmatically (Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 515). They thus do not represent a new TCU. In our data, we have relatively few instances of this phenomenon. This is the case of the extension “such a (silly) goose” (Example 12, line 6).

(12)

(CAJ_husa_002026)

1 YVE .hh a   pak   jsem si      říkala;  .h   tyjo- .h
          and then  am   refl-dat tell-pst-f.1sg interjection
      .hh and then I told myself .h gosh .h
2     teď už      by          stači↑lo     zmáčknout
      now already aux.cond.3sg suffice-pst-n push-inf
      now it would be enough to push
3     ten      knofl(h)ík; eh::
      dem-acc.m button[acc.m]
      this     b(h)utton eh::
4     a   m(h)ám   p(h)o prst(h)u; °he, hm; hm;°
      and have-1sg after finger-loc.m
      and I w(h)ould l(h)ose my f(h)inger °he, hm; hm;°
5     (.)
6 YVE .hh t(h)akov(h)á husa; .hhh
          such-nom.f    goose-nom.f
      .hh s(h)uch a s(h)illy goose .hhh

Yveta talks about trying to clean the interior of a blender with her hand and her then becoming aware of the risks (lines 1–4). The free constituent (line 6) is added after a last TCU, some laughter particles, and a micro pause. Semantically, the self-deprecating assessment is clearly related to the previously described possible accident, its host, as it is “[…] backwards-looking and dependent on the prior unit for [its] interpretation” (Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 525).

3.Discussion

The exploration of our small data set has shown a large variety of TCU extensions in Czech. Although all types of syntactic extensions suggested by the main typology (1.3) seem to exist, some are clearly more frequent than others. Non-add-ons seem to be generally quite rare in Czech, whereas in the group of add-ons, both replacements and increments are frequent. Within the group of increments however, the majority of cases are glue-ons, while insertables and free constituents are rather rare. The frequency of the various types of extension obviously depends on the way in which each type is delimited and distinguishable from other types or from related phenomena. In this part, we thus aim to discuss analytical problems that arise when applying the classification suggested by Vorreiter (2003)Vorreiter, Susanne 2003 “Turn Continuations: Towards a Cross-Linguistic Classification.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures 39: 1–25.Google Scholar and Couper-Kuhlen & Ono (2007)Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar to Czech. First, we will discuss problems in clearly distinguishing between replacement and glue-on (3.1). Then we will illustrate possible similarities between glue-ons and insertables in Czech (3.2). Finally, we will present an analytic problem specific to the free word order in Czech, namely the fuzzy boundaries when contrasting TCU continuations with TCU extensions (3.3).

3.1The difference between replacements and glue-ons in Czech

The main difference between the two add-on types replacement and glue-on is that the former is replacing an element of the host turn, while the latter is adding new information. Grammatically speaking, replacements are co-referential because they explicitly refer to an (obligatory) element of the host turn, while glue-ons are not: they typically contain non-obligatory elements such as prepositional phrases, clauses, or adjectives. While at first sight this distinction seems to be quite clear (see previous examples in 2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2), it becomes less clear-cut when considering cases that contain several TCU extensions in a row. With respect to action format, Example (13) illustrates that chains of syntactic extensions frequently occur in itinerary descriptions (Schegloff 1972Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1972 “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 75–119. New York: MacMillan, The Free Press.Google Scholar) in which participants formulate a series of places, ranging from more general or larger locations to more specific or smaller ones.

(13)

(HAMR_ doskolydoBranika_011347)

1 MAR ale já většinou:, když jedu   do práce      tak- .hh
      but I  mostly     when go-1sg to  work-gen.f so
      but mainly I      when I go to work then .hh
2     to       mám      přes školu;
      dem-acc.n have-1sg over  school-acc.f
      I’m going past the school
3     že   vodvezu  děti      do školy:
      that take-1sg kid-acc.pl to school-gen.f
      so that I take the kids to school
4     (0.6)
5     do Braníka
      to ((quarter name-gen.m))
      to Braník
6     (0.2)
7     a   pak  z    toho       Braníka
      and then from dem-gen.m ((quarter name-gen.m))
      and then from Braník
8     jedu   tramvají.
      go-1sg tram-ins.f
      I go by tram

Marcel has been asked about his daily travels within Prague. He states that he takes his kids to school, adding after a 0.6 second pause the name of the quarter where the school is situated. Does “to Braník” (line 5) actually replace “to school” (=replacement), or is it rather added in a grammatical continuity, providing new information (=glue-on, i.e., “I take the kids to school to Braník”)? Interestingly, the name of the quarter seems to function as a sort of topological pivot, as Marcel then formulates the next step in this itinerary (from the quarter where his kids go to school to where he works). In cases where the extension is a prepositional phrase using the same preposition, the distinction between replacement and glue-on seems rather difficult.

Another tricky issue regarding the distinction between glue-on and replacement is linked to a grammatical feature of Czech. As Czech is a pro-drop language, subjects can be encoded in the verb only, i.e., they are not obligatorily expressed as full (pro)nouns (Naughton 2005Naughton, James 2005Czech. An Essential Grammar. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar, 74). In a previous section, we have already presented cases where demonstratives or pronouns (2.2.1) have been replaced by more precise referents, thus clearly being replacements. If there is a full or dummy noun phrase in the host TCU, the notion of replacement obviously fits. But how should one treat cases where a subject in the host TCU is expressed through morphological features of the verb only, such as in Excerpt (14) (lines 6–8)?

(14)

(CAJ_salát_005259)

1 YVE  [nejhorší je naloupat a   &
        worst    is peel-inf and
       [the worst part is to peel and &
2 MAR  [°(co)°
       [ (what-acc)
3 YVE  & nakrájet [ty        brambory,=
         cut-inf    dem-nom.pl potato-acc.f.pl
       & to cut   [the potatoes=
4 MAR             [.hhh
5 YVE  =[pak  už      to       je jednoduché;]
         then already dem-nom.n is easy-n
       =[after that it’s easy                ]
6 MAR  [HELE     a  jak  ↑dlouho ti      vydr]°ží°.
        look-imp and how   long   you-dat last-3sg/pl
       [listen and how long can (it/they) be kept]
7      (0.5)
8 MAR  ten      salát.
       dem-nom.m salad[nom.m]
       the salad
9      (.)
10 YVE než  ho       sním;     takže (h)asi
       than him[acc] eat.up-1sg so    maybe
       until I eat it so r(h)ound about
11     tak půl  d(h)ne(H) hehehe,
       so  half day-gen.m
       half a day hehehe

Marta enquires about Yveta’s recipe for potato salad. When Marta asks how long the salad can be kept, the host TCU (line 6) does not contain a clearly expressed referent. As in Czech, finite verbs do not obligatorily have to be accompanied by personal pronouns, only the final morpheme in the verb form “vydrž-í” (line 6) indicates a third person subject (the “it /they” being necessary in the idiomatic English translation only in order to convey the possible syntactic completeness of the Czech original). As in this conjugation type, number is underspecified for the third person, it could also refer to the “brambory” / “potatoes” (line 3). After a short pause, Marta adds “the salad” (line 8), making the subject of the host TCU both explicit and available in post overlap resolution position (Schegloff 2000b 2000b “Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language in Society 29 (1): 1–63.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar). Should this extension be treated as a glue-on, as it is syntactically fitted to the host utterance and as it adds more information (corresponding to something like “how long can be kept (0.5) the salad”)? In general, a co-reference hints at a replacement (“how long can it be kept (0.5) the salad”), however, how should we treat a co-reference in case of a subject being expressed in a verbal morpheme only (here, the “í” in “vydrž-í” indicating a third person)? In other words, can a noun phrase “replace” a non-expressed – or at least underspecified, as only contained in one morpheme within the verb – referent? Treating this example as a replacement would indeed presuppose the existence of some kind of “zero pronoun”, as has been discussed in case of possible “zero arguments” in Japanese, where the distinction between insertables and replacements seems to meet similar problems (Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 543).

3.2The difference between glue-ons and insertables

Insertables seem to be rather rare in Czech (cf. 2.2.2.1). In languages with a free word order, the boundaries between glue-ons, i.e., newly added grammatically fitted material, and insertables, i.e., newly added, but grammatically unfitted, “out of place” material, seem to be rather fuzzy. In highly inflectional languages, the perception of some material as syntactically “out of place” seems to be somewhat difficult. In contrast, languages with a rather fixed word order possess potentially clearer syntactic boundaries. If we look at syntactic extensions in German, the concept of “sentence brace” (e.g. Auer 2007 2007 “Why are Increments such Elusive Objects? An Afterthought.” Pragmatics 17: 647–658.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar) seems to make it easier – at least from a rather normative perspective on syntax – to distinguish “well-placed”, i.e., inside the sentence brace, from “out of place” elements, i.e., insertables (see also Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 542–543 regarding Japanese). In Czech, a sentence brace does not exist, and adjectives, adverbs, or full nouns can be freely positioned (with some clitic elements being bound to specific positions, cf. 1.2). Examples (15) and (16) illustrate some interesting instances of this problem, where an adjective, Example (15), or a noun, Example (16), is in final position. The “@” indicates an alternative position of the final element.

(15)

(SOUSED_občanství_000424)

1 NOR i    když má- (.) e dítě      se   Španělem,
      even if   has-3sg   kid[acc-n] with Spaniard-ins.m
      although she has (.) er a child with a Spaniard
2     ale nemá        @    občanst°ví°;       °španělské°
      but neg-has-3sg       citizenship[acc.n] Spanish-adj-acc.n
      she doesn’t have the citizenship (the) Spanish (one)

In Czech, the adjective can be positioned in front of or after the noun it qualifies. Therefore both “občanství španělské” and “španělské občanství” (“Spanish citizenship”) would be possible. Thus, in Czech, the post-positioning of the adjective as such does not indicate if it is a single TCU or a host TCU with an extension, and if – in case of a TCU extension – it would best be treated as a glue-on or an insertable. This is due to the fact that Czech does not have obligatorily expressed articles, which in other languages might indicate a certain type of TCU extension (as conveyed in the idiomatic translation “the citizenship – the Spanish one”), as they are using a retraction to the determiner (e.g. in German, Birkner et al. 2010Birkner, Karin, Sofie Henricson, Camilla Lindholm, et al. 2010 “Retraction Patterns and Self-Repair in German and Swedish Prepositional Phrases.” InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures 46: 1–32.Google Scholar).

(16)

(Soused_holky_000649)

1 JAN jsem ráda;   zatím  se      @ jako drží;   holky
      am   happy-f so far refl-acc @ like hold-3pl girl-acc.f.pl
      I’m happy now (they/@) are like disciplined the girls

In the case of the post-positioned noun “holky” / “girls”, Example (16), although the position indicated by the @ could be described as a more canonical position, both positions would correspond to grammatically correct sentences (and maintain the same scope of “jako”, in this case concerning the verb “drží”). A slightly falling intonation on the verb shows us that the following noun seems indeed to have been added, though there is no clearly perceivable pause between both items. Thus we would have arguments for treating this case either as a glue-on or as an insertable.

We might indeed wonder if the concept of insertable is useful for languages with a free word order – or if it is a useful concept at all. Couper-Kuhlen & Ono (2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 524) proclaimed insertables to be “vanishingly rare” in their English material, and Horlacher (2015 2015La dislocation à droite revisitée. Une approche interactionniste. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 115) states the same for spoken French. As has been suggested, canonicity of a syntactic construction should thus not be assessed with regards to standard grammar, mostly based on written language, but on frequency in spoken discourse (Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 524–525). In that sense, one could argue that the final elements in Excerpts (15) and (16) are possibly in a marked position (see also Auer 1991Auer, Peter 1991 “Vom Ende deutscher Sätze.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 19: 139–157.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 147–8 for German), but not necessarily “out of place” and thus insertables. This conceptualisation would also correspond to the traditional description of topical sentence structure in Czech (cf. Cvrček et al. 2010Cvrček, Václav, Vilém Kodýtek, Marie Kopřivová, et al. 2010Mluvnice současné češtiny. 1: Jak se píše a jak se mluví. Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar). If one assumes a canonical syntactic structure as opposed to marked ones, the above-mentioned excerpts could be treated as insertables. Grammatically however, they are glue-ons, as they do provide more material in a position of post completion. In that sense, the conceptualisation and distinction of insertables vs. glue-ons largely hinges on the conceptualisation of a more or less standardised syntax of a given language.

3.3TCU continuation vs. TCU extension in Czech

Yet another basic problem when trying to describe various types of syntactic extensions in Czech – also linked to free word order – is how to distinguish simple TCU continuations from TCU extensions such as glue-ons (see also the case of “denně“ in Example 8, line 06). Example 15 (3.2) already illustrates this point quite clearly: is the adjective “Spanish” to be treated as being part of the initial TCU, or rather as an add-on (glue-on)? As both “španělské občanství” and “občanství španělské” would be acceptable, the status of “Spanish” here remains ambiguous with regards to TCU extension. But the falling intonation on “citizenship” as well as the low volume afterwards might indicate that in this case the adjective has indeed been “added”.

A similar problem arises in Example (17) in the case of the adverb “vzteky” / “angrily” (line 1). The lengthening on the noun “display” could hint at the completion of a possible host turn to which then “vzteky” is added.

(17)

(HAMR_vzteky_003720)

1 MAR jo HH HI, .HH kousnul       sem    do displeje:;   vzteky;
      yeah          bite-pst.m.1sg aux.1sg to display-gen.m angrily
      yeah HH hi .HH I’ve bitten in the display angrily
2     .HH Hh a   potom- potom už       jako na tom
             and then   then  any more like on dem-m.loc
      .HH Hh and then- then like on this
3     displeji:,   už       nebylo     ↑nic     vidě:t; .hh
      display-loc.m any more neg-is-pst-n nothing see-inf
      display nothing could be seen anymore .hh

A prosodic break can be perceived between the words “displeje” and “vzteky” (line 1). The analysis with PRAAT shows that the intonation decreases during the two final syllables of the word “displeje” by 4.1 semitones and that there is a perceivable vowel lengthening (see Figures 2 and 3). On the other hand, Marcel did not finish the word “displeje” with a descent to the low level of his voice register, and neither did the loudness nor articulation rate decrease significantly – in other words, there do not seem to be enough distinguishable prosodic features for deciding on this adverb’s clear status as add-on or not.

Another grammatical ambiguity can be discovered in Example (18), as “the girls have which citizenship” appears to be a syntactically complete (interrogative) structure. Can a direct object – which seems to be a rather obligatory component when considering the valence of the verb (“to have”) – also be treated as a TCU extension? This view would be also supported by the closing intonation on “jaké”:

(18)

(SOUSED_jakéobčanství_000551)

1 NOR .h no a   holky        mají-    a
       yeah and girl-nom.f.pl have-3pl and
      .h yeah and the girls have- and
2     holky        mají     jak°é°.    °občanství°
      girl-nom.f.pl have-3pl which-acc.n citizenship[acc.n]
      the girls have which citizenship

This analytical difficulty can be resolved when considering the full sequential context of the turn Example (19). Nora self-selects (line 2) in overlap with Jana’s turn ending (leading to a post-overlap recycling, Schegloff 1987 1987 “Recycled Turn Beginnings: A Precise Repair Mechanism in Conversation’s Turn-taking Organization.” In Talk and Social Organization, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 70–85. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar). As we can see, Jana starts responding to Nora’s question right after the lexical item “jaké” (lines 3–4, see also Schegloff 1996 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 91). This shows that Jana treats Nora’s question as being complete after “jaké” (which in Czech would correspond to a grammatically complete question, i.e., “And the girls have which?”, vs. “And the girls have which citizenship?”). Thus, a final element being in full overlap with a response to this turn indicates here that it could be analysed as an added element (similar to overlapped tag-positioned address-terms described by Jefferson 1973Jefferson, Gail 1973 “A Case of Precision Timing in Ordinary Conversation: Overlapped Tag-Positioned Address Terms in Closing Sequences.” Semiotica IX (1): 47–96.Google Scholar), i.e., a TCU extension (possibly a non-clausal glue-on, see also the omission of “občanství” in Jana’s reply, line 5).

(19)

(SOUSED_jakéobčanství_000551_long)

1 JAN [a   potom máš       ňáké pohovory- ]
       and then  have-2sg  some interview-acc.m.pl
      [and then  you have  some interviews]
2 NOR [.h no a   holky        mají-      a]
        yeah and girl-nom.f.pl have-3pl   and
      [.h yeah and the girls     have- and]
3     holky        mají     jaké.      [°občanství°]
      girl-nom.f.pl have-3pl which-acc.n citizenship[acc.n]
      the girls    have     which      [citizenship]
4 JAN                                  [holky      ] maj
                                        girl-nom.f.pl have-3pl
                                       [the girls  ] have
5     pouze °je°nom něme°cké;°
      only  just    German-adj-acc.n
      only the German (one)

The last example does also illustrate the usefulness of embedding syntactic structures within their sequential context. If isolated from its sequential context, Yveta’s turn in Excerpt (20) (line 1) would be possibly ambiguous. Is the prepositional phrase “v mikrovlnce” / “in the microwave” part of the host / initial TCU or an extension?

(20)
(CAJ_mikrovlnka_002624)

1 MAR vo- (.) vohřej         trošičku[:, v  mi]krovlnce,
      he-     heat.up-imp.2sg little      in microwave-loc.f
      he- (.) heat it up a little    [in the mi]crowave
2 YVE                                [jo;      ]
                                     [yes      ]
3     (.)
4 YVE jo;
      yes

First, Yveta complies (line 2) with Marta’s request to warm up the milk for her coffee. When Marta states more explicitly how she should warm up the milk (“in the microwave”), Yveta responds a second time (line 4). Although the prosodic features are less clear-cut (no clear pause before the add-on, rising intonation), the addressee’s reactions can show that “v mikrovlnce” is indeed an add-on (in this case a glue-on), as both the host and the add-on are responded to – or rather are treated by Yveta as elements that are in need of separate responses. Although one might argue that this type of analysis works obviously well in cases where there indeed is a first response to the host TCU and then a second one to its extension, these examples certainly hint at the potential of a detailed sequential analysis for better understanding and classifying TCU continuations and TCU extensions.

4.Conclusion

In this contribution we have endeavoured to carry out a first description of syntactic extensions in spoken Czech using Vorreiter’s (2003)Vorreiter, Susanne 2003 “Turn Continuations: Towards a Cross-Linguistic Classification.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures 39: 1–25.Google Scholar classification. In sum, the different types of syntactic extensions that have been suggested do also exist in Czech. However, there seems to be a specific distribution of extension types. In general, add-ons (i.e., replacements and increments) seem to be more frequent than non-add-ons. Within the group of add-ons, replacements and the increment type glue-on seem to be the most frequent ones. Compared to the summary of preferences for TCU continuation in English, German, and Japanese (Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 546), Czech seems to be most similar to English.

Whereas clear cases of various TCU extension types can be found in Czech, some of its grammatical properties do lead to fuzzy boundaries between some extension types. As the discussion (3) has shown, some interesting interferences between replacements and glue-ons emerge (3.1). On the one hand, this is related to the possibility of not overtly expressing the referent in Czech. In cases where the referent is encoded in the verb only, only a theoretical zero pronoun would make it possible to clearly distinguish between replacement and glue-on. On the other, the possibility of creating chains of prepositional phrases enables speakers to both replace previous elements and add new material. The overlapping of glue-ons and insertables (3.2) also shows that bare syntactic structure can be ambiguous with regards to clear-cut classifications. A possible solution to this problem might be to distinguish between more (i.e., “canonical”) and less (i.e., “marked”) frequent syntactic structures for a given language, the latter then corresponding to insertables. However, whether the notion of insertable for this type of TCU extension would still be useful (as it relates to a rather normative view on syntactic positions) remains up for discussion. This type of analytical problem relates to a third, more general one (cf. 3.3). What are the necessary criteria for perceiving TCU extensions in languages where obligatory and non-obligatory elements can move rather freely within a given syntactic construction? In cases of clear boundaries, prototypically, when there is a clearly perceivable pause between the end of a TCU and a subsequent element, there seems to be no problem in identifying a TCU extension of the add-on category. However, in cases where a prosodic break between a possible host TCU and its extension is missing, and where the extension is consequently defined according to syntactic position only (see Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono 2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 515), the recognition of turn extensions is clearly more problematic. If there is hardly any perceivable pause and relatively weak prosodic cues (such as a decrease in loudness and articulation rate, or a vowel lengthening), the boundaries between “standard” TCU continuation and TCU extension (as non-add-on or add-on) become fuzzier.

As we have sketched out, a possible solution to this problem would be to analyse a given turn within its specific and larger sequential context, a topic which shall be elaborated in a follow-up paper to this contribution. More specifically, taking into account the interlocutors’ response(s) to these emerging turns show if these final elements are treated as belonging to one TCU (one response) or as being extensions (several clearly separate responses). Systematically taking the participants’ perspective on emerging syntactic structures into account seems to be a useful way for describing turn extensions in languages where both obligatory and non-obligatory syntactic components can occupy a large variety of positions. Specifically for Czech, this approach might lead to a possible revision of the concept of sentence element actualisation (cf. Daneš 1974Daneš, František (ed) 1974Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague/The Hague/Paris: Academia/Mouton.Google Scholar; Firbas 1992Firbas, Jan 1992Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Hajičová et al. 1998Hajičová, Eva, Barbara H. Partee, and Petr Sgall (eds) 1998Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantics Content. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Mathesius 1939Mathesius, Vilém 1939 “O tak zvaném aktuálním členění větném.” Slovo a slovesnost 5: 171–174.Google Scholar, 1942 1942 “Řeč a sloh.” In Čtení o jazyce a poezii, ed. by Bohuslav Havránek, and Jan Mukařovský, 11–102. Prague: Družstevní práce.Google Scholar) and might show whether – and if so, how – this central principle for explaining word order in written Czech can be transferred to spoken Czech.

These specific points might lead to more general reflections on how to analyse and understand syntactic extensions. Though more normative, strictly structural descriptions of syntax can be a helpful starting point for describing syntactic structures in spoken discourse, the overlapping of various structural categories might point towards the necessity of taking the sequential and interactional embeddedness of these structures more explicitly into account. In that sense, syntactic extensions might perhaps be better organised around specific sequential contexts, and thus action and sequence formats (Auer 2006 2006 “Increments and More. Anmerkungen zur augenblicklichen Diskussion über die Erweiterbarkeit von Turnkonstruktionseinheiten.” In Grammatik und Interaktion. Untersuchungen zum Zusammenhang von grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprächsprozessen, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 279–294. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar). As emerged from our data, syntactic extensions seem to cluster within specific sequence types, such as extended tellings, (requests for) explanations (e.g. recipes, instructions, advice giving), or itinerary descriptions. A next step would thus be to focus the analysis less on structural criteria for syntactic extensions, and more explicitly on turn and TCU extension as a situated practice (specifically considering the temporality of spoken language, cf. Auer 2009 2009 “On-line Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar).

Adopting a “focus on action-oriented accounts for turn-construction” (Ford, Fox & Thompson 2013 2013 “Units and/or Action Trajectories?” In Units of Talk – Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed, and Geoffrey Raymond, 13–55. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 49) also implies that the investigation of syntactic extension in face-to-face interaction should be based on video data. The absence and presence of mutual orientation, of visible and audible responses, or the possible presence of visible types of TCU and turn extensions (Ford, Fox & Thompson 2002 2002 “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar; Ford, Thompson & Drake 2012Ford, Cecilia E., Sandra A. Thompson, and Veronika Drake 2012 “Bodily-Visual Practices and Turn Continuation.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 192–212.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar) then become available for analysis, and can contribute to a better understanding of their use within longer sequences. A fully-fledged sequential and multimodal approach (e.g. Goodwin 1979Goodwin, Charles 1979 “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar, 1981 1981Conversational Organization. Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar; Iwasaki 2009Iwasaki, Shimako 2009 “Initiating Interactive Turn Spaces in Japanese Conversation: Local Projection and Collaborative Action.” Discourse Processes 46 (2–3): 226–246.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Mondada 2013Mondada, Lorenza 2013 “Multimodal Interaction.” In Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, ed. by Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke et al., 577–589. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar, 2015 2015 “Multimodal Completions.” In Temporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Susanne Günthner, 267–307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar) to TCU and turn extension might indeed show why specific formats of TCU extensions seem to cluster around prototypical sequence or action types. In that way, the possible ambiguity or fuzziness of various TCU extension types in Czech and other languages might then be comprehensibly connected with moment-by-moment negotiations of recipiency, responsiveness, and action formats, and might, ultimately, lead to a revision of the currently structure-based labels for describing syntactic extensions.

Acknowledgements

This research has been funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF Ambizione project No. 148146 “The epistemics of grammar: A comparative study of co-constructions in Czech, French, and German”, PI F. Oloff) and the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (project No. 15-1116S “The syntax of spoken Czech”, collaborator M. Havlík, PI J. Hoffmannová). We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their relevant comments.

References

Altmann, Hans
1981Formen der “Herausstellung” im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter
1991 “Vom Ende deutscher Sätze.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 19: 139–157.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1996 “On the Prosody and Syntax of Turn-Continuations.” In Prosody in Conversation. Interactional Studies, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7–36.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Increments and More. Anmerkungen zur augenblicklichen Diskussion über die Erweiterbarkeit von Turnkonstruktionseinheiten.” In Grammatik und Interaktion. Untersuchungen zum Zusammenhang von grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprächsprozessen, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 279–294. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
2007 “Why are Increments such Elusive Objects? An Afterthought.” Pragmatics 17: 647–658.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “On-line Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Frank E. Müller
(eds) 1999Language in Time. The Rhythm and Tempo of Spoken Interaction. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Birkner, Karin, Sofie Henricson, Camilla Lindholm, et al.
2010 “Retraction Patterns and Self-Repair in German and Swedish Prepositional Phrases.” InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures 46: 1–32.Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B.
2008 “Reopening Russian Conversations: The Discourse Particle -to and the Negotiation of Interpersonal Accountability in Closings.” Human Communication Research 34: 99–136.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “A Simple Da?: Affirming Responses to Polar Questions in Russian Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 100: 40–58.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Čechová, Marie, Miloš Dokulil, Zdeněk Hlavsa, et al.
1996Čeština: řeč a jazyk. Prague: ISV nakladatelství.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2012 “Turn Continuation and Clause Combinations.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 273–299.Crossref 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.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Cvrček, Václav, Vilém Kodýtek, Marie Kopřivová, et al.
2010Mluvnice současné češtiny. 1: Jak se píše a jak se mluví. Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar
Daneš, František
(ed) 1974Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague/The Hague/Paris: Academia/Mouton.Google Scholar
Daneš, František, Miroslav Grepl, and Zdeněk Hlavsa
(eds) 1987Mluvnice češtiny 3. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Field, Margaret
2007 “Increments in Navajo Conversation.” Pragmatics 17: 637–646.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Firbas, Jan
1992Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson
(eds) 2002The Language of Turn and Sequence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002 “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 “Units and/or Action Trajectories?” In Units of Talk – Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed, and Geoffrey Raymond, 13–55. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Sandra A. Thompson, and Veronika Drake
2012 “Bodily-Visual Practices and Turn Continuation.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 192–212.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald
1987 “Tails as a Repair Mechanism in English Conversations.” In Getting One’s Word into Line. On Word Order and Functional Grammar, ed. by Jan Nuyts, and George de Schutter, 119–130. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1994The Pragmatics of Discourse Anaphora in English: Evidence from Conversational Repair. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1979 “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
1981Conversational Organization. Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H.
1980 “Processes of Mutual Monitoring Implicated in the Production of Description Sequences.” Sociological Inquiry 50: 303–317.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Grepl, Miroslav, and Petr Karlík
1985Skladba spisovné češtiny. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.Google Scholar
Hajičová, Eva, Barbara H. Partee, and Petr Sgall
(eds) 1998Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantics Content. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Margret Selting
(eds) 2005Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Hausenblas, Karel
1958 “Syntaktická závislost, způsoby a prostředky jejího vyjadřování.” Bulletin Vysoké školy ruského jazyka 2: 23–51.Google Scholar
Havránek, Bohuslav, and Alois Jedlička
1963Česká mluvnice. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.Google Scholar
Hoffmannová, Jana, and Jiří Zeman
2017 “Výzkum syntaxe mluvené češtiny: inventarizace problémů.” Slovo a slovenost 78: 45–66.Google Scholar
Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
2007 “La dislocation à droite comme ressource pour l’alternance des tours de parole: vers une syntaxe incrémentale.” Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique 47: 117–136.Google Scholar
2015La dislocation à droite revisitée. Une approche interactionniste. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Hronek, Jiří, and Petr Sgall
1992Čeština bez příkras. Prague: H&H.Google Scholar
Im, Hangyeong
2004 “Increments and Phonetic Analysis in Korean.” The Journal of Linguistics Science 1: 365–386.Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang
2012 “Ellipsen, Inkremente und Fragmente aus interaktionaler Perspektive.” gidi Arbeitspapiere 45: 1–28.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shimako
2009 “Initiating Interactive Turn Spaces in Japanese Conversation: Local Projection and Collaborative Action.” Discourse Processes 46 (2–3): 226–246.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1973 “A Case of Precision Timing in Ordinary Conversation: Overlapped Tag-Positioned Address Terms in Closing Sequences.” Semiotica IX (1): 47–96.Google Scholar
1983 “Notes on Some Orderlinesses of Overlap Onset.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28: 1–28.Google Scholar
2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis. Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Kaderka, Petr, and Zdeňka Svobodová
2006 “Jak přepisovat audiovizuální záznam rozhovoru? Manuál pro přepisovatele televizních diskusních pořadů.” Jazykovědné aktuality 43 (3–4): 18–51.Google Scholar
Karlík, Petr, Marek Nekula, and Zdenka Rusínová
(eds) 1995Příruční mluvnice češtiny. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun
2001 “Turn-Constructional Practice in Korean Conversation: Organization of Turn Increments.” Language Research 37 (4): 885–922.Google Scholar
Kodýtek, Vilém
2007 “Mluvená čeština v Praze a Brně: sonda do mluvených korpusů.” Slovo a slovesnost (1): 23–37.Google Scholar
Koike, Chisato
2003 “An Analysis of Increments in Japanese Conversation in Terms of Syntax and Prosody.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 11, ed. by P. M. Clancy, 67–80. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Krekoski, Ross
2012 “Clausal Continuations in Japanese.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 300–313.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva
2012 “Syntactically Non-Integrated Finnish Jos ‘If’-Conditional Clauses as Directives.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 213–242.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Jan
2006 “Grammar in the Service of Interaction: Exploring Turn Organization in Swedish.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39 (1): 81–117.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Luke, Kang-kwong
2012 “Dislocation or Afterthought? – A Conversation Analytic Account of Incremental Sentences in Chinese.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 338–365.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Luke, Kang-kwong, Sandra A. Thompson, and Tsuyoshi Ono
2012 “Turns and Increments: A Comparative Perspective.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 155–162.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Luke, Kang-kwong, and Wei Zhang
2007 “Retrospective Turn Continuations in Mandarin Chinese Conversation.” Pragmatics 17: 605–635.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Mathesius, Vilém
1939 “O tak zvaném aktuálním členění větném.” Slovo a slovesnost 5: 171–174.Google Scholar
1942 “Řeč a sloh.” In Čtení o jazyce a poezii, ed. by Bohuslav Havránek, and Jan Mukařovský, 11–102. Prague: Družstevní práce.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2013 “Multimodal Interaction.” In Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, ed. by Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke et al., 577–589. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2015 “Multimodal Completions.” In Temporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Susanne Günthner, 267–307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Naughton, James
2005Czech. An Essential Grammar. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nekvapil, Jiří
1991 “The Syntactic Process of Parcellation and Supplementation and Their Results: Parcellated Formations and Supplemented Formations.” In Neue Fragen der Linguistik. Akten des 25. linguistischen Kolloquiums, Paderborn 1990, ed. by Elisabeth Feldbusch, Reiner Pogarell, and Cornelia Weiss, 329–333. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1993 “On the Asymmetry between Syntactic and Elementary Textual Units.” In Studies in Functional Stylistics, ed. by J. Chloupek, and Jiri Nekvapil, 186–222. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson
(eds) 1996Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Ogiermann, E., and Jörg Zinken
2011 “How to Propose an Action as Objectively Necessary: the Case of Polish Trzeba x (“one needs to x”).” Research on Language & Social Interaction 44 (3): 263–287.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Sandra Thompson
1994 “Unattached NPs in English Conversation.” Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 20 (1): 402–419.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Panevová, Jarmila, Eva Hajičová, Václava Kettnerová, et al.
2014Mluvnice současné češtiny. 2: Syntax češtiny na základě anotovaného korpusu. Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1972 “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 75–119. New York: MacMillan, The Free Press.Google Scholar
1987 “Recycled Turn Beginnings: A Precise Repair Mechanism in Conversation’s Turn-taking Organization.” In Talk and Social Organization, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 70–85. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2000a “On Turns’ Possible Completion, More or Less: Increments and Trail-offs.” Paper delivered at the 1st Euroconference on Interactional Linguistics (Spa, Belgium).
2000b “Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language in Society 29 (1): 1–63.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “Conversation Analysis: A Project in Process – ‘Increments’.” Forum lecture delivered at the LSA Linguistic Institute, University of California Santa Barbara: 1–22.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret
1994 “Konstruktionen am Satzrand als interaktive Ressource in natürlichen Gesprächen.” In Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation? Studien zu einem Interaktionsfeld von Grammatik, Pragmatik und Sprachtypologie, ed. by Brigitta Haftka, 229–318. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds) 2001Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, et al.
2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung Online 10: 353–402.Google Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena, and Ritva Laury
2007 “Complement Clauses as Turn Continuations: The Finnish et(tä)-Clause.” Pragmatics 17: 553–572.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Sgall, Petr
1982 “Zur Typologie der Thema-Rhema-Gliederung.” In Studien zum Tschechischen, Slowakischen und Deutschen aus vergleichender Sicht, ed. by Gert Jäger, Václav Křístek, and Jozef Mistrík, 173–185. Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
2012 “Turn-Continuation by Self and by Other.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 314–337.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko
2000 “Turn Projection in Japanese Talk-in-Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (1): 1–38.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Thielemann, Nadine, and Peter Kosta
(eds) 2013Approaches to Slavic Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Townsend, Charles E.
1990A Description of Spoken Prague Czech. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Vorreiter, Susanne
2003 “Turn Continuations: Towards a Cross-Linguistic Classification.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures 39: 1–25.Google Scholar
Walker, Gareth
2004 “On Some Interactional and Phonetic Properties of Increments to Turns in Talk-in-Interaction.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction. Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia E. Ford, 147–169. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, James
2010Moravians in Prague. A Sociolinguistic Study of Dialect Contact in the Czech Republic. Frankfurt/Berlin/Brussels: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Zhang, Wei
2012 “Latching/Rush-Through as a Turn-Holding Device and its Functions in Retrospectively Oriented Pre-Emptive Turn Continuation: Findings from Mandarin Conversation.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 163–191.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann
2013 “Responsibility and Action: Invariants and Diversity in Requests for Objects in British English and Polish Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (3): 256–276.Crossref logoGoogle Scholar

Address for correspondence

Florence Oloff

University of Oulu

Faculty of Humanities

P.O. Box 1000

90014 University of Oulu

Finland

florence.oloff@oulu.fi

Co-author information

Martin Havlík
Czech Language Institute
Ústav pro jazyk český (AV ČR)
havlik@ujc.cas.cz