Complex syntax-in-interaction

Doehler, Simona Pekarek; Maschler, Yael; Keevallik, Leelo; Lindström, Jan

doi:10.1075/slsi.32.01doe

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Syntax emerges in the course of speaker turns in interaction (Auer and Pfänder, 2011;Pekarek Doehler et al, 2020), and syntactic structures are regularly accomplished in the interplay of multimodal resources, including language, gaze, gesture, and mobility (Broth and Mondada, 2013;C. Goodwin, 1979).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suspending Syntax: Bodily Strain and Progressivity in Talk

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People speak not only under relaxed conditions but also during strenuous activities, and grammatical resources can be used to achieve displays of strain. This study looks at the relationship between progressivity of talk and bodily strain, focusing on the practice of temporarily suspending syntax while the speaker is accomplishing a physically challenging task. Based on examples from two different physical activities, rock climbing and opera rehearsals, the paper argues that the practice of suspending syntax is a resource available across contexts to render prominence to the strained body and highlight ongoing movement or other bodily action. By placing the strain-based display of incapacity to talk at a moment when the emerging syntactic structure is incomplete, participants maintain rights to resume talk while also presenting themselves as possessing the physical capacity to do so. Suspending syntax is shown to be a minutely timed speakers’ technique that takes advantage of the emergent nature of syntax and that demonstrates how speakers organize language in relation to the sensing and moving body.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suspending Syntax: Bodily Strain and Progressivity in Talk

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, a complete sentential structure is often grammatically impossible or irrecoverable from the larger discourse, as is again the case in (3). As a result, complex syntactic structures are regarded in interactionally-informed research to be emergent phenomena built upon smaller chunks (Thompson 2019;Pekarek Doehler et al 2020).…”

Section: Ext Team (F) Sailingmentioning

confidence: 99%

From sentential syntax to syntax of interaction

Ozerov

2023

J. of Speech Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The framework of syntactic analysis developed by Izre'el (2018, 2020) situates the simplest structure found in spoken data - the unipartite clause - at the core of its model. The implementation of this framework for the analysis of existential constructions in Modern Hebrew (Izre'el 2022) demonstrates how the unipartite analysis on presumably sentential structures allows us to remodel and bypass former research question, providing a new perspective and novel answers. This contribution attempts to follow up on this analysis and develop it further in an interactional, dynamic perspective. I propose that the discussed framework would additionally benefit from dispensing with other traditional models, which similarly originate in the bipartite view of sentence structure. Shifting away from categories of Information Structure and from the partitioning of information into topic vs. comment/focus and predicate can advance our understanding of language and discourse, while avoiding the pitfalls of problematic and poorly definable concepts. In this view, interlocutors do not structure their contributions or interpret others’ speech by identifying topics, comments, foci, or predicates. Instead, they navigate through the interactive discourse relying on low-level local communicative instructions which signal attention requirements, relevance, local discourse moves, interactionally structured discourse relations, epistemic management, emotive stance and more. Situating the analysis in the dynamic perspective of online syntax opens the way to a more refined understanding of the data, and further research questions.

show abstract

“…The production of utterances and grammatical units in spontaneous conversation is in a general sense incremental, an emergent process in which the speaker bit-by-bit builds and expands on what has been previously produced by the same or another speaker (see Hopper, 2011;Linell, 2013;Pekarek Doehler et al, 2020). From such a processual perspective, it has been demonstrated how utterances are quite freely rightward expandable in at least Germanic languages (Auer, 1992;Auer, 1996a), but such linear expandability may be less available in left-branching languages, for example, Japanese (Couper-Kuhlen and Ono, 2007a) and Chinese (Luke and Zhang, 2007).…”

Section: Aspects Of Turn Continuationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Turn Continuations and Gesture: “And Then”-Prefacing in Multi-Party Conversations

Rönnqvist

Lindström

2021

Front. Commun.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers an analysis of turn-expanding practices with the connective å sen ‘and then’ in Swedish multi-party conversations in which the participants discuss and assess works of visual art. The connective is recurrently used to introduce a turn continuation, i.e. a stretch of talk that is produced after a possibly completed turn-constructional unit (TCU). We identify three types of continuations: same-speaker continuations, occurring post gap or post-other talk, and other-continuations by the next speaker. Some of the “and then” continuations are clausal, syntactically free-standing, while non-clausal continuations have more in common with TCU increments. “And then” continuations specify, restrict or redirect the unfolding contribution while at the same time orienting to a collective interactional project. In same-speaker continuations, the speaker can introduce a new aspect of the established theme or offer an account. Other-continuations can be used to achieve a shift in footing to introduce a somewhat non-aligning contribution. Both grammar and embodied resources (especially hand gestures) are activated in the management of the completion of a prior turn unit, the initiation of a turn continuation and the recompletion of the speaker’s turn. The typical multimodal trajectory is: syntactic completion of a first unit + retracted gesture; link to prior talk and upcoming talk with “and then” followed by the core of the continuation + a redeployed gesture; and finally, syntactic completion of the continuing unit + retracted gesture to a rest position.

show abstract

Complex syntax-in-interaction

Cited by 4 publications

References 85 publications

Suspending Syntax: Bodily Strain and Progressivity in Talk

Suspending Syntax: Bodily Strain and Progressivity in Talk

From sentential syntax to syntax of interaction

Turn Continuations and Gesture: “And Then”-Prefacing in Multi-Party Conversations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About