Date: 14-Feb-2006
From: Maria Averintseva <maria.averintsevarz.hu-berlin.de>
Subject: Syntax and Lexis in Conversation
EDITORS: Hakulinen, Auli; Selting, Margret TITLE: Syntax and Lexis in Conversation SUBTITLE: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in- interaction SERIES: Studies in Discourse and Grammar 17 PUBLISHER: John Benjamins YEAR: 2005 Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-3110.html
Maria Averintseva, University of Tübingen, Deutsches Seminar
OVERVIEW
This book is a collection of 14 papers presenting current work at the interface of linguistics and conversational analysis. The papers are brought together by an Introduction by the editors, and divided into two subsections headed ''Syntactic resources in conversation'' (first 8 papers) and ''Lexico-semantic resources in conversation'' (6 papers). As stated in the Introduction, the book ''aim[s] at a description of language or particular linguistic structures as resources in conversational interaction''. In particular, this book concentrates on the syntax and lexical semantics and their role for the interaction, as these linguistic fields have been so far underestimated by conversational analysis. The book shows, that (1) syntax and lexical semantics are important resources for interaction; (2) syntax and lexical semantics interplay in such manner, that it is sometimes difficult to assign a phenomenon to one of the both, as e.g. the paper by Couper-Kuhlen & Thompson demonstrates; and, most importantly, (3) the work at the interface of linguistics and conversational analysis is most promising, as it allows important insights in the way language is used for communication.
In the book, material from the following languages is discussed: English (Wootton, Schulze-Wenck, Drew, Couper-Kuhlen & Thompson), German (Selting, Auer, Scheutz, Günthner, Deppermann, Steensig & Asmuß), Swedish (Lindström), Danish (Steensig & Asmuß, Heinemann), Italian (Monzoni) and Finnish (Duvallon & Routarinne). The authors used audio/video data from natural interactions as their material.
SYNOPSIS
The first part, ''Syntactic resources in conversation'', opens with a paper by Margret Selting ''Syntax and prosody as methods for the construction and identification of turn-constructional units in conversation''. She turns to the problem of the classical definition of the main unit in the conversational analysis, turn-constructional unit (TCU). Traditionally, a TCU is on the one hand explicitly stated not to be a linguistic unit, but is on the other hand defined with reference to syntactic units. Selting argues that a TCU is a genuine linguistic unit that is constructed in sequential context and is interactionally relevant. She shows that syntax and prosody play an equally important role in defining of a TCU. So, on the one hand, a TCU should be a possible syntactic construction in a given language. On the other hand, syntactically similar, but prosodically different utterances do perform different functions with respect to the storytelling under construction.
The next five papers focus on phenomena that are often regarded as being marginal occurrences of the spoken language: parenthesis in Finnish, repair, pivot and non-temporal 'where'-clauses in German, as well as syntactically marked Italian constructions. In each case it is shown that these are (1) real linguistic constructions with distinct syntactic, prosodic and functional features, and (2) far from being deficiencies of the spoken language, they are in fact efficient and elaborated conversation strategies.
The second paper of the book, ''Parenthesis as a resource in the grammar of conversation'' by Outi Duvallon and Sara Routarinne is concerned with parenthesis in Finnish. The authors show that parenthesis is not a simple ''aside'', but a strategy used for manipulating the topic of conversation. A parenthesis temporarily suspends the progression of another syntactic construction or wider action sequence, and thus enables metatextual comments of different kinds without giving up the main story line. Syntactic and prosodic characteristics of the parenthesis in Finnish are introduced, and its several interrelated functions in the conversation are described.
In his paper ''Delayed self-repairs as a structuring device for complex turns in conversation'', Peter Auer deals with the phenomenon of self- delayed repairs, i.e. cases, when the speaker interrupts an emerging syntactic pattern, starts a new TCU, and then returns to the broken-off structure. Auer shows that this construction is used as an option to linearize complex and hierarchically structured units, e.g. when a speaker has several goals that he wants to achieve simultaneously. Auer distinguishes between self-delayed repairs and parenthesis, as the latter involves a continuation of the pre-parenthetical utterance, whereas self-delayed repairs entail a complex hierarchical structure. He argues that self-delayed repair is not a deficiency of spoken language, as sometimes claimed, but a highly efficient method of coping with the linearization problem.
Another construction that is traditionally seen as a deficiency of spoken language is the subject of the paper by Hannes Scheutz, ''Pivot constructions in spoken German''. He analyses a pivot construction in German, i.e. a construction of the type A-B-C, where AB and BC are each grammatically correct, while A-B-C is actually incorrect, as in [[A that is] [[B something awful]AB] [C is that]BC]. He shows that although pivot construction is most often regarded as a syntactic break-off, it is actually a genuine syntactic structure with clear formal and functional properties. Thus, he contrasts pivot constructions with break-off and a new beginning as well as with parenthesis. Scheutz describes the main types and functions of the pivot construction in German. He argues that pivot construction is a means of establishing cohesion and shows, that as such this construction is found cross-linguistically in spoken language.
Chiara Monzoni deals in her paper with the so-called marked syntactic constructions in Italian, i.e. left and right dislocations and topicalization. After beginning with a short introduction into Italian syntax, she argues against the common assumption made by Italian linguists that syntactically marked constructions are, due to their frequency in informal speech, not pragmatically marked any more. In her study, based on a corpus of multi-person conversations, she shows that left dislocation, right dislocation and topicalization still display specific pragmatic and conversational functions. They serve as what she calls ''disconnected interjection'', i.e. producing a turn that is not connected with the immediately preceding talk (and most often also involves the change of the speaker). In this case, topicalization and left dislocation enhance the topic shift, whereas right dislocation, on the contrary, smoothes it.
Susanne Günthner in her paper ''Grammatical constructions in 'real life practices': WO-constructions in everyday German'' is concerned with the ''wo''-clauses ('where'-clauses) in German. She shows that ''wo'' initiates not only local, but also temporal, causal and concessive clauses. Still, there are no interpretation problems. Günthner shows that ''wo''-constructions have different interactive functions depending not only on the context but also on their position in the sentence (whether they precede or follow the main clause). In spite of the broad functionality of the ''wo''-construction, with particular inferences depending upon the context, there is one common characteristic: the interactive function of the ''wo''-construction is to provide evident, presupposed material.
The next two papers are concerned with the form requests may take in conversation.
Anthony Wootton investigates in his paper requests done by children and the connection between the grammatical form and the sequences in which requests occur, focusing on the ''can you...''-construction used by a 5-year-old child. He investigates in which environments this construction is used and in which it is never used, what other constructions the child uses for request in similar circumstances and what is the role the turn-initial ''please'' plays in this construction. He shows that ''(please) can you...'' is used when the child expects that what she is asking the recipient to do is a departure from the line of action projectable by her recipient. When this is not the case, imperatives or other constructions are used. ''Please'' is used to enhance the pleading aspect of the action. Thus, ''can you...''- construction is shown to be a distinctive interaction configuration, which also proves that the assumption that requests are sequence- initial objects, coming out of the blue, is highly misleading, as the preceding sequences are defining for the from of the request. The analysis Wootton presents is very convincing, so that it would be tempting to test it on a larger corpus, with more than only one child involved.
Requests are also the subject of the next paper, ''Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service'' by Anna Lindström. An important point Lindström makes is that whether an utterance is to be understood as a request or not must not be set in advance by the speaker, but can be a matter of negotiation between the speaker and the recipient(s). Lindström shows how different syntactic forms of requests - imperative, interrogative or declarative sentences - correspond to different contextual factors. Imperatives are used when the speaker believes himself to be entitled to request assistance, whereas questions are preferred when this issue is open. Declaratives are used as a means of negotiating a request with the recipient, especially if recipient is currently engaged in another action and his attention has first to be attracted.
The papers of the second part ''Lexico-semantical resources in conversation'' concentrate on the role the particular word selection and the semantics of lexical items play in a conversation.
The first paper of the second part, ''The interactional generation of exaggerated versions in conversation'' by Paul Drew is concerned with the cases, where a claim turns out to be an exaggeration. Drew shows on English material that the ''exaggerated'' version is produced to fit optimally in the sequential environment where it is produced, and is formulated so that it can optimally perform an action required in this environment (confirmation, disagreeing, reporting etc.). After achieving this action the speaker minimally adjusts the exaggerated version to the real situation. This is apparently done in a planned way. This enables the speaker first to achieve his action in the best possible way, and then to give an accurate description of the state of affairs. Thus the paper shows that ''descriptions are shaped by the action sequences in which they are produced'' in that they are produced conforming to the requirements imposed by the previous speaker, even if the claim thus made is not quite correct.
Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Sandra A. Thompson in their paper ''A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: 'Concessive repair''' are concerned with the same phenomenon as Drew, and even use the same corpus. They show, that 'concessive repair' has emerged from the common interactional task of retracting overstatements and has grammaticized into a certain lexical-grammatical pattern construction. Thus, the paper illustrates clearly that there is no strict division between syntactic and lexical phenomena, but that syntax and lexical semantics interplay by the production of conversation. So, this paper, which belongs to the second part of the book, would as well suit in the first one.
Arnulf Deppermann argues in his paper ''Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting'' that contrast in conversation is not something holding context-free, but emerging from participant's work (i.e. speaker's intention and hearer's interpretation). He shows how lexical items that do not inherently build a contrast can be provided with a local (i.e. valid only in a certain context) meaning inducing a contrast. He describes two general strategies for the interpretation of contrasting items: 'frame-based interpretation' leading to a pragmatic opposition within a frame, and 'maximization of contrast', according to which the hearer recognizes that the speaker intends to contrast two words and thus interprets them so as to maximize their contrast in meaning. Deppermann argues that local contrasting interpretation achieved in this way might then become available independent of the activity of contrasting. This is evidence that routine interactional activities might get grammaticalized as linguistic structures also at the level of the semantics.
Stephanie Schulze-Wenck concerns herself with a group of lexical items sharing certain features: the so-called ''first verbs''. This is a term for a certain use of verbs like ''wanted to /tried to'' etc., indicating that sequentially for this turn another TCU with another verb will come. She claims that ''first verbs'' pragmatically project further talk, i.e. they are a linguistic resource for producing of multi-unit turns. She describes morpho-syntactic, lexico-semantic and pragmatic features of ''first verbs'', as well as their interactional purposes. So, first verbs might be for example a resource for storytelling, being a take-off for a (next component of) a story, or for justification / explanation, complaining / criticizing as well as for counter-suggestion.
The following two papers concentrate on dispreferred responses in conversation and their linguistic form.
The first one is ''Notes on disaligning 'yes but' initiated utterances in Danish and German conversations: Two construction types for dispreferred responses'' by Jacob Steensig and Birte Asmuß. They show that ''yes but''-initiated sentences occur after turns which call for agreement or acceptance, and are thus dispreferred responsive actions. They distinguish between two variants of ''yes, but''- responses, which are used for actions differing in their social character. In the 'integrated version', ''yes but'' is produced prosodically as one token. Thus, nothing in the format shows any of the features normally associated with dispreference, although a dispreferred action is still implemented. 'Integrated ''yes but''' is used preferably for correcting and updating the prior speaker's knowledge. In the 'non-integrated version', ''yes'' and ''but'' are produced as two tokens, and show certain design features associated with dispreference (e.g. pause, hesitation etc.). This variant is used for disputing and opposing an assertion by casting doubt on the rationale in it, which is clearly a more socially problematic action. Thus, grammatical features of a certain construction are shown to be responsible for the social character of an action performed by this construction.
The last paper, ''Where grammar and interaction meet: The preference for matched polarity in responsive turns in Danish'' by Trine Heinemann, describes the phenomenon that in Danish the negative response particle ''nej'' (no) is not only used for dispreferred actions like disagreement, but also, and even preferably, for preferred actions like agreement, confirmation or acceptance. The latter is the case when the utterance responded to was negatively framed. That means that Danish has a grammatical preference for having a response mirror the polarity of the prior turn. Heinemann argues that grammatical preference for having the negative polarity mirrored in the response is a tendency that might be observed in other Indo- European languages as well.
The part of the title of the last paper, ''Where grammar and interaction meet'' might be chosen as the subtitle for the whole book, as it shows convincingly, how linguistics and conversational analysis can profit from one another.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Maria Averintseva is a research assistant in the Department of German Linguistics at Tübingen University. She is working on a Ph.D. project about German right dislocation and its function in discourse. Her research interests are lexical and formal semantics, syntax, and especially discourse and text linguistics.
|