Grammar in the Service of Interaction: Exploring Turn ... - CiteSeerX

Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(1), 81–117 Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grammar in the Service of Interaction: Exploring Turn Organization in Swedish

Jan Lindström Department of Scandinavian Languages and Literature University of Helsinki

This article is a contribution to the discussion of linguistic aspects of turn organization, especially from the point of view of Swedish grammar and conversational language. I propose a general model for interactionally sensitive turn organization and relate it to topological syntactic descriptions of the Swedish clausal structure. The results of this comparative examination suggest that there are remarkable points of connection between the syntactic and interactional organization of turn constructional units (TCUs). Syntactic evidence helps one understand the motivation of appositionals as different from genuine sentence starts as well as what may count as the beginning—and indeed, a nonbeginning—of a contribution. I show how the beginning edge of transition space may be defined by syntactic means and which diverse syntactic practices may be exploited in the production of postpossible completion increments. A study of Swedish, which is a language with a fixed verb-second word order, may help reveal certain patterns of interactionally sensitive turn design in the very syntactic array of constituents in turn units. Important examples of such syntactic–interactional interplay are provided by an optional appositional coding of adverbs (i.e., disjuncts or conjuncts) when used as discourse markers, by an optional appositional coding of action projecting clauses when used as TCU initial markers, This investigation is a part of the project “Grammar in Conversation: A Study of Swedish,” which was financed by the Bank of Swedish Tercentenary Foundation in 2000 to 2005; for information, publications, and online papers, see the project Web site: http://www.tema. liu.se/tema-k/gris/ A first version of this article was presented at the ICCA–02, International Conference on Conversation Analysis, Copenhagen, May 18, 2002. This version has benefited from comments by Jakob Steensig and three anonymous reviewers to whom I send my heartfelt thanks. Correspondence should be sent to Jan Lindström, Department of Scandinavian Languages and Literature, P.O. Box 24, FIN–00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. E-mail: jklindst@ling. helsinki.fi

82

Jan Lindström

by verb-first declaratives as opposed to the general verb-second clauses when used as a type of minimal responses, and by verb-first declaratives as subsequent, incremented moves reminiscent of postcompleting appositionals.

Points of connection between the syntactic and interactionally sensitive organization of turns in conversational Swedish are my focal interest in this article. From the point of view of syntax, I relate the analysis to the topological word order models widely used in grammars of the Scandinavian languages, originally based on the idea of the Danish grammarian Diderichsen (1946). From the point of view of interaction, I adopt the guidelines for the parsing of turns as they are outlined in Schegloff (1996) and somewhat modified and elaborated in Steensig (2001). Generally, in this article, I espouse the principles of interactional linguistics and contribute to an understanding of syntactic and interactional structures in conversational language; for other accounts of this kind, see, for example, Selting (2000) and Auer (2005).

ON THE SYNTAX OF A CLAUSE AND A TURN The parsing model for the internal organization of turns, or turn constructional units (TCUs), as suggested by Schegloff (1996) assumes several strategic loci of distinctive interactional practices in the developing course of a turn. In an abstracted way, a TCU can be conceived of as having a core with a recognizable beginning and a completing element. This core is often preceded or followed by speaker conduct that anticipates the beginning or extends the turn from the point of possible completion. The view of a core contribution that is surrounded by initial and final extensions echoes the suggested three-part structure of turns in Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974): “one [part] which addresses the relation of a turn to a prior, one involved with what is occupying the turn, and one which addresses the relation of the turn to a succeeding one” (p. 722). As shown by the following Example (1) from Sacks et al., these three turn jobs can be done within a single TCU: “Here ‘yeah’ is a formal affiliator to last turn; ‘hunh’ is a tag question, projecting a link to next turn” (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 772); and “(so) I say that would bum you out then” is reasonably the turn’s substantial contribution to the conversation:

Grammar in the Service of Interaction

83

1. Example (29) from Sacks et al. (1974, p. 722). 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 ->

A: It would bum you out to kiss me then, [hunh B: [Yeah well we all know where that’s at. ((pause)) A: [[( ) B: [[I mean you went- you went through a- a long rap on that one.= A: =Yeah, so I say that would bum you out then, hunh

In accordance with Steensig (2001), I suggest that anticipatory prebeginnings and other initial linking elements, such as “pre-starts” (see Sacks et al., 1974, p. 719), should be kept apart from the real beginning of the substantial contribution carried out by a TCU. As I show later on in this article, there are good syntactic and interactional reasons for keeping such a distinction. Similarly, different extensions and postcompleters attached to the TCU core contribution are seen as a class of organizing practices of their own in the progression of a turn/TCU. Having thus mapped the principal turn organizing practices, I illustrate them in Figure 1 in a linear, slightly formalized progression model of a TCU. The model is an adaptation of the guidelines offered in Schegloff (1996) and owes much to the turn-taking topology presented in Steensig (2001). The sample TCU is taken from line 8 in Example (1). The point of departure in the turn topology in Figure 1 is that turns have recurrent shapes of which a simple, core TCU turn—that is, a turn with no distinct prelinking or postcompleting elements—is the basic type. However, turns and TCUs also occur in other, more complex shapes, allowing for different expansions of the core TCU. These possible variations are the central issue of this article and include at the very least the following: 1. The core TCU may be preceded and followed by strictly speaking, nonlinguistic, prebeginning or postcompleting features such as inhalation and exhalation, laughter, or nonverbal signals.

FIGURE 1 A topological model for turn and/or turn constructional unit (TCU) organization.

84

Jan Lindström

2. The core TCU may be preceded and followed by sequentially sensitive linguistic elements below the TCU level including appositionals and other units used as discourse marking devices. The initially positioned ones generally link the contribution of the turn/TCU to the prior turn; the postpossible completion positioned ones generally offer a link to the next turn. 3. A possibly completed turn may be extended with a syntactically more or less fitting increment to the core TCU redefining the turn transition-relevance place. 4. The preceding sequences may recur in every TCU in multiunit turns. Strategically speaking, the most important points of organization comprise a recognizable beginning of a core TCU and its possible completion point. With reference to Schegloff (1996), speech anticipations, such as in breaths, can be termed prebeginning, whereas linguistically analyzable prefatory linking elements may be seen to constitute a functionally distinct presegment in the organization of a TCU. Because in this article, I deal with the syntactic-interactional interface of turn construction, truly prebeginning practices are not studied here in the first place but linguistically more substantial presegments. Finally, elements preceding and projecting a possible completion point can be termed pre(possible) completing, and elements following a possible completion point are then post(possible) completing, syntactically occupying a TCU postsegment.1 I provide a detailed explanation of the various functions of these organizational loci here only in an indirect fashion in the analysis following. For a deeper interactional perspective, the reader would do well to consult the principal sources Schegloff (1996) and Steensig (2001) as well as Selting (2000) and Auer (2005). Suffice it to say that the functions of the slots presented in Figure 1 are not primarily grammatical but related to turn-taking practices, for example, to the recognition of possible transition relevance places and to the establishment of a right to the floor. The positions are thus not only options for the speaker but also essential points of orientation for recipient practices such as displaying recipiency or synchronizing a new turn entry. However, there are syntactic points to be made about the current model for TCU parsing. For English and many other languages, elements belonging to the class of appositionals (conjunctions, discourse particles, terms of address) are constructed in a syntactic extraposition different from sentence starts (cf. Sacks et al., 1974, p. 719). These elements do characteristi-


85

cally initial or final sequentially positioning work in a turn, and the syntactically isolated status of such operators is apparently a grammatically coded reflection of their distinct interactional function. Such syntactic coding practices become very transparent in a fixed word-order language such as Swedish in which not only appositionals but also elements that optionally carry a related functional role (e.g., adverbs) receive a corresponding syntactically isolated coding in a sentence. It is perhaps no coincidence, then, that the linear syntactic structure of a Swedish expanded sentence comprises a prefront field and a postend field around a conventional clause—in a manner quite similar to presegmented and postcompleting elements of a turn/TCU as shown in Figure 2. I elaborate such possible descriptive points of connection between a grammatically and interactionally motivated sentence description in the following discussion. I address the following types of questions: What count in syntactic terms as presegments, beginnings, (pre)completions and (possible) completions, and post(possible) completions? Conversely, I also discuss how syntactic organization can be used as a resource for the organization of interaction, not the least turn taking. I specifically discuss examples where the interactants’ conduct—for example, early turn starts—manifests speaker awareness of local grammatical and interactional options. Moreover, my structural concern in this article is clausal TCUs—not because they are more important unit types per se, but because syntactic points arise most clearly when studied against the background of syntactically more elaborated unit types than nonclausal, grammatically sparser TCU formats. My work differs from both Schegloff’s (1996) and Steensig’s (2001) in being more explicit about the orientable role of syntax in interaction; on the other hand, my contribution differs from earlier work by Auer (1996a,

FIGURE 2 The topological word-order fields of a Swedish expanded and inner clause (cf. Teleman, Hellberg, & Andersson, 1999, Part 4, p. 6).

86

Jan Lindström

1996b) in having a more pronounced link to conversation analysis (CA) and sequential organization of turns. In my specific syntactic focus in the article, I summarize several years of research on the grammatical interface of interaction in Swedish conversations by myself. The grammatical focus is, of course, also a limitation of the study because turn construction is not only a matter of syntax, but it interacts with prosody, gaze, facial expressions, and gestures (see, e.g., Ford & Thompson, 1996). I organized the article in accordance with the progressively, potentially occurring TCU parts, starting from the presegmented practices and beginnings, then advancing to the identification of (prepossible) completion features, and ending with an analysis of phenomena occurring postpossible completion. The data for the study come from large corpora of conversational Swedish in everyday as well as institutional settings. The data was recorded both in Sweden and in Finland where a regional variety of Swedish is spoken by about 300,000 persons; there are no such differences in the basic syntax of these varieties that would need special attention in this study. For more detailed references to the sources for the cited examples, see Data Sources on pages 116 and 117. A list of transcription symbols is presented on page 116.

CODING THE INITIAL POSITIONING WORK A conversational turn is in many cases initiated by elements whose function seems to be to start the turn rather than to start a syntactically or pragmatically specific TCU. There are different types of nonlinguistic practices, such as inhalation and lip or tongue smacks, that may be strategically used to anticipate the start of speaking, thus prebeginning the turn (cf. Schegloff, 1996, p. 92). For the understanding of the syntactic interface of talk-in-interaction, it would in addition be useful to recognize a class of linguistic phenomena that constitute some kind of presegment of a possibly evolving TCU. One general way of analyzing such TCU presegments is to assign them the function of “the first turn job”: to affiliate the turn to a prior turn or a sequence (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 723; see also Steensig, 2001, p. 227 and following). Because presegmented units in this way accomplish a distinct interactional task, they also have a distinct syntactic position in the turn, that is, in Swedish in the syntactically isolated prefront field when occurring in a clausal TCU.


87

Following types of presegments, or sequential positioners, can be identified: 1. Common appositionals or prestarts (or TCU initial markers) such as conjunctions, discourse particles (including response tokens), and terms of address. These elements are never incorporated as constituents in a clausal unit. 2. Optional appositionals such as conjunctional or stance-marking adverbs. These elements may be used as normal clause constituents or as syntactically isolated presegments. In the latter case, they are interpreted as discourse markers.2 3. Other TCU-framing devices such as question frames, left dislocation, and certain responsive formats. These are typically different action projections that are to a varying degree recorded in the canonical grammar; the action projecting units are syntactically isolated from the rest of a clausal constructional part (for Swedish studies, see J. Lindström, 2002; Lindholm & Lindström, 2003, 2004). I hereby draw a distinction between appositional beginnings and sentence starts; the former are thus included in possible presegments, whereas the latter are understood as beginnings of a contribution to the conversation. It is true that the speaker with both unit-type beginnings starts speaking, but in the case of presegments, there is not any clear projection of the syntactic shape of the TCU to come but a more or less clear pragmatic projection. Compare Sacks et al. (1974): “Appositionals and tag questions are heavily used devices, though the basis for their use is by no means self-evident linguistically. We are proposing that they are to be understood as devices with important turn organizational uses” (pp. 719–720). The distinction between presegments and contribution beginnings also echoes the suggestion made by Schegloff (1996): “Perhaps some aspects of turn constructional units’ starts may ‘belong’ to the TCU, whereas others ‘belong’ to the turn?” (p. 69). The “others” are here assumed to be made of presegmented TCU elements. As the preceding list suggests, there is great variation in the form of TCU presegments, from simple discourse particles to more complex action projecting constructions. These constructional elements generally frame the turn with sequentially sensitive information, and their syntactic locus is the prefront field; compare Auer (1996b) on German.

88

Jan Lindström

Fragment (2) provides an example of a common appositional in a TCU presegment: the sequential particle “hördu” (listen, you know’) in line 3. This summons signal, which contains the second-person singular pronoun du, is usually attached to a TCU rather than constructed as an own TCU in a presequence utterance (a use where it probably has evolved from). The fragment is taken from an informal get-together in a home where four elderly ladies are discussing different everyday topics: drinking coffee (or tea) and eating a snack. Right before the fragment, the ladies have been involved in a lively discussion that is now being interrupted: 2. [HSAM:V2] Get-together, four ladies in their sixties. “Coffee or tea.” 01

M:

02 ->03

E:

04

05

M:

nu måst (.) ni säja va ni ska now must you.PL say what you will now you must say what you want to dri[cka, kaffe eller te. ] drink coffee or tea [hördu ja (.) ja dricker] hemst gärna te listen I I drink very gladly tea prt I would like to drink tea för a[tt ja ha:, for that I have because I have [jå? yeah

The fragment constitutes an abrupt offer–request sequence in the flow of the conversation. Here “hördu” is produced in partial overlap with a possible syntactic TCU-completing element of the preceding turn, the nonfinite verbal complement “dricka” ([to] drink). The particle hördu typically addresses the turn to a specific party—for example, as a new move—or it can mark a topical or even an attitudinal shift: for example, when one is foreseeing or reacting to interactional problems (see Hakulinen, Keevallik Eriksson, & Lindström, 2003; cf. A. Lindström, 1999, p. 158; Teleman, Hellberg, & Andersson, 1999, Part 4, p. 805). Here the speaker E partly marks with hördu that she digresses from a dialogue with the person to whom she previously has been talking and partly addresses her response specifically to the asker: the hostess of the get-together. The extra work of paying attention and addressing the asker seems to be connected with the fact that the request for tea, instead of the more common choice of coffee, is conceived of as possibly unexpected, also reflected in E’s acute, overlapping start of her answer. This as-


89

pect of the response becomes manifest in that E proceeds to give an account for the choice, marked by the causal connector “för att” (because) in line 4. The account is interrupted at first but followed up in the continuing sequence a few turns later at which point E explains that she has already had many cups of coffee that day (which is why she now prefers some tea). The following lengthy Fragment (3) provides an example of an optional appositional forming a TCU presegment: the sentence adverb “i varje fall” (in any case, anyway) in line 15. The fragment is taken from a board meeting in a kindergarten that at this point in the agenda is discussing whether the kindergarten should buy ecologically produced milk: 3. [HSAM:M1] Board meeting in a kindergarten. “Ecologically produced milk.” 01

L:

02

03

04 05 06

N:

07

L:

08

N:

09

V:

10

L:

11

V:

12

L:

13

V:

14

L:

(.h) men ja kan int tänka mej vetdu but I can not think me know-you but I can’t imagine you know att di om di om di går in för att sälja (.) that they if they if they go in for to sell that they if they if they begin to sell i större partier att di int hittar på en sån dän in larger quantities that they not hit up on a kind of in larger quantities that they don’t invent a kind of a större bigger (0.9) ja: yeah nån- nånting something tvåliters (.) (h-) two litres kan[ske att man har till å me nå sån dänt (0.8) perhaps (so) that you have even some kind of a [m femliter ( ) five litres retursystem #att man kan#= return system that you can = jå yeah °int vet ja sen° not know I then I don’t know then °de:e ju° (.) °de:e ju deras° it’s (as we know) it’s (as we know) their

90

Jan Lindström

-> 16

R: mt men i varje fall hon e då på LiTu (0.6) but in any case she is then at company name R: så ja menar om du vill ta kontakt me henne so I mean if you want to make contact with her

The turn in focus is arrowed and is preceded by some digressing discussion. Here, the topic is eventually fading out. One can note the creaky and low voice qualities of the utterances prior to line 15 (marked with # and ° signs), as well as the possibly sequence closing disclaimer “int vet ja sen” (I don’t know then) in line 13, as indicative of a fade-out. The highlighted turn is initiated with a prebeginning smack (mt) and the sentential adverb, that is, the conjunct “i varje fall.” The adverb occupies the prefront field, whereas the clausal TCU is syntactically begun by the pronoun hon (she). The conventional Swedish declarative verb-second word order is thus starting from hon, which is followed by the finite verb e (is). The act of treating i varje fall as a prefront field item and thus as an overt sequential marker signifies the incipient turn specifically as a return to the original agenda and not having to do with the immediately preceding utterances; compare Ford and Thompson’s (1996, pp. 169–170) analysis of the adverb anyways in a fairly identical interactional context. In a way, i varje fall is produced as a reaction to the prior sequence (skipping what preceded) but not as a reaction to what was said in it (i.e., not as contrastive with some specific content in it). If the adverb was syntactically integrated in the inner clausal frame as a sentence start followed by the finite verb immediately after the adverb—I varje fall e hon på LiTu—the topic organizing discourse function would not be as salient. This kind of syntactic contrast between a discourse marking adverbial and a sentence integrated commenting or connective adverbial does not manifest itself in the word order of English; as for English, disjuncts and conjuncts are not generally integrated within the clause: anyway/frankly/yet, he does nothing about it (see Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik, 1985, pp. 440, 613, and 631). An example of a presegmented action projection is provided by the question framing expression “jag undrar” (I wonder) in line 3 in Fragment (4). This fragment is taken from the very opening of a telephone conversation to a ticket order service; A is the customer, B is the sales clerk: 4. [LU:14] Telephone conversation to a ticket sales service. 01

A: jo de här e Berit Rekola från Mårtensdal hej from name hello yes this is name name


02 -> 04 05

91

B: hej hej hello hello A: ja undra: finns de ännu biljetter till Johanneskyrkan I wonder are there yet tickets to St John’s Church den här (.) Christer Sjögren den här (0.5) kon[serten name name this concert this B: [jå yeah

A question frame like jag undrar could also occur as a pre-pre in a presequence utterance, but it is usually attached to a TCU as a presegment; other possible pre-pres, such as får jag fråga (may I ask), are also most often used in this manner in Swedish conversations (Lindhom & Lindström, 2003; for pre-pres, see Schegloff, 1980). The interactional job done by jag undrar is comparable, although not equivalent, to the sequential particle hördu in Fragment (2). Like hördu, jag undrar also marks shifts in the conversation, but the pragmatic projection of jag undrar is more specific; it typically projects a question but can also precede a hypothesis or a suggestion. In Fragment (4), jag undrar marks the shift from the opening of a telephone conversation to the presentation of the reason for the call, that is, the customer’s wish to book a concert ticket. Interactionally, jag undrar does not accomplish the interrogative action itself but provides an opening frame for a coming TCU, revealing something of its possible pragmatic course. Syntactically, jag undrar is a minimal clause that nevertheless is constructed “without an object,” that is, without the goal of the “wondering.” By this I mean that the following turn unit is not a subordinated object clause to jag undrar but a syntactically independent interrogative clause with the verb-first word order characteristic of Swedish yes–no questions: “finns det ännu biljetter?” (are there yet any tickets?). A regular object clause would have been construed with the subordinator om (if, whether) and subject-first order: jag undrar om det ännu finns biljetter (I wonder whether there are yet any tickets). The syntactic coding singles out “jag undrar” in Fragment (4) as a marker of a sequential move in a TCU presegment rather than as a TCU of its own or as an integral part of a sentence start in a clausal TCU. It could be argued that the syntactically isolated coding of Swedish TCU presegments may in a more abstract sense provide a specific “sign” in interaction—a diagrammatic icon of a sequentially positioning functional value (cf. Peirce, 1932, on icons). The interactional approach to the syntax of turn entries is thus intriguing for the grammarian as well as for the con-

92

Jan Lindström

versation analyst. Taking the interactional parsing of a turn/TCU progression to the forefront reveals aspects of syntactic organization that are not syntactic per se but sequentially motivated. From this perspective, one is able to explain certain syntactic structures that have seemed to be irregular in standard grammatical descriptions, for example, discourse marking conjuncts in Fragment (3) and objectless matrix sentences in Fragment (4). For a conversation analyst, the knowledge of regular form–function pairings between the syntax and conversational moves provides an analytic access to interactional structures that would not otherwise be available.

BEGINNING THE CONTRIBUTION My concern in this section is what constitutes the beginning of the substantial part of a TCU—and also a nonbeginning—as distinct from elements that could be understood as being presegmented to a TCU. The analysis concerns potential sentence starts only because syntactic points can be made explicitly when clausal units are studied, and a good tool for such a structural analysis is provided by the topological schematic illustrated in Figure 2. In trying to single out potential beginnings, I turn to certain basic syntactic facts concerning Swedish main clauses. The first constituent in Swedish declarative and question–word initiated interrogative clauses may be referred to as its grammatical and topical base, and this, and only this, occupies the front field, the sentence start, in the syntactic topology. The base is an element that recognizably constitutes the beginning of a clausal unit; and the choice of base gives the first indication of the type of a given clause, for example, whether it is a statement or a question. The realization of the clausal base is thus indicative of the interactional function of a given turn (cf. also note 32 in Sacks et al., 1974, p. 719). The recognition of this kind of element marks the end of the transition space and transforms an incipient turn into a current one, which the speaker is entitled to develop until the next possible turn transition place. Hence, as far as clausal TCUs are concerned, there is good reason to believe that the clausal base (sentence start) serves the function of a TCU-beginning in an interactionally as well as a syntactically relevant sense. There are, in fact, indications that speakers orient differently toward presegments and integral beginnings of the syntactic and communicative core of a TCU when organizing their contribution. The former are not usu-


93

ally retained if the start of the turn/TCU is for any reason recycled in the process of turn construction; whereas the latter are, necessarily, reenacted (see Fox & Jasperson, 1995; Schegloff, 1987, 2004). One example is shown in Fragment (5) where the presegmented adverb “alltså” (so, in other words), a paraphrase or an inference marker, in line 2 is not repeated, although the subject–verb construction “de e” (it is) is repeated in the restart “de e den där reaganska juttun (it is that Reaganian thing). The recycling of the beginning is here linked to the fact that the turn entry ends up in overlap with M’s laughing in line 1: 5. [HSAM:V1] Get-together, six men in their thirties. “To walk and chew gum.” 01 ->02 03

04 05

M: =[[((laughing)) E: =[[ alltså de:e den här reagan- (.) de:e den där (so) it’s this Reagan- it’s that att reaganska juttun3 att man int kan dalla4 utan Reaganian thing that you not can walk without to Reaganian thing that you can’t walk without ( ): jå yeah E: tugga tuggummi samtidit chew chewing gum the same time chewing gum at the same time

A similar case is found in line 3 in Fragment (2) where the sequential particle “hördu” from the start of the turn is not repeated, although the clausal base—and thus the beginning—“ja” (I) is recycled in a restart: “hördu ja (.) ja dricker hemst gärna te” (listen I (.) I would like to drink tea). Because presegments do positioning work but do not make a substantial contribution to the conversation, they are apt to be used in overlap. They are effective turn-entry devices in not carrying a propositional content that would be vulnerable for poor hearing during a turn transition in an overlap. Their function as overlap absorbers should not, however, be overemphasized (cf. Schegloff, 1987); the primary motivation of presegmented elements is reasonably that of positioning the incipient contribution pragmatically in the sequential environment. If the whole utterance is repeated, typically because of comprehension problems and a lack of an uptake, presegmented TCU parts are not generally reproduced in the recycled utterance (see Schegloff, 2004). This is the case in Fragment (6) in which Speaker A, after a pause in conversation in

94

Jan Lindström

line 2, poses a sudden question about how the recording of the conversation has proceeded. The following pause of 2.5 sec and the simultaneously initiated interrogative responses signal problems with grasping the reference of A’s question. She then realizes this quickly and hurries in line 6 to repeat the question but not in an exactly identical form. Significantly, from the point of view of turn organization, the presegmented, slightly imperative TCU initial marker “nå” (well, now) and the postcompleting inference marker “då“ (then) are absent in the repeated question: 6. [HSAM:V2] Get-together, four ladies in their sixties. “The recording.” 01 -> 02 03 04 05 -> 06

(6.4) A: nå hu ble de me den där timmen då now how was it with that hour then (2.5) E: [[vilken tim-= what hourT: [[vilken ( )= what A: =hu blir me me den där (.) upptagningen how will (it) be with that recording

Clearly, the repetition of the original question also involves a change in its sequential position and relevance as pointed out by Londen (1995) who has made a detailed analysis of this fragment (cf. also Schegloff, 1987, p. 82; Schegloff, 2004, pp. 101–102). If the TCU initial “nå” really was produced in line 6, it would not probably be conceived of as only a repetition but as a means to reframe the repeated question with new sequential import—an impatient demand of “moving on” as an orientation to the repair initiations in lines 4 and 5 (cf. Schegloff, 2004, p. 142). The syntactic point of interest is that the clausal base, the interrogative hu(r) (how), is produced in both versions of the question and stands out as its substantial beginning or rather as a rebeginning when recycled. One grammatically coded way of beginning a clausal TCU in Swedish is with a syntactic nonbase, that is, directly with the finite verb and with “nothing” in the syntactic front field (cf., figure 2). This is formally the case with polar questions (Kan du skriva? [Can you write?])5 and clauses with the initial verb in the imperative (Skriv snart! [Write soon!]). It is important to note that nothing is left out, either in syntactic or semantic terms, from


95

the start of these clausal unit types. Hence, the initial finite verb in indicative or imperative mood signifies the start of a TCU with a distinct form and function whereby the finite verb can be regarded as the virtual beginning of such a TCU. Verb-first clauses can, of course, be preceded by presegmented, TCU initial markers; this can be observed in Fragment (4) where the action projection ja undrar precedes the independently formed polar question, that is, (ja undrar) finns det ännu biljetter? ([I wonder] are there yet any tickets?). However, certain discourse contexts allow for a kind of a shorthand (or ellipsis) in the construction of turns, which may in fact result in clausal structures that are not, at least syntactically, as complete as they maximally (or generally) could be. One example of this kind of fairly conventionalized shortening practice is the dropping of the clausal base—the sentence start—in declarative clauses (for a theoretical account, see Mörnsjö, 2002). Such declaratives have the finite verb in the first constituent position— bearing some formal resemblance to polar questions. A variant of the phenomenon can be seen in Fragment (7) where the TCU “(mm) kommer ju å gå upp” (are going to be expensive) in line 9 is declarative but starts with the finite verb kommer, literally come.6 The fragment is presented in length to highlight the discourse context. This is an informal get-together between four elderly ladies, and D is engaged in a storytelling project about bad weather in the south of Sweden and how this has affected the potato crop. As can be seen, the turns in lines 6 through 9 are accompanying listener comments, whereas D retains her status as the primary speaker: 7. [GRIS:USÅINF:2] Informal get-together. ”Potatos.” 01

02

03

04

05

D: vettu, dom visste visste ju’nte hur dom you know they knew knew prt not how they you know they didn’t know how they skulle få upp dom, alltså¿ (0.4) det fanns would get up them that is it existed would get up them that is there was inte tillräckligt mycke (0.8) not enough much not enough va heter de för nånting: eh¿ (0.6) (träull) what is it for anything wood-wool what do you call it erm wood-wool (0.8)

96

Jan Lindström

06

07

08 ->

10

11

12

13

A: va dy:r potatisen ska bli how expensive potatoe shall become gosh how expensive potatos will be å såna där saker.= and such there things and things like that B: =a:= yeah C: =mm, kommer ju å gå upp,= prt to go up mm come mm, (prices) are going to go up D: =men att: eh där nere på dom (å) på lördan but that there down on them and on Saturday but erm down there on Saturday ti >konfirmationen< (0.6) eh vad ska ja säga to confirmation what shall I say at the confirmation erm what should I say två timmar innan vi skulle äta:, two hours before we would eat two hours before we would eat då hade dom lev- levererat potatisen, then had they supplied potato by then they had supplied the potatos

There seem to be interactional contexts that systematically make use of the practice of beginning an utterance with a nonbeginning (cf. Schegloff, 1996, p. 76). It seems that TCUs with this syntactic characteristic are typically parasitic and responsive to the current sequence or discourse (Linell, 2003, pp. 18–20), in other words, recognizably subsequent to some prior turn or TCU (J. Lindström & Karlsson, 2005; cf. Auer, 1993, for German). The minimized structure of such clausal TCUs is often connected to that these units have an air of a collateral remark not very different from a continuer. As indicative of this, the primary speaker D in Fragment (7) continues her telling immediately after C’s turn “mm kommer ju å gå upp,” line 9. This is, alongside with B’s contribution (“a:”), to be understood as a recipient practice and recognizable as such via the elliptic (or laconic) verb-first construction. As summarized in Figure 3, the beginning is managed by at least three grammatical practices in Swedish clausal TCUs. Thus, the slot can be syntactically filled with a sentence start, “virtually” filled in polar questions, or even empty.


97

FIGURE 3 Interactional and syntactic topological analysis of certain Swedish clausal unit types and their beginnings. TCU = turn constructional unit.

In sum, one can first note that presegmented elements, such as alltså and nå, are not retained if the substantial contribution part of a TCU is recycled, whereas sentence starts, the real beginnings of contributions, are retained. Second, the finite verb constitutes a distinctive contribution beginning in polar questions, projecting the interrogative action that is conventionally associated with this unit type. Third, the declarative “lacking” a sentence start is a grammatically legitimate clausal unit-type, but its communicative coding is not as explicit as in the case of the polar question. It is plausible, however, that verb-first declaratives are interpreted against the normally built, unmarked verb-second declaratives. By recognizing that this unit type starts with a nonbeginning, it is associated with other minimized unit types and their potential of functioning as second pairparts, increments, and accompanying contributions. Given this, one should be wary of considering phenomena of this kind as simply shortened, elliptical variants of a possibly fuller syntactic and semantic unit; see further the discussion on ellipsis in Schegloff (1996, pp. 106–109). The preceding discussion has shown that there is syntactic as well as interactional evidence for the differential status of presegmented elements and real (and virtual) beginnings in the organization of turns and TCUs. However, the implications of this distinction have not always been drawn, as can be seen, for example, from the short discussion of appositionals and

98

Jan Lindström

sentence starts in Sacks et al. (1974, p. 719, including note 32). One possible reason for not making a point of this distinction is perhaps the fact that English does not make as overt a syntactic distinction between TCU initial markers and syntactically integrated sentence starts as is the case in Swedish or, say, German (cf. Auer, 1996b).

ORIENTING TO A POSSIBLE COMPLETION As noted in various works in CA, the usually smooth, gapless “precision time” turn transition would not be possible if the completion of a turn were not a predictable object of some kind for the interactants (cf. Jefferson, 1973, 1984). To pursue this insight, I study possible TCU completion in the following in relation to preclosure orienting recipient conduct in the production of acknowledgement tokens, collaborative completions, and early turn starts. One key resource for the recognition of transition relevance places is provided by the linearity of syntax in close association with prosodic and pragmatic features (cf. Jefferson, 1986, p. 179 and following; Ford & Thompson, 1996)—not to forget the visual channel (see, e.g., Goodwin, 1979). If the TCU takes the form of a clause, the structural projection of completion increases in the topological end field of the inner clausal frame (see Figure 2). The end field hosts different complements to the finite verb phrase, which can be structurally projected (grammatically obligatory), pragmatically projected (necessary in the context), or only weakly projected, that is, optional. The conventional order of end field constituents reflects their falling dependency hierarchy in that infinite verb complements are followed by object and predicative complements and last come general, often optional adverbs. It is plausible that the tendency to transitional speech overlap increases according to the same falling hierarchy so that the less dependent a complement is, the more likely it will be overlapped by an early starter. One manifestation of recipient orientation toward possible structural TCU endings is that acknowledgment tokens are regularly produced in overlap with possibly completing syntactic elements (e.g., Green-Vänttinen, 2001, p. 248 on Swedish; Steensig, 2001, p. 261 on Danish). This is seen in Fragment (8) in the placement of the “mm”s in lines 7 and 9: first in overlap with the projected object to a verb ([dricker] vin [drink wine]), then


99

in overlap with a generalizing (optional) completing list element (“å så där“ [and like that]), and last in partial overlap with a projected last element in an idiomatic negated adverbial phrase ([“int någo desto] mera” [(not any much) more]). The fragment is taken from a doctor–patient interview, and the acknowledgment tokens, continuers, are produced by the doctor (D): 8. [INK 8] Doctor–patient interaction. “Life style questions.” 01 02 03 04 05 06 ->07 08 ->09

D: alkohol [å mat [vanor e där nån]ting alcohol and food habits is there something P: [(mt) [(hm) n: ] D: spe [ciellt in particular P: [nå #m# well (0.4) ] ti maten P: #m# (.) dricker så där ~nån gång [vin (I) drink sort of some time wine for food D: [mm:m] P: [å så där~ men int någo desto me [ra and like that but not any much more D: [mm [mm

This kind of synchronicity in ordering the practices of recipiency with possibly completing TCU elements—evidently by foreseeing possible completions—signals acknowledgment of the turn so far and shows simultaneously that the current speaker is expected to continue beyond recognized possible turn transitional points. In Fragment (8), the doctor clearly encourages the patient to report more and more details about her habits. Similarly, collaborative completions are often synchronized with respect to an element that syntactically may complete the turn (cf. Lerner, 1991, 1996). One example of this practice is given in Fragment (9) where the adverbial complement “me bil” (by car) in line 4 is a possible completing element in the latter part of a structurally compound TCU. The syntactic projection is strong at this point of the structure: The clausal copula construction “de va ju” (they were [allegedly]) needs, of course, to be filled with something. The fragment comes from the same informal get-together as Fragment (2); at this point, E has been talking about an Italian inspired dinner she had served her relatives in the countryside; here in line 1, speaker A asks a further question about the dinner:

100

Jan Lindström

9. [HSAM:V2] Get-together, four ladies in their sixties. “Wine for dinner.” 01 A: hade du vin °till° had you wine for did you serve wine (for dinner) 02 E: jå ja hade vin men att di va ju, yeah I had wine but that they were prt yeah I had wine but they came (as we know) 03 (0.4) -> 04 A: me bil= with car by car 05 E: =~hälften me bil~ så att, half with car so that half of them by car so 06 (A): °mm° 07 (0.3) 08 E: de (.) blir aldri så my [cke drucket. (.hh) it gets never so much drunk they’ll never drink so much 09 A: [jå yeah 10 (1.0) 11 E: så att (.) (h) $de$ räckte me en flaska. so that it sufficed with one bottle so one bottle was enough

The possible completing element to E’s contribution in Fragment (9), line 2 is provided by A in line 4, thus suggesting an ending to the host syntactic structure initiated by E. The possibility of foreseeing the ending depends on syntactic projection as well as on pragmatic knowledge. Structurally, the adverbial argument “me bil” (by car) is a part of a contrasting final component of a compound TCU projected by the adversative connective “men att” (but) in line 2 in the prior utterance by the speaker E. The compound TCU structure is thus a concessive point—“men att”—a contrasting point. In other words, after hearing “men att,” the recipient can await some sort of a point that makes a contrast to what the speaker has just said. Here, it is pragmatically fairly easy for A to see that E projects a contrast between drinking wine and driving a car (a necessity because the dinner was served in the countryside). Crucially, the fill-in made in collaboration—and ratified with a slight variation by E in line 5—is the potential syntactically terminal item of E’s contribution: a necessary ad-


101

verbial specification of how the persons “had come” to the dinner described. The dialogic function of the terminal fill-in is comparable to an acknowledgment token because the speaker does not claim primary speakership but merely displays understanding, and it is similarly synchronized with a potential upcoming transition relevance place such as the “mm”s in Fragment (8). As pointed out by Lerner (1996, p. 256), collaborative terminal item completions begin in the same place in a current turn as an early, overlapping prebeginning of a next turn could take place. This is also manifested in this data in which not only prebeginnings but other presegmented turn parts, such as the sequential particles hördu in Fragment (2) and nå in Fragment (8), initiate so called terminal and last-item onsets; the former in overlap with the infinite verb complement in the verb chain “ska dricka” (shall drink) (line 3), the latter in overlap with the postmodifier in the noun phrase “nånting speciellt“ (something in particular) (line 4). This, then, manifests the intersection between the prepossible completion of an expiring turn and the prebeginning part of an incipient turn: These loci must be taken as to define the initial and final boundaries of the turn transition space. An interesting question in syntactic as well as interactional terms is whether there are structural regularities in the insertion of early starts of speech with respect to a still ongoing but apparently expiring turn. The analytically central point here is not the completing element of a TCU itself— because the completion itself seems obvious for the early starter—but the element that makes the completion predictable and that by definition immediately precedes the completion. Such a phenomenon can, in accordance with Schegloff (1996), be called the prepossible completion of a TCU. Structurally, it seems that end projection is especially common with different kinds of object arguments, for example, when a direct object in Fragment (10) or an object-like subordinated infinite verb in a verb chain is projected (cf., the placement of hördu in Fragment [2]). 10. [INK 16] Doctor–patient interaction. ”Pain in the body.” 01 ->02

D: (.h) var i kroppen ha du haft [värken where in the body have you had the pain P: [hördu listen

102

Jan Lindström

03

ja kan nästan säj de:e hela kroppen I can almost say it’s the whole body

In Fragment (10), the verb to have needs to be structurally complemented by an object. The context of a medical consultation also provides pragmatic cues for the sort of object projected: The patient is suffering from pain, and the doctor’s choice of the definite form of the object noun värken singles this out as a given reference. The patient needs not wait until the doctor is quite finished with his turn, but she can foresee the possible completion and synchronize her presumably acute response between the object projecting verb (“haft”) and its contextually given object (“värken”). Characteristically, the very synchronizing device also in this early turn entry is the TCU initial marker “hördu” (listen), which not only “absorbs” the overlap but signals the acute news quality of the response. To summarize, early turn starts or recipient practices such as continuers are typically aligned with some kind of two-part (or even multipart) structural unit located in the syntactic end field of a clausal TCU. The resulting overlap will in these cases concern the latter projected element of such a unit; I give examples of structural contexts of occurrence in the following (the overlapped item is shown in square brackets): After the head but in overlap with a postmodifier: Example 8, lines 3 to 4; “nånting [speciellt]” (something [in particular]), overlapped by a continuer. After a premodifier but in overlap with the head: Example 8, lines 8 to 9; “desto [mera]” (any [more]), overlapped by a continuer. After a verb but in overlap with its object: Example 8, lines 6–7; “dricker … [vin]” (drink [wine]), overlapped by a continuer; Example 10, lines 1 to 2; “haft [värken]” (had [the pain]), overlapped by a presegmented sequential particle. After a preliminary component but in overlap (or in collaborative completion) with the projected end of the latter component of a compound TCU: Example 9, lines 2 to 4; “ja hade vin – men att di va ju -> [me bil]” (I had wine—but they came of course -> [by car]); the terminal element produced as a collaborative completion. After a copula but in overlap with its complement (cf. the previous point): Example 9, lines 2 to 4; “di va ju [me bil]” (they came [by car]), the syntactic completer produced as a collaborative completion.


103

After the first item(s) in a list construction but in overlap with a latter item: Example 8, lines 6, 8, and 9; “vin ti maten [å så där]” (wine for food [and like that]), overlapped by a continuer. The common aspect of the previous examples is that these are constructions that in one way or another seem predictable once a first (or the first) component(s) of them have been introduced. In the majority of cases, the predictable component can be regarded to stand in a dependency relation to the preceding, syntactically precompleting head element like an object to a verb. Moreover, when two-part structures of this kind inhabit the end field of a clause, this is doubly marked as an expiring dependency region. The end field is not only generally reserved for arguments that complement the finite verb phrase, but there are also local dependency relations within this syntactic region, for example, chains of verbs and adverbs or generalizing last list items. These environments are thus the natural loci for the leading edge of the turn transition space in a structural sense. I point out, however, that syntactic (pre)completion is not the only orientation and cue the interactants have but is connected to prosodic and semantic–pragmatic cues, which taken together enhance the impression of (possible) completeness in a given interactional slot (Ford & Thompson, 1996, p. 172). Nevertheless, it is important to note that pragmatic and prosodic completion, eventually, coincide with the syntactic completion of a turn unit and that prepossible completion overlaps probably occur where they do because of the good projectability of conventional syntactic structures.

EXTENDING THE CONTRIBUTION When an utterance that could be interpreted as a TCU, and thus as a possible turn, has reached a point of possible completion, negotiations about turn transition are actualized. At this point, another speaker can take the turn or the same speaker can continue the turn until a new transition relevance place opens. The latter option means in practice that there must be various structural possibilities to extend a current but possibly (or nearly) completed turn. In this article, I have been focused on phenomena that are attributed to TCUs, thus potential turns; and similarly, the following discussion of extensions concerns practices of continuing a clausal TCU beyond its possi-

104

Jan Lindström

ble point of (syntactic) completion. The phenomena I discuss include syntactically joined increments, syntactically delayed increments, and last and briefly postsegmented appositionals. From the perspective of turn organization, I am dealing with the TCU segment called postpossible completion in Schegloff (1996; cf. Figure 1 previously). Syntactically joined extensions include various kinds of grammatically integrated additions to a TCU that could already have been completed but was not, retrospectively, treated as a complete TCU by the interactants (cf. the concept of increments in Schegloff, 2000). In this way, additions of syntactically optional arguments are made to a phrase or a clause; one example of this practice is provided in the a-arrowed line 6 in Fragment (11). The fragment is taken from a telephone conversation to a ticket sales service; A is a representant for a local program organizer and negotiates about the possibility to minimize the need to submit sales reports to the centralized ticket service represented by B: 11. [LU:10] Telephone ticket sales. “Sales reports.” 01

02 03 04 05 a-> 06 07 08

09

10

11

A: .hh men dedär har du nån att hur ofta vill ni, have you some that how often will you but prt but have you got some how often do you want to ja menar att- att dedär att de att ja faxar I mean that erm that this that I fax varje da: så, (0.6) så dedär de e kanske int every day so so erm it is perhaps not listor. så hemst kiva7 för er att ha tusentals so very nice for you to have thousands of lists B: .hh A: fö [varje före] ställning. for every show B: [m:m: ] B: nå de:e kanske onödit att ~nu räcker de prt it’s perhaps unnecessary that now suffice it well it’s perhaps unnecessary it’ll probably be väl me:~ ↑om de ha hänt stora förändringar prt with if it has occurred great changes be enough, if there have been great changes så brukar de komma en ny men att (0.7) so use to it come a new but that we usually receive a new one but .hh a- två gånger, (1.0) kanske räcker. two times perhaps suffice two times is perhaps enough


12 b-> 13

105

(0.7) A: jå:= yeah B: =i veckan. a week

A’s turn comes to a syntactically, pragmatically, and prosodically possible completion in the end of line 4. It is also, indeed, oriented to as completed by B who anticipates an uptake by a prebeginning in breath in line 5, which then leads up to the hesitant response token “m:m:” here reproduced in line 7. At this juncture, A makes a syntactically joined addition to her turn by the optional adverbial complement “fö(r) varje föreställning” (to every show), which symptomatically—being postpossible completion— ends up in overlap with the response that B has already initiated. The addition specifies the preceding account with a temporal reference of frequency and to explicate the point made about the inconvenience of B having to receive lots of minor sales reports. The act of incrementing the adverbial unit is apparently done to increase the chances of receiving an aligned response. The early, overlapping part of B’s response (line 7) implies prosodically some initial doubts but takes a more cooperating course in the part following the increment, presumably as an orientation to it. Fragment (11) also provides an example of a syntactically delayed extension, or a delayed insertion, in line 13. This practice has not been discussed in connection with increments except for Auer (1996a) on German “expansions”; one can note that the practice bears some resemblance to delayed, third-turn repairs described in Schegloff (1997, p. 35). A delayed extension can consist of an optional adverbial argument (“i veckan” [(in) a week), but the addition does not form a grammatically continuous unit together with the preceding clausal unit—at least not according to canonical conventions of word order. Instead, the extension is an element that, syntactically, “ought to” have been produced earlier within the unit just completed (cf. Auer, 1996a, p. 64), that is, as a specification of the adverbial expression in the beginning of the clause “två gånger ”[i veckan] “kanske räcker” (two times [a week] is perhaps enough). Again, the increment follows a turn that already seems to have reached its syntactic, pragmatic, and prosodic point of completion and is apparently oriented to as such by A who produces a response token in line 12. As in the earlier case, the increment seems to secure the proper interpretation of the turn just completed, now postcompleting it.

106

Jan Lindström

The previous examples imply that postpossible completing practices have an air of repair about them, and some of them may be constructed in a manner quite similar to a repair (cf. Schegloff, 1996, p. 91, and Schegloff, 1997, on transition-space repair). This is especially the case with paradigmatic additions that may be understood as a subtype of syntactically delayed TCU extensions. Paradigmatic additions offer an element that is some kind of an alternative to or a replacement for a prior element in the turn just possibly completed. In Swedish, these type of extensions occur characteristically together with a lexical marker of repair or rewording such as alltså (so, that is), eller (or), and ja(g) menar (I mean). An example containing the increment “alltså nästa sommar” (that is next summer) is given in Fragment (12) from a conversation in a meeting: 12. [SAM:M1] Board meeting in a kindergarten. “Repairing the building.” 01 02 -> 03 04 05

L:

eh di kommer att ha målare i sommar. they are going to have painters in summer (0.9) L: alltså nästa sommar. [(.hh) å då (.) that is next summer and then V: [mhm L: då ska di göra alla di här then they’ll do all these

The unit in line 1 is possibly complete in syntactic, pragmatic, and prosodic respects, and the completion is also strongly manifested by the following pause of almost 1 sec. Apparently, given the lack of uptakes or other responses, L adds the increment “alltså nästa sommar” (that is next summer), which more or less paraphrases and explicates the time reference “i sommar” (this [upcoming] summer) from the end of the preceding unit. The addition succeeds in eliciting a response token (“mhm”) from V at the recreated turn transition place in line 4, and this leaves the floor open for a more confident turn continuation by L. There is still at least one more special practice of adding syntactic elements to a TCU after its possible completion. Here I refer to syntactically joined extensions that not only add an optional argument but redirect the previous syntactic unit as an input to the added unit. A characteristic Swedish example of this practice is the addition of stance marking short, often stereotyped, clausal units such as “tycker ja”(g) (I think) in Fragment (13) (see Karlsson, 2003):


107

13. [UVAT6:A:7] Private telephone conversation. ”Bald wig.” 01 02

03

->04

05

06

E:

[nä: hh jorå du kan koll[a, no sure you can check S: [men den (.) >den måste man but that that must one but that one certainly håre me.< ju kunna täcka prt be able to cover the hair with will be able to cover your hair ty↑cker j[a, think I I think E: [ja bara ja får bort de liksom värsyes only I get away it like worstyes if I only can hide it like worst mest fram:me liksom. most in front like the foremost (part) like

S produces a turn that reaches its possible syntactic, pragmatic, and prosodic completion in line 3. The short verb-first construed clause “tycker ja”(g) (I think, in my opinion) is then added in line 4 to indicate a more explicit subjective orientation to the claim and in this way to make it less categorical and easier to comment. Syntactically, the final unit “tycker ja” may be analyzed as a clause that takes the whole preceding clause as its preplaced object. As pointed out by Karlsson (2003), the preceding clause can be recognized as an object to the final increment clause “tycker ja” only retrospectively once the whole structure is unfolded. From the point of turn organization and the interactants, “tycker ja” in Fragment (13) is clearly a postpossible completion unit, which makes the traditional syntactic analysis of it as a superordinate clause odd. Indeed, tycker ja (literally, think-I and not I think) is a subtype of a regular discourse dependent (and in a sense responsive) declarative structure in Swedish. The verb initial clausal word order, in practice an inversion of the combination subject–predicate, is conditioned by the fact that clauses of this type are appended to a preceding discourse unit (J. Lindström & Karlsson, 2005). Moreover, tycker ja is thus a member of the class of verb-first declaratives that often carry the function of a parenthetical or a collateral move (cf. the analysis of Fragment (7) previously).

108

Jan Lindström

It is no coincidence that extensions of the type tycker ja share structural and functional properties with TCU final markers of the type vetdu (you know). These too have an original verb-first (and pronoun-then) minimal clausal shape and have in fact evolved from incremented verb-first clauses (J. Lindström & Wide, 2005). Fragment (14) contains an example of vetdu in line 2: 14. [UMOL2:A:18] Private telephone conversation. “Dog hotel.” 01

->02 03

de e värre B: Ja >då e’re nog inte< så falit Yes then is it prt not so dangerous it is worse Yes then it’s (probably) not so dangerous it’s worse mot m:itten å slute ve [t dö¿ towards the middle and the end know-you V: [Ja:¿ yes

Like TCU initial markers, their postcompleting relatives occur conventionally outside the syntactic and communicative core TCU. Indeed, most of these elements are shared in the presegmented and postcompleted position: terms of address, response particles, discourse particles (including vetdu and hördu), and various adverbs used as discourse markers. Other elements are specifically postcompleters such as the Swedish tag questions va (what, right) and inte sant ([is it] not true, right) (cf. Schegloff, 1996, pp. 91–92). The practice of specifically postcompleting a turn may involve choosing the next speaker, eliciting a (desired) response, securing an appropriate interpretation of the just completed project, or indeed, marking the decisive closure of a project by virtue of the last turn unit being recognizably after its completion (see Sacks et al., 1974, pp. 718–719). The various practices that can take place in the turn’s postpossible completion show that it is essential to be able to define and redefine the point of turn closure and thus create and recreate possibilities for a smooth turn transition and an adequate contribution by the next speaker. The flexibility and incremental expandability of syntactic structures is a central grammatical resource for the management of these interactional tasks: The practice of redefining a turn transition-relevance place is made possible by the availability of grammatical practices of redefining points of syntactic completion. The practice of postcompletion differs from orientations to precompletion in that


109

postcompletion follows units that do not in any obvious grammatical (or pragmatic or prosodic) manner project a structural completer. Although all the extension practices I have described here are instances of the completion of a turn/TCU after the point of its possible (syntactic, pragmatic, and prosodic) completion, they cannot, however, be analyzed grammatically in a uniform fashion. First, syntactically joined increments—such as in Fragment (11), line 6—operate within the scope of the topological end field in clausal TCUs; the additions are included (or natural) continuations of the clausal or phrasal construction from the point of its potential closure. Second, the syntactically redirecting type exemplified by the clausal increment “tycker ja” in Fragment (13) is topologically ambiguous; the verb-first structure signals that these elements belong to the prior unit, but on the other hand, the minimal clause is not a complement to a prior clause. It is interactionally reasonable to analyze extensions of the type tycker ja as positioned in the clausal postend field, bearing certain resemblance to syntactically isolated TCU final markers (cf. “vet du” in Fragment (14)). Third, syntactically delayed extensions—such as in Fragment (11), line 13 and in Fragment (12)—are clearly instances of grammatical practices that occur after the definite closure of a constructional frame; thus, they operate in the topological postend field. Of course, this is the natural syntactic locus also of ordinary TCU final markers. The rich syntactic and interactional organizational variety in the turn’s postpossible completing segment is further illustrated in Figure 4. Postcompleting appositionals are specifically designed to make a link to the next turn, and they may belong more to the turn and the sequence than to the particular TCU to which they are attached (cf. Schegloff, 1996). The syntactic manifestation of this relation is that intrinsically, postcompleting elements are not integrated in the inner clausal frame in clausal TCUs but stand parenthetically outside it in the clausal postend field. Syntactic increments to TCUs may share some of the functional motivations of TCU final markers in creating a link to the next turn. An essential difference is that the latter form a closed, lexicalized class of expressions; whereas incremented TCU completers are produced in situ as extensions of the turn’s contribution to the conversation. In doing that, increments often seem to address some kind of impairment in the possibly completed contribution or in the reception of it. This is not at all a necessary motivation of TCU final markers, which, like their presegmented relatives, are devoted to sequential positioning work.

110

Jan Lindström

FIGURE 4 A survey of different syntactic practices of extending a clausal turn constructional unit beyond the point of its possible completion.

CONCLUSION My purpose has been to show the import of grammar, and syntax as its basic component, on interactional considerations. On one hand, syntax is organized around social actions and practices that become relevant at a given interactional juncture and activity. This becomes manifest in an external syntax for turns/TCUs (or a syntax for the sequence), by which I refer to features of turn construction that affiliate the turn to the preceding turn and the projected next turn. On the other hand, syntactic structures are of great relevance in their own right in organizing social actions and practices by virtue of having a structure, that is, an internal syntax that is regular and thus recognizable and on certain conditions predictable. From the perspective of a participant, syntax may then function as a map that helps the interactants to orient themselves in the interaction and to synchronize their actions with the other parties’ actions. The syntactic structuring of turns is strikingly related to the interactional organization of the turns’/TCUs’ presegmented and postcompleting parts. Seen in the traditional syntactic topology, these turn parts constitute distinct extraposed fields around a communicative as well as a grammatical core utterance. At this point, syntax can be understood as a


111

more or less direct reflection of something that is in essence conditioned by interactionally sensitive practices. Moreover, an analysis of conversational Swedish reveals interactional structures that do not always become grammatically manifest in languages with another kind syntactic topology including English. In this study, I have brought to the fore several examples of an interplay between grammar and interaction in Swedish turn organization: 1. Adverbs (i.e., disjuncts or conjunts), such as i varje fall (in any case), are coded like appositionals when used as discourse markers. 2. Action projecting clausal units (such as the question frame jag undrar [I wonder]) may have their role of a matrix sentence downplayed and be coded more or less like TCU initial discourse markers (cf. discussed previously). 3. Verb-first declaratives may be interpreted as a case of beginning a turn without a beginning, thus displaying interactional implications typical of minimal responses, for example, being sequence dependent, not floorovertaking moves. 4. Verb-first declaratives (such as tycker jag [I think], literally think-I) also occur postpossible completion as increments, which confirms their typical status as responsive parenthetical contributions; moreover, verbfirst increments are a source of certain lexicalized TCU final markers sharing the same inverted verb–subject form (such as vetdu [you know], literally, know-you). Especially noteworthy is that presegmented turn parts occur outside the general verb-second pattern for Swedish declarative clauses; this provides an instrument for identifying various kinds of discourse marking units in syntactic terms. The noted verb-first variations of declarative structures seem to depend on sequential and interactional sensitivity; the specific clausal structure, which stands out from the general verb-second declarative topology of Swedish, corresponds to specific interactional meanings and contexts. Instances of this kind thus shed some light on how language specific clausal constructional resources work in practice in the organization of turns (cf. Sacks et al., 1974, p. 730). As mentioned before, aspects of a more integrated grammar can have a crucial interactional import. This is evident in the construction and the identification of sentence starts. One structurally revealing practice is the

112

Jan Lindström

management of restarts in which potential internal clause elements are recycled, whereas extraposed, presegmented elements are not. Functionally, presegmented elements do positioning work in association with a TCU, whereas recognizable sentence starts begin the substantial contribution of the TCU/turn and effectively establish an incipient utterance as current—in other words, as a turn that the speaker is entitled and obliged to bring to a closure (cf. Lerner, 1996, p. 267; Schegloff, 1996, p. 97). There is thus important syntactic and interactional reasons for regarding presegmented material and genuine sentence starts as different objects. Another example of the relevance of integrated syntax to interactional considerations is its ability to project possible points of structural termination. In clausal TCUs, the projection of a possible completion becomes gradually more and more enhanced as the production enters the clausal end field where grammatical elements are ordered with respect to a diminishing dependency on the verb they complement. This makes it possible to foresee what is needed for possible utterance completion and facilitates the synchronizing of turn starts with turn closures with a split-second precision or even in a slight overlap with the closing element(s) of a turn. The possibility of extending syntactic structures by incrementing (optional) syntactic arguments is also a key interactional resource by which problems and gaps that may appear in turn taking can be repaired. Grammar provides here many ways of locally and individually enlarging and redefining a possibly closed (clausal) unit of speech. There is, therefore, ample evidence that grammar, and especially its syntactic component, is inseparable from what is going on in interaction. From this perspective, the syntax of a language appears to some extent to be motivated by (or adapted to) language use and the diverse practical tasks associated with it rather than to be a relatively arbitrary, autonomous, and abstract set of constructional rules. One can also safely say that linguistic competence does not just involve coding and decoding of meanings: It is essential in the carrying out, identification, and synchronizing of social practices between individuals.

NOTES 1 Schegloff (1996, p. 93) mentioned yet another locus of turn internal organization that he termed “post-beginning.” This refers to possible breaks in the turn’s progression that may involve reaction eliciting, repair initiations, and other initial checking practices


113

carried out just after a turn/TCU has been initiated, for example, after a speaker has produced a conjunction such as but in a new contribution. This position is not included in Figure 1 mainly because it is the most unexplored of the possible turn organizational practices; thus, it is not certain where its formalized locus should be in the model. My impression is that postbeginning practices are structurally undetermined in that they can occur in more than one specific slot in turn organization, that is, somewhere ”around” the beginning. 2 I make a distinction here between discourse particles and discourse markers. The former are expressions that are used in specifically text- and interaction-regulating purposes; the latter is a general functional label that comprises ordinary discourse particles as well as expressions that may besides other grammatical functions be used in a textand interaction-regulating function. 3 Juttu = thing, story; originated in Finnish and is also Finland Swedish slang in Helsinki. 4 Dalla = walk (about); Finland Swedish slang in Helsinki. 5 English differs here from Scandinavian in using do-support in polar questions instead of simple subject-verb inversion when the finite verb is not an auxiliary: Does she write often? corresponds to the Swedish Skriver hon ofta?, literally Writes she often?’; compare the declarative Hon skriver ofta (She writes often). 6 I note that Swedish has no verbal inflection in person, which is one reason for why verb-initial and subjectless clauses are not a natural resource of the language if compared with languages with a rich verbal inflection such as Italian or Finnish. Instead, the subject and the finite verb are regarded as compulsory constituents of a well-formed Swedish clause; moreover, a well-formed declarative should have one (but only one) constituent in the position preceding the finite verb. The verb-first declarative in Fragment (7) breaks both these rules: There is no first, pre-finite clause constituent and no subject. 7 Kiva is colloquial Finland Swedish (and Finnish) meaning nice.

REFERENCES Auer, P. (1993). Zur Verbspitzenstellung im gesprochenen Deutsch [On initial verb placement in spoken German]. Deutsche Sprache, 3, 193–222. Auer, P. (1996a). On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 57–100) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Auer, P. (1996b). The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics, 6, 295–322. Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25, 7–36. Diderichsen, P. (1946). Elementær dansk grammatik [Elementary Danish grammar]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Gyldendalske boghandel—Nordisk forlag.

114

Jan Lindström

Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Fox, B. A., & Jasperson, R. (1995). A syntactic exploration of repair in English conversation. In P. W. Davis (Ed.), Alternative linguistics. Descriptive and theoretical modes (pp. 77–134). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 97–121). New York: Irvington. Green-Vänttinen, M. (2001). Lyssnaren i fokus. En samtalsanalytisk studie i uppbackningar [The lister in focus. A conversation analytical study of feedback tokens]. Helsinki, Finland: SLS. Hakulinen, A., Keevallik Eriksson, L., & Lindström, J. (2003). Kuule, kule, hördu. Projicerande praktiker i finska, estniska och svenska samtal [Projecting practices in Finnish, Estonian and Swedish conversations]. In B. Nordberg, L. Keevallik Eriksson, K. Thelander, & M. Thelander (Eds.), Grammatik och samtal (pp. 199–218). Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University. Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation. Semiotica, 9, 47–96. Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. In V. D’Urso & P. Leonardi (Eds.), Discourse analysis and natural rhetorics (pp. 11–38). Padua, Italy: CLEUP Editore. Jefferson, G. (1986). Notes on “latency” in overlap onsets. Human Studies, 9, 153–183. Karlsson, S. (2003). Interactional uses for an epistemic marker: The case of “Jag tycker”/ “Tycker jag” in Swedish. Melbourne Papers in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 5–23. Lerner, G. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20, 441–458. Lerner, G. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lindholm, C. (2003). Frågor i praktiken. Flerledade frågeturer i samtal mellan läkare och patient [Questions in practice. Multi unit question turns in conversations between doctor and patient]. Helsinki, Finland: SLS. Lindholm, C., & Lindström, J. (2003). ”Får jag fråga?” Frågeramar i institutionell interaktion [“May I ask? Question frames in institutional interaction]. Språk och stil, 13, 35–64. Lindholm, C., & Lindström, J. (2004). Dislokationer och fristående topiker. Två annexkonstruktioner i talad svenska [Dislocations and hanging topics. Two syntactically isolated constructions in spoken Swedish]. In B. Melander (Ed.), Svenskans beskrivning 26 (pp. 196–207). Uppsala, Sweden: Hallgren & Fallgren. Lindström, A. (1994). Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings. Language in Society, 23, 231–252. Lindström, A. (1999). Language as social action. Grammar, prosody, and interaction in Swedish conversation. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.


115

Lindström, J. (2002). Från satsschema till turschema? Förfältet i fokus [From a clausal schematic to a turn schematic? The pre-front field in focus]. Språk & stil, 11, 25–80. Lindström, J., & Karlsson, S. (2005). Verb-first constructions as a syntactic and functional resource in Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 28, 97–131. Lindström, J., & Wide, C. (2005). Tracing the origins of a set of discourse particles. Swedish particles of the type you know. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 6, 211–236. Linell, P. (2003). Responsiva konstruktioner i samtalsspråkets grammatik [Responsive constructions in the grammar of spoken language]. Folkmålsstudier, 42, 11–39. Londen, A.-M. (1993). Svenska samtal i Helsingfors. Presentation av ett pågående projekt [Swedish conversations in Helsinki. Presentation of an on-going project]. In V. Muittari & M. Rahkonen (Eds.), Svenskan i Finland 3 (pp. 133–156). Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylä University. Londen, A.-M. (1995). Samtalsforskning: En introduktion [Research in conversation: An introduction]. Folkmålsstudier, 36, 11–52. Mörnsjö, M. (2002). V1 declaratives in spoken Swedish. Syntax, information structure, and prosodic pattern. Lund, Sweden: Lundastudier i nordisk språkvetenskap. Peirce, C. S. (1932). Collected papers, Vol. 2: Elements of logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I Ask You a Question?”. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 104–152. Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organisation. In G. Button & J. R. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 70–85). Clevendon, England: Multilingual Matters. Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Third turn repair. In G. R. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin, & J. Baugh (Eds.), Towards a social science of language. Volume 2: Social interaction and discourse structures (pp. 31–40). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Schegloff, E. A. (2000). On turn’s possible completion, more or less: Increments and trail-offs. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Sociology. Schegloff, E. A. (2004). On dispensability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 95–149. Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29, 477–517. Steensig, J. (2001). Sprog i virkeligheden. Bidrag til en interaktionel lingvistik [Language in reality. Contributions to interactional linguistics]. Århus, Denmark: Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Teleman, U., Hellberg, S., & Andersson, E. (1999). Svenska Akademiens grammatik [Swedish Academy grammar]. Stockholm, Sweden: Svenska Akademien.

116

Jan Lindström

TRANSCRIPTION SYMBOLS [ ] [[ = . , ? ¿ / wo:rd #word# $word$ word >word< °word° (word) ( ) ~word~ de:e (mt) (hh) (.hh) (.) (0.5) ((laughing))

a point of overlap onset a point at which two overlapping utterances both end two simultaneous turn-starts a single continuous utterance or two “latching” utterances a falling intonation contour a continuing intonation contour a rising intonation contour a somewhat rising intonation contour prosodic upstep a stretching of a sound creaky voice smile voice, possibly accompanied with a laughter a stressed syllable compressed or rushed talk slower or drawn out talk quiet or soft voice uncertain transcription or speaker identification no hearing or speaker identification a stylized prosodic contour legato pronunciation a smacking sound an audible out breath an audible in breath a micropause, less than 2/10 sec a pause measured in tenths of a second transcriber’s comments

DATA SOURCES GRIS = The kernel corpus sampled within the project “Grammar in Conversation: A Study of Swedish.” The corpus comprises 11 hr of recordings from everyday to institutional settings, face-to-face, and telephone conversations; the material is transcribed according to CA standards. One of the conversations is USÅINF 2:1, which occurs between four elderly ladies in an informal get-together at home (recording of this conversation by Mats Eriksson; transcription by Karin


117

Ridell, Uppsala University). See http://www.tema.liu.se/Tema-K/gris/ summary.html HSAM = Svenska samtal i Helsingfors (Swedish conversations in Helsinki), Department of Scandinavian Languages and Literature, University of Helsinki. Also a part of the project corpus “Grammar in Conversation: A Study of Swedish.” (GRIS; Londen, 1993). INK = Interaktion i institutionell kontext (Interaction in an institutional context), Department of Scandinavian Languages and Literature, University of Helsinki (Lindholm, 2003). LU = Conversations in service encounters, Department of Scandinavian Languages and Literature, University of Helsinki. Collected and transcribed by Charlotta af Hällström; the transcription was revised for this article by J. Lindström. UMOL, UVAT = Private telephone conversations, Department of Scandinavian Languages (FUMS), Uppsala University. Also a part of the project corpus “Grammar in Conversation: A Study of Swedish” (GRIS; A. Lindström, 1994).

Grammar in the Service of Interaction: Exploring Turn ... - CiteSeerX

Grammar in the Service of Interaction: Exploring Turn ... - CiteSeerX

Suggest Documents

Grammar in the Service of Interaction: Exploring Turn ... - CiteSeerX

A French Interaction Grammar - CiteSeerX

Exploring the disconnections: Student interaction with ... - CiteSeerX

THE INTERACTION BETWEEN CONTEXT AND GRAMMAR IN

Exploring Enterprise Service Bus in the Service

Exploring Business Interaction in Service Networks - IMP Group

Exploring Business Interaction in Service Networks - IMP Group

Trustworthy Interaction Balancing in Mixed Service ... - CiteSeerX

Developing the Textual Turn: tracking the grammar of ...

The grammar-interaction interface of negative

exploring the animal turn - Pufendorfinstitutet - Lunds universitet

Turn-taking in human communicative interaction

exploring the animal turn - pufendorfinstitutet - Lunds universitet

Projection in interaction and projection in grammar*

Exploring Novel Ways of Interaction in Musical Performance - CiteSeerX

the nonhuman turn - CiteSeerX

Exploring the Interaction Natures in Plutonyl (VI

three way interaction: exploring the impact of a ... - CiteSeerX

Exploring the role of social interaction for regulating m - CiteSeerX

EXPLORING THE STYLE-TECHNIQUE INTERACTION IN ...

exploring sociotechnical interaction with rob kling - CiteSeerX

The Feel Dimension of Technology Interaction: Exploring ... - CiteSeerX

An Online Approach for the Service Interaction Problem in ... - CiteSeerX

INTUI. Exploring the Facets of Intuitive Interaction