400 Sprache, Linguistik
Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Review (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Keywords
- Konjunktion (5) (remove)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (3)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (2)
Publisher
- Benjamins (1)
- Frontiers Media SA (1)
- Institut de Linguistique Française (1)
- de Gruyter (1)
This contribution investigates the use of the Czech particle jako (“like”/“as”) in naturally occurring conversations. Inspired by interactional research on unfinished or suspended utterances and on turn-final conjunctions and particles, the analysis aims to trace the possible development of jako from conjunction to a tag-like particle that can be exploited for mobilizing affiliative responses. Traditionally, jako has been described as conjunction used for comparing two elements or for providing a specification of a first element [“X (is) like Y”]. In spoken Czech, however, jako can be flexibly positioned within a speaking turn and does not seem to operate as a coordinating or hypotactic conjunction. As a result, prior studies have described jako as a polyfunctional particle. This article will try to shed light on the meaning of jako in spoken discourse by focusing on its apparent fuzzy or “filler” uses, i.e., when it is found in a mid-turn position in multi-unit turns and in the immediate vicinity of hesitations, pauses, and turn suspensions. Based on examples from mundane, video-recorded conversations and on a sequential and multimodal approach to social interaction, the analyses will first show that jako frequently frames discursive objects that co-participants should respond to. By using jako before a pause and concurrently adopting specific embodied displays, participants can more explicitly seek to mobilize responsive action. Moreover, as jako tends to cluster in multi-unit turns involving the formulation of subjective experience or stance, it can be shown to be specifically designed for mobilizing affiliative responses. Finally, it will be argued that the potential of jako to open up interactive turn spaces can be linked to the fundamental comparative semantics of the original conjunction.
Lors de la négociation située de l'alternance des tours de parole en interaction (Sacks, Schegloff et Jefferson, 1974), les participants s'orientent vers la complétude possible des unités de construction de tour. Grâce à une complétion différée d'un tour de parole précédent, un locuteur peut revendiquer son droit à la parole au-delà d'un tour intercalaire d'un autre locuteur. Cet article exploite différentes formes de cette "delayed completion" (Lerner, 1989) en français parlé. À l'aide du cadre théorique de l'Analyse conversationnelle (ten Have, 1999), nous démontrerons que ce procédé ne relève pas uniquement d'une alternance de tour de parole problématique, mais aussi de séquences collaboratives, qui sont en lien étroit avec le phénomène des constructions syntaxiques collaboratives. En s'intéressant à ces structures syntaxiques émergentes, il est possible de démontrer la négociation située et locale - tour par tour – du droit à la parole et de la dynamique de l'alternance des tours en conversation ordinaire. A base d'une collection d'extraits issus d'interactions naturelles enregistrées en audio ou en vidéo, différentes manières de revendiquer ou de partager son tour seront illustrées. Lors des analyses, une attention particulière sera dédiée à quelques phénomènes récurrents dans les séquences de complétion différée. Ainsi, l'exploitation de certaines conjonctions en tant que marqueurs discursifs ou la présence d'allongements vocaliques en fin du premier segment semblent indiquer des co-occurrences de ressources audibles spécifiques à différents types de complétion différée en conversation française.
This article discusses the question whether the distinction between subordination and coordination is parallel in syntax and discourse. Its main thesis is that subordination and coordination, as they are commonly understood in the linguistic literature, are genuinely syntactic concepts. The distinction between hierarchical and non-hierarchical connection in discourse structure, as far as it is defined clearly in the literature, is of a quite different nature. The syntax and semantics of connectives (as the most prominent morphosyntactic means by which subordination and coordination are encoded) offers little evidence to support the assumption of a structural parallelism between syntax and discourse. As a methodological consequence, sentence and discourse structure should not be mixed up in linguistic analysis.
This paper develops a theoretical model for the semantics of connectives, following central ideas of Reichenbachian tense semantics.
In a first step, the terminological and conceptual framework is presented and illustrated with German da. The meaning of a connective is modeled as a four-place-relation between the situated object E, a reference object R, a discourse anchor S and the speaker O. The relata can belong to one of four different classes of entities: physical object, event, proposition or act. Correspondingly, the relations are divided into four cognitive domains: space, time, alethics/epistemics, and deontics. In each domain, relations can be treated under three different perspectives: situation, condition or causation. A cross-classification of relational domains and perspectives provides a typology of connectives which is more consistent than the ones available in traditional grammar.
In the second part of the article, the analytic apparatus is refined, using German so as the main example. Following Roman Jakobson, a distinction is made between contiguity and similarity relations. Contiguity relations are typically encoded by functional categories, whereas similarity relations are encoded by lexical categories. However, there are a few connectives like so which encode similarity relations. A structural isomorphism between similarity and contiguity relations makes it possible to reinterpret so in certain contexts as an indicator of contiguity. In these cases, so is semantically weakened, particularly in relation to its definiteness. The model is extended to also, from which als descends etymologically.
The third part of the article contains the semantic characterization of als in its variants as an intransitive and transitive connective. Als is described paradigmatically, in terms of the semantic oppositions that distinguish it from da, so, wie and wenn. Like so, it originally encodes similarity relations, but in present day German its use has been extended, so that it may indicate contiguity relations as well. With da and so it shares the abstract relational meaning O-S,R,E. The main difference from da is its lesser degree of definiteness; in contrast to so, its use is almost exclusively temporal. Wie and wenn are indefinites, i.e. they do not establish a deictic backlink to the speaker and discourse context. Als indicates that the situated event temporally overlaps with a specific event of reference, whose factivity is presupposed. The reference event must be categorically predictable in the context of utterance. Als does not indicate temporal antecedence of the reference event in relation to the speech event; it only requires the identifiability of the reference event and its non-coincidence with the speech event.
In the last section, so-called "peripheral temporal clauses" are examined with respect to the syntagmatic interaction between aspectuality, intonational focus, serialization of clauses and the abstract relational meaning of als. The proposed semantic formula is shown to be capable not only of clarifying the paradigmatic structure of a subset of German connectives but also of explaining the semantic and stylistic properties of complex sentences.