Cover not available
Part of
Temporality in Interaction
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Susanne Günthner
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27] 2015
► pp. 123–146

Temporality and the Emergence of a Construction

A Discourse Approach to Sluicing

A sluice (Ross 1969) is a wh-word that, in the standard syntactic view, refers to ellipted material in an antecedent clause. In the present study, based on conversational data, I view sluices from a temporal and interactional perspective in which grammatical constructions are seen as emergent in time rather than as fixed stable entities. I analyze the different timings of sluices in terms of their projective, retractive, preemptive and other functions. Pre-sluices are forward-oriented and work to block potential questions that might distract from a current or upcoming theme. Post-sluices are “retractions” (cf. Auer 2009) that close off a completed turn or a sequence of turns.
Published online: 20 March 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.04hop
References (35)
American National Corpus. <[URL]>
Auer, Peter. 2000. “Online Syntax – oder was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen.” Sprache und Literatur 85: 43–56.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7–36.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Online Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “‘L’idée vient en parlant’: Kleists Entwurf zur dialogischen Emergenz von Sprache und Denken.” Lecture Series Heinrich von Kleist: Zum 200. Todesjahr eines rebellischen Klassikers.Deutsches Seminar der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg in Verbindung mit der FRIAS School of Language and Literature, dem Studium Generale, der Freiburger Goethe-Gesellschaft und dem Theater Freiburg. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter and Stefan Pfänder. 2011. “Constructions: Emergent or Emerging?” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder, 1–21. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1952. “Linear Modification.” Publications of the Modern Language Association 67: 1117–1144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brazil, David. 1995. A Grammar of Speech. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chadwick, Henry. 1991. Saint Augustine: Confessions. Translation, Introduction, Notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Sandra A. Thompson. 2006. “‘You know, it’s funny’: Eine Neubetrachtung der Extraposition im Englischen.“ In Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, ed. by Susanne Günthner and Wolfgang Imo, 23–58. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., et al. 2000–2005. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1- 4. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Franck, Dorothea. 1985. “Sentences in Conversational Turns.” In Dialogue, An Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. by Marcelo Dascal, 233–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Paul Hopper. 2010. “Zeitlichkeit und sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen.“ Gesprächsforschung 11: 1–28, URL: [URL].Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1998. “Emergent Grammar.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Linguistic Structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 155–75. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Grammatical Constructions and their Discourse Origins: Prototype or Family Resemblance?” In Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition, ed. by Martin Pütz, Susanne Niemeier, and René Dirven, 109–129. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Die Bedeutsamkeit der mündlichen Interaktion für die Linguistik: Die Pseudocleft-Konstruktion im Englischen.“ In Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik, ed. by Anatol Stefanowitsch and Kerstin Fischer, 179–188. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. “Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 2011. “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder, 22–44. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “The Openness of Grammatical Constructions.” Chicago Linguistic Society 40: 239–256.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. “Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining, ed. by Ritva Laury, 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleist, Heinrich von. 1806. “Über die allmähliche Verfertigung der Gedanken beim Reden.” Unnumbered. <[URL]>Google Scholar
McShane, Marjorie J. 2005. A Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. A Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Variable Island Repair under Ellipsis.” In Topics in Ellipsis, ed. by John Kyle, 132–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. “Introduction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi and Sandra A. Thompson, 1994. “Unattached NPs in English conversation.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 20: 402–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1922. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 8. Ausgabe. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1947. Phonemics: A Technique for Reducing Languages to Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: U Michigan.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1969. “Guess who?” Chicago Linguistic Society 5: 252–286.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan and Joanna Nykiel. 2008. We Can’t Hear the Strikethroughs either: Sluicing without Deletion. Stanford, CA: Stanford U. URL: [URL].Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwitalla, Johannes. 2012. Gesprochenes Deutsch: Eine Einführung. 4., neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John and Anna Mauranen. 2006. Linear Unit Grammar. Integrating Speech and Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

HELLERMANN, JOHN & STEVEN L. THORNE
2022. Collaborative Mobilizations of Interbodied Communication for Cooperative Action. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.