Cover not available
Part of
Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action
Edited by Yael Maschler, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Jan K. Lindström and Leelo Keevallik
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 32] 2020
► pp. 303–330

Chapter 11
Relative-clause increments and the management of reference

A multimodal analysis of French talk-in-interaction

In this paper we propose a reanalysis of relative clauses in French talk-in-interaction as part of “grammar for talk implementing action” (Schegloff, 1996: p. 113). Our analytic focus is on relative clauses produced as increments, i.e., cases where the [main clause + relative clause] pattern emerges gradually, in response to interactional contingencies such as co-participants’ verbal and embodied conduct. We identify two recurrent interactional purposes that speakers accomplish by means of such self-incremented relative clauses: referential repair, ensuing from a recipient’s verbal and/or embodied display of trouble; referential elaboration, ensuing from a recipient’s verbal and/or embodied display of referent recognition. The findings challenge the notion of relative clauses as subordinate clauses, and extend our understanding of the emergent nature of grammar to the field of complex syntax.
Keywords: relative clauses, increments, grammar-in-interaction, embodied conduct, repair
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Relative clauses and increments
    • 2.1Relative clauses
    • 2.2Relative clauses as increments
  • 3.Data
  • 4.RCs as self-increments – I: A resource for doing referential repair
  • 5.RCs as self-increments – II: A resource for doing referential elaboration
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Glosses
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 17 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.11sto
References (69)
References
Auer, P. (1998). Zwischen Parataxe und Hypotaxe: ‘abhängige Hauptsätze’ im Gesprochenen und Geschriebenen Deutsch. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 26, 284–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Why are increments such elusive objects? An afterthought. Pragmatics 17, 647–658. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béguelin, M.-J., Matthey, M., Bronckart, J.-P. & Canelas-Trevisi, S. (2000). De la phrase aux énoncés : grammaire scolaire et descriptions linguistiques. Bruxelles: De Boeck Duculot.Google Scholar
Berrendonner, A. (2008). L’alternance que / #. Subordination sans marqueur ou structure périodique? In D. Van Raemdonck (Ed.), Modèles syntaxiques (pp.279–298). Berne: Lang.Google Scholar
Berrendonner, A. & [Reichler-]Béguelin, M.-J. (1989). Décalages : les niveaux de l’analyse linguistique. Langue Française 81, 99–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunner, J.-J. (1981). Ces relatives qui n’en sont pas. L’information grammaticale 8, 12–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. (2007). Grammar in time: the non-restrictive ‘which’-clause as an interactional resource. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 55, 51–82.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). Intonation and clause-combining in discourse: the case of because. Pragmatics 6, 389–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Turn continuation and clause combinations. Discourse processes 49, 273–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Ono. T. (Eds.) (2007). Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective. Pragmatics 17.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Günthner, S. (Eds.) (2015). Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deulofeu, J. (1999). Questions de méthode dans la description morphosyntaxique de l’élément QUE en français contemporain. Recherches sur le français parlé 15, 163–198.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1997). ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28, 69–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations (pp.366–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. & R. D. Van Valin Jr. (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.134–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. & Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp.14–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. & Thompson, S. A. (2007). Relative clauses in English conversation. Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction. Studies in Language 31, 293–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gapany, J. (2004). Formes et fonctions des relatives en français. Étude syntaxique et sémantique. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1990). Syntax. A Functional-typological Introduction. Vol. II, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givon, T. (1995). Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Ch. (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.Google Scholar
(1987). Forgetfulness as an Interactive Resource. Social Psychology Quarterly 50, 115–131. (Special Issue on Language and Society, edited by Douglas Maynard).Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. & Goodwin, Ch. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica 62, 51–75.Google Scholar
Groupe de Fribourg (2012). Grammaire de la période. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2008). Die Sache ist …’: eine Projektorkonstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27, 39–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person Reference in Interaction (pp.255–280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 139–157.Google Scholar
(2011). Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (pp.22–45). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. A. (2008). Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions (pp.99–124) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). La dislocation à droite revisitée. Une approche interactionniste. Louvain-la-Neuve : De Boeck. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horlacher, A.-S. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2014). ‘Pivotage’ in French talk-in-interaction: on the emergent nature of [clause-NP-clause] pivots. Pragmatics 24, 593–622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (2006 (1993)). Essentials of English grammar. London: G. Allen and Unwin. (consulted in the version Routledge/Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006).Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2013). The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46, 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar? Research on Language and Social Interaction 51, 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R. (Ed.) (2008). Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R. & Suzuki, R. (Eds.) (2011). Subordination in Conversation. A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R. & Helasvuo, M.-L. (2015). Detached NPs with relative clauses in Finnish conversations. In M. M. J. Fernandez-Vest & R. D. Van Valin Jr. (Eds.), Information Structuring of Spoken Language from a Crosslinguistic Perspective (pp.149–166). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Le Goffic, P. (1994). Indéfinis, interrogatifs, relatifs (termes en QU-) : parcours avec ou sans issue. Faits de langues 2, 31–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J. (2006). Grammar in the service of interaction: Exploring turn organization in Swedish. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39, 81–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J., Maschler, Y. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.) (2016). Grammar and negative epistemics in talk-in-interaction: Cross-linguistic studies. Journal of Pragmatics, 106.Google Scholar
Matthiesen, C. & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and subordination. In Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. (pp. 275–329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y. (2011). On the emergence of adverbial connectives from Hebrew relative clause constructions. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (pp.293–331). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018). Conventions for multimodal transcription. Retrieved from: [URL]Google Scholar
Norén, N. (2013). Pivots constructions as methods for perspective shift during turns at talk. Journal of Pragmatics 54, 35–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: The on-line formatting of dislocated constructions in French conversation. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (pp.45–88). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2013). The patching together of pivot-patterns in talk-in-interaction: On ‘double dislocations’ in French. Journal of Pragmatics 54, 92–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). Time and Emergence in Grammar. Left-dislocation, Right-dislocation, Topicalization, and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-C. & Rioul, R. (2016). Grammaire méthodique du français. 6e éd., Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp.15–21), New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
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 (52–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). On turns’ possible completion, more or less: increments and trail-offs. Paper delivered at the 1st Euroconference on Interactional Linguistics, Spa, Belgium.Google Scholar
(2016), Increments. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Social Interaction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 239–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, E.-L. & Laury, R. (2007). Complement clauses as turn continuations: The Finnish et(tä)-clause. Pragmatics (Special Issue: Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective) 17, 553–572.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43, 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoenica, I.-M. (2014). Répétition et différenciation dans les reprises structurelles intégrant des relatives. In S. Rezzonico (Ed.), La parole reprise: formes, processus et fonctions. Actes du 12e colloque de logopédie – 16–17 novembre 2012, TRANEL 60, 209–220.Google Scholar
(2016a). Grammaire-en-interaction: le potentiel praxéologique des relatives dans les conversations en français. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée 104, 87–103.Google Scholar
(2016b). Les relatives en contexte énumératif: une étude séquentielle. In O. Galatanu, A.-M. Cozma & A. Bellachhab (Eds.), Représentations du sens linguistique. Les interfaces de la complexité (pp.257–270). Bruxelles : Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2018). Le rôle des relatives dans l’organisation séquentielle de l’interaction: une approche temporelle, interactionnelle et praxéologique. [The role of relative clauses in the sequential organisation of the interaction: A temporal, interactional and praxeological approach]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Stoenica, I.-M., Pekarek Doehler, S. & Horlacher, A.-S. (to appear). Emergent complex noun phrases: On-line trajectories of ‘relativized’ NPs in French talk-in-interaction. In S. A. Thompson & Y. Ono (Eds.), The pragmatics of the ‘noun phrase’ across languages: An emergent unit in interaction, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, Typological Studies in Language series.
Tanaka, H. (1999). Turn-Taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tao, H. & McCarthy, M. J. (2001). Understanding non-restrictive which-clauses in spoken English, which is not an easy thing. Language Sciences 23, 651–677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A. (2002). ‘Object complements’ and conversation. Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26, 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, G. (2001). A phonetic approach to talk-in-interaction. Increments in conversation. M.A. thesis, University of York, UK.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Avgustis, Iuliia & Florence Oloff
2023. Getting (Others) Involved with Smartphones: Participation in Showing Sequences in Multiparty Settings. In Complexity of Interaction, ► pp. 297 ff. DOI logo
Floyd, Simeon
2021. Conversation and Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 50:1 ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Stoenica, Ioana-Maria & Sophia Fiedler
2021. Multimodal Practice for Mobilizing Response: The Case of Turn-Final Tu Vois ‘You See’ in French Talk-in-Interaction. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.