Temporal Inferences in Conversation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0021-1Abstract
Within this article, I explore how coproductions (expansions made by a second speaker upon a previous utterance) and questions regarding prior utterances work to verbalize inferences regarding the temporal information in spoken German conversation. While questions regarding prior utterances and coproductions are traditionally understood to have different communicative functions (signaling understanding/ misunderstanding; turn taking) to coproductions, empirical data shows how these expression types enable the speaker to gradually verbalize different strengths of assumption about details of the previous turn. These two expression types are not a dichotomy, but a continuum.
References
Auer, Peter (in press): „Projektionen und ihr Nutzen – oder: Warum die gesprochene Syntax oft minimalistisch ist.“
Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2002. “Projection in Interaction and Projecting in Grammar.” LiSt - Interaction and Linguistic Structures 33, 1-38.
Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2009. “Contrasting and turn transition: Prosodic projection with parallel-opposition constructions.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 2271–2294.
Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1994. Echo questions: A pragmatic account. Lingua 94: 197-211:
Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. 2003: Multiple modalities in collaborative turn sequences. Gesture 3, (2): 187–212.
Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Dietrich, Rainer. 1999. “Vom Inhalt zur Form. Ein semantischer Versuch zur Analyse von Modalpartikeln. In: Ausdrucksgrammatik versus Inhaltsgrammatik, Renate Freudenberg-Findeisen (eds), 129-137. München, Iudicum.
Google Scholar
Dittmar, Norbert; Terborg, Heiner. 1991. “Modality and second language learning: A challenge for linguistic theory.” In: Cross Currents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, Charles A. Ferguson and Tom Hübner (eds), 347-381. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. “What are discourse markers?“ Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931-952.
Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Stokhof, Martin. 1997. “Questions.” In: Handbook of logic and language. Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen (eds), 1055–1124. Amsterdam/ Lausanne/ New York u.a: Elsevier Science.
Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto. 2004. “Projection and grammar: notes on the ‘action-projecting’ use of the distal demonstrative are in Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1337-1374.
Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2004. “Shared syntax: the grammar of co-constructions.” Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1315–1336.
Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 2007. “Neo-Gricean Pragmatics: a Manichaen Manifesto.” In: Pragmatics. (Palgrave Advances in Linguistics.) Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), 158-183. London Palgrave Macmillan.
Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 2009. “How time is encoded.” In: The expression of time. W. Klein & P. Li (eds.), 39-82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Lerner, GeneH. 2004. „Collaborative turn sequences.” In: Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Gene H. Lerner (ed.), 225-256. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar
Levinson, S.C. (2000) Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Linke, Angelika and Nussbaumer, Markus. 2000. „Konzepte des Impliziten: Präsuppositionen und Implikaturen.“ In: Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (HSK) 16.1. Klaus Brinker (ed.), 435-448. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Google Scholar
Noh, Eun-Ju (1995): “Echo questions: Metapresenatition and Pragmatic Enrichment.” Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 603-628.
Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2007. “It is Raining (Somewhere).” Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (1): 123–146.
Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Free Press.
Google Scholar
Rost-Roth, Martina. 2006. Nachfragen: Formen und Funktionen äußerungsbezogener Interrogationen, Berlin: Gruyter.
Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation, With an introduction by Emanuel A. Schlegloff. Gail Jefferson (ed.) Oxford/ Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Szczepek, Beatrice. 2000. “Functional Aspects of Collaborative Productions in English Conversation.” InLiS 21. http://ling.sprachwiss.uni-konstanz.de/pages/anglistik/
Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 2007. Tense and temporal interpretation. Science Direct. Lingua 117: 419–436
Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/96. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason. 2007. Language in Context. Selected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A. 2008. “Understanding sentences in context: What brain waves can tell us.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 17 (6): 376–380.
Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.