4. Recursion in conversation: What speakers of Finnish and Japanese know how to do

Laury, Ritva; Ono, Tsuyoshi

doi:10.1515/9783110219258.69

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given its complexity, it is unlikely that it was planned in its entirety when the jos-clause was produced. Rather, what I would suggest that we see here is online emergence of a line of reasoning, one clause at a time (Pawley & Syder, 1983; see also Laury & Ono, 2010). In that sense, can it be said, in cases like this, that a jos-clause projects a niin-clause that follows?…”

Section: Laurymentioning

confidence: 81%

Syntactically Non-Integrated FinnishJos‘If’-Conditional Clauses as Directives

Laury

2012

Discourse Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Laurymentioning

confidence: 81%

Syntactically Non-Integrated FinnishJos‘If’-Conditional Clauses as Directives

Laury

2012

Discourse Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We look for how such recognition, the shared knowledge of the grammar of clause combining, is manifested in the data. While we are not able to make strong claims regarding conventionalization of the patterns we present below mainly due to the lack of diachronic data, the patterns are representative of the many cases of clause combinations we have examined (see also, e.g., Laury & Ono 2010, which was based on a 2000-clause random sample corpus in Finnish and Japanese). Thus, although each multi-clause combination in our data is arrived at contingently, emerging in the local context in response to various factors, the set of means used for projecting continuation is conventionalized, to the degree that it is used by speakers and recognized by the other participants, and in that sense, grammatical.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

The limits of grammar: Clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation

Laury¹,

Ono²

2015

PRAG

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our paper concerns the grammar of clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation. We consider the patterns of clause combining in our data and focus on the verbal and non-verbal cues which allow participants to determine whether, after the end of a clause-sized unit, the turn will end or continue with another clause-sized unit, resulting in a clause combination. We conclude that morphosyntax alone cannot account for the patterns found in our data, but that the participants orient to, at least, prosodic and nonverbal cues in determining the boundaries of clauses and projecting continuation in the form of another clause. Also important for projection are fixed expressions or 'prefabs'. In addition, semantic and pragmatic factors play a role. In that sense, we explore the question of where the limits of grammar for interaction, understood as the knowledge which speakers share and which forms the basis for the creation and processing of novel utterances, should be drawn, and whether grammar should include, beyond morphosyntax, not only prosodic, pragmatic and semantic features but also bodily behavior.

show abstract

“…In these cases, complex patterns can be analyzed as patterns only after their production. When seeing a complex pattern in interaction, an analyst cannot, therefore, make a priori assumptions about whether the pattern was projected or only appears as complex post hoc (Laury & Ono 2010). Instead, complex patterns with grammatical linking elements must be analyzed case by case.…”

Section: Open Questions and Some Answersmentioning

confidence: 99%