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

Abstract

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.

Beyond dichotomies and continua?: an interactional approach to the grammar of clause combining in Japanese

“…9 5.1. Formulaicity challenging 'adverbial' clausehood or 'main' clausehood Fixed expressions constitute a major problem for identifying 'adverbial clauses' in Japanese, arguably a more serious challenge than in languages of Europe, as noted by Laury and Ono (2014). Here we will focus on just one instance.…”

“…The final challenge to positing 'adverbial clauses' in Japanese that we will discuss arises from cases of multiple clauses closely related to one another, where we also see cases in which the 'subordinate' and 'main' distinction becomes shaky (see also Laury and Ono, 2014).…”

9. Usage-based Grammar

“…Although Emergent Grammar and Interactional Linguistics have traditionally paid particular attention to crosslinguistic similarities and differences found in actual interaction data (e.g., to name only a few, see Fox, Hayashi & Jasperson 1996;Couper-Kuhlen and Ono 2007;Haakana et al 2009;Laury and Ono 2014;Ono and Thompson 2017;Ono, Laury and Suzuki to appear;Ono, Thompson, and Luke 2012;Ehmer & Barth-Weingarten 2016;Zinken 2016;Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2018;Lindström, Lindholm & Laury 2016), claims about language universals are approached very cautiously. Data requirements discussed throughout this article naturally translates to our views on cross-linguistic research in general and universal claims in particular.…”

“…It appears that clause combinations in spoken language are put together at the local level, one by one, in response to various online factors. Longer and more complex combinations involving several clauses may not form a coherent whole, and do not appear preplanned (Laury & Ono 2014). In other words, sequences of multiple clauses in spoken language do not result in what might be considered a grammatical sentence but rather form loosely connected sets of clauses which represent some discourse sequence or interactional unit (see, e.g., Auer 1992;Hopper and Thompson 2008).…”

Co-authorship of Joint utterances in Japanese

“…However, Dynamic Syntax(Cann, et al, 2005;Kempson, et al, 2001) andPoesio and Riser"s (2010) Dialogue model represent important exceptions to this trend, as does recent work in interactional linguistics (e.g.,Auer, 2009;Laury & Ono, 2014). 6 BTS refers to data taken from the corpus of spoken Japanese compiled by Mayumi Usami and her team at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, which is transcribed using the "Basic Transcription System" (BTS).…”