Affiliation:
1. Department of English and American Studies, University of Potsdam , 14469 Potsdam , Germany
2. Leibniz-Institute for the German Language , Augustaanlage 32 , 68165 Mannheim , Germany
3. Department of Linguistics, University of Colorado , Hellems 290, 295 UCB , Boulder , CO 80309 , United States of America
Abstract
Abstract
The term “pivot” usually refers to two overlapping syntactic units such that the completion of the first unit simultaneously launches the second. In addition, pivots are generally said to be characterized by the smooth prosodic integration of their syntactic parts. This prosodic integration is typically achieved by prosodic-phonetic matching of the pivot components. As research on such turns in a range of languages has illustrated, speakers routinely deploy pivots so as to be able to continue past a point of possible turn completion, in the service of implementing some additional or revised action. This article seeks to build on, and complement, earlier research by exploring two issues in more detail as follows: (1) what exactly do pivotal turn extensions accomplish on the action dimension, and (2) what role does prosodic-phonetic packaging play in this? We will show that pivot constructions not only exhibit various degrees of prosodic-phonetic (non-)integration, i.e., differently strong cesuras, but that they can be ordered on a continuum, and that this cline maps onto the relationship of the actions accomplished by the components of the pivot construction. While tighter prosodic-phonetic integration, i.e., weak(er) cesuring, co-occurs with post-pivot actions whose relationship to that of the pre-pivot tends to be rather retrospective in character, looser prosodic-phonetic integration, i.e., strong(er) cesuring, is associated with a more prospective orientation of the post-pivot’s action. These observations also raise more general questions with regard to the analysis of action.
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference100 articles.
1. Auer, Peter
. 2006. “Increments and more. Anmerkungen zur augenblicklichen Diskussion über die Erweiterbarkeit von Turnkonstruktionseinheiten.” In: Grammatik und Interaktion, eds. Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, p. 279–94. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
2. Auer, Peter
. 2007. “Why are increments such elusive objects? An afterthought.” Pragmatics 17(4), 647–58.
3. Auer, Peter
. 2010. Zum Segmentierungsproblem in der gesprochenen Sprache. InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures 49. http://www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/49/InLiSt49.pdf (20.08.2020).
4. Barnwell, Brendan
. 2013. “Perception of prosodic boundaries by untrained listeners.” In: Units of talk – units of action, eds. Beatrice Szczepek Reed, and Geoffrey Raymond, p. 125–65. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
5. Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar
. 2016. Intonation units revisited: Cesuring in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Discursive psychology;The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis;2023-03-30
2. Suffixation and sequentiality;Interactional Linguistics;2022-01-13