Co-construction (linguistics)

Last updated

In linguistics, a co-construction is a single syntactic entity in conversation and discourse that is uttered by two or more speakers. [1] Other names for this concept include collaboratively built sentences, [2] sentences-in-progress, [3] and joint utterance constructions. [4] Used in this specific linguistic context, co-construction is not to be confused with the broader social interactional sense of the same name. Co-construction is studied across several linguistic sub-disciplines, including applied linguistics, conversation analysis, linguistic anthropology, and language acquisition.

Contents

Types

Co-construction may be broadly divided into two main forms, namely completions and expansions. The key difference between the two is that completions are performed on utterances that are syntactically incomplete, whereas expansions are added onto constructions that are otherwise grammatically whole in themselves.

Completion

Completion refers to the process of an interlocutor continuing or finishing a syntactic unit left incomplete by the first speaker. [5] For example:

Person A: Excuse me, you could direct me to the, um...
Person B: Bathroom?
Person A: Yes, thank you.

A completion is grammatically coherent with the first speaker's utterance, and brings it to conclusion. [4] Colloquially, this notion is also known as finishing another person's thought.

Expansion

Expansion refers to the process of a speech participant augmenting an already syntactically complete utterance made by another speaker. This can occur in a number of ways, including but not limited to, the addition of a prepositional phrase or dependent clause. [5] [6] An example: [7]

Speaker 1: I went- I went to, uh Escondido Friday.
Speaker 2: With John.

Projectability

Speakers rely on certain processes to determine how to co-construct an utterance initiated by another speaker. These subtle cues allow for the projection of a possible end to the utterance.

Syntactic projectability

Syntax plays a key role in co-construction, in that speech participants may use the grammatical structure of another speaker's utterance to predict how it may be continued and/or finished. Based on syntactic organization of the ongoing utterance, the listener is able to identify a class of permissible sentence 'completers'. [8] In English, subordinating conjunctions such as if, when, or once occurring before a clause can clue the listener in to the sequential possibility of anticipatory completion. [3]

In Japanese, co-construction is made possible through projection of the end of an utterance via modal verbs and conjunctions. Modal verbs such as どうも (dōmo, 'somehow'), どうやら (dōyara, 'somehow'), and 何となく (nan to naku, 'somehow') are associated with sentence endings, thereby allowing the listener to project the possible completion of an ongoing utterance. Similarly, conjunctions such as ので (no de 'because'), から (kara 'because'), and ものですから (mono desu kara 'because') are each conventionally followed by a clause that varies depending on which is used. As such, the usage of one particular conjunctive expression allows interlocutors to project a possible ending to the first speaker's ongoing sentence. [9]

Semantic projectability

The semantic and pragmatic content of an ongoing utterance may also allow listeners to project its possible trajectory, thereby aiding in their understanding of how co-construction may be attempted. Lexical constructions play a vital role in this process, by beginning a fragment of information that needs to be finished. In English, such cues may manifest in the likes of for example which prompts further elaboration, or she's called which projects a proper noun. [10] Connecting conjunctions such as but or however also project certain lexical contrasts that suggests to listeners what sort of semantic content might follow. [10]

Factors that determine when co-construction may take place

It has been acknowledged that the projected syntax of an utterance is, by itself, insufficient for co-construction to take place. This is because while a class of possible completers may be located, syntax alone does not specify which particular completer should be employed, nor does it indicate which would be appropriate given any interactional context. [11] Instead, participants rely on a much larger pool of linguistic and non-linguistic resources for the successful application of co-construction, such as prosodic cues, [12] [13] body language, [11] and the semantic and pragmatic content of what is being said. [1]

Applications

Co-construction occurs frequently in everyday speech, but rarely does it occur at random. When employed properly, it can be used to the speaker's benefit to achieve specific conversational goals, such as getting the interlocuter to divulge more information or attempting to claim the next turn. [6] Some real-life applications of co-construction are listed below.

Language acquisition

One area where co-construction is used frequently is in language acquisition. Language acquisition refers to the period when human infants start to learn how to comprehend and use language. During this period, the speech of caretakers (often referred to as baby talk) is embellished with many co-constructions. This is done in hopes of getting the child to learn and pick up on the rules of a language through their caretaker's utterances, while at the same time encouraging the child to take part in the co-construction of a conversation.

The type of co-construction typically used in language acquisition is expansions. An example can be found below: [14]

Mother: And what did he do to you to scare you when he did that?
Child: He [4×] didn’t scare me!
Mother: He was fooling.
Child: I knowed that. Liked when he do that.
Mother: I know you like it.

Second language learning

Second language (L2) learning, also known as second-language acquisition, usually refers to the process one undergoes to learn a language they were not exposed to from birth. In contrast, language acquisition usually refers to the picking up of one's first language (L1) — a language (or languages) that they've been exposed to since birth.

Similar to language acquisition, co-construction is used frequently in second language learning. Co-constructions help to promote learning of the target language by showing learners what are the possible words/phrases/sentences that can be used in specific utterances or topics of conversation. Co-constructions can also be used to correct learners' syntax, vocabulary or grammar, ultimately increasing learners' knowledge of the target language.

The type of co-constructions used in second language learning is typically completions. Below is an example of the use of co-construction in the conversation between two L2 learners of Japanese: [15]

Speaker 1:

日本人

niohnjin

Japanese

の

no

LK

し

shi

do

あー

aa

uhm

考える

kangaeru

think

の

no

LK

方々

kata

way

は

wa

TOP

日本人 の し あー 考える の 方々 は

niohnjin no shi aa kangaeru no kata wa

Japanese LK do uhm think LK way TOP

'Japanese way of thinking is'

Speaker 2:

考え方

kangaekata.

way.of.thinking

そう

soo

so

そう

soo

so

そう

soo

so

考え方 そう そう そう

kangaekata. soo soo soo

way.of.thinking so so so

'Way of thinking. Right, right, right.'

Speaker 1:

中国人

Chuugokujin

Chinese

の

no

LK

か

ka-

?

中国人 の か

Chuugokujin no ka-

Chinese LK ?

'Chinese...'

Speaker 2:

考え方

kangaekata

way.of.thinking

考え方

kangaekata

way.of.thinking

'Way of thinking'

Speaker 1:

ちがいます

chigaimasu

different

ちがいます

chigaimasu

different

'Different.'

In the above excerpt, speaker 2 completes speaker 1's incomplete utterance with "考え方" (kangaekata 'way of thinking') when speaker 1 struggles with finding the word in his second utterance. Following speaker 2's co-construction, speaker 1 continues the conversation by adding what he initially meant to say. In this conversation, speaker 1 is telling speaker 2 that the Chinese's way of thinking differs from the Japanese's.

Turn-taking in conversation

A conversation typically involves two or more speakers. In order to avoid disruptive interruptions, speakers need to be able to predict when an utterance by another speaker is possibly complete. These points in conversations are referred to as Transition Relevance Place (TRP). Participants in a conversation can predict where a possible TRP might occur using semantic and syntactic cues present in another speaker's utterance.

Speakers can construct and allocate opportunities to speak in conversations through turn-taking organization. [7] This can be done through completions or expansions.

Related Research Articles

The following outline is provided as an overview and topical guide to linguistics:

A quotation is the repetition of a sentence, phrase, or passage from speech or text that someone has said or written. In oral speech, it is the representation of an utterance that is introduced by a quotative marker, such as a verb of saying. For example: John said: "I saw Mary today". Quotations in oral speech are also signaled by special prosody in addition to quotative markers. In written text, quotations are signaled by quotation marks. Quotations are also used to present well-known statement parts that are explicitly attributed by citation to their original source; such statements are marked with quotation marks.

In linguistics and related fields, pragmatics is the study of how context contributes to meaning. The field of study evaluates how human language is utilized in social interactions, as well as the relationship between the interpreter and the interpreted. Linguists who specialize in pragmatics are called pragmaticians. The field has been represented since 1986 by the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA).

An interjection is a word or expression that occurs as an utterance on its own and expresses a spontaneous feeling or reaction. It is a diverse category, encompassing many different parts of speech, such as exclamations (ouch!, wow!), curses (damn!), greetings, response particles, hesitation markers, and other words. Due to its diverse nature, the category of interjections partly overlaps with a few other categories like profanities, discourse markers, and fillers. The use and linguistic discussion of interjections can be traced historically through the Greek and Latin Modistae over many centuries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Code-switching</span> Changing between languages during a single conversation

In linguistics, code-switching or language alternation occurs when a speaker alternates between two or more languages, or language varieties, in the context of a single conversation or situation. These alternations are generally intended to influence the relationship between the speakers, for example, suggesting that they may share identities based on similar linguistic histories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Grice</span> British philosopher of language (1913–1988)

Herbert Paul Grice, usually publishing under the name H. P. Grice, H. Paul Grice, or Paul Grice, was a British philosopher of language who created the theory of implicature and the cooperative principle, which became foundational concepts in the linguistic field of pragmatics. His work on meaning has also influenced the philosophical study of semantics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conversation analysis</span> Approach to the study of social interaction

Conversation analysis (CA) is an approach to the study of social interaction that empirically investigates the mechanisms by which humans achieve mutual understanding. It focuses on both verbal and non-verbal conduct, especially in situations of everyday life. CA originated as a sociological method, but has since spread to other fields. CA began with a focus on casual conversation, but its methods were subsequently adapted to embrace more task- and institution-centered interactions, such as those occurring in doctors' offices, courts, law enforcement, helplines, educational settings, and the mass media, and focus on multimodal and nonverbal activity in interaction, including gaze, body movement and gesture. As a consequence, the term conversation analysis has become something of a misnomer, but it has continued as a term for a distinctive and successful approach to the analysis of interactions. CA and ethnomethodology are sometimes considered one field and referred to as EMCA.

A verbum dicendi, also called verb of utterance, is a word that expresses speech or introduces a quotation. English examples of verbs of speaking include say, utter, ask and rumble. Because a verbum dicendi often introduces a quotation, it may grammaticalize into a quotative.

Principles and parameters is a framework within generative linguistics in which the syntax of a natural language is described in accordance with general principles and specific parameters that for particular languages are either turned on or off. For example, the position of heads in phrases is determined by a parameter. Whether a language is head-initial or head-final is regarded as a parameter which is either on or off for particular languages. Principles and parameters was largely formulated by the linguists Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik. Many linguists have worked within this framework, and for a period of time it was considered the dominant form of mainstream generative linguistics.

In linguistics, linguistic competence is the system of unconscious knowledge that one knows when they know a language. It is distinguished from linguistic performance, which includes all other factors that allow one to use one's language in practice.

In linguistics, volition is a concept that distinguishes whether the subject, or agent of a particular sentence intended an action or not. Simply, it is the intentional or unintentional nature of an action. Volition concerns the idea of control and for the purposes outside of psychology and cognitive science, is considered the same as intention in linguistics. Volition can then be expressed in a given language using a variety of possible methods. These sentence forms usually indicate that a given action has been done intentionally, or willingly. There are various ways of marking volition cross-linguistically. When using verbs of volition in English, like "want" or "prefer", these verbs are not expressly marked. Other languages handle this with affixes, while others have complex structural consequences of volitional or non-volitional encoding.

The term linguistic performance was used by Noam Chomsky in 1960 to describe "the actual use of language in concrete situations". It is used to describe both the production, sometimes called parole, as well as the comprehension of language. Performance is defined in opposition to "competence"; the latter describes the mental knowledge that a speaker or listener has of language.

Functional grammar (FG) and functional discourse grammar (FDG) are grammar models and theories motivated by functional theories of grammar. These theories explain how linguistic utterances are shaped, based on the goals and knowledge of natural language users. In doing so, it contrasts with Chomskyan transformational grammar. Functional discourse grammar has been developed as a successor to functional grammar, attempting to be more psychologically and pragmatically adequate than functional grammar.

A sentence word is a single word that forms a full sentence.

Interactional linguistics (IL) is an interdisciplinary approach to grammar and interaction in the field of linguistics, that applies the methods of Conversation Analysis to the study of linguistic structures, including syntax, phonetics, morphology, and so on. Interactional linguistics is based on the principle that linguistic structures and uses are formed through interaction and it aims at understanding how languages are shaped through interaction. The approach focuses on temporality, activity implication and embodiment in interaction. Interactional linguistics asks research questions such as "How are linguistic patterns shaped by interaction?" and "How do linguistic patterns themselves shape interaction?".

Crosslinguistic influence (CLI) refers to the different ways in which one language can affect another within an individual speaker. It typically involves two languages that can affect one another in a bilingual speaker. An example of CLI is the influence of Korean on a Korean native speaker who is learning Japanese or French. Less typically, it could also refer to an interaction between different dialects in the mind of a monolingual speaker. CLI can be observed across subsystems of languages including pragmatics, semantics, syntax, morphology, phonology, phonetics, and orthography. Discussed further in this article are particular subcategories of CLI—transfer, attrition, the complementarity principle, and additional theories.

In linguistics, a backchanneling during a conversation occurs when one participant is speaking and another participant interjects responses to the speaker. A backchannel response can be verbal, non-verbal, or both. Backchannel responses are often phatic expressions, primarily serving a social or meta-conversational purpose, such as signifying the listener's attention, understanding, sympathy, or agreement, rather than conveying significant information. Examples of backchanneling in English include such expressions as "yeah", "OK", "uh-huh", "hmm", "right", and "I see".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Turn-taking</span> Type of organization in conversation and discourse

Turn-taking is a type of organization in conversation and discourse where participants speak one at a time in alternating turns. In practice, it involves processes for constructing contributions, responding to previous comments, and transitioning to a different speaker, using a variety of linguistic and non-linguistic cues.

Thetical grammar forms one of the two domains of discourse grammar, the other domain being sentence grammar. The building blocks of thetical grammar are theticals, that is, linguistic expressions which are interpolated in, or juxtaposed to, clauses or sentences but syntactically, semantically and, typically, prosodically independent from these structures. The two domains are associated with contrasting principles of designing texts: Whereas sentence grammar is essentially restricted to the structure of sentences in a propositional format, thetical grammar concerns the overall contours of discourse beyond the sentence, thereby being responsible for a higher level of discourse production.

Cooptation is a cognitive-communicative operation whereby a piece of text, such as a clause, a phrase, a word, or any other unit, is inserted in a sentence. In the framework of Discourse Grammar, cooptation is understood as leading to the transfer of linguistic material from the domain of Sentence Grammar to that of Thetical Grammar.

References

  1. 1 2 Haugh, Michael (2010). "Co-constructing what is said in interaction". In Németh T., Enikő; Bibok, Karoly (eds.). The Role of Data at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 349–380. doi:10.1515/9783110240276.349. ISBN   9783110240276.
  2. ↑ Sacks, Harvey (1995). "Fall 1965". Lectures on Conversation. pp. 133–231. doi:10.1002/9781444328301.ch2. ISBN   9781444328301.
  3. 1 2 Lerner, Gene H. (1991). "On the Syntax of Sentences-in-Progress". Language in Society . 20 (3): 441–458. doi:10.1017/S0047404500016572. JSTOR   4168265.
  4. 1 2 Hayashi, Makoto (2003). Joint Utterance Construction in Japanese Conversation. Studies in Discourse and Grammar. Vol. 12. John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/sidag.12. ISBN   978-90-272-2622-8.
  5. 1 2 Rühlemann, Christoph (2007). Conversation in Context: A Corpus-driven Approach. continuum.
  6. 1 2 Ono, Tsuyoshi; Thompson, Sandra A. (1996). "Interaction and Syntax in the Structure of Conversational Discourse: Collaboration, Overlap and Syntactic Dissociation". In Hovey, Eduard D.; Scott, Donia R. (eds.). Computational and Conversational Discourse. NATO ASI Series. Vol. 151. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 67–96. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03293-0_3. ISBN   978-3-642-08244-3.
  7. 1 2 Lerner, Gene H. (2004). "On the Place of Linguistic Resources in the Organization of Talk-in-Interaction: Grammar as Action in Prompting a Speaker to Elaborate". Research on Language and Social Interaction. 37 (2): 151–184. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_3. S2CID   144991936.
  8. ↑ Sacks, Harvey; Schegloff, Emanuel A.; Jefferson, Gail (1974). "A Simple Systematic for the Organisation of Turn Taking in Conversation". Language. 50: 696–735. doi:10.2307/412243. hdl: 11858/00-001M-0000-002C-4337-3 . JSTOR   412243.
  9. ↑ Mizutani, Nobuko (1993). Kyoowa kara taiwa e (From co-constructed talk to dialogic talk). Nihongogaku. p. 7, cited in Szatrowski, Polly. (2002). Syntactic Projectability and Co-Participant Completion in Japanese Conversation. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 28. p. 315. 10.3765/bls.v28i1.3847
  10. 1 2 Szczepek, Beatrice (2000). "Formal aspects of collaborative productions in English conversations" (PDF). InLiSt (Interaction and Linguistic Structures). 17.
  11. 1 2 Bolden, Galina B. "Multiple modalities in collaborative turn sequences". Gesture 3: 187–212.
  12. ↑ Local, John (2004). "On the interactional and phonetic design of collaborative completions". In Hardcastle, William J.; Beck, Janet M. (eds.). A Figure of Speech. A Festschrift for John Laver. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 263–282. ISBN   9781135625191.
  13. ↑ Szczepek, Beatrice (2000). "Functional aspects of collaborative productions in English conversations" (PDF). InLiSt (Interaction and Linguistic Structures). 21.
  14. ↑ Kelly, Kimberly R.; Bailey, Alison L. (2013). "Dual Development of Conversational and Narrative Discourse: Mother and Child Interactions During Narrative Co-construction". Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 59 (4): 426–460. doi:10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.59.4.0426.
  15. ↑ Taguchi, Naoko (2014). "Development of Interactional Competence in Japanese as a Second Language: Use of Incomplete Sentences as Interactional Resources". The Modern Language Journal. 98 (2): 518–535. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12087.x.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.