Online syntax
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Online syntax | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Peter Auer (University of Freiburg, Germany) |
| To cite: | Auer, Peter. (2023). Online syntax. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/KMQCJ |
Online Syntax (as introduced by Auer 2007, 2009) is an approach to syntax within the framework of Interactional Linguistics. It analyses (turn) constructional units as dialogically emerging in time, taking seriously the claim in Sacks, et al. (1974) that turn constructional units are defined by their projectable termination (pg. 702). The approach is also indebted to Emergent Grammar (Hopper 1998) but assumes that turn projection is based on shared, experience-based grammatical (constructional) knowledge.
Online Syntax foregrounds the fact that language use for interactional purposes is linear and incremental. This temporality explains features of syntax in talk-in-interaction. The temporal trajectory of an emerging constructional unit is defined by the interplay of projecting and projection-fulfilling phases. Projectability usually increases during the unit’s emergence, such that final elements are often strongly projected; evidence for this comes from collaborative productions of different sorts (e.g., anticipatory completions and recognitional overlaps). Projection can foreshadow next (adjacent) elements or non-next, particularly unit-final elements. Projections can be delayed, but also cancelled (breakoffs) and changed on the fly (for instance, in apo koinu constructions, also known as pivots). Units are complete when all syntactic projections are fulfilled. Post completion, they can be expanded in various ways, for instance by increments (Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007).
While projection is a forward process, Online Syntax also acknowledges the relevance of backward processes, particularly retractions (Auer & Pfänder 2011). During an emergent unit, speakers may go back to already filled syntactic slots and revise or re-use them, typically for repair work, but also for list constructions (Selting 2007). In another type of backward orientation, constructional units can syntactically build on previous ones in the sense of analepsis (“ellipsis”).
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Auer, P. (2007). Syntax als Prozess. In H. Hausendorf (Ed.), Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion (pp. 95-142). Narr.
Auer, P. (2009). On-line syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31, 1-13.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Ono, Y. (2007). ‘Incrementing’ in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics, 17(4), 513-552.
Hopper, P. J. (1998). Emergent Grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Linguistic Structure (pp. 155-175). Erlbaum.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Selting, M. (2007). Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 483-526.
Additional References:
Auer, P. (2005). Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar. Text, 25(1), 7-36.
Auer, P. (2014). Sentences and their symbiotic guests. Notes on analepsis from the perspective of online syntax. Pragmatics, 24(3), 533-560.
Auer, P. (2015). The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. In A. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.) Temporality in Interaction (pp. 27-56). John Benjamins.
Auer, P. (2024) Online-Syntax. Metzler.
Auer, P., & Pfänder, S. (2011). Constructions: Emergent or emerging? In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.) Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (pp. 1-21). De Gruyter.
