Keevalik2011
| Keevalik2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Keevalik2011 |
| Author(s) | Leelo Keevallik |
| Title | Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Processes |
| Volume | 48 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 404–431 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/0163853X.2011.559150 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Cataphoric pronouns have been characterized as being co-referential with a word that comes later. Considering that talk is produced in real time, with little benefit of knowing what is yet to come, participants understand cataphoric pro-forms to be projecting more talk. Projection is a crucial interactive resource, as it enables speakers to align with the ongoing talk and to initiate subsequent contributions in a timely manner. The study looks at how Estonian pro-forms are systematically used to project either a word (phrase) or a clause in interaction. The patterns discussed are not universal and it will be suggested that projecting word (phrases) with pro-forms is a characteristic of a nonprepositional language with no articles, and that pro-form projection can be especially useful in a free word order language. As many pro-forms do not end up with a co-referential word, projection provides a better account of their function. The article underlines the necessity of studying grammar as a temporal phenomenon.
Notes
