Clause
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Clause | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Sandra A. Thompson (University of California, Santa Barbara, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7794-2042) & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (University of Helsinki, Finland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2030-6018) |
| To cite: | Thompson, Sandra A. & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. (2023). Clause. 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/KCE4B |
The clause has traditionally been understood as a grammatical concept; here we first discuss its role in linguistic typology, then turn to the role it can play in interactional linguistic research.
In typological research, a clause is a syntactic unit broadly conceived as:
[predicate + arguments]
where the notion of ‘predicate’ generally indicates a word or phrase designating an action or a state, and 'arguments’ are the phrases that are semantically associated with it. Together they make up a clause, as illustrated in this example from English conversation (where the predicate is italicized and the arguments are boldfaced):
(1) [English] we're not going to tell that story
The prevailing understanding of 'clause' in modern linguistics has arisen largely through grammarians working in an Anglo-European tradition, who have been oriented both to western European languages, primarily English, and to the written versions of these languages, where the ‘clause’ has proven to be a highly useful concept (Thompson 2021). It has long been known to scholars working on languages other than English, however, that this conception of ‘clause’ does not fit all languages. For example, Ono and Thompson (1997: 482), writing about Japanese interaction, argue that:
For most of the predicates in our conversational database, there is no clear argument structure such that obligatory arguments can reliably be identified. That is, not only is it often not clear just what referents are being ‘intended’, but it is not clear what "arguments" that predicate should be said to "take".
It is thus critical to consider all kinds of spoken and signed interactions from a range of languages around the world when attempting to understand the role of ‘clause’ in interaction.
It is widely accepted that the prototypical predicate is a verbal element, but in many languages, designating states of affairs is done with non-verbal predicates. In a number of languages, in fact, a clause may not be easily distinguishable from a predicate (cf. Mithun 1987: 18; Payne 1986: 453); that is, the majority of clauses in actual interaction may consist of just a predicate, with arguments either inferred from context (Ewing 2021; Laury et al. 2021; Ono & Suzuki 2020), as in the Indonesian (2) and Japanese (3) examples below, or from verbal morphology, as in the Spanish example (4) below, where "se llama" shows person and number marking.
(2) Indonesian (Ewing 2021: 167) gimana mau baca? how FUT read how (am I) doing to read (that)?
(3) Japanese (Hayashi 2003: 19) Arito ima suits de kayotten no Arito now suit in be.commuting FP Arito, are (you) commuting in a suit now?
(4) Spanish (Raymond 2022: 17) cómo se llama: =eh::= how REFL.2SG call.PRS.2SG how do you call yourself (i.e., 'what's your name')
In English interactions, the clause has been argued to be a primary locus of interaction, as it is the default format for a range of initiating actions (Thompson & Couper-Kuhlen 2005; Thompson 2021). For example, Vivian’s request at the supper table is formatted with a clause:
(5) [English] [Chicken Dinner: 9] VIV: Can you pass the butter,
Similarly, Ted formats his invitation to Fran for her and Stephanie to stay overnight at his beach cottage as a clause in (6):
(6) [English] [NB_018:2] TED: well you can both sta:y.hh
Likewise, Claire formats her offer in (7) with a clause:
(7) [English] [SBL 2:2:3 R:29] CLA: .hhhh do you want me to b:ring the: chairs
Again, though, it is important to keep in mind that this correlation holds because English is a clause-rich language; little work has been done on the preferred formats for initiating actions in languages in which clauses are not so readily identified.
In responsive position in English for many sequence types, however, it is a non-clausal form that is the default choice (see, e.g., Fox & Thompson 2010; Thompson, et al. 2015). For example, in this sequence, Pratistha uses a clause to initiate a request for information, while Sushan’s response is formatted with the default non-clausal form:
(8) [English] [Sushan and Pratistha: 1] 01 PRA: ↑who's Castro 02 SUS: dictator of (.) Cuba.
From working with constructed examples or monologic data, analysts in many linguistic traditions have traditionally divided clauses into main (also called ‘independent’) clauses and subordinate (also called ‘dependent’) clauses. Main clauses are generally thought to carry the ‘main gist’ of a communicative message, with accompanying subordinate clauses carrying ‘subordinate’, or ‘ancillary’ information. However, in considering grammar in interaction, this distinction is less useful. First, there is little evidence to show that participants orient to a distinction between ‘main’ and ‘subordinate’ information in terms of clausal structure (Günthner 1996). Second, many clause types traditionally viewed as ‘subordinate’ have been shown to be resources for carrying out social actions on their own (Deppermann 2012; Ford 1997; Günthner 2020; Laury 2012; Maschler 2020; Thompson 2002). These are sometimes referred to as ‘insubordinate’ clauses (Evans 2007; Evans & Watanabe 2016).
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Curl, T. S. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1257-1280.
Deppermann, A. (2012). Deontische Infinitivkonstruktionen: Syntax, Semantik, Pragmatik und interaktionale Verwendung. In S. Günthner & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion (pp. 239-262). De Gruyter.
Evans, N. (2007). ‘Insubordination’ and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations (pp. 366-431). Oxford University Press.
Evans, N. & Watanabe, H. (2016). Insubordination. John Benjamins.
Ewing, M. C. (2021). The predicate as a locus of grammar and interaction in colloquial Indonesian. In T. Ono, R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units (pp. 161-202). John Benjamins.
Ford, C. E. (1997). Speaking conditionally: Some contexts for if-clauses in conversation. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (Eds.), On Conditionals Again (pp. 387-413). John Benjamins.
B. A. & Thompson, S. A. (2010). Responses to WH-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 133-156.
Günthner, S. (1996). From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position in German causal and concessive constructions. Pragmatics, 6(3), 323-356.
Günthner, S. (2020). Practices of clause-combining: From complex wenn-constructions to insubordinate (‘stand-alone’) conditionals in everyday spoken German. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström, & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent Syntax for Conversation. Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action (pp. 185-220). John Benjamins.
Hayashi, M. (2003). Joint Utterance Construction in Japanese Conversation. John Benjamins.
Laury, R. (2012). Syntactically non-integrated Finnish jos ‘if’ conditional clauses as directives. Discourse Processes 49: 213-242.
Laury, R., Ono, T., Suzuki, R. (2021). Questioning the clause as a cross-linguistic unit in grammar and interaction. In T. Ono, R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units (pp. 123-160). John Benjamins.
Laury, R. & Suzuki, R. (2011). Subordination in Conversation. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. John Benjamins.
Maschler, Y. (2020). The insubordinate-subordinate continuum. Prosody, embodied action, and the emergence of Hebrew complex syntax. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström, & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent Syntax for Conversation. Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action (pp. 87-125). John Benjamins.
Mithun, M. (1987). Is basic word order universal? In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse (pp. 281-328). John Benjamins.
Ono, T. & R. Suzuki. 2020. Exploration into a new understanding of ‘zero anaphora’ in Japanese everyday talk. In R. Laury & T. Ono. (Eds.), Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Social Action (pp. 41-69). John Benjamins.
Ono, T., & Thompson, S. A. (1997). Deconstructing “zero anaphora” in Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 481–491.
Payne, D. L. (1986). Basic Constituent Order in Yagua Clauses: Implications for Word Order Universals. In D. C. Derbyshire & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), Handbook of Amazonian Languages (pp. 440-465). De Gruyter.
Raymond, C. W. (2022). Suffixation and sequentiality: Notes on the study of morphology in interaction. Interactional Linguistics 2(1): 1-41.
Thompson, S. A. (2002). 'Object complements' and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 26(1), 125-164.
Thompson, S. A. (2021). Understanding ‘clause’ as an emergent ‘unit’ in everyday conversation. In T. Ono, R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units (pp. 11-37). John Benjamins.
Thompson, S. A. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2005). The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 481-505.
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge University Press.
Additional References:
Chafe, W. (1984). How people use adverbial clauses. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 10, 437-449.
Ewing, M. C. (2005). Grammar and Inference in Conversation: Identifying Clause Structure in Spoken Javanese. John Benjamins.
Laury, R. (1997). Demonstratives in Interaction: The Emergence of a Definite Article in Finnish. John Benjamins.
