Syntax and turn-taking

In order to achieve smooth turn-exchanges, interlocutors need to be able to project the exact timing of an upcoming turn-completion. As mentioned earlier, this projection is based on syntax, prosody, content of the utterance, and visual cues. Although all these different parameters are important, numerous studies have shown, that in Germanic languages, syntax plays a key role (cf. Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974; Auer 1996b). In this section, I will look more closely at how syntax can be used as a projection potential in conversation.

The use of concepts such as “sentence” and “syntactic constructions” are not unproblematic in conversational studies. Merely by looking at an excerpt from an authentic conversation, it is possible to tell that talk-in-interaction is not constructed in the same manner as the sentences described in traditional grammar. Almost every turn contains planning markers, restarts, repairs, structure shifts, and syntactic constructions which could in Chomskian terms be referred to as “ungrammatical.”

Thus, in order to avoid these problematic terms, Auer (1996b: 59) has coined the term syntactic gestalt.

The term syntactic gestalt refers to the notion of syntax as a contextualization cue (see section 3.3) in which syntax functions as one of the linguistic devices available for interlocutors to project possible transition relevance points. A syntactic gestalt is produced incrementally in real-time and, because the gestalt follows a certain pattern, interlocutors are able to anticipate an upcoming closure. The production of speech is thus viewed as a process rather than as a pre-packaged product. Instead of searching for grammatical entities, such as sentences, speakers look for junctures or boundaries in which syntactic gestalts can be viewed as possibly complete. Auer (1996b: 59) describes this mechanism in the following way:

During the emergence of a syntactic gestalt, the chances for predicting (correctly) the not-yet-produced remaining part (and therefore, its termination) continually increase. Thus, the production of a gestalt in time starts with a phase of minimal projectability, implying a high load of perceptual-cognitive work on the part of the speaker, and ends with a phase of maximal projectability in which the speaker profits from the quasi-automatic terminability of already activated patterns and the recipient from the low informational load of the remaining utterance. Syntax as a contextualization cue for turn-taking capitalizes on precisely this feature of the increasing predictability of gestalts in time: while turn completion itself is not predictable, gestalt closure with respect to syntax (usually) is.

The syntactic gestalt is particularly efficient as a contextualization cue in languages which have strict word order, such as German, while languages with looser word order may have to rely on other resources such as final particles (cf. Tanaka 1999).

Although syntactic completion is not as clearly marked in Icelandic as in German (cf.

Auer 1996b: 62–3), contemporary Icelandic has a relatively stringent word order.

Consider Table 4.1 which illustrates some examples from the data. My presentation below is based on interactional relevance and therefore does not represent a traditional view of syntax as presented, for instance, by H. Þráinsson (2002; 2006). The term possible syntactic closure refers to a word or a phrase which is the last necessary item in a syntactic gestalt (cf. Auer 1996b: 62 on sentence brace). Note, however, that it is difficult to identify the potential syntactic closure without also taking into consideration prosodic and pragmatic cues:⁴⁹

49 In example 1, the first possible syntactic closure could occur after the verb fara ‘go.’ However, by listening to this excerpt, it becomes clear that fara is used as an aspectual marker which requires another verb.

Table 4.1: Typical structure of syntactic gestalts

1. ‘I’m going to organize a hip-hop evening in The Moon, Lækjargata.’

2. ‘NÚ Palli stopped singing.’

3. ‘One needs NÚ to relax sometimes!’

4. ‘I can’t do that NÚNA.’

5. ‘That’s what I think.’

Declaratives typically begin with an initial constituent, for instance, a subject, an object, or an adverbial (a). This is one of the typical positions of nú (see ex. 2). The initial constituent is then followed by the finite verb (b). When the initial constituent consists of an adverbial, such as nú (ex. 2), or an object, such as það ‘that (it)’ (ex. 4), the subject is uttered after the verb, initially in the middle field (c). The middle field is another typical place for nú. Generally, nú occurs right after the verb (ex. 3), but, when there is a personal pronoun in the middle field, the pronoun is typically produced first (ex. 5). The middle field is then followed by the final item needed to complete the gestalt syntactically (d). There is great variation in terms of which items are needed to bring a gestalt to a syntactic completion. If an utterance contains an intransitive verb, for instance, the verb itself is the last necessary item. Similarly, if the object consists of a pronoun, the particle nú may also function as the last necessary item (ex. 5). However, a syntactic gestalt may have other constituents following the possible syntactic closure, such as temporal and spatial adverbials (e). In fact, this is the typical place for núna.

In addition to the “core syntactic gestalt,” Auer (1996a) has coined the terms pre-front field and post-end field, which are placed on both sides of the core syntactic gestalt. The pre-front field is a typical place for interactionally sensitive items, such

as address terms and utterance particles. Likewise, the post-end field often contains particles, especially those seeking affiliation or orientation to the recipient. Auer’s structure reflects the turn’s organization as it is described by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974: 722):

Turns display gross organizational features that reflect their occurrence in a series. They regularly have a three-part structure: one which addresses the relation of a turn to a prior, one involved with what is occupying the turn, and one which addresses the relation of the turn to a succeeding one. These parts regularly occur in that order, an obviously rational ordering for an organization that latches a turn to the turns on either side of it.

Table 4.2 shows examples from the data:

Table 4.2: Expanded syntactic gestalt

Pre-front

field

Core syntactic gestalt

Post-end field 1 já

yes þa var so ömurlegt sumar þarna

it be.3 so terrible summer there sko

PRT 2 nú

NÚ þau reykja öll tóbak they smoke.3.PL all-NEU.PL tobacco

3 Erna nú kem ég við hjá þér á eftir og kref þig um diskinn NÚ come.1 I VP with you later and demand.1 you about CD.DEF 4 þetta er nú orðið nóg

this be.3 NÚ be.PP enough 1. ‘Yes, the summer there was so terrible, y’know.’

2. ‘NÚ, they all smoke tobacco’

3. ‘Erna, NÚ I will come by your place and demand the CD!’

4. ‘That’s NÚ enough!’

As Table 4.2 illustrates, nú may occur both in the pre-front field and in the core syntactic gestalt. It may occur in the pre-front field in initial position, such as in (2), before the finite verb, such as in (3), or after the finite verb, such as in (4). In other words, nú may occur syntactically integrated or non-integrated. In the second example, nú is not an integral part of the syntactic gestalt. Therefore, this instance does not affect the word order in the same way that it does in the third example in

which the syntactic integration of nú has the effect that the subject is not uttered until after the finite verb.

The pre-front field should, however, not be confused with the interactional points described in the previous section. The pre-beginning and the pre-front field function on different levels. Thus, while the pre-beginning is an interactionally relevant point at which the speaker displays his or her wish to enter the floor, the pre-front field is a part of the actual turn which shows how the upcoming turn relates to a previous one.

Moreover, the item found in the pre-front field is often part of the same prosodic unit as the core gestalt, and, thus, it is often perceived as an integrated part of the same TCU. Consider, for example, the following turn, taken from excerpt (4.4), lines 10 and 11:

→ M .hhhhhh .mt #N↓ú hv-e e# hérna voru þau ekki ballanseruð .hhhhhh .mt NÚ wh- e eh PRT be.3.PT they not balance.PP.N.PL .hhhhh .mt NÚ wh- e eh ehm they were balanced

12 og annað sl/íkt,=

and other such

and such things weren’t they?

In this turn, the inbreath and the parting of the lips signal to the interlocutor that the mechanic (M) is planning on taking the floor: these signals belong to the pre-beginning. When the mechanic then utters the particle and planning markers #N↓ú hv-e hv-e# ‘NÚ wh-hv-e hv-eh,’ hhv-e has alrhv-eady takhv-en thhv-e floor, and hhv-e has alrhv-eady signallhv-ed to his interlocutor that he is planning on posing a question. The particles are thus a part of the pre-front field, and they prepare for the production of the core syntactic gestalt.